Reasons For Killing Mahatma Gandhi

Clip_32During the trial justice Khosla had allowed Nathuram Godse the killer of Gandhi to read his own confession in the court.

However the Indian government had banned the confession of Nathuram.

Nathuram had given 150 reasons for killing Gandhi. Some of which are as follows:

1. In 1919 people of India wanted General Dyer to be tried for the Massacre of innocent people at Jalianwalla Baugh.

Gandhi refused to support this demand.

2. Whole of India wanted Gandhi to intervene and save Bhagat Singh, Rajguru and Sukhdev from the gallows.

Gandhi stubbornly refused on the grounds that they were misguided freedom fighters, and theirs was an act of  violence.

3. On 6th May 1946 on public platform, Gandhi asked Hindus to sacrifice and not fight the members of Muslim League.

In Kerala Muslim league members killed over 1500 Hindus and converted 2000  to Islam. Instead of protesting Gandhi expressed that it was a brave act of Allah’s followers.

4. On several occasions Gandhi called Shivaji, Maha Rana pratap and Guru Govind Singh as misguided nationalists.

5. Gandhi advised Raja Harisingh of Kashmir to abdicate as Kashmir had Muslim majority ,and settle down in Kashi. On the other hand he supported the Nizam (Osman Ali Khan) of Hyderabad to join Pakistan, even though the state of Hyderabad (Andhra , Telangana, Karnataka and Berar) had Hundu majority.

Sardar Vallabh bhai Patel however over ruled Gandhi.

When Nehru heard of Patel’s police action in Hyderabad (operation POLO) he disconnected his telephone with Patel.

6. In 1931 the Congress Committee on designing of Indian flag suggested that the flag be only in saffron. Gandhi insisted changed it to a tri-colour flag.

7. During the Tripura Congress , Subhash Chandra Bose was elected as president with majority. However Gandhi supported Pattabhai Sitaramayya forcing Bose to resign.

8. On 15th June 1947 during congress conclave it was decided to resist the partition of India but Gandhi went to the meeting at the last minute and supported the partition. Infact it was Gandhi who had declared earlier that partition will take place only over my dead body.

9. Sardar Patel was elected by majority as the first Prime Minister but Gandhi insisted on Nehru.

10. Nehru government had decided to reconstruct Somnath Mandir at its cost but Gandhi without even being a member of the ministry forced the Govt. to reject this proposal. At the same time on 13th January 1948 he went on a fast to allow Muslims to repair the mosque in Delhi at govt’s cost.

11. When Hindus refugees returned to India after partition, some of them took shelter  in some mosques temporarily. When Muslims objected ,Gandhi forced all such Hindus children, ladies and the old to leave the mosque and live on the streets.

12. In October 1947 Pakistan attacked Kashmir, Gandhi went on a fast and forced the Indian Government to pay Pakistan a compensation of Rs.55 crore. Gandhi did not mind hurting Hindu feelings to win over the Indian Muslims.

Nathuram Godse and Narayan Apte were hanged on 15th November 1949 in the Ambala Jail in Punjab.

29 Responses

  1. Hi, failed to see the 150 reasons of the psychopath-maniac killer Godse, as the author of the post had claimed (is this deliberate-intentional)

    Coming from the followers and supporters of RSSS(Raashtriya Swayam Sevak Sangh), these posts based upon ‘elective-selective deceit and hypocrisy’ only smacks of a ‘toxic-venomous’ attempt to a brain washing propaganda.

    If RSS was so patriotic-nationalist, why did it never, never took part in any of the anti imperial-capitalist-colonial struggle (please show one with proper and verified facts based upon the true records) not some RSS ‘bragging boasting trumpet beating propaganda’.

    It was RSS and its Sarsanghchalak, in 1938 book ‘We Our Nationhood Defined’ first propagated partitioning the subcontinent, why is M. K. Gandhi electively-selectively blamed.

    If Jawahar Lal Nehru was so vile as these hypocrite RSS claims, why did their so called Sanghchalak ‘wiggle and lick’ Jawahar Lal Nehrus feet (for lifting the ban on RSS after M. K. Gandhi’s assassination by RSS psychopath maniac killer lunatics).

    Be a Hindoo but please please never be a ‘hypocrite liar’ like the supporters and sympathizers of RSS.
    Why claiming and writing this because true and complete information-knowledge only empowers you against lying hypocrisy.

    Challenging the author to a proper debate based upon true facts and facts alone.

    With undying hate for hypocrisy.

    • gandhi gave muslims too much leeway..

      • Greetings Aryan Blood,

        Though Adolf Hitler the leader of the NAZI would have laughed to death if he heard an Indian claiming to be Aryan (in his book ‘Mein Kampf’ did he not hold conceited contempt for Indians as bastard mixed bred half castes).

        Anyway, please specify with true and reliable documentary information and evidence to hypo critic claim of RSS of M. K. Gandhi giving too much to the subcontinental Muslims.

        Am eager to learn the truth.

        With Warm Regards for the ‘fake/false’ Aryan Bloods.

    • If you or Your family could face the situation happened in 1947 then probably you would be not under this kind of underimpression. Out of 150 reasons 90% reasons are true.Don’t write in that mush of high end language since very diffult to understand.Please read “charitra of Raja Shiv Chatrapati & then make such valgour comments . After all getting all the benefits from mother India the people like you is supporting all anti-hindu community.We don’t fear to call us as “Hindu”. I think that your not Hindu beacuse those people can called Hindu who fought & rebelled against all the rapist , lutarro people ran away to Pak.

      I hate your comment.

      • U hate the true and genuine comments made, based upon facts and facts alone because u r a ‘parochial parasitic hypocrite’.

        With Regards and no Malice/Malafide..

    • 150 Reasons ANSWER TO CHARGE-SHEET I, Nathuram Vinayak Godse, the first accused above named respectfully beg to state as under : 1. Before I make my submission as regards the various charges I respectfully submit that the charges as framed are not according to law, in as much as there is a misjoinder of charges and there ought to have been two separate trials to the incident of the 20th of January 1948 and the other relating to the incident of the 30th of January 1948. The two having been mixed up together the whole trial is vitiated. 2. Without prejudice to my above submission I make my submission in respect of the various charges as framed as stated hereafter. 3. In the charge-sheet preferred against the accused, a number of counts has been stated and each of the accused individually and jointly with others has been charged with the commission of the various offences punishable under the Indian Penal Code and other statutes. 4. It appears from the charge sheet that the prosecution takes the events that have happened on 20th January 1948 and thereafter on 30th January 1948 as one and the same or a chain of events in continuation of one and the same object culminating in the murder of Gandhiji. I therefore, wish to make it clear at the outset that the events up to 20th January 1948 are quite independent and they have no connection whatsoever with what happened thereafter and on 30th January 1948. 5. The first and the foremost amongst the said ,charges is the charge of conspiracy amongst the accused to murder Gandhiji. I shall therefore first, deal with the same. I say that there was no, conspiracy of any kind whatsoever amongst the, accused to commit any of the offences mentioned in the charge-sheet. I may also state here that I have not abetted any of the other accused in the, commission of the alleged offences. 6. I say that the evidence led by the Prosecution in this regard does not establish and prove that there was any conspiracy whatsoever. The only witness who deposes about the alleged conspiracy is Digambar R. Badge (Prosecution Witness 57). He is a totally unreliable witness as will be shown to Your Honour by my counsel when he will explain the evidence in the case and deal with the evidence of this witness, P.W. 57. 7. As regards the charge of collecting and transporting arms and ammunition without licence, and abetment thereof on 20th January 1948, I say that I deny the said charge and say that I neither carried or transported gun-cotton slabs, hand-grenades, detonators, wicks, pistols, or revolvers and cartridges etc. as alleged, nor did I have under my control any of such arms and/or ammunition, nor did ’I abet and aid any of the accused to do so either before or on or about the 20th January 1948 or any other date. I deny therefore that I contravened any of the provisions of the Indian Arms Act or the Indian Explosives Substances Act and that I committed any offence punishable under the said Acts. 8. The main evidence in regard to this charge is ’the evidence of Digambar R. Badge (P.W. 57), but as stated in paragraph 6 above, he is a totally unreliable witness. This witness Badge (P.W. 57) is known to me but he hardly used to come to me nor have I ever visited his place of residence since several years past. His statement that he came to the Hindu Rashtra Office on 10th January 1948, being brought there by Apte … the accused No. 2 … is totally false and I deny that the said Badge saw me at the Hindu Rashtra Office or any other place on that day, or that in my presence Apte and he had any talk amongst themselves about gun-cotton slabs, hand grenades, etc. and about the delivery thereof at Bombay as falsely alleged by the said Badge. His statement that Apte asked me to come out of the room and that Apte told me that Badge was prepared to hand over the hand grenades etc. and that one work was over is totally false. This is a story got up by Badge to implicate me and others into the alleged conspiracy. I further say that I neither saw nor met Badge on 14th January 1948 at Dadar either alone or in the company of Apte. I did not even know that Badge had come to Bombay on that day. 9. I further deny that I had in my Possession i.e. under my control, while at Delhi or abetted any one to have and Possess on 20th January 1948, any arms or ammunition as stated in the charge sheet under the heading “Secondly” paragraphs B (1) and (2). Here also the evidence to support this charge is of Badge alone and I say that he has given false evidence to save his own skin; for on that condition alone he could secure the pardon promised and granted to him. 10. As regards the charge under the heading “Thirdly”, I say that I deny the said charge and the abetment thereof as stated in several paragraphs A (1) and (2), and B (1) and (2). 11. As regards the charge under the heading “Fourthly” paragraph 2, I deny that I abetted Madanlal K Pahwa either myself alone or along with others to explode a gun-cotton slab on 20th January 1948 at Birla House, I say that there is no evidence to substantiate this charge and whatever little evidence there may be, can hardly connect me with the explosion of the guncotton slab. 12. As regards the charge of abetment in the “attempt to commit the murder of Mahatma Gandhi” under the said heading “Fifthly” in the charge-sheet, I deny the said charge and say I had no connection either directly or indirectly with Madanlal K. Pahwa or any other person whatsoever. I say there is no evidence whatsoever to support this charge. 13. As regards the charge under the heading “Sixthly” in the charge-sheet as to paragraphs (A) (1) and (2) thereof, I say that I have not imported or brought unlicensed pistol and ammunition with the assistance of Narayan D. Apte. I also deny that Dr. Dattatraya S. Parchure and Narayan D. Apte procured the said pistol, or any one of them individually or jointly; abetted me or themselves each other in such procuration of the said pistol and the ammunition. I further say that the evidence produced by Prosecution in that behalf is not reliable. Without prejudice to the above, I further say that even if the acts mentioned in these paragraphs A (1) and (2) may have been committed, this Honourable Court has no jurisdiction to take any notice of them. I further say that so far as I am concerned the charge, if any, would merge under the charge in paragraph B (1) under this head. 14. As regards the charge under paragraph B (1) and (2) I admit that I had in my possession automatic pistol No. 606824 and cartridges. But I say that neither Narayan D. Apte nor Vishnu R. Karkare had anything to do with the pistol in my possession. 15. But before I pass to the charge under the heading “Seventhly”, it will not be out of place to explain here how I happened to come to Delhi, and why I came to Delhi. I had never made a secret about the fact that I supported the ideology or the school which was opposed to that of Gandhiji. I firmly believed that the teachings of absolute ’Ahimsa’ as advocated by Gandhiji would ultimately result in the emasculation. of the Hindu Community and thus make the community incapable of resisting the aggression or inroads of other communities especially the Muslims. To counteract this evil I resolved to enter public life and formed a group of persons who held like views. In this Apte and myself took a leading part and as a part of propaganda started a daily newspaper ’Agrani’. I might mention here that it was not so much the Gandhian Ahimsa’ teachings that were opposed to by me and my group, but Gandhiji while advocating his views always showed or evinced a bias for Muslims, prejudicial and detrimental to the Hindu Community and its interests. I have fully described my Point of view hereafter in detail and have quoted numerous instances which unmistakably establish how Gandhiji became responsible for a number of calamities which the Hindu Community had to suffer and undergo. 16. In my papers ’Agrani’ and ’Hindu Rashtra’, I always strongly criticised Gandhiji’s views and his methods such as fast for achieving his object, and after Gandhiji started holding prayer meetings, we Apte and myself- decided to stage peaceful demonstrations showing opposition. We had made such demonstrations at Panchagani, Poona, Bombay and Delhi. There was a wide gulf between the two ideologies and it became wider and wider as concessions after concessions were being made to the Muslims, either at the suggestion or connivance of Gandhiji and the Congress which was guided by Gandhiji, culminating in the partition of the Country on 15th o f August 1947. I have dealt with this point in detail hereafter. On 13th of January 1948. I learnt that Gandhiji had decided to go on fast unto death. The reason given for such fast was that he wanted an assurance of Hindu-Muslim unity in Indian Dominion. But 1 and many others could easily see that the real motive behind the fast was not merely the so-called Hindu-Muslim Unity, but to compel the Dominion Government to pay the sum of Rs. 55 crores to Pakistan, the payment of which was emphatically refused by the Government. As an answer to this, Apte suggested the same old method to stage a strong but peaceful demonstration at the prayer meetings of Gandhiji. I consented to this half-heartedly, because I could easily see its futility. However, I agreed to join him as no alternative plan was as yet fixed in my mind. It was for this reason that N.D. Apte and myself went to Bombay on the 14th of January, 1948. 17. On 15th of January, 1948, we-Apte and myself-happened to go to the Hindu Sabha Office at Dadar in the morning. I happened to see Badge there. On seeing N.D. Apte and myself, Badge talked to N.D. Apte and asked him the reason of his coming to Bombay. Apte told him the reason. Badge thereupon of his own accord offered to come. to Delhi and join in the demonstration, if we had no objection to his coming there. We wanted men to back us and to shout slogans and we therefore accepted his offer. We told him as to when we were starting. Badge thereupon told Apte that he had to give some stuff to Pravinchandra Sethia, that he would do so in a day or two and see us on the 17th January, 1948. 18. After we met Badge on the 15th of January, 1948 in the Hindu Sabha Office at Dadar, I saw Badge on the 17th of January, 1948 in the morning. 19. The statements made by Badge about our going to Dixitji Maharaj along with him and seeing Dixitji Maharaj, about Apte having told Badge that Savarkar had entrusted Apte and myself the task of finishing Gandhiji, Pandit Jawaharlal and Suhrawardy is a pure concoction and product of Badge’s brain. Neither Apte nor I have said anything like this to Badge or any other person. I deny categorically what the Prosecution has so falsely maintained that I was guided in my action by Veer Savarkar and that, but for his complicity, I could never have acted in the way I have done. I take. the strongest exception to, this untrue and unjust charge and I further regard it as an insult to my intelligence and judgement. The Prosecution’s attempt to make out that I was a mere tool in someone else’s hands is an aspersion which is far from the truth. Indeed I it is a perversion of it. 20. Badge’s statements to the effect that I also wanted to go to Poona to meet my brother Gopal Godse who had undertaken to make arrangements for procuring a revolver and to bring him down to Bombay for accompanying us to Delhi, is also untrue. I had no talk with Badge when I met him on the 15th January 1948 except what is stated in paragraph 17 above. Further the statement of Badge that he met me on 16th January 1948 at Poona is also false. The alleged report of my conversation with him at Poona as deposed to by Badge. in his evidence is also f also and untrue. I was not in Poona on the 16th January 1948. It will be clear from this that it is not true ’that I gave him any pistol on that day for being exchanged for a big revolver. 21. I have already stated that we-Apte and myself-had planned to stage a strong but peaceful demonstration at Gandhiji’s prayer meeting at the earliest possible opportunity at Delhi, and for the purpose Apte and myself were to go there. As stated In paragraph 17, Badge offered to come to Delhi to take part in the demonstration referred to above. We felt an urgent need of taking some volunteers with us for a successful demonstration. Before we started for Delhi we started collecting money to meet the expenses for the journey and for the expenses of the volunteers. 22. I emphatically deny that we saw Savarkar on the 17 January, 1948 or that Savarkar blessed us with the words ’Yashasvi Houn Ya,’ Be successful and come; Similarly I also deny that we had any conversation with Badge or that Apte or myself uttered the words- “Tatyaravani ase Bhavishya kele ahe ki Gandhijichi shambhar varshe bharali-ata apale kam nishchita honar yat kahi sanshaya nahi;-” After we met Badge on the 15th of January, 1948 at the Hindu Sabha Office at Dadar, we-Apte and myself went on our business in connection with the Press. 23. Apte and myself came to Delhi by plane on the 17th of January, 1948 and we put up at the Marina Hotel. On the morning of the 20th of January, 1948 Badge came to the hotel and informed Apte in my presence that he and his servant Kistaiya would go to the prayer-ground in the evening with Apte just to see the scene of prayer where demonstrations would be held. When Badge came in the morning I was lying down on bed as I was feeling unwell owing to severe headache and I told Badge that I may not go to the prayer-ground as I was unwell. The statements of Badge that Apte, Gopal Godse, Karkare, Madanlal, Badge and his servant Shankar all collected at Marina Hotel, that Shankar and Badge had their meals there, that Gopal Godse was found repairing the revolver, that Apte, Karkare, Madanlal and Badge went to the Bath-room and’ were fixing the detonators, Fuse-wires and primers to the gun-cotton stabs and hand-grenades or that Shankar and I were standing at the either sides of the door of the room are entirely false. Badge has put in my mouth the words “Badge, this is our last effort; the work must be accomplished-see to it that every thing is arranged properly.” I deny that I addressed the said or similar words to Badge on that day or any other day. As stated before, Badge came to the room in the morning and informed me that he would attend the prayer-meeting in the evening. We Clad no meeting at all on that day in my room as stated by Badge. Gopal Godse, to my knowledge, was not even in Delhi. Nobody arranged or fixed detonators fuse-wires or primers to gun-cotton slabs or hand-grenades in the room. In fact there was no such ammunition either with me or with Apte. Badge’s vivid description about the distribution of arms and ammunition amongst the party and about assumption of false names is all false. It is not necessary for me to discuss the evidence and show the falsity of these statements as my counsel will do it in his address. 24. As stated above, being unwell due to severe headache, I did not oven go to the prayer-ground. Apte returned to the Marina Hotel at about 6-00 p.m. and informed me that he had a view of the prayer meeting and would be in a position to stage the demonstration in a day or two. After about an hour, we heard some commotion at Gandhiji’s prayer meeting due to an explosion and we further heard of an arrest, of a refugee. Apte thought it advisable to leave Delhi immediately and we left accordingly. It is not true that I met Badge at Hindu Sabha Bhavan on 20th January 1948. Several witnesses have deposed about my being at the Birla House on the 20th January, 1948; but I emphatically say that they are grossly mistaken in saying so. I submit that they are confusing my presence with somebody else’s. The identification by some of these witnesses is utterly unreliable in view of the fact that I had hot been to the Birla House on that day. These witnesses have identified me as I was shown to many of them by the Police while I was kept at Tughlak Road Police Station. Further it was easy to identify me on account of the bandage over my head which remained up to the 12th of February 1948. The Police witnesses who have deposed to the contrary have perjured themselves and I have made a complaint at the very first identification parade in respect of the Delhi witnesses held in Bombay about this. 25. After a deliberate consideration of our future plan of staging the demonstration at Delhi in the prayer- meeting of Gandhiji; I very reluctantly consented to join Mr. Apte. It was not possible to get willing and able volunteers from Bombay and Poona under the new situation. Besides all our funds were exhausted and we were not in a position to spend for the batch of volunteers from Bombay to Delhi and back. We, therefore, decided to proceed to Gwalior and see Dr. Parchure who had under him to volunteers of Hindu Rashtra Sena. It was also a more or less economical plan to take volunteers from Gwalior to Delhi. We therefore started for Gwalior, after reaching Delhi by plane on the 27th of January 1948, by the night train reaching Gwalior very early morning. As it was dark at the time we halted in a Dharamshala near the Station and in the morning we saw Dr. Parchure at his residence. He was in a hurry to go to his dispensary. He asked us to see him in the afternoon. We saw him at about 4 p.m. and we found that he did not wish to help us and that his Volunteers were busy in local affairs. Completely disappointed I asked Apte to go back to Bombay or Poona and try for volunteers there and I came back to Delhi telling Apte that I would myself try for volunteers from amongst the refugees. I deny categorically and with all the emphasis at my command that Mr. Apte and myself had been to Gwalior to secure a revolver or a pistol, as a number of such revolvers were being offered for sale clandestinely. Having reached Delhi in great despair, I visited the refugee camps at Delhi. While moving in the camps. my thoughts took a definite and final turn. Chancely I came across a refugee who was dealing in arms and he showed me the pistol. I was tempted to have it and I bought it from him. It is the pistol which I later used in the shots I fired. On coming to the Delhi Railway station I spent the night of 29th thinking and re-thinking about my resolve to end the present chaos and further destruction of the Hindus.. I shall now deal about my relations with Veer Savarkar in political and other matters of which the prosecution has made so much. 26. Born in a devotional Brahmin family, I instinctively came to revere Hindu religion, Hindu history and Hindu culture. I had been intensely proud of Hindudom as a whole. Nevertheless as I grew up I developed a tendency to free thinking unfettered by any superstitious allegiance to any ‘ism’, political or religious. That is why I worked actively for the eradication of untouchability and the caste system based on birth alone. I publicly joined anti-caste movements and maintained that all Hindus should be treated with equal status as to rights social and religious, and should be high or low on their merit alone and not through the accident of birth in a particular caste or profession. I used publicly to take part in organised anti-caste dinners in which thousands of Hindus, Brahmins, Kshatriyas, Vaishyas, Chamars and Bhangis broke the caste rules and dined in the company of each other. 27. I have read the works of Dadabhai Naoroji, Vivekanand. Gokhale, Tilak along with the books of ancient and modern history of India and some prominent countries in the world like England, France, America and Russia. Not only that, I studied tolerably well the current tenets of Socialism and Communism too. But above all I studied very closely whatever Veer Savarkar and Gandhiji had written and spoken, as to my mind, these two ideologies had contributed more to mould the thought and action of modern India during the last fifty years or so, than any other single factor had done. 28. All this reading and thinking brought me to believe that above all it was my first duty to serve the Hindudom and the Hindu people, as a patriot and even as a humanitarian. For, is it not true that to secure the freedom and to safeguard the just interests of some thirty crores of Hindus constituted the freedom and the well-being of one fifth of human race ? This conviction led me naturally to devote myself to the new Hindu Sanghatanist ideology and programme which alone I came to believe, could win and preserve the national independence of Hindusthan, my Motherland and enable her to render true service to humanity as well. 29. I have worked for several years in R.S.S. and subsequently joined the Hindu Mahasabha and volunteered myself to fight as a soldier under its pan Hindu flag. About this time Veer Savarkar was elected to the Presidentship of the Hindu Mahasabha. The Hindu Sanghatan Movement got verify electrified and vivified as never before, under his magnetic lead and whirl-wind propaganda. Millions of Hindu Sanghatanists looked up to him as the chosen hero, as the ablest and most faithful advocate of Hindu cause. I too was one of them. I worked devotedly to carry on the Mahasabha activities and hence came to be personally acquainted with Savarkarji. 30. Later on my friend and co-worker in the Hindu cause, Mr. Apte and myself decided to start a daily paper devoted to Hindu Sanghatan Movement. We met a number of prominent Hindu Sanghatanist leaders and after securing sympathy and financial help from them met Veer Savarkar as the President if the Mahasabha. He too sympathised with our project and advanced a sum of rupees fifteen thousand as his quota to the capital required, on condition that a limited company should be registered at our earliest convenience, and his advance should be transformed into so many shares. 31. Accordingly, we started the Daily Marathi paper ‘Daily Agrani’ and after some period a limited company was registered. The sums advanced by Veer Savarkar and others were converted into shares of Rs. 500 each. Amongst the directors and donors were such leading and respected gentlemen as Seth Gulab Chand (a brother of Shriman Seth Walchand Hirachandji), Mr. Shingre, an ex- Minister of Bhor, Shreeman Bhalji Pendharkar, the film magnate of Kolhapur and others. Mr. Apte and myself were the Managing Directors of the Company. I was the editor solely responsible for the policy of th6 paper. We conducted the paper for years on strictly constitutional lines, and pleaded the policy of Hindu Sanghatan in general. 32. As press representatives of this daily, Mr. Apte and myself used to visit the Hindu Sanghatan Office situated at Veer Savarkar’s house in the middle hall on the ground floor of that house. This Hindu Sanghatan Office was in the charge of Mr. G. V. Damle, the Secretary to Veer Savarkar and Mr. Appa Kasar, Veer Savarkar’s body-guard. We used to visit this office to secure from Mr. Damle, the Secretary, public statements issued by Veer Savarkar for, the Press in general, to note down other important information about the President’s tours, interviews etc. which his Secretary was authorised to publish. Mr. A. S. Bhide, who used to edit an English Weekly namely ’Free Hindustan’ was also residing with his family as a tenant in a set of rooms on the same. groundfloor. The second reason why Mr. Apte and I used to visit Savarkar Sadan was to see Messers Bhide, Damle, Kasar and other Hindu Sabha workers who used to gather at the Hindu Sanghatan Office and had been personal friends to each other. To meet them all and have friendly chats, whenever we went to Bombay, we used to go to this office. Sometimes we used to discuss there the Hindu Sanghatan work with them. Some of them used to help us in securing advertisements for our paper. 33. But it must be specially noted that these our casual visits to Savarkar Sadan were restricted generally to this Hindu Sanghatan Office, situated on the ground floor, for the above mentioned reasons. Veer Savarkar was residing on the first floor of the house. It was only very rarely that we could interview Veer Savarkar personally and that too by special appointment. 34. Some three years ago, Veer Savarkar’s health got seriously impaired and since than he was generally confined to bed. He thereafter suspended all his public activities and more or less retired from public life. Thus deprived of his virile leadership and magnetic influence, the activities and influence of the Hindu Mahasabha too got crippled and when Dr. Mookerjee became its President the Mahasabha was actually reduced to the position of a hand-maid to the Congress. It became quite incapable of counteracting the dangerous anti-Hindu activities of Gandhite cabal on the one hand and the Muslim League on the other. Seeing this I lost all hope in the efficiency of the policy of running the Hindu Sanghatan movement on the constitutional lines of the Mahasabha and began to shift myself. I determined to organise a youthful band of Hindu Sanghatanists and adopt a fighting programme both against the Congress and the League without consulting any of those prominent but old leaders of the Mahasabha. 35. I shall just mention here two striking instances only out of a number of them which painfully opened my eyes about this time to the fact that Veer Savarkar and other old leaders of Mahasabha could no longer be relied upon by me and the Hindu youths of my persuasion to guide or even to appreciate the fighting programme with which we aimed to counteract Gandhiji’s activities inside and the Muslim League outside. In 1946 or thereabout the Muslim atrocities perpetrated on the Hindus under the Government patronage of Surhawardy in Noakhali, made our blood boil. Our shame and indignation knew no bounds, when we saw that Gandhiji had come forward to shield that very Surhawardy and began to style him as ’Shahid Saheb-a Martyr Soul (I) even in his prayer meetings. Not only that but after coming to Delhi, Gandhiji began to hold his prayer meetings in a Hindu temple in Bhangi Colony and persisted in reading passages from Quoran as a part of the prayer in that Hindu temple in spite of the protest of the Hindu worshippers there. Of course he dared not read the Geeta in a mosque in the teeth of Muslim opposition. He knew what a terrible Muslim reaction would have been if he had done so. But he could safely trample over the feelings of the tolerant Hindu. To belie this belief I determinist to prove to Gandhiji that the Hindu too could be intolerant when his honour was insulted. 36. Mr. Apte and I decided to stage a series of demonstrations in Delhi at his meetings and make it impossible for him to hold such prayers. Mr. Apte with a large section of the refugees took out a procession in Delhi condemning Gandhiji and his Shahid Surhawardy and rushed into his prayer-meeting in the Bhangi Colony. Seeing the tumultuous protest that followed, Gandhiji slyly took shelter behind barred and guarded doors although at that time we had not the slightest idea of using any force. 37. But when Veer Savarkar read the report of this demonstration, instead of appreciating our move, he called me and blamed me privately for such anarchical tactics, even though this demonstration was peaceful. He said Just as I condemn the Congressites for breaking up your party meetings and election booths by disorderly conduct, I ought to condemn any such undemocratic conduct on the part of Hindu Sanghatanist also. If Gandhiji preached anti-Hindu teachings in his prayer meetings you should hold your party meetings and condemn his teachings. Amongst ourselves all different parties should, conduct their propaganda on strictly constitutional lines.” 38. The second leading incident took Place just after this, when the partition of India was actually decided on. A group of Hindu Mahasabhaites wanted to know what the Hindu Mahasabha’s attitude should be with regard to the Congress Government which was certain to be the Government of the New State, ruling over the so-called India State in the remaining Part of India. Veer Savarkar and other top-ranking Hindu Mahasabha leaders quickly and emphatically said that any Indian Government formed to conduct such a freed Indian State should be no longer looked upon as a Government of a party-a Congress Government-but must be honoured and obeyed as a National Government of Hindustan and howsoever they deplored the creation of Pakistan their future motto should be a loyal and allout support to the newly born Free Indian State. Thus alone would it be possible to safeguard the newly won Freedom. Any attempt on their part to undermine the Indian State would bring in a Civil War and enable the Muslims to realise their sinful and secret mission to turn the whole of India into Pakistan. 39. My friends and I however returned unconvinced. We felt in our heart of hearts that time had come when we should bid goodbye to Veer Savarkar’s lead and cease to consult him in our future policy and programmes, nor should we confide to him our future plans. 40. Just after that followed the terrible outburst of Muslim fanaticism in the Punjab and other parts of India. The Congress Government began to persecute, prosecute, and shoot the Hindus themselves who dared to resist the Muslim forces in Bihar, Calcutta, Punjab, and other places. Our worst fears seemed to be coming true; and yet how painful and disgraceful it was for us to find that the 15th of August 1947 was celebrated with illumination and festivities, while the whole of the Punjab was set by the Muslims in flames and Hindu blood ran rivers. The Hindu Mahasabhaites of my persuasion decided to boycott the festivities and the Congressite Government and to launch a fighting programme to check Muslim onslaughts. 41. The meetings of the Working Committee of the Hindu Mahasabha and the All-India Hindu Convention were held on or about 9th of August 1947, in Delhi, and Veer Savarkar presided. Mr. Apte and other friends and myself wanted to make a last effort to bring the Mahasabha and its veteran leaders like Veer Savarkar, Dr. Mookerjee, Mr. L. B. Bhopatkar and others to our views and to adopt a fighting resolution. The Mahasabha Working Committee did not accept our suggestion to appoint a council of action against Hyderabad or boycott the Congress Government which was to run the newly created State of Divided India. To my mind to recognise a State of Divided India was tantamount to be a party to the cursed vivisection of India. But instead the Working Committee passed a frothy resolution and asked people to hoist the Bhagwa Flag on their houses on the day of August 15th, 1947. Veer Savarkar went further and actually insisted that the tricolour flag with the wheel should be recognised as a National Flag. We openly resented his attitude. 42. Not only that but on the 15th August, Veer Savarkar setting aside the will of the majority of Hindu Sanghatanists hoisted this new flag with the wheel, as a National Flag, on his house along with the Bhagwa. In addition to that when Dr. Mookerji asked his permission through a trunk call to Veer Savarkar, as to whether Dr. Mookerji should accept a portfolio in the. Indian Union Ministry, Veer Savarkar emphatically replied that the new Government must be recognised as a National Government whatever may be the elected party leading it, and must be supported by all patriots and consequently Hindu Sanghatanists ought to extend co-operation by accepting a portfolio if called upon to do so. He also congratulated the Congressite Ministers for the compromising attitude they were talking in calling on a Hindu Sabha leader like Dr. Mookerji to participate in the forming of the National Ministry, Mr. Bhopatkar too supported Dr. Mookerji. 43. By this time it came to light that some top leaders of the Congress and some of their Provincial Ministers too had contacted Veer Savarkar and there was a brisk correspondence between them for forming a united front to support the new State, which policy Veer Savarkar had already advocated. I myself could not be opposed to a common front of patriots, but while the Congress Government continued to be so sheepishly under the thumb of Gandhiji and while Gandhiji could thrust his anti- Hindu fads on that Congressite Government by resorting to such a simple trick as threatening a fast, it was clear to me that any common front under such circumstances was bound to be another form of setting up Gandhiji’s Dictatorship and consequently a betrayal of Hindudom. 44. Every one of these steps taken by Veer Savarkar were so deeply resented by me that I myself along with Mr. Apte and some of the Young Hindu Sanghatanist friends decided once for all to chalk and work out our active programme quite independently of the Maha Sabha or its old veteran leaders. We resolved not to confide any of our new plans to any of them including Veer Savarkar. 45. I began to criticise the Hindu Maha Sabha and the policy of its old leaders in my daily paper ‘Agrani’ or ’Hindu Rashtra’ and to openly call upon the young generation of Hindu Sanghatanists to accept our own active programme. 46. In order to work out my new independent programme I decided to undertake two definite items. in hand to begin with. The first item was to organise a series of powerful though peaceful demonstrations against Gandhiji so as to make him feel the impact of organised Hindu discontent, and to create confusion and disorder by demonstrative protests, etc. in his obnoxious prayer- meetings through which he then carried out his anti- Hindu propaganda; and secondly to carry on an agitation against the Hyderabad State to defend our Hindu brothers and sisters near about the frontier line from the fanatic atrocities committed, on them by the Muslims As such a programme could only be carried out on secret and dictatorial lines we resolved to divulge it only to those who believed in it and would obey our orders without questioning. 47. I would not have referred to the above details in this statement but for the learned prosecutor’s opening speech in which be painted me as a mere tool in the hands of Veer Savarkar. This statement I felt to be a deliberate insult to my independence of judgment and action. The above facts had to be mentioned to dispel the incorrect impression about me, if any. Consequently, before I begin to narrate the rest of my statement, I re- assert that it is not true that Veer Savarkar had any knowledge of my activities which ultimately led me to fire shots at Gandhiji; I repeat that it is not true and it is totally false that either Mr. Apte in my presence or I myself told Badge that Veer Savarkar had given us an order to finish Gandhiji, Nehru and Suhrawardy as the approver is made to state falsely. It is not true that. we ever took Badge to Veer Savarkar’s house to take the last Darshan of Veer Savarkar in connection with any such plot or that Veer Savarkar ever said to us Be successful and come back’-‘Yashasvi houn ya.’ ’Neither Mr. Apte in my presence nor I myself ever told Badge that Veer Savarkar told us that Gandhiji’s hundred years were over and therefore we were bound to be successful. I was neither so superstitious as to crave such blessings, nor so childish as to believe in such fortunetelling. GANDHIJI’S POLITICS X-RAYED ( Section I ) 48. The back-ground to the event of the 30th January, 1948 was wholly and exclusively political and I would like to explain it at some length. The fact that Gandhiji honoured the religious books of Hindus. Muslims and others or that he used to recite during his prayers verses from the Geeta, the Quoran and Bible never provoked any ill will in me towards him. To my mind it is not at all objectionable to study comparative religion. Indeed it is a merit. 49. The territory bounded by the North Western Frontier in North and Cape Comorin in the South and the areas between Karachi and Assam that is the whole of pre- partition India has always been to me my mother-land. In this vast area live people of various faiths and I hold that these creeds should have full and equal freedom for following their ideals and beliefs. In this area the Hindus are the most numerous. They have no place which they can call their own beyond or outside this. country. Hindusthan is thus both motherland and the holy land for the Hindus from times immemorial. To the Hindus largely this country owes its fame and glory, its culture and art, knowledge, science and philosophy. Next to the Hindus the Muslims are numerically predominant. They made systematic inroads into this country since the 10th century and gradually succeeded in establishing Muslim rule over the greater part of India. 50. Before the advent of the British both Hindus and Muslims as a result of centuries of experience had come to realise that the Muslims could not remain as masters in India; nor could they be driven away. Both had clearly understood that both had come to stay. Owing to the rise of the Maharattas, the revolt of the Rajputs and the uprise of the Sikhs, the Muslim hold on the country had become very feeble and although some of them continued to aspire for supremacy in India, practical people could see clearly that such hopes were futile. On the other hand the British had proved more powerful in battle and in intrigue than either the Hindus or Musalmans, and by their adoption of improved methods of administration and the assurance of the security of the life and property without any discrimination both the Hindus and the Muslims accepted them as inevitable. Differences between the Hindus and the Muslims did exist even before the British came. Nevertheless it is a fact that the British made the most unscrupulous use of these differences and created more differences in order to maintain their power and authority. The Indian National Congress which was started with the object of winning power for the people in the governance of the country had from the beginning kept before it the ideal of complete nationalism which implies that all Indians should enjoy equal rights and complete equality on the basis of democracy. This ideal of removing the foreign rule and replacing it by the democratic power and authority of the people appealed to me most from the very start of my public career. 51. In my writings and speeches I have always advocated that the religious and communal consideration should be entirely eschewed in the public affairs of the country, at elections, inside and,’ outside the legislatures and in the making and unmaking of Cabinets. I have throughout stood for a secular State with joint electorates and to my mind this is the only sensible thing to do. (Here I read parts of the resolutions passed at the Bilaspur Session of the Hindu Mahasabha held in December, 1944. Annexture Pages 12 and 13), Under the influence of the Congress this ideal was steadily making headway amongst the Hindus. But the Muslims as a community first stood aloof and later on under the corroding influence of the Divide and Rule Policy of the foreign masters were encouraged to cherish the ambition of dominating the Hindus. The first indication of this outlook was the demand for separate electorates instigated by the then ’Viceroy lord M.into in 1906. The British Government accepted this demand under the excuse of minority protection. While the Congress party offered a verbal – opposition, it progressively supported separatism by ultimately adopting the notorious formula of neither accepting nor rejecting in 1934. 52. Thus had originated and intensified the demand for the disintegration of this country. What was the thin end of the wedge in the beginning become Pakistan in the end. The mistake however was begun with the laudable object of bringing out a united front amongst all classes in India in order to drive out the foreigner and it was hoped that separatism would eventually disappear. 53. In spite of my advocacy of joint electorates in principle I reconciled myself with the temporary introduction of separate electorates since the Muslims were keen on them. I however insisted that representation should be granted in strict proportion to the number of every community and no more. I have ,uniformly maintained this stand. 54. Under the inspiration of our British masters on the one hand and the encouragement by the Congress under Gandhiji’s leadership on the other. the Muslim League went on increasing its demands on Communal basis. The Muslim community continuously backed the Muslim League; each successive election proved that the Muslim League was able to bank on the fanaticism and ignorance of the Muslim masses and the League was thus encouraged, in its policy of separtism on an over increasing scale year after year. 55. As I have shown before despite their objection to the principle of communal electorates the unreasonable demands of the Muslim League were. conceded by the Congress- firstly by the Lucknow Pact of 1916 and at each successive revision of the constitution thereafter. This tapes from nationalism and democracy on the part of the Congress has proved an expensive calamity as the sequel has shown. 56. Since the year 1920, that is to say after the dismiss of Lokamanya Tilak, Gandhiji’s influence in the Congress first increased and then became supreme. His activities for public awakening were phenomenal in their intensity and were reinforced by the slogan of truth and non-violence which he ostentatiously paraded before the country. No sensible or enlightened person could object to these slogans; in fact there is nothing new or original in them. They are implicit in every constitutional public movement. To imagine that the bulk of mankind is or. con ever become capable of scrupulous adherance to these lofty principles in its normal life from day to day is a more dream. In fact honour duty and love of one’s own kith and kin and country might often compel us to disregard non-violence. I could never conceive that an armed resistance to the aggressor Is unjust. I will consider it a religious and,moral duty to resist and if possible to overpower such an enemy by the use of force. Shree Ramchandra killed Ravan in a tumultuous fight and relieved Sita. Shree Krishna killed Kansa to end his wickedness. In the Mahabharat Arjun had to fight and slay, quite a number of his. friends and relations including the revered Bhishma, because the latter was on the side of the aggressor. It is my firm belief that in dubbing Rama, Krishna and Arjuna as guilty of violence is to betray a total ignorance of the springs of human action. It was the heroic fight put up by the Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj that first checked and eventually destroyed Muslim tyranny in India. It was absolutely correct tactics for Shivaji to kill Afzal Khan as the latter would otherwise have surely killed him. In condemning Shivaji, Rana Pratap and Guru Govind as misguided patriots, Gandhiji has merely exposed his self conceit. 57. Each of the heroes in his time resisted aggression on our country, protected the people against the atrocities and outrages by alien fanatic& and wan back the motherland from the invader. On the other hand during more than thirty years of the undisputed leadership of the Mahatma there were more desecration of temples, more forcible and fraudulent conversions, more outrages on women and finally the loss of one third of the country. It is therefore astounding that his followers cannot see what is clear oven to the blind, viz. that the Mahatma was a mere pigmy before Shivaji, Rana Pratap and Guru Govind. His condemnation of these illustrious heroes was to say the least, most presumptuous. 58. The clique which has got into power with the patronage of British imperialism by a cowardly surrender to the Partition of India at the point of Muslim violence is now trying to exploit Gandhiji’s death in hundred hectic ways for its own selfish aims. But history will give to them their proper place in the niche of fame. Gandhiji was, paradoxical as it may appear, a violent pacifist who brought untold calamities on the country in the name of truth and nonviolence, while Rana Pratap, Shivaji and the Guru will remain enshrined in the hearts of their countrymen for ever and for the freedom they brought to them. 59. As pointed out herein below Gandhiji’s political activities can be conveniently divided under three heads. He returned to India from England some time about the end of 1914 and plunged into the public life of the country almost immediately. Unfortunately ,soon after his arrival Sir Pherozeshah Mahta and Mr. G. K. Gokhale, the latter whom Gandhiji called his Guru, died within a short span of time. Gandhiji began his work by starting an Ashram in Ahmedabad on the banks of the Sabarmati river, and made Truth and Nonviolence his slogans. He had often acted contrary to his professed principles and if it was for appeasing the Muslim he hardly had any scruple in doing so. Truth and Non-violence are excellent as an ideal and admirable as guides in action. They are, however, to be practised in actual day-to-day life and not in the air. I am showing later on that Gandhiji himself was guilty of glaring breaches of his much vaunted ideals. 60. Gandhiji’s political career will be divided as already stated under three heads : (I) The period between 1915 to 1939-40. (II) The period between 1939-40 to 3rd June, 1947, when the Indian National Congress. surrendered to Mr. Jinnah and accepted, Pakistan under the leadership of the Mahatma. (III) The period between the date of partition to the day of his last fast unto death resulting in the payment of Rs.55 crores to Pakistan and the Mahatma’s death within a short period. 61. When Gandhiji finally returned to India at the end of 1914, he brought with him a very high reputation for courageous leadership of Indians in South Africa. He had placed himself at the head of the struggle for the assertion and vindication of the national self-respect of India and for our rights of citizenship against white tyranny in that country. He was honoured and obeyed by Hindus, Muslims and Parsis alike and was universally acclaimed as the leader of all Indians in South Africa. His simplicity of life, his unselfish devotion to the cause which. he had made his own, his self-sacrifice and earnestness in fighting against the racial arrogance of the Africanders had raised the prestige of Indians. In India he, had endeared himself to all. 62. When he returned here to serve his countrymen in their struggle for freedom, he had legitimately hoped that as in Africa he would command the unchallenged confidence and respect of all communities. But in this hope he soon found himself disappointed. India was not South Africa. In South Africa, Indians had claimed nothing but elementary rights of citizenship which were denied to them. They had ‘nil’ a common and acute grievance. The Boer and the British both had treated them like door mats. Hindus, Muslims and Parsis therefore stood united like one man against the common enemy. They had no other quarrel with the South African Government. The Indian problem at home was quite different. We ware fighting for home rule, self- Government and even for Independence. We were intent on overthrowing an Imperial Power, which was determined to continue its sway over us by all possible means including the policy of ’Divide and Rule’ which had intensified the cleavage between the Hindus and Muslims. Gandhiji was thus confronted at the very outset with a problem the like of which he had never experienced in South Africa. Indeed in South Africa he had smooth sailing throughout. The identity of interest between the various communities there was complete and every Indian had ranged himself behind him. But in India communal franchise, separate electorates and the like had already undermined the solidarity of the nation, more of such were in the offing and the sinister policy of communal favouritism was being pursued by the British with the utmost tenacity without any scruple. Gandhiji therefore, found it most difficult to obtain the unquestioned leadership of the Hindus and the Muslims in India as in South Africa. But he had been accustomed to he the leader of all Indians and quite frankly he could not understand the leadership of a divided country. it was absurd for his honest mind to think of accepting the generalship of an army divided against itself. 63. For the first five years after his return to India there was not much scope for the attainment by him of supreme leadership in Indian politics. Dadabhai Naoroji, Sir Pherozeshah Mehta, Lokmanya Tilak and Mr. G. K. Gokhale and others were still alive and Gandhiji honoured as he was. popular as he was, was still a junior compared to those veterans both in age and experience. But an inexorable fate removed all of them in five years and with the death of Lokmanya Tilak in August, 1920 Gandhiji was at once thrown into the front fine. 64. He saw that the foreign rulers by the policy of ’Divide and Rule’ wore corrupting the patriotism of the Muslims and that there was little chance of his leading a united host to the battle for Freedom unless he was able to cement fellow feeling and common devotion to the Motherland. He, therefore, made Hindu- Muslim Unity the foundation of his politics. As a counterblast to the British tactics he started making the most friendly approaches to the Muslim community and reinforced them by making generous and extravagant Promises to the Muslims. This, of Course, wag not wrong in itself so long as it was done consistently with India’s struggle for democratic national freedom; but Gandhiji completely forgot this, the most essential aspect of his campaign for unity, with what results we all know by now. 65. Our British rulers were able, out of Indian resource continuously, to make concessions to Muslims and to keep the various communities divided. By 1919 Gandhiji had become desperate in his endeavours to get the Muslims to trust him and went from one absurd promise to another. He promised ’a blank cheque’ to the Muslims. He backed the Khilafat movement in this country and was able to enlist the full support of the National Congress in that policy. For a time, Gandhiji appeared to succeed and prominent Muslim leaders in India became his followers; Mr. Jinnah was nowhere in 1920-21, and the Ali Brothers became de facto Muslim leaders. Gandhiji welcomed this as the coming promise of leadership, of the Muslims. He made most of the Ali Brothers, raised them to the skies by flattery and unending concessions; but what he wanted never happened. The Muslims &an the Khilafat Committee as a distinct political religious organisation and throughout maintained it as a separate entity from the Congress; and very soon the Moplah Rebellion showed that the Muslims had not the slightest idea of national unity on which Gandhiji had set his heart and had stakes so much. There followed as usual in such cases, a huge slaughter of the Hindus, numerous forcible conversions, rape and arson. The British Government entirely unmoved by the rebellion suppressed it in a few months and left to Gandhiji the joy of his Hindu-Muslim Unity. The Khilafat agitation had failed and let down Gandhiji. British Imperialism emerged stronger, the Muslims became more fanatical and the consequences were visited on the Hindus. But undaunted by the tactics of the British Rulers, Gandhiji became more stubborn in the pursuit of his phantom of Hindu-Muslim Unity. By the Act of 1919 separate electorates were enlarged and communal representation was continued not merely in the legislature and the local, bodies but even extended within the Cabinet. The services began to be distributed on the communal basis and the Muslims obtained high jobs from our British Masters not on merit but by remaining aloof from the struggle for freedom and because of their being the followers of Islam. Government patronage to Muslims in the name of Minority protection penetrated throughout the body-politic of the Indian State and the Mahatma’s meaningless slogans were no match against this wholesale corruption of the Muslim mind. But Gandhiji did not relent. He still lived in the hope of being the common leader both of the Hindus and Muslims and the more he was defeated, the more he indulged in encouraging the Muslims by extravagant methods. The position continued to deteriorate and by 1925 it became patent to all that the Government had won all along the line; but like the proverbial gambler Gandhiji increased his stake. He agreed to the separation of Sind and to the creation of a separate province in the N. W. Frontier. He also went on conceding one undemocratic demand after another to the Muslim League in the vain hope of enlisting its support in the national struggle. By this time the stock of the Ali Brothers had gone down and Mr. Jinnah who had staged a come-back was having the best of both the worlds. Whatever concessions the Government and the Congress made, Mr. Jinnah accepted and asked for more. Separation of Sind from Bombay and the creation of the N. W. Frontier were followed by the Round Table Conference in which the minority question loomed large. Mr. Jinnah stood out against the federation until Gandhiji himself requested Mr. Mc Donald, the Labour Premier, to give the Communal Award. Further seeds were thereby sown for the disintegration of this country. The communal principle became deeply impeded in the Reforms of 1935. Mr. Jinnah took the fullest advantage of every situation. The Federation of India which was to consolidate Indian Nationhood was in fact, defeated, Mr. Jinnah had never taken kindly to it. The Congress continued to support the Communal Award under the very hypocritical words of neither supporting nor opposing, which really meant its tacit acceptance. During the War 1939-44, Mr. Jinnah took up openly one attitude-a sort of benevolent neutrality-and promised to support the war as soon as the Muslims rights were conceded; in April 1S40, within six months of the War, Mr. Jinnah came out with the demand for Pakistan on the basis of his two nation theory. Mr. Jinnah totally ignored the fact that there were Hindus and Muslims in large numbers in every part of India. There may be a majority of Hindus in some case and a minority of Muslims in other Provinces and vice versa, but there was no Province in India where either the Hindus or the Muslims were negligible in numbers and that any division of India would leave the minority question wholly unsolved. 66. The British Government liked the Pakistan idea as it kept the Hindus and Muslims estranged during the war and thereby avoided embarrassing the Government. The Muslims did not obstruct the war efforts and the Congress sometimes remained neutral and sometimes opposed. On the other hand the Hindu Sabha realised that this was an opportunity for our young men to have a military training, which is absolutely essential for our nation, and from which we were rather kept far away intentionally by the British. But due to this war the doors of Army, Navy and Air-force were opened to us, and Mahasabha urged our countrymen to militarise Hindus. The result was that nearly 1/2 millions of Hindus learnt the art of war and mastered the mechanised aspect of modern warfare. The Congress Governments are enjoying the fruits of the Mahasabha’s foresight because the troops they are using in Kashmir and had employed in Hyderabad would not have been there ready made but for the effort of men with such outlook. The Congress in 1942, started the Quit India’ movement in the name of Freedom; violent outrages ware perpetrated by Congress men in every Province. In the Province of North Bihar there was hardly a railway station which was not burnt or destroyed by the, Congress non-co-operators; but in spite of all the opposition of the Congress the Germans were beaten in April, 1945 and the Japanese in August, 1945. The atomic bomb brought the collapse of the Japanese resistance and the British won against Japanese and Germans in spite of the opposition of the Congress party. The ‘Quit India’ campaign of 1942 had completely failed. Britishers had triumphed and the Congress leaders decided to come to terms with them. Indeed in the subsequent years the Congress policy can be quite correctly described as ’Peace at any Price’ and ’Congress in Office at all costs.’ The Congress compromised with the British who placed it in office and in return the Congress surrendered to the violence of Mr. Jinnah, carved out one-third of India to him an explicitly racial and theological State and destroyed, two million human beings in the process. Pandit Nehru now professes again and again that the Congress stands for a secular State and violently denounces those who reminded him that only last year he agreed to a communal and theological State; his vociferous adherence to a Secular Stale’ is nothing but a case of ‘my lady protests too much.’ 67. The ‘Quit India’ movement had to be abandoned, the Congress support to the war against Japan had to be assured and the Viceroy Lord Wavell had to be accepted as the head of the Government of India before the Congress was to be called into the Conference Chamber. 68. This section summarises the back-ground of the agony of India’s partition and the tragedy of Gandhiji’s assassination. Neither the one nor the other wives me any pleasure to record or to remember, but the Indian people and the world at large ought to Know the history of the last thirty years during which India has been torn into pieces by the Imperialist policy of the British and under a mistaken policy of communal unity. The Mahatma was betrayed into action which has ultimately led not to the Hindu-Muslim Unity but to the shattering of the whole basis of that Five crores of Indian Muslims have ceased to be our countrymen; virtually the non-Muslim minority in Western Pakistan have been liquidated either by the most brutal murders or by a forced tragic removal from their moorings of centuries; the same process is furiously at work in Eastern Pakistan. One hundred and ten millions of people have become torn from their homes of which not less than four millions are Muslims and when I found that even after such terrible results Gandhiji continued to pursue the same policy of appeasement, my blood boiled, and I could not tolerate him any longer. I do not mean to use hard words against Gandhiji personally nor do I wish to conceal my utter dissent from and disapproval of the very foundation of his policy and methods. Gandhiji in fact succeeded in doing what the British always wanted to do in pursuance of their policy of Divide and Rule’. He helped them in dividing India and it is not yet certain whether their rule has ceased. GANDHIJI’S POLITICS X-RAYED (Section II) 69. The accumulating provocation of 32 years culminating in his last pro-Muslim fast at last goaded me to the conclusion that the existence of Gandhiji should be brought to an end immediately. On coming back to India he developed a subjective the second fiddle to all hi s eccentricity, whimsicality, metaphysics and Primitive vision or it had to carry on without him. He alone was the judge of every one and everything; he was the master brain guiding the civil disobedience movement; nobody else knew the technique of that movement; he alone knew when to begin it and when to withdraw it. The movement may succeed or fail; it my bring untold disasters and political reverses but that could make no difference to the Mahatma’s infallibility. ‘A Satyagrahi can never fail’ was his formula for declaring – his own infallibility and nobody except himself knew who a Setyagrahi was. Thus Gandhiji became the judge and the counsel in his own case. These childish inanities and obstinacies coupled with a most severe austerity of life, ceaseless work and lofty character made Gandhiji formidable and irresistible. Many people thought his politics were irrational but they had either to withdraw from the Congress or to place their intelligence at his feet to do what he liked with it. In a position of such absolute irresponsibility Gandhiji was guilty of blunder after blunder, failure after failure and disaster after disaster. No one single political victory can be claimed to his credit during 33 years of his political predominance. Herein below I mention in some detail the series of blunders which he committed during 32 years of his undisputed leadership. 70. I shall now describe briefly the enormous mischief done by the slogans and the nostrums which Gandhiji prescribed and followed, in pursuance of his policy, the fatal results that we now know. Here are some of them : (a) Khilafat-As a result of the First World War, Turkey had lost most of its Empire in Africa and the Middle East. It had lost all its European Imperial possessions also and by 1914 only a strip of land was all that was left to her on the continent of Europe. The young Turks had forced the Sultan of Turkey to abdicate and with the disappearance of the Sultan the Khilafat was also abolished. The Indian Muslims’ devotion to the Khilafat was strong and earnest and they believed that is was Britain that had brought about the downfall of the Sultan and the Khilafat. They therefore started a campaign for the revival of the Khilafat. In the moment of opportunism the Mahatma misconceived the idea that by helping the Khilafat Movement he would become the leader of the Muslims in India as he already was of the Hindus and that with the Hindu-Muslim Unity thus achieved the British would soon have to conced Swaraj. But again, Gandhiji miscalculated and by leading the Indian National Congress to identify itself with the Khilafat Movement, he quite gratuitously introduced theological element which has proved a tragic and expensive calamity. For the moment the movement for the revival of the Khilafat appeared to be succeeding. The Muslims who were not with the Khilafat Movement soon became out of date and the Ali Brothers who were its foremen leaders swam on the crest of a wave of popularity and carried everything before them. Mr. Jinnah found himself a lonely figure and was of no consideration for a few years. The movement however failed. Our British Masters were not unduly shaken and as a combined result of repression and the Montague Chelmsford Reforms they were able to tide over the Khilafat Movement in a few years time. The Muslims had kept the Khilafat Movement distinct from the Congress all along; they welcomed the Congress support but they did not merge with it. When failure came the Muslims became desperate with disappointment and their anger was sited on the Hindus. Innumerable riots in the various parts of India followed the chief victims being the Hindus everywhere. The Hindu-Muslim Unity of the Mahatma became a mirage. (b) Moplah Rebellion-Malabar, Punjab, Bengal and N. W. F. Province were the scene of repeated outrages on the Hindus. The Moplah rebellion as it was called was the most prolonged and concentrated attack on the Hindu religion, Hindu honour, Hindu life and Hindu property; hundreds of Hindus were forcibly converted to Islam, women were outraged. The Mahatma who had brought about all this calamity on India by his communal policy kept mum. He never uttered a single word of reproach against the aggressors nor did he allow the Congress to take any active steps whereby repetition of such outrages could be prevented. On the other hand he went to the length of denying the numerous cases of forcible conversions in Malabar and actually published in his paper ’Young India’ that there was only one case of forcible conversion. His own Muslim friends informed him that he was wrong and that the forcible conversions were numerous in Malabar. He never corrected his misstatements but went to the absurd length of starting a relief fund for the Moplahs instead of for their victims; but the Promised land of Hindu.Muslim Unity was not yet in sight. (c) Afghan Amir Intrigue-When the Khilafat
      • CONTINUED 150 REASONS (c) Afghan Amir Intrigue-When the Khilafat movement failed Ali Brothers decided to do something which might keep alive the Khilafat sentiments. Their slogan was that whoever was the enemy of the Khilafat was also the enemy of Islam and as the British were chiefly responsible for the defeat and the dethronement of the Sultan of Turkey, every faithful Muslim was in solemn duty bound to be a bitter enemy of Britain. With that object they secretly intrigued to invite the Amir or Afghanistan to invade. India and promised him every support. There is a long history behind this intrigue; Ali brothers never denied their share in the conspiracy. The Mahatma pursued his tactics of getting Hindu-Muslim Unity by supporting the Ali brothers through thick and through thin. He publicly poured his affection on them and promised them unstinted support in the restoration of the Khilafat. Even with regard to the invasion of India by the Amir the Mahatma directly and indirectly supported the Ali Brothers. This is proved beyond the. Shadow of a doubt. The late Mr. Shastri, Mr. C. Y. Chintamani the Editor or the ‘Leader’ of Allahabad and even the Mahatma’s life-long friend, the late Rev. C. F. Andrews told him quite clearly that his speeches and writings amounted to a definite support to the Ali Brothers in their invitation to the Amir of Afghanistan to invade India. The following quotations from the, Mahatma’s Writing in those days should make it clear. That he had forgotten his own country in his one consuming desire to please the Muslims and had become a party to the invasion of his motherland by a foreign Ruler. The Mahatma supported the invasion in the following words : “I cannot understand why the Ali Brothers are. going to be arrested as the rumours go, and why I am to remain free. They have done nothing which I would not do. If they had sent a message, to Amir, I also would send one to inform the Amir that if he came, no Indian so long as I can help it, would help the Government to drive him back.” The vigilance of the British broke the conspiracy nothing came out of the Ali Brothers’ grotesque scheme of the invasion of India and Hindu-Muslim Unity remained as far away as before. (d) (i) Attack on Arya Samaj-Gandhiji ostentatiously displayed his love for Muslims by a most unworthy and unprovoked attack on the Arya Samaj in 1924. He publicly denounced the Samaj for its supposed sins of omission and commission; it was an utterly unwarranted reckless and discreditable attack, but whatever would please the Mohammedans was the heart’s desire of Gandhiji. The Arya Samaj made a powerful but polite retort and for some time Gandhiji was silenced, but the growing political influence of Gandhiji weakened the Arya Samaj. No follower of Swami Dayanand could Possibly be a Gandhian Congressman in politics. The two things are entirely incompatible; but the lure of office and Leadership has induced numerous Arya Samajists to play the double game of claiming to be Gandhi to Congressmen and Arya Samajists at the same time. The result was that a ban on Satyartha Prakash was imposed by the Government of Sind four years ago and the Arya Samaj on the whole took it lying down. As a result its hold on Hindu social and religious life has been further considerably Crippled. Individual members of the Samaj are and were strong nationalists. The late Lala Lajpat Rai, and Swami Shradhanand to mention only two names ware staunch Arya Samajists but they were foremost amongst the leaders of the Congress till the end of their life. They did not stand for blind support to Gandhi, but were definitely ,Opposed to his pro-Muslim Policy, and openly fought him on that issue. But these great men are gone now. We know that the bulk of the Arya Samaj continues ’to be what they always were, but they are ill-informed .and badly led by the self -seeking section of the Samaj. The Samaj has ceased to be the force and the power that it was at one time. (d) (ii) Gandhiji’s attack did not improve his popularity with the Muslims but it provoked a Muslim youth to murder Swami Shraddhanandji within a few months. The charge against the Samaj that it was a reactionary body was manifestly false. Everybody knew that far from being reactionary body the Samaj had been vanguard of social reforms among the Hindus. The Samaj had for a hundred years stood for the abolition of untuchability long before the birth of Gandhiji. The Samaj had popularised widow remarriage. The Samaj had denounced the caste system, and preached the oneness of not merely the Hindus. but of all those who were prepared to follow it & tenets. Gandhiji was completely silenced for some time but his leadership made the people forget his baseless attack on the Arya Samaj and even weakened the Samaj to a large extent. Swami Dayanand. Saraswati who was the founder of the Arya Samaj; had no fad about violence or non-violence. In his teaching the use of force was not ruled out but was permissible if morally desirable. It must have been a struggle for the leaders of the Arya Samaj whether to. remain within the Congress or not. because Gandhiji insisted on non-violence in all cases and Swami Dayanand made no bones about it. But Swamiji was dead and Gandhiji’s star was ascendant in the political firmament. (e) Separation of Sind-By 1928 Mr. Jinnah’s stock had risen very high and the Mahatma had already conceded many unfair and improper demands of Mr. Jinnah at the expense of Indian democracy and the. Indian nation and the Hindus. The Mahatma even supported the separation of Sind from the Bombay Presidency and threw the Hindus of Sind to the communal wolves. Numerous riots took place in Sind-Karachi, Sukkur, Shikarpur and other places in which the Hindus were the only sufferers and the Hindu- Muslim Unity receded further from the horizon. (f) League’s Good Bye to Congress – With each defeat Gandhiji became even more keen on his method of achieving Hindu- Muslim Unity. Like the ,gambler who had lost heavily he became more desperate increasing his stakes each time and indulged in the most irrational concessions, if only they could placate Mr. Jinnah and enlist his support under the Mahatma’s leadership in the fight for freedom. But the aloofness of the Muslims from the Congress increased with the advance of years and the Muslim League refused to have anything to do with the Congress after 1928. The resolution of Independence passed by the Congress at its Lahore Session in 1929 found the Muslims conspicuous by their absence and strongly aloof from the Congress organisation. The hope of Hindu Muslim Unity was hardly entertained by anybody thereafter; but Gandhiji continued to be resolutely optimistic and surrendered more and more to Muslim communalism. (g) Round – Table Conference and Communal Award – The British authorities both in India and in England, had realized that the demand for a bigger and truer instalment of constitutional reforms was most insistent and clamant in India and that in spite of their unscrupulous policy of ’Divide and Rule’ and the communal discord which it had generated, the resulting situation had brought thorn no permanence and security so far as British Rule In India was concerned. They therefore decided by the end of 1929 to convene a Round Table Conference in England early in the next year and made a declaration to that effect. Mr. Ramsay Mc- Donald was the Prime Minister and a Labour Government was in power; but the action was too late. The resolution of Independence was passed a month later at the Lahore Session of the Congress in spite of the aforesaid declaration and the Congress Party decided to boycott this Round Table Conference. Instead, a Salt Campaign was started after a few months which created tremendous enthusiasm and nearly 70,000 people, went to jails in breaking the provisions of the Salt Act. The Congress however soon regretted its boycott of the First Round Table Conference and at the Karachi Congress of 1931 it was decided to send Gandhiji alone as the Congress Representative to Second Session of Round Table Conference. Anybody who reads the proceedings of that Session will realize that Gandhiji was the biggest factor in bringing about the total failure of the Conference. Not one of the decisions of the Round Table Conference was in support of democracy or nationalism and the Mahatma went to the length of inviting Mr. Ramsay McDonald to give what was called the Communal Award, thereby strengthening the disintegrating forces of communalism which had already corroded the body politic for 24 years past The Mahatma was thus responsible for a direct and substantial intrusion of communal electorate and communal franchise in the future Parliament of India. There is no wonder that when the communal award was given by Mr. Ramsay MacDonald, the Mahatma refused to oppose it and the members of the Assembly were asked ’Neither to support nor to reject it.’ Gandhiji himself put an axe on the communal unity on which he had staked so much for the previous. fifteen years. No wonder under the garb of minority protection we got in the Government of India Act of 1935 a permanent statutory recognition of communal franchise, communal electorate and even weight age for the minorities especially the Muslims, both in the, Provinces and in the Centre. Those elected on the, communal franchise would be naturally communal minded and would have no interest in bridging the gulf between communalism and nationalism. The formation of a parliamentary party on political and, economic grounds thus became impossible. Hindus and Muslims became divided in opposite camps and worked as rival parties, placing increased momentum to separatism. Almost everywhere Hindus became victims of communal orgies at the hands of the. Muslims. People became perfectly cynical about any possibility of unity between Hindus and Muslims but the Mahatma kept on repeating his barren formula all the time. (Here refer to Pandit Madan Mohan Malaviya’s speech against the acceptance of Communal Award.) (h) Acceptance of office and Resigning in Huff – Provincial Autonomy was introduced from the, 1st of April, 1937 under the Government of India Act 1935. The act was bristling with safeguards, special Powers. protection to British personnel in the various services intact. The Congress therefore would not accept office at first but soon found out that in every Province a Ministry was constituted and that at least in five Provinces they were functioning in the normal manner. In the other six Provinces the Ministers we a in a minority but they ware forging ahead with their nation building programme and the Congress felt that it would be left out in the cold if it persisted in its policy of barren negation. It therefore decided to accept office in July, 1937; in doing so it committed a serious blunder in excluding the members of the Muslim League from effective participation in the Cabinet. They only admitted into the Cabinet such Muslims as were congress-men. This was the right policy for a country with citizen franchise and without communal representation but have accepted communal electorate and communal franchise and other paraphernalia of separatism, it became untenable to keep out the members of Muslim League who represented the bulk of the Muslims in every province, where they were in a minority. The Nationalist Muslims who became Ministers were not representatives of the Muslims in the sense in which the Muslim League Members were and in not taking the League Members in the Cabinet the Congress openly repudiated its own action in statutorily having recognised itself communal by statute. On the other hand the Muslims were quite unwilling to come under the Congress control; their interest never needed protection. The Governors were there always ready and willing to offer the most sympathetic support, but the rejection of Muslim League Members as Ministers ,gave Mr. Jinnah a tactical advantage which he utilised to the full and in 1939 when the Congress resigned Office in a huff, it completely played in the hand of the Muslim League and British Imperialism. Under Section 93 of the Government of India Act 1935 the Governments of the Congress Provinces were taken over by the Governors and the Muslim League Ministries remained in power and authority in the remaining Provinces. The Governors carried on the administration with a definite leaning towards the Muslims as an Imperial Policy of Britain and communalism reigned right throughout the country through the Muslim Ministries on the one hand and the pro-Muslim Governors on the other. The Hindu. Muslim Unity of Gandhiji became a dream, if it were ever anything else; but Gandhiji never cared. His ambition was to become the leader of Hindu and Muslims alike and in resigning the Ministries the Congress again sacrificed democracy and nationalism. The fundamental rights of the Hindus, religious, political, economic and social, all were sacrificed at the altar of the Mahatmic obstinacy. (i) League Taking Advantage of War-Encouraged by the situation thus created the Muslim Government in five Provinces and the pro-Muslim Governors in the other six, Mr. Jinnah went ahead in full speed. The congress opposed the war in one way or another. Mr. Jinnah and the League had a very clear policy. They remained neutral and created no trouble for the Government; but in the year following the Lahore Session of the Muslim League passed a resolution for the partition of India as a condition for their co-operation in the war. Lord Linlithgow within a few months of the Lahore Resolution gave full support to the Muslims in their policy of separation by a declaration of Government Policy which assured the Muslims that no change in the political constitution of India will be made without the consent of all the elements in India’s national life. The Muslim League and Mr. Jinnah were thus vested with a veto over the political progress of this country by the pledge given by the Viceroy of India. From that day the progress of disintegration advanced with accumulated force. Muslims were not prohibited by the League from getting recruited to the Army, Navy and Air Force and they did so in large numbers In fact the Punjab Muslims resented their percentage in the Indian Army at all reduced thus, with a view to preparing for eventualities in future Muslim State as is being done in Kashmir today, and of course the Muslim League never created any difficulty for the Government throughout the six years of the global war. (Here refer to the speech of the late Sir Sikandar Hyat Khan delivered at Cairo to the armed forces during the last World War) All that they wanted was that no changes should be made in the constitution of India without their full consent and that full consent could be obtained if only Pakistan was conceded. This assurance was virtually given by Lord Linlithgow in August, 1940. (j) Cripp’s Partition Proposal Accepted – The Congress did not know its own mind as to whether it should support the war, oppose or remain neutral. All these attitudes were expressed in turn one after the other; sometimes by way of speeches, sometimes by way of resolutions, sometimes through Press campaigns and sometimes in other ways. Government naturally felt that the Congress has no mind of its own except verbose condemnation. The war was correct on without let or hindrance till 1942. The Government could get all the men, all the money, and all the, material which their war efforts needed Every Government loan was fully subscribed. In 1942 came the Cripps Mission which presented to the Congress and to the rest of India Dead Sea Apple of useless promises, coupled as it was, with a clear hint of partition of India in the background. Naturally the Mission failed, but the Congress even while opposing the Mission’s proposals yielded to the principle of partition after a very pretentious resolution reiterating its adherence to democracy and nationalism. At a meeting of the All India Congress Committee held in April, 1942 at Allahabad the principle of partition was repudiated by an overwhelming majority-the minority consisting of the present Governor General Mr. C. Rajagopalchari and his half dozen supportersbnt Maulana Azad, the so-called nationalist Muslim, was then the President of the Congress. He gave a ruling a few months later that the Allahabad Resolution had no effect an the earlier resolution of the Working Committee which conceded the principle of Pakistan however remotely. The Congress was entirely at the end of its wits. The British Government went on effectively controlling the whole country through Muslim Ministries and through pro-Muslim Governors. The Princes wholly identified themselves with the war. Labour refused to keep aloof. The capitalist class supported the Congress in words and the Government in deed by supplying the Government everything it wanted at top prices. Even Khaddar enthusiasts sold blankets to Government. The Congress could tee no way out of its absolute paralysis; it was out of office and Government was carried on in spite of its nominal opposition. (k) ‘Quit-India’ by Congress and Divide and Quit’ by League – Out of sheer desperation Gandhiji evolved the ‘Quit India’ Policy which was endorsed by the Congress. It was supposed to be the greatest national rebellion against foreign rule. Gandhiji had ordered the people to ’do or die’. But except that the leaders were quickly arrested and detained behind the prison bars some furtive acts of violence were practised by Congressmen for some weeks. But in less than three months the whole movement was throttled by Government with firmness and discretion. The movement soon collapsed. What remained was a series of piteous appeals by the Congress Press and the Congress supporters, who were outside the jail, for, the release of the arrested leaders without formally withdrawing the ’Quit India’ movement, which had already collapsed. Gandhiji even staged a fast to capacity for his release, but for two years until the Germans were decisively beaten, the leaders had to remain in jails and our Imperial masters were triumphant all along Mr. Jinnah openly opposed the ‘Quit India’ Movement as hostile to the Muslims and raised a counter slogan ‘Divide and Quit’. That is where Gandhiji’s Hindu-Muslim Unity had arrived. (l) Hindi Versus Hindustani-Absurdly pro. Muslim policy of Gandhiji is nowhere more blatantly illustrated than in his perverse attitude on the question of the National Language of India. BY all the tests of a scientific language, Hindi has the most prior claim to be accepted as the National Language of this country. In the beginning of his career in India, Gandhiji gave. a great impetus to Hindi but as he found that the Muslims did not like it, he became a turncoat and blossomed forth as the champion of what is called, Hindustani. Every body in India knows that there is no language called Hindustani; it has no grammar; it has no vocabulary; it is a mere dialect; it is spoken but not written. It is a bastard tongue and a crossbreed between Hindi and Urdu and not even the Mahatma’s sophistry could make it popular; but in his desire to please the Muslims he insisted that Hindustani alone should be the national language of India. His blind supporters of course blindly supported him and the so-called hybrid tongue began to be used. Words like ’Badshah Ram’ and ’Begum Sita’ were spoken and written but the Mahatma never dared to speak of Mr. Jinnah as Sri Jinnah and Maulana Azad as Pandit Azad. All his experiments were at the expense of the Hindus. His was a one-way traffic in his search of Hindu-Muslim Unity. The charm and the purity of the Hindi Language was to be prostituted to please the Muslims, but even Congressmen, apart from the rest of India refused to digest this nostrum. He continued to persist in his support to Hindustani The bulk of the Hindus however proved to be stronger and more loyal to their culture and to their mother tongue and refused to bow down to the Mahatmic fiat. The result was that Gandhiji did not prevail in the Hindi Parishad and had to resign from that body; his pernicious influence however remains and the Congress Governments in India still hesitate whether to select Hindi or Hindustani as the National Language of India. The barest common sense should make it clear to the meanest intelligence that the language of 80 per cent of the people must be the language of the country but his ostentatious support of the Muslims made him look almost idiotic when he continued to stand for Hindustani. Happily there are millions and millions of champions of the Hindi language and the Devnagari script. The U.P. Government has adopted Hindi as. the language of the Province. The Committee appointed by the Government of India has translated the whole of the Draft Constitution in pure Hindi and it now remains for the Congress Party in the legislature to adopt the commensurable view in favour of Hindi or assert their loyalty to the Mahatma in their mad endeavour to force a foreign language on a great country like India. For practical purpose Hindustani is only Urdu under a different name, but Gandhiji could not have the courage to advocate the adoption of Urdu as against Hindi, hence the subterfuge to smuggle Urdu under the garb of Hindustani. Urdu is not banned by any nationalist Hindu but to smuggle it under the garb of Hindustani is a fraud and a crime. That is what the Mahatma tried to do. To bolster up a dialect in School Curriculum and in educational institutions that non-existent language in the garb of Hindustani because it pleased the Muslims was the communalism of the. worst type on the part of the Mahatma. All these for Hindu- Muslim Unity. (m) Vande Mataram Not to be Sung – The infatuation of Gandhiji for the Muslims and his incorrigible craving for Muslim leadership without any regard for right or wrong for truth or justice and in utter contempt of the sentiments of the Hindus as a Whole was the high water- mark of the Mahatmic benevolence. It is notorious that some Muslims disliked the celebrated song of ’Vande Mataram’ and the Mahatma forthwith stopped its singing or recital wherever he could. This song has been honoured for a century as the most inspiring exhortation to the Bengalees to stand up like one man for their nation. In the antipartition agitation of 1905 in Bengal the song came to a special Prominence and popularity. The Bengalees swore by it and dedicated themselves to the Motherland at countless meetings where this song was sung. The British Administrator did not understand the true meaning of the song ’which simply meant ’Hail Motherland’ Government therefore banned its singing forty years ago for some time, that only led to its increased popularity all over the country. It continued to be sung at all Congress andother national gatherings but as soon as one Muslim objected to it Gandhiji utterly disregarded the national sentiment behind it and persuaded the Congress also not to insist upon the singing as the national song. We are now asked to adopt Rabindranath Tagore’s ’Jana Gana Mane, as a substitute for ’Vande Mataram’. Could anything be more demoralised or pitiful than this brazenfaced action against a song of world- wide fame? Simply because one ignorant fanatic disliked it. The right way to proceed would have been to enlighten the ignorant and remove the prejudice, but that is a policy which during the thirty years of unbounded popularity and leadership Gandhiji could not muster courage to try. His Hindu-Muslim Unity idea only meant to surrender, capitulate, and concede whatever the Muslims wanted. No wonder the Willo the Wisp unity never came and never could have come . (n) Shiva Bavani Banned -Gandhiji banned the public recital or perusal of Shiva Bavani a beautiful collection of 52 verses by a Hindu poet in which he had extolled the great power of Shivaji and the protection which he brought to the Hindu community and the Hindu religion. The refrain of that collection says ‘if there were no Shivaji, the entire country would have been converted to Islam.’ (Here recite the couplet from the Book ‘Shiva Bavani’ ending with the words (Kashiji Ki Kala jati Mathura masjid hoti Shivaji jo na hote to Sunnat hot Sabki) This was the delight of millions of contemporary history and a beautiful piece of literature, but Gandhiji would have none of it. Hindu- Muslim Unityndeed ! (o) Suhrawardy Patronised-When the Muslim League refused to join the provisional Government which Lord Wavell invited Pandit Nehru to form, the League started a Council of Direct Action against any Government farmed by Pandit Nehru, On the 15th of August 1946. A little more than two weeks before Pandit Nehru was to take office, there broke out in Calcutta an open massacre of the Hindus which continued for three days unchecked. The horrors of these days are described in the ’Statesman’ newspaper of Calcutta. At the time is was considered that the Government which could permit such outrages on its citizens must be thrown out; there were actual suggestions that Mr. Suhrawardy’s Government should be dismissed, but the socialist Governor refused to take up the administration under Section 93 of the Government of India Act. Gandhiji however went to Calcutta and contracted a strange friendship with the author of these massacres, in fact he intervened on behalf of Suhrawardy and the Muslim League. During the three days that the massacre of Hindus took place, the police in Calcutta did not interfere for the protection of life or property, innumerable outrages were practised under the very eyes and nose of the guardians of law. but nothing mattered to Gandhiji. To him Suhrawardy was an object of admiration from which he could not be diverted and publicly described Suhrawardy as a Martyr. No wonder two months later there was the most virulent outbreak of Muslim fanaticism in Noakhali and Tipperah 30,000 Hindu women were forcibly converted according to a report of Arya Samaj, the total number of Hindus killed or wounded was three lacs not to say the crores of rupees worth of property looted and destroyed. Gandhiji then undertook. ostensibly alone, a tour of Noakhali District. It is wall known that Suhrawardy gave him protection wherever he went and even with that protection Gandhiji never ventured to enter Noakhali District. All these outrages, loss of life and property were done when Surhawardy was the Prime Minister and to such a monster of inequity and communal poison Gandhiji gave the unsolicited title of Martyr. (p) Attitude towards Hindu and Muslim Princes – Gandhiji’s followers successfully humiliated the Jaipur, Bhavnagar and Rajkot States. They enthusiastically supported even a rebellion in Kashmir State against the Hindu Prince. This attitude strangely enough contrasts with what Gandhiji did about the affairs in Muslim States. There was a Muslim League intrigue in Gwalior States. as a result of which the Maharaja was compelled to abandon the celebrations of the second millennium of the Vikram Calendar four years ago: the Muslim agitation was based on pure communalism The Maharaja is the liberal and impartial Ruler with a far sighted outlook. In a recent casual Hindu Muslim clash in Gwalior because the Musalmans suffered some casualties Gandhiji came down upon the Maharaja with a vitriolic attack wholly undeserved. (q) Gandhiji On Fast to Capacity-in 1943 while Gandhiji was on fast to capacity and nobody was allowed to interview him on political affairs, only the nearest and the dearest had the permission to go and enquire of his health. Mr. C. Rajagopalachari smuggled himself into Gandhiji’s room and hatched a plot of conceding Pakistan which Gandhiji allowed him to negotiate with Jinnah. Gandhiji later on discussed this matter for three weeks with Mr. Jinnah in the later part of 1944 and offered Mr. Jinnah virtually what is now called Pakistan. Gandhiji went every day to Mr. Jinnah’s house, flattered him. praised him, embraced him, but Mr. Jinnah could not be cajoled out of his demand for the Pakistan pound of flesh. Hindu Muslim Unity was making progress in the negative direction. (r) Desai-Liaquat Agreement – (i) In 1945 came -the notorious Desai-Liaquat Agreement. It put one more, almost the last, nail on the coffin of the ,Congress as a, National democratic body. Under that agreement, the late Mr. Bhulabhai Desai the then leader of the Congress party in the Central Legislative Assembly at Delhi entered into an agreement with Mr. Liaquat Ali Khan, the League Leader in ilie Assembly, jointly to demand a Conference from the British Government for the solution of the stalemate in Indian politics which was growing since the beginning of the War, Mr. Desai was understood to have taken that step without consulting anybody of any importance in the Congress circle, as almost all the Congress leaders had been detained since the ‘Quit India’ Resolution in 1942. Mr. Desai offered equal representation to the Muslims with Congress at the said Conference and this. was the basis on which the Viceroy was approached to convene the Conference. The then Viceroy Lord Wavell flew to London on receipt of this joint request and brought back the consent of the Labour Government for the holding of the Conference. The official announcement in this behalf stupified the country on account of its treachery alike to nationalism and democracy to which the Congress had become a party. Indian democracy was stabbed in the back and every principle of justice was violated. The Congress members quickly acquierced in this monstrous proposal. The proposal however had, it was then revealed, the blessings of the Mahatma and was in fact made with his previous knowledge and consent. With the full agreement of the Congress party 25% of the people of India were. treated as if they were 50% and the 75% were brought down to the level of 50%. The Viceroy also laid down other conditions for the holding of the Conference. They were : (1) An unqualified undertaking on the part of the Congress and all political parties to support the war against Japan until victory was won. (2) A coalition Government would be formed in which the Congress and the Muslims would each have five representatives. There will besides be a representative of the depressed classes, of the Sikhs and other Minorities. (3) The Quit India’ Movement will be unconditionally withdrawn and such of the Congress leaders as had been detained in consequence of the Movement would be released. (4) All measures of Administrative Reform will be within the four corners of the Government of India Act 1935. (5) The Governor-General and the Viceroy shall retain the same constitutional position in the new setup as he had at that time i.e. he would remain the head of new Government. (6) At the end of the war, the question of complete freedom will be decided through the machinery of the Constituent Assembly. (7) If these were without any modification the Viceroy would reconstitute his Government with all portfolios to be held by Indians as per (2) above. (8) People who had only three years ago started the ’Quit India’ Movement for complete Independence and exhorted the people to ’Do or Die’ in implementing the rebellion quietly submitted to accept office under the leadership of a British Viceroy on the terms, and conditions laid down by him, The fact was that the ’Quit India, Movement had failed, the Congress had no alternative programme and events were moving on whether the Congress party was ready for them or not. Mr. Jinnah was the only gainer from the collapse of the Congress. He obtained a great tactical advantage by the recognition of the muslims’ right for 50%. representation in oil future discussions. The twonation theory and the demand for Pakistan received a fillip although the Conference failed without achieving the Hindumuslim Unity. (s) Cabinet Mission Plant-Early in the year 1946 the so- called Cabinet mission arrived in India. It consisted of the then Secretary of State for India now Lord Lawrence, Mr. Alexander, the minister for War and Sir Stafford Cripps. Its arrival was heralded by a speech in Parliament by Mr. Atlee the prime Minister. Mr. Atlee announced in most eloquent terms the determination of the British Government to transfer power to India if only the latter agreed upon common plan.] he agreement was the pivot of the work of the mission but it was fatal. The Congress was honestly for a United India, but it was not outright in its conviction. It lacked firmness. Mr. Jinnah on the other hand demanded a divided India but he demanded it firmly. Between these two opposite demands the mission found it impossible to bring about an agreement and after some further informal discussions with both, the mission announced its own solution on the 15th may 1946. It rejected and gave ten good reasons for that rejection but while firmly championing the unity of India the mission introduced Pakistan through the back- door, In paragraph l5 of the proposals the mission introduced six conditions under which the British Government would be prepared to convene a Constituent Assembly invested with the right of framing a Constitution of Free India. Each of these six proposals were calculated to prevent the unity of India being maintained or full freedom being attained even if the Constituent Assembly was an elected body. The Congress party was so utterly exhausted by the failure of ‘Quit India’ that after some smoke-screen about its unflinching nationalism it virtually submitted to Pakistan by accepting the, mission’s proposals which made certain the dismemberment of India although in a roundabout manner. The Congress accepted the scheme but did. not agree to form a Government. The long and short of it was that the Congress was called upon to form a Government and accept the whole scheme unconditionally. Mr. Jinnah denounced the British Government for treachery and started a direct action council of the Muslim League. The Bengal, the Punjab, the Bihar, the Bombay, and other places in various parts of India became scenes of bloodshed, arson, loot and rape on a scale unprecedented in history. The overwhelming members of victims were Hindus. The Congress stood aghast but impotent and could not give any protection to the Hindus anywhere. The Governor General in spite of his powers to intervene under the Act of 1935 in case, of a breach of peace and tranquility in India or in any part of it merely looked on and made no use of his obligations under the Act. few lakhs of people were killed, many thousands of women and children were kidnapped and few of them have not yet been traced, thousands and thousands of woman were raped, hundreds crores worth of property was looted, burned or destroyed. The Mahatma was as far as ever before from his goal of Hindu-Muslim Unity. (t) Congress Surrenders to Jinnah – By the following year the Congress Party abjectly surrendered to Mr. Jinnah at the point of bayonet and accepted Pakistan. What happened thereafter is too well-known. The thread running throughout this narrative is the increasing infatuation which Gandhiji developed for the Muslims. He uttered not one work of sympathy or comfort for millions of displaced Hindus, he had only one eye for humanity and that was the Muslim humanity. The Hindus simply did not count with him. I was shocked by all these manifestations of Gandhian saintliness. (u) Ambiguous Statement about Pakistan – In one of his articles, Gandhiji while nominally ostensibly opposed to Pakistan, openly declared that if the Muslims wanted Pakistan at any cost, there was nothing to prevent them from achieving it. Only the Mahatma could understand what that declaration meant. Was it a prophesy or a declaration or disapproval of the demand for Pakistan ? (v) III-advice to Kashmir Maharaja – About Kashmir, Gandhiji again and again declared that Sheikh Abdullah should be entrusted the charge of the state and that the Maharaja of Kashmir should retire to Benares for no particular reason than that the muslims formed the bulk of the Kashmir. population. This also stands out in contrast with his attitude on Hyderabad where although the bulk of the Population is Hindu, Gandhiji never called upon the Nizam to retire to Mecca. Mountbatten vivisects India-From August 15, 1946 onwards the private armies of the Muslim League began killing, devastating and destroying the Hindus wherever they could lay their hands on. Lord Wavell, the then viceroy was undoubtedly gently ,distressed at what was happening but he would not use his powers under the Government of India Act of 1935 to prevent such a holocaust and Hindu blood began to flow from Bengal to Karachi with mild reactions in the Deccan. All the time from the 2nd September 1946 the socalled National Government consisting of two hybrid elements utterly reconcilable to each other was in office but the Muslim League members who were 50% of the Congress did every thing in their power to make the working of a Coalition Government impossible. The Muslim League members did everything they could to sabotage the coalition Government but the more they became disloyal and treasonable to the Government of which they formed a part, the greater was Gandhiji’s infatuation for them. Lord Wavell had to resign as he could not bring about a settlement. He had some conscience which prevented him from supporting the partition of India. He had openly declared it to be unnecessary and undesirable. But his retirement was followed by the appointment of Mountbatten. King Log was followed by King Stork. This Supreme Commander of the South East Asia was a purely Military man aid he had a great reputation for daring, and tenacity. He came to India with a determination to do or die and he ‘did’ namely he vivisected India. He was more indifferent to human slaughter. Rivers of blood flowed under his very eyes and nose. He apparently was thinking that by the slaughter of Hindus so many opponents of his mission were killed, the greater the slaughter of the enemies greater the victory, and he pursued his aim relentlessly to its logical conclusion. Long before June 1948 the official date for handing over power, the wholesale murders of the Hindus had their full effect. The Congress which had boasted of its nationalism and democracy secretly accepted Pakistan literally at the point of the bayonet and abjectly surrendered to Mr. Jinnah. India was vivisected. One third of the Indian territory became foreign land to us from the 15th of August 1947. Lord Mountbatten came to be described in Congress Circle as the greatest Viceroy and Governor General India had ever known. He had gifted ten months earlier than 30th June 1948 what is called Dominion status to vivisected India. This is what Gandhiji had achieved after thirty years of undisputed dictatorship and this is what the Congress Party calls Freedom’. Never in the history of the world has such slaughter been officially connived at or the result described as Freedom, and ’Peaceful Transfer of power’ If what happened in India in 1946, 1947 and 1948 is to be called peaceful one wonders what would be the violent. Hindu Muslim Unity bubble was finally burst and a theocratic and communal State dissociated from everything that smacked of United India was established with the consent of Nehru and his crowd and they have called it ‘Freedom won by them at sacrifice’ Whose sacrifice ? (x) Gandhiji on Cow – slaughter – Gandhiji used to display a most vehement desire for the, protection of the cow. But in fact he did no effort in that direction. On the contrary, in one of his post prayer speeches, he has admitted his inability to support the demand for stopping cow-slaughter. An extract from his speech in this connection is reproduced below. Today Rajendra Babu informed me that he had received some fifty-thousand postcards, 20-30 thousand telegrams urging prohibition of cowslaughter by law. In this connection I have spoken to you before also. After all why are so many letters and telegrams sent to me. They have not served any purpose. No law prohibiting cowslaughter? India can be enacted. How can I impose my will upon a person who does not wish voluntarily to abandon cowslaughter India does not belong exclusively to the Hindu&. Muslims, Parsees, Christians also live here. The claim of the Hindus that India has become the land of the Hindus is totally incorrect. This land belongs to all who live here. I know an orthodox Vaishnava Hindu. He used to give beef soup to his child.’ (y) Removal of Tri – Colour Flag – The tricolour flag with the Charkha on it was adopted by the Congress as the National Flag out of deference to Gandhiji. There were flag salutations on innumerable occasions. The flag was unfurled at every Congress meeting. It fluttered in hundreds at every session of National Congress, The Prabhat Pheries were never complete unless the flag was carried while the march was on. On the occasion of every imaginary or real success of the Congress Party, public buildings, shops and private residences were decorated with that flag. If any Hindu attached any importance to Shivaji,s Hindu flag, “Bhagva Zenda” the flag which freed India from the Muslim-domination it was considered communal. Gandhiji’s tricoloured flag never protected any Hindu woman from outrage or a Hindu temple from desecration, yet the late Bhai Parmanand was once mobbed- by enthusiastic Congressmen for not paying homage to that flag. University students showed their patriotism by mounting that flag on University building. A Mayor of Bombay is believed to have lost his Knighthood because his wife hoisted this flag on the Corporation building. Such was supposed to be the allegiance of the Congress people to their “National Flag”. When the Mahatma was touring Noakhali and Tipperah in 1946 after the beastly outrages on the Hindus, the flag was flying on his temporary hut. But when a muslim dame there and objected to the presence of the flag on his head, Gandhiji quickly directed its removal. All the reverential sentiments of millions of Congressmen towards that flag were affronted in a minute, because that would please an isolated muslim fanatic and yet the so-called Hindu-Muslim unity never took shape. GANDHIJI AND INDEPENDENCE 71. Some good number of people are labouring under the delusion that the freedom movement in India started with the advent of Gandhiji in 1914-15 and reached is consummation on the 15th August 1947 on which day it is said we attained Freedom under the leadership of the Father of the Nation. In all history there was never a more stupendous fiction fostered by the cunning and believed by the credulous in this country for over a thousand years. Far from attaining freedom under his leadership Gandhiji has left India torn and bleeding form a thousand and wounds. There has been always alive in India a freedom movement which has never. been suppressed. When the Mahratta Empire was finally subdued in 1818 as the British thought they forces of freedom were lying low for some time in part of India but were actually challenging the supremacy of the British so far as Northern India was concerned through the rise of Sikh power. And when by 1848 the Sikhs were defeated at Gujarat the rebelling of 1857 was being actively organised. It came with such suddenness and force and was so widespread that the British Imperialists began to shake in their shoes and more than once they seriously considered the advisability of leaving India. The history of the great effort on the part of the Indian people to overthrow the British yoke has been vividly described in the pages of Veer Savarkar’s “War of Independence 1857” and by the time the British had fully regained control the Indian National Congress was established, once more to challenge the British domination and from 1885 the rational urge for freedom began to assert itself first through constitutional methods, later by militant methods. This fast developed into armed resistance which openly asserted itself through the bomb of Khudi Ram Bose in 1906. 72. Gandhiji arrived in India in 1914-15. Nearly eight years earlier, the revolutionary movement had spread over a large part of India. The freedom Movement had never died out. It had risen again like the Phoenix from its ashes. After the arrival of Gandhiji and his fads of Truth and Non-violence, the movement began to suffer eclipse. Thanks however to Subhash Chandra Bose and the revolutionaries in Maharashtra, Punjab and Bengal that the movement continued to flourish parallel to Gandhiji’s rise to leadership after the death of Lokamanya Tilak. 73. Even the constitutional movements carried on by the Moderates in the Congress registered some progress towards Freedom. In 1892 the British Government. were obliged to extend the then Legislative Councils. This was followed up by the Morley-Minto Reforms in 1909 when for the first time the elected representatives of the people secured the right to participate in the work of the Legislatures both by their voice and their votes. Twelve years thereafter later, after the first World War the Montague Chelmsford Reforms conceded partial Provincial Autonomy and also increased the number of elected members so as to give permanent non-official majority both at the Centre and in the Provinces; and in 1935, came the complete Provincial Autonomy and substantial Central responsibility which cover every subject except foreign policy, Army, and to some extent Finance. Gandhiji had no love for Parliamentary bodies. He called them prostitutes, and always urged their boycott. Yet the constitutional progress up to 1935, little though it was, had been achieved The Act of 1935 was of course defective. more especially because of the numerous and vexation safeguards granted to the British vested interests and the premium it placed on communalism. 74. There was further objection to it on the ground of the veto which it granted to the Governors and the Governor General. Even then it is reasonably certain that if the Act had not been boycotted under Gandhiji’s leadership, India would have long since reached the status of a Dominion which we are now supposed to be enjoying, after losing one-third of Indian territory. 75. I have already mentioned the revolutionary party which existed independent of the Congress. Amongst its sympathizers were many active Congressmen. This latter section was never reconciled to the yoke of Britain. During the First World War between 1914-1919 the Congress began to turn left and the terrorist movement outside was running parallel to the leftist party within. The Gadar Party was operating simultaneously in Europe and America in an effort to overthrow British Rule in India with the help of the Axis Powers. The ’Comagata Maru’ incident is well known, and it is by no means clear that the “Emden” incident on the Madras beach was not due to the knowledge of the German Commander that India was seething with discontent. But from 1920 upwards Gandhiji discouraged, put his foot down on the use of force although he himself had carried on an active campaign for recruitment for soldiers of Britain only a few years earlier. The Rowlatt Repert described at length the strength of the revolutionaris in India. Form 1906 till 1918 one Britisher after another and his Indian stooges were shot dead by the revolutionary nationalists and the British authorities were trembling about their very existence. It was Then that Mr. Montague came to this country as Secretary of State for India and promised the introduction of responsibility; even he was only partially successful to stern the tide of revolutionary ferver. The Government of India Act 1919 was over- shadowed by the Jailianwalla Bagh, Tragedy in which hundreds of Indians were shot dead by General Dyer at a public meeting fot the crime of holding a protest against the Rowlatt Act. Sir Michael O’Dwyer became notorious for callous and unscrupulous reprisals against those who had denounced the Rowlatt Act. Twenty years later he had to pay for it, when Udham Singh shot him dead in London. Chafekar brothers of Maharashtra, Pt. Shamji Krishna Verma the back bone of the Revolutionaries, Lala Hardayal, Virendranath Chatopadhyaya, Rash Behari Bose, Babu Arvind Ghosh, Khudiram Bose, Ulhaskar Datta, Madanlal Dhingra, Kanhere, Bhagatsingh, Rajguru, Sukhdeo, Chandrashekhar Azad were the living protest by Indian youth against the alien yoke. They had unfired and held aloft the flag of Independence, some of them long before Gandhiji’s name was heard of and even when he was the accepted leader of the constitutional movement of the Indian National Congress. 76. I had already stated that the revolutionary movement beginning in Bengal and Maharashtra later on reached the Punjab. The young men associated with it did not come from the riffraff of society. They were educated, cultural men belonging to most respectable families having high social status in private life. They sacrificed lives comfort and ease at the altar of the liberty of the Motherland. They were the martyrs whose blood became the cement of the India Church of Independence. Lokmanya Tilak built on it and the Mahatma got advantage of the accumulated momentum of this movement. It is my firm conviction that each stage of constitutional progress between 1909 and 1935 became possible as a result of the revolutionary forces working in the background. 77. Moderate’s opinion condemned the revolutionary violence. Gandhiji publicly denounced it day after day on every platform and through the press. There is however little doubt that the overwhelming mass of the people gave their silent but wholehearted support to the vanguard of the armed resistance working for national freedom. The theory of the revolutionary is, that a nation always tries to wage war on its alien conquerors, It owes no allegiance to the conqueror, and the very fact of his domination carries with it a notice to him that he may be overthrown any moment. The judgements passed on the armed resistance by a subject people to the foreign master, on the principle of allegiance of the citizen to his State is altogether beside the mark. And the more the Mahatma condemned the use of force in the country’s battle for freedom the more popular it became. This fact was amply demonstrated at the Karachi Session of the Congress in March 1931; in the teeth of Gandhiji’s opposition a resolution was passed in the open Session admiring the courage and the spirit of sacrifice of Bhagat Singh when he threw the bomb in the Legislative Assembly in 1929. Gandhiji never forgot this defeat and when a few months later Mr. Hotson, the Acting Governor of Bombay was shot at by Gogate, Gandhiji returned to the charge at an All-India Congress Committee meeting and asserted that the admiration expressed by the Karachi Congress for Bhagat Singh was at the bottom of Gogate’s action in shooting at Hotson. This astounding statement was challenged by Subhash Chandra Bose. He immediately came into disfavour with Gandhiji. To sum up, the share of revolutionary youth in the fight for Indian Freedom, is by no means negligible and those who talk of India’s freedom having been ecured by Gandhiji are not only ungrateful but are trying to write false history. The true history of India from 1985 onwards for the freedom of the country will never be written so long as Indian affairs are in charge of the Gandhian Group. The memorable share of the youth will be kept back. It Is nevertheless true that they have played a noble and creditable part. 78. It was not merely those who advocate the use of force in the freedom battle whom Gandhiji opposed. Even those who held political views radically different from his and those who did not accept his nostrums whom Gandhiji made the target of displeasure. An outrageous example of his dislike of people with whom he did not agree is furnished by the case of Subhash Chandra Bose. So far as I am aware no protest was ever made by Gandhiji against -the deportation of Subhash for six years and Bose’s .election to the Presidential Chair of the Congress was rendered possible only after he had personally disavowed any sympathy for violence. In actual practice however Subhash never toed the line that Gandhiji wanted during his term-of office. And yet Subhash was so popular in the country that against the declared, wishes of Gandhiji in favour of Dr. Pattabhai he was elected president of the Congress for a second time with a substantial majority even from the Andhra Desha, the province of Dr. Pattabhai himself. This upset Gandhiji beyond endurance and he expressed his anger in the Mahatmic manner full of concentrated venom by stating that the success of Subhash was his defeat and not that of Dr. Pattabhai. Even after this declaration, his anger against Subhash Bose was not gratified. Out of sheer cussedness he absented himself from the Tripuri Congress Session, staged a rival, show at Rajkot by a wholly mischievous fast and not until Subhas was overthrown from the Congress Gadi that the venom of Gandhiji became completely gutted. 79. This incident about the re-election of Subhash to the Congress crown and of his eventual expulsion from the Presidential office is an indication of the, hypocracy with which the Mahatma controlled and repudiated the Congress as and when he liked. He had repeatedly stated after 1934 with a great show of detachment that he was not even a four anna member of the Congress Party and that he had nothing to do with it. But when Subhash was elected for a second time Gandhiji complete lost his balance and furnished, the best proof that he had interfered with that election from the very inception in favour of Dr. Patrabhai; it is a proof of his keen and engrossing interest in the rivalries and petty squabbles within the Congress at every stage while professing to be not even a member of that body. 80. When the ’Quit India’ Movement was launched by the Congress, on the 8th August 1942 in the initiative of Gandhiji most of its leaders were quickly arrested by Government before they could make any start and the movement so far as it was non-violent was nipped in the bud. There was another section in the Congress itself who went underground. These latter were not over-anxious to follow the Gandhian technique and to go to jail; on the contrary, they wanted to avoid going to jail as long as possible and in the meantime to do she maximum damage to Government by cutting communications, by ,committing arson, loot and other acts of violence, not excluding murder. The statement of Gandhiji exhorting the people to ’Do or Die’ was interpreted by that section as giving them full scope for all kinds of obstruction and sabotage. In fact they did everything to paralyse the war effort of Government to the fullest extent- Police Thanas were burnt, postal communications were violently interrupted. In north Bihar and other places, nearly 900 railway stations were either burnt or destroyed and the administration was almost to a standstill for a time. 81. These activities were directly opposed to the Congress creed of non-violence and to the Satyagraha technique Gandhiji could neither support nor oppose These latter activities. If he supported them his creed of non-violence would stand exposed. If he opposed them publicly he would become unpopular with the masses who did not care one brass button whether ’the expulsion of the British from India was accomplished by violence or nonviolence. In fact, the Quit India’ campaign was known more for its acts of violence on the part of Congress supporters than for anything else. Gandhiji’s non-violence- had died within few weeks of the starting the ’Quit India’ campaign while the violence that was being committed under that flame found no favour with him. The Gandhian point of view was entirely absent from the activities of the Congress party and its supporters within a few weeks of the 8th August 1942. No where was non-violence either preached or practised as the supporters of the campaign were, in the words of Gandhiji himself, prepared to ’Do or Die’. It was only when Lord Linlithgow in his correspondence with Gandhiji in 1943 categorically challenged him to own or disown the violence on the part of the supporters of the ’Quit India’ campaign that Gandhiji was forced to condemn that violence. Whatever embarrassment, damage, inconvenience and harm were done to the war efforts was the result of the violent activities of the Congress supporters and not the so-called non-violence of the Mahatma. Non-violence had completely failed; violence to some extent appeared to have succeeded, but Gandhiji had to denounce it from the jail. The revolutionary struggle for independence was thus discouraged by Gandhi while his own strategy had completely collapsed soon after the 8th August 1942. 82. By this time Mr. Subhash Chandra Bose who had mysteriously escaped from India early in January 1941 had already arrived in Japan after reaching Berlin through Afghanistan. The way in which Mr. Subhash Chandra Bose escaped from Calcutta in January 1941 and the hardships and sufferings which he had to undergo on his way through the Indian Frontier to Kabul and thence after to Berlin are vividly described by Mr. Uttam Chand in his book ’When Bose was Ziauddin’. The courage and tenacity with which Bose faced all privations, all dangers, all difficulties, eventually reaching Berlin made the most thrilling and romantic reading. By the time of the arrival of the Cripps Mission in India in 1942 he had already reached Japan and was organising an invasion of India. Before Subhash left Germany, Hitler had invested him with the title of His Excellency and on reaching Japan he found the Japanese ready to assist him against the British in the invasion of the country. Japan had already joined the war on tie side of the axis by the attack on the Pearl Harbour in America; Germany had declared war on Russia; and Britain France in turn had declared war on Italy and Germany and Japan. In Japan in Federated Malaya States, in Burma and its other parts of the Far East, Subhash received most enthusiastic welcome and immence support from the Indians settled there. 83. The Japanese had intensified their war effort and occupied Burma, Dutch East Indies, Federated Malaya States and the whole of the Far East including the Andamans Islands. Subhash Chandra Bose was thereby enabled to start a provisional Indian Republican Government on Indian territory. By 1944 he was equipped to start on an invasion of India with the help of the Japanese. Pandit Nehru had declared that. If Subhash Chandra Bose came into India with the support of the Japanese he would fight Subhash. Early in 1944, Japanese and the Indian National Army organised by Subhash were thundering at the gates of India and they had already entered Manipur State and some part of the Assam Frontier. The I. N. A. consisted of volunteers from the Indian population of the Far East and of those Indians who had deserted to the I. N. A. from the Japanese prisons. That the campaign eventually failed was no fault of Subhash; his men fought like the Trojans. But his difficulties were far too great and his army was not sufficiently epoipped with modern armaments. The I.N.A. had no aeroplanes and their supply-line was weak. many died of starvation and illness as there was no adequate medical treatment available to them. But the spirit which Subhash engendered in them was wonderful. He was lovingly described by them as Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose, and they had adopted the slogan of ’Jai Hind’ under his leadership. 84. Gandhiji was opposed to Subhash Chandra Bose’s invasion of India. Nehru was Opposed to him because he did not approve of Bose’s support to the Japanese invader. But whatever difference may have existed between Bose and other Indian leaders there was no doubt whatever that Subhash was loved more than any other leader because of his singlehanded effort to destroy British imperialism. If Subhash had been alive and had entered India in 1945 after the defeat of the Japanese army, the whole Indian population would, likes one man, have been behind him and given him the most affectionate welcome, But Gandhiji was again more Lucky. Lokmanya Tilak died in 1920 and Gandhiji became the unchallenged leader. Success of Subhash Chandra would have a crushing defeat for Gandhiji, but luck was again on his side and Subhash Chandra died outside India. It then became easy for the Congress party to profess love and admiration for Subhash Chandra Bose and the I. N. A. and even to defend some of its officers and men in the Great State Trial in 1946. They even adopted ‘Jai Hind’ as the slogan which Subhash had introduced in the East. They traded on the name of Subhash and the I. N. A. and the two issues which led them to victory during the election in 1945-46 were their hypocritical homage to Subhash’s memory. moreover the Congress party had promised they were opposed to Pakistan and would resist it at all costs. On these two assurances they treated the I.N.A. with scant courtesy and of course they succumbed to Pakistan in breach of their promise. 85. All this time the Muslim League was carrying on treasonable activities, disturbing the peace and tranquility of India carrying on a murderous campaign against the Hindus. Lord Wavell and Lord Mountbatten looked on entirely unconcerned. The Congress would not venture to condemn or to stop these wholesale massacres in pursuit of its policy of appeasement at all costs. Gandhiji suppressed everything which did not fit in with his pattern of public activities. I am therefore surprised when claims are made over and again the winning of the freedom was due to Gandhiji. My own view is that constant pandering of the Muslim League was not the way to winning freedom. It only created a Frankenstein which ultimately devoured its own creator swallowing one third of hostile, sensoriour, unfriendly and aggressive Indian Territory, and permanently stationing a neighbour on what was once Indian territory. About the winning of Swaraj and freedom, I maintain the Mahatma’s contribution was negligible. But I am prepared to give – him a place as a sincere patriot. His teachings however have produced opposite result and his leadership has stultified the nation. In my opinion S. C. Bose is the supreme hero and martyr of modern India. He kept alive and fostered the revolutionary mentality of the masses, advocating all honourable means, Including the use of force when necessary for the liberation of India. Gandhiji and his crowd of self seekers tried to destroy him. It is thus entirely incorrect to represent the Mahatma as the architect of Indian Independence. 86. The real cause of the British leaving this ,country is threefold and it does not include the Gandhian method. The aforesaid triple forces are : (i) The movements of the Indian Revolutionaries right from 1857 to 1932, i.e. upto the death of Chandra Shekhar Azad at Allahabad, then next, the movement of revolutionary character not that of Gandhian type in the countrywide rebellion of 1942. and an armed revolt put up by Subhash Chandra Boss the result of which was a spread of the revolutionary. mentality in the Military Forces of India are the real dynamic factors that have shattered the very foundations of the British Rule in India. And all these effective. efforts to freedom were opposed by Gandhiji. (ii) So also a good deal of credit must be given to, those who, imbibed with a spirit of patriotism, fought with the Britishers strictly on constitutional lines on, the Assembly floors and made a notable progress in Indian politics. The view of this section was to take the maximum advantage of whatever we have obtained and to fight further on. This section was generally represented by late Lokmanya Tilak, Mr. N. C. Kelkar, Mr. C. R. Das, Mr. Vithhalbhai Patel-brother of Hon. Sarder Patel, Pandit Malaviya, Bhai
      • Greetings of the Day,

        Distorting and or suppressing the truth is as equal a crime, that of planned systematised lying. The author of this 86 and odd pointed ‘blabbering’.

        It could easily be challenged and ripped to pieces, and I plan to do just that. However I would reply to the major part of this ‘blabbering’.

        First, let us start from the start. The Great Revolt of 1857, which is for good reasons is termed as ‘The First War of Independence’. During the period of 1857-1858 soldiers, predominantly Brahmin and Rajpoot soldiers North Indian soldiers declared their loyalty to an aged and infirm titular Mogul emperor Bahadur Shaah Zafar. Why would they do it?? If Hindoos were getting oppressed and repressed across centuries(So much the pseudo-patriot/nationalist version of oppressed and repressed Hindoo’s). And V. D Savarkar, did he not beg for mercy and clemency from the imperial-colonial-capitalist British government (when interred in the Andaman and Nicobar Cellular Prison). Did he not collaborate with the authorities?? At least M. K. Gandhi was patriotic, unlike ‘Savarkar the Hypocrite’ (Sarcasm is definitely intended).

        Second, the author seem to admit quite erroneously, to the fact that Hindoo Mahasabha leaders like Lajpat Rai and others were ‘power hungry hypocrites’, who for power and post joined Indian Congress.

        Third, it is really an ‘oxymoron’ statement that the Arya Samajis were and are patriots. Otherwise in their long existence, they would have at least once taken an anti-imperialist and colonial stand. Can the author show any reliable and relevant information/evidence to prove this allegation wrong. I guess, absolutely NO.

        Fourth, the riots during the 1920’s,especially 1924-1925 in Punjab, NWFP (especially Kohat) happened due to the intentional publication of the provocative article called ‘Rangeela Rassool’. Had there been no such ‘toxic venom spewing’ by Arya Samaj and Hindoo Maha Sabha, there wont been any riots. Let the author (an apologist for pseudo patriot/nationalists) accept this ‘bitter truth’.

        Fifth, Urdu as a language was born in the northern part of the subcontinent. It is nothing but an Arabo-Persian form Hindi, with an Arabo-Persian script. Declaring Urdu to be an alien language/tongue is,, a sign of philological/lingual ‘senselessness’. Moreover since when Hindi had become the common language of all the people of the subcontinent. Even if it is agreed for arguments sake, that Hindi is the language of the majority of the people, why do we have so-so different dialects like Awadhi, Khadiboli, Mewaati, Mebaari, Marwari, Bundeli, Baagri, Bhojpuri, Brajbooli, Sekhawati, Haryanvi-all uniqely different from each other. Furthermore if Hindi was a single composite language, why was not there any uniform script?? And Devnaagri was accepted as the single script for writing Hindi. The author would feel enlightened to know that Subhash Chandra Bose was also in favour of making in Hindoostaani written in Latin script, to be the ‘National Language’ of India. Let us pray for the author to get well from his ‘elective-selective falsity and hypocricy’.

        Sixth, Sikandar Hayat Khaan of Punjaab was never a Moslim Leaguer, but a leader of the Unionist Party of Punjab. His loyalist statement, can and should never be taken something that Indian Congress supported.

        Seventh, Bhagat Singh and his Comrades of HSRA, were Communist/Socialist in their outlook and very much against the ‘colonial-capitalist-communal-rightist-reactionary toxic’ mentality of Arya Samaj, Hindoo Maha Sabha, RSS. Even Subhash Chandra Bose was not an exception. In fact I would like to add one thing, to the cadre/leader of RSS, every Communist/Socialist is the illegitimate offspring of Karl Marx-Freiderick Engels-Vladimir Lenin. Look at the falsity!!

        Eighth, Bankim Chandra Chatterjee was a loyal and bootlicking employee of the imperial-colonial-capitalist British government. His orders and judgement against the peasant rebel of the Indigo Revolt would amply prove the fact. Moreover, in the Baanglaa version of ‘Aanandamatth’, nowhere is anything anti-British spoken or written. On the contrary it quiet shamelessly talks of loyalty towards the crown. Please refer the last page of the last chapter of the original novel in Baanglaa. I dare the author to take the challenge and prove the contrary.

        Ninth, Of course Moslim League was responsible for the partition, so was Hindoo Maha Sabha and RSS. The then ‘Sarsangchaalak’ of RSS in 1938 wrote a booklet called ‘We Our Nationhood Defined’, openly advocating the partitioning of the subcontinent along religious communal lines. The riots of 1946, RSS and Hindoo Maha Sabhaaist were equally responsible for the carnage. This was the reason why ‘Towards Freedom Series’ to be published Oxford University Press India Limited was stopped by the then NDA government. The shrewd and malicious do understand the perils of letting out ‘incriminating skeletons out of the closet.

        Tenth, M. K. Gandhi’s peace march in moslim dominated Noakhaali, did successfully stop the carnage. The joint fasting by M. K. Gandhi and H. S. Suhrawardi did stop the carnage in Calcutta. Let us not deny the fact.

        The list goes on and on. But let the author first prove the above point incorrect or wrong. We will continue with the others. later.

        With hatred for falsity and hypocricy.

  2. Brahmins are supposed to be of Aryan descent dude…that’s why the name. Chill out..

    Well the way I see it, before the time of Gandhi Muslims lived in harmony with Hindus. There were no quarrels and we fought together. Nevertheless, they were in minority. And when you have a minority they do not like to be suppressed and want more and more. So when they get the chance they will do their best to seize it. So when they asked for something, Gandhi would always think about how to accomodate Muslim wishes rather than just saying ‘no'(something a Vallabhai Patel would’ve done)…so in this regard, he was good for Muslims and bad for Hindus..

    • Greetings,

      Differing on the claims u r making in your statement/sentence, i would like to assert that no proper ‘Biological-Genetic’ science based research has proved that Indians or the so called ‘exploitative-dominating’ caste of Brahmins (priestly class) or the Kshatriya (warrior class) of India can claim to be pure Aryan/Caucasian/Nordic descent.

      Of course there may be have some minute amount of mixture, raising this ‘bastard mixed bred half castes (claiming to be Aryans/Caucasians/Nordics).

      Moreover still you have not provided any particular/specific instance of M. K. Gandhi unduly/unjustly favouring the Muslims over the Hindoo’s??

      Still awaiting a proper and true facts based argument..

      • I’m not talking about Aryan ethnicity..I’m talking about the Sanskrit meaning of Aryan(noble)

        I don’t have any evidence..but do you have evidence that deny the above 12 points..?

      • Greetings,

        This meaning of Aryan or noble/learned is just a foolish/shrewd way of beating one’s own dysfunctional drum/trumpet (whatever instrument u love to beat, beat it).

        But to me this absolutely unacceptable- One can never be the judge of oneself, for humans by inborn/innate character and nature are-exploitative, partial, biased, discriminatory, dis-balanced.

        Therefore let time and circumstances be the unbiased and neutral judge and judge us through our good work and deeds. Beating the dysfunctional drum/trumpet does not help an iota.

        For your second and last contention if you do not have an information and evidence on which you can rely and refer and still character assassinated a dead person, it smacks of a imbalanced-guilty-pervert-distorted-hypocrite mind (followers of RSS show this in plenty).

        Please provide proper and reliable evidence in support of our claims, otherwise why and how do u expect to make the false and deceitful claims to stand??

      • I still don’t understand how my Internet name has anything to do with my argument. To say that the meaning of Aryan as defined in Sanskrit. is “foolish” makes no sense to me. You’re arguing against the meaning of a word in a language? Clearly you are just some small kid sitting behind your computer talking like some enlightened sage.

        As for evidence, the fact that Gandhi supported a faggot like Nehru to be the first Prime Minister of India is evidence enough for his desire of wanting a unified State with Muslims.Why didn’t he elect Vallabhai Patel? Thing is I feel that Gandhi was bad for Hindus and supported Muslims. Why did he want to let you Muslims live in India? He should’ve just told them all to take a hike and go to the rathole that is Pakistan(as Vallabhai Patel wanted to do)

      • Greetings,

        A very good and valid point, now let me clarify!!
        your online/Internet name smacks of an ethnic-cultural-lingual-racial arrogance-

        1. Because the invading/interloper Aryans came and destroyed the true subcontinental culture and civilisation, or the Indus Valley Civilisation.

        2. Enslaving and colonising the real ‘son of the soil’ of this subcontinent, whom the exploting-dominating Hindoos have termed as ‘Ashoor/Rakhshaas’ in the past and now as ‘Shudra/Dalits’.

        3. The Aryans are the creator of an inhumane and savage custom of casteism, which in the name of Vedic religion is a toxic-venomous blot.

        4. For the custom of casteism is based upon an ‘Economic-Cultural-Political-Religious-Social’ exploitative system having no basis on ethical-moral humanitarian grounds.

        5. When Adolf Hitler and his pervert NAZI’s were hell bent on ethno-racial cleansing after world conquest, these so called fake Indian Aryans supported him (RSS, Hindoo Mahasabha). Before condemning ‘Apartheid’ in Republic of South Africa, the dominating-exploiting Indian Hindoo’s must genuinely self analyse and self judge themselves.

        It is a complement when u refer this author as ‘sage’, Of course ‘an enlightened sage’ is sitting in this side of the internet, because of his undying hatred for ‘ elective-selective deceit and hypocrisy’.

        Replying to your next point why M. K. Gandhi did not support Patel in place and instead of Jawaharlal Nehru, because he was very well aware of the ‘Guujjoo’ Bourgeois-Baaniaa character and trait that Patel had always shown, shrewd and slimy without any ethical-moral principle.

        to your ‘genuinely imbecile-Moronic’ contention of Muslims going to Pakistan as was wished by Patel is so practical and reasonable, then Jammu and Kashmir having 80% Muslim population does not belong to India at any cost.

        Please have an open-practical-free-logical and reasonable mind free from all parochial hypocrisies and vices..

      • Who the hell are you to talk about truth.
        You do not have guts to reveal your true name. and have guts comments without stating identity.

      • Mr who ever you are you are, this article is on Gandhi not on Arian. And nobody asked you meaning of Arian. if you want to discuss on Arian get out from this. And do U have evidence on anything ? or you are just babbling.

  3. By Aryan, I mean “noble” btw. Arya = noble

  4. Mohamed ali fathim Khán

    • Greetigs,
      Who is this Moohammad Aa`li Faathim Khaan (tried to be different).

      Is it the pseudonym used by Godse and Apte while assassinating M. K. Gandhi??

      After getting caught say we are Muslims who have assassinated M. K. Gandhi, create more toxic-venomous an atmosphere/environment.
      Create more hatred. Create more polarisation. Create more fodder for riots. Create more situation for ‘genocide’.

      RSS had always bee the toxic-venomous deceitful hypocrite, boot licking the imperial-western-colonial-capitalist British.

      Parochialism-Communalism is the first refuge of the worst type of ‘scoundrels’

      • Do you think yourself a smart individual who have nothing better to do but sit and just type long letters

        It’s seems like you are coward like mr Gandhi who wants to zip the lips and watch the show of freedom fighters lose their lives

        There are good values from Gandhi but some philosophy had ruined the country

  5. Atleast I am smart enough to fight against hypocrtitc parochialism, for Parochialism is the last refuge of the ‘worst scoundrels’…like u.

  6. Jaisriram.The same worest polacy is being follwed by congress n other kuhana secularists now also.The need of the hour is Hindu unity to check these morale less politics.

    • Greetings Venkateswarlu Vabilisetty,

      Of course Hindu unity is needed, but not under the ‘parochial-hypocritic-pseudo patriot/nationalist’ organisation like BJP/RSS, because according to them and their deceitful ideology/philosophy- u r not a Hindu, because…because your mother language is not Hindi and as a result u have not descended from the Aryans but from the ‘Rakshash Daasas’.

      Have some self esteem and respect and pee on the face of these ‘parochial’ bastards.

  7. Am i the only one who sees here a signature of the Nehru brand of politics.

    Question is who poisoned Godse. There was only one ambitious for glory

    • Greetings Priyesh,

      Telling the facts and truth, unmasking the ugly-hypocritic face of the ‘pseudo patriot and nationalist’ leaders and their respective organisation can be anything Indian Congress based Nehruvian politics!!.

      The leaders and the parties who are flying the high flag of patriotism/nationalism today were and are the ‘ lackey-stooges’ of imperial-colonial-capitalist British rulers.

      It includes Hindoo Mahasabha, Rshtriya Swayam Sevak Sangh. It is my open and direct challenge to these so called hypocritic pseudo patriot/nationalists and their offspring, let them show one movement where they have taken an anti imperial-colonial-capitalist stand against the British?? Of course every claim must be based upon true and reliable facts/evidences, and no self glorifying false drum and trumpet beating.

      After the British left all of a sudden on very fine morning, these organisations and their leaders like S. P . Mukerjee, V. D. Savarker comes out of their bed decking the patriotic-nationalistic garb.

      Long Live Deceit and Hypocrisy.

      Nathuram was hanged for atleast he was an iota honest enough to let out the poison, after being brain washed by leaders like Savarkar.

      A poor and misguided man, used by the hypocritic vested interests.

      Let the Truth and Only the Truth Come Out.

  8. Hi, its Prasad, I am not able to read all the reasons so will you please do me a favour.? Please mail me all this on my id mentioned below.
    mail id-

  9. Godse done the best thing ever

    • Greetings Sam,
      If Godse had done the best thing, then why after he was caught in 1948, did Hindoo Mahasabha, RSS disown him?????.

      Were they scared (LOL) and wanted to save their back skin?????

  10. @# Rahul- Atleast am babbling the pure truth. Not some hypocritic lying shit as you and your toxic organisation do.

    Moreover if you are having with my long English sentences, shall i switch to Espanyol, Francaise, Deutsche, Marathi or Hindi??

    You will still have problem in understanding, because u r a ‘Brainless, Brainwashed Dud’

    With no Malice/Malafide.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: