Date: 30 Nov 2007


For the last two three generations, our people have so heavily and ceaselessly been fed with so much of concocted untruths about the Mahatma that many of them have almost come to accept them as gospel truths: unchallengeable, unchangeable and immutable; and the person himself as an idol, an angel and a demigod. 
So, naturally, when the veil gets lifted even a little and the actual side exposed, the newer young bubbling generation feels a deep sense of revulsion, repugnance, revolt and antagonism against him. Under the circumstances, their language and usage cannot be expected to be moderate, suave and courteous? 
When the fraudulently idolised and declared father, liberator and maker of the nation, the Mahatma, and the apostle of truth is found to be in fact a sham, a fake, a base person who used to sleep naked with his own grand-niece and other ladies (who too were asked to be in the same state), a grave sense of abhorrence overtakes them and their language refuses to remain decorous, suave and gentle. 
Sir William Lloyd had once said – "Tell the man whose house is on fire to give a moderate alarm; tell him to moderately rescue his wife from the hands of the ravisher; tell the mother to gradually extricate her baby from the fire into which it has fallen; but urge me not to use moderation". – The same can be said to be the case with them. 
You wondered, 'Why did the British used to protect Gandhi, if he was a freedom fighter against British rule'; why had they a different policy against real freedom fighters? 
The answer is: Because the British considered him their best friend and ally in India . To them, he was "a friend whose authority alone prevents not only a resumption of civil disobedience but….methods of revolutionary agitation."(CEM Joad).
Lord Samuel had also accepted: "The fact that there is no open rebellion in India …is very largely due to the influence of Gandhi….the best policeman the Britishers had in India." (Miss. Wilkinson MP.) 
His loyalty to the British Empire was unflinching. No wonder if "On April 24, 1915 he made the (the following) most important speech of his tour (of Madras). While proposing the toast of the British Empire at a meeting of the Madras Bar Association, he declared proudly: It gives me the greatest pleasure this evening at this very great and important gathering to re-declare my loyalty to the British Empire. …..The British Empire had certain ideals with which I have fallen in love". (The Collected Works of Mahatma Gandhi. Vol XIII. P.59.)
In England he had proudly averred once: "I know of no Indian, whether here, in South Africa or in India, who had so steadily, even defiantly, set his face against sedition – as I understand it – as I have. It is a part of my faith not to have anything to do with it, even at the risk of my life". 
Once he had also said, "I will not hurt England … to serve India". (Young India, 16 March, 1921) 
During his stay in Yaravda prison, he had written nearly two dozen letters to the Jail authorities, some of which were addressed to the Superintendent of Prisons, an Englishman. All of them ended with the words, 'Yours obediently', 'Your faithful servant'! 
In the First World War, he issued a circular affirming his resolve to tender unconditional service to the British Empire and offered to raise a volunteer corps for ambulance work and set up an India Volunteer Committee with himself as the chairman. VV Giri, later a President of India, had first joined him but then withdrew, saying: "It was sinful to help the British". (But for Gandhi it was a blessing!) 
To the Viceroy he wrote, "I would make India offer all her able bodied sons as a sacrifice to the Empire at its critical moment". (MK Gandhi: An Autobiography.)
In another letter, he wrote, "Whilst, therefore, it is clear to me that we should give to the Empire every able bodied man for its defence….". (Ibid.)
One could argue, that "It was a Gandhi of an earlier time, a period when he was not that mature". For them, we quote one of as close as August 1942 'Quit India' movement – just five years before independence and six before his forced end. 
On August 14, 1942, he wrote to the Viceroy and pleaded for a reconsideration of the government policy. He wrote, "Do not disregard this pleading of one who claims to be a sincere friend of the British people." 
Mind you, the movement had started on August 8 and a day earlier all the leaders had been taken into custody and interned in jails. What was he doing outside? Why he was not arrested and put behind the bars? The answer is obvious. 
When Lords Montague and Chelmsford came to meet the leaders and submit a report to the British government on constitutional reforms, they met all the leaders. Describing Bal GangadharTilak, his remarks were, "The Great Tilak" (who really he was) "at the moment, probably, the most powerful man in India". But about Gandhi he commented, "He dresses like a coolie. …He does not understand details of schemes; all he wants is that we should get India on our side. He wants the millions of India to leap to the assistance of the British throne." (ES Montague: An Indian Diary, p.59.) 
In South Africa, he fought to help British Imperialism in the Boer War, and later sided with them to repel the Zulu rebellion. For the former, he was awarded a War Medal also by the Colonialist Imperialists. 
The painful fact is, HE WAS AGAINST INDIA'S COMPLETE INDEPENDENCE from the British.
We should not forget that his 'Indian Home Rule' or 'Hind Swaraj' did not envisage independence from the British. (Pl refer his booklet 'Indian Home Rule' published by G Natesan, Madras). So faithful and so enamoured was he of the British that he desired their perpetual rule. He was against ending 'their benevolent rule'.
He used to take extra care that his words did not hurt the feelings of the British; whether they hurt those of his countrymen, was of no concern to him. He always used to impress upon his countrymen and say, "we stand to lose by ending British rule"! 
He even declared that while he appreciated the patriotism of men like Lala Lajpat Rai and the immense sufferings undergone for the sake of the country, but they were in error so far as they wanted to end British rule. "We have", he averred, "no quarrel with the British rule but instead of desiring the end of the British rule", let us aspire to be as able and spirited as the colonists are. (The Collected Works of Mahatma Gandhi, Vol. IX p.306.)   
"It is not necessary for us (he had said) to have our goal the expulsion of the English". (Hind Swaraj: MK Gandhi, p. 47.)
When in a meeting in Calcutta, CF Andrews, a personal friend of his of South African days, publicly put forward a demand for Indian Independence, he did not like it and told him, "You have done a great deal of mischief by this advocacy of Independence". (The India Review, Sept 1922.)
IN December, 1928 he was asked: "What would be your attitude towards a political war of independence?" His reply was, "I would decline to take part in it". (Critique of Gandhi by MM Kothari, p.138.)
No wonder, he was a lover of the British National Anthem, which he used to sing. He himself admitted, "I have sung the tune and have taught others to sing it" – a composition which contained such words as, 'Scatter her enemies, and make them fall; Confound their politics; Confound their knavish … .' 
He had labelled Shivaji 'A misguided patriot', and Maharana Pratap, 'A Giant Bandit'. To him, Guru Gobind Singh, Maharaja Ranjit Singh, Chhatrapati Maharaj Shivaji – all were misguided patriots. (Young India, April 9, 1925.)
While writing in Hind Swaraj, he condemned great Madan lal Dhingra who shot dead Sir Curzon Wyllie, aid-de-camp of the Secretary of State for India Mr. Morley on July 1, 1901 here in London. The statement he issued at that time read, "Dhingra's defence is inadmissible. He was egged on to do this act by ill-digested readings of worthless writings" (a point to the works of Swatantrya Vir VD Savarkar). He had described Udham Singh as 'Insane' and Bhagat Singh as 'Mad'. 
In April 1921, the Khilafat Committee requested the AICC (All India Congress Committee) to formulate a clear and definite foreign policy for India. Accordingly, under the guidance of 'Mr. Bapu', All India Congress Working Committee in its Bombay session on October 5, 1921 passed the following resolution, which throws a flood of light on the working and thinking of the Congress, present as well as the past: 
"WHEN INDIA WILL ATTAIN SWARAJ, SHE GUARANTEES THE INDEPENDENT MUSLIM NATIONS THAT SHE WOULD SO FORMULATE HER POLICY AS TO BE IN FULL ACCORD WITH THE TENETS OF MUSLIM RELIGION". (History of the Congress, published by Maharashtra Congress Committee with foreword by Acharya Shanker Rao Deo, Secretary of the Congress. P.257.)
Should you doubt his practise of sleeping naked with young girls (which included his own grand niece, Kaba) asking them to share the same bed-cover also in a similar state, writings of his own, his private secretary, Pyare Lal, p.a. NK Bose and other close associates can be quoted.
NOV 30, 2007.