Spectrum Scandal – 10000 crore to sonia gandhi’s account

This is the statement by subramanyaswamy, the janata party president, in his party website about the details of spectrum scandal unleashed by the DMK minister A Raja.

While many often undermine the credibility of swamy’s statement, no one is ready to file defamation case on him in any of the courts in India.  This shows that there is stuff in swamy’s statements, which would win if there is any case in the court.

Incidently, subramanya swamy had filed many cases against sonia gandhi, based on various charges like antique smuggling, her KGB links, and her citizenship status, all of which were admitted by courts and proceeding for decades.  If swamy’s case is NOT worth, the court would have dismissed it long back.

So, for those who ridicule swamy, please dont waste your energy in undermining him in your comments.  Please share any important info you have, either in support or opposing to the swamy’s statements.  Simply making fun of him doesnt make his statement false.

——————————————————————————————–

Press Release: 28 – Oct – 2009

As Union Law minister, H.R. Bhardwaj[responding to an opinion sought by the Telecom Ministry on going ahead with the allocation of 2G spectrum on first-come-first-served basis and on prices fixed in 2001] wrote on file on November 1, 2007 that: “In view of the importance of the case (2G spectrum allocation) and various options indicated in the statement of the case, it is necessary that the whole issue is first considered by an Empowered Group of Ministers and, in that process, the legal opinion of A-G (Attorney General) can be obtained.”

This Law Ministry opinion did not go down well with Raja. On the following day, the morning of November 2, 2007, Raja wrote a D.O. to the Prime Minister and questioned the Law Ministry’s wisdom in asking for setting up an EGoM as follows:  “The Ministry of Law and Justice, instead of examining the legal tenability of these alternative procedures, suggested referring the matter to EGoM. Since the present issues relate to procedures, the suggestion of the Law  Ministry is totally out of context.”

The same afternoon, the Prime Minister wrote back to the Telecom Minister and cautioned him against taking any measures without informing him. In hisreply he wrote:“I would request you to give urgent consideration to the issues being raised with a view to ensuring fairness and transparency and let me know of the position before you take any further action in this regard.”

In the two-page letter, Manmohan Singh also objected to Raja’s proposal to go ahead with the first-come-first-served model and cheap pricing. Singh instructed the Minister to adopt “correct pricing of spectrum and revision of entry fee”. The Prime Minister also asked Raja to clarify on the objections raised by TRAI over the first-come-first-served basis and the 2001 pricing for sale in 2008.

After his silence for the ensuing 50 days, Raja wrote another letter to him on December 26, 2007. Therein, he claimed that he had received consent from the then External Affairs Minister Pranab Mukherjee and the then Solicitor General Goolam Vahanvati to go ahead with the spectrum allocation. He wrote:  “In these circumstances, the discussions with External Affairs Minister and Solicitor General of India have further enlightened me to take a pre- emptive and pro-active decision on these issues as per the guidelines and rules framed thereunder to avoid any further confusion and delay.”

Mukherjee and Vahanvati, if quoted correctly by Raja, have no locus standi to overrule the PM.The Prime Minister merely acknowledged the letter on January 3, 2008, but said nothing more. Between December 26, 2007 and January 5, 2008, Ms. Sonia Gandhi was sent Rs. 10,000 crores in dollars equivalent by Raja’s benefactors into her Cayman Island Bank of America account, which incidentally Rahul Gandhi also operates.

Hence, the PM became silent. I urge the BJP to attack Sonia Gandhi for this deal and not waste time on our puppet PM. She is the Tadaka who has to be countered and not her minions. I also  demand that the PM grant me sanction under the Prevention of Corruption Act or face me in court as a co-conspirator in this deal.

More details about spectrum scandal:

http://www.hinduonnet.com/fline/fl2601/stories/20090116260112800.htm

Spectrum Scandal and Telecom Minister’s covert activities

CBI Raid Turns The Heat On DoT

Proving charges tricky in India’s spectrum scandal

EVM Fraud: Will the opposition parties realise now?

The Just concluded elections of the three states, have the already predictable results.  that congress will win in all three states.  In Haryana, it has fallen short of 6 seats.

But these are not the matters.  The more important question that is suppressed under a conspirical silence is the EVM fraud.  There are some moaning voice from some corners like this news.. Electronic Victory Machines ..

One of the important question about the recent election is that why does EC have two weeks of time between election and the counting of votes.  I believe, election date was around Oct 10, and counting was done on Oct22.  Why so much gap? With so much delay, one can tamper even with ballot boxes.  We have to remember, that for the last loksabha election, the counting was done, within two days of completion of the election process.  Why no opposition parties questioned this?  Have they become dumb, or subservient?

Some one took a video on how simple its to fraud the EVM, which happened in arunachal pradesh..  this blogger ZiminZiro has explained in detail about this fraud..

Some more of my thoughts about Wireless Feature in EVMs:

In my previous post, i had written about the possibility of secret wireless feature in EVM chips.  Still i believe its possibility.  We can understand this from the real time examples.

Today, almost all mobiles comes with bluetooth feature.  But, how does a buyer knows, if there is a bluetooth in the mobile?

Either he learns it from manual, or from the mobile menus, where option for activating bluetooth would be available.

But imagine, if there is no mention in the mobile manual, nor there is a menu available for activating bluetooth.  How do we find if the mobile actually contains bluetooth or not?  No possibility, right?

And let us analyse how the bluetooth communication occurs.  When any one connects to our mobile, the mobile will alert us that a particular device is cotacting our set.  But imagine, if there is no alert raised in our mobile (either deliberately or fault in software design)?  The connection will be established in the background without our knowledge, and some person from 10 meters apart will be silently browsing our mobile memory.  We would never know of this, unless there is an alert feature in the mobile.

Now, some electronic experts say, that we can identify the presence of bluetooth, by detecting bluetooth waves when the set is contacted.  This seems to be valid, but we can only identify that only if the set responds for incoming connection requests.

Suppose, the manipulated mobile set is programmed that it will be in silent mode, and should respond only when contacted by a particular device with particular secret code?

Hope, it sounds logical.

Extending the same, the electronic chip of the EVM machine can be programmed like this, such that it can be contacted from the satellite and alter the data.

In the case of ballot papers, once a vote is caste, its difficult to change the markings for each vote.  But in case of EVM, the vote is only virtual.. ie it lies as a number in a electronic memory location.

Every one is aware of the mobile memory card.  We can store files, songs, or the images taken from the mobile in this card.  But also, the same card can be read through an external reader.  Today, most of the laptop comes with a memory card reader inbuilt.

This means, the memory which we are using in our mobile can be read externally too.

Extending the same logic, why cant the memory of the EVM machine be altered by an external reader?  It requires just change in value at a particular memory location, which will alter the entire results.

Adamant Election Commission:

But inspite of all these suspicions, the election commission is adamant in its claim that EVM machines could not be hacked and its fool proof.  More idiotic stand is its claim that no one is able to tamper the EVM or prove that Trojan exists there.  This claim of EC is idiotic for the following reasons.

1. An EVM can be tampered only during manufacturing stage, that too during the manufacturing of the Chip.  Now, why is EC not revealing where the chips are manufactured?  I heard it is manufactured in Japan & US.

2. After tampering the EVM, its difficult to detect it, by third party.  Because, when the tampering happens at the manufacturing stage of chip, even those who are assembling the EVMs will not be aware of that, and cannot detect that. In that case, how can the ordinary citizen identify that?

3. Since the tampered EVMs are dispersed among the normal EVMs, its really rubbish on the part of the EC to give some random EVMs and challenging the opponents to tamper.  In my opinion, this challenge should be rejected in the first place, and its a wrong move on the part of those who oppose EVMs.  We have to identify those booths, where we suspect of tamperings, and then demand EVMs used in those booths for inspection.  (again here we should be careful not to accept any challenge).

The only solution is that in the next elections, when the opposition parties detect of any unnatural behaviour in the EVMs, they should immediately seize the evm and transport it to a secret location.  After that, check both the data so far polled along with the timing recorded in the memory.  Also, try to poll some more votes, and see if they are actually working.

This may require some daring skills on the part of the opposition parties.  But still, we may not be sure, to detect the manipulations.  The opposition parties should invest their energy in learning the inner details of the EVMs.

4. The very conduct of the Election commission is deeply suspicious.  Their stance on this issue is like a big boss.  Its like a thief challenging the people to prove that he had actually done the theft.

The election commission, in principle, should take effort even to clarify the minute doubts on the EVM.  It should have taken initiative to explain to the concerned parties, and clarify their doubts convincingly.

But so far, the EC is blaming the opposition, and repeating its words like a parrot.

5. Finally, every institution is as credible as its leader.  Now, with Naveen Chawla, as its chief, the EC had lost its credibility both in its behaviour and its image.  The 400 page report by previous CEC, gopalaswamy, has been deliberately withheld by the Congress government, which proves, that there is serious allegation on him about his conduct and impartiality.  The opposition should have stalled the entire nation out of this issue, but surprisingly they remained silent on this.

Even now, they can openly declare their lack of trust on Naveen Chawla, and in turn demand the 400 page report to be released.  Its doubt, if the opposition parties can do it.

Future Elections will be a mockery:

I doubt, in future, the elections will be a mockery.  The opposition parties invest so much of money and man power, only to be fooled in the end, through EVm manipulation.

However this time, i doubt the role of opposition itself, based on conduct of certain parties.

In tamilnadu, the ADMK which lost in Chidambaram due to deliberate manipulation, had become silent on this issue.  So as the PMK, the TDP of andhra and other parties.

I suspect, that a considerable amount would have been transferred to these parties, to compensate for their spending on the election, and also to remain silent about the EVM issue.

I even doubt the conduct of the BJP delhi leadership like Advani, arun jaitley etc.  Either they would have been blackmailed and checkmated, or they would have been bribed.

Advani’s conduct (and the dilli-4 of BJP) doesnt corroborate to their earlier image and stature.

Now in future, the ruling party will be going to decide the result through EVM, and the opposition parties, will find it more profitable to lose than winning (by getting double the amount they would be spending on election from the ruling party for ignoring election fraud).

Ultimately the common people who take time and vote for the parties, will the joker of that election drama.

Who Brought Freedom, Gandhi or Netaji?

An article by N.S. Rajaram, a famous indian researcher, known for his nativity approach, opposing euro centric view of indian history.  This article istaken from another link..

http://folks.co.in/2009/10/who-brought-freedom-gandhi-or-netaji/

——————————————————————————–

There is a story that the late Mao Zedong, when asked his opinion about Napoleon as a leader replied: “How can I say? He is too recent.”  Napoleon’s career ended in the Battle of Waterloo in 1815 and Mao died only in 1976. So what could Mao have meant when he said that Napoleon was too recent? He meant that a certain amount of time has to pass before we can view historical events and personalities objectively. Our reading of recent events is bound to be colored by our closeness to them. This truth was brought home to me a few years ago when I was visiting Penang in Malaysia as the guest of some veterans of World War II, but first some background.

In India, people are brought up on the story that Mahatma Gandhi and Jawaharlal Nehru with others receive grudging notice if at all led a heroic struggle freeing India from the British rule.  Miraculously, the whole thing was accomplished without resort to violence, by the application of a mighty spiritual force called *ahimsa* (non-violence) unleashed by the Mahatma. If true it is a tribute not only to the power of Gandhi’s (and Nehru’s) spiritual vision, but also a lasting tribute to the spiritual sensitivity of the British rulers. Like the tiger in the children’s poem (*govina kathe *in Kannada), which killed itself rather than eat the calf, the British gave up the empire and left.

This received a jolt during a recent trip to Southeast Asia where I had occasion to visit some people who had served with my late father during World War II. Their account of their experience in the period from 1942 to 45 casts serious doubt on this beautiful story. Here we are faced with a dilemma the conflict between what we read in history books and what the people actually saw on the ground. The usual story is that after some initial reverses the British defeated the Japanese. But those who actually served there, now in their late 70s and 80s, remember it quite differently. Uniformly, this is what I heard everywhere and from everyone.

When the Japanese attacked, the British ran away. They were very clever. They had a wonderful life with bungalows and butlers and cooks and all that, but as soon as the Japanese came, they ran away. And once they got back to India, they sent Gurkhas, Sikhs, Marathas and other Indians to fight the Japanese. They knew it was too dangerous for them. That is how we got independence in Malaya. Malaysia was then called Malaya and Singapore was its capital.

Not one of them remembered the British fighting the Japanese only running away. They remember also Indian soldiers coming and fighting; some of them stayed back in countries like Malaya (as it was then called), Singapore and other places. One man, who as a youngster had been my father’s orderly during the War, invited me to his home in Penang for the 60th anniversary of the liberation of Singapore. What he told me took my breath away.

That is why the British left India also. When the war was over, all the Indian soldiers who had defeated the Japanese returned to India, and the British got scared. They didn’t want to fight the Indians who had just fought and defeated the Japanese. So they ran away from India also.   I tried to explain to him that Gandhiji’s nonviolence was the force that convinced the British to leave. But this man, not an intellectual but a battle-hardened soldier with sound commonsense would have none of it.  If it was non-violence, why didn’t they leave earlier? Gandhi and the nonviolence were there before the war also. Did they have to wait for the Japanese to come and teach them non-violence?

One may smile at this simple way of looking at history, but as will be seen later, this revisionist view has good support. The ‘authorized version with Gandhi and Nehru as central figures continues to be taught in India because it benefits those in power. It shows the British also in favorable light as a magnanimous and even spiritual people, which of course they don’t mind. But history shows a different picture.

The year 1942 was momentous. It was the year in which the British Empire suffered a massive defeat at the hands of an Asiatic people (Japanese); it was also the year in which Mahatma Gandhi launched his famous but ill-fated Quit India Movement. Subhas Bose also entered the picture at about that time, first in Germany and later in Southeast Asia. But first it is necessary to get an idea of the momentous impact of the Japanese victory on the psyche of the colonized people as well as on that of the colonizing powers. What triggered it was the Fall of Singapore.

The fall of Singapore in 1942 heralded the end of the British Empire and of European colonialism in general. Indian independence came in 1947, but what really ended the Empire was the fall of Singapore. This has received scant notice by Indian historians who remain trapped in Eurocentric thinking, but there is ample evidence supporting it. Among Indian historians, only R.C. Majumdar has seen its significance: the fall of Singapore broke the spirit of Imperial Britain. As we shall soon see *British historians have themselves admitted it.* Let us look at what really happened to the British in 1942.

When the Japanese attacked Singapore in February 1942, its large and well-equipped British garrison surrendered without a fight. These well-attended pukka sahib used to good living had little stomach for war. For decades, the ruling authorities had avoided facing the truth that they were not a fighting force. They had deluded themselves with resounding slogans calling Singapore the “Bastion of the Empire”,”Impregnable Fortress”, “Gibraltar of the East” and such. None of it helped when Singapore fell to a Japanese army less than a third the size of the defending forces.

Yet, so far removed from reality were Singapore’s British residents, that even on the verge of surrender, a gunnery officer was refused permission to mount guns on the golf links for defending the city. He was told that he needed permission from the golf club committee. And the golf club committee would not be meeting for at least a week, so he better hold off!

In the fall of Singapore, its symbolic significance was infinitely greater than the military defeat. *It destroyed the myth of European superiority over the Asiatics once and for all.* Historian James Leasor wrote in his Singapore, the battle that changed the world:

Dazed by the incredible superiority of the Japanese, the defenders will to win had withered.  The psychological damage was even greater than the military defeat and this had been grotesque enough. Under the lowering Singapore sky lit by the funeral pyres of the British Empire, a door closed on centuries of white supremacy. Actually the Japanese had planned it that way to break the sense of superiority exuded by the Europeans, by the British in particular, in their dealings with the Asiatics. Leasor wrote:

At the start of the campaign, each Japanese soldier had been issued with a pamphlet that set out Japan’s reasons for fighting the British and the Americans. Her [Japan’s] claim was that she would liberate East Asia from white rule and oppression, for since “We Japanese, as an Eastern people, have ourselves for long been classed alongside the Chinese and the Indians as an inferior race, and treated as such, we must at the very least, here in Asia, beat these Westerners to submission, that they may change their arrogant and ill-mannered attitude.

The Japanese attack on Singapore accomplished much more: it ended the British Empire to be followed swiftly by the end of European imperialism itself. To return to the fall of Singapore, as with the fall of Hong Kong a few weeks earlier, the only worthwhile resistance had come from the Indian garrisons the Sikh and the Gurkha regiments. The prestige and the mystique associated with the British Empire were shattered by these ignominious defeats.

And this is how my gracious host in Penang and his friends, men who had seen it at first hand, remember it. As they saw it, the massive defeat destroyed the British morale. It was the specter of the whole nightmare being reenacted in India, with nearly three million Indian soldiers just returned from war, which made the British leave India. They ran away, the old soldier kept telling me repeatedly.

I may point out that this is also the view of many Indians who saw action in the war— both in the Indian Army and those who fought in Subhas Bose’s INA. Indian soldiers saw that their British officers were frightened to death of the Japanese, while they themselves were prepared to fight them.

After the War, the British defeat in Singapore was followed by the French defeat in Dien Bien Phu at the hands of Ho Chi Min’s soldiers in Vietnam. This laid the groundwork for the American defeat in all of Vietnam and their inglorious flight from Saigon. No one today talks about the superiority of the White Race. The first nail in coffin was driven by the Japanese in Malaya in 1942.

It was this changed perception, that the British were just ordinary mortals like the rest that allowed Netaji Subhas Bose to recruit Indians in Southeast Asia into the Indian National Army (Azad Hind Fauz or the INA).  Subhas Bose saw that the Indian armed forces were the prop of the Empire not just in India but everywhere the British went. But Gandhi and Nehru, preoccupied with their utopian dreams of nonviolence failed to realize its significance. When the opportunity arose, Bose seized it to transform the armed forces into a nationalist force, while Gandhi and Nehru started the Quit India Movement which collapsed in a few weeks.

Before we look further, we need to ask: what support do we have for this revisionist view, that Subhas Bose and the INA brought freedom to India? The evidence is ample and impeccable. Several have noted it, but the most distinguished historian to highlight Bose’s contribution was the late R.C. Majumdar, one of modern India’s greatest historians. In his monumental, three-volume *History of the Freedom Movement in India* (Firma KLM, Calcutta) Majumdar provided the following extraordinary evidence:

“It seldom falls to the lot of a historian to have his views, differing radically from those generally accepted without demur, confirmed by such an unimpeachable authority. *As far back as 1948 I wrote in an article that the contribution made by Netaji Subas Chandra Bose towards the achievement of freedom in 1947 was no less, and perhaps, far more important than that of Mahatma Gandhi’s ” The unimpeachable authority” he cited happened to be Clement Attlee, the Prime Minister of Britain at the time of India’s independence. Since this is of fundamental importance, and Majumdar’s conclusion so greatly at variance with the conventional history, it is worth placing it on record (Volume III, pages 609 –10).

When B.P. Chakravarti was acting as Governor of West Bengal, Lord Attlee visited India and stayed as his guest at the Raj Bhavan for three days. Chakravarti asked Attlee about the real grounds for granting independence to India. Specifically, his question was, when the Quit India movement lay in shambles years before 1947, where was the need for the British to leave in such a hurry. Attlee’s response is most illuminating and important for history. Here is Governor Chakrabarti’s account of what Attlee told him:

“In reply Attlee cited several reasons, *the most important were the activities of Netaji Subhas Chandra Bose which weakened the very foundation of the attachment of the Indian land and naval forces to the British Government.* Towards the end, I asked Lord Attlee about the extent to which the British decision to quit India was influenced by Gandhi’s activities. On hearing this question Attlee’s lips widened in a smile of disdain and he uttered, slowly, putting emphasis on each single letter “mi-ni-mal”. (Emphasis added.)

Another point worth noting: after the fall of Singapore that ended the British Empire, the most dramatic national event was the INA Trial at the Red Fort not any movement by Gandhi or Nehru. This led to the mutiny of the naval ratings, which, more than anything helped the British make up their minds to leave India in a hurry. They sensed that it was only a matter of time before the mutiny spread to other parts of the armed forces and the Government. None of this would have happened without Subhas Bose and the INA.

The crucial point to note is that thanks to Subhas Bose’s activities, the Indian Armed Forces began to see themselves as defenders of India rather than of the British Empire. This, more than anything else, was what led to India’s freedom. This is also the reason why the British Empire disappeared from the face of the earth within an astonishingly short space of twenty years. Indian soldiers, who were the main prop of the Empire, were no longer willing to fight to hold it together. This is the essence of leadership.

This brings us back to Mao’s half joking reply— that it takes time to get the proper historical perspective. It is now more than sixty years since India became free. We can afford to look back and see the real reasons for British leaving India in a hurry. To sum up, by the end of the War, Gandhi was a spent force, and Subhas Bose was India’s most popular leader.

Now, sixty years and more later it is time to recognize the truth: first, it was the Fall of Singapore in 1942, not the Quit India Movement that was the beginning of the end of the British Empire; and finally, it was Netaji Subhas Chandra Bose more than anyone else who was responsible for India’s freedom in 1947.

Should we celebrate Gandhi Jayanthi?

Update: I am reproducing quotes from RC Majumdar book, on how Gandhi was NOT responsible for independance.  Please read that at the end of this post.

——————————————————————

The title itself will be surprising to many.  But i had this question for the past few years, when i came to know the real history of india.

The term gandhi jayanthi is a highly misleading term.  because it equates with the term krishna jayanthi, a festival that is celebrated on the birth of God Krishna.  So gandhi is raised to the level of god, well beyond the title Mahatma.

But do gandhi deserve all these?  The real history of india, will answer this.

Did Gandhi fight for independance?

We might be taught like this in our school history book.  But as per records, gandhi never advocated independance till 1939, whereas there are many leaders like balagangadhar tilak who declared swaraj decades before gandhi came on the scene.  Gandhi was so close to britishers than the rest of the indian leaders that he got few provisions in the name of satyagraha, to establish himself as the key representative to negotiate with britishers.

Gandhi’s concept of non-violence is the greatest subversion that any leader could have done to india.  I am not against non-violence, but i am certainly against gandhi’s stupidity of the non-violence he proposed.  He proposed a new term for non-violence, called “satyagraha”. But literal meaning of satya graha, do not have any relevance to non-violence.

satyagraha – satya+ graha = truth + holding firmness

So literally satyagraha, means upholding truth.  There is not even a bit of meaning in the lines of non-violence.  But gandhi chose to use this word in a wrong meaning and in a wrong way, because, indian people uphold the term “Satyam” as a divine one.  Truth is held high in indian society, and this sensitiveness of people, was used by gandhi for his subversive activity.

Did Gandhi won us freedom?

Definitely NOT.  This might again be surprising.  But, if we analyse the events of history, we will understand the true perspective of our freedom struggle.

The popular notion of indian independance history is that gandhi started quit india movement, and finally british conceded to his demands and gave independance.  But if we look at the history, we find that gandhi’s quit india movement, fizzled out by 1942, where gandhi himself recalled the movement.  But britishers gave us freedom only during 1947.  In the years b/w 1942 and 1947, there was no major protest done by gandhi against britishers.  In such case, why should britishers give independance?

How did we get independance?

Everyone know that savarkar was the author of the book, 1857 war of indian independance.  Savarkar is the first person who uncovered the events of 1857 and established that 1857 was not a mere riot, but largely a freedom struggle, where every section of society participated, right from peasants to local rulers, and more importantly by the indian soldiers of the british army.

He found out, that indian army was the foundation of the british hold on india, and thus, he conceived a great strategy to awaken the soldiers within british indian army, so that a rebellion would be created, similar to 1857.  He conveyed his strategy to Nethaji Subhash Chandra bose, and induced him to take over the leadership of Azad Hind Fauj (popularly called as INA), which was already formed by another person called Mohan Singh, an indian officer, captured by Japan.  There were around 40,000 indian PoWs, joining the newly formed INA.

Nethaji took over the leadership of INA and marched towards india, but due to surrender of japan, INA failed and most of the INA soldiers were captured as prisoners.   The brutal tortue of the INA prisoners had caused dissention in Indian army, and after WW-II ended, there was a naval mutiny, popularly called as Bombay Mutiny.

Adding to it, there were many cases where indian officers did not obey the commands of their british superiors.  All these, gave a clear indication to britain, that the trust quotient of indian army is at the very low, and that there may be another mutiny or rebellion waiting to happen at any time in the indian army.  Also, the fact that WW-II had exhausted the economy of much of europe, and the wealth of india had already been sucked out with no more to extract, the britishers found that disbanding the indian army and creating a new one, would be a costly thing, and would become a liability on their part, as there is no means to tax much in india, to finance such a new army.

Hence, the britain decided to leave india, rather than to keep it under britain which would incur loss.  So, they gave away the power to their trustable friends in india, rather than those who actually fought for freedom like INA or other smaller organisations.

In all these circumstances, the contribution of gandhi to indian freedom has been much less, and infact, it was negative.  Gandhi worked against nethaji, and also called off Quit India Movement, when it actually started to take off. And after the failure of his quit india movement, he did not have much influence, except for helping britain in their war efforts.

Is Gandhi a Mahatma?

He may be mahatma by title, but those who know gandhi much will never accept this title.  Gandhi did not deserve this title of Mahatma, because there was nothing that could qualify him to be mahatma.  Because, much of what he said as his values are farce which he himself did not practiced what he preached.

His non-violence being a laughing stock, his high handedness in everything, his secret pact with britishers to betray Nethaji Subash chandra bose, and his overt obsession with Sex, where he tested his sexual control, by sleeping with naken women the whole night, and many other things in life, did not conform to his mahatma title.

Actually, this title was given by tagor to gandhi, which later much of congress persons adopted.

Is Gandhi a Fascist?

Yes.  Because, in much of his history, we find him, imposing his decision on others, even if majority of the people did not agree to his views.  Much of the Indian National Congress, was controlled by him as an autocrat, and important decisions taken by him.  He created an atmoshpere, where other leaders could not take decisions independantly without getting his nod.

Thus, when the whole congress commitee chose sardar patel as PM, gandhi overruled them and instead appointed Nehru, for a foolish reason.

Thus gandhi was a fascist, who did not heed to any other’s advice or consulted with others in decison making.  He often used fasting as blackmail tactics, to force leaders emotionally.

——————————————————————————————————-

Thus in my understanding of the history, i could never call gandhi as father of this nation.  Gandhi may be father of the Indian Congress, but for the nation, he is to be remembered as a leader, promoted by britishers for their convenience, and as a leader who mis-leaded the people, and as a leader who failed to take pragmatic decisions which caused so much of destruction and losses to lives of millions of people.

I question the very rationale of celebrating only gandhi’s birthday, while there were so many freedom fighters, suffering in the prisons of andamans, and so many freedom fighters like aurobindo who full-fledgedly opposed britishers, and thus got exterminated by them.

We need to remember that the britishers who could eliminate fierce leaders like tilak, aurobindo, savarkar, could have easily displaced gandhi too.  But they found gandhi’s ideal as a complementary factor to their hold on india, because, gandhi advocated non-violence, which is what britishers wanted.  Thus, gandhi was a person, used by britishers to prevent people falling to the side of revolutionaries, and thus preventing a major challenge to british army.

Let Truth be told as it is, even if it hurts.

—————————–

Quote From RC Majumdar Book:

We are now in a position to assert with confidence that the formation of the INA was one of the major grounds for the decision of the British Government to quit India. This was admitted by no less a person than Clement Attlee, the head of the British Government which conceived the idea of granting freedom to India and carried out the decision in spite of opposition of die-hard Conservatives like Churchill. This is proved by the (English translation of the) following extract of a letter written in Bengali by Shri P.B. Chakravarti, ex-Chief Justice of the High Court, Calcutta, on 30 – 3 – ‘76.

” While I was acting as the Governor of West Bengal (in 1956) Lord Attlee, who gave India Freedom by putting an end to British rule, visited India and stayed in Raj Bhavan, Calcutta for two days. I had then a long talk with him about the REAL GROUNDS for the voluntary withdrawal of the British from India. I put it straight to him like this:
” The Quit India Movement of Gandhi practically died out long before 1947 and there was nothing in the Indian situation at that time which made it necessary for the British to leave India in a hurry. Why then did they do so?”

In reply, Attlee cited several reasons, THE MOST IMPORTANT OF WHICH WERE THE ACTIVITIES OF NETAJI SUBHAS CHANDRA BOSE WHICH WEAKENED THE VERY FOUNDATION OF THE ATTACHMENT OF THE INDIAN LAND AND NAVAL FORCES TO THE BRITISH GOVERNMENT.

Towards the end I asked Lord Attlee about the extent to which the British decision to quit India was influenced by Gandhi’s activities. On hearing this question Attlee’s lips widened in a smile of disdain and he uttered, slowly, putting emphasis on each single letter – ‘ MI-NI-MAL’.