HOMEPAGE

COMMENTARY

HISTORY

POLITICS

ECONOMICS

FOREIGN AFFAIRS

DISTORTION

DISCRIMINATION

PERSECUTION

BY RADHA RAJAN HISTORY NUGGETS JULY 5, 2014

DECONSTRUCTING GANDHI – THE ORIGIN OF ANTI-HINDU POLITY

Narendra Modi signals Hindu resurgence 

Being anti-Modi now is a direct legacy of Gandhi’s anti-Hindu freedom struggle and anti-Hindu
Nehruvian secularism. The high decibel political reaction prior to elections 2014 to Modi’s unstoppable
ascent was a continuation of Gandhi’s response to first Tilak, Savarkar, Aurobindo and later Sardar Patel;
and Nehru’s response to Savarkar, Patel and the RSS.

To label the anti-Hindu orientation of Indian polity as ‘secular versus communal’ is to obfuscate the
truth. This is war between Hindu nationalists and all anti-Hindu political mercenaries including renegade
Hindus in political parties, media and academe, the Abrahamic cults and their supporters. For Hindu
nationalists Elections 2014 was a war for survival of Hindus and the Hindu homeland. It is not
overstating a fact that every Hindu felt he had a stake in Elections 2014.

To state the obvious –

To garner the minority vote, anti-Hindu politicians pay jizya of politics of minority-ism under two broad
categories:

Give anti-Hindu politics a face – it was Tilak, Aurobindo and Savarkar at the turn of the twentieth
century, it is the RSS and Modi now. Gandhi could publicly insult and humiliate Tilak, maliciously ignore
Aurobindo and with criminal self-interest evict proclaimed Hindus KM Munshi and NB Khare from the
INC and marginalize Patel in 1946 because he was the Mahatma. But for Digvijay Singh, Lalu Prasad
Yadav,  Mulayam Singh Yadav and other mercenaries who cannot risk being publicly seen as anti-Hindu,
it costs nothing to be anti-RSS and anti-Modi.

Practice naked politics of minorityism but give it the fig-leaf of constitutional secularism or even better,
call it Gandhi’s vision of India and never mind if in action it is nothing less than feeding the anti-Hindu
monster.

From the clairvoyant Arundhati Roy who declared with certainty that Modi would not become prime
minister, to Nitish Kumar and Naveen Patnaik the reasons cited to hate Modi all go back to the
fundamental reason why the British manufactured the INC in 1885, followed by the destructive years of
Gandhi’s political leadership from 1915 to 1947.

It was Gandhi and the Indian National Congress (that Gandhi intentionally and successfully de-
Hinduised), which gave away Hindu territory to the Muslim League (as plotted and executed by Imperial
Britain) in 1947. A politically dispirited INC was disarmed, unmanned and weakened by the Mahatma
over a period lasting three decades, an INC which had no self conscious political commitment to
anything Hindu and could therefore not stop the Muslim League from vivisecting the Hindu nation to
create another Dar-ul Islam. The country’s polity is burdened till today by Gandhi’s unrelenting political
disempowerment of Hindus.

Not all the verbose annual reports on religious freedom, terrorism and human rights by the US State
Department and the USCIRF and special sessions on the Gujarat riots which designated India as “country
of interest” and Modi as “person of interest” has deterred India’s Hindus from uniting behind Modi.
“Person of interest”, “country of interest” is Americanism for individuals and heads of government of
target countries who were unwilling to serve American interests.

So why do they all fear and hate Modi so much?

While post-Godhra Gujarat riots of 2002 makes for designer fig-leaf, we must look elsewhere for the real
reason to dislike Modi. Modi made no bones about the fact that he was a RSS pracharak; but unlike the
standard RSS pracharak he chose the challenging arena of electoral politics to serve the Hindu nation;
Modi chose to be the in-your-face tea-vendor turned RSS pracharak-turned-Chief Minister of Gujarat
and is now the in-your-face RSS pracharak-turned Prime Minister.

Vajpayee and Advani who led the previous NDA government between 1997 and 2004 were at best
notional Hindus and notional RSS swayamsevaks.

Just as motivated propaganda by renegade Hindus and the Muslim League projected Gandhi as the ideal
Hindu leading an “accommodative” INC in contrast to a “fanatic” Jinnah leading the avowedly Islamic
Muslim League, motivated politics of minority-ism exemplified by the three Yadavs – Sharad, Lalu and
Mulayam – projects Vajpayee, in contrast to Narendra Modi, as the ideal Hindu who led an
“accommodative” BJP.

Modi, until he is tamed and pacified by America to say otherwise or acts to the detriment of Hindu
interests, will be looked upon by his admirers and adversaries alike, as an RSS pracharak in active
politics.

The RSS is feared and disliked because the RSS makes no bones about India being a Hindu nation and the
RSS being a Hindu nationalist organization–and therefore antithetical to Gandhi’s and Congress’
fantasies about the face and shape of post 1947 India. Gandhi rejected the notion that Ramrajya was a
Hindu nation. Gandhi, in keeping with his bible-selling years in South Africa and his monotheist approach
to Hinduis equated Ramrajya with the Muslim Khudai Raj and the Christian Kingdom of God. Modi’s
enemies are clinging to Gandhi’s fantasies hoping that in time they will break Modi and the RSS like the
British government broke the backbone of the Nationalist faction of the INC which split in Surat in
December 1907 over the issue of who should be elected President.

From the Mahatma’s own mouth

Let no one commit the mistake of thinking that Ramrajya means a rule of the Hindus. My Rama is
another name for Khuda or God. I want Khudai Raj which is the same thing as the Kingdom of God on
earth. The rule of the first four caliphs was somewhat comparable to it. (Speech at a prayer meeting,
Haimchar, February 26, 1947, CWMG Vol. 94, page 76 and Radha Rajan, Eclipse of the Hindu Nation:
Gandhi and his Freedom Struggle  Chapter 7, Unraveling the Mahatma, page 460)

Gandhi did not stop with his queer interpretation of Hindu scriptures and itihaasa; he diminished and
belittled everything Hindu – Hindu temples, Hindu sanyasis, Hindu customs and traditions and critically
during the 1940s decade, Hindu kings and princes, to implement the colonial agenda of seeking to find
the Holy Grail of Hindu-Muslim unity. Gandhi was preoccupied with this illusory unity until 1947 when
Gandhi lost nothing but the Hindu nation lost territory.

 Thousands of people doubtless look upon Rama and Krishna as historical figures and literally believe
that God came down in person on earth in the form of Rama the son of Dasaratha, and that by
worshipping him one can attain salvation. History, imagination and truth have got so inextricably mixed
up, it is next to impossible to disentangle them. I have accepted all the names and forms attributed to
God as symbols denoting one formless omnipotent Rama. (Who is Rama, New Delhi, May 26, 1946,
CWMG Vol. 91, pp 44-45) Thinking of the historical Rama of Valmiki or Tulsidas, one was liable to have
many doubts as for instance why Rama banished Sita and so on. But when one thought of Ramanama in
the abstract forgetting who Rama was and what he did, Rama at once became omnipresent and
omnipotent God, above doubt and criticism. (CWMG, Vol. 89, pp 298-99)

Such was Gandhi’s standing among people inside and outside the INC that he could pass off drivel as
high wisdom. In a letter to Jehangir Patel at Sevagram on August 8, 1946, Gandhi presented his own
comical description of Ramanama thus – 

Remember that Ramanama is the unfailing remedy for eradicating malaria. Having become a trustee of
a nature-cure institution, you have got to appreciate this thing. And Ramanama is the same as
Ahurmazda. (CWMG vol. 91, page 430)

Gandhi had an equally bizarre and un-Hindu interpretation of the Bhagwad Gita. His views on the
Bhagwad Gita in 1919 came at a time when Tilak during his six years internment in the Mandalay prison
penned his Srimad Bhagwad Gita Rahasya, a handbook on karmayoga. Tilak’s scholarly commentary on
the Bhagwad Gita is also known as Karmayoga Sastra.

Gandhi returned to India in a hurry in 1915 because he had to occupy the position as thinker and leader
of the INC – a position that Gokhale, aging and now quite ill, kept in readiness for him after the British
had removed first Aurobindo, next Tilak and then Savarkar from public life.

How did Gandhi respond to lapse of paramountcy?

With evil aforethought, Imperial Britain insisted that paramountcy will lapse with transfer of power
because Britain predicated its exit plan from India on leaving behind them chaos, instability and civil and
communal war. 

So what actually did “lapse of paramountcy” mean, and what did the Sapru Committee Report have to
say in this regard? 
Besides other things, lapse of paramountcy meant that the 565 Princely States in India would not be
compelled to become a part of the vivisected Union of India. Each of the Princely states was free to
accede to India, to Pakistan or to declare independence. In real terms, Gandhi knew that when the
British withdrew from India, lapse of paramountcy meant that the new Union of India would have 565
pockets scattered across the country in a state of simmering turbulence, instability and uncertainty. Not
only the Princely States but the Union of India would have to deal with several Muslim states under
Nizams and Nawabs either existing as independent entities or as little Pakistans inside Indian borders.

Gandhi knew all this and yet he wholeheartedly welcomed the Cabinet Mission Report as basis for
transfer of power, even when he knew that the Sapru Committee Report was a vastly superior
document not the least because it was wholly Indian in authorship. The Sapru Committee comprising
Tegh Bahadur Sapru, MR Jayakar and N Gopalswamy Iyengar, formulated a report which presented an
India-centric and workable basis not only for transfer of power but as a sound basis for the future
Constitution of India. The Sapru Committee proposals were made public in Bombay on December 27,
1945 and its opening statement said it all [emphasis added]:  

The Committee stands for a single Union of India, including the whole of British India and all the Indian
States, the claim for secession or non-accession, by which individual Provinces or States can keep out of
the Union is not accepted.                    

The Committee maintains that throughout it has endeavoured to make a constructive approach to the
many knotty problems that confront the country, to investigate them from every angle, to appraise as
dispassionately as they could every fact, circumstance or argument and to reach conclusions which in
their estimation were calculated promote the lasting interests of India and were likely to elicit the
approbation of thinking Indians.(Eclipse of the Hindu Nation, page 404)

So whose interests was Gandhi serving when he refused to even consider this all-Indian report and
instead legitimized the Cabinet Mission which insisted not only on vivisection of the nation but also
insisted on lapse of paramountcy?

On the question of paramountcy, the Sapru Committee had a clear-headed and well-articulated position
too. 
 

Dealing with the Indian States, the Committee says that provision should be made in the constitution for
the accession from time to time of Indian States as units of a Federation on such terms as may be agreed
upon but the establishment of the Indian Union should not be contingent on the accession to the
Federation of any Indian State or of any minimum number of Indian States. The Committee therefore
contemplates that the Union need not be identical with Federation and it may include States which have
not formally federated. The Committee say: “Our recommendation is that the new constitution should
continue at least the unity that now binds the States and British India, though the bond may not be
federal. To hang up the Federal Union of such units as are willing to federate until some States, or a
minimum number of States, or the last hesitant State had agreed to accede, would be a policy which is
calculated to postpone indefinitely the elimination of foreign rule and the achievement of full self-
government. The Committee therefore insists that the Union of India should be established without any
such waiting and that, while individual States might take their own time to make their minds as to
whether they would accede as federated units, all of them should from the outset be treated as in the
Union, united with each other and with the rest of India through paramountcy at the Union Centre”.

As regards paramountcy, the report says,

“British suzerainty, which is the mainspring of paramountcy jurisdiction today, will have to cease to exist
and the new Union Centre, that is the Federal Cabinet, will come to exercise that jurisdiction over the
unfederated States”. (Excerpts from Sapru Committee Report, Eclipse of the Hindu Nation, pp 409-10)

The Sapru Committee proposals rejected the partition of India, rejected lapse of paramountcy and
rejected the pernicious idea that the Princely States can even consider the issue of declaring
independence. The Committee also did not allow the Princely States the option of non-accession. This
precluded the other pernicious idea that Muslim Princely States will be accorded any special status or
concessions just because they were Muslim.

Gandhi’s threat to Hindu princes

But Gandhi knowing well that immediate lapse of paramountcy compounded by not allowing
paramountcy to be passed to the Union Centre, would cause great turbulence within an already
communally charged situation, offered more offence to Hindu Princely States when he appointed Nehru
and the Nawab of Bhopal to choose 93 delegates from among the 565 Indian States to participate in the
Constituent Assembly.
In the course of his public address at the AICC meeting in Bombay on August 8 announcing the Quit India
movement, Gandhi made reference to the Indian Princely States and issued a mildly-worded explicit
threat:

I have eaten the Princes’ salt and I would not be false to it. As a faithful servant, it is my duty to warn the
Princes that if they will act when I am alive, the Princes may come to occupy an honourable place in free
India. In Jawaharlal’s scheme of free India, no privileges or the privileged classes have a place. (CWMG
Vol. 83, pp 198-99)

Gandhi did not have a word of reassurance, he refused to reach out to the Hindu Princely States and did
not inspire confidence or sense of security in the Princes that he would be receptive to their concerns
and act upon them.

It is baffling why Gandhi pointed Hindu Princes in Nehru’s direction and not towards Sardar Patel, Rajaji
or anyone else for the matter and why it had to be the Nawab of Bhopal and not a Hindu Maharaja,  or
why not a Nawab and a Hindu maharaja. Needlessly alienating the Hindu Princely States, Gandhi
declared that if the Princely States failed to come to an agreeable solution, then there would be no
delegates to represent them in the Constituent Assembly and their issue would be transferred to the
Advisory Committee referred to in Clause 20 of the Cabinet Mission State Paper.

It is thus not surprising that CP Ramaswamy Iyer considered Gandhi the most menacing threat to Hindu
Princely States. The question remains: why did Gandhi not even consider the Sapru Committee report
and why did he insist on going along with the British Government’s agenda for transfer of power which
included vivisection of the Hindu nation and creating anarchy in the Princely states? Whose objective
was Gandhi serving?

The real reason the RSS and Modi are feared 

Consider the following:

When the Indian National Congress led from the front by Gandhi had been rendered impotent and
totally incapacitated from dealing with the Muslim League’s demand for Pakistan

What did the INC do even after the bloody vivisection of the Hindu nation followed by Pakistan’s
invasion and occupation of Kashmir in September 1947?
Gandhi refused to quit politics and threatened for the nth time in January 1948 to fast unto death if he
did not get his way about giving Pakistan that country’s share of the pre-vivisection treasury funds
amounting to more than 500 lakh rupees, which Sardar Patel wisely refused to give Pakistan knowing
that Pakistan will certainly use it for more aggression against India

An enraged Hindu shot Gandhi to death.

Nehru sought to distract a bleeding nation’s attention away from vivisection and away from his own
criminal mishandling of Kashmir to Gandhi’s execution and made it easy on himself to blame not the
Hindus but the RSS for Gandhi’s assassination

Now consider these:

It suited Nehru then and suits the Congress now to blame the RSS for Gandhi’s death because blaming
Gandhi for partition would be the same as blaming the Indian National Congress and not the Muslim
League for partition. Nehru could not blame Hindus for killing Gandhi because that would be
tantamount to acknowledging the deep and intense anger of Hindus against Gandhi and the INC. To
label Godse as being RSS or Hindu Mahasabha instead of being Hindu served Nehru and his anti-Hindu
politics.

Modi as Chief Minister of Gujarat in 2002 was the unwilling instrument of destiny when jihadis being
jihadis burnt alive in Godhra, 57 Hindus – ordinary Hindu men, women and children returning home
after a pilgrimage to Ayodhya. Enraged Hindus of Gujarat, like enraged Hindus in Bihar between
November 1947 and February 1948, reacted with fury and violence. This writer does not rule out the
possibility that Muslim terrorists burnt Hindu pilgrims to death as an act of provocation to test Narendra
Modi: What will Modi the RSS pracharak-turned-Chief Minister do now? How will his government
respond to Muslim terror?

As things turned out, what followed the jihadi massacre of Hindu pilgrims in Godhra was not quite what
jihadis had scripted in their anti-Modi plot. Hindus of Gujarat reacted with a spontaneous fury which
was doused only by Modi’s stern and secular (as opposed to “communal”) use of the army. More Hindus
were killed in police and army firing than Muslims – a fact conveniently ignored by Modi’s domestic and
foreign enemies. The USCIRF’s last lament is as deceitful and self-serving as the domestic political
discourse on the Gujarat riots. The USCIRF does not refer to the victims of jihadi terror attack in the
Sabarmati Express as ‘Hindus’ but uses the phrase “Hindu mobs” to describe the riots that followed the
Muslim terror attack.

Just as it suited Nehru to blame the RSS for Gandhi’s execution, it suits political mercenaries, including
America and its European vassal countries to blame Modi for the Gujarat riots. Gandhi, Nehru, America
and the Congress underestimated then and underestimate even now the intensity of Hindu anger and
Hindu capacity to express that anger. They were therefore unprepared for it and post-facto continue to
delude themselves that there is no Hindu anger, only RSS agenda.

And that is why the RSS and Modi are feared and hated. They represent the resurgence of Hindu
political empowerment, something which Nehru was determined to crush with the full might of the
state and administrative power. Gandhi had never wanted this resurgence, not since his South Africa
years, up until 1946 when he marginalized Sardar Patel to hang the millstone of Nehru as Prime Minister
around the country’s neck.

Modi is being punished and harangued because he refused to adhere to Gandhi’s defining political
philosophy – punish angry Hindus who react to Abrahamic provocation.

Image source: Google image search

Looking back at Bihar in 1947-48 should give Modi a lot of comfort from knowing how Patel dealt with
Gandhi who played Teesta Setalvad when Bihar’s Hindus wreaked vengeance for the Great Calcutta
Killings. On a single day, Bengal’s Muslims, with the active support of the Muslim League Government,
killed more than 5000 Hindus, many of whom were Hindu migrants from Bihar and Rajasthan. But that
was 1947-’48.

Hindus who see in Modi the symbol of their political empowerment must necessarily revisit the history
of the Indian National Congress and Gandhi’s megalomaniac political leadership to understand why
being anti-Modi now is only a Congress legacy of being anti-Tilak and anti-Aurobindo back then. The
Indian National Congress since its inception in 1885, and subsequently – before Gandhi, during Gandhi
and after Gandhi was and continues to be anti-Hindu with a genetic self-destructive desire to be ruled
and enslaved by foreigners.