IF ONE INSISTS ON CALLING A MOUSE A TIGER, THEN HE MUST BE EITHER TOTALLY BRAINWASHED OR A MORON.
NEARLY ONE BILLION HINDUS THINK GANDHI WAS A MAHATMA (A HOLY MAN) WHO "CHASED OUT" THE BRITISH IN 1947. HERE IS A COMMENT ON HIM BY ONE WHOSE EYES ARE OPEN AND BRAIN FUNCTIONING:
My objective Assessment of Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi
I have following books and Articles with me, based on which, I have made my assessment of Gandhi:
(1)‘India, from Curzon to Nehru and after’ by Durga Das
(2)’The man who partitioned India’ by Dr. Rafiq Zakaria,
(3)’Freedom at Midnight’ by Lapierre and Collins.
(4) ‘Discovery of India’ by Nehru.
(5)’Cue from the inner voice’ by Manohar Malgonkar; and articles
(1) Creation of Pakistan’ by Narendra Singh Sarila (Times17-03-2000)
(2.)’How important is scholarship in politics’ by Sharada Prasad (Asian Age 12-11-1997) ,
(3) ‘Mahatmaji ani Bramhacharya’ (Marathi) by P.K.Atre
My assessment of Gandhi in a nut-shell:
(1)He was a mediocre, dirty, self-centred, selfish, obstinate and coward person but an extremely cunning and hypocritical politician.
(2)Academically, he was negligible and totally failure as a lawyer, his chosen career. He was not fond of reading books or interested in increasing his knowledge through them.
(3)He was extremely good psychologist of ignorant, uneducated ,particularly Hindu masses. He had a very powerful urge and capability to organise manipulate and in his own way, domineer them (as well as his own family). That was his political strength. His, so called principles and so called fads, were all instruments developed for achieving that goal. His show of simplicity was nothing but a strategy of ‘stooping to conquer’.
(4)He was not interested in getting independence for India; he was interested in getting sole credit for it. He failed as a lawyer but he soon learnt that it paid to become an agitator – a professional rabid-rouser. He looked for the causes to launch an agitation (ensuring his own physical safety). His strategy had always been to launch an agitation, wait till it turned violent and then suspend it because it turned violent contrary to his principle of non-violence. That way he strengthened his reputation as a man of principles. He loved to be in limelight. He loved power but without the responsibility that normally should go with it.
(5)He skilfully avoided accepting responsibility for blunders which would have affected him adversely politically but he readily accepted minor mistakes, even sometimes for others, with all the fanfare when he knew that thereby his stature would get a boost in the eyes of the illiterate poor.
(6)He contribution to nation’s independence was its postponement, vivisection of the country and its violent aftermath.
(7)All his actions were directed towards getting political mileage personally and to achieve this goal, he did not hesitate to sacrifice his family, friends and finally the Nation of which, and eventually, he succeeded in becoming the ‘Father’.
(8)The only activity of his, which had no political connotation, was his notorious experiments with sex which were carried out in his ashram, ostensibly to conquer his obsession with sex.
He invariably walked out, leaning heavily on two young virgins, one on each side. What he did with them, or to them, at night is anybody’s guess. He believed he was increasing his potency in their company.
I am quite aware that all that I have written above, is contrary to the image that has been created, nurtured and firmly impressed on the minds of the public by 50 years of Congress propaganda.