.
.
.
Jinnah's family were Brahmin Hindus from Gujarat who converted to Islam during British rule, and where this modest Brahmin family produced a successful London based barrister. Sounds like a British agent nurtured slowly into power. Ate bacon sandwiches, drank excessive alcohol, gave most of his speeches in English even when addressing illiterate Muslim crowds......never went to prison, and have yet to see a old scratchy black and white picture of him near a mosque. Parachutes back to India in the late 1930's after a long period in the UK, and given free rein to mobilize his constituency from 1940, whilst most of the Congress leadership and 40,000 patriotic Indians were rounded up.
As to Gandhi, Katju sahibs allegations aren't new......they have been made by others, some non-Indians. Gandhi also like Jinnah came from Gujarat was also a London based Barrister, where he possibly met his British Intelligence handlers, and then strangely he then subsequently went to South Africa of all places to build up his reputation and image for his future career in India.
Bengal was the powerhouse of political thought around Indian independence, and the British clearly wanted non-Bengali leaders to come forward, to the forefront of Indian independence. The British move from Kolkatta to Delhi at this critical time as the seat of the Imperial Throne can be seen in that light.
Curiously non-violent Gandhi who is against the British empire then volunteers to fight for the empire as a medical orderly, during WWI.
After the 1857 Liberation War, the British feared armed uprisings. To manage this existential threat they implemented a variety of policies, and one of them was the creation of the Congress Party through Annie Bassant; the placing of weak tepid Macauley Brown Sahibs within the leadership of the Congress Party....Nehru and Gandhi with his mantra of non-violence. Finally the careful propagation of Gandhi as the cosmically anointed 'Leader' of a free India. Full media exposure in India, and the West and his famous tour of Europe. Non of this would have, could have happened without British covert support.
And yes Gandhi had some bizarre ideas......akin to Pol Pot minus the death camps and year zero. Imagine all of India going back to the village, weaving and spinning yarn in pseudo-communes. This is exactly what the British wanted as they aggressively went about de-industrialising one of the biggest industrial hubs of the world from 1750, into dire poverty and deprivation (the definitive legacy of Raj India).
No true Indian patriotic leader would accept the partition of the country without a fight.
Did he seriously think that by merely chanting hare Ram, peace could be brought with either Pakistan or China?
For Clement Attlee the PM during Independence, his opinion is that Gandhi from the REAL British perspective played a minimal role in Indian Independence ultimately.
What were the FINAL critical factors for the British to leave India?
1. Bose...and the INA.
2. The presence in India of 2.5 million battle hardened Indians who volunteered and participated in WWII.
3. Most critically F D Roosevelt and his insistence of Independence for India in quite heated debates in the White House with Churchill. This forced the British to send senior British officials DURING THE WAR, to negotiate for India's Independence, and the release from jail of the Congress leaders for that purpose.
4. The unexpected victory of the Labour Party in national elections in 1945 in the UK.
5. The British Empires exhaustion from fighting a long war.
There is a strong possibility, not withstanding the massive propaganda from all angles that Gandhi was also a British Agent.
____________________________________________________
Justice Markandey Katju: Gandhi a British agent
.
By the Times of IndiaKnown for his penchant for stirring controversies, former chairman of Press Club of India, Justice Markandey Katju has called Mahatma Gandhi 'a British agent who did great harm to India'.
His blog, posted on his facebook page was shared by more than 1,300 people by the time this report was being filed.
This is what Justice Katju wrote in his blog titled - 'Gandhi—A British Agent'.
Blog-
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 things as 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 ?' on my blog justicekatju.blogspot.in ).
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.
(Blog taken from Justice Markandey Katju's facebook page)
