Toronto International College Canada
Abstract: The author’s research on Gandhi goes back to Gandhi Under Cross-examination, co-authored with Col. G.B. Singh. It was at that time that he discovered Gandhi’s London Diary. Though the original document was said to be 120 pages in length, the surviving excerpt from the London Diary is only 20 pages long. The rest of the original edition appears to have been suppressed. There is a reason for this. Being an avid researcher into the mysteries pertaining to secret societies, the author recognized that the London Diary was Gandhi’s Freemason diary, recounting in coded language his initiation through the various degrees of the Masonic Order. Being well familiar with the initiatory rites of the Third Degree (3°), the author immediately recognized that the surviving 20 pages of the diary described Gandhi’s initiation to that very degree. In addition, Gandhi studied law at the Inner Temple, one of the five Inns of Court in the City of London. The Inner Temple has long been a front for training members of the British intelligence services - MI6 in fact. It is even alleged quite surprisingly that the Queen Mother was in charge of the spy training facility for much of her life, not exactly the image of the quaint grandmamma portrayed in the popular press.
Keywords:Gandhi, India, British Raj, British India, Jewel in the Crown, Indian independence, Indian independence movement, Satyagraya, non-violence, Gandhi assassin, Gandhi assassination, Godse .
Probably the most influential figure of the pro-independence drive in the post-colonial period in India was M.K. Gandhi referred to today as Mahatma Gandhi. The name “Mahatma” was derived from the fact that he was an inductee of both Freemasonry and the Theosophical Society. Those granted initiation into both Orders were normally awarded the special title Mahatma meaning “Great Soul.” It was H.P. Blavastsky’s successor and head of the Theosophical Society, Annie Besant, who conferred the title of “Mahatma” upon Gandhi.i
The Theosophical Society had been formerly headed by the famed occultist and known Luciferian, Madame Blavatsky. During 1884, Besant had developed a rapport with Edward Aveling, who was the first to translate the works of Karl Marx, whose real name was Moses Mordechai Levy, into English. He eventually went to live with Marx’s daughter, Eleanor Marx. Besant was a leading spokesperson for the Fabian Society. The Fabians were a group of socialists who adopted a different strategy from the Marxists, pursuing world domination through what they called the “doctrine of inevitability of gradualism.” They aimed to achieve their goals, “without breach of continuity” or through abrupt social change, by infiltrating educational institutions, government agencies, and political parties.
Besant’s partner in running the Theosophical Society was Charles Leadbeater, a known pedophile. In 1909, Leadbeater identified the new Messiah in the person of the handsome young Indian boy named Jiddu Krishnamurti. Krishnamurti gained international acceptance among followers of Theosophy as the new savior, but his father created a scandal when he accused Leadbeater of having corrupted his son. Krishnamurti eventually repudiated his designated role, turning his back on his Theosophical Society roots.
As president of the Theosophical Society, Besant became involved in Indian politics, joining the Indian National Congress (INC), which led to her election as president of the party in late 1917. As editor of the New India newspaper, she attacked the colonial government of India and called for clear and decisive moves towards self-rule. In June 1917, Besant was arrested, but the INC and the All-India Muslim League (aka Muslim League)—a terrorist organization headquartered in London—together threatened to launch protests if she was not set free. The government was forced into making concessions, and the British Raj declared that the achievement of Indian self-government was its ultimate goal.
After the war, a new leadership emerged around Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi, who was among those who had written to demand Besant’s release. Gandhi returned to his homeland after leading Indians in a non-violent struggle against racism in South Africa. In 1888, he had traveled to London, England, to study law at University College London, where he studied at the Inner Temple, one of the Inns of Court in the City of London.
Gandhi originally attended Samaldas College in Bhavnagar, but dropped out after only a term due to his poor English language skills:
The months passed but not quickly enough for Mohan. He had realized almost from the day of his arrival at Samaldas College that he was floundering. He understood little that was said in classes. Lessons were conducted in English; his marks were abominable; he was fighting loneliness, frustration, and an oppressive awareness that he was soon to assume the responsibilities of parenthood. When his first term ended in May, he quit the college and went home to Kastubai determined never to return to Samaldas College.ii
The London Diary, written during his time in London, recorded the events of this time in his life, but despite the painstaking efforts of scholars to preserve his writings for posterity, all but 20 pages of the book have mysteriously gone missing. The surviving pages describe Gandhi’s initiation to the Third Degree (3°) of Freemasonry in coded language, something only a scholar of Freemasonry would notice. The original 120-page volume would have been his Freemason diary. If the surviving 20 pages are any indication, it appears to be a record of his initiation through the various degrees of the Order. Since he is known to have entrusted The London Diary to a close family relation, the fact that it has gone missing is highly suspect. The more likely explanation is that it is being withheld from the public. Is this to conceal Gandhi’s Freemason affiliations?
It was through Besant that Gandhi first met members of the Theosophical Society. They encouraged him to join them in reading the Bhagavad Gita. This apparently sparked Gandhi’s interest in religion, to which he had shown no prior inclination. Gandhi later credited Theosophy with instilling in him the principle of the overriding equality of all religions.
Gandhi had met Blavatsky and Besant in 1889. And when Gandhi set up his office in Johannesburg, among the pictures he hung on his walls were those of Lev Nikolayevich “Leo” Tolstoy, Jesus Christ and Annie Besant. Besant’s distinctive influence on Gandhi was through her concept of the “Law of Sacrifice.” The Law of Sacrifice was derived from a Fabian reading of the Bhagavad Gita, where Krishna’s selfless activity is depicted as not only bringing the world into existence but sustaining it as well. From this Besant developed the notion of the Law of Sacrifice, where one’s disinterested “egoless” action is “cast upon the altar of duty.”
Joseph Lelyveld’s book, Great Soul: Mahatma Gandhi And His Struggle with India, revealed that Gandhi was sexually deviant, politically incompetent and downright cruel to those around him. Gandhi typified the hypocrisy displayed in 20th century intellectuals, professing love for mankind while behaving manifestly otherwise towards individuals. Gandhi also purportedly encouraged his 17-year-old great-niece to be naked during her “nightly cuddles,” and began sleeping with her and other young women, which he justified as a means of testing his discipline as a Brahmacharya.
Though Gandhi was concerned for the plight of the Indians of South Africa, he shared the racist beliefs of the Theosophists. Of white Afrikaners and Indians, he wrote: “We believe as much in the purity of races as we think they do.” Gandhi lent his support to the Zulu War of 1906, volunteering for military service himself and raising a battalion of stretcher-bearers. Gandhi complained of Indians being marched off to prison where they were placed alongside Blacks, “We could understand not being classed with whites, but to be placed on the same level as the Natives seemed too much to put up with. Kaffirs [Blacks] are as a rule uncivilized—the convicts even more so. They are troublesome, very dirty and live like animals.”iii
Gandhi and Mussolini became friendly when they met in December 1931, with Gandhi praising Il Duce’s “service to the poor, his opposition to super-urbanization, his efforts to bring about a coordination between Capital and Labour, his passionate love for his people.” He also advised the Czechs and Jews to adopt nonviolence toward the Nazis, saying that “a single Jew standing up and refusing to bow to Hitler’s decrees” might be enough “to melt Hitler’s heart.”iv
Gandhi also attended the Inner Temple law school, one of the five Inns of Court located in the City of London. Such institutions, especially at that time, reserved their student enrollment for members of the British aristocracy, esteemed persons who would later be considered worthy candidates for elevation to the House of Lords. What made Gandhi so special? What had initiated him, as a mere colonial, into the ranks of so aristocratic, racist and elitist an environment?
A university degree, and knowledge of English, is minimum requirements to enter the Inns of Court in London. However, at the turn of the 20th century one would usually have to belong to an aristocratic family of high standing to study at such an illustrious institution. Gandhi was a college dropout and came from a poor family from the colony of India. He is said to have spent three years at the Inner Temple. Either this is a cover story and he was actually attending the school for spies and definitely not the expensive, aristocratic Inns of Court, or he was granted the privilege as a spy to attend the elite law school, while in training, receiving a double degree as it were.
From the admission registers, it seems that the first Asian member of the Inner Temple was Aviet Agabeg from Calcutta, a student of St. John’s College, Cambridge, admitted June 11, 1864 and called to the Bar in 1868. He was followed, several years later, by Amanda Mohan Bose, Ali Ameer and Pathal Chandra Roy of Bengal (admitted in 1870); Arraloon Carapiel and John Apcar of Calcutta and Grija Sanker Sen of Dacca (admitted in 1871). There may have been others. The number of Asian students continued to rise in the 1870s and 1880s and included M.K. Gandhi, the famous Mahatma, who was admitted to the Inner Temple in 1888. Admissions to the other Inns of Court follow a similar pattern, with Lincoln’s Inn claiming the first Indian student to join and become qualified: Ganendra Mohan Tagore, admitted in 1859 and called to the Bar on June 11, 1862. By 1885, 108 Indian barristers had been educated in England, encouraged by the Indian government, the Inns of Court and the Council of Legal Education, which granted concessions to Indian students to facilitate their training. Lincoln’s Inn also recruited a number of indigenous students from further east in the nineteenth century, the first being Ng Achoy from Hong Kong, admitted in 1872 and called in 1877. Lincoln’s Inn still retains a special association with India and Hong Kong. Gandhi’s grandfather was diwan of Porbandar. His father assumed the position in 1841, holding it until 1874, when he moved to Rajkot, where the British regional political agency was located. In 1876, he became diwan there. His brother succeeded him in Porbandar. The family was not rich but it seems held what was considered a respectable amount of wealth.
In 1887, Gandhi began his training as a British Secret Service agent in the capital of the Empire. His cover was to be that of a barrister or lawyer. The British were determined to retain the colony of India at whatever cost and so British Secret Service saturated the subcontinent with British-trained spies.v Being recruited from a poor non-Brahman caste background to join the upper echelons of British society would have been an almost irresistible temptation for someone from a lower caste position in Indian society, where he had suffered denigration and being poorly treated most of his life. It was the ideal recruitment opportunity for someone who would be given a double incentive to succeed.
Two highly committed British imperialists were responsible for recruiting Gandhi as a spy and paying for his expenses while undergoing training in London. These men were Lord Roberts of Kandahar, who was dubbed “Mr. British Empire,” and was stationed in India for most of his career. In addition, there was the role played by the aristocratic Admiral Edmond Slade, who provided the finances for Gandhi’s training as a spy in London. His daughter Madeline became besotted with Gandhi, for whom the affection was mutual.
Lord Roberts of Kandahar
Figure Image is Available in PDF Format
Admiral Edmond Slade
Gandhi was not charged any tuition while attending the spy school. Consequently, Admiral Slade was only responsible for his living expenses while in London. Gandhi even stayed at the admiral’s country estate, Milton Heath.
He later returned to India with what he initially thought were rather dim prospects. Within a few months of trying to start his own law practice in Rajkot, he confesses in his autobiography, “I had serious doubts as to whether I should be able even to earn a living.” Not even the comforts of home and family and his oft-neglected wife could afford him much comfort. He would not stay long. The life of a spy and double agent is far from sedentary. In 1893, Gandhi departed for South Africa, leaving his wife and two children behind. South Africa had a fairly large Indian population, and he was able to be more successful as an attorney there than in India.
After arriving in South Africa, Gandhi started practicing law. He then returned to India on July 4, 1896, to retrieve his family from Rajkot and bring them to India. In 1899, the very man who had recommended him for training in Britain, Lord Roberts, arrived in Cape Town with the aim of stealing gold from the Boers. In 1899, Lord Roberts commanded the British Empire during the Gold War. Gandhi was part of a special ambulance corps that assisted the British Empire forces.
Lord Roberts was the architect of the brutal concentration camps that were created for the confinement of Boer women and children. Gandhi never seemed to be bothered by the abysmal treatment of innocent women and children as long as the aims of the British Empire were served in a Machiavellian sense. Once the British Empire had defeated the Boers, the spoils of victory—the highly prized gold—was shipped to the Bank of England in London. That gold was used by the British to finance the Kaiser and the German military buildup prior to WWI. The gold was also used to help finance the Bolshevik Revolution in Russia.
After the British conquered South Africa, the Zulus felt the iron heel of oppression. In desperation, they rose in revolt, which was brutally crushed. Sergeant major Gandhi led an ambulance team of stretcher-bearers, as Colonel G.B. Singh and this author revealed in our co-authored book, Gandhi Under Cross-examination.
The Bhambatha Uprising was a Zulu uprising in opposition to British rule and taxation in Natal, South Africa, in 1906. The revolt was led by Bhambatha kaMancinza, leader of the amaZondi clan of the Zulu people. This tribe lived in the Mpanza Valley, a district near Greytown, KwaZulu-Natal. Unlike the Boers, the natives were relegated to using swords and spears for weaponry against the superior firepower of the British Empire. With the death of Chief Bhambatha the conflict ended. Gandhi sailed for England in July 1914 just in time for WWI. To his great disappointment, Gandhi never served on the Western Front because he fell ill with pleurisy and was unable to fill his command tasks. He sailed for India on December 19, and reached Bombay on January 9, 1915. Gandhi’s propaganda press had preceded him, hailing him as a hero of non-violence and a champion of human rights for the oppressed. Fellow Freemason Rev. J.J. Doke would assist him in this effort with his Gandhi biography, M.K. Gandhi: The Story of an Indian Patriot in South Africa, with Gandhi paying for 600 copies to be printed up for distribution to the major newspapers in Europe and America.vi
Image is Available in PDF Format
Madeline first met Gandhi when he was studying in London and in training as an agent. She later traveled all the way to India to be with her lover. She called him Bapu, which means “father” in Guajarati and he changed her name to Mirabehn, after Meera Bai, an Indian goddess. Madeline sailed for India in October 1925, and arrived at Gandhi’s ashram on November 7. Madeline provided the funds from the Bank of England for Gandhi’s passive resistance movement known as satyagraha [non-violence].
Image is Available in PDF Format
Gandhi during WWI, organizer of the Indian Volunteer Corps, London, 1914.
The later partitioning of India caused a dreadful civil war between Hindus and Muslims. Gandhi’s answer to the millions who were uprooted from their homes was to undertake another fast. Jawaharlal Nehru worked with Gandhi to achieve the partitioning of India. He served as India’s first prime minister from 1947 to 1964. Muhammed Ali Jinnah was the first Governor-General of the newly created nation of Pakistan. Both were trained as fellow double agents and spies in London, while ostensibly studying law at the Inns of Court.
Image is Available in PDF Format
Gandhi with some of his fellow spies in London.
In 1947, India was partitioned and two hostile nations were created where one nation had stood united for four thousand years. The British divide and rule strategy succeeded, with Hindus, Sikhs, and Muslims divided along ethnic lines. After the partition in 1947, a further partition took place in 1971 with the creation of Bangladesh. More countries mean more wars and wasteful military expenditures, which could otherwise be used to improve the lives of the people.vii
Gandhi the Freemason
Gandhi met with fellow members of the European Committee at a Masonic Lodge in Johannesburg. No minutes are available from those meetings, suggesting the contents were secret, but we have Gandhi’s admission that they took place. He also exchanged letters with Lord Ampthill, the Grand Master of the Grand Lodge of England. Seeking to distance himself from his fellow Freemason initiates, Lord Ampthill denied knowing the author of Gandhi’s biography, Reverend J.J. Doke, in his foreword to the book. Since both men were Freemasons and fellow members of the European Committee, Lord Ampthill had to have known him. Ampthill wrote the foreword for the Gandhi biography written by Rev. Doke, who was the editor-in-chief of Gandhi’s newspaper.
As the Grand Master of the Grand Lodge of England, Lord Ampthill had presided over the laying of a foundation stone for a Shakespeare theatre in Stratford-upon-Avon as revealed in Chapter 2. What this means is that Ampthill was not only continuing to propogate a lie from the 16th century that the illiterate imposter Will Shakspere was the Bard of Avon, but was responsible for placing a new imposter on the pedestal in the 20th century, M.K. Gandhi.
Gandhi is a far more complex figure than anyone seems to have imagined. Gandhi under Cross-examination exposed the fact that Gandhi lied about the racial train and coach incident, where he was purportedly thrown off a train at Pietermaritzburg Station in the Transvaal. The editor-in-chief of Gandhi’s own Indian Opinion newspaper, Rev. Doke, wrote the biography, opportunistically turning Gandhi into a martyred saint for political motivations. By comparing the four biographical and autobiographical accounts of the incident, the authors of Gandhi Under Cross-examination discovered the fraud Gandhi perpetrated by deceiving the world about the racial train and coach incidents that never occurred—at least to him. Under cross-examination, Gandhi is exposed as a fraudster, who has lied about his past in order to exploit the politics of victimization to gain political leverage. This is an effective counterpoint to the later real-life trial of Gandhi’s assassin, Nathuram Godse.
In the 1890s in South Africa, Gandhi addressed a body of fellow Indians in a town hall in Johannesburg. He raised a motion for a permanent Indian militia in South Africa. He proposed forming a volunteer ambulance corps of Indian stretcher-bearers to convince the British that they were loyal followers of the British Empire, in order to gain the permission of His Majesty’s government to found a permanent India militia.
It so happens that Gandhi was promoted to the rank of sergeant-major in the British Army. His ambulance team joined the British in their effort to suppress a Kaffir uprising in South Africa. Gandhi acted as a recruitment officer for the British Army in the Boer War, WWI and WWII and as an apologist for the British Empire in his Indian Opinion newspaper. We also know that Gandhi had secret meetings with arms dealers and a Muslim terrorist organization known as the Muslim League.
Two attempts on the life of Gandhi were made in close succession. Assassins were dispatched from Lincoln’s Inn in London, one of the Inns of Court, which were law schools founded for the legal education of the aristocratic elite. The author of this book learned this from a Pakistan-born Canadian, who had received the Masonic ritual torture of the 3° at the hands of his Masonic brethren in Pakistan. He displayed to the author, in the restaurant, in Seoul, South Korea, the corresponding scars to both temples and a single scar in the middle of his forehead matching those assocated with the 3° ritual torture referred to in the Freemasonry rite. This rite is based on the murder of Hiram Abif, the architect of King Solomon’s Temple, where Hiram is at prayer in the Temple, when he is ambushed by the Three Unworthy Craftsmen, known as the Three Juwes, namely, Jebelo, Jubela and Jubelum. They demand to know the secrets of the 3°, the so-called Master Mason degree of Freemasonry, pertaining to the secrets of stone masonry-based architecture. When he refuses to reveal the secret, they cordon off the exits of the Temple, and administer the blows to the two temples and the middle of the forehead, corresponding to the injuries received by the Pakistani gentleman sharing his experiences at the restaurant. The 3° ritual torture is given to those considered traitors to the Freemason fraternity to which they belong.
In the course of the conversation, he revealed that Benazir Bhutto was a member of his Lodge in Pakistan. She had asked for a campaign contribution for her re-election drive as the presidential incumbent. He was a wealthy corporate magnate, which is why she turned to him for funding in the first place. It was shocking to learn that a woman had been inducted into a Masonic Lodge, as women normally join the Order of the Eastern Star. He explained that women sometimes joined the male fraternity if they are of high status and influence. He then confided that his refusal was seen as a betrayal of a fellow member of the Order, namely Bhutto. This is why he was given the ritual torture of the 3°.
He also revealed, over the course of the discussion, that Gandhi’s assassins were dispatched from Lincoln’s Inn, one of the five Inns of Court in the City of London. He also concurred that the Masons had had some involvement in the assassination of JFK, who was killed according to the rite of the 17° of Freemasonry known as the Royal Arch Degree.
To return to the subject of this inquiry, Gandhi himself studied at one of the other Inns of Court called the Inner Temple. The first murder attempt failed, but the second succeeded. Gandhi was assassinated and Godse was arrested in the square before hordes of onlookers. He surrendered, compliantly raising his hands over his head and handed his weapon over to the authorities.
Gopal Vinayak Godse, brother of Gandhi assassin, Nathuram Godse, wrote a book called May It Please Your Honour based on the courtroom testimony of his brother, which the world never got to hear. G. Godse was one of the accused in the Gandhi murder trial. He was found guilty of conspiracy to commit murder and sentenced to transportation for life. He was released from prison in October of 1964, but was arrested again one month later under the Defense of India Act, and served one-year additional prison time. He was finally released at the end of 1965.viii
G. Godse worked committedly for the Hindu Mahasabha. He considered it the only legitimate organization for organizing Hindus along their own political lines. He believed ardently from experience that secularism as embraced in India by any political party had proven detrimental to the interests of Hindus. According to his experience, Hindu political parties had shifted from nationalism to “communalism”—based on the “communitarianism” embraced by Gandhi on behalf of the globalists—which he saw as being bent on appeasing Muslims.ix
G. Godse found that it was incumbent upon him to set the record straight by publishing the testimony given by his brother in court, which had been subject to a ban until the time of the release of May It Please Your Honour. Successive State Governments in India had imposed the ban, until the law instituting the ban was at last changed, allowing for the release of the book, which is intended to give a clear account of the rationale behind N. Godse’s assassination of Gandhiji.x
N. Godse conducted his own defense in the hope that he might present his true motivations to the world. But the INC ensured that not a word of Godse’s testimony was published in any of the Indian newspapers. The police stole the notebooks out of the reporters’ hands and destroyed them on the spot, issuing stern warnings not to print a single word of Godse’s testimony in any of the national newspapers.
The reported testimony begins with an account of the first assassination attempt on Gandhi made a few days before the successful attempt. In the account, we learn that there was an explosion near the compound wall of Birla House, New Delhi, on the evening of January 20, 1948, where Gandhi was staying and holding prayer meetings on the lawn.
The atmosphere in the nation was highly charged and feelings raw due to the vivisection of the country, Gandhi referred to as “Hindustan,” a few months earlier. A parcel of land had been carved out of Hindustan to create the theocratic Muslim state of “Pakistan,” meaning “Holy Land.” The rest of Hindustan, recently made independent of Great Britain, was subsequently renamed “Bharat.” The leaders of the INC professed to have a preference for Hindu-Muslim unity and secularism. Yet despite their purported preference for secularism, they agreed to recognize a Muslim state on what had formerly been Hindu territory. In addition, according to the Godse brothers, the INC did not recognize Hindus as a nation, but relegated their faith to the status of a mere sect. They then enforced “secularism” of their own style on India.xi
Godse argued that the name “India” was a perversion of “Hindustan” which had been adopted by the British. “Bharat” was an ancient name for India, which meant “a complete undivided Hindustan.” The national leaders considered it prudent to avoid any name for the country that might give rise to Muslim anger in Hindustan. Hence, in practice, secularism was intended as a means of appeasing the Muslims. The transition brought about by the partitioning of “India” and “Pakistan,” led to the mass killings, rape, violence and exodus en masse, which Godse describes as the order of the day.xii
The Hindus were enraged at Gandhi over the partition and the ensuing bloodshed. Police had been posted at Birla House to protect him from any possible assault. The explosion on January 20, 1948 was believed to be an assassination attempt upon Gandhi, and was reported as such by the police.
Madanlal Pahwa was apprehended on the spot and taken into custody. He was one of the Hindus, who had been directly affected by the tragedy of the partition. The police soon learned that Pahwa had not acted alone and a manhunt was launched throughout India to apprehend the other suspects. While the dragnet was being enforced, a second assassination attempt took place on January 30, 1948. Gandhiji was shot point blank at 5:00 p.m. by N. Godse, while on the way to the Dais to attend his prayer meeting. Gandhi died some 20 minutes after the fatal gunshot entered his frame and felled him.xiii
After firing the shots point blank, N. Godse raised his hands in the air and summoned the police. After he was apprehended and taken into custody, the police soon realized he was one of the suspects they had been seeking in connection with the explosion of January 20.
A special court was convened to conduct the trial. Sri Atma Charan Agrawal, I.C.S. was appointed as the judge. The court was held at the venerable Red Fort in New Delhi. This was the third historic trial to be held here. The first involved Bahadur Shah Jafar and one other accused standing trial. They were among those who waged a War of Independence against the British in 1945. The officers of the Indian National Army commanded by Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose were charged with revolt against British rule during WWII. The third trial to be held at Red Fort was of course to try N. Godse on the count of first-degree murder in the assassination of M.K. Gandhi.xiv
In relation to the Gandhi assassination case, 12 people were accused on different charges. Three of them managed to escape the police dragnet and were still at large. The nine arraigned individuals were brought before Sri Atma Charon on May 27, 1948. They were Nathuram Vinayak Godse, age 37, Pune; Narayan Dattatraya Apte, 34, Pune; Vishnu Ramkrishna Karkare, 37, Ahmednagar; Madanlal K. Pahwa, 20, Mumbai (originally from District Montgomery, Pakistan); Shankar Kistaiya, 20, Solapur; Gopal Vinayak Godse, 27, Pune; Vinak Damodar Savarkar, 66, Mumbai; Dattatraya Sadashiv Parchure, 47, Gwalior. The three individuals who had absconded and were still at large were Gangadhar Dandavate; Gangadhar Jadhao; and Suryadeo Sharma, all from Gwalior.xv
In particular, it was Narayan Dattatraya Apte and N. Godse who worked together to found the Hindu Rashtra, a Marathi daily from Pune, for promoting the cause of Hindu Sanghatan. The last issue of January 31, 1948 carried the news of Gandhi’s assassination and mentioned the name of the assassin, N. Godse, who was the editor.
G. Godse recounted how Apte and N. Godse worked together for five or six years under the banner of the Hindu Maha Sabha. Apte was present on January 20 and 30, 1948 at the spot in New Delhi where the assassination took place. He was described as “the brains behind the conspiracy.” He was a popular and charismatic teacher, who held private classes and had even started a rifle club to train the youth in the use of firearms. N. Godse and Narayan Apte would later die together, reciting Vande Mataram, in celebration of their lifelong raison d’être.xvi
During his deposition, N. Godse cited certain procedural irregularities in the case that highlighted the fact that due process had not occurred. These procedural irregularities tended to show that the court had proceeded with prejudice against the accused parties and had not moved to properly protect their rights. N. Godse’s first statement on certain procedural irregularities was given as follows:
1. Before I make my submission as regards the various charges I respectfully submit that the charges as framed are not according to law, inasmuch as there is a misjoinder of charges and there ought to have been two separate trials one relating to the incident of the 20th of January 1948 and the other relating to the incident of the 30th of 1948. The two having been mixed up together the whole trial is vitiated.xvii
4. It appears on the charge sheet that the prosecution takes the events that have happened on 20th January 1948 and thereafter 30th January 1948 as one and the same or a chain of events in continuation of one and the same object culminating in the murder of Gandhiji. I therefore, wish to make it clear at the outset that the events up to 20th January 1948 are quite independent and they have no connection whatsoever with what happened thereafter and on 30th January 1948.
5. The first and the foremost amongst the said charges is the charge of conspiracy amongst the accused to murder Gandhiji . . . I say that there was no conspiracy of any kind whatsoever amongst the accused to commit any of the offences mentioned in the charge-sheet. I may also state here that I have not abetted any of the other accused in the commission of the alleged offences.xviii
6. I say that the evidence led by the Prosecution in this regard does not establish and prove that there was any conspiracy whatsoever. The only witness who deposes about the alleged conspiracy is Digambar R. Badge (Prosecution Witness 57). He is a totally unreliable witness as will be shown to Your Honour by my counsel when he will explain the evidence in the case and deal with the evidence of the witness, P.W. 57.
7. As regards the charge of collecting and transporting arms and ammunition without licence, and abetment thereof on 20th January 1948, I say that I deny the said charge and say that I neither carried or transported gun-cotton slabs, hand-grenades, detonators, wicks, pistols, or revolvers and cartridges, etc. as alleged, nor did I have under my control any of such arms and/or ammunition, nor did I abet and aid any of the accused to do so either before or on or about the 20th January 1948 or any other date. I deny therefore that I contravened any of the provisions of the Indian Arms Act or the Indian Explosive Substances Act and that I committed any offence punishable under the said acts.xix
8. The main evidence in regards to this charge is the evidence of Digambar R. Badge (P.W. 57), but as stated in paragraph 6 above, he is a totally unreliable witness. This witness Badge (P.W. 57) is known to me but he hardly used to come to me nor have I ever visited his place of residence since several years past. His statement that he came to the Hindu Rashtra Office on 10th January 1948, being brought there by Apte . . . the accused No. 2 . . . is totally false and I deny that the said Badge saw me at the Hindu Rashtra Office or any other place on that day, or that in my presence Apte and he had any talk amongst themselves about gun-cotton slabs, hand-grenades etc. and about the delivery thereof at Bombay as falsely alleged by the said Badge. His statement that Apte asked me to come out of the room and that Apte told me that Badge was prepared to hand over the grenades etc. and that one’s work was over is totally false. This is a story got up by Badge to implicate me and others into the alleged conspiracy. I further say that I neither saw or met Badge on 14th January 1948 at Dadar either alone or in the company of Apte. I did not even know that Badge had come to Bombay on that day.xx
9. I further deny that I had in my possession or under my control, while at Delhi, or abetted any one to have and possess on 20th January 1948, any arms or ammunition as stated in the charge-sheet . . .xxi
11. As regards the charge under the heading “Fourthly” paragraph 2, I deny that I abetted Madanlal K. Pahwa either myself alone or along with others to explode a gun-cotton slab on 20th January 1948 at Birla House, I say that there is no evidence to substantiate this charge . . .
12. As regards the charge abetment in the “attempt to commit the murder of Mahatma Gandhi” under the said heading “Fifthly” in the charge sheet, I deny the said charge and say I have no connection either directly or indirectly with Madanlal K. Pahwa . . .
13. As regards the charge under the heading “Sixthly” in the charge-sheet . . . I say that I have not imported or bought unlicensed pistol or ammunition with the assistance of Narayan D. Apte. I also deny that Dr. Dadattraya S. Parchure and Narayan D. Apte procured the said pistol, or any of them individually or jointly; abetted me or themselves each other in such procuration of the said pistol and the ammunition . . .xxii
14. As regards the charge under paragraph B (1) and (2) I admit that I had in my possession automatic pistol No. 606824 and cartridges. But I say that neither Narayan D. Apte or Vishnu R. Karkare had anything to do with the pistol in my possession.xxiii
Before answering the charge listed on the charge sheet under the heading “Seventhly,” N. Godse explained what motivated him to come to Delhi in the first place under item No. 15 in his defense. He explained that the Jain philosophy of Ahimsa (non-violence), espoused by Gandhi, and which he was exposed to in his home state of Gujarat, posed a danger to the Hindu community. He believed that a passive, non-aggressive stance would leave Hindus vulnerable to the more aggressive ethos of other communities that would run roughshod over their rights, or as he argues quite saliently:
I never made a secret about the fact that I supported . . . the school which was opposed to that of Gandhiji. I firmly believed that the teachings of absolute ‘Ahimsa’ as advocated by Gandhiji would ultimately result in the emasculation of the Hindu community and thus make the community incapable of resisting the aggression or inroads of other communities especially the Muslims. To counteract this evil I resolved to enter public life and formed a group of persons who held like views. In this Apte and myself took a leading part and as a part of propaganda started a daily newspaper ‘Agrani’. I might mention here that it was not so much the Gandhian ‘Ahimsa’ teachings that were opposed to by me and my group, but Gandhiji while advocating his views always showed or evinced a bias for Muslims, prejudicial and detrimental to the Hindu Community and its interests. I have fully described my point of view hereafter in detail and have quoted numerous instances which unmistakably establish how Gandhiji became responsible for a number of calamities which the Hindu Community had to suffer and undergo.xxiv
N. Godse then explained his motivations for opposing Gandhi’s policies through repeated ardent but peaceful demonstrations. These demonstrations were staged because the policies of appeasement advocated by Gandhi were tearing the country apart and causing it to be partitioned along religious and sectarian lines. Godse explains the problem more fully in No. 16 in his defense:
16. In my papers ‘Agrani’ and ‘Hindu Rashtra’, I always strongly criticised Gandiji’s views and his methods such as fast for achieving his object, and after Gandhiji started holding prayer meetings, we—Apte and myself—decided to stage peaceful demonstrations showing opposition. We had made such demonstrations at Panchagani, Poona, Bombay and Delhi. There was a wide gulf between the two ideologies and it became wider and wider as [concession] after [concession] were being made to the Muslims, either at the concession or connivance of Gandhiji and the Congress which was guided by Gandhiji, culminating in the partition of the Country on 15th of August 1947 . . . On 13th of January 1948, I learnt that Gandhiji had decided to go on fast unto death. The reason given for such fast was that he wanted an assurance of Hindu-Muslim unity in Indian Dominion. But I and many others could easily see that the real motive behind the fast was not merely the Hindu-Muslim Unity, but to compel the Dominion Government to pay the sum of Rs. 55 crores to Pakistan, the payment of which was emphatically refused by the Government. As an answer to this, Apte suggested the same old method to stage a strong but peaceful demonstration at the prayer meetings of Gandhiji. I consented to this half-heartedly, because I could easily see its futility. However, I agreed to join him as no alternative plan was as yet fixed in my mind. It was for this reason that N.D. Apte and myself went to Bombay on the 14th of January, 1948.xxv
N. Godse then defended himself against the false claims made by Badge in his deposition, which imply premeditation and conspiracy to commit murder by Godse and Apte. He also defended himself against Badge’s claim that Godse and Apte went to considerable pains to obtain a firearm for the intention of finishing Gandhi off. He defended himself on this account in defense Nos. 17-20:
17. On 15th of January, 1948 we—Apte and myself—happened to go to the Hindu Sabha Office at Dadar in the morning. I happened to see Badge there. On seeing N.D. Apte and myself, Badge talked to N.D. Apte and asked him the reason for his coming to Bombay. Apte told him the reason. Badge thereupon of his own accord offered to come to Delhi and join in the demonstration, if we had no objection to his coming there. We wanted men to back us and to shout slogans and we therefore accepted his offer. We told him as to when we were starting. Badge thereupon told Apte that…he would see us on the 17th of January, 1948.
18. After we met Badge on the 15th of January, 1948 in the Hindu Sabha Office at Dadar, I saw Badge on the 17th of January, 1948 in the morning.
19. The statements made by Badge about our going to Dixitji Maharaj along with him and seeing Dixitji Maharaj, about Apte having told Badge that Savarkar had entrusted Apte and myself the task of finishing Gandhiji, Pandit Jawaharlal and Suhrawardy is a pure concoction and product of Badge’s brain. Neither Apte or myself have said anything like this to Badge or any other person.
20. Badge’s statements to the effect that I also wanted to go to Poona to meet my brother Gopal Godse who had undertaken to make arrangements for procuring a revolver and to bring him down to Bombay for accompanying us to Delhi, is also untrue. I had to talk to Badge when I met him on the 15th January 1948 except what is stated in paragraph 17 above. Further the statement of Badge that he met me 16th January 1948 at Poona is false . . . I was not in Poona 16th January 1948. It will be clear from this that it is not true that I gave him any pistol on that day for being exchanged for a big revolver.xxvi
N. Godse also unequivocally denied that he had anything to do with the attempt on Gandhi’s life on January 20, 1948. He also claimed that the persons named by Badge as being involved in the conspiracy to commit murder are fabricated. He maintained this in No. 23 of his defense:
23. The statements of Badge that Apte, Gopal Godse, Karkare, Madanlal, Badge and his servant Shankar all collected at Marina Hotel, that Shankar and Badge had their meals there, that Gopal Godse was found repairing the revolver, that Apte, Karkare, Madanlal, Badge went to the Bath-room and were fixing the detonators, Fuse-wires and primers to the gun-cotton slabs and hand-grenades or that Shankar and I were standing at the either sides of the door to the room are entirely false. Badge has put in my mouth the words “Badge, this is our last effort; the work must be accomplished—see to it that every thing is arranged properly.” I deny that I addressed the said or similar words to Badge on that day or any other day . . . We had no meeting at all on that day in my room as stated by Badge. Gopal Godse, to my knowledge, was not even in Delhi. Nobody arranged or fixed detonators fuse-wires or primers to gun-cotton slabs or hand-grenades in the room. In fact there was no such ammunition either with me or with Apte.xxvii
In No. 24 in his defense, N. Godse explained how he couldn’t have been on location the day of the January
20 bombing at Birla House, as he was indisposed with a severe headache. He was so debilitated in fact that
he needed a head bandage to relieve his condition as he recounted:
24. . . . being unwell due to severe headache, I did not even go to the prayer-ground. Apte returned to the Marina Hotel at about 6:00 p.m. and informed me that he had a view of the prayer meeting and would be in a position to stage the demonstration in a day or two. After about an hour, we heard some commotion at Gandhiji’s prayer meeting due to an explosion and we further heard of an arrest, of a refugee. Apte thought it advisable to leave Delhi immediately and we left accordingly. It is not true that I met Badge at Hindu Sabha Bhavan on 20th January 1948. Several witnesses have deposed about my being at the Birla House on the 20th January 1948; but I emphatically say that they are grossly mistaken in saying so. I submit that they are confusing my presence with someone else’s. The identification by some of these witnesses is utterly unreliable in view of the fact that I had not been to the Birla House on that day. These witnesses have identified me as I was shown to many of them by the Police while I was kept at Tughlak Road Police Station. Further it was easy to identify me on account of the bandage over my head which remained up to the 12th of February 1948. The Police witnesses who have deposed to the contrary have perjured themselves and I have made a complaint at the very first identification parade in respect of the Delhi witnesses held in Bombay about this.xxviii
How could so many witnesses have misidentified N. Godse, a fact that was quite sufficient to place him at the crime scene of the bombing of January 20, 1948? Could it be that like alleged assassins—Lee Harvey Oswald and Timothy McVeigh—he was set up by a double, a lookalike, or doppelganger who was meant to implicate or frame him as a patsy who would take the fall for someone else? Something irregular must have taken place for so many witnesses to have come forward in rendering false depositions to the effect. Of course, the counterargument would be that Godse is lying. While such an argument will have a lot of supporters, the code of honor demonstrated by the defendant before and during the trial elicited respect even from court officials. The general consensus was that, despite the capital crime for which he was standing trial, he was an honorable patriot, who willingly surrendered at the crime scene, was willing to accept his punishment, and acknowledged guilt concerning the crime of murder, where it was warranted, but denied charges whenever he felt that it was not warranted. The fact that he conducted his own defense without the assistance of a defense attorney further substantiates the case for him telling the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth in court.
Finally, N. Godse explains that he did not acquire the firearm that was used in the assassination through deliberate and premeditated calculation as Badge had alleged, but rather through mere chance and happenstance as he recounts in No. 25 in his defense:
I deny categorically and with all the emphasis at my command that Mr. Apte and myself had been to Gwalior to secure a revolver or a pistol, as a number of such revolvers were being offered for sale clandestinely. Having reached Delhi in great despair, I visited the refugee camps at Delhi. [By chance] I came across a refugee who was dealing in arms and he showed me the pistol. I was tempted to have it and I bought it from him. It is the pistol that I later used in the shots I fired. On coming to the Delhi Railway station I spent the night on the 29th thinking and re-thinking about the resolve to end the present chaos and further destruction of the Hindus.xxix
This ends N. Godse’s defense against what had wrongfully been attributed to him. He was by no means reluctant to admit fault when he found it warranted. He was by all accounts considered, even by court officials, as an honest and honorable man.
Here is the list of accused to be summoned to the dock:
1. Accused Number One was Nathuram Godse who later explained how Savarkar stood for certain nationalist and Hindu ideals. He opposed the policy of Muslim appeasement endorsed by Gandhi and the Congress Party. The other accomplices in the assassination never denied their support for Savarkar and his opposition to the Congress Government’s policy of Muslim appeasement. However, the Godse brothers insisted that the prosecution relied on flimsy hearsay evidence to build its case that the killing of Gandhi was carried out with Savarkar’s blessing.xxx
2. Accused Number Two was Narayan Dattatraya Apte. He and Godse were accused of travelling to Gwalior to secure the revolver or pistol. Godse denied this, claiming he procured the weapon on his own. Nevertheless, Apte was viewed as the prime accomplice, aiding and abetting the murder on account of this claim against him.
3. Accused Number Three Vishnu Karkare was a political activist, who resided in a boarding house in Amhednagar. When Noakhali then in Bengal (now in Bangladesh) degenerated into a “slaughterhouse” for the Hindus living there, Karkare went there with a cadre of ten men to mobilize the local Hindu men to take up arms to defend themselves. In 1946-47, he also organized a number of “shelter camps” under the banner of “Hindu Maha Sabha.” He was present on location at the time of the assassination attempts on January 20 and 30 in New Delhi.xxxi
4. Accused Number Four, Madanlal K. Pahwa, who was accused of igniting the gun cotton-slab, was another accomplice in the assassination, was a refugee. He was a witness to massacres, which also involved looting, pillaging and arson. Pahwa narrated his experiences during his testimony in court, in which he offered an account of the caravans of refugees, miles in length, the lakhs of human beings driven from their homes, and forced to flee to their recently vivisected and truncated homeland, India.
5. Accused Number Five, Shankar Kistaiya, served Digambar Badge, the approver. He was also on the spot on the occasion of the January 20 assassination attempt.xxxii
6. Accused Number Six was Gopal Godse, brother of Nathuram Godse. He served in the Ordnance Department. He had served overseas in World War II and was posted at the Khadaki Depot near Pune upon his return. He was charged with conspiracy as he was at Birla House on January 20.xxxiii
7. Accused Number Seven was Dingabar Badge, a Hindu Sanghatanist, was an arms dealer. He believed that Hindus should have the right to arm themselves, wherever they were in the minority, in order to defend themselves against attacks from militant Muslims. The prosecution maintained that Badge was the one who had supplied Pahwa with the gun cotton-slab, which the latter had ignited. Pahwa was also found to be in possession of a hand grenade, also believed to have been supplied by Badge, who was found to have his own cache of weapons. Badge was also one of those present at the site of the assassination attempt on January 20.
8. Accused Number Eight was D.S. Parchure, a doctor with a practice in Gwalior. He was a Hindu organizer, who met attacks by militant Muslims with counterattacks. He was accused of supplying Nathuram Gose with the pistol used in the assassination. It is alleged that his confession was extracted under “pressure,” which means that he was probably subject to “torture.”xxxiv No testimony obtained in this fashion should ever be considered admissible in court. A person will confess to anything under that level of duress.
N. Godse detailed his reasons for carrying out the assassination at great length over a two-day session in court. The prosecution had advance knowledge of N. Godse’s written testimony, which he read out in court. It raised an objection to the reading of the text, but the judge overruled the objection, and Godse was allowed to proceed with his statement. The press published portions of his testimony the next day, but the government did not tolerate such disclosure of Godse’s motives for the killing. It refused to yield to the judiciary in the matter. The government immediately moved to impose a ban on the reproduction or publication of Godse’s courtroom statement in part or in full. The ban lasted for a period of three decades.
G. Godse claimed that the motive for the ruling government in India adopting the ban was obvious. It did not want Gandhi “exposed” to the public based on what Nathuram alleged. Instead, it exploited the prejudice against the assassin and his action to suppress the truth, under the pretext of honoring the memory of the Mahatma (meaning “Great Soul”).
N. Godse preferred to plead his own case, and did so for two days without once denying the murder charge against him. The prosecution called a total of 149 witnesses. The court hearing was closed on December 30, 1948 and judgement was reserved for some days. Judgement was not issued on the case until January 10, 1949.xxxv
Veer Savakar was acquitted of all charges. Digamber Badge was granted a pardon and released for having deposed against his fellow accused. Vishnu Karkare, Madanlal Pahwa, G. Godse, Shankar Kaistaya, and Dr. Parchure were sentenced to, among other things, “transportation for life,” which means life in prison. N. Godse and Narayan Apte were sentenced to execution by hanging. The sentencing was met with thunderous proclamations from the convicts, who shouted loud declarations in their language.xxxvi
A special Act called the Bombay Public Security Measures Act had been enacted and extended to New Delhi before the court was convened and came into play with retrospective effect for the trial of those who stood accused. Equality before the law and other inalienable rights were denied to the people by means of this Act. The Supreme Court of India had not been created at the time. Following its establishment, it subsequently declared the Act ultra vires, “beyond the powers,” meaning an act that requires legal authority, but is done without it. However, since retrospective effect was not provided to the annulment, the convicts derived no benefit from the change in the law.xxxvii
All seven convicts submitted appeals through the prison authorities to the Punjab High Court. Formerly, the High Court operated in the city of Lahore. But Lahore, the city known historically to have been established by Lava, one of the sons of Lord Rama, the city formerly known as Lavapur, was now in Pakistan territory. The High Court had therefore been relocated to Simla in the now vivisected India.
N. Godse sought to appeal his conviction for conspiracy and other charges, but not his conviction for the murder charge resulting in the sentence of death. This shows his high point of honor, as he only wished to contest the charges he felt were unfair or wrongful. He asked for permission to argue his own case, and it was granted. By this time, the other convicts had been transferred from the Special Jail, Red Fort to Ambala Jail. N. Godse was transferred to Simla, where he was lodged in a special holding facility. The other convicts pleaded their cases through their counsels.
Justices Bhandari, Achhra Ram, Khosla J.J. heard the appeals in May and June of 1949 and pronounced their judgements on June 22, 1949. Shankar Kistaiya and Dr. Parchure were found not guilty and were summarily acquitted. The sentences of Vishnu Karkare, G. Godse, and Madanlal Pahwa were upheld. The judges also upheld the conviction of death against N. Godse and Narayan Apte.xxxviii
N. Godse’s courtroom testimony brought tears to the eyes of the packed gallery. Sobs conveying the deep emotion of those present could be heard throughout the court session, according to the testimony offered by N. Godse’s brother. It was obvious that even the High Court was struck by the conduct and ability of N. Godse to face his fate and to defend himself with dignity. Justice Achhru Ram made special note of this in the course of pronouncing judgement:
Of all the appellants Nathuram V. Godse has not challenged his conviction under Sec. 302 of the Indian Penal Code, nor has he appealed from the sentence of death passed on him in respect to the offence. He has confined his appeal and also his arguments at the Bar only to the other charges which have been found proved against him…He personally argued his appeal, I must say, with conspicuous ability evidencing a mastery of facts which would have done credit to any counsel.xxxix
As regards N. Godse’s erudition and power of thought, the judge stated: “Although he failed in his matriculation examination, he is widely read. While arguing his Appeal, he showed a fair knowledge of the English language and a remarkable capacity for clear thinking.”xl
During his plea, N. Godse had sworn that, on January 20, 1948. he was not present at Birla House. The judges rejected the plea, but referred to the strong willpower of the defendant to support their rejection, Sri Achhru Ram stating:
We have seen quite enough of Nathuram during the period of more than five weeks we were hearing these appeals and particularly during the eight or nine days while he was arguing his own case, and I cannot imagine that a man of his calibre could have even entertained the idea (of remaining behind).xli
But the most remarkable of all the statements issued by any of the justices charged with adjudicating the appeal, was that of the statement of Justice Khosla, given long afterwards, following his retirement. Reflecting on the court scene at the time, he stated:
The highlight of the appeal before us was the discourse delivered by Nathuram Godse in his defence. He spoke for several hours, discussing, in the first instance, the facts of the case and then the motive which had prompted him to take Mahatma Gandhi’s life . . .
The audience was visibly and audibly moved. There was a deep silence when he ceased speaking. Many women were in tears and men coughing and searching for their handkerchiefs. The silence was accentuated and made deeper by the sound of the occasional subdued sniff or a muffled cough . . .
I have however, no doubt that had the audience of that day been constituted into a jury and entrusted with the task of deciding Godse’s appeal, they would have brought in a verdict of ‘not guilty’ by an overwhelming majority.xlii
N. Godse’s impassioned plea, given with great panache and poise, greatly interested the press and the correspondents in the courtroom recorded it verbatim. However, as soon as the judges returned to their chambers, the police in the courtroom immediately set upon the correspondents and seized their notebooks. The police action did not end there. They resorted to intimidation, tearing the notebooks up in front of the reporters and warning them of dire consequences if they dared to print a word of Godse’s defense. Instead, members of the press were forced to tailor their reports according to the government’s instructions, issuing only distorted and disjointed accounts of courtroom proceedings. Some papers did write articles evaluating the event truthfully, but this is only after the executions of Godse and Apte had taken place. These same publications were subjected to heavy security measures and harassment is response.xliii
In the course of his defense, N. Godse then explained his ideological opposition to Gandhi, and why he felt so desperate on account of the plight of Hindus and the future of Hindustan/India if something wasn’t done to have Gandhi removed from power, whom he regarded as an unrealistic and excessively idealistic adherent to the philosophy of Muslim appeasement in the face of the most extreme forms of violence at the hands of the Muslim League. N. Godse explained in greatest depth from No. 35 of his defense onward:
In 1946 or thereabout the Muslim atrocities perpetrated on the Hindus under the Government patronage of Surhawardy in Noakhali, made our blood boil. Our shame and indignation knew no bounds, when we saw that Gandhiji had come forward to shield that very Surhawardy and began to style him as ‘Sahib Saheb—a Martyr Soul (!) even in his prayer meetings. Not only that but Gandhiji began to hold his prayer meetings in a Hindu temple in Bhangi Colony and persisted in reading passages from the [Quran] as a part of the prayer in the Hindu temple in spite of the protest of the Hindu worshipers there. Of course he dare not read the [Gita] in the teeth of Muslim opposition. He knew what a terrible Muslim reaction would have been if he had done so.xliv
In No. 40 of his defense, N. Godse provided further justifications for his increasingly hard line against Gandhi and the ruling government, when it had become increasingly clear that they were displaying more than mere appeasement and outright partisan support for even the most violent Muslim factions:
40. Just after that followed the terrible outburst of Muslim fanaticism in the Punjab and other parts of India. The Congress Government began to persecute, prosecute, and shoot the Hindus themselves who dared to resist the Muslim forces in Bihar, Calcutta, Punjab and other places.xlv
N. Godse was as much an adherent to the democratic model of government as there has even been. He was non-partisan from a religious point of view and felt that the people of all religions should be treated equally under the laws of India and granted freedom of worship and to practice their faith. However, when it came to the running of government, he felt it should be built on a secular model and that religion should be separated from political rule. He believed this was the only way religious groups would be treated with equal tolerance and respect, as he argued in No. 51 of his defense:
In my writings and my speeches I have always advocated that the religious and communal considerations should be entirely eschewed in the public affairs of the country, at elections, inside and outside the legislatures and in the making and unmaking of Cabinets. I have throughout stood for a secular State and joint electorates and to my mind this is the only sensible thing to do.xlvi
Also, in No. 51 of his defense, N. Godse went on to recount how the country had become divided along religious sectarian lines and why. It was the British colonial power that had sought the division of the country in order to suppress the power and potential of the people, particularly the Hindu majority that N. Godse so strongly opposed:
. . . the corroding influence of the Divide and Rule Policy of the foreign masters were encouraged to cherish the ambition of dominating Hindus. The first indication of this outlook was the demand for separate electorates instigated by the then Viceroy Lord Minto in 1906. The British Government accepted this demand under the excuse of minority protection. While the Congress party offered a verbal opposition, it progressively supported separatism by ultimately adopting the notorious formula of neither accepting nor rejecting in 1934.xlvii
N. Godse further explained in No. 65 of his defense how his support of the Muslim Caliphate movement as his policy of appeasement did not obtain the desired result he had intended. He had hoped to entice the Muslim leaders into embracing unity through openness, but they refused to integrate and maintained the “Khalifate Committee” as a separate and distinct element:
The Muslims ran the Khalifate Committee as a distinct political religious organisation and throughout maintained it as a separate entity from the Congress; and very soon the Moplah Rebellion showed that the Muslims had not the slightest of national unity . . . There followed as usual in such cases, a huge slaughter of the Hindus, numerous forcible conversions, rape and arson.xlviii
The situation continued to disintegrate within the country under Gandhi “but like the proverbial gambler, Gandhiji continued to increase his stake [s],” according to N. Godse. He did this by embracing policies that would not just divide the country upon sectarian lines, but would lead to its vivisection. In any other period and any other time in history, this would have been defined as the act of a traitor, and so N. Godse explained his justified shock in the face of such a response by Gandhi to the Muslim presence:
He agreed to the separations of Sind and to the creation of a separate province in the N.W. Frontier. He also went on conceding one undemocratic demand after another to the Muslim League in the vain hope of enlisting its support in the national struggle . . . Whatever concessions the Government and the Congress made, Mr. Jinnah and asked for more. Separation of Sind from Bombay and the creation of the N.W. Frontie were followed by the Round Table conference in which minority questioned loomed large…During the war 1939-44, Mr. Jinnah took up openly one attitude—a sort of benevolent neutrality—and promised to support the war as soon as the Muslims rights were conceded; in April 1940, within 6 months of the War, Mr. Jinnah came out with the demand for Pakistan on the basis of his two nation theory. Mr. Jinnah totally ignored the fact that there were Hindus and Muslims in large numbers in every part of India.xlix
N. Godse was not wrong in seeing Gandhi merely continuing the destructive policies of the British. Given that Gandhi was a Freemason, an inductee of the Inner Temple, one of the Inns of Court of the City of London, whose posts were reserved mainly for the British upper crust, he was well-positioned for being recruited by the intelligence services and most likely served in MI6 until his death. There has to be a reason his Freemason diary, known as The London Diary, has been suppressed. What are they hiding? Furthermore, why would the British give such fanfare and attention to the man who supposedly brought an end to the British Empire’s fortunes and continued presence in India? It is a ruse. As usual, all the world’s staged and we are merely played. As N. Godse maintained, Gandhi’s policies continued in the same vein as those under the British and dealt blow after blow to India:
. . . India has been torn into pieces by the Imperialistic policy of the British and under a mistaken policy of communal unity. The Mahatma was betrayed into action which has ultimately led not to the Hindu-Muslim Unity but to the shattering of the whole basis of that unity. Five crores of Indian Muslims have ceased to be our countrymen; virtually the non-Muslim minority in Western Pakistan have been liquidated either by the most brutal murders or by a forced tragic removal from their moorings of centuries, the same process is furiously at work in Eastern Pakistan. One hundred and ten millions of people have become torn from their homes of which not less than four millions are Muslims and when I found that even after such terrible results Gandhiji continued to pursue the same policy of appeasement, my blood boiled and I could not tolerate him any longer.l
The litany of mistakes Gandhi made that are brought into stark relief over the course of N. Godse’s defense are striking and overwhelming to acknowledge. The same thing is happening in Europe today under the policy of appeasement adopted by the governments of the European Union (EU). It seems that only the United Kingdom (UK) has managed to wake up in time to take its Brexit. Countries like Sweden and Germany meanwhile are turning a blind eye to exactly the same kinds of atrocities taking place at the hands of Muslim extremists or just plain chauvinists who see it as perfectly acceptable to refer to Swedish women as “practice.” If it’s politically incorrect to say it as it is, too bad. Someone has to say it, just as N. Godse did in this passage:
Moplah Rebellion—Malabar, Punjab, Bengal and N.W.F. Province were the scene of repeated outrages on the Hindus. The Moplah Rebellion as it was called was the most prolonged and concentrated attack on the Hindu religion, Hindu honour, Hindu life, and Hindu property; hundreds of Hindus were forcibly converted to Islam. Women were outraged. The Mahatma who had brought about all this calamity on India by his communal policy kept mum. He never uttered a single word of reproach against the aggressors nor did he allow the Congress to take any active steps whereby repetition of such outrages could be prevented. On the other hand he went to the length of length of denying the numerous cases of forcible conversions in Malabar and actually published in his paper ‘Young India’ that there was only one case of forcible conversion, His own Muslim friends informed him that he was wrong and that the forcible conversions were numerous in Malabar. He never corrected his mistake but went to the absurd length of starting a relief fund for the Moplahs instead of their victims . . .li
N. Godse testified that Gandhi was in regular correspondence with known terrorists, including the head of the Muslim League, a terrorist organization responsible for slaughtering thousands of innocent civilians, especially in Calcutta, Kolkata since 2001. He also alleged that Gandhi gave his tacit support to the Ali Brothers, who conspired with the Amir of Afghanistan to front an invasion of India in order to found a Muslim caliphate. Gandhi granted his full support to the Ali Brothers, who N. Godse claims:
. . . secretly intrigued to invite the Amir of Afghanistan to invade India and promised him every support . . . Ali brothers never denied their share in the conspiracy. The Mahatma pursued his tactics of getting Hindu-Muslim Unity by supporting the Ali brothers . . . Even with regard to the invasion of India by the Amir the Mahatma directly and indirectly supported the Ali brothers . . . The late Mr. Shastri. Mr. C.Y. Chintamani the Editor of the ‘Leader’ of Allahabad and even the Mahatma’s life-long friend, the late Rev. C.F. Andrews told him quite clearly that his speeches and writings amounted to a definite support of the Ali Brothers in their invitation to the Amir of Afghanistan to invade India.lii
Gandhi welcomed the Ali Brothers and their planned invasion. He welcomed the Amir of Afghanistan and his army. He welcomed the establishment of a permanent caliphate in India. He believed or pretended to believe that such an imposition would make India a more orderly society, well-disciplined, while enforcing high standards of morality, along with stability and peace. Gandhi’s own words, as quoted in May It Please Your Honour, make his intentions clear:
I cannot understand why the Ali Brothers are going to be arrested as the rumors go, and why I am to remain free. They have done nothing which I would not do. If they had sent a message to Amir, I would also send one to inform the Amir that if he came, no Indian so long as I can help it, would help the Government to drive him back.liii
N. Godse credits the British in halting the invasion and exposing the conspiracy, which is quite a surprise: “The vigilance of the British broke the conspiracy; nothing came of the Ali Brothers’ grotesque scheme of the invasion of India and Hindu-Muslim Unity remained as far away as before.”liv
What weakened India immeasurably and was like a wound to its Achilles’ heel was the “communalism” award Gandhi received at the second round of the Round Table Conference in London. Having boycotted the conference, the Congress Party of India soon regretted its decision and resolved to send Gandhi instead, as N. Godse recounts:
The Congress however soon regretted its boycott of the First Round Table Conference and at the Karachi Congress of 1931 it was decided to send Gandhiji alone as the Congress Representative at the Second Session of the Round Table Conference. Anybody who reads the proceedings of that Session will realise that Gandhiji was the biggest factor in bringing about the total failure of the Conference. Not one of the decisions of the Round Table Conference was in support of democracy or nationalism and the Mahatma went to the length of inviting Mr. Ramsay McDonald to give what was called the Communal Award, thereby strengthening the disintegrating forces of communalism which had already corroded the body politic for 24 years past. The Mahatma was therefore responsible for direct and substantial intrusion of communal electorate and communal franchise in the future Parliament of India. There is no wonder that when the communal award was given by Mr. Ramsay MacDonald, the Mahatma refused to oppose it and the members of the Assembly were asked ‘Neither to support or reject it.’ Gandhiji himself put an axe on the communal unity on which he had staked so much for the previous fifteen years. No wonder under the garb of minority protection we got in the Government of India Act of 1935 a permanent statutory recognition of communal franchise, communal electorate and even weightage for the minorities especially the Muslims, both in the Provinces and in the Centre. Those elected on the communal franchise would be naturally communal minded and would have no interest in bridging the gulf between communalism and nationalism . . . Hindus and Muslims became divided in opposite camps and worked as rival parties, placing increased momentum [on] separatism.lv
The entire political effort seems to have been designed to impose a disguised form of communism on India under a new name “communalism.” It effectively dismantled and undermined the traditional makeup of Indian society politically and culturally as part of the New World Order imposition we have seen worldwide. A new law affectively inflicted the coup de grace on India:
Under Section 93 of the Government of India Act 1935 the Governments of the Congress Provinces were taken over by the Governors and the Muslim League Ministries remained in power and authority in the remaining Provinces. The Governors carried on the administration with a definite leaning towards the Muslims as an imperial policy of Britain and communalism reigned right throughout the country through the Muslim Ministries on the one hand and the pro-Muslim Governors on the other.lvi
In a section of May It Please Your Honour, titled, “The League Taking Advantage of War,” Godse recounts how the Muslim League took advantage of the distraction of WWII to gain a greater foothold in the open door of partition, stating:
The congress opposed the war in one way or another. Mr. Jinnah and the League had a very clear policy. They remained neutral and created no trouble for the Government; but in the year following the Lahore Session of the Muslim League passed a resolution for the partition of India as a condition for their co-operation in the war. Lord Linlithgow within a few months gave full support to the Muslims in their policy of separation by a declaration of Government Policy . . .lvii
N. Godse also accused Gandhi of trying to impose a language of “communalism” (aka communitarianism) on India, which would effectively erode its sense of natural culture and identity, something that the Illuminati-Luciferians have tried to do worldwide through their various social engineering programs. N. Godse explained that Gandhi employed guile to try to convince people that Hindustani would be the solution and the compromise that would unite Hindus and Muslims, a fond hope:
In the beginning of his career in India, Gandhiji gave a great impetus to Hindi but as he found that the Muslims did not like it, he became a turncoat and blossomed forth as the champion of what is called Hindustani. Every body in India knows that there is no language called Hindustani; is has no grammar; it has no vocabulary; it is a mere dialect; it is spoken but not written. It is a bastard tongue and a crossbreed between Hindi and Urdu and not even Mahatma’s sophistry could make it popular, but in his desire to please the Muslims he insisted that Hindustani alone should be the national language of India.lviii
N. Godse exposed part of the Illuminati agenda with this language of subterfuge. If the language is a hodgepodge dialect with no formal grammar, and is spoken rather than written, it would be the ultimate subterfuge to pull on the people of India, as it would render them all powerless through illiteracy and an inability to fight back against the tyranny being imposed on them. N. Godse explains the deception in full:
For practical purpose Hindustani is only Urdu under a different name, but Gandhiji could not have the courage to advocate the adoption of Urdu as against Hindi, hence the subterfuge to smuggle Urdu under the garb of Hindustani. Urdu is not banned by any nationalist Hindu but to smuggle it under the garb of Hindustani is a fraud and a crime.lix
It was for the same reason that Gandhi promoted Hindustani as the lingua franca of India. This is the tongue that would bind both Hindus and Muslims together, so he thought. Hindustani is Urdu under a different name. N. Godse understood that this was subterfuge. It was communalism of the worst kind. It amounted to the Islamization of India. He accused Gandhi of lacking the courage to call for the adoption of Urdu as the national language, hence the subterfuge of smuggling Urdu in under another name. To bolster up a language in the school curriculum and grant a bastard tongue a pedigree is insanity of the highest order. Forcing a foreign tongue upon a great nation like India was seen as treasonous to N. Godse and was one of the prime motivations for the assassination.
What N. Godse found most egregious and disturbing was the fact that Gandhi not only did nothing to implement protections for the Hindu people against the armed violence and attacks of the Muslim League in Calcutta (now Kolkata), but he actually came down on the side of Suhrawardy’s government and the Muslim League, as N. Godse recounts:
A little more than two weeks before Nehru was to take office, there broke out in Calcutta an open massacred of Hindus which continued for three days unchecked. The horrors of these days are described in the ‘Statesman’ newspaper of Calcutta. At the time it was considered that the Government which could permit such outrages on its citizens must be thrown out; there was actual suggestions that Mr. Suhrawardy’s Government should be dismissed, but the socialist Governor refused to take up the administration under Section 93 of the Government of India Act. Gandhiji however went to Calcutta and contracted a strange friendship with the author of these massacres, in fact he intervened on behalf of Suhrawardy and the Muslim League. During the three days that the massacres of Hindus took place, the police in Calcutta did not interfere for the protection of life or property, innumerable outrages were practiced under the very eyes and nose of the guardians of law, but nothing mattered to Gandhiji. To him Suhrawardy was an object of admiration from which he could not be diverted and publicly described Suhrawardy as a Martyr. No wonder two months later there was the most violent outbreak of Muslim fanaticism in Noakhali and Tipperah 30,000 Hindu women were forcibly according to a report of Arya Samaj, the total number of Hindus killed or wounded was three lacs not to say the crores of rupees worth of property looted and destroyed…All these outrages, losses of life and property were done when Suhrawardy was the Prime Minister and to such a monster of iniquity and communal poison gave the unsolicited title of Martyr.lx
N. Godse gives credit to credit to Subhas Chandra Bose for doing more to liberate India from the yoke of British colonial rule than anyone. The fact that Gandhi is given the credit for this, where credit is not due, is because he was functioning as a British agent whose role was to subvert the militant independence movement through his campaign of satyagraha or non-violence.
As recently as 2015, retired top Indian judge, Justice Markandey Katju, 68, accused the man credited with achieving independence for India of dividing Muslims and Hindus and paving the way for the partitioning of India along the border with Pakistan. Justice Katju is quoted as saying, “Gandhi was objectively a British agent who did great harm. By injecting religion into politics Gandhi furthered British divide and rule.”lxi This is exactly consistent with what N. Godse claimed during his courtroom defense. N. Godse completely rejected the notion that Gandhi was in any way responsible for achieving the independence of India:
I am therefore surprised when claims are made over and again the winning of the freedom was due to Gandhiji. My own view is that constant pandering of the Muslim League was not the way to winning freedom. It only created a Frankenstein which ultimately devoured its own creator swallowing one third of hostile . . . unfriendly and aggressive Indian territory, and permanently stationing a neighbor on what was once Indian territory.lxii
N. Godse also cited speeches in which Gandhi absurdly encouraged Hindu refugees to return to Pakistan during the pro-Muslim independence drive and face their fates, even if it meant being cut down by their Muslim brothers. Gandhi even made absurd references to Hindu scripture to justify this logical fallacy. N. Godse also implicated Gandhi in the partitioning of India and Pakistan, which he considered treasonous. He explained how Gandhi spoke at his prayer meetings about how Hindus in India should treat the Muslims with respect and generosity even though Hindus and Sikhs in Pakistan could have faced complete massacre. N. Godse shared the extracts from Gandhi’s post-prayer speeches to illustrate the point:
We should with a cool mind reflect when we are being swept away. Hindus should never be angry against the Muslims even if the latter might make up their minds to undo even their existence. If they put all of us to the sword, we should court death bravely, may they, even rule the world, we shall inhabit the world. At least, we should never fear death. We are destined to be born and die; then why need we feel gloomy over it? If all of us die with a smile on our lips, we shall enter a new life. We shall originate a new Hindustan.lxiii
What complete lunacy! One would expect this level of faulty reasoning from the likes of Rev. Jim Jones of the Jonestown massacre, but from Gandhi? Who would have dreamed? But the lunacy of Gandhi’s rhetorical mumbo jumbo does not end there. N. Godse makes reference to another of Gandhi’s rantings for elucidation:
The few gentlemen from Rawalpindi who called upon me today were sturdy, brave and absorbed in business. I advised them to remain calm. After all God is great. There is no place where god does not exist, meditate on Him and take His name; everything will be all right. They asked me what about those who still remain in Pakistan. I asked them why all they came here (in Delhi). Why they did not die there? I still hold on to the belief one should stick to the place where we happen to live even if we are cruelly treated and even killed. Let us die if the people kill us; but we should die bravely with the name of God on our tongue. Even if our men are killed, why should we feel angry with anybody, you should realise that even if they are killed they have had a good and proper end. May the heaven make us all so. May God send us the same way. This is what we should pray heartily for. I will advise you (and issue) as I did to the residents of Rawalpindi, that they should go there and meet the Sikhs and Hindu refugees, tell them politely to return to their places in Pakistan unaided either by Police of the Military.lxiv
Most academics and indoctrinated members of the establishment in so-called democratic “free” societies will use the logical fallacy of “appeal to authority” to dismiss these recorded speeches of Gandhi, because of the source: two condemned criminals of the Indian justice system quoting Gandhi. They will be dismissed as liars and dissemblers of the facts. However, the Godse brothers claims about Gandhi are not inaccurate. While N. Godse was lauded for his forthrightness and honesty, Gandhi has been exposed frequently as the true liar and dissembler of the facts, rather than these two indicted felons. This author’s book, co-authored with G.B. Singh, Gandhi Under Cross-examination, made a great contribution in this endeavor. But if one reads the claims made by N. Godse in his legal defense, one can see that he is accusing Gandhi of criminality, including treason against his own country and people. If one closes one’s mind and turns a blind eye to alternative viewpoints that call into question preconceived and inculcated values of what is good and right, then one is laying the very undemocratic foundation that will see that our freedoms disappear. But that is what is happening as a result of the political correctness movement that has infected intellectual and academic discourse in the West. One can lose one’s job and be thrown onto the street without the least reservation by fascists who regard themselves as liberals, simply for saying or writing something that contravenes their version of reality or truth. Taking away people’s freedom of speech is the true criminal act and it is now a complete fait accompli in countries such as Canada, where even that claim will cause you to suffer a loss of employment and livelihood. If this fails to convince, which it undoubtedly will for those living under various layers of programming and mind control in their so-called free societies, try this speech of Gandhi’s on for size:
Not one of those who have died in Punjab is going to return. In the end we too have to go there. It is true that they were murdered but then some others die of cholera or due to other causes. He who is born must die. If those killed have died bravely, they have not lost anything but earned something. But what to do with those who have slaughtered people, is a big question. One may concede that to err is human. A human being is a bundle of errors. In Punjab our protection is due to them (British troops). But is this protection? I want even if a handful of persons should protect themselves. They should not be afraid of death. After all the killers will be none other than our Muslim brothers. Will our brothers cease to be our brothers after change of their religion? And do we not act like them? What thing we have left undone with women in Bihar?lxv
Mr. Shastri, Mr. C.Y. Chintamani, the editor of the Allahabad-based The Leader, and even the Mahatma’s lifelong friend, the late C.F. Andrews, confirmed that Gandhi’s speeches and writings added up to an open invitation to the Amir of Afghanistan to invade India. It was de facto high treason. Is there another word for a leader plotting to have his country invaded by an alien power? The only explanation is that he had formed a secret pact with Shiekh Abdullah. Under his orders, the administrative power of Kashmir would be placed in the hands of Muslims. For this reason and this reason alone, Gandhi consented to armed resistance by the Indian forces to the Pakistani raiders of Kashmir. It was a coup d'état, and in the process, he had signed Kashmir away. The motherland was destined to lose half its territory. It was the most monstrous act of treason in the history of the world, yet the perpetrator continues to be celebrated around the world as a martyr and saint. Instead of fasting to stem the tide of the Pakistani invasion or practicing satyagraha in the face of an armed Muslim invasion, Gandhi instead fasted because a handful of Muslims did not feel safe in Delhi. All of his fasts were orchestrated to coerce Hindus, but never once did he show the courage to stand up to the more aggressive Muslim population. He persistently embraced a policy of appeasement. His collusion with Muslim forces knew no bounds. How else could he have allied himself to the Ali Brothers and their treasonous plot to bring ruin to India through the invasion of the Amir of Afghanistan?
In 1919, the Government of India Act 1919 was overshadowed by the Jallianwala Bagh massacre. Though the incident happened long ago, it is fresh in the minds of the people who lost loved ones and have hearts enough to know what it feels like to lose a loved one. Hundreds of men, women and children were shot dead that day at the orders of General Dyer for the mere crime of holding a peaceful demonstration against the so-called Rowlatt Act. The Anarchical and Revolutionary Crimes Act of 1919, popularly known as the Rowlatt Act or Black Act, was a legislative act passed by the Imperial Legislative Council in Delhi on March 10, 1919, indefinitely extending the emergency measures of preventive indefinite detention, incarceration without trial and judicial review enacted in the Defence of India Act 1915 during WWI. Sir Michael O’Dwyer became notorious for his callous and unscrupulous reprisals against anyone who denounced or opposed the Rowlatt Act. The apologists have lost the argument in excusing these acts as those of misguided fanatics in breach of the proper chain of command. This man was a ‘Sir’—a knight and a peer of the realm. This means that he and his policies had the endorsement of the British establishment and the blessing of the King. Over 20 years later he would pay for his crimes when he was shot dead in London by Udham Singh. While terrorism can never be condoned or endorsed, it is necessary to recognize that the actions of the Chafekar brothers of Maharashtra, Shamji Krishna Verma, Lala Hardayal, Virendranath Chatapadhyaya, Rash Behari Bose, Babu Arvind Ghosh, Khudiram Bose, Ulhaskar Datta, Madalal Dhingra, Kanhere, Bhagat Singh, Rajguru, Sukhdeo, and Chadrashekhar Azad, were all done in response to government-sponsored terrorism under the yoke of foreign occupation.lxvi There is a subtle distinction to be made between pro-independence freedom-fighters and “terrorists.” Bhagat Singh successfully disrupted the proceedings of the India’s Legislative Assembly in a 1929 bombing incident. Does this make him a “terrorist” or a pro-independence freedom fighter?
The Hindu-Muslim unity Gandhi claimed to covet so strongly was now a fleeting mirage. If N. Godse’s defense were on public record, everyone would know the truth. If the press had not been muzzled, the word would be out. Instead, the treasonous Congress Party suppressed the truth and prevented the face behind the mask of divinity from being revealed. Perhaps most notably, he accused Gandhi of leaving his own Hindu population to be helplessly slaughtered in the streets by the Muslim League, the infamous terrorist organization, without recourse to a militia or the dispatch of a civil defense unit. Any sane and competent leader would call for the impeachment of a government that allowed such outrages as the slaughter of innocent women and children to go on under its own nose. But what did Gandhi do according to N. Godse? He went to Calcutta not to oppose the violence and speak out against it, but to enter into a strange contractual friendship with the author of these massacres.
He even went so far as to defend Premier Suhrawardy’s government and the Muslim League. During the three-day massacre, when both person and property were being violated in the most brutal fashion, Gandhi did and said nothing. Is it non-violence to let innocent civilians be put to the sword, sliced up under the blade and thrown to the dogs for meat? Passivism is not the answer to wholesale slaughter clearly. Maintaining a balance of power and assuring the peace through a system of checks and balances and an armed militia in the hands of all defendable populations is the best way to secure the peace. Leaving people defenseless through an enforced policy of non-violence leaves them vulnerable paradoxically to the very violence one seeks to avoid. Innocent men, women and children were cut down in the streets of Calcutta because there was not even the presence of an armed guard to offer a defense against armed terrorists, let alone a proper response to their violent outrages.
Amazingly, N. Godse further argued that Gandhi’s satyagraha campaign of non-violent resistance to British rule only succeeded in forestalling independence by 40 years by taking all the steam out of the militant movement to create home rule. The Rowlatt Committee, set up to evaluate political terrorism in India, went on at great length about the strength of the independence movement. The revolutionaries had gained the upper hand and the British knew it. From 1906 to 1918, one Brit after another, along with several Indian collaborators, met their untimely ends at the hands of revolutionary nationalists. The British were shaking in their boots. It was practically murder by numbers. They were being picked off one-by-one by the pro-independence revolutionaries the British called “terrorists.” Ever the consummate hypocrite, from 1920 onwards, Gandhi put his foot down on the use of force, crushing any armed resistance with his non-violence stance, even though he had carried on an active campaign of recruiting soldiers for Britain in WWI and before that during the Boer War in South Africa.
Gandhi’s non-violence movement died a death only a few weeks after the start of the ‘Quit India’ campaign. Gandhi’s position was rejected outrightly by members of the Congress Party. Nowhere was non-violence preached or practiced. Virtually everyone was committed to “do or die.” No one wanted to follow Gandhi’s methods and sit in jail. On the contrary, they wished to avoid jail at all costs. Rather than stewing in jail, they were committed to action, inflicting the maximum harm to British rule by cutting communications, committing arson, looting and other acts of violence, assassinations not excluded. Government administration was brought to a standstill. Pro-independence revolutionaries set fire to police stations and postal offices, while communications were disrupted with firebombs and other forms of sabotage. In north Bihar and other locales, nearly 900 railway stations were burnt to the ground or destroyed.lxvii At the very moment the smell of freedom could be detected in the air, Gandhi was calling for non-violence, when only a few short years before he had advocated violence as a recruitment officer for the British Army. This begs the question: Whose side was he really on?
N. Godse noted how Hindu women and children were offered no defense in the face of their Muslim terrorist foes. It was the heroic fight put up by the 17th century patriot king and resistance fighter, Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj, that checked and destroyed Muslim tyranny in India. It was absolutely correct and just, according to N. Godse, for Shivaji to kill Afzul Khan, since the latter had already broken the Vedic sanction against attacking the innocent and unarmed. Conversion by the sword is irreligious and un-Hindu. Condemning Shivaji, Rana Pretap, and Guru Govind as deluded and misguided patriots was extremely presumptuous of Gandhi. Each of these heroes was unrelenting in his defense of the country, protecting the people against the atrocities and outrages of alien invaders, and prising the motherland free from the foreign yoke. Under 30 years of dictatorship by the Mahatma, what does he have to show us, asked N. Godse, but the desecration of temples and our women’s bodies, forced conversions at the hand of a sword, and even the rape of our own motherland, one-third of the nation stripped away to become “a permanent neighbor,” black sheep and exiled family member, ever on the doorstep as a watchful enemy? For N. Godse, Gandhi was a dwarf before the likes of Shivaji, Pretap, and Govind. His condemnation of these illustrious heroes was presumptuous at best. These were the martyrs whose blood formed the mortar that built the temple of independence. In truth, Gandhi’s policy of ahimsa was an abject failure from the get-go. The more the Mahatma condemned the use of violence in the nation’s battle for independence, the more popular it became. This fact became abundantly clear in the Karachi Session of Congress in March 1931.
As for the patriots who did their best to save India from total destruction, namely N. Godse and Apte, they were scheduled to be executed at 8:00 a.m., November 15, 1949. They carried with them the Bhagavad Gita, a map of the undivided homeland and a saffron flag. Upon reaching the platform, they recited a verse of devotion to their motherland:
Obeisance to thee ever, O Sacred Mother! In the lap of Hindu Land have I been nurtured by thee in happiness. Greatly auspicious, Oh Sacred Land For Thy Sake I lay down my life! Obeisance to thee, obeisance to thee.lxviii
From 1921-22, Gandhi became the ideologue of the Congress and it was under his leadership that the first Non-Cooperation movement was launched. When Gandhi abruptly ended the movement, the revolutionaries became disillusioned with the creed of non-violence espoused by him. During 1924-25, Gandhi became involved in an extended polemical argument on the use of violence. The brunt of Gandhi’s arguments lay in what he called the ineffectiveness of violence, the added expenditure it cost the government to curb it, and the insane pressure of anger and ill-will that started it in the first place. In fact, so opposed was he to the revolutionaries, that when the Viceroy Lord Irwin missed a narrow escape on his life, Gandhi wrote an article called “Cult of the Bomb,” where he thanked God for the Viceroy’s escape and condemned his bete noire, the revolutionaries. In 1925 Sachindanand Sanyal sent an open letter to Gandhi in which he said:
. . . (the) Non-Violent non-cooperation movement failed not because there was (a) sporadic outburst of suppressed feelings here and there but because the movement was lacking in a worthy ideal. The ideal that you preached was not in keeping with Indian culture and traditions. It savoured of imitation. Your philosophy of non-violence . . . was a philosophy arising out of despair.lxix
By 1929 the revolutionary movement in India had developed and in December of that year, Bhagwati Charan and Chandra Shekhar Azad wrote an article defending the Delhi Bomb Case revolutionaries from Gandhi’s scathing criticism, in which they argued:
The revolutionaries believe that the deliverance of their country will come through revolution . . . (This) revolution will not only express itself in the form of an armed conflict between the foreign government and its supporters and the people, it will also usher in a new social order. The revolution will ring the death knell of Capitalism and class distinctions and privileges. It will bring joy and prosperity to the starving millions who are seething under the terrible yoke of both foreign and Indian exploitation.
In 1931 in a note to the party, the great pro-independence revolutionary, Bhagat Singh, wrote about Gandhism as the dominant ideology in the Congress, which is unable to take a stand against the British and instead wants to become a partner in power . . . (the Congress) is working as a centrist party and has always been so. It is embarrassed to face reality. The leaders who run it are those people whose interests are associated with the party . . . If revolutionary blood does not succeed in giving it a new lease of life . . . it will be necessary to save it (the party) from its allies.lxx
Interestingly, although Gandhi insisted on the acceptance of non-violence dogmatically, younger members were not so averse or critical of the revolutionaries. Subhas Bose and Jawaharlal Nehru were the two prominent Congressmen who supported the revolutionaries. Chandra Shekhar Azad used to receive money regularly from Motilal Nehru. Money to the revolutionaries was also supplied by Puroshattamdas Tandon and Shiv Prasad Gupta. Even leaders like Maulana Shaukat Ali and Krishna Kant Malviya supplied revolvers to Sanyal. “The non-violence of the Mahatma was by-passed by the Congressmen and they were not found wanting in their moral, financial and other support to the revolutionaries,” said Irfan Habib and S.K. Mittal. That there was public sympathy for the revolutionaries and support from within the Congress must have been known to Gandhi. It may well have been a fact that Gandhi, sensing a threat to his leadership, became increasingly bitter towards the revolutionaries, and when he could have negotiated a release for some of them, he chose not to. And what is it to keep perceived ‘dissidents’ who pose a threat to one’s leadership, but the very definition of dictatorship? And still today at a time when we consider ourselves so enlightened, we continue to fall for the propagandhi that the Mahatma was the ultimate democrat. A distinction should be made here between a “pro-independence freedom fighter” and a “terrorist.” If one is trying to liberate one’s country and its people from the yoke of a brutal foreign occupation, and is targeting the military and top political brass of the foreign occupier, how does that make one a “terrorist” in any reasonable sense of the word?
Probing Doke-Gandhi Connection
A few words on the background of Reverend Doke might be helpful. Based upon what is reported in the popular Gandhian literature, he was born at Chudleigh, South Devon in England on November 5, 1861, about eight years before Gandhi. With little early education to his credit, he became a pastor at 17, and three years later, he moved to Capetown, South Africa. With some more foreign travels as a missionary, he returned to South Africa in 1903, and in 1907, a pastoral opening brought him to Johannesburg.lxxi, lxxii, lxxiii The ongoing satyagraha campaigns brought the two personalities closer together, their relationship strengthened by Gandhi’s convalescence in the Doke family home, following a protracted hunger strike.
The best person to bring on side in any political cause is a man of God or holy man. Nothing grants greater credibility to a cause than a man of God who swears by God to be a vessel of the truth and a proponent of righteousness. In the case of the Christian community, the mere sight of a collar, cross, ministerial garb and other accoutrements of the Christian leader inspire a certain reverence among his flock and a feeling of awe mixed with unease or even fear. The satyagraha movement would definitely have benefited from such an influential religious figure and certainly would have wished to recruit one such to the cause. Reverend Doke, missionary and opportunistic converter of the multitudes, would have jumped at the chance to serve a popular movement of the masses such as satyagraha. He would have equally wished to convert a figure like Mahatma Gandhi to his religion in order to initiate mass conversions under the leadership of a human rights proponent he would single-handedly turn into a saint in his own Gandhi biography, M.K. Gandhi: The Story of an Indian Patriot in South Africa. Gandhi never did convert to Christianity as Reverend Doke, the consummate religious opportunist, had hoped, but he did function, as Doke had wished, as a Christian paradigm of Doke’s own invention, a modern-day saint who would give Christianity the hormone injection it required. In essence, Doke was a kind of Pygmalion who had fashioned a saint in his own image. Gandhi was an invention who would convince the Christian world that the miracle of Christ really had been possible. If the miracles of healing the lame and feeding the multitudes could be recapitulated in the form of a modern-day miracle, people’s faith in Christ would be restored and the churches would be filled once more. Gandhi couldn’t walk on water, heal the lame and blind, nor turn water into wine, but what the satyagraha movement would prove, through the public relations campaign orchestrated by Doke, is that he appeared to have created a 20th century miracle: Defeating an imperialist power through passive resistance. The satyagraha movement would have with equal fervor wished to bring a man of God into its fold who would give its cause the legitimacy it sought, a man of the cloth, whose reputation would precede him, and with sufficient power to convince the masses that, his word being as good as gold, the movement for which he stood really was legitimate.
Doke’s letter to The Transvaal Leader on the “Immigrants Restriction Act” and “peace preservation permits” shows how politically savvy he actually was. The language he employed in his letter to the editor is calculated and manipulative. It is intended to elicit shame in the white rulers of South Africa by highlighting how reasonable the Asiatics and their demands really were. A certain degree of irony can be detected sufficient to inflict the appropriate sting. What in essence Doke implies in the letter is that the Asiatics are not protesting laws that violate their basic human rights, but only the practice of leaving the decision in the hands of officials who are subject to racial bias and questionable ethics. The letter implies that the Asiatics wish their cases to be referred to legitimate courts and that they be granted the right of appeal. The irony of course is that, if the Asiatics were actually to be given such entitlements, it would be tantamount to granting them the very human rights they see themselves as being denied. The strategy employed in Doke’s letter is admirably sophisticated, but not entirely genuine in import by being so:
The Asiatics claim simply the interpretation and protection of the Supreme Court. They do not resent the “Immigration Restriction Act”. They only claim that it be not interpreted by any official, however exalted he may be, but by the recognized Court, and by that judgement they will stand. They do not resent the rejection of Asiatics by Mr. Chamney, and their deportation, but they claim that no official shall be made supreme. They ask for the right of appeal in such cases to the well-balanced judgement of a properly constituted tribunal.lxxiv
What the letter shows is that, while a man of the cloth, Doke is a political animal. His use of language is highly manipulative and disingenuous. Granted, the cause is just, but the language employed is conceived in the spirit of the ends justifying the means. He is politically savvy and a master propagandist. He is also given to employing language in a manipulative and even coercive fashion. This is evidence that he is capable of being manipulative or even lying to get what he wants. From a means-ends standpoint, this can be justified if the cause is just. This fact is not in dispute. The fact is there is no reason for believing that this man of the cloth is above lying. There is a tendency for scholars and the reading public to be persuaded that the good reverend’s biography of Gandhi is entirely genuine and aboveboard because it is written by a man of the cloth, but it is not written to be a genuine account at all, but rather as “an experiment with truth,” to use Gandhi’s own language. Experimenting with the truth in essence is to experiment with a lie, since to employ disparate versions of the truth in order to witness their effect is tantamount to telling lies. Goebbels’s maxim that the bigger the lie the more people will believe it is apropos in the case of Gandhi and Doke, both master propagandists and manipulators.
There is another question to examine in relation to Doke’s Gandhi biography. Is it professional for a biographer to establish a friendship with his subject? Additionally, is it appropriate from the standpoint of professional ethics to associate oneself with the political movement of the biographical subject? Is it acceptable for a professional biographer to be part of the same political struggle as the biographical subject? Is there a conflict of interest in writing a biography on a subject with whom you are both a friend and a professional colleague? There are such instances of course, but is it ethical from a professional standpoint?
Doke’s biography is dated 1909, yet it can be established from the evidence of several letters written in the year 1908 that an intimate friendship and political alliance had been forged between Gandhi and Doke well in advance of the biography’s publication. The following letter by Gandhi to Doke, dated October 8, 1908, is a fine example:
Dear Mr. Doke,
I received your note at Phoenix. The expected has happened. I think it is well. I have arrived just in time. There were serious differences between two sections here. They are by no means over yet. You will say I have accepted the hospitality before the ‘settings’ were finished. I think it was better that I should do that than that the invitation should be rejected for the sake of the ‘settings’. After all I have done nothing.
For six days I may carry on correspondence. If you think I should answer any questions, you may write.
I must now stop as I have been called away to give digit impressions.
Please excuse me to Olive for not writing.
What this letter reveals is that Gandhi has become a friend of the Doke family and is on intimate terms with husband and wife. It is also clear from the letter that Gandhi appeals to Doke for advice and counsel and that they are political colleagues. The fact that Gandhi invites Doke to write to him should he have any questions implies that the reverend has become so intimate an associate that Gandhi’s personal welfare has become a matter of greatest concern to his champion and defender. There is nothing cynical about the friendship and political alliance. What is of primary concern is the fact that such a relationship is a conflict of interest from the standpoint of a professional biographer. There is no way that the friendship and political alliance forged between the two men could fail to color the tone of the biography.
A letter from the same year reveals how close the relationship between the two men had become. The letter is written in an attempt on Gandhi’s part to relieve his friend of any anxieties he might have entertained on his account. The tone of the letter is most consoling:
Dear Mr. Doke,
I am writing this from the Court House. I had hoped to be able to send you something before I was fixed up. But I have been too busy otherwise. I thank you very much for your good wishes. My sole trust is in God. I am therefore quite cheerful.lxxvi
There is another letter from Doke that shows the great depth of Doke’s friendship and love for Gandhi. The letter is dated September 30, 1908, well before the publication date of the biography. There is no doubt that the friendship has moved well beyond acquaintance and mutual self-interest. A bond has been forged between the two men that is lifelong, so deeply felt on Doke’s part that he would willingly lay down his life for Gandhiji:
I am enclosing statement in proof from because, in anticipation of Your Lordship’s approval, it was sent to the printer’s yesterday, but it will not be published or submitted without consultation with Your Lordship.lxxvii
Then we have Doke’s letter to the editor of the Rand Daily Mail, in which he protests the arrest of Gandhi. What is clear from the letter is that he has received regular updates from Gandhi on the treatment he has received at the hands of the authorities. This means that no one member of the satyagraha movement is more concerned with the personal well-being of Gandhi than Doke. He has taken it upon himself to be his champion and defender. His good name and standing in the community as a reverend of untarnished respectability would make his letter to the editor both credible and morally persuasive. It is likely that both Gandhi and Doke would have recognized the political expediency of using the merits of a man of the cloth to influence public sentiment. There is no doubt from the tenor of the letter that it is intended to make the citizens rise up in moral outrage:
Yesterday it was necessary that he should appear in some case in the Magistrate’s Court. I understand he was brought there from the cells, dressed in civilian clothes, but handcuffed!
Of course, there may be amongst us those who will be glad to hear that indignities are being heaped on this great Indian leader; but I venture to hope that the great majority of our colonies will feel ashamed and angry that a man of the character and position of Mr. Gandhi should be needlessly insulted in this way.lxxviii
What emerges from the letter is the fact that Doke has risen to the stature of being Gandhi’s champion. No matter how politically and socially compromised he might be in the corrupt white establishment of South Africa, he is prepared to put his life and reputation on the line in defense of Gandhi. No higher level of commitment could be shown by one human being to another in defense of their mutual cause than that shown by Doke to Gandhi and satyagraha.
How did they meet? How did they come to know each other? And under what compunction were they brought together? Was there a fraternity to which they both belonged that preceded satyagraha and the European Committee of which they were both active members? What force drew Doke from New Zealand to South Africa to seize the hand of his confederate? There is an answer to this and the evidence for it rests with a speech Gandhi gave at a Masonic Hall of all places in Johannesburg. The description of the gathering given below reveals a great deal about the organizations to which Gandhi and Doke were mutually affiliated:
The Masonic Hall, Jepper Street, Johannesburg, was the scene of a brilliant mixed gathering of Europeans, Chinese and Indians on the night of the 18th instant in honour of the British Indian community. Mr. Hoskin was in the chair. Mr. Doke was on his right and Mrs. Doke on his left. Mr. Cachalia occupied a seat to the right of Mr. Doke. Mr. Quinn and his Chinese friends were also present.lxxix
The first thing to observe about the preceding description of the banquet is that it was held in a Masonic Lodge and that Mr. Hosken, the leader of the European Committee to which both Gandhi and Doke belonged, was the Grand Master of the Masonic Lodge on Jepper Street in Johannesburg where the banquet was held. We know this because of what is stated in the above passage, that, “Mr. Hosken was in the chair.” This means that he is in the chair where the Worshipful Master or Grand Master of the Masonic Lodge presides. This means that he was a 33° Freemason and the supreme head of this particular Temple. The fact that Gandhi and Doke were present and that Gandhi was giving a speech in honor of Doke in a Masonic Lodge hosted by the Grand Master of the Lodge and leader of the European Committee, Mr. Hosken, is strong evidence supporting Gandhi’s and Doke’s Freemason affiliations. The fact that Mr. Hosken was both the Grand Master of the Temple and the leader of the European Committee of which all three were members suggests that the links between the three men went beyond the European Committee to another overriding organization, the very one in whose Temple the current banquet was being hosted, namely Freemasonry. It is possible to go even further and suggest that the European Committee was a subcommittee set up by Freemasonry for vested political reasons and toward a defined political goal. The description of the content of Gandhi’s speech below establishes the Masonic affiliations of all three men beyond doubt:
Speaking of Mr. Doke’s Asiatic work, it is not possible to refrain from speaking in praise of the work of the European Committee of which the chairman (Mr. Hosken) was the president. Mr. Gandhi frankly confessed that passive resistance might have broken down without the magnificent support rendered by the European Committee.lxxx
What the preceding passage reveals is what it doesn’t, namely, the text of Gandhi’s speech. We only have a description of the speech made at the so-called banquet. While some might object that, just because all three men are attending a meeting held in a Masonic Lodge in no way proves that they are Masons, the fact that this is an official meeting and Gandhi’s speech is not available because the meeting is official and secret, proves that all three men are Masons. Again, some might argue that just because the meeting is held in a Masonic Temple does not mean that everyone present is a Mason, including possibly some of the Chinese delegates present, the fact that this is an official Masonic meeting is proven by the fact that the text of Gandhi’s speech is not available. We only have the minutes pertaining to the alleged content of Gandhi’s speech. This means that Gandhi’s speech and its contents are secret. What has been shown, if not proven beyond a reasonable doubt, is that both Gandhi and Doke are Freemasons and that they were attending an official Lodge meeting in which the Lodge members were hosting a farewell dinner for one of their own members, Doke. Let’s not forget that Freemasonry in its modern form is based on the 33° organizational model established by Sir Francis Bacon, the founder of Her Majesty’s Secret Service, and that like the intelligence organization that was formed under his leadership, Freemasonry is a clandestine organization that is highly secretive. Strong affiliations remain between the world’s intelligence communities and Freemasonry to this day.
According to a source formerly in the U.S. Office of Naval Intelligence, most of the higher-ranking officers in the U.S. intelligence community are higher-degree initiates of Freemasonry or Rosicrucianism. What does this say about Gandhi’s real status? Was he a spy and intelligence asset of the British government assigned to be instrumental in the partitioning of India and Pakistan and that his Freemason affiliations would help him to sell out his own people? Not only is this very likely, but the contents of this article have substantiated it.
Gandhi’s obituaries to the late Doke in 1913 reveal a great deal about the reverend’s motives for writing the biography. Gandhi’s own words imply that the primary aim of the biography was not to glorify the Indian leader, but to promote the cause of satyagraha, Indian home rule, and independence from the yoke of British imperial rule. Gandhi’s first obituary reveals the book’s true raison d’etre:
He wrote an Indian patriot in South Africa—a popular history of the story of Indian passive resistance. Lord Ampthill wrote a very flattering introduction to it. To Mr. Doke it was purely a labour of love. He believed in the Indian cause and the book was one of the many ways in which he helped it.lxxxi
The express purpose of Doke writing Gandhi’s biography, as Gandhi himself admits, was to promote the cause of passive resistance first and foremost. Why would Gandhi misquote the title of the book? Moreover, M. K. Gandhi: An Indian Patriot in South Africa, is really a biographical sketch of Gandhi and the issue of Indian passive resistance is only subservient to the greater issue of Gandhi himself. Gandhi states unequivocally that, rather than a simple biography, Doke’s book was written as “a popular history of the story of Indian passive resistance,” to use Gandhi’s own words. Gandhi, the leader of the movement, was just a means to an end, a rallying cry, a means of mustering a throng of supporters toward a common cause. By turning Gandhi into a martyr figure—by fictionalizing his early life by depicting him as a martyred saint who had miraculously risen from defeat after being beaten down by his oppressors—would give the cause the locus and impetus it required to get off the ground, to take wing, and to fly, if not soar. What is also evident from Gandhi’s first memoir and obituary to the late reverend is that he was on such intimate terms with Doke that he knew his personal and family history nearly as well as his own:
The late Rev. Doke had very little schooling, owing to delicate health. At the age of 16 he lost his mother. At the age of 17, on the resignation of his father from the pastorate, he became pastor. At the age of 20 he came to South Africa, where he was in Cape Town for a short time . . . lxxxii
What is revealing about the preceding memorial account is the fact that the writer of the first major biography on Gandhi was on such intimate terms with the subject as to have been a confidante, best friend, and virtual family member. In addition to being a friend of intimate acquaintance, colleague and brother-in-arms, he was a strong supporter of the same political struggle. This intimacy of association violates the professional ethics of the biographer who is supposed to maintain a certain objectivity and professional distance from his subject. For a biographer, any historian of personages, to be too close to the subject he is memorializing is bound to distort the figure and color of the portrait.
To add to this memoir, we have the second of Gandhi’s obituaries to the late reverend also written for the Indian Opinion. Gandhi’s second obituary in honor of Doke demonstrates beyond doubt that Doke was a proponent of Gandhi’s cause of passive resistance and had been so practically upon arrival to South Africa:
When Mr. Doke came to the cause, he threw himself into it heart and soul and never relaxed his efforts on our behalf. It was usual with Mr. Doke to gain complete mastery over the subject he handled. He, therefore, became one of best informed men on the subject in South Africa. He loved passive resisters as they were his own congregation. The poorest Indian had free access to this pious Englishman. His pen and his eloquence were continually used by him during the troublous times through which the community has passed. He missed no opportunity of visiting passive resistance prisoners in gaol. And at a critical period in the history of the community and this journal, he magnanimously and at no small inconvenience to himself, took charge of the editorial department, and those who came in contact with him during that period know how cautious, how painstaking, how gentle and how forebearing he was.lxxxiii
Not only was Doke an active proponent of Gandhi’s cause of passive resistance, he was deeply committed to it as an adherent. From the standpoint of a professional biographer, his Gandhian biography would be regarded as little more than propagandhi and a skilled public relations exercise rather than a genuine biography. As Gandhi says of the reverend, “He loved passive resisters as they were his own congregation.” His mission then was to champion the cause of his congregation. One wonders whether his sermons were geared toward liberating their immortal souls or their minds and bodies from the material bondage to which they were subject. Gandhi adds of the good reverend that, “His pen and his eloquence were continually used by him during the troublous times through which the community passed.” There is no equivocation here. Gandhi states explicitly that the pen and the eloquence of the good reverend “were continually used by him,” that is continually, inexorably used by “him” i.e., Gandhi. Gandhi leaves us in no doubt that he has used the reverend as a propaganda agent in promotion of the cause, “continually” implying from the beginning and without interruption. Gandhi then informs us his colleague took charge of the editorial department, which suggests that Doke was in complete charge of the PR machine behind the satyagraha movement as the editor-in-chief of the Indian Opinion, controlling what got printed and by whom. The fact that he functioned as editor-in-chief of the Indian Opinion only makes the conflict of interest in writing the Gandhian biography that much more self-evident. How can an advocate of the cause and an editor of the propaganda vehicle of the movement, the Indian Opinion, be expected to write an uncolored, unbiased and objective biography of the leader of the movement?
Should any doubts remain about the level of commitment demonstrated by Doke to the cause, Gandhi tells us unreservedly in his final tribute to Doke, written for the very newspaper the reverend himself headed, that he had been committed to the Indian cause practically from the day he arrived:
In 1907, when preparations for the Satyagraha campaign were in full swing, Mr. Doke had recently come to the Transvaal from New Zealand. He began taking a keen interest in the Indian problem from the very day he arrived, and continued to help till he died. With the exception of one or two, no other Englishman, and hardly any Indian, had such (a) clear grasp of our problem as Mr. Doke.lxxxiv
Doke’s loyalty to the cause was as unrelenting as his faithfulness to its leader. As Gandhi himself states, satyagraha became his raison d’être from the day he arrived until the time of his death. There is no doubt then that the 1909 biography of Gandhi is colored by an emotional investment on the part of the biographer to the subject and the cause to which both subject and biographer are committed. The biography by Doke is neither scholarly not professional but is colored by the biographer’s own biases and commitment to the cause. It does not maintain any of the professional detachment, distance, dispassionate objectivity that a bona fide biography is required to demonstrate. Should there be any question then about the authenticity of Doke’s account of the racial train incidents in South Africa, let us remind ourselves of the purpose of the biography. Its purpose, as Doke explicitly stated to Gandhi, was to promote Mahatma as the martyr figure and hero of the Indian passive resistance movement.
There is another suspicious circumstance concerning Doke’s biography of Gandhi. The foreword is written by Lord Ampthill. In the foreword, Ampthill takes care to distance himself from the author. He even goes so far as to deny even knowing him:
The writer of this book is not known to me personally, but there is a bond of sympathy between him and me in the sentiments which we share in regard to the cause of which he is so courageous and devoted an advocate.lxxxv
Why does this passage from Ampthill’s foreword pique our curiosity? Why does it raise our doubts? The reader is invited to employ the methodology presented in this analysis and scrutinize the passage before reviewing the analysis presented here. A perceptive reader will have their own suspicions aroused after rereading the preceding passage carefully. The first suspicious element is that Ampthill begins the foreword with a denial of any firsthand acquaintance with the author, “The writer of this book is not known to me personally . . .” There is little reason to deny knowing someone, especially at the outset, unless one desired to distance oneself from having any association with the person in question. While some might argue that this is probably because Ampthill did not want to be politically compromised by association with satyagraha or the movement for home rule, his own words show this not to be the case, for he adds, “. . . but there is a bond of sympathy between him and me in the sentiments which we share in regard to the cause . . .” It is self-evident that Ampthill feels no need to distance himself from the cause. So why distance himself from the personage of Doke? It is rather odd that he should seek to do so, since the reverend is obviously respected, of good standing in the community and wears a collar. Is Ampthill being genuine in his claim not to know the reverend “personally” as he puts it? This is hardly likely, since his own words in reference to Doke’s character give him away, “. . . the cause of which he is so courageous and devoted an advocate.” How is Ampthill able to vouch so strongly for the character and commitment of a man he has never met? Why deny knowing someone unless you wish to disassociate yourself from the individual in question for some reason?
Were Ampthill to have a clandestine association with Doke, Gandhi and others, there might be a very good reason to deny his having any association with the good reverend. Were he a fellow Freemason or a member of the European Committee or in some way more intimately tied to the political struggle to which both Gandhi and Doke were committed, there might be a very good reason for denying any association with the reverend. Based on a cable sent by Gandhi to Ampthill on December 24, 1913, there is evidence that such an intimate political association would have and actually did exist. The cable from Gandhi reads, “Hosken issued public appeal supporting our letter.”lxxxvi Hosken, our reader will recall, was presiding as the Worshipful Master at the farewell dinner for Doke held at the Masonic Lodge meeting in Johannesburg. Hosken was also the head of the European Committee. The fact that Gandhi mentions “Hosken” in the cable without any honorific title before his name suggests that he is a widely known member of the old boy’s network and an intimate associate of them both. This suggests either that Ampthill was an active member of the same Masonic Lodge or intimately associated with its members and some of those associated with the European Committee. In short, it is highly doubtful that Doke would not have been known to Ampthill personally. So why deny knowing Doke? Were there a clandestine association and accompanying agenda between Ampthill and Doke or even Ampthill, Doke and Gandhi, there would be a very good reason for concealing their connection. Were the connection to be exposed as the conflict of interest it most probably was, it would do serious damage not only to the reputations of all three men, but to the possible hidden agenda to which they were all secretly committed. Gandhi’s connection to Freemasonry must be investigated and carefully evaluated knowing fully that his literature is scant on these matters.
It should be remembered that in 1929, Ampthill presided over the laying of the Foundation Stone of the Shakespeare Memorial Theatre at Stratford-upon-Avon in accordance with proper Masonic custom by Ampthill, pro-Grand Master of the United Lodge of England, using an old Egyptian maul used at Sakhara 4,000 years before. Six hundred Masons were present at the ceremony in full regalia. However, there is a wealth of evidence that the Stratford man, Will Shakspere, was merely a front man for an operation of HMSS, in which Elizabethan court figures, Sir Francis Bacon and Edward de Vere, the 17th Earl of Oxford, wrote the plays and used their front man to conceal their authorship as nobles who were caste-bound to conceal their authorship of poetical and dramatic writings. Since both of these influential men were members of Freemasonry, Ampthill, as the pro-Grand Master of the highest Masonic Lodge in the world, would surely know the history and the truth pertaining to the Shakespeare authorship, which means that he was in on a 400-year-old myth, and was in the process of creating a new one with Gandhi.
As mentioned previously, Ampthill also happens to be the one responsible for writing the foreword to the first biography written about Gandhi by fellow Freemason, Doke. Yet, in the foreword, he denies knowing Doke. Why the need to disassociate himself from Doke? Is it because he does not want it to be known that Doke and Gandhi are both fellow Freemasons and that it is a conflict of interest for him to write the foreword? What all this proves is that he is not only perpetuating the historical fraud that Will Shakespere, the Stratford man, wrote the Shakespeare plays, but is responsible for aiding and abetting the rise of another historical fraud—Gandhi—as a holy man, when he is actually a British agent, who committed treason against his own country. But then the Freemason oath supersedes the oath to king and country, and sets up all higher degree initiates to committing high treason against their respective countries. This is probably why most intelligence agents and high-ranking military officials recruit Freemasons; they have already sold out their countries, and are more malleable to the fascist agenda of the globalists beholden to the New World Order, which is to establish the One World Government and Empire of the Beast internationally.
Proving that Gandhi is a Freemason is no easy task considering that the organization has endeavored to suppress the fact with religious zeal, just as it succeeded in suppressing the true authorship of the Shakespeare plays for over 400 years. It is provable however. We have Gandhi to thank for revealing the fact in his own words, his own dairy in fact. The overwhelming majority of scholars have a tendency to take everything literally, especially from a man whose word is considered as good as gold. The fact is, however, that much of what Gandhi wrote is in Masonic code. Much of it is to be taken figuratively rather than literally. The following passage is taken from Gandhi’s diary at a time just before he left for London to sit for the bar. What Gandhi is describing here would be interpreted by most scholars as a literal account of a series of accidents that befell him while journeying from place to place. This would not be a correct interpretation. What Gandhi is in fact describing in coded language, which can only be understood by higher degree initiates of Freemasonry or by researchers of the secret society, is his initiation to the 3° of Freemasonry:
Amidst thoughts, I came unconsciously in contact with a carriage. I received some injury. Yet I did not take the help of anybody in walking. I think I was quite dizzy. Then we entered the house of Maghjibhai. There I again came in contact with a stone unknowingly and received injury. I was quite senseless. From that time I did not know what took place, and after that, I am told by them, I fell flat on the ground after some steps. I was not myself for 5 minutes. They considered I was dead. But fortunately for myself the ground on which I fell was quite smooth. I came to my senses at last and all of them were quite joyful. The mother was sent for. She was very sorry for me, and this caused my delay though I told them that I was quite well. But none would allow me to go, though I afterwards came to know that my bold and dearest mother would have to go. But she feared the calumny of other people . . .lxxxvii
What Gandhi is recounting in this diary entry is for Masonic eyes only. Only a fellow Mason or a researcher in the field would be able to interpret the Masonic allusions and there is no doubt that the preceding passage is written in Masonic code. What Gandhi is describing is his own initiation to the 3° of Freemasonry. While some might argue that it is a literal description of an accident that befell him while traveling in India, a careful reading of the passage would make such conjecture absurd. Some might even argue that Masonic initiation in the place described would be impossible since no Masonic Temple could be found in such a location, but this is to impute that Gandhi is being as literal about the location as he is about the account itself. The diary entry was made on November 12, 1888 in London, which is revealing in itself. Had the event occurred in India, why would he not have made the diary entry at the time of the event, which had allegedly occurred in India?
First, Gandhi tells us, “I came unconsciously in contact with a carriage.” When the first mishap occurred, we are told that he “unconsciously” received a blow to the head. We know he sustained an injury to the head because he says, “I think I was quite dizzy.” He would have been unconscious of the event were he blindfolded, which candidates for the 3° notoriously are. Then, he tells us that they entered the “house of Maghjibhai,” where he sustained another injury to the head, “There I again came in contact with a stone unknowingly and received injury.” The word “stone” is actually code for a stone maul (hammer), which is used ritually on the candidate in the 3° ceremony. This time he uses the word “unknowingly.” To this point, he has sustained at least two blows to the head, this time “unknowingly.” Had he been blindfolded it certainly would be “unknowingly.” He would not know what hit him so to speak. He certainly would appear not to be aware of the fact that a stone maul had struck him in the forehead, which would in fact be the case if he were a candidate for the 3°.
What is the 3°? Many will be familiar with the phrase, “They gave him the Third Degree.” Masons initiated to this degree know its significance. It is a ritual death conceived in part to warn the candidate to never betray the Order. Any candidate who is deemed to have done so is given the 3°, which in Masonic language means that he is subjected to a ritualized form of torture and assassination. Masons who betray the oath taken in the 3° —which calls upon them to safeguard the secrets of Freemasonry and not reveal any of its arcane beliefs and practices—will be given the 3° ritual punishment. This degree has a long history. It is ultimately based on a ritual re-enactment of the murder of Hiram Abif, the alleged architect of King Solomon’s Temple. According to the legend, Hiram Abif was confronted by three ruffians in the Temple. The three ruffians are known in Masonic lore as the three Juwes. The three Jewes are Jubelo, Jubela and Jubelum, the alleged assassins of Hiram Abif. According to the story, upon completing his prayers, Hiram Abif prepared to leave the Temple when he was confronted by the three Juwes. The first of the assailants demanded that Hiram reveal the secrets of the Master Mason Degree, but the Master refused. This set into motion such jealous rage in the three aspirants that their anger turned violent with deadly consequences. The story of what occurred is here recorded by researchers with Masonic affiliations:
His devotions being ended, he prepared to retire by the south gate, where he was accosted by the first of these ruffians, who, for want of a better weapon, had armed himself with a plumb rule, and in a threatening manner demanded of our Master . . . the genuine secrets of (Grand Geometrician), warning him that death would be the consequence of his refusal; but true to his obligation he replied that those secrets were known to but three in the world and that without the consent of the other two, he neither could, nor would divulge them . . .
This answer not proving satisfactory, the Ruffian aimed a violent blow at out Master’s forehead, but startled by the firmness of his demeanour, it only glanced down the right temple. Yet with sufficient force to cause him to reel and sink to the ground on his left knee.
Recovering himself from this situation, he rushed to the west gate where he stood opposed by the second ruffian, to whom he replied as before, yet with undiminished firmness when the ruffian, who was armed with a level struck a violent blow on the left temple which brought him to the ground on his right knee.
Finding all chances of escape in both these quarters cut off, our Master staggered, faint and bleeding, to the east gate where the third ruffian was posted and who, on receiving a similar reply to his insolent demand . . . struck him a violent blow full in the center of the forehead with a heavy stone maul, which laid him lifeless at his feet.lxxxviii
It is clear from the preceding passage that Hiram Abif was given three blows to the head, the first to either temple and the third and fatal deathblow to the forehead with a stone maul. To review the passage from Gandhi’s diary entry, he states that it was inside the “house of Meghjibhai” that he received a blow from a stone, “There I again came in contact with a stone unknowingly and received injury.” Receiving a blow from a stone inside the “house of Meghjibhai” is a rather unusual place to suffer from such a mishap, unless of course you are a Freemason receving the third blow in a succession of ritual blows in the 3° of initiation inside a Masonic Temple. Nor would it be so unheard of if the stone were in fact a stone maul used to administer the ritualistic fatal blow to the forehead in the ritual of the 3°. Following the blow received from the stone (or stone maul), Gandhi stumbles and falls “flat on the ground” we are told. We are then informed that he was unconscious for five minutes. “I was not myself for 5 minutes,” he recounts, adding, “They considered I was dead.”
Since the candidate for the 3° is undergoing his own ritual death, it would be natural for his brethren to regard him as symbolically dead at this point in the ritual. Then Gandhi informs us that he managed to escape serious injury because of the smoothness of the floor: “But fortunately for myself the ground on which I fell was quite smooth.” Indeed, the floor would have been quite smooth had he fallen on solid masonry, of which the floor of a Masonic Temple would most assuredly be constructed. Then he informs us that his brethren were overjoyed when he regained his senses: “I came to my senses at last and all of them were quite joyful.” The relevance of this is that the 3° ceremony culminates with the Worshipful Master removing the blindfold so the candidate of the 3° can gaze upon his own burial shroud containing the skull and crossbones. He would then be raised from the dead in a ceremony at which point his fellow Masons would cheer in rejoicing. Following this, Gandhi informs us that, “The mother was sent for.” It is no accident that he uses the definite article “The” before “mother.” Why would he not say, “My mother was sent for”? This is because the language is intended to be ambiguous. To the uninitiated, “mother” is an allusion to his mother. Thus, it is his mother who is being sent for. To the initiated, “The mother” refers not to Gandhi’s own mother, but to “The Widow” of which all Masons claim to be the sons. According to Masonic lore, Hiram Abif was the Widow’s son. Many Masons even refer to themselves as “the Widow’s sons” or “the sons of the widow.” Gandhi informs us that, “she was very sorry for me,” as of course the widow would most assuredly be were her son to suffer martyrdom. He then informs us, “But none would allow me to go, though I afterwards came to know that my bold and dearest mother would have allowed me to go.” This is in fact all Masonic code for the Widow wishing to set her son, Hiram Abif, at liberty, since “liberty, fraternity and equality” are said to be the motto by which Masons swear. The passage ends with Gandhi telling us of his mother entertaining fears on account of her son: “But she feared the calumny of other people,” which the Widow most assuredly would have done, having a portent of what awaited her soon-to-be-martyred son.
To explain the import of “the Widow’s Son” and its significance to Freemasonry, we must turn to the Bible for a scriptural reference to Hiram Abif, who was the son of the widow of Naphtali. References to Hiram Abif occur in two passages from the Holy Scriptures. In the first, he is called the widow’s son, of the tribe of Naphtali, and in the other, he is called the son of a woman of the daughters of Dan. However, in both scriptures, we are told that his father was a man from Tyre. In other words, Hiram Abif’s mother was of the daughters of the city of Dan, in the tribe of Naphtali, and is referred to as the widow of Naphtali, as her husband was a Naphtalite and only a man of Tyre by habitation.lxxxix Hiram Abif was the chief architect of the king of Tyre, and was dispatched by his king to serve in the construction of King Solomon’s Temple. In Hiram Abif, Speculative and Craft Freemasonry are reunited. He was an alleged master in all forms of architecture and design, ranging from architecture, statuary, founder to designer. Masonic and non-Masonic researchers alike believe that the Freemason legend of Hiram Abif is a cover story or cipher story alluding to some other personage from history. Some say he is a cipher for Jacques de Molay, the martyred Grand Master of the Templars, or a cipher for a personage or divinity from ancient Egyptian legend and mythology.
Gandhi, while openly confessing to being Hindu, was also a Freemason, or closely associated with it. There is no mistaking the arcane import of the diary entry. The fact that he is describing an incident that allegedly took place in India in a tract written in London on November 12, 1888 reveals a great deal. The Indian setting is a cover for an initiation that took place in London’s Temple Bar contemporaneously with the diary entry and not the record of a biographical event from some years earlier as is implied. Higher Degree initiates of Freemasonry would not be fooled by the references, while uninitiated scholars and researchers would naively overlook the hidden import of the diary entry.
Gandhi’s autobiography has another strange facet. Astonishingly, he claims in the introduction that his intention is not to write a real autobiography. Rather, he speaks quite amazingly about his experiments with truth. There is no other way of taking these words than to see his autobiography as an acknowledged fiction. To admit to his reader that he is not attempting to write a real autobiography, but merely experimenting with the truth is tantamount to confessing that his autobiography orients itself toward truth rather as Dostoyevsky’s and Dickens’s novels do. In short, it is a work of fiction and cannot be seen otherwise because of his own words on the subject. One wonders how such a startling admission could have been overlooked by the previous generations of scholars. But then modern scholarship itself should come under the microscope of skeptical inquiry, since the scholarly community has found itself in error on a whole plethora of subjects over the centuries. Just to offer some early examples: Columbus had to discover the New World to promote his new paradigm; Copernicus withheld his discoveries for 30 years before daring to propose his heretical heliocentric solar system to the monastic pedants of his day. Luckily, Copernicus managed to escape the purifying rituals of the Inquisition’s torturers by dying. Copernicus was nonetheless forced to recant for reiterating the theory; Bruno was burnt to a cinder for reiterating the already reiterated; Galileo was martyred for being the patron saint of an already accepted truth; Descartes was mercilessly persecuted by the monastic scholars of Holland only to narrowly escape trial by fire; As for Shakespeare, the scholarly community has embarrassingly overlooked the obvious: That Will Shakspere of Stratford-upon-Avon was a mere front man or mask for the true author, a ruse orchestrated by Francis Bacon’s secret fraternities not least of which was Freemasonry.
In the last century, Percey Bysshe Shelley was expelled from Oxford for merely suggesting that there might not be a Creator in a paper distributed among the faculty called “The Necessity of Atheism.” And just to catalogue some of the things the scholarly community has gotten wrong in the 20th century: they found themselves in gross error over the psychoanalytic theories proposed by Freud; geographers and geophysicists could not have been more in error concerning continental shift and plate tectonics, a discovery they attempted to suppress for over 50 years through their notoriously criminal conduct. Later in the century, social scientists found themselves committing a litany of errors in the realm of geopolitics, misjudging the situation in Vietnam, East Timor, Central and South America, the Balkans, and a host of other places that came under the gun of Uncle Sam, NATO or the UN’s so-called peacekeeping forces. In addition, they were largely in error about Cuba, the Bay of Pigs, the JFK coup d’état, and more recently September 11 and the “War on Terror.” Given the appalling record of inaccuracy and the skill they exhibit at missing the obvious, it is amazing that anyone should be amazed by the attenuated vision, myopia and ignorance of the academic pedants that stake their claim over the archives only to collect more dust from neglect and redundancy than the books we see them pouring over.
So, what is Gandhi playing at? Does he take us for fools? Is there any reason why he shouldn’t? It seems fair in hindsight for him not to expect much inquisitiveness from the scholarly community. There is certainly no reason for him to have had higher expectations. The history of scholarship would have confirmed in his mind that he had nothing to fear from posterity. The ineptitude and incompetence of most historians would leave him unscathed and unmolested. Prior to the release of Colonel G.B. Singh’s much acclaimed Gandhi: Behind the Mask of Divinity, there was barely an attempt to penetrate the façade. In fact, people took the mask for the real McCoy. In fact, the word ‘persona,’ referring to the mask worn by actors upon the stage, is the same as that worn by the consummate actor Gandhi, the mask people take for his true face. When are scholars going to wake up to what many in India already know, that it was all a ruse, a charade, a theatrical performance of Academy Award standards? Gandhi himself tells us in the introduction:
[It] is not my purpose to attempt a real autobiography. I simply want to tell the story of my numerous experiments with truth . . . But I should certainly like to narrate my experiments in the spiritual field which are known only to myself, and from which I have derived such power as I possess for working in the political field.xc
So there, we have it. He is admitting unequivocally that he is not even attempting a real autobiography, but merely experimenting with the truth, which means that he is free to opportunistically play with the facts in whatever form he chooses in order to produce whatever effect he likes. If anyone has a different interpretation of his words, they are invited to suggest one. The facts could not be plainer. Gandhi admits that he is not giving a factual account of events. In fact, he is not even attempting to do so. By his own admission, he is experimenting with the truth, which at best means that he is not telling the truth and at worst lying. But since he is on record in the introduction admitting that he is making no attempt at a real autobiography but merely experimenting with the truth, we cannot call him a liar since he is an admitted liar. An admitted lair has the virtue of being honest about his lies. Of course, we are being facetious and have our tongues firmly implanted in our cheeks, but irony is unavoidable on this point. It is simply laughable that the provocative introduction to a work with an even more provocative title could have been overlooked for so long. An Autobiography or The Story of My Experiments with Truth is a title selected by a man who is having a good joke at the world’s expense. He has chosen the title confident in the knowledge that only a few initiates—and who are in on the scheme—know his true face and see behind his mask of divinity. And he is equally confident that the rest of the world is so in the dark that they cannot see the face behind the mask even though he has taken the trouble to tell everyone that he is wearing one. An Autobiography or The Story of My Experiments with Truth is a provocative title that makes it clear to anyone with eyes that he is not revealing his true self in a real autobiography but is employing a mask, a façade, a persona in a self-confessed attempt at political opportunism.
In Behind the Face of Divinity, it is the Solomon Commission that managed to obtain a release for Gandhi from jail. It was December 18, 1913 that Gandhi, Polak, and Kallenbach were released from detention in Pretoria on the Solomon Commission’s recommendation.xci The Solomon Commission is a rather strange name for an organization designed by Indians to protect Indians. Look for a Theosophical Society and Masonic connection here. King Solomon and Solomon’s Temple are central to Freemasonry and figure in much of its mythology and esoteric teachings. There is little doubt that the Solomon Commission is a Masonic front organization. It is also known that, on behalf of the Johannesburg Theosophical Lodge, Gandhi delivered sermons at the Masonic Temple on Hinduism. It has also been discovered that Gandhi’s title of Mahatma, meaning “Great Soul,” is a unique designation given to those who are initiated into both the Masonic Lodge and the Theosophical Society.
As for Lord Ampthill, is there any evidence that he had any connection with the European Committee to which Gandhi, Hosken and Doke were associated? Well, as the president of the South African British Indian Committee, he would have most certainly had dealings the European Committee, of which Mr. Hosken was the head, since the record attests to his dealings with another European Committee member, namely Gandhi. In one letter, Gandhi actually appeals to Lord Ampthill to meet with the South African politicians, which suggests that at some point the esteemed member of the House of Lords, probably came into contact with several prominent political figures in South Africa:
At the same time, I respectfully venture to think that, if somehow or other you could come in personal contact with the South African politicians, it will be useful for future action in connection with the Imperial work that you, as President of the South Africa British Indian Committee, are engaged in.xcii
Is there any evidence that Lord Ampthill knew or had ever met Doke, though he denies it? Considering that Doke was so strong a supporter of Gandhiji’s, a committed proponent of satyagraha, the editor of Gandhi’s own newspaper the Indian Opinion, and an activist for the Indian cause in the Transvaal, it stands to reason that Doke would be connected with the delegation accompanying Gandhi to London to present a deposition before Parliament on the question of Indian immigration to the Transvaal. As the president of the South African British Indian Committee, Lord Ampthill had taken personal charge of the deposition opposing a bill that enforced strict restrictions on Indian immigration to the Transvaal. In the following letter, Gandhi thanks Lord Ampthill for his continued support for the Indian cause which he has made his own to use Gandhi’s own phraseology:
I am extremely obliged to Your Lordship for the very great trouble you are taking over the Indian cause in the Transvaal which you have made your own.xciii
Gandhi then informs Lord Ampthill that he has prepared a deputation letter to place before parliament, but that he will appeal to the Lord’s judgment before sending it:
I am enclosing statement in proof from because, in anticipation of Your Lordship’s approval, it was sent to the printer’s yesterday, but it will not be published or submitted without consultation with Your Lordship.xciv
Then, in response to Lord Ampthill’s concerns that Gandhi’s movement of “passive resistance” might have ties with radical organizations in India, Gandhi flatly denies any such affiliation, referring to Doke for vindication:
The test of passive resistance is self-suffering and not infliction of suffering on others. We have, therefore, not only never received a single farthing from “the party of sedition” in India or else-where, but even if there was any offer, we should, if we were true to our principles, decline to receive it. We have hitherto made it a point not to approach the Indian public in India for financial assistance. The accounts of the British Indian Association are open to the world. A statement of income expenditure is published from time to time and is advertised in Indian Opinion. Mr. Doke, Mr. Philips, and the other notable men who are working in the Transvaal for us, know this fact most intimately . . .xcv
In Lord Ampthill’s foreword to Doke’s biography, he denied having any connection to Doke, claiming not to have known him personally. One wonders how this is possible if Gandhi is seeking vindication through the good reverend’s character. Why would Gandhi even refer to Doke unless he was known to Lord Ampthill personally and sufficiently for him to act as a meaningful character witness on Gandhi’s behalf? It is interesting to note that the preceding letter to Lord Ampthill is dated July 29, 1909, exactly 11 days before Gandhi would send another letter to the esteemed Lord asking him to write the foreword for Doke’s biography of Gandhi. Gandhi’s letter of request appears below:
Dear Lord Ampthill,
I have now received the somewhat delayed proof of the Rev. Mr. Doke’s book, which I am very anxious to see published as early as possible. I might mention in passing that I have received a number of subscriptions in advance.
I know you are very busy and I have hesitated to burden you further with the writing of the introduction, which you were good enough to promise, if the proof should meet with your approval. Nevertheless you will I hope, find time—as I am sure you have the desire—to give this matter your very kind attention.
I am forwarding the proof under separate cover.xcvi
Later, Gandhi would refer to Doke yet again, this time in a letter following the preceding one requesting a foreword from Lord Ampthill. The letter is dated October 14, 1909, some two months after the preceding letter. Here, Gandhi mentions Doke so casually one must question Lord Ampthill’s claim not to have known the reverend: “Mr. Doke, in a letter to me, says that passive resisters have never been so strong as they were when his letter left South Africa.”xcvii It is undeniable that the reference to Doke is of so casual a description that one is forced to recognize the open familiarity Gandhi has in alluding to their mutual acquaintance. Doke cannot, as Lord Ampthill alleges, be unknown to him.
Indeed, the tale just keeps getting taller. Not only do the letters Gandhi exchanges with Lord Ampthill catch the esteemed Lord out in a lie, but they entrap Gandhi in one of his own. This is central to the question of Gandhi’s truthfulness and reliability as a witness offering sworn testimony. When questioned about his connections with radical groups in India, Gandhi defends himself against such charges in several letters to Lord Ampthill. In one such letter dated August 4, 1909—just five days before he would write to Lord Ampthill requesting that he write a foreword for the Doke biography—Gandhi is obviously anxious to win vindication and for good reason. The concluding part of the letter reads as follows:
I am fully aware of the allegation that we are acting in co-operation with the extremist party in India. I however give Your Lordship the emphatic assurance that the charge is totally without foundation. Indian passive resistance in the Transvaal had its rise in that colony and has been continued absolutely independent of anything that is being said or done in India; indeed, sometimes, even in defiance of what has been said or written to the contrary in India or elsewhere. Our movement is absolutely unconnected with any extremist movement in India. I do not know the extremists personally . . . is the [Muslim] League and some time Secretary in London of the Pan-Islamic Society, and this correspondence has been carried on with a view to interesting Indian opinion in our matter and arousing public sympathy.xcviii
Gandhi equivocates on the issue. He claims not to know any extremists personally and then indicates at the end of the letter that he has some acquaintance with an individual affiliated with the Muslim League and the Pan-Islamic Society, but justifies his correspondence with this individual by claiming to have a desire to gain intelligence on Indian opinion concerning his cause and also with a view to arousing public sympathy. If this isn’t blatant double talk, what pray tell, is it?
Gandhi’s double talk doesn’t end there, since we have an actual letter he personally wrote to the London branch of the Muslim League. Gandhi cannot escape the charge of being guilty of double-talk on this question. He states unequivocally that he and his people have no association with any radical groups operating in India or outside and yet the following letter proves that correspondence does take place between his organization and the Muslim League, a known terrorist organization. Gandhi’s letter to the London branch of this body reads as follows:
The Transvaal deputation have received the following cablegram from Johannesburg:
Meeting held yesterday enthusiastic, determined continue, resolutions congratulating released, reaffirming complete confidence delegates, efforts greatly appreciated, afresh pledging their support, protesting Vernon’s statement which until Government repudiates Asiatics interpret disclosure Government policy. Request imprisoned Mohammedans special meal Ramzan refused.
I draw your particular attention to the last paragraph of the cablegram, which shows that the Transvaal Government have deeply hurt the religious susceptibilities of British Indian Mohammedans who have settled in the Transvaal, who have felt called upon, on religious and conscientious grounds, to disregard what is known as the Asiatic Act and to suffer imprisonment for their so doing.
That under the British flag, which is supposed to respect all religions, Mohammedan passive resisters should be prevented from performing a religious observance of the highest importance is a very serious matter. I hope that the League will take prompt action. I may point out that last year, at Volkhurst, facilities were given to passive resisters during the month of Ramzan.xcix
The duplicitous nature of this letter could not be more obvious. The tone is clearly inflammatory and specifically designed to provoke and instigate. Gandhi’s manipulative reference to human and religious rights violations of Mohammedans by the Transvaal government is calculated to provoke a violent response. Not only does he mention the imprisonment of Mohammedans, but the denial of their rights to religious practice and diet. Gandhi adds, “I hope that the League will take prompt action.” To instigate conflict and incite a radical organization to prompt and decisive action is none other than to call for and incite violence. And this is the true face behind the mask of divinity. This is the quintessential Gandhi, the two-faced Gandhi, the duplicitous double-talker. While posturing outwardly as a pacifist with no appetite for blood whatsoever, he was covertly acting as a man of war and instigator of terrorism. Gandhi: Behind the Mask of Divinity has already implicated Gandhi in a bloody suppression of African Zulus. A shrewd investigator might also ask why photos of Gandhi in his British colonel uniform have not been as easy to come by as those depicting the Hindu saint in a loincloth.
Now, if Gandhi did have Freemason affiliations, this would explain his duplicitous Orwellian doublespeak and double-talk. The Masons have always employed such tactics. It is their modus operandi to present a good outward façade, while concealing the shady and criminal underworld activities of the world’s largest and most powerful crime syndicate. This is what is symbolized by the black and white squares found on the floors of every Masonic Temple and on the police caps of so many of the world’s police forces. It symbolizes the fact that the Masons control both sides, the light and the dark forces, that they supply arms to both sides in wars, playing both sides of the fence, and engage in black operations as their basic modus operandi.
Before going underground and changing their name, the modern-day Freemasons were known as the Knights Templar. An early Templar family known as the House of Guise and Lorraine had a unique coat of arms consisting of a “double cross,” which is a symbol embraced by the Cainite families, representing their “Mark of Cain” cross superimposed over the holy cross of Christ. This coat of arms came to be associated with their modus operandi, which consisted of betraying or double-crossing both sides in wars by covertly arming both sides. Supplying gold and arms to one king to which they pretended to be beholden, they would simultaneously turn around and arm his opponent. Duplicity and double-dealing came to be so closely associated with this family that the “double cross” came to be synonymous with betrayal. As a probable heir by succession to crooks in a criminal organization of longstanding, Gandhi was probably well-trained in the arts of deception, duplicity and intrigue, and pulled it off with masterful precision.
While denying any affiliation to radical organizations in several letters to Lord Ampthill, Gandhi later confesses to having limited contact with the Muslim League, but employs more double-talk in an effort at self-justification.
Opposed as I am to violence in any shade or form, I have endeavoured specially to come into contact with the so-called extremists who may be described as the party of violence. This I have done in order if possible to convince them of the error of their ways. I have noticed that some of the members of this party are earnest spirits, possessing a high degree of morality, great intellectual ability and lofty self-sacrifice. They wield an undoubted influence on the young Indians here. They are certainly unsparing in their efforts to impress upon the latter their convictions. One of them came to me with a view to convince me that I was wrong in my methods and that nothing but the use of violence, covert or open or both, was likely to bring about redress of the wrongs they consider they suffer.c
Notice the diplomatic tone of the letter entirely lacking in the letter to the London branch of the Muslim League. Gandhi ends by referring to “the wrongs they consider they suffer,” “they” being the Muslims. While diplomatically alluding to such wrongs as a matter of perspective in the letter to Lord Ampthill, Gandhi is unequivocal and rather highhanded in condemning such behavior in the letter to the Muslim League. Gandhi is highly skilled at playing both sides of the fence. In this letter, he endeavors to convince Ampthill that there are high-minded members of this Muslim terrorist organization, individuals with which he can both converse and reason with. This begs the question of course, since he claims to be incommunicado with any such organizations yet appears to know those in the command structure of at least one terrorist organization well enough to describe their characters and thinking.
Suffice to say that Gandhi and Ampthill are not putting all their cards on the table, but have something hidden up their sleeves. Ampthill appears to wish to conceal his association with Doke, while Gandhi appears to want to conceal his associations with radical pro-independence terrorist organizations in India. Why all the secrecy? Why all the doubletalk, duplicity and lies? Well, in Gandhi’s case, it is essential that he conceal his affiliations to terrorist organizations back home if he is to win Ampthill over to the cause. The tone of his letters to Ampthill seem somehow obsequious and overly deferential. The fact that Gandhi cuts off all correspondence with Ampthill after getting what he wants only highlights the insincere nature of the correspondence.
Probably the most influential figure of the pro-independence drive in the post-colonial period is Gandhi. In the 1890s, the young Gandhi set off to London to study law. The London Diary recorded the events of this time in his life, but despite the painstaking efforts of scholars to preserve his writings for posterity, all but 20 pages of The London Diary went missing. The surviving pages describe Gandhi’s initiation to the 3° of Freemasonry. It is apparently his Freemason diary. It in all probability describes his initiation through the several degrees of the organization. Why has the volume been suppressed? Is it in order to conceal Gandhi’s Freemason affiliations from public view and scrutiny?
i David Livingston, “The Untold Story of Gandhi and Theosophy,” 12/15/2013, http://www.conspiracyschool.com/blog/untold-story-gandhi-and-theosophy.
iii Col. G.B. Singh, Gandhi: Behind the Mask of Divinity,” April 2004, Prometheus Books, p.162.
iv David Livingston, “The Untold Story of Gandhi and Theosophy.”
v “British Secret Service Agent Mahatma Gandhi,” http://www.reformation.org/british-secret-agent-mahatma-gandhi.html.
x Ibid., p.8.
xi Ibid., pp.9, 10.
xii Ibid., p.10.
xiii Ibid., p,11.
xiv Ibid., p.12.
xv Ibid., p.13.
xvi Ibid., p.17.
xvii Ibid., p.37.
xviii Ibid., p.38.
xix Ibid. 38, 39.
xx Ibid., p.40.
xxii Ibid., p. 41.
xxiii Ibid., p.42.
xxiv Ibid., pp.42, 43.
xxv Ibid., pp.43, 44.
xxvi Ibid., pp.44, 45.
xxvii Ibid., p.47.
xxviii Ibid., pp. 47, 48.
xxix Ibid., pp.49, 50.
xxx Ibid., p.16.
xxxi Ibid., p. 18.
xxxii Ibid., p.18.
xxxiii Ibid., p.19.
xxxiv Ibid., p.19.
xxxv Ibid., pp.20-21.
xxxvi Ibid., p.21.
xxxvii Ibid., pp.21-22.
xxxviii Ibid., pp,22-23.
xxxix Justice Achhru Ram, “Pronouncement of Judgement,” quoted in May It Please Your Honour, p.23.
xl Ibid., p.24.
xli Ibid., p.24.
xlii “Justice Khosla’s statement on the case many years later,” quoted in May It Please Your Honour, pp.24, 25.
xliii Ibid. pp.25, 26.
xliv Ibid., p.31.
xlv Ibid., p.57.
xlvi Ibid., p.64.
xlvii Ibid., p.65.
xlviii Ibid., p.72.
xlix Ibid., p.74.
l Ibid., p.77.
li Ibid., pp.82, 83.
lii Ibid., pp.82, 83.
liii Ibid., p.83.
liv Ibid., p.83.
lv Ibid., pp.87, 88.
lvi Ibid., p.90.
lvii Ibid., pp.90, 91.
lviii Ibid., p.94.
lix Ibid., p.96.
lx Ibid., pp.98, 99.
lxi David Collins, “Gandhi Was a British Agent Who Did Great Harm to India, Claims Top Judge,” March 11. 2015, http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/gandhi-british-agent-who-great-5316551.
lxii Ibid., p.123.
lxiii Gandhi speech at prayer meeting held 6th of April, 1946, quoted in May It Please Your Honour, p.129.
lxiv Gandhi’s speech at a prayer session, 23rd September 1947, quoted in May it Please, p.130.
lxvi Ibid., p.114.
lxvii Ibid., pp. 118, 119.
lxviii Ibid., p.29.
lxix “Sachindanand Sanyal, “Sanyal’s Open Letter to Gandhiji,” Shahidbhagatsingh.org, http://www.shahidbhagatsingh.org/index.asp?link=letter_gandhi.
lxxi James D. Hunt. Gandhi and the Nonconformists: Encounters in South Africa. New Delhi: Promilla & Co. Publishers, 1986, pages 98-123.
lxxii Sushila Nayar. Mahatma Gandhi: Satyagraha at Work (Vol. 4). Ahmedabad, India: Navajivan Publishing House, 1989, pages 468-74.
lxxiii CWMG, Vol. 13, # 166, pp. 258-62.
lxxiv Rev. J.J. Doke’s Letter to “The Transvaal Leader”, Complete Works of Mahatma Gandhi (CD-ROM), July 4, 1908, p. 495, Appendix III in Vol. 8.
lxxv “Letter to J.J. Doke, King Edward’s Hotel, Vokhurst,” Complete Works of Mahatma Gandhi, Thursday, October 8, 1808, Vol. 9, p.193, 194.
lxxvi “Letter to J.J. Doke, Volksrust,” Complete Works of Mahatma Gandhi, Wednesday 14, 1908, Vol.9, p. 204, 205.
lxxviii “Marched in Handcuffs, Rev. J.J. Doke’s Letter to “Rand Daily Mail,” Complete Works of Mahatma Gandhi, Johannesburg, March 11, 1909, Vol.9, p.489.
lxxx “Speech at Banquet to Rev. J.J. Doke, Indian Opinion, Referenced from: Complete Works of Mahatma Gandhi, 26-2-1910 and 5-3-1910, Vol. 10, p.420.
lxxxi CWMG, Vol. 13, # 166, p. 258.
lxxxii CWMG, Vol. 13, # 166, p. 260.
lxxxiii CWMG, Vol.13, # 167, p. 262, August 23, 1913.
lxxxiv CWMG, Vol. 13, # 168, pp. 263-64, translated from Gujarati
lxxxv CWMG, Vol. 10, Appendix 1, p. 485, August 26, 1909.
lxxxvi “Cable to Lord Ampthill, Durban,” CWMG, Dec. 24, 1913, Colonial Office Records: 551/52, Vol.13, p. 439.
lxxxvii London Diary, Referenced in Complete Works of Mahatma Gandhi, London November 12, 1888, Vol.1, p.4, 5.
lxxxviii Christopher Knight and Robert Lomas, The Hiram Key, The Hiram Key, London: Arrow Books Ltd., 1997, p.175.
lxxxix Robert Macoy, A Dictionary of Freemasonry, New York: Gramercy Books, 1989, p.696.
xc Mahatma Gandhi, Introduction to The Story of My Experiments with Truth.
xci Col. G.B. Singh, Gandhi: Behind the Mask of Divinity. Prometheus Books, 2004, p.158.
xcii “Letter to Lord Ampthill #247, London,” CWMG, July 21, 1909, Vol. 9, p.431.
xciii “Letter to Lord Ampthill #260, London,” CWMG, July 29, 1909, Vol.9, p.447.
xcv Ibid., p.448, 449, Vol. 9.
xcvi “Letter to Lord Ampthill # 9, London,” CWMG, August 9, 1909, p.15, Vol. 10.
xcvii “Letter to Lord Ampthill # 109, London,” CWMG, Oct. 14, 1909, p.106, Vol.10.
xcviii “Letter to Lord Ampthill # 256 London,” CWMG, August 4, 1909, p.457, 458, Vol.9.
xcix “Draft Letter to London branch of Indian Muslim League # 72,” CWMG, p.100, 101, Vol.10.
c “Letter to Lord Ampthill, London,” CWMG, Oct. 30, 1909, p.201, Vol.10.