The Image we carry
Oct 2002
Oxford Dictionary describes Gandhi as Mahatma (a great soul), country’s supreme political and spiritual leader…
After seeing Gandhi (1982 movie by Richard Attenborough) I turned a strong admirer of Gandhi. I saw his strength in being able to exercise immense control over himself, keep his emotions under check, presenting the image of a man who was in total control of himself; in mobilizing the masses and keeping them non-violent despite all injustice that may have been inflicted on them.
Only now, I learnt that many of us admire Gandhi primarily because we have been shown only that much of Gandhi, on purpose, as much suited those, who have been in power. It has served our main political party ‘Congress’ well to enhance the image of Gandhi beyond proportion and reap rich dividend in terms of votes from the masses by portraying that Congress was Gandhi’s legacy and Jawaharlal Nehru was Gandhi’s choice. It served well Nehru dynasty to rule India for half-century after British left. For politicians all are tools to climb the ladder, be it Gandhi or any one else.
Historical Facts, Suppressed on Purpose
“In September 1947, at the height of bloodbath of the Partition, Gandhi offered advice to Hindu and Sikh victims of West Punjab – the part that had gone to Pakistan. In response to desperate appeals for help to their kith and kin left behind by Hindu and Sikh refugees, Gandhi told them to pray.
Quote Gandhi: I advise them to remain calm. After all God is great. There is no place where God does not exist, meditate on Him and take His name; everything will be all right. They asked me what about those who still remain in Pakistan. I asked them [refugees] why they all come here [to Delhi]. Why did they not die there? … Even if our men [sic. Women and children also] are killed, why should we feel angry with anybody, you should realize that even if they are killed they have had a good and proper end. …I will advise you…should go there…and meet the Sikh and Hindu refugees, tell them politely to return to their places in Pakistan unaided either by the Police or the Military. Not one of those who died in Punjab is going to return. In the end we too have to go there. It is true they were murdered but then some others die of cholera or due to other causes. He who is born must die. Unquote Gandhi.
Such appeals coming from anyone but Gandhiji would have seemed extraordinary to say the least.
One also wonders why he did not advice the Muslims of India also to die with prayer on their lips without protection from the army or the police; in fact he went out of his way to force the Indian government to protect them.
It was not only Muslim lives he was concerned about protecting. When Hindu and Sikh refugees had taken temporary shelter in some abandoned mosques in Delhi, Gandhi insisted that they be evacuated. In January 1948, hundreds of refugee families – including women and children – were driven out of their makeshift shelters into cold winter rain and forced to spend their nights in the open.
There is much about the conduct of the Congress and its leaders that remains to be written. One hopes, a revisionist history of India, covering the period from about 1920 to the present will be written by scholars not beholden to the Congress Party or the Nehru-Gandhi family clique.
Gandhi did not see, or chose not to see that his moral relativism relieved the aggressors of all responsibility for their acts, while simultaneously removing the shied of self-protection from potential victims. Self-defense is the right of every living being. It is not easy to justify his stand on rational or humanistic grounds. The only alternative is to regard it as ‘revealed truth’ coming from the Prophet of Nonviolence. But this was a selective principle that applied only to the victims and not to the tormentors.” [Dr. NS Rajaram]
What do we Learn from this?
Why Gandhi valued the lives of people based on their religion? Hindu lives to him were of no consequence. Muslim lives were of value to him, to be protected. What signals had he been giving to Hindus? He was called Father of the Nation, and he seems to have regarded Hindus as his stepchildren and Muslims as his loved ones. Why this disparity?
Partiality, duplicity is not expected of someone of Gandhi’s stature. Besides, it is an injustice of a kind in itself. It is gross adharm. We may want to appear saintly by offering our lives but do we have the right to earn sainthood by offering the lives of masses in the manner he did or suggested?
More Historical Facts, Suppressed on Purpose
“History books in India, controlled by the Congress and the ‘Secularist’ establishment, rarely mention the Khilaafat disaster. As a result most Indians today have little idea of its enormous impact on modern Indian history. The Khilaafat movement fed Muslim separatism and fanaticism, which the British went on to exploit to the full. This was to lead eventually to the tragedy of the Partition [of India].
It [Khilaafat movement] was an agitation by Indian Muslims for the restoration of the Ottoman Sultan after Turkey’s defeat in the First World War.
Muslims outside India did not recognize the Sultan as Caliph. The Mongol Hulegu Khan (grandson of Genghis Khan 1162- 1227) had put an end to the Abbasid Caliphate in 1258. Following the sack of Baghdad, Hulegu had the last legitimate Caliph Al-Mustasim and his sons kicked to death by Mongolian horses. That was the end of Caliphate. The Turks themselves had no use for either the Sultan or the pseudo-Caliph. Led by Mustafa Kemal, they went on to abolish the Sultanate and exile the Sultan. His restoration, even had the British been prepared for it, had no takers in Turkey.
In the light of all this, the Indian Khilaafat movement for restoration of the Caliphate (and the Sultan), bordered on the preposterous. In spite of this well-known history, Gandhi and the Congress took the plunge to support the Khilaafat movement.
Gandhi’s first major campaign in support of the Khilaafat movement bears interesting similarities to the Fourth Crusade. The goal of the Crusades was to defend Christianity in the Holy Land. Even this cause was sacrificed in the Fourth Crusade when the Crusader armies sacked the Christian city of Constantinople. It was a case of political ambitions of the Crusader chiefs getting the better of the main goal of establishing Christian rule in Jerusalem. So the one state – the Byzantine Empire – that for centuries had stood as a bulwark against the expansion of Islam was severely weakened by the Fourth Crusade. After this disaster it was no longer in a position to check the Turkish expansion.
The Congress had declared full independence (Swaraaj) as its goal in the Amritsar session 1920; it was repeated at Naagpur the following year. But, the goal of Swaraaj, was sacrificed by Gandhi… The Swaraaj resolution was suspended in favor of the Khilaafat. Gandhi was unequivocal on this point asserting that support for the Khilaafat was more important than the Swaraaj. He declared:
Quote Gandhi: To the Mussalmaan Swaraaj (full independence) means, as it must, India’s ability to deal effectively with the Khilaafat question. …It is impossible not to sympathize with this attitude. …I would gladly ask for the postponement of the Swaraaj activity if we could advance the interest of the Khilaafat. Unquote Gandhi.
The results were catastrophic. In support of Khilaafat movement, Gandhi placed his authority and trusts in the hands of two unscrupulous Muslim clergymen/adventures – the notorious and fanatical Ali Brothers. He provided them also funds from the Tilak Swaraaj Fund.
They were even implicated in plans to invite the Aamir of Afghanistan to invade India in support of Islam. It is not commonly known that following the Jaliaanaawaala Bag massacre in 1919, guided by the Mullahs, Muslim masses in the villages of Punjab denounced British high handedness while simultaneously swearing loyalty to the Aamir of Afghanistan.
Apparently none of this shook Gandhi. He was willing to tolerate and even defend such conduct. This was to have lasting negative impact on the modern history of India. Through his support of the Khilaafat movement and sponsorship of religious leaders like the Ali Brothers, Gandhi gave legitimacy and respectability to the most reactionary elements of the Muslim community. It was a godsend for the Mullahs and Maulvees; Gandhi pulled them out of ghettos to which progress had consigned them, and gave them an honored place on the national scene.
His ultimate weapon of non-cooperation against the British was used for the first time not for Swaraaj, but the Khilaafat. He even returned his military honors and decorations as a gesture of his support to the Khilaafat. Not many Indians today know that Gandhi had served in the British Army in the South Africa as a non-commissioned officer. He had even supported the British in the First World War. (He was a recruiting sergeant though no longer on active duty). Gandhi had received several honors from the British for his service in the Boer War, including the prestigious Kaiser-e-Hind medal.
Quote Gandhi: In returning these decorations Gandhi declared: Valuable as these honors have been to me, I cannot wear them with an easy conscience so long as my Mussalmaan countrymen have to labor under the wrong done to their religious sentiment. Unquote Gandhi.
He did all this for the Khilaafat, placing his trust in the Ali Brothers – the Maulaanaa Shaukat Ali and Maulaanaa Mohammed Ali. The whole affair is murky, and the full details do not concern us here. What is important is that the Jihad – or an Islamic holy war – declared by the Ali Brothers against the British with the wholehearted support of Gandhi and the Congress failed to bring about the desired result.
The British crushed it. Now the fury of the Muslims – and the jihad – was turned against innocent Hindus. There were riots all over India instigated by the Mullahs. It was particularly virulent in Kerala where thousands were killed, women kidnapped and many Hindus forcibly converted. This is known as the Moplah Rebellion. It raged for several months before it could be put down. History books seldom mention it.
[Note: Oxford Dictionary describes Jihad as a holy war undertaken by Muslims against unbelievers (non-Muslims), a single-minded or obsessive campaign.]
The nationalism of Amritsar and Naagpur was hijacked by communalism, and it was not until 1929 that the Congress returned to the theme of Swaraaj. In the process, the communal poison had been injected doing irreparable damage to the nationalist cause. Much time had also been lost. Indian history books carefully leave out the Khilaafat fiasco, or if they present it at all it is presented as a unifier of Hindus and Muslims.
To make the matters worse, Maulaanaa Mohammed Ali, whom Gandhi had called ‘brother’, publicly humiliated him. He said that any Muslim regardless of his character was better than Gandhi because of his faith. His exact words were:
Quote Maulaanaa Mohammed Ali: However pure Mr. Gandhi’s character may be, he must appear to me from the point of view of religion inferior to any Mussalmaan, even though he be without any character. Yes, according to my religion and creed, I do hold an adulterous and fallen Mussalmaan to be better than Mr. Gandhi. Unquote Ali.
And yet Gandhi refused to condemn him or the violence – hard to understand in a man so passionately attached to nonviolence. But he was not always consistent with regard to nonviolence. When Swami Shraddhaanand was, assassinated by a Muslim fanatic, Gandhi referred to the assassin as his ‘brother’ and appealed to the Viceroy to pardon him!
And yet, when the great patriot Bhagat Singh was condemned to be hanged for killing a British, Gandhi called him ‘misguided’ and refused to sign an appeal signed by many other notable figures.” [Dr. NS Rajaram]
Sowing invisible Seeds of Separatism
Let us analyze the salient features of the Khilaafat movement.
Gandhi said: “To the Mussalmaan Swaraaj (full independence) means, as it must, India’s ability to deal effectively with the Khilaafat question. …It is impossible not to sympathize with this attitude. …I would gladly ask for the postponement of the Swaraaj activity if we could advance the interest of the Khilaafat.”
Gandhi had to make a choice: (a) Whether to mobilize Indian masses for attaining full independence from the British, or (b) Whether to mobilize the nation to reinstate the exiled Sultan of Turkey in Turkey.
Full independence from British was the realistic need of the nation disregard whether people of the nation were Hindu or Muslim. Indian Hindus and Indian Muslims both needed independence from the British.
Reinstatement of exiled Sultan of Turkey to the throne of Turkey was the sentimental need of Indian Muslims though Muslims of other countries were not agitating for it.
Gandhi made his choice on behalf of his nation. He gave his decision to the nation. He had the charisma to make the nation abide by his choice.
He did not choose for the nation what the nation needed. He chose for the nation what a section of people needed.
He favored the few and their unreasonable demand and sacrificed the entire nation’s interest to appease the few.
Oxford Dictionary describes him as the supreme political leader of the country and that is how the world has come to know him, rightly or wrongly.
Gandhi said: “In returning these decorations Gandhi declared: Valuable as these honors have been to me, I cannot wear them with an easy conscience so long as my Mussalmaan countrymen have to labor under the wrong done to their religious sentiment.”
Gandhi respected the religious sentiment of Indian Muslims. Indian Muslims wanted reinstatement of exiled Sultan of Turkey with which India had no ties except that some ancestors of Indian Muslims may have come from Turkey about thousand years ago to invade and loot India and they made India their occupied territory and decided to live here besides playing havoc on the lives of those who had already been living here.
At the same time Hindus’ religious sentiments were of no significant consequence to Gandhi. From time immemorial Hindus did not kill cow and did not eat beef. Islamic religious dictums do not prescribe that cow and cow alone must be slaughtered (some other animal could do), but cow slaughter had become symbolic to humiliating religious sentiments of Hindus since the very inception when Muslim invaders first made their way into Indian sub-continent. The tradition continued through thousand years of Islamic imperialism in India. By Gandhi’s time those days were over. There was no need to have continued that practice hurting Hindus. Gandhi himself was born as a Hindu and hopefully did not enjoy eating beef.
But then when Hindus wanted that cow slaughter must stop Gandhi (unwillingly) supported Muslims. Here he was not protecting Muslim religious sentiments because religion did not insist that Muslims must slaughter cow and cow alone. Hindu sentiments were being abused for thousand years. Gandhi agreed to let it continue for Hindu sentiments were not a threat to his popularity.
Thus, as for religious sentiments Gandhi chose duplicity: one treatment to Muslim religious sentiments and the other to Hindu religious sentiments.
Dr. N. S. Rajaram wrote: “When Swami Shraddhaanand was, assassinated by a Muslim fanatic, Gandhi referred to the assassin as his ‘brother’ and appealed to the Viceroy to pardon him! And yet, when the great patriot Bhagat Singh was condemned to be hanged for killing a British, Gandhi called him ‘misguided’ and refused to sign an appeal signed by many other notable figures.”
So we see that when Muslim assassins a Hindu Swami Gandhi calls him his ‘brother’ and appeals to Viceroy to pardon him. In doing so he upholds the following tenets of Islam because these ask Muslims to kill non-Muslims and it is religiously justified and honorable act in Islam. Gandhi discovered a brother in him because his religion asked him to kill a non-Muslim.
“Surely the worst beasts in God’s sight are the unbelievers. O ye who believe! Fight those of the unbelievers and let them find in you harshness. Humiliate the non-Muslims to such an extent that they surrender and pay tribute. Then, when the sacred months are drawn away, slay the idolaters wherever you find them, and take them and confine them, and lie in wait for them at every place of ambush.” [Quran 9.123,29,5]
“Make war on them until idolatry is no more and Allah’s religion reigns supreme.” [Qur’an 2:193 and 8:39]
“Those who follow Mohammed are merciless to the unbelievers but kind to one another.” [Qur’an 48:29]
“Enmity and hate shall reign between us until ye believe in Allah alone.” [Qur’an 60:4]
[Note: These quotes have been reproduced from the books written by Dr. N. S. Rajaram and Dr. Koenraad Elst]
We also see that when an acknowledged patriot of Bhagat Singh’s repute who happens to be a Hindu kills a British, such person in Gandhi’s view is essentially a misguided man and should be hanged.
[See the movie: Richard Attenborough, Gandhi, 1982. British were not angels. One of them had committed cold-blooded massacre of innocent old men, women, and children in their arms by closing the gate of the place [Jaliaanaawaala bag] and then by ordering police to start firing at unarmed people who had assembled there peacefully. There is exact count given in the movie of the number of bullets he poured into the bodies of helpless old and young men, women and children]
Here again we see Gandhi’s different scales for weighing Hindus and Muslims. What was the message he was giving to the Hindus?
Hindus who gave him their total loyalty, Hindus who gave him the title of Mahaatma (a great soul), what was Gandhi giving to them in return? Gandhi took Hindus for granted.
Let us look back at the earlier episode on value of Hindu Lives in comparison to Value of Muslim lives; it speaks of how he valued the lives of people based on their religion during partition of India in 1947.
What kind of invisible scars was he leaving on Hindu minds? Why was he sowing invisible seeds of separatism by such unequal treatment? Unfair treatment is in itself an injustice.
Duplicity is adharm. Dharm calls for equity.
Fairness and impartiality is what is sought from someone titled as a great soul and the supreme spiritual and political leader of the country. Saints have no place in national politics, they can only spoil it; what we need is people of integrity, and integrity does not include duplicity, though it may be saintly duplicity of Gandhi brand.
Legacy of the Father of the Nation
Let us proceed with other salient features Khilaafat movement.
Quote Maulaanaa Mohammed Ali: However pure Mr. Gandhi’s character may be, he must appear to me from the point of view of religion inferior to any Mussalmaan, even though he be without any character. Yes, according to my religion and creed, I do hold an adulterous and fallen Mussalmaan to be better than Mr. Gandhi. Unquote Ali. And yet Gandhi refused to condemn him or the violence – hard to understand in a man so passionately attached to nonviolence. [Dr. NS Rajaram]
Though I have once admired Gandhi, I cannot but ask myself few questions: Whom was he trying to pamper and to what end?
On the face of it, his commitment to nonviolence appeared to me an expression of his strength that arose from his selfcontrol. Now I wonder, was it actually a well-modulated expression of his gross cowardice, which may have led him to please the wrongdoer at any cost?
When he called Maulaanaa Mohammed Ali as his ‘brother’, who in turn called Gandhi worse than an adulterous fallen Mussalmaan – where was his self-respect? Or, had he none?
Gandhi was later called, as the Father of the Nation. If he were the father of the nation, the people of India would be his children. If that was the kind of self-respect the father had, what kind of self-respect could he possibly pass on to his children?
And if that kind of duplicity he had, always weighing Hindu and Muslim interests, their sentiments and their lives on different scales, thereby sowing the invisible seeds of separatism, what kind of character would he pass on to his children, the future politicians of the nation (he having been dubbed as the supreme one, refer Oxford Dictionary)?
From Jawaharlal Nehru onwards, have the politicians of India not shown the same kind of duplicity, consistently, only to woo Muslim votes? Have they not demonstrated the same kind of duplicity throughout under the cover of pseudosecularism?
Gandhi had shown them the way and they have glorified Gandhi, and using his name as the shield they continued his practices on a much wider scale.
When Gandhi called an assassin as his ‘brother’ what was he actually implying? Truly, he had called the assassin as his ‘brother’. For, he himself behaved like his assassin brother, in assassinating the self-respect and the uprightness of the people who had placed their blind trust in him. Gandhi’s saintly duplicity has done great harm to the nation that was later born as independent India.
Let us see what Dr. Rajaram says:
“Instead of liberating the dogmatic Islam and freeing the Muslims, [he] went on to shackle the Hindus by imprisoning them in a dogma of non-violence.
At the same time, this new dogma of non-violence had no takers amongst the Muslims who refused to yield an inch. This was appeasement pure and simple, and like all appeasements it failed.
This relieved the Muslim leadership of all responsibility by allowing them to set their own standards and rules; this was a heaven-sent opportunity for unscrupulous operators like the Ali Brothers who exploited it to the full.
Gandhi’s moral relativism derived from the fact that he allowed a different standard of behavior for Muslims because their religion sanctioned it.
…His version of Hinduism held that Hindus had to practice nonviolence no matter what the cost to them.
He also seemed to believe that he could get Muslims to reform by appeals to their own religion; repeated failures did nothing to change him. Shri Aurobindo was under no such illusion. He observed: Quote Shri Aurobindo: You can live amicably with a religion whose principle is toleration. But how is it possible to live with a religion whose principle is ‘I will not tolerate you’? How are you going to have unity with these people? Unquote Aurobindo.”
More of Suppressed Historical Facts
“In 1947, Gandhiji threatened fast forcing the Indian Government to release Rs. 55 Crores [Note: roughly US$ 5.5 billion in 2002 values] to Pakistan at a time when it was at war with India.
This money allowed Pakistan to equip its soldiers better while the Indian army was facing severe shortage in weapons and other equipment.
It might have helped Gandhiji enhance his reputation as a saint, but only at the cost of the lives of thousands of Indian soldiers and civilians.
One can only speculate as to what might have been the fate of a lesser mortal than Gandhiji, had he worked to transfer a large part of national treasury to a hostile country in a time of war.
These are some privileges of sainthood. It is enough to make one wonder whether the world is not better of with sinners than saints.” [Dr. NS Rajaram]
His Religious Beliefs
“A more penetrating analysis of Gandhi’s religious beliefs will probably never be written. Here then is a little known fact about Gandhi: he drew his inspiration not from ancient Indian sources, but the Bible and Western pacifists like Thoreau and Tolstoy. When we examine the list of references given at the end of his most important work (Hind Swaraaj = Indian Independence), we find not a single reference to any major Indian work.
Much is made of the fact that Nehru was a Westerner, a believer in Marx above all others. The fact is – so was Gandhi. His Hinduism was an idealized Christian world – at the one preached by Christian missionaries though seldom practiced by them.
Once he arrived at it, he went about re-interpreting the one Hindu scripture, which he probably read – the BhagavadGita – to accord with his view of the Hindu world. He turned the Gita into a gospel of nonviolence, distorting its central message. Krishn’s dynamic message that evil must be resisted was turned by Gandhi into a Sermon on the Mount, emphasizing that evil must be met with passivity. This became the central theme of his active life – even a dogma.
More seriously, where did Gandhi get his idea of love as the basis of religion, and nonviolence as a creed? Certainly not from pluralistic Hinduism, which permits different pathways, and recognizes that different circumstances call for different methods. The Gita exemplifies this plurality. The surprising answer is: Gandhi drew his inspiration not from Vedas and Vedanta, but the Christian exaltation of weakness, suffering and passivity. He took to heart Biblical statements like ‘The meek shall inherit the earth’ and ‘my strength is made perfect in weakness’.
Sri Aurobindo with his usual penetration saw through it. Writing in 1926 he observed: …Gandhi is a European – truly a Russian Christian in an Indian body. …When Europeans say that he is more Christian than many Christians (some even say he is ‘Christ of our times’) they are perfectly right. All his preaching is derived from Christianity, and though the grab is Indian the essential spirit is Christian. He may not be Christ, but in any rate he comes in continuation of the same impulsion in him. He is largely influenced by Tolstoy, the Bible and has a strong Jain tinge in his teachings, at any rate more than by the Indian scriptures – the Upanishads or the Gita, which he interprets in the light of his own ideas. Unquote Aurobindo.” [Dr. Rajaram]
The Mother Nature gave Gandhi a Hindu body! McCauley’s education system gave him the thought process. In McCauley own words: ‘We must at present do our best to form a class who may be interpreters between us and the millions whom we govern; a class of persons, Indians in blood and color, but English in taste, in opinions, in morals and in intellect.’
Retaining the essential flavors of McCauley’s education system, Gandhi wanted an identity beyond that, and also beyond Hinduism with which he had truly little contact. He chose to present Hinduism with a Christian flavor, thus, uprooting the soul of Hinduism. My great admiration for Gandhi died its natural death when other hidden face of Gandhi got exposed.
Was he not Glorified beyond Proportion?
“The depth of his conviction can be gauged from the following letter he addressed to the British people during the Second World War (1940), at a time when Britain was reeling under the Nazi air raids: Quote Gandhi: I appeal for cessation of hostilities…because war is bad in essence. You want to kill Nazism. Your soldiers are doing the same work of destruction as the Germans. …The only difference is that perhaps you are not as thorough as the Germans. …I venture to present you with a nobler and braver way, worthy of the bravest soldiers. I want you to fight Nazism without arms or…with nonviolent arms. I would like you to lay down the arms you have as being useless for saving you or humanity…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. You will give all these but not your souls nor your minds… Unquote Gandhi.” [Dr. Rajaram]
Gandhi and Marx had one thing in common. Both conceived utopian ideas, which appealed to the masses for their novelty. In the long run, when applied in practice, both failed miserably. For, they are against the very Nature itself, from which all this Creation originates.
Once having conceived their ideas, and having fallen blindly in love with them, both refused to see any other opposing possibilities that may even have stared at their face.
Marx misunderstood religion; he only saw its negative aspect and equated it with opium. He looked at Christianity and Islam to form his views about religion, perhaps! He did not realize that an enlightened religion could be liberating.
Gandhi misunderstood violence; he only saw its use by negative energies and equated it with an evil. He forgot there is something like self-defense, and it has its own needs for the mankind. He also forgot that there is something like self-respect, and it has its use for the humanity. He also forgot, most of all, Adharm, which must be resisted and neutralized.
He advised British: Invite Herr Hitler and Signor Mussolini to take what they want of the countries you call your possessions. What a wonderful idea. So long British ruled India now let Hitler and Mussolini do that!
How farsighted of Gandhi! How compassionate! What a brilliant Statesman, brilliant national leader and hero, whom Nehru further glorified as father of the Nation; this is one thing we must be cautious of, that we should not worship false gods.
Hindus glorified Gandhi beyond proportion. The result: it is the people who now pay the price. We keep paying the price until we wake up, shed our apathy and find ourselves ready to face the unpleasant truth. We can, nevertheless, continue to sleep as long as we wish to, but one day we have to wake up and may be it is too late by then.