Daily Times

It is said by some that if the Indian people had resorted to arms against British rulers there would have been a lot of bloodshed. That is true but then that is the price a people must pay for freedom. In fact, our real freedom fighters, Bhagat Singh, Chandrashekhar Azad, Surya Sen (Masterda), Ashfaqullah, Ram Prasad Bismil, Khudiram Bose, Rajguru and Sukhdev, realised this and took up arms against the British in the early 20th century. This was no doubt only the beginning of a nationwide armed fight against the British and was, therefore, only on a very small scale. However, later on, it would have developed into a full-blown war of independence. Gandhi successfully diverted this genuine freedom struggle towards a harmless channel called Satyagrah, which was sentimental nonsense and would do no real harm to the British. Would a great power like Britain give up its empire because Gandhi was going frequently on fasts and singing Raghupati Raghav Raja Ram in public meetings? The names of our real freedom fighters have been relegated to the footnotes of our history books and they have been painted as mavericks and deviants, while that fraud Gandhi is given credit for winning freedom for us.
So, who was responsible for independence in 1947? Let me explain. In the Second World War, which started in 1939, Germany attacked Britain and considerably weakened it. Possibly, Germany would have conquered Britain had it not been for US help. But this help came at a price. The US put pressure on the British to give up their empire in India, so that India may be opened up for US enterprise and investments too. This is the real reason behind the independence of India. It had nothing to do with Gandhi.
I am reproducing now a blog of mine that started
this debate.
“This post is bound to draw a lot of flak to me but that does not matter as I am not a popularity seeker. I have often said things knowing that initially they will make me very unpopular, and I will be vilified and denounced by many. Nevertheless, I say such things as I believe they must be said in my country’s interest. I submit that Gandhi was objectively a British agent who did great harm to India.
These are my reasons for saying this:
India has tremendous diversity; so many religions, castes, races, languages. Realising this the British policy was of divide and rule. By constantly injecting religion into politics continuously for several decades, Gandhi furthered the British policy of divide and rule. If we read Gandhi’s public speeches and writings, we find that ever since Gandhi came to India from South Africa in 1915 or so till his death in 1948, in almost every speech or article he would emphasise Hindu religious ideas. Thus, Gandhi wrote in Young India in 1921: “I am a Sanatani Hindu. I believe in the varnashram dharma. I believe in protection of the cow.” In his public meetings the Hindu bhajan, Raghupati Raghav Raja Ram, would be loudly sung.
Now, Indians are a religious people and they were even more religious in the first half of the 20th century. A sadhu or swamiji may preach such ideas to his followers in his ashram but when they are preached day in and day out by a political leader, what effect will these speeches and writings have on an orthodox Muslim mind? It would surely drive him towards a Muslim organisation like the Muslim League, and so it did. Was this not serving the British policy of divide and rule? By constantly injecting religion into politics for several decades, was Gandhi not objectively acting as a British agent?
In India, a revolutionary movement against British rule started in the early 20th century under the Anushilan Samiti, Jugantar and revolutionaries like Surya Sen, Ramprasad Bismil, (who wrote the song Sarfaroshi ki Tamanna Ab Hamare Dil Mein Hai), Chandrashekhar Azad, Ashfaqulla, Bhagat Singh, Rajguru etc. (who were all hanged by the British). Gandhi successfully diverted the freedom struggle from this revolutionary direction to a harmless, nonsensical channel called Satyagrah. This also served British interests.
Gandhi’s economic ideas were thoroughly reactionary. He advocated self-sufficient village communities, though everybody knows that these communities were totally caste oriented and in the grips of landlords and moneylenders. Gandhi was against industrialisation and preached hand-spinning by charkha and other such reactionary nonsense. Similarly, his ‘trusteeship’ theory was all nonsense and an act of deceiving the people.
Some people praise Gandhi’s bravery in going to Noakhali to douse the communal violence at the time of partition. However, the question is: why did he help set the house on fire in the first place by preaching religious ideas in public political meetings for several decades, which were bound to divide the Indian people on religious lines? First you set the house on fire and then you try to douse the flames.

(Concluded)

The writer is an ex-judge of the Supreme Court of India