Thread by @cbkwgl

Never expected this from Gandhi. Or is it the reality? 70,000 Hindus and Sikhs are trapped in Bahawalpur and here we are, with Gandhi saying I don't care.
From a speech on 23 Dec 1947

And why this extreme concern for Muslims in Lahore? Why not a single word, even in passing, about the conditions in the camp at Delhi? Godse, in his trial, said that, when refugees tried to take shelter in Birla House from extreme cold, Gandhi got them booted.

And the love for acting as a scavenger creeps up...yet again. And with that, the sweet talk that poverty is a divine virtue.

And all of these are from the same speech. Is this an aberration or is this what Gandhi is, actually?

Why did he refuse pencillin for his wife, then? Why different standards for different people?

And the next speech - 24 Dec 1947
So, Sikhs and Hindus tolerated him, they didn't respect him...

On one side, Gandhi says, India's freedom struggle is not truly non-violent,

On the other hand, Gandhi confuses himself and the world.

I don't understand this. On one side, he says, Hindus are weak and on the other, he says Sikhs shouldn't use their strength?

Again it comes. Deification of poverty.

This Taqiyya, I don't undertand this. For Sikhs of Bahawalpur, he says, go to hell. But, when Muslims are targetted, he says, they shouldn't have been targetted.

Unless Gandhi is talking about making Khadi spinning the national vocation, this makes some real sense and is still applicable today.

Speech on 25 Dec 1947
A sane advice which his close associate Nehru refused to heed - a clear hint that even Gandhi has got a better grasp of reality than Nehru.

This completely defies logic. When British India can be partitioned, why not Princely States? What is so special about them? Isn't Ranjit Singh's kingdom partitioned, for a comparison?

Again, we see him outraged, not angry on Muslims. How can they do such things?

And the same story of don't retaliate.

Why such hatred for Maharaja Hari Singh and love for Sheik Abdullah? If Sheik Abdullah is the Lion of Kashmir, is Hari Singh the Jackal of Jammu? Why is a person representing Hindus less important than a nobody who claims to represent Muslims?

The love-hate carries on...

His hatred for the Maharaja seems visceral. Hari Singh can be removed, but Abdullah shouldn't be touched?

And it goes on and on. Hari Singh can be booted out but Sheik Abdullah shouldn't be. Why this unconditional love? We see the same thing with Nehru as well.

I guess I caught Gandhi lying here. The Maharaja would have said, dejected, I am no more the ruler and Muslim mobs are ruling the roads, but Gandhi presents a different picture. And if these two retire, why shouldn't Sheik Abdullah?

And outrage again, no anger.

And the love for Muslims vs hate for Hindus. While Muslims should own up their historical baggage, Hindus should be sorry for what's happening around. Not Muslims, Hindus only.

I am seriously done with this person. If literally nothing makes sense out of everything he said even for three days, I don't understand what's the need to go through what he did all his life. Guess it's time for me to delete the book and focus on something else.

And the finishing touch. The last speech over Kashmir, in full.
cbkwgl.wordpress.com/2018/07/12/gan…