M. K Gandhi
Over the years, we have given Mr. MK Gandhi the credit for bringing independence. Should we?
I will refer to Mahatma Gandhi as his original name, M.K Gandhi, because the Hindus gave the title of Mahatma to him, which means great soul, but to some people he isn’t a great soul at all.
In the First World War, when India was still under the rule of the British, the British were in desperate need of help, in which they knew that Sikhs were probably the best, definitely one of the bravest, fighters in the world. The British also knew there was no reason the Sikhs would help the British, because of the oppressive British rule in India. Therefore the British told the Indians that if they fought for Britain, their country would be granted freedom.
Gandhi passed the message on to the Sikhs. Gandhi even supplied the weapons to the Sikhs, telling them that it was for the freedom of their country. When a Sikh asked Gandhi why he wasn’t himself fighting with the Sikhs, Gandhi replied that he was strictly against violence. If Gandhi was against violence, then he shouldn’t have told the other Indians to Fight. But, instead, he gave the Sikhs guns to fight in WWI, isn’t that just as bad?
The British didn’t return India to the Indians, although if they had, then I am quite sure Gandhi would have taken all the credit for it like a ‘middle-man’ between the British and the Sikhs at that time.
It is also a fact worth noting, that 85% of the Indian freedom fighters (Shaheeds) were Sikhs. Yet they were less than 2% of India’s population.
Sardar Bhagat Singh, the famous freedom fighter, who was contemporary of M.K Gandhi, had no faith in Gandhi’s words and went over with the teachings of Guru Gobind Singh Ji (“when all means of keeping peace have failed, it is just to raise the sword”).
After Bhagat Singh completed his mission, he surrendered himself to the British. I think one of the main reasons he surrendered was because he knew when he spoke in the British court, the whole of India would hear, and the youth would rise in courage.
However, when Bhagat Singh was tried, and was sentenced to death, the British asked M.K Gandhi if Bhagat Singh was one of his followers. Had Gandhi replied yes, he could have saved the life of Bhagat Singh. But Gandhi replied, “No.” If Gandhi was so kind then he would have saved the life of a 21-year-old freedom fighter, who loved his country more than his life.
The fact is, Gandhi didn’t care about the people who died fighting. He wanted everyone to go along with his own method whether they survived or not.
M.K Gandhi said Bhagat Singh was a ‘misguided patriot’. According to one author, Gandhi stated Guru Gobind Singhji, too, was ‘a misguided patriot’, because Guruji’s beliefs were different to his.
It is clear, if you support Bhagat Singh and if you believe in the teachings of the Sikh Gurus, you cannot support Gandhi at the same time.
After the famous ‘Jallianwala Bagh Massacre’, Gandhi went there and had a good look at the blood of the Sikhs. He had not asked his followers in any other state or province to rise against the British. Only the Sikhs had answered his call for a freedom rally in Amritsar.
Sardar Udham Singh went to England and took revenge for the Massacre. He sacrificed his life giving his name as “Ram Muhammed Singh Azaad”, signifying the unity of the three religions in India against the oppressive British rule.
When Sardar Udham Singh was about to be hanged to death (as a Shaheed) after meting out proper justice to Sir Michael O’Dwyer, M.K Gandhi said that he was very upset on the death of Sir Michael O’Dwyer (the same person that murdered about 500 Sikhs in about 10 minutes) and told India not to follow the footsteps of a mad man (referring to Udham Singh).
M.K Gandhi always said he was a Hindu and a Muslim. What about the Sikhs? He couldn’t have used the excuse of saying Sikhs were only 2% of India, and Hindus and Muslims were the main population, because Sikhs caused more trouble to the British than the Hindus and the Muslims put together! He also stated that if Congress were ever to betray the Sikhs, the Sikhs could raise the sword against Congress.
Well, in 1984 the Congress did a lot more than just betray the Sikhs. Gandhi had placed Nehru as the Indian Prime Minister, who had also said there would be nothing wrong with the Sikhs having a country of their own to experience the glow of freedom.
In the 1960’s when the Sikhs asked for a separate state just like the EAST Bengali Muslims, the devious treacherous Nehru changed his mind! Even now the Sikhs are being denied freedom.
I strongly believe that M.K Gandhi did not get India freedom, because after World War 2, Britain had been almost destroyed. They had lost a lot of their army, money, and power, and they couldn’t keep India under their foot for much longer with more Bhagat Singhs and Udham Singhs attacking them. So they left in peace. Since M.K Gandhi had preached peace, therefore all the credit went to him. After World War 2, England had also signed the United Nations Charter, stating that no country can conquer another. So England saved herself from contradicting herself, and left India. It was lucky of M.K Gandhi to receive all the credit.
It is also true that Gandhi had split India up into two, Hindustan and Pakistan. Because of Gandhi the riots had triggered off. Today, all these conflicts we see between the two countries are all because of the division, which Gandhi had accepted.
Gandhi said his Congress Party would never betray the Sikhs. In 1984 Congress became the biggest enemy of the Sikhs. The Gurus’ teachings and Gandhi’s teaching do not fit. You cannot be a Sikh and a Gandhi supporter at the same time.
Comment by owner website:
What you said is perfectly right.
Gandhi was the most useful tool of the British rulers. They did not like Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose and the Sikh freedom fighters(fighters), but loved this "mouse" of history called Gandhi who suited them most.
Given a Gandhi, India got broken up and partitioned, REDUCED, mutilated and raped. Did we not wish we had Chatrapati Shivaji or Guru Gobind Singh at the head of this demoralised Hindustan?
Given the Gandhi legacy, the whole of Hindustan lay under the foot of Nehru Dynasty, father to daughter, to son, for over fifty years. Broadcasting is still state owned and conrolled in India.
Given the Gandhi, India would still have been a slave colony.
When Jinnah threatened civil war, Gandhi collapsed in one second. He did not challenge Jinnah nor asked the Rajputs, Sikhs, Marathas, Tamils, Jats and Gurkhas to RISE as one man, to teach the Indian Muslims a lesson they would never forget.
Gandhi COLLAPSED, the whole country collapsed. Lahore was gone in one day! The Sikhs were decimated. The Hindus were left bleeding all over. Have we recovered yet? NO. I don't think so.
Gandhi surrendered West Punjab as if it was his own dirty "langoti".
This barrister at law from London did not even suggest referendum to ascertain the wishes of the people over partition.
Gandhi the devious coward did not tell the minorities in West Punjab "to run for life" when he FAILED to keep India united under his secularism, but kept on assuring them that Mr. Jinnah had guaranteed their safety and that they should stay put in their homes.
Millions who trusted Gandhi stayed put, only to be SLAUGHTERED or RUN FOR LIFE eventually. Under the legacy of this "mouse" Government of India has closed the book on Partition. It cannot even be mentioned in official circles.
But how is it that while Bill Clinton has just allotted a plot in Washington, DC, for the statue of "Micky Mouse Gandhi", NO ONE has protested. Not even the followers of Gobind!! The Indians still remain a DEGRADED race due to Gandhi's teachings.
I think it is High Treason by Clinton to surrender even an inch of BRAVE American soil to the coward Gandhi who committed High Treason by signing the Act of Eternal Surrender of West Punjab and East Bengal without, at the same time, ensuring the expulsion of ALL the Muslims from partitioned India- yet another Gandhi legacy under which India will perish.