Today, 2nd October, is the birth anniversary of that cunning hypocrite, deceiver and reactionary ‘Mahatma’ Gandhi, who did incalculable harm to India, as explained in this article
.https://thephilox.com/standing-at-the-crossroads-by-justice-katju/
On March 2015 I had posted a blog in which I explained why I called Gandhi a British agent.
I wrote in that blog :
Gandhi—A British Agent
This post is bound to draw a lot of flak at me, but that does not matter as I am not a popularity seeker I have often said things knowing that initially that will make me very unpopular, and I will be vilified and denounced by many. Nevertheless I say such things.as I believe they must be said in my country’s interest.
I submit that Gandhi was objectively a British agent who did great harm to India.
These are my reasons for saying this :
1. India has tremendous diversity, so many religions, castes, races, languages, etc ( see my article ‘ What is India ‘ online ). Realizing this the British policy was of divide and rule ( see online ‘ History in the Service of Imperialism ‘ , which is a speech delivered by Prof. B.N. Pande in the Rajya Sabha ).
By constantly injecting religion into politics continuously for several decades, 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 in 1915 or so 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 ).
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 “. In his public meetings the Hindu bhajan ‘ Raghupati Raghav Raja Ram ‘ would be loudly sung.
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 an orthodox Muslim mind ? It would surely drive him towards a Muslim organization like the Muslim League, and so it did. Was this not serving the British policy of divide and rule ? By constantly injecting religion into politics for several decades, was Gandhi not objectively acting as a British agent ?
2. In India a revolutionary movement of armed struggle against British rule had started in the early 20th century under the Anushilan Samiti, Jugantar, and revolutionaries like Bhagat Singh, Surya Sen, Ramprasad Bismil ( who wrote the song ‘ Sarfaroshi ki tamanna ab hamare dil mein hai ), Chandrashekhar Azad, Ashfaqulla, Rajguru, etc ( who were all hanged by the British ). Gandhi successfully diverted the freedom struggle from this revolutionary direction to a harmless nonsensical channel called Satyagrah. This also served British interests.
3. Gandhi’s economic ideas were thoroughly reactionary. He advocated self sufficient village communities, though everybody knows that these communities were totally casteist and in the grip of landlords and money lenders..Gandhi was against industrialization, and preached handspinning by charkha and other such reactionary nonsense. Similarly, his ‘ trusteeship ‘ theory was all nonsense, and an act of deceiving the people. Were Tatas and Birlas working as trustees for the Indian people, or for their own self interest ? And can anyone call Adani and Ambani trustees of the India people ? It is nonsense to say so.
Some people praise Gandhi’s bravery in going to Noakhali, etc to douse the communal violence at the time of Partition. But the question is why did he help setting the house on fire in the first place by preaching religious ideas in public political meetings for several decades, which were bound to divide the Indian people on religious lines? First you set the house on fire, and then you do the drama of trying to douse the flames ”.
When Gandhi came to India from South Africa ( where he practised law for about 20 years ) in about 1915 the Congress party was confined to some intellectuals, and had little mass following. Gandhi thought that since India is a deeply religious country the best way to build up a mass following would be use of religion. So from 1915 till his death in 1948 in almost every public meeting and his writings he would propagate Hindu religious ideas like Ramraj, cow protection, varnashram, brahmachrya, etc ( see ‘The Collected works of ‘Mahatma Gandhi ‘, which is a Govt. of India publication in several volumes ).
This indeed converted the Congress from a party of only intellectuals to a mass party. But it was a mass party of the Hindu masses alone. How could Muslims join such a party whose leader constantly and publicly supported Hindu ideas like caste and cow potecion ?
In fact such an appeal to religion necessarily drove the Muslim masses to a Muslim communal organization– the Muslim League. And prior to 1947 Muslims comprised of about 25% of the population of undivided India ( this percentage was reduced to about 15% after 1947 because a section of Muslims became citizens of Pakistan or Bangladesh ).
The British policy in India was divide and rule i.e. make Hindus and Muslims fight each other. Was Gandhi not furthering this policy by constantly propagating Hindu ideas in his speeches ? He was the defacto leader of the Congress party. What effect would his speeches and articles have on a conservative Muslim mind ? Can a Muslim be a member of a party whose leader was regularly and repeatedly supporting caste system, cow protection, etc ? A swami in his ashram may say anything he likes. But if a political leader publicly talks like this, will his words not drive Muslims towards a communal organisation like the Muslim League ? By constantly injecting religion into politics, Gandhi’s activities directly led to Partition of India, as the eminent lawyer HM Seervai pointed out in his book ‘ Partition of India–Legend and Reality’
Most Indians were brainwashed into regarding Gandhi as ‘The Father of the Indian Nation’. So when I called him a British agent, it created horror and disbelief, and was like a nuclear explosion. I was unanimously condemned by both Houses of Parliament ( without even giving me an opportunity to explain my point of view ).
Two days after my blog was posted, Gandhi’s statue was unveiled in London in the presence of the British Prime Minister, Indian Finance Minister Arun Jetley, and movie star Amitabh Bachchan.
I said in a post that the very fact that the Britishers were setting up a statue of Gandhi in London proves my point. Why did they not set up statues in London of Bhagat Singh, Surya Sen ( Masterda ), Chandrashekhar Azad, Bismil, Ashfaqullah, Rajguru, Sukhdev, and Khudiram Bose who really fought against the British, instead of a statue of their agent ?.
Some people ask : what did Gandhi get by this ? My answer is that different people have different motivations. For some money is the motivation, for others ( e.g. Hitler ) 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 ? That is why I have called Gandhi objectively a British agent. Subjectively he may have any motivation. 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.
As regards the claim that Gandhi gave us freedom, this again is a myth. Does any country give up its empire without an armed fight for independence ? Did America get independence from England by satyagrah and hunger strikes, or by mobilizing a Continental Army under George Washington. which fought the American war of Independence from 1775-1781 with guns ? Did Bolivar liberate several Latin American countries with guns, or by presenting flowers and bouquets to the Spanish rulers ? Did Ho Chi Minh defeat the French by use of arms, or by salt marches ?
It is said by some that if the Indian people had resorted to arms against the British rulers there would have been a lot of bloodshed. That is true, but then that is the price a nation must pay for getting freedom ( as explained in the first link in this article ).
In fact our real freedom fighters, Bhagat Singh, Chandrashekhar Azad, Surya Sen ( Masterda ), Ashfaqulla, Ram Prasad Bismil, Khudiram Bose, Rajguru, Sukhdev, etc realized this and took up arms against the British in the early 20th century. This was no doubt only the beginning of a nationwide armed fight against the British, and was therefore only on a very small scale. But later on it would have developed into a full blown War of Independence.
But Gandhi successfully diverted this genuine freedom struggle towards a harmless channel called satyagrah, which was sentimental nonsense, and which would do no real harm to the British. Would a great power like Britain give up its Empire because Gandhi was going frequently on fasts and singing Raghupati Raghav Raja Ram in public meetings ? The names of our real freedom fighters ( mentioned above ) have been relegated to the footnotes of our history books, and they have been painted as mavericks and deviants, while that fraud Gandhi is given the credit of winning freedom for us
So who was responsible for Independence in 1947 ? Let me explain.
In the Second World War, which started in 1939, Germany attacked England, and considerably weakened it. Possibly Germany would have conquered England, had it not been for American help. But this help came at a price. The Americans put pressure on the British to give up their Empire in india, so that India may be opened up for American enterprize and investments too. This is the real cause of independence to india. It had nothing to do with Gandhi.
