The invitation sent to the Amir of Afghanistan in 1921 to invade India in a conspiracy to establish ‘Muslim Raj’ in India by ‘Mahatma’ Gandhi and his close associates, Ali Brothers, are hardly documented and rarely discussed. This post discusses some of the well-established facts around that conspiracy of treason by Gandhi and Ali Brothers.
‘Mahatma’ Gandhi had the hallucination that he was the ‘Prophet of the New Age’, and we will discuss that topic separately in detail. But many blind believers of Gandhi find it very hard to charge the “Apostle of the New Age” with the heinous crime of treason to his own country and especially to the followers of his own professed faith.
But, the beauty of the fact is that it doesn’t need approval. Truth is usually hard to digest and especially in the situation where the fact shows the heinous side of a man who has been systematically installed into our brains as the man of honor, the man of truth and non-violent.
This post attempts to provide authentic documents from authentic accounts of Indian history to avoid looking like a conspiracy theory.
The first evidence is presented in the book “Savarkar: A contested Legacy” by Vikram Sampath, which is the most authentic and complete biography ever written on Veer Savarkar’s life yet. The author details the invitation to Amir and the events that followed this way (This incident was narrated by Swami Shraddhanand, who was close to Gandhi, and this incident took place around 1920-1921):
Sir William Vincent (then Home Member of the Government of India) had repeated from his safe place in the Legislative Assembly that he had documentary proofs that Mr. Muhammad Ali was corresponding with the Kabul Government against the British. A letter was intercepted by the C. I. D. purporting to have been written by Mr. Muhammad Ali. On his enquiring about the language in which the letter in dispute was written, when Ali Brothers learned that it was alleged to be in Persian, Muhammad Ali exclaimed, “Then it could not be written by me. I am not only innocent of Arabic but cannot write a letter in correct Persian.”
Later, when Mohammad Ali reached the Anand Bhavan (Pandit Nehru’s palace), brother Muhammad Ali took Swami Shraddhanand aside, took out a paper from his handbag, and gave a draft of a telegram to him to read. To his astonishment, when Swami Shraddhanand saw the draft of the selfsame telegram in the peculiar handwriting of the Father of the non-violent non-cooperation movement.
But later, when Swami Shraddhanand enquired Gandhi about it, Gandhi denied sending any letter.
Gandhi gave the following false explanation in the ‘Harijan’ of 10-2-1940:
I do not remember having drafted any telegram on behalf of Maulana Mahomed Ali to the then Amir. The alleged telegram is harmless in itself and does not warrant the deduction drawn from it. The late Swamiji never referred the matter to me for confirmation.
Afghanistan’s Amir Amanullah’s friends in India (Ali Brothers and other Muslim extremists) were anxious to see Afghanistan powerful and preaching the surrender of certain Indian provinces to Afghanistan. Mr. Mahomed Ali, in his speech at the Muslim League Conference in 1924, said:
If I were to have my own way, I would not support the resolution but move an amendment that those parts of the frontier provinces which did not by right belong to India but were really a part of the territories of the people across the Indian border, which lay on the other side of the Indus should be given back to those people” (applause)
This speech was made in Gandhi’s presence, and make no mistake; it was not possible to give an address like this in his presence without his (silent) support. Also, Gandhi never opposed this statement anywhere.
Mohandas Gandhi Confirmed His Involvement with Amir’s Invitation in Allahabad District Conference in 1921 this way:
He could not understand why the Ali Brothers were going to be arrested as the rumour went and why he was to remain free. They had done nothing, which he would not do. If they had sent a message to the Amir, he also would send one, to inform the Amir that if he came no Indian as long as he, Mr. Gandhi, could help it, would help the Government to drive him back. If a man was true to his religion, no Afghan or any power on earth could make him transgress his religious precepts. He knew he could not as yet control the actions of all Indians, but he knew many would not help the Government against the Amir as long as it would not grant “Swaraj ” and redress the Punjab and Khilafat wrongs. He called upon the audience to do nothing against the dictates of Congress. They must report their grievances to the Khilafat and Congress Committees and act according to the instructions received. -‘Leader’ 12-5-1921
He could not understand why the Ali Brothers were going to be arrested as the rumour went and why he was to remain free. They had done nothing, which he would not do. If they had sent a message to the Amir, he also would send one, to inform the Amir that if he came no Indian as long as he, Mr. Gandhi, could help it, would help the Government to drive him back. If a man was true to his religion, no Afghan or any power on earth could make him transgress his religious precepts. He knew he could not as yet control the actions of all Indians, but he knew many would not help the Government against the Amir as long as it would not grant “Swaraj ” and redress the Punjab and Khilafat wrongs. He called upon the audience to do nothing against the dictates of Congress. They must report their grievances to the Khilafat and Congress Committees and act according to the instructions received.
-‘Leader’ 12-5-1921
The following article from ‘Young India‘ contains the most unmistakable evidence of Gandhi’s treason. In this article, he orders the non-cooperators to pray for the defeat of the Government of India in case of an Afghan invasion. He declares that nothing can prevent them from overrunning India if they wished to:
Is not my article on the Afghan Bogey an invitation to the Afghans to invade the Indian border, and thus do I not become a direct party to violence?” Thus asks Mr. Andrews. “My article was written for Indians and for the Government. I do not believe the Afghans to be so foolish as to invade India on the strength of my article. But I see that it is capable of bearing the interpretation put upon it by Mr. Andrews. I, therefore, hasten to inform all whom it may concern that not only do I not want to invite the Afghans or anybody else to come to our assistance, but am anxious for them not to come to our assistance. I am quite confident of India’s ability to settle with the Government without extraneous help. Moreover, I am interested in demonstrating the perfect possibility of attaining our end only by non-violent means.” I would therefore strain every nerve to keep the Afghans out of the Indian border, but my anxiety to keep them off the Indian border will not go so far as to assist the Government with men or money. In my article, I have put my position as clearly as possible. For me, the existing Government is the most intolerable of all, it is the greatest danger to the manhood of India, and I would welcome its re-formation at any cost. It is my settled conviction that it is a Godless Government. That there are good Englishmen and good Indians connected with it makes it all the more dangerous for India. It keeps the nation’s eyes off the inherent evil of it. My attack is not against individuals; it is directed against the system, against the aggregate called the Government. The best of Viceroys have been powerless to eradicate the poison of the system. The poison is its foundation. Therefore, I can reconcile myself to all the worst that can happen to India in the place of the present system. What, however, I would do is totally different from what I can do. I am sorry to have to confess that the movement has not yet acquired such hold on the soldier class as to embolden them to refuse assistance to the Government in time of need. When the soldier class has realised that they live for the nation and that it is a travesty of a soldier’s calling when he undertakes to kill ta order, the battle of India’s worldly freedom is won without more. As it is, the Indian soldier is as much subject to fear as the layman. He fills the recruiting ranks because he believes that there is no other means of livelihood. The Government has made the profession of killing attractive by a system of special rewards, and by a system of skillfully devised punishments has made it well-nigh impossible for the soldier, once he is in, to get out without difficulty. In these circumstances, I do not delude myself with the belief that the British Government will be without Indian help in the event of an immediate Afghan invasion. But it was my duty, especially when challenged, to put before the nation the position logically arising from non-co-operation. It was necessary, too, to warn the nation against being frightened by the Afghan bogey. The second part of the question contains, in my opinion, a misconception of non-violence. It is no part of the duty of a non-violent non-co-operator to assist the Government against war made upon it by others. A non-violent non-co-operator may not secretly or openly encourage or assist any such war. He may not take part directly or indirectly in it. But it is no part of his duty to help the government end the war. On the contrary, his prayer would be, as it must be, for the defeat of a power which he seeks to destroy. I, therefore, so far as my creed of nonviolence is concerned, can contemplate an Afghan invasion with perfect equanimity, and equally so far as India’s safety is concerned. The Afghans have no quarrel with India. They are a God-fearing people. I warn non-co-operators against judging the Afghans by the few savage specimens we see in Bombay or Calcutta. It is a superstition to suppose that they will overrun India if the British post at the frontier was withdrawn. Let us remember that there is nothing to prevent them from overrunning India today if they wished to. But they are as fond of their country as we claim to be fond of ours. I must devote a separate article to an examination of the difficult problem that faces the residents near the frontier. -‘Young India’ 18-5-1921
Is not my article on the Afghan Bogey an invitation to the Afghans to invade the Indian border, and thus do I not become a direct party to violence?” Thus asks Mr. Andrews. “My article was written for Indians and for the Government.
I do not believe the Afghans to be so foolish as to invade India on the strength of my article. But I see that it is capable of bearing the interpretation put upon it by Mr. Andrews. I, therefore, hasten to inform all whom it may concern that not only do I not want to invite the Afghans or anybody else to come to our assistance, but am anxious for them not to come to our assistance. I am quite confident of India’s ability to settle with the Government without extraneous help. Moreover, I am interested in demonstrating the perfect possibility of attaining our end only by non-violent means.” I would therefore strain every nerve to keep the Afghans out of the Indian border, but my anxiety to keep them off the Indian border will not go so far as to assist the Government with men or money.
In my article, I have put my position as clearly as possible. For me, the existing Government is the most intolerable of all, it is the greatest danger to the manhood of India, and I would welcome its re-formation at any cost. It is my settled conviction that it is a Godless Government. That there are good Englishmen and good Indians connected with it makes it all the more dangerous for India. It keeps the nation’s eyes off the inherent evil of it. My attack is not against individuals; it is directed against the system, against the aggregate called the Government. The best of Viceroys have been powerless to eradicate the poison of the system. The poison is its foundation. Therefore, I can reconcile myself to all the worst that can happen to India in the place of the present system.
What, however, I would do is totally different from what I can do. I am sorry to have to confess that the movement has not yet acquired such hold on the soldier class as to embolden them to refuse assistance to the Government in time of need. When the soldier class has realised that they live for the nation and that it is a travesty of a soldier’s calling when he undertakes to kill ta order, the battle of India’s worldly freedom is won without more. As it is, the Indian soldier is as much subject to fear as the layman. He fills the recruiting ranks because he believes that there is no other means of livelihood. The Government has made the profession of killing attractive by a system of special rewards, and by a system of skillfully devised punishments has made it well-nigh impossible for the soldier, once he is in, to get out without difficulty. In these circumstances, I do not delude myself with the belief that the British Government will be without Indian help in the event of an immediate Afghan invasion. But it was my duty, especially when challenged, to put before the nation the position logically arising from non-co-operation. It was necessary, too, to warn the nation against being frightened by the Afghan bogey.
The second part of the question contains, in my opinion, a misconception of non-violence. It is no part of the duty of a non-violent non-co-operator to assist the Government against war made upon it by others. A non-violent non-co-operator may not secretly or openly encourage or assist any such war. He may not take part directly or indirectly in it. But it is no part of his duty to help the government end the war. On the contrary, his prayer would be, as it must be, for the defeat of a power which he seeks to destroy. I, therefore, so far as my creed of nonviolence is concerned, can contemplate an Afghan invasion with perfect equanimity, and equally so far as India’s safety is concerned. The Afghans have no quarrel with India. They are a God-fearing people. I warn non-co-operators against judging the Afghans by the few savage specimens we see in Bombay or Calcutta. It is a superstition to suppose that they will overrun India if the British post at the frontier was withdrawn. Let us remember that there is nothing to prevent them from overrunning India today if they wished to. But they are as fond of their country as we claim to be fond of ours. I must devote a separate article to an examination of the difficult problem that faces the residents near the frontier.
-‘Young India’ 18-5-1921
After all this exposure, and letters, speeches, and interviews of Gandhi himself, he seems to be either refuting the charges in an unconvincing manner or using his word wizardry to write articles so that he neither comes across as the conspirator nor looks like he is denying. After all, he was a ‘Cunning Bania’ as Ali Brothers used to call him.
Gandhi is projected as the most truthful servant of Mother India, a saint, a Mahatma, and overall, ‘father of the nation’. He is on Indian currency notes; he is everywhere forcibly pushed down our necks systematically.
But does he deserve that larger-than-life image? If Gandhi was not a traitor, then who was? If Gandhi was not anti-national, then who was? The Congressites of India and the leftist media keeps dragging Savarkar’s name into the mud because he is accused of writing mercy petitions to the British Empire while he was on transportation for life. That is a debate for another time as Savarkar never appeared to be apologetic to the British, as evident from his letters, writings, and speeches. But the same people shy away from discussing this treachery of Gandhi, who was clearly caught off guard inviting Afghani Amir to invade his motherland and turn into a Muslim Raj. This should make every Indian sick to their stomach!
Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *
Comment *
Name *
Email *
Website
Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.
Post Comment
Δ
