Mahatma Gandhi is celebrated as a peaceful freedom fighter who led India to independence and inspired civil rights movements and freedom across the world. But what is the truth about Mahatma Gandhi?
Source Material The Indian government under Prime Minister Indra Gandhi financed one-third the cost of the production of the movie “Gandhi” for the portrayal of Gandhi as “an absolute pacifist.”
The Christian clergy had an ulterior motive in building the Gandhi myth. They thought that by elevating Gadhi to a 20th century messiah and then converting him would open the flood gate for evangelizing Hindu masses. Little did they realize that Gandhi hoodwinked them with his insincere statements about Christianity? He was a die-hard Hindu, a true believer and defender of the caste order – the essence of Hinduism?
Gandhi apologists indulged in gross deception by claiming that Gandhi’s Satyagrah in South Africa was in the defense of the rights of native people. Nothing could be further from truth than this bald lie. How could Gandhi, a diehard supporter of the caste system think of the welfare of African blacks he regarded lower than the Untouchables of India – slightly above the animal level? His Satyagrah was for the better treatment of Indians, who, according to Gandhi were treated the same way as savage Kaffirs (native people) were. In his stay of twenty years in South Africa, he had no social contacts with the Kaffirs, as he did not see any common ground with them in the daily affairs of life. He was horrified when he was lodged with “natives” in the same jail ward. He did not like wearing the same clothes with label “N” born by the natives, nor he liked their food and sharing lavatory with them. It was the jail experience, which brought out his racism in the open. “Kaffir and Chinese prisoners are wild, murderous and given to immoral ways. Kaffirs are as a general rule uncivilized – the convicts even more so. They are troublesome, very dirty and live almost like animal.”
“It is not for us to judge whether the Kaffir revolt is justified or not. We are co-colonists with whites of this land whereas the black savages are as yet unfit to participate in the political affairs of the colony.”
The Russian Revolution of 1914 spurted national movements against colonial rule. The British brought Gandhi back to India to sabotage Indian national movement against British rule. The congress Party dominated by Gandhi was set up under the patronage of the British authorities. The “apostle of peace” urged the Indian people to support the British by enlisting in the army during World War I. In his letter he wrote to the Viceroy in 1930, he said, ” One of his reasons for launching the Civil Disobedient Movement is to contain the violence of revolutionaries.”
In 1921, Gandhi delivered violent speeches inciting racial hatred against the British. During bloody demonstrations and riots against the visit of Prince of Wales, William Francis Doherty, an American citizen working in Bombay was murdered. Gandhi personally got involved in the cover up of this gruesome murder through bribery and intimidation, as he was concerned that the details of this murder would tarnish Gandhi’s image in the West.
It is a cruel joke and one of the biggest fabrications of the twentieth century that Gandhi won Indian freedom without spilling a drop of blood. The truth is that it was the devastating effect of World War II that forced the British government to dismantle its Colonial Empire. Moreover, it was Gandhi and his Hindu dominated Congress party that engineered the partition of the country on communal lines, as the Muslim dominant states stood in the way of high caste Hindus to set up their Ram Raj (mythical Hindu kingdom) based on caste ideology. Additionally, the Partition of India in 1947 is one of the major upheavals of the twentieth century. In the State of Punjab alone, 11-12 million people lost their homes and hearths where their ancestors had lived for centuries. May be as many as one million people perished in the communal frenzy and thousands of young women were kidnapped while Gandhi was reciting the murderous sermons from his favorite scripture – Bhagvad Gita. He kept insisting up to the last moment that the country would be partitioned only over his dead body!
The ascetic in loincloth used to sleep in buff with naked young girls to perform experiments to test his celibacy. Dr. Sushila Nayar told Ved Mehta that she used to sleep with Gandhi as she regarded him as a Hindu god. The man, who had taken vow of poverty, demanded and got even in jail the same comforts enjoyed by British high officials in India.
The “apostle of peace,” who counseled a Jewish delegation” to oppose the evil of Nazism by “soul force” – by committing mass suicide, was all praise for annexing Kashmir by armed aggression.
He told his Sikh followers a that rusty sword is useless in the age of Atom Bomb. The development of nuclear weapons by India – a country that ranks among the poorest in the world and is near the bottom of human development index chart of the United Nations – exposes the real face of the “absolute pacifist” and the nation that calls him “father.” After all didn’t lord Krishna tell Arjana during the battle of Mahabharata “Victory is truth.”
Although, the Indian people have started peeking at the man behind the mask of divinity, there is no let up in the perpetuation of Gandhi myth in the West, especially the United States.
On September 26, 1896, Gandhi wrote, “Ours is one continued struggle sought to be inflicted upon us by the Europeans 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, and then pass his life in indolence and nakedness.”
Then in September of 1903, Gandhi said, “We believe as much in the purity of races as we think they (the Whites) do …. by advocating the purity of all races.” In fact he felt so strongly that the Indians should be classed with the whites not the Kaffirs, he organized a brigade of Indians to help put down a Zulu uprising. In 1931, he fasted as protest to a British proposal to grant rights to Untouchables, the lowest of the castes, also known as Dalits. No, Gandhi was no friend to the lower classes. He once told a Dalit who had graduated to not “take up” a white collar job.
Gandhi was also not anti-colonialist, nor was he devoted to non-violence. An imperialist; his loyalty was to the British Crown, for the majority of his life. Sergeant Major Gandhi even won the War Medal for the Zulu campaign. In fact, he supported the Crown in no less than three major wars. When war broke out in 1914, he immediately contacted the War Office, swore his unshakable loyalty to the crown and organized the Indian Volunteer Corps. He wrote to the Viceroy, “I would make India offer all her able bodied sons as a sacrifice to the Empire at this critical moment.” He justified this by citing the Bhagavad Gita and saying Indians have always been warlike. Gandhi’s inconsistency seems a bit self-motivated as later when the idea of home rule has set in; he is much more anti-British and seemingly non-violent. If you can picture this, in December 1941, as Hitler rules from the Channel to the Volga, Gandhi urges the Jews to commit collective suicide. His advice to the British was as bad, “Let them take possession of your beautiful island with all your many beautiful buildings. You will give all these but neither your souls nor your minds.”
His treatment of his family was horrible. His son, Harilal had wanted to go on to college. He was interested in being a lawyer, as his father was. Gandhi would not allow it as he believed a western style education would not help in the struggle for Indian independence. “Dear Bapu, Harilal wrote, “In your laboratory of experiments, unfortunately, I am the one truth that has gone wrong….” Harilal also wrote of his father, “He is the greatest father you have…but he is the one father I wish I did not have.” Gandhi said his son, Harilal, was one of the greatest regrets of his life. Gandhi had banished his second son just for giving money to Harilal. The boy was so uncared for no one came to his bedside as he lay dying.
He once wrote of his wife, “I simply cannot bear to look at Ba’s face. The expression is often like that on the face of a meek cow and gives one the feeling, as a cow occasionally does, that in her own dumb manner she is saying something.” When she got pneumonia, Gandhi refused her penicillin and simply allowed her to die.
He once wrote of them, “What I expect from the Gandhi family is that all members should devote themselves exclusively to service work, observe the utmost self-control and have no desire for wealth. They should not marry and those who are married should observe brahmacharya. They should live on whatever they get from service work.”
He proclaimed that the British Empire was for the welfare of the whole world and he accepted the superiority and predominance of the white race. But he reminded the white people that upper caste Indians share with the Europeans a common heritage – the blood of the noble Aryan race. According to him it is Aryan blood, which is responsible for the advancement of human civilization. He suggested to Rev, Doke to civilize the Kaffirs by converting them to Christianity and by infusing Aryan blood into their race. He told the white colonists that the preservation of racial purity (Apartheid) was as important to the Indians as to Europeans.
On the surface it may seem Gandhi had great respect for women but this is not so. He says things like, “If you women would only realize your dignity and privilege, and make full use of it for mankind, you will make it much better than it is. But man has delighted in enslaving you and you have proved willing slaves till the slaves and the slave-holders have become one in the crime of degrading humanity. My special function from childhood, you might say, has been to make women realize her dignity.” The problem is, he continues to “make women realize their dignity” by denying them basic necessities such as birth control and pain relief in childbirth. He also never understands that women are sexual creatures, too. He was a big opponent of sex for pleasure. Some of Gandhi’s detractors are women who fought for equal rights for Indians and women. Annie Besant, for instance had a falling out with Gandhi, as did Margaret Sanger. For a short period Gandhi accepted the use of birth control, but this quickly changed. Once, Gandhi was asked whether he would advocate birth control in cases where the health of the mother might is at risk. “No,” he replied, “one exception will lead to another till it finally becomes general.”
Did he at least help in the struggle for independence? Well, no. In fact, Gandhi is thought by some Indians to have delayed Indian independence by twenty five years due to his erratic beliefs. So, for all this effort to turn Gandhi into a saint has it been worth it? Well, no. There is little to show that the India today has followed Gandhi’s teachings. He is revered as a holy man, but the principles he supposedly stood for are not applied. Colonialism by others has been supported or sanctioned by the Indian government since Gandhi. The violence against Dalits continues. Rapes, murders, beatings, all aimed at India’s lowest class and carried out by other Indians
Gandhi was prejudice against blacks in South Africa. He was accused many times of sleeping with young teenage girls but never held accountable. He believed in the CAST SYSTEM. He called women who used contraception “Whores.” He justified honor killings. He preached that sexual intercourse was bad for the health and he had a lot negative to say about women’s menstruation. In his writings he asserts that women should be held responsible for sexual assaults committed upon them.
Gandhi rejected essential human ideals that all are created equal with right to life and liberty.
He spread racial hatred in South Africa. He told an Indian audience black Africans are “raw Kaffir whose sole ambition is to… pass his life in indolence and nakedness.” He pioneered racial segregation at the Durban Post Office by demanding a third door to spare upper-caste Indians the “indignity” of sharing a door with blacks. He pushed for war against Zulus and volunteered in the British Army to kill blacks.
He insulted human dignity in India. He raped his underage grandnieces, Manu and Abha, for years. He defended the caste system, praising its “fundamental divisions.” He spread violence against non-Hindus. America, say no to Gandhi, a five-time Nobel Peace Prize reject!
Gandhi was born in the Indian state of Gujarat and married at 13 in 1883; his wife Kasturba was 14, not early by the standards of Gujarat at that time. The young couple had a normal sex life, sharing a bed in a separate room in his family home, and Kasturba was soon pregnant.
Two years later, as his father lay dying, Gandhi left his bedside to have sex with Kasturba. Meanwhile, his father drew his last breath. The young man compounded his grief with guilt that he had not been present, and represented his subsequent revulsion towards “lustful love” as being related to his father’s death.
he told readers of his newspaper Indian Opinion: “It is the duty of every thoughtful Indian not to marry. In case he is helpless in regard to marriage, he should abstain from sexual intercourse with his wife.”
Meanwhile, Gandhi was challenging that abstinence in his own way. He set up ashrams in which he began his first “experiments” with sex; boys and girls were to bathe and sleep together, chastely, but were punished for any sexual talk. Men and women were segregated, and Gandhi’s advice was that husbands should not be alone with their wives, and, when they felt passion, should take a cold bath.
The rules did not, however, apply to him. Sushila Nayar, the attractive sister of Gandhi’s secretary, also his personal physician, attended Gandhi from girlhood. She used to sleep and bathe with Gandhi. When challenged, he explained how he ensured decency was not offended. “While she is bathing I keep my eyes tightly shut,” he said, “I do not know … whether she bathes naked or with her underwear on. I can tell from the sound that she uses soap.”
As he grew older (and following Kasturba’s death) he was to have more women around him and would oblige women to sleep with him whom – according to his segregated ashram rules – were forbidden to sleep with their own husbands. Gandhi would have women in his bed, engaging in his “experiments” which seem to have been, from a reading of his letters, an exercise in strip-tease or other non-contact sexual activity. Much explicit material has been destroyed but tantalising remarks in Gandhi’s letters remain such as: “Vina’s sleeping with me might be called an accident. All that can be said is that she slept close to me.” One might assume, then, that getting into the spirit of the Gandhian experiment meant something more than just sleeping close to him.
Sushila, who in 1947 was 33, was now due to be supplanted in the bed of the 77-year-old Gandhi by a woman almost half her age. While in Bengal to see what comfort he could offer in times of inter-communal violence in the run-up to independence, Gandhi called for his 18-year-old grandniece Manu to join him – and sleep with him. “We both may be killed by the Muslims,” he told her, “and must put our purity to the ultimate test, so that we know that we are offering the purest of sacrifices, and we should now both start sleeping naked.”
Eighteen-year-old Abha, the wife of Gandhi’s grandnephew Kanu Gandhi, rejoined Gandhi’s entourage in the run-up to independence in 1947 and by the end of August he was sleeping with both Manu and Abha at the same time.
“Tonight, when Bapu, Sushilaben and I were sleeping on the same cot, he embraced me and patted me. He put me to sleep with great love. He embraced me after a very long time. Then Bapu praised me for remaining innocent (of sexual urges) despite sleeping with him. But this isn’t the case with the other girls. Veena, Kanchan and Lilavati (other associates of Gandhi) told me that they won’t be able to sleep with him.”
There are numerous eyewitness accounts of the maiming and mutilation of victims. The catalogue of horrors includes the disemboweling of pregnant women, the slamming of babies’ heads against brick walls, the cutting off of victims limbs and genitalia and the display of heads and corpses. While previous communal riots had been deadly, the scale and level of brutality was unprecedented. Although some scholars question the use of the term ‘genocide’ with respect to the Partition massacres, much of the violence manifested as having genocidal tendencies. It was designed to cleanse an existing generation as well as prevent its future reproduction.”
After World War II, India’s long independence campaign finally paid off. The British decided the cost of maintaining colonial rule was too high. They agreed to grant independence to the subcontinent. India’s people had put aside their religious differences to fight the British, but with victory in sight, problems began surfacing between Hindus and Muslims. Many Muslims felt the Hindu majority would treat them unfairly once the subcontinent achieved independence. The struggle became violent.
British and Indian leaders decided that the only solution to the conflict was a partition, that separated the continent into Hindu and Muslim states. In 1947, the Indian subcontinent became the independent nations of India and Pakistan. Pakistan was made up of two regions: West Pakistan on the Indus River plain, and East Pakistan (now Bangladesh), more than 1,100 away. Important parts of what was once considered India were now in other nations. The Indus River, for which the subcontinent is named, became part of Pakistan after the partition.
Twelve million people were forced to move—Hindus to India, Muslims to Pakistan—in one of the greatest migrations of refugees in history. Both groups moved because they feared being ruled by leaders of the other faith. The journey was long and torturous. Many people were forced to leave their possession or trade them for water. Hunger, thirst and exhaustion killed others. Additionally, an estimated one million people were killed in religious warfare.
In the 1990s India has been one of the fastest growing economies in the world. At the growth pace of the 1990s, Indian average productivity levels double every sixteen years. If the current pace of growth can be maintained, sixty-six years will bring India to the real GDP per capita level of the United States today. The contrast between the pace of growth in the 1990s and the pace of growth before 1980–with a doubling time of fifty years, and an expected approach to America’s current GDP per capita level not in 2066 but in 2250–is extraordinary.
…in July 1991… with the announcement of sweeping liberalization by the minority government of P.V. Narasimha Rao… opened the economy… dismantled import controls, lowered customs duties, and devalued the currency… virtually abolished licensing controls on private investment, dropped tax rates, and broke public sector monopolies…. [W]e felt as though our second independence had arrived: we were going to be free from a rapacious and domineering state…”
there were never more than 70,000 British troops in India; the running of the country required an enormous infrastructure of native troops, police and bureaucrats. As Hitler observed, Indians merely had to spit all at once and every Briton in India would have drowned.
Indians assisted with Empire because it brought them unprecedented order and civility. Indians were no strangers to outside rulers; for eight centuries before the Raj, the sub-continent had been subjected to the plunder and depravity of the Mughals – Muslim rulers who came from as far west as Turkey.
Delhi was razed eight times in that period and great pyramids were constructed with the skulls of its inhabitants.
Because Islam permits the enslavement of non-Muslims, Indians were sold across the Islamic world in such quantities that the international price of slaves collapsed.
The Afghan mountain range of the Hindu Khush (which translates as the ‘Hindu Slaughter’) is named after the huge numbers who died there while being marched to the markets of Arabia and Central Asia.
In 1846, the British commissioner, John Lawrence, told the local elite that Punjabis could no longer burn their widows, commit female infanticide, nor bury their lepers alive.
When they protested, saying that he had promised there would be no interference in their religious customs, Lawrence steadfastly replied that it was British religious custom to hang anyone who did such things.
In addition to combating these barbaric practices, the British also outlawed slavery in 1843 at a time when an estimated 10 million Indians were slaves – up to 15 per cent of the population in some regions.
British exported to India the modern methods of fighting contagious diseases. The result was a tremendous increase in the Indian population and a corresponding increase in the country’s troubles.
Mr. Nehru said: “Of course, we want to socialize. But we are not opposed to private enterprise. We want to encourage in every way private enterprise. We want to promise the entrepreneurs who invest in our country, that we will not expropriate them nor socialize them for ten years, perhaps even for a longer time.”
“If one compares the rate of growth during the nineteenth century it appears that non-colonial countries had, as a rule, a more rapid economic development than colonial ones. There is an almost perfect correlation. Thus colonial countries like Britain, France, the Netherlands, Portugal, and Spain have been characterized by a slower rate of economic growth and industrialization than Belgium, Germany, Sweden, Switzerland and the United States. The ‘rule’ is, to a certain extent, also valid for the twentieth century. Thus Belgium, by joining the colonial ‘club’ in the first years of the twentieth century, also became a member of the group characterized by slow growth. It is obvious that this correlation is far from being proof that all colonial ventures had been economically counterproductive. However, nothing excludes such a possibility. However, this correlation can at least be a partial proof that colonialism has not been such a powerful force for development and industrialization.”