Alexander::The ordinary

MYTH1:Alexander `World Conquerer"?

Alexander did not win any war on the Indian soil, he in fact lost to Porus, the king of Punjab, and had to sign a treaty with Porus in order to save his diminishing band of soldiers who were grief-stricken at the loss of their compatriots at the hands of Porus`s army, and expressed their strong desire to surrender.

Alexander after winning many battles and defeating the Persian king, invaded India and crossed Indus. Here he was joined by Ambhi, the king of Taxila. Ambhi surrendered himself to Alexander. He was enemy of Porus and wished to defeat Porus with the help of Alexander.

The facts of Alexander`s miserable defeat and his shattered dream at Indian soil have been avoided consistently by Greek historians and the same was perpetuated during British regime. But the truth which is documented in many narratives of the Europeans themselves presents a totally different picture. The depictions by Curtius, Justin, Diodorus, Arrian and Plutarch are quite consistent and reliable in concluding that Alexander was defeated by Porus and had to make a treaty with him to save his and his soldiers` lives. He was a broken man at his return from his mis-adventures in India.

In the Ethiopic texts, Mr E.A.W. Badge has included an account of "The Life and Exploits of Alexander" where he writes inter alia the following:

"In the battle of Jhelum a large majority of Alexander`s cavalry was killed. Alexander realized that if he were to continue fighting he would be completely ruined. He requested Porus to stop fighting. Porus was true to Indian traditions and did not kill the surrendered enemy. After this both signed treaty, Alexander then helped him in annexing other territories to his kingdom".

Mr Badge further writes that the soldiers of Alexander were grief- stricken and they began to bewail the loss of their compatriots. They threw off their weapons. They expressed their strong desire to surrender. They had no desire to fight. Alexander asked them to give up fighting and himself said, "Porus, please pardon me. I have realized your bravery and strength. Now I cannot bear these agonies. WIth a sad heart I am planning to put an end to my life. I do not desire that my soldiers should also be ruined like me. I am that culprit who has thrust them into the jaw of death. It does not become a king to thrust his soldiers into the jaws of death."

Alexander was not that great after all, but in fact he was `Alexander, The Ordinary`; only an ordinary emperor driven by the zeal of expanding his empire।

Who were the barbarians?????????????????????

Alexander’s army was so barbaric that in invading Persia, even superstition did not deter them from looting Persia’s Zoroastrian temples, killing priests and scribes, and burning libraries. Zoroastrianism never recovered from this, leaving the religious field open to the next invader.

Myth has it that Alexander’s entire motivation in his world-sack was to bring Greek civilization to the barbarians and to unify the divided world under one great monarch. This has always been the stated intent of every world conqueror—from Julius Caesar to Napoleon and Hitler.

The fact is that loot and lust for power was a much larger motive than world benevolence, yet the myth prevails. A current batch of wannabe world conquerors, Religious Extremists & George Bush make the same claim, and it is just as much baloney as were the other military monsters of history।

MYTH 2:noble and kind king??????????????????

Another myth is propagated by the Western historians that Alexander was noble and kind king, he had great respects for brave and courageous men, and so on. The truth is other-wise.

He was neither a noble man nor did he have a heart of gold.

He had meted out very cruel and harsh treatment to his earlier enemies. Basus of Bactria fought tooth and nail with Alexander to defend the freedom of his motherland. When he was brought before Alexander as a prisoner, Alexander ordered his servants to whip him and then cut off his nose and ears. He then killed him. Many Persian generals were killed by him.

The murder of Kalasthenese, nephew of Aristotle, was committed by Alexander because he criticised Alexander for foolishly imitating the Persian emperors. Alexander also murdered his friend Cleitus in anger. His father`s trusted lieutenant Parmenian was also murdered by Alexander. The Indian soldiers who were returning from Masanga were most atrociously murdered by Alexander in the dead of night. These exploits do not prove Alexander`s kindness and greatness, but only an ordinary emperor driven by the zeal of expanding his empire.

When his close friend Cleitus tried to discourage his claims to be a God, and his dictatorial attitude that ran counter to democratic ideals of their Greek culture, and reminded him that his father was a greater ruler than him, Alexander kills his friend who had once saved his life। This shows his lack of loyalty, friendship, and brutality.Calling such a barbarian Alexander the Ordinary as noble & kind is the height of hypocrisy.

Save the world form UN peacekeepers

1)UN OIL FOR FOOD SCAM

It is no accident that the United Nations Oil-for-Food program turned out to be the biggest scam in the history of humanitarian relief. Oil-for-Food, which ran from 1996-2003, was designed by the U.N. and managed by Secretary-General Kofi Annan along lines so perverse, so secretive, so inviting to corruption, that it could hardly have turned out otherwise.

But when I first began reporting on Oil-for-Food, back in 2002, I was not looking for a scandal. I had written for years about aid programs in various parts of the world, and was simply trying to understand what looked like a complicated U.N. relief effort in Saddam’s Iraq. I found someone familiar with the program, asked some standard questions, and was floored by the answers. In theory, the U.N. was busy containing U.N.-sanctioned tyrant Saddam Hussein while helping the people of Iraq. But in practice, Oil-for-Food was less an aid effort than an invitation to fraud, influence-peddling and continued tyranny in Iraq. It doubled as a terrific employment program —not for Saddam’s victims in Iraq, but Saddam’s Baath Party and the United Nations.

One of the first things that got my attention was Oil-for-Food’s goal of supervising almost the entire economy of Iraq. The world had only recently emerged from a century that pitted the devastating and dictatorial system of Soviet-style central planning against laissez-faire capitalism. Markets had won — but not, it seemed, in Iraq, where Oil-for-Food actually helped consolidate Saddam’s control and strengthen his grip.

The next shock was learning that under the U.N. setup it was not even the U.N. but Saddam himself who got first rights to draw up the shopping lists for what the people of Iraq were presumed to need. That was disturbing given that it was Saddam who was responsible for the wars, oppression and deprivation of Iraqis in the first place.

Then I learned that the U.N. let Saddam pick his own oil buyers and relief suppliers and negotiate his own deals, subject to U.N. approval — which, as it turned out, he routinely got on thousands of contracts blatantly laced with graft. When I asked who those contractors were, the Oil-for-Food staff said the U.N. preferred to keep the identities of Saddam’s dealers confidential. The U.N. also kept secret the dollar amounts of individual deals, and just about all other details that would have allowed any third party to judge the integrity of a business. Oil-for-Food was run as a secret, privileged bargain between the UN and Saddam. To this day, the U.N. has not released such basic information. It is only through leaked documents that the most incriminating details of Oil-for-Food can begin to be gleaned.

Ah, but then came the showstopper. I learned that to cover the costs of administering this program Kofi Annan’s Secretariat collected a 2.2% commission on Saddam’s oil sales, totaling $1.4 billion over the course of the program, plus another .8%, or $520 million, for weapons inspections (though for four of the program’s seven years, Saddam did not allow any weapons inspections). In other words, the U.N. Secretariat was being paid richly by Saddam to supervise Saddam; the U.N. had, in effect, become Saddam’s business partner, playing Arthur Andersen to Saddam’s Enron. The incentives were for the U.N. Secretariat to hush up Saddam’s graft, and keep expanding the program. And that’s what happened.

Following Saddam’s overthrow, the U.N. finally shut down Oil-for-Food last November. But the U.N.-condoned mess it created it still with us. Billions in funds grafted out of the program by Saddam have yet to be accounted for. Oil-for-Food tainted the Security Council debates over Iraq, in which the U.N. never disclosed that fat deals under Oil-for-Food had gone to such pivotal U.N. Security Council members as France, China and Russia. To whatever extent Oil-for-Food corrupted politicians and businesses who dealt with Saddam — and that was evidently part of the problem — some of the figures involved may now be ripe targets for blackmail by anyone with inside information on Saddam’s U.N.-condoned secret deals. And tucked away in those confidential records are enough overlaps between Saddam’s network of dirty finance and Al Qaeda to warrant worries that money he filched from Oil-for-Food may be funding terrorists today.

This is the legacy of a U.N. that over the years has become accustomed to treating some of the world’s worst despots as privileged clients. In the end, the most alarming aspect of Oil-for-Food is not that it became the biggest financial scandal ever to bubble through the U.N., but that it was the natural product of a U.N. steeped for decades in its own culture of privilege, immunities and secrecy, accustomed to guarding the interests of despots at the expense of subjugated peoples, and — as Oil-for-Food so richly exemplified — more absorbed in its own venal interests, payrolls and power than in such matters as the world peace, freedom and prosperity it was founded to promote.

MORE from BBC

2)Peacekeeper 'smuggled Congo gold'
A United Nations inquiry has confirmed that a Pakistani peacekeeper in the Democratic Republic of Congo was involved in smuggling gold.

A Pakistani contingent was accused of selling gold and guns between 2005 and 2006 to Congolese militia groups they were meant to disarm.

The investigation, which began in early 2006, found no evidence of gun-running.

Pakistani officials have previously denied all the accusations, describing the allegations as "baseless".

In May the UN said it would seek to discipline anyone who had compromised peacekeeping in DR Congo by trafficking in gold or guns.

Now the head of UN peacekeeping, Jean-Marie Guehenno, has told the BBC: "The investigation has found no evidence of gun smuggling but it has identified an individual who seems to have facilitated gold smuggling.

"We have shared the report with the concerned troop contributor and I'm confident they will take the required action. This issue is closed."

3)UN Ambulance Transporting Terrorists

The United Nations is covering its rear in the oil for food scandal. And now it's engaged on a second front as new evidence is emerging that a U.N. ambulance was used by Palestinian terrorists for their getaway following an engagement on May 11, in which 6 Israeli soldiers were killed.

The Israelis have been making the charge for years that the U.N. and Red Cross have been providing cover for terrorists, with American taxpayers footing some of the bill.

But now there's evidence to back up the charge. In video shot by Reuters in Southern Gaza, Palestinian gunmen are seen piling into the back of a clearly marked U.N. ambulance in the midst of a firefight.

Israel further charged that the U.N. ambulances were used to transport body parts of the Israeli soldiers who were killed.

When Israelis leveled the charge, the U.N. denied the incident and demanded an apology.

A U.N. spokesman now concedes that armed Palestinians used the vehicle, claiming the driver was forced into service. But Israel's deputy ambassador to the U.N. notes that the driver didn't report the incident until after the videotape was shown.

And that's the Observer.

Watch the video

4)UN troops face child abuse claims

Children have been subjected to rape and prostitution by United Nations peacekeepers in Haiti and Liberia, a BBC investigation has found.

Girls have told of regular encounters with soldiers where sex is demanded in return for food or money.

A senior official with the organisation has accepted the claims are credible.

The UN has faced several scandals involving its troops in recent years, including a DR Congo paedophile ring and prostitute trafficking in Kosovo.

5)Kosovo UN troops 'fuel sex trade'

The presence of peacekeepers in Kosovo is fuelling the sexual exploitation of women and encouraging trafficking, according to Amnesty International.

It claims UN and Nato troops in the region are using the trafficked women and girls for sex and some have been involved in trafficking itself.

Amnesty says girls as young as 11 from eastern European countries are being sold into the sex slavery.

A Nato spokesman said some details of the report seemed out of date.

Lieutenant Colonel Jim Moran said some policies had changed. Peacekeepers were "not allowed" off base in civilian clothing or to go to bars and nightclubs, he said.

"Each nation is responsible for the conduct of their soldiers, and if they find a soldier that is breaking the law, it is up to them to bring them to justice," he added.

There has been no comment from the UN.

6)UN staff raping children in Sudan

Members of the United Nations peacekeeping forces in southern Sudan are facing allegations of raping and abusing children as young as 12, The Daily Telegraph reported today.

The abuse allegedly began two years ago when the UN mission in southern Sudan (UNMIS) moved in to help rebuild the region after a 23-year civil war. The UN has up to 10,000 military personnel in the region, of all nationalities and the allegations involve peacekeepers, military police and civilian staff.

The first indications of possible sexual exploitation emerged within months of the UN force’s arrival and The Daily Telegraph has seen a draft of an internal report compiled by the UN children’s agency Unicef in July 2005 referring to the problem.

This paper has learnt of more than 20 victims’ accounts claiming that some peacekeeping and civilian staff based in the town are regularly picking up young children in their UN vehicles and forcing them to have sex. It is thought that hundreds of children may have been abused.

7)DR Congo sex abuse by UN peacekeepers

Last Updated: Saturday, 8 January, 2005, 02:58 GMT

DR Congo sex abuse claims upheld

By Susannah Price BBC News, United Nations A United Nations inquiry has found that UN peacekeepers working in DR Congo sexually abused girls as young as 13. The report by the UN watchdog, the Office of Internal Oversight Services, investigated abuse allegations in the north-east Congolese town of Bunia. The probe found a pattern of sexual exploitation of women and children, which it said was continuing. Head of UN peacekeeping Jean-Marie Guehenno said he was outraged and angered by the abuse. The report said many of the victims were under 18, with some as young as 13. They were usually given food or small sums of money in return for sex. The investigation looked at more than 70 allegations against military and civilian UN personnel in Bunia. It found seven cases against UN staff, all but one of them peacekeepers, involving sexual exploitation of under-age girls, were fully substantiated.

Why do we need an impotent organisation??????????????????????????????

Inaction on genocide and human rights

The UN has been accused of ignoring the plight of people across the world, especially in parts of Asia, the Middle East and Africa. Current examples include the UN's inaction toward the Sudanese government in Darfur, the Chinese government's ethnic cleansing in Tibet along with its repression of the Falun Gong and the forced repatriation of North Korean refugees^, the North Korean government's systematic and widespread human rights atrocities (including the establishment of forced-labor camps), and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

British rule in india = Indian HOLOCAUST

This is response to utter rubbish lies indian prime minister manmohan singh is putting young indians mind.It's high time editing of history has to be stopped.



1) 1770 Holocaust

— Bengal faced the most severe famine in the history, approximately 10 million people evaporated. The British took over the country five years earlier; but no one could pinpoint them for the havoc. Actually it started because of a severe drought, but certainly the British didn’t take any measure to reduce the effect. In fact, their revenue collection in 1771 surpassed the Rs. 15.21 million collected in 1768 by Rs. 52,000. No wonder 10 million people starved to death.





2) Victorian holocaust of 1876 to 1878

In his book Late Victorian Holocausts, published in 2001, Mike Davis tells the story of famines that killed between 12 million and 29 million Indians.

These people were, he demonstrates, murdered by British state policy. When an El Nino drought destituted the farmers of the Deccan plateau in 1876 there was a net surplus of rice and wheat in India. But the Viceroy, Lord Lytton, insisted that nothing should prevent its export to England. In 1877 and 1878, at the height of the famine, grain merchants exported a record 320,000 tonnes of wheat.

As the peasants began to starve, officials were ordered "to discourage relief works in every possible way." The Anti-Charitable Contributions Act of 1877 prohibited "at the pain of imprisonment private relief donations that potentially interfered with the market fixing of grain prices." The only relief permitted in most districts was hard labour, from which anyone in an advanced state of starvation was turned away.

In the labour camps, the workers were given less food than inmates of Buchenwald. In 1877, monthly mortality in the camps equated to an annual death rate of 94 per cent.


As millions died, the imperial government launched "a militarised campaign to collect the tax arrears accumulated during the drought."

The money, which ruined those who might otherwise have survived, was used by Lord Lytton to fund his war in Afghanistan.

Even in places that had produced a crop surplus, the government's export policies, such as Stalin's in Ukraine, manufactured hunger.
In the north-western provinces, Oud, and the Punjab, which had brought in record harvests in the preceding three years, at least 1.25 million died.







3) The Great Bengal Famine of 1943 & British Facist government.

Then in 1942 — United Kingdom had suffered a disastrous defeat at Singapore against the Japanese military, which then proceeded to conquer Burma (Now Myanmar) from the British in the same year.

At that point Myanmar was the highest rice exporting country in the world and 15% of India’s rice came from Myanmar. In Bengal the proportion was slightly higher because of the state’s proximity to Myanmar.

British authorities feared a subsequent Japanese invasion of British India through Bengal, and they started stockpiling food for British soldiers to prevent access to supplies by the Japanese in case of an invasion.


To implement that strategy the British ruthlessly enforced a “boat denial scheme” and then a “rice denial scheme.”

The first policy confiscated almost 66,500 boats/ships which eventually collapsed the economy — fishing became impossible, so was the exporting/importing of food.

The second policy allowed the free merchants to purchase rice at any price and sell it back to the government for stocking in the governmental food storage. On one hand it increased the price of rice but on the other it created an artificial food shortage which finally dampened the effect of “Quit India movement.”


The government not only failed to handle the situation but also contributed to the price rise by prioritizing millitary over civil needs.

A heavy toll of life was claimed by the great bengal famine of 1943. The total number of deaths was estimated at 3.5 million. Almost the whole of Bengal was more or less affected by the famine and suffered loss of lives.





4) Civilized British reaction to Jalianwala bag massacre

We all know jalianwala bag massacre (PM has not denied yet) what we should know is british view:

Dyer reported to his superiors that he had been "confronted by a revolutionary army," and had been obliged "to teach a moral lesson to the Punjab."

In a telegram sent to Dyer, British Lieutenant-Governor of Punjab, Sir Michael O'Dwyer wrote: "Your action is correct. Lieutenant Governor approves."

Many Englishmen in India, as well as the British press, defended Dyer as the man who had saved British pride and honour. The Morning Post opened a fund for Dyer, and contributions poured in. An American woman donated 100 pounds, adding "I fear for the British women there now that Dyer has been dismissed."

"I think it quite possible that I could have dispersed the crowd without firing but they would have come back again and laughed, and I would have made, what I consider, a fool of myself." — Dyer's response to the Hunter Commission Enquiry.

Dyer said he would have used his machine guns if he could have got them into the enclosure, but these were mounted on armoured cars. He said he did not stop firing when the crowd began to disperse because he thought it was his duty to keep firing until the crowd dispersed, and that a little firing would do no good.

He confessed that he did not take any steps to tend to the wounded after the firing. "Certainly not. It was not my job. Hospitals were open and they could have gone there," was his response.

many in Britain did not condemn Dyer's actions, some labelling him the "Saviour of the Punjab". The Morning Post started a sympathy fund for Dyer and received over £26,000. Dyer was presented with a memorial book inscribed with the names of well-wishers.

5) Indian's as guinea pigs all hail British Nazism

The British Empire used hundreds of helpless Muslim, Hindu and Sikh soldiers as "guinea pigs" in gas chambers in their laboratories at Rawalpindi in the 1930s.

Many of them may have later died of cancer and other terrible diseases, the de-classified documents of the National Archives show, a revelation that might shock Pakistanis, Indians and other nations of the subcontinent.

This has brought the British in the glare too. The British have been found using poisonous gases against the Indians in the name of experiments at the time when the British Empire took on the might of the German state, accusing Hitler of killing thousands of Jews in gas chambers.

The experiments had started in the early 1930s in Rawalpindi when Porton Down scientists wanted to find out if mustard gas inflicted greater damage on brown skin compared to British skin.

The documents show that these poisonous gases were being produced in Rawalpindi in the 1930s to use them against the Japanese forces and as a trial these were first used on Indian-born soldiers.

The experiments took place for more than 10 years before and during World War II in a military installation at Rawalpindi. They were conducted by scientists from the Porton Down chemical warfare establishment in Wiltshire.


The british are hypocrites even when they where accusing nazi germany of killing many people by gas chamber etc the two faced brits where doing the same thing to indians!






6) Partitioning India over lunch

Memoirs of a British civil servant never seen in public until now show how much the partition of India was decided by just two men, the BBC's Alastair Lawson reports.

It is estimated that around 14.5 million people moved to Pakistan from India or travelled in the opposite direction from Pakistan to India.

"The viceroy, Mountbatten, must take the blame - though not the sole blame - for the massacres in the Punjab in which between 500,000 to a million men, women and children perished," he writes.

"The handover of power was done too quickly."

Punjab 'disaster'

But Beaumont - who later in life was a circuit judge in the UK - is most scathing about how partition affected the Punjab, which was split between India and Pakistan.

Audio: Mountbatten's address

"The Punjab partition was a disaster," he writes.

"Geography, canals, railways and roads all argued against dismemberment.

"The trouble was that Muslims, Hindus and Sikhs were an integrated population so that it was impossible to make a frontier without widespread dislocation.

"Thousands of people died or were uprooted from their homes in what was in effect a civil war.

"By the end of 1947 there were virtually no Hindus or Sikhs living in west Punjab - now part of Pakistan - and no Muslims in the Indian east.

"The British government and Mountbatten must bear a large part of the blame for this tragedy."

7) Macaulay tact to destroy Indian culture

My dear Father,
In a few months, I hope indeed in a few weeks, we shall send up the penal code to government. We have got rid of the punishment of death except in cases of aggravated treason and wilful murder. We shall also get rid indirectly of everything that can properly be called slavery in India. There will remain civil claims on particular people for particular services, which claims may be enforced by civil action. But no person will be entitled, on the plea of being the master of another, to do anything to that other which it would be an offence to do to a freeman.

Our English schools are flourishing wonderfully. We find it difficult, indeed at some places impossible, to provide instruction for all who want it. At the single town of Hoogley fourteen hundred boys are learning English. The effect of this education on the Hindoos is prodigious. No Hindoo who has received an English education ever continues to be sincerely attached to his religion. Some continue to profess it as a matter of policy. But many profess themselves pure Deists, and some embrace Christianity. The case with Mahometans is very different. The best-educated Mahometan often continues to be a Mahometan still. The reason is plain. The Hindoo religion is so extravagantly absurd that it is impossible to teach a boy astronomy, geography, natural history, without completely destroying the hold which that religion has on his mind. But the Mahometan religion belongs to a better family. It has very much in common with Christianity; and even where it is most absurd, it is reasonable when compared with Hindooism. It is my firm belief that, if our plans of education are followed up, there will not be a single idolater among the respectable classes in Bengal thirty years hence. And this will be effected without any efforts to proselytise, without the smallest interference with religious liberty, merely by the natural operation of knowledge and reglection.I heartily rejoice in this prospect

See macaulay's TRICK

8) Coolies - How Britain reinvented Slavery

The slave trade was officially abolished throughout the British Empire in 1807. This documentary reveals one of Britain’s darkest secrets: a form of slavery that continued well into the 20th century - the story of Indian indentured labour.


19th-century British practice of Indentured Labour, through which more than 1 million Indian workers were transported all over the world — only to be told there was no provision to return. They were effectively only slightly better off than the African slave laborers they were brought in to replace. The latter had been emancipated in 1833, when the British government decided to end slavery and the slave trade throughout the Empire.

M.K. Gandhi's words of wisdom

1)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 September 24, 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.”

On December 24, 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.”


2)“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?”



3)On The Holocaust

“Hitler killed five million Jews. It is the greatest crime of our time. But the Jews should have offered themselves to the butcher’s knife. They should have thrown themselves into the sea from cliffs.” ~ George Orwell’s “Reflections on Gandhi,” Partisan Review, Jan. 1949

As to whether the Jews should have committed “collective sucide” by offering themselves to Hitler: “Yes, that would have been heroism.” ~ George Orwell’s “Reflections on Gandhi,” Partisan Review, Jan. 1949




4)Mohandas Gandhi on his pen-friend Adolf Hitler

To the British during WWII: “This manslaughter must be stopped. You are losing; if you persist, it will only result in greater bloodshed. Hitler is not a bad man.” ~ G.D. Birla’s “In the Shadow of the Mahatma,” p. 276

5)On Blacks and Race Relations

“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.” ~ CWMG, Vol. II, p. 74

“A Kaffir is to be taxed because he does not work enough: an Indian is to be taxed because he works too much.” ~ CWMG, Vol. III, p. 337

“A general belief seems to prevail in the colony that the Indians are little better, if at all, than the savages or natives of Africa. Even the children are taught to believe in that manner, with the result that the Indian is being dragged down to the position of a raw Kaffir.” ~ CWMG, Vol. I, p. 150

Regarding forcible registration with the state of blacks: “One can understand the necessity for registration of Kaffirs who will not work.” ~ CWMG, Vol. I, p. 105

“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.” ~ CWMG, Vol. I, pp. 244-245

Regarding the Hindu Theological Seminary: “I only wish that such institutions will crop up all over India and be the means of preserving the Aryan religion in its purity.” ~ CWMG, Vol. IV, p. 93

His description of black inmates: “Only a degree removed from the animal.” He also said, “Kaffirs are as a rule uncivilized - the convicts even more so. They are troublesome, very dirty and live almost like animals.” ~ CWMG, Vol. VIII, pp. 135-136

6)During Boer's war

“However, at about 12 o’clock we finished the day’s journey, with no Kaffirs to fight.”
The Collected Works of Mahatma Gandhi, Government of India (CWMG), Vol. V, p. 262

7)The claim that Gandhi worked for the uplift of Dalits in india (Lower Caste Hindus) is also a myth.

Gandhi's social reform


I don’t believe the caste system to be an odious and vicious dogma. It has its limitations and defects, but there is nothing sinful about it. Harijan, 1933.

I believe in Varnashrama (caste system) which is the law of life. The law of Varna (color and / or caste) is nothing but the law of conservation of energy. Why should my son not be scavenger if I am one? Harijan, 3-6-1947.

He (Shudra, low caste) may not be called a Brahmin (uppermost caste), though he (Shudra) may have all the qualities of a Brahmin in this birth. And it is a good thing for him (Shudra) not to arrogate a Varna (caste) to which he is not born. It is a sign of true humility. Young India, 11-24-1927.

According to Hindu belief, he who practices a profession which does not belong to him by birth, does violence to himself and becomes a degraded being by not living up to the Varna (caste) of his birth. Young India, 11-14-1927.

As years go by, the conviction is daily growing upon me that Varna (caste) is the law of man’s being, and therefore, caste is necessary for Christians and Muslims as it has been necessary for Hinduism, and has been its saving grace. Speech at Trivandrum, (Collection of Speeches), Ramanath Suman (1932).

I would resist with my life the separation of "Untouchables" from the caste Hindus. The problem of the "Untouchable" community was of comparatively little importance. London Round Table Conference 1931.


I call myself a Snatana man, one who firmly believes in the caste system. Dharma Manthan, p 4.

I believe in caste division determined by birth and the very root of caste division lies in birth. Varna Vyavastha, p 76-77.

The four castes and the four stages of life are things to be attained by birth alone. Dharma Manthan, p 5.

Caste means the predetermination of a man’s profession. Caste implies that a man must practice only the profession of his ancestors for his livelihood. Varna Vyavstha, p 28, 56, 68.

Shudra only serves the higher castes as a matter of religious duty and who will never own any property. The gods will shower down flowers on him. Varna Vyavastha, p 15.

I have noticed that the very basis of our thought have been severely shaken by Western civilization which is the creation of the Satan. Dharma Manthan, p 65.

How is it possible that the Antyaja (outcastes) should have the right to enter all the existing temples? As long as the law of caste and karma has the chief place in the Hindu religion, to say that every Hindu can enter every temple is a thing that is not possible today. Gandhi Sikshan, Vol. 11, p 132.

The caste system can’t be said to be bad because it does not allow inter-dining and inter-marriages in different castes. Gandhi by Shiru, p129.

If the Shudr (low caste) leave their ancestral profession and take up others, ambition will rouse in them and their peace of mind will be spoiled. Even their family peace will be disturbed. Hind Swaraj.






8)Violence for self defense (don't get it wrong only for himself not applicable for anyone else because according to him all freedom fighters were misguided fools in defending the nation & even those poor hindus who tried to defend themselves;their wives,sisters & daughters were cowards .)


“I do believe that where there is a choice between cowardice and non-violence I would advise violence. Thus when my eldest son asked me what he should have done, had he been present when I was almost fatally assaulted in 1908, whether he should have run away and seen me killed or whether he should have used his physical force which he could and wanted to use, and defended me, I told him that it was his duty to defend me even by using violence.” ~ CWMG, Vol. XXI, p. 132.



9)Defense of Religious extremists by Gandhi

The Congress session in Guwahati, 1926, Gandhi himself said, "I have called Abdul Rashid a brother and I repeat it. I do not even regard him as guilty of Swami's murder. Guilty indeed are those who excited feeling of hatred against one another." (History of Congress, page 516, by Pattabhi Sitaramayya, a prominent Congress leader.)


Calling murderer (who was sentenced for death too) a brother is chocking of secularism.
Gandhi promoted religious extremists more than anyone else.


First fundamentalist of india gandhi had this to say in praise of mass murderers of mopla in 1921 "these are god fearing religous people defending their religion"



10)
When freedom-fighters Bhagat Singh and Rajguru assassinated Asst Police
Superintendent Saunders, Gandhi, in his article"The curse of
assassination" in Young India, condemned the act as being "dastardly".
According to him, "the innocent police officer discharged his duty, however
disagreeable its consequences to the community".
Which makes one wonder, was General Dyer of the Jalianwala Bagh massacre, too, merely discharging his duties? Is the death of Lala Lajpat Rai, brutally beaten during the "Simon go back" stir, to be put down to innocence?




In "Young India" of 4th May 1921, supporting the invasion of Hindustan by Amir of Afghanistan (which had been hatched by Khilafatist leaders), Gandhi openly declared, " I would, in a sense, certainly assist the Amir of Afghanistan (the savage ancestor of Taliban!) if it waged war against British government".

Was he fed up of being british double agent

11)Fed up with Non-Violence

During a prayer speech on June 16, 1947: “If we had the atom bomb, we would have used it against the British.” ~ Gandhi’s “The Last Phase,” Vol. II, p. 326

What may have transpired him to say such thing wasn't he the same person willing to sacrifice numerous sons of soil in war effort for british even when famine of bengal had cost millions of lives mainly due to priority given to military over civil needs by british govt.

May be he shifted his agenda as india was on the verge of independence & his british masters absconding him behind.Best actor in history anyway


A pure racist slave of british imperialist is unfortunately father of india now had he been born in any other nation he would have been best ACTOR of the century.