Sex Antics of Mohandas Gandhi: His Failures, Pedophilia, Adultery, Incest, Sexual Perversion & Fetishes. Image via Wikipedia. http://www.mohandasgandhi.com
THE NAKED FAKIR UNMASKED:-(Updated 10/12/2012)
Mohandas Gandhi’ Sex Antics, Incest, Sexual Perversion, Pedophilia, Adultery & Fetishes
For more information please visit:
http://www.mohandasgandhitruth.com
Complied from recent books by Dr. Singh, Dr. Watson, and Mr. Mohandas Gandhi two grandsons –Arun Gandhi and Rajmohan Gandhi. Additional material and quotes are from Saijorni Naidu, records from South Africa, Mr. Bose and Time Magazine. A seminal critique of Mr. Gandhi was written Erik Erikson titled “Gandhi’s Truth“. We have also quoted from the reports of the Nobel Peace Committee and the records of the 109th Congress of the United States of America.
Of course no research paper on Mohandas Gandhi would be complete without references to the Collected Works of Mahatma Gandhi, Government of India (CWMG). CWMG page numbers have been quoted in the article.
Was he a politician or a saint? if both, how did these two Gandhis combine, and in what proportion? Or was he, as criticts have alleged, someone who broke a pledge, that he would rather die than accept Partition? Was not an unfeeling husband and father? A man who did strange things in the name of chastity? Or emasculated India in the name of Nonviolence? Or patronized Dalits without empowering them? Rajmohan Gandhi on Mohandas Gandhi, Page X, “gandhi”.
This article discusses the sexual antics of Gandhi, and it sheds light on his political and personal failures. It highlights his strange habits of urine drinking, and love for enemas. He brings out the facts about his consumption of his own piss, and his drinking of Holy Cow urine. The article lists Mr. Gandhis pedophilia incest, adultery, weird fetishes, and sexual perversion. Our article presents solid proof and well research supporting documentation on these and other issues. The following site lists all material in one place. (The Truth about Mohandas Gandhi).
Mr. Gandhi himself know he was a failure. Gandhi had jotted on a scrap of paper in 1946: “I don’t want to die a failure. But I may be a failure.”
The Congress of the United States of America has condemned the bigotry and racist remarks of Mohandas Gandhi. United States Congressional Record on Mohandas Gandhi‘s racism
“it costs the nation millions to keep Gandhi living in poverty.” Sarojini Naidu
This article summarizes the writings of Gandhi’s grandsons, and other authors and contains the following sections:
- “Sexual Antics of Gandhi:” An anthology or research based on the books by Gandhi’s grandsons.
- “Gandhi’s Girls“:- very comprehensive Time Magazine article with blow by blow details of the exploding news about Gandhi’s indiscretions,
- “Was Gandhi a Tantric:” Well researched article on the details of his liaisons.
- Other articles are being included and updated. The works of Tim Watson and G.B. Singh published in 2008 are bing added/updated.
SUMMARY: Mohandas (not Mahatma) Gandhi’s Failed Leadership in Politics and Gandhi’s Domestic Violence and weird Sexual Perversion in his private life.
The Truth about Mohandas Gandhi will shock you: http://www.mohandasgandhitruth.com
Many Indians are doled out the 8th grade version of psychodrama doled out to you in the temple. They never get a chance to read any international appraisals of the man. Obviously not. Read the book by his two grandsons, and by Dr. Singh. A majority of Indians don’t feel the way you do about the man. Making him into a diet doesn’t serve any historical purpose. Not only was he infallible–he was a failure
The progeny of Einstein, the Jewish Defense League (JDL), and the ADL feel disgust for Gandhi. Certainly his cozying up to Hitler didn’t endear him to the Jews. Asking all Jews to commit mass suicide while praising Hitler doesn’t make him popular in Israel or the Jewish world. The 109th Congress of the United States of American condemned him for his racism, and the Nobel Peace prize Committee criticized him for his war mongering, and requesting the Government of Bharat (aka India) to wage war on Pakistan. That telegram according to the Nobel peace prize committee clinched his dumping.
South Africans won’t even tolerate his statue in Durban. There were huge riots in South Africa against him and his fake non-violence. His various statues in the US (mostly built by Indians) are constantly harasses with graffiti or simply ignored.
Prime Minister Atlee, the last PM of Britain before independence when asked about how important were Gandhi’s significance in forcing the British to leave South Asia–to this question Attlee said Gandhi was not a insignificant.
We wrote the article with a different headline with a focus on Gandhi’s but it lies buried in the 4000 or so articles on history. We also similar articles focusing on Mr. Gandhi’s policies, but they are part of the archives, without as large an audience as this article. “They” all want to read the salacious details. This article is a primer. Discussing his his personal failure should lead the reader to his political failure in South Africa– trying to set up a Caste System with special privileges for the “Indians”, and supporting–nay participating in wars against the Zulus, and the Kaffirs (Tribe in Africa).
He supported all British wars–Zulu, Boer, WW1, and WW2–in fact there wasn’t a war he did not support–thus enhancing the ability of England to continue colonization. His greatest achievement—was no achievement at all–the British had decided to leave South Asia. Ghana, Nigeria, Malaysia–all got their freedoms from British colonialism at about the same time.
By not giving the Dalits separate electorate, he kept them in slavery. He said that one would have to go over his dead body to abolish the caste system. That is why the 450 million Dalits and Lower Caste hate him so much. Read Ambedaker who disliked Gandhi. His followers detest him also. Dalits hate him for calling them Harijans– a name that they have rejected because it is condescending.
Surely he is disliked in Pakistan and even Bangladesh for antagonizing with the Muslim leadership and alienating the Muslims–contrary to the propaganda doled out by the Indian National Congress, which thinks that the history of the INC is the history of India. Jaswant Singh a NJP leader writes pretty much what we have said.
Gandhi and Nehru assassinated one of the most important leaders of Independence–Mr Bose (with whose wife, Mr. gandhi was caught sleeping with). Not only that 29000 members of the Indian National Army were murdered in cold blood—these were the sons who were fighting for independence and were a significant factor in the British decision to leave.
Sairojni Naidu was very critical of Gandhi and said “we have to spend millions to keep Mr. Gandhi in poverty”. Sarawarkar, and Golwalkar surely disliked Mr. Gandhi. His attitude forced the Muslims out of the Congress.
A man’s success or failure is determined by his accomplishments and his character. Mr. Gandhi it seems–didn’t have either.
Sex Life of Nehru: Menege De trios:-Tryst with Homosexuality:-Love triangle Edwina, Nehru and Lord Mountbatten changed history
View This Poll online surveys
Gandhi Got Urine banner: http://www.mohandasgandhitruth.com
Of course the history of Bharat has been pretty much the history of the Indian National Congress–where all INC leaders are good and all those who opposed the INC are evil. However even withing the INC, there was serious opposition to the old man. Mr. Jaswant Singh in his new book on Jinnah describes how Nehru used to attack Mr. Gandhi.
Messrs Nehru and Patel were offensively aggressive to Gandhi ji….There was something psychopathic about it. They seemed to have set their heart on something and, whenever they scented that Gandhi ji was preparing to obstruct them, they barked violently.” It is both disheartening and insulting because ‘sons’ are not expected to bark at their Bapu. Jaswant Singh in his book India, parition and Jinnah
The official historical discourse in India has also purposely cultivated a mythical Nehru-Gandhi relationship with Gandhi as the ‘political father’ of Nehru. Jaswant’s research has blown apart this myth. Way back in the 1927 Madras session, these two stalwarts clashed with one another: Gandhi insisting on dominion status whereas Nehru demanding complete independence for India. Moreover, Nehru disagreed with several other Gandhian precepts: “…you expected the Khadi Movement to spread rapidly…our Khadi work is almost wholly divorced from politics….What then can be done?…you only criticise and no helpful lead comes from you…” After reading Gandhi’s articles in Young India, he lamented: “I have often felt how very different my ideals were from yours…
You misjudge greatly….I neither think that the so-called Ramaraj was very good in the past, nor do I want it back.” And while disagreeing with his ‘Mahatma’ that Indian poverty could be eradicated by village employment, Nehru lambasted: “You do not say a word against the semi-feudal zamindari system…or against the capitalist exploitation of both the workers and the consumers.” Gandhi could not digest such strictures lightly and shot back: “The differences between you and me appear to me to be so vast and radical that there seems no meeting ground between us.” Jaswant’s ‘shock therapy’ By Basharat Hussain Qizilbash | Published: October 12, 2009
PERSONAL FAILURE: The Dark side of the pedophile
- My meaning of brahmacharya is this: “One who never has any lustful intention, who . . . has become capable of lying naked with naked women . . . without being in any manner whatsoever sexually excited.” –M. K. Gandhi
- The greater the temptation, the greater the renunciation. –M. K. Gandhi
- I threw you in the sacrificial fire and you emerged safe and sound.–Gandhi to his grandniece Manu Gandhi
- I can hurt colleagues and the entire world for the sake of truth.–M. K. Gandhi (letter to shila Nayar)
- [Gandhi] can think only in extremes-either extreme eroticism or asceticism. –Jawaharlal Nehru
- The professional Don Juan destroys his spirit as fatally as does the professional ascetic, whose [mirror] image he is. –Aldous Huxley, Do What You Will
- If Gandhi was alive today, he would be arrested for sexual abuse and put away for life as a sexual offender.
Gandhi slept naked with his niece (and 12 year old girls) and other women to prove that he could control his manliness.
“We know from his autobiography how shamefully he treated his wife. He was transparently honest and he had much less to hide from anyone else. Nothing can be found if other public figures are to be scrutinized because things have been carefully hidden and suppressed.” Gandhi, the family man. Gandhi’s Grandson.
- The 109th Congress of the United States of America condemned Gandhi for his racism
- Gandhi used to beat his wife up routinely making a mockery of Non-Violence.
Gandhi was having sex when his father lay breathing his last upstairs. - Gandhi denied sex to his wife for decades while sleeping with other peoples wives (Bose etc)
- Gandhi was an adulterer and had a spiritual marriage with two British women who were in the Ashram
- Gandhi slept naked with his niece (and 12 year old girls) and other women to prove that he could control his manliness.
- Gandhi would do enemas twice a day and if he liked you allowed you to enter the piece up his rectum.
- Gandhi used to drink his own urine and also the urine of cows. Chilled Urine drinking hot in India. From Gandhi to Prime Minister Desai to common man
- Hindu India: A gift from the Hindu Gods: Cows Urine: UK Telegraph reports by Julian West
- Gandhi son left him and converted to Islam.
- The racist Gandhi was a total failure in South Africa where he tried to stratify the society, Whites, Indians and Africans. His racism towards the Africans was horrendous. His horrific advice to all Jews to commit suicide was abominable. His atrocious letters to his friend Hitler were the height of stupidity.
- Gandhi condones Zulu massacres and defends the British. Aug 4 1906
- The sex life of Mr. Gandhi, and his failures as a politician
- The myth of Mohandas K. Gandhi debunked. He gets an “F” on South Africa, Salt Match, Non-Violence, and independence
- Which war did Mohandas Gandhi support. All of them. There wasn’t a war that the prophet of Non-Violence did not support. He was Sergeant Major in the British Army and won a medal for his war duties
- Gandhi’s racism. The truth behind the mask. Behold Sergeant Major Gandhi who supported the British during the Boer war, Zulu rebellion. Behold the prophet of peace who worked to stratify the South African society.Gandhi did not bring the British Empire down.
- Gandhi’s letter to his friend Hitler.
- Sex life of Mohandas Gandhi, his failures and sexual perversion
- Gandhi’s wrote letters to his friend Hitler and supported him. Gandhi’s horrific advice to Jews—Commit mass suicide. “We have no doubt about your bravery or devotion to your fatherland, nor do we believe that you are the monster described by your opponents.” Gandhi to Hitler.
- Professor Gier says “One defense that could be made for Gandhi’s actions is that he experienced intimate relations with men as well. Hermann Kallenbach, a South Africa associate, was very close to the Mahatma. Kallenbach promised that he would travel to the “ends of the earth in search of [Gandhian] Truth,” and he also promised Gandhi that he would never marry. Gandhi reciprocated by declaring unconditional love and a declaration that they would always be “one soul in two bodies.”
- Gier says “Mirabehn agreed with Gandhi’s depiction that their passion was like a “bed of hot ashes,” a veritable ascetic-erotic rhapsody of yogic tapas.Gandhi also shared with Mirabehn agonies about his spontaneous erections, daytime ejaculations, and wet dreams, for which he castigated himself unmercifully, and they even discussed the causes and cures of constipation”.
“The Indian government contributed $10 million for the movie Gandhi (Detailed debunking on this site). It is based on a book of fiction called “Freedom at Midnight” by Collins et al. You can see glossed over failures and the perversion in the movie Gandhi but it is not overt and explicitly shown. You have to be smart and familiar with the history to see it embedded in the movie.
For all his vaunted selflessness and modesty, he made no move to object when Jinnah was attacked during a Congress session for calling him “Mr. Gandhi” instead of “Mahatma“, and booed off the stage by the Gandhi’s supporters.
He was determined to live his life as an ascetic, a symbol of a religious man. As the poet Sarojini Naidu, who was known as the “Nightingale of India joked, “it costs the nation a fortune(millions) to keep Gandhi living in poverty.” An entire village including an Ashram was built for him His philosophy privileged the village way over that of the city, yet he was always financially dependent on the support of industrial billionaires like Birla. Birlas were the ones who controlled his every move and were responsible for marketing Gandhi Inc.
Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi slept with 12 year old female virgins Hsi Laii
This is what Time Magazine says:
“Exceptions to the author’s reserve mostly center on Gandhi’s limitations as a family man. Where the world sees a saint, Rajmohan Gandhi sees a cruel husband and a mostly absent father, paying scant attention to his children’s schooling and dragging wife Kasturba across continents at will, belittling her desire for the simplest of material possessions, then expecting her to comply when he turns from amorous husband to platonic companion to apparent adulterer.”
Gandhi took on a magnetic personality in the presence of young women, and was able to persuade them to join him in peculiar experiments of sleeping and bathing naked together, without touching, all apparently to strengthen his chastity. (Whether these experiments were always successful is anyone’s guess.) It is also revealed that Gandhi began a romantic liaison with Saraladevi Chaudhurani, niece of the great poet Rabindranath Tagore—a disclosure that has created a buzz in the Indian press. The author tells us that Gandhi, perhaps disingenuously, called it a “spiritual marriage,” a “partnership between two persons of the opposite sex where the physical is wholly absent.“
This bombshell occupies only five pages, but it gives Rajmohan Gandhi enough material for his book’s redeeming feature—namely, the clear depiction of the tensions between Gandhi’s erratic emotional compass and his unswerving moral one. For despite the occasional salacious lapses, the overarching principle that infused Gandhi’s life was his intrinsic belief in the equality of all souls.
““Mahatma Gandhi was not shy of speaking about his relationship with his women associates, except in a few cases. He wanted the world to know of his tryst with Brahmacharya in which women constituted an integral part. He kept a meticulous record and tried to make the players keep the records too. Alas! Most of them seem to have either destroyed the records or refused to disclose the intensity of their feelings. A construct, however, is still possible based on Gandhiji’s writings and on basis of writings of some of them, who were involved. Gandhiji persuaded Kanchan Shah, his role model for Married Brahmacharya, and Prabhavati, wife of Jaiprakash Narayan, to practice married Brahmacharya. It was a difficult odyssey and the book tries to analyse why it was difficult.”
“It was the revulsion from sex that forced Gandhiji to take the vow of Brahamacharya in 1906. Then onwards, till the laboratory experiment in Noakhali, Gandhiji kept trying to find out if it was possible to overcome desire and remain a brahmachari. There were more than a dozen women who came to closely associated with him at one time or the other. Some of them were foreigners – Millie Graham Polak, Sonja Schlesin, Esther Faering, Nilla Cram Cook, Margarete Spiegel and Mirabehn. Prabhavati, Kanchan Shah, Shushila Nayyar and Manu Gandhi formed a part of his entourage at various points in time. He called JEKI “the Only Adopted Daughter”. Gandhiji was too found of Saraldevi Chowdharani, Rabindranath Tagore’s niece, and often displayed her as his mannequin for popularizing Khadi. He called her his “spiritual wife”.
His closeness to Saraladevi or arguments on Brahmacharya with Premabehn Kantak created a storm in the ashram and exposed him to public glare. He was undaunted and made a tactical retreat to allow the storm to subside. Soon things were back to normal. While the world was unsure, the Mahatma was sure of his actions.
There was a definite attraction in Gandhiji that brought womenfolk to him. It is quite possible that they were looking for glory and he provided the opportunity. Some like Mirabehn were inspired by his ideals and wanted to devote their entire life to his cause. But once they came close, Gandhiji and not his cause became their obsession. They hardly knew this was the next step to losing him, as the Mahatma could not be chained. He had higher goals. The book is a psycho-biography and a study of man-woman relationship involving one of the greatest men in living memory.”
Gandhi’s limitations as a family man. Where the world sees a saint, Rajmohan Gandhi sees a cruel husband and a mostly absent father, paying scant attention to his children’s schooling and dragging wife Kasturba across continents at will, belittling her desire for the simplest of material possessions, then expecting her to comply when he turns from amorous husband to platonic companion to apparent adulterer. Gandhi took on a magnetic personality in the presence of young women, and was able to persuade them to join him in peculiar experiments of sleeping and bathing naked together, without touching, all apparently to strengthen his chastity. (Whether these experiments were always successful is anyone’s guess.) It is also revealed that Gandhi began a romantic liaison with Saraladevi Chaudhurani, niece of the great poet Rabindranath Tagore—a disclosure that has created a buzz in the Indian press. The author tells us that Gandhi, perhaps disingenuously, called it a “spiritual marriage,” a “partnership between two persons of the opposite sex where the physical is wholly absent.”
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1609478,00.html
Lecher Gandhi who slept with young naked young girls
Excerpts from Gandhi’ Grandson’s Book “Mohandas”:
- “Saraladevi was the topic of discussion in undertones and overtones among his friends, associated and family members. How could Ba not be affected? The years 1919 and 1920 were years of mental torture and agony for her”. (page 220)
- Gandhiji referred to “small-talks, whispers and innuendos” going around of which he was well aware: “He was already in the midst of so much suspicion and distrust, he told the gathering, that he did not want his most innocent acts to be misunderstood and misrepresented”. (page 339)
- “The Sarla Devi episode in his life establishes his humanity. To suppress any information on Gandhi would have meant doing injustice to what he stood for all his life – truth. I have only presented the facts as a scholar not a sensationalist journalist” (Mr Gandhi the grandson of Mohandas Gandhi
- The book “Mohandas” also describes Gandhi’s practice of brahmacharya in his life. He would sleep nude with his niece Manu. “It’s a matter of historical record. This has been written about many times. Even Gandhi wrote about it. In doing so, he was surrendering his sexuality and that of his partner’s, after passing a huge test,“
- Dr. Sushila Nayar told Ved Mehta that she used to sleep with Gandhi as she regarded him as a Hindu god.
- Responding to noted Gandhian Rajmohan Gandhi’s recent claim about Mahatma Gandhi’s fondness for Sarla Devi, his granddaughter Tara Gandhi Bhattacharjee on Friday said as a man of great aesthetic sensibility, if Gandhi felt attracted to a “woman of intellect”it could be natural. Elaborating her point, Bhattacharjee said Mahatma Gandhi also admired the way Rajkumari Amrit Kaur held her pen.
In another book “Mira and the Mahatma”, psychoanalyst Sudhir Kakkar delves deep into the desires that lay buried in the “Mahatma’s” heart. The hero pines for the company of his Mira who is away from him. “You are on the brain. I look about me, and I miss you. I open the charkha and miss you,” (Excerpt from Sudhir Kakkar’s book).
Indira Nehru and Mohandas Gandhi. How close were they?
- Behold the God that supported the British wars, did not oppose “Apartheid” in South Africa, beat his wife, slept naked with his niece and had affairs with various women.”
- In his book The Sexual Teachings of the White Tigress: Secrets of the Female Taoist Masters, Hsi Lai writes that Mahatma Gandhi “periodically slept between two twelve-year-old female virgins. …as an ancient practice of rejuvenating his male energy. . . . Taoists called this method ‘using the ultimate yin to replenish the yang.’” Thackeray questions Gandhi’s celibacy:
NEW DELHI, Dec. 27: Remarks by right-wing politician Bal Thackeray questioning the celibacy of Mahatma Gandhi, father of the Indian nation, have caused a furore, reports said on Friday. - “Gandhiji was always accompanied by two girls. Yet that was okay with everyone. If we do something, we are criticised. Gandhi’s celibacy was a fraud,” press reports quoted Thackeray, chief of the regional Shiv Sena party which rules the western sate of Maharashtra in coalition with the Hindu nationalist Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), as having said”.
- “Freedom at Midnight”: Interested readers may look up Chapter 4 (A Last Tattoo)
- “…at the age of sixty-seven, thirty years after he had sworn his vow of brahmacharya, Gandhi awoke after an arousing dream with what would have been to most men of that age a source of some satisfaction, but was to Gandhi a calamity, an erection.” [Page 81, Freedom at Midnight, Simon& Schuster Edition,1975].
- The following is a quote from Collins and La Pierre in Freedom at Midnight.Chapter 4 (A Last Tattoo For A Dieing Raj)
“Gandhi saw in Manu’s words the chance to make her the perfect female votary. “If out of India’s millions of daughters, I can train even one into an ideal woman by becoming an ideal mother to you” he told he “I shall have remembered a unique service to womankind”. But first he felt he had to be sure she was telling the truth. Only his closest collaborators were accompanying him to Noakhali, he informed her, but she would be welcome, provided she submitted to his discipline and went through the test which he meant to subject her.
They would, he decreed, share each night the crude straw pallet which passed for his bed. He regarded himself her mother; she had said that she found nothing but a mothers love for him. If they were both truthful, if he remained firm in his ancient vow of chastity and she had never know sexual arousal, then they would be able to lie together in the innocence of a mother daughter. If one of them was not being truthful, they would soon discover it.
- “…at the age of sixty-seven, thirty years after he had sworn his vow of Brahmacharya, Gandhi awoke after an arousing dream with what would have been to most men of that age a source of some satisfaction, but was to Gandhi a calamity, an erection.”[Page 81, Freedom at Midnight , Simon & Schuster Edition,1975].
- Collins does not mention what Manu said or did, or what the collaborators heard!! Apparently Bose did. He raised Cane, and alerted many around Gandhi.
- Erik H Erikson (american psychoanalys) while doing his research in india on Ghandi wrote about Ghandis episodes with other women besides Manu the articles were also published in new yorker of 1996. He gives the reference of a book by Nirmal Bose : My days with Gandhi. It deals with this problem and other, very respectfully in two chapters
- On 3.2.1947 he said, as Nirmal Bose quotes :
- ” What [ he was ?]doing was not for imitation. It was undoubtedly dangerous, but it ceased to be so if the conditions were rigidly observed. ”
GANDHI GETS CAUGHT WITH HIS PANTS DOWN:-LITERALLY
-
- Gandhi condones Zulu massacres and defends the British. Aug 4 1906 The sex life of Mr. Gandhi, and his failures as a politician The myth of Mohandas K. Gandhi debunked. He gets an “F” on South Africa, Salt Match, Non-Violence, and independence Which war did Mohandas Gandhi support. All of them. There wasn’t a war that the prophet of Non-Violence did not support. He was Sergeant Major in the British Army and won a medal for his war duties Gandhi’s racism. The truth behind the mask. Behold Sergeant Major Gandhi who supported the British during the Boer war, Zulu rebellion. Behold the prophet of peace who worked to stratify the South African society.Gandhi did not bring the British Empire down. Gandhi’s letter to his friend Hitler. Sex life of Mohandas Gandhi, his failures and sexual perversion Gandhi’s wrote letters to his friend Hitler and supported him. Gandhi’s horrific advice to Jews—Commit mass suicide. “We have no doubt about your bravery or devotion to your fatherland, nor do we believe that you are the monster described by your opponents.” Gandhi to Hitler
-
- Lecher Gandhi who slept with young naked girls
-
- The Truth about Mohandas Gandhi will shock you: http://www.mohandasgandhi.com
-
- Gandhi’s horrific advice to all Jews to commit suicide was abominable. His atrocious letters to his friend Hitler were the height of stupidity.
-
- The racist Gandhi was a total failure in South Africa where he tried to stratify the society, Whites, Indians and Africans. His racism towards the Africans was horrendous.
-
- Gandhi son left him and converted to Islam. Mohandas Gandhi was condemned for racism by the 109th Congress of the US
-
- Gandhi used to drink his own urine and also the urine of cows. Chilled Urine drinking is hot in India. From Gandhi to Prime Minister Desai to common man. Hindu India: A gift from the Hindu Gods:Cows Urine: UK Telegraph reports by Julian West
-
- Gandhi would do enemas twice a day and if he liked you allowed you to enter the piece up his rectum.
-
- Gandhi slept naked with his niece (and 12 year old girls) and other women to prove that he could control his manliness.
-
- Gandhi was an adulterer and had a spiritual marriage with two British women who were in the Ashram
-
- Gandhi was having sex when his father lay breathing his last upstairs. Gandhi denied sex to his wife for decades while sleeping with other peoples wives (Bose etc)
-
- Gandhi used to beat his wife up routinely making a mockery of Non-Violence. The Nobel Peace Prize committee criticized him and rejected his nomination twice
“During his Noakhali tour of 1946, Gandhi used to sleep with the nineteen-year-old Manu. When Nirmal Bose, his Bengali interpreter, saw this he protested, asserting that the experiments must be having bad psychological effects on the girl.
In his book “My Days with Gandhi”, published in 1953 with great difficulty and at his own expense, he offers a Freudian interpretation to Gandhi’s experiments. It is generally believed that Gandhi started sleeping with women toward the close of his life. According to Sushila Nayar, he started much earlier. However, at the time he called it ‘nature cure.’ She told Mehta, ‘long before Manu came into the picture I used to sleep with him just as I would with my mother. He might say my back aches. Put some pressure on it. So I might put some pressure on it or lie down on his back and he might just go to sleep. In the early days there was no question of calling this a brahamacharya experiment. It was just part of nature cure. Later on, when people started asking questions about his physical contact with women, the idea of brahamacharya experiments was developed. Don’t ask me any more questions about brahamacharya experiments. There is nothing to say, unless you have a dirty mind like Bose.’Mahatma Gandhi and His Apostles is an extremely well-written book. Mehta has made it highly readable with his subtle expression and suave sarcasm, particularly when he reproduces his conversations with Gandhians. He has shown courage in unraveling some of the myths woven around Gandhi by his blind followers. The latter will certainly be dismayed by Mehta’s forthrightness. The book has created a tumult in the Indian Parliament. It will be a great pity if it is banned”. http://www.sikhtimes.com/books_020278a.html
POLITICAL FAILURE OF GANDHI:
- For his services in helping the British raise an army, he was awarded titles.Meanwhile India was still suffering under British colonial rule. Gandhi arrived in England during the first week of the World War, and again he supported the British by raising and leading an ambulance corps; but he became ill and returned to India in January 1915….In the spring of 1918 Gandhi was persuaded by the British to help raise soldiers for a final victory effort in the war. Charlie Andrews criticized Gandhi for recruiting Indians to fight for the British. Gandhi spoke to large audiences……
- The myth of Mohandas K. Gandhi debunked. He gets an “F” on South Africa, Salt Match, Non-Violence, and independence
- Which war did Mohandas Gandhi support. All of them. There wasn’t a war that the prophet of Non-Violence did not support. He was Sergeant Major in the British Army and won a medal for his war duties
- Gandhi’s racism. The truth behind the mask. Behold Sergeant Major Gandhi who supported the British during the Boer war, Zulu rebellion. Behold the prophet of peace who worked to stratify the South African society.
- Gandhi did not bring the British Empire down.
- Gandhi’s letter to his friend Hitler.
THE “MAHATMA” MONIKER WAS AWARDED TO GANDHI AS REWARD FOR HIS SUPPORT FOR THE WAR: GANDHI LET HIMSELF BE USED EVANGELIST MISSIONARIES IN THE SUBCONTINENT FOR CONVERSION.
- The myth of Mohandas K. Gandhi debunked. He gets an “F” on South Africa, Salt Match, Non-Violence, and independence.
Which war did Mohandas Gandhi support. All of them. There wasn’t a war that the prophet of Non-Violence did not support. He was Sergeant Major in the British Army and won a medal for his war duties - Gandhi’s racism. The truth behind the mask. Behold Sergeant Major Gandhi who supported the British during the Boer war, Zulu rebellion. Behold the prophet of peace who worked to stratify the South African society.
- Mr. Mohandas Gandhi was converted into a “Mahatma”under the auspices of the British in South Africa. Its genesis was started by the white Christian clergy. Rev. Joseph J. Doke, a Baptist Minster was the first to write the biography of M. K. Gandhi.
What started as a ploy became an avalanche under a well planned scheme. Pastor John H. Holmes, a Unitarian “priest” from New York praised Gandhi in his writings and sermons with titles like:
After the Labor Atlee government took over in Britain, the only point of discussion was “when” to dismantle the colonies. Nigeria, Malaysia, Kuwait, Iraq all got their independence without any “Gandhi”.What kind of national leaders sits in a religious “Ashram” and wears a monk like religious uniform? Would this sort of enlightened soul be acceptable to a diverse population? The answer is no.
- “Gandhi: The Modern Christ”
- “Mahatma Gandhi: The Greatest Man since Jesus Christ”,
- “Mahatma Ji: Reincarnation of Christ”and
- “Gandhi before Pilate.”
Romain Rolland, the French Nobel Laureate in literature thought of Gandhi not only as a Hindu saint, but also “another Christ”. He wrote Gandhi’s new biography in French which poured praise on the the deity— “Gandhi is the One Luminous, Creator of All,” “Mahatma.”
At this juncture the Nehru-Gandhi loyalist Hindus were brought in. Muslims and others from the Subcontinent were left aghast when Krishnalal Shridharni elevated Gandhi to the status of twentieth century Hindu god – “The seventh reincarnation of Vishnu, Lord Rama.”
One of the objectives of colonialism was the “civilize” the “natives” and the “tribes”. According to Rudyard Kipling this was the “White Man’s Burden”. The British machinery and their acolytes, the Christian clergy had an ulterior motive in building the Gandhi myth. Similar schemes had worked in Africa and Latin America. Local deities were “included” in Christian concepts to make it more palatable to the people. Later these “local influences” would be purged.
The Colonial rulers thought that by elevating Gandhi to a 20th century messiah and then converting him would open the flood gate for evangelizing and converting the Hindu and masses. However Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi was not Emperor Constantine, and was unable to fulfill the wishes of the colonial masters.
Many believe that this wish of foreign funded Christian Missionaries is being fulfilled by Christian Sonia Gandhi and her Christian lobby. Many Indians are upset that Glady Stains was awarded Padmshree. Many Indians are upset at the missionary activities of the faith healer Benny Hinn’s organized in Bangalore with the support of Andhra Government to please, Sonia Gandhi, the Pope and the Vatican City’s its Indian ambassador.
- The biggest Urban Myth is that Mr. Gandhi led a movement for the independence from the British. Gandhi did not bring the British empire to its knees. By supporting the British war effort in South Africa as well as in the Subcontinent, he actually prolonged Britain’s occupation of the Subcontinent and prolonged the life of the British Empire. In 1945 the tottering “empire” was its knees already. Actually it had been knocked out (KO!).
- WW2 with 50 million dead had totally destroyed London and decimated the infrastructure of the country. There was no appetite for empire. British voters threw out Churchill. The exhausted British had already decided to leave all her colonies after the 2nd world war.
- It is nonsensical to say that Gandhi won freedom for the Subcontinent “without spilling a drop of blood.” Non-violence was just a slogan. One million died in 1947. In the 40?s when the British colonial rule was taking its last breadth there was a strong wave of nationalism across the globe, in China, in Malaysia, in Nigeria, in South Africa, and in the Subcontinent. Many of the leaders were Tipu Sultan, Bahadar Shah Zafar, Alam Iqbal, Mohhammad Ali Jinnah, Maula Mohammad Azad, The Ali Brothers, Maulana Abdul Bari Farangi Mahali, Lokmanya Tilak, Chaudhry Rehmat Ali, Gokhale, Lal Lajpat Rai, Veer Savarkar and many other unnamed heroes.
- Their sacrifices were not less than Mahatma Gandhi. Gandhi came to the political scene in India after Jinnah, Iqbal, and Sir Syed. He came after Tilak Yug, Subhash Chandra Bose launched the “Azad Hind Fauj.” The devastating affects of the 2nd Tribal War (World War II) forced the British government to abandon her Colonial Empire.
GANDHI WAS “CREATED” TO USE THE SOUTH AFRICANS IN THE BRITISH WARS: Gandhi was a creation of the British and they used him to get the South Africans to fight in the British wars. He also stratified the South African society. From Oct. 1899 to May 31st, 1902 Mahatma Gandhi did not mention in “Non-Violence.”At the beginning of the South African War, Gandhi argued that “Indians must support the War effort in order to legitimize their claims to full citizenship. ”
The “Prophet of Non-Violence“, the “apostle of peace” urged the Indians to support the British by enlisting in the army during World War I.
GANDHI WAS A TOTAL FAILURE IN SOUTH AFRICA: Gandhi was a failure in South Africa and a failed attorney in Bombay. His failure hardened “Apartheid” and it took decades to dismantle it. This created a rift with the Black of South Africa who rejected this. Gandhi urged the colonial authorities to raise a volunteer militia of Indians to fight for the Empire. Gandhi informed the “South African Natal Authorities” that it would be a “criminal folly” if they did not enlist Indians for the war. Mr. Gandhi urged the Indian community to show their loyalty to the British Empire by raising funds for the War. He reminded them that they were in South Africa due to the courtesy of the Empire.
- “A general belief seems to prevail in the colony that the Indians are little better, if at all, than the savages or natives of Africa. Even the children are taught to believe in that manner, with the result that the Indian is being dragged down to the position of a raw Kaffir.” (Reference: The Collected Works of Mahatma Gandhi, Government of India (CWMG), Vol I, p. 150)
- Regarding forcible registration with the state of blacks: “One can understand the necessity for registration of Kaffirs who will not work.” (Reference: CWMG, Vol I, p. 105)
- “Why, of all places in Johannesburg, the Indian Location should be chosen for dumping down all the Kaffirs of the town passes my comprehension…the Town Council must withdraw the Kaffirs from the Location.” (Reference: CWMG, Vol I, pp. 244-245)
- His description of black inmates: “Only a degree removed from the animal.” Also, “Kaffirs are as a rule uncivilized – the convicts even more so. They are troublesome, very dirty and live almost like animals.” – Mar. 7, 1908 (Reference: CWMG, Vol VIII, pp. 135-136)
- The Durban Post Office: One of Gandhi’s major “achievements” in South Africa was to promote racial segregation by refusing to share a post office door with the black natives.
GANDHI WAS IMPORTED TO THE SUBCONTINENT BY THE BRITISH:The British Empire included many countries in Africa and Asia. In the Subcontinent it included more than 500 states. At the end of the 2nd Tribal War in Europe (WW2), the pillars of the once mighty British Empire were collapsing. In the Subcontinent the War of Independence of 1857 (also known as “Indian Mutiny“) had failed.Gandhi’s arrival in India was a carefully planned and crafted scheme to get rid of the Muslim leadership in the Indian National Congress. Some of the biggest millionaires in India devised a marketing plan to construct a leader for a superstitious, illiterate and colonized people. Gandhi was the perfect candidate.
He was imported from South Africa. Special trains were constructed to transport Gandhi in “3rd class” bogeys. the brilliance of his image: the huge ears, toothless smile, round glasses, the loincloth, the staff. I remember a factoid from somewhere that the most recognized characters on earth were Gandhiji and, no offence, Mickey Mouse. And no, it wasn’t the big ears. It was the deliberate cultivation of an iconic figure with his sartorial abnegation, something that would appeal instantly and instinctively to his target audience, the average Indian. Something that would resonate strongly with the ascetic tradition of the land; the intentional invocation of the poorest of the poor, the salt of the earth…..As Sarojini Naidu is said to have complained, it cost India millions to keep Gandhiji in poverty. But the packaging and positioning” The Man who knew marketing byRajeev Srinivasan The man who knew marketing
The Salt March and his fast in Calcutta were managed events for publicity and fund raising. Huge crowds were attracted to this circus. Funds were generated to support the Indian National Congress and other organizations which unleashed a campaign of terror against the Muslims of Bengal and Kashmir.
Initially the INC was not a communal organization but it used the RSS and the Jan Sangh to do its dirty work. The machinery worked overtime to put the Subcontinent on the track of Ram Rajhya.
- Gandhi first introduced Hindu religious symbols to Motilal Nehru’s Secular Indian National Congress and then tried to make all of India succumb to a racist Hindu Ram Rajha rule.
G D Birla’s personal memoirs “‘In the Shadow of the Mahatma: A Personal Memoir’” reveals that he undertook many visits to England on his own and utilised the opportunity of to sell Gandhi. He acted as the appointed agent of Gandhi to meet Winston Churchill, Lord Halifax, Sir Samuel Hoare, Lord Lothian, Stanley Baldwin, Ramsay McDonald and several other great English statesmen were G D Birla’s close friends. G D Birla’s was in close touch Lala Lajpath Rai, Pundit Madanmohan Malaviya, Pundit Motilal Nehru, Srinivasa Sastri, Sardar Vallabhai Patel, Rajaji and several others. The racists bigots like Patel, Rai and others were the ones who were advising Birla on how to sell Ram Rajha to the British under the guise of Non-violence.
Sunil Khilnani has says that Gandhi’s vision was essentially religious His solution was to forge an Indian identity out of the shared knowledge of ancient scriptures. “He turned to the legends and stories from the India’s popular religious traditions, preferring their lessons to the supposed ones of the history“.
Today’s India tells us that it didn’t work then and it doesn’t work now. In today’s India, Hindu nationalism is rampant in the form of the Bhartiya Janta Party. During the recent elections, Gandhi and his ideas have scarcely been mentioned. India has had wars with all her neighbors, Nepal, Burma, Bangaldesh, Sikkim, Bhutan, Sril Lanka and of course Pakistan.
The British brought Gandhi back to India from South Africa to sabotage Indian national movement against British rule. The Congress Party at the time was a secular party. At the expense of other important people Nehru-Gandhi were imposed on the party which had been set up under the patronage of the British authorities.
- “One of his reason for launching the Civil Disobedient Movement is to contain the violence of revolutionaries.”
The 2nd World War broke out in 1939 after Nazi Germany invaded Poland. Initially, Mr. Gandhi favored offering “non-violent moral support” to the British effort, but other Congress leaders were offended by the unilateral inclusion of the people of the Subcontinent into the war, without the consultation of the people’s representatives (INC,ML, AD, RSS, Jan Sangh etc.).
MR GANDHI INTRODUCED RELIGIOUS SYMBOLISM INTO THE SUBCONTINENTAL POLITICS: THIS LED TO THE ALIENATION OF MUSLIMS ETC.
Mr. Gandhi introduced religious symbols into politics which led to the Indian National attracting the communalists like Patel.
As a result of the Ashrams and the satyargarhs and the Banda Mahtaram INC became a Hindu Party with the Muslims in the Muslim League and the Sikhs in the Akali Dal. Unable to agree on the Cabinet Mission Plan all agreed to gain independence in a different manner from the British. Gandhi’s religious symbols eventually led to the BJP ruling India, Ayodhia and the massacres in Gujrat. Secularism in India means “Hinduism Light”. Dynastic “Democracy” in India was imposed to wrest the control of India from Muslim lands. Land reforms were forced on a vulnerable Muslim population and their lands were confiscated.
SCHEME TO DETHRONE THE MUSLIMS FROM THE CORRIDORS OF POWER: A scheme was created to disable the Muslim infrastructure of India and get rid of the rulers who had ruled India for more than a thousand years. A word that had not been in vogue was issued into the lexicon of the English language. This word “Democracy” did not appear in the American Constitution and Socrates, Jeffersen, Hamilton and others had written much against it. However the word galvanized the people of Britain and America to fight Fascism. It worked to draw in the Americans to the war. The British used this word to seduce the Hindus of the Subcontinent to lure them into supporting them so that after they left, they would rule the Subcontinent–something they had not dreamed about in more than a thousand years.The politics of sex locked the British Empire into irrational decision making. There is an overwhelming body of evidence to show that Lord Mountbatten was gay. Lord Mountbatten was seduced by Mr. Nehru whose homosexual tendencies have been mentioned by Stanley Wolpert and others. Lord Mountbatten’s wife Edwina’s affair with Mr. Nehru is well known also.
GANDHI WAS A FAILURE IN THE SUBCONTINENT:
Gandhi had pledged to keep a several fasts to death to prevent. Invariably he got sick enough and stopped.
The anti-Muslim thrust of some of Gandhi’s Hindu opponents combined with Muslim separatism to produce Pakistan.” Gandhi’s grandson
The Gandhi opponents in India were unhappy with him for “allowing Pakistan”. They also think that the “protest fast unto death and the non-violent arm of Gandhism was a fraud. Both Mahatma Gandhi and British Empire knew this. This was a friendly fight as Congress, its allies and left fronts are doing. After all they are true loyalist of Nehru Gandhi dynasty. “
THE NON-VIOLENCE SLOGAN WAS FOR THE SAKE OF THE BRITISH RULERS
The “Non Violence” theme in the Subcontinent was a great marketing ploy of Mr. Nehru and Mr. Gandhi.
Gandhis sole contribution to history was to make 150 million Muslims of India subservient to the Hindus. Attempts to make another 300 million subservient continue.Other than lip service he was unable to eliminate the caste system in India. Sati and “White Widows” remain instilled in the fabric of India.
Source: Mohandas by Gandhi’s grandson, In Search of Truth by Mohandas Gandhi, Freedom at Midnight by Le Pierre (screen play for the movie Gandhi).
Mohandas– a true story of a man, his people and an empire, on Mahatma Gandhi” by former Parliamentarian and writer Mr. Rajmohan Gandhi
Sources: Time Magazine http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1609478,00.html
Gandhi’s racism: The truth behind the mask. Behold Sergeant-Major Gandhi who supported the British during the Boer War and Zulu Rebellion. Behold the prophet of peace who worked to stratify the society in South Africa, Whites, Indians and Blacks based on the Hindu Caste system. Behold the “Enlightened One” that supported the British effort in World War one, and packed off thousands to the war effort to be used as cannon-fodder. Behold the pacifist that sent thousands to kill millions. Behold the “mahatma” that supported the British in World War 2 and encouraged the Indians to support the British war, thus perpetuating the colonial rule in the Subcontinent and supporting the Empire.
END OF ARTICLE
APPENDIX 1
Gandhi would do enemas twice a day and if he liked you allowed you to enter the piece up his rectum.
In a fascinating article title “Gandhi’s girls – sex scandal” Art Levine sheds light on Mr. Gandhi’s women. The artilce was published in Washington Monthly, July-August, 1987
The article was unique for 1987 when someone dared to challenge the Bharati machinery and discussed “Gandhi’s Girls” in a very open manner. Today of course there is copious information available, thanks to the research of Dr. Singh, Dr. Watson and Gandhi’s own grandsons.
- India, 1942: In the end, the political demise of Mohandas Gandhi came with stunning speed. Until last week, he was the reversed Mahatma–the Great Soul– leader of 400 million IndArt ians in the drive for independence from British colonial rule. With the election of the Labour Government in Britain increasingly likely, chances never seemed brighter for the free India that Gandhi had sought for so long.
- But by week’s end, in the wake of newspaper accounts of Gandhi’s sexual peccadilloes, bizarre personal habits and mind-bending cult practices, his career–and perhaps Indian nationalism –lay in ruins. Those closest to Gandhi likened it to a Greek tragedy, a giant cut down by his own hands. “Gandhi’s personal life was a political time bomb waiting to explode,’ said one distraught associate. “Now it’s finally blown up in our faces.’
- Ironically, Gandhi set the stage for his demise through his own pronouncements on sex. His obsession began in 1885 when he learned of his father’s death while in bed with his wife. By 1906, he had taken a much celebrated vow of celibacy. An extraordinary commitment, but even then Gandhi was angling for moral loopholes. “If for want of physical enjoyment,’ he wrote, “the mind wallows in thoughts of enjoyment, then it is legitimate to satisfy the hungers of the body.’ For years, supporters now admit, Gandhi had pushed the outer limits of propriety. “The man in the loin cloth, it seems, has thought a good deal about loins,’ said one observer.
- After years of such rumors, it was the specific nature of the latest charges, followed by other damaging revelations, that undermined his political base. The shock waves were felt throughout the British empire–and new questions were raised about how relevant a politician’s character was to his work, and whether in the case of Gandhi, the Fourth Estate went too far.
- A Spiritual Experience? The trouble began a week ago when the New Delhi Herald published a front page story reporting that Gandhi had spent the weekend with five attractive young women–aides in his nonviolent campaign–at his ashram in Sevegram. Meanwhile, his wife Kasturbai was 2,000 miles away at their mountain retreat in Kashmir recuperating from an illness.
- Escorting them was Gandhi’s aide, the movie star-handsome Jawaharlal Nehru. With his urbane charm and stylish taste in jackets, Nehru never had any pretense to celibacy. (His intimacies with Lady Mountbatten are infamous.) Campaign insiders said that they had long been alarmed by Gandhi’s ties to Nehru, and several suggested their time together be cut back. “We told him to dump Nehru,’ said one aide. “But the old man would just sit there and smile. He didn’t see the storm coming.’
- It was advice Gandhi must now wish he had heeded. New Delhi Herald reporters and photographers were hiding in nearby bushes, guarding both the front and rear entrances. Except for a breath of fresh air at 3 A.M., the women had spent the entire night with the erstwhile spiritual leader. If the chronology was indicting, the photographs were positively damning. Wielding telephoto lenses, the Herald photographers snapped shots that seem sure to snuff out a political career. The scene: Gandhi and his cabal sprawled on his rope bed– naked.
- Late Sunday morning, a weary Gandhi finally spotted the Herald reporters and confronted them. The women were only there as an experiment in self-restraint, he insisted, and nothing sexual transpired between them. “True brachmacharya (celibacy) is this: one who, by constant-attendance upon God, has become capable of lying naked with naked women, however beautiful they may be, without being in any manner whatsoever sexually excited. I have done nothing wrong,’ Gandhi insisted.
Art Levine’s running commentary and eye witness account is fascinating:
“The Indian public wasn’t buying it. His explanations had become the issue of the campaign, according to a poll taken two days after the Herald story broke. Only 34 percent of those questioned believed Gandhi’s claim that he hadn’t had sexual relations with the women–and a scant 16 percent believed he hadn’t been sexually excited. A mere 26 percent claimed to be disturbed by the incident itself; what bothered them, said 75 percent of India’s citizens, was the appearance of hypocrisy.
But the questions kept coming. Every stop on his campaign swing turned into a media circus. A protest march in Dandi was cut short by a throng of reporters, barraging Gandhi with questions about his sexual self-control. A new low in political discourse may have been reached when a reporter for the Bombay Post asked during a sit-in, “Did you get an erection last weekend?’ Although Gandhi was well within his rights when he responded, “I don’t have to answer that,‘ some observers felt that the appearance of evasiveness further eroded his credibility.
The racist Gandhi was a total failure in South Africa where he tried to stratify the society, Whites, Indians and Africans. His racism towards the Africans was horrendous.
Matters were only made worse when the Herald was widely rumored to be on the verge of publishing more damaging photos–of nothing less than unmistakable signs of Gandhi’s physical excitement. When a pack of enterprising reporters caught up with her at her sickbed, Mrs. Gandhi stuck by her man. She told them: “Honestly, if Mahatma told me that nothing happened, then nothing happened.’
- More Revelations: Still, by week’s end, the prospects for Gandhi’s political recovery looked grim, despite his denials and counter-attacks. In the next few days, there were other newspaper accounts of Gandhi’s celibacy experiments. The Bombay Post ran an insiders’ account of life in Gandhi’s ashram. Contrary to the image he had cultivated of a gentle, loving soul, the two-part series, “The Dark Side of Gandhi,’ detailed the brutal regimen imposed on his followers. His 100-plus disciples, forced to live in primitive mud and bamboo huts, were awakened daily at a A.M. to eat nothing but a few crumbs of unseasoned vegetarian gruel and dry wheat. Weakened, they were subjected to long harangues on arcane religious topics. Eyewitness accounts were gruesome. “We had to spend hours on our knees chanting prayers and spinning cotton,’ said one American follower who defected. “We were like zombies.’ Cult experts say Gandhi had dozens of ingenious schemes to weaken his followers’ ties to their families and strengthen his control over them. Their secret name for their leader: “Bapu,’ or father.
- The Post story was the final straw. In his political death throes, Gandhi made a dramatic appearance before his supporters–and stopped just short of abandoning his campaign for a free India. “I intended, in all honesty, to come to you this sunrise and tell you that I was leaving the cause. But, then, after tossing and turning all night, as I have through this ordeal, I woke up and said, “Heck, my goodness, no.”
- Instead, Gandhi with his back against the proverbial wall reached deep into his bag of tricks and, like a cat with nine lives, pulled yet another rabbit from his hat: a hunger strike. Over the course of a fifty-year career, Gandhi had turned this familiar strategy into a crowd pleaser that could move the masses or pummel an Empire. “Under certain circumstances, fasting is the one weapon God has given us for use in times of utter helplessness,’ said Gandhi defiantly.
No one doubts that Gandhi can go weeks on end without even a drop of chutney. But political analysts are doubtful that the man, once dubbed “Mr. Hunger Strike,’ could make this latest gambit work. “Gandhi represents the politics of the past,’ said Patreek Chardeli. “A new generation of Indians wants vital, robust leadership. I don’t think a starving old man is well positioned to do it.’ More ominously, other pundits said the political damage was too much to contain– even with a high-profile play for sympathy. Davidahr Garthati, the media consultant credited with Gandhi’s decision to abandon the suit and tie of his early barrister days and “go native’ instead, was equally pessimistic. Garthati noted, “His celibacy shtick was crucial to the saint image he’d cultivated for all these years. The non-violence thing, the spinning wheels, the fasting–that was brilliant. But his celibacy really set him apart, made him genuinely holy. Without it, he’s just another pacifist do-gooder.’
Political opponents moved quickly to capitalize on the gaffe. Columnist Robert Novakilli, a longtime Gandhi critic, lambasted Gandhi’s hijinks from his nationally broadcast McRajan Group. “The real perversion is Gandhi’s political agenda. For years, he and his pacifist pals have had two things in mind: tinkering with the salt tax and cozying up to Stalin.’ And his most formidable rival, Moslem leader Muhammed Ali Jinnah, sought to subtly position himself to pick up Gandhi’s fleeing supporters. “Family life has always been sacred to me,’ he told reporters, standing outside his family’s mosque with his wife and daughter. “I don’t think it’s my place to comment on the controversy surrounding some of those in the public eye. It’s up to the Indian people to judge for themselves.’
And their judgment seemed harsh. Within a matter of days, the squalid controversy over Gandhi’s private parts turned him from a national hero into a laughingstock. On his nightly radio program, comedian Charu Carson quipped, “Well, at least we know the Mahatma is big enough for the job of running India.’ He added, to more laughter, “I guess he was really meditating his brains out this weekend.’ Editorial cartoonists had a field day, as a bulging loin cloth quickly became the Mahatma’s new trademark.
In the next few days more revelations came trickling out about other celibacy “experiments’ he had been conducting since his forties, including one report of a pleasure trip down the Ganges with Nehru and two female assistants on the awkwardly named Holy Cow. The Post also revealed that at the end of each day, he had one of his attractive, young female disciples administer an enema, which he insisted was for “health’ and “cleansing’ purposes. “Gandhi gives as much as he takes– even to total strangers,’ said one Gandhi aide.
- New Ground rules: Gandhi’s sudden demise triggered an orgy of self-examination in the media. Did the press go too far? “At first, I agonized over whether we should risk tarnishing a great man’s reputation with close-up photos of naked women and speculation about his sex life,’ said Ved
- Fiedleraba, who led the Herald stakeout. “But then I realized that the public had a right to know.’ Fiedleraba reasoned that if there was the slightest possibility that Gandhi was lying about his celibacy, then that raised serious questions about his candor and his ability to negotiate with foreign leaders were India ever to become independent. “So, naturally, it was my moral obligation to set up camp outside his bedroom.’
- Clearly, the ground rules have changed. Historically, the press has had a gentlemen’s agreement with India’s rulers. When Viceroy Lord Lillybottom himself brought a bevy of beauties to the Taj Mahal, the muckrakers of Madras looked the other way. But with the rise of Indian Nationalism and the decline of British sea power, the mores of Indian society have been loosened–and so have those of the press. Today, nothing is off limits, even enemas. Many wondered what’s next: asking Jinnah whether he had violated the Koran’s strictures against amorous relations with pigs or other unholy animals? But for now it was Gandhi who was caught in this whirlwind. This smiling man, from a more polite age, seemed oblivious to the new rules of his beloved India.
Whatever the press’s ultimate responsibility, the longstanding doubts over Gandhi’s character left India’s nationalist movement in disarray. Behind the scenes, some Congress party operatives were privately relieved. “We feel betrayed,’ said one. “Gandhi promised he would remain celibate, at least until India achieved independence. Now that he’s gone, at least we can move on.’
- Ultimately, Gandhi’s fate hinged on those questions of character, rather than any moral revulsion. In her essay “Gandhi’s Women Problem, Women’s Gandhi Problem,’ Sukai Lessardai voiced the concerns of many women wary of Gandhi’s apparent philandering. “Whether or not he was celibate, his need to prove his spiritual manhood by lying with five naked women is an affront to the dignity and equality of women everywhere.’ And as Willmed Schneidermanai of the Indian Enterprise Institute points out, “It’s not so much the fact that he slept with these women or regularly indulged in enemas; it’s that he showed such bad judgment in doing so. I think this raises serious questions about Gandhi’s self-discipline and insensitivity to the appearances of impropriety –and finally about Gandhi’s ability to lead a successful non-violent movement.’
- Now the question is: Whither India? In his stead, there are other leaders who could possibly win independence for India–the Moslem Jinnah, or even Vallabhaai Patel–but neither has the stature and name recognition of a Gandhi. Non-violent disobedience seems a memory now. And nationalism itself is on the backburner. As the likely next Viceroy of the Raj, Lord Louis Mountbatten, points out, “If an entire nation could be led down the primrose path by this charlatan and hypocrite, the Indian people are not yet ready for independence.’ Wise heads in India and Britain agreed, and with Gandhi’s political demise, a tumultuous chapter in India’s history closes, and calmer times lie ahead.
- More than disciples?: Gandhi and two “aides’: Character flaw?: Gandhi stalked by questions about his judgment– and candor
COPYRIGHT 1987 Washington Monthly Company , COPYRIGHT 2004 Gale Group, http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1316/is_v19/ai_5167040/pg_4
APPENDIX 2: With additional ref. information
WAS GANDHI A TANTRIC?
Gandhi was having sex when his father lay breathing his last upstairs. Gandhi denied sex to his wife for decades while sleeping with other peoples wives (Bose etc)
A seminal article titled “Was Gandhi a Tantric” was written by Nicholas Gier, Professor Emeritus of Philosophy, University of Idaho (ngier@uidaho.edu). For a complete version, which will appear in Gandhi Marg (2007). GIer describes the unusual and strange behavour of the man called Gandhi.
- My meaning of brahmacharya is this: “One who never has any lustful intention, who . . . has become capable of lying naked with naked women . . . without being in any manner whatsoever sexually excited.” –M. K. Gandhi
- The greater the temptation, the greater the renunciation. –M. K. Gandhi
- I threw you in the sacrificial fire and you emerged safe and sound.–Gandhi to his grandniece Manu Gandhi
- I can hurt colleagues and the entire world for the sake of truth.–M. K. Gandhi (letter to Sushila Nayar)
- [Gandhi] can think only in extremes-either extreme eroticism or asceticism. –Jawaharlal Nehru
The professional Don Juan destroys his spirit as fatally as does the professional ascetic, whose [mirror] image he is. –Aldous Huxley, Do What You Will - Some scholars believe that it is unseemly to write about the sex lives of great thinkers. William Bartley, for example, has been criticized for documenting, quite successfully in my opinion, Ludwig Wittgenstein’s homosexual encounters, information that helps us better understand his life and work. If we use this information in an ad hominem attack against these thinkers’ worldviews, then we have indeed erred and done them an injustice.
- Full and accurate biographies, however, are essential for those of us who wish to capture the full measure of a person’s life and character. It is therefore unfortunate that D. K. Bose, Gandhi’s faithful secretary and interpreter in Bengal, was forced to self publish his book My Days with Gandhi. He only thought that he was being truthful, but many considered him an apostate, and Sushila Nayar, one of Gandhi’s female intimates, thought he had “a dirty mind.”
Most people would rather not hear about Martin Luther King’s extramarital liaisons, but they remain embarrassing facts, along with the plagiarized passages in his doctoral dissertation, that must be integrated into our understanding of this great saint of nonviolence. King confessed that what he did was wrong and he sought forgiveness from his wife and sought repentance. Sadly, I do not think that we can say that same thing about Gandhi’s response to those who criticized his intimate relations with young women. Furthermore, King did not defend his actions by saying that they were part of his spiritual development, something that Gandhi of course did.
It is now widely known that Gandhi shared his bed with young women as part of his experiments in brahmacharya, a Sanskrit word usually translated as “celibacy,” but generally understood as the ultimate state of yogic self-control. Gandhi believed that Indian ascetics who sought refuge in forests and mountains were cowards, and he was convinced that the only way to conquer desire was to face the temptation head-on with a naked female in his bed.
- I take Gandhi at his word that he did not have carnal relations with these women-his sleeping quarters were open to all to observe-so he was not among the left-handed Tantrics who engaged in ritual sex with their yoginis. At the same time, Gandhi’s Tantricism cannot be right-handed kind because this school proscribes intimate contact with women.
- As would be expected, we will find that Gandhi was a very distinctive Tantric. Perhaps it can be said that Gandhi was somehow simultaneously a left-handed and right-handed Tantric. Raihana Tyabji, a close associate with a Tantric past, thought that Gandhi’s position straddling right-handed and left-hand Tantra was untenable, and that the only way to free himself and his women from sexual desire was “to give free rein to it-to indulge it and satiate it. But he wouldn’t listen.”
- It is not widely known that Gandhi subscribed to Shakta theology, one that puts skakti, the power of the Hindu Goddess, at the center of existence. Shakta theology is the foundation of Hindu Tantricism. Scholars have warned us that not all Shaktas are Tantrics, but Gandhi’s sexual experiments with young women definitely suggest some association with Tantra. It is also possible that that Gandhi’s sexual experiments may have been an abuse of personal power rather than a practice of Hindu spirituality.
- One defense that could be made for Gandhi’s actions is that he experienced intimate relations with men as well. Hermann Kallenbach, a South Africa associate, was very close to the Mahatma. Kallenbach promised that he would travel to the “ends of the earth in search of [Gandhian] Truth,” and he also promised Gandhi that he would never marry. Gandhi reciprocated by declaring unconditional love and a declaration that they would always be “one soul in two bodies.”
Gandhi was also very close to Pyarelal Nayar, Sushila Nayar’s brother, and boasted that Pyarelal slept closer to him than his sister did. For Gandhi, however, sleeping with men was different from sharing a bed with women. Abha Gandhi’s husband Kanu once objected to his wife sleeping with the Mahatma and offered himself as a “bed warmer.” Gandhi rejected his proposal by making it clear that brahmacharya tests required young women as bedmates. Finally, if someone makes an appeal to the Indian custom and necessity of intimate Indian family sleeping arrangements, Girja Kumar is not convinced: “Not even in India do grown-up daughters sleep with their fathers.”
I
Gandhi was an adulterer and had a spiritual marriage with two British women who were in the Ashram
In his book My Days with Gandhi Bose does mention in passing that Gandhi’s techniques are “reminiscent of the Tantras,” and Gandhi himself said that he read the books on Tantra written by Sir John Woodroofe, but, as far as I know, only Gopi Krishna has argued at any length about Gandhi’s Tantricism.
- In his on-line essay “Mahatma Gandhi and the Kundalini Process,” Krishna argues that the only way that we can explain Gandhi’s actions with these young women is to assume he was a kundalini yogi. Krishna speculates that “upward flow of reproductive energy [shakti]” started as soon as he committed himself to brahmacharya in 1906. Gandhi was 37, “the usual time,” from Krishna’s own experience, “for the spontaneous arousal of the Serpent Power.”
- As evidence that Gandhi had perfected this state, Krishna cites this passage from Gandhi’s Key to Health: “[the brahmachari's] sexual organs will begin to look different. . . . He does not become impotent for lack of the necessary secretions of sexual glands. But these secretions in his case are sublimated into a vital force pervading his whole being.” Krishna claims that this passage makes it “patently clear” that Gandhi had attained the state of brahmacharya, but it is not clear that Gandhi is writing about himself, and that, except during the crisis with Manu, he rarely ever claimed spiritual perfection.
- As the kundalini yogi matures, Krishna states that he “needs constant stimulation to increase the supply of reproductive juices. . . . The Tantras and other works on kundalini clearly acknowledge the need of an attractive female partner in the practices undertaken to awaken shakti.” Gandhi does in fact say that “my brahmacharya . . . irresistibly drew me to woman as the mother of man. She became too sacred for sexual love.”
Krishna admits that Gandhi himself most likely “had no inkling of the transformative process at work in him,” even though he claims that Gandhi noticed that his male organ had shrunk. Krishna brushes aside criticism of Gandhi’s actions and also concern for the young women’s mental health, because “nature accomplishes her great tasks in her own way and leaves short-sighted mortals wondering how it could happen.” Apart from the speculative nature of Krishna’s theory, we should be most concerned about his disregard for the women’s well being, as well has the implication that Gandhi was driven by forces over which he had no control.
II
Gandhi used to beat his wife up routinely making a mockery of Non-Violence. The Nobel Peace Prize committee criticized him and rejected his nomination twice
For Gandhi the virtues of patience, self-control, and courage were absolutely essential to defeat the temptation to retaliate and respond with violence. Gandhi made it clear that each of these virtues were found most often in women. Gandhi once said that he wanted to convert the woman=s capacity for “self-sacrifice and suffering into shakti-power.” Gandhi describes womankind as follows: “Has she not great intuition, is she not more self-sacrificing, has she not greater powers of endurance, has she not greater courage?” He also claimed that nonviolence is embodied in the woman: she is “weak in striking. . . strong in suffering.”
- The women around Gandhi were amazed how comfortable they felt in his presence and how much of a woman he had become to them. Millie Polak observed that “most women love men for [masculine] attributes. Yet, Mohandas Gandhi has been given the love of many women for his womanliness.” His orphaned grandniece Manu considered Gandhi as her new mother, and she simply could not understand all the controversy surrounding their sleeping together.
- The fact that women felt no unease in his presence was proof to Gandhi that he was approaching perfection as a brahmachari. Indeed, Bose contends that Gandhi attempted to “conquer sex” was “by becoming a woman.” Gandhi told Pyarelal Nayar that he once tore the burning sari off a woman in his ashram, but “she felt no embarrassment, because she knew I was a brahmachariand so almost like a sister to her.” Alternatively, Gandhi says that his goal was the state of “complete sexlessness” recommended by Jesus and that this condition could be achieved by becoming a eunuch by prayer not by an operation.
- Gandhi is no doubt referring to shaktiwhen he states that “all power comes from the preservation and sublimation of the vitality that is responsible for the creation of life.” Gandhi may very well be indicating a Tantric process of empowerment that involves the preservation and sublimation of a male vitality that has its source in shakti. When Gandhi did his first radio broadcast on November 12, 1947, he declared that the phenomenon of broadcasting demonstrated “shakti, the miraculous power of God.”
- When Gandhi once described himself as “half a woman,” an alternative view of masculine and feminine power suggests itself. The Chinese/Jungian view of complementary yin (anima) and yang (animus) energies is found in this passage: “A man should remain man and yet should learn to become woman; similarly, a woman should remain woman and yet learn to become man.” Hsi Lai uses the yin/yang model to explain Gandhi’s sexual experiments: “He didn’t do this for the purpose of actual sexual contact, but as an ancient practice of rejuvenating his male energy. . . . Taoists called this method ‘using the yin to replenish the yang.”
The source of Gandhi’s dipolar views of male and female may have been Christian rather than Asian. While a young man in England, Gandhi came into contact with the Esoteric Christian Union, whose interpretation of the image of God meant that the individual “must comprise within himself the qualities Bmasculine and feminineB of existence and be spiritually both man and woman.” When he confessed to Kedar Nathji and Swami Anand that his sexual experiments were “unorthodox,” Gandhi says that his views on this subject had been influenced by “Western writers on this subject.”
III
Gandhi's horrific advice to all Jews to commit suicide was abominable. His atrocious letters to his friend Hitler were the height of stupidity.
It is the male who is active in Tantric rites. Only males undergo initiation, and the only instruction females receive, if they get any, is that they “should not even mentally touch another male.”Gandhi’s Tantricism definitely follows this androcentric approach. Gandhi also takes the defiant stance of the Tantric who says that he cares nothing for what others thinks of his practice: “The whole world may forsake me but I dare not leave what I hold is the truth for me.” Gandhi once admonished a critic that he would sleep with a thousand women if that is what it took to reach spiritual purity. Gandhi’s experiments in truth took on the value free aspects of the scientific method, and left-handed Tantrics believe that their actions are above conventional law and morality.
- Normally Tantric practices are tightly structured, highly ritualized, and the initiation procedures, guided by a guru, are esoteric. The only bona fide guru in Gandhi’s spiritual development was Raichandcharya, a Jain saint, not a Tantric, with whom Gandhi corresponded during his formative South Africa period. Gandhi officiated at daily worship and hymn singing, encouraged the chanting of the Ramanama (the god Rama’s name), and followed an unconventional diet, but these practices are not Tantric in any way. The chanting of the Ramanama is said to have magical properties, but its use is so widespread in India it may not indicate any special Tantric associations. Nevertheless, Gandhi does connect the chanting of Rama’s name with “an alchemy [that] can transform the body” that leads to “the conservation of vital energy.”
- Gandhi’s experiments with truth were highly personalized but not spiritually esoteric as are Tantric practices. Only after the sexual experiments came under public scrutiny did Gandhi started telling his female associates to keep their activities secret. Not until his last days, when his sleeping with Manu became public, did Gandhi confess that this secrecy was actually a sign of untruthfulness. Gandhi’s secrecy was simply expedient and not spiritually required.
IV
Before Gandhi started his brahmacharyaexperiments in 1938, he had a string of intimate relationships with European and Indian women. While he was in South Africa, Gandhi fell in love with Millie Polak, the wife of Henry Polak, both of whom lived with Gandhi at Phoenix Farm. Kumar describes their first contact as follows: “Gandhiji and Millie started conversing through their eyes. They made a pact between them immediately. Poor Henry was left stranded.” As with all of his female friends, Gandhi insisted that he and Millie be sisters or alternatively that he be her father, but after they were together in London in 1909 without Henry, Gandhi dared to suggest that he was a substitute husband.
- Even though Millie was smitten by him, she stood up to Gandi’s controlling nature and argued against his absurd dietary ideas and his goal to force chastity on all his coworkers. This independent spirit that defines most of his female intimates of this early period stands in instructive contrast to the passive participants in the later brahmacharyaexperiments. For example, Kumar describes Manu as a devotee who “was prepared to sacrifice her life at the altar of her personal God.” Gandhi controlled every aspect of Manu’s life, and when she once forgot his favorite soap at their last stay, he made her walk back through a dark jungle to retrieve it.
- When Millie finally broke off their 3-year affair, Gandhi’s attentions turned to Maud Polak, Henry’s sister. Maud worked with Gandhi at Phoenix Farm as his personal secretary until 1913. In a letter to Henry, Gandhi described Maud seeing him off at a railway station: “She cannot tear herself from me. . . . She would not shake hands with me. She wanted a kiss. [This incident] has transformed her and with her me.”
- Esther Faering, a young Danish missionary, was the next major love in Gandhi’s life. From her very first visit at the Satyagraha Ashram in 1917, Kumar describes Faering as “completely hooked on” Gandhi, and as with Millie Polak, “an instant chemistry developed” between them. Gandhi “experienced an intensely personal passion for Esther,” and she praised him as the “Incarnation of God in man.”
- The other ashramites were alarmed at Gandhi’s obsession with Faering, and Kasturba Gandhi was particularly cool to her husband’s new love interest. Gandhi made matters worse by siding with Faering against his wife. While he was away from the ashram, he wrote daily letters to Faering, which Kumar describes as having the passionate intensity of the poets of Hinduism and Sufi Islam. He hazards a guess that “Esther must have stirred,” as young beautiful women are supposed to do in the Tantric yogi, “the serpent resting uncoiled in [Gandhi's] kundalini.“
- One would expect Gandhi to have at least been serially monogamous in his relationships, but that was not the case. While Faering was struggling against Kasturba and other ashramites, and receiving Gandhi’s constant support from afar, he was conducting what Kumar calls a “whirlwind romance” with Saraladevi Chowdharani, a Bengali revolutionary married to a Punjabi musician. Her father was a secretary of Indian National Congress in Calcutta, and by virtue of her singing and activism, Saraladevi was celebrated as Bengal’s Joan of Arc and as an incarnation of the Goddess Durga. She rose to the challenge and wrote that “my pen reverberated with the power of Shiva’s trumpet and invited Bengalis to cultivate death.”
- After the Jallianwala Bagh massacre in 1919, Gandhi stayed at Saraladevi’s home in Lahore and then toured India together during 1920. Her husband, R. D. Chowdhary, was in jail for the first eight months this period, but he was content, as was Henry Polak, to share his wife with the Mahatma. Gandhi agreed with Chowdhary that Saraladevi was the “greatest shakti of India.”
Gandhi called Saraladevi his “spiritual wife” after “an intellectual wedding,” and he reported that he bathed “in her deep affection” as she showered “her love on [him] in every possible way.” Kasturba Gandhi had refused to wear khadi-the homespun and hand woven garments that Gandhi made famous-but Saraladevi became the Mahatma’s most elegant khadimodel. Kumar describes them as “lovelorn teenagers with stars in their eyes,” and depicts Saraladevi as “aristocratic, gorgeously dressed, sensuously beautiful, and imperious. In short, she had everything that [Kasturba] lacked.”
- In contrast to his later brahmacharyamistresses, Saraladevi, just as Millie Polak before her, did not bow to Gandhi’s authority in any way. For example, as the quotation above implies, she agreed with fellow Bengalis, such as the young Aurobindo, that independence required violent revolution. Following her Goddess, Durga’s shaktiwas always accompanied by violence, and Saraladevi eventually broke with Gandhi over this very issue.
- Kumar concludes that just as his relation to Faering, while “full of sensuality,” was asexual, Gandhi’s romance with Saraladevi was “probably . . . entirely platonic.” There was, however, a “large component of eroticism” and the “line of demarcation between sexual, sensuous, erotic and platonic was only of degree and not of kind.”
- Kumar’s phrasing is unfortunate and logically incoherent, because “degree” means a slippery slope and not a strict line between the intellectual/spiritual and the physical. In letters to Saraladevi in July, 1920, Gandhi insists that being “spiritually” married means that the “physical must be wholly absent,” but he then admits that he is “too physically attached to” her for there to be a true “sacred association.”
- In his conversations with Margaret Sanger, Gandhi refers to a “woman with whom I almost fell,” and “the thought of my wife kept me from going to perdition.”Writing to Rajkumari Amrit Kaur, a later bedmate, he admitted the he, “with one solitary exception,” had never “looked upon a woman with lustful eyes.” These two references must have been to Saraladevi Chowdharani.
- Madeleine Slade, who became Gandhi’s beloved Mirabehn, was the daughter of a British naval officer who was once stationed in Bombay. Mirabehn first learned of Gandhi through Romain Rolland, who was then writing a Gandhi biography. She wrote to Gandhi requesting that she become a member of the Sabarmati Ashram, but he required that she live as an ascetic for one year before coming to India. More than any of his disciples, Mirabehn eagerly took to the austerities that Gandhi demanded. As opposed to Kasturba, who disliked latrine duties, Mirabehn eagerly took charge of the toilets, even those for all the delegates to a meeting of the Indian National Congress.
- At their first meeting in November, 1925, Mirabehn found Gandhi “divine,” and she was able to confirm Rolland’s claim that he was indeed the second Christ. They fell in love with one another and Kumar says that “Mira was Saraladevi . . . all over again.” Once again, because of Gandhi’s fascination for her, Mirabehn was shunned by the ashramites. Gandhi soon discovered that Mirabehn’s emotional instability caused his blood pressure to rise, so he frequently sent her away on other tasks. They did, however, keep in contact with weekly self-described “love letters,” and Gandhi wrote that she haunted his dreams.
Mirabehn agreed with Gandhi’s depiction that their passion was like a “bed of hot ashes,” a veritable ascetic-erotic rhapsody of yogic tapas.Gandhi also shared with Mirabehn agonies about his spontaneous erections, daytime ejaculations, and wet dreams, for which he castigated himself unmercifully, and they even discussed the causes and cures of constipation.
V
Gandhi used to drink his own urine and also the urine of cows. Chilled Urine drinking is hot in India. From Gandhi to Prime Minister Desai to common man. Hindu India: A gift from the Hindu Gods:Cows Urine: UK Telegraph reports by Julian West
Of the women closely associated with Gandhi, at least ten were said to have slept in his bed. They can be identified as follows:
- [1]Letter to R. A. Kaur, March 18, 1947.
- [2]Quoted in Ved Mehta, Mahatma Gandhi and His Apostles(Harmondsworth, Middlesex: Penquin Books, 1976), p. 213. I rely heavily on Mehta for two reasons: (1) his book was well received and republished by Yale University Press; and (2) he sought out all the living Gandhian associates and interviewed them extensively.
- [3]Quoted in Girja Kumar, Brahmacharya: Gandhi and His Women Associates(New Delhi: Vitasta Publishing, 2006), p. 90.
- [4]The Collected Works of Mahatma Gandhi (New Delhi: Government of India Publications, 1958), vol. 93, p. 340.
- [5]Jawaharlal Nehru, Selected Works (New Delhi: Orient Longman, 1974), p. 349.
- [6]Aldous Huxley, Do What You Will (New York: Doubleday, 1928), p. 45.
- [7]William Bartley, Wittgenstein (Chicago: Open Court, 2nd ed., 1985).
- [8]Quoted in Mehta, p. 203.
- [9]Jeffrey Kripal, Kali’s Child (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1993).
- [10]Gandhi, Young India 8 (January 21, 1926), p. 30.
- [11]Quoted in Mehta, p. 211.
- [12]Collected Works, vol. 79, p. 301.
- [13]Ibid., vol. 96, p. 183.
- [14]See Mehta, p. 201.
- [15]Kumar, p. 294.
- [16]Nirmal Kumar Bose, My Days with Gandhi(New Delhi: Orient Longman, 1974), p. 2.
- [17]Pyarelal Nayar, Mahatma Gandhi: The Last Phase(Ahmedabad: Navajivan, 2nd ed., 1966), vol. 1, bk. 2, p. 229.
- [18]Gopi Krishna, “Mahatama Gandhi and the Kundalini Proces” (Institute of Consciousness Research, 1995) at http://www.icrcanada.org/gandhi.html (accessed n June 11, 2006). All the citations are from the second section of the essay.
- [19]Gandhi, Key to Health, trans. Sushila Nayar (Ahmedabad: Navajivan Trust, 1948), p. 24. Krishna’s English translation differs significantly from this one, so I wonder if he is citing the same text. He himself gives no reference.
- [20]Cited in Bose, p. 171.
- [21]Pyarelal, p. 214.
- [22]Gandhi, Womans’s Role in Society(Ahmedabad: Navajivan Publishing, 1959), p. 8.
- [23]Gandhi, Harijan (November 14, 1936), p. 316). “Woman is the incarnation of ahimsa. Ahimsa means infinite love, which again means infinite capacity for suffering” (Harijan [February 24, 1940], p. 13.
- [24]Cited in Martin Green, Gandhi: Voice of a New Revolution (New York: Continuum, 1993), p. 261.
- [25]Quoted in Mehta, p. 213.
- [26]Bose, p. 177. Mrs. Polak noted a Atrait of sexlessness@ even in his South Africa days (Gandhiji as We Know Him, ed. Ch. Shukla [Bombay, 1945], p. 47). A Mrs. Shukla said that Athere are some things relating to our lives that we women can speak of . . . with no man . . . . But while speaking to Gandhiji we somehow forgot the fact that he was a man@ (C. Shukla, Gandhiji=s View of Life [Bombay, 1951], p. 199). See also The Last Phase, vol. 1, p. 595; 2nd ed., vol. 1, bk. 2, p. 234.
- [27]Cited in Metha, p. 44.
- [28]Pyarelal, p. 585. This story may have variations, but the one that I read clearly indicated that the Gopis were embarrassed to come out of the Yamuna River and redeem their saris for a kiss from Krishna. Radha of course was the single exception.
- [29]Ibid., pp. 219, 220.
- [30]Brian K. Smith, “Eaters, Food, and Social Hierarchy in Ancient India,” Journal of the American Academy of Religion 58:2 (Summer, 1990), pp. 177, 178.
- [31]Gandhi, Harijan (July 23, 1938), p. 192.
- [32]V. S. Gupta, “Gandhi and the Mass Media” at http://mkgandhi-sarvodaya.org/mass_media.htm, visited on May 30, 2006.
- [33]Quoted in Pyarelal, p. 217.
- [34]Gandhi’s Letters to Ashram Sisters, ed. K. Kalelkar and trans. A. L. Mazmudar (Ahmedadbad: Navajivan, 2nd rev. ed., 1960), p. 94.
- [35]Hsi Lai, The Sexual Teachings of the White Tigress: Secrets of Female Taoist Masters(Rochester, VT: Destiny Books, 200), p. 16. Lai states that he became interested in “the matter of transformational sex” by reading about Gandhi’s experiments.
- [36]Pyarelal, p. 223.
- [37]As told to Bose, pp. 149-50.
- [38]Devi-Mahatyma, 1.59 (Coburn translation).
- [39]Agehananda Bharati, The Tantric Tradition (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1965), p. 202.
- [40]Brahmavaivarta Purana, Rakriti-Khanda55.87, trans. Tracy Pintchman, The Rise of the Goddess in the Hindu Tradition(Albany, NY: SUNY Press, 1994), p. 164.
- [41]Bharati, p. 236.
- [42]Collected Works, vol. 87, p. 13. Compare this with the Tantric yogi who said “Let my kinsmen revile me. . . let people ridicule me on sight . . . .” (cited in Bharati, p. 238).
- [43]“Thousands of Hindu and Moslem women come to me. They are to me like my own mother, sisters, and daughters. But if an occasion should arise requiring me to share the bed with any of them I must not hesitate, if I am the bramacharya that I claim to be. If I shrink from the test, I write myself down as a coward and a fraud” (Collected Works, vol. 87, p. 15).
- [44]See Bharati, pp. 200, 202, 203. Other exceptions were an active Shiva in Tamil Shaivism and a static female in the Markandeya Purana (p. 213).
- [45]Hevajra Tantra, trans. D. L. Snellgrove, excerpted in The World of the Buddha, ed. Lucian Stryk (New York: Grove Press, 1968), p. 311.
- [46]See Buddha’s Lions: The Lives of the Eighty-Four Siddhas, trans. and ed. James B. Robinson (Berkeley: Dharma Publishing Co., 1979).
- [47]Bharati, p. 21.
- [48]See N. F. Gier and Paul K. Kjellberg, “Buddhism and the Freedom of the Will” in Freedom and Determinism: Topics in Contemporary Philosophy, eds., J. K. Campbell, D. Shier, M. O’Rourke (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2004), pp. 277-304. See sections on Nagarjuna.
- [49]Bharati, pp. 19, 200.
- [50]Ibid., p. 20.
- [51]Cited in Bose, p. 172.
- [52]Collected Works, vol. 87, p. 14.
- [53]Cited in Bose, p. 153.
- [54]Gandhi,Harijan (June 29, 1947), p. 212.
- [55]Quoted in Metha, p. 48.
- [56]Douglas R. Brooks, The Secret of the Three Cities: An Introduction to Hindu Shakta Tantrism (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1990), p. 58.
- [57]Ibid., p. 69.
- [58]Kumar, p. 90.
- [59]See ibid., p. 97.
- [60]Ibid., p. 317.
- [61]Collected Works, vol. 96, p. 34.
- [62]Kumar, pp. 145-46.
- [63]Ibid., p. 152.
- [64]Cited in ibid., p. 216.
- [65]Collected Works, vol. 17, p. 375; vol. 16, p. 516.
- [66]Ibid., vol. 16, p. 316. “Spiritual wife” found in ibid., vol. 18, p. 130.
- [67]Kumar, pp. 223, 218.
- [68]Ibid., p. 225.
- [69]Collected Works, vol. 18, pp. 20, 71.
- [70]Ibid., vol. 35, p. 70.
- [71]Ibid., vol. 47, p. 49.
- [72]Ibid., vol. 67, p. 117.
- [73]Ibid., vol. 93, p. 204.
- [74]Ibid., pp. 335-36.
- [75]See Kumar, p. 7.
- [76]Collected Works, vol. 70, p. 220.
- [77]Kumar, p. 288.
- [78]Collected Works, vol. 87, pp. 13-14, 15. “Non-violence of the brave” cited in Bose, p. 159.
- [79]Quoted in Kumar, p. 321.
- [80]Ibid., vol. 79, p. 238.
- [81]Quoted in Metha, p. 203.
- [82]Cited in Bose, p. 103.
- [83]Cited in ibid., p. 134.
- [84]Kumar, p. 331.
- [85]Pyarelal, pp. 226, 238. In letters to Mannalal G. Shah on March 6 and 7, 1945, Gandhi wrote equivocally: “As far as possible I have postponed the practice of sleeping together. But it cannot be given up altogether” (cited in Kumar, p. 8).
- [86]Collected Works, vol. 93, p. 333.
- [87]Quoted in Mehta, p. 203. The question of whether Gandhi’s touching of women was appropriate had been raised as early as 1935. His response entitled “A Renunciation” can be read in Harijan, September 21, 1935.
- [88]Collected Works, vol. 67, pp. 104-5.
- [89]Mark Thomson, Gandhi and His Ashrams (Columbia, MO: South Asia Books, 1993), p. 202.
- [90]Collected Works, vol. 67, p. 117.
- [91]Ibid., vol. 93, pp. 237-38.
- [92]Pyarelal, Mahatma Gandhi: The Last Phase(Ahmedabad: Navajivan Publishing, 1st ed., 1958), vol. 1, p. 588. “Now mere abstention from sexual intercourse cannot be termed brahmacharya. So long as the desire for intercourse is there, one cannot be said to have attained brahmacharya” (Key to Health, p. 23).
- [93]Cited in Bose, p. 171.
- [94]Collected Works, vol. 93, p. 161.
- [95]Ibid., p. 33.
- [96]Ibid., p. 349. In a letter to Sushila Nayar on August 5, 1940, Gandhi states that one condition of her return was “taking care of [his] body,” and he acknowledged that this was not acceptable to her (Collected Works, vol. 93, p. 343).
- [97]Ibid., pp. 364-66.
- [98]Ibid., p. 333.
- [99]Ibid., p. 338.
- [100]Pyarelal, 2nd ed., vol. 1, bk. 2, p. 228.
- [101]Quoted in Mehta, p. 211.
- [102]Bose, p. 150.
- [103]Ibid., p. 151.
- [104]Ibid., p. 95.
- [105]Ibid., p. 159.
- [106]See Hugh Urban, Tantra: Sex. Secrecy, Politics, and Power in the Study of Religion (Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 2003), p. 67.
- [107]Mahanirvana Tantra 7.13, 22, cited in Urban, p. 65.
- [108]Wendy Doniger, Foreward in Edward C. Dimock, Jr., The Place of the Hidden Moon(Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1989), p. xiii; cited in Kripal, p. 117.
- [109]Kripal, p. 118.
- [110]Kathamrita2.62; 5.140-41 (trans., Kripal); see The Gospel of Ramakrishna, p. 701.
- [111]From the Ramakrishna Mission website at http://www.sriramakrishna.org/sdlife.htm, accessed on June 9, 2006.
- [112]Cited in Urban, p. 93.
- [113]P. B. Saint-Hilaire, The Future Evolution of Man(Pondicherry: All India Press, 1963), p. 148.
- [114]P. Nallaswami,Shivajñana Siddiyar3.2.77; cited in R. C. Zaehner, Evolution in Religion: A Study in Sri Aurobindo and Pierre Teihard de Chardin (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1971), p. 104.
- [115]Cited in Urban, p. 101. It seems that Aurobindo has not left Tantra behind, as Urban claims, but has simply embraced a right-handed form of it.
- [116]Huxley, p. 45.
Related articles
- Mohandas Gandhi’s collaboration with the British prolonged the Colonial Raj. http://www.mohandasgandhitruth.com (karachitelegraph.com)
- Mohandas Gandhi’s collaboration with the British prolonged the Colonial Raj. http://www.mohandasgandhitruth.com (rupeenews.com)
![Wall Street - Money Never Dies [Zardari Version]](http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4148/5045452425_aa4d58c7a5_m.jpg){kind=small}
Why are [all of] you [all] Pakistani[s] so cheap ?
I guess this is just in your blood !!
You are one of the world most pathetic nations on [the] planet – no education , no democracy and [the country is] full of terrorist[s]
in spite [and despite] [of] that you have [the] guts to abuse others
ha[!] ha[!] – I feel sorry [rudeness deleted]
It’s not like your **** of a country is any better.
Good luck containing your 1 billion plus animals, many of which are in desperate poverty and a middle class that is culturally changing. No matter how many call centres you open, you’re not white and you never will be.
[abuse edited] think so.
You are talking about Gandhi like this….talk about hopeless jinnah…you people got free nation, free money, free food…even now you are getting it….
And you muslim people (backstabbers-more precisely) hold sword in one hand and Quran in another and convert people saying it is religion with love…..
And you talk about sculptures depicting sex as disgusting…..how have you born..fallen from sky….
The so called mahatma gandhi was actually gandha gandhi..the thing is in that era the most people in india werre illitrate.. gandhi had no love for nation or what ever till the white kicked his ass and threw him out of the train and several other incidents..when this gandu started his nautanky then he was aged about 50 years and was a total failure over all ..the most of the indians think that due to this gandu gandhi india got freedom 15 years latter and due to this landu person the country got partitioned in twp piecess..the true freedom fighters were subash chander bose, Dr ambedkar, lala lajpat rai, shaeed bhagat singh,udham singh ,kartar sing sarabha ,chander sekhar azad, Rajguru and sukhdev and many more like them… Gandhi is a piece of shit on the face of india,and latter on Nehru.Indra and all of thier category were bastards .. the thing is that gandhi should not have been killed by saheed nathuram godse ..cos nathuram made him alive for ever by killing otherwise the people of india them selves would have kicked the ass of this gandu gandhi..
With a lots of thank to all those who let the world know about this gandhi..
Perhaps you missed the point or maybe your poor comprehension of English did not allow you to understand the simple facts brought to light by Gandhi’s grandsons–not me:
1) Adultery, Pehophilia is not acceptable in any society, nor by Indian society. Gandhi did not have sex with his wife, only with others.
2) The sources are all India-Hindu and not Muslim
3) This is not a discussion of JInnha, Islam or Hindusim. It is a discussion of sexual perversions of Gandhi which you support. What does that make you?
a) The number of Hindus grew in the thousand year rule eof the Mussalmans–it did not diminish. If Muslims had done a “Spanish Inquisition” in Bharat, there would not be any Hindu left in the Subcontinent. Akbar and others chrished and promoted Hindus.
b) One point. If one is holding the sword in one hand, how is it “backstabbing”. Isn’t backstabbing what Shivajee did while embracing Aurenzeb’s ambassador. A stab in the back!
BTW: Sex is wonderful!
sleeping with a 19yo isn’t pedophilia, whatever yr age.
Oh! Excuse us..you are right with Manu…it was simply incest!
Also there were younger girls!
That is disgusting !!!!!!!!!! what a hypocritical two faced deceitful twit , what amazes me is people actually take this sicko as an example !? , the way he is dressed and so on ….how can a man who commits adultery be an example to the nation , mind boggling .
na tum [profanity edited] rahay ho na hum [profanity edited] rahay hain
So its you again Ram Chand!
“Mr. Khan” your profane comment tell us about your family background
Mahatama Gandhi is no less than Prophet Mohammad who propounded Islam (May peace be upon him)
Very shameful that the author can stoop to being such low human being, author should be either cynic or he should be a kafir who doesnt have any respect for Islam and never a muslim
do you know about who is Prophet Muhammad
are you muslim
I find tremendous amount of energy and time been expended by Moin to inorder to throw dirt on Gandhi & in guise Hindus !!…lol
…[profanity, rudeness and personal attack deleted!] Muslims like u never seem to get sense do u ? I have plenty of muslim friends but they are far to evolved to be comprehended by your medeival mentality !…From where did Pakistanis evolve ?? The areas which are under Pakistan were the places attacked and looted by the Turkish invaders in the previous centuries & Hindu women were taken in as sex slaves or kept in as whores , may be u can trace your rich ancestory from that point , I guess all I can do is sympathize with a [rudeness deleted!] like u .
Though I personally dislike Gandhis principles no one has the right to abuse him like that [profanity deleted]
Mr. Vijay:
We take very strong umbrage to the insinuation that Rupee News uses any derogatory statements against any person because of his/her national origin or religious background. We reject it. Rupee News has articles on personalities of various religious and ethnic backgrounds—and because of the very nature of jounalism, many of them are critical.
The article quotes many Indian and Hindu as well as Christian and Western authors.
Your attempt to depict this article as a religious food fight displays an inability to read a critical analysis of a leader of the Subcontinent. Your backlash at religious personalities, in fact all Muslims and the religion itself describes the mentality which says, “I have many black friends”–but the footnote defines the “friends” as subhuman becuase they are progeny of “whores” (your words not ours).
The legitimate criticism of Mr. Mohandas Gandhi is based on two recent books written by Mr. Gandhi’s two grandsons. Perhaps you can take up the issues that you have raised with the progeny of Mr. Gandhi himself.
Actual quotes from Sarojini Naidu, Mr. Bose and Mr. Nehru are part and parcel of history. Rupee News simply brings it to light.
There is no intention to disparage a race or religion. In fact, Rupee News support interfaith efforts have been underway to counter bigotry in the USA for the past decade. During the Kashmir earthquake many churches, synagogues, mosques and temples sent relief supplies to Kashmir.
Rupee News is a US based newspaper. The criticism of political leaders is a legitimate enterprise in the United States of America where freedom of press is not monopolized by the ruling class or caste.
Rupee News has not criticized Hindusism, Hindu Gods, Hindu Godesses or religious figures in this article. Mr. Mohandas Gandhi’s criticism is based on his political affiliations and involvement in the politics of the time, which reverberates to the present day.
Your assumption that the criticism is somehow directed only towards Mr. Gandhi is false. Rupee News has dozens of articles severely criticizing many Muslims, Buddhists, Jews, Agnostics, and Christians. Many of the articles criticizing Muslims are written by Muslims, and many articles eulogizing Hindus are written by Muslims…and all other permutations exist, not by design but because of the volume of material posted.
Almost every leader in the Subcontinent has been discussed and many have faced criticism. Rupee News has excoriated many Pakistani politicians, and Muslim leaders as well. The front page has a picture of Mr. Husain Haqqani–the Pakistani Ambassador to the US garlanded with shoes. Mr. Sharif, Mr. Zardari and even Ms. Bhutto (before her death) have been critically analyzed on Rupee News.
Your depiction of the prophet of Islam is inaccurate indeed very sad. The attack was unprovoked. You owe us an apology. Your depiction of Muslims as somehow children of “whores” are an insult to the marvelous mothers of Hindu India. It is a insult to all mothers in the world. With all due respect, by your own demented logic–your insinuation may point fingers at your own ancestor. Even if your false contention that millions of Hindu women were kept as whores is accepted (and we do not accept it), and there is a huge question of its authenticity, even then the progeny of such liaisons are not inferior because of the inuendo that you have prescribed.
Our personal ancestory is illustrious, and well documented in the historical vaults, newspapers, geneological archives and libraries of the Subcontinent and in London and Berkley. We do not need a certificate from you.
Feel free to submit an opposing point of view on Gandhi free of rancor and profanity and Rupee News will be glad to publish it.
We wish you well!
Laughing My Ass Off….LMAO!!! hahahaha
Gandhi was best actor ever.
Indian sycophants still worship a maniac like him who is responsible for bloodshed of lacs of Hindus,Muslims & Sikh.Now another psycho called modi has started worshiping mohandas gandhi.
Nice work.
I really appreciate the articles & especially that letter of Mohandas to his friend Adolf hitler provided here.
Indian government has wiped out history for their political benefits & raised ordinary indians as brainwashed zombies so this is good work you are doing for entire sub-continent.
What a complete bunch of rubbish…
Taking all this rubish , did make me angry in the first place, but on second thoughts Mahtma Ghandhi wouldn’t have taken offence to all these remarks as he was as rightly pointed in the article a strong bull-headed egoistic person who only knew to get freedom for subcontinent and who cares even if it was his own motive the bottom line is he got it for us.
And it is no secret that many leaders of India ( before partition) did not like him bcuz his stubborn nature and inflexibility for what he wanted and thats what makes him a great human being even after facing weaknesses of a human ( Pedophilia, Adultery, Incest, Sexual Perversion ) but at the end of the day he had courage to stand up and say ” Hit me harder and I will be back”. He may have died but still stays a man who got us freedom and it is history nobody can change.
And as proof of influence of tht person we are still talking about Mr. Gandhi after 60yrs of his death, he played his game of life well better than Jinnah and Nehru and what more do you want.
Indians as brainwashed zombies – thts a cool line dude, these zombies have created one of world’s largest economy.
If you remember we started at the place on independence guess you were a day ahead and I give a damm what ever you do in your country, all I care about is my country, so rather than wasting so much of energy writting about sex addict Gandhi go and do something for your country.
Word of advice Pakistan is your country think about its future and stop being obessed by India ( Hindus, Muslims, Sikhs), learn something from Mr. Gandhi “FOCUS’.some of you may get glory if you do something good for your country , you won’t achieve anything talking about gandhi and india.
For Indians there is more than just pakistan , ya would have liked not having one but who cares if you are there or not we have better things to do and worry about.
Cheers and Luv – Ali
you peopla who enjoyed reading sex antics of gandhi would definitely enjoy sex lives of these people who hide their ladies, hve marriages within family and keep many wives , no better than animals . even their supreme power had incest sex at the age of 54 yrs wid a 9 yrs old. Muslims should be thankful to Gandhi as he prevented their massacre and allowed them to live in india or else they would hve been wiped off or pushed to pakistan . if u like them u can still take them!
it is very bad to here these things .the author of thisbookmust be hanged.he is a sinner.gandhiji is a godlike man
This person now is writing under Imran. He has posted several comments on the site under different names like ajay bharadwaj
Mr. Ganhsi’s grandson has written the article. Others were Saigorni Naidu, Bose, and BT SIngh. Read all about it on Amazon. We just reported it
Great piece of research moin…..u deserve all the applause….. u know indians are in a habit of creating idols…and making sure that the world recognizes them and praise them…gandhi was a liar and tricked the whole nation…..and u know ended up as a pervert …poor sex maniac….
how can people still close their eyes and say gandhi “mahatma” after seeing all the facts and proofs and that too written by his own family.
the real leaders who really are responsible for the independence are never remebered thise who laid their lives for the nation.
the movie munnabhai lage raho should be remade with corrections .
This is quite degrading and demeaning guys! Everyone has their bad sides. The key is to keep a balance when making judgements. Im not really fond of Gandhi, but I still respect him for some of his great achievements. Putting up stuff like this, with degrading, humiliating distorted pictures (like the ones I see above) is unacceptable – even for an enemy! How can we call ourselves Muslims if we too fall into this dirty game of mud slinging?
If Gaand(hi) was alive today, he would have been fughting for gay rights as well…bloody fagot urine drinker….
Sorry to say but what a hopeless character he was…burn in hell you fake preecher
[Gandhi] is a great leader of India for Indian Pplz. They believe in him as their father of nation. Like father like children. That is why the hindu psychos rape the women of minorities in their country constantly and regularly.
Now I know that all the indian nation [insults deleted].
God!!! Burn that psycho sex freak in hell ever and forever.
Mr.Moin I nominate u 4 The Nobel Peace Prize 4 speaking truth.
There is no authenticated proof of what gandhi said and what he didn’t. Manipulation of facts is way more easy then living the truth. Think again? You’ll get all your answers just by asking the right questions yourself. This is a reference to the author of the book, this article and all those who believed it.
Sorry to burst your bubble–but there IS authenticated proof by those who were actually present and in the archives of British India and South Africa
…but wait the best proof is the writing of Mohandas Gandhi himself..His speeches and saying are archived accurately in his own writing…starting with “Experiment with Truth” and in the works of his two Gandhi grandsons. Dr. Singh has accurately listed Mohandas’ comments which are part of British and South African official records.
Saijorni Naidu, and Mr. Bose are stalwarts of the Independence movement and both authenticate the events
Any questions?
Please be very specific when you refute any allegation
Dear Moin,
More to add on Gandhi.
All great men have weaknesses. Gandhi had his.
Gandhi was no doubt a Mahatma whose greatness must not be minimized. He created a political awakening among the masses of India and led them through the doors of freedom. He became one with the poor by living a simple and austere life. He identified with the Untouchables by doing their work with his own hands. He practiced what he preached. He sacrificed the career of his children to his concept of moral education by denying them an academic education, which in his view ‘perpetuated slavery.’ His eldest son, Hira Lal, never forgave him for that and did exactly the opposite of what his noble father preached. He became a meat eater, an alcoholic, a gambler and a philanderer, but this did not deter Gandhi from the moral path he had chosen. Albert Einstein once said of him, ‘Generations to come, it may be, will scarce believe that such a one as this ever in flesh and blood walked upon this earth.’
You simply dole out the 8th grade version of psychodrama doled out to you in the temple. Have you read any international appraisals of the man. Obviously not. Read the book by his two grandsons, and by Dr. Singh. A majority of Indians don’t feel the way you do about the man. Making him into a diety doesn’t serve any historical purpose. Not only was he infallible–he was a failure
The progeny of Einstein, the Jewish Defense League, and the ADL don’t feel the same way. Certainly his cozying up Hitler didn’t endear him to the jews. Asking them to commit mass suicide while praising Hitler doesn’t make him popular in Israel or the Jewish world. The 109th Congress of the United States of American condemned him for his racism, and the Nobel Peace prize Committee criticized him for his war mongering, and requesting the Government of Bharat (aka India) to wage war on Pakistan. That telegram according to the Nobel peace prize committee clinched his dumping.
South Africans won’t even tolerate his statue in Durban. There were huge riots in South Africa against him and his fake non-violence.
Prime Minister Atlee, the last PM of Britain before independence when asked about how important were Gandhi’s significance in forcing the British to leave South Asia–to this question Attlee said Gandhi was not a insignificant.
We wrote the same article with a different headline, but it lies buried in the 4000 or so articles on history. They all want to read the salacious one. You are concentrating on his personal failures, for which we really don’t about–he was a political failure in South Africa trying to set up a Caste System with special privileges for the “Indians”, and supporting–nay participating in wars against the Zulus, and the Kaffirs (Tribe in Africa).
He supported all British wars–Zulu, Boer, WW1, and WW2–in fact there wasn’t a war he did not support–thus enhancing the ability of England to continue colonization. His greatest achievement—was no achievement at all–the British had decided to leave South Asia. Ghana, Nigeria, Malaysia–all got their freedoms from British colonialism at about the same time.
By not giving the Dalits separate electorate, he kept them in slavery. He said that one would have to go over his dead body to abolish the caste system. That is why the 450 million Dalits and Lower Caste hate him so much. Read Ambedaker who disliked Gandhi. His followers detest him also. Dalits hate him for calling them Harijans– a name that they have rejected because it is condescending.
Surely he is hate in Pakistan and even bangladesh for antagonizing with the Muslim leadership and alienating the Muslims–contrary to the propaganda doled out by the Indian National Congress, which thinks that the history of the INC is the history of India. Jaswant Singh a NJP leader writes pretty much what we have said.
Gandhi and Nehru assassinated one of the most important leaders of Independence–Mr Bose (with whose wife, Mr. gandhi was caught sleeping with). Not only that 29000 members of the Indian National Army were murdered in cold blood—these were the sons who were fighting for independence and were a significant factor in the British decision to leave.
Sairojni Naidu was very critical of Gandhi and said “we have to spend millions to keep Mr. Gandhi in poverty”. Sarawarkar, and Golwalkar surely disliked Mr. Gandhi. His attitude forced the Muslims out of the Congress
A man’s success or failure is determined by his accomplishments and his character. Mr. Gandhi it seems–didn’t have either.
PS: Ever one of these points have references from Time Magazine, Mr. Bose, Sairojni Naidu, Ambedekar, two grandsons of Mr. Gandhi, and Dr. Singh’s latest book on the man.
PSS: What is the Herald Team?
Sex is a normal human nature.If you got to indian kashmir. you find lot of prostitutes. Even the chief minister blamed for sex scandal by the opposition.
You are right, Mumbai is full of prostitutes–highest density on the planet.
However taking enemas in the butt publicly, and sleeping with two naked 12 year girls on each side to test manhood may be questioned by the good people of Bharat. Sleeping with other wives (Bose) created unnecessary tension for Mr. Gandhi.
Some may question sleeping naked with the grand niece Manu.
Thank You For your Reply Mr. Moin.
[...]
You are conveying so many things about one Person called Gandhi (Without Proper Evidence & it is like making a Hollow noisy Sound……. :):):):):):):):):))
Mr. Moin, Gandhi spoke truth & expressed it openly.
Do you have that GUTS or your Jinnah or any of your Pakistani Friends????
The correct name is Sarojini Naidu not Sairojni Naidu.
And regarding whatever she said please give me the reference or exact link. Unless you provide that I will not acknowledge your words. Till you provide that I will think it as a Pakistani Lie (as usual), please do not mind.
>Sarawarkar, and Golwalkar surely disliked Mr. Gandhi.
You know why??? It is because Gandhi accepted to divide Indian Subcontinent into 2 Parts i.e. India & Pakistan.
>Gandhi and Nehru assassinated one of the most important leaders of Independence–Mr Bose (with whose wife, Mr. gandhi was caught sleeping with). Not only that 29000 members of the Indian National Army were murdered in cold blood—these were the sons who were fighting for independence and were a significant factor in the British decision to leave.
— Show me the evidence. Unless you provide that I will not acknowledge your words. Till you provide that I will think it as a Pakistani Lie (as usual), please do not mind.
>You simply dole out the 8th grade version of psychodrama doled out to you in the temple. Have you read any international appraisals of the man. Obviously not. Read the book by his two grandsons, and by Dr. Singh. A majority of Indians don’t feel the way you do about the man. Making him into a diety doesn’t serve any historical purpose. Not only was he infallible–he was a failure
— I can tell the same about Jinnah & all of your Pakistani Leaders that you understand & convey whatever has been doled out in your Schools or Madarasas. But I will not do that because I’m an Indian & I respect all other human beings on this universe.
>By not giving the Dalits separate electorate, he kept them in slavery. He said that one would have to go over his dead body to abolish the caste system. That is why the 450 million Dalits and Lower Caste hate him so much. Read Ambedaker who disliked Gandhi. His followers detest him also. Dalits hate him for calling them Harijans– a name that they have rejected because it is condescending.
Surely he is hate in Pakistan and even bangladesh for antagonizing with the Muslim leadership and alienating the Muslims–contrary to the propaganda doled out by the Indian National Congress, which thinks that the history of the INC is the history of India. Jaswant Singh a NJP leader writes pretty much what we have said.
— Who told you this lie? You people should be thankful for Gandhi because he allowed creation of Pakistan. Regarding Jaswant Singh, he is like you who does not go in depth but just understands only Hear say stories which are total lies.
Regarding Ambedkar, Gandhi wished to save Hinduism by abolishing untouchability, whereas Ambedkar saw a solution for his people outside the fold of the dominant religion of the Indian people. Gandhi was a rural romantic, who wished to make the self-governing village the bedrock of free India; Ambedkar an admirer of city life and modern technology who dismissed the Indian village as a den of iniquity. Gandhi was a crypto-anarchist who favoured non-violent protest while being suspicious of the state; Ambedkar a steadfast constitutionalist, who worked within the state and sought solutions to social problems with the aid of the state.
Regarding Herald Team, Mr. Moin, you have only mentioned in this Blog. Herald Team is nothing but New Delhi Herald.
Regarding Gandhi, Please go through history written by Britishers rather than Pakistanis or Indians, you will understand who Gandhi is.
More On Gandhi is as below;
Gandhi fought with radical Muslims on the one side and with radical Hindus on the other, both of whom sought to build a state on theological principles. He argued with Nehru and other scientists on whether economic development in a free India should centre on the village or the factory. And with that other giant, Rabindranath Tagore, he disputed the merits of such varied affiliations as the English language, nationalism, and the spinning wheel.
Regarding 2 Grandsons of Mr. Gandhi, do you think they are speaking are truth. They are like Jaswant Singh who understand only Hear Say Stories…. :( :( :( :(
Inability to read is a serious handicap.
Shooting off your mouth–without reading the article that you are commenting on makes a fool of your self.
All links and exact references are in the Gandhi article–if you had read the first line it starts out with references. Please read the article with the references and get to us. In summary, we quoted Ambedaker, Bose, Naidu, Dr. Singh, Mr. Jaswant Singh, two grandsons of Mr. Gandhi, Time Magazine, the criticism of Mr. Gandhi by the Nobel peace Committee which rejected him twice, the 109th Congress of the United States of America which condemned his racism, and Mr. Gandhi himself in “Experiment with Truth”.
You contradict yourself–first you asks for references, and then you reject the references which were given (all Indian)–by your own admission–Jaswant Singh, Naidu (various spellings are used for her first name–depending on the ethnicity of the writer) Sarwarkar, and Mr. Gandhi’s grandsons.
Once again Mr. Gandhi’s major accomplishment in life equaled ZERO. The British had already decided to leave South Asia–just like they left Nigeria, Kenya, and China–all without Gandhis.
It is an 8th grade myth perpetuated by the fictional movie “Gandhi” (based on the fictional Freedom at Midnight) that Gandhi in any way supported Pakistan. There is no historical evidence of this stance. Mr. Gandhi and Mr. Nehru acquiesced to the demand after rejecting the Cabinet Mission Plan (CMP).
If you want your posts deleted, please continue with personal insultsIf you want them published please refrain from them.
All of you pakistanis and duplicate muslim; originally all of you are hindus, can only hate and criticise India and Indian leaders. That day is not far long when all muslims from pakistan and world will vanished from earth. Indian dont need to kill you. because you piggy muslims being killed by America, Nato in Afghanistan, Iraq, palestine, chechen and now In pakistan. Dont imagine of defeating India. Neither you childrens of Pig and whole Muslim nation cant even shakes the single below hair of indians
Dear Anil,
I know its difficult to gulp down the facts but i feel sorry and enlightened to tell you that its all true. Sit down relax, and read this article again with a drink (whatever you like) and your comprehension will improve dramatically. Realization will set in and you yourself (with an understandably heavy heart though) will kick the statue of gandhi. Cmon considering the pervert gaandhi was Gorse who killed him should reclaim the well deserved spot on your wall. No offence plz
Wait till Pakistan is declared a Terrorist State. You guys will go begging in stead of writing such rubbish.
You and your kind can keep on dreaming nonsense. The “rubbish” was written by two grandsons of Mr. Mohandas Gandhi.
Foreign Secretary David Miliband has said he believes Pakistan did not direct the Mumbai attacks
Mr Miliband said: “I have said publicly that I do not believe that the attacks were directed by the Pakistani state and I think it’s important to restate that.”
Mr. Moin even if I were to agree to all your presumptions (which is what they are, however implicative his grandsons writings may have been..) neither you nor I can deny the good that the man did and what he stood for… Acknowledge that and move on… what Gandhi did in bed is irrelevant in face of what he did outside it…. If we were to sit down and compound all the personal faults of men (great or not) we would end up with quite a list…. So instead of blatantly indulging in Gandhi bashing maybe you should make more constructive use of your considerable resource…. just friendly advise…
and whether Pakistani or Indian…. I seriously think both nations have greater issues to deal with rather than going at each others throats…
O n lastly what Mr. Milliband said is just an ‘opinion’ not fact and I am aware the same can be said about India’s claims… But what’s important is that lives were lost and lost in vain in the name of religious fanaticism, and that at least is fact…. and needs be condemned.
Rohit: Denial of facts cannot be considered rational, specially if the facts have been verified through several sources.
We agree with you. Mr. Gandhi was entitled to his idiosyncrasies and his procivlity for the fairer sex. However the farce of Bharamacharaya was propagated to hide the sinister aspects of Mr. Gandhi’s personal life. Bose was livid when he found out that Mr. Gandhi was sleeping with his wife. Mr. Gandhi’s Non-Violence did not cover his wife–who was repeatedly subjected to abuse. Sergeant Major Gandhi supported every British war and he was the self described “Recruiter in Chief” the Viceroy. Bose and his followers believed that Gandhi’s support for the British during the war extended Colonialism. There is a plethora of material on this available on this subject.
No, we do not think that Mr. Gandhi did good. This shared by millions around South Asia, the Novel peace Prize Committee and the COngress of the United States which has condemned his racism and bigotry. There are more than 2000 articles on this site. Four deal with the sexual antics of major political figures of the last century. It is important to expose the facts. Tens of thousands have read the article and it has been reproduced thousands of times.
Mr. Gandhi and Mr. Nehru murdered 29000 soldiers belonging to the Indian National Army which was a real threat to the British Empire.
Mr. Gandhi introduced religious symbols to South Asia–polarizing the inhabitants into Hindu, Muslims, Sikh and Dalit camps which eventually led to the formation of Pakistan and Bharat.
Mr. Gandhi’s support for waging war on Pakistan cost him a Nobel Peace Prize (see article on this site or the Nobel Peace Pirze site).
We agree with you. Both countries have greater problems. As soon as you pull down HinduUnity.org and the Jinnah bashing sites, I will delete these articles immediately–though I cannot recall the biographies of Gandhi written by two of his grandsons.
The religious fanaticism was started by the writings of Rai, Sarvakar, RSS and perpetuated by the likes of Varun, Modi, Adhvani, Prohit, the VHP, Sang parvar and the BJP. Dismantling those would end the fanaticism in Bharat and would have a mellowing effect in all neighboring states.
These [] are all mentally sick , perverted , and shallow , i mean just look at how hindu women , and widows in bharat are sold to the “temple” for prostitution. Its ridiculous that modern educated hindus still believe in their stupid rock statues , i mean these statues cant even flick a fly away from their faces, these idol worshipers are a taint on the name of humanity and should be eradicated ASAP.
P.S – Excellent article moin , i always thought there was something fishy about this gandhi drama.
This is true that M.K gandhi was sleeping with young girls naked and this whole exercise was projected as some DESIRE CONTROL experiments.
There is wide community in India which do not see these projections positively and lives of M.K Gandhi, Nehru are debatable to be national figures of India. But this is not so in practical and these names are forced on us to be taken as NATIONAL PRIDE.
Although information was correct but the way you present it was little ‘tinge’ of bias and spice in it. This tinge had spoiled the effect- otherwise you were correct !
>>A book we highly recommend. Beverley Nichols, a famous novelist, musician, playwright, essayist, reporter, and a journalist visited British India. During this visit, he met Dr. Ambedkar, who told him:
“Gandhi is the greatest enemy the untouchables have ever had in India.”
So what did Ambedkar mean? Mr. Nichols explained it as follows:
[We can best explain it by a parallel. Take Ambedkar’s remark, and for the word “untouchable” substitute the word “peace.” Now imagine that a great champion of peace, like Lord Cecil, said, “Gandhi is the greatest enemy of peace the world has ever had.” What would he mean, using these words of the most spectacular pacifist of modern times? He would mean that passive resistance–which is Gandhi’s form of
——– Wellll………….Someone says Ambedkar has said that so & so & you say that it is true…….Well Mr. Moin…….. Gandhi was a reformed Man & Everyone in India knows that……..Gandhi was not a born Freedom Fighter like Bhagat Singh……Gandhi slowly understood the Freedom Struggle……& when Gandhi was thrown out of Train in South Africe, Gandhi started understanding of Freedom Struggle & then he slowly took part in Freedom Struggle……And during 1940′s, Gandhi was a full fledged Reformed Man so Gandhi did not became Mahatma from birth….. And you think Gandhi was Mahatma from birth… :):):):):):):):):):):):):)
Subhash Chandra Bose’s Daughter about Gandhi
Very often Gandhi is portrayed as a saint, which he was not at all. In my opinion he was a very shrewd politician. He was a lawyer who really knew how to work the system and manipulate people in a positive sense. He certainly made my father resign as Congress president.
>>> Once again Mr. Gandhi’s major accomplishment in life equaled ZERO. The British had already decided to leave South Asia–just like they left Nigeria, Kenya, and China–all without Gandhis.
—- “The countrywide opposition to British rule in which the Indian personnel of the three armies participated, crowned by the naval mutiny, was the direct cause of the decision to transfer power. ”
Why did The Indian Army in India were not obeying the British officers, it is because of the Freedom Struggle initiated by Mahatma Gandhi which is called Non-Violence Movement made these Indian Army in India not to obey the British Officers.
Why I point out this as reason because Britishers were in India from Past 200 years & except for during 1940′s, Indian Army Obeyed British Officers & the credit goes to Mahatma Gandhi who rediscovered Non-Violence Movement.
>>> Inability to read is a serious handicap.
Shooting off your mouth–without reading the article that you are commenting on makes a fool of your self.
You contradict yourself–first you asks for references, and then you reject the references which were given (all Indian)–by your own admission–Jaswant Singh, Naidu (various spellings are used for her first name–depending on the ethnicity of the writer) Sarwarkar, and Mr. Gandhi’s grandsons.
—- Mr. Moin, I haven’t contradicted myself. You are too early to jump into conclusions. I infact clicked on some of the references but they led to this website only where you only have written the articles & it was full of misunderstood facts (or Lies) therefore I requested you the references. And lastly, when I click on some other references, it asks for WordPress Username & Password.
Regarding Sarojini Naidu’s First Name, please check out this link. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarojini_Naidu
Mr. Moin, please acknowledge that you cannot read/understand Indian Names correctly :):):):):):):):):):):).
And do not put that depending on ethnicity of the Writer, Naidu’s Name is pronounced. :):):):):):):):):):):)
The Correct name of Sarwarkar is Savarkar, again you made the mistake & again please acknowledge that you cannot read/understand Indian Names correctly :):):):):):):):):):):).
And Please check out the following link on real name of Savarkar. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Savarkar
Regarding New Delhi Herald Team’s Photos, please share the link which I’m unable to find it here.
——————————————————————————————————————-
And I asked so many questions in my previous to previous Post, but you did answer only few of them. And restored to Gandhi Degrading Mode…….. :):):):):):):):):):):):):):)
Mr. Moin, Gandhi pronounced Hitler as Dear Friend. Why because…………. Gandhi didn’t had any enemies & Gandhi was thinking as Friend of Everyone rather than what the other person is thinking (either as friend or as a enemy).
So Please understand this simple Fact.
I am very confused by your response–and don’t really know how to handle your contradictions.
Wiki is not a good source–not even accepted for KG in the US. Indian names are spelled many different ways. I don’t want to get into imbecilic arguments about spellings.
You have tried to defend the impossible–by quoting Bose, and others and then trying to give your spin to it.
Gandhi was condemned by the 109th Congress of the United States of America for his racist bigotry. This was just a few years ago–they took into account his entire life.
Gandhi was criticize by the Nobel Peace Prize Committee and refused a Nobel Peace Prize which it thought Mr. Gandhi did not deserve. It was a few weeks before his death. They scrutinized his life.
Gandhi achieved nothing–the British were going to leave South Asia anyway–just like they left Nigeria (no Gandhi there!!!).
Dalits don’t hate Gandhi because of his stick–they hate him for many many reasons–the one most important to them is that he did not outlaw the Caste system and kept them enslaved and Untouchable. That is why they never call themselves “Harijans”.
Even Kant hates Gandhi–and he is no friend of Pakistan or Muslims
He was wrong on many counts—on Dalits, brining religious symbols to Bharat, drumming out Muslims from INC, brining in bigots like Patel into the INC, allowing Patel to take over Hyderabad, killing 29,000 Indian National Army soldiers, assassinating Bose, asking Indian government to wage war on Pakistan, etc etc
His personal life was shameful and disgusting
>>>> I am very confused by your response–and don’t really know how to handle your contradictions.
—- Welll, Welll….You are confused, I understand why you are so.
Handling my contradictions????
Tell me clearly where I have contradicted myselffffff……….except for asking the references where 90% of the references are not valid.
And adding to this, you are acting toooooooooooo Smart, isn’t it Mr. Moin!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>>>> Wiki is not a good source–not even accepted for KG in the US. Indian names are spelled many different ways. I don’t want to get into imbecilic arguments about spellings.
—- Incase you do not accept Wikipedia as a good source, I request you to get into imbecilic arguments about spellings so that your truth will come out.
Once again I repeat please acknowledge that you are wrong in spelling Sarojini Naidu & Savarkar’s Names.
If you read/write in Urdu, it is same as English Pronounciation of Sarojini Naidu & Savarkar’s Names.
>>>> You have tried to defend the impossible–by quoting Bose, and others and then trying to give your spin to it.
—- My God, I have just opened up your references & quoted the same. And I explained the truth. You think that it is not truth & I have tried to defend the impossible. Well, I understand that you are weak in understanding Truths. :):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):)
>>>>Gandhi was condemned by the 109th Congress of the United States of America for his racist bigotry. This was just a few years ago–they took into account his entire life.
—- Yes, because as you know Congress of United states of America missed the bigger Picture (hope you understand this). As I shared with you earlier, Gandhi was a reformed Man & Everyone in India knows that……..Gandhi was not a born Freedom Fighter like Bhagat Singh……Gandhi slowly understood the Freedom Struggle……& when Gandhi was thrown out of Train in South Africe, Gandhi started understanding of Freedom Struggle & then he slowly took part in Freedom Struggle……And during 1940′s, Gandhi was a full fledged Reformed Man so Gandhi did not became Mahatma from birth….. And you think Gandhi was Mahatma from birth…which Gandhi is not :):):):):):):):):):):):):)
Yes, as mentioned above, Gandhi didn’t liked the Blacks initially only during the later stage of life, he started respecting everyone. If 109th Congress of United States of America thinks only about earlier stage of Gandhi’s life which was not matured, then it is 109th Congress of United States of America’s problem (immaturity & also yours).
As usual, Congress of United States of America is known for its biased attitude. Once USA supported Osama Bin Laden & now they are fighting against the same Osama Bin Laden.
>>>> Gandhi was criticize by the Nobel Peace Prize Committee and refused a Nobel Peace Prize which it thought Mr. Gandhi did not deserve. It was a few weeks before his death. They scrutinized his life.
—- Who scrutinized it????? Britishers, US, Europeans who were all disliking Indian People.
Gandhi achieved nothing–the British were going to leave South Asia anyway–just like they left Nigeria (no Gandhi there!!!).
—- Mr. Moin, as quoted by British which is as follows,
“The countrywide opposition to British rule in which the Indian personnel of the three armies participated, crowned by the naval mutiny, was the direct cause of the decision to transfer power. ”
Why did The Indian Army in India were not obeying the British officers, it is because of the Freedom Struggle initiated by Mahatma Gandhi which is called Non-Violence Movement made these Indian Army in India not to obey the British Officers.
Why I point out this as reason because Britishers were in India from Past 200 years & except for during 1940′s, Indian Army Obeyed British Officers & the credit goes to Mahatma Gandhi who rediscovered Non-Violence Movement.
Mr. Moin, On October 1, 1960, Nigeria gained its independence from the United Kingdom.
So the time difference between 1947 & 1960 is very big, isn’t it???
This shows that there was no single reason between independence of India & Nigeria. :):):):):):):):):):):):):):)
Therefore, British left India because of Gandhi (indirectly, if British/You do not accept it, it is British/Your Shortsightedness)
>>>> Dalits don’t hate Gandhi because of his stick–they hate him for many many reasons–the one most important to them is that he did not outlaw the Caste system and kept them enslaved and Untouchable. That is why they never call themselves “Harijans”.
—- Mr.Moin, Gandhi wished to save Hinduism by abolishing untouchability, whereas Ambedkar saw a solution for his people outside the fold of the dominant religion of the Indian people. Gandhi was a rural romantic, who wished to make the self-governing village the bedrock of free India; Ambedkar an admirer of city life and modern technology who dismissed the Indian village as a den of iniquity. Gandhi was a crypto-anarchist who favoured non-violent protest while being suspicious of the state; Ambedkar a steadfast constitutionalist, who worked within the state and sought solutions to social problems with the aid of the state.
>>>> Even Kant hates Gandhi–and he is no friend of Pakistan or Muslims
—- Gandhi said about Jinnah : ‘Jinnah is Brave and Incorruptible’. At Gandhi’s death, Jinnah said ‘Gandhi was one of the greatest men ever’.
Regarding Kant, Can you please share more details on Kant?????
>>> He was wrong on many counts—on Dalits,
— As I told you earlier the 1930s saw key struggle between Mahatma Gandhi and B. R. Ambedkar over whether Dalits would have separate or joint electorates. Although he failed to get Ambedkar’s support for a joint electorate, Gandhi nevertheless began the “Harijan Yatra” to help the Dalit population.
Gandhi thought of Joint Growth of India but Ambedkar was for only Dailts.
>>> brining religious symbols to Bharat,
— There are/were no religious Symbols brought to Bharat by Gandhi.
>>> drumming out Muslims from INC,
— Many other Muslim leaders, besides Maulana Azad, who played an important role in freedom struggle and stood for united nationalism, were Khan Abdul Ghaffar Khan (Sarhadi Gandhi), Hakim Ajmal Khan, Dr. Ansari, Rafi Ahmad Qidwai and others. We must also mention the role of Ali Brothers i.e. Maulana Muhammad Ali and Shaukat Ali who play key role in Khilafat movement along with Mahatma Gandhi and also their mother Bi Amma.
>>> brining in bigots like Patel into the INC,
allowing Patel to take over Hyderabad,
—- You think like your mind. Patel did good by taking over Hyderabad because it was vital for India Formation.
And Patel was against alcoholism, untouchability and caste discrimination, as well as for the empowerment of women.
>>> killing 29,000 Indian National Army soldiers,
—- If Britishers kill 29000 INA Soldiers, how come Gandhi is held responsible where he was against War.
>>> assassinating Bose,
—- Bose was not assassinated, it was a false one. Bose was alive it 2008.
>>> asking Indian government to wage war on Pakistan, etc etc
—- Mr. Moin, This is big lie because Gandhi was against War & wanted friendship with Pakistan.
His personal life was shameful and disgusting
>>>> Mr. Moin, this is your opinion. But according to we, Indians, Gandhi was a enlightened Man & became a Mahatma (Great Man) & was not a Mahatma from Birth.
I have read all his books–all polemics–biased and Islamphobic written to make money
I met him London three years ago (when he was peddling Shalimar the Clown), and discussed the issues with him.
His last book “Shalimar the Clown” is but is but propaganda for Bharat (aka India)
Mr. Moin, hope you are a Good Man with lot of Misunderstandings. So I’m clearing the Facts for you.
So deleting my posts shows that you are more ignorant of knowing the facts.
————————————————————————-
>>>> I am very confused by your response–and don’t really know how to handle your contradictions.
—- Welll, Welll….You are confused, I understand why you are so.
Handling my contradictions????
Tell me clearly where I have contradicted myselffffff……….except for asking the references where 90% of the references are not valid.
And adding to this, you are acting toooooooooooo Smart, isn’t it Mr. Moin!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>>>> Wiki is not a good source–not even accepted for KG in the US. Indian names are spelled many different ways. I don’t want to get into imbecilic arguments about spellings.
—- Incase you do not accept Wikipedia as a good source, I request you to get into imbecilic arguments about spellings so that your truth will come out.
Once again I repeat please acknowledge that you are wrong in spelling Sarojini Naidu & Savarkar’s Names.
If you read/write in Urdu, it is same as English Pronounciation of Sarojini Naidu & Savarkar’s Names.
>>>> You have tried to defend the impossible–by quoting Bose, and others and then trying to give your spin to it.
—- My God, I have just opened up your references & quoted the same. And I explained the truth. You think that it is not truth & I have tried to defend the impossible. Well, I understand that you are weak in understanding Truths. :):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):)
>>>>Gandhi was condemned by the 109th Congress of the United States of America for his racist bigotry. This was just a few years ago–they took into account his entire life.
—- Yes, because as you know Congress of United states of America missed the bigger Picture (hope you understand this). As I shared with you earlier, Gandhi was a reformed Man & Everyone in India knows that……..Gandhi was not a born Freedom Fighter like Bhagat Singh……Gandhi slowly understood the Freedom Struggle……& when Gandhi was thrown out of Train in South Africe, Gandhi started understanding of Freedom Struggle & then he slowly took part in Freedom Struggle……And during 1940′s, Gandhi was a full fledged Reformed Man so Gandhi did not became Mahatma from birth….. And you think Gandhi was Mahatma from birth…which Gandhi is not :):):):):):):):):):):):):)
Yes, as mentioned above, Gandhi didn’t liked the Blacks initially only during the later stage of life, he started respecting everyone. If 109th Congress of United States of America thinks only about earlier stage of Gandhi’s life which was not matured, then it is 109th Congress of United States of America’s problem (immaturity & also yours).
As usual, Congress of United States of America is known for its biased attitude. Once USA supported Osama Bin Laden & now they are fighting against the same Osama Bin Laden.
>>>> Gandhi was criticize by the Nobel Peace Prize Committee and refused a Nobel Peace Prize which it thought Mr. Gandhi did not deserve. It was a few weeks before his death. They scrutinized his life.
—- Who scrutinized it????? Britishers, US, Europeans who were all disliking Indian People.
Gandhi achieved nothing–the British were going to leave South Asia anyway–just like they left Nigeria (no Gandhi there!!!).
—- Mr. Moin, as quoted by British which is as follows,
“The countrywide opposition to British rule in which the Indian personnel of the three armies participated, crowned by the naval mutiny, was the direct cause of the decision to transfer power. ”
Why did The Indian Army in India were not obeying the British officers, it is because of the Freedom Struggle initiated by Mahatma Gandhi which is called Non-Violence Movement made these Indian Army in India not to obey the British Officers.
Why I point out this as reason because Britishers were in India from Past 200 years & except for during 1940′s, Indian Army Obeyed British Officers & the credit goes to Mahatma Gandhi who rediscovered Non-Violence Movement.
Mr. Moin, On October 1, 1960, Nigeria gained its independence from the United Kingdom.
So the time difference between 1947 & 1960 is very big, isn’t it???
This shows that there was no single reason between independence of India & Nigeria. :):):):):):):):):):):):):):)
Therefore, British left India because of Gandhi (indirectly, if British/You do not accept it, it is British/Your Shortsightedness)
>>>> Dalits don’t hate Gandhi because of his stick–they hate him for many many reasons–the one most important to them is that he did not outlaw the Caste system and kept them enslaved and Untouchable. That is why they never call themselves “Harijans”.
—- Mr.Moin, Gandhi wished to save Hinduism by abolishing untouchability, whereas Ambedkar saw a solution for his people outside the fold of the dominant religion of the Indian people. Gandhi was a rural romantic, who wished to make the self-governing village the bedrock of free India; Ambedkar an admirer of city life and modern technology who dismissed the Indian village as a den of iniquity. Gandhi was a crypto-anarchist who favoured non-violent protest while being suspicious of the state; Ambedkar a steadfast constitutionalist, who worked within the state and sought solutions to social problems with the aid of the state.
>>>> Even Kant hates Gandhi–and he is no friend of Pakistan or Muslims
—- Gandhi said about Jinnah : ‘Jinnah is Brave and Incorruptible’. At Gandhi’s death, Jinnah said ‘Gandhi was one of the greatest men ever’.
Regarding Kant, Can you please share more details on Kant?????
>>> He was wrong on many counts—on Dalits,
— As I told you earlier the 1930s saw key struggle between Mahatma Gandhi and B. R. Ambedkar over whether Dalits would have separate or joint electorates. Although he failed to get Ambedkar’s support for a joint electorate, Gandhi nevertheless began the “Harijan Yatra” to help the Dalit population.
Gandhi thought of Joint Growth of India but Ambedkar was for only Dailts.
>>> brining religious symbols to Bharat,
— There are/were no religious Symbols brought to Bharat by Gandhi.
>>> drumming out Muslims from INC,
— Many other Muslim leaders, besides Maulana Azad, who played an important role in freedom struggle and stood for united nationalism, were Khan Abdul Ghaffar Khan (Sarhadi Gandhi), Hakim Ajmal Khan, Dr. Ansari, Rafi Ahmad Qidwai and others. We must also mention the role of Ali Brothers i.e. Maulana Muhammad Ali and Shaukat Ali who play key role in Khilafat movement along with Mahatma Gandhi and also their mother Bi Amma.
>>> brining in bigots like Patel into the INC,
allowing Patel to take over Hyderabad,
—- You think like your mind. Patel did good by taking over Hyderabad because it was vital for India Formation.
And Patel was against alcoholism, untouchability and caste discrimination, as well as for the empowerment of women.
>>> killing 29,000 Indian National Army soldiers,
—- If Britishers kill 29000 INA Soldiers, how come Gandhi is held responsible where he was against War.
>>> assassinating Bose,
—- Bose was not assassinated, it was a false one. Bose was alive it 2008.
>>> asking Indian government to wage war on Pakistan, etc etc
—- Mr. Moin, This is big lie because Gandhi was against War & wanted friendship with Pakistan.
His personal life was shameful and disgusting
>>>> Mr. Moin, this is your opinion. But according to we, Indians, Gandhi was a enlightened Man & became a Mahatma (Great Man) & was not a Mahatma from Birth.
All personal remarks have been ignored.
You were happy that Paksitanis were being patted down. We are not happy that Indians are being killed and burnt alive in Australia. http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/01/06/2786322.htm?section=business
It is better to be feared than dead
Gandhi was a racist when he was young. He was a pervert when he was old. He was a failure as a husband, father and a lawyer. The British Empire folded after 2nd the world war. Gandhi achieved nothing except prolong the British Empire by sending young Indians to die for the empire–he himslef proclaimed that he was the Chief Recruiter in Chief for the British Viceroy.
He extended the life of the British Empire. His advice to the 5 million Jews to commit mass suicide was disgusting. He praised Hilter and wrote to him, and called him friend. Don’t see any enlightenment anywhere?
Afghanistan, Iraq, Sri Lanka and Burma became independent without Gandhi and before “India”
Mr. Jinnah never siad anything what you have quoted about Gandhi–quite the contrary–he said other things. gandhi introduced many religious symbols to India, his entire garb was about religious ashrams.
Bose died in a plane crash over Taiwan, while flying to Tokyo on 18 August 1945
Naidu quote: “it it took a fortune to keep Gandhi in poverty” http://www.outlookindia.com/article.aspx?240242
Please see Nobel Peace prize committee on why they refused Gandhi the peace prize. His declaration of War on Pakistan was a major factor. All this is posted on The Truth about Mohandas Gandhi
Ambedkar on Gandhi: http://www.zimbio.com/Ghandi+quotes/articles/n-TkAo8ugG_/Dr+Ambedkar+Jinnah+nurture
“Its not your country, it is our country as well. We have ruled this country for centuries, the only difference is that you (hindu) are an early immigrant to this country and we came later on. the original resident of India are Dravidians.” – Quaid e Azam Mohammad Ali Jinnah, when Hindus started killing innocent Muslims in India after Muslim League announced that it will demand a seperate homeland. He further added:
“United India means slavery for the Muslims and complete domination of Hindu imperialistic rule throughout the sub-continent and this is what Congress seeks to attain with constant threat to all everyday and this is what we are determined to resist with all that lies in our power.”
“Pakistan is our deliverance, defence and honor. If we fail then there will be no trace of Muslims and Islam in this Subcontinent. “ Quaid e Azam Mohammad Ali Jinnah
He was and is hated around the world, and in India. As more and more people find out about him–they know what he stood for Caste, racism and support for the British.
Since you cannot find the articles on Gandhi on your own—Here are some of the articles with the actual references in them: Enjoy them on http://www.mohandasgandhi.wordpress.com
“To [Gandhi], Africans were no better than the `Untouchables’ of India.”: US Congressional record
The daughters that slept with Mohadas Gandhi
The Rev. Martin Luther King didn’t know about Gandhi’s bigotry
Gandhi’s shameful collaboration with the British
Gandhi Unmasked: Criticism of Mohandas Gandhi by his grandsons and other Indians, Nobel Committee & US Congress The Gandhi Page
Why Mohandas Gandhi didn’t win the Nobel Peace prize? U.S. CONGRESS CONDEMNS GANDHI’S RACIST WRITINGS
Did Martin Luther King know about Gandhi’s racism?
GANDHI’s RACISM AGAINST BLACKS Seargnt Major Gandhi
Gandhi condones Zulu massacres and defends the British. Aug 4 1906
The myth of Mohandas K. Gandhi debunked. He gets an “F” on South Africa, Salt Match, Non-Violence, and nationalism
Which war did Mohandas Gandhi support? All of them. There wasn’t a war that the “prophet” of Non-Violence did not support. He was Sergeant Major in the British Army & won a medal for his combat service
Gandhi’s racism. The truth behind the mask. Behold Sergeant Major Gandhi who supported the British in the Boer war, against the Zulu rebellion. Behold the prophet of peace who worked to stratify the South African society.
Gandhi extended the life of British Empire by helping UK wars
Gandhi’s letter to his friend Hitler.
Gandhi sex life deviant sexual perversion, and political failures
Is India a failed state? Peek behind the Bollywood gloss!
Why was Gandhi not given the Nobel Peace prize>
Does Fake “Non-Violence” work? Bose vs. Gandhi in South Asia
India: A gift from the Hindu Gods:Cows Urine: UK Telegraph report by Julian West
Sex life of Mohandas Gandhi, his failures and sexual perversion
“Nonviolence” gimmick failed to achieve any results. Is it a marketing success?
Gandhi & Nehru ordered massacre of 29000 Indian army jawans in 1946
Atlee: Gandhi’s role in UK decision to leave India was MINIMAL
Gandhi’s wrote letters to his friend Hitler and supported him. Gandhi’s horrific advice to Jews—Commit mass suicide. “We have no doubt about your bravery or devotion to your fatherland, nor do we believe that you are the monster described by your opponents.” Gandhi to Hitler
Gandhi’s racism: The truth behind the mask. Behold Sergeant-Major Gandhi who supported the British during the Boer War and Zulu Rebellion. Behold the prophet of peace who worked to stratify the society in South Africa, Whites, Indians and Blacks based on the Hindu Caste system. Behold the “Enlightened One” that supported the British effort in World War one, and packed off thousands to the war effort to be used as cannon-fodder. Behold the pacifist that sent thousands to kill millions. Behold the “mahatma” that supported the British in World War 2 and encouraged the Indians to support the British war, thus perpetuating the colonial rule in the Subcontinent and supporting the Empire.
Unlike Gandhi Bose actually helped in the freedom Struggle against the British
The British left South Asia because of Jinnah & Bose not Gandhi
Fact & Fiction: What the world thinks of Mohandas Gandhi!
Which war did Mohandas Gandhi support? All of them. There wasn’t a war that the “prophet of non-violence” Gandhi did not support. He was Sergeant Major and won a British medal for war duties. “All Jews should commit mass suicide!” (Gandhi’s Final solution 1940)
Seargent Major Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi
Does fake “Non-violence” work? Bose vs. Gandhi in South Asia
Mr. Gandhi told his prayer meeting to-night that … if Pakistan persistently refused to see its proved error and continued to minimise it, the Indian Union Government would have to go to war against it. MOHANDAS GANDHI DECLARED WAR ON PAKISTAN WHICH COST HIM THE NOBEL PEACE PRIZE
HOW NEHRU AND GANDHI ORDERED THE MASSACRE OF 29000 INDIAN NATIONAL ARMY MEN
TIMES NEWS NETWORK
Kolkata: Research scholar Purabi Roy on Wednesday claimed that thousands of men belonging to the Indian National Army (INA) were massacred at a camp in 1946.
She made this revelation while addressing a discussion on the implications of the Justice Manoj Mukherjee commission report.
“When Nehru visited Malaya to meet the INA men captured by the British forces, three ships had already left for Chittagong, Madras and Calcutta carrying the soldiers. About 29,000 INA men were taken to a camp in Nilgunge and massacred when negotiations for the INA property were on,” Roy said.
The British left South Asia becuase of Jinnah & Bose not Gandhi
INDIA: Dr. Ilaiah, Dalit author of “I am not a Hindu” persecuted
“INA’s property was worth $72,000 and that was divided among India, Pakistan and Britain,” she pointed out. Roy also claimed that the INA owned gold mines, diamond mines and rubber plantations. Commenting on the Centre’s rejection of the Justice Mukherjee commission report, Roy said successive Congress governments have not allowed the facts regarding Subhas Chandra Bose to come out.
“Whenever they are in power, inquiries into Netaji’s life and death are aborted. For 12 years, I have been struggling with this subject. Hopefully, one day we will be able to answer the questions raised by Justice Mukherjee about what happened to Netaji if he did not die in the air crash,” she added.
Gandhi & Nehru ordered massacre of 29000 Indian army jawans in 1946
Does Non-violence work? Bose vs. Gandhi in South Asia
Fact & Fiction: What the world thinks of Mohandas Gandhi!
Former Union human resources development minister Murli Manohar Joshi said the Centre had not extended full cooperation to the Justice Mukherjee commission. “Unless the Centre takes up the matter with the Russian government, the archives there will not open their doors,” he claimed.
“In 1954, Prime Minister Nehru as foreign minister had received the ashes and remains. If this is true then whose ashes are kept in Renkoji? When the Shahnawaz committee was set up, the Indian government was aware that the death certificates issued in Taiwan were not related to Netaji but this fact was suppressed,” he added.
Seargent Major Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi
On Gandhi…some excerpts….His Grandson and others
Gandhi’s wrote letters to his friend Hitler and supported him. Gandhi’s horrific advice to Jews—Commit mass suicide. “We have no doubt about your bravery or devotion to your fatherland, nor do we believe that you are the monster described by your opponents.” Gandhi to Hitler
Joshi said Netaji’s early life has also been ignored. “It is not just that his death is shrouded in mystery. Even his earlier life is not presented properly. The history books eulogise only a few leaders. He was the first person to set up an Indian government in-exile. He was the first to declare India free.”
Gandhi & Nehru ordered massacre of 29000 Indian army jawans in 1946
Does Non-violence work? Bose vs. Gandhi in South Asia
Fact & Fiction: What the world thinks of Mohandas Gandhi!
Seargent Major Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi
On Gandhi…some excerpts….His Grandson and others
Gandhi’s wrote letters to his friend Hitler and supported him. Gandhi’s horrific advice to Jews—Commit mass suicide. “We have no doubt about your bravery or devotion to your fatherland, nor do we believe that you are the monster described by your opponents.” Gandhi to Hitler
Moin ansari saheb,
If Gandhi and Nehru did order the massacre of INA soldiers they did the right thing. At any rate, Nehru refused to allow the INA ghaddars to get back into the Indian Army. That prevented the Indian Army from getting politicised and involved in politics, unlike the Pak Army.
Please understand that INA soldiers were violating their discipline as Army officers and soldiers and were supporting fascist Japanese.
How do you reconcile your admiration with Jinnah sahib and the AIML (who wisely and very rightly in my opinion supported the Britishers enthusiastically during the WW-II) with support for INA, who acted like traitors and fascists.
Dev Kant
Kant sahib:
Thank you for your feedback.
The AIML did not support the British Empire–Gandhi did. In fact Quaid e Azam repeatedly told Gandhi not to. I understand that the Indian National Congress inspired “History of India” makes the case of the conspiracy of Jinnah and the British to divide the motherland–but the truth is now seeping through–the first crack in the INC stranglehold on history was Jaswant Singh’s book which I am currently reading–its a whopping 600 pages so I have not gotten as far as I thought I would.
http://rupeenews.com/2008/10/06/the-british-left-south-asia-becuase-of-jinnah-bose-not-gandhi/
You think the massacre of 29,000 patriotic Indians is not a problem–you enthusiastically support the cold blooded murder. If that’s OK then pull down the flag of Non-violence and stop blaming others who took steps which they thought were in the best interest.
On politicization of the Pakistan (learn the full name of the country–it will do wonders) Army–you should read the critical analysis of Ayesha Jalal on “Authoritarianism and Democracy in South Asia”. It is not a pro-Pakistan book by any sense of the word–however she does rightly point out that Indira Gandhi’s “Emergency” was more brutal any any Martial Law in Pakistan.
The Indian Army is also very politicized–read the current article on General Kapoor, the land scandal and how different factions are dealing with it.
The cold war and Bharat’s isolation from the planet 40s to 80s left the Indian Army in a cocoon–as Bharat participates with the West, you will see a palpable increase in the Army’s “interference” and control—the US faces the “Military Industrial Complex” that pretty much runs American policy. Eisenhower a General himself wrote reams about it.
The politicization has been a direct result of Bharati moves in Kashmir and other areas of Pakistan. There are various external factors to what your refer to as “politicization” that you are well aware of and choose to ignore–perhaps to score points in the ongoing debate!!!
http://rupeenews.com/2009/08/13/nehru-gandhi-massacred-29000-jawans-of-boses-indian-national-army-in-1946/
So what was the Indian National Army? It was set up in Singapore and threatened the supremacy of the British Empire.
The Indian National Army (INA) was originally founded by Capt Mohan Singh in Singapore in September 1942 with Japan’s Indian POWs . This was along the concept of- and with support of- what was then known as the Indian Independence League,headed by expatriate nationalist leader Rash Behari Bose. The idea of a liberation army was revived with the arrival of Subhas Chandra Bose in the Far East in 1943. In July, at a meeting in Singapore, Rash Behari Bose handed over control of the organisation to Subhas Chandra Bose. Bose was able to reorganise the fledging army and organise massive support among the expatriate Indian population in south-east Asia, who lent their support by both enlisting in the Indian National Army, as well as financially in response Bose’s calls for sacrfice for the national cause. At its height it consisted of some 85,000 regular troops, including a separate women’s unit, the Rani of Jhansi Regiment ( named after Rani Lakshmi Bai), which is seen as a first of its kind in Asia.
Spoken as a part of a motivational speech for the Indian National Army at a rally of Indians in Burma on July 4, 1944, Bose’s most famous quote was “Give me blood, and I shall give you freedom!” . In this, he urged the people of India to join him in his fight against the British Raj. Spoken in Hindi, Bose’s words are highly evocative.
The INA’s first commitment was in the Japanese thrust towards Eastern Indian frontiers of Manipur. On the Indian mainland, an Indian Tricolour, modeled after that of the Indian National Congress, was raised for the first time in the town in Moirang, in Manipur. Bose had hoped that large numbers of soldiers would desert from the Indian Army when they would discover that INA soldiers were attacking British India from the outside …Bose was forced to raise taxes on the Indian populations of Malaysia and Singapore. Sankalp India
The British did not leave because of sit-ins. They left becuase of Direct Action Day, and the threat of the Japanese. They left South Asia becuase of they were scared of the Indian National Army.
Kolkata: Research scholar Purabi Roy on Wednesday claimed that thousands of men belonging to the Indian National Army (INA) were massacred at a camp in 1946.
She made this revelation while addressing a discussion on the implications of the Justice Manoj Mukherjee commission report.
“When Nehru visited Malaya to meet the INA men captured by the British forces, three ships had already left for Chittagong, Madras and Calcutta carrying the soldiers. About 29,000 INA men were taken to a camp in Nilgunge and massacred when negotiations for the INA property were on,” Roy said.
Here are reports about how Mr. Nehru with the approval of the Mr. Gandhi got the INA decimated. So much for non-violence.
Excellent Mr. Moin. You have given me all references.
I’m very Happy that you gave all the references………
Now onwards I will replying to each Sentence/Paragraphsss……………..And I will do this
over Period of Time. So please bear with me.
Starting with Sarojini Naidu’s Comments;
The article was written by Narayan Murthy, Co-Founder of Infosys, one of the leading
Software Companies of India.
In the Article, it says that Narayan Murthy was the 2nd Important Inspiration out of 3
Inspirations.
While explaining Gandhi, Narayan Murthy shares the following line…….Please Understand it
more clearly.
As you stay in US & your children are more fluent in English.
“In one of her lighter moments, Sarojini Naidu, his compatriot in the freedom struggle, is reported to have said that it took a fortune to keep Gandhi in poverty.”
Before this sentence, these are the following sentences.
“Gandhi ate, dressed, travelled and lived like the poor. Maintaining Gandhi’s simple style did pose lots of logistics and security problems.”
Mr. Moin, what you understand this from the Above Sentences. :):):):):):):):):):):):)
That It really took a fortune to keep Gandhi in Poverty. :):):):):):):):):):):):)
My friend, Mr. Moin, what I understand is that you do not understand simple English or you are making fool of every one.
If you ask the meaning of this sentence to any one who has read about Freedom Struggle, they will simply laugh at it because as there was no money at all with anyone then how come they require a Fortune to keep Gandhi in Poverty. And that’s why Narayan Murthy started the sentence with words Lighter Moments…which means that Sarojini Naidu jokingly said this sentence.
And to add more clarification on this, there was no fortune spent on Gandhi because there was no mention on any of this in any of the single Paper/Text Books/Persons. Please understand this Mr. Moin.
Mr. Moin, Gandhi was assassinated where the Assassin just came & fired at him where there were no Security Check etc things, isn’t it Mr. Moin.
So Mr. Moin, you are misquoting this sentence of Sarojini Naidu. So please stop this. :):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):)
Juvenile personal insults ignored.
Mr. Gandhi used to travel is specially constructed 3rd class train bogeys (which were not really 3rd class). It provided Mr. Gandhi and his women special quarters etc.
The government had to spend millions to build a special Asharam which looked as if it was a village. In actuality, it had all the modern facilities.
Special products and services were imported to market the image of Mr. Gandhi living in penury.
This is what Naidu was referring to. Ms. Naidu’s ideas about Mr. Gandhi are a matter or record. He was not held in high esteem by her. Read Bose and Ambedakar who disliked Mr. Gandhi also.
Let us stick to the subject. The issue is: When we originally quoted Naidu to you–you had never heard the Naidu sarcastic remark which brimmed with the truth. You wanted sources–already provided, but we brought up new ones. Now you know that the quote was accurate.
We did not make up the quote. Your response should be. OK the quote was accurate.
The quote on the 29000 INA soldiers has also been re-submitted.
The quote on Mr. Attlee has also been re-posted.
This completes our re-authentication of the original article.
Here is another quote by Ms. Naidu about Mr. Gandhi: “A little man with a shaven head …eating a messy meal of squashed tomatoes and olive oil out of a wooden bowl”
While your personal love for Mr. Gandhi is admirable, it does nothing to stop the slide of his reputation in the international arena where more and more material is being published against him. The Jewish organizations in North America are really after him, and the Sikhs and the Dalits hate him too. You should wage a campaign to save his reputation in Delhi–and write books refuting his grandsons, and refuting Dr. Singh–and writing tot he Congress and the world leaders in South Africa (who really hate Mr. Gandhi).
We simply report the facts. No need to shoot the messenger
The version of history doled out to you guys is the “History of the Indian National Congress”. Anyone who opposed the INC is a villain and anyone who supported it is an angel. The INC was only one of the forces struggling for independence. It was not the most instrumental– in fact it was divisive and did not have a vision. It followed the Birla directive of creating the Gandhi image and then running with it.
You try to justify anything and everything about the man. The world, and most of Bharat does not consider Mr. Gandhi’s contributions significantly important in the British decision to leave South Asia. We re-posted an interview with Prime Minster Attlee, who won the British election on the platform to cut down the size of the Empire. Mr. Attlee clearly said that Mr. Gandhi’s influence on the British decision to leave South Asia was “minimal”. Once the Labor Party had won the election, and the war was over–the British Empire was history and withdrawal from South Asia only a matter of time. Mr. Gandhi’s useless salt marches did not accomplish anything. His boycott of foreign goods were insignificant. South Asia role in world trade had gone down from 25% (before Lord Clive came to Plassey) to less than 1 percent (in the 40s). A few rupees not going to the Textile giants in Manchester would not have made any difference.
Mr. Gandhi’s marches were for self-aggrandizement as orchestrated by Mr. Birla–who was funding the campaign. He was repaid handsomely by the INC by giving him a monopoly over many shoddy goods from 1947 all the way up to 1980. Thats what it was all about.
You asked for references–we gave you references (which were already in the article)–then you begin justifying and rationalizing the criticism. We are not interested in the justification–we simply report the facts. You can continue your misguided evangelism, but it won’t change the mind of th 109th Congress of the United States of America, and it won’t change the mind of the Nobel Peace Prize Committee.
About 2 million people have visited our site in the past few weeks. We have been interviewed by various TV channels and newspapers and our articles are reposted on hundreds of sites. There are 34,000 links to Rupee News. Several hundred thousands people have read the Gandhi article and commented on it.
The article is actually a book review based on the writings of Dr. Singh. You should take up the issue with him–we simply report the facts.
Mr. Moin, You are just telling you are simplying quoting the facts.
But ask one question clearly to yourself, are you simply quoting the facts?????
But you people are getting interviewed by various TV Channels, why not Dr. Singh is not getting any TV Interviews.
And You are writing your own reviews on this & spreading false messages on to rest of world.
What you aim from this????
Gandhi was not a right person & he was racist & pervert, right????? By targeting, Gandhi you are targetting Indians………..to create a false image on what Indians are after, isn’t it Mr. Moin???
Alll the Best on your efforts who can stop you. Not even Allah can stop you from doing this Pathetic work because of your spoilt mind.
But till my death (depending on my Time Constraints), I will be against this Pathetic Work & I will justifing this opposing your Pathetic Work. :):):):):):):):):):):):):)
So Relax Mr. Moin. I wont give up.
>>>>> it won’t change the mind of th 109th Congress of the United States of America, and it won’t change the mind of the Nobel Peace Prize Committee.
—— Why should I hope that mind of 109th Congress of the United States of America as President of USA, Obama has a Photo of the Great Mahatma Gandhi in his Office as a mark of his respect towards the Great Mahatma Gandhi.
So Many People have been influenced from the Great Mahatma Gandhi & they are doing great for Humanity…….
One simple & bright example which will effect you more is Martin Luther King Jr. Please refer the quote below;
Inspired by Gandhi’s success with non-violent activism, King visited the Gandhi family in India in 1959, with assistance from the Quaker group the American Friends Service Committee. The trip to India affected King in a profound way, deepening his understanding of non-violent resistance and his commitment to America’s struggle for civil rights. In a radio address made during his final evening in India, King reflected, “Since being in India, I am more convinced than ever before that the method of nonviolent resistance is the most potent weapon available to oppressed people in their struggle for justice and human dignity. In a real sense, Mahatma Gandhi embodied in his life certain universal principles that are inherent in the moral structure of the universe, and these principles are as inescapable as the law of gravitation.”
And you know what Martin Luther King Jr was one of the youngest to receive Nobel Peace Prize.
Mr. Moin, have you read why Gandhi didn’t get Nobel Prize………………….firstly it is because of Biased Attitude…….secondly the reason Nobel Committee gave that the Great Gandhi was the reason behind Partition…………….which is a idiotic reason
Everyone knew that Partition was a must because Hindu & Muslim Ideologies……….isn’t it Mr. Moin????
Regarding Sabarmati Ashram,
>>>>> Government Spent Millions on building Sabarmati Ashram…………..what a lie???
Please read the extract carefullyyyyyyyyyyyy
———————————————————————————–
At Sabarmati Ashram, Gandhi formed a tertiary school that mainly focused on manual labour, agriculture, and literacy to advance his efforts for nation’s self-sufficiency. It was also from here on the 12 March 1930 that Gandhi marched towards Dandi,241 miles from the Ashram with 78 companions in protest of the British Salt Law, which taxed Indian salt in an effort to promote sales of British salt in India. This mass awakening filled the British jails with 60 000 freedom fighters. Later the government seized their property, Gandhi, in sympathy with them, responded by asking the Government to forfeit the Ashram. Then Government, however, did not oblige. He had by now already decided on 22 July 1933 to disband the Ashram, which later became asserted place after the detention of many freedom fighters, and then some local citizens decided to preserve it. On 12 March 1930 he vowed that he would not return to the Ashram until India won independence.
—————————————————————————————
Now tell me whether Government did spent a fortune there??? In first case, it didn’t even spent a rupee, my Friend. :):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):)
Emotional Hissy fits and teenage tantrums ignored.
Our writings have nothing to do with India, Indians or anything to do with any flag. We simply report on news. If some people cannot handle a critical analysis, then it is their problem.
Please take up your beef with Time Magazine, Arun Gandhi (http://www.china.org.cn/books&magazines/2009-08/05/content_18281902.htm), Rajmohan Gandhi, the RSS, the BJP, Dr. Jaswant Singh, the South African government, the city of Durban, Dr. Kancha (http://www.dalitvoice.org/Templates/oct_a2005/articles.htm), Mr. Bose’s followers, the Dalits, the Indian Union Muslim League, Dr. G.B. Singh Singh, the Nobel Peace Prize Committee and the 109th Congress of the United States of America. Dr. Singh is interviewing all over the place (http://www.amazon.com/Gandhi-Divinity-G-B-Singh/dp/1573929980). He has now written another book on Gandhi in which he bares the false claim about the South African incidents (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0981499228/ref=s9_simi_gw_s0_p14_t2?pf_rd_m=ATVPDKIKX0DER&pf_rd_s=center-2&pf_rd_r=152V2DYSQ6PNNASNPQXV&pf_rd_t=101&pf_rd_p=470938631&pf_rd_i=507846).
Dr. King was probably unaware of Mr. Gandhi’s racism: http://mohandasgandhi.wordpress.com/2009/11/12/dr-king-was-probably-unaware-about-gandhi’s-open-racism/
Once they retract their words, we will be the first to report the news.
In the meantime please continue your worship of a tarnished icon–we have given you enough homework to do. Do write to all of these–this should take a lifetime.
We wish you well.
Best Regards
>>>>> Emotional Hissy fits and teenage tantrums ignored.
——– Are you under going the above said things……..
very sorry……..to hear thisssss…….. I pray to Allah to help you recover from these States & give you good state of Mind…………..
>>>>> Our writings have nothing to do with India, Indians or anything to do with any flag. We simply report on news. If some people cannot handle a critical analysis, then it is their problem.
——— I do not have any problem Mr. Moin. You have a problem because you think everytime I’m insulting you :):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):)
————————————————————————-
Let analysis Post Independence growth of India & Pakistan.
India honoured Gandhi as Father of Nation for creation of united India.
Pakistan honoured Jinnah as Father of Nation for creating Pakistan.
It’s been 62 Years now…………………….
Where is India & where is Pakistan?????
You think of it Mr. Moin…………………..
India is on the verge of becoming Super Power……….
even though it is still a developing Countryy…….
How about Pakistann…….. Mr. Moin????
You know why it is like this???
Because India follows on the Great Mahatma Gandhi’s Foot Steps………
But what about Pakistan…………..Mr. Moin!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
HA HA HA HA HA
You mean Slumdog Power!!!!—and that too in Bollywood (Pornywood)
Self Delusion will get you no where. Temple indoctrination creates your own sense of “grandiose placement” which is very different from reality.
A country which doesn’t export anything except IT computer coolies (total exports only $42 billion affecting only 5 million) cannot create power on the bases of 100 million people–the entire country is Balkanizing as evidence by the recent army action
While some say that Mr. Gandhi was non-violent, he actually beat up his wife on a regular basis. He supported every British war–Zulu, Kaffir, Boer, WW1 and WW2 and thus extended the life of the British Empire. Some Non-Violence!
Bharat exported terror to Tibet, Sikkim, Bhautan, Nepal, Lanka, Bangladesh, Maldives and is still doing it in Pakistan. REcenty the Bharati sponsored LTTE was decimated in Lanka (with Chinese and Pakistan help)
In a country that enslaves 450 million Dalits and Untouchables (450 million), Bharat is highest on the Hunger Index, where 50% of the populations of Delhi, Hyderabad, Benaras, Mumbia sleeps on the sidelwalks–a country that is buying planes because it cannot make them. 150 million Muslims remain marginalized, and 40% of the territory is in the hands of the Naxals. Seven Sister states of Assam and Kashmir are in open rebellions. The Talanagana episode has brought to the surface the balkanization tendencies for the creation of more than 50 states in various stages of secession.
Your sense of reality cannot accept Pakistan. That is not our issue, it is yours.
Pakistan was the most underdeveloped part of South Asia–with literacy rates of less than 15% and one dilapidated university and one textile mill that didn’t work. From there Pakistan is at par in almost every index with Bharat, is a nuclear power, and competes with Bharat in every aspect of human endeavor. For a country that was the most backward part of South Asia–this is a great feat.
Bharat now cannot attack Pakistan–so it exports terror just like it did in 1971. Read Manekshaw who writes that he trained 80,000 Hindus from Bharat for the Mukti Bahni. Bangladeshis now have better relations with Pakistan than Bharat.
Pakistan, and Bharat and the rest of the world is facing the spillover of three decades of war in Afghanistan. Your joy at human misery is appalling and shows the hollowness of your so called “Gandhiism”
Bharat was on the wrong side of history during the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. Today it is again on the wrong side of history. Mr. Bush is no longer in office. Bharat is no longer being helped as a counterwieght to China…today Beijing is Americas banker and cannot antagonize China.
The recent statement of General Kapoor shows its frustrations and the fact that Bharat is facing enemies on all her borders. No country can become a power without allies on it neighbors. Bharat has failed to resolve ANY of the border disputes. Pakistan within a few months solved the border disputes with China and Iran–and there is peace on the borders. Bharat by illegally taking over Kashmir faces a thousand year war with Pakistan. Mumbia is like Beirut, and Hyderabad now face travel advisories. This cannot be a model for success. No economic activity can take place in the region without the resolution of Kashmir–the Indian racial war with Australia certainly will not help
>>>>>> In the meantime please continue your worship of a tarnished icon–we have given you enough homework to do. Do write to all of these–this should take a lifetime.
We wish you well.
Best Regards
———— Thanks a lot for your wishessssss…….. I think that Allah is wishing me……….
I will write to you onlyyyyy Mr. Moin……………
No one above whom you have mentioned have never said that Gandhi is not Great………But they have highlighted the other sides of Gandhi………..
You do not know anything, but you read these critics & you mention it & plus you give your conclusion that Gandhi is not Great & has not done anything for India/Pakistan.
So I will be writing to you only Mr. Moin…….. Please do not mind………….And Please bear with me…….
:):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):)
You can write to us, but there should be a value add to the discussion. For example, we have presented various authors and personalities –and of course you have discounted all of them.
“Democracy” just doesn’t mean “election”. That is called Psephocracy. There is a robust discussion about Jefferson, Hamilton, Madison and all aspects of their lives. Washington’s relationships with his slaves are a matter of historical record. The same with Jefferson. Jinnah’s life has been discussed threadbare–Pakistan, Indian, European and American’s have written critical books on him. We have participated in that discussion.
Why should Mr. Gandhi be immune from a critical analysis? What makes him immune. The criticism of Bharat–from Bharati’s cannot be suppressed. It is out in the open. The RSS, the BJP and the Shiv Sena have written reams about Mr. Gandhi–none of it complementary. The BJP was in power a few years ago–so a huge section of the Bharati population believes in the BJP philosophy. Mr. Jaswant Singh is only one example of Gandhi detractors.
If was Dr. G.B. Singh who refutes the anecdotes of Mr. Gandhi.
No need for venom against the Rupee News team.
We simply report the discourse.
>>>>>> Dr. King was probably unaware of Mr. Gandhi’s racism: http://mohandasgandhi.wordpress.com/2009/11/12/dr-king-was-probably-unaware-about-gandhi’s-open-racism
———- So what if Dr. King knew the so called racism of Gandhi. Even when Dr. King knew it, why did Dr. King visited India & adopted Gandhi’s Principles.
You do not know for sure whether Dr. King was knowing about Gandhi’s Racisim or not.
But one thing for sure to you, Mr. Moin & Your RupeeNews Team & so called critics of Gandhi (any citizen of the world) that Dr. King was influenced by Gandhi (influenced by others also) & it gave tremendous results to stability of USA & that is why you are staying Happily in USA. :):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):)
Isn’t it, Mr. Moin????
Long Live Dr. King
And Long Live the Great Mahatma Gandhi………..
Emotionalism ignored
Dr. King never visited “India” when Gandhi was alive. He visited “India” and was fed a lot of Bollywood song and dance.
IF he had known about Mr. Gandhi’s derogatory statements about blacks in South Africa—he would have boycotted Mr Gandhi–like Durban now does.
There is a lot of resentment towards Mr. Gandhi’s request to stratify South African society, along Caste lines (White, Brown and Black)
You can worship your gods–no issue, but the world does not
American Whites supported desegregation. The Civil Rights Movement was run by the entire nation which included Malik Shahbaz (Malcolm X) and great presidents like Kennedy and Johns, plus the magnanimity of the American people.
>>>>> Dr. King never visited “India” when Gandhi was alive. He visited “India” and was fed a lot of Bollywood song and dance
———- Dr. King visited India in 1959 for your information. By the way who told you that Dr. King visited “India” when Gandhi was alive (you had assumed this also like about Gandhi :):):):))
Bollywood Song & Dance is part of our culture & it is followed in your country also which shows the popularity of our culture….:):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):)
And therefore Dr. King understood the Non-Violence Movement.
>>>>> IF he had known about Mr. Gandhi’s derogatory statements about blacks in South Africa—he would have boycotted Mr Gandhi–like Durban now does.
——— But the fact is Dr. King didn’t boycotted Mr. Gandhi but followed it. And you cannot deny this or any of your RupeeNews Team Member. HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA……………
And please do not leave in the world of If’s & But’s…….because they are not facts & they cannot become facts & Dr. King will not come alive do listen to your facts (Falsified by some Indians & Pakistanis whom Allah will take care)…… :):):):):):):):):):):):):):)
>>>>>>> There is a lot of resentment towards Mr. Gandhi’s request to stratify South African society, along Caste lines (White, Brown and Black)
———– Perfectly fine as during early 1900′s Gandhi supported only undivided India’s citizens (including Jinnah’s citizens also) not black nor any other citizen of any other country. Please understand this important fact Mr. Moin. :):):):):):):):)
>>>>>> You can worship your gods–no issue, but the world does not
———— Please do not worry on this fact. We are worshipping our Allah, Jesus, Buddha, Ram & Durga Mata Honestly & follow accordingly to our God’s Rules
:):):):):):):):):):):).
Who expects world to follow it, do you think I’m asking anyone in the world to follow it (like Taliban does :):):):))
We, Indians, do not force anything on anyone but we clarify the Facts.
>>>>> American Whites supported desegregation. The Civil Rights Movement was run by the entire nation which included Malik Shahbaz (Malcolm X) and great presidents like Kennedy and Johns, plus the magnanimity of the American people
——— Including the magnanimity of the American People means including white people alsooo or what….. :):):):):):)
Malik Shahbaz was a criminal during his younger days.
Please see his history for your reference.
———————————————————————–
Malcolm X’s Biodata for your complete reference
Malcolm childhood, including his father’s lessons concerning black pride and self-reliance and his own experiences concerning race, played a significant role in Malcolm X’s adult life. After living in a series of foster homes, Malcolm X became involved in hustling and other criminal activities in Boston and New York. In 1946, Malcolm X was sentenced to eight to ten years in prison.
While in prison, Malcolm X became a member of the Nation of Islam. After his parole in 1952, he became one of the Nation’s leaders and chief spokesmen. For nearly a dozen years, he was the public face of the Nation of Islam. Tension between Malcolm X and Elijah Muhammad, head of the Nation of Islam, led to Malcolm X’s departure from the organization in March 1964.
After leaving the Nation of Islam, Malcolm X became a Sunni Muslim and made a pilgrimage to Mecca, after which he disavowed racism. He traveled extensively throughout Africa and the Middle East. He founded Muslim Mosque, Inc., a religious organization, and the secular, black nationalist Organization of Afro-American Unity. Less than a year after he left the Nation of Islam, Malcolm X was assassinated while giving a speech in New York.
————————————————————————–
Yes, so many people has contributed to Civil Rights Movement but the Leader was Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. You know why because, he won the Nobel Peace Prize. And one thing for sure to you, Mr. Moin & Your RupeeNews Team & so called critics of Gandhi (any citizen of the world) that Dr. King was influenced by Gandhi (influenced by others also) & it gave tremendous results to stability of USA. Due to this, He was posthumously awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom in 1977 and Congressional Gold Medal in 2004; Martin Luther King, Jr. Day was established as a U.S. national holiday in 1986.
HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA
Dr. King visited Bharat in 1959–ten years after Mr. Godse assassinated Mr. Gandhi. Mr. Gandhi has not written any philosophical book. His autobiography “Experiment with truth” is 8th grade level book about how he hated sex because his father died when he was making love to his wife, and how he experimented with young girls by sleeping naked with them to prove his manhood etc etc etc. He does not really discuss Civil Disobedience or how to defeat the British.
On the contrary, he was writing to the British as their “Recruiter-in-Chief”, as a “loyal subject of the British Empire” who was sending Indians to be used as cannon fodder all over the world. He and Nehru massacred 29000 soldiers of the Indian national Army because the British felt threatened by the INA.
In 1959 there was hardly anyone left of Gandhi’s clan–except Nehru–who never really believed in Mr. Gandhi’s antics–but agreed to them on most occasions. If Dr. King met Mr. Nehru a Brahmin who called himself “The last Englishmen in India”, who was an Anti-America Socialist, who and who was sleeping with Mrs. Mountbatten and Mr. Mountbatten at the same time–then Dr. King couldn’t have learned much from him! How could a Brahmin who continued ot believe in the caste system of slavery have any advice to black man?
Even Thuroor and Pareks have criticized Nehru and Gandhi–why don’t to begin writing to them also
http://rupeenews.com/2010/01/09/tharoor-parekh-rare-critical-analysis-of-nehru-gandhi-emerging-in-india-finally/
American history is dispassionately written where all aspects are discussed. Howard Zinn, who writes the history from the peoples perspective is very critical of American policy is part and parcel of the discussion. Noam Chomsky is also very critical of US policies is taught to the children. No one is demonized.
There were hundreds of black leaders–each one passing the torch to the next one—There wasn’t one leader. The Civil Right movement in the USA was a culmination of the the struggle of Dr. Carter G. Woodson. W. E. B. DuBois, Booker T. Washington, Hiram R. Revels, Rosa Parks, Shahbaz Malikg, Black Panthers, Mohammad Ali, and Thurgood Marshall.
If you saw Malcolm X the movie–you will realize how the man was transformed when he visited Mecca.
We don’t see any such transformation in Dr. King after he visited Mr. Nehru.
Dr. King had read Henry David Thoreau. By acting civil but disobedient you are able to protest things you don’t think are fair, non-violently. Henry David Thoreau is one of the most important literary figures of the nineteenth century. Dr. King’s ‘Letter from Birmingham Jail’ was based on the principles of Thoreau’s ‘Civil Disobedience’. Both Martin Luther King Jr. and Henry David Thoreau are exceptional persuasive writers. Even though both writers are writing on ways to be civil but disobedient, they have opposite ways of convicing you. Dr. King is religious, gentle and apologetic, focusing on whats good for the group; while Thoreau is very aggressive and assertive for his own personal hate against the government.
Both Martin Luther King Jr. and Henry David Thoreau have the same ideas, but view them differently. Dr. King wants to ultimately raise awareness and open doors for the better of a group. Thoreau wants more individual rights for people.
This is what King says in his autobiography.
Thoreau was a great writer, philosopher, poet, and withal a most practical man, that is, he taught nothing he was not prepared to practice in himself. He was one of the greatest and most moral men America has produced. At the time of the abolition of slavery movement, he wrote his famous essay “On the Duty of Civil Disobedience”. He went to gaol for the sake of his principles and suffering humanity. His essay has, therefore, been sanctified by suffering. Moreover, it is written for all time. Its incisive logic is unanswerable. —”For Passive Resisters” (1907). Dr. King. King, M. L. Morehouse College (Chapter 2 of The Autobiography of Martin Luther King, Jr.)
Thoreau had written some material on Civil Disobedience in1849 which later bacame Resistance to Civil Government in 1849 in a magazine called Æsthetic Papers. Gandhi stole Thoreau as a model for his so called Satyagraha–however there was no comparison. In the US the resistance was real and produced results–in India–the British had already decided to leave–so satyagraha or no satyagraha they would have left, as they left Afghanistan, Lanka, and Burma.
This is what Martin Buber a Jewish philosopher wrote about Thoreau
I read it with the strong feeling that here was something that concerned me directly.… It was the concrete, the personal element, the “here and now” of this work that won me over. Thoreau did not put forth a general proposition as such; he described and established his attitude in a specific historical-biographic situation. He addressed his reader within the very sphere of this situation common to both of them in such a way that the reader not only discovered why Thoreau acted as he did at that time but also that the reader– assuming him of course to be honest and dispassionate– would have to act in just such a way whenever the proper occasion arose, provided he was seriously engaged in fulfilling his existence as a human person.
The question here is not just about one of the numerous individual cases in the struggle between a truth powerless to act and a power that has become the enemy of truth. It is really a question of the absolutely concrete demonstration of the point at which this struggle at any moment becomes man’s duty as man.…—”Man’s Duty As Man” (1962
Mr. Gandhi’s theories were not emulated by Americans–it was the other way round. Mr. Gandhi took American theories and tried to apply them in India.
Mr. Gandhi translated synopsis of Thoreau’s argument for a magizen called “Indian Opinion”, in which he credited Thoreau’s essay with being “the chief cause of the abolition of slavery in America”.
Thoreau was a great writer, philosopher, poet, and withal a most practical man, that is, he taught nothing he was not prepared to practice in himself. He was one of the greatest and most moral men America has produced. At the time of the abolition of slavery movement, he wrote his famous essay “On the Duty of Civil Disobedience”. He went to gaol for the sake of his principles and suffering humanity. His essay has, therefore, been sanctified by suffering. Moreover, it is written for all time. Its incisive logic is unanswerable. —”For Passive Resisters” (1907)
This great nation eulogizes all great men, and does not demonize those who opposed the ruling party at the time. Martin Luther King was one link in the ongoing struggle which has now culminated in the election of the first black president (not a token one)
Hope this helps in educating you about how Gandhi learned his satyagraha–it was from Thoreau.
Hendrick, George. “Influence of Thoreau and Emerson on Gandhi’s Satyagraha.” Gandhi Marg 3 (1959): 165-178.
- – -. “Thoreau’s ‘Civil Disobedience in Gandhi’s Indian Opinion.” Emerson Society Quarterly 14 (1959): 19-20.
- – -. “The influence of Thoreau’s ‘Civil Disobedience on Gandhi’s Satyagraha.” New England Quarterly 24: 462-71.
Kline, Don W. “‘Civil Disobedience’: The Way to Walden.” Modern Language Notes 75: 297-304.
Your narrative falsely gives the impression as if King had met Gandhi.
What affects did King see in Bharat? A socialistic state stricken by penury and infested by caste? A trip to the Taj doesn’t really quilify in helping Dr. King in any way. There is no evidence to support that he met the Dalits or was aware of Dr. Ambedekar’s crusade to liberate the Dalits for Brahman tyranny and enslavement.
As stated earlier–Dr. King did not follow fasting or filling the jails as they would not have worked in the USA. Dr. King thus followed Thoreau not Gandhi—despite the claims of the missionary who wanted to use Gandhi to convert all of Bharat to Christianity. The title “Mahatma” was to fool the poor Hindus into believing that Gandhi was an incarnation of Christ–this is how they converted thousands of Hindus to Christianity. All this is well document by Dr. Watson in his books.
Relying on secret documents of the British Government released in 1967, the legendary constitutional authority, H M Seervai, concluded,
“Gandhi used non-violence as a political weapon, and was prepared to support, or connive at, violence to secure political goals.” (Constitutional Law of India, Supplement to Third Edition, 1988, Pg 143 of Introduction). Seervai cites the following in support of his statement:
1) In mid 1918, Gandhi supported the War Conference main resolution of recruiting Indians to fight on the side of Britain and her allies if it ensured the acceptance of Congress-Muslim League scheme for Home Rule.
2) Gandhi wrote to the Viceory that he wanted to be “Recruiter-in-Chief” for the Empire
3) Gandhi stated in an interview to News Chronicle, London, that the Viceroy could remain in charge of military operations and India could be used as a base for such military operations provided that a National Government was immediately formed.
4) In an interview with Lord Wavell on August 27, 1946, Gandhi told him that “If India wants a bloodbath, she shall have it.”
Without going into the outstanding anti-British role of the Indian National Army raised by the self-exiled Subhash Chandra Bose, the post-war trial by the British of three of INA’s senior officers, its dramatic mutinous effects on the Indian Army sepoys and ratings of Royal Indian Navy, read what the famous historian, R C Muzumdar, wrote:
“The campaigns of Gandhi… came to an ignoble end about fourteen years before India achieved Independence… the revelations made by the INA trial, and the reaction it produced in India, made it quite plain to the British, already exhausted by the war, that they could no longer depend upon the loyalty of the sepoys for maintaining their authority in India. This had probably the greatest influence upon their final decision to quit India.” (Three Phases of India’s Struggle for Freedom, Bombay, Bharatiya Vidya Bhavan).
Was Gandhi really a prophet of “non-violence” and “an apostle of peace”?
No! His personal life and his failures in the political arena tell us that he was a failure.
GANDHI ON NON-VIOLENCE
• During a prayer speech: “If we had the atom bomb, we would have used it against
the British.” – June 16, 1947 (Reference: Gandhi’s “The Last Phase”, Vol II, p. 326)
To the British during WWII: “This manslaughter must be stopped. You are losing; if you persist, it will only result in greater bloodshed. Hitler is not a bad man.”(Reference: G.D. Birla’s “In the Shadow of the Mahatma”, p. 276)
GANDHI ON BLACKS AND RACE RELATIONS
• “A general belief seems to prevail in the colony that the Indians are little better, if at all, than the savages or natives of Africa. Even the children are taught to believe in that manner, with the result that the Indian is being dragged down to the position of a raw Kaffir.” (Reference: The Collected Works of Mahatma Gandhi, Government of India (CWMG), Vol I, p. 150)
• Regarding forcible registration with the state of blacks: “One can understand the necessity for registration of Kaffirs who will not work.” (Reference: CWMG, Vol I, p. 105)
• “Why, of all places in Johannesburg, the Indian Location should be chosen for dumping down all the Kaffirs of the town passes my comprehension…the Town Council must withdraw the Kaffirs from the Location.” (Reference: CWMG, Vol I, pp. 244-245)
• His description of black inmates: “Only a degree removed from the animal.” Also, “Kaffirs are as a rule uncivilized – the convicts even more so. They are troublesome, very dirty and live almost like animals.” – Mar. 7, 1908 (Reference: CWMG, Vol VIII, pp. 135-136)
The Durban Post Office
One of Gandhi’s major “achievements” in South Africa was to promote racial segregation by refusing to share a post office door with the black natives.
Sergeant Major Gandhi
Learn how Gandhi became a Sgt. Major in the British Army and eagerly participated in the 1906 British war against the black Zulus.
Gandhi and South African Blacks
Gandhi wrote extensively about his experiences with the blacks of South Africa. He always termed them “Kaffirs” and his writings reveal a deep-seated disdain for these African natives
Gandhi called Hitler a friend
Gandhi: Behind the Mask of Divinity By G. B. Singh Reviewed by Baldev Singh
“Truth comes out breaking the walls of a fortress” is a Punjabi saying. For the lovers of truth G. B. Singh has exploded the Gandhi myth – apostle of peace, emancipator of untouchables and liberator of India by peaceful means from the British yoke – by publishing his labor of love, Gandhi: Behind the Mask of Divinity. G. B. Singh studied Gandhi for over twenty years collecting Gandhi’s speeches, writings and other documents, which the promoters of Gandhi left out intentionally to create a twentieth century messiah by fusing Jesus Christ and Vishnu. The oppressors – the proponents of colonialism, slavery, racism and casteism – have imposed their own version of history on the victims through manipulation, deception and hypocrisy. For example there is holocaust museum in the capital of United States in the memory of six million Jews who fell victim to the atrocities of Nazis in World War II. It is commendable and such museums should be built in every capital in the world to remind people of the heinous crimes of the Nazis. But why not a museum about the genocide of native Americans or a museum about slavery in the capital of United States? It takes moral courage to look into the face of truth! In order to avoid the obligation to intervene in Rwanda, the Western powers led by President Clinton put pressure on the United Nations Security Council not to characterize the mass murder of Tootsies as genocide.
The making of Gandhi myth stared in South Africa by white Christian clergy. Rev. Joseph J. Doke, a Baptist Minster was the first to write the biography of M. K. Gandhi. Soon many other European and American clergymen and writers rushed in to make their input. John H. Holmes, a Unitarian pastor from New York praised Gandhi in his writings and sermons with titles like: Gandhi: The Modern Christ, Mahatma Gandhi: The Greatest Man since Jesus Christ, Mahatma Ji: Reincarnation of Christ and Gandhi before Pilate. Romain Rolland, French Nobel Laureate in literature looked at Gandhi not only as a Hindu saint, but also another Christ. He wrote Gandhi’s new biography in French. The English translation of this book opens with: He is the One Luminous, Creator of All, Mahatma. Impressed with lavish propaganda about Gandhi in the West, the Hindu propaganda machine came into action and it churned out a plethora of literature to elevate Gandhi to the status of twentieth century Hindu god – “The seventh reincarnation of Vishnu, Lord Rama,” proclaimed Krishnalal Shridharni. Portraits of Gandhi depicted him as Hindu avatar and Christian saint. The Indian government under Prime Minister Indra Gandhi financed one-third the cost of the production of the movie “Gandhi” for the portrayal of Gandhi as “an absolute pacifist.”
The Christian clergy had an ulterior motive in building the Gandhi myth. They thought that by elevating Gadhi to a 20th century messiah and then converting him would open the flood gate for evangelizing Hindu masses. Little did they realize that Gandhi hoodwinked them with his insincere statements about Christianity? He was a die-hard Hindu, a true believer and defender of the caste order – the essence of Hinduism?
Gandhi apologists indulged in gross deception by claiming that Gandhi’s Satyagrah in South Africa was in the defense of the rights of native people. Nothing could be further from truth than this bald lie. How could Gandhi, a diehard supporter of the caste system think of the welfare of African blacks he regarded lower than the Untouchables of India – slightly above the animal level? His Satyagrah was for the better treatment of Indians, who, according to Gandhi were treated the same way as savage Kaffirs (native people) were. In his stay of twenty years in South Africa, he had no social contacts with the Kaffirs, as he did not see any common ground with them in the daily affairs of life. He was horrified when he was lodged with “natives” in the same jail ward. He did not like wearing the same clothes with label “N” born by the natives, nor he liked their food and sharing lavatory with them. It was the jail experience, which brought out his racism in the open. ” Kaffir and Chinese prisoners are wild, murderous and given to immoral ways. Kaffirs are as a general rule uncivilized – the convicts even more so. They are troublesome, very dirty and live almost like animal.”
He proclaimed that the British Empire was for the welfare of the whole world and he accepted the superiority and predominance of white race. But he reminded the white people that upper caste Indians share with the Europeans a common heritage – the blood of the noble Aryan race. According to him it is Aryan blood, which is responsible for the advancement of human civilization. He suggested to Rev, Doke to civilize the Kaffirs by converting them to Christianity and by infusing Aryan blood into their race. He told the white colonists that the preservation of racial purity (Apartheid) was as important to the Indians as to Europeans.
He urged the colonial authorities to raise a volunteer militia of Indians to fight for the Empire. He told the Natal authorities that it would be a “criminal folly” if they did not enlist Indians for the war. He was rebuffed with sarcastic and derogatory comments about the fighting ability of people like Gandhi. However, his persistence persuaded the authorities to form a volunteer ambulance corps of Indians under the command of Sergeant-Major Gandhi during the Boer War and Zulu Rebellion. He urged the Indian community to show their loyalty to the British Empire by raising funds for the War. He reminded them that they were in South Africa due to the courtesy of the Empire. It is not for us to judge whether the Kaffir revolt is justified or not. We are co-colonists with whites of this land whereas the black savages are as yet unfit to participate in the political affairs of the colony.
He was a mean spirited parochial Hindu. Sergeant- Major Gandhi selected only Gujrati Hindus as his assistants, three Sergeants and one Corporal in spite of the fact the ambulance corps (20-24 men) was made up mostly of non-Gujratis with substantial number of Muslims.
The Russian Revolution of 1914 spurted national movements against colonial rule. The British brought Gandhi back to India to sabotage Indian national movement against British rule. The congress Party dominated by Gandhi was set up under the patronage of the British authorities. The “apostle of peace” urged the Indian people to support the British by enlisting in the army during World War I. In his letter he wrote to the Viceroy in1930, he said, ” One of his reason for launching the Civil Disobedient Movement is to contain the violence of revolutionaries.”
On the advice of white promoters of Gandhi, black clergy and civil rights leaders traveled to India to seek Gandhi’s advice about solving the problem of segregation and civil rights of blacks. How little did they know that Gandhi regarded the black people slightly above the animal level? Moreover, they were ignorant of the fact that caste system was originally imposed, as racial discrimination (Varna Ashrama Dharma) similar to the Apartheid system, on the black natives of India by their Caucasian conquerors. But later on due to emergence of new racial groups due to miscegenation between the two groups, Varna Ashrama Dharma evolved into caste system tied to hereditary occupations. Untouchabilty is as integral a part of Hindu faith as anti- Semitism of the Nazis. It is noteworthy that not a single black leader met Dr. B. R. Ambedkar – M. A. and Ph.D. degrees from Columbia University, M.Sc. and D.Sc. degrees from London University and Bar-at-Law from Grey’s Inn, London – who was the undisputed leader of the Untouchables at that time. Gandhi propaganda machine manipulated the visit of black leaders, as it did not want them to find truth about Gandhi’s views on the caste system. “I believe in Varnashrama (caste system) which is the law of life. The law of Varna (color and / or caste) is nothing but the law of conservation of energy. Why should my son not be scavenger if I am one? He, Shudra (lowest caste) may not be called a Brahmin (uppermost caste), though he (Shudra) may have all the qualities of a Brahmin in this birth. And it is a good thing for him (Shudra) not to arrogate a Varna (caste) to which he is not born. It is a sign of true humility.”
In 1921, Gandhi delivered violent speeches inciting racial hatred against the British. During bloody demonstrations and riots against the visit of Prince of Wales, William Francis Doherty, an American citizen working in Bombay was murdered. Gandhi personally got involved in the cover up of this gruesome murder through bribery and intimidation, as he was concerned that the details of this murder would tarnish Gandhi’s image in the West.
It is a cruel joke and one of the biggest fabrications of the twentieth century that Gandhi won Indian freedom without spilling a drop of blood. The truth is that it was the devastating effect of World War II that forced the British government to dismantle its Colonial Empire. Moreover, it was Gandhi and his Hindu dominated Congress party that engineered the partition of the country on communal lines, as the Muslim dominant states stood in the way of high caste Hindus to set up their Ram Raj (mythical Hindu kingdom) based on caste ideology. Additionally, the Partition of India in 1947 is one of the major upheavals of the twentieth century. In the State of Punjab alone, 11-12 million people lost their homes and hearths where their ancestors had lived for centuries. May be as many as one million people perished in the communal frenzy and thousands of young women were kidnapped while Gandhi was reciting the murderous sermons from his favorite scripture – Bhagvad Gita. He kept insisting up to the last moment that the country would be partitioned only over his dead body!
The ascetic in loincloth used to sleep in buff with naked young girls to perform experiments to test his celibacy. Dr. Sushila Nayar told Ved Mehta that she used to sleep with Gandhi as she regarded him as a Hindu god. The man, who had taken vow of poverty, demanded and got even in jail the same comforts enjoyed by British high officials in India.
The “apostle of peace,” who counseled a Jewish delegation” to oppose the evil of Nazism by “soul force” – by committing mass suicide, was all praise for annexing Kashmir by armed aggression.
He told his Sikh followers that rusty sword is useless in the age of Atom Bomb. The development of nuclear weapons by India – a country that ranks among the poorest in the world and is near the bottom of human development index chart of the United Nations – exposes the real face of the “absolute pacifist” and the nation that calls him “father.” After all didn’t lord Krishna tell Arjana during the battle of Mahabharata “Victory is truth.”
Although, the Indian people have started peeking at the man behind the mask of divinity, there is no let up in the perpetuation of Gandhi myth in the West, especially the United States.
G. B. Singh rightfully deserves the accolades for bringing out the truth about Gandhi from Gandhi’s own mouth.
http://www.sikhsundesh.net/gandhi.htm
GANDHI’S RACISM–A CRITICAL ANALYSIS OF A BIGOT
Kalyan Singh, senior member of the nationalist Bharatiya Janata Party, has openly questioned his title as Father of the Nation.
Gandhi’s Racism:
Mayati called Mohandas K. Gandhi as ‘the worst enemy of the Dalits. In the view of Mayawati and
some other activists, Gandhi was a pious hypocrite who preserved the grip of the Brahmins and other ‘higher’ castes over Indian socieity even after the untouchables were granted equal legal rights.”
Mayawati, a leader of the left of centre Bahujan Samaj Party – or BSP – who complains that Gandhi patronizing paternal attitude towards the dalits was too slow in coming to terms with the injustices of the caste system.
Gandhiji divided society along Case lines by calling the weaker sections ‘Harijans’,” (Mayawati).She said the party also considered the term Harijan (coined by Gandhi meaning God’s children) “unconstitutional”.
Various historians and commentators have criticized Gandhi for his attitudes regarding Hitler and Nazism, including statements to the effect that the Jews would win God’s love if they willingly went to their deaths as martyrs. [3] [4]
On addressing a public meeting in Bombay on September 26, 1896 (Collected Works Volume II, page 74) following his return from South Africa, Gandhi said:
“Ours is one continued struggle against degradation sought to be inflicted upon us by the European, who desire to degrade us to the level of the raw kaffir, whose occupation is hunting and whose sole ambition is to collect a certain number of cattle to buy a wife with, and then pass his life in indolence and nakedness.”
His description of black inmates: “Only a degree removed from the animal.” Also,
“Kaffir [name of local African natives]s are as a rule uncivilized – the convicts even more so. They are troublesome, very dirty and live almost like animals.” – Mar. 7, 1908 (Reference: CWMG, Vol VIII, pp. 135-136)
“A general belief seems to prevail in the colony that the Indians are little better, if at all, than the savages or natives of Africa. Even the children are taught to believe in that manner, with the result that the Indian is being dragged down to the position of a raw Kaffir [name of local African natives].” (Reference: The Collected Works of Mahatma Gandhi, Government of India (CWMG), Vol I, p. 150)
M N Roy had a lot to say about Gandhi
Gandhi was not a whit less racist than the white racists of South Africa. When Gandhi formed the Natal Indian Congress on August 22, 1894, the no. 1 objective he declared was: “To promote concord and harmony among the Indians and Europeans in the Colony.” [Collected Works (CW)1 pp. 132-33]
He launched his Indian Opinion on June 4 1904: “The object of Indian Opinion was to bring the European and the Indian subjects of the King Edward closer together.” (CW. IV P. 320)
What was the harm in making an effort to bring understanding among all people, irrespective of colour, creed or religion? Did not Gandhi know that a huge population of blacks and coloured lived there? Perhaps to Gandhi they were less than human beings. Addressing a public meeting in Bombay on Sept. 26 1896 (CW II p. 74), Gandhi said:
Ours is one continued struggle against degradation sought to be inflicted upon us by the European, who desire to degrade us to the level of the raw Kaffir, whose occupation is hunting and whose sole ambition is to collect a certain number of cattle to buy a wife with, and then pass his life in indolence and nakedness.
In 1904, he wrote (CW. IV p. 193):It is one thing to register natives who would not work, and whom it is very difficult to find out if they absent themselves, but it is another thing -and most insulting -to expect decent, hard-working, and respectable Indians, whose only fault is that they work too much, to have themselves registered and carry with them registration badges.
In its editorial on the Natal Municipal Corporation Bill, the Indian Opinion of March 18 1905 wrote: Clause 200 makes provision for registration of persons belonging to uncivilized races (meaning the local Africans), resident and employed within the Borough. One can understand the necessity of registration of Kaffirs who will not work, but why should registration be required for indentured Indians who have become free, and for their descendants about whom the general complaint is that they work too much? (Italic portion is added)
The Indian Opinion published an editorial on September 9 1905 under the heading, “The relative Value of the Natives and the Indians in Natal”. In it Gandhi referred to a speech made by Rev. Dube, a most accomplished African, who said that an African had the capacity for improvement, if only the Colonials would look upon him as better than dirt, and give him a chance to develop self-respect. Gandhi suggested that “A little judicious extra taxation would do no harm; in the majority of cases it compels the native to work for at least a few days a year.” Then he added:
Now let us turn our attention to another and entirely unrepresented community-the Indian. He is in striking contrast with the native. While the native has been of little benefit to the State, it owes its prosperity largely to the Indians. While native loafers abound on every side, that species of humanity is almost unknown among Indians here.
Nothing could be further from the truth, that Gandhi fought against Apartheid, which many propagandists in later years wanted people to believe. He was all in favour of continuation of white domination and oppression of the blacks in South Africa.
In the Government Gazette of Natal for Feb. 28 1905, a Bill was published regulating the use of fire-arms by the natives and Asiatics. Commenting on the Bill, the Indian Opinion of March 25 1905 stated:
In this instance of the fire-arms, the Asiatic has been most improperly bracketed with the natives. The British Indian does not need any such restrictions as are imposed by the Bill on the natives regarding the carrying of fire-arms. The prominent race can remain so by preventing the native from arming himself. Is there a slightest vestige of justification for so preventing the British Indian?
Here is the budding Mahatma telling the white racists how they can perpetuate their Nazi domination over the vast majority of Africans.
In the British imperialist scheme, one important strategy was to divide and rule. Gandhi advised Indians not to align with other political groups in either coloured or African communities. In 1906 the coloured people in the colonies of Good Hope, the Transvaal and the Orange River colony, addressed a petition to the King Emperor demanding franchise rights. The petitioners showed clearly that, in one part of South Africa, namely the Cape of Good Hope, they had enjoyed the franchise ever since the introduction of representative institutions.
Commenting on the petition, the Indian Opinion of March 24 1906, declaring that “British Indians have, in order that they may never be misunderstood, made it clear that they do not aspire to any political power,” added:
It seems that the petition is being widely circulated, and signatures are being taken of all coloured people in the three colonies named. The petition is non-Indian in character, although British Indians, being coloured people, are very largely affected by it. We consider that it was a wise policy on the part of the British Indians throughout South Africa, to have kept themselves apart and distinct from the other coloured communities in this country.
In a statement made in 1906 to the Constitution Committee, the British Indian Association led by Gandhi (CW. V p.335) said:
The British Indian Association has always admitted the principle of white domination and has, therefore, no desire, on behalf of the community it represents, for any political rights just for the sake of them.
Commenting on a court case, the Indian Opinion of June 2 1906, in its Gujrati section, stated: You say that the magistrate’s decision is unsatisfactory because it would enable a person, however unclean, to travel by a tram, and that even the Kaffirs would be able to do so. But the magistrate’s decision is quite different. The Court declared that the Kaffirs have no legal right to travel by tram. And according to tram regulations, those in an unclean dress or in a drunken state are prohibited from boarding a tram. Thanks to the Court’s decision, only clean Indians (meaning upper caste Hindu Indians) or coloured people other than Kaffirs, can now travel in the trams. (Italic portion is added)
Apartheid defended: Gandhi accepted racial segregation, not only because it was politically expedient as his Imperial masters had already drawn such a blueprint, it also conformed with his own attitude to the caste system. In his own mind he fitted Apartheid into the caste system: whites in the position of Brahmins, Indian merchants and professionals as Sudras, and all other non-whites as Untouchables.
Though Gandhi was strongly opposed to the comingling of races, the working-class Indians did not share his distaste. There were many areas where Indians, Chinese, Coloured, Africans and poor whites lived together. On February 15 1905, Gandhi wrote to Dr. Porter, the Medical Officer of Health, Johannesburg (CW. IV p.244, and “Indian Opinion” 9 April 1904):
Why, of all places in Johannesburg, the Indian location should be chosen for dumping down all kaffirs of the town, passes my comprehension.
Of course, under my suggestion, the Town Council must withdraw the Kaffirs from the Location. About this mixing of the Kaffirs with the Indians I must confess I feel most strongly. I think it is very unfair to the Indian population, and it is an undue tax on even the proverbial patience of my countrymen.
Dr. Porter replied that it was the Indians who sub-let to Africans. Commenting on the White League’s agitation, Gandhi wrote in his Indian Opinion of September 24 1903:
We believe as much in the purity of race as we think they do, only we believe that they would best serve these interests, which are as dear to us as to them, by advocating the purity of all races, and not one alone. We believe also that the white race of South Africa should be the predominating race.
Again, on December 24 1903, Indian Opinion stated: The petition dwells upon `the comingling of the coloured and white races’. May we inform the members of the Conference that so far as British Indians are concerned, such a thing is particularly unknown. If there is one thing which the Indian cherishes more than any other, it is the purity of type.
In his farewell speech at a meeting held in the house of Dr. Gool in Capetown, which was reported in the Indian Opinion of July 1 1914, Gandhi said: The Indians knew perfectly well which was the dominant and governing race. They aspired to no social equality with Europeans. They felt that the path of their development was separate. They did not even aspire to the franchise, or, if the aspiration exists, it was with no idea of its having a present effect.
Gandhi joined in the orgy of Zulu slaughter when the Bambata Rebellion broke out. It is essential to discuss the background of the Bambata Rebellion, to place Gandhi’s Nazi war crime in its proper perspective.
Attempts at a critical examination of Gandhi’s record are not usually encouraged; in fact, they have been systematically proscribed by India’s most powerful opinion-makers. Not only has Gandhi’s legacy been presented as something larger than life, but many finer stalwarts of the Indian freedom movement have languished in relative obscurity. Gandhi’s ideas, philosophy, tactics, and strategic vision for India have been rarely subjected to careful scrutiny.
Gandhi – ‘Mahatma’ or Flawed Genius? National Leader or Manipulative Politician?
Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi was born in 1869 in a stately and handsome three-storied home in Porbandar, grandson of the chief administrator of the small Princely State in coastal Gujarat. Acknowledging that he was born into a family of politicians, always involved in secret alliances and mutual promotions, in one letter, he wrote: “I knew then, and know better now, that much of my father’s time was taken up in mere intrigue.” In another letter to his nephew, Chaganlal, he acknowledged the notoriety of his political family: “…that is, we are known to belong to a band of robbers“. It is to Gandhi’s credit that he saw his family for what it was, and attempted to transcend it’s narrow Modh Bania outlook; but often, subconsciously learned behavior dies hard. The tendency towards backroom wheeling and dealing did not entirely escape Gandhi himself as he rose to become the Indian National Congress’s most influential political leader. (See Collected Works, vol. 24, p.170, vol. 12, p.381)
Although most biographies of Gandhi focus on Gandhi’s political career after he returned from England in early 1915, and begin with his involvement in the Civil Disobedience Movement from the early 1920s, it is important to note that Gandhi arrived on the National Scene rather late, and in the first half of his political life was considerably beholden to the Raj. At a time when literacy in British India was barely 8%, Gandhi enjoyed the rare option of studying in Britain and spent the years 1888-1893 in London before taking employment in South Africa.
Although Gandhi became politically active in South Africa, and led ‘Satyagrahas’ against unjust laws, Gandhi was hardly yet an anti-imperialist radical or revolutionary. In fact, in 1914, he was still very much in awe of the British empire, and Martin Green in his biography of Gandhi describes his state of mind as follows: “When Gandhi left South Africa, he still believed in the British empire. though tentatively.
“Though Empires have gone and fallen, this empire may perhaps be an exception….it is an empire not founded on material but on spiritual foundations….the British constitution. Tear away those ideals and you tear away my loyalty to the British constitution; keep those ideals and I am ever a bondsman“.” (See Martin Green, Gandhi: Voice of a New Age Revolutionary, p. 208)
It is especially notable that at the age of 45, Gandhi saw in the British empire a “spiritual foundation” – a sentiment many in the Indian Freedom Movement would have found astounding, even nauseating.
As early as 1884, the most advanced Indian intellectuals were already quite clear that British rule in India was built on a foundation of economic pillage and plunder – and was devoid of any high social or moral purpose. “Nadir Shah looted the country only once. But the British loot us every day. Every year wealth to the tune of 4.5 million dollar is being drained out, sucking our very blood. Britain should immediately quit India.” So wrote the Sindh Times on May 20, 1884, a year before the Indian National Congress was born and 58 years before the ”Quit India” movement of 1942 was launched.
But in 1914 Gandhi was quite far removed from the most radical elements of the Indian Freedom Movement. In 1913, poor emigrant farmers from the Punjab in California launched the Ghadar Party and released their manifesto calling for complete independence from British Rule. Several years earlier, before his internment, Tilak had cogently described the Indian condition under British colonial occupation as being utterly ruinous and degrading. Tilak, Ajit Singh, Chidambaram Pillai and their associates in the National Movement saw few redeeming qualities in the British dispensation, and saw colonial rule as being entirely inimical to India’s progress, asserting that the contradictions between the British oppressors and the Indian people were completely irreconcilable.
Although Gandhi was critical of specific aspects of colonial rule, in 1914, his general outlook towards the British was more akin to that of the loyalist Princes than the most advanced of India’s national leaders. Particularly onerous was his support of the British during World War I. Even as the Ghadar Party correctly saw in WWI a great opportunity for India to deepen its opposition to the British, and liberate itself from the colonial yoke, Gandhi instead tried to mobilize Indians on behalf of the British war effort. Although many biographers of Gandhi have studiously omitted making any mention of such dishonorable aspects of Gandhi’s political life, Martin Green makes a brief reference to Gandhi’s attitude towards WWI when he was in England:
“To return to London in wartime: Gandhi quickly raised his ambulance corps amongst the Indians in England. As before, he had offered his volunteers for any kind of military duty, but the authorities preferred medical workers“.
Martin Green also observes:
”Many of his friends did not approve the project. Olive Schreiner, who was in London, wrote him that she was struck to the heart with sorrow to hear that he had offered to serve the English government in this evil war – this wicked cause“. (See Martin Green, Gandhi: Voice of a New Age Revolutionary, p. 247)
Gandhi’s ideas on non-violence did not then extend to the British Imperial War, and upon his return to India in 1915 attempted to recruit Indians for the British War effort. Gandhi’s position echoed that of the Maharajas, many of whom (like the Maharaja of Bikaner) played a pivotal role in supporting the British, both in terms of propaganda and providing troops. Gandhi’s attitude towards the empire emerges quite clearly from this statement of Martin Green: “Gandhi himself had twice volunteered for service in this war, in France and in Mesopotamia, because he had convinced himself that he owed the empire that sacrifice in return for it’s military protection.” (See Martin Green, Gandhi: Voice of a New Age Revolutionary, p. 267)
Gandhi’s role in championing the British War effort did not however go unchallenged. At a time when Gandhi was still addressing “War Recruitment Melas’‘, Dr. Tuljaram Khilnani of Nawabshah publicly campaigned against War Loan Bonds. When Gandhi sought election to the AICC from Bombay PCC, the delegate from Sindh opposed his election in view of his support to the British war effort. The Ghadar Party was especially acerbic in it’s criticism of Gandhi and other such political leaders in the Congress who had not yet been able to sever their umbilical chord to the British Raj.
But even as Gandhi was able to justify in his mind support for the imperial war, his attitude towards the revolt of Chauri Chaura (1921) brought about a very different and very harsh assessment. Labeling it a crime, he wrote thus:
“God has been abundantly kind to me. He has warned me the third time that there is not yet in India that truthful and non-violent atmosphere which and which alone can justify mass disobedience….which means gentle, truthful, humble, knowing, never criminal and hateful. He warned me in 1919 when the Rowlatt Act agitation was started. Ahmedabad, Viramgam, and Kheda erred. Amritsar and Kasur erred. I retraced my steps, called it a Himalayan miscalculation, humbled myself before God and man, and stopped not merely mass civil disobedience but even my own which I knew to be civil and non-violent” . (See Collected Works, vol. 22, p.415-21)
Gandhi’s Chauri Chaura decision created deep consternation in Congress circles. Subhash Chandra Bose wrote:
“To sound the order of retreat just when public enthusiasm was reaching the boiling point was nothing short of a national calamity. The principal lieutenants of the Mahatma, Deshbandhu Das, Pandit Motilal Nehru and Lala Lajpat Rai, who were all in prison, shared the popular resentment. I was with the Deshbandu at the time, and I could see that he was beside himself with anger and sorrow.” (quoted from The Indian Struggle, p.90)
To describe Gandhi’s decision as a “national calamity” was indeed right on the mark. To lay such stress on non-violence – that too only three years after he had been encouraging Indians to enroll in the British Army was not only shocking, it showed little sympathy towards the Indian masses who against all odds had become energized against their alien oppressors.
For Gandhi to demand of the poor, downtrodden, and bitterly exploited Indian masses to first demonstrate their unmistakable commitment to non-violence before their struggle could receive with Gandhi’s approval (just a few years after he had unapologetically defended an imperial war) was simply unconscionable. Clearly, Gandhi had one standard for the Indian masses, and quite another for the nation’s colonial overlords. But this was not to be the first occasion for Gandhi to engage in such tactical and ideological hypocrisy.
Although Gandhi’s defenders may disagree, not only were Gandhi’s ideas on non-violence applied very selectively, they were hardly the most appropriate for India’s situation. At no time was the British military presence in India so overwhelming that it could not have been challenged by widespread resistance from the Indian masses. Had Gandhi not called for a retreat after Chauri Chaura, it is likely that incidents such as Chauri Chaura would have occurred with much greater regularity – even increasing in frequency and intensity. This would have inevitably put tremendous pressure on the British to cut short their stay. As it is, British administrators were constrained to send back British troops as soon as possible, because many clamored to return after serving for a few years in India. Had India become too difficult to control, mutinies and dissension in the royal armies would have occurred more often, and the British would have had to cut and run, probably much sooner than in 1947.
Some critics saw in Gandhi’s Chauri Chaura turnaround as indicative of his deep fear and distrust of the Indian masses – that Gandhi feared the spontaneous energy of the poor and the downtrodden more than the injustice of British rule. Certainly, the conservatism of Gandhi’s tactics lends credence to such views. As late as 1928, Gandhi resisted Nehru and Bose, and campaigned for the rejection of a resolution calling for complete independence at the session of the Indian National Congress. And unlike other leaders in the freedom struggle, Gandhi often entertained false hopes about the British. In a 1930 letter, Motilal Nehru chided Gandhi for resting his hopes on the Labor Government and the sincerity of the Viceroy.
In much of Motilal Nehru’s correspondence with his son, (and with others in the Congress), there are expressions of frustration with Gandhi’s tendency towards moderation and compromise with the British authorities and his reluctance to broaden and accelerate the civil disobedience movement. There are also references in Motilal Nehru’s letters to how large contributions from the Birlas were enabling certain political cliques (led by Madan Mohan Malviya – a close confidante of Gandhi) to “capture” the Congress. That Gandhi was close to the Birlas is now widely acknowledged, and it is not unlikely that his conservatism was either encouraged by them, or may have been coincidental but was compatible with their desire for restrained and moderate resistance to the British.
Motilal Nehru and Subhash Chandra Bose both complained of Gandhi’s tendency to ignore party resolutions when they went against his wishes, and to work with cliques rather than consult and cooperate with all party members. In a letter dated March 28, 1939, from Manbhum, Bihar – Bose complained bitterly to Nehru of Gandhi’s quiet campaign of non-cooperation with him. Bose had just won the Presidency of the Indian National Congress, defeating Gandhi’s chosen nominee, Dr Pattabhi.
At first, Gandhi had tried to talk Bose out of running for the post, and tried to work out a backroom deal for Dr Pattabhi’s ascension (as he had done on many earlier occasions). But Bose was determined to seek the mandate of Congress activists, and won by a handsome margin in an election where the official machinery of the Congress had put all its weight behind Gandhi’s hand-picked nominee.
Bose’s historic election signified the mood of the Indian masses, who were becoming increasingly impatient with Gandhi’s tepid nationalism. Bose had always strived to accelerate the freedom struggle, and the mass of Congress Party workers appreciated his sincerity and unswerving commitment to the national cause. In many ways, he was the best person to lead the Congress, with intellect and vision that exceeded Gandhi.
But Gandhi, along with Patel and Nehru formed a tactical block against Bose, and prevented him from functioning effectively as leader of India’s preeminent national organization. In vain did Bose make his case with Nehru, who remained unmoved, and eventually, it led to Bose having to quit the Congress, and organize outside it’s tedious confines.
One of the most problematical aspects of Gandhi’s philosophical disposition was his emphasis on matters religious over practical. In a 1918 speech concerning India’s future he espoused a position that truly secular Indians ought to find rather troubling: “I feel that India’s mission is different from that of other countries, India is fitted for the religious supremacy of the world….India can conquer all by soul-force”. (See Collected Works, vol. 14, p.53)
To this day, Western analysts continue to evaluate India as though its only contribution to world civilization is in matters of religious exotica and spirituality. And many Indians unquestioningly accept such one-sided formulations. But to pigeon-hole India as this exotic land – full of religious devotion and piety does great injustice not only to India’s rich history of secular pursuits, but it also leaves many rational, scientific and technologically-oriented Indians bereft of any philosophical affirmation and intellectual leadership.
On more than one occasion, Gandhi would begin with statements such as “God has warned me”, or “…spoken as such…..”. Coming from any ordinary person, such claims would normally be viewed with great suspicion and skepticism because they can only be accepted on faith, never independently verified. In fact, any ordinary person who claimed as often to have a ‘hotline’ to ‘God’ might even be seen as a lunatic, as someone prone to hallucinations. But from Gandhi, such utterances were quietly tolerated or accepted.
That Gandhi espoused such religious-centric views is not surprising considering the milieu in which he was raised and educated. Most British-educated Indians were kept completely ignorant of India’s rich history of rational thought and (pre-industrial) scientific endeavour. So it was inevitable that Indians would seek inspiration from religious texts – Hindus from the Gita, Muslims from the Quran, Sikhs from the Granth Sahib. But unlike Tilak who derived from the Gita, a call to action, a call to rise against injustice, Gandhi found in the Gita an appeal to pacifist idealism. In a world that was rife with violence, Gandhi’s insistence on non-violent purity was, in practical terms, an exercise in infantile futility. Not only did it delay the onset of freedom, it led to particularly disastrous consequences during partition, and in Kashmir.
Whereas the Muslim League was armed, the Congress was not and entirely dependant on the British police and military apparatus. When the partition riots first began in West Punjab and East Bengal, the Congress had no means to defend the hapless victims. ……
There were many other serious incongruities in Gandhi’s world view. As one reads through Gandhi’s letters and sundry writings, time and time again, he uses the term ‘Dharma ‘in the context of how Indians should behave vis-a-vis the British, and the term “right” in the context of what the British could do to their Indian subjects. In Gandhi’s ethical framework, not only did the conquered have very limited rights, they were burdened with all types of duties under the rubric of ‘Dharma ‘. Conquered Indians were repeatedly lectured on how they must be concerned with the highest morality when dealing with their British oppressors – even as the British conquerors were little restricted by any ‘Dharmic’ pressures, and enjoyed the ultimate authority to take away the life of Indians they chose to put on trial for ’sedition’.
In all other theories of democratic liberation, ethical and moral codes emanated from one essential principle – which is the fundamental right of enslaved people to be free from alien exploitation. But in Gandhi’s moral framework, the need of the Indian masses to liberate themselves from a brutally unjust colonial occupation did not come first, it was subject to all kinds of one-sided conditionalities.
For instance, in the context of Bhagat Singh’s hanging, even as Gandhi condemned the British government, he observed: “The government certainly had the right to hang these men. However, there are some rights which do credit to those who possess them only if they are enjoyed in name only.” (See Collected Works, vol. 45, p.359-61, in Gujarati)
Whether Gandhi was confusing the term “right” with the term authority or might, or he actually granted the colonial government the “right” to execute Indian freedom fighters is hard to tell. But in general, it appears that Gandhi had not worked out in his mind the true essence of natural human rights, and desirable human duties in a civilized society. Nor had he come to realize that in any democratic dispensation, governments cannot be assigned any inherent rights, for they are only the proxies of the people who elect them, and they only have duties and obligations to ensure the rights of the people, and to prevent the exercise of those individual rights that might violate, restrict or inveigh on the rights of others.
In the context of Bhagat Singh, the British government was under no popular obligation to execute him. On the contrary, his actions had widespread support, and there were fervent appeals for the commutation of his sentence. In such a context, Gandhi could have only spoken of British authority – and that too a stolen and usurped authority to execute Bhagat Singh. Had he been truly moved against Bhagat Singh’s death sentence, he would have spoken of how the British were able to execute him only because of their military might – that their action had no ethical or moral sanction.
A true revolutionary – (such as Bhagat Singh) would not have granted the exploitative colonial regime any “rights” whatsoever. In fact, it would have been the right of the Indian revolutionary to resist colonial rule by any means necessary. If Indians obeyed British orders, it was only out of practical necessity, out of an instinct to survive. But if some were prepared to risk their lives in confronting the British military occupation, it was their inalienable right to do so. Indians had duties and obligations towards each other, but none to the British occupiers and exploiters. From a revolutionary, moral, ethical, or national perspective, there was no necessity to grant the British colonial authorities any rights whatsoever, because their very presence was illegal and obtained without the democratic consent of the Indian masses. Indians, therefore, had no moral duty, or ‘Dharma’, obliging them towards obeying their orders, or respecting the lives of the Britishers who had occupied Indian territory by force.
But Gandhi was never completely able to overcome a deeply ingrained tendency towards tolerating or accepting the “rights” he saw intrinsically bound with authority figures. In the feudal order that Gandhi was born in, the masses had no inherent rights, only duties towards the sovereign. And Gandhi was never able to completely reject this iniquitous paradigm. He was never fully able to complete the transition to a democratic order in which citizens enjoyed inalienable rights in addition to bearing duties towards each other. He did not fathom that in a democratic society, the role of the state was to ensure the rights of the people, not to exercise any arbitrary hegemony over them. Moreover, in a democratic state, the masses could not be burdened with unnecessary duties, only those that obliged them to respect the rights of others, and required them to provide services in exchange for what they received from the state, or others in society.
While many of the qualities Gandhi sought to elicit from the masses were commendable and desirable qualities to strive for – one could not make such qualities conditions for granting the masses certain fundamental rights – such as freedom from hunger, homelessness and exploitation. And if the poor masses were enjoined to be more noble in character, then such requirements also had to be made mandatory for authority figures.
In these (and other such) ways, Gandhi’s formulations were theoretically and practically inadequate.
While there will always be admirers of Gandhi, intimate contact with his record reveals him to be a seriously flawed leader, popular more due to the particular conditions and circumstances of colonial (or post-colonial) India (and his unwavering leadership during the Quit India Movement), rather than the visionary or enlightened nature of his general tactics and formulations. The India of the future might well need to look beyond the myth and mystique of “Mahatma Gandhi” if it hopes to build a more just and harmonious order.
References:
Collected Works of Mahatma Gandhi, 90 vols. Ahmedabad, Navjivan
Correspondence of Motilal Nehru and Jawaharlal Nehru
Subhash Chandra Bose and Sarat Chandra Bose’s correspondence with Jawaharlal Nehru
Jaspal Singh: History of the Ghadar Movement
Gandhi: Voice of a New Age Revolutionary, Martin Green, Continuum, New York
Margaret Bourke-White: Halfway to Freedom
Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi: Critical Essay by Margaret Chatterjee
SOURCE: “The Impact of Christianity on Gandhi,” in Gandhi’s Religious Thought, University of Notre Dame Press, 1983, pp. 41-57.
1. Grenier, Richard. The Gandhi Nobody Knows published in Commentary March 1983; pages 59 to 72. This is the best article on Gandhi briefly outlining his war activities against the blacks.
2. Kapur, Sudarshan. Raising up a Prophet: The African-American Encounter with Gandhi; Boston: Beacon Press, 1992
Excellent research book into the perspective of distant American blacks with respect to their new hero, Gandhi. However, this book has one major flaw: The author seems to be unaware of Gandhi’s anti-black activities in South Africa.
3. Huq, Fazlul. Gandhi: Saint or Sinner? Bangalore: Dalit Sahitya Akademy, 1992.
Superb book. Really gets into the Gandhi’s anti-black ideology with a sense of history setting intact. This book can be purchased from the International Dalit Support Group, P.O Box 842066, Houston, Tx 77284-2066.
This book’s second chapter “Gandhi’s Anti-African Racism” is a superb analysis of Gandhi’s anti-black thinking.
GANDHI CONDONED & ENCOURAGED BRITISH MASSACRE OF ZULUS–INDEED IN PARTICIPATED IN THE WARS AS MAJOR GANDHI–A LOYAL BRITISH SUBJECT WORKING FOR THE EMPIRE
Gandhi did not help the South Africans at all. He condoned the Zulu massacres, defended the killing of the innocent and defended the British in all their actions.
The sex life of Mr. Gandhi, and his failures as a politician
The myth of Mohandas K. Gandhi debunked. He gets an “F” on South Africa, Salt Match, Non-Violence, and independence
Which war did Mohandas Gandhi support. All of them. There wasn’t a war that the prophet of Non-Violence did not support. He was Sergeant Major in the British Army and won a medal for his war duties
Gandhi’s racism. The truth behind the mask. Behold Sergeant Major Gandhi who supported the British during the Boer war, Zulu rebellion. Behold the prophet of peace who worked to stratify the South African society.
Gandhi did not bring the British Empire down.
Gandhi’s letter to his friend Hitler.
Sex life of Mohandas Gandhi, his failures and sexual perversion
His world view of the Africans was based upon the caste structure, where he saw the Indians above the Blacks and below the European. He tried his best to make sure tha the Indians were used against the Africans (Zulu, Kaffirs and others).
Gandhi joined in the orgy of Zulu slaughter when the Bambata Rebellion broke out. It is essential to discuss the background of the Bambata Rebellion, to place Gandhi’s Nazi war crime in its proper perspective.The Bambatta Rebellion–Background
The spiritual foundation of Nazism was the superiority of the Aryan race or its modern version, the Anglo-Saxon race. When Disraeli was Prime Minister, Britain enunciated a doctrine, like the Monroe Doctrine, warning other European powers that Africa would be a British preserve, and that from the Cape to the Limpopo, if not to Cairo, only white people would have local political power. Successive British Governments pursued this policy.
In the 1870s, the Zulu Kingdom was by far the most powerful African State of the Limpopo. Cetewayo, who succeeded his father in 1872, was an able and popular ruler. He united the kingdom and built up a most efficient army. He followed a policy of alliance with the British Colony of Natal. The Zulu Kingdom and the Boer Republic of the Transvaal had been feuding for a long time.
The Zulus were defeated twice by the Boers, in 1838 and 1840. By 1877 Cetewayo was ready to invade the Transvaal. But the British stepped in and annexed the Transvaal in 1877, only to prevent Cetewayo from doing it first and becoming powerful and a challenge to white supremacy.
Some contemporary reports throw light on the relative strength of the Zulus and their Boer enemies. Colonel A.W. Durnford wrote in a memorandum on July 5 (“The Secret History of South Africa” by Abercrombe. The Central News Agency Ltd., Johannesburg South Africa. 1951 p.6):
About this time (April 10th) Cetewayo had massed his forces in three corps on the borders, and would undoubtedly have swept the Transvaal, at least up to the Vaal River if not to Pretoria itself, had the country not been taken over by the English. In my opinion he would have cleared the country to Pretoria.
Shepstone, the British Administrator, himself wrote concerning the reality of the danger on Dec. 25 1877:
The Boers are still flying, and I think by this time there must be a belt of more than a hundred miles long and thirty broad in which, with three insignificant exceptions, there is nothing but absolute desolation. This will give some idea of the mischief which Cetewayo’s conduct has caused.(Ibid p.7).
The above facts explode the myth that the British protected the Zulus from the Boers.
British barbarity on Blacks: After annexing the Transvaal, Shepstone turned his attention to destroying all the independent African states in that region, particularly the Zulu Kingdom. Before annexation of the Transvaal, Shepstone sided with the Zulus in their border disputes with the Transvaal. After annexation he made a volte-face and used those disputes as excuses to invade Zululand. The British public was told that the Zulu War was to liberate the Zulu people from a tyrannical ruler, and South Africa from a menace to “christianity and civilisation”.
In 1879, the British invaded the Zulu Kingdom and defeated Cetawayo. Then they started their complete subjugation. First the army was broken, thus destroying their ability to defend themselves. The country was then split into thirteen separate units under the nominal control of the chiefs, salaried by the Government. The white magistrates supplanted the chiefs as the most powerful men in their districts. Most important of all, the land was partitioned. Before the war, Shepstone had expressed the hope that Cetewayo’s warriors would be “changed to labourers working for wages”. It makes a sad story, how this was accomplished. In 1902-4, the Land Commission delineated a number of locations for the Zulus, and threw open the rest of the country to white settlement. Out of a total acreage of more than 12 million acres, the Africans held some 2 million acres. They numbered, at the lowest reckoning, over three hundred thousand. The Europeans, who were less than 20,000, owned most of the best land. A large proportion of the African population was forced to live upon land to which it had no legal claim. Where the Africans lived upon private or crown lands, they lived there entirely upon sufferance and without legal title. By this time, other independent African states in that region were also destroyed by the British army. Wheresoever, they marched, in Basutoland, Zululand or Bechuanaland, the Queen’s horses and the Queen’s men were like unto a “Salvation Army” ministering to the welfare of the colonists. The sufferers were the Africans.
Gandhi wrote in his Satyagraha in South Africa (p.15):
The Boers are simple, frank and religious. They settle in the midst of extensive farms. We can have no idea of the extent of these farms. A farm with us means generally an acre or two, and sometimes even less. In South Africa, a single farmer has hundreds or thousands of acres of land in his possession. He is not anxious to put all this under cultivation at once, and if any one argues with him he will say, `Let it lie fallow; lands which are now fallow will be cultivated by our children’.
Also in his Indian Opinion (March 15 1913), he wrote:
General Botha has thousands of acres of land … (there is) a big company in Natal which has hundreds of thousands of acres of land.
Thou shalt not steal but rob.
It did not seem to occur to Gandhi how these people came into possession of thousands of acres of land, whereas Africans were cooped in locations like chicken in pens.
Grabbing the land was not enough: it needed manpower to cultivate that land. The cry of the farmers was for labour. Naturally it found a favourite response from Shepstone, whose dream it was to convert Cetewayo’s warriors into labourers for white men. His native policy was to meet the demands of the European farmers. He agreed that Europeans could not expand or grow in wealth unless they could draw more fully upon the reservoirs of labour in the African reserves.
In the process of European colonisation, the swiftly expanding land-hungry Europeans turned the bulk of the African population into a proletariat. Due to the congestion and landlessness in the reserves, created deliberately by the white rulers, their agricultural return was not sufficient for bare existence. Then there were the taxes on huts, cattle and what not. On the other hand, working for white men did not provide them with adequate sustenance. In Natal, the sugar farmers of the coast relied upon the Indian indentured labour, whereas the stock farmers of the interior relied exclusively on Africans, and regarded the failure of Africans to work for them as a criminal offence. In a report to the Chief Commissioner of Police in 1903, the Police Inspector W.F. Fairley wrote:
“With regard to crime, the principal complaints made by Dutch farmers to patrols was of the refusal to work on the part of the natives.” (Department Reports 1903 p.67 cited “Reluctant Rebellion” by Marks p.17. Clarendon Press, Oxford 1970).
Complaints about the shortage of African labour were voiced in all parts of the country. The farmers were later joined by the mining industries. The most obvious change was the broadening of the economic base from being entirely agricultural to one in which mining played a more and more important part. Diamond, gold, coal became major industries, and with this development, the deeper involvement of the big finance houses, particularly Rothschilds. So the fate of the Africans as the source of cheap labour, and the fat dividends derived from mining by the British ruling class, became interlinked. This still continues in a modified form. Now it is Anglo-American corporations.
Cheap labour from India: Europeans assumed that Africans lived only to meet their requirements of cheap labour, and as such they had no right to establish themselves as self-sufficient and independent farmers because this conflicted with European interests. Famines in India facilitates the recruitment of indentured Indian labourers for white employers in the Colonies. It was no different in relation to Africans. In a Report of the Native Affairs Commission, (Native Affairs Commission Report 1939-40 cited “Oxford History of South Africa” p.182. Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1969) it was admitted that
“African reserves were regarded by whites as reservoirs of labour, and congestion, landlessness and crop failure were welcomed as stimulants to the labour supply”.
Similar situations among whites were viewed as national calamities. The Government lent millions of pounds to white farmers, gave them tax relief in times of famine, paid subsidies, facilitated the export of their produce, and wrote off their debts. But what about Africans? Famine would be rampant, crops ruined, food exhausted, thousands of Africans and their cattle would starve to death, but the government would not raise a finger.
The whites not only stole the land from the Africans, and used them as cheap labour, but also looked to them for revenue. They drew a relatively large and growing income from the Africans. “The Native population of Natal”, Shepstone admitted (“Imperial Factor” by De Kieweit p.193. Clarendon Press, Oxford 1970),
“contribute to the revenue annually a sum equal, at least, to that necessary to maintain the whole fixed establishment of the Colony for the government of the whites as well as themselves.”
Taxation is a financial measure to gather revenue to meet the expenditure of the state. But in South Africa it was used to reduce Africans to slavery. The sole motive behind the extra taxation imposed on Africans was to force the Africans to work on terms dictated by the whites.
Always there was resentment against any measure which would allow the Africans to settle in locations instead of keeping them as labourers. It was not only the farmers’ conferences, the press owned by the mining magnates joined the outcry of the farmers to enact special laws to compel the Africans to come out of their locations and work for the whites. The press was in the forefront to arouse the sentiments that Africans not in European service were necessarily living in idleness. Gandhi’s Indian Opinion played second fiddle to the white press in this respect. To Gandhi, the imposition of taxes upon the Africans to compel them to work for the white employers was “gentle persuasion”.
By a stroke of the pen, the major part of the available land was taken away from the Zulus and given to Europeans. Some of the dispossessed Zulus were allotted locations and others remained on the land of European landlords on sufferance. Bambata was one of these unfortunate chiefs. He became Chief in 1890 and he and his people were placed in private locations on very high rents. The land was useless for any agricultural purpose. To make things worse, the Boer farmers suspected Bambata of informing the British about their pro-Boer activities, and naturally they tried to victimise him and his people. But after the war, the British rulers leaned backwards and went out of their way to kiss and hug the Boers. So Bambata was caught in a cleft stick. By 1905 the tension between Bambata and his white landlords reached crisis point. The Assistant Magistrate of Greytown, H. Von Gerard, wrote to the Under Secretary of Native Affairs recommending the allocation of a location for his people. Gerard described how people were being oppressed and squeezed by the landlords, what useless land it was for agricultural purposes, and how summons after summons was being issued against people who were unable to pay high rents. Finally he remarked (“Reluctant Rebellion” by Marks. P.201):
A most desperate state of affairs, the more so as there seems no remedy for it….My sympathies with Bambata’s people…but I see no way out of the difficulty.
The military and civilian leaders of Natal were consciously developing a picture as if an uprising was imminent. Not that they could foresee one, but they wanted to foresee one because that would give them a golden opportunity to inflict severe punishments on Zulus who, according to the colonists, were growing insolent. They drew up a plan to deal with this imaginary uprising swiftly, and all agreed that was the way they could save not only Natal but North Africa from the “barbarities which only the savage mind can conceive.” (Ibid p. Xvii)
Zulu Revolt: But outside Natal, people were not so sure. Styne, President of the Orange Free State, called it “hysteria”. Smuts, Botha and Merriman expressed concern as to whether the whites of Natal would spur a rebellion. Some churchmen and many radical humanitarians in Natal, as well as England, produced volumes of irrefutable evidence proving that it was a conspiracy to goad the Zulus into rebellion and then massacre them. In this, Hariette Colenso, the famous daughter of a famous father, Bishop Colenso, made the most outstanding contribution. There was a cry of imminent native revolt in the press long before active rebellion broke out.
As far back as 1902, Lieu. G.A. Mills in his report (GH18/02. Cited “Reluctant Rebellion” p.158) to the Chief of Staff, Natal, on July 1 informed him:
Every Boer expresses the most bitter hatred of the Zulus. They all express a wish that the Zulus would rise now while the British troops are in the country so that they may be practically wiped out. The Boers all say that in the event of the rising, every one of them would join the British troops in order to have a chance of paying off old scores against the Zulus. When I first came here, I visited farms and asked the Boers what they thought of the advisability of keeping troops here. They all said it was most necessary, as they were afraid of the Kaffirs and it would not be safe to stay on their farms if the troops withdrew…. Taking everything into consideration, I cannot help being forced to the opinion that many Boers intend to provoke a Zulu rising if they can do so.
It was Colonel Mackenzie, the military supremo before the rebellion, who was prophesying a native uprising and cleaning the barrels of his guns to use the “golden opportunity” to inflict “the most drastic punishment” on leading natives he found guilty of treason, and to “instill a proper respect for the white man”. (C.O. 179/233/12460. Dispatch 9.3.06 cited “Reluctant Rebellion” p. 188).
On June 14, Charles Saunders, Chief Magistrate and Civil Commissioner in Zululand (1899-1909) wrote to C.J. Hignet, the magistrate of Nqutu (“Reluctant Rebellion” p.241):
I quite agree with your conclusions as to our men trying to goad the whole population into rebellion, and you have no idea of the difficulties we had in Nkandha in trying to protect people one knew perfectly well were faithful to us.
In his communication of July 10 1906 to the Prime Minister, (PM 61/15/66 Governor to PM 10.7.06) the Governor described the “sweeping actions and the mopping-up operations as continued slaughter. Fred Graham, a permanent civil servant in the Colonial Office, in his Minute of July 10, described it as “massacre”.
Nazism & racism: The most revealing was the long letter of July 24 1906 (CO 179/236/24787 minute 10-7-06) sent by the Anglican Archdeacon, Charles Johnson, from St. Augustine’s in Nqutu division, to the Society for the Propagation of the Gospels in London. He was a man of the British establishment and not known to have excessive zeal for standing up for the rights of the Africans. He wrote (cited “Reluctant Rebellion” p. 241):
Many thinking people have been asking themselves, what are we going to do with his teeming population? Some strong-handed men have thought the time was ripe for solving the great question. They knew that there was a general widespread spirit of disaffection among the natives of Natal, the Free State and the Transvaal, but specially in Natal, and they commenced the suppression of the rebellion in the fierce hope that the rebellion might so spread throughout the land and engender a war of practical extermination. I fully believe that they were imbued with the conviction that this was the only safe way of dealing with the native question, and they are greatly disappointed that the spirit of rebellion was not strong enough to bring more than a moiety of the native peoples under the influence of the rifle. Over and over again it was said, `They are only sitting on the fence, it shall be our endeavour to bring them over’; and again, speaking of the big chiefs, `We must endeavour to bring them in if possible! Yes, they have been honest and outspoken enough-the wish being father to the thought-they prophesied the rebellion would spread throughout South Africa; had they been true prophets, no doubt the necessity of solving the native question would have been solved for this generation at least.
John Merriman was a veteran Cape politician. He was one of those so-called liberals who accepted Nazism as a doctrine, or in other words Anglo-Saxon superiority, but regretted its consequent atrocities and thus fumigated their consciences. He wrote to Goldwin Smith (Merriman papers NHo. 202, 16.9.06 cited “Reluctant Rebellion” p.246) in September 1906:
We have had a horrible business in Natal with the natives. I suppose the whole truth will never be known, but enough comes out to make us see how thin the crust is that keeps our christian civilisation from the old-fashioned savagery machine-guns and modern rifles against knobsticks and assagais are heavy odds and do not add much to the glory of the superior race.
In the letter of the Archdeacon the expression “practical extermination”, and in a letter of Lieutenant Mills “practically wiped out”, have been used. This was what the German Nazis wanted to do to the Jews: to exterminate them. Does it make any difference whether the victims of racial slaughter are Jews or blacks?
Conspiracy to massacre Blacks: Gandhi was well aware of the conspiracy to massacre the Africans. When there was war hysteria in the colonial press, this prophet of non-violence did not apply his mind as to how to stop such a conflict. On the contrary, he did not want Indians to be left behind, but wanted them to take a full part in this genocide.
In his editorial in the Indian Opinion of Nov. 18 1905, long before the actual rebellion broke out, Gandhi complained that the Government simply did not wish to give Indians an opportunity of showing that they were as capable as any other community of taking their share in the defence of the colony. He suggested that a volunteer corps should be formed from colonial-born Indians, which would be useful in actual service.
Indentured Indians lived in conditions worse than slavery. Gandhi during his 20 years’ stay in South Africa, did not raise a finger to ease their sufferings. But he was quick to suggest using them as cannon fodder for racists against Africans.
In his Indian Opinion in Dec. 2 1905 he referred to Law 25 of 1875 which was specially passed to increase “the maximum strength of the volunteer force in the colony adding thereto a force of Indian immigrant volunteer infantry”. To assure the Europeans that such Indians would only kill Africans, he pointed out that “section 83 of the Militia Act states that no ordinary member of the coloured contingent shall be armed with weapons of precision, unless such contingent is called to operate against other than Europeans”.
Gandhi defends massacre: Many years later, he wrote (p.233) in his autobiography:
The Boer War had not brought home to me the horrors of war with anything like the vividness that the `rebellion’ did. This was no war but a man-hunt, not only in my opinion but also in that of many Englishmen with whom I had occasion to talk. To hear every morning reports of the soldiers’ rifles exploding like crackers in innocent hamlets, and to live in the midst of them, was a trial.
Then to justify his participation in this massacre, he went on (Autobiography p. 231):
I bore no grudge against the Zulus, they had harmed no Indian. I had doubts about the `rebellion’ itself, but I then believed that the British Empire existed for the welfare of the world. A genuine sense of loyalty prevented me from even wishing ill to the Empire. The righteness or otherwise of the `rebellion’ was therefore not likely to affect my decision.
What about the Nazi war criminals? Did they not have a genuine sense of loyalty to Hitler and Nazism?
In Great Britain another storm of protest was raised against the atrocities perpetrated in Natal. The only time Gandhi mentioned the Zulu suppression was on August 4 1906, when he wrote in his Indian Opinion:
A controversy is going on in England about what the Natal Army did during the Kaffir rebellion. The people here believe that the whites of Natal perpetrated great atrocities on the Kaffirs. In reply to such critics, the Star has pointed to the doings of the Imperial Army in Egypt. Those among the Egyptian rebels who had been captured were ordered to be flogged. The flogging was continued to the limits of the victim’s endurance; it took place in public and was watched by thousands of people. Those sentenced to death were also hanged at the same time. While those sentenced to death were hanging, the flogging of others was taken up. While the sentences were being executed, the relatives of the victims cried and wept until many of them swooned. If this is true, there is no reason why there should be such an outcry in England against Natal outrages.
One may notice that the article was very cleverly written. First Gandhi stated that people in England believed that the whites of Natal perpetrated great atrocities on Africans, as if he himself did not know what happened, and also gave the impression that it was the local Natal Army and not the Imperial Army which was involved in the atrocities, which is not true. Even at this stage, he was not willing to tell the simple truth, that atrocities were committed. Then he borrowed the description of hanging and flogging in Egypt from the Star as if he did not know about that either. Did or did not Gandhi know that those Egyptians were not common criminals to be flogged and hanged that they were the patriots, the flowers of the Egyptian nation?
If Gandhi unequivocally accepted or found out that the Imperial Army committed those atrocities, then he could not claim that he believed the British Empire existed for the welfare of mankind. The last and the vilest of all was the subtle suggestion that if the Imperial Army did what they were accused of doing, then there was no reason why there should be such an outcry in England against the Natal outrage. Why could this Imperialist-manufactured Mahatma not say clearly that both were crimes against humanity?
Source: http://www.trinicenter.com/WorldNews/ghandi4.htm
GANDHI’S ROLE IN INDEPENDENCE OF INDIA and BRITISH DECISION TO LEAVE WAS MINIMAL–PM Attlee of the UK
..Apart from revisionist historians, it was none other than Lord Clement Atlee himself, the British Prime Minister responsible for conceding independence to India, who gave a shattering blow to the myth sought to be perpetuated by court historians, that Gandhi and his movement had led the country to freedom. Chief Justice P.B. Chakrabarty of Calcutta High Court, who had also served as the acting Governor of West Bengal in India, disclosed the following in a letter addressed to the publisher of Dr. R.C. Majumdar’s book A History of Bengal. The Chief Justice wrote: ‘ My direct question to him (Atlee) was that since Gandhi’s “Quit India” movement had tapered off quite some time ago and in 1947 no such new compelling situation had arisen that would necessitate a hasty British departure, why did they have to leave?
In his reply Atlee cited several reasons, the principal among them being the erosion of loyalty to the British Crown among the Indian army and navy personnel as a result of the military activities of Netaji [Bose].
Toward the end of our discussion I asked Atlee what was the extent of Gandhi’s influence upon the British decision to quit India. Hearing this question, Atlee’s lips became twisted in a sarcastic smile as he slowly chewed out the word, “m-i-n-i-m-a-l!“ ” Subhas Chandra Bose, the Indian National Army, and the War of India’s Liberation – Ranjan Borra, Journal of Historical Review, no. 3, 4 (Winter 1982)
…The Indian Army in India is not obeying the British officers. We have recruited our workers for the war; they have been demobilised after the war. They are required to repair the factories damaged by Hitler’s bombers. Moreover, they want to join their kith and kin after five and a half years of separation. Their kith and kin also want to join them. In these conditions if we have to rule India for a long time, we have to keep a permanent British army for a long time in a vast country of four hundred millions. We have no such army….” Sir Stafford Cripps, intervening in the debate on the motion to grant Indian Indepence in the British House of Commons in 1947 quoted in ‘The Freedom Struggle and the Dravidian Movement’ by P.Ramamurti, Orient Longman, 1987
There are many ways people select to be popular. This is the easy way – harassing any popular figure. Moin don’t worry lots of people tried this not just you but nothing happened to Mahatma’s image.
This is way of getting cheap publicity. I just pity you. we all know the Pakistanis consumes hatred in the childhood and spitting it off in adolescence. Again don’t worry moin, its not your fault , because you born and studied in Pakistan. We cannot expect a Pakistani should be as gentle as an Indian. Where ever they go, a Pakistani’s shows shows their character Same as you.
Even as you live in US, still shows the character – hatred which consumes all time in your child hood.
This article has nothing to do with flags–there are 4000 articles on this site, with dozens of book reviews. Strangely enough this book review of Dr. Singh’s book is one of our most popular articles–which encouraged us to add to it and write others like it.
The original article was about his political follies–but it lies buried somewhere. we have severely criticized US, French, Dutch, American and Pakistani leaders also–so don’t feel that we are giving any special attention to Mr. Gandhi.
Please take up your gripe with the “109th Congress of the United States of America” (no Pakistan)which condemned the racism of Mr. Gandhi. Also write to the Nobel Peace Prize (Swedish) which refused Mr. Gandhi a Nobel Peace prize and severely criticized him
Please also take your beef with the two grandsons of Mr. Gandhi (Indians), and Dr. Singh (Indian) who have written books on Mr. Gandhi.
Take your complaints to Ms. Naidu, Mr. Bose and Mr. Ambedakar (both Indians)–we simply quote them
Why berate us. We simply report the truth. No point in shooting the messenger.
>>>>>>> Dr. King visited Bharat in 1959–ten years after Mr. Godse assassinated Mr. Gandhi. Mr. Gandhi has not written any philosophical book.
———— :):):):):):):):):):):):):):):)
Yes, Gandhi had not written any Book. But Dr. King was able to see the effect of Gandhi’s actions which is better than reading any Book. Gandhi was a believer in Action is better than writing any Book. Dr. King was not a fool to understand the effects of Gandhi’s Actions (like you are).
:):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):)
>>>>> His autobiography “Experiment with truth” is 8th grade level book about how he hated sex because his father died when he was making love to his wife, and how he experimented with young girls by sleeping naked with them to prove his manhood etc etc etc. He does not really discuss Civil Disobedience or how to defeat the British.
———– You should respect Gandhi because of revealing his details of his personal life because no one in the history of mankind has revealed such personal details.
Because of Gandhi wanted to reveal the truth.
First evaluate yourself how truthful you are & check whether you can come any way near to Gandhi regarding speaking truth. :):):):):):):):):):):):):):):)
>>>>>> On the contrary, he was writing to the British as their “Recruiter-in-Chief”, as a “loyal subject of the British Empire” who was sending Indians to be used as cannon fodder all over the world. He and Nehru massacred 29000 soldiers of the Indian national Army because the British felt threatened by the INA.
————– You write this because one Indian has claimed this fact which shows that you do not verify facts before putting it here & it shows your shortsightedness.
>>>>>> In 1959 there was hardly anyone left of Gandhi’s clan–except Nehru–who never really believed in Mr. Gandhi’s antics–but agreed to them on most occasions. If Dr. King met Mr. Nehru a Brahmin who called himself “The last Englishmen in India”, who was an Anti-America Socialist, who and who was sleeping with Mrs. Mountbatten and Mr. Mountbatten at the same time–then Dr. King couldn’t have learned much from him! How could a Brahmin who continued ot believe in the caste system of slavery have any advice to black man?
———- As conveyed earlier, Dr. King was able to see Gandhi’s effects which is better than reading any book.
Civil rights leader, theologian, and educator Howard Thurman was an early influence on King. A classmate of King’s father at Morehouse College, Thurman mentored the young King and his friends. Thurman’s missionary work had taken him abroad where he had met and conferred with Mahatma Gandhi.
And Inspired by Gandhi’s success with non-violent activism, King visited the Gandhi family in India in 1959, with assistance from the Quaker group the American Friends Service Committee. The trip to India affected King in a profound way, deepening his understanding of non-violent resistance and his commitment to America’s struggle for civil rights. In a radio address made during his final evening in India, King reflected, “Since being in India, I am more convinced than ever before that the method of nonviolent resistance is the most potent weapon available to oppressed people in their struggle for justice and human dignity. In a real sense, Mahatma Gandhi embodied in his life certain universal principles that are inherent in the moral structure of the universe, and these principles are as inescapable as the law of gravitation.” African American civil rights activist Bayard Rustin, who had studied Gandhi’s teachings, counseled King to dedicate himself to the principles of non-violence, served as King’s main advisor and mentor throughout his early activism, and was the main organizer of the 1963 March on Washington.
Gandhi’s nonviolent techniques were useful to King’s campaign to correct the civil rights laws implemented in Alabama. King applied non-violent philosophy to the protests organized by the SCLC. In 1959, he wrote The Measure of A Man, from which the piece What is Man?, an attempt to sketch the optimal political, social, and economic structure of society, is derived. His SCLC secretary and personal assistant in this period was Dora McDonald.
The FBI, under written directive from Attorney General Robert F. Kennedy, began telephone tapping King in the Fall of 1963. Concerned that allegations (of Communists in the SCLC), if made public, would derail the Administration’s civil rights initiatives, Kennedy warned King to discontinue the suspect associations, and later felt compelled to issue the written directive authorizing the FBI to wiretap King and other leaders of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference. J. Edgar Hoover feared Communists were trying to infiltrate the Civil Rights Movement, but when no such evidence emerged, the bureau used the incidental details caught on tape over the next five years in attempts to force King out of the preeminent leadership position.
King believed that organized, nonviolent protest against the system of southern segregation known as Jim Crow laws would lead to extensive media coverage of the struggle for black equality and voting rights. Journalistic accounts and televised footage of the daily deprivation and indignities suffered by southern blacks, and of segregationist violence and harassment of civil rights workers and marchers, produced a wave of sympathetic public opinion that convinced the majority of Americans that the Civil Rights Movement was the most important issue in American politics in the early 1960s.
Please check out the following references;
Nojeim, Michael J. (2004). Gandhi and King: The Power of Nonviolent Resistance. Greenwood Publishing Group. pp. 179. ISBN 0275965740.
Bennett, Scott H. (2003). Radical Pacifism: The War Resisters League and Gandhian Nonviolence in America, 1915-1963. Syracuse University Press. pp. 217. ISBN 0815630034.
King, Jr., Martin Luther; Clayborne Carson; Peter Holloran; Ralph Luker; Penny A. Russell (1992). The papers of Martin Luther King, Jr.. University of California Press. pp. 3. ISBN 0520079507.
King, Jr., Martin Luther; Clayborne Carson; Peter Holloran; Ralph Luker; Penny A. Russell (1992). The papers of Martin Luther King, Jr.. University of California Press. pp. 135–136. ISBN 0520079507.
Kahlenberg, Richard D.. “Book Review: Bayard Rustin: Troubles I’ve Seen”. Washington Monthly. http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1316/is_n4_v29/ai_19279952. Retrieved 2008-06-12.
>>>>>>> Your narrative falsely gives the impression as if King had met Gandhi.
——– If you misunderstand it, that is your problem, in my narrative that I have not mentioned that Dr. King met Gandhi. :):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):)
And you put the blame on me itself… Wah re Wah…
very Clever………….:):):):):):):):):):):):):):):)
>>>>>>>>>>What affects did King see in Bharat? A socialistic state stricken by penury and infested by caste? A trip to the Taj doesn’t really quilify in helping Dr. King in any way. There is no evidence to support that he met the Dalits or was aware of Dr. Ambedekar’s crusade to liberate the Dalits for Brahman tyranny and enslavement.
————— For this you have to ask Dr. King only
:):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):)
But whatever Dr. King might have seen or met, Dr. King started using Non-Violence…..
This is a fact, please see the references below.
:):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):)
>>>>>> As stated earlier–Dr. King did not follow fasting or filling the jails as they would not have worked in the USA. Dr. King thus followed Thoreau not Gandhi—despite the claims of the missionary who wanted to use Gandhi to convert all of Bharat to Christianity. The title “Mahatma” was to fool the poor Hindus into believing that Gandhi was an incarnation of Christ–this is how they converted thousands of Hindus to Christianity. All this is well document by Dr. Watson in his books
———- He He He He He He He
Non Violence means not only Fasting or Filling up Jails, it is more than that. How can you understand this because either your native country (Pakistan) or your dwelling country (USA) has never used it.
Missionaries doing some good & bad things in India.
That is another topic altogether & does not have any value here. So please do not act smart by diverting the topic. Let us talk about only Gandhi, Dr. King & not unrelated topics like missionaries work etc.
Please check out the following references;
Nojeim, Michael J. (2004). Gandhi and King: The Power of Nonviolent Resistance. Greenwood Publishing Group. pp. 179. ISBN 0275965740.
Bennett, Scott H. (2003). Radical Pacifism: The War Resisters League and Gandhian Nonviolence in America, 1915-1963. Syracuse University Press. pp. 217. ISBN 0815630034.
King, Jr., Martin Luther; Clayborne Carson; Peter Holloran; Ralph Luker; Penny A. Russell (1992). The papers of Martin Luther King, Jr.. University of California Press. pp. 3. ISBN 0520079507.
King, Jr., Martin Luther; Clayborne Carson; Peter Holloran; Ralph Luker; Penny A. Russell (1992). The papers of Martin Luther King, Jr.. University of California Press. pp. 135–136. ISBN 0520079507.
Kahlenberg, Richard D.. “Book Review: Bayard Rustin: Troubles I’ve Seen”. Washington Monthly. http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1316/is_n4_v29/ai_19279952. Retrieved 2008-06-12
Racist bigotry based on sterotypical presentation of Pakistanis and Muslims ignored.
Nehru was a revolutionary. I really admire his book ‘glipses of world history’–which he wrote to Indira.I after much ado got the book from ‘India’ and gave it to my son to read when he turned 13–a few years ago. He read most of it.
Nehru was a socialist–and his stupidity in Kashmir and Hyderabad, Junagarh, and Manvadar not withstanding, he did have a certain vision for Bharat. Gandhi’s vision was religious base Ramraj which even nehru repudiated.
Gandhi vehemenly supported the prolongation of the British Raj in South Asia. He was a loyal citizen of the British Empire, which he thought was the most benevolent in the world. He wanted to perpetuate the Empire–so he coerced Indians to go and fight for the empire..he as its “Recruiter In Chief”.
Mr. Gnadhi was firmly opposed to independence..the entire spectrum wanted independe3nc,e Jinnah, Ambedekar, Akali Dal, the Muslim League, Jamiat e Ulema Hindh, the RSS and the Jan Sangh—only Gandihi wanted “dominion status” based on on British overlordship.
This bitter divide split the Congress between Gandhi and Nehru. Here is Gandhi asking Nehru “to Go Slow”–a euphimism for continue the British Raj.
I have not been able to find the letters on the internet–but Jaswant Singh narrates them in his book Jinnah. they are listed on Pages 158-161 (hardcopy).
Page 159: In a letter dated January 4, 1928, he [Gandhi] told Nehru..’you are going to fast’….’you should have takenb time to think abdn become acclimated. Most of the resolutions you framed and got carried could have been delayed for a one year. Your plunging into the Republican army was a hasty step….’but I do not mind these acts of yours [badly timed, ill-judged resolutions] so much as I mind your mischief-makers and hooligans. I I do not know whether you still believe in Non-violence. But even if you have altered your view, you could not think that inlicnesed and ubbridled violance is going to deliver the country. If careful observation of the country in the light of your European experiments can convince you of the error ofthe current ways and means, by all means enforce your views, but pleade do please form a diciplilianry committe
“On January 1928, Gandhi reponded to Nehru’s denail of the Gandhian self. he tells nehru that he mush have historically supressing his tru self al these years. he is free to ‘revolt againsg me’. The article criticizing Nehru and the work of the Madras annual session were a misfire all around. ‘I had to notion of the terrible extent of [our] differences’. Whou you were in state [of self-supression], you overlooked the very things which appear to you now as my serious blemishes’. Similar criticisms on previous occasions were noticed becuase while you [were] under stupification, these things did not jar you as they do now…’the differences between you and me appear to me to be so vast and racial that there seems no meeting ground between us.
Page 159: An angry Nehru replied on 11 January 1928: It amazes me to find you using langauge which appears to be wholly unjustified…you have….specially slected some resolutions for…criticism and condemnation…You have referred to discipline..
Nehru tehn cut to the substance…’you have described the Independence Resolution ‘hastily conceived and througtlessly passed”..no stretch of language can justify the use of the words “hastily conceived..thoughtlessly passed”…a demand of independence and all that implies has come to mean a great deal for me and I attach more importance to it than to almost anything else..I doubt if anyone outside a small circle undertands your position..
Nehru then turned to the more general questions of Gandhi’s ideas and leadership, questions which bear more directly on the modernity–post modernity divide. ‘You know how intensely I have admired you and believed in you as a leader… I have done so spite of htat fact I hadly agred with anything that some of your previous publications–India Home Rule [Hind Swaraj] etc–contained. I felt and feel that you were and ifintely greater then your little books. Since you have come out of prison [Feb. 1924] something seems to have gone wrong…You…repeatedly changed your attitude…most of us were left utter bewilderment…I have asked you many times what you expected in the futurer and you answeres have been far from satisfying..you..said that..you expected the khadi movement to spread rapidly…the miracle has not happened..I am begining to think if we are to wait ’till khadi becomes universal in India, we shall have to wait a ’till the Greek Kalends…out khadi work is almost wholly diveroced from politics…What then can be don? You say nothing..you only criticize and no helpful lead comes from you…
Page 160: Nehru then turns to worldview..”Reading many of your articles in Young India, –your autobiography etc.– I have often felt how very different my ideals were from yours…You midjudge greatly, I think the civilization of the West and attach too great importance to its many failings..I nehing think that the so called Ramraj was very good in the past, nor do I want it back. I think that western or rather industrial civilization is bound to conquer India…Everybody knows these defects and the utopis and social theories are mend to remove thme
..I doubt very much if the fundamentaly causes of pverty are touched by [your remdy of village employmnet and constructive work]…You do not say a word against the semi-feudal zamidarai [landlord] system…or against the capitalist exploitation of both the workers and the consumers.
Gandhi was not non-violent. Gandhi was Seargent Major in the British Army. He supported all the British wars, Boer, Zulu, Kaffir, WW1 and WW2. He threatened the British –”if we had the atom bomb we would use it against Britian”. He urged the government of Bharat (aka India) to wage war on Pakistan.
Martin Luther King used Thorau, not Gandhi. As stated earlier–Dr. King did not follow fasting or filling the jails as they would not have worked in the USA. Dr. King thus followed Thoreau not Gandhi—despite the claims of the missionary who wanted to use Gandhi to convert all of Bharat to Christianity. The title “Mahatma” was to fool the poor Hindus into believing that Gandhi was an incarnation of Christ–this is how they converted thousands of Hindus to Christianity. All this is well document by Dr. Watson in his books
in the 60s, the hippy generation had no knowledge about the true colors of Gandhi–so there was some euphoria. The truth as it becomes more and more available will further elimiante all vistages of the nonsense that has been accumulated.
Pakistan was achieved 100% via ocnstitutional means
This is basically a piece of propaganda and ranting, written by what seems to be an extremely narrow minded and intelectually lacking person.
I will be the first to say Gandhi was not a saint, i don’t beleive he professed to be.
This article takes quotes totally out of context and manufactures evidence. This sort of thing is usually written by people who are trying to be inflamtory, have latent and deep rooted personal gripes.
considering what i beleive tom be the most reprhensoable peice of falsehood in this article, which would be the allegation of pedophillia and sexual deviancy. The writter himself says that none of the women who allegdy had these ofences commited against them has come forward to offer any testimony. Considering a number of these women kept journels, were intervied numerous times and nothing was mentioned. Even so if it was between consenting adults who cares! In terms of the pedophillia i don’t beleive it and i would doubt any would.
Claims of racism. He may have had some racisit tendencies in his early life, however i belive many do, the mark of greatness is a mkan who can overcome these and spend the rest of his life fighting against them.
The leader of the revloution in india were all educated in the british vicotiran system which was an extremly classist system and noone will deny india had and still has problems with class as do many many other countries, actually i would say probaly all countries.
I have total respect for all the men who stood up in a non violent manner against and oppresive forsce. I don’t think i would have the strnght to accomplish what Gandhi, Jinnah and the countles other leaders and their followers did.
I feel that the problems you have stem more from the fact that in modern times Ghandhi has been venerated above the other leaders such as Jinnah.
However i would ask yourself in all honesty would any of the people you vernerate be happy with your article and its falsehoods.
Debate gandhi’s politics if you wish. But do not become personal. That is where any intelectual and moral high ground you hoped to achieve is evaporated.
There are many things that can be debated, would gandhi have used different means in different circumtances? maybe.
If he thought the inidan people could have fought the british via mans of arms and won would he have done so? This is also another interesting debate.
Do i know the real mind of the man? No
However i put to you, independance was achieved, it is face that it was done in a mostly pacifist manner and one of the chief archticets of this was Gandhi.
would i have the same anger about this article if it was defamming Jinnah? Yes
Evidence about gandhi and his philosphies, i would rather take the word of those around him at the time, the word of Nerhu, Jinnah and co. Than take those of people who write with an agenda of incitment.
What happened after the British left. Well we all know the blood shed that took place and is still going on. It is a trgedy of epic proportions, that people who share so much history and bloodlines who are in effect decended from the same people but follow different religions should be at war and divided.
Just scrolled up and read your little rant about the aryan section. I would like to see prooof that he said all those things. It is actual fact that northern indians, parts of the middle east and northern europeans are decended from the aryan blood line. Its actually an interesting fact and shows the latent stupidity of racism in general, the fact is we all started of africa countless years ago.
I feel from reading through your replies and the article in general that you have issues with modern day problems in the region.
My advice to you would be to spend your time writting articles and thinking about how you can solve these problems rather than defamming icons behind which people may actually unite to solve these very problems. The ideals of pacifism and tollerance.
Please if you feel the need to answer to my reply do not rehash elements of your article in your reply.
Personal insults ignored.
We have quoted Time Magazine, Bose, Ambedkar, Naidu, Dr. Singh, Dr. Watson, Winston Churchill, Clement Atlee, Jawaharlal Nehru, the Nobel Peace Prize Committee, the 109th Congress of the United States of America, Jewish Defense League, Myawati, and two of Gandhi’s grandsons.
This article is only one is a series of discussions about historical figures of South Asia. More than two dozen articles have been written about Mr. Gandhi. This particular article is a book review of Mr. Singh’s book. We have discussed Mr. Nehru’s criticism of Mr. Gandhi and the failure of his politics in several articles all posted on
Mr. Gandhi is not venerated, he is reviled in South Africa, the RSS, BJP, Shiv Sena, and in the entire Dalit and Untouchable Community of of more than 450 million people–and all of India’s neighbors.
All of these have condemned Mr. Gandhi and his actions.
We do not accept free advice. When we need it, we will pay and get it from professionals.
http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/peace/articles/gandhi/
This is an actual link to the full article written about gandhi on the nobel prize web page. Below i have pasted the full conclusion of that article!
Why Was Gandhi Never Awarded the Nobel Peace Prize?
Up to 1960, the Nobel Peace Prize was awarded almost exclusively to Europeans and Americans. In retrospect, the horizon of the Norwegian Nobel Committee may seem too narrow. Gandhi was very different from earlier Laureates. He was no real politician or proponent of international law, not primarily a humanitarian relief worker and not an organiser of international peace congresses. He would have belonged to a new breed of Laureates.
There is no hint in the archives that the Norwegian Nobel Committee ever took into consideration the possibility of an adverse British reaction to an award to Gandhi. Thus it seems that the hypothesis that the Committee’s omission of Gandhi was due to its members’ not wanting to provoke British authorities, may be rejected.
In 1947 the conflict between India and Pakistan and Gandhi’s prayer-meeting statement, which made people wonder whether he was about to abandon his consistent pacifism, seem to have been the primary reasons why he was not selected by the committee’s majority. Unlike the situation today, there was no tradition for the Norwegian Nobel Committee to try to use the Peace Prize as a stimulus for peaceful settlement of regional conflicts.
During the last months of his life, Gandhi worked hard to end the violence between Hindus and Muslims which followed the partition of India. We know little about the Norwegian Nobel Committee’s discussions on Gandhi’s candidature in 1948 – other than the above quoted entry of November 18 in Gunnar Jahn’s diary – but it seems clear that they seriously considered a posthumous award. When the committee, for formal reasons, ended up not making such an award, they decided to reserve the prize, and then, one year later, not to spend the prize money for 1948 at all. What many thought should have been Mahatma Gandhi’s place on the list of Laureates was silently but respectfully left open.
Time magazine has been around for over 80 years, i would like you to post exact links to your article and if you wish to use them as a quotable source i feel you should mention everything they have written about gandhi, i tried to find the article you mentioned on their website and coule not. However i found many many artcles praising him from as early as the 1930′s.
RSS, Shiv Sena and the BJP are all right wing organisations in india all with links to each other. Especially Shiv Sena and RSS both have their own agenda which is certainly not peacful and extremely nationalistic and xenophobic. Therefore they have their own political agenda and wish to push india into a nationalist mood away from the ethos of muslim-hindu unity.
This is a summary article–the rest of the articles are published on The Truth about Gandhi website
Here is link that you asked for.
URL Ref link to Time already in the article
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1609478,00.html
Of course you did NOT publish the full text from the link–here are the missing portions
http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/peace/articles/gandhi/index.html
The criticism of Mr. Gandhi by Worm-Müller of the Nobel Peace Prize have already been presented in the gandhi series. The Nobel Peace Committee’s Seip report was less critical but it was the one that recommended that Gandhi not get the peace prize–because Gandhi asked Delhi to attack Pakistan
From the diary of committee chairman Gunnar Jahn, we now know the Labour politician Martin Tranmæl was very reluctant to award the Prize to Gandhi in the midst of the Indian-Pakistani conflict, and former Foreign Minister Birger Braadland agreed with Tranmæl. Gandhi was, they thought, too strongly committed to one of the belligerents. In addition both Tranmæl and Jahn had learnt that, one month earlier, at a prayer-meeting, Gandhi had made a statement which indicated that he had given up his consistent rejection of war. Based on a telegram from Reuters, The Times, on September 27, 1947, under the headline “Mr. Gandhi on ‘war’ with Pakistan” reported:
“Mr. Gandhi told his prayer meeting to-night that, though he had always opposed all warfare, if there was no other way of securing justice from Pakistan and if Pakistan persistently refused to see its proved error and continued to minimise it, the Indian Union Government would have to go to war against it. No one wanted war, but he could never advise anyone to put up with injustice. If all Hindus were annihilated for a just cause he would not mind. If there was war, the Hindus in Pakistan could not be fifth columnists. If their loyalty lay not with Pakistan they should leave it. Similarly Muslims whose loyalty was with Pakistan should not stay in the Indian Union.” Three of five members thus being against awarding the 1947 Prize to Gandhi, the Committee unanimously decided to award it to the Quakers.
1948: A Posthumous Award Considered: On November 18, 1948, the Norwegian Nobel Committee decided to make no award that year on the grounds that “there was no suitable living candidate”. Chairman Gunnar Jahn wrote in his diary: “To me it seems beyond doubt that a posthumous award would be contrary to the intentions of the testator.” According to the chairman, three of his colleagues agreed in the end
In 1947 the conflict between India and Pakistan and Gandhi’s prayer-meeting statement, which made people wonder whether he was about to abandon his consistent pacifism, seem to have been the primary reasons why he was not selected by the committee’s majority. Unlike the situation today, there was no tradition for the Norwegian Nobel Committee to try to use the Peace Prize as a stimulus for peaceful settlement of regional conflicts.
Other references have already been given in the article
“My Days with Gandhi”, published in 1953
Hope this helps! Cheers!
Actually you only printed part of the article, here is all the text in its fullest and if you analayze the full article you will come to realise the reason why he did not win the prize is a product of the time, and the article concludes by saying thatin modern times of the nobel he would have won.
“Mohandas Karamchand – known as Mahatma or “Great-Souled” – Gandhi was born in Porbandar, the capital of a small principality in what is today the state of Gujarat in Western India, where his father was prime minister. His mother was a profoundly religious Hindu. She and the rest of the Gandhi family belonged to a branch of Hinduism in which non-violence and tolerance between religious groups were considered very important. His family background has later been seen as a very important explanation of why Mohandas Gandhi was able to achieve the position he held in Indian society. In the second half of the 1880s, Mohandas went to London where he studied law. After having finished his studies, he first went back to India to work as a barrister, and then, in 1893, to Natal in South Africa, where he was employed by an Indian trading company.
In South Africa Gandhi worked to improve living conditions for the Indian minority. This work, which was especially directed against increasingly racist legislation, made him develop a strong Indian and religious commitment, and a will to self-sacrifice. With a great deal of success he introduced a method of non-violence in the Indian struggle for basic human rights. The method, satyagraha – “truth force” – was highly idealistic; without rejecting the rule of law as a principle, the Indians should break those laws which were unreasonable or suppressive. Each individual would have to accept punishment for having violated the law. However, he should, calmly, yet with determination, reject the legitimacy of the law in question. This would, hopefully, make the adversaries – first the South African authorities, later the British in India – recognise the unlawfulness of their legislation.
When Gandhi came back to India in 1915, news of his achievements in South Africa had already spread to his home country. In only a few years, during the First World War, he became a leading figure in the Indian National Congress. Through the interwar period he initiated a series of non-violent campaigns against the British authorities. At the same time he made strong efforts to unite the Indian Hindus, Muslims and Christians, and struggled for the emancipation of the ‘untouchables’ in Hindu society. While many of his fellow Indian nationalists preferred the use of non-violent methods against the British primarily for tactical reasons, Gandhi’s non-violence was a matter of principle. His firmness on that point made people respect him regardless of their attitude towards Indian nationalism or religion. Even the British judges who sentenced him to imprisonment recognised Gandhi as an exceptional personality.
The First Nomination for the Nobel Peace Prize
Among those who strongly admired Gandhi were the members of a network of pro-Gandhi “Friends of India” associations which had been established in Europe and the USA in the early 1930s. The Friends of India represented different lines of thought. The religious among them admired Gandhi for his piety. Others, anti-militarists and political radicals, were sympathetic to his philosophy of non-violence and supported him as an opponent of imperialism.
In 1937 a member of the Norwegian Storting (Parliament), Ole Colbjørnsen (Labour Party), nominated Gandhi for that year’s Nobel Peace Prize, and he was duly selected as one of thirteen candidates on the Norwegian Nobel Committee’s short list. Colbjørnsen did not himself write the motivation for Gandhi’s nomination; it was written by leading women of the Norwegian branch of “Friends of India”, and its wording was of course as positive as could be expected.
The committee’s adviser, professor Jacob Worm-Müller, who wrote a report on Gandhi, was much more critical. On the one hand, he fully understood the general admiration for Gandhi as a person: “He is, undoubtedly, a good, noble and ascetic person – a prominent man who is deservedly honoured and loved by the masses of India.” On the other hand, when considering Gandhi as a political leader, the Norwegian professor’s description was less favourable. There are, he wrote, “sharp turns in his policies, which can hardly be satisfactorily explained by his followers. (…) He is a freedom fighter and a dictator, an idealist and a nationalist. He is frequently a Christ, but then, suddenly, an ordinary politician.”
Gandhi had many critics in the international peace movement. The Nobel Committee adviser referred to these critics in maintaining that he was not consistently pacifist, that he should have known that some of his non-violent campaigns towards the British would degenerate into violence and terror. This was something that had happened during the first Non-Cooperation Campaign in 1920-1921, e.g. when a crowd in Chauri Chaura, the United Provinces, attacked a police station, killed many of the policemen and then set fire to the police station.
A frequent criticism from non-Indians was also that Gandhi was too much of an Indian nationalist. In his report, Professor Worm-Müller expressed his own doubts as to whether Gandhi’s ideals were meant to be universal or primarily Indian: “One might say that it is significant that his well-known struggle in South Africa was on behalf of the Indians only, and not of the blacks whose living conditions were even worse.”
The name of the 1937 Nobel Peace Prize Laureate was to be Lord Cecil of Chelwood. We do not know whether the Norwegian Nobel Committee seriously considered awarding the Peace Prize to Gandhi that year, but it seems rather unlikely. Ole Colbjørnsen renominated him both in 1938 and in 1939, but ten years were to pass before Gandhi made the committee’s short list again.
1947: Victory and Defeat
In 1947 the nominations of Gandhi came by telegram from India, via the Norwegian Foreign Office. The nominators were B.G. Kher, Prime Minister of Bombay, Govindh Bhallabh Panth, Premier of United Provinces, and Mavalankar, the President of the Indian Legislative Assembly. Their arguments in support of his candidacy were written in telegram style, like the one from Govind Bhallabh Panth: “Recommend for this year Nobel Prize Mahatma Gandhi architect of the Indian nation the greatest living exponent of the moral order and the most effective champion of world peace today.” There were to be six names on the Nobel Committee’s short list, Mohandas Gandhi was one of them.
The Nobel Committee’s adviser, the historian Jens Arup Seip, wrote a new report which is primarily an account of Gandhi’s role in Indian political history after 1937. “The following ten years,” Seip wrote, “from 1937 up to 1947, led to the event which for Gandhi and his movement was at the same time the greatest victory and the worst defeat – India’s independence and India’s partition.” The report describes how Gandhi acted in the three different, but mutually related conflicts which the Indian National Congress had to handle in the last decade before independence: the struggle between the Indians and the British; the question of India’s participation in the Second World War; and, finally, the conflict between Hindu and Muslim communities. In all these matters, Gandhi had consistently followed his own principles of non-violence.
The Seip report was not critical towards Gandhi in the same way as the report written by Worm-Müller ten years earlier. It was rather favourable, yet not explicitly supportive. Seip also wrote briefly on the ongoing separation of India and the new Muslim state, Pakistan, and concluded – rather prematurely it would seem today: “It is generally considered, as expressed for example in The Times of 15 August 1947, that if ‘the gigantic surgical operation’ constituted by the partition of India, has not led to bloodshed of much larger dimensions, Gandhi’s teachings, the efforts of his followers and his own presence, should get a substantial part of the credit.”
Having read the report, the members of the Norwegian Nobel Committee must have felt rather updated on the last phase of the Indian struggle for independence. However, the Nobel Peace Prize had never been awarded for that sort of struggle. The committee members also had to consider the following issues: Should Gandhi be selected for being a symbol of non-violence, and what political effects could be expected if the Peace Prize was awarded to the most prominent Indian leader – relations between India and Pakistan were far from developing peacefully during the autumn of 1947?
From the diary of committee chairman Gunnar Jahn, we now know that when the members were to make their decision on October 30, 1947, two acting committee members, the Christian conservative Herman Smitt Ingebretsen and the Christian liberal Christian Oftedal spoke in favour of Gandhi. One year earlier, they had strongly favoured John Mott, the YMCA leader. It seems that they generally preferred candidates who could serve as moral and religious symbols in a world threatened by social and ideological conflicts. However, in 1947 they were not able to convince the three other members. The Labour politician Martin Tranmæl was very reluctant to award the Prize to Gandhi in the midst of the Indian-Pakistani conflict, and former Foreign Minister Birger Braadland agreed with Tranmæl. Gandhi was, they thought, too strongly committed to one of the belligerents. In addition both Tranmæl and Jahn had learnt that, one month earlier, at a prayer-meeting, Gandhi had made a statement which indicated that he had given up his consistent rejection of war. Based on a telegram from Reuters, The Times, on September 27, 1947, under the headline “Mr. Gandhi on ‘war’ with Pakistan” reported:
“Mr. Gandhi told his prayer meeting to-night that, though he had always opposed all warfare, if there was no other way of securing justice from Pakistan and if Pakistan persistently refused to see its proved error and continued to minimise it, the Indian Union Government would have to go to war against it. No one wanted war, but he could never advise anyone to put up with injustice. If all Hindus were annihilated for a just cause he would not mind. If there was war, the Hindus in Pakistan could not be fifth columnists. If their loyalty lay not with Pakistan they should leave it. Similarly Muslims whose loyalty was with Pakistan should not stay in the Indian Union
Gandhi had immediately stated that the report was correct, but incomplete. At the meeting he had added that he himself had not changed his mind and that “he had no place in a new order where they wanted an army, a navy, an air force and what not”.
Both Jahn and Tranmæl knew that the first report had not been complete, but they had become very doubtful. Jahn in his diary quoted himself as saying: “While it is true that he (Gandhi) is the greatest personality among the nominees – plenty of good things could be said about him – we should remember that he is not only an apostle for peace; he is first and foremost a patriot. (…) Moreover, we have to bear in mind that Gandhi is not naive. He is an excellent jurist and a lawyer.” It seems that the Committee Chairman suspected Gandhi’s statement one month earlier to be a deliberate step to deter Pakistani aggression. Three of five members thus being against awarding the 1947 Prize to Gandhi, the Committee unanimously decided to award it to the Quakers.
1948: A Posthumous Award Considered
Mahatma Gandhi was assassinated on 30 January 1948, two days before the closing date for that year’s Nobel Peace Prize nominations. The Committee received six letters of nomination naming Gandhi; among the nominators were the Quakers and Emily Greene Balch, former Laureates. For the third time Gandhi came on the Committee’s short list – this time the list only included three names – and Committee adviser Seip wrote a report on Gandhi’s activities during the last five months of his life. He concluded that Gandhi, through his course of life, had put his profound mark on an ethical and political attitude which would prevail as a norm for a large number of people both inside and outside India: “In this respect Gandhi can only be compared to the founders of religions.”
Nobody had ever been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize posthumously. But according to the statutes of the Nobel Foundation in force at that time, the Nobel Prizes could, under certain circumstances, be awarded posthumously. Thus it was possible to give Gandhi the prize. However, Gandhi did not belong to an organisation, he left no property behind and no will; who should receive the Prize money? The Director of the Norwegian Nobel Institute, August Schou, asked another of the Committee’s advisers, lawyer Ole Torleif Røed, to consider the practical consequences if the Committee were to award the Prize posthumously. Røed suggested a number of possible solutions for general application. Subsequently, he asked the Swedish prize-awarding institutions for their opinion. The answers were negative; posthumous awards, they thought, should not take place unless the laureate died after the Committee’s decision had been made.
On November 18, 1948, the Norwegian Nobel Committee decided to make no award that year on the grounds that “there was no suitable living candidate”. Chairman Gunnar Jahn wrote in his diary: “To me it seems beyond doubt that a posthumous award would be contrary to the intentions of the testator.” According to the chairman, three of his colleagues agreed in the end, only Mr. Oftedal was in favour of a posthumous award to Gandhi.
Later, there have been speculations that the committee members could have had another deceased peace worker than Gandhi in mind when they declared that there was “no suitable living candidate”, namely the Swedish UN envoy to Palestine, Count Bernadotte, who was murdered in September 1948. Today, this can be ruled out; Bernadotte had not been nominated in 1948. Thus it seems reasonable to assume that Gandhi would have been invited to Oslo to receive the Nobel Peace Prize had he been alive one more year.
Why Was Gandhi Never Awarded the Nobel Peace Prize?
Up to 1960, the Nobel Peace Prize was awarded almost exclusively to Europeans and Americans. In retrospect, the horizon of the Norwegian Nobel Committee may seem too narrow. Gandhi was very different from earlier Laureates. He was no real politician or proponent of international law, not primarily a humanitarian relief worker and not an organiser of international peace congresses. He would have belonged to a new breed of Laureates.
There is no hint in the archives that the Norwegian Nobel Committee ever took into consideration the possibility of an adverse British reaction to an award to Gandhi. Thus it seems that the hypothesis that the Committee’s omission of Gandhi was due to its members’ not wanting to provoke British authorities, may be rejected.
In 1947 the conflict between India and Pakistan and Gandhi’s prayer-meeting statement, which made people wonder whether he was about to abandon his consistent pacifism, seem to have been the primary reasons why he was not selected by the committee’s majority. Unlike the situation today, there was no tradition for the Norwegian Nobel Committee to try to use the Peace Prize as a stimulus for peaceful settlement of regional conflicts.
During the last months of his life, Gandhi worked hard to end the violence between Hindus and Muslims which followed the partition of India. We know little about the Norwegian Nobel Committee’s discussions on Gandhi’s candidature in 1948 – other than the above quoted entry of November 18 in Gunnar Jahn’s diary – but it seems clear that they seriously considered a posthumous award. When the committee, for formal reasons, ended up not making such an award, they decided to reserve the prize, and then, one year later, not to spend the prize money for 1948 at all. What many thought should have been Mahatma Gandhi’s place on the list of Laureates was silently but respectfully left open.”
That is the full text i hope you take your time and read and analyze what it say inpassionatly.
Next the link you gave for the truth about gandhi website is not real, it directs you to this page http://en.wordpress.com/signup/?new=mohndasgandhi
The time article you are reffering to is written about the book that was written rather than giving opinion on gandhi or factual evidence. It was in essence a review of one book. The deflamatory part of qwhich consits of 5 pages provides not factual proof. Also the it is more about a man who has a struggle with his morality and the realism of being a man. He struggled with the conflict, as i would suspect so many other great men and normal men have done and will do. The book was written about a hard family life, of course he took his wif across the world, of course the were troubles. The fact is he was trying to live his life to a higher standard, not an easy thing to do, he was a man who preached social equality, pacifism and fairness, this is not disputed by the auother. The fact is did this cause a stuggle in his personal life, i would expect it did.
Just for the other readers who stumble accross the website i will post the full review of the book done by time.
What more can be said about Gandhi, the subject of dozens of hagiographies, biographies and an autobiography; a hero of both Bollywood and Hollywood; a man whose face adorns stamps and currency? Plenty, if you are Rajmohan Gandhi, journalist, scholar, grandson of the Mahatma and now author of the door-stopping, 745-page Mohandas: A True Story of a Man, his People and an Empire. The book’s title and its author’s pedigree promise much. A scion of the great man, one hopes, will wrest Gandhi’s narrative away from cinematic hype and the Hindu extremists who claim to be his true inheritors (even though it was Hindu hard-liner Nathuram Godse who assassinated him).
The author only partly rises to the challenge, depending rather too heavily on his grandfather’s writings and offering little that is factually new. The extra insights that you would expect from a family member are not there. There is a wonderful photograph of Gandhi cuddling young Rajmohan on his lap, but barely any family lore—puzzling, given how much access Rajmohan must have had to his grandfather’s siblings, nieces and nephews. Little is said about the author’s father, Devdas (a favored youngest son and activist), or his maternal grandfather, the brilliant Chakravarthi Rajagopalachari, second governor-general of independent India and one of Gandhi’s closest aides.
Exceptions to the author’s reserve mostly center on Gandhi’s limitations as a family man. Where the world sees a saint, Rajmohan Gandhi sees a cruel husband and a mostly absent father, paying scant attention to his children’s schooling and dragging wife Kasturba across continents at will, belittling her desire for the simplest of material possessions, then expecting her to comply when he turns from amorous husband to platonic companion to apparent adulterer. Gandhi took on a magnetic personality in the presence of young women, and was able to persuade them to join him in peculiar experiments of sleeping and bathing naked together, without touching, all apparently to strengthen his chastity. (Whether these experiments were always successful is anyone’s guess.) It is also revealed that Gandhi began a romantic liaison with Saraladevi Chaudhurani, niece of the great poet Rabindranath Tagore—a disclosure that has created a buzz in the Indian press. The author tells us that Gandhi, perhaps disingenuously, called it a “spiritual marriage,” a “partnership between two persons of the opposite sex where the physical is wholly absent.”
This bombshell occupies only five pages, but it gives Rajmohan Gandhi enough material for his book’s redeeming feature—namely, the clear depiction of the tensions between Gandhi’s erratic emotional compass and his unswerving moral one. For despite the occasional salacious lapses, the overarching principle that infused Gandhi’s life was his intrinsic belief in the equality of all souls. Even though he operated in an obsessively caste- and class-ridden society, Gandhi never viewed people as Hindu or Muslim, Brahmin or untouchable. He even refused to think of the British as the enemy. His war was about righteousness, not us against them.
When the people disobeyed Gandhi’s pacifist injunctions, and erupted into communal violence after independence, he went on a hunger strike until the rioting stopped. He wanted freedom but without bloodshed. He also eschewed any egotistical desire to retain control of events, going along with India’s partition, even though he was against it, because he thought it was what the people wanted. We all know that a radical, all-encompassing love of humanity can be one of the most transformative forces on earth. Rajmohan Gandhi’s book reminds us that it can spring from the most ordinary of hearts.
Again i would ask is this article and website about rpopaganda or an intelectual persuit you profess it to be? Your sources are woefully deviod of face and you are basically take snippest from more substantial works to make your argument, you also form your opionion from the opinion of others rather than collating actual fact and analayzing them.
You also use extremist opionion makers and consider them to be a good foundation on your criticism of Gandhi, using nationalistic and extremist opionion makers and groups as your basis will obviously give you a one sided article. It also will put you in the league of propaganda and extremism rather than a work os substance.
As a Gandhi apologist it irks you see him being criticized in Time Magazine–we simply report the truth. All our sources have been referenced and cross-checked. All are actual quotes.
You again fall into your temple indoctrination and 8th grade version of Gandhi’s narrative on the “fast”–We have written multiple articles on the fake fast and how the 1946 and 1047 riots were manufactured to partition Bengal and Punjab–Suharwardi’s narrative is seminal on this subject.
Dr. Singh has consolidated the research in both of his books.
Thank you for sharing all the information that has already been published. Our article was a book review also–it took the Time article and supplemented it with other sources which are not so ubiquitously known—Condemnation of Gandhi’s racism by the 109th Congress of the USA.
i accept all these
Dear Mako …any thing positive about India is personal to Moin, but he does not and will not accept and say open heartedly.
you wrote ”
Debate gandhi’s politics if you wish. But do not become personal. That is where any intelectual and moral high ground you hoped to achieve is evaporated”
But Moin will spin this as a not a personal attack rather than discusing a book. all these hundreds of articles he wrote against Gandhi ( who was voted the 2nd best person of the last centuary) actually discuss personalities etc, he cuts and paste all few words some write in their book. any sentence from the book should taken with full context rather than pputing mere words will do the justice for that author. I am happy the day Moin say that he write only against India , atleast he is honest to him self
My advise dear Mako, it is no use to write here and he is being paid for this by anti India Lobby from Gulf ( I suppose)
Vijay
Paid by the Gulf? Then why do you see articles against the Gulf, and criticism of China, Britian, UK, Turkey, Saudis, and Pakistanis?
Why are Gandhi’s Voteries not able to interpret Time 100 list. The list wasn’t about best person of the last centuary. It was about persons with biggest impact on the 20th Century and Guess what Hitler was also on the list. and as far as i remember gandhi was 3rd runner up not 2nd. I also know one of the participants involved in rating was Condi Rice (killer of million plus Iraq). We also know the hero of Obama(currently the worlds deadliest War Criminal) is Gandhi
You hardly criticize Saudi, China or gulf. Any thing china development is not sweat factories? Same cost benefit has made china has huge manufacturing base..
Every western corporate entity go for cheap labor, political stability, quality of labor for cost benefits, they moved from Japan to Mexico, to Asian countries to china and now to India
None of the countries has made great economic development with out western technology or markets where Pakistan is consider as touch me not/most dangerous place and civil war ravaged country, where as India is the second largest FDI after china.
You whipping countries are always US and India, for other countries you spin to Pakistan point of view +MQM/PML favor( where you loyalties are).
be honest ….how many article you write anti India(with total degrading) verses other countries, how many personalities honestly discussed like Gandhi, Nehru vs Jinnah, Sherriff ….you must have statistics.
Madras’s / charities are financed by Gulf, some US Pakistani radios in USA get money in the name of Religion and charity .. I think you may be beneficiary for this anti Indian campaigner/hurtle
I think you stopped advocating Indian ocean renaming or Pakistan as India2.
We crticise and eulogize all countries. We write about great Indians and bad ones. We do book reviews. We castagate the Saudis, as much as we criticize the Gulf countries. We are unbiased and an equal opportunity site. Some of the most escerbic critcism is against Mr. Zardari and Mr. Sharif–not to forget Mr. Khan.
If you see continue to read our site you will see critcism of Iran, and other countries too.
The ocean is not Indian–it is Asian and the name should reflect that.
Relax–we are not out to gety anyone. We simply present facts–always authenticated with appropriate references.
Well written Mr Moin,,, Some insights on Jinnah(supposedly Quaid-e-azam) would go a long way in proving your authenticity,,,, kindly bless the readers with your UNBIASED views,,,
Note: We all know what he did during his lifetime
You probbaly heard what he did in your temple. Fact was he created a country.
come on..its all cited againt a noble man , like Gandhi ji, I disgrace of your unsincere efforts and surely to proved yourself a non-sense ,idot ,insane human, if you are, as you seem.
The author of this article has taken statements out of context and is not showing the whole picture. His only motive seems to generate some curiosity and controversy around his writing.
Go to Gandhi,s page in Wikipedia and read the “Brahmacharya” section. If one reads just the beginning paragraphs in this section, he will think that Gandhi was a sex maniac. But one has to read the whole section to get an idea about what he was trying to do. He was trying to push himself and test the limits of his willpower and self control. For a normal person who gets attracted even to a veiled woman, this will look strange. But not for a Mahatma, whose only goal was to purify himself . And to purify oneself and to keep oneself above the masses one has to test his limits. That is exactly what he was doing. Remember that he never tried to hide the fact that he was doing these experiments. That shows his courage and purity.
N. K. Bose was a Gandhi follower who left Gandhi due to his misunderstandings about Gandhi’s Brahmacharya experiments. Later Bose realized his mistake and stated; “there was no immorality on part of Gandhi. Moreover Gandhi tried to conquer the feeling of sex by consciously endeavoring to convert himself into a mother of those who were under his case, whether men or women”.
Why the “unbiased”, “wise” author of this article has conveniently missed these facts?
Yeah Bose left Gandhi all right–he found Gandhi sleeping naked with his wife. The Time magazine article describes the incident
The article is a book review based on multiple sources–please take up the issue with Dr. Singh, Mr. Bose, The 109th Congress of the United States of America, and the two grandsons of Mr. Gandhi.
We simply presented the facts from authenticated verifiable sources.
The commentator has not presented any sources–and typed in his personal opinion. That opinion is worth something–not sure what that is. We will let the thousands of netizens who visit our site to decide the worth of the opinion that has no sources attached to it.
The Daily Mail – Saturday 10th April 2010.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1264952/A-new-book-reveals-Gandhi-tortured-young-women-worshipped-shared-bed.html
just for your information.
Thank you Mr. Khan. We appreciate it. It will added to the archives on http://www.mohandasgandhi.wordpress.com. Please continue to help us build the library there.
My Dear! Why have you flared up and jumping to the sky. The truth is always bitter and very hard to swallow. Instead of defending Mr. Gandhi, you are blaming whole of Pakistan. In my opinion, Chankia is more dangerous than terrorism. How many Muslims were killed at the time of partition and how many muslim women were raped and abducted by yours “Civilized Nation” Lest not forget, how many innocent Sikhs were killed after the murder of Mrs. Indra Gandhi.
You should reply with reasoning and not mud slinging.
Dear all,
although we like Gandhi or not it a matter of choice..but certainly for the future of bright SA we can not afford to ignore his writings about our SOuth Asian civilization…..
WE should study his writing and pick the best which suit to present context of scenario..
Why is it wrong to publish reviews on books published by Mr. Gandhi’s grandsons and others like Dr. G.B. Singh and Mr. Lad.
The most depressing thing is how even when presented with evidence, people won’t believe the truth. That’s when logic is abandoned, and you’re just being willfully ignorant. It’s also sad to see the number of racist comments here. Very, very sad.
SPARE THE ROD – SPOIL THE CHILD!
OK. So what’s the big deal here? It seems a terrific amount of (wasted) research went into this piece of “work” that still falls short of a halfway decent smear campaign and WAY the fudge short of an amateur paparazzo’s attempt at porn. Disappointing journalism. So the Father of the Nation harbored a dislike for Jews, Dalits, and others (maybe because of an overt Rejection Complex, i.e., their reluctance to participate in his nuptial “experiments”)! Who cares! He had double standards? Don’t we all? He was caught “pants down” with several ladies, pubescents, his niece … Blah … Blah …. Blah! Yet nowhere do I see any tangible evidence of sexual indiscretion that justifies him being labeled as a bigot, fornicator, pedophile, incestuous, etc. On the contrary, this man publicly shared his private approach to enhance self control, celibacy, austerity, asceticism. You haven’t uncovered any evidence of him falling short of his standards. If he were, indeed, a lascivious self-righteous pervert, as you seem to make him out to be, he would have jealously guarded his “indiscretions”. But, for a moment, let’s kick objectivity to the curb and go along with your slanderous accusations. So “Bapu-Ji” was a horndog. He couldn’t keep his wiener tucked unobtrusively in his dhoti! All the power to him, Dude! How in heck do you imagine ANYONE could “father” a Nation of 2 billion plus horndogs? With a limp danda?
Its a book review. Take up your issues with Dr. G.B. Singh, and two grandsons of Mr. Mohandas Gandhi all of whom wrote books on Mr. Gandhi. We just report the news.
AND FURTHERMORE …. Let’s use some common sense here:
For the record, Mr. Bose was a “no nonsense”, hard line warrior. If he timidly departed the scene after observing Bapu-Ji and Mrs. Bose lying together in the buff, this either speaks volumes for debunking fictitious smut or for glorifying his ‘Gandhian’ compassion, understanding, exemplary tolerance, and unwavering belief in his wife’s explanation, “It’s really not what you think, Dear!” Golden Words that could make a (Freedom) Fighter of ANY passive skeptic! Moreover, if there was any cause for alarm, I’m sure Time Magazine, Dr. G.B. Singh, the two loyal grandsons of Mr. Mohandas Gandhi and others would have documented Netaji’s retaliatory move using Bapu-Ji’s rod. But credible sources have no record of such.
….. Something to ponder on ;-)
As a matter of fact. Bose, Dr. Singh, Gandhi’s two grandsons, and Mr. Gandhi himself discuss the issue. There is also a new book on Gandhi by Mr. Latt which describes the factors in detail.
You can write letters and your objections in triplicate to the above. We simply report the news in our book reviews. You have the option of rejecting the books or not reading about them
Please don’t misunderstand my motives here, Sir. I am not a Gandhi worshiper; far from it! I’m not objecting to your “reporting” of news or your “review” of books. I’m simply making note of an obvious slant in your message that comes from editorializing selected pieces of choice information from purportedly credible, unbiased sources to influence the readership into considering an exaggerated profile of a great world leader’s “flaws” as factual.
I have read and re-read the article (or, rather, the author’s deductions which he claims is synthesized from data from multifarious sources he cites as reference) and still can’t find any irrefutable sexual “nexus” between Gandhi and his pool of fellow experimenters. The article is liberally flavored with selective saucy buzzwords, such as “sacred associations” (referring to Gandhi’s ladies), “one night stand” (referring to the married Kanchan Shah, who apparently equated “sleeping” with Gandhi to “indulging in coitus” thereby announcing her desire (- and betraying her unique taste in men) – thereby being disqualified outright from participating in the spiritual endurance test; as were others.
In my books, this would be a testament to Gandhi’s sincerity of motives and self-control but the author attempts to discount Gandhi’s assurance that no woman “has been harmed by contact with me or been prey to lustful thoughts,” He claims the existence of “sufficient evidence to prove that Gandhi’s experiments had a deleterious effect on his female (Ashram’s) intimates’ mental health” and offers some heresy testimony that gravitates on one singular, well established fact of life: The more one’s sexual impulse is restrained and repressed, “the more oversexed and sex-conscious they became.” (…. except for a true Brahmacharya like Gandhi. They don’t call him Mahatma for nothing, y’know!). Naturally, this sexually vacuous ambiance set off an “intense competition” among the (spiritually weak) women for Gandhi’s attention. I suppose it’s nice to be the only rooster in the hen house – for the rooster! But if he’s perpetually roosting, he’d drive the hens bananas! In Bose’s words, “it does leave mark of injury on the personality of others who are not of the same moral stature as he himself is, and for whom sharing in Gandhiji’s experiment is no spiritual necessity.” Are you kidding? Perhaps not a spiritual necessity for Mr. Bose, but he can’t speak for Mrs. Bose or the other aspirants in the Ashrams. If not a “spiritual” necessity, certainly a physical, perhaps an egotistical one! And, Boy, were they all disappointed! To the point of frustration!
Again, I would interpret this as proof of Gandhi’s fortitude (or disinterest). It would be a bit overboard to flunk the Mahatma’s for his singular (alleged) erection since NOTHING is said about whether he took it any further (or deeper). But there’s a fair amount of tittle-tattle on some participants being spiritually weak; but not Gandhi. Again, the term “service” is presented as though it were a euphemism for a corrupt, lascivious act. But the only wordage the referenced texts used as descriptors are, “communal nude bathing, massages, sleeping together,” etc. Quite innocent! Nowhere is there any mention of a requirement for inter-gender sexual contact, viz. coitus.
Gandhi did many things in his life that I wouldn’t compliment him for. But that makes one of the main differences between the Mahatma and me: his fame vs. my nonentity!
Again, I don’t wish to give you (or anyone) the impression I’m objecting to you presenting select pieces of information that’s already out there. It is the “trimming”, “packaging” and “gift-wrapping” that bothers my conscience especially since the crux of this “work” reads like a criminal Charge Sheet: accusations of “Sex Antics … Pedophilia … Adultery … Incest …Sexual Perversion & Fetishes …”, serious sexual misconduct, with no documented confessions or reliable eyewitnesses; only mere unsubstantiated hearsay from vested sources against an individual who is no longer here to defend himself.
I mean no offense, Sir, but is this not the manner in which Islamic (in)Justice is carried out in some parts of the world? God knows best!
Jazakallah … ;-)
Please read the following books on the subject:
Dr. G.B. Singh’s two books.
Two books by two of Gandhi’s grandsons
One book by Mr. Latt on Gandhi.
My life with Mr. Gandhi by Nirmal Bose
Also kindly read:
http://www.class.uidaho.edu/ngier/gantan5000.htm
There is so much evidence that this article written several years ago has now become mild. The authors of the books listes make louder claims about 12 year old virgins sleeping with Gandhi. Also with Manu and perhaps with Indira Gandhi.
We have been conservative in our presentations.
There is so much evidence that is now listed on mohandasgandhi.wordpress.com
I read the Time maganize article from the link. did not find the mention of sleeping with Bose’s wife. In fact this is near about impossibility because Bose married his austrian secretary Emily Schenkel while in exile in Germany in 1943, who he met first in 1937, and never returned to India after that. Bose apparently died in a plane crash in 1945, Gandhi died in 1948…..Emilie Schenkel never visited india though her daughter did. So when exactly did Bose discover Gandhi lying with his wife???
There are lots of article about Gandhi’s sexuality..its good to debate and research on this as it further goes to show and human being can lead nations and one need not wait for gods to come. It also frees south asian history from hagiography. But by publishing absurd claims you are harming factual research and allowing god-seekers to discredit one and everything. Like a single lie from a witness may harm his whole testimony otherwise factual.
All claims have been substantiated and are referenced in the article. Please read the following books:
Dr. G.B. Singh’s two books.
Two books by two of Gandhi’s grandsons
One book by Mr. Latt on Gandhi.
Subash Chandra Bose may not have been killed in 1948. But that is a different topic altogether.
In his book The Sexual Teachings of the White Tigress: Secrets of the Female Taoist Masters, Hsi Lai writes that Mahatma Gandhi “periodically slept between two twelve-year-old female virgins. He didn’t do this for the purpose of actual sexual contact, but as an ancient practice of rejuvenating his male energy. . . . Taoists called this method ‘using the ultimate yin to replenish the yang.’” Now, far be it from me to disparage anyone’s best-intentioned efforts to have his yang replenished. Still, I confess that this Gandhi-virgin-sandwich yarn pushes the needle of my BS detector way into the red. Did Gandhi indeed kip with preteen jail-quail? If so, what was his source of supply?
— David English, Somerville, Massachusetts
When Nirmal Bose, his Bengali interpreter, saw this he protested, … his wife Prabhavati Devi spent seven years in Gandhi’s ashram when…www.sikhtimes.com/books_020278a.html
Bose, who quit in protest and later discussed the issue in a book, My Days With Gandhi,
The wife of Henry Polak, both of whom lived with Gandhi at Phoenix Farm
http://www.class.uidaho.edu/ngier/gantan5000.htm (Was Gandhi a tantirc)
Before Gandhi started his brahmacharya experiments in 1938, he had a string of intimate relationships with European and Indian women. While he was in South Africa, Gandhi fell in love with Millie Polak, the wife of Henry Polak, both of whom lived with Gandhi at Phoenix Farm. Kumar describes their first contact as follows: “Gandhiji and Millie started conversing through their eyes. They made a pact between them immediately. Poor Henry was left stranded.” As with all of his female friends, Gandhi insisted that he and Millie be sisters or alternatively that he be her father, but after they were together in London in 1909 without Henry, Gandhi dared to suggest that he was a substitute husband. http://www.class.uidaho.edu/ngier/gantan5000.htm
When Millie finally broke off their 3-year affair, Gandhi’s attentions turned to Maud Polak, Henry’s sister. Maud worked with Gandhi at Phoenix Farm as his personal secretary until 1913. In a letter to Henry, Gandhi described Maud seeing him off at a railway station: “She cannot tear herself from me. . . . She would not shake hands with me. She wanted a kiss. [This incident] has transformed her and with her me.”
Esther Faering, a young Danish missionary, was the next major love in Gandhi’s life. From her very first visit at the Satyagraha Ashram in 1917, Kumar describes Faering as “completely hooked on” Gandhi, and as with Millie Polak, “an instant chemistry developed” between them. Gandhi “experienced an intensely personal passion for Esther,” and she praised him as the “Incarnation of God in man.”
The other ashramites were alarmed at Gandhi’s obsession with Faering, and Kasturba Gandhi was particularly cool to her husband’s new love interest. Gandhi made matters worse by siding with Faering against his wife. While he was away from the ashram, he wrote daily letters to Faering, which Kumar describes as having the passionate intensity of the poets of Hinduism and Sufi Islam. He hazards a guess that “Esther must have stirred,” as young beautiful women are supposed to do in the Tantric yogi, “the serpent resting uncoiled in [Gandhi's] kundalini.” http://www.class.uidaho.edu/ngier/gantan5000.htm
One would expect Gandhi to have at least been serially monogamous in his relationships, but that was not the case. While Faering was struggling against Kasturba and other ashramites, and receiving Gandhi’s constant support from afar, he was conducting what Kumar calls a “whirlwind romance” with Saraladevi Chowdharani, a Bengali revolutionary married to a Punjabi musician. Her father was a secretary of Indian National Congress in Calcutta, and by virtue of her singing and activism, Saraladevi was celebrated as Bengal’s Joan of Arc and as an incarnation of the Goddess Durga. She rose to the challenge and wrote that “my pen reverberated with the power of Shiva’s trumpet and invited Bengalis to cultivate death.”
After the Jallianwala Bagh massacre in 1919, Gandhi stayed at Saraladevi’s home in Lahore and then toured India together during 1920. Her husband, R. D. Chowdhary, was in jail for the first eight months this period, but he was content, as was Henry Polak, to share his wife with the Mahatma. Gandhi agreed with Chowdhary that Saraladevi was the “greatest shakti of India.” http://www.class.uidaho.edu/ngier/gantan5000.htm
Gandhi called Saraladevi his “spiritual wife” after “an intellectual wedding,” and he reported that he bathed “in her deep affection” as she showered “her love on [him] in every possible way.” Kasturba Gandhi had refused to wear khadi—the homespun and hand woven garments that Gandhi made famous—but Saraladevi became the Mahatma’s most elegant khadi model. Kumar describes them as “lovelorn teenagers with stars in their eyes,” and depicts Saraladevi as “aristocratic, gorgeously dressed, sensuously beautiful, and imperious. In short, she had everything that [Kasturba] lacked.” http://www.class.uidaho.edu/ngier/gantan5000.htm
In letters to Saraladevi in July, 1920, Gandhi insists that being “spiritually” married means that the “physical must be wholly absent,” but he then admits that he is “too physically attached to” her for there to be a true “sacred association.”http://www.class.uidaho.edu/ngier/gantan5000.htm
Madeleine Slade, who became Gandhi’s beloved Mirabehn, was the daughter of a British naval officer who was once stationed in Bombay. Mirabehn first learned of Gandhi through Romain Rolland, who was then writing a Gandhi biography. She wrote to Gandhi requesting that she become a member of the Sabarmati Ashram, but he required that she live as an ascetic for one year before coming to India. More than any of his disciples, Mirabehn eagerly took to the austerities that Gandhi demanded. As opposed to Kasturba, who disliked latrine duties, Mirabehn eagerly took charge of the toilets, even those for all the delegates to a meeting of the Indian National Congress.
At their first meeting in November, 1925, Mirabehn found Gandhi “divine,” and she was able to confirm Rolland’s claim that he was indeed the second Christ. They fell in love with one another and Kumar says that “Mira was Saraladevi . . . all over again.” Once again, because of Gandhi’s fascination for her, Mirabehn was shunned by the ashramites. Gandhi soon discovered that Mirabehn’s emotional instability caused his blood pressure to rise, so he frequently sent her away on other tasks. They did, however, keep in contact with weekly self-described “love letters,” and Gandhi wrote that she haunted his dreams.
Mirabehn agreed with Gandhi’s depiction that their passion was like a “bed of hot ashes,” a veritable ascetic-erotic rhapsody of yogic tapas. Gandhi also shared with Mirabehn agonies about his spontaneous erections, daytime ejaculations, and wet dreams, for which he castigated himself unmercifully, and they even discussed the causes and cures of constipation.
V
Of the women closely associated with Gandhi, at least ten were said to have slept in his bed. They can be identified as follows:
· Sushila Nayar was only 15 when she came to the Sabarmati Ashram and then became Gandhi’s intimate companion, with some periods of alienation and remove, for the rest of his life. Gandhi claimed that Nayar was a natural brahmachari, having observed it from childhood. They bathed together and even used the same bath water, but Gandhi assured everyone that he kept his “eyes tightly shut.”
· Lilavati Asar, associated with Gandhi from 1926-1948, slept in his bed and gave him “service,” which meant bathing and massaging.
· Sharada Parnerkar slept “close” to Gandhi and rendered “service.” She was very ill in October, 1940, and Gandhi gave her regular enemas.
· Amtul Salaam, whom Gandhi called his “crazy daughter,” was a Punjabi from Patiala. She was also a bedmate and masseuse. Gandhi once wrote about the joy he gave Salaam when she received a massage from him.
· Prabhavati Narayan, a Kashmiri, lived in an unconsummated marriage with Jayaprakash Narayan, Indira Gandhi’s most famous political foe. Because of her lack of sexual interest or desire, Gandhi thought that Prabhavati would be a perfect married brahmachari. In addition to sleeping with Gandhi, she also gave him “service.”
· Raj Kumari Amrit Kaur, married to a Rajasthani prince, was India’s first health minister and was a Gandhi associate for 30 years. Although older, she slept right along with the younger women in Gandhi’s quarters. She also helped with baths and massages.
· Sucheta Kriplani, a member of Parliament and professor at Benares Hindu University, was a member of Gandhi’s Peace Brigade in East Bengal in 1947. She maintained a brahmachari marriage with J. B. Kriplani, a famous socialist and saint. Gandhi fought their union tooth and nail. Although Gandhi invited Mrs. Kriplani to his bed on a regular basis, he insisted that married couples in his ashrams always sleep in different quarters.
· Abha Gandhi was a Bengali who accompanied the Mahatma in East Bengal. She started sleeping with Gandhi when she was 16; she also bathed him and washed his clothes.
· Kanchan Shah, also a married woman, had a “one night stand” with Gandhi and was banned from brahmacharya experiments because she reputedly wanted to have sex with him. Gandhi gave the following instructions on brahmachari marriage to Shah and her husband: “You should not touch each other. You shall not talk to each other. You shall not work together. You should not take service from each other.” But Gandhi of course received “service” from his women on a daily basis. On the hypocrisy of taking what he denied to others, Kumar has this to say: “The vow of brahmacharya was a revenge he took upon everyone else.”
· Manu Gandhi was his brother’s granddaughter and she was his constant companion for the last eight years of his life. Interestingly enough, there is a temple to Manu, a powerful rain goddess, in Gandhi’s home city of Porbandar.
Most accounts of Gandhi’s spiritual experiments focus on those with Manu in 1946-47 in East Bengal. Although he conceded at the time that it “may be a delusion and a snare,” and although he seemed to be recalling his earlier experiments at Sevagram—“I have risked perdition before now”—he was still confident that he had “launched on a sacrifice [that] consists of the full practice of truth” and the development of a “non-violence of the brave.” He said that these tests were no longer an experiment, which could be seen as optional, but a compulsory sacred duty (yajna). His hut where he slept with Manu was called “holy ground,” and Manu’s father had to sleep elsewhere when he visited.
Gandhi slept with many Pakistani girls….. who where horny and sexually oppressed……
DEAR BROTHERS…..
1 MY COUNTRY IS INDIA
2 I LOVE EARTH & GOD
3 I LOVE ALL WHO LIVES ON EARTH
4 THAT Y I AM VEGETERIAN
5 DO U LOVE UR COUNTRY,WORLD,OR CULTURE …….???
FORGET ALL,,GANDHI …., … DONT BE PAKI[ISTANI] AUR HINDI OR CRISTAR
DO SOME THING FOR WORLD ……SAVE EARTH …..BE CARE ABOUT GLOBAL WARMING …………. JAI ALLHA JAI RAM
AND LAST AND FIRST …… EVERY THING OF HUMAN IS MOM AND DAD….MAKE NAME OF THAT PARENT …… ME SURAJ L MISHRA ……BEST OF LUCK
Pandit jee:
Please use the word Pakistani to refer to Pakistanis. Also using CAPs is considered rude and most think of it as shouting.
Its not the Pakistanis who are cheap but the gandi who is infact….. once when gandi asked him that he has been jailed for the sake of nation Jinnah replied “The persons who are jailed are criminals and i m not a criminal”……
infact gandi was
Jinnah never went to jail in his life…..but gandhi was jailed several times….thats the greatness of JINNAH …. because unlike Gandi, Nehru, patel and Maulana Azad he refused to participate in the non-alignments or the sit in when all of india’s greatest freedom fighter usually participated in the? strikes and bandhs.
Gandhi was a stooge, like Hamid Karzai in Afghanistan only worse.
Like the countless puppet leaders used in a coup to install hegemony.
What did Gandhi ever do?
He waslked around semi naked practicing his sexual deviants and starved himself.
What did he ever do???
He is not a spec on Jinnah Al Qaid may he rest in peace.
He fought the British at their own game, using their legal system, their laws.
He faced them in a court of law, he faced them at every opportunity in his pragmatic and diplomatic self.
Nehru slept with influential men and women to gain influence and gandhi was a gimmick.
British lent a helping hand tot he Hindus and they went crazy with power, calling for conversions and burning up India. Therefore The British needed to passify the Hindu Radicals and we al know how crazy those folks get and bigotted.
Therefore in came a kind of Santa Claus type icon who passified the masses of Hindus.
But if you look at it he did absolutely nothing ofr liberation of British India from colonial rule. He did nothing for the fight for liberation and creation of a new nation.
Hindus owe that to the bisexual Nehru and his little todger. Nehru’s todger did more for India than any other Hindu let alone Gandhi.
Jinnah Al Qaid ont he other hand, fought against all obstacles, remained calm, in control and fought them at the their own games.
He was elequent, intelligent and kept his dignity and honour.
That is why in the last 100 years of British india only one true leader emerged from the sub continent and his name was Muhamamd Ali Jinnah may he res tin peace.
Don’t blame Moin he’s just the messenger and not alone in defacing the` facade of The British Xenophobic stooge – Gandhi.
http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/article.asp?ID=2419
http://www.modernghana.com/news/264344/1/true-lies-the-myths-and-realities-about-mahatma-ga.html
Gandhi’s admiratiuon for hitler is also widely known today.
http://www.thebereancall.org/node/7342
Gandhi pleads to his masters The British to give in to Hitler as he was a good man.
One has only to google about this sytester caled gandhi and find so much to un mask this british Stooge.
So don’t go blaming Moin.
Also did you know mein kamp is a best seller in India espcialy in gujerat..
Gandhi was a impotrnt sexual deviant, racist, pro British liar mascarading as someon totally different.
He neither influenced the course of history in the sub continent nor did he create the nation called India today.
A British stooged marketed as a saint to win over a Hindu dominated India once The British would leave.
@ Engage Malaysia today, writer.
U have taken an unorthodox style of defending Mahatma Gandhi sexual encounters by mixing falsehood in a fanciful and defensive way, and passive attack on Islam. I will quote what you wrote from bottom up:
“imagine the plight of one lakh Kashmiri pandits living a miserable life in refugee camps for the last 20 years after being driven out from their home by terrorists.”
These one lakh Pandits were forced out by your Indian Terrorist Govt for international propaganda purpose and put in the camps. The indigenous Kashmiri people are the one facing terrorism from Indian State since last 62 years and they are demanding plebiscite that was promised to them by U N O and Nehru. Therefore calling them terrorist is unjustified. These Muslim Kashmiriis are dying daily while your Pandits are alive.
“Why the world is in the grip of Islamophobia, why minorities are oppressed in Islamic countries and is pan-Islamism a hurdle in unity with people of other faiths? ”
There are no Minorities suppressed in any of Muslim Countries. The Qura’nic Sharia protects the Minorities and that is the law. This is an International Media LIE that works for special interest group and wants to occupy the Muslim lands for resources. By being Islmophobic, the the Govt of that particular peoples want their consent in attacking Muslims. But U did mention something which is true, and, that is “But WE are responsible for the state of affairs. WE are in the government. WE instigate communal violence. WE take part in riots. WE indulge in terrorism”.
“The creation of Bangladesh in 1971 demolished the two-nation theory but the saffron brigade continued with its agenda.”
Two nation theory was never demolished by creating Bangla-Desh. Bha-RAT is Hindu and Bangla-Desh is Muslim. In future there will be more Muslim States sprouting out from the Barbaric Hindu genocide and murders. Babri Masjid, Genocide of Muslim Kashmir, Sikhs in Khalistan, Christians in Nagaland and every day murder and humiliation of Dalits are prime example of dismemberment of Bha-RAT. There was no Ram temple. Because he is a Mythical entity with out any evidence. The only Ram that the history mentions is the Son of Noah with other two sons Shem and Jasepeth and none of them were born any place in Bha-RAT. Only Noah was a Prophet (pbuh) but not his sons. So calling Ram as Lord is foolish and enough reason for people like Pashtun to invade Bha-RAT to eliminate such Kufr.
“A Hindu refuses to change his religion, not because he considers the faith to be the best, but because he knows that he can complement it through the reforms. Hinduism is like the Ganga, pure and unsullied at its source, but taking in its course impurities on the way. Like the Ganga, Hinduism is beneficent in its total effect”.
There is no such Religion existed in the face of the earth. Hindu is the term given to you by the Arabs. The term they used as people from Hind, that could constitute any body of any religion living in Hind. Worshiping of millions of gods can not be parallel to worship of ONE GOD, therefor claiming Hindu religion as pure is disillusion-ell. Worshiping rats, monkeys, cows, elephants and any thing the walk on 4 legs or creeps on its belly is considered god, is pathetic. Islam is the fastest growing Religion on the face of Earth including Bha-RAT. Hindus are reverting to Islam, why don’t you? as Hinduism makes no sense.
“Accept only those things from traditions which you think are right and reject practices carried out in the name of religion which are against morality. Hinduism has love of Jesus, compassion of the Buddha, non-violence of Mahavir and brotherhood of Mohammad. Ideas of Sarvodya (uplifting all) and daridra-narayan (God resides in the poor) were inspired by the Gita”.
The message started with Adam (pbuh) and ended with Muhammad. Islam is a complete code of life. All the chain of Prophets taught the same message i.e. Worship but ONE GOD. Not two or three or millions or none. All your good deeds accounts to nothing unless worship ONE GOD and believe in HIS Message, believe in all the Prophets and Muhammad as the Final Messenger, the Day of Judgment and Qadr.
“It reflected in the act of emperor Humayun, who rushed to save a Hindu queen on receiving rakhi from her with a request for help against a Muslim aggressor, in the supreme sacrifice of Guru Tegh Bahadur to save Hindus from Aurangzeb’s religious terrorism”.
You have been untruthful about Aurangzeb. He was a devout Muslim. Being a devout means to follow Sharia. And Sharia protects non-Muslims as per edict of Qur’an. He is known to give out stipend to Temples from the State Treasury. But you are no different than others, that are helpers of Koka and Vikoka to attack Islam at every front.
You are brainwashed and that is why you brought in names of Ajmal Kassab and Taliban. Muslims are innocent of the carnage they are accused of. All the atrocities committed in different countries were all inside job and blamed the Muslims for their geo-political agendas. So you are a LIAR.
Herr Fuhr was not the one who massacred 6 million Sephardic Jews. It was the Khazar or Ashkenazi Jews that murdered the Sephardic Jews, because they were anti-Zionist. So re-learn the true history. Muslims are the victim of same Zionism ans soon you would be too.
Kashmir is not a part of India, and it never will be. It will become part of Pakistan, Insha-ALLAH soon.
For same reason as Paksitan, you will be creating problem in Malaysia. But know that time is not on your side. Soon the forces of Kalki Avatar will wipe out the injustice from the face of the earth.
Now question remains, what was all this hog wash in defense of the perversion of your hero Mahatma Gandhi. By nature a man is a pervert and wants to have many encounters with the opposite sex. But there is a legal way of having more females and some females are forbidden, like sisters, aunts, mothers, daughters and nieces. Krishna had 1000 wives. We Muslims can not criticize him because he could be one of the prophets. Salomon had 1000 wives, David had 99 wives, Abraham had 4 wives, Jacob had 4 wives, Muhammad had (pbuh) 13 wives. They were all legal wives granted by ALLAH to them Prophets. None of them had niece or aunt as wife as that is forbidden. What the articles describe about Mahatma Gandhi is indeed perversion of same caliber as the follower of Talmud. These Talmudic people claim their progeny from Abraham (pbuh) same as Gandhi who insist of being from Brahma (Abraham) so do see the similarity of the perversion. A Talmudic priest is allowed sex with a 3 year old baby, so if your hero is doing the same thing, you should have a better defense that what garbage you posted.
Assalamu-Elekum
Indira Ghandi married Feroze Khan, all decendants of Indira on ward are Feroze khans decendents, see history and things will be more cleared. BJP can answer all those questions very well.
it,s not thrue that was a realy a wroung publicaton 2 this web site & i sure that ALLAH IS GREAT ,ALL ARE CREATED BY HIM .( ALLAH HAFAG)
I can,t understand this pase means,
Yep I knew it Gandhi had sex with over 9000 little boys.
Diatribes against Editors, or insulting rhetoric against authors violates our code of conduct. If you have a comment about the content of the article please make it
Inability to challenge the veracity of arguments, the temple indoctrinated Sovietized socialistic mindset chooses to do what the denizens of the world’s largest Nehruistocracy does best—point fingers at others.
Democracy doesn’t mean simply re-electing leaders whose last name is Gandhi or their designated seat warmers. It means accepting the other’s point of view and building consensus.