In response to
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/mukto-mona/message/4920

"Golam F. Akhter" wrote:
>
> I want to rebut Mr. N. Bhattacharyya's findings and opinion. Netaji
> Mohatma Gandhi was a pioneer of Non Violent Movement after possibly
> Jesus Christ but he was not always perfect. Let me give my little
> background, I am a strong (possibly) activists of Universal
> Declaration of Human Rights of United Nations and many are. Mr.
> Bhattacharyya I hope you have read about Gandhi and seen the Gandhi
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> movie. Mr. Gandhi's life from his boy hood was different and his
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> nonviolent technique against British Raj first worked in South
> Africa. That experience encouraged him to resolve problems with
> British Raj in India. If you remember the scene while he was beaten
> by a British
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> Police while burning his identity card along with other Hindu and
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I prefer to learn my history from books and not from movies.
Regarding Gandhi's efforts in South Africa, here is a revealing quote
from Suniti Ghosh's "India and the Raj"

"In an open letter to the members of the Natal legislatures, Gandhi
while claiming that the Indians and the English have descended from
the same common stock regretted that the English regarded the Indians
as "little better, if at all than savages or the Natives of Africa"
whom he referred to as "raw Kaffirs" " (page 148)

Here is another quote from Suniti Kumar Ghosh's "India and the Raj"
(Vol I p.149):

QUOTE STARTS
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
In 1906, when the Zulu rebellion broke out, Gandhi led as
sergeant-major a volunteer stretcher-bearer company for service with
the Natal government forces. "The rightness or otherwise of the
'rebellion'" wrote the mahatma, "was therefore not likely to affect my
decision", as he continued to cherish a "genuine sense of loyalty" to
the British empire. This was not surprising for, according to him,
Queen Victoria's proclamation after the defeat of India's First War of
Independence was "the Magna Charta of the British Indians," and Sir
John Lawrence was "the saviour of the Punjab" and "in a very great
measure, of the whole of British India." The Zulus, the indigenous
people of Natal, who lacked fire-arms, were being butchered in their
thousands in their own homes. Gandhi wrote: "This was no war but a
man-hunt..."

QUOTE ENDS
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Let us see some more quotes (this time from Gandhi's autobiography) on
the role of Gandhi in the Zulu campaign. You can find Gandhi's
autobiography on the net at http://www.mahatma.org.in/ Check under The
Zulu Rebellion (page 261).

QUOTE STARTS
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

The papers brought the news of the out break of the Zulu 'rebellion'
in Natal. I bore no grudge against the Zulus, they had harmed no
Indian. I had doubts about the 'rebellion' itself. But I then believed
that the British Empire existed for the welfare of the world. A
genuine sense of loyalty prevented me from even wishing ill to the
Empire. The rightness or otherwise of the 'rebellion' was therefore
not likely to affect my decision. Natal had a Volunteer Defence Force,
and it was open to it to recruit more men. I read that this force had
already been mobilized to quell the 'rebellion'.

....
.....

The wounded in our charge were not wounded in battle. A section of
them had been taken prisoners as suspects. The General had sentenced
them to be flogged. The flogging had caused severe sores. These, being
unattended to, were festering. The others were Zulu friendlies.
Although these had badges given them to distinguish them from the
'enemy', they had been shot at by the soldiers by mistake. .... ....

But wherever we went, I am thankful that we had God's good work to do,
having to carry to the camp on our stretchers those Zulu friendlies
who had been inadvertently wounded, and to attend upon them as nurses.

QUOTE ENDS
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

So lets recapitulate this:
1. Zulus rebel agaisnt the British.
2. Gandhi believes that British empire is for the good of the world.
3. So he offers to help as stretcher bearer volunteer in the British
effort to crush the Zulu rebellion. 4. He gives medical help to people
who were imprisoned and flogged by the Britishers and also to friendly
Zulus who were mistakenly wounded by the Britishers (i.e. those Zulus
who fought for the Britishers)

And of course it is all very consistent with non-violence.

> Muslim protesters, he made no physical obstruction to the police
> while taking the beat. He was fighting and disobeying an established
> British law with his view of that as immoral law by non violent way
> taking the punishment himself and enduring it with pride and
> confidence, it could have been death. Mr. Gandhi was always a law
> abiding citizen, he was a barrister and he knew how British laws
> are made and how British laws are also changed in democratic way
> through
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> out history. Mr. Gandhi was once asked whether he will be willing
> to
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I am sure that was rather comforting for the victims of British
Imperisalism.

> use his nonviolent way against Hitler, his reply was it may not
> work against a dictator whose power does not come and are not
> sustained by support of common people. Mr. Gandhi had always respect
> for British law - and the British Law was for a disobeying Garhwal
> Regiment to face court Marshall for disobeying order of their
> superior, no matter
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> the order was to kill or disrupt a peaceful demonstration. One
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

One curious implication of your argument will be that it will make the
Nuremberg defense valid. In the Nuremberg trial one of the defences
advanced was that the Nazis were following orders. In the case of
Garhwali soldiers their actions were as non-violent as non- violent
can be-yet the apostle of non-violence thought that they should have
obeyed the order to fire on unarmed crowds. Since you claim to be some
kind of a human rights activist may I also point out that most of the
human rights violations take place because somebody was following
orders to rape, beat and torture.


> personal comment I want to add here to remind how lucky we were and
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> are historically that we were ruled by the democratic and law
> abiding
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> British Rule for about 200 years which the Afghan people missed and
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I am sure that you would have liked to see the law abiding British to
be ruling us even now.

In circa 16th century the French traveller Travernier came to Bengal.
In his opinion he has never seen any more prosperous country anywhere
in the world. Earlier circa, 14th century, traveller Ibn Batuta spoke
of the wealth of India. I quote from an interview by Noam Chomsky,

QUOTE STARTS
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
How to assess blame for historical disasters is a difficult matter.
You could ask the same thing about the health of a starving and
diseased person. There are a lot of different factors that enter into
it. If there was a torturer around who was torturing them, that
certainly had a role. But maybe after the torture is over, the person
eats the wrong diet and lives a dissolute life and dies from the
effects of that. That's what we're talking about here. It's not easy
to sort out the proportion of blame. There's no doubt that imperial
rule was a complete disaster. Take India. Bengal was one of the
richest places in the world when the first British merchant warriors
arrived there. They described it as a paradise. Today this area is
Bangladesh and Calcutta, the very symbols of despair and hopelessness.
These rich agricultural areas produced unusually fine cotton, the
major commodity of that period. They had, by the standards of the day,
advanced manufacture. Dacca, which is the capital of Bangladesh, was
compared by Clive, the British conqueror, to London.

About a century later, in debates in the House of Lords, Sir Charles
Trevelyan described how Dacca had collapsed from a major manufacturing
center and thriving city to a marginal slum under the impact of
British rule. In Bengal, and throughout the parts of India that they
controlled, the British undermined and tried to destroy the existing
manufacturing system, which was comparable to their own in many
respects. As the industrial revolution was urbanizing and modernizing
England, India was becoming ruralized, a poor, agrarian country. Adam
Smith, over two hundred years ago, deplored the depredations that the
British carryied out in Bengal, which, as he puts it, first of all
destroyed the agricultural economy, and then turned "dearth into a
famine." The British overseers even took agricultural lands and turned
them over to poppy production for the opium trade to China. The only
thing that the British could sell to China was opium, and Bengal was
one of the places where they produced it. There was huge starvation

QUOTE ENDS
~~~~~~~~~~~
I think when Noam was referring to Clive's comment about Dacca he
actually had in mind Clive's comment about Murshidabad-the then
capital of Bengal-but the point I think is quite clear.

You would also do well to remember that in 1770 the famine in Bengal
claimed the lives of one third of the population of Bengal ( and 55%
of the peasants) and in that year the British revenue collection was
one of the highest.


> could not have it( the British lost about 20 thousand soldiers in
> the hands of war lords if you read the Rudyard Kippling's poem 'the
> women came to dismember the dead soldiers left by their men by
> cutting their hands and limbs', the irony is- now British Soldiers
> are guarding Kabul city to protect the civilians) replacing their
> war lord system; and now they are paying the heavy price for their
> outdated system.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Regarding Afghanistan, I hope you remember the name of the country
that brought the religious fundamentalists from the Arab world to
Afghanistan to fight a regime which had women ministers. The British
were defeated by the Afghans when they (British) invaded Afghanistan.
The British should have stayed in their island and not wrecked havoc
over the world with their conquests. Kipling's chest beating about
white men's burden was a shibboleth for his racism.



>
> I do not want to comment much about communism or Noxal movement and
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> about writer Mr. Suniti Kumar Ghosh who represent dictatorial system
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

This is ad hominem attack. Either you have read Suniti Babu's book or
you have not. If you disagree with Suniti Babu's facts or arguments
then I would listen to you, but a discussion of
Suniti Babu's politics is irrelevant in deciding the merit of the
case against Gandhi.

With best wishes.

Nalinaksha Bhattacharyya