Father of the Nation is too Big a Crown for Him

One of the great ironies of India is that Mohandas Gandhi – rather than Gautama…

One of the great ironies of India is that Mohandas Gandhi – rather than Gautama Buddha, Adi Shankaracharya or Chandragupta Vikramaditya – is the “Father of the Nation”. India’s history has a galaxy of great kings, warrior queens, nation builders and saints and yet we chose a politician who presided over the breakup of the country as our national mentor.

Kim Il-sung


With the possible exception of North Korea – where the communists have convinced the masses that their late leader Kim il-Sung is some sort of divinity – there is no other country other than India which has raised a mortal leader to demigod status.

If the personality cult of Kim il-Sung has attained absurd proportions, then India is offering stiff competition in that department. If the North Koreans have erected more than 500 statues of Kim il-Sung, then India has countless government schemes and national landmarks named after Gandhi and the appendage Nehru family.

This myth making has taken absurd dimensions. For 67 years, government radio and TV channels have been regurgitating the same old lies – how the frail “father of the nation” used the weapon of non-violence to defeat the brutal colonialists.

Schoolchildren are taught that in a freedom struggle without precedent or parallel, India became independent without firing a shot in anger. The implication, of course, being that the British are a race of such conscientious people they actually bowed before Gandhi’s non-violent methods.

There is an ancient Indian adage – Satyam Eva Jayate or Truth Alone Wins. How true. Millions of Indians are waking up to the fact that Gandhi was not quite the apostle of peace he’s made out to be but rather a misguided man who caused untold harm to India. His crowning achievement was the breakup of a country that had held together through cultural and religious continuity for thousands of years.

His role in the freedom movement needs to be reexamined because Gandhi’s arrival on the stage upended India’s freedom movement. In the early 1900s, Indian leaders were looking at overthrowing the British by the 1920s, with brutal armed forced if necessary. But Gandhi’s arrival delayed freedom by more than two decades, enough time for the cunning British to divide the leadership, people and finally the nation.

Gandhi vs the Revolutionaries

The Indian freedom movement was massive in its sweep. Armed revolutionaries were not only carrying on guerrilla wars at home, they even took the battle to England, where they assassinated British officials.

However, Gandhi severely reprimanded such acts, calling the Indian revolutionaries misguided people. “There should be no malice or vindictiveness in our resistance,” he said.

But his statements condemning such acts only hurt India and Indians. They not only cooled Indian anger but also made it easier for the British to hang the revolutionaries. Bhagat Singh, Sukhdev Thapar and Shivaram Rajguru – who launched violent attacks on the British – were admonished by Gandhi even as Muhammad Ali Jinnah and Jawaharlal Nehru supported them.

In an apparent jab at Gandhi, Jinnah said in the Punjab Assembly: “However much you deplore them and however much you say they are misguided, it is the system, this damnable system of governance, which is resented by the people.”

Following the executions, Gandhi faced black flag demonstrations by angry Karachi youths who shouted “Down with Gandhi“. The New York Times reported: “A reign of terror in the city of (Kanpur) and an attack on Mahatma Gandhi by a youth outside Karachi were among the answers of the Indian extremists today to the hanging of Bhagat Singh and two fellow-assassins.”

It is worth noting that while Indian freedom fighters experienced third-degree torture in British jails –especially the notorious Kala Pani in Andaman & Nicobar– Gandhi never got a scratch. For all his protests, so-called fasts-unto-death, marches and sloganeering, he was lodged in minimum security prisons, where he could leisurely churn out his misguided theories on non-violence.

Out of Africa

Gandhi started off as a humble lawyer in South Africa. While his supporters argue that he evolved into a saint over the years, few are aware that he joined the ambulance corps of the British Army during the 1896 Boer War in South Africa.

So basically, the man who would go on to lead India’s freedom movement was denying the same freedom to the Dutch Boers. Plus, what non-violence was he preaching by joining the world’s most savage army?


Again in 1906, during the Zulu Rebellion against the British government, Gandhi served the British army as a stretcher-bearer. The native Africans were also victims of colonialism and Gandhi’s sympathies should have been with them. But he was a self-confessed Anglophile with a firm belief in the goodness of the British.

Did Gandhi’s Anglophilia convince the colonialists to prop him up as an interlocutor between Indians and the British? In 1947, the retreating British burned thousands of documents in Delhi. So any direct evidence to prove London’s secret links with Gandhi may be long gone. Compare it to the Holocaust. Today, there is little or no evidence Adolf Hitler ordered the genocide of the Jews, but six million Jews could not have been sent to the gas chambers without a directive from the Nazi leader.

However, there is plenty of indirect evidence that Gandhi was serving Britain more than he was serving India’s cause.

After he returned from South Africa, Gandhi was in favour of continued British rule in India. In 1907 he wrote, “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 want, India is not in a position to end it.” These are the words of a man who was literally thrown out of a train in South Africa for sitting in a whites-only coach.

The supreme irony was that Gandhi –who constantly espoused non-violence – urged Indians to enlist as combatants in the British Army. With the slogan “20 Recruits From Every Village”, he set up camps to enlist Indians during the World War I.

For his efforts he was awarded the Kaiser-i-Hind (Caesar of India), British India’s highest civilian award. Other Indians opposed his war efforts. Among them was Jinnah, who said Indians should be put on the same footing as European British subjects before being asked to fight. And secondly, they said, Britain must guarantee independence after the war. Gandhi, however, waved aside all such conditions.

Indian revolutionaries were frustrated by the tardiness shown by Gandhi in demanding full freedom. His non-violence exasperated these leaders because it shielded the British from the wrath of the Indian people.

Koenraad Elst

According to Indologist and orientalist Koenraad Elst, Gandhi’s “autocratic decision” to call off the mass agitation for complete independence in 1931 in exchange for a “few puny British concessions”“amounted to the sacrifice of a high national goal in favour of a petty rise in status for the Congress”. He adds: “Also, every delay in the declaration of independence gave the emerging separatist forces the time to organise and to strengthen their position.”

Essentially, Gandhi allowed the British and Muslim separatists a window of 16 years during which they were able to sell the idea of Pakistan to a wider Muslim audience.

Seeds of Fundamentalism

Gandhi played a deplorable role in the creation of Pakistan. Here’s busting another myth: the people living in the current geographical areas of Pakistan did not – repeat, did not want a Muslim country. Not that they were any less fundamentalist than, say cowbelt Muslims. It’s just that in Punjab, Sindh and the northwest frontier region, Muslims comprised a clear majority and hardly felt threatened by the Hindus. The demand for Pakistan was made by educated, upper middle class Muslims mainly from Uttar Pradesh.

In the 1920s, Turkish nationalist Ataturk was involved in a power struggle with the effete Ottoman rulers and the Caliph of Istanbul. At this crucial juncture two Indian Muslim brothers, Maulana Mohammad Ali and Maulana Shaukat Ali, both self-styled religious leaders, distributed pamphlets calling upon the Turkish people to preserve the Ottoman Caliphate for the sake of Islam.

This was laughable because Indian Muslims had no locus standi in the matter. After all, who did they think they were –custodians of Mecca? Even today, Arab Muslims treat their co-religionists from India, Pakistan and Bangladesh as not worthy of being treated equal. Again, the Afghans call Indian Muslims as Hindko or Indian.

Predictably, the meddlesome Indian Muslims wound up the nationalist Turks. Under Turkey’s new nationalist government led by the reformer Ataturk, it was construed as foreign intervention, and any form of foreign intervention was labelled as an insult to Turkish sovereignty, and worse, a threat to state security. Ataturk promptly seized his chance. On his initiative, the National Assembly abolished the Caliphate on March 3, 1924.

The Caliph was exiled and the Ottoman dynasty, after a 700 year reign, ingloriously ended up in the proverbial dustheap. Indian Muslims should feel proud of their contribution to the demise of the Caliphate.

Now, here’s what Gandhi did. In order to show solidarity with Indian Muslims, he launched a protest movement demanding the reinstatement of the Caliph. This was not just rank bad politics but it also shows his muddled side.

It is clear that Gandhi, who apparently wanted freedom for Indians, did not care about freedom for the millions of Arabs who were seething under Ottoman rule. Secondly, he seemed indifferent to Turkey’s search for modernity. And finally, he fanned the flames of fundamentalism among Indian Muslims.

The average Indian Muslim did not care a rat’s tail about Turkey. Nearly 99 per cent of Indian Muslims are forced converts from Hinduism, and they were rooted to the soil. But Gandhi encouraged Indian Muslims to be loyal to the Islamic cause. So basically while Turks were preparing for the 20th century, Gandhi was pushing Indian Muslims into the 17th.

The Indian nation is still paying a price for it. For, Gandhi’s Caliphate strategy gamed the Muslim mindset. From that point onwards, extraterritorial loyalties enticed them. He pointed their compass away from the Himalayas to Mecca. It was another step in the direction of Pakistan.

The British, who had been suspicious of Indian Muslims since the First War of Independence in 1857, now discovered an enemy’s enemy and actively sought out key Muslim leaders in Project Pakistan. They assured Muslims that if they asked for an Islamic homeland and if the new country promised to be loyal to Britain, they could have their fiefdom carved out of India.

Even then, it was Gandhi’s ‘peaceful’ strategies that literally disarmed the Hindus and gave away Pakistan. Gandhi’s fasts and threats worked only on the Hindus, and he would declare a fast whenever he wanted to apply pressure on the Hindus. On the other hand, he never risked his life by going on a “fast unto death” to pressure the Muslims – he knew they wouldn’t listen to him or care if he died. That is why Gandhi did not go on a fast against Partition.

In fact, Jinnah, the architect of Pakistan, was a diehard secularist who repeatedly warned Gandhi about the dangers of flirting with fundamentalist Muslims. Jinnah, who used to openly eat pork, despised fundamentalist Muslim leaders and stayed away from them. It was Gandhi’s arrogance and repeated snubs that left no choice for Jinnah to throw in his lot with Project Pakistan. He died a broken man.

Pacifism Gone Haywire

Gandhi claimed to have been inspired by the Gita. “Ahimsa paramo dharma” or “non-violence is the highest duty” was his pet quote but very few realise that it’s an incomplete quote. Nobody in the old man’s lifetime bothered to check the Gita and expose this selective quoting or even if someone did, it hasn’t come to light. The second part of the quote is: “Dharma himsa tathaiva cha” or “so too is violence in service of Dharma.”

You get the picture – the complete sentence means that non-violence is the highest dharma to the extent that it supersedes all other actions. Krishna Maheshwari explains in Hindupedia:

“Unlike the English word ‘non-violence’ (which is absolute in its meaning), ahimsa means non-violence in a relative sense. There are times when violence can also be considered ahimsa if that violence is used to stop greater violence….To hang a murderer is ahimsa for a king. To kill a man who is taking away the lives of many is ahimsa.”

Indeed, it is only when retaliatory killings were ordered on the Indian side that the cowardly Muslim Leaguers stopped the mass slaughter of Hindus and Sikhs in Pakistan. Those political leaders who carried out the killings of Muslims in Delhi and elsewhere were therefore morally superior to Gandhi, who did not seem to care about the genocide of Hindus.

Seal of Maharaja Hari Singh

To please the Muslims, Gandhi asked the Hindu king of Kashmir to retire and go to Kashi after handing over his kingdom to Sheikh Abdullah because Kashmir was Muslim majority province. It never occurred to Gandhi that Kashmir’s Dogra dynasty is one of the most ancient in the world, tracing its ancestry to the Ikshvakus, who ruled India more than 7000 years ago. Rama, Harishchandra and 22 of the 24 Jain Tirthankaras belonged to this dynasty.

By the same logic, Gandhi should have asked the Nizam of Hyderabad to retire and go to Mecca. After all, Hyderabad was a Hindu majority State. But he only showed more glimpses of his warped side by declaring: “After the British leave India, the Nizam of Hyderabad would be the Badshah of Bharat.”

According to Elst,

“The fundamental problem with Gandhi’s pacifism, not in the initial stages but when he had become the world-famous leader of India’s freedom movement (1920-47), was his increasing extremism. All sense of proportion had vanished when he advocated non-violence not as a technique of moral pressure by a weaker on a stronger party, but as a form of masochistic surrender.”[Emphasis added]

Gandhi’s advice to the victims of communal violence was “breathtaking for its callousness in the face of human suffering”.

During his prayer meeting on 1 May 1947, he prepared the Hindus and Sikhs for the anticipated massacres of their kind in the upcoming state of Pakistan with these words:

“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. 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.”

“It is left unexplained what purpose would be served by this senseless and avoidable surrender to murder,” says Elst.

“Jews Should Pray for Hitler”

Gandhi’s misguided approach can be seen in his advice to the Jews:

“They can settle in Palestine only by the goodwill of the Arabs. They should seek to convert the Arab heart. The same God rules the Arab heart who rules the Jewish heart. They can offer Satyagraha in front of the Arabs and offer themselves to be shot or thrown into the Dead Sea without raising a little finger against them.”

He wrote about the Fuehrer: “I do not consider Hitler to be as bad as he is depicted. He is showing an ability that is amazing and seems to be gaining his victories without much bloodshed.”

When Gandhi came to know about the scale of German atrocities against the Jews, he criticized the Jews who had tried to escape or fight for their lives. He wrote: “Hitler killed five million Jews. It is the greatest crime of our time. The Jews should have offered themselves to the butcher’s knife. They should have thrown themselves into the sea from cliffs. It would have aroused the world and the people of Germany.”And he offered a shocking piece of advice, asking the Jews to “pray for Hitler”.


In 1940, he wrote an ingratiating letter to Hitler, where he addressed the German leader as a “dear friend”. Excerpts:

“We have no doubt about your bravery or devotion to your fatherland, nor do we believe that you are the monster described by your opponents.”

“During this season when the hearts of the peoples of Europe yearn for peace, we have suspended even our own peaceful struggle. Is it too much to ask you to make an effort for peace during a time which may mean nothing to you personally but which must mean much to the millions of Europeans whose dumb cry for peace I hear, for my ears are attended to hearing the dumb millions?”

And perhaps more revealingly: “You know that not long ago I made an appeal to every Briton to accept my method of non-violent resistance. I did it because the British know me as a friend though a rebel.” [Emphasis added]

As long as he stayed at the helm, it suited the British as they could hang Indians with impunity.

Experiments with Sex

Like his complete lack of understanding of ahimsa, Gandhi utterly got the Hindu concept of Brahmacharya (celibacy) wrong.

Putting it simply, Brahmacharya means celibacy when unmarried, and fidelity when married. It follows from the first of four Ashram or age-based stages of a person’s life. The Brahmacharya Ashram begins at birth and lasts up to say, 25 years of age, during which an Arya – or noble man – was focused on education and included the practice of celibacy.

Brahmacharya kicked in again during the later stages of life for the purposes of attaining spiritual liberation. In Hindu, Jain and Buddhist monastic traditions, Brahmacharya implies mandatory renouncing of sex and marriage. However, householders are allowed – or rather encouraged – to indulge in a life of sustainable erotic pleasures.

But Gandhi somehow got the wrong ideas and at the age of 37 declared he would pursue the life of a celibate. It’s clear that he was influenced by Christianity. In South Africa, in a letter dripping with Biblical imagery, he wrote: “I vow to flee from the serpent which I know will bite me….God’s last test is ever the most difficult. Satan’s last temptation is ever the most seductive.”

To prove his self-control he often slept and bathed naked with other women – including his grandniece, Manu, and the wife of his grandnephew, who were both 18 when they started sleeping in the same bed as Gandhi, who was 77 years old at the time.

Graeme Donald writes in Lies, Damned Lies and History: A Catalogue of Historical Errors and Misunderstandings:

“All had to sleep naked and, just to make doubly sure of his resolve, Gandhi would take them to bed in pairs. Some as young as 12, several girls later acknowledged that they did often ‘render service’ to Gandhi but refused to elaborate.”

Donald adds that the girls were selected for their “pertness” to “stiffen his resolve” for celibacy. “Very much a case of ‘damn, failed again, must try harder tomorrow night.”

In her diary, Manu wrote:

“Tonight, when Bapu, Sushilaben and I were sleeping on the same cot, he embraced me and patted me. He put me to sleep with great love. He embraced me after a very long time. Then Bapu praised me for remaining innocent (of sexual urges) despite sleeping with him. But this isn’t the case with the other girls. Veena, Kanchan and Lilavati (other associates of Gandhi) told me that they won’t be able to sleep with him.”

Sudhir Kakar writes about Gandhi’s morbid experiment:

“So focused was the Mahatma on his own feelings during these experiments that I believe he may have ‘chosen’ to overlook their consequences for the women involved. Except for the flaring up of violent jealousy between the various women, we do not know the psychological effects, if any, that these experiments left on each of the women.”

Well, we do know what happened to Manu. She remained a spinster and died at the young age of 40. Late Prime Minister Morarji Desai (a diehard Gandhian, whose crackpot ideals may have led him to betray Indian spies embedded in Pakistan’s nuclear establishment) – visited her in hospital and wrote:“Manu’s problem is more psychological than physiological. She appears to have despaired for life and developed allergy to all kinds of medicines.”

Gandhi’s behaviour was criticised by family members and the Indian political leadership of his time. Some members of his staff resigned, including two of his editors who refused to print Gandhi’s sermons describing his bizarre sleeping arrangements. Nehru is also said to have described Gandhi’s sexual behaviour as “abnormal and unnatural”.

Copycat Movements

It needs to be mentioned here that even some of his much admired methods were knee-jerk reactions to the pioneering strategies of contemporary Indian leaders.

For instance, it was Veer Savarkar who in 1905 first started the swadeshi (buy Indian) movement by organising a bonfire of foreign clothes in Pune. Gandhi, who was then in South Africa, panned Savarkar’s decision, only to launch the Swadeshi Movement 16 years later.

When B.R. Ambedkar championed the cause of the depressed classes and started a move to secure for the Dalits (so-called untouchables) the right to vote for their own representatives, Gandhi went on a hunger-strike until Ambedkar called off his plan.

Later, Gandhi sought to become a Dalit leader by coining the term Harijan or People of God. However, he really did not believe the Dalits were fit to be treated as equals, saying, “I do not believe that inter-dining and inter-caste marriage are necessary to national unity.

According to Donald, “Ambedkar was also one of the first to see through the Gandhi act, cautioning others not to fall for it as Gandhi was not a saint but a very clever politician.”

Who Gains from the Cult?

The Gandhi family that has ruled India for most of its post-independent existence has nothing to do with Gandhi.

Not only has this family ridden piggyback on his name through a bizarre accident of marriage, it has usurped the glory from the real revolutionaries such as Savarkar, Subhas Chandra Bose, Bhagat Singh and Alluri Sitaramiah Raju.

In the narrative of this dynasty, there is no place for anyone other than Gandhi. India is Gandhi and Gandhi is India.

Under these Neo-Gandhis, the Indian government has been forced to donate millions of dollars in grants to Cambridge and Oxford scholars to write hagiographies to fit the family’s narrative. It is a circular cycle that feeds on its own tail for sustenance –Indian secularists get the history they want from obliging colonial scholars. The Indian liberals and Marxists then pick up this thread and it passes into school history books. The Nazi propaganda minister Joseph Goebbels couldn’t have done a better job.

India is unique because it is among a handful of countries that are also complete civilisations. It is a land of innumerable grand and inspiring personalities. To name a few, Porus, who defeated Alexander; Rajendra Chola who conquered Southeast Asia; Rani of Jhansi who rode into battle against the British with her infant son on her back; the magnanimous and brave Harsha who defeated the Huns; Dara Shikoh the Sanskrit loving Mughal prince who could have changed the history of the Indian subcontinent; Maharana Pratap who literally ate grass but refused to lower his head before the Mughal tyrants; Kanhoji Angre the Maratha admiral who routed the British, Dutch and Portuguese navies and remained undefeated for 33 years.

Then there’s an unending list of thinkers, scientists, surgeons and mathematicians such as Aryabhata, Bhaskara, Panini and Patanjali who gave the world numerals, the zero, the ‘Pythagoras’ theorem, the decimal system, algebra, calculus, cataract surgery, plastic surgery, vaccination and more.

No one person – least of all Gandhi – can be the father or mother of a civilization that has produced such titans. And this is just a partial list.

Hopefully, things will change as people across India remove their blindfolds and see what Ambedkar saw early on.

In 2014, Prime Minister Narendra Modi renamed a clutch of central government schemes named after the Gandhi family. For instance, the Indira Awas Yojana is now Gram Awas Yojana. In October 2015, the government discontinued stamps featuring Indira Gandhi and Rajiv Gandhi.

Modi is doing the country a great favour by relaxing the Gandhi-Nehru chokehold on our collective consciousness.

Rakesh is a journalist at New Zealand’s leading media house. He mostly writes on defence and foreign affairs.
His articles have been quoted extensively by universities and in books on diplomacy, counter terrorism, warfare, and development of the global south; and by international defence journals.
Rakesh’s work has been cited by leading think tanks and organisations that include the Naval Postgraduate School, California; US Army War College, Pennsylvania; Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, Washington DC; State University of New Jersey; Institute of International and Strategic Relations, Paris; BBC Vietnam; Siberian Federal University, Krasnoyarsk; Centre for Air Power Studies, New Delhi; Institute for Defense Analyses, Virginia; International Center for Not-for-Profit Law, Washington DC; Stimson Centre, Washington DC; Foreign Policy Research Institute, Philadelphia; and Institute for Strategic, Political, Security and Economic Consultancy, Berlin.
His articles have been published by the Centre for Land Warfare Studies, New Delhi; Foundation Institute for Eastern Studies, Warsaw; and the Research Institute for European and American Studies, Greece, among others.
  • Sowmya HS

    Rakesh, here is my article on my blog titled ‘Father of the Nation’.
    I hope you will spare a few minutes of your valuable time to read it. Thanks. Appreciate it, if you could propagate it and help me serve this country in a small way…

  • gl7rwh35

    abhi ye mohandas ko chodkar, abdul ko bada bana rahe hain.

  • Sankara Narayanan

    This article about Gandhi does not deserve any comments since I wonder how a person(this author)can go to great lengths to distort truth and present a picture of the great man with cynicism and conveniently avoids which does not support his illogical theories .It is said that little minds cannot understand great personalities .Here is a classic example .

  • SuchindranathAiyer

    I am not too sure that “Father of the Nation” is too big a title for Khilafat Gandhi. After all, the Periyar-Ambedkar-Nehru-Gandhi-Communist Consensus has enabled a “Creeping Sharia” in accord with his personal wishes over 69 years with its Grotesque “Animal Farm” Constitution and Laws which, inter alia, pursued the British policy, established since 1921, of eradicating Brahmanism in order to destroy Hinduism providing the Khilafat (Caliphate) and other “Books” with fertile ground to prosper in. India reflects iniquity, prejudice, corruption, lies, favouritism, cronyism, twisted mythology masquerading as convenience, disregard for merit, contempt for democracy, and so on in the spitting image of this charlatan

  • SuchindranathAiyer

    I am not too sure that “Father of the Nation” is too big a title for Khilafat Gandhi. After all, the Periyar-Ambedkar-Nehru-Gandhi-Communist Consensus has enabled a “Creeping Sharia” in accord with his personal wishes over 69 years with its Grotesque “Animal Farm” Constitution and Laws which, inter alia, pursued the British policy, established since 1921, of eradicating Brahmanism in order to destroy Hinduism providing the Khilafat (Caliphate) and other “Books” with fertile ground to prosper in. India reflects iniquity, prejudice, corruption, lies, favouritism, cronyism, twisted mythology masquerading as convenience, disregard for merit, contempt for democracy, and so on in the spitting image of this charlatan.

  • Goonga Pehelwan

    I am very happy to read the article, even more when i read comments, my heart was full of joy when article subtly kept Kim with Mkg LOL.

    Finally a place where people of my wave length come and hand out. I love to go point to point but since I have to watch TV, I would limit my thoughts.

    First of all i agree with SIR. Churchill for calling mkg as half-Naked Seditious Fakir, LOL.
    If mkg would have been alive and staging protest against something today, i would have complaint to police for indecent dressing. Look at founding fathers of US, sure most of them were slave owners but their dressing sense was coool and I never saw a post written criticizing them compare to mkg.

    mkg is British agent- it’s very true mkg was mole planted by m.i6 to take control of Indian independent movement. MI:6 is the most powerful, stylish spy agency in the universe, bloody James bond works for them, nothing is impossible.
    Of course they were capable of nurturing and guiding mkg for decades for their advantages. Mkg’s plan was to infiltrate struggle and become a leader who connected to masses. Surely a man who was seen as important fig. in movement will have to be well compensated that sounds logical and British offered The President of free India(under union jack ) title to mkg for his service to majesty. Some mis-informationists says he retired from politics long before 47’ , well I am not buying this, I can only imagine mkg fighting over like today’s bapu’s for chair.Thank god for Mr. Godse who killed him thus stopped his master plan, since no one in the entire world would have the balls to say no to mkg if he decided to become the President or the PM. NO ONE. would dare to ask for his qualifications.

    Mkg and jew , I mean who is he to say to jew to live peacefully with native Arabs, doesn’t he know Jews have Mossad and military might to fight Arabs and live a peaceful life happily ever after.

    Mkg vs revolutionaries, Mkg shunned rebels , his philosophical side was boring like’ Victory attained by violence is tantamount to a defeat for it is momentary’, I mean everyone knows only through violence you can get freedom tats wat
    the world around us did.If he had encouraged revolutionaries they would have multiplied and carried out attacks killing junior not so imp British officials with hand guns and bomb in return the brits would have termed them terrorist and retaliated with military grade weapons on entire villages killing more people which results in more volunteers which results in more attacks which results in more n more retaliated and finally the strongest one with a Gun will liberate us from Brits like Afghanistan, south Americans and our life would have been much better. But nooooo he gave brits no reasons to use excessive force fearing bad PR internationally.

    Mkg and sex, all this celibacy is just parlor trick to get girls in bed, seriously sexual urge is pre historic trait in humans, which is natural and very difficult to overcome, the one who is capable of overcoming this urge is true master of his mind, many have tried out of box approaches to master this and failed. ,if succeed, in return one gets iron will to achieve his goals,I don’t think mkg is that guy I mean OK he was around 60 under feed, under clothed when he walked 390km to get protest against British Salt Act but My friend’s dada ji is 60 and he plays golf as if no big deal. Sorry mkg we expected more from you to evaluate your mental capability that justifies you were a brahmacharyan dedicated to a cause.

    Mkg and today’s politics – he manipulated feroza to change his name from Ghandy to Gandhi in 1930s and against Nehru’s’ wishes blessed him and Indira. His sole aim was to put seeds of dynasty under his name which will build monuments and stamps after him. The entire Scams of congi’s, I put the blame on him. He is only responsible.
    Well played Mr.G but some of Indians are not stupiddd.

    And last Mkg was sooo obnoxious that he skipped the first Independence programs which was participated by most of leaders. If he was sooo into this.’ get freedom’ then he would have come to red fort, but noooo he spend days in refugee camp filled with aging men frightened women children protecting them from hordes of revenge seeking men, un armed with his old, half naked, under feed body. That’s stupid isn’t it?. Let’s here by celebrate Mr. Godse and show the world that we Indians of 21st century are more ’ Modern’ and celebrate both the victim and the perpetrator.

    Since i gave a good rant, can some one please tell me why Voting is not regarded as fundamental duty compare -To develop the scientific temper, humanism and the spirit of inquiry and reform….? i mean voting is super important i think we should replace this scientific temper bla bla bla with Voting.

  • PKS

    Rakesh – thanks for such an in-depth article- we’ve needed this article for a long time. The man has been exposed and Bharat Mata needs to be released from his clutches – only then can we move on and re-build our nation.

  • Manjula Tekal

    Thanks much! Loved the article.

  • Dheeraj Aggarwal

    Thank you Rakesh for this great article – I only wish more and more Indians open their eyes to the reality and not fall for lies and distorted history which not doing any good to our great nation… thank you!

  • Dr. MS

    Only a Hindu will spend this much time and space bashing another Hindu, like Gandhi, whose only weakness was “being passive, nice and far too giving and flexible”. The latter might be a weakness, among many Hindus…it is not a crime.

    You don’t see Russians spending this much time bashing Stalin (who actually murdered a huge number of Russians) or Rasputin (who committed some heinous acts of betrayal on his own people). Gandhi was opposite of Stalin and Rasputin…and yet he continues to be vilified by Hindus. There are Hindus who will worship Sai Baba of Whitefield, or some Baba, but they will perpetually hate Gandhi who died, or rather got shot, in 1947.

    A Muslim once told me, “In India Muslims, across differences, band together to fight for their rights, their preferences and to convert non-Muslims if possible. Hindus spend time attacking each other, and even killing or assassinating their own kind.”.

    For example: LTTE did not have the courage to confront Sinhalese hegemony and domination. but they spent ample time creating trouble in Tamil Nadu attacking Indian Tamils who disagreed with them or their strategies., Some even indulged in assassinations, one of which led to the murder of India’s PM and his close aids. Rajiv Gandhi got murdered in a highly passionate, irrational, civil conflict. Again Indians killing Indians, or Indians allowing or encouraging Indians to be killed.

    Now it is fashionable to “beat up” on Gandhi because the Hindu, with a deep seated inferiority complex, needs someone to blame within his own faith or community for some of his own under achievements. He also bashes when he feels anger and outrage. Today, in India, it is fashionable to blame everything on Gandhi and/or Nehru. It shows a highly simplistic vengeful juvenile mind at work.

    One does not have to glorify Gandhi, though he is still a man I greatly admire and revere. But one does not have to vilify him either. There are enough outsiders to attack Hindus perpetually, frequently, unexpectedly or willy nilly, we don’t need a Hindu adding to this “attack Gandhi forever” campaign,

    • Ajay Pandey

      Stalin is one of the most polarising figures in Russia. As many as 30 per cent of Russians hate him. Perhaps you don’t know that he’s not Russian but Georgian. (oh yeah, how could you know, you are a Gandhian, who knows only how to molest and rape under age girls or bathe naked with them) Many Georgians claim they love Stalin because “he killed so many Russians”. So your argument hold no water.

      Again, Churchill’s crimes are exposed more often by British writers than in countries where he murdered millions.

      You have just vented bile but not countered any of the author’s statements with counter facts of your own. So essentially you are ignoring the author’s accusations just as a rapist’s mother will ignore the rapist’s crimes because he’s her own son, even if guilty.

      Fade away and never be seen on these pages. Go to some Gandhi worshiping website.

      • Dr. MS

        Your ranting only proves my point. You can certainly criticize Gandhi’s passivity or his naivety or his lack of creativity in dealing with characters in Congress who worked behind his back and betrayed India. But to attack a passive man, who was more like saint, which is opposite of Stalin, shows how brainwashed you are, and how self hating you are.

        I may not like Congress. but I do not hate the party, nor do I consider Priyanka and Rahul to be less Indian than you or me. You, on the other hand, feel this urge to turn a passive old man into Stalin or Hitler giving weapons to your enemies to hit you as well with it.

        I found your comments about personal bathing habits disgusting and unwarranted.

        First of all I am a woman. I do not have children and I do not bathe in rivers or lakes with anyone. In fact I find after coming to India, after 30 years of overseas living, that many Indian men are peeping toms in many cities looking into other people’s rooms and apartments. Speak for yourself.

        Just because I do not disparage Gandhian philosophy too much, does not mean that I condone everything Gandhi did personally.

        Your comments show a certain cheapness in the way you communicate with your women.

  • Shiju Rajan

    Should he have acted like your guruji gowakar..

    • Ajay Pandey

      Learn to spell, you insect!

  • nsrajan

    A very well written article, one based on facts to shatter the iconic stature given to Gandhi, completely overlooking the immense harm done to the country through many of his ill conceived ideas and biased views. Following him, Nehru did even more damage, the country still unable to wriggle out of the quagmire that his decisions on Kashmir and China pushed us into. Hope Ramchandra Guha, never short of praise for these two worthies, and highly caustic on Modi, has something to say.

  • Gopal

    Brilliant Expose !!

  • Sledgehammer

    It is becoming increasingly clear that MK.Gandhi was was a bigger clown than Mr.Hazare, both created and sustained by powerful marketing. This article further contributes to my thinking on those lines. On lighter note it would be nice if Mr.Modi silently mutters “Shit Yo, I can’t believe I am really doing this………” whenever he bows before “Bapu”.

  • Kalavai Venkat

    This is an excellent article on Gandhi by Rakesh Krishnan Tragically, post-independence, India’s intellectual space was usurped by the leftists enjoying the patronage of the Congress government and western imperialists. Some of the leftists were well-read persons but most of them were ill-read and incapable of critical thinking. However, what they lacked in terms of intellectual rigor they made up in terms of ability to indulge in real politik.

    As a result, a completely sanitized image of Gandhi was thrust upon the Indians. Hagiography was peddled as critical scholarship. It is only in recent decades some towering scholars such as Koenraad Elst and others have written reasonable, honest, and incisive critique of Gandhi. This article by good friend Rakesh Krishnan belongs in the league of incisive, honest, and critical scholarship.

    Rakesh: I noticed a few syntactical and grammatical errors. Please fix. The article is worthy of wide readership.

  • rv_nath

    very illuminative article brother. Good analysis and clear facts.

  • Sree Charan R

    I lost my conscience when my Professor, recently in her Kannada class, defended Gandhi sleeping naked along with his ‘disciples’ by saying that Gandhi tried to control/examine his Sexual urges by doing so.This is the extent to which we have been De-Moralized,De-Indianized. Gandhi vis-à-vis Buddha are bad memories that India ought to forget long back, if not for few ideologues intellectualizing their non-contributions.
    I also hope the writer(or any other) would also demystify the pseudo-aura surrounding all these over-exaggerated figures of Modern Indian History: Rabindranath Tagore,Swamy Vivekananda,Ambedkar,Jawaharlal Nehru,and a mob of other Indian ”SIR” `s.

  • Subodh

    Porus lost to Alexander. Please correct the error.

    • Sree Charan R

      I hope this link will help you(written by the same author, though):

      • Subodh

        While I support revisionism in history, any attempt of revising history without adequate proof should be seen as theoretical speculation, not as a historical fact. The author wrote “Porus defeated Alexander” as if it was indisputable fact. By doing so, he is damaging his own credibility and giving excuse to left liberals/gandhians to be dismissive of his Gandhi revisionism.

        • VLR

          In the context of inconclusive evidence, *IF* an author’s arguments in one article turn out to be wrong, it cannot make all other arguments of that author invalid. Newton’s arguments in corpuscular theory turned out to be wrong. That should not make the laws of motion to have no credibility. One loses credibility when one DELIBERATELY LIES.

          • Subodh

            “it cannot make all other arguments of that author invalid”

            Of course not. But we know that libtards are a slimy lot and don’t hesitate in using any available opportunity to discredit those who attempt to question their version of history. If I forward this article to my libtard friends, I can imagine reactions such as “this guy is a crackpot like that PN Oak. He believes Porus beat Alexander”. Why give them such opportunities?

          • Sree Charan R

            QUOTE If I forward this article to my libtard friends, I can imagine reactions such as “this guy is a crackpot like that PN Oak. He believes Porus beat Alexander”UNQUOTE
            To them, tell this:
            “Can you(i.e. your ‘libtard friend’) prove or disprove logically,empirically,textually,archaeologically, at-least one, repeat, at-least one of the assertion of Shri.P.N.Oak—or any author for that matter—in an unbiased-unprejudiced-non ideological manner without any pre-conceived notions; and reflect on/analyse/introspect thus arrived historical facts?”
            “(Bluntly put: are you to say that you accept history only when it comes from a blue-eyed academic lighthouse, and not from any other sources?)”
            The problem is, most 21st century fellas have become argumentative-(pseudo!)rational-left-brainers for whom “empirical proof(referring to history) is the conclusive evidence of all knowledge, and every other piece of knowledge ought to be dismissed.”
            They forget to understand that: NO evidence in history is eternal, i.e, nature does not allow the empirical evidences to be lived for ever, and they are restricted to certain time-conditions, after which it becomes imperative that ’empirical history’ becomes difficult to derive and arrive at any genuine conclusion.And in many such cases,traditional historical knowledge comes to the help,which more often than not records the true events without any ideological motivation(though it is roughly translated as “myth”/”legend” in India).And, as the saying goes, ALL written History is a huge lie,written by the victors—may be,it is because of this, most History that Indians have *recorded* is in a non-written,non-empirical format !!
            “(There IS a reason why only *certain* parts of Indian–or even the world–history has been *conditioned to be remembered* by the modern memory-bank, while simultaneously rejecting the alternate/other history,may be which is more vital for our understanding past vis-à-vis future.)”

    • VLR

      But there is no conclusive evidence that Porus lost the battle.
      Those for who article is too long, below are some exerpts…

      No Greek records from the period survive; we know about them only from later, much later accounts that refer to them. This includes the Indica of Megasthenes which is only known from references in later works by writers like Strabo, Diodirus, Plutarch and a few others.

      Even the ancient Strabo (c. 65 BC – c. 24 AD) wrote: “Generally speaking, the men who hitherto have written on the affairs of India were a set of liars. Deimachus holds the first place in the list, Megasthenes comes next… Of this we became the more convinced whilst writing the history of Alexander. No faith whatever can be placed in Deimachus and Megasthenes.

      Here is how Plutarch described Alexander’s ‘victory’: “This last combat with Porus took off the edge of the Macedonians’ courage and stayed their further progress in India…. Alexander not only offered Porus to govern his own kingdom as satrap under himself but gave him also the additional territory of various independent tribes whom he had subdued.”

      So Porus emerged from his war with his territory doubled and his gold stock augmented. This can only mean that Alexander had to buy peace with Porus to ensure a safe passage for himself and his troops. How this constitutes victory is known only to colonial historians and their gullible Indian followers.
      Plutarch goes on to add, “Alexander left deceptive monuments to exaggerate the scale of his successes in India.

      Further compelling arguments in the link.

      • Subodh

        I’m not a historian and not competent to judge conflicting versions. My knowledge of Alexander’s Indian adventures is derived from watching Chandraprakash Dwivedi’s Chanakya which was based on accounts of five Greek historians including Plutarch.

        “Episodes 11, 12 and 14 were based on McCrindle’s book The Invasion of India by Alexander the Great as described by Arrian, Q. Curtius, Diodoros, Plutarch and Justin” – Wikipedia

        From what I remember, Porus was depicted as a respected but a very weak King. His own daughter was shown as being angry with him. In one scene, she makes fun of his famous statement “I would like you to treat me as a King should treat another king”. Throughout the series, he was portrayed as a weak person who was unwilling to revolt and reclaim his sovereignty because of his fear of being killed by Alexander.

        If he was a mere satrap of Alexander (as per Plutatch), how can you say that he won against him? Satraps don’t enjoy sovereignty and are merely administrators of a colony.

  • Gandhi was heavily influenced by Jesus. He asked Indians to become christian by adopting jesus’s teaching and at the same time speaks against the conversion of Indians to Christianity by missionaries

    Luke 6:29: To one who strikes you on the cheek, offer the other also, and from one who takes away your cloak do not withhold your tunic either.

    Matthew 5:44 ►New Living Translation
    But I say, love your enemies! Pray for those who persecute you!

    . . I shall say to the Hindus that your lives will be incomplete unless you reverently study the teachings of Jesus.

    Gandhi on Muslim massacres of Hindus and Sikhs:

    “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. … 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.”

    Gandhi criticized refugees fleeing the Pakistani jihad, and told them to go back and die:

    “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.”

    Gandhi on Jewish Holocaust:

    Hitler killed five million Jews. It is the greatest crime of our time. But the Jews should have offered themselves to the butcher’s knife. They should have thrown themselves into the sea from cliffs… It would have aroused the world and the people of Germany… As it is they succumbed anyway in their millions.

    Gandhi on Indians Rulers who fought against islam:

    On Guru Gobind Singh, Shivaji and Maharana Pratap: “had I lived as their contemporary… I would have called everyone of them as misguided patriots.

    Gandhi: “I have based my opposition to the revolutionaries on the sole ground of expedience. Therefore, to compare their activities with those of Guru Govind Singh or Washington or Garibaldi or Lenin would be most misleading and dangerous. But by test of the theory of non-violence, I do not hesitate to say that it is highly likely that had I lived as their contemporary and in the respective countries, I would have called everyone of them a misguided patriot, even though a successful and brave warrior.

  • Rajalakshmi J

    Thank God for busting away the manufactured halo around mk.gandhi. Smt.Radha Rajan & Sri.NS.Rajaram have also seen through him.

    I have never liked him. The only good thing about him is one holiday I could enjoy on Oct 2nd every year.

    All Hindus know Lord Rama & Krishna alone are worthy of our worship.

    Certainly not mk.gandhi , abdul kalam & nehru. It is time we put an end to this kind of frenzied hagiography. If we do not soon sachin tendulkars , ar.rehmans , gavaskars , sonia gandhis , amitabh bachans , sundar pichais would be thrust on us to be “worshipped”.

    It is our Saints & Sages that always make me speechless with wonder & awe.

    abdul kalams pale into insignificance.

    • prashants5 .

      While I agree with you, lets not ignore the good part of MK Gandhi. His contribution should equally be appreciated in addition to criticizing the other side. The propaganda should be busted but in all fairness his good qualities should also be promoted such as Satyagrah, Non-cooperation, Swadeshi and Swaraj.

      >>If we do not soon sachin tendulkars , ar.rehmans , gavaskars , sonia gandhis , amitabh bachans , sundar pichais would be thrust on us to be “worshipped”.

      You are wrong. They already have been worshipped by millions of Indians. Few years back, if you would ask any school going kid what they want to become, they will either say Sachin Tendulkar or Samlan Khan. People often forget they are just common human being with some talent to entertain others which they made as their profession. Today, entertainment industry is ruling Indian and making them moronized. Cricket and Bollywood has become cancer of our society today. They brainwash, distract the youth force to make them lazy, numb and mentally slaved.

      • rv_nath

        While u r right, becoz some of these unworthies are already worshipped, I think it is due to electronic and print media glorifying these as celebrities on a 24×7 basis. And what Rajalakshmi meant was “not to create a cult, by erecting statues and naming roads and streets around these people”

  • Kamal

    Gandhi can never be called the father of nation for India but his passive politics and love for Muslims was instrumental in vivisection of nation. Destruction of Hindus, and permanent weakening of the nation.Hope soon Gandhi will be recognized as true enemy and not some great patriot

  • If India wants to follow the non-violence path of gandhi then India should not keep army. Let the invaders come and let Indians follow the principle of jesus of showing other cheek which influenced gandhi.

    • Rajalakshmi J

      You must be aware of the ludicrous unsolicited advice mk.gandhi gave to Jews. He told them they must jump off some cliff committing mass suicide to melt the heart of Nazis. One big dangerous IDIOT this mk.gandhi was.

      Certain staunch Devotees of Ramana Bhagavan did NOT like mk.gandhi & severed their association with him during freedom struggle. They said so upfront to Ramana Bhagavan Himself.

      Nowhere has Ramana Bhagavan called mk.gandhi one ‘mahatma’.

  • varunreddy2

    Even while growing up,juxtaposed with the likes of Bhagat Singh and Bose,every child yearns to read about them rather than read about the non-violence nonsense of Gandhi which used to occupy half the textbook.When the same child grows up on a staple diet of the ‘great’ Gandhi narrative,he/she will join the army of the ‘secular India’ project.After that once he/she starts reading history and begins tracking daily news of the nation realises what utter nonsense the whole Gandhi myth has been.
    Finally,they again reach the stage where they used to admire heroes like Savarkar,Bose,Bhagat Singh in their childhood.
    This period of 10-12 years is what a person loses in this maze of ‘secular India’-‘Nehru-Gandhi’ project.
    And thanks for mentioning Alluri SitaRama Raju.Not many people outside S.India seem to know about him.

  • Surya Narayana Venkata Nishtal

    Fantastic article ! Worshipping this false God and his protégés landed this country into abysmal and unfathomadepths since Independence ! I very vividly remember my grandfather who was discussing with his
    friends regarding his dual standards and idiosyncrasies more than what you have observed here ( however , yours is a masterpiece ! ). All his ills and lopsided thoughts and actions were so assimilated and intertwined
    into the psyche of the Pseudo-Secularists that he can be undoubtedly be honoured as the Father of Pseudo-Secularism but not certainly and nothing more !

    Very Good article , indeed !Congratulations Mr.Simha !

  • subodh1945

    gandhi was a british agent , acted at dictates of ruling brits

    • He was a dhimmi and he was easily exploited by nehru(another dhimmi) and british

      • rv_nath

        Being a Brit agent doesn’t disqualify him from being a dhimmi. You should get your logic right. I would say, he is both a “british agent” and a “dhimmi”.

  • slayer98

    Father of the Nation was the title conferred by the British to MK Gandhi. He was brought by British to India to serve their cause and delay the independence. They achieved it using MK Gandhi.

  • Sibby

    (Satire) If MK Gandhi lived today, he would have been considered a “Upper Caste Communal Hindu Poster Boy” like Modi. See my reasoning below:
    1. He was born in a Hindu Baniya family
    2. Two of his closest aide were Jawaharlal Nehru and Vallabhbhai Patel, both of whom were upper caste Hindus.
    3. He kept his distance from Muslim leaders like Jinnah
    4. Gandhi’s favouritism to Nehru for the post of PM, compared to Jinnah directly led to partition. Jinnah did not supported partition and wanted more autonomy in Muslim dominated region. This idea was rejected by both Gandhi and Nehru which led ultimately to partition.
    5. After partition, he decided to live in Hindu dominated India, compared to Muslim Dominated Pakistan
    6. Most of the worst communal violence happened under his nose during/after partition. He ideological partner Nehru and Patel were the Prime Minister and Home Minister respectively when the riots happened.
    7. In his writing, he used to mostly quote from Gita compared to Quran or Bible.
    8. At the time of death, he said “Hey Ram” instead of “Allah” or “O God”.
    9. He never wore skull cap in his life or went to church or Mosque.
    10. He believed in caste system by labelling the dalit class as Harijan and used them as political tool to gain popularity. Even Ambedkar described him as “devious and untrustworthy” for his attitude towards dalit.
    11. After his death, he was burned as per Hindu tradition instead of being buried as per Muslim tradition.
    12. He had an “illegal” child marriage with Kasturbha Gandhi.
    13. At the age of 37, Gandhi decided to live a life of Bhramcharya, hence declining her wife rights of a successful marriage. (should we consider Bharat Ratna for her sacrifice?)
    14. He did not stop the execution of Bhagat Singh, a freedom fighter belonging to minority Sikh community.
    15. He stole the idea of “non violence” from Budhisim and presented as his idea of Hinduism by selectively quoting from Gita.
    16. He used to wear Suit and Boot (when he was lawyer). Only in later stage of his political career, he switched to khadi dhoti to have his appeal to wider masses.
    17. Gandhi, with his Swadeshi movement, asked people to burn British clothes. It can be easily be compared to Hitler’s Nazi Party burning Jewish books. This happened at a time when most of poor in India, did not had clothes to wear. Please note that the Burning of clothes took place in 1905 well more than 25 years before the burning the book campaign (1933).

    Officially there is no such thing as “Father of Nation” in India. It is well known that Gandhi at times had interfered in the working of the congress party by having his favourites at the top post. Rift between Gandhi vs Bose, Gandhi vs Ambedkar is well known. His glorification by congress party sidelined the contribution of Tagore, Bhagat Singh, Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose, Ambedkar and others. The idea of non violence was given my Buddha and Mahavir Jain, not Gandhi. He used Muslims and Dalits as political tool to gain popularity and prominence in Congress Party. It is an irony that you are not allowed to criticize Gandhi, at the same time, you are not allow to praise PM Modi, though both of them can be considered “Hindu poster boy”/

    • Varun Yadav

      Modi is no Baniya ,he is from OBC caste ganchi or teli

      • Sibby

        Exactly. Most people dont know about it. Almost all opposition and media consider/portray him has upper caste Hindu instead of OBC. Also in the start of my comment I have written that it is a satire. Both Modi and Gandhi had their share of good and bad history. But former is always demonized my media while later is always glorified by media.