Editor’s Note
IN FEBRUARY 1941, the Poona-based publisher, R.D. Ghanekar published a modest book titled Gandhi-Muslim Conspiracy authored by “A Hindu Nationalist.” It generated instant hostility and instant praise from almost all quarters. Given its timing, this reaction was quite expected.
The Second World War was at its peak and the British as usual had ravaged our resources and horsed our soldiers to die in a war which wasn’t theirs. And Gandhi, the apostle of nonviolence who wanted to disband the military and the police, had, as usual, cunningly offered our soldiers as sacrificial fodder to the very British barbarians he claimed he was fighting against. This “conciliation” was perhaps the last of his Mahatman strategies to compel the British to depart once the war was over. The British were only too happy to oblige.
Two years after Gandhi-Muslim Conspiracy was published, Winston Churchill starved 30 lakh Bengalis to death. Gandhi’s strategy was indeed working spectacularly.
In the same time frame, the Muslim League had emerged as a decisive political force; Project Pakistan was just a few street riots away.
But Gandhi-Muslim Conspiracy was devoted to a specific event that had occurred two decades ago. Its author says it in so many words:
YEARS AFTER Gandhi-Muslim Conspiracy was published, its authorship was – is – still a matter of debate. But it appears that the majority consensus rests on the name of Jamnadas M. Mehta, a respected barrister, Finance Minister of the Bombay Presidency and an outspoken critic of Gandhi’s botched support of the Khilafat Movement. He later joined the Hindu Mahasabha and remained an acerbic critic of Gandhi all his life. And dearly paid for it. Almost nobody today has even heard his name; even Wikipedia, the propaganda arm of the Deep State and the Global Left has no entry on him. As far as my research goes, he is rather forgotten even in the annals of the Hindu Mahasabha as it exists today.
Gandhi-Muslim Conspiracy received a highly favourable reception from the Hindu side. It was also welcomed by the Muslim side for the opposite reason; the Muslim League detested Gandhi for the reason best described by Maulana Mohammed Ali: “I must hold a bad Muslim to be better than Gandhi.” In fact, one of the most devastating weapons that the Muslim League deployed against Gandhi was to call him a Hindu and accuse the Congress as a Hindu party.
But in our era of the willful embrace of stupidity, Gandhi-Muslim Conspiracy has been reduced to a “polemical tract,” a code word and a call to action, discouraging people from reading it.
A significant chapter in the book is titled Muslim Raj in India. The chapter is excerpted almost in toto here. Minor editorial changes have been made in the interests of providing historical context to suit the contemporary readership.
Happy reading!
Muslim Raj in India
TO PROVE THAT the allegiance of Gandhiji to the doctrine of extreme non-violence is superficial and bogus, we give below an incident. The conspiracies with Afghanistan continued as before. Everything was in readiness for the mass civil disobedience at Bardoli. It was unexpectedly called off on the flimsy excuse of the murder of some policemen at the hands of the violent mob at Chaurichaura. That atrocious act took place on 4-2-1922. Three days after (7-2-22), Gandhiji wrote to the Viceroy as follows:
This reply shows that Gandhiji was fully prepared to face unknown dangers resulting from his campaign of mass civil disobedience, even after the atrocities at Chaurichaura. But this resolve of Gandhiji evaporated by the 11th February.
What had transpired during these four days which led him to change his mind?
It was the fact that the treaty agreed with Afghanistan on 22-11-1921, received the assent of His Majesty George V on 6-2-1922 and became operative from that date. Gandhiji abandoned his campaign immediately after learning of this ratification. During these days, Maulana Azad Sobhani [not to be confused with Maulana Abul Kalam Azad] was the principal adviser to Gandhiji, in all foreign intrigues.
Gandhi’s Favourite Maulana
To give an insight to the reader as regards how Maulana Azad Sobhani takes special precautions to safeguard the interests of outlandish Muslims, we give an extract from the Maulana's notorious speech at Shrihatt as published by Anand-Bazar-Patrika:
We learn from the autobiography of Pandit Jawaharlal that Lala Lajpat Rai knew of the conspiracies carried on with foreign Muslims by the leaders of Congress and Khilafat, through the agency of Maulavi Obeidulla. Says Jawaharlal:
Since the Maulavi had taken an active part in these conspiracies, it is not surprising that Lalaji believed in him. We must explain why the Muslim conspirators informed the Hindu leaders of their conspiracies. The Mussalmans are fully cognisant of the fact that unless they secure the support of the Hindus, the combined strength of Indian and foreign Muslims would be powerless by itself to wrest India from the clutches of the British. Therefore, they always endeavor to ensnare the Hindu leaders in their fold by taking advantage of the latter's hatred for Britain. In this way, the Hindu leaders get some information of those treasonable activities.
Philosophical Inconsistencies & State-Blind Politics
A few days ago, a Professor of History made an admission to us that he was convinced of the high treason of Gandhiji, but what led Gandhiji to become a traitor was a riddle to the learned Professor. We were requested to explain the phenomenon. We proceed to elucidate the problem lucidly.
The institution of a nation is solely designed for the purpose of protecting people belonging to a common nationality from the aggression of external foes. The Mahatmas who propound the theory of non-resistance to the aggression of foreign enemies under any circumstances are hostile to the institution of a Nation.
Gandhiji had published in Harijan an article advising the British to stop any resistance to Germany. From the perusal of the article, thoughtful people may get an adequate idea of the extent to which this philosophy of non-resistance is capable of leading its votaries into ambiguity when facing a deadly enemy.
Looking at the present world from this point of view, Gandhiji is trying to cause a split among the intellectuals, leading to duplicity and inconsistency in his measures born in our mind.
Let us probe a little into the fundamental cause of this inconsistency between Gandhiji's sentiments and actions. He is state-blind to the virtues of politics. This blind kindness on his part leads him to advise the Hindus, in and out of season, to look upon Muslims as their younger brothers and act generously towards them.
The evil consequences, issuing out of attaching greater importance to fraternal affection than to wholesome maxims of political science, are well known to any student studying the career of the Emperor Humayun. It is no use expatiating on this when we know how Gandhiji hates schools and bookish knowledge. The love cherished by Muslim brothers who are so near to Gandhiji's heart towards their Hindu brethren is so celestial that it would have offered some model lessons even to Aurangzeb.
The Demands for Dominance & Ideological Frameworks
On this question of brotherly love, it is expedient to draw the attention of our Gandhiite and Marxist friends to a notorious passage from the Muslim Outlook, the mouthpiece of Sir Fazal-i Hussain, sometime Executive Councillor of the Government of India.
A resolution on the national demand was passed in September 1925, as a result of the co-operation between Pandit Motilal Nehru and Mr. Jinnah. The Editor of Muslim Outlook thus commented on the event:
On reading the above passage, our Gandhiite friends will argue that the policy of Muslim Congressmen is diametrically opposed to the one indicated in the passage. With a view to shattering the illusion entertained by our ostrich-like friends, provided they care to listen to us, we quote below an extract from the People dated 18-10-1925, which clearly reveals the degree of divergence existing between the policy of the Muslim Outlook and the views of a prominent Congress Muslim, Dr. Kitchlew:
The difference between the views boils down to this: The Muslim Congressman wants an Islamic Raj in which Hindus would be 'hewers of wood and drawers of water.' That is what is exactly contemplated by the 'Hindu-participation.' The other younger brother (Sir Fazal-i-Hussain) is more frank; he advocates pure Muslim rule under which all vestiges of Hindu culture are to be mercilessly erased and wiped out. Thus, there is no fundamental difference between the two concepts. There is only a difference of degree.
Every Hindu should engrave this terrible truth upon his heart and should start in right earnest to consolidate his strength if he wishes to escape the fate outlined in the passage of the Muslim Outlook.
Team Dharma Dispatch
Sandeep Balakrishna
Sandeep Balakrishna
Sandeep Balakrishna
Sandeep Balakrishna
Trans-Frontier Conspiracies & The Doctrine of Sword
A similar objection was raised by a correspondent of The London Times during a conversation with Shaukat Ali in the presence of Gandhiji in 1921:
The passage clearly reveals what thin partition divided the non-violent attitude of Gandhiji's brother (Shaukat Ali) from his violent attitude. The internal disputes in a country are usually resolved by constitutional methods. The necessity for armed strife arises only when they cannot be so adjusted. Instead of indicating this normal solution, Shaukat Ali at once talks of an armed conflict. It may therefore be deduced that the extremists among the Muslims had already made up their minds to look upon India, a preponderantly Hindu nation, as a world of war (Dar-ul-Harb).
Last year, when the Congress Ministries in eight provinces resigned their offices, Mr. Jinnah issued a Fatwa to the Indian Muslims to the effect that they should observe a special day as a day of deliverance. The Congress Ministries were predominantly Hindu in personnel. Their fall from the posts of power was considered by Jinnah as an indirect victory for Islam. The struggle has already commenced although the British are still ruling over the land.
Among Muslim Royal dynasties, it was a tradition for the incoming emperor either to behead or imprison his brothers before he ascended the throne. The Muslim leaders make no secret of their desire to follow the same tradition in case of their Hindu brothers. The passages from Muslim papers testify to it.
Gandhiji is impotent to safeguard the Hindu community from this danger. His philosophy of non-violence forbids him from raising even his little finger. The utmost that he can do is to observe a fast for 21 days in memory of the defunct Hindu culture (with the disappearance of Hindus in a “healthy war,” their culture will also die) and also to purify his Muslim brothers by vicarious penance.
Besides, his intimate contact with the Muslims has almost converted him to Islam. Our statement bears a ready proof. We place before our readers Gandhiji's own words (Vide Young India, 23-10-1924). The issue contains a dialogue between Gandhiji and Shaukat Ali. In the course of the conversation, Gandhiji says:
"I am speaking to you as though I was a Mussalman, because I have cultivated that respect for Islam which you have for it."
Many followers of Gandhiji get offended when their opponents make a charge against Gandhiji and his Congress, that they always give preferential treatment to Muslims at the expense of Hindus who form the backbone of the nation. Those followers should ponder over the above words of their Guru. When Gandhiji's mentality is cent per cent favourable to Islam, it is no wonder that his worthy disciples, who are only born Hindus but are ashamed to own Hindu culture, carry on activities, under the auspices of the Congress, which are detrimental to their own religion.
As an illustration of this type of propaganda, we give below an extract from the History of the Congress published by Maharashtra Congress Committee, with a foreword by Mr. Shankarrao Deo:
Hindus cannot afford to forget that the mentality underlying the declaration made by Mr. Rajgopalachari a few days ago — to the effect that if the Viceroy nominates a member of the Muslim League as India's Prime Minister and forms a national ministry under his leadership, it will have our full support — is identical with the resolution of the Congress Working Committee.
The Muslim-Gandhis in the Congress
So far, we have considered the danger to the Hindu Community arising from the activities of Muslim Leaders who have faith in the cult of the Sword. We should, however, not be misled by the false idea that we are any the more safe from the Muslim-Gandhis who pretend to have greater faith in non-violence than that possessed even by Gandhiji himself.
During the session of the A.I.C.C. in Poona, it was resolved that Independent India required a national army for safeguarding internal tranquillity and warding off external aggression. Of the two Gandhis, Abdul Ghaffar Khan, masquerading under the title of Frontier Gandhi, offered more resistance to this resolution than Gandhiji himself.
The following information appeared in the issue of Free Press Journal dated 13-9-1940:
What a miracle!
Frontier Gandhi threatens to resign from the Congress if that body does not give up its resolution relating to the need of a national army. The Ultra-Gandhi addresses Gandhiji thus: 'We jointly opposed the resolution; therefore, it would be unjust to me if you modify your attitude about it, leaving me in the lurch.'
This comradeship is fatal; it works only to the advantage of Muslims. The crafty Muslim leader has not an iota of love for the Congress or Gandhiji, but he will continue to embrace them with profound affection only so long as he can, with their aid, accomplish the nefarious design of devitalising the Hindus through the policy of non-violence and turn them into the enemies of their motherland, serving thereby the interests of his predatory brotherhood living across the Frontier.
Being disgusted with this circumstance, it is not surprising that a patriot like Shrinivas Iyangar, an ex-President of the Congress, should give vent to the utterance:
"Non-violence means treason to one's nation."
National Defense & Foundations of Nationalism
It seems from the foregoing extract from the Free Press Journal that Frontier Gandhi was obstinate about the Congress withdrawing its resolution passed at Poona, offering help to Government on certain conditions.
A doubt was expressed in the extract taken from the Muslim Outlook about the possibility of Indian Muslims maintaining neutrality of India in the world-war to come. Even today, the Muslim followers of Mr. Jinnah are not prepared to help the Government in their war effort. There appears to be some deep-laid and consistent plot behind all these events.
In this connection, we point out to the reader an extremely important statement from an article penned by Maulana Abul Kalam Azad. At present, he is the President of the Congress. He says:
Maulana Azad means that in that circumstance he cannot even remain neutral and help the Government even passively. From this statement, the riddle of why the Congress, in spite of Gandhiji's opposition, forwarded a resolution to the Government demanding the acceptance of its claims as a condition of its co-operation, and why constitutional rule was made impossible by calling out Congress ministries, is solved.
The question whether the people of India should or should not lend their support to the Government in the event of a foreign invasion has assumed as much importance in these days as it had in 1921. The Indian situation is more precarious now than during the period of the non-co-operation movement. Taking a broad view of the future of India, Lala Lajpat Rai made the following statement as early as the year 1921 in the issue of Vande Mataram (1–6–1921):
If ever the British Government were so weakened that some other foreign power were to overpower it, Hindus would have to think what to do, because they would not like to see India under any foreign power or nation.
The reader must have noticed from the foregoing extracts that the Muslims have already thought over all the future problems confronting them and taken definite decisions. So far as our knowledge goes, we are not aware of any decision arrived at by Hindu leaders on these issues. We therefore humbly beseech that it is now high time for them to wake up and to reflect on these matters and arrive at a sound decision.
We have sufficiently brought home to the reader how the politics of the Gandhi group hangs upon the selfish plans of certain Muslim leaders. It is a parasitic growth sucking the life sap of the Hindu nation.
We now proceed to argue out the charge of communalism likely to be levelled against us by our Marxist and Gandhiite friends. According to the philosophy of both these schools, the time has arrived for the foundation of a united India on the principles of democracy.
Every nation has its own geographical boundaries. Those alone deserve the right to be the citizens and leaders of the nation who are ever ready to sacrifice their homes and hearths to protect the boundaries of the nation. On the contrary, those who encourage trans-frontier armies to encroach upon their own country are condemned as traitors, to whatever sect they may belong, by the whole world. Our view will be readily acceptable to a Turk or Persian; but our friends in India who are out to establish national unity and democracy seem to have forgotten the very fundamentals of nationalism.
No tragedy can be more excruciating.
Support The Dharma Dispatch. To cure the Woke Virus. To Save Hindu Children.
