The Dark Side of Gandhi: by Hari Pada Roychoudhury.

................................................................................................

The Dark Side of Gandhi :

by Hari Pada Roychoudhury

(Author)

................................................................................................

Since this book uses over half the space for quora, it gets one star, because valuation cannot go below without giving the impression that a reviewer forgot. Since quora is anti Hindu, anti India and uses bullying, we shall not review this section.

Author is spewing venom through most of the book, with disorganized and repetitive language, badly organised and the quora section has nothing else, merely more of the same.

The language is startling at first, unless one has a clue, that the Bengali author might be translated here from an original manuscript in his language. But when he introduces himself in quora section after around 46% of the book in chapter 7 out of 8,one is astounded. He actually gets by using this level of English in UK and US???

Then again, it's only Indians who do better, so perhaps that explains much, even of his alienation.

Author introduces himself in the quora section, in chapter seven, as "Hari Pada Roychoudhury, A victim of partition. Ph.D(UK), Msc, LLB.(Retd Prof". That comes as a surprise, mainly due to language in the book, quite apart from its being vitriolic - how someone did a doctorate in UK retaining this level of English language, and worse, completely unorganized thought process in writing, is a mystery. Perhaps his subject involved no language skills?

Author, like many of his fellow refugees of partition from East Bengal, has a delusional belief that Bengal was forced to divide and separate, by congress leaders of other states; this neatly avoids blaming those really responsible for partition, fanatic islamists, and blames carnage thereafter on congress.

But this belief, in a fraud perpetrated by Pakistan mindset, is accepted by these deluded people chiefly due to having accepted Islamic yoke for centuries, not fought back at it's onset. It's a slavery of mind that accepts any lie thereafter from conquistadores, including blaming victims.

Reality is that after Jinnah had ordered Calcutta massacre, and Noakhali had surpassed with a 150,000 Hindus murder, eight to tenfold as many as in Calcutta, there was no alternative to partition which brought on more massacres, but avoided a total annihilation of Hindus in India, as repeatedly albeit sporadically promised by Pakistani guests on India's television channels. Sporadically, only because they aren't crashing yet.

"16th August 1946 was the Calcutta killing day, already one month ahead was announced by the Muslims of Bengal under the guidance of Jinnah and Suharwardy for the demand of Pakistan. But Gandhi remained silent neither negotiated with Jinnah nor prepared volunteers to face the challenge. It was ridiculous to think that 2% militant ML volunteers could carried out the massacre on that day, killing more than 5000 Hindus in the streets of Calcutta, a City where 95% Hindus were living. ... "

Author blames Gandhi as usual. He never stops to ask, why weren't Hindus prepared when warned a month in advance?

Did Bengal ever fight back against islamic invaders? Punjab did, Rajputana did, and next was Maharashtra. But Bengal simply became muslim majority.

When India was partitioned, British were desperate to award exactly what is now Pakistan, plus as much more as they could deprive India of; but Bengal was the only province that voted for pakistan, by overwhelming majority. Not Punjab, not NWFP, but Bengal. NWFP was furious about bring "thrown to wolves" as they had personally complained to Gandhi, and Mountbattens were in danger of life in visiting it.

Sindh was divided equally and was given, with additional gift of Karachi, depriving Hindus of Sindh of a home state; Bengal was divided so Hindu majority parts were saved, despite the vote for pakistan. If any, injustice was done to Sindh, Karachi, Baluchistan which had sent accession papers already signed, and Gwadar, which was owned by Oman and Muscat, and was offered to India.

Author makes mistakes in factual detail right from beginning. The writing lacks not only depth but often coherence, apart from language. He discusses nonviolence, but lacks clarity of structure in bringing out concept.

" ... Finally the congress was spitted into the radicals’ faction, led by Tilak, Pal and Lajpat Rai, and the moderate faction led by Nationalists like Aurobindo Ghose, V. O. Chidambaram Pillai."

Aurobindo Ghosh was with Lokamanya Tilak, not with his opposition.

"The hidden policy of Gandhi get exposed: The policy of Gandhi was (i) to destroy Bengal leader like Netaji, (ii) to destroy the economy of Bengal, (iii) to remove Jinnah from India, (iv) to bring Nehru in the Chair. ... "

Not well put, but roughly right. Although Jinnah never was a leader of national stature at any time, as both Subhash Chandra Bose and Bhagat Singh were at various times - one rose exponentially and did not set but was executed, other rose steadily despite his ousting and exile, and each has come into light after and despite decades of effort by congress to the contrary, beginning with Gandhi.

" ... So long India was growing in jungles without any road communication. ... "

That would be untrue. Tar roads came late to the world, but roads of course existed in India before tar roads, as they did in UK or US.

"The Rise of Sectarian Separation: In 1885, the Hindu-dominated Indian National Congress (INC) was formed giving the opportunity for the Muslims to think separately. This sparked the formation of the Muslim League, in 1906. British got the opportunity to bring division in between Hindus and Muslims. ... "

Muslim League was formed by not only encouragement but at insistence of British; however, it wasn't a reaction by muslims to congress, it was portrayed so to them. As for the two sections, it's a myth that there had been harmony as such. Individual level, possibly, but doctrinal its impossible when one is based on wiping out the other who merely ignore them or refuse to recognise the threat.

" ... Muslims never believe in non-violence as it brings only hopes and aspiration without any success rather they believe in violence as it brings success. Riots broke out at such times as during Holi festival, when sacred cows were slaughtered, or when Hindu religious music was played in front of mosques at prayer time."

He seems to avoid blaming muslims for violence, even while mentioning "during Holi festival, when sacred cows were slaughtered" as if that's part of holi and disturbs the others, or explaining why "Hindu religious music was played in front of mosques at prayer time" should provoke violence if muslim loudspeakers blaring religion five times a day, for decades, doesn't bring violence.

In fact it's unclear if he's insinuating that Gandhi was wrong because his doctrine was against muslim beliefs.

" ... The Muslim League sponsored a “Direct Action Day” on August 16, 1946, Gandhi’s Congress neither agreed nor protested. On that very day the Muslims carried the massacre of Bengali Hindus in Open Street of Calcutta indulging in the deaths of more than 5,000 Hindus in Calcutta (Kolkata). Gandhi could not be seen in the massacre of violence to ask for non-violence."

Next he's factually incorrect.

" ... Lord Louis Mountbatten - Proposed that the new state of Pakistan would be created with the Muslim-majority provinces of Baluchistan and Sindh, and the two provinces of Punjab and Bengal would be halved, ... "

Baluchistan wasn't theirs to give but was a collection of states, much like those that joined India; in fact Baluchistan wished to join India, and had sent accession papers, signed. Nehru refused to accept them. Baluchistan as a matter of fact had become independent on August 11, 1947, having sued and won.

Punjab and NWFP did not care to separate and had already muslim majority, and had Unionist government in Punjab; but UK and US needed the region for military bases promised by Jinnah to be used against USSR, hence Pakistan was created. Bengal voted for it. Sindh was evenly divided and went to Pakistan by one vote, of the speaker. Nehru refused another accession, in Sindh, and opportunity to divide sindh so Hindu sindhis could have a home state.

"Gandhi’s stay in Noakhali was not liked by much Muslim leadership. On 12 February 1947, in a rally at Comilla, A. K. Fazlul Huq said that Gandhi’s presence in Noakhali had destroyed Islamic harmony enormously. Finally Gandhi was compelled to return to Calcutta. ... "

Because muslims were obstructed in the genocidal massacres program by his presence, even though he said nothing to them?

"Influx of Hindus from Pakistan who were uprooted and who had suffered by killings of relatives, abduction and rape of women and looting of their belongings had created an explosive situation. Local Hindus who were outraged by the treatment meted out to their Hindu brethren and the anger of local Muslims against reports of similar outrages on their co-religionists in India made Delhi a veritable witches’ cauldron. This resulted in killings, molestation, torching of houses and properties. ... And, as if to allow the critics of Mahatma Gandhi a chance to mix-up and maneuver, the decision of the government of India to release Rs. 55 crore to Pakistan came during this period of his fast."

Author makes it sound as if that was coincidence, which is highly incorrect - the matter of paying the amount was one his chief conditions of ending the hunger strike, and congress simply couldn't afford to let him die of starving himself, no matter how extremely unreasonable his demands.

Author focuses repeatedly on his thesis, about not just neglect but deliberate destruction of Bengal, and accuses Gandhi of not only doing so, but almost of using - even deploying, or almost of inventing - the political tool of non violence for precisely this purpose.

"Gandhi’s Civil Disobedience Movement under nonviolence had destroyed the economic condition of British India by the destruction of the growth of industries. India was ravaged by the impact of the Great Depression, bringing mass unemployment. The call of War had created fear of uncertainty among the people but Gandhi thought it the opportune moment to call for Quit India Movement in the name of non-violence movement. Tremendous shortage of food grain brought inflation. Without looking to the condition of the People, where people began to die due to famine, Gandhi thought it the opportune moment to start non-violence movement for independence of India and to make name and fame by the ethics of non-violence. In Bengal a major famine developed in the period of 1942. It did not disturb the mindset of Gandhi. Let the Bengali people die due to famine. The destruction of the economy of Bengal would eliminate the growth of new Subhas in Bengal, when his success of non-violence would remain beyond question."

But then, he sets forth facts, almost convincing.

"A Complete neglect of Gandhi towards Bengal: There was a terrible famine in Bengal in 1943 that the most part of Bengal was without food and that could have been avoided by the delivery of rice with easy negotiation with the authority concerned.

"Three million people had been perished in Bengal at a rate of about 30,000 a week. The houses and the streets of Calcutta were filled with the dead and the dying bodies. The food had been plentiful but that had been stockpiled for the Allied troops, in the event of a Japanese invasion. At the time when people were starving in Calcutta, Gandhi was fighting with non-violence without making any compromise for the supply of rice."

And, removing any counterarguments, he gives a photograph of starving people of Calcutta, which is startling even to those who've known about the facts regarding the deliberately created "famine" by British government of India, stealing harvest of Bengal and letting people of India starve to death, Churchill remarking that it was of no importance!

The photograph could fit very well in a collection of those of concentration camp inmates, in Germany and nazi occupied East Europe, except that here they aren't being tortured and worked to death; instead, they are sitting or standing in a group, like normal upright proid citizens of their homeland, outside a building that belongs obviously to a city, a prosperous one, albeit one in a slightly decaying state.

Author is again incorrect.

" ... Patel although frustrated a little at the beginning as he thought to be the PM for which he expediently brought the proposal of partition in front of the general meeting, ... "

Sardar Patel decided on changing his opposition to partition for reasons of welfare of people, after the Calcutta and Noakhali massacres of Hindus perpetrated at orders of muslim League. He wasn't aiming at position of any kind for self, he didn't have to - he'd in fact been elected, by 12 out of 15 votes for him and other three for no one, as last party president before independence, which would have meant that he'd be the first PM of India.

" ... he had been promoted to the post of Home Minister of India ... "

Wrong, again. He was the most capable of the men then available immediately in India, and his proven capabilities combined with honesty and lack of self serving ambition was indispensable for India. Without him, India would be in a few hundred pieces.

This author- and for that matter many of Bengal - are for some reason convinced that a united Bengal at any cost was key to prosperity and well-being, and partition of India was bad; they don't realise that one, a separate Bengal would still mean a partition of India; and two, whether a separate nation or a part of Pakistan, such a Bengal would simply be another sindh or Afghanistan, not a state where all Bengal residents could live happily thereafter, but one that hounded out all non-Muslims, whether by repeated massacres or enforced exodus or conversions, or all of those. In fact, that is exactly what has been going on in East Bengal, and a united Bengal eould simply amount yo all Hindu Bengalis being as without a home state as Hindu Sindhis have been since partition.

In addition, they blame Patel and Nehru for this, claiming that it was their ambitions that were responsible for partition, and Jinnah at the helm would have kept India united. They forgot that this would also amount to a complete extinction of Hindu - or any nonmuslim - culture throughout India, as it has been enforced throughout Pakistan and almost completely through East Bengal too.

Here are some really shocking, presumably facts, he quotes.

"A Nehruvian legacy from the days of Nehru-liaquat Pact had continued to divert the fund in many mischievous ways. Some refugees were made to settle in a remote village of Orissa, and another was made far away 25 km in another remote village, and then a road was constructed, the money for the road being spent from rehabilitation package. Bengali refugees were the last people to benefit from such maneuverings. Congress instead of addressing the issue in most cases aggravated the problem because the root cause of Bengali refugee problem was due to the Nehru-Liaquat Pact.

"This tradition continues to this day, as a result of which no comprehensive analysis of the Bengali refugee question has taken place till now. This is what the secularist suppression has done to this immense human tragedy. Bengali refugees have not just been hounded out of their lands, they have been hounded out of cognition, knowledge and discourse as well.

"The majority of East Bengali refugees settled in the city of Kolkata (Calcutta) but a significant number also moved to the Barak Valley of Assam and also quit a good number in the princely state of Tripura which eventually joined India in 1949.The exact number of refugees has never been officially collected and estimates vary considerably. In the immediate aftermath of partition, commonly attributed figures suggest around 3 million East Bengalis migrating to India. As per the Refugee Relief and Rehabilitation Department of the Government of West Bengal, the census figures show the number of refugees from East Pakistan different at different time.

"In 1950, it was about one million refugees crossed into West Bengal, particularly aftermath of Barisal riots and Noakhali riots. After the period of 1960, till 1964 East Pakistan riots and the 1965 India-Pakistan War, the figure estimated nearly exceeding 600,000 refugees left for India. Estimated numbers of refugees up to 1970 are over 5 million to West Bengal alone. In 1971 the number was nearly 6 million (60 lakhs) and in 1981, the number was nearly 8 million (80 lakhs) but during the Bangladesh Liberation War, when Hindu refugees escaped systematic mass killings, rapes, lootings and arson the figure increased to around 10 million of whom 1.5 million might have stayed back after Bangladesh became independent.

"An estimate shows that nearly 2.4 million Hindus were killed in East Pakistan during 1971 war. This is an estimated account of the refugees of East Bengal or East Pakistan or Bangladesh. ... "

But next, he blames it on non-violence.

There's no logic to an argument that claims that Hindus would have lived in peace unharmed if only partition had been avoided. That, precisely, was once for all negated, intentionally, when Direct Action Day was ordered in Mumbai and executed in Calcutta.

Subsequently that promise of slaughter of Hindus was repeated in Noakhali, and carried out in ethnic cleansing of West Pakistan via genocide of nonmuslims. If partition had been avoided, who's to say any Hindu alive today would have been so? Quite to the contrary, one may safely bet the opposite.

But he gets worse.

"What was the reason of disunity in between Hindus and Muslims who were living in India since generation to generation? The reason was Gandhi, who was mad with the ethics of Non-Violence because without non-violence he could not come in forefront to expose himself as a leader. ... "

There's no evidence of peace between communities before arrival and rule of British, but during the two centuries upto partition - or rather until Khilafat movement - that peace was because Muslims were defeated and overruled.

But what about before? Islamic invaders all came from Northwest, unless one vounts those that came to Sindh. None came from across any border of Bengal, until British, generally Europeans. Yet Bengal was converted to such an extent, it was claimed for pakistsn due to majority being of muslims. Surely this wasn't a peaceful conversion, surely it involved swords and killings?

" ... It was painful for the Indians to see that such a big Indian country earlier ruled by many Hindu Kings, Muslims or Mughals and never thought of disintegration, but get disintegrated by one clever politician ... "

Funny, an India in fewer than six pieces post 1950 seems broken to him, but he thinks it was united until 1947?

" ... It proved beyond doubt that despite Gandhi’s opposition, Bose won a second term as Congress President, against Gandhi’s nominee, Dr. Pattabhi Sitaramayya, where Gandhi had declared that Sitaramayya’s defeat was his defeat. ... "

Funny, if author knew all along the name of Pattabhi Sitaramayya, why has he been miss-spelling it? And isn't it Pattabhi Sitaramulu?

" ... Gandhi was brought up in remote village of Purbander in Gujarat under the cover of prejudices of Hindu religion. ... "

" .. under the cover of prejudices of Hindu religion."??????

Sounds like author is seriously anti-Hindu.

" ... Thus the change over from the half-rural atmosphere of Rajkot to the cosmopolitan city life of London became a bit difficult to adjust. Though he was in London under the atmosphere of a culturally most developed city of the World, he find it difficult in adjusting in wearing in dress, eating food, or even in talking in English with any one of local residents or friends. ... "

Author sounds decidedly like, not just a fan of British, but a Macaulay product who despises India, except perhaps his own Bengal!

" ... Let the hell with the division of the country, the sufferings of the people, the sufferings of Bengali people under famine, but let hails with the well beings of Nehru family and the pleasure and prosperity of Uttar Bharat. ... "

Goodness, is this person completely oblivious to massacres of Hindus and Sikhs in West Pakistan, and subsequently in Kashmir? Seriously, "pleasure and prosperity of Uttar Bharat. ... "???????

"The British reluctantly agreed to the Jinnah’s proposal of partitioning the land into Pakistan and India. ... "

Reluctantly??? British planned it, and intended to gift them not only the eventual halves of Punjab and Bengal, but also all of Assam which then meant all of Northeast India, and Kashmir, apart from other parts such as Hyderabad and Junagadh and more! Sardar Patel prevented much of that, but Mountbatten could manipulate Nehru by guilt trapping Gandhi.

" ... Jinnah rejected all kinds of proposal as he was totally against Gandhi’s Hindu-Raj. He called for Direct Action Day, on 16 August 1946, to press the demand for Muslims State. Huseyn Shaheed Suhrawardy, the Muslim League Chief Minister of Bengal gave Calcutta’s police special holiday to celebrate the Direct Action Day. The Direct Action Day triggered a mass murder of Calcutta Hindus.

"The British government did not order its army to move into the place of violence. ... "

"Archibald Wavell, the Viceroy and Governor-General of British India for three years through February 1947, had worked with Gandhi and Jinnah till Indian independence who had accused Gandhi of harboring the single minded idea to “overthrow British rule and influence and to establish a Hindu raj,” and called Gandhi a “malignant, malevolent, exceedingly shrewd” politician. Wavell already feared ahead a rioting in between Hindus and Muslims in the Indian subcontinent, for the role of Gandhi who could not see any other solution other than Hindu ethics of “Non-Violence” movement."

Does the author actually seem here to argue that Jinnah was, or muslims were, threatened by non-violence?????

" ... The partition had cost India in killing people more than half a million in religious riots and 10 million to 12 million non-Muslims (Hindus, Sikhs mostly) migrated from Pakistan into India, which could have been avoided if Gandhi could give up the Hindu-ego of “Non-Violence” to keep him in forefront."

There's nothing "Hindu" about Gandhi's nonviolence.

" ... Archibald Wavell, for example, upon learning of Gandhi’s assassination, commented, “I always thought he [Gandhi] had more of malevolence than benevolence in him, but who am I to judge, and how can an Englishman estimate a Hindu?”"

Author repeats here some gossip that has done rounds of internet, without evidence.

" ... In search of a powerful person in order to change his destiny he came across with a Nehru family, unfortunately that the earlier history reveals the fact that the origin of Nehru family lies in Muslim Blood. As such most of the family members have a tendency to build up a relation with Muslims. Knowing his daughter Vijaya Lakshmi eloped with his employee Syud Hussain. Motilal Nehru immediately forcefully took her back and got her married with another man named Ranjit Pandit. Krishna Hutheesing, the second sister of Jawaharlal Nehru also mentioned in her memoirs that her grandfather was the city Kotwal of Delhi prior to 1857’s uprising when Bahadur Shah Zafar was still the sultan of Delhi. Pridarshani Nehru daughter of Jawaharlal Nehru also married with a Muslim fellow named Feroz Khan in England in a London mosque. Gandhi changed the title by an affidavit with a definite future prospect. ... "

History and more testify yo Muslims not giving up their own so easily to let them pretend to other identiyies, and this wasn't a single orphan but two separate families, Nehru and Gandhi, one Kashmir Brahmins and other Parsee.

Besides, Nehrus were given their daughters in arranged marriages by other Kashmir Brahmins, which is most unlikely without a thorough verification of their caste!

Names of Feroze Gandhi's siblings are known, as are those of his parents. Gandhi, a common Gujarat last name, is shared by trading clans in Hindus and Parsees of Gujarat, just as the name Kapadia seems common to Parsee and Muslim in Gujarat, although the word is Gujarati, not Persian.

As for their seeming attachments to some Muslim here or their, well, gossip about Edwina Mountbatten does not imply Jawaharlal Nehru was blood relative of Queen Victoria.

"It is in the record of history that the Nehru family starts with the Mughal man named Ghiyasuddin Ghazi. Under the Mughal rule, Ghiyasuddin was the City Kotwal of Delhi prior to the uprising of 1857. In 1857, in the year of the mutiny, the British captured Delhi and began to slaughter all Mughals everywhere. To remove the future claimant to the throne of Delhi, British wanted to kill each and every one of Mughal descendants. So, to save life Ghiyasuddin Ghazi adopted a Hindu name Gangadhar Nehru and began to reside on the bank of a canal (or Nehru) near the Red Fort. Hence forth the name ‘Nehru’ became the family name. [It is present in the 13th volume of the “Encypedia of Indian War of Independence” (ISBN: 81-261-3745-9) by M.K. Singh] The fact was kept in hiding by the Government of India."

Wikipedia on the other hand says -

"Pt. Raj Kaul is the earliest recorded ancestor of Jawaharlal Nehru.[1] He is believed to have migrated from Kashmir to Delhi in 1716. Like some Kashmiri surnames, he was given a nickname which related to his environment and in his case because the family lived (or once lived) on the banks of a canal (naher in Kashmiri), their family got the name Kaul (Nehru) and eventually like most surnames in Kashmir, the Kaul dropped off and Nehru stayed.[2]"

"According to an excerpt from Jawaharlal Nehru: An Autobiography:[3]

" ... We were Kashmiris. Over two hundred years ago, early in the eighteenth century, our ancestor came down from that mountain valley to seek fame and fortune in the rich plains below. Those were the days of the decline of the Mughal Empire after the death of Aurungzeb, and Farrukhsiyar was the Mughal Emperor. Raj Kaul was the name of that ancestor of ours and he had gained eminence as a Sanskrit and Persian scholar in Kashmir. He attracted the notice of Farrukhsiyar during the latter's visit to Kashmir, and, probably at the Emperor's instance, the family migrated to Delhi, the imperial capital, about the year 1716. A jagir with a house situated on the banks of a canal had been granted to Raj Kaul, and, from the fact of this residence, 'Nehru' (from Nahar, a canal) came to be attached to his name. Kaul had been the family name; this changed to Kaul-Nehru; and, in later years, Kaul dropped out and we became simply Nehrus."

But author proceeds with more gossip related to private life of Jawaharlal Nehru, without making it clear what it has to do with Gandhi. A son born in 1949 is mentioned, along with his mother's name, his being kept in a church institution, but names of neither son nor institution, not even locale.

"It was also a record of history when Nehru became PM of India he became more interested to go to Simla to pass the night in the Hotel with Edwina ... "

Hotel???? "pass the night"????

For heavens sake! She was Vicereine, ensconced royally at Vice-regal lodge of the British Empire, and India still a Dominion until 1950!

And there were no flights yet, were there? Not between Delhi and Simla, yet? Surely such a schedule for the then PM would be known, instantly, everywhere?

Author repeatedly blames Gandhi and nonviolence for violent massacres and partition, rather than point a finger at Jinnah for ordering the massacres and muslims for obeying him in perpetrating them. He argues -

" ... Performance of non-violence is fruitless or zero while the performance of violence is fruitful. As such Gandhi’s Non-Violence movement in India was useless and waste of time and energy. On the other hand, performance out of violence brought success of development and also brought the progress of the nation."

One cannot but point at the current state of Pakistan, epitome of jihadist factory, as a living counterargument to that. Development and progress in that truncated part, of what was once also India, have been difficult to point out, or questionable at best. For once, author presents a coherent thought.

" ... Gandhi and the Congress had changed their mind after Direct Action Day of Calcutta Killing related with violence. So it was just a matter of agreeing the condition of separation and Lord Mountbatten had to do it.

"From the hidden documents kept in London, it appear that the congress was surprised when in 1946 it was basically told that India would be on its own within one year and that Pakistan would be created as part of this arrangement. Had the date been pushed back to 1950, the situation might have been different. There almost certainly would not have been a partition. Jinnah would have been gone as he was a patient of tuberculosis and other voices in the Muslim League who did not want partition would have been given a chance to speak. On the Congress side, it was more than likely if not Gandhi, Patel would have had more time to bring back those who wanted partition into the fold of a United India, as there were actually very few who wanted partition. Louis Mountbatten played a very clever role, to fulfill his duty in the limiting time to make his name in the British Parliament until India had its destiny on August 15, 1947."

Well, most people weren't aware of Jinnah’s impending death, but on the other hand, British wanted partition of India, partly because - as UK did to Ireland - its useful to keep the country fighting itself, sapping its strength; and more importantly, UK and US needed the region for military bases for use against USSR.

" ... It was a painful job for a war hero like Mountbatten who had a lot of reputation & name from winning over Japan; there were more things here to lose than to gain. And for a King’s cousin to destroy the legacy of the British crown, it was not less than heart breaking job."

Author is seriously anglophile in not seeing how Mountbatten maneuvered against India, for partition and for Pakistan, for giving Kashmir and Junagadh to Pakistan and for keeping Hyderabad out of India.

Mountbatten moreover wasn't interested in India or Hindus, or in the most regal job he'd ever have, but in hurrying up and returning so as to get on with his intended career, of getting to be the admiral of British navy, a position denied to his Battenberg father fir being a German around WWI beginning when, due to English public outcry against German people in UK, he had to resign. (Royals were German, Queen Victoria was of royal family from Hanover; they changed their name from that of her husband, Saxe-Coburg-Gotha, to Windsor, at this point.)

" ... He satisfied Muslim League by giving Pakistan and India by giving most of the princely states. ... "

Roychoudhury is wrong on both counts. Muslim League had been created at insistence of British regime, precisely for this purpose of fracturing India. As for royal states of India, they weren't in any way Mountbatten’s to "give"; they, all but one, were also free and independent along with India. Baluchistan was free on 11th August, four days prior.

It wasn't Mountbatten who "gave" the states to India, it was Sardar Patel. If it were up to Mountbatten’s wishes, India wouldn't be in Teo pieces when he left, it would have been in somewhere between six to five hundred pieces.

" ... The UN Security Council interfered and passed a Resolution on 22 April 1948 ... "

Seriously, is Roychoudhury on Pakistan side? It wasn't any business whatsoever of UN to interfere in internal matter, Kashmir having signed accession. It was at Mountbatten's prodding that Jawaharlal Nehru stopped Indian army, went to UN and more, all completely unnecessarily so. Mountbatten really wanted to give most, or all, to Pakistan. Indian army, and Sardar Patel, foiled that.

" ... Pakistan gained Azad Kashmir, ... "

No, that's fraudulent nomenclature; over a hundred thousand Hindus were massacred moreover, because Nehru had stopped Indian army from taking rest back and he refused to send army even when informed and pleaded about plight of Kashmir Hindus trapped in Mirpur. He preferred to shout at the two ot three who were pleading, and let the over hundred thousand of his brethren be massacred, as per Gandhian wish related to Hindus caught in Muslim grip.

" ... Johannesburg is an area inhabited by the sophisticated educated cultured British people. Justification of the law of right by the ethics of non-violence is respected in the inner mind by the cultured English people. ... "

Roychoudhury must be kidding! Or did he think Dyer was not English? Just one example amongst millions.

For that matter, WWI and WWII were not won by "ethics of non-violence ... in the inner mind by the cultured English people"! Nor was colonisation of Ireland, US, Canada, Australia, Africa and Asia, or India were achieved by "ethics of non-violence ... in the inner mind by the cultured English people".

Did Roychoudhury think Laxmibai, Queen of Jhansi, fought against an opposing English army with "ethics of non-violence ... in the inner mind by the cultured English people"? And died accidentally, not shot by an English soldier who couldn't catch her before she was cremated, which she arranged so they couldn't desecrate her dead body, as they were doing to hundreds of Indians?

" ... But in the Indian sub-continent justification of the law of right by the ethics of non-violence is humiliated in every step as the people had grown up in the atmosphere of unhealthy, uncultured situation. ... "

Pure drivel, unless European wars in lands everywhere else are redefined as European kissing of opponents who die of exhilaration.

" ... Teaching of Gandhi in India and in the Indian sub-continent was useless as it could not produce any fruitful result."

Unlike European continent? Which had WWI and WWII during Gandhi's preaching of non-violence, which, author claims, " ... law of right by the ethics of non-violence is respected in the inner mind by the cultured English people. ... "?

Or is he implying that there are some English people who are not cultured, and those exclusively are used for battles and police actions, and massacres such as Jallianwala Bagh, and rewarded subsequently by UK?

Author seems to swallow, unquestioning and freely lies by enemies of India.

" ... Fearing large-scale escalation in military conflict, the international community, under the initiative of the United States, increased diplomatic pressure on Pakistan and indirectly compelled Pakistan to withdraw forces from the remaining strategically important Indian Territory situated at the top of the hilly area. Getting down with economy Pakistan with fragile economy could not dare to face the possibility of international isolation, succumbed to the pressure and withdrawn the troops. The moral strength of the Pakistani forces gets down after the withdrawal of the forces as a result many units of the Northern Light Infantry suffered heavy casualties. Fearing outrage and protest the Pakistan government initially refused to accept the dead bodies of many officers but Nawaz Sharif later said that over 4,000 Pakistani troops were killed in the operation and that Pakistan had to withdraw its forces as Pakistan lost the conflict. By the end of July 1999, hostilities in the Kargil sector had ceased recognizing the war in the Kargil sector was a major military misadventure for the Pakistani Army and a humiliation for Pakistan. ... "

International pressure and withdrawal of support would be considerations for those who admit they were attacking in the first place, but Pakistan never admitted it until war was long over, they'd refused to accept dead bodies, India had buried them - and families back in Gilgit-Baltistan clamoured for their sons in Northern Light Infantry!

Indian military had jointly driven them down, forced to run away, if not killed, because Pakistan never supported them with food, never mind ammunition, over and above what they had ligged up in the first place!

"Mahatma Gandhi led India to independence by fighting against the British based on religious beliefs. ... "

Not as per Attlee, who said his effect was minimal; it was effect of Netaji Subash Chandra Bose and INA that had British forced to flee.

" ... Gandhi did not say his mission was only to win Swaraj (self-rule), but also to establish “Ramarajya,” which was not an exclusive term, nor did it mean theocracy. It called for establishment of a just and humane government for the society what was according to him, was realizing God on earth. According to Gandhi Winning independence politically was nothing but a small part of independence work. Gandhi explained that Ramarajya did not mean a rule of the Hindus. My Rama is another name for Khuda or God. Gandhi said “I want Khudai raj, which is the same thing as the Kingdom of God on earth” (Haimchar, February 26, 1947). ... "

Is that Harijan, or IA Haimchar a Bengali translation thereof?

" ... He explained the nature of perfect democracy in which, “inequalities based on possession and non-possession, color, race or creed or sex vanish; the land and State belong to the people, justice is prompt, perfect and cheap and, therefore, there is freedom of worship, speech and the Press—all this because of the reign of the self-imposed law of moral restraint” (The Hindu, June 12, 1945).

"Although Indians are not yet certain for what reason British to leave the country in 1947, ... "

No, that's incorrect - despite official propaganda by congress administration for six decades, it's now known thanks to internet that Attlee had frankly admitted while on a visit to India, that it was Netaji Subash Chandra Bose, and INA, and their effect on India, was the reason British left in a hurry. He also said British weren't affected by Gandhi, they could handle him, his effect was minimal.

"Hindus of Bengal particularly the Hindu people of 24 Paraganas were favored by the British administration as such the Hindus of Bengal ruled along with the British in British India. After independence it appeared that the Hindu Bengalese are going to vanish slowly. It is almost vanished in earlier East Bengal now Bangladesh, because of the formation of East Pakistan and eviction of Hindus from East Pakistan. Many refugees had taken shelter in many regions of Northern India, by the span of time they had been transformed from Bengali to non-Bengali Indians. Now in West Bengal, number of Hindu Bengali is proportionately decreasing with the increase of Bengali Muslims day by day for many social or political reasons. As such the question had arisen will the Hindu Bengalese would vanish in the long run."

The latter part is chiefly due to both bank politics practiced by congress and left; while latter is complex and needs a more wide perspective.

An assimilation process combined with effects of Macaulay policy, in upper and upprr-middle class parents sending children to church run or otherwise schools that conform to Macaulay vision, alienates generations successively further away from roots in ancient culture of India, including their ancestral languages, is one part that needs correction, which is possible.

In regions where roots of that culture are strong, due to either Islamic hordes having not ruled it so much, it's less effective. But Bengal had fallen far more than even the states of North along Grand Trunk Road from Punjab, which bore the brunt of invaders after NWFP - as obvious from which parts had to be ceded to Pakistan at insistence of British in partitioning India.

We do not review chapter 7, due to it's consisting of author's spewing more venom on quora, an anti-Hindu, anti-India forum.

Author is wrong on many accounts in following, where he's spewing venom, without semblance of facts or thought -

" ... India as well as Punjab and Bengal were partitioned by the political leaders of India mainly by the stalwarts who were Sardar Vallabh Bhai Patel of Gujarat, Jawaharlal Nehru of UP, Rajendra Prasad of Behar, Raja ji or C.R. (Chakravarti Rajagopalachari) of Madras and Gandhi of Gujarat. It was only Rajaji thought for the people who would be victimized by the partition of India. Moreover he was doubtful whether all or the majority of Indian Muslims wanted Pakistan or not. As such he proposed a formula what was called C R Formula by dint of which he had proposed to take the consents of the Muslims in the Muslim majority areas of India before partition. But Jinnah did not agreed and Gandhi a weak personality never dares to challenge Jinnah, silently agreed out of fear. The proposal of the partition of Bengal was also finalized without taking a single Bengal leader into confidence, rather Nehru was happy to see that by the division of Bengal, the power of Bengal would be reduced and no more Netaji could come forward to challenge to occupy the powerful Chair of Delhi. Rajendra Prasad was also happy thinking that by the division of Bengal the overall power of Bengal would be reduced and the overall power of Bihar would be increased. Before taking the final decision of the partition of India these group of leaders did not think right to ask the renowned Muslim leader such as Khan Abdul Gaffer Khan (Samantha Gandhi) and others. The desire of power tempted them to complete the partition work quickly so that they could acquire the powerful post of administration, no matter with the distress of the people, the administration of the nation and the economy of the nation."

To begin with, as he's pointed out, British were in a desperate hurry to leave, and Mountbatten had informed them that they were leaving, whether or not Indians agreed to British proposals.

Moreover neither British nor Jinnah were amenable to an undivided India, chiefly because only Jinnah was agreeable to letting country he controlled being used as free military bases for use by UK and US against USSR.

The only possibility of keeping India undivided therefore was to give Jinnah free hand, send he demanded omplrte control by Muslim League with no representation for anyone else.

This, after Calcutta and Noakhali massacres of over a hundred and fifty thousand Hindus, was a clear indication of intentions - any part controlled by Jinnah would see extinction of Hindus as per jihadist mandate. Partition was unavoidable unless, as Gandhi was comfortable with, Hindus were to be slaughtered wholesale, which nobody other than Gandhi could approve of.

As for partition details, Sardar Patel wrested out Hindu majority parts of Bengal and Punjab from being given to Pakistan, along with Assam; British proposal was to hand them over completely, one way or another. This, coupled with future as promised after Calcutta and Noakhali, eould have amounted yo wholesale slaughter of Hindus throughout those three.

" ... Assam what was once a part of Bengal was separated as a State of Assam by the British for the facility of administration starting with the year 1912. The district Sylhet of East Bengal was taken away from Bengal by the British and merged with Assam. By the partition formula Bengal was partition but not Assam. The district Sylhet was in Assam under British Rule as such Sylhet became a part of India. But the political leaders of Assam gave away the district Sylhet to East Pakistan by a nominal referendum for political reasons thinking a better administration under the leadership of Assam’s people."

Assam is ancient kingdom and is known even in Mahabharata; merging it with Bengal was unfair and inappropriate act by British. So was proposal to settle East Bengal Muslims there and giving it yo Pakistan. Sardar saved it to large extent on latter, but congress allowed the migration to continue for vote bank politics.

Author forgets that other Hindus lost homelands too, some completely, for example those from Sindh, Karachi or Quetta. Bengal wasn't the only province that suffered.

As for its prosperity before 1905, it was a consequence of Calcutta bring British capital, which in turn was because of their route to India being that way.

But as for preference by British for Bengali Hindus, any intelligent cooperation was welcomed by them for assistance in ruling India, and Madras was ahead in this even though the region wasn't close to capital, whether Calcutta or Delhi.

"Now the options left to the Hindu Bengali people of India are as follows: (1) To live as Hindu Bengali of Bengal, (2) To live as Hindu Bengali of India (3) To live as Bengali of United Bengal."

The last option is not possible as Hindus forced to migrate, fleeing persecution and massacres over seven decades, know.

First two possibilities he mentions are living realities and help enrich the cosmopolitan tapestry that is India.

Author blames Gandhi as usual. He never stops to ask, why weren't Hindus prepared when warned a month in advance?

Did Bengal ever fight back against islamic invaders? Punjab did, Rajputana did, and next was Maharashtra. But Bengal simply became muslim majority.

" ... The occasional protest, rioting and killing ultimately resulted in the separation of two Bengal. ... "

Which of Calcutta and Noakhali was "occasional"?

" ... Thus Hindu Bengali of West Bengal lost their absolute right to live as Hindu Bengali in India."

That's incorrect and false. Any citizen of India retains constitutional rights of living and working wherever possible, along with rights to speak one's own language. In addition, of course, one might need to speak the local language.

"The later facts of dealing with the Muslim of West Bengal clearly establishes the fact that Shyama Prasad Mukherjee was utilized by the Uttar Bharat Leaders as well as by Delhi leaders to spoil the formula of Sovereign United Bengal, otherwise Shyama Prasad Mukherjee would have continued with his threat of rioting in West Bengal till all the Muslims had been vacated from West Bengal. ... "

Roychoudhury really is delusional. It wasn't up to one man to riot to evict all muslims! What Roychoudhury and his like are demanding is that government of India eject muslims by force. That Gandhi and Nehru chose otherwise is true, as is the same true of past and current governments of Bengal. It's hardly upto any one man to riot!

" ... later on it is proved beyond doubt that the central leaders had betrayed with Hindu Bengalis of Bengal. Instead of evicting the Muslims they sheltered the Muslims in Bengal. ... "

No muslims were officially asked to leave, and Gandhi's policy in fact made several return immediately from Pakistan, either to settle or yo sell off properties before going back to Pakistan. This was far more true of Delhi than of Bengal. Roychoudhury is delusional in imagining Bengal was singled out and targeted.

" ... It might have a different plan of Nehru just to destroy Hindu Bengal otherwise the return of Netaji might have occupied Delhi Chair."

Author is confusing two separate issues. Bengal hasn't been Hindu for over a millennium, having capitulated to invaders and never fought back, but Netaji couldn't have been stopped from doing what he wanted at any time, not by anyone like Nehru, Gandhi or any others. Hitler did for him everything he wished, despite Netaji telling him off to his face. Japanese leaders in power, especially military, did as asked by him, whether about INA or later.

Fact is Netaji always did as he saw fit, even under circumstances that were far beyond him.

That he cared about India, is another fact - Bengal was his roots, but they spread deep into India, not just Bengal; his heavens were spread far and wide.

And fact might just be that he did return, and live out rest of his years in Ayodhya, not revealing himself except possibly to the few who kept his secret, and not caring for public recognition, much less "Delhi Chair" as Roychoudhury, crudely, terms it.

"In the long run it would be disgraceful for the Bengali Hindus of Bengal to live under Muslim remaining in India where Hindu Bengalese were the pioneer to start the revolution against the British initiated by Surjya Sen, in Chittagong. ... "

Chattagram by any name is in East Bengal and has been since 1947; but Hindus living in East Bengal despite its having been Islamic regime, and occasionally massacred but generally not having been equal in treatment of Hindus, is not new.

If Hindu Bengalis had felt "disgraceful for the Bengali Hindus of Bengal to live under Muslim" as author puts it, why they fidnt leave in 1947 US a good question. They couldn't have all been imprisoned? On the contrary, they were definitely encouraged to leave, by massacres.

Conversely, if they had felt that way any time before arrival of British, why they never fought back but instead still want a united Bengal is a good question. As for Surya Sen, he never said he fought for Bengal - it was for India. Nor was he the "first", unless Bengal is starting a new calendar from day Surya Sen fought.

Even if you count only fights against British, Queen Laxmibai of Jhansi preceds him, as foes Vasudev Balwant Phadke, to name just two. In fact British could only be certain of their hold over India after Nana Phadnavis had died - of natural causes - and couldn't even maneuver around him; such stronghold was Maratha empire, Peshawa ministera and warriors, and their home, Pune.

Bengal woke up only after British, but had surrendered to muslims before, is why, the conditions Roychoudhury complains of, existed.

Next part is gibberish, but it's author stating his racist view of the world, in which British are according to him superior creation, superior to his own sort.

" ... We lost our future to become the Kings and Queens of the universe under the British. If we believe in the creation of God, then we have to believe all human beings are not equal although all are the creation of God. Some are super talented, super singer. As a learner one cannot avoid a super singer, similarly a Bengali administrator should not kill a British Master what had actually happened and that caused the destruction of Bengali Hindus what was only one individual personality of Bengal had realized who was no other than the Raja Ram Mohan Roy."

Suitability of definition of that "we" seems the crux, but then he hoes further, defines it - "Bengali administrator should not kill a British Master", presumably including both as races, not specific vocations.

More than anything else, what's clear is that likes of Roychoudhury cannot claim affinity with the illustrious of or from Bengal - Netaji Subash Chandra Bose, Satyen Bose, Meghanad Saha, Sri Aurobindo, Vivekananda, Ramakrishna and many, many more. It's not a casual difference of opinion that can be bridged over with a trifle such as birthplace or language.

"East Bengal has established a history by changing East Pakistan into Bangladesh forgetting the affinity of religion based on which the country India as well as Bengal was partitioned. ... "

Wrong again. They have simply overcome the racism of Pakistan by separating, but did soon enough turn to declaring the new nation Islamic, persecution of Hindus, and sending terrorists into India, apart from illegal immigrants whose agenda is to finish off locals, whether in Assam or in Mumbai.

" ... It is now proved beyond doubt that mother tongue is superior to that of the religion. Religion is possible to be changed but not the mother tongue. ... "

Roychoudhury hasn't bothered to test his theories against experience or reality. He forgets what East Bengal did to Hindus. East Bengal may be less jihadist than Pakistan, but that's all.

" ... Thus forgetting the religion Hindu Bengali people would be compelled to thing how to live united forgetting religion. ... "

Isn't that why Bengal had to be given even partly to Pakistan, in the first place? And as for this united Bengal proposal, results would compose of a combination of Calcutta, Noakhali and wholesale conversion, combined with enforced exodus, as was enforced in Kashmir.

" ... Political history has bifurcated the beautiful Bengal and Bengalese. The same thing had happened in Germany in the Second World War in 1945. The two super-power RUSSIA and the USA bisected the German territory into two as East Germany and West Germany. But in October 1990, the two German territories did not prefer to remain isolated. The Will Force of German people successfully superseded all obstacles, all forces of gun and bullet to get united. Today German territory is the largest territory in the Europe. If the mindset of the people of two Bengal think for their destiny of turmoil for no fault of the Bengalese but for few non-Bengalese, ... "

"few non-Bengalese"?? Is he speaking tmc language?

" ... On the other hand, the United Bengal and a Sovereign Bengal would bring economic prosperity that would evaporate the Hindu-Muslim difference in the long run as had happened in the United Kingdom as well as in the USA. After all Muslim religion is the most modern religion and that had integrated all sections of the people through the Namaj in the open field."

If Roychoudhury doesn't mind converting, he's perfectly free to do so. His delusion includes islam being modern religion (if that's by chronology, why are they slaughtering Ahmediyyas?), that's certainly delusional on any account. As for harmony between religious groups in UK and USA due to prosperity, again, he hasn't really looked at or understood anything.

He ends with a fraudulent history of Assam that begins with arrival of British, and ends the book with a racist quip by Winston Churchill.

Roychoudhury couldn't be happy in Bengal, East or West, without both his masters and without conversion to one while working for other. He's better off in UK.

But Assam goes back in its history several millennia prior to Mahabharata, and always had its own identity.

As for his last quote, wasn't it British administration and Winston Churchill who starved several million in Bengal to death, by stealing their harvest and refusing to allow aid ship, sent by FDR for India, beyond Australia?

Prosperity of Bengal was partly due to British letting fall a few pennies out of the millions looted from all of India, but rest was largely due to the migrants from West who excel at trade, business, industry.

Subsequent poverty after partition wasn't due to loss of East Bengal, it was because leftist terrorism made investors flee elsewhere.

Union a la Germany, presumably at cost of separation from India, won't change Bengal into being a prosperous home, not for Hindus at any rate; it'd just turn Hindu Bengalis into Eastern counterparts of Sindhis - refugees without a state.

Fact is, neither Punjab refugees nor those from Sindh, or NWFP, none of them had a handout given by government of India any more than those from East Bengal.

But they, having lost houses, lands, prosperous businesses, stood up and worked, went inventive, worked hard. Sold water for a paisa in Delhi summer, set up tandoors on roadsides and fed travellers for pennies. Invented businesses, created niches.

Publishing house owners sold newspapers on streets until they could set up in publishing again. MDH sold spice, others did other things.

They prospered because of two things, their own hard work - and the fact that India assimilated them as and where they could, not targeting their separate identity if any.

This won't be allowed by East Bengal any more than by taliban in Afghanistan. Unite Bengal, and without India, Hindu Bengalis will be refugees in India again, this time without a home state.

................................................................................................

"The book is dedicated to the partition victims of India who had sacrificed their life to build up the life of their children under the Hindu-Muslim turmoil during the partition of the country under the mistaken leadership of Gandhi calling “Non-Violence” movement facing the onslaught of rioting, famine and the constant fear of losing life under the prevailing situation of rioting of the country in the event of gaining Independence in India."

................................................................................................

"A SHORT SYNOPSIS OF THE BOOK

"The book is about Gandhi, how and where he got the incentive to become a leader. The procedure he had adopted how to become a popular person and then a popular leader. Although his strength of mind was “Public Sympathy” what he could know in South-Africa out of his personal humiliation, what he thought best suited with the Hindu ethics of tolerance and sacrifice or in short the ethics of “Non-Violence” to make fool the Hindus but he had not forgotten to act in time along with the powerful government or with powerful leaders forgetting the ethics of non-violence what he thought to make his future goal of destination to make himself in name and fame. He never forgets to support the British in the First World War to make himself popular among the British although it goes against his ethics of non-violence and again to support the violent Khaliphat Movement to make himself a popular among the Muslims although again that goes against his principle of non-violence. Why he had taken the ethics of “non-violence” as the supreme power, to make almost the entire people of the country, nothing but fools to achieve his personal goal, under the shadow of division, destruction, slaughter in millions, a man of peace and later father of the nation."

................................................................................................

CONTENTS

................................................................................................

1. Who was Gandhi?

2. The Evolution of the Mindset of Gandhi

3. The Conflicting Thought of Gandhi

4. The Thought of Gandhi Differs with the

Thought of Other Leaders

5. Gandhi’s Concept of Religion

6. India after Gandhi

7. The News and Views of Many

Relating to Gandhi in the Curriculum of Quoras

8. The Future of Hindu Bengalese

................................................................................................

REVIEW

................................................................................................

1. Who was Gandhi?

................................................................................................

"Gandhi was the “FATHER” of the nation of India as well as a man of international peace in public front throughout the world but inside of India now he was recognized as the most selfish, self centered, short sided religion person in the eyes of many intellectual Indians. Gandhi was a man born in a remote village of Gujarat called Purbander, the village being dipped in prejudices of Hindu Religion. However, after schooling he was persuaded to proceed to London to get a law degree so that after return he could occupy the post of Talukdar being occupied by his uncle. In the process of going abroad, he had to promise by touching the feet of his mother and the priest that he would not touch alcohol there. Thus he had made himself an Inner Temple Barrister but in paper only as he failed to earn the art of practicing law there, where he avoided to do practice under a team of Barristers including senior practicing Barristers less he could get accustomed with the light drink of alcohol in the cold country of UK, what was the usual practice for all. Thus he had made him a non-practicing Barrister, in effect on return to India his practice at Mumbai made him a bank craft and compelled him to return to Rajkot empty-handed in the dark of client.

"He was restless with the image of Bar-at-law degree of London that made him mentally sick as he failed to utilize the degree in proper way. However with an opportunity he extended his journey to South Africa with the call of a Muslim business man. However, he went there with his family but the drinking habit of his elder son could not provide him peace at home. ... "

Wasn't Harilal only a young man, married early by Gandhi family in India before he was sent to join his parents? He was st this point hoping to be a Barrister like his father, was trying to clear matriculation, and couldn't have been a drinker as such.

" ... Gandhi was in London for a time period although he could not adjust with the highly civilized British community but British Dress and British culture in disguise hunting him due to which he used to wire British Dress having with coat and tie and prefer to seat in the frontal seat in the travelling bus what was reserved for the white people in Johannesburg in South Africa.

"He also prefers to seat in white restaurants, similarly what was reserved for the whites. As a result he was forcefully evicted from the frontal seat of Bus by the conductor or forcefully evicted from the white restaurants by the waiter. He compelled to raise his voice in outside when he found many people get around of hearing him. Thus he came to know that a sense of suffering attracts the mindset of many. This had grown a desire in his mindset, how to be a great leader."

"Thus he finally thought to return to India in 1915, and further thought how to utilize the sentiment of Indian people in the independence movement to make name and fame. ... "

Wasn't he invited, by one of the then major leaders of congress?

" ... Johannesburg City was a symbol of farsighted intellectual thought of British unlike in India the short sighted Indian leaders like Gandhi. ... "

Here author describes, not the said intellectual British of South Africa, but present sights that a traveller would see.

" ... The city was decorated with Johannesburg Art Gallery, the Hillbrow skyline, Nelson Mandela Square in Sandton, the University of the Witwatersrand’s East Campus, and Monte-casinoin Four-ways. The more one could say about Johannesburg it gets less and less."

He then goes into extensive description thereof, before returning to Gandhi. But it's a short detour.

"Gandhi was in London during his learning period but he not only failed in learning the art of practicing law but also failed to learn the far sighted thought of British culture. In a certain period of his life during the period of self activity he was in Johannesburg of South Africa but here again he failed to learn the art of British administration how it had been utilized in the search of creating British administration in Johannesburg of South Africa. How the City was established by the British that could be a lesson for Gandhi but his mindset was not wide enough to think far ahead beyond his limitation of UP and Nehru family what was observed in the later period of his life. However it would be interesting to learn how British had established its influence in the South Africa, which was a country of Black."

He goes into history of discovery of gold, and thence to apartheid. Author is curiously very appreciative of British in South Africa, despite apartheid.

"The British administration had made the Johannesburg one of the ‘greenest’ cities in the world. Parks and gardens in Johannesburg are properly maintained keeping at least six million trees in the city with the number growing every year – 1.2 million on pavements and sidewalks, and a further 4.8 million in private gardens. City Parks continues to invest in planting trees, particularly in disadvantaged areas of Johannesburg."

Then abruptly its India.

"To fulfill his hidden desire, Gandhi returned to India on 9 April in 1915. The 45 year old Gandhi fully matured with a vision returned to India along with his beloved Kasturbai Makhanji Kapadia in short name usually known as “Kasturba,” whom he married at the age of 13- when “Kasturba” was at 14.

"He was in uncertainty of mind as he was suffering with the concept of movement against the British through his ethics of “Non-Violence,” the knowledge of what he had acquired in South-Africa, during the time of his personal humiliation in front of the public and the sympathetic response of the public.

"To fulfill his mission he thought it earlier to establish an Ashram where he could keep volunteers who would be his company of strength. The volunteers were to create a non-violent group of workers, who would organize and help to carry out Satyagraha, the non-violence movement to fulfill his desired objective. In later period he thought volunteers would be his company of strength. Thus a Satyagraha Ashram was founded on May 25, 1915 in Ahmadabad at Kochrab, with 25 inmates.

"Later in July 1917 Ashram was shifted on the bank of river Sabarmati. But it was also come to light that a good number of female volunteer were living in the Ashram. After the death of his wife “Kasturba,” Gandhi used to sleep with female volunteers at night what was objected by many as it did not look fair."

He could have clarified that last part, but doesn't. He goes into picture of Congress as it was until arrival of Gandhi, describing the two camps - that of Lokamanya Tilak and associates, and the opposite, Gopal Krishna Gokhale.

" ... He was the first leader of the Indian Independence Movement. The British colonial authorities called him “The father of the Indian unrest.” Tilak was one of the first and the strongest advocates of Swaraj (“self-rule”). He used to say: “Swarajya is my birthright and I shall have it!” He formed a close alliance with many Indian National Congress leaders including Bipin Chandra Pal, Lala Lajpat Rai, Aurobindo Ghose, V. O. Chidambaram Pillai and Muhammad Ali Jinnah. ... "

"Following the Partition of Bengal, which was a strategy set out by Lord Curzon to weaken the nationalist movement, Tilak encouraged the Swadeshi movement and thereby boycotted foreign goods and also boycotted socially any Indian who used foreign goods. The production of local goods thereby encouraged to meet up the local demand."

"The three of the great Indian leaders Lala Lajpat Rai, Bal Gangadhar Tilak, Bipin Chandra Pal together popularly known as Lal-Bal-Pal strongly supported the boycotting of the foreign goods. On the other hand Tilak opposed the moderate views of Gopal Krishna Gokhale.

"In 1907, the annual session of the Congress Party was held at Surat, Gujarat. Trouble broke out over the selection of the new president of the Congress between the moderate and the extremist which adversely affected political developments in the country. Both sides were fighting to capture the Congress organization as because both differ in ideological differences. Tilak wanted to put Lala Lajpat Rai as a candidate for presidential chair, but Gokhale wanted Rash Behari Ghosh as the candidate for presidential chair. The tussle begun, and there was no hope for compromise. Tilak was not allowed to move any resolution in support of the new president-elect. At this the pandal was strewn with broken chairs and shoes were flung by Arvindo Ghosh and his friends. Sticks and umbrellas were thrown on the platform. There was a physical shuffle. When people came running to attack Tilak on the dias, Gokhale went and stood next to Tilak to protect him. Finally the congress was spitted into the radicals’ faction, led by Tilak, Pal and Lajpat Rai, and the moderate faction led by Nationalists like Aurobindo Ghose, V. O. Chidambaram Pillai."

Aurobindo Ghosh was with Lokamanya Tilak, not with his opposition.

" ... Gokhale graduated from Elphinstone College in 1884. Thereby Gokhale got the opportunity of learning English and also got the opportunity to expose him to the Western thought of administration. Gandhi came across with Gokhale also."

Author doesn't realise that Gokhale was instrumental in Gandhi coming to India, he'd invited him.

" ... When Gandhi returned from South Africa to India, he received personal guidance from Gokhale, including a knowledge and understanding of India and the issues confronting common Indians. He was personally benefited by the advice of Gokhale at the beginning of his arrival in Bombay. Because of his advice and guidance by the year of 1920, Gandhi emerged as the leader of the Indian Independence Movement. In his autobiography, Gandhi recorded Gokhale was his mentor and guide. Gandhi also recognized Gokhale as an admirable leader and master politician."

"The Gandhi’s first major activity started in India in 1917 with the Champaran agitation in Bihar. The Champaran agitation in Bihar was Gandhi’s first active involvement into Indian Freedom Movement. The Champaran farmers cannot go for farming being tortured by the police. Indirectly farmers were compelled to grow Indigo. Gandhi had arrived here afresh from South Africa where he was in good term with white-British. As such the farmers sought Gandhi’s help and through a calculated non-violent protest, Gandhi managed to win concessions from the authority. The peasantry was forced to grow Indigo, while Gandhi encouraged them to grow food products. He managed for the peasants to go for farming and managed the administration to prevent police action. Further he engaged himself in social works in the remote villages to increase his popularity."

Author omits mentioning Sardar Patel, who looked after organising the movements, after Gandhi's declaration of intentions. He doesn't mention Sardar Patel in description of Kheda protest, either. He proceeds to Gandhi's cooperation with British circa WWI, Rowlett Act and further, charlha and Jallianwala Bagh. Wasn't Chauri-Chaura at this time, before Jallianwala Bagh massacre? He minimises numbers and is wrong at end in saying -

" ... Jallianwala Bagh massacre (or Amritsar massacre) of 1919 with a loss nearly 400 hundred innocent villagers. Gandhi realizing his mistake after massacre being accomplished, immediately, suspended Satyagraha, the non-violence movement. This was the foresighted strategy of Gandhi’s non-violence movement of Satyagraha."

No, Gandhi stopped protest due to Chauri-Chaura.

Author proceeds to Khilafat movement.

"The Hindus and Muslims formed a united front against the British rule in India. In September 1920, at the Calcutta Session of the Indian National Congress, the programme of the movement was designed under numerous steps including the boycotting of the British goods. Leaders like C.R.Das (Chitta Ranjan Das) and Subhas Chandra Bose had taken the steps in boycotting the education in Bengal. Punjab also boycotted educational activity in Punjab where Lala Lajpat Rai played the leading role. Leaders of other areas were also took active part in the movement, the places like Bombay, Uttar Pradesh, Bihar, Orissa and Assam joined the movement. Many lawyers, like, C.R. Das, Motilal Nehru, M.R. Jayakar, S. Kitchlew, V. Patel, Asaf Ali Khan and others supplied the spirit of the movement where they gave up their practices, and their sacrifice became a source of inspiration and stimulant for the rest of the country men."

Author describes Khilafat movement at length.

" ... Gandhi became a prominent spokesperson of the All India Muslim Conference and returned the medals he had received from the Empire during his Indian Ambulance Corps days in South Africa. His role in the Khilafat made him a national leader in no time."

Author is repetitive in this part, explaining or describing over and over. He dispenses off the Chauri-Chaura in midst of this, and returns to going around in spirals.

"Many Muslim leaders and delegates abandoned Gandhi and his Congress. Hindu-Muslim communal conflicts reignited. Deadly religious riots re-appeared in numerous cities, within India particularly within United Provinces of Agra and Oudh."

Again spiraling, suddenly he lands on -

"Thus Gandhi was the cause of Hindu-Muslim segregation and formation of Pakistan as such he was considered as the destroyer of beautiful India."

Next he jumps to Gandhi's imprisonment and release, and another jump thence to Salt March, but veers to a more important part of the era, although with an inappropriate title.

"Episode of Bhagat Singh:

"In view of political unrest in India in 1928, the British government set up the Simon Commission to report on the existing political situation in India. Some Indian political parties boycotted the Commission and there were protests across the country. With the arrival of Commission in Lahore on 30 October 1928, Lala Lajpat Rai led a march in protest against it. Police attempted to disperse the large crowd as a result violence erupted. The superintendent of police, James A. Scott, carried out his duty asking the police to lathi charge the protesters but he insulted Rai with humiliating words. Even after that he was attacked consequently Rai was hospitalized and died on 17 November 1928."

He trumps that title in the opening of the next paragraph.

"This had heartened the young Bhagat Singh. ... "

Excuse the readers for questioning this terminology, but author seems to think Bhagat Singh was delighted at death of a veteran leader due to British inflicting injuries deliberately on the old person. Surely nobody thinks Bhagat Singh was such a villain?

As for young, yes, they were all young, many were College students, but surely we're not going to give into official Congress label by Gandhi about their lacking thought? Not after the writings of Bhagat Singh and his group have been published, and too the details of what they went through!

" ... He conspired with revolutionaries like Shivaram Rajguru, Sukhdev Thapar, and Chandrashekhar Azad and planned how to kill Scott. However, in a case of mistaken identity, the plotters shot John P. Saunders, an Assistant Superintendent of Police, in view of his leaving the District Police Headquarters in Lahore on 17 December 1928. Singh and Rajguru, both carrying loaded revolvers, left the house early the next day.

"The Congress leader Mahatma Gandhi condemned the act of murder to increase his importance to the British administration in British India. But Bhagat Singh became popular not because of his act of terrorism but because of his protest for the honor of Lala Lajpat Rai, and through him for the whole nation. His act of killing a police was forgotten, but his symbol of honor towards Rai remained, and spread within a few months to each town and village of the Punjab, and to a lesser extent to the rest of northern India, resounded with his name and bravery. Innumerable songs grew about him and his popularity spread across the country that remained something amazing.

"But again in April 1929, he and another associate, Batukeshwar Dutt, exploded two bombs inside the Central Legislative Assemblyin Delhi to give a signal that the British ruling in India was no longer so safe. They even scattered leaflets from the gallery on the legislators below, shouting slogans. Consequently they were arrested. Afterwards on enquiry the British police could know that they were responsible for the killing of police officer John Saunders. Awaiting trial, Singh gained much public sympathy because of other fellow defendant Jatin Das who was in hunger strike, demanding better prison conditions for Indian prisoners."

"They were then sentenced to death by hanging. There were other accused, all other accused were punished differently. Three were acquitted (Ajoy Ghosh, Jatindra Nath Sanyal and Des Raj), Kundan Lal received seven years’ rigorous imprisonment, Prem Dutt received five years of the same, and the remaining seven (Kishori Lal, Mahabir Singh, Bijoy Kumar Sinha, Shiv Verma, Gaya Prasad, Jai Dev and Kamalnath Tewari) were all sentenced to transportation for life."

Wasn't Jatindra Nath Sanyal the one who was tortured in midst of their hunger strike and died?

"Gandhi after getting down with the Bhagat Singh affairs and hearing the sound “Down with Gandhi,” thought of a new strategy to stimulate the ethics of “Non-Violence” through a new way of Satyagraha as such he contemplated to launch Satyagraha against the tax on salt in March 1930. Thus a Salt March movement was designed with his followers together with 78 volunteers to march to Dandi starting with 12 March to 6 April covering a distance of 388 kilometers from Ahmeddabad to Dandi, Gujarat to make salt by himself with the declared intention of breaking the salt laws. Thousands of Indians joined the march to reach to the sea. It became a political stunt known as long Dandi March of Gandhi against the British law but in reality to what extent the salt was reached to the country men was not known very much.

"However Singh was convicted and hanged in March 1931, at the aged of 23. Gandhi, once again, issued strong words of disapproval of their deed. Why he did it, it was only to increase his importance in the British administration so that in any political discussion he was not left off."

" ... The schedule was moved forward by 11 hours and the three were hanged on 23 March 1931 at 7: 30 pm in the Lahore jail, what had been done because the situation was volatile and in a mood of revolution. Gandhi faced black flag demonstrations by angry youths who shouted “Down with Gandhi.”

"A reign of terror existed in the city of Cawnpore in the United Provinces and an attack on Mahatma Gandhi was contemplating by few youth outside of Karachi. Hartals and strikes of mourning were called. The Congress party, during the Karachi session, declared:

"“While dissociating itself from and disapproving of political violence in any shape or form, this Congress places on record its admiration of the bravery and sacrifice of Bhagat Singh, Sukh Dev and Raj Guru and mourns with their bereaved families the loss of these lives.”"

"Bhagat Singh’s sacrifice of life had stimulated all Indians who were with Gandhi or against Gandhi. Subhas Chandra Bose said: “Bhagat Singh had become the symbol of the new awakening among the youths.” Again Nehru agreed that Bhagat Singh’s popularity was leading to a new national awakening, and said: “He was a clean fighter who faced his enemy in the open field ... he was like a spark that became a flame in a short time and spread from one end of the country to the other dispelling the prevailing darkness everywhere.” The Director of the Intelligence Bureau, Sir Horace Williamson, (after 4 years) wrote somewhere that: “His photograph was on sale in every city and township and for a time rivaled in popularity even that of Mr. Gandhi himself.” The country will remember Bhagat Singh as a hero for all the time ... "

"At last on 15 August 2008, an 18-foot tall bronze statue of Singh was installed in the Parliament of India, next to the Subhas Chandra Bose showing a respect to the heroes ... "

Author goes on to Irwin-Gandhi deal.

" ... The Gandhi–Irwin Pact was signed in March 1931. The British Government agreed to free all political prisoners; in return the civil disobedience movement would be suspended. Gandhi was invited to attend the Round Table Conference in London for discussions on behalf of the Indian National Congress. Gandhi agreed to the punishment of hanging Bhagat Singh betraying the goodwill of the country-men but in return the British side focused on the Indian princes and Indian minorities rather than on a transfer of power. Lord Irwin’s successor, Lord Willingdon, took a hard line against India as an independent nation, began a new campaign to control the nationalist movement. Finding the mischievous role of Gandhi the government arrested him again."

Author discusses round-table conference, separate electorates, Dr Ambedkar and Gandhi's fast. He discusses nonviolence, but lacks clarity of structure in bringing out concept.

"Gandhi’s endeavor was to evolve and practice a non-violent method for any conflict of resolution at the beginning of the twentieth century, but practically it proved to be the most violent century in the world of mankind. In the first half of the century, synchronizing with Gandhi’s entire public life, the human world witnessed two devastating world wars with a huge loss of life. In the second half, the human world was in the thrust of Third World War, but the “cold war” between the two rival military blocks brought the world to the verge of an atomic holocaust; but only a “balance of terror” between them kept the peace in the world."

" ... Fruitful negotiation through equals only could bring permanent peace. Gandhi, however great he was, he failed to see peace in the world through non-violence. His faith of bringing peace through Satyagraha of Non-Violence was limited only to small regions compare to the vast regions of the world. Nehru applied Gandhian idealism of non-violence with China after the independence of India illuminating the sky of Delhi with the cry of Hindu-China Bhai – Bhai, the final result was Chinese aggression in 1962."

" ... People’s anger reflected in the assassination of Gandhi in January 1948. Although Nehru unilaterally declared Gandhi the FATHER of the nation after his death and declared non-violence gave independence to India nullifying the contribution of Netaji and his Azad Hind Fouaz, in the stroll of time, the truth is coming in front and the real hero of independence movement would be exposed in the course of time. ... "

................................................................................................

................................................
................................................

May 03, 2022 - May 03, 2022.

................................................

................................................................................................

2. The Evolution of the Mindset of Gandhi

................................................................................................

Author returns in time to Khilafat movement, and further back to formation of congress, which he credits to S. N. Banerjee.

"Thus the atmosphere of Calcutta was boiling with the cry of Khudiram, Badal, Demesh and many others who had been hanged for killing British in secret. The old people were worried for the future of their children. Under that situation Gandhi came with the Hindu ethics of “Non-Violence” what was a kind of movement for independence of India without violence. People gracefully accommodated Gandhi as a messiah of God to save the young children of Bengal. In the atmosphere of good-will Gandhi started “Civil disobedience Movement,” a kind of non-cooperation movement what was a “non-Violence” movement involving only the Hindus. Jinnah already declared in the Nagpur session that Muslims did not believe on Non-Violence Movement. Thus Gujarat, Bombay, Punjab, Lucknow was not a good place for Gandhi but Calcutta became the best place for Gandhi to carry out non-violence movement."

Last bit is unclear why, since in Gujarat he did well. Next he's very jumbled.

" ... was Calcutta that was in the forefront of independence movement where most of the leaders were in Bengal, economy was strong in Bengal, unless Bengal gets down the power center could not be shifted. As such Gandhi continued the Civil Disobedience Movement under Non-Violence centering Bengal so that Bengal’s industries stop functioning, Bengal’s economy gets down, and lastly Bengal’s leader get finished. The slow gone of Bengal’s leader, who was no other than Netaji Subash Bose “Give me blood I would give you Freedom” was stopped how could “Non-Violence” get popularity. Thus slowly Bengal went through the path of destruction under the clever policy of Gandhi where all the Hindu leaders except few like C. R. Das remained as a silent spectators and indirectly encouraging the activity of Gandhi considering him a Messiah of God keeping in mind a strong belief that what would be done by Gandhi, ... "

That's jumbled in language and timeline both!

"The Elgin Road residence of Subhas Chandra Bose in Calcutta was the place from where the young Subhas escaped the British sentry to reach Germany during the Second World War. He was the co-founder of the Indian National Army, the head of state of the Azad Hind, formed to counter and combat the British Raj in India. Renamed Netaji by poet laureate Rabindranath Tagore, he was regarded by many as perhaps the most prominent and influential freedom fighter in Indian history and accordingly he was venerated in many Bengali households even today."

Interesting, was it the Poet Laureate who named him Netaji? Authors describing his sojourn credit expat Indians in Germany with the title.

From Wikipedia -

" ... The honorific Netaji (Hindustani: "Respected Leader") was first applied to Bose in Germany in early 1942—by the Indian soldiers of the Indische Legion and by the German and Indian officials in the Special Bureau for India in Berlin. It is now used throughout India.[u] ... "

Author omits mentioning Kerala massacres of Hindus by well over a thousand in context of Khilafat movement failure, jumping over it each time.

" ... Thus the policy of Gandhi was to satisfy the public by the news of non-cooperation and also to satisfy the British Government that movement was non-violence as such nothing to worry. In the midst of two fronts he convinced the mass people that peaceful non-cooperation was the key to Independence. Thus Gandhi set the goal of Swaraj or self-governance, through the non-cooperation movement making it the motto of Indian freedom movement."

"The Quit India Movement, or the ‘August Movement,’ was a movement launched at the Bombay session of the All-India Congress Committee by Mahatma Gandhi on 8 August 1942, during World War II, made a call to Do or Die demanding an end to British Rule of India. But even at the war time the instruction to workers was given that the movement would continue under the ethics of Non-Violence. It was because the success of “Non-Violence” was his personal issue to make him immortal as a man of peace of mankind. As such his look out was “Non-Violence” and not neither Independence nor United India."

Next he confuses issues.

" ... Subhas Chandra Bose, supported the Axis Powers from exile. The only outside support in favour of India came from the American President Franklin D. Roosevelt."

Subhash Chandra Bose did not "support Axis Powers", he asked enemies of enemy to support freedom of India as a cause; Hitler did not, due to racist conviction, but Japan did. So did Italy under Mussolini, surprisingly.

" ... So long India was growing in jungles without any road communication. ... "

That would be untrue. Tar roads came late to the world, but roads of course existed in India before tar roads, as they did in UK or US.

In fact it's unclear if he's insinuating that Gandhi was wrong because his doctrine was against muslim beliefs.

Next he's factually incorrect.

" ... The day of 15 August 1947 was not a joy of Independence Day for millions of those people who lost their children, their wife/ husband, family and the house of few generations or everything of the country for no fault of theirs. ... "

"In the days, weeks and months following Partition, 15 million Muslims, Hindus and Sikhs, fearing discrimination, exchanged countries in a violent disruption that cost more than a million lives but for Gandhi everything was done under non-violence, as such Nehru declared India wins freedom by Non-Violence due to Gandhi. These are the facts of history no one can deny."

" ... In the course of time the Hindus of East Pakistan in large number rather being compelled to migrate to India but the Muslims in West Bengal could live in peace. Here Gandhi played the role in maintaining the Hindu-Muslim peace in West Bengal by delivering lecture after lecture throughout West Bengal along with the Muslim Leader Suhwardy, the then chief Minister of Bengal before partition asking to maintain peace among all. The result was the percentage of Hindu population reduced from 47% to less than 12% in East Bengal; on the other hand percentage of Muslim population in West remained almost the same. Thus Gandhi was successful to maintain peace in West Bengal by non-violence and he earned the name firstly by dividing the country as well as Punjab and Bengal peacefully by non-violence and secondly by keeping peace in Bengal by non-violence. Thus ethics on non-violence became supreme to maintain peace and in solving problem. As such Gandhi became a man of peace internationally although he destroyed India by division and Bengal by one sided population exchange. Thus internationally Gandhi was an icon of peace but to Indians he was a destroyer for dividing India and again a destroyer for destroying the Hindus of Bengal."

"Role of Gandhi in Noakhali Riots: It was October–November of 1946, a year before India’s independence from British rule. Gandhi in the name of ‘Non-Violence’ had created a situation where the Muslim community in a organized way started massacres, rapes, abductions and forced conversions of Hindus to Islam and looting and arson of Hindu properties. It affected a large area under the cover of so many police stations in Noakhali district and a large area under the cover of many police stations in Tipperah district, covering a total area of more than 2,000 square miles.

" ... massacre of the Hindu population started on 10 October, on the day of Lakshmi Puja, and continued unabated for about a week, killing 5,000 on the spot, and hundreds of Hindu women were raped and thousands of Hindu men and women were forcibly converted to Islam. Around 50,000 to 75,000 survivors were sheltered in many relief camps built up in Comilla, Agartala and other places. ... "

Numbers given elsewhere, of Hindus massacred in Noakhali and neighbourhood, are over 150,000.

"Mohandas Gandhi was happy to see the massacres because it was in his secret mission unless the Bengalis were killed, and Bengal’s economy destroyed how the power of administration could be shifted from Bengal to Delhi. To complete the process he camped in Noakhali for four months touring whole district preaching the teachings of non-violence among the Hindus through prayers to restore peace and communal harmony."

But Delhi had already been made the capital of British India in 1905, and it had always been the capital historically, at least since times of Mahabharata.

Before that, and after, there had been several other centres of power, such as Ayodhya in Ramayanaera, Pataliputra and Magadha very often and long, and so on; but Bengal had only been that for the short while, due to British using maritime voyages for their arrival, and thereafter the empire's communications and transportation.

" ... In the process of forcible conversions Village after village was forcibly converted to Islam. The men were forced to wear skullcaps and grow beards. The women were stripped of their shankha and Sindur and forced to recite the kalma. Arrangements were made sending Moulavis in their homes and imparted Islamic teachings.

No.2 [Leela Roy rescued 1,307 Hindu girls]

"The attack also followed by murder, loot and arson that was the continued ongoing process in the district. The attackers also used petrol to set the houses on fire. ... "

Because muslims were obstructed in the genocidal massacres program by his presence, even though he said nothing to them?

"In New Delhi, tens of thousands of Muslims sheltered behind the 16th-century walls of Humayan’s Tomb waiting for safe passage to Pakistan, the law and order almost being completely broken down. Tents were erected around the spectacular mausoleum - the inspiration for the Taj Mahal – the symbol of Mughal-era complex. Clever Gandhi went on fasting and praying to God. Millions of people moved to what they thought would be safer territory, Muslims moving towards Pakistan, and Hindus and Sikhs moving towards India. It was estimated as many as 14-16m people might have been displaced, travelling on foot, in bullock carts and by train. Many people were killed by many but above all women were suffered the most as they were the easy target of rape and abduction."

Author includes photographs of partition mayhem and travails of people.

" ... Pakistan never went away from the Islamic teachings of violence to establish Pakistan completely for the Muslims as they did not allow any Hindu or Sikh to survive in West Punjab.

"Chittagong Hill Tracts, a region mostly inhabited by the Buddhists were given to Pakistan by Radcliffe award due to misinformation and lacking of knowledge of Radcliffe. Gandhi was not interested with the region except the regions of Delhi, Lucknow and Alahabad but however Petal gave a hearing of the Hill Track Victims but finally no solution came forward, the region remained a part of East Pakistan. The violent administration of Pakistan converted the region into a Muslim majority area in course of time by evicting most of the Buddhists in India in different regions. Pakistan applied the Rule of Law under violence. ... "

"Next, author discusses the 55 crore matter.

................................................................................................

................................................
................................................

May 03, 2022 - May 04, 2022.

................................................

................................................................................................

3. The Conflicting Thought of Gandhi

................................................................................................

But then, he sets forth facts, almost convincing.

Author is again incorrect.

" ... Patel although frustrated a little at the beginning as he thought to be the PM for which he expediently brought the proposal of partition in front of the general meeting, ... "

" ... he had been promoted to the post of Home Minister of India ... "

In addition, they blame Patel and nehru gor thus, claiming that it was their ambitions that were responsible for partition, and Jinnah at the helm would have kept India united. They forgot that this would also amount to a complete extinction of Hindu - or any nonmuslim - culture throughout India, as it has been enforced throughout Pakistan and almost completely through East Bengal too.

"East Bengali Refugees are people who left East Bengal following the Partition of Bengal. These refugees and immigrants were mostly Bengali Hindus. During the Bangladesh liberation war with West Pakistan, an estimated 10 million people of East Pakistan fled the country and had taken shelter particularly in the Indian states of West Bengal and Indian North East region. About 10 million Hindu people were the main victims of the West Pakistani army."

Are these numbers real? Sheikh Mujibur Rehman had said 3 million, but then, one doubts there were official precise counts at any time, it was only that the whole place and especially the intellectuals and academics had been butchered by specific orders. It was almost copycat imitation of nazi occupation of East Europe, Chinese occupation of Tibet, Portuguese occupation of Goa.

"For those in Coopers Camp, the injustice of partition is still continuing. People still live on government handouts and have to fight tooth and nail to get Indian nationality: even those born here struggle to get recognition. Many original refugees have remained stateless for the past six decades. Most of the older residents are still too frightened to leave the camp for fear of being deported. The millions of Indians living in Eastern India and Bengal bore the brunt of partition in a way that still defines their existence. For Punjab, an exchange of population was a once-for-all affair. But for West Bengal the influx continued for years together after partition, and continues in different forms sometimes with the mass exodus for economic cause."

"Settlement of Refugees outside: To cope with the huge influx of refugees into West Bengal, the Indian government decided to send the “excess” refugees in the region, like the Andaman and Nicobar Islands. Those who refused to go, including most of the Coopers refugees, quickly found themselves disenfranchised. Comment of few Refugees goes like this: ‘Sixty years on, trapped by circumstance, a lack of education and prejudice against our children, the grandchildren and great-grandchildren. The original refugees still in India and now they have no faith in India and nowhere else to go. There is no longer any excuse left for ignoring them.’"

Reading above, it's completely unclear if the refugees were expected to go to Andaman and Nicobar,

"Indian leaders playing politics with Refugees: The left government of West Bengal always made an electoral promise that once voted to power, it would ensure that all Bengali refugees who had been settled in the Dandakaranya area of central India would be allowed to relocate in Bengal. But once they came to power forget the promise. Once Jyoti Basu’s police and CPM cadres opened fire on Bangladeshi Hindu refugee, who were living Marichjhapi, a remote locality in the mangrove forests of Sundarbans. When some refugees actually tried to coming back, they were forcibly prevented. But some of them tried to settle there when Jyoti Basu’s Government and his party, brutally killed them. But again when Jyoti Basu after coming to power faced with many exiled Muslims (who earlier migrated to East Pakistan) coming back to West Bengal allowed them to settle in West Bengal thus setting a supreme example of Indian secularism. Thus the Indians could see Gandhi became the supreme leader with the supreme ethics of non-violence, Nehru became the supreme PM by getting Lady Mountbatten as the supreme adviser while Jyoti Basu became the supreme Chief Minister by getting the secular votes.

"Torture of Refugees under multiple strokes: There are Bengali refugees’ centers which are a kind of concentration camp of Bengali refugees in independent India, where the refugees were not allowed to settle outside. There are refugee centers in Dandakaranya where sever type of brutality (like a baby was beheaded and then returned to the mother, asking her to breastfeed) witnessed. The government or the bhadraloks of Kolkata have not formulated any force to take up the refugee cause, and almost nobody ever enquired about the plight of these Bengali refugees who were being forced to settle outside West Bengal, in unknown (and often unfriendly) terrains, citing the reason of lack of space in West Bengal.

Here are some really shocking, presumably facts, he quotes.

"An estimate shows that nearly 2.4 million Hindus were killed in East Pakistan during 1971 war. This is an estimated account of the refugees of East Bengal or East Pakistan or Bangladesh. ... "

But next, he blames it on non-violence.

"If he was a political man of unity, he should continue to work with all, with people of all religion. Why did he start Non-Violence movement in Calcutta taking only the Hindu people? Why did he fail to take up the Muslims in the Calcutta movement? Why he was ousted from the Khilaphat Movement? He was responsible for Hindu-Muslim chaos. He was the key person in the conflict of violent political context of 1947-48. He was the destroyer of the Hindu-Muslim unity."

This is so confused, even the logical and factual bits are likely to be discarded by a reader.

But he gets worse.

" ... Chittagong Hill Tracts, a region mostly inhabited by the Buddhists were given to Pakistan by Radcliffe award due to misinformation and lacking of knowledge of Radcliffe. ... "

"The Chittagong Hill Tracts (CHT): It is southeastern Bangladesh within the Chattogram Division, bordering India and Myanmar(Burma). The early history of the Chittagong Hill Tracts, indicate many tribals as well as many Bengali people were living in the area. The use of the name Chittagong for this area dates to the 1860 British annexation of the region, bringing it under the direct control of British India. Situated beyond the inland hills, Chittagong proper is a coastal area in the plains where the British had made their base.

"Administratively, the Chittagong Hill Tracts were divided into three circles, namely the Chakma Circle, the Bohmong Circle, and the Mong Circle, each presided over by a hereditary chief from the Chakma and Marma peoples. The last viceroy, Louis Mountbatten, 1st Earl Mountbatten of Burma, who considered the grant of independence to India as his act of crowning glory, was ambitious to achieve this “superhuman” task in record time. He said that before accepting the post of viceroy, he had told George VI, who was his cousin: “I am prepared to accept the job only on one condition. India must be granted independence by July, 1948 and I will not stay there a day longer.” Mountbatten came to India in March 1947 and this left him just about sixteen months to complete such a gigantic task. In reality, he achieved it in five months, on 15 August 1947, for which he was given much credit.

"Originally, the award of the Boundary Commission was to be made public on 13 August. But Mountbatten was reluctant to make this public. According to Philip Ziegler, the author of Mountbatten’s official biography, the case of the Chittagong Hill Tracts was the uppermost topic in Mountbatten’s mind. Mountbatten “foresaw an Independence Day marred by rancor, Nehru boycotting the ceremonies, India born in an atmosphere not of euphoria but of angry resentment.” So Mountbatten decided to announce the award only on 16 August when the celebrations were over. As Zeigler writes, “India’s indignation at the award of the Chittagong Hill Tracts to Pakistan may have been a factor in making up Mountbatten’s mind to keep the reports to him till after independence.”

................................................................................................

................................................
................................................

May 04, 2022 - May 04, 2022.

................................................

................................................................................................

4. The Thought of Gandhi Differs with the

Thought of Other Leaders

................................................................................................

Author begins with Subhash Chandra Bose. He begins with short summary of early life.

"It reflected in the election of Congress President. Subhas Bose was elected Congress President in 1938 and then again in 1939. Gandhi tried his best to defeat him by raising a candidate from South Pattabhi Sita Ram so that by the joint effort of North and South, Subhas could be defeated. But again Subhas Bose was elected with huge margin. Gandhi stood against him and then he had undertaken the task of opposing him in every thought and tried to insult him at the time of opportunity along with all Northern leaders of Congress. Finally Gandhi had taken his last weapon ‘non-cooperation’ by dint of which he did not allow Bose to function as Congress President. Bose decided to resign from the Congress party in 1939 and immediately formed a new party “Forward Bloc.”"

He gives a short summary of the rest up to deployment of atomic bombs, and then describes Netaji Subash Chandra Bose as " lost". Next he goes on, inexplicably, to Lincoln. It soon becomes clear why.

" ... Lincoln had established the Rule of Justice through the Rule of Law established through the natural process of violence. Gandhi had tried to establish the Rule of Justice through the natural process of Non-Violence. He tried to interpret Hindu Dharma what is nothing but human Dharma and he misinterpreted the Hindu Religion by saying that Non-Violence is in the ethics of Hindu Dharma (Religion). The Religious Book of Hindu Dharma is Mahabharata where it is written Krishna asking Arjuna to take arms and fight for the right of justice for the sake of Hastinapura Kingdom. Where is non-violence in Hindu Religion? ... "

He proceeds to compare the two,asking several factual and logical mistakes.

"In order to abolish injustice of slavery, Lincoln promoted voting rights for blacks because all were equal in color, size, intellect, moral developments, or social capacity,’ and also equal in certain inalienable rights, among which are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness’ and never hesitated to comply with the right of justice with his Arm Force in spite of threat to his life. ... "

Surely it's obvious that that "all were equal in color, size, intellect, moral developments, or social capacity,’" bit is completely incorrect, silly, and unnecessary to the next, vital "certain inalienable rights, among which are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness’" part?

Next jump is to Mao! Why author skipped over Hitler is unclear. His thought process is clear enough in the next part.

" ... He ruled the country by the Rule of Law established by the natural law of violence and not by Gandhi’s law of Non-Violence."

If violence is natural, why was Bengal claimed by jinnah for Pakistan, without UP? In other words, why fid Bengal convert to that extent, with intervening states along the Grand Trunk Road remaining unquestionably in India?

"Mao was the son of a wealthy farmer, a Chinese nationalist and anti-imperialist outlook since his early life. He was influenced by the events of Revolution of 1911 and the Movement of 1919. He later became a founding member of the Communist Party of China (CPC). During the Chinese Civil War, Mao helped Peasants’ Red Army."

He proceeds with a description that omits the now estimated 100 million deaths yo the credit of Mao, not only during the "famine" but Aldo his "cultural revolution".

"On October 1, 1949, Mao became the chief of the People’s Republic of China (PRC), what was controlled by the Communist Party of China (CPC). In 1957 he launched a campaign in order to change the China’s economy but met with the deadliest famine leading to the deaths of 20–45 million people in between 1958 and 1962. But fight for better economy continued till 1966, when Mao initiated the Cultural Revolution, a program to remove “counter-revolutionary” elements in Chinese society. It lasted for 10 years what was marked by violent class struggle, and finally in 1972, a new beginning of economy was opened up by welcoming American President Richard Nixon in Beijing."

Notice author not going into why.

His next choice is Bismarck!

" ... Bismarck was a leader, a statesman who established German Emperor by his own efforts carrying out three decisive wars against Denmark, Austria, and France. He remained in German as an outstanding leader from the year 1860s until 1890 and he acted as the first Chancellor of the German Empire between 1871 and 1890 keeping the unity of the country as a country of one unit."

Author doesn't bother to explain the bits "established German Emperor" or "He remained in German as an outstanding leader", neither by stating if Bismarck was the person who established a united Germany under presumably Hohenzollern royal house of Sigmaringen and Prussia, as Sardar Patel did in independent India, by getting various princely or royal states to join; or by explaining why "He remained in German" is worth mentioning, if he was German in the first place. Since Austria was the major empire, joined with Hungary, unyil WWI ended, Bismarck could hardly have been Austrian.

" ... He maintained peace despite the existence of many disputes and war scares, in the territory of German Empire."

Is author referring to the African acquisitions of Germany? It makes little sense to refer to Germany alone, as such, as German Empire.

"The historian Eric Hobsbawm, remarked “Bismarck remained undisputed world champion at the game of multilateral diplomatic chess for almost twenty years after 1871, and devoted himself exclusively, and successfully, to maintaining peace between the powers.”"

"In the 1870s, he allied himself with the Liberals but again he broke away with the Liberals, he was loyal to his king, who supported him in Germany’s parliament. Bismarck distrusted democracy and ruled through a strong, well-trained bureaucracy with power in the hands. Bismarck became a hero to German nationalists. Bismarck largely controlled domestic and foreign affairs, until he was removed by the young Kaiser Wilhelm II in 1890, at the age of seventy-five."

Author proceeds to contrast him with Gandhi.

Next,

"Maniram Dewan, a man of nineteenth century of Eastern India was with the virtue of violence who in one hand had utilized the God gifted strength and energy for bringing the economic revolution in Assam, in the extreme regions of North-East of India ... "

Followed by -

"Churchill often ridiculed Gandhi, by saying in a widely reported 1931 speech:

:“It is alarming and also nauseating to see Mr. Gandhi, a seditious Middle Temple lawyer, now posing as a fakir of a type well known in the East, striding half-naked up the steps of the Vice-regal palace....to parley on equal terms with the representative of the King-Emperor.”"

Funny, an India in fewer than six pieces post 1950 seems broken to him, but he thinks it was united until 1947?

Funny, if author knew all along the name of Pattabhi Sitaramayya, why has he been miss-spelling it? And isn't it Pattabhi Sitaramulu?

" ... Gandhi was brought up in remote village of Purbander in Gujarat under the cover of prejudices of Hindu religion. ... "

" .. under the cover of prejudices of Hindu religion."??????

Sounds like author is seriously anti-Hindu.

Author sounds decidedly like, not just a fan of British, but a Macaulay product who despises India, except perhaps his own Bengal!

" ... On view of academic activity he had to spend a period of three years in England under much hardship. As he struggled hard to adapt himself to Western food, dress, and etiquette, he gets isolated as he was lacking in adjustment in all fronts.

"He was in trouble in London with his other class friend taking the issue of vegetarianism.

"Fortunately for him he came across a vegetarian restaurant as well as a vegetarian book providing him Vaishnava background. Forgetting the study of law he turned towards Vaishnavism and very soon he became a member of the executive committee of the London Vegetarian Society. Afterwards he turned towards Bhagavad-Gita. ... "

There's a plethora of experiences of Indian vegetarians in various lands of West, or Australia, that font include a problem with attire; Gandhi changed to Indian clothing only on his arrival from South Africa.

" ... He turned down the profession at Bombay, then turned down the part-time job of a teacher at Bombay, and returned to Rajkot to make a modest living by drafting petitions for litigants. Even that employment was also turned down due to the displeasure of a local British officer.

"Ultimately he got a relief in 1893 by getting an offer of a year’s contract from an Indian firm in Natal, South Africa and gets rid of India and humiliation of India out of London Barrister."

Goodness, is this person completely oblivious to massacres of Hindus and Sikhs in West Pakistan, and subsequently in Kashmir? Seriously, "pleasure and prosperity of Uttar Bharat. ... "???????

"The British government did not order its army to move into the place of violence. ... "

Does the author actually seem here to argue that Jinnah was, or muslims were, threatened by non-violence?????

"The British reluctantly agreed to the Jinnah’s proposal of partitioning the land into Pakistan and India. ... "

There's nothing "Hindu" about Gandhi's nonviolence.

" ... Nehru was decided by Gandhi the first Prime Minister of India and in exchange Nehru declared Gandhi as the father of the nation after his death unilaterally. Of Course later the declaration was imposed in the country. However, Freedom fighter Subhash Chandra Bose on radio broadcast from Singapore on 6 July 1944 addressed Gandhi as “The Father of the Nation.”"

" ... Pandit Motilal Nehru founded the Swaraj party in 1923 along with Deshbandhu Chittranjan Das. With the arrival of Simon Commission in 1927, Motilal Nehru was asked to draw up a draft constitution for free India where it was stated that India would remain a Dominion of the British Empire. Jawaharlal Nehru and Subhas Chandra Bose along with other radical young members of the Congress reacted violently against the proposal to keep India a Dominion. Gandhi as a senior member intervened and averted the Congress from splitting."

Author repeats here some gossip that has done rounds of internet, without evidence.

" ... In search of a powerful person in order to change his destiny he came across with a Nehru family, unfortunately that the earlier history reveals the fact that the origin of Nehru family lies in Muslim Blood. As such most of the family members have a tendency to build up a relation with Muslims. Knowing his daughter Vijaya Lakshmi eloped with his employee Syud HussainMotilal Nehru immediately forcefully took her back and got her married with another man named Ranjit Pandit. Krishna Hutheesing, the second sister of Jawaharlal Nehru also mentioned in her memoirs that her grandfather was the city Kotwal of Delhi prior to 1857’s uprising when Bahadur Shah Zafar was still the sultan of Delhi. Pridarshani Nehru daughter of Jawaharlal Nehru also married with a Muslim fellow named Feroz Khan in England in a London mosque. Gandhi changed the title by an affidavit with a definite future prospect. ... "

Besides, Nehrus were given their daughters in arranged marriages by other Kashmir Brahmins, which is most unlikely without a thorough verification of their caste!

As for their seeming attachments to some Muslim here or their, well, gossip about Edwina Mountbatten does not imply Jawaharlal Nehru was blood relative of Queen Victoria.

Wikipedia on the other hand says -

"According to an excerpt from Jawaharlal Nehru: An Autobiography:[3]

"It was also a record of history when Nehru became PM of India he became more interested to go to Simla to pass the night in the Hotel with Edwina ... "

Hotel???? "pass the night"????

For heavens sake! She was Vicereine, ensconced royally at Vice-regal lodge of the British Empire, and India still a Dominion until 1950!

And there were no flights yet, were there? Not between Delhi and Simla, yet? Surely such a schedule for the then PM would be known, instantly, everywhere?

................................................................................................

................................................
................................................

May 04, 2022 - May 04, 2022.

................................................

................................................................................................

5. Gandhi’s Concept of Religion

................................................................................................

" ... He satisfied Muslim League by giving Pakistan and India by giving most of the princely states. ... "

................................................................................................

................................................
................................................

May 04, 2022 - May 05, 2022.

................................................

................................................................................................

6. India after Gandhi

................................................................................................

" ... East Bengal was renamed East Pakistan in 1955 and later Bangladesh after Liberation War of 1971."

When one refers to the region without time frame, the first - East Bengal - therefore seems most concise.

" ... Tribal Islamic forces armed with the army of Pakistan attacked Kashmir and occupied parts of the princely state forcing the Maharaja to sign the Instrument of Accession of the princely state to the Dominion of India so as to receive Indian military aid. ... "

Tribal nothing! They were sent by Pakistan and backed by military but Pakistan bring do.inion, military chiefs sticking British in both Pakistan and India, this was merely a fraudulent drama, expected to get Kashmir in Pakistan! Even when accession was signed Mountbatten kept saying it was too late, sending Indian army was risky. It was Patel who, exasperated, forced the issue and told army they had their orders.

As for tribal drama, it was repeated in 1965 too and in Kargil as well. It was always soldiers in salwar. In Kargil, it was Northern Light Infantry, mostly young men of Northern Kashmir of Gilgit and Baltistan. Pakistan had to finally accept bodies after families clamoured, having until then stoutly claimed that they were not from Pakistan at all.

" ... The UN Security Council interfered and passed a Resolution on 22 April 1948 ... "

" ... Pakistan gained Azad Kashmir, ... "

" ... Following the atrocities about 10 million Bengalis in East Pakistan took refuge in neighboring India compelling India to intervene in the ongoing Bangladesh liberation movement. A full-scale war between the two countries commenced leading to the surrender and finally ended the war signing the instrument of surrender.

"Pakistan attacked at several places along India’s border with Pakistan, but the Indian Army successfully counter attacked. ... "