Thursday, January 31, 2008

Bigot Arun Gandhi Forced to Quit fake MK Gandhi Institute of Non-Violence for Anti Semitic remarks

jan 31st, 2008

more on why the 'gandhi' name has now been hijacked by scoundrels and free-loaders. some of them are making very effective use of the name.

this arun is not only a bigot, but he is also stupid. he should have known better than to take on the jews. they are organized and effective; unlike the poor brainwashed hindus.

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: v


http://www.dailypioneer.com/indexn12.asp?main_variable=EDITS&file_name=edit3%2Etxt&counter_img=3

Not Gandhian, or is it?

Ramesh N Rao

Mahatma Gandhi sired four sons, and his family history has become as
rich and complex as any fable in Hindu mythology and may be more
colourful and mixed than any post-modernist parable. Some in the
family have leveraged the Mahatma's name to carve out a career for
themselves, and of them, one grandson, Mr Arun Gandhi, came to the
United States to launch his programme of non-violence. He founded the
MK Gandhi Institute For Non-violence.

Mr Arun Gandhi was recently in the news. Invited by The Washington
Post to contribute to an online discussion, 'On Faith', he wrote,
"Jewish identity in the past has been locked into the holocaust
experience -- a German burden that the Jews have not been able to
shed. It is a very good example of how a community can overplay a
historic experience to the point that it begins to repulse friends."

Not content with that initial salvo, he asserted that the "Jewish
identity in the future appears bleak", and any nation that "remains
anchored to the past is unable to move ahead and, especially a nation
that believes its survival can only be ensured by weapons and bombs".
Finally, he went overboard, saying that "Israel and the Jews are the
biggest players" in the modern "culture of violence".

More than 400 responses flooded the newspaper. Mr Gandhi wrote a
half-hearted apology, poorly worded. He wrote that he had criticised
other Governments too and so his criticism of the Israeli Government
was not special. He then speciously commented that "... (if) people
hold on to historic grievances too firmly it can lead to bitterness
and the loss of support from those who would be friends".

He did not tell his readers why he had singled out Jews. Don't Muslims
all over the world hold historic grievances, not just against the
Jews, but also against many other groups? And is not the continuing
violence in West Asia based on a concerted effort by surrounding
Muslim nations that have vowed to wipe Israel off the map of the
world?

Given the tepid and defensive "apology", readers wrote back even more
angrily. Mr Abraham Foxman of the Anti-Defamation League said, "I
think it's shameful that a peace institute would be headed up by a
bigot... One would hope that the grandson of such an illustrious human
being would be more sensitive to Jewish history." Mr Judea Pearl,
father of slain journalist Daniel Pearl, said, "My son Daniel died
mighty proud of his Jewish identity. He, like the millions of decent
and peace-seeking Israelis, and Americans who proudly carry on their
Jewish heritage, did not see his identity as 'dependent on violence'
as the title of Gandhi's article implies...".

Soon, Mr Gandhi submitted his resignation as president of the MK
Gandhi Institute of Non-Violence. Given the incendiary nature of the
flap, the University of Rochester, where the institute is located,
accepted his resignation.

This brings us to the more important question about Mr Gandhi, which
others have not asked: Was his blog entry an aberration, a single
instance of misjudgement and analysis, or was this part of an ongoing
pattern of selective attacks and selective support to religious
groups?

The Mahatma had advised Jews, when they faced extinction at the hands
of the Nazis, "... to lay down the arms you have... You will invite
Herr Hitler and Signor Mussolini to take what they want of the
countries you call your possessions...". Louis Fisher, Gandhi's
biographer, asked him: "You mean that the Jews should have committed
collective suicide?" Gandhi responded, "Yes, that would have been
heroism." May be, his grandson wants the same.

The Mahatma was consistent in his advice to Hindus, too. When faced
with violence perpetrated by Muslims, he asked them to not fight back
but die "honourably". Many Hindus succumbed to the Mahatma's advice,
and hundreds of thousands of Hindus were killed, raped and assaulted,
over a period of three decades that the Mahatma's writ ran over India.

Gandhi never advised Muslims to lay down their arms. He sang, "Ishwar,
Allah tere naam" but did not acknowledge that Muslims would never
accept Allah be called anything but Allah. He did not ask Muslims to
look into their hearts and find why they so hated their Hindu
neighbours and fellow countrymen.

In an essay I had raised the question as to what would have happened
had the Mahatma not backed Jawaharlal Nehru to become India's first
Prime Minister instead of Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel. Drawing from Durga
Das' book, India from Curzon to Nehru and After, to point out how the
Mahatma manipulated India's leaders and masses to do his bidding, it
would not be incorrect to suggest that the Mahatma's support to the
Khilafat movement led to the massacre of thousands of Hindus and the
rape of hundreds of Hindu women in what is known as the Moplah
massacre.

Responding to that essay, Mr Arun Gandhi wrote that the "Moplah
rebellion" had nothing to do with the Khilafat movement, and that
Gandhi's support of Nehru was because he wanted to "encourage young
blood in a party dominated by old people"! Mr Gandhi concluded his
rather wayward response by saying that if his grandfather had not
returned to India from South Africa in 1915, the Congress would have
continued to be a "country club," and that the Hindu Mahasabha and the
RSS "...could have mobilised people into a civil war against Muslims
to teach that Hindustan is for Hindus and they better behave...",
forgetting that before the Mahatma there were great Congressmen like
Gopal Krishna Gokhale and Bal Gangadhar Tilak who had both indigenised
the Congress and made it a people's party.

Mr Gandhi later acknowledged a connection between the Khilafat
Movement and the Moplah Massacre. "But history is not often an
accurate recording of events," he complained, and launched a tirade
against the RSS. I had said nothing about the RSS in my essay, but Mr
Gandhi raised the spectre of a Hindu extremist group that would
ethnically cleanse Muslims out of India. He also accused the 1940s
bureaucrats and politicians of India of collusion in the assassination
of his grandfather.

It is, therefore, not surprising that this loose-lipped Gandhi scion
would pen something so obnoxious as he did for The Washington Post.
But the disciplined Jews would not take this lying down, and Mr Gandhi
has had to resign in shame.

Mr Gandhi's many cousins, nephews, uncles and aunts have succumbed to
the lore and lure of their famous ancestor. In fact, his son, Mr
Tushar Gandhi, too wags a similar loose tongue, and poses as a
'secular, progressive' person. Meanwhile, the Mahatma's grandson
follows in his grandfather's footsteps, blinkered about political and
religious dynamics. But he lacks the Mahatma's charisma.

-- Prof Rao is Chair of the Department of Communication Studies and
Theatre at Longwood University, USA

4 comments:

Gagan said...

I am not a fan of nayone having Gandhi surname, and regardless of the credentials of Arun Gandhi, his observation on Jew identity cannot be denied. No doubt it is correct to say that Jews are very organized, and that they will not let pass such a loose statement from anyone, but it is also a fact that they are flagging their historical background to the extent that they would never let it become the history - and encash it as much as they could for their gain.

nizhal yoddha said...

i object to gagan's comment above. i don't think it's right to accuse jews of 'encashing' the horrors done to them. they are, very appropriately, holding the white christists responsible for their sins over the course of a thousand years. the word 'pogrom' itself reflects the kind of apartheid practiced against jews by the christist rulers with the active connivance of the vatican and other christist padres. jews have every right to complain about this.

what is offensive is that hindus, subject to the same kind of genocide and oppression, are not demanding apologies and reparations. ratzy or wojta, some godman, for instance, apologized to mohammedans. but hindus are not even asking for apologies. the only people who did this were the malaysian hindus who sued the british for reparations. just ask yourself, why are white christists apologizing to maoris and aborigines, but not to indians? it's because we are not making enough noise.

a lot of us (me included) have been fed this fantasy that the arabs are somehow being oppressed by jews in israel. the reality is different. the rest of the arabs can't stand the palestinians either, because they are better educated than them. so, instead of helping them and resettling them in jordan, saudi arabia etc., the arabs basically went on a jihad against israel. they were expecting to win. unfortunately, jewish brains and american money defeated them comprehensively, again and again. this just emphasizes to the arabs that they are just desert barbarians, despite all the oil loot. it also shows them that their god is not superior to everyone else's. thus it is a good thing that israel exists and irritates the jihadis so much.

let us not get too carried away with sympathy for displaced palestinians. no mohammedan has ever shown any sympathy for ethnically cleansed kashmiri hindus. nor is any mohammedan weeping any tears over the continuing genocide of hindus in bangladesh and pakistan, or about the oppression of hindus in malaysia.

in other words, the jews are not the oppressors, in general. it is the christists and the mohammedans. blaming the victim for complaining is a bit much.

san said...

The thing is that the Jews originally had their own land in the Middle East that they were living in, until the first European conquerors (Romans) came over and destroyed it, scattering the Jews far and wide. Over time they re-fashioned an existence for themselves in the heartland of their European conquerors. Then again in the 20th Century, the internecine feuds amongst Europeans once more turned their fury on the Jews, destroying them by the millions. So they were again forced to flee and re-make an existence for themselves in the Middle East, from whence they originally came. The point is that the Europeans seem to have unlimited license to toss the lives of others into the air, never having to pay any real consequences for it. Who died and made them God, anyway? Oh, I forgot, the Pope will tell you that a guy on a cross did, and that his apostle declared Europe the new ultimate authority. How convenient for Europe.

Gagan said...

Rajeev, I totally I agree with your views that Jews are not oppressors, that Hindus have a lesson to learn from Jewish way of dealing with christists and moslems, etc. etc. I have no idea about Arun's motivation to make the statement that he did - but I believe it is true that modern Jewish identity is rooted in the conflict that they have with their neighbours - I don't care about the validity of the conflict and the reasons thereof. I don't discount a possibility that in not too distant future they will firing rockets at each other moon & mars back and forth :)