Very true. I have noticed that where we in the West have "Islamophobia," Indians have "communalism." That's what it's called when non-Muslims talk about the one thousand years of Jihad against India, which still continues to this day. Non-Muslim communities have been virtually decimated in Pakistan and are in serious decline in Bangladesh. Meanwhile, the Muslim population in the Republic of India has actually grown since the partition, not just in actual numbers but as a percentage of the overall population. Whereas the few remaining non-Muslim communities in Pakistan face brutal harassment and discrimination, Muslims in India enjoy special rights, such as limited use of sharia. They have more political freedom and a higher average income than Muslims in neighboring countries, yet they still blow bombs and attack other Indians. This isn't about "mutual religious antagonism," it's about a slaughter if infidels.

I also think it's an insult that so many Western languages refer to the Indian numeral system as "Arabic numerals." The Indian numeral system is one of India's most important contributions to global civilization and Muslims should not be allowed to take credit for it.

OH, and since I'm here, read Ali Sina's latest book:

http://www.amazon.com/Understanding-Muhammad-Ali-Sina/dp/0980994802

Understanding Muhammad

Posted by: Fjordman at October 3, 2008 8:39 AM

I was totally shocked by the accounts of the Hindu Holocaust that started in the ninth century and is still on-going today. The Muslim armies butchered their way through India, killing, raping, destroying temples and eliminating schools. The death toll was (and is) staggering. The area in the sub-continent known as the "Hindu Kush" means "dead Hindu" due to the death of thousands upon thousands or Hindu slaves being force marched to Muslim slave markets in the Middle East.

How a Muslim of Indian descent can live with this knowledge, I do not know.

Posted by: tanstaafl at October 3, 2008 8:47 AM

Hugh,
Excellent!!.
"Why do Indian-Americans tend to uncritically accept Muslim propaganda, and denounce -- without having read K. S. Lal, or Sita Ram Goel, or Koenraad Elst, or Sir Jahundath Sarkar, or a hundred others who have written -- any expression of interest in, or sympathy for, Hinduism and the Hindu past as something fit for only the most reactionary supporter of Hindutva?"

You asked a very pertinent question. I am perplexed by this seeming apathy. During my childhood, I used to visit a famous Meenakshi temple in Southern City called Madurai. One of the Gopurams(Towers) has a guardian angel by the name Motta Gopurathan {Guardian of demolished tower). I didn't know why it was so. There is no reference in temple about the history for "Demolished tower". I have read history of Pandya, Chola and Chera kings. There was no reference to "Demolished Tower",

Internet has been a boon in bringing information to people. When I researched about history of Madurai Meenakshi temple, I find evidence that Malik Kafur, Thuglaq's army general, raided Madurai. He demolished all four towers in Meenakshi temple. Malik Kafur ordered that all Hindu temples be closed and no prayers offered. Fortunately army from Vijayanagar came and expelled Malik Kafur. Vijayanagar empire rebuilt Meenakshi temple and many other temples in the south.

Question: "Why is this history not recorded anywhere in the temple?". To top it "why do politicians in Tamilnadu harass people of other linguistic heritage?".
my simplistic Answer: "Factual history is not taught".

My view could be simplistic. I feel that Hindus for most part are uncomfortable to organize themselves on the basis of religion. Anybody who talks of being a Hindu is instantly labelled a Hindu fundamentalist and henceforth equated to Taliban. eg:- It took Allen Octavian Hume's effort to organize congress in British India. If another westerner creates a "Hindu Civil Forum" and convince Hindus that the purpose of the organization to address Hindu civil society's problems responsibly, may be we have a chance to educate Hindus about factual history and how to deal with it responsibly today.

Desi

Posted by: Desi at October 3, 2008 8:47 AM

"Gandhi was unacceptably wrong about a number of things -- his advice to Jews to mimic Indians in their campaign with the British, and to offer "passive resistance" to Hitler, and if necessary to sacrifice themselves, takes the cake."

Really. I was shocked when I first learned that Gandhi advised that the Jews cut their own throats, or jump off cliffs en masse, rather than fight back against the Nazis. God God, he's insane. Or, a real Jew-hater.

Posted by: darcy at October 3, 2008 8:50 AM

OT: Swedish Muslim finds Muhammad in a mango. Does that mean that they are going to start burning embassies now?

http://www.thelocal.se/14672/

Rubina Sheikh from Helsingborg in southern Sweden believes she’s received a message from God – in a rotten mango.

As the two halves of Sheikh’s freshly sliced mango fell away from her knife last Saturday, she discovered what she says is a sign from God.

“When I sliced the mango in two, ‘Allah’ was written in one half and ‘Muhammad’ in the other. It’s a miracle, a sign from Allah,” said Sheikh to the Metro newspaper.

The practicing Muslim is convinced that the black lines emanating through the fruit form characters in Arabic which spell the holy words.

And local Muslims have been streaming in to see the miracle for themselves.

“I’d heard of the phenomenon earlier, but never before seen it with my own eyes,” Ghulam Mughal told Metro.

But an emeritus professor in Islam from nearby Lund University is less convinced the rotting fruit is a sign from Allah.

“There are 14 recognized ways to create the word ‘Allah’. When you think about how many mangoes there are out there, it’s not strange that one of them has a pattern which can be interpreted to be the right combination of characters,” said Jan Hjärpe to Metro.

Posted by: Fjordman at October 3, 2008 8:51 AM

Darcy: I believe Gandhi was extremely naive. His non-violent methods might leave an impression on a democracy and civilized nation such as Britain, but they clearly wouldn't have left any impact on a Genghis Khan, nor did they have any value against Muslims.

Posted by: Fjordman at October 3, 2008 8:55 AM

Ghandi was terribly wrong with his assessment of the Mohammedans and certainly shorted sighted. I believe this same benefit of the doubt is being handed to the Mohammedans presently. This can be seen with the whitewashing, PC and apologist attitudes that is being implemented throughout the world.

The truth is hard for some people to look at. Hindus need to study their past and see that India was one of the most creative civilizations which was ravaged by the Mohammedans for her treasures and her women. Magnificent ancient temples were destroyed and will never to be seen again.

Similarly where ever the Mohammedans go they begin to ravage all civilizations. These trends are now being seen in the west as well. They will never stop until everything is purged of non Islamic origin.

Posted by: savsiv at October 3, 2008 8:55 AM

Savsiv: Muslims should remember one thing: In the past, nobody had the military means to crush Islam on a permanent basis. Infidels do have those means today. The only reason why we haven't used them already is because we are civilized and because we value human life, even those of our enemies. But at the end of the day, Islam exists only at our mercy. Muslims are working very hard to eradicate that mercy. They might live to regret that some day.

I belong to the small minority of people who not only believe that Islam cannot be reformed, but that it might cease to exist as a global force of any significance during this century. The problem is, I fear it could be a rather violent end. Maybe Islam entered this world with a sudden wave of violence and will leave this world with a wave of violence. I fear it is not the kind of creed that will go quietly into the night. And Islam has accumulated 1400 years of really, really bad karma.....

Posted by: Fjordman at October 3, 2008 9:12 AM

Darcy,

I do not think Ghandi was a Jew hater, I would hardly say that. As Fjordman pointed out the tactics of non violence may have been rather naive on his part to advise the Jews to use against the Nazis who were anti Semitic and wanted to create a pure Aryan race.

Yes and satyagraha was successful with the British because of the fact that Britain had rule of law and the world was watching. The United States was also pushing Britain to give India independence, if I am correct.

Posted by: savsiv at October 3, 2008 9:16 AM

Gandhi was everything fools believe he wasn't. Apart from his obvious contempt...to put it mildly... for the Jews, he advised his own people to lie down and passively sacrifice themselves to the Japanese when they were on the brink of invading India from the Burmese border. It would have been another Hindu holocaust..the first being under the Mughals. He even saw a Japanese invasion as a way of removing the British. He was an appeaser of evil and his influence remains among the peaceniks, multiculturalists and moral equivalence traitors. He also blocked the formation of a political party representing Harijans (Untouchables) in Congress but continued to mouth platitudes supporting their liberation. He was a hypocrite and quite nasty. He abused two young women, using them to sleep with to test his celibacy. That's a new line in perversion. He preached simplicity and voluntary poverty but travelled with his own large entourage in his own reserved railway carriage. He rushed India into partition causing tremendous suffering...again because of his own selfish rancour towards the British, to whom he owed much.
Hitchens made short work of Mother Teresa, debunking and demythologising the absurd cult around her. I wish he would do the same with Gandhi.

Posted by: johndoe at October 3, 2008 9:32 AM

I've always thought that the best microcosm for understanding the effects of islam on non-muslim populations is the story of islam in India, the birth of Pakistan and Bangldesh, and finally, the fate of the non-muslim population in those countries. I hope someone abler than myself can see clear to writing a book about it from that perspective.

Posted by: Epiphyte at October 3, 2008 10:06 AM

Fjordman,

I certainly see how we have the means and that Mohammedans live because of our mercy. We infidels certainly value human life unlike the Mohammedans who hate life, who hate pets for that matter and certainly hate creativity.

Living at our mercy must be driving them crazy, I can assure you that. The facade they must put up every day in well run infidel countries must have their blood boiling. To see the infidels have surpassed them in scientific and technological achievements blows their Mohammedan evil brains. Nonetheless because of their arrogance and their hatred for non Muslims they still believe all this belongs to them as allah has willed it.

I look forward to things coming to pass as you have outlined in your post. Finally peace will prevail and liberty and human freedom will thrive globally.

Posted by: savsiv at October 3, 2008 10:31 AM

By assasinating Gandhi, Godse committed a blunder of Himalayan magnitude. After partition of India and killing and rape of twenty million hindus by muslims,Gandhi already belonged to the dustbin of the Indian history.Nathuram Godse immortalised Gandhi by assasination.

Posted by: iqbal at October 3, 2008 11:00 AM

Gandhi was a mystical megalomaniac somewhat resembling Hitler. His Hinduism was as warped as that other megalo-phony Dr. Albert Schweitzer's Christianity. His favorite subject was his bowel movements and it was easy to pass himself off as 'chaste' since he was an enema freak. He would 'prove' or 'test' his 'chastity' by sleeping between young girls. As Solzhenitsyn understood, his non-violent shenanigans could only work with the collusion of a profoundly liberal and free British government and press. Paul Johnson is amusing to read on Gandhi.

Posted by: poetcomic1 at October 3, 2008 12:06 PM

iqbal

There is something to be said for what you mentioned, but remember - Gandhi was the godfather of the Congress, and calling the shots on everything - whether it was paying Pakistan Rs 55 million to compensate the Mohammedans who had fled there, without accounting for similar losses to Hindus and Sikhs who had fled Punjab, Sind and Bengal (he essentially emotionally blackmailed the government into paying this by going on a hunger strike). It was he who went into riot hit areas to protect Mohammedans, thereby exacerbating Hindu losses. Hugh above mentions the inane and evil advice he gave the Jews: he also called on Hindus and Sikhs to sacrifice themselves for the good of Islam. And since he wasn't running for anything - he already remote controlled the government through Nehru and other Congress sycophants, he stood to lose nothing no matter what Indian voters did. So it's arguable that had he not been assassinated, he wouldn't have seen to it that Junagadh and Hyderabad - despite their Hindu majorities - and Kashmir - would have gone to Pakistan.

However, while Gandhi opposed the sensible position of Jinnah of a comprehensive population exchange, Godse too supported the idea of a united India, and in his will, desired that his remains only be disposed in an Indus river flowing in a united India. That would have left India in an even worse shape than it is today - India would have been close to 40% Mohammedan, and with Congress running things in that climate, would have been with the Islamic side in the 'War on Terror'. If India today at least pretends to be on the same side as the US, it's only because the Indian ummah thinks it's heavily outnumbered, and therefore tries to overthrow the government by terror. If India was 40% Mohammedan, then given the UK like system of government that it has, it would have had an Islamic government and instead of confronting Pakistan as it is today, the US would likely have confronted an united India, and the Hindus would have been in the same predicament as Assyrian, Coptic or Maronite Christians. So I disagree with Godse on his belief that India was worth keeping united, but agree with other Hindutva advocates who believed that India should remain only for Hindus (and other non-Mohammedans who didn't have any virulent hatred for each other).

However, in the final analysis, Godse was a hero. It was unfortunate that he had to become an assassin, but Gandhi was one who didn't believe in listening to the people, but rather, letting his own 'conscience' dictate which Indians deserved to live, and which didn't. He fully deserved to be assassinated.

One more thing - Bal Thackeray is the only Hitler-praising loon in the Hindutva movement, who thinks that Jews deserved what happened to them: no one else does. The overwhelming majority of Hindutva advocates admire what the Jews in Israel have to go through, and have long supported friendship with Israel - something that peaked under the previous NDA government. In foreign policy, Gandhi's successors try to do abroad what he did at home - suck up to the OIC, but after the 1992 demolition of the Babri Masjid, India got condemned by them anyway, even through the Congress government in power thoroughly opposed it and fired the state government that did it. Since then, India has largely been friends with Israel, even though its External Affairs ministry does what the US State Department does with Israel, and even though Indian Leftists - the Arundhati Roys - like the Noam Chomskys in the US - rail against such alliances.

Posted by: Infidel Pride at October 3, 2008 1:59 PM

"Muslims should remember one thing: In the past, nobody had the military means to crush Islam on a permanent basis. Infidels do have those means today."

I think the Western powers could have crushed Islam permanently anytime from the 18th century clear through to the 20th, if we're talking about "in the past".

Posted by: DenverRodeo at October 3, 2008 2:10 PM

I belong to the small minority of people who not only believe that Islam cannot be reformed, but that it might cease to exist as a global force of any significance during this century.

Posted by: Fjordman at October 3, 2008 9:12 AM

Maybe a small minority now, but growing every day, my friend. With easily accessable Islamic texts in one's own language and the mass communication made available via the internet which will not allow Islamic clerics to say one thing to their own and another to gullible westerners, more and more people are beginning to see the light. Perhaps we have the beginnings of a "trickle-up" movement where the political class will be the last to know.

Posted by: George Mc. at October 3, 2008 2:11 PM

"Hindu" originally denoted all people living east and south ouf the Indus River. In Alexander the Great's time, it encompassed a broad range of beliefs and practices, and still does. Whereas Judaism, Christianity, and Islam--or even Buddhism, Jainism, and Sikhism, for that matter--have identifiable founders and whereas the Abrahamic religions all have clearly defined sacred canons, the same cannot be said for Hinduism. This may be why Hindu communalism is a "bad fit" for many; and why Hindutva strikes a sour note with many Indians, both Hindu and non-Hindu (including Christians, Jains, Parsees, Buddhists, etc.)

As for Gandhi, Gandhi himself discovered a Hindu and Indian identity (as opposed to Gujarati-speaking Bhramin) while working as a lawyer in the subcontinental migrant population in South Africa. On his return to India, her supported the Khilafat movement (a protest by Indian Muslims against what was perceived as Britain's role in the destruction of the Ottoman Caliphate--an event actually accomplished by Mustafa Kemal Ataturk); and this was the birth of his push for Indian independence.

I'm personally of the mind that Gandhi actually exposed the basically honorable character of British rule in India (how far would he have gotten had India been under Stalin?). Some also have argued that Gandhi may actually have postponed Indian independence (or at least Dominion Status), for the India of ca. 1925 was under a civil service and military that was British only at its very top echelons (the British administered 400,000,000 Indians with the same number of civil servants the French used in administering roughly 20,000,000 in Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia).

In many ways, Gandhi's religious views moved from the well-defined world of the Gujerati Brahmin to the vague spirituality of 20th century eclecticism and suyncretism. I suspect that there are Indian scholars of the Vedas, Upanishads, and other sacred literature of Hinduism who would at least privately admit that Gandhi's mastery of those texts was utterly shallow--as his understanding of Christianity and Islam almost certainly were.

Posted by: Kepha at October 3, 2008 2:48 PM

Hugh!

I have been a habitual poster on these forums for over 4 years. Even though i stopped posting here about 2 years ago because of BNP bent of some of the posters here, but i keep coming back to read your comments/articles. For some reason as an Indian who was born in the English midlands i always thought you spoke for me. I've seen the ignorance and apathy towards India's experience with Islam amongst my British Indian peers. I've seen too many cousins and friends (both white and Indian) fall for that lad from Mirpur! I've seen my country fall apart during Bradford's orgy of violence. I've been called both Paki and a cow worshipping bastard in the same flipping day! Much of my life i've been in contact with South Asian muslims outside South Asia. Even when i relocated to this campus town in the American heartland, i ended up being paired together with an Indian Muslim who despite holding an Indian passport introduces himself as an Arab, because of mere fact that he lived in UAE, a country which refuses to grant citizenship to anyone non-Arab!

To any non-muslim Indian, all i'd say is that you have to observe Indian Muslims in non-Indian settings to see where their cultural/national loyalties lie! Having said this, the attitude of my American-born as well Indians from India disappoints me, only thing about India they identify with is invariably bollywood and those self-drum beating stories about India's economic rise!

Posted by: Vikrant_Camberleykar at October 3, 2008 3:47 PM

I've always thought that the best microcosm for understanding the effects of islam on non-muslim populations is the story of islam in India, the birth of Pakistan and Bangldesh, and finally, the fate of the non-muslim population in those countries. I hope someone abler than myself can see clear to writing a book about it from that perspective.

Read everything Abul Kasem has written. He lived through the Bengali Holocaust and lived to tell about it and he does. He's seen Islamization take hold of a nation, and all the theatre bombings, rapes, etc, that follow. It's horrible. Sita Ram Goel's writings are also excellent, as Hugh attested above. He writes about how the Indian war widows would throw themselevs on their husbands' funeral pyres so as not to become sex slaves. Why didn't they just poison themselves? Because the Muslims would invariably rape their corpses. God bless India for staving off Islam's consumption of their nation. They've been right at that demographic breaking point forever. I hope they can continue to hold out.

I agree with Fjordman. Islam does only exist at our bequest and could be annihilated in a matter of hours, it cannot be reformed, its days are numbered, and whether its demise or the education of the people comes first, its final throes probably won't pretty. But education can actually clear us of any wrongdoing, I believe. Nuking Mecca is no worse than nuking Hiroshima. It's nowhere. It's a Saudi Arabian hellhole and Muslims have zero history there.

Here's what this cat wrote on Islam In Europe a while back as a word of advice about living with Muslims:

As a Hindu from India, the Westerners should appreciate the difficulties in managing 200 million muslims amongst us for over 1000 years. We have managed them and here are a few suggestions:

> Go back to Christianity and the Church. It is a good religion and it is worth defending. Defending Christianity is better slogan than defending an abstract like freedom of speech, democracy etc.
> Throw out the socialist scoundrels from politics and the left lunatics from the academics. They abet the Islamic aggression
> Force the Conserve Party to become Christianity supporting party; it is unlikely that the Church will exert any undue influence in the government and it is a an issue that can be remedied.
> Scrap the welfare pay outs except for the aged. Welfare only encourages the unproductives and undesirables.
> Make extradition easy and it should be for the entire family; the convict will be jailed say for a period of five years but the family will be thrown out immediately on conviction
> Influence the judiciary, by fair and foul means, to give tougher decisions.
> The police force should be brainwashed against muslims and should use violent methods to control. In India the police does and people brush aside the resultant Islamic jingoism.
> The Conservative party should accept national security as the main plank
> Re-install death penalty
> Once in five years there should be riots in which thousands of muslims will be killed. Sounds barbaric; the alternative is being consumed by barbarism. In India we retaliate and it is called constructive response.[boldface mine]
> Separate them physically in secluded areas; that is better than to permit them to live in all areas, which they will contaminate. They will never assimilate and do not attempt at it. [illegal but unnecessary since they do it themselves]
> Stop muslim immigration and substitute with Hindu labour; they are law abiding and will integrate admirably well. Hindus are the second richest and most highly educated minority in USA. There is a not a single case of a Hindu being profiled for wrong reasons.
> Teach the children to hate the muslims; they any way are doing the same thing.
> Follow the Hindu way of life; live life and accept death as inevitable; live for the children and for their future. Sex is only a side attraction and wealth is only incidental.
> Consign all the human rights character to Saudi Arabia, that is the place where they should practice their profession; tell them human lives are more important than human rights
> Get out of EU and preserve your right to protect your country and its culture. Earlier you had a country and culture to be proud of and now EU has converted the countries into anonymous entities
> In India we have a main stream political party for protecting the majority rights; create a similar one, since otherwise the secular fanatics will abandon the majority

(S)he's made some good points.

Posted by: jdamn at October 3, 2008 4:05 PM

Vikrant_Camberleykar, what school do you go to? There may actually be one other sane person in Bloomington.

Posted by: jdamn at October 3, 2008 4:07 PM

"[the]only thing about India they [Indo-Americans] identify with is invariably bollywood and those self-drum beating stories about India's economic rise!"
-- from a posting above

Their attachment to, or interest in, Bharat, you suggest, is thus reduced to Bollywood out-takes and Bangalore out-sourcing. If as widespread a problem as you imply, this requires an interpreter of mental maladies.

Posted by: Hugh at October 3, 2008 4:15 PM

Just learn the story of Shivaji!

Quite interesting and nice example for Hindus.

Posted by: Coaltaxopeuh at October 3, 2008 5:47 PM

India's experience with Islam and then the English colonialism, i think has left the Hindu culture with a deep sense of inferiority and a paralysis.
Hence i think the Indian-Americans tend to dissociate themselves from Indian culture altogether, even refusing to learn the basics of the history of the place. As Naipaul says typical Hindu response to foreign aggression is to submit and close themselves in and ignore it. There is this subconscious belief that India will endure no matter what, just like it endured the numerous other invasions throughout its history. To be honest i dont think life is as valued in India. Indians would rather sacrifice a few odd hundred civilians every year to the jihadist bombs rather than do anything about it. Indian army despite its $35 billion budget is merely used as a force to do the bare minimum in retaining Kashmir!

India might take pride in its economic boom and its armies of engineers, but intellectually it is essentially hollow. There is no spirit of social inquiry or even awareness. Ruled by a semi-educated Italian lady and her army of sychophants, who would rather let Indian citizens die at jihadist hands rather than do anything about for the fear of upsetting their Muslim vote banks! Indeed the first thing they cops everytime there is a jihadist attack is that they shouldnt "harass" the minority community!

P.S Hugh i know you are really protective about your privacy and identity which is understandable given your position, but i cant help guess that you have some connection to South Asian studies academia!

P.P.S jdamn, hello from the cornfields of Urbana-Champaign!

Posted by: Vikrant_Camberleykar at October 3, 2008 5:55 PM

Before people start calling Gandhi a "Jew-hater", I would like them to remember that the swastika did not originate in Germany.

Now, let's think about how WW2 would have turned out if Gandhi didn't exist:

The Indians already had reasons to hate the British, so Hitler would have had no problem garnering support from the Indian public. Not to mention the fact that the Nazis had hijacked Hindu concepts (such as the swastika and the word "Aryan"). In that case, they would have had an incredibly large base from which to draw troops. They would have also had access to Indian physicists such as Jagdish Chandra Bose, which would have allowed them to develop atomic weapons before the US or USSR did. The end result would have been an Axis victory, which would have been disastrous for the Jews.

Fortunately, Gandhi was able to keep India out of WW2 (or at least, away from the Axis side), resulting in a Nazi defeat. So indirectly, the Jews owe their very existence to Gandhi's pacifism.

Posted by: KaffirUnity at October 3, 2008 5:59 PM

KaffirUnity: That's one of the most twisted and insane arguments I've heard for a long time. You are insensitive to the actual disaster that happened to the Jews. You know? The Holocaust? Indians or no Indians. To say that the Jews owe their existence to Gandhi's pacifism is quite deranged. Your ignorance of history is appalling. The Jews owe their existence to the forces that defeated the Nazis with weaponry and extreme violence and not to Gandhi's worthless philosophy of ahimsa. You should look to Arjuna as a role model instead and Khrishna was most certainly on the Allies side knowing that the job of defeating evil with force had to be done yet again.

Posted by: johndoe at October 3, 2008 7:18 PM

Vikrant, I almost applied to UIUC. Ciao, caro!

Posted by: jdamn at October 3, 2008 7:23 PM

A minor Correction to Kepha's observation

Gandhi was a Gujarati baniya (merchant caste) and not a Brahmin.

Incidentally, Godse was a Maharashtrian Brahmin

Posted by: Bomman at October 3, 2008 8:27 PM

"some connection to South Asian studies..."

I study intently the pictures on the walls of new Indian restaurants, attempting to assure myself that a Ganesha here, and a Rama there, make it a place to which I can give my custom. A wine-list also helps. When I am seated, I intently study the menu's offerings. And as part of my home-work, I read articles on the health benefits of curry and turmeric.

Posted by: Hugh at October 3, 2008 8:42 PM

Why did British finally get out of India? Gandhi had nothing do with it. As one of the commenters noted, British played him like a fiddle and stayed in India for an additional ~40 years. If India had followed leaders like Subhas Chandra Bose instead of the "half-naked fakir" (Churchill's description of Gandhi) India would have been free by the end of WWI.

British left India because 1) staying in post WWII India was less profitable, and 2) they could no longer depend on the unswerving loyalty of Indian Army. On the second point it is worth reading Peter Fay Ward's scholarly work, "The Forgotten Army" (Univ of Michigan Press) that delves in detail into INA, Red Fort show trials etc.

Posted by: Bomman at October 3, 2008 8:45 PM

Those who don't like Gandhi probably don't like Tolstoy either since Gandhi got some of his ideas from Leo...

From above: Read everything Abul Kasem has written.

Now that's good advice.

Posted by: duh_swami at October 3, 2008 8:48 PM

Tolstoy tormented himself trying to love the whole of humanity but found it easy to be cruel to his wife. So you can see why Gandhi looked up to him. High ideals create a gap between what a man is and what he thinks he should be and in that gap lies a world of contradiction and hypocrisy. Charity begins at home.

Posted by: johndoe at October 3, 2008 9:05 PM

johndoe how true! Gandhi was not only cruel to his wife Kasturba but also infinitely more cruel towards his sons - one up on Leo!

Posted by: Bomman at October 3, 2008 9:15 PM

@johndoe

You obviously have never heard of Subhas Chandra Bose. Here's part of his biography from Wikipedia:

"Bose believed that Mahatma Gandhi's tactics of non-violence would never be sufficient to secure India's independence, and advocated violent resistance. He established a separate political party, the All India Forward Bloc and continued to call for the full and immediate independence of India from British rule...

His stance did not change with the outbreak of the Second World War, which he saw as an opportunity to take advantage of British weakness. At the outset of the war, he fled from India and travelled to the Soviet Union, Germany and Japan, seeking an alliance with the aim of attacking the British in India. With Japanese assistance, he re-organised and later led the Indian National Army, formed from Indian prisoners-of-war and plantation workers from Malaya, Singapore and other parts of Southeast Asia, against British forces."

And you're telling me that it would have been better if this guy was in charge of the Indian indepencence movement??

Posted by: KaffirUnity at October 3, 2008 9:27 PM

And no, I'm not trying to undermine the contributions of all the Allied soldiers during WW2. I'm sorry if you interpreted my comments that way...

Posted by: KaffirUnity at October 3, 2008 9:30 PM

The west doesnot have the mean to wipeout Islam. First nuclear weapon arenot weapon at all. Iran have some very advance biowarfare agents which cannot be detect at all untril too late which can kill 90% of the population of europe and america in a matter of days. I never hear of any muslim teacher teach hated of non-muslim like some of you do. The BNP party in India have tries wayback to nazie idear and that party needed to be ban to have peace. India did very well under muslim rule. The Engish people are being taken care of for plotting to ended the Caph they are slowly becomeing than muslim nation and the Queen palace will become one of the Caph palaces around the world. There will be than new Caphic soon.

Posted by: DefenderofIslam at October 3, 2008 11:30 PM

I object strongly to the posthumous slandering of Gandhi by those who call him an anti-Semite or evil. He was far from a perfect person, but he is a saint compared to anyone here myself included. He truly believed that peace and nonviolence would soften the heart of his enemies and win them over to peace. For that, he was willing to sacrifice his and his folowers' lives instead because for all his non-violence he was a brave man and his followers were willing to accept that to a point. If that is simple minded or evil, then so are most Christian martyrs and saints. Trouble is that Gandhi had the British or similiar types as his foes, who for all their brutality and racism, were basically decent fair people. He was too naive to deal with the Stalins and Hitlers of the World, who would not amiably march him off to a comfy jail with his retinue and contacts in tow. He never had to deal with peope who would kill or isolate all enemies of the state with utter brutality and efficiency. He though that he could deal with the Muslims on the basis of pan Indian nationalism through the tamer Muslim politicians and leaders he knew. For all his faults he was one of the most decent leaders ever. I am sick of the level of hatred and paranoia leveled at him by certain cretins of the right. Please save your pointless bile for some other tard blog.
I have talked to many Hindus about this and they will admit, if you press them, that Muslims are basically b*tards. But there is a certain level of both guilt, fatalism and forebearance that prevents them from matching the Muslim's penchant for war and violence, very similiar to the Jews.

Posted by: MorrisMinor at October 4, 2008 1:08 AM

"[Ghandi] truly believed that peace and nonviolence would soften the heart of his enemies and win them over to peace. For that, he was willing to sacrifice his and his folowers' lives instead"

What about all those Indians who didn't "follow" him? Did he ask their permission to put their lives in danger with his reckless pacifism? Who gave him the right to endanger peoples' lives like that?

Posted by: DenverRodeo at October 4, 2008 2:51 AM

I have many Hindu friends and some of my relatives are Hindu. Most of them are professionals (engineers, doctors, scientists) who admire Gandhi for his principles and the sacrifices he made for their home country, India. However, even a minor criticism of Gandhi sets them off in a frenzy of name calling. After one such incident, I reminded them that Gandhi in his lifetime had often been criticized severely but had never resorted to such behavior. They admitted that although they believed in Gandhian principles, they were far from being "Great Souls" like the Mahatma.

Posted by: Bomman at October 4, 2008 4:38 AM

KaffirUnity said: "And you're telling me that it would have been better if this guy was in charge of the Indian indepencence movement?"

Quite simply, if he had been, the Allies would have put India out of business in the same way they dealt with Germany and Japan.

Posted by: johndoe at October 4, 2008 6:33 AM

MorrisMinor "I am sick of the level of hatred and paranoia leveled at him by certain cretins of the right."

You assume that critics of Gandhi are 'right wing'. Wrong. What is of concern here to any intelligent and sensitive human being, whatever their political persuasion, is Gandhi's hypocrisy, fanaticism and lack of integrity.
Another favourite Gandhi quote from his sycophantic worshippers is that when asked what he thought of Western civilisation, he replied 'I think it is a good idea'. This, of course appeals to those haters of their own culture...and there are far too many....who currently refuse to recognise the threat of Islamic jihad. And this comment from Gandhi shows his own utter contempt for the achievements of Western civilisation, democracy and Judeo/Christian values. Furthermore, the continuous and gleeful citing of this comment by peaceniks today indicates what a truly pernicious influence Gandhi has had, especially on the baby boomers, the participants in the counter culture of the 60s and their infatuation with quietist Eastern religion. This mindset today, when faced with Islamic supremacism and the resurgence of fascism and anti semitism in Europe is fatal and utterly inadequate, just as it was in the 30s.
Gandhi did not understand the Hindu myths. The Mahabharata is far from pacifist and Khrishna urges Arjuna, when he was filled with trepidation and weariness, to fight, be brave and defeat evil. That it was a cosmic necessity, and that killing in defence of freedom was part of karma yoga. Action. Gandhi negated this wisdom and taught inaction.
All this is relevant today when faced with an Iran and Islamic jihad threatening Israel and the West with annihilation.

Posted by: johndoe at October 4, 2008 7:07 AM

defenderofislam,

You need to learn English. What to say makes no sense and your gibberish solidifies the fact that Islam does hinder the growth of the Mohammedans. No wonder they are in such pitiful state. Poor, uneducated and chaos rules them. Mohammedans hate for non Muslims is their primary purpose to live.

Posted by: savsiv at October 4, 2008 8:12 AM

First nuclear weapon arenot weapon at all. ...

Now now fend, your true nabi, thats me nabi ZK (pbum), the last and greatest prophet sent as a mercy to all the mohametans,says that nukes are weapons. Please check on this if you don't believe it. And drop the islam bit please. It's just becoming annoying.

nabi ZK

Posted by: zonie kafir at October 4, 2008 8:32 AM

I have talked to many Hindus about this and they will admit, if you press them, that Muslims are basically b*tards. But there is a certain level of both guilt, fatalism and forebearance that prevents them from matching the Muslim's penchant for war and violence, very similiar to the Jews.

It's not a Hindu or a Jewish thing. It's a decent person thing. It's a humane thing. It's a non-carnivorous-animal thing. It's a non-rabid, non-supremacist, non-genocidal thing.

Your self-censorship is adorable, though. Indian Muslims are a particularly nasty brand. The majority of them these days are Deobands, whether or not they know it, just like every 'moderate' Muslim in the West who attends a mosque and buys into the dogma spouted there, is a Salafist, whether or not they know it, since 99% of the mosques in North America and Europe are owned by the Salafist-bordering-on-Wahhabi Muslim Brotherhood. Deobandism is a nasty brand of Islam, another product of Islamic 'reformation' like Wahhabism and Salafism. If they had any power they would be worse than their Paki brethren. There is no more Sufism in India, not that Indian Sufis have ever feigned being peaceful, non-supremacist, or non-genocidal.

From Sujit Das, citing Goswami O. & Malik K. (2006):

*Muslim population is far less educationally accomplished than their non-Muslim counterparts in every state of India and in all levels of education. Urban Muslim women are far worse off educationally than their male counterparts.

*All India literacy levels of Muslim man (55%), non-Muslim Man (64.5%); Muslim woman (40.6%) and non-Muslim woman (45.9%).

*All India literacy levels of urban Muslim man (64.2%), urban non-Muslim man (77.3%), urban Muslim woman (52.8%), and urban non-Muslim women (65.5%)

*44% fewer Muslim students complete senior school compared to non-Muslim.

*Only one in 101 Muslim women is a graduate versus one out of 37 non-Muslim women.

*31 million more Muslims to be educated by 2011 to match today’s literacy level of the non-Muslims.

*Many more Muslims drop out of high schools than all other religious communities.

*The average income of Muslim families is much lower than that of the non-Muslims. Over 60% of Muslims live in slums and poorer areas.

*There are hardly any social workers, NGOs and activists from Muslim background compared to non-Muslims.

And don't forget that these days Indians have it worse than Israelis. In Israel when you hear about a terrorism incident you feel like you have the rest of the day off. In India you cringe and wait for the others 5 that will follow.

Posted by: jdamn at October 4, 2008 8:59 AM

Gandhi did not understand the Hindu myths. The Mahabharata is far from pacifist and Khrishna urges Arjuna, when he was filled with trepidation and weariness, to fight, be brave and defeat evil. That it was a cosmic necessity, and that killing in defence of freedom was part of karma yoga. Action. Gandhi negated this wisdom and taught inaction.

If Gandhi had been there in place of Rama, he'd have asked Sita to marry Ravana in the interests of peace, and returned to Ayodhya with Lakshman. Or to put it differently for those unfamiliar with the Ramayan, had Rama been there in Gandhi's place, he would have destroyed the entire Islamic population after finding out what Islam and Mohammedans were all about. While Rama loved those who were critical of him, he would have hated those who wanted the genocide of his followers - indeed, he'd have put his own life on the line before anyone else could have been harmed.

Something Gandhi never did!

Posted by: Infidel Pride at October 4, 2008 9:05 AM

I object strongly to the posthumous slandering of Gandhi by those who call him an anti-Semite or evil. He was far from a perfect person, but he is a saint compared to anyone here myself included. Posted by: MorrisMinor at October 4, 2008 1:08 AM

Speak for yourself. While I don't know my fellow posters here on this site any more than you do, I think it's safe to say that none of us would put out proposals putting other people's lives on the line - the way that Gandhi did with Hindus, and suggested the Jews do with themselves. He might have been admirable had he gone up to Mohammedan rioters and told them, "Kill me first before you kill any Hindu." He didn't, but he did what he could to prevent Mohammedans from being killed by Hindus.

Also, the slandering isn't posthumous - the opinions expressed here aren't all that different from then Hindu Mahasabha opinions that wanted India to be a Hindu/non-Mohammedan state. Most of us here criticize dhimmi leaders in the West for kowtowing to Islam. Had we been alive at the time and known what we know today about Islam as of that point in time (obviously excluding 9/11, 7/11, terrorism against Israel, et al), we'd still be saying about him what we've said here, thanks to his support to the Caliphate movement in India in 1919, and a whole host of other activities pandering to the Mohammedans.

Posted by: Infidel Pride at October 4, 2008 9:46 AM

Whereas Judaism, Christianity, and Islam--or even Buddhism, Jainism, and Sikhism, for that matter--have identifiable founders and whereas the Abrahamic religions all have clearly defined sacred canons, the same cannot be said for Hinduism.
Posted by: Kepha at October 3, 2008 2:48 PM

What's the silver bullet that having a founder provides, as opposed to being an accumulation of sacred scriptures over time, like the Vedas?

Posted by: Infidel Pride at October 4, 2008 9:53 AM

IP,
What Gandhi said about the Jews was pretty harsh but in no way did he support Hitler's and the Nazi's brutal Jew hatred and murderous ways. His reasoning was that mass suicide might bring more attention to the Jew's plight and soften the hearts of the German oppressors. Considering the official indifference and near silence of the all the Allied powers the the RC Church about the Holocaust, was his suggestion any worse? At least he didn't stick his head in the sand less he upset his native Jew haters like the allied leaders did. This is becoming like LGF where if anyone criticizes Israel in the least or even mentions the near universal strong support of Israel by the US, they are labelled as an anti-Semite.

Posted by: MorrisMinor at October 4, 2008 12:29 PM

MorrisMinor

I was commenting on your statement that Gandhi was a saint compared to any of us who post here - that's a downright disprovable statement, as I did above.

As for Gandhi 'not stick his head in the sand less he upset his native Jew haters' Mohammedans in India at the time were too busy thinking about slaughtering Hindus to worry about the condition of Jews, who were getting slaughtered separately, so Gandhi didn't have to appease them in that department. Nonetheless, he was on record as supporting the Arab claims to Palestine, and being pretty opposed to a Jewish state. In fact, the policy of the Congress until the death of Rajiv Gandhi was to oppose Israel on the grounds that the caucus belli for the existence of Israel was similar to that of Pakistan i.e. secession of a people from the larger territory on the basis of religion. The fact that the Jews didn't require the expulsion of Arabs, whereas the Mohammedans in West Punjab and East Bengal did require the expulsion of Hindus and Sikhs, doesn't seem to have ever registered. Bottom line - Gandhi didn't support a Jewish homeland, despite the fact that the holocaust had made the most compelling case for such an idea.

Also, it's a hollow argument to say that because of the prevailing attitudes of the Allied powers and the Roman Catholic church (something arguable in and of its own right, but I want to avoid digressing here), Gandhi's attitude was justified.

My bottom line - Gandhi was all in favor of the supremacy of Mohammedans, whether it be in India, Palestine, Ottoman Turkey or wherever. From the anti-Islam pov, there wasn't a more vile cretin who walked the face of this earth.

Posted by: Infidel Pride at October 4, 2008 2:04 PM

Morris Minor: "This is becoming like LGF where if anyone criticizes Israel in the least or even mentions the near universal strong support of Israel by the US, they are labelled as an anti-Semite."

To save any further confusion and time wasting. Let me just help you along so you know where you stand and then you don't need to throw yourself away in any further denial: you ARE an antisemite. It leaks out through your weasel words.
Feel better? Isn't that a relief?

Posted by: johndoe at October 4, 2008 2:32 PM

In the posting above it is pleasing to see the poster using the preferred spelling "antisemite" rather than the widely used but less-accurate variant "anti-Semite." These little things...are big things.

Posted by: Hugh at October 4, 2008 5:15 PM

Fjordman posted: Maybe Islam entered this world with a sudden wave of violence and will leave this world with a wave of violence.

That would be justice indeed. The thing about Islam is that it is a two-faced beast. If it is under severe threat, it can quickly adopt a conciliatory and meek manner, thus escaping retribution for its excesses. It is this adaptability to circumstances that has given it survival, despite its many heinous crimes.

Posted by: DP111 at October 4, 2008 6:24 PM

Most other weapon can be use in defencive mode like than line of rifleman to defend than town from attack, than nuclear weapon cannot be use that way at all. Imageic Robert Spencer useing than 25 megton H-bomb to stop than robber you certain will get the robbery and total destory than huge area also. You cannot stop the spead of Islam with nuclear weapons or nukeing Mecca as it will not work unless you are willing to destory the globleble life support system on earth.
Israel have nuclear weapons and did they not use then to win the war in 2008 when fought the party of God. When cities decide on what guns to armed they police with or than approve lisits of allowly gun to office who want to pick they own guns, you willnot find then armed with 240mm gun, or deadly nerves gas
or nuclear weapon or 16 inches(455mm) naval gun.

The late Robert Spenser who die in the 25 megton nuclear blast to stop one unarmed robbery totally destorying verything in a 100 miles area.

Posted by: DefenderofIslam at October 4, 2008 9:30 PM

In addition to the striking statistics listed by jdamn, at all levels of education, employment, social services and related matters, Muslims, by law, enjoy a preferential treatment in secular India. For the most competitive examinations in medicine, engineering, architecture, civil services, financial aid / support, muslims fall in a prefered category while Hindus face stiff and unrelenting competition from their peers.
I personally know of some muslim doctors and chatered accountants who have made that far, not due to merit, but due to their 'minority' status.

Posted by: Alert at October 4, 2008 10:05 PM

Darcy wrote:

"Gandhi was unacceptably wrong about a number of things -- his advice to Jews to mimic Indians in their campaign with the British, and to offer "passive resistance" to Hitler, and if necessary to sacrifice themselves, takes the cake."

Really. I was shocked when I first learned that Gandhi advised that the Jews cut their own throats, or jump off cliffs en masse, rather than fight back against the Nazis. God God, he's insane. Or, a real Jew-hater.
--------------

A very good question, indeed. In an article recently on the absurdity of the religious peace groups that gathered to dine and praise Achmadinejad, it was pointed out thus:

The pacifist-Nazi axis dates to the 1930s. None other than the worldwide spokesman for non-violence, Mahatma Gandhi, wrote letters to Adolph Hitler that were deferential in their tone and abhorrent in their implications. A 1939 letter was apologetically described by Gandhi as a “mere impertinence” and included the following signoff: “I anticipate your forgiveness, if I have erred in writing to you. I remain, Your sincere friend, Sd. M. MK Gandhi.” 

In a letter dated December 24, 1940, Gandhi assured Hitler that he had no doubt of “your bravery or devotion to your fatherland.” Zionist appeals for Gandhi to support a national home for the Jewish people, meanwhile, fell on deaf ears, as he insisted that “Palestine belongs to the Arabs.” Not only did Gandhi reject the cause of a Jewish state but he effectively echoed Nazi propaganda, as with his warning that “this cry for the national home affords a colorable justification for the German expulsion of the Jews.”

Posted by: mgoldberg at October 4, 2008 10:35 PM

Darcy wrote:

"Gandhi was unacceptably wrong about a number of things -- his advice to Jews to mimic Indians in their campaign with the British, and to offer "passive resistance" to Hitler, and if necessary to sacrifice themselves, takes the cake."

Really. I was shocked when I first learned that Gandhi advised that the Jews cut their own throats, or jump off cliffs en masse, rather than fight back against the Nazis. God God, he's insane. Or, a real Jew-hater.
--------------

A very good question, indeed. In an article recently on the absurdity of the religious peace groups that gathered to dine and praise Achmadinejad, it was pointed out thus:

The pacifist-Nazi axis dates to the 1930s. None other than the worldwide spokesman for non-violence, Mahatma Gandhi, wrote letters to Adolph Hitler that were deferential in their tone and abhorrent in their implications. A 1939 letter was apologetically described by Gandhi as a “mere impertinence” and included the following signoff: “I anticipate your forgiveness, if I have erred in writing to you. I remain, Your sincere friend, Sd. M. MK Gandhi.” 

In a letter dated December 24, 1940, Gandhi assured Hitler that he had no doubt of “your bravery or devotion to your fatherland.” Zionist appeals for Gandhi to support a national home for the Jewish people, meanwhile, fell on deaf ears, as he insisted that “Palestine belongs to the Arabs.” Not only did Gandhi reject the cause of a Jewish state but he effectively echoed Nazi propaganda, as with his warning that “this cry for the national home affords a colorable justification for the German expulsion of the Jews.”

Posted by: mgoldberg at October 4, 2008 10:36 PM

It was the partition of India in 1947 which, after I read about it decades ago, put me off the idea of multiculturalism. It looked like a good history lesson for me. As they say in India: AVOID!
Ghandi was the inspiration for the sacrifice of Tibet to the Chinese, among other things. The legacy of his pacifism made Nehru turn away.
As with johndoe, I agree with what Krishna said to Arjuna. He need not hate his enemy - and my time in the Sudan showed me how Muslims can be as good, as clever, as artistic, as funny, etc, as anyone (DESPITE Islam); the problem is that Muslims are our enemy in the current situation and must be defeated in whatever manner necessary.
So Krishna said to Arjuna to not trouble himself with guilt regarding the death toll on his opponent army: "They are already dead" I think he said. Of course I don't want to see my Sudanese friends die, but only those Muslims at war with the West. Those Muslims who stay in their own countries, well good luck to them; if they want to breed like rabbits then let them overcrowd their own spaces, not ours. In Omdurman I met a woman who saw Mohammed's name in a stone. She showed me the stone. It changed her life. She dressed in male Sufi clothing and danced with the men, or close to them. Mangoes, desert stones: his name is all over the place!

Posted by: PG at October 5, 2008 2:29 AM

I don't like the word 'anti-Semite/antisemite.' It's innacurate. Muslims are by definition pro-Semitic and anti-Semitic because they are Arab supremacists and Jew-haters. An 'antisemite' is someone who hates Arabs and Middle Eastern Jews. I prefer 'Judeophobic,' as does Sam at Yid with Lid, I've noticed. It excludes Arabs, which it should because 'antisemites' are traditionally thought of as people who hate Jews, and it includes non-Middle Eastern Jews like me who are Sepphardic (Iberian), and Ashkenazis (Germanic), the Ethiopian Falashas, and so on. It also underscores the fact that the hatred of Jews is ridiculously irrational, as if there were roving gangs of Jews wreaking havoc, or as if Jews actually controlled all the world's money while Israel keeps begging Switzerland to stop dealing with Iran, or as if we control the media which refuses to ask Obama a legitimate question.

Posted by: jdamn at October 5, 2008 11:54 AM

defenderofislam,

WTF! HUH! If you understand what you wrote then again you keep proving the point that Islam makes the minds of Mohammedans twisted and retarded. Well keep posting you are an excellent example of what happens to those who follow Islam--they regress. Intellectually, morally, and spiritually they are lost forever. Your path of Islam leads to desperation, despair, violence, chaos, hatred and hopelessness.

Posted by: savsiv at October 5, 2008 9:48 PM

Some of the quotes attributed to Ghandi when referring to blacks in South Africa would make him a racist - and therefore a pariah - by today's politically correct standards. e.g.

Ours is one continued struggle sought to be inflicted upon us by the Europeans, who desire to degrade us to the level of the raw Kaffir, whose occupation is hunting and whose sole ambition is to collect a certain number of cattle to buy a wife, and then pass his life in indolence and nakedness.

The merest hint of racist views in a "mainstream" politician today often means the end their career.

Posted by: watling at October 6, 2008 5:27 AM

While on the subject of spellings, I'm glad that Hugh spelt Gandhi (गांधी) correctly, which is different from the way many posters spell it. On the other terminology question, I too prefer Judeophobic, since anti-Semitic is impossible for Arabs to be since they share the same race, but Judeophobic fits the bill nicely. Just look at the use of the term Islamophobic, which has been extrapolated to equal racism, even though not only Arab Semites, but Iranian and Indian subcontinental Aryans, East Indies Polynesians, North African Moors, among others, all share the religion.

The only religions I can think of where religion and race can accurately be conflated are the Indic religions (Hinduism, Sikhism and Jainism) - all Aryan/Draviadian, Zoroastrianism (Aryan), Confucianism and Taoism (Chinese). It cannot be done for Christianity, Islam, Buddhism and from Jdamn's illustration above, not even Judaism.

Posted by: Infidel Pride at October 6, 2008 6:45 AM

Gandhi was a traitorous puppet, and a hypocrite

"I would give up the finest sons of India to save the British empire in it`s dying hour"

In Britain when war broke out in August 1914, Ghandi 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."

Where was his preaching of non-violence when he himself recruited troops for the British army during W.W 1

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 ofCaliph, 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.

Ghandi offered jews when faced with the Nazi peril: they should commit collective suicide. If only the Jews of Germany had the good sense to
offer their throats willingly to the Nazi butchers' knives and throw themselves into the sea from cliffs they would arouse world public opinion, Gandhi was convinced, and their moral triumph would be remembered for "ages to come." If
they would only pray for Hitler (as their throats were cut, presumably), they would leave a "rich heritage to mankind." And he never repented of his recommendation of collective suicide. Even after the war, when the full extent of the Holocaust was revealed, Gandhi told Louis
Fischer, one of his biographers, that the Jews died anyway, didn't they? They
might as well have died significantly.

Gandhi's views on the European crisis were not entirely consistent. He vigorously opposed Munich, distrusting Chamberlain. "Europe has sold her soulfor the sake of a seven days' earthly existence," he declared. "The peace that Europe gained at Munich is a triumph of violence." But when the Germans moved into the Bohemian heartland, he was back to urging nonviolent resistance, exhorting the Czechs to go forth, unarmed, against the Wehrmacht, perishing
gloriously --collective suicide again. He drew up two letters to President Eduard Benes of Czechoslovakia, instructing him on the
proper conduct of Czechoslovak satyagrahi when facing the Nazis.

When Hitler attacked Poland, however, Gandhi suddenly endorsed the Polish army's military resistance, calling it "almost nonviolent."
He seemed at this point to have a rather low opinion of Hitler, but when Germany's panzer divisions turned west, Allied armies collapsed under the ferocious onslaught, and British ships
were streaming across the Straits of Dover from Dunkirk, he wrote furiously to the Viceroy of India: "This manslaughter must be stopped. You are losing; if you persist, it will only result in greater bloodshed. Hitler is not a bad man...."

Gandhi also wrote an open letter to the British people, passionately urging them to surrender and accept whatever fate Hitler' had prepared for them. "Let them take possession of your beautiful island with your many beautiful buildings. You
will give all these, but neither your souls, nor your minds." Since none of this had the intended effect, Gandhi, the following year, addressed an open letter to the prince of darkness himself, Adolf Hitler.

THE scene must be pictured. In late December 1941, Hitler stood at the pinnacle of his might. His armies, undefeated anywhere ruled Europe from the English Channel to the Volga. Rommel had entered Egypt. The Japanese had reached
Singapore. The U.S. Pacific Fleet lay at the bottom of Pearl Harbor. At this superbly chosen moment, Mahatma Gandhi attempted to convert Adolf Hitler to the ways of nonviolence. "Dear Friend," the letter begins, and proceeds to a heartfelt appeal to the Fuhrer to embrace all mankind "irrespective of race,
color, or creed."
Surprisingly, it is not known to have had any deep impact on Hitler. Gandhi was no doubt disappointed. He moped about, really quite
depressed, but still knew he was right.

When the Japanese, having cut their way through Burma, threatened India, Gandhi's strategy was to let them occupy as much of India as they and then to "make them feel unwanted." His way of
helping his British "friends" was, at one of the worst points of the war, to launch massive civil-disobedience campaigns against them, paralyzing some of their efforts to defend India from the Japanese.

It is interesting to note that when Britain from India finally withdrew, blood-maddened mobs
surged through the streets from one end of India to the other, the majority group in each area, Hindu or Muslim, slaughtering the defenseless minority without mercy in one of the most hideous periods of carnage of modern history.

A comparison is in order. At the famous Amritsar massacre of 1919, which is treated by post-independence Indian historians as if it were Auschwitz, Ghurka troops under the command of a British officer, General Dyer, fired into an unarmed crowd of Indians defying a ban and demonstrating for Indian independence. The crowd
contained women and children; 379 persons died; it was all quite horrible. Dyer was court-martialed and cashiered, but the incident lay heavily on British consciences for the next three decades, producing a severe inhibiting effect.
Never again would the British empire commit another Amritsar, anywhere.

Yet as soon as the oppressive British were gone, however, the Indians--gentle, tolerant people that they are gave themselves over to an orgy of bloodletting. Trained troops did not pick off targets at a distance with Enfield rifles. Blood-crazed Hindus, or Muslims, ran through the streets with knives, beheading babies, stabbing women, old people.
While an aged Gandhi, grieved, and of course fasted, at these terrible reports of
riots.
The fact is that we will never know how many Indians were murdered by other Indians during the country's Independence Massacres, but almost all serious studies place the figure over a
million, and some, such as Payne's sources, go to 4 million. So, for those who like round numbers, the British killed some 400 seditious colonials at Amritsar and the name Amritsar lives in infamy, while Indians may have killed some 4
million of their own countrymen for no other reason than that they were of a different religious faith
Ghandis Ahimsa (purest form of pacifism), as can be seen, then, had an absolutely tremendous moral effect when used against Britain, but not only would it not have worked against Nazi Germany (the most obvious reproach, and of course quite true), but, the crowning irony, it had virtually no effect whatever when Gandhi tried to bring it into play against violent Indians.

Posted by: InfidelK9 at October 7, 2008 12:49 PM