• Recent Posts

    The Falase Notion Of Gandhi Legacy

    Here comes my customary post on Mahatma Gandhi on his birth anniversary. It is kind of becoming routine for me to write about this man on every October 2nd and yet the story of how an average man turned into a Mahatma still remains to be told. Regular followers of my blog may be aware of my perception towards a certain Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi. For me he is no Mahatma, let alone the father of the nation. I have always reiterated my dissatisfaction on how in connivance with a clueless Nehru, this man sold us gallons of snake oil back then. And not to mention, his so called followers or pseudo-followers continue to sell more snake oil in his name. If you haven`t yet read my previous blog, I suggest you do read `Why I Don`t Aspire To Be A Mahatma` first.

    To begin with, let me settle why I don`t see him as the father of the nation. The so called all fathers of the nation of many countries have one thing in common. That is, they have put in their blood and sweat to stitch the country together. How much we may tend to disagree, Jinnah is a perfect example of how a father of the nation should be. He carved out a country for his brethren out of nowhere. Contrary what Bapu did for India? Just because Nehru was too power hungry to let go the opportunity to become the first priminister of independent India, Bapu conveniently agreed to divide the nation. Father of the nation? Seriously? Show me one father of any nation who was instrumental in breaking it than otherwise. If any person I find who put his everything to stitch the overtly fragmented India post partition was Sardar Patel. This man who actually was the real architect of a unified India was conveniently buried under some false histrionics and we are again fed with snake oil to believe who the false father of the nation is. For me if any person deserving of that coveted honor, it has to be Sardar Patel. But alas, we know how Bharat is getting Nirmaned since independence. Don`t we?

    As someone correctly said, man is born with flaws and life is all about rectifying one flaw or the other. Some succeed and some fail miserably. Gandhi is no exception to this philosophy of life. So we can always accept him as Mahatma with the minimal flaws he always had. That said, when flaws are seen to be deliberately kept within so as to have political and emotional advantage, there where the tag of Mahatma looks little shaky. Gandhi intentionally preserved those flaws and always played it to the advantage of his and the cronies around him. He not only took advantage of the emotional bonding that he had with the citizens but conveniently sold , I repeat, Snake Oil as sweet candies since people were too emotionally biased to see the wrong within. Case-in-point is the appointment of Nehru as the priminister of India when arguably Sardar was far, far better and more deserving candidate any day. And mind it, Nehru was not elected by people but he was rather shoved down our throat by Gandhi. As expected, people were more than happy in accepting the worst of a clueless entity to head an independent India. Because it is their beloved Bapu who has taken this decision and certainly Bapu would be the last person committing a wrong on the nation. Such blatant exploitation of emotion was played around that time, the repercussions of which the nation is facing till today. Mahatma? What kind of Mahatma will fail the nation just because his blue-eyed boy could laugh all the way to the priminister`s chair? How, which way? Please someone elaborate me right now.

    The biggest blunder Gandhi perhaps did was to leave behind a legacy which made a mess of this great nation in just about half a century. In the list of many, the top one or there about blunder is when he passed on his family name to a certain Feroz Khan. To sow the seeds of secularism, this attempt of Gandhi was anything but suicidal for the nation. Not because of the core philosophy of secularism, which I also believe fully but the kind of people he handed over this secularism baton. Little did Gandhi know that in coming years a bunch of clowns would surpass all level of stupidity and keep on playing the nice game of secularism or the absence of it; that too at the expense of the nation itself. If anything, Gandhi must be turning in his grave at regular intervals seeing the morons who have promptly hijacked his philosophy and gave it a nice communal color on the pretext of secularism. When we are at it, can anyone clarify what exactly is a Gandhian philosophy anyway? Because I see none. Or if at all I see any and if this is what Gandhian principle is, which is exhibited by our filthy political class, then I am afraid it can`t be termed as principle. I am sorry, ideologies like `minorities have the first right to resources` or the `Muslims arrested on terror charges should get special treatment`, which the congress party claims to be straight from Gandhian thought process are not ideologies but stinking appeasement. And for sure I would be the last person to believe such rotten posturing as any kind of philosophy.

    Gandhi may have some pious idea about comforting the minorities post separation and I respect that but he should have known the thugs around him better. Or at least he shouldn`t have underestimated the nefarious abilities of the morons and how his core philosophy could be driven out of context later. Secularism is one thing but too much of it ultimately boils down to a different form of communalism at the end. And that is what precisely is happening in India now. When the home minister writes letter to all CMs of the country urging them to protect the Muslims apprehended on terror charges in a better way, it speaks about the rotten depth to which the Gandhian philosophy has fallen into. This is not secularism but excess of it. This is in a way to sabotage the national security under the guise of some Gandhi ideology, which I strictly oppose to buy. Had Gandhi realized the kind of morons crowding around him, he should have thought for a second time before flouting the nonsense called secularism. Or it may well be a possibility that Gandhi very well knew how filthy the whole idea was and the possibilities of it been taken for a ride by manipulation later and yet he remained silent. Long association with entities like Nehru has its cascading effect on one`s mindset and thought process and I don`t blame Bapu hear too much for his lack of foresight.

    Or maybe I should give the benefit of doubt to Mahatma for many things. Perhaps he noticed the kind of corruption that has crept into Congress, as early as 1930. He must have noticed the kind of morons that were flocking the Congress around the independence time and the subsequent ill-effect on the nation at a later stage. He perhaps realized the power hungry leeches like Nehru and his cronies and their complete disinterest in serving the nation later. Or he may simply have realized he has only hoard of clowns at the helm. That is why he perhaps advised all to dissolve Congress after independence. Did the morons heed to his wish back then? They didn`t as we all know and it is no secret why they thought of showing the middle finger to Mahatma back then. Hope this wish of the father of the nation gets fulfilled sooner than later because it his legacy that have made a complete mess of the nation and I am sure Gandhi himself may not be too happy about the scheme of things.

    By the way, since he is touted to have earned the freedom for us, it is pertinent that it must be asked - does he really won the freedom for us? For me freedom is won with bloodshed and sacrifice. It is not gifted as in our case. Had we won our freedom the Scottish way or even milder than that; had we shed our blood for our freedom, we wouldn`t have let a clueless lesser mind individual like Nehru to become our priminister. Since we allowed this casualty to happen it proves we never won our independence. It was rather gifted to us by the British. No one from any generation, including Mahatma Gandhi has done absolutely nothing to earn us the freedom. Let`s get that straight. I admit people like Bhagat Singh are a rarity and should be kept out of this blanket statement of mine. 
    And finally, I am shouting for the umpteenth time – why the hell we have this dry day today? Please, someone need to clarify. Having a beer on his birthday doesn`t make you one disrespecting soul towards the father of the nation. Or does it?


    1. Hmm.. Nice perspective. Guess, the nation need to know who are the real architect of India. Not just Gandhis.

    2. We should thank Hitler for our freedom; because of him, England was economically destroyed and was not able to afford India. Our martyrs are our true freedom fighters.

    3. Gandhi is not respected as a Mahatma around the world for being a politician or a freedom fighter, but for being an ordinary human - with all his flaws and limitations, and for working with them all through his life, and for the values he upheld - the foremost among them being his respect, love, and adherence to Truth.

      Unless one realizes the spiritual side of Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi, and can reflect upon it, one can never realize that he was a Mahatma - an epithet he felt inappropriate and was even ashamed of.

      Non-Indians have realized this side of Gandhi more than Indians have, despite the fact that India and Indians have the richest spiritual tradition in this world.

      Gandhi's struggle and march for freedom was founded on an indomitable spirit - something incomprehensible to the leaders and participants of usual freedom struggles that were seen around the world. That is why, around the world, people always take note of his name when it comes to freedom struggles. His was not a mere fight against a Ruling Class from a different nation, it was a fight that took the opposing party to the very core of their humanity.

      No one denies that Gandhi committed some blunders, had his own likes and
      dislikes, and that in hindsight, he did fail the nation in certain
      significant ways as pointed out. He already was suffering the feelings of guilt and had isolated himself in Bengal, and spent time brooding on the eve of Independence and when India was getting ready to awake to freedom and light.

      Probably, one feels that even Ambedkar erred by not setting up the reservation policy only for a certain length of time or until the situation when
      oppression in the name of caste would subside, and would no more be a
      bar to securing education and jobs. This way, this nation would have
      started functioning and rewarding its citizens solely on merit and
      capability, than on caste or religion or creed or any other
      discriminating factor. This however does not take away anything from
      Ambedkar, for he was equally a stalwart in his own ways.

      Did any of the leaders of the past from Patel to Nehru to Sarojini to Khan Abdul Ghafar Khan to Ambedkar to Maulana Abul kalam Azad voice their discontent to Gandhi being called the Father of the Nation? They had breathed the same air as Gandhi had, and they knew of his humanity more than anyone else.

      As Indians, we need not look upon Gandhi as the Father of the Nation. We need not look upon Gandhi as a Mahatma. We do need to look upon Gandhi as a Human, tinged with the ethos of what defines India - filled with flaws, yet resilient, principled, cultured, civilized, wise, loving and loveable. And this is in fact true of every one of us - if we can get back to the core of our being.

      Best Wishes!

      Namaste - Salutations to You

    4. `Probably, one feels that even Ambedkar erred by not setting up the reservation policy only for a certain length of time` - You are wrong. In fact Ambedkar set a deadline of 10 years. It is only Nehru and his gang of morons who screwed that suggestion for their own political benefit.

    5. Gandhis were never part of building anything good, so leave the bigger nation.

    6. Please check -


      "Job and educational reservations were very vital in
      the view of Dr Ambedkar. In fact, while he advocated a 10-year period for the reservation of constituencies, he wanted reservation in services and colleges to be permanent."

      Anyway, the point of my post was essentially on Gandhi and not Ambedkar. Lets not get lost :)


    7. Gandhiji should be given credit as father or nation for Non violence and other good stuff he preached to people and implemented on himself. But Azad, bhagat singh , subhas chandra bose and many others need to be placed at the same level for their ultimate sacrifices to motherland. Also I feels those morons of congress party sank this beautiful country india to this lowest level by their wrong policies .

    8. I started to read the article to have a different view point on Gandhi... But when I read blatant misrepresentation like " Gandhi passed on his family name to a certain Feroz Khan", how can I take the article seriously? Feroze Gandhi was a parsi, not a muslim.. Yes Gandhi played a part in Feroze - Indira marriage by suggesting to Nehru to accept the young couple... that's it..Firoze Gandhi was never adopted by any body.. He is the son Mr. Jehangir Faredoon Gandhi and Ratimai Gandhi.. He was also a very good parliamentarian, unlike his wife...So please check your facts before writing on such as serious topic..

    9. True, but a slight deviation. His father was not Parsi but a Pastoon Pathan but his mother was a Parsi. They had this Gandy (not Gandhi) tucked in their names but not sure how that came from and where. There are differentiating stories on that as well. So at best the current false Gandhis are actually Gandys if not Gandhi had adopted Feroze earlier. So please get your facts corrected on the adoption part.

    10. his (dr ambedkar's)words which i paraphrase here for brevity:
      "Let at least ONE generation pass that has felt equality"

      this indicates the policy was not for perpetuity.
      nor is it to be understood as an excuse for continuous inclusions into a category.

    11. Mahatma Gandhiji was a great person. His one greatness was his ability to accept his mistakes but he was not spiritually realized man. He was just practicing what our spiritual leaders had preached in past. His satyagraha was violent too but against himself. Violence against enemy (Britishers) or those who don't follow him (Indians) by fasting unto death is violence against oneself.

    12. Please read my above post as:
      Mahatma Gandhiji was a great person. His one greatness was his ability to accept his mistakes but he was not spiritually realized man. He was just practicing what our spiritual leaders had preached in past. His satyagraha was violent too but against himself. Fasting undo death for rights of Indians against enemy (Britishers) or those who don't follow him (Indians) is violence against oneself. Britishers were scared of his following and if he had to die fasting then Britishers feared violent unified attack by Indians as it happened against brahmins after his death whereas Indians relented to his Satyagraha because they loved & respected him and did not want to be cause of his death.

    13. thats exactly y we were granted freedom..gandhi through his non violence bought so much time(decades) for britishers to loot/plunder, thats y they never harmed him. britishers were smart they knew it would be impossible to fight united india, n death certainly would hv united india.

    14. I don't buy Gandhi's biggest and most famous doctrine of non violence. The power of non violence resides in the fear of violence that's behind non violence. Gandhi's power was not in his non violence but in the repercussion (violent response of other freedom fighters supporting him). Best example is Anna Hazare, his first non violence movement scared government since govt thought of systemic response from whole country and that made them bow before Anna. Next time when Anna sat for hunger strike without huge gather like in past, govt didn't care if he lives or dies on fast. So, the base of non violence is deep rooted in the possible violent response from larger supporting population, but whole credit always goes to the front face. I wish Author would have included Gandhi's rude injustice behaviors towards elected congress president Subhash Chandra Bose. Gandhi always maintained in nepotism and treated whole country as his private property and never respected democracy. His candidate lost twice against Bose. Many true Heroes forgotten for this greedy person and his appeasement.

    15. Well said at the end that he should only be treated as an ordinary human being and at most a freedom fighter, in best, same cadre like other freedom fighter. If he was too much dying to get titles then he should have accepted 'Great Son on Country' than becoming father of nation (if he didn't like to be called father of nation then he should have done one more fast to take it off) where he was born. It is same as you can never become dad of your own mom no matter how great you become. Liking Gandhi is not a way of living or following his ideas BUT a simple politically correct fashion, same as all aspiring miss world has mother Teresa as their role model, whereas they all try giving audition and signing contracts than working in orphanage. Author has pointed out many of his political pitfalls, to add further if you go by his personal life style when he was not fasting to show off nation, he had pretty frolic life style. His main philosophy was honesty is best policy but GOD knows why Indian govt recently secured letters between him and Hermann Kallenbach by spending 700,000 pounds (help yourself to convert into rupee) that govt (your Gandhi's brain child) from our pockets, and you Mr Anand have no clue what was in them. Wish we all Indians could become educated followers than a herd of living dead.

    16. Hi Anand,

      Just for some light on his "Ahimsa" philosophy. Mr. Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi found it was okay to recruit close to 3 lakh solders to fight with the British during the WW1 and WW2. As for him, it was okay to kill the Germans and not the British (who were enslaving or ruling over us)? What kind of absurd stupidity would that be?

      Jai Hind,

    17. Feroze's father was Jehangir Faredoon Ghandi, a marine engineer. His ancestral house still stands in Bharuch of Gujarat. His relatives still exist in Parsi community. If someone really wants to, it may still be possible to find proofs of his ancestry. Anyway, there is no reason to assume his surname was Khan except for a certain email circulating for 10-15 years. It doesnt matter Feroze's father was Muslim. But I feel the young turk who stood upto his powerful father-in-law , wouldnt have lied about his fathers name.

    18. I am not disputing the bravery of the young turk lady. But just asking how the next generation to Feroze become Gandhi while at best Feroze`s surname was Gandy not Gandhi. I again request to do some research and the adoption part of Gandhi would be clear. And as for the mails, I really don`t care if was a Khan or not.

    19. I always wondered that if Gandhiji won freedom for India, how Sreelanka, China, Malaysia , Burma, Arab countries, Indonesia all got freedom around the same period. I believe we got freedom because of world war and labour party win. However I also believe Gandhiji had two major contributions.

      1) He united India psychologically before Sardar united India physically. People like my grandparents who grew up in princely states never thought about India as a country until they listened to Gandhiji, They went to see Gandhiji because they thought he was a Sadhu and darsan of sadhus were embedded in our culture. Once they went, they listened to his views and also other leaders who came with him. Half-naked Fakir was a brand ambassador for congress.
      2) Congress became a mass movement and spread to all parts of India because of Gandhiji. He also attracted brilliant people into politics. So when Britishers wanted to leave India, there was a popular party and leaders to handover the power.

    20. I feel Gandhi's non violence policy was a trick to comfort British govt. He used his leadership skills to convince people that the freedom fight can continue without violence. He criticized Bhagat Singh, Chandrashekhar Azaad and every freedom fighter who stood to fight against the British. This helped British govt by keeping most of the people calm as well as satisfied for around 20 years, else the British govt would have been thrown out of country much earlier.

    21. Mithun EmbranthiriOct 10, 2013, 1:04:00 PM

      Freedom through Non-violence is absolute rubbish. By the end of the Second World War, the British Government understood that to preserve law and order and the expense it required to govern the country (India) is much more than the benefits (looting) that they could earn had they not given freedom to an already pilfered India.
      I find the concept of Non violence as a scourge to a nation that has produced heroes like Chatrapati Shivaji, Maharana Pratap and Maharaja Ranjit Singh.

    22. So true... Americas gained its independence in 1700s not through "beat us till most of us die and then u will grow tired and give us freedom" movement but through tough oppression like the Boston tea party... Though selfless... he put the nation in wrong hands.. So wrong that he put he nation into hands of a bunch of power and money hungry pseudo secularists... and we all now know who they are..