Rupee News » Gandhi’s pervresions

Hitler (Gandhi's friend)… he’s huge in India

Akhbar Navees — Sat, 23 Oct 2010 15:58:41 +0000

Image via Wikipedia

Hitler … he’s huge in India

Speaking of Nazis, Hitler’s “Mein Kampf“ is getting new life in India, where business students are turning to it as an essential self-help guide.

What!?!

The Telegraph reports:

“Students are increasingly coming in asking for it and we’re happy to sell it to them,“ said Sohin Lakhani, owner of Mumbai-based Embassy books who reprints Mein Kampf every quarter and shrugs off any moral issues in publishing the book.

“They see it as a kind of success story where one man can have a vision, work out a plan on how to implement it and then successfully complete it”.

Jaico Publishing House, one of the publishers in India, said it reprints a new edition of the book at least twice a year to meet growing demand.

“We were the first company to publish the book in India and there are now six other Indian publishers of the book, although we were first to take a chance on it,“ said Jaico’s chief editor, R H Sharma, who dismissed any moral issues in publishing Mein Kampf.

“The initial print run of 2,000 copies in 2003 sold out immediately and we knew we had a best-seller on our hands. Since then the numbers have increased every year to around 15,000 copies until last year when we sold 10,000 copies over a six-month period in our Delhi shops,“ he added.

Best seller … that’s an interesting choice of words. I can only guess that “Jewish Wisdom for Business Success“ is not doing as well in India.

As far as the wisdom of “Mein Kampf,“ Management Today, via the Huffington Post, reasons that it isn’t exactly “The 7 Habits of Highly Effective People“:

Even if you can stomach the vitriol, paranoia, militarism and crude racism, the book is so long and tedious that even Hitler’s ally Mussolini didn’t manage to plough his way through it, once apparently dismissing it as ‘a boring tome that I never been able to read’ (Churchill concurred, calling it ‘turgid, verbose [and] shapeless’). So its credentials as a management text seem rather dubious.

Wait, so just blaming the Jews isn’t the way to get ahead in the working world? I have so much to learn. Posted by Brad A. Greenberg in Jewish Journal

Hitler’s popularity didn’t just happen. There has been a steady stream of reverence for Hitler in Bharat–from Gandhi, to Modi, to Adhvani. The right wing Hindus feel affinity with their Aryan neighbors and agree with his policies of racial superiority and ethnic cleansing. They also admire Hitler for his war making ability. The Swastika is a common Aryan symbol of hate and bigotry adopted by the Right Wing Hindu Mahasabah party.

Gandhi wrote letters to his friend Hitler

Akhbar Navees — Sat, 23 Oct 2010 15:52:15 +0000

Gandhi wrote letters to Hitler and called his friend. He also told him that he admired him and gave him advice on how to deal with the British. He told him that “friend” was not just a salutation, but he really meant it. He advised the Jews to 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.” Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi of India to Adolph Hitler of Germany

| NEW YORK | RUPEE NEWS | March 8th, 2008 | Various authors: Rahul Gandhi, Arun Gandhi, Dr. Singh, Dr. Watson, Saijorni Naidu, D.r Bose, Time Magazine etc: The so called prophet of non-violence had some really nasty things to say about the Jews, and his support for the Booer and British wars was a slap in the face of “ahimsa” (non-violence). 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.

Mohandas Gandhi described an African tribe as “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) Mohandas Gandhi’s description of black inmates. [Kaffirs are a tribe in South Africa]

The Truth about Mohandas Gandhi will shock you

Gandhi’s horrific advice to Jews—Commit mass suicide in the face of Nazi barbarism.

: Indian Hnduvata- Hindu extremism in India and beyond

( Note from the Editor: Shooting the messenger syndrome? We don’t make up the news, we simply report it. The facts presented in this article are based upon the books on Mr. Gandhi (“Mohandas“, “Gandhi on trial” and others). If you have problems with the facts represented here, please send your letter to the two grandsons of Gandhi (Arun Gandhi and Rahul Gandhi), Dr Singh, Dr. Watson, Saijorni Naindu, Mr. Bose and Time magazine etc. Quotes are by Mr. Gandhi himself. A complete Bibliography is provided. These are others are responsible for the content of this article.

Dr. King knew Gandhi’s racism?

Gandhi told Hitler that the start of his letter with “My friend” was not just ceremonial, he meant it. Gandhi says..”That I address you as a friend is no formality”

Gandhi’s letters to Hitler: Glaring blemish on a tarnished leader

The halo is rusted, tilted and falling down–under the sunlight of truth. Mohandas Gandhi’s admirers do not confront embarrassing facts about their favorite saint. His critics, by contrast, gleefully keep on reminding us of a few facts concerning the Mahatma which seem to undermine his aura of wisdom and ethical superiority. One of the decisive proofs of Gandhi’s silly lack of realism, cited by both his Leftist and his Hindutva detractors, is his attempted correspondence with Adolf Hitler, undertaken with a view to persuading Germany’s dictator of the value of not attacking more countries. Gandhi was absolutely content with Nitler keeping the territories that he had already conquered. His advice to the Jews was the most horrible example of anti-Semitism in this century.

Chilled Urine drinking hot in India. From Gandhi to PM Desai.

While Hitler was taking over Europe and threatening British invasion, Gandhi wrote two letters to what he called “my friend” Hitler. Besides being totally ineffective, the letters were not only politically naïve and unhelpful, given the circumstances. They put Gandhi in hot water with many groups in India and around the world, no matter how opposed he may have been to Hitler’s atrocities. In his first letter (23 July 1939), which the British government didn’t permit to go through, Gandhi seemed more defensive about his letter:

Gandhi’s first letter to Hitler: Disgusting, appeasing and horrible. Gandhi’s letter to his friend Hitler.

Gandhi addressed the abobinable Hitler as “Friend” (not just ceremonial greeting).Both of Gandhi’s letters to Hitler are addressed to “my friend”. In the case of one and all–everyone else other than Mohandas, this friendliness would be somewhat strange given the advice which Hitler had tendered to the British government concerning the suppression of Indias freedom movement.

Hitler’s solution for the Subcontinent was the same as his solution for the Jews. Kill them! During a meeting with Lord Halifax in 1938, Hitler had pledged his support to the preservation of the British empire and offered his formula for dealing with the Indian National Congress: kill Gandhi, if that isn’t enough then kill the other leaders too, if that isn’t enough then two hundred more activists, and so on until the Indian people will give up the hope of independence. Gandhi may or may not have been been unaware of Hitler’s advice. However his adoration for Hitler, his philosophy of Hitler prevented him from condemning Hitler. He blamed the Jews for the evils in Germany.

Everyone was shocked that Gandhi called the ultimate monster a “friend”.

In his first letter dated. July 23rd, 1939 (Complete Works, vol.70, p.20-21), Gandhi does mention his hesitation in addressing Hitler. But the reason is modesty rather than abhorrence:

“Friends have been urging me to write to you for the sake of humanity. But I have resisted their request, because of the feeling that any letter from me would be an impertinence.”

The war had already started. After the German occupation of Czech-inhabited Bohemia-Moravia (in violation of the 1938 Munich agreement and of the principle of the self-determination of nations which had justified the annexation of German-inhabited Austria and Sudetenland) and rising hostility with Poland, prompted him to write to the monster of the 20th century:

“Something tells me that I must not calculate and that I must make my appeal for whatever it may be worth.”

“Anyway I anticipate your forgiveness, if I have erred in writing to you. I remain, Your sincere friend, Sd. M. MK Gandhi“.

“It is quite clear that you are today the one person in the world who can prevent a war which may reduce humanity to the savage state. Must you pay that price for an object however worthy it may appear to you to be? Will you listen to the appeal of one who has deliberately shunned the method of war not without considerable success?”

This stupid approach is held in utter contempt by post-War generations.

Thus, the Flemish Leftist novelist and literature professor Kristien Hemmerechts has commented (“Milosevic, Saddam, Gandhi en Hitler”, De Morgen, 16-4-1999): “In other words, Gandhi was a nave fool who tried in vain to sell his non-violence as a panacea to the Fuhrer.”

Gandhi was in effect giving carte blanche to Hitler for doing that which we know Hitler to have done, viz. the deportation of Jews and others, the mass killings, the ruthless oppression of the subject populations, the self-destructive military policies imposed on the Germans in the final stage of the war.

Indeed, even in the early (and for German civilians, low-intensity) part of the war, protests from the public forced Hitler to stop the programme of euthanasia on the handicapped.

Moreover, it was the paranoia of the Nazi leadership about Jews as a fifth column, retained from their subjective and distorted World War 1 experience of Leftist agitators in the German cities stabbing the frontline soldiers in the back, which made them decide to remove the Jews from society in Germany and the occupied countries.

Transfer of Jews:-(The Saffron Swastika, Voice of India, Delhi 2001, p.506-517, and in Elst: Gandhi and Godse, Voice of India, Delhi 2001, p.48-56)

The chances for peace in 1939
At that point in time, Hitler’s “worthy object” to which Gandhi refers, the topic of heated diplomatic exchanges and indeed the professed casus belli of the impending German invasion of Poland, was the rights of the German minority in Poland along with the issue of the “corridor“. This was a planned overground railway-cum-motorway which should either link German Pomerania with German East Prussia through Polish West Prussia (including the city of Danzig); or, in case a referendum in West Prussia favoured the region’s return to Germany from which it had been taken in 1919, link land-locked Poland with a harbour set aside for the Poles on the Baltic coast through West Prussia.

In 1945, all the regions concerned were ethnically cleansed of Germans and allotted to Poland, and Germany no longer claims any of them, but in 1939 many observers felt that the German demands were reasonable or at any rate not worth opposing by military means (Who would want to die for Danzig?).

Was Poland oppressing its German and Jewish minorities? So a case that could be made would be rather tenuous. The advancement of the German minority (it goes without saying that Hitler cared less for the Polish Jews) was a just cause in the minds of the most rabid Nazis. It was also the type of cause which could be furthered through non-violent protests and mobilizing non-violent international support. It wouldn’t formally humiliate Poland by making it give up territory or sovereignty, so perhaps the Polish government could be peacefully persuaded to change its ways regarding the minorities. Gandhi was wrong once again.

“India” is a misnomer: The name represent people of the Indus

The question of the corridor was less manageable, as it did involve territory and hence unmistakable face-losing concessions by one of the parties. The apprehension which troubled the Poles and their well-wishers was that the demand of a corridor was merely the reasonable-sounding opening move of a total conquest of Poland. It is difficult to estimate Nazi Germany’s exact plans for the conquest of the world.

Among the informed public, it is still widely believed that the Nazis aimed at conquering the world, no less. Hitler was ready to “respect” the British empire, for a while.

In unconvincing peace offers to France and Britain in autumn 1939 and throughout 1940, Hitler proposed to “withdraw” (leaving behond pro-Hitler puppet regimes) from all historically non-German territories (which would still leave him in control of Austria, Sudetenland, West Prussia and some smaller border regions of Poland and, from May-June 1940 on, also Luxemburg, the Belgian East Cantons and French Elzas-Lotharingen) and maintain a territorial status-quo thenceforth.

For the idiots living in “la la land” it is possible that he meant it when he agreed to limit his territorial ambitions to historically German regions, at least where the competition consisted of allied or somehow respected nations such as the Italians or the French. However, in the case of the despised Slavic countries Poland and Ukraine, the fear of German conquest was more thoroughly justified.

In early 1918, the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk with the fledgling Soviet Union gave Germany control of Poland and western Ukraine. As a soldier, Hitler had applauded this gain of “living space”, which was to be settled with German farmers after moving the Slavs to Siberia. It was also this brief gain which made the subsequent defeat in World War 1 and the implied loss of territory so unbearable for Hitler and many Germans of his generation.

There is no doubt that the Nazi leaders had an eye on these fertile territories for a future expansion of Germany. It was less certain that they wanted to conduct this annexation at once: would they abide by an agreement on a mere corridor if one were concluded, respecting Poland’s sovereignty over the rest of its territory?

To the appeasers, the stupid course was not to take chances and contain Hitler’s expansionism by military deterrence. As Poland itself could not provide this, it sought and received the assurance of help from Britain and France. This implied that a brief local war triggered by German aggression against Poland would turn into a protracted international war on the model of the Serb-Austrian crisis of 1914 triggering the Great War now known as World War 1. It was at this point that Gandhi asked Hitler to desist from any plans of invading Poland. Gandhi was stupid in assuming that an “Aryan” would listen to a brown man from the colonies.

There can be no doubt that this was an idiotic demand for a pacifist to make. Was it perhaps a foolish demand, in the sense that no words should have been wasted on Hitler? YES!

Gandhi’s second letter to Hitler: Horrible, Racist, Non-sensical
On December 24th, 1940, on the eve of Christmas, which to Christians is a day of peace when the weapons are silenced, Gandhi wrote a lengthy second letter to Hitler.

The world situation at that time was as follows: Germany and Italy controlled most of Europe and seemed set to decide the war in their favour, the German-Soviet pact concluded in August 1939 was still in force, and under Winston Churchill, a lonely Great Britain was continuing the war it had declared on Germany immediately after Germany’s invasion of Poland in September 1939.

On this occasion, Gandhi took the trouble of justifying his addressing Hitler as “my friend” and closing his letter with “your sincere friend“, in a brief statement of what exactly he stood for: “That I address you as a friend is no formality. I own no foes. My business in life has been for the past 33 years to enlist the friendship of the whole of humanity by befriending mankind, irrespective of race, colour or creed.”

RACIST DOCTRINE: This very racist reason to befriend Hitler, what Gandhi goes on to call the “doctrine of universal friendship“, contrasts with the manner in which he addressed the British courts in South Africa out of which he was thrown out.

Gandhi certainly earned the ire of post-war public opinion by stating:

“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.”

Anyone having an iota of knowledge including Gandhi, was practically an accomplice to Hitlers crimes. However, while not giving up on the chance of converting Hitler to more peaceful ways, Gandhi was not that mild in judging the crimes Hitler had already committed. In particular, he criticized the already well-publicized Nazi conviction that the strong have a right to subdue the weak:

“But your own writings and pronouncements and those of your friends and admirers leave no room for doubt that many of your acts are monstrous and unbecoming of human dignity, especially in the estimation of men like me who believe in human friendliness. Such are your humiliation of Czechoslovakia, the rape of Poland and the swallowing of Denmark. I am aware that your view of life regards such spoliations as virtuous acts. But we have been taught from childhood to regard them as acts degrading humanity.”

“But ours is a unique position. We resist British imperialism no less than Nazism.” To Gandhi, British imperialism is closely akin to Nazi imperialism: “If there is a difference, it is in degree. One-fifth of the human race has been brought under the British heel by means that will not bear scrutiny.”

In outlining his position vis-a-vis British imperialism, Gandhi at once explained his attitude vis-a-vis Nazism: “Our resistance to it does not mean harm to the British people. We seek to convert them, not to defeat them on the battle-field.”

In a slogan: “The rulers may have our land and bodies but not our souls.”

To this, Hitler probably made a mental comment that prisoners, such as the many people whom he himself was locking away, were quite entitled to their souls, as long as they left their land as living space and their bodies as slave labour to the rulers.

Gandhi supported the British Empire. Unlike many of his countrymen, Gandhi rejected the idea of achieving freedom from British rule with German help:

“We know what the British heel means for us and the non-European races of the world. But we would never wish to end the British rule with German aid.”

Instead, Gandhi explained to Hitler, the non-violent method could defeat “a combination of all the most violent forces in the world”.

“If not the British, some other power will certainly improve upon your method and beat you with your own weapon. You are leaving no legacy to your people of which they would feel proud.”

It was a strange pacifist who condoned this torrent of violence. Gandhi extended the life of British Empire by helping UK wars

Gandhis utterances regarding Nazism leave a lot of doubt about his ephimeral hostility to this militaristic and freedom-hating doctrine. He spported every British war, yet, he opposed war against Nazism.

It is not certain that this would have worked, but then Gandhism is not synonymous with effectiveness. Gandhis methods were unsuccessful in dissuading the British from holding on to India.

From that angle, it simply remains an open question, an untried experiment, whether the Gandhian approach could have succeeded in preventing World War 2. By contrast, there simply cannot be two opinions on whether that approach of non-violent dissuasion would have been Gandhian.

Our judgment of his letters to Hitler must be the same as our judgment of Gandhism itself: either both represented a lofty ethical alternative to the more common methods of power politics, or both were erroneous and ridiculous.

GANDHI’S LETTER TO THE BRITISH:

As if this weren’t enough of political naiveté` and gratuitous advice to other groups he didn’t know much about, Stanley Wolpert refers to Gandhi’s “open” letter to the British people (1940) as another unhelpful gesture:

“I want you to lay down the arms you have as being useless for saving you or humanity. You will invite Herr Hitler and Signor Mussolini to take what they want of the countries you call your possessions. Let them take possession of your beautiful island with your many beautiful buildings… If these gentlemen choose to occupy your homes, you will vacate them. If they do not give you free passage out, you will allow yourself, man, woman and child to be slaughtered… I am telling His Excellency the Viceroy that my services are at the disposal of His Majesty’s government, should they consider them of any practical use in enhancing my appeal.” Among those who criticized this “open” letter, perhaps Sri Aurobindo (in his book ‘India’s Rebirth’) put it most succinctly: “He must be a little cracked.”

ACTUAL QUOTES ON GANDHI’S RACISM:

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.

“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.” [local native of South Africa] (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 [local native of South Africa] 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 [local native of South Africa] from the Location.” (Reference: CWMG, Vol I, pp. 244-245)
Gandhi’s 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 land of Gandhi continues with the infatuation of Hitler. The Swastika is the future flag of India and Narendar Modi is a Hitler admirer supported by the likes of Govorner Bobby Jindal in Lousiana, USA. Modi’s “backlash” scheme. Gujarat genocide & Election win again?

Naredar Modi is an admirer of Hitler as is the BJP. Hindu safron flag with Modi and Jindal: The Gujarat pogram did not happen in isolation it was funded by US Hunduvata as identified by Bijjou Mathew

GENOCIDE AGAINST MUSLIMS: The charred bodies of Muslim after the Hindus attacked, murdered and burned them in Gujarat in 2002. The fate of Mulsims in India

Gov. Bobby Jindal (R) funded by Anti-Semitic terrorists!

Hitler … he’s huge in India

Speaking of Nazis, Hitler’s “Mein Kampf“ is getting new life in India, where business students are turning to it as an essential self-help guide.

What!?!

The Telegraph reports:

“Students are increasingly coming in asking for it and we’re happy to sell it to them,“ said Sohin Lakhani, owner of Mumbai-based Embassy books who reprints Mein Kampf every quarter and shrugs off any moral issues in publishing the book.

“They see it as a kind of success story where one man can have a vision, work out a plan on how to implement it and then successfully complete it”.

Jaico Publishing House, one of the publishers in India, said it reprints a new edition of the book at least twice a year to meet growing demand.

“We were the first company to publish the book in India and there are now six other Indian publishers of the book, although we were first to take a chance on it,“ said Jaico’s chief editor, R H Sharma, who dismissed any moral issues in publishing Mein Kampf.

“The initial print run of 2,000 copies in 2003 sold out immediately and we knew we had a best-seller on our hands. Since then the numbers have increased every year to around 15,000 copies until last year when we sold 10,000 copies over a six-month period in our Delhi shops,“ he added.

Best seller … that’s an interesting choice of words. I can only guess that “Jewish Wisdom for Business Success“ is not doing as well in India.

As far as the wisdom of “Mein Kampf,“ Management Today, via the Huffington Post, reasons that it isn’t exactly “The 7 Habits of Highly Effective People“:

Even if you can stomach the vitriol, paranoia, militarism and crude racism, the book is so long and tedious that even Hitler’s ally Mussolini didn’t manage to plough his way through it, once apparently dismissing it as ‘a boring tome that I never been able to read’ (Churchill concurred, calling it ‘turgid, verbose [and] shapeless’). So its credentials as a management text seem rather dubious.

Wait, so just blaming the Jews isn’t the way to get ahead in the working world? I have so much to learn.

Posted by Brad A. Greenberg in Jewish Journal

| RUPEE NEWS |

Gandhi's Girls

Akhbar Navees — Sat, 23 Oct 2010 15:28:37 +0000

Image via Wikipedia

Gandhi’s girls – sex scandal Washington Monthly, July-August, 1987 by Art Levine

Gandhi’s Girls

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 Indians 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.

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.

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.

Mohandas Gandhi' Sex Antics, Incest, Sexual Perversion, Pedophilia, Adultery & Fetishes

Akhbar Navees — Sat, 23 Oct 2010 15:20:14 +0000

Atlee: Gandhi's role in UK decision to leave India was MINIMAL

Akhbar Navees — Sat, 23 Oct 2010 15:07:43 +0000

Image via Wikipedia

“..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

Nonviolence: Its Histories and Myths

Professor Michael Neumann, Trent University in Ontario, Canada

8 February 2003 in Counter Punch

“…I have neither the moral standing nor the slightest desire to disparage the courage of those who engage in non-violence…. But, non-violence, so often recommended.. has never ‘worked’ in any politically relevant sense of the word, and there is no reason to suppose it ever will. It has never, largely on its own strength, achieved the political objectives of those who employed it… There are supposedly three major examples of successful nonviolence: Gandhi’s independence movement, the US civil rights movement, and the South African campaign against apartheid. None of them performed as advertised. The notion that a people can free itself literally by allowing their captors to walk all over them is historical fantasy…”

Comment by tamilnation.org 1.”…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

2 “..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)

Sometime in the early 1960s, I decided I was too scared to participate in the Freedom Rides. I have neither the moral standing nor the slightest desire to disparage the courage of those who engage in non-violence. But non-violence, so often recommended to the Palestinians, has never ‘worked’ in any politically relevant sense of the word, and there is no reason to suppose it ever will. It has never, largely on its own strength, achieved the political objectives of those who employed it.

There are supposedly three major examples of successful nonviolence: Gandhi’s independence movement, the US civil rights movement, and the South African campaign against apartheid. None of them performed as advertised.

Gandhi’s nonviolence can’t have been successful, because there was nothing he would have called a success. Gandhi’s priorities may have shifted over time: he said, that, if he changed his mind from one week to the next, it was because he had learned something in between. But it seems fair to say that he wanted independence from British rule, a united India, and nonviolence itself, an end to civil or ethnic strife on the Indian subcontinent. What he got was India 1947: partition, and one of the most horrifying outbursts of bloodshed and cruelty in the whole bloody, cruel history of the postwar world. The antagonism between Muslims and Hindus, so painful to Gandhi, still seems almost set in stone. These consequences alone would be sufficient to count his project as a tragic failure.

What of independence itself? Historians might argue about its causes, but I doubt any of them would attribute it primarily to Gandhi’s campaign. The British began contemplating–admittedly with varying degrees of sincerity–some measure of autonomy for India before Gandhi did anything, as early as 1917. A.J.P.Taylor says that after World War I, the British were beginning to find India a liability, because India was once again producing its own cotton, and buying cheap textiles from Japan. Later, India’s strategic importance, while valued by many, became questioned by some, who saw the oil of the Middle East and the Suez canal as far more important. By the end of the Second World War, Britain’s will to hold onto its empire had pretty well crumbled, for reasons having little or nothing to do with nonviolence.

But this is the least important of the reasons why Gandhi cannot be said to have won independence for India. It was not his saintliness or the disruption he caused that impressed the British. What impressed them was that the country seemed (and was) about to erupt into a slaughter. The colonial authorities could see no way to stop it. What they could see was the increasingly violent antagonism between Muslims and Hindus, both of whom detected, in the distance, the emergence of a power vacuum they rushed to fill. This violence included the “Great Calcutta Killing” of August 1946, when at least 4000 people died in three days.

Another factor was the terrorism–and this need not be a term of condemnation–quite regularly employed against the British. It was not enough to do much harm, but more than enough to warn them that India was becoming more trouble than it was worth. All things considered, the well-founded fear of generalized violence had far more effect on British resolve than Gandhi ever did. He may have been a brilliant and creative political thinker, but he was not a victor.

Well, how about the US civil rights movement? It would be difficult and ungenerous to argue that it was unsuccessful, outrageous to claim that it was anything but a long and dangerous struggle. But when that is conceded, the fact remains that the Martin Luther King’s civil rights movement was practically a federal government project. Its roots may have run deep, but its impetus came from the Supreme Court decision of 1954 and from the subsequent attempts to integrate Central High School in Little Rock, Arkansas. The students who braved a hell to accomplish this goal are well remembered.

Sometimes forgotten is US government’s almost spectacular determination to see that federal law was respected. Eisenhower sent, not the FBI, not a bunch of lawyers, but one of the best and proudest units of the United States Army, the 101st Airborne, to keep order in Little Rock, and to see that the ‘federalized’ Arkansas national guard stayed on the right side of the dispute. Though there was never any hint of an impending battle between federal and state military forces, the message couldn’t have been clearer: we, the federal government, are prepared to do whatever it takes to enforce our will.

This message is an undercurrent throughout the civil rights struggles of the 1950s and 1960s. Though Martin Luther King still had to overcome vicious, sometimes deadly resistance, he himself remarked that surprisingly few people were killed or seriously injured in the struggle. The surprise diminishes with the recollection that there was real federal muscle behind the nonviolent campaign.

For a variety of motives, both virtuous and cynical, the US government wanted the South to be integrated and to recognize black civil rights. Nonviolence achieved its ends largely because the violence of its opponents was severely constrained.

In 1962, Kennedy federalized the National Guard and sent in combat troops to quell segregationist rioting in Oxford, Mississippi. Johnson did the same thing in 1965, after anti-civil rights violence in Alabama. While any political movement has allies and benefits from favorable circumstances, having the might of the US government behind you goes far beyond the ordinary advantages accompanying political activity. The nonviolence of the US civil rights movement sets an example only for those who have the overwhelming armed force of a government on their side.

As for South Africa, it is a minor miracle of wishful thinking that anyone could suppose nonviolence played a major role in the collapse of apartheid.

In the first place, the ANC was never a nonviolent movement but a movement which decided, on occasion and for practical reasons, to use nonviolent tactics. (The same can be said of the other anti-apartheid organizations.) Much like Sinn Fein and the IRA, it maintained from the 1960s on an arms-length relationship with MK (Umkhonto we Sizwe), a military/guerrilla organization. So there was never even a commitment to Gandhian nonviolence within the South African movements.

Secondly, violence was used extensively throughout the course of the anti-apartheid struggle. It can be argued that the violence was essentially defensive, but that’s not the point: nonviolence as a doctrine rejects the use of violence in self-defense. To say that blacks used violence in self-defense or as resistance to oppression is to say, I think, that they were justified. It is certainly not to say that they were non-violent.

Third, violence played a major role in causing both the boycott of South Africa and the demise of apartheid. Albert Luthuli, then president of the African National Congress, called for an economic boycott in 1959; the ANC’S nonviolent resistance began in 1952.¹ But the boycott only acquired some teeth starting in 1977, after the Soweto riots in 1976, and again in 1985-1986, after the township riots of 1984-1985. Though the emphasis in accounts of these riots is understandably on police repression, no one contests that black protestors committed many violent acts, including attacks on police stations.

Violence was telling in other ways. The armed forces associated with the ANC, though never very effective, worried the South African government after Angola and Mozambique ceased to function as buffer states: sooner or later, it was supposed, the black armies would become a serious problem. (This worry intensified with the strategic defeat of South African forces by Cuban units at Cuito Cuanavale, Angola, in 1988.) In addition, violence was widespread and crucial in eliminating police informers and political enemies, as well in coercing cooperation with collective actions. It included the particularly gory practice of necklacing.

Though much of the violence was conducted by gangs and mobs, it was not for that any less politically important: on the contrary, it was precisely the disorganized character of the violence that made it so hard to contain. And history of the period indicates that the South African government fell, not under the moral weight of dignified, passive suffering, but because the white rulers (and their friends in the West) felt that the situation was spiraling out of control. Economic problems caused by the boycotts and the administration of apartheid were also a factor, but the boycott and the administrative costs were themselves, in large measure, a response to violent rather than nonviolent resistance.

In short, it is a myth that nonviolence brought all the victories it is supposed to have brought. It brought, in fact, none of them.

How does this bear on the Israel-Palestine conflict? At the very least it should make one question the propriety of recommending nonviolence to the Palestinians. In their situation, success is far less likely than in the cases we have examined. Unlike Martin Luther King, they are working against a state, not with one. Their opponents are far more ruthless than the British were in the twilight of empire. Unlike the Indians and South Africans, they do not vastly outnumber their oppressors. And neither the Boers nor the English ever had anything like the moral authority Israel enjoys in the hearts and minds of Americans, much less its enormous support network. Nonviolent protest might overcome Israel’s prestige in ten or twenty years, but no one thinks the Palestinians have that long.

But the biggest myth of nonviolence isn’t its supposed efficacy: it’s the notion that, if you don’t choose non-violence, you choose violence. The Palestinians, like many others before them, find a middle ground. They choose when and whether to use violence and when to refrain from it. Many many times, they have chosen non-violent tactics, from demonstrations to strikes to negotiations, with varying but certainly not spectacular success. And their greatest act of nonviolent resistance is, as Israel Shamir points out, their stubborn determination to remain on their own lands despite repeated attacks from armed settlers, which Palestinian farmers are in no position to counter.

The Palestinians will continue to choose, sometimes violence, sometimes nonviolence. They will presumably base their choices, as they have always done, on their assessment of the political realities. It is a sort of insolent naïveté to suppose that, in their weakness, they should defy the lessons of history and cut off half their options. The notion that a people can free itself literally by allowing their captors to walk all over them is historical fantasy.

[. Even then, nonviolence was taken with a grain of salt. Oliver Tambo, writing as Deputy President of the ANC in 1966, said that "Mahatma [Gandhi] believed in the effectiveness of what he called the “soul force” in passive resistance. According to him, the suffering experienced in passive resistance inspired a change of heart in the rulers. The African National Congress (ANC), on the other hand, expressly rejected any concepts and methods of struggle that took the form of a self-pitying, arms-folding, and passive reaction to oppressive policies. It felt that nothing short of aggressive pressure from the masses of the people would bring about any change in the political situation in South Africa.”]

Gandhi's Anti-Semitism: Love letters to pal Hitler

Akhbar Navees — Sat, 23 Oct 2010 14:49:35 +0000

Sargent Major Mohandas Gandhi: Image via Wikipedia

| NEW YORK | RUPEE NEWS | March 8th, 2008 | Various authors: Rahul Gandhi, Arun Gandhi, Dr. Singh, Dr. Watson, Saijorni Naidu, D.r Bose, Time Magazine etc: The so called prophet of non-violence had some really nasty things to say about the Jews, and his support for the Boer and British wars was a slap in the face of “ahimsa” (non-violence). 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.

The Truth about Mohandas Gandhi will shock you

Gandhi’s horrific advice to Jews—Commit mass suicide in the face of Nazi barbarism.

: Indian Hnduvata- Hindu extremism in India and beyond

Dr. King knew Gandhi’s racism?

Gandhi told Hitler that the start of his letter with “My friend” was not just ceremonial, he meant it. Gandhi says..”That I address you as a friend is no formality”

Gandhi’s letters to Hitler: Glaring blemish on a tarnished leader

The halo is rusted, tilted and falling down–under the sunlight of truth. Mohandas Gandhi’s admirers do not confront embarrassing facts about their favorite saint. His critics, by contrast, gleefully keep on reminding us of a few facts concerning the Mahatma which seem to undermine his aura of wisdom and ethical superiority. One of the decisive proofs of Gandhi’s silly lack of realism, cited by both his Leftist and his Hindutva detractors, is his attempted correspondence with Adolf Hitler, undertaken with a view to persuading Germany’s dictator of the value of not attacking more countries. Gandhi was absolutely content with Hitler keeping the territories that he had already conquered. His advice to the Jews was the most horrible example of anti-Semitism in this century.

Chilled Urine drinking hot in India. From Gandhi to PM Desai.

Gandhi’s first letter to Hitler: Disgusting, appeasing and horrible. Gandhi’s letter to his friend Hitler.

Gandhi addressed the abominable Hitler as “Friend” (not just ceremonial greeting).Both of Gandhi’s letters to Hitler are addressed to “my friend”. In the case of one and all–everyone else other than Mohandas, this friendliness would be somewhat strange given the advice which Hitler had tendered to the British government concerning the suppression of Indias freedom movement.

Everyone was shocked that Gandhi called the ultimate monster a “friend”.

In his first letter dated. July 23rd, 1939 (Complete Works, vol.70, p.20-21), Gandhi does mention his hesitation in addressing Hitler. But the reason is modesty rather than abhorrence:

“Friends have been urging me to write to you for the sake of humanity. But I have resisted their request, because of the feeling that any letter from me would be an impertinence.”

“Something tells me that I must not calculate and that I must make my appeal for whatever it may be worth.”

“Anyway I anticipate your forgiveness, if I have erred in writing to you. I remain, Your sincere friend, Sd. M. MK Gandhi“.

“It is quite clear that you are today the one person in the world who can prevent a war which may reduce humanity to the savage state. Must you pay that price for an object however worthy it may appear to you to be? Will you listen to the appeal of one who has deliberately shunned the method of war not without considerable success?”

This stupid approach is held in utter contempt by post-War generations.

Indeed, even in the early (and for German civilians, low-intensity) part of the war, protests from the public forced Hitler to stop the programme of euthanasia on the handicapped.

Transfer of Jews:-(The Saffron Swastika, Voice of India, Delhi 2001, p.506-517, and in Elst: Gandhi and Godse, Voice of India, Delhi 2001, p.48-56)

“India” is a misnomer: The name represent people of the Indus

Among the informed public, it is still widely believed that the Nazis aimed at conquering the world, no less. Hitler was ready to “respect” the British empire, for a while.

In unconvincing peace offers to France and Britain in autumn 1939 and throughout 1940, Hitler proposed to “withdraw” (leaving behind pro-Hitler puppet regimes) from all historically non-German territories (which would still leave him in control of Austria, Sudetenland, West Prussia and some smaller border regions of Poland and, from May-June 1940 on, also Luxemburg, the Belgian East Cantons and French Elzas-Lotharingen) and maintain a territorial status-quo thenceforth.

There can be no doubt that this was an idiotic demand for a pacifist to make. Was it perhaps a foolish demand, in the sense that no words should have been wasted on Hitler? YES!

Gandhi certainly earned the ire of post-war public opinion by stating:

“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.”

“But your own writings and pronouncements and those of your friends and admirers leave no room for doubt that many of your acts are monstrous and unbecoming of human dignity, especially in the estimation of men like me who believe in human friendliness. Such are your humiliation of Czechoslovakia, the rape of Poland and the swallowing of Denmark. I am aware that your view of life regards such spoliations as virtuous acts. But we have been taught from childhood to regard them as acts degrading humanity.”

“But ours is a unique position. We resist British imperialism no less than Nazism.” To Gandhi, British imperialism is closely akin to Nazi imperialism: “If there is a difference, it is in degree. One-fifth of the human race has been brought under the British heel by means that will not bear scrutiny.”

In outlining his position vis-a-vis British imperialism, Gandhi at once explained his attitude vis-a-vis Nazism: “Our resistance to it does not mean harm to the British people. We seek to convert them, not to defeat them on the battle-field.”

In a slogan: “The rulers may have our land and bodies but not our souls.”

Gandhi supported the British Empire. Unlike many of his countrymen, Gandhi rejected the idea of achieving freedom from British rule with German help:

“We know what the British heel means for us and the non-European races of the world. But we would never wish to end the British rule with German aid.”

Instead, Gandhi explained to Hitler, the non-violent method could defeat “a combination of all the most violent forces in the world”.

“If not the British, some other power will certainly improve upon your method and beat you with your own weapon. You are leaving no legacy to your people of which they would feel proud.”

It was a strange pacifist who condoned this torrent of violence. Gandhi extended the life of British Empire by helping UK wars

It is not certain that this would have worked, but then Gandhism is not synonymous with effectiveness. Gandhis methods were unsuccessful in dissuading the British from holding on to India.

GANDHI’S LETTER TO THE BRITISH:

“I want you to lay down the arms you have as being useless for saving you or humanity. You will invite Herr Hitler and Signor Mussolini to take what they want of the countries you call your possessions. Let them take possession of your beautiful island with your many beautiful buildings… If these gentlemen choose to occupy your homes, you will vacate them. If they do not give you free passage out, you will allow yourself, man, woman and child to be slaughtered… I am telling His Excellency the Viceroy that my services are at the disposal of His Majesty’s government, should they consider them of any practical use in enhancing my appeal.” Among those who criticized this “open” letter, perhaps Sri Aurobindo (in his book ‘India’s Rebirth’) put it most succinctly: “He must be a little cracked.”

ACTUAL QUOTES ON GANDHI’S RACISM:

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.

“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.” [local native of South Africa] (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 [local native of South Africa] 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 [local native of South Africa] from the Location.” (Reference: CWMG, Vol I, pp. 244-245)
Gandhi’s 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)

Naredar Modi is an admirer of Hitler as is the BJP. Hindu safron flag with Modi and Jindal: The Gujarat pogram did not happen in isolation it was funded by US Hunduvata as identified by Bijjou Mathew

GENOCIDE AGAINST MUSLIMS: The charred bodies of Muslim after the Hindus attacked, murdered and burned them in Gujarat in 2002. The fate of Mulsims in India

Gov. Bobby Jindal (R) funded by Anti-Semitic terrorists!

Hitler … he’s huge in India

Speaking of Nazis, Hitler’s “Mein Kampf“ is getting new life in India, where business students are turning to it as an essential self-help guide.

What!?!

The Telegraph reports:

“Students are increasingly coming in asking for it and we’re happy to sell it to them,“ said Sohin Lakhani, owner of Mumbai-based Embassy books who reprints Mein Kampf every quarter and shrugs off any moral issues in publishing the book.

“They see it as a kind of success story where one man can have a vision, work out a plan on how to implement it and then successfully complete it”.

Jaico Publishing House, one of the publishers in India, said it reprints a new edition of the book at least twice a year to meet growing demand.

“We were the first company to publish the book in India and there are now six other Indian publishers of the book, although we were first to take a chance on it,“ said Jaico’s chief editor, R H Sharma, who dismissed any moral issues in publishing Mein Kampf.

“The initial print run of 2,000 copies in 2003 sold out immediately and we knew we had a best-seller on our hands. Since then the numbers have increased every year to around 15,000 copies until last year when we sold 10,000 copies over a six-month period in our Delhi shops,“ he added.

Best seller … that’s an interesting choice of words. I can only guess that “Jewish Wisdom for Business Success“ is not doing as well in India.

As far as the wisdom of “Mein Kampf,“ Management Today, via the Huffington Post, reasons that it isn’t exactly “The 7 Habits of Highly Effective People“:

Even if you can stomach the vitriol, paranoia, militarism and crude racism, the book is so long and tedious that even Hitler’s ally Mussolini didn’t manage to plough his way through it, once apparently dismissing it as ‘a boring tome that I never been able to read’ (Churchill concurred, calling it ‘turgid, verbose [and] shapeless’). So its credentials as a management text seem rather dubious.

Wait, so just blaming the Jews isn’t the way to get ahead in the working world? I have so much to learn.

Posted by Brad A. Greenberg in Jewish Journal

Rangeela Gandhi by Dr. L.R. Bali

Akhbar Navees — Fri, 17 Sep 2010 14:26:23 +0000

Rangeela Gandhi by Dr. L.R. Bali

The saffron brigade is up in arms here over the sale of books denigrating Gandhi and India at an exhibition organized by the Kullu Gramudyog. While a book ‘Rangeela Gandhi’ has irked people, books with distasteful remarks on Hindu gods and goddesses have fanned passions.

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

RANGEELA GANDHI the book by Mr. L . R . Balley created furore in Rajasthan State of India . There were demonstration pro and against the book . The book has been in circulation for the last more than 10 years . It is published in Hindi , Punjabi and Marathi . Its edition in Urdu , Telugu and Tamil language are being planned .

Two TV channels – INDIA TV and ZEE NEWS instigated the public . Almost all national newspaers raised hue and cry against the book . The book contains material aboul the Sexual experiments of Gandhi and his betrayal of public causes .

The Rajastan Govt. has banned the book on 24th December , 2009 . Author Mr. L.R.Balley has applied for copy of the Ban order. On rceipt of BAN ORDER decision will be taken to move Rajasthan High Court for vacating the Ban .

Gandhi used to sleep with girls of aged between 12 to 25. Very few people know about this but its true (for detail you can read books by Dr L .R. BALI named “RANGEELA GANDHI” & “KYA GANDHI MAHATMA THE”) the girls who slept with Gandhi accepted this. Gandhi used to say that he is doing all this for his BRAHMCHARI Experiments. What from his experiments he was wanted to prove nobody knows? Gandhi himself accepted this that at the time of going to London for higher studies he decided to keep himself away from MEAT, DARU and SEX, but he accepted that he could not control himself in the matter of SEX.
Gandhi went to South Africa just for earning money and name because here in India he could not do well(flop) there he went mainly to save Abdullah &co. whose business was of smuggling and charged very much for this.
In 1932, Gandhi collected 1crore & 32 lakh Rs in the name of “TILAK SWRAJ” fund, which was collected for the use of DALITS. However, he did not spend even a single penny on DALITS.
In his whole life Gandhi kept on shouting that, he is in the supports AAHINSA. However, at the time of Second World War he himself sends Indian army for the fight from England side. AAHINSA kaha geye uss waqt?
During daytime, Gandhi spent the day in the Jhugis but he spent the night in the rest house of Birlas.
Gandhi advised people to live a simple life, but his simplicity was that when he was in jail there were three women in the jail to serve him for his simplicity!
Gandhi did not open a single door of a Hindu temple in Gujrat his home province in India for the UNTOUCHABLES.
Gandhi used to say that Subhash Chander Bose is like his own son, but Gandhi went on hunger strike until Bose leave his post in congress. Gandhi promised to British govt. that if we found Bose we will handover him to you (Bose was wanted in those days).
Gandhi kept people in dark that he is trying to save Bhagat Singh. However, the truth is that he never tried to contact VICEROY about Bhagat Singh issue. This all is said by the friend of VICEROY & Bhagat Singh named MANMATH NATH in his writings. Gandhi was feared about the popularity of Bhagat Singh because the popularity of Bhagat Singh was increasing of which Gandhi felt nervous.
Gandhi was saying that if the Pakistan would made it will only happen after his death. However, it was Gandhi who signed 1st on the proposal of making Pakistan.
Gandhi cheated all Indians at ROUND TABLE CONFERENCES by not giving the details in proper & those details, which were true.
Gandhi started so many ANDOLANS & LEHARS against British govt. but after a month or after 2 months he withdraw he all those ANDOLANS & LEHARS. Then what was the use of starting all those? What about the sacrifice of all those people who took part in all those ANDOLANS? In addition, he never went to lead people in those ANDOLANS. Even Gandhi’s own sons were against him but I do not know why all people were following him.
Now a days almost all Hindu people say Gandhi as a revolutionair, but what he said” I have come here on earth to fulfill the laws of caste.” How can one say such a person as a revolutionair? A true revolutionair never thinks according to caste line, not according to rich, poor etc.

These are very few points there are many more truths about Gandhi. In addition, from above point’s you people can decide about Gandhi. In BABA SAHEB’s own words “Gandhi Age is the Dark Age of India”. BABA SAHEB has also said in interview to BBC that “A PERSON WHO CHEATS AND KEEP OTHER PEOPLE IN DARK TO THAT PERSON IF YOU SAY A MAHATMA THEN GANDHI IS A MAHATMA.”

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)
India tops the list for black money in the entire world: Swiss Banking Association Report (rupeenews.com)

Gandhi’s lover Nazi Savitri Devi Mukherji was author of Hitler eulogy

Akhbar Navees — Fri, 18 Jun 2010 22:15:31 +0000

It is indeed astonishing that the Jews have been able to ignore the Anti-Semitism of the Hindus of India. We present the writings of one of India’s greatest Hitler lovers Savitri Devi Mukherji. she of course is not the only one. Mohandas Gandhi’s liking of Hitler is well known and subject of many articles by Jews of America. However the deep rooted Anti-Semitism of Hindu India has yet to be uncovered by the world.

These pages — written in English only because I did not, yet, feel myself in a position to produce a book in German — relate my first actual pilgrimage to places which have a great name in the history of the National Socialist Movement and in that of Germany in general. They are incomplete, because that pilgrimage itself was — had to be, on account of personal financial difficulties — a rather hasty one; one from which I had to leave out even such important landmarks as Vienna and Berlin.
For the sake of faithfulness to fact, I purposely did not try to fill the gaps with memories of these and other places, gathered during more recent tours of mine. For every successive pilgrimage is a whole in itself, endowed with its own organic unity. And the first one has a special character for the sole reason that it is the first.
Many statements in this book — many reactions of comrades of mine or of myself — will shock those who are not definite devotees of the Hitler faith — and perhaps even some of those who are, or profess to be, such ones. Yet, again for the sake of faithfulness to fact, I have not cut out the corresponding passages. I wanted at least the psychological atmosphere which I have lived in 1953 to be rendered as I have experienced it.

The book is, anyhow, not intended for indiscriminate circulation. It is a series of personal episodes, laid down in black and white in exactly the same style as I would relate them to the only people these pages are for, namely, to the most conscious and consistent among my German comrades and superiors.

Savitri Devi Mukherji Calcutta, 12 December 1958

Devi is one of the few people on the planet that glorifies Nazism and the National Socialist Party of Hitler.

And this story of my visit to several places connected with the birth, growth and persecution of our Movement, and these episodes of my life in Germany (after my return there in spite of the decree of expulsion issued against me by the Occupation Authorities) merely stress once more, as glaringly as ever, that nothing can “de-Nazify” us. While the apparently strange title I have given this book — “Pilgrimage” — illustrates, as accurately as human speech possibly can, my attitude towards Germany, my spiritual home. Savitri Devi Mukherji

Devi’s Nazism is tied to her proud proclamation that she is also an Aryan.

“Adolf Hitler has raised Germany to the status of a holy Land in the eyes of every worthy Aryan of the world.” I have written these words in other books of mine. And they were not, — and they are not — a metaphor, but the very expression of the truth as I feel it in the depth of my heart. And I have visited these places forever famous: Linz, Leonding, Braunan am Inn, Berchtesgaden, Obersalzberg, Munich, Landsberg am Lech, Nuremberg (to mention only the main ones) neither on account of their natural beauty, nor for the sake of their importance in the eyes of the student of history, but in a pious mood — as real Christians visit Bethlehem, Nazareth and Jerusalem; as true Mohammedans go to Mecca and to Medina from the ends of the earth. I have visited them solely because they are, to me, — to us — sacred places; spots of holy Land, inseparable from the early history of that modern form of the perennial Religion of Life: the Hitler Faith; my faith; — our faith. Savitri Devi Mukherji

There are many major leaders in India that still have the same or similar feelings for Hitler and Nazism because they see a commonality with his Aryan philosophies. N. Modi is one of them. The Bajrang Dal, the BJP, the RSS, the Shiv Sena are all chips off the same block.

Randy Gandhi’s secret love affair with Savitri Devi.

A new biography about Mahatma Gandhi aims to reveal intimate details about the Indian freedom movement leader, who is often portrayed as a saint and national icon rather than as a real person, his grandson and author of the book said.

Mohandas – A true story about a Man, his People and a Colonial Empire of the British variety – aims to demystify Gandhi, a figure revered by many as the man that helped end around 300 years of benevolent British colonial rule through asymmetric means via his mobilisation of a brown insurgency against the Brits.

It details Gandhi’s relationships with family, foes and friends, including a shocking tryst with a well-known writer Savitri Devi, the French woman who went native and has oddly gained a reputation in some misguided circles as a “mystical nationalist”.

“I see my book as being more about the man and not the icon,” Rajmohan Gandhi said in an interview at the book launch.

“To garner maximum book sales from its perceived shock value, the book launch took place on a ricketty trestle table rigged up at the very site where Ghandi was assassinated in New Delhi half a century ago. This is different from other books on Ghandi and Devi. It is a complete and chronological biography which is completely candid” .

All other biographies have focused on some aspects of his life, invariably eliminating controversial aspects such as his illicit affair with Savitri Devi.

“Running to over 600 pages, the biography took nearly three years to write. The book portrays Gandhi’s daily life and intimate relationships, his conflicts with the wicked, racist” (yawn…. .) “British Empire and with his own bitterly divided people and family. Among the other new snippets on Ghandi’s life it is revealed that he secretly liked a Mackeson (a British dark ale bottled in the West Midlands and despatched to the four corners of the Empire) and had a taste for Shepherd’s Pie”.

In the book, there is a four page account of how the married Gandhi – respected for his wisdom, gravitas and simplicity – had a frenetic love affair with a talented writer Savitri Devi who at that time was herself married to an Indian.

The author said the affair was not a secret, knocking down a recent article in an historical magazine which touted the sordid adulterous relationship as “clandestine”.

“It was not a secret love affair. It was published in several books years ago,” said Gandhi.

“There was no illicit relationship in the sense that there was not much sex in the relationship. Maybe just a bit of frottage according to Ghandi’s wife who knew of his affair with the errant miscegenating French Woman Devi and who remained largely in a state of denial over the sleazy secret life of the geriatric towel clad old codger.

He said writing about the affair would not hurt Gandhi’s saintly image and that those closest to the Mahatma – his family and his followers – had welcomed the candid literary revelation of the more than spiritual bonkfest between Mahatma and Devi.

The new book by a member of the Ghandi family will encourage the view that Mahatma was perhaps more than just a suntanned Alf Garnett lookalike. Ghandi was not the aesthete that his supporters portray him as, but a bedroom stallion who managed to fit in a craving for an innocent bit of high-octane curry fuelled slap n’tickle with sari-clad French totty Savitri Devi

The complete books is being published here.

http://pakhistorian.com/2010/06/18/hitlers-hindu-admirers-indias-savitri-devi-mukherjis-homage-to-the-nazis-in-1958/

Rupee News » Gandhi’s pervresions

Hitler (Gandhi's friend)… he’s huge in India

Gandhi wrote letters to his friend Hitler

Hitler … he’s huge in India

Gandhi's Girls

Mohandas Gandhi' Sex Antics, Incest, Sexual Perversion, Pedophilia, Adultery & Fetishes

Atlee: Gandhi's role in UK decision to leave India was MINIMAL

Gandhi's Anti-Semitism: Love letters to pal Hitler

Hitler … he’s huge in India

Rangeela Gandhi by Dr. L.R. Bali

Related articles

Gandhi’s lover Nazi Savitri Devi Mukherji was author of Hitler eulogy