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. (w) 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- prasads1591@gmail.com

  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:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com 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

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 262 other followers

%d bloggers like this: