Sunil Sharan (Image source: RosettaBooks)
2,603 words
I can date my study of British politics quite precisely to a few days after 9/11. I heard a Muslim woman on the BBC’s Today program, sounding very pious and concerned about something which has become a regular Islamic stratagem following any terrorist attack: the danger of an “anti-Muslim backlash.” This is designed to engineer the sympathies of the listener, and the problem, she informed us, is that so many non-Muslims don’t know anything about Islam. My own reading was meandering down various dead-ends at the time, and I decided to take her implied advice and learn more about the religion, as we were told after 9/11, of peace.
Since then, I have read dozens of books and articles on the subject, as well as the Qur’an and the Hadith, and I am familiar with The Reliance of the Traveler. Eight years ago I left England for Costa Rica, and the reason I am still here — freer to write than I would be in the United Kingdom due to this country’s constitution — is the same as it was when I arrived: I have no wish to live in an increasingly Islamized country. J. D. Vance’s recent throwaway line about the United Kingdom was downplayed as a joke, but the next Vice President of the United States wasn’t joking.
Thus, a book titled India’s Muslims and Lessons for the West was bound to get my attention. I have a rough grasp of the formation of the Arabic world, but none on Islam in India, and the partition of that country to include Pakistan. I must thank Baron Bodissey at the website Gates of Vienna for putting me in touch with the author after I read an excerpt there, and the author himself, who sent me the manuscript immediately on request.
Similarly to the Danish raids on Britain around the turn of the first millennium, Muslims began invading India in the eighth century, “mainly to plunder, spread their Islamic faith, and then retreat.” Afghanistan was up for grabs, religiously speaking, and had passed from Hinduism through Buddhism and finally to Islam. My first awareness of these struggles came just before 9/11 in Canada, when I read a piece in the The Globe and Mail about the Taliban’s destruction of the Bamiyan Buddhas, huge statues of Gautama Buddha dating from the sixth century. This destruction of anything dating from the time before Mohammed, the jahilya, is regular Islamic practice, and noted by the author.
Afghan Islamization enabled Muslims to make a permanent incursion into India, an invasion previously impossible as the Arabic world was too distant. The Afghans became less transitory in their excursions into India, and ruled India for 300 years starting from the thirteenth century, a domination halted not by the Hindus but by the Mughals, Central Asians of Mongol descent. Although Mughal rule from the sixteenth century until 1857 saw improvement “in terms of administration, the economy, and in particular, architecture,” this period laid in place the tensions the author, a Hindu at the time of writing, describes as present today.
Islam used the Hindu caste system strategically, targeting the “untouchable” lower caste for conversion. Something analogous can be seen in modern Britain, with blacks and disaffected young whites beginning to convert to Islam, particularly in prison. (The author, himself from the baniya, or trading caste, describes the peer-group pressure he felt in the US from Muslims trying to persuade him to convert.) Muslims saw that the lowest caste could be portrayed as oppressed — another familiar theme today — and turned them against their Hindu rulers. By the turn of the twentieth century, a quarter of India was Muslim, although under British rule “mass proselytisation to Islam had stopped” and the Hindus regained ground. Muslims became concerned about the prospect of a democratic India in which they cohabited peacefully with Hindus, and Gandhi reluctantly allowed the two-state solution by which India was partitioned and Pakistan created.
There are Hindus in Pakistan, and they face persecution. In India, meanwhile, Muslims are outpacing Hindus demographically, which Europe has as part of its future. There is also the intrusive, disruptive attitude of Muslim immigrants the West is only just beginning to realize. “Many Hindus,” writes Sharan, “are firmly convinced that wherever Muslims are found in the majority, they do not let religious minorities live in peace.” This is the lesson Britain is currently sitting through, on a local level at present but expanding as Britain’s micro-caliphates link arms. Shariah has been in place among Indian Muslims since 1947. It is already de facto in place in many British, Muslim-dominated areas. The author notes that Dr. Rowan Williams, an ex-Archbishop of Canterbury and thus a part of the virtual welcoming committee the Anglican Church has become for Islam, supports Islamic demands for their own legal system. The push for shariah, sanctioned or not, exemplifies a word which recurs wherever Muslim arrivistes begin to gain footholds in a new territory; tension.
Although the tensions between India and Pakistan over the disputed Kashmir region are well documented, however, the tensions within India between Muslims and Hindus are at least offset by some cultural symbiosis. The world-famous Taj Mahal, for example, “is a Muslim monument, but if you see carefully, its structure is more Hindu than Muslim.” But Muslims are also destroyers of cultures they come across in their quest for theological lebensraum, as with the Bamiyan Buddhas. This uneasy stasis is clarified by Sharan, with several approving references to Mahatma Gandhi, who was “killed by Hindu extremists because he took up the cause of India’s Muslims.” Tolerance, in the face of Islam, can be fatal.
Against this historical backdrop, Sharan’s book is a personal account as well as an objective history. The author is both an experienced journalist and well-traveled in the Western world. Religious travelers do not, however, travel alone, and the author’s Hindu perspective via the personal nature of his account is no mere tale of exotic gods, spices, and festivals. Hinduism demands a rather more hands-on attitude from its young men:
A true Hindu, wherever he lives, will never accept burial. Since childhood, Hindus are told that they will be cremated, with their head smashed on the pyre with a pole by their eldest son. I am the second of two sons, and I was allowed to hold aloft the staff to break my father’s head.
You can buy Mark Gullick’s novel Cherub Valley here.
Many Hindus do indeed believe that the head must be cracked open after death to allow the escape of the soul.
The author has lived and worked in France and Germany, and devotes separate chapters to these two countries, central as they are to Europe’s Islamic problem. France is becoming increasingly unstable due to its immigration policies, and its willingness to offload its migrant overspill to England is to its advantage. Migrants landing on the beaches of Kent are trying to get to England, not Britain, and if that is not possible they use the country as a way-station to Ireland, and the safety zone of the European Union.
But the French, with the Olympic Games about to start at the time of writing, is a nation practically under martial law due to the Islamic threat to proceedings, and the author relates his experience as well as the history of Islam in France.
Muslim immigration to France began at the turn of the twentieth century for the usual reason: the importation of a cheap labor force to do the jobs the French did not care to do — which is a lot of jobs, from my experience of the French. As the century progressed, so did Islamic demands in their new home. The author informs us that “[t]he French car company, Renault, hired so many Muslim immigres that, in a spirit of accommodation, they installed prayer rooms for them in their factories.” This is now common practice in businesses across Europe.
Another practice uniformly observed is Muslim hatred of their adoptive countries. The author seems to suggest that the France of “the leafy suburbs and the fine shops and the good schools” is somehow closed to Muslim immigrants, and instead they are crammed into “the projets in the exurbs of Paris and other French cities, those drug-addled, crime-infested, poor-civic service buildings that are the lot of most immigres to France” as into ghettoes. This allocation, however, should be expected, and there is no compulsion to make a slum of tower blocks, unpleasant as they may be. Hatred of the kufr certainly helps to excuse Islamic dysfunction in France’s major cities.
Germany created its own problems long ago, and its policy of importing a foreign workforce served only to provide a template for the future invasion of the nation which has caused Europe the most trouble historically and shows no signs of changing:
Germany imported most of its gastarbeiters (guest workers) from Turkey in the sixties. She [ex-German Chancellor Angela Merkel] went on to add that Germans kidded themselves, that they had expected the Turks to leave but that they chose to stay in Germany.
There was never any German colonization of Turkey, as Sharan points out. The Germans were victims of their own mental laziness (in contrast to their renowned efficiency), and the desperation of many Turks to escape their own particular enclave of Islamic dysfunction looks obvious in hindsight.
The British Empire, as one might expect, does not find favor with the author. “The Brits kid themselves that they made immense contributions to India,” the author writes, although he does acknowledge one benefit of the Raj, that they “flattened” the increasing dominance of Islam in India:
A hundred and fifty years of British rule had actually proved to be a blessing in disguise for the Hindus. Mass proselytization to Islam had stopped. The Hindu population actually grew healthily during British rule. Many Hindus such as the philosopher Aurobinda Ghosh in fact regarded the British as their protectors against the Islamists.
Now, the British can’t even protect themselves.
The question of imperialism is very much alive in Britain at present. Personally, I think that retrospective morality is philosophically illegitimate, and the history of colonization would be better informed not by reading Rousseau or Kant, but Lao Tzu or Bismarck. Products of colonized countries — and it is only the British Empire which comes under fire for this — will understandably hold grudges, but using morality to unknot the problem is the wrong tool for the job.
Americans are always surprised to be told they are an imperial nation. We fight wars over there, they will say, but we don’t stick our flags in the ground (with the notable and photographically famous exception of Iwo Jima). But America’s empire is cultural, as Guillaume Faye recognized, and this makes it not an enemy of Europe but certainly an adversary.
The author is bittersweet about his time in the US:
As a minority in the toxic racist environment that I find myself in the United States today, I can only sympathise with India’s Muslims. I am a blackie, a Third Worlder, a Hindu in the US. As the Americans would say, I have a lot of strikes against.
With Afro-American blackness loudly “trending” in the US, Hinduism is not a sympathetic cause. Sharan makes the point that Kamala Devi Harris plays up her blackness and keeps a discreet veil over her Hindu background via her mother, Shyamala Gopalan. Ms. Gopalan met her father in an Afro-American Association at UC Berkeley, and was admitted to this black study group by virtue of being a “person of color.” Now that there is at least a possibility that Harris will be the next President of the US, her privileging of her black ancestry over her Hindu lineage seems an effective career move. If she is dropped from the ticket at the Democrat Convention in August, a lot of black women will not vote for a white replacement.
The author is certainly aware of one lesson the West is only just beginning to learn, that when a nation imports Islam, it brings with it its own internal, factional squabbles:
Forget about Islam and other religions. The rift within Islam itself, between the Shia and the Sunni, is the most internecine in the world.
The mutual hatred between Sunni and Shi’a Muslims is every bit as bitter as that between Northern Ireland’s Catholics and Protestants, although both sects in both cases share a common deity. This is one of the great mysteries of Islam, and it hampers the objectives supposed to be common to the ummah. Sharan writes that “Islam has no single spiritual leader like the Pope,” but perhaps they ought to consider installing one, because a successful pan-Islamist movement would make Islam stronger, not weaker. The internecine warfare noted, once Islam has registered a significant presence in a European nation, also plays itself out on the streets of that nation, to the detriment of the natives.
As a history of Islam in India, this book filled in an information gap, as noted. As a personal account, although it is far from partial, it is also even-handed. I finished the book assuming that the author remained of the Hindu faith, but at the end of an afterword about Mr. Sharan, we learn that in 2021 he published a book detailing “how he came to Christ.” It would be interesting to see his viewpoint once his old religion is objectified from the standpoint of his new Christian belief. Also, I wonder if he might answer a question for me.
After India’s independence in 1947, Gandhi made Jawaharlal Nehru the country’s first Prime Minister. I have heard a story that I wonder if the author could confirm or otherwise. Asked by a reporter whether he agreed that Gandhi’s poverty was admirable, Nehru replied that it cost a lot of money to keep Gandhi in poverty. I have often wondered if this is fake news.
The book ends on a rather accusatory if ambiguous note, with Judeo-Christianity upbraided, as “The people of the Books are doing the world no favors” in not bringing the 1,000-year conflict between Islam and at least nominal Christianity to a close. Sharan asks, “What can India teach the Western world?”
If Muslims rule your country they will not break you. Or when they are relatively small in number, as they are in India today. But the minute they find themselves up to a big critical mass, and if they are not ruling over that land, then they want a separate land for themselves to lord over.
Islam certainly does not break the countries it invades. It requires the superstructure already put in place by the kufr, and if proof of Muslim cultural appropriation is needed, I imagine 9/11 will suffice. Islam’s aim is conversion and the levying of jizya tax on the indigenous people of the countries it invades by stealth. India’s Hindus remain in a tense standoff with Islam, both over Kashmir and within the undisputed borders of India. Squabbles over whether pigs or cows should not be eaten are one thing, but the levers of power and who controls them are quite another. Islam in Britain — and I am originally from London — is gaining both political leverage and the power to invade public spaces with impunity. At what point will Muslims feel that critical mass has been reached? Whether the future of Europe is as a bloc of nation states whose citizens live in an uneasy and fractious state of disharmony with its aggressive arrivistes, or it can stop Islam as it did at the gates of Vienna in 1683, is in the lap of the gods — whoever’s deities they might be.
22 comments
I am a lifelong student of religion. It is abundantly clear that Islam is a 1400 year old imperialist theocratic project and has zero place in the West. We need Reconquista 2.o, and this time they all must go.
Part of our problem is that Islam is coded as and treated as a non-White group and is therefore sacred and not to be critiqued. The Muslim history of slave trading makes the transatlantic version look like a sideshow. But that is completely repressed. The invention of the diversionary term “Islamist”, to separate the bad ones from the good ones, shows this.
But if Islam were a White phenomenon, with a European prophet, and all its other elements of belief and practice were intact except, say, the sacred language was European rather than Arabic, it would have been clocked as “Nazi” in a heartbeat and repressed without restraint. Any religion that hates both bacon and dogs deserves to be.
I admire and envy Islam’s unshakeable self-confidence, which makes it a very formidable enemy, as it always has been. I pray we regain that same self-confidence which our ancestors had.
The solution, to our Replacement en route to our extermination, is extremely easy – this is our European aka White homelands explicitly. The problem is that we lack the will, including the will to deal with our traitors. Translation: we are not feared.
@Dr ExCathedra
It is abundantly clear that Islam is a 1400 year old imperialist theocratic project…
What “imperialist theocratic project” converted most of South East Asia to Islam while leaving the signs of its pagan past intact?
How did this “imperialist theocratic project” fail to convert all of Middle East to Islam?
How come almost 1/4th of Arab world was non-Muslim (Pagan, Christian, Jew, etc.) at the beginning of the 20th century unlike Europe where Christian crusades savagely wiped out native cultures?
How did 3/4th of Indian subcontinent remain pagan after 800-year of non-Hindu political control of the region when ruling elites professed a different religion (Islam)?
…and has zero place in the West.
That will be decided by time and the indigenous folk of the West. Who knows? They may gradually embrace the faith and channel the new spiritual energy in fostering strong intra-racial camaraderie.
…The Muslim history of slave trading makes the transatlantic version look like a sideshow.
Slave trading was a part and parcel of racial/ethnic wars. And, yes, when Near Eastern and North African peoples converted to Islam, some of them continued this nasty practice. However, if the implication is that it was Islam that ideologically supported them in their kidnapping of men and women, well, where is the evidence?
Where does the Noble Quran encourage Muslims to take slaves?
Cite just ONE instance.
But if Islam were a White phenomenon, with a European prophet,…
Islam is not a non-White “phenomenon” either. It doesn’t ask its followers to worship Arabs or Arab culture. It clearly recognizes racial diversity and upholds it as one of the signs of the Almighty.
It does emphasize on the Arabic language which should not be deemed as an irrational demand since human beings possess a wonderful tendency to master languages.
A White Muslim of Serbian extraction (Bosnian) or a Chechen Muslim of Caucasian extraction or a Ivorian Muslim of African extraction or a Chinese Muslim of Hun extraction can recite the Sacred Word as effortlessly and beautifully as a native Arab speaker. How does this happen when their own native languages doesn’t even have the required phonetics?
“Have they not pondered upon their own selves?” [30:8]
Indeed, there are signs for men of understanding.
While I can’t speak to most of your questions, when Mark says “Islam is coded as and treated as a non-White group and is therefore sacred and not to be critiqued… but if Islam were a White phenomenon, with a European prophet…” he’s referring to the view of the left-liberal powers that rule our societies, not Islam itself. Certainly whites can be Muslim, but non-white Muslim misbehavior is excused in our countries because they’re “people of color” and thus “oppressed”.
@AdamMil
I was responding to Dr ExCathedra’s observations.
…but non-white Muslim misbehavior is excused in our countries because they’re “people of color” and thus “oppressed”.
Exactly. The issue is racial/ethnic not religious.
Amplifying the religious aspect on the basis of half-baked understanding adversely affects the seriousness of the otherwise sound nationalist argument.
For what it’s worth, I respect Islam’s cohesiveness and moral strength, factional disputes aside, and their willingness to fight. We deracinated and apathetic Westerners could relearn something important, which we’ve forgotten in our decadence, by looking at the example of Islam. But I do feel like Islam’s drive to ultimately take over the local culture and government – see, for example, the reports of Muslims trying to enforce their religions restrictions on non-Muslims in “their” neighborhoods, especially during Ramadan – means that Muslims and non-Muslims may have a hard time peacefully coexisting in the same society, whenever the Muslims reach large numbers. What do you think?
@AdamMil
…Muslims and non-Muslims may have a hard time peacefully coexisting in the same society, whenever the Muslims reach large numbers. What do you think?
Here, the context is more racial.
And I don’t think, however their situation is bleak, Whites will be outbred by the immigrant racial minorities in their own countries.
I still maintain they (Whites) will have a spiritual revival in the coming decades. They will discipline themselves and overthrow their abominable political bureaucracies, which will, consequently, make their dwellings unattractive for immigration.
The most terrifying force of death, comes from the hands of “Men who wanted to be left Alone”.
They try, so very hard, to mind their own business and provide for themselves and those they love.
They resist every impulse to fight back, knowing the forced and permanent change of life that will come from it.
They know, that the moment they fight back, the lives as they have lived them, are over.
The moment the “Men who wanted to be left Alone” are forced to fight back, it is a small form of suicide. They are literally killing off who they used to be. . . .
Which is why, when forced to take up violence, these “Men who wanted to be left Alone”, fight with unholy vengeance against those who murdered their former lives. They fight with raw hate, and a drive that cannot be fathomed by those who are merely play-acting at politics and terror. TRUE TERROR will arrive at the Left’s door, and they will cry, scream, and beg for mercy . . . . but it will fall upon deaf ears.
1st the traitors, then the invaders.
“The Germans were victims of their own mental laziness (in contrast to their renowned efficiency)”
The truth is: The German efficiency led to an economic boom in the 1950s, the “Wirtschaftswunder” (economic miracle). Germany became the second most important export nation. In 1955, on the initiative of the Italian government, the first guest worker agreement was concluded to offset the large trade surplus. In 1961 there was a real danger that the economically very weak NATO member state Turkey could collapse. Somebody from the US government came up with a malicious idea to stabilize Turkey. Translated from the German Wikipedia page “Anwerbeabkommen zwischen der Bundesrepublik Deutschland und der Türkei”:
“The recruitment agreement between the Federal Republic of Germany and Turkey, which was largely the result of diplomatic pressure from the USA, was signed in Bad Godesberg on October 30, 1961 (Adenauer III Cabinet) and led to increased immigration from Turkey to the Federal Republic of Germany, despite the contrary wording of the agreement (limiting the duration of stay to a maximum of two years: the so-called rotation principle). The recruited workers were referred to as “guest workers” in Germany. Until the recruitment ban in 1973, a total of 867,000 Turkish guest workers traveled to the Federal Republic of Germany and around 500,000 returned to Turkey.”
Turks were never needed, they were never welcomed. They were a present from the Kennedy administration. In 2011 economists calculated that the Turks in Germany had cost the Germans a net amount of over 1 trillion euros since 1961. So about the “mental laziness” …
The comment about the cost of keeping Gandhi in poverty is not “fake news” at all, but is very well documented. It originated not with Nehru, however, but with Gandhi acolyte and Indian nationalist poetess Sarojini Naidu, who very famously said, “It cost a great deal of money to keep the Mahatma living in poverty.”
Just google the name “Sarojini Naidu” and you will find abundant documentation of this fact. Gandhi outwardly lived a life of simplicity and austerity, but behind the scenes was very different. His “hut” was equipped with electricity and telephone lines.
He was very much like Churchill, who exhorted working class English people to “blood, sweat and tears” as he never missed a meal and dined on cuisine throughout the war.
My word ! Where to begin? Where to end?
The sheer cluelessness of the author of the book under discussion here is apparent from the title.
Firstly, it is quite silly to compare an indigenous people (Muslims of various ethnicities in the Indian subcontinent) with an immigrant population (ethnic/racial minorities in Europe who also happen to be Muslims).
Secondly, there appears to be an astonishing lack of understanding on display with regards to the phenomenon of religious conversion.
Why did Christianity lose its place in the Occident whereas Islam successfully withstood ideological and physical assaults and retained its vitality?
Thirdly, there is no “standoff” between Islam and Hinduism. The latter doesn’t even have the capacity to mount a serious ideological challenge. The contemporary “Hindu Nationalism” [and related whining] in India is a cheap imitation of Islamic social mobilization. It is a largely corporate driven endeavor to regimentalize the Hindus, particularly, the middle-class. The dynamics of electoral politics dominate its strategy. It is so fake and cringey that, at times, one feels pity at its enthusiasts.
Fourthly, the transformation of “Judeo-Christian” civilization to “Judeo-Hindu-Christian” [credit: Andrew Anglin on Unz.com] civilization will be some spectacle I must say.
Fifthly, in his previous piece, Mr. Gullick was emphasizing the need to have good philosophical grounding for White dissidents. Well, this uncritical consumption of Hindutva fruit salad undermines the good advice.
Lastly, the “counter-Jihad” approach of aughts will not bear any fruit. However, if someone draws pleasure from going round and round in circles, then what can one say? That is their choice.
May the Almighty have mercy upon them !! (Amen)
*Just noticed the mistake. I intended to write “Hindutva word salad”, but wrote, instead, “fruit salad”.
Why did Christianity lose its place in the Occident whereas Islam successfully withstood ideological and physical assaults and retained its vitality?
Because the Islam is much YOUNGER. For 600 years younger. The Christianity is old, fragile, weak and half-dead.
@Kök Böri
By that logic, which I think is ridiculous, the Communists should still have been militantly dedicating their lives for the Communist manifesto. The document is still very “young”.
Likewise, nothing should’ve been relevant today from the Greek philosophical texts as they date back to even before Christianity.
By the way, what was health of Christianity in its 15th century? Not so encouraging.
Christianity (and any other “ism”) failed because it was alien to human nature. Its fundamental doctrine can’t address the social and individual needs of Man nor can it shield him from tyrannical encroachment.
Islam’s resilience lies in its appeal to human nature. Its creed is in harmony with the primordial condition of Man, which is why time doesn’t wear it out.
The Communists are militant and aggressive now. Of course, the Communism mutated, and it is not the Communism of Lenin, Stalin, Brezhnev or even of Mao Zedong or Pol Pot. The today’s Communism is called “Liberalism”, “Tolerance”, SJW, “Democracy”, etc.
Taliban’s destruction of the Bamiyan Buddhas, huge statues of Gautama Buddha dating from the sixth century. This destruction of anything dating from the time before Mohammed, the jahilya, is regular Islamic practice, and noted by the author.
the author should give context for this. Islam like Judaism abhors graven images: idolatry. (What is the Second Commandment?) No matter how repugnant it is in their right within their conquered territory to practice their faith. And now they are here and will not leave. Why so angry, West?
@jdoyle
It is preposterous to compare Islam with the blood-worshiping cult known as “Judaism”.
From the Iberian peninsula to Indonesia, the blend of Islam with local cultures produced stunning art & architecture. Moreover, the pagan past of the peoples were not razed to the ground. It still stands.
What is Jewish art & architecture? Yeah, NOTHING. It is a parasitical entity which feasts on the resources of the goyim.
Apropos of the Bamiyan episode:
The Afghan region didn’t become Islamic by faith in the last decade of the 20th century. It has been so since the 7th or 8th century. Why didn’t the fanatic Afghans demolish the idols in all these years? It is not that they didn’t have the firepower. They had all the means to accomplish that task. Yet, no one experienced a puritan itch of that sort, especially, when they were making raids inside the Indian subcontinent, which today are deemed by some “historians” as religious in nature.
How did the ancient structures of Palmyra survive till the 21st century? Did Islam enter the Syrian territory because of that moronic outfit known as “ISIS”? No, it has been there for almost 1400 years. Strange that in all these 14 centuries no fatwa was issued for their pulling down.
If one has a problem with Islam, fine. But let’s read history like grown-ups.
It’s important to point put that Hindus are just as much of a threat to west as Muslims. Indians take white collar jobs from middle class white people, make housing unaffordable and “spam” desirable areas such as parks and cultural centers with their horde-like numbers. Alot of Indians will engage in the same sexual crimes as Muslims.
Islam and Hinduism are both existential threats to white people.
Yes. Regardless of their religion, though, they are racial aliens and that is the problem. Christian Indians or atheist Arabs are a problem for us because of their race. When their religions are ethnic, as in Hinduism and Islam that is a force-multiplier, but it’s their genetic/cultural identity that makes them hostile outsiders.
what’s with the guilt trip about the british empire? What is your comparison?
With the exception of the Japanese, who were compelled by defeat, I know of no imperial nation or race in history that has felt bad or apologized for being imperial, except for Whites.
Our sense of “fairness” and self-criticism is manipulated to weaken us.
n.b. it was not Nehru but Sarojini Naidu – head of the INC and governess of UP state – who allegedly made the quip about it costing a fortune to keep Gandhi in poverty.
Comments are closed.
If you have a Subscriber access,
simply login first to see your comment auto-approved.
Note on comments privacy & moderation
Your email is never published nor shared.
Comments are moderated. If you don't see your comment, please be patient. If approved, it will appear here soon. Do not post your comment a second time.