http://gandhiexposed.hindujagran.com

Read this:
http://www.rediff.com/news/2001/jan/30arvind.htm

Before getting into contribution of Gandhiji, we have to seperate his work into different aspects of mass his movement.
1. Mobilization the masses
2. Social reforms
3. Freedom movement
4. Governance of free India
5. Global politics

He had different degree of success in all of these movements.

I normally had seen people get carried away with negative aspect of one of the above movements to his life contribution.

Also one should read his autobiography, many books about him written by his followers while working with Gandhiji, his letters, his periodicals etc. before jumping into negative side of Gandhiji's contribution.

It serves no good purpose dwelling on few unfavorable aspects of his influence on the government of free India.

It looks like some people here already have concluded that Gandhi's negative aspects are only few, without looking at what all he did against Hindus and India.

If you don't have an open mind, there is no point in posting here, Goodbye.

Gandhi's role in creation of pakistan would make a great point of debate.

However, one thing for sure, the Rs. 55-crore that he forced Indian govt to hand-over to pakis.

Immediately after independence, pakis attacked India from western J&K. Around same time, India was contemplating giving pakis the 55-crores (probably a remainder from partition). But the acts by pakis: Hindu/Sikh genocides and the J&K war made govt and particularly Sardar Patel re-think. But Gandhi could not tolerate this "injustice" to paki "brothers". He went on a fast, till Patel and others gave up the 55-crore. (By today's standards, the 55 crore is worth more than 100 times of original amount.)

But Gandhi's karma came back to haunt him soon:
After death, Gandhi's ashes were flown to various nations to release in major rivers of the world (incl. Mississippi, Volga, Danube etc). The ONLY nation that refused his ashes was pakiland. Per them, they didn't want a kafir's ashes to dirty their river (Sindhu/Indus).

Talk about instant karma!!

Janardhanan,

please donot be discouraged by my posting. Nobody but the moderator of this forum can turn people away.

My posting was meant to be a cautionary only.
I did not realize, untill I read your posting, that it does give appearence of suggesting one sided discussion. I am fine with open discussion.

I wish you would reconsider and not leave the forum just because of my posting.

Thanks, I am back.
I have nothing to write about Gandhi right now. When I learn more, I will post.

1. Mobilization the masses

The masses were already fed up and wanted independence, so this was not a big deal. And also Gandhi did not do anything to bring the masses into the Freedom movement. Lal-Bal-Pal ie. LalaLajpat Rai, Bipin Chnadra Pal and Bal Ganghadar Tilak were the ones responsible for this. Before that the Congress was confined to the English speaking populaitons of the Presidencies. Bal Gangadhar Tilak with the Vinayaka processions was very succesful in bringing common people into the freedom struggle.

2. Social reforms

Gandhi did not bring abour any socail reforms. He made a big deal about. When he went to live in the dalit colony, all the house nearby were cleared, white washed etc. It was all a show. Even Ambedkar was against Gandhi.

3. Freedom movement

The freedom movement was going very well with Annie Beasent until Gandhi Gandhi forced her out of the Congress. Ever since Gandhi took over it was a total disaster - the Chauri Chura incident being a typical case.

4. Governance of free India

Gandhi had all sorts of corrupt people like Nehru, Birla, Bajaj in the Congress and look what they did to the country. Gandhi removed all good people like Netaji, Srinivas Iyengar etc. What a terrible impact it has had on the country.

5. Global politics

India is a loser country because Gandhi's Congress killed out all competion and ruled the country with their loser like policies. Even a two bit banana republic like Bangldesh captures our Jawans and tortures them, while the Gandhi admiring Vajpayee does not even make a statement. Just imagine the plight of the mother who saw her son grow up in front of her own eyes now haivng to see her son with eyes punctured out.

Dear Friends! I feel we are wasting time discussing about the half naked man who is responsible for present miserable condition of India. Hindus, muslims, upper caste, lower caste, male and female all have suffered for his tremendrous mistake. Have you seen the recent statistics that India is senond most corrupt country in Asia? Have you seen the humiliation caused to IT professional in Malayasia?

Please do not waste your time discussing about that man. I am sure you can not live a life like him. Appeasement was the very basic of his survival. To practice Brahmacharya he used to sleep with his beautiful nieces. Please forget him. Sooner the better.

We need a strong India where there will be justice for all and appeasement for none and where virues will be pursued very aggressively.

Janardhanan and Dahyabhai - two guys who love to dig up dirt on dead people.

Interesting people with interesting stories and tales.

Gandhi did not merely sleep with his grand nieces. He used to do this for a long time. In fact many people beleive he wrote his autobiography merely to keep down rumours about his pedopholia. For example American expert on child abuse Bullough V. L. writes ..

"Gandhi was married at age 13 to a girl about his own age and at age 37 took a vow of sexual abstinence. In spite of this vow, he found a need to fondle prepubescent and early adolescent girls. He took such girls to bed with him to overcome, he said, his “shivering fits” in the night. His female companions, who came from his inner circle — all certified virgins or young brides — entered his bed naked in order to warm him with their bodies. Some of them also administered enemas to him. One of his girl disciples reported that his bed companions had a difficult time in restraining their sexual impulses since he often rubbed against them and touched them in erotic places. Although his closemouthed house guardians were fearful of public reaction if news of these “pedophilic” sexual interactions were publicized, Gandhi continued to engage in them until his death. If he had lived in the United States, he would have been sentenced as a child molester"

REFERENCE: (Bullough V. L. (1981). Mahatma Gandhi. Medical Aspects of Human Sexuality, 15, 11-12.)

It was for this pedophile that IndiaCause demanded an apology from Maxim? What a waste of time. And what will people think of Indians? That we worship pedophiles?

Folks - We come accross all these crazies who delve in the past - raking up mud and dirt on people who are long dead and gone !

What is sad that these people do not understand that Gandhi is dead. His politics and his visions are debatable in hindsights ! How many Indians stood for Freedom and fought and drove the British away - how was there message received by their countrymen ? It was Gandhi who managed and brought people together and succeeded. Sardar Patel, Jawahar Lal Nehru and millions of Indians respected and agreed with Gandhi and believed in his leadership. Yes-not all what he did was correct but the end result was that India managed to get its freedom. The creation of Pakistan and the riots and massacre after partition was a low point in Gandhi's lifetime. He should never have agreed to it but he was not getting any younger and wanted to see himself succeed at a cost ! Nehru and others were partially at fault too.

It is easy for all of us now to do monday morning quarterbacking. Afterall hindsight is always clearer.

What these disgruntled wayward people need to do is correct the situation in India now. Lets see how successful they are. Now that we have freedom - can they live in peace with the existing Indians ( Hindus, Muslims, Christians, Sikhs and others)? Can they help take India out of the poverty and slums ? Can they help root out the corruption that we have accustomed too ? Every time the Hindu zealots amongst us try to defame Gandhi, we should ask them these questions and shut them up.

The effort of every Indian no matter what religion he or she may have is to make India a better place to live. There is NO time to waste in pettiness and bigotry !!!! SHUT UP and go to work to make our country a better place for our children.

INDIA is a great country and its people are its riches !

I agree with Vinod on almost everything. However, there's nothing wrong in "raking up" past.

We and our children have every right to know the history, or else history will repeat itself, which we cannot tolerate any more.

The facts about Gandhi, whether Krishna's reference to his "needs" or mine about the Sindhu ashes, are well documented and available for anyone to see. Nobody is inventing stuff out of thin air.

We cordially appreciate his role in freedom movement(therefore the maxim issue support). At the same time, incidences such as Chauri-Chaura, Jalianwala bagh, Naukhali and Hindu/Sikh genocides in Sindh and Punjab were direct fallouts of poor policies by Gandhi et al, and MUST BE REMEMBERED!! (esp. in light of J&K)

"Mahatma Gandhi introduced secular conundrum in the Congress under the name of 'Hindu-Muslim unity'. He zealously involved himself in the Khilafat Movement in 1919 to pressure the British to restore the institution of Khilafat abolished by Kemal Ataturk in far-off Turkey.

Ataturk, a true secularist, had brought about the finest revolution in the Islamic world by building modern Turkey, arguably the sole surviving 'secular' Muslim country. Hence, was Gandhi's action of involving himself with Ali brothers not antithetical to secularism?

But the Mopla rebellion in Malabar, in which large number of Hindus were butchered, raped and maimed by fanatical Muslim mobs, proved the futility of Gandhi's endeavour."
______________________________________________________

Superb article about Gandhi's "contributions" to partition...

Is the 'secular' party over? by Balbir Punj
http://www.dailypioneer.com/columnist.asp

Vinod Negi,
Did I make a personal remark on you? Why do you have to use words like 'Hindu Zealots', 'Crazies' etc. and want us to 'Shut up'. Is this a democratic spirit. I think not. I never associate with fantics. So unless you explain yourself properly I will keep away from all posts of yours.

Eventhough lacking in support and good logic, I agree with the essense of what Vinod writes.

However, I am not wasting my time for Vinod anymore.

This is my personal decision.

The answer is YES if the following quote is Gandhi's.

"Hindus should never be angry against the Muslims even if the latter might make up their minds to undo even their existence."

-Our beloved Mahatma Gandhiji, In his post-prayer speech at Birla Mandir, New Delhi, on April 6, 1947.

=============================
BTW,
Just like many others on this thread, I have decided to ignore Vinod Negi completely.

Arvind Lavakare
http://www.rediff.com/news/2003/mar/15arvind.htm
Hitler, Vatican and Gandhi March 15, 2003

Few Paragraphs reproduced below:

"(To britishers)... I want you to fight Nazism without arms. I would like you to lay down the arms you have as being useless for saving you or humanity. You will invite Herr Hitler and Signor Mussolini to take what they want of the countries you call your possessions. Let them take possession of your beautiful island, with your many beautiful buildings.
……………..(Stanley Wolpert's Jinnah of Pakistan, pp. 187-188 as cited on page 144 of Chapter I of Constitutional Law of India, Supplement to Third Edition, 1988, written and published by H M Seervai, a giant in the field of constitutional history.)"

The author of the above 'open letter' was, not Veer Savarkar, but Mahatma Gandhi. It was a demonstration of his belief in the creed of ahimsa, non-violence.

…………………
During the First World War, too, in the middle of 1918, at a war conference presided over by the viceroy, Gandhi had forsaken the non-violence creed when he seconded the main resolution in support of recruiting Indians to the army to fight on the side of Britain and her allies. (ibid, page 143).

Again, on August 27, 1946, when Partition had become a Hobson's choice, Gandhi told Lord Wavell, the then viceroy, that 'If India wants a blood-bath, she shall have it.' (ibid, page 145). In other words, there was to be no fast unto death by the apostle of non-violence to prevent Partition and the rivers of blood that were certain to flow from it.

But, ah, who was responsible for the Partition? Was it Veer Savarkar, the one damned by today's secularists for his two-nation statement? Read on.
……………………….
Savarkar's so-called 'two-nation' theory based on Hindu fanaticism had nothing to do with it. In fact, in his speech in Pune on August 2, 1942, he declared that the Hindu Mahasabha would support the Congress' Quit India agitation provided that the Congress solemnly guaranteed that it would irrevocably stand by the unity and integrity of India. (Page 322, Veer Savarkar by Dhananjay Keer, Popular Prakashan, Bombay, 1988).

As a matter of fact, it was neither Jinnah nor Savarkar who introduced religion into all-India politics. Rather, it was Mahatma Gandhi.

It happened with his support to the agitation led by two brothers, Mohammed Ali and Shaukat Ali, against the abolition of the Khalifate in Turkey after the First World War, for the Khalif was the spiritual head of the Muslims. The agitation was essentially religious and Gandhi believed that by supporting it he would cement Hindu-Muslim unity.
…………………….
That the Khilafat movement was religious is clear from Gandhi's own statement in Young India of October 20, 1921. He wrote, 'I claim that with us both the Khilafat is the central fact, with Maulana Muhammad Ali because it is his religion, with me because, in laying down my life for the Khilafat, I ensure the safety of the cow, that is my religion.' (Seervai, page 8, quoting from page 64 of History of the Freedom Movement, Vol III, by R C Majumdar).

When 4,500 innocent Hindus were butchered by the fanatic Muslims in Bengal in Noukali it was gandhi all the way kept mum and there after started preaching peace !!!

Hi Db and Janardhanan and others extremists !

Calling a spade a spade is your policy !!! Good. So why can't I call you zealots and Gandhi bashers ! You have chosen to rake up mad about the Father of the Nation. We all agree that Gandhi was not correct 100%. He is responsible for a lot of our present day problems ! But - he stirred us in the direction of independence from the British ! Do you think you would have got independence without any cost ??? How naive can you be ?? Yes ! we all have a right to crictize him but no right to call him names.

Gandhi was not GOD, he was a human being and therefore he made several missteps towards getting us our precious freedom !

Do you think Nelson Mandela, George Washington and all those leaders who gained independence for their countries are called names by their fellow citizens !

The problem is that people with pea-sized brains such as DB and Janardhanan and others zealots spread hatred amongst anyone who is secular. They give Hindus a bad name - we must all shun them !!!!

During the riots of Naokholi, Gandhi supposedly went to Bengal to 'quell' the riots with his ahimsa. If that was the case why did he take Manu along with him? Also Gandhi continued his 'experiment' with Manu by sleeping with her naked and asking her to sleep naked with him and cuddle him and stroke him.

Does anybody with even an iota of sense in his head beleive in Gandhi when he claims he was merely practicing his BrahmaAcharya? No wonder India is so backward. People blindly beleive in anything. Can anyone imagine the mighty Bhisma Pitamaha sleeping naked with woman to test his celibacy? What a warrior he was.

If Gandhi had never turned up, India would have gopt freedom by 1925. Dr.Annie Beasent, Lokmanya Tilak Ji, Bipin Chandra Pal Ji, Lala Rajpat Rai Ji etc. were going very strong. Also Bhagat Singh Ji and Netaji would have roasted the British alive if not for Gandhi acting like a saint and misguiding the masses.

I am wonderstruck at the claims of Gandhians that they are secular in nature. Nothing can be far from the truth. Gandhi was a great communalist. He was the one who gave the idea for the Khalifat movement which resulted in the mass murder, mass rape and mass conversions of thousands of Hindus in Mopala.

The past has to be raked up so that we can teach correct History in our schools and avoid the mistakes of the past. Peopl must be taught to stop judging people by their external looks. Gandhi, Laloo etc. look like saints but they are both the same- hardened criminals. Gandhi is a very good example to teach to the masses of India on whom not to vote for. Also I think the Indian Government should reconsider it's decision to remove Gandhi's photo from the Indian Parliment premises.

Going by the discussions here, it's probably safe to conclude Gandhi's first and worst blunder: supporting the Khilafat movement.

What is Khilafat?
"Khilafat, or caliphate, urges all Muslims to unite into a single nation devoid of geographical boundaries and regional loyalties. Meaning, an Indian Muslim must identify more with an Afghan Muslim than with his own Hindu neighbour. And if he must respect a temporal government, it should be one such as Saudi Arabia's: The Muslim ethos must always supersede the Indian one.

There's another aspect to Khilafat, that which is tacit and understood by the 'believers', and without also which Islam remains incomplete: Its ultimate aim is the Islamisation of the world."

One word: Khilafat
http://www.rediff.com/news/2001/nov/05varsha.htm


Now the questions:
1. Why did Gandhi support khilafat?
2. Was it "secular" to support it?
3. Was it relevant to India's freedom struggle?
4. Did it culminate into breaking up India eventually?
5. Didn't Gandhi's communalisation of Indian society ultimately cost us a massive genocide of Hindus and Sikhs, pre and post-partition, and again prior to the liberation of Bangladesh, and then Mumbai, Coimbatore, Godhra etc?

Excerpts form the Book 'The Gandhi Nobody Knows' by Richard Grenier

I had the singular honor of attending an early private screening of Gandhi with an audience of invited guests from the National Council of Churches. At the end of the three-hour movie there was hardly, as they say, a dry eye in the house. When the lights came up I fell into conversation with a young woman who observed, reverently, that Gandhi's last words were "Oh, God," causing me to remark regretfully that the real Gandhi had not spoken in English, but had cried, Hai Rama! ("Oh, Rama"). Well, Rama was just Indian for God, she replied, at which I felt compelled to explain that, alas, Rama, collectively with his three half-brothers, represented the seventh reincarnation of Vishnu.

At a dinner party shortly afterward, a friend of mine, who had visited India many times and even gone to the trouble of learning Hindi, objected strenuously that the picture of Gandhi that emerges in the movie is grossly inaccurate, omitting, as one of many examples, that when Gandhi's wife lay dying of pneumonia and British doctors insisted that a shot of penicillin would save her, Gandhi refused to have this alien medicine injected in her body and simply let her die. (It must be noted that when Gandhi contracted malaria shortly afterward he accepted for himself the alien medicine quinine, and that when he had appendicitis he allowed British doctors to perform on him the alien outrage of an appendectomy.) All of this produced a wistful mooing from an editor of a major newspaper and a recalcitrant, "But still...." I would prefer to explicate things more substantial than a wistful mooing, but there is little doubt it meant the editor in question felt that even if the real Mohandas K. Gandhi had been different from the Gandhi of the movie it would have been nice if he had been like the movie-Gandhi, and that presenting him in this admittedly false manner was beautiful, stirring, and perhaps socially beneficial.

An important step in the canonization of this movie-Gandhi was taken by the New York Film Critics Circle, which not only awarded the picture its prize as best film of 1982, but awarded Ben Kingsley, who played Gandhi (a remarkably good performance), its prize as best actor of the year. But I cannot believe for one second that these awards were made independently of the film's content--which, not to put too fine a point on it, is an all-out appeal for pacifism--or in anything but the most shameful ignorance of the historical Gandhi.

AS IT happens, the government of India openly admits to having provided one-third of the financing of 'Gandhi' out of state funds, straight out of the national treasury--and after close study of the finished product I would not be a bit surprised to hear that it was 100 percent. If Pandit Nehru is portrayed flatteringly in the film, one must remember that Nehru himself took part in the initial story conferences (he originally wanted Gandhi to be played by Alec Guinness) . The screenplay was checked and rechecked by Indian officials at every stage, often by the Prime Minister Indira Gandhi herself, with close consultations on plot and even casting. If the movie contains a particularly poisonous portrait of Mohammed Ali Jinnah, the founder of Pakistan, the Indian reply, I suppose, would be that if the Pakistanis want an attractive portrayal of Jinnah let them pay for their own movie. A friend of mine, highly sophisticated in political matters but innocent about film-making, declared that 'Gandhi' should be preceded by the legend: *The following film is a paid political advertisement by the government of India.*

I sorely missed the fabulous Annie Besant, that English clergyman's wife, turned atheist, turned Theosophist, turned Indian nationalist, who actually became president of the Indian National Congress and had a terrific falling out with Gandhi, becoming his fierce opponent. And if the producers felt they had to work in a cameo role for an American star to add to the film's appeal in the United States, it is positively embarrassing that they should have brought in the photographer Margaret Bourke-White, a person of no importance whatever in Gandhi's life and a role Candice Bergen plays with a repellant unctuousness. If the film-makers had been interested in drama and not a biography, it is hard to see how they could have resisted the awesome confrontation between Gandhi and,
yes, Margaret Sanger.

I cannot honestly say I had any reasonable expectation that the film would show scenes of Gandhi's pretty teenage girl followers fighting "hysterically" (the word was used) for the honor of sleeping naked with the Mahatma and cuddling the nude septuagenarian in their arms. (Gandhi was "testing" his vow of chastity in order to gain moral strength for his mighty struggle with Jinnah.) When told there was a man named Freud who said that, despite his declared intention, Gandhi might actually be enjoying the caresses of the naked girls, Gandhi continued, unperturbed. Nor, frankly, did I expect to see Gandhi giving daily enemas to all the young girls in his ashrams (his daily greeting was, "Have you had a good bowel movement this morning, sisters?"), nor see the girls giving him his daily enema. Although Gandhi seems to have written less about home rule for India than he did about enemas, and excrement, and latrine cleaning ("The bathroom is a temple. It should be so clean and inviting that anyone would enjoy eating there"), I confess such scenes might pose problems for a Western
director.

'Gandhi,' therefore, the film, this paid political advertisement for the government of India, is organized around three axes: (1) Anti-racism--all men are equal regardless of race, color, creed, etc.; (2) anti-colonialism, which in present terms translates as support for the Third World, including, most eminently, India; (3) nonviolence, presented as an absolutist pacifism. There are other, secondary precepts and subheadings. Gandhi is portrayed as the quintessence of tolerance ("I am a Hindu and a Muslim and a Christian and a Jew"), of basic friendliness to Britain ("The British have been with us for a long time and when they leave we want them to leave as friends"), of devotion to his wife and family. His vow of chastity is represented as something selfless and holy, rather like the celibacy of the Catholic clergy. But, above all, Gandhi's life and teachings are presented as having great import for us today. We must learn from Gandhi. I propose to demonstrate that the film grotesquely distorts both Gandhi's life and character to the point that it is nothing more than a pious fraud, and a fraud of the most egregious kind.

GANDHI rose early, usually at three-thirty, and before his first bowel movement (during which he received visitors, although possibly not Margaret Bourke-White) he spent two hours in meditation, listening to his "inner voice." Now Gandhi was an extremely vocal individual, and in addition to spending an hour each day in vigorous walking, another hour spinning at his primitive spinning wheel, another hour at further prayers, another hour being massaged nude by teenage girls, and many hours deciding such things as affairs of state, he produced a quite unconscionable number of articles and speeches and wrote an average of sixty letters a day. All considered, it is not really surprising that his inner voice said different things to him at different times. Despising consistency and never checking his earlier statements, and yet inhumanly obstinate about his position at any given moment, Gandhi is thought by some Indians today (according to V.S.Naipaul) to have been so erratic and unpredictable that he may have delayed Indian independence for twenty-five years.

For Gandhi was an extremely difficult man to work with. He had no partners, only disciples. For members of his ashrams, he dictated every minute of their days, and not only every morsel of food they should eat but when they should eat it. Without ever having heard of a protein or a vitamin, he considered himself an expert on diet, as on most things, and was constantly experimenting. Once when he fell ill, he was found to have been living on a diet of ground-nut butter and lemon juice; British doctors called it malnutrition. And Gandhi had even greater confidence in his abilities as a "nature doctor," prescribing obligatory cures for his ashramites, such as dried cow-dung powder and various concoctions containing cow dung. And to those he really loved he gave enemas--but again, alas, not to Margaret Bourke-White. Which is too bad, really. For admiring Candice Bergen's work as I do, I would have been most interested in seeing how she would have experienced this beatitude. The scene might have lived in film history.

The authors of the present movie even acknowledge in a little-noticed opening title that they have made a film only true to Gandhi's spirit. For my part, I do not intend to pick through Gandhi's writings to make him look like Attila the Hun (although the thought is tempting), but to give a fair, weighted balance of his views, laying stress above all on his actions, and on what he told other men to do when the time for action had come.

The film, moreover, does not give the slightest hint as to Gandhi's attitude toward blacks, and the viewers of 'Gandhi' would naturally suppose that, since the future Great Soul opposed South African discrimination against Indians, he would also oppose South African discrimination against black people. But this is not so. While Gandhi, in South Africa, fought furiously to have Indians recognized as loyal subjects of the British empire, and to have them enjoy the full rights of Englishmen, he had no concern for blacks whatever. In fact, during one of the "Kaffir Wars" he volunteered to organize a brigade of Indians to put down a Zulu rising, and was decorated himself for valor under fire.

For, yes, Gandhi (Sergeant Major Gandhi) was awarded Victoria's coveted War Medal. Throughout most of his life Gandhi had the most inordinate admiration for British soldiers, their sense of duty, their discipline and stoicism in defeat (a trait he emulated himself). He marveled that they retreated with heads high, like victors. There was even a time in his life when Gandhi, hardly to be distinguished from Kipling's Gunga Din, wanted nothing much as to be a Soldier of the Queen. Since this is not in keeping with the "spirit" of Gandhi, as decided by Pandit Nehru and Indira Gandhi, it is naturally omitted from the movie.

Gandhi was a man of the most extreme, autocratic temperament, tyrannical, unyielding even regarding things he knew nothing about, totally intolerant of all opinions but his own. He was, furthermore, in the highest degree reactionary, permitting in India no change in the relationship between the feudal lord and his peasants or servants, the rich and the poor. In his 'The Life and Death of Mahatma Gandhi,' the best and least hagiographic of the full-length studies, Robert Payne, although admiring Gandhi greatly, explains Gandhi's "new direction" on his return to India from South Africa as follows:

"He spoke in generalities, but he was searching for a single cause, a single hard-edged task to which he would devote the remaining years of his life. He wanted to repeat his triumph in South Africa on Indian soil. He dreamed of assembling a small army of dedicated men around him, issuing stern commands and leading them to some almost unobtainable goal."

Gandhi, in short, was a leader looking for a cause. He found it, of course, in home rule for India and, ultimately, in independence.

WE ARE therefore presented with the seeming anomaly of a Gandhi who, in Britain when war broke out in August 1914, instantly contacted the War Office, swore that he would stand by England in its hour of need, and created the Indian Volunteer Corps, which he might have commanded if he hadn't fallen ill with pleurisy. In 1915, back in India, he made a memorable speech in Madras in which he proclaimed, "I discovered that the British empire had certain ideals with which I have fallen in love...." In early 1918, as the war in Europe entered its final crisis, he wrote to the Viceroy of India, "I have an idea that if I become your recruiting agent-in-chief, I might rain men upon you," and he proclaimed in a speech in Kheda that the British "love justice; they have shielded men against oppression." Again, he wrote to the Viceroy, "I would make India offer all her able-bodied sons as a sacrifice to the empire at this critical moment To some of his pacifist friends, who were horrified, Gandhi replied by appealing to the 'Bhagavad Gita' and to the endless wars recounted in the Hindu epics, the 'Ramayana' and the 'Mahabharata,' adding further to the pacifists' honor by declaring that Indians "have always been warlike, and the finest hymn composed by Tulsidas in praise of Rama gives the first place to his ability to strike down the enemy."

This was in contradiction to the interpretation of sacred Hindu scriptures Gandhi had offered on earlier occasions (and would offer later), which was that they did not recount military struggles but spiritual struggles; but, unusual for him, he strove to find some kind of synthesis. "I do not say, `Let us go and
kill the Germans,'" Gandhi explained. "I say, `Let us go and die for the sake of India and the empire.'" And yet within two years, the time having come for swaraj (home rule), Gandhi's inner voice spoke again, and, the leader having found his cause, Gandhi proclaimed resoundingly: "The British empire today represents Satanism, and they who love God can afford to have no love for Satan."

The idea of swaraj, originated by others, crept into Gandhi's mind gradually. With a fair amount of winding about, Gandhi, roughly, passed through three phases. First, he was entirely pro-British, and merely wanted for Indians the rights of Englishmen (as he understood them). Second, he was still pro-British, but with the belief that, having proved their loyalty to the empire, Indians would be granted some degree of swaraj. Third, as the home-rule movement gathered momentum, it was the swaraj, the whole swaraj, and nothing but the swaraj, and he turned relentlessly against the crown. The movie to the contrary, he caused the British no end of trouble in their struggles during World War II.

BUT it should not be thought for one second that Gandhi's finally full-blown desire to detach India from the British empire gave him the slightest sympathy with other colonial peoples pursuing similar objectives. Throughout his entire life Gandhi displayed the most spectacular inability to understand or even really take in people unlike himself. Just as Gandhi had been totally unconcerned with the situation of South Africa's blacks (he hardly noticed they were there until they rebelled), so now he was totally unconcerned with other Asians or Africans.

At the close of World War I, the Muslims of India were deeply absorbed in what they called the "khilafat" movement--"khilafat" being their corruption of "Caliphate," the Caliph in question being the Ottoman Sultan. In addition to his temporal powers, the Sultan of the Ottoman empire held the spiritual position of Caliph, supreme leader of the world's Muslims and successor to the Prophet Muhammad. At the defeat of the Central Powers (Germany, Austria, Turkey), the Sultan was a prisoner in his palace in Constantinople, shorn of his religious as well as his political authority, and the Muslims of India were incensed. It so happened that the former subject peoples of the Ottoman empire, principally Arabs, were perfectly happy to be rid of this Caliph, and even the Turks were glad to be rid of him, but this made no impression at all on the Muslims of India, for whom the issue was essentially a club with which to beat the British. Until this odd historical moment, Indian Muslims had felt little real allegiance to the Ottoman Sultan either, but now that he had fallen, the British had done it! The British had taken away their khilafat! And one of the most ardent supporters of this Indian Muslim movement was the new Hindu leader, Gandhi.

It is something of an anomaly that Gandhi, held in popular myth to be a pure pacifist (a myth which governments of India have always been at great pains to sustain in the belief that it will reflect credit on India itself, and to which the present movie adheres slavishly), was until fifty not ill-disposed to war at all. As I have already noted, in three wars, no sooner had the bugles sounded than Gandhi not only gave his support, but was clamoring for arms. To form new regiments! To fight! To destroy the enemies of the empire! Regular Indian army units fought in both the Boer War and World War I, but this was not enough for Gandhi. He wanted to raise new troops, even, in the case of the Boer and Kaffir Wars, from the tiny Indian colony in South Africa. British military authorities
thought it not really worth the trouble to train such a small body of Indians as soldiers, and were even resistant to training them as an auxiliary medical corps ("stretcher bearers"), but finally yielded to Gandhi's relentless importuning.

As first instructed, the Indian Volunteer Corps was not supposed actually to go into combat, but Gandhi, adamant, led his Indian volunteers into the thick of battle. When the British commanding officer was mortally wounded during an engagement in the Kaffir War, Gandhi--though his corps' deputy
commander--carried the officer's stretcher himself from the battlefield and for miles over the sun-baked veldt. The British empire's War Medal did not have its name for nothing, and it was generally earned.

it is not widely realized (nor will this film tell you) how much violence was associated with Gandhi's so-called "nonviolent" movement from the very beginning. India's Nobel Prize-winning poet, Rabindranath Tagore, had sensed a strong current of nihilism in Gandhi almost from his first days, and as early as
1920 wrote of Gandhi's "fierce joy of annihilation," which Tagore feared would lead India into hideous orgies of devastation--which ultimately proved to be the case. Robert Payne has said that there was unquestionably an "unhealthy atmosphere" among many of Gandhi's fanatic followers, and that Gandhi's habit of going to the edge of violence and then suddenly retreating was fraught with danger. "In matters of conscience I am uncompromising," proclaimed Gandhi proudly. "Nobody can make me yield." The judgment of Tagore was categorical.
Much as he might revere Gandhi as a holy man, he quite detested him as a politician and considered that his campaigns were almost always so close to violence that it was utterly disingenuous to call them nonviolent.

ANOTHER of Gandhi's most powerful obsessions (to which the movie alludes in such a syrupy and misleading manner that it would be quite impossible for the audience to understand it) was his visceral hatred of the modern, industrial world. He even said, more than once, that he actually wouldn't mind if the British remained in India, to police it, conduct foreign policy, and such trivia, if it would only take away its factories and railways. And Gandhi hated, not just factories and railways, but also the telegraph, the telephone, the radio, the airplane. He happened to be in England when Louis Bleriot, the great French aviation pioneer, first flew the English Channel--an event which at the time stirred as much excitement as Lindbergh's later flight across the Atlantic and Gandhi was in a positive fury that giant crowds were acclaiming such an insignificant event. He used the telegraph extensively himself, of course, and later would broadcast daily over All-India Radio during his highly publicized fasts, but consistency was never Gandhi's strong suit.

SOME Indians feel that after the early l930's, Gandhi, although by now world-famous, was in fact in sharp decline. Did he at least "get British out of India"? Some say no. India, in the last days of British Raj, was already largely governed by Indians (a fact one would never suspect from this movie), and it is a common view that without this irrational, wildly erratic holy man the transition to full independence might have gone both more smoothly and more swiftly. In earlier days he had scoffed at the title accorded him, Mahatma (literally "great soul"). But toward the end, during the hideous paroxysms that accompanied independence, with some of the most unspeakable massacres taking place in Calcutta, he declared, "And if the whole of Calcutta swims in blood, it
will not dismay me. For it will be a willing offering of innocent blood." And in his last days, after there had already been one attempt on his life, he was heard to say, "*I am a true Mahatma.*"

We can only wonder, furthermore, at a public figure who lectures half his life about the necessity of abolishing modern industry and then picks a Fabian socialist, already drawing up Five-Year Plans, as the country's first Prime Minister.

On a lower level of being, I have consequently given some thought to the proper mantra for spectators of the movie 'Gandhi.' After much reflection, in homage to
Ralph Nader, I have decided on Caveat Emptor, "buyer beware."

Osho relates his experience with Gandhi

*******************************

Hundreds of times we had discussed Mahatma Gandhi and his philosophy, and I was always against. People were a little bit puzzled why I was so insistent against a man I had only seen twice, when I was just a child. I will tell you the story of that second meeting….

I can see the train. Gandhi was traveling, and of course he traveled third class. But his "third class" was far better than any first class possible. In a sixty-man compartment there was just him and his secretary and his wife; I think these three were the only people. The whole compartment was reserved. And it was not even an ordinary first-class compartment, because I have never seen such a compartment again. It must have been a first-class compartment, and not only first class, but a special first class. Just the name plate had been changed and it became "third class" so Mahatma Gandhi's philosophy was saved.

I was just ten. My mother—again I mean my grandmother—had given me three rupees. She said, "The station is too far and you may not be back in time for lunch, and one never knows with these trains: it may come ten hours, twelve hours late, so please keep these three rupees." In India in those days, three rupees was almost a treasure. One could live comfortably for three months on them.

She had made a really beautiful robe for me. She knew I did not like long pants; at the most I wore pajama pants and a kurta. She had made a beautiful kurta for me.

My Nani said I should go to see Mahatma Gandhi if I wanted to and she prepared a very thin muslin robe. She found the best muslin. It was so thin that it was almost transparent. At that time gold rupees had disappeared and silver rupees had taken their place. Those silver rupees were too heavy for the poor muslin pocket. Why am I saying it?—because something I'm going to say would not be possible to understand without it.

The train came as usual, thirteen hours late. Almost everybody was gone except me. You know me, I'm stubborn. Even the stationmaster said, "Boy, you are something. Everybody has gone but you seem ready to stay the whole night. There is no sign of the train and you have been waiting since early this morning."

To come to the station at four o'clock that morning I had to leave my house in the middle of the night. But I had not yet used those three rupees because everybody had brought so many things with them, and they were all so generous to a little boy who had come so far. They were offering me fruits, sweets, cakes and everything, so there was no question of feeling hungry. When the train finally arrived, I was the only person there—and what a person! Just a ten-year-old boy, standing by the side of the stationmaster.

He introduced me to Mahatma Gandhi and said, "Don't think of him as just a boy. The whole day I have watched him, and I have discussed many things with him, because there was no other work. And he is the only one who has remained. Many had come but they left long ago. I respect him because I know he would have stayed here till the last day of existence; he would not leave until the train arrived. And if the train had not arrived, I don't think he would ever have left. He would have lived here."

Mahatma Gandhi was an old man; he called me close and looked at me. But rather than looking at me, he looked at my pocket—and that put me off him forever. And he said, "What is that?"

I said, "Three rupees."

He said, "Donate them." He used to have a box with a hole in it by his side. When you donated, you put the rupees in the hole and they disappeared. Of course he had the key, so they would appear again, but for you they had disappeared.

I said, "If you have the courage you can take them. The pocket is there, the rupees are there, but may I ask you for what purpose you are collecting these rupees?"

He said, "For poor people."

I said, "Then it is perfectly okay." And I myself dropped those three rupees into his box. But he was the one to be surprised, for when I started leaving I took the whole box with me.

He said, "For God's sake, what are you doing? That is for the poor!"

I said, "I have heard you already, you need not bother repeating it again. I am taking this box for the poor. There are many in my village. Please give me the key; otherwise I will have to find a thief so that he can open the lock. He is the only expert in that art."

He said, "This is strange…." He looked at his secretary. The secretary was dumb, as secretaries always are; otherwise why should they be secretaries? He looked at Kasturba, his wife, who said, "You have met your equal. You cheat everybody, now he is taking your whole box. Good! It is good, because I am tired of seeing that box always there, just like a wife!"

I felt sorry for that man and left the box, saying, "No, you are the poorest man, it seems. Your secretary does not have any intelligence, nor does your wife seem to have any love for you. I cannot take this box away—you keep it. But remember, I had come to see a mahatma, but I saw only a businessman."

To me, at that age, Mahatma Gandhi appeared to be only a businessman. I have spoken against him thousands of times because I don't agree with anything in his philosophy of life.

There was an earthquake in Bihar, in India, and Mahatma Gandhi said that the earthquake happened because God was punishing the sinners. I was very young, but I wrote him a letter that it is very strange that God should punish the sinners only in Bihar. What about the whole rest of the world? Do you consider that only Bihar consists only of sinners, and the whole world consists of saints?

And he had neither guts nor a gentleman's attitude. He never gave any answer. I wrote a letter to Ramdas, his son—because he was my friend—I wrote to Ramdas asking him whether his father had received my letter or not. He said he had received it, "but he has no answer to give so he is keeping quiet."

In India they say, "Even a leaf of a tree moves only if God wants to move it." So even the murderer is not really responsible, he is simply doing what God wants to do. That's the whole teaching in the Gita of Krishna, and the Gita is worshipped by Hindus and even by non-Hindus. And one cannot believe…even people like Mahatma Gandhi, who pretend to be non-violent, call the Gita their mother. Gandhi used to say that Hindus and Mohammedans are one.

I was not more than seventeen when I wrote him a letter and asked him, "If Hindus and Mohammedans are one, if the Gita is your mother, what about the holy Koran? Is the holy Koran your father?" He was so angry—his son was my friend and he told me that he simply threw the letter out the window. Ramdas, his son, told him, "What he is asking is relevant. If you can call the Gita your mother…. If you cannot call the Koran your father, you can call it step-father, uncle, but some relationship has to be there, otherwise how are Hindus and Mohammedans one?" I never received any letter. Ramdas informed me, "You will never receive any answer."

Very good link exposing Gandhi.

http://members.tripod.com/ramkumaram/part1.html

To attack someone character the way you folks are determined to is shameful. It is Extremist Hindus like you that all sensible Hindus must be wary about.

All those leaders you chant about either died like heros but the freedom was achieved by Gandhi - because he fought the Brits with their own weapon - Brain and strategy. Extremists and Fundamentalists, well meaning Hindus did not last long - right through the first onslaught of Islam. They were either killed or converted by force. So - read History-don't have to re-write it. Hindus being peace loving people did not have the warrior and plundering mentality of the Muslim invaders or the cunning smarts of the British !

Yes- I agree that Gandhi did a lot of miscalculations. He was after all human. You go into the details of his daily lives and try to pick a story here and a gossip there and try to turn that into muck raking so that you can destroy his credibility with the people. Indians and the world is much more smarter than you. They understand your underlying motive and you do more damage to your own credibility.

Open your eyes and ears and listen ! Don't get carried over by hatred and your fundamentalism. Hinduism is one of the greatest religion. So is Christianity and Judaism and Islam. How one practices their religion is what matters ! There are fundamentalists in all religions that give their religion a bad name - as you guys are doing.

If somebody calls Hitler a mad man, it is considered ok. But if somebody calls Gandhi an evil man, why is it not ok? This sort of emntality was existant during the Nehru rule of India. Is India still a slave country or is it free? Is India a democratic country or is it still under Nehru/Gandhi dictatorship?

Why I cant I say that molesting little girls is wrong? Why cant I say that mass rape of Hindu women is wrong? Why cant I say that abusing children is wrong? Why cant I say being a swindler is wrong?

Why should I be shut up? Am I insulting anyone personally? No. I am only pointing the actions of a public figure. Should I not be allowed to exercise my right to free speech. Whne did I say anyhting about Hinduism or speak ill about Muslims or Christians? Yet why are some people labeling me a Hindu fanatic?

Perhaps the fanaticsm lies elsewhere?

>So - read History-don't have to re-write it.

Benjamin Franklin once said, "History is written by winners." Well, now it's our turn!

>I agree that Gandhi did a lot of miscalculations.

We are just trying to debate his so called "miscalculations" and the implications on modern India and the Indian society. Everyone is welcome to post their positive/negative opinions, as long as they can be supported by published accounts. So far, most posters here are referring news/books/articles.

>There are fundamentalists in all religions that give their religion a bad name - as you guys are doing.

Let's not get emotional here! This discussion is not about religion.

Please no more posting about Gandhi. We are really fools who are spending time discussing about that half naked idiot.

For heaven's sake, no more Gandhi. Let him slowly pass
out of nation's memory.


Wish a bright, couragious, strong, patriotic India.

Jai Hind!

Shashi is right.

- Jay Hind

Uheee Janardhanan aur Dahyapharji,

Tusi logon de paas kuch aur kam nahin rahe gaya hai jo tusi ik maare huahey banda nu bi nahi chadtey ? Wah wah re tawadi desh bakhti !!!!!! Apna waqt aur aurain da kyon jahya karde ho ??? Kuch desh bahkti ke kaam karo aur acchi acchi baatein karo.

Please post your message in English if you expect others to read it. If you think you will only read, that it is o.k. I just hate to read your stupid hindi and english composition. Also if you have anything else to say to others which is not related to the topic of discussion, please post a new message.
Overall before suggesting others any advice, please suggest yourself.

Dear Sashi from Bengal,
The reason why I am spending so much time on Gandhi is because the truth has to come out. Just look at our history books. Look at our currency notes. All have Gandhi on it. Gandhi has to be shown for what he was. Only then will people mentally remove all this misguided notions of Ahimsa. Ahimsa is a great concept preached by Rishi Patanjali, Mahavir Jain, Gautama Buddha etc.

Also the betrayal of Netaji has to be brought out. Netaji had to hide in the himalayas because Gandhi and Nehru signed a pact with the British that they would hand him over. Gandhi has to be exposed so that Netaji can appear in Public. No I am not on drugs. Netaji is indeed alive. I repeat Netaji is alive today.

Please visit this link to know more.

http://bengalonline.sitemarvel.com/netajigate.html

Also please sign this petition to remove Netaji's name from the war criminals list.

http://www.petitiononline.com/13netaji/petition.html

Hello Brother Krishna Deva Raya.... man you are smoking something illegal !!! Netaji is dead.

Netaji is my favorite but his views and politics were confrontational thus making him a target of the British Empire and their plan to eliminate him. This does not mean that Netaji was not an intelligent or great leader, his leadership style was more hawkish compared to Gandhi and Nehru. Gandhi and Nehru were the product of British educational and social system and were practical, intelligent and understood the politics strategy of the Brits and equal at the game of adapting and changing as and when required to. You do not win with brawn - you win with carefully planning and startegy.

Now you try to trash Gandhi which is understandable because you do not like him for some reason. You call him all kinds of names, child molester etc etc. The fact remains that with out Gandhi - you would still have had the British sitting in India for at least another quarter century.

Try as you may, history books will write facts - Gandhi was instrumental in India gaining its independence no matter what what guys like you say or do.

Vinod Negi,
I had made this request earlier, asking you to refrain from making personal attacks on me. I can t see what is so hard in fulfilling such a simple request? How many times do I have to make that request?

Regardin Gandhi, I have provided documented proof that he slept with girls and used to touch them and excite thme sexually in pirvate parts. Also he asked the girls to rub him. Even Freud has argued that Gandhi enjoyed these strokings by the girls. So why am I wrong in calling Gandhi a child molestor?

I have provided a web site which gives documented proof with none other than the British Prime Minister himself who signed Indian independence declaring that Gandhi's contribution to the freedom struggle was 'MINIMAL'. So why am I wrong in saying that Gandhi's contirbution is all fake and made up?

Dear Brother Krishna Deva Raya,

You are a mysterious fellow indeed. You attack others relentlessly destroy their characters and call names and when we question you, you become a thin skinned sensitive daisy !!! Stand up and be a M A N. If you are willing to throw stones at others - have the guts to take a few pebbles. Otherwise, you are just another of those daisies !!!! Lets have a good fight on our respective beliefs. Its seems you like to eat your cake and have it too.

On Gandhi-It is a fact that you are on a mud slinging agenda. You may be "right in quoting from books and articles about Gandhi" but look at the bigger picture. Gandhi was afterall a human who had failings like all of us. No one condones his personal habits and you seem to delight in his failures. I have a problem with people who rake up dirt on "DEAD PEOPLE" and destroy their characters when these dead people cannot fight back and respond to your accusations.

On one hand you smoothly slip the quote from the British prime minister - the very ones that he defeated and humiliated - that his contribution to getting India independence 'minimal". You seem to believe the Brits over your Indian brethen ! Shame on you !!!

People like you are paper tigers - filled with personal hatreds for dead people who cannot stand up to fight your hatefilled accusations !

Hi

I , as a reader of this duscussion, have discovered many facts abt Gandhi and others in this discussion.

Now i feel we are deviating from a healthy discussion. I think readers like me have got enough info to form an opinion on the subject of the discussion.

Can we stop discussing it further if we dont now how to respect each other ?

Hi Sandeep,

Your point is well taken. I feel that issues such as these bring out the passion in you. People are willing to bash a dead leader Gandhi - but they have no guts to fight the present day "alive" but corrupt leaders in India who have been pushing India down the drain.

My position is that I will debate any hate filled post on this site. People have to get constructive and positive about the present and the future - the past is gone !

Thank you.

Why should respect for leaders be compulsary? Respect for each other is indeed signs of cultured behaviour, but why the respect for leaders. Why should Germans respect Hitler? So why should Indians respect Gandhi?

Comparing Gandhi and Hitler - you must be kidding ????

Do Chinese call Mao - Hitler, Our Communists call Lenin - Hitler, Americans George Washington - Hitler, South Africans Nelson Mandela Hitler ???

Gandhi was the principal founder of the Indian Democracy under which you operate today - otherwise you would be still getting whipped by the Brits.

Respect is important - you can challenge his policy, behaviour, vision but respect remains of paramount importance.

"There is also the question of Hindu-Muslim unity which the non-violence school is trying to solve on the basis of their theory.

You can live amicably with a religion whose principle is toleration. But how is it possible to live peacefully with a religion whose principle is “I will not tolerate you”? How are you going to have unity with these people? Certainly, Hindu-Muslim unity cannot be arrived at on the basis that the Muslims will go on converting Hindus while the Hindus shall not convert any Mahomedan. You can’t build unity on such a basis. Perhaps the only way of making the Mahomedans harmless is to make them lose their fanatic faith in their religion....

The Mahomedan religion was born under such circumstances that the followers never forgot the origin.

That was the result of the passive resistance which they practised. They went on suffering till they got strong enough and, when they got power, they began to persecute others with a vengeance....

Gandhi's position is that he does not care to remove violence from others; he wants to observe non-violence himself.

That is one of the violences of the Satyagrahi that he does not care for the presssure which he brings on others. It is not non-violence—it is not “Ahimsa.” True Ahimsa is a state of mind and does not consist in physical or external action or in avoidance of action. Any pressure in the inner being is a breach of Ahimsa.

For instance, when Gandhi fasted in the Ahmedabad mill-hands' strike to settle the question between mill-owners and workers, there was a kind of violence towards others. The mill-owners did not want to be responsible for his death and so they gave way, without, of course, being convinced of his position. It is a kind of violence on them. But as soon as they found the situation normal they reverted to their old ideas. The same thing happened in South Africa. He got some concessions there by passive resistance and when he came back to India it became worse than before.",
Sri Aurobindo.

Your last post was a meaningful contribution. Thank you.

I also agree with your mention that Muslims have to learn to live with Hindus too. Secularism means all religion respect each other - not just the majority religion respecting and kow-towing to the minorities !

The Congress party has used this to divide the nation and keep them weak so that they can use it as a vote bank.

The BJP must ensure that while they 'respect' the other religion, they do not cave into the fundamentalism of any religion. To this I agree that Gandhi and Nehru were responsible.

Some of the postings here have attacked me as being anti-Gandhi just because I am open minded to respect factual information about Gandhiji that was never available before. He is still my Mahatma. However, I think that all postings here have good value and they should get due respect.

Below is a copy of my very old posting to friends about anti-Gandhi visual media. (In 1999, I had also written another posting about anti-Gandhi theme getting fashionable in India. If I find it I will post it here.)

From: Dahyabhai
Subj: Visual media on Gandhiji
Date: 12/3/2000
To: cheerfulGroup

Dear Friends,

I have observed that recently Indian Cinema is using anti_India anti_lawEnforcement themes very openly, to glorify the passion of mafia gangs and terrorists. India’s children are growing up watching and enjoying these movies.

Four years ago, an Indian Muslim Director staged an English language drama in USA to show that Mahatma Gandhi was less of a parent to his own child. This will create a defamed image of Pujya Gandhiji.

Instead of joining Gandhiji's call for Satyagraha movement, many Islamic leaders were busy launching personal attack on him. They found very good substance in one of Gandhiji's sons. This son was a spoiled one and wanted to take revenge against his father for not financing his immoral habits. The son, after being rejected by Christians, found great support from Imams. They converted him to Islam and documented all his stories about how less of a parent Ganghiji was.

I had read the copy of the long letter Gandhiji wrote to the Imams about his son's conversion to Islam. The letter did not show slightest animosity against Muslim leaders. Gandhiji expressed his love for his son, and informed the Imam that the son has not converted for religious reasons, because he is not capable to understand the religiosity.

I would put my complete trust in Gandhiji, who as father of the whole nation, cannot be less of a father to his own son. No matter how many acts of dramatization to defame are staged out in whatever classical way, I will trust Gandhiji more than his entrained son.

I was troubled when many of my Indian friends were praising the drama's Muslim producer, with this historical defamation of Father of the Indian Nation.

If Indians can believe a idiot son that Gandhiji was less of a father to his own children, or tolerate this rubbish being acted out on American Stage; there is lot wrong with Hindu Indians. WE MUST PROMOTE GANDHIJI AS TRUE SAINT IN OUR HEART AND MIND. Young generation Indians are being brains washed by defaming visual Muslim media.

My friends, now the trend has picked up in Indian Cinema by Muslim producers to glorify the terrorists and Hindu killers of Kashmir, while criticizing the police department in new movies. Sorry state is that they have not used Muslim actors, but all cast is made ofHindu actors. CAN YOU BELIEVE THAT THE YOUNG GROWING UP INDIAN MINDS WILL BE GETTING POLLUTED WITH THE WRONG MESSAGE FROM THIS? After watching these movies, many may even be sympathetic to terrorists for killing so many of their own Hindu brothers and for making Kashmiri Hindus, refugees in their own country.


Muslim agenda in movies had started sometimes back with glorification of organized criminals and rediculing the police department as theme, specially using Sajay Dutt, until 1993 bombing of Mumbai Stock Exchange building whose suspects are hiding in Pakistan and Dubai. By the way, Sanjay Dutt was arrested with illegal weapons While returning from Dubai.

DHANYWAD FOR READING THIS FAR. But I request to please read following message from a friend of mine.

……………. Dahyabhai

Subj: The conversions of Gandhi's son to islam
Date: 4/22/03 10:44:53 PM Eastern Daylight Time
From: GS
To: Dahyabhai

The author of this memoir is a retired civil servant. In the book cited below he has penned down in a very unassuming and unembellished style his life experiences, including those from some 40 years as a mid-level civil servant in United Provinces, and then Uttar Pradesh. His honesty is utterly refreshing.

He cites the name as Hira Lal. Most books have him as Hari Lal. In my translation I have not made any alterations.
(Translated from original Hindi.)
"Yaadon ke Jharokhe se" (Through the Windows of Memory)
by Shivnath Sharma, Page 28-29
HIRALAL GANDHI IN KANPUR

This incident dates back to 1936-37 when I was a student in Kanpur's DAV college and was preparing for the law examination. I used to live in the college hostel.

Inter-community relations in Kanpur of those times had reached their nadir. People still had fresh in their minds the memories of the big Hindu-Muslim riots. The embers of communal hatred were being fanned by the so-called "community leaders" on both sides.

On one side there was this Maulana Bukhari, fond of giving long speeches, thoroughly quenched in communal venom. People of a certain community used to regularly attend his meetings and encourage him at intervals by shouting incendiary slogans. Typically, these meetings concluded with the bringing of a few persons, purportedly Hindus, on the podium, wishing to embrace Islam. They were made to recite the Kalama (affirmation of faith, required of those embracing Islam), and were thus ceremonially inducted into the ranks of the believers.

Often times, Hindus too used to convene retaliatory meetings, which were equally inciting.

Not only did the authorities make absolutely no effort to curb such gatherings, but in actuality they tacitly encouraged them. The reasons were clear. The independence movement was in full swing, and the calculated policy of the government was to weaken it by keeping Muslims and Hindus in a perpetual state of warfare.

Just about that time Mahatma Gandhi's son Hiralal Gandhi was making news. Whether it was because of his illustrious father's indifference towards him, or any other reason, he had fallen into the abyss of degradation. He had become addicted to alcohol and women. His moral character had plummeted to the gutter level. Some Muslim fanatics saw their opportunity to slander the Mahatma, fanned the fires in the son by assisting him in his evil desires. A a prelude, he was coaxed into Islam and given a new name: Abdullah Gandhi. Then he was made a show-piece at Muslim gatherings all over India. Wherever he was exhibited, the Muslim slogan used to be: "Today the son has known the true religion of Islam, tomorrow we shall make Gandhi (M.K.) recite the Kalama."

How could Kanpur be immune to this malady? As expected, with great fanfare Abdullah Gandhi, alias Hiralal was brought to Kanpur and was show-cased in a mammoth meeting. The same slogans- "The Son Today, the Father Tomorrow" were repeated. Then in accordance with the usual routine of previous meetings, some imposters and hired characters posing as Hindus took the Islamic oath, and were ceremonially inducted into Islam. The meeting then formed into a procession. I had the chance to watch this procession with a few of my friends from a close angle.

The procession was fairly big, and passed raucously through the important thoroughfares of the city, shouting inflammatory slogans. The centerpiece was, of course, Abdullah Gandhi sitting in an open 'Buggy' (horse drawn carriage). On either side of him was a man holding him for support because he was heavily drunk. He was wearing a pair of loose pyjamas, black 'sherwani' topped by a Sheikh Abdullah style fur cap. His eyes were bloodshot, and he was swinging under the influence. When the procession passed through Moolganj (the red-light district of Kanpur) the scene became hilarious. On both sides of the road, on the balconies and rooftops, the prostitutes turned out to watch the spectacle. Our 'hero' Abdullah Gandhi bowing to them, was sending his 'Salaams' through the air, which were profusely reciprocated to by the ladies of the night. At one spot, while doing his Salaams, Abdullah lost his balance and rolled to the floor of the carriage. His facilitators somehow lifted him up and put him back in his seat.

Needless to say, my heart filled with grief and indignation over the tragic fall of a great man's offspring.

There are some posters who seem to resolutely believe that without Gandhi the British would have stayed on in the country for much longer. I will beg to differ, as will anybody else who has studied the the post WWII era carefully.

First, Indian independence was well on track even in the 20's. It is arguable that we would be celebrating more than 80 years as a free nation if Gandhi had not called off the boycott movement of the 1920's.

Second, and most importantly, a closer analysis of world events of the late 1940's reveals without doubt that the British could not have held on any longer to India. World circumstances forced them to leave. Vinod and others, you might consider the fact that many colonized nations soon got independence during this time; yet many of these nations did not have strong independence movements. The got freedom because their rulers (mostly European) could not financially and morally justify to their people holding on to colonies any longer. Not only were European nations economically crippled after the War, the post war era also saw a number of modern ideas such as nationhood for all peoples, gender equality, race equality and others, come to light.

The world progresses along general lines and nothing can stop the hammer of time when it chooses to decsend on an era, in order to prepare the next. India would have got freedom in the 1940s (if not earlier) even if Gandhi would have remained a lawyer in South Africa and skipped lunch every alternate day.

Cheers,
Devdip

P.S.: However, Gandhi may be credited for his social ideas, particularly the village system. It will be interesting if somebody can do a study to find out his impact in this area. If anybody has any details on this, I will be interested.

Varsha Bhosle on Rediff “My country, period”
(=NATHURAM GODSE STATEMENT AT HIS LAST MEAL.)
May 12, 2003
http://www.rediff.com/news/2003/may/12varsha.htm

………………………..
Ok.
Read the following excerpts, from the deposition of a man (NATHURAM GODSE) who was hanged in the early hours of a cold November morning of 1948 in Ambala prison. Clutching a map of undivided India in one hand and the saffron flag in another, he walked to the gallows chanting an invocation to his motherland. A few hours later, his body was cremated outside the prison walls and, immediately afterwards, the whole area was ploughed and planted with grass so that no one could identify the spot and build a shrine:


On January 13, 1948, I learnt that Gandhiji had decided to go on fast unto death. The reason given was that he wanted an assurance of Hindu-Muslim Unity... But I and many others could easily see that the real motive... [was] to compel the Dominion Government to pay the sum of Rs 55 crores to Pakistan, the payment of which was emphatically refused by the Government.... But this decision of the people's Government was reversed to suit the tune of Gandhiji's fast. It was evident to my mind that the force of public opinion was nothing but a trifle when compared with the leanings of Gandhiji favourable to Pakistan.

...In 1946 or thereabout, Muslim atrocities perpetrated on Hindus under the Government patronage of Surhawardy in Noakhali made our blood boil. Our shame and indignation knew no bounds when we saw that Gandhiji had come forward to shield that very Surhawardy and began to style him as 'Shaheed Saheb' – a martyr – even in his prayer meetings...

...Gandhiji's influence in the Congress first increased and then became supreme. His activities for public awakening were phenomenal in their intensity and were reinforced by the slogans of truth and non-violence which he ostentatiously paraded before the country... I could never conceive that an armed resistance to the aggressor is unjust... Ram killed Ravan in a tumultuous fight... Krishna killed Kansa to end his wickedness... In condemning Shivaji, Rana Pratap and Guru Govind as 'misguided patriots,' Gandhiji has merely exposed his self-conceit... Gandhiji was, paradoxically, a violent pacifist who brought untold calamities on the country in the name of truth and nonviolence, while Rana Pratap, Shivaji and the Guru will remain enshrined in the hearts of their countrymen forever...

...By 1919, Gandhiji had become desperate in his endeavours to get the Muslims to trust him and went from one absurd promise to another... He backed the Khilafat movement in this country and was able to enlist the full support of the National Congress in that policy... very soon the Moplah Rebellion showed that the Muslims had not the slightest idea of national unity... There followed a huge slaughter of Hindus... The British Government, entirely unmoved by the rebellion, suppressed it in a few months and left to Gandhiji the joy of his Hindu-Muslim Unity... British Imperialism emerged stronger, the Muslims became more fanatical, and the consequences were visited on the Hindus...

The accumulating provocation of 32 years, culminating in his last pro-Muslim fast, at last goaded me to the conclusion that the existence of Gandhiji should be brought to an end immediately... he developed a subjective mentality under which he alone was the final judge of what was right or wrong... Either Congress had to surrender its will to him and play second fiddle to all his eccentricity, whimsicality... or it had to carry on without him... He was the master brain guiding the civil disobedience movement... The movement may succeed or fail; it may bring untold disasters and political reverses, but that could make no difference to the Mahatma's infallibility... These childish inanities and obstinacies, coupled with a most severe austerity of life, ceaseless work and lofty character, made Gandhiji formidable and irresistible... In a position of such absolute irresponsibility, Gandhiji was guilty of blunder after blunder...

...The Mahatma even supported the separation of Sindh from the Bombay Presidency and threw the Hindus of Sindh to the communal wolves. Numerous riots took place in Karachi, Sukkur, Shikarpur and other places in which the Hindus were the only sufferers...

...From August 1946 onwards, the private armies of the Muslim League began a massacre of the Hindus... Hindu blood began to flow from Bengal to Karachi with mild reactions in the Deccan... The Interim government formed in September was sabotaged by its Muslim League members, but the more they became disloyal and treasonable to the government of which they were a part, the greater was Gandhi's infatuation for them...

...The Congress, which had boasted of its nationalism and socialism, secretly accepted Pakistan and abjectly surrendered to Jinnah. India was vivisected and one-third of the Indian territory became foreign land to us... This is what Gandhiji had achieved after 30 years of undisputed dictatorship, and this is what Congress party calls 'freedom'...

...One of the conditions imposed by Gandhiji for his breaking of the fast unto death related to the mosques in Delhi occupied by Hindu refugees. But when Hindus in Pakistan were subjected to violent attacks he did not so much as utter a single word to protest and censure the Pakistan government...

Gandhi is being referred to as the Father of the Nation. But if that is so, he had failed his paternal duty inasmuch as he has acted very treacherously to the nation by his consenting to the partitioning of it... The people of this country were eager and vehement in their opposition to Pakistan. But Gandhiji played false with the people...

...I shall be totally ruined, and the only thing I could expect from the people would be nothing but hatred... if I were to kill Gandhiji. But at the same time, I felt that Indian politics in the absence of Gandhiji would surely be proved practical, able to retaliate, and be powerful with armed forces. No doubt, my own future would be totally ruined, but the nation would be saved from the inroads of Pakistan...

...I do say that my shots were fired at the person whose policy and action had brought rack and ruin and destruction to millions of Hindus... There was no legal machinery by which such an offender could be brought to book, and for this reason I fired those fatal shots...

...I do not desire any mercy to be shown to me... I did fire shots at Gandhiji in open daylight. I did not make any attempt to run away; in fact I never entertained any idea of running away. I did not try to shoot myself... for, it was my ardent desire to give vent to my thoughts in an open Court. My confidence about the moral side of my action has not been shaken even by the criticism levelled of against it on all sides. I have no doubt, honest writers of history will weigh my act and find the true value thereof some day in future.

http://www.rediff.com/news/2003/jun/23varsha.htm

you never tire bashing him ?

I am not bashing Gandhi. I am only exposing him. Why can't Hindus be mor eliberal and accept all view points? Did I use any foul language or vulgar words? Then why can't I speak my mind?

A brilliant article which traces the root of Gandhism from it's inception and all the way uptil the Kargil battle and how India has lost each time though we think we have won!

http://www.searchforlight.org/Anubhuti/kargil%20talk%20by%20kittu%20reddy.htm

Don't you think that Aurobindo was kinda weird!

Yes indeed Shri Aurobindo was really wierd. He was brought up in England and he learnt French, German, Spanish, Italian, Greek and Latin on his own in addition to English. What a wierd thing to do!

He got a scholarship to Oxford and his paper was corrected by the world renowned English poet Oscar Browning. Browning was so impressed he called up Aurobindo personally and appreciated his genius by saying 'In all my years of teaching I have not come across one as intlligent as you'

Shri Aurobindo then purposely failed to appear for the horse riding test and thus disqualified himself from ICS(his father wanted him to appear for ICS and serve the British). He could have got a very high paying job serving the British, but he decided not to do so and put his whole life in uncertainity, simply because he left it would be unjust to serve the British Empire. What a wierd thing to do!

Shri Aurobindo then worked as a professor at Baroda University and also edited a magazine called Arya. The Maharaja of Baroda asked him to write few speeches for him, but after reading his writings the Maharaja commented that no one beleive he was so intelligent and hired another speech writer and instead promoted Shri Aurobindo to Vice principal despite his inexperience ans young age. Shri Aurobindo learnt Sanskrit, Bengali, Marathi, Gujarathi, Hindi and also read the Mahabharatha, Ramayana, Upanishads, Brahmanas and all other Indian literature. How wierd!

After the national college was founded in Bengal Shri Aurobindo left to Calcutta for a mearge pay. He lfet his high paying job as Baroda, simply because he wanted to be in the thick of action. He became the editor of Bande Mataram and launched a series of brutal attacks on the British and was the first one to proclaim complete independence for India - even before Tilak.

Shri Aurobindo then Engineered a coup in the Congress party and siezed power from the 'moderates' and handed power over to the 'extremists' under the leadership of Tilak. Shri Aurobindo also inspired and groomed many revolutionaries like Khudiram Bhose, Jatin Banerjee etc. The British declared him the most dangerous man to be dealt with and arrested him. Wierd indeed!

In Alipore jail, he experienced the feeling of oneness, which is called in Bhagwat Purana as "Brindavan", a higher state of consciousness. To use Sri Aurobindo's term, it is the overmind. Krishna came to earth to get man beyond the mind to reach overmind. Soon the final avatar will take mankind to the supramental state. It was in Jail that he had very deep spiritual experiences and decided to retire from indian politics and pursue this to the end. The British had brought in special prosecuter but could do nothing. Shri Aurobindo then left for Pondicherry and set up his Ashramam and published many books regarding his philosophy and did great work in debunking the Aryan Invasion theory etc.

Any fool who calls Shri Aurobindo wierd is ignorant and does not know anything about Aurobindo's genius. I would request them to read "Life Divine" or "Synthesis of Yoga"? Aurobindo was arguably the greatest scholar of Hinduism. His integral yoga was the most inventive approach, it tends to bring together all forms of yoga into one mould. He knew more about Sanatan Dharma than all the skinny swamis and fake gurus put together.

If he is not popular among hindus, then it means hindus are too busy with their superstision to listen to a man of his calibre. Fools who worship fake swamis and half naked fakirs cannot understand his supramental state. If modern-day hindus are stupid enough to "love" and "cherish" murderers and terrorists, and REJECT prophets, then it means Hindus haven't evolved a bit, they are still in the stone age, that's why they love skinny beggars like Ghandi, whilst an avatar like Aurobindo goes unnoticed. Shame on India for being so cheap and inferior! But then again, this is Kali Yuga, people are stupid and cannot figure who is a great man and who is phoney.

Thank you Bangali for the information I was looking for.

Just yesterday, I was discussing with a friend of mine as to how the Hindu Maratha ruled states had put education at top of their priorities and that the states under direct British rule lacked education. I told my friend that our maratha king Shri Sayajirao had made education compulsory for girls and boys. Also I told him that in April 1946 issue of National Geographic Magazine, Dr. Ambedkar, a dalit, proudly declares that Maharaja Sayajirao found him as a talented man and sent him for higher studies abroad. Then he was brought to Baroda, then state capital.

Then, out of the blue my friend told me that Maharaja also brought Shri Aurobindo and many other talents in Baroda and provided full encouragement for their scholarly work. Thanks again for the bio of this wierd man.

That was a brilliant post Bengali. But I would like to point out that Shri Aurobindo went to Cambridge and not Oxford. And also he also knew Tamil in addition to the languages you had mentioned.

>In Alipore jail, he experienced the feeling of >oneness, which is called in Bhagwat Purana >as "Brindavan", a higher state of consciousness. To >use Sri Aurobindo's term, it is the overmind.
>Krishna came to earth to get man beyond the mind to
>reach overmind.

How do you know....oh because Aurobindo wrote so.

>Soon the final avatar will take
>mankind to the supramental state.

This sounds as silly as the apocalypse nonsense of the Jews,Xtians and Muslims.

What did you smoke Bengali before writing such silly superstitious stuff?

Overmind, Supramental, poora mental ... ha ha ha.

gandhi said that if the misguided youth take up arms the future of the society would not be good.like everyone i was very much into gandhi bashing ...but i have seen what has happened to afghanistan after their freedom struggle from soviets...if out freedom struggle had been violent india would probabaly have been todays afghanistan..this i what i feel...i hope it makes sense

Gandhi's Minority (Muslim, Christian) appeasement policy makes me want to puke. His supporters are basically enemies of Hinduism and don't seem to care about India.

Why can't we discuss something actionable like what can we do that will benefit India..
This message thread adds no value and is pretty unfair cause Gandhi really can't defend hinself..
I don't see the Jewish community do this even with Hitler --- they don't waste time criticising him but instead try and make a difference for their community

<<gandhi said that if the misguided youth take up arms the future of the society would not be good.like everyone i was very much into gandhi bashing ...but i have seen what has happened to afghanistan after their freedom struggle from soviets...if out freedom struggle had been violent india would probabaly have been todays afghanistan..this i what i feel...i hope it makes sense>>

Do you really beleive such rubbish? I am shocked at how somebody could be so stupid. The reason why Afghanistan is such a cesspool is because the Buddhists refused to take up arms agaisn the Islamic Mauraders.

If MahaRana Pratap, Krishna Deva Raya of the Vijayanagara Empire, Shivaji etc. had not picked up arms we would all be doing Namaz forcing the Purdah on women and killing each other like animals in the Jungle.

If the Allies had not picked up arms we would all have been speaking German and shouting 'Heil Hitler' today. Only a Moron would suggest that we should do nothing when a a buch of mauraders where attacking us.

Do you know what the Muslims did to cpatured Hindu princes? They would mechanically torture them and remove their body parts one by one and then peel their skin while alive the later feed them live to the dogs and make drums out of the peeled skin and ask drummers to beat on them throughout the City.

Read some history before making such stupid comments. If our ancestors had not picked up arms we would be Muslims today.

<<Why can't we discuss something actionable like what can we do that will benefit India..
This message thread adds no value and is pretty unfair cause Gandhi really can't defend hinself..
I don't see the Jewish community do this even with Hitler --- they don't waste time criticising him but instead try and make a difference for their community.>>

No jew ever told them to go and get slaughtered. Jews were not forced to grow up in such an atmosphere. Jews were not forced to study that Hitler was a hero. That is why they are able to move forward. If Hindus have to move forward we need to learn that the Duratma was indeed a Duratma and not a Mahatma.

Once that is done all the problems will become clear. We cans ee how Gandhi was a dictator and gave all business to Birla and Bajaj(his closest associates) and wiped out anyone from the Congress who would not wield to his authority.

Once this is understood we can understand that the Goverment is not our dictators and we dont need to enslave ourselves. Once the masses understand that the Goverment is created for them and not the other way around as the Fascist Congress under dictator Gandhi had functioned the masses will start exercising their rights.

What ails Hindus is their mentality. Duratma Gandhi has to be shown for the evil person that he was. I wish we could burn effigies of gandhi every year like we do for Ravana.

Even Ravana was better than Gandhi. He did rape little girls like Gandhi who took little girls to be dwith him and raped them and then claimed he was doing some celibacy experiment.

hey krishna,
i was talking about the british rule and not about the mughal era..i would have loved if the hindus had killed all the muslims invaders and recoverted all the muslims back to hindus...if that would have happened we wouldnt have seen the partition...i was just praising the non violent struggle of gandhi against the british..i do not think violent struggle that those done by anto soviet forces in afghanistan would have done india any good..india might have ended up by another post 1989 afghanistan...having said that i would say that there should have been more leaders like subhash chandra who could have kicked the britishers out

I don't know how many of you consider him Indian. By the way he came from South Africa. This low life Baniya stole each and every Idea from other stalwarts of that era Like Tilak,Savarkar,Bose,Bhagat Singh and many more. He didnot invent Ahimsa, he stole it from Sarvarkar.He said I have seen india,and its poor. Thats why he started wearing nothing. Proclaiming to the world that, this is how we Indians live. Nothing on.Begger mentality breeds,cowrdice,ineptness,low self esteem,unhygine ways of life,low morality and fear of bruts. Actully he feared British brute danda going in his ass more than anything else.You know why other's think India is a poor country?(I never think for a minute my beautiful country is poor)
think!! this begger's pic is on each and every currency note! so how the hell in the world Lakshmi will smile on India when this begger prominently displays his beggery,hungry face and body! Change the picture and see how Lakshmi will smile on us. Folks just imagine he was a baniya(a grocrer) this uncreative, anpadh, unimaginitive community of India is a curse on India.
Straighten them out, you will see the results in a flash. Gaandu was always about deals and steals. Thats why he surrounded himself with no good men and women.

Dear Robins,
I think you do not understand the kind of people the British were. For example in North America they slaughtered 15 million people. They used to infect blankets with deadly diseases and use their Christian missionaies to give it free.

Even in India British were extremely brutal. The Indian police is nothing but a legacy of the British. During those days it was even worse. The police would strip woman naked right in public view in many sensitive places like Punjab etc. Also the British when they first captured Bengal they cut off the thumbs of all the weavers because Manchester cloth was so inferior to Indian cloth.

The British were beating, murdering, phillaging, plundering and killing by starving Indians. I dont see why we should not have used violence against such savages. Anyways non-violence was already practiced by Dr.Annie Beasent, Veer Savarkar, Lokmanya Tilak etc. Gandhi claimed he was practicing non-violence b ut gave a free license for Muslims and British to practice unrestricted and unspeakable violence on Hindus.

I have to agree with Sunil, we need to replace Gandhi's photo with that of MahaLakshmi or Shri Kubera. Only then will India prosper like the ancient days.

GANDHI'S CONTRIBUTION ???

NOTHING WHATSOEVER

----------------------------




Gandhi was not the father of Pakistan.

The founding father of Pakistan was M.A. Jinnah, and certainly not Gandhi. Gandhi did not even know how to dress himself or behave in public properly.

Gandhi's contribution to the Indian society was negligently negligible. He never bothered to assemble his endeavours behind a campaign for the permanent cesation of the Hindu custom of "Widow Burning" and never did anything whatsoever, to dismantle the cruel caste system, which is the central component and constitutent of the Hindu Religion and Hindu Society.

Gandhi's contribution to the Indian society was nothing whatsoever.

My husband, Shiraz and I, jointly indited an article under the headline :


HONOURABLE JINNAH ---- vs ---- GANDHI


If I get some free time from my engagements, I will put it here on this board but I wish to intimate the readers that it contains some harsh words and one or two derogatory jokes against the physical appearance of Gandhi.

But I may delete these offensive passages before placing it on this board.







Elizabeth Thompson Khan
Land of Scientists --- Germany

>one or two derogatory jokes against the physical appearance of Gandhi.

This forum is for socio-political discussions, not a place for derogatory "jokes", and certainly not from pakis.

Please read: "You may use the IndiaCause Discussion Forum for lawful purposes only and you may not transmit messages which are vulgar, obscene, threatening, abusive or otherwise objectionable."

http://www.indiacause.com/IC_DBRules.htm

Guys,
Please do not respond to this deluded convert to Islam -- he/she (nowadays you never know) has been fed some nonsensical garbage about India and the hindu religon -- ignore this person -- only people with a greater than two digit IQ allowed on this forum.....

A thought provoking read!
http://www.esamskriti.com/html/new_inside.asp?cat_name=why&sid=119&count1=10&cid=593