Hindus need to know the real Gandhi
I don’t want to bring anyone any pain or embarrassment. The Indian Constitution, on the other hand, preserves my right to freedom of expression. January 30th, this date has historical significance in India. On this day, the country and the world pay tribute to Gandhiji. I started reading Gandhi Literature: Collected Works of Mahatma Gandhi a few days ago on the website of GANDHI SEVAGRAM ASHRAM[1]. On this website, you can get a collection of 98 publications titled Gandhi Literature: Collected Works of Mahatma Gandhi. It’s challenging to study everything at the same time. So far, the books on this website have uncovered some incredible truths about Gandhi. Only one question remains after knowing those astounding details: Why was none of this mentioned in history or political science textbooks? After all, our right to know the truth is universal. Everything there is to know about Gandhiji has been taught to us. Gandhiji was the sole reason for the country’s freedom; this truth has been inscribed into the minds of the people like a stone. Even now, FIRs are being filed against individuals who speak out against him. He’s become impervious to criticism. For such a case, Maharishi Aurobindo has said something-“We have strong things to say; let us say them strongly; we have stern things to do; let us do them sternly. But there is always a danger of strength degenerating into violence and sternness into ferocity, and that should be avoided so far as it is humanly possible.”
- On page 354 of Gandhi Literature: Collected Works of Mahatma Gandhi, Volume 7 shows[2]. Gandhiji addressed a letter to G K Gokhale from Johannesburg on November 22, 1907, in which he expressed his gratitude, ”May I draw your attention to the fact that the struggle we are undergoing here has resulted in making us feel that we are Indians first and Hindus, Mahomedans, Tamils, Parsees, etc. afterward. You will notice, too, that all our delegates are Mahomedans. I am personally glad of the fact. And it may also happen that there will be many Mahomedans, having South African connections, attending the Congress. May I ask you to interest yourself in them and make them feel perfectly at home? A Hindu-Mahomedan compact may even become a special feature of this Congress.”
According to Gandhi, we are first and foremost Indians then Hindus, Mahomedans, Tamils, Parsees, and so on. The dharma dispatch essay “The Lal Ishtahar and the Bloodbath of Hindus in Bengal” reveals his pro-Muslim and anti-Hindu mindset behind the notion. Isn’t it true that in 1906-1907, while Gandhi was promoting his “We are Indians First” campaign, riots broke out in Comilla, Mymensingh, and Jamalpur? Those were not riots, but a Muslim jihad to wipe Hindus out of the world. For this goal, Lal Ishtahar was printed and distributed to Muslims. Isn’t it true that Gandhi’s “We are Indians First” myth was demolished when Muslims demanded Pakistan and achieved it in 1947?
- On page 355 of Volume No 92[3], there is a description of Gandhi’s prayer gathering in New Delhi on October 18, 1946. It is worded in this manner, “Gandhiji advised the women in East Bengal to commit suicide by poison or some other means to avoid dishonor. Yesterday he told the women to suffocate themselves or to bite their tongues to end their lives.“
Gandhi was, of course, pushing Hindu women to commit suicide in order to tolerate or avoid Muslim atrocities. Why isn’t this kind of Gandhi’s legacy taught in our schools and colleges?
Can someone clarify to me what Gandhi meant by this line? “If every Hindu in East Bengal had been done to death, I would not have minded it. After all, why did Gandhi place little value on the lives of Hindus?
- Gandhi wrote a letter to Foss Westcott from Srirampur, Noakhali available on pages 76-77 of Gandhi Literature: Collected Works of Mahatma Gandhi, Volume No 93[4]. Wherein Gandhi writes,” Of course conversions will, so far as I know, continue under swaraj but there would be no State favoritism as there has been during the British regime.”
In this statement, Gandhi expresses his support for the idea of conversion under Swaraj. Gandhi desired Islamic authority as well as the conversion of Hindus to Christianity. And Gandhi expected the Hindus to tolerate it all. He did, however, inspire Hindus to accept this. After all, why did Gandhi want Hindus to be stereotyped as oppressed and powerless? Shouldn’t today’s Hindus, as well as future generations of Hindus, seek solutions to these questions?
- Gandhi Literature: Collected Works of Mahatma Gandhi, Volume 94 states on page 46 that “Gandhiji gave to his ideal society the name Rama Rajya[5]. Let no one commit the mistake of thinking that Rama Rajya means a rule of the Hindus. My Rama is another name for Khuda or God. I want Khudai raj, which is the same thing as the Kingdom of God on earth. The rule of the first four Caliphs was somewhat comparable to it. The establishment of such a Rajya would not only mean the welfare of the whole of the Indian people but of the whole world“.
What exactly is the point of this madness? Ram Rajya, for Gandhi, was akin to Muslim caliphate rule. Is it fair to make a comparison between Bhagwan Ram and Khuda? Is it common for Muslims to refer to Allah as Ram or to believe in Ram? To even consider such an idea, I feel it is haram for Muslims. If their Allah and Ram were one, what would be the meaning of chants like ‘Ghajba-e-Hind’ or ‘Allah-hu-Akbar’? If Ram had been a Muslim role model, would there have been such a long campaign for Ram Mandir? What, after all, was Gandhi’s main goal? And this is the most surprising line. “The establishment of such a Rajya would not only mean the welfare of the whole of the Indian people but of the whole world.”
According to this, Libya, Syria, Afghanistan, Pakistan, and other Islamic countries should be among the most peaceful countries. However, wherever there is an Islamic state, one can find the polar antithesis of Gandhi’s ideals. To Gandhi, Ram Rajya represented God’s dominion, and the Khalifa ruled that realm. Isn’t this something that Hindus should avoid? Isn’t Gandhi’s stance toward Hindus reflected in this? Isn’t this something that should have been discussed in history classes?
- On pages 73-76 of this volume 94[5], you’ll find a description of Gandhi’s prayer meeting in Patna on March 5, 1947. In which he declares, “I consider myself a follower of Islam, Christianity, Zoroastrianism, and every other religion because I am a true Hindu. All religions are equal and they are founded on the same faith.”
Gandhi, according to this, is everything except a Hindu. What nonsense it is to believe that all religions are equal and share the same faith. The truth is that other from Sanatan Dharma or Hindutva, all other religions will consign the world’s civilizations to museums. Sarve Bhavantu Sukhinah is a Hindutva concept. In the Abrahamic beliefs, the Kaafirs are to be eradicated. What kind of world did Gandhi live in? Or was he plotting anything with the Hindus?
- The Collected Works Of Mahatma Gandhi, Volume No 94, Pages 209-210[6]. He reiterated what he had said often before, that he did not mind Jinnah or the Muslim League turning the whole of India into Pakistan, provided it was done by appeal to reason and not under threat of violence. But while he had previously held that this could be properly done only after the British had quitted, and while in principle he still adhered to that view, the crux of his present proposal was that he was now prepared under Mountbatten’s umpireship—not as Viceroy but as a man—to invite Jinnah to form a government of his choice at the centre and to present his Pakistan plan for acceptance even before the transfer of power. The Congress could give its whole-hearted support to the Jinnah Government. At the same time since the Muslim League would now be the government, it would have no further excuse for continuing the movements of organized lawlessness, which it had launched in some of the provinces. These must be called off. Further, since the Viceroy had declared that he was out to do justice only and nothing would be yielded to force, if the League did not accept the offer, the same offer mutatis mutandis should be made to the Congress.
Isn’t it shocking that Gandhi did not mind Jinnah or the Muslim League turning the whole of India into Pakistan? What does it mean- Muslim rule over India? and even before the transfer of power. What role did Hindus play in Gandhi’s India?
- On pages 247-249 of volume 94[6], Gandhi makes the following speech during a prayer meeting in Delhi on April 6, 1947: I only wish to tell you that you should not give up your goodness. If all the Muslims say that they wish to sever all connection with the Hindus and wish to live separately, should we out of anger start killing them? If we do that we shall be engulfed in such a holocaust that we shall all be reduced to ashes and none will survive Indiscriminate looting and arson will only spell disaster for the whole country. Regular warfare also, I must say, causes only destruction, and nothing is gained thereby.”……..”Hindus should not harbor anger in their hearts against Muslims even if the latter wanted to destroy them. Even if the Muslims want to kill us all we should face death bravely. If they established their rule after killing Hindus we would be ushering in a new world by sacrificing our lives. None should fear death. Birth and death are inevitable for every human being. Why should we then rejoice or grieve? If we die with a smile we shall enter into a new life, we shall be ushering in a new India.”
So, what exactly is going on here? ‘Hindus should not harbor grudges towards Muslims, even if the latter tried to destroy them.’ ‘We should face death head-on, even if Muslims seek to kill us all.’
Is it possible that Gandhi was a Muslim stooge? Why was he attempting to scare Hindus away from Muslims? What motivated Gandhi to teach Hindus that they should tolerate everything? Is it true that Gandhi desired for India to be governed by Muslims? Should Hindus shun Gandhi because of his ideas, if this is true? And how is it wrong for any Hindu to take part in this boycott today? According to Gandhi’s words, we would usher in a new world by laying down our lives if they establish their rule by slaying Hindus. So, if this isn’t Gandhi’s love of Islam, then what is it? Why did Gandhi use Hindu life as a criterion for sectarian equality and mutual fraternity? Why didn’t he advise Muslims about it all? Do you think Muslims would have obeyed him if he had said something like this?
Here are some excerpts from Gandhi’s Literature: Collected Works of Mahatma Gandhi. I’ll continue the second part of this essay later because the study is still underway. All of these facts about Gandhi should be known throughout the country. After all, how much longer will the country recite the garland of lies? If the foregoing facts are used to reach a conclusion, then Gandhi was not a Mahatma at all. Gandhi Literature: Collected Works of Mahatma Gandhi requires a thorough examination by academics. There is a significant need for such research, especially among those who brand themselves Hindutva’s watchdogs. So that future generations of Hindus might be educated about the truth and historical errors can be rectified.
Note:
1. Text in Blue points to additional data on the topic.
2. The views expressed here are those of the author and do not necessarily represent or reflect the views of PGurus.
Reference:
[1] GANDHI SEVAGRAM ASHRAM – Gandhi Ashram Sevagram
[2] THE COLLECTED WORKS OF MAHATMA GANDHI – Volume 7 – Gandhi Ashram Sevagram
[3] THE COLLECTED WORKS OF MAHATMA GANDHI – Volume 92 – Gandhi Ashram Sevagram
[4] THE COLLECTED WORKS OF MAHATMA GANDHI – Volume 93 – Gandhi Ashram Sevagram
[5] THE COLLECTED WORKS OF MAHATMA GANDHI – Volume 94 – Gandhi Ashram Sevagram
[6] THE COLLECTED WORKS OF MAHATMA GANDHI – Volume 94 – Gandhi Ashram Sevagram
PGurus is now on Telegram. Click here to join our channel and stay updated with all the latest news and views
For all the latest updates, download PGurus App.
Twitter @Mahender_Chem
Email: mahenderchem44@gmail.com.
It short of become fashion to criticise Gandhi ji. Sad state of affairs.
¤
Arun Kumar Singh – Gandhi’s was a Collaborator mindset. He was not moved by the British atrocities. Rather he decided it was not his Dharma to Fight the British Imperialism or liberate Bharat. There were & still are millions of Collaborator mindsets among Hindus. Gandhi was a jewel among Collaborators.
His declaration of Non Violence in pietermaritzberg was ” NOT UNIVERSAL , NOT UNCONDITIONAL “. It was a declaration of loyalty towards the British Empire. That was why Gandhi
1. Asked for Recruiting Indians in Boer War as gun weirding Soldiers
2. Asked for recruiting Indians in Anti-zulu campaign as gun weirding soldiers
3. Never hesitated a moment in campaigning for British Empire in their war against Germany
4. Never hesitated in advising British Empire against Indian Freedom fighters
Gandhi was an out and out British agent. He was well tested , trained and sent back to India to Sabotage India’s Freedom movement through the noxious Ideology of Non-Violence.
Even his Pro-Muslim stance was part of the British strategy of Creating Pakistan when the push becomes a shove.
British left only due to INA, Naval Mutiny & the fear of Revolt by Indian Army. Before leaving india, they enthroned their most loyal Pet Nehru by manipulating Gandhi. Even Gandhi’s Assassination was Empire’s manipulation calculated to boost Image of Gandhi & Nehru and to Weaken Hindu Party for a long, long, long time to come.
Global Deep State, which inherited the mantle of Global Imperialism from the British, continued the British Imperial policy by
1. Strengthening Pakistan & China
2. Weakening Hindus in Bharat through ChrislamoMarx Narrative & Polity
¤
I don’t agree with iota of the contents as most of them are those which Gandhi did not write with his hand or published them himself. Somebody during translation distorted Gandhi’s original words to give them a different meaning. I quote hear some of the statements made by Gandhi in his letters or articles.
🔴On COWARDICE AND NON-VIOLENCE
But I, as a Hindu, am more ashamed of Hindu cowardice than I am angry at the Mussalman bullying. My non-violence does not admit of running away from danger and leaving dear ones unprotected. Between violence and cowardly fight, I can only prefer violence to cowardice.”[1] –
[1] “Hindu-Muslim Tension: Its Cause and Cure”, Young India, 29/5/1924; reproduced in M.K. Gandhi: The Hindu-Muslim Unity, p35-36.
Clearly, He intended to say: Why didn’t the owners of the houses looted, made attempt to defend their possessions, instead of fearing death?
🔴On violence by Muslims and conversion of Hindus in COHAT, Gandhi wrote in a TELEGRAM TO SURENDRANATH BISWAS
February 5, 1925
Sometimes Muslims kidnap a woman and make her embrace Islam. I do not understand how, in this manner, she can become a Muslim. She does not know the Koran. She does not know the Kalama. Alas, she knows very little even of her own religion. I cannot understand how she can become a Muslim. If someone abducts my wife and she reads the Kalama, then I can no more live in this world. Either I would seek your help in defending her] or beg you to take her back into the Hindu fold. I would be a coward if I did not act in this manner. I cannot claim to be her husband. If you are men and wish to live like men, then make a solemn declaration that as long as conditions do not change, you will not return to Kohat. ..I don’t want Hindus to be COWARD.
🔴 On mass murders of Hindus by the muslims in Sindh province, Gandhi writes in a letter published in HARIJAN on 28th Sep.1940:
Shri Shamlal Gidwani writes a letter on the situation in Sind from which I quote the following:
At the same time that I received this letter, I saw in the papers that five Hindus were shot dead openly while they were pursuing their normal business. As usual the murderers have not been traced. Is this a plan of terrorism to drive the Hindus out of Sind, or is it something else? Someone in Sind ought to be able to answer the question.
Shri Gidwani does not subscribe to non-violence. He thinks that my advice is contrary to the teachings of Lord Krishna. He thinks, for (to himself) very good reasons, that the Hindus cannot act non-violently. For equally good reasons he thinks they cannot migrate. But he would like me to advise them to defend themselves by arms….But Shri Gidwani is trifling with the crisis when he lazily looks up to me to guide Sind Hindus on impossible terms. If he sincerely believes in the solution he has proposed, he must himself take the training at once and lead the terrified Hindus of Sind along the path of armed defence. It is wrong for the leaders of Sind to look for outside help. They should cease to write. They should seriously think out a plan of action, violent or non-violent, and follow it up firmly and bravely….
You know, this is where education is lacking in Indis. We were a formidible country with great warriors and even women that protected India from outsider. The mindset you get that we were peaceful is the forfiture of British education, that wanted to realy to us we were nothing. The British allied themselves with Abrahamic kin, Islam, to destroy the idea of Sanatana Dharma and make themselves feel dominant to us. Our tru history is, has has been protection of our country Bharat, but our sence of civility and humanity allowed Islamic invaders to conquer us. One Maharaja who defeated a muslim invader had the invader in his custody, but told him to apologise and he would live. The invader did and was let go. A few years later that invader executed the same person who gave him mercy. That is our culture, compared to the barbarians.
They consider themselves as forward thinking and advanced, but their advancement was only acheived from the wealth and knowledge they obtained from India. There is no Arab Math, this was taken from the East and reinterpreted as this. The Ancient books of the Arabs even attribute this to Al Hind. The west did not even know about hygene until they came to India and learnt the basic need of washing daily.
Now do you see the culture of colonisation, and how one country steals your knowledge, and empowers you by dehamanising the culture that pre dates anything they know.
We were a culture of warriors, but were a culture of pease, this was worked in harmony, because we did not colonlise we just had to defend.
Who was Gandhi working for – British or the Muslim League? Certainly not for the Hindus. Either he had gone senile even before old age or he was very clever.
बहुत ही अच्छा आर्टिकल, आज तक ऐसे तथ्य बाहर ही नही आये है हमारी किताबों में इन सब के बारे में लिखा ही नही है कि नही क्योंकि वामपंथियों द्वारा इनके तलवे चाट कर केवल तारीफ की गई है। इस आर्टिकल में प्रमाण के आधार पर बात की गई है तथा यह बिल्कुल सत्य है
So it’s the season to crucify Gandhi!
I am no blind fan of Gandhi, I don’t think he is a ‘Mahatma’, nor that he is the ‘Father of the Nation’ (how can a nation have a father anyway!?) He is but one of the leaders of the Freedom Movement and one of tens and hundreds who fought for independence, each in their own way. But he was quite Human, with very human flaws. He had his strengths, he had his weaknesses. He did not build himself up, and what little I understand from his writings, he was quite open about his own faults, sometimes bordering on self flagellation. Yes, he obviously was charismatic and had a personality which attracted followers. But he cannot be held responsible for that. All movements and revolutions in the world history has such persons who are thrown on to front by the masses to ride the revolution wave.
The serious deification of Gandhi in history books and contemporary lore happened AFTER his death. Yes, he played a significant part, but so did others. This could have been done with an agenda, building him up and smudging the roles of other equally effective leaders. How is he responsible for that? Moreover, this a classic tactic, by putting a charismatic leader on a pedestal, especially one who died at the peak, and carrying on their shenanigans in the shadow of the statue. It’s so much easier to fool the people. It has been done before all over the world, including in religion, and will continue to be done. Generally, such personages are neither responsible for their deification or vilification. How could they be? They are dead anyway!
Review and correction of history must happen, great leaders of the past must be given their due for our children to know. But must be done in a mature and non-hysterical fashion. There is too much of peurile, black and white, un-nuanced discourse on this matter nowadays. One need not run down a historical figure just so that one can build up another. Everyone has their place, and hindsight should give clarity and balance, not extreme swings.
Kindly go through my comment in full.
As insane as Gandhi views on Islam and Muslims atrocities against Hindus, he is unequivocal against Christian conversions and its assault on Hinduism, which is much more dangerous threat than even Islam in India.. Here is an article on Gandhi quotes on conversion agenda. The problem with these kind of analysis is we cannot look at things white and black because truth is usually a mixture of two.
Here are Gandhi quotes on christian conversions that is very powerful to go after elites.
https://www.pgurus.com/press-release-for-dc-rally-held-on-dec-16th-at-lincoln-memorial-highlighting-christian-missionary-menace-in-india/
Kindly see my comment. Some of the misconceptions about Gandhi will vanish in air.