What do you think?
Rate this book
The Dark Side of Gandhi
It is a learning lesson for all political leaders of the World to see and learn how a villainous person can make fool the countrymen having a Dress of half necked FAKIR (in the words of Winston Churchill) with his ethics of “Non-Violence” bringing division, destruction, slaughter in millions and then the mankind with “Non-Violence” when United Nations Secretary commented the person is a man of peace of mankind.
232 pages, Kindle Edition
Published April 29, 2019
97 people are currently reading
156 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 5 of 5 reviews
May 5, 2022
Since this book uses over half the space for quora, it gets one star, because valuation cannot go below without giving the impression that a reviewer forgot. Since quora is anti Hindu, anti India and uses bullying, we shall not review this section.
Author is spewing venom through most of the book, with disorganized and repetitive language, badly organised and the quora section has nothing else, merely more of the same.
The language is startling at first, unless one has a clue, that the Bengali author might be translated here from an original manuscript in his language. But when he introduces himself in quora section after around 46% of the book in chapter 7 out of 8,one is astounded. He actually gets by using this level of English in UK and US???
Then again, it's only Indians who do better, so perhaps that explains much, even of his alienation.
Author introduces himself in the quora section, in chapter seven, as "Hari Pada Roychoudhury, A victim of partition. Ph.D(UK), Msc, LLB.(Retd Prof". That comes as a surprise, mainly due to language in the book, quite apart from its being vitriolic - how someone did a doctorate in UK retaining this level of English language, and worse, completely unorganized thought process in writing, is a mystery. Perhaps his subject involved no language skills?
Author, like many of his fellow refugees of partition from East Bengal, has a delusional belief that Bengal was forced to divide and separate, by congress leaders of other states; this neatly avoids blaming those really responsible for partition, fanatic islamists, and blames carnage thereafter on congress.
But this belief, in a fraud perpetrated by Pakistan mindset, is accepted by these deluded people chiefly due to having accepted Islamic yoke for centuries, not fought back at it's onset. It's a slavery of mind that accepts any lie thereafter from conquistadores, including blaming victims.
Reality is that after Jinnah had ordered Calcutta massacre, and Noakhali had surpassed with a 150,000 Hindus murder, eight to tenfold as many as in Calcutta, there was no alternative to partition which brought on more massacres, but avoided a total annihilation of Hindus in India, as repeatedly albeit sporadically promised by Pakistani guests on India's television channels. Sporadically, only because they aren't crashing yet.
"16th August 1946 was the Calcutta killing day, already one month ahead was announced by the Muslims of Bengal under the guidance of Jinnah and Suharwardy for the demand of Pakistan. But Gandhi remained silent neither negotiated with Jinnah nor prepared volunteers to face the challenge. It was ridiculous to think that 2% militant ML volunteers could carried out the massacre on that day, killing more than 5000 Hindus in the streets of Calcutta, a City where 95% Hindus were living. ... "
Author blames Gandhi as usual. He never stops to ask, why weren't Hindus prepared when warned a month in advance?
Did Bengal ever fight back against islamic invaders? Punjab did, Rajputana did, and next was Maharashtra. But Bengal simply became muslim majority.
When India was partitioned, British were desperate to award exactly what is now Pakistan, plus as much more as they could deprive India of; but Bengal was the only province that voted for pakistan, by overwhelming majority. Not Punjab, not NWFP, but Bengal. NWFP was furious about bring "thrown to wolves" as they had personally complained to Gandhi, and Mountbattens were in danger of life in visiting it.
Sindh was divided equally and was given, with additional gift of Karachi, depriving Hindus of Sindh of a home state; Bengal was divided so Hindu majority parts were saved, despite the vote for pakistan. If any, injustice was done to Sindh, Karachi, Baluchistan which had sent accession papers already signed, and Gwadar, which was owned by Oman and Muscat, and was offered to India.
Author makes mistakes in factual detail right from beginning. The writing lacks not only depth but often coherence, apart from language. He discusses nonviolence, but lacks clarity of structure in bringing out concept.
" ... Finally the congress was spitted into the radicals’ faction, led by Tilak, Pal and Lajpat Rai, and the moderate faction led by Nationalists like Aurobindo Ghose, V. O. Chidambaram Pillai."
Aurobindo Ghosh was with Lokamanya Tilak, not with his opposition.
"The hidden policy of Gandhi get exposed: The policy of Gandhi was (i) to destroy Bengal leader like Netaji, (ii) to destroy the economy of Bengal, (iii) to remove Jinnah from India, (iv) to bring Nehru in the Chair. ... "
Not well put, but roughly right. Although Jinnah never was a leader of national stature at any time, as both Subhash Chandra Bose and Bhagat Singh were at various times - one rose exponentially and did not set but was executed, other rose steadily despite his ousting and exile, and each has come into light after and despite decades of effort by congress to the contrary, beginning with Gandhi.
" ... So long India was growing in jungles without any road communication. ... "
That would be untrue. Tar roads came late to the world, but roads of course existed in India before tar roads, as they did in UK or US.
"The Rise of Sectarian Separation: In 1885, the Hindu-dominated Indian National Congress (INC) was formed giving the opportunity for the Muslims to think separately. This sparked the formation of the Muslim League, in 1906. British got the opportunity to bring division in between Hindus and Muslims. ... "
Muslim League was formed by not only encouragement but at insistence of British; however, it wasn't a reaction by muslims to congress, it was portrayed so to them. As for the two sections, it's a myth that there had been harmony as such. Individual level, possibly, but doctrinal its impossible when one is based on wiping out the other who merely ignore them or refuse to recognise the threat.
" ... Muslims never believe in non-violence as it brings only hopes and aspiration without any success rather they believe in violence as it brings success. Riots broke out at such times as during Holi festival, when sacred cows were slaughtered, or when Hindu religious music was played in front of mosques at prayer time."
He seems to avoid blaming muslims for violence, even while mentioning "during Holi festival, when sacred cows were slaughtered" as if that's part of holi and disturbs the others, or explaining why "Hindu religious music was played in front of mosques at prayer time" should provoke violence if muslim loudspeakers blaring religion five times a day, for decades, doesn't bring violence.
In fact it's unclear if he's insinuating that Gandhi was wrong because his doctrine was against muslim beliefs.
" ... The Muslim League sponsored a “Direct Action Day” on August 16, 1946, Gandhi’s Congress neither agreed nor protested. On that very day the Muslims carried the massacre of Bengali Hindus in Open Street of Calcutta indulging in the deaths of more than 5,000 Hindus in Calcutta (Kolkata). Gandhi could not be seen in the massacre of violence to ask for non-violence."
Next he's factually incorrect.
" ... Lord Louis Mountbatten - Proposed that the new state of Pakistan would be created with the Muslim-majority provinces of Baluchistan and Sindh, and the two provinces of Punjab and Bengal would be halved, ... "
Baluchistan wasn't theirs to give but was a collection of states, much like those that joined India; in fact Baluchistan wished to join India, and had sent accession papers, signed. Nehru refused to accept them. Baluchistan as a matter of fact had become independent on August 11, 1947, having sued and won.
Punjab and NWFP did not care to separate and had already muslim majority, and had Unionist government in Punjab; but UK and US needed the region for military bases promised by Jinnah to be used against USSR, hence Pakistan was created. Bengal voted for it. Sindh was evenly divided and went to Pakistan by one vote, of the speaker. Nehru refused another accession, in Sindh, and opportunity to divide sindh so Hindu sindhis could have a home state.
"Gandhi’s stay in Noakhali was not liked by much Muslim leadership. On 12 February 1947, in a rally at Comilla, A. K. Fazlul Huq said that Gandhi’s presence in Noakhali had destroyed Islamic harmony enormously. Finally Gandhi was compelled to return to Calcutta. ... "
Because muslims were obstructed in the genocidal massacres program by his presence, even though he said nothing to them?
"Influx of Hindus from Pakistan who were uprooted and who had suffered by killings of relatives, abduction and rape of women and looting of their belongings had created an explosive situation. Local Hindus who were outraged by the treatment meted out to their Hindu brethren and the anger of local Muslims against reports of similar outrages on their co-religionists in India made Delhi a veritable witches’ cauldron. This resulted in killings, molestation, torching of houses and properties. ... And, as if to allow the critics of Mahatma Gandhi a chance to mix-up and maneuver, the decision of the government of India to release Rs. 55 crore to Pakistan came during this period of his fast."
Author makes it sound as if that was coincidence, which is highly incorrect - the matter of paying the amount was one his chief conditions of ending the hunger strike, and congress simply couldn't afford to let him die of starving himself, no matter how extremely unreasonable his demands.
Author focuses repeatedly on his thesis, about not just neglect but deliberate destruction of Bengal, and accuses Gandhi of not only doing so, but almost of using - even deploying, or almost of inventing - the political tool of non violence for precisely this purpose.
"Gandhi’s Civil Disobedience Movement under nonviolence had destroyed the economic condition of British India by the destruction of the growth of industries. India was ravaged by the impact of the Great Depression, bringing mass unemployment. The call of War had created fear of uncertainty among the people but Gandhi thought it the opportune moment to call for Quit India Movement in the name of non-violence movement. Tremendous shortage of food grain brought inflation. Without looking to the condition of the People, where people began to die due to famine, Gandhi thought it the opportune moment to start non-violence movement for independence of India and to make name and fame by the ethics of non-violence. In Bengal a major famine developed in the period of 1942. It did not disturb the mindset of Gandhi. Let the Bengali people die due to famine. The destruction of the economy of Bengal would eliminate the growth of new Subhas in Bengal, when his success of non-violence would remain beyond question."
But then, he sets forth facts, almost convincing.
"A Complete neglect of Gandhi towards Bengal: There was a terrible famine in Bengal in 1943 that the most part of Bengal was without food and that could have been avoided by the delivery of rice with easy negotiation with the authority concerned.
"Three million people had been perished in Bengal at a rate of about 30,000 a week. The houses and the streets of Calcutta were filled with the dead and the dying bodies. The food had been plentiful but that had been stockpiled for the Allied troops, in the event of a Japanese invasion. At the time when people were starving in Calcutta, Gandhi was fighting with non-violence without making any compromise for the supply of rice."
And, removing any counterarguments, he gives a photograph of starving people of Calcutta, which is startling even to those who've known about the facts regarding the deliberately created "famine" by British government of India, stealing harvest of Bengal and letting people of India starve to death, Churchill remarking that it was of no importance!
The photograph could fit very well in a collection of those of concentration camp inmates, in Germany and nazi occupied East Europe, except that here they aren't being tortured and worked to death; instead, they are sitting or standing in a group, like normal upright proid citizens of their homeland, outside a building that belongs obviously to a city, a prosperous one, albeit one in a slightly decaying state.
Author is again incorrect.
" ... Patel although frustrated a little at the beginning as he thought to be the PM for which he expediently brought the proposal of partition in front of the general meeting, ... "
Sardar Patel decided on changing his opposition to partition for reasons of welfare of people, after the Calcutta and Noakhali massacres of Hindus perpetrated at orders of muslim League. He wasn't aiming at position of any kind for self, he didn't have to - he'd in fact been elected, by 12 out of 15 votes for him and other three for no one, as last party president before independence, which would have meant that he'd be the first PM of India.
" ... he had been promoted to the post of Home Minister of India ... "
Wrong, again. He was the most capable of the men then available immediately in India, and his proven capabilities combined with honesty and lack of self serving ambition was indispensable for India. Without him, India would be in a few hundred pieces.
This author- and for that matter many of Bengal - are for some reason convinced that a united Bengal at any cost was key to prosperity and well-being, and partition of India was bad; they don't realise that one, a separate Bengal would still mean a partition of India; and two, whether a separate nation or a part of Pakistan, such a Bengal would simply be another sindh or Afghanistan, not a state where all Bengal residents could live happily thereafter, but one that hounded out all non-Muslims, whether by repeated massacres or enforced exodus or conversions, or all of those. In fact, that is exactly what has been going on in East Bengal, and a united Bengal eould simply amount yo all Hindu Bengalis being as without a home state as Hindu Sindhis have been since partition.
In addition, they blame Patel and Nehru for this, claiming that it was their ambitions that were responsible for partition, and Jinnah at the helm would have kept India united. They forgot that this would also amount to a complete extinction of Hindu - or any nonmuslim - culture throughout India, as it has been enforced throughout Pakistan and almost completely through East Bengal too.
Here are some really shocking, presumably facts, he quotes.
"A Nehruvian legacy from the days of Nehru-liaquat Pact had continued to divert the fund in many mischievous ways. Some refugees were made to settle in a remote village of Orissa, and another was made far away 25 km in another remote village, and then a road was constructed, the money for the road being spent from rehabilitation package. Bengali refugees were the last people to benefit from such maneuverings. Congress instead of addressing the issue in most cases aggravated the problem because the root cause of Bengali refugee problem was due to the Nehru-Liaquat Pact.
"This tradition continues to this day, as a result of which no comprehensive analysis of the Bengali refugee question has taken place till now. This is what the secularist suppression has done to this immense human tragedy. Bengali refugees have not just been hounded out of their lands, they have been hounded out of cognition, knowledge and discourse as well.
"The majority of East Bengali refugees settled in the city of Kolkata (Calcutta) but a significant number also moved to the Barak Valley of Assam and also quit a good number in the princely state of Tripura which eventually joined India in 1949.The exact number of refugees has never been officially collected and estimates vary considerably. In the immediate aftermath of partition, commonly attributed figures suggest around 3 million East Bengalis migrating to India. As per the Refugee Relief and Rehabilitation Department of the Government of West Bengal, the census figures show the number of refugees from East Pakistan different at different time.
"In 1950, it was about one million refugees crossed into West Bengal, particularly aftermath of Barisal riots and Noakhali riots. After the period of 1960, till 1964 East Pakistan riots and the 1965 India-Pakistan War, the figure estimated nearly exceeding 600,000 refugees left for India. Estimated numbers of refugees up to 1970 are over 5 million to West Bengal alone. In 1971 the number was nearly 6 million (60 lakhs) and in 1981, the number was nearly 8 million (80 lakhs) but during the Bangladesh Liberation War, when Hindu refugees escaped systematic mass killings, rapes, lootings and arson the figure increased to around 10 million of whom 1.5 million might have stayed back after Bangladesh became independent.
"An estimate shows that nearly 2.4 million Hindus were killed in East Pakistan during 1971 war. This is an estimated account of the refugees of East Bengal or East Pakistan or Bangladesh. ... "
But next, he blames it on non-violence.
There's no logic to an argument that claims that Hindus would have lived in peace unharmed if only partition had been avoided. That, precisely, was once for all negated, intentionally, when Direct Action Day was ordered in Mumbai and executed in Calcutta.
Subsequently that promise of slaughter of Hindus was repeated in Noakhali, and carried out in ethnic cleansing of West Pakistan via genocide of nonmuslims. If partition had been avoided, who's to say any Hindu alive today would have been so? Quite to the contrary, one may safely bet the opposite.
But he gets worse.
"What was the reason of disunity in between Hindus and Muslims who were living in India since generation to generation? The reason was Gandhi, who was mad with the ethics of Non-Violence because without non-violence he could not come in forefront to expose himself as a leader. ... "
There's no evidence of peace between communities before arrival and rule of British, but during the two centuries upto partition - or rather until Khilafat movement - that peace was because Muslims were defeated and overruled.
But what about before? Islamic invaders all came from Northwest, unless one vounts those that came to Sindh. None came from across any border of Bengal, until British, generally Europeans. Yet Bengal was converted to such an extent, it was claimed for pakistsn due to majority being of muslims. Surely this wasn't a peaceful conversion, surely it involved swords and killings?
" ... It was painful for the Indians to see that such a big Indian country earlier ruled by many Hindu Kings, Muslims or Mughals and never thought of disintegration, but get disintegrated by one clever politician ... "
....
Author is spewing venom through most of the book, with disorganized and repetitive language, badly organised and the quora section has nothing else, merely more of the same.
The language is startling at first, unless one has a clue, that the Bengali author might be translated here from an original manuscript in his language. But when he introduces himself in quora section after around 46% of the book in chapter 7 out of 8,one is astounded. He actually gets by using this level of English in UK and US???
Then again, it's only Indians who do better, so perhaps that explains much, even of his alienation.
Author introduces himself in the quora section, in chapter seven, as "Hari Pada Roychoudhury, A victim of partition. Ph.D(UK), Msc, LLB.(Retd Prof". That comes as a surprise, mainly due to language in the book, quite apart from its being vitriolic - how someone did a doctorate in UK retaining this level of English language, and worse, completely unorganized thought process in writing, is a mystery. Perhaps his subject involved no language skills?
Author, like many of his fellow refugees of partition from East Bengal, has a delusional belief that Bengal was forced to divide and separate, by congress leaders of other states; this neatly avoids blaming those really responsible for partition, fanatic islamists, and blames carnage thereafter on congress.
But this belief, in a fraud perpetrated by Pakistan mindset, is accepted by these deluded people chiefly due to having accepted Islamic yoke for centuries, not fought back at it's onset. It's a slavery of mind that accepts any lie thereafter from conquistadores, including blaming victims.
Reality is that after Jinnah had ordered Calcutta massacre, and Noakhali had surpassed with a 150,000 Hindus murder, eight to tenfold as many as in Calcutta, there was no alternative to partition which brought on more massacres, but avoided a total annihilation of Hindus in India, as repeatedly albeit sporadically promised by Pakistani guests on India's television channels. Sporadically, only because they aren't crashing yet.
"16th August 1946 was the Calcutta killing day, already one month ahead was announced by the Muslims of Bengal under the guidance of Jinnah and Suharwardy for the demand of Pakistan. But Gandhi remained silent neither negotiated with Jinnah nor prepared volunteers to face the challenge. It was ridiculous to think that 2% militant ML volunteers could carried out the massacre on that day, killing more than 5000 Hindus in the streets of Calcutta, a City where 95% Hindus were living. ... "
Author blames Gandhi as usual. He never stops to ask, why weren't Hindus prepared when warned a month in advance?
Did Bengal ever fight back against islamic invaders? Punjab did, Rajputana did, and next was Maharashtra. But Bengal simply became muslim majority.
When India was partitioned, British were desperate to award exactly what is now Pakistan, plus as much more as they could deprive India of; but Bengal was the only province that voted for pakistan, by overwhelming majority. Not Punjab, not NWFP, but Bengal. NWFP was furious about bring "thrown to wolves" as they had personally complained to Gandhi, and Mountbattens were in danger of life in visiting it.
Sindh was divided equally and was given, with additional gift of Karachi, depriving Hindus of Sindh of a home state; Bengal was divided so Hindu majority parts were saved, despite the vote for pakistan. If any, injustice was done to Sindh, Karachi, Baluchistan which had sent accession papers already signed, and Gwadar, which was owned by Oman and Muscat, and was offered to India.
Author makes mistakes in factual detail right from beginning. The writing lacks not only depth but often coherence, apart from language. He discusses nonviolence, but lacks clarity of structure in bringing out concept.
" ... Finally the congress was spitted into the radicals’ faction, led by Tilak, Pal and Lajpat Rai, and the moderate faction led by Nationalists like Aurobindo Ghose, V. O. Chidambaram Pillai."
Aurobindo Ghosh was with Lokamanya Tilak, not with his opposition.
"The hidden policy of Gandhi get exposed: The policy of Gandhi was (i) to destroy Bengal leader like Netaji, (ii) to destroy the economy of Bengal, (iii) to remove Jinnah from India, (iv) to bring Nehru in the Chair. ... "
Not well put, but roughly right. Although Jinnah never was a leader of national stature at any time, as both Subhash Chandra Bose and Bhagat Singh were at various times - one rose exponentially and did not set but was executed, other rose steadily despite his ousting and exile, and each has come into light after and despite decades of effort by congress to the contrary, beginning with Gandhi.
" ... So long India was growing in jungles without any road communication. ... "
That would be untrue. Tar roads came late to the world, but roads of course existed in India before tar roads, as they did in UK or US.
"The Rise of Sectarian Separation: In 1885, the Hindu-dominated Indian National Congress (INC) was formed giving the opportunity for the Muslims to think separately. This sparked the formation of the Muslim League, in 1906. British got the opportunity to bring division in between Hindus and Muslims. ... "
Muslim League was formed by not only encouragement but at insistence of British; however, it wasn't a reaction by muslims to congress, it was portrayed so to them. As for the two sections, it's a myth that there had been harmony as such. Individual level, possibly, but doctrinal its impossible when one is based on wiping out the other who merely ignore them or refuse to recognise the threat.
" ... Muslims never believe in non-violence as it brings only hopes and aspiration without any success rather they believe in violence as it brings success. Riots broke out at such times as during Holi festival, when sacred cows were slaughtered, or when Hindu religious music was played in front of mosques at prayer time."
He seems to avoid blaming muslims for violence, even while mentioning "during Holi festival, when sacred cows were slaughtered" as if that's part of holi and disturbs the others, or explaining why "Hindu religious music was played in front of mosques at prayer time" should provoke violence if muslim loudspeakers blaring religion five times a day, for decades, doesn't bring violence.
In fact it's unclear if he's insinuating that Gandhi was wrong because his doctrine was against muslim beliefs.
" ... The Muslim League sponsored a “Direct Action Day” on August 16, 1946, Gandhi’s Congress neither agreed nor protested. On that very day the Muslims carried the massacre of Bengali Hindus in Open Street of Calcutta indulging in the deaths of more than 5,000 Hindus in Calcutta (Kolkata). Gandhi could not be seen in the massacre of violence to ask for non-violence."
Next he's factually incorrect.
" ... Lord Louis Mountbatten - Proposed that the new state of Pakistan would be created with the Muslim-majority provinces of Baluchistan and Sindh, and the two provinces of Punjab and Bengal would be halved, ... "
Baluchistan wasn't theirs to give but was a collection of states, much like those that joined India; in fact Baluchistan wished to join India, and had sent accession papers, signed. Nehru refused to accept them. Baluchistan as a matter of fact had become independent on August 11, 1947, having sued and won.
Punjab and NWFP did not care to separate and had already muslim majority, and had Unionist government in Punjab; but UK and US needed the region for military bases promised by Jinnah to be used against USSR, hence Pakistan was created. Bengal voted for it. Sindh was evenly divided and went to Pakistan by one vote, of the speaker. Nehru refused another accession, in Sindh, and opportunity to divide sindh so Hindu sindhis could have a home state.
"Gandhi’s stay in Noakhali was not liked by much Muslim leadership. On 12 February 1947, in a rally at Comilla, A. K. Fazlul Huq said that Gandhi’s presence in Noakhali had destroyed Islamic harmony enormously. Finally Gandhi was compelled to return to Calcutta. ... "
Because muslims were obstructed in the genocidal massacres program by his presence, even though he said nothing to them?
"Influx of Hindus from Pakistan who were uprooted and who had suffered by killings of relatives, abduction and rape of women and looting of their belongings had created an explosive situation. Local Hindus who were outraged by the treatment meted out to their Hindu brethren and the anger of local Muslims against reports of similar outrages on their co-religionists in India made Delhi a veritable witches’ cauldron. This resulted in killings, molestation, torching of houses and properties. ... And, as if to allow the critics of Mahatma Gandhi a chance to mix-up and maneuver, the decision of the government of India to release Rs. 55 crore to Pakistan came during this period of his fast."
Author makes it sound as if that was coincidence, which is highly incorrect - the matter of paying the amount was one his chief conditions of ending the hunger strike, and congress simply couldn't afford to let him die of starving himself, no matter how extremely unreasonable his demands.
Author focuses repeatedly on his thesis, about not just neglect but deliberate destruction of Bengal, and accuses Gandhi of not only doing so, but almost of using - even deploying, or almost of inventing - the political tool of non violence for precisely this purpose.
"Gandhi’s Civil Disobedience Movement under nonviolence had destroyed the economic condition of British India by the destruction of the growth of industries. India was ravaged by the impact of the Great Depression, bringing mass unemployment. The call of War had created fear of uncertainty among the people but Gandhi thought it the opportune moment to call for Quit India Movement in the name of non-violence movement. Tremendous shortage of food grain brought inflation. Without looking to the condition of the People, where people began to die due to famine, Gandhi thought it the opportune moment to start non-violence movement for independence of India and to make name and fame by the ethics of non-violence. In Bengal a major famine developed in the period of 1942. It did not disturb the mindset of Gandhi. Let the Bengali people die due to famine. The destruction of the economy of Bengal would eliminate the growth of new Subhas in Bengal, when his success of non-violence would remain beyond question."
But then, he sets forth facts, almost convincing.
"A Complete neglect of Gandhi towards Bengal: There was a terrible famine in Bengal in 1943 that the most part of Bengal was without food and that could have been avoided by the delivery of rice with easy negotiation with the authority concerned.
"Three million people had been perished in Bengal at a rate of about 30,000 a week. The houses and the streets of Calcutta were filled with the dead and the dying bodies. The food had been plentiful but that had been stockpiled for the Allied troops, in the event of a Japanese invasion. At the time when people were starving in Calcutta, Gandhi was fighting with non-violence without making any compromise for the supply of rice."
And, removing any counterarguments, he gives a photograph of starving people of Calcutta, which is startling even to those who've known about the facts regarding the deliberately created "famine" by British government of India, stealing harvest of Bengal and letting people of India starve to death, Churchill remarking that it was of no importance!
The photograph could fit very well in a collection of those of concentration camp inmates, in Germany and nazi occupied East Europe, except that here they aren't being tortured and worked to death; instead, they are sitting or standing in a group, like normal upright proid citizens of their homeland, outside a building that belongs obviously to a city, a prosperous one, albeit one in a slightly decaying state.
Author is again incorrect.
" ... Patel although frustrated a little at the beginning as he thought to be the PM for which he expediently brought the proposal of partition in front of the general meeting, ... "
Sardar Patel decided on changing his opposition to partition for reasons of welfare of people, after the Calcutta and Noakhali massacres of Hindus perpetrated at orders of muslim League. He wasn't aiming at position of any kind for self, he didn't have to - he'd in fact been elected, by 12 out of 15 votes for him and other three for no one, as last party president before independence, which would have meant that he'd be the first PM of India.
" ... he had been promoted to the post of Home Minister of India ... "
Wrong, again. He was the most capable of the men then available immediately in India, and his proven capabilities combined with honesty and lack of self serving ambition was indispensable for India. Without him, India would be in a few hundred pieces.
This author- and for that matter many of Bengal - are for some reason convinced that a united Bengal at any cost was key to prosperity and well-being, and partition of India was bad; they don't realise that one, a separate Bengal would still mean a partition of India; and two, whether a separate nation or a part of Pakistan, such a Bengal would simply be another sindh or Afghanistan, not a state where all Bengal residents could live happily thereafter, but one that hounded out all non-Muslims, whether by repeated massacres or enforced exodus or conversions, or all of those. In fact, that is exactly what has been going on in East Bengal, and a united Bengal eould simply amount yo all Hindu Bengalis being as without a home state as Hindu Sindhis have been since partition.
In addition, they blame Patel and Nehru for this, claiming that it was their ambitions that were responsible for partition, and Jinnah at the helm would have kept India united. They forgot that this would also amount to a complete extinction of Hindu - or any nonmuslim - culture throughout India, as it has been enforced throughout Pakistan and almost completely through East Bengal too.
Here are some really shocking, presumably facts, he quotes.
"A Nehruvian legacy from the days of Nehru-liaquat Pact had continued to divert the fund in many mischievous ways. Some refugees were made to settle in a remote village of Orissa, and another was made far away 25 km in another remote village, and then a road was constructed, the money for the road being spent from rehabilitation package. Bengali refugees were the last people to benefit from such maneuverings. Congress instead of addressing the issue in most cases aggravated the problem because the root cause of Bengali refugee problem was due to the Nehru-Liaquat Pact.
"This tradition continues to this day, as a result of which no comprehensive analysis of the Bengali refugee question has taken place till now. This is what the secularist suppression has done to this immense human tragedy. Bengali refugees have not just been hounded out of their lands, they have been hounded out of cognition, knowledge and discourse as well.
"The majority of East Bengali refugees settled in the city of Kolkata (Calcutta) but a significant number also moved to the Barak Valley of Assam and also quit a good number in the princely state of Tripura which eventually joined India in 1949.The exact number of refugees has never been officially collected and estimates vary considerably. In the immediate aftermath of partition, commonly attributed figures suggest around 3 million East Bengalis migrating to India. As per the Refugee Relief and Rehabilitation Department of the Government of West Bengal, the census figures show the number of refugees from East Pakistan different at different time.
"In 1950, it was about one million refugees crossed into West Bengal, particularly aftermath of Barisal riots and Noakhali riots. After the period of 1960, till 1964 East Pakistan riots and the 1965 India-Pakistan War, the figure estimated nearly exceeding 600,000 refugees left for India. Estimated numbers of refugees up to 1970 are over 5 million to West Bengal alone. In 1971 the number was nearly 6 million (60 lakhs) and in 1981, the number was nearly 8 million (80 lakhs) but during the Bangladesh Liberation War, when Hindu refugees escaped systematic mass killings, rapes, lootings and arson the figure increased to around 10 million of whom 1.5 million might have stayed back after Bangladesh became independent.
"An estimate shows that nearly 2.4 million Hindus were killed in East Pakistan during 1971 war. This is an estimated account of the refugees of East Bengal or East Pakistan or Bangladesh. ... "
But next, he blames it on non-violence.
There's no logic to an argument that claims that Hindus would have lived in peace unharmed if only partition had been avoided. That, precisely, was once for all negated, intentionally, when Direct Action Day was ordered in Mumbai and executed in Calcutta.
Subsequently that promise of slaughter of Hindus was repeated in Noakhali, and carried out in ethnic cleansing of West Pakistan via genocide of nonmuslims. If partition had been avoided, who's to say any Hindu alive today would have been so? Quite to the contrary, one may safely bet the opposite.
But he gets worse.
"What was the reason of disunity in between Hindus and Muslims who were living in India since generation to generation? The reason was Gandhi, who was mad with the ethics of Non-Violence because without non-violence he could not come in forefront to expose himself as a leader. ... "
There's no evidence of peace between communities before arrival and rule of British, but during the two centuries upto partition - or rather until Khilafat movement - that peace was because Muslims were defeated and overruled.
But what about before? Islamic invaders all came from Northwest, unless one vounts those that came to Sindh. None came from across any border of Bengal, until British, generally Europeans. Yet Bengal was converted to such an extent, it was claimed for pakistsn due to majority being of muslims. Surely this wasn't a peaceful conversion, surely it involved swords and killings?
" ... It was painful for the Indians to see that such a big Indian country earlier ruled by many Hindu Kings, Muslims or Mughals and never thought of disintegration, but get disintegrated by one clever politician ... "
....
May 9, 2023
Extremely bad grammer.
Bcoz of extremely bad writing skills, I wonder if the content is well researched! Today when checking grammer has become so easy, I wonder why a writer would leave hua book in such shabby writing. And wonder whether kindle is publishing any book without even checking its quality!
Bcoz of extremely bad writing skills, I wonder if the content is well researched! Today when checking grammer has become so easy, I wonder why a writer would leave hua book in such shabby writing. And wonder whether kindle is publishing any book without even checking its quality!
April 20, 2020
Must read...my friend recommended me and I'm thankful he did.
May 14, 2021
The narrative and language of the book does not invoke interest. Language is too basic and narrative is in present form as if the author has been witnessto the events. Lots of repetitions of the same instances. Seems to highly overrated book.
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
January 17, 2021
Only 25% book has some content and worth reading, rest all is repetition of the same content everywhere.
Displaying 1 - 5 of 5 reviews