Gandhi: A True Mahatma?

To measure the inherent character of a nation, one looks to see the predominant qualities used in
association with its people and with its history. For most nations past and present, there is little to distinguish its culture from the mass of humanity, except for superficial differences such as physical features, rituals, languages, and other factors. These are nations where the individual is molded by the customs long-held by the society; indeed there is little room for the expression of true individuality, as the mass with some justification sees such individuality as a threat to its stability. This stability, however, is not permanent, as either it must accept the outgrowth of the individual or face internal turmoil; or it succumbs to outside pressures, often in the form of invasion. Conquered, they lose their identity and become but a footnote in the list of destroyed nations. Few are the nations able to delicately balance the uniformity desired by the mass with the interests and ambitions of the individual. The nations that do so become known for their creations, for their outward achievements, become remembered through their writers and musicians, sculptors and painters, inventors and geniuses. Their allowance of the growth of the individual in turn strengthens the mass, which cycles back to provide the foundation for the individual. Governed by outward works and desire, these are nations likely to have a significant military history, with numerous conquests. The defect in these nations is due to the very nature of desire itself - an error in relating external achievements and desires to the truest Self, which is of an internal character. While these societies will always have small minority of men willing to rise beyond the desire principle, their influence is minimal on the bulk of their fellow citizens. If these nations can be described as having systems of higher ideals, mostly of an ethical or moral basis, they cannot truly be said to have had a pervasive spiritual or transcendental foundation, even if some of their creations hinted at deeper internal realities. Without this strong element enabling regeneration, these nations are marked by the eventual exhaustion of their force. Conquering, they lose themselves in their excesses, wasting their vitality and creative strength, leaving their mark on the world but unable to sustain themselves. Fewer still are the nations with an enduring inclination towards transcending the divisions made by the individual ego. These nations have in their foundation principles that not only take up the needs of the community and the creations of the individual, but also present extensively traveled paths to help the individual delve deeper into his own nature in order to then transcend his nature. Essentially, these are nations with a foundation based upon knowledge not of objective facts and data, but illumination of the highest Self. It was not just the rare enlightened men who procured these truths (originating from subjective individual experience), because unlike in other perished or perishing nations, these experiences were known to men in all eras, whatever the general state of society. It was this foundation, laid down from times immemorial, which gave balance to these nations, allowing for the exploration of many paths and the ability to absorb shock after shock. This lofty heritage - based upon a secure internal strength - is what makes these countries less likely to attack others, and more able to rebound from the trauma of invasion and division, since being ruled by an outsider or having its land parceled could not shake an inherent unity based on something much more subtle, something eternal. Conquered, they survive their conqueror; twice born are the immortal nations. Who then, were these men that established this higher basis for their nations? They were not the philosopher or intellectual playing with abstraction, the scientists analyzing material phenomena, the general or ruler toying with men and nations, the businessman expanding his wealth: rather, they were men of profound spiritual realization, with concrete experience of the Divine. In India they

were and are known variously as Rishis, Yogis, Gurus, and other terms of reverence, dependent upon the form of practice, type of attainment, or the type of works produced by the individual, to name but a few factors. Whether these individuals have realized their hidden Soul (Purusha) or true Self (Atman), the Universal Self or Supreme Self, the personal or impersonal Godhead, or even the experience of Nirvana, they have indeed gone beyond the normal boundaries of mortals. Then there are those who had not yet attained any sort of definitive spiritual realization, those who remain seekers of the Godhead. Most commonly seen as ascetics, these Sadhus (practitioners of spiritual discipline) and Sannyasis are known to abandon not only earthly desires but also their very homes and families in search of the eternal Truth. These were ones often with a thorough understanding of the wisdom passed down by the Seers whether orally or in the scripture, persons pure in the heart, yet without possession of the ultimate knowledge gained only by experience. One title not seen often in Indian narratives and spiritual disciplines, is that of Mahatma, commonly translated as Great Soul. In fact, it was popularized by the Theosophical Society in the late 19th century; their founder, Helena Blatvatsky, claimed contact and guidance from 'Mahatmas' in Tibet. Theosophical literature was widely known to Indian elite home and abroad at the time, and thus Mohandas Gandhi, given the religious nature of his political strategy and speeches, was to receive this title upon his return from South Africa from those exposed to that particular salutation. This honorific, the one he is now famously associated with, renders a translation that would naturally restrict itself to certain rare births in the Hindu tradition. This is because Mahatma literally means Great Self, as the Purusha is the individual Soul supporting the play of Nature in Men, and Atman transcends beyond the play and is not usually considered in personal terms, this being what one associates Mahatma with when it is used as a title for a particular individual in the lila or play. For with Atman comes the experience of complete Oneness, with no division and thus no need for the separation between greatness and littleness: personality is associated with the Purusha, impersonality generally is associated with Atman. If Mahatma is to be used, it seems more naturally suited as a descriptor of the greatness of the immortal Time-Spirit in its essence, rather than in its manifestation. Of course, if we view it generically as describing a great person or even a great soul, we can understand the intent behind the name. Nevertheless, since Mohandas Gandhi is considered to be an important Hindu spiritual figure, we must analyze whether or not such an honor should be bestowed upon him, from a Hindu point of view. This of course demands that we answer the crucial question: Did he have direct knowledge of his Soul or the Self (Atman)? In the following letter written in 1938 - less than a decade before his death - Gandhi admitted that he had not: I certainly gave you permission to live with me but take it that this desire is born of attachment. It would not do simply to assert that Ramana Maharshi and Aurobindo are one-sided while I am all-sided. One who is one-sided but understands his mission and pursues it has merit. One who claims to be all-sided but is only experimenting has even less worth than broken almond shells. Only God knows where I stand. I am an aspirant while they are known to be, and perhaps are, realized souls. Anyway their followers attribute to them full self-realization. 1 In a letter written on January 3rd, 1948, Gandhi admitted that he was not even close, writing, I am nowhere near realizing Rama yet, but I am striving. When I have the realization, the glow of my ahimsa will spread all around. 2 By this time in his life, Gandhis name was known throughout the world, and he was considered by many to be the latest in the long tradition of Indian holy men. However, as he was well aware, he had yet to experience the same states of consciousness that had made these past men so revered. Gandhi, perhaps feeling he had not truly earned a title that implied Divine realization, admitted that the praise might not have been deserved:

The second of October 1947 was Gandhiji's birthday...Members of his party came in the early morning to offer him their obeisances. "Bapuji," one of them remarked, "on our birthdays, it is we who touch the feet of other people and take their blessings but in you case it is the other way about. Is this fair?" Gandhiji laughed: "The ways of Mahatmas are different! It is not my fault. You made me Mahatma, maybe a bogus one; so you must pay the penalty!" 3 Another area of confusion regarding Gandhi is the basis for the philosophy that he propagated. While he would always claim his ideas to have sprung from Hinduism, in reality, the core of his religious philosophy - especially his version of ahimsa - was based on Christian tenets, especially that of turning the other cheek. More than any meditative practice, it was this ahimsa that would be central to his spiritual discipline. It was also extremely - vital to his political and external missions, for in Gandhi's version of ahimsa, nonviolence was to be used in all stages and events of life, including the rape of ones own mother in front of ones eyes. It was this that he instructed to the Khudai Khidmatgars on October 31, 1938: If in your heart of hearts there is the slightest inclination to regard your non-violence as a mere cloak or a stepping-stone to greater violence as suggested by this friend, nay, unless your are prepared to carry your non-violence to its ultimate logical conclusion and to pray for forgiveness even for a baby-killer and a child-murderer, you cannot sign your Khudai Khidmatgar's pledge of non-violence. To sign that pledge with metal reservations would only bring disgrace upon you, your organization and hurt him who you delight to call the Pride of Afghans. But what about the classical instance of the defenseless sister or mother who is threatened with molestation by an evil-minded ruffian, you will ask. Is the ruffian in question to be allowed to work his will? Would not the use of violence be permissible in such a case? My reply is 'no'. You will entreat the ruffian. The odds are that in his intoxication he will not listen. But then you will interpose yourself between the intended victim and him. Very probably you will be killed but you will have done your duty. Ten to one, killing you unarmed and unresisting will assuage the assailant's passion and he will leave his victim unmolested. But it has been said to me that tyrants do not act as we want or expect them to. Finding you unresisting he may tie you to a post and make you watch his rape of the victim. If you have the will you will so exert yourself that you will break yourself in the attempt to break the bonds. In either case, you will open the eyes of the wrongdoer. Your armed resistance could do no more, while if you were worsted, the position would likely be much worse than if you died unresisting. There is also the chance of the intended victim copying your calm courage and immolating herself rather than allowing herself to be dishonored. 4 Not only is it a far cry from the truths taught by Hinduism and more reminiscent of Christs New Testament teachings, it is also indicative of the uselessness of Gandhi's policy of nonviolence towards colonial rule. For if we view India as the Mother being ravaged, drained of its resources and life force by British colonial rule, one can begin to understand the foolishness of Gandhi's idea that nonviolence alone would free India. *****

This belief that Gandhi's movement was the primary reason for India's independence is the result of
continued repetition of an exaggerated version of events, done by both the Indian Congress Party

and the Western and Indian media and intelligentsia. The Congress Party, ruling India from partition for decades, were bound to present their narrative of the independence movement, and thus the paramount significance given to both Gandhi and Nehru. The closeness of the two gave an almost direct connection between the descendants of Nehru who ruled India and the supposed leader of the independence movement. And like any good politicians, his descendants have chosen to embrace the Gandhi name, with the implied lineage such a surname gives, even for those not Indian in origin, with no blood relation to Nehru let alone Gandhi! The British also played a role in this narrative prior to their departure, as they publicly gave credit to the nonviolent movement as cause for their exit. In actuality, it was the potential threat of a serious outbreak of violence (to be discussed later) that weighed heavily on British minds. As to the role of nonviolence, the British had received numerous intelligence reports contradicting their official reason for departure. One of these classified (at the time of its making) reports was entitled Unrest (1925): Gandhi - It is perhaps worth noting here, in view of the great fame which at one time attached to Gandhi as a political leader, that during the past year he has entirely lost all influence in Indian politics. He has himself more than once publicly stated that he realizes this. There are probably several reasons for this. One is that everyone realizes that his scheme of securing Sward by means of spinning and non-resistance was a mad one. And a more potent cause is that he has managed in one way or another to offend all classes and religions. In the summer of this year, after he had been some weeks in Bengal, all parties in the province disowned him. Now the All-India Congress Committee has cut out his spinning nostrum from the Congress faith, and left him to form a Spinning Association of his own. It was time something of this kind was done; for even by April of this year his insistence on the production of some hanks of homespun yarn as the qualification for the Congress franchise had reduced the number of members from 2,500,000 to 11,000. 5 Another classified report, entitled Review of Revolutionary Matters for Six Weeks ending 23rd October 1941, highlighted the failure of Gandhi's movement in Bengal, long the epicenter of the war for independence: Of exceptional interest are the B.P.C.C's replies to the questionnaire set by the A.I.C.C and a note on the difficulties experienced by Congressmen in Bengal which was given to Mrs. Sarojini Naidu for delivery to Gandhi when she was in Calcutta in September. It is stated in the note that the Hindu Mahasabha had flourished as a result of the communal conflict and at the expense of the Congress; the Forward Bloc had fallen back, especially since Bose's disappearance, but without any corresponding increase in the popularity of the Congress. The Hindu Mahasabha had captured the imagination of the entire middle class. As to the young men and students, they had been won over by communism and to a much smaller extent by the Forward Bloc, whereas the Congress efforts to recruit them had failed. In short the Hindu Mahasabha with its communal cry, the Forward Bloc with its provincial cry (whatever that means!) and communism with its slogans of no rent and no-payment of debts and taxes and its preaching of class hatred, had a great advantage over Congress, which called for patient suffering and sacrifice and gave no promise of immediate gain. ...Regarding Satyagraha, an egregious failure in Bengal, it stated that the spirits of the public and the satyagrahis had been damped by Government's policy of not arresting the latter. This cannot, however, be the complete reason for the failure. In reality, the public was never interested, and when the Congress leaders themselves were lukewarm and the Jugantar leaders of the Congress were more concerned with the maintenance and strengthening of their own secret party rather than carrying out

Congress policy. ...The picture thus presented is of an enfeebled Hindu Congress losing its popularity to the Hindu Mahasabha, and desiring the revival of Congress committees in order to check its decline and to recover contact with the masses. 6 If British leaders were receiving reports like the previous two disputing his impact on the revolutionary movement, then only strategic maneuvering can explain their incongruous stance. For if the British, by using their influence on the media to embellish the threat nonviolence posed to the Empire, could somehow get all Indians to practice Gandhian ahimsa, then the British would possibly rule India for eons. Practically speaking, no nonviolent movement would have been allowed to end British rule, because India was the golden goose of the Empire, the "jewel in the crown." To understand Indias importance, we should consider that the British share of world manufacturing output in 1750 was less than two percent, yet by 1900 this tiny island had close to twenty percent of the worlds share. By contrast, India in 1750 was home to a quarter of the worlds output; by 1900 it had plummeted to less than two percent.7 Not surprisingly it was in the mid-18th century that Britain lured like the rest of the European explorers by tales of Indian riches - began to secure territory in India. The British increased their manufacturing output by allowing only British goods to be sold in India and by destroying all Indian competition (the reaction to this provided the platform for the original Swadeshi movement started in 1905 prior to Gandhis return). Without this competition, Britain had a significant portion of the Worlds population as its consumer base, to go along with the bountiful natural resources it controlled throughout the subcontinent. In light of those facts, it is safe to say that unless forced to do so, there was no logical reason for the British to give up India, whether for its consumer base or its manufacturing output or its natural resources. So the British tried, through clever media manipulation, to give more publicity to Gandhi's ideas in the hopes that Indians would foolishly follow them, or to at least create confusion amongst the minds of Indian leaders and potential revolutionaries. Unfortunately for the British, even well designed plans can be overcome, and force was used - albeit indirectly - to gain independence. Of course, the British did not mind portraying Gandhis movement as reason for their departure, for reasons less to do with practicality and more to do with esteem and appearances. They were now the benevolent father admired for their generosity and kindness, graciously giving up their claims to the land that made them a superpower at the behest of a mild-mannered ascetic. ***** The British were not the only enemy facing the Hindus of India; an older enmity remained. For centuries prior to British rule, there had been strife between Hindus and Islamic invaders and rulers. Although the Muslims had ceased to rule India, they had begun, from the early 19th century, to increase their numbers simply through procreation. Conflict renewed between the two - in this case, it was between different local communities, not between the original inhabitants and outsiders. While there are undoubtedly numerous sources of friction depending upon circumstance, there is one particular seed that seems to render hostile relations inevitable. This seed is found in the content of the Islamic religion. After all, one only needs a brief glance at Islamic scripture to discover an aggressive mentality against non-Muslims, especially the alleged "idolaters" who should be subjugated: Fight those who do not believe in Allah, nor in the latter day, nor do they prohibit what Allah and His Messenger have prohibited, nor follow the religion of truth, out of those who have been given the Book, until they pay the tax in acknowledgment of superiority and they are in a state of subjection. 8 The Quran makes it quite clear what Allah deems fit for polytheists like the Hindus, namely, the triumph of Islam and the defeat of their religion:

He it is Who sent His Messenger with guidance and the religion of truth, that He might cause it to prevail over all religions, though the polytheists may be averse.9 The Islamic religion, separating the world into Dar-ul-Islam and Dar-ul-Harb10, the land of the believers and the land of war, eventually intends for non-Islamic lands to be converted, even if this involves the sword11. If the unbelievers manage to escape this earthly fate, yet are they doomed upon leaving their bodily life, since as the Quran reveals, Surely those who disbelieve from among the followers of the Book and the polytheists shall be in the fire of hell, abiding therein; they are the worst of men.12 The idolaters are considered dirty, impure, and are thus not to be allowed inside mosques: O you who believe! The idolaters are nothing but unclean, so they shall not approach the Sacred Mosque after this year; and if you fear poverty then Allah will enrich you out of His grace if He please; surely Allah is Knowing, Wise. 13 Such a doctrine towards unbelievers compels the believer to see such peoples as lesser beings, predisposing the believers to chilling actions against the polytheists. Thus when India was partitioned in 1947, Muslims in Muslim majority areas were easily incited by clerics using religious justification to attack any Hindu in site. The Hindus responded with the same sort of brutality for the most part, although the majority of them in Muslim areas simply fled to India. Gandhi not only opposed the vengeance, he objected to the migration from ancestral lands. In an item attributed to The Hindu, Gandhi's advice for Hindu refugees from present-day Pakistan was the following: My advice is unalterable. They should remain where they are, if they are brave enough to die and even in the act of dying forgive the enemy. If they have not assimilated this truth they should of course come away as soon as they can. 14 Fitting with his opposition of any vengeful acts towards Muslims, or any Hindu escape from Muslim areas, Gandhi would urge Hindus to joyously let Muslims kill them: 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. But why in the first place would a Muslim kill at all when he has been asked not to do it. But the thing is that they have still to realize that in politics force cannot avail... As it is, there are too many people in the world who meet force by force. They even talk about killing two for one, let alone one for one. But, I say there will never be any peace even if you kill not ten but a hundred for one. There is nothing brave about dying without killing. It is an illusion of bravery. The true martyr is one who lays down his life without killing. 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.15 These, as we shall see, were by no means isolated speeches. ***** Having only examined the first part to the original question, the validity of Gandhis title of Mahatma, we must now consider the second part. We have seen Gandhis frank assessment of his inability to possess any significant spiritual experience, including of course the realization of his Soul or Self. In the Hindu context this is of cardinal importance. However this tradition, like others across the globe, offers high praise to those whom although yet to see past the golden lid separating man from his true Divine nature, still embody in human form all the pure and great qualities associated with both the Divine and with the Self-realized. This is the nature of man in a truly or more completely evolved state from his animal past, purified of the baseness of ego.

As will be assayed in the following sections, it is highly debatable as to whether Gandhi really belongs to this esteemed category of men. In studying the life of Gandhi, we come to find all the traits associated with the ordinary human mass. Instead of a wide and rich wisdom assimilating different manifestations of the Truth, we find a limited knowledge clinging to a few poorly understood concepts as an absolute. Instead of a heroic resolve against the actions of evildoers, we find shrinkage from battle masquerading as courage. Instead of a true compassion we find hardness towards those in need of succor. Instead of a humble yet strong personality, we find arrogance masked by obsequiousness. Instead of the renunciation of adulation and ambition, we find a secret craving for fame and power. And instead of the actual practice of purity in his personal life, we find only the boasts of abstention. All of our discoveries in turn lead to an inevitable conclusion that of a mortal unbefitting the accolades given to him. References (CWOMG used throughout is the 90 volume edition):
1. 2. 3.

Letter to Brijkrishna Chandiwala, CWOMG, Vol. LXVIII, pg. 40 CWOMG vol. 90 pg. 350 Mahatma Gandhi-The Last phase, Vol. II PP 456-8, CWOMG vol. 89 Appendix III pg.

524-5 Harijan 19-11-1938, CWOMG, vol. LXVIII, pg. 81-82 Indian Political Intelligence (IPI) files, 1912-1950. A.J. Farrington, editor. Leiden, The Netherlands: IDC, 2000. 6. Indian Political Intelligence (IPI) files, 1912-1950. A.J. Farrington, editor. Leiden, The Netherlands: IDC, 2000. 7. View the economic data from B. R. Tomlinson's Economics: The Periphery in The Oxford History of the British Empire: The Nineteenth Century 8. Qur'an 9:05 9. Qur'an 9:33 10. Technically this concept is not contained explicitly within the Qur'an or the Hadiths; it was developed over time and after numerous wars with Unbelievers. However it can justified in the Qur'an when we consider the promises Allah makes to believers that they will gather countless booty as they conquer all the other religions which inevitably includes their lands: Allah promiseth you much booty that ye will capture, and hath given you this in advance, and hath withheld men's hands from you, that it may be a token for the believers, and that He may guide you on a right pathAnd if those who disbelieve join battle with you they will take to flight, and afterward they will find no protecting friend nor helper. It is the law of Allah which hath taken course aforetime. Thou wilt not find for the law of Allah aught of power to change. And He it is Who hath withheld men's hands from you, and hath withheld your hands from them, in the valley of Mecca, after He had made you victors over them. Allah is Seer of what ye do. He it is Who sent His Messenger with the guidance and the true religion that He may make it prevail over all the religions; and Allah is enough for a witness. Muhammad is the messenger of Allah. And those with him are hard against the disbelievers and merciful among themselvesAllah hath promised, unto such of them as believe and do good works, forgiveness and immense reward. Qur'an 48:20-29 11. When your Lord revealed to the angels: I am with you, therefore make firm those who believe. I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Therefore strike off their heads and strike off every fingertip of them. Qur'an 08:12 12. Qur'an 98:06 13. Qur'an 09:28 14. The Hindu 26-10-1947, CWOMG vol. 89 pg. 395 15. Prarthana-Pravachan Part I pp. 54-8, CWOMG vol. 87 pg. 394-5
4. 5.

Was Satyagraha a Hindu movement?

By the late 19th century Bengal, like most of India, was demoralized, lifeless, weakened.

Only a little more than a century of British rule had done to its vitality what a millennia worth of prior invasions and foreign rule had not. On the surface all appeared lost, it appeared that another great civilization was destined to fall. To the rational man, it looked as if Bharat had finally perished under the stress of outside pressures, under the mass of its irrational superstitions and outdated practices and false gods. But if the surface indicated death, the truth was that of one lying in deep slumber, yet to arise from its period of inertia. It was from this abject darkness that the nation awoke, when her sons began actively working for the freedom of the country. Inspired were they not by the mechanization of modern culture, by a material view of life, by scientific rationalism or foreign codes of law and government and ethics. Nor were they moved by the sensational habits of those ruling, and especially not the beating of chests to prove ones superiority, be it of national pride or religious triumphalism. Their eyes did not gaze outwards, and unlike the Congress party of the time, they did not seek to imitate the customs of their conquerors. Within they looked to their past and the spiritual traditions of India, to the Sanatana Dharma that some were forgoing. From there came the truth that India was not just a land determined by arbitrary lines or racial characteristics or languages, it was a Divine Godhead to be worshipped and defended like any son would protect his Mother. Because they believed even in this period of intense subjugation, Her latent Shakti or Power inherent in all was unearthed for these patriots. The Shakti was not their self-created property - they were now the instruments of a universal and transcendent force greater in scope. These were just some of the truths put forth by Sri Aurobindo Ghosh, one of the revolutionary leaders, in his famous Uttarpara address in May 1909: We speak often of the Hindu religion, of the Sanatan Dharma, but few of us really know what that religion is. Other religions are pre-ponderatingly religions of faith and profession, but the Sanatan Dharma is life itself; it is a thing that has not so much to be believed as lived. This is the Dharma that for the salvation of humanity was cherished in the seclusion of this peninsula from of old. It is to give this religion that India is rising. She does not rise as other countries do, for self or when she is strong, to trample on the weak. She is rising to shed the eternal light entrusted to her over the world. India has always existed for humanity and not for herself and it is for humanity and not for herself that she must be great. That which we call the Hindu religion is really the eternal religion, because it is the universal religion which embraces all others. If a religion is not universal, it cannot be eternal. A narrow religion, a sectarian religion, an exclusive religion can live only for a limited time and a limited purpose. This is the one religion that can triumph over materialism by including and anticipating the discoveries of science and the speculations of philosophy. It is the one religion which impresses on mankind the closeness of God to us and embraces in its compass all the possible means by which man can approach God. I spoke once before with this force in me and I said then that this movement is not a political movement and that nationalism is not politics but a religion, a creed, a faith. I say it again today, but I put it in another way. I say no longer that nationalism is a creed, a religion, a faith; I say that it is the Sanatan Dharma which for us is nationalism. This Hindu nation was born with the Sanatan Dharma, with it it moves and with it it grows. When the Sanatan Dharma declines, then the nation declines, and if the Sanatan Dharma were capable of perishing, with the Sanatan Dharma it would perish.

The Sanatan Dharma, that is nationalism.1 Being that this nationalism equated itself with the Sanatana Dharma, it allowed the use of different methods in gaining independence, because Dharma, the inner law, manifests differently amongst individuals. The revolution was one that did not withhold the use of violence, since as it was both based upon and charged with reviving the Sanatana Dharma, the eternal law, it would use whatever external means impelled internally by the Dharma. In such a situation, given this was not the first time the Sanatana Dharma was in apparent decline, a dharmayudh, or Battle for Dharma, was demanded. The revolutionaries were but the latest to embody the ageless message put forth by Lord Krishna to Arjuna on the battlefield of Kurukshetra: Moreover considering your Dharma, you should not falter; indeed for upholders of justice there does not exist a more appropriate endeavor than a battle for Dharma. 2 Dharmayudh is at the heart of two Indian historical epics, the Mahabharata and the Ramayana. The former, which contains the Bhagavad Gita, details the conflict between the Pandava and Kaurava clans, with the Pandavas fighting to defend Dharma, the Kauravas battling to further their ambitions. Lord Krishna, an avatar of Lord Vishnu, is on hand as charioteer for the warrior Arjuna. When Arjuna begins to question the validity of fighting his Kaurava cousins, it is Lord Krishna who reminds him of his Dharma, his natural law that spoke of a higher truth than that of the sorrow of seeing his cousins slain. The Ramayana, while not exploring as richly the metaphysical and spiritual truths the Mahabharata reveals, is in spirit the same rendering of the eternal struggle between Divine and demonaic forces who prevent mortals from living according to their inherent natural law. Just as in the Mahabharata, the hostile powers are conquered, this time in the form of the warrior-king Rama (another Avatar of Lord Vishnu) slaying the Rakshasa Ravana. Many of the revolutionaries, brought up in this tradition, and significantly, possessing heroic natures, plotted and carried out violent acts against the British imperialists. Of course, violence was not the only form of resistance used, as that would have been inconsistent with the multiplicity of the Sanatana Dharma. Violence was for the strongest of the men, the ones willing to make tremendous sacrifices, willing to risk their lives. For others not having that strength or nature there were nonviolent means. Indeed, it was the initial surge in nonviolent protests after the partition of Bengal in 1905 that ignited the revolution. The name given to the movement, Swadesh, our Nation, was first used to describe the boycott of British goods; only later did it become associated with the entire range of actions used against the Empire. Gandhi, arriving years after this outburst of revolution, found himself the beneficiary of a political vacuum created by the arrests or retirements of the original revolutionary leaders. Eventually, he started his own independence movement, also giving it the name of Swadesh. The difference between the two, primarily, was the use of violence. Gandhi abhorred violence; it had no role for him. Unlike the revolutionaries who lived by the Sanatana Dharma, Gandhi founded his movement on a philosophy he termed Satyagraha, Truth-force. Similar to Mahatma, the word sounds Hindu enough, given the sanskritic roots of the two parts and their use in scripture. The idea behind it is reasonable as well, since Truth could always have some sort of force behind it. The question that arises, after ignoring the Hinduness of the name, is from where exactly was his doctrine inspired? As already alluded too, even a brief perusal of the history of both Hindu religion and scripture (especially chapter two of the Bhagavad Gita) does not lend support to an ideology of complete nonviolence in support of a revolution. Nor does it support the pitiful submission before a rapist, as Gandhi would have hoped to practice. But Gandhi asserted his doctrine to have its foundation in the Hindu religion - specifically the idea of ahimsa long practiced by its Yogis and Sadhaks.

Two problems initially arise when analyzing Gandhis version of ahimsa. First, ahimsa as is practiced in India does not necessarily mean strict non-violence; it is essentially the practice of nonmaliciousness. After all, it is almost certain that many Yogis and other members of Ashrams have killed mosquitoes or other insects during their sadhana or spiritual discipline. Of course, there are certain Sadhus or sects that take ahimsa to the extreme and attempt to spare the lives of all creatures within their paths. This leads to the second problem with Gandhis interpretation, namely, the section of society that practices ahimsa. For the majority who practiced ahimsa are spiritual seekers, not those involved in the day-to-day affairs of ordinary society. Ahimsa is part of a code of outwardly conduct intended to purify their nature. In most cases, they are, and were, far removed from the battlefield where violence is of utmost importance. For men involved in battle, the practice of complete non-violence is out of the question, as it would mean near certain death. For these warriors of a more martial temperament, the path of non-maliciousness or slaying the enemy without hatred is available, especially if they have absorbed the Truth of the Gita that those involved in battle are neither killed nor killer: The embodied Soul is eternal in existence, indestructible and infinite, only the material body is factually perishable; therefore fight, O Arjuna. Anyone who thinks the Soul is the slayer and anyone who thinks the Soul is slain are both in ignorance; the soul never slays nor is slain. 3 So if Gandhi, like many Hindus exposed to the history of the Ramayana and the Mahabharata, where warriors are lauded and the spiritual truths of certain violent acts are uncovered, did not develop his doctrine of absolute nonviolence out of this milieu, then from where did it originate? For this, we first look to Gandhis autobiography, where we find a strong Christian influence on his ideas, which he tried to equate with the lessons of Hindu scripture: But the New Testament produced a different impression, especially the Sermon on the Mount which went straight to my heart. I compared it with the Gita. The verses, "But I say unto you, that ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also. And if any man take away thy coat let him have thy cloak too," delighted me beyond measure and put me in mind of Shamal Bhatt's 'For a bowl of water, give a goodly meal' etc. My young mind tried to unify the teachings of the Gita, the Light of Asia, and the Sermon on the Mount. That renunciation was the highest form of religion appealed to me greatly. 4 Reading this extract, one wonders how exactly is Christ's injunction to "turn the other cheek" consistent with Lord Krishna's message for the Kshatriya to fight a war for Dharma? The simple truth is that they cannot be united. History tells us that Lord Krishna did not advise Arjuna to adopt such a passive stance in the face of an adharmic enemy. To "turn the other cheek" is the antithesis of Dharmayudh; it is to allow oneself to be slaughtered. For the Kshatriya or warrior, for the independence leader, such passivity was considered a fate worse than death. Thus contrary to Gandhi's later claims in India, he had not unified the teachings, for that was an impossible task. Instead, he had chosen one, and tried to portray it as representative of the other. Though his writings indicate otherwise, during the Satyagraha campaign in India, Gandhi continuously declared his doctrine to be founded upon Hindu principles. It is not surprising he would make such proclamations, given that India was majority Hindu, and for Gandhi to get the masses to follow his ideas, he would have had to give a Hindu veneer to the Christian tenets he preached. It would not be in his best interests to admit the truth as he did in a letter to the British High Commissioner in South Africa, a place where he used the same practice of complete nonviolence he used in India. In it, he hints strongly that the real inspiration behind his passive

resistance drive was Christian: I need hardly preface what I am about to say with the statement that, in the position I have felt called upon to take up in this matter, my desire has been to serve the government equally with my countrymen. It is because I consider myself to be a lover of the Empire for what I have learned to be its beauties that, seeing, rightly or wrongly, in the Asiatic Law Amendment seeds of danger to it, I have advised my countrymen at all costs to resist the Act in the most peaceful and, shall I add, Christian manner. 5 In South Africa, Gandhi was also honest enough to admit which historical figures represented Satyagraha in action, or perhaps more appropriately, inaction! The following is a summary from Gandhi's South African newspaper, the Indian Opinion, of a speech that he made in Germiston, South Africa, in the middle of 1909 during his Satyagraha campaign: During the last three months [while in jail], he [Gandhi] had found much consolation in reading the book of the prophet Daniel in the Bible. Daniel was one of the greatest passive resisters that ever lived, and they must follow his example. 6 Later Gandhi would include Jesus along with the Biblical Daniel as those best representing Satyagraha. One name we repeatedly fail to find in reports of his speeches such as the following 1909 address, is Lord Krishna: Mr. Gandhi, who was well received, on rising, said that, although he had chosen passive resistance as the subject that evening, he did not wish to deal with the Indian question...Passive resistance, the speaker proceeded, was a misnomer...The idea was more completely and better expressed by the term "soul force." As such, it was as old as the human race. Active resistance was better expressed by the term "body force." Jesus Christ, Daniel and Socrates represented the purest form of passive resistance or soul force.... The exercise of this doctrine involved physical suffering on the part of those who practiced it. But it was a known fact that the sum of such suffering was greater rather than less in the world. That being so, all that was necessary for those who recognized the immeasurable power of soul force was to consciously and deliberately accept physical suffering as their lot, and, when this was done, the very suffering became a source of joy to the sufferer. 7 It was this conception of physical suffering that was central to Gandhi's Satyagraha. In it, we find another problem with Gandhis form of ahimsa, because in Bharat physical suffering was never considered a key element in the practice of ahimsa, or any other spiritual practice. While certain individuals (including some of the Jains whose ideas appealed to him) practice an extreme form of nonviolence similar to Gandhis, where it is attempted to spare the lives of even the smallest creatures visible, there has never been such a glorification of physical suffering. The Yogis or Sadhaks practicing ahimsa may try to get rid of violent or malicious tendencies, may have reduced or eliminated aggressive parts of their nature, but they never actively search for suffering, never seek to get themselves beaten or injured. The very concept of suffering is actually something foreign to the Yogi, because the realized Yogi, unlike Gandhi, is beyond the duality of pain and pleasure; to him all events are the one Brahman, an eternal state of ecstasy. Gandhi, a non-realized mortal, was not preaching non-duality, he was spreading the ideal that suffering was something to be enjoyed, not because of any reward at the end of the suffering, but because suffering or pain in itself should be a joyful experience regardless of any goals involved! Sri Aurobindo noted this masochistic tendency of Gandhis, writing in a 1940 letter, Something in him takes delight in suffering for its own sake. Even the prospect of suffering seems to please him though he puts in a lot of ethics with his justification, the fact is that something

in him enjoys suffering. It is the Christian idea that has taken hold of him. 8 The idea of deliberate suffering enshrined in the Sermon on the Mount was so pivotal to Gandhi's thinking that, as evident from the following November 1927 speech at a YMCA, it became the most important piece of religious scripture in his life: There are some who will not even take my flat denial when I tell them I am not a Christian. The message of Jesus, as I understand it, is contained in his Sermon on the Mount unadulterated and taken as a whole, and even in connection with the Sermon on the Mount, my own humble interpretation of the message is in many respects different from the orthodox. The message, to my mind, has suffered distortion in the West. It may be presumptuous for me to say so, but as a devotee of truth, I should not hesitate to say what I feel. I know that the world is not waiting to know my opinion on Christianity. But if I feel impelled to share my thoughts with you this evening, it is because I want to enlist your sympathy in my search for truth and because so many Christian friends are interested in my thoughts on the teachings of Jesus. If then I had to face only the Sermon on the Mount and my own interpretation of it, I should not hesitate to say, 'Oh yes, I am a Christian.. .... By all means drink deep of the fountains that are given to you in the Sermon on the Mount, but then you will have to take sackcloth and ashes. The teachings of the Sermon were meant for each and every one of us. 9 The YMCA speech unmistakably shows that Gandhi had not reconciled the Gita's teachings with those of the New Testament, as he claimed in his autobiography. On the contrary, it reveals the Sermon to have had the utmost influence on him, more than any chapter of the Gita, since all things considered, he would have called himself a Christian if the religion only included that particular Sermon. One also gathers from the speech that many people in Gandhi's time viewed him as a Christian. Sri Aurobindo would even come to describe him as a European Christian in an Indian body: Disciple: Some prominent national workers in India seem to me to be incarnations of some European force here. They may not be incarnations, but they may be strongly influenced by European thought. For instance, Gandhi is a Europeantruly, a Russian Christian in an Indian body. And there are some Indians in European bodies? Gandhi a European? Yes. When the Europeans say that he is more Christian than many Christians (some even say that he is Christ of the modern times) they are perfectly right. All his preaching is derived from Christianity, and though the garb is Indian the essential spirit is Christian. He may not be Christ, but at any rate he comes in continuation of the same impulsion. He is largely influenced by Tolstoy, the Bible, and has a strong Jain tinge in his teachings; at any rate more than by the Indian scripturesthe Upanishads or the Gita which he interprets in the light of his own ideas. Many educated Indians consider him a spiritual man. Yes, because the Europeans call him spiritual. But what he preaches is not Indian spirituality but something derived from Russian Christianity, non-violence, suffering, etc. 10

*****

Once, when asked for his opinion on Western civilization, Gandhi famously replied, "I think it
would be a very good idea." What then, was his argument with Western civilization? Was it due to Western values not being in concordance with the teachings of Hindu spirituality? What led Gandhi to say such a thing about the West, especially considering his loyalty to the British Empire that extended past his fiftieth birthday? The answer was that Western civilization was simply not Christian enough for his liking, as Gandhi wrote in a 1917 letter to a Danish missionary Esther Faering, who was working in India at the time: My theory is that modern civilization is decidedly anti-Christian. And what Europeans have brought to India is that civilization, not the life of Jesus. You and a handful of others are striving to represent that life. It is bound to leave its mark upon the soil. But it must take time. 11 From this letter, it is clear that Gandhi having approved of the role of his missionary friend was also trying to bring to India the life of Jesus. This letter and articles he wrote in the years after the World War I touched on a deeper reason for his loss of loyalty to the British, a loss manifesting itself publicly during the Khilafaat agitation: The nations of Europe are called Christian but they have forgotten the teachings of Christ. They may read the Bible or study the Hebrew language, but they do not act according to the teachings of the former. This wind blowing in the west is opposed to the teachings of Jesus. They have forgotten Jesus himself. 12 Gandhi believed that the East would eventually have to teach the West the lessons of Christianity the latter apparently had yet to grasp, an education he undoubtedly would play an important role in: But I do not apologise, in closing this part of my subject, for saying that the frightful outrage that is just going on in Europe, perhaps, shows that the message of Jesus of Nazareth, the son of Peace, has been little understood in Europe, and that light upon it may have to be thrown from the East. 13 What Gandhi wanted was a Christian civilization for the East (without the need for nominal conversion to organized Christianity), based upon Sermon on the Mount ideals. By 1920, he had become disillusioned with the West, having lowered his expectations of their potential to live up to Christ's message. However, the failure of the West to meet his standards did not alter his opinion of Christ: But by rejection of Western Civilization I never meant, nor do I mean even today, shunning everything English or hating the British. I revere the Bible. Christ's Sermon on the Mount fills me with bliss even today. Its sweet verses have even today the power to quench my agony of soul. 14 His disillusionment or agony of an immortal and self-blissful Soul he had never realized - did not cause him to lose all hope, as even in 1938 he was still trying to convince the West to abandon violent means and instead "turn the other cheek." In an interview with an English professor conducted right before the start of World War II, when most in Europe had an inclination that war was imminent, Gandhi discussed his plan for an English defense - if one can call it a defense:

[PROFESSOR:] How is it that many of the English Pacifists are talking of defense and elaborate plans for defense? [GANDHIJI:] Now about the English Pacifists. I know there are some great and sincere men among them, but they are thinking in terms of pacifism as distinguished from unadulterated non-violence. I am essentially a non-violent man, and I believe in war bereft of every trace of violence. An essentially non-violent man does not calculate the consequences. The English Pacifists you are talking of calculate, and when they speak of pacifism they do so with the mental reservation that when pacifism fails, arms might be used.... No, someone has to arise in England with the living faith to say that England, whatever happens, shall not use arms. They are a nation fully armed, and if they having the power deliberately refuse to use arms, theirs will be the first example of Christianity in active practice on a mass scale. That will be a real miracle. 15 This interview is most illuminating, because the tactics those of complete nonviolence - Gandhi advises the British to use in the event of war are the same practices he used in India and South Africa. This, remember, is the same man who suspended his Satyagraha movement in 1921 due to the killings of police officers in Chauri Chauri, just one example of many supporting the argument that Gandhi was against weapons use to gain Indian independence. We can thus conclude from this interview that the nonviolence Gandhi was practicing in India was mass scale Christianity, not the Sanatana Dharma. *****

As a young man, Gandhi's active interest in Christianity emerged during his time studying law in
England. It was here that he started developing the religious philosophy that would shape the course of his life. It would be inaccurate, however, to say that everything he believed in stemmed from this contact with Christianity, for Gandhi always had a strong element of Jainism behind his beliefs. Along with a couple of Christian writers (of whom Ruskin is considered to have helped inspire the development of Christian socialism), he would name his Jain Guru as among those whom most influenced his life: Three moderns have left a deep impress on my life, and captivated me: Raychandbhai by his living contact; Tolstoy by his book, The Kingdom of God is Within You; and Ruskin by his Unto this Last. 16 With such figures impressing upon him, it comes as no surprise that the principles he followed can be considered those of a liberal Christian desiring to practice certain important teachings of Christ, yet remaining tolerant of and open towards the ideas of other religions, especially the ones easily understood due to a similarity with Christian tenets. This by itself perhaps would have been benign, except that Gandhi called himself a Hindu, and Jesus was not as tolerant as Gandhi or liberal Christians believe him to be. For as Jesus is recorded saying, He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten son of God. 17 Such beliefs are discordant with the Sanatana Dharma, which not only recognizes multiple individual laws of being, but also different names or forms of worship of the Divine, or no worship at all. It does not claim that one must worship a particular deity or face eternal wrath - it is not so insecure. Gandhi characteristically chose to ignore The Man - Christ's words when he chastised the British for their treatment of Indians in South Africa: That the treatment of Indians is contrary to the teaching of Christianity needs hardly any

argument. The Man, who taught us to love our enemies and to give our cloak to the one who wanted the coat, and to hold out the right cheek when the left was smitten, and who swept away the distinction between the Jew and the Gentile, would never brook a disposition that causes a man to be so proud of himself as to consider himself polluted even by the touch of a fellow-being. 18 Indeed, Jesus did remove the distinction between the Jew and Gentile. He condemned them both, labeling the Jews as children of the Devil. 19 Gandhi aught to have noticed intolerant utterances of Christ in his many readings of the New Testament, but he probably chose to ignore them, zealously focusing on the Sermon on the Mount. It is remarkable to think how a few verses from that Sermon took control of his mind; such was the case that, during his London and South African years, he identified himself openly with liberal Christian groups. Becoming an "Agent" for the Christian Esoteric Union and a member of the London Vegetarian Society, Gandhi followed a quite unorthodox brand of Christianity. In an article he wrote entitled "Vegetarianism," Gandhi explained some of his views: The Christian vegetarians claim that Jesus was also a vegetarian, and there does not seem to be anything to oppose that view, except with reference to His having eaten broiled fish after the Resurrection. The most successful missionaries in South Africa (the Trappists) are vegetarians. ...I submit the following for consideration of those who believe in the Bible. Before the "Fall" we were vegetarians: And God said: behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree in which is fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat. And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to every thing that creepeth upon the earth, wherein there is life, I have given every green herb for meat; and it was so. There may be some excuse for the unconverted partaking of meat, but for those who say they are 'born again,' vegetarian Christians claim, there can be none; because their state surely should be equal, if not superior, to that of the people before the "Fall." 20 In a further, and more important description of the Esoteric Christian Union written by Gandhi, the origin of the Gandhian principle of all religions teaching the same message is shown. Note how in this system the other religions are being reconciled with Christianity in other words the other religions are to be interpreted through a Christian framework or mindset: In that system, there is no reviling Mahomed of Buddha in order to prove the superiority of Jesus. On the other hand, it reconciles the other religions with Christianity, which, in the opinion of the authors, is nothing but one mode (among many) of presentation of the same eternal truth. The many puzzles of the Old Testament find herein a solution at once complete and satisfactory. 21 To Gandhi, Jesus Christ, even while condemning those who did not believe in him to Hell, was someone who belonged to all humanity, and his love was equivalent to ahimsa: He [Gandhi] believed in equal regard for all religions. Mere tolerance was not of much value. No religion worth the name stood in need of patronage. It should command respect. He added that Jesus Christ might be looked upon as belonging to the Christians only but he really did not belong to any community inasmuch as the lesson that Jesus Christ gave belonged to the whole world. So saying he asked Nirmal Bose to translate the following (I

Corinthians XII 1 to 7) from the New Testament on love, which he preferred to render as ahimsa. 22 Again, Hindu ahimsa is not referring strictly to love, or suffering, or complete non-violence that all must practice. The intent of ahimsa is to create within the Sadhak the psychology of nonmaliciousness, which encompasses love (of the divine kind) and non-violence, but not a fanatical nonviolence because one is allowed to protect himself from harm (surely it would be the opposite of love to allow oneself unnecessary and grievous bodily harm?), even if it meant killings of others. For in Hinduism, the Soul is immortal, and the death of the body is not to be viewed with sorrow, because the Soul will take up a new one if it is not yet prepared for union with God: Just as a man giving up old worn out garments accepts other new apparel, in the same way the embodied soul giving up old and worn out bodies verily accepts new bodies. 23 Possessing an inherent knowledge of the Soul's deathless nature is the reason why Lord Krishna told Arjuna to fight, and is why the Hindu practice of ahimsa allowed for situations where violence would be a manifestation of a higher Law, because in reality, nobody is ever truly killed in battle. Gandhis ahimsa took none of this into account; instead Gandhi chose to rely on New Testament scripture, deciding to practice Christs love irrespective of circumstance. *****

The effect of Gandhis contact with these liberal Christian groups during his early adult years is
evident from his personal writings, as just prior to leaving for South Africa, he wrote a letter asking his Jain Guru the following: Do you know anything about Christianity? If so, what do you think about it? The Christians hold that the Bible is divinely inspired and that Christ was an incarnation of God, being His Son, Was He? Were all the Old Testament prophecies fulfilled in Christ? If a snake is about to bite me, should I allow myself to be bitten or should I kill it, supposing that that is the only way in which I can save myself? 24 It is clear that Gandhi was thinking about much more than the Sermon, pondering whether the Christian belief of Jesus as the only Son of God was something to share along with the fancy of being bitten by snakes. As he came into contact with Christians in the West who shared similar views on religion and life, and who were not as dogmatic as other Christians, the lure of Christianity became so strong that he thought strongly about converting: There was a time when I was wavering between Hinduism and Christianity. When I recovered my balance of mind, I felt that to me salvation was possible only through the Hindu religion and my faith in Hinduism grew deeper and more enlightened. 25 Its doubtful that the latter part was something Gandhi said truthfully. After all, this is the same Gandhi who continuously stressed reconciliation of religions, a man who preached that all religions taught the same message, thus all could offer salvation. The fact that he made such a strong even intolerant - declaration in support of Hinduism versus other religions was because he needed to counter the statement of his wavering. Anything less would have been an admission to the crowd (he was speaking too) that he still held onto beliefs that were Christian in origin, an admission that would have been disastrous to his effort to indoctrinate nonviolence into every single Hindu. It would not have been wise of Gandhi to admit to a Hindu audience that he had simply reconciled the other religions with Christianity, for he needed to convince Hindus that complete nonviolence and self-inflicted suffering came from Hindu teachings.

In South Africa, Gandhi not only acknowledged Jesus as the main historical figure to follow Satyagraha, he significantly wrote that the struggle of South African Indian settlers against discriminatory laws was patterned after Jesus and the New Testament: Indians who migrated to this country in search of an honest livelihood, and who find themselves faced with civic and social extinction, are fighting under the inspiration of the New Testament. Gentle Jesus, the greatest passive resister the world has seen, is their pattern. What matter is it to them if the rulers of the Transvaal reject their advances, if their overlord King Edward declare himself, like Mahomed of Ghazni, to be unable to protect them. Was not Jesus rejected and yet did he not resist blasphemy that His persecutors would have Him utter on pain of suffering what was, in their estimation, and inglorious death, side by side with thieves and robbers? But the crown of thorns today sits better on that bleeding head than a crown bedecked with diamonds of the purest water of any sovereign. He died indeed, yet He lives in the memory of all true sons of God, and with Him live also the thieves who accepted the humble Nazarene and His teaching. 26 Gandhi urged the Indian settlers to follow the Prophet of Nazareth in their struggle, which he took pains to distinguish as not being a revolt like the Swadeshi movement in Bharat. Unlike that, his was merely a begging for an opportunity to receive physical suffering at the hands of their rulers: Happenings in India have received the colour of an insurrection, and they have been interpreted to mean a revolt against the British Raj. The crusade of the Indians in the Transvaal has not the slightest resemblance to an insurrectionary movement. It simply means an offer on the part of the community to suffer much physical hardship rather than allow its moral sense to be atrophied. It is, on the part of Indians in the Transvaal, an endeavor to follow the precept of the Prophet of Nazareth, "Resist not Evil." 27 During this struggle, Gandhi's main grievance against the British government was their perceived inability to act in the spirit of Christianity and the British Constitution: Even from a most selfish point of view, I submit, no good can result from an attitude of unfriendliness and hatred towards the Indians, unless there is any pleasure in creating in one's mind an unfriendly feeling towards one's neighbour. Such a policy is repugnant to the British Constitution and the British sense of justice and fair play, and above all hateful to the spirit of Christianity which is professed by the objectors to the Indian Franchise... Will they see a race degraded and insulted because of the 'unreasoning' prejudice against it and sit still? Is such indifference sanctioned by Christ's Christianity? 28 Knowing the true origin and model for his nonviolence struggle, Gandhi urged indifferent South African whites to accept his movement because it was based on Christian law: So that the South African Colonists should, in my opinion, rather welcome passive resistance in place of physical violence; and, after all, is it not merely the supersession of the Mosaic law of tooth for a tooth by Christian law of non-resistance of evil by evil? 29 It was this supersession of Mosaic Law that defined what Gandhi was really trying to do in his lifelong Satyagraha campaigns. It was Christian - as opposed to Mosaic - law that Gandhi was trying to get Indians and others to practice on a mass scale. His famous advice that an eye for an eye makes the whole world blind is nothing but an abrogation of an Old Testament principle with New Testament gospel.

One can infer from his speeches and writings that Gandhi believed himself to be practicing a truer Christianity with his supersession, and that his movement was displaying the true form of Christs love. Given that Gandhi did not think the West to have understood the teachings of Jesus, it naturally follows that he considered his opinion on proselytization truer to Christs message than those of the missionary, a view he shared at a 1916 missionary conference: If there is any substance in what I have said, will not the great missionary bodies of India, to whom she owes a deep debt of gratitude for what they have done and are doing, do still better and serve the spirit of Christianity better, by dropping the goal of proselytizing but continuing their philanthropic work? I hope you will not consider this to be an impertinence on my part. I make the suggestion in all sincerity and with due humility. Moreover, I have some claim upon your attention. I have endeavoured to study the Bible. I consider it as part of my scriptures. The spirit of the Sermon on the Mount competes almost on equal terms with the Bhagavad Gita for the domination of my heart. I yield to no Christian in the strength of devotion with which I sing, "Lead, kindly light" and several other inspired hymns of a similar nature. I have come under the influence of noted Christian missionaries belonging to different denominations. And I enjoy to this day the privilege of friendship with some of them. You will perhaps therefore allow that I have offered the above suggestion not as a biased Hindu but as a humble and impartial student of religion with great leanings towards Christianity. May it not be that the "Go Ye unto All the World" message has been somewhat narrowly interpreted and the spirit of it missed? 30 Many, especially those in the East, have come to admire Gandhi for his firm stance against missionary conversion activity. His beliefs strike a chord with many Hindus who see in them a rebuke of an idea clearly antithetical to the Sanatana Dharma - that sees in high spirituality a desperate need for external vows to one particular God. But if this ideology causes an almost instinctive aversion amongst Hindus, does that mean Christian missionaries are being unfaithful to Christs message when venturing out to try and convert the world? Consider what Jesus has to say in the New Testament, including the portion Gandhi left out: Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the father, and of the son, and of the holy ghost; Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you. 31 As for those who are not converted and baptized, Jesus has the following kind words, He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned. 32 The New Testament also reveals, He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him. 33 Thus it was the duty (a word used incorrectly by Westerners to define Dharma) of Christian missionaries to convert and baptize the unbelievers to both enlighten them from ignorance and save them from a terrible punishment in the afterlife. In view of New Testament scripture, it can be easily argued that Christian missionaries have not misinterpreted Christ's message. Rather, it was Gandhi who wanted to popularize a form of nonproselytizing Christianity that revolved around suffering and turning the other cheek, something Gandhi claimed to be a tactic of strength, as he wrote in a 1947 letter to Yvonene Privat: I was so glad to receive your argued letter of 27th august. I see that you have grasped the fundamental difference between passive resistance and non-violent resistance. Resistance both forms are, but you have to pay a very heavy price when your resistance is passive, in the sense of the weakness of the resister. Europe mistook the bold and brave resistance full of wisdom by Jesus of Nazareth for passive resistance, as if it was of the weak. As I read the

New Testament for the first time I detected no passivity, no weakness about Jesus as depicted in the four gospels and the meaning became clearer to me when I read Tolstoy's Harmony of Gospels and his other kindred writings. Has not the West paid heavily regarding Jesus as a passive resister? Christendom has been responsible for the wars which put to shame even those described in the Old Testament and other records, historical or semihistorical. 34 It was Gandhi who was going to bring Christian's back to Christ's teachings, it was he who was going to unveil before the world the real meaning of the Sermon on the Mount. The fact that he was not officially a Christian? That lack of baptism did not disturb his mind. In a Harijan article in late 1947, Gandhi choose to extract a written letter he had received from a friend, regarding Albert Schweitzer: From a letter received by Rajkumari from Dr. Maude Royden and which she has given to me for reading, I have extracted the following relevant passages. I marvel that the best Christian in the world should not be a Christian! I have been reading these last two or three weeks a new biography of Albert Schweitzer and there again I have this paradox. I don't know if the name of Schweitzer is known in India but to my mind he is perhaps alone in the world in his greatness.... And as you may perhaps know, Schweitzer is regarded with suspicion by the "orthodox" because it is held that he has not a sufficiently exalted view of our Saviour. And yet there is not a Christian in the entire world who has followed Christ with the same heroic faith and utterly selfless devotion. And when I read of his philosophy, his "reverence for life", and how he constantly refers himself to Jesus of Nazareth, I know that no one had ever exalted Jesus to such a height in the minds of those who read Schweitzer. 35 Behind his particular focus on this paradox is the intimation that Gandhi viewed himself as similar to Schweitzer - a non-Christian or unorthodox Christian who was more of a Christian than any of the baptized masses. Gandhi wanted to remove the tyranny that followers of Christ had brought to the world, and replace it with his idea of ahimsa, which he constantly referred to as the "gospel of love" found in the New Testament, a gospel that he, like Christ before him, was trying to spread: Christ came into this world to preach and spread the gospel of love and peace, but what his followers have brought about is tyranny and misery. Christians who were taught the maxim of "love thy neighbour as thyself" are divided among themselves. 36 He would spend his whole life trying to get Christ's message practiced on a mass scale, most outrageously by telling Hindus during partition to let Muslims slaughter them. Despite this great effort, he would achieve minimal success on the ground level, even though Western media reports hailed him as a great religious leader. Having failed to introduce Christianity on a mass scale in India, and unsuccessful in his attempts to stop violent actions whether against the British or between communities, Gandhi had but one last desire to fulfill. He wished - like Christ before him to forgive his assassin, if said assassin was successful in killing Gandhi (by the time of this prayer speech in late October 1947, threats were being made on his life): Ahimsa is always tested in the midst of himsa, kindness in the midst of cruelty, truth in the midst of falsehood, love in the midst of hate. This is the eternal law. If on this auspicious day, we all made a sacred resolve not to spill blood for blood but offers ours to be shed instead, we would make history. Jesus Christ prayed to God from the Cross to forgive those who had crucified him. It is my constant prayer to God that He may give me the strength to intercede even for my assassin. And it should be your prayer too that your faithful servant

may be given that strength to forgive. 37 It is interesting to note the language Gandhi used in his speech, especially the reference to interceding for his assassin. Intercession is a principle of Christianity that can present in two forms, the first of which is Christ as interceder or savior of the believer from punishment, sacrificing himself instead. In the Bible, Christ Jesus is He who died, yes, rather who was raised, who is at the right hand of God, who also intercedes for us. 38 While the belief of Christ as the savior captivated Gandhi, that form of a salvation is not at the core of Sanatana Dharma, for it does not hold the dogma of original sin that one is to be saved from. In the Hindu religion, Man is not a fallen creature, he is rather someone ignorant of his true Divine nature, and it is by spiritual practice and devotion that he is to become aware of his immortality. Nor is man at all subject to eternal damnation upon death, for while Hinduism speaks of higher and lower worlds the conscious being may traverse after leaving the physical body, sojourn in these worlds even the higher ones is not permanent, as the Soul will eventually reincarnate into yet another body. Eventually, the Soul, which is pure in itself but must slowly evolve a body of experiences in Matter, will evolve its conscious being to a point where it is ready for liberation from ignorance into its true reality, having uncovered the masks that obscure it from Itself. In popular practice, however, intercession is construed as a prayer of one individual on behalf of another, the form Gandhi most likely intended in his speech39. Although Gandhi did not get a chance to intercede for his assassin, to save him from his presumed error, his death is now considered an important historical event, and has almost given him the status of a martyr in certain quarters just as Jesus is considered a martyr for Christians. *****

Notwithstanding the claim that his extreme nonviolent methods were at the core of Hinduism, the
reality was seen by many. Along with the Indian criticism from Sri Aurobindo and others, Europeans including Esther Faering - just one of the many Christian missionaries and preachers to befriend Gandhi throughout his life saw the obvious. Many Christian leaders of his time and subsequent to his death (such as Martin Luther King) were attracted to his ideas, even if they were not personally acquainted. Most were drawn to Gandhi because of his decidedly Christian philosophy, especially his resolve to turn the other cheek; fewer agreed with his belief that all religions were equal. One Christian organization that admired Gandhi for the former, but did not share his latter belief, was the Vatican. A newspaper account contained in Autobiography of a Yogi entitled Mahatma Gandhi in Memoriam, reported the Vatican view: A dispatch from the Vatican in Rome said: "The assassination caused great sorrow here. Gandhi is mourned as an apostle of Christian virtues." 40 If one were to ask the Vatican what happened to Gandhi after his death, they would say he went to "Hell," since he was not legitimately a Christian, had not been baptized, and did not claim Christ to be the sole Son of God. So on the surface of things it was quite unusual for them to mourn the death of an unbeliever. But as they said, he did represent Christian values, and thus he was - and is - a very useful instrument for the Vatican and other Christian proselytizers. For while he argued against conversion activity, his stance was not going to change the opinion of missionaries because the idea that the heathens need saving is ingrained early on in their minds and is founded on the recorded words of Christ, more important to the missionaries than Gandhi's opinion. These missionaries actually come

to believe these conversions to be of significant spiritual beneficence. Ultimately, no matter how much they may have agreed with some of Gandhis beliefs, he was still an unbeliever in need of a baptism. Ironically, by practicing a form of Christianity that covered itself with Hindu titles, Gandhi, or Gandhism, became highly valuable for the practice of incultration, a Christian tactic of presenting the traditions of the native's culture as belonging to Christianity in furtherance of facilitating the conversion process. Proselytizers can claim Gandhi to be a Hindu, and then show how similar his "Hinduism" is to Christianity, a method with the initial goal of softening the Hindu for conversion: The next step is actual conversion. The missionaries Gandhi welcomed with open arms would have had no shame in using him as an end to their means. Missionaries are not the only ones ready to invoke the name of Gandhi to bolster their aims; Indian secularists are just as likely. A recent example was the 2002 riots in Gujarat that occurred after a large Muslim mob torched a train full of Hindus, followed by Muslim attacks on Hindus in other locales. The Hindus rioted in response, leading to the death of many Muslims in some parts of Gujarat. In response to this, the "secular" Indian media had seismic convulsions. Of the many rants against Hindus that came from them, one emergent theme was that Gujarat was a land of Gandhi, with the obvious implication that Hindus should have acted in Gandhian fashion. Which - as we shall see from Gandhis counsel during partition - meant the Hindus should have either done nothing at all and mutely accept their deaths, or they should have urged the Muslims to kill more Hindus! Perhaps that response would have satisfied the "secularists," some of whom are practicing Christians, all of whom seek to imitate the ideas of Western intellectuals. With such backgrounds, they easily gravitate towards the beliefs of Gandhi, invoking his name at any sign of Hindu agitation, with the goal of paralyzing Hindus into inaction or tamas, as that is precisely what Gandhi preached, and that is the end his ideological descendants seek overtly or subconsciously. This need to keep the Hindus on the defensive is to be expected, especially when we consider again the point Sri Aurobindo made in discussion with his disciples, that of Indians admiring Gandhi because Europeans did so. The imperialists, alert to prevent uprisings that would destroy their lavish gains, needed a population or at least an elite that was demoralized, insecure in their heritage and religion, an elite that was educated in English not Indian - history and literature, trained to be civil servants to the Empire. Unable to look within, this elite obediently gazed westward for guidance in all matters. This is still the disposition of modern Indian secularists - to the West they look for opinions on matters intellectual and religious, political and art. Thus if Gandhi is to be admired by Westerners, the Indian secularist will imitate like a good pet. The truth is that many Westerners love Gandhi because he reminds them of Christ - such homage is natural since the West has a lengthy Christian heritage, unlike India with its much broader spiritual tradition; it is only a small minority of Westerners who revere the realized Yogis of India. The mimicry practiced by certain Indians has all the markings of an inferiority complex needing Western validation of Indian ideas and religious figures, a psychological state Gandhi for a lengthy part of his life was quite familiar with.

References: 1. Collected Works of Sri Aurobindo, Volume 8 2. Bhagavad Gita 2:31 3. Bhagavad Gita 2:18 4. MK Gandhi, The stories of My Experiments with Truth, Part I, Chapter 20 5. CWOMG vol. 7, pg. 409 6. Indian Opinion, 29-5-1909, CWOMG, vol. 9, pg. 220 7. Indian Opinion, 12-6-1909, CWOMG vol. 9, pg. 243-44 8. Evening Talks with Sri Aurobindo. A.B Purani. Pg. 295 9. Speech at YMCA, Colombo, Young India 8-Dec-1927, The Essential Writings of Mahatma Gandhi, pg. 145-149 10. A.B Purani. Talks with Sri Aurobindo, Part II. Pg. 197. June 22, 1926. 11. My Dear Child pp. 11-3, CWOMG vol. XIII pg. 440 12. Navajivan 5-5-21, CWOMG vol. XX pg. 27 13. Speech on Swadeshi at missionary conference, the Hindu 28-2-1916, CWOMG vol. XIII, pg. 220-1 14. Navajivan 29-12-1920, CWOMG vol. XIX pg. 178 15. Interview with a Professor, Harijan 14-5-1938, CWOMG, vol. LXVII, pg. 75-76 16. MK Gandhi, The story of my Experiments with Truth, Part II, Chapter 1 17. John 3:18 18. Open Letter, CWOMG, vol1, pg. 161-62 19. John 8:44 20. The Natal Mercury, 4-2-1896, CWOMG, vol. 1, pg. 289-292 21. The Esoteric Christian Union, CWOMG, vol. 1, pg. 139 22. Harijan 26-1-47, CWOMG vol. 86 pg. 267 23. Bhagavad Gita 2:22 24. Collected Works of Mahatma Gandhi, Vol. 1, pg. 91 25. Speech at Suppressed Classes Conference, from Collected Works of Mahatma Gandhi, Volume XIX, pg. 571 26. Indian Opinion, 27-7-1907, CWOMG vol. 7 pg. 119 27. Indian Opinion, 20-7-1907, CWOMG vol. 7, pg. 108 28. The Indian Franchise, CWOMG, vol. 1, pg. 281-285 29. Interview to the Natal Mercury, Natal mercury, 6-1-1909, CWOMG vol. 9, pg. 127 30. Speech on Swadeshi at missionary conference, the Hindu 28-2-1916, CWOMG vol. XIII, pg. 220-1 31. Matthew 28:19-20 32. Mark 16:16 33. John 3:36 34. CWOMG vol. 90, pg. 129-130 35. Harijan 23-11-47, CWOMG vol. 89 pg. 497-8 36. The Hindustan Times, 3-8-1947, CWOMG vol. 88, pg. 471-2 37. Mahatma Gandhi-The Last Phase, Vol. II p 511, CWOMG vol. 89, pg. 411 38. Romans 8:34 39. John 20:23 - If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven them; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained. 40. Autobiography of a Yogi by Parahamsa Yogananda, 13th edition, pg. 517

Caste in the Middle

In the modern world, one infused with the idea of an inherent samata (equality) among men,
whether by race or ethnicity or caste, the belief that one group is superior and should dominate others with the primary justification that they happen to belong to that particular group, has been rightfully rejected. To arrive at this current stage, where such sattvic principles are present even in the minds of the ordinary mass in many nations, it took the toil of a few strong individuals far advanced for their time. To the many who, however imperfectly, try to live by this principle, Gandhi has become an idol to be praised, a symbol of a new age emergent from a darker past of pseudoscientific theories on race and rigid stratifications of classes, a man who refused to discriminate between people of different religions or castes, a man belonging to all of humanity. When championing his foresight, his supporters laud his writings and other attempts at breaking down caste barriers prevalent in India as evidence of his progressive nature. But if in his lifetime Gandhi was opposed to one type of caste system, he was yet supportive of another form of segregation. For this we have to go back to his time in South Africa, where he first came into regular contact with Blacks. Instead of, as one might presume, accepting this as a natural byproduct of living in a predominantly Black country, he recoiled from his personal contact with the Kaffir (an offensive term for Natives used by Whites of the time) and became upset at being lumped by the ruling Whites into the same class as Blacks. He expressed such an opinion in an editorial in his Indian Opinion: 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.1 Very soon after arriving in South Africa, Gandhi would become active in the promotion of better rights for Indian residents, many of whom faced daily discrimination. But it was not just the injustices directly meted out to Indians that bothered him. Rather, in one of Gandhi's first petitions written in South Africa, Gandhi complained about laws treating Indians akin to native blacks: If the whole objection to the Indian proceeds from sanitary grounds, the following restrictions are entirely unintelligible: The Indians, like the Kaffirs, cannot become owners of fixed property. The Indians must be registered, the fee being 3 pounds 10S. In passing through the Republic, like the Natives, they must be able to produce passes unless they have the registration ticket. 19. They cannot travel first or second-class on the railways. They are huddled together in the same compartment with the Natives. ...So far as the feeling has been expressed, it is to degrade the Indian to the position of the Kaffir. 2
16. 17. 18.

During his time in South Africa, Gandhi occasionally traveled to India to gather support for his cause, meeting with and presenting his story to members of the Indian Congress Party, including his mentor G.K Gokhale. On one such occasion he bemoaned the position of Indians in South Africa, referring to native Blacks with a cruelty and bitterness he would never use when describing violent men:

Ours is one continual struggle against a degradation sought to be inflicted upon us by the Europeans, who desire to degrade us to the level of a 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. 3 One source of Gandhi's attitude arose from his belief in the Aryan Invasion Theory, that of a superior White race from the Steppes subjugating darker races all across Eurasia. Gandhi arrogantly refused to accept classification with aboriginal looking savages: A reference to Hunter's 'Indian Empire', chapters 3 and 4, would show at a glance who are aborigines and who are not. The matter is put so plainly that there can be no mistake about the distinction between the two. It will be seen at once from the book that the Indians in South Africa belong to the Indo-Germanic stock or, more properly speaking, the Aryan stock. 4 Gandhi, along with believing in the superiority of his stock, wanted to bring the so-called Aryan characteristics with the exception of physical features believed to be Aryan - to African Blacks. He ardently believed that White rule in South Africa along with a White desired reduction in Asiatic immigration, was necessary for civilizing the child-like Blacks in an Aryan manner: We, therefore, have no hesitation in agreeing with the view that in the long run assisted Asiatic immigration into the Transvaal would be disastrous to the white settlement. People will gradually accommodate themselves to relying upon Asiatic labour, and any White immigration of the special class required in the Transvaal on a large scale will be practically impossible. It would be equally unfair to the Natives of the soil. It is all very well to say that they would not work, and that, if the Asiatics were introduced, that would be a stimulus to work; but human nature is the same everywhere, and once Asiatic labour is resorted to, there would not be a sustained effort to induce the Natives to work under what would otherwise be, after all, gentle compulsion. There would be then less talk about taxing the Natives and so forth. Natives themselves, used as they are to a very simple mode of life, will always be able to command enough wages to meet their wants; and the result will be putting back their progress for an indefinite length of time. We have used the words "gentle compulsion" in the best sense of the term; we mean compulsion of the same kind that a parent exercises over children. 5 As the above 1903 Indian Opinion article he wrote expressed, Gandhi firmly believed in White settlement and rule in South Africa. More explicitly, he would write that the White race deserved to be the dominant race in historically Black South Africa, and that the Indians would acquiesce to such an outcome: What the British Indians pray for is very little. They ask for no political power. They admit the British race should be the dominant race in South Africa. All they ask for is freedom for those that are now settled and those that may be allowed to come in future to trade, to move about, and to hold landed property without any hindrance save the ordinary legal requirements. 6 Along with the dominance of the White race in South Africa, Gandhi also held dear the idea of racial purity: 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. 7 Commenting on a petition opposing interactions between Whites and Coloreds, Gandhi wrote, "The petition dwells upon 'the commingling of the Coloured and white races'. May we inform the members of the conference that, so far as the British Indians are concerned, such a thing is practically unknown? If there is one thing which the Indian cherishes more than any other, it is the purity of type. Why bring such a question into the controversy at all?" 8 Gandhi's desire for Indians to be segregated from Blacks was so strong that he went to Johannesburg in late August of 1904 to protest the placing of Blacks in the Indian section of the city: Why, of all places in Johannesburg, the Indian Location should be chosen for dumping down all the 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 Kaffirs with the Indians, I must confess I feel most strongly. 9 While it is understandable to be upset over a sudden movement of peoples into one's area, reading Gandhi's article, it becomes clear that he was more upset that Blacks in particular would be living in close proximity with Indians. It is unlikely that a sudden influx of Whites into the Indian location would have perturbed him or his sense of purity. For instance, during the same period of Black movement into the Indian location, Gandhi argued vehemently that Indian interaction with Whites surely was not harming the Whites: The last reason given by the Public Health Committee is the miserable plea of social intercourse between the poorer whites and the poorer Indians. In the first instance, there is absolutely no social intercourse between the two and, in the second, we would very much like to know in what way the presence of the Indian has contributed to the social deterioration of the white man; what is the particular vice of the Indian community which the white man has contracted during the last seventeen years. And the phenomenon of the two classes living side by side is by no means particular to Johannesburg 10 Gandhi also hated being forced to register as an "uncivilized race" like Blacks were made to do. As he wrote in the Indian Opinion, "Its is one thing to register Natives who would not work, and whom it is very difficult to find out if they absent themselves, but it is another thing and most insulting to expect decent, hard-working, and respectable Indians, whose only fault is that they work too much, to have themselves registered." 11 Perhaps the reason some of the Africans were not working was because they were planning and acting out a revolt against foreign rule. As he had shown earlier when British rule was threatened, Gandhi chose to side strongly with the British, hoping to prove to them that the Indians were subservient to their rule. A true Kshatriya would have held out support for either side unless offers were made for it, but Gandhi felt the need to prove his loyalty to the Empire, as he wrote in a letter to the secretary of Lord Elgin: The chief reason for his having organized the Indian Ambulance Corps at the time of the Boer War and the Indian Stretcher Corps at the time of the Native Rebellion, was to bring about such [re]conciliation, by showing that British Indians were not unworthy to be citizens of the Empire and were capable of recognizing their obligations if they also insisted on their rights. 12 Even Black uprisings against British rule could not shake Gandhi's opinion of them being lazy and

easily deceived. A couple years later, in 1908, Gandhi would complain that "Kaffirs" were easy to manipulate with little gifts and that the British were offending the Indians by using the same measures on them. Of course, it can be argued that the rights Gandhi would end up securing for Indians in South Africa were just as trivial: The whole affair is as much a disgrace to the Indian community as it is to the British Empire. The British rulers take us to be so lowly and ignorant that they assume that, like the Kaffirs who can be pleased with toys and pins, we can also be fobbed off with trinkets. 13 Previously, in 1906, Gandhi began agitating on a larger scale for better rights - within the Empire for Indians in South Africa. In doing so, he again made it clear that part of his motivation was not just to correct old wrongs, but also to end the insulting classification of Indians with Blacks: His Excellency has, moreover, justified the definition of 'coloured person' on the ground that it is a legacy from the old Government. But British Indians object to the definition for that very reason. Their position is this. The ordinances will not in practice apply to them. The Boer Government insulted the Indians by classing them with the Kaffirs. Now there is no occasion to perpetuate a needless insult. 14 In September of the same year, at a famous gathering in South Africa where Gandhi launched the Satyagraha campaign, Resolution II passed at this meeting contained a reference to the same "insult," this time occurring in the recently introduced Asiatic Law Amendment Ordinance: It reduces British Indians to a status lower than that of the aboriginal races of South Africa and the Coloured people. 15 In December of 1906 Gandhi took the drastic step of approaching prominent Englishmen to gain support for his contention that Indians should be considered superior to the "Kaffirs: The last week has been very busy. We have not had a moment's leisure. We saw Mr. Theodore Morison of Aligarh and the well-known Mr. Stead of the Review of Reviews. Mr. Stead has boldly come out to give us all the help he can. He was therefore requested to write to the same Boer leaders that they should not consider Indians as being on the same level as Kaffirs. 16 If the appeal to individual Englishmen was only an occasional part of the Satyagraha movement, the practice of suffering was considered absolutely essential to the quest of the Satyagrahi. In both speeches and writings he continually emphasized that suffering more so the enjoyment of the suffering - and jail time were completely necessary for the movement to succeed. Thus one would naturally expect Gandhi to have had no qualms at all about his jail time, but this was not the case, and Gandhi would experience a difficult time when landing in jail as a result of his campaign. His discomfort was not because of unsanitary conditions or unpalatable meals or claustrophobic living quarters; rather, it was a bitterness arising from living in close proximity with the South African Natives: The cell was situated in the Native quarters and we here housed in one that was labeled "For Coloured Debtors". It was this experience for which we were perhaps all unprepared. We had fondly imagined that we would have suitable quarters apart from the Natives. As it was, perhaps, it as well that we were classed with Natives. We would now be able to study the life of Native prisoners, their customs and manners. ...Degradation underlay the classing of Indians with natives. The Asiatic Act seemed to me to be the summit of our degradation. It did appear to me, as I think it would appear to any unprejudiced reader, that it would have

been simple humanity if we were given special quarters. ...the Governor of the gaol tried to make us as comfortable as he could...But he was powerless to accommodate us beyond the horrible din and the yells of the Native prisoners throughout the day and partly at night also. Many of the native prisoners are only one degree removed from the animal and often created rows and fought amongst themselves in their cells. 17 It's unambiguous from the above article that Gandhi was not pleased with his stay in jail, and seemed unable to take perverse delight in the suffering the time spent there offered him. Perhaps Gandhi could only enjoy suffering when Blacks were not present! In another article in that day's Indian Opinion, Gandhi further elaborated his views on the "Kaffirs: ...We were then marched off to a prison intended for Kaffirs. INDIANS ON PAR WITH KAFFIRS There, our garments were stamped with the letter "N", which meant that we were being classed with the Natives. We were all prepared for hardships, but not quite for this experience. We could understand not being classed with the whites, but to be placed on the same level with the Natives seemed too much to put up with. I then felt that Indians had launched on passive resistance too soon. Here was further proof that the obnoxious law was intended to emasculate the Indians. It was, however, as well that we were classified with the Natives. It was a welcome opportunity to study the treatment meted out to the Natives, their conditions [of life in the gaol] and their habits. ...We were given a separate ward because we were sentenced to simple imprisonment; otherwise we would have been in the same ward [with the Kaffirs]. Indians sentenced to hard labour are in fact kept with the Kaffirs. Apart from whether or not this implies degradation, I must say it is rather dangerous. Kaffirs are as a rule uncivilized - the convicts even more so. They are troublesome, very dirty, and live almost like animals. Each ward contains nearly 50 to 60 of them. They often started rows and fought among themselves. The reader can easily imagine the plight of the poor Indian thrown into such company! 18 To declare, as he did, an entire race uncivilized is unbecoming a man considered a Mahatma or great Soul, especially for one held as a standard-bearer of the modern ideal of equality. For not only is it difficult to charge an entire race with barbarism, if one is to do so, he must give an account as to what constituted civilization, because it can be argued that civilization was not present in any South African group. Gandhi, likely, deemed the Natives as savages when comparing them in his mind to the Whites whom he admired almost to the point of worship. We might conclude, however, that what Gandhi admired and thought to be civilization in Whites was nothing more than a finely arranged societal structure that provided a certain sense of stability and comfort to its citizens, but offered nothing to the Soul in Man. In other words, while White society in South Africa may have been more harmonious, mechanized, scientific and ordered compared to the Natives, and was advantageous and superior if those qualities were desired, it does not mean that this was civilization, since order and cleanliness and industrialization do not necessarily equate with civilization. In India the wise knew that declaring a group to be civilized was a difficult task, because a true civilized man is cultured internally; his appearance or living quarters is of secondary importance, what lies in his mind and heart is most crucial. Having said that, it is still important to look at these external attributes, as it very well indicate the turn of the mass within that country. The wise might also say that one must mean what he speaks or writes, as otherwise ones words

become meaningless. Gandhi, who asserted the cause of suffering, had great difficulty in handling the most minor problem of living with Native prisoners who fought primarily amongst themselves. At no point does he complain of them attacking him; regardless, was it not the point of his glorification of suffering for him to have been able to live in such extreme conditions without complaint? Not only did he have great trouble fulfilling his own words and accepting his suffering like a good Satyagrahi, he took his anger at the prison situation a step further in 1909, starting an agitation solely for the purpose of separating Indian prisoners from "Kaffir" prisoners! I have, though, resolved in my mind on an agitation to ensure that Indian prisoners are not lodged with Kaffirs or others. When I arrived at the place, there were about 15 Indian prisoners. Except for three, all of them were Satyagrahis. The three were charged with other offences. These prisoners were generally lodged with Kaffirs. When I reached there, the chief warder issued an order that all of us should be lodged in a separate room. I observed with regret that some Indians were happy to sleep in the same room as the Kaffirs, the reason being that they hoped there for a secret supply of tobacco, etc. This is a matter of shame to us. We may entertain no aversion to the Kaffirs, but we cannot ignore the fact that there is no common ground between them and us in the daily affairs of life. Moreover, those who wish to sleep in the same room have ulterior motives for doing so. Obviously, we ought to abandon such notions if we want to make progress. 19 It is clear from his actions that he was in support of segregation between the races, someone who while fawning towards Whites and imitative of most of their world views - still accepted segregation from them and desired segregation from Blacks, even in prison. While it may be natural and common to have segregation between communities, since many communities throughout the world like to dwell amongst their own kind without malice to others, separate yet essentially equal, Gandhi significantly had no objection to being placed below Whites as long as Indians were viewed as superior to Blacks. He also opposed interaction with the "lower" Blacks, yet defended the interactions of Indians with "higher" Whites, all the while maintaining his belief in purity of type. Is this not similar to a caste system, which, at least in its most degraded form, is something a 'Mahatma' like Gandhi should have fought against? The aftermath of Gandhis quest to create a caste hierarchy with Indians having a slight but inconsequential superiority to the Natives is still felt in modern South Africa, in which Blacks have come to power. With such a long history of Indian politicians begging a White political class for meager handouts, without asking for any meaningful political power, all while thumbing their noses at the Native populace, there is little surprise that resentment remains. While we obviously cannot entirely blame him for the present situation, we can note the terrible political precedent both for Indians there and for himself he set by being openly hostile to the majority community, while being subservient to a powerful and vocal minority who had little respect for him. It would have been more prudent if he had given the Indians some flexibility in the conflict between the Whites and Blacks by not attaching his organization so devotedly to either group. But Gandhi had neither the vision nor common sense to take such a stance. In light of his devotion to Whites at the denigration of the Natives, the lavish praise afforded to him by South African leaders including Nelson Mandela, is given a touch of irony. Of course, such praise is probably due to the religious nature of his struggle, as South African leaders may have seen in it a revival of the days of Christ. What is more ironic is Gandhis use of the term Kaffir, an insult that Whites in Africa picked up from Muslims. Kaffir, of course, being the Quranic term for unbelievers, are not viewed kindly in the Islamic religion. Gandhi, by ancestry at least, was a Hindu, a group of peoples to whom Kaffir is most applicable or perhaps, punishable according to Islamic theology.

References: 1. Collected works of MK Gandhi, Vol. 1, pg. 150-151 2. Petition to Lord Ripon, CWOMG, Vol. 1, pg. 199-200 3. Address in Bombay, CWOMG, Vol. 2, pg. 74 4. Notes on Test Case, CWOMG, Vol. 3, pg. 8 5. Indian Opinion, 9-7-1903, CWOMG Vol. 3, pg. 359-360 6. Petition to Natal Legislature, CWOMG, vol3, pg. 330 7. Indian Opinion 24-9-1903, CWOMG Vol. 3, pg. 453 8. The Transvaal Chambers and British Indians, Indian Opinion 24-12-03, CWOMG Vol. 4, pg. 89 9. Indian Opinion, 10-4-04, CWOMG Vol. 4, pg. 130-131 10. Indian Opinion 8-10-1904, CWOMG Vol. 4 pg. 276 11. What is a Coolie, Indian Opinion 2151904, CWOMG Vol. 4, pg. 193 12. Letter to Private Secretary to Lord Elgin, CWOMG Vol. 6, pg. 198 13. Indian Opinion, 29-2-1908, CWOMG Vol. 8, pg. 105 14. Indians in the O.R.C, Indian Opinion, 6-1-1906, CWOMG, Vol. 5, pg. 177-178 15. Indian Opinion 15-9-1906, CWOMG Vol. 5, pg. 419-423 16. Indian Opinion, 15-12-1906, CWOMG Vol. 6, pg. 183 17. Indian Opinion 7-3-1908, CWOMG Vol. 8, pg. 120 18. Indian Opinion, 7-3-1908, CWOMG Vol. 8, pg. 135 19. Indian Opinion, 6-1-1909, CWOMG Vol. 9, pg. 149

Gandhi and Britain: Loyalty, Disillusionment, Longing

It was truly a remarkable idea.

That one man, without so much as raising his staff, could bring to its knees the most powerful empire the World has witnessed. It is the type of story associated with heroic figures of past epics, another narrative depicting the ability to overcome insurmountable odds, to defeat an vastly superior enemy in virtuous fashion. In the West where the advent of mass media allowed for extensive coverage of foreign events, an instant recognition was made between the passive resisters found in its history and Gandhi; a sort of romantic attachment would develop amongst many in the West who naturally gravitated to such figures. It was an idea - woven through fantastic images and breathtaking reports - worthy of an Oscar award-winning movie, a vision that still reverberates in the minds of many. But it is just that an idea. The reality is far from -even directly opposed too - this conception, as one would be hard pressed to find a finer example of a British subject than Gandhi, nor a man with such passionate love which he compared to the high ideal of Truth - for an empire he is supposed to have brought down. Because for him, Britain and its traditions were sacred and deserving of loyalty: Hardly ever have I known anybody to cherish such loyalty as I did to the British Constitution. I can see now that my love of truth was at the root of this loyaltyThe National Anthem used to be sung at every meeting that I attended in Natal. I then felt that I must also join in the singing. Not that I was unaware of the defects in British rule, but I thought it was on the whole acceptable. In those days I believed that British rule was on the whole beneficial to the ruled. The color prejudice that I saw in South Africa was, I thought, quite contrary to British traditions, and I believed that it was only temporary and local. I therefore vied with Englishmen in loyalty to the throne. With careful perseverance I learnt the tune of the 'national anthem' and joined in singing whenever it was sung. Whenever there was an occasion for the expression of loyalty without fuss or ostentation, I readily took part in it Never in my life did I exploit this loyalty, never did I seek to gain a selfish end by its means. It was for me more in the nature of an obligation, and I rendered it without expecting an award...I likewise taught the National Anthem to the children of my family.1 Of course, as the world knows, upon returning home Gandhi would begin a campaign to free India from colonial rule, so what he wrote in his autobiography seems to have had little influence upon later events; it would appear that he had made a clean break from the loyalty he expressed so eloquently. But when we examine his writings, it becomes difficult to concluded that a man having such a servile devotion to the Empire past his fiftieth birthday, a man equating his loyalty to Britain with the supreme Truth he was seeking, could be expected to completely relinquish something he cherished so profoundly. What occurred instead was a gradual disillusionment with Britain,with the result of an external opposition to the crown without a full internal disengagement from his emotional attachment to an Empire that would still outwardly at least - professthe ideals he valued. His attachment towards the Empire continued manifest itself from the 1920s onward, the time he began to agitate against it, and remained even during the transfer of power, although by then it was subtle in quality and of a lesser frequency. *****

Having finished his law studies in England in 1893, young Mohandas Gandhi set off for South
Africa to try a case for an Indian firm located there. What was supposed to be the beginning of a professional career in a picturesque outpost on the frontiers of the British Empire would, after a series of ugly experiences of discrimination, turn out to be the start of his political life. These incidents, along with requests from Indians to do public work and defend them in court, convinced him to stay in South Africa instead of returning to India as he had planned, and in May 1894 Gandhi organized the Natal Indian Congress. The Congress goal was not the removal of the British from South Africa or India, for to the contrary, the Congress members were proud to be British subjects and were eager to aid British pursuits. On one early occasion, Gandhi helped organize an Ambulance Corps for the British during the Boer war. After the war, Gandhi congratulated the British generals, as noted in a March 15th 1900 Natal Mercury report: He [Gandhi] hoped that they would believe him when he said that the want of the knowledge of English language did not prevent Indians from following the course of events with accuracy and interest. It was the Indians proudest boast that they were British subjects. If they were not, they would not have had a footing in South Africa. 2 One reason for Gandhi's decision to organize an Ambulance Corps was given in a letter he sent to one W. Palmer, who had complained of a few "Arabs" not donating money to the English effort. Gandhi asked her to Please assure the self-sacrificing ladies that no Indian could have declined to assist from want of sympathy. We are all fired by one spirit, viz., the Imperial, and we all know what sacrifice volunteers and those they have left behind have committed. 3 The Boer War presented an avenue for Gandhi's Congress to display their unqualified loyalty to the Crown. Gandhi made this clear in a speech he made to the Ambulance Corps the first day they proceeded to the front, saying, When the ultimatum was presented by the Transvaal, some of them thought it was time when they should sink all differences, and, as they insisted upon rights and privileges as subjects of the Queen, do something to prove their loyalty. They-that is the English-speaking Indians-came to the conclusion that they would offer their services to the Colonial or Imperial government, unconditionally and absolutely without payment, in any capacity in which they could be useful, in order to show the colonists that they were worthy subjects of the Queen. 4 Gandhi's Natal Congress had had this lowly aspiration of abject serfdom from its inception, a goal Gandhi outlined in an interview conducted in the late 1890's in response to a question asking about the Congress political mandate: It does not want to exercise any strong political influence, the present object being to ensure the promises made in the Proclamation of 1858 are fulfilled. When the Indians enjoy the same status in the colony as they do in India, the Congress will have attained its end politically. It has no intention to become a political force to swamp any other party. 5 The status of Indian's in India was, to put it mildly, nothing fantastic, although in a few areas it may have been marginally better than the status of Indians in South Africa. A lot of the ill treatment and indifference to the loss of Indian life was due to racialist views that stemmed from the history taught during that time, including the theory that a white "Aryan" race invaded India from the steppes circa 1500 BC and conquered the "flat-nosed" dark-skinned Dravidian race. In these theories, based on illogical and superficial interpretations of Vedic scripture by European scholars, the original Aryan race also spread forth into Europe. Thus came to Gandhi the vision and hope for brotherhood with Whites, since both stemmed from the same racial stock:

I venture to point out that both the English and the Indians spring from a common stock, called the Indo-Aryan. I would not be able, in support of the above, to give extracts from many authors, as the books of reference at my disposal are unfortunately very few. I, however, quote as follows from Sir W. W. Hunter's Indian Empire: This nobler race (meaning the early Aryans) belonged to the belonged to the Aryan or IndoGermanic stock, from which the Brahman, the Rajput, and the Englishman alike descend. Its earliest home visible to history was in Central Asia... This belief, whether mistaken or well-founded, serves as the basis of operations of those who are trying to unify the hearts of two races, which are, legally and outwardly, bound together under a common flag. 6 Gandhi would assertively use the argument of Indians being of the same racial stock as Europeans to justify his agitation for Indian franchise, as evident in his letter to the Colonial Secretary: With the greatest respect to your honor, we beg to point out that both the Anglo-Saxon and the Indian races belong to the same stock. We read your honors eloquent speech at the time of the second reading of the bill with rapt attention and took great pains to ascertain if any writer of authority gave countenance to the view expressed by Your Honour about the difference of the stocks from which both the races have sprung up. Max Muller, Morris, Greene, and a host of other writers with one voice seem to show very clearly that both the races have sprung from the same Aryan stock, or rather the Indo-European as many call it. We have no wish to thrust ourselves as members of a brother nation on a nation that would be unwilling to receive us as such, but we may be pardoned if we state the real facts, the alleged absence of which has been put forward as an argument to pronounce us as unfit for the exercise of the franchise...It has given us no small satisfaction to know that, however unjust Your Honour's speech may have appeared to us from our point of view, it breathed truest sentiments of justice, morality and, what is more, Christianity. So long as such a spirit is noticeable among the chosen of the land, we would never despair of right being done in every case. 7 The more history books Gandhi read, the stronger his acceptance became of the tale of white Aryans" colonizing India, the obvious implication of such a tale being that the British colonists were now just one of the many lighter-skinned foreign colonists of the subcontinent. Indoctrinating that belief into Indians was the prime purpose of the Aryan Invasion Theory, as it provided an intellectual foundation for colonial rule. Gandhi was the type of subject Macaulay would have dreamed of someone with an average intelligence who was likely to accept at face value even the most absurd theory, as long as it came from those considered experts in the eyes of the British: History says that the Aryan's home was not India but they came from Central Asia, and one family migrated to India and colonized it, the others to Europe...It is true England "wafts her scepter" over India. The Indians are not ashamed of that fact. They are proud to be under the British crown, because they think that England will prove India's deliverer. 8 Gandhi viewed his status as a British subject akin to something out of a fairytale, writing that We once again feel that, though in Natal, yet we are British subjects, and that in time of danger the enchanting phrase has not after all lost any of its charm. 9 According to Gandhi (who throughout his life ambitiously claimed to speak for all Indians and Hindus) the hearts of Indians and other subjects contained unsurpassed love for the King of England: In the whole history of the world, no throne has been so firmly established in the hearts of

the people as that of the King-Emperor today. That he may live long to add lustre to that throne is the earnest prayer of British Indians, the humblest of his subjects but not the least in loyalty and devotion. 10 Gandhi's view of British rule, prior to the Indian push for independence (beginning in 1905), is best summed up in the very first article he wrote for Indian Opinion, a newspaper he founded and contributed regularly too from its inception in 1903. In the article, Gandhi wrote that the problems between Whites and Indians stemmed from a "misunderstanding" of their historical racial ties and the forgotten fact that Indians were British subjects as well. Gandhi would also write of his belief that it was an act of God that brought India under British rule; Britain, to him, being the mother country: The Indians, resident in British South Africa, loyal subjects though they are of the KingEmperor, labour under a number of legal disabilities which, it is contended on their behalf, are undeserved and unjust. The reason of this state of affairs is to be found in the prejudice in the minds of the Colonists, arising out of misunderstanding the actual status of the Indian as a British subject, the close relations that render him kin to Colonists, as the dual title of the Crowned Head so significantly pronounces, and the unhappy forgetfulness of the great services India has always rendered to the Mother Country ever since providence brought loyal Hind under the flag of Britannia. It will be our endeavour, therefore, to remove the misunderstanding by placing facts in their true light before the public. We can do very little unaided. We rely on generous support from our countrymen; may we hope for it from the great Anglo-Saxon race that hails His Majesty Edward VII as King-Emperor? For there is nothing in our programme but a desire to promote harmony and good-will between the different sections of the one mighty empire. 11 Part of Gandhi's belief that Indians should have been treated as equal subjects came from his reading of the Proclamation of 1858, which he discussed in a 1903 Indian Opinion piece: This memorable Proclamation, which has been rightly termed "the Magna Carta of the British Indians', is worthy of the attention... the year 1857 was a year of great anxiety and trouble throughout the British dominions owing to the great Sepoy Revolt in India. At one time the cloud looked so black that even the final result had become a matter of uncertainty. An appeal was made to the worst superstitions of the people of India, religion was greatly brought into play, and all that could possibly be done by the evil-minded was done to unsettle people's minds, and to make them hostile to British rule... throughout India did the masses remain faithful, and refuse to make common cause with the Mutineers. All this was known to Lord Canning. He, in due course, transmitted to the late Queen Empress the pathetic incidents that took place when the British Indians, at the peril of their lives, saved hundreds of English men and women. When, therefore, the Mutiny was ultimately stamped out, and when the time came for showing the Royal clemency, Lord Derby, the then Prime Minister, was commanded by the Queen to draft a proclamation... laying stress upon the fact that it was a female foreign sovereign speaking to the millions of her faithful subjects who had just emerged from a terrible time, and that the Proclamation should be a document of freedom for the people of India, which they could treasure and valueIt is superfluous to refer to the numerous occasions on which it has been referred to as the document giving the people of India full privileges and rights of British subjects.....Is it, then, any wonder that the British Indians, no matter where they go, invoke the aid of that Proclamation in their favour whenever any attempt is made to curtail the liberties or their rights as British subjects? We reproduce below the main portions of the Proclamation in it there is absolutely no qualification whatsoever with reference to the place where the people to whom it was given are to enjoy the fulfillment of the promises given therein. It becomes necessary to mention

this fact, as attempts have often been made in South Africa to explain away the document by saying that, as it was given in India, its applicability was confined merely to that place. ...Time and circumstances have thus combined to sanctify the Proclamation, and no matter what others may say to the contrary, it will ever remain a cherished treasure to the Indian community, wherever settled, so long as the British Empire lasts. Portions of the Proclamation referred to above: We hold ourselves bound to the natives of our Indian territories by the same obligations of duty which bind us to all our other subjects; and those obligations, by the blessings of Almighty God, we shall faithfully and conscientiously fulfil. And it is our further will that, so far as may be, our subjects, of whatever race or creed, be freely and impartially admitted to offices in our service, the duties of which they may be qualified, by their education, ability, and integrity, duly to discharge. In their prosperity will be our strength; in their contentment, our security; and in their gratitude, our best reward. And may God of all power grant to us, and to those in authority under us, strength to carry out these our wishes for the good of our people. 12 Only someone blindly attached to the British Empire would declare the Proclamation a "Magna Carta" for Indians. All it essentially says is that the British rulers will make sure Indians are kept in decent shape, because as it implies, if the subjects - and subjects is the key word - are not content they are more likely to revolt. As part of this they would provide education, but it would be one that glorified British history and indoctrinated lies such as the Aryan Invasion Theory. This education was meant to create a bureaucracy (the offices of service referred to near the end) known as the Indian Civil Service - of Indians having no regard for their own culture, whose sole purpose in life was the governing of a British colony. Not only did this utilitarian education spare the British from using their own people to do this sort of work, it also had a demoralizing affect on the populace, spreading life-sapping ideas that would make many, including Gandhi, turn back to the invader in order to find strength. ***

During these years, Gandhi displayed a lot of patience towards the injustices of British rule, and
even his critiques of such irregularities actually reveal just how deep his loyalty was. In one of his first criticisms of the Empire, he posed the question of what Jesus would say to many of the Whites in South Africa, asking, If he came among us, will He not say to many of us, I know you not? Sir, may I venture to offer a suggestion? Will you re-read your New Testament? Will you ponder over your attitude towards to colored population of the colony? Will you then say you can reconcile it with the Bible teaching or the best British traditions? If you have washed your hands clean of both Christ and British traditions, I can have nothing to say; I gladly withdraw what I have written. Only it will then be a sad day for Britain and for India if you have many followers. 13" It was in British rule that he saw values Christian and secular that were dear to him, and he expected life under the Crown to be a reflection of those values. Even with plenty of evidence to suggest that life was abominable for Indians in the Empire, he still remained loyal throughout most of his life, because his loyalty was not just based on attachment to the nation itself; the religious and secular ideals that he felt were behind it were of more importance. Thus even if Gandhi saw hatred towards Indians in his daily life, he still believed he could somehow change the hearts of British, as he was described as saying during a Calcutta speech in 1903:

Mr. Gandhi, after describing South Africa generally, explained the position of the British Indian in that sub-continent. ... The hatred of the Colonials against them was no doubt intense, but what Mr. Gandhi proposed was to conquer that hatred by love. 14 Gandhi criticized the British for failing to live up to the example of Queen Victoria, whom he believed had done more for the liberty of India than any other person! He came to this earthshattering realization after learning that Victoria had taken some Indians as servants, had learnt to write Hindustani, and was receiving daily accounts of the Indian situation in the mail. Surely these acts had more to do with practical reasons such as making sure the status of the jewel in the crown was secure than providing more liberty to India! Either Gandhi was desperate to convince himself of the Queens benevolence, or he was utterly innocent in his devotion: To Indians especially, Victoria Day should be sacred. No other person has done so much for the liberty of India as the late Queen-Empress. ...Victoria's interest in India was always personal and profound. Not only did she surround herself with Indian servants; not only did she learn to speak and write Hindustani (no light task to one burdened with the cares of State); but she made the Viceroy send an account of the situation in India by every mail..."The same before God"-that was the spirit which inspired the great Proclamation; and of which the Empire has scarcely proved itself worthy. It is with regret that we have to call the attention of our readers and the authorities to various matters in which the spirit of Victoria the Good has been violated, when we would have wished that this issue of our journal at least should be free from anything that would detract from our satisfaction in belonging to the great British Empire. 15 Gandhi proudly proclaimed the loyalty of the Natal Indians, even if No opportunity is missed of degrading us and humiliating us. We do not wish to burden Your Excellency with such other instances. We have a right, we submit, to expect the British Government to protect us from such humiliation, and insure for us the freedom to which, as loyal British subjects, we are entitled wherever the Union Jack flies. 16 The above, written in 1905, was before he started demonstrations in South Africa, and was also a year of explosive revolutionary activity in India, when all the preparation behind the scenes came to the forefront after Lord Curzon's partition of Bengal in July 1905. It was this act that ignited Hindu Bengal, as the partition - made as a sop to predominantly Muslim East Bengal struck at the hearts of Bengalis. From partition arose the birth of the Swadeshi movement - a movement whose inception is erroneously attributed to Gandhi by some - where goods made only in India were bought, where mass demonstrations were frequent, and where bombs flew freely across the sky. Gandhi, when writing on the original Swadeshi movement, claimed it did not signify that Indians had lost their loyalty to Great Britain: If the Anglo-Indian administrators, who have really built up the Indian Empire, and who depended for its continuance on the goodwill of the people, were to rise from their graves today, they, in our opinion, would be the first to encourage the boycott agitation ...What can be more natural than for the people to wish to clothe themselves, to feed themselves, and to supply their luxuries out of homegrown products and home manufactures? We see such movements worked out more extensively in many Colonies. It is a legitimate and healthy growth amongst the people, not to the slightest degree inconsistent with a feeling of loyalty to the British Crown. 17 Maybe Gandhi was surprised to hear that people in India could possibly have been upset with the British, leading him to frame the events in such a manner. A couple years later though, he gave a lengthier opinion on the revolutionary activities in India. Gandhi took the paternalistic viewpoint

that Indians fighting the British were - to use his infamous description of Hindu warriors like Shivaji in essence "misguided patriots." He endorsed the belief that Indians had much to learn from the British, and again shared his opinion that better rights were all that Indians should be fighting for, not independence: Should the British be thrown out of India? Can it be done, even if we wish to do so? To these two questions we can reply that we stand to lose by ending British rule and that, even if we wanted to, India is not in a position to end it. By this we do not suggest that the British Raj is very powerful and that India has had incalculable advantages from it, or that India could not, if it so willed, remove British rule. But we hold that, whatever the motives of the British in coming to India, we have much to learn from them. They are brave and considerate people, and are on the whole honest. Blind where self-interest is concerned, they give unstinted admiration for bravery wherever found. They are a powerful nation, and India enjoys not a little protection under them. It is not, therefore, desirable that British rule in India should disappear. Should we then repudiate such men as Lala Lajpat Rai? That, too, is not possible. In our view, the men of the Punjab and the others who carry on the agitation are brave men. They are patriots and endure hardships for the sake of the country. To that extent they command our respect. However, they appear to be in error in so far as they want to eliminate British rule. In pursuit of this end, they appear determined to suffer any punishment the law may inflict on them. We have nothing to blame them for. For, their sufferings will lead to India's happiness. They oppose British rule because of its drawbacks. Because of that rule, India is becoming poorer. To some extent, British rule is an important cause of even the plague in India. It adds to the ill-will between Hindus and Muslims. It is also because of that rule that we have been reduced to such a low state and live like cowards. Exasperated by these evils, some Indian leaders will find fault with the entire British nation. ... The fault, in fact, lies with us. If we remove the fault, British rule, which is a cause of misery today, can become a source of happiness. Public spirit is not likely to grow among us without western education and contacts with the West. If that spirit grows, the British may grant our demands without a fight, and may leave India if we want them to do so. The British colonies are what they are, not because the people there are white, but because they are brave and would take offence if their rights were not granted. That is why they are regarded as members of one family. In short, we have no quarrel with British rule. We have to be proud of the courage of those who have been creating this unrest. Let us show the same courage ourselves, but instead of desiring the end of British rule, let us aspire to be as able and spirited as the Colonists are, and demand and secure the rights we want. 18 This was not the only time that Gandhi blamed the drawbacks of British rule on the Indians, except in the following, he blamed it on the general immorality of the Indian people. Thus the deaths due to starvation and plague in India were not due to cruel British practices or even mismanagement by the Indians themselves; instead the deaths occurred because the Indians were a sinful bunch (perhaps they were acts of punishment from a vengeful Biblical God)! After careful thought, we have come to the conclusion that, if the plague, starvation etc have become widespread in India, it is because of the sinfulness of the people. If anyone wants to attribute it to the wickedness of the Government, we shall agree with him. It is common experience that people suffer when the rulers are wicked. But it needs to be borne in mind that it is only a sinful people who have wicked rulers. Besides, it is as a rule more profitable

to examine our own faults than to blame others. 19 From the previous two articles, its evident Gandhi believed that if the Indians were to stop being immoral, British rule would then become a source of joy! If Gandhi displayed a general anger to the alleged immorality of the Indians, he reserved a special rage for the "evil" Indians fighting the British, whose rule in India he paradoxically claimed to be morally wrong, even though he was still in favor of them continuing on: It is morally wrong for one nation to rule over another. British rule in India is an evil but we need not believe that any very great advantage would accrue to the Indians if the British were to leave India. The reason why they rule over us is to be found in ourselves; that reason is our disunity, our immorality and our ignorance. ...If these three things were to disappear, not only would the British leave India without the rustling of a leaf, but it would be real swarajya that we would enjoy. Many people exult at the explosion of bombs. This only shows ignorance and lack of understanding. If all the British were to be killed, those who kill them would become the masters of India, and as a result India would continue in a state of slavery. The bombs with which the British will have been killed will fall on India after the British leave. ...Just as we cannot achieve real swarajya by following the path of evil-that is by killing the British - so also will it not be possible for us to achieve it by establishing big factories in India. 20 Only Gandhi would view the killings of the foreign colonist as ignorance and evil, because to Gandhi, not only were Indians engaging in murder (!), they were also murdering the men he wanted to continue ruling. His misleading argument that the killers of the British would end up keeping India in slavery shows a complete lack of knowledge to the true nature of a movement fighting for the Sanatana Dharma, battling to allow India to live according to its own will and law. Such a revolution would not stand for the slavery of its people under anyone, Indian or foreign. Gandhi, oblivious to the spiritual character of the revolution, maintained a sanctimonious attitude towards the revolutionary leaders. In writing about Tilak, Gandhi, after first acknowledging the work he had done, would then claim it to be just a foundation and that Satyagraha which had yet to accomplish anything in South Africa and would never acquire more than a few meager personal rights - was the best form of action: The sentence passed on Mr. Tilak, the great Indian patriot, is terrible. The few days imprisonment which the Transvaal Indians suffer is as nothing compared to transportation for six years. Yet we should not blindly follow the policies of those whom we regard as great. It would be casting a reflection on Mr. Tilak's greatness that his writings had no bitterness in them or to offer up some such defence. Pungent, bitter and penetrating writing was his objective. He aimed at inciting Indians against British rule. To attempt to minimize this would be to detract from Mr. Tilak's greatness... Mr. Tilak deserves our congratulations. He has, by suffering, attained undying fame and laid down the foundations of India's freedom. What we need to consider is whether Indians should accept the views of Mr. Tilak and his party. We submit, after great deliberation, that Mr. Tilak's views should be rejected. India's welfare does not consist in merely uprooting British rule. It will be harmful, even useless, to use force or violence for uprooting that rule. Freedom gained through violence would not endure. And the sufferings to which the people of Europe submit would also become our lot then. As for the masses, they would merely pass from one form of slavery to another. No one will gain this way and almost everyone will lose-that is what the result will be.

We believe that the easiest way to make British rule beneficient is to adopt the way of Satyagraha. If British rule becomes tyrannical, it will come to an end as soon as the British government attempts to resist Satyagraha. If the same workers who went on strike in protest against the sentence of Mr. Tilak were to become satyagrahis, they would be able to get the Government to agree to any reasonable demands. 21 Interestingly, Gandhi writes that Tilak had achieved undying fame by suffering. Why was this necessary for him to relate to his readers? Was he trying to use the allure of fame to convince his readers to engage in his Satyagraha movement, or was he inadvertently revealing one of the driving forces behind his use of Satyagraha? If Gandhis attitude towards Tilak was paternalistic, then his reaction to the assassination of Sir Curzon Wyllie was one of righteous indignation: The assassination of Sir Curzon Wyllie and Dr Lalkaka was a terrible thing. Sir Curzon Wyllie served as an officer at several places in India. ...On July 2, there was a tea-meeting of the National Indian Association in the Jehangir Hall of the Imperial Institute. Such meetings are arranged with the object of bringing Indian students into contact with EnglishmenSir Curzon Wyllie was [thus] a guest of the assassin. ...It is being said in the defence of Sir Curzon Wyllie's assassination that it is the British who are responsible for India's ruin, and that, just as the British would kill every German if Germany invaded Britain, so too it is the right of any Indian to kill any Englishman. Every Indian should reflect thoughtfully on this murder. It has done India much harmMr. Dhingra's defense is inadmissible. In my view, he has acted like a coward. All the same, one can only pity the man. He was egged on to do this act by ill-digested reading of worthless writings. His defence of himself, too, appears to have been learnt by rote. It is those who incited him to this that deserve to be punished. In my view, Mr. Dhingra himself is innocent. The murder was committed in a state of intoxication...The analogy of Germans and Englishmen is fallacious. If the Germans were to invade [Britain], the British would only kill the invaders. They would not kill every German whom they met. Moreover, they would not kill an unsuspecting German, or Germans who are guests. If I kill someone in my own house without a warning-someone who has done me no harm-I cannot but be called a coward...It may be said that what Mr. Dhingra did, publicly and knowing full well that he himself would have to die, argues courage of no mean order on his part. But as I have said above, men can do these things in a state of intoxication, and can also banish the fear of death. Whatever courage there is in this is the result of intoxication, not a quality of man himself. A man's own courage consists in suffering deeply and over a long period. That alone is a brave act which is preceded by careful reflection. I must say that those who believe and argue that such murders may do good to India are ignorant men indeed. No act of treachery can ever profit a nation. Even should the British leave in consequence of such murderous acts, who will rule in their place? The only answer is: murderers. India can gain nothing from the rule of murderers-no matter whether they are black or white. Under such a rule, India will be utterly ruined and laid waste. This train of thought leads to a host of reflections, but I have no time to set them down here. I am afraid some Indians will commend this murder. I believe they will be guilty of a heinous sin. We ought to abandon such fanciful ideas. 22 A telling piece, as this time the murderers were not merely misguided patriots they were outright traitors. How dare they murder this Englishmen, a high-ranking figure initially in the Army, later in the Government, highly influential in the management of the Indian colony! For killing is always

bad according to the blanket judgement of Gandhi, and those who do it are most obviously intoxicated (but why is not desiring to suffer over long periods of time a form of intoxication?). It was fallacious for Gandhi to say that the rule of murderers would achieve nothing for India, because history is full of examples to the contrary, such as the murderous French Revolution and subsequent Napoleonic wars, which had the terrible effect of protecting democratic values in France. It was a case - along with the American Revolution - where freedom from violence did endure, and one form of slavery was not replaced with another, even though murderers came to power. It is true that the tactics of the Indian revolutionaries could have been better (there was never any widespread guerilla warfare), and Gandhi does make a good point that it was not necessary to kill all Englishmen. But the majority of targets were important Englishmen and Indians working to prolong British rule in India, so the charges Gandhi levels against them are exaggerations that any British patriot would make. *****

As the revolution was growing bloodier in India, Gandhi was initiating his campaign in South
Africa. Gandhi and his Congress had been politely complaining for years, but in 1906 they decided to take a stronger stance after the passing of the Asiatic Law Amendment Ordinance. Even while adopting this new position, Gandhi continued to stress their loyalty to the Crown, as he voiced in a September 1906 meeting: Even the legislation of the ORC, drastic as it was, was far superior to that now introduced here, which was so bad that no self-respecting Indian could live under it. He admitted that the responsibility for the serious step he had taken was upon his shoulders, and he took the responsibility in its entirety. He felt he had done the right thing in advising them to take this step as loyal British subjects. In all their action in this respect they were full of loyalty. No shadow of disloyalty could rest upon them. 23 At the meeting many resolutions were passed, including Resolution II, highlighting some of the reasons for Indian opposition to the law, including its reduction of British Indians to a status lower than that of the aboriginal races of South Africa and the Coloured people. The new law was decidedly Un-British and unduly restricts the liberty of inoffensive British subjects and constitutes compulsory invitation to British Indians in the Transvaal to leave the country. In his speech, after stating the resolution, Gandhi would declare a path of resistance for Indians to follow: Rather than submit to the galling, tyrannous, and un-British requirements laid down in the above Draft Ordinance, every British Indian in the Transvaal shall submit himself to imprisonment and shall continue so to do until it shall please His Most Gracious Majesty the King-Emperor to grant relief.24 At the end of the meeting the Natal Congress, besides pledging to go to jail if necessary, gave a proclamation of loyalty to the British that they gave at all of their meetings the singing of God Save the King. At another meeting a year later where yet more resolutions of the same type were passed, one member of the Congress, Nadirshah Cama, best defined the character of the men in the Congress: I move this resolution. We must understand the nature of this law. It is very humiliating. We wish to live in peace and amity with the whites, but we will not be their slaves. ...We demand no political rights. We have changed our permits several times. We have changed our permits several times. ...This law is not meant for the Hottentots or Kaffirs; why then

should it apply only to us. I believe that though my skin is black, my heart is whiter than any white's. 25 Perhaps because of this mentality, Gandhi chose to ignore the obvious racism towards Indians, indulging in his favorite activity, self-flagellation, under the guise of superficially plausible arguments. For how on earth was the Indian continuing to take blows albeit with courage going to change the racism? Could it not make the racism even worse by providing another reason for the racist to ridicule the Indian? After all, how much respect can one have for an opponent who doesnt even rise up to fight? And how does one stand up to the opponent by letting him kick one while lying down? Why do the Dutch and the British both hate us? We believe the root cause is not the colour of our skin, but our general cowardice, our unmanliness and our pusillanimity. They will begin to respect us the moment we impress on them that we can stand up to them. There is no need actually to fight, but courage is necessary. If a man kicks us, we take it lying down. He therefore thinks we deserve nothing better. This is the cowardice within us. There is a kind of courage in receiving a blow without returning it; but we are not speaking of that courage here. We receive kicks passively out of fear. 26 Gandhis deep admiration of the British continued to cause reversals in his public writings, as the following article he wrote in 1906 would contradict other writings where he described foreign rule in India an "evil: I find that the Englishman is not only full five cubits tall, a host in himself, match for five hundred but is capable in every other way. When he chooses to enjoy wealth and power, he excels in doing it and he makes the best of poverty, too. He alone knows how to give orders; and he knows how to take them too. In his behaviour he is great with the great and small with the small. He knows how to earn money and he alone knows how to spend it. He knows how to converse and move in company. He lives in the knowledge that his happiness depends on the happiness of others. The [English] man I observed during the war seems to be an altogether different person now. Then he did all his work himself, trekked over long distances and felt happy with dry bread. Here on board the ship he does not do any work. He presses a button, and an attendant stands before him. He must have nice dishes of all kinds to eat. Every day he puts on a new dress. All this becomes him, but he does not lose his balance. Like the sea, he can contain all within himself. Though, generally speaking, he has little sense of religion, yet living in society, he is disciplined and observes Sabbath. Why indeed should such a people not rule? 27 Gandhi continued to emphasize that his South African movement was of a different nature than the one taking place in India, writing, Happenings in India have received the colour of an insurrection, and they have been interpreted to mean a revolt against the British Raj. The crusade of the Indianshas not the slightest resemblance to an insurrectionary movement. It simply means an offer on the part of the community to suffer much physical hardship rather than allow its moral sense to be atrophied. It is an endeavour to follow the precept of the Prophet of Nazareth, Resist not Evil. 28" In the same year, 1907, Gandhi explicitly stated that he was a "lover" of the Empire while declaring opposition to the Asiatic Act, in a letter to The Star: I consider myself a lover of the British Empire, a citizen (though voteless) of the Transvaal, prepared to take my full share in promoting the general well-being of the country. And I claim it to be perfectly honourable, and consistent with the above profession, to advise my countrymen not to submit to the Asiatic Act as being derogatory to their manhood. 29

Gandhi's love for the Empire was like a child's love for his father: To Gandhi, Indians were children of the British, and in a touching extension, Gandhi hoped the parents would show their children more affection: The Colonies are like the children of the British. It is nothing surprising if a father meets his children with warmth and enthusiasm, unmindful of their faults and perceptive only of their virtues. Where such a relationship obtains, the family prospers; a people, similarly, thrive on such relationships. 30 Gandhi would later express his disappointment at being treated like neglected sons by the Empire, even though they were begging for more. Unlike the Indian revolutionaries, who worshipped India as the Divine Goddess, Gandhis mother nation was England: Indians have been begging for something to be brought to them from England [as a gift]. This shows our utter helplessness. The whites of the Colonies are the strong and favoured sons [of the Empire]. We are the weak and neglected ones. How can the neglected sons get a hearing from the mother against the favoured ones? By petitioning? It is impossible. 31 Though he still referred to England as the mother, in the same year, 1909, Gandhi would at last begin to consistently criticize the Empire. In previous years, Gandhis writings would hint at a loss of the blind devotion to British rule that had characterized his early life. Gandhi had, as especially evident in the writings on the Revolutionaries, started to admit although not in a developed or specific manner the defects of British rule, even while remaining loyal to it. By 1909, Gandhi had become angry that his resistance movement - one he believed was beneficial to British rule at large - was not being reciprocated by the South African government. In late December of 1908, he castigated a British colonel and warned that the Colonels views might bring about the end of the Empire: His [Colonel Seely's] speech in fact implies that Indians residing in lands where whites had already settled should be gradually eliminated. The Transvaal Indians therefore have to shoulder a burden on behalf of the whole of India. We shall show later that they can easily do so, and they certainly will. Colonel Seely's views suggest a change [for the worse] in British policy and, if they gain currency, they will herald the decline of the Empire. Therefore, the Indians' resistance tends to the good of the British Empire, too. Colonel Seely's views will be endorsed only by those who wish that the British Empire should be destroyed. They are the enemies of the British Empire. Indian [passive] resisters, who have been opposing this view and will continue to do so, may be said to be the friends of the Empire. 32 By 1909, not only was Gandhi admonishing British rule in his public writings and speeches more than before, he had also started corresponding with Lord Ampthill, a member of the British House of Lords. Ampthill had become interested in Gandhis cause, but had to face questions from superiors as to Gandhis true intentions, given the seditious nature of the movement in India. Thus Ampthill wrote to Gandhi regarding allegations that connected Gandhi to the Indian revolutionaries, claims Gandhi vehemently denied in an August 1909 written response: I am fully aware of the allegation that we are acting in co-operation with the Extremist Party in India. I however give Your Lordship the emphatic assurance that the charge is totally without foundation. ...Our movement is absolutely unconnected with any [extremist] movement in India. ...We are in close contact with the Editor of The Times of India and I used to be in personal touch with the late Mr. Saunders of the Englishman who, I may say, gave me valuable assistance and advice when I first undertook public work in South Africa.

Our complaint has always been that our countrymen in India have, as it might have appeared until recently, almost studiously ignored the question of its Imperial importance...now Henry S.L Polak is in Bombay, from the Transvaal, in order to place the position before the Indian public. He has gone there with definite instructions not to come in contact with the Extremist Party, but to be guided largely by the Editor of the Times of India, Professor Gokhale and the Aga Khan. ... I am quite aware that this exposition of my own view may not be of any use to Your Lordship and possibly is devoid of any interest whatsoever. The only reason I mention it is to guard myself against being misunderstood. I am most anxious not to withhold anything at all from Your Lordship and I am anxious to retain, in any work that I undertake, the support of one who so loves the Empire and the country of my birth such as yourself. 33 Here Gandhi mentions as two influences the editor of the Times of India and Professor G.K Gokhale, a long time leader of the Congress (Moderate) party that opposed the "Extremist" party trying to free the country (In the 1907 Surat Congress the two factions had come to blows). Gokhale, in one of his writings, noted the difference between the English language media, which functioned primarily as a British organ, and the vernacular papers like Bande Mataram, which spread revolutionary fervor and were subject to closure by Imperial authorities: The attitude of the Vernacular Press, deplorable as it may at time be, depends largely on a number of circumstances. For one thing, the normal relations between the English and the Indians in the country determine it; and the special questions which for the moment may happen to agitate the public mind may also largely influence it. And then there are the writings in the columns of the Anglo-Indian press. What happens very often is that writers in the Vernacular Press take up the articles or attacks in the Anglo-Indian papers and reply to them. The officials, who read these replies, apply them to themselves, because the writers in the Vernacular press often express themselves generally against Europeans as such, taking the Anglo-Indian Press to represent European views. 34 Representing the European views, as the Anglo-Indian press generally did, meant support for the Empire hardly surprising considering that the editors of these papers were English. It was from these editors that Gandhi hoped to spread the word about the status of Indians in South Africa, as clearly it was of grave importance for the Indian public to agitate for the status of a mere fraction of their populace in South Africa! While he may have been the beneficiary of useful advice from these parties, it was Gokhale who was more of a true mentor, a man who Gandhi held in such high esteem that he declared him Mahatma Gokhale after his death. Thus it comes as no surprise that Gokhale held similar political - though not religious - views to Gandhi. In a recorded speech entitled "Three Questions of Vital Importance," Gokhale speaks of English rule being completely necessary for the evolution of India, and of the desire for equal rights being given the Indians, similar to the rights Gandhi wanted in South Africa all held under the British Crown: My Lord, behind all grievances of which I have spoken today, three questions of vital importance emerge to view. First, what is the status of us, Indians, in this Empire? Secondly, what is the extent of the responsibility which lies on the Imperial Government to ensure to us just and humane and gradually even equal treatment in this Empire? And thirdly, how far are the self-governing members of this Empire bound by its cardinal principles? Are they to participate in its privileges only and not to bear their share of its disadvantages? My Lord, it is not for me to frame replies to these questions; it is for the Imperial and Colonial Statesmen to do that. But I must say this, that they are bound to afford food for grave reflection throughout this country.

My Lord, only a fortnight ago this Council passed an important Bill imposing serious restrictions on what is known as the liberty of the Press. I was one of those who gave their support to that measure, and I did this in spite of my strong disapproval of some its provisions. I supported the Bill because I felt that something deeper and even more fundamental than the liberty of the Press was at stake in several parts of the country and was likely to be at stake sooner or later in other parts, unless preventative action was taken now, namely, the unquestioned continuance of British rule, with which all our hopes of a peaceful evolution are bound up. But, my lord, what is the good of continued existence of British rule, if causes are allowed to be at work which forcibly suggest such ideas to men's minds? I think I am stating the plain truth when I say that no single question of our time has evoked more bitter feelings throughout India - feelings in the presence of which the best friends of British rule have to remain helpless - that the continued ill treatment of Indians in South Africa. 35 As evident from the speech, Gokhale had taken a significant interest in Gandhi's cause in Natal while at the same time supporting plans to curb the growing Nationalist press that was expressing aspirations for independence! Somehow Gokhale had managed to remain above, or oblivious to, the degraded state British rule had produced. Nevertheless, of prime importance here is that Gokhale, being an ardent Loyalist even after 1905, would have never taken up Gandhi's cause if he suspected Gandhi to be anything other than a Loyalist. Another person who would not have supported Gandhis cause if he suspected him of disloyalty to the crown, was the aforementioned Lord Ampthill. Ampthills asking of Gandhi to respond to allegations concerning Gandhis loyalty was nothing but a way for Ampthill to confirm his intuition that Gandhi was pure in his devotion. Ampthill response to Gandhi's letter shows such faith: Your answer is exactly what I expected, and while I have not failed hitherto to deny the charge indignantly from my own inward conviction, I shall now be able to do so armed with the certainty of your complete and candid explanation. I have never had a moment's doubt myself as to your freedom from complicity with conspirators in India, but I have found myself obliged to meet suggestions to that effect proceeding from high and responsible quarters. 36 Gandhi, upon receiving the boon of having an established member of Parliament support his satyagraha, was quick to let doubters of his loyalty know whose blessings he had: Sir, In your leading article in the current number, you state that: Mr. Gandhi, of Natal and Transvaal fame, admits that the campaign of himself and his friends will be dictated by sympathisers in England, whose names by the way are unfortunately associated with the dangerous movement in India, which has been brought into such startling prominence of late. Will you kindly allow me to say in reply that what I said to the Reuter's agent was that our movements will be guided by the advice that may be given to us by Lord Ampthill and his Committee. I am not aware that Lord Ampthill or his colleagues are associated with what you call "the dangerous movement in India." 37 Indeed Lord Ampthill, belonging to Parliament, would hardly desire or dare to associate with someone viewed as a threat to the Empire. If Gandhi was in truth an enemy of the Empire, there is no possibility that Ampthill could have corresponded with him without risking the charge of treason. In Ampthill, Gandhi had found his first access to the influential men of the Empire,

through whom he undoubtedly hoped to accomplish his political goals. But if Gandhi was using Ampthill to help his struggle for Indians in South Africa, he was also being set up for manipulation. The first public example of this manipulation was the 1909 release of a book, with a foreword from Ampthill, entitled MK Gandhi: An Indian Patriot in South Africa. This book portrays Gandhi as an Indian patriot the idea of a patriot being an Indian loyal to Britain, the type of patriotism Ampthill and company would have wished to instill in all Indians. For instance, it quotes Gandhi as being opposed to any severance of the connection between righteous Britain and India: Whatever may have been the motives of the British rulers in India, there is a desire on the part of the nation to see that justice is done. It would be a calamity to break the connection between the British people and the people of India. If we are treated as, or assert our right to be treated as, free men, whether in India or elsewhere, the connection between the British people and the people of India can not only be mutually beneficial, but is calculated to be of enormous advantage to the world religiously, and, therefore, socially and politically. In my opinion, each nation is the complement of each other. 38 Ampthill had taken a serious interest in Gandhi, and in response Gandhi (who for a long time sent countless letters to higher British officials without response), evidently elated to have such a correspondent, offered himself - in a October 1909 letter - to Ampthill like a Bhakta to Sri Krishna: To me, who am so inexperienced in high politics and diplomacy, the draft enclosed in yesterday's letter to Your Lordship, appeals as the more correct letter to be sent, after an addition to it sketching roughly the plan of campaign to be followed here and the intended visit to India. However, I am entirely in Your Lordship's hands, and would be guided by the advice you will kindly give. 39 Words like this must have pleased Ampthill and would have given his superiors pause for thought, because here was an Indian willing to be under the directions of British officials. But for the time being, that guidance would be limited to Ampthill, who had to relay the bad news to Gandhi that the colonial secretary could not correspond with him: I note that on further reflection you are not inclined to adopt the more elaborate procedure which I the suggested: I dare say that your instinct is quite right and there is, of course, ample reason for thinking that in present circumstances Lord Crewe will not be able, even if he were inclined, to pay much attention to your business. In these circumstances I should be very sorry to interfere with your discretion and I agree with you that you cannot go wrong if you write as you first intended, with the addition of a brief explanation of the methods by which you propose to inform the public. 40 Ampthills responses show a constant encouragement of Gandhi, indicating that he likely was a genuine admirer of Gandhis mission, a cause limited only to South Africa, loyal to the Crown, and based on the idea that its actions were beneficial to the Empire. Ampthill agreed that the elimination of racist South African policies was a principle the Empire should stand for, and debated this point in British Parliament. Ampthill would continue to correspond with Gandhi even after the publication of Gandhis Hind Swaraj in late 1909. Gandhi wrote the book, which advocated Indian home rule, after a four-month stay in England in 1909. As the book is written in a question and answer format, with a significant portion written as an argument against the tactics of the Indian revolutionaries, it is likely that Gandhi was in contact with nationalists in England, their views impelling him to write a refutation.

The book did not add anything of significance to Gandhis previous complaints about British rule, but does give an early framework as to what he believed constituted Indian civilization; a schema based more on his dislike of modern civilization leading to reactionary theories as to what defined Indian culture. Besides his well known distaste for industrialization, Gandhi also expressed his dislike for the medical and legal professions, calling for an Indian home rule where a lawyer would give up his profession, and take up a handloom, a home rule in which a physician would take up a hand-loom, and if any patients come to him, will advise them to remove the cause rather than pamper them by giving useless drugs; he will understand that if by not taking drugs, perchance the patient dies, the world will not come to grief and that he will have been merciful to him. It may be true that too much reliance on drugs is not to be desired from a physician, but to call for complete non-use of drugs is reactionary. Gandhi, who in his life would receive medical treatment for malaria inside a hospital, would in Hind Swaraj describe hospitals as institutions for propagating sin. Wealthy men were not spared the wrath of Gandhi, as the wealthy man under home rule was to devote his money to establishing hand looms - handlooms obviously being central to the greatness of the ancient Indian civilization Gandhi claimed would accompany a home rule achieved using his methods! He drew his conclusions regarding doctors and lawyers under home rule a rule he claimed would be like ancient India through the ideas of western writers, conclusions he admitted were adopted. They are not original: Western writers have used stronger terms regarding both lawyers and doctors. As for education, Gandhi expressed his belief in the sincerity of Macaulays intentions, rightly complained about the modern state of education, yet only provided the vague offer of character-building as a foundation for a new education. When it came to the removal of the British, Gandhi was guilty of much absurdity, exaggeration, and naivete. Curiously, he chose to answer the British charge of cowardice by assuring the reader that our agriculturists sleep fearlessly on their farms today. He repeated past hyperbole that violent revolution would Europeanize India (writing as if India had never experienced war) and that violence was the means of Satan. He dismissed the British fear of a Russian invasion, warmly offering to look after her if she came. As he had done in earlier writings and speeches, he placed most of the blame on the morality of Indians themselves, asserting that the British would leave or change themselves if the Indians were to reform themselves first.41 If such an idea had ever been tried, if would have given the British the perfect excuse to maintain their rule; they could simply use any single incidence of Indian misbehavior such as violence to claim that the Indians had not reformed themselves. Even though Hind Swaraj doesnt inspire in the way that other revolutionary writings did, it nevertheless can be considered a somewhat developed divergence from his earlier writings. This change was only partially to do with the principles such as his stance on civilization that he believed in; otherwise he would not have restored his faith in the Empire again the next year. This period of his political life, culminating with Hind Swaraj, was more a reaction to being ignored by the British evident in writings where he described the Indians in Natal as the neglected sons than a transformation of his principles. It was his frustration at having yet to garner anything positive for South African Indians, even while corresponding with the likes of Ampthill, that caused him to reflect upon and spend some more time reading the works of certain western authors, eventually culminating with his attacks on the West. But with the advent of assistance and response from British officials, came the revival of Gandhis enthusiasm. Having placed himself completely in their hands, he was naturally elated when rewards came for his tireless letter writing. Ampthill for one did not let the publication of Hind Swaraj deter him from arguing against the deportation of British Indians less than a year later: Lord Ampthill, who has rendered signal services to the cause of British Indians in South Africa and, thereby, we venture to think, the Empire, has again raised the question in the

House of Lords. 42 Here Gandhi returns to his old self and the view of his resistance movement as important for the Empire. It was not that Gandhi had simply forgotten or changed his opinion once again as to whether England should rule India. Instead, Gandhi had now decided to lay his faith on the British Empire on its principles as opposed to its peoples or the present state of its civilization. There would be fewer articles praising the Englishmen or their country; now the focus of his praise was for its documents and for the ideals of the Empire that Gandhi believed were not being fulfilled: It may seem somewhat anomalous to a stranger why and how British Indians of South Africa should tender their loyalty to the Throne or rejoice over the crowning of Sovereigns in whose dominions they do not even enjoy the ordinary civil rights of orderly men. The anomaly would, however, disappear, if the stranger were to understand the British Constitution. British Sovereigns represent, in theory, purity and equality of justice. The ideal of King George is to treat his subjects with equality. His happiness depends upon that of his subjects. British statesmen make an honest attempt to realize his ideals. That they often fail miserably in doing so is too true but irrelevant to the issue before us. The British monarchy is limited and rightly so under the existing circumstances. Those who are content to remain under the British flag may, ought to, without doing any violence to their conscience, tender their loyalty to the Sovereign for the time being of these mighty dominions, although, like us, they may be labouring under severe disabilities. In tendering our loyalty, we but show our devotion to the ideals just referred to; our loyalty is an earnest of our desire to realize them. The genius of the British Constitution requires that every subject of the Crown should be as free as any other, and, if he is not, it is his duty to demand and fight for his freedom so long as he does so without injuring anyone else. There is no room for helotry and slavery in this constitution, though both exist abundantly. Largely it is the fault of the helots and the slaves themselves. The British constitution provides a happy means of freedom but it must be confessed that it is not easy of adoption. There is no royal road to freedom. British people themselves have reached what they mistake for freedom through much travail and suffering. If, however, we understand the spirit of the British Constitution, though we suffer from disabilities in this subcontinent and though we are far from happy in the sacred land of our birth, we are bound happily to shout Long live the King! 43 Continued talks with and support from higher officials fed confidence to Gandhi that the glorious principles of the Empire would inevitably be applied on the ground; thus the ideals alone made it permissible for Indians to remain loyal to the King, who was a mere extension of the true genius of the Empire, its constitution. And to remain loyal to such a constitution was not only loyalty to King George, but also to ones manhood! We believe, however, that we can remain loyal to His Majesty despite our untold sufferings. Our sufferings are to be blamed on the local authorities, and more so on ourselves. If we can become truthful [that is] if we rebel against ourselves (against the Satanic within us), thus exorcizing the devil, and ourselves manage our affairs instead, we will not have to put up with any hardship whatever and shall be able to declare, 'Oh, how happy we are under the reign of King George!' To the extent that we are unable to exorcize Satan in us, we shall have to take to entreating the local authorities, and we might thereby slake our burning woes. If we do not do either, how is King George to blame? Someone may answer saying that everything is being done in the name of King George, and therefore the credit for the good things and blame for the wrong things should both be his. What we have said above disposes of that argument. The British monarchy is not free, but is confined within limits...

Moreover, the British Constitution aims at securing equality of rights and equality before the law for every subject. Those who do not enjoy such equality are free to fight for it, the only restriction being that the mode of agitation shall not harm others. Not only is every British subject free to fight in this way, but it is his duty to do so. It is a duty to express one's loyalty to such a constitution and to its head, the King-Emperor, for that will only be an expression of loyalty to one's manhood. The loyalty of a slave is no loyalty. He only serves. If a slave can be loyal, that must be due to coercion. The loyalty of a free man is willed. It may be argued against this reasoning that it would justify submission even to a wicked King or a vicious constitution; the argument then is not quite proper...If the British constitution were to change and lay down that there would be no equality, not even in theory, as between whites and Coloureds, we could no longer owe allegiance to such a constitution, and would have to oppose it. Even in such a contingency, however, we could remain loyal to the King within limits; such is the virtue of the British system ...The British Constitution permits one to seek this freedom. The British Emperor must wish that all his subjects get such freedom; such is the British way. And there are Englishmen who sincerely strive to act on these principles according to their own lights. We can, therefore, and ought to, remain loyal to the British Emperor, our grievances notwithstanding. 44 In hindsight, it is not surprising that Gandhi was swept away by the argument of theory over practice. For Gandhi displayed a remarkable tendency in his life to become strongly attached to mental ideas without considering the product of the ideas acted upon. Similarly with ahimsa, he perhaps remained so attached to such ideas because they provided an alternate to a path that called for a real inner strength or will in fighting his adversaries. By exaggerating the virtues of constitutional theory above that of actual practice, he was relinquishing to the opponent the decision as to whether or not constitutional theory should be practiced. Gandhi, in essence, was voiding his own choice in the matter, taking refuge in the belief that political theory was more important than political reality. If his belief in the remarkable flexibility of the British constitution can be seen as something that came natural to him (i.e. becoming attached to certain mental ideas), it can also be seen as a natural development of his loyalty. He had for a long time been emotionally attached to the Empire, but now the attachment was to the theory with figures like the King being extensions of those ideals behind the Empire. Glimpses of this are present in his earlier writings, especially his calls for the British to follow the teachings of Christ and their traditions, but never with the solitary exception of his writing on the Proclamation of 1858 - is it as well developed as in his later writings on the Constitution. While the evolution of his loyalty presents with the smoothness of a natural development, it does not negate his having had help in arriving at this new position or with the expression of his views. In one of his writings, Gandhi all but admits a primary source for his newfound love of the Constitution to be none other than Lord Ampthill: And in pleading for the general terms in an Immigration Bill, we do not countenance a subterfuge, as it has been called, but we ask for a continuance of the excellent part of the British Constitution which requires that, however persistent a bad practice may be, it shall not be incorporated into law. In Lord Ampthill's words, theory should be sound, though one may fail to carry it out in practice. In theory, there is no such thing as a straight line that can be drawn, but because we draw a line that is only fairly but not quite straight, we are not supposed to have resorted to subterfuge by having still the true, though theoretical, definition in view. To keep our theory right is to obey the law of our higher nature; to depart from it in practice is to concede the weakness of human nature. If, therefore, the Government wish to depart from the theory of the British Constitution to which they owe

their very existence, they are welcome to do so; only, then, they will not have used "plain terms" but they will have avowed their enmity to the origin of their existence. And passive resisters who still cling to the beautiful vision of that Constitution are prepared to fight for making it a reality or die in the attempt. 45 So strong was his attachment to the idea, that not only was he willing to die for the principles within the Constitution, he as mentioned in a 1914 farewell banquet was a slave to it: But, proceeded Mr. Gandhi, he concurred with Mr. Duncan in an article he wrote some years ago, when he truly analyzed the struggle, and said that behind the struggle for concrete rights lay the great spirit which asked for an abstract principle, and the fight which was undertaken in 1906, although it was a fight against a particular law, was a fight undertaken in order to combat the spirit that was seen about to overshadow the whole of South Africa, and to undermine the British constitution, of which the Chairman had spoken so loftily that evening, and about which he (the speaker) shared his views. It was his knowledge, right or wrong, of the British Constitution which bound him to the Empire. Tear that constitution to shreds and his loyalty also would be torn to shreds. Keep that constitution intact, and they held him slave to that Constitution. He had felt that the choice lay for himself and his fellow countrymen between two courses, when the spirit was brooding over South Africa, either to surrender themselves from the British Constitution, or to fight in order that the ideals of that Constitution may be preserved-but only the ideals. Lord Ampthill had said, in a preface to Mr. Doke's book, that the theory of the British constitution must be preserved at any cost if the British Empire was to be saved from the mistakes that all the previous Empires had made. Practice might bend to the temporary aberration through which local circumstances might compel them to pass, it might bend before unreasoning or unreasonable prejudice, but theory once recognized could never be departed from, and this principle must be maintained at any cost. ...it was a perfectly dignified thing for any gathering to congratulate itself upon such a vindication of the principles of the British Constitution. 46 In viewing their correspondence, one can truly believe that the advice and support that Ampthill offered Gandhi was genuine and done without any ulterior motive. It is not simply that Ampthill argued Gandhis case in Parliament on numerous occasions, it is that one can easily see how Ampthill could have agreed on an ideological level with Gandhi that the actions of the British in South Africa were unbecoming the spirit of the Empire. Believing that the Empire should treat its subjects equally would lead him to advise Gandhi that while the practice was crooked, the theory behind was still sound and that work should be done to get theory extended into daily human life. Gandhi, who had had similar notions, naturally picked up on this line of thinking, with the stress that his satyagraha movement would fight to get this theory actually practiced. While the motives of Ampthill appear altruistic, the motive of senior ranking British officials in helping Gandhis cause gives the appearance of cold and calculating politics. After all, for what reason other than political interest would the Viceroy of India at the time, Lord Hardinge who had narrowly escaped assassination at the hands of revolutionaries - and others in the Imperial Government, have for urging Gandhis South African opponent General Botha to consider Gandhis stance? According to a summary of the aforementioned 1914 farewell banquet for Gandhi, he himself admits that help from Hardinge and the Imperial Government was instrumental in getting the Indians the settlement they desired: He had said that, if the Indian community had gained anything through this settlement, it was certainly due to Passive Resistance; but it was certainly not due to Passive Resistance alone. He thought that the cablegram that had been read that evening showed that they had to thank the noble Viceroy, Lord Hardinge, for his great effort. He thought, too, that they had

to thank the Imperial Government, who, during the past few years, in season and out of season, had been sending dispatches after dispatches to General Botha, and asking him to consider their standpoint-the Imperial standpoint. 47 The aftermath of this farewell banquet provides the evidence for the British decision to support Gandhis cause in South Africa. The first item of interest comes from his autobiography, where Gandhi gives the reason for his decision to sail to India via England, when everyone knew war was imminent (World War I would break out on August 4th during Gandhis stay): At the conclusion of the satyagraha struggle in 1914, I received Gokhale"s instructions to return home via London. So in July Kasturbai, Kallenbach and I sailed for England. 48 Gokhale was not in the best of health, and was in Paris for treatment; thus he would have been keen to impart as much as he could to someone who could be considered as close as possible to an ideological heir. For this is exactly what was happening: the torch was being passed on. While Gandhi had had frustrating times dealing with the Empire, he was still loyal to it, and had been mentored by Loyalists such as Gokhale and Ampthill. The British had surely studied his speeches and writings from South Africa, and with the likes of Ampthill and Viceroy Hardinge backing him, they would have no doubt that he would be a good, if not great, fit for the leadership of the Congress Party. It was paramount that such a man be leader of the Congress when we consider that in the ten years prior to his arrival, the Congress had housed many who supported revolt against the British, men who formed the so-called Extremist faction of the party. By the time of the war, the British had finally gotten rid of the revolutionary elements and were looking to restore the Congress to its initial status, a Party that would attempt to serve the needs of the Indian people within the confines of the British Empire. To make sure the Congress party remained limited to its original purpose, the British would require a leadership not prone to rebellious stances, a leadership willing to be instructed by the British whenever it suited its purposes, a leadership that was not hiding anything from the British. Judging by the following passage from his autobiography, Gandhi was perfect for such a position; his recollection exposes the hidden reason for the British Governments pressure on General Botha to accept the Imperial Standpoint so that Gandhi could be promoted from the leadership of the Natal Congress to the ruler of the Indian Congress: The moment I reached Bombay Gokhale sent me word that the Governor was desirous of seeing me, and that it might be proper for me to respond before I left for Poona. Accordingly I called on His Excellency. After the usual inquiries, he said : "I ask one thing of you. I would like you to come and see me whenever you propose to take any steps concerning Government." I replied: "I can very easily give the promise, inasmuch as it is my rule, as a satyagrahi, to understand the viewpoint of the party I propose to deal with, and to try to agree with him as far as may be possible. I strictly observed the rule in South Africa and I mean to do the same here." Lord Willingdon thanked me and said: "You may come to me whenever you like, and you will see that my Government do not wilfully do anything wrong." To which I replied. "It is that faith which sustains me." 49 Thus, the British had a man in charge of the Indian government who was both loyal to them and also willing to advise them of any steps he was taking (thus eliminating the element of surprise). This was a man with a history of following orders of men superior to him, someone who surely struck the British as being honest. Honesty, in of all fields politics, was to be Gandhis principle trait. He wanted to maintain honesty even in politics where lying or at least withholding the truth from certain people, such as your enemies has for long been considered normal and usually of necessity. To Gandhi, being an honest person and practicing ahimsa was equivalent to the Truth,

and here we speak of the supreme Truth to existence. Gandhi had the audacity to claim these two traits to be practiced in all situations as required for Truth (which he admitted to have never realized). There has never been any rigid rule in Hinduism that honesty (while preferable the majority of the time) was required in every single situation in order to experience the highest Truth, for honesty in certain situations (like in politics) is a moral decision, not necessarily - and occasionally in opposition to - a spiritual position. It was not that lying was deemed appropriate: rather holding ones tongue was considered a suitable course of action. His belief otherwise helps explain the propensity of stories within his autobiography on his experiments with Truth that dealt with his honesty, such as the following which took place after he enlisted in the war effort, showing just how far he would take this principle: Though I thus took part in the War as a matter of duty, it chanced that I was not only unable directly to participate in it, but actually compelled to offer what may be called miniature satyagraha even at that critical juncture. I have already said that an officer was appointed in charge of our training, as soon as our names were approved and enlisted. We 1 Col. R. J. Baker were all under the impression that this Commanding Officer was to be our chief only so far as technical matters were concerned, and that in all other matters I was the head of our Corps, which was directly responsible to me in matters of internal discipline; that is to say, the Commanding Officer had to deal with the Corps through me. But from the first the Officer left us under no such delusion. Mr. Sorabji Adajania was a shrewd man. He warned me. "Beware of this man," he said, "He seems inclined to lord it over us. We will have one of his orders. We are prepared to look upon him as our instructor. But the youngsters he has appointed to instruct us also feel as though they had come as our masters." These youngsters were Oxford students who had come to instruct us and whom the Commanding Officer had appointed to be our section leaders. I also had not failed to notice the high-handedness of the Commanding Officer, but I asked Sorabji not to be anxious and tried to pacify him. But he was not the man to be easily convinced. "You are too trusting. These people will deceive you with wretched words, and when at last you see through them, you will ask us to resort to satyagraha, and so come to grief, and bring us all to grief along with you," said he with a smile. "What else but grief can you hope to come to after having cast in your lot with me?" said I. "A satyagrahi is born to be deceived. Let the Commanding Officer deceive us. Have I not told you times without number that ultimately a deceiver only deceives himself ?" Sorabji gave a loud laugh. "Well, then," said he, "continue to be deceived. You will some day meet your death in satyagraha and drag poor mortals like me behind you." 50 What a pliable servant the British had found for themselves, only willing to be deceived, without the courage to look them in the eye and call out their dishonesty. Such a man could be easily manipulated to suit the purposes of the British, primarily the perpetuation of British rule. And if he decided that he could no longer support the Empire, if he were too, as Sorabji said, "see through them, he would hardly have posed much more of a threat. Because as the British had seen before with Hind Swaraj, and as Sorabji knew too well, Gandhi would only resort to nonviolence tactics (which is why their only course of action for Hind Swaraj was to ban it in India after its 1917 re-

release, without punishing Gandhi like they did other revolutionaries). Unlike the original Swadesh movement, which attacked the British from multiple angles and was not averse to violence, Gandhis Swadesh would prove static and easily manageable, only a minor irritant for the British. For Gandhis movement was predictable not solely because it was nonviolent, but because Gandhi, forever willing to be deceived by his opponents, held the view that it was wrong for him and other Indians to hold secrets, to be the deceiver of their opponents. In 1920 Gandhi would describe this withholding of information as the sin of secrecy: One of the curses of India is often the sin of secrecy. For fear of unknown consequences we talk in whispers. Nowhere has this secrecy oppressed me more than in Bengal. Everybody wishes to speak to you 'in private.' The spectacle of innocent young men looking around before opening their lips to see that no third party overhears their conversation has given me the greatest grief. Every stranger is suspected of belonging to the Secret Service. I have been warned to beware of strangers. The cup of my misery was filled when I was told that the unknown student who presided at the students meeting belonged to the Secret Service department. I could recall the names of at least two prominent leaders who are suspected in high Indian circles of being spies of the Government. I feel thankful to God that for past years I have come to regard secrecy as a sin more especially in politics. If we realized the presence of God as witness to all we say and do, we would not have anything to conceal from anybody on earth. This desire for secrecy has bred cowardice amongst us and has made us dissemble our speech. The best and quickest way of getting rid of this corroding and degrading secret service is for us to make a final effort to think everything aloud, have no privileged conversation with any soul on earth and to cease to fear the spy. We must ignore his presence and treat everyone as a friend entitled to know all our thoughts and plans. I know that I have achieved most satisfactory results from evolving the boldest of my plans in broad daylight. I have never lost a minute's peace for having detectives by my side. The public may not know that I have been shadowed throughout my stay in India. That has not only not worried me but I have even taken friendly services from these gentlemen: many have apologized for having to shadow me. As a rule, what I have spoken in their presence has already been published to the world. The result is that now I do not even notice the presence of these men and I do not know that the Government is much the wiser for having watched my movements through its secret agency. My opinion is that these agents accompany me as a matter of form or routine. They certainly never bother me. I venture to make a present of my experience to every young man in Bengal and for that matter in India. No one need think that my public position, and not my openness, saves me from offensive attention. It is the simplest thing to see that the moment you cease to dread the presence of the spy and therefore refuse to treat him as such, that moment his presence ceases to offend you. Soon the Government will feel ashamed to have its Secret Service department or, if it does not, the secret police will be sick of an occupation which serves no use. 51 The very reason for this proliferation in British intelligence operations had to do with the revolutionaries whose influence Gandhi was being brought in to counter. The situation he arrived in during the war a peculiar one; on the one hand British expulsions and arrests along with retirement from the scene of many leaders had led to a vacuum in the Congress, whether moderate or extremist; on the other hand, the violence that at one point was being openly declared had now gone underground, devoid of the political influence it initially held. While the underground movements did not have the intellectual mouthpieces or widespread fervor that it did before, it remained just as, if not more, dangerous to British rule. This became evident during the wartime period when the revolutionaries took part in a series of plans with the intent to destroy the British Empire. These

plots would later be known as the Hindu-German Conspiracy. The German element was pivotal in the most dangerous of the plots, the Ghadar conspiracy, which was an attempt by revolutionary networks, especially those in Punjab and Bengal, to instigate a mutiny amongst British Indian Army Sepoys. They were to secure the safe transit of arms from America into India; February of 1915 was the time when these arms were supposed to be used. Unfortunately, an Indian agent working for the Raj alerted authorities to the details of the plot, who were then able to either thwart or suppress simultaneously planned mutinous outbreaks in India, Burma, and Singapore. Though the Ghadar conspiracy failed, the British took the threat of a reoccurrence seriously, enacting the Defence of India Act of 1915, whose laws would later be extended by the Rowlatt Act of 1919 - legislation with the intent to root out all conspiracies against the crown through severe punishment. During the same period, there was a marked increase in British intelligence efforts; the combination of these changes made it increasingly necessary for any revolutionary activity to be done with secrecy. It was Gandhis complete aversion to that along with his forthright openness in his political tactics, this willingness to not keep any secret from the detectives following him, that made Gandhi perhaps the ideal man for the British to give power too. Because if Gandhi was not like Gokhale, whose loyalty was assured, Gandhi had given the British a precedent for what his strategy would be in opposition to British rule. Hind Swaraj was proof that Gandhi would not reverse his method from South Africa, and would demand complete nonviolence from the entire country, sure to eschew the drop of any British blood. Thus Gandhi was a mere pawn for the Empire, most likely to be a willing servant for their interests, at worst a minor nuisance who along with not using violent force, was a guarantee never to spring a surprise upon his former masters! Indeed one could argue that the Gandhi opposed to Britain was more valuable than the loyalist, since he would channel the nations rage and urge for action into a strictly nonviolent movement which Britain - unlike a widespread mutiny in the army - could easily control, all while giving an illusion of progression towards freedom. In effect, satyagraha would simply become a means to vent, where mere symbolic gestures such as the breaking of Salt laws were confused for substantial gains. When considering all of this, it was only prudent for the British to urge the South African government to reach a settlement with the Natal Congress, as Gandhi better served British interests in India than in South Africa. *****

The Gandhi that arrived in India was somewhat of an unknown figure, having yet to become the
internationally renowned passive resister; the ones who welcomed him warmly were the few who knew of his exploits through the English language newspapers. His arrival was not greeted solely with accolades for many - including Sri Aurobindo associated with the original Swadesh movement knew well the real problems with Gandhis position: We gain nothing by preaching an unconditional loyalty to the Government, such as is the fashion nowadays, or doing anything which even in appearance strengthens the disposition towards an abject and unmanly tone in politics. Gandhi's loyalism is not a pattern for India which is not South Africa, and even Gandhi's loyalism is corrected by passive resistance. An abject tone of servility in politics is not diplomacy and is not good politics. It does not deceive or disarm the opponent; it does encourage nervelessness, fear and a cringing cunning in the subject people. What Gandhi has been attempting in South Africa is to secure for Indians the position of kindly treated serfsas a stepping-stone to something better.... Our position is different and our aim is different, not to secure a few privileges, but to create a nation of men fit for independence and able to secure and keep it. 52

But the old political resistance had passed; if the revolutionaries were not in jail, retired from the revolutionary scene, or working underground, they were diluted versions of their former selves, with previous Extremists like Tilak back once again in the Congress, yet under the watchful eye that Gandhi alluded too. It was not until 1919 that Congress and Gandhi would resume talk of independence. The impetus for Gandhis change of heart is well known. It wasnt the century of mismanaged rule or the state of the Indian people, nor the positive call for self-rule or the truth of India as the Divine Mother, nor even Gandhis famous opposition to Western civilization that caused his about-face. Rather, the transformation is best attributed to an incident minor and an incident foreign - the massacre of Jallianwallah Bagh along with his disgust at the British dismantling of the Islamic Caliphate! If the role of the Caliphate discussed in the next section was to be more crucial, Jallianwallah Bagh did become a focal point for Gandhis ire. What is not mentioned when the events of those times are recalled, is how long it took for Gandhi to focus that anger on his masters. Gandhi gave the British every chance to make amends for their actions, starting with a Young India article on July 17th 1920. Gandhi explained that while he did not agree with prosecution of the guilty parties, he still moved a resolution towards that end because the Indians had the right to do so; rights, we can presume, held by Indians under the British crown: Of my so-called unyielding nature the country had abundant illustration. It was happy to find a great occasion where I could safely yield. I believe still that the country is wrong in asking for General Dyer's prosecution and Sir Michael O Dwyer's impeachment. That is purely the business of the British. My purpose is to secure the removal of the wrongdoers from any office under the Crown. Nothing I have seen since has altered my view. And I pressed it before the very meeting at which I moved the resolution in question. Yet I moved it because there is nothing immoral in asking for General Dyer's prosecution. The country has the right to demand it. The Congress Sub-committee has advised that waiver of that right can only do good to India. I thought therefore that I had my position quite clear, namely that I still opposed the idea of prosecution and yet I had no objection in moving the resolution that involved prosecution because it was not bad or harmful per se. 53 A few months later, after having time to dwell on the controversy, and having heard the opinions of others, Gandhi took a harsher stance. It was then that he started the non-cooperation movement against the British. But he still did not rule out reconciliation with the Empire, as evident from a late December 1920 speech at the Plenary Session of the Congress: Those who feel that the Empire may yet come round, that an Empire of this character will sooner or later be persuaded to do justice, that we shall succeed, after entering the councils, in bringing it to see reason, even such persons will have a place in the Congress in virtue of this Resolution. We have no desire to punish the Empire. The Resolution does not say that we should necessarily end our connection with it in order to have Swaraj. If this same Empire agrees to do justice and grant us our rights, we are ready to stay in it. I claim that this path is the path of justice and that, following it, we can come to no harm. 54 A month later, in a speech at Chindwara, Gandhi reiterated that if the government gave a proper punishment to the guilty officials from the Punjab, and addressed the Caliphate error, that everything would be back to normal: We have set out to win our freedom within a year; if the Government is willing to give up its Satanism and stay on submitting to our wishes and ruling us to give us contentment, we are willing to let it remain. If, however, it clings to its Satanism and wants to hold us down, then

I would say that it is our duty to end it. 55 In a case of incredible vanity, Gandhi told an audience in March of 1921 that only he should be allowed to criticize the government, that he alone had the right to characterize the government as Satanic: You should plead with drink addicts to give up the drink. Entreat the owners of liquor shops not to sell drink; persuade those who intend to take out licences for such shops not to do so. But at no stage should you resort to compulsion. You should not even use the word 'Satanic' to describe the Government. Do not get infuriated over the Punjab. Leave criticism of these matters to me alone. You should strive to put a stop to the consumption of liquor but do not condemn or abuse anybody while doing so. 56 Leaving criticism and decision-making to him alone is exactly what the British would have wanted, as the logical outcome was non-co-operation, a plan Viceroy Chelmford denigrated as the most foolish of all foolish schemes. 57 Of course one could argue that such declarations were part of an effort to demoralize the movement. Yet of all the campaigns the British could possibly face, it was this that would give them the confidence to boast instead of having to quietly look to stop any outbreak of violence, for non-co-operation allowed them the luxury of needing little manpower to quell any disturbance. All that was required of the British was to play their little game with Gandhi, as his campaign either would end in a jail sentence or the passing of some sort of agreement that would allow for minimal gains at best; independence was far from the result. What Gandhi and his followers truly got out of it was the self-satisfaction of having accomplished something, a feeling that their suffering was continuing to pave the road for independence, even if that journey was going to take a few centuries at such a pace. The British disregard for Gandhi was evident in their allowance of him, during the 1940's, to serve a two-year jail sentence in of all places, Aga Khans Palace! Contrast that with Hindu leader Veer Savarkar, jailed for a decade in the Andaman islands, a man whose detractors point to his letters to the Crown from the Andamans asserting his loyalty and pleas that he not be viewed as a threat to British rule. These letters probably had a similar tone to the hundreds that Gandhi wrote in his life, with the difference being that Savarkar was a jailed man scheming for a way to be free, while Gandhi was a free man trying to please his masters. *****

The British failure to respond to his demands for an apology or punishment of the guilty parties at
Jallianwallah Bagh must have confused Gandhi. After all, this was the same government who, if needing a little prodding on his behalf, nevertheless came around to seeing his position the Imperial position by arguing his case to General Botha in South Africa. Surely they would see the light again? Except this was India, and the British would have seen no reason to give an inch. They viewed Gandhi with such contempt that they had no interest in apologizing for or prosecuting the Jallianwallah Bagh offenders, let alone thinking about a change in their stance on the Caliphate issue. If Gandhi started his satyagraha, so be it; after all, Gandhi was not the victor in South Africa, because as Gandhi admitted, it was the British who were pushing for General Botha to cede. In essence it was the British, not Gandhi, who secured better rights for the Indians there, in order to place Gandhi in a position of power within the Indian Congress. If Gandhi claimed South Africa as a prior success (to convince Indians to follow satyagraha), the British knew it to be a contrived victory, and knew they could manage him as they deemed fit.

Thus it was surely a shock to Gandhi, at age 51, to see the Empire he had loved so passionately and for so long, the Empire for whom he had even gone to war for, treat him so coldly. He pleaded with them to apologize, to make amends, to give some sort of gesture, but they would not, and like any jilted lover, Gandhi redirected his passion towards the one he had previously loved so deeply. Yet beneath that anger, hidden behind the disillusionment that led him to denounce the civilization of the West, lurked a longing for that old relationship. This longing meant he could never exclude the possibility of remaining in the Empire, that true independence was a secondary or at least an interdependent goal to the reestablishment of friendship with the British. While Gandhi, writing in the Harijan in 1938, undoubtedly wished for an end to British domination, when he speaks of converting them one wonders if that meant getting them to finally practice the ideals of their constitution which he valued so highly. Or perhaps he is referring to the code of ahimsa. He also appears to imply that if his 1920 non-cooperation movement had only resulted in making India equal within the Empire, it would have been a success: Rightly or wrongly, since 1920 the Congress-minded millions have firmly held the view that the British domination of India has been on the whole a curse. It has as much been sustained by British arms as it has been through the legislatures...The Congress came to the conclusion that the guns should not be feared, but that the organized violence of which the British guns were a naked emblem should be met by the organized non-violence of the people, and the legislatures and the rest by non-cooperating with them. ... The cornerstone of the policy of 1920 was organized national non-violence. The British system was wooden, even Satanic; not so the men and women behind the system. Our nonviolence, therefore, meant that we were out to convert the administrators of the system, not to destroy them; the conversion may or may not be willing. If, not withstanding their desire to the contrary, they saw that their guns and everything they had created for the consolidation of their authority were useless because of our non-use of them, they could not do otherwise than bow to the inevitable and either retire from the scene, or remain on our terms, i.e., as friends to co-operate with us, not as rulers to impose their will upon us. 58 Naturally, Gandhis constant stress on remaining friends with the British, along with his fastidiousness in protecting the lives of individual Englishmen (including calling off the non cooperation movement of the early twenties after a mob set fire to a police station), precipitated a decline in the Indian publics interest in Satyagraha. The British were quick to understand this, as indicated in the intelligence reports59 they were receiving from India. As independence drew closer, Gandhi himself would begin to realize how little his influence was over the masses, claiming that Congress had spread the message of ahimsa throughout the country, yet in the same breath lamenting that it somehow did not catch hold in the 700,000 villages: The day was when everyone listened to Gandhi because Gandhi showed the way to fight the British ...they answered brickbats with bullets and our violence was wholly ineffective. Ahimsa promised to be more efficacious, so Gandhi was looked up to, but today they say that Gandhi cannot show the path and therefore arms should be taken up for self defence. One can then only say that all these past thirty years that we spent in nonviolent struggle has been wasted. We should have thrown out the British through violence.But I do not think that the thirty years were wasted. It was good that under the severest oppression we remained nonviolent. They used their arms against us. But we were not cowed down and the message of the Congress spread throughout the length and breadth of India. Only it did not penetrate the seven lakh villages of India because our ahimsa was the ahimsa of the impotent. No one at the time showed us how to make an atom bomb. Had we known how to make it we would have considered annihilating the English with it. But there having no alternative my advice was accepted. But today people say that nobody now cares for me. 60

But if it was not Gandhi whom they were listening too, then how on earth did they achieve independence? One view is that the British were exhausted after WWII, and that it would have been economically unfeasible for them to continue on. These arguments, however, run contrary to British actions elsewhere, and to well-known advantages of colonization. Take for instance British actions in the mid 1980s, where they went to war with Argentina to defend that priceless jewel in the crown, the Falkland Islands. Or, look at how long it took for the British to relinquish control of territories of strategic importance throughout the world. The British were not tired enough to continue on in such places, and colonies have always provided ideal conditions for an economic revival whether through natural resources or labor or as a consumer market - as long as the subjected citizens were willing to acquiesce to such conditions. The one conflict where Britains precarious economic situation was used against them was during the Suez Canal crisis; in this case, however, the pressure was not from the local Egyptians - it was Britains American creditors who forced their withdrawal after their military had occupied the canal. The Americans had become another source, through their post-war Marshall Plan that sought to rebuild Western Europe, for a British economic revival with such a benefactor supporting them, there was no rush for them to abandon their colonies even with their economy in debt. And what of the moralistic argument, that the British had, through Gandhi, come to realize that colonization was inherently wrong? Indeed, there was an undercurrent of this sort of thought in wartime Britain, but it was not to truly have any sort of influence over the Government. It may have invaded the minds of the intellectual elite, but it did not alter the course of its foreign policy all it did was enlarge an already existing schism between their words and actions. The reality is that national interest usually outweighs such rhetoric, even today. After all, millions of people took to the streets to protest the American and British invasion of Iraq, with the only result being a certain feeling of moralistic superiority for those who marched. A more rational reason for British withdrawal lies not in heady moralistic arguments or faulty economic ones, instead it is reduced to the traditional account for the removal of a foreign enemy: force. Of course, in this situation, the scale of force was nowhere near the level of other revolutions. In actuality, very little force was used to expedite their withdrawal; instead, it was the threat of an insurgency that proved crucial. For the British had ruled India for so long by means more clever than brute. Knowing they did not by themselves have the sheer numbers to rule a hostile nation, they set about creating an elite in India more loyal to Britain than India, an elite that critically included a military force that would obey their foreign masters. Whether the Indian Sepoys were loyal due to the education of the Imperial variety received in Civil Service training, or because of monetary rewards, or both, they were vital to the Empire, even going off into distant lands like Africa to fight Imperial wars. Sepoy enrollments in imperial ventures were not the only efforts the British would receive from the Indians; World War II would see a massive increase in the amount of Indians enlisted. It was at this moment that Indian Nationalists would take advantage of the inherent weakness of the British strategy, for if the Sepoys were ever to turn against their masters, the Raj would cease to exist. This is precisely what happened because of the War, and it is here that we can give Gandhi his due, for he played a small yet contributory role in keeping the idea of independence established well before his change of heart - fresh in the minds of the people. More significant, however, were the roles of Savarkar and Netaji Subash Chandra Bose in changing the mentality of the Armed Forces. Savarkar was instrumental in getting more Hindus to enlist in the Army during the War, ostensibly to aid the British cause, but with the knowledge that a mass influx of Hindus into the army certainly had the potential for revolt. It was this possibility that the British had with great severity and swiftness averted during the Great

War; leaders of the Ghadar Conspiracy were either executed like Kartar Singh and V.G Pingle, or forced to flee like Rash Bihari Bose. While history may remember this attempt as a failure, its true effect, like the movement of tectonic plates deep below the surface, was only to appear later. We have already discussed to increasing paranoia and harsher punishments the British introduced following the crackdown on the conspiracy; such repression only furthered the resolve to fight British rule. What also needs to be explored, is the effect the conspiracy had on British actions towards Germany. It can be argued that British participation in writing and accepting the Treaty of Versailles was influenced at least partially by German actions in India, for Britain was jealously possessive of its Empire, and the Germans had since 1911 plotted to dislodge from England the heart of what made it so powerful. Of course, a few years after that, the British reversed course somewhat, and were keen on trying to prop Germany as a buffer state against rival France and its empire, along with red Russia. Nevertheless, the humiliating terms agreed upon in Versailles are considered by many to have created a teeming atmosphere of hatred and resentment from which Adolf Hitler would arise. It was this man who would shape Europes destiny towards a disastrous conclusion; it was the greatest war fought against him by England that would provide India with its opening for independence. This happened in the manner the British feared the most, through the army. The sheer scope of the war gave the British no choice but to enlist as many Indians as they could for battle. While England had the small luxury of entering WWI at a later date, in the second they were being attacked very early into the war, and for a long time were the sole superpower defending valiantly against the Germans. Thus the turn to Indian soldiers early and often, especially in the African and Far East theaters. What had before the war been an army numbering over a couple hundred thousand, would turn in to an army at least ten times that. The number, over 2.5 million, was 5 times the size of the Indian contribution to the first war. It naturally follows that an army with such a population size, the majority of whom were brought in rapidly during a time when England was heavily preoccupied with defending her nation, would invariably be susceptible to infiltration by men either directly involved with revolutionary groups or men influenced by the call of independence. The sheer size of this influx would also mean that the rebellion-minded enrollees could have a decisive influence on many of the older troops educated to be dutiful serfs. Add to this the widespread and public broadcast of revolutionary activities, the increasing street protests after the war, and the entrenched desire for freedom, and one can see how this takeover was possible. If one singular event that best represented the confluence of these movements, it was the Singapore trial of soldiers from Boses Indian National Army that had allied with the Axis in an attempt to march on Delhi from East Asia. As historian R.C Majumdar describes, there was great resentment at the persecution of the Patriots, and wild popular demonstrations were held over a wide area, from Calcutta to Lahore and Bombay, and from Lakhnau to Madura, occasionally accompanied by popular violence and firing by the police. 61 It was this atmosphere of revolt and nationalism - with Boses cry of Jai Hind on the lips of many - that pervaded India after the war, one not seen since the heady days at the beginning of revolutionary activity. Except in this case, the atmosphere had spread to the Armed Forces. On February 18th 1946, members of the Royal Indian Army in Bombay went on a hunger strike to protest their pay, food and racial discrimination. It quickly escalated from there, as Mutiny leader Madan Singh recalled in a 1999 interview in The Tribune: Mr. Madan Singh continues to assert that "The mutiny in the Navy was the immediate cause of Indias freedom. The British rulers were simply shaken. Nevertheless, the role of the mutineers has been ignored and they were denied due recognition." He vividly remembers even the minutest detail of the mutiny. "The roots of the mutiny in the

Royal Indian Navy (RIN) lay in the British themselves who indulged in blatant racial discrimination over the years. The simmering discontent over ill-treatment, poor service conditions, lack of a redressal forum, humiliating of our Indian political leaders, etc pushed us to the wall and then to the mutiny. However the immediate cause was the arrest of B.C. Dutt who was put under detention. His crime was that he had painted slogans like, "Jai Hind". "After the outbreak of the mutiny, the first thing that we did was to free B.C. Dutt. Then we took possession of Bucher Island (where the entire ammunition meant for Bombay Presidency was stocked) and telephone and wireless equipment, including transmitters at Kirki near Pune. Our quick actions ensured that all naval ships were fully under our command." "Simultaneously we the Indians ratings at RIN had formed a Naval Central Strike Committee (NCSC) to coordinate and direct the activities of the various units outside the HMIS Talwar. Leading Signalman M.S. Khan and I were unanimously elected President and Vice-President, respectively. There is another crucial point to be recalled today. You see, next to the Castle Barracks there was an iron gate closer to the town hall of Bombay. It was cleverly wired to the system so that in the event of an enemy trying to capture Bombay, a press of the switch would blow up the whole of Greater Bombay. This was the scorched earth policy of the then British government. Fortunately for us, this iron gate was heavily manned by Indians who obviously obeyed our command when General Lockheart attempted to capture it. When he tried to advance towards the gate, the NCSC ordered firing which led to many casualties among the British sailors." 62 As Madan Singh said, the mutiny stunned the British, as they had long been confident of control over the Indian Armed Forces, and such an act which precipitated rioting all over India was the most decisive indication that the mood in the Army had grown hostile to their masters. The British sense of security in the loyalty of the Armed Forces had previously allowed them to play another of their political games, in this case one that had started with the British offer of Dominion status (basically independence) in 1942. This offer was not made out of any moral reevaluation, it was done out of necessity, as the British desired the support of India especially its potential man power during the War. Having made that offer under duress, they were faced with having to live up to it afterwards. But the British would only agree to this Dominion status under one condition: that the Indians would create their own constitution. By doing so, the British had cleverly given their Empire a lifeline that, if not enabling a continuation of the Raj, at least prolonged their withdrawal, giving them further time to extract what they could as well as creating a more chaotic situation for the new Indian state, thereby weakening a potential economic and political competitor. The reason for such a prolonged withdrawal would have been attributed to the internal bickering over the creation of the constitution, because at the time, the Congress and the Muslim League were in conflict, with the latter demanding the acceptance of the Muslim nation, to be cleaved out of India, prior to any settlement. While the offer of Dominion had not been accepted, the aforementioned discordance between the two parties remained and the British, well aware of such squabbles, knew they could manipulate this division to prevent any single-minded agitation against British rule. This plan was shattered by the February 18th Naval revolt. Indeed the very next day, February 19th, a date coinciding with the anniversary of Rash Behari Boses planned Ghadar mutiny, the world was greeted to the news that Lord Pethick-Lawrence in the House of Lords and Prime Minister Atlee in the House of Commons made a simultaneous announcement that in view of paramount importance, not only to India and to the British Commonwealth, but to the peace of the world, of a successful

outcome of discussions with leaders of Indian opinion, His Majestys Government had decided to send out to India a special mission consisting of three Cabinet ministers to seek, in association with the Viceroy, an agreement with those leaders on the principles and procedure relating to the constitutional issue. 63 The timing of the Cabinet mission was a clear sign of surrender to the inevitable, since they now realized that there was no guarantee of loyalty in the Indian army or navy, which had long been almost entirely Indian in composition with the exception of senior positions. The British may have had enough energy to rule India on peaceful terms, but the extent of World War II had exhausted them enough that the potential for a new war where they were hugely outnumbered - far more than any other single battle or war they fought on the subcontinent was a little too much to ask. Lord Atlee, according to Chief Justice P.B Chakrabarty who had served as Governor of West Bengal during Atlees tour of India in the 1950s admitted as such: When I was the acting Governor, Lord Atlee, who had given us independence by withdrawing the British rule from India, spent two days in the Governor's palace at Calcutta during his tour of India. At that time I had a prolonged discussion with him regarding the real factors that had led the British to quit India. My direct question to him was that since Gandhi's "Quit India" movement had tapered off quite some time ago and in 1947 no such new compelling situation had arisen that would necessitate a hasty British departure, why did they have to leave? In his reply Atlee cited several reasons, the principal among them being the erosion of loyalty to the British Crown among the Indian army and navy personnel as a result of the military activities of Netaji. Toward the end of our discussion I asked Atlee what was the extent of Gandhi's influence upon the British decision to quit India. Hearing this question, Atlee's lips became twisted in a sarcastic smile as he slowly chewed out the word, "m-i-n-i-m-a-l!" 64 Although the likes of Atlee were able to admit in private what was evident from their public actions, they were not content to let the story of their withdrawal be told without gaining some sort of advantage. Thus they turned to their favorite pawn: The Viceroy told Gandhi that it had always been the British policy not to yield anything to force, but the Mahatma's nonviolence had won. They had decided to quit as a result of India's non-violent struggle. 65 Not only is it curious that the British chose 1946, when Gandhi was not heading any mass protests like the glorious twenties, as the year of defeat to his nonviolence, the implication here is that the British had been forced out of India due to Gandhis nonviolence. Such a reason for leaving should have been against Gandhis core philosophy as written in Hind Swaraj, for the opponent was supposed to have a change of heart, and not acquiesce due to force, non-violent or not. To the British, it was important to spread this particular story of their withdrawal not only to increase the esteem of the British in the worlds view, but to foster the belief that such nonviolent tactics alone could actually work. Ironically, that belief, which they would have wished to spread to their other colonies, may instead have landed to their own shores. Otherwise how to explain the millions who marched in protest of the 2003 Iraq invasion? The only other reason is for the feeling of moral superiority that these protest marches give to its participants. And these recent protests have shown that if Britain is not willing to listen to its own peoples non-violent protests, why would they have listened to those of the Indians? Thus Gandhi again was able to inadvertently aid the British in their foreign policy. Of course, it is not surprising that the British would return to Gandhi in such a direct manner to achieve their ends, as Gandhi had long been an advocate of complete honesty and of believing every word of his

opponents in politics. It was a conviction that had led Gandhi to many arguments with his colleague Sardar Patel the famed Iron Man of India. Gandhi would admit, The Congress has always been fighting against the British. Jawaharlal is a simple hearted man. But the Sardar is a fighter. He used to quarrel with me because I trusted the British. 66 As a natural outcome of such trust and love, Gandhi even went as far as to give his blessings to the future husband of Princess Elizabeth, after the urging of Mountbatten: When I went to see the Viceroy he confided in me that the young man to whom Princess Elizabeth had been betrothed was like a son to him and he hoped that I would write a few words of blessing to him. So when the Viceroy's daughter came to see me two days ago I gave here a letter of congratulation addressed to the couple. She is such a sweet girl. ...And today I learned from Amrit Kaur that the young Princess who had got engaged to be married will be the future queen of England because the King has no son. Anyway if the Viceroy had been a bad man I wouldnt have been so free with my blessings. I do not consider him a bad manBut we have got into the way of thinking that Lord Mountbatten has great status and the English are only capable of devilry. Lord Mountbatten therefore will have to prove his honesty and love of justice and I am sure that he has come to India to do only justice. 67 Gandhi had become a hybrid celebrity-saint to the British, perhaps admired for some of his personal beliefs, yet not feared at all in the political realm. One cannot imagine the British asking for the blessings of Rash Behari Bose or Jatindra Nath Banerjee! Why would they have reason to dislike Gandhi enough to refrain from asking for blessings? They had known this man for decades, known that his real passion, his first true love, was for the Empire, for their culture, political and religious. Indeed Gandhi would write to a friend in 1947, You have referred to my attitude in regard to the British Empire. Let me tell you, I derived no little strength from my implicit loyalty to the British Empire in thought, word and deed. I am doing exactly the same in regard to Pakistan. 68 His loyalty to the British Empire sustained him, it was a part of his identity, giving him strength and confidence. Such a love could not have been truly broken, even if he came to oppose the Empire after 1920. It would remain subconscious to his thoughts and actions, finally reappearing at the end, when it was fairly certain the British would leave. Gandhi was keen that their legacy would remain a positive one: People say I am mad because I trust everybody-yes, while I am called mad because I do not give up my insistence on ahimsa I am also called mad because I trust the British. Why do I listen to Mountbatten? - they ask. If he is an honest man-cant he-a competent commandersee that to allow some six hundred princes...to do as they like, is to make a mockery of freedom? ...The British say they are going, that they will not double cross us. Let us then pray that God may grand wisdom to the British and their representatives. May they be brave and truthful so that after they leave no one can call them names and say that they caused harm to India. 69 Protecting their good name was not enough for Gandhi; he wanted to ensure that the British place in Indian history was officially marked forever. He shared this wish during a July 19th 1947 prayer session: I have been asked some questions. Here is one: "One understands that the national flag that has been proposed will have a little Union Jack in the corner. If that is so, we shall tear up such a flag and, if need be, sacrifice our lives." ANSWER: But what is wrong with having the Union Jack in a corner of our flag? If harm has been done to us by the British it has not been done by their flag and we must also take not of the virtues of the British. They are voluntarily withdrawing from India, leaving power

in our hands...We are having Lord Mountbatten as our chief gate-keeper. So long he has been the servant of the British King. Now he is to be our servant. If while we employed him as our servant we also had the Union Jack in a corner of our flag, there would be no betrayal of India in this. 70 It was only natural for him to oppose such an objection; this after all, was the same Gandhi who sung proudly the British national anthem in front of the Union Jack. It was fitting that he wanted the Union Jack to take a portion of the new Indian flag, as it had long ago taken a hold of his heart. But for a man who in his political life was more concerned with symbolic gestures than substantial gains, it is a bit surprising that he could not understand the opposition to the Union Jack in the corner. Because to have the Union Jack on the flag would mean a continual reminder of the Empire and of subjugation, a symbol of the painful recent past, when what India needed most was a vision of the future in which Indias native spirit could flourish. A future similar to the ancient past in the sense that there would be a natural outflow of creation, manifesting in all fields whether politics or literature or the arts or science; a creation occurring without the shadow of a foreign ruler that had its own nature, its own ideas. For Indias vision has always been grander in scope than mere parliamentary democracy or constitutional rights; the real aim of its Soul, slowly manifesting itself, is to express the Divine Truth - realized on an individual level by so many of its men - in a collective fashion, facilitating an utter transformation of the earthly life. References 1. MK Gandhi, The Story of My Experiments with Truth, part II, Chapter XXVI 2. Congratulations to British Generals, CWOMG, Vol. 3, pg. 136 3. Letter to W. Palmer, CWOMG, Vol. 3, pg. 120-121 4. Indian Ambulance Corps, CWOMG, Vol. 3, pg. 129 5. Interview on Eve of Departure for India, CWOMG, Vol. 1, pg. 347 6. Collected works of MK Gandhi, Vol. 1, pg. 150-151 7. Deputation to Natal Premier, CWOMG, Vol. 1, pg. 97-98 8. The Indian Franchise, CWOMG, Vol. 1, pg. 281-285 9. Relief to Indian Refugees, CWOMG, Vol. 3, pg. 111 10. Long live the king-emperor, Indian Opinion, 11-11-05, CWOMG, Vol. 5, pg. 128 11. Indian Opinion, 4/6/03, CWOMG, Vol. 3, pg. 313 12. Indian Opinion, 9-7-1903, CWOMG, Vol. 3 pg. 357-358 13. Rammysammy, CWOMG, Vol. 1, pg. 136-137 14. Speech at Calcutta meeting, CWOMG, Vol. 3, 216-217 15. Empire Day, Indian Opinion 27-5-1905, CWOMG Vol. 4 pg. 449-450 16. Indian Opinion, 14-10-1905, CWOMG Vol. 5 pg. 98 17. Indian Opinion 4-11-1905, CWOMG Vol. 5, pg. 121-22 18. Unrest in India, Indian Opinion 1-6-1907, CWOMG Vol. 7, pg. 6-7 19. Indian Opinion 28-12-1907, CWOMG Vol. 7,g 456-7 20. Indian Opinion, 18-7-1908, CWOMG, vol. 8, pg. 373-374 21. Indian Opinion, 1-8-1908, CWOMG Vol. 8, pg. 418-19 22. Indian Opinion, 14-8-1909, CWOMG vol. 9, pg. 302-303 23. Indian Opinion, 22-9-1906 24. Indian Opinion 15-9-1906, CWOMG Vol. 5, pg. 419-423 25. Indian Opinion 6-4-1907, CWOMG Vol. 6, pg. 405 26. Indian Opinion, 9-3-1907, CWOMG vol. 6, pg. 358 27. Indian Opinion, 17-11-1906, CWOMG Vol. 5, pg. 469-470 28. Indian Opinion, 20-7-1907, CWOMG vol. 7, pg. 108 29. The Star, 30-12-1907,CWOMG vol. 7, pg. 470 30. Indian Opinion, 20-4-1907, CWOMG vol. 6, pg. 421

31. Indian Opinion, 31-7-1909, CWOMG vol. 9, pg. 276 32. Indian Opinion, 19-12-1908, CWOMG vol. 9, pg. 114-115 33. Letter to Lord Ampthill, CWOMG vol. 9, Aug 4 1909, pg. 329-330 34. Resolution for the Subsidization of Vernacular Papers. 8th March 1911, Collected works of GK Gokhale, vol. 1, pg. 218 35. Indentured Labor for Natal, 25th Feb 1910, CWOGKG, Vol. 1, pg. 293 36. Footnote 3 from Letter to Lord Ampthill, CWOMG vol. 9, Aug 4 1909, pg. 329-330 37. Indian Opinion, 21-8-1909, CWOMG, vol. 9, pg. 306 38. MK Gandhi: An Indian Patriot in South Africa, CWOMG vol. 9, pg. 100-101 39. Letter to Lord Ampthill, 6-10-1909, CWOMG vol. 9, pg. 461 40. Footnote 2 from Letter to lord Ampthill, 6-10-1909, CWOMG vol. 9, pg. 461 41. All quotes from the paragraph are in Hind Swaraj, 22/11/09, CWOMG VOL X, pg. 6-68 42. Transvaal Indians in the House of Lords, Indian Opinion 6-8-1910, CWOMG vol. X, pg. 301 43. Indian Opinion 24-6-1911, CWOMG Vol. 11, pg. 111-112 44. Indian Opinion, 24-6-1911, CWOMG vol. 11 pg. 112-114 45. Indian Opinion 17-5-1913, CWOMG vol. 12, pg. 72 46. Golden Number, Indian Opinion, 1914, CWOMG vol. 12, pg. 473-78 47. Golden Number, Indian Opinion, 1914, CWOMG vol. 12, pg. 473-78 48. The Stories of My Experiments with Truth, MK Gandhi, Part IV, Chapter XXXVII 49. The Stories of My experiments with Truth, MK Gandhi, Part V, Chapter II 50. The Story of My Experiments with Truth, M.K Gandhi, Part IV, Chapter XL 51. Young India, 22-12-1920, CWOMG vol. XIX pg. 144-5 52. The Collected Works of Sri Aurobindo: Supplemental Volume 27. Letter to Motilal Roy, pg. 463. 53. Young India 14-7-1920, CWOMG vol. XVIII, pg. 44 54. Navajivan, 2-1-1921, CWOMG vol. XIX pg. 165-6 55. Navajivan 20-1-1921, CWOMG vol. XIX pg. 204 56. Navajivan 5-4-1921, CWOMG vol. XIX pg. 450 57. Footnote 1 The Leader 26-11-1920, CWOMG vol. XIX pg. 15-16 58. Harijan 4-9-37,CWOMG vol. LXVI pg. 104 59. Indian Political Intelligence (IPI) files, 1912-1950. A.J. Farrington, editor. Leiden, The Netherlands: IDC, 2000. 60. Prarthana Pravachan I pp. 166-70, CWOMG vol. 88, pg. 162-3 61. Struggle for Freedom, RC Majumdar, pg. 723 62. "Hero's Honour for Royal Mutineer. Reeta Sharma, The Tribune, February 25th 1999 63. VP Menon, The Transfer of Power in India, p 234 64. Majumdar, R. C., Jibanera Smritideepe, Calcutta, General Printers and Publishers, 1978, pp. 229-230 taken from RANJAN BORRA, Subhas Chandra Bose, The Indian National Army, and The War of India's Liberation, The Journal of Historical Review, Winter 1982 (Vol. 3, No. 4), pages 407-439. http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v03/v03p407_Borra.html 65. Last Phase II p 77-9, CWOMG vol. 87 pg. 180 66. Prarthana Pravachan I pp. 239-43, CWOMG vol. 88 pg. 323 67. Prarthana Pravachan I pp. 239-43, CWOMG vol. 88 pg. 323 68. Last Phase vol. 2 p 530-1, CWOMG vol. 90 pg. 45 69. Prarthana Pravachan I pp. 154-160, CWOMG vol. 88, pg. 144-47 70. Speech at Prayer meeting, New Delhi July 19 1947, CWOMG vol. 88, pg. 375

The Cow and the Caliphate

In the classical ages, the form of expression used by the poets and seers of the time was of a more
elemental voice than that of today. Its simplicity derived not from a lack of meaning or insight, but from the purity of force, like the rush of a wide and powerful river downstream, it delivered. The avoidance of the complexities or finiteness craved by the modern intellect allowed the poets of those ages to harness a higher power that inspired their work. This power is still felt in past epics such as the Iliad or Mahabharata, because the power expressed still lives and breathes, like it lives eternally in the mystic poetry of the time. In India, the greatest example of this poetry, passed down through oral recitation like elsewhere, was known as the Veda, or knowledge - of the divine kind. The Rishis or seers of the Veda, having conquered the lower life, having freed themselves from the shackles of mortal confines, lived in the supreme Truth, lived from a foundation of eternal bliss. They were not only conscious of their divine immortality, but had also purified their mental, vital, and physical bodies to the point where God deemed them fit as perfect instruments for expression of his greatest truths: thus through the Rishis came the divine word. Although this description of the Rishis as instruments of Brahman is an accurate one, it is also true that the Rishis, being realized beings, were likewise individual centers of divine power and thus had variable creativity. This becomes important when we consider the luminous planes of consciousness the Rishis lived in as well as the poetry they produced, a poetry that has been poorly understood by many, as it lends itself to multiple interpretations depending upon the psychological development of the reader. This is because the Gods and Goddesses as described in the Veda can easily appear, to the untrained or ordinary mentality, as nothing more than nature gods, especially when we consider that literal translations of earlier Sanskrit hymns are often likely to lose the original intent or nuance expressed. Thus it becomes even more difficult to readers of literal translations than it was in the past to Sanskrit speakers to see in the Veda something other than worship of nature gods such as Agni the god of Fire, Surya the sun god, or the river goddesses Sarasvati and Ganga. While the Veda presents itself this way to men of a rudimentary intellect, however smart and capable he may be in other spheres, to the spiritually intellectualized man or buddhi, the Rishis were not worshiping nature gods, they were using poetic imagery or symbols as representative of the divine powers and Gods. Thus Agni, in the material plane as fire, to the buddhi is an agent of the Divine Will in Man, functioning as priest of the psychological sacrifice. Likewise, Surya the sun god is known to the buddhi as the symbol of divine light within man, while the rivers Sarasvati and Ganga are symbols of divine inspiration flowing from the divine word. Moving from the inanimate to the animate, the buddhi finds in the Veda the extolling of cows and horses not for their physical properties. The cow, as it does in normal human existence, plays a pivotal role in the Veda; to the Buddhi the cow is the symbol of illuminated or intuitive thought. The horse in the Veda is read in relation to the Ashvins, twin Riders of the Steed; to the Buddhi they represent the nervous or vital energies in man. While this understanding of the Veda is of a superior quality than the idea of nature-worship, it does not entirely comprehend the original truth held by the Rishis; because although the mentality of the buddhi is evolved beyond the ordinary man, he is still a mortal and is not privy to the planes the Rishis lived in. The Buddhi, when arriving at the notion that the horse represents vital energy, is using the intellectual part of his mind to do so; he is using thought, even if it is of an intuitive quality. The Rishis were beyond mental thought: they did not think in the mortal sense, rather they saw and lived these realities. In their state of divine trance came visions, luminous thoughts (received from above, not created out of the basic external mentality of the human), and experiences

of the truths behind the forms of Nature, truths obscured to the ordinary mortal. In the elevated levels of consciousness they lived in the cow, for instance, is unlocked from its usual function as a milk-producer. There, cows are rays of divine light that are normally penned in by the forces of darkness, and it is the Gods who win them for the Aryan, the spiritualized man. There, the primary Gods such as Indra, Agni, Surya and others, are real entities in themselves, with the material qualities of the thunderbolt, fire, and light being the more external aspect to their being. As touched upon before, the Rishis were more than just instruments of Brahman in material form. By their spiritual practice they not only had visions of Brahman, they were one with him and thus were no longer divided mortals ignorant of their true Self. Since they lived in a Divine state, they were able to in addition to receiving visions, inspirations, and revelations create or unlock divine attributes upon something that had previously not been illuminated as such. It was this power of the seers that explains how both the rivers Sarasvati and Ganga became known as the Goddesses of divine inspiration, as initially hymns had been made in the name of Sarasvati, but subsequent to that river physically drying, it was the Ganga that appeared in the later Veda. The historical event of the Sarasvati drying is further proof of both the divine nature of the Rishis hymns, and the power that became attached to whatever physical entity envisioned by them. As their hymns are of the divine word, they live on eternally; thus even though the physical river ceases to flow, the Goddess continues to be worshiped to this day. And as soon as the Rishis began to extol the Ganga, it became revered in the same manner as it does today, because something of what the Rishi experienced is still felt in the heart of even the ordinary man. It is this opening of the heart enabled by the Rishi that explains why the Ganga and Sarasvati are venerated unlike other rivers, whether in India or throughout the world. It is this reason why worship of a river such as the Nile may not yield the devotee as much as the Sarasvati, because the former has not been extolled with such powerful significance and truth, and thus worship often is restricted to the material quality of the river. However, such is the universal nature of that which they saw, that it is still possible for one with a pure belief in his heart and a proper understanding of the transcendental truth to the forms chosen by the Rishis, to receive psychological gains from Vedic worship. For instance, if the devotee sees or at least believes, a small fire anywhere in the world can become an altar to Lord Agni, priest of the psychological sacrifice. The Rishis, by winning their battles, had unearthed the subtle truthconsciousness behind material things, and their word has forever since been a gift for the rest of humanity, far beyond the land they resided in. That is, of course, if the individual truly understands and believes in the message of the Veda, and if he is not using the Veda for ulterior means. Since the Rishis first delivered them, there have been two major misuses of Vedic scripture. The initial one involved the invocation of Vedic rituals much of which have been lost permanently to make for a quick path to the transient heavenly realms, not to be confused with an eternal union with the Divine, held by the Rishis as the ultimate purpose of mankind. Not only did this practice diverge from the original Vedic pursuit, it was also, according to Lord Krishna, an erroneous use of the rituals: People do not know what the Vedas are actually prescribing in the ritualistic injunctions of karma-kanda, or what object is actually being indicated in the formulas of worship found in the upasana-kanda, or that which is elaborately discussed through various hypotheses in the jnana-kanda section of the Vedas. 1 This earlier practice of karmakanda swept up a significant segment of the populace, leading Lord Krishna to comment upon its lack of permanence even in light of its popularity: If one performs Vedic sacrifices and fruitive rituals without any mistake or contamination, one will achieve a heavenly situation in the next life. But even this result, which is only achieved by perfect performance of fruitive rituals, will be vanquished by time. Now hear of this. 2 If the practice of

karmakanda was a digression from the heights of the Veda, it at least contained within it some form of higher aspiration, for heaven at least is a superior goal than the ordinary earthly life, even if it is still a separate state than union with the Divine. This retaining of a spiritual purpose was again due to the inherent power the older culture had over a populace whose predecessors had lived and breathed the Veda. Thus they would not fall too far, and would be open to the message of the likes of Adi Shankara, who strongly stressed union of the realized Soul with Brahman as the ultimate spiritual aim. While not reaching the all-encompassing breadth of the Veda, his doctrine at the very least set the nation on a spiritual path leading closer to the ultimate truth than the idea of karmakanda or even nirvana as the highest spiritual aspiration. Shankaras message, crucial as it was to directing the nation towards the Divine instead of the transient heavenly realms, unfortunately did not halt the growing tendency towards asceticism and retreat from the worldly life already present in the nation. This retreat of Indias brightest men was an important factor in the affliction of foreign invasion and dominion that was to follow. It was during British rule that the study of the Veda, by that point whose real truth was known only to the rare initiates, was set upon by more than just the rare spiritual seeker. Unfortunately, the British and other European intellectuals who set about studying the scripture were not privy to divine secrets it contained. The first problem these Indologists - as they have become known - faced in their scholarship, the one they still have yet to decipher, was the dual nature of the poetry. They, from the 19th century to present day, have not even arrived at the interpretation of the spiritually intellectualized, that of a symbolic representation to Vedic imagery. The reason for this originates from a caustic mix of rational intellectuality, Christian dogma, and nationalistic arrogance common to Europe during those times. Add to this a less than perfect translation of Sanskrit and the recipe for destruction was set. To the European intellectual, the Veda was the prime example of everything wrong they saw in India. To them, the Hindu they encountered in India was a dark, superstitious creature, and thus their scripture ought to have reflected this. So when they, in their translations, came across the apparent nature worship in the Veda, they jumped to the conclusion that that the Rishis were the poets of a crude and primitive society, worshiping the rain and rivers, sunlight and fire, cows and horses. The rationalized intellectual of Europe was inevitably going to have problems with the Veda, since rationalism was known to the ancients as a lower function of mind, as it works by division and can only move slightly deeper from a superficial view of things. It is distinctly lower than the intuitive intelligence needed for even a mental understanding of the Veda, if not a direct experience of its truths. The view of the ancient Indians as nature devotees also fit perfectly with the Christian backgrounds of European scholars, as it gave confirmation to their prejudices against the heathen polytheists. Here was more evidence that the Christian religion was the one true faith needed to save and enlighten the heathens from their barbarous element worshiping ways. Indeed, this Christian heritage would even influence their interpretation of the chronology of the Veda. Max Muller, a German considered the founder of Indology, fit the time-line of the Vedas introduction to reflect the Christian belief of a 4,000 year old world dating to the time of Genesis. Thus the Veda was considered to be about 3,000 years old, when in fact Indian culture has long held it to be much older. Recently, satellite findings have confirmed the existence of a Sarasvati river that disappeared around 4,000 years ago, helping to explain why the Ganga became the object of veneration for later Rishis.3 Of course, it is unlikely that evidence such as this would have deterred Muller had it been known to him at the time, just as it does not effect modern Christian missionaries. For Muller held the belief that his work was needed to open the eyes of the Hindu to the folly of his religion, as he would write to his wife: The translation of the Veda will hereafter tell to a great extent on the fate of India and on the

growth of millions of souls in that country. It is the root of their religion, and to show them what the root is, I feel sure, is the only way of uprooting all that has sprung from it during the last 3000 years. 4 If Muller wanted to paint the Veda in a negative manner to facilitate the conversion of the populace to Christianity, his more nationalistic peers had another use for his translations. To them, not only was the Indian dark and superstitious, it seemed implausible that such a race could have created scripture such as the Upanishads and the Bhagavad Gita. While the Europeans saw in the Veda the works of savage, the latter works, written in a style more appealing and understandable to the intellectual mind, seemed the works of an advanced group. This discrepancy perplexed the European, especially while looking out at a race currently subjugated by their rule. It appeared impossible that the Hindus were at any point capable of creating such magnificent works, and the European sought for an appropriate explanation. They would discover the cause in the translation of the Veda put forth by early Indologists, narrowing in on one Sanskrit word in particular, arya. To the Rishi, arya was spiritual nobility, and the Aryan was the spiritually noble man, either already pure or working towards purity in thought and heart, on the quest towards divine immortality. In his quest, the Gods aid the Aryan as he battles demonic opponents, known as coverers and obscurers, who seek to prevent his victory. These opponents, often described by the Rishis by the words dasa or dasyu, are not fought in the physical plane, even if the poetry appears that way to many; it is the psychological-spiritual field where this war is waged. The European, unable to fathom the dual aspect of the poetry, thought arya to be a concrete term like the cow and horse apparently were simple descriptions of physical nature. Thus as they assumed the hymns to the cow and horse and fire were in relation to that seen in the material world the fancies of a barbarian - they also assumed the Aryan was some sort of tribe, especially as most hymns involving the Aryan featured war imagery. The hymns also attribute to the Aryan the quality of light, and to the dasa the quality of darkness, a battle between light and darkness the Rishi saw in his higher plane of conscious, not one reflecting any physical war. This sort of imagery is commonplace in other religious or spiritual traditions, and probably would have made sense to the Europeans if they were clued in to the poetic style of the Veda. However, while their minds did not grasp the Vedas double nature, it did grasp at the meaning of many words, especially arya and dasa. These words, when placed in the hands of the European steeped in racial pride, lost their spiritual significance and instead became the identities of different racial stocks. In their translation, dasa somehow came to acquire more than the original qualities of darkness and obscuration, and was transformed into a race of aboriginal, dark-skinned and flat-nosed peoples. Arya likewise was now a race of light-skinned peoples who were fighting the dasa, and at once poetry of tremendous spiritual illumination became the war-chant of an ancient White tribal race. The Europeans did not stop there. In their racial vanity, they assumed that the Indians could never have historically ruled indigenously, that this set of degraded, dark and heathenish peoples could never have created a flourishing civilization on their own. Just as the British were doing at the time, the Aryans must have done in the past: conquer India and breathe some form of civilization into the lives of native savages. Thus the Aryans were not simply an ancient tribe of Indians warring with other clans, they were now light-skinned foreign conquerors of the blacker natives, later giving rise to the Indus river civilization, the Upanishads and the Gita, eventually mixing with the darker populace, leading to their gradual decline. It was the ultimate of racial theories, the one that both explained the similarity of ancient religions from India to Greece (it was a tribal race from the uninhabitable steppes who created this classical culture!), and confirmed the mission of Britain in India. It not only explained the nature of the Indians they ruled over, it also gave justification to their rule, as it was their White stock ancestors

from the Steppes who had previously invaded and, after a certain amount of time, given civilization to India. Belief in the Aryan Invasion Theory (AIT) spread throughout Europe at a frightening pace and eventually became associated with other new ideas including the eugenic theories that proposed the White race to be the natural acme of the processes of evolution. Whether it was through literature like the Veda, science, or faulty archeology, the AIT became an assumed part of history in academia. The idea that an actual race (in the sense of the word as we commonly use it today) of Aryans existed separately from the natives in India, still remains among modern academics, even after the folly of their archaeological findings and erroneous translations, even with the confirmation of an actual Sarasvati river that dried up 4,000 years ago. The academics have moved from the idea of an invasion, which has almost no evidence in its favor, to the idea that a race of Aryans migrated from outside of the country. It is unlikely, however, that this adjustment in their theory will last, if we again consider the root of the original theory, one based upon faulty translations and ulterior motives. The continued assertion of a separate Aryan race or tribe is just a legacy of the past held by academics of both Western and Indian origin, one that does not believe the Hindu to have been capable of creating his own civilization. Thus it is the duty of the Christian to bring the true religion, the Marxist to use an example applicable to academia to bring a greater understanding of society, just as the Aryan - whether by invasion or migration - had brought culture to a savage populace. The idea of outsiders being the savior of the poor Hindu has been ingrained into the minds of many academics from India and elsewhere - ever since the time of the British, who, by teaching subjects like AIT and British literature as part of university curriculum, in part succeeded in creating an elite whose self-worth was dependent upon the approval of others. While the British have lost their political power, the intellectual elite still retains this need to put forth the idea of the Indian, especially the Hindu, as a helpless creature in need of foreign aid, and the idea that their civilization came from outsiders is one subtle yet important way of delivering this message. Unfortunately for the academics of today and the British of yesteryear, military rule of one race over another does not necessarily equate with a likewise superiority in culture. History is full of such examples: the Greeks raiding Troy, the Greeks likewise being ruled by Rome, the fall of Rome to savages from Germany and elsewhere, the invasion of Persia by Arabs, the rampages of the Huns and Mongols, the Islamic invasions of India, the Viking conquests throughout Europe, the Germans once again invading the center of European culture this time Paris during World War II, and British rule in India, are some of the more prominent examples. All of these cases involved the winning side having at least a slight but decisive edge in the military field, of primary importance in the attempt to conquer or at least invade and pillage another country. Political and economic clout, along with in certain cases psychological games, can later extend the time of the invaders rule. The finer things that we consider high culture are not nearly as important as sheer military power for the purpose of conquest. Indeed we can look at one of the examples listed to give more support to the implausibility of this imagined Aryan invasion or migration. When Rome conquered Greece it did not impart its culture upon them; in fact, this contact would provide Rome with almost all of its culture, including its Gods and Goddesses. What the Romans had that the Greeks had lost - a stern discipline and organizational ability that allowed them to rule. Thus it was in India during much of British rule, a great civilization in slumber that other than a few fine exceptions, was incapable of any great collective gathering to expel the invaders. The difference between the Greeks and the Hindus, the one that kept the latter alive through invasions and rule severe, was that the latter believed in their ancestral faith. Even if they poorly understood the Veda and had become obsessed with rituals and caste, they still believed in the Gods and Goddesses, in Sri Krishna and Sri Rama. They did not, like the Greeks, elevate the cult of rationality to the pedestal of human experience. Facing the dual pricks of a foreign religion hostile to its beliefs and an intellectual movement challenging the

origins of its own religion, the Hindu resisted. For if the general view propagated by the European was of a historic Aryan invasion, the Hindu could never be entirely comfortable with such a tale. Gnawing at him, suppressed for long, repressed even, was the belief that his culture was innately born, that the Dharma he followed was the Dharma of his ancestors, belonging to an internally created civilization given forth by the Rishis thousands of years prior to the Europeans imagination. Or perhaps he would have wondered why, if the history of India was that of an alien force providing the culture, did the Hindu not fully internalize the Christian-Atheist dichotomy of the British, or the more firmly entrenched Islamic mindset? While the Swadesh movement created out of this Hindu resistance was bringing about a revival of the Sanatana Dharma (itself the fountain for such a revolution), Europe of the same period was undergoing movements of far different shapes. It was in this era that the great colonial game was being played out, the time where almost the entire planet would come to be ruled by one of the European powers. It was also the period in which the mentality of the Europeans towards their subjects changed. When they first set out on their travels, there had been a strong spirit of adventure and genuine discovery to help somewhat offset the religious and nationalistic elements at play. At the very least, the early colonial period did not contain a systematic or rigorously organized agenda on the Europeans part to destroy render completely inert the worlds other races. They, in some of their wars or even daily interactions with, would destroy certain native populaces, but it was not after any edict telling them to do as such; it was, in the cases where this elimination occurred, due more to a certain indifference to the strange creatures they came across along with a lack of restraint common to that particular European power. Even in the colonial powers where mass pillaging of the natives did not take place because of better values and restraint, there remained this indifference to the beliefs and inherent value of the subjugated races. At best, European benevolence allowed the native to adopt the conquerors religion and social customs including dress, in the hopes of progress. There was never, probably due to the unbalanced power structure that they mistook for cultural superiority, any strong disposition from the European to truly understand the cultures they were dealing with. They came with their preconceptions and whatever conclusions they arrived at later were taken from cursory glances and hastily conceived ideas they had in reaction to their experiences. Because of their failure to develop a deeper understanding of the cultures they had subjugated, they were susceptible to the racial theories of which AIT was preeminent. At the same time these theories entered the scene, European colonization had taken a new direction. To the diminishing factor of exploration and the optimized level of economic exploitation, were added the elements the growing elements of raw power, land hunger and the game of empire enlargement. The racial theories, in association with scientific views of the time, provided support for the rush to colonize and dominate. At the same time the Aryan Invasion Theory was becoming popular amongst the intelligentsia, the theory of evolution was being accepted by scientists of that era. By the late 19th century, Darwins original works, which were primarily a description of one of Natures processes, was now being incorporated into social policy in the form of eugenics. This movement supposed that as the White race was historically the creator of civilization, and presently the preserver of it, that it was then the highest achievement in the process of evolution. Thus as the Europeans rationally assumed, it was necessary that the Whites expand their numbers and that other races decline in accord. Eugenics provided the means in both positive and negative fashions. Positive eugenics had a simple enough aim of getting the White race, with its superior genes, to reproduce at a higher rate. Negative eugenics was naturally the opposite; it aimed at getting the genetically inferior races to reduce their reproduction. It was the latter that would increase in the years after the Swadesh movement, during a time of great political and military strife in Europe. The methods used ranged from the introduction of birth

control to abortions and forced sterilizations. Not only were these tried out on the unfit non-whites, but the disadvantaged whites, the mentally retarded or disfigured, were also targets of the campaign to rid the world of bad genes. Unfortunately, there was very little resistance to this multinational movement that covered practically all the major European or ancestrally European countries. Neither was there any rethinking, like there was amongst many Hindus who had rediscovered their Vedic roots, on the idea of an Aryan race from the steppes. The seeds had been planted: the racial hatred and naked political ambition, the scientific and intellectual stamp of approval and the mechanization of warfare, all provided for a natural growth of a tyranny never seen before. It was always a possibility, in such an environment, that an Adolf Hitler would arise to lead Europe down a path that, while extreme, was not so far removed from the pervading mindset. After all, certain ideas he expressed, including the idea of being a member of a supreme Aryan race, would easily have appealed to the vanity of other European nations besides the German. The Nazis completely believed in the Aryan invasion myth, and would have agreed that India had lost its greatness once the Aryans started mixing with Dravidians. Of course, the wars and crimes of the Nazis cannot be entirely attributed to the Aryan invasion myth, since there were numerous historical and political factors contributing to the climate, including World War I. However, the idea of the Nordic race as the supreme Aryan race, one propagated by Alfred Rosenberg, and the need for racial purity, set a strong ideological foundation and drive for Nazi ambitions. The Nazis, with their great machinery and organization, would apply this ideology in horrific fashion, only understood in complete detail after the end of the war. By then millions of lives had been lost and countless of cities had been bombed, but more importantly, a significant change in the psychology of the continent had occurred. Having awoken to the terrible reality of Nazi Germany and of their own actions at home and in the colonies, having tired themselves out after two great wars in less than a half-century, there occurred almost at once a slackening of the collective will. It was as if the actions committed, even the heroic ones defeating Nazism, ones requiring a significant expenditure of force, had put a great strain on its Nation-Souls, had exhausted them completely dry, or at least for undertakings of a monumental nature including the maintenance of their Empires in the face of rebellions across the globe. One epic war, all in the name of an Aryan race in need of expansion, an Aryan race, as the Veda originally described them, which could not be bounded by racial or ethnic characteristics. The Aryans were not a race of light-skinned, blue-eyed, blonde haired Europeans; they were men of great spiritual nobility, and it was the internal character that counted. It presents as something of a joke that the Europeans spent so many years and lives over the idea of a race that did not exist in the first place. Muller, the first proponent of this Aryan race, would in his later years deplore the racist direction that his theory was being used for. But one finds it fitting that an interpretation of the Veda based on ulterior motives, on ideas of religious and racial superiority and a wish to destroy the self-belief of the Hindus, would lead to the eventual destruction for the parties involved in such deceit, precisely due to that rendering. The Gods, they have their irony. *****

While the Rishis and their initiates had concrete experiences of the hidden truths of the Veda, to the
majority of the populace its light remained obscure. To them, objects like the cow were revered in a different manner; its high value was as a giver of milk and ghee and dung, not because of its subtle principle as a provider of light. As India proceeded in its decline, fewer were to grasp the spiritual significance of the cow, whereas reverence remained for the physical cow of Nature, which was not to be eaten or killed. Having been raised in such a culture, it was altogether natural for Gandhi to

have developed a healthy respect for the cow. However, as he did with other religio-social ideas, Gandhi took this particular idea to an extreme, declaring The central fact of Hinduism however is cow-protection5, along with a more reasonable belief for a man of his era, that the most important outward form of Hinduism is cow-protection. 6 It is understandable that a man receiving the education he did was unable to comprehend the subtle truths of material objects known to the Rishi. For not only did he not have any spiritual realization, he admitted to having not read a single Veda and possessing little knowledge of Sanskrit (a knowledge that could have enlightened him to the relationship between Sanskrit words Cow and Light - both stemming from the root go): If anybody asks me whether I have made any deep study of the shastras, I would say that I have and I have not. I have not studied them from a scholars point of view. My knowledge of Sanskrit is almost nil; even of the translations available in modern Indian languages, I have read only a few. I cannot claim to have fully read even a single Veda. 7 Not knowing Sanskrit meant that Gandhi would have to base his interpretation of the Veda upon the education he received from others, which in his case leaned heavily on European interpretations. Thus, as noted previously, Gandhi would take the Europeans theories at face value, and would promote ideas of Aryan racial stocks and the like. Perhaps we should not blame him for this, as it was years after his education that writings from those with a much deeper understanding of Hindu scripture and more luminous experiences would provide the world with a psychological and spiritual insight into the Veda. Gandhi, having not even the buddhis understanding of the Vedic objects, was to become attached to the necessity of cow-protection. This normally would not have presented much of a problem if it were not for Gandhis even greater attachment to nonviolent suffering combined with his ceaseless desire to appease Muslims, who were considered the most dangerous threat to the life of a cow. This latter tendency would become increasingly apparent when he decided at last to oppose British rule, a resolution made after two unrelated events, the first being British indifference to the massacre at Amritsar, the second because the British had facilitated the dismantling of the Islamic Caliphate. Of all the reasons to oppose British rule, those two were at best minor, for was the incident in Punjab by itself worthy of a massive movement, with no connection to decades of cruel misrule? And in what way imaginable was supporting the revival of a distant Islamic Empire going to help India free herself from colonial rule? For though the Caliphate was centered in Turkey, the idea behind it was far-reaching, as it divided the world into two houses: Dar-ul-Islam (Rule of the Believers) the reign of the Caliphate, and the battlefield of Dar-ul-Harb (House of War), land eventually be taken into the former. It was from the Koran that this doctrine evolved; in it Muslims are told that they are the best of the nations raised up for (the benefit of) men; you enjoin what is right and forbid the wrong and believe in Allah. 8 The division between the Muslim believers and the nonbelievers is accentuated in the Disputer chapter of the Koran. Here the unbelievers are placed in Satans party, and the believers belong to Allahs party, the latter surely being the eventual winners: The Shaitan has gained the mastery over them, so he has made them forget the remembrance of Allah; they are the Shaitans party; now surely the Shaitans party is the losers. Surely (as for) those who are in opposition to Allah and His Messenger; they shall be among the most abased. Allah has written down: I will most certainly prevail, I and My messengers; surely Allah is Strong, Mighty. Allah is well pleased with them (the believers) and they are well pleased with Him these are Allahs party: now surely the party of Allah are the successful ones. 9(58:19-22)

The ultimate objective for the party of Allah (Dar-ul-Islam) was to conquer all non-Muslim lands, for Those who believe fight in the way of Allah, and those who disbelieve fight in the way of the Shaitan. Fight therefore against the friends of the Shaitan; surely the strategy of the Shaitan is weak. 10 The restoration of the Caliphate if it had been successful - would have presented a constant reminder of an unfinished war viewing the Hindu majority in India as belonging to Satans Party, requiring future action violent or otherwise - to bring it under Islamic control. And since the center of that control would have arisen from lands foreign to India and with beliefs alien to the spirit of her Sanatana Dharma, Gandhi was in essence renouncing support of one colonial power for another. Partly because he understood that supporting the revival of an Islamic empire - a cause he held dear - might be perceived unfavorably by most Hindus, and knowing he needed the Hindu masses to provide force in numbers to his mission, Gandhi began to urge support for the Khilafat movement by claiming Islamic rule would give greater security for cows: It will now be understood why I consider myself a Sanatani Hindu. I yield to none in my regard for the cow. I have made the Khilafat cause my own, because I see through its preservation full protection can be secured for the cow. 11 Gandhi felt that support of the Khilafat was a rare indeed the only - opportunity for Hindus to reverse an Islamic tradition: The only chance Hindus have, of saving the cow in India from the butchers knife, is by trying to save Islam from the impending peril and trusting their Mussulman countrymen to return nobility, i.e, voluntarily to protect the cow out of regard for their Hindu countrymen. 12 Just like any Gandhian cause, violence was to be avoided irrespective of the situation; thus to protect the cow could only be done if the Hindu was willing to suffer, even die: To attempt cow protection by violence is to reduce Hinduism to Satanism and to prostitute to a base end the grand significance of cow-protection. As a Mussulman friend writes, beefeating, which is merely permissible in Islam, will become a duty if compulsion is resorted to by Hindus. The latter can protect the cow only by developing the faculty for dying, for suffering. The Hindus must scrupulously refrain from using any violence against Mussulmans. Suffering and trust are attributes of soul-force. I have heard that, at big fairs, if a Mussulman is found in possession of cows or even goats, he is at times forcibly dispossessed. Those who, claiming to be Hindus, thus resort to violence are enemies of the cow and of Hinduism. The best and the only way to save the cow is to save the Khilafat. I hope therefore that every non-co-operator will strain himself to the utmost to prevent the slightest tendency to violence in any shape or form, whether to protect the cow or any other animal or to effect any other purpose. 13 Gandhi not only opposed compulsion in the guise of violence, he was of the unusual idea that it had no place in life or even politics. With compulsion to him involving the mere request of an action, the party in question had to act entirely from their own accord to remove any doubt of being influenced by Gandhi or Hindus. Thus, just as he desired to use his Satyagraha to change the hearts of the British imperialists, he wished to melt the Islamic heart to save the cow by reducing the Hindus to invalids in the hope Muslims would become more compassionate to the defenseless animal: I do not ask my Mussulman friends to save the cow in consideration of my service. My prayer ascends daily to God Almighty, that my service of a cause I hold to be just may

appear so pleasing to Him, and He may change the hearts of Mussulmans and fill them with pity for their Hindu neighbors and make them save the animal the latter hold dear as life itself. 14 This was clearly a man unconcerned about abandoning any position of strength he was to gain, an odd practice for a political leader. For even a free India would be one where no law would force the Muslim to go against his cow-killing desires, because according to Gandhis logic it was the same as converting a Muslim at gunpoint: But supposing even that I myself do not kill the cow, is it any party of my duty to make the Mussulman, against his will, do the likewise? Mussulmans claim that Islam permits them to kill the cow. To make a Mussulman, therefore, to abstain from cow-killing under compulsion would amount in my opinion to converting him to Hinduism by force. Even in India under swaraj, in my opinion, it would be for a Hindu majority unwise and improper to coerce by legislation a Mussulman minority into submission to statutory prohibition of cow slaughter. 15 Gandhi did not believe in the usual political standard of quid pro quo, choosing to believe in the moralistic idea that it was wrong to try and force an opponent to do anything that would be of benefit to his cause, if by the force of violence or political strength or even barter. Thus, after generating a substantial movement favoring the revival of the Caliphate, after urging Hindus to support a cause fundamentally opposed to their interests, Gandhi only offered them in return the insultingly minor possibility of cow-protection, made more remote due to the unconditional nature of his support for the Caliphate: I am as eager to save the cow from the Mussulmans knife as any Hindu. But on that very account I refuse to make my support of the Mussulman claim on the Khilafat conditional upon his saving the cow. He is in distress. His grievance is legitimate and it is my bounden duty to help him secure redress by every legitimate means in my power, even to the extent of losing my life and my property. 16 The absolute support given by Gandhi to the Khilafat movement had in its origin Gandhis irresistible urge to win friendship and harmony with the Muslim. While not a terrible ideal in itself, it is not something so worthy of achieving that one should feel the need to resort to begging, which Gandhi admitted descending too with Muslims: By ahimsa we will be able to save the cow and also win the friendship of the English. I want to purchase the friendship of all by sacrifice. But I do not approach the British on bent knees, as I do the Mussulmans, that is because the former are intoxicated with power. 17 Of all people to beg friendship from on a mass scale, Muslims offered the least possibility of success, for not only is disgust a natural reaction to such groveling, the Prophet Mohammed revealed that the believer should not take your fathers and your brothers for guardians if they love unbelief more than belief; and whoever of you takes them for a guardian, these it is that are the unjust.18 It was this belief that would lead Mahomed Ali one of the Ali brothers who campaigned for the Khilafat along with Gandhi to famously declare that However pure Mr. Gandhis character may be, he must appear to me from the point of view of religion inferior to any Musalman, even though he be without character.19 *****

If Gandhis carrot of cow-protection has the bearing of an afterthought, it is because his deeper

emotions remained in the reestablishment of the Caliphate. The protection of the cow can be considered a mental idea that he was fond of, both for its own sake as something connatural to his ahimsa and as a tool to garner Hindu support for the Khilafat. His desire for the Caliphates reestablishment was more vital, eliciting powerful emotions in him, to the extent he was willing to sacrifice his life for it. Nowhere do we see him offering his life for the cow, possibly because that would have presented a dilemma wherein his principle of Satyagraha and body-sacrifice was up against his desire to rescue Islam and win eternal friendship with Muslims - the community he would have had to directly confront in normal circumstances. The Khilafat agitation gave him a circuitous path to bring peace for the cow; but in order to satisfy the former urge, the latter became of secondary importance: I make ceaseless efforts to rescue the cow. If I have at present staked my life to save Islam, it is in order to save the cow. I do not wish to bargain with the Muslims and so I do not raise the issue of cow slaughter. I am sure that I am saving the cow by offering my life for the sake of the Khilafat, since, as I believe, by saving Islam I shall certainly have succeeded in saving the cow. Unless I win the love of the Muslims, I cannot save the cow from the British. 20 A summary of a December 2nd 1920 speech records him as making the same claim that he was going to save Islam through the restoration of the Caliphate: He expected that the Hindus and Mussulmans of the place would do their duty to their God and country. He was going to save Islam from the proposed destruction. It was the duty of everyone- be he Hindu or Mussulman-to help him. It was better to die while helping him. 21 Not only did he wish to share the burden of being Islams savior completing his progression from their friend to a martyr for their cause with others, he also needed others specifically Hindus to join him in saving the cow. The cow could not be saved by Hindus killing Muslims, it could only be saved by Hindus killing themselves; if they were to die while helping him it was but a glorious act of sacrifice! Hindus and Mussulmans should live in mutual friendship and amity. The Hindus cannot protect cows by killing Mohammedans. If the Hindus are really serious about the protection of cows they must sacrifice themselves for Islam. You must keep your conscience clear. You had never got such opportunities in the past hundred years. Today Hindus and Mussulmans have united together. I dont wish to say that the Mogul Emperors were not tyrants but the oppression practiced by the present Government beats all past records. 22 Judging from his admission of the harsh nature of medieval Islamic rule, one wonders if Gandhi ever thought about the consequences of a restoration of the Caliphate. Most likely, he dismissed such things as aberrations of the past, choosing instead to focus on his own ideas of Islam, believing that it exemplified everything he held dear including the ideal of ahimsa. Such was his attachment to the religion that he took the dismantling of the Caliphate personally, and it was his belief that Islam had been dishonored not British indifference to the massacre in Punjab that caused him to lose faith in the Empire he had cherished for so long. Similar to his belief in cow-protection, we can conclude that his outrage against British actions in the Punjab, while genuine, were secondary to Islamic grievances in his heart. In the same speech below, he would claim that the insult to Islam was leading him to fear similar acts towards Hinduism. But the dismantling of the Turkish Caliphate was done primarily for political, not religious, purposes; this was another of his misleading arguments designed to evoke fear amongst Hindus in the hopes they would kill themselves for Islam:

But how can we be loyal to people who kill cows though supposed to be our protectors, our rulers and to bless us with food? You may ask whether I realized this only a year ago. No; but then I was under an illusion. I believed that I could reform the Government. I believed that I could influence it even if I had to sacrifice my life in the process. I have lost my faith in it because of its calculated betrayal of Islam. I woke up and told myself My dear man, if you are a Hindu, you should know that it is time for you to run away, otherwise you will sacrifice your dharma. Since then I have been preaching non-co-operation among Hindus for the protection of their religion. 23 Even if his fear was warranted, the non-cooperation movement devoted most of its energy towards the Khilafat, with Gandhis support for cow protection the only tangible evidence of him protecting Hinduism being unconditional to the former. Besides, starting a mass struggle for an Islamic empire is perhaps the most foolish way to protect Hinduism! His dangling of cowprotection to the Hindu masses was perhaps the ultimate degradation from the original Vedic love for the cow, for the cow was no longer the physical symbol of Divine thought waves and Light, it was now a political tool to be used. And in this case, the politics had only a peripheral relation to India as the cow was used to further a campaign that stood against the ancient spiritual practices of India. This potential danger was not understood by a man believing himself the savior of Islam, enthralled with the idea that he might live on as a martyr for the religion of Mohammed. His fascination with death and his desperation to earn friendship and love from the Muslim by way of the Khilafat movement was only a foreshadowing of the future, for it would not be the last time he urged Hindus to join him and sacrifice themselves for the sake of Islam. References: 1. Uddhava Gita 16:42 2. Uddhava Gita 5:22 3. Indias Miracle River. BBC News, 29 June 2002 4. Mller, Georgina, The Life and Letters of Right Honorable Friedrich Max Mller, 2 Vols London: Longman, 1902. 5. MK Gandhi, Hindu Dharma, pg. 12 6. MK Gandhi, Hindu Dharma, Pg. 41 7. MK Gandhi, Hindu Dharma, Pg. 42-43 8. Quran 3:110 9. Quran 58:19-22 10. Quran 4:76 11. MK Gandhi, Hindu Dharma, Pg. 14 12. Young India 18-5-1921, CWOMG vol. XX pg. 111 13. Young India 18-5-1921, CWOMG vol. XX pg. 111 14. MK Gandhi, Hindu Dharma, Pg. 14 15. MK Gandhi, Hindu Dharma, Pg. 122 16. MK Gandhi, Hindu Dharma, pg. 109 17. MK Gandhi, Hindu Dharma, pg. 125 18. Quran 9:23 19. "Through Indian Eyes," Times of India, March 21, 1924 20. Navajivan 24-4-1921, CWOMG vol. XX pg. 34 21. The Searchlight 5-12-1920 CWOMG vol. XIX pg. 60 22. The Searchlight 17-12-1920, CWOMG vol. XIX pg. 87 23. Speech at Public Meeting Vadtal Jan 19, 1921, CWOMG vol. XIX, Navajivan 27-1-1921, pg. 251-253

A Brahmacharyi or a Pretender?

Brahmacharya, like ahimsa, is a common practice for the Sadhak wishing union with the Divine,
because the sex impulse is understood to be one of Natures greatest impediments to attaining that Superconscious Bliss. Having this to aspire too makes it unusual for the seeker to return to prior indulgences in any form after finally becoming celibate. Thus it was a shock to many when, a couple years prior to his death, it became public knowledge that Gandhi was performing experiments related to the sex impulse, seemingly in order to determine whether he had any sexual desires left. The most controversial practice was his taking to bed although sexual encounters were denied of the younger women in his ashram, including his grandniece Manu. It was this practice with Manu that forced Gandhi to write to his son, Do not let the fact of Manu sleeping with me perturb you.1 His son was not the only member of his inner circle to become concerned with this practice, as Gandhi also had to respond to colleague J.B Kripalani, sending a letter to convince him of the validity of the nighttime arrangement: Manu Gandhi my grand-daughter, as we consider blood relations, shares the bed with me, strictly as my very blood...as part of what might be my last yajna. This has cost me dearest associates...You as one of the dearest and earliest comrades...should reconsider your position in the light of what they have to say...I have given the deepest thought to the matter. The whole world may forsake me but I dare not leave what I hold is the truth for me. It may be a delusion and a snare. If so, I must realize it myself. I have risked perdition before now. Let this be the reality if it has to be. 2 One of Gandhis followers, Nirmal Kumar Bose, discussed the matter in depth in his book My Days with Gandhi: From a serious study of Gandhiji's writings I had formed the opinion, which was perhaps not unjustified, that he represented a hard, puritanical form of self-discipline, something which we usually associate with medieval Christian ascetics or Jain recluses. So, when I first learnt in detail about Gandhiji's prayog or experiment, I felt genuinely surprised. I was informed that he sometimes asked women to share his bed and even the cover which he used, and then tried to ascertain if even the last trace of sensual feeling had been evoked in himself or his companion. 3 News of Gandhis experiments, which became public in the 1940s, spread to other Yogis, two of whom Swami Anand and Kedar Nath Kulkarni - came to visit and discuss with him his methods, ones they disapproved of: Question: The irreparable harm, if you weaken the foundation of the moral order on which society rests and which has been built up by long and painful discipline, is obvious. But no corresponding gain is apparent to us to justify a break with established tradition. What is your defense? We are not out to humiliate you or to score a victory over you. We only wish to understand. Gandhi: No moral progress or reform is possible if one is not prepared to get out of the rut of orthodox tradition. ...The orthodox conception of the nine-fold wall of protection in regard to brahmacharya is in my opinion inadequate and defective. I have never accepted it for myself. In my opinion even striving for brahmacharya is not possible by keeping behind it. ... If you admit the necessity and desirability of reform, of discarding the old, wherever necessary, and building a new system of ethics and morals suited to the present age, then the question of seeking the permission of others or convincing them does not arise. A reformer

cannot afford to wait till others are converted; he must take the lead and venture forth alone even in the teeth of universal opposition. I want to test, enlarge and revise the current definition of brahmacharya, by which you swear, in light of my observation, study and experience. Therefore, whenever an opportunity presents itself I do not evade it or run away from it. On the contrary, I deem it my duty-dharma to meet it squarely in the face and find out where it leads to and where I stand. To avoid the contact of a woman, or to run away from it out of fear, I regard as unbecoming of an aspirant after true brahmacharya. I have never tried to cultivate or seek sex contact for carnal satisfaction. 4 Gandhi was definitely right in his view that sometimes it is necessary to break with tradition, and that reformers are not ones to wait for others to follow them. But if orthodox conceptions of ninefold walls are not for everyone, Gandhi had still forgotten the real purpose behind brahmacharya. His enlarged idea of brahmacharya was to put oneself in potentially sexual situations to see how much sexual feeling there was left in him, leading him to make this astonishing statement: Thousands of Hindu and Moslem women come to me. They are to me like my own mother, sisters and daughters. But if an occasion should arise requiring me to share the bed with any of them I must not hesitate, if I am the brahmacharyi that I claim to be. If I shrink from the test, I write myself down as a coward and a fraud. 5 The ability to avoid sexual impulses while lying in bed with thousands of women whether at once or one at a time was not the original intent behind brahmacharya. Brahmacharya was not meant to be a continual negation (even though negation is needed at first); it was done to bring about a true transformation in nature, leading to a higher delight. Brahmacharya went further than the simple avoidance of the sex act, whether done by running away or while in bed with a naked woman. The Brahmacharyi was to remove the sexual urge not only in the physical act, but within the mind as well, for as Lord Krishna said, One who restrains the senses of action but whose mind dwells on sense objects certainly has deluded ideas of self-discipline and is called a pretender. 6 Thus sex is to be removed from the mind along with the elimination of the physical act and its mechanical impulses. To simply repress is not enough, because these urges can still remain subconsciously for some time. So Gandhi is on the right track when he denounces the tendency to run away, because life in the mountains may not by itself remove subconscious sexual urges. However, the ascetic life can present a better opportunity to transform the nature than what Gandhi chose to do, which was to sleep naked with a girl every night. Because even though and this is if we take his word for it there was no sexual interaction, Gandhi would admit to Swami Anand and Kedar Nath that the urges still remained: I do not claim to have completely eradicated the sex feeling in me. But it is my claim that I can keep it under control. 7 To simply have it under control means that a lot more work is needed, because the brahmacharyi must eventually remove this lower attachment to realize the divine consciousness; sleeping nude with young women was not the correct method to efface the impulse and attain a greater Truth. While Gandhi talked a great deal about Truth, the following diary entry shows he had few daily activities geared towards that quest, with the exception of prayers to Rama and Allah: Bengali after prayers. Talked to Bisen about... Dictated answer to a question received for Harijan. Went for a walk. Was accompanied by Manu. Massage, bath. While taking bath dictated something for Harijan. Lay down. Mahesh has come. Woke up at 10.20 and took coconut water. Sat up to write. Talked with Mridula. Went to the privy. Spun. While spinning Sailen read out the newspapers. 10.50 Went to sleep with the mudpacks. Woke up

at 11.30. Examined the matter for Harijan. Attended to correspondence. There are letters from Surendra, Anand Hingorani. Went through the mail and dictated replies. 3.10 A deputation of zamindars called. Received the Khaksars. 4.10 Went to the hospital to see Manudi. From there went direct to the station. Prayer at Hilsa. Was accompanied by Shah Nawaz. To be after 10.30. 8 No mention of meditation, hatha yoga, pranayama, the study of scripture, or the surrendering of works to God. The diary entry is descriptive of Gandhis real status as a politician, rather than the usual image attributed to him of the holy man, single-minded in his spiritual aspiration, living in an ashram with numerous devotees. And what a peculiar ashram this was! To some visitors, like Dr. Jivraj Mehta, the place was more like a massage parlor, leading him to write a 1939 letter to Gandhi criticizing some of the ashram habits. Gandhi was only happy to defend himself and detail his bowel movements: I got your frank letter only today. I am immensely pleased. I had not expected anything different. I understand what you say. Maybe, I might not fully implement your advice. Would you object even if I had a massage in the nude at the hands of a man? Do you believe that it is injurious to health if people slept side by side even in the open air? Please examine this question independently of the supposed impropriety of a woman sleeping by the side of a man. I have developed the habit of reading, etc., in the latrine since many years ago. You can look upon it as a kind of addiction. It is a pitiable condition that my bowels move freely only if I have some worth-while reading material with me and that in its absence I am constipated. But I am only taking advantage of the fact that I have to rush along. It would be just as well if you could frighten me out of this bad habit. 9 Gandhi would also respond to criticism from Munnalal Shah, who would later leave the ashram, probably because he did not expect the so-called Mahatma to be taking baths with and receiving massages in the nude from the women devotees of the ashram: Is there danger of my being pierced with Cupid's arrows in my letting myself be massaged naked, or in a thousand naked women bathing by my side when I am blind? I do feel afraid of myself in letting the pure-minded Sushilabehn massage me. But if I am lying blind-folded and those two are bathing, I would feel no fear at all. By all means let those who are as minutely scrupulous as I am make themselves perfectly blind and permit some Rambha (Celestial courtesan) to bathe near them. But anybody who lets himself be massaged is sure to be maligned. If he is sure of himself, however, let him by all means copy my example. 10 In this particular ashram, competition was fierce to prove who the best masseuse was. In a letter to Krishnachandra, Gandhi staked his claim to the throne by recalling a particularly long massage he gave: Amtul Salaam was so ill yesterday that she had to be served. I claim that I can massage better than any of you, including Sushilla. I gave a massage to Amtul Salaam for a few hours yesterday. If you fall too ill as a result of your foolhardiness I may have to give you a massage too, but it is hardly a very desirable thing. Amtul Salaam has many virtues but she is obstinate in an equal measure. 11 The baths, the evening arrangements, the massages (all in the nude), clearly went on for quite some time, yet the public did not know of it until much later. Such secrecy was unlike Gandhi, who once described secrecy as a sin, a man who refused to hold back anything from political opponents like

the British. Perhaps wishing to appear consistent in both public and private persona, Gandhi would deny to Swami Anand and Kedar Nath that he had been willfully secretive, telling them that no secrecy was intended. Everything was fortuitous. Previous consultation with friends was ruled out by the very nature of the thing. Besides, I hold that previous consent was unnecessary. 12 In this case, Gandhi, the man who spoke so much of his truth which he took to mean mere honesty is guilty of a brazen lie. In the previously mentioned letter to Krishnachandra, who had touchingly described Amtussalaam's joy when Gandhiji gave her a massage, 13 Gandhi added a side note that All this can be said only after my death. Let us see where God takes me. 14 Clearly public ignorance of Gandhis experiment was not as fortuitous as he claimed. *****

Along with this secrecy was his egoistic belief that his methods of brahmacharya were superior to
others and that a brahmacharyi must meet the standards set by him, as he related to Swami Anand and Kedar Nath: You have all been brought up in the orthodox tradition. According to my definition, you cannot be regarded as true brahmacharis. You are off and on falling ill; you suffer from all sorts of body ailments. I claim that I represent true brahmacharya, better than any of you. You do not seem to regard a lapse in respect of truth, nonviolence, nonstealing, etc., to be so serious a matter. But a fancied breach in respect of brahmacharya, i.e, relation between man and woman, upsets you completely. I regard this conception of brahmacharya as narrow, hidebound and retrograde. To me truth, ahimsa and brahmacharya are all ideas of equal importance. 15 After the discussion was over, Gandhi would rehash the same belief in his diary, writing, Held talks between 7:30 and 9:30 am. I explained to them my point of view. In the light of my present views about brahmacharya I felt that their ideas about brahmacharya were faulty and imperfect. It is very necessary for them to improve along my line. I have never sought the company of a woman with a view to satisfy my passions. Of course I mentioned one exception. 16 Gandhi also wrote that he did not like the manner of A's questions and the grin on his face.17 Perhaps it was Gandhis boast of superior brahmacharya, contradicted by the admission that he had yet to rid the sex feeling, that amused Swami Anand! Only a man with a strong sense of narcissism (an ego trait the Sadhak is supposed to move beyond) would claim himself the better brahmacharyi, because unlike the athletic tournament, a person does not become a brahmacharyi to prove this particular fact to others or have a sense of pride that he is the best brahmacharyi of all! Brahmacharyi is done for personal reasons and thus should be naturally based on the individuals nature, so to claim that his methods were better than others or to declare others as not being true brahmacharyis was ignorant, especially if we consider that if one is to hypothetically judge who is the better brahmacharyi, the criteria ought to revolve around whether the person in question had expunged his sexual urges. Whether someone has used the orthodox method or a gradual detachment from sex is irrelevant as long as the end result is the removal of sexual urges mentally, physically, subconsciously. Neither is it necessary for one to be superior in terms of nonviolence or honesty (Gandhis truth) as he supposed; these codes of conducts are considered means to an end - that of Divine realization; one does not need to compare himself to others, one simply needs to practice these values to an extent less or greater, so that one can experience spiritual greatness, not world fame or other egoistic forms of greatness. Pride in his experiments and ideas were not the only failings of his ego; a more prominent manifestation was his use of these experiments to acquire a low form of power over the girls of the ashram. Because Gandhi did not sleep naked only with Manu: there were different girls for different nights, depending upon his whimsy. Since the girls were only too happy to yield to his wishes, he had a distinct control over them. With such control came attachment, visible even to

outsiders. It was only natural that the girls whom he massaged, whom he took baths with, whom he slept in the nude with, would come to have these emotional attachments for him. And since Gandhi was not monogamous in his choice for the massages or nighttime arrangements, it was inevitable for one girl to become upset during time not spent with Gandhi, especially if another girl was getting that opportunity. Feelings of sadness and jealousy in the time spent without him would give rise to a desperate need for him, to possess him before he moved on to the next girl. This emotional chaos was evident to Swami Anand and Kedar Nath during their visit, leading them to ask, If your attitude and practice constitutes such an advance in the cultivation of true selfrestraint, why does not its beneficial effect show in your surroundings? Why do we find so much disquiet and unhappiness around you? Why are your companions emotionally unhinged? 18 Gandhi would accuse them of only making superficial observations as they were only there for a brief period of time. However Nirmal Kumar Bose spent a good deal of time with Gandhi, and arrived at similar conclusions that he detailed in a letter to Kedar Nath: But when I learnt about this technique of self-examination employed by Gandhiji, I felt that I had discovered the reason why some regarded Gandhiji as their private possession; this feeling often leading them to a kind of emotional unbalance. The behavior of A, B or C, for instance, is no proof of healthy psychological relationship. Whatever may be the value of prayog in Gandhiji's own case it does leave a mark of injury on the personality of others who are not of the same moral stature as he himself is, and for whom sharing in Gandhiji's experiment is no spiritual necessity. 19 Gandhi, having learned of Boses opinion, would write to him to try and deflect the blame, claiming that a couple of the girls were hysterical before the start of his experiments: I do hope you will acquit me of having any lustful designs upon women or girls who have been naked with me. A or B's hysteria had nothing to do with my experiment, I hope. They were before the experiment what they are today, if they have not less of it. 20 Even if the girls in question were hysterical prior to the experiments it is unlikely that they would have had less of it afterward. Such relationships only aggravate emotional problems, because the girls had to have subconsciously at least known that irrespective of their feelings towards Gandhi, they were mainly an experiment to him, only giving them more reason for emotional despondency. His exploitation of these girls as mere test subjects is not becoming one held to be a spiritual exemplary, for his grand experiment with truth was in reality a display of cruel tamasic disregard to the psychological health of the girls, not to be confused with the sattvic temperament of calm detachment normally associated with the Sadhak or realized Yogi. He was not, however, indifferent to every girl in his ashram; he had a definite attachment to his grandniece Manu, even if she was also part of his experiments. His attachment to her was outweighed by her complete need to make him happy, a need so strong that it affected her health21 and her sleeping habits. The effects of the latter resulted in him according to his diary displaying the sort of emotional warmth associated with affections of the ego, not the liberty of the Soul: Today I was wide awake as it struck two. ...I heard Manudi reciting the shlokas of the morning prayer. I was startled. I called her a couple times. Then she was quiet. She did not say anything, but she was frightened. She lifted my mosquito-curtain and held my hand. I stroked her for a few minutes and asked her to be calm. Now she became conscious and withdrew my hand. I asked her to go to sleep without worrying. I told her not to worry about prayers and assured her that I would wake her up in time. That girl is worrying so much about me! She is just like an innocent child. It is only because of that quality in her that she has remained with me in such a trying yajna. 22

The relationship Manu had with Gandhi went beyond the hysteria of other girls. For Manu, the health and psychological state of Gandhi trumped all. If Gandhi was being criticized, she was going to worry for him. If Gandhi needed a shave while bathing23, she was almost always willing. In some ways she was like a devotee towards the Divine, except in this case, she rarely experienced the joy that the devotee lives. Most of the time, she was sick and miserable; on the rare occasions she had something to smile about, Gandhi made her feel guilty. This was the case after a September 1947 prayer session, during which Manu and Abha Gandhi had the audacity to burst into laughter because they had found themselves out of tune while singing a bhajan during evening prayer. 24 This minor occurrence disturbed Gandhi greatly, leading him to send a note to Manu that such laughter was like making fun of God; he went further, questioning if the two even believed in God: My eyes were closed; but I was so pained that I felt I should be weeping...A bhajan is not an exercise in singing; it should make us one with God. It was like making fun of God. If Abha and you do not believe in God, better give up praying. I depend on you two and if you behave like hired singers, it is as good as killing me. I expected this the least from you. A particle of blemish in you appears like a mountain. I will not tolerate even a single shortcoming in you. 25 A nights rest did nothing to ease his emotions, ones which he did not fully express, for when Manu asked Gandhji whether he was still angry with her because of the incident at the prayer the previous day...Gandhji nodded. The addressee did not grasp his meaning and got busy with her duties.26 Gandhi had assumed the nod was enough to express his dissatisfaction, but later he realized she had misunderstood him, so he sent her another note: You asked me a question but did not wait for a reply. I sent for you but gave up when (...) could not understand. I am not angry; I am unhappy. I am helpless if you do not understand my unhappiness.27 Gandhis reaction to the laughter can be considered an improvement from his past behavior, directed at his wife: I used to let loose my anger upon her. But she bore it all meekly and uncomplainingly. I had a notion that it was her duty to obey me, her lord and master, in everything. But her unresisting meekness opened my eyes and slowly it began to dawn upon me that I had no such prescriptive right over her. If I wanted her obedience, I had first to persuade her by patient argument. She thus became my teacher in nonviolence. And I dare say, I have not had a more loyal and faithful comrade in life. I literally used to make life a hell for her. Every other day I would change my residence, prescribe what dress she was to wear.28 While no longer succumbing to fits of violent rages, he was still officiously imposing himself on the lives of those around him, criticizing perceived shortcomings like spontaneous laughter. His unhappiness led Manu to express her deep regret for her lapse the previous evening, and asked Gandhiji what she could do to remove his unhappiness.29 Gandhi, still upset over the incident, wrote a letter to her with suggestions on how to make him happy again: There are two ways in which you can cure my happiness. One is immediately to write down a confession and read it out this very day. The other is henceforth to make your life one with God. Then there can be no frivolous laughter. ...Read out the confession at the public prayer meeting. That will cleanse the heart. The confession should not be forced, nor should it be out of shame. A public confession is my own innovation...It is my suggestion.30 But this sort of confession is by nature a forced one, because Manu was confessing not so much because she believed in the error of frivolous laughter, but due to her desire to appease Gandhi. And to term it a suggestion is an act of self-delusion for one with such obvious control over his followers. The confession itself was a charade, because Gandhi wrote the draft31 that Manu read during the prayer session:

We two girls were guilty of a grievous error during the prayer yesterday. We wish to purify ourselves by confessing it before all of you. The error consisted in our bursting into laughter when we went out of tune. We knew that it was wrong to laugh but we could not control ourselves. This shows that we are not absorbed in prayer. We thus insulted our Maker. Bapu has repeatedly told us that a prayer is effective only when we are thinking of God. We know that even though his eyes were closed Bapu would know and would be much hurt, and that is what happened. We sought his forgiveness and he has forgiven us. But the pain has persisted. It persists even now. we hope that our public confession will relieve it to some extent. Only our future conduct can wholly eliminate it. We entreat the public to bless us that God may make and keep the two of us pure.32 They did not spit at anyone. They did not insult Allah. They simply laughed over a mistake. The laughter was not frivolous, Gandhis response was. It is little wonder that Swami Anand and others found hysteria and misery amongst his followers, if for the simple reason that they could not even laugh without the threat of criticism! Gandhi may not have gone into violent rages like in his past, but neither had he truly conquered his anger. He had only repressed it, and if in the past he would have flown into rage immediately following the laughter, now he was brooding over it for days, denying to himself and to others that he was angry, choosing to frame his emotions in more palatable terms. Nor had he transformed his need to dominate or possess those around him, for if in the past he had instantly made known his demands, he had yet to change his basic psychological need for power, his demand that his followers think the way he thought, act the way he acted. Gandhi could not create, due to this defect in his ego, an atmosphere conducive to the Sadhak trying to reach God according to the lines of his or her own nature; to search for knowledge, develop self-discipline, to worship, to err, all according to the inherent law of the Sadhak. In other words, in Gandhi's ashram, there could be no practice of a dharma other than his. This sort of repression of his primitive urges of rage and power was similar to how Gandhi addressed with his sexual urges. While he can be credited for making a strong effort to gain a level of self-control, the sexual urges were clearly present subconsciously, to go along with the sex feeling and the probable thoughts. If it were not present subconsciously, he would have had no desire at all to test himself in bed and bath with the girls some part of his being still desired sexual activity. It was only a tremendous case of mental self-delusion used by the ego as a potential way to achieve the sexual pleasure it craved which led him to pretend that his experiments were representing brahmacharya. Such experiments, with true origins in his subconscious urges wanting to materialize themselves in sexual activity, were matched against a mental will preventing any possible sexual interaction, leaving Gandhi sitting on the fence nightly. Since Gandhi refused to completely eviscerate or transform his sexual impulses, perhaps it would have been better if he considering the misery he and the girls lived in - had given in to the urges (though not with the girls under his watch that would have been even more disastrous) at some point, freeing the girls from his control and possibly allowing for a rebirth to his stunted Sadhana the dark nights leading to great dawns. References: 1. Letter to Manilal Gandhi , CWOMG vol. 86 pg. 415 2. Mahatma Gandhi-The Last Phase Vol. I Bk. II pp. 220-1, CWOMG vol. 87, pg. 13-14 3. My days with Gandhi, pp. 173-5, CWOMG vol. 87 appendix 4, pg. 535-6 4. Mahatma Gandhi-The last Phase Vol. I Bk. II pp226-9, CWOMG vol. 87, pg. 89-92 5. Mahatma Gandhi-The Last Phase Vol. I Bk. II pp. 224-6, CWOMG vol. 87, pg. 15 6. Bhagavad Gita 3:06

7. Mahatma Gandhi-The last Phase Vol. I Bk. II pp226-9, CWOMG vol. 87, pg. 89-92 8. Bihari Komi Agman p 386, CWOMG vol. 87, pg. 509 9. CWOMG vol. LXX pg. 95 10 .Letter to Munnalal Shah, CWOMG vol. LXVII pg. 335-6 11. CWOMG vol. LXVII, pg. 347-8 12. Mahatma Gandhi-The last Phase Vol. I Bk. II pp226-9, CWOMG vol. 87, pg. 89-92 13. 9/16/38, CWOMG vol. LXVII, pg. 347-8 Footnote 2 14. 9/16/38 CWOMG vol. LXVII, pg. 347-8 15. Mahatma Gandhi-The last Phase Vol. I Bk. II pp226-9, CWOMG vol. 87, pg. 89-92 16. Bihari Komi Agman pp. 60-1 Sunday March 16 1947, CWOMG vol. 87 pg. 98 17. Bihari Komi Agman pp. 60-1 Sunday March 16 1947, CWOMG vol. 87 pg. 98 18. Mahatma Gandhi-The last Phase Vol. I Bk. II pp226-9, CWOMG vol. 87, pg. 89-92 19. My days with Gandhi, pp. 173-5, CWOMG vol. 87 appendix 4, pg. 535-6 20. My days with Gandhi pp. 176-8, CWOMG vol. 87 pg. 104 21. Bihar Pacchi Dilhi p 291, CWOMG vol. 88 pg. 292-3: It is a sin against God to fall ill. I have repeatedly pointed this out to Chi. Manudi and made her cry for neglecting her health. But I have noticed during the past two days that she has become a little more sensible. I can only hope that this will not prove temporary. 22. Bihari Komi Agman pp. 60-1 Sunday March 16 1947, CWOMG vol. 87 pg. 98 23. CWOMG vol. 90 pg. 384: I had your letter written in English. First, I must apologize for the delay in answering it. I have not a moment's leisure. Even now I am lying in the bath shaving. Usually Manu performs this service, but today I am doing it myself and I am dictating this to Manu. Such is my plight... 24. Dilhiman Gandhiji I p 42 CWOMG vol. 89 pg. 211-2 Footnote 1 25. Dilhiman Gandhiji I p 42 CWOMG vol. 89 pg. 211-2 26. Dilhiman Gandhiji I p 43 CWOMG vol. 89 pg. 217 Footnote 1 27. Dilhiman Gandhiji I p 43 CWOMG vol. 89 pg. 217 28. A Pilgrimage for Peace, pp. 87-91, CWOMG vol. LXVIII, pg. 45-46 29. Dilhiman Gandhiji I p 43 CWOMG vol. 89 pg. 217 Footnote 3 30. Dilhiman Gandhiji I pp. 43-4, CWOMG vol. 89 pg. 217 31. Dilhiman Gandhiji I pp. 44-5, CWOMG vol. 89 pg. 218 Footnote 1 32. Dilhiman Gandhiji I pp. 44-5, CWOMG vol. 89 pg. 218

Saving Hinduism by Killing all the Hindus

It is said by some that India in its past had little by way of unity, that it was not until those outside
the subcontinent invaded that the idea of one India developed. This opinion is colored by the belief that a nation is defined by its political boundaries or the skin tone, language or religion of its citizens. The first of these parameters, that of political lines in a map, in the past representing different kingdoms, can be opposed on the basis that India has indeed had its native Kings who had through battle come to rule large if not the entire portions of the subcontinent. But even if we acknowledge that these Kings may not have brought about a permanent political unity, it does not mean that the different regions of India were alien to one another. This is because the unity India has always had is subtle in comparison to the easily defined markings in a map or the language spoken by a particular group. Even in those times of multiple kingdoms, India was united on the basis of the dharma it followed, the dharma laid down by the Seers and Avatars. This dharma or inner law was the plastic religion followed by all regardless of facial characteristics or language spoken; the connection was implicit, like a thin but unbreakable thread. The political divisions were mere outward arrangements not reflecting the true inherent unity in the old Indian arrangement. During the British era, the situation reversed itself to a certain degree; maps of British India after 1858 showed a completely unified territory, yet at the same time, stark divisions were emerging within the nation, most prominently between adherents of its two major religions. Of course one might say that since only one side of this fight sustained itself on the Sanatana Dharma, a comparison between the two times cannot be thoroughly conclusive. Nevertheless, by 1946, with the British ready to leave and independence just around the corner, there loomed the specter of an India divided into two nations, one becoming the homeland for Muslims in the Indian subcontinent. It was but the culmination of a rising Muslim awareness of a separate identity from the Kaffirs with whom they lived, manifesting in movements like the Khilafat and best exemplified when we consider that the majority of Muslims who remained in India after partition supported the idea of Pakistan. Along with this growing Islamic collective consciousness came open displays of pride and aggression towards the Kaffir. Out of this belligerence came Direct Action Day on August 16th 1946, when Muslim League leader H.S Suhrawardy urged Muslims to show their support for Pakistan by any means necessary. Islamic aggression led to four days of rioting in Calcutta, setting off a chain of events elsewhere, with rioting in Mumbai and other parts of the country, including Noakhali. It was the atrocities committed by Muslims here that led Gandhi, in town to try and bring peace, to advise Hindu women to learn the fearless act of dying without killing; this was a preview of what was to come from him: They were pained at the news of woman's sufferings in East Bengal, said Gandhi. ...He wanted our women to learn to be brave. His advice to them was to commit suicide rather than allow themselves to be dishonored had been much misunderstood. They could use the dagger for self-defence if they wished to. But a dagger was no use against overwhelming odds. He had advised them to take poison and end their lives rather than submit to dishonorThey had two ways of self-defense- to kill and be killed or to die without killing. He could teach them the latter, not the former.1 Who is to say that the woman using the dagger to kill, will necessary be killed herself? And would it not be a good thing for a woman, even while dying, to at least remove from Earth the assailant to prevent possible future attacks on other women? Assumed in Gandhis philosophy was the idea that death was inevitable when being attacked, and it was this fatalism that he brought to Noakhali, terming it the gospel of love that he had come here to preach.2 During his stay in Bengal, Hindus

in Bihar engaged in retaliatory violence that Gandhi was critical towards. The Bihari rioting had not ceased by February of 1947 and Gandhi, after being urged on by Muslim friends, was motivated to travel to Bihar in the hopes of ending the violence: I had flattered myself with the belief that I would be able to affect the Bihar Hindus from my place in Bengal. But Dr. Syed Mahmud has sent his secretary to me with a long letter which showed me that I should go to Bihar for the sake of the Muslims of Bihar.3 Of course, Gandhi did not go to Bihar with the same message of Noakhali, which was for Hindus the victims to die without killing, along with the perpetual Hindu-Muslim Bhai Bhai. In Bihar, his message was not for Muslims the victims to die without killing; his focus was on the Hindus, whom he told to take the burden of not being hostile, irrespective of the general Muslim attitude: He then told them that they must not harbour ill will against their Muslim neighbors. He appealed to both the parties to live at peace with each other. But he held that even if the Hindus alone harbored no ill will against the Muslims, or vice versa, strife would abate. If however both harboured ill will...strifes were bound to be the result. 4 After all, the New Testament rather, no religion taught one to harm ones neighbors: You will consider for yourselves why those who committed these crimes did so. Was it to save their religion? I would rather say that they did not thereby save their religion but harmed it. No religion teaches anyone to kill his neighbors. 5 More than helping the Muslims, Gandhis goal in Bihar was to change the mentality of the Hindu gearing them towards suicide: They must not antagonize Muslims but they must not also yield to threats. They should rather lay down their lives. Gandhiji emphatically said that he had decided to go to Bihar, not for the relief of Muslims, but to effect a change of mentality among the Hindus of Bihar.6 Gandhi believed the Hindus were guilty of grievous sinning, and like a Christian Pastor to his flock he urged a March 14th crowd to confess all: I shall not say that Bihar has ignored my past services. I do not want you to do anything for my sake. I want you to work in the name of God, our Father. Confess your sins and atone for them with God alone as witness. 7 Gandhi urge the Hindus to be brave bravery meaning suffering without retaliation! The speaker (Gandhi) said the one way to forget and forgive was to contemplate Bihar which had done much worse than Noakhali and Tipperah. They should be brave. And forgiveness was an attribute and adornment of bravery. Let them be truly brave. True bravery refused to strike; it would suffer all infliction with patient cheerfulness. That would be the truest way of disarming the opposition. 8 In a March 12th speech in Patna, Gandhi characterizing Hindus as idol worshipers (a common claim made by Christian and Islamic critics) when it is the Divine Force the idol represents that is worshiped urged Hindus to not retaliate against mosques. Instead, he told them to hug the idols within the Temple, because this was sure to change the minds of Muslim rioters! A mosque was also damaged in the village Kumarahar. This also I consider to be a devilish deed. It is no justification to argue that the Hindus damaged the mosque because the Muslims were desecrating the temples. Hindus worship idols, while the Muslims do not. But every human being does worship something or other. ...I am as much an idol-worshipper as an idol-breaker. Still when I go to a temple, I am happy if I find it neat and clean. Those who desecrated the mosque were not men but devils; because mosques, temples or churches are all houses of the Lord. I have come here today to convey to you my grief. You may perhaps be smiling and thinking whatever happened was all very good. But I assert that this is potent injustice. I am grieved when I hear that Muslims have desecrated a temple. Should I retaliate by damaging a mosque? How can such damage save the temple or benefit the

Hindu religion? If the Muslims are about to desecrate a temple, it becomes my duty to prevent them from their vandalism, irrespective of my not being an idol-worshipper. I should hug the idol and request them not to demolish the temple. I should lay down my life to protect the idol but refuse to hand it over to them. My entreaties will impress them, they will realize that I mean no harm to them and then they will become my friends.9 In a March 30th Harijan article, Gandhi would give similar advice on how to win the friendship of the Muslim: A friend came to me eulogizing the sword. The Muslims came here, he said, hurling abuses and unfurling Muslim League flags. We tried to dissuade them, continues the friend, but they did not listen. When, however, we pulled out the swords, asserts the friend, they came to their senses and became our friends. I tell you this was no bravery. The persuasion was backed by the threat of the sword. Threats do not produce true friendship. If you were honest, you should have told the Muslims: "Look here, you are only a handful and we are in the vast majority. You are abusing us. You want to unfurl your flag. And yet we shall not say anything to you nor return your abuses. But we shall not allow you to unfurl the flag nor shall we salute the Pakistani flag." If the Muslims had seen that...you wish to be friendly with them, their conscience would have awakened and they would have become your true friends. 10 At best we can call Gandhi a dreamer, for to have a raging Islamic mob acquiesce to pathetic displays of hugging an idol or a stern lecture not to hurl the Pakistani flag can be only described as a fantasy! Besides, Gandhis friend most likely did not literally mean that his group had become true friends with the Muslim group they pulled out swords against; his point was that the threat of violence was effective in preventing bloodshed. The same article relates another dream of the past held by Gandhi - his idea that Hindus had long shed their blood in the name of ahimsa. One wonders how the ancient Hindu Kings were able to juggle the task of dying for ahimsa with conquering land for their Kingdoms. And it is unlikely that the Sadhus of the past had Gandhis ahimsa in mind when they retreated from earthly life; their nonviolence did not extend into the life of the nation - it was for the individual seeker: The lesson of nonviolence was present in every religion but Gandhiji believed that perhaps it was here in India that its practice had been reduced to a science. Hindu religion prescribe great tapascharya for the realization of ahimsa. It is said that innumerable Hindus had shed their blood in the cause of ahimsa until the Himalayas became purified in their snowy whiteness by means of that sacrifice. The Hindus of today pay only lip service to ahimsa. You must demonstrate true ahimsa in this land of Ramachandra and King Janaka. True bravery consists in true ahimsa. At the moment you are guilty of committing very cowardly acts. 11 Support for these far-fetched claims was of no importance to Gandhi, who never understood that some fantasies, especially his vision of genocide that he brought with him on his return to Delhi, ought to remain as such. In an April 1st speech Gandhi would continue to urge Hindus that dying and not retaliating was the appropriate course, especially since they would be dying at the hands of their Muslim brothers: Let us not be afraid of dying. If we are to be killed, would we not rather be killed by our Muslim brothers? Would a brother cease to be a brother because he has changed his religion? 12 In courting death, Gandhi justified his advice by using the idea that one should not fear things like

birth and death, telling an April 6th audience in Delhi that None should fear death. Birth and death are inevitable for every human being. Why should we then rejoice or grieve? If we die with a smile we shall enter into a new life, we shall be ushering in a new India.13 But Gandhis advice to Hindus was the ultimate denial of life, a complete negation. While it is true that the Hindu view of birth and death is that the Soul reincarnates into different bodies, it does not consider life to be so insignificant that one should allow oneself to be sacrificed like a lamb. Such deaths do nothing for the spiritual growth of the individual Soul, this being the true purpose of reincarnation, culminating in the Soul - divine in itself though rarely master of the mind and body - becoming a self-conscious master of the mind and body. Life is pivotal towards this goal, because it is within life that the Soul gathers the experiences necessary to help it achieve full command. Life having such significance means that death while necessary - is not something to be feted, which is what Gandhi did when saying, Man after all is mortal. We are born only to die. Death alone is the true friend of man. 14 His obsession with suffering and death led him to not think twice about urging Hindus to walk into their own execution. While Hinduism speaks of death and rebirth as necessities for the growth of the Soul (or rather, the accumulation of experiences needed by the Soul for mastery over matter) in man, Gandhi viewed the deaths of Hindus as something bold and exciting to take part in, a means for the creation of a brave new world one where Islam reigned supreme: Hindus should not harbor anger in their hearts against Muslims even if the latter wanted to destroy them. Even if the Muslims want to kill us all we should face death bravely. If they established their rule after killing Hindus we would be ushering in a new world by sacrificing our lives. 15 If only the Hindus were to have listened and allowed themselves to be killed, they would have gone down in history not only as creators of a new world, but as the glorious saviors of Islamand Hinduismand the whole world! Today a Hindu from Rawalpindi narrated the tragic events that had taken place there. ...The villages around Rawalpindi have been reduced to ashes. ...The Hindus of the Punjab are seething with anger. The Sikhs say that they are the followers of Guru Gobind Singh who has taught them how to wield the sword. But I would exhort the Hindus and Sikhs again and again not to retaliate. I make bold to say that if Hindus and Sikhs sacrifice their lives at the hands of Muslims without rancor or retaliation they will become the saviors not only of their own religions but also of Islam and the whole world. 16 Just like with the Khilafat movement, Gandhi wished to save Islam, except this time it was not from the geopolitics of the British Empire, it was from the hands of Hindus in a battle for their lives. Little wonder that many Hindus were becoming furious with him. Gandhi, aware of the anger when in an April 4th discussion - facing Hindu refugees from Pakistan areas, gave rare sensible advice to go along with his usual call for submission: Q: You tell people to discard arms, but in the Punjab the Muslims kill the Hindus at sight. You have no time even to go to the Punjab. Do you want us to be butchered like sheep? G: If all the Punjabis were to die to the last man without killing, the Punjab would become immortal. It is more valiant to get killed than to kill. Of course my condition is that even if we are facing death we must not take up arms against them. But you take up arms and when you are defeated you come to me. Of what help can I be to you in these circumstances? If you cared to listen to me, I could restore calm in the Punjab even from here. One thousand lost their lives of course, but not like brave men. I would have liked the sixteen who escaped

by hiding to have come into the open and courted death. More is the pity. What a difference it would have made if they had bravely offered themselves as a nonviolent, willing sacrifice! Oppose with ahimsa if you can, but go down fighting by all means if you have not the nonviolence of the brave. Do not turn cowards. 17 Understanding the rage of the refugees he was talking too is what made Gandhi placate them by advising to fight only if they were not up to the task of using his ahimsa. It was the belief that his ahimsa ideally should be used at all times that made him continually stress mass suicide to the Hindus. Gandhi desired mass suicide because he abhorred violence, because he thought the spiritual thing to do was to reject violence in all situations. While we can compliment Gandhi for his wish to remove himself from violence, he was approaching it in the wrong manner. In the Sanatana Dharma, the idea is to detach oneself from the results (and the act itself even while performing it) of the action (in this case violence) by surrendering said action and subsequent results to God, as opposed to simply refusing to partake in the act. Thus there was not to be any sort of malicious pleasure or despair (modes of rajas) to be taken from violent acts; it was simply action to be undertaken with a Sattvic temperament, based on the knowledge that such killings were only transient deaths. This detachment from the action of killing is of a different nature to Gandhis wish for the Hindu to remain inert, which is not to be confused with detachment; Gandhis advice is instead the practice of inaction or Tamas. Because to fight back and to run away are two forms of action, the latter of which should not always be confused with cowardice, because at times it can be necessary to regroup and regenerate the strength needed to win the battle. Choosing to remain and be slaughtered when the possibility of escape appears is the lowest form of Ignorance, of ego, because while we usually associate the ego with attachment to modes of rajas, it also attaches itself to modes of Tamas or inaction. It is through concentration and surrender not callous indifference and refusal to engage - that one removes oneself from attachment, even during warfare. Gandhi not only preached Tamas to Hindus, he told them to enjoy their fate, to enjoy being killed by Muslims (again the sattvic temperament would not take perverse pleasure in the action): But Jinnah Saheb presides over a great organization. Once he has affixed his signature to the appeal, how can even one Hindu be killed at the hands of the Muslims? 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 rancor. 18 In the same speech, Gandhi made it clear that inertia would reap the Hindus a reward he cherished that of martyrdom: There is nothing brave about dying while killing. It is an illusion of bravery. The true martyr is one who lays down his life without killing. 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. You may compliment me or curse me for talking in this manner; but I shall only say what I feel in my heart. 19 Even though it was Gandhis heartfelt wish to see all Hindus killed, the possibility of martyrdom or even canonization did not appeal to them, and many remained angry. In a May 28th speech Gandhi related a question he was asked of which he misunderstood the implication that hinted at the future: Yesterday I was asked what we should do with a mad dog, whether we should not kill it. This is an odd question. He should have asked what should be done when a man went mad. 20 During the same speech he gave the usual advice to Hindus who were afraid of rumored June 2nd Islamic plans of attack on them in Pakistan areas:

We hear from all sides speculations about June 2. ...Now there is talk of killing all the Hindus. And the Hindus would ask why, if the Muslims kill us, we should not kill them in return. They too would want to spill blood. If this is not madness, what else is it? I trust that you, who are seated here so peacefully, would not give in to such frenzy. If the people who are caught in the frenzy are bent upon killing us, we would let them do so. Would they be cured of their madness if we let ourselves be killed? The prevailing madness is not such as would blind us to all reason. Even when a really mad person rushes toward us with a knife in his hand, we should face the danger. We do not panic. Similarly, if the Muslims come with raised swords screaming for Pakistan, I would tell them that they cannot have Pakistan at the point of the sword. They must first cut me to pieces before they vivisect the country. 21 Saying that Pakistan would only be created over his mutilated body showed an exaggerated belief in his own importance. As a politician Gandhi had a certain amount of power to determine the outcome of partition, but if the Muslims of Pakistan killed or made the Hindus of those lands flee, then the goal of partition would have been achieved without any concern for Gandhis proclamations from his confines in Delhi. By telling the Hindus of Pakistan to sacrifice their lives he was aiding the Islamic goal of Pakistan that he claimed to be against. Hindus remaining in Pakistani territory knew of the potential danger facing them, and they wrote Gandhi urging him to go to Sindh. They actually thought he might protect them: Why should the Hindus in Sind be afraid? Why should they panic? I have a letter from there saying that the Hindus are overcome with fear. But instead of being frightened, why do they not take the name of Rama? The people of Sind want me to go to them. I have not been to Sind for many years but I have maintained such close relations with the people of Sind that at one time I used to call myself a Sindhi. I used to have Sindhi companions also in South Africa. Sindhis, Marwaris, Punjabis, all have co-operated with me. Some of them even drank and ate nonvegitarian food. In spite of their inability to give up these things they called themselves Hindus. I was friends with all of them. One of them asks me in a letter if I have forgotten him and Sind? But how can I forget? 22 It may be true that Gandhi did not forget Sindh, but he preferred that Hindus remain there and die, and did not feel the need to travel to Sindh to deliver this message in person. A similar situation arose in April of that year when he was asked why he did not go to the Punjab to help Hindus under attack. To justify his decision, Gandhi misrepresented a couple of Hindu ideas. He first claimed that it was his Svadharma to go to Bihar. I worship the Gita. The Gita ordains that one should perform one's own duty and stick to one's own field of action. The Gita clearly states that better is death in the discharge of one's own duty and in one's own field. Running after anothers function is fraught with danger. Hence, staying in a place like Delhi which is anothers domain is for me fraught with danger. 23 Svadharma is in relation to ones inner nature and abilities, not to a particular place, and so would have had nothing to do with Delhi or Punjab or Bihar. Following ones Svadharma is best defined as living towards the highest ideals of ones deepest nature, ideals not always in unison with others or external concepts, because their origin is from an inner law. Gandhi, writer of an entire book entitled Hindu Dharma, had not the basic understanding what Dharma meant; he relied upon the European interpretation that Dharma meant duty, but duty is often an external imposition upon an individuals true law, such as a duty to allow oneself to be murdered when it is ones law to fight. The next justification he gave in the same April 11th speech was that he had received no inner voice regarding Punjab, saying, If I had had a call from God directing me to go to the Punjab I would have certainly gone there. You may well ask me if it is God who prompts me. That way, God does not come to me in person. But I do hear an inner voice. One who becomes a devotee of God hears His voice from within. I did not hear such a voice with regard to the Punjab.24

It is true that many devotees are guided by an Adesh, but in Gandhis case it is doubtful since he admittedly was not close to gaining Self-realization25 and because - in the same speech - he conceded to mentally debating whether or not to go to Punjab: But let me tell you that I have thought enough about going to the Punjab, and have come to the conclusion that my going there now would not serve any particular purpose, because we do not rule the Province.26 One who receives an Adesh does not need to sit and back and think about a decision. The devotee waits in silence until he hears a command. For Gandhi, such thinking on the merits of going to Punjab likely included the idea that Bihar offered more potential benefits to his goals. In Punjab at this time, Hindus were on the defensive and were most likely to be killed even if fighting back, but in Bihar, Hindus were on the attack. Gandhi disapproved the later more, thus his choice to travel to Bihar. Of course that did not stop him from conveying his suicidal message to the Punjabis: But whether I go to the Punjab or not, I shall certainly work for it. Whatever I want to tell the people after going there can as well be conveyed to them from outside the Punjab. I want to teach only one thing which I shall never tire of repeating. And it is that every Hindu and every Sikh should resolve that he would die, but would never kill. Master Tara Singh says that Sikhs shall kill. In my view what he says is not proper. He should say that if they do not get what they want they would die for it, even if they may be only a handful, and rest only when they had achieved their goal. He should not talk in terms of killing. I need not go all the way to the Punjab to say this. 27 He would deliver his message directly to Tara Singh, describing the meeting to a June 4th audience, saying, Master Tara Singh came to see me today. I told him that he should not remain a lone soldier, but become equal to one and a quarter lakh. The Sikhs should learn to die without killing and then the history of the Punjab would be completely changed. With it the history of India would change too.28 Of course the history of Punjab and India would have changed if Gandhis ideas had come to fruition both would have become completely Islamic! Hindus and Sikhs, if for the simple reason that they wanted to defend their lives using violence when necessary, sent letter after letter in the hope he might understand their plight, that he might recognize common sense. But they were talking to the wrong man; Gandhi was not the type to easily lose attachment to his web of ideas or empathize with those opposing his views: What pricks them the most is the fact that I keep calling upon them to lay down their lives instead of rousing them to kill. They want me to call upon the Hindus to avenge violence by violence, arson by arson. But I cannot deny my whole life and be guilty of advocating the rule of the jungle instead of the law of humanity. If someone comes to kill me I would die imploring God to have mercy on him. Instead, these people insist that I should first ask you to kill and then die if need be. They tell me that if I am not prepared to say such a thing, I should keep my courage to myself and retire to the forest. 29 Outsiders were not the only ones to differ with Gandhi. One of his oldest co-workers, Purushottamdas Tandon, came to support the use of violence for self-defense: Shri Purushottamdas Tandon paid me a visit. I have told you how I was pained by Tandonji's statement that every man and woman should carry armsTandonji explained that although he did not believe in tit for tat, he certainly believed that everyone should carry arms for self-defence Tandonji said we might not adopt the principle of tit for tat But if we did not take up arms and show our strength how were we to defend ourselves?30 Gandhis answer to Tandon was that he agreed that

self-defense was necessary - of course, Gandhi had his own ideas as to what constituted selfdefense: My answer is self-defence is necessary, but how does one defend oneself?If someone comes to me and says, "Will you or will you not utter Ramanama? if you do not, look at this sword." Then I shall say that although I am uttering Ramanama every moment I will not do so at the point of the sword. Thus I shall risk my life in self-defence.31 Defending oneself in such a situation should naturally mean to save your life; simply denying the wish of the attacker can in some instances be a noble thing, but can be considered as defiance rather than defense. His distorted view on self-defense was one of many reasons he continued to receive strongly worded letters: I am being inundated with abusive letters and telegrams. This shows how grossly some people misunderstand my ideas. Some think I consider myself too big even to reply to their letters while others think I am enjoying myself in Delhi while Punjab is in flames.32 One letter went further and accused him of not living up to the ideals of the Gita that he preached: A friend has written me a harsh letter asking me if I must still persist in my madness. "In a few days you will be leaving this world," he says, "Will you never learn? If Purushottamdas Tandon says that everyone should take up the sword, become a soldier and defend himself, why do you feel hurt? You are a votary of the Gita. You should be beyond dualism. You should not feel grief or joy over every little thing. You talk like the foolish Sadhu who again and again tried to save a scorpion from drowning while it went on stinging him. If you cannot give up your refrain of ahimsa you can at least allow others to take their path of choosing. Why do you become a hindrance? 33 Gandhi to his credit acknowledged that he was not beyond the sufferings of ego, in this case due to a mere difference in opinion with a close co-worker: When I heard that he was saying the things he did I was grieved If I had perfect steadfastness of intellect I would never have felt hurt. Even as it is I am trying not to feel hurt. But each day I advance a little further.34 In response to the example of the Sadhu and the scorpion, Gandhi displayed an ignorance of basic human nature: The example of the Sadhu and the scorpion is a good one. When some person without faith asked him why he was so set on saving the scorpion, whose very nature it was to sting, he answered: "If it is in the nature of the scorpion to sting it is in the nature of man to put up with the sting. If the scorpion cannot give up its nature, how can I give up mine? Do I have to become a scorpion that stings and kills it?" 35 To begin, unusual is the motive for a man to save a scorpion from drowning. It is even less likely for a man to put up with such a stinging, for the basic human and animal response to such painful stimuli would be either to kill or at least to remove the scorpion from the body. Only someone numb to all sensation or perhaps some plant species - would be of the nature to receive a sting without any response. Tandon, arriving at an opposing viewpoint, had thus taken the nature of a scorpion, leading Gandhi to slander a man who had committed no crime: In the end the learned friend counsels that if I cannot give up being stubborn and must persist in ahimsa I should at least not stand in the ways of others. Shall I then be a hypocrite. Shall I deceive the world? The world then will only say that there is a so-called Mahatma in India who mouths sweet phrases about ahimsa while his coworkers indulge in killing. 36 The international opinion of him was not his only concern; of higher priority was to make the Hindu listen to him, to make the Hindu do what he said:

If I can thus make myself heard by even the Hindus alone, you will see that India holds her head high in the world. I say nothing of the Muslims. They think I am their enemy but the Hindus and the Sikhs do not consider me their enemy. If the Hindus will heed my advice regarding the nonviolence of the brave I shall tell them to throw their arms into the sea; I shall show them how the brave can rely on nonviolence. 37 Gandhi faced an uphill battle to make the Hindu heed his call for mass suicide, because as he realized, his influence had waned: There was a time when the most casual remark from me was honored as a command. Such is not the case today.38 For Gandhi was no longer the inspirational religious figure the media portrayed him to be. To the audiences that came to see him, he belonged to the cult of celebrity: The gatherings in Bihar tended to be larger than those in Bengal...People are always eager to see me. They wonder what Gandhi looks like. They want to see if he is a creature with a tail and horns. Thus people used to gather in huge numbers.39 The loss of previous power gave only more grief to the votary of the Gita, which he shared in response to compliments from a co-worker: COWORKER: You have declared that you won't mind if the whole of India is turned into Pakistan by appeal to reason but not an inch would be yielded to force. You have stood firm by your declaration. But is the Working Committee acting on this principle? They are yielding to force. You gave us the battle-cry of Quit India; you fought our battles; but in the hour of decision, I find you are not in the picture. You and your ideals have been given the go-by. Gandhiji: Who listens to me today? Coworker: Leaders may not, but the people are behind you Gandhi: Even they are not. I am being told to retire to the Himalayas. Everybody is eager to garland my photos and statues. Nobody really wants to follow my advice. Coworker: They may not today, but they will have to before long Gandhi: What is the good? Who knows whether I shall then be alive? The question is: What can we do today? On the eve of independence we are as divided as we were united when we were engaged in freedom's battle. The prospect of power has demoralized us. 40 It was not that he was upset with the fame and celebrity on the contrary, the quest for fame was partially behind his satyagraha campaigns, as seen previously in his comments on past resisters and some of the earlier revolutionaries. Indeed, one can surmise from these past statements that fame may well have been a motivation behind his partition calls for suicide. After all, here was an opportunity for Gandhi to match or perhaps better the past exploits of the historic figures he read about and admired; history was sure to remember him for thousands of years if he achieved his wish. Thus his anguish over the general frivolity assigned to his arrival by the populace. The selfpity his ego felt - due to having his message ignored - in many instances transformed into anger. It was this rage that led Gandhi to threaten a March audience in Bihar that they would regret not listening to him: I wish to give vent to the fire that is raging within me in the course of my answers to your questions. Why should we behave in this manner? Neither you nor I have a correct picture of what is happening in the Punjab. Anyway, whatever it may be, it is indeed deplorable. But we have to keep our houses clean. We need not make our houses filthy because another person fills his house with filth. If you [do not] act according [to my advice], remember you

will be sorry for it. You will regret that you did not listen to this old man's advice. I remind you again that those who hurt Muslims will be hurting me. I am camping here simply to put an end to this fratricide or die in the effort. 41 Gandhis ego demanded its satisfaction above the elementary needs of the Hindu masses; only one of Titanic proportions would demand of Hindus to not defend their lives with violence, simply to alleviate its illogical grief. His ego would continue to extend itself, attaching to each Muslim death: If the Hindus of Bihar slaughter the Muslims, they would be killing me. I say the Muslims of Bihar are like my blood-brothers. They are glad to see me. They are convinced that at least this one man belongs to them. Anyone who kills them kills me. If they insult their sisters and daughters, it is insulting me. From this platform I want to convey this to all the Hindus of Bihar. ...It is being rumored these days that Gandhi wants to go to Bihar and get the Hindus slaughtered. But I would like to proclaim at the top of my voice that even if all the Muslims lose their heads not a single Hindu should follow suit. 42 If he really had lived according to the principles of the Gita he would not have fixed himself to the physical lives of each Muslim, for he would have understood its eternal Truth that The wise grieve neither for the living nor for the deadJust as the Soul acquires a childhood body, a youth body, and an old age body during this life; similarly, the Soul acquires another body after death. This should not delude the wise.43 Instead of the transcendent view of physical death being impermanent in nature, Gandhi had an unusual mixture of grieving over the deaths of individual Muslims, yet lusting after the deaths of Hindus and Sikhs at the hands of Muslims. Naturally, Hindus and Sikhs continued to ignore his advice. Such was the case that during the March trip to Bihar, the Hindus there instead of abusing him through letters and telegrams like others simply choose to conceal their true intentions until he had finished his circuit: Again Gandhiji referred to a report that he had heard of the Hindus threatening the Mussalmans that they would wreak vengeance on them when he (Gandhiji) was gone. It ill became the votaries of the Ramayana to try to suppress the fourteen or fifteen per cent of the Muslims in their midst. Men aspiring to be free could hardly think of enslaving others. If they tried to do so, they would only be binding their own chains of slavery tighter. It became their duty to go and beg forgiveness of the Mussalmans, and by their true repentance they should try to persuade them to go back to their homes. They should rebuild their houses. They should make their sorrow their own. 44 Having failed in Bihar, Gandhi later that summer decided to make a brief and solitary visit to Punjab (or maybe he finally received an Adesh!), only to be greeted with hostility in Amritsar: In the letter written in English, the writer had asked him to spend at least a week in Rawalpindi and see with his own eyes what the Hindus had suffered. Why should he choose to go to Kashmir? His reply was that ever since he had gone to Delhi he had wanted to come to the Punjab. He wanted to visit Lahore, Amritsar and Rawalpindi. But he believed that he was in God's hands. God was the Master of all the universe and He could upset the plans of men. He referred to the black flag demonstration that Hindu young men had arranged at the Amritsar railway station. All the time the train stopped they kept shouting "Gandhi, Go Back" in English. He had to cover his ears as he could not stand the noise. He closed his eyes also and kept on repeating God's name. They were too noisy and excited, else he would have liked to get down and ask them what harm he had done to them to deserve such noisy hostility. 45

Similar protests awaited him in Calcutta during the month of August, a time of fresh rioting between Hindus and Muslims. This time, the Muslims were taking serious losses, and Suhrawardy sought Gandhis help. Gandhi was only eager to help Suhrawardy and his Muslim constituency, as long as Suhrawardy would go and live with Gandhi. Calcutta was the next stop on Gandhis mission to prove himself the savior of Muslims, an ambition he had earlier told a group of Bihari Muslims to be his one aim in life: Gandhiji reaffirmed that he was not disloyal or unfaithful to the Muslims and that his one aim in life was to help the Muslims as long as he was alive and he would try to help them even by dying. 46 The odd couple would reside in "an old abandoned Muslim house in an indescribably filthy locality, which had hastily been cleaned up for Gandhiji's residence. It was open on all sides.47 On the thirteenth, a group of Hindus came and essentially accused him of favoring the Muslims: An excited crowd of young men stood at the gate as Gandhiji's car arrived. They shouted: Why have you come here? You did not come when we were in trouble. Now that the Muslims have complained all this fuss is being made over it. Why did you not go to places from where Hindus have fled?...The situation threatened to take an ugly turn. Gandhiji sent some of his men outside to expostulate with the demonstrators and tell them to send their representatives to meet him.48 Once inside, the demonstrators remained blunt in their appraisal: Last year when Direct Action was launched on the Hindus on August 16, you did not come to our rescue. Now that there has been just a little trouble in the Muslim quarters, you have come running to their succour. We don't want you here.49 Gandhi as usual twisted the words of his criticizers, accusing them of trying to avenge 1946 when the present riots were for recent provocations: Much water has flown under the bridge since August 1946. What the Muslims did then was utterly wrong. But what is the use of avenging the year 1946 on 1947?50 At any rate, Gandhi claimed that his solitary journey to protect the Hindus of Noakhali had earned him the right to take similar actions against Muslims: But let me tell you that if you again go mad, I will not be a living witness to it. I have gained the same ultimatum to the Muslims of Noakhali also; I have earned the right. Before there is another outbreak of Muslim madness in Noakhali, they will find me dead. Why cannot you see that by taking this step I have put the burden of the peace of Noakhali on the shoulders of Shaheed Suhrawardy and his friendsincluding men like Mian Ghulam Sarwar and the rest? This is no small gain.51 To begin, Noakhali was only one place on the map where Hindus had suffered under Muslim rioting, and it was not Noakhali that the Hindus of Calcutta were angry about (unlike the earlier Hindu rioters in Bihar). Their anger was towards fresh actions directed by the likes of Suhrawardy. While Gandhis ego may have wanted to take credit for forcing the burden of peace on Suhrawardy, the real facts point to a time-honored method the use of violence. A man like Suhrawardy, initiator of the violence, would only desire peace when it was clear that he was losing such a physical battle. It was not because he felt a sudden impulse towards ahimsa that he sought out Gandhi, it was because the Muslims were in grave trouble! Knowing that he could not win was what forced Suhrawardy to move from violence. The demonstrators remained unconvinced by Gandhis arguments, telling him, We do not want your sermons on ahimsa. You go away from here. We wont allow the Muslims to live here. 52 An eighteen-year old put in the comment, History shows that Hindus and Muslims can never be friends. Anyway, ever since I was born I have seen them only fighting each other. 53 Gandhi

quickly rejected this, using his knowledge of a few Hindu boys referring to Muslims as uncle and the mingling during festivals to bolster his case! Obviously, the genocidal invasions of Gaznavi, Ghori, Babur and Timur, the murderous rule of the Delhi Sultanate and Aurangazeb, the closer to the present frequent rioting between the two communities, were all aberrations: Well, I have seen more of history than anyone of you, and I tell you that I have known Hindu boys who call Muslims 'uncle'. Hindus and Muslims used to participate in each others festivals and other auspicious occasions. 54 Gandhi would tell the demonstrators that it was fruitless to try and get him to change his mind, continuing, You want to force me to leave this place but you should know that I never submitted to force. It is contrary to my nature. You can obstruct my work, even kill me. I wont invoke the help of the police. You can prevent me from leaving this house, but what is the use of your dubbing me an enemy of the Hindus? I will not accept the label. ...I put it to you, young men, how can I, who am a Hindu by birth, a Hindu by creed and a Hindu of Hindus in my way of living, be an 'enemy' of Hindus? Does this not show narrow intolerance on your part? 55 According to the account, these last words had a profound effect. Slowly and imperceptibly the opposition began to soften. Still they were not completely converted. One of the said perhaps we should now go. 56 That sort of effect was understandable, because Gandhi had used a superficially plausible argument. While instinct led the demonstrators to consider Gandhi an enemy for how can you not be considered an enemy of a particular group when you are calling for that group to let themselves be slaughtered it was not surprising that their protests stopped when he recounted his Hindu origin. Doubtful would the demonstrators have known that Gandhi as a youth nearly converted to Christianity57, or that his obsessions with suffering and nonviolence were closer to the New Testament doctrine of turning the other cheek than to Sri Krishnas injunction to battle for dharma. Even without this knowledge, they would have clearly sensed that to go along with his not submitting to force obstinacy was central to Gandhis nature. Neither force nor reason would change Gandhis stubborn views. Gandhis arrival, and his threat of killing himself through fasting, helped bring peace to the city for little over a week. However, the last few days of August experienced a revival of communal rioting, disturbing Gandhi greatly. On September 1st he decided to launch a fast for the apparent purpose of ending the violence. Yet this outward rational hid from view other reasons for his fast. As was clear in his speeches in Bihar, Gandhi was increasingly upset that Hindus were not following his advice, were not obeying his directions as in the past. Even though he was internationally known, lauded as a man of peace, he could not get members of his own community to listen to his dictates! For an ego used to being the center of attention, having experienced the power of millions obeying his word, this was a humiliation. If the Hindus were not going to listen to him under normal conditions, he would create the conditions for them to obey. Naturally, he chose to color the reasons for his fast in the language of a crusader on a mission. For as a votary of ahimsa it was his duty to protest, his burden to show society it was wrong and that his way was right: One fasts for health's sake under laws governing health or fasts as a penance for a wrong done and felt as such. In these fasts, the fasting one need not believe in ahimsa. There is, however, a fast which a votary of nonviolence sometimes feels impelled to undertake by way of protest against some wrong by society and this he does when he, a votary of ahimsa, has no other remedy left.58 It was this feeling of helplessness, this rage at not having his words heeded, that ate at Gandhi prior to his fasts, as he admitted in January 1948: I have no answer to return to the Muslim friends who see me from day to day as to what they should do. My impotence has been gnawing at me of late. It will go immediately the fast is undertaken. I have been brooding over it for the last three days.59

Here then was the admission of his desire for the power previously held, a craving now only satisfied after he used his last option, the fast: Though the voice within has been beckoning for a long time, I have been shutting my ears to it lest it might be the voice of Satan, otherwise called my weakness. I never like to feel resourceless; a satyagrahi never should. Fasting is his last resort in the place of the sword-his or others.60 One who truly heard an Inner Voice from the Divine would never once think it to be from Satan, because one who knows and hears from the Divine, from one's Soul, never places any form of doubt on an Adesh. Besides the egotistical motives behind the fasts was the questionable nature of the fasts themselves for they were not pure fasts to the death. In describing a 21-day fast undertook while imprisoned in the opulent palace of Aga Khan earlier in the decade, Gandhi mentions the drinking of water and orange juice, and the doctors at hand: I would like to mention only one thing in that connection, and it is that I survived for 21 days not because of the amount of water I used to drink, or the orange juice which I took for some days, or the extraordinary medical care, but because I had installed in my heart God whom I call Rama.61 Well if Rama was the reason behind Gandhis survival, his instruments were the water and orange juice and physicians, water alone being enough to live on for that amount of time. The physicians at hand (not only were Gandhis living arrangements looked after, his fasts were contrived) would have known this. If the fasts were farcical so were the results, a critique made by many of his detractors: Critics have regarded some of my previous fasts as coercive and held that on merits the verdict would have gone against my stand but for the pressure exerted by the fasts.62 Any peace resulting from his fasts was a faade sustained by the Hindu only to prevent Gandhi from dying, thus sparing them international condemnation, not because of any true harmony generated between the communities. Gandhi, ironically, said prior to a January 1948 fast that he wished the communal violence to end without outside pressure, claiming, It will end when and if I am satisfied that there is a reunion of hearts of all communities brought about without any outside pressure, but from an awakened sense of duty.63 Here we have him applying outside pressure, yet continually under the delusion as he had to have done each time he ended his fasts that the two communities had organically ended not only their current violence but centuries of hostility to go along with. The responsibility for ending both the violence and hostility was placed primarily on the Hindus, leading many who previously were just angry with him to start viewing him as an enemy, as Bengal Congressman PC Ghosh told him in a September 2nd meeting held during the Calcutta fast: One thing, however, strikes me. You have launched your fast at a time when a section of the Hindus have begun to look upon you as their enemy. They foolishly feel that by asking them to practice nonviolence, when the other side has shed all scruples, you are being very unfair to them. I would have had nothing to say if you had declared a fast for anything wrong that the Ministry did. 64 In response, Gandhi claimed that he could now fast against the Muslims, and importantly revealed the coercive nature of his fast when saying, All this is wide of the mark. Dont you see, this now gives me the right to fast against the Muslims, too. My fast is intended to serve both the communities. The moment the Hindus realize that they cannot keep me alive on any other terms, peace will return to Calcutta.65 Even if he could now according to his odd ethical code rationalize a fast versus the Muslims, he never undertook one, irrespective of the terrible violence suffered by Hindus in West and East Pakistani areas. The beneficiaries of his fasts were Muslims who were otherwise in serious danger since they were just like the Hindus of Pakistan - the minority in the areas he fasted in. Subconsciously he knew which group was truly benefiting from his interventions, which is why he directed his terms to the Hindu, burdening them with the life of

the city, with the implication being that if they failed, they would be both accountable for and forever marked by his death. It was this blackmail that he brought to Calcutta. *****

Having returned from Calcutta to Delhi, Gandhi could have traveled on into Pakistani areas to fast
and prevent the deaths of Hindus being attacked there. However, he chose to remain in Delhi, where he simultaneously urged Hindus and Sikhs fleeing from Pakistan to return back and meet their deaths: 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...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. 66 Gandhi would tell a September audience of Hindu refugees that they should take his message of death back to other refugees, and attempt to convince them to voluntarily return to Pakistan without protection, to face sure death, just so they could perfect the art of dying - the only way to live! Some people who came to me from Rawalpindi were strong, sturdy, brave...They asked me what we should do about those who are in Pakistan. But I in turn asked them why they came here instead of laying down their lives there. I am firm in my belief that in spite of atrocities being committed we should remain where we are and die. But let us die with courage, repeating the name of God. I have taught the same thing to the girls. I have told them to learn the art of dying with the name of God on their lips. ...I do not wish to forget God. That is why I am telling all that the greatest courage and understanding lie in learning the art of dying. Then alone they can live. If they do not learn the art of dying, they will die before their time. I do not wish that anybody should die before his time. The greatest bravery lies in having the courage to die. If our people have to die in this manner, let us not be angry with anybody. You must admire those people for dying and pray to God that He grant a similar opportunity to all of us. Let this be our sincere prayer. I would tell you what I told those people from Rawalpindi. I told them that they should go there and meet the Hindu and Sikh refugees. They should request them to return on their own, not under police or military protection. 67 Sometimes, individual refugees would come to visit Gandhi hoping that he could help them in securing housing. One particular refugee was upset that Muslim houses in Delhi were not available for accommodation. Understandable was such a view, since the Hindus and Sikhs of Pakistan had to leave their homes, subsequently to be occupied by Muslims arriving from India. Considering that Pakistan was supposed to be the nation for all the Muslims of the subcontinent, the refugee might have expected empty houses on his arrival. Predictably, Gandhi was upset the refugee had dared to even think about laying his hands on Muslim houses, including vacated ones: The person had a big joint family in Lahore...He did not bring all the family members here...he narrated everything to me and requested me to find accommodation for him. I told him that I had no authority, and even if I had, I would not fix any accommodation for him. As it was, there was a housing shortage in Delhi. ...He told me that he had come here after losing seventeen members of his family. I told him that at least he had seventeen members in his family. ...I told him that if he believed that he belonged to the whole of India, even after

the loss of seventeen family members who were dead and gone, the rest of India was there for him. Well, this is just philosophizing, so let us leave it there. ...He asked me: "Why should the Muslims living here not vacate their houses and go away? Why are they still here?" I was deeply pained to hear this...It is deplorable that you should have designs on the houses of the Muslims who have fled or have been killed or arrested by police. 68 Gandhi then unwittingly revealed the arrogant and callous side to his personality, one he would have denied if accused of it. For what is it but cruel arrogance when a man like Gandhi, living in fantastic dwellings and taken care of by the government, boasts under little instigation of the difference in status between himself and a refugee with absolutely nothing, humiliating the refugee in the process? If at all, you can say that to me because the house in which I stay is like a palace. You can ask me to leave this place and go and live in a camp. You can say that it would make no difference to me, for I have no wife, no sons...I would listen to you if you said that to me. I would certainly feel amused, for, even if I ran away, would you stay here? This house belongs to someone else. It is not mine. Of course the owner of this house has made me the owner and insisted that I should keep or prevent anyone from staying here as I please. How can the Muslims leave their houses? Only Gandhi is in a position to do that. If he is removed from here and dumped somewhere no one is going to leave him unattended. Somebody would give him milk, fruits, dates, and somehow his things would be managed. He is not going to remain unclothed. For even clothes would be provided for him. When I talked like this to that gentleman he felt ashamed. 69 Gandhis refusal to understand the nature behind the actions of Hindus and Sikhs many of whom were fleeing from fighting to protect their wives and daughters from abduction and rape led one refugee to remark that Unfortunately Kasturba is not alive today. Had she been alive and had she been abducted, you would have understood our feelings.70" What the refugee did not know was that Gandhi had his own queer ideas on how to prevent rape. Gandhi believed that one must not resort to violence or flight to prevent rape or kidnapping; instead a show of self-sacrifice is called for, so it might convince the rapist and his depraved animal consciousness71! Gandhi, whose lips proclaimed devotion to Rama, followed a philosophy much different than the heroic life of Rama. Rama did not reject the call of vital action when faced with Sitas abduction. Instead he displayed the characteristics of strength, fearlessness and valor associated with a higher form of human life. While Ramas legendary heroism knew no earthly boundaries to prevent him saving his wife, Gandhis bravery consisted of meek acts of defiance and a perverse pleasure in death and inertia. Rama, possessing an unshakable intuition of his real Divine nature (in this Avatarhood Vishnu assumed the form of a mortal without complete Self-consciousness), did not take refuge in the piteous belief that odds were insurmountable, and was not deluded into thinking that avoidance of action was the proper spiritual course. Gandhi would have remained stationary if faced with the abduction of his wife, immolating himself or expecting Kasturba to do the same, because Gandhi was not a true votary of Rama or the Gita; he was a cheerful agent of Death. *****

The plight of females in Pakistani areas led more refugees to vent their anger at him for not
returning to Punjabi areas of Pakistan: Why should the Hindus and the Sikhs get into such a frenzy that the Muslims are scared? You can turn around and tell me, many Hindus tell me in anger fixing their bloodshot eyes on me: "You were away in Bengal and Bihar. Just come to the Punjab and see the plight of the Hindus and the Sikhs and see the state of the girls there." 72

Perhaps due to being inundated with requests from refugees to go to Pakistan to help Hindus and Sikhs, Gandhis responses were sometimes curt: A Hindu gentleman has asked me if I would go to the Punjab. I asked him if he would send me to the Punjab. Yes, if I went there I would fight with the people there also. You already know about my method of fighting. I would talk to them to my hearts content. Million of Hindus and Sikhs are coming here. Why do they not stay on in their homes? I shall have no peace till this happens.73 Gandhi did not need any random stranger to pay for him to go into Pakistan; the Birla family, the Tata family, even the Government would easily have paid his way to go there. Gandhi, as expected, tried to portray his entry into Pakistan as a heroic act done in spite of all the forces supposedly opposed to his entry: I want to go to the Punjab. I want to go to Lahore. I do not want to go with any police or military escort. I want to go alone, depending only on God. I want to go with faith and trust in the Muslims there. Let them kill me if they want. I would die smiling, and silently pray that God should be kind to them. And how can God be kind to them? By making them good. With God, the only way of making them good is by purifying their hearts. God will listen to me if I do not have a feeling of animosity even for one who regards me as his enemy. Then that man would ask himself what he would have gained by killing me. He would wonder what harm I had done to him. If they kill me they have a right to do so. That is why I want to go to Lahore. I want to go to Rawalpindi. Let the Government stop me if they will. But who can the Government stop me? They will have to kill me if they want to stop me. If they kill me, my death will leave a lesson to you. It will make me very happy. What will be that lesson? It will be that you may have to die but you will not wish evil on anybody. 74 Gandhi would reiterate the courageousness of such a move, that going into Pakistan meant risking death - although judging from his obsession with death, he would no doubt have derived a perverse pleasure through that outcome: Now I am being blamed for not letting Bengal be divided. It is true that I do not want the division. But then I also totally disprove of the whole country being divided into Hindustan and Pakistan. Even if I was the only Hindu remaining, I would still have the courage to go and live in the midst of the Muslim majority. What is the worst they could do? Kill me; could they do anything worse? But they would not kill me. They would protect one solitary individual. God would protect me. God always protects one who has no one to protect him. That is why the poet says, "God is the strength of the weak. 75 But Gandhi was no ordinary figure; he had the means and the power at his disposal that would protect him, directly or indirectly. As he mentioned, Gandhi had people to accommodate him, to take care of his basic needs and keep an eye out to threats on his person. These people would not disappear during a trip to Pakistan; they would follow him there even if he voiced otherwise, such was his fame. It is unlikely that as with the Hindus of Calcutta the Indian Government wished to bear the burden of Gandhis death. The Muslims as well would have wanted him alive, but for the positive reason of his benefit to their cause. His usefulness to them would prevent his death, not any miraculous act of the Divine. For Gandhi had spent his entire career appeasing Muslims, verbally opposing the cause of an Islamic homeland (Pakistan), yet supporting other causes (like the Khilafat) that only emboldened the Muslim League. And why would Muslims kill a man like Gandhi who was urging Hindus not to retaliate against Muslims? They had seen how he saved the Muslims of Calcutta from harsher retribution, and sensed his utility. No matter how much the Hindu confronted Gandhi over this perceived unfairness, he would not sway from his position. His heart was not in a trip to Pakistan, because even though Gandhi proclaimed himself a follower of all the religions he still made at least one crucial distinction

between the Hindu and Muslim. This distinction was of a moral nature - Gandhian morality. Gandhi expected the Hindus alone to rise up to the moral challenge that Partition was offering them, by sacrificing themselves to the Islamic sword. After all, Muslims were their brothers: But if one of my brothers gets into a mad fury and starts killing people, should I also go mad with rage like him? How is that possible? I claim to be a true Hindu and a sanatani Hindu at that. That is exactly why I am also a Muslim, a Parsi, a Christian and a Jew. For me all these are the branches of the same tree. Which of these branches should I keep and which should I discard? From which branch should I pick the leaves and which should I ignore? For me all are the same. 76 If all the religions were the same, then why did Gandhi place the burden of moral superiority on the Hindus? Should he not have toured the subcontinent urging the Muslims, also of the same tree, to display similar bravery of mass suicide? This would have been Gandhis course of action if only he truly believed the Muslims to be on par with the Hindu, at least in terms of receptiveness to his ideas. His belief to the contrary is why he spoke of the need for the Hindu majority to enlighten their Muslim brothers, even if it meant laying down their lives: The Hindus should not think that they have become a new community which cannot accommodate Muslims. We are in a majority in this part of India. We must enlighten the minority and work with courage. Courage does not reside in the sword. We will become truthful, we will become servants of God and, if need be, we will lay down our lives. When we do this India and Pakistan will not be two separate entities and the artificial partition would become meaningless. 77 Indeed, partition would have been rendered void if the Hindus had en masse laid down their lives, because there would be no Hindus left to constitute India, and then the whole subcontinent might as well have been called Pakistan! No Hindus remaining would have also eliminated one branch from Gandhis special tree, at least according to a sane mind. Gandhi, remember, viewed mass suicide as a way of protecting ones religion! For the most part, he did not advise Muslims to protect their religion in such a bloody manner. However, to be fair, there were a few times where he did give such an opinion to Muslims, describing his joy in the event of such deaths: After hearing from Khwaja Abdul Majid, President, All India Muslim Majlis, about his experiences Gandhiji had remarked: "Had they killed you, I would have danced (with joy). And by dying you would have rendered a service to both Hindus and Muslims." 78 But the vast majority of his messages to commit joyous suicide were left for Hindus, because to Gandhi any sort of killing was heinous, the act of a primitive man, and he expected the Hindu to live according to his idea. This sort of philosophy is perhaps best described as a moral or ethical outlook on killing, for while it is true there are numerous occasions when murder is heinous, it is also true that sometimes killing is necessary, especially in the time of war. It is for this reason that Lord Krishna told Arjuna to fight his own relations, because not only was Arjuna fighting in the cause of a higher truth than that of the Kauravas, he also held the knowledge going into battle of the imperishable Soul amongst slain bodies. This plastic outlook on killing was not what Gandhi preached; he adhered to a rigid and poorly developed mental dictum of killing bad, no killing good. He said as much to a September 30th crowd: I would tell them (Gandhis 4 sons) that if they were true Hindus they must have the courage to die for their religion, they could not save it by killing. ...I want to tell you only one thing

and it is that we should not try to kill any Muslim. Let them kill if they want. If they kill it is bad. We should consider them bad. But if they are bad, why should we be bad in return? We can return their wickedness with goodness. 79 Only a mind lacking flexibility in thought would reduce the complexities of war for Partition was both chaos and war to sweeping morality. His was a mind that could not or chose not to - see the easily understandable truth that sometimes killing can be beneficial and can in fact create a world of greater light. Just because some of the killings during Partition were fueled by motives of revenge, did not make them unnecessary, because in the climate of the time, revenge whether based on pure instinct or analytical reason clearly served a purpose for the Hindu. For and here we look at it from the most elementary of motives if the Hindu were to retaliate and kill more than were being killed by Muslims, there was always the possibility that that would give the Muslims pause. One only need look to Suhrawardy, reduced to begging for Gandhis help (Suhrawardy generally looked at Gandhi with a mixture of amusement and disgust80) because the Hindus were winning the battle in Calcutta. Gandhi viewed all this as belonging to the jungle: Suppose that the Muslims there have become tyrants, should we, in turn, become tyrants too? Should we take the law into our hands and kill the young and the old, women and children because the Muslims are killing them there? I have repeatedly stated that that is the law of the jungle. I cannot remain alive while such a law prevails.81 Yes, Partition can be described as the law of the jungle, as it was ugly and brutal, with despicable acts committed on both sides. But there are times when these things happen as an excess of violence, where one side has to respond to another with similar brutality, if it wishes to survive. It is during these times where attachment to certain moral ideas note the spiritual view of things takes into account survival instincts used to prevent an even darker outcome must diminish in importance. Partition was not the time for moral posturing; it was the time for action. Of course, plenty of the action was of a crude nature (not that it mattered to Gandhi, who would have complained even if the Hindus had followed Geneva conventions), yet it was better they had a generally violent response mixed with unfortunate extremes, than shrink into inaction. Gandhi, of the belief that all religions preached his brand of ahimsa, nevertheless refused to focus on the atrocities of Muslims in Pakistan; instead he concentrated on the Hindu branch of the tree: I am not worried about what the Muslims do in Pakistan. It is not that the Muslims become great by killing the Hindus they only become brutes. But does it mean that I should also become a beast, a barbarian, insensitive? I would stoutly refuse to do any such thing and I must ask you too not do so. If you really want to celebrate my birthday, it is your duty not to let anyone be possessed by madness. 82 It is from this that we gain a truer understanding as to why Gandhi paid little attention to Pakistan or other areas where Hindus were being massacred. For Gandhis opinion of the Muslim was not as equal as he made it out to be. If he really believed in his heart as opposed to his mind that was rigidly attached to a few ideas that Muslims would respond to his call of ahimsa, then he would have concerned himself with the events in Pakistan, fulfilling his promises to go there in the confidence that Muslims, supposedly followers of the same religion as Hindus, would relate to his message. Instead, his speeches present a subtle belief of the incapacity of Muslims to rise above tribal or jungle action. This transcending of tribal violence was to Gandhi what Satchitananda is to a Yogi, the greatest state of existence possible for man. Gandhi would spend a great deal of energy trying to spread his distorted interpretations to Hindus, including one March 1947 Bihari crowd: As he watched crowds of sturdy men pursuing him, mobbing his car and shouting

vociferously Mahatma Gandhiki jai, etc., he could well imagine the havoc they must have wrought when they attacked a handful of Mussalmans. The Hindus should be ashamed of the act. They should take a vow never to succumb to the madness again. Nor should they think of taking revenge for the incidents of the Punjab or the like. Would they themselves become beasts simply because others happened to sink to that level? If they ever became mad again, they should destroy him first. His prayer in that case would be that God may give him the strength to pray to Him to forgive his murderers, that is, to purify their hearts. He prayed that God may enable him to show by example what true bravery was. 83 The transcending that Gandhi wished to bring about was not of the spiritual kind; like most of his ideas it was based on morality. At its core, Gandhis message to the Hindu was one of winning the moral battle, displaying superior morals to their brothers. So if the Muslim could not control his bloodlust, it did not mean the Hindu ought to sink with him from the higher moral plateau of nonkilling. It was the duty of the Hindu to display moral superiority to those who acted like barbarians, even if it meant extermination. If all the Hindus were to die, Hinduism would still somehow be saved because Partition would have proved the Hindus as moral victors, even if they were all physically slaughtered! It was this moral greatness that Gandhi sought after while Hindus followed reality by looking to win the war. Being forever stuck in a mental existence of moral equations and possessing little subtlety of thought, Gandhi was led to make a bizarre (even for his standards) offering. Perhaps hoping to prove himself the supreme guardian of his ahimsa, Gandhi offered not only his complete submission to a Muslim attempt at killing him, but also his blood for nourishment! Whom are we afraid of? The Muslims? If they become devils let us become men. Then they will also become men. When I, a poor bania, am not frightened, why should you be? The worst they can do is to kill me. Let them kill me. Will they drink my blood? Let them do so. That will save some food and I shall consider that I have been of service. But who am I to render service? It would be more appropriate to say that it is god who has used me for service. Hence I tell you, "Do not be frightened." 84 While Gandhi was fantasizing about cannibalism, Muslims were stockpiling arms, leading to anxiety amongst Hindus. In such a climate, arms had a high chance of being used. It was the possibility of betrayal from their brothers that Gandhi addressed in a September 13th speech: I meet quite a few Muslims. How can I say they are traitors and are betraying me? I tell you that even if they are betraying, it is not going to help them in any way. I admit that the Muslims have lots of arms with them. I have taken some of their arms and some are still with them. But what would they do with the arms they have? Would they kill me? Would they kill you? If they do that the Government is there to look into it. I tell you that if we become good and behave well the Government will see that justice is done to us. Let the Governments fight each other; but we would not quarrel amongst ourselves. We would remain friends. Let us not be afraid that they would kill us. However powerful the person who wants to kill us is, he cannot kill us so long as God protects us.85 Only a month old, Gandhi expected the Indian government, of which his ahimsa cast a long shadow over, to play an important role in stopping the war. The Hindus of Delhi cannot have been expected to heed such a call, when they had seen no signs that the Government could provide protection. Besides, Government protection would have involved potential arrests and killings; such a use of force would have constituted himsa, not a change of heart amongst the Muslim community! This distrust of Muslims was prevalent amongst the Hindus, developed over years of divisive

actions coming from Muslim organizations, actions supported by the Muslim masses. It was this history that fellow Congressman Sardar Patel referred to in a January 6th 1948 public meeting in Lucknow: I want to ask the Indian Muslims only one question. In the recent All India Muslim Conference why did you not open your mouths on the Kashmir issue? Why did you not condemn the action of Pakistan? These things create doubt in the minds of people...So I want to say a word as a friend of Muslims. It is our duty now to sail in the same boat and sink or swim. I want to tell you very clearly that you cannot ride two horses. You select one horse, whichever you like better. 86 Patel had earlier made note of the fact that most Muslims remaining in India previously pledged support to the creation of Pakistan: Speaking at a mammoth gathering at Calcutta on January 3, Patel had emphasized that there could be no serious talk of a Hindu State. But one fact was indisputable. There were 4.5 crores of Muslims in India many of whom had helped the creation of Pakistan. How could one believe that they would change overnight? "The Muslims said they were loyal citizens, and therefore, why should anybody doubt their bona fides. To them we would say: Why do you ask us? Search your own conscience." 87 Bona fides were not necessary for Gandhi; he trusted Muslims despite their words of hostility, absolved them regardless of their acts of violence. Having released Muslims from the moral (defined by his peculiar code) burden of their actions (or perhaps having no faith that the Muslims had any moral capacity to begin with), Gandhi expected the Hindu to maintain his standards no matter what the Muslim did: Everyone should purify himself. If not, the situation cannot be saved. If everyone is to purify himself, Muslims will also purify themselves. Everyone should cleanse his heart. No one should find fault with the Muslims whatever they may do. If I confess before someone that I have done wrong, then it is a kind of atonement. I do not say this in order to appease the Muslims or anyone else. I want to appease myself which means that I want to appease God. I do not want to be a sinner against God. If I am alive I shall ask every Hindu and Sikh not to touch a single Muslim. It is cowardice to kill a Muslim and we must become brave and not cowards.88 No longer was he merely appeasing his Muslim brothers, now he was completely submitting before the sword of Islam, justifying it on the feeblest of moral or ethical grounds. Gradually, it had dawned on Hindus and Sikhs that his appeasement had turned to submission of a fanatical nature, repeatedly present in speeches and immune to reason. That realization, along with the potential of being blackmailed with his emaciated body, led Hindus and Sikhs to take the wisest possible action - they utterly ignored him, as in a December 1947 meeting between refugees, Gandhi, and Punjabi representatives: I spoke to the refugees. After me Dr Gopichand addressed them. But when Sardar Swaran Singh got up to speak there was pandemonium. People started shouting; not because they wanted to insult him but they could not contain themselves. They became angry that he dared speak at all. It was a large crowd. There must have been some twenty thousand people. The ground was filled to capacity. Roofs were covered with people. They heard me in silence. But when the others began, people stood up. It has become customary with us to give vent to anger. They stood up and began to shout that the Muslims should be expelled. I told them that it would not be good to drive the Muslims out. They had their homes, and

they should not be forced to leave; that forcing the Muslims to leave would undo all our efforts there. I was ready to resume my seat but Sardar Swaran Singh, being the home minister and also a brave man, would not be cowed down, he said this would not do. He tired to speak but nothing came of it. People continued their shouting and continued to stand. Then their representative, their leader came forward. ...he admonished them in Punjabi ....peace was restored at last.89 Aware of his message of death for them and the lengths he would go to protect the Muslim, came the diverting of their anger towards those who could potentially help. They did not direct their expulsion request to Gandhi, as that was the last man they would expect to push such a desire. So they let his admonitions go into one ear and pass out the other, without any response to him, without any arguments, nary the peaceful demonstration, even with a reduction in letters sent. He was useless to them, and it was better for them to pretend he did not exist so he remained of neutral effect instead of a detriment. This was wishful thinking, because an ego accustomed to decades of power, to decades of having his command heeded, is one that craves the vital satisfaction that comes when a set of people does as you ask them. Knowing his words were having little effect forced him to resort to fasting in the hopes of achieving his cherished communal harmony. Gandhis January 1948 fast went further than his previous ones, with communal harmony only one objective, the other being the repayment of funds the Indian treasury owed Pakistan; Pakistan being the same country that in January 1948 had soldiers present in the Indian state of Kashmir. Indeed days prior to Gandhis fast, Sardar Patel told the Press he had made it clear to Pakistans Prime Minister and Foreign Minister that the Indian Government would not agree to any payment until the Kashmir affair was settled, and that, to all approaches for payment of the Rs. 55 crores, we returned a negative answer. 90 It took a grand total of four days for Gandhis fast to end this policy. Gandhi, with good reason, quickly credited his fast (again, a form of outside pressure) with bringing about the Indian Governments change of heart. In a January 16th speech in Delhi, Gandhi elaborated that his fast had caused the Government to prevent a disaster, and asserted that the Governments gesture would solve the Kashmir struggle: It is never a light manner for any responsible Cabinet to alter a deliberate settled policy. Yet our Cabinet, responsible in every sense of the term, has with equal deliberation yet promptness unsettled their settled fact. I know that all the nations of earth will proclaim this gesture as one which only a large-hearted Cabinet like ours could rise too. This is no policy of appeasement of the Muslims. This is a policy, if you like, of self-appeasement. No cabinet representative of a large mass of mankind can afford to take any step merely because it is likely to win the hasty applause of an unthinking public. In the midst of insanity, should not our best representatives retain sanity and bravely prevent a wreck of the ship of state under their management? What then was the actuating motive? It was my fast. It changed the whole outlook. Without the fast they could go beyond what the law permitted and required them to do. But the present gesture on the part of the Government of India is one of unmixed goodwill. It has put the Pakistan Government on its honour. It ought to lead to an honourable settlement not only of the Kashmir question, but of all the differences between the two Dominions. Friendship should replace the present enmity.91 The gesture Gandhi referred too was not truly made to Pakistan; the gesture was towards Gandhi, to get him to stop the fast. Of course the fast changed the Governments outlook, because if before they were not worried about the opinion of all nations regarding the treasury payment, now they were worried about the international fallout over a Gandhi death. For his fast had now become

associated with the Governments policy along with the communal issue, and his death could lead to condemnation of the Government and lack of support on vital issues such as Kashmir. The speed of the Government reversal was not lost on a certain group that was quick to realize the true impetus behind the change. Gandhis words may have lost whatever force they previously had with the masses, but the potential death of an international religious celebrity, his last option, still delivered. To his assassins, a few of them refugees from Pakistan, all witnesses to prayer speeches during partition, his calls for mass suicide and his earlier blackmail in Calcutta may have been revolting, may have angered them greatly, may have filled them with amusement or pity at such a pathetic request. But this January 1948 blackmail was dangerous, because it as clearly seen in his January 16th speech gave evidence to Gandhi that he could still determine the direction of Indian policy, even if now he had to resort to extreme measures. And since the Gandhian way of life involved the complete use of nonviolence, there was always the possibility of a fast directed against the use of force to protect the nation. Gandhis idea as told to a group of army officers - was that the function of a soldier should be a nonviolent one, that soldiers should become farmers, that India was best served if its army was nonviolent! I have only one message for you. You have got your guns and sten-guns and you are proficient in killing men and all living things. Instead of that you should learn the art of using the sickle, ploughing the land and producing the food necessary for men and other living things. Forget violence and gain proficiency in nonviolence. Maybe from this you will think that I have gone mad. But look at the way Capt Shawanaz and Col Jiwansingh live and work today. They have ceased to become army officers and have become public servants and farmers. Thus they have become more powerful. ...Our army will lead the world if it adopts nonviolence instead of violence.92 It was this possibility even if it was only felt instinctively that the assassins were not willing to risk, as the fast had given Gandhi confidence that he still held power over the Government. If before they limited their interaction to the subtle threat (such as the question asking him what should be done to mad dogs), or a rare and poorly executed attempt on his life, now they moved quickly, exploding a bomb on January 20th, just two days after the end of his fast. With that bomb attack came an increase in security. Unlike in the past where such security deterred them from future attempts, this time it was imperative they accomplish their goal. The necessity the assassins felt is evident by the speed of which they made their next attempt (10 days later) and the indifference to being captured by the police upon completion of their quest. The mid-January fast had created a sense of urgency; foremost in their minds would have been the potential of a Gandhi fast to bring nonviolence to Indian actions in Kashmir, or more dangerous concessions to Pakistan than a treasury payment. Up until that point, Gandhi had been reasonable on the Kashmir situation. Never was there any persistent call or fasts for nonviolence to permeate the Indian army. Yet this was the same Gandhi who had asked Hindus to lie down and let Muslims slaughter them, so such a demand clearly was not implausible. We will never know what Gandhi, fully confident in the effect of his fasts on the Government, would have done. His assassins, however, did not plan on finding out. References 1. Speech at Prayer Meeting New Delhi October 24 1946, Harijan 3-11-1946, 86 pg. 27 2. Harijan 24-11-46, CWOMG vol. 86 pg. 97 3. The Hindu, 4-5-1947, CWOMG vol. 87, pg. 35 CWOMG vol.

4. Speech at Prayer Meeting, Kamalpur Feb 21 1947 Harijan 16-3-1947, CWOMG vol. 87 pg. 4 5. Speech at prayer meeting Ghorhuan (Bihar) Mar 21 47, CWOMG vol. 87 pg. 135 6. Speech at prayer meeting, Haimchar, Feb 28, 1947, Harijan 23-3-1947, CWOMG vol. 87, pg. 29 7. Speech at prayer meeting Khusropur (Bihar) March 14, 1947 Gandhijike Dukhe Dilki Pukar-I, pp31-4 and Harijan 30-3-1947, CWOMG vol. LXXXVII pg. 84 8. Speech at prayer meeting Haimchar Marc 1 1947 Harijan 23-3-1947, CWOMG vol. 87, pg. 3334 9. Speech at Prayer meeting, Patna March 12 1947 Harijan 30-3-1947, CWOMG vol. 87, pg. 73-76 10. Harijan 30-3-47, CWOMG vol. 87 pg. 70-72 11. Harijan 30-3-47, CWOMG vol. 87 pg. 70-72 12. Speech at Prayer meeting, April 1 1947 Prarthana Pravachan Part I, pp. 5-11, CWOMG vol. 87, pg. 183-86 13. Prarthana Pravachan Part I, pp. 29-32, CWOMG vol. 87, pg. 217-19 14. Mahatma Gandhi-The Last Phase II p 97, CWOMG vol. 87, pg. 200-201 15. Speech at prayer meeting New Delhi April 6 1947 Prarthana-Pravachan-Part I, pp. 29-32, CWOMG vol. 87, pg. 217-19 16. Speech at Prayer Meeting April 7, 1947 Prarthana Pravachan Part I pp. 32-5, CWOMG vol. 87 pg. 225-6 17. Talk With Refugees, April 4 1947 Mahatma Gandhi-The Last Phase II p 97, CWOMG vol. 87, pg. 200-201 18. May 1, 1947 Prarthana Pravachan Part I pp. 54-8, CWOMG vol. 87 pg. 394-5 19. May 1, 1947 Prarthana Pravachan Part I pp. 54-8, CWOMG vol. 87 pg. 394-5 20. Prarthana Pravachan-I pp. 93-7, CWOMG vol. 88, pg. 28-30 21. Prarthana Pravachan-I pp. 93-7, CWOMG vol. 88, pg. 28-30 22. New Delhi May 27 1947 Prarthana Pravachan-I, pp.88-92, CWOMG vol. 88, pg. 19-22 23. Prarthana Pravachan I pp. 46-9, CWOMG vol. 87, pg. 258-60 24. April 11 1947 Prarthana Pravachan I pp. 46-9, CWOMG vol. 87, pg. 258-60 25. Letter to Brijkrishna Chandiwala, CWOMG, Vol. LXVIII, pg. 40 26. April 11 1947 Prarthana Pravachan I pp. 46-9, CWOMG vol. 87, pg. 258-60 27. April 11 1947 Prarthana Pravachan I pp. 46-9, CWOMG vol. 87, pg. 258-60 28. Speech at prayer meeting June 4 1947, CWOMG vol. 88 pg. 75 29. Prarthana Pravachan I pp. 97-103, CWOMG vol. 88, pg. 37 30. Speech at Prayer meeting June 16 1947 Prarthana Pravachan I pp. 166-70, CWOMG vol. 88, pg. 162-3 31. Speech at Prayer meeting June 16 1947 Prarthana Pravachan I pp. 166-70, CWOMG vol. 88, pg. 162-3 32. Prarthana-Pravachan-Part I, pp. 29-32, CWOMG vol. 87, pg. 217-19 33. June 13, 1947 Prarthana Pravachan pp. 154-160, CWOMG vol. 88, pg. 144-47 34. June 13, 1947 Prarthana Pravachan pp. 154-160, CWOMG vol. 88, pg. 144-47 35. June 13, 1947 Prarthana Pravachan pp. 154-160, CWOMG vol. 88, pg. 144-47 36. June 13, 1947 Prarthana Pravachan pp. 154-160, CWOMG vol. 88, pg. 144-47 37. Speech at Prayer meeting June 16 1947 Prarthana Pravachan I pp. 166-70, CWOMG vol. 88, pg. 162-3 38. Mahatma Gandhi-The Last Phase II p 97, CWOMG vol. 87, pg. 200-201 39. Prarthana Pravachan-I, pp. 82-6, CWOMG vol. 88 pg. 5-7 40. Mahatma Gandhi-The last Phase Vol. II p 209, CWOMG vol. 88, pg. 33 41. Gandhijike Dukhe Dilki Pukhar II pp. 26-8, CWOMG vol. 87, pg. 133-4 42. New Delhi May 27 1947 Prarthana Pravachan-I, pp.88-92, CWOMG vol. 88, pg. 19-22 43. Bhagavad Gita 2:11-13 44. Speech at prayer meeting Jehanabad (Bihar) March 26, 1947, Harijan 13447 CWOMG vol. 87, pg. 161-2 45. Speech at Prayer meeting July 31 1947 Rawalpindi Harijan 24-8-1947, CWOMG vol. 88, pg.

472-73 46. Talk with Amthua Muslims, March 27 1947 The Indian Nation, 29-3-1947, CWOMG vol. LXXXVII pg. 164 47. Gandhi the last phase vol. 2 p 365-7, CWOMG vol. 89 pg. 33-4 48. Gandhi the last phase vol. 2 p 365-7, CWOMG vol. 89 pg. 33-4 49. Gandhi the last phase vol. 2 p 365-7, CWOMG vol. 89 pg. 33-4 50. Gandhi the last phase vol. 2 p 365-7, CWOMG vol. 89 pg. 33-4 51. Gandhi the last phase vol. 2 p 365-7, CWOMG vol. 89 pg. 33-4 52. Gandhi the last phase vol. 2 p 365-7, CWOMG vol. 89 pg. 33-4 53. Gandhi the last phase vol. 2 p 365-7, CWOMG vol. 89 pg. 33-4 54. Gandhi the last phase vol. 2 p 365-7, CWOMG vol. 89 pg. 33-4 55. Gandhi the last phase vol. 2 p 365-7, CWOMG vol. 89 pg. 33-4 56. Gandhi the last phase vol. 2 p 365-7, CWOMG vol. 89 pg. 33-4 57. This topic is covered in depth in the section, Was Satyagraha a Hindu movement? 58. Harijan 18-1-1948, CWOMG vol. 90 pg. 408-9 59. Harijan 18-1-1948, CWOMG vol. 90 pg. 408-9 60. Harijan 18-1-1948, CWOMG vol. 90 pg. 408-9 61. Prarthana Pravachan II pp. 78-9 11/14/47 CWOMG vol. 90 pg. 32 62. Harijan 18-1-1948, CWOMG vol. 90 pg. 408-9 63. Harijan 18-1-1948, CWOMG vol. 90 pg. 408-9 64. Discussion with PC Ghosh Sept 2 1947 Last Phase II pp. 414-5, CWOMG vol. 89 pg. 139 65. Discussion with PC Ghosh Sept 2 1947 Last Phase II pp. 414-5, CWOMG vol. 89 pg. 139 66. Talk with Congress Workers, Aug 6 1947 The Hindustan Times, 8-8-1947, CWOMG vol. LXXXIX, pg. 11 67. Speech at Prayer Meeting New Delhi Sept 23 1947 Prarthana Pravachan I pp. 337-40, CWOMG vol. 89 pg. 223-5 68. New Delhi Nov 25 1947 Prarthana Pravachan II pp. 117-22 CWOMG vol. 90 pg. 104-107 69. New Delhi Nov 25 1947 Prarthana Pravachan II pp. 117-22 CWOMG vol. 90 pg. 104-107 70. Footnote 3, Dilhiman Gandhiji I p 380, CWOMG vol. 90 pg. 121 71. Harijan 19-11-1938, CWOMG, Vol. LXVIII, pg. 81-82 72. New Delhi Sept 13 1947 Prarthana Pravachan pp. 305-310, CWOMG vol. 89 pg. 179-183 73. Prarthana Pravachan I pp. 447-52, CWOMG vol. 89 p 388 74. Speech at Prayer Meeting New Delhi Sept 23 1947 Prarthana Pravachan I pp. 337-40, CWOMG vol. 89 pg. 223-5 75. Prarthana Pravachan I pp. 137-40, CWOMG vol. 88 pg. 109 76. New Delhi Sept 13 1947 Prarthana Pravachan pp. 305-310, CWOMG vol. 89 pg. 179-183 77. Speech at prayer meeting June 10 1947, Prarthana Pravachan pp142-6, CWOMG vol. 88, pg. 126 78. Footnote from 95. Fragment of a Letter, Nov 25 1947. Dilhiman Gandhiji I p 356. CWOMG vol. 90 pg. 103 79. Prarthana Pravachan I pp. 360-5, CWOMG 89 pg. 261-64 80. In a February 22nd 1947 letter to Suhrawardy, a reference is made to the former mocking Gandhis inner voice to the Press. Online CWOMG, vol. 94. 81. New Delhi October 4 1947 Prarthana Pravachan I pp. 376-80, CWOMG vol. 89 pg. 282-5 82. October 2 1947 Prarthana Pravachan I p 371-4, CWOMG vol. 89 pg. 275 83. Speech at prayer meeting Jehanabad (Bihar) March 26, 1947, Harijan 13447 CWOMG vol. 87, pg. 161-2 84. June 20 1947 Prarthana Pravachan-I, pp. 182-87, CWOMG vol. LXXXVIII, pg. 184 85. New Delhi Sept 13 1947 Prarthana Pravachan pp. 305-310, CWOMG vol. 89 pg. 179-183 86. Footnote 1 Prarthana Pravachan II pp. 293-300 1/13/48, CWOMG vol. 90 pg. 413-17 87. Footnote 2 Prarthana Pravachan II pp. 293-300 1/13/48, CWOMG vol. 90 pg. 413-17 88. Speech at Prayer Meeting January 13th 1948Prarthana Pravachan II pp. 293-300 1/13/48,

CWOMG vol. 90 pg. 413-17 89. Prarthana Pravachan II pp. 154-9, CWOMG vol. 90 pg. 159-161 90. Vallabhai Patel's Statement to the Press, Appendix IIIa, Vol. 90 91. Harijan 25-1-1948, Prarthana Pravachan-II pp. 309-12, CWOMG vol. 90 92. July 27 1947 Message to Army Officers, Bihar Pacchi Dilhi pp. 429-30, Volume 96 of the online CWOMG http://www.gandhiserve.org/cwmg/VOL096.PDF

My Hinduism is Better than Yours

Advising Hindus to let Muslims kill them was not the only message given by Gandhi during
Partition; in the same breath he was telling Hindus to consider all religions, including Islam, as one. Years earlier he had explained his position that all the great religions are fundamentally equal. We must have the innate respect for other religions as we have for our own.1 This was at the core of his religious philosophy, a principle he spent his whole life preaching, yet it was having no effect on the masses fighting each other during the turmoil of Partition. If only they were to realize the inherent equality between their religions, then there would be no reason for strife: If the people of different religions grasp the real significance of their own religion, they will never hate the people of any religion other than their own. As Jallaluddin Rumi has said, or as Shri Krishna said to Arjun, there are many rivers, and they appear different from one another, but they all meet in the same ocean. In the same manner, there may be many religions, but the true aim of all is the same, and that is to help one to see Khuda or Ishwar. Hence, if we look to the aim, there is no difference among religions. 2 While it may be true that all religions have a similar general aim for the individual - mainly a state of existence higher than mans current state it is not true that all religions have the same vision of what this higher state constitutes. The Islamic goal for its followers is not, like the Hindu aspiration, to become one with Allah. The afterlife ascent in Islam is to heaven or paradise (where there is a fundamental division between man and God, as there one does not unite with the Divine consciousness), a place full of the finer things found in the earthly human life: And hath awarded them for all that they endured, a Garden and silk attire; Reclining in the (Garden) on raised thrones, they will see there neither the sun's (excessive heat) nor (the moon's) excessive cold. And the shades of the (Garden) will come low over them, and the bunches (of fruit), there, will hang low in humility. And there shall be made to go round about them vessels of silver and goblets which are of glassUpon them shall be garments of fine green silk and thick silk interwoven with gold, and they shall be adorned with bracelets of silver, and their Lord shall make them drink a pure drink. (And it will be said unto them): Lo! This is a reward for you. Your endeavor (upon earth) hath found acceptance.
3

In Hinduism, these earthly things as rewards within the heavenly realms - were not considered the ultimate spiritual aim (Hinduism does speak of the heavenly world, Svarga, a higher yet temporal state that the soul might reach). According to the Hindu narrative of the worlds creation, Heaven was established as the residence of the demigods, Bhuvarloka as that of the ghostly spirits, and the earth system as the place of human beings and other mortal creatures. Those mystics who strive for liberation are promoted beyond these three divisions. 4 The Soul ascending to the supreme and eternal state of being was not to find himself dressed in the finest silk; such lush descriptions, if used at all by the mystics, were considered material symbols of the highest state of consciousness, Brahman. Indeed this Eternal Consciousness, the supreme state of Satchitananda, cannot be adequately described by the limited human intelligence, for Brahman is Conscious neither internally nor externally, Nor either ways, neither ordinary consciousness, Nor the greater and the deeper consciousness, Invisible, otherworldly, incomprehensible, Without qualities, beyond all thoughts, Indescribable, the unified soul in essence, Peaceful, auspicious, without duality. 5 Such is the stress that Hinduism places on the eternal over the transient that according to Lord Krishna (as recorded in the Uddhava Gita), the denizens of Heaven including the Gods and Hell either desire or know that a return to a human body and its difficulties is necessary for them to

experience the ultimate reality: The residents of both heaven and hell desire human birth on the earth planet because human life facilitates the achievement of transcendental knowledge and love of Godhead, whereas neither heavenly nor hellish bodies efficiently provide such opportunities. 6 Continued Lord Krishna, A human being who is wise should never desire promotion to heavenly planets or residence in hell. Indeed, a human being should also never desire permanent residence on the earth, for by such absorption in the material body one becomes foolishly negligent of ones actual self-interest. 7 As discussed previously, at the time of Lord Krishnas incarnation, there were quite a few who had taken to the path of karmakanda, the invocation of Vedic rituals with the aim of arriving in heaven upon death. This misuse of the Veda, as explained by Lord Krishna in the Bhagavad Gita, was done by men who lived according to the principle of desire, to the idea that material enjoyment was the only truth to existence: O Arjuna, men of limited understanding presume speculative interpretations of the Vedic scriptures, advocating that there is no divine principle in creation. Full of lascivious desires, aiming to attain the lush heavenly worlds, they glorify only the statements in the Vedas that are pleasing to their senses; performing numerous ostentatious rituals productive of good birth, wealth and power, insuring sense enjoyment and worldly pleasures. 8 Those managing to properly perform the Vedic rituals with the erroneous intent of ascending to Heaven arrive at a place of great feasts and pleasures; but it is only a temporary abode, as the passage to Heaven does not last for eternity: Knowers of the prescribed rituals of the three Vedas, purified of sin by drinking of the Soma wine, do worship me indirectly by offerings of sacrifice to the demigods. Aspiring for entry to the heavenly spheres, where upon reaching as their reward the domain of Indra, they enjoy the celestial feasts of the Gods. Then, having enjoyed heaven, with the results of their pious activities exhausted, they return to the worlds of mortals. Thus following the dharma of the three Vedas, seeking the satisfaction of desire, they follow the cycle of birth and death. 9 It is a path not advised for devotees of Lord Krishna, since the whole idea of heaven as a reward for certain actions taken during the earthly life betrays Lord Krishnas message of karmayoga, the renunciation of the fruits of ones labor: A devotee should never engage in the fruitive rituals mentioned in the karma-kanda section of the Vedas, nor should he become atheistic, acting or speaking in opposition to Vedic injunctions. 10 The devotee is asked not to partake in these fruitive rituals because the reward of heaven arising from them, just like the rewards earned from asceticism or charity, is of an inferiority quality to the union with Lord Krishna: Whatever the meritorious rewards indicated in the Vedic scriptures by ritual sacrifices, rigorous asceticism or by philanthropic charity, the Yogi transcends them all and achieves the supreme and sempiternal abode. 11 The heaven that Lord Krishna cautioned against to Arjuna was later detailed by the former in the Uddhava Gita. In these details we find similar if not identical imagery to that described in the Quran. Lord Krishna first states that If on earth one performs sacrifices for the satisfaction of the

demigods, he goes to the heavenly planets, where, just like a demigod, he enjoys all of the heavenly pleasures he has earned by his performances. Being glorified by songs sung by the Gandharvas and dressed in wonderfully charming clothes, he enjoys life surrounded by heavenly goddesses. 12 Of course, this was not to last forever, as the karmakandi, being relaxed, comfortable and happy in the heavenly pleasure gardens, does not consider that he is exhausting the fruits of his piety and will soon fall down to the mortal world. Until his pious results are used up, the performer of sacrifice enjoys life in the heavenly planets. When the pious results are exhausted, however, he falls down from the pleasure gardens of heaven, being moved against his desire by the force of eternal time. 13 It should come as no surprise that the attributes given to Svarga are similar to the Paradise depicted in the Quran when we consider that Svarga is known by Yogis to be a higher region of the mental plane. Even at this elevation, it is still not near the unlimited heights of Brahman; it is, however, a place where the mental ideal reigns. And since the mental ideal will often include the fulfillment of the senses in both its hedonistic and aesthetic aspects, Svarga becomes the plane of enjoyment for those able to follow either the rituals or certain codes of conduct while on earth, or for those who prayed to enter. As it belongs to a mental region where earthly desires are extended in auspicious settings for a longer period than normal, the vision of Svarga was not at all limited to one particular place and time, since desire is prevalent in all unrealized mortals. This is why kindred visions of heaven have arisen in geographically separate parts of the world. While the idea of heaven springing from the Universal mind, found itself in numerous cultures often with little external link to each other, the difference was that for some cultures heaven was the highest state possible, for others the real aim was of a permanent quality. In that regard it can be said if we are to compare the paradise of Islam and the heavens of Christianity and Karmakanda to Brahman that if the aim for a higher state is shared, paradise or heaven is but an image of earth, while Brahman has the dual nature of transcending earth and its sensory reality since he is boundless, intangible, formless, undecaying and likewise tasteless, eternal and odorless, 14 even as he upholds all of Earths processes, for all worlds are contained in Him and none can pass beyond. 15 Brahman is inside all this and It is outside all this, and the wise behold all beings in the Self, and the Self in all beings.16 The Self is not to be obtained through an Islamic style Day of Judgement after death, with specific believers chosen whilst perceived sinners and unbelievers descend into a horrific hell. 17 No, the Self or the Soul can be realized within life through spiritual disciplines including but not limited to proper detachment from the sense objects and actions and thought, or through devotion, or a variety of other practices used singularly or in combination. Of course, either can be obtained upon leaving the body, but the principles to be followed while in the material world remain the same, and those who do not attain to either Self or Soul are returned even after a heavenly sojourn - to the world in different forms or bodies. Gandhis inability to discriminate between the spiritual goals of the two religions did not in itself bother Hindus during partition; rather, his continuous recitation from the Quran during prayer meetings disturbed Hindus enough for them to protest. The Quran being a holy text of a different religion was not the reason behind the protest; instead it was the antagonistic attitude the book displays towards the Hindu faith that provided the impetus: Today I have received a long letter from the Maharashtrian lady. She has complained in her letter that the volunteers did not act properly in stopping her. She has also said that the Koran ordains the killing of non-Muslims and hence there should be no recitation from the Koran. I have read the Koran and I found nothing of the kind in it. On the contrary the Koran lays down that one should have love for non-Muslims as well. If those who read the Koran do not obey its teachings, how can we blame the Koran? I utter every word with the fear of God in my heart. I am pained to find that the lady insists on writing something about

which she has no knowledge. Why does she believe that such and such a thing is written in the Koran because somebody says so? 18 Gandhi must not have read, or chose to ignore, substantial parts of the Quran, because the lady in question was correct in her statement - it was not hearsay that led her to write. The Quran, more so the Hadiths, contain numerous passages where Muslims are asked to fight and slaughter nonbelievers. For instance, the believers are told that when the sacred months have passed, slay the idolaters wherever ye find them, and take them (captive), and besiege them, and prepare for them each ambush. 19 Muslims are told to fight the unbeliever until the latter are in a state of subjugation to Islam and are paying a tax for their disbelief: Fight those who do not believe in Allah, nor in the latter day, nor do they prohibit what Allah and His Messenger have prohibited, nor follow the religion of truth, out of those who have been given the Book, until they pay the tax in acknowledgment of superiority and they are in a state of subjection. 20 The punishment for unbelievers who wage war with Muslims is of a brutal kind: I am with you, therefore make firm those who believe. I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Therefore strike off their heads and strike off every fingertip of them. 21 The prophet was told to be unmerciful against the unbelievers, the destined inhabitants of hell: O Prophet! Strive hard against the unbelievers and the hypocrites and be unyielding to them; and their abode is hell, and evil is the destination. 22 Gandhi, perhaps feeling less secure in his pronouncements, two days later admitted to consulting a couple of Muslims to verify his belief in the friendliness of the Quran: I have read the Koran and I do not share the lady's belief that the Koran ordains the killing of the infidels. I consulted Badshah Khan and Abdus Samad Khan who recited the Koranic passages so beautifully today and they also confirmed that the Koran did not ordain the killing of non-Muslims. No Bihari Muslim told me that since I was a nonbeliever they would kill me. Nor did the Maulvis in Noakhali say any such thing. On the contrary, they allowed the Ramdhun to the accompaniment of the dholak. All that the Koran says is that an infidel would be answerable to God. But God would demand an explanation from everyone, even from a Muslim. ...There is nothing in which good and bad are not mixed up. Why, our Manusmriti talks of pouring molten lead into the ears of untouchables! But I would say that that is not the true teaching of our scriptures. Tulsidas gives the essence of all Shastras in his statement that compassion is the root of all religions. No religion teaches us to kill anyone. 23 Did Gandhi or does anyone else truly expect a Muslim to have told him directly that Islam requires him to be killed? Especially when we consider that Gandhi was traveling the country urging Hindus to let Muslims kill them. Why would they want such an ally to gain an accurate understanding of Islam? However, even while lying to Gandhi, they did hint at the truth. What they conveniently forgot to mention - in relation to unbelievers being answerable to God - was that Allahs answer to such disbelief was an eternal punishment, as they who deny Our revelations and scorn them - each are rightful owners of the Fire; they will abide therein.24 Unbelievers are despicable in the eyes of Allah, doomed to hell, for "those who disbelieve from among the followers of the Book and the polytheists shall be in the fire of hell, abiding therein; they are the worst of men.25 Thus if the common Muslim is indeed answerable to Allah, with punishment or reward determined by the content of his life and the strength of his belief, the outcome for the unbeliever is predetermined to be severe. Gandhi should have been aware of the Qurans harshness, for if he was able to describe the Manusmritis (a book of man-made laws pertaining to a particular time and place, not the final and binding revelations of the Divine the Quran is considered to be) content, then how did he miss the

following explicit verse from the Quran describing the punishment awaiting the unbeliever in a fashion almost verbatim to the Manusmriti verse he quoted? These twain (the believers and the disbelievers) are two opponents who contend concerning their Lord. But as for those who disbelieve, garments of fire will be cut out for them; boiling fluid will be poured down on their heads, With it shall be melted what is in their bellies and (their) skins as well. And for them are hooked rods of iron. Whenever they will desire to go forth from it, from grief, they shall be turned back into it, and taste the chastisement of burning. 23 To partially answer why Gandhi never commented on such blatant cruelty is again to realize that regardless of his verbal commitment to all religions being equal, Gandhi maintained different standards for the followers of each faith. The Hindu religion was to be placed under intense scrutiny for things overlooked in Islam: Hindus themselves were to give everything, including their lives, to Muslims. After all, Hindus were the majority and assuredly the function of a majority is to become slaves to the minority, giving without receiving, along with obeying the Sermon on the Mount. Such giving without receiving constituted mutual generosity in the luminous mind of Gandhi! My personal view is that, since numerically Hindus are in a great majority, and are, as they themselves believe, better placed educationally, they should cheerfully concede to their Muslim brethren the utmost they can. As a satyagrahi, I am emphatically of the view that the Hindus should give to the Muslims whatever they ask for, and willingly accept whatever sacrifice this may involve. Unity will be brought about only through such mutual generosity. If the Hindus and Muslims observe, in their dealings with one another, the same principles that govern the relations of blood-brothers, there will be unbroken harmony [between the two communities], and then alone will India prosper. 27 Sensitive as he was to the needs of the minority Muslims, Gandhi was averse to do anything to make them the least upset. So what if their religion demanded the execution of Hindus, and that Muslim mobs were presently following such orders? Muslims were a minority, and it was the duty of Hindus to blindly accept the Quran as a docile text, never to identify it as the foundation behind killings and rapes of Hindus, let alone give any sort of violent response to such actions. Of course, many Hindus did not agree that the Quran, a book commanding the deaths of polytheists, was as gentle as he made it out to be. They also did not think the Quran ought to be read in Temples. Throughout partition protests were made against Gandhis recitation of Quranic verses, including one man who was physically led away during a nonviolent protest: Today also a Brahmin objected to the recitation from the Koran, but the prayer continued. Two young men from the audience took him by the arms, made him sit down and tried to silence him. This created some disturbance in the meeting. When the police came in to take him away Gandhiji said: Please, constable, dont take him away. Let him sit where he is. Please only see that he does not create any more trouble. The recitation from the Koran is already over. Now we shall have some bhajans provide this gentlemen allows it. If he does not, we shall have no bhajans for the day. At this that Brahmin gentleman smilingly raised his elbow and said: "Just look, in this scuffle, I sustained these bruises. Is this your nonviolence?" Well, forget about your bleeding. You just tell me whether I should continue the prayer. We shall have bhajans if you say "yes." If you do not agree, we shall have no bhajans today. The gentleman cheerfully agreed to listen to bhajans. 28 In the same speech, Gandhi made the rare admission that incredibly, the Quran might have some unpleasant verses in it: Now, why should we read only the Gita? Why should we not read the Koran too? Granted that there are some uncharitable things in the Koran. But is there any work

which does not contain such things? I have lived in the midst of hundreds of Muslim friends. No one has ever told me that I was an undesirable person because I was not a Muslim. 29 Again, why would a Muslim directly say to him that he was undesirable or, more importantly, that he should be killed because of his religion? It was in their interests that he remain a useful tool. The Ali brothers, collaborators with him in the Caliphate movement, were well aware of this, which is why they did not reveal their true opinion of him in person. That they saved for others, including one Lucknow meeting where Mahomed Ali affirmed prior controversial statements made about Gandhi, saying, Yes, according to my religion and creed, I do hold an adulterous and a fallen Musalman to be better than Mr. Gandhi. 30 This was a natural belief for a Muslim to hold, since the Quran demands the believer never befriend an unbeliever: Let not the believers take disbelievers for their friends in preference to believers. Whoso doeth that hath no connection with Allah unless (it be) that ye but guard yourselves against them, taking (as it were) security. Say (O Mohammed): Whether you hide what is in your hearts or manifest it, Allah knows it, and He knows whatever is in the heavens and whatever is in the earth, and Allah has power over all things. 31 This Quranic verse helps provide the basis for an Islamic practice known by the name of Taqiyah or dissimulation. This practice, while not a core principle of the religion, has become more important in recent centuries as Islamic populations have swelled in the lands of the Kaffir. Of note in the verse is the exception presented to the rule that believers should not befriend unbelievers that of the need for friendship in case of security or protection. This exception is present in another Quranic verse describing severe punishment for apostates the exception again those who lie about apostasy to shield themselves from suspicion or harm: He who disbelieves in Allah after his having believed, not he who is compelled while his heart is at rest on account of faith, but he who opens (his) breast to disbelief-- on these is the wrath of Allah, and they shall have a grievous chastisement. 32 The Quran also specifically mentions one figure, Abu Talib, who hid his Islamic beliefs in order to prevent controversy or danger to himself: And a believing man of Pharaoh's family, who hid his faith, said: Would ye kill a man because he saith: My Lord is Allah, and hath brought you clear proofs from your Lord? 33 If in those times, when Mohammeds army was periodically at war with unbelievers, Muslims were compelled to lie about their beliefs due to fear of death, the principle of Taqiyah in recent times has more to do with fear of suspicion. The lie no longer has to be that the believer is not a Muslim it is more subtle; the lie, or omission, is about what exactly the Muslim believes. A clear example of this was the aforementioned claim by Gandhis Muslim friends that the infidel would be answerable to Allah the omission was the fire that awaits the infidel. In that case, the use of Taqiyah was not because of any fear that Gandhi would kill a Muslim for his beliefs - it was to prevent a rethink by Gandhi of his position regarding Islam. Practically speaking, it is better that the Muslim or at least their Mullahs and political leaders, the ones who matter the most - have Hindus unaware of the Islamic aim of conquest. If it takes a few omissions as to the directives contained within their holy text, then so be it as long as the greater ambition of the religion is fulfilled. *****

Gandhi, unaware whether or not by conscious decision - as he was to what had been laid down

centuries prior, cannot be faulted for a lack of effort in trying to prove wrong these everlasting revelations of Allah. In the speech involving the nonviolent protestor, he debates going to Kashmir since Muslims there were having difficulties: I could still go to Kashmir because there too the problem of the Muslims was involved. I would go there and befriend the Maharaja of Kashmir and work for the good of the Muslims. 34 Then why, using the same reasoning, did he not travel to Sindh and Punjab where Hindus were being slaughtered at alarming rates? Well Hindus there were probably better educated thus it was necessary they accept their fate! The frequent obstruction of Gandhis prayer sessions began to irritate him greatly, and perhaps explains his gross misinterpretation of the motive behind such interruptions: Obstructing the prayer has become a regular feature here. Now women have started writing letters to me. Today I have received a letter from a lady in Marathi. She says in her letter that she is not in favor of the recitation from the Koran in the temple. In other words she means to say that all of you are against it because the Muslims who recite the Koran have perpetrated atrocities on thousands of innocent women and children. 35 This was not an accurate portrayal, for the ladys objection was primarily towards the content of the Quran. Maybe during a time of peace such protests would have been nonexistent, but Partition was raging, and Hindus were keenly aware of the absurdity of including Islamic prayers in Hindu settings. Continuing in the same speech, Gandhi compared Hindu objections to Quran recitation with a hypothetical Bihari Muslim objection to the reading of Hindu scripture (because of atrocities they suffered at the hands of Bihari Hindus): In the light of the atrocities suffered at the hands of the Hindus of Bihar, if the Muslims started saying that they would not allow the recitation of Tulsi's Ramayana, the Gita and the Upanishads and the Vedas, would it be right? If there are any Muslims who talk like that I would ask them what harm the Ramayana or the Mahabharata had done them, and what crime the Vedas, the most ancient treatises, had committed. What harm had Ramachandraji done them? But the same argument would apply to the Koran and Mohammed Saheb. What harm have they done us? You will therefore realize that because I wish to read the Ramayana and the Gita, I also think it necessary to read the Koran. 36 If Gandhi had truly read the Quran (without averting his eyes or mental functions to particular portions), he would have realized Islam is inherently opposed to any recitation of Hindu scripture, irrespective of any atrocities committed. For Hindu scripture dares to state that the one Supreme reality can manifest in multiple forms as Gods and Goddesses (or Divine Powers and Energies), can declare himself multiple names, yet remains the Indivisible and Eternal upholder of His own forms, notably as the Purusha within each Human. Allah, on the other hand, divides himself, declaring eternal punishment to those who place other Gods before or alongside him: Lo! whoso ascribeth partners unto Allah, for him Allah hath forbidden paradise. His abode is the Fire. For evil-doers there will be no helpers. 37 Indeed, worship of other Gods is described as A lie-- gods besides Allah-- do you desire? 38 This explains why Muslims walked out during a Gandhi prayer to the Hindu deity Rama in Noahkhali: According to the source Ramdhum was never stopped during prayers in Noakhali. A few Muslims did leave the prayer meeting when Ramdhun started, but the prayer did not stop. 39 Followers of other Gods such as Rama, all lies remember, are to be defeated by the followers of Allah: He it is Who sent His Messenger with guidance and the religion of truth, that He might cause it to prevail over all religions, though the polytheists may be averse. 40 It was the prevalent Hindu reaction to this Islamic doctrine that helps explain the following encounter Gandhi had with a young Hindu:

After a passage from the Koran was recited, a young man shouted, "Stop it, Victory to Hinduism." Hearing this Gandhiji stopped the prayer and said: Very well, let his wish be granted. Gandhiji asked the man to calm down but he continued to shout. 41 In response to the shouting, Gandhi continued, But Victory to Hinduism cannot be won in this manner as he has said. He must realize that religion only declines by such acts. How can we protect our religion by preventing others from praying? But I do not blame him. Today the atmosphere is such. 42 Of course, Gandhi had his own method to protect and expand ones religion: "We have to remember that force cannot be employed in the furtherance of religion. There has been no religion in the world which did not call for the sacrifice of life. Only after one has mastered the art of laying down one's life does one's religion attain strength. The tree of religion is watered only by those who are prepared to dieNo religion has grown by killing. It has grown only by dying. This is the basis of religion. Sikhism progressed only in this wayProphet Mohammed also fled to Medina without fear in his heart and God saved him and Hazrat Ali from thousands of enemies because of their faith in him. Prophet Mohammed, as it were, strengthened the roots of Islam by risking death. 43 He is right that many religions call for sacrifice of life under particular circumstances, but it is incorrect to say that a religion grows only by dying. Mohammed, by moving out of Medina, may have stabilized his group in a nonviolent fashion, but the growth of Islam, even in Mohammeds time, developed by risking death through the use of violent force. Indeed, the importance Islam places on warfare is indicated by the Quranic punishment for those who cower in the face of battle with unbelievers: O ye who believe! When ye meet those who disbelieve, in battle, turn not your backs to them. Whoso on that day turneth his back to them, unless maneuvering for battle or intent to join a company, he truly hath incurred wrath from Allah, and his habitation will be hell, a hapless journey's end. 44 The Muslim soldier did not go into battle with the purpose of dying without killing the enemy, even if he was to be rewarded posthumously should fate befall him. Thus even when dying, it cannot be said they laid down their lives, for any death they absorbed was done in the heat of battle, with intentions of killing. Gandhi, instead of focusing on such abounding violence in the Quran, the natural antithesis to his ahimsa, became concerned the Quran was becoming the subject of ridicule: Explaining why he was late by 15 minutes Gandhiji said that he wanted the prayers to start 15 minutes later than scheduled because it was the time for namaz for the Muslims. he also said that even if the Muslims came in small numbers we must keep their namaz in mind. We should respect all religions. In our prayer we also recited some portions from the Koran. I have heard that some boys ridicule the recitations from the Koran. We should not ridicule anybody's religion. If we do so, other people will ridicule our religion, too, and that would lead to strife. I cannot give up reciting from the Koran in the course of my prayer. The whole prayer consists of recitations from several scriptures. Not a single item can be omitted from it even if it comes to discontinuing the whole prayer. 45 Hindus were not alone in their resistance to his practice; many Muslims were not pleased with his practice of mixing Hindu and Islamic prayers. In January of 1947 a group of Muslims visited Gandhi asking him to go to Bihar to protect the Muslims there. They also pointed out that Gandhiji being a Hindu, recitation from the Koran at his prayer meetings was not appreciated by the Muslims. 46 Gandhi, to his credit, refused to compromise on his principles: It was at the request of a devout Muslim friend that he included verses from the Koran...of course, he never wanted to go against the tenets of Islam but he could not also listen to one particular person of half a dozen persons to whom they might refer him as to whether he was going against Islam by reciting from the Koran. 47

While the Quran may not have direct pronouncements against Unbelievers reciting it, it does state that should the Unbeliever hear any Quranic verse, Allah will prevent him from being cognizant of the its message facilitating the advancement of the Islamic objective: And when you recite the Quran, We place between you and those who do not believe in the hereafter a hidden barrier; and We place upon their hearts veils lest they should understand it, and in their ears a deafness; and when thou makest mention of thy Lord alone in the Qur'an, they turn their backs in aversion." 48 In an April 7th prayer meeting, Gandhi responded to letters referring to him as Jinnahs Slave and Mahmud Gandhi, 49 by declaring, I am a Sanatani Hindu and therefore claim to be a Christian, a Buddhist and a Muslim. Even some Muslims feel I have no right to recite from the Koran. They do not realize that religion cannot be confined within the boundaries of language or script. 50 This is not entirely accurate, because religion, unlike spirituality, can be delimited within boundaries, since religion is a human creation, deriving its foundation from its particular texts. And if these texts mandate strict adherence to its specific regulations, then a religion can be confined, especially if these laws include exclusivity of a God versus other Gods. However, some religions such as the Sanatana Dharma allow for the diversity of Truth revealing itself in multiple human forms and thought (with the most possibility of expression through those who have attained to a Divine state), throughout time, adding to the wider intellect and spiritual growth of the planet. This allows religions like Hinduism to expand beyond the Truths of its scriptures credited as the direct word of the Divine, and continue to absorb other scriptures or works, even those not considered the direct word of God. For Hinduism does not consider the Rig Veda or the Upanishads or the Bhagavad Gita the final word of the Divine; it does not see Brahman as so limited to be unable to continue revealing himself through human intellect and writing and speech. Hinduism maintains that God can express himself in all times and circumstances either behind the veil through the human intellect and action (these individuals are known as vibhutis), or directly through an individual soul with complete knowledge as to the eternal Spirit above. Hinduism also acknowledges, since time and circumstance changes, that things said or written even by someone with Divine realization in the past, may not always (though it usually does) apply to present circumstances, even if there was an inspired truth behind what was said. Brahman does not restrict himself to time and space, and his truth often presents to Man in apparent opposition, such as the truth that Brahman is both above the worlds yet remains Director and Enjoyer of all worldly movements. Islam, on the other hand, holds the Quran as the final and most important revelation of God. Allah, unlike Brahman, has confined himself to time and place, and there has been nothing left for Allah to say in the past fourteen centuries. Restrictions are also given to the definition of a Muslim, and since all Quranic verses are final revelations, Muslims are required to follow all of them, regardless of the relation to present circumstance. The punishment for not doing so is the dreaded fire: Surely those who disbelieve in Allah and His messengers and (those who) desire to make a distinction between Allah and His messengers and say: We believe in some and disbelieve in others, and desire to take a course between (this and) that. These it is that are truly unbelievers, and We have prepared for the unbelievers a disgraceful chastisement. 51 Once Allah has passed judgement, the believer has no choice but to follow that decision, even if it goes against the nature of the follower: It is not fitting for a Believer, man or woman, when a matter has been decided by Allah and His Messenger to have any option about their decision: if any one disobeys Allah and His Messenger, he is indeed on a clearly wrong Path. 52

Gandhi, of course, refused to believe that the Quran differentiated itself in such a strict manner from other religions. Gandhis mentality was simplistic; to him if a religion was founded, its holy books assuredly preached the same message as the books of others: "I was born a Hindu, no doubt. No one can undo the fact. But I am also a Muslim because I am a good Hindu. In the same way I am also a Parsi and a Christian too. At the basis of all religions there is the name of only one God. All the scriptures say the same thing." 53 Curiously for someone who equated himself as a Muslim and Christian because he was a good Hindu, Gandhi chose to make a distinction between the Hindu and Sikh, saying in an April 3rd speech, If I am a Hindu, I am also a Muslim. And the Sikhs are almost Hindus. 54 This particular prayer meeting also was disrupted by protest. On this occasion numerous people arrived to halt the proceedings: If somebody tells me not to hold the prayer or that, if I did, I may not include the recitation from the Koran, should I accept defeat and continue the prayer? I am not going to give up the prayer even if I have to lose my life. Those who stop the prayer in this manner do not advance Hinduism but harm it. Yesterday there were only two or three such persons; today there are many. 55 A few minutes later, Gandhi changed his mind, deciding that the number of protestors was not too few, not too many, but of appropriate quantity for him to stop the speech: Please to do not take it to be cowardice on my part. Had you been in large numbers and had all of you insisted that I should not hold the prayer, I would have certainly carried on. I would have asked you to cut my throat and continued the prayer. But here in the presence of so many of you, a handful of persons want to stop me. 56 Since the number of protestors was just right, his neck was not to be smote, and his followers opposing the protestors all of a sudden became friends of the Devil! If you suppress them and insist on my continuing the prayer it would be the act of a devil and I cannot follow the devil. He who is God's enemy is the devil. I cannot cooperate with the devil. ...I am a worshiper of this Rama. How can I ever worship Ravana? You may kill me, spit in my face but I shall go on repeating Rama Rahim and Krishna Karim till my last breath. And even at the moment you shower blows on me I shall not blame you. 57 Having said this, Gandhi queried the audience one last time to find out if the prayer should go on: Now I ask you to reply "yes" or "no." Do not argue. Shall I conduct the prayer? Crowd: Some thirty persons stood up and said: "Do not hold the prayer, we do not want your prayers" Gandhi: Well, so, all of you are against it? Crowd: Two to three hundred persons cried out: "No not all of us are against it. Do hold the prayer." 58 Gandhi, in reality wallowing in self-pity as opposed to making a strong ethical stand, replied, No, there are too many people against it. I am defeated, you have won. Tomorrow more people can raise their hands. Even now your number is considerable. 59 If to him defeat was the equivalent of a small amount of protestors amongst his audience, his addiction to being the object of blind worship was now total. For was it not enough that the vast majority of his audience did not mind his calls towards suicide? Such a need for complete acquiescence is one shared by Kings and the like, not men following the spiritual path, for it is ego to desire that all agree with ones every opinion, since all opinions, all philosophies, all paths, are but infinite variations of an Absolute Truth. The counterpart to this need is the feeling that one is in exclusive possession of the Truth and is being persecuted for his beliefs, a belief that serves only to magnify the vital ego. This is why Gandhi insisted upon continuing the prayer if the entire audience had been opposed, for such a situation would have heightened his sense of importance (in that his ideas were so revolutionary that others felt threatened by them).

Gandhi, the follower of Rama, the man who claimed to be ready for death at any moment, who believed that being ready to die at a moments notice meant freedom from cowardice, continued on: I can hold the prayer, but I have no desire to be killed at your hands. I want to live and work. 60 Perhaps all his bluster of being ready to die, of perfecting the art of dying he had yet to experience, of telling Hindus that death at the hands of Muslims was good for them, was mere chatter to deny from himself the feelings of fear implicit in this speech. Those who had come to hear him were naturally upset over his premature exit, and the ensuing commotion forced Gandhi to return and address the crowd once more: Gandhiji then started to leave. In the meantime the police tried to restore order. This created confusion in the meeting. Then Gandhiji returned to the dais. People started asking him to start the prayer. They offered to pacify those who were protesting. They said that they would all sit down, and that they were ready to abandon their lives for him, but he should not abandon the prayer. Gandhi: If you are going to die let it be on my condition. All my life I have been teaching the art of laying down life and learning it myself. If you want to lay down your lives, you should not do it with boiling rage. ...Right now these people are confused. They think that it is only Gandhi who is going about doing all the harm.61 Fortunately, the majority of Hindus and Sikhs chose to fight back. They preferred to take lives instead of handing their own on a platter, if the choice came down to one or the other. And they were not averse to using traditional Islamic battle tactics on Muslim sites: I cannot help mentioning the fact that according to information received by me 137 mosques have been almost destroyed in Delhi during the riots. Some of them have been converted into temples. There is one such mosque near Connaught Place which can never remain unnoticed by anyone. Today there is a tri-colour flag flying over it. It has been changed into a temple by installing an idol in it. Desecrating the mosques in this manner is a blot on Hinduism and Sikhism. It is gross adharma in my view. The blot which I have mentioned cannot be wiped out by saying that even the Muslims in Pakistan have desecrated the Hindu temples or changed them into mosques. 62 Clearly, there is some truth behind Gandhis critique of the individual actions of Hindu rioters who destroyed or converted mosques, even if the counter-argument relating these actions to the circumstances of the time holds more weight. However, why do these actions necessarily constitute a blot on the Hindu and Sikh religions? While it is true that actions by men sometimes can be attributed to their particular religion, this is not always the case, even with Islam. For instance, if Country X, which completely follows Religion Y, has the highest number of abused wives in the world, we cannot immediately declare it the problem of religion Y. It may possibly be that religion Y is the cause for or condones such abuse, but first we must study the religion (which initially includes study of scripture) to see if this is the case. This is precisely what many Hindus were doing when they wrote him; they were looking to the Quran (the foundation of the Islamic religion) to see if it was the impetus for such hateful behavior on the part of Muslims. And they were concluding that the religion itself was the source of the problem. Gandhi, typical of his penchant for double standards, rarely declared Muslim actions to be a blot on Islam or the Quran (he would only declare the individual Muslim a sinner), even if any form of Hindu retaliation was always a blot on Hinduism. And since he did not possess the ability to discern between different religious texts, his religious arguments were made in absolutes. Thus if a Hindu criticized the Quran as the source of Islamic violence, this automatically meant that an argument could be made that Hindu

scripture was sinful, even if the criticism given by the Hindu was perfectly valid and explicitly supported by Islamic scripture: You might say that the Muslims have sinned against the Hindus. But have the Hindus lagged behind? You should know what the Hindus have done in Bihar. They killed women and children, set houses on fire and chased the Muslims out of their homes. Now if a Muslim came forward and said that the readers of the Bhagavad-Gita had committed great sins, what a travesty of truth it would be. To a certain extent I am willing to admit that the Muslims have committed atrocities, that they have sinned. But what is beyond my comprehension is the contention that because a reader of the Koran happens to be a sinner the Koran itself is sinful. That way, the Gita, the Upanishads, the Vedas, in fact, all religious books, can be proved to be sinful. 63 Gandhi presented his argument as if the Hindu critics in question were making knee-jerk reactions to the killings of Hindus, when in fact the letter-writers had analyzed the Quran and determined it to be an important source for the violence. The true unthinking reaction was from Gandhi himself, because the fact that a book is religious doesnt remove the possibility it contains objectionable passages or a general ideology of hatred. Gandhi spoke of killings of women and children committed by Hindus, but in the Islamic Hadiths these type of killings are ordained by Mohammed, as long as the victims are polytheists: It is reported on the authority of Sa'b b. Jaththama that the Prophet of Allah (may peace be upon him), when asked about the women and children of the polytheists being killed during the night raid, said: They are from them. 64 Such calls for mindless atrocities on nonbelievers are not seen in Hindu religious scripture, since as there is no actual spiritual division between believers of different Gods, such possibilities cannot exist within the scripture. Not only are there different names for the one Absolute, but all the demigods (here again we speak of Gods and Goddesses as Powers and Energies of the Divine, distinct entities yet upheld by Brahman) contain the other Gods within them, and derive their capabilities from the Supreme Being. One only needs to recall the Kena Upanishad, which relates how the Gods Indra, Agni, and Vayu came to realize their powers as nothing but the powers of Brahman. In the same May 7th speech, Gandhi responded to a written accusation of cowardice prompted by his inability to read verses of the Gita in a mosque, even though he continued to read from the Quran in temple: Saying that I have not read the Gita in a mosque only means that I am a coward, does it not? Granted that I am a coward and am afraid of saying my prayer before the Muslims in a mosque. But if I am a coward in one place, need I be a coward everywhere? Do you want me to be a coward here also? 65 There was little for Gandhi to be afraid of in reading the Quran in temple, for though strong protests were being made during partition, it was not the first time he included Islamic prayers into his routine, and there is no written injunction in Hinduism against such a practice. The Quran, on the other hand, from its inception has not allowed non-Muslims into its Mosques, let alone allowing recitation from polytheist scripture! O you who believe! The idolaters are nothing but unclean, so they shall not approach the Sacred Mosque after this year; and if you fear poverty then Allah will enrich you out of His grace if He please; surely Allah is Knowing, Wise. 66

Gandhi would continue in his speech, boasting that although he had never recited the Gita inside a mosque, he had once done so in a building near a mosque! Such heroism on the part of a man who claimed never to fear death, a man who championed the causes of dying and suffering! If he truly lived to his word and religious philosophy, he would have gone into the mosque to recite his prayer, even if he offended, even if harm was done to him: You ought to know that in many places I stay with the Muslims, where I regularly offer my prayers without hesitation. And, while I was touring Noakhali I often held my prayers very near the mosques although not actually inside one. Once I held the prayer within the enclosure of a mosque, in a building on its premises. And I used to have all the paraphernalia of the prayer with me. There used to be the beating of the drum and Ramdhan with the clapping of hands. We did not have the drum with us but we did have Ramdhun with clapping of hands in the premises of the mosque. I told the local Muslims that just as they took the name of Rahim, I would take the name of Rama. I said that it was not worthy of those who took the name of Rahim to stop people from taking the name of Rama. And they did not stop me from taking the name of Rama. 67 It is telling that Gandhi considered this meager achievement to be an important victory; it demonstrates that at least instinctively he understood the hatred of polytheism that Islam has. For irrespective of his being allowed to take the name of Rama outside the mosque, the Quran still maintains exclusivity as to who can be considered a Muslim. A Muslim is not allowed to worship other religions, because as the Quran states, whoever desires a religion other than Islam, it shall not be accepted from him, and in the hereafter he shall be one of the losers. 68 This is inimical to Gandhis Hinduism, which accepts all the religions as one, even though some of them practice exclusion: "The Hinduism of my conception is complete in itself. Of course, it includes the Vedas, but it also includes many other things. I do not think it is improper to say that I can proclaim the same faith in the greatness of Islam, Christianity, Zoroastrianism and Judaism without any way impairing the greatness of Hinduism." 69 Proclaiming faith in the greatness of other religions was one thing, as it is in the nature of the Sanatana Dharma to try and integrate foreign thought and religion into its realm without fear of losing its own luster, even if such religions have no desire for mutual exchange. It was another matter entirely when Gandhi began to declare his love and devotion for Mohammed during his prayers, for now the generic statement of all religions being equal was becoming an exaltation of one religion in particular: I do not see why I can't read from the Koran or consider Mohammed as my prophet. I have faith in the saints and prophets of every religion. I pray to God that I may not lose my head over those who accuse me; in fact I am ready to die at their hands. I firmly believe that if I am steadfast in my faith I shall be serving not only Hinduism but also Islam. 70 How is he serving Hinduism when he says Mohammed is his prophet? This, after all, is the same Mohammed who on his deathbed made it clear he wished the expulsion of Polytheists from Arabia: The Prophet on his death-bed, gave three orders saying, "Expel the pagans from the Arabian Peninsula, respect and give gifts to the foreign delegates as you have seen me dealing with them." I forgot the third (order)" Ya'qub bin Muhammad said, "I asked Al-Mughira bin 'Abdur-Rahman about the Arabian Peninsula and he said, 'It comprises Mecca, Medina, AlYama-ma and Yemen." Ya'qub added, "And Al-Arj, the beginning of Tihama." 71 Gandhi went further in another speech, admitting that by saying Mohammed was the only prophet,

he was hoping Muslims would accept him as one their own: Now if I recite the Kalma I do not lose my religion. What does it matter if I say in Arabic that Allah is one and that Mohammed is His only Prophet! There is no sin in saying this and if by my merely saying this they accept me as a Muslim, I shall consider it a matter of pride. But if someone comes to me and wants me to recite the Kalma at the point of the sword I will never do so. I will defend myself with my life. I want to stay alive to prove this paradox. I do not wish to stay alive in any other way. 72 Its doubtful any Muslim would force him to recite the Kalma at sword-point, since he was already acknowledging the essential part of Islam, that Allah was one and Mohammed was his only prophet. What he somehow failed to realize in his diligent readings of the Quran, was that he was not allowed if he truly wished acceptance as Muslim to proclaim adherence to other Gods or religions. That is a primary characteristic of an exclusionary religion - a case of all or nothing. Gandhi wished to have it both ways. One cannot claim all Gods or all religions as one, subsequently to declare Allah as one (which in the Quran actually means that Gods other than Allah are falsehoods, and Allah is the only true God73) with Mohammed his only prophet. Perhaps just as appalling to Hindus was Gandhis aggrandizement of the Islamic cry, Allah-o-Akbar: Gandhiji first referred to the cry of Allah-o-Akbar to which some Hindus had objected. He held that it was probably a cry than which a greater one had not been produced by the world. It was a soul-stirring religious cry which meant, God was only great. There was nobility in the meaning. Did it become objectionable because it was Arabic? He admitted that it had in India become a questionable association. It often terrified the Hindus because sometimes the Muslims in anger came out of the mosques with that cry on their lips to belabour the Hindus. He confessed that the original had no such association. So far as he knew, the cry had no such association in other parts of the world. 74 While it is true Allah-o-Akbar has its devotional context, the origin of Islam not only associates Allah-o-Akbar with the battle cry of the Muslim army against unbelievers, it clues us in to the true meaning of this famous Islamic chant: The Prophet set out for Khaibar and reached it at night. He used not to attack if he reached the people at night, till the day broke. So, when the day dawned, the Jews came out with their bags and spades. When they saw the Prophet; they said, "Muhammad and his army!" The Prophet said, Allah is Greater and Khaibar is ruined, for whenever we approach a nation (i.e. enemy to fight) then it will be a miserable morning for those who have been warned." 75 We have here the cry used in battle describing Allah as greater, not just great, with the obvious conclusion that Allah was being glorified versus the Gods of other peoples. Even when cried out in civilian settings, it is still indicative of Allah being greater in relation to other Gods: When you get up to pray, perform the ablution completely, and then turn towards the Qibla and recite takbir (Allah o Akbar =Allah is the Most Great)." 76 The description of Allah being the most great - with 'no partners' - is used in another Hadith: as he reached the top of the hillock or upon the elevated hard ground, he uttered Allah-o- Akbar thrice, and then said: There is no god but Allah. He is One, there is no partner with Him. 77 Thus we have Allah-o-Akbar as a chant not merely extolling Allah, but also denigrating other Gods, creatures inferior and false to the one true God, Allah. The actual meaning of this chant also makes apparent the reason for the use of Allah-u-Akbar by Muslim armies and mobs from the inception of the religion, as they were going to war against unbelievers who dared equate other Gods with Allah.

It was their duty to subjugate the polytheist, making clear to them that Allah is the Greatest, greater than their false Gods. This cry was not the stirring of the soul, it was the arousing of hatred for the polytheist, of a primitive vital desire for blood and loot and sex slaves to be gained if they emerged victorious in battle. 78 Little surprise then that Hindus were disturbed to hear Allah-u-Akbar emanating from Temple grounds. Gandhi, of course, believed it key to friendship with Muslims. If only the Hindus were to start yelling that Allah was greater! If, therefore, there was to be lasting friendship between the two, the Hindus should have no hesitation in uttering the cry together with their Muslim friends. 79 One is aghast at the mere suggestion - the war cry of the Muslim, desiring blood, being shared by the object of that blood-lust! Perhaps the one letter describing him as Mahmud Gandhi was more accurate than it appears, since he was repeating the same cry made by Islamic invaders of the past. Why wouldnt Hindus consider him their enemy80 when he was telling them to declare Allah as Greater than their very own Gods, simultaneously urging them to submit before the Islamic sword? And if Allah-u-Akbar was a soul-stirring cry to Gandhi, Vande Mataram did not share such lofty praise - it served only a utilitarian purpose: He then came to Vande Mataram. That was no religious cry. It was purely a political cry. The Congress had to examine it. ...It should never be a chant to insult or offend the Muslims. It was to be remembered that it was the cry that had fired political Bengal. Many Bengalis had given up their lives for political freedom with that cry on their lips. Though, therefore, he felt strongly about Vande Mataram as an ode to Mother India, he advised his League friends to refer the matter to the League High Command. He would be surprised if, in view of the growing friendliness between the Hindus and the Muslims, the League High Command objected to the prescribed lines of the Vande Mataram. 81 How one fails to realize the deeper aspects of Vande Mataram is normally difficult to explain. One interpretation is that he was once again trying to appease his Muslim friends, ever sensitive to complaints they might have. If they opposed Vande Mataram, he was going to placate them by describing it as a political cry, instead of firmly stating that the Hindu would keep chanting the hymn as it was, in full knowledge of its nature. Other than in an attempt to appease, there is no basis to claim Vande Mataram as anything but a deeply spiritual poem, for Vande Mataram is not associated with the egoistic or tribal belief that one God is superior to others, or that one God is True and others are false. Vande Mataram is an ode to Mother India, as Gandhi said, but it is not specific to the material gifts India has, nor is the description of India as Mother something akin to the idea of Mother Nature; it goes beyond that. Vande Mataram is a song of worship to India the Divine Mother, a Godhead just as Sri Krishna is a Godhead, an immortal Shakti that upholds the nation. A poem that bows to India as Mother and Lord, Durga, Lady and Queen, and Lakshmi lotus-throned is far from a mere political cry. Diminishing the importance of Vande Mataram and elevating the tribal cry of Allah is Greater to that of a spiritual incantation was not enough to make his wish come true. He could never be accepted as a true Muslim, since he continued to place other Gods with Allah. And by declaring Mohammed the only prophet, he was trying to do the impossible - become a Hindu and a Muslim at once. While it is true on a deeper level we are all one, external divisions have their truth on the physical plane, especially with clear rules or other objective data to define it. One could argue, based on Quranic edicts, that Gandhi had in fact converted to Islam after declaring Allah as one and Mohammed the only prophet - because when Gandhi recited the Kalma in Arabic, he was actually saying There is no God but Allah and Muhammad is the (last) prophet82 - only to relapse into

polytheism by acknowledging other religions (for such apostasy, Islam prescribes death83). Indeed the Kalma indicates the reason for Islamic opposition to Vande Mataram, for how is a real Muslim supposed to recite a poem worshiping Durga, Lakshmi, and India as Lord? *****

Muslims were not the only group Gandhi wished to belong too; another collective he claimed
membership in were the Untouchables of India. As the once fluid varna system was solidifying into a rigid caste based hierarchy, a devolution beginning with the dawn of Kal Yug, at some point in time there came the addition of an Untouchable caste not previously seen in the four-fold system. By the twentieth century, the status of this group was at its nadir, thanks to the draining of Indias vast economic resources and the dismantling of social institutions (where communal living was the norm, in which each man had his basic needs taken care of by the community he was in) during the British colonial period, a process that only took a century to complete. By Partition, the Untouchables had a thoroughly demeaning position in much of the country, leading many to start agitating on their behalf. Men like Dr. Ambedkar himself an Untouchable were famed champions of their cause. Gandhi would also make the plight of untouchables a major point of emphasis, but speaking of them during prayer speeches or discussing their plight over tea was not enough for him, as he explained to a group of Indian socialists: If you cast your lot with me, I shall call every one of you, top-rankers, to defy death with me. I own no party. But you will then be my party. Long before you were born I was a socialist. You are arm-chair Socialists. Your ideal is to provide a motor-car and a bungalow to everybody in India. Till that happens, you will continue to live as at present, without sacrificing any of your comforts. I, on the other hand, believe in putting myself on level with the poorest and the least here and now. My socialism is not of today. I began to live socialism while I was still in South Africa. Even then many labourite socialists, so called, used to come to me with their bedraggled ties of dirty red to invite me to join their ranks. But they remained to join mine instead. For they saw that true socialism can be based only on non-violence. 84 When discussing how he put himself at the level of the poorest in India this meant the untouchables for the most part he was referring to his famous visits into destitute areas to live and mingle. Armchair socialists did not do this, only real ones like Gandhi did. But if it is true that Gandhi did spend time dwelling in Untouchables areas, he did not really live as an Untouchable, for when in their colonies, Gandhi had his own bubble of existence. This was highlighted in an April 1, 1947 prayer speech from a Temple in an Untouchable locale. This speech, like others, faced interruption from members of the audience: Today as soon as Manu Gandhi uttered the first word of the Kalma from the Koran a young man stood up, marched right up to the stage where Gandhiji sat and said, "You go away from here. This is a Hindu temple where we will not allow a Muslim prayer. You have been repeatedly telling this thing to us but our mothers and sisters continue to be slaughtered. We cannot tolerate it any longer." Gandhiji told him: You are free to go. If you do not want to pray let the others do it. This place does not belong to you. This is not the right way. You did not do the right thing. You forcibly removed the young man from the meeting. You should not have done such a thing. It would give him a sense of triumph. He was very excited. 85 Continuing on, Gandhi revealed the person that made his extended stays in the slums a possibility:

Auz-o-Billahi is the beginning of one of the verses of the Koran. You think that uttering this expression is an insult to Hinduism. But I am a true Sanatani Hindu. My Hinduism tells me that along with the Hindu prayer I should also offer the Muslim prayer and the Parsi and Christian prayer. True Hinduism lies in offering prayers to all religions because only he is a good Hindu who is also a good Muslim and a good Parsi. The young man said that this was a Hindu temple and such prayers could not be held here. But that is wild talk. This temple belongs to the Bhangis. Even a single Bhangi can throw me out of this place if he so desires. But these people love me. They know that I am a Hindu. Jugal Kishore Birla, on the other hand, is my brother. He is a big man in terms of money but he regards me an elder. He has put me up here because he considers me a pious Hindu. He also takes me to the big temple built by him. If in spite of all this the young man insists that I should go away and I cannot pray here, it is merely his arrogance. 86 Accusing the young man of arrogance, yet at the same time claiming that all the Bhangis (Untouchables) loved him? How could he be so sure of this? After all, the Untouchables did not invite him - the millionaire Jugal Birla arranged everything. For Untouchables already faced with dense living quarters, having to accommodate someone else not in true need of housing would have been a tremendous stress on space. That, along with disturbances at prayer sessions (potentially fatal in such closed areas) is why two days later, Gandhi was asked to leave: Yesterday there were only two or three persons who wanted to stop the prayers, but today the matter has gone further. I have received a letter written by the president of some scavengers' union. It says that I must not stay here. Just look at the ordeal an old man like me has to go through. But the president of the scavenger' union here is another person. After all I am a scavenger myself and all my scavenger friends listen to me. I have been staying here after consulting them and will continue to stay. Moreover, Jugal Krishna Birla is the boss here. He has put me up here. When the person who has accommodated me does not ask me to leave, why should I go? 87 Interestingly, Gandhi gave more importance to Birlas opinion than he did to the Untouchables he supposedly belonged too the man of money was more important to him than the men of poverty. The reason the Untouchables wanted him to leave irrespective of the fantastical claim of him being one of them was because accommodating him and the people who kept watch over him, was too much for such enclosed quarters. Gandhi, as he admitted in the same April 3rd speech, did not have the strength to live in the very houses the Bhangis lived, thus living arrangements were created in the colony, which surely caused upheaval and unrest for peoples already struggling: Let those who are at the root of this opposition at least come to me and talk. If all they want is that I should not stay here I shall go away. There are many people who would have me stay with them. But I am a Bhangi, and am content to put up in the Bhangi colony. I could even have all this accommodation here. They have only small holes to live in. I cannot stand it. I insist on cleanliness. If God grants me the strength, I shall start living in one of them. 88 In another speech he reiterated he could not actually reside in Untouchable housing because the residents of such dwellings were packed like sardines: When I reached Shahadara Sardar Patel, Rajkumari Amrit Kaur and others were there to welcome me. Instead of the Harijan colony where it was a pleasure to stay I was taken to the palatial Birla House. I was greatly pained to know the reason for this. Even so, I was pleased to stay in a house where I had often come and stayed on earlier occasions. Whether I stay with the Valmiki friends in the Harijan colony or at the Birla house, I am a guest of the Birla brothers. Even if I am in the Harijan colony their men look after me with total devotion. It is

not the Sardar who is responsible for this. He can never be so weak as to be concerned about my safety in the Bhangi Colony. I am always very happy to be in the midst of the Harijans, though, I cannot live in the very houses in which the Bhangis, through the negligence of the New Delhi Committee, are packed like Sardines. 89 For all his talk about living amongst the poor, Gandhi admitted to needing more than the simple dwellings found in the Colonies: One says that I am staying here in Birla House where people cannot enter; formerly when I was in Bhangi Colony poor people could approach me. What he says is true and I like it. I think I had referred to this the first time I came here. I came here at a time when Delhi was in the grip of communal rioting. The town looked like a graveyard. Bhangi Colony had also become crowded with refugees and it was feared that anything might happen anywhere. So the Sardar said that he would not allow me to live there. So they moved me to Birla House. I did not object because after all I cannot make do with a room. There had to be an office and a kitchen, and moreover there are many people living with me. Here I am also within easy reach of the ministers. They do not send for me. They themselves come to me. ...The Muslim brethren also find it easy to come here while they are scared of going to Bhangi colony. It will be a great thing if we can save such of them as are left. 90 Underscored here is the public illusion of the simple holy man moving freely among the poor and oppressed, of the Saint suffering for all humanity. In reality, Gandhis movement was dependent upon the abundant wealth of his benefactors (who funded an artificial presence in poorer areas), the security concerns of the government (who did not want responsibility if harm was done to him), and his own inability to live the life of poverty he idealized. This great Socialist, at once an Untouchable (who could not spend one night in one of their houses), returned to the luxurious confines of the Birla Mansion, which is a house for an Untouchable in the same way Aga Khans Palace is a prison. Gandhi, in his desire to help the Untouchables, erred in his glorification of their suffering, done provocatively through public visits. What was the Untouchable supposed to strive for when his current condition was associated with austere spiritual qualities? It is one thing to continuously (even naming a journal after them) write in their cause as an outsider (because if Gandhi could mentally appreciated their plight, he did not have the experience of true poverty and humiliation, since the Untouchable did not have Millionaires as safety nets). It is another matter to insist in writing -yet not live in practice that this extreme poverty and degradation was of the highest spiritual state. A better argument to this is that abject poverty and degradation tend to delay higher spiritual progress, since Man must first look after his basic needs before he absorbs himself in spiritual matters. In such an impoverished state, even if Man does turn to the Divine, it is in limited movements, not the breadth of scope characteristic of ancient India, where opulence and splendor were considered perfectly acceptable as long as one was not attached to these external things. It was the inner life and the quest for God that was to be the primary focus; external grandeur was but a means for expression of the inner fields. ***

If Gandhis sojourns in Untouchable colonies were carefully scripted to give the appearance of the
Holy Saint uplifting the masses, his core religious philosophy was also of a deceptive quality. On the surface, Gandhis ideal and here we focus on his belief in the equality of religions can easily be accepted to the Hindu mind that tends to a live and let live attitude towards life. Indeed, this religious philosophy might strike one as being a worthy heir to the spiritualized mentality of ancient India. However, despite similarities it shares with Hindu scriptures, there is a subtle yet crucial difference.

Gandhis religious philosophy followed that because he believed in all religions being equal, he was not only a true Hindu, but also a follower of all the religions, which only had slight differences: I consider myself a follower of Islam, Christianity, Zoroastrianism and every other religion because I am a true Hindu. All religions are equal and they are founded on the same faith. Various religions are like different leaves on the same tree, with slight differences in shades and shapes. Scriptures have said that one who condemns other religions, condemns one's own religion. I consider myself a representative of all the true religions...After all we are servants of the same God, by whatever name we may call Him. We may call him Rama or Rahim, Krishna or Karim. 91 Gandhi does speak of an essential universal truth when he speaks of religions being founded on the same faith. It is of course true that religions are founded on the belief in something higher than this material world. Since they are founded on this Truth, in that sense religions are equal intrinsically, not their manifestations or external principles written or verbalized. The same type of equality according to Hindu experience - applies to creations of Nature; the tree, the animal, the atom, the human, the plant, all contain the Divine within them, all are upheld by the Divine. However, the Divine manifests himself in different degrees according to the evolved state of each creation; he is latent in the Tree, passive and still, but in Humans the Divine manifests in multitude forms of power and love, beauty and knowledge. Essentially what this means is that the Divine is able to do more in the human form than can be done with lower evolved forms, even if he upholds all forms regardless of their evolution in Nature. When we apply this idea to religions, using Gandhis analogy of the Tree, we can say that if the soil that each tree (religion) grows on is of equal value, the quality of the trees that grow from the soil may very well be of different Natures. Even though religions are equal in their aspiration towards some type of Divine state, the way they express this aspiration is varied; in some cases there are significant differences, not slight discrepancies. The Vedic ideal was that all paths (we can include religions, philosophies, etc in this) have Truth in them. This is not the same as saying that all paths are equal. For some paths (or religions, ideologies, etc) contain only certain truths to them, while others bask in the Light. Each religion does have truths to be absorbed, but some religions are more developed than others, even if no religion can claim to be the Absolute Truth or sole representative of the Truth, since the Absolute Truth itself cannot be expressed entirely by mortal language or forms. To further extrapolate, no religion can claim its particular God to be the sole reality while holding other names of God to be false, for as told by the Veda, Truth is One. The wise call it by Different Names. Thus, it would be a falsehood to claim the worship of one particular Deity alone, or the following of one particular path (with the exclusion of all other paths), or the following of one particular philosophy, as the only way to experience a Divine state. But this is what Gandhi, whose philosophy on the surface appears so tolerant and inclusive, claimed to the contrary: My Hinduism is not sectarian. It includes all that I know to be the best in Islam, Christianity, Buddhism and Zoroastrianism. I approach politics as everything else in a religious spirit. Truth is my religion and ahimsa is the only way of its realization. 92 How would Gandhi know ahimsa as the only way of realizing Truth, when as he admitted he had yet to experience the Supreme Reality? Without direct knowledge of the Truth, he could only claim belief that his ahimsa was the only way for realization, a belief he still had no concrete subjective or objective proof of. To believe ones religious practice as the only way to realizing Truth stems from the ignorance of the ego that only sees things from its viewpoint and believes

itself the center of things and superior to others, just as the Earth was believed to be the center of the universe. Let us suppose, however, that Gandhis ahimsa actually led him to the Truth: Would that still make it the only way? Of course not, because each being has his own Svadharma, an inner law that he must follow that, along with the use of different spiritual practices (such as Karmayoga, Hathayoga, Bhaktayoga, Jnanayoga) in various degrees according the individuals Nature, will lead towards that higher state. It was falsehood for Gandhi to claim his path (primarily a form of Bhaktayoga - the path of devotion along with the stress on a couple of mental ideals) as the only one, and arrogance for him to declare himself the perfect Hindu, saying, Hinduism does not belong only to you. I am a Hindu too, and a perfect Sanatani. 93 Since he was the perfect Sanatani, since his path was the only way to the Truth (that he had yet to realize), it follows that his Hinduism was the correct form of Hinduism. He said as much after a 1948 prayer speech: I am a Hindu. I know that if the world were to adopt my Hinduism mankind would be free from all the worldly ills and man would live in a truly human manner. All this that I have dictated for you has just occurred to me after the prayer. 94 The hypocrisy is astonishing. Here is Gandhi, the man who claimed all religions equal, turning around to say his Hinduism had to be adopted for the world to be free from its ills. It is from this we see through the illusion of tolerance that Gandhis philosophy appears to be. The root of his ideology is closer to Abrahamic faiths than it is to Hinduism, for he shared the same exclusiveness. His path was the only path, just as the Quran is the final word of God, just as Jesus is the only Son of God, just as the Jews are the chosen people. He should not be compared to the Yogis of India, for whom Divine realization was accomplished, for whom the Reality pervaded all beings and forms and expressions. He was like the prophets of Arabia declaring their path the sole path to enlightenment, refusing to identify with the Truth deeply felt in the hearts of others or the Truth seen by others through inner vision, or most importantly, the Truth-consciousness lived and constantly experienced by those with realization. And to claim his Hinduism as the savior of man from worldly ills characterizes the hollowness of his words, because Gandhi himself was not free from worldly ills such as despair. It was this that Gandhi felt when he heard of continued acts of violence committed by Hindus towards Muslims. In particular, he despaired because he felt Hindus were disgracing the name of Hinduism by their actions. Could such a broad and ancient religion have been blackened beyond recognition simply because for a few months some of its members chose to defend their lives by force? For myself, I have now given up that desire. I cant bear to see Hinduism being destroyed by Hindus. Even the so-called Mahatma seems to have become an alpatma (small soul) today. 95 The reason Gandhi declared Hinduism destroyed returns us to the belief that his Hinduism was the path for the world to free itself from bondage. Believing this, he associated acts committed by Hindus in relation to his beliefs as to what constituted Hinduism. Thus when the Hindu killed a Muslim, he was veering far from Gandhis path of ahimsa, thereby disobeying Hinduism, since Gandhis path had to be true Hinduism, for he was the perfect Sanatani, Knower of the only way to the Truth. The fact that the Hindus were fighting for their livelihood was unacceptable because it was not ahimsa, therefore by doing so they could no longer be considered true Hindus, since Gandhi was the sole decider as to who was a Hindu. Hence his shame with each act of Hindu violence, because believing his ideas alone to constitute Hinduism, he subsequently expected followers of the religion to do as he said, suffering a blow to the ego when they did not. This is a base ignorance of the lower ego, which once believing its thoughts or ideology to be the

only course for the rest of humanity, in some cases has an increased desire for everyone else to follow its beliefs. Especially amongst exclusionary religions, certain individual followers may believe themselves the truest believer, or at least take pride in denigrating other co-religionists for not following the religion properly. This is but a natural denouement arising from the inception of these religions - influencing the individual egos of its followers - whose founders were men with an exaggerated sense of self. Having these men as idols makes it likelier that their followers will absorb this inherent character, a trait of the ego used partially to help differentiate oneself from the mass, becoming more exclusive from an already exclusive group. Another formation taken occasionally by the ego is to not only consider itself the true devotee of its particular religion, but also to claim itself the true exemplary of other paths like socialism, or to include itself as a member of different social groups like the Untouchables. This is another way to delude itself into believing that everyone shares its limited worldview, instead of respecting the multitude forms and realities of the Truth in its external expression. It was this delusion Gandhi possessed, believing himself born to reconcile the religions, the representative who miraculously made external divisions disappear. While his intent is credible, he erred in trying to harmonize such surface or external relations from that superficial level. For if Gandhi had had less desire to be in the public eye and less attachment to his particular mental formations, his Sadhana might have yielded deeper results, enabling him to truly unite with Muslims and all others at a Divine level from the vantage-point of the Soul where one can in complete totality and experience claim unity with others. Instead he could only profess himself as the true Hindu and Muslim based on mental affinity, instead of direct Soul-to-Soul identification (which first requires realization of ones own Soul). Mental affinity, let alone requiring a spiritual realization, does not necessarily require any rational basis either, thus he was a true Muslim simply because he was a true Hindu, as if that by itself was enough: Then I went to the refugee camps at Diwan Hall, Wavel Canteen and Kingsway. I met the Sikh and Hindu refugees there. They had not yet forgotten my past services to the Punjab. But I noticed some angry faces in all those camps. Those people can be forgiven. They talked to me in sharp tones for being harsh to the Hindus. They said that I had not undergone the hardships that they did, and not lost my kith and kin. They said I had not been compelled to beg at every door. They asked me how I could comfort them by saying that I had been staying at Delhi to do my utmost to establish peace in the capital of the country. True I cannot bring back the dead. But death is a gift of God to all living things-human beings, animals. Being a true Hindu I also claim to be a true Muslim. I always recite the great Muslim prayer in which it is proclaimed that God is one and He protects the whole world by day and night. 96 Indeed just as his ahimsa was the truest and only path to follow, just as the Hindus of Partition were doing a poor job of following (his) Hinduism, also was his Islam and his Christianity superior to the ones practiced by their (so-called) followers. After all, Mohammed and Jesus themselves were sure to have declared, he, the Mahatma, a true Muslim and a true Christian: Gandhi: Has England? Has it not still to grapple with the problems that baffle her? It is a very curious commentary on the West that although it professes Christianity, there is no Christianity or Christ in the West of there should have been no war. That is how I understand the message of Jesus. A.Freeman: Would you say Islam has repudiated its teacher, as Christianity of today has its Jesus? Gandhi: I have said so openly. Where is Mohammed and his message which is peace? I said

recently at a public gathering that if Mohammed came to India today, he would disown many of his so-called followers and own me as a true Muslim, as Jesus would own me as a true Christian. A.Freeman: How can we bring men back to God or to the teachings of Jesus or that of Mohammed? Gandhi: I might give the answer that Jesus gave to one of his followers: "Do the will of my Father who is in Heaven, not merely say Lord, Lord (St Matthew VII. 21)" That holds true for you, me and everybody. 97 For him to believe that Mohammed or Jesus would accept him reveals a curious mixture of naivet and arrogance. Naive because neither Islam nor Christianity accept among their followers worshipers of other Gods, and to believe otherwise shows an inability to admit that some religions might not display the same acceptance or tolerance towards the name of God that he did. The intolerance of Islam regarding worship of other Gods has already been discussed: The Christian religion shares this character enshrined in the Ten Commandments, that Thou shall take no other Gods before me. Jesus also had this message of intolerance, saying He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned. 98 Gandhi, though admitting to being a Christian if the criteria was just the Sermon on the Mount, was not baptized nor believed Christ to be the sole Son of God, making it impossible for Jesus to own him as a Christian, if we are to follow Biblical scripture. Arrogant it was because who was Gandhi to declare himself the true this or the true follower of that (at the same time denigrating practicing Muslims and Christians), basing these declarations on subjective interpretations (revolving around his fascination with the Sermon on the Mount, some Jainism, and some externals of Hinduism) of Islamic and Christian scripture. While it may have been easier for him to declare himself a (not the true) Christian since he did follow the teachings of the Sermon, one Sermon does not make the whole Bible. And to read into Islam, of all religions, the message of nonviolent suffering, is to display a strong bias to willfully ignore passages not in agreement with his thinking. While it is true Mohammed believed himself to be persecuted and practiced a form of non-violent opposition towards the Pagans (only because he did not have the military capabilities needed to fight during the early period), this initial period of non-violence was followed by horrific persecution of those he believed the tormentors of Islam. This persecution, especially of polytheists such as the Hindus, continues to this very day. Gandhis need to maintain his cherished myth of all religions being equal or, that all religions preached his message led him to deliberately repress awareness of the obvious, in order to maintain himself and his philosophy as the perfect example of all religious faiths. Believing himself born to spread this apparent equality explains his curious inability to come across (or at least, to comment upon) blatant and widespread hatred in the Quran, for an acceptance of facts might have shattered him, destroying five decades of his message that somehow, throughout different time periods and different areas of the globe, all religious scripture created preached solely the messages of absolute nonviolence and extreme suffering. Even if he could not, by their definitions, become member of the two faiths, he would come to share certain characteristics within his own religious philosophy. Absorbed along with turn the other cheek was the intolerance of other paths, the belief that the entire Truth could be possessed within one book or the world-view of one mortal. For Gandhi believed less in the greatness of Christianity or Islam than in the greatness of Gandhism. While these faiths chose to spread their beliefs in overt or even physically violent ways, Gandhi had neither the means nor the desire to convert in a direct manner. However physical violence is not the only form of violence; indeed the original idea of

ahimsa was the practice of not harming oneself first, which meant that if by not using violence one was causing one harm (whether of the physical or vital or mental type), it was himsa. Through his partition blackmails designed to get Hindus to go against what they intuitively knew was the right course of action under the circumstances, Gandhi was imposing himsa on the nation, forcing them to wage a form of violence against their inner will, coercing them to turn against their Dharma in order to uphold his partial and exaggerated truths of ahimsa and the equality of religions. References: 1. Harijan November 28th 1936 2. Indian Opinion, 9-11-1907, CWOMG vol. 7, pg. 33 3. Quran 76:12-22 4. Uddhava Gita 19:12 5. Mandukya Upanishad verse 7 6. Uddhava Gita 15:12 7. Uddhava Gita 15:13 8. Bhagavad Gita 2:42 9. Bhagavad Gita 9:20-21 10 .Uddhava Gita 13:30 11. Bhagavad Gita 8:28 12. Uddhava Gita 5:23-24 13. Uddhava Gita 5:25 -26 14. Katha Upanishad Part I Chapter III 15. Katha Upanishad Part II Chapter II 16. Isha Upanishad 17. Quran 29:025: And he said: You have only taken for yourselves idols besides Allah by way of friendship between you in this world's life, then on the resurrection day some of you shall deny others, and some of you shall curse others, and your abode is the fire, and you shall not have any helpers. 18. May 27, 1947 Prarthana Pravachan-I, pp.88-92, CWOMG vol. 88, pg. 19-22 19. Quran 9:005 20. Quran 9:029 21. Quran 8:012 22. Quran 9:73 23. May 30, 1947 Prarthana Pravachan I pp. 103-6, CWOMG vol. 88, pg. 41-2 24. Quran 7:036 25. Quran 98:006 26. Quran 22:19-22 27. Indian Opinion, 26-6-1909, CWOMG, vol. 9, pg. 265 28. June 1 1947 Prarthana Pravachan I pp. 111-6, CWOMG vol. 88, pg. 52-54 29. June 1 1947 Prarthana Pravachan I pp. 111-6, CWOMG vol. 88, pg. 52-54 30. "Through Indian Eyes," Times of India, March 21, 1924 31. Quran 3:28-29 32. Quran 16:106 33. Quran 40:28 34. June 1 1947 Prarthana Pravachan I pp. 111-6, CWOMG vol. 88, pg. 52-54 35. Prarthana Pravachan-I, pp. 82-6, CWOMG vol. 88 pg. 5-7 36. May 25, 1947 Prarthana Pravachan-I, pp. 82-6, CWOMG vol. 88 pg. 5-7 37. Quran 5:072 38. Quran 37:86 39. Footnote 2 Prarthana Pravachan I pp. 14-9, CWOMG vol. 87 pg. 194-8 40. Quran 9:33

41. May 2 1947 Prarthana Pravachan I pp. 59-62, CWOMG vol. 87, pg. 398-9 42. May 2 1947 Prarthana Pravachan I pp. 59-62, CWOMG vol. 87, pg. 398-9 43. May 2 1947 Prarthana Pravachan I pp. 59-62, CWOMG vol. 87, pg. 398-9 44. Quran 8:15-16 45. Speech at Prayer meeting April 17 1947, Bihar Samachar, CWOMG vol. 87, pg. 297-8 46. Footnote 1, Hindustan Standard 30-4-47, CWOMG vol. 86 pg. 402 47. Panchgaon Jan 28 1947 Hindustan Standard 30-4-47, CWOMG vol. 86 pg. 402 48. Quran 17:45-46 49. Footnote 2, April 7, 1947 Prarthana Pravachan Part I pp. 32-5, CWOMG vol. 87 pg. 225-6 50. April 7, 1947 Prarthana Pravachan Part I pp. 32-5, CWOMG vol. 87 pg. 225-6 51. Quran 4:150-151 52. Quran 033:036 53. May 30, 1947 Prarthana Pravachan I pp. 103-6, CWOMG vol. 88, pg. 41-2 54. April 3 1947 Prarthana Pravachan I pp. 14-9, CWOMG vol. 87 pg. 194-8 55. April 3 1947 Prarthana Pravachan I pp. 14-9, CWOMG vol. 87 pg. 194-8 56. April 3 1947 Prarthana Pravachan I pp. 14-9, CWOMG vol. 87 pg. 194-8 57. April 3 1947 Prarthana Pravachan I pp. 14-9, CWOMG vol. 87 pg. 194-8 58. April 3 1947 Prarthana Pravachan I pp. 14-9, CWOMG vol. 87 pg. 194-8 59. April 3 1947 Prarthana Pravachan I pp. 14-9, CWOMG vol. 87 pg. 194-8 60. April 3 1947 Prarthana Pravachan I pp. 14-9, CWOMG vol. 87 pg. 194-8 61. April 3 1947 Prarthana Pravachan I pp. 14-9, CWOMG vol. 87 pg. 194-8 62. Nov. 21 1947 Prarthana Pravachan II pp. 101-5, CWOMG vol. 90 pg. 79-80 63. Speech at prayer meeting May 7, 1947 Prarthana Pravachan p I p74-81, CWOMG vol. 87, pg. 429-34 64. Sahih Muslim 19:4322 65. Speech at prayer meeting May 7, 1947 Prarthana Pravachan p I p74-81, CWOMG vol. 87, pg. 429-34 66. Quran 9:28 67. Speech at prayer meeting May 7, 1947 Prarthana Pravachan p I p74-81, CWOMG vol. 87, pg. 429-34 68. Quran 3:85 69. Nov 21, 1947 Prarthana Pravachan II pp. 101-5, CWOMG vol. 90 pg. 79-80 70. April 7, 1947 Prarthana Pravachan Part I pp. 32-5, CWOMG vol. 87 pg. 225-6 71. Sahih Bukhari Volume 4, Book 52, Number 288 72. Prarthana Pravachan I pp. 166-70, CWOMG vol. 88, pg. 162-3 73. Quran 3:18 - Allah bears witness that there is no god but He, and (so do) the angels and those possessed of knowledge, maintaining His creation with justice; there is no god but He, the Mighty, the Wise. 74. Harijan 31-8-47, CWOMG vol. 89, pg. 80-1 75. Sahih Bukhari Volume 4, Book 52, Number 195 76. Sahih Muslim Book 004, Number 0782 77. Sahih Muslim Book 007, Number 3116 78. Mohammeds army would acquire slave girls after victories they achieved. In one particular hadith, Mohammed tells a follower not to practice coitus interruptus on a slave girl, the obvious implication that use of these girls as sex-slaves was allowed: Narrated Abu Said Al-Khudri - That while he was sitting with the Prophet a man from the Ansar came and said, "O Allah's Apostle! We get slave girls from the war captives and we love property; what do you think about coitus interruptus?" Allah's Apostle said, "Do you do that? It is better for you not to do it, for there is no soul which Allah has ordained to come into existence but will be created." Sahih Bukhari Volume 8, Book 77, Number 600 79. Harijan 31-8-47, CWOMG vol. 89, pg. 80-1 80. Speech at RSS rally New Delhi September 16, 1947 Harijan 28-9-47, CWOMG vol. 89, pg.

193-5: If the vast bulk of the Hindus wanted to go in a particular direction, even though it might be wrong, no one could prevent them from doing so. But even a single individual had the right to raise his voice against it and give them the warning. That is what Gandhiji was doing. He was told that he was the friend of the Muslims and the enemy of the Hindus and Sikhs. It was true that he was a friend of the Muslims, as he was of the Parsi and others. In this respect he was the same today as he had been since the age of twelve. But those who called him the enemy of the Hindus and the Sikhs did not know him. He could be enemy of none, much less of the Hindus and Sikhs. 81. Harijan 31-8-47, CWOMG vol. 89, pg. 80-1 82. The Kalma Tayyabah in original Arabic pronunciation is la ila-ha il lal-lah, mu-hum-ma-dur rasoo-lul-lah. This pillar of Islam is used during conversion, although it is not the only part of the ritual. Nevertheless, two key Islamic principles, Allah being the only true God, and Mohammed his prophet, are evident. The exact source for the Kalma Tayyabah is found in the Sahih Muslim Book 1, Number 1, where Mohammed gives the principles of Islam to a traveler: At last he sat with the Apostle (peace be upon him) He knelt before him placed his palms on his thighs and said: Muhammad, inform me about al-Islam. The Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) said: Al-Islam implies that you testify that there is no god but Allah and that Muhammad is the messenger of Allah, and you establish prayer, pay Zakat, observe the fast of Ramadan, and perform pilgrimage to the (House) if you are solvent enough (to bear the expense of) the journey. He (the inquirer) said: You have told the truth. 83. Sahih Bukhari: Volume 9, Book 83, Number 17: Narrated 'Abdullah: Allah's Apostle said, "The blood of a Muslim who confesses that none has the right to be worshiped but Allah and that I am His Apostle, cannot be shed except in three cases: In Qisas for murder, a married person who commits illegal sexual intercourse and the one who reverts from Islam (apostate) and leaves the Muslims." 84. Mahatma Gandhi the last phase vol. II pp. 161 -5, Talk with two socialist leaders, CWOMG vol. 87, pg. 424-5 85. April 1, 1947 Prarthana-Pravachan Part I, pp. 5-11, CWOMG vol. 87, pgs 183-86 86. April 1, 1947 Prarthana-Pravachan Part I, pp. 5-11, CWOMG vol. 87, pgs 183-86 87. April 3, 1947 Prarthana Pravachan I pp. 14-9, CWOMG vol. 87 pg. 194-8 88. April 3, 1947 Prarthana Pravachan I pp. 14-9, CWOMG vol. 87 pg. 194-8 89. September 10, 1947 Prarthana Pravachan I pp. 294-8, CWOMG vol. 89, pg. 167-170 90. Prarthana Pravachan II pp. 283-5, CWOMG vol. 90 pg. 393, 1/9/48 91. Harijan 23-3-1947, CWOMG vol. 87, pg. 45-46 92. Statement to press, Harijan 30-4-938, CWOMG vol. LXVII pg. 37 93. June 1 1947 Prarthana Pravachan I pp. 111-6, CWOMG vol. 88, pg. 52-54 94. Dilhiman Gandhiji II pp. 112-3, CWOMG vol. 90 pg. 248 95. Letter to Ranchhoddas Patwari, CWOMG vol. 89 pg. 277 96. Speech at Prayer Meeting Sept 10 1947 Prarthana Pravachan I pp. 294-8, CWOMG vol. 89, pg. 167-170 97. Harijan 17-11-46 Intervew with A Freeman CWOMG vol. 86 pg. 22 98. Mark 16:16

Violator of the Kshatriya Dharma

When judging the greatness of a civilization, one usually looks at its creations or discoveries in a
diverse set of fields such as the arts, music, literature, religion, spirituality, justice, or philosophy, to name a few. If the expression of something deeper or higher is made in these forms, if the truths of these creations effect an increasing inner awareness amongst swaths of men within that society, such a civilization is often viewed as a leader of culture, an advance in the evolution of Nature. For this to occur, it is necessary that the vessels of culture have appropriate training and purpose - the vessel being of course, man. It is here that we return to the Indian truths of dharma and svadharma; because in order for the vessel to properly express deeper realities, his inner being must be as free as possible not only from external bondage such as rigid societal or governmental structures, but also from the trappings of ego - specifically those that lead him down erroneous paths. If such bondage is in place, it will be difficult for man to follow the truth or natural law of his inner being, svadharma, whatever that may be. The expression of his nature obscured, greatness is not fully channeled through him. Along with the individual dharma is the dharma of the aggregate of individuals or community necessary in upholding any great civilization. In India, society was originally categorized into four groups or arrangements (Varnas) of Brahmanas (including those taking to the spiritual life, scholars, etc), Kshatriyas (such as the rulership class and warriors), Vaishyas (traders, wealth-producers) and Shudras (service providers). The Varna classification recognized a gradation of these groups in relation to their importance to society yet emphasized that all four groupings were fundamental to its functioning. To create balance in a civilization, it is necessary that all four contain men born or developed for such life purposes, men following their dharma. It is when people born or having developed the nature of a particular varna are working from positions within their group, that the purest expression of a national dharma can occur. This of course, does not always happen, whether due to groupings becoming based on heredity or if those entering a particular Varna are not of the right nature for that Varna. Lord Krishna addressed the latter problem when he warned that even a perfect imitation of anothers law was fraught with danger: Better is one's own law of being, though in itself faulty, than an alien law well wrought out; death in one's own law of being is better, perilous is it to follow an alien law. 1 Indeed according to Lord Krishna, following ones dharma prevents one from becoming entangled in the negative consequences that might be experienced by others doing the same action: Better is one's own law of being, though in itself faulty, than an alien law well wrought out. One does not incur sin when one acts in agreement with the law of one's own nature. The inborn law, O Arjuna, though defective, ought not to be abandoned. All actions indeed are clouded by defects as fire by smoke. 2 The Gita relates this danger primarily to the individual and his subjective development, but naturally an adverse effect will fall upon the group the individual has incorrectly joined, which in turn will weaken the nation. Of the four, perhaps the most dangerous to have the wrong men involved as far as immediate stability - would be the Kshatriya varna. The Kshatriya dharma is first and foremost to protect the people, to fight against internal and external conflict, to ensure a just and resolute society in order that the other Varnas are free to create without fear. If the Kshatriya does not follow his true law, the nation is at risk to all sorts of disaster and misery. This is why if the Kshatriya deemed the use of violence necessary in order to protect the people, then it was used, whether in response to provocation or not.

It was this right arm of the Kshatriya that Gandhi abhorred. Believing that the user of violence invariably met his death by violence, Gandhi proposed a different route. In it, the fighter of injustice, the Kshatriya, was not to lay a finger on the proponent of adharma. Instead, the Kshatriya was to willfully allow himself to be attacked by the enemy, accepting death without a fight, while the other party was spared. This was Gandhis famous Satyagraha: There are two ways of countering injustice. One way is to smash the head of the man who perpetrates injustice and to get your own head smashed in the process. All strong people in the world adopt this course. Everywhere wars are fought and millions are killed. The consequence is not the progress of a nation but its decline. But through the other method of combating injustice, we alone suffer the consequences of our mistakes, and the other side is wholly spared This other method is Satyagraha. One who resorts to it does not have to break another's head; he may merely have his own head broken. He has to be prepared to die himself suffering all the pain.3 The Satyagrahi was not to use bullets or try and evade the path of one: The day of independence will be hastened in a manner no one has dreamt of. Let not the reformers in the States therefore be unduly impatient; let them not forget their limitations and above all the conditions of success, viz., strictest observance of truth and non-violence. They must be ready to face bullets without flinching but also without lifting a finger in socalled self-defence. A Satyagrahi abjures the right of self-defence. 4 Indeed, the only tangible goal of Satyagraha, irrespective of its claim to fight injustice, was the death of its practitioner: For a Satyagrahi there can be only one goal, viz., to lay down his life performing his duty whatever it may be. It is the highest he can attain. A cause that has such worthy Satyagrahi soldiers at its back can never be defeated. 5 Somehow he failed to realize that if all the soldiers were to die, they would likely take their cause with them. Such a mass death of soldiers was always a possibility, for Gandhi did not believe the Satyagrahi should ever flee or retreat from battle: his only purpose in battle was to rush right into the arms of death: Fleeing from battle - palayanam - is cowardice, and unworthy of a warrior. An armed fighter is known to have sought fresh arms as soon as he loses those in his possession or they lose their efficacy. He leaves the battle to get them. A nonviolence warrior knows no leaving the battle. He rushes into the mouth of himsa, never even once harbouring an evil thought. If this ahimsa seems to you to be impossible, let us be honest with ourselves and say so, and give it up. 6 Here we can acknowledge a peculiar courage or maybe we should call it recklessness - in his words, yet also appreciate the minimal importance such a philosophy places towards life. The Kshatriya, while having no fear of death, was supposed to value life his own and that of the people he was protecting. For if the Kshatriya put himself submissively in the way of harm, who was to protect the masses in the aftermath? It was this truth Gandhi ignored, refusing to acknowledge the great responsibility he held. For despite the common view of him as the austere Saint living in an Ashram, Gandhi was heavily involved in Kshatriya activities, having spent the majority of his life as either the leader (official or de-facto) of both the Congress Party in India and the South African Indian Congress. As a Kshatriya, it should have been his svadharma, his natural law, to protect the lives of his people, instead of telling them to lay down their lives in a bizarre idea of self-defense: Gandhiji first asked them if any of them had taken part in the riots, to which they replied in the negative. Whatever they had done was in self-defence; hence it was not

part of the riot. This gave Gandhiji an opportunity of speaking on some of the vital problems connected with nonviolence. He said that mankind had all along tried to justify violence and war in terms of unavoidable self-defence. It was a simple rule that the violence of the aggressor could only be defeated by superior violence of the defender. Mankind, he stated, had not yet mastered the true art of self-defence. But great teachers, who had practiced what they preached, had successfully shown that true defence lay along the path of non-retaliation. It might sound paradoxical; but this is what he meant. Violence always thrived on counterviolence. The aggressor had always a purpose behind his attack; he wanted something to be done, some object to be surrendered by the defender. Now, if the defender steeled his heart and was determined not to surrender even one inch, and at the same time to resist the temptation of matching the violence of the aggressor by violence, the latter would be made to realize in a short while that it would not be paying to punish the other party and his will could not be imposed in that way. This would involve suffering. It was this unalloyed self-suffering which was the truest form of self-defence which knew no surrender. This art of true self-defence by means of which man gained his life by losing it, had been mastered and exemplified in the history of individuals. The method had not been perfected for application by large masses of mankind. India's Satyagraha was a very imperfect experiment in that direction. 7 The true Kshatriya would not put his hopes in a miraculous change of heart by an enemy that knew the Kshatriya did not believe in fighting. In such an instance, the aggressor would achieve his objective due to the foolishness of the ahimsa-following Kshatriya. The true Kshatriya knew that counter-violence in such a case of direct confrontation was necessary, because without it, a steeled heart and strong determination could have no external result. The Kshatriya fought back because it was the law of his being to protect the nation from suffering, to not expose his nation or himself to it. Indeed, not only would the Kshatriya fight back in such circumstances, he would also be inclined to take the war into the enemys home, to strike at their heart. A Kshatriya did not restrict himself to one tactic such as ahimsa in the face of battle. In fact, ahimsa or mute self-sacrifice in battle has never been anywhere close to a significant war strategy or tactic. Meeting the enemy in battle, negotiating with the enemy (yet trying to achieve the best possible terms for his nation), setting up defensive barriers, allying with enemies of the enemy, were among the many tactics used by the Kshatriya. Ahimsa never crossed the mind of the true Kshatriya because ahimsa was never considered part of the Kshatriya dharma. It was a virtue of the Brahmana. The Brahmana dharma was not actively involved in the protection of the nation through physical means. It was not their dharma. For this reason, they were free to practice ahimsa, non-violence or more appropriately, non-maliciousness. Their contribution to the defense of the nation was through religious and intellectual activity, education, direct guidance of the Kshatriya, or through occult or mystic avenues. In the occasions that the Brahmana gave consistent guidance to the Kshatriya, it was rarely coming from a realized Yogi, let alone a Sadhaka. This is especially true in modern politics which is replete with forces hostile to the aspirations of the seeker, who in turn will likely avoid that field. And if the Brahmana did advise the Kshatriya, he was wise to the distinctions between the law of the Brahmana and the law of the Kshatriya he did not force his law upon someone else. Ahimsa, a virtue of a section of Brahmanas, the Sannyasi, was undertaken to help move the Sannyasi from rajasic (characterized by action, passion) impulses into a sattvic (characterized by peace, harmony) state of mind, in order to make it easier for the Sannyasi to obtain his individual spiritual aspiration. A strict following of ahimsa, therefore, was not even meant for all Brahmanas; it was indicated for the individual who aspired for liberation. It was also meant for those with the inherent will to practice it. It was not supposed to be the mass movement Gandhi desired:

Ahimsa, which to me is the chief glory of Hinduism, has been sought to be explained away by our people as being meant for Sannyasis only. I do not share that view. I have held that it is the way of life and India has to show it to the world. 8 Ahimsa, unlike svadharma, was never a way of life that all of India followed; it was a means to an end for the spiritual seeker just as brahmacharya was. This abstaining from violence, along with vegetarianism, celibacy, humility, elimination of intake of intoxicants, and many other practices, was used by the Sannyasi to obtain a Sattvic state. From this evolved mentality, the foundation was set for spiritual realization. These practices were not done simply to become a person of high morals; they were done with the penultimate purpose in mind. Ahimsa and its role in Indian society was not the only exaggeration Gandhi placed on certain aspects of Hindu religion and Hindu history. Gandhi took his view of ahimsa to such an extreme that he claimed Hinduism itself had never permitted the use of violence: Similar is the story of Christianity. And Buddhism too, if we regard it as separate from Hinduism, grew only when some people sacrificed their lives for it. I have not found a single religion which did not in the earlier stages call for sacrifices on the part of its followers. When a religion is well established people in large numbers come forward to follow it. This gives rise to bigotry. Now even the followers of Hinduism have stooped to killing and slaughtering although Hinduism never advocated violence. 9 Such a claim flies in the face of the Bhagavad Gita, where Lord Krishna clearly exhorts Arjuna to fight his cousins in battle, to follow his dharma, knowing the eternal truth that the Soul is neither slayer nor slain10. Arjuna was reminded that his particular war was the greatest one for a Kshatriya to partake in, as it was a war to protect dharma from adharma (Dharmayuddh): Moreover considering your dharma you should not falter; for the Kshatriya there does not exist a more appropriate endeavor than a battle to uphold dharma. 11 Gandhi, as he is entitled, held his own opinion as to the Gitas message, saying, I find in the Gita the message of nonviolence, while others say that the Gita ordains the killing of atatayi. Can I go and stop them from saying so? I listen to them and do what I feel is correct.12 Gandhis belief in non-violence was so strong that he concluded that if indeed the Gita advocated violence, it should not be held as shastra: I do not believe that the Gita advocates violence for self-defence. I understand the Gita differently. If the Gita or some other Sanskrit work advocates this I am not prepared to accept it as Shastra. An utterance does not become scriptural merely because it is couched in Sanskrit. 13 The Gita, of course, is more than just shastra or some other mortal commentary. It is considered the word of God, the Divine Song - the language is not as relevant! Among those who disagreed with Gandhis interpretation was a European guest, Vincent Sheehan, who argued that the whole of the Gita was an argument in defense of a righteous war. In response to this, Gandhi gave one of his two significant interpretations of the Gita and Mahabharata, saying, he did not agree that the Gita was either in intention or in the sum total an argument in defence of a righteous war. Though the argument of the Gita was presented in a setting of physical warfare, the righteous war referred to in it was the eternal duel between right and wrong that is going within us. There was at least one authority that supported his interpretation. The thesis of the Gita was

neither violence nor nonviolence but the gospel of selfless action-the duty of performing right action by right means only, in a spirit of detachment, leaving the fruits of action to the care of God.
14

This allegorical interpretation of the events at Kurukshetra is an important and widely held view of the Gitas message. The view of the world and especially the inner fields of an individual as a battle between divine and hostile forces (more so than between right and wrong) is a truth longheld (and experienced) by many including Sadhaks. It is these forces, the Gods on one side, the Asuras and other Demons on the other, that constantly battle to win the heart and mind of man, even if in the end the two sides are but the workings of, or sanctioned by, an Absolute power. The problem with Gandhis interpretation was that he exaggerated this truth, narrowing in on one aspect while missing the whole. Just like those who viewed the material world as nothing but an illusion, Gandhi could not fathom that Hinduism conceived of war in the physical plane. But if we take Gandhis thesis to be accurate, it only makes it more likely that this battle between Divine and Asuric forces would extend into the material plane. After all, the majority of mans actions stem from something within wanting to make itself known on the surface. Rare is it for a mans inner fields to be disconnected from some form of action on the material plane, since all fields whether material or inner, Divine or subconscious, are interwoven. Even the Sadhak living in remote isolation is not necessarily free from these external battles. Besides the entire Mahabharata, the background for Lord Krishnas revelation to Arjuna, there are certain things mentioned in the Gita that enlighten us to the integrality of the physical plane in Lord Krishnas message to fight. For instance, not only is Arjuna told to detach his mind from the idea of himself as the slayer, he is told of the worldly consequences for abandoning his dharma: O Arjuna, happy are the Kshatriyas who achieve a battle of this kind presented in its own accord; such a battle is a wide open path to the heavenly realms. However if you do not engage in this Dharmayuddh, then you have abandoned your svadharma and your reputation, and you will incur sinful reaction. All people will speak of your infamy for all time, and for respected persons infamy is worse than death. The mighty chariot warriors will consider that you retired from the battlefield out of fear and for those whom you have been held in great esteem you will fall into disgrace. Your enemies will speak many malicious and insulting words discrediting your prowess. Alas what could be more painful than that? Either being slain you shall reach the heavenly realm, or by gaining victory you will enjoy earth, therefore O Son of Kunti, confident of success rise up and fight! 15 Arjuna is also reminded of the truth that mortals are a field for the play of occult and mystic forces. While men do have some degree of choice in their actions, unless they are consciously aware of and acting from the commands of their Purusha, they cannot be said to possess a completely free will. The will that men believe to possess is on a gradient depending upon their current state of development. Even in the cases where men appear to have tremendous power or gifts, there is still the great possibility that what presents to them as belonging to their personal will is in actuality dependent upon cosmic forces whether divine or non-divine. If in most cases men are ignorant of this universal reality, Arjuna was enlightened by Lord Krishna that he was an instrument of God, that the occasion had already been determined: Therefore arise for battle, O Arjuna. You will gain fame by conquering the enemy and enjoy a flourishing kingdom. By me and none other are these warriors already slain from previous design; you are merely the instrument. 16 From these examples, we see that the righteous war in the Gita clearly involved the physical

plane, since Arjunas penance for not fighting, and reward for victory, was of an external kind, primarily involving his reputation. Thus, if Gandhi was lucent enough to absorb an inner meaning of the war (indeed, one can deduce such a meaning from other wars such as World War II) and the message of Karmayoga (although he did not seem to realize that one can also surrender violent acts to the Divine as part of Karmayoga), we can surmise his refusal to acknowledge the Gitas material aspect as being due to his fanatical aversion to violence. Because when we examine other comments Gandhi made on the Mahabharata, we come across his second significant interpretation, that victory obtained by violence was meaningless: It was contended that the Mahabharata advocated the way of retaliation. He did not agree with that interpretation. The lesson of the Mahabharata was that the victory of the sword was no victory. That great book taught that the victory of the Pandavas was an empty nothing.17 The greatest of all wars, the war that Mahavishnu himself incarnated into human form to ensure the outcome, an epic battle full of heroic figures, the war to mark the end of one age and the beginning of another (Kalyug), was one devoid of any real purpose to Gandhi. The fate of those involved in the war had soured Gandhis perspective on the Mahabharata: What has been said in the Mahabharata is of universal application. It does not apply to Hindus alone. It depicts the story of the Pandavas and the Kauravas. Though they were blood-brothers the Pandavas worshipped Rama, that is, goodness, and the Kauravas followed Ravana, that is, evil. Renouncing ahimsa they took to violence and fought amongst themselves with the result that not only were the Kauravas killed, but the Pandavas also were losers in spite of their victory. Very few among them survived to see the end of the war and those who did found their lives so unbearable that they had to retire to the Himalayas. 18 For the Kshatriya, the possibility of individual death in battle would never prevent them from warfare in a Dharmayuddh, for as Arjuna declared in the Mahabharata, What is the use to us of an existence without heroic deeds? The Kshatriya was not fighting for himself; he was fighting for the highest of ideals, the protection of dharma and the foundations that allowed dharma to flourish. Death received when battling to uphold dharma was a passage to the heavenly regions. And for a man who wanted his followers to rush into death without a fight, why was Gandhi all of a sudden in anguish that few of the Pandavas saw the end of the war? While it may be true that the descendants of the heroes of Kurukshetra became involved in the typical rajasic power struggles that had previously characterized the Kauravas, that does not mean we should jump to a conclusion that violence is inherently wrong or that the Pandavas made a grave mistake going into battle. Instead, the lesson learned from the aftermath is the same lesson the Gita teaches - that rajasic human tendencies of ambition, greed, lust for power, arrogance, vanity, and attachment (this particular trait would explain some of the Pandavas leading unbearable lives after the war) are the causes of human misery and suffering. And if these qualities (especially the lust for power) are taken to an excessive level, men will be born whose inner law of being demands they fight another Dharmayuddh, detached from the idea of themselves as either slayer or slain, equipoised, with steadfast faith in Lord Krishna. *****

When faced with a more vociferous Hindu gathering, Gandhi had a different answer for the
inevitable question on Lord Krishnas message, as he related in a September 1947 account of his speech at an RSS rally: At the conclusion of the speech, Gandhiji invited questions. One person asked if Hinduism

permitted killing of an evildoer. If not how did he explain the exhortation by Lord Krishna in the second chapter of the Gita to destroy the Kauravas. The reply to the first question, said Gandhiji, was both yes and no. One had to be an infallible judge as to who was the evil-doer before the question of killing could arise. In other words one had to be completely faultless before such a right could accrue to one. How could a sinner claim the right to judge or execute another sinner? As for the second question, granting that the right to punish the evil-doer was recognized by the Gita, it could be exercised by the properly constituted Government only. 19 If such an opinion truly constituted the workings of the World, falsehood would reign supreme over the planet, as can be ascertained from an examination of recent history. In World War II, the primary opponents of Nazi Germany were Britain, the Soviet Union, and America. None of the latter can be described as shining beacons of truth, yet all of them still were of a mixed character superior to Germany. While we cannot say Nazi Germany was a land of complete falsehood, the falsehood it held was more than enough to drag humanity to a degraded level never seen before. It was for this reason that Nations that stood for partial truths were given the strength to defeat Germany. For that is how the world has worked, especially in the current age of humanity. It is not always a black and white picture, even if cases like Nazi Germany come close. What applies for nations also applies to governments, because if we suppose that one has to be completely faultless to punish another, can we rationally expect of modern governments that they be without sin, in public or personal life? Gandhis ideas of sinning and its punishment were derived more from his contact with Christianity than Hindu ideas, because in Gandhis mind sinning was something that one must atone for, as he told a Hindu audience in a 1947 speech: I visit only those places where Muslims have suffered in some way or the other at the hands of Hindus. Everywhere I appeal to Hindus to atone for their sins. When one man commits a crime, all mankind becomes responsible for it. Hence even if a single Hindu has misbehaved here, all the Hindus will be put in a dock. ...I shall not report the names of the criminals to the Ministers here, even though they are my friends. You should display your courage by confessing your guilt and ennoble your soul by atoning for it. 20 Hinduism did not have this idea of atoning or repenting for sins, in the way it is usually meant in popular Christian culture, where often one goes to the priest and confesses his sins, or performs other acts, to receive forgiveness from God. Hinduism has the Law of Karma where confession itself is only one part of the process. The confession, which really only needs to be a private act towards God, is done in order to bring about a transformation of the persons Nature, not just an absolving of guilt with the continued likelihood of repeat sinning. This change does not always precipitate a removal of the karma, because knowledge comes best through experience, and sometimes a karmic reaction (as a form of punishment, which is only a minor form of karmic workings) will still have to be exhausted. In such a case, prayer for the Divine Grace (something Christianity calls for as well) can help alleviate reactions for 'sins'. The other problem with Gandhis view is his primitive notion of placement of sin. In it he takes the idea of sins of the father passed onto the son to another orbit, for how is the sin of one Hindu on a Muslim transferable to a Hindu thousands of miles away? Such a view denies the legitimacy of individual accountability, and the particular misbehaving of a Hindu in the pervading atmosphere can be debated. Because even if Biharis did go on the offensive in response to Noakhali, could they

not use the justification using Gandhis mentality - that if a single Hindu is harmed a thousand miles away, all Hindus must respond everywhere? Finally, the idea of sinning is always subject to differing individual standards, because the ideas of Good and Evil are human concepts that, while based on truth, can never be representative of the whole Truth, and can be made too rigid in the minds of moralists like Gandhi. And when the moralist has a strong vanity of his opinion along with a lust for power, danger lurks, for the moralist may wish to force his viewpoint on the entire population, forcing them to repent to him: I did not like the statement made by the Qaid-e-Azam. ...Why does he not mention what happened to the Hindus in West Punjab? If Bihar indulged in evil acts they repented it. In Calcutta the Hindus came to me and repented before me. It would be a noble thing if the Muslims do the same and admit that they have done wrong things. I have seen the things and how can I close my eyes to them? Now can I cover up the crimes committed by the Hindus? I want to be faithful to all religions. I can betray neither God nor me. I wish to be loyal to all. 21 In India, the realized man, united with God, does not go around asking for others to repent at his feet, for he sees the work of God either directly present, or work that God has allowed to occur without his direct involvement, behind all actions of men. What the moralist sees as a crime, the realized man may see as an inevitably of one energy reacting against another. Knowing himself as the Divine, the realized man does not need others to repent before him in a public display, for he already knows the inherent balance of Truth and Falsehood behind their actions. Of course, if a devotee goes to a Yogi to pray for Grace, the Yogi will not reject this prayer. Yet even while aiding the devotee, the Yogi has no desire for others in a similar situation to repent before him. It is a strong vital ego and arrogance that demands of other men acknowledgement of sin before him, an ego who perhaps fancied himself the perfect ideological heir to Jesus Christ? This, after all, was a man who regularly spoke of his love for the New Testament and its message of nonviolent resistance, who agreed in principle with the idea of Jesus as the Prince of passive resisters, the strategy he had engrossed himself in: Gandhiji went on to relate how he had resisted a certain millionaire in South Africa who had introduced him at a public meeting as a mere passive resister and weak because as an Indian there he was landless and without any rights. Gandhiji objected to this description and said that real passive resistance had been miscalled the weapon of the weak. After all Jesus Christ had been called the Prince of passive resisters. Could he, in any sense of the term, be called a weak man? People forget that soul force, the only weapon of the truly nonviolent man, was a weapon of the strong. 22 It was one thing to have an ideological liking to a philosophy, it was another to then claim that if Mohammed came to India today, he would disown many of his so-called followers and own me as a true Muslim, as Jesus would own me as a true Christian. 23 Taking his wish to live Jesus life even in death, Gandhi declared himself ready to forgive his assassin. Jesus Christ prayed to God from the Cross to forgive those who had crucified him. It is my constant prayer to God that He may give me the strength to intercede even for my assassin. And it should be your prayer too that your faithful servant may be given that strength to forgive. 24 This ambition to be known as a great man or prophet or Saint has long been considered one of the most dangerous obstacles for those, like Gandhi, who seek spiritual realization. The desire for spiritual fame or power is fatal to the spiritual endeavor, as it is a subtle working of the ego mistaking its distorted use of higher forces for the purity of the Divine power. Since the true goal of

spiritual practice is to elevate ones consciousness from the ego to the Divine, the desire to achieve spiritual fame will lead to a withdrawal of the Divine from his attempt to reveal himself, because the persistence of such ambition means that the ego is not steady enough to absorb the magnitude of the Divine. Such urges for glory plagued Gandhi from his beginnings in the political scene, implicit in this column written in South Africa urging Indians there to follow Satyagraha: It does not matter if the satyagrahis' army is a small one. History will tell you the Light Brigade consisted of only a few men and yet it attained immortal fame. Similarly, satyagrahis will enjoy immortal fame, at least in South Africa. 25 Just as Jesus and Mohammed became known throughout the world, such was Gandhis wish for international prestige. If only Gandhi could be present in the flesh in all troubled areas, then the world would be filled with peace: I would accept the challenge of conquering the tribal areas but as a nonviolent man. I would not bribe them, nor kill them; I would serve them. Have not the missionaries allowed themselves to be eaten by cannibals? The correspondent exclaimed, "Alas! There are no Gandhis in Palestine, in Russia or in the USA!" to which Gandhiji laughingly replied: So much the worse for them. 26 While fame is something the Kshatriya may welcome after victory in battle, since the Kshatriya is often moved by human desires, the Kshatriya dharma does not consider fame an inner reason to go into battle. Battle was meant for upholding dharma; glory was known to be fleeting and thus was given little importance. Rama did not slay the Asuras and Rakshasas in the forest, nor destroy Ravana, in the quest for his name to be known across the globe. He killed because it was inherently the right course of action for him to take; to have not done so would have been a grave falsehood against his being. Indeed, if we are to recall Gandhis advice27 on the course of action to take when faced with a woman potentially being molested, we can compare it with Ramas response to the abduction of Sita. Granted that Ravana, due to Lord Brahmas curse on him, could not forcibly take Sita to bed (otherwise his head would explode into a thousand pieces), Rama still had to rescue her from Ravanas possession. It is here we can compare Gandhis approach to such a task versus that of the embodiment of the Kshatriya dharma, the Avatar who took birth to destroy this Rakshasa that threatened the ultimate purpose of human creation. Gandhi, having eschewed violence, could only use the tactic of a fast to death or simple persuasion. This, according to Gandhi, was the path of love. But was it? If violence is viewed by some with disdain, as a bloody mess full of hateful intentions, another view holds that violence can in certain circumstances be an act of love. While this is not always so, when Rama physically killed Ravana, it was an act driven by love not only for Sita, not only for the Gods and mortals whom the Rakshasa held sway over, but for Ravana as well. When Gandhi said that a Satyagrahi must place himself in between a molester and a female victim without violently opposing the attacker (even if it ended the Satyagrahis life), he believed it to be an act of love because it was gentle to the attacker and would impart - through the death of the Satyagrahi - a ten to one likelihood that the molesters passion would cease. This is utter nonsense, since of course in such a situation it is ones dharma to protect the female from rape since it is not love to leave her unprotected by allowing oneself to be effortlessly slaughtered. Nobody, let alone a Kshatriya whose job it was to protect especially those who could not protect themselves, would take such an idiotic stance when confronted with that situation. At

the least, one of weak character or constitution might try to find help. It is unfortunate that the proper course of action in this scenario even needs to be belabored, but as the fervent support of Gandhian ideas is high in some quarters, it must be examined. While a violent response (not necessarily involving killing) to a potential molestation in front of one is obviously an act of love towards the victim, in an obscure fashion it is also love for the attacker. In such a situation, gentle words or a subservient placement of ones body in front of the victim are unlikely to assuage the attacker, since he has been possessed by a brutal force of lust. Indeed a passive intertwinement is likely to only increase in him feelings of power that these forces thrive upon. Having easily removed the passive resister, he is not likely to change his mind with regards the woman, since men of this kind are not likely to possess the level of consciousness required to know that what they are doing is falsehood. It is here that a physical response may aid the attacker in acquiring this knowledge, for a physical thrashing or killing of a potential rapist is often the only way for him to realize his error, to experience (relatively) the type of suffering or humiliation he intended to bring about. While a violent response may end the life of the rapist, it still aids the growth of the Soul by fulfilling the purpose behind rebirth, namely the acquisition of life experiences eventually leading the Soul to its ultimate destiny (or in the case of Ravana, it is the way to help a typal being of darkness realize the falsehood of his ways and convert himself into an agent of light). It was this growth that Rama indirectly enabled Ravana to have, through the destruction of first his relatives and sons, then himself. Prior to his death, Ravana begins to experience the sorts of sufferings he inflicted upon others, begins to question the quality of his actions within his lifetime. Through such suffering inflicted by Rama, knowledge was to an extent acquired as to the true primitive nature of his actions. Thus while the first love of the Kshatriya in such circumstances is for the people subjected to the adharma of Ravana or the rapist, the punishment of these men of adharma is also in its secret nature an act of love. To understand how Gandhi mistakenly took his ahimsa to be an act of love in accordance with the Kshatriya dharma, we only need remember Shri Krishnas words to follow ones dharma. If Gandhi had a few tendencies that were harmonious with the Kshatriya dharma, such as his willingness to support a cause he considered worthy, his obsession with turning ahimsa into a Kshatriya trait was what made his actions adharmic. The obscure impetus behind Gandhis fetish of ahimsa was well intentioned - that of bringing spirituality into politics. However, making politicians and soldiers28 practice ahimsa or even the spinning of cloth was not the way to spiritualize the Kshatriya varna. The method of spiritualizing politics had already been revealed in the Gita in the path of Karmayoga. In order to spiritualize politics and warfare, both being professions of high activity, the surrender to God of both the fruit of the labor and the actual process of the labor is the first step for the individual. For national polity, the Kshatriyas aims of upholding dharma and stamping out injustice internally or externally driven, can be spiritualized by facilitating the national expression of the highest Truth, the Absolute, the Divine, something far more luminous than the petty (in relation) and ego-dependent moral or ethical truths of Gandhi. In trying to spiritualize politics, Gandhi only succeeded in confusing the efforts of the political and military classes of his and subsequent times, hindering their actions, preventing them from fully acting according to their dharma, consequently impeding their life-force and Will through his moral positions and fasts of blackmail. In trying to bring the Brahmana principles into the Kshatriya varna, Gandhi would make declarations of the most shocking variety, not befitting of one considered the Father of the Nation, nor one granted the title of Mahatma. ***

Of the virtues of the Brahmana dharma, ahimsa is but one.

Other noble practices include, as mentioned, brahmacharya, learning of scriptures, restraint from rage and other rajasic tendencies. Another virtue of the Brahmana Gandhi wished to bring into the field of the Kshatriya, was truthtelling. The spiritual disciple practices truth-telling in order to make himself as close to a perfect reflection of the Divine as possible. By only speaking truths to others and acknowledging truths of ones nature internally, the disciple can accelerate the purification of his heart and mind. However, this does not mean that by only speaking truths, by being honest, one may necessarily become united with the Absolute Truth. While honesty is undoubtedly a virtue that would benefit mankind if practiced by all, we must face reality and accept that often, men will lie or connive to further their ends. In the Kshatriya varna, prior to the advent of Kalyug, a code of ethics was in place where all warriors only spoke honestly. However, as the Mahabharata illustrates, this practice had eroded through events anteceding the battle of Kurukshetra. Deceit and secret conspiring led to the banishment of the Pandavas to the forest, and an element of deceit was used by the Pandavas to emerge victorious in battle. Lord Krishna, knowing the adharma practiced by the Kauravas prior to battle, knowing that for the sake of dharma it was necessary the Pandavas vanquish the jealous, cruel and ambitious Kauravas, was complicit in this deceit, urging Bhima to fulfill his earlier promises even if it entailed striking Duryodhana below the navel with his mace. Such an act was not practiced by the Kshatriyas of the time but it was needed in order to win the war and to preserve Bhimas word to Draupadi. What Lord Krishna wholly understood was that the code of pure honesty (since technically it can be said the Pandavas did not commit a lie) and proper battle ethics practiced by the Kshatriyas of the time period, whatever the Truth they contained, could never be Absolute Truths, since ethics and codes and morality and even honesty are still human things, always variable. What is more important for the Kshatriya is the upholding of dharma, even if it means in some instants the breach of an ethical code of conduct. By the beginning of the Kalyug, subterfuge and lying had become distinct possibilities for those in politics and war. Indeed part of the reason why Sri Krishna directed Bhima to strike at Duryodhanas thigh was because the latter had already engaged in multiple surreptitious plots and deceits, thus he did not deserve to be protected by the ethical codes of the age. By Gandhis time, deception was an integral part to most Governments policies, and it was prudent for the politician to never place too much faith in the words of a political opponent. Honesty is still and will always be essential for the spiritual seeker, for the Brahmana dharma. However, Gandhi, just as he aimed for with Ahimsa, wanted to prove to the world that honesty (and trusting others) could succeed in the Kshatriyas domain: The third thing he referred to was about his friend Shaheed Suhrawardy. He was receiving verbal complaints and complaints by letter that Shaheed Saheb was not to be trusted and that the Hindus had suffered a lot during the tenure of his ministry. The complaint was not new. He knew it before they embarked on the joint mission which seemed to be bearing unexpectedly good fruit. He was in no hurry. His was a trusting nature. He had never lost anything by trusting in good faith. Just as he would expect others to believe his word, unless he was proved untrue, he would likewise believe the word of another. That, he held, was the only honourable way of living among men. He held that man never lost by trusting and that the deceiver was lost. 29 As a fellow WWI volunteer told him, Gandhi was too trusting. These people will deceive you with wretched words, and when at last you see through them, you will ask us to resort to satyagraha, and so come to grief, and bring us all to grief along with you. 30" Gandhi held that not only should one be honest, one should also take everyones word at face value. This, of course, was the reason the

British had no objections to Gandhi as the leader of the Congress Party, nor felt the need to take serious action against him (such as the deportation or rigorous imprisonment meted out to other leaders) for the soft opposition he gave them. Here was a man willing to take lies (obvious or subtle) as truths, and willing to let the British know of his precise actions if they asked, for he would not tell a lie (at least in politics, since Gandhi was less open with details of his personal life31). Added to that his complete insistence on nonviolence, and the perfect opposition leader was created. However, Gandhi did point out that the deceiver would eventually succumb to his lies. This is often the case, for the weaving of intricate lie after lie often leads to a reaction from at least one of the parties subjected. In the case of India, the subtle and devious effects British rule wrought on the country induced the necessary reaction leading to their retreat, once flowery words were no longer accepted as truths. This reaction, as previously discussed, was of a more varied and active kind than the passivity Gandhi thought would lead to Indias freedom. Another interesting result or lack thereof of Gandhis trustworthy nature, was Muslim belief in his integrity. Suhrawardy was not the first Muslim he placed complete faith in; from his days in South Africa, he worked with many Muslims in full confidence of their probity. Such was his faithfulness that he as told in a prayer speech - had to be warned by a Muslim friend not to be so trusting of Muslims. A Muslim friend who is no longer alive, and who, a jeweler that he was, possessed also the qualities of a jewel, had warned me to beware of Muslims since all of them were not angels. But I told him I need not look at the darker side of things. 30 While Gandhi chose to ignore this advice, Muslims from his time in South Africa did not reciprocate his trusting nature: When the passive resistance movement was at its height, Mr. Ally could not continue to trust me fully because I was a Hindu. He therefore sent a telegram to Ameer Ali (1). On this occasion, a few Muslims thought of sending a telegram to Mr. Jinnah, and the Pathans eventually sent one. I do not blame Mr. Ally for what he did. Again, I do not blame the Pathans for what they have done now. I have known Mr. Ameer Ali. I asked for his help on behalf of the community and it was given. I have also known Mr. Jinnah. I regard them both with respect. I do not therefore write to complain but only to point to these things as symptoms of our mental state. The symptom is this: I occasionally observe some lack of trust [in me] though I have worked hard to bring the two communities together. This is a sign of our weakness. It makes me unhappy. I have heard some Muslim brethren say in arguments about compromise, "Gandhi has totally ruined the Muslims and has been doing so for the last fifteen years." It is regrettable that any Indians should utter these words. I am sure those who say this themselves know that I have never dreamt of harming anyone. Footnote 1. Syed Ameer Ali (1849-1928): ...In July 1907, H.O Ally wrote a letter to Ameer Ali, a member also of the South Africa British Indian Committee, expressing his opposition to Gandhiji's continued campaign against the Asiatic Registration Act, for, he said, that would ruin "thousands of my co-religionists who are all traders while the Hindus are mostly hawkers." He sought the intervention of the Committee against the satyagraha movement. 33 Such knowledge of their lack of faith was unlikely to change his general demeanor one of submissiveness towards Muslims. Whether it was the common Muslim or the politician, Gandhi was always willing to forget his and Hindu grievances or interests if it would make the Muslim happy. Such was the case in 1947 when the greatest Muslim demand, that of the division of the country, came to fruition. Gandhi had not wanted this division to take place, but instead of accepting it and using the divided land to exchange populations like Greece and Turkey did, Gandhi

made one last desperate attempt to prevent partition, which he outlined to a stunned Mountbatten in classified documents: Finally, he (Gandhi) gave me the first brief summary of the solution to which he wishes to adopt: Mr. Jinnah should forthwith be invited to form the Central Interim Government with members of the Muslim League. This Government to operate under the Viceroy in the same way the Interim Government is operating. I need not say that this solution coming at this time staggered me. I asked, What would Mr. Jinnah say to such a proposal? The reply was, If you tell him I am the author he will reply Wily Gandhi. I then remarked, And I presume Mr. Jinnah will be right? To which he replied with great fervour, No, I am entirely sincere in my suggestion. 34 To Mountbatten, accustomed to the acquisitive nature of the political field, such a passive yielding of power was quite a shock. Jinnah and other Muslims, heeding the Quranic injunctions to not trust an unbeliever even of the same kin35, would never believe him irrespective of his sincerity. Nevertheless, Gandhis offer was genuine and fitting with his obsequious nature and past history of completely trusting his political opponents. Of note in his proposal are a few points: 1. Mr. Jinnah to be given the option of forming a Cabinet. 2. The selection of the Cabinet is left entirely to Mr. Jinnah. The members may be all Muslims, or all non-Muslims, or they may be representatives of all classes and creeds of the Indian people. 8. In the Assembly the Congress has the decisive majority. But the Congress shall never use the majority against the League policy simply because it was associated with the League but will give forth its hearty support to every measure brought forward by the League Government, provided that it is in the interest of the whole of India. 36 If Jinnah had not possessed the ambition to be founder of a nation, and if the Islamic clerics and the rest of the Muslim masses of the subcontinent (the majority of whom - including those who would remain in India post-partition - voted for the creation of Pakistan as a homeland for subcontinent Muslims) werent so keen in their desire to gain Pakistan from the Kaffirs, they might have been prescient to the opportunity that Gandhi and demographics presented. Gandhi, by offering Jinnah the ability to pick his own Cabinet, along with giving full Congress support to League measures that could be made to appear to be in Indias interests, was actually increasing the likelihood of an Islamic conquest of India. With complete Muslim control of the government and higher Muslim demographic figures (the subcontinent itself currently holds over a 30 percent Islamic population, while in India the percentage is 12-15 percent), Hinduism would have been in worse danger than during Mughal times. Fortunately, the demographic figures and trends werent as widely known to the Clerics of that era, and since there was little chance of Jinnah accepting Gandhis plan, Hindus were spared such a rule and the potential all-Muslim Cabinet. While such a Cabinet may have pleased Gandhi and his secularist descendants, it is unlikely that one of an opposite complexion- an all-Hindu Cabinet - would have been accepted by either. Nevertheless, Gandhis actions showed his willingness to place Indian sovereignty and the livelihood of Hindus at risk, either to satisfy ideas belonging to the Brahmana varna or simply because he did not wish to offend anyone. In one instance, he was willing to give up Indian land. That was his position to Naga leaders who planned on declaring themselves independent: Gandhiji: Why not now? Why wait for August 15? I was independent when the whole of India was under British heel. You can be independent and if you have non-violence in

common with me, no one can deprive you of independence. Naga leaders: Government said that if we become independent military sanctions will be applied against us. Gandhi: The government is wrong. I will come to Kohima and ask them to shoot me before they shoot one Naga. Naga Leaders: The trouble will not be started by us. It may be started in spite of us. Gandhi: You have opened a very large subject. Independence, yes. But if you say you will be independent of the whole world, you cannot do it. ...From where do you get your cloth? Naga Leaders: It is foreign cloth. Gandhi: Then you are slaves of foreigners. Will you go naked if the foreigners do not give you cloth? What of your food? Naga Leaders: We grow enough. Gandhi: You cannot be in complete isolation Naga Leaders: We do not talk of isolation Gandhi: Then no army will deprive you of your freedom. Those days are gone. Naga Leaders: We will be friends with all Gandhi: Then you are safe so far as India is concerned. India has shed blood for her own freedom. Is she going to deprive others of their freedom? Personally, I believe you all belong to me, to India. But if you say you don't, no one can force you. Naga Leaders: Is there any word for the Nagas? Gandhi: If I come there I will teach you the art of spinning and weaving. You grow cotton and yet you import cloth. Learn all the handicrafts. That's the way to peaceful independence. If you use rifles and guns and tanks, it is a foolish thing. Naga Leaders: No, we certainly shall not do that. 37 So if the partition of India was abhorrent due to its division along religious lines, the loss of Indian areas like Nagaland were of no consequence as long as they remained friends with India! Present again in this conversation is the lurking threat of a Gandhian fast on military actions. Previously it has been discussed how Gandhis ideal for the military man was to drop their guns and become nonviolent farmers, leading to his claim that Our army will lead the world if it adopts nonviolence instead of violence. 38 Also discussed was the effect of Gandhis January 1948 fast on government policy and its direct link to his assassination. While Gandhi did not fast against Indian action in Kashmir or Nagaland, it clearly remained a possibility in his mind, especially when we consider that he did not completely approve of Indian military action, principally in Kashmir: See what India is doing. See what is happening in Kashmir. I cannot deny that it is with my tacit consent. They would not lend ear to my council. Yet, if they were sick of it, I could

today point them a way. Again, see the exhibition the United Nations Organization is making. Yet I have faith. If I live long enoughthey will see the futility of it all and come round to my way. 39 Gandhis patience with United Nation activity or Indian military action would not have been everlasting, just as his patience with Hindu rioters dissipated quickly. Having fasted against Hindu demonstrators, having promised Naga leaders of a nonviolent protest against military action there, having fasted to coerce the Indian Government to pay Pakistan treasury money, who is to say a fast against Indian military action in Kashmir was out of the question? After all, this man deplored violence to such an extent that he urged Hindus to let Muslims kill them without a fight. And while that may have been his most egregious offense, the advice he gave to the citizens of Europe facing Nazi hostility bears a striking resemblance. I appeal for cessation of hostilities ... because war is bad in essence. You want to kill Nazism. Your soldiers are doing the same work of destruction as the Germans. The only difference is that perhaps yours are not as thorough as the Germans ... I venture to present you with a nobler and a braver way, worthy of the bravest soldiers. I want you to fight Nazism without arms or ... with non-violent arms. I would like you to lay down the arms you have as being useless for saving you or humanity. You will Invite Herr Hitler and Signor Mussolini to take what they want of the countries you call your possessions. Let them take possession of your beautiful island with your many beautiful buildings. You will give all these but not your souls nor your minds. If these gentlemen choose to occupy your homes, you will vacate them. If they do not give you free passage out, you will allow yourself, man, woman and child, to be slaughtered but you will refuse to owe allegiance to them. 40 Luckily for the British, Gandhi was not in England during the War to subject them with a fast unto death in order to try and force them to stop fighting, although its doubtful such an action would have changed British policy. Gandhi, in trying to bring Brahmana ahimsa into war, only succeeded in giving support to the Asuric and Rakshasic forces that fed Nazi and Muslim attacks on their respective enemies, because these forces of ignorance feed off of bloodshed and hatred. Since they are ignorant to begin with, they do not contain within them the idea that what they are doing is falsehood. Nazism did not believe the killings of non-Aryans or those opposing their rule to be wrong; Islam does not hold the killings of Polytheists such as Hindus to be wrong. Thus these two groups would not be moved to think otherwise by an abject surrender of their enemies to their deaths. Gandhi may have known that Islamic attacks on Hindus solely because they were idolaters, or Nazi designs to take over the world, were wrong, but neither group understood this and they should not have been expected to acquire this knowledge overnight or even within their lifetime. This is where the Kshatriya comes in - to destroy this ignorance by violent force. Gandhi, having learnt with the world of the Holocaust committed by Nazis, refused to move from his position that the Allied violent response was of little value: Raymond Cartier had asked "We who are children of violence in Europe, how do you expect us to become nonviolent?" In reply, Gandhiji said that if they continued like this, they were sure to perish. What had happened in Europe was that Hitlerism had only been destroyed by super Hitlerism and this chain was endless. It would go on like that. ...Asked how it would be possible to destroy Hitlerism by nonviolence, Gandhiji said that was what we had to find out. 41 This reply is indicative of the frivolity with which Gandhi afforded human life, the sort of cold

mentality and disconnected view Gandhi held of masses of people. The Hindus in partition and the people of Europe were nothing but animals in the scientists lab, fit to test a poorly held hypothesis that surely a massive nonviolent movement would somehow win against enemies that did not mind killing untold numbers in order to achieve their ends. This was the truth Gandhi was experimenting with! A truth he was not completely sure of, as he admitted in a 1924 Young India article: For experience convinces me that permanent good can never be the outcome of untruth and violence. Even if my belief is a fond delusion, it will be admitted that it is a fascinating delusion. 42 Fascinating is not the proper word to use for this delusion; morbid is more appropriate. For what kind of man seriously entertains the notion that a set of peoples should not defend itself from violent attack, that a woman should not be spared rape if violence was used in her defense? While there are times when Gandhi is quoted condoning the use of violence, at least relative to complete cowardice, his philosophy was that nonviolence in all situations was still the greatest practice of all. To the Hindu, having either heard or read of his pleas for suicide, two possibilities emerge as an explanation of his character: Either he was a conscious enemy of the Hindu, or he was fixated to the point of becoming delusional. The latter is the likelier of the two, judging from his fanaticism with nonviolence prior to arriving in India. The fanatic, holding a less supple mind, is more likely to accept delusions or partial-truths as complete truths, to obsess over them, to only speak of them. The fanatic, outwardly confidant yet subconsciously knowing his beliefs to be less than an Absolute Truth, seeks external confirmation of his beliefs, desires that the mass follow his dictates and uphold the pretension that his ideas are the final word humanity has been waiting for. All of this is needed to ease a gnawing insecurity that his beliefs might be but minor truths of a Universal Mind. Gandhi, confused as to ahimsas place in society, also held delusions of grandeur: For surely at least the Hindu should follow his beliefs, since he was supposed to be a Hindu leader? Why he forced only the Hindu to follow his madness, can possibly be further explained along with his need for moral superiority when we consider the passive-aggressive bent to his nature. For as he admitted, he was less likely to feel angry with the enemy, redirecting his anger on those closest to him: He had disciplined himself sufficiently never to feel angry with the enemy, but he confessed that he sometimes lost his temper with friends. Such discipline in nonviolence as he had, he told them, he had at home from his wife. And with that he unfolded in poignant detail, a chapter of his domestic life. He used to be a tyrant at home, he said. His tyranny was the tyranny of love. 43 Indeed one would never imagine Gandhi yelling in anger at Jinnah or the Ali brothers even if they were to gravely insult him. What pertains to his associates extends to communities, as Gandhi was able to discipline himself never to feel anger at Muslim violence on Hindus, yet could barely control his rage at Hindu retaliation. But what is commonly known as passive-aggressiveness, may just be a fancier explanation for another word explaining Gandhis behavior that of cowardice. Cowardice is not something one can easily admit to others or oneself, but for the many faults Gandhi had, he was still on occasion able to admit some facts about himself, like when he admitted his inability to realize Atman. In similar fashion, Gandhi, when reliving the aggressiveness of the Pathans and comparing them to himself, admitted his cowardice to a 1938 audience:

It is not because we are unarmed that we have adopted this nonviolence. Ours is the nonviolence of the brave. Although I have been experimenting with it for fifty years, I have no cut and dry answers to all the questions. When I start thinking what I would have done if I had been in Spain now or in China or Austria, and if Hitler had attacked these countries and I found men and money being drained away, my head starts reeling. You may well argue how much the nonviolence that has made only this much progress even after fifty years experience can help us in our struggle. If you think like this, you may give it up. For me there is no question of giving it up. My faith is unwavering. I shall however regret that the Lord has not favoured me with such clarity of expression that I could explain my ideas to others. I mean ours should not be the nonviolence of the cowards who are afraid of war, of bloodshed, whose hearts tremble at the shouts of killers. Our nonviolence should be the nonviolence of the Pathans. I have lived with them. They are not afraid of killing or getting killed. I have cited this example so that I may compare myself to a Pathan boy. A Pathan boy is fearless. If there is bloodshed he does not hide himself in his house. He finds pleasure in fighting. He does not stop to think that he might be injured or even killed. He is never afraid of getting hurt...I have seen such Pathans with my own eyes. What I wish to say is that experimenting with nonviolence is the work of such brave persons. I myself have not yet reached this stage. There is a lot of cowardice in me. I talk of satyagraha, no doubt. But in the face of killings I cannot have the fearlessness of the Pathans. If I have to go and face such a situation, my hearts one wish would be to escape alive. If per force I do go, my heartbeats would quicken. And, in my heart of hearts I would be afraid lest a bullet or a stone should hit me. I reached Bombay in 1921 when the riots were raging. Stones were being hurled. I wanted to save myself from the melee, but what could I do? I was the leader of the Non-cooperation movement. I went in most unwillingly. At heart, I wished someone asked me to stay home; that would have indeed been welcome. When I reached there the people were in a frenzy. Anasuyabehn was with me. She is a brave woman. Who was I to protect her? People had lost their heads. I saw mounted policemen advancing towards us. At the most, there must have been forty of them, but they were advancing with such unconcern as though there was not a man on the road. They were followed by officers in their cars. My heart trembled. We wanted to go to the fort area. We reached Abdul Reman street via Pydhonie. There was heavy fighting in the area. My heart was thumping. I do not know how high the blood pressure rose. As soon as the mounted police and army officers arrived the people who were till now in a riotous mood ran helter-skelter. I do not wish to take up your time narrating the whole incident. My idea is to tell you that you should give some thought to this. I have spoken of my own cowardice. But those who were brandishing knives and sticks turned out to be no braver. I have compared my own courage with a Pathan's. Nonviolence is the weapon of such fearless persons full of courage. This will show clearly how I should experiment. If there is real love in my heart and a feeling of oneness, why should I feel nervous to go there? Why did my heart thump so? This clearly implies that even in me the feeling of nonviolence has not grown to the extent that would make me fearless and free of doubts. Fearlessness born out of love is the general characteristic of nonviolence. If it is not yet born in our hearts, this experiment is for that very purpose. While carrying on this experiment, we shall acquire the strength to face death smilingly. 44 The critical issue is not just his pusillanimity, but what is contained in the statement, I speak of satyagraha, no doubt. But in the face of killings I cannot have the fearlessness of the Pathan. Not only is he admitting his cowardice here, he is also hinting that all his speeches and writings on the courageousness of the Satyagrahi were but masks used to guard his fear of violence.

It would be an error, however, to call Gandhi a complete coward, for he was always determined in presenting his mental opinions, unlike others. Unfortunately, he did not have the physical or vital courage or will of the Kshatriya necessary for war and politics. Not only was much of his nature antithetical to war and modern politics, he had not the training for either field. What Gandhi got himself involved with in South Africa, is in present times referred to as social activism or the struggle for external rights. His was the concentrated struggle with a small goal in mind. In no way could South Africa prepare him for the vast country of India and the strategies necessary to win independence. The social activism he practiced in South Africa, with its focus on ahimsa and literary critiques of government policy, in reality contained qualities belonging more to the Brahmana than the Kshatriya. Having not the inborn nature of a Kshatriya nor the training, Gandhi should have studied and absorbed from others the necessary lessons to become one (although all the training in the world would likely not have prevented him from continuing to follow an alien inner law contrary to the Gitas teachings), or better, he should have relinquished his position as the leader for hundreds of millions of Indians aspiring for independence. But the combined lure of fame (a byproduct of ambition and vanity) and power attached to the position, and his desire to use the Indian and Hindu masses as subjects for the experimentation of his ideas, was too much to overcome. Even as late as partition, he was being told that it would be best if he retired to the mountains or forest, the traditional retreat of the Sannyasi; this was in essence a reminder of his true nature, a reminder that his ideas were not suitable to a Kshatriya. It was too late a warning, for stubbornly arrogant, he had no reason to listen to the objects of his experiments. While his death may have prevented disaster to national interests, it could not arrest the damage done to the psychology of Indias Kshatriya varna. *****

It would be wrong to reflexively blame all the current weaknesses of Indian politicians on Gandhi,
for though subsequent politicians share many of his faults, these are often not specifically due to his influence. Also, some of the errors of the current ruling class can be traced back through millenniums to warriors who fought with a different code than subsequent enemies, refusing to change those ethics. Nevertheless, Gandhis unusual political practices have at least indirectly clouded the minds of successive leaders, obstructing the release of bold and comprehensive ideas on the world-plane. Gandhis immediate effect began with his successor, Jawaharlal Nehru. If we are to look at the direct consequences to the physical health of Indian citizens, we can compare Gandhis MuslimHindu bhai-bhai with Nehrus dream of brotherhood with the Chinese. Both being lost to sentimental ideals, a dangerous world for a Kshatriya to live in, brought a disregard for the lives of Indians. Gandhi explicitly offered Hindus at the alter of the Islamic sword; Nehru, holding a similar delusional faith in the Chinese political leadership, did not heed the warning of Tibet and refused to place necessary military personnel at the border; the inevitable result being a loss of land to China. What is it but disgrace for a Kshatriya to lose territory so easily? Another trait they shared, dangerous to Gandhi personally as a seeker of enlightenment, and dangerous to India as a nation, was ambition. Gandhi held the ambition of becoming the worldfamous sage while Nehru desired the celebrity of the statesman. The old Kshatriya dharma demanded no personal glory be attached to the King, who was a servant of the people, pledging to uphold dharma whilst surrendering his works to God (Karmayoga). If Sri Krishna used the possibility of fame and richest to motivate Arjuna, it was because even that was better than

abstaining from battle. The ideal Kshatriya mentality, however, held personal desires and attachments as being unworthy of the Raja; Rama, after all, banished Sita to the forest because he felt it necessary for the social cohesion of his citizens. A Kshatriya who desires personal glory is one who forgets his dharma. The latter ambition of being the statesman has yet to leave the Indian political scene (it can be traced back to the penchant of 19th Century Congress Moderates for passing sweeping resolutions that had no power behind them). Indeed within the last few years the Prime Minister of India declared to the nations of the World that they must heed Gandhis philosophy in order to cater for the needs of its peoples. While such an objective does have its merits, there remains an ersatz quality to these declarations, a feeling that these declarations are more for outward appearances and because these politicians love hearing the sounds of their voices. Their ability for action, as is well known, is far exceeded by their grandiose statements, because many would argue that the Indian government has done a poor job of catering to the needs of its own people, so who are they to lecture the world? The Congress Party is not the only Indian party negligent of its citizens and its Kshatriyas. The BJP, allegedly a hardcore Hindutva party, in late 1999 decided to release three accused Pakistanis held for terrorism in exchange for passengers on a hijacked Indian plane in Afghanistan. One of the terrorists, Saeed Shaikh, played a significant role in the kidnapping and murder of Wall Street Journalist Daniel Pearl in 2002. Some allege he wired funds to 9/11 suicide bomber Mohammed Atta prior to that act. The point is that the release of these enemies is not going to make them change their previously held views, it will only strengthen them, leading to more deaths. While a raid on the plane may have been difficult being that it was in Pakistan-backed Afghanistan, allowing the release of known enemies can only demoralize the Kshatriyas on the ground who risk their lives trying to capture or kill these terrorists. But that is nothing new to the Indian government. One cannot imagine the accumulated frustration of soldiers over the decades, trained to fight an enemy created from the womb of falsehood, an enemy engorged on a message of hate, yet an enemy who knows its opponent fights with one hand tied behind his back. If the development of nuclear missiles has altered the equation considerably, this boorish and cruel nation still engages in low-level warfare in India. While they have been keen to take the attack across the border, India has failed to venture back even though the land of adharma holds parts of Kashmir rightfully belonging to India. This failure to attack, to expand beyond ones defined borders (although in this case that land is in truth part of greater Bharat), to strike at the heart of the enemy and kill him for eternity, can be traced back much farther in time than Gandhis era. It is a failure due to the ignorance of Pakistans true motive and the burden of a code made for different opponents. When the first Islamic invaders attempted entry into India, they were repelled over and over, even if at first they did gain a foothold. During none of this time was any incursion made by Hindu Rajas into Islamic land. No attempt was made at expansion because the idea of expansion had long disappeared from the scene. It was much later, after swaths of land had been lost to Islamic rulers, when Kshatriyas were born with the dharma of expansion. Yet this was only a reclamation of what had been previously lost, of little thought was the idea to invade further, conquering not only familiar lands but those previously unknown. While destruction of the source can be considered a goal for the future, it is in this direction of expansion that Kshatriya leaders of India ought to be presently turning towards. Instead, these leaders seem content to rest on making the occasional declaration telling the World how to live or denouncing terrorism. Taking refuge in the belief that India has never invaded another country, they vainly assume that mere words might effect the actions of one whose mind only conceives of a

certain outcome. Words were never the main source of the Kshatriyas strength, action was. Speeches were made to motivate and remind the men on the ground of their dharma; they were not done to impress an audience of anglicized intellectuals. Perhaps Indias politicians have no plans in mind to dismantle a fanatical and deranged enemy because they themselves have never been on the frontline, have never experienced the frustration of being a soldier who instinctively knows the enemy to be deserving of destruction in a Dharmayuddh. Gandhi, after all, was nothing more than a social activist whose greatest accomplishment of relevant substance was earning Indians in South Africa the status of second class citizens. None of the political rulers since then have acquired direct experience in battle, although a few have performed well in adverse situations, even if they did not have the conquering mentality. The reason for this dearth of military experience is due to the tumultuous nature of Indian politics, with its varied political parties and hierarchies and nepotism. This makes it extremely difficult for one to reach the summit of the political scene, as it requires seniority or perhaps a family name (or maybe the family will allow a politician to rule while controlling things from behind). Even if a man of military experience can reach the top, he then has to deal with multiple regional parties and egos and agendas, including some parties who have previously expressed interest in a Chinese takeover of the country. This is why the ancient Kshatriyas avoided a democratic setup for the national politic, leaving democracy at a local level where it better served the interest of the citizens while the Raja on the national level affirmed the Kshatriya dharma without flinching from personally taking to battle. The Raja focused on his dharma without trying to enforce particular ideas on his citizens, leaving them to follow their own dharma. What we have now is a political leadership that shrinks from aggressiveness even if it does allow for a defense of its borders significantly limited in breadth. It is in this manner that the Gandhian influence is felt, because even if politicians arent foolish enough to practice true Gandhian ahimsa and allow Indians to be slaughtered, they still shrink from aggressiveness like a plant without sunlight. His continued influence is in no small part due to the effect of the intellectual elite and arrogant yet cowardly journalists, neither of which seem to realize just how utterly nihilistic Gandhism is (or maybe they understand this perfectly). The symbiotic relationship between these two and the political leadership is not surprising when we remember the desire for celebrity that Gandhi and his descendents alike crave. Who better to feed a politicians vanity than the journalist or the intellectual elite, as long as the politician plays the game and says the right phrases demanded of him? Declarations of brotherhood with one who wishes for blood, statements of peace with one who wishes for war, condemnation of one group while ignoring the vile actions of another simply because the latter is a minority, are just some of the demands required for politicians desirous of statesmanship. The politician gets to read of himself in the papers and is spoken well of in higher circles of society, while the elite and the English-writing journalists feels a sense of power that they usually lack, which under a strong leadership they wouldnt actually have. This need for adulation from the elite leads the political class to devote an excessive amount of time to the causes of the intellectual class, to reforms that are better resolved at the societal level, to an artificial transformation of societal norms through external pressure. While these causes of the intellectual establishment do have their truths, and although the central government may be of help to such causes, the central government must first protect the nation from its enemies; the elite, of course, seems to think that India has no enemies! And since the Indian nation is far from immune to these external and internal threats, it is of grave importance the national government devote more time and effort (not just of a vocal kind) to securing a permanent end to a persistent scourge. This, of course, entails far more than simply protecting the borders.

Another demand the establishment exerts on the Indian politician is the honoring of MK Gandhi. Rare is it for any politician in India to offer a divergent view from the standard refrain, as the Congress and the secular frequently Atheistic45 - establishments have been able to elevate the status of Gandhi to that of a Semetic God or prophet - one of unquestionable authority. The problem here is not the effect these celebrations have on the general population, specifically the Hindus, who did not heed him during Partition nor do so now since most of his ideas go against basic human reason and instinct, let alone intellectuality or spiritual aspiration. The problem is the mental effect this incessant, partisan fawning has on our current politicians, who and this includes the Hindutvadi parties lack aggression (in the sense of thoroughly protecting borders and upholding the law, not in their aggressive political squabbles and posturing) in things crucial to their domain. At the back of each politicians mind seems to be their image, either worldwide or national, and often how it relates to the myth of Gandhi as the Father of the Nation and the implication that India should be solely gentle and peace-loving, leaving hideous aggression to others. Clearly there is nothing wrong with gentleness and toleration in proper relation to the whole, except the same argument can be made about aggression, that there is nothing inherently wrong with it as long as it is harmonious with other qualities a nation needs. The argument against aggression is a mere opinion from minds such as Gandhi that naturally quiver from it because it doesnt suit their nature. People born with this sort of nature would best remain in their field of social activism, or altogether avoid activities meant for the Kshatriya, whose inner law, whose dharma demands he defend his nation. Fortunately for India, there have always been enough men in India with the will to champion the Kshatriya dharma, even when serving an enfeebled political class. Unfortunately, these Kshatriyas, who have sacrificed far more than the decadent scions of political dynasties, remain beholden to those incapable of securing lasting protection to India. The likes of imitative statesmen at play with words while Indias neighbors East and West silently plot, tentative chieftains who prevent the Kshatriya from carrying out the destiny of his birth, capricious legislators vacillating from one peripheral aim to the next, and duplicitous intellectuals who obfuscate the actual intentions of the adversary, continue to grow bloated on the spoils of their positions as the enemy creeps nearer to its goal of murdering the past and the future. References: 1. Bhagavad Gita 3:3 2. Bhagavad Gita 18:47-48 3. Speech on 'The Secret of Satyagraha in South Africa' 7/27/16, available in The Essential Writings of Mahatma Gandhi, Raghavan Iyer, Pg. 304-307 4. "The States", Harijan 9-7-38, CWOMG, vol. LXVII, pg. 158 5. Harijan 27-5-39, CWOMG vol. LXIX pg. 60 6. Harijan 17-6-`939, CWOMG vol. LXIX pg. 313 7. Harijan 31-8-47, CWOMG vol. 89 pg. 63-4 8. Harijan 8-12-46, CWOMG vol. 86 pg. 134 9. Prarthana Pravachan I pp. 59-62, CWOMG vol. 87, pg. 398-9 10 .Bhagavad Gita 2:18-19 11. Bhagavad Gita 2:31 12. Speech at prayer meeting May 7, 1947 Prarthana Pravachan p I p74-81, CWOMG vol. 87, pg. 429-34 13. Prarthana Pravachan I pp. 166-70, CWOMG vol. 88, pg. 162-3 14. Mahatma Gandhi-Last Phase Vol. II pp. 677, CWOMG vol. 90 pg. 511-12 15. Bhagavad Gita 2:32-37 16. Bhagavad Gita 11:33 17. Speech in Calcutta Nov 23 1946 Harijan 17-11-46, CWOMG vol. 86 pg. 70-1 18. Prarthana-Pravachan-Part I, pp. 29-32, CWOMG vol. 87, pg. 217-19

19. Harijan 28-9-47, CWOMG vol. 89, pg. 193-5 20. Speech at Prayer meeting Masaurhi Bihar march 17 1947 Gandhijike Dukhe Dilki Pukar II pp. 1-3, CWOMG vol. 87 pg. 105-6 21. Sept 13, 1947 Prarthana Pravachan I pp. 305-310, CWOMG vol. 89 pg. 179-183 22. Interview with Kingsley Martin, Harijan 20-6-48, CWOMG vol. 90 pg. 503-4 23. Harijan 17-11-46 interview with A Freeman CWOMG vol. 86 pg. 22 24. Mahatma Gandhi--The Last Phase, Vol. II p 511, CWOMG vol. 89, pg. 411 25. Indian Opinion, 5-6-1909, CWOMG, vol. 9, pg. 235 26. Harijan 20-6-48, CWOMG vol. 90 pg. 503-4 27. Harijan 19-11-1938, CWOMG, Vol. LXVIII, pg. 81-82: But what about the classical instance of the defenseless sister or mother who is threatened with molestation by an evil-minded ruffian, you will ask. Is the ruffian in question to be allowed to work his will? Would not the use of violence be permissible in such a case? My reply is 'no'. You will entreat the ruffian. The odds are that in his intoxication he will not listen. But then you will interpose yourself between the intended victim and him. Very probably you will be killed but you will have done your duty. Ten to one, killing you unarmed and unresisting will assuage the assailant's passion and he will leave his victim unmolested. But it has been said to me that tyrants do not act as we want or expect them to. Finding you unresisting he may tie you to a post and make you watch his rape of the victim. If you have the will you will so exert yourself that you will break yourself in the attempt to break the bonds. In either case, you will open the eyes of the wrongdoer. Your armed resistance could do no more, while if you were worsted, the position would likely be much worse than if you died unresisting. There is also the chance of the intended victim copying your calm courage and immolating herself rather than allowing herself to be dishonoured. 28. July 27 1947 Message to Army Officers, Bihar Pacchi Dilhi pp. 429-30, Volume 96 of the online CWOMG http://www.gandhiserve.org/cwmg/VOL096.PDF : I have only one message for you. You have got your guns and sten-guns and you are proficient in killing men and all living things. Instead of that you should learn the art of using the sickle, ploughing the land and producing the food necessary for men and other living things. Forget violence and gain proficiency in nonviolence. Maybe from this you will think that I have gone mad. But look at the way Capt Shawanaz and Col Jiwansingh live and work today. They have ceased to become army officers and have become public servants and farmers. Thus they have become more powerful. ...Our army will lead the world if it adopts nonviolence instead of violence. 29. Harijan 31-8-47, CWOMG vol. 89, pg. 80-1 30. The Story of My Experiments with Truth, M.K Gandhi, Part IV, Chapter XL 31. see A Brahmacharyi or a Pretender? 32. June 1 1947 Prarthana Pravachan I pp. 111-6, CWOMG vol. 88, pg. 52-54 33. Indian Opinion 22-2-1908, CWOMG vol. 8, pg. 99-100 34. from the Lord Mountbatten Papers, Appendix VII, Volume 94 of the 98 volume set 35. Quran 9:28: Let not the believers take the unbelievers for friends rather than believers; and whoever does this, he shall have nothing of (the guardianship of) Allah, but you should guard yourselves against them, guarding carefully; and Allah makes you cautious of (retribution from) Himself; and to Allah is the eventual coming. 36. Outline of Draft Agreement (dictated by Gandhi to Lord Ismay) April 4, 1947 Gandhijis correspondence with the Government 44-47, pp. 238-9, CWOMG vol. 87 pg. 199 37. Interview to Naga Leaders, July 19, 1947, Peace in Nagaland, Eight Year Story: 1964-72, pp. 83-4 and 224-5, CWOMG vol. 88, pg. 373-4 38. Bihar Pacchi Dilhi pp. 429-30, CWOMG vol. 99 pg. 443-4 39. Interview with Vincent Sheehan, Mahatma Gandhi-Last Phase Vol. II pp. 677, CWOMG vol. 90 pg. 511-12 40. Amrita Bazar Patrika, July 4, 1940, Method of Non-violenceMahatma Gandhi's appeal to every Briton. 41. Hindustan Standard 22-12-46, CWOMG vol. 86 pg. 247

42. 'My Path' Young India, 11 Dec 1924 43.A pilgrimage for peace, pp. 87-91, CWOMG vol. LXVIII, pg. 45-46 44.Speech at Gandhi Seva Sangh meeting 3/27/38. Gandhi seva sanghke chaturh varshik adhiveshan ka vivaran, pp. 36-42, CWOMG vol. LXVI pg. 435-7 45. Gandhi, in Part I, Chapter 20 of his autobiography, related his witnessing of an argument involving an Atheist and a Clergyman in which the Atheists arguments caused the clergyman to assume a humble silence. Gandhi ended the chapter by writing, The talk still further increased my prejudice against atheism.