Saturday, November 12, 2011



Mahatma Gandhi, the great soul of Indian Sub continent. Everyone knows these facts which are true lies. My readers, I am telling you the truth. True lies have crippled us with the ways we are not at all aware of. In India he is a hero and the United Nations has declared his birthday 2nd of October as International Day of Non Violence. He is well known everywhere and he is depicted as an angel who has thrown away the British from the Indian sub continent.

Dear readers, here are the facts and true lies about Mahatma Gandhi. Mahatma means "Great Soul" and he was always accorded as it is. But facts are showing he had never been a great soul rather a Hindu fundamentalist(actually he has no permanent stand, what he said was told to him by his British masters sometimes its pro 
fundamentalist, sometimes its against fundamentalist) . I am not a historian, but history told us so. Let me show you some information's with regards to Gandhi and things would be clear to you.

One of the most common and most dangerous myths about Gandhi is that he was a saint. The name—or rather, the title—Mahatma itself means "Great Soul." That's somewhere between a saint and a Messiah. Gandhi tried to avoid the title, but the people of India ignored his protests. ( Maha+Atma=Mahatma mean great Soul, Maha+Tma= Mahatma mean great burning of lust, So he was indeed maha tma). Now I see that even the Library of Congress has begun to classify him under "Gandhi, Mahatma," so I guess he's lost that battle. I've heard it argued that Gandhi indeed was a saint, since he was a master of meditation. Well, I must tell you that in all my readings of and about Gandhi, I've never come across anything to say that Gandhi was a master of meditation, or that he meditated at all—aside from observing a minute of silence at the beginning of his prayer meetings, a practice he said he borrowed from the Quakers. (Source: This is the text of the 1990 Annual Gandhi Lecture for the International Association of Gandhi an Studies, delivered at the University of Virginia at Charlottesville on October 2).1

The second plight of ideas would be collected from here:

There is a common myth that Gandhi was a political leader who was struggling against British invaders in the undivided India. But history shows he had been fascinated with the British empires which is clear from the write ups of Martin Green who has been the writer of Mahatma Gandhi's autobiography –"Voice of a new age Revolutionary". Let me have some excerpts from Martin Green:

Although most biographies of Gandhi focus on Gandhi's political career after he returned from England in early 1915, and begin with his involvement in the Civil Disobedience Movement from the early 1920s, it is important to note that Gandhi arrived on the National Scene rather late, and in the first half of his political life was considerably beholden to the Raj. At a time when literacy in British India was barely 8%, Gandhi enjoyed the rare option of studying in Britain and spent the years 1888-1893 in London before taking employment in South Africa. Although Gandhi became politically active in South Africa, and led 'Satyagrahas' against unjust laws, Gandhi was hardly yet an anti-imperialist radical or revolutionary. In fact, in 1914, he was still very much in awe of the British Empire, and Martin Green in his biography of Gandhi describes his state of mind as follows: "When Gandhi left South Africa, he still believed in the British empire. Though tentatively. "Though Empires have gone and fallen, this empire may perhaps be an is an empire not founded on material but on spiritual foundations....the British constitution. Tear away those ideals and you tear away my loyalty to the British constitution; keep those ideals and I am ever a bondsman"." (See Martin Green, Gandhi: Voice of a New Age Revolutionary, p. 208)

It is especially notable that at the age of 45, Gandhi saw in the British Empire a "spiritual foundation" - a sentiment many in the Indian Freedom Movement would have found astounding, even nauseating. As early as 1884, the most advanced Indian intellectuals were already quite clear that British rule in India was built on a foundation of economic pillage and plunder - and was devoid of any high social or moral purpose. "Nadir Shah looted the country only once. But the British loot us every day. Every year wealth to the tune of 4.5 million dollar is being drained out, sucking our very blood. Britain should immediately quit India.'' So wrote the Sindh Times on May 20, 1884, a year before the Indian National Congress was born and 58 years before the ''Quit India'' movement of 1942 was launched.

The third idea on Gandhi's struggle for the Black Americans and even Gandhi is a far more famous figure among African Americans. Many of them associate the Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr. with Gandhi. The same is even shared by the senior officials of the National Park Service that installed Gandhi's statue at the Martin Luther King, Jr., National Historic Site in Atlanta, Georgia, in 1998.

But the truth lies with the history. Let me have some facts about it.Mr.G.B.Singh a former Indian wrote about it. Let me show you facts about it my readers.

Why is this? The answer is very simple: Gandhi hated Black people. Only a few scholars are aware of this background. For all practical purposes, the burden of unraveling this mystery fell upon my shoulders. Here are some of the highlights:

In 1906 Gandhi had participated in a war against Blacks. The Gandhian literature either keeps quiet on the subject or tries to paint him as a great humanitarian who actually helped Blacks by rendering to them urgent medical care. Had he not done so, we are told, many Blacks would have died. While researching the historical documents, however, I found that Gandhi's participation had nothing to do with "humanitarian concerns" for Black people. He was more concerned with "allying relationships" with the colonial Whites living in Natal colony. Driven by his racial outlook, he went out of his way to enlist Indians to join the army under him to fight for his cause against the Blacks. He also considered Indians living in South Africa to be "fellow colonists" along with the White colonists, over the indigenous Blacks.(Source: G.B.Singh, Would the Real Gandhi Please Stand Up?).

The fourth idea was popularized among the supporters of Mr. Gandhi that he is the father of Non-Violence, though I am not sure my readers Mr. Gandhi has ever admitted that. The fact is that it's a damn lie. Let me show some more facts about it from Gene Sharps documents:

Gene Sharp of Harvard University, in his book Gandhi as a Political Strategist, shows that Gandhi and his Indian colleagues in South Africa were well aware of other nonviolent struggles before they adopted such methods themselves. That was in 1906. In the couple of years before that, they'd been impressed by mass nonviolent actions in India, China, Russia, and among blacks in South Africa itself. (Source: Gene Sharp, Gandhi as Political Strategists).

In another of his books, The Politics of Nonviolent Action, Gene Sharp cites over 200 cases of mass nonviolent struggle throughout history. And he assures us that many more will be found if historians take the trouble to look.

Curiously, some of the best earlier examples come from right here in the United States, in the years leading up to the American Revolution. To oppose British rule, the colonists used many tactics amazingly like Gandhi's—and according to Sharp, they used these techniques with more skill and sophistication than anyone else before the time of Gandhi.

For instance, to resist the British Stamp Act, the colonists widely refused to pay for the official stamp required to appear on publications and legal documents—a case of civil disobedience and tax refusal, both used later by Gandhi. Boycotts of British imports were organized to protest the Stamp Act, the Townshend Acts, and the so-called Intolerable Acts. The campaign against the latter was organized by the First Continental Congress, which was really a nonviolent action organization.

Almost two centuries later, a boycott of British imports played a pivotal role in Gandhi's own struggle against colonial rule. The colonists used another strategy later adopted by Gandhi—setting up parallel institutions to take over functions of government—and had far greater success with it than Gandhi ever did. In fact, according to Sharp, colonial organizations had largely taken over control from the British in most of the colonies before a shot was fired. (Source: Gene Sharp, The Politics of Non-Violence).

It's fun to read what's been written about Gandhi by his political opponents in England, or by Marxists in India and elsewhere, or by recent slanderers nipping at the heels of the movie Gandhi. What they've written doesn't reveal much about Gandhi, but it reveals a good deal about the writers.

Gandhi's most bitter critics have called him a charlatan—a deceiving, malicious fraud. After all, who could say the things Gandhi said and really mean them? Well, surely these critics couldn't!

To describe Gandhi's decision as a "national calamity" was indeed right on the mark. To lay such stress on non-violence - that too only three years after he had been encouraging Indians to enroll in the British Army was not only shocking, it showed little sympathy towards the Indian masses who against all odds had become energized against their alien oppressors.

For Gandhi to demand of the poor, downtrodden, and bitterly exploited Indian masses to first demonstrate their unmistakable commitment to non-violence before their struggle could receive with Gandhi's approval (just a few years after he had unapologetically defended an imperial war) was simply unconscionable. Clearly, Gandhi had one standard for the Indian masses, and quite another for the nation's colonial overlords. But this was not to be the first occasion for Gandhi to engage in such tactical and ideological hypocrisy.

Let me show more information about some unrealistic and communal attitude of Mahatma Gandhi during the World War II and this write ups to Hitler. The words of Dr.Koenraad Elst shows it on his write ups on January 2004-

Mahatma Gandhi's admirers are not in the habit of confronting embarrassing facts about their favourite saint. His critics, by contrast, gleefully keep on reminding us of a few facts concerning the Mahatma which seem to undermine his aura of wisdom and ethical superiority. One of the decisive proofs of Gandhi's silly lack of realism, cited by both his Leftist and his Hindutva detractors, is his attempted correspondence with Adolf Hitler, undertaken with a view to persuading Germany's dictator of the value of non-violence. I will now take upon myself the ungrateful task of arguing that in this attempt, Gandhi was (1) entirely Gandhian, and (2) essentially right.
Both of Gandhi's letters to Hitler are addressed to "my friend". In his first letter dd. 23 July 1939 (Complete Works, vol.70, p.20-21), and which the Government did not permit to go, Gandhi does mention his hesitation in address sing Hitler. But the reason is modesty rather than abhorrence: "Friends have been urging me to write to you for the sake of humanity. But I have resisted their request, because of the feeling that any letter from me would be impertinence." But the sense of impending war, after the German occupation of Czech-inhabited Bohemia-Moravia (in violation of the 1938 Munich agreement and of the principle of the "self-determination of nations" which had justified the annexation of German-inhabited Austria and Sudetenland) and rising hostility with Poland, prompted him to set aside his scruples: "Something tells me that I must not calculate and that I must make my appeal for whatever it may be worth." Even so, the end of his letter is again beset with scruples and modesty: "Anyway I anticipate your forgiveness, if I have erred in writing to you. I remain, your sincere friend, Sd. M. MK Gandhi".

( actually Gandhi who was the british spy, ordered by British to befriend Hitler )The second letter of Gandhi was written where he again called Hitler as "My sincere Friend". Let me have some excerpts from the write ups from Dr.Koenraad again-

On this occasion, Gandhi took the trouble of justifying his addressing Hitler as "my friend" and closing his letter with "your sincere friend", in a brief statement of what exactly he stood for: "That I address you as a friend is no formality. I own no foes. My business in life has been for the past 33 years to enlist the friendship of the whole of humanity by befriending mankind, irrespective of race, colour or creed." This very un-Hitlerian reason to befriend Hitler, what Gandhi goes on to call the "doctrine of universal friendship", contrasts with the Hitler-like hatred of one's enemy which is commonly thought to be the only correct attitude to Hitler.

gandhi was a political propagandists who believed in lies and started with religious outsoars to dignify peoples with religious quotations which is simply a political stuntmanships. Gandhi on several occasions, would begin with statements such as "God has warned me", or "...spoken as such.....". Coming from any ordinary person, such claims would normally be viewed with great suspicion and skepticism because they can only be accepted on faith, never independently verified. In fact, any ordinary person who claimed as often to have a 'hotline' to 'God' might even be seen as a lunatic, as someone prone to hallucinations. But from Gandhi, such utterances were quietly tolerated or accepted.That Gandhi espoused such religious-centric views is not surprising considering the milieu in which he was raised and educated. Most British-educated Indians were kept completely ignorant of India's rich history of rational thought and (pre-industrial) scientific endeavor. So it was inevitable that Indians would seek inspiration from religious texts - Hindus from the Gita, Muslims from the Quran, Sikhs from Guru Granth Sahib. But unlike Tilak who derived from the Gita, a call to action, a call to rise against injustice, Gandhi found in the Gita an appeal to pacifist idealism. In a world that was rife with violence, Gandhi's insistence on non-violent purity was, in practical terms, an exercise in infantile futility. Not only did it delay the onset of freedom, it led to particularly disastrous consequences during partition, and in Kashmir.Whereas the Muslim League was armed, the Congress was not and entirely dependent on the British police and military apparatus. When the partition riots first began in West Punjab and East Bengal, the Congress had no means to defend the hapless victims. Being unable to prevent the slaughter and rape, or protect the stream of Hindu and Sikh refugees, it lost the moral authority to prevent a communal backlash in India. A similar situation prevailed in Kashmir. The Muslim League sent in its armed hooligans even as Kashmir's most popular political party, the National Conference had decided to throw in its lot with secular India. In Baluchistan and the Frontier Province, majority sentiment was in favor of unity with India. Had the Congress been armed, it could have at least held out for a better deal, and at least some of the horrors of partition may have been averted.

There were many other serious incongruities in Gandhi's world view. As one reads through Gandhi's letters and sundry writings, time and time again, he uses the term 'Dharma 'in the context of how Indians should behave vis-a-vis the British, and the term "right" in the context of what the British could do to their Indian subjects. In Gandhi's ethical framework, not only did the conquered have very limited rights, they were burdened with all types of duties under the rubric of 'Dharma '. Conquered Indians were repeatedly lectured on how they must be concerned with the highest morality when dealing with their British oppressors - even as the British conquerors were little restricted by any 'Dharmic' pressures, and enjoyed the ultimate authority to take away the life of Indians they chose to put on trial for 'sedition'.

In all other theories of democratic liberation, ethical and moral codes emanated from one essential principle - which is the fundamental right of enslaved people to be free from alien exploitation. But in Gandhi's moral framework, the need of the Indian masses to liberate themselves from a brutally unjust colonial occupation did not come first; it was subject to all kinds of one-sided conditionalities.

Even Scriptures on Gandhi shows he was communal and against the roles of the untouchables of India. Some of this scriptures shows the same:

On the advice of white promoters of Gandhi, black clergy and civil rights leaders traveled to India to seek Gandhi's advice about solving the problem of segregation and civil rights of blacks. How little did they know that Gandhi regarded the black people slightly above the animal level? Moreover, they were ignorant of the fact that caste system was originally imposed, as racial discrimination (Varna Ashrama Dharma) similar to the Apartheid system, on the black natives of India by their Caucasian conquerors. But later on due to emergence of new racial groups due to miscegenation between the two groups, Varna Ashrama Dharma evolved into caste system tied to hereditary occupations. Untouchabilty is as integral a part of Hindu faith as anti- Semitism of the Nazis.

It is noteworthy that not a single black leader met Dr. B. R. Ambedkar – M. A. and Ph.D. degrees from Columbia University, M.Sc. and D.Sc. degrees from London University and Bar-at-Law from Grey's Inn, London - who was the undisputed leader of the Untouchables at that time. Gandhi propaganda machine manipulated the visit of black leaders, as it did not want them to find truth about Gandhi's views on the caste system. "I believe in Varnashrama (caste system) which is the law of life. The law of Varna (color and / or caste) is nothing but the law of conservation of energy. Why should my son not be scavenger if I am one? He, Shudra (lowest caste) may not be called a Brahmin (uppermost caste), though he (Shudra) may have all the qualities of a Brahmin in this birth. And it is a good thing for him (Shudra) not to arrogate a Varna (caste) to which he is not born. It is a sign of true humility."

Other, "kinder" critics have felt Gandhi was simply an idealistic fool, with no conception of how power works in the real world. Translated, this means that these critics can't understand how Gandhi's methods worked.

Let's look at these methods of Gandhi's and see if we can spot where their power might come from. And maybe we can clear up some other myths along the way.

Gandhi called his overall method of nonviolent action Satyagraha. This translates roughly as "Truth-force." A fuller rendering, though, would be "the force that is generated through adherence to Truth."

Nowadays, it's usually called nonviolence. But for Gandhi, nonviolence was the word for a different, broader concept—namely, "a way of life based on love and compassion." In Gandhi's terminology, Satyagraha—Truth-force—was an outgrowth of nonviolence. It may also help to keep in mind that the terms Satyagraha and nonviolent action, though often used one for the other, don't actually refer to the exact same thing. Satyagraha is really one special form of nonviolent action—Gandhi's own version of it. Much of what's called nonviolent action wouldn't qualify as Satyagraha. But we'll come back to that later.

Gandhi practiced two types of Satyagraha in his mass campaigns. The first was civil disobedience, which entailed breaking a law and courting arrest. When we today hear this term, our minds tend to stress the "disobedience" part of it. But for Gandhi, "civil" was just as important. He used "civil" here not just in its meaning of "relating to citizenship and government" but also in its meaning of "civilized" or "polite." And that's exactly what Gandhi strove for. We also tend to lay stress differently than Gandhi on the phases of civil disobedience. We tend to think breaking the law is the core of it. But to Gandhi, the core of it was going to prison. Breaking the law was mostly just a way to get there.

Now, why was that? Was Gandhi trying to fill the jails? Overwhelm and embarrass his captors? Make them "give in" through force of numbers?

Not at all. He just wanted to make a statement. He wanted to say, "I care so deeply about this matter that I'm willing to take on the legal penalties, to sit in this prison cell, to sacrifice my freedom, in order to show you how deeply I care. Because when you see the depth of my concern, and how 'civil' I am in going about this, you're bound to change your mind about me, to abandon your rigid, unjust position, and to let me help you see the truth of my cause."

In other words, Gandhi's method aimed to win not by overwhelming but by converting his opponent—or as the Gandhians say, by bringing about a "change of heart."

Now, to many people, that sounds pretty naive. Well, I'll let you in on a secret. It was naive. The belief that civil disobedience succeeded by converting the opponent happened to be a myth held by Gandhi himself. And it's shared by most of his admirers, who take his word for it without bothering to check it out.As far as I can tell, no civil disobedience campaign of Gandhi's ever succeeded chiefly through a change of heart in his opponents. But this doesn't mean civil disobedience didn't work. As a matter of fact, it did work. The only thing off-kilter was Gandhi's explanation of how and why it worked. (Source: This is the text of the 1990 Annual Gandhi Lecture for the International Association of Gandhi an Studies, delivered at the University of Virginia at Charlottesville on October 2).

The next would be rather more surprising to notice:

In 1914 Gandhi was quite far removed from the most radical elements of the Indian Freedom Movement. In 1913, poor emigrant farmers from the Punjab in California launched the Ghadar(gadar) Party and released their manifesto calling for complete independence from British Rule. Several years earlier, before his internment, Tilak had cogently described the Indian condition under British colonial occupation as being utterly ruinous and degrading. Tilak, Ajit Singh, Chidambaram Pillai and their associates in the National Movement saw few redeeming qualities in the British dispensation, and saw colonial rule as being entirely inimical to India's progress, asserting that the contradictions between the British oppressors and the Indian people were completely irreconcilable.

Although Gandhi was critical of specific aspects of colonial rule, in 1914, his general outlook towards the British was more akin to that of the loyalist Princes than the most advanced of India's national leaders. Particularly onerous was his support of the British during World War I. Even as the Ghadar Party correctly saw in World War I a great opportunity for India to deepen its opposition to the British, and liberate itself from the colonial yoke, Gandhi instead tried to mobilize Indians on behalf of the British war effort. Although many biographers of Gandhi have studiously omitted making any mention of such dishonorable aspects of Gandhi's political life, Martin Green makes a brief reference to Gandhi's attitude towards World War I when he was in England:"To return to London in wartime: Gandhi quickly raised his ambulance corps amongst the Indians in England. As before, he had offered his volunteers for any kind of military duty, but the authorities preferred medical workers". Martin Green also observes: "Many of his friends did not approve the project. Olive Schreiner, who was in London, wrote him that she was struck to the heart with sorrow to hear that he had offered to serve the English government in this evil war - this wicked cause". (See Martin Green, Gandhi: Voice of a New Age Revolutionary, p. 247)

Gandhi's ideas on non-violence did not then extend to the British Imperial War and upon his return to India in 1915 attempted to recruit Indians for the British War effort. Gandhi's position echoed that of the Maharajas, many of whom (like the Maharaja of Bikaner) played a pivotal role in supporting the British, both in terms of propaganda and providing troops. Gandhi's attitude towards the empire emerges quite clearly from this statement of Martin Green: "Gandhi himself had twice volunteered for service in this war, in France and in Mesopotamia, because he had convinced himself that he owed the empire that sacrifice in return for it's military protection." (See Martin Green, Gandhi: Voice of a New Age Revolutionary, p. 267)

Gandhi's role in championing the British War effort did not however go unchallenged. At a time when Gandhi was still addressing "War Recruitment Melas'', Dr. Tuljaram Khilnani of Nawabshah publicly campaigned against War Loan Bonds. When Gandhi sought election to the AICC from Bombay PCC, the delegate from Sindh opposed his election in view of his support to the British war effort. The Ghadar Party was especially acerbic in it's criticism of Gandhi and other such political leaders in the Congress who had not yet been able to sever their umbilical chord to the British Raj.

But even as Gandhi was able to justify in his mind support for the imperial war, his attitude towards the revolt of Chauri Chaura (1921) brought about a very different and very harsh assessment. Labeling it a crime, he wrote thus: "God has been abundantly kind to me. He has warned me the third time that there is not yet in India that truthful and non-violent atmosphere which and which alone can justify mass disobedience....which means gentle, truthful, humble, knowing, never criminal and hateful. He warned me in 1919 when the Rowlatt Act agitation was started. Ahmedabad, Viramgam, and Kheda erred. Amritsar and Kasur erred. I retraced my steps, called it a Himalayan miscalculation, humbled myself before God and man, and stopped not merely mass civil disobedience but even my own which I knew to be civil and non-violent" . (See Collected Works, vol. 22, p.415-21)

Gandhi's Chauri Chaura decision created deep consternation in Congress circles. Subhash Chandra Bose wrote: "To sound the order of retreat just when public enthusiasm was reaching the boiling point was nothing short of a national calamity. The principal lieutenants of the Mahatma, Deshbandhu Das, Pandit Motilal Nehru and Lala Lajpat Rai, who were all in prison, shared the popular resentment. I was with the Deshbandu at the time, and I could see that he was beside himself with anger and sorrow." (Quoted from The Indian Struggle, p.90)

Please Visit Our another blog: it has a collection of  never seen before videos of Golden Temple (Harmandir Sahib) Amritsar, India. aired on Discovery India Channel on 9 & 10 november 2011, Titled "Revealed: The Golden Temple"    

Monday, July 11, 2011

Gandhi was a British Agent-I

Gandhi was a British Agent and brought from SA by British to sabotage India’s Freedom struggle
This is response to the letter written by Mr U B Dasgupta, appeared in the August 12 edition of the Statesman.We support the view Gandhi was brought from South Africa by the British to sabotage indian freedom movement. Before his comingto India, Gopal Krishna Gokhel and C F Andrews played the mediators between Gandhi and the BritishGovernment in India and persuaded Gandhi, on behalf of British government, to return to India. So Gandhi wentto London to collect his appointment letter and from London came to India on January 9, 1915. Many argue thatGandhi transformed India's freedom struggle into a mass movement. On the contrary, it indicates the greatsuccess of the British conspiracy-the entire population was led astray by Gandhi and there remained none( BECAUSE ALL OTHER FREEDOM FIGHTERS WERE KILLED BY BRITISH THRU MANY WAYS) to carry out the freedom struggle.
In 1891, Gandhi returned from England as a barrister and in the next year he sailed to South Africa
to fight a case for an Indian business firm Dada Abdulla & Co., against an immigrant Indian Muslim Tyabji Haji Khan Muhammad.

During his brief stay in India, he wrote a few essaysand sent them to Sri Gopal Krishna Gokhale and according to Sri Gokhale, those were hopelessly rubbish. It should be mentioned here that Gandhi somehow managed to pass the Matriculation Examination in 1887 in the third division, scoring 247 out of 625, and this was the only certificate he could gather in his life.
In that time the black population of South Africa, including the immigrant Indians,were denied some vital civic rights by the discriminatory and racist government led by the Britishcolonialists. In some occasions, Gandhi himself fell victim of the said racist discriminations. 
Here in South Africa, he applied his version of nonviolence as a political strategy and started a movement to earn some special privileges for the Indian community and later on this peaceful civil disobediencewas named Satyagraha. Due to this movement the government of
South Africa ultimately passedthe Indian Relief Act-1914, granting some privileges to the Indians. The followers of Gandhian nonviolence usually highlight this fact as a great victory of Gandhi and his creed.
But it is really amazing that, though apartheid had been abolished from the rest of the worldquite a long ago, it continued in South Africa till May 1994, where Gandhi had fought it nearly hundred years ago. Furthermore, it is early astonishing that up to the last hour the white rulers of SouthAfrica used to advise the its non-white population and their leaders to adopt Gandhian type nonviolentmovement. However, one thing Gandhi could conclusively prove through his struggle and other activities in South Africa
that his loyalty to the British Crown was firm and unwavering, and he and his creed would never pose a threat to the British empire
. And hence the British imperialists had little difficulty to gauge his profound respect for the British race, extraordinarily high esteem for the British culture and extreme loyalty towards the throne of England.
While commenting on this aspect, historian Dr. A. C. Roy writes, “Gandhi had enough respect for the British cultural heritage. He strongly believed that the intercourse between India and Britain
would be beneficial for the Indians”. He further writes, “In the early part of his life, he (Gandhi) wasnot anti-British. … It is true that, he was against the strong nationalist movement that swept
India in the wake of partition of Bengal
in 1905. It is also true that nationalist views of giant leaders like Sri Aurobinda Ghosh, Lala Lajpat Rai etc. could hardly influence Gandhi”. And in fact, Gandhi supported the British decision of partitioning of Bengal.
During his stay in South Africa, Gandhi, to express his loyalty to the British Crown, used to sing the British National Anthem at public functions. Later on, he could discover violence in the lines of the British Anthem:
Scatter her enemies, and make them fall;Confound their politics; frustrate their knavish tricks”
“Despite this, his loyalty to the British Empire
was unsullied”, says Sri D. Keer, the mostrenowned biographer of Gandhi. In fact, while in South Africa Gandhi never missed a singleopportunity to project himself as a loyal subject of the British empire. Queen Victoria died in 1901, and Gandhi, to express his loyalty to the British Crown, sent condolence message to England, placed a wreath at Queen’s statue in Durban and distributed souvenir scontaining Queen’s pictures among the school children. On the occasion of coronation of the British King George-V, Gandhi expressed his loyalty to the throne of England
and said, “The Indian residents of this country (i.e.South Africa) sent congratulatory cablegrams on the occasion, thus declaring their loyalty”.
In 1899, a war between the Dutch settlers, called Boers, and the British in SouthAfrica
broke out. Gandhi then organized, of his own accord, an ambulance corps of immigrant Indians, 1100 strong, for the Red Cross and they served the British soldiers who were wounded in the war. The British government of South Africa, in recognition of his sincere service to the British Empire, awarded a medal and a certificate of excellence to Gandhi. Even in his declining years of his life, Gandhi used to proudly recall how his loyalty had served the British during the Boer War, and in some occasions risked his life as he strongly believed that the British Empire
existed for the welfare of the world. Again during the Zulu Rebellion in 1906, against the British government in SouthAfrica, Gandhi sided with the British and served the British army as a stretcherbearer. The Zulus, or the natives of South Africa, were victims of barbaric torture and inhuman exploitation by the British occupiers. They, as a result, were seething discontent and ultimately rose in revolt. Gandhi, being asimilar victim, should have been sympathetic to the Zulus and sided with them. But it is a shame that he served the colonialist British government of South Africa and to justify his action he, in hisautobiography, wrote, “But I then believed that the
British Empire existed for the welfare of theworld. A genuine sense of loyalty prevented me from even wishing ill to the Empire”. This time aswell, the British Government of South Africa recognized his service by presenting him a gold medal and the title of Kaiser-i-Hind.
It should be mentioned here that Gandhi used to maintain the view that
India would bebenefited by its British connection and it would be a calamity to break the connection between the British people and the people of India
. And there is no doubt that due to this unwavering loyalty to the British Crown, he was chosen by the British to bring him back to India to
lead the freedom movement, or to sabotage the freedom movement. Apart from his unwavering loyaltyto the
British Empire
, Gandhi was chosen by the British as the new leader of freedom struggle due to his newly invented doctrine of nonviolence. It was not difficult for the British to understand that his harmless and nonviolent Satyagraha
would pose no threat to theBritish Empire
. It has been pointedout earlier that British in
India, at that time, were terribly afraid of violent freedom struggle launched  by the patriots of  Punjab, Bengal and Maharastra  .
But Gandhi, through his speechesand writings, could have managed to expose that he was against any sort of violence in Indian freedommovement.
When Khudiram Bose and Prafulla Chaki threw bombs on Englishmen at Muzaffarpur in Bihar on April 30, 1908
, Gandhi immediately condemned the incident and said,“They had no reason to rejoice at the introduction of Russian methods. They could neither achieve real Swaraj by following the path of evil, i.e. by killing British, nor by establishing factories”. It should be mentioned here that, to explain Satyagraha, he used to say, “A Satyagrahi should expect to get killedby an aggressor and not to kill him”. One should recall here that instruction of Hindu scriptures is to kill an aggressor without giving a second thought. On that occasion,Bal Gangadhar Tilak wrote 3 articles in the Kesari
, supporting the action of Khudiram, and was sentenced by the British for 6 years in prison.On the contrary, 
Gandhi condemned Tilak and in his Indian Opinion
, wrote,“He (Tilak) aimed at inciting Indians against British rule. The rulers are justified, from their point of view, in taking action against him. … We submit that Mr. Tilak’s view should be rejected”. There isno doubt that Tilak was the first among the Indian leaders who boldly stood up to terminate British rule in India, while “Gandhi devoted years of his life to reform British imperialism”. Itshould be mentioned here that Gandhi used to write that his strategy of passiveresistance (Satyagraha) was always infinitely superior to physical power (perhaps due tothe simple reason that it was harmless for the British rulers.) 
Madan Lal Dhingra was a student at an engineering college in London.
He was arevolutionary, a follower of Veer Savarkar and killed Dr. Curzon Wyllies, a tyrant, on July 1, 1909. He also shot and killed Dr. Cawas Lalcaca while he tried to save Wyllie. 
Gandhi delored Dhingra for this violence and condemned Savarkar for supporting Dhingra Moreover, Gandhi asked people like Dhingra to abandon violence and adopt nonviolent Satyagraha as the means to fight British power and earn freedom. There is no doubt that all such actions and utterances of Gandhi encouraged British to bring Gandhi to India
and put him at the helm of the freedom movement, so that nonviolent Satyagraha could be the only mode of Indian Freedom struggle. So they were in search of a dependablestooge who could be taken into confidence to tell their plan and used as a messenger to communicatethe plan to Gandhi.
At that historic hour, people of this country saw Gopal Krishna Gokhale to sail to London and visit South Africa
on his return journey. 
He landed at Cape Town on October 22, 1912, and pressed Gandhi to return to India. While in London, Gokhale pleaded to the Prime Minister Mr. Gladstone to repeal the so called Black Act of South Africa
, anunjust tax of £3 per Indian, for which Gandhi was then fighting. Mr. Gladstone agreed just to glorify Gandhi. After reaching South Africa, Gokhale, whom Gandhi revered as his political guru, communicated this piece of news to Gandhi and said that he (Gandhi) would have to return to India within a year (according to the plan of their British master).
So after one year and nine months he had met Gokhale,Gandhi, after staying 21years in South Africa, came to India, via London
He left Cape Town by S.S. Kinfauns Castle on July 18, 1914, accompanied by his wife Smt. Kasturva and his German friend Mr. Kalenbuch, and reached London
on August 6. He again sailed from
London onDecember 19, 1914, for India and landed Bombay on January 9, 1915
Thus he stayed nearly 5 months in
England  on  his way  back to  India. 
While in London, he wrote in Satyagraha,
“I sailed for England to meet Gokhale on my way back to India, with  mixed  feelings of pleasure and  regret – pleasure because I was returning home after many years and eagerly looked forward serving the country under Gokhale’s guidance, regret becauseit was a great wrench for me to leave South Africa, where I have passed 21 years of my life sharing tothe full in sweets and bitters of human experience, and where I have realized my vocation in life”.At that time, Gandhi thought that the adoption of traditional dress code of Gujarati farmers with a bighead-dress would draw much public sentiment. So he landed at the Bombay port in the said attire. Butas soon as he could detect that the said dress code failed generate the public attraction he wanted, heimmediately switched over to traditional Hindu dress of dhoti and chaddar. However, immediatelyafter landing at the Bombay port, he wrote a letter to the governor of the Bombay Presidency assuringhim that he would always follow his instructions. Many believe that the parting instruction he receivedfrom the British, while at London, that he will always inform the Viceroy in advance what he is goingto do as his next step and take prior permission from him. There is no doubt that he kept the word of his British master up to his last breath.

The Real gandhi - a reality, a real maha - tma

         Untold truths about gandhi

1. Gandhi used to sleep with girls of aged between 18 to 25. Very few people know about this but its true (for detail you can read books by Dr L .R. BALI named “RANGEELA GANDHI” & “KYA GANDHI MAHATMA THE”) the girls who slept with Gandhi accepted this. Gandhi used to say that he is doing all this for his BRAHMCHARI Experiments. What from his experiments he was wanted to prove nobody knows? Gandhi himself accepted this that at the time of going to London for higher studies he decided to keep himself away from MEAT, DARU and SEX, but he accepted that he could not control himself in the matter of SEX.
2. Gandhi went to South Africa just for earning money and name because here in India he could not do well(flop) there he went mainly to save Abdullah &co. whose business was of smuggling and charged very much for this.
3. In 1932, Gandhi collected 1crore & 32 lakh Rs in the name of “TILAK SWRAJ” fund, which was collected for the use of DALITS. However, he did not spend even a single penny on DALITS.
4. In his whole life Gandhi kept on shouting that, he is in the supports AAHINSA. However, at the time of Second World War he himself sends Indian army for the fight from England side. AAHINSA kaha geye uss waqt?
5. During daytime, Gandhi spent the day in the Jhugis but he spent the night in the rest house of Birlas.
6. Gandhi advised people to live a simple life, but his simplicity was that when he was in jail there were three women in the jail to serve him for his simplicity!
7. Gandhi did not open a single door of a Hindu temple in Gujrat his home province in India for the UNTOUCHABLES.
8. Gandhi used to say that Subhash Chander Bose is like his own son, but Gandhi went on hunger strike until Bose leave his post in congress. Gandhi promised to British govt. that if we found Bose we will handover him to you (Bose was wanted in those days).
9. Gandhi kept people in dark that he is trying to save Bhagat Singh. However, the truth is that he never tried to contact VICEROY about Bhagat Singh issue. This all is said by the friend of VICEROY & Bhagat Singh named MANMATH NATH in his writings. Gandhi was feared about the popularity of Bhagat Singh because the popularity of Bhagat Singh was increasing of which Gandhi felt nervous.
10. Gandhi was saying that if the Pakistan would made it will only happen after his death. However, it was Gandhi who signed 1st on the proposal of making Pakistan.
11. Gandhi cheated all Indians at ROUND TABLE CONFERENCES by not giving the details in proper & those details, which were true.
12. Gandhi started so many ANDOLANS & LEHARS against British govt. but after a month or after 2 months he withdraw he all those ANDOLANS & LEHARS. Then what was the use of starting all those? What about the sacrifice of all those people who took part in all those ANDOLANS? In addition, he never went to lead people in those ANDOLANS. Even Gandhi’s own sons were against him but I do not know why all people were following him.
13. Now a days almost all Hindu people say Gandhi as a revolutionair, but what he said” I have come here on earth to fulfill the laws of caste.” How can one say such a person as a revolutionair? A true revolutionair never thinks according to caste line, not according to rich, poor etc.
These are very few points there are many more truths about Gandhi. In addition, from above point’s you people can decide about Gandhi. In BABA SAHEB’s own words “Gandhi Age is the Dark Age of India”. BABA SAHEB has also said in interview to BBC that “A PERSON WHO CHEATS AND KEEP OTHER PEOPLE IN DARK TO THAT PERSON IF YOU SAY A MAHATMA THEN GANDHI IS A MAHATMA.”

Sunday, March 6, 2011

DNA of Nehru Dynasty

This i got from a friend who find it on internet. Dont know That all this is true or not, But many things are true Like Indra (indra gandhi) was found with her german teacher on the bed in Shanti Niketan following this Indra was told to leave Shanti Niketan by Rabindranath Tagore.

DNA of Nehru Dynasty

GHIYASUDDIN GHAZI (Name changed to GANGA DHAR to escape British army). His son was MOTI LAL NEHRU (called as father of jawahar lal nehru)

MOTILAL married and his first wife and son died at childbirth.MOTILAL and his second wife THUSSU (name changed to SWAROOP RANI) had three children THUSSU with MOBARAK ALI (Motilal's Boss) had the first son JAWAHAR LAL NEHRU (he was circumcised)

MOTILAL AND THUSSU had two daughters by name NAN (also called Vijaya Lakshmi) & KRISHNA .MOTILAL had also two sons out of Muslim women by name SHEIK (sheikh) ABDULLA & SYUD HUSSAIN

VIJAYA LAKSHMI eloped with SYUD HUSSAIN (half brother and sister) and had a girl CHANDRALEKHA .VIJAYALAKSHMI MARRIED R.S. PANDIT and had two more girls NAYANTARA & RITA .

JAWAHARLAL NEHRU married KAMALA KAUL ( later known as kamla nehru) (marriage never consummated) JAWAHARLAL had an affair with SARADDHA MATA (assumed name) and had a son given away to an orphanage in BANGALORE . JAWAHAR LAL had an affair with LADY MOUNTBATTEN but no children. JAWAHAR LAL HAD MANY AFFAIRS and in the end died of SYPHILIS . KAMALA KAUL had an affair with MANZUR ALI (who is son of Mobark Ali who fathered Nehru also) and their daughter is INDIRA PRIYADARSINI NEHRU . KAMALA KAUL had an affair with FEROZ KHAN (son of Nawab Khan who supplied liquor to their house) but no children.

INDIRA was found in the bed with her GERMAN TEACHER at Shantiniketan. INDIRA PRIYADARSINI did nikah as per Islamic rites with FEROZ KHAN after converting herself to Islam. Her new name was MAIMUNA BEGUM and both had changed their name to fool the public of India on the advice of Mahatma Gandhi by an affidavit in a court to INDIRA GANDHI and FEROZ GANDHI .

INDIRA and FEROZ had one son by name RAJIV GANDHI (as per Islamic rites he was circumcised)INDIRA had an affair with MOHAMMED YOUNUS and had a second son SANJIV GANDHI (later the name changed to SANJAY GHANDI to escape prosecution in UK for car theft. He was circumcised as per Islamic rites)INDIRA had an affair with M.O. MATHAI (Nehru's steno) and a son was aborted .INDIRA had an affair with DHIRENDRA BRAMMACHARI but no children .

INDIRA had an affair with DHINESH SINGH but no children .FEROZ had an affair with TARAKESWARI SINHA .FEROZ had an affair with MEHMUNA SULTANA ,FEROZ had an affair with SUBHADRA JOSHI and many others.

RAJIV GANDHI converted to a Christian Catholic and changed the name to ROBERTO and married the Italian Catholic Christian by name SONIA MAINO (Sonia Maino was on the pay roll of KGB, the Russian spy agency which presented her in front of Rajiv Ghandi) and had one daughter and one son by name BIANKA and RAUL. For the Indian public these names are presented as PRIANKA and RAHUL.

The Womanizer(Nehru) was after ladies and even had an illegitimate son who was left with some christian missionaries. One of the reason for the free run for the christian conversion through out India and in North East particularly was that the christians could blackmail Nehru with exposure. Eventually this womanizer died of TERTIARY SYPHILIS-AORTIC ANEURYSM.

Indian government tried several times to purge Sikh identity

Indian government tried several times to purge Sikh identity and merge them into Hinduism. Since independence Sikhs remained mistrusted and are being discriminated and treated as aliens.
 During British rule Gandhi and Nehru promised the Sikhs to have full rights and freedom over Punjab. They stated that Sikhs would have the rights to rule Punjab without any interference from the government and that no laws would be passed without discussing them with Sikhs. 
Gandhi said, "You (Sikhs) take my word that if ever Congress or I betray you, you will be justified to draw the sword as taught by Guru Gobind Singh".  As soon as the British left India Sikhs were fired from their jobs and declared as traitors of India. Even in the Indian constitution, Sikhs were declared ‘Hindus with long hair'.
Gandhi betrayed Sikhs and told them that if they cut their hair and give up their faith and joined the Hindus, they would be given full right and hired at the jobs.
After independence when Nehru was asked to fulfill his promise of creating a separate Punjabi state, he brushed it off by saying "circumstances have changed now".
Then Nehru Sent an order to all Distric Commissioners of India That all Sikh Should be treated as Criminals.
After independence the Indian government continued its efforts to wipe out Sikhism from Indian soil. For this purpose in 1978 it sent an agent, Nirankari Gurbachan to Punjab to destroy Sikhism. He spoke against Sikhism and insulted the Sikhs Holy Scripture Guru Granath. In retaliation Sikhs launched a peaceful march against him while Gurbachan who already had Indian troops with him ordered them to shoot Sikhs. Resultantly, 13 Sikhs were killed leaving many other injured. The Indian government instead of punishing the culprits put the blame of this occurrence on Sikhs. This angered Sikhs and they rebelled against the Indian government. At this time a religious leader, Jarnail Singh Bhindranwale, started a campaign of evangelizing Sikhism. He openly spoke against the Indian Government's activities against Sikhism. As the people started supporting Bhindranwale and the freedom movement gained momentum many a people became Sikhs. Jarnail Singh Bhindranwale and many political leaders launched peaceful march and demanded full rights and status of first class citizens for Sikhs in India. An Anandpur Sahib resolution was brought to attention by Bhindranwale, which included many demands for Punjab and Sikhs such as: regional autonomy for Punjab; return of Chandigarh to Punjab; specials status for Sikhs in the Indian union; a supreme court review of Punjab river waters; return of Punjabi speaking areas to Punjab; provision of a fare share of electricity to Punjab and declaring Amritsar a holy city.
The Indian government rather than fulfilling the demands of Sikhs began arresting them blindly. At this stage Bhindranwale said, "There is no solution to Sikh's problem without freedom". Riots between Hindus and Sikhs broke out. In Haryana, Hindus were called from villages by beating drums to kill Sikhs. Under such circumstances Bhindranwale was sure of Indian government's plans to attack the Golden Temple at Amritsar and he was not wrong in calculating the Indian government's intentions. As Lt. Gen. K.S. Brar, who was in charge of operation stated that the Indian army planned and rehearsed an attack on Golden Temple 18 months before the attack itself happened. Bhindranwale addressed the Sikhs and advised them to be ready to defend the Golden Temple.
As the Sikh movement gained momentum, Punjab was handed over to Indian military. The Indian government and military, in order to hit the Sikhs below the belly, planned to attack Golden Temple in the first week of June that marks the martyr day of fifth Guru, Guru Arjun Dev, founder of Golden Temple, and hence there was going to be a big Sikh gathering. Indian government announced a curfew in Punjab, telephone lines were cut and all press reporters were asked to leave Punjab. Punjab was completely disconnected from the rest of the world. The entire state was surrounded by troops. All the Sikhs were being harassed all over India.
On 31st May a large contingent of Indian army launched an attack on Golden Temple. This operation was given the name of Blue Star. Sadly, there were only 251 Sikhs inside to protect the complex of the Golden Temple as compared to thousands of fully equipped Indian troops. The Indian government also brought tanks and destroyed Akaal Takhat, which is in the front of Golden Temple. On 6th June when all Sikh fighters became martyrs, the war was over and the Indian troops entered the temple.
They did not even respect the sanctity of the holy place and entered with their shoes on. When the Indian troops found that only 251 men had stopped them from entering the temple for 6 days they started killing innocent Sikhs who had come there to visit the Temple. This was to hide their humiliation. About 50,000 Sikhs were killed that day. Sikh artifacts were burnt. All the literature written by the Gurus was taken away by the army. The whole Amritsar city was burnt. Sikhs' shops were looted and houses were set on fire. Hindu mobs went to every house and burnt Sikhs alive, women were dishonored. Most Sikhs between ages 5 to 40 were killed. The Indian government thought that if they kill young Sikh men then there would be no Sikh marriages and in the next 10 to 15 years the Sikh population would not increase and they would eventually die out. All the visitors of the Golden Temple were arrested and they all starved to death because they were not given any food to eat not even a single drop of water.
Indian government said that the operation was conducted to flush out Jarnail Singh Bhindranwale and his supporters from the Golden Temple. If the Golden Temple was attacked to drive out Bhindranwale then why were other more than 50 Sikh temples attacked on the same day in Punjab by the army? Why were thousands of innocent people, specifically Sikhs, killed? Why did the government have to use tanks and heavy artillery to drive out few Sikhs? The Indian government has no justification for 1984's bloody massacre. However, the truth is that it was a grand and wicked plan of Hindu government to vanish Sikhism by merging it into Hinduism. Because if would have been only Bhindranwale then the Indian army could have leave Punjab after the operation was over. Else there is no reason for army to stay in Punjab, burn whole Amritsar city and the Sikh literature?
Ever since operation Blue Star, Sikh youngsters have been picked up by the police, tortured in custody and than murdered in fake encounters. In some places in Punjab, whole villages lost their young generations as a result of inflammatory action of Indian regime. To top it, Amnesty International is banned from carrying out human rights investigations in the Punjab. Operation Blue Star proved that India is a country of Hindus who are intolerable towards other communities and want either to banish them or to merge them into Hinduism. It also shows that freedom of religion which is provided under Indian constitution is nothing but reflection of a sham democracy. So it seems strange that while victims of Operation Blue Star are awaiting justice, Indian Prime Minister is very much concerned about the announcement of a dissident group of Swat about minorities. There is a need that India first brings its home in order and than talk about others and its political parties must stop using issues relating to Pakistan as election gimmicks.

The above I got from a friend who thinks that Indian Government is doing this, but Actually Its by done Congress led Indian Govenments which has ruled India For a long time

Congress with the help of Indian Spy agencies Started Terrorism in Punjab
The book Soft Target, written by two Canadian journalists, Zuhair Kashmeri of the Toronto Globe and Mail and Brian McAndrew of the Toronto Star, shows conclusively that the Indian government blew up its own airliner in 1985, killing 329 innocent people, to blame it on the Sikhs and have an excuse for more repression.