I wanted to post the next post immediately. However, a very terrible news came to my attention, and I lost my sense of focus. A statue of Gandhi has been unveiled in London and placed next to Winston Churchill. The terror that gripped me is beyond words. It is sacrilege of the worst kind. In fact, I fear that native, antique England is rushing forward to mass suicide. There is no other way to define this madness.
Gandhi was just another politician in the South Asian Peninsula region. He was not a citizen of British-India, but the son of a rich prime minister of an independent kingdom located within the subcontinent. Many rich persons did move to England in those days. From there, many of them self-appointed themselves as the leaders of the peoples of the subcontinent. Gandhi had no locus standi inside British-India.
In fact, he was hated inside the Congress executive. However, he made a grand entry using the ploy and platform of media coverage and publicity. The solid fact is that 99% of the people of the subcontinent had no problem with the English rule. For, the other alternative was rule by the traditional overlords like Gandhi. Who were suppressive and oppressive, and degrading in their ways and manners towards the common people.
When the stupid clown Clement Atlee decided to break-up the English Empire worldwide, political leaders who had money in British-India were quite poised to grab the nation. However, even then, there was no support for Nehru-Gandhi coterie inside the Congress executive. Another local leader was selected to head the government. However by some secret manipulation, Nehru-Gandhi team could offset this, and get into the seats of power. Maybe their connections in England must have helped them. Or they may have used money clout. Or social/familial string pressure on the individual members of the Congress executive.
Gandhi was killed by some conspiracy which has never been adequately explained. Officially it is attributed to Hindu communalism. However, there was nothing that should have provoked such an action from the Hindus. If a Sherlock Holmes kind of pondering had been done, the real vested interests, which did this act, would have been mentioned. However, this never happened. For, a person sunk to the neck in scandals could be re-dressed as a saint. It had its political gains. In one stroke a political liability was redefined as a political asset. I do not want to go into the details, other than to mention that there are elements in this murder case, which can be likened to the Kennedy assassination and Lyndon B. Johnson.
The worldwide adoration for Gandhi springs from the movie Gandhi, made by Richard Attenborough. It was a fake movie made with total ulterior motives. Attenborough used striking scene to convey a false story. There is the issue of Gandhi being pushed out of a South African train. It is not understandable as to how Gandhi could get inside if the compartment was barred for non-Whites. There are longer ideas to be discussed in this regard. I will not go into that here. However, it was a knavish attempt by Attenborough to use this scene to create a false hero. For, this scene had no relevance or connection to British-India. In British-India, lower castes and lower classes were being freed from their traditional shackles by the English rule. Gandhi does not belong to these groups. He belongs to the traditional suppressor class.
Even now most of the common men in India would be treated like dirt, if they were to attempt to board a First Class compartment in any Indian train.
It is quite idiotic to understand British-India as a place of one population. In British-India and even in current-day, Pakistan, India & Bangladesh, the social system is an array of populations, each trying to suppress others or to show obeisance to those who are higher. Taking into consideration, only the view point of the higher classes is a dirty way to understand a nation.
The Gandhi portrayed by Ben Kinsley has nothing to do with the real Gandhi. The real Gandhi is a Hindi speaking person, who uses degrading words to the lower classes of the subcontinent. However, this idea cannot be understood in English. Gandhi does not look like Ben Kingsley.
I am giving comparative photos to convey the idea.
This kind of manipulative film making has been going on for a long time. History is now being written by filmmakers. For instance, see these pictures from a south Indian film which purports to portray a local ‘king’ who fought a glorious war against the British. The fact is that till this film came out, not many people from the same locality were aware of this ‘great’ historical figure. In the film, tribal people are mentioned as fighting against the English.
See these pictures of tribal people shown fighting against the British [fake story] and the real looks of the tribals of those areas in those days.
The real looks of the tribals of the location, who were suppressed and exploited by the higher classes of the region. English rule was the only hope for them, in hundreds of years.
The Congress led government of India under Indira Gandhi contributed $10 million (currently it would be around $ 250 million) for the production of this film. What came out is a quite fabricated story of how Gandhi fought against an evil empire and came out victorious. However, the real fact of Indian nation formation is connected to Clement Atlee and his stupid coterie dismantling the English Empire all around the world. The Congress party wanted to gather the accolades by promoting themselves as the legacy bearers of the fake legend they were creating.
Attenborough used other story bits with very sadistic pleasure to misrepresent the English rule. The Jallianawalabagh military shooting is one such. In Amritsar, there was communal violence. Five people had been butchered on the streets, and one female had been used otherwise and murdered. The local police divided themselves on communal lines, and civil administration simply went limp.
When I relate this incident, I want to mention a minor incident that happened some two months back in my own locality (southern parts of the Indian peninsula). One young man of one community was killed by members of another community. It was not a communal violence. For, the dead man was actually a communist party worker, and the fight was on personal issues. However, by evening hours, the local social set-up had divided on communal lines. The whole area was in tension. Anything could happen. By the next day, around 80 houses of one community had been looted and torched. People had run off from their houses. The looters, after plundering the house, would turn on the cooking gas cylinder in the kitchen and after the house is filled with the inflammable gas, would throw in a lighted cinder. The house would be burnt into its bare frame. I can remember the chilling emotions that spread through the social set up. This happened just two months back.
The British-Indian army commander (an Irishman) proclaimed a Military Act in Amritsar (1919). No one cared much for the soft touch of British law and order. Public meetings were called. The Gurkha regiment arrived and did a shooting, in which around 140 died. That is the number killed. But what was the number that was saved? For communal violence evaporated in sheer terror.
Attenborough did not bother to mention that. In 1947, when Hindu-Muslim communal violence took place, one million people died, and an equal number were displaced or relocated, because a similar action was not forthcoming from the British side. For, no British army officer dared to order shooting that time. He would have killed a hundred or a thousand rioters. But then, he would have saved a million others, from terrible deaths. However, this count never got counted.
In 1921, in the southern parts of the peninsula, there was another communal clash between the Muslim and the Hindus. Many men, women and children were literally butchered alive on both sides. Had the English rulers order the Gurkha regiment to arrive on the scene and re-enact a similar shooting, thousands would have been saved.
Gandhi spoke here, he spoke there, he wrote like this, he wrote like that, he met this official, he met that official etc. are part of his personal life history. It is like any other aspirant to political leadership. However, if one were to make a film on any such political aspirant, similar stories can be made. In fact, there are many similar films and dramas about Communist party leaders. People who see these dramas come back with tears gushing in their eyes. Gandhi film is no better than these drama, other than that the Gandhi film has been made at a very exorbitant cost. To gather a profit worldwide.
The tragedy is that the English rule was improving the nation of British-India and its people, like never before. In dressing standards, English language, people dignity, infrastructural development, protection of forest wealth, discovering ancient literature, creating administration, setting up police, implementing law & order machinery along with written rules and penal codes, and a most incorruptible administrative set-up, and much else. At the same time, there was this joker running around claiming leadership of people, most of whmo had never heard of him, other than through concerted newspaper campaigns. It is said that one specific rich business group was financing Gandhi as leader to takeover the Congress leadership. It did not work.
It might be significant that even though Gandhi, after his death, was consecrated as a holy man by Nehru, and Nehru claimed his spiritual legacy, there was no mention of Gandhi in the original Constitution of India. In fact, it might be correct to presume that the members of the Constituent Assembly, which was formed to create a written constitution for the new nation of India, had no great empathy for Gandhi. In 1977 (I think), Indira Gandhi added Gandhian thoughts as an addendum to the Constitution. To profit from the film. It has no specific value, other than as a nuisance.
Gandhi is mentioned as the ‘Father’ of the nation in India. School students get marks if they give his name as answer for the question: Who is the Father of our nation? However, this answer is only what the newspapers and textbooks mention. There is no other statutory basis for this answer. I mention this to denote the realities of the Gandhi story. If he claims to be the father of the nation, he is just an imposter. However, it is not he who is doing all this kind of claims, but others, who want to piggy ride on a false legend, they themselves have created.
If Britain, and that too England is being befooled to elbow out its own traditional leaders like Winston Churchill, to create space for the likes of Gandhi, it is better that England sinks to the bottom of the seas. Otherwise, it would indeed be a sad day to see England in the hands of people who had been its traditional disparagers.
Interested readers may visit these discussions also: Right Click and Open in New Tab