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’.
In these days, it has become a fad to either overly support Gandhiji or hate him outright. I never loved him any time, I thought he was great and eventually came around to hating him (in an uninformed manner, of course). Now, I’m not sure if I have the right to hate him (I need to know much more authentic data to hate him), so I’ll keep aside the hatred. But this much I know – that his singular dependence and showering of uncontrolled love on that swine of a man – Jawaharlal Nehru, proved to be the backbone of most of India’s current-day miseries. And for this reason alone, I think the title Mahatma does not fit well enough with him.
Thanks kaushik.. infact, i even tried to follow gandhian ideals, but later realised, i have to often adopt double standards due to practical difficulties. Later, i realised that gandhi’s ideals were suicidal, and hence came out..
I too hate gandhi for imposing nehru on india.. But i hate him more for his muslim appeasement, where he refused population exchange, and went on to demand 55 crores to be given to pakistan, when their soldiers are raping our women in kashmir border.
Like Mahesha says below, the term “Gandhian ideals” is actually a misnomer. Gandhi did not introduce something new or novel, if you take into account his attributes like honesty, simple living, etc. the only reason they are included part of “Gandhigiri” is because Gandhi is considered the Father of the Nation and India, fame & glorification are the only ways to successfully market a product. Apart from that, his gimmick of non-violent struggle to achieve independence was probably his own idea (who knows if it was his own or he was “inspired” from somewhere else), which, in itself, was a big farce, because our own Shastras tell us that for a just cause, we have to fight, even if that includes violence. IMHO, there is no bigger just cause in the world than freedom of a nation.
I used to like Gandhi for the simple life and Gram Swarajya he proposed. But later I realized that simple life (or so called austerity) is not a finding of Gandhi, it is part of our Shastras. Every sacred text of ours tells not to go behind materialistic life, instead to lead a simple spiritual life.
Thanks mahesha.. i will say, gandhi exploited spirituality for his political benefits..
Problem in india is indian are kept in dark by our one family rule of nehru. No one knows about gandhi. Its the distorted image we are given.Gandhi did good and something very bad, He did or nehru there is no debate. All muslims should have left india why they are in india due to gandhi or nehru we need to review on each gandhi jayanti till we have turth out. Allhindu are dead or converte dto islaminPaksiatn ,bangldesh and POk.Did we hear from nehru family on this issue never looks Nehrus were for partition and slow piosoning to hindus by keeping muslims in this country. More we discuss more will come out. But only when hindus are strong and patriotic.
Although not an Indian by birth, as a Hindu i have always looked up to India as my spiritual mother(land). But when i see the sorry state which India finds herself in today, i can only attributed this to the lack of vision by its overtly pompous leaders like Nehru and Gandhi whom nobody else mattered but themselves. The Nehru/Gandhi dynasty rule in India since its Independence (what independence?) has deprived India of its spiritual strength – due to the Macaulian educated ruling class and declaring India as a secular nation – and this has resulted in Hindus being hounded out of Pakistan, Bangladesh and even from Kashmir! And India could do nothing. What a shame! It’s quite amazing that the intellectual brains – both Hindu and non-Hindu – cannot see the greatest injustice in the world, that Hindus – a sixth of the world’s population – do not have a single Hindu nation, which they could call their Homeland whereas Muslims and Christins have more than 50 each!!! Gandhi and Nehru Jayanti should be replaced by Netaji / Savarkar / Sardar Patel / Vinoba Bhave jayantis so that India’s lost pride is rekindled, its strength re-established, its glory reillumined again. Then only nations like Pkistan & Bangladesh would not dare harm any Hindus there, nevermind poking & attacking India.
We have a tendency of accepting things we see in front without verifying or doubting. Just a recent event of YSR Reddy’s death shows that when many people say something similar, we accept that it must be true. The hype that was created on YSR by the news channels created an impression that I equated YSR to MGR (may be they are similar, but MGR had more positive side than YSR).
If we are trying to understand Gandhiji, we must not limit our knowledge to the general opinion expressed everywhere, but there must also be an insight to what Naturam Godse thought about Gandhi. If Gandhi was truly Mahatma, then there was no neccessity for Naturam Godse at all.
Iam strongly belive that Gandhi Jayanthi has to be celebrated all over india.Reason he is the most revered Indian leader and acceptable by all.Gandhiji inspite of all his failures is the most repectable leaders simply for his simple life.Unlike nehru and indra he never corrupted his hands,neither had illegal relation ship with any women and so on.He was the man who could make millions of hindus to practise hindu way of life like satya graha,etc
dear bandhus and bhaginis, Namaste. History is like a globe; everytime you bang on it with ones views, it becomes a neww facet and new angles.Mahatma Gandhi, was at least one of our leaders ,along with thousands of others; everyone of us should have the right to agree or disagree; but we should refrain from saying bad things about our dead leaders..It reflects more on you…in third world..you could be president or PM one day and hanged somtime..we do not respect the chair..must be respected at any cost..in our civilization..Peace be unto all our leaders..Bharat vijayet..vishnudada
Vishnudada,
Please understand that none of us here is trying to defame or unfairly criticize Gandhi or anyone else. All we are trying to do is objectively see what actually happened in India’s freedom struggle and how much individuals actually contributed. It is nobody’s intention here to talk ill of Gandhi or anyone else. We all understand and acknowledge the fact that Gandhi worked hard for our freedom and influenced the independence in more ways than one.
Also, please understand – the fact that a person is dead does not change his bad actions when he was alive. In this case, the discussion is basically intended to throw light on the man we call Mahatma and see if his perceived greatness (so cheaply hyped by the Congress over their 60 years of “rule”) is actually the crux of most of our current-day miseries.
Peace be unto our land, Bharatavarsha and all good souls.
Well said Kaushik. I am sick and tired of the propaganda that the congress has been spreading for the past 60 years about gandhi. I fail to understand how this bum could be the father of my Bharatmata when Ashok and Chandragupta Maurya were not. Fed up of the so-called “shahid divas” on the day this excrescence was rightfully executed (not murdered, not assassinated, just executed) by the patriot Nathuram Godse.
@guruprasanth
Are you aware how much it cost even back then to keep gandhi in simplicity ? I am not stating something new, Sarojini Naidu said it that it cost a fortune to keep the “mahatma” in loincloth.
History is a very cruel task Master.
It spares none- Big or small.
Eventually, Truth talks.
Its voice can not be suppressed for long.
A mahatma of today may prove to be judged a duratma, of tomorrow.
Chitnis,
If truth is indeed eternal, a Mahatma will eternally be a Mahatma. Likewise for a Duratma. What will change is just the method adopted by a Mahatma – what yesterday’s Mahatma did to improve life/a nation mostly won’t work today.
/** A mahatma of today may prove to be judged a duratma, of tomorrow. **/
A true mahatma will never fade in history, as we see from indian history.. mahatma is the name given to only spiritual persons in india.. No king or ruler in india craved for such title ..
And a truly spiritual person will never look for such titles…
I question the very rationale of calling mohandas karamchand gandhi as mahatma?
Senthil,
You have taken a very narrow view of Gandhi’s teachings and his political movements and accusing him of all you wish. This is my 2 cents to show my dissent.
1. Gandhi’s satyagraha (truth) and ahimsa (non-violence) are two different philosophies preached and followed by him. Others were non-cooperation, vegetarianism and brahmacharya.
2. Sure, there were many freedom fighters but Gandhi’s role was a pivotal one. He has demonstrated non-cooperation as a means of attacking British in many instances. I don’t see any facts on your article to substantiate the claim that Britishers wanted Gandhi’s non-violence and they liked him. If so, why was he jailed for his non-cooperation movements by the same Britishers?
Without ‘googling’ how many freedom fighters’ birthdays can you recollect?
3. ‘Mahatma’ was a title given to him and he is humble enough to admit that he doesn’t feel worthy of the title.
He is called the Father of the Nation not just because he got us independence but he followed the principles mentioned above till his very last moment and lived as he preached.
Truth always hurts, but what hurts me more is that you make up your own truth.
Vijay,
/** Gandhi’s satyagraha (truth) and ahimsa (non-violence) are two different philosophies
**/
Glad that you accepted this truth.. but most indians believe both are same..
/** Sure, there were many freedom fighters but Gandhi’s role was a pivotal one
**/
How? Can we discuss the sequence of history?
/** I don’t see any facts on your article to substantiate the claim that Britishers wanted Gandhi’s non-violence and they liked him. If so, why was he jailed for his non-cooperation movements by the same Britishers?
**/
I read it from a book.. dont know if there is an online reference..
When gandhi started Quit India Movement in 1942, britishers immediately imposed restrictions, and decided to deport gandhi to another country (i think south africa).. However, the decision was revoked, because, the britishers felt that a vacuum will be created without gandhi and that people may turn towards armed revolutionaries which would be very dangerous to their hold.
/** Without ‘googling’ how many freedom fighters’ birthdays can you recollect?
**/
I dont know even my father’s birthday or marriage day.. that is a non issue here..
/** ‘Mahatma’ was a title given to him and he is humble enough to admit that he doesn’t feel worthy of the title.
**/
Who gave this title?
/** but he followed the principles mentioned above till his very last moment and lived as he preached.
**/
History do not substantiate this..
/** Truth always hurts, but what hurts me more is that you make up your own truth.
**/
I am not claiming what i say is true.. I am ready for a debate based on facts. Are you ready? Truth can be realised only from inferences..
“Without ‘googling’ how many freedom fighters’ birthdays can you recollect? “
That is precisely one of the things Senthil talks about in this post – why is it that we remember only Gandhi’s birthday more than anybody else’s? Simply because of media propaganda and publicity. None of us was born with our brains etched with “Oct 2 – Birthday of Mahatma Gandhi” or something like that.
Also, just because we remember someone’s birthday more than anyone else’s doesn’t automatically mean that person is great. We either consciously remember someone’s b’day (like parent, sibling, best friend, etc.) or the date is thrust upon us.
In the case of Oct 2, it is the latter.
Oh btw, just so you know, Oct 2 is also the birthday of Lal Bahadur Shastri, a great leader, but terribly suppressed.
I wrote this a long time ago on one of the forums:
Did you know the following facts about “Mahatma”, imposed as “Father of the nation”. Oct 2nd is here and it’s Gandhi’s birthday. MSNBC questions whether he was a “man, superman or plain human?”. Here is some more very critical material for you to decide:
http://www.rediff.com/news/2002/apr/16arvind.htm some excerpts:
1. “If the Hindus wish to cultivate eternal friendship with Mussalmans,” said Gandhi, “they must perish with them in the attempt to vindicate the honour of Islam” (V B Kulkarni in his India And Pakistan, page 219). Gandhi decided to lead the Khilafat agitation himself even before the Congress..
2. Occupying the position of the “right hand and left hand” of Gandhi in his Khilafat agitation were two brothers: Maulana Mohammed Ali and Maulana Shaukat Ali.These two blue-eyed Muslims of Gandhi, today’s ’secularists’ must note, were the ones who later wrote a letter to the Amir of Afghanistan inviting him to invade Bharat.
3. Kerala’s local Muslims — the Moplahs continued Khilafat agitation – the number of Hindus murdered was 1,500, the number of those forcibly converted was 20,000 and property looted was assessed at about Rs 30 million, while the molestation and abduction of Hindu women was apparently endless.
4. Gandhi’s reaction to the Moplah carnage must also be noted by today’s ’secularists’. According to B R Ambedkar’s book, Pakistan, page 148, Gandhi’s comment on the Moplah marauders was: “They are brave and god-fearing people who were fighting for what they consider as religion, and in a manner which they consider as religion.”
5. And, in a Young India issue of 1924, Gandhi wrote, “My own experience but confirms the opinion that the Mussalman as a rule is a bully, and the Hindu as a rule is a coward. Need the Hindus blame the Mussalman for his cowardice?”
6. Gandhi refused to sign a petition for saving the life of Bhagat Singh, and he was also the one who condemned Chhatrapati Shivaji, Rana Pratap and Guru Gobind as misguided patriots.
7. Gandhi said, “Hindus should never be angry against the Muslims even if the latter might make up their minds to undo even their existence.” In another post-prayer speech asking the Partition-inflicted Hindus not to seek refuge in India, he said, “They should not be afraid of death. After all, the killers will be none other than our Muslim brothers”
And what did he get from his muslim brothers instead?
Maulana Mohammed Ali stated: “However pure Mr Gandhi’s character may be, he must appear to me, from the point of religion, inferior to any Mussalman even though he be without character.” A year later, the Maulana ‘improved’ upon that statement by saying “Yes, according to my religion and creed, I do hold an adulterous and a fallen Mussalman to be better than Mr Gandhi”.
=> Now how many of you want to FOLLOW Gandhi’s footsteps to the detriment of India’s interests and that of it’s citizens whose majority are not mussalmans? Instead of remembering his birthday and singing Hosanas of perverse “peace” it’s time to ask – who’s father? which nation??
Vijay, Check this out if you are open minded and care for Truth.
See how Gandhi was invented by the British to deflect India’s armed Independence struggle ( http://indianrealist.wordpress.com/2009/07/08/was-gandhi-a-british-creation/ ) and how Gandhi decimated India’s growth after freedom ( http://indianrealist.wordpress.com/2009/07/22/eclipse-of-the-hindu-nation/ )
Like Smt Radha Rajan says in the book “Eclipse of the Hindu Nation – Gandhi and his Freedon Struggle”, it is time to put down the coffin of gandhi.
This coffin carrying business is actually the forte of the christians who actually created the Congress party and passed on their such fetishes and tricks to them which they have been unfortunately imposing on indians ever since.
As for Gandhi’s austerity, this post is relevant – http://estheppan.wordpress.com/2009/10/04/simple-living-and-austerity/
Just as those times were the confusing times, now it is the age of renaissance, mainly thanks to internet and the misdeeds of gandhi and such like him are being realised now for what they were.
Thanks for pointing that book.. I had read excerpts from that book, and i feel, its a well researched and well analysed one.
Radha Rajan’s book Eclipse of Hindu Nation(EoHN) is based on the Collected Works of M Gandhi(CWMG) and Aurobindo’s works. CWMG is available online at http://www.gandhiserve.org/cwmg/cwmg.html
The book is an eye-opener. Not particularly because of what Smt Radha Rajan writes there, but more because one gets to read some of the correspondences of M K Gandhi in them, which generally is not read by most people in their life time.
What is transformational is the revelation in them as to how Gandhi thought and wrote.
The letters written by this person reveals his personality. And what one sees there is not admirable. That such a person is held with so much respect is, to use an expression from Sandeep (used on a different subject), puke-inducing.
Gandhi, from a distance, can be pitied. But what about all the others of that time? Why did they subserve their better sense ?
The following is part of comment that was posted on Vijayvaani after reading the book-
“A book for Kshatriyas, written by a Kshatriya. This book is to be read with the mindset of a Kshatriya, seeking Righteousness.
Some of the lines by Gandhi quoted in the book reveal how much he was influenced by the Church.
“ I would make India offer all her able-bodied sons as a sacrifice to the Empire at its critical moment (WW I); and I know that India by this very act would become the most favored partner in the Empire and racial distinctions will become a thing of the past ……. and they are wakeful enough to realise that they must be equally prepared to sacrifice themselves for the Empire in which they hope and desire to reach their final status ” (Letter to Viceroy 1918 CWMG Vol 17 pp 7-10; EoHN page 209)
‘ sons as a sacrifice’ , ‘most favored partner’ (Jesus was God’s most favored son who was sacrificed for the ’sins of mankind’), ’sacrifice themselves’ … words almost lifted from the Old and New Testaments. Was Gandhi naive enough to think that such blatant duplicity would go undetected by the Viceroy and he will fall for the Bible talk ?
It is likely that the British used missionaries to plant biblical ideas in the minds of educated indians with the purpose of influencing those of the them who may come to lead the masses. Indians thus made pliant by the ‘love’ and ‘brotherhood’ is more likely to submit to rule by his ‘white brother’ from Britain. In the case of Gandhi, it is likely that some shrewd missoinary struck gold and cleverly fostered the fire of overarching ambition within that mind, with the result that Gandhi came close to identifying himself with Jesus.
“If you love me, you should keep your patience, should they arrest both of us, even if they hang us on the gallows … .. Where a tyrant reigns, a prison is a palace and a palace is a prison. If you have learnt this equation of palace and prison, do as I tell you. If you believe that what I am telling you is only what God tells me through my inner voice, then give me the assurance, that you will restrain your passion and will not boil over even if they sentance me.” (Rawalpindi speech 1920 CWMG Vol 21 pp 66; EoHN page 239)
‘If you love me, you should keep your patience even if they hang me” line seems to be another lift from Bible where Jesus tells his followers to keep calm even if he is taken by Roman soldiers. Prison-palace equation is similar to the parables that Jesus is supposed to have told his disciples to make his points clear. The rest is like the ‘My Father in heaven’ style of wordings commonly seen in Bible.
“God has been abundantly kind to me. He has warned me the third time that there is not as yet in India that truthful and non-violent atmosphere ….. He warned me in 1919 when the Rowlatt Act agitation was started … I humbled myself before God and man … The next time it was through the events of Bombay that God gave a terrific warning. He made me eyewitness of the deeds of the Bombay mob … The humiliation was greater than in 1919. But it did me good. …. But God spoke clearly through Chauri Chaura. …. It is penance for me and punishment for those whom I try to serve, for whom I love to live and equally love to die. They have unintentionally sinned against the laws of the Congress .. .. with my name on their lips. The only way love punishes is by suffering.” (Young India 1922 CWMG Vol 26 pp 177-83; EoHN page 253-54)
God speaks to Gandhi like he did to Jesus. ‘They sinned…’ In Bible people sinned against the laws of God and as punishment God’s son died for their sins. In the subject case people of Chauri Chaura sinned against the laws of the Congress and Congress’s father/son/HolyGhost Gandhi fasted for their sins.
“And now a message for the young men. If you want my service, do not disown me.Come and understand everything from me. … I declare that we cannot win swaraj for our famishing millions, for our deaf and dumb, for our lame and crippled, by the way of the sword. With the Most High as witness I want to proclaim this truth that the way of violence cannot bring swaraj, it can only lead to disaster. I wish to tell these young men with all the authority with which a father can speak to his children that the way of violence can only lead to perdition. Would our women known as the meekest on earth … ..I want the impatient youth in the name of God, …“(Karachi speech 1931 CWMG Vol 51 pp 305-7; EoHN page 275-6)
The first line is like Jesus saying ‘Come unto me… for I am the way and the life … I will take you to my Father in Heaven’ and stuff like that. ‘deaf and dumb’, ‘lame and the crippled’ (miracles associated with Jesus, of the deaf hearing, crippled walking etc.), ‘Most High as witness’, ‘in the name of God’, the meekest on earth (meek shall inherit the earth line)
“Take a pledge with God and your own conscience as witness … He who loses his life will gain it; he who will seek to save it shall lose it.” (Bombay AICC speech 1942 CWMG Vol 83 pp 197; EoHN page 293)
Only the Amen is missing.
While he was considerably influenced by the Church teachings and probably aimed for the halo of a Christ himself, he was also very shrewd in appropriating the Gita and Rama naam knowing that they are icons of Bharatiya national consciousness. He rightly deduced that people of India would listen to one who publicly shows reverence to these icons. And he did that charade for public consumption using the mantle of Mahatma while he privately travelled away from the path of righteousness shown by Sri Rama and Sri Krishna.
Curiously, there were many others misleading people at that time as well, such as Hitler in Germany, Mussolini in Italy, Stalin in Russia, Mao in China, Che Guvera, Castro and so on. “
Senthil,
/**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”. **/
If you wrote this because most Indians confuse the term Satyagraha and non-violence, why do you have to call it as Gandhi’ stupidity??
/**sequence of history to prove Gandhi’s role was pivotal**/
there are hosts of websites for this. example..
http://www.sparknotes.com/biography/gandhi/timeline.html
this also proves that Britishers have consensually agreed to give independence to India around 1942. But they decided to do so after World war II. From 1945 to 1947, several discussions happened between Indian leaders and Britishers to decide on the details of independence. So this is the reason for no major protest between 1942-1947.
/** title of Mahatma **/
there are two theories here, one says it was given by Rabindranath Tagore and the other says by Nautamlal Mehta (sources: Wikipedia and other websites)
/** Gandhi’s following of his principles **/
how do u want history to show this to you, by showing video footage of his everyday lives. in case you dont know, written history captures only notable events or happenings.
/** I am not claiming what I say is true **/
Well, your tone in the article doesn’t reflect that at all. At least, give a better disclaimer saying ‘these are my opinions and not whole facts’ instead of
/**Let Truth be told as it is, even if it hurts.**/
@ VOP
the link from indianrealist.wordpress is another article like Senthil’s, please see several comments below the article claiming the truth in that article.
my last comment, please don’t think that i am asking u to follow Gandhiji’s principles, all i am saying is that don’t bash a great leader (Gandhi or anyone else) just for your publicity. Did he have anything to benefit by doing all the things that you claim him to have done?
/** this also proves that Britishers have consensually agreed to give independence to India around 1942. But they decided to do so after World war II. From 1945 to 1947, several discussions happened between Indian leaders and Britishers to decide on the details of independence. So this is the reason for no major protest between 1942-1947.
**/
Vijay.. please look at how incorrect your above statements are.
As per the link you have given, british offered only dominion status, which congress did not agree, and started quit india movement. Gandhi and other INC leaders were immediately arrested.
and till end of WW-II, they were under prison.
Please dont twist facts for your arguments.
Do you know about royal navy mutiny, or the famously called Bombay Mutiny. Please refer to the following wikipedia link..
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Indian_Navy_Mutiny
/** there are two theories here, one says it was given by Rabindranath Tagore and the other says by Nautamlal Mehta (sources: Wikipedia and other websites)
**/
Ok.. even if we consider tagore, how qualified is he to give that title to gandhi?
Ofcourse, there are many party men even now, who are broad enough to give any title to their leaders.
/** Well, your tone in the article doesn’t reflect that at all. At least, give a better disclaimer saying ‘these are my opinions and not whole facts’ instead of Let Truth be told as it is, even if it hurts.
**/
I want the truth to be told as it is.. i do not claim, that only what i am saying is true..
since this is a personal blog (not any research blog), every post is my personal expression, and hence it may not be wise to exclusively give disclaimer in each post.. its implicit..
However, my question is that are you ready for debate.. Its an open challenge to you.. Either we can have the debate in your blog or in my blog, but it should be open..
I am willing to change my perception publicly, if i lose in this debate..
It seems that Vijay here is not from either the Punjabi or Sindhi or Bengali community – the ones that actually suffered Partition. Millions were murdered by the muslims who are trained from birth to be butchers by beheading and gutting animals in the name of “kurbani”. To the people who suffered 1947 (do keep in mind, they lost their homes, their lands, their families and they got nothing in the way of compensation other than the citizenship of India), it makes absolutely no sense why someone would ask to pay the muslim murderers 55 crore rupees as startup capital, which is what the “mahatma” did.
Vijay have you ever read about Maina, a teenage girl who was burnt alive by the Brits because she sang Vande Mataram. The Brits were ruthless savages in dealing with troublemakers but they did not even break a bone of the “mahatma”. Could it be because he suited their purpose ? Also do keep in mind that the British government has not allowed public access to its files on Gandhi and Nehru. Why ? And how come that in these days of mass media, quite a lot of people don’t know who Bal Thackeray is, but in those days, everybody was given a heavy dose of the “mahatma”. How come ? Only the Brits had any sort of control over the media in those days and they made sure everybody got to hear about the mahatma, that’s what I think.
The so called “mahatma” was a British plant and the Brits did not give us independence because of him – they were trounced in WWII and they did not just get out of India ; they also gave up Israel and Africa. In fact they gave up nearly all of their colonies with the exception of few like Hong Kong.
A must-read. Not sure how many have come across this. I myself came across this only recently – Nathuram Godse’s self-prepared defence while on trial for the murder of MK Gandhi – http://ngodse.tripod.com/defense.htm
Though Godse attributes a lot of importance to Gandhi’s stature and eminence (something we aren’t entirely sure of, esp. most of the commenters in this post), his points are quite relevant.
This line that you left on sastwingees blog is great.
“Understanding leads to realisation. whereas beliefs lead to only stagnation of thoughts.“
Thanks incognito..