New Age History and Economics

The Day We See The Truth And Cease To Speak it, Is The Day We Begin To Die. MLK Jr.

Tuesday, August 20, 2013

truth behind sinking of INS Khukri 1971 Indo-Pak War.

Lies being taught;
In “Transition to Triumph”, published by the Naval Headquarters it is stated that December 9 1971; Pak submarine ‘Hangor’ fired three torpedoes, first at INS Kirpan which failed to explode, second at INS Khukri which hit it leading to its sinking and third again at INS Kirpan, which Kirpan out maneuvered and ran it out.

Truth to the Surface
One of the few survivors of the submarine attack that sank the INS Khukri in 1971 sheds new light on the mysterious circumstances in which the ship went down during the war. A report by VK Shashikumar
                The Indian Navy is considering launching salvage operations to bring up the remains of INS Khukri, which was sunk during the 1971 India-Pakistan war. In March this year, the remains of the ship were believed to have been located about 40 Km sought of Diu. If Khukri is salvaged, it will finally set to rest intrigue and speculation about the circumstances in which the ship went down. 
sunk in controversy: INS Khukri which sank during the 1971 India-Pakistan war

        Thirty three years later, one of the six surviving officers, Chanchal Singh gill, 54, a shipwright artificer on board Khukri reveals his version of what happened on the night of December 9, 1971. He says there are strong reasons to believe that an American submarine, which might have been a part of the US 7th fleet, fired at Khukri.
        Last year, the Naval headquarters dispatched a letter to Gill recognizing his bravery when Khukri was torpedoed. The letter states: “It has been brought to the notice of the Chief of the Naval Staff that you were on board INS Khukri during the 1971 war and displayed exemplary courage and dedication to duty while fighting with enemy. Subsequently, you took all the corrective actions during the sinking of INS Khukri whilst it as hit by the enemy torpedoes on 09 December 1971.” The Indian Navy recalled his contribution and sanctioned a one time cash reward of Rs. 50,000/-. Official naval history of this period states that PNS Hangor, a Pakistani submarine commanded by Captain Taslim Ahmed, sank it on the night of December 09, says that the submarine fired three torpedoes, one went under INS Kirpan and the other hit Khukri. The submarine fired a third torpedo at INS Kuthar, but the ship is believed to have taken antisubmarine maneuvers and avoided being hit. Khukri’s Commanding Officer, Capt. Mahender Mulla, went down with the ship along with 18 officers and 178 sailors. Only six officers and 61 sailors survived. Mulla was awarded a Param Vir Chakra posthumously and Captain RR Sood of INS Kirpan got a Vir Chakra. Khukri, Kirpan and Kuthar were sister ships, three antisubmarine frigates that took part in 1971 naval operations.
        Gill says that the reason why he is revealing what happened on December 9, 1971, is because he believes that the Navy has concealed the truth about the sinking of Khukri. “After I read about the spate of fake encounters, like the one on Siachen glacier, for bravery awards I wanted to share the truth with the nation. The government must come out with the truth about the sinking of INS Khukri,” says Gill.
       The Indian Navy’s two fierce attacks on Karachi had completely demoralized the Pakistani Navy. “The Indian Navy western fleet had choked Pakistani Navy and was patrolling off the coast of Karachi. Not even a fishing boat could get to Karachi without the Indian Navy interdicting it. So how could a Pakistani submarine escape the Indian Navy’s dragnet?” asks Gill.
       But what is intriguing is Gill’s detailed account of the submarine’s movements. Pakistan had four submarines- PNS Ghazi, Hangor, Mangor and Shiusk. These were conventional submarines that needed to resurface for two hours within a 24 hour span. These subs had extremely low endurance capacity and had to come up to snorting depth to suck in air, charge batteries and then submerge again. But the movements of the submarine that sunk Khukri were not that like of a conventional sub. It never resurfaced and was never spotted. “There were regular intelligence reports of a submarine prowling in the vicinity of our ships but we could never spot it or hit it with our antisubmarine warfare,” says Gill.
       The western fleet had a complement of three sister ships- INS Khukri, INS Kirpan and INS Kuthar- all antisubmarine frigates. INS Khukri was the squadron commander. During the operations INS Kuthar developed a problem in the boiler room because of the bursting of a steam pipe. The ship was completely “off power” and was towed back to the Mumbai harbour. INS Kirpan was tasked to tow it and INS Khukri was detailed to provide screening support against any enemy submarine attack or air warfare. On December 5, 1971, as the frigates set sail towards the base, INS Khukri made contact with a submarine. Its sonar picked up echoes of a submarine and Khukri’s commander, Captain Mahendra Mulla, ordered immediate counter measures. Antisubmarine ammunition- limbos- was fired. But a hit could not be confirmed. Generally, the appearance of the oil patches on surface of the sea or bubbles is considered as evidence of a hit on a submarine.
       As part of the counter measures INS Kuthar was dehooked from INS Kirpan. This was done so that the latter did not become a sitting duck. INS Kirpan, commanded by Captain RR Sood, was asked to join the fight against the submarine. The next day the frigates reached the base. Repair work and replenishment of the frigates began almost immediately. New lifeboats were attached and the Navy fixed a new antisubmarine detection system on INS Khukri on a trial basis. It was fixed below the anchor cable lockers located at the keel of the ship.
       On December 8, while INS Kuthar was still being serviced, the other two frigates sailed to join the fleet patrolling off Karachi. As soon as these ships were on the high seas they established classified contacts with the submarine again. The submarine was engaged but could not be hit. The next day a naval intelligence dispatch led to impromptu celebrations on board INS Khukri. The dispatch said that a Pakistani submarine, PNS Ghazi, was sunk off the coast of Vishakhapatnam on the intervening night of December  3 and 4. There was jubilation on board. The morale of the Indian Navy was high.
       Challenging the official version of events, he says that INS Khukri was not on ‘action station’ when the torpedoes were fired. Action station is sounded when direct contact is made with an enemy ship and everyone on board takes up their designated duty post, Senior Officers, including the Captain and Chief Engineer, were celebrating in the officers’ mess, raising a toast to the sinking of PNS Ghazi. Suddenly everyone forgot that the submarine was still lurking in the sea. Clearly, Khukri was not on ‘action station’ mode.
       Gill was on duty when the first torpedo fired by the submarine hit the ship’s propeller at 8.45 PM. The ship’s design was such that the ammunition storage area was just above the propeller. In the ammunition dump, stacks of limbo magazines were overlaid with mortars. Therefore, the first hit resulted in a massive explosion and that portion of the ship was blown away. The force of the explosion threw Gill off the ship into the cold Arabian Sea. When he bobbed up, he realized he was around 50 yards away from the right side of the ship.
       Then, there was a second hit between the engine room and the boiler room. Within seconds there was a third hit between the bow and the middle of the ship. “I saw a submarine surface and train a flashlight on the sinking ship. The submarine had surfaced to confirm the hit. At that time the bow of INS Khukri was up and slowly sinking. Then the submarine submerged again,” says Gill.
        INS Kirpan was on the port side. They got so panicky that they kept firing their mortars aimlessly. According to Gill, torpedoes are homing weapons and the first one did not go under INS Kirpan. All the three torpedoes hit Khukri. He alleges that “Kirpan ran off from the scene” and says he wants the navy to acknowledge and revealed that the INS Kirpan did not even rescue the navy men who were thrown off the ship.
        According to Gill, the third attack on Karachi was cancelled after the sinking of INS Khukri. So if the intention of the attack on Khukri was to deter the Indian Navy from doing so, then that intent was recognized by India. Certainly, it is difficult to make out a case for Pakistan Navy to send such a strong signal when its Navy was virtually routed by the fierce Indian naval attack. That brings up the question- whose and what kind of submarine attacked INS Khukri. From December 5 to December 14 Indian ships made contact with the submarine. It never surfaced and attacked Khukri at night. Even the Indian Navy’s antisubmarine helicopters could not detect the submarine.
     Chanchal Singh Gill, who was on duty when the first torpedo hit INS Khukri, says there are strong reasons to believe that an American submarine fired at the ship. Despite continuous naval intelligence of a presence of a submarine off the west coat of India why weren’t the survivors of Khukri debriefed? “Today they want to spend crores of rupees to extricate Khukri and find out the real reasons for its sinking during war. At that time nobody bothered to ask us what we saw,” says Gill, adding. “We were just asked how we got hold of a raft and survived.”
         So, was it a nuclear submarine, capable of staying underwater for a long period of time and part of the 7th fleet, responsible for the sinking of Khukri?"
Source; tehelka_khukri
Though Author has met Sh Chanchal singh but instead of writing a fresh article, I found that one written by tehalka was good so I am sharing their article.    

Sunday, August 11, 2013


Lies being Taught;
Support for Khilafat was secular.
Now the Truth;
Support for Khilafat promoted communalism.

Till 1919, Communal tension between Hindus and Muslims was at the lowest. The mutual relationship was at its best. It was all going on the right track with the Gadar movement and the influence of Bal Gangadhar Tilak. The ideology of the Gadar party was strongly secular. In the words of Sohan Singh Bhakna, who later became a major peasant leader of Punjab: "Our religion was patriotism". Had this atmosphere prevailed India we would never have never been partitioned on the basis of religion. 

But everything changed with the Khilafat. A movement that would never gathered momentum unless supported by Gandhiji.

What is Khilafat movement?

The Ottoman empire, having sided with the Central Powers during World War I, suffered a major military defeat. The Treaty of Versailles (1919) reduced its territorial extent and diminished its political influence but the victorious European powers promised to protect the Ottoman emperor's status as the Caliph. However, under the Treaty of Sèvres (1920), territories such as Palestine, Syria, Lebanon, Iraq, Egypt severed from the empire.

In September 1919, Maulana Muhammad Ali and his brother Shaukat Ali, together with Maulana Abdul Kalam Azad, Dr. Mukhtar Ahmed Ansari, and Hasrat Mohani, started a new organization, the Khilafat Movement. The Khilafat movement (1919-1924) was a political campaign launched mainly by Muslims in British India to influence the British government in favor of Ottoman Empire and to protect the Ottoman Empire during the aftermath of World War I. Their avowed aim was to use whatever leverage they had with the British, as residents of a British colony, to protect the Caliphate. They organized Khilafat Conferences in several northern Indian cities. In 1920 they published the Khilafat Manifesto.

The Ali brothers then made a strategic alliance. They convinced Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi to join a Hindu-Muslim alliance for self-rule (Indian Independence, or Swaraj {Self Rule}). Gandhi's followers would support the Khilafat Movement if the Muslims would support Gandhi's efforts for Swaraj {Self Rule}. Gandhi became a member of the Central Khilafat Committee and at the Nagpur session (1920) of the Indian National Congress Gandhi proposed a non-cooperation campaign, of non-violent satyagraha, in support of Swaraj {Self Rule} and Khilafat. Gandhiji, the apostle of Hindu-Muslim unity claimed: "We talk of Hindu- Mohammedans unity. It would be an empty phrase if the Hindus hold aloof from the Mohammedans when their vital interests are at stake." This ‘vital interest’ was the restoration of the Khilafat in far away Turkey at the cost of national freedom! and asked Hindus to support rule of Khilafat. The Khilafat-Non-Cooperation movement is singular because it is the only movement led by Gandhi that was centered on a religious issue: the preservation of the Sultan of Turkey as the Caliph of all Muslims.

If a hundred million Muslims are more vitally interested in the fate of far away Muslim Country-Turkey than they are IN the fate of India, they can hardly be regarded as a unit of Indian nation. By his own admission that the Khilafat question was a vital one for the Indian Muslims, Gandhi himself in a way admitted that they formed a separate nation; they were in India, but not of India. "

The Khilafat movement became a disaster in more ways than one. Indian history books written under congress influence carefully leave out the Khilafat fiasco, or if they mention it all they present it as a unifier of Hindus and Muslims. The reality is quite different. The Hindu-Muslim alliance soon dissolved in communal violence. It resulted in a massacre of tens of thousands of innocent Hindus all over India. It was particularly virulent in Kerala where a Jihad (Holy War against infidels) called the Mopla Rebellion erupted. In August 1921, the poor Muslim peasants of Malabar (now part of Kerala state) erupted in the Moplah rebellion. After a pitched battle with British troops, the peasants attacked their predominantly Hindu, upper-caste landlords. In 1920, some 18,000 Muslim peasants, mostly from Sind and the North Western Provinces, voluntarily emigrated to Afghanistan. They believed that India was Dar al-Harb, a non-Islamic land, and wished to live in Dar al-Islam, an Islamic polity.

To make matters worse for Gandhi, Muslim leaders like the Ali brothers, whom he had sponsored and supported during the Khilafat, publicly humiliated him;

Mohammed Ali even said that a Muslim thief was better than Gandhi, simply because of the thief’s faith in Islam! "

Gandhiji's support to Khilafat led to following factors:

1) Indian Muslims realized that it is right to have pan-Islamic agenda. It is right to fight for Turkey's caliph when their own country is under foreign rule.

2) The movement itself was for a wrong cause when the majority in Turkey themselves wanted democracy.

3) With Turkey's adopting democracy under Kamal Ataturk, Khilafat became a laughing stock, making the Indian leadership also laughing stock.

4) The end of Khilafat saw Moplah riots, the bloodiest in India's history when Hindus were made to pay the price because the Turks refused caliph's rule.

5) Gandhji praised the moplahs saying that they are "god-fearing" (when the whole country including Ambedkar & Annie Besant was shocked at the cruelty). This gave Muslim community a belief they can never be wrong.



Thursday, August 1, 2013

The Man who killed Gandhi.

Lies being taught; 
Nathu Ram Godse who killed Gandhi was an anti national and a terrorist;

Now the truth;
Not guilty
Those who heard his statement or read it, have called him a nationalist secular.

Justice Khosla who presided over the court states;
“The highlight of the appeal before us was the discourse delivered by Nathuram Godse in his defense. .."The audience was visibly and audibly moved. There was a deep silence when he ceased speaking. Many women were in tears and men coughing and searching for their handkerchiefs… "I have however, no doubt that had the audience of that day been constituted into a jury and entrusted with the task of deciding Godse’s appeal, they would have brought in a verdict of ‘not guilty’ by an overwhelming majority."

 “I killed Gandhi” Mr. Nathuram Godse:

"If devotion to one’s country amounts to a sin, I admit I have committed that sin. If it is meritorious, I humbly claim the merit thereof. I fully and confidently believe that if there be any other court of justice beyond the one founded by the mortals, my act will not be taken as unjust. If after the death there be no such place to reach or to go, there is nothing to be said. I have resorted to the action I did purely for the benefit of the humanity. I do say that my shots were fired at the person whose policy and action had brought rack and ruin and destruction to lakhs of Hindus."
On January 30,1948, Gandhi was shot point blank in the evening at 5.00 P.M. by Nathuram Godse while the former was on his way to the dais for the prayer meeting. Gandhi, with almost feeble or faint ‘ah’, possibly as a reflex action and shock, fell to the ground. He went unconscious instantaneously and breathed his last some twenty minutes later. Nathuram after firing shots raised his hand with the gun and called for the police. He was apprehended and tried. The venue of the court was the memorable Red Port, Delhi. This was to be the third historical trial to be witnessed here. The first was of Bahadur Shah Jafar and other accused, who had waged War of Independence against the British in 1857. The second was in 1945. The officers of the Indian National Army commanded by Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose were charged with war against the British during the Second World War. The third was to be for Gandhi murder.

Following are some excerpts from the court Statement of Mr. Nathuram Vinayk Godse;-
"May it please Your Honour"

"26. Born in a devotional Brahmin family, I instinctively came to revere Hindu religion, Hindu history and Hindu culture. I had been intensely proud of Hindudom as a whole. Nevertheless as I grew up I developed a tendency to free thinking unfettered by any superstitious allegiance to any ‘ism’, political or religious. That is why I worked actively for the eradication of untouchability and the caste system based on birth alone. I publicly joined anti-caste movements and maintained that all Hindus should be treated with equal status as to rights social and religious, and should be high or low on their merit alone and not through the accident of birth in a particular caste or profession. I used publicly to take part in organised anti-caste dinners in which thousands of Hindus, Brahmins, Kshatriyas, Vaishyas, Chamars and Bhangis broke the caste rules and dined in the company of each other."

"35. … In1946 or thereabout the Muslim atrocities perpetrated on the Hindus under the Government patronage of Surhawardy in Noakhali, made our blood boil. Our shame and indignation knew no bounds, when we saw that Gandhiji had come forward to shield that very Surhawardy and began to style him as ’Shahid Saheb-a Martyr Soul (I) even in his prayer meetings. Not only that but after coming to Delhi, Gandhiji began to hold his prayer meetings in a Hindu temple in Bhangi Colony and persisted in reading passages from Quoran as a part of the prayer in that Hindu temple in spite of the protest of the Hindu worshippers there. Of course he dared not read the Geeta in a mosque in the teeth of Muslim opposition. He knew what a terrible Muslim reaction would have been if he had done so."

"51. In my writings and speeches I have always advocated that the religious and communal consideration should be entirely eschewed in the public affairs of the country, at elections, inside and,’ outside the legislatures and in the making and unmaking of Cabinets. I have throughout stood for a secular State with joint electorates and to my mind this is the only sensible thing to do."

"56. Since the year 1920, that is to say after the demise of Lokamanya Tilak, Gandhiji’s influence in the Congress first increased and then became supreme. His activities for public awakening were phenomenal in their intensity and were reinforced by the slogan of truth and non-violence which he ostentatiously paraded before the country. No sensible or enlightened person could object to these slogans; in fact there is nothing new or original in them. They are implicit in every constitutional public movement. To imagine that the bulk of mankind is or can ever become capable of scrupulous adherence to these lofty principles in its normal life from day to day is amore dream. In fact honour duty and love of one’s own kith and kin and country might often compel us to disregard non-violence. I could never conceive that an armed resistance to the aggressor is unjust. I will consider it a religious and moral duty to resist and if possible to overpower such an enemy by the use of force. Shree Ramchandra killed Ravan in a tumultuous fight and relieved Sita. Shree Krishna killed Kansa to end his wickedness. In the Mahabharat Arjun had to fight and slay, quite a number of his. friends and relations including the revered Bhishma, because the latter was on the side of the aggressor. It is my firm belief that in dubbing Rama, Krishna and Arjuna as guilty of violence is to betray a total ignorance of the springs of human action. It was the heroic fight put up by the Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj that first checked and eventually destroyed Muslim tyranny in India. It was absolutely correct tactics for Shivaji to kill Afzal Khan as the latter would otherwise have surely killed him. In condemning Shivaji, Rana Pratap and Guru Govind as misguided patriots, Gandhiji has merely exposed his self conceit."

"65. Our British rulers were able, out of Indian resource continuously, to make concessions to Muslims and to keep the various communities divided. By 1919 Gandhiji had become desperate in his endeavours to get the Muslims to trust him and went from one absurd promise to another. He promised ’a blank cheque’ to the Muslims. He backed the Khilafat movement in this country and was able to enlist the full support of the National Congress in that policy. For a time, Gandhiji appeared to succeed and prominent Muslim leaders in India became his followers; Mr. Jinnah was nowhere in 1920-21, and the Ali Brothers became de facto Muslim leaders. Gandhiji welcomed this as the coming promise of leadership, of the Muslims. He made most of the Ali Brothers, raised them to the skies by flattery and unending concessions; but what he wanted never happened. The Muslims ran the Khilafat Committee as a distinct political religious organisation and throughout maintained it as a separate entity from the Congress; and very soon the Moplah Rebellion showed that the Muslims had not the slightest idea of national unity on which Gandhiji had set his heart and had stakes so much. There followed as usual in such cases, a huge slaughter of the Hindus, numerous forcible conversions, rape and arson. The British Government entirely unmoved by the rebellion suppressed it in a few months and left to Gandhiji the joy of his Hindu-Muslim Unity. The Khilafat agitation had failed and let down Gandhiji. British Imperialism emerged stronger, the Muslims became more fanatical and the consequences were visited on the Hindus. But undaunted by the tactics of the British Rulers, Gandhiji became more stubborn in the pursuit of his phantom of Hindu-Muslim Unity. By the Act of 1919 separate electorates were enlarged and communal representation was continued not merely in the legislature and the local, bodies but even extended within the Cabinet. The services began to be distributed on the communal basis and the Muslims obtained high jobs from our British Masters not on merit but by remaining aloof from the struggle for freedom and because of their being the followers of Islam. Government patronage to Muslims in the name of Minority protection penetrated throughout the body-politic of the Indian State and the Mahatma’s meaningless slogans were no match against this wholesale corruption of the Muslim mind. But Gandhiji did not relent. He still lived in the hope of being the common leader both of the Hindus and Muslims and the more he was defeated, the more he indulged in encouraging the Muslims by extravagant methods. The position continued to deteriorate and by 1925 it became patent to all that the Government had won all along the line; but like the proverbial gambler Gandhiji increased his stake. He agreed to the separation of Sind and to the creation of a separate province in the N. W. Frontier. He also went on conceding one undemocratic demand after another to the Muslim League in the vain hope of enlisting its support in the national struggle. By this time the stock of the Ali Brothers had gone down and Mr. Jinnah who had staged a come-back was having the best of both the worlds. Whatever concessions the Government and the Congress made, Mr. Jinnah accepted and asked for more. Separation of Sind from Bombay and the creation of the N. W. Frontier were followed by the Round Table Conference in which the minority question loomed large. Mr. Jinnah stood out against the federation until Gandhiji himself requested Mr. Mc Donald, the Labour Premier, to give the Communal Award. Further seeds were thereby sown for the disintegration of this country. The communal principle became deeply impeded in the Reforms of 1935. Mr. Jinnah took the fullest advantage of every situation. The Federation of India which was to consolidate Indian Nationhood was in fact, defeated, Mr. Jinnah had never taken kindly to it. The Congress continued to support the Communal Award under the very hypocritical words of neither supporting nor opposing, which really meant its tacit acceptance. During the War 1939-44, Mr. Jinnah took up openly one attitude-a sort of benevolent neutrality-and promised to support the war as soon as the Muslims rights were conceded; in April 1S40, within six months of the War, Mr. Jinnah came out with the demand for Pakistan on the basis of his two nation theory. Mr. Jinnah totally ignored the fact that there were Hindus and Muslims in large numbers in every part of India. There may be a majority of Hindus in some case and a minority of Muslims in other Provinces and vice versa, but there was no Province in India where either the Hindus or the Muslims were negligible in numbers and that any division of India would leave the minority question wholly unsolved."

I shall now describe briefly the enormous mischief done by the slogans and the nostrums which Gandhiji prescribed and followed, in pursuance of his policy, the fatal results that we now know. Here are some of them :
Khilafat- As a result of the First World War, Turkey had lost most of its Empire in Africa and the Middle East. It had lost all its European Imperial possessions also and by 1914 only a strip of land was all that was left to her on the continent of Europe. The young Turks had forced the Sultan of Turkey to abdicate and with the disappearance of the Sultan the Khilafat was also abolished. The Indian Muslims’ devotion to the Khilafat was strong and earnest and they believed that is was Britain that had brought about the downfall of the Sultan and the Khilafat. They therefore started a campaign for the revival of the Khilafat. In the moment of opportunism the Mahatma misconceived the idea that by helping the Khilafat Movement he would become the leader of the Muslims in India as he already was of the Hindus and that with the Hindu-Muslim Unity thus achieved the British would soon have to concede Swaraj. But again, Gandhiji miscalculated and by leading the Indian National Congress to identify itself with the Khilafat Movement, he quite gratuitously introduced theological element which has proved a tragic and expensive calamity. For the moment the movement for the revival of the Khilafat appeared to be succeeding. The Muslims who were not with the Khilafat Movement soon became out of date and the Ali Brothers who were its foremen leaders swam on the crest of a wave of popularity and carried everything before them. Mr. Jinnah found himself a lonely figure and was of no consideration for a few years. The movement however failed. Our British Masters were not unduly shaken and as a combined result of repression and the Montague Chelmsford Reforms theywere able to tide over the Khilafat Movement in a few years time. The Muslims had kept the Khilafat Movement distinct from the Congress all along; they welcomed the Congress support but they did not merge with it. When failure came the Muslims became desperate with disappointment and their anger was cited on the Hindus. Innumerable riots in the various parts of India followed the chief victims being the Hindus everywhere. The Hindu-Muslim Unity of the Mahatma became a mirage.

Moplah Rebellion - Malabar, Punjab, Bengal and N. W. F.Province were the scene of repeated outrages on the Hindus. The Moplah rebellion as it was called was the most prolonged and concentrated attack on the Hindu religion, Hindu honour, Hindu life and Hindu property; hundreds of Hindus were forcibly converted to Islam, women were outraged. The Mahatma who had brought about all this calamity on India by his communal policy kept mum. He never uttered a single word of reproach against the aggressors nor did he allow the Congress to take any active steps whereby repetition of such outrages could be prevented. On the other hand he went to the length of denying the numerous cases of forcible conversions in Malabar and
actually published in his paper ’Young India’ that there was onlyone case of forcible conversion. His own Muslim friends informed him that he was wrong and that the forcible conversions were numerous in Malabar. He never corrected his misstatements but went to the absurd length of starting a relief fund for the Moplahs instead of for their victims; but the Promised land of Hindu. Muslim Unity was not yet in sight.
Afghan Amir Intrigue - When the Khilafat movement failed Ali Brothers decided to do something which might keep alive the Khilafat sentiments. Their slogan was that whoever was the enemy of the Khilafat was also the enemy of Islam and as the British were chiefly responsible for the defeat and the dethronement of the Sultan of Turkey, every faithful Muslim was in solemn duty bound to be a bitter enemy of Britain. With that object they secretly intrigued to invite the Amir or Afghanistan to invade. India and promised him every support. There is a long history behind this intrigue; Ali brothers never denied their share in the conspiracy. The Mahatma pursued his tactics of getting Hindu-Muslim Unity by supporting the Ali brothers through thick and through thin. He publicly poured his affection on them and promised them unstinted support in the restoration of the Khilafat. Even with regard to the invasion of India by the Amir the Mahatma directly and indirectly supported the Ali Brothers. This is proved beyond the. Shadow of a doubt. The late Mr. Shastri, Mr. C. Y. Chintamani the Editoror the ‘Leader’ of Allahabad and even the Mahatma’s life-long friend, the late Rev. C. F. Andrews told him quite clearly that his speeches and writings amounted to a definite support to the Ali Brothers in their invitation to the Amir of Afghanistan to invade India. The following quotations from the, Mahatma’s Writing in those days should make it clear. That he had forgotten his own country in his one consuming desire to please the Muslims and had become a party to the invasion of his motherland by a foreign Ruler. The Mahatma supported the invasion in the following words : "I cannot understand why the Ali Brothers are. going to be arrested as the rumours go, and why I am to remain free. They have done nothing which I would not do. If they had sent a message, to Amir, I also would send one to inform the Amir that if he came, no Indian so long as I can help it, would help the Government to drive him back."The vigilance of the British broke the conspiracy nothing came out of the Ali Brothers’ grotesque scheme of the invasion of India and Hindu-Muslim Unity remained as far away as before.
(i) Attack on Arya Samaj-Gandhiji ostentatiously displayed his love for Muslims by a most unworthy and unprovoked attack on the Arya Samaj in 1924. He publicly denounced the Samaj for its supposed sins of omission and commission; it was an utterly unwarranted reckless and discreditable attack, but whatever would please the Mohammedans was the heart’s desire of Gandhiji. The Arya Samaj made a powerful but polite retort and for some time Gandhiji was silenced, but the growing political influence of Gandhiji weakened the Arya Samaj. No follower of Swami Dayanand could Possibly be a Gandhian Congressman in politics. The two things are entirely incompatible; but the lure of office and Leadership has induced numerous Arya Samajists to play the double game of claiming to be Gandhi to Congressmen and Arya Samajists at the same time. The result was that a ban on Satyartha Prakash was imposed by the Government of Sind four years ago and the Arya Samaj on the whole took it lying down. As a result its hold on Hindu social and religious life has been further considerably Crippled. Individual members of the Samaj are and were strong nationalists. The late Lala LajpatRai, and Swami Shradhan and to mention only two names ware staunch Arya Samajists but they were foremost amongst the leaders of the Congress till the end of their life. They did not stand for blind support to Gandhi, but were definitely ,Opposed to his pro-Muslim Policy, and openly fought him on that issue. But these great men are gone now. We know that the bulk of the Arya Samaj continues ’to be what they always were, but they are ill-informed .and badly led by the self -seeking section of the Samaj. The Samaj has ceased to be the force and the power that it was at one time.
(ii) Gandhiji’s attack did not improve his popularity with the Muslims but it provoked a Muslim youth to murder Swami Shraddhanandji within a few months. The charge against the Samaj that it was a reactionary body was manifestly false. Everybody knew that far from being reactionary body the Samaj had been vanguard of social reforms among the Hindus. The Samaj had for a hundred years stood for the abolition of untouchability long before the birth of Gandhiji. The Samaj had popularised widow remarriage. The Samaj had denounced the caste system, and preached the oneness of not merely the Hindus, but of all those who were prepared to follow it & its tenets. Gandhiji was completely silenced for some time but his leadership made the people forget his baseless attack on the Arya Samaj and even weakened the Samaj to a large extent. Swami Dayanand Saraswati who was the founder of the Arya Samaj; had no fad about violence or non-violence. In his teaching the use of force was not ruled out but was permissible if morally desirable. It must have been a struggle for the leaders of the Arya Samaj whether to remain within the Congress or not because Gandhiji insisted on non-violence in all cases and Swami Dayanand made no bones about it. But Swamiji was dead and Gandhiji’s star was ascendant in the political firmament.

(e) Separation of Sind - By 1928 Mr. Jinnah’s stock had risen very high and the Mahatma had already conceded many unfair and improper demands of Mr. Jinnah at the expense of Indian democracy and the Indian nation and the Hindus. The Mahatma even supported the separation of Sind from the Bombay Presidency and threw the Hindus of Sind to the communal wolves. Numerous riots took place in Sind-Karachi, Sukkur, Shikarpur and other places in which the Hindus were the only sufferers and the Hindu- Muslim Unity receded further from the horizon.

League’s Good Bye to Congress - With each defeat Gandhiji became even more keen on his method of achieving Hindu-Muslim Unity. Like the, gambler who had lost heavily he became more desperate increasing his stakes each time and indulged in the most irrational concessions, if only they could placate Mr. Jinnah and enlist his support under the Mahatma’s leadership in the fight for freedom. But the aloofness of the Muslims from the Congress increased with the advance of years and the Muslim League refused to have anything to do with the Congress after 1928. The resolution of Independence passed by the Congress at its Lahore Session in 1929 found the Muslims conspicuous by their absence and strongly aloof from the Congress organisation. The hope of Hindu Muslim Unity was hardly entertained by anybody thereafter; but Gandhiji continued to be resolutely optimistic and surrendered more and more to Muslim communalism.

Round - Table Conference and Communal Award – The British authorities both in India and in England, had realized that the demand for a bigger and truer installment of constitutional reforms was most insistent and clamant in India and that in spite of their unscrupulous policy of ’Divide and Rule’ and the communal discord which it had generated, the resulting situation had brought thorn no permanence and security so far as British Rule In India was concerned. They therefore decided by the end of 1929 to convene a Round Table Conference in England early in the next year and made a declaration to that effect. Mr. Ramsay Mc- Donald was the Prime Minister and a Labour Government was in power; but the action was too late. The resolution of Independence was passed a month later at the Lahore Session of the Congress in spite of the aforesaid declaration and the Congress Party decided to boycott this Round Table Conference. Instead, a Salt Campaign was started after a few months which created tremendous enthusiasm and nearly 70,000 people, went to jails in breaking the provisions of the Salt Act. The Congress however soon regretted its boycott of the First Round Table Conference and at the Karachi Congress of 1931 it was decided to send Gandhiji alone as the Congress Representative to Second Session of Round Table Conference. Anybody who reads the proceedings of that Session will realize that Gandhiji was the biggest factor in bringing about the total failure of the Conference. Not one of the decisions of the Round Table Conference was in support of democracy or nationalism and the Mahatma went to the length of inviting Mr. Ramsay McDonald to give what was called the Communal Award, thereby strengthening the disintegrating forces of communalism which had already corroded the body politic for 24 years past The Mahatma was thus responsible for a direct and substantial intrusion of communal electorate and communal franchise in the future Parliament of India. There is no wonder that when the communal award was given by Mr. Ramsay MacDonald, the Mahatma refused to oppose it and the members of the Assembly were asked ’Neither to support nor to reject it.’ Gandhiji himself put an axe on the communal unity on which he had staked so much for the previous fifteen years. No wonder under the garb of minority protection we got in the Government of India Act of 1935 a permanent statutory recognition of communal franchise, communal electorate and even weight age for the minority especially the Muslims, both in the, Provinces and in the Centre. Those elected on the, communal franchise would be naturally communal minded and would have no interest in bridging the gulf between communalism and nationalism. The formation of a parliamentary party on political and, economic grounds thus became impossible. Hindus and Muslims became divided in opposite camps and worked as rival parties, placing increased momentum to separatism. Almost everywhere Hindus became victims of communal orgies at the hands of the. Muslims. People became perfectly cynical about any possibility of unity between Hindus and Muslims but the Mahatma kept on repeating his barren formula all the time. (Here refer to Pandit Madan Mohan Malaviya’s speech against the acceptance of Communal Award.)

Acceptance of office and Resigning in Huff
– Provincial Autonomy was introduced from the, 1st of April, 1937 under the Government of India Act 1935. The act was bristling with safeguards, special Powers. protection to British personnel in the various services intact. The Congress therefore would not accept office at first but soon found out that in every Province a Ministry was constituted and that at least in five Provinces they were functioning in the normal manner. In the other six Provinces the Ministers we a in a minority but they ware forging ahead with their nation building programme and the Congress felt that it would be left out in the cold if it persisted in its policy of barren negation. It therefore decided to accept office in July, 1937; in doing so it committed a serious blunder in excluding the members of the Muslim League from effective participation in the Cabinet. They only admitted into the Cabinet such Muslims as were congress-men. This was the right policy for a country with citizen franchise and without communal representation but have accepted communal electorate and communal franchise and other paraphernalia of separatism, it became untenable to keep out the members of Muslim League who represented the bulk of the Muslims in every province, where they were in a minority. The Nationalist Muslims who became Ministers were not representatives of the Muslims in the sense in which the Muslim League Members were and in not taking the League Members in the Cabinet the Congress openly repudiated its own action in statutorily having recognised itself communal by statute. On the other hand the Muslims were quite unwilling to come under the Congress control; their interest never needed protection. The Governors were there always ready and willing to offer the most sympathetic support, but the rejection of Muslim League Members as Ministers, gave Mr. Jinnah a tactical advantage which he utilised to the full and in1939 when the Congress resigned Office in a huff, it completely played in the hand of the Muslim League and British Imperialism. Under Section 93 of the Government of India Act1935 the Governments of the Congress Provinces were taken over by the Governors and the Muslim League Ministries remained in power and authority in the remaining Provinces. The Governors carried on the administration with a definite leaning towards the Muslims as an Imperial Policy of Britain and communalism reigned right throughout the country through the Muslim Ministries on the one hand and the pro-Muslim Governors on the other. The Hindu. Muslim Unity of Gandhiji became a dream, if it were ever anything else; but Gandhiji never cared. His ambition was to become the leader of Hindu and Muslims alike and in resigning the Ministries the Congress again sacrificed democracy and nationalism. The fundamental rights of the Hindus, religious, political, economic and social, all were sacrificed at the altar of the Mahatmic obstinacy.

League Taking Advantage of War - Encouraged by the situation thus created the Muslim Government in five Provinces and the pro-Muslim Governors in the other six, Mr. Jinnah went ahead in full speed. The congress opposed the war in one way or another. Mr. Jinnah and the League had a very clear policy. They remained neutral and created no trouble for the Government; but in the year following the Lahore Session of the Muslim League passed a resolution for the partition of India as a condition for their co-operation in the war. Lord Linlithgow within a few months of the Lahore Resolution gave full support to the Muslims in their policy of separation by a declaration of Government Policy which assured the Muslims that no change in the political constitution of India will be made without the consent of all the elements in India’s national life. The Muslim League and Mr. Jinnah were thus vested with a veto over the political progress of this country by the pledge given by the Viceroy of India. From that day the progress of disintegration advanced with accumulated force. Muslims were not prohibited by the League from getting recruited to the Army, Navy and Air Force and they did so in large numbers In fact the Punjab Muslims resented their percentage in the Indian Army at all reduced thus, with a view to preparing for eventualities in future Muslim State as is being done in Kashmir today, and of course the Muslim League never created any difficulty for the Government throughout the six years of the global war. (Here refer to the speech of the late Sir Sikandar Hyat Khan delivered at Cairo to the armed forces during the last World War) All that they wanted was that no changes should be made in the constitution of India without their full consent and that full consent could be obtained if only Pakistan was conceded. This assurance was virtually given by Lord Linlithgow in August,1940.

Cripp’s Partition Proposal Accepted - The Congress did not know its own mind as to whether it should support the war, oppose or remain neutral. All these attitudes were expressed in turn one after the other; sometimes by way of speeches, sometimes by way of resolutions, sometimes through Press campaigns and sometimes in other ways. Government naturally felt that the Congress has no mind of its own except verbose condemnation. The war was correct on without let or hindrance till 1942. The Government could get all the men, all the money, and all the, material which their war efforts needed Every Government loan was fully subscribed. In 1942 came the Cripps Mission which presented to the Congress and to the rest of India Dead Sea Apple of useless promises, coupled as it was, with a clear hint of partition of India in the background. Naturally the Mission failed, but the Congress even while opposing the Mission’s proposals yielded to the principle of partition after a very pretentious resolution reiterating its adherence to democracy and nationalism. At a meeting of the All India Congress Committee held in April, 1942 at Allahabad the principle of partition was repudiated by an overwhelming majority-the minority consisting of the present Governor General Mr. C. Rajagopalchari and his half dozen supporters. Maulana Azad, the so-called nationalist Muslim, was then the President of the Congress. He gave a ruling a few months later that the Allahabad Resolution had no effect on the earlier resolution of the Working Committee which conceded the principle of Pakistan however remotely. The Congress was entirely at the end of its wits. The British Government went on effectively controlling the whole country through Muslim Ministries and through pro-Muslim Governors. The Princes wholly identified themselves with the war. Labour refused to keep aloof. The capitalist class supported the Congress in words and the Government in deed by supplying the Government everything it wanted at top prices. Even Khaddar enthusiasts sold blankets to Government. The Congress could see no way out of its absolute paralysis; it was out of office and Government was carried on in spite of its nominal opposition.

‘Quit-India’ by Congress and Divide and Quit’ by League - Out of sheer desperation Gandhiji evolved the ‘Quit India’ Policy which was endorsed by the Congress. It was supposed to be the greatest national rebellion against foreign rule. Gandhiji had ordered the people to ’do or die’. But except that the leaders were quickly arrested and detained behind the prison bars some furtive acts of violence were practised by Congressmen for some weeks. But in less than three months the whole movement was throttled by Government with firmness and discretion. The movement soon collapsed. What remained was a series of piteous appeals by the Congress Press and the Congress supporters, who were outside the jail, for, the release of the arrested leaders without formally withdrawing the ’Quit India’ movement, which had already collapsed. Gandhiji even staged a fast to capacity for his release, but for two years until the Germans were decisively beaten, the leaders had to remain in jails and our Imperial masters were triumphant all along Mr. Jinnah openly opposed the ‘Quit India’ Movement as hostile to the Muslims and raised a counter slogan ‘Divide and Quit’. That is where Gandhiji’s Hindu-Muslim Unity had arrived.

Hindi Versus Hindustani - Absurdly pro Muslim policy of Gandhiji is nowhere more blatantly illustrated than in his perverse attitude on the question of the National Language of India. BY all the tests of a scientific language, Hindi has the most prior claim to be accepted as the National Language of this country. In the beginning of his career in India, Gandhiji gave. A great impetus to Hindi but as he found that the Muslims did not like it, he became a turncoat and blossomed forth as the champion of what is called, Hindustani. Every body in India knows that there is no language called Hindustani; it has no grammar; it has no vocabulary; it is a mere dialect; it is spoken but not written. It is a bastard tongue and a crossbreed between Hindi and Urdu and not even the Mahatma’s sophistry could make it popular; but in his desire to please the Muslims he insisted that Hindustani alone should be the national language of India. His blind supporters of course blindly supported him and the so-called hybrid tongue began to be used. Words like ’Badshah Ram’ and ’Begum Sita’ were spoken and written but the Mahatma never dared to speak of Mr. Jinnah as Sri Jinnah and Maulana Azad as Pandit Azad. All his experiments were at the expense of the Hindus. His was a one-way traffic in his search of Hindu-Muslim Unity. The charm and the purity of the Hindi Language was to be prostituted to please the Muslims, but even Congressmen, apart from the rest of India refused to digest this nostrum. He continued to persist in his support to Hindustani The bulk of the Hindus however proved to be stronger and more loyal to their culture and to their mother tongue and refused to bow down to the Mahatmic fiat. The result was that Gandhiji did not prevail in the Hindi Parishad and had to resign from that body; his pernicious influence however remains and the Congress Governments in India still hesitate whether to select Hindi or Hindustani as the National Language of India. The barest common sense should make it clear to the meanest intelligence that the language of 80 per cent of the people must be the language of the country but his ostentatious support of the Muslims made him look almost idiotic when he continued to stand for Hindustani. Happily there are millions and millions of champions of the Hindi language and the Devnagari script. The U.P. Government has adopted Hindi as the language of the Province. The Committee appointed by the Government of India has translated the whole of the Draft Constitution in pure Hindi and it now remains for the Congress Party in the legislature to adopt the commensurable view in favour of Hindi or assert their loyalty to the Mahatma in their mad endeavour to force a foreign language on a great country like India. For practical purpose Hindustani is only Urdu under a different name, but Gandhiji could not have the courage to advocate the adoption of Urdu as against Hindi, hence the subterfuge to smuggle Urdu under the garb of Hindustani. Urdu is not banned by any nationalist Hindu but to smuggle it under the garb of Hindustani is a fraud and a crime. That is what the Mahatma tried to do. To bolster up a dialect in School Curriculum and in educational institutions that non-existent language in the garb of Hindustani because it pleased the Muslims was the communalism of the. worst type on the part of the Mahatma. All this for Hindu- Muslim Unity.

Vande Mataram Not to be Sung - The infatuation of Gandhiji for the Muslims and his incorrigible craving for Muslim leadership without any regard for right or wrong for truth or justice and in utter contempt of the sentiments of the Hindus as a Whole was the high water- mark of the Mahatmic benevolence. It is notorious that some Muslims disliked the celebrated song of ’Vande Mataram’ and the Mahatma forthwith stopped its singing or recital wherever he could. This song has been honoured for a century as the most inspiring exhortation to the Bengalees to stand up like one man for their nation. In the anti-partition agitation of 1905 in Bengal the song came to a special Prominence and popularity. The Bengalees swore by it and dedicated themselves to the Motherland at countless meetings where this song was sung. The British Administrator did not understand the true meaning of the song ’which simply meant ’Hail Motherland’ Government therefore banned its singing forty years ago for some time, that only led to its increased popularity all over the country. It continued to be sung at all Congress and other national gatherings but as soon as one Muslim objected to it Gandhiji utterly disregarded the national sentiment behind it and persuaded the Congress also not to insist upon the singing as the national song. We are now asked to adopt Rabindranath Tagore’s ’Jana Gana Mane, as a substitute for ’Vande Mataram’. Could anything be more demoralised or pitiful than this brazen-faced action against a song of world- wide fame? Simply because one ignorant fanatic disliked it. The right way to proceed would have been to enlighten the ignorant and remove the prejudice, but that is a policy which during the thirty years of unbounded popularity and leadership Gandhiji could not muster courage to try. His Hindu-Muslim Unity idea only meant to surrender, capitulate, and concede whatever the Muslims wanted. No wonder the will-o'-the-wisp unity never came and never could have come .

Shiva Bavani Banned -Gandhiji banned the public recital or perusal of Shiva Bavani a beautiful collection of 52 verses by a Hindu poet in which he had extolled the great power of Shivaji and the protection which he brought to the Hindu community and the Hindu religion. The refrain of that collection says ‘if there were no Shivaji, the entire country would have been converted to Islam.’ (Here recite the couplet from the Book ‘Shiva Bavani’ ending with the words (Kashiji Ki Kala jati Mathura masjid hoti Shivaji jo na hote to Sunnat hot Sabki) This was the delight of millions of contemporary history and a beautiful piece of literature, but Gandhiji would have none of it. Hindu- Muslim Unity indeed !

Suhrawardy Patronised-When the Muslim League refused to join the provisional Government which Lord Wavell invited Pandit Nehru to form, the League started a Council of Direct Action against any Government farmed by Pandit Nehru, On the15th of August 1946. A little more than two weeks before Pandit Nehru was to take office, there broke out in Calcutta an open massacre of the Hindus which continued for three days unchecked. The horrors of these days are described in the ’Statesman’ newspaper of Calcutta. At the time is was considered that the Government which could permit such outrages on its citizens must be thrown out; there were actual suggestions that Mr. Suhrawardy’s Government should be dismissed, but the socialist Governor refused to take up the administration under Section 93 of the Government of India Act. Gandhiji however went to Calcutta and contracted a strange friendship with the author of these massacres, in fact he intervened on behalf of Suhrawardy and the Muslim League. During the three days that the massacre of Hindus took place, the police in Calcutta did not interfere for the protection of life or property, innumerable outrages were practised under the very eyes and nose of the guardians of law. but nothing mattered to Gandhiji. To him Suhrawardy was an object of admiration from which he could not be diverted and publicly described Suhrawardy as a Martyr. No wonder two months later there was the most virulent outbreak of Muslim fanaticism in Noakhali and Tipperah 30,000 Hindu women were forcibly converted according to a report of Arya Samaj, the total number of Hindus killed or wounded was three lacs not to say the crores of rupees worth of property looted and destroyed. Gandhiji then undertook. ostensibly alone, a tour of Noakhali District. It is wall known that Suhrawardy gave him protection wherever he went and even with that protection Gandhiji never ventured to enter Noakhali District. All these outrages, loss of life and property were done when Surhawardy was the Prime Minister and to such a monster of inequity and communal poison Gandhiji gave the unsolicited title of Martyr.

Attitude towards Hindu and Muslim Princes -
Gandhiji’s followers successfully humiliated the Hindu Princes of Jaipur, Bhavnagar and Rajkot States. They enthusiastically supported even a rebellion in Kashmir State against the Hindu Prince. This attitude strangely enough contrasts with what Gandhiji did about the affairs in Muslim States. There was a Muslim League intrigue in Gwalior States as a result of which the Maharaja was compelled to abandon the celebrations of the second millennium of the Vikram Calendar four years ago: the Muslim agitation was based on pure communalism The Maharaja is the liberal and impartial Ruler with a far sighted outlook. In a recent casual Hindu Muslim clash in Gwalior because the Musalmans suffered some casualties Gandhiji came down upon the Maharaja with a vitriolic attack wholly undeserved.

Gandhiji On Fast to Capacity-in 1943 while Gandhiji was on fast to capacity and nobody was allowed to interview him on political affairs, only the nearest and the dearest had the permission to go and enquire of his health. Mr. C. Rajagopalachari smuggled himself into Gandhiji’s room and hatched a plot of conceding Pakistan which Gandhiji allowed him to negotiate with Jinnah. Gandhiji later on discussed this matter for three weeks with Mr. Jinnah in the later part of 1944 and offered Mr. Jinnah virtually what is now called Pakistan. Gandhiji went every day to Mr. Jinnah’s house, flattered him praised him, embraced him, but Mr. Jinnah could not be cajoled out of his demand for the Pakistan pound of flesh. Hindu Muslim Unity was making progress in the negative direction.

Desai-Liaquat Agreement –
(i) In 1945 came -the notorious Desai-Liaquat Agreement. It put one more, almost the last, nail on the coffin of the Congress, as a, National democratic body. Under that agreement, the late Mr. Bhulabhai Desai the then leader of the Congress party in the Central Legislative Assembly at Delhi entered into an agreement with Mr. Liaquat Ali Khan, the League Leader in the Assembly, jointly to demand a Conference from the British Government for the solution of the stalemate in Indian politics which was growing since the beginning of the War, Mr. Desai was understood to have taken that step without consulting anybody of any importance in the Congress circle, as almost all the Congress leaders had been detained since the ‘Quit India’ Resolution in 1942. Mr. Desai offered equal representation to the Muslims with Congress at the said Conference and this was the basis on which the Viceroy was approached to convene the Conference. The then Viceroy Lord Wavell flew to London on receipt of this joint request and brought back the consent of the Labour Government for the holding of the Conference. The official announcement in this behalf stupefied the country on account of its treachery alike to nationalism and democracy to which the Congress had become a party. Indian democracy was stabbed in the back and every principle of justice was violated. The Congress members quickly acquiesced in this monstrous proposal. The proposal however had, it was then revealed, the blessings of the Mahatma and was in fact made with his previous knowledge and consent. With the full agreement of the Congress party 25% of the people of India were treated as if they were 50% and the 75% were brought down to the level of 50%. The Viceroy also laid down other conditions for the holding of the Conference. They were :

(1) An unqualified undertaking on the part of the Congress and all political parties to support the war against Japan until victory was won.
(2) A coalition Government would be formed in which the Congress and the Muslims would each have five representatives. There will besides be a representative of the depressed classes of the Sikhs and other Minorities.
(3) The Quit India’ Movement will be unconditionally withdrawn and such of the Congress leaders as had been detained inconsequence of the Movement would be released.
(4) All measures of Administrative Reform will be within the four corners of the Government of India Act 1935.
(5) The Governor-General and the Viceroy shall retain the same constitutional position in the new setup as he had at that time i.e. he would remain the head of new Government.
(6) At the end of the war, the question of complete freedom will be decided through the machinery of the Constituent Assembly.
(7) If these were without any modification the Viceroy would reconstitute his Government with all portfolios to be held by Indians as per (2) above.
(8) People who had only three years ago started the ’Quit India’ Movement for complete Independence and exhorted the people to ’Do or Die’ in implementing the rebellion quietly submitted to accept office under the leadership of a British Viceroy on the terms, and conditions laid down by him, The fact was that the ’Quit India, Movement had failed, the Congress had no alternative programme and events were moving on whether the Congress party was ready for them or not. Mr. Jinnah was the only gainer from the collapse of the Congress. He obtained a great tactical advantage by the recognition of the muslims’ right for 50%. representation in all future discussions. The two nation theory and the demand for Pakistan received a fillip although the Conference failed without achieving the Hindu muslim Unity.

Cabinet Mission Plant-Early in the year 1946 the so- called Cabinet mission arrived in India. It consisted of the then Secretary of State for India now Lord Lawrence, Mr. Alexander, the minister for War and Sir Stafford Cripps. Its arrival was heralded by a speech in Parliament by Mr. Atlee the prime Minister. Mr. Atlee announced in most eloquent terms the determination of the British Government to transfer power to India if only the latter agreed upon common plan. The agreement was the pivot of the work of the mission but it was fatal. The Congress was honestly for a United India, but it was not outright in its conviction. It lacked firmness. Mr. Jinnah on the other hand demanded a divided India but he demanded it firmly. Between these two opposite demands the mission found it impossible to bring about an agreement and after some further informal discussions with both, the mission announced its own solution on the 15th may 1946. It rejected and gave ten good reasons for that rejection but while firmly championing the unity of India the mission introduced Pakistan through the back- door, In paragraph l5 of the proposals the mission introduced six conditions under which the British Government would be prepared to convene a Constituent Assembly invested with the right of framing a Constitution of Free India. Each of these six proposals were calculated to prevent the unity of India being maintained or full freedom being attained even if the Constituent Assembly was an elected body. The Congress party was so utterly exhausted by the failure of ‘Quit India’ that after some smoke-screen about its unflinching nationalism it virtually submitted to Pakistan by accepting the, mission’s proposals which made certain the dismemberment of India although in around about manner. The Congress accepted the scheme but did not agree to form a Government. The long and short of it was that the Congress was called upon to form a Government and accept the whole scheme unconditionally. Mr. Jinnah denounced the British Government for treachery and started a direct action council of the Muslim League. The Bengal, the Punjab, the Bihar, the Bombay, and other places in various parts of India became scenes of bloodshed, arson, loot and rape on a scale unprecedented in history. The overwhelming members of victims were Hindus. The Congress stood aghast but impotent and could not give any protection to the Hindus anywhere. The Governor General in spite of his powers to intervene under the Act of 1935 in case, of a breach of peace and tranquility in India or in any part of it merely looked on and made no use of his obligations under the Act. few lakhs of people were killed, many thousands of women and children were kidnapped and few of them have not yet been traced, thousands and thousands of woman were raped, hundreds crores worth of property was looted, burned or destroyed. The Mahatma was as far as ever before from his goal of Hindu-Muslim Unity.

Congress Surrenders to Jinnah - By the following year the Congress Party abjectly surrendered to Mr. Jinnah at the point of bayonet and accepted Pakistan. What happened thereafter is too well-known. The thread running throughout this narrative is the increasing infatuation which Gandhiji developed for the Muslims. He uttered not one work of sympathy or comfort for millions of displaced Hindus, he had only one eye for humanity and that was the Muslim humanity. The Hindus simply did not count with him. I was shocked by all these manifestations of Gandhian saintliness.

Ambiguous Statement about Pakistan - In one of his articles, Gandhiji while nominally ostensibly opposed to Pakistan, openly declared that if the Muslims wanted Pakistan at any cost, there was nothing to prevent them from achieving it. Only the Mahatma could understand what that declaration meant. Was it a prophesy or a declaration or disapproval of the demand for Pakistan ?

ill-advice to Kashmir Maharaja - About Kashmir, Gandhiji again and again declared that Sheikh Abdullah should been trusted the charge of the state and that the Maharaja of Kashmir should retire to Benares for no particular reason than that the muslims formed the bulk of the Kashmir population. This also stands out in contrast with his attitude on Hyderabad where although the bulk of the Population is Hindu, Gandhiji never called upon the Nizam to retire to Mecca.

Mountbatten vivisects India - From August 15, 1946 onwards the private armies of the Muslim League began killing, devastating and destroying the Hindus wherever they could lay their hands on. Lord Wavell, the then viceroy was undoubtedly gently, distressed at what was happening but he would not use his powers under the Government of India Act of 1935 to prevent such a holocaust and Hindu blood began to flow from Bengal to Karachi with mild reactions in the Deccan. All the time from the2nd September 1946 the so called National Government consisting of two hybrid elements utterly reconcilable to each other was in office but the Muslim League members who were50% of the Congress did every thing in their power to make the working of a Coalition Government impossible. The Muslim League members did everything they could to sabotage the coalition Government but the more they became disloyal and treasonable to the Government of which they formed a part, the greater was
Gandhiji’s infatuation for them. Lord Wavell had to resign as he could not bring about a settlement. He had some conscience which prevented him from supporting the partition of India. He had openly declared it to be unnecessary and undesirable. But his retirement was followed by the appointment of Mountbatten. King Log was followed by King Stork. This Supreme Commander of the South East Asia was a purely Military man and he had a great reputation for daring, and tenacity. He came to India with a determination to do or die and he ‘did’ namely he vivisected India. He was more indifferent to human slaughter. Rivers of blood flowed under his very eyes and nose. He apparently was thinking that by the slaughter of Hindus so many opponents of his mission were killed, the greater the slaughter of the enemies greater the victory, and he pursued his aim relentlessly to its logical conclusion. Long before June 1948 the official date for handing over power, the wholesale murders of the Hindus had their full effect. The Congress which had boasted of its nationalism and democracy secretly accepted Pakistan literally at the point of the bayonet and abjectly surrendered to Mr. Jinnah. India was vivisected. One third of the Indian territory became foreign land to us from the 15th of August 1947. Lord Mountbatten came to be described in Congress Circle as the greatest Viceroy and Governor General India had ever known. He had gifted ten months earlier than30th June 1948 what is called Dominion status to vivisected India. This is what Gandhiji had achieved after thirty years of undisputed dictatorship and this is what the Congress Party calls Freedom’. Never in the history of the world has such slaughter been officially connived at or the result described as Freedom, and ’Peaceful Transfer of power’ If what happened in India in 1946, 1947 and 1948 is to be called peaceful one wonders what would be the violent. Hindu Muslim Unity bubble was finally burst and a theocratic and communal State dissociated from everything that smacked of United India was established with the consent of Nehru and his crowd and they have called it ‘Freedom won by them at sacrifice’ Whose sacrifice?

Gandhiji on Cow - slaughter - Gandhiji used to display a most vehement desire for the, protection of the cow. But in fact he did no effort in that direction. On the contrary, in one of his post prayer speeches, he has admitted his inability to support the demand for stopping cow-slaughter. An extract from his speech in this connection is reproduced below. Today Rajendra Babu informed me that he had received some fifty-thousand postcards, 20-30 thousand telegrams urging prohibition of cow-slaughter by law. In this connection I have spoken to you before also. After all why are so many letters and telegrams sent to me. They have not served any purpose. No law prohibiting cow-slaughter? India can be enacted. How can I impose my will upon a person who does not wish voluntarily to abandon cow-slaughter India does not belong exclusively to the Hindu & Muslims, Parsees, Christians also live here. The claim of the Hindus that India has become the land of the Hindus is totally incorrect. This land belongs to all who live here. I know an orthodox Vaishnava Hindu. He used to give beef soup to his

Removal of Tri - Colour Flag - The tricolour flag with the Charkha on it was adopted by the Congress as the National Flag out of deference to Gandhiji. There were flag salutations on innumerable occasions. The flag was unfurled at every Congress meeting. It fluttered in hundreds at every session of National Congress, The Prabhat Pheries were never complete unless the flag was carried while the march was on. On the occasion of every imaginary or real success of the Congress Party, public buildings, shops and private residences were decorated with that flag. If any Hindu attached any importance to Shivaji,s Hindu flag, "Bhagva Zenda" the flag which freed India from the Muslim-domination it was considered communal. Gandhiji’s tricoloured flag never protected any Hindu woman from outrage or a Hindu temple from desecration, yet the late Bhai Parmanand was once mobbed- by enthusiastic Congressmen for not paying homage to that flag. University students showed their patriotism by mounting that flag on University building. A Mayor of Bombay is believed to have lost his Knighthood because his wife hoisted this flag on the Corporation building. Such was supposed to be the allegiance of the Congress people to their "National Flag". When the Mahatma was touring Noakhali and Tipperah in 1946 after the beastly outrages on the Hindus, the flag was flying on his temporary hut. But when a muslim dame there and objected to the presence of the flag on his head, Gandhiji quickly directed its removal. All the reverential sentiments of millions of Congressmen towards that flag were affronted in a minute, because that would please an isolated muslim fanatic and yet the so-called Hindu-Muslim unity never took shape."

Some good number of people are labouring under the delusion that the freedom movement in India started with the advent of Gandhiji in 1914-15 and reached is consummation on the 15th August 1947 on which day it is said we attained Freedom under the leadership of the Father of the Nation. In all history there was never a more stupendous fiction fostered by the cunning and believed by the credulous in this country for over a thousand years. Far from attaining freedom under his leadership Gandhiji has left India torn and bleeding from a thousand and wounds. There has been always alive in India a freedom movement which has never. been suppressed. When the Mahratta Empire was finally subdued in 1818 as the British thought they forces of freedom were lying low for some time in part of India but were actually challenging the supremacy of the British so far as Northern India was concerned through the rise of Sikh power. And when by 1848 the Sikhs were defeated at Gujarat the rebelling of 1857 was being actively organised. It came with such suddenness and force and was so widespread that the British Imperialists began to shake in their shoes and more than once they seriously considered the advisability of leaving India. The history of the great effort on the part of the Indian people to overthrow the British yoke has been vividly described in the pages of Veer Savarkar’s "War of Independence1857" and by the time the British had fully regained control the Indian National Congress was established, once more to challenge the British domination and from 1885 the rational urge for freedom began to assert itself first through constitutional methods, later by militant methods. This fast developed into armed resistance which openly asserted itself through the bomb of Khudi Ram Bose in 1906."
Gandhiji arrived in India in 1914-15. Nearly eight years earlier, the revolutionary movement had spread over a large part of India. The freedom Movement had never died out. It had risen again like the Phoenix from its ashes. After the arrival of Gandhiji and his fads of Truth and Non-violence, the movement began to suffer eclipse. Thanks however to Subhash Chandra Bose and the revolutionaries in Maharashtra, Punjab and Bengal that the movement continued to flourish parallel to Gandhiji’s rise to leadership after the death of Lokamanya Tilak."

The real cause of the British leaving this, country is threefold and it does not include the Gandhian method. The aforesaid triple forces are :

(i) The movements of the Indian Revolutionaries right from 1857to 1932, i.e. upto the death of Chandra Shekhar Azad at Allahabad, then next, the movement of revolutionary character not that of Gandhian type in the countrywide rebellion of 1942.and an armed revolt put up by Subhash Chandra Boss the result of which was a spread of the revolutionary. mentality in the Military Forces of India are the real dynamic factors that have shattered the very foundations of the British Rule in India. And all these effective. efforts to freedom were opposed by Gandhiji.

(ii) So also a good deal of credit must be given to, those who, imbibed with a spirit of patriotism, fought with the Britishers strictly on constitutional lines on, the Assembly floors and made a notable progress in Indian politics. The view of this section was to take the maximum advantage of whatever we have obtained and to fight further on. This section was generally represented by late Lokmanya Tilak, Mr. N. C. Kelkar, Mr. C. R. Das, Mr.
 Vithhalbhai Patel-brother of Hon. Sarder Patel, Pandit Malaviya, Bhai Parmanand and during last ten years by prominent Hindu Sabha leaders. But this school of men of sacrifices and intelligence was also ridiculed by Gandhiji himself and, his followers by calling them as job hunters or power seekers, although they often ultimately resorted to. the same methods.

(iii) There is also one more but nonetheless important reason for the Britishers which made them part with power and that is the advent of Labour Government and an overthrow of Mr. Churchill, superimposed by the frightful economic conditions and the financial bankruptcy to which, the war had; reduced Britain."

Our political leaders knew from the very beginning that the invasion of Kashmir by the raiders was supported by Pakistan. And it was therefore, evident that sending help to the Kashmir meant waging war directly against Pakistan. Gandhiji himself was opposed to the war with arms, and he has told this to the entire world again, and again. But he gave his consent to Pt Nehru to send army in Kashmir. The only conclusion that could be drawn from what is happening in Kashmir is that, today after the attainment of freedom for the partitioned India, that under Gandhiji’s blessings, our Government has resorted to the war where man-killing machinery is being used."

Had Gandhiji a firm belief in the doctrine if non – violence he should have made a suggestion for sending Satyagrahis instead of the armed troops and tried the experiment. Orders should have been issued to send ‘Takalis’ in place of rifles and ‘Spinning wheels’ (i.e. Charkhas) instead of the guns. It was a golden opportunity for Gandhiji to show the power of his Satyagraha by following his precept as an experiment at the beginning of our freedom."

It is stated in some quarters that the people could not have got the independence unless Pakistan was conceded. But I took it to be an utterly incorrect and untrue view. To me it appears to be merely a poor excuse to justify the action taken by the leaders. The leaders of the Gandhian creed often claim to have conquered ‘Swarajya’ by their struggle. If they had conquered Swarajya, then it would be clearly seen that it is most ridiculous to say that those Britishers who yielded, were in a position to lay down the condition of Pakistan before the grant of independence could be only one reason for Gandhiji and his followers to give their consent to the creation of Pakistan and it is that these people were accustomed to make a show of hesitation and resistance in the beginning and ultimately to surrender to the Muslim demands.
Pakistan was conceded on the 15th of August 1947, and how ? Pakistan was conceded by deceiving the people and without any consideration for the feelings and opinions of the people of Punjab, Bengal N.W.F. Province, Sind, etc. Indivisible Bharat was divided into two and in one of its parts a theocratic State was established. The Muslims obtained the fruit of their anti-national movements and actions in the shape of Pakistan. The leaders of the Gandhian creed ridiculed the opponents of Pakistan as traitors and communal minded, while they themselves helped in the establishment of a Muslim State in India yielding to the demands of Mr. Jinnah. This event of Pakistan had upset the tranquility of my mind. But even after the establishment of Pakistan if this Gandhian Government had taken any steps to protect the interests of Hindus in Pakistan it could have been possible for me to control my mind which was terribly shaken on account of this terrible deception of the people. But, after handing over crores of Hindus to the mercy of the Muslims of Pakistan Gandhiji and his followers have been advising them not to leave Pakistan but continue to stay on. The Hindus thus were caught in the hands of Muslim authorities quite unawares and in such circumstances series of calamities followed one after the other. When I bring to my mind all these happenings my body simply feels a horror of burning fire, oven now.
Every day that dawned brought forth the news about thousands of Hindus being massacred, Sikhs numbering 150000 having been shot dead, hundreds of women torn of their clothes being made naked and taken into procession and that Hindu women were being sold in the market places like cattle. Thousands and thousands of Hindus had to run away for their lives and they had lost everything of theirs. Along line of refugees extending over the length of 40 miles was moving towards the Indian Union. How was this terrible happening counter-acted by the Union Government ? Oh! by throwing bread to the refugees from the air !
These atrocities and the blood-bath would, have to some extent been checked if the Indian Government had lodged strong protests against the treatment meted out to the Minorities in Pakistan or even if a cold threat had been held out to the Muslims in India of being treated in the same manner as a measure of retaliation. But the Government which was under the thumb of Gandhiji resorted to absolutely different ways. If the grievances of the minorities in Pakistan were voiced in the Press, it was dubbed as an attempt to spread disaffection amongst the communities and made an offence and the Congress Governments in several Provinces started demanding securities under the Press Emergency Powers Act, one after the other. I was alone served with notices demanding securities to the extent of Rs. 16,000 and in the Bombay Province alone nearly 900 such cases have occurred, as is stated by the Home Member, Mr. Morarjibhai Desai in the Court. Nothing was done to redress the grievances of the Press even though Press deputations waited upon the Ministers Thus there was total disappointment in my attempt to bring pressure by peaceful means upon the Congress Governments guided by Gandhian creed.
When all these happenings were taking place in Pakistan, Gandhiji did not even by a sings word protest and censure the Pakistan Government or the Muslims concerned. The Muslim atrocities resorted to in Pakistan to root out the Hindu culture and the Hindu society have been entirely due to the teachings of Gandhiji and his behaviour. If the Indian politics had been handled in a practical manner there would never have been the terrible human slaughter as has taken place-a thing without any precedent in History.

The most noticeable and important thing is that Gandhiji never cared for the opinion of the people so far as Muslims were concerned. His theme of nonviolence had now been deeply soaked in human blood and it was impossible for people to entertain any idea in favour of Pakistan. So long as there is a theocratic State and Government by the side of Indian Union, the peace and tranquility of the Union shall ever remain in danger. But in spite of all these facts, Gandhiji had taken in his hand the task of a propaganda which even the staunchest adherent of the Muslim League would scarcely have been able to do for stopping the spread of unfavourable opinion about Pakistan in the minds of the people.

About this very time he resorted to his last fast unto death. Every condition given by him for giving up the fast is infavour of Muslims and against the Hindus.

One of the seven conditions imposed by Gandhiji for the breaking of his fast unto death related to the mosques in Delhi occupied by the Refugees. This condition was to the effect that all the mosques in Delhi which were occupied by the Refugees should be vacated or got vacated and be made over to the Muslims. Gandhiji got this condition accepted by the Government and a number of leaders by sheer coercion brought to bear upon them by his fast. On that day I happened to be in Delhi and I have personally seen some of the events that have occurred in getting this condition carried out to its full. Those were the days of bitter or extreme cold and on the day Gandhiji broke his fast it was also raining swing to this unusual weather condition, the pricking atmosphere made even person in well-placed positions shiver. Families after families of refugees who had, come to Delhi for shelter were driven out and while doing so no provision was made for their shelter and stay. One or two families taking with them their children, women- folk and what little belongings they had with them and saying, ‘Gandhiji, do give us a place for shelter’ even approached and came to Birla House. But was it ever possible for the cries of these poor Hindu people to reach Gandhiji living in the palatial Birla House! I witnessed with my own eyes this scene which would have melted the heart of even a hardhearted person. But thoughts even deeper than this began to come to my mind. Was it out of fun that the refugees found these mosques to be better than their own houses from which they were ousted ? Was not Gandhiji aware of the reasons and circumstances that compelled the refugees to occupy the mosques ? No Temple and no Gurudwara existed in, the part of the country that has become Pakistan. These refugees had seen with their own eyes, their, temples and Gurudwaras being desecrated by filthy use made of them simply for the purpose of insulting the Sikhs and Hindus. The refugees had come-fled to Delhi having had to leave every thing belonging to them and there was no place of shelter for them in Delhi. What wonder there could be if the refugees brought to their minds again and again their own hearths and home in the Punjab and N.W.F. Province while they were either taking shelter at the sides of the streets or under a tree some how ? It was under such circumstances that these refugees had resorted to and occupied the mosques. They were living under the roof in mosques and in doing so were not these mosques being used for the benefit of humanity ? While Gandhiji imposed the condition of evacuating the refugees from the mosques occupied . by them, had he also asked the Government and the people concerned, to provide some alternative arrangement for their shelter, before getting the mosques evacuated it would have shown some human touch in his demand. While Gandhiji made a demand for the evacuation of the mosques by the refugees had he also imposed a condition to the effect that the temples in Pakistan should be handed over to the Hindus by the Muslims, or some other similar condition, that would have shown that Gandhiji’s teaching of non-violence, his anxiety for Hindu-Muslim Unity and his belief in soul force would have been taken or understood as being impartial, spiritual and non communal. Gandhiji was shrewd enough to know that while undertaking a fast unto death, had he imposed for its break some condition on the Muslims in Pakistan, there would have been found any Muslim who could have shown some grief if the fast ended in the death of Gandhiji. It was for this reason that he purposely avoided imposing any condition on the Muslims. It was already in his past experience that Mr. Jinnah was not at all perturbed or influenced by his fast and that the Muslim League hardly attached any value to the ‘Inner voice’ of Gandhiji.

It would not be out Of Place to state here that the remains ashes - of Gandhiji were distributed in large towns and many rivers in India and abroad but the said ashes could not be immersed in the Holy Indus passing through the Pakistan inspite of the endeavours of Shri Shree Prakash, the Indian High Commissioner in Pakistan.

Let us then take the case of 55 crores. Here is the feed from the Indian Information dated 2nd February 1948 the following extracts:
1.Extracts from the speech of the Honourable Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel at the press conference held on 12th January,1948.
2.Extract from the speech of the Honourable Sir Shanmukham Chatty.
3. India’s spontaneous gesture of good will, and
4. An extract from the Honourable the Prime Minister’s statement. Gandhiji himself has said about these 55 crores that it is always very difficult to make any Government to alter its decisions. But the Government have altered and changed their original decision of withholding the payment of Rs. 55 crores to Pakistan and the reason for doing so was his fast. unto death (Gandhiji’s sermon at Prayer-Meeting held on or about the 21st of January 1948). The decision to with-hold the payment of Rs.55 cores to Pakistan was taken up by our Government which claims to be the people’s Government. But this decision of the people’s Government was reversed to suit the tune of Gandhiji’s fast. It was evident to my mind that the force of public opinion was nothing but a trifle when compared with the leanings of Gandhiji favourable to Pakistan.
5.The creation of Pakistan is the result of the Muslim hostility to the national movement of India. A number of people who showed their allegiance to Pakistan have been clapped in jail as fifth columnists by this very Government. But to my mind Gandhiji himself was the greatest supporter and advocate of Pakistan and no power could have any control on hire in this attitude of his.
6. In these circumstances the only effective remedy to relieve the Hindus from the Muslim atrocities was, to my mind, to remove Gandhiji from this world.
7. Gandhiji is being referred to as the Father of the Nation-an epithet of high reverence. But if so, he has failed in his paternal duty in as much as he has acted very treacherously to the nation by his consenting to the partitioning of it. Had Gandhiji really maintained his opposition to the creation of Pakistan the Muslim League could have had no strength to claim it and the Britishers also could not have created it in spite of all their utmost efforts for its establishment. The reason for this is not far to seek. The people of this country were eager and vehement in their opposition to Pakistan. But Gandhiji played false with the people and gave parts of the country to the Muslims for the creation of Pakistan. I stoutly maintain that Gandhiji in doing so has failed in his duty which was incumbent upon him to carry out, as the Father of the Nation. He has proved to be the Father of Pakistan. It was for this reason alone that I as a dutiful son of Mother India thought it my duty to put an end to the life of the so-called Father of the Nation who had played a very prominent part in bringing about the vivisection of the country-Our Motherland.
8. The case of Hyderabad had also the same history. It is not at all necessary to refer to the atrocious misdeeds perpetrated by the Nizam’s Ministers and the Razakars. Laik Ali the Prime Minister of Hyderabad had an interview with Gandhiji during the last week of January 1948. It was evident from the manner in which Gandhiji looked at these Hyderabad affairs, that Gandhiji would soon start his experiments of non-violence in the State of Hyderabad and treat Kasim Razvi as his adopted son just as Suhrawardy. It was not at all difficult to see that is was impossible for the Government in spite of all the powers to take any strong measures against the Muslim State like Hyderabad so long as Gandhiji was there. Had the Government then decided to take any military of police action against Hyderabad it would have been compelled to withdraw its decision just as was done in the case of the payment of Rs. 55 crores, for Gandhiji would have gone on fast unto death and Government’s hands would have been forced to save the life of Gandhiji9.The practice of non-violence according to ,Gandhiji is to endure or put up with the blows of the aggressor without showing any resistance either by weapon or by physical force. Gandhiji has, while describing his Nonviolence given the example of a ‘tiger becoming a follower of the creed of non-violence after the cows allowed them selves to be killed and swallowed in such large numbers that the tiger ultimately god tired of killing them.’ It will be remembered that at Kanpur, Ganesh Shanker Vidyarthi fell a victim to the murderous assault by the Muslims of the place on him. Gandhiji lies often cited this submission to the Muslims’ blows as an ideal example of embracing death for the creed of non- violence. I firmly believed and believe that the nonviolence of the type described above will lead the nation to ruin and make it easy for Pakistan to enter the remaining India and occupy the same."

The problem of the State of Hyderabad which had been unnecessarily delayed and postponed has been rightly solved by our Government by the use of armed force after the demise of Gandhiji. The present Government of the remaining India is seen taking the course of practical Politics. The Home, Minister is said to have expressed the view that the nation must be possessed of armies fully equipped with modern arms and fighting machinery. While giving out such expressions he does say that such a step would be in keeping with the ideal of Gandhiji. He may say so for his satisfaction. But one must not forget that if that were so there would be no difference in the means for the protection of the country devised by Hitler, Mussolici or Churchill or Roosewelt, and scheme based on nonviolence as envisaged by Gandhiji. It would then be impossible to say that there was any new and special message of nonviolence of Gandhiji.

I am prepared to concede that Gandhiji did undergo sufferings for the sake of the nation. He did bring about an awakening in the minds of the people. He also did nothing for personal gain; but it pains me to say that he was not honest enough to acknowledge the defeat and failure of the principle of nonviolence on all sides. I have read the lives of other intelligent and powerful Indian patriots who have made sacrifices. Even greater than those done by Gandhiji. I have seen personally some of them. But whatever that be, I shall bow in respect to the service done by Gandhiji to the country, and to Gandhiji himself for the said service. And before I fired the shots I actually wished him and bowed to him in reverence. But I do maintain that even this servant of the country had no right to vivisect the country-the image of our worship-by deceiving the people. But he did it all the same. There was no legal machinery by which such an offender could be brought to book and it was therefore that I resorted to the firing of shots at Gandhiji as that was the only thing for me to do."

"If devotion to one’s country amounts to a sin, I admit I have committed that sin. If it is meritorious, I humbly claim the merit thereof. I fully and confidently believe that if there be any other court of justice beyond the one founded by the mortals, my act will not be taken as unjust. If after the death there be no such place to reach or to go, there is nothing to be said. I have resorted to the action I did purely for the benefit of the humanity. I do say that my shots were fired at the person whose policy and action had brought rack and ruin and destruction to lakhs of Hindus."

My confidence about the moral side of my action has not been shaken even by the criticism leveled of against it on all sides. I have no doubt honest writers of history will weigh my act and find the true value thereof on some day in future.

Nathuram Vinayk Godse.
Delhi, 8-11-1948