1. Really speaking the idea of Hindu-Muslim Unity which Gandhiji had put forward when he entered the Indian Politics, came to an end from the moment the Pakistan was established. Because, the Muslim League was opposed to regard India as one whole nation; and over and over again they had stated with great obstinacy, that they were not Indians. The Hindu-Muslim Unity which Gandhiji himself, had put forward many a time-was riot of this type. That the Hindus should not hate the Muslims and the Muslims should not hate the Hindus, and they both should take part in the struggle for independence was his idea of Hindu-Muslim Unity. The Hindus have been often seen to have followed Gandhijits advice, but the Muslims have on every occasion, disregarded it and have indulged in such behavior as would be insulting to the Hindus, and at last, it has cuItimated in the vivisection and division of the country.
  2. The mutual relations of Gandhiji and Mr. Jinnah are also worthy of note.
  3. When Mr. Jinnah became the President of the Muslim League, he put forward one evident and clear fact that it was his intention to look to the interests of the Muslim community and that the Muslims should not at all rely upon the Congress and the Congress leaders; that the Muslims should not support the political war for freedom waged by the Congress.’ Mr. Jinnah preached these doctrines quite openly. He had also openly demanded Pakistan. He has deceived ne one as far as the above things are concerned, His was the behavior of an open enemy, He could talk of vivisecting a with natural and unfettered tongue.
  4. Gandhiji had seen Mr. Jinnah many a time and he has called upon him even at his bungalow. Every time he had to plead to him as “Brother Jinnah”, He even offered to him the Premiership of the whole of India; put there was not a single occasion on which Mr. Jinnah had shown any inclination to yield.
  5. Gandhiji’s inner voice, his spiritual power and his doctrine of non-violence of which so much is made of, all crumbled down and proved to be powerless in this respect.
  6. Having known that his power could not influence Mr, Jinnah, Gandhiji should have either changed his policy or should have admitted his defent and given way to others of different political views to deal with Mr. Jinnah and the Muslim League. But Gandhiji could not be honest to do that. He could not forget his egoism or self for the sake of ‘the nation. There thus, no opportunity for the practical politics while the great blunders – blunders as big as the Himalayas were being committed.
  7. Constantly for nearly one year after the horrible Noakhali massacre, our nation was, 28 if, bathing in the pool of blood. The Muslims indulged in horrible and dreadful massacre of humanity followed by the reactions from the Hindus in some parts. The attacks of the Hindus on Muslins in the East Punjab, Bihar, or Delhi, were simply acts of reaction, It is not that Gandhiji did not know, that the basic cause of these reactions was the outrages on Hindus by the Muslims in the Muslim majority Provinces. But still Gandhiji went on condemning strongly such actions of Hindus only, and the Congress Government went to the extent of threatening to even bombard the Hindus in Bihar to check their discontent and reactions against Muslins which was mainly due to the Muslim outbursts and atrocities in Nookhali. Gandhiji had often advocated during the course of his prayers that the Hindus in India should treat the Muslims with respect and generosity even those the Hindus and Sikhs in Pakistan may be completely massacred, and though Suhrawardy may be the leader of the Goondas, he should be allowed to move about freely and safely in Delhi.
  8. Gandhiji needs have taken into consideration that the feeling of revenge springing up in the Hindu mind was simply a natural reaction. Thousands of Hindus in the Muslim provinces were being massacred simply because of their fault of being Hindus, and our Government was quite unable to render these unfortunate people any help or give any protection could it be in any way unnatural if the waves of sorrow and grief of the Hindus in those provinces should redound on the mind and hearts of the Hindus in other Provinces? It was not at all unnatural, for these

reactions were only the signs of live humanity. It was due to this only with the sole object of redressing the woes and calamities of their fellow brothers in those provinces and giving them protection, that the retaliation against the Muslims was resorted to, as they believed that that was the only way by which the atrocities of the Muslims would be checked, When the people (Hindus) noticed and realized that the Indian Union Government was unable to afford any means they thought of taking the law in their own of protection to their brethren residing in Pakistan, they thought of taking the law in their own hands in any manner they could think of. The retaliationary actions shown by the Hindus in Bihar were the outcome of their keen desire to check and stop the Muslim atrocities in other provinces. Such a feeling at times also is as spiritual and natural as that of kindness.

  1. Many a great revolution has been successful only by the idea of this sort of feeling of acute discontent against the misdeeds of the rulers. It would be quite impossible to put an end to the governance of the Society by the wicked, had it not for such feelings of discontent, retaliation and revenge springing up against the wicked Dictators. The events of ancient history as depicted in Ranayana and Mahabharata, or the more modern wars of England and America against Germany and Japan do indicate the same sort of action and reaction. It may be either good or bad but such is the human nature.
  2. Looked at from the point of view of the Indian Politics, I have already shown in my narration elsewhere, how Gandhiji had strongly opposed several efforts made for winning the freedom of the country. There was no consistency in his own political policy. In particular his behavior at the time of the last war was quite beyond the scope of reason.
  3. He first gave out the principle that no help should be given by India to the war between England and Germany. “WAR MEANT VIOLENCE AND HOW COULD I HELP” was his saying. But the wealthy companions and followers of Gandhiji enormously added to their wealth by undertaking contracts from the Government for the supply of materials for war. It is needless for me to mention names but all know the wealthy personalities of Birla, Dalmia, Walchand Hirachand, Nanjibhai Kalidas, etc, Gandhiji and his Congress colleagues have been much helped by every one of them. But Gandhiji never refused to accept the moneys offered by these wealthy people although. it was got from this blood-filled war. Nor did he prevent these wealthy people from carrying out their contracts with the Government for the supply of the material for war. Not only that but Gandhiji had given his consent to taking up the contract for supplying blankets to the army from the Congress Khadi Bhandar.
  4. Gandhiji’s release from jail in 1944 was followed by the release of other leaders also, but the Government had to be assured by the Congress leaders of their help in the war against Japan. Gandhiji not only did not oppose this but actually supported the Government proposal. 13. In Gandhiji’s politics, there was no place for consistency of-ideas and reason. Truth was what Gandhiji only could define. His politics was supported by old superstitious beliefs such as the power of the soul, the inner. voice, the fast, the prayer, and the purity of mind.
  5. Gandhiji had once said, “FREEDOM GOT FROM NON.. VIOLENCE A THOUSAND YEARS LATER IS PREFERABLE TO THE FREMOM GOT TO-DAY BY VIOLENCE”. Whether he acted as he said, or whether his actions and sayings were diametrically opposed to each other can be inferred to some extent from the example cited above.
  6. A recent example of the inconsistency of his doctrine of non-violence is worth being noted in particular.
  7. The ‘problem of Kashmir followed very closely that of Pakistan. Pakistan had begun a dreadful invasion to conquer and gulp down the Kashmir. H.H.the Maharaja of Kashmir had asked for help for the Nehru Government, and the latter in return agreed to do so on the condition that Sheikh Abdullah would be made the Chief Administrator.
  8. On every important matter Pt. Nehru had consulted Gandhiji. There was every chance of partiality being done – Kashmir being the birth-place of Pt. Nehru. And to give no way to this partiality, Pt. Nehru consulted Gandhiji about sending Military help to Kashmir and it was only on the consent Gandhiji that Pt. Nehru sent troops for the protection and defense of Kashmir. Pt. Nehru himself has told this in one of his speech.

18.Our political leaders knew from the very beginning that the invasion of Kashmir by the raiders was supported by Pakistan and it was, therefore, evident that sending help to the Kashmirs meant waging war indirectly against Pakistan.

19 Gandhiji himself was .opposed to the war with arms, and he has told this to the entire world again and again gave his but he/consent Pt. Nehru to send army in Kashmir. The only conclusion that could be drawn from what is happening in Kashmir is that, today after the attainth6nt of freedom for the partitioned India., that under Gandhiji’s blessings, our Government have resorted to the war where man-killing machinery is being used.

20.Had Gandhiji a firm belief in the doctrine of nbn violence, he should have made a suggestion for sending Satyagrahis instead of the armed ,troops and tried the experiment, Orders should have been issued to send “Takalis” in place of rifles and “Spinning-wheels” Charkhas) instead of the guns. It was a golden opportunity for: Gandhiji to show the power of his Satyagraha by following his precept as an experiment at the beginning of our freedom.

  1. But Gandhiji did nothing of the sort. He had begun a new war by his own will, at the very beginning of the existence of Free India. What does this inconsistency meant? Why did Gandhiji himself violently trample down the doctrine of non-violence he had championed? To my mind, the reason for his doing so is quite obvious; and it is that this war is being fought for Sheikh Abdullah. The administrative power of Kashmir was going in the hands of Muslims and for this reason and this reason did Gandhiji consent to the destructed of the raiders by Armed Forces.
  2. Gandhiji was reading-the dreadful news of Kashmir war, while at the same time fasting to death only because a few Muslims could not live safely in Delhi. But he was’ not bold enough to go on fast in front of the raiders of Kashmir, nor had he the courage to practice Satyagraha against them. All his fasts were to coerce Hindus.
  3. I thought it rather a very unfortunate thing that in the present 20th century such a hypocrite should have been regarded as the leader of the All Indian politics.
  4. The mind of this Mahatma was not affected by the attacks on the Hindus in Hyderabad State; and this Mahatma never asked the Nizam of Hyderabad to abandon his throne.
  5. If the Indian politics proceeded in this way under the guiding dominance of Gandhiji, even the preservation of freedom obtained today – even though in partitioned India – would be impossible. These thoughts arose in my mind again and again and it was full with them.
  6. As the above incidents were taking place, Gandhiji’s fast for the Hindu-Muslim Unity was announced on 13th January 1948, and then I lost nearly all my control on my feelings.
  7. For the last four years, I had been working as the Editor of a daily newspaper, and even before this period, I have spent most of my time in the service of the public. As such therefore I was in a habit of being in touch with all the Indian political developments.
  8. I was fully aware of the idea of the mutual relations among the three political bodies – The Muslim League, The Congress, and The Hindu Maha Sabha.
  9. The Muslim League had always dubbed the Congress as a Hindu organization, but the Congress leaders were ashamed of being called a Hindu body. The Congressmen felt abused when called “Communal”.
  10. Really speaking, if any institution were to look to the interests of a particular community without hindering the growth of national spirit, why should one use the word “Communal” in the sense of an abuse to that institution? It would be proper if an institution seeking the interests of any particular community by destroying the very essence of the national spirit were to be abused as being a selfish “communal-minded” body. But the Congress has no such discretion. The Congress has ‘styled both the Muslim League and the Hindu Mahn Sabha as “communal” bodies using the word “communal” as an expression of abuse.
  11. But the thing to be specially noted is that while the Congress has yielded to every demand of the Muslim League, it has not taken due notice of even the purely national policy of the Hindu Mahasabha and has carried on propaganda of distortion against Hindu Mahasabha and its leaders.
  12. When the Congress recognized the Muslim League as representing the Muslim community, viewed from logical point of view it would not have been out of place to recognize the Hindu Mahasabha as representing the Hindus, or, at least the Congress should openly have declared that it would look to the interests of the Hindus. But the Congress never did that. As a result of all this, 4inspite of the existence of a very powerful body such as the Muslim League looking after the interests of the Muslims, a few Muslims who were still the members of the Congress, also looked after the Muslim interest. Where there was none to look after the Hindu interest as such. But the Congress which derided the Hindu Mahasabha by calling it “communal” took part in the conference of leaders convened by H.E. Lord Wavell at Simla and accepted the principle of 50% representation to the Muslims. Not only that, but at the instance of Gandhiji the Congress leaders were prepared to be recognised as representatives of Caste Hindus. This position taken by the Congress was the most hideously communal one being entirely the outcome of the Muslim…appeasing policy adopted by it.
  13. Was the ideal of freedom and independence of India, torn by vivisection, before the Congress, after the foundation of which, our great national, intelligent and sacrificing leaders labored assidously by keeping before them the ideal of the freedom of the whole nation, sacrificed even their lives for their ideal of the achievement of complete democracy, and tried for the mutual coopera-tion’among the major and minor communities of this vast country and in the freedom fight of which the ‘parts of the Punjab, the Bengal, the Sind, and the N.W.F. Province which now form the Pakistan were in no way less prominent than any other part of India? So also, could those patriot’s with their ideal of the freedom of the whole of 3haratkhand, who were, though outside the Congress, in the forefront of the revolutionaries who. either gladly went to the gallows or passed their days out of their motherland as exiles, or were rotting in the dark cells of the Addamans, dream of freedom as envisaged in the freedom granted to the country by vivisection? Is it but proper that the reward for their incomparable sacrifices should in the establishment of a State founded upon blind and fanatic religious faith in one 1,art of the country?
  14. But the Congress under the leadership of Gandhiji commenced its surrender to the Muslims, right from the time the 14 demands of Mr. Jinnah were made till the establishment of the Pakistan. Is it not a deplorable sight for people to see the Congress celebrate the occasion of the establishment of a Dominion Government in the rest of country shattered and vivisected by the Pakistan in the East and the West and with the pricking thorn of Hyderabad in its midst. 35. On seeing this downfall of the Congress under the dominance of Gandhiji, I am reminded of the well-known verse of Raja Bhartrihari to the effect (The Ganges has fallen from the Heavens on the head of Shiva, thence on the Himalayas, thence on the earth, and thence in the sea. In this manner, down and down and down she went and reached a very low stage. Truly it is said that indiscriminate persons deteriorate to the low position in a hundred ways).