INDIAN INSTITUTE FOR RESEARCH INTO TRUE HISTORY

Newsletter 15 of 16th June 1987

1. GENERAL

In 1986 we could publish only one newsletter. Mr Godbole was busy with his book on Punjab politics entitled "God Save India". It is expected to be published soon by the Savarkar Study Centre, Bombay.

2. NEWS AND CURRENT AFFAIRS

2.1 Mr Godbole’s book entitled "Taj Mahal: Simple Analysis of a Great Deception" was published by Dr Bedekar in May 1986. Copies are available from Mr Godbole, rice £1.50 including postage.

2.2 A Telagu translation of the book is being published by Prof Pennurkar of Bhagyanagar (Hyderabad).

2.3 Rajmata Shinde and Sardar Angre heard about our work while travelling from Frankfurt to London, and expressed their desire to see Mr Godbole. Dr Lalwani arranged a meeting on 27^th September 1986 at 65 Cromwell Avenue, Highgate, London, where Savarkar used to live during 1906-1910. A photograph of this visit was later published in Lokasatta, a Marathi daily of Bombay.

2.4 Rajmata Shinde was so enlightened by Mr Godbole’s article "God Save India" that she asked for 200 copies which she circulated to senior members of Bharatiya Janata Party for their convention in Jammu.

2.5 In France Sardar Angre met last of the De Boins. He has good collection of antiques from India. We don’t know what will happen to them. De Boin was the loyal French General of Mahadji Shinde. There are no sons to present De Boins, the family ends with him.

2.6 Mr Godbole visited India during December 86/January 87. He met Dr Ravindra Ramdas, Dr Arvind Godbole, Balarao Savarkar (personal secretary to Veer Savarkar), Dr Paradhure of RSS, Mr S.T. Godbole who translated Savarkar^s book - Six Glorious Epochs of Indian History from Marathi into English, Mr.Anandrao Bhende an old Hindu Mahasabha leader, Dr P.V.Vartak,

M/s Pandit and Deshpande editors of Tarun Bharat, and of course Dr Bedekar and friends.

2.7 Public meetings were held in Pune on three occasions. The last one was a slide show by Ashok Athavale of Kanpur. Mr. Godbole added explanations and answered some questions. The public response was very good. Dr Bhide of New Delhi was in Pune. He was surprised and very happy and had long discussions with Mr Godbole.

2.8 Wing Commander Valavade said that the officers of the Institute of Armament Studies, Girinagar, Pune were interested to meet Mr Godbole, but the meeting could not be arranged because of short visit.

2.9 Balarao Savarkar asked if Mr Godbole would write a 200 page biography of Veer Savarkar. It was indeed a great honour, the request coming from personal secretary of Veer Savarkar and one who has all the correspondence and notes of Veer Savarkar. But it had to be declined. Such a biography would probably take five years.

2.10 On 3rd January 1987 Dr Ramdas organised a meeting of people from various associations in Kirti College, Dardar, Bombay. Mr Godbole explained his research work over last nine years, his triumphs and frustrations. At this meeting he met Brahmachari Vishvanathjee who is carrying on the work of Shuddhi (re-conversion of Muslims and Christians to Hinduism).

3. HOW OUR HISTORY GETS FALSIFIED OR DISTORTED

3.1 Intolerant Gandhi

Dr P.G Sahastrabuddhe was a famous professor who taught at S.P.College, Pune. He passed away in 1985. In the wake of Chinese invasion of India in the N.E.Front and Ladakh in 1962 he wrote a book entitled Lokasattela dandasatteche avhan. (Chinese) dictatorship challenges (Indian) democracy. He reviews our weaknesses and tells us on page 127/8/9 "...... Today the question is being asked - who would lead after Nehru? The reason is that Nehru is extremely intolerant and has ousted from Congress, people who did not agree with his policies and dared to have and express different opinions. Such a state of affairs had never arisen in the olden days. Gandhi was a man of great foresight. He knew that in order to maintain vitality, an organisation like the Congress Party must tolerate people of differing views, opinions, principles or ideology. Though he was very powerful he never even thought of expelling from Congress Party, people who opposed him...." This is totally false. Here are some examples:-

(A) Subhash Chandra Bose was elected President of Congress Party in January 1938. Despite stiff opposition from Gandhi, Bose was again elected President in 1939. Gandhi was furious. It is well known how low he sunk and got Bose ousted from his office and later from Congress Party. If Gandhi really tolerated different opinions he would have said "Though I opposed the re-election of Bose. he has been elected by the democratic process and we must accept that fact and wish him success." He did no such thing.

(B) Maulana Azad was a close associate of Gandhi. He tells us -

"..... looking at events in retrospect, I cannot refrain from saying that there was an astonishing transformation in the attitude of some of his (Gandhi^) closest followers on the question of violence versus non-violence. Sardar Patel, Dr Rajendra Prasad, Acharya Kripalani and Dr Prafulla Ghosh had wanted to resign from the Working Committee when the Congress passed a resolution that it would support the war effort if the British declared India free. They then wrote to me that for them non-violence was a creed and even more important than Indian independence. When however, India did become free in 1947 not one of them said that the Indian army should be disbanded........If non-violence was really their creed, how was it possible form them to take responsibility in a Government which spent over a hundred crores a year on the army? .......I have always had the feeling that these colleagues and friends did not exercise their own minds on most political issues. They were out-and-out followers of Gandhiji. Whenever a question arose they wanted to see how he would react .....I could not for a moment accept that we should follow him blindly. It is strange that the issue on which these friends wanted to resign from the Working Committee in 1940 completely escaped their notice after India became free.

(Ref. - India Wins Freedom. 1959 - pp 94/95)

(C) Subhash Chandra Bose tells us -

(From 1922 onwards) to make matters worse, political issues could no longer be considered in the cold light of reason but would be unnecessarily mixed up with ethical issues..... And worst of all was the tendency on the part of orthodox followers to regard everything that he (i.e. Gandhi) said as gospel truth without reasoning or arguing and to accept his paper Young India as their Bible.....Only hope for Indians lies in sane rationalism and in modernisation of the material aspect of life.

K.F Nariman was released from jail in July 1933. He spoke in Pune (Poona) ..... the remedy lay in securing for Gandhi in place of late Motilal Nahru another political taskmaker – a plain speaking outspoken giant and not lip sealed mummies who always shake their heads like spring dolls perpendicularly or horizontally according as Gandhi pulls strings straight or sideways.

Bose adds - It was refreshing and heartening to find in AICC at least one man who could think boldly and have the courage to call spade a spade.

(Ref. - The Indian Struggle 1920-1942 by S.C. Bose. Asia Publishing House 1943)

Mr Nariman was soon sent into oblivion by Gandhi. Next was the turn of Mr N.B. Khare, then Chief Minister of Central Provinces and Berar (October 1938). Afterwards, Subhash Chandra Bose was treated the same way next year (1939). M.N. Roy was kicked out few years afterwards. Thus, under Gandhi nobody of any ability, independent mind and thinking could remain in Congress. We wonder why Dr Sahastrabuddhe should have hidden these facts and told blatant lies. It is also astonishing that Dr Sahastrabuddhe should say that both Gandhi and Tilak before him, tolerated opposition to their views. Tilak was quite different from Gandhi and did tolerate opposition to his views. We quote two instances.

1. Lala Hardayal, who initiated the Gadr party movement among Indians living in America and Canada, called on Tilak in 1905. After their discussion Tilak said - "Do see Gokhale once". When he did Gokhale said "You have done well in seeing Tilak. That you have put up with him is as it should be, for the next generation is going to be his". Tilak and Gokhale each tried in his own way to persuade Hardayal to join his own party, but not a word they breathed about each other, to traduce character or misrepresent work. Not a word of malice or vilification escaped their mouth. On the other hand, what they spoke of one another was full of appreciation and reverence.

(Ref. - My Transportation for Life by Veer Savarkar. English Translation 1984 edition p. 184)

When was such healthy, open-minded attitude, shown by Gandhi towards his opponents?

2. Veer Savarkar was interned in an obscure town Ratnagiri for 13 years (1924-37). After his release he spoke at Tilak Memorial Hall, Pune, on 1 August 1937. He said - Tilak and Vishnushastri Chiplunkar who were making various petitions to British Authorities were also proud of Nanasaheb Peshwa (prominent in the Indian War of Independence 1857). One day Chiplunkar had arranged a tea party. But when he read in the Times that Nanasabeb was arrested, he cancelled the party.

..... I prefer previous generation’s moderates to today's militants. Tilak and others did not approve our methods. But they never committed the crime of pulling us back ..... Surendranath Banerjee was considered a moderate. But he had deep respect and affection for the revolutionaries languishing in Andaman (Kalapani). During World War I a German officer was sent to Andaman as a prisoner of war. Banerjee sent a message of sympathy and love with him for me. He strongly opposed the revolutionaries but he considered them as his own children. It was because of his efforts that we were released from Andaman ..... (Note – we know too well how Gandhi hated and detested the revolutionaries. So how can we say he was tolerant?)

Banerjee, Tilak or Gokhale never branded as nationalists only those who followed their paths ..... (Note - There is plenty of evidence indicating how Congressites openly advocated that those who opposed Gandhi were traitors. When it became clear in 1937 that Savarkar would not join the Congress Party, Congressites boycotted public honouring ceremonies welcoming Savarkar. When Savarkar visited Karachi in September 1938, Muslim corporators were in favour of Karachi City Corporation honouring Savarkar. But the move was opposed and defeated by Congress Party corporators. Such was Gandhi's tolerance!!!)

(Ref. - Samagra Savarkar Vangmaya Vol.4 pp. 367/8

- Veer Savarkar by Balarao Savarkar (1937-40 period) page 240)

3. Congress Party came to power in six major provinces in July 1937. One of their first acts was to buy back (with Government money) the properties of freedom filters, confiscated by British Authorities, but NOT that of Savarkar! Books of Savarkar proscribed by the British, remained proscribed under Congress Governments. That was the tolerance preached and practised by Gandhi!!! When comparing Gandhi and Nehru we can only say that Gandhi at least made a show of being tolerant and allowing some opposition to his views inside the Congress Party; Nehru did not do even that much. It is true that Vallabhabhai Patel Vitthalbhal Patel, Jayprakash Narayan, Acharya Narendra Deo did criticise Gandhi bitterly, but when it came to the crunch and any decisions had to be taken, they always capitulated to Gandtu/s whims. So it did not matter how much they criticised him. It is astonishing for Dr.Sahastrabuddhe to assert that Jawaharlal Nehru too criticised Gandhi openly and bluntly. HE NEVER did. He did express opinions different from those of Gandhi. But as soon as Gandhi expressed his opinions publicly, poor Jawaharlal would always do a right about turn and toe the Gandhi line. There was no one in the Congress Party who dared to stand up to Gandhi. Those like Khare, Bose, Nariman, M.N. Roy who did, were thrown out. Gandhi only allowed "Yes Sir" type men (lip sealed mummies as Nariman called them) to remain in the Congress Party. Savarkar himself said at Karnavati (Ahmedabad) on 1^st January 1938, “ I will not join the Congress Party. I do not want to express my views honestly and become a "Nariman" I don’t want any honours if I have to keep icy mouth shut. *'

(Ref. - Savagra Savarkar Vangmaya, Vol.4 pp. 350/1/2)

4. Savarkar and Gokhale were quite different in their thinking. One was a revolutionary trying to overthrow the British Raj by force of arms, other a moderate, using persuasion, pleas and petition for better government. But they showed respect for each other in private and in public. When Savarkar heard the news of Gokhale’s death he burst into tears. From the Andaman jail he wrote to his brother:

“ It pained me very much to hear that Hon. Gokhale was dead. He was after all a great patriot. True, at times, especially in panics, he used to say and do things which he himself must have been ashamed of a few months afterwards to own. But then, his life was dedicated to the service of Motherland and there was very little personal and selfish about him. All along his life, he served Her and for the good of Her, as he saw it. How anxious I was to see him, before death parted us, and to compare notes as he had said to me in London when we saw each other for the last time. We could not agree an certain points and he said "Well Mr.Savarkar come! We will see each other some six years (from now) and then would compare notes!"

(Ref. - Letters from Andaman by Veer Savarkar 1984 edition page 18.)

(Can you imagine Gandhi behaving in this way?)

5. Savarkar organised a get together of Indians in London, to celebrate Dasara (Vijayadashanmi) in November 1909. He invited Gandhi to preside over the meeting. Savarkar did this despite their differences because Gandhi was trying to uphold the dignity of Indians in South Africa. Did Gandhi ever reciprocate? No.

6. Savarkar was interned in Ratnagiri during 1924 to 1937. In March 1926 Gandhi happened to be in Ratnagiri. Savarkar invited him to his residence. This was despite Gandhi’s attitude to Abdul Rashid the killer of Swami Shraddhanand and Moplas who committed indescribable atrocities on Hindus in Kerela. But did Gandhi ever reciprocate? No.

3.2 Why Veer Savarkar was not called to the Bar?

During the birth centenary of Veer Savarkar (1983-84) many of his followers have written that he was not called to the bar because he refused to take a pledge of allegiance to the British Crown. For example - leaflet published by Savarkar Memorial Committee, Bombay, back cover page of "Hindu Rashtra Darshan" published by Balarao Savarkar, personal secretary of Veer Savarkar for 16 years. "The many firsts of Savarkar" an article by Arobindo published in Organiser Weekly of New Delhi 26 June 1983. But this is totally false. The chain of events was as follows:-

Sir Curzon-Wylie, special adviser to the Secretary of State for India had been keeping an eye on Savarkar ever since Savarkar came to London and entered Grays Inn to study for the bar in July 1906. Having completed his studies, Savarkar should have been called to the bar on 5th of May 1909, but he wasn’t. Sir Curzon-Wyllie had been trying behind the scene for this. The Benchers of Gray’s Inn charged Savarkar with various offences. A disciplinary committee was appointed. Government of India and the India Office supplied the evidence. Letters in the possession of Government of India and translation of Savarkar 's letters used in Nasik Conspiracy trial were also produced. Savarkar was charged with sedition, trying to overthrow the Government of India established by law etc. etc. Charges were being added even when the proceedings were half way through. Evidence, which in any public trial would have been disallowed, was allowed in the enquiry held in camera. Detectives employed to watch Savarkar for two years gave evidence. Savarkar himself was cross-examined for three hours. But despite all this the Benchers could not make any charges stick.

On 16th of July 1909 Gray’s Inn declared that the charges have not been proved, but because there is suspicion about him, Savarkar will not be called to the Bar just yet. He is a member of this society and will continue to enjoy the privileges of the

membership.

All this information is given in Sarvarkar’s letters from London

(Ref. - Samagra Savarkar Vangmaya Vol.4 pp. 132/3/4.)

There was never any question of taking a pledge of allegiance to the British Crown. If there was. Savarkar would not have hesitated even for a moment to take such a pledge. Throughout his life, Savarkar had emphasised that Hindus have suffered terribly over the centuries by foolishly sticking to the pledges given to their enemies - Muslims and the British. Time has come for them to be realistic. It is a great pity that

Savarkarites haven’t got the message yet.

3.3. Madanlal Dhinqra’s ashes

Madanlal Dhingra, as associate of Savarkar, shot and killed Sir Curzon-Wylie, in London on 1st of July 1909. He was hanged on 18th August 1909. He had publicly asked to be cremated like a Hindu. Many Indians too had signed a petition to that effect to the Home Secretary. Savarkar reported on 21st of August 1909 - British Government flatly refused to cremate the dead body. They punished Dhingra; did they have to punish his dead body too?

(Ref. - Samagra Savarkar Vangmaya - Vol.4 page 140)

And yet Prof. Shrivastava of Gurgaon, near New Delhi informed us in January 1987 that Dhingra’s ashes were publicly paraded in India in 1976. On 20th January 1976 there was a big procession and the ashes were carried from Delhi to Amritsar.

How??? Where was Dhingra buried? When and on whose request was the body exhumed? We want to know.

4. WORKS OF OUR FRIENDS

4.1 Dr. Wakankar

We mentioned his research work in Newsletter 14. Now we know bit more about his work.

4.1.1. When the white man invaded America, the Christian priests burnt down many written records of American Indians. One priest felt very uneasy. One night, while his fellow priests were sleeping he saved some papers from fire and hid them in a cave. They have been discovered recently.

4.1.2. Evidence has come to light that India had trade - links with New Zealand in the 8th and 9th century.

4.1.3. New stone inscriptions have been found in Mexico. Dr.Wakankar was invited to decipher them.

4.1.4. A Jewish tribe, hitherto unknown, has been found in Assam.

We would supply details when we receive them.

4.2 Prof Marvin Mills

He attended the Fatehpur Sikri symposium held in U.S.A in October 1985. Though he was not allowed to read his paper he made some points when he was allowed to speak for few minutes. He said:-

1. The chroniclers of Akbar were not reliable as historians and the epigraphic evidence on the buildings was not conclusive.

2. The stylistic and symbolic evidence such as chhatris, brackets, chajjas, lotus, elephants, would normally lead one to believe that it was a Hindu complex.

3. The time period of two years from the alleged commencement of construction in 1571 to the return of Akbar triumphantly form his Gujarat campaign in 1573 when he entered through the Elephant Gate could not have been enough time to prepare the city for his use plus the thousands of soldiers that were returning with him; nor would he have build the two elephants, symbol of the Hindu goddess Lakshmi, over the imperial gate which he normally used.

4. Akbar was personally a killer of Hindus and destroyer of heir temples. He would not have been so ecumenical in his attitudes towards Hindu culture as is claimed.

5. The final determinant of the issue must be done through archaeometry whereby brick and wood will be dated to see if it precedes the Akbar era.

6. I made a sporting offer to the University of Pennsylvania OKI 4 Harvard that if they put up the money for dating samples, should the dates show the Akbar period to be correct, I would pay the bill, if not, then the institution would pay the bill.

Prof Mills mentioned in his brief talk that to believe in the Fatehpur Sikri /Akbar myth was just a fantasy and that he was only asking for acknowledgement of an alternate explanation being possible.

We are very grateful to Prof. Mills.

5. RESEARCH FINDINGS

5.1 Holy Bible (continued from Newsletter No. 14)

5.1.6 Polygamy is accepted in Bible

Polygamy was widely practised in biblical times.

> Chronicles II

Chapter 24 Para. 3

And Jehoiada took for him two wives.

Chapter 14 Para. 21

But Abijah waxed mighty, and married fourteen wives and begat twenty and two sons, and sixteen daughters.

> Chronicles I Chapter 14 Para. 3

And David took more wives at Jerusalem: and David begat more sons and daughters.

> Samuel II Chapter 2 Para.2

So David went up thither, and his two wives also Ahinoam and Jezreditess.....

> Deuteronomy Chapter 21 Para.15

If a man have two wives, one beloved and another hated, and they have born him children.....

> Kings I Chapter 11 Paras.1 and 3

But King Solomon loved many strange women, together with daughter of Pharaoh, women of the Moabites, Ammonites, Edomites, Zidonians, and Hittites.....

And he had seven hundred wives, princesses and three hundred concubines.... (And yet Solomon was the wisest of all Kings of Israel!!!)

We must note that neither Lord God of Israel, nor Jesus have condemned polygamy.

5.1.7 Slavery is acceptable

> Deuteronomy

- Chapter 15 Para. 12

And if thy brother, an Hebrew man, or an Hebrew woman be sold unto thee, and serve thee six years, then in the seventh year thou shall let him go free from thee.

- Chapter 21 Paras. 10, 11, 12, 13

When thou goest forth to war against thine enemies, and the Lord thy God hath delivered them into thine hands and thou hast taken them captive

And seest among the captives a beautiful woman, and hast a desire unto her, that thou wouldest have her to be thy wife; Then thou shall bring her home to thine house; and she shall shave her head, and pare her nails; And she shall put the raiment of her captivity from off her, and shall remain in thine house, and bewail her father and her mother a full month: and after that thou shalt go in unto her, and be her husband, and she shall be thy wife.

5.1.8 Terrible deeds of the Lord God of Israel

A. The Promised Land

The story of the old testament is well known. Jews were enslaved in Egypt. Lord God of Israel sent Moses to liberate and bring them out of Egypt. In the book of numbers chapter 33 paras. 1 to 49 we find the route of their journey. And suddenly we find—50. And the LORD spake unto Moses in the plains of Moab by Jordan near Jericho saying,

51. speak unto the children of Israel, and say unto them, when ye are passed over Jordan into the land of Canaan;

52. Then ye shall drive cut all the inhabitants of the land from before you, and destroy all their pictures, and destroy all their molten images, and quite pluck down all their places;

53. And ye shall dispossess the inhabitants of the land, and dwell therein: for I have given you the land to possess it

(So that was the Promised Land!!! not a virgin land, but a land already inhabited by other peoples)

54. And ye shall divide the land by lot for an inheritance among your families.....

55. But if ye will not drive out the inhabitants of the land from before you: then it shall cane to pass, that those which ye let remain of them shall be pricks in your eyes, and thorns in your sides, and shall vex you in the land wherein ye dwell.

56. Moreover it shall come to pass, that I shall do unto you, as I thought to do unto them.

In the book of Deuteronomy, Chapter 31 we find:-

AND Moses went and spake these words unto all Israel.

2. And he said unto them, I am an hundred and twenty years old this day; I can no more go out and come in; also the LORD hath said unto me. Thou shalt not go over this Jordan.

3. The LORD thy God, he will go over before thee, and he will destroy these nations from before thee. And thou shall possess them.

B. Dealing with other people

Deuteronomy Chapter 20

11. And it shall be, if it make thee answer of peace, and open unto thee, then it shall be, that all the people that is found therein shall be tributaries unto thee, and they shall serve thee.

12. And if it will make no peace with thee, but will make war against thee, then thou shalt besiege it.

13. And when the LORD thy God hath delivered it unto thine hands, thou shalt smite every male thereof with the edge of the sword.

14. But the women and the little ones, and the cattle, and all that is in the city, even all the spoil thereof shalt thou take unto thyself; and thou shalt eat the spoil of thine enemies, which the LORD they God hath given thee

……

16. But of the cities of these people, which the LORD thy God doth give thee for an inheritance, thou shalt save alive nothing that breatheth.

17. But thou shall utterly destroy them; namely, the Hittites and the Amorites, the Canaanites and the Periz-zites, the Hi-vites, and the Jebusites; as the LORD thy God hath commanded thee.

After the death of Moses, Joshua became the leader of the Jews. When he took the city of Jericho we are told:-

Joshua Chapter 6

21 And they utterly destroyed all that was in the city, both man and woman, young and old, and ox, and sheep, and ass, with the edge of sword.

24. And they burnt the city with fire and all that was therein.

Joshua's men took the city of Ai later on. And what did they do?

Joshua Chapter 8

24. And it came to pass, when Israel had made an end of slaying all the inhabitants of Ai in the field, in the wilderness wherein they chased them, and when they were all failed on the edge of the sword, until they were consumed that all the Israelites returned unto Ai and smote it with the edge of the sword.

26. For Joshua drew not his hand back, wherewith he streched out the spear, until he had utterly destroyed all the inhabitants of Ai.

Joshua Chapter 10

28. And thay day Joshua took Makkedah, and smote it with the edge of sword, and the King thereof he utterly destroyed, them and all the souls that were therein, he let none remain: and he did to the King of Makkedah as he did unto the King of Jericho.

29. Then Joshua passed from Makkedah and all Israel with him, unto Libnah and fought against Libnah.

30. And the LORD delivered it also, and the King thereof, into the hand of Israel; and he smote it with edge of the sword, and all the souls that were therein; he let none remain in it; but did unto the King thereof as he did unto the King of Jericho.

31. And Joshua passed from Libnah and all Israel with him, unto Lachish and encamped against it, and fought against it:

32. And the LORD delivered La-chish into the hand of Israel, which took it on the second day, and smote it with the edge of the sword, and all the souls that were therein, according to all that he had done in Libnah.

33. Then Horam King of Gezer came up to help Lachish; and Joshua smote him and his people, until he had left him none remaining.

34. And from Lachish Joshua passed unto Eglon and all Israel, and all Israel with him; and they encamped against it, and fought against it:

35. And they took it on that day, and smote it with the edge of the sword, and all the souls that were therein he utterly destroyed that day, according to all that he had done to Lachish.

36. And Joshua went up from Eglon and all Israel with him, unto Hebron; and they fought against it:

37. And they took it, and smote it with the edge of the sword, and the King thereof, and all the cities thereof, and all souls that were therein: he left none remaining. according to all that he had done to Eqlon. but destroyed it utterly, and all the souls that were therein.

38. And Joshua returned, and all Israel with him, to Debir; and fought against it:

39. And he took it, and the King thereof, and all the cities thereof; and they smote them with the edge of the sword, and utterly destroyed all the souls that were therein; he left none remaining....

40. So Joshua smote all the country of the hills, and of the south, and of the vale, and of the springs, and all their Kings: he left none remaining but utterly destroyed all that breathed, as the Lord God of Israel commanded.

And despite these massacres by Jews, the natives would not leave the land nor would they surrender. Kings of Hazor, Madon, Shimron, Achshaph and many others gathered at the waters of Merom. The same old story followed.

Joshua Chapter 11

10. And Joshua at that time turned back and took Hazor and smote the king thereof with the sword: for Hazor before time was the head of all those kingdoms.

11. And they smote all the souls that were therein with the edge of the sword, utterly destroying them: there was not any left to breathe; and he burnt Hazor with fire.

12. And all the cities of those Kings and all the Kings of them, did Joshua take, and smote them with the edge of sword, and he utterly destroyed them, as Moses the servant of the LORD commanded.

14. And all the spoil of these cities, and the cattle, the children of Israel took for a prey unto themselves; but every man they smote with the edge of the sword, until they had destroyed them. neither left they any to breathe.

15. As the LORD commanded Moses his servant, so did Moses command Joshua, and so did Joshua; he left nothing undone of all that the LORD commanded Moses. (Note - Jesus was son of such a God! He never condemned these massacres).

18. Joshua made a war a long time with all those kings.

19. There was not a city that made peace with the children of Israel, save the Hivites the inhabitants of Gibeon; all other they took in battle.

20. For it was of the LORD to harden their hearts, that they should cone against Israel in battle, that he might destroy them utterly, and that he might destroy them, as the LORD commanded Moses. (What kind of God is this? He seems to be more interested in bloodbath than welfare of his people).

More about the Bible in our next newsletter.

6. BOOK REVIEWS

6.1 My Political Memoirs by Dr N.B. Khare; published by J.R.Joshi of Nagpur. Second edition 1971.

Dr Khare was a Congress leader who became Prime Minister of Central Provinces and Berar in July 1937. He was hounded out of Congress Party in October 1938 by Gandhi, Patel and Co. During World War II he served as a member of the Viceroy’s Executive Council (May 1943 - July 1946), Prime Minister of Alwar State April 1947-Feb 1948). He joined Hindu Mahasabha in August 1949 and later became its President.

The biography exposes:

a) Consistent ingratitude of Congress leaders.

b) Dictatorship of Gandhi

c) The myth of Gandhi’s fast of February 1943. It was NOT a fast unto death but fast unto capacity (pp. 36-40). From 21st February to 3rd March 1943 Gandhi was given sweet lime juice, but the fact was suppressed by the Congress Press. Mr M.S Aney who resigned from Viceroy's Executive Council as he feared for Gandhi’s life, later repented. He said "I thought the old man (Gandhi) might be moribund, but I saw him quite healthy. I resigned in vain and I repent for doing so in haste." (p. 131)

d) How Gandhi and co. created Pakistan (pp. 35-40)

e) How Sardar Patel challenged in court the will of his brother Vitthalbhai Patel who left Rs.1 lakh to Subhash Chandra Bose (pp.47, 26)

f) Anti-Maratha attitudes of the British inherited by Congress leaders (pp.365-375)

g) How Nehru was under the influence of Lady Mountbatten (pp.124, 360/1/2)

h) How Hindus were driven out of Pakistan by Muslims and British officers (pp.119/120/1, 350/1/2)

i) How Gandhi misused Bhulabhai Desai (pp. 70-77)

It also reveals:-

(1) Secret deals between Khare and Subhash Chandra Bose (pp. 41-55)

(2) Khare's efforts which eventually led to the establishment of the National Defence Academy in Khadakwasia near Pune in 1955 (pp. 197-206)

(3) Secret poll taken among Indian soldiers and officers revealed that the majority were against I.N.A. trials. And 80% of them stated that given an opportunity they would have done exactly the same i.e. joined the I.N.A. (pp. 60/61)

4) How RSS saved Delhi in the critical period in October 1947 (pp. 321/2/3). It was this and Khare’s crushing of the Meo’s rebellion in Alwar State, that saved India from disaster. But this fact was always suppressed by the Congress controlled press.

Khare revealed his true Maratha character on two occasions. On 7th December 1947 G.D. Birla invited Khare for a dinner. Birla explained that there was no special reason for his invitation. But after the dinner Birla requested Khare to meet Gandhi. He refused saying that he had no business with Gandhi. Birla was very surprised and said "people are very eager to have Gandhi’s darshan, and make all efforts to secure it..." Khare explained how Birla's own paper Hindustan Times would suppress the truth and said towards the end - "If Gandhi leaves his room and comes here, I will certainly speak to him..... Mahatmaji wants to make it appear to the world that I voluntarily went and saw him. This shall not happen." (pp. 321/3/4)

After the assassination of Gandhi, Khare too was arrested. Patel and Nehru had terrorised Hindu Mahasabha and RSS followers and workers. Two persons went to Khare and said "Doctorsaheb, there is such a great misunderstanding about you. Why don’t you see Sardar Patel to clear it up?" Khare said "I know, sometimes falsehood prevails against truth. Unfortunately, if this happens, and I am sentenced to be hanged, I will go to the gallows without any fear, and curse the Congress. But I will never see Sardar Patel and humble myself before him......" (pp.325/6)

Gandhi - incarnation of Aurangzeb is found on pages 264/5/6.

A very interesting book.

6.2 Hindu Nationalism: A viewpoint by S.R. Date. Kal Prakashan,

1835 Sadashiv Peth, Pune 411030, India. Price Rs.10. Pages k"f

Gandhi, Patel and Nehru were not satisfied with partition of India. They insisted that Muslims should continue to remain in India and grow in numbers. We are seeing the fruits today. In some districts Muslims are now in majority. If Hindus do not awaken now, there is a real danger that further disintegration would follow.

This small booklet gives much needed and little known information. An essential reading for every Hindu.

7. SOME IMPORTANT NOTES RELATING TO GANDHI MURDER TRIAL

(Continued from Newsletter 14)

21. Though Patel banned publication of Nathuram’s testimony as soon as it was read in court (16 December 1948) it was published in "The Word Quarterly" of Guy Aldred, (an English sympathiser of Savarkar since 1909). He published a special Gandhi Murder Trial issue in April 1950.

He says - ".....At least, an effort has been made to get understood the purpose of the patriot who assassinated Gandhi. True journalism should approach every event scientifically, without bias of any kind, merely asking why and how. This has been attempted in this record. Unfortunately, the trial has not been depicted as it should have; the examination of the prisoners, so different under the Indian Penal Code from that which prevails in Britain or the United States; the overstatement of facts whereby the prosecution advanced a charge of conspiracy when it was establishing merely a fact of political assassination: the prejudice of horror, whereby the Indian Crown (not yet a Republic and therefore not yet the legally static People) was able to create the proper atmosphere of guilt: the cover up, by aid of that horror, of its Approver - offender turned King’s Evidence to save his own skin - and the pretence that all that he said was true, whereas there were tremendous lapses from truth.

The value of the Approver’s evidence was shown by the nature of his testimony against V.D. Savarkar, which had to be rejected, for it could not withstand analysis. How could the word of such a person be taken against any prisoner? Yet the Court, for its own purposes, affected to consider him a most honourable man - and witness!

The fact remains: Gandhi, wrongly and hypocritically acclaimed by the West as an Indian Saint, wrongly put forward by Western Pacifists as a Pacifist, himself claiming with utter and complete disregard for truth, to have been a Pacifist for fifty years, was murdered by a young Political Idealist - Why?

That question is answered in this issue of The Word Quarterly.....

Guy Aldred says on page 5 “ I do not accept the hypocritical falsehoods uttered in praise of Gandhi. I do not even share the praises expressed by V.D. Savarkar, and in places somehow strangely by N.V. Godse. This kind of eulogy may be the Indian mode of approach. To my mind it is stupidity. With all that Godse says in censure of Gandhi I agree. Like Sir Curzon Wyllie, whatever his intentions, Gandhi, in my view was the enemy of the Indian struggle. He was not a Pacifist. He was not a Saint. He was a politician and as such responsible for the partition of India, and for the terrible atrocities that followed upon that partition.... To my mind, his attitude was responsible for the crimes of communal violence, and all the horrors that went with the setting up of Pakistan......

In looking over Gandhi’s career, however, I feel that he was responsible, not only for the last-hour negotiations, that created the artificial state of Pakistan - a totally unreal creation - but also for the birth of the idea. From Gandhi’s love of dictatorship, from his desire to be the Mahatma, Pakistan was born....."

On page 7 Aldred continues – “when in 1947 Jinnah triumphed and secured the partition of India and Gandhi hesitated to embarrass this partition, it was inevitable that Gandhi should be assailed. It was inevitable that India would be partitioned and that violence would sweep over the land. The death of Gandhi was not inevitable but it was not an impossibility.”

“It is a sad study in political struggle and a sorrowful ending. Indian Freedom with India partitioned, was a poor gift. It was not a peaceable conclusion to British rule for the aftermath was one of terror, horror and destruction. The story is told, in part in the speech made from the dock by N.V. Godse, in which he describes his reactions to the hypocrisy of an alleged free yet divided India - and therefore an India partitioned by its British rulers at the point of the sword to please one man - Jirmah.”

22. The Prosecution story has some important lines. It states - The partition of the country took place on August 15, 1947 .After the partition of the country what happened to the communities in the Dominion of Pakistan is well known (so Nehru, Patel and Co. admit the carnage of Hindus in Pakistan) Mahatma Gandhi did all that he could to restrain any sort of counter-attacks on the minority community in the Dominion of India.....

Seeing how Mahatma Gandhi was striving to safeguard the interests of the members of the minority community in the Dominion of India, it is said, the accused entered into a "conspiracy" and hatched a plot to end his life. (Note - Nehru, Patel and Co. have therefore confessed that Gandhi was interested only in safeguarding Muslims in India. They did not make even the slightest suggestion that Gandhi was interested in safeguarding the Hindus in Pakistan or that Gandhi’ s policy would have ensured their safety in Pakistan.)

23. Death sentence not subject to confirmation by High Court

Passing to the death sentence, the Special Judge states that Section 31 of the Criminal Code Procedure, declared:-

A Special Judge may pass any sentence authorised by law; any sentence of death passed by any such judge shall be subject to confirmation by the High Court. But Section 16, of the Bombay Security Measures Act, as extended to the Province of Delhi, declared:-

A Special Judge may pass any sentence authorised by law.

A sentence of death passed by a Special Judge, as in this case was not subject to confirmation by the High Court. This power of the Special Court was upheld by Section 18(3) of the Bombay Public Security Measures Act.

(Note - This outrageous provision did not exist under the British Rule. It was invented by Congress men whose cardinal principles were truth and non-violence!!!)

More about Gandhi Murder Trial in the next newsletter. We are extremely grateful to Mr Bhaskarrao Gadre of Pune for giving us a copy of the special issue of The Word Quarterly.