It is my firm conviction that Gandhi was a creation of the British. He was artificially propped up and promoted by the British government and the church to serve their own interests and prolong their rule in India. The British were willing to go to any extent to raise the profile of Gandhi as well as his side-kick Nehru in the eyes of the Indian people.
On the other hand, they were brutal beyond belief with the real threats to their rule — Savarkar (jailed for life), Aurobindo Ghosh (exiled), Lala Lajpat Rai (beaten to death), Bhagat Singh (hanged), Subhash Bose (dissappeared for ever) Chandrashekhar Azad (shot dead) … You have to see the treatment given to Gandhi and Nehru by the British to realise the game.
There are many things about Gandhi and Nehru’s career that made me think along the lines of both of them as a British creation:
1. The British handled Gandhi and Nehru with kid-gloves. They were jailed in five-star comfort with their own helpers and aides. A British doctor was even deputed to look after their health. Both never faced the batons of the police (unlike Lala Lajpat Rai) or were tortured in jail (like Savarkar). Nehru even used to get six-months off from jail to visit his wife in Switzerland. Why was this so? Why did British treat them differently than others? Why were Gandhi and Nehru never beaten by the British police?
2. Gandhi’s career begain in South Africa from Tolstoy farm. Who were his friends there? They were all church-men and missionaries. Now, why would Christian priests befriend an unknown Indian who is going to take on the British colonial government? Church is an instrument of White Man’s colonialism. So this behaviour of such priests was very strange. These priests arranged for his marches and publicity and gave him guidance. I have a feeling these people were shaping Gandhi’s thoughts and encouraging him to start a “passive resistance” movement. This was the beginning of his career as a leader, carefully nurtured and guided by the white missionaries. They were trying to create an Indian Jesus with “turn the other cheek” philosophy. This kind of thing was going to benefit no one except the British, of course.
3. As long as the British ruled India, they followed a strategy of “support the Muslims and hate the Hindus.” This attitude — then, as now — was a result of Christian evangelical bigotry and pagan-hatred. But I am surprised that both Nehru and Gandhi adopted exactly the same philosophy and made it the central pillar of their politics. What kind of leaders were they that they began to hate the people whom they allegedly represented and promoted the interests of those who were trying to crush them? Is this kind of behaviour normal in leaders? Gandhi’s pro-Muslim policy began as soon as he landed in India. He blindly supported Moplah riots and the Khilafat agitation. Was he inserted into India only for this purpose after his profile had sufficiently been raised in South Africa by the church and British government?
The reality is that after 1857, the British got a fright and wanted the revolt never to be repeated again. In fact, so deep was this fear that General Dyer confessed after Jallianwalah Bagh that he thought there was a conspiracy in Punjab for a 1857-type revolt and he wanted to teach Indians a bloody lesson to nip it in the bud.
The British after the revolt desperately needed a leader of Indians with the central message of pacifism, non-violence against the invaders and the philosophy of “never pick up arms again even if the Brits kill you all.”
Gandhi was aggressively propped up and promoted by missionaries and General Smutts. General Smutts “agreed” many times to Gandhi’s demands, thus tremendously boosting his name in India. Nobody had heard of Gandhi before, neither in South Africa nor in India. The concessions of Smutts “extracted” by Gandhi spread his fame far and wide as a man who can get the British government to bend. It is a different matter that the “bending” was deliberate.
Strategically, to make a show, the British government in South Africa and India sometimes bowed to Gandhi’s wishes to “prove” the effectiveness of Gandhi’s method of non-violence and impress other Indians with Gandhi’s leadershp. It was just a show to promote Gandhi as India’s tallest leader. Notice how when Gandhi arrived in India, the British government kept bowing before him in all his agitations and conceded what he had demanded. Is it a coincidence?
In contrast, the Brits were brutal with nationalist Hindus such as Savarkar and Subhash Bose and simply refused to meet them, while all doors were kept open for Gandhi. Gradually, Indians began to rally behind Gandhi as the “leader who gets the work done.”
Historians should do serious research about this angle of Gandhi as a British creation and prop. Unfortunately, even after 60 years, British intelligence reports and personal files about Gandhi and Nehru are still classified by the British government. Nobody can have access to them.
The Britisher’s propping up of Gandhi had a precedent for the Brits. They knew how the Romans circulated the fable of Jesus Christ among the restive Jews under their occupation and — what a coincidence — Jesus’s message was exactly similar to Gandhi’s with respect to the invaders — “turn the other cheek” and “Give unto Ceasear what belongs to Ceaser.” It is not a coincidence that in the entire Bible, there is not one derogatory reference to the Romans. But the Jews are abused and cursed all through, with calls for thier genocide. By convering jews to christianity, the Romans managed to create an indegenous militia against the Jews. (same thing that the church is now doing in Orissa. It converts tribals and turns them into an armed militia against the Hindus.)
Have you heard of a book called “Ceaser’s Messiah”?
Here it is: http://www.caesarsmessiah.com/main.html
It tells you why and how Romans invented the cult of Jesus and spread it among the Jews. The Jews who converted to Christianity immediately became the biggest defenders of the Roman empire and enemies of Jews who were resisting the Roman rule.
This is because worship of Jesus is nothing but worship of Ceaser by proxy. The Jews became hunted in Christian socieites becasue the blame of “killing Christ” was cleverly laid on their door. For 2000 years, they were forced to live in ghettos on the periphery of Christian societies. I would say the Romans succeeded brilliantly in their plan of screwing the Jews and creating a rival cult to exterminate them. (Why risk roman soliders in killing jews when you can outsource the job to the converted jews.)
The Brits took a leaf from the Roman book and tried to create India’s own Jesus with the same message of “turn the other cheek” and “never pick up arms against the occupation army.”
I can say that Gandhi’s creation and promotion by Brits was the biggest psyops operation of modern times.
See here the video of interview of Joseph Atwill who wrote “Ceaser’s Messiah.” It is an eye-opener.
It is not a coincidence that a leader preaching “non-violence at all costs against the British” arose in India soon after the revolt of 1857. This was a clever social engineering project by the British and Indians were guinea pigs for this psychological experiement. After Independence, Gandhi was declared by fawning Congress courtiers as the “father of India.” But Nathuram Godse — who was a journalist — in his last speech in the court cursed Gandhi as “the father of Pakistan.”
Another thing that made me suspicious about who were actually the real patrons of Gandhi and Nehru was this: Both of them adopted word by word the British police of “hate Hindus and love the Muslims.” This kind of thinking would be quite odd for two so-called leaders of Hindus. I mean, what kind of a leader would hate his own people and support their enemies who are butchering them in riots?