Protest against erection of M. K. Gandhi statues around the world

We are writing in opposition to a movement to honor Mohandas Gandhi, the internationally known Indian leader. One segment of the local Indian population wants to place a statue of Gandhi’s likeness on the grounds of the University of Michigan-Flint. Yet, as members of America’s large community of Indian minorities, we are compelled to strongly protest this statue.

Please refuse to honor a man who preached such passionate prejudice! For the past 60 years, India has used the mythical image of Gandhi as a pacifist hero to promote its agenda. The reality is that Gandhi was a first-class racist committed to cloaking deception and violence in pacifist terminology. Gandhi’s writing, compiled in an uncensored series of volumes by the Indian government, is liberally sprinkled with verbal violence against the black South-African natives. His animosity toward black people is almost tangible, and his racism is undeniable.

Books such as Gandhi: Behind the Mask of Divinity (Prometheus, 2004) and Gandhi Under Cross-Examination (Sovereign Star, 2009) have revealed how Gandhi acted upon a deep-seated prejudice against the black South Africans and various minorities in India. One of his most notable legacies is the damage he did to these communities, which was so extensive that black South-African journalist Sentletse Diakanyo wrote in a 2008 article for the Mail & Guardian, “The greatest injustice against the struggle for liberation of black people was the projection of Mahatma Gandhi as committed to a cause against segregation.”

While he lived in South Africa, Gandhi regularly wrote diatribes against the black natives, describing them to his Indian readers as lazy, incompetent, sex-obsessed, and a danger to Indian society. He lobbied political and social bodies to expand segregation by removing blacks from proximity to the Indian population. The source for these claims is Gandhi’s original writings, which were compiled into the Collected Works of Mahatma Gandhi (CWMG). This compilation was officially sanctioned by the Indian government and can be searched for and located easily on the Internet. This is an unimpeachable source, and it is beyond question that the writings were produced by Gandhi’s own hand.

One shocking example of Gandhi’s racism occurred in 1895, when he actively promoted racial segregation in Durban, South Africa. The local post office had two doors: one for whites and the other shared by Indians and black South Africans. Being Indian, Gandhi was required to share a door with black South Africans, which deeply offended him. After a short campaign to correct what he viewed as a problem, Gandhi summarized the results, writing: “In the Durban Post and telegraph offices, there were separate entrances for natives and Asiatics and Europeans. We felt the indignity too much and many respectable Indians were insulted and called all sorts of names by the clerks at the counter. We petitioned the authorities to do away with the invidious distinction, and they have now provided three separate entrances for natives, Asiatics, and Europeans.” [Source: CWMG, Vol. 1, pp. 367–368]

Another example is, while on a visit to India in 1896, Gandhi summarized his general opinion of black South Africans in a speech to a public audience in Bombay, stating “Ours is one continual struggle against a degradation sought to be inflicted upon us by the Europeans, who desire to degrade us to the level of the raw Kaffir, whose occupation is hunting and whose sole ambition is to collect a certain number of cattle to buy a wife with and, then, pass his life in indolence and nakedness.” [CWMG, Vol. 1, pp. 409–410]

The term “Kaffir” is a pejorative South-African term for blacks that is equivalent to the “n word.” Use of this term has been an actionable offense in South Africa since 1975. Despite always using it to describe black Africans, Gandhi was fully aware of the offensive nature of the word, demonstrated by his comment during a religious conflict in India: “If ‘Kaffir’ is a term of opprobrium, how much more so is Chandal?” [CWMG, Vol. 28, p. 62] Chandal is a racist term for low-caste Hindus.

A final example can be seen in a letter Gandhi wrote to the Johannesburg Medical Officer of Health in 1904, protesting a decision allowing black Africans to settle in Indian neighborhoods. In it, he said, “Under my suggestion, the Town Council must withdraw the Kaffirs from the location. About this mixing of the Kaffirs with the Indians, I must confess I feel most strongly. I think it is very unfair to the Indian population, and it is an undue tax on even the proverbial patience of my countrymen.” [CWMG, Vol. III, p. 429, Feb. 15, 1904]

Gandhi was far more interested in gaining legal superiority over the blacks than he was in gaining legal equality with the whites. He said upper-caste Indians “have been dragged down with the Kaffir without the slightest justification” [CWMG, Vol. 3, p. 32] and protested legislation he believed “reduces Indians to a level lower than that of the Kaffirs.” [CWMG, Vol. 6, p. 28] In 1908, he complained that upper-caste Indians were being equated to the blacks. According to Gandhi, the British considered upper-caste Indians “to be so lowly and ignorant that they assume that, like the Kaffirs who can be pleased with toys and pins, we can also be fobbed off with trinkets.” [CWMG, Vol. 8, p. 167]

Within the Indian community, Gandhi remains highly divisive and intensely disliked by many. For instance, Mayawati, the chief minister of the large northern Indian state Uttar Pradesh, blamed Gandhi for India's caste problems, saying, “He divided Indian society into two categories: the weaker sections and upper castes.” In June 2009, Mayawati elaborated, calling Gandhi a natakbaaz, or “fake,” who “did nothing substantial to improve the condition of the Dalits.” The Dalits, commonly known in the West as “Untouchables,” are considered to be lowest in the Hindu caste system.

Dr. B. R. Ambedkar, who was born into a Dalit family, was a contemporary of Gandhi and a highly respected academic. He has been called the “father of the Indian constitution and modern India.” Explaining the double-minded view of peace held by Gandhi, Ambedkar said, “If a man with God's name on his tongue and sword under his armpit deserved the appellation of a Mahatma, then Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi was a Mahatma.”

People such as Mayawati and Ambedkar are exceptions to the rule, as most of India’s 160 million Dalits live in slave-like conditions. However, Gandhi was an avid proponent of the Hindu caste system, saying in 1933 that “to abolish caste is to demolish Hinduism.” Despite the severe prejudice faced by India’s Dalits—which is often manifested in beating, rape, and even murder—Gandhi said, “I would resist with my life the separation of ‘Untouchables’ from the caste Hindus. The problem of the ‘Untouchable’ community is of comparatively little importance.”

These short quotes and excerpts are brief examples of Gandhi’s bigoted past. His extensive writings are full of views disparaging practically everyone but upper-caste Hindus, including black people and Dalits. Some have questioned whether Gandhi ever repudiated his racist views later in life. The simple truth is that he continued spreading such beliefs until his death. In 1940, for instance, years after his activities in Africa, an elderly Gandhi wrote to Adolf Hitler. Addressing the letter to his “dear friend,” he told Hitler, “We have no doubt about your bravery or devotion to your fatherland, nor do we believe that you are the monster described by your opponents.” [CWMG, Vol. 79, p. 453]

The surest indicator that Gandhi never overcame his racism is that he never apologized for the damage his actions caused. Even if his views had changed, the harm was already done.

Considering Gandhi’s past, we urge you and other officials who may be asked to support a Gandhi statue to answer with an unequivocal “no.” Such a statue would quickly become an embarrassment to the state as the public becomes aware of the reality of Gandhi’s life. Additionally, hailing Gandhi as a role model inappropriately supersedes true American heroes who actually deserve admiration, such as Martin Luther King Jr.

We can send you a copy of Gandhi Under Cross-Examination, by retired U.S. Army Col. G. B. Singh and Dr. Tim Watson. The foreword is by Dr. Lewis Baldwin, a well-known Dr. King expert who demands an open discussion of Gandhi's lifelong struggle with racism, calling it “a challenge that no human being should ignore in this age of cynicism, violence, and terror.” We encourage you to take up that challenge.

(This letter and facts are derived from multiple sources including Sacramento Gurudwara team, www.gandhism.net and many Ambedkarite Buddhist teams)

Gandhi: Beliefs, works, and facts
(1). Gandhi: Racism remarks against native African

Gandhi lived in pre-apartheid South Africa for about 20 years. In 1895, he began actively promoting racial segregation in Durban, South Africa. The Durban post office had two doors: one for whites and the other shared by Indians and black Africans. Being Indian, Gandhi was required to share a door with black South Africans, which deeply offended him. In his Collected Works (CWMG), Vol. I, pp. 367-368, Gandhi wrote: “In the Durban Post and telegraph offices there were separate entrances for natives and Asiatics and Europeans. We felt the indignity too much and many respectable Indians were insulted and
called all sorts of names by the clerks at the counter. We petitioned the authorities to do away with the invidious distinction and they have now provided three separate entrances for natives, Asiatics, and Europeans.” Gandhi even volunteered for the British Army and served as a Sgt. Major in the 1906 Zulu War! Gandhi's writings during his 20 years in South Africa clearly display his undeniable racism towards
black Africans. Here are some select quote:
Sept. 26, 1896: “Ours is one continual struggle against a degradation sought to be inflicted upon
us by the Europeans, who desire to degrade us to the level of the raw Kaffir* whose occupation is
hunting, and whose sole ambition is to collect a certain number of cattle to buy a wife with and, then,
pass his life in indolence and nakedness.” ~ CWMG, Vol. I, p. 410
Sept. 24, 1903: “We believe as much in the purity of race as we think they do... We believe also that
the white race of South Africa should be the predominating race.” ~ CWMG, Vol. III, p. 256
Feb. 15, 1904: “Under my suggestion, the Town Council must withdraw the Kaffirs from the Location. About this mixing of the Kaffirs with the Indians, I must confess I feel most strongly. I think it is very unfair to the Indian population.” ~ CWMG, Vol.III, p. 429
Sept. 5, 1905: "The decision to open the school for all Coloured children is unjust to the Indian community, and is a departure from the assurance given... that the school will be reserved for Indian children only." ~ CWMG, Vol. IV, p. 402
Feb. 29, 1908: “The British rulers take us to be so lowly and ignorant that they assume that, like the Kaffirs who can be pleased with toys and pins, we can also be fobbed off with trinkets.” ~ CWMG, Vol. VIII, p. 167
Dec. 2, 1910: “Some Indians do have contacts with Kaffir women. I think such contacts are fraught with grave danger. Indians would do well to avoid them altogether.” ~ CWMG, Vol. X, p. 414
*“Kaffir” is a pejorative South African term for blacks which is equivalent to the “n” word. Use of this term has been an actionable offense in South Africa since 1975. Gandhi was well aware of the offensiveness of this word but always used it to describe the black Africans.

Gandhi’s writing, compiled in an uncensored series of volumes by the Government of India, is liberally sprinkled with verbal violence against the black South African natives, who he termed “Kaffirs.” His animosity towards black people is almost tangible and his racism is undeniable. A brief but shocking example illustrates Gandhi’s racism.
He lived in South Africa prior to Apartheid, but at a time when the nation still suffered segregation. In the city of Durban, there was a post office with two doors - one for blacks and Indians and another for whites. Gandhi, of course, was required to use the door for blacks and Indians. This deeply offended him, not because of the segregation, but because he was “forced” to share a door with blacks, which he felt was beneath him. Gandhi successfully lobbied to correct this “problem” by building a third entrance for Indians, thus further entrenching the South African policy of segregation.
In his Collected Works (CWMG), Vol. I, pp. 367-368, Gandhi wrote: “For the present our efforts are concentrated towards preventing and getting repealed fresh legislation. Before referring to that, I may further illustrate the proposition that the Indian is put on the same level with the native in many other ways also. Lavatories are marked ‘natives and Asiatics’ at the railway stations. In the Durban Post and telegraph offices there were separate entrances for natives and Asiatics and Europeans. We felt the indignity too much and many respectable Indians were insulted and called all sorts of names by the clerks at the counter. We petitioned the authorities to do away with the invidious distinction and they have now provided three separate entrances for natives, Asiatics, and Europeans.”
At the turn of the 20th century, during the Second Boer War, Gandhi volunteered to raise an Indian stretcher-bearer corps for the British Army. Considering Gandhi’s fervent racism, it’s no surprise he wished to help suppress the blacks of Africa. During the war, the British were responsible for the deaths of approximately 20,000 black Africans, many of whom starved to death in British concentration camps while Gandhi’s stretcher-bearers assisted British troops. Gandhi unwittingly accused himself of culpability for these deaths when he wrote in his autobiography: “He who volunteers to serve a band of dacoits (robbers), by working as their carrier, or their watchman while they are about their business, or their nurse when they are wounded, is as much guilty of dacoity as the dacoits themselves. In the same way those who confine themselves to attending to the wounded cannot be absolved from the guilt of war.”
In response to the rise of White nationalist politics, which stressed racial separation, Gandhi wrote in his Indian Opinion of 24 September 1903:
‘We believe as much in the purity of race as we think they do, only we believe that they would best serve these interests, which are as dear to us as to them, by advocating the purity of all races, and not one alone. We believe also that the white race of South Africa should be the predominating race.’
On 24 December 1903, Gandhi added this in his Indian Opinion newspaper:
‘The petition dwells upon ‘the co-mingling of the colored and white races’. May we inform the members of the Conference that so far as British Indians are concerned, such a thing is particularly unknown. If there is one thing which the Indian cherishes more than any other, it is the purity of type.’
(2). Gandhi: A pedophile
Towards the end of his life, it became public knowledge that Gandhi had been sharing his bed for a number of years with young women. He explained that he did this for bodily warmth at night and termed his actions as "nature cure". Later in his life he started experimenting with brahmacharya in order to test his self control. His letter to Birla in April, 1945 referring to 'women or girls who have been naked with me' indicates that several women were part of his experiments. He wrote five editorials in Harijan discussing the practice of brahmacharya.
As part of these experiments, he initially slept with his women associates in the same room but at a distance. Afterwards he started to lie in the same bed with his women disciples and later took to sleeping naked alongside them. According to Gandhi active-celibacy meant perfect self control in the presence of opposite sex. Gandhi conducted his experiments with a number of women such as Abha, the sixteen year old wife of his grandnephew Kanu Gandhi. Gandhi acknowledged "that this experiment is very dangerous indeed", but thought "that it was capable of yielding great results". His nineteen year old grandniece, Manu Gandhi, too was part of his experiments. Gandhi had earlier written to her father, Jaisukhlal Gandhi, that Manu had started to share his bed so that he may "correct her sleeping posture". Gandhi saw himself as a mother to these women and would refer to Abha and Manu as "my walking sticks".
Gandhi called Sarladevi, a married woman with children and a devout follower, his "spiritual wife". He later said that he had come close to having sexual relations with her. He had told a correspondent in March, 1945 that "sleeping together came with my taking up of bramhacharya or even before that"; he said he had experimented with his wife "but that was not enough". Gandhi felt satisfied with his experiments and wrote to Manu that "I have successfully practiced the eleven vows taken by me. This is the culmination of my striving for last thirty six years. In this yajna I got a glimpse of the ideal truth and purity for which I have been striving".
Gandhi had to take criticism for his experiments by many of his followers and opponents. His stenographer, R. P. Parasuram, resigned when he saw Gandhi sleeping naked with Manu. Gandhi insisted that he never felt aroused while he slept beside her, or with Sushila or Abha. "I am sorry" Gandhi said to Parasuram, "you are at liberty to leave me today." Nirmal Kumar Bose, leading anthropologist and close associate of Gandhi, parted company with him in April, 1947 post Gandhi's tour of Noakhali, where some sort of altercation had taken place between Gandhi and Sushila Nayar in his bedroom at midnight that caused Gandhi to slap his forehead. Bose said, "there was no immorality on part of Gandhi. Moreover Gandhi tried to conquer the feeling of sex by consciously endeavouring to convert himself into a mother of those who were under his case, whether men or women". This maternal emphasis has also been pointed out by Dattatreya Balkrishna Kalelkar, a revolutionary turned disciple of Gandhi. Some more at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uRV8PYDIa8I
(3). Gandhi: Non-violence?
When it came to pacifism, the quality for which Gandhi is most admired, he was no better. Shortly before his assassination, as documented in his “Last Phase,” Vol. II, p. 326, he said, “If we [India] had the atom bomb, we would have used it against the British.”
It is impossible to fully document Gandhi’s abundant problems and hypocrisy in such a short letter. Let us simply say that he never remotely epitomized humanitarianism, social justice, or superior morality. According to G.D. Birla’s “In The Shadow of the Mahatma,” Gandhi told the British during WWII that “Hitler is not a bad man.” Should a man with such a warped moral compass be distinguished as a symbol of nonviolence?
The Gandhian state of India is one of the most violent nations in the world today, having overseen the slaughter of hundreds of thousands of Christians, Muslims, and Sikhs over the past 20 years. The myth of Gandhi is merely packaged propaganda developed to benefit those in India who seek to hide their violence by wearing his mantle of faux nonviolence.
In an age when circumstances force us to wage war against ideologies, the world cannot afford to assist or even allow the continued propagation of the Gandhi ideology. If we are not careful we might one day be forced to engage Gandhism.
India’s recent activities hardly demonstrate the “nonviolent passive resistance” allegedly taught by Gandhism. Yet they should come as no surprise if one looks beyond the image of Gandhi painted by the Indian Government’s historical propaganda.
In 1921, Gandhi helped cover up the murder of an American citizen (Killing of ANNETTE H. DOHERTY’s husband) by Gandhians who were rioting during the Second Satyagraha Movement. His followers offered the murdered man’s wife bribes and Gandhi himself presented veiled threats.

In 1984, after the Indian invasion of the Sikh Golden Temple and slaughter of several thousand Sikhs, Prime Minister Indira Gandhi (no relation to M.K. Gandhi) appealed to Gandhism as a justification for her authorization of the military action, saying, “Mahatma Gandhi, in his time, accepted that necessity.” She was right. Gandhi supported achieving political ends through bloodshed, saying in 1922, “I would have India become free even by violence rather than that she should remain in bondage.” Years after this comment, Gandhi endorsed the Indian military’s annexation of Kashmir, Hyderabad, and Junagarh, states which currently remain in “bondage” to India. In 1961, after seizing Goa, Diu, and Daman, Prime Minister Nehru, a close friend of Gandhi’s till the latter’s death, truthfully commented that the military venture was “entirely in keeping” with Gandhi’s philosophy. These invocations of Gandhism are propaganda clearly used to assuage the Western conscience about India's shadowy massacres of minorities.
On the surface, there is not much wrong with Gandhi’s willingness to resort to violence in pursuit of freedom. After all, it was through violence that we in the U.S. achieved independence. What is disturbing, however, is that his support of violent means is hidden behind a veneer of nonviolence. The reality of Gandhian philosophy, which is fervently embraced in modern-day India, is a commitment to deception and violence cloaked in pacifist terminology.
This sham pacifism is eagerly abandoned at any sign that violence might better benefit Gandhism’s cause du jour. For example, Gandhi once said, “There are many causes that I am prepared to die for but no causes that I am prepared to kill for.” Yet in 1920, as recorded in Vol. 21, p. 133 of Gandhi’s “Collected Works,” he wrote: “When my eldest son asked me what he should have done, had he been present when I was almost fatally assaulted in 1908, whether he should have run away and seen me killed or whether he should have used his physical force which he could and wanted to use, and defended me, I told him that it was his duty to defend me even by using violence.” The nonviolent resistance of Satyagraha would hardly have been useful in preventing Gandhi’s death, so of course others more capable of violence than himself would have been justified in defending him, his unwillingness to “kill for [any cause]” be damned!
Comparing controversial figures to Nazism has now become cliche, but in Gandhi’s case it is almost unavoidable. He brought such comparisons on himself, as in 1940 when he said, “Hitler is not a bad man,” or in 1941 when he wrote Hitler, saying, “Nor do we believe that you are the monster described by your opponents.” Little has changed since Gandhi’s admiration for Hitler. In India today, Hitler is considered a “trendy tyrant,” a dictator who is praised for his leadership abilities, whose “Mein Kampf” is a best-seller, and who placed third as “most ideal leader” in a 2002 poll of Indian college students. Gandhi, of course, was everyone’s first choice.
India is one of the largest, most powerful nations in the world. Assisted by the white-washed image of Gandhi and his philosophy, India has achieved much success by using Gandhism as a double-edged sword. While earning accolades for its adherence to the popular pacifist image of Gandhism, Indian leaders have simultaneously used Gandhism to justify such bloody actions as the annexation of Kashmir and the destruction of the Golden Temple. Additionally, as India emerges as a superpower and continues to make deeper political inroads into various African and Latin American nations, it becomes even more necessary to understand India’s guiding philosophy.
After all, If Nazism were the guiding philosophy of such an important nation, we would have cause for extreme concern. What Americans must realize is that Gandhism, the “nonviolent” ideology espoused by the same man who said, on June 16, 1947, “if we had the atom bomb, we would have used it against the British,” should inspire just such concern.

(4). Gandhi: Satyagraha?
In this connection reference may be made to two novel weapons for redressing human wrongs. Mr. Gandhi claims exclusive credit for forging and perfecting them. First is satyagraha. Mr. Gandhi has put into action this weapon of satyagraha many a times against the British Government for the removal of political wrongs. But Mr. Gandhi has never used the weapon of satyagraha against Hindus to get them to throw open public wells and temples to the Untouchables. Fasting is another weapon of Mr. Gandhi. It is said that there have been altogether 21 fasts to the credit of Mr. Gandhi. Some were for the sake of Hindu-Muslim unity and quite a number as atonements for the immoralities committed by the inmates of his Ashram. One was against the order of the Government of Bombay refusing to give the work of a scavenger in the gaol to a prisoner by name Mr. Patwardhan although he demanded it. In these 21 fasts there is not one undertaken for the removal of Untouchability. These are very significant facts.
In 1929 when the Untouchables in the Bombay Presidency opened a campaign of satyagraha against the Hindus for establishing their civic rights in the matter of temple-entry and taking water from public wells. They hoped to get the blessings of Mr. Gandhi in as much as satyagraha was Mr. Gandhi's own weapon to get wrongs redressed. When appealed to for support, Mr. Gandhi surprised the Untouchables by issuing a statement condemning their campaign of satyagraha against the Hindus. The argument urged by Mr. Gandhi was very ingenious. He stated that satyagrahs was to be used only against foreigners, it must not be used against one's own kindred or countrymen and as the Hindus were the kindred and countrymen of the Untouchables by rules of satyagraha the latter were debarred from using the weapon against the former. What a fall from the sublime to the ridiculous! By this Mr. Gandhi made nonsense of satyagraha.
Mr. Gandhi was obliged to sign a pact -called the Poona Pact—which conceded the political demands of the Untouchables he took his revenge by letting the Congress employ foul electioneering tactics to make their political rights of no avail. There was nothing noble in the fast. It was a foul and filthy act. The Fast was not for the benefit of the Untouchables. It was against them and was the worst form of coercion against a helpless people to give up the constitutional safeguards of which they had become possessed under the Prime Minister's Award and agree to live on the mercy of the Hindus. It was a vile and wicked act. After having gone on a fast unto death, he signed the Poona Pact. People say that Mr. Gandhi sincerely believed that political safeguards were harmful to the Untouchables.
The satyagraha at the Kala Ram Temple situated in Nasik, a town in the Nasik District of the Bombay Presidency, was organised to establish the right of the Untouchables to enter Hindu temples. There were many minor satyagrahas. These were, however, the two principal ones over which the efforts of the Untouchables and their opponents, the Caste Ilindus, were concentrated. The din and noise caused by them were heard all over India. Thousands of men and women from the Untouchables took part in these satyagrahas. Both men. and women belonging to the Untouchables were insulted and beaten by the Hindus. Many were injured and some were imprisoned by Government on the ground of causing breach of the peace. This satyagraha movement went on for full six years when it was brought to a close in 1935 at a Conference held in Yeola in Nasik District in which the Untouchables as a result of the adamantine attitude of the Hindus in refusing to give them equal social rights resolved to go out of the Hindu fold. This satyagraha movement was no doubt independent of the Congress. It was organised by the Untouchables, led by the Untouchables and financed by the Untouchables. Yet the Untouchables were not without hope of getting the moral support of Mr. Gandhi. Indeed they had very good ground for getting it. For the weapon of satyagraha —the essence of which is to melt the heart of the opponent by suffering—was the weapon which was forged by Mr. Gandhi, and who had led the Congress to practise it against the British Government for winning Swaraj. Naturally the Untouchables expected full support from Mr. Gandhi to their satyagraha against the Hindus the object of which was to establish their right to take water from public wells and to enter public Hindu temples. Mr. Gandhi however did not give his support to the satyagraha. Not only did he not give his support, he condemned it in strong terms.
(5). Gandhi: Advocate of Caste system

The caste system, in my opinion, has a scientific basis. Reason does not revolt against it. It has disadvantages. Caste creates a social and moral restraint - I can find no reason for their abolition. To abolish caste is to demolish Hinduism. There is nothing to fight against the Varnasharma (caste system). I don't believe the caste system to be an odious and vicious dogma. It has its limitations and defects, but there is nothing sinful about it. (Harijan, 1933).
There are I am sorry to say, many Hindu temples in our midst in this country, which are no better than brothels. The caste system can't be said to be bad because it does not allow inter-dining and inter-marriages in different castes. (Gandhi by Shiru, p129).

I would refer to what is known as the Kavitha incident Kavitha is a village in the Ahmedabad District in Gujarat. In 1935, the Untouchables of the village demanded from the Hindus of the village that their children should be admitted in the common school of the village along with other Hindu children. The Hindus were enraged at this outrage and took their revenge by proclaiming a complete social boycott. Here is the advice Mr. Gandhi gave to the Untouchables of Kavitha:
''There is no help like self-help. God helps those who help themselves. If the Harijans concerned will carry out their reported resolve to wipe the dust of Kavitha off their feet, they will not only be happy themselves but they will pave the way for others who may be similarly treated. If people migrate in search of employment how much more should they do so in search of self-respect? I hope that well-wishers of Harijans will help these poor families to vacate inhospitable Kavitha." Mr. Gandhi advised the Untouchables of Kavitha to vacate. But why did he not advise Mr. Thakkar to prosecute the Hindus of Kavitha and help the Untouchables to vindicate their rights?" Obviously, he would like to uplift the Untouchables if he can but not by offending the Hindus. What good can such a man do to promote the cause of the Untouchables?

Mr. Gandhi's views on the caste system—which constitutes the main, social problem in India—were fully elaborated by him in 1921-22 in a Gujarathi Journal called NavaJivan. The article is written in Gujarathi. I give below an English translation of his views as near as possible in his own words. Says Mr. Gandhi:
1. I believe that if Hindu Society has been able to stand it is because it is founded on the caste system.
2. The seeds of Swaraj are to be found in the caste system. Different castes are like different sections of military division. Each division is working for the good of the whole.
3. A community which can create the caste system must be said to possess unique power of organisation.
4. Caste has a ready made means for spreading primary education. Every caste can take the responsibility for the education of the children of the Caste. Caste has a political basis. It can work as an electorate for a representative body. Caste can perform judicial functions by electing persons to act as judges to decide disputes among members of the same caste. With castes it is easy to raise a defence force by requiring each caste to raise a brigade.
5. I believe that interdining or intermarriage are not necessary for promoting national unity.
6. In India children of brothers do not intermarry. Do they cease to love because they do not intermarry? Among the Vaishnavas many women are so orthodox that they will not eat with the members of the family nor will they drink water from a common water pot. Have they no love? The Caste system cannot be said to be bad because it does not allow inter-dining or intermarriage between different Castes.
7. Caste is another name for control. Caste puts a limit on enjoyment. Caste does not allow a person to transgress caste limits in pursuit of his enjoyment. That is the meaning of such caste restrictions as interdining and intermarriage.
8. To destroy caste system and adopt Western European social system means that Hindus must give up the principle of hereditary occupation which is the soul of the caste system. Hereditary principle is an eternal principle. To change it is to create disorder. I have no use for a Brahmin if I cannot call him a Brahmin for my life. It will be a chaos if every day a Brahmin is to be changed into a Shudra and a Snudra is to be changed into a Brahmin.
9. The caste system is & natural order of society. In India it has been given a religious coating. Other countries not having understood the utility of the Caste System it existed only in a loose condition and
consequently those countries have not derived from Caste system the same degree of advantage which India has derived. These being my views I am opposed to all those who are out to destroy the Caste System.