Saturday, 29 August 2015

Raksha Bandhan

 I received a lot of rakhis today from my sisters and cousin sisters.

 But the most treasured one was from a Muslim lady who regards me as her brother.

 When I was a lawyer in Allahabad High Court among my close friends was Afsar Ali, advocate in the High Court. He was elder to me by a few years. He had married late in life, and had 4 small children ( 3 daughters and a son )..

 Every year on Eid he would invite a group of 4 or 5 friends to his house in Daryabad for dinner. He was a conservative Muslim, and we never saw his wife as long as he was alive, as she was in purdah. But she used to prepare delicious non vegetarian dishes for us.

 I became a Judge of the High Court in 1991, and a couple of years after that Afsar Ali died. His widow sent me a message that she wanted to meet me, and I requested her to come to my residence. 

There she told me that her brothers in Rampur had asked her to come there with her children, and live there.

 I told her that she should not shift to Rampur, as after some time she would not be welcome there. I said that she had her home in Allahabad, and she should remain here, and I would get her a job in the Allahabad High Court, so that she may be able to have an income to feed her children. However, I told her that she must give up her purdah now, as she would have to fight it out in the outside world, from which she had been till now largely isolated.

 Accordingly i got her appointed on a class 3 ( clerical ) post, and I told the Registrar General to post her in the High Court library, where the work was lighter, and she could go home early. This enabled her to support her family, which she did

 All this happened over 20 years ago, but every year since then on rakshabandhan day she has been regularly sending me rakhi, and also coming personally to tie it on my hands whenever she could. The written message to me every year ( with the rakhi ) says '' Apne bhai ka farz nibhaya ''

 Now all her 4 children are grown up and well settled. She has several grandchildren.

 Today she came all the way from Allahabad to tie rakhi personally on my hand.

 She told me that she has now become a bench secretary in the High Court, and earns over 50,000 rupees a month

OROP: Chanakya' advice to Emperor Chandragupta

This was Chanakya' advice to Emperor Chandragupta. The Govt. of India should think about this carefully in relation to the demand of OROP

 “Pataliputra reposes each night in peaceful comfort, O King, secure in the belief that the distant borders of Magadha are inviolate and the interiors are safe and secure, thanks only to the Mauryan Army standing vigil with naked swords and eyes peeled for action, day and night, in weather fair and foul, all eight praharas (i.e.round the clock), quite unmindful of personal discomfort and hardship, all through the year, year after year.

            “While the citizenry of the State contributes to see that the State prospers and flourishes, the soldier guarantees it continues to EXIST as a State! To this man, O Rajadhiraja, you owe a debt: please, therefore, see to it, on your own, that the soldier continuously gets his dues in every form and respect, be they his needs or his wants, for he is not likely to ask for them himself.”

            Then Kautilya, known also as Chanakya gave his king this blunt warning: “The day the soldier has to demand his dues will be a sad day for Magadha for then, on that day, you will have lost all moral sanction to be King!”


Almost all Muslim rulers in India were secular. This they were in their own interest, for the vast majority of their subjects were Hindus. So if they persecuted Hindus there would be revolts and turbulences regularly, which no ruler wants.

Thus, the Mughals, Nawabs of Avadh and Murshidabad, Tipu Sultan, Nizam of Hyderabad etc were almost all thoroughly secular. For instance, the Nawabs of Avadh used to celebrate Holi, Dussehra and Diwali, organize Ramlilas, etc and give respect to all religions. Tipu Sultan used to give annual grants to 156 Hindu temples ( see online ''History in the Service of Imperialism by B.N. Pande'' ).

Akbar used to hold discussions with people of all religions, and give them respect (see my judgment in Hinsa Virodhak Sangh vs.Mirzapur Moti Koresh Jamaat online and 'Akbarnama').He propounded and practised the policy of Suleh-e-Kul, i.e. Universal Toleration of all religions ( at a time when Europeans were massacring each other in the name of religion ). His son Jehangir used to regularly meet the Hindu sadhu Jadrup, and hold discussions with him ( see 'Jehangirnama').
The controversy is about Aurangzeb. I discussed about him with many Professors of history in Aligarh Muslim University and Allahabad University. Strangely enough, The Professors of AMU with whom I discussed Aurangzeb, and who are Muslims, regard Aurangzeb as communal, while the Professors of Allahabad University, who are Hindus, regard him as secular. Which is the correct view ?

My own view is that more research is required.

On the one hand there is evidence to show that in Aurangzeb's time grants were given to several Hindu temples, e.g. Mahakal temple at Ujjain, the Chitrakoot temple, etc.( see online 'History in the Service of Imperialism', which is a speech given in the Rajya Sabha by Dr. B.N. Pandey, former Professor of History of Allahabad University and Governor of Orissa ). Details of the grants to Hindu temples in Aurangzeb'e reign can be seen there. Many of Aurangzeb's army commander's e.g. Raja Jai Singh were Hindus.

I had been to Bikaner a few years back. A part of the Maharaja's palace has been converted into a museum. I went to that museum and saw there a letter by Aurangzeb to the new Maharaja of Bikaner, who was a young man whose father (the previous Maharaja) had just died. Aurangzeb writes to the young Maharaja consoling him, and said that he could understand the loss of one's father. He concludes the letter saying that the young Maharaja should regard Aurangzeb as his own father, and if he needed anything he had only to inform Aurangzeb.

Now the point is that if Aurangzeb hated all Hindus would he have written such a letter ?

On the other hand, the fact cannot be denied that Aurangzeb reimposed jeziya on Hindus, a tax which his great grandfather Akbar had revoked. When I mentioned this to the Allahabad University Professors ( with whom I discussed Aurangzeb) they said that Aurangzeb needed money for his wars. Now if Aurangzeb needed money for his wars he should have imposed a tax on everyone, why only Hindus ?

The charge against Aurangzeb is that he demolished several Hindu temples e.g. the original Kashi Vishwanath temple, which is now the Gyanvapi mosque, standing next to the present temple built in the 18th Century by Maharani Ahilyabai Holkar. In fact the rear wall of the Gyanvapi mosque has Hindu carvings, which are clearly discernible.

Which is therefore the true Aurangzeb ?

My own view is that he was somewhere in between, but more research is required. While he was a very honest man earning his living by making caps, he also had some bigotry in him, which was a departure from the policy of his forefathers, and because of this bigotry he antagonized many Rajputs,  Marathas, Sikhs, etc which hastened the demise of the Mughal Empire.

. After his death in 1707 within a few years the Mughal Empire's size was reduced to Delhi and its suburbs only ( ' Saltanat-e-Shah Alam, Az Dilli ta Palam').

Though Aurangzeb was a totally honest man ( he earned his living by making caps), he seemed to lack the great quality which Akbar had, of accomodating everyone and pursuing a tolerant and flexible, instead of rigid policy. Akbar realized that India is a country of great diversity, and so only a tolerant, flexible and accomodating policy can keep the Empire together. This realization, evidently, Aurangzeb lacked.

However , this is only my tentative opinion, and more objective research is required by experts

Tuesday, 25 August 2015

The Chinese Humpty Dumpty is having a great fall

I have always been of the view that the Chinese economy is bound to collapse, because it is totally export oriented, and the leaders care two hoots for the welfare of their owna people. While the east coast is shining, there is massive poverty in the interior of China, as many people who have gone there have told me.

 To be stable, an economy must mainly depend and be based on the domestic market. This is because dependence on  foreign markets is very precarious. The foreign market may be captured by another country, or there may be a recession in the foreign country, which causes sales there to drop, and this in turn results in closure of the domestic industries.

 The Chinese leaders had forgotten the welfare of their own people, and like Uncle Scrooge or Shylock were only interested in making dollars by exports of their products. Most of these leaders have become corrupt, and have been transferring their ill gotten gains abroad, usually by buying real estate in Western countries.
 But now the chickens have come home to roost.

Thursday, 20 August 2015

Judicial Overreach

This is clearly a case of judicial overreach. Where is the law which requires government servants to send their children to government schools ? It is in violation of the Supreme Court judgment in Divisional Manager, Aravali Golf Course vs. Chander Haas ( see online ) which says that Judges must not ordinarily encroach into the domain of the legislature or executive. Legislation is the task of the legislature. Here the Judge has legislated, and also sought to enforce his legislation

Wednesday, 19 August 2015

Dark days are ahead for the Indian judiciary

In Afzal Guru's case the Supreme Court said: “The collective conscience of the society will be satisfied only if the death penalty is awarded to Afzal Guru.”.

 Is this a legitimate consideration for the Court ? Should a court of law pander to its assumed notion of “collective conscience” rather than follow legal principles ?.

 Yakub Memon's case was incorrectly decided by the Supreme Court on the basis of very weak evidence ( retracted 'confession' of co-accused and so called 'recoveries' ), probably because the Court wanted to send a message that it is ' tough on terror '.

 I am afraid that if judgments are given on such populist and extraneous considerations instead of by strictly following the law dark days are ahead for the Indian judiciary, and the Judges are inviting trouble for themselves. No amount of security can protect them, even if they turn the Court premises into a fortress, as has been done by the Supreme Court

Bomb threats to Supreme Court

According to reports, the Supreme Court has been turned into a fortress due to a bomb threat. But have the Hon'ble Judges wondered why bomb threats are given at all ? Is it because some sections of the public feel that injustice is being done to them ?

 I believe that the judgments of the Supreme Court in the cases of Yakub Memon and Afzal Guru were incorrect, being based on very weak evidence ( mainly ' confessions ', and we all know how such ' confessions ' are obtained in our country ) and some ' recoveries ' ( which we all know are usually planted by the police ). I had posted several fb posts in this connection giving my reasoning, but no one listened to me.

 I can understand the desire of some judges to be ''tough on terror ''. But that does not mean that they must convict, even if the evidence is weak. And it certainly does not mean they should behave like Judge Jeffries, ( the '' hanging '' Judge ) or like Roland Freisler. The desire to be populist undermines the detachment and objectivity required in the judicial function. Considerations like ' the collective conscience of the country ' ( the expression used by the Supreme Court in Afzal guru' case ) are clearly out of place.

 I do not mean to say that the real,culprits should not be given harsh punishment. But the truth is that the real culprits are rarely caught, since the police does not know how to catch them, as policemen are not trained in scientific investigation, nor does it have the equipment for it. And yet the police is under pressure to solve the crime. So what does it do ? In bomb blast and terrorist cases it catches hold of half a dozen Muslims ( since Muslims are all terrorists and have nothing to do but throw bombs ), chargesheets them, and then manufactures evidence against them by getting ' confessions '', making ' discoveries ', etc, and often such weak and concocted evidence is believed by some populist judges who want to show that they are ' tough on terror '', and 'send a strong message ' in this connection. This has alienated a large section of Muslims in India, though Muslims are as patriotic as any other section of Indian society.

 When a sitting Supreme Court Judge says publicly that the Bhagavad Gita should be compulsorily taught in all schools in india, what message is being sent ? Here is a judge who has taken oath to defend the secular Constitution, but is he upholding it ?

 I have always been a very outspoken person, both in court and outside it. But I have never wanted any security in my 20 years as a Judge, because I believe that the real shield of a Judge is his integrity, objectivity and impartiality.

At  Allahabad, Tamilnadu and Delhi where I was a judge, I used to go for long walks of 5 or 6 kms outside my residence. without any security guard, but I never received any threat. When I became Acting Chief Justice of Allahabad High Court in 2004 I saw a police pilot on motorcycle in front of my car, and a Gypsy with half a dozen armed policemen behind it, when I was going from my residence to the High Court. I told my secretary to tell these people that they should go away, as I did not need any security, but my secretary told me that I have no choice in the matter since under the rules the Chief Justice must have this security.

  Some people told me that I have no fear of my security as i support Muslims. That is untrue. I support neither Hindus nor Muslims, nor Sikhs nor Christians. I support justice for all, irrespective of his/her religion, caste, language , race or region.

 I have often been very critical of some backward practices among Muslims e.g. burqa and oral talaq, just as I have been very critical of some backward practices among Hindus e.g. casteism and looking down on dalits. So I am not trying to appease Muslims or anyone else. I am not in politics. I am not Owaisi. I do not want Muslim votes ( or Hindu votes ). If I oppose oppression or injustice to Muslims it is because I regard them as Indians, as much Indian as Hindus, and I am opposed too oppression of anyone, particularly a section of our own people.

 So it is time for the Supreme Judges to introspect. Converting the Court premises into a fortress is no solution. A determined and clever terrorist can usually get through any defence. The judges should now start asking themselves : what was it that has angered a section of our people, did we create an impression that we act unfairly to Muslims and some others ? How can we correct ourselves and regain the confidence of the people ?

Tuesday, 18 August 2015

CAG report on DISCOMS

I had said in an earlier post that Kejriwal is no fool. He will not seriously try to suppress corruption, but only pay lip service to it. He knows that if he seriously tries to eliminate corruption, corruption will not be eliminated, but he will certainly be eliminated by the mafia and big sharks.
 In response many people have referred to the CAG report about corruption by DISCOMS, and said that Kejriwal got the accounts of the DISCOMS audited.

 Agreed. But will Kejriwal seriously launch and pursue criminal cases against the offenders, and try to get them jailed ? He will not. These DISCOMS are owned by big businessmen, and Kejriwal dare not try to touch them. Of course he will keep fulminating against the offenders, to create an impression that he is tough on corruption, but it will all be a drama. Kejriwal is no fool, and will certainly not risk his neck..


I simply cannot understand why the Union Govt. is not granting the entirely justified demand of ex servicemen of one rank one pension

If there is some difficulty in granting it the govt. should come out in the open, and mention the exact difficulty. But concealing this under a veil of bureaucratic secrecy, and beating up old servicemen on 14th August was surely not the method of dealing with the situation.

 The Govt. should realize that they are playing with fire, and a Cromwell may suddenly appear with his troops. After all, power grows out of the barrel of a gun

Monday, 17 August 2015

Adultery and Alimony

The moral of the story is : if you have to commit adultery, do it secretly, don't get caught. Just as the crime is not looting the country ( in which case most of our politicians would go to jail ) but being caught looting it ( in which case also there is great doubt that they will ever go to jail ), so also the offence for which a wife will be deprived of alimony is not committing adultery but being caught committing adultery. So just be a bit discrete.

Tuesday, 4 August 2015

Here is the ' Father ' of your nation

The following extract is from the 1941 reprint of  Nehru's autobiography, pages 72 and 490 and it reveal's Gandhi's feudal mindset. Does such a man, who constantly injected religion into politics, and thereby furthered the British policy of divide and rule, deserve to be called the Father of the Nation ?

" Gandhiji, indeed, was continually laying stress on the religious and spiritual side of the movement. His religion was not dogmatic, but it did mean a definitely religious outlook of life, and the whole movement was strongly influenced by this and took on a revivalist character so far as the masses were concerned...I used to be troubled sometimes at the growth of this religious element in our politics, both on the Hindu and the Muslim side. I did not like it at all...

Even Gandhiji's phrases sometimes jarred upon me--such as his frequent references to Rama Rajya as a golden age which was to return. But I was powerless to intervene, and I consoled myself with the thought that Gandhiji used the words because they were well known and understood by the masses. He had an amazing knack of reaching the heart of the people.....

During my tour in the earthquake areas (in Bihar), or just before going there, I read with a great shock Gandhiji's statement to the effect that the earthquake had been a punishment for the sin of untouchability. This was a staggering remark. And if the earthquake was divine punishment for sin, how are we to discover for which sin we are being punished? for alas! we have many sins to atone for...the British government might call the calamity a divine punishment for civil obedience, for, as a matter of fact, North Bihar, which suffered most from the earthquake, took a leading part in the freedom movement."

                         Here is what our great Father of our nation talks of Cow Protection

" The Cow is a poem of pity. One reads pity in the gentle animal. She is the mother to millions of Indian mankind. Protection of the cow means protection of the whole dumb creation of God. The ancient seer, whoever he was, began with the cow. The appeal of the lower order of creation is all the more forcible because it is speechless." ( Young India, 6-10-1921, p. 36)

  " The cow is the purest type of sub-human life. She pleads before us on behalf of the whole of the sub-human species for justice to it at the hands of man, the first among all that lives. She seems to speak to us through her eyes: 'you are not appointed over us to kill us and eat our flesh or otherwise ill-treat us, but to be our friend and guardian ". (YI, 26-6-1924, p. 214)

" I worship it and I shall defend its worship against the whole world " (YI, 1-1-1925, p. 8)

 " Mother cow is in many ways better than the mother who gave us birth. Our mother gives us milk for a couple of years and then expects us to serve her when we grow up. Mother cow expects from us nothing but grass and grain. Our mother often falls ill and expects service from us. Mother cow rarely falls ill. Here is an unbroken record of service which does not end with her death. Our mother, when she dies, means expenses of burial or cremation. Mother cow is as useful dead as when she is alive. We can make use of every part of her body-her flesh, her bones, her intestines, her horns and her skin. Well, I say this not to disparage the mother who gives us birth, but in order to show you the substantial reasons for my worshipping the cow. " (Harijan, 15-9-1940, p. 281)

" The central fact of Hinduism is cow protection. Cow protection to me is one of the most wonderful phenomena in human evolution. It takes the human being beyond this species. The cow to me means the entire sub-human world. Man through the cow is enjoined to realize his identity with all that lives. Why the cow was selected for apotheosis is obvious to me. The cow was in India the best companion. She was the giver of plenty. Not only did she give milk, but she also made agriculture possible….....
Cow protection is the gift of Hinduism to the world. And Hinduism will live so ling as there are Hindus to protect the cow…… Hindus will be judged not by their TILAKS, not by the correct chanting of MANTRAS, not by their pilgrimages, not by their most punctilious observances of caste rules, but their ability to protect the cow " (YI, 6-10-1921, p. 36)

" I would not kill a human being for protection a cow, as I will not kill a cow for saving a human life, be it ever so precious "(YI, 18-5-1921, p. 156)

 " My religion teaches me that I should by personal conduct instill into the minds of those who might hold different views, the conviction that cow-killing is a sin and that, therefore, it ought to be abandoned "
(YI, 29-1-1925, p. 38)

 " Cow slaughter can never be stopped by law. Knowledge, education, and the spirit of kindliness towards her alone can put and end to it. It will not be possible to save those animals that are a burden on the land or, perhaps, even man if he is a burden " (H, 15-9-1946, p. 310)

" My ambition is no less than to see the principle of cow protection established throughout the world. But that requires that I should set my own house thoroughly in order first " (YI, 29-1-1925, p. 38)

These are only some of the stupid, feudal ideas this ' Mahatma ', this ' Father ' of our nation had.

Gandhi and Caste

Gandhi repeatedly said in the 1920s that ' Hindus must follow their hereditary professions ' and that ' prohibition of intermarriage between people of different varnas was necessary for a rapid evolution of the soul '. In the 1930s he changed his tune and started saying that he was opposed to caste but supported varna and hereditary professions, as if there is a difference between the two

 This hypocrisy was typical of Gandhi. Whenever he found his stupid feudal ideas unacceptable he tried to obfuscate.

 Thus in 1921 he said in his journal Young India " I am a sanatani Hindu. I believe in varnashram dharma. I believe in protection of the cow "

 He also said " I believe that caste has saved Hinduism from disintegration. One of my correspondents suggests that we should abolish the caste system but adopt the class system of Europe, meaning that the idea of hereditary castes should be rejected. I am inclined to think that the law of heredity is an eternal law, and any attempt to alter it must lead to utter confusion. Hindus believe in transmigration of the soul, and Nature will adjust the balance by degrading a Brahmin if he misbehaves to a lower caste, and upgrading one who lives the life of a Brahmin to a Brahmin in his next life. "

He also wrote " The beauty of the caste system is that it does not base itself upon distinctions of wealth-possessions. Money, as history has proved, is the greatest disruptive force in the world C aste is but an extension of the principle of the family. Both are governed by blood and heredity. Western scientists are busy trying to prove that heredity is an illusion andthat milieu is everything. The.experience of many lands goes against the conclusions of these scientists; but even accepting their doctrine of milieu, it is easy to prove that milieu can be conserved and developed more through caste than through class. As we all know, change comes very slowly in social life, and thus, as a matter of fact, caste has allowed new groupings to suit the changes in lives. But these changes are quiet and easy, as a change in the shape of the clouds. It is difficultto imagine a better harmonious human adjustment.Caste does not connote superiority or inferiority. It simply recognizes different outlooks and corresponding modes of life.But it is no use denying the fact that a sort of hierarchy has been evolved in the caste system, but it cannot be called the cre-ation of the Brahmins. When all castes accept a common goal of life, a hierarchy is inevitable, because all castes cannot realize the ideal in equal degree."

 Again in 1921 Gandhi said : “I believe that if Hindu society has been able to stand, it is because it is founded on the caste system. A community which can create the caste system must be said to possess unique power of organization.To destroy the caste system and adopt the Western European social system means that Hindus must give up the principle of hereditary occupation which is the soul of the caste system.The hereditary principle is an eternal principle.To change it is to create disorder. It will be a chaos if every day a Brahmin is to be changed into a Shudra, and a Shudra is to be changed into a Brahmin. The caste system is a natural order of society.... I am opposed to all those who are out to destroy the caste system.”

 In 1926 Gandhi writes ": In accepting the fourfold division I am simply accepting the laws of Nature, taking for granted what is in-herent in human nature and the law of heredity.... It is not possible in one birth entirely to undo the results of our past doings."

 Gandhi's hypocrisy can again be seen by the following statement in 1927 :

 : " In my conception of the law of varna, no one is superior to any other.... A scavenger [.a rubbish-collector or a latrine- or street-sweeper] has the same status as a Brahmin "

 Is this not ridiculous and farcical ? Do Brahmins regard shudras as their equals ?.It is like the devious doctrine of  'separate but equal ' propounded by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1896. Gandhi does not want abolition of the caste system, he says all castes have the same status, which is nonsense.

 In 1925 Gandhi says: " There is no harm if a person belonging to one varna acquires the knowledge or science and art specialized in by persons belonging to other varnas. But as far as the way of earning his living is concerned, he must follow the occupationof the varna to which he belongs, which means he must follow the hereditary profession of his forefathers.The object of the varna system is to prevent competition and class struggle and class war. I believe in the varna system because it fixes the duties and occupations of persons.Varna means the determination of a man’s occupation before he is born. In the varna system no man has any liberty to choose his occupation."

 This statement is again obfuscation. Why will anyone acquire a skill unless he can use it to earn his bread ?

  In 1931 Gandhi said: " I do not believe in caste in the modern sense. It is an excrescence and a handicap on progress. Nor do I believe in inequalities between human beings. We are all absolutely equal. But equality is of souls and not bodies. We have to realize equality in the midst of this apparent inequality. Assumption of superiority by any person over any other is a sin against God and man. Thus caste, in so far as it connotes distinctions in status, is an evil

.I do however believe in varna which is based on hereditary occupations. Varnas are four to mark four universal occupations – imparting knowledge, defending the defenceless, carrying on agriculture and commerce, and performing service through physical labor. These occupations are common to all mankind, but Hinduism, having recognized them as the law of our being, has made use of it in regulating social relations and conduct. Gravitation affects us all whether one knows its exist or not "

 The above statement really takes the cake. On the one hand Gandhi says he does not believe in caste, on the other hand he says that he believes in hereditary occupations, and says it is like the law of gravity.  But hereditary occupations is the basis of caste ( see my blog on caste system on ). Does this contradictory statement require any comment, except to say that this man can wriggle around and say that 2+2=4 and 2+2=5 in the same breath ?

In 1932 Gandhi said:  "My own opinion is that the varna system has just now broken down. There is no true Brahmin or true Kshatriya or Vaishya. We are all Shudras, i.e. one varna. If this position is accepted, then the thing becomes easy. If this does not satisfy our vanity, then we are all Brahmins. Removal of Untouchability does mean root-and-branch destruction of the idea of superiority and inferiority "

  Does the above statement make any sense ? At least I cannot make any head or tail out of it.

 In 1933 Dr. Ambedkar  said "There will be outcastes as long as there are castes, and nothing can emancipate the outcaste except the destruction of the caste system.". This was a logical argument of Dr. Ambedkar.

 But see how Gandhi replies. He said "  Dr. Ambedkar is bitter. He has every reason to feel so. Yet I do not believe the caste system, even as distinguished from varnashrama [the scheme of duties traditionally linked to the caste system], to be an “odious and vicious dogma. It has its limitations and defects, but there is nothing sinful about it, as there is about Untouchability; and if Untouchability is a by-product of the system, it is only in the same sense that an ugly growth is of a body, or weeds of a crop ".

   Thus Gandhi is not against the caste system but only against Untouchability.

Gandhi admitted that his ideal of a varna system with everyone enjoying equal economic and social status probably had no historical warrant:
: But when asked whether in ancient India there was much difference in economic status and social privileges between the four varnas Gandhi replied " That may be historically true. But misapplication or an imperfect understanding of the law must not lead to the ignoring of the law itself. By constant striving we have to enrich it  ".
So Gandhi is not against the caste system but only its  'misapplication.' ( whatever that may mean )..

 The contrast between Gandhi’s and Ambedkar’s views was heightened by their respective relations to the Jat-Pat-Todak Mandal, a new organization which was dedicated to promoting a casteless Hinduism. Gandhi told its secretary:in1932:  "If eradication of castes means the abolition of varna I do not approve of it. But I am with you if your aim is to end the innumerable caste distinctions ".

Dr Ambedkar corrrectly analysed  the cause of Gandhi's  contradictory statements and obfuscation regarding caste as " the double role which the Mahatma wants to play – of a Mahatma and a politician. As a Mahatma he may be trying to spiritualize politics. Whether he has succeeded in it or not, politics have certainly commercialized him. A politician must know that society cannot bear the whole truth. If he is speaking the whole truth, it is bad for his politics. The reason why the Mahatma is always supporting caste and varna is because he is afraid that if he opposes them he will lose his place in politics.... Whatever may be the source of this confusion, the Mahatma must be told that he is deceiving himself and also deceiving the people by preaching caste under the name of varna ".

  This is the man who has been thrust down the throats of Indians as the ' Father of the Nation '

Gandhi again

Gandhi has been presented as a 'Mahatma', the Father of our nation, who gave freedom to India. I submit this is a myth carefully built up by the British and certain other vested interests. What is the truth. ?

 When Gandhi came to India from South Africa ( where he practised law for about 20 years ) in about 1915 the Congress party was confined to some intellectuals, and had little mass following. Gandhi thought that since India is a deeply religious country the best way to build up a mass following would be use of religion. So from 1915 till his death in 1948 in almost every public meeting and his writings he would propagate Hindu religious ideas like Ramraj, cow protection, varnashram, brahmachrya, etc ( see 'The Collected works of 'Mahatma Gandhi ', which is a Govt. of India publication in several volumes ).

 This indeed converted the Congress from a party of only intellectuals to a mass party. But it was a mass party of the Hindu masses alone. How could the Muslims join such a party which appealed to Hindu sentiments ? In fact such an appeal to religion necessarily drove the Muslim masses to a Muslim communal organization-- the Muslim League. And prior to 1947 Muslims comprised of about 25% of the population of undivided India ( this percentage was reduced to about 17-18% after 1947 because a section of Muslims became citizens of Pakistan ).

 Did this not serve the British policy of divide and rule ? And therefore was Gandhi not objectively a British agent ?

 In his book 'The Partition of India ' the eminent jurist Seervai has written that the method of Gandhi of appealing to Hindu ideas may have mobilized the Hindu masses, but it inevitably led to Partition of India.

 Thus while Gandhi claimed he was secular,  that was only hypocrisy. In fact he was communal.
Unfortunately most people in India have not read the speeches and writings of Gandhi from 1915 to 1948, and so they do not know what he had done, and they have been taken for a ride. It is high time for them to know the truth.

  Some people say that the fact that Gandhi went to Noakhali etc in 1947 to appeal for communal amity shows that he was secular. But in fact this was the typical hypocrisy of Gandhi ( see my blogs ' Chalak Pakhandi ' and ' Here is the Father of your Nation ' on ). First you set the house on fire by propagating Hindu religious ideas day in and day out for several decades, and then when the house is burning you do the drama of trying to douse the flames by appealing for communal harmony. Why did you set the house on fire in the first place ?

 Some people ask : what did Gandhi get by this ? My answer is that different people have different motivations. For some money is the motivation, for others power. in Gandhi's case it was probably power ( he was effectively the leader of the Congress ) and the desire to be called a 'Mahatma'. However, that is irrelevant.Whatever may have been his motivation, the real question to be asked is : did his actions in fact further the British policy of divide and rule ? That is why I have called Gandhi objectively a British agent. Subjectively he may have any motivation. An objective agent may not receive any money, and he may not even be conscious of the fact that he is working as an agent. But that does not matter. If by your deeds you are in fact serving the interests of a foreign power, you are an agent of that foreign power.

 As regards the claim that Gandhi gave us freedom,this again is a myth. Does any country give up its empire without an armed fight for independence ? Did America get independence from England by satyagrah and hunger strikes, or by mobilizing the Continental Army under George Washington.which fought the American war of Independence from 1775-1781 ? Did Bolivar liberate several Latin American countries with guns or presenting flowers and bouquets to the Spanish rulers ? Did Ho Chi Minh defeat the French by use of arms, or by salt marches ?

 It is said by some that if the Indian people had resorted to arms against the British rulers there would have been a lot of bloodshed. That is true, but then that is the price a people must pay for getting freedom.

 In fact our real freedom fighters, Bhagat Singh, Chandrashekhar Azad, Surya Sen ( Masterda ), Ashfaqulla, Ram Prasad Bismil, Khudiram Bose, Rajguru, Sukhdev, etc realized this and took up arms against the British in the early 20th century.. This was no doubt only the beginning of a nationwide armed fight against the British, and was therefore only on a very small scale. But later on it would have developed into a full blown War of Independence. But Gandhi successfully diverted this genuine freedom struggle towards a harmless channel called satyagrah, which was sentimental nonsense, and which would do no real harm to the British. Would a great power like Britain give up its Empire because Gandhi was going frequently on fasts and singing Raghupati Raghav Raja Ram in public meetings ? The names of our real freedom fighters ( mentioned above ) have been relegated to the footnotes of our history books, and they have been painted as mavericks and deviants, while that fraud Gandhi is given the credit of winning freedom for us

 So who was responsible for Independence in 1947 ? Let me explain.

 In the Second World War, which started in 1939, Germany attacked England, and considerably weakened it. Possibly Germany would have conquered England, had it not been for American help. But this help came at a price. The Americans put pressure on the British to give up their empire in india, so that India may be opened up for American enterprize and investments too. This is the real cause of independence to india. It had nothing to do with Gandhi.

I am reproducing below my blog which started this debate

Gandhi---A British Agent

This post is bound to draw a lot of flak at me, but that does not matter as I am not a popularity seeker  I have often said things knowing that initially that will make me very unpopular, and I will be vilified and denounced by many. Nevertheless I say such I believe they must be said in my country's interest.
I submit that Gandhi was objectively a British agent who did great harm to India.

 These are my reasons for saying this :

1. India has tremendous diversity, so many religions, castes, races, languages, etc ( see my article ' What is India ?' ). Realizing this the British policy was of divide and rule ( see online ' History in the Service of Imperialism ' , which is a speech delivered by Prof. B.N. Pande in the Rajya Sabha ).

 By constantly injecting religion into politics continuously for several decades, Gandhi furthered the British policy of divide and rule.

 If we read Gandhi's public speeches and writings ( e.g. in his newspapers 'Young India', ' Harijan ', etc ) we find that ever since Gandhi came to India from South Africa in 1915 or so till his death in 1948, in almost every speech or article he would emphasize Hindu religious ideas e.g. Ramrajya, Go Raksha ( cow protection ), brahmacharya ( celibacy ), varnashram dharma ( caste system ), etc ( see Collected Works of Mahatma Gandhi ).

 Thus Gandhi wrote in ' Young India ' on 10.6.1921 " I am a Sanatani Hindu. I believe in the varnashram dharma. I believe in protection of the cow ". In his public meetings the Hindu bhajan ' Raghupati Raghav Raja Ram ' would be loudly sung.

 Now Indians are a religious people, and they were even more religious in the first half of the 20th century. A sadhu or swamiji may preach such ideas to his followers in his ashram, but when they are preached day in and day out by a political leader, what effect will these speeches and writings have on an orthodox Muslim mind ? It would surely drive him towards a Muslim organization like the Muslim League, and so it did. Was this not serving the British policy of divide and rule ? By constantly injecting religion into politics for several decades, was Gandhi not objectively acting as a British agent ?

2. In India a revolutionary movement against British rule had started in the early 20th century under the Anushilan Samiti, Jugantar, and revolutionaries like Surya Sen, Ramprasad Bismil ( who wrote the song ' Sarfaroshi ki tamanna ab hamare dil mein hai ), Chandrashekhar Azad, Ashfaqulla, Bhagat Singh, Rajguru, etc ( who were all hanged by the British ). Gandhi successfully diverted  the freedom struggle from this revolutionary direction to a harmless nonsensical channel called Satyagrah. This also served British interests.

3. Gandhi's economic ideas were thoroughly reactionary. He advocated self sufficient village communities, though everybody knows that these communities were totally casteist and in the grip of landlords and money lenders..Gandhi was against industrialization, and preached handspinning by charkha and other such reactionary nonsense. Similarly, his ' trusteeship ' theory was all nonsense, and an act of deceiving the people

 Some people praise Gandhi's bravery in going to Noakhali, etc to douse the communal violence at the time of Partition. But the question is why did he help setting the house on fire in the first place by preaching religious ideas in public political meetings for several decades, which were bound to divide the Indian people on religious lines? First you set the house on fire, and then you do the drama of trying to douse the flames.

Please also see the next two posts

Monday, 3 August 2015

Today's hearing of my case

I am informed that my senior counsel, Mr. Gopal Subramaniam argued today before the Supreme Court that had Parliament only said that it disagrees with my view of Gandhi and Bose he would have nothing to say. But the resolutions of both Houses of Parliament say that they '' condemn '' me, and that my statement is '' deplorable ''. Surely this adversely affects my reputation. And it has been held in several decisions of the Supreme Court that right to reputation is part of Article 21 of the Constitution, and is therefore a fundamental right.

 Mr. Subramaniam also argued that had the statement ( condemning me and saying my view is deplorable ) been made by a private person the position may have been different. But when it is made by a State institution, particularly by a high state institution like Parliament, it comes under a different category,  and certainly affects my reputation, apart from affecting my freedom of speech guaranteed by Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution.

 Mr Subramaniam submitted that several eminent persons, such as the renowned jurist and lawyer Seervai, held the same view as mine about Gandhi

 The initial observations of the bench were only tentative, and the case has been adjourned for 2 weeks. In the meantime the doyen of the bar, Mr.Fali Nariman has been requested by the bench to act as amicus curiae, and he and the Attorney General, Mr. Mukul Rohatgi have been asked to present their views on the next date. There is no verdict in the case as yet. In fact by today's order, including Fali Nariman and the Attorney General, the debate has been broadened.

 The issues involved in this case are of great importance for democracy in this country.

Hanging of Yakub Memon

I had raised my voice against hanging of Yakub Memon

Some people thought I am defending terrorism. That is not so. Those who committed the Mumbai bomb blasts and other such dastardly crimes should certainly be hanged. My point, however is : have the real culprits been correctly identified and punished ?

 The truth in India is that our police is not trained in scientific investigation, nor does it have the scientific equipment for doing so. So it usually cannot catch the real culprits.

 Criminal investigation is a science. If one reads the stories of Sherlock Holmes one sees how Holmes investigates a crime scientifically. He goes to the spot, studies the finger prints, ashes, blood stains, etc and then solves the crime. Similarly, if one sees on Discovery the Amercan police solves a crime, by going to the spot and gathering the material like finger prints, blood stains, fibres, etc, and then takes this material to a laboratory where analysis of this material is done with scientific methods e.g. D.N.A. tests, feeding the fingerprints into a national computer network, etc it can often trace out the real criminal. Often from a single fibre ( of a coat or other dress ) found on the spot or in a car it can identify the real culprit.

 In India, however, the police is neither trained in scientific investigation, nor does it have the equipment for doing so, and yet it is under pressure to solve the crime. So what does it do in bomb blast or other terrorist acts ? It catches half a dozen persons, often of the minority community ( for Muslims have been demonized as terrorists having nothing to do but throw bombs ), and then fabricates evidence against them. Usually this evidence is ' confessions ' and some ' recoveries ', and this is often accepted by some of our populist judges who want to show they are tough on terror and want to send a message against it. This is what seems to have been done done in the cases of Yakub Memon, Afzal Guru, etc. I have read the judgments of the Courts in these cases carefully and they are based on confessions and recoveries..

 Everyone knows how such ' confessions ' are obtained in our country-- by torture. And torture is such a terrible thing that one will confess to everything under torture. Joan of Arc confessed to be a witch under torture. And as regards so called ' recoveries ', usually they are planted by the police.
 In this way everybody is happy. The police get off the pressure, and the public is satisfied that the perpetrators have been punished. But is this the way to solve a crime ? The real perpetrators are rarely caught. That is my point.