Gandhi's hypocrisy

[seshadri sridharan]

Gandhi’s hypocrisy

“There’s an ancient Macedonian phrase that’s become a common principle in politics and power: “divide et impera,” or “divide and rule.” It’s the strategy in which rulers promote political division within the people of conquered nations so they’ll be busy fighting each other — instead of imperial rule. And for nearly 200 years, that’s exactly how the British ruled India. The large nation was home to dominant religious groups including Hindus, Muslims, and Sikhs. To discourage unified Indian campaigns for independence, the British reinforced divisions along religious lines. By 1947, when the British were finally ready to grant India independence, the seeds of discontent had been sowed. The handover of power, and the resulting partition of India and Pakistan, would be bloodier than anyone could have imagined.”

According to Prout, MK Gandhi committed a major blunder by supporting the partition of India and accepting the communal award in 1932. To break India into pieces, the colonial powers (i.e. the Britishers) introduced the communal award. This meant that political seats were allocated based on religion and social class etc: Hindus, Muslims, Sikhs, Dalits, businessmen, kings, etc. Each community was given a limited share of the power. The agenda of the colonial powers was to increase tension and instigate infighting amongst all Indians. Their plan was to incite them to attack each other and break India into countless pieces on a communal basis.

As is well-documented, in the 19th century, there was harmony between Hindus and Muslims. For centuries they had lived together in India - side by side. For more about this, reference Prout philosophy's book "To The Patriots". But after their united revolt against the British rulers in the 19th century, those British rulers planned to break the unity between the Hindus and Muslims by increasing communal tension. In a very deliberate and devious manner, the Britishers started granting favours in the form of higher posts, political power and other perks to one community or the other. The aim was to create tension between Hindus and Muslims - as well as with other communities within India. 


"Round Table" conferences in London:
birth of communal tension

To achieve their agenda, the British rulers hosted three "Round Table Conferences" in London whereby leaders of India's various communities rallied to get their share. This was actually the start of the communal award wherein all stakeholders / communities were invited to London to discuss the allocation of political power in India. So it was that in 1932, the Britishers extended limited autonomy to India with the British leaders still controlling the Central Government and having the final say. So now all the communities - Hindus, Muslims, Sikhs, Dalits, businessmen, kings - had a vote and political seats were granted on a communal basis. This happened gradually over the course of time. This inevitably led to heated competition among these communities in order to gain power.

Example of "communal award" in practice

Prout philosophy states, “As an example of the communal approach of the Government of India, take the case of Bengal. At that time reservation in the Bengal assembly was for 250 seats. 250 seats were created as part of provincial autonomy. Of these 250 seats, 120 were for Muslims, 80 were for non-Muslims, 25 were for British merchants – for the British businessmen of Calcutta to contest elections – a few were for Zaminders, a few were for universities, and a few were for labour leaders. The total: 250. In Bengal at that time, 45% of the population was Muslim and 55% was non-Muslim. That is, the land of Bengal was not only physically divided but also mentally divided, as a result of which Bengal was divided on the basis of communal consciousness, which is unnatural. Communalism is unnatural.” (1)

Thus the united India which had been characterized by a long era of peaceful co-existence between Hindus and Muslims gave way to huge tension in the first half of the 20th century. They were no longer thinking of themselves as Indians but as members of their own caste, clan or community: Hindus, Muslims, Sikhs, Dalits, businessmen, kings etc.

MK Gandhi did not oppose this policy "communal award" as a whole, but he did oppose a small part. He supported all points of this "communal award" i.e. granting of political power on a communal basis. Gandhi's only objection was that he did not want Harijans (Dalits) to be separated from the Hindus. He fought for that point and some adjustment happened: The Dalits and Hindus remained together in the communal award. But MK Gandhi supported all other parts of this communal award. He accepted the division between kings, Muslims, Sikhs, Hindus, businessmen. All would get political seats based on their caste and religion etc. MK Gandhi accepted this completely. That time he did not get the clue that the British were trying to poison the country by creating communal rifts. And those communal rifts - i.e. the "communal award" - ultimately became the cause of the division of India. As tensions mounted, all wanted their autonomy - separate from the greater India. Muslims, Sikhs, kings all wanted to break from India and their raised their battle cry.

Millions & millions killed

“Over my dead body will India be divided." - Gandhi

From 1932 to 1947, MK Gandhi vowed the country that India will not be divided. He specifically declared: "Over my dead body will India be divided." Many trusted him on this point. But when heated calls came for the division of India, then MK Gandhi passively accepted the partition of the country by keeping maon vrat (vow of silence).

Gandhi's 2 political disciples - Jawaharlal Nehru & Sardar Patel - plus his friend, Mohammad Ali Jinnah wanted separation. They were getting older and all wanted power quickly. Ultimately, they got their power by dividing India. Gandhiji did not oppose them. All along, the mass of Indians trusted Gandhi to keep the country together. But in the end he betrayed their trust and in result, millions & millions were killed - and countless others lost their homes, property, and families.

Actually MK Gandhi's big blunder began in 1932 when the communal power was given to India as an "award"- i.e. the "communal award" . Then from 1932 to 1947 the fire of hatred grew in India and culminated on 15 Aug 1947 when it reached full maturation due to the "communal award" . That was the day of the partition of India. What ensued was catastrophic destruction and massacres across India wherein millions upon millions were killed.

Gandhi's hypocrisy & cowardliness

Gandhi's blunder can be broken down into three distinct steps:
(1) The initial acceptance of the communal award; i.e. distribution of seats and granting of political power on a communal basis.
(2) The failure to start an economic justice movement for all communities of India against the ruling Britishers;
(3) The final acceptance of a divided India; i.e. hypocrisy of maon vrata, "vow of silence".

Communal award is similar to AMPS inner factions

The communal award was the British technique to divide both the mind and land of India. During the height of the British Empire , they employed this strategy in so many regions across the globe. This was their trademark tactic: Divide and rule. To achieve this in India, those Brithish rulers injected the communal award to create social unrest.

In various discourses, Prout philosophy opposes the communal award which caused the division of India. Prout philosophy furthermore states that if Gandhi had not accepted the communal award and instead started an economic justice movement for all Indians, then India would not have been divided - neither mentally nor based on land.


Prout philosophy states, "In this fight for independence, the Indian leaders committed a blunder. They should have engaged themselves in an economic fight instead of starting a political movement. The British took advantage of this blunder of the Indian leaders. They got the opportunity to divide India into...parts. They infused in the Muslims the idea that the Hindus formed the majority, and that therefore if the British quit India the government would naturally go into the hands of the Hindus, and the Muslims of the whole of India would remain as their subjects." (2)

Prout teachings also point out that an economic-based movement would have certainly brought political sovereignty as well.

Prout philosophy states, "The fight for economic independence would have brought political independence also. There might have been some delay in it, but political independence would have surely come." (3)

But the leaders of the day - Nehru, Jinnah, & Patel - did not want to wait. They wanted political power immediately. And Gandhi did not oppose their wish. So they accepted the communal award in order to start ruling and finally they accepted the partition of India to quickly get more power.

India trifurcated on communal basis

Prout philosophy states, "During the struggle for independence, a great blunder was committed by Mahatma Gandhi. In order to show his innocence, he said that he would not support the communal award, but nor would he vote against it. That is, indirectly he supported it. What happened to the country after this was due to the himalayan blunder committed by Mahatma Gandhi. At that time he should have said, “No. I do not support the communal award.” He did not say this because his party workers and party leaders were eager to become ministers, so they pressed him for provincial autonomy. But Mahatma Gandhi neither supported it nor opposed it. He committed a great blunder. What has happened in the country after this is the result of what Mahatma Gandhi did. At that time he should have said that we can neither split the country nor disintegrate it. As a result of the communal award, the country was trifurcated into Pakistan, India and Bangladesh. This was the result of the blunder of Mahatma Gandhi, and he did it under the pressure of his party leaders. They wanted to become ministers, as there was scope in the government of India at that time for wresting provincial autonomy, attaining ministership, creating two new provinces – Orissa and Sind – and separating Ceylon and Burma from India." (4)

Conclusion

Due to the poisonous seeds sown by the British, Kashmir became one of the world’s most contentious and disputed regions in the world, and still today it is perpetually besieged and a place of conflict.

In Him,
Shrinivas

~ In-depth study ~

Prout philosophy's full discourse:
                    -
"The Dangers of Communalism"

20 October 1990, Calcutta

Note: For those who do not have Prout Nutshell Part 18 or do not have access to the Electronic Edition of Prout philosophy books, here below is the entire discourse.

Is the division of people into castes and communities natural Balkanization or artificial Balkanization? Natural Balkanization is just like one cell becoming two. Artificial fissiparous tendencies are unnatural. So is the division of people into castes and communities a process of natural Balkanization or artificial fissiparous tendencies?

Amongst the inimical forces, there are certain parties which are goaded by certain forces, by the spirit of certain fissiparous tendencies, and there are also some persons goaded by these fissiparous forces. How can this problem be solved? How can we check these belligerent parties from implementing their outdated ideas, which may cause the physical disintegration of the country? What should be done? What should be our short term and the long term policy? The approach should be both physical and psychic. Will simply economic theory do or is something more required? Education is a long term programme. What should be done immediately in the physical and psychic realms? The country is passing through a critical juncture, so you should be well educated.

How Gandhi became a tool of the communal award

There is a theory of politics called “divide and rule”. Just to undermine the independence of India, the British government started a programme to encourage communal division amongst the people based on caste, scheduled caste, scheduled tribe, Muslim and non-Muslim. They wanted to encourage divisions between Muslims and non-Muslims. General people, scheduled castes and scheduled tribes – these were the divisions. Our leaders should not have accepted such divisions. Rather, at that time they should have said that preference should be given on the basis of socio-economic backwardness, not on the basis of castes or creeds. But certain political parties were based on caste prejudices or communal sentiments, which is why they supported the British government.

During the struggle for independence, a great blunder was committed by Mahatma Gandhi. In order to show his innocence, he said that he would not support the communal award, but nor would he vote against it. That is, indirectly he supported it. What happened to the country after this was due to the himalayan blunder committed by Mahatma Gandhi. At that time he should have said, “No. I do not support the communal award.” He did not say this because his party workers and party leaders were eager to become ministers, so they pressed him for provincial autonomy. But Mahatma Gandhi neither supported it nor opposed it. He committed a great blunder. What has happened in the country after this is the result of what Mahatma Gandhi did. At that time he should have said that we can neither split the country nor disintegrate it. As a result of the communal award, the country was trifurcated into Pakistan, India and Bangladesh. This was the result of the blunder of Mahatma Gandhi, and he did it under the pressure of his party leaders. They wanted to become ministers, as there was scope in the government of India at that time for wresting provincial autonomy, attaining ministership, creating two new provinces – Orissa and Sind – and separating Ceylon and Burma from India.

How Bengal was divided

Provincial autonomy was promulgated in the year 1935, but it was implemented in 1937. Sind agreed to provincial autonomy because in Sind a particular party, a minority party of India, was in the majority. Orissa was created out of physical convenience rather than mental necessity. It was very difficult for the people of Orissa to go to the capital town Patna, as they had to go to Patna through Calcutta. This is why they demanded that either Orissa should be included in Bengal, or there should be a separate province. Their demand was that Orissa should not remain in Bihar, because in order to go to Patna the people had to travel through Calcutta. The creation of Orissa was not bad, but the creation of Sind was bad. These were the poisonous effects of the enactment of provincial autonomy by the Government of India in 1935.

As an example of the communal approach of the Government of India, take the case of Bengal. At that time reservation in the Bengal assembly was for 250 seats. 250 seats were created as part of provincial autonomy. Of these 250 seats, 120 were for Muslims, 80 were for non-Muslims, 25 were for British merchants – for the British businessmen of Calcutta to contest elections – a few were for Zaminders, a few were for universities, and a few were for labour leaders. The total: 250. In Bengal at that time, 45% of the population was Muslim and 55% was non-Muslim. That is, the land of Bengal was not only physically divided but also mentally divided, as a result of which Bengal was divided on the basis of communal consciousness, which is unnatural. Communalism is unnatural. Again today, the foolish leaders, the political leaders, are encouraging this very sentiment. And I fear that if it is not controlled in the proper time – it is the most opportune moment to control it – if it is not controlled in the proper time, the country will face further disintegration.

Nehru supported partition to become Prime Minister

Factually, as per the Government of India plan at that time, India was trifurcated. Bengal was bifurcated. The Punjab was bifurcated. Assam was bifurcated. Sind and North West Frontier Province went out of India. This was the result of the communal award. The foolish leaders, the stupid leaders, supported the communal award. They had not learnt the lessons of history.

The policy was divide and rule. One party said “Jai Hind” and another party said “Takasime Hind.” One party said “Victory to India;” another party said “Divide India.” These were the slogans of the time. It was not a healthy atmosphere. This sentiment was not even geo-sentiment. It was based on emotion and mean selfishness. Henceforward, healthy politics disappeared from India. Nehru supported partition because his dream was to become Prime Minister of the land – of either undivided India or divided India.

Montague Chelmsford saw that the forces were divided and was not sure whom to give power to. In 1935, provincial autonomy was granted. Ceylon and Burma, which were parts of India, are now inimical to India. During partition – during Montague Chelmsford’s time or during 1935 – the Government of India granted autonomy. A senior Muslim leader of India pronounced Montague Chelmsford as “Montague Chilamford” because he could not pronounce “Chelmsford.” At that time there was no mutual faith, there was want of mutual understanding. That is why the country was divided. Otherwise, the British could not have divided the country. There was both physical disintegration and psychic – psycho-social – disintegration for want of proper education.

Most of the minorities could not rely on the Hindu majority of the country. That is why – out of fear complex – they wanted to divide the country. The Hindu minorities of Bengal and the Punjab could not rely on the Muslim majority. That is why they wanted the partition of those two provinces. The same psychology is prevalent today. At that time there was not even a wee bit of political education or political consciousness in the country.

Serpents are exhaling venom everywhere

As per provincial autonomy, the Chief Minister of the provinces were known as the Prime Minister. There was no Prime Minister of India. India was loosely controlled by India House, London.

The Native States were beyond the 1935 award. This is the reason why the communal position of the Native States was better than that of the rest of India. There was hardly any communalism in Kashmir where Muslims lived under the Hindu Raj. Similarly, the Hindu majority state of Hyderabad was under a Muslim leader, and there was hardly any communalism. The reason was that the Native States were free from the communal award. The British communal award was not applied there.

Serpents are exhaling venom everywhere… It is the right moment. It is the proper moment. It is the most opportune moment.

    Náginiira cáridike fushiteche bishakta nishvas
    Shantir lalit vani shonaibe bartha parihas
    Bidáy nebar belá tai d́ák diye jai
    Danaver sathe járá samgrámer tare prastut hateche ghare ghare.

“Serpents are exhaling venom everywhere. The sweet gospels of peace sound like empty mockery. That is why on the eve of my departure from this world, I send out a clarion call to those who are preparing in every house to fight against the demons in human form.”

Serpents are exhaling venom everywhere. Now at this critical juncture, should we go on preaching the gospels of peace? No, no, no, no! So, before my departure from the world, said Rabindranath, I have made the necessary preparations for the fight against these demons. Do you all follow? What Rabindranath said 60 years ago is also true in this last portion of the twentieth century.

20 October 1990, Calcutta

Most disputed regions in the world

“For a brief history of how the region was split in two, check out the video above. If you’d like to learn more about Kashmir in particular, and how it’s become one of the most disputed regions in the world, be sure to watch our other video on that. You can find this video and all of Vox’s videos on YouTube. And if you’re interested in supporting our video journalism, you can become a member of the Vox Video Lab on YouTube.” (ht tps: // www (dot) vox (dot) com/2019/3/22/18277409/ british-failed-india-pakistan) ~ Courtesy of Vox news ~



    *        *        *

Socio-economico-politico beliefs of Gandhism go in favour of capitalists

So why has this side of the story not been told on a mass scale. Because special interest communities - like capitalists and the western powers - did not want the truth about Mahatma Gandhi to be known. MK Gandhiji was their tool as the socio-economico-politico beliefs of Gandhism goes in the favour of capitalists. So such capitalists want to make Gandhi into a hero. That is the main reason why this history about Gandhi and the communal award has not been truthfully told. Rather it got distorted and covered up. In the west Gandhi is treated as a hero and something divine. And in India the same respect and honor towards MK Gandhi is propagated by the Congress government. But the truth is this.
http://anandamargauniversal.blogspot.com/

Note: Those interested in learning more about this can read Prout philosophy's book, "To The Patriots" and re-read the discourse, "The Dangers of Communalism". Since the discourse, "The Dangers of Communalism", is very condensed, to enhance your understanding of the partition of India, please read excerpts from this below article by noted journalist, Rajinder Puri. 


Excerpts from "Mahatma Gandhi's assassination

by Rajinder Puri

"On June 3 1947 the Congress Working Committee passed the resolution accepting the Partition of India.

Gandhi wrote: "Have I ever opposed you?" 

 There was communal tension but no communal riots to speak of in Punjab. Gandhi observed "maun vrat" (day of silence) on that occasion. He was reportedly isolated by Nehru and Patel and was unhappy. Mountbatten visited him and said he hoped that Gandhi would not oppose the Partition under the Mountbatten Plan. Mountbatten also noted that he was surprised that Gandhi should have observed his day of silence on such a crucial occasion. Gandhi wrote on a scrap of paper his reply: "Have I ever opposed you?"  Mountbatten preserved that paper as historical evidence and it is still there in the Mountbatten papers."

"The riots that escalated after Independence brought about the biggest transfer of populations in recorded history. [Those] who opted to stay on in Pakistan, along with millions of Hindus, were forced to flee to India. An estimated million people were slaughtered in the engineered riots while the police and army stood aside. Over ten million were rendered homeless as they fled their homes to uncharted territory to become refugees."

Gandhi's blunder & demise

"Gandhi became restive and realized his blunder in compromising. He started plans to undo his mistake. The intelligence that kept watch on all activities in Birla House, where Gandhi stayed, was aware of his unhappiness. That is why Mountbatten met Gandhi and advised him not to oppose the Partition. By doing so he would harm the future of Nehru and Patel who were his creations and disciples."

Gandhi's desire to settle down in Pakistan

"Gandhi had already written to Jinnah about his desire to settle down in Pakistan. Jinnah said Gandhi was most welcome and invited him to come to Karachi. But Gandhi decided to travel by road to Lahore and settle down there. Plans were finalized for Gandhi and the fifty families to start their journey to Lahore on February 14, 1948. Exactly one fortnight earlier Godse assassinated Gandhi."

The article of Rajinder Puri

Mahatma Gandhi was assassinated by Nathuram Godse on January 30, 1948. Godse was accompanied by Narayan Apte. Both were hanged. The two traveled from Bombay to Delhi via Gwalior to perform the murder. Some of the named conspirators in the murder were already under police surveillance because they owned small arms. The authorities therefore must have been aware of the impending danger.

Despite India's independence the administration remained under British control, run by officers in key posts appointed by the British, with Lord Mountbatten as Governor-General and General Boucher as the Army Commander in Chief. Total British control becomes evident from the Mountbatten Papers in which Home Minister Sardar Patel is quoted repeatedly complaining to Lord Mountbatten that the police and army were abetting the communal riots. Clearly the Sardar was powerless.

After the assassination a leading freedom fighter alleged that the Home Ministry was criminally negligent by allowing the murder to occur. The leader blamed the government and Sardar Patel for allowing the murder to happen. That leader was Jaya Prakash Narayan.

Did Gandhi suspect he would be killed? On the day he was killed he finalized his last will and testament by which he recommended that the Congress Party should be dissolved and converted into a social organization named the Lok Sevak Sangh. Had Gandhi carried out his plan he would have been a nuisance for Mountbatten, Nehru and Patel because he would have worked for Indo-Pakistan reconciliation. He had already been totally marginalized in the Congress thanks to his erstwhile loyalists, Nehru and Patel. But the same Gandhi after death became the global brand image for the Congress Party. Surprisingly there is little or no mention by historians of Gandhiï's plans to settle down in Lahore. Why? Because his assassination aborted the plan?

For some strange reason Godse's trial was held in camera. Godse's defence was not allowed to be publicized by the Indian government. It was whisked away to Britain. One British weekly published it. Years later it was available to those who searched for it. It is now available on the Internet. The demands for truth about Netaji Subhash Bose are still resonating. Should not the truth about Gandhi's assassination also be reappraised? Godse's legal defence, which counters several allegations of the prosecution regarding the assassination, could provide a starting point.

About Rajinder Puri
For over two decades Rajinder Puri was a freelance journalist and his work appeared on a regular assignment in all the leading dailies and weeklies of India. He has authored five books on Indian politics.