Pervez Musharraf Ko Peace Do

Harish hyd....

Recall that on this board you made a claim that you did not back up. My source has been Gandhi`s own collected works... You still haven`t backed it up. Please do so and then speak to me... The fact is that Gandhi was a racist fanatic freak... it is the truth which will come up sooner or later.


Rsridhar...

Gandhi was a Hindu fanatic and a casteist bigot. You can`t defend Gandhi... which is why you are resorting to such abuse. Please continue...



Now back to the Discussion on Partition:

Very late- after everything was said and done... Maulana Azad wrote a book ``India wins freedom`` .... which remained banned in India till 1988.

Here are a few quotes that I`d like to present for everyone`s benefit:


The first was the case of Mr. Nariman, a Parsee and an acknowledged leader of the local Congress in Bombay, who was generally expected to lead the provincial government. Sardar Patel and his colleagues could not reconcile with such a leadership of non-Hindu Chief Minister where ``the majority of members in the Congress Assembly Party were Hindus.`` [p. 16]

``Mr. Nariman was naturally upset about the decision. He raised the question before the Congress Working Committee. Jawaharlal was then President and many hoped that in view of his complete freedom from communal bias; he would rectify the injustice to Nariman. Unfortunately this did not happen. ... He [Jawaharlal] sought to placate Patel and rejected Nariman`s appeal. ... Nariman was surprised at Jawaharlal`s attitude, especially as Jawaharlal treated him harshly and tried to shout him down in the meeting of the Working Committee.`` [p. 16-17]

``Nariman had lost the case even before the enquiry began. It was finally held that nothing was proven against Sardar Patel. None who knew the inner story was satisfied with this verdict. We all know that truth has been sacrificed in order to satisfy Sardar Patel`s communal demands. Poor Nariman was heart broken and his public life came to an end.`` [p. 17]

``A similar development took place in Bihar. Dr. Syed Mahmud was the top leader of the province when the elections were held. He was also a General Secretary of the All India Congress Committee and as such he had a position both inside and outside the province. When the Congress secured an absolute majority, it was taken for granted that Dr. Syed Mahmud would be elected the leader and become the first Chief Minister of Bihar under Provincial Autonomy. Instead, Sri Krishna Sinha and Anugraha Narayan Sinha who were members of the Central Assembly, were called back to Bihar and groomed for the Chief Ministership. Dr. Rajendra Prasad played the same role in Bihar as Sardar Patel did in Bombay.`` [p. 17]

``These two instances left a bad taste at the time. Looking back, I cannot help feeling that the Congress did not live up to its professed ideals. One has to admit with regret that the nationalism of the Congress had not then reached a stage where it could ignore communal considerations and select leaders on the basis of merit without regard to majority or minority.`` [p. 18]

re:#516 by Mantolives
AFter looking at the posts relating to terrorism, distortion of history books etc etc, all i can say is: becharey Pakis.
Sridhar

re: Jinnah`s rotten legacy: lies, more lies in history books and public discourse
NO wonder, tahmed is all wrong. He read the wrong history growing up in Pakistan
In this seminal article, author narrates her own experiences in Pakistan as it relates to distortion of history. The article is dated but still relevant.
http://www.upi.com/inc/view.php?StoryID=17062002-043525-4513r
(Abuse of History in Pakistan: Bangladesh to Kargil
Yvette Rosser
In mid-June I traveled from India to Pakistan during the height of the Kargil crisis. I made the trip on the Delhi-Lahore ``diplomacy`` bus. The rhetorical and ideological distance at the Wagh boarder crossing between India and Pakistan was like traveling a million miles and one hundred and eighty degrees in less than fifty meters. It was certainly an interesting time to be crossing that boarder. While in Pakistan, I felt as if I was experiencing history in the making, and the use of twisted history for nationalist justification.

I delivered a paper in Islamabad, in July arranged by the Islamabad Forum for Social Sciences. This paper discussed how Pakistani textbooks practice history by erasure and embellishment and how these distorted historical ``facts`` are used to corroborate contemporary political perspectives and justify current military adventurism. I cited examples from Pakistani Studies textbooks and compared these to the headlines which appeared in Pakistani newspapers during the Kargil crisis. My lecture was discussed in a newspaper article published in ``The News,`` a daily in Islamabad, (quote): ``Yvette drew examples from state-sponsored textbooks used in Bangladesh, India, and Pakistan to illustrate the appropriation of history to reinforce national philosophy or ideology wherein historical interpretations are predetermined, unassailable, and concretized.`` History by erasure can have its long-term negative repercussions. In Pakistani textbooks, which narrate the 65 War with India, Operation Gibraltar is never mentioned. Operation Gibraltar and the recent events in Kargil are products of the same processes. The mistakes made in Kargil are a legacy of the lack of information that citizens have about the real history of their country During the ``war-like-situation`` in Kargil, a headline in a Pakistani newspaper read, ``Kargil: Revenge for ?71.`` This point of view can only be propagated by someone who is unaware of the real facts that led the Bengalis to secceed from the western part of the country, by someone who blames the breakup of Pakistan on India Gandhi and ``Hindu influences`` in East Pakistan rather than on 24 years of Panjabi-perpetuated internal colonization.

While I wasout of the USA last year, I also spent six months in Bangladesh where I made several presentations. The first was in May 1999, entitled ``Hegemony and Historiography: The Politics of Pedagogy.`` I also delivered a paper in Dhaka in late July when I returned to Bangladesh after a trip to Pakistan. That paper was called, ``The Pakistani Historian and the Bangladesh War of Liberation.`` This talk received wide coverage in the Bangladesh media. Here is a message sent from Dr. Ratan Lal Chakravorty, a history professor at Dhaka University. This message describes some of the news reports about that talk:

``1. The news coverage about you appears in a Daily Newspaper which is very much popular at the present moment. It?s name is the Janakanta (Voice of the People) which I am a life subscriber. On 8 August, your photographs appeared with news in four columns of half a page. The paper appreciated you to such an extent that we had seldom received. The main topic covers your findings about the historiography and historical studies of Bangladesh and it suggests to follow your methodology to understand the things going at present.
``2. The second also appeared in the Janakanta (Voice of the People) on 11 August, 1999, where an analytical and critical assessment of your work and objectives were done in a very sophisticated way using metaphor. The writer appreciated you very much for speaking the truth and the reality.``

Here are some observations about current events in Pakistan as they relate to the use of history in justifying current governmental and military actions and also about the psychological health of the nation:

Pakistani nationalism is characterized by ironies and contractions. Its ideology and national mythos have not been substantiated by its historical realities. In the last fifty-two years the vision or ideal of Pakistan, as a secure homeland where the Muslims in the subcontinent could find justice and live in peace, has not been realized by the citizens. There is a shared experience of disappointment and dissatisfaction among the populace that has not abated since the restoration of democracy in 1988, and in fact the feelings of betrayal and a collective mental depression have increased dramatically in the last decade. This intellectual fatalism and depression about the state of affairs is not something new, as can be seen in an excerpt from the book, Breaking the Curfew, A Political Journey Through Pakistan, published ten years ago by a British journalist, Emma Duncan, where she wrote, and I quote,``[. . . .] many Pakistanis I talked to seemed disappointed. It was not just the disappointment that they were not as rich as they should be or that their children were finding it difficult to get jobs; it was a wider sense of betrayal, of having been cheated on a grant scale. The Army blamed the politicians, the politicians the Army; the businessmen blamed the civil servants, the civil servants the politicians; everybody blamed the landlords and the foreigners, and the left and the religious fundamentalists blamed everybody except the masses.

``More than anywhere I have been - much more than India - its people worry about the state of their country. They wonder what went wrong; they fear for the future. They condemn it; they pray for it. They are involved in the nation?s public life as passionately as in their small private dilemmas. . . `` (end quote).

In the ten years since this observation was written, the passion that the people in Pakistan have for their country has not abated, but the shared feelings of betrayal and disappointment have increased exponentially. A friend of mine who is a professor, the principal at a woman?s college in Lahore, confided that she and most of her colleagues felt not only disillusioned, but abjectly hopeless about the condition and future prospects of their beloved country. She said that she had lost all hope. She did not see that the nation could survive given the current situation and there was no alternative in sight. Here is a dynamic woman, a sincere practicing Muslim, a patriotic Pakistani whose father was an officer in the Education Core. She serves on the boards of directors of numerous institutions and works with the government to develop and implement various educational projects. She gives generously of her time and devotes herself professionally and personally to her students, her colleagues and the educational organizations of Pakistan. Yet, though she is totally committed to her country, and by nature a jolly and friendly person not prone to any type of self pity or despondency, she is overwhelmed by feelings of loss, failure, and depression when she thinks of her beloved nation.

I was intrigued and disturbed by this expression of depression, which, regardless of Emma Duncan?s observations did not seem as profoundly obvious when I was in Pakistan two years ago. Since my dear sister working in Lahore informed me that many of her friends and colleagues also felt the same, I decided to ask the professors and scholars with whom I had scheduled interviews if they shared this feeling of depression and sorrow regarding their nation. I was astounded to find similar feeling of disempowerment coupled with a dissatisfaction which offered no solutions. Many of the social activists and progressives with whom I spoke expressed this same helplessness while at the same time they counteract their feelings of loss by publishing journals, holding seminars and discussion groups?many work with NGOs to develop educational opportunities for girls in rural areas or contribute their time to other altruistic and progressive endeavors. They remain active?their work belies the futility which they expressed to me. They continue working, pouring their efforts and souls into positive activity aimed at improving the social and intellectual climate of their country, and they survive by not dwelling on the fact that ultimately, they feel powerless to effect any positive change.

It distressed me that these very people who could help Pakistan the most and whose voices should be heard and heeded are the very same people who, because of their political perspectives and social critiques, are often harassed by the authorities, denied jobs and otherwise discriminated against by the establishment. The current democratically elected government continues to make it difficult for intellectuals with alternative viewpoints to do research and even to travel abroad, not to mention what has happened lately to prominent journalists. Several professors at Quaid-e-Azam University in Islamabad informed me that a recent decree by the government mandated that professors must now obtain an NOC (No Objection Certificate) when planning to travel abroad even for a family vacation. One well known and respected Physics professor, Dr. Parvez Hoodbhoy is a vocal critic about Pakistani affairs and writes magazines articles and essays about issues such as corruption, the unequal availability of educational opportunities and lately about the folly and danger of the nuclear option. Recently, Dr. Hoodbhoy was denied an NOC when he was invited to lecture in the Physics Department at MIT (Massachusetts Institute of Technology). He was able to leave the country only through the intervention of the Vice-chancellor of his university, Dr. Tariq Siddique, who also taught at the Civil Service Academy and served as the education minister under Zulfikar Bhutto. Dr. Tariq Siddique is well-known for supporting his staff and helping his former students. However, his intervention on behalf of Dr. Hoodbhoy, I was informed, risked provoking official ire. However, this type of potential threat is not something new to Tariq Siddique, since he had been dismissed from Bhutto?s cabinet for too zealously advocating teacher empowerment and merit-based promotion.

Many scholars at the university level expressed resentment that research was discouraged and intellectuals were often seen as a threat by the establishment. They complained that mediocrity was encouraged and original research impeded. Surrounded by a completely corrupt system, which they felt powerless to change, yet endowed with self respect and moral conscientiousness, many of these caring and intellectually brilliant individuals lamented about their hopelessness and depression regarding the condition of their nation.

As I was disturbed by this shared expression of depression, I interviewed a psychiatrist and asked him his opinion about this phenomenon. He first pointed out that the depression was a tangible reality and could be quantified by the huge increase in the number of suicides in Pakistan in the last few years. He said that there are 20 to 30 suicides per day in Pakistan which occur primarily among the young between the ages of fifteen and thirty, mostly upper-class urbanized females and newly educated rural or newly urbanized lower middle class males. Dr. Inayat Magsi, from the Civil Hospital in Karachi, explained that most of these suicides are the result of the loss of hope for the future. But he also pointed out that the dramatic rise in clinical depression which he has observed even among citizens with ample economic opportunities can be partly attributed to the fact that even though democracy has been practiced now for over ten years, there has been a decline in the development of civil society, a death of collective vision, of enthusiasm to change the system from within, a certain resignation.

During the time of Martial Law, the iron rule of General Zia-ul-Haq, the intellectuals and socially conscious scholars, along with large segments of the common people, had something to fight against, a mission and a purpose to rid their country of authoritarian rule. Dr. Inayat Magsi pointed out that this struggle against the military government and the hope for democracy united the people with a vision which kept them enthusiastic about the future potential of their country. Once democracy was restored, the level of corruption certainly did not decrease, the practice of fomenting regionalism which was practiced by General Zia increased, promises of a better future rapidly died as the political parties fought a propaganda war for their ascendancy instead working for the good of the country. The often disenfranchised polity was once again dismayed and depressed by the inability of their officials to focus on the needs and priorities of Pakistan. Dr. Inayat Magsi added that now that there is no military government to rebel against, they can only blame themselves for the lack of leadership and since they are powerless to create other alternatives, they are disheartened. . depressed.

Pakistan is a land that is torn by ethnic differences and is seemingly unable to achieve unity within its diversity. It was founded on the principle that Islam, as the great leveler of class and caste, was a sufficient force to tie the Sindhis, the Pathans, and the Balouchi tribes, and also the Bengalis together with the dominant Panjabis to form a cohesive and stable national identity which would supersede regional loyalties and ethnicities. Through the years, this mission to create a strong centrally controlled government has been pursued by various methods including realignment of political associations between its minority groups, usually based more on gains for provincial party bosses than nation cohesion, and by the use of military coercion, which as in the case of the Bengali majority, resulted in the split up of the original country.

Even today the central government operates under the assumption that Pakistan is a unitary entity, though the rhetorical idea of ``One Unit`` was only abandoned immediately before the Bangladesh war of liberation. The Pakistani military and bureaucracy are still grappling with the problems that the contradictions inherent in the Ideology of Pakistan continue to create within the varied cultural landscape of the nation.

The powers at the center, usually more intent at retaining the profitable reins on the government, are inevitably unable to make equitable policies which can reverse the decentralized loyalties nor reconcile these tendencies with the imperatives of a highly centralized state apparatus. As Feroz Ahmed in his book Ethnicity and Politics in Pakistan, published by Oxford University Press in 1999, wrote, ``The state and its ideologues have steadfastly refused to recognize the fact that these regions are not merely chunks of territory with different names but areas which were historically inhabited by peoples who had different languages and cultures, and even states of their own. This official and intellectual denial has, no doubt, contributed to the progressive deterioration of inter-group relations, weakened societies cohesiveness, and undermined the state?s capacity to forge security and sustain development.`` (end quote)

Denial and erasure are the primary tools of historiography as it is officially practiced in Pakistan. There is no room in the official historical narrative for questions or alternative points of view which is Nazariya Pakistan, the Ideology of Pakistan?devoted to a mono-perspectival religious orientation. There is no other correct way to view the historical record. It is, after all, since the time of General Zia-ul Haq, a capital crime to talk against the ``Ideology of Pakistan.``

According to A.H. Nayyar from Quaid-e-Azam University, ``What is important in the exercise is the faithful transmission, without any criticism or re-evaluation, of the particular view of the past which is implicit in the coming to fruition of the ?Pakistan Ideology.?`` Rahat Saeed of the Irtiqa Institute of Social Sciences in Karachi explains that school level history teachers are often aware that what they are teaching in their Pakistani Studies classes is at best contradictory and often quite incorrect. They usually do not attempt to explain the ``real`` history regarding such events as the civil war in 1971, because to do so might jeopardize their jobs, and, as Rahat explains, the teachers are afraid ``to corrupt their students with the truth.``

In contemporary Pakistani textbooks the historical narrative is based on the Two Nation Theory. The story of the nation begins with the advent of Islam when Mohammed-bin-Qazm arrived in Sindh followed by Mahmud of Ghazni storming through the Khyber Pass, 16 times, bringing the Light of Islam to the infidels who converted en mass to escape the evil domination of the cruel Brahmins. Reviewing a selection of textbooks published since 1972 in Pakistan will verify the assumption that there is little or no discussion of the ancient cultures that have flowered in the land that is now Pakistan, such as Taxila and Mohenjo-Daro, though this lack seems to have been partly addressed in the very recent editions of several history textbooks published for Oxford-Cambridge elite schools. In most textbooks, any mention of Hinduism is inevitably accompanied by derogatory critiques, and none of the greatness of Indic civilization is considered?not even the success of Chandragupta Maurya, who defeated, or at least frightened the invading army of Alexander the Great at the banks of the Beas River where it flows through the land that is now called Pakistan. These events are deemed meaningless since they are not about Muslim heroes. There is an elision in time between the moment Islam first arrived in Sindh and Muhammad Ali Jinnah.

This shortsighted approach to historiography was not always the case.

Up until 1972, the history textbooks included much more elaborate sections on the history of the subcontinent, while adopting the colonial frame of periodization?the books described the Hindu Period, The Muslim Period and the British Period. History textbooks, such as Indo Pak History, Part 1 published in 1951, included chapters with titles such as the Ramayana and Mahabharata Era, Aryans? Religion and Educational Literature, the Caste System, Jainism and Buddhism, Invasions of Iranians and Greeks, Chandra Gupta Maurya, Maharaja Ashok, Maharaja Kaniska, The Gupta Family, Maharaja Harish, New Era of Hinduism, The Era of Rajputs. This same basic table of contents, which also included the history of Islam, was prevalent in textbooks until post 1971. A textbook published in 1964, for use at a military academy in Abbottabad included similar chapters, and even had a chapter entitled, Mahatma Gandhi, Man of Peace. This same edition of this textbooks was republished without any changes until 1971. It can therefore be seen that Pakistani textbooks were not always estranged from their associations with South Asian history and culture. but beginning with the Bhutto years and accelerating under the Islamized tutelage of General Zia-ul Haq, not only has the history of the subcontinent been discarded, but it has been vilified and mocked and transformed into the evil other, a measure of what Pakistan is not. Zulfikar Ali Bhutto?s influence on the textbooks was profound?he was furious at India, whom he blamed for the break-up of the country. Though ironically, his mother was a Hindu, a natch-girl (dancer) who had converted to Islam in order to marry his wealthy father, Bhutto vehemently launched an anti-Indian campaign with vituperative anti-Hindu rhetoric. This legacy of his orchestrated hatred is still the basis of Pakistani historical narratives where Gandhi is now usually referred to as a ``conniving bania.``

Much of the historical discourse and social analysis in Pakistan is based on negative methodologies which seek to justify Pakistan?s failures and shortcomings by pointing out similar problems that also exist in neighboring India. Instead of focusing their academic lens on the Pakistani situation, and be the view positive or negative, analyzing what is seen within their nation, scholars repeatedly use the tact of dismissing problems in Pakistan by discussions of parallel problems in India.

Within this paradigm, Pakistani scholarship is defined by placing the country?s problems in a less negative light in comparison to India?s problems. This could be called the theory of self justification, but more aptly results in self negation. A vivid example of this methodology can be found in the book by Akbar S. Ahmed, Jinnah, Pakistan and Islamic Identity: the Search for Saladin. It is one of a great number of books published in Pakistan during 1997. Many of these books published in honor of Pakistan?s fiftieth anniversary, such as Feroz Ahmed?s Ethnicity and Politics in Pakistan, and others such as the work by the linguist, Dr. Tariq Rehman, represent an effort to look objectively at topics such as Pakistani nation-building, society, cultural myths, domestic and foreign policy. Prior to this golden jubilee moment of self analysis, most books that graced the OUP or Vanguard shelves were basically biased and very much situated in the straight jacket of the two nation theory. This is not to criticize their nationalist orientation, all nations write nationalist histories, but an observation that historical discourse in Pakistan is dominated by negative images of India and Hinduism. In general, the majority of books in the field of the social sciences written in Pakistan have lacked theoretical basis and are short on angst and verve, though perhaps books by ex-pats, such as Mustfa Pasha are usually more circumspect. As Dr. Rahat in Karachi joked, ``In Pakistan, social scientists are more social than scientific!`` However, since 1997, there have been several books written about the Bangladesh experience, such as the recent book by Ahmad Saleem, Blood Beaten Track, which does not lay the blame squarely in Indira Gandhi?s lap, for conspiring to ``Sink the Two Nation theory in the Bay of Bengal``.

In Akbar S. Ahmed?s book, Search for Saladin, if judged by its cover, the fairly post modern title gives the impression that perhaps the book would be theoretically based and hopefully less biased than the standard fare offered up as state sponsored Pakistani scholarship. In this regard the book was a disappointment. Ahmed is a well know Pakistani scholar, and though a civil servant and therefore perhaps prone to rubbery research results stretching to accommodate the reigning regime, he is a fellow at Selwyn College, Cambridge and would probably get a wider reading audience in the West. Unfortunately, in this book he has fallen once again into the prevailing discourse of Pakistani historians who define their nation in the negative, in terms of what it is not. ``We are not Hindus. We are not Indians. We will not be ruled by the Hindus. We do not practice the evil caste system. We do not mistreat our minorities. We do not attack our neighbors.`` Through the decades Pakistani writers have used this discourse of negation consistently describing their nation in contrast to Hindu India?s other. There have been far too few examples of reflexivity, inward looking analysis.

In this book by Ahmed, much of the discussion centers on communalism in India. He refers to books by Veena Das, Asghar Ali Engineer, Sarvepalli Gopal, Kumari Jayawardena, T.N. Madan, Ashish Nandy, Khushwant Singh, etc. He uses these Indian authors? work to prove his points about the sufferings of minorities in India, couched in the usual anti-Indian/Pakistani-centric rhetoric. He never pauses to question why there are so many open and frank books about the plight of minorities in India and there are very few such books about the problems faced by minorities in Pakistan. He doesn?t mention the bishop who blew his brains out on the city hall steps to protest continuing officially sanctioned harassment of the Christian community in Pakistan and the death sentence metted out to an adolescent from the Christian community for his alleged blasphemy. Akbar S. Ahmed fails to mention that Hindus and other minorities are delegated to second class citizens through their prejudicial voting system and blasphemy laws. Or that women are also second class citizens living under the burden of Hudood laws. He can not see the problems in his own nation, for he is too busy looking for problems in India. Once again, Pakistan is not looking at Pakistan for its own meaning, it is looking to India to justify its own failings. Akbar dwells extensively on rape during the Bombay riots of 1993, citing the suffering in several pages, but he dismisses rape by Pakistani soldiers in Bangladesh with less than one sentence. These types of examples are to be found throughout the book. It must be said that some of the most exciting and theoretically based and insightful scholarship in Pakistan is coming from the small group of feminist intellectuals associated with such centers as Simorgh, ASR, and Sahe in Lahore.

Discourses about Islam and its relationship to the Ideology of Pakistan make up the majority of Pakistan Studies textbooks, which dwell at length on how Islam will create a fair and just nation,``In the eyes of a Muslim all human beings are equal and there is no distinction based on race or colour. . . The rich or poor [are] all equal before law. A virtuous and pious man has precedence over others before Allah.``

The Pakistan Studies textbook goes on to say, ``Namaz prevents a Muslim from indulging in immoral and indecent acts.`` And regarding issues of justice, the 1999 edition of this Pakistan Studies textbook written by Rabbani and Sayyid which is in wide usage in Pakistan writes,

``On official level (sic) all the officers and officials must perform their duties justly, i.e., they should be honest, impartial and devoted. They should keep in view betterment of common people and should not act in a manner which may infringe the rights of others or may cause inconvenience to others.`` How does this discourse tally with the tales that the students have heard about corruption and the hassles their parents have endured simply to pay a bill or collect a refund? How do they rectify their cognitive dissonance when they hear about elected officials and wealthy landholders and industrialists buying off a court case lodged against them, or simply not charged for known crimes, with statements from their textbooks such as, ``Every one should be equal before law and the law should be applied without any distinction or discrimination. [. . . ] Islam does not approve that certain individuals may be considered above law. The textbook goes on to state that ``The Holy Prophet (PBUH) says that a nation which deviates from justice invites its doom and destruction`` (emphasis mine).

With such a huge disparity between the ideal and the real, no wonder there is a great deal of fatalism and depression among the educated citizens and the school going youths concerning the state of the nation in Pakistan. Further compounding the students? distress and distancing them from either their religion or their nation-state, or both, are the contradictions found in this same Pakistani Studies book. On page 63 is the statement that ``the enforcement of Islamic principles . . . does not approve dictatorship or the rule of man over man.`` Compared with the reality unfolding a few paragraphs later when the student is told that,

``General Muhammad Ayub Khan captured power and abrogated the constitution of 1956 [. . . .] dissolved the assemblies and ran the affairs of the country under Martial Law without any constitution. ``Since nearly half of this textbook is dedicated to chapters with such titles as Islamization Under Zia, Hindrances to Islamization, and Complete Islamization is Our Goal, the other themes and events in the history and culture of Pakistan are judged vis-a-vis their relationship and support of complete Islamization. Within this rhetoric are found dire warnings that Islam should be applied severely so that it can guard against degenerate Western influences, yet a few pages later the text encourages the students to embrace Western technological innovations in order to modernize the country. One part of the book complains that Muslims in British India lost out on economic opportunities because conservative religious forces rejected western education yet a few pages later the authors are telling the students to use Islam to fend off Western influences and lauding the efforts of conservative clerics who are the last hope of protecting the country by the implementation of the Shari-a Law. This seems to be schizophrenic reasoning.

Non-Muslim cultural influences are often blamed for regional allegiances, such as in this discussion in Dr. Mohammed Sarwar?s Pakistani Studies book, which states that, ``At present a particular segment, in the guise of modernization and progressive activity, has taken the unholy task of damaging our cultural heritage. Certain elements aim at the promotion of cultures with the intention to enhance regionalism and provincialism and thereby damage national integration.``

Once again progressive forces and regional cultural affinities are deemed anti-Pakistani and thereby inherently anti-Islam. This is the same stance that is used in describing the emergence of Bangladesh. This textbook goes on to state that ``It is in the interest of national solidarity that such aspects of culture should be promoted as reflect affinity among the people of the provinces.`` This type of discourse seems to deny the impetus and urges of the cultural expressions of the Sindhis, the Pathans and the Balouchis, instead of valuing them as part of the whole, these regional cultural tendencies are seen as a threat to the nation, and Islam is employed to ameliorate these dangerous cultural differences.

At the same time this textbook claims that Islam sees no differences and promotes unity while it also discriminates between Muslims and nonbelievers. For example, on page 120 the author states, ``The Islamic state, of course, discriminates between Muslim citizens and religious minorities and preserves their separate entity. Islam does not conceal the realities in the guise of artificialities or hypocrisy. By recognizing their distinct entity, Islamic state affords better protection to its religious minorities. Despite the fact that the role of certain religious minorities, especially the Hindus in East Pakistan, had not been praiseworthy, Pakistan ensured full protection to their rights under the Constitution. Rather the Hindu Community enjoyed privileged position in East Pakistan by virtue of is effective control over the economy and the media. It is to be noted that the Hindu representatives in the 1st Constituent Assembly of Pakistan employed delaying tactics in Constitution-making.``

That this claim is spurious as can be seen in the recent book by Allen McGrath, published by OUP, The Destruction of Democracy in Pakistan, in which the author, a lawyer, analyzes the efforts at constitution making in the first decade after independence before Iskandar Mizra dissolved the National Assembly. In the McGrath book the productive role D.N. Dutt played in constitution making is mentioned. Yet, in Pakistan Studies textbooks, the anti-Hindu point of view and the vilification of the Hindu community of East Pakistan are the standard orientation. In this particular version of Pakistani history, which is the official version, General Zia-ul-Haq is portrayed as someone who, ``took concrete steps in the direction of Islamization.`` He is often seen as pious and perhaps stitching caps alongside Aurangzeb. Though Zulfikar Ali Bhutto is generally criticized in the textbooks, General Zia usually escapes most criticism though he was the most cruel and autocratic of the military rulers who usurped the political process in Pakistan. Each time that martial law was declared in Pakistan, and the constitution aborted, the textbook by Dr.

Sarwar describes it as an inevitable action stimulated by the rise of unIslamic forces. For example,

``The political leadership did not come up to the expectations and lacked commitment to Islamic objectives. Moreover, the civil service had not undergone socialization process commensurate with Islamic teachings. Bureaucratic elite had Western orientation with secular approach to all national issues. [. . . ] the result was political instability and chaos paving the way for the intervention of military and the imposition of Martial Law. ``

In the next paragraph, however, Ayub Khan is accused of imposing unIslamic laws, especially family laws, and the author claims that it was Ayub?s secular outlook which ultimately brought about his decline.

General Zia, on the other hand, is described on page 138, ``During the period under Zia?s regime, social life developed a leaning towards simplicity. Due respect and reverence to religious people was accorded. The government patronized the religious institutions and liberally donated funds. ``

This textbook, and many like it, claim that there is a ``network ofconspiracies and intrigues`` which are threatening the ``Muslim world in the guise of elimination of militancy and fundamentalism.`` In this treatment Pakistan takes credit for the fall of the Soviet Union and lays claim to have created a situation in the modern world where Islamic revolutions can flourish and the vacuum left by the fall of the USSR will ``be filled by the world of Islam.`` This textbook continues by saying that ``The Western world has full perception of this phenomena, [which] accounts for the development of reactionary trends in that civilization.`` Concluding this section under the title Global Changes, the author seems to be getting ready for Samuel Huntington?s Clash of Civilizations when he writes, ``The Muslim world has full capabilities to face the Western challenges provided Muslims are equipped with self-awareness and channelize their collective efforts for the well being of the Muslim Ummah. All evidences substantiate Muslim optimism indicating that the next century will glorify Islamic revolution with Pakistan performing a pivotal role.`` (page 146)

Pakistan Studies textbooks are full of inherent contradictions. One page the book brags about the modern banking system, and another page complains that interest is unIslamic. There is also a certain amount of self-loathing written into the Pakistan Studies textbooks, and the politicians are depicted as inept and corrupt and the industrialists are described as pursuing ``personal benefit even at the cost of national interest.`` Bouncing between the poles of conspiracy theory and threat from within, the textbooks portray Pakistan as a victim of Western ideological hegemony, and threatened by the perpetual Machiavellian intentions of India?s military and espionage machine, together with the internal failure of its politicians to effectively govern the country coupled with the fact that the economy is in the hands of a totally corrupt class of elite business interests who have only enriched themselves at the cost of the development of the nation. All of these failures and conspiracies could, according to the rhetoric in the textbooks, be countered by the application of more strictly Islamic practices. In fact, while I was in Pakistan recently, I spoke to several well placed individuals who told me that they would welcome a Taliban type government in Pakistan so that the country could finally achieve its birth right as a truly Islamic nation. Though this is certainly not a majority opinion, there is a large segment of society who thinks along this line. Perhaps the choice of this alternative Taliban vision for Pakistan is also a result of those feelings of helplessness discussed previously, perhaps between the conspiracies and corruption, they see no alternative.

When the textbooks and the clerics cry conspiracy and the majority of the newspapers, particularly the Urdu press, misinform or disinform the people, the tendency for the Pakistanis to feel betrayed and persecuted is not surprising. During the 71 War, the newspapers in Pakistan told nothing of the violence of the military crack down nor did they keep the people informed of the deteriorating strategic situation. The role of the Mukti Bahini was practically unknown in Pakistan, and when defeat finally came, it came as a devastating and unexpected shock that could only be explained by Indira Gandhi?s lies and treachery. It is no wonder that during and in the aftermath of the Kargil crisis, newspapers often ran stories which called the occupation of the heights above Kargil as Pakistan?s revenge for 1971. There has historically been a lack of information available to the citizens of Pakistan both in the 65 War and during the Bangladesh War of Independence. Yet that split-up of the nation, and the creation of Bangladesh is a potent symbol in Pakistan as evidenced by one headline that ran last summer in ``The News``, which said, ``Nawaz Shariff?s Policies are Turning Sindh into Another Bangladesh.``

During the recent war-like situation at the Line of Control in Kashmir, the government claimed again and again that the muhajideen were not physically supported by Pakistan, that they were indigenous Kashmiri freedom fighters. However, the presence of satellite television, the internet, and newspapers which are now more connected to international media sources, prevented the usual propaganda machine of the government from keeping all the facts from the people. Perhaps there is at least one positive outcome of the tragic Kargil crisis where hundreds of young men lost their lives, in the aftermath of the crisis there was a dramatic outpouring of newspaper and magazine articles which attempted to analyze the brinkmanship from various angles. This new found critical reflexivity is a positive development and though some of the essays in Pakistani newspapers called for the military to take over the government in the wake of Nawaz Shariff?s sell out to the imperialist Clinton, most of the discussions were more circumspect and many authors looked at the Kargil debacle through a lens of history, trying to understand the cause of Pakistan?s repeated failures arising from military intervention. Many of the observations made during and after the Kargil situation, such as the complete inadequacy of Pakistani international diplomacy, are interestingly also cited in Pakistan Studies textbooks regarding India?s perceived manipulation of world opinion during the 71 war and Pakistan?s inability to counter it.

Pakistani textbooks are particularly prone to a historical narrative manipulated by omission. According to Avril Powell, professor of history at the University of London, ``The ?recasting? of Pakistani history [has been] used to ?endow the nation with a historic destiny.?``

Textbooks in Pakistan are the domain of distorted politics which have victimized the Social Studies curriculum. History by erasure can have its long-term negative repercussions. An example of this is the manner in which the Indo-Pak War of 1965 is discussed in Pakistani textbooks. In standard narrations of the 65 War manufactured for students and the general public, there is no mention of Operation Gibraltar, even thirty years after the event. In fact, many university level history professors whom I interviewed had never heard of Operation Gibraltar and the repercussions of that ill-planned military adventurism, which resulted in India?s attack on Lahore. In Pakistani textbooks the story is told that the Indian army, unprovoked and inexplicably attacked Lahore and that one Pakistani jawan equals ten Indian soldiers, who, upon seeing the fierce Pakistanis, drop their banduks and run away. Many people in Pakistan still think like this, and several mentioned this assumed cowardice of the Indian army in recent discussions regarding the war-like situation in Kargil. The nation is elated by the valiant victories on the battlefield, as reported in the newspapers, then shocked and dismayed when their country is humiliated at the negotiating table. Because they were not fully informed about the adventurism and brinkmanship of their military, they can only feel betrayed that somehow the Pakistani political leaders ``grabbed defeat from the jaws of military victory.``

It is interesting to note in this context an episode from the book by Akbar S. Ahmed in which he tells of a personal conversation with General Niazi, who according to Ahmed, claimed that he was planning to ``cross into India and march up the Ganges and capture Delhi and thus link up with Pakistan.`` Niazi told Ahmed that ``This will be the corridor that will link East with West Pakistan. It was a corridor that the Quaid-e-Azam demanded and I will obtain it by force of arms.`` This absurd reasoning can still be seen among those who were battling the Indian army in Kargil. In a recent newspaper article published in The News, a commander of the Pakistani based muhajideen told the reporter that their plan was first to take ``Kargil, then Srinagar, then march victorious into Delhi.``

Operation Gibraltar, the recent debacle in Kargil, and especially the tragic lessons that could have been learned from the emergence of Bangladesh are products of the same myopic processes. As mentioned earlier, the mistakes made in Kargil are a legacy of the lack of information that citizens have about the real history of their country. How similar the public knowledge and their naive response, how similar the disinformation pumped out by the government, and how sad the loss of life, the continued hostilities, the inability or unwillingness to negotiate diplomatically. Hegel and Toynbee among others, have warned that nations do not learn from their history. There is, however, significant merit to the argument that access to information about past mistakes and successes and their consequences can guide decision makers and citizens as they chart a course into the next millennium between diplomacy and disaster.

If you like, I can send more messages about my adventures in South Asia. I was in Bangladesh supported by a fellowship from the American Institute of Bangladesh Studies and I was in Pakistan funded by the American Institute of Pakistan Studies. I will be returning to Pakistan in November and December and plan to travel in interior Sindh to meet with scholar and intellectuals there, and interview them concerning their perspectives about the writing of history in Pakistan. Is anyone on this list can be of some assistance to me while I am there, I would be most grateful. The recent series of translations submitted to this list-serve by Dr. Gul Agha concerning the history of the invasion of Sindh by the Arabs is in direct contrast to how these events are treated in the Pakistan Studies syllabus which devotes considerable space to Muhammad-bin-Qasim who is hailed for bringing Islam to the subcontinent. In Social Studies For Class VI, published by the Sindh Textbooks Board, Jamshoro, April 1997 the story of the Arabs? arrival in Sindh is narrated as the first moment of Pakistan with the glorious ascendancy of Islam. This textbook tells the young sixth class school children of Sindh that, ``The Muslims knew that the people of South Asia were infidels and they kept thousands of idols in their temples.`` The Sindhi king, Raja Dahir, is described as cruel and despotic. ``The non-Brahmans who were tired of the cruelties of Raja Dahir, joined hands with Muhammad-bin-Qasim because of his good treatment.`` According to this historical orientation, The conquest of Sindh opened a new chapter in the history of South Asia. ``Muslims had ever lasting effects on their existence in the region. . .

For the first time the people of Sindh were introduced to Islam, itspolitical system and way of the government. The people here had seenonly the atrocities of the Hindus. . . . The people of Sindh were so much impressed by the benevolence of Muslims that they regarded Muhammad-bin-Qasim as their savior. . . . Muhammad-bin-Qasim stayed inSindh for over three years. On his departure from Sindh, the localpeople were overwhelmed with grief.`` When I visited Hyderabad, Sindh in 1997, I discussed the contents of this textbook with local Sindhis, who assured me that they told their children an alternative version of this story. They informed me that any good Sindhi knows that ``in several cities in ancient Sindh, Muhammad-bin-Qasim beheaded every male over the age of eighteen and that he sent tens of thousands of Sindhi women to the harems of the Abbassid Dynasty.`` They also explained that impact of these textbooks was minimal because, though the back of the book indicated that 20,000 copies were supposedly printed annually, that, because of corruption, ``fewer than 10,000 were ever printed and distributed.`` (Yvette Rosser)

Rewriting history - Murdering history amounts to state-sponsored terrorism
Mohammad Shehzad

Social studies textbooks in the Urdu language, printed by the government and used in government-run schools and institutions, fudge facts and indoctrinate students with a jaundiced worldview. The most comprehensive analyses of this phenomenon in Pakistan is historian Prof KK Aziz?s ?The Murder of History,? published by Vanguard Books Pvt Ltd. Social Studies for Students used in classes four through ten comes in seven versions. The subject is compulsory study for students in all state-sponsored schools and the textbook is the only book available to these schools. This later dovetails into Pakistan Studies, where even private schools are forced to teach a couple of texts that have been written at the behest of the state and project a certain idea of Pakistan, its supposed friends and adversaries. The books, which do not name the authors, are literary equivalent of hate speech. These books would not be out of place in any madrassah preparing the young for an early grave. ?Hindu? India and Britain are depicted as enemies while Saudi Arabia and the Muslim Ummah are extolled. The Pakistan Army and its ?three decisive victories? over India are mentioned liberally and are an example of how institutional attempt has been made to rewrite history.

Words like ?dark?, ?ugly? and ?short? are used to describe Hindus while Muslims are presented in glowing terms. Atrocities committed by Muslim invaders are glossed over while those by Hindu and Sikh invaders magnified. Invasions led by Muslims are justified as having been necessary for the expansion of Islam whereas Hindu-led invasions are depicted bleakly. Hindus are also reported as having colluded with the English to suppress the Muslims, according to these books. ?The English confiscated Muslim lands and gave them to the Hindus. Muslim welfare institutions also met a similar fate. The money generated through Muslim trusts was misappropriated by the English and this resulted in the closure of several Islamic madrassahs. The English also looted the cultural assets of the Muslims. Valuable and rare books of Muslims were transported to Britain and thus, as per plan, the Muslim educational system was ruined.? Replacement of Persian with English as the official language is also cited as an example of the Hindu-English campaign against Muslims. ?The English also replaced the Islamic law with Common Law. This made the Muslims on the judiciary redundant. And they were replaced by Hindus,? read the books. ?Gandhi was with the Muslims and against the English when the Caliphate Movement started but without giving any reason switched sides. This is typical of Hindus.? The ?obduracy? and ?subversiveness? of the Congress Party are posited as factors that led to the creation of Pakistan. The party is also accused of masterminding acts of violence and aggression against Muslims and plotting to install ?Hindu Raj? upon the end of British rule.

The Nehru Report is mentioned as an example of the Congress Party?s anti-Muslim stand. ?Congress and its Hindu leaders wanted to have a constitution that could help them prevail upon the Muslims. They were not willing to recognise the independent political standing of the Muslims. Neither were they inclined to protect Muslims? constitutional rights.? In 1937, Congress won six states. This period is described as one of untold misery for Muslims. ?The national anthem, ?Banday Matram?, is un-Islamic and preached hatred against Muslims. Recitation of it was made compulsory in schools; children were made to worship Gandhi?s portrait and salute the Congress flag... This was a bald attempt to undermine and forcibly replace Muslim traditions and culture. Muslims were embargoed from government services and disallowed from freely practicing Islam.? The government resigned two years later and this, on Jinnah?s instruction, was celebrated as the ?day of deliverance?. Needless to say Muslim League leaders are portrayed as possessing the patience of saints and the party is extolled for its role in the creation of Pakistan. ?The Hindus were biding their time and wanted, once the British left, to rule over Muslims to take revenge for the time they spent under benevolent Mughal rule.?

At the time of Partition, Congress leaders prevailed upon Viceroy Mountbatten and coerced Radcliffe into annexing several Muslims-majority districts to India that would have been part of Pakistan under the rules agreed upon, says the book. Pakistan was thus deprived of control over river waters from Ravi, Beas and Sutlej. ?India subjugated the people of Kashmir against their will,? they say, ?There were around 450 semi-sovereign states in the subcontinent that could have either joined India or Pakistan. Kashmir and Hyderabad-Deccan decided to remain sovereign. Kashmir?s Hindu Dogra dynasty prince struck a deal with Nehru and announced accession to India despite the wishes of the Kashmiri people.? When Junagadh announced accession to Pakistan, India sent its troops there to foil the accession. ?According to an agreement, Pakistan had to receive a lot of cash and ammunition from India which the latter blocked without justification,? the books say. However, no mention is made of the fact that Gandhi declared a fast-unto-death to force the India government to release funds that were Pakistan?s due. ?Muslims have always helped the Hindus who have only returned the favour by massacring innocent Muslims,? the textbook for Class IV makes plain on Page 85. ?India is an enemy. Its designs are nefarious. We should receive military training so that we could fight our enemy,? it suggests on Page 112. The propagation of the caste-system and of medieval practices such as satti (burning a widow on the husband?s pyre) are used to illustrate the inferiority of Hindu culture.

India is condemned for ?silently? attacking Pakistan on September 6, 1965. There is no mention of Operation Gibraltar under which Pakistan Army personnel in plainclothes went into Kashmir to support ?locals? against India. Accounts of all Indo-Pakistan wars are similarly skewed with the upshot always in Pakistan?s favour. Fifth grade students, for example, are taught that the 1971 war was a Hindu conspiracy. In September 1981, Pakistan offered India a no-war pact but India evaded the issue and started raising unnecessary objections over Pakistan?s foreign policy, the books say. ?Indo-Pak relations improved in 1990,? near the time of a near nuclear standoff incidentally, ?but suspicions remained as India was not sincere in fairly settling the Kashmir issue.? The UN is taken to task for its ineffectualness in resolving the Kashmir dispute. India is accused of settling Hindus in Kashmir so that if there finally is a plebiscite, as mandated by the UN resolutions, this new Hindu majority can vote for accession to India. Muslim countries are thanked for their support to Pakistan over Kashmir and General Pervez Musharraf is lionised for broaching the subject at the Agra Summit last year. ?President of Pakistan presented the Kashmir case courageously and splendidly which was appreciated by the entire world but the summit failed.? One remarkable thing about these textbooks is the addition every ruler does to them. Sometimes, previous rulers are either criticised or just ignored. For instance, during General Zia-ul Haq?s period, all references to prime minister Zulfikar Ali Bhutto were removed. Citing the signing of the 1973 constitution, for instance, the textbook dealt with the issue in one small paragraph without a single reference to Bhutto.

India is blamed for imposing three wars on Pakistan, for starting an arms race in the region, and for the wholesale slaughter of Kashmiris. But the books do sound off on a bit of hope. ?Pakistan is a peaceful nation and wants pleasant ties with India. In the days to come, Pakistan-India relations will improve.? This may seem to contradict definitions of jihad in the books describing it as a religious duty to war against India. (Rich tribute has been paid to Shah Mohammad Ismail and Maulana Abdul Hayee for waging jihad against the English in the Frontier province.) Pakistan?s ills are blamed squarely on India and no mention is made of draconian laws like the Hudood Ordinance and commonplace crimes against women and children and minorities that make life in Pakistan miserable. Afghanistan and its refusal since 1947 to accept the Durand Line as the international border are also mentioned. The country is accused of coming up with the irredentist cry for Pashtunistan. The books say diplomatic relations were severed twice, in 1955 and 1961. ?Despite this animosity, Pakistan extended Afghanistan trade facilities... During the Afghan war, Pakistan gave refuge to three million displaced Afghans.? The books also exalt the Taliban as Mujahideen or holy warriors.

Absent, however, is the August 11, 1947, speech of the Quaid-e-Azam in which he presented his vision for a secular, democratic Pakistan. At the end of the books a list of martyrs who received the military honour Nishan-e-Haider has been published. There is also no mention of social workers and philanthropists. Abdul Sattar Edhi and Ansar Burney are conspicuously absent from the pages of these books. ?The absolutist worldview these books champion,? says one educationalist, ?promotes a dangerous environment rife with hatred and suspicion of the other. Forcing students to read such stuff amounts to state-sponsored terrorism. These poisoned texts need to be reviewed urgently.? - The Friday Times)
Sridhar

#516 by Mantolives

[Bechara rsridhar... with high blood pressure because he can`t defend Gandhi... so he must abuse me.]

On the contrary, Gandhi needs no defense against two-bit losers like you. At best, you can bring in articles from unknown columnists who aren`t even taken seriously by any reputable newspaper to prove Gandhi`s racism. Even that hasn`t been able to tarnish his impeccable reputation. Even the South Africans who were the target of Gandhi`s supposedly racist behavior acknowledge his immense contribution to their struggle against Apartheid. Compared to that, today even Pakis are questioning the wisdom of partition. What does that tell you about the madcap Jinnah? That the dying old fokk was a colossal failure.

BTW, have you been able to change anyone`s (even a Paki`s) opinion on Gandhi? I still see the Hate-Gandhi club has only two adults and a kid as members and the tally shows no sign of increasing. Bechara Yasser!

Bechara rsridhar... with high blood pressure because he can`t defend Gandhi... so he must abuse me.

re: All terror roads lead to Pukistan
It was said in old times: all roads lead to Rome.
Today, all roads to terrorism lead to Pakistan
Sridhar

re: The Whisky priest
Jinnah may be called the Whisky priest or as the hindi expression goes ``muh mein Ram, bagal mein churi``. He may have talked of peace and secularism but the mofukcer created the biggest mess the world has ever seen viz Pukistan that is today a hotbed of terrorism and Islamic fundamentalism.
Jinnah`s moth eaten land has always been a happy hunting ground for Al-Qaida.
Sridhar

re:#508 by Mantolives
I do not interact with nutcases.
You can stuff your jinnah up where the sun never shines.
Your nation awaits the same fate as jinnah.
Sridhar

re:#503 by Mantolives
Ha, ha.
Manto idiot is working so hard to prove Gandhi is a racist.
Why does he not write a book and see how many people outside Pukistan will buy the book.
I know it will sell well in Pukistan.
With nutcases like Manto, Indians need not worry. Pakistan has no future at all.
Sridhar

re: tahmed
Mullah tahmed says:
(The seeds for hindu-muslim animosity were laid in the late 19th century as a result of the hindu revivalist movement..)
So, now u guys have your own nation, why are u still persecuting the minorities (see my posts addressed to Manto)?
If what u say were true and muslims were not inherently anti-hindu, you could have shown the way and treated hindus, christians, ahmediyas well in Pakistan.
That has not happened.
Read my posts to Manto to know how discrimination and hatred got institutionalized, with legal sanctions.
As i already said, u need to change your history book.
Sridhar

re: a porkeater`s legacy
While India has a thriving democracy at peace with itself, Jinnah the porkeater`s legacy is mired in terrorism. In a revealing article in The Washington Times, Arnaud de Borchgrave argues that Pakistan knew about the 9/11 conspiracy.
The Jinnah conspiracy
(Osama bin Laden`s principal Pakistani adviser prior to 9/11 was retired Gen. Hamid Gul, a former ISI chief who is ``strategic adviser`` to the coalition of six politico-religious parties that governs two of Pakistan`s four provinces. Known as MMA, the coalition also occupies 20 percent of the seats in the federal assembly in Islamabad)

(Gul spent two weeks in Afghanistan immediately prior to 9/11. He denied having met Osama bin Laden during that trip, but has always said he was an ``admirer`` of the al-Qaida leader. However, he did meet with Mullah Mohammad Omar, the Taliban leader, on several occasions.)
Sridhar

By TV- I mean movie news reels etc as well- that championed Gandhi unfairly and unjustly through out the 1940s and 1950s...

Rsridhar...

Now- next time you choose to abuse Jinnah- abuse him as much as you can ... but know that Gandhi was a fundamentalist Hindu fanatic freak- an absolute man of hate-

There is no way around it. One must read Gandhi`s collected works and truly ascertain what the man stood for. Dr King, a man thousand times more sincere than Gandhi, made this crucial mistake of not reading the collected works but instead arguing on the basis of what he knew on TV... had the collected works of Mahatma Gandhi been so widely available then I am sure, as a man of integrity, Dr King would never champion Gandhi.

Sadly... the collected works of Mahatma Gandhi did not become widely availabe in the US till the mid 1970s... and the great man, Dr King, had by then succumbed to an assassin.

Gandhi branded racist in Johannesburg *LINK*

Posted By: New
Date: 17, October 03, at 11:15 p.m.

Gandhi branded racist as Johannesburg honours freedom fighter

Rory Carroll in Johannesburg
Friday October 17, 2003
The Guardian

It was supposed to honour his resistance to racism in South Africa, but a new statue of Mahatma Gandhi in Johannesburg has triggered a row over his alleged contempt for black people.

The 2.5 metre high (8ft) bronze statue depicting Gandhi as a dashing young human rights lawyer has been welcomed by Nelson Mandela, among others, for recognising the Indian who launched the fight against white minority rule at the turn of the last century.

But critics have attacked the gesture for overlooking racist statements attributed to Gandhi, which suggest he viewed black people as lazy savages who were barely human.

Newspapers continue to publish letters from indignant readers: ``Gandhi had no love for Africans. To [him], Africans were no better than the `Untouchables` of India,`` said a correspondent to The Citizen.

Others are harsher, claiming the civil rights icon ``hated`` black people and ignored their suffering at the hands of colonial masters while championing the cause of Indians.

Unveiled this month, the statue stands in Gandhi Square in central Johannesburg, not far from the office from which he worked during some of his 21 years in South Africa.

The British-trained barrister was supposed to have been on a brief visit in 1893 to represent an Indian company in a legal action, but he stayed to fight racist laws after a conductor kicked him off a train for sitting in a first-class compartment reserved for whites.

Outraged, he started defending Indians charged with failing to register for passes and other political offences, founded a newspaper, and formed South Africa`s first organised political resistance movement. His tactics of mobilising people for passive resistance and mass protest inspired black people to organise and some historians credit Gandhi as the progenitor of the African National Congress, which formed in 1912, two years before he returned to India to fight British colonial rule.

However, the new statue has prompted bitter recollections about some of Gandhi`s writings.

Forced to share a cell with black people, he wrote: ``Many of the native prisoners are only one degree removed from the animal and often created rows and fought among themselves.``

He was quoted at a meeting in Bombay in 1896 saying that Europeans sought to degrade Indians to the level of the ``raw kaffir, whose occupation is hunting and whose sole ambition is to collect a certain number of cattle to buy a wife with, and then pass his life in indolence and nakedness``.

The Johannesburg daily This Day said GB Singh, the author of a critical book about Gandhi, had sifted through photos of Gandhi in South Africa and found not one black person in his vicinity.

The Indian embassy in Pretoria declined to comment, as it prepared for President Thabo Mbeki`s visit to India.

Khulekani Ntshangase, a spokesman for the ANC Youth League, defended Gandhi, saying the critics missed the bigger picture of his immense contribution to the liberation struggle.

Gandhi`s offending comments were made early in his life when he was influenced by Indians working on the sugar plantations and did not get on with the black people of modern-day KwaZulu-Natal province, said Mr Ntshangase.

``Later he got more enlightened.``

© Guardian Newspapers Limited 2003

Gandhi`s Grandest Accomplishment

To force the British Government to permit one class of niggers to discriminate against another class of niggers



http://www.geocities.com/raqta24/gqtes.htm

Thanks to the Court`s decision, only clean Indians (meaning upper caste Hindu Indians) or colored people other than Kaffirs [read: niggers], can now travel in the trains. (M. K. Gandhi)

Ours is one continued struggle sought to be inflicted upon us by the Europeans, who desire to degrade us to the level of the raw Kaffir (Africans), 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. (M. K. Gandhi)

We believe as much in the purity of races as we think they (the Whites) do...by advocating the purity of all races. (M. K. Gandhi)



http://www.geocities.com/fusaoracial/DiversosEnglishMFP.htm

..I am absolutely against any attempt to abolish fundamental divisions. The system of the castes is not founded on inequality... There is not any valid reason to remove the system because of its abuses.


Mahatma Gandhi* (1869-1948). Système des castes, l’Inde nouvelle, p. 479.



http://amonhotep.com/1999/discussions2.htm

Gandhi was loyal to imperialism
By Velu Annamalai, Ph.D.

Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. might have heard the word of non-violence from Gandhi, but it is certain that Dr. King did not know the true colors of Mr. Gandhi.

From the beginning to the end, M.K. Gandhi was loyal to imperialism. The Western news media and their Indian allies by a massive propaganda exercise created the illusion of sainthood around Gandhi and made people believe that he fought Apartheid in South Africa, and in the process of doing so developed a new method of non-violent struggle called satyagraha.

Nothing is farther from the truth. Gandhi, for the major part of his life, worshipped British imperialism and too often proudly proclaimed himself a lover of the Empire. He was Kipling`s Gunga Din in flesh and blood.

To understand Gandhi`s politics in South Africa, it is essential to note the three fundamental trends which all along persisted underneath all his activities. They were:


(1) his loyalty to the British Empire,

(2) his apathy with regard to the Indian ``lower castes``, India`s indigenous population, and

(3) his virulent anti-African racism.




Gandhi was once thrown out of a train compartment which was reserved exclusively for the Whites. It was not that Gandhi was fighting on behalf of the local Africans that he broke the rule in getting into a Whites` compartment. No! that was not the reason. Gandhi was so furious that he and his merchant caste Indians (Banias) were treated on par with the local Africans. This is the real reason for his fighting race discrimination in South Africa, and he had absolutely no concern about the pitiable way the Africans were treated by the Whites.

On June 2, 1906 he commented in the Indian Opinion that ``Thanks to the Court`s decision, only clean Indians (meaning upper caste Hindu Indians) or colored people other than Kaffirs, can now travel in the trains.``

During the `Kaffir Wars` in South Africa he was a regular Gunga Din, who volunteered to organize a brigade of Indians to put down the Zulu uprising and was decorated himself for valor under fire.

Gandhi said on September 26, 1896 about the African people:

``Ours is one continued struggle sought to be inflicted upon us by the Europeans, who desire to degrade us to the level of the raw Kaffir, 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.``

Again in an editorial on the Natal Municipal Corporation Bill, in the Indian Opinion of March 18, 1905, Gandhi wrote: ``Clause 200 makes provision for registration of persons belonging to uncivilized races (meaning the local Africans), resident and employed within the Borough. One can understand the necessity of registration of Kaffirs who will not work, but why should registration be required for indentured Indians...?`` Again on September 9, 1905, Gandhi wrote about the local Africans as: ``in the majority of cases it compels the native to work for at least a few days a year`` (meaning that the locals are lazy).

Nothing could be farther from the truth that Gandhi fought against Apartheid, which many propagandists in later years wanted people to believe. He was all in favor of continuation of White domination and the oppression of Blacks in South Africa.

In the Indian Opinion of March 25, 1905, Gandhi wrote on a Bill regulating firearms: ``In the instance of firearms, the Asiatic has been most improperly bracketed with the natives. The British Indian does not need any such restrictions as are imposed by the Bill on the natives regarding the carrying of fire-arms. The prominent race can remain so by preventing the native from arming himself. Is there the slightest vestige of justification for so preventing the British Indians?``

Gandhi always advised Indians not to align with other political groups in either colored or African communities. He was strongly opposed to the commingling of races. In the Indian Opinion of September 4, 1904, Gandhi wrote: ``Under my suggestion, the Town Council (of Johannesburg) must withdraw the Kaffirs from the Location. About this mixing of the Kaffirs with the Indians, I must confess I feel most strongly. It think it is very unfair to the Indian population, and it is an undue tax on even the proverbial patience of my countrymen.``

In the Indian Opinion of September 24, 1903, Gandhi said: ``We believe as much in the purity of races as we think they (the Whites) do...by advocating the purity of all races.``

Again on December 24, 1903, in the Indian Opinion Gandhi stated that: ``so far as British Indians are concerned, such a thing is particularly unknown. If there is one thing which the Indian cherishes more than any other, it is purity of type.``

When he was fighting on behalf of Indians, he was not fighting for all the Indians, but only for his rich merchant class upper caste Hindus!

In the Anglo-Boer War of 1899, Gandhi, in spite of his own belief that truth was on the side of the Boers, formed an ambulance unit in support of the British forces. He was very earnest about taking up arms and laying down his life for his beloved Queen. He led his men on to the battlefield and received a War Medal.

Gandhi joined in the orgy of Zulu slaughter when the Bambata Rebellion broke out. One needs to read the entire history of Bambata Rebellion to place Gandhi`s nazi war crimes in its proper perspective.



Palestine belongs to the Arabs in the same sense that England belongs to the English or France to the French. It is wrong and inhuman to impose the Jews on the Arabs. What is going on in Palestine today cannot be justified by any moral code of conduct. The mandates have no sanction but that of the last war. Surely it would be a crime against humanity to reduce the proud Arabs so that Palestine can be restored to the Jews partly or wholly as their national home.

Harijan, 26-11-1938.

Mohatma K. Gandhi (Mohandas Kirmachand Gandhi), My Non-Violence. Edited by Sailesh Kumar Bandopadhaya (Ahmedabad: Navajivan Publishing House, 1960)

The Myth of Mahatma Gandhi

By Arthur Kemp


While the following can be seen as the exposition of a modern myth, it has much deeper significance. This website’s commentary follows the article. Ed

One the anachronism of modern liberalism is that it elevates scoundrels to be heroes, and denigrates heroes into scoundrels. And when it cannot do that, liberalism simply lies.

So it is the case with one of liberalism`s icons, Mahatma Gandhi. All over the world, the Indian leader Gandhi is held up as an icon of peace, pacifism, tolerance and brotherly love.

Statues are erected to him, his ``example`` is taught to Western schoolchildren, and Hollywood has even made a film about him. In all of these, Gandhi is portrayed as the ultimate peacemaker, the living example of multi-culturalism.

Sadly, liberalism and the truth have seldom met.

For in reality, Gandhi was a first class Indian racist who not only despised Blacks, but also lower caste Indians!

Those who have been subjected to some ``conventional`` Gandhi propaganda will know that he was born in India, studied to become an attorney in England, spent many years ``organizing passive resistance`` in South Africa, and then returned to India to lead the passive resistance movement against British rule in that country. He was finally assassinated by one of his own kind.


Gandhi the Anti-Black Racist

Lying in the publicly accessible archives of the South African state records in Pretoria and in the Johannesburg public library are full sets of the newspaper which Gandhi started in that country: the ``Indian Opinion.``

In addition, the Indian government has built an Internet site dedicated to Gandhi, and much of his writing is now available online as well. From these, and the official compilation of Gandhi`s writings, the ``Collected Works``, the true face of Gandhi emerges: an anti-Black Indian racist!


”The Raw Kaffir” – Gandhi Describing Blacks

When Gandhi addressed a public meeting in Bombay on 26 September 1896, he had the following to say about the Indian struggle in South Africa:

``Ours is one continued struggle against degradation sought to be inflicted upon us by the European, who desire to degrade us to the level of the raw Kaffir, whose occupation is hunting and whose sole ambition is to collect a certain number of cattle to buy a wife with, and then pass his life in indolence and nakedness.`` (1)

In 1904, opposing the then White British South African government`s plan to draw up a register of all non-Whites in the urban areas, Gandhi wrote about `natives` who do not work:

``It is one thing to register natives who would not work, and whom it is very difficult to find out if they absent themselves, but it is another thing -and most insulting - to expect decent, hard-working, and respectable Indians, whose only fault is that they work too much, to have themselves registered and carry with them registration badges.`` (2)

Commenting on a piece of legislation planned by the White Natal Municipal authority, called the Natal Municipal Corporation Bill, Gandhi wrote in his newspaper, the Indian Opinion on March 18 1905:

``Clause 200 makes provision for registration of persons belonging to uncivilized races, resident and employed within the Borough. One can understand the necessity of registration of Kaffirs who will not work, but why should registration be required for indentured Indians who have become free, and for their descendants about whom the general complaint is that they work too much?`` (3)


’The Native – Little Benefit to the State’ - Gandhi

The Indian Opinion published an editorial on September 9 1905 under the heading, ``The relative Value of the Natives and the Indians in Natal``. In it, Gandhi referred to a speech made by Rev. Dube, an early African nationalist, who said that an African had the capacity for improvement, if only the Whites would give them the opportunity. In his response, Gandhi suggested that:

``A little judicious extra taxation would do no harm; in the majority of cases it compels the native to work for at least a few days a year.`` (4)

Then he added:

``Now let us turn our attention to another and entirely unrepresented community - the Indian. He is in striking contrast with the native. While the native has been of little benefit to the State, it owes its prosperity largely to the Indians. While native loafers abound on every side, that species of humanity is almost unknown among Indians here.`` (5)


Gandhi Complained about British use of ‘Kaffir Police’

In a letter to the editor of the Times of London, published in 12 November 1906. Gandhi complained that under British rule, ``Kaffir police`` were ``hustling`` Indians in South Africa. Gandhi wrote:

``Poor people were, under the registration effected by Lord Milner`s advice, dragged at four o`clock on a cold winter`s morning -from their beds in Johannesburg, Heidelberg and Potchefstroom, and marched to the police station, or Asiatic Offices, as the case might be. It is they who under the Ordinance would be hustled by the Kaffir Police at every turn, and not the better-class Indians.`` (6)

Gandhi`s opinion of a series of 1906 amendments to the `Asiatic Law,` No. 3 of 1885, which placed certain restrictions upon Indians in British South Africa, are also insightful as to his true views on race. Writing in his Indian Opinion newspaper on 8 June 1907, Gandhi remarked that that the law ``does not apply to Kaffirs and Cape Boys`` (7) and went on to write that one of the main concerns he had with the act, which he called an ``obnoxious law``, was that a ``Kaffir police constable`` could detain an Indian. He wrote:

``At present, only the Permit Secretary is authorized to inspect a permit. Under the new Act, every Kaffir police constable can do so. Under the new Act, a Kaffir police constable can ask [an Asiatic] for particulars of name and identity, and, if not satisfied, can take him to the police station.`` (8)

After dealing with a number of other grievances with the law, Gandhi added:

``Is there any Indian who is not roused to fury by such a law? We should very much like to know the Indian whose blood does not boil. And it is incredible to us that any Indian may want to submit to such legislation.`` (9)


Gandhi’s Role in the Bambetta Uprising

In 1906 a Zulu rebellion against British rule took place in the colony of Natal. His alleged pacifist ideals notwithstanding, Gandhi joined up with the British forces and became an ambulance stretcher bearer, helping to suppress the Black rebellion, known as the Bambetta Uprising.

In his memoirs of the campaign to help the British defeat the Blacks, Gandhi wrote of how he saw a ``Kaffir who did not wear the loyal badge`` - i.e. A Zulu who was not loyal to the British and who had taken part in the uprising against the White British colonial rule.

``As we were struggling along, we met a Kaffir who did not wear the loyal badge. He was armed with an assegai and was hiding himself. However, we safely rejoined the troops on the further hill, whilst they were sweeping with their carbines the bushes below.`` (10)

Gandhi also remarked on how unreliable these `loyal` Blacks were, writing that:

``The Natives in our hands proved to be most unreliable and obstinate. Without constant attention, they would as soon have dropped the wounded man as not, and they seemed to bestow no care on their suffering countryman.`` (11)

The most poignant line in Gandhi`s Zulu war memoirs is however this one, which exposes his alleged pacifism as a hoax:

``However, at about 12 o`clock we finished the day`s journey, with no Kaffirs to fight.`` (12)

Contrary to the liberal myth, Gandhi never once tried to help anybody else but Indians, and even then, only upper casts Indians at that. He consistently sought a special position for his people which would be separated from and superior to that of the Blacks. (13)

A good example came when the British colony of Natal took active steps to ensure that the Indians in that colony were deprived of the vote. `The Franchise Amendment Bill` introduced in 1896, prohibited Indians from registering for the vote, while allowing those already on the rolls to remain.

Within a few years, this eliminated the Indian as a voting factor in Natal, and it was this law which caused the Indian merchants to ask Gandhi to stay in South Africa, and around it was established the Natal Indian Congress, the first Indian political organisation in South Africa.

One of the first achievements of the Natal Indian Congress - which Gandhi established - was the creation of a third separate entrance to the Durban Post Office. The first was for Whites, but previously Indians had to share the second with the Blacks. The third entrance - for Indians alone - satisfied Gandhi. (14)


’Indian Ranked Lower than the Rawest Native’

In their petitions against the Natal franchise bill, the Indians, with Gandhi as their spokesman, complained that ``the Bill would rank the Indian lower than the rawest Native``. In attempting to protect their own position, they believed they had to separate themselves from the native Blacks. (15)

In addition, other prominent Indians, all colleagues of Gandhi, frequently complained of being mixed in with Natives in railway cars, lavatories, pass laws, and in other regulations. (16)

Recalling his time in a Transvaal prison in October 1908, Gandhi said later that he spent the ``first night in the company of some kaffir criminals, wild-looking, murderous, vicious, lewd and uncouth.`` (17)


Gandhi and Race

Gandhi was, despite modern propaganda, acutely aware of the differences between races, as this letter to W.T. Stead, an English friend of his in London, written in 1906, clearly shows:

``As you were good enough to show very great sympathy with the cause of British Indians in the Transvaal, may I suggest your using your influence with the Boer leaders in the Transvaal? I feel certain that they did not share the same prejudice against British Indians as against the Kaffir races but as the prejudice against Kaffir races in a strong form was in existence in the Transvaal at the time when the British Indians immigrated there, the latter were immediately lumped together with the Kaffir races and described under the generic term ``Coloured people``. Gradually the Boer mind was habituated to this qualification and it refused to recognize the evident and sharp distinctions that undoubtedly exist between British Indians and the Kaffir races in South Africa.`` (18)

Indeed, Gandhi remarked about the issue of taxation of Indians in South Africa that ``A Kaffir is to be taxed because he does not work enough: an Indian is to be taxed because he works too much.`` (19)

Writing about a law which was designed to restrict Indian movement in the British Cape Colony, Gandhi objected on the basis that it dragged Indians ``down with the Kaffir(s).`` He wrote:

``The bye-law has its origin in the alleged or real, impudent and, in some cases, indecent behaviour of the Kaffirs. But, whatever the charges are against the British Indians, no one has ever whispered that the Indians behave otherwise than as decent men. But, as it is the wont in this part of the world, they have been dragged down with the Kaffir without the slightest justification.`` (20)


Gandhi was Aware of the Abusive Nature of his Words

In what context did Gandhi use this word `kaffir` which is most certainly a term of abuse? Gandhi himself understood full well the word`s meaning, as he himself commented in later life the following when commenting upon another person`s use of the word to describe a Christian:

``And finally, about Mr. Douglas who, as I have stated above, has tendered his resignation. The gentleman has been simply overhasty. He took offence at the Maulana Saheb`s use of the word kaffir for a Christian. I can understand his resentment. It would have been better if the word kaffir were not used.`` (21)

In addition, Gandhi remarked ``If Kaffir is a term of opprobrium, how much more so is Chandal?`` referring to Hindu and Muslim slang words for each other. (22)

Therefore there can be little doubt as to Gandhi`s racist intention when he referred to `kaffirs` in South Africa, and only a deluded liberal would suggest otherwise.


’The Prominent Race’

In the Government Gazette of Natal for Feb. 28 1905, a Bill was published regulating the use of fire-arms by Blacks and Indians. Commenting on the Bill, Gandhi wrote in his newspaper, the Indian Opinion on March 25 1905:

``In this instance of the fire-arms, the Asiatic has been most improperly bracketed with the natives. The British Indian does not need any such restrictions as are imposed by the Bill on the natives regarding the carrying of fire-arms. The prominent race can remain so by preventing the native from arming himself. Is there a slightest vestige of justification for so preventing the British Indian?`` (23)

Gandhi, like many caste conscious Indians (he was born to a fairly high shop owner caste) was all in favor of segregation from the Blacks. His reaction to a 1906 petition launched by non-Whites in South Africa to the British King, demanding voting rights, reveals this attitude clearly:

``It seems that the petition is being widely circulated, and signatures are being taken of all colored people in the three colonies named. The petition is non-Indian in character, although British Indians, being colored people, are very largely affected by it. We consider that it was a wise policy on the part of the British Indians throughout South Africa, to have kept themselves apart and distinct from the other colored communities in this country.`` (24)


The Famous Train Incident

In the Hollywood film made about Gandhi, much emphasis was placed on a scene where he was arrested for riding in a South African train coach reserved for Whites. This incident did indeed occur, but for very different reasons than those the film portrayed!

For the liberal myth is that Gandhi was protesting at the exclusion of non-Whites from the train coach: in fact, he was trying to persuade the authorities to let ONLY upper caste Indians ride with the Whites.

It was NEVER Gandhi`s intention to let Blacks, or even lower Caste Indians, to share the White compartment!

Here, in Gandhi`s own words, are his comments on this famous incident, complete with reference to upper caste Indians, who he differentiated from lower caste Indians by calling the former ``clean``:

``You say that the magistrate`s decision is unsatisfactory because it would enable a person, however unclean, to travel by a tram, and that even the Kaffirs would be able to do so. But the magistrate`s decision is quite different. The Court declared that the Kaffirs have no legal right to travel by tram. And according to tram regulations, those in an unclean dress or in a drunken state are prohibited from boarding a tram. Thanks to the Court`s decision, only clean Indians or colored people other than Kaffirs, can now travel in the trams.`` (25)


Gandhi Supported Segregation

It is also a myth to presume that Gandhi was opposed to racial segregation. Witness this piece of his writing, published in his newspaper, Indian Opinion, of 15 February 1905. It was a letter to the White Johannesburg Medical Officer of Health, a Dr. Porter, concerning the fact that Blacks had been allowed to
settle in an Indian residential area:

``Why, of all places in Johannesburg, the Indian location should be chosen for dumping down all Kaffirs of the town, passes my comprehension. Of course, under my suggestion, the Town Council must withdraw the Kaffirs from the Location. About this mixing of the Kaffirs with the Indians I must confess I feel most strongly. I think it is very unfair to the Indian population, and it is an undue tax on even the proverbial patience of my countrymen.`` (26)


Gandhi’s Support for ‘Purity of Race’

In response to the rise of White nationalist politics, which stressed racial separation, Gandhi wrote in his Indian Opinion of 24 September 1903:

``We believe as much in the purity of race as we think they do, only we believe that they would best serve these interests, which are as dear to us as to them, by advocating the purity of all races, and not one alone. We believe also that the white race of South Africa should be the predominating race.`` (27)

On 24 December 1903, Gandhi added this in his Indian Opinion newspaper:

``The petition dwells upon `the co-mingling of the colored and white races`. May we inform the members of the Conference that so far as British Indians are concerned, such a thing is particularly unknown. If there is one thing which the Indian cherishes more than any other, it is the purity of type.`` (28)

And yet the liberal delusion over Gandhi lives on . . .

Sources:
(1) The Collected Works of Mahatma Gandhi, Ahmedabad, 1963, Volume II p. 74
(2) The Collected Works of Mahatma Gandhi, Ahmedabad, 1963, Volume IV p. 193
(3) MK Gandhi, Indian Opinion, 18 March 1905
(4) MK Gandhi, Indian Opinion, 9 September 1905
(5) MK Gandhi, Indian Opinion, 9 September 1905
(6) MK Gandhi, Letter to ``The Times,`` London, 12 November, 1906, as
reproduced on `The Complete Site on Mathatma Gandhi,`
www.mkgandhi.org/cwm/vol6/ch060.htm
(7) MK Gandhi, Indian Opinion, 8-6-1907, `New Obnoxious Law`, as reproduced at `The Complete Site on Mathatma Gandhi,`
www.mkgandhi.org/cwm/vol6/ch409.htm
(8) MK Gandhi, Indian Opinion, 8-6-1907, `New Obnoxious Law`, as reproduced at `The Complete Site on Mathatma Gandhi,`
www.mkgandhi.org/cwm/vol6/ch409.htm
(9) MK Gandhi, Indian Opinion, 8-6-1907, `New Obnoxious Law`, as reproduced at `The Complete Site on Mathatma Gandhi,`
www.mkgandhi.org/cwm/vol6/ch409.htm
(10) MK Gandhi, Memoirs of the Indian Stretcher Bearer Corps, as published in Indian Opinion, 28-7-1906, and reproduced on `The Complete Site on Mathatma Gandhi,` www.mkgandhi.org/cwm/vol5/ch262.htm
(11) MK Gandhi, Memoirs of the Indian Stretcher Bearer Corps, as published in Indian Opinion, 28-7-1906, and reproduced on `The Complete Site on Mathatma Gandhi,` www.mkgandhi.org/cwm/vol5/ch262.htm
(12) MK Gandhi, Collected Works, memoirs of the Indian Stretcher Bearer Corps, as published in Indian Opinion, 28-7-1906, and reproduced on `The Complete Site on Mathatma Gandhi,` www.mkgandhi.org/cwm/vol5/ch262.htm
(13) James D. Hunt, Gandhi and the Black People of South Africa, Shaw
University and reproduced on `The Complete Site on Mathatma Gandhi,`
www.mkgandhi.org/articles/jamesdhunt.htm
(14) James D. Hunt, Gandhi and the Black People of South Africa, Shaw
University and reproduced on `The Complete Site on Mathatma Gandhi,`
www.mkgandhi.org/articles/jamesdhunt.htm
(15) James D. Hunt, Gandhi and the Black People of South Africa, Shaw
University and reproduced on `The Complete Site on Mathatma Gandhi,`
www.mkgandhi.org/articles/jamesdhunt.htm
(16) James D. Hunt, Gandhi and the Black People of South Africa, Shaw
University and reproduced on `The Complete Site on Mathatma Gandhi,`
www.mkgandhi.org/articles/jamesdhunt.htm
(17) B. R. Nanda, Mahatma Gandhi - A Biography, page 105, The Official Mahatma Gandhi eArchive, Mahatma Gandhi Foundation - India,
www.mahatma.org.in/books/showbook.jsp?link=og&book=og0003&id=105&lang=en&file=3418&cat=books
(18) MK Gandhi, Letter to W.T. STEAD, London, 16 November 16, 1906, from a photostat of the typewritten office copy: S.N. 4584, as reproduced at `The Complete Site on Mathatma Gandhi,` www.mkgandhi.org/cwm/vol6/ch092.htm
(19) MK Gandhi, The Collected Works of Mahatma Gandhi - Volume III, page 337, The Official Mahatma Gandhi Archive, Mahatma Gandhi Foundation - India,
www.mahatma.org.in/books/showbook.jsp?link=bg&b
ook=bg0015&id=358&lang=en&file=1750&cat=books
(20) MK Gandhi, The Collected Works of Mahatma Gandhi, Volume III, page 285, The Official Mahatma Gandhi Archive, Mahatma Gandhi Foundation - India,
www.mahatma.org.in/books/showbook.jsp?link=bg&book=bg0015&id=306&lang=en&fil
e=1698&cat=books
(21) Mahadev Desai , Day to day with Gandhi - Volume II, page 291, The Official Mahatma Gandhi Archive, Mahatma Gandhi Foundation - India,
www.mahatma.org.in/books/showbook.jsp?link=bg&book=bg0015&id=36&lang=en&file=1428&cat=b
ooks
(22) MK Gandhi, The Hindu-Muslim Unity, page 45, The Official Mahatma Gandhi Archive, Mahatma Gandhi Foundation - India,
www.mahatma.org.in/books/showbook.jsp?link=bg&book=bg0020&id=61&lang=en&file=7426&cat=books
(23) MK Gandhi, Indian Opinion, 25 March 1905
(24) MK Gandhi, Indian Opinion, 24 March 1906
(25) MK Gandhi, Indian Opinion, 2 June 1906
(26) MK Gandhi, Indian Opinion, 15 February 1905
(27) MK Gandhi, Indian Opinion, 24 September 1903
(28) MK Gandhi, Indian Opinion,24 December 1903

Courtesy RePortersNoteBook


Commentary

The above article should prompt us to look beyond the surface when it comes to matters of “race” and “racism”.

This writer happens to be descended from a family of mixed race South Africans. In various part of the world, they would be considered “blacks” or “mulattoes”, but they too look down upon their native African counterparts, the truly indigenous Africans, just like Gandhi referring to them as “Kaffirs”.

In fact the word itself is not colonial in origin but originally derived from a term used by Arab slave traders to describe their human cargo. Meaning literally “unbeliever”, the term was used derogatorily by the largely Muslim Arabs for the natives of sub-Saharan Africa, whom they considered so low as to be beyond the reach of God.

All of which is more than just indicative of “racism”, for this writer has seen black Africans from the east and west of the continent express exactly the same contempt toward their counterparts in southern Africa. Probably with the same sort of disdain that the British ruling classes once viewed their Irish labourers.

Likewise, blacks from the West Indies now view their counterparts from mainland Africa with a similar contempt. So what is actually happening here?

This writer would suggest that different astral influences play upon different parts of the planet’s surface, just as they do at different times of the year. These forces play a key role in shaping those under their influence. So along with other more discernable factors like education and societal morality, these barely discernable forces help mould the collective identity of those in their thrall. Resulting in differences in national temperament, regional identity and racial characteristics. Of course, that does not justify Gandhi’s apparent racism but it may help explain it.

It may also help explain why the modern media is so intent on telling us that racial differences do not really exist, or that they are a thing of the past. If we do not understand the forces that make us what we are, it makes it for those that do comprehend them, that much easier to manipulate us through the principle of divide and rule. Like they say, knowledge is power and for those who understand the forces that shape collective identity of various peoples, that knowledge gives them power over those who do not.