Justice Katju calls Mahatma Gandhi a British agent
NEW DELHI: Known for
his penchant for stirring controversies, former chairman of Press Club of
India, Justice Markandey Katju has called Mahatma Gandhi ‘a British agent who
did great harm to India’.
This is what Justice
Katju wrote in his blog titled – ‘Gandhi—A British Agent’.
This post is bound to
draw a lot of flak at me, but that does not matter as I am not a popularity
seeker I have often said things knowing that initially that will make me very
unpopular, and I will be vilified and denounced by many. Nevertheless I say
such things as I believe they must be said in my country’s interest. I submit
that Gandhi was objectively a British agent who did great harm to India.”
“These are my reasons
for saying this: 1. India has tremendous diversity, so many religions, castes,
races, languages, etc (see my article ' What is India?' on my blog
Realizing this, the British
policy was of divide and rule (see online 'History in the Service of
Imperialism', which is a speech delivered by Prof BN Pande in the Rajya Sabha).
By constantly injecting
religion into politics continuously for several decades, Gandhi furthered the
British policy of divide and rule.
If we read Gandhi's
public speeches and writings (e.g. in his newspapers 'Young India', ' Harijan',
etc) we find that ever since Gandhi came to India from South Africa in 1915 or
so till his death in 1948, in almost every speech or article he would emphasize
Hindu religious ideas e.g. Ramrajya, Go Raksha (cow protection), brahmacharya
(celibacy), Varnashram dharma (caste system ), etc (see Collected Works of
Mahatma Gandhi ).
Thus Gandhi wrote in 'Young
India' on 10.6.1921 “I am a Sanatani Hindu. I believe in the Varnashram dharma.
I believe in protection of the cow". In his public meetings the Hindu
bhajan 'Raghupati Raghav Raja Ram' would be loudly sung.
Now Indians are a
religious people, and they were even more religious in the first half of the
20th century. A sadhu or swamiji may preach such ideas to his followers in his
ashram, but when they are preached day in and day out by a political leader,
what effect will these speeches and writings have on an orthodox Muslim mind ?
It would surely drive him towards a Muslim organization like the Muslim League,
and so it did. Was this not serving the British policy of divide and rule? By
constantly injecting religion into politics for several decades, was Gandhi not
objectively acting as a British agent?
In India a
revolutionary movement against British rule had started in the early 20th
century under the Anushilan Samiti, Jugantar, and revolutionaries like Surya
Sen, Ramprasad Bismil (who wrote the song ‘Sarfaroshi ki tamanna ab hamare dil
mein hai), Chandrashekhar Azad, Ashfaqulla, Bhagat Singh, Rajguru, etc (who
were all hanged by the British). Gandhi successfully diverted the freedom
struggle from this revolutionary direction to a harmless nonsensical channel
called Satyagrah. This also served British interests.
Gandhi’s economic ideas
were thoroughly reactionary. He advocated self sufficient village communities,
though everybody knows that these communities were totally casteist and in the
grip of landlords and money lenders. Gandhi was against industrialization, and
preached hand spinning by charkha and other such reactionary nonsense.
Similarly, his ' trusteeship ' theory was all nonsense, and an act of deceiving
Some people praise Gandhi's bravery in going to Noakhali, etc to douse
the communal violence at the time of Partition. But the question is why did he
help setting the house on fire in the first place by preaching religious ideas
in public political meetings for several decades, which were bound to divide
the Indian people on religious lines? First you set the house on fire, and then
you do the drama of trying to douse the flames.