De-Mahatmizing Gandhi and the New India Order

Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi, born in October 2 1869, began his public life in 1894 when he founded the Indian Congress in South Africa. After spending twenty one years of his active life in South Africa, Gandhi returned to India in 1915 at the age of forty six. By the time he was killed in 1948, he had earned at least two titles: Mahatma and Father of the nation. In a century marked by violent decolonization struggles across the length and breadth of the globe, Gandhi preached Ahimsa, Nonviolence is the greatest force at the disposal of mankind. Gandhis activism ranged from romanticism to mass popularity. As a lawyer, the Mahatma was a mega flop! But his attire of loincloth, steel-rimmed glasses, rough sandals, a toothless smile with a voice that hardly rose above a whisper, mesmerized the poverty stricken illiterate masses in India. It costs a great deal of money to keep Gandhiji living in poverty, Sarojini Naidu would comment, while thousands of poor people would travel with Gandhi in the train. Stone replaced soap for Gandhis bath, letters were written on bits of paper, crude country razor shaved his head, and wooden spoon and prisoners bowl were at Gandhis disposal for a meal! Gandhi lived most of his life in with the poor, but died at Birlas mansion and not the Ashram that he built for the dispriveleged in Ahmedabad. History cannot deny Gandhis association with the masses in India. Thousands joined him for the historic 24 days-240-miles Salt March. His Ashram activities where he would train a scavenger to be proud of ones profession and humility; the Satyagrahas and fast unto death, were all extensive rounds of sacrifices. When Gandhi advised Rabindranath Tagore to use his spinning wheel for half an hour a day, the Bengali poet asked sarcastically, Why not eight and a half hours if it will help the country? But Tagore would still be the first to award the title of Mahatma to Gandhi. Since then, historians,

biographers and propaganda factories have flooded the world with enigmatic tales on Gandhism and Non-violence. At the same time, there has been absolutely no dearth of critiques on the Mahatma! Winston Churchill was blunt when he called Gandhi nauseating and half naked fakir. But Martin Luther King was fascinated by Gandhis theory of non-violence. If humanity is to progress, King proclaimed, Gandhi is inescapable. Yet in America, in 1992, a group of anti-Gandhians submitted a memorandum to twenty US senators to prevent the construction of a Gandhi memorial in Washington DC and the renaming of a street in Atlanta, Georgia after Gandhi. Bernard Shaw was at his usual philosophical best when he said I accept him (Gandhi) as mahatma, but I am the Mahatma No. 1 and your Gandhi is No. 2 and we are the two Mahatmas in the world! But Ambedkar would declare point blank, If a man with Gods name on his tongue and sword under his armpit deserved the appellation of a Mahatma, then Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi is a Mahatma. Narendra Modi, the chief architect of anti-Muslim genocide in Gujarat, recently invited Nelson Mandela as the chief guest to celebrate the 134th birth anniversary of the Mahatma on October 2, 2003 in Gujarat. Following protests from Muslims in India and South Africa, Mandela declined the offer of Indias Newton. But apparently there seems to be more reasons for Mandela to be reluctant. Did Mandela, all of a sudden, turn back pages of history? Gandhi started his public life in South Africa and spent 21 years of his prime activism there. Did Robert Paynes book, The life and death of Mahatma Gandhi , (which is an excellent source on Gandhis activities which earned him an armys title, Sergeant-major, while he was in South Africa), reach the notice of Mandela? Gandhi was thrown out of the train in South Africa. The Mahatma who would travel in ordinary compartments in India booked a seat in first class compartment along with the whites to avoid the mixing with the blacks in ordinary compartment. But Gandhi still appeared nonwhite enough for the whites to chuck him out! This was a new experience for a man of Bania Caste who never experienced such outrage discrimination in India. Ours is one continued struggle, Gandhi would declare on behalf of his bania (merchant) class Indians in South Africa, inflicted upon us by the Europeans, who desire to degrade us to the level of raw Kaffir [derogatory and racist term used to address the indigenous blacks], whose

occupation is hunting and whose sole ambition is to collect a certain number of cattle to buy a wife, and then pass his life in indolence and nakedness. Gandhi was a frequent Gunga Din, during the Kaffir Wars, and even volunteered to organize a brigade of Indians to defeat the Zulu uprising. Yet our mass media would proclaim that Gandhi fought against Apartheid! Does Mandela know that Gandhi even dared to protest to the town council of Johannesburg, in 1904, that the Kaffirs must be removed from the Indian neighbourhood? This mixing of the Kaffirs with the Indians is very unfair and an un-due tax on even the proverbial patience of my countrymen, Gandhi would complain with his racist rhetoric. How can Mandela forget the Anglo-Boer war of 1899, when Gandhi formed an ambulance unit in support of the British forces? Gandhi won a war medal for his heroic treachery on the Boers, and it was the medal that mattered the most for the Mahatma! Gandhi returned to India, and decided to intervene in history as the champion of nonviolence and emancipator of the Untouchables. Gandhi would appeal to the Hindus to stop practicing Untouchability, but would never condemn the inherent endorsement of sanctified racism within Hinduism. Perhaps, Gandhi thought that Untouchability was a social problem to be abolished! Is Untouchability a social problem? They say education is the root cause of untouchabilty. One can get rid of nomadic habits through education. An educated man is more likely to be cultured, sensible and give up illogical practices. Through education, you are more empowered, improving your table manners, the way you talk, behave and interact. But its absolute nonsense for Gandhi to think that untouchabilty can be eradicated through social awareness. If so, why did the Allahabad High Court Judge, with all his academic degrees, wash off the ritual pollution from his chamber with holy water from Ganga River before taking charge, just because his predecessor was a Dalit? Why was the Dalit Defense Minister, Jag Jivan Ram denied his last wish, to be cremated beside Indira Gandhi? Did Gandhi forget what he wrote in his autobiography that his mother had advised him that whenever an untouchable touched him; the best way to get rid of that ritual pollution was to touch a Musalman, so that the ritual pollution is transferred! Is it the Gandhian philosophy that has been applied when our Missile Man, Abul Kalam took over the

presidency from a Dalit, KR Narayanan, so that the ritual pollution is transferred from the Presidents office? Is it the same Philosophy that was applied when Vajpayee hugged Nawaz Sheriff, to transfer the bulk of ritual pollution that Vajpayee and BJP have been bearing in the process of appeasing the untouchables for electoral victories? These analyses may sound quixotic, but nobody finds fault with Gandhis inhuman and barbaric Philosophy. Gandhis interpretation of untouchability as a social problem, and his appeal to the Hindus to give up the practice of untouchabilty, would take new forms later. Independent India included an Untouchability Act abolishing the evil practice. But is untouchability a social problem that can be eradicated through a mere Act? Smoking, prostitution and alcoholism are typical social problems. You can enforce a ban on smoking to make life of passive smokers healthy. You can rehabilitate an alcohol addict and enforce ban on illegal drug trafficking and shut down bars. You can educate and offer better standards of living to a prostitute and enforce a law to restrict extra-marital extravagances. You can combat automobile pollution in New Delhi by installing CNG fuel stations. But how can you abolish a religiously endorsed crime like untouchability by a mere Constitutional Act? Ambedkar initiated one alternative. He framed the Constitution of India that included the Untouchability Act. But we forget what the same Ambedkar did in Mahad! He dared to burn the Manusmruti, the Brahmin sacred law book that endorsed untouchability, thus proving for generations to ponder and realize that there cannot exist two contradicting law books to tackle the same problem! And what did our Mahatma do? He said the scavenger should be proud of inheriting his noble profession by the virtue of his birth. In his Ashram, Gandhi was teaching lessons to the Bangis, on how to be humble and proud of being the son of a scavenger! Yes, we have a constitutional act since 1976 that prohibits manual scavenging, but it still took three decades to bring an act, and the evil practice is still rampant in the length and breadth of Independent India. In this age of technological advancement and modern flush tank toilets, we have in India, a caste called Bangi who are motivated to be proud manual scavengers. This is the legacy of Gandhism at its best! Gandhi would donate a new name for the untouchables- Harijan, which for Gandhi meant Children of God, but which for the Gujarati poet who coined the term meant

Bastards. For Gandhi Partition was a moral sin but not untouchabilty. Ambedkar ctriticed the Mahatma and asked what was so moral in the partition, when in many parts of the world, territorial partitions were rampant. Why did Gandhi find no fault with the annexation of Burma from the Indian Union? Gandhis moral consciousness is amazing! But he would still test his sexual control lying naked in the midst of young girls, and would still narrate his experience in his autobiography. But yet our honourable Gandhians find no fault with the Mahatmas moral integrity! Ambedkar in the 30s and till the end of his life would remained a staunch rival of Gandhi and even wrote a masterpiece, What Congress and Gandhi have done to the Untouchables. Ambedkar with his eloquent and uncompromising tone argued with Gandhi, You must destroy the sacredness and divinity with which caste has become invested. In the last analysis this means you must take the stand that Buddha took. You must take the stand that Guru Nanak took. You must have the courage to tell the Hindus that what is wrong with them is their religion- the religion which has produced in them this notion of sacredness of caste. Gandhis greatest contribution, undeniably, was to float the myths that India was a majority Hindu Nation and that Congress was the National Party. The British viceroy, Lord Linilithgrow with his profound dislike for Congress, considered it a movement of Hindu hooliganism. Gandhi tactically dismantled leaders like Subash Chandra Bose and Muhammad Ali Jinnah who attempted to change this Hinduness within Congress. Jinnah learnt the hard way to say, Congress is a Hindu body. Ambedkar would emphasize with more clarity, It is no use saying that the Congress is not a Hindu body. A body, which is Hindu in its composition, is bound to reflect the Hindu mind and support Hindu aspirations. The only difference between the Congress and the Hindu Maha Saba is that the latter is crude in its utterances and brutal in its actions, while the Congress is politic and polite. Arundati Roy with her remarkable eloquence and sharp commitment to Justice gave a modern interpretation in her masterpece essay, End of Imagination , The BJP is, in some senses, a spectre that Indira Gandhi and the Congress created. Or, if you want to be less harsh, a spectre that fed and reared itself in the political spaces and communal suspicion that the Congress nourished and cultivated. It has put a new complexion on the

politics of governance. While Mrs. Gandhi played hidden games with politicians and their parties, she reserved a shrill convent school rhetoric, replete with tired platitudes, to address the general public. The B.J.P., on the other hand, has chosen to light its fires directly on the streets, and in the homes and hearts of people. It is prepared to do by day what the Congress would do only by night.

Gandhis majority-Hindu slogan began to take deep roots, even after Independence (transfer of power from British Imperialism to Brahminic Hegemony, as Ambedkar defined). Nehrus post Independent India rushed to endorse by the stroke of a pen that Buddhists, Jains and Sikhs would also be called Hindus. Untouchables were always taken for a ride, in any case. Attenboroughs epic movie on Gandhi was flashed across the world. But Moraji Desais government would stubbornly disallow the foreign firm, Thames television to make a TV film on Untouchables, protecting Indias image abroad. How do we protect our image? Bollywood is one channel! In Johannesburg, London and New York we have Bollywood movies subtitled in English. Kuala Lumpur would add subtitles in Chinese and Malay. In Tehran we would even see dubbed Bollywood movies with Sharukh Khan speaking in Farsi and capturing the youth. BBC would declare Amitab Bachan as the actor of the century, owing to the overwhelming influence of bollywood among the subcontinent viewer ship. Hollywood would invite Aishwarya Rai to perform in a James Bond movie. Is Aishwarya too hot, or has the Hollywood marketing team conducted a perfect survey to tap the rampant globalization of Bollywood? Flashy cars, sexy babes and modern cities are flashed across the world, through Bollywoodized India. Not a bad idea to camouflage Indias horrifying scenes of poverty and underdevelopment! In India people of different centuries exist simultaneously, said Arundati Roy. Thanks to Gandhi for reverting the masses to stone age. In 1978, India observed the International Anti-Apartheid Year in flamboyant style. The then Foreign Minister, AB Vajpayee while addressing the UN General Assembly, denounced Apartheid in South Africa and racial discriminations in other parts of the world. But twenty three years later, in 2001, as the Prime Minister of India, the same Vajpayee denied visas to Dalit activists to present their case at the Durban conference.

The Marxist parties in India would not waste any opportunity to talk about Class Struggle, but would observe diplomatic silence whenever the issue of Caste Struggle is raised. The two dominant Communist governments on the face of the planet exist in India: one in West Bengal and the other alternating every five years in Indias most literate state, Kerala. Yet, the highest number of RSS Shakhas exists in West Bengal and Calcutta heads the same list for the cities! And, EK Nayanar would come out of retirement to deny the Chief Minister ship to Gauriyamma. Gail Omvedt, a dynamic American Social Scientist, and the citizen of India since 1982, after her research on the Marathwada massacre, concluded, Having denied the reality of caste except as an illusory part of the superstructure, it is no wonder that communists in India have never initiated and led a democratic movement aimed specifically at the abolition of caste discrimination. Similar hypocrisy exists in the feminist movements, percieving dowry, rape and illiteracy as Patriarchal obstacles and not as intrinsically linked with Brahminism itself. Take for instance, the Mathura rape case. While the NFIW looked at rape in class terms, the socialist women talked in terms of the glass vessel cracking and therefore in terms of honour. The AIWC would go one step further to provide psychological explanations of the autonomous womens groups highlighting the use of patriarchal power. What they all needed to identify was that Dalit women are not victims in just Marathwada, but everywhere else. They need to explain the Deavadasi syndrome that haunts the Upper caste Hindus. They need to dismantle the marriage practices in Brahminism and social evils like dowry, which is spreading rampantly among other communities too. A widow blazing herself after her husbands demise is endorsed, in the name of sati, by the Vedas. Is this influence patriarchal or Brahminical? Dalit women, the victim of class, caste and gender discrimination, should take their own initiative before their Gandhian compatriots hijack all feminist movements! Feminists movements in India need to re-conceptualize their agenda that calls for a critique of Brahminical hierarchies from a gender perspective. Advani proclaimed in 2001 that the whole India should identify itself with Ram. Didnt Gandhi float this slogan of Ram Rajya before Advani? Gandhi used his naked attires and spinning wheel to exploit the marginalized, poverty stricken and illiterate masses of India.

Saibaba, the magician, would impress even the elite and educated, with his sorcery! The Ganesha-Milk drama had to be exposed by the foreign media before our intellectuals, scientists and free media came to realize. Advani and BJP went beyond the spinning wheel and decided to use the technology. The launch of Television in India juxtaposed with the serialization of Ramayana and Mahabarath. Drinking water, food, electricity and shelter were scarce in the overwhelming majority of masses living in Indian villages. But Ramayana would still be serialized in villages. BJP definitely had their eyes on power at the center. Advanis Rath Yathra used a Muslim as its driver, and a Harijan laid the foundation stone of the Ram Temple on the debris of the 464-year old Muslim Mosque. Ram, a mythological figure in the Vedas, a feudal king who enforced Varna Dharma at the cost of a Sudra ascetic Shambuks life, would still fascinate the Sudras and Dalits, and they were in the forefront in the demolition of Babri Masjid and the devastating consequences that followed. Narasimha Raos secular Congress government would watch the Karsevaks in their brutalizing mission in broad daylight, but his governor in Indias integral state would issue orders to shoot unarmed protesters, and we have to wait for Asia Watch, Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch to expose Jagmohans brutal policies. Ram Temple, today, has become the National issue! Sikhs, Muslims, Christians, Buddhists, Jains, Dalits and Sudras (forming overwhelmingly over nine hundred million people in India) have noting to do with Ram, history and archaeology proving substantially that Ram is a mythological figure. But Ram Temple would still head the political manifestoes and bring electoral victories. Thanks to the role of Free Media in the worlds largest population! Within days after coming to power, and even before winning enough seats in the parliament to justify its political legitimacy, BJP declared India as a nuclear power. Arundati Roy responded point blank that the nuclear bomb is the most undemocratic option. She wold not cease to speak, and would add, The nuclear bomb and the demolition of the Barbi Masjid in Ayodhya are both part of the same political process. They are hideous byproducts for a nation's search for herself. Of India's efforts to forge a national identity. The poorer the nation, the larger the numbers of illiterate people and the

more morally bankrupt her leaders, the cruder and more dangerous the notion of what that identity is or should be. But we need Arundati, to highlight many more undemocratic policies of the BJP. Unfortunately we dont have many radical and gifted writer-activists like her. We need to say that the ban on cow slaughter is also undemocratic. For an overwhelming majority of Indian population beef is their staple food, both economically and appetite-wise. And for Dalits, Buddhists, Muslims, Christians, Jains, Sikhs and others, cow is not their holy God! And Brahmins were beefeaters as proven by their own Vedas. The average cost to sustain a cow in Europe is $2 per day, more than twice the average pay for labour class in India. There are more than two hundred million cows in India, inspite of the daily slaughter for massive food intake. Yet the schizophrenic Bal Thackrey would appeal to the nations all over the world to export their living Gods (cows) to India, so that India could save these holy cows from being slaughtered. But what do our economists say? The annual beef export alone fetches over $200 million to the Indian economy. Another $7 billion is accounted for leather exports and $13 billion for leather related products. And over 60% of the leather is extracted from living cows and the rest from dead cows. Let us ask Vajpayee to cut off this massive annual cow-income before he talks about cow slaughter ban! Anti-conversion Bill is another undemocratic move that we need to inform Arundati, so that she can write End of Imagination Part II. Meenakshipuram triggered the anticonversion bill in the 80s. In Maharashtra, a Marati play was titled Meenakhipuram, not to pay tribute to a mere event in Tamil Nadu, but to propel Conversion as the most feasible democratic option to emancipate the discriminated masses from the clutches of caste-system and to embrace an egalitarian society. Our constitution approves the freedom to choose, practice and propagate any faith. Ambedkar, the father of Indian constitution, set the trend of conversion, when he kept his vow not to die a Hindu by converting to Buddhism with tens of thousands of his followers. Kancha Ilaiah would even dare to write Why I am not a Hindu. Millions of Dalits and tribals accept Christianity and Islam. Brahmins would fold their hands and say Namaste (implying I greet you and I respect you

but dont touch me). Christians would shake hands and Muslims would even embrace the Untouchables and Unapproachables. No more two-galss dilemma! The sacrifices, commitment and services of Christian social activists and organizations in the ghettoes of India, to uplift the exacerbating living standards of the deprived masses, is unparalleled in modern Indian history. Yet the Sangh Parivar would justify the brutal killing of Graham Staines (with his two minor children) who sacrificed his whole life to serve the leprosy patients, and the widow of Staines would display her remarkable strength of love and compassion by forgiving the brutalizers and continue to serve the masses. But it would still take six years for the Judiciary to convict Dara Singh, and no TADA and POTA would apply to the terrorists with a Sangh Parivar garb. Christian Churches would be razed to the ground, and Vajpayee would respond with a call for national debate on conversion. Yet we find nobody calling for a national debate on forced assimilation of Dalits and Tribals into Hinduism. There is no law, no anti-assimilation bill in the country to stop VHP and Bajrang Dal. VHP would prefer to call the tribals Vanavasis and not Adivasis! Tribals in North-east India are busy with their insurgency struggle. Every Independence day celebrations witness violent insurgent protests in the North-Eastern states. Advani is even exploring the genuinity of cross-border infiltration across the Bangladesh border! Dalits and tribals are barred from entering Hindu temples, let alone being priests, yet the VHP would reconvert them to Hinduism. We dont even have an anti-reconversion bill. Thanks to Gandhi for introducing the assimilation policy! Chandrababu Naidu, the Chief Minister of Andra Pradesh, who is hailed for his role in propelling Hyderabad as an Information Technology hub, was close to being assassinated on October 1, 2003 when his bullet proof car was in air as the naxalite group The Peoples War, attempted to warn Naidu of his liberalization policies which lead to the suicide of hundreds of farmers in Andra Pradesh. Seventeen days later, on October 18, The Orissa government decided to upgrade the Chief Minister Naveen Patnaiks security from Z category to Z-plus in view of the heightened threat perception from the Naxalites. The Chief Minister was warned by The Peoples War, of facing a similar attack as his Andra Pradesh conterpart unless police attrocities were stopped against the general public. However Vajpayee government and the media would only talk about assassination

10

attmpts aginst the Kashmir Chief Minister, Mufti Muhammad Sayeed and the law and order unrest in Indias Integral State. Gandhi would rush to Kerala when the untouchables decided to denounce Hinduism on the temple entry issue. Atleast 21 fasts of Gandhi are recorded in history, but none to abolish untouchability and non to stop the creation of Pakistan. Gandhi and Congress could not afford to loose the chip of the Hindu block. Gandhi unleashed his romantic weapon, fast unto death, if the Guravayur temple was not open for Untouchables. Though the temples were temporarily open, they remained closed later, but neither did Gandhi continue his fast nor die. Other incident when Gandhi fasted for the untouchables was in the historic Round Table Conference in London, in 1932. In dramatic style, Gandhi became self-imposed leader of the untouchables and stubbornly sabotaged Ambedkars claims for a separate electorate for the untouchables. Our Mahatma unleashed the ultimate weapon, fast unto death and Ambedkar succumbed to the pressure tactics of Gandhi. Gandhi secretly negotiated with Jinnah, with a copy of the Quran in his hand, agreeing to a 14-point demand of Jinnah if he supported Gandhis stand on Untouchables and helped him to dismantle Ambedkars case. For Jinnah the electoral, political and economic rights of Muslims were more important issues. Ambedkar continued to be a lonely advocate of the political, economic and electoral rights of the Untouchables. And how much can one soul do in a lifetime? Both Jinnah and Ambedkar fell into the Gandhian trap. Both committed the same blunder, leaving the destiny of Dalits and Muslims in the hands of Gandhi and Congress. Jinnah led Muslims to a new nation (Pakistan), and Ambedkar took Dalits to a new religion (Buddhism). Both leaders lacked foresight to look in to the future of their respective communities. True, conversion was and is the most practical democratic option left for the Dalits, but how can we afford to leave the untouchables without the shepherd and in the hands of the wolves. India and Dalits today are in search of the Ambedkars to fight the Gandhis. December 6, 1992 was not a simple matter of vandalism. At its core, lies a Gandhian malaise, a brutal history of Hindu fanaticism which was ignited by Gandhis Ram Rajya rhetoric. Golwalkar would dare to nationalize RSS agenda, though he still had to borrow lessons from colonial models to call India Mother land and father Land of its

11

Majority Hindu population. Golwalkars successors would even ask Muslims to sing Vande Matara in schools to pass a patriotic acid test. Bankim Chandra Chatterjee's demonization of Muslims in 'Anant Matt' would still not trigger a debate in our secular media. They would only call it as yet another 'saffron propaganda'. Even during the devastating earth quake in Gujrat, Muslim victims had to recite Hey Ram to pass the patriotic acid test to please the Sangh Parivar relief workers! And it was Gandhi who laid the foundation for Swaraj. Ambedkar warned, If Hindu Raj becomes a fact, it will, no doubt, be the greatest calamity for this country. No matter what the Hindus say, Hinduism is a menace to liberty, equality and fraternity. On that account it is incompatible with democracy. Hindu Raj must be prevented at any cost. No wonder the Sangh Parivar decided to choose December 6, the death anniversary of Ambedkar to demolish Babri Masjid. A Muslim driver used for Rath Yathra, a Dalit laying the foundation stone for Ram Temple, were not mere coincidences and demonstration of National Unity. The Sangh Parivar mobilized the Dalits to destroy a Muslim Mosque on the death anniversary of their charismatic and ardent leader, Ambedkar. Arun Shouri would write a blasphemous book on Ambedkar, and in Uttar Pradesh, the BJP President, Vinay Katiyar would hail Ambedkar as anti-Muslim, during his 14 days-30 district Yathra! Our media would observe diplomatic silence and we still need to wait for Anand Teltumbdes book Ambedkar on Muslims. Democratic India needs more unbiased writers like Teltumbde to expose the hypocrisy of the Sangh Parivar and its blatant hindutva policies. Sangh Parivar terrorists would burn copies of Quran in the streets protesting the destruction of Buddhist statues in Afghanistan. True, Talibans ignorance of history is pathetic. But what happened to our enlightened historians and secular/democratic media? Buddhism was born in India, but killed and annihilated from India by the Brahmin forefathers of Sangh Parivar. To burn the copies of the Muslim holy book, why should the Sangh Parivar turn overnight sympathizers of Buddhism and our enlightened historians continue to remain dumb folded? Over two million Dalits and Tribals declared a mass conversion to Buddhism in Delhi and vowed to propel a chain reaction. For a change, Sangh Parivar fanatics tried to impress the Buddhists by condemning Afghanistan. Or were

12

they too embarrassed with the sight of Jashwant singh escorting Azhar Masood to Kandahar? Gandhi, in 1919, declared readiness to welcome Afghan invasion of India to free India from British imperialism? Where are the admirers of Gandhi who talk about cross border infiltration even in their dreams? Ask them to clarify Gandhis endorsement of Afghan-infiltration! Gandhi would go to any extend to Nationalize Congress. What the hell was Gandhi doing when he supported Khilafat Movement of Muslims in Kerala? For Muslims, their emotions were attached to the Khilafat in Turkey, but for Gandhi the popular and militant force of the Khilafat Movement would energize Congress. Is this Hindu-Muslim unity, patriotism, or mere Gandhian clandestine pranks? Is this the reason why the RSS man Godse killed the Mahatma? Or did the Brahmins loose all the patience seeing a Bania taking center stage of Indian politics? After all, they killed him making full use of his grand missions: legitimizing caste system as the soul of Hinduism and India, assimilating untouchables into Hinduism and dismantling a powerful Muslim population out of the Ram Raj. Imagine what would happen if Pakistan and Bangladesh with a combined population of over three hundred million Muslims were part of Indias majority Hindu population. Thanks to Gandhi for not declaring fast unto death to stop partition! Gandhi would stubbornly declare fast unto death, whenever electoral, political and economic rights were demanded for Untouchables (Dalits), though he had no objections when the same rights were granted to other minority communities. The London Round Table Conference and Guruvayur Temple Entry episodes were Gandhis relentless nonviolent dramas. But the Mandal Commission protests witnessed violent upper caste denial of political and economic rights to the deprived classes. Democracy, Secularism, Modernization and Industrialization failed to create the awareness, that, historical disprivileges need to be corrected through remedies like reservation policies. Or is awareness itself, in this age of ignorance, a crime? The Mandal Commission drama would create havoc in the media. But we still need delegates at Durban Conference and journalists of National Geographic to reveal the grievances and the exacerbating plight of over two hundred and fifty million Dalits living under conditions of Sanctified Apartheid and forced assimilation in the Worlds largest Democracy. The size of the Dalit

13

population, in terms of national figures, stands fourth in the world after China, India, and USA. Their contribution to labour and culture is enormously large. Perhaps, what is disproportionately lower relative to their population are their ownership of land and property, self-esteem, and their access to education, employment and overall empowerment. No rules of Abraham Maslows theory of hierarchy of needs would apply to Dalits. To label untouchability as a social problem is to trivialize a gravest crime. Untouchability has been for ages, an extremely sophisticated economic and political strategy for ensuring a perpetual pool of demoralized cheap labour. The bonded labour or forced labour or free labour, would not even be accounted in the GDP of the Indian economy. Inspite of the official abolition of bonded labour, there are more than two million bonded labourers in Gujarat alone. Narendra Modi, during his recent UK visit projected Gujarat as the gateway of Industrializing India. Did he also mean that Gujarat is the gateway of Gandhism too? Gandhi, with an Einstein flavour, would say, I believe in Varnashrama which is the law of life. The law of Varna is nothing but the law of conservation of energy. Why should my son not be a scavenger if I am one? Modi, for a change, adopted Newtons law, when he justified Gujrats state sponsored anti-Muslim pogrom as the opposite reaction of Godhra! For Modi, India is the emerging Indusrial Power, for his party men India is also an emerging Nuclear power. Arundati Roy quoted some statistics in her End of Imagination, We are a nation of nearly a billion people. In development terms we rank No. 138 out of the 175 countries listed in the UNDPs Human Development Index (even Ghana and Srilanka rank above us). More than 400 million of our people are illiterate and live in absolute poverty; more than 600 million lack even basic sanitation and more than 200 million have no safe drinking water. Are Vajpayee and Modi aware of these horrifying facts? Or are they determined to fool the masses, when they divert massive funds for defense budgets and to develop nuclear bombs? Arundati probably missed a vital point, Indias dismal show in Olympics, though she did mention about soccer, For India to demand the status of a Superpower is as ridiculous as

14

demanding to play in the World Cup finals simply because we have a ball. In Atlanta, in 1996, Leander Paes saved the face of the billion strong Nation, with a lone bronze medal. Paes would be the flag bearer in Sydney, and the Dalit weight lifter, Malleshwari would be the face-saver in the 2000 Olympics! Malleshwari would even think of mortgaging her medal to pay back her sponsors who supported her aspirations. The tales of discrimations in the caste-ridden selection policies would continue. Muhammed Ali threw his boxing medal in the river and Malleshwari had to pay back her debts before thinking of any other option. Srilankan sprinter Sushantika won a silver medal in the Olympics, inspite of the poor sports infrastructure in her country. But our sport analysts and ministers would blame the poor standards of the infrastructure, than accepting responsibility for their discriminative selection policies. Srilanka and Pakistan, both Indias poor neighbours, won the Cricket World Cup. Remember, Pakistan is a new nation that broke away from the Indian union, and they had to build every infrastructure from scratch! Indias 14-member cricket squad represents over one billion people. Ganguly and his teammates, all speak English. Hey, why talk about the English language and Gandhi, when we discuss cricket? At least nine hundred million people in India cannot speak or write English, which means the selected players belong to a very elite segment of the Nation. True, skills and not proficiency in the English Language, is criteria, in sports. But do we mean to say that villagers are not talented? Or do we need a Lagan team from the villages to challenge Ganguly and Co? Vishwanath Anand is a genius, and Sachin Tendulkar a jewel in Indias crown. But we need more gems to crown a massive population! Information Technology, or IT as they call, is booming in India. Indian software engineers are absorbed all over the world, not necessarily due to the low pay they demand, but their remarkable stamp of class. Hyderabad and Bangalore, the two IT hubs, with Satyam Computers and Whipro, could compete with some of the best in the world.Bill Gates wouldnt miss any oppurunity to invest in the booming IT industry in India. They say, the world today is a global village and information is at the tip of your finger. But in India we have atleast nine hundred and fifty million people who have not touched a keyboard! These are the horrifying realities that confront India. This is exactly what Gandhi did with his deprived followers. Didnt Gandhi oppose Industrization and modernization? But he never asked the Birlas to give up Industrialization. Infact he lived with them and died in

15

Birlas Mansion. True, Gandhi formed the Harijan Sevak Sangh and the Birlas funded him. But the HSS was funded, run and controlled by Gandhi and his upper caste sponsors, denying any kind of role for the untouchables to empower themselves, but to be beggars forever. Thank God at least Ambedkar dared to say, Beware of Gandhi, he is the No. 1 enemy of the untouchables. Discussing about corruption is cumbersome. Gujral, introduced some weird anticorruption policies, but his government and policies were dumped in history books. Perhaps, to survive, he had to adopt Ganhian policies and realize that it is the pervasive importance of caste more than anything else that characterizes Indian poitics. When we talk of corruption, a few names come to mind. Harshad Mehta? Havent heard of him since he vanished from the headlines of our responsible media. Tehelka exposed Bangaru Laxman, the first and probably last BJP Dalit President of India, on bribery charges. Indias Defense minister, George Fernandez who found a strange relation between nuclear bomb and potency, still remains in office. Now we hear about Mayawathi being involved in corruption. Why of all the corrupt politicians, only talk about Mayawathi and BSP? Laloo Prasad Yadav would be jailed for his fodder scam. But he is too popular that his wife Rabri Devi would immediately assume charge of Bihars government. There was a huge cry in the media, about a house wife with no previous exposure in politics being sworn in as Chief Minister. What political exposure did Rajiv Gandhi have to be sworn in as the Prime Minister of India? True, he was a Brahmin and the grandson of the first Prime Minister of India. If his mothers tragic assassination can fetch sentimental votes, to elect Rajiv as the Prime Minister, why not give the poor and illiterate masses of Bihar a chance to elect a housewife? Are we objective or subjective in our analysis, or biased? If the politics in Bihar is a family affair, what about Nehru and his family ruling the country for four decades? We tried our best to project Priyanka Gandhi, but she was cautious. Perhaps the trauma is still haunting her? What trauma? An LTTE suicide bomber blasted her father for interfering in Sri Lankan Politics. And her grand mother became the first Prime Minister in the world to be killed by a bodyguard. After all how can Sikhs forgive Indira Gandhis brutal Blue Star Operation when her army stormed into the Golden Temple to massacre the Sikhs? Indira would declare emergency and would even interfere in Pakistan and create a Bangladesh, but would insist that Pakistan should not

16

interfere in Kashmir. 'Shimla Pact' and the LOC would appear in a flash, but the UN approved plebisite and 'Stand still agreement' would be dumped in the dust bins of history. Indira's Italian daughter-in-law would still be good enough for Congress, which as a National Party, looks to be doomed in Nehru familys nostalgia. Familial nostalgia would spread in the political scene and Bollywood. The contribution of the Kapoor family in Bollywood motivates many other families. Do we need a Hindu India or a Progressive India? India is still beautiful with its wonderful landscapes, and loving people. We have enormous resources, to move forward. But we have to take a pledge. We need to correct the wrongs in history. We have to intervene in history, not the Muralai Manohar Style, by rewriting history and textbooks! We need to accept our mistakes. We need to free ourselves from Gandhi, Ram Raj, and the blatant lies of the Sangh Parivar. Dalits, Muslims, Christians, Sikhs, Buddhists, Jains and others should join hands and respect each others religious and social aspirations. Brahmins can also join this union, but they must pass an acid test. They must denounce the authenticity of Caste System as the foundation of the New India Order (NIO). No more caste based discrimination, in the NIO. BJP is desperate to implement Uniform Civil Code, the main agenda being polygamy, though statistics have unequivocally proved that the Hindu society is more polygamous. The leaders of NIO would sit together and brainstorm about a new UCC. The first item would definitely be to eradicate caste based discrimination. Let us see what Vajpayee and Ashok Singhal have to say about the idea of either abolishing manual scavenging or asking the Brahmins to do it themselves if they still persist in their Gandhian way (to be proud of manual scavenging) and if they still persist to deny modern flush tank toilets. NIO would ask activists like Arundati Roy to form an IBA (India Bachao Andolan), of which NBA (Narmada Bachao Andolan) and DBA (Dalit Bachao Andolan) would be intrinsically explored. Can we dream of a better Olympic Tally in 2004? Can we divert our massive defense budgets towards drinking water, sanitation and poverty alleviation? If France and England, and other countries in Europe can live peacefully without nuclear borders, why not India and Pakistan? We need to make history, or else our future generation would choose a violent transformation. Franz Fanon, in his Wretched of the

17

Earth, said, Decolonization is a violent phenomenon. Thanks to Gandhi, for decolonizing India with a non-violent process. Michael H Heart in his The 100: A ranking of the most influential persons in History, included three Indians in his top 100: Buddha, Asoka and Mahavira. And he also mentioned why he missed Gandhi. Hart believed that considering the decolonization trends around the world, the British were prepared to leave in any case, but would have left much earlier if Gandhi had Congress had adopted a violent struggle. But for Gandhi Ram Rajya was an inevitable pre-occupation. There was a huge cry among Gandhians when Ariel Sharon paid homage to Gandhi. Let us tell those Gandhians that Ariel Sharon is a terrorist, but he unleashes his tanks and bulldozers to massacre and dispossess the Palestinians, with an open policy, with an open brutality. But Gandhis policies, disguised in the garbs of caste system, have an everlasting brutal influence. Let us flood the NIO with love, peace and development. True, NIO sounds too idealistic. But it is also true, that we can fool some people all the time, and all the people for some time, but not all people forever. Let us hope that NIOs struggle would be peaceful. NIO would not even allow charge sheeted criminals to abuse its agenda, let alone assuming leadership. NIO would envisage a world devoid of Ariel Sharons, George Bushs, Vajpayees and Musharrafs. The New India Order would aspire for an egalatarian society resisting any form of marginalization. De-Brahminization and De-Mahatmization are the two giant tasks that confront New India Order in the 21st Century.

18