Rajmohan Gandhi on why we are all wearing the same pair of chaddis

When India became independent, some Communist nutters pretended it was still a slave to the Capitalist West. They were wrong. 

Similarly, some people pretended India was not a Hindu nation from which the Muslims had separated- if it was possible for them to do so. On the other hand, the notion that Tamils wanted a separate State did turn out to be a chimera as did the presumption that Indians wanted Soviet style Socialism or Gandhian type gobshiterry. 

Rajmohan Gandhi- now doing 'Research' in Illinois- writes in the Indian Express

What took place in August 1947 was emphatically not the creation of two nations,

Yes it was. In the previous year, Hindus had voted overwhelmingly for Congress, which Gandhi, in 1939, had described as a High Caste Hindu Party, while Muslims voted overwhelmingly for the Muslim League which was committed to the creation of Pakistan. Some stupid Dalits did, it is true, support JN Mandal who supported the Muslim League. But Mandal and his people were chased away from independent Pakistan.

 one Hindu and the other Muslim. 

This was a thorough going separation. Non-Muslims did not want to live under Muslim domination and vice versa though, no doubt, a much bigger number of Muslims were left on the wrong side of the border. They were condemned to sink politically and economically decade after subsequent decade. 

It was only the separation of contiguous Muslim-majority areas in the subcontinent’s north-west and east. 

That is all any partition is. The American Revolution was merely the separation of contiguous areas on the North American continent where the Rebels dominated. The loyalist areas became Canada. Similarly, Irish independence involved the partition of contiguous areas where Protestants predominated and the Treaty of Lausanne involved population exchange on the basis of religion such that Turkey received Muslims on the wrong side of the border while Greece received Christian refugees. 

Later, Pakistan indeed chose to become an Islamic nation,

As did Bangladesh. But Pakistan was ab ovo Islamic. It was created by the Muslim League.

 yet India remained a nation for all, 

except Muslims who had crossed the border in panic. A 1948 Act stripped them off citizenship.

with equal rights, firmly entrenched in its Constitution, for all its citizens, irrespective of religion (or race, gender or caste).

but non-Hindus expressed separatist sentiments wherever they dominated. Furthermore, India degenerated into an dynastic autocracy- tempered, it is true, by assassination. 

Prime Minister Narendra Modi has blamed Partition on Nehru. 

He blamed Nehru's ambition. The fact that Congress was in a hurry to get power meant that it agreed to Radcliffe drawing lines on the map. 

Assigning sole or main responsibility for that painful event to Nehru lacks any historical basis.

But is not as crazy as saying that partition did not validate the two nation theory. The fact is two nations did in fact come into existence. It is also a fact that Congress was greedy for power and showed scant regard for the plight of those who would be caught on the wrong side of the border. 

 It should be recognised, moreover, that if Partition had not occurred, all the residents of today’s Pakistan and Bangladesh would have been free to move to any corner of today’s India.

Where their throats would have been slit if they belonged to the wrong religion.

This should be realised by persons like Union minister G Kishan Reddy of the BJP who claimed, on February 9, that if Indian citizenship was offered, half the population of Bangladesh would migrate to India.

As opposed to Bengalis migrating the fuck away from Mamta's tyranny. Bangladesh did the sensible thing- viz. get rural girls into factory dormitories- and has pulled ahead of Pakistan and parts of India.

Who should be held responsible for Partition is not this article’s theme. 

Mahatma Gandhi's unilateral surrender in 1922 made Partition inevitable. 

Nor am I focusing here on movements or migrations of people.

Because that was what actually happened. This cretin prefers to focus on fantasy.

 My purpose is to recall that though the two-nation theory was indeed advanced by the Muslim League after March 1940 and by the Hindu Mahasabha from 1937, India’s 1947 partition did not validate the two-nation theory.

Though two Nations did indeed come into existence. Sadly, reality don't validate shit for Rajmohan coz he really is fucked in the head.

 It should also be remembered that the Constitution of India adopted at the end of 1949 totally rejected that theory.

Nope. It completely confirmed it. Muslims lost everything previously conceded to them. Cow protection became a Directive Principle. India, that is Bharat, has Hindi in Devanagari as its official language. Many Muslims lost citizenship. The first President had been a member of the Hindu Mahasabha. The Hindu triumph was so complete and Muslims so wholly marginalized that politics was about the progressive Hindus pushing back against the orthodox. 

Ignorance about one another is a reality in almost every society. 

As is ignorance of reality.

So is prejudice about groups different from ours.

As well as prejudice against our own- which is what might want us to do 'research' far far away

 But the history of human beings is, among other things, a story of growing awareness that all of us are the same underneath.

Moreover, we are all wearing the same pair of chaddis- right? 

When a Korean movie wins the Oscar in the US, 

it tells us something about American politics- viz. that it has become deeply divisive. 

when people of Asian descent hold powerful political positions in several countries in Europe and North America,

because they have become thoroughly assimilated. Priti Patel isn't prancing around in a Sari. Rishi Sunak aint doing Satyagraha against BoJo.  

when Indian-Americans not only win seats in the US Congress but hope, one day, to send an Indian to the White House, something like the two-nation theory can only be seen as a relic from a retrograde past.

No it can't. It is clear that Pakistan and Afghanistan are on a very different trajectory to Hindu majority area. 

Long ago, people indeed thought that other tribes, races, religious groups or castes were inferior, or superior, or menacing, or an easy target. We know better today.

No we don't. Either China is superior to India and will take Arunachal and gain access to Indian markets by brute force or else India- with or without allies- will prove it isn't inferior. 

It is important to find out if we are inferior in some field so that we can imitate those who are superior. Equally, if we have a superiority in some field, we must build further 'acquired advantage' upon it. 

The two-nation theory has to be rejected not only categorically but also thoroughly.

But that won't change the fact that the country will have to defend itself against Pakistan and its terrorist proxies.  

It is not enough to agree that as between Indian citizens no law can discriminate against anyone on religious grounds.

Though the Law does indeed do so. 

 Denying a path to citizenship to immigrants of a particular religion is an unconcealed expression of the two-nation theory, 

No. In 1948, it was explicitly stated and enacted that Muslims who had gone to Pakistan could not return to reclaim Citizenship or property. Rajmohan is simply lying his head off. The two nation theory was accepted by both his grandfathers. On the other hand a reckless disregard for the truth may well be a hereditary trait. 

apart from being a violation of the constitutional and human principle of equality.

There is no such principle. Equality under the law does not mean that the law itself must be equal. I and Prince Andrew are equally subjects of British Law. But I am not, by reason of birth, in the line of succession to the throne. 

Applied today to immigrants, the theory will be directed tomorrow against fellow-citizens whose ancestors were Indians several hundred years ago. 

That happened in July 1948. What triggered it was the return of some refugees from Lahore. The Constituent Assembly quickly passed a law stripping such people of citizenship even though their ancestors were indigenous for thousands of years. The reason given for this move was simply that the property the refugees had left behind was needed to accommodate those flooding in. There had been an exchange of population following the establishment of two nations. Pretending this did not happen is simply silly. 

Eventually, it will set neighbour against neighbour. It should be given no sustenance whatsoever, not even in the name of succour for the persecuted.

Why stop there? Why not deny that India ever became Independent? How could it have been colonized? There can only be one Nation on Earth. Indeed, we are all actually just one person wearing the same pair of chaddis. At any rate, this is the conclusion Rajmohan's further 'research' in Illinois will lead him to. 

Why Rajmohan Gandhi is Racist

Rajmohan Gandh- a failed politician and grandson of the Mahatma- writes in the Indian Express 

In India, Muslims, Dalits and Adivasis, taken together, form the equivalent of America’s Blacks.

This is a remarkable statement. Hindus consider Dalits and Adivasis as Hindus provided they are not Muslim or Christian. That's how Religions work. Gandhi clearly isn't a Hindu. On the other hand, he is a Racist. He appears to believe that he- despite his dark skin- is actually an 'Aryan'. Muslims are Semites. Dalits and Adivasis are 'Dravidians' despite the fact that many are much fairer skinned than this cunt. 

American Blacks are great patriots. They do stand up against racial injustice and many take pride in their African ancestry- though, of course, everybody is ultimately descended from Africans and so we all can take pride in our African roots. What Black people never do, wherever they may be, is listen to those who think of themselves as 'White' and who pretend- as Mahatma Gandhi did with respect to 'Harijans'- to be interested in their uplift. Thus, Gandhian cunts are running a con only on imbeciles like themselves. 

Counting Dalits and Adivasis in the Hindu fold,

only if they are Hindu rather than Muslim or Christian. But then Christians and Muslims do the same thing. Rajmohan and his ilk are the only bunch of cunts who don't count Hindus as Hindus if they themselves believe they are racially superior to them.  

Hindu radicals reserve their public ire for Muslims.

Whereas this cunt reserves his public ire for 'Hindu radicals' even if they happen to be Dalit or Adivasi. God alone knows what he says in private about Black Americans or non-college educated Whites who voted for Trump. 

“Hindu consolidation” against Muslims is the political equivalent in India for the American call, open or subtle, for white supremacy.

No. It is the equivalent of Hindu supremacy. This stupid cunt may believe he is an 'Aryan' and that his ancestors had blonde hair and blue eyes, but the truth is obvious to all. He is dark skinned with a high proportion of Ancestral South Indian genes. On the other hand, Rahul Gandhi has a high proportion of purely European genes. His votaries may well call- better 'subtly' than 'openly'- for white supremacy. 

Who are the Hindu leaders who will speak frankly to India’s cow vigilantes or “love jihad” militants the way Pence, McConnell and Graham finally spoke on January 6 to America’s Trump backers?

Fuck is this cunt talking about? Pence, McConnell and Graham did not say anything against the sacred cows of their Political Party. They merely refused to put their head in a noose. 

It is interesting that Rajmohan admits that Rahul Gandhi is not Hindu nor are people like Shashi Tharoor or anyone else in the opposition. That is the reason no 'Hindu leader' will speak out against the things he mentions. On the other hand, a Communist Chief Minister of Kerala did condemn 'love jihad'.  

If “enough is enough” will not escape the lips of a Narendra Modi, an Amit Shah, an Adityanath or any principal colleague, everyday Hindus must utter the words, in their homes to kith and kin, outside their homes to fellow citizens.

Because none of the opposition parties have any Hindu leaders. Incidentally, Amit Shah is not Hindu. 

“India belongs as much to her Muslims, Sikhs, Christians, Jains, Buddhists, Parsis, Jews, atheists or others as to her Hindus.” With such words, Gandhi, Nehru and Ambedkar inspired free India to commence an impressive journey.

But they were lying. They refused to give citizenship to Muslims who fled pogroms in 1948 and wanted to return. But they did give citizenship and compensating land to non-Muslim refugees from Pakistan- which country too made exactly the same claim.  

Hindus unable or unwilling today to utter these words

in other words Hindus unwilling to tell a stupid lie 

are India’s counterparts of the enablers of the January 6 attack on America’s core and constitutional meaning.

But Gandhi teaches in Amrika. He is an enabler of all the shit that goes down there coz he isn't constantly saying 'Whitey be shit. Fuck Whitey.'  

But Kamala Harris, Raphael Warnock, Jon Ossoff and Stacey Abrams too have their Indian counterparts:

no they don't.  American politics is nothing like Indian politics. 

Leaders from minority communities,

like Owaisi, are either dynasts or will become so to protect their stolen wealth

and weaker castes,

are either dynasts or & c. The only reason anybody gives Rajmohan Gandhi the time of day is coz of who his granddaddy was. 

who feel connected also to other Indians, including caste Hindus and high-caste Hindus. When their voices ring out without fear, as also the voices of everyday Hindus offended by the coerciveness of Hindu supremacy, Indian Trumpism will find its nemesis.

Nonsense! Trump fell because of his shitty handling of COVID. Also, Biden was a more than credible alternative. By contrast, Modi is a good PM and there is no rival candidate for the top job. 

India's Hindu majority is a bit bigger than America's White majority. However, the American White majority is likely to reconsolidate itself on the basis of inclusion of a large section of Hispanics and also cultural assimilation of Asians. However, there is likely to be a growing economic divergence between Red and Blue States just as, in India, there will be more and more farmer type agitations. Economics matters. Gandhian shite does not. Why? Because Gandhianism is a Racism, albeit of a masochistic sort. But all Racism is stupid. Economics erodes it but for stupid, masochistic, Racists, there will always be a small globalized market. 

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.

The other Gandhi dynasty

Rajmohan Gandhi's biography of his illustrious ancestor contains the following passage which is meant to explain why Gandhi agreed to the Cabinet Mission Plan

This is decidedly odd. Yuddhishtra led the Pandavas. He did not assist them. They served him. It was he who declared war and he who gained the crown. If he suppressed qualms of conscience while doing so, his motivation was not loyalty to another, but commitment to his own aggrandizement.

Who, in the Mahabharata, suppressed 'qualms of conscience'? Bhishma, the rightful heir who gave up the throne and then supported the Kauravas though he knew they had done wrong. Rajmohan's slip is Freudian. He says Yuddhishtra but means Bhimshma. Gandhi should have been Prime Minister. He suppressed his qualms of conscience and supported Nehru- who however was a villain. 

Thus, it seems, Rajmohan thinks of Nehru as an usurper- one who rose on Gandhi's coat-tails- I should say dhoti-tails- but who rudely pushed him aside to snatch the glittering prize. In 1989, Rajmohan Gandhi contested the Amethi elections against Rajiv Gandhi. The grandson of Nehru defeated the grandson of the Mahatma.

The odd thing is that, despite Rahul's evident imbecility, nobody would prefer him to be replaced by a member of the other Gandhi dynasty