The True Face of Gandhi *

A Man Interested only in his Image

Gandhi

Gandhi is the holy cow in the world and many people talk of him as a saint. Much of this adulation is perpetuated by Richard Attenborough with his Film “Gandhi”. However Gandhi is not what he claimed to be. In fact he was an out and out politician who just wanted to further his ideas and was ruthless to anybody who opposed him. As an example Gandhi described the militant Indian youth fighting against British Imperialism as ' misguided souls ‘. He often said that militant nationalism was injurious to India's struggle for freedom. In reality he knew that if those methods became popular among the Indian masses his own popularity would decline, and his ' Mahatma Hood ' may disappear.

When the British sentenced Bhagat Singh to death, Gandhi made no effort to save his life. He never wrote any letter to the British Viceroy to commute his sentence, nor did he issue any public appeal for this purpose, and he never went to meet Bhagat Singh in jail when the latter was on hunger strike. Gandhi's compromise with the British on their executions made him unpopular, and he was greeted with negative slogans and black flags wherever he went.

By diverting the genuine freedom struggle against the British from its revolutionary path to harmless and nonsensical channels like satyagraha, Gandhi was ensuring that British rule over India would continue.
It is said that Gandhi gave us Independence in 1947. This is totally false. In fact by diverting the genuine revolutionary independence struggle against the British in India to harmless and nonsensical channels like ' Satyagraha ' Gandhi was ensuring that India should not become independent.

Why then did the British leave? Surely it was not because of the dramas Gandhi was carrying out like fasting , salt march, non-cooperation and such things. I ask , does a nation give up its Empire because of this? Did America win independence from England by satyagraha, or by bullets fired by George Washington's Continental Army in the American War of independence (1775-1781)? Did Latin America win independence from Spain by satyagraha, or by Bolivar's battles? Did Lenin come to power by Satyagraha or a revolution with guns? did Lenin come to power by Satyagraha or a revolution with guns?The fact is the British left of their own will after being emaciated by Hitler and losing the support of the British Indian army.

It is a travesty of Indian history that the Congress party came to power after the British left and they rewrote history where the real patriots who fought for independence are barely mentioned. They have been reduced to a footnote in the history books. The Mahatma and his coterie, are depicted as the real freedom fighters, nothing could be further from truth

Gandhi: Some Unpalatable facts that Show a Frightening Resolve to Further his Image

Some Facts about Gandhi: He was a man  interested only in his Image

.

Gandhi is the holy cow in the world and many people talk of him as a saint. Much of this adulation is perpetuated by Richard Attenborough with his Film “Gandhi”. However Gandhi is not what he claimed to be. In fact he was an out and out politician who just wanted to further his ideas and was ruthless to anybody who opposed him. As an example Gandhi described the militant Indian youth fighting against British Imperialism as ' misguided souls ‘. He often said that militant nationalism was injurious to India's struggle for freedom. In reality he knew that if those methods became popular among the Indian masses his own popularity would decline, and his ' Mahatma Hood ' may disappear.

When the British sentenced Bhagat Singh to death, Gandhi made no effort to save his life.  He never wrote any letter to the British Viceroy to commute his sentence, nor did he issue any public appeal for this purpose, and he never went to meet Bhagat Singh in jail when the latter was on hunger strike. Gandhi's compromise with the British on their executions made him unpopular, and he was greeted with negative slogans and black flags wherever he went.

By diverting the genuine freedom struggle against the British from its revolutionary path to harmless and nonsensical channels like satyagraha, Gandhi was ensuring that British rule over India would continue.

It is said that Gandhi gave us Independence in 1947. This is totally false. In fact by diverting the genuine revolutionary independence struggle against the British in India to harmless and nonsensical channels like ' Satyagraha ' Gandhi was ensuring that India should not become independent.

Why then did the British leave? Surely it was not because of the dramas Gandhi was carrying out like  fasting , salt march, non-cooperation and such things. I ask , does a nation  give up its Empire because of this? Did America win independence from England by satyagraha, or by bullets fired by George Washington's Continental Army in the American War of independence (1775-1781)? Did Latin America win independence from Spain by satyagraha, or by Bolivar's battles? Did Lenin come to power by Satyagraha or a revolution with guns?The fact is the British left of their own will after being emaciated by Hitler and losing the support of the British Indian army.

The image conscious Gandhi,an egotist?

It is a travesty of Indian history that the Congress party came to power after the British left and they rewrote history where the real patriots who fought for independence are barely mentioned. They have been reduced to a footnote in the history books. The Mahatma and his coterie, are depicted as the real freedom fighters, nothing could be further from truth

Gandhi had a Bias against Blacks and Lower Caste Hindus

Mahatma Gandhi is a much respected figure all over the world, particularly in America. In real terms Gandhi's nonviolence made him an icon to the American civil-rights movement. Martin Luther King was greatly influenced by him. But most blacks in America who adopted Gandhi’s philosophy are perhaps not aware that he was a racist to a degree. This can be discerned from his days in South Africa.

Gandhi's Views about Blacks Gandhi spent nearly two decades in South Africa and fought for the rights of the Indian settlers there. In addition his stay there brings out many interesting facts. In one of his campaigns for the rights of Indians settled in South Africa he is reported to have complained against Indians being sent to prison intended for Kaffirs. He further commented that he understood that Indians could not be classed with whites, but he could not countenance them being put up with Kaffirs or the natives (blacks). He further commented that the natives (blacks) were as a rule uncivilized as well as troublesome, dirty and lived like animals. In fact in an open letter to the legislature of the Natal Province in South Africa Gandhi reportedly objected to the Indian race being dragged down to the level of the Kaffir( Black). His opinion of the Blacks was that their only ambition was to buy some cattle, a wife and then live their life in idleness and nakedness.

Gandhi and Lower Castes It is also worth examining Gandhi’s views on the lowest of Indian castes, the untouchables. To a visiting missionary in 1936, he is reported to have remarked that the untouchables are worse than cows in their understanding. He rounded of the discussion by commenting ‘Would you teach a gospel to a cow?”. His other comments on untouchability are revealing. He was in favor of abolition of untouchability, but stated that abolition of un-touch ability would not entail higher caste Hindus dining with untouchables at the same table. In fact in his massive rallies attended by thousands against untouchabilty during the thirties of the last century,the untouchables were themselves herded together in separate enclosures away from the higher caste Hindus. It should not also not be forgotten that Gandhi was against the lower castes having their own reserved seats in parliament. In fact he launched a massive fast to press his point of view in 1932

Last Word Gandhi was a man who believed in self promotion. Even his statement that Islam was religion of peace after thousands of Hindus had been massacred by Muslims in Bengal in 1946-47 does not add to Gandhi’s stature. Sometimes I wonder with all this evidence ranged against him, how Gandhi could get away with being called a Mahatma (great Soul). Perhaps at some distant point in time the correct evaluation of Gandhi will take place

Gandhi and Clash with Bose: Opposite Idiologies

Gandhi for all his title of 'Mahatma' was in reality a hard boiled politician. He had nurtured a policy of Ahimsa or non violence and he was loathe to let anyone oppose it. This policy was not confined to his personal life, but he enforced it with an iron will on the Congress party. Subhas Bose was a fiery politician from Bengal who had directly opposite views to Gandhi. Whereas Gandhi believed in non-violence and Satyagrah to throw out the British, Bose believed in more aggressive methods including going to war. He was of the view that shaking hands with the devil was not a bad thing if it ousted the British. That made him incline to Germany and Hitler. Gandhi opposed this tooth and nail and had already given his tacit assent for the Raj by condemning Hitler and Nazi rule. In the famous Lahore session of 1939 the clash between the two came to the fore. Bose had a large backing in the Congress party itself and in the Presidential election of that year he defeated Gandhi's nominee and protege Sitaramiah by a wide margin. Gandhi was aghast at the defeat of his nominee and he saw in Bose a threat to his leadership and philosophy.

Gandhi above all was a politician and he at once along with Nehru decided that Bose must be removed as Congress president. All this makes pretty sad reading now and is brought out in Leonard Mosley's book'The last days of the British Raj'. Gandhi started a unique method to oppose Bose. He declared along with his confident Nehru that there will be co-operation with Bose. He started complete non-cooperation with Bose and this frustrated Bose no end as Gandhi and Nehru would not reply or answer anything Bose asked or proposed.

Bose saw the game of Gandhi and he resigned as Congress party President. The rest is history as Bose charted a dangerous course and sided with Hitler and japan. But Gandhi remained steadfast in his opposition to Bose.

Did Gandhi Deserve the Nobel Peace Prize

What I am going to write is quite explosive and many will not agree with me. This concerns Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi and the peace prize. Gandhi is considered a Mahatma( great Soul). This is true to a limited extent, but basically he was a wily politician and many of his actions defy rationalisation. In a number of instances his actions were guided by his desire to be recognized as a apostle of non violence. He also wished to create an aura that he was above politics. Gandhi and Bhagat Singh An example is the case of the revolutionary Bhagat Singh and his comrades. All of them were sentenced to be hanged by the British presided courts. Many people requested Gandhi to make an appeal to the Viceroy, to spare these young men. But history records that Gandhi refused to make any appeal, on the plea that they had violated his code of non-violence. This shocked the entire nation and Gandhi was greeted with black flags at many places, but Gandhi the consummate politician ignored all this. So intent was he on his 'image', that he allowed these revolutionaries to be hanged.

Partition The biggest failure of Gandhi was partition. This was the period when a massive exchange of populations accompanied by unprecedented violence took place in the Punjab and Sind. Thousands of women were raped and many more killed. Children were butchered and an entire train coming from Pakistan to the Punjab was hacked and all the Hindu occupants killed. The women were captured, raped and killed. It is estimated that 12 million people were affected and the violence continued unabated for weeks and months. But Gandhi, the apostle of non-violence made no effort to visit the Punjab and Lahore to stem this violence. This is hard to explain, as to why he ignored this massive carnage in the west. Gandhi himself has no explanation for this and his apologist’s brush this incident under the carpet With almost 2 million deaths, Gandhi must stand condemned as a man who took no action. He sat like the proverbial Muni, silent and doing nothing. To top it, he expected the Hindu refugees, who had come from Pakistan to go back. Such naivety has never been explained.

Gandhi a Politician Gandhi was thus a simple politician, with a single point agenda to further his ideas. Non violence was only a ploy. History records that he had a terrible price to pay for his inaction, with his assassination in Jan 48. Thus Gandhi does not fulfil the high ideals of a Nobel prize. History will record that he could not prevent the partition of India and by his naivety allowed hundreds and thousands of Hindus to be butchered and women raped and murdered without his batting an eye lid, intent as he was on his 'world image'