Follow us on 'X' at https://x.com/ThePhilox and DM us your own news and perspective
The British agent Gandhi : By Justice Katju (4th Part)
Justice Markandey Katju argues that Mahatma Gandhi was a British agent, highlighting how Gandhi's actions and religious rhetoric allegedly furthered British colonial interests. Katju critiques Gandhi's economic ideas, his role in India's freedom struggle, and the impact of his policies on India's socio-political landscape.
OPINION
Justice Markandey Katju
7/30/202413 min read
The British agent Gandhi
By Justice Katju
I am writing a series of articles in response to being called a 'controversial judge'.
Three of such articles have been published, as given below :
https://justicekatju.com/the-controversial-judge-2e4066a69b93
https://thephilox.com/appeal-to-dalits-and-obcs-to-demand-end-of-caste-reservations-by-justice-katju
https://thephilox.com/90percent-indians-are-fools-by-justice-katju-3rd-part
Now this is the 4th article in the series, in which I will demonstrate that Gandhi, who is called the Father of the Indian Nation, was in fact objectively a British agent
I have written a series of articles on Gandhi, in which I have explained why I call him objectively a British agent, and these too have resulted in branding me as a 'controversial' judge.
These are my reasons for my view of Gandhi:
1. India has tremendous diversity, so many religions, castes, races, languages, etc ( see my article ' What is India ?' on my blog justicekatju.blogspot.in ). 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.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1XsGdprkOvQ&pp=ygUaa2F0anUgZ2FuZGhpIGJyaXRpc2ggYWdlbnQ%3D
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ASbUkQBPgKA&pp=ygUaa2F0anUgZ2FuZGhpIGJyaXRpc2ggYWdlbnQ%3D
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SDyGYHyIZNo&pp=ygUaa2F0anUgZ2FuZGhpIGJyaXRpc2ggYWdlbnQ%3D
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=09qdD7xBbJc&pp=ygUaa2F0anUgZ2FuZGhpIGJyaXRpc2ggYWdlbnQ%3D
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 ( caste system ). 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 ?
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ZQh6dzyNeUY
2. In India a revolutionary movement against British rule had started in the early 20th century under the Anushilan Samiti, Jugantar, and revolutionaries like Bhagat Singh, Surya Sen ( Masterda ), 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, and serving the interests of big businessmen. According to this theory, Birlas, Tatas, and now Ambani and Adani, are trustees of the Indian people, and working for their welfare. Is this not ridiculous ?
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.
Gandhi and Caste
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 but 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 andthat milieu is everything. The.experience of many lands goes against the conclusions of these scientists; but even accepting their doctrine of milieu, 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 difficultto 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 cre-ation 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 occupationof 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:in1932: "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 ".
This is the man who has been thrust down the throats of Indians as the ' Father of the Nation '
Who Gave India Independence ?
Gandhi has been presented as a 'Mahatma', the Father of our nation, who gave freedom to India. I submit this is a myth carefully built up by the British and certain other vested interests. What is the truth. ?
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 Ramrajya, 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 the Muslims join such a party which appealed to Hindu sentiments ? 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 17-18% after 1947 because a section of Muslims became citizens of Pakistan ).
Did this not serve the British policy of divide and rule ? And therefore was Gandhi not objectively a British agent ?
In his book 'The Partition of India ' the eminent jurist Seervai has written that the method of Gandhi of appealing to Hindu ideas may have mobilized the Hindu masses, but it inevitably led to Partition of India.
Thus while Gandhi claimed he was secular, that was only hypocrisy. In fact he was communal.
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 had done, and they have been taken for a ride. It is high time for them to know the truth.
Some people say that the fact that Gandhi went to Noakhali etc in 1947 to appeal for communal amity shows that he was secular. But in fact this was the typical hypocrisy of Gandhi ( see my blogs ' Chalak Pakhandi ' and ' Here is the Father of your Nation ' on justicekatju.blogspot.in ). 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 did Gandhi get by this ? My answer is that different people have different motivations. For some money is the motivation, for others 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 the Continental Army under George Washington.which fought the American war of Independence from 1775-1781 ? Did Bolivar liberate several Latin American countries with guns or 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 people must pay for getting freedom.
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 of India 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 monopoly in india, so that India may be opened up for American enterprize and investments too, as American industries were growing and needed more markets, raw materials, and avenues for investment. This is the real cause of independence to India. It had nothing to do with Gandhi.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kGKN37CEYgE
Without even giving me an opportunity of hearing, both Houses of the Indian Parliament unanimously condemned me
https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x2jb2r2
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GktSkOpNgDA&pp=ygUaa2F0anUgZ2FuZGhpIGJyaXRpc2ggYWdlbnQ%3D
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GktSkOpNgDA&pp=ygUaa2F0anUgZ2FuZGhpIGJyaXRpc2ggYWdlbnQ%3D
In my next article I will demonstrate that apart from Gandhi there were many other British and other foreign agents e.g. Tagore, Subhas Chandra Bose, Sir Syed Ahmed Khan, 'Veer' Savarkar, Allama Iqbal, Bankim Chandra Chattopadhyaya, EV Ramasami ( Periyar ) etc, whom Indians stupidly glorify.
The time has come to tear away the masks of these foreign agents and expose their true Mephistophelian and rapscallion faces
