Today, 2nd October, is Gandhi Jayanti ( birth anniversary of Gandhi ), which will be widely celebrated in India.
For advertisement on our platform, do call at +91 6377460764 or email us at [email protected].
Gandhi is regarded in India as the Father of the Indian Nation ( Rashtra Pita ).
But in 2015 I had written this facebook post, calling Gandhi objectively a British agent, and giving my reasons for saying so :
http://justicekatju.blogspot.
For doing so, both Houses of the Indian Parliament unanimously condemned me
This was done without even giving me a hearing, when even before sentencing a person to death he is given a hearing.
I also wrote several other articles, in which I pointed out that by repeatedly injecting religion into politics, Gandhi furthered the British policy of ‘divide and rule’.
If we read Gandhi’s public speeches and writings ( e.g. in his newspapers ‘Young India’, ‘ Harijan ‘, etc ) we find that ever since Gandhi came to India from South Africa ( where he had practised law for 20 years ) in 1915, till his death in 1948, in almost every speech or article he would emphasize Hindu religious ideas e.g. Ramrajya, Go Raksha ( cow protection ), brahmacharya ( celibacy ), varnashram dharma ( caste system ), etc ( see Collected Works of Mahatma Gandhi, which is a Govt of India publication in several volumes ).
Thus Gandhi wrote in ‘ Young India ‘ on 10.6.1921 ” I am a Sanatani Hindu. I believe in the varnashram dharma. I believe in protection of the cow “.
Now Indians are a religious people, and they were even more religious in the first half of the 20th century. A sadhu or swamiji may preach such ideas to his followers in his ashram, but when they are preached day in and day out by a political leader, what effect will these speeches and writings have on the mind of an orthodox Muslim ? It would surely drive him towards a Muslim organization like the Muslim League, and so it did ( people like Maulana Azad were exceptions ). Was this not serving the British policy of divide and rule ?
Gandhi repeatedly said in the 1920s that ‘ Hindus must follow their hereditary professions ‘ and that ‘ prohibition of intermarriage between people of different varnas was necessary for a rapid evolution of the soul ‘. In the 1930s he changed his tune and started saying that he was opposed to caste but supported varna and hereditary professions, as if there is a difference between the two
This hypocrisy was typical of Gandhi. Whenever he found his stupid feudal ideas unacceptable he tried to obfuscate.
Thus in 1921 he said in his journal Young India ” I am a sanatani Hindu. I believe in varnashram dharma. I believe in protection of the cow “
He also said ” I believe that caste has saved Hinduism from disintegration. One of my correspondents suggests that we should abolish the caste system and adopt the class system of Europe, meaning that the idea of hereditary castes should be rejected. I am inclined to think that the law of heredity is an eternal law, and any attempt to alter it must lead to utter confusion. Hindus believe in transmigration of the soul, and Nature will adjust the balance by degrading a Brahmin if he misbehaves to a lower caste, and upgrading one who lives the life of a Brahmin to a Brahmin in his next life. “
He also wrote ” The beauty of the caste system is that it does not base itself upon distinctions of wealth-possessions. Money, as history has proved, is the greatest disruptive force in the world C aste is but an extension of the principle of the family. Both are governed by blood and heredity. Western scientists are busy trying to prove that heredity is an illusion and that milieu is everything. The.experience of many lands goes against the conclusions of these scientists. but even accepting their doctrine, it is easy to prove that milieu can be conserved and developed more through caste than through class. As we all know, change comes very slowly in social life, and thus, as a matter of fact, caste has allowed new groupings to suit the changes in lives. But these changes are quiet and easy, as a change in the shape of the clouds. It is difficult to imagine a better harmonious human adjustment. Caste does not connote superiority or inferiority. It simply recognizes different outlooks and corresponding modes of life.But it is no use denying the fact that a sort of hierarchy has been evolved in the caste system. But it cannot be called the creation of the Brahmins. When all castes accept a common goal of life, a hierarchy is inevitable, because all castes cannot realize the ideal in equal degree.”
Again in 1921 Gandhi said : “I believe that if Hindu society has been able to stand, it is because it is founded on the caste system. A community which can create the caste system must be said to possess unique power of organization. To destroy the caste system and adopt the Western European social system means that Hindus must give up the principle of hereditary occupation which is the soul of the caste system.The hereditary principle is an eternal principle. To change it is to create disorder. It will be a chaos if every day a Brahmin is to be changed into a Shudra, and a Shudra is to be changed into a Brahmin. The caste system is a natural order of society. I am opposed to all those who are out to destroy the caste system.”
In 1926 Gandhi writes ” In accepting the fourfold division I am simply accepting the laws of Nature, taking for granted what is in-herent in human nature and the law of heredity. It is not possible in one birth entirely to undo the results of our past doings.”
Gandhi’s hypocrisy can again be seen by the following statement in 1927 :
” In my conception of the law of varna, no one is superior to any other. A scavenger ( a rubbish-collector or a latrine- or street-sweeper ) has the same status as a Brahmin “
Is this not ridiculous and farcical ? Do Brahmins regard shudras as their equals ? It is like the devious doctrine of ‘separate but equal ‘ propounded by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1896. Gandhi does not want abolition of the caste system, he says all castes have the same status, which is nonsense.
In 1925 Gandhi says : ” There is no harm if a person belonging to one varna acquires the knowledge or science and art specialized in by persons belonging to other varnas. But as far as the way of earning his living is concerned, he must follow the occupation of the varna to which he belongs, which means he must follow the hereditary profession of his forefathers. The object of the varna system is to prevent competition and class struggle and class war. I believe in the varna system because it fixes the duties and occupations of persons. Varna means the determination of a man’s occupation before he is born. In the varna system no man has any liberty to choose his occupation.”
This statement is again obfuscation. Why will anyone acquire a skill unless he can use it to earn his bread ?
In 1931 Gandhi said: ” I do not believe in caste in the modern sense. It is an excrescence and a handicap on progress. Nor do I believe in inequalities between human beings. We are all absolutely equal. But equality is of souls and not bodies. We have to realize equality in the midst of this apparent inequality. Assumption of superiority by any person over any other is a sin against God and man. Thus caste, in so far as it connotes distinctions in status, is an evil.
I do however believe in varna which is based on hereditary occupations. Varnas are four to mark four universal occupations – imparting knowledge, defending the defenceless, carrying on agriculture and commerce, and performing service through physical labor. These occupations are common to all mankind, but Hinduism, having recognized them as the law of our being, has made use of it in regulating social relations and conduct. Gravitation affects us all whether one knows its exist or not “
The above statement really takes the cake. On the one hand Gandhi says he does not believe in caste, on the other hand he says that he believes in hereditary occupations, and says it is like the law of gravity. But hereditary occupations is the basis of caste ( see my blog on caste system on justicekatju.blogspot.in ). Does this contradictory statement require any comment, except to say that this man can wriggle around and say that 2+2=4 and 2+2=5 in the same breath ?
In 1932 Gandhi said: ” My own opinion is that the varna system has just now broken down. There is no true Brahmin or true Kshatriya or Vaishya. We are all Shudras, i.e. one varna. If this position is accepted, then the thing becomes easy. If this does not satisfy our vanity, then we are all Brahmins. Removal of Untouchability does mean root-and-branch destruction of the idea of superiority and inferiority “
Does the above statement make any sense ? At least I cannot make any head or tail out of it.
In 1933 Dr. Ambedkar said “There will be outcastes as long as there are castes, and nothing can emancipate the outcaste except the destruction of the caste system.”. This was a logical argument of Dr. Ambedkar.
But see how Gandhi replies. He said ” Dr. Ambedkar is bitter. He has every reason to feel so. Yet I do not believe the caste system, even as distinguished from varnashrama [the scheme of duties traditionally linked to the caste system], to be an odious and vicious dogma. It has its limitations and defects, but there is nothing sinful about it, as there is about Untouchability; and if Untouchability is a by-product of the system, it is only in the same sense that an ugly growth is of a body, or weeds of a crop “.
Thus Gandhi is not against the caste system but only against Untouchability.
Gandhi admitted that his ideal of a varna system with everyone enjoying equal economic and social status probably had no historical warrant.
But when asked whether in ancient India there was much difference in economic status and social privileges between the four varnas Gandhi replied ” That may be historically true. But misapplication or an imperfect understanding of the law must not lead to the ignoring of the law itself. By constant striving we have to enrich it “.
So Gandhi is not against the caste system but only its ‘misapplication.’ ( whatever that may mean ).
The contrast between Gandhi’s and Ambedkar’s views was heightened by their respective relations
to the Jat-Pat-Todak Mandal, a new organization which was dedicated to promoting a casteless Hinduism. Gandhi told its secretary in 1932: “If eradication of castes means the abolition of varna I do not approve of it. But I am with you if your aim is to end the innumerable caste distinctions “.
Dr Ambedkar corrrectly analysed the cause of Gandhi’s contradictory statements and obfuscation regarding caste as ” the double role which the Mahatma wants to play – of a Mahatma and a politician. As a Mahatma he may be trying to spiritualize politics. Whether he has succeeded in it or not, politics have certainly commercialized him. A politician must know that society cannot bear the whole truth. If he is speaking the whole truth, it is bad for his politics. The reason why the Mahatma is always supporting caste and varna is because he is afraid that if he opposes them he will lose his place in politics. Whatever may be the source of this confusion, the Mahatma must be told that he is deceiving himself and also deceiving the people by preaching caste under the name of varna “.
Gandhi claimed he was secular, but this was only hypocrisy. In fact, he was communal as he was throughout his public career propagating Hindu religious ideas. Unfortunately, most people in India have not read the speeches and writings of Gandhi from 1915 to 1948, and so they do not know what he did and how he took them for a ride. It is high time for them to know the truth.
Some people say that the fact that Gandhi went to Noakhali in 1947 to appeal for communal amity shows that he was secular. However, this was the typical hypocrisy of Gandhi. First, you set the house on fire by propagating Hindu religious ideas day in and day out for several decades, and then, when the house is burning, you do the drama of trying to douse the flames by appealing for communal harmony. Why did you set the house on fire in the first place?
Some people ask what Gandhi got by this. My answer is that different people have different motives. For some, money is the motivation; for others, it is power. In Gandhi’s case it was probably power (he was effectively the leader of the Congress) and the desire to be called a ‘Mahatma’. However, that is irrelevant. Whatever may have been his motivation, the real question to be asked is : did his actions in fact further the British policy of divide and rule ? I have shown above that they did, and that is why I have called him objectively a British agent. An objective agent may not receive any money and he may not even be conscious of the fact that he is working as an agent. But that does not matter. If by your deeds you are in fact serving the interests of a foreign power, you are an agent of that foreign power.
The renowned Indian jurist HM Seervai wrote in his book ‘Partition of India, Legend and Reality’ that Gandhi’s injection of religion into politics, led directly to Partition of India in 1947.
In my opinion Partition of India, which was a British swindle on the basis of the bogus 2 nation theory was the biggest tragedy of India in its 5000 year old known history, for which.we are still suffering. I regard all those complicit in it as big criminals.
No doubt the idea of Partition of India was initiated by Jinnah, but ultimately Gandhi and Nehru, leaders of the Congress Party, also agreed to it. So they are also complicit and criminals, who stabbed their mother ( India ) in the back.
Yet Indians stupidly call Gandhi the Father of the nation.
Many people say that Gandhi got us independence from British rule. This is a myth. Does any country give up its empire without an armed fight by the native people for independence? Did Americans get independence from the British through satyagrah and hunger strikes, or by mobilising a Continental Army under George Washington, which fought the US War of Independence from 1775 to 1781? Did Bolivar liberate several Latin-American countries by raising batallions with guns, or by presenting flowers and bouquets to Spanish rulers? Did Ho Chi Minh defeat the French and Americans by use of arms, or by hunger strikes or salt marches?
The truth is that Independence of India in 1947 had nothing to do with Gandhi. It was because Germany attacked Britain in the Second World War, and would have probably conquered it had America not supplied weapons and other aid to Britain. But this aid came at a price, and with strings attached. In lieu of giving aid, the Americans compelled Britain to give India ‘independence’, which was really opening India to US investments and the Indian market open to American companies, instead of being the sole monopoly of the British.
It is high time Indians know the truth about Gandhi, a person who has been thrust down the throats of Indians as the ‘ Father of the Nation ‘.
