Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi – a figure no Bharatiya is unfamiliar with. No matter which side of the debate you are on, you certainly are no stranger to the man who in my opinion singlehandedly destroyed and collectively guilt-tripped the Hindu Samaj despite them being the biggest victims and losers in the 1947 partition. Hindu Samaj continues to pay the price for something forced down their throats.

The reality of ‘Sabka Vishwas’

While PM Modi prides himself on the ‘Sabka Vishwas’ slogan aimed at gaining the ‘vishwas’ (faith) of the Muslim community in particular, electoral politics has often shown that this is a very slippery slope and serves no purpose beyond rhetorics.

The above video and the tweet (see below) perfectly capture the sentiment and reality of how the ‘vishwas’ of Muslims come at a huge financial cost to Hindus.

The point I’m trying to get across is before, during, and after the partition the onus of secularism has fallen solely on the Hindu community. A large chunk of Hindu Bharat was cut off to appease Jinnah and his ilk. Despite the creation of an Islamic Pakistan, we have ‘Muslim areas‘ in Bharat. What can be more tragic and heartbreaking than this?

The seeds of today were sown yesterday and the tree of tomorrow will grow from what we plant today. Gandhi sowed the seeds of ‘Sabka Vishwas’ and even if it says ‘Sabka’, we know for a fact that it always translates to Muslim appeasement.

Gandhi and his appeasement policies

From changing the lyrics of Ram Dhun to wanting Hindus to ’embrace death bravely’ when Muslims wanted to kill them, Gandhi has always advocated only for Hindus to compromise.

As mentioned earlier Gandhi advocated for ‘Muslim Vishwas’ (interchangeable with ‘Sabka Vishwas’) which began much before the partition and continued till his death. Here are the numerous instances of Gandhi’s appeasement policies (in no particular order):

1) The last fast – Gandhi had weaponised ‘fast’ as a means to blackmail and get his way. In January 1948, his ‘concern’ for Pakistan and the Muslims of Delhi, led him to undertake another fast. He was worried for the ‘safety of Muslims’ in Delhi and in his meeting with Maulana Azad, he placed several demands if he were to break his fast.

Gandhi wanted the annual Urs (Muslim festive procession) to be held ‘peacefully’ in Mehrauli’s Khwaja Bakhtiyar Dargah. 100 Delhi mosques that had been turned into refugee camps for Hindus and Sikhs escaping persecution in Pakistan were to be restored to their ‘former status.’ Gandhi demanded arrangements for the ‘free movement’ of Muslims in Old Delhi, no objections should be raised by non-Muslims for the settlement of Muslims returning from Pakistan, Muslims should travel fearlessly in trains, and permission should be obtained from Muslims if Hindu refugees were to be settled in ‘their’ areas (this seems to be beginning of the ‘Muslim area’ concept).

All these demands were being made even as Hindus were being butchered in Pakistan and Jammu-Kashmir were under attack by the Pakistani Army. What did Gandhi demand for Hindus? The right to passively submit all their rights.

2) Emotionally blackmailed the Bharatiya government to give 55 crores to Pakistan – Gandhi wanted Hindu refugees removed from the mosques where they had sought shelter after being displaced from Pakistan. Gopal Godse testifies that these Hindu refugees were left shivering on the roads in the cold and rain. The ‘father of the nation’ was however least bothered about ‘his children’ and more concerned about “neighbour’s children”.

Not satisfied with giving away Hindu lands, Gandhi wanted Bharat to give 55 crore rupees to Pakistan. He even refused to listen to the advice of Ghanshyam Das Birla who explained that Pakistan would use the money to purchase weapons to harm Bharat. Pakistan continues to sponsor terrorism to this day and the roots of this lies in the encouragement it got in 1948 from the ‘great soul.’

Hindu refugee Madan Lal Pahwa also wanted to assassinate Gandhi after seeing the plight of the Hindu refugees. On January 12, 1948, Mahatma Gandhi announced an indefinite fast with seven conditions, including the controversial demand that Bharat pay 55 Crore Rupees to Pakistan, despite the brutal genocide of Hindus and Sikhs during Partition. Pakistan not only owed Bharat 300 Crores but had also perpetrated unimaginable atrocities. Gandhi’s conditions favoured Muslims at the cost of Hindus and Sikhs. He insisted that Muslims who had left Bharat be brought back, even if it meant displacing Hindu and Sikh refugees.

Additionally, mosques occupied by dying Hindus and Sikhs were to be forcibly vacated. The conditions prioritized Muslim welfare, ensuring they received food, clothing, and shelter, even if it came at the cost of Hindus and Sikhs who had suffered immense losses. This decision, viewed as appeasement, ignored the horrific suffering of Hindus and Sikhs, forcing Bharat to forget the bloodshed while prioritizing the very aggressors who had caused it.

3) Turn the other cheek to Moplahs – The Kerala Moplah ‘rebellion’ in 1921 was started as an anti-British movement in which Hindus were discriminately killed by the Moplahs. Gandhi was more bothered about Hindu-Muslim ‘friendship’ rather than innocent Hindus who were murdered by the Islamist Moplahs.

In his article titled “The Meaning of the Moplah Rising” published in the Young India Gandhi writes:

He wanted Hindus to be ‘friendly’ with the fanatics and also have the ‘courage’ to protect their religion despite the fanatical eruptions. But the more amazing part lies ahead. He further writes:

If the above passage doesn’t come across as victim-shaming, then I don’t know what else is. He blames the Hindus for ‘converting to Islam’ rather than ‘choosing to die.’ One wonders if the ‘Mahatma’ was faced with a similar situation, would he have chosen to die or undertake a fast to atone for his Islamist attacker’s assault? Be that as it may, this is ample proof that instead of calling a spade a spade and calling out Islamist Moplah violence, Gandhi chose victim-shaming. This should be rightly termed as the Malabar Hindu genocide.

4) The Khilafat movement – This was a direct fight between the British and Islamists in which Gandhi and Congress dragged Hindus to appease Muslims and attempt to make ‘political gains’ in exchange for their support. This, as usual, turned out to be a one-way street with the Muslims being the receivers.

Lokmanya Tilak was against supporting this movement. Lokmanya Tilak was sceptical about the Khilafat movement supported by Hindu leaders to win over the Muslims. Not only did Tilak want to keep the national movement free from any theological or foreign interference but also predicted that the Hindu leaders would be ultimately disillusioned.

He was also of the opinion that Muslims were very shrewd at diplomatic negotiations and hence Hindus would only be deceiving themselves by lending support to the Islamic Khilafat movement. He felt that support of the Muslims should be secured on the nationalistic principle of Swaraj and theology should never be brought into politics.

5) Gandhi to ‘Mahatma’ and forcing Nehru upon Bharat- The title was also forced down the throats of Bharatiyas in general and Hindus in particular. It was an order promulgated by the Congress government in the Central Provinces on September 2, 1938, that required all officials, particularly British, to henceforth refer to Gandhi as ‘Mahatma’.

Post-independence this title has been perpetuated to keep Gandhi above and away from criticism, much like his protege Nehru. Gandhi foisted Nehru on Bharat despite Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel being the popular choice for the Prime Ministerial post. Nehru was a Britisher in the Indian body and all of his policies have been anti-Hindu. He also took his ‘Guru’ Gandhi’s Muslim appeasement policies several notches further. His descendants (both actual and political) continue to do so even today.

The road ahead for Hindu Samaj

A section of Hindus still believe that Gandhi’s Muslim appeasement is merely a figment of imagination perpetuated by ‘Hindutvawadis.’ It is no use attempting to wake up these people who have decided to be like the ostrich who buries his sand in the head. The very first step is to shed the use of tags like ‘Mahatma’ and ‘Father of the Nation’ which put MK Gandhi beyond criticism. An objective view must be taken of the policies propagated by him and how they have affected the Hindu psyche.

No one is above being critiqued and Gandhi should be no exception. Despite giving away a major chunk of our land and crores of rupees, if there are ‘Muslim areas’ inside Bharat then certainly Gandhian politics (continued by Nehru and other ‘secular’ parties) shares the major part of the blame.

Neither Vikas nor Vishwas is possible when the burden of both falls only on one side – in Bharat’s case, the Hindu side. Time for the Hindu Samaj to shed labels, tags, and unnecessary baggage and go back to the drawing board to draw up policies rooted in the Hindu principles of Dharma, Artha, Kama, and Moksha.

Also, it is my personal opinion that the nation doesn’t need any ‘father’ because Hindus believe in Bhagwan Shiva as Jagatpita and Mata Parvati/Adishakti as Jaganmata.