The Truth Shall Make You Free

1) What Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi did not gave India?

Vasudev Balwant Fadke was the one who did first FAST TILL DEATH in prison.
(& he actually died)

Sikh community showed what NON-VIOLENT resistance was by Singh Sabha

movement started in 1873.

Savarkar First Indian political leader to promote swadeshi & promote holi of videshi
,first Indian political leader to build a pan-Hindu temple where former 'untouchable'
was a priest.

Ashfaqulla khan & Ramprasad bismil were pioneer of hindu-muslim unity not
Gandhi.

Lokmanya Tilak was first to call for self rule & formed home rule league. Even Jinnah
was one of the co-founder & used to say “Pakistan over my dead body”. Tilak went
from village to village, and explained the aim of his league to the farmers and won
their hearts. He traveled constantly in order to organize the people. (In case you don’t
know who was waking up the masses read more about him.)
Shaheed bhagat singh,Sri ram hari rajguru & sukhdev thapar were the first to demand
complete independence via a NON-VIOLENT BOMB to wake up deaf-mute-blind.
(while congress formed in 1885 was just happy with few pacts till then)
1) So what Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi actually gave India?

Only one word KHILAFAT

A) Let’s understand first what Khilafat (Caliphate) means:-

The Khilafat movement was a tragicomical mistake, aiming at the restoration of the
Ottoman Caliphate against which the Arabs had risen in revolt and which the Turks
were dissolving, a process completed with the final abolition of the institution of the
Caliphate in 1924.

It was a purely retrograde and reactionary movement, and more importantly for Indian
nationalism, it was an intrinsically anti-nationalist movement pitting specifically
Islamic interests against SECULAR and non-Muslim interests.

Gandhi made the mistake of hubris by thinking he could reconcile Khilafatism and
Indian nationalism, and he also offended his Muslim allies (who didn't share his
apparent commitment to non-violence) by calling off the agitation when it turned
violent.
The result was even more violence, with massive Hindu-Muslim riots replacing the
limited instances of anti-British attacks, just as many level-headed freedom fighters
had predicted. Gandhi failed to take the Khilafat movement seriously whether at the
level of principle or of practical politics, and substituted his own imagined and
idealized reading of the Khilafat doctrine for reality.
B) Khilafat was opposed by many Indian muslims:

Gandhi ignored voices coming from the Indian Muslim community.

There were many LIBERAL/SECULAR Indian Muslims who did not support the
Khilafat movement.

The more religious held that the Ottoman Sultans were not legitimate Caliphs. In India
the acceptance of the Turkish Sultan as the universal Caliph was only from the middle
of 19th century and that too due to the propaganda by Urdu press.

By accepting the legitimacy of Khilafat movement Gandhi was actually strengthening

the hold of an orthodox clergy.

There was also a more secularized tradition. Sir Sayed Ahmed Khan had distinguished
sharply between the political realm and religious realm declaring the two to be
separate. He also said that a Caliph is the Caliph only of his own territory and there is
no universal Caliphate. By these reasoning Indian Muslims owed no loyalty to the
Turkish Caliph. Neither the first nor the second group, were pro-Hindus.

What Gandhi did was to legitimize Islamic identity over other ties and give a boost to
the pan-Islamic identity. Another mistake Gandhi made is to ignore the sections that
would have actually helped him.

He ignored the sects of syncretic Islam that had arisen in the Indian subcontinent.
Such sects were more willing to live in peace with other religions. Gandhi should have
encouraged these heretical sects. There were also a growing number of secular
Muslims.

But Gandhi ignored them in favor of religious extremist.

C) Current status of Khilafat (Caliphate)

The idea of the Caliphate, or Islamic state, has no basis in the Koran or the Hadiths,
the sayings and deeds of Prophet Muhammad, a major Indonesian Muslim association
with millions of followers announced (05-11-2007).
The influential Bathsul Masail (problem deliberation) commission has issued the
statement after thoroughly reviewing the Koran and Hadith, along with other texts,
including Attasyri' al-Jina'i Al Islami, al-Qoish al-Hami' al-Asyarqi Jam'il Jawami', Ad
Din Watdaulah watadbikis Syari'ah, and al-fiqkul Islami.

Conclusion:

Mohandas was better off promoting people like Ashfaqulla khan-Ramprasad bismil
(Why do we remember only these two? Hundreds of years of freedom struggle
shouldn’t there be many Ashfaqulla-Ramprasad?) & memoirs of 1857 freedom fight
rather than meddling in things which he has absolutely ZERO understanding or may
be mohandas had sinister intentions behind every move.

Gandhi's fierce support of Khilafat & defence of rioters in Mopla (1921) only installed
justification in the minds of religious extremists & gave them best weapon they could
ever have & end product was even more violence, with massive Hindu-Muslim riots
replacing the limited instances of anti-British attacks, just as many level-headed
freedom fighters had predicted.
2) What Gandhi “apparently” gave India?

Gandhi got extreme publicity in English language newspapers of India in those days
like Englishman. As soon as he arrived he became a stooge of Gokhale, a very pro-
British.

Gandhi by some coup became the leader of the Congress and expelled Surendranath
banerjee, Bipil Pal, Chittaranjan Das, Srinivan Iyenger. British police treated Gandhi
as royalty but killed Lala Lajpat Rai.

Gandhi spent Rs.10Lakhs collected by Tilak to finance freedom movement on the

Muslims for their Khilafat Movement to reinstall Turkish Caliph, which had nothing
to do with freedom movement or with hindu-muslim unity. In fact Khilafat served
purpose of replacing few incidences of anti-british protest by numerous muslim-hindu
riots.

Non-cooperation movement was stopped abruptly in 1922 for few incidences violence
while in 1921 he openly defended Mopla rioters/mass murderers as god fearing brave
religious people defending their religion & seeded communal hatred by his double
standards.

Then for ten years he did nothing. In 1930 he has started the civil disobedience
movement only for five or six days. Then he did nothing as Mohandas was good at
doing nothing.

In 1939 he had expelled Subhas Chadra Bose and 200 others from the Congress.

In 1942 he had started August Movement (Quit India movement) which was
CRUSHED like a bug within few months. Even the Congress, at the time saw it as
failure. Analysis of the campaign obtained by Military Intelligence in 1943 came to
the conclusion that it had failed in the aim of paralyzing the government.

In 1947 he had partitioned India and gave the throne of India to Nehru. He had refused
to listen to Fazlil Haque of Bengal, Khan of Kalat of Baluchistan and above all Khan
Abdul Gaffer Khan of NWFP but wanted to partition India by all means.

Conclusion:

Gandhi with his deliberate acts to demoralize Indian masses did give unending
sycophancy which is clearly visible in modern India with millions supporting corrupt
to the core politicians.
3) What M.K. Gandhi gave to Indians during partition of india?

Took a confused and wavering position over the Partition plan, including false
promises to the Hindus of the designated Pakistani areas to prevent Partition or at
least to prevent their violent expulsion.

He chose not to use his weapon of a fast unto death to force Mohammed Ali Jinnah
into backing down from Partition, a move which cast doubt on the much-touted
bravery of all his other fasts unto death(?) performed to pressurize more malleable
opponent.

If acquiescing in the Partition could still be justified as a matter of inevitability, there

was no excuse for his insistence on half measures, viz. his rejecting plans for an
organized exchange of population, certainly a lesser evil when compared to the bloody
religious cleansing that actually took place.

Gentle surgeons make stinking wounds.

During his prayer meeting on 1 May 1947, he prepared the Hindus and Sikhs for the
anticipated massacres of their kind in the upcoming state of Pakistan with these
words: "I would tell the Hindus to face death cheerfully if the Muslims are out to kill
them. I would be a real sinner if after being stabbed I wished in my last moment that
my son should seek revenge. I must die without rancour. You may turn round and ask
whether all Hindus and all Sikhs should die. Yes, I would say. Such martyrdom will
not be in vain. "
(Collected Works of Mahatma Gandhi, vol.LXXXVII, p.394-5)

It is left unexplained what purpose would be served by this senseless and

avoidable surrender to murder.
Even when the killing had started, Gandhi refused to take pity on the Hindu victims,
much less to point fingers at the Pakistani aggressors. More importantly for the
principle of non-violence, he failed to offer them a non-violent technique of
countering and dissuading the murderers. Instead, he told the Hindu refugees from
Pakistan to go back and die.

On 6 August 1947, Gandhi commented to Congress workers on the incipient

communal conflagration in Lahore thus: "I am grieved to learn that people are running
away from the West Punjab and I am told that Lahore is being evacuated by the non-
Muslims. I must say that this is what it should not be. If you think Lahore is dead or is
dying, do not run away from it, but die with what you think is the dying Lahore. When
you suffer from fear you die before death comes to you. That is not glorious. I will not
feel sorry if I hear that people in the Punjab have died not as cowards but as brave
men. I can’t be forced to salute any flag. If in that act I am murdered I would bear no
ill will against anyone and would rather pray for better sense for the person or persons
who murder me."
(Hindustan Times, 8-8-1947).

So, he was dismissing as cowards those who saved their lives fleeing the massacre by
a vastly stronger enemy, viz. the Pakistani population and security forces. But is it
cowardice to flee a no-win situation, so as to live and perhaps to fight another day?
There can be a come-back from exile, not from death. Is it not better to continue life
as a non-Lahorite than to cling to one's location in Lahore even if it has to be as a
corpse? Why should staying in a mere location be so superior to staying alive? To be
sure, it would have been even better if Hindus could have continued to live with honor
in Lahore, but Gandhi himself had refused to use his power in that cause, viz. averting
Partition. He probably would have found that, like the butchered or fleeing Hindus, he
was no match for the determination of the Muslim League, but at least he could have
tried. In the advice he now gave, the whole idea of non-violent struggle got perverted.
M.K. Gandhi's words of wisdom

A)Gandhi’s Support for “Purity of Race”

In response to the rise of white nationalist politics, which stressed racial separation,
Gandhi wrote in his Indian Opinion of September 24, 1903

“We believe as much in the purity of race as we think they do, only we believe that
they would best serve these interests, which are as dear to us as to them, by advocating
the purity of all races, and not one alone. We believe also that the white race of South
Africa should be the predominating race.”

On December 24, 1903, Gandhi added this in his Indian Opinion newspaper

“The petition dwells upon `the co-mingling of the colored and white races.’ May we
inform the members of the Conference that so far as British Indians are concerned,
such a thing is particularly unknown. If there is one thing which the Indian cherishes
more than any other, it is the purity of type.”

B)“The Prominent Race”

In the Government Gazette of Natal for Feb. 28 1905, a Bill was published regulating
the use of fire-arms by Blacks and Indians. Commenting on the Bill, Gandhi wrote in
his newspaper, the Indian Opinion on March 25, 1905:

“In this instance of the fire-arms, the Asiatic has been most improperly bracketed
with the natives. The British Indian does not need any such restrictions as are
imposed by the Bill on the natives regarding the carrying of fire-arms. The
prominent race can remain so by preventing the native from arming himself. Is
there a slightest vestige of justification for so preventing the British Indian?”

C) On The Holocaust

“Hitler killed five million Jews. It is the greatest crime of our time. But the Jews
should have offered themselves to the butcher’s knife. They should have thrown
themselves into the sea from cliffs.” ~ George Orwell’s “Reflections on Gandhi,”
Partisan Review, Jan. 1949

As to whether the Jews should have committed “collective sucide” by offering

themselves to Hitler: “Yes, that would have been heroism.” ~ George Orwell’s
“Reflections on Gandhi,” Partisan Review, Jan. 1949

D) Mohandas Gandhi on his pen-friend Adolf Hitler

To the British during WWII: “This manslaughter must be stopped. You are losing;
if you persist, it will only result in greater bloodshed. Hitler is not a bad man.” ~
G.D. Birla’s “In the Shadow of the Mahatma,” p. 276

E) On Blacks and Race Relations

“Ours is one continued struggle against degradation sought to be inflicted upon us by
the European, who desire to degrade us to the level of the raw Kaffir, whose
occupation is hunting and whose sole ambition is to collect a certain number of cattle
to buy a wife with, and then pass his life in indolence and nakedness.” ~ CWMG, Vol.
II, p. 74

“A Kaffir is to be taxed because he does not work enough: an Indian is to be taxed

because he works too much.” ~ CWMG, Vol. III, p. 337

“A general belief seems to prevail in the colony that the Indians are little better, if at
all, than the savages or natives of Africa. Even the children are taught to believe in
that manner, with the result that the Indian is being dragged down to the position of a
raw Kaffir.” ~ CWMG, Vol. I, p. 150

Regarding forcible registration with the state of blacks: “One can understand the
necessity for registration of Kaffirs who will not work.” ~ CWMG, Vol. I, p. 105

“Why, of all places in Johannesburg, the Indian location should be chosen for
dumping down all kaffirs of the town, passes my comprehension. Of course, under my
suggestion, the Town Council must withdraw the Kaffirs from the Location. About
this mixing of the Kaffirs with the Indians I must confess I feel most strongly. I think
it is very unfair to the Indian population, and it is an undue tax on even the proverbial
patience of my countrymen.” ~ CWMG, Vol. I, pp. 244-245

Regarding the Hindu Theological Seminary: “I only wish that such institutions will
crop up all over India and be the means of preserving the Aryan religion in its purity.”
~ CWMG, Vol. IV, p. 93

His description of black inmates: “Only a degree removed from the animal.” He also
said, “Kaffirs are as a rule uncivilized - the convicts even more so. They are
troublesome, very dirty and live almost like animals.” ~ CWMG, Vol. VIII, pp. 135-
136
F) During Boer's war

“However, at about 12 o’clock we finished the day’s journey, with no Kaffirs to

fight.”
The Collected Works of Mahatma Gandhi, Government of India (CWMG),
Vol. V, p. 262 G) The claim that Gandhi worked for the uplift of Dalits in india
(Lower Caste Hindus) is also a myth.

Gandhi's social reform (Yep I am good at sarcasm)

I don’t believe the caste system to be an odious and vicious dogma. It has its
limitations and defects, but there is nothing sinful about it. Harijan, 1933.

I believe in Varnashrama (caste system) which is the law of life. The law of Varna
(color and / or caste) is nothing but the law of conservation of energy. Why should
my son not be scavenger if I am one? Harijan, 3-6-1947.

He (Shudra, low caste) may not be called a Brahmin (uppermost caste), though he
(Shudra) may have all the qualities of a Brahmin in this birth. And it is a good thing
for him (Shudra) not to arrogate a Varna (caste) to which he is not born. It is a sign
of true humility. Young India, 11-24-1927.

According to Hindu belief, he who practices a profession which does not belong to
him by birth, does violence to himself and becomes a degraded being by not living up
to the Varna (caste) of his birth. Young India, 11-14-1927.

As years go by, the conviction is daily growing upon me that Varna (caste) is the law
of man’s being, and therefore, caste is necessary for Christians and Muslims as it has
been necessary for Hinduism, and has been its saving grace. Speech at Trivandrum,
(Collection of Speeches), Ramanath Suman (1932).
I would resist with my life the separation of "Untouchables" from the caste Hindus.
The problem of the "Untouchable" community was of comparatively little importance.
London Round Table Conference 1931.

I call myself a Snatana man, one who firmly believes in the caste system. Dharma
Manthan, p 4.

I believe in caste division determined by birth and the very root of caste division lies
in birth. Varna Vyavastha, p 76-77.

The four castes and the four stages of life are things to be attained by birth
alone. Dharma Manthan, p 5.

Caste means the predetermination of a man’s profession. Caste implies that a man
must practice only the profession of his ancestors for his livelihood. Varna Vyavstha,
p 28, 56, 68.

Shudra only serves the higher castes as a matter of religious duty and who will
never own any property. The gods will shower down flowers on him. Varna
Vyavastha, p 15.

I have noticed that the very basis of our thought have been severely shaken by
Western civilization which is the creation of the Satan. Dharma Manthan, p 65.

How is it possible that the Antyaja (outcastes) should have the right to enter all the
existing temples? As long as the law of caste and karma has the chief place in the
Hindu religion, to say that every Hindu can enter every temple is a thing that is not
possible today. Gandhi Sikshan, Vol. 11, p 132.

The caste system can’t be said to be bad because it does not allow inter-dining
and inter-marriages in different castes.
Gandhi by Shiru, p129.
If the Shudr (low caste) leave their ancestral profession and take up others, ambition
will rouse in them and their peace of mind will be spoiled. Even their family peace
will be disturbed. Hind Swaraj.

H) Violence for self defense (don't get it wrong offer valid only for himself not
applicable for anyone else because according to him all freedom fighters were
misguided fools in defending the nation & even those poor hindus who tried to defend
themselves;their wives,sisters & daughters were cowards .)

“I do believe that where there is a choice between cowardice and non-violence I

would advise violence. Thus when my eldest son asked me what he should have done,
had he been present when I was almost fatally assaulted in 1908, whether he should
have run away and seen me killed or whether he should have used his physical force
which he could and wanted to use, and defended me, I told him that it was his duty to
defend me even by using violence.” ~ CWMG, Vol. XXI,
p. 132.

I) Defense of Religious extremists by Gandhi

The Congress session in Guwahati, 1926, Gandhi himself said, "I have called Abdul
Rashid a brother and I repeat it. I do not even regard him as guilty of Swami's murder.
Guilty indeed are those who excited feeling of hatred against one another." (History of
Congress, page 516, by Pattabhi Sitaramayya, a prominent Congress leader.)

Calling murderer (who was sentenced for death too) a brother is chocking of
secularism. Gandhi promoted religious extremists more than anyone else.

First fundamentalist of india gandhi had this to say in praise of mass murderers of
mopla in 1921 "these are god fearing religous people defending their religion"

J) When freedom-fighters Bhagat Singh and Rajguru assassinated Asst Police

Superintendent Saunders, Gandhi, in his article"The curse ofassassination" in
Young India, condemned the act as being "dastardly".
According to him, "the innocent police officer discharged his duty, however
disagreeable its consequences to the community".
Which makes one wonder, was General Dyer of the JalianwalaBagh massacre, too,
merely discharging his duties? Is the death of Lala Lajpat Rai, brutally beaten during
the "Simon go back" stir, to be put down to innocence?
In "Young India" of 4th May 1921, supporting the invasion of Hindustan by Amir of
Afghanistan (which had been hatched by Khilafatist leaders), Gandhi openly declared,
" I would, in a sense, certainly assist the Amir of Afghanistan (the savage ancestor of
Taliban!) if it waged war against British government".

Was he fed up of being british double agent?

K) Fed up with Non-Violence

During a prayer speech on June 16, 1947: “If we had the atom bomb, we would have
used it against the British.” ~ Gandhi’s “The Last Phase,” Vol. II, p. 326

What may have transpired him to say such thing wasn't he the same person willing to
sacrifice numerous sons of soil in war effort for british even when famine of bengal
had cost millions of lives mainly due to priority given to military over civil needs by
british govt.

May be he shifted his agenda as his british masters were absconding him
behind.

A pure racist, religious extremist, slave of british imperialist is unfortunately father of

india but had he been born in any other nation he would have been best ACTOR of the
century.
References:
“The Collected Works of Mahatma Gandhi ~Mohandas Gandhi

“Gandhi and Gandhism” ~ Dr.B.R.Ambedkar

“What congress and Gandhi have done to the Untouchables ” ~ Dr.B.R.Ambedkar

“The Myth of Mahatma Gandhi : Gandhi , the British and the Raj” ~MichaelEdwardes

“After Mother India” ~HarryH.Field

“A Week With Gandhi”~Louis Fischer

“That Strange Little Brown Man Gandhi”~Frederick Fisher

“Gandhi:A Sublime Failure”~S.S.Gill

“Gandhi:Saint or Sinner”~Fazlul Huq

“Mother India”~Katherine Mayo

“Gandhi and Anarchy”~C.Sankaran Nair

“Gandhi : The South African Experience”~Maureen Swan

“India Against the Storm”~Post Wheeler

“Gandhi As I Know Him”~Indulal Yajnik

Read more & evil will reveal itself

Compiled by an Indian who has birth-right to call a racist, religious extremist, british
slave aka M.K.Gandhi as a racist, religious extremist, british slave.