Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
amar_jkp

Sikh Information Centre Hits Hard At Gandhi’S Grandson For Distortion Of Sikh History

Recommended Posts

Lathrop, CA, USA (November 17, 2013): Bhajan Singh Bhinder, Founding Director of Sikh Information Centre, issued the following statement about Punjab: A History from Aurangzeb to Mountbatten (2013), a new book by Rajmohan Gandhi:

“Rajmohan Gandhi Perpetuates Propaganda in Grandfather’s Footsteps”
Rajmohan-Gandhi-300x214.jpg

Rajmohan Gandhi

In his purported history of the Punjab, Mohandas Gandhi’s grandson, Rajmohan Gandhi, has invented history in much the same way as his grandfather used to imaginatively retell facts. In the book, Rajmohan libels an Indian cultural treasure, Guru Gobind Singh Ji, by describing him as a mansabdar (a mercenary, essentially) for Mughal Emperor Bahadur Shah during his occupation of India, a fabricated detail which has never before been included in any biographical sketch of the guru.

At a time when an iron-fisted conqueror ruled India from Delhi, Guru Gobind Singh empowered the common man to be a sovereign individual. When he founded the order of “Khalsa,” meaning “Pure” or “Sovereign,” he launched a life philosophy which intends each man as a king who alone rules himself and who rules himself alone.

When he founded the Khalsa in 1699, Guru Gobind initiated the first five people who voluntarily offered their lives in service of truth. He christened them each a “Singh” so they would share the same name of nobility to erase social divisions. After this baptism, Guru Gobind bowed before the five and asked them to initiate him also as a Singh.

Then Guru Gobind Singh taught a doctrine of universal human equality in the eyes of one true God. Man, he taught, is subservient to God, and to God alone belongs the victory — “Waheguru ji ka Khalsa, Waheguru ji Ki Fateh” (Khalsa belongs to God; victory belongs to God). He condemned rituals as hollow; instead, he taught a life of self-sacrifice and respect for other human creatures as the best way to worship God. He particularly emphasized honorable treatment of women as of equal value to men, remarking:

From now on, you have become casteless. No ritual, either Hindu or Muslim, will you perform nor will you believe in superstition of any kind, but only in one God who is the master and protector of all, the only creator and destroyer. In your new order, the lowest will rank with the highest and each will be to the other a brother. No pilgrimages for you any more, nor austerities but the pure life of the household, which you should be ready to sacrifice at the call of Dharma. Women shall be equal of men in every way. No veil for them anymore, nor the burning alive of a widow on the pyre of her spouse. He who kills his daughter, the Khalsa shall not deal with him.

After he founded the Khalsa in 1699, he faced down the heaviest of odds to preserve the spark of liberty in South Asia by resisting the oppression of invading Muslim hordes. For years, he defended against the control of Mughal Emperor Aurangzeb before finally making peace with his son, Bahadur Shah, who then betrayed the peace agreement by sending assassins against Guru Gobind Singh. Perverting history by interpreting the Guru’s dissent against oppression as hiring his sword to a tyrant is outlandish and insults a man who gave his life to liberate others.

Rajmohan Gandhi’s baseless assertions are best understood in context of the ancient historical conflict between the two dominant ideologies of India — of the Moolnivasi, or indigenous people, and of the Aryans, who invaded India from the northwest.

Aryanism crafted the caste system and its foundational texts like Manusmriti (The Laws of Manu) to institutionalize the rule of a few over the many. This self-perpetuating system of social tyranny is kept in place by the ignorant cooperation with their subjugation of the approximately 85% of India’s population who constitute Moolnivasi, many of whom have never been educated about the evils of the caste system or of their right not to cooperate with it. Gandhism’s chief contribution to this system has been to further manipulate people into seeing evil as good.

Gandhi hid himself in broad daylight by painting his public image as messianic. Meanwhile, the devilish truth behind the smoke and mirrors was Gandhi’s life, from his early days as an attorney in South Africa to his death in his 70s, involved promoting racial segregation and social division, enthusiastic participating in aggressive colonial warfare, sexually molesting his teenage relatives, and playing political games that resulted in India’s partition and the deaths of millions.

As a scholar and even a biographer of his grandfather, Rajmohan has failed to bring these facts to light, which is hardly surprising considering the Gandhi family’s denigration of Guru Gobind Singh, as well as of Sikh traditions, is an old habit. In 1925, Mohandas called the guru a “misguided patriot.” [1] On another occasion, he declared: “So far as the Sikh kitchen is concerned, it is a menace.” [2]

It is decades past time the Gandhi family ended its tired tirade against the Moolnivasi people of India and their emancipatory heroes. India remains a land of oppression in need of defenders. For instance, we now see Narendra Modi, CM of Gandhi’s home-state of Gujarat and orchestrator of the 2002 Gujarat Genocide in which thousands of Muslims were massacred, poised to become Prime Minister.

While the world still sees Mohandas Gandhi as a virtual deity, he is worshipped in India, his picture is on the wall of every government office in India and even in the U.S. President’s office, and his philosophy is being taught even to primary school children, the sad reality is the fruits of his legacy are visible in an India where architects of genocide presently reign.

Although Gandhi boasted about spending his life “experimenting with truth” instead of simply searching for it, at least one statement of his was true: “An error does not become truth by reason of multiplied propagation, nor does truth become error because nobody sees it.” Indeed, no matter how frequently or for how long the Gandhi family propagates errors, their lies will never become the truth. The truth is that the Gandhi family has served as chief apologists for the Indian State since before its founding in 1947.

Propagandists like Gandhi, often cloaked as religious icons, are invaluable to tyrannies, as explained by political theorist Murray Rothbard:

Throughout history, as we shall see further below, despots and ruling elites of States have had far more need of the services of intellectuals than have peaceful citizens in a free society. For States have always needed opinion-moulding intellectuals to con the public into believing that its rule is wise, good, and inevitable; into believing that the “emperor has clothes. Until the modern world, such intellectuals were inevitably churchmen (or witch doctors), the guardians of religion. It was a cozy alliance, this age-old partnership between Church and State; the Church informed its deluded charges that the king ruled by divine command and therefore must be obeyed; in return, the king funneled numerous tax revenues into the coffers of the Church. [3]

Instead of speaking out to demand justice for the innocent and prevent oppressors from terrorizing the land, Rajmohan Gandhi is publishing a book with false facts which injure the sterling reputation of one of India’s greatest defenders, Guru Gobind Singh Ji. Like his grandfather before him, Rajmohan appears to be demonizing a pioneer of liberty to cloak his own support for the social division of caste. Rather than addressing real and pressing social issues which daily result in discrimination and even death, the Gandhi family has spent the past century spreading an ambiguous philosophy which openly enshrines the caste system as a supposed social good.

This was obvious in 1933, when Mohandas Gandhi declared: “The caste system, in my opinion, has a scientific basis. Reason does not revolt against it. It has disadvantages. Caste creates a social and moral restraint — I can find no reason for their abolition. To abolish caste is to demolish Hinduism. There is nothing to fight against the Varnasharma. I don’t believe the caste system to be an odious and vicious dogma.” [4]

This was preceded in 1920 by Gandhi’s attempt to turn logic on its head in arguing that caste (a system which is by its very definition founded on inequality because it breaks society into four increasingly-degraded categories) does not create inequality. He stated: “I am certainly against any attempt at destroying the fundamental divisions. The caste system is not based on inequality.” [5]

Logically, of course, as well as morally, social division is irreconcilable with social equality. As a contrast in philosophies, Guru Gobind Singh Ji declared centuries before Gandhi: “All human beings are the reflection of one and the same Lord. Recognise ye the whole human race as one.” The absence of this attitude in Gandhism, as illustrated both in Gandhi’s philosophizing and his personal relations, is leading to its intense critical analysis.

George Orwell said: “He who controls the present, controls the past.” Reclaiming the truth of history and preserving it for perpetuity is the most important task an intellectual may undertake. Theirs is a greater responsibility, though, for they are tasked with telling truth.

Anything less than the truth is a lie, and lies are useful only for propaganda. Experimenting with the truth produces the results we see in India today, which is why the Hollywood Gandhi remains so useful to the Indian State as propaganda.

The truth is that the Indian State spots the globe with Gandhi statues as a deliberate propaganda strategy. On November 10, 2010, Indian MP Magunta Sreenivasulu Reddy placed a formal question to India’s Ministry of External Affairs: “Does the Indian state assist in placing statues of Gandhi around the world?” Their response: “Yes.” The state bureaucracy in charge of this is the Indian Council for Cultural Relations, which placed 65 state-funded statues and busts of Gandhi around the world between 2001 and 2010.

As Rajmohan Gandhi continues to spread the myth of his grandfather while fabricating lies about Guru Gobind Singh Ji, intellectuals like women’s rights activist Nannette Ricaforte are awakening to the truth of Gandhi’s history and recognizing just how many people were harmed by his legacy. In October 2013, Ricaforte wrote:

Spiritual leaders like Gandhi procure a mass following whose reverence for him blinded them to the truth. He was a sexual predator while he espoused non-violence in fighting for the independence of India. Yet his ideology was enough for the majority of his supporters to disregard his immoral acts.

In my work as an abolitionist, fighting for the rights of sexually exploited victims, I can’t minimize the facts I’ve learned about Gandhi. It’s unsettling, to say the least.

I’ve met young victims of human trafficking, child labor, and the sex trade, stripped of their dignity by men in positions of power. Their degradation meant nothing, marginalized because the community revered the perpetrators. There are no words to express the depth of rage and helplessness I’ve felt when confronted with these reactions. [6]

South Asian women’s rights activist Rita Banerji, founder of the 50 Million Missing Campaign to expose female foeticide and infanticide, drew similar conclusions in another October 2013 article about Gandhi’s “dark side,” where she wrote:

Compared to our reactions and responses today, the people in Gandhi’s time seemed to be far more progressive! They not only recognized that he was abusing his position and power in a way that was unethical and depraved, but they outright condemned it, confronted it, and eventually forced him to stop!

On 16th March, 1947, Nirmal Kumar Bose, one of Gandhi’s closest associates wrote a letter to Kishorlal G. Mashruwala, another of Gandhi’s close colleagues, saying, “When I first learnt about Gandhi’s experiment in which a girl took off her clothes and lay under the same cover with him and he tried to find out if any sexual feeling was evoked in him or his companion, I felt genuinely surprised. Personally, I would not tempt myself like that and more than that, my respect for [women] would prevent me from treating her as an instrument in my experiment…” [7]

Rajmohan Gandhi, who has made his career on the coattails of his grandfather’s fame, seems blinded to the truth. His 2007 biography, Mohandas: A True Story of a Man, His People and an Empire, is nothing but a stale, melodramatic retread of the typical Gandhi myth — Mohandas as a messianic figure who not only led the country to independence but the people to enlightenment. Objective modern biographers are telling a completely different story, as I mentioned earlier: Gandhi was racist, sexist, and casteist.

Unlike what history has shown us in the Sikh tradition, where individuals are liberated and mass emancipation is taught as the key to social progress, Gandhism preaches evil cloaked as good — war as peace, hate as love, segregation as unity, subjugation as equality, and tyranny as liberty. Guru Gobind Singh sacrificed his family, his wealth, and eventually his life to free India, and Rajmohan Gandhi’s decision to build on the false legacy of his grandfather by besmirching one who sacrificed himself for others is truly disgraceful.

Real heroes of human unity like Dr. Bhim Rao Ambedkar, who began studies at Columba University in the United States of America in 1913, worked to erase caste barriers through the simple act of encouraging people from separate castes to eat together, drink together, marry one another, and in spirit to recognize the same universal human equality and casteless society taught by Guru Gobind Singh Ji.

It has been said the victors write the history books. Brahmins, the ruling elite of India, never stopped being the victors because the system of social division established by caste has placed them at the top of the ivory tower for eons. Brahmanism has no interest in transmitting true history detailing the heroics of Guru Gobind Singh Ji or those, like Dr. Ambedkar, who worked peacefully for real social uplift.

No doubt Dr. Ambedkar receives no hearing from the ruling elite because he took the risk of warning the world that Gandhism was just a cynical political ploy for control:

I am sure many have felt that if there was any class which deserved to be given special political rights in order to protect itself against the tyranny of the majority under the Swaraj constitution it was the depressed classes. Here is a class which is undoubtedly not in a position to sustain itself in the struggle for existence. The religion to which they are tied, instead of providing for them an honourable place, brands them as lepers, not fit for ordinary intercourse. Economically, it is a class entirely dependent upon the high-caste Hindus for earning its daily bread with no independent way of living open to it….

There have been many Mahatmas in India whose sole object was to remove Untouchability and to elevate and absorb the depressed classes, but everyone has failed in their mission. Mahatmas have come, Mahatmas have gone but the Untouchables have remained as Untouchables. [8]

As for Gandhi’s use of untouchability as a political issue, Dr. Ambedkar stated in 1955:

All this talk about Untouchability was just for the purpose of making the Untouchables drawn into the Congress. That was one thing. Secondly, he wanted to make sure that Untouchables would not oppose his movement of Swaraj. I don’t think beyond that he had any real motive of uplift. He wasn’t like Garrison in the United States, who fought for the Negroes. [9]

We must be cautious. Whatever history we have is being systematically chipped away, stripped away, and twisted into lies accepted as truth. Rajmohan Gandhi is but the latest member of his family to play a part in this assault on truth. India’s history, therefore, proves the tragic tale of the sufferings of many minorities at the hands of powerful proponents of falsehood.

Rajmohan’s work continues to spread lies. If he is to find redemption, we insist he begin by penning a letter of apology to the world regarding his grandfather’s behavior towards women, blacks, Sikhs, Dalits, and the many others he victimized and subjugated. Rajmohan ought to surrender himself in servitude to the downtrodden of India to atone for the damages caused by his family to the people of South Asia.

Finally, we appeal to universities and booksellers to ignore Rajmohan Gandhi’s book, Punjab, especially as long as he refuses to speak the truth about his family deliberately hidden dark secrets. The world no longer has any excuse to remain gullible about Gandhi’s past in the face of so much information exposing his exploitation of the vulnerable. The myth is Gandhi as savior but the truth is Gandhi as predator and so, it seems, Gandhism must be rejected completely.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lathrop, CA, USA (November 17, 2013): Bhajan Singh Bhinder, Founding Director of Sikh Information Centre, issued the following statement about Punjab: A History from Aurangzeb to Mountbatten (2013), a new book by Rajmohan Gandhi:

“Rajmohan Gandhi Perpetuates Propaganda in Grandfather’s Footsteps”
Rajmohan-Gandhi-300x214.jpg

Rajmohan Gandhi

In his purported history of the Punjab, Mohandas Gandhi’s grandson, Rajmohan Gandhi, has invented history in much the same way as his grandfather used to imaginatively retell facts. In the book, Rajmohan libels an Indian cultural treasure, Guru Gobind Singh Ji, by describing him as a mansabdar (a mercenary, essentially) for Mughal Emperor Bahadur Shah during his occupation of India, a fabricated detail which has never before been included in any biographical sketch of the guru.

At a time when an iron-fisted conqueror ruled India from Delhi, Guru Gobind Singh empowered the common man to be a sovereign individual. When he founded the order of “Khalsa,” meaning “Pure” or “Sovereign,” he launched a life philosophy which intends each man as a king who alone rules himself and who rules himself alone.

When he founded the Khalsa in 1699, Guru Gobind initiated the first five people who voluntarily offered their lives in service of truth. He christened them each a “Singh” so they would share the same name of nobility to erase social divisions. After this baptism, Guru Gobind bowed before the five and asked them to initiate him also as a Singh.

Then Guru Gobind Singh taught a doctrine of universal human equality in the eyes of one true God. Man, he taught, is subservient to God, and to God alone belongs the victory — “Waheguru ji ka Khalsa, Waheguru ji Ki Fateh” (Khalsa belongs to God; victory belongs to God). He condemned rituals as hollow; instead, he taught a life of self-sacrifice and respect for other human creatures as the best way to worship God. He particularly emphasized honorable treatment of women as of equal value to men, remarking:

From now on, you have become casteless. No ritual, either Hindu or Muslim, will you perform nor will you believe in superstition of any kind, but only in one God who is the master and protector of all, the only creator and destroyer. In your new order, the lowest will rank with the highest and each will be to the other a brother. No pilgrimages for you any more, nor austerities but the pure life of the household, which you should be ready to sacrifice at the call of Dharma. Women shall be equal of men in every way. No veil for them anymore, nor the burning alive of a widow on the pyre of her spouse. He who kills his daughter, the Khalsa shall not deal with him.

After he founded the Khalsa in 1699, he faced down the heaviest of odds to preserve the spark of liberty in South Asia by resisting the oppression of invading Muslim hordes. For years, he defended against the control of Mughal Emperor Aurangzeb before finally making peace with his son, Bahadur Shah, who then betrayed the peace agreement by sending assassins against Guru Gobind Singh. Perverting history by interpreting the Guru’s dissent against oppression as hiring his sword to a tyrant is outlandish and insults a man who gave his life to liberate others.

Rajmohan Gandhi’s baseless assertions are best understood in context of the ancient historical conflict between the two dominant ideologies of India — of the Moolnivasi, or indigenous people, and of the Aryans, who invaded India from the northwest.

Aryanism crafted the caste system and its foundational texts like Manusmriti (The Laws of Manu) to institutionalize the rule of a few over the many. This self-perpetuating system of social tyranny is kept in place by the ignorant cooperation with their subjugation of the approximately 85% of India’s population who constitute Moolnivasi, many of whom have never been educated about the evils of the caste system or of their right not to cooperate with it. Gandhism’s chief contribution to this system has been to further manipulate people into seeing evil as good.

Gandhi hid himself in broad daylight by painting his public image as messianic. Meanwhile, the devilish truth behind the smoke and mirrors was Gandhi’s life, from his early days as an attorney in South Africa to his death in his 70s, involved promoting racial segregation and social division, enthusiastic participating in aggressive colonial warfare, sexually molesting his teenage relatives, and playing political games that resulted in India’s partition and the deaths of millions.

As a scholar and even a biographer of his grandfather, Rajmohan has failed to bring these facts to light, which is hardly surprising considering the Gandhi family’s denigration of Guru Gobind Singh, as well as of Sikh traditions, is an old habit. In 1925, Mohandas called the guru a “misguided patriot.” [1] On another occasion, he declared: “So far as the Sikh kitchen is concerned, it is a menace.” [2]

It is decades past time the Gandhi family ended its tired tirade against the Moolnivasi people of India and their emancipatory heroes. India remains a land of oppression in need of defenders. For instance, we now see Narendra Modi, CM of Gandhi’s home-state of Gujarat and orchestrator of the 2002 Gujarat Genocide in which thousands of Muslims were massacred, poised to become Prime Minister.

While the world still sees Mohandas Gandhi as a virtual deity, he is worshipped in India, his picture is on the wall of every government office in India and even in the U.S. President’s office, and his philosophy is being taught even to primary school children, the sad reality is the fruits of his legacy are visible in an India where architects of genocide presently reign.

Although Gandhi boasted about spending his life “experimenting with truth” instead of simply searching for it, at least one statement of his was true: “An error does not become truth by reason of multiplied propagation, nor does truth become error because nobody sees it.” Indeed, no matter how frequently or for how long the Gandhi family propagates errors, their lies will never become the truth. The truth is that the Gandhi family has served as chief apologists for the Indian State since before its founding in 1947.

Propagandists like Gandhi, often cloaked as religious icons, are invaluable to tyrannies, as explained by political theorist Murray Rothbard:

Throughout history, as we shall see further below, despots and ruling elites of States have had far more need of the services of intellectuals than have peaceful citizens in a free society. For States have always needed opinion-moulding intellectuals to con the public into believing that its rule is wise, good, and inevitable; into believing that the “emperor has clothes. Until the modern world, such intellectuals were inevitably churchmen (or witch doctors), the guardians of religion. It was a cozy alliance, this age-old partnership between Church and State; the Church informed its deluded charges that the king ruled by divine command and therefore must be obeyed; in return, the king funneled numerous tax revenues into the coffers of the Church. [3]

Instead of speaking out to demand justice for the innocent and prevent oppressors from terrorizing the land, Rajmohan Gandhi is publishing a book with false facts which injure the sterling reputation of one of India’s greatest defenders, Guru Gobind Singh Ji. Like his grandfather before him, Rajmohan appears to be demonizing a pioneer of liberty to cloak his own support for the social division of caste. Rather than addressing real and pressing social issues which daily result in discrimination and even death, the Gandhi family has spent the past century spreading an ambiguous philosophy which openly enshrines the caste system as a supposed social good.

This was obvious in 1933, when Mohandas Gandhi declared: “The caste system, in my opinion, has a scientific basis. Reason does not revolt against it. It has disadvantages. Caste creates a social and moral restraint — I can find no reason for their abolition. To abolish caste is to demolish Hinduism. There is nothing to fight against the Varnasharma. I don’t believe the caste system to be an odious and vicious dogma.” [4]

This was preceded in 1920 by Gandhi’s attempt to turn logic on its head in arguing that caste (a system which is by its very definition founded on inequality because it breaks society into four increasingly-degraded categories) does not create inequality. He stated: “I am certainly against any attempt at destroying the fundamental divisions. The caste system is not based on inequality.” [5]

Logically, of course, as well as morally, social division is irreconcilable with social equality. As a contrast in philosophies, Guru Gobind Singh Ji declared centuries before Gandhi: “All human beings are the reflection of one and the same Lord. Recognise ye the whole human race as one.” The absence of this attitude in Gandhism, as illustrated both in Gandhi’s philosophizing and his personal relations, is leading to its intense critical analysis.

George Orwell said: “He who controls the present, controls the past.” Reclaiming the truth of history and preserving it for perpetuity is the most important task an intellectual may undertake. Theirs is a greater responsibility, though, for they are tasked with telling truth.

Anything less than the truth is a lie, and lies are useful only for propaganda. Experimenting with the truth produces the results we see in India today, which is why the Hollywood Gandhi remains so useful to the Indian State as propaganda.

The truth is that the Indian State spots the globe with Gandhi statues as a deliberate propaganda strategy. On November 10, 2010, Indian MP Magunta Sreenivasulu Reddy placed a formal question to India’s Ministry of External Affairs: “Does the Indian state assist in placing statues of Gandhi around the world?” Their response: “Yes.” The state bureaucracy in charge of this is the Indian Council for Cultural Relations, which placed 65 state-funded statues and busts of Gandhi around the world between 2001 and 2010.

As Rajmohan Gandhi continues to spread the myth of his grandfather while fabricating lies about Guru Gobind Singh Ji, intellectuals like women’s rights activist Nannette Ricaforte are awakening to the truth of Gandhi’s history and recognizing just how many people were harmed by his legacy. In October 2013, Ricaforte wrote:

Spiritual leaders like Gandhi procure a mass following whose reverence for him blinded them to the truth. He was a sexual predator while he espoused non-violence in fighting for the independence of India. Yet his ideology was enough for the majority of his supporters to disregard his immoral acts.

In my work as an abolitionist, fighting for the rights of sexually exploited victims, I can’t minimize the facts I’ve learned about Gandhi. It’s unsettling, to say the least.

I’ve met young victims of human trafficking, child labor, and the sex trade, stripped of their dignity by men in positions of power. Their degradation meant nothing, marginalized because the community revered the perpetrators. There are no words to express the depth of rage and helplessness I’ve felt when confronted with these reactions. [6]

South Asian women’s rights activist Rita Banerji, founder of the 50 Million Missing Campaign to expose female foeticide and infanticide, drew similar conclusions in another October 2013 article about Gandhi’s “dark side,” where she wrote:

Compared to our reactions and responses today, the people in Gandhi’s time seemed to be far more progressive! They not only recognized that he was abusing his position and power in a way that was unethical and depraved, but they outright condemned it, confronted it, and eventually forced him to stop!

On 16th March, 1947, Nirmal Kumar Bose, one of Gandhi’s closest associates wrote a letter to Kishorlal G. Mashruwala, another of Gandhi’s close colleagues, saying, “When I first learnt about Gandhi’s experiment in which a girl took off her clothes and lay under the same cover with him and he tried to find out if any sexual feeling was evoked in him or his companion, I felt genuinely surprised. Personally, I would not tempt myself like that and more than that, my respect for [women] would prevent me from treating her as an instrument in my experiment…” [7]

Rajmohan Gandhi, who has made his career on the coattails of his grandfather’s fame, seems blinded to the truth. His 2007 biography, Mohandas: A True Story of a Man, His People and an Empire, is nothing but a stale, melodramatic retread of the typical Gandhi myth — Mohandas as a messianic figure who not only led the country to independence but the people to enlightenment. Objective modern biographers are telling a completely different story, as I mentioned earlier: Gandhi was racist, sexist, and casteist.

Unlike what history has shown us in the Sikh tradition, where individuals are liberated and mass emancipation is taught as the key to social progress, Gandhism preaches evil cloaked as good — war as peace, hate as love, segregation as unity, subjugation as equality, and tyranny as liberty. Guru Gobind Singh sacrificed his family, his wealth, and eventually his life to free India, and Rajmohan Gandhi’s decision to build on the false legacy of his grandfather by besmirching one who sacrificed himself for others is truly disgraceful.

Real heroes of human unity like Dr. Bhim Rao Ambedkar, who began studies at Columba University in the United States of America in 1913, worked to erase caste barriers through the simple act of encouraging people from separate castes to eat together, drink together, marry one another, and in spirit to recognize the same universal human equality and casteless society taught by Guru Gobind Singh Ji.

It has been said the victors write the history books. Brahmins, the ruling elite of India, never stopped being the victors because the system of social division established by caste has placed them at the top of the ivory tower for eons. Brahmanism has no interest in transmitting true history detailing the heroics of Guru Gobind Singh Ji or those, like Dr. Ambedkar, who worked peacefully for real social uplift.

No doubt Dr. Ambedkar receives no hearing from the ruling elite because he took the risk of warning the world that Gandhism was just a cynical political ploy for control:

I am sure many have felt that if there was any class which deserved to be given special political rights in order to protect itself against the tyranny of the majority under the Swaraj constitution it was the depressed classes. Here is a class which is undoubtedly not in a position to sustain itself in the struggle for existence. The religion to which they are tied, instead of providing for them an honourable place, brands them as lepers, not fit for ordinary intercourse. Economically, it is a class entirely dependent upon the high-caste Hindus for earning its daily bread with no independent way of living open to it….

There have been many Mahatmas in India whose sole object was to remove Untouchability and to elevate and absorb the depressed classes, but everyone has failed in their mission. Mahatmas have come, Mahatmas have gone but the Untouchables have remained as Untouchables. [8]

As for Gandhi’s use of untouchability as a political issue, Dr. Ambedkar stated in 1955:

All this talk about Untouchability was just for the purpose of making the Untouchables drawn into the Congress. That was one thing. Secondly, he wanted to make sure that Untouchables would not oppose his movement of Swaraj. I don’t think beyond that he had any real motive of uplift. He wasn’t like Garrison in the United States, who fought for the Negroes. [9]

We must be cautious. Whatever history we have is being systematically chipped away, stripped away, and twisted into lies accepted as truth. Rajmohan Gandhi is but the latest member of his family to play a part in this assault on truth. India’s history, therefore, proves the tragic tale of the sufferings of many minorities at the hands of powerful proponents of falsehood.

Rajmohan’s work continues to spread lies. If he is to find redemption, we insist he begin by penning a letter of apology to the world regarding his grandfather’s behavior towards women, blacks, Sikhs, Dalits, and the many others he victimized and subjugated. Rajmohan ought to surrender himself in servitude to the downtrodden of India to atone for the damages caused by his family to the people of South Asia.

Finally, we appeal to universities and booksellers to ignore Rajmohan Gandhi’s book, Punjab, especially as long as he refuses to speak the truth about his family deliberately hidden dark secrets. The world no longer has any excuse to remain gullible about Gandhi’s past in the face of so much information exposing his exploitation of the vulnerable. The myth is Gandhi as savior but the truth is Gandhi as predator and so, it seems, Gandhism must be rejected completely.

I think the one-buffoon organisation to whom this ranter belongs should change its name to Society of Idiots &Charlatans of Khalistan.

The way some Sikhs have been attacking Gandhi and his ideology is sickening. A Hindu fanatic killed him physically but these lowlifes have been stabbing dead Gandhi for decades.

i would attribute such maniacal attacks to p***s envy reflected in statements as "... his picture is on the wall of every government office in India and even in the U.S. President’s office" or "The state bureaucracy in charge of this is the Indian Council for Cultural Relations, which placed 65 state-funded statues and busts of Gandhi around the world between 2001 and 2010" as if statues and bust are being installed without the willingness of the countries on whose land such sculptures are coming up.

I am also reminded about a recent embarrassing act by such people where a portrait of Guru sahib was photo-shopped on someone else in the US President's office.

I may not agree with Gandhi on various issues and he definitely had a flawed personality but why these character assassination to 'prop up' Guru Maharaj? does the Guru sahib need such pathetic comparisons, petty point-scoring? My point is, if someone has problems with the book, there are courts.

sue Rajmohan gandhi's ass if you think he has made misrepresentations, write 10,000 books about Gandhi and his personal life but desist from pitting one great personality against the other in a comp where there can be only one winner or trying to muzzle free speech.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Gandhi was never popular among Sikhs. The Sikh leadership even in the 1920s considered him to be a wily Hindu Lala and they were proved correct in their assessment. The flaws in his personality included racism against blacks. If you tell most people about his racism they will think you are mad. The reason that most people consider him as some kind of saint is due mainly to the Indian govt's partially financed propaganda film Gandhi.

The film glosses over his racism, the part where he is in South Africa and 'appears' to be fighting for equal rights was in reality his fight to get the Indians in South Africa better rights than the blacks, He wasn't interested in equal rights for everyone.

His other flaws included giving sleeping naked with young girls to test his brahmacharya oath.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Gandhi was never popular among Sikhs. The Sikh leadership even in the 1920s considered him to be a wily Hindu Lala and they were proved correct in their assessment. The flaws in his personality included racism against blacks. If you tell most people about his racism they will think you are mad. The reason that most people consider him as some kind of saint is due mainly to the Indian govt's partially financed propaganda film Gandhi.

The film glosses over his racism, the part where he is in South Africa and 'appears' to be fighting for equal rights was in reality his fight to get the Indians in South Africa better rights than the blacks, He wasn't interested in equal rights for everyone.

His other flaws included giving sleeping naked with young girls to test his brahmacharya oath.

who in this world has been without a flaw? that makes everyone human.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Gandhuu's books of fiction will probably be appreciated by the masses more then ought to

I am really intrigued why Sikhs (esp practicing Khalsas) are against Gandhi?

Most of the civilised world consider him to be one of the greatest person EVER, on the same pedestal as Buddha, Jesus, Albert Einstein, Charles Darwin, Newton, Mandela, Dalai Lama, etc.

In the words of General George C. Marshall, the American Secretary of State, "Mahatma Gandhi had become the spokesman for the conscience of all mankind. He was a man who made humility and simple truth more powerful than empires."

Albert Einstein added, "Generations to come will scarce believe that such a man as this ever in flesh and blood walked upon this earth."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Gandhi goes against his own religion by preaching Ahimsa. He would hold a copy of the Bhagawat Gita, but forget it was recited on the battle field of Kurukshetra in which untold amount deaths occurred. He worshiped Ram, but Ram was a warrior who had no problem using violence in order to defeat evil. Gandhi preached against British imperialism in India but had no problem with racism in South Africa against the blacks. He was a walking talking contradiction.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Gandhi goes against his own religion by preaching Ahimsa. He would hold a copy of the Bhagawat Gita, but forget it was recited on the battle field of Kurukshetra in which untold amount deaths occurred. He worshiped Ram, but Ram was a warrior who had no problem using violence in order to defeat evil. Gandhi preached against British imperialism in India but had no problem with racism in South Africa against the blacks. He was a walking talking contradiction.

You are wrong again. I read your comment as another misrepresentation of facts.

Gandhi was not an inflexible non-violence fanatic. He always preferred violence over cowardice. In the end, a coward fanatic like you silenced what was definitely an indomitable soul.

To quote Gandhi:

I do believe that, where there is only a choice between cowardice and violence, I would advise violence... I would rather have India resort to arms in order to defend her honour than that she should, in a cowardly manner, become or remain a helpless witness to her own dishonor.

The world is not entirely governed by logic. Life itself involves some kind of violence and we have to choose the path of least violence.

I have been repeating over and over again that he who cannot protect himself or his nearest and dearest or their honour by non-violently facing death may and ought to do so by violently dealing with the oppressor.

Though violence is not lawful, when it is offered in self-defence or for the defence of the defenceless, it is an act of bravery far better than cowardly submission. The latter befits neither man nor woman. Under violence, there are many stages and varieties of bravery. Every man must judge this for himself. No other person can or has the right."

There are numerous other quote where Gandhi has, like Gita, justified violence

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So Gandhi justified violence. So why did he advise the Jews to commit mass suicide? Why did he advise the British to not resist an invasion of the Britihs Isles? A Gandhi justifying violence will be news to some of his blind followers around the world.

The Gandhi myth is a creation of west which was then taken over by the Indian govt and hence the reason why they part funded the propaganda film Gandhi.

His strategy could only work when the colonial masters were aware of public opinion. He would not have lasted a second had the masters been the Nazis or the Japanese.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Gandhi and Sikhs

My first biases of Gandhi arose from the fact that, throughout his lifetime, Gandhi expressed many anti-Sikh views, ranging from attacking the symbols of the Sikh faith to encouraging Sikhs to abandon parts of their culture and religion in favor of re-absorption into Hinduism.

From the onset of his arrival in India, Gandhi insisted on referring to Sikhs as "Hindus" even though the vast majority of Sikhs at that time expressed their belief that they were a distinct religion and that referring to them as a part of Hinduism was offensive. His insistent comments that the "Sikh Gurus were Hindus" and that Guru Gobind Singh was "one of the greatest defenders of Hinduism" (Collected Works of Mahatma Gandhi Vol. 28 pg. 263) deeply hurt Sikh sentiments, but that never deterred him making such statements throughout his life.

Gandhi was so adamant in his view of Sikhism being a part of Hinduism that he went to the extent of condemning the conversion of Untouchables to Sikhism if Sikhs continued to assert their not being a sect of Hinduism. At that time, led by Dr. Ambedkar, over 60 million Untouchables desired to convert to another religion in order to free themselves from their enslavement in the Hindu caste system. Dr. Ambedkar had a very strong interest in the conversion of the Untouchables to Sikhism, to the extent that he even had his own nephew baptized into Sikhism.

Gandhi found this possible conversion to be intolerable in the light of Sikhs viewing themselves as not being Hindus. Gandhi wrote: "I don't mind Untouchables if they do desire, being converted to Islam or Christianity" (CW, Vol 48, pg 98), he insisted that conversion to Sikhism by these Untouchables was "dangerous."

"Today I will only say that to me Sikhism is a part of Hinduism. But the situation is different from a legal point of view. Dr. Ambedkar wants a change of religion. If becoming a Sikh amounts to conversion, then this kind of conversion on the parts of Harijans is dangerous. If you can persuade the Sikhs to accept that Sikhism is a part of Hinduism and if you can make them give up the separate electorate, then I will have no objections to Harijans calling themselves Sikhs" (CW, Vol 63, pg 267).


A particularly offensive comment of Gandhi made it clear that he harbored the belief that Sikhs should disown the institution of the Khalsa Panth established by the tenth Guru, Guru Gobind Singh. He said, "I read your Granth Sahib. But I do not do so to please you. Nor shall I seek your permission to do so. But the Guru has not said anywhere that you must grow your beards, carry kirpans (swords) and so on" (CW Vol. 90, Pg. 80).

Gandhi failed to acknowledge that a Guru had established such symbols for the Sikhs. In particular, Gandhi attacked the kirpan on many occasions. He showed a critical misunderstanding in the beliefs and responsibilities surrounding Guru Gobind Singh's commandment that his Sikhs should wear kirpans. This misunderstanding gradually turned into a general intolerance, with Gandhi often mocking those Sikhs who wore them.

Gandhi attacked Gurmukhi. In a letter to a friend, Amrit Kaur, he wrote: "I wish you would persuade enlightened Sikhs to take the Devnagri script in the place of the Gurmukhi" (CW Vol. 64. pg 41).

It is important to realize that Gurmukhi is not the language of the Punjab, but rather the language of the Sikhs. The Sikh Gurus created Gurmukhi and it is the script used in the Guru Granth Sahib. It wasn't as if Gandhi asked Punjabis (who are Sikhs, Hindus, and Muslims) to give up the Punjabi language, but rather Sikhs in particular to give up the language of their Gurus. While I respect Gandhi's desire to have some sort of united language, he failed to realize that by making such statements he was in essence asking Sikhs to disown their culture, their heritage and the Guru Granth Sahib by abandoning their mother tongue in favor of a composite language.

In conclusion, from his various comments, it appears that Gandhi wished for Sikhs to renounce the parts of their religion and culture that he felt prevented them from being reabsorbed into Hinduism. Two of the main obstacles to such an objective were the different language of the Sikhs and the institution of the Khalsa Panth.

Gandhi was particularly fond of making broken promises to the Sikhs, promises that to this day have come back to haunt them. He would never hesitate to appease them by saying: "We have not done justice to the Sikhs" (CW Vol. 38 pg. 315). But this would only translate into promises that were never kept.

During the 1920's and 1930's, the British had acknowledged three main groups that would receive power after they left India - the Hindus, the Muslims and the Sikhs who ruled the last kingdom that was annexed by the British. There was talk amongst Sikhs about creating such a country, Khalistan, for themselves.

In order to help persuade Sikhs to join Hindu India, Gandhi made many comments and promises that, looking back at history, seem to have been aimed at deceiving and coaxing them. The first of such promises was when he said: "No Constitution would be acceptable to the Congress which did not satisfy the Sikhs" (CW Vol. 58. p. 192).

This promise was quickly broken right after independence. To this day, not one Sikh has ever signed the Indian Constitution, which goes out of its way to declare that Sikhs are indeed a part of Hinduism (Article 25 of the Constitution).

Then came the promise that was used as a justification by some Sikhs in taking up arms against the Government of India after 1984. Gandhi invoked the sacred name of God and said:

"I venture to suggest that the non-violence creed of the Congress is the surest guarantee of its good faith and our Sikhs friends have no reason to fear betrayal at its hands. For the moment it did so, the Congress would not only seal its own doom but that of the country too. Moreover, the Sikhs are a brave people; they will know how to safeguard their right by the exercise of arms if it shall ever come to that." He further continued: "Why can you have no faith? If Congress shall play false afterwards you can well settle surely with it, for you have the sword. I ask you to accept my word. Let God be witness of the bond that binds me and the Congress with you" (CW Vol. 45 pg. 231-33).

These were just more appeasement tactics. The mention of "Sikhs are a brave people" and the "exercise of arms" were attempts to mislead the Sikh masses considering the fact that Gandhi did not support any such "exercise of arms". How ironic was it that the Congress party that Gandhi had declared as having a special bond with the Sikhs was the first to betray them. This was firstly accomplished by depriving them of a linguistic state and a capital after independence and then by massacring thousands upon thousands of Sikhs in and after 1984.

There was no "non-violence creed" displayed by the Congress, only barbarianism that would put the likes of Aurangzeb to shame. The fact remains that more Sikhs have been killed under fifty years of Indian rule than under the one hundred years of British rule. Gandhi's promises were left unfulfilled and it was the Sikh people who were left to pay for such treachery.

At this point, I wish to elucidate that these statements alone are not the reasons why I am not enthusiastic about Gandhi. I can accept the fact that perhaps M. K. Gandhi just had a deep misunderstanding of Sikhism and that I am just being overly critical of a few comments he made. Perhaps I am just exposing my own inadequacies by blaming him for the actions of those who came after him as well. In either case, the reasons I cited above are not enough to warrant a total dislike for all the accomplishments that Mohandas Gandhi achieved in life. Despite what he achieved though, I disagree with his principles and methods.

A LOOK AT NON-VIOLENCE

Even before Gandhi came to India in 1915, the Sikhs had been peacefully protesting for the right to run their Gurdwaras (after the Sikh kingdom had been annexed, the Gurdwaras had been turned over by the British to Brahmin Hindus to run). Gandhi was very critical of the 'Sikh way' of civil disobedience. He said:

"The Akalis (Sikh Warriors) wear a black turban and a black band on one shoulder and also carry a big staff with a small axe on the top. Fifty or a hundred of such groups go and take possession of a gurdwara; they suffer violence themselves but do not use any. Nevertheless, a crowd of fifty or more men approaching a place in the way described is certainly a show of force and naturally the keeper of the Gurdwara would be intimidated by it." (Collected Works of Mahatma Gandhi, Vol. 19 pg. 401).

This is where I do not understand Gandhi's teachings. On the one hand Gandhi did not believe non-violent resistance should be "passive," but rather that it should be, in essence, a "force". On the other hand, he criticized Sikhs for practicing non-violent civil disobedience in seeking control of their Gurdwaras. Their methods were even praised by British leaders. Reverend C. F. Andrews wrote: "The vow (of non-violence) they (the Sikhs) had made to God was kept to the letter. I saw no act, no look, of defiance."

As far as the spirit of the suffering they endured, the Reverend said "It was very rarely that I witnessed any Akali Sikh, who went forward to suffer, flinch from a blow when it was struck. The blows were received one by one without resistance and without a sign of fear."

Still, Gandhi could not reconcile this manner of civil disobedience, for he decided that the Sikhs participating in it harbored "hatred in their hearts" and thus never gave his blessings to such forms of agitation. Gandhi could not understand why Sikhs would peacefully protest while wearing arms. To him, this constituted cowardice, that one carries arms while walking in peace.

I completely disagree. Gandhi failed to realize the differences between non-violence of the weak, and non-violence of the strong. The importance of carrying arms was to show that they were indeed brave enough and capable of using them, but that they were instead consciously choosing not to. It is a discipline that only a few select can conquer. A coward who is weak and scared will never wear arms and walk in peaceful protest because, as soon as the first signs of oppression arise, he will be scared and use his weapons in haste. Similarly, the weak and the scared will never have the capacity to make non-violence their way of life. To them it will only be something useful when they are helplessly bound in shackles.

To be able to wear arms and to not retaliate or show the slightest bit of anger or attempt self-defense against someone who is attacking you is the highest form of non-violent protest. It implies a complete resignation to peaceful ways and an absolute belief in the power of non-violent protest despite the ability of the protestor to respond violently. It is one thing to walk in peaceful protest that is born out of a feeling of helplessness and quite another to walk peacefully, inviting oppression and suffering upon himself despite being fully armed, while totally being able to fight back. The first constitutes cowardice, the second a force.

I can't help but think that the sort of non-violence practiced by Gandhi's followers in India was that of the weak, that of the helpless. I believe that most did not truly understand the principles of non-violence in the manner in which Gandhi preached it. Rather they just thought they would be unable to win independence through other means. I come to this conclusion because of the history of Indians both before and after Gandhi.

An obvious fact is that Indians as a race have been oppressed for the last several hundred years by the Moguls (and later on by the British). Many of them never uttered a word of protest against the atrocities that were committed against their kith and kin, atrocities which were much worse than those perpetrated by the British. Even fewer actually took up actions against the Moguls (the major exception of course being the Marathas in the south).

It was quite common for invaders such as Abdali and Nadir Shah to invade India, take Indian jewelry and Indian women and head back to Afghanistan. Yet there were very few strong voices that opposed this. This was because of fear. This fear is what stopped them from participating in any course of action besides submitting to their oppressors. It seems like over time most Indians have developed a "learned helplessness". Following Gandhi's ideas arose from this feeling of helplessness. Indians followed Gandhi's beliefs not because they thought non-violence was a superior weapon in dealing with social problems, as Gandhi had preached, but rather because they felt they had no other alternative. This in itself defeats the whole purpose of non-violence.

It was quite common for Indians to one day be peacefully protesting and the next day to form lynch mobs. The only conclusion I can come to in order to reconcile these two thoughts is that they had no idea what the real essence of non-violent agitation was. The simple fact that after Gandhi his philosophy of non-violence has been completely abandoned by the people of India at large seems to point toward this conclusion.

To me, Gandhi came across as being an uncompromising extremist. A non-violent extremist, but an extremist nevertheless. His letters to the British people during World War Two encouraging them to "allow yourself, man, woman, and child, to be slaughtered" by "peacefully surrendering" to the Nazis in order to further his fanatic ideas of non-violence is a perfect example (CW Vol. 72 pg 229 231, CW Vol. 72 pg. 177). When pressed even further, he went to the extent of calling Guru Gobind Singh, the Maratha Shivaji and George Washington "misguided patriots" for taking up arms in defense of their people (CW Vol. 26 pg. 486-492).

Had Gandhi lived under the likes of Aurangzeb, in almost all likelihood he would have been arrested and hanged for even showing the slightest bit of defiance to the Mogul Empire. His non-violent ways worked because the British were not total tyrants, rather just concerned with exploiting Indians for their own economic gain. The aim of the British was not to annihilate them, as Aurangzeb and Hitler had attempted to do to their subjects. Thus the situation was ideal for the implementation of non-violent agitation.

According to Gandhi, only "evil and violence" came about from those who use violence. He seems to totally disregard the idea of a "noble cause", basing his ideas of whether a movement was right or wrong on his narrow view of whether or not non-violence was being used. No doubt history has shown that those who used violence for the sake of unworthy causes ultimately did perpetuate violence and evil upon themselves. But, at the same time, those who used violence because of noble causes (as in defense of their people), the rule did not apply.

There is a certain undeniable beauty in watching or reading about others who are fighting for noble and legitimate causes. Perhaps one of the best examples I can bring up is reading about the American Revolution. There is certain magnificence, certain holiness, about those people fighting for their rights. The fact that they used arms to achieve their freedom did not discount the righteousness of what they did.

FALLING SHORT OF TRUE GREATNESS

There are a few situations where I question Gandhi's approach to dealing with a problem. Take fasts, for example.

In his lifetime, Gandhi fasted for many issues ranging from stopping mob violence to preventing Untouchables from having separate electoral ballots. It seems that his fasts unto death were just a method of coercing others into obeying him. There was no "teaching someone the error of their ways", but rather people ceded to Gandhi's demands because they realized they had more to lose if he died as a result. Seeing how this "moral enlightenment" obviously wasn't occurring, I don't see what the difference would have been had the army been sent in to stop the rioting by force. In either situation, the people would not have been any more enlightened to the error of their ways, except in the latter situation less people may have died.

One problem I see is that Gandhi had no peers, only followers. In essence, Gandhi's words became the "Rule of Law" in India during that time. That's why I believe his influence on most Indians died with him. Though Gandhi may have lived with the underprivileged, there wasn't anyone that stood as his equal, not even Jawaharlal Nehru or Vallabhai Patel. There wasn't anyone who was in any position to question Gandhi's beliefs or authority. They were basically forced to follow what Gandhi said, whether agreeing with it or not. Thus after he was assassinated, there was a vacuum and India was once again left as a nation of followers.

For me, this is what separates Gandhi from rising into the realm of great people in history. Great leaders seek to free their people from the chains of mental slavery. They voluntarily give up their political power and their ultimate authority in order to give their kith and kin a sense of empowerment, something Gandhi did not do.

Gandhi may have asked Indians to spin their own thread, but he was always a level above the average Indian. This is what prevented him from ever truly leading Indians down a path of self-empowerment and self-determination. The inferiority complex, which has always been at the root of the problem, was thus never eliminated. Contrast this to the examples laid by the Sikh Gurus, such as that of Guru Gobind Singh in raising the Khalsa.

Despite being a Guru and the word of God to his followers, Guru Gobind Singh repeatedly lowered himself to the level of his followers in order to instill in them a sense of power, authority and sovereignty. It was the flame of self-respect and empowerment that he spent his entire life inculcating in his people that sowed the seeds of a nation that would prosper.

Upon initially baptizing the first five Sikhs into the Khalsa Panth in 1699, the Guru himself bowed before his own followers and begged them to baptize him into their own way of live, to in essence accept him as one of their own. It was at this point that he became a Guru only in name. He chose to give up his absolute authority as Guru and take on the path of a disciple, something that a being in his position had never done before.

Guru Gobind Singh voluntarily gave up his total say in matters related to Sikhi and, instead, entrusted his Sikhs to take up such issues in his place. There are many instances in Sikh history where Guru Gobind Singh was ordered to do something by the Khalsa. There was even such an occasion that he was fined by other Sikhs for what they felt constituted a "waiver of faith".

Here was a situation where his own followers were fining a head of a faith, a prophet, for what they thought violated an article of the faith. The Guru happily obliged and paid his dues, happy at the sense of empowerment that had grown amongst his Sikhs. By the end of his life, Sahib Guru Gobind Singh had dispersed all of his power to his people, for his people.

By sacrificing everything he had for them, Guru Sahib gave his Sikhs a sense of dignity in his own physical lifetime; something Gandhi never had the privilege of seeing.

If we take India to be the microcosm of Gandhi's teachings and influence, I don't see how we can come to any other conclusion except that Gandhi's ways are a complete failure, even after only fifty years of his death. Gandhi preached non-violence. Non-violence was totally abandoned in India. Gandhi preached self-empowerment, yet the average Indian is no more empowered before Gandhi than after Gandhi. Gandhi preached peace, yet India is constantly drifting toward war in one form or another. Gandhi wanted his people to "love the British" who were oppressing them. That was the foundation of his beliefs in the power of non-violence. Yet the fact remains that "love" was the last way to describe the way in which Indians viewed Britain, even despite the fact that India was created without a war.

In conclusion, though I may not have a strong admiration of the man himself, there is a profound appreciation of what Gandhi preached. I am a full-fledged believer in non-violent civil disobedience. It has many practical uses today and most definitely in the future as well. At the same time, I do not believe in the extremism that Gandhi did, which makes it impractical and thus lays the seeds for it to be abandoned in the future, as it has been in India today.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So Gandhi justified violence. So why did he advise the Jews to commit mass suicide? Why did he advise the British to not resist an invasion of the Britihs Isles? A Gandhi justifying violence will be news to some of his blind followers around the world.

The Gandhi myth is a creation of west which was then taken over by the Indian govt and hence the reason why they part funded the propaganda film Gandhi.

His strategy could only work when the colonial masters were aware of public opinion. He would not have lasted a second had the masters been the Nazis or the Japanese.

Gandhi justified violence (picking up the sword) where the only other option is to run away from the battlefield. He preferred death by violence to cowardice. Purza purza kutt marre, Kabhoo na charre khet. Brits did not adopt fascist policies so survived for this long in India and elsewhere. I don not need to tell you what happened to Hitler and Japan (also Punjab extremists) and how long they managed to survive.

The Gandhi myth is closest to what we call Dharma. whenever it came to deciding between his co-religionists (Hindus) and Muslims, he favoured the latter. When India/Pakistan were celebrating their 'Independence, he was mourning for those who died in the Partition violence. Unlike Jinnah, he refused the political positions.

He had flaws, I would repeat once again. Sometimes he was outrageously impractical - Jews example was one of those (Sikhs offered similar passive resistance in the Gurdwara reform movement and WON!!) but you still cannot dismiss him as a western construct.

Get over your bias and jealousies which are there because of your subscription to the violent ideologies.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Gandhi and Sikhs

My first biases of Gandhi arose from the fact that, throughout his lifetime, Gandhi expressed many anti-Sikh views, ranging from attacking the symbols of the Sikh faith to encouraging Sikhs to abandon parts of their culture and religion in favor of re-absorption into Hinduism.

From the onset of his arrival in India, Gandhi insisted on referring to Sikhs as "Hindus" even though the vast majority of Sikhs at that time expressed their belief that they were a distinct religion and that referring to them as a part of Hinduism was offensive. His insistent comments that the "Sikh Gurus were Hindus" and that Guru Gobind Singh was "one of the greatest defenders of Hinduism" (Collected Works of Mahatma Gandhi Vol. 28 pg. 263) deeply hurt Sikh sentiments, but that never deterred him making such statements throughout his life.

Gandhi was so adamant in his view of Sikhism being a part of Hinduism that he went to the extent of condemning the conversion of Untouchables to Sikhism if Sikhs continued to assert their not being a sect of Hinduism. At that time, led by Dr. Ambedkar, over 60 million Untouchables desired to convert to another religion in order to free themselves from their enslavement in the Hindu caste system. Dr. Ambedkar had a very strong interest in the conversion of the Untouchables to Sikhism, to the extent that he even had his own nephew baptized into Sikhism.

Gandhi found this possible conversion to be intolerable in the light of Sikhs viewing themselves as not being Hindus. Gandhi wrote: "I don't mind Untouchables if they do desire, being converted to Islam or Christianity" (CW, Vol 48, pg 98), he insisted that conversion to Sikhism by these Untouchables was "dangerous."

"Today I will only say that to me Sikhism is a part of Hinduism. But the situation is different from a legal point of view. Dr. Ambedkar wants a change of religion. If becoming a Sikh amounts to conversion, then this kind of conversion on the parts of Harijans is dangerous. If you can persuade the Sikhs to accept that Sikhism is a part of Hinduism and if you can make them give up the separate electorate, then I will have no objections to Harijans calling themselves Sikhs" (CW, Vol 63, pg 267).

A particularly offensive comment of Gandhi made it clear that he harbored the belief that Sikhs should disown the institution of the Khalsa Panth established by the tenth Guru, Guru Gobind Singh. He said, "I read your Granth Sahib. But I do not do so to please you. Nor shall I seek your permission to do so. But the Guru has not said anywhere that you must grow your beards, carry kirpans (swords) and so on" (CW Vol. 90, Pg. 80).

Thanks for quoting Gandhi to support your argument.

"I read your Granth Sahib. But I do not do so to please you. Nor shall I seek your permission to do so. But the Guru has not said anywhere that you must grow your beards, carry kirpans (swords) and so on"

He was spot on! Show me one verse in SGGS which asks Sikhs to grow hair or even justifies such external features. Panj kakkars is something which Tat Khalsas have forced on ALL Sikhs. Forget what Gandhi has said, SGGS (and Dasam Granth) does not have the word KHALSA (as in Sikh Khalsa) in it. Having said that I am not saying Khalsa has no position in Sikhism. They were the warriors Guru sahib created to resist the Muslim atrocities.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"I read your Granth Sahib. But I do not do so to please you. Nor shall I seek your permission to do so. But the Guru has not said anywhere that you must grow your beards, carry kirpans (swords) and so on"

He was spot on! Show me one verse in SGGS which asks Sikhs to grow hair or even justifies such external features. Panj kakkars is something which Tat Khalsas have forced on ALL Sikhs. Forget what Gandhi has said, SGGS (and Dasam Granth) does not have the word KHALSA (as in Sikh Khalsa) in it. Having said that I am not saying Khalsa has no position in Sikhism. They were the warriors Guru sahib created to resist the Muslim atrocities.

Sri dasam guru granth its fairly clear to grow hair, and have 5 ks.

I always find it ironic you find example of shastardhari snatan dharmis again pretty much all keshadharis and shastardharis all across bhagvad gita- mahabharta and ramayana acceptable, yet get your knickers in a twist when khalsa carries 5 ks to uphold dharma, propagate and defend dharma not just its own but defend overall dharma and weak in general.

Didn't all the previous avtars- ram chandar ji, ram krishnan ji and hanuman, arjuna and whole sena grow kesh and were shastardhari.

Show me ahinsa (jain pacificsm) is authentic part of sanatan dharma- ramayana/mahabharat? Hell they are even puratan buddhist orders who are keshadharis/ shastardharis and you seem to bias and issue towards khalsa- sant-sipahi which is meant to carefully strike a balance between sant and sipahi.

Khalsa is kaum of sant-sipahi which means sipahi nature should naturally spontaneously arise from sant (peace, compassion, contenment, advait-one non dual vision for whole humanity) after bhramgyan not enforced or induced

Bir ras of Sipahi of Khalsa: Warrior spirit of self defense- stopping an individual to do further damage, fight against oppression but more importantly- bir ras is not on its own, its naturally born, nurtured and controlled by sant aspect of one's life- dya (compassion), sat(truthful), sabar( patience), santokh(contentment), sam/advait dristhi (non dual one vision impartial perception of humanity).

Found a right word/description for bir ras its spontaneous natural force coming out naturally which does not have ego/pride,anger, revenge, vegenance, jealously vices/perception attached to it, its totally nirlaip from maya... its not only conceptual those who are serious into meditation knows and can relate to this spontaneous natural force as they have experienced it.

For eg- its as natural as one is walking/running, when one walks legs move naturally its spontenous thing, there are *NO* anger behind it or having any kind good or bad attributes behind it, its just action,reaction ...just is .!!

hopefully that helps..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sri dasam guru granth its fairly clear to grow hair, and have 5 ks.

I always find it ironic you find example of shastardhari snatan dharmis again pretty much all keshadharis and shastardharis all across bhagvad gita- mahabharta and ramayana acceptable, yet get your knickers in a twist when khalsa carries 5 ks to uphold dharma, propagate and defend dharma not just its own but defend overall dharma and weak in general.

Didn't all the previous avtars- ram chandar ji, ram krishnan ji and hanuman, arjuna and whole sena grow kesh and were shastardhari.

That's just the thing. The Indians of the previous Yugs were Dharmi people who were Kesadharis. But today's Kalyugi Hindus have taken on Kalyugi traits by cutting their Kesh, abandoning Kshatriya Dharm and Bhagti Marg. But Khalsa has maintained all of these qualities. Khalsa is the rightful inheritor of the legacy of those ancient people of India, not today's Kalyugi Hindus.

Edited by Jonny101

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sri dasam guru granth its fairly clear to grow hair, and have 5 ks.

I always find it ironic you find example of shastardhari snatan dharmis again pretty much all keshadharis and shastardharis all across bhagvad gita- mahabharta and ramayana acceptable, yet get your knickers in a twist when khalsa carries 5 ks to uphold dharma, propagate and defend dharma not just its own but defend overall dharma and weak in general.

Didn't all the previous avtars- ram chandar ji, ram krishnan ji and hanuman, arjuna and whole sena grow kesh and were shastardhari.

Show me ahinsa (jain pacificsm) is authentic part of sanatan dharma- ramayana/mahabharat? Hell they are even puratan buddhist orders who are keshadharis/ shastardharis and you seem to bias and issue towards khalsa- sant-sipahi which is meant to carefully strike a balance between sant and sipahi.

Khalsa is kaum of sant-sipahi which means sipahi nature should naturally spontaneously arise from sant (peace, compassion, contenment, advait-one non dual vision for whole humanity) after bhramgyan not enforced or induced

Bir ras of Sipahi of Khalsa: Warrior spirit of self defense- stopping an individual to do further damage, fight against oppression but more importantly- bir ras is not on its own, its naturally born, nurtured and controlled by sant aspect of one's life- dya (compassion), sat(truthful), sabar( patience), santokh(contentment), sam/advait dristhi (non dual one vision impartial perception of humanity).

Found a right word/description for bir ras its spontaneous natural force coming out naturally which does not have ego/pride,anger, revenge, vegenance, jealously vices/perception attached to it, its totally nirlaip from maya... its not only conceptual those who are serious into meditation knows and can relate to this spontaneous natural force as they have experienced it.

For eg- its as natural as one is walking/running, when one walks legs move naturally its spontenous thing, there are *NO* anger behind it or having any kind good or bad attributes behind it, its just action,reaction ...just is .!!

hopefully that helps..

My friend you know as well as me there are three Granths. The Sarbloh Granth extensively defines the Khalsa in Guru Ji's own eyes. Now how would Gandhi know that???? A cursory or even a dedicated scanning of descriptions and histories of the Khalsa does not provide any specific perceptions into it's psyche and tenets. So how can the latter provide any theological justification? Now of course Sher can argue whatever merits and de-merits he wants, but the truth remains Gandhi was no expert on the Khalsa ethos and nor did he prove to be an effective leader in the long run. Each human had flaws, but those like Gandhi who veil their flaws with religious veils are nothing more than hypocrites; and hypocrisy is the worst flaw of all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's just the thing. The Indians of the previous Yugs were Dharmi people who were Kesadharis. But today's Kalyugi Hindus have taken on Kalyugi traits by cutting their Kesh, abandoning Kshatriya Dharm and Bhagti Marg. But Khalsa has maintained all of these qualities. Khalsa is the rightful inheritor of the legacy of those ancient people of India, not today's Kalyugi Hindus.

I Can't say all hindus as there are many various orders and many hindu sadhus have kept long hair..however, those who claim they are upasakhs of kshatariya dharam yet have shaved heads and yet have audacity to point finger at those who kept ancient traditions. Unbelievable.. even hanuman ji had a kachera , keshadhari and was shastardhari.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My friend you know as well as me there are three Granths. The Sarbloh Granth extensively defines the Khalsa in Guru Ji's own eyes. Now how would Gandhi know that???? A cursory or even a dedicated scanning of descriptions and histories of the Khalsa does not provide any specific perceptions into it's psyche and tenets. So how can the latter provide any theological justification? Now of course Sher can argue whatever merits and de-merits he wants, but the truth remains Gandhi was no expert on the Khalsa ethos and nor did he prove to be an effective leader in the long run. Each human had flaws, but those like Gandhi who veil their flaws with religious veils are nothing more than hypocrites; and hypocrisy is the worst flaw of all.

Totally agree.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sri dasam guru granth its fairly clear to grow hair, and have 5 ks."

Please quote the verse which clearly asks SIKHS to keep unshorn hair and also 5ks.

a twist when khalsa carries 5 ks to uphold dharma, propagate and defend dharma not just its own but defend overall dharma and weak in general."

Is this jibe for me by any chance? Anyway, i would respond. i personally have no problems if khalsa carries 5 ks or 10. my beef is with those who try to push it down my throat that a non-khalsa cannot be a Sikh. as far as khalsa defending dharma is concerned that is...(hmmm i better stick to civilised language) incorrect. Look at the way sacha sauda premis, Nirankaris, dera followers are being terrorised in Punjab making such claims sound so hollow.

Didn't all the previous avtars- ram chandar ji, ram krishnan ji and hanuman, arjuna and whole sena grow kesh and were shastardhari."

Depends which calendar artist you consider as the one appointed by God Himself. Bhai mere get over interpreting mythology from a calendar artist's kitschy paintings. if you ask me the biggest reason for the persecution of dera sacha sauda premis today, i would name

Sobha Singh painter as he painted the 10th Guru sahib wearing that flashy gown.

Did people 1000s of years ago grow hair, definitely yes as there was almost nothing in the name of hair-cutting equipment. did our stone age forefathers had any choice but to grow long hair? no, otherwise it would be called Gillette age and not stone age. the mythology which we get to read in Hindu/Sikh scriptures belonged to those ancient years.

Show me ahinsa (jain pacificsm) is authentic part of sanatan dharma- ramayana/mahabharat?"

where are we going with this? are you trying to make me look like a tree-hugging pacifist who would think ten times before killing a fly? if yes, you are wrong.

Khalsa is kaum of sant-sipahi which means sipahi nature should naturally spontaneously arise from sant (peace, compassion, contenment, advait-one non dual vision for whole humanity) after bhramgyan not enforced or induced"

i would disagree with this assertion too. Khalsa is NOT a quam, it's a sect/panth. not a quam not a dharam or religion.

Bir ras..." :) Now you are trying to appropriate that too!!??

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's just the thing. The Indians of the previous Yugs were Dharmi people who were Kesadharis. But today's Kalyugi Hindus have taken on Kalyugi traits by cutting their Kesh, abandoning Kshatriya Dharm and Bhagti Marg. But Khalsa has maintained all of these qualities. Khalsa is the rightful inheritor of the legacy of those ancient people of India, not today's Kalyugi Hindus.

why this unhealthy obsession with unshorn hair? SGGS clearly says that it does not matter whether you have long hair or shaven head. stop trying to project as if ALL Keshadharis were/are highly spiritual and ALL rodde are bad. if that is true then you would have to give up on 60-70 of Sikh youth who have cut their kes Also, 9.75 (10th Guru sahib was khalsa for less than 1/4th of his life) Sikh gurus were NOT Khalsa.

Khalsa is the rightful...

As if all ancient people were Mahatma gandhis ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...