Many ask, why Gandhi didn’t win the Nobel Peace Prize? What if Dr. Martin Luther had known about Gandhi’s racism?
- If Dr. King had known about about the Zulus (African tribe) and the Kaffirs (African tribe), he surely would have voiced his concern.Gandhi condones Zulu massacres and defends the British. Aug 4 1906
- Dr. King may not have read Time Magazine and the explosive stories about Mr. Gandhi’s personal life. The sex life of Mr. Gandhi, and his failures as a politician
- Dr. King probably knew only about the propoganda clips of Mr. Gandhi and never really new the man. The myth of Mohandas K. Gandhi debunked. He gets an “F” on South Africa, Salt Match, Non-Violence, and independence
- Dr. King on moral high ground condemned wars. He would have been shocked to find out that Gandhi supported the British wars extending the British empire.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
- Dr. King was probably unaware about Gandhi’s open racism.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.
- Dr. King did not know that Gandhi did not bring the British Empire down.
- Dr. King would have been appalled if he knew that Gandhi insisted on calling Hitler his “friend” and that his advice to the Jews was horribe piece of Anti-SemitismGandhi’s letter to his friend Hitler.
- Dr. King would have been horrified if he had known about Mr. Gandhi’s personal fetishes.Sex life of Mohandas Gandhi, his failures and sexual perversion.
Martin Luther probably would be appalled if he knew about what Gandhi said about Africans and blacks in South Africa
Mr. Gandhi was nominated twice. The first time his efforts in South Africa were considered benefiting the Indians only.
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 2nd time his name was disqualified for proposing war against Pakistan. 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. … (Mohandas K. Gandhi, Spetember 27th, 1947)
Here is an excerpt from the Nobel peace prize web site. (http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/peace/articles/gandhi/index.html)
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.
An ordinary politician or a Christ? In this photo Gandhi listens to Muslims during the height of the warfare which followed the partition of India in 1947.
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.
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.”
Without that millstone Gandhiji around its neck, India would be a Great Power today and not just a vector for disease and late night appeals from missionary groups seeking to deculturalize Indians.
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
Noticias de Rupia | Nouvelles de Roupie | Rupiennachrichten | ??????? ????? | ???? | Roepienieuws | Rupi Nyheter | ??????? | Notizie di Rupia | PAKISTAN LEDGER | ???????? ????? | Moin Ansari | ???? ??????? | 
Defensebriefs
Intellibriefs
Translate to: 
RSS feed: 
| RUPEE NEWS | October 26th, 2008 | Moin Ansari | ???? ??????? | ????? ????? |
1. Gandhi hated blacks http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2003/10/17/1066364486503.html?from=storyrhs ” But, when forced to share a cell with black people, Gandhi wrote: “Many of the native prisoners are only one degree removed from the animal.” ” Mar. 7, 1908 (Reference: CWMG, Vol VIII, pp. 135-136) Mohandas Gandhi’s description of black inmates. [Kaffirs are a tribe in South Africa]
2. Gandhi enjoyed enemas in a sexual way: “Gandhi would do enemas twice a day and if he liked you allowed you to enter the piece up his rectum. ” http://rupeenews.com/2007/12/25/six-stories-of-mohandas…s-sexual-perversion/
3. Gandhi slept with young girls to test if he was still a man: “Each night he slept naked between two young girls to prove his sanctity” http://www.ralphmag.org/AJ/gandhi.html
4. Gandhi advised the jews to commit mass suicide: “The Jews should have offered themselves to the butcher’s knife,” he said. “They should have thrown themselves into the sea from cliffs.” http://www.sepiamutiny.com/sepia/archives/004247.html
5. Gandhi praised hitler: In a letter to Hitler in 1941, Gandhi wrote: “Nor do I believe that you are the monster described by your opponents.”
6. Gandhi did nothing for blacks in south africa, only indian: “In 1906 Gandhi had participated in a war against Blacks. The Gandhian literature either keeps quiet on the subject or tries to paint him as a great humanitarian who actually helped Blacks by rendering to them urgent medical care. Had he not done so, we are told, many Blacks would have died. While researching the historical documents, however, I found that Gandhi’s participation had nothing to do with “humanitarian concerns” for Black people. He was more concerned with “allying relationships” with the colonial Whites living in Natal colony. Driven by his racial outlook, he went out of his way to enlist Indians to join the army under him to fight for his cause against the Blacks. He also considered Indians living in South Africa to be “fellow colonists” along with the White colonists, over the indigenous Blacks.” http://www.secularhumanism.org/library/aah/singh_12_3.htm
7. Gandhi scorned blacks so much that he successfully changed legislation to give indians a separate door from blacks at the post office. Gandhi wrote: “In the Durban Post and telegraph offices there were separate entrances for natives and Asiatics and Europeans. We felt the indignity too much and many respectable Indians were insulted and called all sorts of names by the clerks at the counter. We petitioned the authorities to do away with the invidious distinction and they have now provided three separate entrances for natives, Asiatics and Europeans.” http://www.thoughtleader.co.za/sentletsediakanyo/2008/1…ion-of-black-people/
8. Gandhi was a wife beater : “Despite his pacifist philosophy, he was a wife-beater.” http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0003987/bio
GANDHI ON BLACKS AND RACE RELATIONS (Zulus and Kaffirs were African tribes in South Africa)
“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).
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.”
The partition of India in 1947 led to a process which we today probably would describe as “ethnic cleansing”. Hundreds of thousands of people were massacred and millions had to move; Muslims from India to Pakistan, Hindus in the opposite direction. Photo shows part of the crowds of refugees which poured into the city of New Delhi.
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 saw “no place for him in a new order where they wanted an army, a navy, an air force and what not“. In the picture, Gandhi’s spiritual heir, Prime Minister Pandit Nehru, Defense Minister Sardar Baldev Singh, and the Commanders-in-Chief of the three Services, are inspecting a Guard of Honour at the Red Fort, Delhi, in August, 1948. Fifty years later, both India and Pakistan had developed and tested their own nuclear weapons.
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.
Noticias de Rupia | Nouvelles de Roupie | Rupiennachrichten | ??????? ????? | ???? | Roepienieuws | Rupi Nyheter | ??????? | Notizie di Rupia | PAKISTAN LEDGER | ???????? ????? | Moin Ansari | ???? ??????? | DefensebriefsIntellibriefs Translate to: RSS feed: 
check this link
http://timesfoundation.indiatimes.com/articleshow/1259859.cms
I believe that Gandhi does not require a Nobel. His contributions are world renown, and why should there be something as silly as a Nobel prize to seemingly “ascertain” his goodness? Gandhiji is much much more than that.
Yes the contributions are wll known to the Congress of the United Stateswhich repudiated his polices and censored him for his racism. The “contributios” are also well known to the Nobel Peace Committe which wrote a long article criticisng Mr. Gandhi and rejected his application to the Nobel Peace Prize.
The “contributions” are also well known to the wife of Mr. Bose who Mr. Gandhi slept with. Mr. Bose was angry beyond words and wrote about it at length.
The contirbutions are also well known bythe two British women who were the mistresses of Mr. Gandhi and not the least they were well known by the 12 year olds that he slept with naked, including Manu his close relative.
The “contributios” are well known in Africa where he filed multiple court cases against the black becuase they “smelled” and were “no better than animals”
The contributions are also well known in South Africa where Mr. Gandhi’s support to the British against the South Africans is well known.
for more pls check
http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/peace/articles/gandhi/index.html
This information is already in the article which leads us to beleive that you did not read the article, just the headline. Comments of the Nobel Committee are also included in the original article.
Thank you for your feedback and thank you for visiting our site
Editor
Hi This is the comment for the following link.[edited]
Link:
http://rupeenews.com/2010/01/12/incredible-india/
Comments:
[edited] you should read this latest report:
http://business.rediff.com/slide-show/2010/jan/12/slide-show-1-quality-of-life-india-beats-china-russia.htm
Editors Note” We publish the comment and ban the writer for abusive comments
GANDHI’s Anglophilism;
The famous lucknow pact(1914) between congress and muslim league was signed for a joint stuggle for freedom; pushed by ” extremists” ( viewd by British),Tilak,Lajpat rai,Hasrat mohani was a DEATH WARRANT for the RAJ in the middle of WW1, which muslim had opposed openly; Congress party ,really a king’s party was warnend to get rid of the 3 extremists who dominated the rest, moti lal,Malviya, etc; Famous Gandhi ” a novice in india and ” proven anglophile” in africa was moved to india to lead the congress; 3 extremists were removed; Gandhi s first staement said ” we still can not rule ourself” and if British leave who will rule?He perhaps meant ; muslim rule will be back”. MOSTDREADFULL scenario for any hindu then;
The rest is history; It is unfortunate part of history that Britsh had played ” MUSLIM WILL BE BACK” card very successfully; Hindus were made to scare muslim”s return and Muslims were made to fear ” spanish type of genocjde” in speeches with sologan ” hindi hindu hindustan.
Gandghi’s anglophilism was ” generic to to almost all hindus ,a part of INDO_EURO-Aryan brotherhood from biblical noah; This fraterrnaty was in a perpetual war against ” Semitic muslim/jewish group”; In India hindu aryan opposed Muslim semites and in europe the AXE fell on semitic jew; THis race fraud is fully exposed in my book ” urdu/hindi an artificial divide”;Mr Ansari perhaps is reading now.
Thank you Dr. Khan
The famous lucknow pact(1914) between congress and muslim league was signed for a joint stuggle for freedom; pushed by ” extremists” ( viewd by British),Tilak,Lajpat rai,Hasrat mohani was a DEATH WARRANT for the RAJ in the middle of WW1, which muslim had opposed openly; Congress party ,really a king’s party was warnend to get rid of the 3 extremists who dominated the rest, moti lal,Malviya, etc; Famous Gandhi ” a novice in india and ” proven anglophile” in africa was moved to india to lead the congress; 3 extremists were removed; Gandhi s first staement said ” we still can not rule ourself” and if British leave who will rule?He perhaps meant ; muslim rule will be back”. MOSTDREADFULL scenario for any hindu then;
The rest is history; It is unfortunate part of history that Britsh had played ” MUSLIM WILL BE BACK” card very successfully; Hindus were made to scare muslim”s return and Muslims were made to fear ” spanish type of genocjde” in speeches with sologan ” hindi hindu hindustan.
Gandghi’s anglophilism was ” generic to to almost all hindus ,a part of INDO_EURO-Aryan brotherhood from biblical noah; This fraterrnaty was in a perpetual war against ” Semitic muslim/jewish group”; In India hindu aryan opposed Muslim semites and in europe the AXE fell on semitic jew; THis race fraud is fully exposed in my book ” urdu/hindi an artificial divide”;Mr Ansari perhaps is reading now.
Dr. Jamil:
I went home this weekend and went through your book and spent several hours on it. The book is obviously well research and presents your point of view on most matter in a detailed manner. The content is per the advertisement–information presented from the Indian point of view–with many references to other writers who have researched Urdu. It is a good project and a great attempt at rewriting history and correcting some of the facts.
I however had a huge problem with the format of the book. it pains me to tell you, that it was very painful to read the book–I could not get the information and became very frustrated. Your usage of SRK, PRKT and other acronyms were a huge impediment in reading the well organized book. Many paragraphs have tons of these acronyms imbedded in them–each time I started getting interested in what you were saying—the acronym jarred me–and stopped me cold. I looked for a glossary on the terms–and I could not find one–even though you did some explanation in the introduction or something. Even though I look at the explanation, the acronyms were too many–and I actually had to give up reading the book–because it was illegible for me as a layman.
I would suggest that you do mass edit and replace of all acronyms, so that lay people like me can read the book and take advantage of the vast knowledge that you have created.
Also dont forget to read the following comments
link:
http://rupeenews.com/2010/01/12/incredible-india/
comments:
http://www.thaindian.com/newsportal/uncategorized/us-offers-its-latest-fighter-to-india_100302791.html
Thanks for the link:
Bharat is behind Bhutan—which (Bhutan) according to the rag “International Living (never heard of it)–is the best place to live.
“The rise has made India the second best place after Bhutan to live in the sub-continent, according to the 2010 Quality of Life Index, published by travel magazine International Living.”
I am sure the rest of the planet is just aspiring to become like Bhutan–let me sell my house, car, plane, boat and rush to Bhutan.
you can go anyware but don’t go to pakistan.because you will pat down manual search where ever you go.
You mean just like in Australia—oh I forgot–they just burn you guys there!
you are taking and writing like 8th standard student.
attack on indian students are racist attack and if we think we wont go there for study.there are 100,000 students are there not every one attacked.
but in your case is different you all pakistanis including you and doctors,scientist,businessman,diplomots will be pat down and remove the cloths and search.pls think about womens and minor girl.its certainly human rights violation.
instead of fighting these type of incident your racist based article never help to your country.infact 3000 pakistani died in your own country.think about their loved ones.As long as you are ready love to die for your religion other people love to kill you.
I am also not convince to the following video.please watch and reply me.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dz6YylorUGM
(asha means desire-because you dont know the meaning of very simple word “asha” and writing two articles about asha)
GANDHI , DID NOT NEED NOBLE”S PRIZE;
Noble prize certainly was meaningless for a really
great man GANDHI; Although pakistanees negate him
Gandhi certainly was ” GREATEST” man of india in 20th cent; It is nonsense to call him MAHATMA etc; I have provided his very positive role around 1945-48,in saving many lives; His fast unto death had stopped anti muslim genocide and his insistence to
keep urdu as official language had angered the hindu
nationalists, who got him out. Interestingly he too had
believed in ” ARYAN RACE” theory and supported a
future ” ARYAN INDIA”; HE was perhaps naive like many that ” ARYAN-SEMITIC” was not FRAUD but real;
Aryan nationalism as elaborated in my book had
forced Muslims with no choice but pakistan;for good or bad is not the issue here. As for Noble prize i am pretty sure Gandhi would have even refused it;the way i understand him.
Oh! Its you Jamil bhai–I was not surprised to read the comment but shocked to read your name on the comment.
Really? Then surely you are a victim of the temple indoctrination!!
The 8th grade version taught to Bharatis is not the real Mr. Gandhi. Mr. Gandhi was a racist bigot–he was repudiated by the 109th Congress of the United States for his racism and has been castigated in South Africa for attempting to create a caste sytem by calling the blacks (Kaffirs, Zulus etc) as worse than monkeys and that they stank. A horrid failed attorney Mr. Gandhi was stupid enough to put these words into official documentation which now haunts his legacy in South Africa and the world.
Mr. Gandhi acahived nothing in South Asia. The British had decided to leave and end the empire. Mr. Gandhi supported every British war there was (Zula, Kaffir, WW!, WW2)–so much for non-violence. He thus prolonged the life of the British Empire by sending young kids to fight for the empire (he said he was a loyal servant of the empire).
His salt marches and “fasts to death” were gimmicks. The riots against the Muslims were instigated by Nehru and patel to partition Bengal and Punjab–then Mr. Gandhi fasted to end the riots after the British were shown that both the provinces should be bifurcated–leading to the death of millions. Gurdaspur and Ferozepur the wrost example sof inhumnaity–both Muslim majority towns handed over to Bharat to make Bharati access to Kashmir.
Mr. Gandhi’s two grandsons have written two books on him explaining all this–mr. Jaswant Singh portrayed a more balanced picture and Mr. G. Singh’s books is most poignant to lift the facade of diviinty from the decrepit old man that was described by Chruchil as a Naked Fakir and by Atlee as being totally insinginifant to the decidion to leave Sout hAsia. Sarojni Naidi said “it takes millions to keep Ganhi in poverty” by running specially constructed “3rd class” trains and creating fake Ashram villages for him etc.
Mr. Gandhi brought religious symbols to the Indian National Congress and drummed out all the Muslims except token showboys like Azad (who later castigated him and Nehru–in the parts of the book “India wins freedom” published 25 years after his death).
He opposed the emancipation of the Dalits by allowing them separate eleotorates. Ambadekar later said that this was the biggest blunder of his life and he blamed Gandhi for this–that is why the 450 million Dalits hate him now.
Mr. Gandhi urged Bharat to wage war on Pakistan–destroying his own creed of the so called Non-Violence. This was advertised by the Nobel Peace prize Committee. He also had 29000 soliders of the Indian National Army belonging to Mr. Bose massacred. So much for non-violence. Gandhi henchman were ;pushing the Nobel Peace Prize Committee to get him the prize–he relished and anguished over it.
Yes he never spoke up against the Caste System—supporting it. “Over my dead body” is what he said when some good people wanted it abolished. He kept the Dalits Untouchabale which is the most horrific example of bondage known to man.
Urdu was never the national language of Independent Bharat (aka India) and could never have been. Gandhi simply played good cop, while Pateal and Nehru played bad cop. It was a game and a charade as described in “Indian Summer” by the Jewish Ediwina’s daughter.
Mr. Gandhi’s personal life was the worst possible for any human being anywhere–he beat his wife regularly, and slept with other peoples wives–most notably Mr. Bose who was angry beyond imagniation. She slept with Sarla Devi and also his grand neice and many 12 year girls–enough said about his personal short comings.
His support for Paksitan and Muslims are invented fairy tales–by the RSS which needed a justification to murder him
I am saddened about your lack of support for Pakistan!
Dear Moin sahab,
You really dont need to be “distressed/shocked” if you
can review the history from “evolution san creationism’ and specially ” aryan semitic “fraud”;BHAI for me any loss of life is a distress and saviour of a singl;e life is
is a hero;Gandhi thus becomes a sort of hero; I also agree with your commentary that he was a “racist” and
anglo-philic racist and;responsible for Partition by his
push for “aryan hidnu nation”,a British design and not his ” creation”; AND i am not in favour/opposed to Pakistan/India;But I have a distaste for “aryan hindu nationalism” and its later reaction ” muslim nationalism; Both of these “Inflections”helped British
plunder/partioned India;Aryan-hindu nationalist initiated the process instigated by their “bother aryanove–British”;They certainly deserve the primary blame; Bottom line: india,s holocaust–2 million dead; this should shock all south asians. As you read my book slowly you perhaps will understand the author-physcian and NOT a POLITICIAN–thank God;Hope you are fine It will be pleasure to meet somewhere soon.
Gandhi was hated and is hated for many reasons–some of which you have identified–others which D.r G. B Singh and his two grandsons have written about.
You are right–Muslim nationalism was a reaction–but the judging it as not good is repeating the Shiv Sena, RSS, Bajrang Dal phiolosophy –to which you do not agree with.
Muslims needed an incubator–a space–a lab–to germinate ideas, and build a country–something which they did not have in 1947–anywhere. To oppose this is to oppose the natural instincts of man. You must admit that the creation of Pakistan, with all its faults has resulted in Muslim nationalism around the globe with fights colonialism, neo-colonialism, imperialism (wether Russian or US).
The Holocaust was ethnic cleansing–pre-planned between Ediwina’s masters, and Sir Radcliff. How can you create two countries–and announce their border two days after the creation of the countries. On August 14th, 1947 and August 15th, 1947 neither country knoew what the borders were.
Gurdaspur and Ferozepur were Muslims majority areas next to Pakistan. Ferozepur was the only arsenal that was to go to Pakistan. At the last momen Edwina’s lover and Edwina’s husband transferred Gurdaspur and Ferozepur (on August 17th, 1947) to Bharat–allowing them the only land access to Kashmir…and Mountbatten landed Indian forces in Sirnagar before the fake article of accession was announced which Bharat now claims is lost–as if it ever existed.
These facts are neglected in Bharat—and you have a soft corner for the Bharatis…so we will try to help you see the light.
Moin ansari saheb,
You need to get your facts right.
Ferozepur did not have a Muslim majority. The % was 45.1 which is not a majority by any means.
Gurdaspur had a 51.1% Muslim majority but this mischievously included Mirzaees as Muslims- the area around Qadian had a large Mirzaee majority. And we know that Mirzaees aint Muslims, dont we?
These facts can be verified from Dr Ambedkar’s book which I am referencing below:
http://www.columbia.edu/itc/mealac/pritchett/00ambedkar/ambedkar_partition/appendices/04app.html
Dev Kant
Dev Kant sahib:
Always ready with smoke and mirrors. Ambadekar’s book is circa 1940s.
Here is an Indian source for you.
http://www.search.com/reference/Firozpur
“Prior to the Partition of the subcontinent, Ferozpur had a Muslim majority. After the Partition and movement of population from both sides of the Border, Today, Ferozpur has a Sikh and Hindu majority with a virtually non-existent Muslim population”
Kant sahib–if you move beyond the cities, take the disctricts, the Muslim majority become even more clearer. I flick of the finger here, a slight of the hand there will barely give you the desired results.
http://ferozepur.nic.in/html/home.html
If you want to take Ahmadeis out, then you must also take out the Dalits. For Hindu mobs Ahmedis were also hunted out of East Punbjab–just like the Muslims were. It didn’t matter to them, though you bring it up at every opportunity you can. Ahmedis today constitute a very very very small minority in Pakistan. They all had to move to Pakistan.
The case of Gurdaspur is even more blatent. All areas around Gurdarpur district were Muslim majority including Gurdaspur city.
“The territory of Gurdaspur District was a Muslim majority area and according to the notional division, it was to be a part of Pakistan. Mr.Mushtaq Ahmed Cheema was the Deputy Commissioner of Gurdaspur from 14th August,1947 to 17th August 1947. But Cyrill Redcliffe, the Chairman of Boundary Commission awarded the District minus Shakargarh Tehsil to India. Almost entire hilly region of Gurdaspur including the famous hill resort of Dalhousie was given to Himachal Pradesh as a result of re-organisation of Punjab in 1966. Two new Tehsils of Dera Baba Nanak and Dhar Kalan were created in 1995 and 1996 respectively.”
The Boundary Commission awarded to India parts of several districts of Punjab in which the population was predominantly Muslim. Under the Award, the Muslim majority areas of Gurdaspur, Batala, Ferozepur, and Jullundhar were given to India.
Sir Cyril Radcliffe, the Chairman of the Boundary Commission on India and Pakistan, had handed over the Muslim majority districts of Gurdaspur and Kapurthala to India. Radcliffe decided to allot three-fourth of the Muslim majority district of Gurdaspur to India, giving India access to the State of Jammu and Kashmir. Without Gurdaspur India had no claim whatsoever to Kashmir. As the events unfolded, later it was revealed that this crude violation of the June 3 Partition Plan might have been deliberatly undertaken to afford India a corridor and access to the valley of Kashmir. The Muslims with marginal majority in these two districts of the Punjab were taken aback when they learnt on 16 August 1947, four days after the declaration of independence, that they were in India and not in Pakistan. Simultaneously, the Hindus and Sikhs, aided by militias and partisan elements of soldiery from Bikaner, Kapurthala and Patiala states started a down-right massacre of Muslims in East Punjab. In a matter of a few weeks hundreds of thousands of Muslims who were not killed were thrown out of the borders.
Moin ansari saheb,
The figures quoted in Dr BRA’s books are from the Census of India- 1941 not some random figures quoted from here and there. In any case you seem to be very fond of Dr BRA so you shud accept his numbers.
In a matter of a few weeks hundreds of thousands of Muslims who were not killed were thrown out of the borders.
And what about the hundred of thousands of Hindus and Sikhs who were residing in West Punjab. They were escorted out with phool and malas by their Muslim neighbours???
Dev Kant
Bose sahib:
Once agin–Dr BRA lists CITIES–we discussed DISTRICTS. Did you miss that, or did you ignore it intentionally?
Sure–Rawalpindi and Lahoris were not wearing bangles–when trainloads and trainlods of bodies were dumped in Lahore and Sargodha–there was a reaction–however no trainload full of body parts was ever sent to Amristsar–the people fled from fear back to India.
Tha fact is that it all started in Gurdaspur and Ferozepur. Eveny document on 1947 lists that as a gross miscarriage of justice–even Radcliff himself admitted the injustice during a Times of India interview and other dicussions.
Of course we all know that Gurdaspur was given to Bharat on the 16th of August as a ploy to allow it to take over Kashmir (only land link).
Your brining it up on the basis of a CITY census is beyond the pale of reason and facts.
Moin ansari saheb,
At least READ the link that I have provided- the reference in the Appendix quoted is to the DISTRICT, not CITY.
Dev Kant
Dr. Ambadekar’s link was about cities. We ALSO submitted several links to you. Mr. Radcliff admitted that the fact but defended it on the grounds that he gave Lahore to the Pakistanis.
Hello, of all the politicians of that time I admire M JInnah. He wasvery intellegent and man of principales. He was a muslim and leader of muslims but truly secular in his politics. He had no hatred for no one and fair to all the people in India and later in Pakista, One thing puzzles me about him is that when he had already agreed with the british Government and Congress about the demarcations of land then how come he still accepted boundry commission and Red cliff and again accepted new boundries without any protest knowing fully well why some cities and towns were awarded to india. Please help me to under stand. And one more thingplease, only answer to my email. I do not want to enter into a public debate about it. Many thanks.