Past comes alive with Netaji files: His ashes were immersed as Gandhiji’s despite warning!

Subhas Chandra Pattanayak

Declassification of any numbers of Netaji files will not help us condemn the wrongful immersion of his ashes as Gandhiji’s by Tusar Gandhi, when a Bengali manager of the State Bank of India at Cuttack tampered with the Urn and created a climate of confusion that made the judiciary issue such a direction in 1996.

Whosoever knew Netaji intimately, had known three things:
(1) He had taken birth in Cuttack of Orissa;
(2) Cuttack, the City of the Barabati Forte, had injected valor into his veins, as he had spent his first sixteen years, acquiring a character that was never to change;
(3) Despite modern outlook, he was a Hindu where body after death is consigned to fire and the ashes collected after funeral returns to the birthplace for immersion.

Therefore, after his cremation, a portion of his funeral ashes was preserved in the Rankoji temple in Japan and another portion was delivered to Chief Minister of Orissa, his birthplace, in hope of its respectful disposal.

The great Gandhian Nabakrushna Chowdhury was then the Chief Minister. The urn containing Netaji’s ashes was given to him in November, 1950. It was highly sensitive a matter. People in general were considering the central leadership responsible for the debacle Netaji was subjected to and were deeply disturbed over the news of his death. Neither Netaji’s family nor Government of India had confirmed his death. To tell the people that his ashes had arrived was to invite a totally uncontrollable disturbance. Hence Sri Chowdhury thought it prudent to keep the urn containing Netaji’s ashes temporarily in the safe custody of the Imperial Bank of India, which eventually became the State Bank of India. And, he had handed over the urn, as circumstantial evidences convince us, personally to the manager of the Bank on 20 November 1950, where, it was safely kept till the Bengali manager of SBI, Treasury Branch, Cuttack tampered with the records and created the misguiding commotion in 1996 through another Bengali photojournalist. It was not that the Bank manager had not known the Cuttack based regular journalists; but he relied upon a Bengali photojournalist to spread the news that Gandhiji’s ashes were left abandoned in an urn in the locker of the SBI.

I had interviewed the said manager and his faltering answers had convinced me that he was telling deliberate lies.

I had discussed the issue and warned that the ashes should not be disposed off as that of Gandhiji till it was decided that the same did not belong to Netaji.

I had given enough reasons in support of my argument that the ashes, if at all the urn contained that, were of Netaji, and could never be of Gandhiji. I had insisted that the same be determined forensically before any further steps were taken.

Published in the most advanced daily of the State ‘Sambad’ on 18 April 1996, it had reached massive numbers of readers in the general public and who’s who in political, executive and judicial administration. Neither the people nor the State in its above three branches bothered. I was not a litigant to prefer any case in the Court. And, the blunt-heads whom Netaji cannot be accepted to have died, enjoyed the ugliest turn the urn had to take, as Sri Tusar Gandhi was handed over the urn for immersion wherever he deemed proper.

When a Cuttack-based publisher ‘Bharata Bharati’ produced a 740 page mega-compilation of my column ‘Singhavalokana’ in 2010, this discussion captioned GANDHARBA PRAYANA, CHITABHASMA: GANDHIJI O NETAJI occupied the first position in the said book. Most of the men who matter have obtained the book and the topic has a calling position before their eyes. Nobody has countered my argument; but none of them has dared to approach the truth. It is unfathomable for me to know, as a people, what have we become.

In the circumstances, I deem it proper to post the published article here for my visitors who belong to Orissa and speak, read and understand Oriya, specifically as it was written 19 years ago. Those who were in High Schools then, must have become 35 years or so old by now. Let them visit/revisit what I believe to be the truth in order to accept or reject it in quest for truth.

010203

04050607080910

Communists’ Contribution to India’s Independence: A few words

Subhas Chandra Pattanayak

In the history of India’s freedom movement, the 1942 ‘Quit India’ call of Gandhiji is to stay forever a turning point that ended the role of Gandhian non-violence in the struggle for independence.

Even if not deliberate, it was an act of failure on the part of Gandhiji and his blind yes-men in the Congress Party to read the motive behind ‘Operation Orient’ that had metamorphosed into the machination of fascist design aimed at engulfing India before it become a free nation.

“What was the grand fascist plan in 1942 which they called Operation Orient?” Pursuing this question, Dilip Bose in his well documented disquisition captioned ‘1942 August Struggle and The Communist Party of India’ has informed.

“Japan had occupied Rangoon by 8 March 1942 and was waiting for the other prong of the fascist wing to advance through Stalingrad to India via Persia and Afghanistan. Today we know in detail that this “Operation Orient” failed because the heroic Red Army fought almost a superhuman battle to block the German Nazi Army at Stalingrad. The fiercest battle took place at Stalingrad between November 1942 to the 1st week of February 1943 when Field Marshal Von Paulus of Germany surrendered to the Red Army. Therefore, August 1942 was taking place exactly when Stalingrad battle was taking place in full fury.”

Thus, it was essential for the people of India to rise up as a nation against fascism and it was essential for the Congress to lead the nation in this regard, as “the progressive forces of the world are now aligned with the groups represented by Russia, Britain, America and China” to quote the resolution of the Congress Working Committee held in December 1941 at Bardoli.

But the rash call of Gandhiji to the British to quit India, with the most unscientific support of Congress top brass to the said call not only deserted the collective wisdom expressed in Bardoli, but also denied the Indians to be one with the forces fighting “the grand fascist plan”.

While supporting the preamble of the Quit India resolution that aimed to “defend India and resist aggression with all the armed as well as the non-violent forces at its command, together with Allied Powers”, the Communists opposed the operative part of the resolution concerning the “struggle” aspect, because, the envisaged ‘struggle’ in the prevailing context could mean a struggle against the allies against fascism.

Britain being one of the allies, the Quit India call at that juncture was to provoke the British to repress the Indian leadership for staying unperturbedly addressed to the war. In Communist perception, that was to render the necessary leadership unavailable to Indians in the peoples’ war against fascism.

In fact, in an open letter dated 26 July 1942 addressed to the Congress leadership, it had raised the question: Is it not plain enough that to start your ‘struggle’ is just to play the game of the imperialists and the bureaucrats? What will happen if and when you start the struggle?

“They will quietly put you and thousands of active Congress workers inside jails and sanctimoniously declare that it is their unfortunate duty to be able to save India from the fascist invaders.

“They would have divorced you from contact with the people who need you and every patriot in their own midst more than ever before. It is your historic responsibility to organize our people for national resistance. And here you will leave them leaderless and at the mercy of the mad bureaucrats”, the letter had warned.

This exactly had happened.

There was “wholesale arrests of the Congress leaders” by the end of the night of August 9, 1942, which Gandhiji had to indicate in his letter to Viceroy Linlithgow, dated 23 September 1942.

In this situation of sudden absence of leadership, with passion for freedom having already been ignited, the people of India suffered the worst of repression and torture in the hands of the British imperialists and bureaucrats.

Within four months from August 9, according to statement of the Home Member in the Central Assembly, 60,229 persons were arrested, 18,000 detained under Defence of India Regulation, 1630 were injured in firing by the police and military that had also killed 940 Indians in encounters.

In admitting the loss occurred by not heeding to the Communists’ advice, though advancing a face-saving statement, the Congress in its 1945 bulletin captioned ‘The Struggle and After’, had to say, “The earnest appeal made by the AICC at its last meeting held on August 8, 1942 for creating conditions necessary for full cooperation with the United Nations in the cause of world freedom was ignored and the suggested attempts to solve the Indian problem by negotiations were answered by the government by an all-out attack on the Indian people and by subjecting an unarmed India to many of the horrors which accompany an invasion.”

However, the history stands witness to how in absence of Congress leadership it is the Communists that had led the post August 9 ‘revolution’ for freedom that overwhelmed the brutal repressions unleashed by the British with the supreme sacrifices, a tiny sample of which has been quoted supra from the statement of the Home Member in the Central Assembly, forcing the imperialists to seriously think of leaving India.

What was at best a ‘struggle’ in the plan of the Congress, was transformed into an indomitable ‘revolution’ by the Communists and, in fact, August 9 is not known as ‘August Struggle’, but is known as ‘August Revolution’.

And, this most heroic phase of India’s revolution for freedom was not based on Gandhian non-violence.

Be it Baishnav Pattanayak’s armed attack on citadel of Shankar Pratap – the tyrant royal ally of the British – at Parjang in Dhenkanal or RIN revolt at Bombey, every instance that really expedited independence after the expected incarceration of the Mahatma and all his men in the Congress following the August resolution, was radically violent, sharpened by the concept and support generated and given by the Communists.

If erudition inspires one for progress, it may be gainful to peruse the pages of history of India’s freedom movement post August 9, 1942 to know how sharp and specific was the Communists’ strategy to expeditiously expel the British from our soil.

In fact, the last phase of Indian freedom movement that had expedited our independence, was led by the Communists, not by the non-Communists.

Reflecting this reality, after the British had to quit India, the Manchester Guardian had noted in an editorial on 11 October 1947, “It may be hard to disentangle whether the British action was based on high principle or on a less glorious desire to retreat to shelter before the storm broke”.

British Labor Minister A. V. Alexander had written on July 18, 1946: “I am certain, we should have faced a position of uprising and of bloodshed and disturbances in India and with a future military commitment that no one could at present overcast”.

This was official admission of the British that the aggressive phase of Indian freedom movement that had forced the British to quit was not the non-violent movement led by Gandhiji, but the brave war of patriotism the Communists had ignited and guided and waged against imperialism.

When Viceroy Lord Linlithgo had written on August 16, 1942 that the Communist Party of India was “practically lining up with the Congress”, the Government’s report on the 1st Party Congress of CPI, (Bombay 1943) had noted that the Communist Party was “solely interested in the speedy and violent overthrow of British rule in India”, as it’s paramount aim was “liberation from imperialist enslavement”.

Madhu babu, in whom Gandhiji had his friend, philosopher and guide

Subhas Chandra Pattanayak

Export of raw materials would help profiteers to exploit the country; but industrial use of the country’s working hands would make the motherland prosperous. So, instead of exporting raw materials, attempts should be made for their industrial utilization inside the country.

This was the essence of politico-economic realization of Madhu babu, the most revered Madhusudan Das of Orissa, whom Gandhiji was looking at as his source of inspiration in formulating his practical economic programs for the masses.

“Over 98 per cent of the population works on land. Land does not grow in area. Hands grow in number with the growth of population”. So, extra-agricultural engagement was needed for people to earn their livelihood and proceed to prosperity, Madhu babu had observed in a speech to Bihar Young Men’s Institute in 1924.

Gandhiji was deeply influenced by this speech. Two years later, on 9-9-1926, he wrote in Young India, “I have kept that speech by me so as to be able to deal with the essential part of it on a suitable occasion”.

In total agreement with Madhu babu’s remarks Gandhiji noted, “the value of his remarks is derived from the fact that, though a lawyer of distinction, he has not only not despised labor with the hands, but actually learned handicrafts at a late period in life, not merely as a hobby, but for the sake of teaching young men dignity of labor and showing that without their turning their attention to the industries of the country the outlook of India is poor. Sjt Das has himself been instrumental in establishing a tannery in Cuttack which has been a centre of training for many a young man who was before a mere unskilled laborer”.

Gandhiji was so much influenced by Madhu babu’s emphasis on utilization of the raw materials in engaging indigenous industries that on 19-6-1927, he wrote in Navajivan that, “raw materials worth crores of rupees are produced in this country and, thanks to our ignorance, lethargy and lack of invention, exported to foreign countries; as Sri Madhusudan Das has pointed out, that we remain ignorant like animals, our hands do not get the training which they ought to and our intellects do not develop as they should. As a consequence, living art has disappeared from our land and we are content to imitate the west”.

India being a land of the farmers and the farming community being cattle dependent, there was enough availability of cattle hides which were being exported to foreign countries, when by industrial use thereof toiling masses were to fetch handsome earning. This is why, Madhu babu, as a demonstrative venture, had established the tannery at Cuttack.

Inspired by him, Gandhiji had established a tannery at Sabarmati Ashram.

I am going to give the copy of Gandhiji’s letter to Madhu babu in this matter, which would show to what extraordinary extent, Gandhiji was influenced by Madhu babu in formulating his practical political economy meant for the masses.

Sent from Sabarmati Ashram to Sjt. Madhusudan Das, Mission Road, Cuttack on March 16, 1928, the letter was thus:

Dear Friend,
After a great deal of thought and bother I have established at the Ashram a little bit of tannery without any power-driven machinery and without skilled assistance saved that of a man who has received a rough-and tumble experience of tanning in America and who is a crank like myself. Though I did not succeed in sharing your troubles and taking the load off your shoulders in connection with your own great national enterprise, your inspiration is partly responsible for the establishment of this little tannery at the Ashram. Can you please help me with a list of literature on the subject, a handbook on tanning and the like? If you think that there is nothing like this in English, will you out of your own wide and varied experience write out something that may be of use for propaganda, just a few hints? What is happening at the tannery? Who is in charge? I may add that my idea is to make the Ashram tannery a model for villages so that the villagers may be able to treat their own dead cattle and make use of the hide themselves. I have asked many people without success as to how I can skin dead cattle. Everybody knowing anything of tanning has something to say about hides after they are received from the village tanner; but nobody has yet told me if I take charge of a dead animal I can skin the carcass economically and hygienically and make use of other contents such as bones, intestine, etc., for purpose of manure.
Yours sincerely,
(M.K.Gandhi)
March 16, 1928

Don’t Make Gandhiji A Satan

Subhas Chandra Pattanayak

When it is said, to err is human, it also is said, Satan never errs. Gandhiji was a human being and it can never be said that he never erred. To say that he was a man who never had erred and to officially ban any discussion on where he erred is nothing but misuse of administrative power to reduce him to a Satan in general esteem. It is reported that Government of India is working on bringing out such a ban by law. They should desist from it as otherwise Gandhiji would be imposed on public mind as an icon beyond scrutiny whereas it is only scrutiny that constitute the base on which depends transformation of any object to an icon. And, therefore, any ban on scrutiny on Gandiji would severely tamper with his current position as the most revered icon of the nation of India. The ban would make the man, whom the world even now recognizes as the greatest man, no more clearly discernible and push him into the impregnable domain of darkness where the Satan stays. Let Government of India not do this to Gandhiji.

We as normal human beings know many errors that Gandhiji had knowingly committed. The Illustrated Weekly episodes discussing his objectionable sex experimentations were never banned and were available to all who wanted to peruse. That never reduced any Indian’s or reader’s reverence for him. Rather everybody believed what Sucheta Kripalani had explained in that matter instead of putting any premium on what was intended by the exposer of the said wrong side of Gandhiji.

The way he eased out Netaji Subhas Chandra after the latter regained Congress mandate to continue as its President defeating Gandhiji’s own candidate Pattabhi Sitaramayya – in whose defeat the Mahatma had famously conceded his own defeat – is seen and will be seen for ever as an instance of political mischief, machination and revengefulness that eventually has derailed India from the core aim of independence. Yet, we Indians revere Gandhiji; because to us, he was a politician with a mission and to him for succeeding in his mission that step against Netaji was then circumstantially unavoidable for him. By imposing a ban on any review of Gandhiji’s political activities will tantamount to blurring of history and would cause more damage to the image of Gandhiji that open discussion on him may ever do.

Bibudharanjan of Orissa has been physically tortured by the Government for his speaking book on Gandhiji that he has captioned Michha Mahatma. The book has been banned. I have read the book before it was banned. He has cited sources in support of his comments on Gandhiji. Even as we never support many of the epithets he has preferred for Gandhiji and never approve all his interpretations, that he has attempted to see how Gandhiji was as a man and has placed on records what he has found cannot be denied. Many scholars of Orissa known as Gandhian scholars have seen the book and the Government of Orissa has studied the book in details before enforcing the ban. The ban has been enforced, but no data depicted therein has been countered. Should it not have been proper for the Government or any Gandhian scholar to have countered the points the author has raised and discussed, instead of banning the book, so that misgivings, if any, could have evaporated and wrong purpose of Bibudharanjan, if any in authoring the book, been foiled and / or defeated?

We know that Gandhiji had succumbed to hatred-killing, as a fanatic had shut at him even in an environment of prayer. But even that fanatic, before shooting at him, was seen bowing down with reverence to the grand man. So, why despite reverence Nathuram Godsey killed Gandhiji is a matter that researchers must look into and bring out the buried streams of our freedom struggle. Any ban on criticism on Gandhiji will therefore be detrimental to truth. The Mahatma had put so much sanctity on truth that he had called his life an experiment with truth. Let the Government understand this aspect. Let the epitome of love for truth not be relegated into the sphere of suppression of truth that the proposed ban on investigation on him is bound to lead to.

Nathuram had killed his body, but the proposed ban would kill his spirit. Let the Government not resort to it.

Let us not hide the Mahatma. Let us allow anybody to see any aspect of Gandhiji he or she wants to see; because thereby it could only be seen that any person despite inherent human weaknesses can rise above the same and become a Mahatma.

We are proud of Gandhiji; because despite his humanly weaknesses, he has become the greatest achiever of his noble objects of freeing human beings of political slavery. Let us not be banned from displaying this unique aspect of Gandhiji and from inspiring every human being that he or she can rise above inherent weaknesses to become someone that the entire world may respect.

Let not the Government blur Gandhiji behind any ban as it proposes. Let every design to degrade Gandhiji to a state of Satan be protested against and foiled.

Agents of Imperialism in India Continue Killing Gandhiji


Subhas Chandra Pattanayak

Imperialism is international. But nations also get engulfed by indigenous imperialism when political economy of communism doesn’t become or remain the creed of a Country.

India is an instance.

Imperialism’s only obstacle is communism.

Gandhiji did not support communism. But his ideology, prioritizing autonomous social forces and village self-rule, was uniquely opposed to imperialism. In fact he is the man who extinguished British Imperialism by igniting in India a movement to boycott foreign goods. Once their market was lost and profit fetching stopped in India, the British found it meaningless to continue in this country and hence they had to quit.

When a greater exploiter quits, the lesser exploiters try to take advantage. In the jungles, when a lion leaves, hyenas try to take over the carcass. Exploiters, though look like humans, are no better than the animals in manners, intention and instinct. So, when British profit-fetchers left, indigenous profiteers found India advantageous to their avarice.

But to them Gandhiji for his preference for autonomous social forces and an administration addressed to the poorest of the poor was the greatest obstacle.

If Gandhi was to guide the Constitution making of free India, the propertied class and profit mongers could never have got it easy to remove the obstacle that Gandhi’s priority on the poorest should have posed.

The First Two Crimes in Free India

The agents of imperialism in free India, in their first step, committed two crimes: (a) they killed Gandhiji by using Nathuram Godse and (b) they used the interim government led by Nehru to ban the Communist Party of India.

This helped them have a Constituent Assembly sans representation of the poor and working class.

So the Constituent Assembly became basically an Assembly of the propertied Class and the profit mongers. They framed a Constitution to suit their nefarious design and pushed the dreams of Indians who embraced every sort of suffering for the motherland during freedom movement to the labyrinth of unenforceable directive principles of state policy.

This reality is recorded in the Constituent Assembly Debates. Even as President Rajendra Prasad guardedly confessed in his concluding speech that the Assembly could not translate the dreams of the people into the pages of the Constitution because of overwhelming presence of the propertied class in the House, Dr. Ambedkar pinpointed the contradiction that the Republic of India would by birth carry, because of economic inequality made legal in the Constitution under pressure from the propertied classes, which were in majority in the Assembly. Admitting the Constitution making was menacingly influenced by the propertied class in absence of peoples’ real representatives, Dr. Ambedkar had warned that if the first Parliament to be elected on universal franchise provided for in the Constitution, doesn’t remove the contradiction and make India lawfully a land of economic equals, the advantaged people would so much exploit the poor that the victims of the inequality would eventually wake up to obliterate the system of administration, which this Constitution so laboriously has provide for.

But Nehru government did not help Parliament develop into a real House of people’s representatives.

It became the first to kill Gandhiji’s spirit after he was physically killed by Godse.

Gandhiji’s Spirit Killed

Gandhiji had stressed on disbanding of Indian National Congress after the independence as otherwise that platform of the freedom fighters of all hue would be misused for electoral purpose by the political group in advantage of taking over power from the British. Nehru and his band killed Gandhiji’s advice and retained the Indian national Congress as their own political party and willfully misled the people of India when elections were held.

When Ambedkar’s forecast is coming true, the government is using the country’s defense forces against the very people that are trying to save the country from the system of inequality! This is happening because agents of imperialism have usurped political power.

To push India into indigenous imperialism, its right winger politicians had killed Gandhiji; but to consolidate imperialism on its soil, they are busy in killing his ideology.

They have their guide in Hitler who had built up his empire on the strength of treachery. And to succeed in treachery against peoples he invented the technique of repeatedly telling a lie so that the same would look like the truth.

Hitlerian Tricks

Gandhian concept, as observed supra, being the greatest obstacles to their design, Hitler’s followers in India have for many years been trading blatant lies against Gandhiji and have been projecting him in the negative way so that their hero Nathuram Godse gains ground posthumously and they themselves gain strength to strip our country of all the assets she still has under social ownership.

Nathuram had assassinated Mahatma Gandhi, but the Nathuramists, in soft form in the Congress and strong form in BJP, unable to obliterate Gandhian concepts, have continuously been assassinating his character in order to influence gullible Indians to stay away from following the Father of this nation.

The Congress grip over the Country having declined as a result of rampant corruption pioneered by persons like Biju Patnaik when he was in that party, the non-Congress Nathuramists got glimpses of possibility of occupying power through parliamentary activism. The general election of 1967 gave them the opportunity they were so frantically waiting for.

In that changed political climate, K.L.Gauba got it convenient to compile court papers in a book captioned ‘Assassination of Mahatma Gandhi’ that reached the public in 1969.

Gathering the hitherto unavailable court documents, the Nathuramists who belonged basically to Savarkar cult, which is the fountainhead of politics of hatred, started writing articles and books in regional languages projecting Nathuram as the patriot who had no other way than killing Gandhi to save the motherland from pro-Muslim anarchy. Despite this, they were rejected as cohorts of the killer of Gandhiji.

They changed their name many a times to hoodwink the people to believe that they were no more in Savarkar School. They killed their parent party to join Janata combine, free India’s first rudderless political farce that soon collapsed due to internecine quarrels amongst constituents to share the booty.

As the Janata jazz wagon crushed to death, they revived their own party, but could not dare to use the old name, lest their link with Savarkar eclipse.

In their new Avatar, they rather wanted people to accept them as followers of Gandhiji!

Gandhi’s Ram Became the Mask of Ravan

Gandhi was a staunch supporter of Ram. He even breathed his last with the name of Ram in his lips while succumbing to bullets of Nathuram. Gandhi has not told as to why he was so devout to Ram. Had he told, he might have pointed at two of Ram’s distinctions: one, his commitment to pledges he ever made (like standing with Sugriv and Bibhisana) and two, his respect for whosoever was not harming the society (like the tribal chief Gaha of Srungabera or the tribal lady of Pampa). Taking Gandhiji’s way of life into account, one would agree that he was highly influenced by these two specific aspects of Ram’s character and therefore had remained a follower of Ram. But, though in no way respectful to these two distinguished characters of Ram, the rightwing anarchists have adopted him as their new mask and in the name of Ram, Advani’s car traversed the whole country. In the name of Ram they heated up Ayodhya. In the name of Ram they desecrated Babri musjid. In the name of Ram they instigated the Hindus against fellow Indians. In the name of Ram they begged for votes. Gullible voters were tricked, no doubt, to accept them as Rambhaktas. But despite that they failed to get majority support. Because, to majority of Indians, they belong to the class of killers of the greatest Rambhakta, the history witnessed, the Mahatma, i.e. Gandhiji.

Bhagat Singh is Used to Denigrate Gandhiji

While thus devoid of majority support, they succeeded in cultivating coalition politics to their advantage and grabbed power with Vajpayee as the Prime Minister. Once in power, they decided to do two things, which they believed, would help them in overcoming the public wrath over assassination of Gandhiji. They projected Savarkar as a nationalist hero with help of a puppet section of print as well as electronic media and simultaneously projected a Communist martyr like Bhagat Singh as their hero by using the right-wingers in the reel-media. Almost half a dozen films on Bhagat Singh were produced in 1992 by this section of the reel-media and played all over the country. The tricksters in the reel-media knew that Bhagat Singh needed no introduction, as the whole of India knows him to be the most exemplary patriot. So they projected Bhagat Singh in the most inspiring form of a patriot tactfully omitting his links with communism while highlighting how he was opposed to Gandhiji. It is true, all the communists were far away from Gandhiji on the issue of world outlook and economic class role. He was against them so unambiguously that Gandhism was being held as an antonym of Communism. Therefore, difference between Gandhi and Bhagat Singh was ideologically conclusive. BJP wanted to use this difference to its own advantage. I rely upon an analysis captioned “Gandhi as the marketplace of ideas” in saswatblog.com to conclude that BJP used the reel-media to suppress the communist aspect of Bhagat Singh and to present him as a martyr who was not supported by Gandhi. Thus it used the reel-media to project Gandhi as a man who was against the real revolutionaries while using the print and electronic media to project Savarkar as a real revolutionary. This tactics was contrived to place Savarkar, the mastermind behind killing of Gandhiji in the layer of Bhagat Singh, the martyr and to generate a feeling that Savarkar was not wrong in going against Gandhi. BJP was hoping to earn acceptability at par with Savarkar through this process. But it did not click. Despite mediacracy under its command, BJP failed.

Democracy of Gandhi’s Dream Changed Into Plutocracy

India is therefore being driven into a new trap of Nathuramism with emergence of USA cohorts in Indian National Congress, the party wrongfully projected as Gandhiji’s own.

Gandhiji’s economic ideas, though quite conservative, are strongly opposed to imperialism. So, to neo-imperialists, led by USA, he is, even posthumously, the greatest danger.

Every effort therefore is being made to divert mass attention from Gandhian method of self-reliance and his gram-swaraj concept is being butchered at the altar of globalization.

Narasinghrao government with Manmohan Singh as its Finance Minister made India a signatory to GATT to please USA led imperialism behind back of the Parliament and subjected India to machinations of WTO that sabotaged India’s pledge for socialism while generating an environment for foreign firms tightening their grip on Indian market.

Manmohan Singh government has sabotaged India’s NAM image by siding with American imperialism and has further pushed India into USA hegemony by signing nuke deal with it that not only portends debacles to our nuke-self-dependence, but also paves the way for import of over-used rotten reactors and nuclear waste of USA oblivious of the catastrophes they are bound to cause to countrymen; because thereby, the then Bush administration of USA was to fulfill its pledge to give a “great bonanza” to nuclear traders of that country besides lessening the menacing threat from the most hazardous old reactors and accumulated nuke wastes in the soil of the States.

This government is also eager to create a law to limit the liability in case of devastation caused by radiation from the rotten reactors it would bring from America to give a “great bonanza” to the nuke dealers of that country. Instead of being independent, India will be forced to remain dependent on USA and her imperialistic circle for ever after this.

These fellows in power have replaced democracy with plutocracy and instead of keeping administration addressed to the people, have encouraged the scamsters to rule the roost. Though placed under the chapter of Directive Principles of State Policy, Article 38 (2) of the Constitution has said that the State shall “strive to minimize the inequalities in income, and endeavor to eliminate inequalities in status, facilities and opportunities, not only amongst individuals but also amongst groups of people residing in different areas or engaged in different vocations”. And, by distinguishing this directive from other ones with use of two words “in particular” to stress on “strive”, it has made it absolute that it is a must for the State to minimize and eliminate inequality in income and status, facilities and opportunities amongst the citizens. But under Manmohan Singh India has become a country of inequalities in income and status, facilities and opportunities and Indians are getting displaced from their lands and living environments so that foreigners and indigenous imperialists consolidate their empires.

In the name of the poor, programs are being drawn up and profuse funds are being allocated. But every such program has the hidden agenda of helping the rich loot the maximum portion of those funds. This apprehension is based on the facts that no audit report has ever thrown any swindler into prisons for treachery against the State. On the other hand, foreigners like Warren Anderson or Ottavio Quattrocchi despite having committed crime against India have enjoyed government support during the period from UPA president Sonia Gandhi’s evolution in politics to her establishment in political power in India.

Gandhiji had risked his life to free India from the grip of imperialism. But Manmohan Singh government has pushed India into the grip of imperialism again.

LET US NOT ENCOURAGE DESECRATION OF GANDHIJI

Subhas Chandra Pattanayak

On the day of his birth, if we remember Gandhiji, it is better not to hear the leaders speak on him; because we should not desecrate him with hypocrisy.

India since independence is in the hands of the right-wingers. And these leaders have changed our country from democracy to plutocracy. They have even subjected us to foreigners’ hegemony.

They have polluted our Parliament by bribing MPs to stay in power. And, by staying in power they have ruined our public sector for the benefit of black money operators.

Because of their meretricious approach to welfare, our honest countrymen, constituting the massive majority, have been perishing under slow starvation below the poverty line whereas miscreants have amassed wealth to the extent of dictating terms to the Governments.

The right-wingers, whether in Government or in Opposition, are enjoying power. And, because of being in power, they are in positions to address us on Gandhiji, whose dreams they have shattered. Nathuram had physically killed him, but these fellows have been killing his spirit.

If we really love Gandhiji, let us no more encourage the right viruses to desecrate him.

GANDHIJI KILLED AGAIN ON AUCTIONEER’S TABLE

Subhas Chandra Pattanayak

Memorabilia of the world’s unique icon of teetotalism now belong to a vintner of India, who, not for devotion to Gandhism but perhaps for projection of opulence achieved on basis of business in disregard to tenets of Gandhism, has purchased them.

If the items are real claimants to be called memorabilia of Mahatma Gandhi, there should be no doubt that Gandhiji is killed again on the auctioneer’s table.

When Gandhiji was physically killed in 1948, India was under a Congress government with Jawaharlal Nehru at the top. When Gandhiji is posthumously killed in 2009, India is also under a Congress government with the daughter-in-law of Jawaharlal Nehru at the helm of affairs. How coincidental and how sad!

There would never have been any Mahatma Gandhi had Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi not promised to his mother to remain away from wine and not have kept the promise till extinguished by bullets from the pistol of a fanatic of right reactionary political activism.

Before leaving for London in 1888 to study law, Gandhi had pledged to his mother that he would never touch wine. In the environment of UK, he fought against all odds to stick to this pledge. This pledge was in fact the anvil on which his real self was in the making. Though South Africa gave him the boost that eventually made Albert Einstein say, “Generations to come, it may be, will scarce believe that such a one as this ever in flesh and blood walked upon this earth”, Gandhiji has confessed that for the activism he could adopt there, “the seed however was sown in England”.

So, it is clear that behind emergence of Gandiji as Mahatma, teetotalism was the main factor. In other words, teetotalism stands for Gandhism. Had Gandhism not been violated in India, wine merchants would never have emerged as power centers in the country and Gandhi’s memorabilia, if at all the articles auctioned at the East 57th Street headquarters of Antiquorum Auctioneers at New York are really so, could not have gone to a vintner.

More offending than auctioning of articles that have acquired an aura in Gandhiji’s name are the shenanigans involved.

If Government of India could have acted diligently and with devotion to Gandhiji, India should not have been subjected so helplessly to suffer the ignominy of watching personal belongings of the Father of the Nation, if at all they are that, bearing hammer hits on the auctioneer’s table.

Lest the peoples compel Manmohan Singh government, run by Sonia Gandhi, to get back Bapuji’s belongings, attempts were made to mislead the people through Tourism Minister Ambika Soni, who made a statement that the government has “been able to procure them through the services of Vijay Mallya, who was in touch with us (the government)”.

But the foul play of the Government stands fully exposed when Mallya is reported to have said that even as he was not aware of what Ambika Soni has said, “neither before nor after the auction, anybody in the government was in touch with” him.

So, obviously, either Ambika Soni or Vijay Mallya is telling a lie.

The Congress Government run by Sonia Gandhi through Manmohan Singh has embarrassed India by forcing her to silently watch articles, projected as Gandhiji’s, being subjected to hammer-hits on an auctioneer’s table. Let it not add further injury to this insult. So, let it clarify as to who of these two has told the lie and why.

How many times the peoples shall have to tolerate killing of the Father of the Nation?