Mahatma Gandhi's Muslim appeasement
sri venkat
and the Apostle of nonviolence, thought about this behavior of the
Muslims. In the 6th July, 1926, edition of the Navajivan, Gandhi wrote
that ?He would kiss the feet of the (Muslim) violator of the modesty
of a sister? (Mahatma Gandhi, D Keer, Popular Prakashan, p-473). Just
before the partition, both Hindu and Sikh women were being raped by
the Muslims in large numbers. Gandhi advised them that if a Muslim
expressed his desire to rape a Hindu or a Sikh lady, she should never
refuse him but cooperate with him. She should lie down like a dead
with her tongue in between her teeth. Thus the rapist Muslim will be
satisfied soon and sooner he leave her. (D Lapierre and L Collins,
Freedom at Midnight, Vikas, 1997, p-479)."
"A few months before the partition, when Hindu and Sikh refugees
started to come from West Punjab in droves and crowding the refugee
camps of Delhi, one day Gandhi visited a refugee camp and said,
“Hindus should never be angry against the Muslims even if the latter
might make up their minds to undo their (Hindus’) existence. If they
put all of us to the sword, we should court death bravely. … We are
destined to be born and die, then why need we feel gloomy over it?”
(speech delivered on April 6, 1947).
In a similar occasion he said, “The few gentlemen from Rawalpindi who
called upon me, asked me, “What about those who still remain in
Pakistan?” I asked, why they all came here (Delhi)? Why they did not
die there? I still hold on to the belief that we should stick to the
place where we happen to live, even if we are cruelly treated, and
even killed. Let us die if the people kill us, but we should die
bravely with the name of God on our tongue.” He also said, “Even if
our men 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” (speech delivered on November 23, 1947)
In this context, Gandhi also said, “If those killed have died bravely,
they have not lost anything but earned something. … They should not be
afraid of death. After all, the killers will be none other than our
Muslim brothers.” (Shri Nathuram Godse, Why I Assassinated Gandhi,
p-92,93; as quoted by Koenrad Elst in Gandhi versus Godse, Voice of
India, p-121). In another occasion when he was talking to a group of
refugees, said, “If all the Punjabis were to die to the last man
without killing (a single Muslim), Punjab will be immortal. Offer
yourselves as nonviolent willing sacrifices.” (Collins and Lapierre,
Freedom at Midnight, p-385). There is no doubt that if someone reads
all these utterances of Gandhi, he would take him either a fool or a
lunatic, but it is a shame that we are worshiping him as a Mahatma or
a Great Soul. "
------
Gandhi's Muslim Appeasement
http://jayshah.posterous.com/gandhis-muslim-appeasement
Those who do not learn from the past are condemned to relive it
Gandhi's Muslim Appeasement
It is now well known that Muslim appeasement was an inseparable part
of Gandhi's quack doctrine of Non-violence. But many do not know why
he, while he was in South Africa, adopted, or compelled to adopt this
dirty policy in 1908. At that time the South African government
imposed an unjust tax of £3 on every Indian living in South Africa and
Gandhi initiated talks with South African government on this matter.
But the Muslims did not support this move and were displeased with
Gandhi.
In addition to that Gandhi, in one occasion, made some critical
comments on Islam while he was speaking at a gathering. Furthermore,
he tried to make a comparative estimate of Hinduism, Islam and
Christianity, which made the Muslims furious.
A few days later, on 10th February 1908, a group of Muslims under the
leadership of a Pathan called Mir Alam entered Gandhi?s house and beat
him mercilessly. When Gandhi fell on the ground the Muslim attackers
kicked him right and left and beat him with sticks. They also
threatened to kill him. From this incident onward, Gandhi stopped to
make any critical comment on Muslims as well as on Islam. According to
Dr. B.R. Ambedkar, this incident was a milestone in Gandhi's life and
afterwards Gandhi began to over look even the most heinous crime
committed by the Muslims.
An example would help the reader to understand the matter. On 23rd
December 1926, a Muslim assassin called Abdul Rashid stabbed Swami
Shraddhananda to death, when the swami was ill and lying on his bed.
The reader may recall that Swami Shraddhananda was a pracharak (whole
time worker) of Arya Samaj and he started a Suddhai Yajna to bring the
converted Muslims of this country back to Hinduism. But his activity
was detested by the Muslims. A couple of months earlier a Muslim woman
came to the Swami and expressed her desire to return to Hinduism with
her children. However her husband brought an allegation of abduction
in the court of law against the Swami. But the court quashed the
allegation and set the Swami free. The incident turned the Muslims
extremely furious and within a few days Abdul Rashid assassinated him.
After a few days of this incident, Gandhi went to Gauhati to deliver
his speech at the national conference of Indian National Congress. The
atmosphere was depressed and gloomy due to unusual death of
Shraddhananda. But Gandhi made everyone dumbfounded and began his
speech by addressing the assassin Abdul Rashid as "Bhai Abdul Rashid".
Without caring for the reaction of the listeners, he continued, "Now
you will perhaps understand why I have called Abdul Rashid a brother,
and I repeat it. I do not even regard him as guilty of Swami's murder.
Guilty indeed are those who excited feeling of hatred against one
another."
Thus he indirectly held Swami Shraddhananda responsible for his
murder, as he was propagating hatred through his Suddhi Yajna.
Moreover, he wrote in the obituary note, "He (the Swami) lived a hero.
He died a hero." In other words, if a Hindu falls victim to the knife
of a Muslim's assassin, Hindus should consider it a heroic death.
It should be pointed out here that the said policy of Muslim
appeasement originated by Gandhi, under the garb of (pseudo)
secularism was responsible for the Partition of the country in 1947.
Many of our countrymen, still today, firmly believe that Gandhi was
against partition as in the public meetings, he used to say, ?Vivisect
me, before you vivisect India?. When he was saying this in public
meetings, he was expressing just the opposite view through his
writings. The reader may recall that, on March 26, 1940, the leaders
of the Muslim League raised the issue of creation of Pakistan as a
separate homeland for them. Hardly a couple of weeks later, supporting
demand, Gandhi wrote, ?Like other group of people in this country,
Muslims also have the right of self determination. We are living here
as a joint family and hence any member has the right to get
separated.? (Harijan, April 6, 1940). A couple of years later, he also
wrote, ?If majority of the Muslims of this country maintain that they
are a different nation and there is nothing common with the Hindus and
other communities, there is no force on the earth that can alter their
view. And if on that basis, they demand partition that must be carried
out. If Hindus dislike it, they may oppose it?, (Harijan, April 18,
1942).
The reader should also recall that the Congress Working Committee, in
its session on June 12, 1947, decided to place the partition issue to
be placed before the All India Congress Committee (AICC) for a debate
and the AICC approved the issue in its session held on June 14-15,
1947. In the beginning of the debate, veteran Congress leaders like
Purusottamdas Tandon, Govindaballav Panth, Chaitram Gidwani and Dr S
Kichlu etc. placed their very convincing speeches against the motiom.
Then Gandhi, setting aside all other speakers, spoke for 45 minutes
supporting partition. The main theme of his deliberation was that, if
Congress did not accept partition (1) other group of people or leaders
would avail the opportunity and throw the Congress out of power and
(2) a chaotic situation would prevail throughout the country. Many
believe that, in the name of "chaotic condition", he tacitly asked the
Muslims to begin countrywide communal riot, if the Congress did not
accept the partition. Till then, Sardar Patel was on the fence
regarding the partition. But Gandhi's speech turned him into a firm
supporter of partition and he influenced other confused members to
support the issue. In this way, Congress approved the partition issue
(History of Freedom Movement in India, R C Majumdar, Vol-III, p-670).
It may appear to many that, up to partition, Gandhi?s policy of
nonviolence and Muslim appeasement in the name of secularism indeed
harmed the country a lot. But a close look will reveal, it has done
severe damage even after partition, or to speak the truth, it is
causing serious damage even today. During independence, the Muslim
population in undivided India was 23 per cent and this 23 per cent
Muslims, got 32 per cent land area as Pakistan. The most appropriate
step after partition was to carry out population transfer, or send the
entire Muslim population of the divided India to Pakistan and bring
all Hindus from Pakistan to India. This population transfer was
included in the proposal for Pakistan by the Muslim League and after
communal riot in Bihar, M A Jinnah requested the Government of India
to carry out population transfer as early as possible. But Gandhi was
hell bent not to undertake out the process and said that it was an
impractical and fictitious proposal.
Mountbatten, the then Governor General of India, was a staunch
supporter of the said population exchange and advised Jawaharlal Nehru
to do the same without delay. But Nehru submitted to the will of
Gandhi and refrained from doing so. It is needless to say that, from
the practical point of view, the said population exchange was urgently
necessary and had it been carried out at that time, many problems of
today would not have arisen. But due to the policy of Muslim
appeasement of Gandhi, Muslims happily stayed back in this country,
while Hindus had no alternative but to come to India as refugees or
penniless beggars.
Many of us perhaps do not know that due to strong opposition by
Gandhi, "Vande Mataram" could not be accepted as the National Anthem
of this country. In his early life, Gandhi had a great affinity for
the song and while he was in South Africa, he wrote, "It is nobler in
sentiment and sweeter than the songs of other nations. While other
anthems contain sentiments that are derogatory to others, Vande
Mataram is quite free from such faults. Its only aim is to arouse in
us a sense of patriotism. It regards India as the mother and sings her
praise." But later on when he could discover that the Muslims dislike
the song, he at once stopped singing or reciting the same at public
places. Hence ultimately the "Jana Mana Gana" was selected as the
National Anthem. During the debate over the matter in the Constituent
Assembly, Nehru argued that Vande Mataram is not suitable to sing
along with military band while Jana Gana Mana is free from this
difficulty.
In the present context, it should also be pointed out that Gandhi was
not pleased with Tri Color, the National Flag of today's India because
the Muslims disliked the same. In this regard, Sri Nathuram Godse has
narrated an incident in his "Why I Assassinated Gandhi", which
deserves to be noted in this context. During his Noakhali tour in
1946, a Congress worker put a tricolor over the temporary house where
Gandhi was staying. One day an ordinary Muslim passer by objected to
it and Gandhi immediately ordered his men to bring flag down. So, to
please an ordinary Muslim, Gandhi did not hesitate to disgrace and
dishonor the flag revered by millions of Congress workers. (pp-75-76).
It should also be pointed out here that in his early life, Gandhi was
very fond of the Hindi language and used to say that it was the only
language having the potentiality to play the role of the national
language. But to please the Muslim, he, later on tried his best to
make Urdu, under the garb of Hindustani, the National Language of
India. (Koenrad Elst, Gandhi and Godse, Voice of India, p89).
A few months before the partition, when Hindu and Sikh refugees
started to come from West Punjab in droves and crowding the refugee
camps of Delhi, one day Gandhi visited a refugee camp and said,
"Hindus should never be angry against the Muslims even if the latter
might make up their minds to undo their (Hindus) existence. If they
put all of us to the sword, we should court death bravely. We are
destined to be born and die, then why need we feel gloomy over it?
(speech delivered on April 6, 1947).
In a similar occasion he said, "The few gentlemen from Rawalpindi who
called upon me, asked me, What about those who still remain in
Pakistan?? I asked, why they all came here (Delhi)? Why they did not
die there? I still hold on to the belief that we should stick to the
place where we happen to live, even if we are cruelly treated, and
even killed. Let us die if the people kill us, but we should die
bravely with the name of God on our tongue.? He also said, "Even if
our men 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? (speech delivered on November 23, 1947)
In this context, Gandhi also said, "If those killed have died bravely,
they have not lost anything but earned something." They should not be
afraid of death. After all, the killers will be none other than our
Muslim brothers." (Shri Nathuram Godse, Why I Assassinated Gandhi,
p-92,93; as quoted by Koenrad Elst in Gandhi versus Godse, Voice of
India, p-121). In another occasion when he was talking to a group of
refugees, said, "If all the Punjabis were to die to the last man
without killing (a single Muslim), Punjab will be immortal. Offer
yourselves as nonviolent willing sacrifices." (Collins and Lapierre,
Freedom at Midnight, p-385). There is no doubt that if someone reads
all these utterances of Gandhi, he would take him either a fool or a
lunatic, but we are worshiping him as a Mahatma or a Great Soul.
Gandhi believed that Muslims were brothers of the Hindus and hence
they should never take arms or wage a war against the Muslims. He used
to say that the foreign policy of independent India should always be
respectful to Islam and the Muslims. Moreover, independent India
should never invade a Muslim country like Arabia, Turkey etc. Gandhi
also said that Rana Pratap, Guru Govinda Singh, Raja Ranjit Singh and
Raja Shivaji were misguided patriots because they fought war with the
Muslims. In his eyes Goerge Washington, Garibaldi, Kamal Pasha, D
Valera, Lenin etc. were misguided patriots as they encouraged
violence.
Gandhi"s utterances painting respected Hindu heroes as misguided
patriots aroused widespread commotion among the Hindus. Most
importantly, calling Shivaji a misguided patriots put entire
Maharastra on boil. Later on, Nehru could pacify their anger partially
by begging apology on behalf of Gandhi.
The Muslims whenever attack a Hindu settlement, they, in addition
killing innocent people, setting their houses on fire, loot and
burglary as their routine work, rape Hindu women. It is evident that,
they commit all such oppressions according to the instructions of the
Koran, revealed by Allah. During the Muslim rule that lasted for
nearly 800 years, raping Hindu women became a common affair. To save
their honour and sanctity from the lecherous Muslims, millions of
Hindu women used to sacrifice their lives in flames. In the wake of
partition most of the Hindu families became victims of Muslim
oppression and raping Hindu women was an inseparable part of their
attacks. When Hindus were butchered in Noakhali in 1946, thousands of
Hindu women were raped by the Muslims.
Many Hindus of this country do not know, what Gandhi, the Great Soul
and the Apostle of nonviolence, thought about this behavior of the
Muslims. In the 6th July, 1926, edition of the Navajivan, Gandhi wrote
that ?He would kiss the feet of the (Muslim) violator of the modesty
of a sister? (Mahatma Gandhi, D Keer, Popular Prakashan, p-473). Just
before the partition, both Hindu and Sikh women were being raped by
the Muslims in large numbers. Gandhi advised them that if a Muslim
expressed his desire to rape a Hindu or a Sikh lady, she should never
refuse him but cooperate with him. She should lie down like a dead
with her tongue in between her teeth. Thus the rapist Muslim will be
satisfied soon and sooner he leave her. (D Lapierre and L Collins,
Freedom at Midnight, Vikas, 1997, p-479).
From the above narrations, it becomes evident that Gandhi was never
moved by the sufferings and miseries of the Hindus and, on the
contrary, he used to shed tears for the Muslims. His idea of
Hindu-Muslim amity was also extremely biased and prejudiced. Only
Hindus are supposed to make all sacrifices for it and they should
endure all the oppressions and heinous crimes of the Muslims without
protest. And that was the basis of Gandhian nonviolence and
secularism. So a Muslim called Khlifa Haji Mehmud of Lurwani, Sind,
once said ?Gandhi was really a Mohammedan? (D Keer, ibid, p-237).
It should be mentioned at the very outset that Gandhi never fought for
India's freedom. The reader should recall that Gandhi was brought from
South Africa by the British to sabotage India?s freedom movement and
hence it was not possible for him to fight the British for freedom. On
the contrary, his intention was to prolong British rule in this
country and to hoodwink the Hindus, he used to say that he was
fighting for Swaraj. But his concept Swaraj was entirely mystical and
vague and he used equate Swaraj with Ramrajya (or the rule of Lord
Ram). According to him, termination of British rule was not at all
necessary to establish Swaraj and Swaraj could function well even
under the British rule. So he always opposed any move for demanding
complete independence from the British rule and reproached the leaders
like Subhash Chandra Bose and others because they were in favour of
demanding independence,
One of the basic preconditions of his Swaraj was the amity between the
Hindus and the Muslims. It has been pointed out earlier that his idea
of Hindu-Muslim amity was extremely biased and prejudiced ? Hindus
were supposed to make every sacrifice and silently endure all the
oppressions and crimes of the Muslims for the sake of this unity. It
is well known that, for the sake of this Hindu-Muslim unity, Gandhi
supported the KHILAFAT MOVEMENT, and extremely communal agitation
launched by the fanatic and orthodox Muslim leaders, the Ali brothers.
In his personal capacity, Gandhi once wanted to translate Spirit of
Islam by Syed Amir Ali and Muhammad?s biography Life of Mahomet by Sir
W Muir, to win the hearts of the Muslims. To appease them, he used to
overlook and ignore even heinous crimes committed by the Muslims and
considered ?Allahu Akbar? as a national slogan. He held the view that,
Hindus should die but never should kill a Muslim. Many used to
consider him a more devout Muslim than even Mohammad Ali Jinnah.
To many. it would appear unbelievable that Gandhi used to advise the
Amir of Afghanistan not to make peace with India and, on the contrary,
instigated him to launch jihad against India or invade India.
Moreover, he advised the Muslims of this country that, at such a
situation, they should join the Afghan army and fight against India.
He used to say that "Muslims are bullies and the Hindus are cowards"
and advise the Muslims to be more cruel and violent during their
attack on the Hindus. On the other hand, he suggested the Hindus to
remain non-violent and not to defend their attack. He used to maintain
the view that Hindus must not strike a Muslim even to save their
lives. In the wake of partition, when the Muslims started slaughtering
the innocent Hindus of Punjab, Sardar Vallabbhai Patel asked the
Hindus to defend their lives. But that displeased Gandhi and he
reproached Patel for his advice.
In 1946, Gandhi did not go to Noakhali when the Hindus were being
butchered there and he went there when the bloodshed was over. On the
contrary, when the Hindus of Bihar started retaliating the Noakhali
killings, he at once went to Bihar to save the Muslims.. Due to his
extraordinary affection for the Muslims, many used to mention him as
Mohammad Gandhi. To many, it would appear unbelievable that Gandhi
used to advise the Hindus (for the sake of nonviolence) not to take
part in any short of physical exercise and body-building activities
as, in that case, it would have been difficult for the Muslims to
oppress and massacre the physically strong Hindus. In fact, he closed
most of the gymnasiums and other body-building centres in Gujarat.
Gandhi strongly believed that Muslim rule was better for India than
the British rule and in the wake of independence, he requested the
British to transfer the power to the Muslims. At the same time, he
started to look for an efficient Muslim emperor to rule this country.
But doing so much for the Muslims, he remained a loathsome kafir in
the eyes of the Muslims as Koran does not advocate Hindu-Muslim unity.
On the contrary, Allah advises the Muslims to kill non-Muslim kafirs
whenever and wherever they could be found (Koran ? 9:5). So the Muslim
leader Mohammad Ali said, "In my eye, Gandhi is worse than a fallen
Mussalman."
It has been pointed out earlier, what kind of vile and treacherous
role Gandhi played during independence. After independence, both
Gandhi and Nehru started vehemently to erase all the symbols that
carry Hindu heritage. They declined to rename divided India as
?Hindustan? and started to mention it as non-Pakistan and ultimately
they settled at ?Indian Republic.? But most of the countries in the
world are known according to the name of the majority of the
population, e.g. France, Germany, England, Ireland, Turkey,
Afghanistan and so on. While commenting on Gandhi and his policy of
Muslim appeasement, in the name of nonviolence, Sri Aurobinda once
said, "India will be free to the extent it succeeds in shaking off the
spell of Gandhism."
The present topic will remain incomplete if we do not discuss Gandhi's
deeds during the jihad launched by the Moplahs in Kerala in 1920,
against the Hindus. At that time Kerala was a Princely state called
Travancore under the Madras Presidency. Malabar was a small district
of Travancore having a population of 3 million out of which 1 million
were Muslims known as Moplahs, which was a corrupt Mollah. Historians
believe that once upon a time Arab traders and their sailors and crews
settled in the district, who married local women and grew into a
sizable population of Muslims.
These Moplahs were mostly illiterate and poor and nearly all of them
used to earn their bread as agricultural labourers in the fields of
well off Nambudri Brahmins. Like Muslims of other parts of the world,
they were extremely cruel and used to declare jihad against the Hindus
on flimsy ground and attack Hindus of the locality. From the beginning
of the English rule, they launched 35 attacks within 1920 AD.
In August, 1921, when Gandhi was touring Assam, Silhet and Silchar,
Moplahs organized a severe and unprovoked attack on 20th August on the
Hindus. Large scale slaughtering the Hindus, looting their properties,
setting their houses on fire, raping Hindu women, desecration of Hindu
temples and forceful conversion went on without any respite. The
cruelty, brutality and horridness of the attack were far-reaching and
incomprehensible. At that time, there were two options before the
Hindus ? either conversion to Islam or death.
A Muslim called Ali Musaliar was leading the attack. To bring the
situation under control, British government declared martial law in
the district but the rampage continued up to December. So the British
had to prolong the martial law up to February 24, 1922. According to
government records, 2300 Hindus were dead and 1650 Hindus were
severely wounded, although the actual figures were more than double of
the above account.
In many occasions, Gandhi, the apostle of nonviolence, decried
forceful conversion as a terribly violent act. But regarding the
forceful conversion by the Moplahs, he preferred to remain mum.
Moreover, he propagated the lie in Young India that the Moplahs,
during the said rampage, had converted only a single Hindu to Islam.
Most shamefully he described the killing of the innocent Hindus by the
Moplahs as a heroic deed and he repeatedly said, ?Muslims are bullies
and the Hindus are cowards.? Moreover, he used to say that the Moplahs
were not guilty of killing the Hindus and, guilty were the Hindus who
infuriated and provoked the Moplahs who had had no other option but to
kill the Hindus. In addition to that, he asked the Hindus, for the
sake of humanity, not to retaliate. There is no doubt that Gandhi, by
safe guarding the Moplahs, instigated the Muslims to launch attacks on
the Hindus in Punjab, Bengal and in other places in the wake of
partition.
More shamefully, Gandhi deplored the British administration for taking
stern action to suppress the jihad by the Moplahs. Moreover, he
declared Moplahs, who fought with the British army, as freedom
fighters and said, ?The Moplahs are among the bravest in the land.
They are god-fearing. Their bravery must be transformed into purest
gold.??Thus ?He represented the perpetrators of vile deeds as
god-fearing people! Was it not a travesty of religion to described men
who murder and rape in the name of religion as god-fearing? ? Gandhi
thus described the Moplah ferocity as the ignorant fanaticism of the
Moplah brothers, and the Hindu mentality as cowardliness.? (Mahatma
Gandhi, D Keer, ibid, pp-402). The matter did not end here. Due to
perpetual insistence by Gandhi, the Moplah rogues, who died in police
encounter, were later on declared martyrs of the freedom struggle and
were allowed to receive allowance, like other freedom fighters, from
the government exchequer, after independence and the practice is still
in vogue. After the carnage by the Moplahs, Gandhi started raising
money from common people to help, not the Hindu victims, but for the
Muslim perpetrators. Following the tradition set by Gandhi, the so
called secular politicians and secular media in Mumbai observe Moplah
Day every year and take out procession and hold public meetings. Many
believe that it would have been immensely beneficial for the country,
had Gandhi been assassinated at that time.
So, it is not difficult to understand that, had Gandhi been alive
today, he would declare the killing of innocent Hindus in Kashmir,
bombing the Hindu temples and killing innocent devotees, killing the
Hindu pilgrims at Amarnath etc. as the bravery of the Muslims and
cowardliness of Hindu victims. It also becomes evident that why
today?s so called secular politicians and their media held the Hindu
victims of Godhra responsible for their own death and remained silent
about the Muslims criminals, as a policy of Muslim appeasement. And by
following the foot-steps of Gandhi, these secular and leftist
political leaders raised money for the Muslims of Gujarat, not for the
Hindu victims of Godhra. Therefore many believe that Gandhi?s naked
Muslim appeasement during the Moplah incident was enough to
assassinate him in 1920s and that would have saved this country from
many misfortunes, later on brought by Gandhi.
Mahesh
sri venkat
> I do not understand if this is a brainwash or Gandhi bashing. It should not
> be published without verifying the facts by moderators.
Dear Mahesh
The article is replete with quotes and proofs provided by the writer
and is based on what the comtemporaries spoke of Gandhi and Gandhi's
statements itself.
For example Navajivan was printed by Gandhi himself and the below
quote is from it:
In the 6th July, 1926, edition of the Navajivan, Gandhi wrote
that "He would kiss the feet of the (Muslim) violator of the modesty
of a sister? (Mahatma Gandhi, D Keer, Popular Prakashan, p-473). Just
before the partition, both Hindu and Sikh women were being raped by
the Muslims in large numbers. Gandhi advised them that if a Muslim
expressed his desire to rape a Hindu or a Sikh lady, she should never
refuse him but cooperate with him. She should lie down like a dead
with her tongue in between her teeth. Thus the rapist Muslim will be
satisfied soon and sooner he leave her. (D Lapierre and L Collins,
Freedom at Midnight, Vikas, 1997, p-479)."
There are dozens of examples of Mahatma's Gandhi's appeasement towards
Muslims and rather cowardly attitude.. but when it came to Hindus we
sold them. This is the attitude we have inherited today. We Hindus
are weak, spineless, cannot fight for justice, attack our own kind,
protect the aggressive, intolerant semites. If we have to think of
survival we have to get over this weak self destructive instincts we
have inherited from Gandhi.
Venkat
Venkat
shirish dave
Read more as to how to help Nehruvian Congress
http://shirish-dave.sulekha.com/blog/post/2011/03/how-to-pave-a-way-to-power-for-nehruvian-congress.htm --- On Thu, 28/4/11, sri venkat <ahven...@gmail.com> wrote: |
Douglas Bennett
please contact the hospice switchboard on 0208 343 8841.
savarkar vinayak
From: shirish dave <>
To: desi...@googlegroups.com
Sent: Fri, 29 April, 2011 0:56:00
Subject: Re: Mahatma Gandhi's Muslim appeasement
shirish dave
Forget Mahatma or Gandhi. Remember only Nehru, Indira who created several new issues thousand time greater than any other previous controversial issue. Gandhi has never ruled and is not ruling. Nehru and Indira ruled and still its party is ruling.
Do not divide BJP votes by giving Gandhi to Nehruvian Congress. --- On Fri, 29/4/11, savarkar vinayak <savarkar...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote: |
shirish dave
|
IT IS A DEMOCRACY If any body wants to blame Mahatma Gandhi he has the liberty to blame him. It is also the right of a person to blame Mahatma Gandhi without knowing him and without reading him. Because it is the right of a person to express his feeling in a democratic country.
Further Mahatma Gandhi is not alive, that is why he will not file a suit of defamation. Had he been alive he would not have filed a suit because he would judge you on the merit of the statement.
Gandhi was a person who had disclosed all of his shortcomings and errors which were known to him only. On all the controversial matters he had given his views at length. If some body keep his answers before criticizing him, he would not be able to criticize him at least on logical base.
How one can convince own self on the following controversies?
On a revolt of an African tribe he had helped British: He has committed that it was his mistake well before he became Mahatma Gandhi and he had told a lot about the fraudulent way of governance of British rule. (Gandhi ate Non-vegetarian food when he was in school, but he realised that it was not good. Hence vegetarian people need not blame him on the ground that he promoted non-vegetarian food)
Khilafat issue: He said it is a matter related with religion. Government need not poke its nose.
Mopalah-s’ carnage: The matter that Mopalah-s were Muslims need not be linked with Muslim religion because the first target of the Muslims and Christians is to convert who are weak and poor. Gandhi said hitherto they were peaceful. The matter has to be viewed on this back ground. They must have been either disturbed with high level injustice or not heard. Thereby they should be viewed in that context. Had Mahatma Gandhi been alive he would have said same thing for Gujarati people on Godhra Aftermath riots of 2002 because people of Gujarat are peaceful and always acts with curtsy and dignity. There is always a limit to tolerate injustice. Rest of India should not expect that people of Gujarat should act as saints.
PARTITION OF INDIA & 55 CRORE RUPEES TO PAKISTAN: Partition was an agreement where three parties had signed it. Congress, Muslim League and British. According to the agreement 1/3 amount of reserves had to be paid to Pakistan. A proposal was prepared and submitted by C D Deshmukh and it was approved by the cabinet. This was well before Gandhi went on fast. Gandhi’s fast had nothing to do with liking dis-liking of any group or persons once partition became unavoidable and the situation was out of control due to the “Kill them (Hindus)” of Jinna.
Partition was accepted by all in view of the situation and the mal-politics of Muslims and British.
Gandhi learnt that the intention of British was to further divide India. India had already lost Burma, Ceylon and Afghanistan. There was nothing wrong in accepting partition at that time. Gandhi’s view was to take the issue of re-union at a latter stage when situation becomes normal.
Gandhi had expressed this desire to go to Pakistan, once peace gets established. He knew very well that re-union can be made by only making the people ready for it. Gandhi was principally against partition is a truth beyond doubt.
Once he had said that the partition would be on his dead body then why did he not go on fast onto death to prevent the partition? ONE SHOULD READ THE THEORY OF GOING ON FAST.
The main principals of going on fast are: The parties should be ready for communication. Parties should have open mind for communication. Parties should have love for each other. The purpose to go on indefinite fast is to avoid delay and to speed up the decision, if the parties have agreed to above conditions.
One will not go on indefinite fast against a lion, because the requirements of fast do not meet with it.
RECALL THE EVENT OF MAHABHARATA In Maha Bharat epic when Duryodhan said “I know what is the meaning duty, I know what is the meaning of evil. I will not go for duty and I will not go away from evils. I will not give an inch of land to Pandavas.”
Lord Krishna on hearing this from Duryodhan, though he had abandoned weapons, he said “Now only war is the option”.
Gandhi too had said to British that we Hindus and Muslims will fight out our problems at the edge of sword but you quit and leave us alone. He had asked Congress to quit Krips Commission. When he learnt Congress was not having courage to quit the commission, he resigned from partition committee. Hereby also one cannot blame Gandhi.
The case with partition has to be seen proper perspective. Jinna said I do not accept any thing but Pakistan. Otherwise my order for Muslims is be ready for killing Hindus.
Now if some one wants to discard this truthful situation then no logic will work to convince him.
WHY THEY THEMSELVES DID NOT GO ON FAST? Had those people and the leaders wanted to blame Gandhi on partition for not going on fast, they them selves should have gone on fast on to the death. Why they did not?
Have they taken any action for re-uniting the countries at a later stage? Why did they not agitate against Nehru when Iskandar Mirza proposed federal union in 1954? Nehru had out rightly rejected the proposal of Mirza, without consulting the people of India. Not a single leader of Anti-Gandhi-s had come forward to act and to condemn Nehru’s rejection of federal union. Why it did not?
GANDHI FAVOURED MUSLIMS (Another lie) Gandhi had not gone on fast to save Muslims. He had gone on fast to establish peace. The record may be seen by those who want to abuse Gandhi for favouring Muslims.
Gandhi was not killed for 55 croes rupees to Pakistan. Conspiracy to kill Gandhi was created much earlier. It was rehersaled also, before Gandhi opined, Pakistan should get its share. Of course he agreed to it with one more reason that he had in his mind to have a scope for re-union. By simply continuing hatred, you cannot have re-union if you are against partition.
TRUTH DID NOT GET COVERAGE OR NOT HIGHLIGHTED BUT TRUTH IS ON RECORD Many truths are recorded but prevented to get highlighted by Nehruvians. “Gandhi in Delhi” is an easily available book. This is a day to day diary of Mahatma Gandhi. All what he said in his last 90 days have been recorded in this book.
“Gandhi has said that if Hindus will not be secured in Pakistan, the government of India will have to take over Pakistan.”
“Why these Congress leaders have come to India from Pakistan? I want them to remain in Pakistan under all circumstances. I have taught them to die. Had they been died there, I would have been extremely pleased. I would have danced happily on their death.”
But some selective leaders, for political reason have reproduced Gandhi’s say that he has used such words for common Hindus. This is the lie of Anti-Gandhi-s.
WHY THERE IS NO NATIONAL CONGRESS OF PAKISTAN IN PAKISTAN? Had these Congress leaders who were born and brought up in Pakistan remained in Pakistan they could have formed National Congress of Pakistan and could have worked for re-union. Similar is the case with RSS. Have some thinking on it.
WE HAVE INDIAN MUSLIM LEAGUE IN INDIA It has happened other way. We have Indian Muslim League in India. We neither have RSS of Pakistan/Bangladesh nor National Congress of Pakistan. It looks funny when some body blames Mahatma Gandhi for no valid reason.
Then why some people blame Mahatma Gandhi?
It is possible that this Nehruvian Congress is expert in making strategy to divide people and other opponents.
There could be some inherent well wishers of this Nehruvian Congress who work to help Congress if they do it after knowing all the facts.
Probably such people are facing crisis of identification.
Probably they have an idea that by this way they can show their love towards nation.
But such people need the material for their own or group’s reputation on efforts for re-union. Have they made any efforts for re-union? Provide justice to Gandhi However due to any reason if one is desirous to blame Mahatma Gandhi he should first read following books to provide justice to Gandhi.
My experiments on truth (M. K. Gandhi’s auto biography) Hindu Religion in my view By M. K. Gandhi Why Khadi? By M. K. Gandhi India of my dream By M. K. Gandhi Last 90 days of Gandhi viz. “Gandhi in Delhi” By Manuben Gandhi who had been associated with him for all the 90 days and wrote his day to day hour to hour diary.
Off course “Why Khadi?” appears to be an odd suggestion. But one should understand that to provide immediate employment, Gandhi had suggested Khadi. He had also suggested compulsory primary education associated with production. If you have education and employment you cannot have poverty and thereby nation can do miracles. China has done it. Because people were educated they could switch over to new system of production depending upon the need of time. But that is other story.
NARENDRA MODI HAS THE GUTS Please try to understand what Narendra Modi has understood. Spelling out against Gandhi would help only Nehruvians.
Modi has founded Mahatma Mandir where all the information about Mahatma would be made available.
Modi has snatched Gandhi from Nehruvian Congress, though this otherwise in reality was never belonged to Nehruvians.
Jai Prakash Narayan, Acharya Kriplani, Mahavir Tyagi, Vinoba Bhave, Morarji Desai etc… all prominent veteran Gandhians were either left Congress or were behind the bars during emergency imposed by Indira Gandhi. The same Indira who was the cause of lawlessness, anarchy, scams, frauds, Muslim and Sikh terrorism, anti-social activities and blunders and under table deals with Bhutto in Simla pact.
USE SENSE OF SIGNIFICANCE AND SENSE OF PRIORITY
GIVE BIG HAND TO SACK THE NEHRUVIANS OUT
Let us forget Mahatma Gandhi. Remember Nehruvians and their black deeds that have thousand million times damaged India and its dignity. These Nehruvians are still rulling.
Let us recall the agitation launched by Jai Prakash Narayan and give big hand to Anna Hazare, Baba Ram Dev, Shri Shri Ravishankar
|
Dr. Madhukar Ambekar
shirish dave
|
|
The following are the extracts from the Declaration of Trust made by Mahatma Gandhi on November 26, 1929.
Declaration of Trust We, Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi age about years 60, Hindu, profession weaving and farming, residing at Satyagrahashrama, Vadaj, Taluka Uttar Daskroi, District Ahmedabad and Mohanlal Maganlal Bhatta, age about years 31, Hindu, residing at Bhoivadani Pole, Kalupur, Ahmedabad, declare by this Deed:
That in the year 1919 with the object of serving the people we, Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi and some of our colleagues together started a printing press named ‘Navajivan Mudranalaya’ in the city of Ahmedabad and with its help began to print, circulate and conduct as an institution for the service of the public two weeklies, the Navajivan and the Young India, both of which we had begun to conduct some time before after securing them by buying from their previous owners and managers with their total rights of ownership and possession.
The Weekly Hindi Navajivan and a department for publishing books under the name ‘Navajivan Prakashan Mandir’ and other more activities were carried on afterwards by us through the same institution. The said weeklies, printing press, and the department for publishing books have continued as a public institution for the education of the people under one comprehensive name of the ‘Navajivan Institution’. When the said Navajivan Institution was started under the name of the Navajivan Mudranalaya its property was worth about ten thousand, in figures, 10,000 rupees. Together with the said printing press and the increase earned through the weeklies the property that belongs to the Institution today without any burden on it is worth about rupees one lakh.
The aims and objects of the said Navajivan Institution which have been referred to in the previous para 2 are as under:
OBJECTS: To propagate peaceful means for the attainment of Hind Swaraj i.e. Swaraj for India by educating the people through cultivated and enlightened workers devoted to the Gujarati language who desire to identify themselves with the life of Gujarat through the means of Gujarati and to serve India in this pure manner.
For the fulfilment of this object to conduct the Navajivan, through it to carry on propaganda for peaceful attainment of Swaraj; and particularly
Let us fight out against corruption instead of creating controversy from no issue of any time.
Shirish dave
|
|
Date: Friday, 29 April, 2011, 4:33 AM |
|