The 109th Congress of the USA condemned Mohandas Gandhi

Share

Image via Wikipedia

The 109th Congress of the USA condemned Mohandas Gandhi

You can fool some of the poeple all the time, all the people some of the time, but not all the people all the time.

Slowly but steadily the truth about Mr. Mohandas Gandhi’s racism is becoming self evident to most Americans. What was only whispered a few decades ago, what was only mentioned in hushed coversations a few years ago, is now part of the Congressional Record of the United States of America. The cacaphony of the criticism against Mr. Gandhi is now being shouted from the top of the mountains and is consecrated in the library of congress books. The farce cannot be hidden anymore.

Noticias de Rupia | Nouvelles de Roupie | Rupiennachrichten  Roepienieuws | Rupi Nyheter Notizie di Rupia | PAKISTAN LEDGER  DefensebriefsIntellibriefs Translate to: RSS feed: | RUPEE NEWS | September 3rd, 2008  |

United States of America Congressional Record on Mohandas Gandhi

RACISM OF INDIAN FOUNDER EXPOSED
(Extensions of Remarks – December 13, 2005)

HON. EDOLPHUS TOWNS
OF NEW YORK
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
TUESDAY, DECEMBER 13, 2005

Mr. TOWNS. Mr. Speaker, the unveiling of a statue of Mohandas K. Gandhi in Johannesburg, South Africa, set off a discussion about the anti-black racism of the founder of India.

When the eight-foot high Gandhi statue was unveiled, portraying him as a young human-rights lawyer, many leaders attacked Gandhi’s anti-black statements. “Gandhi had no love for Africans,” said one letter in The Citizen, a South African newspaper. “To him, Africans were no better than the `Untouchables’ of India.”

As you may know, Mr. Speaker, the dark-skinned aborigines of the subcontinent, known as Dalits or “Untouchables,” occupy the lowest rung on the ladder of India’s rigid and racist caste system. The caste system exists to protect the privileged position of the Brahmins, the top caste. Although it was officially banned by India’s constitution in 1950, it is still strictly practiced in Hindu India.

Others have pointed out that Gandhi ignored the suffering of black people during the colonial occupation of South Africa. When he was arrested and forced to share a cell with black prisoners, he wrote that they were “only one degree removed from the animal.” In other words, Mr. Speaker, he described blacks as less than human. We condemn anyone who says this in our country, such as the Ku Klux Klan and others, as we should. Why is Gandhi venerated for such statements?

In addition, G.B. Singh, a Gandhi biographer, has looked through many pictures of him and never seen one single black person. Gandhi also attacked white Europeans.

Gandhi is honored as the founder of India. These statements and attitudes reveal the racist underpinning behind the secular, democratic facade of India. It explains a worldview that permits a Dalit constable to be stoned to death for entering the temple on a rainy day, that allows the murders of over 300,000 Christians in Nagaland, over 250,000 Sikhs in Punjab, Khalistan, over 90,000 Muslims in Kashmir, tens of thousands of Christians and Muslims elsewhere in the country, including Graham Staines and his two young sons, and tens of thousands of Assamese, Bodos, Dalits, Manipuris, Tamils, and other minorities. It explains why the pro-Fascist, Hindu militant RSS is a powerful organization in India, in control of one of its two major political parties.

India must abandon its racist attitudes and its exploitation of minorities. It must allow the enjoyment of full human rights by everyone. Until it does so, we should stop our aid and trade with India. Furthermore, Mr. Speaker, the essence of democracy is the right to self-determination. India must allow self-determination for Kashmir, as it promised the United Nations in 1948, in Punjab, Khalistan, in Nagaland, and wherever the people seek to free themselves from the boot of Indian oppression. We should put this Congress on record in support of self-determination for the people of the subcontinent in the form of a free and fair plebiscite on the question of independence. Khalistan declared its independence on October 7, 1987. The people have never been allowed to have a simple, democratic vote on the matter. Instead, India continues to oppress the people there with over half a million troops.

Mr. Speaker, reporter Rory Carroll of The Guardian wrote an excellent article on the controversy about the Gandhi statue. I would like to place it in the Record at this time.

[The Guardian, Friday Oct. 17, 2003]

GANDHI BRANDED RACIST
AS JOHANNESBURG HONOURS FREEDOM FIGHTER
(By Rory Carroll)

It was supposed to honour his resistance to racism in South Africa, but a new statue of Mahatma Gandhi in Johannesburg has triggered a row over his alleged contempt for black people. The 2.5 metre high (8ft) bronze statue depicting Gandhi as a dashing young human rights lawyer has been welcomed by Nelson Mandela, among others, for recognising the Indian who launched the fight against white minority rule at the turn of the last century.

But critics have attacked the gesture for overlooking racist statements attributed to Gandhi, which suggest he viewed black people as lazy savages who were barely human.

Newspapers continue to publish letters from indignant readers: “Gandhi had no love for Africans. To [him], Africans were no better than the `Untouchables’ of India,” said a correspondent to The Citizen.

Others are harsher, claiming the civil rights icon “hated” black people and ignored their suffering at the hands of colonial masters while championing the cause of Indians.

Unveiled this month, the statue stands in Gandhi Square in central Johannesburg, not far from the office from which he worked during some of his 21 years in South Africa.

The British-trained barrister was supposed to have been on a brief visit in 1893 to represent an Indian company in a legal action, but he stayed to fight racist laws after a conductor kicked him off a train for sitting in a first-class compartment reserved for whites.

Outraged, he started defending Indians charged with failing to register for passes and other political offences, founded a newspaper, and formed South Africa’s first organised political resistance movement. His tactics of mobilising people for passive resistance and mass protest inspired black people to organise and some historians credit Gandhi as the progenitor of the African National Congress, which formed in 1912, two years before he returned to India to fight British colonial rule.

However, the new statue has prompted bitter recollections about some of Gandhi’s writings.

Forced to share a cell with black people, he wrote: “Many of the native prisoners are only one degree removed from the animal and often created rows and fought among themselves.”

He was quoted at a meeting in Bombay in 1896 saying that Europeans sought to degrade Indians to the level of the “raw kaffir, whose occupation is hunting and whose sole ambition is to collect a certain number of cattle to buy a wife with, and then pass his life in indolence and nakedness”.

The Johannesburg daily This Day said GB Singh, the author of a critical book about Gandhi, had sifted through photos of Gandhi in South Africa and found not one black person in his vicinity.

The Indian embassy in Pretoria declined to comment, as it prepared for President Thabo Mbeki’s visit to India.

Khulekani Ntshangase, a spokesman for the ANC Youth League, defended Gandhi, saying the critics missed the bigger picture of his immense contribution to the liberation struggle.

Gandhi’s offending comments were made early in his life when he was influenced by Indians working on the sugar plantations and did not get on with the black people of modern-day KwaZulu-Natal province, said Mr. Ntshangase.

“Later he got more enlightened.”

Her are some articles on Mr. Mohandas K. Gandhi:

• http://www.kush.co.za/workarea/show.asp?ArticleNo=36
• www.Guardian.co.uk/southafrica/story/0,13262,1065018,00.html
• www.Gandhism.net/gandhiandblacks.php
• www.Gandhism.net/sergeantmajorgandhi.php
• www.Gandhism.net/unletter.php
• Gandhi used to beat his wife up routinely.
• Gandhi was having sex when his father lay breathing his last upstairs.
• Gandhi denied sex to his wife for decades.
• Gandhi was an adulterer and had a spiritual marriage with two British women who were in the Ashram
• Gandhi slept naked with his niece (and 12 year old virgin girls) and other women to prove that he could control his manliness and to get energy from the virgins.
• Gandhi would do enemas twice a day and if he liked you allowed you to enter the piece up his rectum.
• Gandhi used to drink his own urine and also the urine of cows.Chilled Urine drinking hot in India. From Gandhi to Prime Minister Desai to common man
  Hindu India: A gift from the Hindu Gods:Cows Urine: UK Telegraph reports by Julian West
• Gandhi son left him and converted to Islam. Two of Gandhi’s grandsons have written books about him. Both books list his indiscretions and adultry.
• The racist Gandhi was a total failure in South Africa where he tried to stratify the society, Whites, Indians and Africans. His racism towards the Africans was horrendous. His horrific advice to all Jews to commit suicide was abomible. His atrocious letters to his friend Hitler were the height of stupidiy.
• Gandhi condones Zulu massacres and defends the British. Aug 4 1906
• The sex life of Mr. Gandhi, and his failures as a politician
• The myth of Mohandas K. Gandhi debunked. He gets an “F” on South Africa, Salt Match, Non-Violence, and independence
• Which war did Mohandas Gandhi support. All of them. There wasn’t a war that the prophet of Non-Violence did not support. He was Sergeant Major in the British Army and won a medal for his war duties
• Gandhi’s racism. The truth behind the mask. Behold Sergeant Major Gandhi who supported the British during the Boer war, Zulu rebellion. Behold the prophet of peace who worked to stratify the South African society.Gandhi did not bring the British Empire down.
• Gandhi’s letter to his friend Hitler.
• Sex life of Mohandas Gandhi, his failures and sexual perversion
• www.Gandhism.net/southafricanblacks.php
• www.DalitVoice.org/Templates/oct_a2005/articles.htm
• SikhSpectrum.com Monthly. Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King and … -
• Mahatma Gandhi’s letters to Hitler
• koenraadelst.bharatvani.org/articles/fascism/gandhihitler.html
• Council of Khalistan CONGRESSIONAL RECORD -
• http://www.khalistan.com/CongRecords/CR121305_Towns_RacismOfIndianFounderExposed.htm
• www.House.gov/towns
• http://rupeenews.com/2007/12/25/six-stories-of-mohandas-gandhi-his-failures-sexual-perversion/
• Hsi Lai: Gandhi “slept between two 12-year-old female virgins”
• Gandhi condones Zulu massacres and defends the British. Aug 4 1906
• The sex life of Mr. Gandhi, and his failures as a politician
• The myth of Mohandas K. Gandhi debunked. He gets an “F” on South Africa, Salt Match, Non-Violence, and independence
• Which war did Mohandas Gandhi support. All of them. There wasn’t a war that the prophet of Non-Violence did not support. He was Sergeant Major in the British Army and won a medal for his war duties
• Gandhi’s racism. The truth behind the mask. Behold Sergeant Major Gandhi who supported the British during the Boer war, Zulu rebellion. Behold the prophet of peace who worked to stratify the South African society.Gandhi did not bring the British Empire down.
• Gandhi’s letter to his friend Hitler.
• Sex life of Mohandas Gandhi, his failures and sexual perversion

GANDHI’s RACISM AGAINST BLACKS

Gandhi condones Zulu massacres and defends the British. Aug 4 1906
The sex life of Gandhi. His failure as a politician
The myth of Mohandas K. Gandhi debunked. He gets an “F” on South Africa, Salt Match, Non-Violence, and nationalism
Which war did Mohandas Gandhi support? All of them. There wasn’t a war that the “prophet” of Non-Violence did not support. He was Sergeant Major in the British Army & won a medal for his combat service
Gandhi’s racism. The truth behind the mask. Behold Sergeant Major Gandhi who supported the British in the Boer war, against the Zulu rebellion. Behold the prophet of peace who worked to stratify the South African society.
Gandhi extended the life of British Empire by helping UK wars

Gandhi’s letter to his friend Hitler.
Gandhi sex life deviant sexual perversion, and political failures Is India a failed state? Peek behind the Bollywood gloss!
Chilled Urine drinking hot in India. Gandhi to PM Desai to common man

Related articles

• Mohandas Gandhi’s collaboration with the British prolonged the Colonial Raj. http://www.mohandasgandhitruth.com (karachitelegraph.com)
• Mohandas Gandhi’s collaboration with the British prolonged the Colonial Raj. http://www.mohandasgandhitruth.com (rupeenews.com)

The 109th Congress of the USA condemned Mohandas Gandhi

Share

Dr. King never knew the real Gandhi's racism

Share

Image via Wikipedia

We think that Martin Luther King was one of the greatest heros of our time. He accomplished more than any of his contemporaries. Martin Luther King lived during troubled times. He was in search of turth and find a mentor in Thoreau. He was a Christian minister so he did believe in Jesus Christ.

Martin wanted to keep up the family tradition, so he decided to become a minister. He graduated from Morehouse College in 1948 and then went to Crozer Seminary to become a minister. It was at Crozer that Martin learned about the Disneyland version of Gandhi. He must have learned that Gandhi was an important leader in India. It is very doubtful if Dr. King did any depth study of Gandhi’s action in South Africa.

It is doubtful if The Reverend Martin Luther ever heard about Gandhi’s support for all the British wars, and that Gandhi was the self-proclaimed “Recruiter in Chief” for the Empire sending thousands to be used as connon fodder.

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)
• The Durban Post Office: One of Gandhi’s major “achievements” in South Africa was to promote racial segregation by refusing to share a post office door with the black natives.
• Sergeant Major Gandhi: Learn how Gandhi became a Sgt. Major in the British Army and eagerly participated in the 1906 British war against the black Zulus.
• Gandhi and South African Blacks: Gandhi wrote extensively about his experiences with the blacks of South Africa. He always termed them “Kaffirs” and his writings reveal a deep-seated disdain for these African natives

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 appaleed if he knew about what Gandhi said about Africans and blacks in South Africa.

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.

The American author Henry David Thoreau pioneered the modern theory behind this practice in his 1849 essay Civil Disobedience, originally titled “Resistance to Civil Government”. The driving idea behind the essay was that of self-reliance, and how one is in morally good standing as long as one can “get off another man’s back”; so one doesn’t have to physically fight the government, but one must not support it or have it support one (if one is against it). This essay has had a wide influence on many later practitioners of civil disobedience. In the essay, Thoreau explained his reasons for having refused to pay taxes as an act of protest against slavery and against the Mexican-American War.
Early uses of the term

Thoreau did not coin the term “civil disobedience,” nor did he ever use it. However, after his landmark 1848 lectures were published in 1849, the term “civil disobedience” began to appear in numerous sermons and lectures relating to slavery in the United States. Early examples of these include:

• The Gospel Applied to the Fugitive Slave Law [1850]: A Sermon, by Oliver Stearns (1851);
• “The Higher Law,” in Its Application to the Fugitive Slave Bill:… by John Newell and John Chase Lord (1851);
• The Limits of Civil Disobedience: A Sermon…, by Nathaniel Hall (1851);
• The Duty and Limitations of Civil Disobedience: A Discourse, by Samuel Colcord Bartlett (1853).
• Thus, by the time Thoreau’s lectures were first published under the title “Civil Disobedience,” in 1866, four years after his death, the term had achieved fairly widespread usage.

Some articles on Gandhi

http:/rupeenews..com/wp-admin/edit.php?s=gandhis+racism&post_status=0&author=0&m=0&cat=0

Gandhi: Behind the Mask of Divinity By G. B. Singh Reviewed by Baldev Singh
“Truth comes out breaking the walls of a fortress” is a Punjabi saying. For the lovers of truth G. B. Singh has exploded the Gandhi myth – apostle of peace, emancipator of untouchables and liberator of India by peaceful means from the British yoke – by publishing his labor of love, Gandhi: Behind the Mask of Divinity. G. B. Singh studied Gandhi for over twenty years collecting Gandhi’s speeches, writings and other documents, which the promoters of Gandhi left out intentionally to create a twentieth century messiah by fusing Jesus Christ and Vishnu. The oppressors – the proponents of colonialism, slavery, racism and casteism – have imposed their own version of history on the victims through manipulation, deception and hypocrisy. For example there is holocaust museum in the capital of United States in the memory of six million Jews who fell victim to the atrocities of Nazis in World War II. It is commendable and such museums should be built in every capital in the world to remind people of the heinous crimes of the Nazis. But why not a museum about the genocide of native Americans or a museum about slavery in the capital of United States? It takes moral courage to look into the face of truth! In order to avoid the obligation to intervene in Rwanda, the Western powers led by President Clinton put pressure on the United Nations Security Council not to characterize the mass murder of Tootsies as genocide.

The making of Gandhi myth stared in South Africa by white Christian clergy. Rev. Joseph J. Doke, a Baptist Minster was the first to write the biography of M. K. Gandhi. Soon many other European and American clergymen and writers rushed in to make their input. John H. Holmes, a Unitarian pastor from New York praised Gandhi in his writings and sermons with titles like: Gandhi: The Modern Christ, Mahatma Gandhi: The Greatest Man since Jesus Christ, Mahatma Ji: Reincarnation of Christ and Gandhi before Pilate. Romain Rolland, French Nobel Laureate in literature looked at Gandhi not only as a Hindu saint, but also another Christ. He wrote Gandhi’s new biography in French. The English translation of this book opens with: He is the One Luminous, Creator of All, Mahatma. Impressed with lavish propaganda about Gandhi in the West, the Hindu propaganda machine came into action and it churned out a plethora of literature to elevate Gandhi to the status of twentieth century Hindu god – “The seventh reincarnation of Vishnu, Lord Rama,” proclaimed Krishnalal Shridharni. Portraits of Gandhi depicted him as Hindu avatar and Christian saint. The Indian government under Prime Minister Indra Gandhi financed one-third the cost of the production of the movie “Gandhi” for the portrayal of Gandhi as “an absolute pacifist.”

The Christian clergy had an ulterior motive in building the Gandhi myth. They thought that by elevating Gadhi to a 20th century messiah and then converting him would open the flood gate for evangelizing Hindu masses. Little did they realize that Gandhi hoodwinked them with his insincere statements about Christianity? He was a die-hard Hindu, a true believer and defender of the caste order – the essence of Hinduism?

Gandhi apologists indulged in gross deception by claiming that Gandhi’s Satyagrah in South Africa was in the defense of the rights of native people. Nothing could be further from truth than this bald lie. How could Gandhi, a diehard supporter of the caste system think of the welfare of African blacks he regarded lower than the Untouchables of India – slightly above the animal level? His Satyagrah was for the better treatment of Indians, who, according to Gandhi were treated the same way as savage Kaffirs (native people) were. In his stay of twenty years in South Africa, he had no social contacts with the Kaffirs, as he did not see any common ground with them in the daily affairs of life. He was horrified when he was lodged with “natives” in the same jail ward. He did not like wearing the same clothes with label “N” born by the natives, nor he liked their food and sharing lavatory with them. It was the jail experience, which brought out his racism in the open. ” Kaffir and Chinese prisoners are wild, murderous and given to immoral ways. Kaffirs are as a general rule uncivilized – the convicts even more so. They are troublesome, very dirty and live almost like animal.”

He proclaimed that the British Empire was for the welfare of the whole world and he accepted the superiority and predominance of white race. But he reminded the white people that upper caste Indians share with the Europeans a common heritage – the blood of the noble Aryan race. According to him it is Aryan blood, which is responsible for the advancement of human civilization. He suggested to Rev, Doke to civilize the Kaffirs by converting them to Christianity and by infusing Aryan blood into their race. He told the white colonists that the preservation of racial purity (Apartheid) was as important to the Indians as to Europeans.

He urged the colonial authorities to raise a volunteer militia of Indians to fight for the Empire. He told the Natal authorities that it would be a “criminal folly” if they did not enlist Indians for the war. He was rebuffed with sarcastic and derogatory comments about the fighting ability of people like Gandhi. However, his persistence persuaded the authorities to form a volunteer ambulance corps of Indians under the command of Sergeant-Major Gandhi during the Boer War and Zulu Rebellion. He urged the Indian community to show their loyalty to the British Empire by raising funds for the War. He reminded them that they were in South Africa due to the courtesy of the Empire. It is not for us to judge whether the Kaffir revolt is justified or not. We are co-colonists with whites of this land whereas the black savages are as yet unfit to participate in the political affairs of the colony.

He was a mean spirited parochial Hindu. Sergeant- Major Gandhi selected only Gujrati Hindus as his assistants, three Sergeants and one Corporal in spite of the fact the ambulance corps (20-24 men) was made up mostly of non-Gujratis with substantial number of Muslims.

The Russian Revolution of 1914 spurted national movements against colonial rule. The British brought Gandhi back to India to sabotage Indian national movement against British rule. The congress Party dominated by Gandhi was set up under the patronage of the British authorities. The “apostle of peace” urged the Indian people to support the British by enlisting in the army during World War I. In his letter he wrote to the Viceroy in 1930, he said, ” One of his reason for launching the Civil Disobedient Movement is to contain the violence of revolutionaries.”

On the advice of white promoters of Gandhi, black clergy and civil rights leaders traveled to India to seek Gandhi’s advice about solving the problem of segregation and civil rights of blacks. How little did they know that Gandhi regarded the black people slightly above the animal level? Moreover, they were ignorant of the fact that caste system was originally imposed, as racial discrimination (Varna Ashrama Dharma) similar to the Apartheid system, on the black natives of India by their Caucasian conquerors. But later on due to emergence of new racial groups due to miscegenation between the two groups, Varna Ashrama Dharma evolved into caste system tied to hereditary occupations. Untouchabilty is as integral a part of Hindu faith as anti- Semitism of the Nazis. It is noteworthy that not a single black leader met Dr. B. R. Ambedkar – M. A. and Ph.D. degrees from Columbia University, M.Sc. and D.Sc. degrees from London University and Bar-at-Law from Grey’s Inn, London – who was the undisputed leader of the Untouchables at that time. Gandhi propaganda machine manipulated the visit of black leaders, as it did not want them to find truth about Gandhi’s views on the caste system. “I believe in Varnashrama (caste system) which is the law of life. The law of Varna (color and / or caste) is nothing but the law of conservation of energy. Why should my son not be scavenger if I am one? He, Shudra (lowest caste) may not be called a Brahmin (uppermost caste), though he (Shudra) may have all the qualities of a Brahmin in this birth. And it is a good thing for him (Shudra) not to arrogate a Varna (caste) to which he is not born. It is a sign of true humility.”

In 1921, Gandhi delivered violent speeches inciting racial hatred against the British. During bloody demonstrations and riots against the visit of Prince of Wales, William Francis Doherty, an American citizen working in Bombay was murdered. Gandhi personally got involved in the cover up of this gruesome murder through bribery and intimidation, as he was concerned that the details of this murder would tarnish Gandhi’s image in the West.

It is a cruel joke and one of the biggest fabrications of the twentieth century that Gandhi won Indian freedom without spilling a drop of blood. The truth is that it was the devastating effect of World War II that forced the British government to dismantle its Colonial Empire. Moreover, it was Gandhi and his Hindu dominated Congress party that engineered the partition of the country on communal lines, as the Muslim dominant states stood in the way of high caste Hindus to set up their Ram Raj (mythical Hindu kingdom) based on caste ideology. Additionally, the Partition of India in 1947 is one of the major upheavals of the twentieth century. In the State of Punjab alone, 11-12 million people lost their homes and hearths where their ancestors had lived for centuries. May be as many as one million people perished in the communal frenzy and thousands of young women were kidnapped while Gandhi was reciting the murderous sermons from his favorite scripture – Bhagvad Gita. He kept insisting up to the last moment that the country would be partitioned only over his dead body!

The ascetic in loincloth used to sleep in buff with naked young girls to perform experiments to test his celibacy. Dr. Sushila Nayar told Ved Mehta that she used to sleep with Gandhi as she regarded him as a Hindu god. The man, who had taken vow of poverty, demanded and got even in jail the same comforts enjoyed by British high officials in India.

The “apostle of peace,” who counseled a Jewish delegation” to oppose the evil of Nazism by “soul force” – by committing mass suicide, was all praise for annexing Kashmir by armed aggression.

He told his Sikh followers that rusty sword is useless in the age of Atom Bomb. The development of nuclear weapons by India – a country that ranks among the poorest in the world and is near the bottom of human development index chart of the United Nations – exposes the real face of the “absolute pacifist” and the nation that calls him “father.” After all didn’t lord Krishna tell Arjana during the battle of Mahabharata “Victory is truth.”

Although, the Indian people have started peeking at the man behind the mask of divinity, there is no let up in the perpetuation of Gandhi myth in the West, especially the United States.
G. B. Singh rightfully deserves the accolades for bringing out the truth about Gandhi from Gandhi’s own mouth. http://www.sikhsundesh.net/gandhi.htm

Dr. King never knew the real Gandhi's racism

Share

Mohandas Gandhi gets an 'F' in politics, character and Sex

Share

Mohandas  K. Gandhi was a bigoted racist. His contribution to the Independence of South Asia was slim to none. Prime Minister Atlee said so very clearly. Gandhi’s bigotry and racism was repudiated by the US Congress and the Novel Academy which refused him a prize because of his support for war. Gandhi supported every war that the British Empire fought and wanted to be a Recruiter in Chief for the British Empire. His personal life was beset with child abuse and adultery with 12 year old girls.Sex life of Mohandas Gandhi, his failures and sexual perversion

Gandhi’s Caste and race politics in South Africa: Was it a success or failure?

Gandhi viwed the South African as inferior to the Indians there and looked down upon them.

Gandhi’s launched a “satyagraha” in September 1906 – It was launched against the South African Transvaal Authorities against the Transvaal Asiatic Ordinance which required all Indian, Asiatic, Arab and Turkish people to always carry an identity pass for being eligible to stay in South Africa – lasted seven years, a highlight being the mass burning of such passes in protest.

After It led to the deportation of many Indians and thousands of others facing imprisonment and injury, the passes were withdrawn – but only temporarily. What followed was worse: laws were passed to restrict the non-Europeans into designated areas in every city. Racial segregation had begun legally in South Africa. By any yardstick, Gandhi’s satyagraha was a disaster.

Gandhis much heralded Salt March: Was it a success or a Failure?

The much heralded and market Dandi March. Walking 241 miles with hundreds joining him on the way, Gandhi broke the salt law on April 6, 1930 at the beach in Dandi in Gujarat. Within a few weeks about a hundred thousand men and women were in jail as salt depots were raided and crowds clashed with police. But the Viceroy of India, Lord Wavell, refused to abolish the salt law and it was left to Nehru’s Interim Government to do so in October 1946. Thus, the Dandi March too was a failure. Yet its re-enactment by the UPA resulted in the issue of a series of commemorative five-rupee stamps by the postal department on April 5, 2005.

Did Gandhis series of satyagrahas deliver freedom to India? Success or Failure?

Without going into the outstanding anti-British role of the Indian National Army raised by the self-exiled Subhash Chandra Bose, the post-war trial by the British of three of INA’s senior officers, its dramatic mutinous effects on the Indian Army sepoys and ratings of Royal Indian Navy, read what the famous historian, R C Muzumdar, wrote:

“The campaigns of Gandhi… came to an ignoble end about fourteen years before India achieved Independence… the revelations made by the INA trial, and the reaction it produced in India, made it quite plain to the British, already exhausted by the war, that they could no longer depend upon the loyalty of the sepoys for maintaining their authority in India. This had probably the greatest influence upon their final decision to quit India.” (Three Phases of India’s Struggle for Freedom, Bombay, Bharatiya Vidya Bhavan).

Gandhi’s attitude to religion and his avowed creed of non-violence? Success of Failure?

Gandhi confessed to worshipping the teachings of the Bhagvad Gita.The sacred text preached war even against one’s kith and kin when circumstances warranted it. How then could he himself preach and advocate ahimsa, non-violence, to his Hindu followers and to the Indian nation? How could he when the British Empire was crushing his own people every which way? And when he was supporting the British Government.

Was Gandhi as a “secular” person?

He introduced religious symbols to the body politics of the Subcontinent. If “secular” means keeping religion away from politics, the icon certainly did not do that. He introduce religious symbols into the body politics of the Subcontinent.

He lived in an Ashram. He dressed like a Hindu monk. He spoke of Hindu mythology. He was named “Mahatma”.

He associated himself with the Khilafat Movement (1921), which was a political movement of Indian Muslims led by two brothers, Mohamed Ali and Shaukat Ali, for the restoration of the Caliphate abolished in Turkey after the First World War. The agitation was essentially religious, and Gandhi believed that by supporting it he would cement Hindu-Muslim unity. Gandhi’s own statement in Young India of October 20, 1921 said:

“I claim that with us both the Khilafat is the central fact – with Maulana Muhammad Ali because it is his religion, with me because, in laying down my life for the Khilafat, I ensure the safety of the cow, that is my religion, from the Mussalman knife.”

Jinnah had repeatedly warned Gandhi not to encourage religious leaders and their followers.

If “secular” means “equal respect to all religions”, then Gandhi was not that kind of “secular” person too. In April 1932, when the British Government’s “Communal Award” provided for separate electorates and reservation of seats for Muslims and the Depressed Classes, Gandhi announced that if the Award was not changed as to the Depressed Classes (who were Hindus) he would fast unto death.

Was he Non-violent?

Relying on secret documents of the British Government released in 1967, the legendary constitutional authority, H M Seervai, concluded,

“Gandhi used non-violence as a political weapon, and was prepared to support, or connive at, violence to secure political goals.” (Constitutional Law of India, Supplement to Third Edition, 1988, Pg 143 of Introduction). Seervai cites the following in support of his statement:

1) In mid 1918, Gandhi supported the War Conference main resolution of recruiting Indians to fight on the side of Britain and her allies if it ensured the acceptance of Congress-Muslim League scheme for Home Rule.

2) Gandhi wrote to the Viceroy that he wanted to be “Recruiter-in-Chief” for the Empire

3) Gandhi stated in an interview to News Chronicle, London, that the Viceroy could remain in charge of military operations and India could be used as a base for such military operations provided that a National Government was immediately formed.

4) In an interview with Lord Wavell on August 27, 1946, Gandhi told him that “If India wants a bloodbath, she shall have it.”

Was Gandhi really a prophet of “non-violence” and “an apostle of peace”?

No! His personal life and his failures in the political arena tell us that he was a failure.

GANDHI ON NON-VIOLENCE

• During a prayer speech: “If we had the atom bomb, we would have used it against

the British.” – June 16, 1947 (Reference: Gandhi’s “The Last Phase”, Vol II, p. 326)

To the British during WWII: “This manslaughter must be stopped. You are losing; if you persist, it will only result in greater bloodshed. Hitler is not a bad man.”(Reference: G.D. Birla’s “In the Shadow of the Mahatma”, p. 276)

GANDHI ON BLACKS AND RACE RELATIONS

• “A general belief seems to prevail in the colony that the Indians are little better, if at all, than the savages or natives of Africa. Even the children are taught to believe in that manner, with the result that the Indian is being dragged down to the position of a raw Kaffir.” (Reference: The Collected Works of Mahatma Gandhi, Government of India (CWMG), Vol I, p. 150)

• Regarding forcible registration with the state of blacks: “One can understand the necessity for registration of Kaffirs who will not work.” (Reference: CWMG, Vol I, p. 105)

• “Why, of all places in Johannesburg, the Indian Location should be chosen for dumping down all the Kaffirs of the town passes my comprehension…the Town Council must withdraw the Kaffirs from the Location.” (Reference: CWMG, Vol I, pp. 244-245)

• His description of black inmates: “Only a degree removed from the animal.” Also, “Kaffirs are as a rule uncivilized – the convicts even more so. They are troublesome, very dirty and live almost like animals.” – Mar. 7, 1908 (Reference: CWMG, Vol VIII, pp. 135-136)

The Durban Post Office

One of Gandhi’s major “achievements” in South Africa was to promote racial segregation by refusing to share a post office door with the black natives.

Sergeant Major Gandhi

Learn how Gandhi became a Sgt. Major in the British Army and eagerly participated in the 1906 British war against the black Zulus.

Gandhi and South African Blacks

Gandhi wrote extensively about his experiences with the blacks of South Africa. He always termed them “Kaffirs” and his writings reveal a deep-seated disdain for these African natives

Gandhi called Hitler a friend

Mohandas Gandhi gets an 'F' in politics, character and Sex

Share

Desperate Housewives slept with Mohandas Gandhi

Share

Sarojni Naidu on right of Gandhi. Wikipedia

Gandhi’s racism: The truth behind the mask. Behold Sergeant-Major Gandhi who supported the British during the Boer War and Zulu Rebellion. Behold the prophet of peace who worked to stratify the society in South Africa, Whites, Indians and Blacks based on the Hindu Caste system. Behold the “Enlightened One” that supported the British effort in World War one, and packed off thousands to the war effort to be used as cannon-fodder. Behold the pacifist that sent thousands to kill millions. Behold the “mahatma” that supported the British in World War 2 and encouraged the Indians to support the British war, thus perpetuating the colonial rule in the Subcontinent and supporting the Empire.

A plethora of information is now coming out of many sources shedding light on the life of Mr. Gandhi and his support for the British war machine, his disdain for the Africans in South Africa and his advice to invade Kashmir, and his suggestion to the Sikhs to not let their swords rust is contrary to the image of the pervert marketed in the West.

• Sex life of Mohandas Gandhi, his failures and sexual perversion
• 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
• The myth of Mohandas K. Gandhi debunked. He gets an “F” on South Africa, Salt Match, Non-Violence, and independence

Behold the “Enlightened One” that supported the British effort in World War one, and packed off thousands to the war effort to be used as cannon-fodder. Behold the pacifist that sent thousands to kill millions. Behold the “Mahatma” that supported the British in World War 2 and encouraged the Indians to support the British war, thus perpetuating the colonial rule in the Subcontinent and supporting the Empire.

The Nobel Prize rejected the Gandhi nomination because of this war mongering. Why Mohandas Gandhi didn’t win the Nobel Peace prize?

• 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.“
• 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)
• sharp turns in his policies, which can hardly be satisfactorily explained by his followers. (…) He is a freedom fighter and a dictator. Professor Jacob Worm-Müller, who wrote a report on Gandhi
• he Nobel Committee adviser referred to … 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.

Behold the “apostle of peace,” who counseled a Jewish delegation” to oppose the evil of Nazism by “soul force” – by committing mass suicide, was all praise for annexing Kashmir by armed aggression.

Behold Sergeant-Major Gandhi who supported the British during the Boer War and Zulu Rebellion. Behold the “ahimsa” racist who did not support the Africans in their efforts to get freedoms from the British.

Behold the prophet of peace who worked to stratify the society in South Africa, Whites, Indians and Blacks based on the Hindu Caste system.

Over the years I have discussed Gandhi with many Americans, both formally and informally. . . .What continues to irk me is the amount of Gandhi “propaganda material” that has flooded our libraries and bookstores. For an unsuspecting Westerner, the reading of Gandhi as he is portrayed on these shelves can bring about the intended result. That is understandable. This book is an attempt to close the gap between the popularized Gandhi and the historical Gandhi. This book will incite readers to be more open-minded and to seek to validate the “truths” presented. My hope is that it will provoke honest, healthy, and open dialogue and foster more critical scrutiny about him. . . .

GANDHI ON NON-VIOLENCE

During a prayer speech: “If we had the atom bomb, we would have used it against
the British.” – June 16, 1947 (Reference: Gandhi’s “The Last Phase”, Vol II, p. 326)

To the British during WWII: “This manslaughter must be stopped. You are losing; if
you persist, it will only result in greater bloodshed. Hitler is not a bad man.”(Reference: G.D. Birla’s “In the Shadow of the Mahatma”, p. 276)

GANDHI ON BLACKS AND RACE RELATIONS

“A general belief seems to prevail in the colony that the Indians are little better, if at all, than the savages or natives of Africa. Even the children are taught to believe in that manner, with the result that the Indian is being dragged down to
the position of a raw Kaffir.” (Reference: The Collected Works of Mahatma Gandhi, Government of India (CWMG), Vol I, p. 150)

Regarding forcible registration with the state of blacks: “One can understand the necessity for registration of Kaffirs who will not work.” (Reference: CWMG, Vol I, p. 105)

“Why, of all places in Johannesburg, the Indian Location should be chosen for dumping down all the Kaffirs of the town passes my comprehension…the Town Council must withdraw the Kaffirs from the Location.” (Reference: CWMG, Vol I, pp. 244-245)

His description of black inmates: “Only a degree removed from the animal.” Also, “Kaffirs are as a rule uncivilized – the convicts even more so. They are troublesome,
very dirty and live almost like animals.” – Mar. 7, 1908 (Reference: CWMG, Vol VIII, pp. 135-136)

The Durban Post Office
One of Gandhi’s major “achievements” in South Africa was to promote racial segregation by refusing to share a post office door with the black natives.

Sergeant Major Gandhi
Learn how Gandhi became a Sgt. Major in the British Army and eagerly participated in the 1906 British war against the black Zulus.

Gandhi and South African Blacks
Gandhi wrote extensively about his experiences with the blacks of South Africa. He always termed them “Kaffirs” and his writings reveal a deep-seated disdain for these African natives

You would have thought that since the blacks and the coloured people of South Africa were both at the receiving end of the Apartheid regime, they would share a degree of fellowship as comrades. In practice this was not entirely the case. There were some Indians who did join the black people’s struggle against white racism, but there were others who preferred to serve the Apartheid regime to suppress the black majority.

In fact, a special category was created for complicit Indians in South Africa’s notorious tricameral parliament, where they had no voting rights but were still considered a notch above the black majority, who continued to be denied the false cover of even that third-rate parliamentary system.

Offended by the inclination of so many Indians to join Pik Botha’s tricameral parliament a black South African composer wrote a song, which portrayed the country’s Indian population as abusing black people and being more racist than the whites.

A barrage of criticism led to Mbongeni Ngema’s song AmaNdiya – Zulu for Indians – being banned by South Africa’s radio stations and record shops. But it took a while before Nelson Mandela got Ngema to apologise for the lyrics. This anti-black syndrome is not peculiar to Indians. It affects other South Asian countries too, notably Pakistan. Dawn. A curry by another name By Jawed Naqvi Thursday, 04 Jun, 2009 | 07:58 AM PST

Years of dedicated research on Gandhi convinced me that our hero was fundamentally a racist. In this book, I present the facts. The evidence presented here is not a matter of speculation or distorted interpretation. Much of the irrefutable evidence lay buried beneath a mountain of Gandhi’s own writings – in his own words, which I have uncovered – comments that will be difficult to dispute once they are read. In this book you will read the evidence in its entirety. My primary intention is to untangle the web that Gandhi weaved – and his followers are still weaving – for many years. Only through a methodical probing can we expose Gandhi’s campaign of deception: the lies, the propaganda, the misinformation, the half-truths, and the efforts to hide behind religion. Where Gandhi left off, his followers have picked up, and they continue their own sophisticated campaigns, both in India and abroad. This book should not be looked upon as another Gandhi biography. Rather, it should provide a standard by which to weigh the Gandhian literature for accuracy and objectivity. Also this book, though narrowly focused, should stand as a guide alerting us to how thoroughly the Gandhi propagandists and others have succeeded in deceiving us.

Gandhi lived in South Africa from 1893 to 1914, where he designed and perfected his techniques of Satyagraha. But to date, no one has asked the critical question about the genesis of Satyagraha, and only a handful of scholars have delved into the murky areas of Gandhi’s “relationship” with black people. Similarly, only a few scholars have cast a critical eye on Gandhi’s life in India from 1915 to his death in 1948. During this time he gained worldwide prestige, and yet nobody asked. What personal attitudes did his politics belie regarding the British, other whites, and India’s own Untouchables? Did Gandhi truly believe in abolishing the caste system, as the rest of the world has been led to believe?

GANDHI: BEHIND THE MASK OF DIVINITY is the first investigative book to analyze the Mahatma’s own writings. In this highly critical, intriguing, and provocative investigation, Singh presents the personal side of Gandhi often underrepresented by the vast majority of Gandhian literature. Readers will find particularly interesting the case of William Francis Doherty, a white American whose murder at the hands of Gandhi’s followers was subsequently covered up by Gandhi himself. What does this say about Gandhi the man, and what does it mean for our modern understanding of his beliefs? Naturally, a critical analysis of Gandhi’s life has implications for our understanding of modern India, a Hindu state that has already manufactured nuclear weapons and will likely produce more. Why are the followers of “nonviolent” Gandhi bent upon manufacturing weapons of mass destruction, in addition to building huge military and paramilitary forces? The while tenor of contemporary Indian military strategy seems not to correspond to the prevalent depiction of Gandhian philosophy. The post-September 11 world is radically different, and it compels is to critically investigate India’s politics, its leaders, and their brand of ideology – starting with the ideas of the man who led India to modern statehood.

About the Author: Col. G.B. Singh, a career military officer, is a professional student of Indian politics, Hinduism, and the life and teachings of Gandhi. Gandhi: Behind the Mask of Divinity, By G. B. Singh Reviewed by Baldev Singh

“Truth comes out breaking the walls of a fortress” is a Punjabi saying. For the lovers of truth G. B. Singh has exploded the Gandhi myth – apostle of peace, emancipator of untouchables and liberator of India by peaceful means from the British yoke – by publishing his labor of love, Gandhi: Behind the Mask of Divinity. G. B.

Singh studied Gandhi for over twenty years collecting Gandhi’s speeches, writings and other documents, which the promoters of Gandhi left out intentionally to create a twentieth century messiah by fusing Jesus Christ and Vishnu. The oppressors – the proponents of colonialism, slavery, racism and casteism – have imposed their own version of history on the victims through manipulation, deception and hypocrisy. For example there is holocaust museum in the capital of United States in the memory of six million Jews who fell victim to the atrocities of Nazis in World War II. It is commendable and such museums should be built in every capital in the world to remind people of the heinous crimes of the Nazis. But why not a museum about the genocide of native Americans or a museum about slavery in the capital of United States?

It takes moral courage to look into the face of truth! In order to avoid the obligation to intervene in Rwanda, the Western powers led by President Clinton put pressure on the United Nations Security Council not to characterize the mass murder of Tootsies as genocide.

The making of Gandhi myth stared in South Africa by white Christian clergy. Rev. Joseph J. Doke, a Baptist Minster was the first to write the biography of M. K. Gandhi. Soon many other European and American clergymen and writers rushed in to make their input. John H. Holmes, a Unitarian pastor from New York praised Gandhi in his writings and sermons with titles like: Gandhi: The Modern Christ, Mahatma Gandhi: The Greatest Man since Jesus Christ, Mahatma Ji: Reincarnation of Christ and Gandhi before Pilate. Romain Rolland, French Nobel Laureate in literature looked at Gandhi not only as a Hindu saint, but also another Christ. He wrote Gandhi’s new biography in French. The English translation of this book opens with: He is the One Luminous, Creator of All, Mahatma. Impressed with lavish propaganda about Gandhi in the West, the Hindu propaganda machine came into action and it churned out a plethora of literature to elevate Gandhi to the status of twentieth century Hindu god – “The seventh reincarnation of Vishnu, Lord Rama,”proclaimed Krishnalal Shridharni. Portraits of Gandhi depicted him as Hindu avatar and Christian saint. The Indian government under Prime Minister Indra Gandhi financed one-third the cost of the production of the movie “Gandhi” for the portrayal of Gandhi as “an absolute pacifist.”

The Christian clergy had an ulterior motive in building the Gandhi myth. They thought that by elevating Gandhi to a 20th century messiah and then converting him would open the flood gate for evangelizing Hindu masses. Little did they realize that Gandhi hoodwinked them with his insincere statements about Christianity? He was a die-hard Hindu, a true believer and defender of the caste order – the essence of Hinduism?

Gandhi apologists indulged in gross deception by claiming that Gandhi’s Satyagrah in South Africa was in the defense of the rights of native people. Nothing could be further from truth than this bald lie. How could Gandhi, a diehard supporter of the caste system think of the welfare of African blacks he regarded lower than the Untouchables of India – slightly above the animal level? His Satyagrah was for the better treatment of Indians, who, according to Gandhi were treated the same way as savage Kaffirs (native people) were. In his stay of twenty years in South Africa, he had no social contacts with the Kaffirs, as he did not see any common ground with them in the daily affairs of life. He was horrified when he was lodged with “natives” in the same jail ward.

| PAKISTAN LEDGER | ???????? ????? | Moin Ansari | ???? ??????? | DefensebriefsIntellibriefs Translate to: RSS feed: | RUPEE NEWS | March 8th, 2008 | Moin Ansari | ???? ??????? |
????? ????? |

He did not like wearing the same clothes with label “N” born by the natives, nor he liked their food and sharing lavatory with them. It was the jail experience, which brought out his racism in the open. ” Kaffirs and Chinese prisoners are wild, murderous and given to immoral ways. Kaffirs are as a general rule uncivilized – the convicts even more so. They are troublesome, very dirty and live almost like animal.”

He proclaimed that the British Empire was for the welfare of the whole world and he accepted the superiority and predominance of white race. But he reminded the white people that upper caste Indians share with the Europeans a common heritage – the blood of the noble Aryan race. According to him it is Aryan blood, which is responsible for the advancement of human civilization. He suggested to Rev, Doke to civilize the N*****by converting them to Christianity and by infusing Aryan blood into their race. He told the white colonists that the preservation of racial purity (Apartheid) was as important to the Indians as to Europeans.

He urged the colonial authorities to raise a volunteer militia of Indians to fight for the Empire. He told the Natal authorities that it would be a “criminal folly” if they did not enlist Indians for the war. He was rebuffed with sarcastic and derogatory comments about the fighting ability of people like Gandhi. However, his persistence persuaded the authorities to form a volunteer ambulance corps of Indians under the command of Sergeant-Major Gandhi during the Boer War and Zulu Rebellion. He urged the Indian community to show their loyalty to the British Empire by raising funds for the War. He reminded them that they were in South Africa due to the courtesy of the Empire. It is not for us to judge whether the N*****revolt is justified or not. We are co-colonists with whites of this land whereas the black savages are as yet unfit to participate in the political affairs of the colony.

He was a mean spirited parochial Hindu. Sergeant- Major Gandhi selected only Gujrati Hindus as his assistants, three Sergeants and one Corporal in spite of the fact the ambulance corps (20-24 men) was made up mostly of non-Gujratis with substantial number of Muslims.

The Russian Revolution of 1914 spurted national movements against colonial rule. The British brought Gandhi back to India to sabotage Indian national movement against British rule. The congress Party dominated by Gandhi was set up under the patronage of the British authorities. The “apostle of peace” urged the Indian people to support the British by enlisting in the army during World War I. In his letter he wrote to the Viceroy in1930, he said, ” One of his reason for launching the Civil Disobedient Movement is to contain the violence of revolutionaries.”

On the advice of white promoters of Gandhi, black clergy and civil rights leaders traveled to India to seek Gandhi’s advice about solving the problem of segregation and civil rights of blacks. How little did they know that Gandhi regarded the black people slightly above the animal level? Moreover, they were ignorant of the fact that caste system was originally imposed, as racial discrimination (Varna Ashrama Dharma) similar to the Apartheid system, on the black natives of India by their Caucasian conquerors. But later on due to emergence of new racial groups due to miscegenation between the two groups, Varna Ashrama Dharma evolved into caste system tied to hereditary occupations. Untouchabilty is as integral a part of Hindu faith as anti- Semitism of the Nazis. It is noteworthy that not a single black leader met Dr. B. R. Ambedkar – M. A. and Ph.D. degrees from Columbia University, M.Sc. and D.Sc. degrees from London University and Bar-at-Law from Grey’s Inn, London – who was the undisputed leader of the Untouchables at that time. Gandhi propaganda machine manipulated the visit of black leaders, as it did not want them to find truth about Gandhi’s views on the caste system. “I believe in Varnashrama (caste system) which is the law of life. The law of Varna (color and / or caste) is nothing but the law of conservation of energy. Why should my son not be scavenger if I am one? He, Shudra (lowest caste) may not be called a Brahmin (uppermost caste), though he (Shudra) may have all the qualities of a Brahmin in this birth. And it is a good thing for him (Shudra) not to arrogate a Varna (caste) to which he is not born. It is a sign of true humility.”

In 1921, Gandhi delivered violent speeches inciting racial hatred against the British. During bloody demonstrations and riots against the visit of Prince of Wales, William Francis Doherty, an American citizen working in Bombay was murdered. Gandhi personally got involved in the cover up of this gruesome murder through bribery and intimidation, as he was concerned that the details of this murder would tarnish Gandhi’s image in the West.

It is a cruel joke and one of the biggest fabrications of the twentieth century that Gandhi won Indian freedom without spilling a drop of blood. The truth is that it was the devastating effect of World War II that forced the British government to dismantle its Colonial Empire. Moreover, it was Gandhi and his Hindu dominated Congress party that engineered the partition of the country on communal lines, as the Muslim dominant states stood in the way of high caste Hindus to set up their Ram Raj (mythical Hindu kingdom) based on caste ideology. Additionally, the Partition of India in 1947 is one of the major upheavals of the twentieth century. In the State of Punjab alone, 11-12 million people lost their homes and hearths where their ancestors had lived for centuries. May be as many as one million people perished in the communal frenzy and thousands of young women were kidnapped while Gandhi was reciting the murderous sermons from his favorite scripture – Bhagvad Gita. He kept insisting up to the last moment that the country would be partitioned only over his dead body!

The ascetic in loincloth used to sleep in buff with naked young girls to perform experiments to test his celibacy. Dr. Sushila Nayar told Ved Mehta that she used to sleep with Gandhi as she regarded him as a Hindu god. The man, who had taken vow of poverty, demanded and got even in jail the same comforts enjoyed by British high officials in India.

The “apostle of peace,” who counseled a Jewish delegation” to oppose the evil of Nazism by “soul force” – by committing mass suicide, was all praise for annexing Kashmir by armed aggression.

He told his Sikh followers that rusty sword is useless in the age of Atom Bomb. The development of nuclear weapons by India – a country that ranks among the poorest in the world and is near the bottom of human development index chart of the United Nations – exposes the real face of the “absolute pacifist” and the nation that calls him “father.” After all didn’t lord Krishna tell Arjana during the battle of Mahabharata “Victory is truth.”

Although, the Indian people have started peeking at the man behind the mask of divinity, there is no let up in the perpetuation of Gandhi myth in the West, especially the United States.

G. B. Singh rightfully deserves the accolades for bringing out the truth about Gandhi from Gandhi’s own mouth.

A Jewish philosopher, Martin Buber in his response (24 February 1939) reminded Gandhi of his own comments of 1922 on the matter of Indian rights: how Gandhi had “repeatedly said that I would have India become free even by violence rather than that she should remain in bondage.”

| PAKISTAN LEDGER | ???????? ????? | Moin Ansari | ???? ??????? | DefensebriefsIntellibriefs Translate to: RSS feed: | RUPEE NEWS | March 8th, 2008 | Moin Ansari | ???? ??????? |
????? ????? |

Desperate Housewives slept with Mohandas Gandhi

Share

David Koresh's Waco, Jim Jones Jonestown inspired by Gandhi's Hinduist ashrams

Share

Image via Wikipedia

The image of Mahatma Gandhi in his homespun loincloth – peering through his round wire glasses and leaning on two sari-clad women – is as fresh today as it was the day he was killed by an assassin’s bullet in 1948.

To the world he was the spiritual leader of India’s independence movement, a pioneer of non-violent resistance and father of the Indian nation.

He inspired civil rights movements everywhere – as well as today’s most charismatic political leaders, including Mandela and Obama.

Driven by desire? Gandhi with the two young women he used as his ‘walking sticks’

Gandhi: Naked Ambition claims that Gandhi, a London trained lawyer-turned-guru, was a ruthless cult leader who enslaved his followers with such bizarre sexual demands that it became difficult for many people to take him seriously, even during his own lifetime.

For more information please visit http://www.mohandasgandhi.wordpress.com

• Gandhis perverted ashrams prompted Jim Jones, David Koresh cults
• How Gandhi profited from collaborating with the British
• 109th US Congress condemns Mohandas Gandhi & his racism
• Gandhi on blacks and race relations
• Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi: He is the One Luminous, Creator of All

The book’s author, Jad Adams, even goes so far as to suggest that the Draconian practices instituted by this iconic figure in the ashrams he founded prompted the perverted 20th-century cults of Jim Jones in Jonestown, Guyana, and David Koresh in Waco, Texas – both of whom used their mesmeric sexual appeal to reduce their followers to almost slavish subjugation.

Though apparently frail and undernourished, like many ambitious men Gandhi was highly sexed – and wrote quite openly about the fact.

But it was the peculiar nature of the rigorous exercises he instigated to try to contain his huge appetites that many people considered so unacceptable.

Gandhi always said his obsession with sex started when he was married off at the age of 13 to a girl just one year older.

The son of a prime minister in the state of Porbandar, as a child Gandhi’s extreme fastidiousness was the only indication there was anything unusual about him.

An indifferent pupil – small, frail and afraid of ghosts, snakes and the dark – he despised his father for giving in to his own carnal urges and became determined to control his own.

From the outset, he claimed that he never wanted to get married – he was taken out of school for a year to prepare for the event, and thought it a total waste of money.

The Gandhi Page
Mohandas Gandhi’s Unmasked U.S. CONGRESSONAL RECORD CONDEMING GANDHI’S RACISM Sex life of Mohandas Gandhi, his failures and sexual perversion

The new revelations are made in Jad Adams’s book

But mainly he was concerned that he and his bride Kasturba, the daughter of the local mayor, were far too young – even though teenage marriage was by no means unusual.

For the rest of his life, Gandhi remained angry with his father for marrying him off while he was a child. In fact, he said that on his wedding night, he and Kasturba (affectionately called Ba) were far too shy to face each other.

Yet, having been told the facts of life by his brother’s wife, the couple seem to have had no trouble consummating their relationship.

Thereafter, Gandhi never tired of complaining that they had such an active sex life that there was no time for what he would have much preferred to do – which was to educate the illiterate Kasturba.

‘I am sure that, had my love for her been absolutely untainted by lust, she would be a learned lady today,’ he said.

But it was what happened on the night his father died that marked him forever.

Gandhi, then 16, left the sick old man’s bedside in order to rush home to make love to Kasturba and thereafter, he could never forgive himself for having been in the grip of lust when his father breathed his last.

To make matters worse, his wife was pregnant at the time – and the child did not survive – leaving Gandhi tortured by guilt.

By the time he went to London to study law in 1888, Gandhi had sworn a puritanical oath to touch neither wine nor meat, as well as women.

But in London his crankiness only increased.

GANDHI’s RACISM AGAINST BLACKS

Gandhi condones Zulu massacres and defends the British. Aug 4 1906

He soon fell under the influence of the Vegetarian Society and its wealthy president, Arnold Hills, who not only believed in a diet of raw vegetables and pulses, but also preached abstinence from sex even within marriage, except for the purpose of procreation.

Gandhi returned to India in 1891 as soon as he had been called to the Bar.

And despite his determination to stay away from the wife he hadn’t seen for three years, he was soon back in bed with her – and within a year their second son was born.

But it was when Gandhi went to Africa in 1893 – where he fought for the rights of Indian residents – that he really started to hone his philosophy.

When Kasturba joined him in his newly-founded ashram three years later, she was horrified at the harshness of the lifestyle he had adopted. Gandhi’s asceticism dictated that she could have no servants and must empty her own chamber pot.

He had learned to do his own laundry, cut his own hair – and even studied a childbirth manual so he could deliver their subsequent sons himself.

The myth of Mohandas K. Gandhi debunked. He gets an “F” on South Africa, Salt Match, Non-Violence, and nationalism
Which war did Mohandas Gandhi support? All of them. There wasn’t a war that the “prophet” of Non-Violence did not support. He was Sergeant Major in the British Army & won a medal for his combat service

Gandhi had become obsessed with chastity, as well as how to control his potent urges – and his experiments in self-restraint were quite extraordinary.

At his ashram, men and women were housed separately, yet he encouraged the young to bathe and sleep together.

‘I sent the boys reputed to be mischievous and the innocent young girls to bathe at the same time,’ he boasted, explaining carefully to them they were not to succumb to temptation. If ever they strayed, the vigilant Gandhi himself was present to adjudicate.

At bedtime, everyone slept together on the verandah with their beds just 3ft apart – and Gandhi in the middle. When nature got the better of them, he punished the girls by cutting off their long hair.

Gandhi’s racism. The truth behind the mask. Behold Sergeant Major Gandhi who supported the British in the Boer war, against the Zulu rebellion. Behold the prophet of peace who worked to stratify the South African society.
Gandhi extended the life of British Empire by helping UK wars

Gandhi’s letter to his friend Hitler.

When one of his own sons strayed with someone else’s wife, Gandhi imposed a seven-day fast on him, saying: ‘If he dies in the process it will not be a matter for regret’.

By 1906, Gandhi had taken the Hindu vow of brahmacharya – chastity. At the age of 36, he was determined to be celibate.

Mahatma Gandhi took a vow of celibacy at the age of 36

‘It is the duty of every thoughtful Indian not to marry,’ he said. ‘In case he is helpless in regard to marriage, he should abstain from sexual intercourse with his wife.’

When he finally returned to India in 1915, the rules at his new ashram were even more stringent. Gandhi no longer felt sex was permissible on any level – even for procreation.

His advice to husbands and wives was not to sleep in the same room – and, if they felt an urge, to take a cold bath.

But while he insisted on other people sticking to his Draconian rules, Gandhi didn’t always observe them himself.

Despite his frail appearance he was an attractive man, according to one woman who lost her heart to him.

Gandhi sex life deviant sexual perversion, and political failures Is India a failed state? Peek behind the Bollywood gloss!
Chilled Urine drinking hot in India. Gandhi to PM Desai to common man
India: A gift from the Hindu Gods:Cows Urine: UK Telegraph report by Julian West

‘I caught a glimpse of him in the midst of silks and brocades, frills and sparkling jewels. He was dressed in a coarse khaki (handspun) dhoti and looked like a small-time tailor who had wandered in by mistake . . . He became my father, my mother, my boyfriend, my girlfriend, my daughter, my son, my teacher, my guru.’

Women of all sorts flung themselves at him, and some became important to him. In middle life, he fell for Saraladevi Choudhurani, a Bengali nationalist activist, and his attraction to her was such that he even confessed that he was toying with breaking his own rules.

Saraladevi provided the intellectual companionship his wife never could – and he wrote to a friend calling her ‘my spiritual wife’.

Gandhi wrote many affectionate letters to Danish missionary Esther Faering

The couple were so close that whenever she visited the ashram terrible jealousies were aroused. The other women criticised the time he spent alone with her and how she was allowed off the most distasteful chores.

In the end, it was Gandhi who ended the relationship – but there were other women, including the Danish missionary Esther Faering to whom he wrote many affectionate letters and the English admiral’s daughter Madeleine Slade, who took the name of Mirabehn, and waited on him hand and foot.

Although he proclaimed his abstinence, he still managed to be extremely intimate with many of his women.

Despite the diet of fruit and nuts that he believed reduced his sexual urges, he was habitually constipated and would spend hours in the bathroom, feeling no shame in encouraging them to come and visit him during his sessions on the commode.

• Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi: A Reevaluation of his failures, misdeeds and sexual antics
• Mr. Gandhi’s dirty little secrets
• Mohandas K. Gandhi was a bigoted racist
• Why India’s Dalits hate Mohandas Gandhi?
• Does fake non-Violence work? Gandhi vs. Bose in South Asia
• Mohandas Gandhi Unmasked:-The truth about the naked fakir
• The wives that slept with Mohandas Gandhi
• Gandhi on blacks and race relations
• Gandhis perverted ashrams prompted Jim Jones, David Koresh cults
• 109th US Congress condemns Mohandas Gandhi & his racism

Afterwards, they would massage him with mustard oil and lime juice while he lay naked before them.

By 1936, Gandhi was already so venerable that everyone called him Bapu – Father. By then it had become his habit to take walks leaning on two girls, usually a pair named Abha and Sushila, whom he referred to as his walking sticks.

His first question to them each morning was always: ‘Have you had a good bowel movement this morning, sisters?’

The teenage Abha was married to his great-nephew. Gandhi admitted that it was very dangerous sleeping close to her without wanting sex – but also conceded that it was a ‘very worthwhile experiment’.

As for Sushila, he had known her since she was six when she had sat on his lap and he had asked her mother to gift the girl to him.

After taking a medical degree, Sushila returned to the ashram – and became his personal physician. Gandhi often slept in the same bed as her, but Sushila admitted that ‘there was nothing special about sleeping next to Bapu . . . I used to sleep with him just as I would with my mother’.

She elaborated: ‘He might say: “My back aches, put some pressure on it.” So I might put some pressure on it or lie down on his back and he might just go to sleep.’ She confirmed that this was not part of the chastity experiment, but more of a natural cure.

Despite the way it looked to other people, none of this seemed like self-indulgence to Gandhi, who followed each of his obsessions with the same religious ardour: He never spoke on Mondays, which were designated silent days.

And he clung to his limited diet, too, even though it was taking a terrible toll on his physique and all his teeth were falling out. If he fell

ill, he pushed himself to fast more – and insisted that his children and wife do the same, even when they were so weak they seemed on the point of death. In many ways it’s astonishing that they all survived.

Gandhi (far left) also developed a relationship with Madeleine Slade (right)

Disgusted by his innate lust, Gandhi would try to distance himself from the women – but he was soon sleeping next to them again – and, what’s more, blaming his surrender on them. ‘I could not bear the tears of Sushila,’ he said.

In September 1938, to counter their criticism, he wrote a circular letter to all the girls explaining the innocent procedure that he implemented when he took a bath with Sushila.

The Gandhi Page

Why Mohandas Gandhi didn’t win the Nobel Peace prize?

Congress of the United States of America Condems Mohandas Gandi’s racism & his bigoted writings Did Martin Luther King know about Gandhi’s racism?
GANDHI’s RACISM AGAINST BLACKS

‘While she is bathing, I keep my eyes tightly shut,’ he maintained. ‘I do not know the manner of her bathing, whether she bathes naked or with her underwear on. I can tell from the sound that she uses soap. I have seen no part of her body that everyone here will not have seen.’

Incredibly, the long-suffering Kasturba seems to have taken all this in good part, though relations with his sons became more and more strained.

Gandhi had long had an indifference to his children because they were the product of his despised sex life – and when they, in turn, became sexual beings themselves, he was revulsed.

Understandably, they did not respond well – and his alcoholic eldest son went so far as to use brothels openly in order to humiliate his father.

Seargnt Major GandhiGandhi condones Zulu massacres and defends the British. Aug 4 1906

The myth of Mohandas K. Gandhi debunked. He gets an “F” on South Africa, Salt Match, Non-Violence, and nationalism

Which war did Mohandas Gandhi support? All of them. There wasn’t a war that the “prophet” of Non-Violence did not support. He was Sergeant Major in the British Army & won a medal for his combat service Gandhi’s racism. The truth behind the mask. Behold Sergeant Major Gandhi who supported the British in the Boer war, against the Zulu rebellion. Behold the prophet of peace who worked to stratify the South African society.

When Kasturba died in Gandhi’s arms in 1944, following more than 60 years of married life, the old man was moved to even more extreme experiments of his form of chastity – which became a source of great concern to those who were looking to him for political guidance.

‘I deliberately want to become a eunuch mentally,’ he explained to them – as he started sharing his bed with his friends’ wives.

Why was Gandhi not given the Nobel Peace prize> Does Fake “Non-Violence” work? Bose vs. Gandhi in South Asia

At this point it seems that he might have resumed some of the more perverse sexual experiments he had tried with Kasturba, in which he deliberately put himself into increasingly arousing situations to prove mind over matter.

Whenever anyone criticised him, he would defend himself saying that to give up his habits now would be to admit that his whole life had been a failure.

As he reiterated again and again, there was no difficulty in an impotent man staying away from women – the trick was for one with powerful sexual urges to resist them.

To make things even more tempting – and his self-control therefore that much more of a triumph – he took a much younger woman to his bed, spurning the faithful Sushila who was utterly distraught to find herself banished from his side.

The new girl was Manu Gandhi, his great niece, who had been cared for by Kasturba when she lost her own mother.

Gandhi wrote to Manu, saying his ambition for her was that she should remain a virgin till the end of her life.

‘We may both be killed by the Muslims at any time and must put our purity to the ultimate test so we know we should be offering the purest of sacrifices and so we should now both start sleeping naked.’

He was sleeping with her in the nude – and the rather more reluctant Abha (who insisted on keeping her clothes on) – till the end. In fact, the devoted pair were walking either side of him when the assassin’s bullet – fired by a Hindu – finally shot him dead.

• Gandhi: Naked Ambition by Jad Adams is published by Quercus at £20. To order a copy for £18 (p&p free), call 0845 155 0720.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1264952/A-new-book-reveals-Gandhi-tortured-young-women-worshipped-shared-bed.html#ixzz0ko5SVi1T

Gandhi extended the life of British Empire by helping UK wars

Gandhi’s letter to his friend Hitler.
Gandhi sex life deviant sexual perversion, and political failures

David Koresh's Waco, Jim Jones Jonestown inspired by Gandhi's Hinduist ashrams

Share

Why Gandhi didn't win the Nobel Peace Prize?

Share

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

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.

Why Gandhi didn't win the Nobel Peace Prize?

Share

Dr. G.B. Singh exposes rotten side of Gandhi

Share

Gandhi’s racism: The truth behind the mask. Behold Sergeant-Major Gandhi who supported the British during the Boer War and Zulu Rebellion. Behold the prophet of peace who worked to stratify the society in South Africa, Whites, Indians and Blacks based on the Hindu Caste system. Behold the “Enlightened One” that supported the British effort in World War one, and packed off thousands to the war effort to be used as cannon-fodder. Behold the pacifist that sent thousands to kill millions. Behold the “mahatma” that supported the British in World War 2 and encouraged the Indians to support the British war, thus perpetuating the colonial rule in the Subcontinent and supporting the Empire.

A plethora of information is now coming out of many sources shedding light on the life of Mr. Gandhi and his support for the British war machine, his disdain for the Africans in South Africa and his advice to invade Kashmir, and his suggestion to the Sikhs to not let their swords rust is contrary to the image of the pervert marketed in the West.

• Sex life of Mohandas Gandhi, his failures and sexual perversion
• 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
• The myth of Mohandas K. Gandhi debunked. He gets an “F” on South Africa, Salt Match, Non-Violence, and independence

Behold the “Enlightened One” that supported the British effort in World War one, and packed off thousands to the war effort to be used as cannon-fodder. Behold the pacifist that sent thousands to kill millions. Behold the “Mahatma” that supported the British in World War 2 and encouraged the Indians to support the British war, thus perpetuating the colonial rule in the Subcontinent and supporting the Empire.

The Nobel Prize rejected the Gandhi nomination because of this war mongering. Why Mohandas Gandhi didn’t win the Nobel Peace prize?

• 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.“
• 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)
• sharp turns in his policies, which can hardly be satisfactorily explained by his followers. (…) He is a freedom fighter and a dictator. Professor Jacob Worm-Müller, who wrote a report on Gandhi
• he Nobel Committee adviser referred to … 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.

Behold the “apostle of peace,” who counseled a Jewish delegation” to oppose the evil of Nazism by “soul force” – by committing mass suicide, was all praise for annexing Kashmir by armed aggression.

Behold Sergeant-Major Gandhi who supported the British during the Boer War and Zulu Rebellion. Behold the “ahimsa” racist who did not support the Africans in their efforts to get freedoms from the British.

Behold the prophet of peace who worked to stratify the society in South Africa, Whites, Indians and Blacks based on the Hindu Caste system.

Over the years I have discussed Gandhi with many Americans, both formally and informally. . . .What continues to irk me is the amount of Gandhi “propaganda material” that has flooded our libraries and bookstores. For an unsuspecting Westerner, the reading of Gandhi as he is portrayed on these shelves can bring about the intended result. That is understandable. This book is an attempt to close the gap between the popularized Gandhi and the historical Gandhi. This book will incite readers to be more open-minded and to seek to validate the “truths” presented. My hope is that it will provoke honest, healthy, and open dialogue and foster more critical scrutiny about him. . . .

GANDHI ON NON-VIOLENCE

During a prayer speech: “If we had the atom bomb, we would have used it against
the British.” – June 16, 1947 (Reference: Gandhi’s “The Last Phase”, Vol II, p. 326)

To the British during WWII: “This manslaughter must be stopped. You are losing; if
you persist, it will only result in greater bloodshed. Hitler is not a bad man.”(Reference: G.D. Birla’s “In the Shadow of the Mahatma”, p. 276)

GANDHI ON BLACKS AND RACE RELATIONS

“A general belief seems to prevail in the colony that the Indians are little better, if at all, than the savages or natives of Africa. Even the children are taught to believe in that manner, with the result that the Indian is being dragged down to
the position of a raw Kaffir.” (Reference: The Collected Works of Mahatma Gandhi, Government of India (CWMG), Vol I, p. 150)

Regarding forcible registration with the state of blacks: “One can understand the necessity for registration of Kaffirs who will not work.” (Reference: CWMG, Vol I, p. 105)

“Why, of all places in Johannesburg, the Indian Location should be chosen for dumping down all the Kaffirs of the town passes my comprehension…the Town Council must withdraw the Kaffirs from the Location.” (Reference: CWMG, Vol I, pp. 244-245)

His description of black inmates: “Only a degree removed from the animal.” Also, “Kaffirs are as a rule uncivilized – the convicts even more so. They are troublesome,
very dirty and live almost like animals.” – Mar. 7, 1908 (Reference: CWMG, Vol VIII, pp. 135-136)

The Durban Post Office
One of Gandhi’s major “achievements” in South Africa was to promote racial segregation by refusing to share a post office door with the black natives.

Sergeant Major Gandhi
Learn how Gandhi became a Sgt. Major in the British Army and eagerly participated in the 1906 British war against the black Zulus.

Gandhi and South African Blacks
Gandhi wrote extensively about his experiences with the blacks of South Africa. He always termed them “Kaffirs” and his writings reveal a deep-seated disdain for these African natives

You would have thought that since the blacks and the coloured people of South Africa were both at the receiving end of the Apartheid regime, they would share a degree of fellowship as comrades. In practice this was not entirely the case. There were some Indians who did join the black people’s struggle against white racism, but there were others who preferred to serve the Apartheid regime to suppress the black majority.

In fact, a special category was created for complicit Indians in South Africa’s notorious tricameral parliament, where they had no voting rights but were still considered a notch above the black majority, who continued to be denied the false cover of even that third-rate parliamentary system.

Offended by the inclination of so many Indians to join Pik Botha’s tricameral parliament a black South African composer wrote a song, which portrayed the country’s Indian population as abusing black people and being more racist than the whites.

A barrage of criticism led to Mbongeni Ngema’s song AmaNdiya – Zulu for Indians – being banned by South Africa’s radio stations and record shops. But it took a while before Nelson Mandela got Ngema to apologise for the lyrics. This anti-black syndrome is not peculiar to Indians. It affects other South Asian countries too, notably Pakistan. Dawn. A curry by another name By Jawed Naqvi Thursday, 04 Jun, 2009 | 07:58 AM PST

Years of dedicated research on Gandhi convinced me that our hero was fundamentally a racist. In this book, I present the facts. The evidence presented here is not a matter of speculation or distorted interpretation. Much of the irrefutable evidence lay buried beneath a mountain of Gandhi’s own writings – in his own words, which I have uncovered – comments that will be difficult to dispute once they are read. In this book you will read the evidence in its entirety. My primary intention is to untangle the web that Gandhi weaved – and his followers are still weaving – for many years. Only through a methodical probing can we expose Gandhi’s campaign of deception: the lies, the propaganda, the misinformation, the half-truths, and the efforts to hide behind religion. Where Gandhi left off, his followers have picked up, and they continue their own sophisticated campaigns, both in India and abroad. This book should not be looked upon as another Gandhi biography. Rather, it should provide a standard by which to weigh the Gandhian literature for accuracy and objectivity. Also this book, though narrowly focused, should stand as a guide alerting us to how thoroughly the Gandhi propagandists and others have succeeded in deceiving us.

Gandhi lived in South Africa from 1893 to 1914, where he designed and perfected his techniques of Satyagraha. But to date, no one has asked the critical question about the genesis of Satyagraha, and only a handful of scholars have delved into the murky areas of Gandhi’s “relationship” with black people. Similarly, only a few scholars have cast a critical eye on Gandhi’s life in India from 1915 to his death in 1948. During this time he gained worldwide prestige, and yet nobody asked. What personal attitudes did his politics belie regarding the British, other whites, and India’s own Untouchables? Did Gandhi truly believe in abolishing the caste system, as the rest of the world has been led to believe?

GANDHI: BEHIND THE MASK OF DIVINITY is the first investigative book to analyze the Mahatma’s own writings. In this highly critical, intriguing, and provocative investigation, Singh presents the personal side of Gandhi often underrepresented by the vast majority of Gandhian literature. Readers will find particularly interesting the case of William Francis Doherty, a white American whose murder at the hands of Gandhi’s followers was subsequently covered up by Gandhi himself. What does this say about Gandhi the man, and what does it mean for our modern understanding of his beliefs? Naturally, a critical analysis of Gandhi’s life has implications for our understanding of modern India, a Hindu state that has already manufactured nuclear weapons and will likely produce more. Why are the followers of “nonviolent” Gandhi bent upon manufacturing weapons of mass destruction, in addition to building huge military and paramilitary forces? The while tenor of contemporary Indian military strategy seems not to correspond to the prevalent depiction of Gandhian philosophy. The post-September 11 world is radically different, and it compels is to critically investigate India’s politics, its leaders, and their brand of ideology – starting with the ideas of the man who led India to modern statehood.

About the Author: Col. G.B. Singh, a career military officer, is a professional student of Indian politics, Hinduism, and the life and teachings of Gandhi. Gandhi: Behind the Mask of Divinity, By G. B. Singh Reviewed by Baldev Singh

“Truth comes out breaking the walls of a fortress” is a Punjabi saying. For the lovers of truth G. B. Singh has exploded the Gandhi myth – apostle of peace, emancipator of untouchables and liberator of India by peaceful means from the British yoke – by publishing his labor of love, Gandhi: Behind the Mask of Divinity. G. B.

Singh studied Gandhi for over twenty years collecting Gandhi’s speeches, writings and other documents, which the promoters of Gandhi left out intentionally to create a twentieth century messiah by fusing Jesus Christ and Vishnu. The oppressors – the proponents of colonialism, slavery, racism and casteism – have imposed their own version of history on the victims through manipulation, deception and hypocrisy. For example there is holocaust museum in the capital of United States in the memory of six million Jews who fell victim to the atrocities of Nazis in World War II. It is commendable and such museums should be built in every capital in the world to remind people of the heinous crimes of the Nazis. But why not a museum about the genocide of native Americans or a museum about slavery in the capital of United States?

It takes moral courage to look into the face of truth! In order to avoid the obligation to intervene in Rwanda, the Western powers led by President Clinton put pressure on the United Nations Security Council not to characterize the mass murder of Tootsies as genocide.

The making of Gandhi myth stared in South Africa by white Christian clergy. Rev. Joseph J. Doke, a Baptist Minster was the first to write the biography of M. K. Gandhi. Soon many other European and American clergymen and writers rushed in to make their input. John H. Holmes, a Unitarian pastor from New York praised Gandhi in his writings and sermons with titles like: Gandhi: The Modern Christ, Mahatma Gandhi: The Greatest Man since Jesus Christ, Mahatma Ji: Reincarnation of Christ and Gandhi before Pilate. Romain Rolland, French Nobel Laureate in literature looked at Gandhi not only as a Hindu saint, but also another Christ. He wrote Gandhi’s new biography in French. The English translation of this book opens with: He is the One Luminous, Creator of All, Mahatma. Impressed with lavish propaganda about Gandhi in the West, the Hindu propaganda machine came into action and it churned out a plethora of literature to elevate Gandhi to the status of twentieth century Hindu god – “The seventh reincarnation of Vishnu, Lord Rama,”proclaimed Krishnalal Shridharni. Portraits of Gandhi depicted him as Hindu avatar and Christian saint. The Indian government under Prime Minister Indra Gandhi financed one-third the cost of the production of the movie “Gandhi” for the portrayal of Gandhi as “an absolute pacifist.”

The Christian clergy had an ulterior motive in building the Gandhi myth. They thought that by elevating Gandhi to a 20th century messiah and then converting him would open the flood gate for evangelizing Hindu masses. Little did they realize that Gandhi hoodwinked them with his insincere statements about Christianity? He was a die-hard Hindu, a true believer and defender of the caste order – the essence of Hinduism?

Gandhi apologists indulged in gross deception by claiming that Gandhi’s Satyagrah in South Africa was in the defense of the rights of native people. Nothing could be further from truth than this bald lie. How could Gandhi, a diehard supporter of the caste system think of the welfare of African blacks he regarded lower than the Untouchables of India – slightly above the animal level? His Satyagrah was for the better treatment of Indians, who, according to Gandhi were treated the same way as savage Kaffirs (native people) were. In his stay of twenty years in South Africa, he had no social contacts with the Kaffirs, as he did not see any common ground with them in the daily affairs of life. He was horrified when he was lodged with “natives” in the same jail ward.

He did not like wearing the same clothes with label “N” born by the natives, nor he liked their food and sharing lavatory with them. It was the jail experience, which brought out his racism in the open. ” Kaffirs and Chinese prisoners are wild, murderous and given to immoral ways. Kaffirs are as a general rule uncivilized – the convicts even more so. They are troublesome, very dirty and live almost like animal.”

He proclaimed that the British Empire was for the welfare of the whole world and he accepted the superiority and predominance of white race. But he reminded the white people that upper caste Indians share with the Europeans a common heritage – the blood of the noble Aryan race. According to him it is Aryan blood, which is responsible for the advancement of human civilization. He suggested to Rev, Doke to civilize the N*****by converting them to Christianity and by infusing Aryan blood into their race. He told the white colonists that the preservation of racial purity (Apartheid) was as important to the Indians as to Europeans.

He urged the colonial authorities to raise a volunteer militia of Indians to fight for the Empire. He told the Natal authorities that it would be a “criminal folly” if they did not enlist Indians for the war. He was rebuffed with sarcastic and derogatory comments about the fighting ability of people like Gandhi. However, his persistence persuaded the authorities to form a volunteer ambulance corps of Indians under the command of Sergeant-Major Gandhi during the Boer War and Zulu Rebellion. He urged the Indian community to show their loyalty to the British Empire by raising funds for the War. He reminded them that they were in South Africa due to the courtesy of the Empire. It is not for us to judge whether the N*****revolt is justified or not. We are co-colonists with whites of this land whereas the black savages are as yet unfit to participate in the political affairs of the colony.

He was a mean spirited parochial Hindu. Sergeant- Major Gandhi selected only Gujrati Hindus as his assistants, three Sergeants and one Corporal in spite of the fact the ambulance corps (20-24 men) was made up mostly of non-Gujratis with substantial number of Muslims.

The Russian Revolution of 1914 spurted national movements against colonial rule. The British brought Gandhi back to India to sabotage Indian national movement against British rule. The congress Party dominated by Gandhi was set up under the patronage of the British authorities. The “apostle of peace” urged the Indian people to support the British by enlisting in the army during World War I. In his letter he wrote to the Viceroy in1930, he said, ” One of his reason for launching the Civil Disobedient Movement is to contain the violence of revolutionaries.”

On the advice of white promoters of Gandhi, black clergy and civil rights leaders traveled to India to seek Gandhi’s advice about solving the problem of segregation and civil rights of blacks. How little did they know that Gandhi regarded the black people slightly above the animal level? Moreover, they were ignorant of the fact that caste system was originally imposed, as racial discrimination (Varna Ashrama Dharma) similar to the Apartheid system, on the black natives of India by their Caucasian conquerors. But later on due to emergence of new racial groups due to miscegenation between the two groups, Varna Ashrama Dharma evolved into caste system tied to hereditary occupations. Untouchabilty is as integral a part of Hindu faith as anti- Semitism of the Nazis. It is noteworthy that not a single black leader met Dr. B. R. Ambedkar – M. A. and Ph.D. degrees from Columbia University, M.Sc. and D.Sc. degrees from London University and Bar-at-Law from Grey’s Inn, London – who was the undisputed leader of the Untouchables at that time. Gandhi propaganda machine manipulated the visit of black leaders, as it did not want them to find truth about Gandhi’s views on the caste system. “I believe in Varnashrama (caste system) which is the law of life. The law of Varna (color and / or caste) is nothing but the law of conservation of energy. Why should my son not be scavenger if I am one? He, Shudra (lowest caste) may not be called a Brahmin (uppermost caste), though he (Shudra) may have all the qualities of a Brahmin in this birth. And it is a good thing for him (Shudra) not to arrogate a Varna (caste) to which he is not born. It is a sign of true humility.”

In 1921, Gandhi delivered violent speeches inciting racial hatred against the British. During bloody demonstrations and riots against the visit of Prince of Wales, William Francis Doherty, an American citizen working in Bombay was murdered. Gandhi personally got involved in the cover up of this gruesome murder through bribery and intimidation, as he was concerned that the details of this murder would tarnish Gandhi’s image in the West.

It is a cruel joke and one of the biggest fabrications of the twentieth century that Gandhi won Indian freedom without spilling a drop of blood. The truth is that it was the devastating effect of World War II that forced the British government to dismantle its Colonial Empire. Moreover, it was Gandhi and his Hindu dominated Congress party that engineered the partition of the country on communal lines, as the Muslim dominant states stood in the way of high caste Hindus to set up their Ram Raj (mythical Hindu kingdom) based on caste ideology. Additionally, the Partition of India in 1947 is one of the major upheavals of the twentieth century. In the State of Punjab alone, 11-12 million people lost their homes and hearths where their ancestors had lived for centuries. May be as many as one million people perished in the communal frenzy and thousands of young women were kidnapped while Gandhi was reciting the murderous sermons from his favorite scripture – Bhagvad Gita. He kept insisting up to the last moment that the country would be partitioned only over his dead body!

The ascetic in loincloth used to sleep in buff with naked young girls to perform experiments to test his celibacy. Dr. Sushila Nayar told Ved Mehta that she used to sleep with Gandhi as she regarded him as a Hindu god. The man, who had taken vow of poverty, demanded and got even in jail the same comforts enjoyed by British high officials in India.

The “apostle of peace,” who counseled a Jewish delegation” to oppose the evil of Nazism by “soul force” – by committing mass suicide, was all praise for annexing Kashmir by armed aggression.

He told his Sikh followers that rusty sword is useless in the age of Atom Bomb. The development of nuclear weapons by India – a country that ranks among the poorest in the world and is near the bottom of human development index chart of the United Nations – exposes the real face of the “absolute pacifist” and the nation that calls him “father.” After all didn’t lord Krishna tell Arjana during the battle of Mahabharata “Victory is truth.”

Although, the Indian people have started peeking at the man behind the mask of divinity, there is no let up in the perpetuation of Gandhi myth in the West, especially the United States.

G. B. Singh rightfully deserves the accolades for bringing out the truth about Gandhi from Gandhi’s own mouth.

A Jewish philosopher, Martin Buber in his response (24 February 1939) reminded Gandhi of his own comments of 1922 on the matter of Indian rights: how Gandhi had “repeatedly said that I would have India become free even by violence rather than that she should remain in bondage.”

Dr. G.B. Singh exposes rotten side of Gandhi

Share

Gandhi wrote letters to his friend Hitler

Share

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]

• Prime Minister of Great Britian Lord Atlee: Gandhi’s role in UK decision to leave India was MINIMAL
• Sex Antics of Mohandas Gandhi: His Failures, Pedophilia, Adultery, Incest, Sexual Perversion & Fetishes

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.

• Sex life of Mohandas Gandhi, his failures and sexual perversion.
• The myth of Mohandas K. Gandhi debunked. He gets an “F” on South Africa, Salt Match, Non-Violence, and independence. Which war did Mohandas Gandhi support. All of them. There wasn’t a war that the prophet of Non-Violence did not support. He was Sergeant Major in the British Army and won a medal for his war duties.

Dr. King knew Gandhi’s racism?

• Gandhi condones Zulu massacres and defends the British. Aug 4 1906
• Which war did Mohandas Gandhi support? All of them. There wasn’t a war that the “prophet” of Non-Violence did not support. He was Sergeant Major in the British Army & won a medal for his combat service

Gandhi 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

• Banglore Billet: Indian Muslims And The Media By Nigar Ataulla.
• BJP and RSS age old tactics:
• False Flag: Low intensity events a Modi signal to unleash anti-Muslim pograms?
• Gujerat explodes in anti-Modi frenzy: India union in trouble
• Is India a Failed State? The chimera and the facts of slick marketing schemes by “India Inc.”

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

• 2008: Hindu fundamentalism on the rise in “India” funded by US Gujeratis.
• India: BJP or INC couldn’t tolerate a Dalit woman as PM-Mayawati
• India: Dalit Aparthied in plain site. World apathy is appaling!

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 wrote letters to his friend Hitler

Share

Gandhi participated in orgy of Zulu slaughter during Bambata Rebellion in South Africa

Share

Saregent Major Gandhi During the Boer War: Gandhi supported all British wars. Image via Wikipedia

Gandhi did not help the South Africans at all. He condoned the Zulu massacres, defended the killing of the innocent and defended the British in all their actions.

• The sex life of Mr. Gandhi, and his failures as a politician
• The myth of Mohandas K. Gandhi debunked. He gets an “F” on South Africa, Salt Match, Non-Violence, and independence
• Which war did Mohandas Gandhi support. All of them. There wasn’t a war that the prophet of Non-Violence did not support. He was Sergeant Major in the British Army and won a medal for his war duties
• Gandhi’s racism. The truth behind the mask. Behold Sergeant Major Gandhi who supported the British during the Boer war, Zulu rebellion. Behold the prophet of peace who worked to stratify the South African society.
• Gandhi did not bring the British Empire down.
• Gandhi’s letter to his friend Hitler.
• Sex life of Mohandas Gandhi, his failures and sexual perversion

His world view of the Africans was based upon the caste structure, where he saw the Indians above the Blacks and below the European. He tried his best to make sure tha the Indians were used against the Africans (Zulu, Kaffirs and others).

Gandhi joined in the orgy of Zulu slaughter when the Bambata Rebellion broke out. It is essential to discuss the background of the Bambata Rebellion, to place Gandhi’s Nazi war crime in its proper perspective.The Bambatta Rebellion–Background

The spiritual foundation of Nazism was the superiority of the Aryan race or its modern version, the Anglo-Saxon race. When Disraeli was Prime Minister, Britain enunciated a doctrine, like the Monroe Doctrine, warning other European powers that Africa would be a British preserve, and that from the Cape to the Limpopo, if not to Cairo, only white people would have local political power. Successive British Governments pursued this policy.

In the 1870s, the Zulu Kingdom was by far the most powerful African State of the Limpopo. Cetewayo, who succeeded his father in 1872, was an able and popular ruler. He united the kingdom and built up a most efficient army. He followed a policy of alliance with the British Colony of Natal. The Zulu Kingdom and the Boer Republic of the Transvaal had been feuding for a long time.

The Zulus were defeated twice by the Boers, in 1838 and 1840. By 1877 Cetewayo was ready to invade the Transvaal. But the British stepped in and annexed the Transvaal in 1877, only to prevent Cetewayo from doing it first and becoming powerful and a challenge to white supremacy.

Some contemporary reports throw light on the relative strength of the Zulus and their Boer enemies. Colonel A.W. Durnford wrote in a memorandum on July 5 (“The Secret History of South Africa” by Abercrombe. The Central News Agency Ltd., Johannesburg South Africa. 1951 p.6):

About this time (April 10th) Cetewayo had massed his forces in three corps on the borders, and would undoubtedly have swept the Transvaal, at least up to the Vaal River if not to Pretoria itself, had the country not been taken over by the English. In my opinion he would have cleared the country to Pretoria.

Shepstone, the British Administrator, himself wrote concerning the reality of the danger on Dec. 25 1877:

The Boers are still flying, and I think by this time there must be a belt of more than a hundred miles long and thirty broad in which, with three insignificant exceptions, there is nothing but absolute desolation. This will give some idea of the mischief which Cetewayo’s conduct has caused.(Ibid p.7).

The above facts explode the myth that the British protected the Zulus from the Boers.

British barbarity on Blacks: After annexing the Transvaal, Shepstone turned his attention to destroying all the independent African states in that region, particularly the Zulu Kingdom. Before annexation of the Transvaal, Shepstone sided with the Zulus in their border disputes with the Transvaal. After annexation he made a volte-face and used those disputes as excuses to invade Zululand. The British public was told that the Zulu War was to liberate the Zulu people from a tyrannical ruler, and South Africa from a menace to “Christianity and civilisation”.

In 1879, the British invaded the Zulu Kingdom and defeated Cetawayo. Then they started their complete subjugation. First the army was broken, thus destroying their ability to defend themselves. The country was then split into thirteen separate units under the nominal control of the chiefs, salaried by the Government. The white magistrates supplanted the chiefs as the most powerful men in their districts. Most important of all, the land was partitioned. Before the war, Shepstone had expressed the hope that Cetewayo’s warriors would be “changed to labourers working for wages”. It makes a sad story, how this was accomplished. In 1902-4, the Land Commission delineated a number of locations for the Zulus, and threw open the rest of the country to white settlement. Out of a total acreage of more than 12 million acres, the Africans held some 2 million acres. They numbered, at the lowest reckoning, over three hundred thousand. The Europeans, who were less than 20,000, owned most of the best land. A large proportion of the African population was forced to live upon land to which it had no legal claim. Where the Africans lived upon private or crown lands, they lived there entirely upon sufferance and without legal title. By this time, other independent African states in that region were also destroyed by the British army. Wheresoever, they marched, in Basutoland, Zululand or Bechuanaland, the Queen’s horses and the Queen’s men were like unto a “Salvation Army” ministering to the welfare of the colonists. The sufferers were the Africans.

Gandhi wrote in his Satyagraha in South Africa (p.15):

The Boers are simple, frank and religious. They settle in the midst of extensive farms. We can have no idea of the extent of these farms. A farm with us means generally an acre or two, and sometimes even less. In South Africa, a single farmer has hundreds or thousands of acres of land in his possession. He is not anxious to put all this under cultivation at once, and if any one argues with him he will say, `Let it lie fallow; lands which are now fallow will be cultivated by our children’.

Also in his Indian Opinion (March 15 1913), he wrote:

General Botha has thousands of acres of land … (there is) a big company in Natal which has hundreds of thousands of acres of land.

Thou shalt not steal but rob.

It did not seem to occur to Gandhi how these people came into possession of thousands of acres of land, whereas Africans were cooped in locations like chicken in pens.

Grabbing the land was not enough: it needed manpower to cultivate that land. The cry of the farmers was for labour. Naturally it found a favourite response from Shepstone, whose dream it was to convert Cetewayo’s warriors into labourers for white men. His native policy was to meet the demands of the European farmers. He agreed that Europeans could not expand or grow in wealth unless they could draw more fully upon the reservoirs of labour in the African reserves.

In the process of European colonisation, the swiftly expanding land-hungry Europeans turned the bulk of the African population into a proletariat. Due to the congestion and landlessness in the reserves, created deliberately by the white rulers, their agricultural return was not sufficient for bare existence. Then there were the taxes on huts, cattle and what not. On the other hand, working for white men did not provide them with adequate sustenance. In Natal, the sugar farmers of the coast relied upon the Indian indentured labour, whereas the stock farmers of the interior relied exclusively on Africans, and regarded the failure of Africans to work for them as a criminal offence. In a report to the Chief Commissioner of Police in 1903, the Police Inspector W.F. Fairley wrote:

“With regard to crime, the principal complaints made by Dutch farmers to patrols was of the refusal to work on the part of the natives.” (Department Reports 1903 p.67 cited “Reluctant Rebellion” by Marks p.17. Clarendon Press, Oxford 1970).

Complaints about the shortage of African labour were voiced in all parts of the country. The farmers were later joined by the mining industries. The most obvious change was the broadening of the economic base from being entirely agricultural to one in which mining played a more and more important part. Diamond, gold, coal became major industries, and with this development, the deeper involvement of the big finance houses, particularly Rothschilds. So the fate of the Africans as the source of cheap labour, and the fat dividends derived from mining by the British ruling class, became interlinked. This still continues in a modified form. Now it is Anglo-American corporations.

Cheap labour from India: Europeans assumed that Africans lived only to meet their requirements of cheap labour, and as such they had no right to establish themselves as self-sufficient and independent farmers because this conflicted with European interests. Famines in India facilitates the recruitment of indentured Indian labourers for white employers in the Colonies. It was no different in relation to Africans. In a Report of the Native Affairs Commission, (Native Affairs Commission Report 1939-40 cited “Oxford History of South Africa” p.182. Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1969) it was admitted that

“African reserves were regarded by whites as reservoirs of labour, and congestion, landlessness and crop failure were welcomed as stimulants to the labour supply”.

Similar situations among whites were viewed as national calamities. The Government lent millions of pounds to white farmers, gave them tax relief in times of famine, paid subsidies, facilitated the export of their produce, and wrote off their debts. But what about Africans? Famine would be rampant, crops ruined, food exhausted, thousands of Africans and their cattle would starve to death, but the government would not raise a finger.

The whites not only stole the land from the Africans, and used them as cheap labour, but also looked to them for revenue. They drew a relatively large and growing income from the Africans. “The Native population of Natal”, Shepstone admitted (“Imperial Factor” by De Kieweit p.193. Clarendon Press, Oxford 1970),

“contribute to the revenue annually a sum equal, at least, to that necessary to maintain the whole fixed establishment of the Colony for the government of the whites as well as themselves.”

Taxation is a financial measure to gather revenue to meet the expenditure of the state. But in South Africa it was used to reduce Africans to slavery. The sole motive behind the extra taxation imposed on Africans was to force the Africans to work on terms dictated by the whites.

Always there was resentment against any measure which would allow the Africans to settle in locations instead of keeping them as labourers. It was not only the farmers’ conferences, the press owned by the mining magnates joined the outcry of the farmers to enact special laws to compel the Africans to come out of their locations and work for the whites. The press was in the forefront to arouse the sentiments that Africans not in European service were necessarily living in idleness. Gandhi’s Indian Opinion played second fiddle to the white press in this respect. To Gandhi, the imposition of taxes upon the Africans to compel them to work for the white employers was “gentle persuasion”.

By a stroke of the pen, the major part of the available land was taken away from the Zulus and given to Europeans. Some of the dispossessed Zulus were allotted locations and others remained on the land of European landlords on sufferance. Bambata was one of these unfortunate chiefs. He became Chief in 1890 and he and his people were placed in private locations on very high rents. The land was useless for any agricultural purpose. To make things worse, the Boer farmers suspected Bambata of informing the British about their pro-Boer activities, and naturally they tried to victimise him and his people. But after the war, the British rulers leaned backwards and went out of their way to kiss and hug the Boers. So Bambata was caught in a cleft stick. By 1905 the tension between Bambata and his white landlords reached crisis point. The Assistant Magistrate of Greytown, H. Von Gerard, wrote to the Under Secretary of Native Affairs recommending the allocation of a location for his people. Gerard described how people were being oppressed and squeezed by the landlords, what useless land it was for agricultural purposes, and how summons after summons was being issued against people who were unable to pay high rents. Finally he remarked (“Reluctant Rebellion” by Marks. P.201):

A most desperate state of affairs, the more so as there seems no remedy for it….My sympathies with Bambata’s people…but I see no way out of the difficulty.

The military and civilian leaders of Natal were consciously developing a picture as if an uprising was imminent. Not that they could foresee one, but they wanted to foresee one because that would give them a golden opportunity to inflict severe punishments on Zulus who, according to the colonists, were growing insolent. They drew up a plan to deal with this imaginary uprising swiftly, and all agreed that was the way they could save not only Natal but North Africa from the “barbarities which only the savage mind can conceive.” (Ibid p. Xvii)

Zulu Revolt: But outside Natal, people were not so sure. Styne, President of the Orange Free State, called it “hysteria”. Smuts, Botha and Merriman expressed concern as to whether the whites of Natal would spur a rebellion. Some churchmen and many radical humanitarians in Natal, as well as England, produced volumes of irrefutable evidence proving that it was a conspiracy to goad the Zulus into rebellion and then massacre them. In this, Hariette Colenso, the famous daughter of a famous father, Bishop Colenso, made the most outstanding contribution. There was a cry of imminent native revolt in the press long before active rebellion broke out.

As far back as 1902, Lieu. G.A. Mills in his report (GH18/02. Cited “Reluctant Rebellion” p.158) to the Chief of Staff, Natal, on July 1 informed him:

Every Boer expresses the most bitter hatred of the Zulus. They all express a wish that the Zulus would rise now while the British troops are in the country so that they may be practically wiped out. The Boers all say that in the event of the rising, every one of them would join the British troops in order to have a chance of paying off old scores against the Zulus. When I first came here, I visited farms and asked the Boers what they thought of the advisability of keeping troops here. They all said it was most necessary, as they were afraid of the Kaffirs and it would not be safe to stay on their farms if the troops withdrew…. Taking everything into consideration, I cannot help being forced to the opinion that many Boers intend to provoke a Zulu rising if they can do so.

It was Colonel Mackenzie, the military supremo before the rebellion, who was prophesying a native uprising and cleaning the barrels of his guns to use the “golden opportunity” to inflict “the most drastic punishment” on leading natives he found guilty of treason, and to “instill a proper respect for the white man”. (C.O. 179/233/12460. Dispatch 9.3.06 cited “Reluctant Rebellion” p. 188).

On June 14, Charles Saunders, Chief Magistrate and Civil Commissioner in Zululand (1899-1909) wrote to C.J. Hignet, the magistrate of Nqutu (“Reluctant Rebellion” p.241):

I quite agree with your conclusions as to our men trying to goad the whole population into rebellion, and you have no idea of the difficulties we had in Nkandha in trying to protect people one knew perfectly well were faithful to us.

In his communication of July 10 1906 to the Prime Minister, (PM 61/15/66 Governor to PM 10.7.06) the Governor described the “sweeping actions and the mopping-up operations as continued slaughter. Fred Graham, a permanent civil servant in the Colonial Office, in his Minute of July 10, described it as “massacre”.

Nazism & racism: The most revealing was the long letter of July 24 1906 (CO 179/236/24787 minute 10-7-06) sent by the Anglican Archdeacon, Charles Johnson, from St. Augustine’s in Nqutu division, to the Society for the Propagation of the Gospels in London. He was a man of the British establishment and not known to have excessive zeal for standing up for the rights of the Africans. He wrote (cited “Reluctant Rebellion” p. 241):

Many thinking people have been asking themselves, what are we going to do with his teeming population? Some strong-handed men have thought the time was ripe for solving the great question. They knew that there was a general widespread spirit of disaffection among the natives of Natal, the Free State and the Transvaal, but specially in Natal, and they commenced the suppression of the rebellion in the fierce hope that the rebellion might so spread throughout the land and engender a war of practical extermination. I fully believe that they were imbued with the conviction that this was the only safe way of dealing with the native question, and they are greatly disappointed that the spirit of rebellion was not strong enough to bring more than a moiety of the native peoples under the influence of the rifle. Over and over again it was said, `They are only sitting on the fence, it shall be our endeavour to bring them over’; and again, speaking of the big chiefs, `We must endeavour to bring them in if possible! Yes, they have been honest and outspoken enough-the wish being father to the thought-they prophesied the rebellion would spread throughout South Africa; had they been true prophets, no doubt the necessity of solving the native question would have been solved for this generation at least.

John Merriman was a veteran Cape politician. He was one of those so-called liberals who accepted Nazism as a doctrine, or in other words Anglo-Saxon superiority, but regretted its consequent atrocities and thus fumigated their consciences. He wrote to Goldwin Smith (Merriman papers NHo. 202, 16.9.06 cited “Reluctant Rebellion” p.246) in September 1906:

We have had a horrible business in Natal with the natives. I suppose the whole truth will never be known, but enough comes out to make us see how thin the crust is that keeps our christian civilisation from the old-fashioned savagery machine-guns and modern rifles against knobsticks and assagais are heavy odds and do not add much to the glory of the superior race.

In the letter of the Archdeacon the expression “practical extermination”, and in a letter of Lieutenant Mills “practically wiped out”, have been used. This was what the German Nazis wanted to do to the Jews: to exterminate them. Does it make any difference whether the victims of racial slaughter are Jews or blacks?

Conspiracy to massacre Blacks: Gandhi was well aware of the conspiracy to massacre the Africans. When there was war hysteria in the colonial press, this prophet of non-violence did not apply his mind as to how to stop such a conflict. On the contrary, he did not want Indians to be left behind, but wanted them to take a full part in this genocide.

In his editorial in the Indian Opinion of Nov. 18 1905, long before the actual rebellion broke out, Gandhi complained that the Government simply did not wish to give Indians an opportunity of showing that they were as capable as any other community of taking their share in the defence of the colony. He suggested that a volunteer corps should be formed from colonial-born Indians, which would be useful in actual service.

Indentured Indians lived in conditions worse than slavery. Gandhi during his 20 years’ stay in South Africa, did not raise a finger to ease their sufferings. But he was quick to suggest using them as cannon fodder for racists against Africans.

In his Indian Opinion in Dec. 2 1905 he referred to Law 25 of 1875 which was specially passed to increase “the maximum strength of the volunteer force in the colony adding thereto a force of Indian immigrant volunteer infantry”. To assure the Europeans that such Indians would only kill Africans, he pointed out that “section 83 of the Militia Act states that no ordinary member of the coloured contingent shall be armed with weapons of precision, unless such contingent is called to operate against other than Europeans”.

Gandhi defends massacre: Many years later, he wrote (p.233) in his autobiography:

The Boer War had not brought home to me the horrors of war with anything like the vividness that the `rebellion’ did. This was no war but a man-hunt, not only in my opinion but also in that of many Englishmen with whom I had occasion to talk. To hear every morning reports of the soldiers’ rifles exploding like crackers in innocent hamlets, and to live in the midst of them, was a trial.

Then to justify his participation in this massacre, he went on (Autobiography p. 231):

I bore no grudge against the Zulus, they had harmed no Indian. I had doubts about the `rebellion’ itself, but I then believed that the British Empire existed for the welfare of the world. A genuine sense of loyalty prevented me from even wishing ill to the Empire. The righteness or otherwise of the `rebellion’ was therefore not likely to affect my decision.

What about the Nazi war criminals? Did they not have a genuine sense of loyalty to Hitler and Nazism?

In Great Britain another storm of protest was raised against the atrocities perpetrated in Natal. The only time Gandhi mentioned the Zulu suppression was on August 4 1906, when he wrote in his Indian Opinion:

A controversy is going on in England about what the Natal Army did during the Kaffir rebellion. The people here believe that the whites of Natal perpetrated great atrocities on the Kaffirs. In reply to such critics, the Star has pointed to the doings of the Imperial Army in Egypt. Those among the Egyptian rebels who had been captured were ordered to be flogged. The flogging was continued to the limits of the victim’s endurance; it took place in public and was watched by thousands of people. Those sentenced to death were also hanged at the same time. While those sentenced to death were hanging, the flogging of others was taken up. While the sentences were being executed, the relatives of the victims cried and wept until many of them swooned. If this is true, there is no reason why there should be such an outcry in England against Natal outrages.

One may notice that the article was very cleverly written. First Gandhi stated that people in England believed that the whites of Natal perpetrated great atrocities on Africans, as if he himself did not know what happened, and also gave the impression that it was the local Natal Army and not the Imperial Army which was involved in the atrocities, which is not true. Even at this stage, he was not willing to tell the simple truth, that atrocities were committed. Then he borrowed the description of hanging and flogging in Egypt from the Star as if he did not know about that either. Did or did not Gandhi know that those Egyptians were not common criminals to be flogged and hanged that they were the patriots, the flowers of the Egyptian nation?

If Gandhi unequivocally accepted or found out that the Imperial Army committed those atrocities, then he could not claim that he believed the British Empire existed for the welfare of mankind. The last and the vilest of all was the subtle suggestion that if the Imperial Army did what they were accused of doing, then there was no reason why there should be such an outcry in England against the Natal outrage. Why could this Imperialist-manufactured Mahatma not say clearly that both were crimes against humanity?

Source: http://www.trinicenter.com/WorldNews/ghandi4.htm

Gandhi participated in orgy of Zulu slaughter during Bambata Rebellion in South Africa

Share