Violator of the Kshatriya Dharma When judging the greatness of a civilization, one usually looks at its creations or discoveries in a diverse set of fields such as the arts, music, literature, religion, spirituality, justice, or philosophy, to name a few. If the expression of something deeper or higher is made in these forms, if the truths of these creations effect an increasing inner awareness amongst swaths of men within that society, such a civilization is often viewed as a leader of culture, an advance in the evolution of Nature. For this to occur, it is necessary that the vessels of culture have appropriate training and purpose - the vessel being of course, man. It is here that we return to the Indian truths of dharma and svadharma; because in order for the vessel to properly express deeper realities, his inner being must be as free as possible not only from external bondage such as rigid societal or governmental structures, but also from the trappings of ego - specifically those that lead him down erroneous paths. If such bondage is in place, it will be difficult for man to follow the truth or natural law of his inner being, svadharma, whatever that may be. The expression of his nature obscured, greatness is not fully channeled through him. Along with the individual dharma is the dharma of the aggregate of individuals or community necessary in upholding any great civilization. In India, society was originally categorized into four groups or arrangements (Varnas) of Brahmanas (including those taking to the spiritual life, scholars, etc), Kshatriyas (such as the rulership class and warriors), Vaishyas (traders, wealth-producers) and Shudras (service providers). The Varna classification recognized a gradation of these groups in relation to their importance to society yet emphasized that all four groupings were fundamental to its functioning. To create balance in a civilization, it is necessary that all four contain men born or developed for such life purposes, men following their dharma. It is when people born or having developed the nature of a particular varna are working from positions within their group, that the purest expression of a national dharma can occur. This of course, does not always happen, whether due to groupings becoming based on heredity or if those entering a particular Varna are not of the right nature for that Varna. Lord Krishna addressed the latter problem when he warned that even a perfect imitation of anothers law was fraught with danger: Better is one's own law of being, though in itself faulty, than an alien law well wrought out; death in one's own law of being is better, perilous is it to follow an alien law. 1 Indeed according to Lord Krishna, following ones dharma prevents one from becoming entangled in the negative consequences that might be experienced by others doing the same action: Better is one's own law of being, though in itself faulty, than an alien law well wrought out. One does not incur sin when one acts in agreement with the law of one's own nature. The inborn law, O Arjuna, though defective, ought not to be abandoned. All actions indeed are clouded by defects as fire by smoke. 2

The Gita relates this danger primarily to the individual and his subjective development, but naturally an adverse effect will fall upon the group the individual has incorrectly joined, which in turn will weaken the nation. Of the four, perhaps the most dangerous to have the wrong men involved as far as immediate stability - would be the Kshatriya varna. The Kshatriya dharma is first and foremost to protect the people, to fight against internal and external conflict, to ensure a just and resolute society in order that the other Varnas are free to create without fear. If the Kshatriya does not follow his true law, the nation is at risk to all sorts of disaster and misery. This is why if the Kshatriya deemed the use of violence necessary in order to protect the people, then it was used, whether in response to provocation or not. It was this right arm of the Kshatriya that Gandhi abhorred. Believing that the user of violence invariably met his death by violence, Gandhi proposed a different route. In it, the fighter of injustice, the Kshatriya, was not to lay a finger on the proponent of adharma. Instead, the Kshatriya was to willfully allow himself to be attacked by the enemy, accepting death without a fight, while the other party was spared. This was Gandhis famous Satyagraha: There are two ways of countering injustice. One way is to smash the head of the man who perpetrates injustice and to get your own head smashed in the process. All strong people in the world adopt this course. Everywhere wars are fought and millions are killed. The consequence is not the progress of a nation but its decline. But through the other method of combating injustice, we alone suffer the consequences of our mistakes, and the other side is wholly spared This other method is Satyagraha. One who resorts to it does not have to break another's head; he may merely have his own head broken. He has to be prepared to die himself suffering all the pain.3 The Satyagrahi was not to use bullets or try and evade the path of one: The day of independence will be hastened in a manner no one has dreamt of. Let not the reformers in the States therefore be unduly impatient; let them not forget their limitations and above all the conditions of success, viz., strictest observance of truth and non-violence. They must be ready to face bullets without flinching but also without lifting a finger in so-called self-defence. A Satyagrahi abjures the right of self-defence. 4 Indeed, the only tangible goal of Satyagraha, irrespective of its claim to fight injustice, was the death of its practitioner: For a Satyagrahi there can be only one goal, viz., to lay down his life performing his duty whatever it may be. It is the highest he can attain. A cause that has such worthy Satyagrahi soldiers at its back can never be defeated. 5 Somehow he failed to realize that if all the soldiers were to die, they would likely take their cause with them. Such a mass death of soldiers was always a possibility, for Gandhi did not believe the Satyagrahi should ever flee or retreat from battle: his only purpose in battle was to rush right into the arms of death:

Fleeing from battle - palayanam - is cowardice, and unworthy of a warrior. An armed fighter is known to have sought fresh arms as soon as he loses those in his possession or they lose their efficacy. He leaves the battle to get them. A nonviolence warrior knows no leaving the battle. He rushes into the mouth of himsa, never even once harbouring an evil thought. If this ahimsa seems to you to be impossible, let us be honest with ourselves and say so, and give it up. 6 Here we can acknowledge a peculiar courage or maybe we should call it recklessness in his words, yet also appreciate the minimal importance such a philosophy places towards life. The Kshatriya, while having no fear of death, was supposed to value life his own and that of the people he was protecting. For if the Kshatriya put himself submissively in the way of harm, who was to protect the masses in the aftermath? It was this truth Gandhi ignored, refusing to acknowledge the great responsibility he held. For despite the common view of him as the austere Saint living in an Ashram, Gandhi was heavily involved in Kshatriya activities, having spent the majority of his life as either the leader (official or de-facto) of both the Congress Party in India and the South African Indian Congress. As a Kshatriya, it should have been his svadharma, his natural law, to protect the lives of his people, instead of telling them to lay down their lives in a bizarre idea of self-defense: Gandhiji first asked them if any of them had taken part in the riots, to which they replied in the negative. Whatever they had done was in self-defence; hence it was not part of the riot. This gave Gandhiji an opportunity of speaking on some of the vital problems connected with nonviolence. He said that mankind had all along tried to justify violence and war in terms of unavoidable self-defence. It was a simple rule that the violence of the aggressor could only be defeated by superior violence of the defender. Mankind, he stated, had not yet mastered the true art of self-defence. But great teachers, who had practiced what they preached, had successfully shown that true defence lay along the path of non-retaliation. It might sound paradoxical; but this is what he meant. Violence always thrived on counterviolence. The aggressor had always a purpose behind his attack; he wanted something to be done, some object to be surrendered by the defender. Now, if the defender steeled his heart and was determined not to surrender even one inch, and at the same time to resist the temptation of matching the violence of the aggressor by violence, the latter would be made to realize in a short while that it would not be paying to punish the other party and his will could not be imposed in that way. This would involve suffering. It was this unalloyed self-suffering which was the truest form of self-defence which knew no surrender. This art of true selfdefence by means of which man gained his life by losing it, had been mastered and exemplified in the history of individuals. The method had not been perfected for application by large masses of mankind. India's Satyagraha was a very imperfect experiment in that direction. 7

The true Kshatriya would not put his hopes in a miraculous change of heart by an enemy that knew the Kshatriya did not believe in fighting. In such an instance, the aggressor would achieve his objective due to the foolishness of the ahimsa-following Kshatriya. The true Kshatriya knew that counter-violence in such a case of direct confrontation was necessary, because without it, a steeled heart and strong determination could have no external result. The Kshatriya fought back because it was the law of his being to protect the nation from suffering, to not expose his nation or himself to it. Indeed, not only would the Kshatriya fight back in such circumstances, he would also be inclined to take the war into the enemys home, to strike at their heart. A Kshatriya did not restrict himself to one tactic such as ahimsa in the face of battle. In fact, ahimsa or mute selfsacrifice in battle has never been anywhere close to a significant war strategy or tactic. Meeting the enemy in battle, negotiating with the enemy (yet trying to achieve the best possible terms for his nation), setting up defensive barriers, allying with enemies of the enemy, were among the many tactics used by the Kshatriya. Ahimsa never crossed the mind of the true Kshatriya because ahimsa was never considered part of the Kshatriya dharma. It was a virtue of the Brahmana. The Brahmana dharma was not actively involved in the protection of the nation through physical means. It was not their dharma. For this reason, they were free to practice ahimsa, non-violence or more appropriately, non-maliciousness. Their contribution to the defense of the nation was through religious and intellectual activity, education, direct guidance of the Kshatriya, or through occult or mystic avenues. In the occasions that the Brahmana gave consistent guidance to the Kshatriya, it was rarely coming from a realized Yogi, let alone a Sadhaka. This is especially true in modern politics which is replete with forces hostile to the aspirations of the seeker, who in turn will likely avoid that field. And if the Brahmana did advise the Kshatriya, he was wise to the distinctions between the law of the Brahmana and the law of the Kshatriya he did not force his law upon someone else. Ahimsa, a virtue of a section of Brahmanas, the Sannyasi, was undertaken to help move the Sannyasi from rajasic (characterized by action, passion) impulses into a sattvic (characterized by peace, harmony) state of mind, in order to make it easier for the Sannyasi to obtain his individual spiritual aspiration. A strict following of ahimsa, therefore, was not even meant for all Brahmanas; it was indicated for the individual who aspired for liberation. It was also meant for those with the inherent will to practice it. It was not supposed to be the mass movement Gandhi desired: Ahimsa, which to me is the chief glory of Hinduism, has been sought to be explained away by our people as being meant for Sannyasis only. I do not share that view. I have held that it is the way of life and India has to show it to the world. 8 Ahimsa, unlike svadharma, was never a way of life that all of India followed; it was a means to an end for the spiritual seeker just as brahmacharya was. This abstaining from violence, along with vegetarianism, celibacy, humility, elimination of intake of intoxicants, and many other practices, was used by the Sannyasi to obtain a Sattvic state.

From this evolved mentality, the foundation was set for spiritual realization. These practices were not done simply to become a person of high morals; they were done with the penultimate purpose in mind. Ahimsa and its role in Indian society was not the only exaggeration Gandhi placed on certain aspects of Hindu religion and Hindu history. Gandhi took his view of ahimsa to such an extreme that he claimed Hinduism itself had never permitted the use of violence: Similar is the story of Christianity. And Buddhism too, if we regard it as separate from Hinduism, grew only when some people sacrificed their lives for it. I have not found a single religion which did not in the earlier stages call for sacrifices on the part of its followers. When a religion is well established people in large numbers come forward to follow it. This gives rise to bigotry. Now even the followers of Hinduism have stooped to killing and slaughtering although Hinduism never advocated violence. 9 Such a claim flies in the face of the Bhagavad Gita, where Lord Krishna clearly exhorts Arjuna to fight his cousins in battle, to follow his dharma, knowing the eternal truth that the Soul is neither slayer nor slain10. Arjuna was reminded that his particular war was the greatest one for a Kshatriya to partake in, as it was a war to protect dharma from adharma (Dharmayuddh): Moreover considering your dharma you should not falter; for the Kshatriya there does not exist a more appropriate endeavor than a battle to uphold dharma. 11 Gandhi, as he is entitled, held his own opinion as to the Gitas message, saying, I find in the Gita the message of nonviolence, while others say that the Gita ordains the killing of atatayi. Can I go and stop them from saying so? I listen to them and do what I feel is correct.12 Gandhis belief in non-violence was so strong that he concluded that if indeed the Gita advocated violence, it should not be held as shastra: I do not believe that the Gita advocates violence for self-defence. I understand the Gita differently. If the Gita or some other Sanskrit work advocates this I am not prepared to accept it as Shastra. An utterance does not become scriptural merely because it is couched in Sanskrit. 13 The Gita, of course, is more than just shastra or some other mortal commentary. It is considered the word of God, the Divine Song - the language is not as relevant! Among those who disagreed with Gandhis interpretation was a European guest, Vincent Sheehan, who argued that the whole of the Gita was an argument in defense of a righteous war. In response to this, Gandhi gave one of his two significant interpretations of the Gita and Mahabharata, saying, he did not agree that the Gita was either in intention or in the sum total an argument in defence of a righteous war. Though the argument of the Gita was presented in a setting of physical warfare, the righteous war referred to in it was the eternal duel between right and wrong that is going within us.

There was at least one authority that supported his interpretation. The thesis of the Gita was neither violence nor nonviolence but the gospel of selfless action-the duty of performing right action by right means only, in a spirit of detachment, leaving the fruits of action to the care of God. 14 This allegorical interpretation of the events at Kurukshetra is an important and widely held view of the Gitas message. The view of the world and especially the inner fields of an individual as a battle between divine and hostile forces (more so than between right and wrong) is a truth long-held (and experienced) by many including Sadhaks. It is these forces, the Gods on one side, the Asuras and other Demons on the other, that constantly battle to win the heart and mind of man, even if in the end the two sides are but the workings of, or sanctioned by, an Absolute power. The problem with Gandhis interpretation was that he exaggerated this truth, narrowing in on one aspect while missing the whole. Just like those who viewed the material world as nothing but an illusion, Gandhi could not fathom that Hinduism conceived of war in the physical plane. But if we take Gandhis thesis to be accurate, it only makes it more likely that this battle between Divine and Asuric forces would extend into the material plane. After all, the majority of mans actions stem from something within wanting to make itself known on the surface. Rare is it for a mans inner fields to be disconnected from some form of action on the material plane, since all fields whether material or inner, Divine or subconscious, are interwoven. Even the Sadhak living in remote isolation is not necessarily free from these external battles. Besides the entire Mahabharata, the background for Lord Krishnas revelation to Arjuna, there are certain things mentioned in the Gita that enlighten us to the integrality of the physical plane in Lord Krishnas message to fight. For instance, not only is Arjuna told to detach his mind from the idea of himself as the slayer, he is told of the worldly consequences for abandoning his dharma: O Arjuna, happy are the Kshatriyas who achieve a battle of this kind presented in its own accord; such a battle is a wide open path to the heavenly realms. However if you do not engage in this Dharmayuddh, then you have abandoned your svadharma and your reputation, and you will incur sinful reaction. All people will speak of your infamy for all time, and for respected persons infamy is worse than death. The mighty chariot warriors will consider that you retired from the battlefield out of fear and for those whom you have been held in great esteem you will fall into disgrace. Your enemies will speak many malicious and insulting words discrediting your prowess. Alas what could be more painful than that? Either being slain you shall reach the heavenly realm, or by gaining victory you will enjoy earth, therefore O Son of Kunti, confident of success rise up and fight! 15 Arjuna is also reminded of the truth that mortals are a field for the play of occult and mystic forces. While men do have some degree of choice in their actions, unless they are consciously aware of and acting from the commands of their Purusha, they cannot be said to possess a completely free will. The will that men believe to possess is on a gradient

depending upon their current state of development. Even in the cases where men appear to have tremendous power or gifts, there is still the great possibility that what presents to them as belonging to their personal will is in actuality dependent upon cosmic forces whether divine or non-divine. If in most cases men are ignorant of this universal reality, Arjuna was enlightened by Lord Krishna that he was an instrument of God, that the occasion had already been determined: Therefore arise for battle, O Arjuna. You will gain fame by conquering the enemy and enjoy a flourishing kingdom. By me and none other are these warriors already slain from previous design; you are merely the instrument. 16 From these examples, we see that the righteous war in the Gita clearly involved the physical plane, since Arjunas penance for not fighting, and reward for victory, was of an external kind, primarily involving his reputation. Thus, if Gandhi was lucent enough to absorb an inner meaning of the war (indeed, one can deduce such a meaning from other wars such as World War II) and the message of Karmayoga (although he did not seem to realize that one can also surrender violent acts to the Divine as part of Karmayoga), we can surmise his refusal to acknowledge the Gitas material aspect as being due to his fanatical aversion to violence. Because when we examine other comments Gandhi made on the Mahabharata, we come across his second significant interpretation, that victory obtained by violence was meaningless: It was contended that the Mahabharata advocated the way of retaliation. He did not agree with that interpretation. The lesson of the Mahabharata was that the victory of the sword was no victory. That great book taught that the victory of the Pandavas was an empty nothing.17 The greatest of all wars, the war that Mahavishnu himself incarnated into human form to ensure the outcome, an epic battle full of heroic figures, the war to mark the end of one age and the beginning of another (Kalyug), was one devoid of any real purpose to Gandhi. The fate of those involved in the war had soured Gandhis perspective on the Mahabharata: What has been said in the Mahabharata is of universal application. It does not apply to Hindus alone. It depicts the story of the Pandavas and the Kauravas. Though they were blood-brothers the Pandavas worshipped Rama, that is, goodness, and the Kauravas followed Ravana, that is, evil. Renouncing ahimsa they took to violence and fought amongst themselves with the result that not only were the Kauravas killed, but the Pandavas also were losers in spite of their victory. Very few among them survived to see the end of the war and those who did found their lives so unbearable that they had to retire to the Himalayas. 18 For the Kshatriya, the possibility of individual death in battle would never prevent them from warfare in a Dharmayuddh, for as Arjuna declared in the Mahabharata, What is the use to us of an existence without heroic deeds? The Kshatriya was not fighting for himself; he was fighting for the highest of ideals, the protection of dharma and the

foundations that allowed dharma to flourish. Death received when battling to uphold dharma was a passage to the heavenly regions. And for a man who wanted his followers to rush into death without a fight, why was Gandhi all of a sudden in anguish that few of the Pandavas saw the end of the war? While it may be true that the descendants of the heroes of Kurukshetra became involved in the typical rajasic power struggles that had previously characterized the Kauravas, that does not mean we should jump to a conclusion that violence is inherently wrong or that the Pandavas made a grave mistake going into battle. Instead, the lesson learned from the aftermath is the same lesson the Gita teaches - that rajasic human tendencies of ambition, greed, lust for power, arrogance, vanity, and attachment (this particular trait would explain some of the Pandavas leading unbearable lives after the war) are the causes of human misery and suffering. And if these qualities (especially the lust for power) are taken to an excessive level, men will be born whose inner law of being demands they fight another Dharmayuddh, detached from the idea of themselves as either slayer or slain, equipoised, with steadfast faith in Lord Krishna. ***** When faced with a more vociferous Hindu gathering, Gandhi had a different answer for the inevitable question on Lord Krishnas message, as he related in a September 1947 account of his speech at an RSS rally: At the conclusion of the speech, Gandhiji invited questions. One person asked if Hinduism permitted killing of an evildoer. If not how did he explain the exhortation by Lord Krishna in the second chapter of the Gita to destroy the Kauravas. The reply to the first question, said Gandhiji, was both yes and no. One had to be an infallible judge as to who was the evil-doer before the question of killing could arise. In other words one had to be completely faultless before such a right could accrue to one. How could a sinner claim the right to judge or execute another sinner? As for the second question, granting that the right to punish the evil-doer was recognized by the Gita, it could be exercised by the properly constituted Government only. 19 If such an opinion truly constituted the workings of the World, falsehood would reign supreme over the planet, as can be ascertained from an examination of recent history. In World War II, the primary opponents of Nazi Germany were Britain, the Soviet Union, and America. None of the latter can be described as shining beacons of truth, yet all of them still were of a mixed character superior to Germany. While we cannot say Nazi Germany was a land of complete falsehood, the falsehood it held was more than enough to drag humanity to a degraded level never seen before. It was for this reason that Nations that stood for partial truths were given the strength to defeat Germany.

For that is how the world has worked, especially in the current age of humanity. It is not always a black and white picture, even if cases like Nazi Germany come close. What applies for nations also applies to governments, because if we suppose that one has to be completely faultless to punish another, can we rationally expect of modern governments that they be without sin, in public or personal life? Gandhis ideas of sinning and its punishment were derived more from his contact with Christianity than Hindu ideas, because in Gandhis mind sinning was something that one must atone for, as he told a Hindu audience in a 1947 speech: I visit only those places where Muslims have suffered in some way or the other at the hands of Hindus. Everywhere I appeal to Hindus to atone for their sins. When one man commits a crime, all mankind becomes responsible for it. Hence even if a single Hindu has misbehaved here, all the Hindus will be put in a dock. ...I shall not report the names of the criminals to the Ministers here, even though they are my friends. You should display your courage by confessing your guilt and ennoble your soul by atoning for it. 20 Hinduism did not have this idea of atoning or repenting for sins, in the way it is usually meant in popular Christian culture, where often one goes to the priest and confesses his sins, or performs other acts, to receive forgiveness from God. Hinduism has the Law of Karma where confession itself is only one part of the process. The confession, which really only needs to be a private act towards God, is done in order to bring about a transformation of the persons Nature, not just an absolving of guilt with the continued likelihood of repeat sinning. This change does not always precipitate a removal of the karma, because knowledge comes best through experience, and sometimes a karmic reaction (as a form of punishment, which is only a minor form of karmic workings) will still have to be exhausted. In such a case, prayer for the Divine Grace (something Christianity calls for as well) can help alleviate reactions for 'sins'. The other problem with Gandhis view is his primitive notion of placement of sin. In it he takes the idea of sins of the father passed onto the son to another orbit, for how is the sin of one Hindu on a Muslim transferable to a Hindu thousands of miles away? Such a view denies the legitimacy of individual accountability, and the particular misbehaving of a Hindu in the pervading atmosphere can be debated. Because even if Biharis did go on the offensive in response to Noakhali, could they not use the justification using Gandhis mentality - that if a single Hindu is harmed a thousand miles away, all Hindus must respond everywhere? Finally, the idea of sinning is always subject to differing individual standards, because the ideas of Good and Evil are human concepts that, while based on truth, can never be representative of the whole Truth, and can be made too rigid in the minds of moralists like Gandhi. And when the moralist has a strong vanity of his opinion along with a lust for power, danger lurks, for the moralist may wish to force his viewpoint on the entire population, forcing them to repent to him:

I did not like the statement made by the Qaid-e-Azam. ...Why does he not mention what happened to the Hindus in West Punjab? If Bihar indulged in evil acts they repented it. In Calcutta the Hindus came to me and repented before me. It would be a noble thing if the Muslims do the same and admit that they have done wrong things. I have seen the things and how can I close my eyes to them? Now can I cover up the crimes committed by the Hindus? I want to be faithful to all religions. I can betray neither God nor me. I wish to be loyal to all. 21 In India, the realized man, united with God, does not go around asking for others to repent at his feet, for he sees the work of God either directly present, or work that God has allowed to occur without his direct involvement, behind all actions of men. What the moralist sees as a crime, the realized man may see as an inevitably of one energy reacting against another. Knowing himself as the Divine, the realized man does not need others to repent before him in a public display, for he already knows the inherent balance of Truth and Falsehood behind their actions. Of course, if a devotee goes to a Yogi to pray for Grace, the Yogi will not reject this prayer. Yet even while aiding the devotee, the Yogi has no desire for others in a similar situation to repent before him. It is a strong vital ego and arrogance that demands of other men acknowledgement of sin before him, an ego who perhaps fancied himself the perfect ideological heir to Jesus Christ? This, after all, was a man who regularly spoke of his love for the New Testament and its message of nonviolent resistance, who agreed in principle with the idea of Jesus as the Prince of passive resisters, the strategy he had engrossed himself in: Gandhiji went on to relate how he had resisted a certain millionaire in South Africa who had introduced him at a public meeting as a mere passive resister and weak because as an Indian there he was landless and without any rights. Gandhiji objected to this description and said that real passive resistance had been miscalled the weapon of the weak. After all Jesus Christ had been called the Prince of passive resisters. Could he, in any sense of the term, be called a weak man? People forget that soul force, the only weapon of the truly nonviolent man, was a weapon of the strong. 22 It was one thing to have an ideological liking to a philosophy, it was another to then claim that if Mohammed came to India today, he would disown many of his so-called followers and own me as a true Muslim, as Jesus would own me as a true Christian. 23 Taking his wish to live Jesus life even in death, Gandhi declared himself ready to forgive his assassin. Jesus Christ prayed to God from the Cross to forgive those who had crucified him. It is my constant prayer to God that He may give me the strength to intercede even for my assassin. And it should be your prayer too that your faithful servant may be given that strength to forgive. 24 This ambition to be known as a great man or prophet or Saint has long been considered one of the most dangerous obstacles for those, like Gandhi, who seek spiritual realization. The desire for spiritual fame or power is fatal to the spiritual endeavor, as it is a subtle working of the ego mistaking its distorted use of higher forces for the purity of the Divine

power. Since the true goal of spiritual practice is to elevate ones consciousness from the ego to the Divine, the desire to achieve spiritual fame will lead to a withdrawal of the Divine from his attempt to reveal himself, because the persistence of such ambition means that the ego is not steady enough to absorb the magnitude of the Divine. Such urges for glory plagued Gandhi from his beginnings in the political scene, implicit in this column written in South Africa urging Indians there to follow Satyagraha: It does not matter if the satyagrahis' army is a small one. History will tell you the Light Brigade consisted of only a few men and yet it attained immortal fame. Similarly, satyagrahis will enjoy immortal fame, at least in South Africa. 25 Just as Jesus and Mohammed became known throughout the world, such was Gandhis wish for international prestige. If only Gandhi could be present in the flesh in all troubled areas, then the world would be filled with peace: I would accept the challenge of conquering the tribal areas but as a nonviolent man. I would not bribe them, nor kill them; I would serve them. Have not the missionaries allowed themselves to be eaten by cannibals? The correspondent exclaimed, "Alas! There are no Gandhis in Palestine, in Russia or in the USA!" to which Gandhiji laughingly replied: So much the worse for them. 26 While fame is something the Kshatriya may welcome after victory in battle, since the Kshatriya is often moved by human desires, the Kshatriya dharma does not consider fame an inner reason to go into battle. Battle was meant for upholding dharma; glory was known to be fleeting and thus was given little importance. Rama did not slay the Asuras and Rakshasas in the forest, nor destroy Ravana, in the quest for his name to be known across the globe. He killed because it was inherently the right course of action for him to take; to have not done so would have been a grave falsehood against his being. Indeed, if we are to recall Gandhis advice27 on the course of action to take when faced with a woman potentially being molested, we can compare it with Ramas response to the abduction of Sita. Granted that Ravana, due to Lord Brahmas curse on him, could not forcibly take Sita to bed (otherwise his head would explode into a thousand pieces), Rama still had to rescue her from Ravanas possession. It is here we can compare Gandhis approach to such a task versus that of the embodiment of the Kshatriya dharma, the Avatar who took birth to destroy this Rakshasa that threatened the ultimate purpose of human creation. Gandhi, having eschewed violence, could only use the tactic of a fast to death or simple persuasion. This, according to Gandhi, was the path of love. But was it? If violence is viewed by some with disdain, as a bloody mess full of hateful intentions, another view holds that violence can in certain circumstances be an act of love. While this is not always so, when Rama physically killed Ravana, it was an act driven by love not only for Sita, not only for the Gods and mortals whom the Rakshasa held sway over,

but for Ravana as well. When Gandhi said that a Satyagrahi must place himself in between a molester and a female victim without violently opposing the attacker (even if it ended the Satyagrahis life), he believed it to be an act of love because it was gentle to the attacker and would impart - through the death of the Satyagrahi - a ten to one likelihood that the molesters passion would cease. This is utter nonsense, since of course in such a situation it is ones dharma to protect the female from rape since it is not love to leave her unprotected by allowing oneself to be effortlessly slaughtered. Nobody, let alone a Kshatriya whose job it was to protect especially those who could not protect themselves, would take such an idiotic stance when confronted with that situation. At the least, one of weak character or constitution might try to find help. It is unfortunate that the proper course of action in this scenario even needs to be belabored, but as the fervent support of Gandhian ideas is high in some quarters, it must be examined. While a violent response (not necessarily involving killing) to a potential molestation in front of one is obviously an act of love towards the victim, in an obscure fashion it is also love for the attacker. In such a situation, gentle words or a subservient placement of ones body in front of the victim are unlikely to assuage the attacker, since he has been possessed by a brutal force of lust. Indeed a passive intertwinement is likely to only increase in him feelings of power that these forces thrive upon. Having easily removed the passive resister, he is not likely to change his mind with regards the woman, since men of this kind are not likely to possess the level of consciousness required to know that what they are doing is falsehood. It is here that a physical response may aid the attacker in acquiring this knowledge, for a physical thrashing or killing of a potential rapist is often the only way for him to realize his error, to experience (relatively) the type of suffering or humiliation he intended to bring about. While a violent response may end the life of the rapist, it still aids the growth of the Soul by fulfilling the purpose behind rebirth, namely the acquisition of life experiences eventually leading the Soul to its ultimate destiny (or in the case of Ravana, it is the way to help a typal being of darkness realize the falsehood of his ways and convert himself into an agent of light). It was this growth that Rama indirectly enabled Ravana to have, through the destruction of first his relatives and sons, then himself. Prior to his death, Ravana begins to experience the sorts of sufferings he inflicted upon others, begins to question the quality of his actions within his lifetime. Through such suffering inflicted by Rama, knowledge was to an extent acquired as to the true primitive nature of his actions. Thus while the first love of the Kshatriya in such circumstances is for the people subjected to the adharma of Ravana or the rapist, the punishment of these men of adharma is also in its secret nature an act of love. To understand how Gandhi mistakenly took his ahimsa to be an act of love in accordance with the Kshatriya dharma, we only need remember Shri Krishnas words to follow ones dharma. If Gandhi had a few tendencies that were harmonious with the Kshatriya dharma, such as his willingness to support a cause he considered worthy, his obsession with turning ahimsa into a Kshatriya trait was what made his actions adharmic. The

obscure impetus behind Gandhis fetish of ahimsa was well intentioned - that of bringing spirituality into politics. However, making politicians and soldiers28 practice ahimsa or even the spinning of cloth was not the way to spiritualize the Kshatriya varna. The method of spiritualizing politics had already been revealed in the Gita in the path of Karmayoga. In order to spiritualize politics and warfare, both being professions of high activity, the surrender to God of both the fruit of the labor and the actual process of the labor is the first step for the individual. For national polity, the Kshatriyas aims of upholding dharma and stamping out injustice internally or externally driven, can be spiritualized by facilitating the national expression of the highest Truth, the Absolute, the Divine, something far more luminous than the petty (in relation) and ego-dependent moral or ethical truths of Gandhi. In trying to spiritualize politics, Gandhi only succeeded in confusing the efforts of the political and military classes of his and subsequent times, hindering their actions, preventing them from fully acting according to their dharma, consequently impeding their life-force and Will through his moral positions and fasts of blackmail. In trying to bring the Brahmana principles into the Kshatriya varna, Gandhi would make declarations of the most shocking variety, not befitting of one considered the Father of the Nation, nor one granted the title of Mahatma. *** Of the virtues of the Brahmana dharma, ahimsa is but one. Other noble practices include, as mentioned, brahmacharya, learning of scriptures, restraint from rage and other rajasic tendencies. Another virtue of the Brahmana Gandhi wished to bring into the field of the Kshatriya, was truth-telling. The spiritual disciple practices truth-telling in order to make himself as close to a perfect reflection of the Divine as possible. By only speaking truths to others and acknowledging truths of ones nature internally, the disciple can accelerate the purification of his heart and mind. However, this does not mean that by only speaking truths, by being honest, one may necessarily become united with the Absolute Truth. While honesty is undoubtedly a virtue that would benefit mankind if practiced by all, we must face reality and accept that often, men will lie or connive to further their ends. In the Kshatriya varna, prior to the advent of Kalyug, a code of ethics was in place where all warriors only spoke honestly. However, as the Mahabharata illustrates, this practice had eroded through events anteceding the battle of Kurukshetra. Deceit and secret conspiring led to the banishment of the Pandavas to the forest, and an element of deceit was used by the Pandavas to emerge victorious in battle. Lord Krishna, knowing the adharma practiced by the Kauravas prior to battle, knowing that for the sake of dharma it was necessary the Pandavas vanquish the jealous, cruel and ambitious Kauravas, was complicit in this deceit, urging Bhima to fulfill his earlier promises even if it entailed striking Duryodhana below the navel with his mace. Such an act was not practiced by the Kshatriyas of the time but it was needed in order to win the war and to preserve Bhimas word to Draupadi.

What Lord Krishna wholly understood was that the code of pure honesty (since technically it can be said the Pandavas did not commit a lie) and proper battle ethics practiced by the Kshatriyas of the time period, whatever the Truth they contained, could never be Absolute Truths, since ethics and codes and morality and even honesty are still human things, always variable. What is more important for the Kshatriya is the upholding of dharma, even if it means in some instants the breach of an ethical code of conduct. By the beginning of the Kalyug, subterfuge and lying had become distinct possibilities for those in politics and war. Indeed part of the reason why Sri Krishna directed Bhima to strike at Duryodhanas thigh was because the latter had already engaged in multiple surreptitious plots and deceits, thus he did not deserve to be protected by the ethical codes of the age. By Gandhis time, deception was an integral part to most Governments policies, and it was prudent for the politician to never place too much faith in the words of a political opponent. Honesty is still and will always be essential for the spiritual seeker, for the Brahmana dharma. However, Gandhi, just as he aimed for with Ahimsa, wanted to prove to the world that honesty (and trusting others) could succeed in the Kshatriyas domain: The third thing he referred to was about his friend Shaheed Suhrawardy. He was receiving verbal complaints and complaints by letter that Shaheed Saheb was not to be trusted and that the Hindus had suffered a lot during the tenure of his ministry. The complaint was not new. He knew it before they embarked on the joint mission which seemed to be bearing unexpectedly good fruit. He was in no hurry. His was a trusting nature. He had never lost anything by trusting in good faith. Just as he would expect others to believe his word, unless he was proved untrue, he would likewise believe the word of another. That, he held, was the only honourable way of living among men. He held that man never lost by trusting and that the deceiver was lost. 29 As a fellow WWI volunteer told him, Gandhi was too trusting. These people will deceive you with wretched words, and when at last you see through them, you will ask us to resort to satyagraha, and so come to grief, and bring us all to grief along with you. 30" Gandhi held that not only should one be honest, one should also take everyones word at face value. This, of course, was the reason the British had no objections to Gandhi as the leader of the Congress Party, nor felt the need to take serious action against him (such as the deportation or rigorous imprisonment meted out to other leaders) for the soft opposition he gave them. Here was a man willing to take lies (obvious or subtle) as truths, and willing to let the British know of his precise actions if they asked, for he would not tell a lie (at least in politics, since Gandhi was less open with details of his personal life31). Added to that his complete insistence on nonviolence, and the perfect opposition leader was created. However, Gandhi did point out that the deceiver would eventually succumb to his lies. This is often the case, for the weaving of intricate lie after lie often leads to a reaction from at least one of the parties subjected. In the case of India, the subtle and devious effects British rule wrought on the country induced the necessary reaction leading to their

retreat, once flowery words were no longer accepted as truths. This reaction, as previously discussed, was of a more varied and active kind than the passivity Gandhi thought would lead to Indias freedom. Another interesting result or lack thereof of Gandhis trustworthy nature, was Muslim belief in his integrity. Suhrawardy was not the first Muslim he placed complete faith in; from his days in South Africa, he worked with many Muslims in full confidence of their probity. Such was his faithfulness that he as told in a prayer speech - had to be warned by a Muslim friend not to be so trusting of Muslims. A Muslim friend who is no longer alive, and who, a jeweler that he was, possessed also the qualities of a jewel, had warned me to beware of Muslims since all of them were not angels. But I told him I need not look at the darker side of things. 30 While Gandhi chose to ignore this advice, Muslims from his time in South Africa did not reciprocate his trusting nature: When the passive resistance movement was at its height, Mr. Ally could not continue to trust me fully because I was a Hindu. He therefore sent a telegram to Ameer Ali (1). On this occasion, a few Muslims thought of sending a telegram to Mr. Jinnah, and the Pathans eventually sent one. I do not blame Mr. Ally for what he did. Again, I do not blame the Pathans for what they have done now. I have known Mr. Ameer Ali. I asked for his help on behalf of the community and it was given. I have also known Mr. Jinnah. I regard them both with respect. I do not therefore write to complain but only to point to these things as symptoms of our mental state. The symptom is this: I occasionally observe some lack of trust [in me] though I have worked hard to bring the two communities together. This is a sign of our weakness. It makes me unhappy. I have heard some Muslim brethren say in arguments about compromise, "Gandhi has totally ruined the Muslims and has been doing so for the last fifteen years." It is regrettable that any Indians should utter these words. I am sure those who say this themselves know that I have never dreamt of harming anyone. Footnote 1. Syed Ameer Ali (1849-1928): ...In July 1907, H.O Ally wrote a letter to Ameer Ali, a member also of the South Africa British Indian Committee, expressing his opposition to Gandhiji's continued campaign against the Asiatic Registration Act, for, he said, that would ruin "thousands of my co-religionists who are all traders while the Hindus are mostly hawkers." He sought the intervention of the Committee against the satyagraha movement. 33 Such knowledge of their lack of faith was unlikely to change his general demeanor one of submissiveness towards Muslims. Whether it was the common Muslim or the politician, Gandhi was always willing to forget his and Hindu grievances or interests if it would make the Muslim happy. Such was the case in 1947 when the greatest Muslim demand, that of the division of the country, came to fruition. Gandhi had not wanted this division to take place, but instead of accepting it and using the divided land to exchange

populations like Greece and Turkey did, Gandhi made one last desperate attempt to prevent partition, which he outlined to a stunned Mountbatten in classified documents: Finally, he (Gandhi) gave me the first brief summary of the solution to which he wishes to adopt: Mr. Jinnah should forthwith be invited to form the Central Interim Government with members of the Muslim League. This Government to operate under the Viceroy in the same way the Interim Government is operating. I need not say that this solution coming at this time staggered me. I asked, What would Mr. Jinnah say to such a proposal? The reply was, If you tell him I am the author he will reply Wily Gandhi. I then remarked, And I presume Mr. Jinnah will be right? To which he replied with great fervour, No, I am entirely sincere in my suggestion. 34 To Mountbatten, accustomed to the acquisitive nature of the political field, such a passive yielding of power was quite a shock. Jinnah and other Muslims, heeding the Quranic injunctions to not trust an unbeliever even of the same kin35, would never believe him irrespective of his sincerity. Nevertheless, Gandhis offer was genuine and fitting with his obsequious nature and past history of completely trusting his political opponents. Of note in his proposal are a few points: 1. Mr. Jinnah to be given the option of forming a Cabinet. 2. The selection of the Cabinet is left entirely to Mr. Jinnah. The members may be all Muslims, or all non-Muslims, or they may be representatives of all classes and creeds of the Indian people. 8. In the Assembly the Congress has the decisive majority. But the Congress shall never use the majority against the League policy simply because it was associated with the League but will give forth its hearty support to every measure brought forward by the League Government, provided that it is in the interest of the whole of India. 36 If Jinnah had not possessed the ambition to be founder of a nation, and if the Islamic clerics and the rest of the Muslim masses of the subcontinent (the majority of whom including those who would remain in India post-partition - voted for the creation of Pakistan as a homeland for subcontinent Muslims) werent so keen in their desire to gain Pakistan from the Kaffirs, they might have been prescient to the opportunity that Gandhi and demographics presented. Gandhi, by offering Jinnah the ability to pick his own Cabinet, along with giving full Congress support to League measures that could be made to appear to be in Indias interests, was actually increasing the likelihood of an Islamic conquest of India. With complete Muslim control of the government and higher Muslim demographic figures (the subcontinent itself currently holds over a 30 percent Islamic population, while in India the percentage is 12-15 percent), Hinduism would have been in worse danger than during Mughal times. Fortunately, the demographic figures and trends werent as widely known to the Clerics of that era, and since there was little chance of Jinnah accepting Gandhis plan, Hindus were spared such a rule and the potential all-

Muslim Cabinet. While such a Cabinet may have pleased Gandhi and his secularist descendants, it is unlikely that one of an opposite complexion- an all-Hindu Cabinet would have been accepted by either. Nevertheless, Gandhis actions showed his willingness to place Indian sovereignty and the livelihood of Hindus at risk, either to satisfy ideas belonging to the Brahmana varna or simply because he did not wish to offend anyone. In one instance, he was willing to give up Indian land. That was his position to Naga leaders who planned on declaring themselves independent: Gandhiji: Why not now? Why wait for August 15? I was independent when the whole of India was under British heel. You can be independent and if you have non-violence in common with me, no one can deprive you of independence. Naga leaders: Government said that if we become independent military sanctions will be applied against us. Gandhi: The government is wrong. I will come to Kohima and ask them to shoot me before they shoot one Naga. Naga Leaders: The trouble will not be started by us. It may be started in spite of us. Gandhi: You have opened a very large subject. Independence, yes. But if you say you will be independent of the whole world, you cannot do it. ...From where do you get your cloth? Naga Leaders: It is foreign cloth. Gandhi: Then you are slaves of foreigners. Will you go naked if the foreigners do not give you cloth? What of your food? Naga Leaders: We grow enough. Gandhi: You cannot be in complete isolation Naga Leaders: We do not talk of isolation Gandhi: Then no army will deprive you of your freedom. Those days are gone. Naga Leaders: We will be friends with all Gandhi: Then you are safe so far as India is concerned. India has shed blood for her own freedom. Is she going to deprive others of their freedom? Personally, I believe you all belong to me, to India. But if you say you don't, no one can force you.

Naga Leaders: Is there any word for the Nagas? Gandhi: If I come there I will teach you the art of spinning and weaving. You grow cotton and yet you import cloth. Learn all the handicrafts. That's the way to peaceful independence. If you use rifles and guns and tanks, it is a foolish thing. Naga Leaders: No, we certainly shall not do that. 37 So if the partition of India was abhorrent due to its division along religious lines, the loss of Indian areas like Nagaland were of no consequence as long as they remained friends with India! Present again in this conversation is the lurking threat of a Gandhian fast on military actions. Previously it has been discussed how Gandhis ideal for the military man was to drop their guns and become nonviolent farmers, leading to his claim that Our army will lead the world if it adopts nonviolence instead of violence. 38 Also discussed was the effect of Gandhis January 1948 fast on government policy and its direct link to his assassination. While Gandhi did not fast against Indian action in Kashmir or Nagaland, it clearly remained a possibility in his mind, especially when we consider that he did not completely approve of Indian military action, principally in Kashmir: See what India is doing. See what is happening in Kashmir. I cannot deny that it is with my tacit consent. They would not lend ear to my council. Yet, if they were sick of it, I could today point them a way. Again, see the exhibition the United Nations Organization is making. Yet I have faith. If I live long enoughthey will see the futility of it all and come round to my way. 39 Gandhis patience with United Nation activity or Indian military action would not have been everlasting, just as his patience with Hindu rioters dissipated quickly. Having fasted against Hindu demonstrators, having promised Naga leaders of a nonviolent protest against military action there, having fasted to coerce the Indian Government to pay Pakistan treasury money, who is to say a fast against Indian military action in Kashmir was out of the question? After all, this man deplored violence to such an extent that he urged Hindus to let Muslims kill them without a fight. And while that may have been his most egregious offense, the advice he gave to the citizens of Europe facing Nazi hostility bears a striking resemblance. I appeal for cessation of hostilities ... because war is bad in essence. You want to kill Nazism. Your soldiers are doing the same work of destruction as the Germans. The only difference is that perhaps yours are not as thorough as the Germans ... I venture to present you with a nobler and a braver way, worthy of the bravest soldiers. I want you to fight Nazism without arms or ... with non-violent arms. I would like you to lay down the arms you have as being useless for saving you or humanity. You will Invite Herr Hitler and Signor Mussolini to take what they want of the countries you call your possessions. Let them take possession of your beautiful island with your many beautiful buildings. You will give all these

but not your souls nor your minds. If these gentlemen choose to occupy your homes, you will vacate them. If they do not give you free passage out, you will allow yourself, man, woman and child, to be slaughtered but you will refuse to owe allegiance to them. 40 Luckily for the British, Gandhi was not in England during the War to subject them with a fast unto death in order to try and force them to stop fighting, although its doubtful such an action would have changed British policy. Gandhi, in trying to bring Brahmana ahimsa into war, only succeeded in giving support to the Asuric and Rakshasic forces that fed Nazi and Muslim attacks on their respective enemies, because these forces of ignorance feed off of bloodshed and hatred. Since they are ignorant to begin with, they do not contain within them the idea that what they are doing is falsehood. Nazism did not believe the killings of non-Aryans or those opposing their rule to be wrong; Islam does not hold the killings of Polytheists such as Hindus to be wrong. Thus these two groups would not be moved to think otherwise by an abject surrender of their enemies to their deaths. Gandhi may have known that Islamic attacks on Hindus solely because they were idolaters, or Nazi designs to take over the world, were wrong, but neither group understood this and they should not have been expected to acquire this knowledge overnight or even within their lifetime. This is where the Kshatriya comes in - to destroy this ignorance by violent force. Gandhi, having learnt with the world of the Holocaust committed by Nazis, refused to move from his position that the Allied violent response was of little value: Raymond Cartier had asked "We who are children of violence in Europe, how do you expect us to become nonviolent?" In reply, Gandhiji said that if they continued like this, they were sure to perish. What had happened in Europe was that Hitlerism had only been destroyed by super Hitlerism and this chain was endless. It would go on like that. ...Asked how it would be possible to destroy Hitlerism by nonviolence, Gandhiji said that was what we had to find out. 41 This reply is indicative of the frivolity with which Gandhi afforded human life, the sort of cold mentality and disconnected view Gandhi held of masses of people. The Hindus in partition and the people of Europe were nothing but animals in the scientists lab, fit to test a poorly held hypothesis that surely a massive nonviolent movement would somehow win against enemies that did not mind killing untold numbers in order to achieve their ends. This was the truth Gandhi was experimenting with! A truth he was not completely sure of, as he admitted in a 1924 Young India article: For experience convinces me that permanent good can never be the outcome of untruth and violence. Even if my belief is a fond delusion, it will be admitted that it is a fascinating delusion. 42

Fascinating is not the proper word to use for this delusion; morbid is more appropriate. For what kind of man seriously entertains the notion that a set of peoples should not defend itself from violent attack, that a woman should not be spared rape if violence was used in her defense? While there are times when Gandhi is quoted condoning the use of violence, at least relative to complete cowardice, his philosophy was that nonviolence in all situations was still the greatest practice of all. To the Hindu, having either heard or read of his pleas for suicide, two possibilities emerge as an explanation of his character: Either he was a conscious enemy of the Hindu, or he was fixated to the point of becoming delusional. The latter is the likelier of the two, judging from his fanaticism with nonviolence prior to arriving in India. The fanatic, holding a less supple mind, is more likely to accept delusions or partial-truths as complete truths, to obsess over them, to only speak of them. The fanatic, outwardly confidant yet subconsciously knowing his beliefs to be less than an Absolute Truth, seeks external confirmation of his beliefs, desires that the mass follow his dictates and uphold the pretension that his ideas are the final word humanity has been waiting for. All of this is needed to ease a gnawing insecurity that his beliefs might be but minor truths of a Universal Mind. Gandhi, confused as to ahimsas place in society, also held delusions of grandeur: For surely at least the Hindu should follow his beliefs, since he was supposed to be a Hindu leader? Why he forced only the Hindu to follow his madness, can possibly be further explained along with his need for moral superiority when we consider the passive-aggressive bent to his nature. For as he admitted, he was less likely to feel angry with the enemy, redirecting his anger on those closest to him: He had disciplined himself sufficiently never to feel angry with the enemy, but he confessed that he sometimes lost his temper with friends. Such discipline in nonviolence as he had, he told them, he had at home from his wife. And with that he unfolded in poignant detail, a chapter of his domestic life. He used to be a tyrant at home, he said. His tyranny was the tyranny of love. 43 Indeed one would never imagine Gandhi yelling in anger at Jinnah or the Ali brothers even if they were to gravely insult him. What pertains to his associates extends to communities, as Gandhi was able to discipline himself never to feel anger at Muslim violence on Hindus, yet could barely control his rage at Hindu retaliation. But what is commonly known as passive-aggressiveness, may just be a fancier explanation for another word explaining Gandhis behavior that of cowardice. Cowardice is not something one can easily admit to others or oneself, but for the many faults Gandhi had, he was still on occasion able to admit some facts about himself, like when he admitted his inability to realize Atman. In similar fashion, Gandhi, when reliving the aggressiveness of the Pathans and comparing them to himself, admitted his cowardice to a 1938 audience:

It is not because we are unarmed that we have adopted this nonviolence. Ours is the nonviolence of the brave. Although I have been experimenting with it for fifty years, I have no cut and dry answers to all the questions. When I start thinking what I would have done if I had been in Spain now or in China or Austria, and if Hitler had attacked these countries and I found men and money being drained away, my head starts reeling. You may well argue how much the nonviolence that has made only this much progress even after fifty years experience can help us in our struggle. If you think like this, you may give it up. For me there is no question of giving it up. My faith is unwavering. I shall however regret that the Lord has not favoured me with such clarity of expression that I could explain my ideas to others. I mean ours should not be the nonviolence of the cowards who are afraid of war, of bloodshed, whose hearts tremble at the shouts of killers. Our nonviolence should be the nonviolence of the Pathans. I have lived with them. They are not afraid of killing or getting killed. I have cited this example so that I may compare myself to a Pathan boy. A Pathan boy is fearless. If there is bloodshed he does not hide himself in his house. He finds pleasure in fighting. He does not stop to think that he might be injured or even killed. He is never afraid of getting hurt...I have seen such Pathans with my own eyes. What I wish to say is that experimenting with nonviolence is the work of such brave persons. I myself have not yet reached this stage. There is a lot of cowardice in me. I talk of satyagraha, no doubt. But in the face of killings I cannot have the fearlessness of the Pathans. If I have to go and face such a situation, my hearts one wish would be to escape alive. If per force I do go, my heartbeats would quicken. And, in my heart of hearts I would be afraid lest a bullet or a stone should hit me. I reached Bombay in 1921 when the riots were raging. Stones were being hurled. I wanted to save myself from the melee, but what could I do? I was the leader of the Non-cooperation movement. I went in most unwillingly. At heart, I wished someone asked me to stay home; that would have indeed been welcome. When I reached there the people were in a frenzy. Anasuyabehn was with me. She is a brave woman. Who was I to protect her? People had lost their heads. I saw mounted policemen advancing towards us. At the most, there must have been forty of them, but they were advancing with such unconcern as though there was not a man on the road. They were followed by officers in their cars. My heart trembled. We wanted to go to the fort area. We reached Abdul Reman street via Pydhonie. There was heavy fighting in the area. My heart was thumping. I do not know how high the blood pressure rose. As soon as the mounted police and army officers arrived the people who were till now in a riotous mood ran helter-skelter. I do not wish to take up your time narrating the whole incident. My idea is to tell you that you should give some thought to this. I have spoken of my own cowardice. But those who were brandishing knives and sticks turned out to be no braver. I have compared my own courage with a Pathan's. Nonviolence is the weapon of such fearless persons full of courage. This will show clearly how I should experiment. If there is real love in my heart and a feeling of oneness, why should I feel nervous to go there? Why did my

heart thump so? This clearly implies that even in me the feeling of nonviolence has not grown to the extent that would make me fearless and free of doubts. Fearlessness born out of love is the general characteristic of nonviolence. If it is not yet born in our hearts, this experiment is for that very purpose. While carrying on this experiment, we shall acquire the strength to face death smilingly. 44 The critical issue is not just his pusillanimity, but what is contained in the statement, I speak of satyagraha, no doubt. But in the face of killings I cannot have the fearlessness of the Pathan. Not only is he admitting his cowardice here, he is also hinting that all his speeches and writings on the courageousness of the Satyagrahi were but masks used to guard his fear of violence. It would be an error, however, to call Gandhi a complete coward, for he was always determined in presenting his mental opinions, unlike others. Unfortunately, he did not have the physical or vital courage or will of the Kshatriya necessary for war and politics. Not only was much of his nature antithetical to war and modern politics, he had not the training for either field. What Gandhi got himself involved with in South Africa, is in present times referred to as social activism or the struggle for external rights. His was the concentrated struggle with a small goal in mind. In no way could South Africa prepare him for the vast country of India and the strategies necessary to win independence. The social activism he practiced in South Africa, with its focus on ahimsa and literary critiques of government policy, in reality contained qualities belonging more to the Brahmana than the Kshatriya. Having not the inborn nature of a Kshatriya nor the training, Gandhi should have studied and absorbed from others the necessary lessons to become one (although all the training in the world would likely not have prevented him from continuing to follow an alien inner law contrary to the Gitas teachings), or better, he should have relinquished his position as the leader for hundreds of millions of Indians aspiring for independence. But the combined lure of fame (a byproduct of ambition and vanity) and power attached to the position, and his desire to use the Indian and Hindu masses as subjects for the experimentation of his ideas, was too much to overcome. Even as late as partition, he was being told that it would be best if he retired to the mountains or forest, the traditional retreat of the Sannyasi; this was in essence a reminder of his true nature, a reminder that his ideas were not suitable to a Kshatriya. It was too late a warning, for stubbornly arrogant, he had no reason to listen to the objects of his experiments. While his death may have prevented disaster to national interests, it could not arrest the damage done to the psychology of Indias Kshatriya varna. ***** It would be wrong to reflexively blame all the current weaknesses of Indian politicians on Gandhi, for though subsequent politicians share many of his faults, these are often not specifically due to his influence. Also, some of the errors of the current ruling class can be traced back through millenniums to warriors who fought with a different code than

subsequent enemies, refusing to change those ethics. Nevertheless, Gandhis unusual political practices have at least indirectly clouded the minds of successive leaders, obstructing the release of bold and comprehensive ideas on the world-plane. Gandhis immediate effect began with his successor, Jawaharlal Nehru. If we are to look at the direct consequences to the physical health of Indian citizens, we can compare Gandhis Muslim-Hindu bhai-bhai with Nehrus dream of brotherhood with the Chinese. Both being lost to sentimental ideals, a dangerous world for a Kshatriya to live in, brought a disregard for the lives of Indians. Gandhi explicitly offered Hindus at the alter of the Islamic sword; Nehru, holding a similar delusional faith in the Chinese political leadership, did not heed the warning of Tibet and refused to place necessary military personnel at the border; the inevitable result being a loss of land to China. What is it but disgrace for a Kshatriya to lose territory so easily? Another trait they shared, dangerous to Gandhi personally as a seeker of enlightenment, and dangerous to India as a nation, was ambition. Gandhi held the ambition of becoming the world-famous sage while Nehru desired the celebrity of the statesman. The old Kshatriya dharma demanded no personal glory be attached to the King, who was a servant of the people, pledging to uphold dharma whilst surrendering his works to God (Karmayoga). If Sri Krishna used the possibility of fame and richest to motivate Arjuna, it was because even that was better than abstaining from battle. The ideal Kshatriya mentality, however, held personal desires and attachments as being unworthy of the Raja; Rama, after all, banished Sita to the forest because he felt it necessary for the social cohesion of his citizens. A Kshatriya who desires personal glory is one who forgets his dharma. The latter ambition of being the statesman has yet to leave the Indian political scene (it can be traced back to the penchant of 19th Century Congress Moderates for passing sweeping resolutions that had no power behind them). Indeed within the last few years the Prime Minister of India declared to the nations of the World that they must heed Gandhis philosophy in order to cater for the needs of its peoples. While such an objective does have its merits, there remains an ersatz quality to these declarations, a feeling that these declarations are more for outward appearances and because these politicians love hearing the sounds of their voices. Their ability for action, as is well known, is far exceeded by their grandiose statements, because many would argue that the Indian government has done a poor job of catering to the needs of its own people, so who are they to lecture the world? The Congress Party is not the only Indian party negligent of its citizens and its Kshatriyas. The BJP, allegedly a hardcore Hindutva party, in late 1999 decided to release three accused Pakistanis held for terrorism in exchange for passengers on a hijacked Indian plane in Afghanistan. One of the terrorists, Saeed Shaikh, played a significant role in the kidnapping and murder of Wall Street Journalist Daniel Pearl in 2002. Some allege he wired funds to 9/11 suicide bomber Mohammed Atta prior to that act. The point is that the release of these enemies is not going to make them change their previously held views, it will only strengthen them, leading to more deaths. While a raid on the plane

may have been difficult being that it was in Pakistan-backed Afghanistan, allowing the release of known enemies can only demoralize the Kshatriyas on the ground who risk their lives trying to capture or kill these terrorists. But that is nothing new to the Indian government. One cannot imagine the accumulated frustration of soldiers over the decades, trained to fight an enemy created from the womb of falsehood, an enemy engorged on a message of hate, yet an enemy who knows its opponent fights with one hand tied behind his back. If the development of nuclear missiles has altered the equation considerably, this boorish and cruel nation still engages in low-level warfare in India. While they have been keen to take the attack across the border, India has failed to venture back even though the land of adharma holds parts of Kashmir rightfully belonging to India. This failure to attack, to expand beyond ones defined borders (although in this case that land is in truth part of greater Bharat), to strike at the heart of the enemy and kill him for eternity, can be traced back much farther in time than Gandhis era. It is a failure due to the ignorance of Pakistans true motive and the burden of a code made for different opponents. When the first Islamic invaders attempted entry into India, they were repelled over and over, even if at first they did gain a foothold. During none of this time was any incursion made by Hindu Rajas into Islamic land. No attempt was made at expansion because the idea of expansion had long disappeared from the scene. It was much later, after swaths of land had been lost to Islamic rulers, when Kshatriyas were born with the dharma of expansion. Yet this was only a reclamation of what had been previously lost, of little thought was the idea to invade further, conquering not only familiar lands but those previously unknown. While destruction of the source can be considered a goal for the future, it is in this direction of expansion that Kshatriya leaders of India ought to be presently turning towards. Instead, these leaders seem content to rest on making the occasional declaration telling the World how to live or denouncing terrorism. Taking refuge in the belief that India has never invaded another country, they vainly assume that mere words might effect the actions of one whose mind only conceives of a certain outcome. Words were never the main source of the Kshatriyas strength, action was. Speeches were made to motivate and remind the men on the ground of their dharma; they were not done to impress an audience of anglicized intellectuals. Perhaps Indias politicians have no plans in mind to dismantle a fanatical and deranged enemy because they themselves have never been on the frontline, have never experienced the frustration of being a soldier who instinctively knows the enemy to be deserving of destruction in a Dharmayuddh. Gandhi, after all, was nothing more than a social activist whose greatest accomplishment of relevant substance was earning Indians in South Africa the status of second class citizens. None of the political rulers since then have acquired direct experience in battle, although a few have performed well in adverse situations, even if they did not have the conquering mentality. The reason for this dearth of military experience is due to the tumultuous nature of Indian politics, with its varied political parties and hierarchies and nepotism. This makes it extremely difficult for one

to reach the summit of the political scene, as it requires seniority or perhaps a family name (or maybe the family will allow a politician to rule while controlling things from behind). Even if a man of military experience can reach the top, he then has to deal with multiple regional parties and egos and agendas, including some parties who have previously expressed interest in a Chinese takeover of the country. This is why the ancient Kshatriyas avoided a democratic setup for the national politic, leaving democracy at a local level where it better served the interest of the citizens while the Raja on the national level affirmed the Kshatriya dharma without flinching from personally taking to battle. The Raja focused on his dharma without trying to enforce particular ideas on his citizens, leaving them to follow their own dharma. What we have now is a political leadership that shrinks from aggressiveness even if it does allow for a defense of its borders significantly limited in breadth. It is in this manner that the Gandhian influence is felt, because even if politicians arent foolish enough to practice true Gandhian ahimsa and allow Indians to be slaughtered, they still shrink from aggressiveness like a plant without sunlight. His continued influence is in no small part due to the effect of the intellectual elite and arrogant yet cowardly journalists, neither of which seem to realize just how utterly nihilistic Gandhism is (or maybe they understand this perfectly). The symbiotic relationship between these two and the political leadership is not surprising when we remember the desire for celebrity that Gandhi and his descendents alike crave. Who better to feed a politicians vanity than the journalist or the intellectual elite, as long as the politician plays the game and says the right phrases demanded of him? Declarations of brotherhood with one who wishes for blood, statements of peace with one who wishes for war, condemnation of one group while ignoring the vile actions of another simply because the latter is a minority, are just some of the demands required for politicians desirous of statesmanship. The politician gets to read of himself in the papers and is spoken well of in higher circles of society, while the elite and the English-writing journalists feels a sense of power that they usually lack, which under a strong leadership they wouldnt actually have. This need for adulation from the elite leads the political class to devote an excessive amount of time to the causes of the intellectual class, to reforms that are better resolved at the societal level, to an artificial transformation of societal norms through external pressure. While these causes of the intellectual establishment do have their truths, and although the central government may be of help to such causes, the central government must first protect the nation from its enemies; the elite, of course, seems to think that India has no enemies! And since the Indian nation is far from immune to these external and internal threats, it is of grave importance the national government devote more time and effort (not just of a vocal kind) to securing a permanent end to a persistent scourge. This, of course, entails far more than simply protecting the borders. Another demand the establishment exerts on the Indian politician is the honoring of MK Gandhi. Rare is it for any politician in India to offer a divergent view from the standard refrain, as the Congress and the secular frequently Atheistic45 - establishments have

been able to elevate the status of Gandhi to that of a Semetic God or prophet - one of unquestionable authority. The problem here is not the effect these celebrations have on the general population, specifically the Hindus, who did not heed him during Partition nor do so now since most of his ideas go against basic human reason and instinct, let alone intellectuality or spiritual aspiration. The problem is the mental effect this incessant, partisan fawning has on our current politicians, who and this includes the Hindutvadi parties lack aggression (in the sense of thoroughly protecting borders and upholding the law, not in their aggressive political squabbles and posturing) in things crucial to their domain. At the back of each politicians mind seems to be their image, either worldwide or national, and often how it relates to the myth of Gandhi as the Father of the Nation and the implication that India should be solely gentle and peaceloving, leaving hideous aggression to others. Clearly there is nothing wrong with gentleness and toleration in proper relation to the whole, except the same argument can be made about aggression, that there is nothing inherently wrong with it as long as it is harmonious with other qualities a nation needs. The argument against aggression is a mere opinion from minds such as Gandhi that naturally quiver from it because it doesnt suit their nature. People born with this sort of nature would best remain in their field of social activism, or altogether avoid activities meant for the Kshatriya, whose inner law, whose dharma demands he defend his nation. Fortunately for India, there have always been enough men in India with the will to champion the Kshatriya dharma, even when serving an enfeebled political class. Unfortunately, these Kshatriyas, who have sacrificed far more than the decadent scions of political dynasties, remain beholden to those incapable of securing lasting protection to India. The likes of imitative statesmen at play with words while Indias neighbors East and West silently plot, tentative chieftains who prevent the Kshatriya from carrying out the destiny of his birth, capricious legislators vacillating from one peripheral aim to the next, and duplicitous intellectuals who obfuscate the actual intentions of the adversary, continue to grow bloated on the spoils of their positions as the enemy creeps nearer to its goal of murdering the past and the future. Bibliography: 1. Bhagavad Gita 3:35 2. Bhagavad Gita 18:47-48 3. Speech on 'The Secret of Satyagraha in South Africa' 7/27/16, available in The Essential Writings of Mahatma Gandhi, Raghavan Iyer, Pg. 304-307 4. "The States", Harijan 9-7-38, CWOMG, vol. LXVII, pg. 158 5. Harijan 27-5-39, CWOMG vol. LXIX pg. 60 6. Harijan 17-6-`939, CWOMG vol. LXIX pg. 313 7. Harijan 31-8-47, CWOMG vol. 89 pg. 63-4 8. Harijan 8-12-46, CWOMG vol. 86 pg. 134 9. Prarthana Pravachan I pp. 59-62, CWOMG vol. 87, pg. 398-9 10. Bhagavad Gita 2:18-19 11. Bhagavad Gita 2:31 12. Speech at prayer meeting May 7, 1947 Prarthana Pravachan p I p74-81, CWOMG vol. 87, pg. 429-34

13. Prarthana Pravachan I pp. 166-70, CWOMG vol. 88, pg. 162-3 14. Mahatma Gandhi-Last Phase Vol. II pp. 677, CWOMG vol. 90 pg. 511-12 15. Bhagavad Gita 2:32-37 16. Bhagavad Gita 11:33 17. Speech in Calcutta Nov 23 1946 Harijan 17-11-46, CWOMG vol. 86 pg. 70-1 18. Prarthana-Pravachan-Part I, pp. 29-32, CWOMG vol. 87, pg. 217-19 19. Harijan 28-9-47, CWOMG vol. 89, pg. 193-5 20. Speech at Prayer meeting Masaurhi Bihar march 17 1947 Gandhijike Dukhe Dilki Pukar II pp. 1-3, CWOMG vol. 87 pg. 105-6 21. Sept 13, 1947 Prarthana Pravachan I pp. 305-310, CWOMG vol. 89 pg. 179-183 22. Interview with Kingsley Martin, Harijan 20-6-48, CWOMG vol. 90 pg. 503-4 23. Harijan 17-11-46 interview with A Freeman CWOMG vol. 86 pg. 22 24. Mahatma Gandhi--The Last Phase, Vol. II p 511, CWOMG vol. 89, pg. 411 25. Indian Opinion, 5-6-1909, CWOMG, vol. 9, pg. 235 26. Harijan 20-6-48, CWOMG vol. 90 pg. 503-4 27. Harijan 19-11-1938, CWOMG, Vol. LXVIII, pg. 81-82: But what about the classical instance of the defenseless sister or mother who is threatened with molestation by an evil-minded ruffian, you will ask. Is the ruffian in question to be allowed to work his will? Would not the use of violence be permissible in such a case? My reply is 'no'. You will entreat the ruffian. The odds are that in his intoxication he will not listen. But then you will interpose yourself between the intended victim and him. Very probably you will be killed but you will have done your duty. Ten to one, killing you unarmed and unresisting will assuage the assailant's passion and he will leave his victim unmolested. But it has been said to me that tyrants do not act as we want or expect them to. Finding you unresisting he may tie you to a post and make you watch his rape of the victim. If you have the will you will so exert yourself that you will break yourself in the attempt to break the bonds. In either case, you will open the eyes of the wrongdoer. Your armed resistance could do no more, while if you were worsted, the position would likely be much worse than if you died unresisting. There is also the chance of the intended victim copying your calm courage and immolating herself rather than allowing herself to be dishonoured. 28. July 27 1947 Message to Army Officers, Bihar Pacchi Dilhi pp. 429-30, Volume 96 of the online CWOMG http://www.gandhiserve.org/cwmg/VOL096.PDF : I have only one message for you. You have got your guns and sten-guns and you are proficient in killing men and all living things. Instead of that you should learn the art of using the sickle, ploughing the land and producing the food necessary for men and other living things. Forget violence and gain proficiency in nonviolence. Maybe from this you will think that I have gone mad. But look at the way Capt Shawanaz and Col Jiwansingh live and work today. They have ceased to become army officers and have become public servants and farmers. Thus they have become more powerful. ...Our army will lead the world if it adopts nonviolence instead of violence. 29. Harijan 31-8-47, CWOMG vol. 89, pg. 80-1 30. The Story of My Experiments with Truth, M.K Gandhi, Part IV, Chapter XL 31. see A Brahmacharyi or a Pretender?

32. June 1 1947 Prarthana Pravachan I pp. 111-6, CWOMG vol. 88, pg. 52-54 33. Indian Opinion 22-2-1908, CWOMG vol. 8, pg. 99-100 34. from the Lord Mountbatten Papers, Appendix VII, Volume 94 of the 98 volume set 35. Quran 9:28: Let not the believers take the unbelievers for friends rather than believers; and whoever does this, he shall have nothing of (the guardianship of) Allah, but you should guard yourselves against them, guarding carefully; and Allah makes you cautious of (retribution from) Himself; and to Allah is the eventual coming. 36. Outline of Draft Agreement (dictated by Gandhi to Lord Ismay) April 4, 1947 Gandhijis correspondence with the Government 44-47, pp. 238-9, CWOMG vol. 87 pg. 199 37. Interview to Naga Leaders, July 19, 1947, Peace in Nagaland, Eight Year Story: 1964-72, pp. 83-4 and 224-5, CWOMG vol. 88, pg. 373-4 38. Bihar Pacchi Dilhi pp. 429-30, CWOMG vol. 99 pg. 443-4 39. Interview with Vincent Sheehan, Mahatma Gandhi-Last Phase Vol. II pp. 677, CWOMG vol. 90 pg. 511-12 40. Amrita Bazar Patrika, July 4, 1940, Method of Non-violenceMahatma Gandhi's appeal to every Briton. 41. Hindustan Standard 22-12-46, CWOMG vol. 86 pg. 247 42. 'My Path' Young India, 11 Dec 1924 43. A pilgrimage for peace, pp. 87-91, CWOMG vol. LXVIII, pg. 45-46 Speech at Gandhi Seva Sangh meeting 3/27/38 44. Gandhi seva sanghke chaturh varshik adhiveshan ka vivaran, pp. 36-42, CWOMG vol. LXVI pg. 435-7 45. Gandhi, in Part I, Chapter 20 of his autobiography, related his witnessing of an argument involving an Atheist and a Clergyman in which the Atheists arguments caused the clergyman to assume a humble silence. Gandhi ended the chapter by writing, The talk still further increased my prejudice against atheism.