Now I think everybody here knows that Im neither a fan of the traitor Mohandas Gandhi nor of modern religion but I must say while some of the points the author of the following article made were insightful other were hilariously ludicrous. What do you think? Mahatma Gandhi-Enemy Of Christians, Jews And Traitor To Hindus Tuesday, 02 November 2010 16:39 Timothy Kwoh E-mail Print PDF There is a growing temptation amongst Christian churches today to use Mahatma Gandhi as an inspiration for sermons and other material in the church. Not only is this shocking at best but treasonous and blasphemous at worst. Why should churches which claim allegiance to our Lord Jesus Christ as God and Lord, seek inspiration from one who is clearly an unrepentant sinner and a blasphemer? It will be my sincere attempt to call deceived people in the churches to not only see Gandhi for what he was, but also to call them to repentance to our Lord Jesus Christ. In the end, it is not wise to follow the world but our Lord Jesus Christ, since the world will only come to destruction, and to follow its trends can only lead to destruction and into hell. (I John 2:15-17) I urge Christians, if they are worthy of that name, to seek our Lord Jesus Christ with all your heart and follow Him unto life everlasting. I would urge the same for every other non-believer in this world also. But it is my purpose to disperse the myths of this so-called “sage” and “saint”, after all he was lost without Christ since he never accepted Christ as his Lord and Saviour, and seek to bring back the deceived into Christ. 1. Gandhi’s opposition to Christianity and to Biblical teaching If there is one thing that should have been obvious from the beginning is Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi’s opposition and hostility to the Christian faith and to Biblical teaching. This should have been obvious from his statement in his autobiography, The Story of My Experiments With Truth where he stated: “Only Christianity was at the time an exception. I developed a sort of dislike for it….[after listing bad examples of Christianity]…. All these things created in me a dislike for Christianity.” Some of his supporters will retort that Gandhi was initially interested in the Christian faith when he was in South Africa as a lawyer, but was turned away from the church he was planning to get answers from due to the Afrikaners in the church who used his ethnicity against him. Whatever the validity of that situation, when it comes to accepting Christ or rejecting him, there will be no excuse at the Great White Throne Judgment (Revelation/Apocalypse 20:11-15) for the lost who have not had their names in the Lamb’s Book of Life. If Gandhi was genuinely sincere in seeking Christ, then this would not have deterred him at all and he would have inevitably received Christ. (Deuteronomy 4:29; Jeremiah 29:12, 13). [This certainly does not excuse the evil behaviour of those in the Church, but if anything will be held against us at the Judgment Seat of Christ. (II Corinthians 5:10)]. However, to reject Christ is not excusable in the end. Notwithstanding, Gandhi’s opposition to Christianity should have been obvious in his statements regarding Christianity. Whilst Christians have not always been behaving the best way possible, no excuse to reject Christ and His Faith will ever be acceptable to Him. Gandhi was obvious in his hostility to Christianity when he stated (as does the godless, free-thinking rebel today): “I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ.” It is one thing to point out the failures of Christians, but it is quite something else to use that as an excuse to not actually accept Christ as Lord and Saviour. Before Gandhi’s sympathizers dare to use this statement as a positive, let us seek further clarification from his own autobiography where he stated that he never could fully accept the Christians’ claim of Christ being the Son of God, since he believed that Krishna was also the son of God and that the Vedas was as much the word of God as was the Bible and the Qu’ran (which he tended to love even more than his Hindu scriptures): “My difficulties lay deeper. It was more than I could believe that Jesus was the only incarnate son of God, and that only he who believed in him would have everlasting life. If God could have sons, all of us were His sons. If Jesus was like God, or God Himself, then all men were like God and could be God Himself. My reason was not ready to believe literally that Jesus by his death and by his blood redeemed the sins of the world. Metaphorically there might be some truth in it. Again, according to Christianity only human beings had souls, and not other living beings, for whom death meant complete extinction; while I held a contrary belief. I could accept Jesus as a martyr, an embodiment of sacrifice, and a divine teacher, but not as the most perfect man ever born. His death on the Cross was a great example to the world, but that there was anything like a mysterious or miraculous virtue in it my heart could not accept. The pious lives of Christians did not give me anything that the lives of men of other faiths had failed to give. I had seen in other lives just the same reformation that I had heard of among Christian principles. From the point of view of sacrifice, it seemed to me that the Hindus greatly surpassed the Christians. It was impossible for me to regard Christianity as a perfect religion or the greatest of all religions.” And: “Thus if I could not accept Christianity either as a perfect, or the greatest religion, neither was I then convinced of Hinduism being such. Hindu defects were pressingly visible to me. If untouchability could be a part of Hinduism, it could but be a rotten part or an excrescence. I could not understand the raison dêtre of a multitude of sects and castes. What was the meaning of saying that the Vedas were the inspired Word of God? If they were inspired, why not also the Bible and the Koran? As Christian friends were endeavouring to convert me, so were Muslim friends. Abdullah Seth had kept on inducing me to study Islam, and of course he had always something to say regarding its beauty.” The very fact that he was associated with the Theosophical Society of Madam Blavatsky and Annie Besant should have been telling about his ecumenical minded viewpoint towards God. This is further evidenced in his rejection of Christ as the only way to salvation and his other statements such as: “Yes I am. [a Hindu] I am also a Christian, a Muslim, a Buddhist and a Jew.” “God has no religion.” If that is not enough, then his open sympathy to Islam and Muhammad and the Qu’ran should be warning enough. [This would become obvious much later in the handling of the question of India’s partition between Hindus and Muslims]: “The sayings of Muhammad are a treasure of wisdom, not only for Muslims but for all of mankind.” And also in Young India in 1924, Gandhi had this to say regarding Muhammad, the founder of Islam, (obviously due to his lack of understanding and ignorance): “I wanted to know the best of the life of one who holds today an undisputed sway over the hearts of millions of mankind.... I became more than ever convinced that it was not the sword that won a place for Islam in those days in the scheme of life. It was the rigid simplicity, the utter self-effacement of the Prophet the scrupulous regard for pledges, his intense devotion to his friends and followers, his intrepidity, his fearlessness, his absolute trust in God and in his own mission. These and not the sword carried everything before them and surmounted every obstacle. When I closed the second volume (of the Prophets biography), I was sorry there was not more for me to read of that great life.” Christians should see this as warning enough to say that Gandhi is of the spirit of antichrist that denies Christ (I John 2:22, 23; 4:1-4). In fact, Gandhi actually flies in the face of Christ who has stated clearly: Verily, verily, I say unto you, I am the door of the sheep. All that came before me are thieves and robbers: but the sheep did not hear them. I am the door: by me if any man enter in, he shall be saved, and shall go in and out, and find pasture.” (John 10:7-9) and also: “I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.” (John 14:6). It was not surprising therefore to find that Gandhi found a close friend and inspiration in a heretic, Leo Tolstoy. Leo Tolstoy, like Gandhi, rejected most of the Bible, only resorted to the Sermon on the Mount as inspiration (common trait of hell-bound humanists and modernists), had nothing but praise for the antichrist religion of Islam (as was evidenced in his work on Hadji Murad) and also spurned marriage. [No wonder both of them had problematic relations in their marriage. Tolstoy never valued his wife and often fought with her and neglected her needs. Gandhi also did the same to the point of even deliberately sleeping naked with his young female disciples in his later years. Depravity has its company!] Let us consider the words of this Christ-rejecter finding his inspiration from a heretic (who was rightfully excommunicated from the Russian Orthodox Church for his heretical beliefs and practice): “Tolstoys The Kingdom of God is Within You overwhelmed me. It left an abiding impression on me. Before the independent thinking, profound morality, and the truthfulness of this book, all the books given me by Mr. Coates [a Christian leader of the Plymouth Brethren] seemed to pale into insignificance.” By now, it should be clear that Gandhi was indeed an enemy of Christ and of His Faith and also held views that can only come from the pit of hell. Shame on any professing Christian leader that finds their inspiration in this son of hell. Either they are truly ignorant of what this man stood for or they are themselves demonically deceived. Whatever the case, I plead for such people to repent of their foolishness and go to the Fount of Living Waters, Christ Himself. 2. Gandhi-Enemy of the Jewish people and the Jewish nation Some of the Gandhi supporters are going to retort by saying that Gandhi had Jewish followers and Jewish friends, which is only half the truth. However, Gandhi’s true attitude to the Jewish people and nation is quite shocking. Many Jewish admirers of Gandhi will be shocked if they only knew what his actual belief regarding the Holocaust was and his friendship towards Hitler. Either they are ignorant, for which we will try and remedy this problem, or themselves are traitors to the Jewish people and the God of their forefathers. In regards to the Jewish people, whilst claiming that he is friends with Jews, yet Gandhi admits that he cannot support their natural cause of a homeland of their ancestors in what was then termed Palestine. In fact, he goes even further as to not only call Arabs the original inhabitants [which reveals his ignorance of history], but even goes so far as to urge the Jews in Palestine to let the Arabs kill them and throw them into the Dead Sea as a form of resistance. Consider his words: “Palestine must be under Mussulman control. […] No canon, however, of ethics or war can possibly justify the gift by the Allies of Palestine to the Jews. It would be a breach of implied faith with Indian Mussulman’s in particular and the whole of India in general.” And also: “They should seek to convert the Arab heart. The same God rules the Arab heart who rules the Jewish heart. [What a lie! Jehovah is nothing like Allah] They can offer satyagraha [his version of non-violent resistance] in front of the Arabs and offer themselves to be shot or thrown into the Dead Sea without raising a little finger against them… There are hundreds of ways of reasoning with the Arabs, if they will only discard the help of the British bayonet…” He had plenty to say against supposed ‘aggression’ on the part of the Jews against Arabs who deliberately attacked them, but absolutely nothing to say against Arab Islamic aggression against Jews in the Holy Land even at that point of time. If anything, he went so far as to say this in support of the idea of Islamic rule over Jerusalem: “…it is clear as daylight that the Khilafat terms to be just must mean the restitution of Jazirat-ul-Arab to complete Muslim control under the spiritual sovereignty of the Caliph.” To add further insult onto injury, Mahatma Gandhi goes so far as to accuse Jews of aggression against the Arabs and to state that Palestine belongs to the Arabs (obviously due to his ignorance of history that Arabs conquered their way into Jerusalem even before the Crusades whilst Jews received the rough end of the stick from both sides): “Palestine belongs to the Arabs in the same sense that England belongs to the English or France to the French. It is wrong and inhuman to impose the Jews on the Arabs. What is going on in Palestine today cannot be justified by any moral code of conduct. The mandates have no sanction but that of the last war. Surely it would be a crime against humanity to reduce the proud Arabs so that Palestine can be restored to the Jews partly or wholly as their national home.” If that is not enough, then Gandhi’s insult to the Jewish homeland despite his Jewish friends, that the Jews should make Europe their home rather than seek one historically, should be cause to point out Gandhi’s hypocrisy, since why did he not apply the same principle to India? The insult clearly put is: “The cry for the national home for the Jews does not make much appeal to me. The sanction for it is sought in the Bible and the tenacity with which the Jews have hankered after return to Palestine. Why should they not, like other peoples of the earth, make that country their home where they are born and where they earn their livelihood?” Even otherwise sympathetic Jewish admirers, such as Martin Buber, were disgusted with his attitude towards both the Holocaust and also towards Gandhi’s pandering to Arab Islamic aggression to Jews in Palestine to the point of writing both letters to him in private and publishing the letters in public, when there was no response. Martin Buber, who was otherwise sympathetic with Gandhi, even went so far as to critique Gandhi’s stance of accusing Jews of aggression and asking Jews to submit to death without resistance. Buber stated in his letter to Gandhi: “But, Mahatma, are you not aware of the burning of synagogues and scrolls of the Law? Do you know nothing of all the sacred property of the community - some of it of great antiquity - that has been destroyed in the flames? I am not aware that Boers and Englishmen in South Africa ever injured anything sacred to the Indians…Now do you know or do you not know, Mahatma, what a concentration camp is like and what goes on there? Do you know of the torments in the concentration camp, of its methods of slow and quick slaughter? I cannot assume that you know of this; for then this tragi-comic utterance “of almost the same type” could scarcely have crossed your lips. Indians were despised and despicably treated in South Africa. But they were not deprived of rights, they were not outlawed, they were not hostages to a hoped-for change in the behaviour of foreign Powers. And do you think perhaps that a Jew in Germany could pronounce in public one single sentence of a speech such as yours without being knocked down? Of what significance is it to point to a certain something in common when such differences are overlooked?... And if - though indeed it is inconceivable that such a thing could come to pass - the hundreds of millions of Indians were to be scattered tomorrow over the face of the earth, and if the day after tomorrow another nation were to establish itself in India and the Jews were to declare that there was yet room for the establishment of a national home for the Indians, thus giving to their diaspora a strong organic concentration and a living centre, should a Jewish Gandhi - assuming there could be such - then answer them, as you answered the Jews, that “this cry for the national home affords a plausible justification for your expulsion”? Or should he teach them, as you teach the Jews, that the India of the Vedic conception is not a geographical tract, but that it is in your hearts? A land about which a sacred book speaks to the sons of the land is never merely in their hearts; a land can never become a mere symbol. It is in the hearts because it is the prophetic image of a promise to mankind. But it would be a vain metaphor if Mount Zion did not actually exist. This land is called “holy”, but this is not the holiness of an idea; it is the holiness of a piece of earth. That which is merely an idea and nothing more cannot become holy, but a piece of earth can become holy just as a mother’s womb can become holy. …What is decisive for us is not the promise of the Land - but the command, whose fulfilment is bound up with the land, with the existence of a free Jewish community in this country. For the Bible tells us - and our inmost knowledge testifies to it - that once, more than three thousand years ago, our entry into this land was in the consciousness of a mission from above to set up a just way of life through the generations of our people, such a way of life as can be realised not by individuals in the sphere of their private existence but only by a nation in the establishment of its society: communal ownership of the land, regularly recurrent levelling of social distinctions, guarantee of the independence of each individual, mutual help, a common Sabbath embracing serf and beast as beings with equal claim, a sabbatical year whereby, letting the soil rest, everybody is admitted to the free enjoyment of its fruits. These are not practical laws thought out by wise men; they are measures that the leaders of the nation, apparently themselves taken by surprise and overpowered, have found to be the set task and condition for taking possession of the land. No other nation has ever been faced at the beginning of its career with such a mission. Here is something that allows of no forgetting, and from which there is no release. At that time, we did not carry out what was imposed upon us. We went into exile with our task unperformed. But the command remained with us, and it has become more urgent than ever. We need our own soil in order to fulfil it. We need the freedom of ordering our own life. No attempt can be made on foreign soil and under foreign statute. The soil and the freedom for fulfilment may not be denied us. We are not covetous, Mahatma; our one desire is that at last we may obey….The Jewish peasants have begun to teach their brothers, the Arab peasants, to cultivate the land more intensively. We desire to teach them further; together with them, we want to cultivate the land - to “serve” it, as the Hebrew has it. The more fertile this soil becomes, the more space there will be for us and for them. We have no desire to dispossess them; we want to live with them. We do not want to rule; we want to serve with them….Instead, your admonition is addressed only to the Jews, because they allow British bayonets to defend them against the bomb throwers. Your attitude to the latter is much more reserved. You say you wish the Arabs had chosen the way of non-violence, but, according to the accepted canons of right and wrong, there is nothing to be said against their behaviour. How is it possible that, in this case, you should give credence - if only in a limited form - to the accepted canons, whereas you have never done so before! You reproach us that, having no army of our own, we consent to the British army preventing an occasional blind murder. But, in view of the accepted canons, you cast a lenient eye on those who carry murder into our ranks every day without even noticing who is hit. Were you to look down on all, Mahatma, on what is done and what is not done on both sides - on the just and the unjust on both sides - would you not admit that we certainly are not least in need of your help? We began to settle again in the Land thirty-five years before the “shadow of the British gun” was cast upon it. We did not seek this shadow; it appeared and remained here to guard British interests and not ours….We do not want force. We have not proclaimed, as did Jesus, the son of our people, and as you do, the teaching of non-violence, because we believe that a man must sometimes use force to save himself or even more his children. But from time immemorial we have proclaimed the teaching of justice and peace; we have taught and we have learned that peace is the aim of all the world and that justice is the way to attain it. Thus, we cannot desire to use force. No one who counts himself in the ranks of Israel can desire to use force.” [Emphasis mine] It is quite interesting to note Gandhi’s consistent critique of the Jews, but virtually next to no outcry of the Muslims committing deliberate atrocities towards the Jews in the Holy Land as well as other Muslim atrocities even to his own people in India! He even goes so far as to urge the Jews to commit mass suicide in regards to Hitler and his Nazi forces attacking the Jews: “But if there can be no war against Germany, even for such a crime as is being committed against the Jews, surely there can be no alliance with Germany…Hitler killed five million Jews. It is the greatest crime of our time. But the Jews should have offered themselves to the butcher’s knife. They should have thrown themselves into the sea from cliffs... It would have aroused the world and the people of Germany... As it is they succumbed anyway in their millions”. In a very similar vein of antagonism towards the Jewish people, the apple does not fall far from the tree, since many decades later, the grandson of Mahatma Gandhi, Arun Gandhi, accuses Jewish people of violence as the means of asserting their identity in an article entitled: “Jewish Identity Can’t Depend on Violence”. In the same disgusting antagonism towards Jews as his grandfather, Arun not only accuses the Jews for overplaying the Holocaust to hold the world guilty, but also makes this base accusation: “We have created a culture of violence (Israel and the Jews are the biggest players) and that Culture of Violence is eventually going to destroy humanity.” Like grandfather, like grandson indeed! Another satanic attempt to cause the world to hate the seed of Abraham: the Jews (Children of the First Covenant) and the Christians (Children of the New Covenant). [The whole article and responses can be found HERE]. If that is not enough, then Gandhi’s personal friendly letters to Hitler ought to cause one to shudder. Gandhi, on one hand acted as if he critiqued Hitler’s Nazism, yet just as equally on the other was addressing Hitler as a friend: “Dear Friend….I anticipate your forgiveness, if I have erred in writing to you. I remain, Your sincere friend, Sd. M. MK Gandhi.” If that was not enough, then Gandhi’s duplicity in supporting Hitler whilst making some critique of Nazism, in a letter in 1940 should be terrifying to say the least: “…That I address you as a friend is no formality….We have no doubt about your bravery or devotion to your fatherland, nor do we believe that you are the monster described by your opponents.” In a letter to a friend, he even stated further regarding Hitler: “I do not want to see the allies defeated. But I do not consider Hitler to be as bad as he is depicted. He is showing an ability that is amazing and seems to be gaining his victories without much bloodshed. Englishmen are showing the strength that Empire builders must have. I expect them to rise much higher than they seem to be doing.” In fact, his sympathies to Hitler and the Axis powers were such that he even urged the British to non-violently resist Hitler, appearing as friendly advice: “ I would like you to lay down the arms you have as being useless for saving you or humanity. You will invite Herr Hitler and Signor Mussolini to take what they want of the countries you call your possessions. 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. If these gentlemen choose to occupy your homes, you will vacate them. If they do not give you free passage out, you will allow yourself, man, woman and child, to be slaughtered, but you will refuse to owe allegiance to them ... I am telling His Excellency the Viceroy that my services are at the disposal of His Majestys Government, should they consider them of any practical use in advancing the object of my appeal.” Therefore, it is clear as day that Gandhi was an enemy of the Jewish people, the Jewish homeland [which is clearly Scriptural] and a sympathizer of Hitler. In fact, he has actually brought the Scriptural curse on himself for opposing Abraham’s seed: Jews and Christians. (Genesis 12:3). I hope Jews who read this will think twice before giving credence to Gandhi and have a genuine return to the God their fathers and also a genuine hunger to follow the True Messiah. All other answers are vain, for the Messiah has come and will be returning soon. 3. Gandhi-Traitor to the Hindus I wish to make it clear that I do not subscribe in anyway to Hinduism. However, it should be pointed out that Gandhi certainly did not represent Hinduism in its purest but was a Theosophist at heart and a selective Hindu. He may have been a vegetarian but in heart was really divorced from Hinduism to the point of sacrificing Hindus of his nation to the sword of the Muslims. Gandhi’s own admission from young was that he was not a studious person when it came to the scriptures of Hinduism, let alone the Bible or the Qu’ran for that matter too. However, even by Hindu standards, Gandhi is to be considered a heretic for denying the Hindu scriptures as divine truth and also for his own personal ignorance to them whilst claiming to defend Hinduism: “The scriptures are not divine. I decline to be bound by any interpretation. I believe that our present knowledge of these books is in a most chaotic state….All religions are more or less true. All proceed from the same God. But all are imperfect….I exercise my judgement about every scripture including the Gita. I cannot let a scriptural text supercede my reason….The knowledge of my total ignorance of my scriptures pained me.” May I ask my dear Hindu friends honestly, would you consider a man who not only denies the divine inspiration behind your Vedas, Mahabharata, Bhagavad-Gita, but also subjects them to his superficial, ignorant understanding, worthy to be a Hindu, let alone a Hindu saint? I am sure you would reply: “Absolutely not, such a man is unworthy to be called a Hindu and has betrayed the Dharma[The Divine Law]. Such a man is a raksha [demon] and is bound in ignorance.” From a Hindu perspective, not to mention Gandhi’s own admission, Gandhi is ignorant of the Hindu scriptures and has never seriously bothered to study or believe it. In fact, to put it plainly, Gandhi has called the Hindu deities liars and warmongers in essence. Whilst on one hand his teaching of non-violence seems to have some ground in the Mahabharata, yet on the other hand, this is not applied since the Mahabharata is about war between good and evil to the point where righteous heroes did have to take up arms to fight evil men to stop them from fulfilling their evil ends on the whole world. The non-violence in the Mahabharata is only applicable as a higher law of spirituality rather than dealing with emergencies of a nation or a government, as is evident. [Similarly, the non-resistance in the Sermon on the Mount, is not for government or stopping evil from enveloping the world, but rather for those who are aiming to walk the spiritual life in Christ]. To take matters further, the wars in the Mahabharata were for the purpose of stopping evil and maintaining justice in the same manner that the wars in the Tenach/Old Testament were to do the same. In fact, when Gandhi claimed that he subscribed to both the Bhagavad-Gita and the Ramayana, whilst advocating non-violent resistance to evil minded men, he is committing blasphemy from a Hindu perspective. Both Krishna and Rama had to use violence to stop either evil men or demons from succeeding in their purposes. Krishna, in the Bhagavad-Gita, when he urged Arjuna to fight the opposing side (despite the fact that it consisted of his relatives and friends), made it clear that he was to put personal feelings aside and fight against the lawless and the evil. In fact, he even made it clear that his (Krishna’s) purpose as the incarnation of Vishnu, the Preserver, was to fight against the demoniacs and evil ones who seek to destroy goodness and religion. This is clear in the following quotes of the Bhagavad-Gita: “The demoniacs, who are lost to themselves and who have no intelligence, engage in unbeneficial, horrible works meant to destroy the world.” (16:9) “Know what your duty is and do it without hesitation. For a warrior, there is nothing better than a battle that duty enjoins” (2.31) “Whenever and wherever there is a decline in religious practice, O descendant of ‘Bharata’ [The Hindu Nation], and a predominant rise of irreligion—at that time I descend Myself. To deliver the pious and to annihilate the miscreants, as well as to reestablish the principles of religion, I Myself appear, millennium after millennium” (4:7, 8) Similarly, Rama, one of Vishnu’s incarnations, was meant to fight the king of demons, Ravana, not only for stealing his wife, Sita, but also for the fact that he was the king of demons, wreaking havoc throughout the earth. (Hence the whole theme of the Ramayana). Hanuman, an ally of Rama, and later to be canonized a deity, even expressed to Sita, the impossibility of negotiating with demons and evil men and that only force was necessary to stop such: “In the case of demons, the strategy of negotiation is not practicable. For those persons having abundant wealth, the strategy of bribery is not suitable. For persons who are proud of their strength, the strategy of sowing dissension is not amenable. Prowess alone is agreeable for me here.” (Book 5,41:3) In fact, it was known in the Ramayana that all the deities wanted Ravana destroyed at the hands of Rama, to the point of cheering him on to destroy Ravana (Book 6, 107:50-51) and when he finally succeeded in killing Ravana, the king of demons, all the deities were cheering: “When Ravana, the cruel demon and the terror of all the worlds, was killed, a great rejoice filled the hearts of gods and charanas the celestial bards.” (Book 6, 108:30) Therefore, if we are to take the perspective of Gandhi, then Krishna should never have violently resisted the wicked nor should have Rama killed the king of demons, Ravana. If I was a Hindu, I would say: “Who did the deities support, Gandhi or Rama? If the deities clearly supported Rama in destroying the king of demons, Ravana, then how dare Gandhi claim non-violence as the means to defeat evil ones!” Enough said about Gandhi’s disregard for Hindu scriptures. When it came to the crunch, Gandhi’s so-called non-violence did not seem to have any place in regards to an aggressor. Even Martin Buber, a Jewish theologian who was otherwise sympathetic to Gandhi, had to point out in a letter to Gandhi this: ““India,” you say, “is by nature nonviolent.” It was not always so. The Mahabharata is an epos of warlike, disciplined force. In the greatest of its poems, the Bhagavad Gita, it is told how Arjuna decides on the battlefield that he will not commit the sin of killing his relations who are opposed to him, and he lets fall his bow and arrow. But the god reproaches him, saying that such action is unmanly and shameful; there is nothing better for a knight in arms than a just fight. Is that the truth? If I am to confess what is truth to me, I must say: There is nothing better for a man than to deal justly - unless it be to love. We should be able even to fight for justice - but to fight lovingly.” Gandhi’s obvious ignorance turns into absolute appeasement to Muslims when it came to the issue of Hindu-Muslim riots and partition of India into what is to become Pakistan. As pointed out earlier, Gandhi had already shown somewhat uncritical reception of both Muhammad and the Qu’ran. It was even worse when it came to issues surrounding the riots between Hindus and Muslims. He urged absolute non-violence and surrender on the part of the Hindus and Sikhs, who were being massacred mercilessly by Muslim mobs, but had little to no condemnation of Muslim atrocities to Hindus and Sikhs. To add insult to injury, Gandhi went so far as to not only exonerate the Muslim ruler of India in the 17th century notorious for massacre of Hindus and destruction of Hindu temples, Aurangazeb, but even put him on the same level as Shivaji Maharaj, the great Maratha hero who fought Muslim Mogul aggression: “Since Aurangazeb has lived here for so many years, allegations of enmity and distance leveled at him should cease and he should be considered one of us. For this, if from time to time some sacrifice has to be made to resolve the issue, it should be done. And in this way Aurangazeb and Shivaji should together found a new Hindu Nation.” At best this is ignorance. At worse, this is a deliberate attempt to excuse Muslim atrocities in India for centuries. However, he even went so far as to urge the Hindu ruler of Kashmir to hand over his reign to Shaikh Abdullah when the British left India: “After British leave India, the Nizam of Hyderabad would be the ‘Badshah of Bharat’ [supreme ruler of India]”. But that is not all. Gandhi went so far as to openly support the Khalifat (Caliphate) movement: “If the peaceful non-cooperation movement does not succeed in getting justice, then, they have the right to follow the path shown in the Holy Books of Islam and I whole-heartedly support this path.” Here is the duplicity and hypocrisy of Gandhi again in insisting that Hindus be non-violent but giving full sway approval for Muslim aggression once again! This is made worse in the face of Muslim aggression in Malabar, where thousands of Hindu women were raped by Muslim men and also others were forcibly converted to Islam. Gandhi did not even have a word to say against such evil behaviour but if anything, gave his approval by stating: “Brave God-fearing Moplas [Muslims in that region] who were fighting for what they considered as religion, and in a manner, which they considered as religious” And also: “The Moplas were right in presenting the Koran or sword to the Hindus. And if the Hindus became Mussalmans [Muslims] to save themselves from death, it was a voluntary change of faith and not forcible conversion.” My Hindu friends, would you not shudder at such a man by now, and even state: “This is not a saint, this is a raksha.”? If by now our Hindu friends are not convinced, then let them consider the following few statements Gandhi made regarding the Muslim atrocities to both Hindus and Sikhs in 1947: “I am grieved to learn that people are running away from the West Punjab and I am told that Lahore is being evacuated by the non-Muslims. I must say that this is what it should not be. If you think Lahore is dead or is dying, do not run away from it, but die with what you think is the dying Lahore. When you suffer from fear you die before death comes to you. That is not glorious. I will not feel sorry if I hear that people in the Punjab have died not as cowards but as brave men….Even if Muslims decide to wipe out the Hindu race, there is no point in Hindus getting angry on Muslims. Even if they slit our throats, we should be patient and accept death. Let them rule the world, we will pervade the world and merge with it. At least we should not be afraid of death. The providence is made of life and death. Why feel unhappy about it? We will enter a new life if we face death with a smile. We will create a new Hindustan [India]…. [Even if Muslims] killed our relatives, our people, why should we be angry with anyone? Those who got killed met with a proper end. We should know that they attained heaven. Let this happen with Gods wish with each one of us. God should grant us this kind of death. If you want to ask God for anything, let it be this…..I would tell the Hindus to face death cheerfully if the Muslims are out to kill them. I would be a real sinner if after being stabbed I wished in my last moment that my son should seek revenge. I must die without rancor. … You may turn round and ask whether all Hindus and all Sikhs should die. Yes, I would say. Such martyrdom will not be in vain.” [Emphasis mine] Once again, did this so-called “saint” have anything to say against Muslim atrocities of forced conversions on the tip of the sword, rape of women and senseless murders? As time passed in history, there were more forced conversions to Islam, more rapes and senseless murders (in true tradition of the so-called “Prophet” Muhammad) and the eventual partition of Pakistan from India. [Despite the fact that Gandhi helped Muhammad Ali Jinnah, the First President of Pakistan, the Pakistanis are not grateful to Gandhi! So much for appeasement!]. In fact, Gandhi’s amazing appeasement to Islam and Muslims had reached to breaking point for a number of Hindus, who would have otherwise been patient, to the point that there was a man known as Nathuram Godse, who initially supported Gandhi’s independence from Britain, to finally pull the trigger that killed Gandhi and sent him to hell. Whilst I certainly do not subscribe to Godse’s Hinduism, one could honestly say in the face of appeasement of Muslims at a very devastating expense of Hindus and Sikhs, that Godse acted out of concern for his fellow Hindus and Sikhs. Gandhi’s treachery if fully continued would have probably meant the total Islamicization of India and wholesale massacre of a nation. Godse, in his final speech before execution stated the following: “In fact, honour, duty and love of ones own kith and kin and country might often compel us to disregard non-violence and to use force. I could never conceive that an armed resistance to an aggression is unjust. I would consider it a religious and moral duty to resist and, if possible, to overpower such an enemy by use of force. [In the Ramayana] Rama killed Ravana in a tumultuous fight and relieved Sita. [In the Mahabharata], Krishna killed Kansa to end his wickedness; and Arjuna had to fight and slay quite a number of his friends and relations including the revered Bhishma because the latter was on the side of the aggressor. It is my firm belief that in dubbing Rama, Krishna and Arjuna as guilty of violence, the Mahatma betrayed a total ignorance of the springs of human action…..In more recent history, it was the heroic fight put up by Chhatrapati Shivaji that first checked and eventually destroyed the Muslim tyranny in India. It was absolutely essentially for Shivaji to overpower and kill an aggressive Afzal Khan, failing which he would have lost his own life. In condemning historys towering warriors like Shivaji, Rana Pratap [Rajput Hindu ruler who resisted the Muslim Moghuls] and Guru Gobind Singh [10th Guru of Sikhism] as misguided patriots, Gandhiji has merely exposed his self-conceit. He was, paradoxical, as it may appear, a violent pacifist who brought untold calamities on the country in the name of truth and non-violence, while Rana Pratap, Shivaji and the Guru will remain enshrined in the hearts of their countrymen forever for the freedom they brought to them…..The accumulating provocation of thirty-two years, culminating in his last pro-Muslim fast, at last goaded me to the conclusion that the existence of Gandhi should be brought to an end immediately. Gandhi had done very well in South Africa to uphold the rights and well being of the Indian community there. But when he finally returned to India he developed a subjective mentality under which he alone was to be the final judge of what was right or wrong. If the country wanted his leadership, it had to accept his infallibility; if it did not, he would stand aloof from the Congress and carry on his own way. Against such an attitude there can be no halfway house. Either Congress had to surrender its will to his and had to be content with playing second fiddle to all his eccentricity, whimsicality, metaphysics and primitive vision, or it had to carry on without him. He alone was the Judge of everyone and everything; he was the master brain guiding the civil disobedience movement; no other could know the technique of that movement. He alone knew when to begin and when to withdraw it. The movement might succeed or fail, it might bring untold disaster and political reverses but that could make no difference to the Mahatmas infallibility. A Satyagrahi can never fail was his formula for declaring his own infallibility and nobody except himself knew what a Satyagrahi is…..Thus, the Mahatma became the judge and jury in his own cause. These childish insanities and obstinacies, coupled with a most severe austerity of life, ceaseless work and lofty character made Gandhi formidable and irresistible. Many people thought that his politics were irrational but they had either to withdraw from the Congress or place their intelligence at his feet to do with, as he liked. In a position of such absolute irresponsibility Gandhi was guilty of blunder after blunder, failure after failure, disaster after disaster….From August 1946 onwards the private armies of the Muslim League began a massacre of the Hindus. The then Viceroy, Lord Wavell, though distressed at what was happening, would not use his powers under the Government of India Act of 1935 to prevent the rape, murder and arson. The Hindu blood began to flow from Bengal to Karachi with some retaliation by the Hindus. The Interim Government formed in September was sabotaged by its Muslim League members right from its inception, but the more they became disloyal and treasonable to the government of which they were a part, the greater was Gandhis infatuation for them…..One of the conditions imposed by Gandhi for his breaking of the fast unto death related to the mosques in Delhi occupied by the Hindu refugees. But when Hindus in Pakistan were subjected to violent attacks he did not so much as utter a single word to protest and censure the Pakistan Government or the Muslims concerned. Gandhi was shrewd enough to know that while undertaking a fast unto death, had he imposed for its break some condition on the Muslims in Pakistan, there would have been found hardly any Muslims who could have shown some grief if the fast had ended in his death. It was for this reason that he purposely avoided imposing any condition on the Muslims. He was fully aware of from the experience that Jinnah was not at all perturbed or influenced by his fast and the Muslim League hardly attached any value to the inner voice of Gandhi. Gandhi is being referred to as the Father of the Nation. But if that is so, he had failed his paternal duty inasmuch as he has acted very treacherously to the nation by his consenting to the partitioning of it. I stoutly maintain that Gandhi has failed in his duty. He has proved to be the Father of Pakistan. His inner-voice, his spiritual power and his doctrine of non-violence of which so much is made of, all crumbled before Jinnahs iron will and proved to be powerless. Briefly speaking, I thought to myself and foresaw I shall be totally ruined, and the only thing I could expect from the people would be nothing but hatred and that I shall have lost all my honour, even more valuable than my life, if I were to kill Gandhiji. But at the same time I felt that the Indian politics in the absence of Gandhiji would surely be proved practical, able to retaliate, and would be powerful with armed forces. No doubt, my own future would be totally ruined, but the nation would be saved from the inroads of Pakistan. People may even call me and dub me as devoid of any sense or foolish, but the nation would be free to follow the course founded on the reason which I consider to be necessary for sound nation-building. After having fully considered the question, I took the final decision in the matter, but I did not speak about it to anyone whatsoever. I took courage in both my hands and I did fire the shots at Gandhiji on 30th January 1948, on the prayer-grounds of Birla House. I do say that my shots were fired at the person whose policy and action had brought rack and ruin and destruction to millions of Hindus….I bear no ill will towards anyone individually but I do say that I had no respect for the present government owing to their policy, which was unfairly favourable towards the Muslims. But at the same time I could clearly see that the policy was entirely due to the presence of Gandhi. I have to say with great regret that Prime Minister Nehru quite forgets that his preachings and deeds are at times at variances with each other when he talks about India as a secular state in season and out of season, because it is significant to note that Nehru has played a leading role in the establishment of the theocratic state of Pakistan, and his job was made easier by Gandhis persistent policy of appeasement towards the Muslims. I now stand before the court to accept the full share of my responsibility for what I have done and the judge would, of course, pass against me such orders of sentence as may be considered proper. But I would like to add that I do not desire any mercy to be shown to me, nor do I wish that anyone else should beg for mercy on my behalf….” [Emphasis mine] Therefore it is clear from a Hindu perspective that Mahatma Gandhi was indeed a traitor to Hinduism as much as he was a Muslim sympathizer and also a hypocrite of false peace that sought to appease aggressors rather than defend the people of India. Perhaps a number of Hindu friends will probably be considering whether to call him a saint or a raksha (demon) in the flesh out to promote the demonic cause of Allah and the destruction of Truth. In any case, Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi has harmed not only Christianity, Judaism and the Jews, but even violated Hinduism and Hindus by his constant appeasement to Muslims. CONCLUSION: I wish to conclude with a quote by Gandhi himself in his younger days, which very much summarizes his life and the sort of company that he sought: “I have been known as a crank, faddist madman. Evidently the reputation is well deserved. For, wherever I go; I draw to myself cranks, faddists and madmen.” [May 9, 1929-Gandhi giving an honest opinion on himself!] It is clear by now that Mahatma Gandhi is an enemy of Christ and His Faith, an enemy of the People of the First Covenant (The Jews) and a traitor to even the religion he professed to be a part of: Hinduism. For Christians, I urge them to stop seeking any form of inspiration in Gandhi, since we have Christ our God as the Greatest Example. For Jews, I urge you to not look to Gandhi for inspiration nor any other secular ideology of the left, but for you to seek the God of your fathers sincerely and in all truth, as revealed clearly in the Tenach, and you will find the true answer eventually in the Messiah, who has come, and is returning. For Hindus, I urge you not to follow a man blindly who has clearly betrayed you to the swords of jihad in India and Pakistan. If anything, I urge you to seek God in Truth and you will find that the True God did manifest Himself in the flesh for the salvation of mankind, even to sacrificing His own earthly life on the cross for humanity and also rising again from the dead 3 days later before returning to heaven. Such a God is worthy of your worship and life, not traitors like Gandhi.
Posted on: Sat, 03 Jan 2015 08:08:43 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015