Was Gandhi a British Creation?

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.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zSIzJWgp4vI

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?

49 Comments

Filed under Uncategorized

49 responses to “Was Gandhi a British Creation?

  1. Bharat Nair

    Mahatma in my opinion did his best against Britishers & Xtian religion. My Opinion is based on his writings, Shri.Dharampal’s writings and Shri. Sitaram Goel’s writings. His stand on all matters pertaining to Sanatana Dharma ( seperated electorate for scheduled castes; cow protection) amply prove this.
    But its possible that M.G was given more importance just to “reduce” the impact of revolutionaries. But unless clear and corroborative evidences come up, it will not be entirely fair to criticise M.G as a creation of british.

    • som

      @Bharat Nair
      You are wrong,
      Gandhi’s Ahimsa is not Sanatan Dharma as depicted in Gita.
      He was a soilder recruiting agent for Britisbers.

  2. Good write up. I think the points you raise are very valid.
    I liked the youtube video link that you added.

  3. IndianRealist

    Well, people read about Gandhi’s early days in South Africa, but not for once do they ask the question: “What were the missionaries doing with him? Why were they living with him and getting involved in his affairs?” These questions are very important. This is from where Gandhi’s entire career begins.

  4. Incognito

    Congress party was a creation of the british to pre-empt another 1857. It was created by britishers such as AO Hume and indian civil servants working for the british with the purpose of increasing indian representation in british administration. Its goal was to strengthen british raj and get more indians to accept british sovereignity over india.

    However, inspired by the work of spiritual leaders of that time such as Swami Dayananda Saraswati, Vivekananda etc., many indians such as Tilak, Aurobindo, Lajpat Rai, Bipin Chandra Pal among others joined Congress and started to change its character seeking complete freedom from british.

    This development threatened the carefully laid out british plans. They had to not only remove these nationalists from congress, but also put somebody suitable to their interest in the top of congress. Sir Gopala Krishna Gokhale, a british loyalist was finding himself getting marginalised by fellow maratha Tilak in the congress. He was getting on in years and knew that Congress under nationalists would soon get out of control of the british and the empire loyalists. He therefore searched for and found a suitable deracinated indian in Gandhi, who was as much a british loyalist as Sir Gokhale himself was and had high ambitions of making it big in political scene.
    In coordination with the british, Gandhi was therefore developed, molding him suitably by inculcating christian ideas.

    Gandhi, who knew which side of his bread was buttered and to achieve his ambition of making a big name for himself played along perfectly.

    The fawning letters that he writes to britishers in power in india and the subversive tactics he employed with indians are eye-opening.

    While the british removed the nationalists (Tilak jailed, Lajpat Rai killed, Aurobindo exiled) Sir Gokhale and Sir Dadabhai Naoroji hoisted Gandhi on congress with the label of Mahatma that clever Smuts gave him in SA.

    Gandhi thereafter played his part perfectly for the british, derailing nationalist sentiments from gaining momentum. Therefore nationalistic feelings such as those of Bhagat Singh, Azad, CR Pillai, Kuldiram Bose etc., found expression outside congress party which continued to be servile to british.

    At times when nationalistic sentiments threatened to overcome public consciousness, Gandhi helped turn them away through tactics such as by aligning it with Khilafat agitation which was to reinstate Caliphate in Turkey and by calling off civil disobedience movements when people reciprocated the violence imposed upon them.

    The british kept promoting gandhi till early 1940s, after which emerging situation caused them to realise that continued rule in india would not be viable due to public unrest and the depleted levels of resources which made it non-profitable enterprise. Thereafter they ignored Gandhi and concentrated on getting out of india with minimum loss to themselves.

    People who were born in pre-independence India in 20th century grew up listening to propaganda spread by the Congress, the British controlled news papers of that time and Gandhi himself who had cunningly appropriated the spiritual symbols of national identity such as Bhagavad Gita and Sri Rama and reversed their messages. Outwardly claiming Gita and Sri Rama, he subtly propagated Jesus.

    It is possible that Sri Dharampal among others were taking in by this propaganda.

  5. Psudo

    All my life I never stopped wondering, if it was Gandhi who was responsible for fighting British, why did they not kill him? I mean it is very easy and common ploy to poison someone who is your enemy by states all the time? What stopped them? This was done with Swami Dayanand! This act of British defies logic!

  6. raman

    this is a bit stretched. it could be that in gandhi and nehru the british found leaders who could be expected to counter people like bhagat singh, aurobindo or tilak for that matter, but to say that their was a Grand British plan to create gandhi (right from his south africa days) is a bit too much. Dont forget that even gandhi & nehru spent long stretches in jails.

    • Incognito

      “.. long stretches in jails”

      if you can call a stay in Aga Khan Palace with full time entourage of helpers, assistants, family members and doctors as being jailed!

  7. IndianRealist

    “if you can call a stay in Aga Khan Palace with full time entourage of helpers, assistants, family members and doctors as being jailed!”

    Also, the six-month leaves granted to Nehru from jail to visit his ailing wife in Switzerland.

    Contrast this with kala-pani of Savarkar and Lala Lajpat Rai being beaten to death with laathis. The kids-glove treatment that the Brits gave to Nehru and Gandhi makes me very suspicious about who were their real patrons. Is it a mere coincidence that both Gandhi and Nehru had an anti-Hindu and pro-Muslim streak running in them? How can such people become leaders of Hindus unless pushed by foriegn powers to leadership positions (the same way Rahul Gandhi is being pushed now by the Western governments).

    • VoP

      http://www.rediff.com/news/2002/apr/16arvind.htm some excerpts:

      1. “If the Hindus wish to cultivate eternal friendship with Mussalmans,” said Gandhi, “they must perish with them in the attempt to vindicate the honour of Islam” (V B Kulkarni in his India And Pakistan, page 219). Gandhi decided to lead the Khilafat agitation himself even before the Congress..

      2. Occupying the position of the “right hand and left hand” of Gandhi in his Khilafat agitation were two brothers: Maulana Mohammed Ali and Maulana Shaukat Ali.These two blue-eyed Muslims of Gandhi, today’s ‘secularists’ must note, were the ones who later wrote a letter to the Amir of Afghanistan inviting him to invade Bharat.

      3. Kerala’s local Muslims — the Moplahs continued Khilafat agitation – the number of Hindus murdered was 1,500, the number of those forcibly converted was 20,000 and property looted was assessed at about Rs 30 million, while the molestation and abduction of Hindu women was apparently endless.

      4. Gandhi’s reaction to the Moplah carnage must also be noted by today’s ‘secularists’. According to B R Ambedkar’s book, Pakistan, page 148, Gandhi’s comment on the Moplah marauders was: “They are brave and god-fearing people who were fighting for what they consider as religion, and in a manner which they consider as religion.”

      5. And, in a Young India issue of 1924, Gandhi wrote, “My own experience but confirms the opinion that the Mussalman as a rule is a bully, and the Hindu as a rule is a coward. Need the Hindus blame the Mussalman for his cowardice?”

      6. Gandhi refused to sign a petition for saving the life of Bhagat Singh, and he was also the one who condemned Chhatrapati Shivaji, Rana Pratap and Guru Gobind as misguided patriots.

      7. Gandhi said, “Hindus should never be angry against the Muslims even if the latter might make up their minds to undo even their existence.” In another post-prayer speech asking the Partition-inflicted Hindus not to seek refuge in India, he said, “They should not be afraid of death. After all, the killers will be none other than our Muslim brothers”

      And what did he get from his muslim brothers instead?

      Maulana Mohammed Ali stated: “However pure Mr Gandhi’s character may be, he must appear to me, from the point of religion, inferior to any Mussalman even though he be without character.” A year later, the Maulana ‘improved’ upon that statement by saying “Yes, according to my religion and creed, I do hold an adulterous and a fallen Mussalman to be better than Mr Gandhi”.

    • Anonymous

      Sick people….. And bullshit story.
      If someone has dedicated his whole life to teach people and gave lessons of ahimsa and satya.
      Then respect him.

      • SC

        Do you have the guts to follow Gandhi’s crackpot philosophy? Would you do nothing but bang your head on the wall when your sister is getting raped in front of you?

  8. Indian

    I agree. Only this thing (Gandhi a creation of British) makes sense. Most of the Indians do end up hating this sonofabitch, but fail to understand how this ******* ended up being deified. This scum was a creation of the British, who wanted to loot India some more, and therefore placed him to satisfy the masses. There is a long list of freedom fighters who were killed brutally by the Brits, some of them in their teens. Hutatma Maina, who was burnt alive is one such example.

  9. gopal chippalkatti

    i just want to know why RSS calls gandhi pratasmarniya. this provides good clues to comparative studies between leadership personalities. gandhi went on learning while other personalities mentioned here were bun chukes is evident. this is an another attempt to kill gandhi, a very violent one. keep on godse followers

  10. gopal chippalkatti

    hello,i just want to know why RSS calls gandhi pratasmarniya. this provides good clues to comparative studies between leadership personalities. gandhi went on learning while other personalities mentioned here were bun chukes is evident. this is an another attempt to kill gandhi, a very violent one. keep on godse followers

  11. IndianRealist

    Take a glass of cold water dude. There is no place for anti-Hinduism in India. I don’t care whether you worship a mythical corpse or are a devotee of the deadly ideology of a deranged, immoral bedouin.

  12. A

    The onlyleft over task was that some one who should have accompanied Nathuram should have stayed longer and should have fired some more into the white worshipper Neru, the man who slept when India burnt.

  13. Ajay

    Latest in the series of articles on Gandhi by Radha rajan
    http://www.vijayvaani.com/FrmPublicDisplayArticle.aspx?id=823

  14. At the time, the British were powerful & influential enough, if they thought Gandhi was a threat, they could have easily disappeared him. But they used him against the Indians to prolong there rule, thus looting the country to the full before declaring independence & giving Gandhi the credit (thanking him in the long run)….. he was even instrumental in bringing down the direct threats to the British at the time.

    • som

      @Ashish Kulkarni
      Actually Gandhi

      was a solider recruiting agent for britisher,nearly4.5millions were died
      in suicidal front at Mesopotamia ,Russia etc.He had eliminated every possibility of Mutiny in British army,and remember,
      in India ,only 30000 Britishers ruled
      entire India due to Gandhi only.

  15. Whocares

    Whether gandhi was a british creation or not, fact is any leader who promotes non violence and resistence was better suited than leaders who promoted revolution and violence against the British….this is why they kept him alive all along. Either way who cares if the british ruled india or indians rule india….the current lot of indians ruling india are worse than the british….at least under british rule there was less corruption, less crime and much more development in india. And after the mughals, british built beautiful parks, buildings and monuments in india….i dont see anything good built in india since 1947….yes except those elephant statues by madame mayawati….the ex queen of UP…lol

    • Indian Realist

      Your really don’t seem to care. Who cares if your wife is screwed by you or your neighbour — she is screwed anyway. Do you care?

      • Samir

        This is in really poor taste. I see no reason to say this. By falling to such a poor standard, you turn away those who might have agreed with you.

        • Anonymous

          @Samir – 1. The post that you say is in “poor taste” is about a year old.

          2. Do read up on the Bengal Famine in which about 300 million Bongs were murdered by the Churchill policy of starving them and diverting the foodgrains to the English troops fighting Germans. I’m sure it’ll leave a nice taste in your mouth.

          • Anonymous

            I apologise for the typo, it is estimated that about 30 million Bongs perished in the artificial famine induced by Churchill.

        • Raj

          Oh Samir, do you realize why IndianRealist wrote that?

          Because Gandhi once made a speech where he said that non-violence should be upheld even if your “sister or mother is being raped” in front of you

          Look it up.

  16. ray

    Obviously Gandhi was solider recruiting agent during world war 1 &2 for Britishers so he was not related to non-violence. About Mahatma he produced
    extreme version of Christianity brainwashed by Leo Tolstoy-a jew ,financed by
    Rothschild -again a jew -the real owner of East India Company-who provided Gandhi -a lush green 100 acre land with fruit trees-Tolstoy park to recruit soldiers for Britishers,to undermine every cause of Mutiny,a very cunning deployment by the Britisbers,a failed father,a failed Lawyer,a failed husband, a gay in charecter,Shame for Hindu community,responsible for death of 1.5million indian soilder during first world war and 3.5million during second
    world war-precisely it is ugliest to say that he gave freedom to India without
    falling a single drop of blood,a blunder -who join hand with muslim for Khiphat
    movement for get money making empty promises-a so responsible for Molph
    rebellion-responsible for riot -responsible for thousands rape of Hindu women,

  17. som

    @who cares
    There was 12 major famine occurred during British raj,all were man made.
    Nealy 90 millions died due to starvation, hunger,and illnesses-majority of whom

    neither burried nor cremated.

    Winston Churchill was responsible for that.

  18. som

    @who cares,
    You are wrong.
    Although Indian is still a developing country, apart from lackind toilet facilty for
    all citizens,India made remarkable progress in remote sensing satellites. defence resourch,ICBM,moon expedition ,11 KM railway tunnel in Pir panjal
    mountain range.

  19. som

    @incognito
    Thanks to First and Second world war that has
    pushed Britishers toward solider recruitment.Gandhi had performed good job for them.Indian
    did not want to fight for their cunning white Christian masters.
    This happenings delayed the freedom struggle movements .
    When the war was over , this was the decision
    of newly appointed Prime Minister,who
    was belongs to Labour Party after defeating conservative party .He and his members had
    decided to leave India,due to fiscal condition
    of their country, as they did not want to impose
    more taxes.
    Now if someone says that Gandhi was the cunning deployment by the Britisher ,to eliminate
    every possiblity of mutiny in British army,delayed
    freedom struggle movement,do you think he is
    wrong.

  20. ray

    @som
    Very good comments on pre and post scenario
    of freedom struggle including Gandhi and Britishers.
    We should some give some or entire credit to Netaji ,who
    resigned from congress and followed the path of
    armed struggle and that fears Britishers as the
    think that would cause mutiny in British army.Everybody knows army rebellion started after
    that.The first step took place as an Naval army
    rebellion. They did not deserve to stay here ,after
    second blow.
    They escaped from India because there was no
    other option and to give credit to Gandhi for that is a serious
    mistake

  21. Tapan Naskar

    I too have a same questions: During world war 1, Rasbihari Bose was giving public talk and with the help of Japanese. During those period people from Bengal, Bihar use to go to Burma by foot, or boat to work there. But no news of Rasbihari Bose and his army came to India, even during the time of Subhash Chandra Bose no news came to India even in the time when he actually touched the Indian boarder. But how come the news of Gandhi’s work in South Africa came to India. To go to South Africa by foot is impossible, one have to cross huge land mass consisting of forest and deserts and that time tribals, where as it also impossible by sea for the comman man to go unless there is any help from British ship.

    • som

      And also Bhai Bhagwan Singh Gyaneea (a fiery orator, a revolutionary poet and president of the Gadar party from 1914 to 1920. He was also a founder of the “Humanology Society” and“The American Institute of Culture” (1930) with affiliated “Self Culture Associations.” He was a philosopher, educationist, creative thinker and author of several books including, The Art of Living, Science of Perpetual Youth, The Ideal of Friendship, Humanology Notes, Paths to Perfection, Why Men Fail, Gyana Yoga, Concentration, Mysteries and Functions of the Subconscious Mind, Love Marriage and Divorce, The Greatest Enemy of Man, Creative Wisdom, Principles and the Law, Karma and Dharma, as well as many others) who engaged in freedom struggle with Rasbihari Bose.
      http://www.sikhpioneers.org/P1BhaiBhagwanSinghGyanee.html

  22. narendra

    This is in really poor test,the secularist Hindu are traitor of their own women,that thing they have learn from Gandhi.

  23. narendra

    @sanjaychoudhary
    Well,that was an era of Making of so called Mahatma ,actually a stooge of Britishers,properly brainwashed by a jew Leo Tolstoy ,financed by Rothschild ,again a jew actual owner of East India Company to introduce the theory of passive resistance (an extreme version of Christianity),which was against Sanatana Dharma ,totally against the concept of Gita ,as depicted by Lord Krishna,a conning deployment by Britishers as a
    soldier recruiting agent for World war , to make agree Indians to fight againsts enemy of Jews and give a favour to their white Christian invader masters.

  24. narendra

    @narendra
    Well then why should we called him “Father of Nation”.who delayed the freedom of India and gave opportunity of ” Loot” to Britishers , responsible for death of 4.50 millions of Indians in World war first and second , responsible for death of 90 millions of Indians in 12 major famine during British Raj which was man made ,an artificial shortage of food grain as it was utilized In world war to fed the soldiers.
    He eliminated every cause of mutiny in British Army and Hindu Muslim unity during second mutiny (first was in 1857) that is called Naval mutiny in support of British action against “Ajad Hind Fauj”,spreaded from Karachi to Calcutta.

  25. Anonymous

    ha ha ha ha

  26. Anonymous

    Who cares? I don’t even care. But is surely amusing. I surely won’t follow non-violence that much, just not my thing.

  27. shaabash laundo …kya bakchod conspiracy theory h……lage raho chutiya banane mein logo ko……

  28. Jayant Verma

    To throw light on the subject, IU am reproducing M.K. Gandhi’s own admission about his loyalty to the British Empire, from the March 23, 1940 issue of the Forward Bloc, Weekly edited and published by none other than Netaji Subhash himself.(Page 10, “Gems Culled from Ramgarh”)
    I was so loyal that I wrote to lord Chelmsford that I longed to have the same loyalty towards the Empire as a Britisher has in his heart. I wrote those words because yet I am a believer in truth. Truth is my god and I could not have written anything else if I wanted to be true to myself.” .. Mahatma Gandhi.
    @jayant verma

  29. About 5 million people were forced to starve to death in 1943 in bengal, but gandhi-Nehru-Patel said not even one word about it. why?

  30. After an unexplained sabbatical lasting nearly two months, Junior Gandhi returned to Delhi on April 16, 2015. Is there any similarity between the 135 days training of Senior Gandhi in London and the 57 days grooming of RaGa at an undisclosed location. After his return Rahul Gandhi version 2.0 is highly active in politics addressing farmer’s rally, visit to Kedarnath temple and padayatra etc. The empire decided to bring Gandhi at a time when they were fast loosing the control. After the 2014 election, the INC is fast loosing its popularity

  31. Anonymous

    In my opinion due to so called spread of ahinsa and all surel led INdian mindset in a defensive mode rather than the proactive mode which was required by the britishers. In todays contest too it is significant that India should beproactive against all those who are against our sovereignty. SurelyGandhian thoughts have cost us a lot. It must be kept aside when dealing with hawkish opponents of the country domestic or foreign.

  32. Mannatpreet singh

    I also think that above written is true . Why only Gandhi and Nehru got famous
    ……that’s the reason

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s