Rajmohan Gandhi brazenly defies the Mahatma

In December 1907, Mahatma Gandhi wrote - "It is the duty of every thoughtful Indian not to marry. In case he is helpless in regard to marriage, he should abstain from sexual intercourse with his wife."

Tragically neither of Rajmohan Gandhi himself, nor his wife, nor his parents or her parents or, indeed, their children were 'thoughtful Indians'. They have all brazenly defied the Mahatma by having sex with their spouses.


Given that this entire family is living proof that the Mahatma's ideals were betrayed by his own progeny, it is strange that Rajmohan condemns Modi for betraying the Mahatma- not by having sex with his wife, which Modi has not done, but by passing a humane, constitutional, and sensible law which is perfectly in conformity with the Mahatma's legacy. What is the explanation for Rajmohan's moral imbecility and reckless disregard for the truth in this matter? Let us look at what he has written.

No one expects the Prime Minister to take up P Chidambaram’s commonsense suggestion of a televised debate on the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) between him and his critics.

What is brazen Raju saying here? Is it not that P. Chidambaram is a fool? After all, only an idiot makes a suggestion which no one expects will be taken up. Perhaps Raju is saying 'commonsense means talking like a fool. Look at me! I have commonsense. That is why I- who am living proof that my parents brazenly defied the duty the Mahatma had laid down for them- tell lies about a genuine celibate having 'brazenly' defied my grandfather- who devoutly wished my parents would never be so wicked as to cause me to exist.

Though the PM is unlikely to accede to it, I too have a request for him.

Why do you have a request for somebody who thinks you are a fucking cretin? Is it because you aren't just a fucking cretin but enjoy being a public nuisance?

Please stop saying that through the CAA the government is “only fulfilling the dreams and wishes of Mahatma Gandhi”.

We know the dream and wish of the Mahatma was that no such person as Rajmohan should exist. His parents should, as thoughtful Indians, have abstained from sex because that was the duty which the Mahatma had enjoined on them. It would be quite contrary to the dream and wish of the Mahatma to heed any request from a person who would never have existed save by a brazen and obscene defiance of a sacred duty enjoined upon Rajmohan's father by his progenitor.

I do not say that Raju should be killed. I say that he should never have been born. Raju should so conduct himself that the horrible consequences of his existence be mitigated by reserve, reticence and a shrinking away, on his part, from any contact with thoughtful Indians.

What Modi said was '"From Mahatma Gandhi to those in government many have said that people who are tortured in Pakistan and other nations should be given citizenship in India on humanitarian grounds." 

Is this statement true or is it false? Did Gandhi, Nehru, Rajaji or any other person in Government say 'Hindus and Sikhs tortured in Pakistan must not be given Indian citizenship'? No. They would have been murdered if they had. As it was, Gandhi escaped being killed by Madanlal Pahwa, a Punjabi refugee, only to be killed by a non-refugee whose demented action was swiftly avenged by a pogrom against people of his own sub-caste. 
To clarify the matter, the Constitution of India gave Citizenship to Refugees from Pakistan- vide Article 6 {Rights of citizenship of certain persons who have migrated to India from Pakistan} Notwithstanding anything in article 5, a person who has migrated to the territory of India from the territory now included in Pakistan shall be deemed to be a citizen of India at the commencement of this Constitution if —he or either of his parents or any of his grand-parents was born in India as defined in the Government of India Act, 1935 (as originally enacted); and
in the case where such person has so migrated before the nineteenth day of July, 1948, he has been ordinarily resident in the territory of India since the date of his migration, or
in the case where such person has so migrated on or after the nineteenth day of July, 1948, he has been registered as a citizen of India by an officer appointed in that behalf by the Government of the Dominion of India on an application made by him therefor to such officer before the commencement of this Constitution in the form and manner prescribed by that Government:
Provided that no person shall be so registered unless he has been resident in the territory of India for at least six months immediately preceding the date of his application.

Here is the precedent, clear as daylight, that the Indian Government- which itself acclaimed the Mahatma as the Father of the Country- gave citizenship to non-Muslim refugees from undivided Pakistan.
It did not give citizenship even to Muslims originally from India who changed their minds and wanted to quit Pakistan to return to their ancestral homeland. Vide- 
Article 7 {Rights of citizenship of certain migrants to Pakistan}Notwithstanding anything in articles 5 and 6, a person who has after the first day of March, 1947, migrated from the territory of India to the territory now included in Pakistan shall not be deemed to be a citizen of India:
As for Muslims whose ancestral home was in Pakistan- they had zero right to settle or acquire citizenship of India.

Modi has made a reasonable claim w.r.t the Mahatma's 'wishes and dreams'. It is reasonable to suggest that if Gandhi was unhappy with what the Government was doing, he would have made this known. But he never challenged the idea that non Muslims fleeing persecution should be granted Citizenship.

Rajmohan- that lying shithead whose very existence arises out of his parent's brazen defiance of the duty prescribed by the Mahatma- takes a different view. He writes-

It is doing nothing of the kind. I say this not as Gandhi’s grandson but as his biographer.

But Raju baba, you only exist to mark the infamy of your own father. You are not the Mahatma's 'biographer' but rather a blot upon his escutcheon.

Studiously excluding Muslims from its benefits, the CAA does not carry out the Mahatma’s wishes; it brazenly defies them.

Rubbish! The fact is India can't protect Muslims fleeing persecution by Muslims in Islamic Republics. Look what happened to Dr. Taslima Nasrin. The Government said it would protect her but the Indian Muslims were out for her blood. She had to run off to Scandinavia.

Consider what would happen if the Indian Govt. offered refuge to Ahmadiyas. Bounties would be put up by Indian Muslims for each Qadiani head just as happened to Dr. Nasrin. The small number of this sect who live in Qadian would have to flee.

By contrast, non Muslims are safe in India. Indian Muslims may want them repatriated to where they can be killed or forcibly converted but won't waste money putting bounties on their heads. Anyway, the Indian Muslim who tries to kill a Hindu or a Sikh may find that retaliation is swift.

Undoubtedly Gandhi wanted Pakistan to protect its minorities and India to aid the persecuted. But he wanted India too to protect its minorities.

He also didn't want your Mummy and Daddy having sex. He wanted to prevent the calamity of your birth. But, as in 'protecting minorities', he failed in a tragic manner. According to Pakistani sources, more than a million Muslims were killed during the Partition Riots. Gandhi himself spoke of the culpability of members of the Bihar Congress Party. How many were expelled from the party for killing Muslims? None at all. 'Bapu'- as Father- failed miserably. His sons had sex and so did his grandsons and great grand sons. Nehru had just one daughter but she became PM as did her son. Both Rahul and Varun are in Parliament. By contrast the voluminous seed of the Mahatma's loins has never managed to win a single election. Why? Because they used their erections to father kids in brazen defiance of their progenitor's salutary deontic command in this respect. 

Not only that. After the carnage accompanying Partition, Gandhi had the temerity to dream that one day Hindu and Sikh refugees would return from India to their homes in Pakistan, and Muslim refugees likewise from Pakistan to the places they had left behind in India.

Lots of people had that dream- more particularly if they owned property on the wrong side of the border. But a dream was all it was. Your very existence on earth meant that the dream he dreamt almost three decades before your birth was crushed in a manner brutal and heart-rending. Your gross visage was a reminder to your grandfather that even his sons brazenly defied the duty he had laid down for them.

In January 1948 — the month when he was assassinated — Gandhi was evidently thrilled when an unnamed Muslim leader from Pakistan spoke to him of wanting to “witness a fifty-mile-long procession of Hindus and Sikhs returning to Pakistan with Gandhiji at its head”.

The man had been chased out of Naokhali. He knew Nehru had been chased away from Peshawar. A fifty mile long procession led by Gandhi would have gone into a meat grinder. The guy knew where he was well off- staying in a Birla mansion with Sardar Patel supposedly ensuring his safety by deploying plenty of plainclothesmen. The fact of the matter is that when Gandhi was shot, it was an American who came forward to grab Godse. Patel's officers had either been instructed to look the other way or they were completely useless.

We learn this from an eyewitness to the conversation: Pyarelal, the Mahatma’s personal secretary for 29 years (1919-48), who recorded it in his massive Gandhi biography, Last Phase. A pledge by leading Delhi residents that induced Gandhi to end his last fast (also in January 1948) included this sentence: “We shall not object to the return to Delhi of the Muslims who have migrated from here if they choose to come back and Muslims shall be able to carry on their business as before.”

These 'leading Delhi residents' weren't cut-throats. Their objections were irrelevant. No doubt they also told their darling sons that if they stopped screaming and shitting all over the place then they would not have to go to School tomorrow. Instead, they would be taken to a lovely ice-cream hotel made out of cake. Yet, when morning came their sons were packed off to school where the Hindi teacher beat them mercilessly and so they shat themselves and the other boys made fun of them. Anyway, that's why I gave up teaching.

Gandhi may not have been realistic in his dream of the 1947 refugees returning to their homes.

He was also not realistic in his dream that his son, Devdas, would not brazenly defy the duty of every thoughtful Indian by having sex with his wife. The sight of the 12 year old Rajmohan must have been terribly upsetting for that old kook.

But to imply that Gandhi wanted the Hindu minorities of Pakistan, Bangladesh and Afghanistan to migrate to India, or that a CAA enabling such a migration fulfils Gandhi’s wishes, is to turn history on its head.

Does this cretin really not know that eligibility under CAA is restricted to those who entered India on or before 31 December 2014? It is not an Israel style 'Law of Return'.

This distortion may suit those who imagine that in 1947 India was created solely for Hindus and Pakistan only for Muslims.

What distortion? It is one that this brazen monument to his father's infamy has himself introduced.

Muslim-majority areas indeed became Pakistan on August 14, 1947, and Hindu-majority areas remained India. Even so, free India’s leaders, people and Constitution saw India as a nation for all, where an atheist, a Buddhist, a Christian, a Jew, a Muslim or a Sikh would enjoy rights equal to a Hindu’s. Anyone claiming that Gandhi wanted support confined to non-Muslims, or that he wished to exclude Muslims from relief, has to be an inventor of historical facts.

Raju is inventing a contemporary fact- viz. that Modi is putting out a welcome mat for non Muslim minorities from 3 countries. He is then pretending that some people are going around saying 'Gandhi wanted to fuck up Muslims.' Why? Who does this fuckwit think he is fooling?

Even in our post-truth age, a blatant inversion of history is unlikely to work.

Then why write this sort of shite you blatant liar?

Selective history stands a better chance.

You should know. It is what your 'scholarship' amounts to.

Public memory is short, and Whatsapp has replaced reading.

Idiot! Whatsapp messages still have to be read.

It becomes easy, while recalling the 1947 carnage, to tell Pakistanis that Muslims were its chief victims, and Indians that Hindus and Sikhs were the primary sufferers.

 Raju is speaking for himself. Ordinary people don't find it easy to talk about these highly traumatic events to the descendants of those who suffered at that terrible time.

In fact, as all serious students of history know, there was a sobering parity to the 1947 massacres and migrations.

Coz, unlike Gandhi or Rajaji, most Hindus and Sikhs could kick ass just as well as Muslims could kick ass. 

Almost equal numbers of non-Muslims and Muslims were involved. Few Pakistanis or Bangladeshis know today that until 1947 Karachi, Lahore, Rawalpindi, Multan and Dhaka contained large Hindu and Sikh populations. Few Indians are aware that until 1947 Muslims constituted close to half — or even more than half — the population in Amritsar, Jalandhar and Ludhiana.

So what? Few people anywhere know that the Mahatma has an idiot grandson. Fewer yet care.

Many Indians of our time know of the atrocities in the 1946 autumn on Hindus in Noakhali, now part of Bangladesh. Few know that within weeks of the Noakhali horror, Bihar saw violence on Muslims on an even larger scale.

Actually, few Indians have heard of Noakhali. As for the Bihar violence- are you fucking kidding me? Which Indian thinks Biharis don't kick ass better than Bengalis? Nehru threatened to bomb Biharis using aeroplanes! Honestly, I don't think they'd have noticed. Not that they are cruel or sadistic. Once they'd secured hegemony, they went back to being good humored, decent, hardworking folk.

Gandhi’s village-to-village trek to instill courage among Noakhali’s Hindus and contrition among its Muslims is remembered by many in India.

But Gandhi failed. He was chased away. Wikipedia has this to say ' Gandhi's stay in Noakhali was resented by the Muslim leadership. On 12 February 1947, while addressing a rally at Comilla, A. K. Fazlul Huq said that Gandhi's presence in Noakhali had harmed Islam enormously.[59] His presence had created a bitterness between the Hindus and the Muslims.[59] The resentment against Gandhi's stay in Noakhali grew day by day. Towards the end of February 1947 it became vulgar. Gandhi's route was deliberately dirtied everyday and Muslims began to boycott his meetings.[59]

Mahatma Gandhi discontinued his mission halfway and started for Bihar on 2 March 1947 at the request of the Muslim League leaders of Bengal. On 7 April, more than a month after leaving Noakhali, Gandhi received telegrams from Congress Party workers in Noakhali, describing attempts to burn Hindus alive. He responded that the situation in Noakhali required that the Hindus should either leave or perish

Few, however, recall the words with which Gandhi confronted Bihar’s political leaders in March 1947: “Is it or isn’t it a fact that quite a large number of Congressmen took part in the disturbances? How many of the 132 members of your Committee were involved? …I wish to ask you, how could you live to see an old woman of 110 years being butchered before your eyes? …I will not rest nor let others rest. I (will) wander all over on foot and ask the skeletons (what) happened. There is such a fire raging in me that I (will) know no peace till I have found a solution for all this… If I find that my comrades are deceiving me, I will be furious, and I shall walk barefoot on and on through hail or storm”.

But did he actually do any of these things? No. How many members of the Congress committee were expelled? None at all. Surely some people were prosecuted- as they would have been under the Raj- for murder, arson, incitement etc? Sadly, the answer is no one was held accountable. Gandhi was a wind-bag whom everybody ignored. At least Nehru with his threats to bomb Bihar from the Air was funny. Seriously, the guy looked and sounded like Alaistair Sims! The Head Mistress of St. Trinians can't intimidate a true Bihari bhaiyya. I become very polite when confronted with Biharis. But I make it a point to say something absurd so they merely laugh and thump me on the back approvingly. They don't understand that I go somersaulting a far distance not because I'm a comedian but because Bihari bhaiyyas spend their time carrying cows hither and tither. True Bihari child- unless a Kayastha- carries about a cow as easily as I carry about a pussycat.

Perhaps Raju's Tambram mitochondrial DNA has overpowered his Modh Bania Gujju genes.  Say what you like about the Mahatma, he spoke plainly and affectionately. He wasn't a condescending asshole. He would call a person his dear brother because he genuinely felt there was an equality between himself, notwithstanding his Daddy having been a Dewan and he himself having studied in England, and a volunteer 'svayamsevak' of supposedly 'lower' caste and 'inferior' vernacular medium education.

Look at how Raju addresses the Indian Prime Minister in his next line. Not even Mani Shankar Aiyar could write anything which stinks so badly. It seems this half Iyengar exceeds us Iyer even in the foul business of being a stupid elitist cunt.

This, dear Narendrabhai, was Gandhi’s understanding of a government’s duty towards minorities.

 Gandhi's Congress Party presided over the worst communal violence the subcontinent had ever seen.  It failed completely in its duty to minorities. The law of the jungle prevailed. Matsyanyaya- the big fish ate the little fish. Even close friends and colleagues of Maulana Azad felt they had to emigrate two or three years after Partition. Nothing like it had happened before- when the Brits supplied 'the smack of firm government'- and nothing quite as bad ever happened afterwards- even under Indira or Rajiv-  because the District Administration would round up hotheads while the police and paramilitary units showed willingness to deal out death to mobs.

You say, and others say on your behalf, that the CAA has nothing to do with Muslims inside India,

That's true enough. It is the Opposition parties who are lying so as to create a fear psychosis amongst Muslims of the most vulnerable class. It is they who are telling Muslims ' your basic entitlements will be snatched away. You will be excluded from 'last mile delivery' of essentials. If you don't protest now, when will you do so? After your children have died of hunger or avoidable illness? Do you not love your own children? Don't you want them to get an education? We are the High Caste Hindu or Sikh Royalty. We are smart, we are educated, we hold or have held, the highest positions in the Government. We are telling you- protest now or forever hold your peace weeping over the coffins of your little children. What is the matter with you? Is 'Islam' submission to God or surrender of your own kids Right to Life? If you are Mothers, go out onto the Streets. Remain there till we tell you otherwise. You stupid people should just listen to us and do as you are told.'

Raju is happy to be counted with this elitist, High Caste, crew of rogues and liars. He says he believes that

 that the CAA will... be followed by something that terrifies Indians of all religions, a National Register of Citizens.

Because of CAA, no non-Muslim can claim to be terrified by this Register. Why? It is easy to prove we were in India before 2014. But Muslims, purely on the basis of mother tongue, can prove they were never from Pakistan or Bangladesh. So their names go on the NRC. Never again can Opposition parties terrify them by saying- 'you will lose your basic entitlements as citizens because someone may say that you are speaking 'bangla' not 'ghoti' dialect or 'Seraiki' not Punjabi or Haryanvi. Tamil Muslim will be deported as 'Bangladeshi' or 'Pathan'! Why not say that dark skinned 'Madrasis' like me will be deported as beautiful Swedish blondes with large breasts? My name is Vivek. It could easily be turned into 'Viveka' which is a Scandinavian girl's name. Come to think of it Vivica Fox is about my age and is a bit dark because she has some African ancestry. Thus, there is a very good chance that, should I dare to show my face in T.Nagar, I will be picked up by the Indian Immigration and Naturalization Service. They will deport me to Hollywood where I will be forced to take up twerking and other such Godlessness. Hai! Such is the lot of the Tambram NRI!

Why then did Dilip Ghosh, your party’s West Bengal chief, speak the way he did on January 12? “Didi’s (Mamata Banerjee) police didn’t take action against the people who destroyed public properties as they are her voters. Our governments in Uttar Pradesh, Assam and Karnataka have shot these people like dogs,” said the BJP leader, adding that they did the “right thing”.

Why did Nehru, the Mahatma's choice for Head of a Congress Government, threaten Biharis with aerial bombardment? It is because he was a silly man. You have to shoot mad dogs to prevent the spread of rabies. Gandhi and Nehru's Congress failed for this reason. The Mahatma thought that a hunger strike or tatti bandh was what was required. His Clown Prince thought the Indian Air Force could solve the problem by carpet bombing Bihar. 

Evidently, Ghosh also called for identifying those “sabotaging the interests” of Hindu Bengalis by permitting two crore “Muslim infiltrators” into the country.

Whereas Raju is identifying the 'sabotaging of the interests' of Indians by Narendra Modi's shameful failure to welcome Jihadi terrorists of all stripes. 

“One crore alone are in West Bengal,” Ghosh claimed.

Raju does not deny this claim. If it were not true, then what is he 'protesting' about? Either the man believes that Demographic Replacement in Assam and Bengal must occur so non Bengali Muslims are ultimately driven out of their homes, or else he is talking vacuous, virtue signalling, shite.

Arguments that Ghosh’s statement was “personal” do not erase this confirmation of the CAA as a step towards a dreaded NRC.

Dreaded by whom? Hindus? No. Sikhs? No. Christians? No. Muslims? Maybe because they are being lied to. Virtue signalers pretending to sympathize with them are saying 'you guys are here on sufferance. Okay, maybe you won't be thrown out of the country, but your entitlements will be stripped from you because you won't be able to prove citizenship.'

How might this happen? The answer is that 'last mile delivery' will once again become the monopoly of the Party thugs. Everything the BJP has achieved will be undone by its corrupt successors.

Raju's two grandfathers had an obsession with virile and warlike Muslims whom they were both very frightened of. Rajaji, in 1920, wrote that Hindus must support Khilafat or risk being invaded by Afghans. But Brigadier Dyer, the butcher of Amritsar, had easily defeated the Afghans and sent them packing. Still, Rajaji and Gandhi kept quaking in their boots while seeking to appease Muslims any which way. But both were already irrelevant. Birla may have paid for Gandhi's stupid schemes but he also helped finance the anti-Muslim pogrom in Calcutta which decided the issue of whether that City would remain with India or go to Pakistan.

In the end, Sardar Patel- as Home Minister- ensured Gandhi got shot while Nehru sidelined Rajaji who had come to be loathed by Tamil people because of his casteist stupidity. It is deeply regrettable that the progeny of these two fuckwits brazenly defied their 'duty as thoughtful Indians' and got married and had sex and produced this worthless fuckwit.