Iran Politics Club      
Website For Thinking Iranians
Back to index  

Tale of 2 Gujarati Saints: Critics of Gandhi & Jinnah
Part 1: Mahatma Gandhi


The Tale of Two Gujarati Saints
Critics of Mahatma Gandhi and Muhammad Ali Jinnah
Part 1: Mahatma Gandhi

Introduction: Ahreeman X
Anwar Shaikh
August 21, 2022

Mahatma Gandhi, man of peace, father of the Indian Independence and a Legend, known to the world as a hero, or was he?

Parts Index

Introduction by Ahreeman X
Part 1: Mahatma Gandhi
Part 2: Muhammad Ali Jinnah


In IPC, we tell you the untold history but the true history! Everyone knows Mahatma Gandhi and Muhammad Ali Jinnah as the heroes of the Indian independence and Pakistani independence, both from Gujarat, India but now, you will read the other side of the story which you have never been told!

Anwar Shaikh the Great Islamic Scholar, Historian, Philosopher, Author and Critic of Islam. His books and essays are banned in many countries but the largest selection of his work is available in IPC to read and get enlightened.

Master Anwar Shaikh is one of the greatest critics of Islam not only because of his criticism of Islam but because of his vast knowledge of Islam, History, Politics and Philosophy. Anwar Shaikh (1928 – 2006) was a great Islamic scholar and a marvelous philosopher who fundamentally, logically and in debt analyzed and condemned Islam. In addition, his philosophy works are deeply enlightening.

The largest selection of Anwar Shaikh’s works including books and essays are published in IPC for the world to read, get informed and be enlightened.

Anwar Shaikh was a solid critic of both Mahatma Gandhi (Father of India) and Muhammad Ali Jinnah (Father of Pakistan) whom both in Anwar Shaikh’s opinion, committed treason by partitioning India in to two separate nations of India and Pakistan!

This two-part essay is one of Anwar Shaikh’s most controversial works. It has significant historical value, political information and Islam exposing content. Many know Anwar Shaikh by his critics of Islam, the historical knowledge on the Islamic history and the political Islam. They have no idea that Anwar Shaikh was also a superb political historian and a grand critic of both these famous men, father of the Indian independent nation (Gandhi) and the father of the Pakistani independent nation (Jinnah)!

Let us dig deep in what had actually happened in the history and let us explore the history which you never get to read in the history books of India, Pakistan, Bangladesh and the West. Take a walk on the darker side of the history and discover the other side of the coin. Let us hear the untold history! Enjoy this controversial work by Master Anwar Shaikh. May his great spirit rest in peace.


Part 1: Mahatma Gandhi

"Both Gandhi Ji and Jinnah Sahib were Gujrati," once a Gujrati Brahmin told me with a good deal of provincial pride.

So, engaging was his style of conversation that, without calling his two heroes as "the saints," he succeeded in depicting them as such. I listened to him patiently without expressing my inmost thoughts, which were bitter, belligerent and baleful.

Both these men had been the subject of my criticism. I was born and brought up in their era. I knew about them and their political activities. Many a time I had attempted to assess their achievements but could never think of them as the friends of India - their Motherland.

To my mind, Motherland is a naturally determined entity. It is more sacred than one's own mother, and excels religion and ideology in sanctity. it is not because of national fanaticism but owing to the fact that it is one's birth-place; one is brought up there according to the cultural traditions pioneered, perfected and practiced within its boundaries; and because one's personal honor and liberties are associated with it. In fact, one's personality shapes up according to one's cultural background, which acts as the source of inspiration, love and nostalgia. This is why that one who does not love one's Motherland is less than human, and any faith that preaches indifference to one's Motherland lacks Divine splendor. Again, as it is the Motherland that provides sustenance, and protection against foreign hazards, it becomes the most sacred duty of every national, irrespective of faith, to defend her integrity with life, if necessary.

When I apply these tests of patriotic greatness to these two men, they do not measure up to them. These are the men who agreed to the partitioning of India to solve the basic problems of communalism. What a treason it is against the concept of Motherland! Had their agreed solution of decomposing India, solved the Hindu-Muslim hatred and the allied Complications, one could have made some atoning remarks about the sin they committed. But, as the partitioning of India has exacerbated the situation, one cannot say that they were wise men; they were just two self- interested wizards, who achieved immortality as "saints" through political legerdemains, though their sleights of hand should have earned them exactly the opposite titles.

Partitioning one's country is the greatest sin. Patriots have always resisted such a temptation with their lives and property. Jinnah raised the specter of a separate Muslim nationality and Gandhi agreed! One cannot claim that the latter did not. Had he differed, he would have gone to war over the issue, and thus proved his saintliness. In fact, he was the bigger culprit of the two for preaching, practicing and perpetuating the philosophies of Ahimsa and Caste. There is no evidence of these concepts in the Vedas, yet they have come to be treated as the pillars of Hinduism through misinterpretation, misunderstanding and malevolence. Gandhi would not have known these facts because he confessed that he had not read the Vedas, the source of the Indian culture, traditions and mores. However, the study of his career persuades me to state that he would not have acknowledged the Vedic principles of patriotism and going to war for a righteous cause because he was more interested in spreading his own cult of Ahimsa to be acknowledged as the Mahatma than saving the honor and integrity of India. Small wonder that he succeeded as the Mahatma but miserably failed as a patriot.

Let us look at his life to justify this conclusion: Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi was born on October 2, 1869, in Porbandar in the Kathiawar Peninsula, India. He came from a well-to-do family and had his own nurse and concertina. He was assassinated on January 30, 1948. Thus, he lived just about 79 years, though he desired to attain a longevity of 125 years. Apart from having the burning desire to be saints, Gandhi and Jinnah shared the family background as well. The former came from the Modh Baniya subcaste whereas the latter was a Khoia i.e., a Hindu Baniya turned Muslim.

It was the misfortune of India that Gandhi had the family background of a weakling, who aspired to be the political leader of four hundred million people of the country; it was like a sparrow wishing to dominate hawks, a fox leading jackals or a sheep governing wolves. Since he intended to achieve dominance through politics, which is essentially the art of acquiring power and administering it, he should have had a brave, bold and buoyant background, but he came from an exactly opposite social environment. Obviously, it shows a massive ego pining for the impossible, and pushing its possessor towards the goal contrary to his nature. This is the reason he resembled a Monk-warrior" who is neither a monk nor a warrior.

It is known to history that Gandhi was afraid of darkness and solitude. Though a professed Hindu, he was influenced by the Jain priests, who wear white gauze masks over their mouths in case they kill germs by inhaling them, and do not go outside in the dark lest they unintentionally step on a worm. Such a person should have become a recluse but he felt the urge of ruling others; maybe he had a genetic basis for this desire: his grandfather, Uttamchand, had been the Prime Minister of Porbandar. He had handed down this office to his son, Karam Chand, who passed it to his brother, Tulsidas. Ruling others, was, obviously a family trait and passion of the Gandhis.

This self-contradictory family background of Gandhi which goaded him to seek power through Ahimsa asserted itself in misinterpreting the Gita. He held it as an allegory which treats soul as the battlefield in which Arjuna representing man's higher instincts struggles against evil! This is a gross distortion of the truth because Lord Krishna repeatedly persuades Arjuna to fight the forces of evil as a matter of honor and to gain salvation. Gita openly declares *righteous war, the gateway to heaven, yet Gandhi finds a message of escape in it. How could Lord Krishna be telling Arjuna to fight his anger in battlefield? His message was to wage a righteous war against the enemies of truth and Motherland. The fact that the field of Kurukshetra had a bloodbath of gigantic proportions, clearly shows that Gandhi was wrong and instead of following the message of Gita, wanted the Gita to follow his cowardly whim of Ahimsa. (*Bhagdvadgita 22: 31- 37)

One ought to bear in mind that the Gita's doctrine of non- violence, sublimity, forgiveness, etc., as stated in Chapter 16, applies to ordinary peaceful life, and not to the emergencies created by evil causes.

Gandhi projected himself to be the political leader of India as the Hindu saint, but the set of principles he preached, practiced and pioneered, have become the bane of India, and will continue to be so until they are modified suitably or eliminated completely. The truth of this statement emerges when we realize that India, among others, is inhabited by 180 million Muslims, who are willing fighters as the believers of Jihad. Again, as a result of the Islamic ideology, they classify themselves as a Muslim nation, who are inclined to be perpetually at war with the Hindus and therefore think of India as Dar-ul-Harb i.e. the battlefield, which is a place of carnage, deception, and all that is sanctioned by the instincts of survival, with total disregard to the commands of decency, decorum and deference.

Having insisted to be a Sanatani Hindu,

1. he preached the validity of Caste system, which has destroyed, not only the national unity of the Hindus, but has served as the biggest bar to the consciousness of human rights in India. Of course, he was against untouchability but opposed the change of occupations i.e., the son of a cobbler must remain a cobbler. This attitude, which expresses the confusion of his mind, is the source of untouchability.

2. He did not believe in the exclusive divinity of the Vedas and observed the scriptural sanctity of the Bible, the Koran, and Zend-Avesta.

3. He did not believe in Hinduism as an exclusive religion, yet he called himself a Hindu by birth. He held that a Hindu is at liberty to assimilate from other faiths whatever he likes and can still remain a Hindu!

4. He was convinced that Ahimsa is the noblest principle Of life, and one must achieve one's highest goal of life, including independence and self-defense, through non-violence. He believed in flight and not fight, though survival and achievements of life, depend on the application of both these virtues. Giving up one, and adopting the other exclusively, is a sign of lunacy.

5. He believed in transmigration and the oneness of life; thus, he seriously advocated one of its logical conclusions, that is: a person is a Hindu by birth only. Nobody can become a Hindu by conversion. "Unlike Christianity or Islam, Hinduism does not invite persons of either faith to join its fold; it enjoins all to follow their own religions. Sister Nivedita, for instance, embraced Hinduism but we do not think of her as a Hindu, nor do we boycott or slight her in any way. There is no question of anybody embracing Hinduism. Everybody can practice Hinduism (but we will not accept him as one of us). With this type of illogical and crazy doctrine, he stood no chance to create one Indian nation, used to practice many faiths.

In a previous article, I have shown that Ahimsa, Caste and Reincarnation are totally un-Vedic concepts and have sprung from the psychological deterioration of the Hindus. Therefore, I shall not indulge in the scriptural denial of these vices here but intend to show how the political application of these religious tenets have wrought the ruination of India, which once acted as the torch-bearer of civilization.

Though Hindutva does not mean the combination of Ahimsa, Caste and prohibition of the non-Hindus returning to the Hindu faith, this is what it has come to mean in practice, and thus it has served as the ambassador of misery, malevolence and misconduct on the Indian subcontinent.

One truth has always remained unchallenged, that is, united we stand but divided we fall. India's fall, which is still operative, emerges from her disunity. Until such time that the non-Hindus are brought back into the Hindu fold or at least, made to respect their Indian origin, the Hindus and non-Hindus cannot make one nation, and therefore, shall remain on the lowest rung of the international ladder of piety pomp and pre-eminence. In fact, the partition of India owes itself to the operation of these three factors. Of course, Gandhi was not the inventor of these vices, but he used them as his main tools to bestow sainthood on himself. To understand the meaning of these follies I may illustrate the point with reference to his life-story:

Gandhi had received his higher education in England. He was admitted to the Inner Temple and London University where he studied French, Latin, Physics and Chemistry. He also studied Common and Roman Law, and was called to the bar on June 10, 1891. He was, thus enrolled in the English High Court, but immediately returned to Bombay on June 12.

Having stayed in England for two years and eight months, he succeeded in becoming a barrister-at - law but failed to make his living as a lawyer. The sense of fiasco forced him to seek escape. He was delighted when a firm of Porbandar Muslims offered to send him to South Africa for a period of one year as their lawyer. Some people say that it was arranged by the British for political purposes but I do not share this opinion. It was just a stroke of luck, which sought to initiate Gandhi on the road of immortality.

Once he was travelling to Pretoria in a first-class compartment, but as the train reached Maritzburg, he was ordered by two rail officials to leave, and sit in the baggage car despite the fact that he had a first-class ticket. The lesson learnt from this episode proved to be unforgettable. He took it as an insult to his color and national weakness.

The Indians had started coming to South Africa in 1860 as indentured labor to till the British-owned plantations of sugar, tea and coffee. It was a term labor-contract, usually, of five years, during which the laborer was treated as a serf. After the expiry of the stipulated service, the serf was free to go back to India at the expense of his employer, but as the conditions at home were usually somber, the Indians preferred to stay in South Africa as free men.

The Indians, known for their ingenuity and hardworking habits, have always been affluent in the foreign lands. As their numbers increased in South Africa, their ostensible life-style was noticed by their previous masters with a good deal of jealousy. The Whites changed the regulations of stay in 1894, and thus it became compulsory for an indentured worker to return home after the expiration of his term of contract, or stay in South Africa as a serf. However, an escape clause provided that he could stay there as a free man provided, he paid an annual tax of three pounds for himself as well as each of his dependents. This sum was extremely high in those days: it required remedial action because the failure to pay the imposition, involved forced repatriation or permanent slavery.

Because of the affluence, many Indians amassed sufficient wealth to acquire the voting rights. Though they were subjects of Queen Victoria, they were looked down upon by the Whites who could smell an odor of equality in their franchise. The Legislature of Natal, in 1894, a year after the arrival of Gandhi, had passed a law disfranchising the Asians.

In the province of Natal, things were made really rough, rigorous and ruthless, especially for the Indians. They were forbidden to own property, engage in farming or trade.

Transavaal, had even harsher conditions: the statute books described the Indians as "semi-barbarous Asiatics." Not only were they disallowed to own property but also forced to live in the slums. In the Cape Colony, they were forbidden to walk on the pavements used by the Whites.

Once Gandhi was kicked for breaking this law. Eventually, the Indians became a burning political issue in South Africa. During January, 1907, at an electoral rally, General Louis Botha, who had become the Prime Minister, proudly declared, "If my party is returned to office, we will undertake to drive the coolies (Indians) out of the country within four years."

To encounter these dreadful conditions, Gandhi developed the technique of Satyagraha, which means spiritual force, and its application implies "weaning the wrong-doer from his follies by patience and sympathy." In fact, it is a display of protest to seek redress of grievances through nonviolence. According to Gandhi, it "is the vindication of truth not by infliction of suffering on the opponent but on one's self."

Gandhi's strategy of nonviolence did work in South Africa. The greatness of Satyagraha is proved by the fact that it secured remedies of all the ills that the Whites had heaped on the Indians. One of them was a very strange tyranny, indeed. A court ruling of the Cape Colony Supreme Court had declared that only the Christian marriages were lawful. Thus, the marriages of the Hindu and Muslim couples no longer had any legal footing. They all were considered adulterers and adulteresses!

Gandhi's victory in all fields through Ahimsa was highly laudable. But he forgot that shade of a tree is good in the blazing summer sun only but during the winter, it must be shunned because it may lead to pneumonia.

Gandhi returned home in January, 1915, after a stay of over two decades in South Africa. His fame had spread throughout India. Tagore hailed him as Mahatma - the insignia of his sainthood!

In his wisdom, Gandhi imagined, the problems that persisted in South Africa were no different from the ones that rocked India. It was a naive assumption. India suffered not only from the British Raj but also the worst type of communalism, mainly engendered by the Islamic pressures, and indirectly aided by the Hindu squeamishness. Yet in 1909, he wrote a book: Hind Swaraj or Indian Home Rule. So smug was he in his analysis of the situation that he republished it in 1921 without introducing any modification in it, and when he reproduced yet another edition of it in 1938, he declared, "I have seen nothing to make me alter the views expanded in it. "

While in South Africa, Gandhi, the barrister-at-law, dressed like a westerner, but in India, he excelled even sadhus in sartorial simplicity, which has seldom failed to capture the lucid, trusting and credulous Hindu mind despite its inbuilt powers of observation, understanding and analysis. A photograph of that period shows him seated cross-legged on a platform dressed in a loincloth, and making a speech to the Indians standing around him attired as Europeans. What a spectacle of political wizardry it was!

With a view to demonstrating his renunciation of interest in the worldly affairs, he crowned the nudity of his loincloth with the dignity of the "Satyagraha Ashram, " located first at Kochrab, and then permanently at Sabarmati, across the Sabarmati River. Gandhi's room was about the size of a cell; it convinced the visitors of his renunciation but hid his political dreams, seeking to raise him on to the highest pedestal of sainthood. For sixteen years he lived in his cell, discounting the intervals that he spent in prison. It ought to be noted that most political leaders of the Independence Movement started their careers by kissing the feet of the "Mahatma" at Sabarmati. No doubt Gandhi rose to become the most luminous spiritual star of India; his disciples also touched the zenith of political and personal glory, but the country itself had to suffer partition, poverty and passivity.

This hypocritical asceticism of the Indian gurus, which has proved their most potent tool to fool, snool and school people, was noticed by them, when in 1918, he started a campaign of recruitment for the British Army. He persistently declared, "There can be no partnership between the brave and the effeminate. We are regarded as a cowardly people. If we want to become free from that reproach, we must learn the use of arms."

The village folks were taken aback by his approach. They heckled him: "you are a votary of nonviolence; how can you ask us to take up arms."

Yet the "Mahatma of Convenience" kept up his drive of recruitment for the British Army!

Gandhi was born and bred in the traditions of cowardice. This tragic trait of his personality became not only the driving force of his conduct but also the most rapturous vehicle for securing his ambition of sainthood. This man was not a patriot at all. His passion was not India and the Indians but his cult: Ahimsa, which was his Dharma. Quite unashamedly, he declared, "I would be ready even to sacrifice the country for the sake of Dharma; such is the ideal which inspires me. My patriotism is subject to my concern for Dharma, and therefore, if the interest of the country conflicts with that of Dharma, I would be ready to sacrifice the former."

He explains the above quotation (page 90, M. K. Gandhi: Hindu Dharma) more fully on page 127 when he adds: "But our Rishis made the startling discovery (and every day I feel more and more convinced of its truth) that sacred texts and inspired writings yielded their truth only in proportion as one has advanced in the practice of Ahimsa and truth. The greater the realization of truth and Ahimsa the greater the illumination."

Politics is the art of acquiring power and administering it. Of course, he had secured dictatorial power through Ahimsa, but he was not willing to administer it. By administration of power, I mean using power to organize a healthy society, defend its institutions, enforce principles of peace and justice. Obviously, it requires application of force, which is the exact antithesis of Ahimsa because it necessitates use of both reward and punishment. The "Mahatma's" insistence on this lop-sided view of life dearly shows that either he was naive or less than honest.

Considering influence of the Gandhian Ahimsa on the Hindu character and way of life, one can safely say that it was a catastrophe of greater proportions than the partition of India itself for being its true cause. This is not to say that he had no achievements to his credit. Resuscitating the Indian consciousness for independence was an act of greatness. He was also a reformer: he did a good deal to improve the status of the Hindu women. His total advocacy of Ahimsa, which effeminated the Hindus, and they failed to fight for the integrity of Mother India, reduces his status to that of a self-centered fool. Add to it, his zeal for perpetuating Caste System, which has divided the Hindus into thousands of mutually hostile subdivisions, and one begins to feel that this man was the Divine punishment to the people of India.

The British had allowed a good deal of civil liberties to their Indian subjects during normal times. But these had to be curbed during World-War-One. When it came to an end in November, 1918, the Indians naturally expected the restoration of their political rights but their surprise knew no bounds when they noticed that the Government seemed determined to continue wartime restraints under the Rowlatt Acts passed by the New Delhi Imperial Legislative Council on March 18, 1919.

Of course, Gandhi was the champion of liberty but in spirit only. Protestation does have a value in politics but when a political malaise amounts to usurpation of liberties, then civil methods of remonstrance appear no more than a sign of resignation. Liberty requires blood for its protection, propagation and perpetuation. Any offering less than blood does not suit the temperament of liberty, which is the loftiest human value, and thus naturally requires the highest price. In fairness to Gandhi, it must be said that he was the only Indian leader who was prepared to struggle for liberty, though passively. His Muslim counterparts had decided to be loyal to their British masters.

All approaches against the Rowlatt Acts having failed, Gandhi decided to apply his old African formula of nonviolence and Satyagraha. He decided to launch this campaign when he was recuperating from the effects of dysentery in the house of Raigopalachari. To give his plan the status of Divine inspiration, he told his host that the idea came to him in a dream to persuade the country to observe a general Hartal, which meant a complete suspension of economic activity, that is shutting down shops, factories, banks, shipping services and so on. Since this action would involve a large number of workers, it would stir the dormant feelings of liberty, leading to public unity and discipline. The campaign was not based on the universally accepted principle of "an eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth" but on "returning good for evil." The expedition started with selling banned literature to irritate the government, and a small body of volunteers comprising six hundred men and women from Bombay, signed a pledge of Satyagraha. People laughed at the size of Gandhi's devotees but he felt pleased because he had been able to achieve his goal in Africa with a much smaller following.

The Hartal was a political weapon for achieving the goal of liberty, and not a petition against a factory owner. It aroused people's sentiments of self-respect, which sought satisfaction through violence. As a result, in large cities the Hartal was accompanied by plundering stores, uprooting telegraph poles, arson, blocking trains including assaults on Englishmen. The "Mahatma's" passion for liberty soon died down when he saw the flames of violence, and he brusquely called off the campaign on April 18, 1919. This was a shameful act of cowardice. Instead of repenting for this heinous sin, he declared it to be a "Himalayan miscalculation."

This was a chance to train his people in the art of loving country and inculcating in their mind that giving blood for the Motherland was the highest form of Dharma. Had he taken the bold step as a true patriot, he would have considerably minimized the chances of partition, because the Hindus would have been willing to fight for the integrity of their Motherland.

I accuse Gandhi of destroying the character of his people by fostering hatred of fighting against the express dictates of the Vedas. The man obviously, wanted to replace Vedism with Gandhism to perpetuate his own glory. It is for this reason that he thought of Bhagwad Gita as an allegory requiring man to suppress his anger and feelings of belligerence!

He could have easily seen the consequences of Ahimsa in this campaign, which had spread far and wide. At Amritsar, in the Punjab province, as the protesters gathered at the Jallianwala Bagh on April 13, General Reginald E. H. Dyer appeared with a determination to humiliate the Indians.

Jallianwala Bagh is "a rectangular piece of unused ground covered to some extent by building materials and debris. It is almost entirely surrounded by walls of buildings. The entrances and exits to it are few and imperfect. Having occupied these points of exit and entry, Dyer ordered his troops, which consisted of Gurkhas and Baluchis, to fire at the peaceful crowds, estimated at 20,000 strong." Like all Indians, these troops knew nothing about patriotism; killing fellow-Indians was just a job for them. For ten minutes they kept firing at the innocent people, who could find no refuge. It was a kind of escapade; many were trampled by their fellow-protesters, but 379 were killed and 1137 seriously injured by bullets.

Gandhi learnt nothing from the Amritsar Massacre. At a Muslim conference in New Delhi during November, 1919, he declared his policy of non-cooperation aiming at boycotting everything British such as goods, courts, schools, jobs, etc.

The Vedas have advocated the Kshatriya code of honor, based on active fighting. Gandhi was determined to replace it with Ahimsa, a code of verbosity, which calls flight, fear and fantasy, the pillars of humanity. One ought to remember what he said at that time: "If India takes up the doctrine of the sword, she may gain momentary victory, but then India will cease to be the pride of my heart!"

In his travelling crusade of Ahimsa were included the famous Ali Brothers, who held Muslim faith. He could not make them discard the Islamic tenet of Jehad i.e., "fighting in the name of God," but he himself abandoned the Vedic command of fighting a righteous war and also succeeded in making Hindus the biggest pacifists in the world! He gained this distinction because he had become indispensable to the nationalist movement. As a result, the Executive Committee of Congress, meeting on November 4, 1921, passed a resolution to make a commitment to a nonviolent movement of civil disobedience, and also undertook not to act without Gandhi's consent.

Here one can see the dictator Gandhi in his monkish clothes: people must believe in his principles and must not act without his consent! Unless they toe the line, he will have nothing to do with them; in fact, he will leave them in the lurch at will.

What a patriotism it is! Turning proud Khsatriyas, dedicated to righteous warfare, into a race of mice is the miracle that only this "Mahatma" could perform.

This man was obsessed with political power not for reviving the old Indian glory but to install himself as the Mahatma in the Hindu mind. Political power had been used by many aspirants for this purpose, but they had done it through use of might. Gandhi was a born coward, a true Jaina in the garb of a Hindu, and therefore did not have the nerve to wage a war to achieve his goal, but having a deep-rooted obsession for eternity, he had to use nonviolence as his tool irrespective of how it affected his countrymen.

During December, 1921, at the Ahmadabad Annual Congress session, he appealed "in all humility" to Great Britain for Indian liberties, and thereafter started a campaign of civil disobedience in the county of Bardoli near Bombay, hoping that he would be personally able to supervise the movement. Hardly had the Bardoli experiment started when he heard that a peaceful legal procession was turned into a mob violence culminating into the "brutal murder" of twenty-two policemen. As a result, he suspended the Bardoli disobedience and also prohibited defiance of the government in all parts of India. It is interesting to note what he said at that occasion. "It is better to be charged with cowardice and weakness than to be guilty of denial of our oath and to sin against God. It is a million times better to appear untrue before the world than to be untrue to ourselves.

No sin is half as big as total commitment to nonviolence under all circumstances. How can one save a sheep from a wolf without the use of force? How can one defend one's Motherland against a blood- thirsty invader? How can one protect one's daughter's honor against a determined rapist?

His timidity was inimical to the progress of India. This is why he could not adopt the right approach even when his purpose was right and laudable, if it required boldness. Hindu-Muslim unity that he dreamt of, is an example in point. Writing in the May 29, 1924, issue of Young India, on "Hindu-Moslem Tension: Its Cause and Cure, " he declared that Hindu-Muslim unity was possible "because it is so natural, so necessary for both and because I believe in human nature."

Using fasting as a means of drawing public attention to the significance of Hindu-Muslim unity, he announced that he would impose a twenty-one-day Hindu-Muslim fast on himself ending on October 6, 1924. Wisely, he chose for this purpose the house of Muhammad Ali, the younger brother of Shaukat Ali, so that everybody could see for himself that the Hindu Gandhi and the Muslim Ali were friends and could live together. Gandhi, on the second day of his fast, wrote a page-long plea for "unity in diversity." He asserted openly: "Need of the moment is not one religion but mutual respect and tolerance of the devotees of different religions."

He further declared: "I have in my mind that when I break my fast, we might have a little ceremony expressing religious unity. I would like the Imam Sahib to recite the opening verses of the Koran."

This showed his total ignorance of the Islamic faith, which divides mankind into two groups, perpetually at war with each other. The Muslims being the Party of Allah are assured victory against non-Muslims, the Party of Satan. Since the Koran has laid it down unequivocally that all gods are false except Allah, and Islam is the religion of dominance, a country is Dar-ul-Harb (the land of insurrection and warfare) until it is dominated by the Muslims! It is obvious that with this kind of faith, the Muslims could not live peacefully with the Hindus, whose total destruction Islam advocated. It is for this reason that a Muslim born in India thinks of himself as a part of the international Muslim brotherhood, instead of believing to be an Indian national. This malaise is peculiar to the Muslims of India because the Muslims of other countries such as Arabs, Turks, Iranians, etc., are proud of their nationalities and shall offer their last drop of blood to defend the honor of their motherlands. This is why they have honorable histories whereas the Indian Muslims having fallen victim to a devastating inferiority complex, think of themselves as the children of the foreign invaders, though in fact, 95% of them have the same blood and cultural traditions as do the Hindus.

Instead of Indianizing the Muslims of India, he encouraged them to maintain their Muslim identity. Take for example, the Mopla devastation of the Hindus. Their atrocities against the Hindu women and children are considered "indescribable." Instead of condemning the Moplas for the massacre, he said, "Brave God- fearing Moplas, who were fighting what they consider as religion and in a manner which they consider as religious."

These remarks were congratulatory and invited further molestation of the Hindus. His support of the Ali brothers in advancing the cause of Khilafat Movement was equally anti-patriotic because it sought to promote pan-Islamism, which means that Muslims all over the world are one nation and must unite against the non-Muslim forces. What a way to promote the Hindu-Muslim unity!

History shows that unity is always among the equals; the befitting relationship between the unequal is that of master and man. If he really sought the union, he must have tried to persuade the Hindus to take up sword in accordance with the Vedic commandments. But, according to his own confession, he never read the Vedas. His pusillanimity, which found expression in Ahimsa, became the bane of India.

A coward, being a degenerate, lacks the ability to rise to the acknowledged standards of honor, and is therefore naturally despised by the honorable. Gandhi's cult of Ahimsa brought such a shame on India, which no country has ever suffered: on 3 September, 1939, Great Britain declared war on Germany. Lord Linlithgow, the Indian Viceroy, who knew the cowardly way of life that the Hindus had adopted, did not think them worthy of consultation and made India a party to the war!

The next day, Gandhi met Lord Linlithgow in Simla, where in an interview he wept like a child dreading effects of the war. He even tried to frighten the Viceroy by reminding him that the German bombardment might destroy the Houses of Parliament and Westminster Abbey. In fact, he insisted that Britain must give up arms and oppose Hitler with spiritual force. He pressed Lord Linlithgow to accept his proposal and communicate it to the British Government. The sparrow was hoping that the falcon would adopt her manners!

The Cabinet Mission arrived in India on 23rd March, 1946. It approved of a federal India and rejected the idea of Pakistan. But such was the communal hatred amongst the Indians that the Mission failed to achieve its goal. As India had lost her economic significance to Britain, and the British people had reached that level of cultural attainment where enslavement appeared as a cardinal sin, Major Attlee instructed the new Viceroy, Lord Mountbatten, to transfer power to the Indians before the 30th of June, 1948. Since the Indians were not willing to live together owing to the mutual religious hatred, the concept of a federal India was no longer a possibility. Lord Mountbatten was not pro- Pakistan, but when the Hindus and Muslims hated the sight of one another, the Viceroy had no choice but to back the Partition. After all, he had a responsibility to the Muslim subjects as well.

However, the Hindu leadership had the most sacred duty to defend the honor of their motherland, and fight for her integrity. I regret to say that the "Mahatma's" sermons penetrated Hindu guts so deeply that they were completely shorn of manliness to qualify as honorable men. To them patriotism was what cat is to a mouse, water is to fire and mongoose is to a serpent. The word: blood, bred in them the sense of banality, banefulness and bereavement.

It is wrong to say that it is only the Muslims, who were the cause of partitioning India. The Hindus failed to defend the integrity of the Motherland and thus qualify as the homeland-bashers. As Jinnah pressed his case for partition vehemently, Sardar Patel was the first Hindu notable, who favored this idea. He declared that it was worth losing a chunk of India to be rid of the Muslims. It is amazing how a son of Shivaji, who had fought the foreign imperialism all his life, could adopt such an attitude. The worst happened, when the Mahatma himself recommended the All-India Congress Committee to accept partition as the only solution. To a patriot, war was the true solution but he had repeatedly said that if there ever arose a conflict between Dharma (Ahimsa) and patriotism, he would choose the former. To a patriot, such a choice is the worst form of Adharma. I have no hesitation to add that a patriot whose blood, bones and breath are dedicated to the greatness of his/her motherland, is far superior to a saint, who is not interested in the preservation, pomp and prestige of his homeland.

At Gandhi's behest a resolution was moved by Pandit Pant: 29 voted for it and 15 opposed it. Gandhi wanted to be a saint. He achieved his ambition but at what a cost.

A saint Gandhi might have been but a patriot he was not. Surely no country wants a saint like Gandhi, who turns her into a sacrificial lamb for his own glory. This truth is confirmed by his post-partition attitude towards the Muslims of India. To understand what I am about to say, one ought to bear in mind that India was partitioned as the only solution to the communal hatred. Jinnah had proposed transmigration of population to make this remedy work: it meant that all Muslims would move into Pakistan and all Hindus would migrate to India (Bharat). What happened was really incredible. All the non-Muslims were pushed out of Pakistan but 90% of the Muslims of India (Bharat) stayed where they had always lived. This was contrary to the very purpose of partitioning India.

It is said, "strike when the iron is hot." Had the Hindus repeated what the Muslims had done to cleanse Pakistan, the problem would have been solved but Gandhi's sainthood became the biggest hurdle in the way.

As the Hindus and Sikhs reached Delhi, their plight stirred the hearts of their co-religionists, leading to fierce communal riots. The Muslims having lost their usual commanding position, started emigrating to Pakistan. Once for a change, the Muslims of India were in a really sorry state. It was the first time that a sheep had charged the wolf with complete ferocity and the latter was looking for mercy. Sardar Patel, who had championed the cause of partition, realizing that this was the only solution to the dreadful communal problem, stood firm and refused to listen to any petitions of justice and mercy by the Muslims. Ordinarily, he would have been wrong but under those circumstances he had the duty to execute the purpose of the partition.

Gandhi, who had always used India to promote his own ambitions of sainthood at the expense of national dignity, declared his fast to death on 12 January 1948, unless activities against Muslims were stopped forthwith. It led to acrimony between Gandhi and Patel. The latter, who owed his entire political rise to the beneficence of Gandhi, stood no chance of success in this contest of wills. One of the six conditions for his withdrawing the fast, was:

"The Hindus and Sikhs would make every effort to ensure that not one Muslim should leave India because of insecurity of life and property."

This is the man, who had recommended partition to solve the dreadful problem of Communalism. Now the same man was resurrecting the ghost of appalling Hindu-Muslim detestation. His "saintly action" which under the circumstance amounted to high treason, reversed much of history. India's communal problems are becoming more intense now after a lull of nearly fifty years. The Muslims in Bharat, at the time of partition were no more than 45 million, but now they number 180 million. Thanks to a hadith of the Prophet Muhammad, which says he (the Prophet) feels proud of the Muslim, who enlarges his following by producing more children. The Muslim population of India is bound to grow more rapidly as time goes on. By the end of the 21st century, the Muslims will be in majority or at least in a position to form government through coalition. India will become a Dar-ul-Salaam, and the Ahimsa-stricken Hindus, thanks to Saint Gandhi, shall be back to the same old days of political subordination.

The dreadful result of Gandhi's sainthood emerges when we realize that had all Muslims been thrown out of India in 1947, it would have been impossible for Pakistan to sustain the pressure of increased population through immigration. Pakistan would have collapsed economically and politically, leading to the movement of reunion.

In a previous article, I advocated disfranchisement of the Muslims of Bharat. I had done so on the ground that, by demanding Pakistan, they had become aliens in India, and thus forfeited the rights of a bonafide national. I was wrong because the Muslims, who were born in Bharat after the partition, are the natural citizens of the land, and it is especially so, when the Hindus, under the influence of Gandhi, themselves had stopped them from emigrating to Pakistan.

Bharat, despite having all material and intellectual resources, is a member of the Third-World countries. It is a great shame; the source of this disgrace is lack of national unity, which hinders the achievements associated with proud nationhood. The truth is that partition has proved disastrous to both Bharat and Pakistan. Their budgets are dedicated to crush each other and not to improve the lives of their people. It is because that Pakistan is the creation of the Hindu-Muslim hatred. As long as the partition continues both the Hindus and Muslims shall suffer owing to mutual fear and negative practices. The Two-Nation Theory which has been dreamt up by the Muslim fanatics, has no validity whatever because the Hindus and Muslims are One Nation racially, geographically and culturally. The word Hindu is, in fact, a corruption of Sindhu; it means people of the Indus Valley which mainly consisted of the Punjab as evidenced by the Rigveda, the only legitimate authority on the subject. Thus, Hinduism is a product of Pakistan; it is from here that this faith traveled to the Ganga-Jumna Doab, and the rest of India. Thus, the Vedic culture is the true Pakistani Culture; the Hindus term it as Hindutva which does not mean Hinduism but the original Vedic culture common to all people of the pre-partitioned India. In other words, it means Cultural Nationalism of Bharat, Pakistan and Bangladesh. Therefore, the Vedas, and their culture belong to all people of the Indian subcontinent irrespective of the religion they may practice. Take for example such festivals as Basant and Besakhi, which are purely Indian in character, and are therefore neither anti nor pro-lslam. Again, Sanskrit is the native language of the undivided India and thus, has a natural priority over all foreign languages such as English, Arabic, Persian, etc. This is what is called Hindutva.

People of Pakistan have nothing in common with the Arabs, Iranians, Turks, etc., except the Islamic religion. And the split between Pakistan and Bangladesh has proved it beyond a shadow of doubt that nationhood is not based on religion but a homeland and cultural ties. People of the Indian subcontinent have been grossly misled in the name of religion. How can a religion deserve to be called a religion if it splits the unity of a nation and serves as the ambassador of malignance, misery and murder.

Time is approaching fast when people of the Indian subcontinent should seek reunion urgently because this is the only way forward. India can give a lead in this direction. One can suggest many steps in this direction, but let me mention three only:

1. The Hindus must realize that they have lost nearly half of their nation to Islam, which preaches hatred of one's own homeland, but encourages loyalty and devotion to Arabia, the homeland of the Prophet Muhammad. Again, while Islam actively seeks converts, the Hindus spurn this idea and believe that a person can be a Hindu by birth only. This is what has given birth to untouchability and a deep-rooted contempt of the non-Hindus. Welcoming non-Hindus to the Hindu fold is the right step towards reunion. If the Hindus do not give up their proverbial bigotry arising out of this strange doctrine, they will come to real grief. I have no doubt that they will become a minority in their own homeland. Just realize that in 1947, the Muslim population of Bharat numbered about 45 million but now, after 50 years, it exceeds 180 million!

They must also remember that only those nations touch the honorable heights of history, which are willing to modify their faith and ways of life. The Arabs converted to Islam and the Christians had to become Protestants. The no-conversion Hindu doctrine must change, otherwise Hinduism will disappear.

2. The Indian Muslims must be made to realize that Bharat, where they are born, bred and buried, is their real home, which they must learn to love and respect. They must know that Pakistan sealed its borders to the Indian Muslims in 1951, and there are 250,000 East Pakistani Muslims, who have been denied entry into Pakistan. They have been rotting in the Bangladeshi camps over the last three decades. They are indigenous Muslims, but look how miserably they have been treated by their fellow Muslims i.e. the Bangladeshis. Even the Mercy of Allah has deserted them.

3. Regrettably, the Bharat Government has so far failed to meet its national obligations to its people. One nation, one law, is the universal rule. By not enforcing a uniform Civil Code, the Indian Government has become an advocate of the Two-Nation Theory. it amounts to treason. A country of the size of Bharat must be ashamed of observing the foreign law, especially when it treats Bharat as Dar-ul-Harb.

The Civil Code must apply to all people equally irrespective of their religious leanings.

The Muslims of Bharat are part of the Hindu nationhood. Its separateness is a cause of concern to the country and its people. It is customary on the Indian subcontinent for the political sharks to achieve their goals by exploiting religion. This evil tradition is raising its head again in Karnataka. The recent resolution of the Milli Parliament at Hubli is a cause for concern. Unless the Government take a drastic and timely action, it may prove a successor to the Muslim League.

Pakistan is a symbol of the Hindu weakness brought about by the saintly ambitions of the Gujrati Saint, Gandhi. Now let us examine the career of Jinnah, the other Gujrati Saint in part-two of this article.

On to Part Two

Part 1: Mahatma Gandhi
Part 2: Muhammad Ali Jinnah
Back to History Index
Back to Islam Index
Back to English Library Index
Back to Anwar Shaikh Index

Support IPC
IPC operating since March 30, 2000
          Duplication of contents are allowed, only by naming the source & link to IPC
All rights are protected & reserved by Iran Politics Club © 2000 IPC