We show in these pieces that the essence of Gandhi’s thoughts were derived from Christianity in general and Tolstoy in particular (at least parts directly follow from Tolstoy) and are in conflict with core principles of Indic theology, spanning from Sanatan Dharma to Jainism (which is closest among the Indic schools to Gandhi). The revolutionaries were instead, knowingly or unknowingly, rooted in Hindu foundation and ethos. Many of Gandhi’s contemporaries, both Hindus (revolutionaries like Sachin Sanyal, philosophers like Aurobindo Ghosh and masses) and Christians, saw him more as a Christian than a Hindu. We also show that he seriously pondered upon converting to Christianity, and rejected the consideration ostensibly because he believed that he could follow Jesus Christ’s teachings in Hinduism and that he could be a good Christian while being a good Hindu. We show that he was wrong there as core Christian doctrines have significant differences with Christian theology. We conjecture that he did not convert because he did not want to alienate the bulk of India, which was practising Hindu during his times. At any rate, we show that he facilitated proselytizing contrary to his stated opposition to the same.
1) We show an unhealthy nexus between Gandhi and top industrialists which the British cleverly exploited to undermine India’s freedom struggle. They helped to build the personality cult around Gandhi as it suited them, and Gandhi on his part played divisive politics to the hilt using the same cult and money power to further the cult, Among other things, British were regularly providing intelligence info to Gandhi, including on Bose, while he was the Congress President. Gandhi received the same without any fuss as to why his party President was being snooped upon. We have documented our claims from writings of the protagonists Bose, Gandhi, Nehru, Azad, Birla.
2) We have contrasted the protagonists views on independence and the country they envisioned post independence, relying on their speeches and writings. Gandhi’s stated vision was a Spiritual Swaraj whereby the British can continue to rule India provided it helps India get rid of industry, machines, railways, doctors, lawyers, hospitals, medicines, contraceptives. His comments on railways, doctors and hospitals are particularly illuminating 🙂 He also saw no utility in education for peasants as that would not increase their happiness.
Bose on the other hand sought a complete severance from the British and envisioned large scale industrialization whereby a section of the agricultural workforce would move to manufacturing. He also wanted a national research institute to be set up, close connection between science and politics, and divorce scientific research from government control. Unlike what is commonly known, he had explicitly disassociated himself from communism, and had ridiculed its class war and internationalism.
3) Subhas Bose’s association with Indian revolutionaries starting long before he lead the INA. He was seeking to operate like Sinn Fein of Ireland who provided political cover to the militant wing of freedom struggle.
4) We strike at the root of the Gandhian myth that he had a doctrinaire opposition to violence. He sought to enlist soldiers in the thousands to fight for the British during the first world war. While supporting the Khilafat agitation, he said that he was duty-bound to help a just cause even when it involved violence. Yet, he persistently and sternly opposed the Indian revolutionaries, while observing neutrality while Hindu victims were being butchered during Moplah riots in 1921 and partition riots in 1946-47. He felt the most noble course of action for Hindus was to die without any resistance whatsoever in both of these. It becomes apparent that his stand on violence depended on the race and religions of the perpetrator and victims.
(Did the Mahatma really oppose violence?)
5) The legend of Gandhi’s insistence on truth, and nothing but the absolute truth, perhaps only equals his ostensible attachment to non-violence. In his own words, “My love for non-violence is superior to every other thing mundane or supermundane. It is equalled only by my love for truth which is to me synonymous with non-violence through which and which alone I can see and reach Truth.’’ . But, contrary to what is generally believed, and what Gandhi had himself professed in multiple instances, non-violence did not constitute an article of faith for him, as we have argued in the prequel. Through a microscopic examination of the first decade of Gandhi’s political sojourn in India, 1920-1931, we show that he took multiple liberties with truth, which was exposed by Indian revolutionaries who had debated him during this period.
Gandhi announced two nation-wide mass movements during this period, which lead to large scale repressions on the masses, and yet, both were abruptly terminated without any tangible gain. One was withdrawn on a flimsy pretext, and the other ended with an abject surrender. This would be the pattern for his subsequent mass movements as well. During this period, he repeatedly allured Congress and the nation into pursuing his agenda by promising them Dominion Status in a year, when the deliverable was clearly infeasible. Again, multiple times, he rescinded his promises and resolutions through artificial distinctions in terminology introduced post facto and repeated shifting of goal posts. He and his disciples would frequently resort to emotional blackmail threatening that he would retire should he be questioned on his failings, or his agenda not be accepted in its entirety. Last, but not the least, he did not even honor his promise to the fallen martyr, Sukhdev Thapar, who was hanged along with Bhagat Singh and Rajguru.
6) Focusing on a debate between Gandhi and revolutionaries,
7) In this article, we show that Gandhi had committed himself to helping the oppressed fight against their injustice, even if they did not follow his path of non-violence. Yet, in practice, while Gandhi had few problems accepting British violence against Indians in general & Revolutionaries in particular, he had a deep seated loathing for the Revolutionaries & sought to undermine them by every means. In deals that the Congress made with the British, Gandhi left the Revolutionaries to dry. He introduced Congress resolutions condemning the Revolutionaries, personally condemned the Revolutionaries & actively sympathised with the targets of the Revolutionaries. He & his colleagues (Nehru, Patel, and Rajagopalachari being prominent among them) actively collaborated with the British in suppressing the Revolutionaries. Gandhi & his colleagues never formally moved against any capital sentence for the Revolutionaries either. Among those he & his colleagues condemned & tried to erase & banish from public memory were the finest of our Revolutionaries including Bhagat Singh, Sukh Dev, Chandrasekhar Azad, Gopinath Saha, Shanti Chowdhary, Suniti Ghosh, and Vasudev Gogte, among others. (added on 02/08/2015)
8) In this article, we show that the top leaders of the Congress (Patel, Nehru, Azad and Gandhi) colluded with the British to suppress the naval mutiny. When the people of Bombay fought & died in the streets for the naval ratings, the Congress offered support to the British to suppress it. Patel promised to protect the mutinous naval ratings from victimisation if they surrendered, and then promptly, he & Nehru threw them to the wolves, while Gandhi condemned the ratings. The army mutiny of Jabalpur & air mutinies were treated similarly. Free India consigned the military mutineers to oblivion and refused them status as freedom fighters However, the effect of the mutinies on the British decision to quit India was enormous.
http://www.dailyo.in/politics/how-gandhi-patel-and-nehru-colluded-with-the-british-to-suppress-the-naval-mutiny-of-1946/story/1/5567.html (added on 15/08/2015)
9) In this article, we focus on the actual position taken by Gandhi with respect to cow protection. Gandhi opposed legislation banning cow slaughter and we document why he did so, in his own words. The purpose of the article is to faithfully reproduce Gandhi’s position on cow slaughter legislation.
10) In this article, we point out that Gandhi’s cow protection consisted of appeasing Muslims and bullying Dalits. Gandhi repeatedly appeased Muslims and defended their right to slaughter cows. He strongly opposed any attempt by Hindus to infringe upon their right to slaughter cows and demanded that Hindus die to save cows, without opposing Muslim rights in any way. At the same time, he bullied Dalits and demanded that they stop eating beef. He made their participation in the freedom struggle contingent upon their giving up beef. We examine in detail the position taken by Gandhi and why he took up such a position.
11) In this article, we point out that far from getting us freedom `bina khadak, bina dhaal’, Gandhi never even wanted freedom. He gave multiple definitions of Swaraj, depending on the day of the week. Throughout his career, except for a few months in 1942, Gandhi desperately tried to stop freedom, calling off mass movements and seeking only minor concessions for his party. We examine his definitions of Swaraj and his career of seeking `Swaraj’
12) In two parts, we point out how Gandhi, Nehru and the other honourable Congress leaders used, abused and destroyed a peasant revolt in Awadh and crushed its leader, Baba Ramachandra. Baba Ramachandra was a progressive leader who led the Awadhi peasants against the zamindars and their British enablers. Baba Ramachandra linked the Awadhi peasant demands to Swarajya. However, the emergence of this peasant leader was deeply displeasing to the powers that be and he was quickly destroyed by Nehrus and Gandhi, working in tandem with the Islamist Khilafatists and the British, and the peasants he led were massacred.
In addition to these, there was an introductory article by Saswati which initiated the entire series on Gandhi.
Fundamental Conflicts in Indian Nationhood – Gandhi vs Revolutionaries
The question then that remains to be answered is if the insistence on passive submission to violent intrusion was somehow intrinsic to Indian ethos, or is it that the revolutionaries internalised the essence of Indian nationhood?
A critical examination of the actions of Gandhi & Nehru concerning the revolutionaries. We also examine the portrayal of their actions by professional historians & record their lapses, omissions & hiding of history.