Condemned undefended and unheard

I was condemned by both Houses of Parliament for my statements on Gandhi and Subhas Chandra Bose, without giving me a hearing and an opportunity to defend myself. The rules of natural justice, and elementary decency, require that no one should be condemned unheard.. But I suppose that I did not deserve even that.

 I am presently in America, and was here when I came to know of the resolutions against me. So I sent emails to three of the top lawyers of India, who are practising in the Supreme Court, requesting them to file writ petitions in the Supreme Court on my behalf, challenging these resolutions on the ground that they violate my fundamental rights under Articles 14, 19(1)(a) and 21 of the Constitution.

 They violate Article 14 because it has been held by the Supreme Court in Maneka Gandhi vs.Union of India,A.I.R. 1978 S.C.597 that violation of natural justice is violation of Article 14. They violate Article 19(1)(a) because that provision gives me freedom of speech. And they violate Article 21 because Article 21 has been interpreted by the Supreme Court to include the right to one's reputation.

 The first of these three lawyers ( I am not disclosing their names ) sent this reply to me :

" I am sorry I cannot file this case as I am strongly of the view that you were totally wrong in saying what you said about Mahatma Gandhi. He rightly felt that Indians could not fight the mighty British through armed revolutionaries as they could be easily crushed by the British Army.He therefore developed the novel technique of Satyagraha which would by its force create a world opinion in favour of Indian independence.I have never accepted to argue a case in which my client was morally very wrong.Though I have always held you in high esteem as a crusader against corruption I am sorry I shall not be able to help you in this case. ".

 The second lawyer replied by refusing my request without giving any reason. The third did not even reply to my email. There was a fourth top lawyer of India whom i did not approach as he had already condemned me by tweeting against me on the issue.

 I then decided that since lawyers seemed to be unwilling to defend me, I should defend myself, and seek a post decisional hearing from Parliament. So I obtained the email ids of the  Chairman of the Rajya Sabha, Mr. Hamid Ansari, and the Speaker of the Lok Sabha, Ms. Sumitra Mahajan, and sent them emails requesting for a hearing by both Houses. Neither Mr. Ansari nor Ms.Mahajan showed me the courtesy of a reply.

 Will no one defend me ? And will I not even be allowed to defend myself ?

The fake ' Mahatma '

Gandhi  injected  religion into politics for 3 decades by constantly advocating Hindu religious ideas like Ramrajya, goraksha, varnashram, brahmacharya, etc in public meetings and in his articles ( see my earlier posts and blogs e.g. 'Gandhi--a British agent', 'Gandhi and caste', etc ) This no doubt secured him power over the backward Hindu masses as he was perceived as a saint or baba ( and even today babas have a powerful hold among many ), but the price paid was Partition and its horrors, as the Muslims were inevitably driven towards the Muslim League.

 Gandhi also successfully diverted the freedom struggle from the revolutionary direction towards which great and genuine freedom fighters like Bhagat Singh, Surya Sen, Chandrashekhar Azad, Ashfaqulla, Khudiram Bose, Rajguru, Bismil, etc taking it towards a harmless nonsensical channel called satyagrah.

 This fake, who did so much harm to our country, has been called the ' Father of the Nation', and for exposing him I was condemned  by Parliament without even giving me a hearing, which even murderers get.

 Since I was denied a hearing by Parliament, I decided to go to the people, who are the highest Court in a democracy, through teehe press, to get a hearing

Op-Ed in Indian Express: http://indianexpress.com/article/opinion/columns/unfair-house/

Long Live Our Real Freedom Fighters

 Today, 23rd March, is the death anniversary of  those whom I call as 'our real freedom fighters', ( as contrasted to that fake freedom fighter Gandhi ), Bhagat Singh, Sukhdev and Rajguru  who were hanged on this day by the Britishers in Lahore jail, their bodies secretly burnt and their ashes thrown away in some unknown place. Those other real freedom fighters, Chandrashekhar Azad, Ashfaqulla, Khudiram Bose, Ram Prasad Bismil, etc had been killed or hanged by the British earlier, and that great revolutionary Surya Sen ( Masterda ) in 1934

  In my speech recently at Berkeley University i California I said that a real freedom struggle can never be non violent. Was the American War of Independence against the British ( from 1775 to 1781 ) non violent ? Did George Washington fight with the British by presenting them flowers and satyagrah, or with bullets ?

 It is commonsense that no one gives up a huge empire because of hunger strikes, salt marches and other such Gandhian dramas. A real revolutionary struggle against British rule had begun through the abovenamed real freedom fighters, but it was still in its nascent stage when it was nipped in the bud by that cunning British agent Gandhi, who successfully diverted this genuine freedom struggle from its revolutionary direction to a harmless, nonsensical channel called satyagrah, which meant presenting the other cheek when your enemy strikes you on one cheek, instead of bravely exchanging blow for blow.

Our real freedom fighters and patriots have been carefully relegated to a footnote in our national historiography, and that cunning rascal Gandhi has been portrayed as the ' Father of the Nation ' who gave us freedom ' bina khadak bina dhaal '.

Gandhi described Bhagat Singh and the militant Indian youth fighting against British Imperialism as ' misguided souls '

 When the British sentenced Bhagat Singh to death, Gandhi made no effort to save his life.  He never wrote any letter to the British Viceroy to commute his sentence, and never issued any public appeal to that effect. In all probability he was happy that his rivals as freedom fighters had been eliminated, otherwise his popularity and ' Mahatmahood ' would have disappeared.

 India got independence not due to the dramas of Gandhi but because in the Second World War Germany attacked England and weakened it ( in fact if America had not helped her it is probable that Germany would have conquered England ), and because of American pressure on the British

Gandhi and Caste

Gandhi repeatedly said in the 1920s that ' Hindus must follow their hereditary professions ' and that ' prohibition of intermarriage between people of different varnas was necessary for a rapid evolution of the soul '. In the 1930s he changed his tune and started saying that he was opposed to caste but supported varna and hereditary professions, as if there is a difference between the two

 This hypocrisy was typical of Gandhi. Whenever he found his stupid feudal ideas unacceptable he tried to obfuscate.

 Thus in 1921 he said in his journal Young India " I am a sanatani Hindu. I believe in varnashram dharma. I believe in protection of the cow "

 He also said " I believe that caste has saved Hinduism from disintegration. One of my correspondents suggests that we should abolish the caste system but adopt the class system of Europe, meaning that the idea of hereditary castes should be rejected. I am inclined to think that the law of heredity is an eternal law, and any attempt to alter it must lead to utter confusion. Hindus believe in transmigration of the soul, and Nature will adjust the balance by degrading a Brahmin if he misbehaves to a lower caste, and upgrading one who lives the life of a Brahmin to a Brahmin in his next life. "

He also wrote " The beauty of the caste system is that it does not base itself upon distinctions of wealth-possessions. Money, as history has proved, is the greatest disruptive force in the world C aste is but an extension of the principle of the family. Both are governed by blood and heredity. Western scientists are busy trying to prove that heredity is an illusion andthat milieu is everything. The.experience of many lands goes against the conclusions of these scientists; but even accepting their doctrine of milieu, it is easy to prove that milieu can be conserved and developed more through caste than through class. As we all know, change comes very slowly in social life, and thus, as a matter of fact, caste has allowed new groupings to suit the changes in lives. But these changes are quiet and easy, as a change in the shape of the clouds. It is difficultto imagine a better harmonious human adjustment.Caste does not connote superiority or inferiority. It simply recognizes different outlooks and corresponding modes of life.But it is no use denying the fact that a sort of hierarchy has been evolved in the caste system, but it cannot be called the cre-ation of the Brahmins. When all castes accept a common goal of life, a hierarchy is inevitable, because all castes cannot realize the ideal in equal degree."

 Again in 1921 Gandhi said : “I believe that if Hindu society has been able to stand, it is because it is founded on the caste system. A community which can create the caste system must be said to possess unique power of organization.To destroy the caste system and adopt the Western European social system means that Hindus must give up the principle of hereditary occupation which is the soul of the caste system.The hereditary principle is an eternal principle.To change it is to create disorder. It will be a chaos if every day a Brahmin is to be changed into a Shudra, and a Shudra is to be changed into a Brahmin. The caste system is a natural order of society.... I am opposed to all those who are out to destroy the caste system.”

 In 1926 Gandhi writes ": In accepting the fourfold division I am simply accepting the laws of Nature, taking for granted what is in-herent in human nature and the law of heredity.... It is not possible in one birth entirely to undo the results of our past doings."

 Gandhi's hypocrisy can again be seen by the following statement in 1927 :

 : " In my conception of the law of varna, no one is superior to any other.... A scavenger [.a rubbish-collector or a latrine- or street-sweeper] has the same status as a Brahmin "

 Is this not ridiculous and farcical ? Do Brahmins regard shudras as their equals ?.It is like the devious doctrine of  'separate but equal ' propounded by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1896. Gandhi does not want abolition of the caste system, he says all castes have the same status, which is nonsense.

 In 1925 Gandhi says: " There is no harm if a person belonging to one varna acquires the knowledge or science and art specialized in by persons belonging to other varnas. But as far as the way of earning his living is concerned, he must follow the occupationof the varna to which he belongs, which means he must follow the hereditary profession of his forefathers.The object of the varna system is to prevent competition and class struggle and class war. I believe in the varna system because it fixes the duties and occupations of persons.Varna means the determination of a man’s occupation before he is born. In the varna system no man has any liberty to choose his occupation."

 This statement is again obfuscation. Why will anyone acquire a skill unless he can use it to earn his bread ?

  In 1931 Gandhi said: " I do not believe in caste in the modern sense. It is an excrescence and a handicap on progress. Nor do I believe in inequalities between human beings. We are all absolutely equal. But equality is of souls and not bodies. We have to realize equality in the midst of this apparent inequality. Assumption of superiority by any person over any other is a sin against God and man. Thus caste, in so far as it connotes distinctions in status, is an evil

.I do however believe in varna which is based on hereditary occupations. Varnas are four to mark four universal occupations – imparting knowledge, defending the defenceless, carrying on agriculture and commerce, and performing service through physical labor. These occupations are common to all mankind, but Hinduism, having recognized them as the law of our being, has made use of it in regulating social relations and conduct. Gravitation affects us all whether one knows its exist or not "

 The above statement really takes the cake. On the one hand Gandhi says he does not believe in caste, on the other hand he says that he believes in hereditary occupations, and says it is like the law of gravity.  But hereditary occupations is the basis of caste ( see my blog on caste system on justicekatju.blogspot.in ). Does this contradictory statement require any comment, except to say that this man can wriggle around and say that 2+2=4 and 2+2=5 in the same breath ?

In 1932 Gandhi said:  "My own opinion is that the varna system has just now broken down. There is no true Brahmin or true Kshatriya or Vaishya. We are all Shudras, i.e. one varna. If this position is accepted, then the thing becomes easy. If this does not satisfy our vanity, then we are all Brahmins. Removal of Untouchability does mean root-and-branch destruction of the idea of superiority and inferiority "

  Does the above statement make any sense ? At least I cannot make any head or tail out of it.

 In 1933 Dr. Ambedkar  said "There will be outcastes as long as there are castes, and nothing can emancipate the outcaste except the destruction of the caste system.". This was a logical argument of Dr. Ambedkar.

 But see how Gandhi replies. He said "  Dr. Ambedkar is bitter. He has every reason to feel so. Yet I do not believe the caste system, even as distinguished from varnashrama [the scheme of duties traditionally linked to the caste system], to be an “odious and vicious dogma. It has its limitations and defects, but there is nothing sinful about it, as there is about Untouchability; and if Untouchability is a by-product of the system, it is only in the same sense that an ugly growth is of a body, or weeds of a crop ".

   Thus Gandhi is not against the caste system but only against Untouchability.

Gandhi admitted that his ideal of a varna system with everyone enjoying equal economic and social status probably had no historical warrant:

: But when asked whether in ancient India there was much difference in economic status and social privileges between the four varnas Gandhi replied " That may be historically true. But misapplication or an imperfect understanding of the law must not lead to the ignoring of the law itself. By constant striving we have to enrich it  ".

So Gandhi is not against the caste system but only its  'misapplication.' ( whatever that may mean )..

 The contrast between Gandhi’s and Ambedkar’s views was heightened by their respective relations to the Jat-Pat-Todak Mandal, a new organization which was dedicated to promoting a casteless Hinduism. Gandhi told its secretary:in1932:  "If eradication of castes means the abolition of varna I do not approve of it. But I am with you if your aim is to end the innumerable caste distinctions ".

Dr Ambedkar corrrectly analysed  the cause of Gandhi's  contradictory statements and obfuscation regarding caste as " the double role which the Mahatma wants to play – of a Mahatma and a politician. As a Mahatma he may be trying to spiritualize politics. Whether he has succeeded in it or not, politics have certainly commercialized him. A politician must know that society cannot bear the whole truth. If he is speaking the whole truth, it is bad for his politics. The reason why the Mahatma is always supporting caste and varna is because he is afraid that if he opposes them he will lose his place in politics.... Whatever may be the source of this confusion, the Mahatma must be told that he is deceiving himself and also deceiving the people by preaching caste under the name of varna ".

  This is the man who has been thrust down the throats of Indians as the ' Father of the Nation ' !

The Real Father of the Indian Nation

 ' Mahatma ' Gandhi is called the father of the Indian nation. But , as I have pointed out in my previous post, Gandhi in fact did great harm to India, and he has wrongly been called the Father of the nation.

 The real Father of the Indian nation was the great Mughal Emperor Akbar ( 1542-1605 ). What we Indians are today is largely because of the solid foundation laid by Akbar. Because of Akbar, we are Indians, not just Hindus, Muslims, Sikhs, Christians, Jains, Parsis etc.

  And yet the tragedy is that many Hindus call Akbar a Muslim, while many Muslims call him a Hindu ( because he observed many Hindu festivals and ceremonies ), which proves my point that 90% Hindus and 90% Muslims in India are fools. The truth is that while being a Sunni Muslim, Akbar was a true Indian.

  Akbar saw that India was a country of great diversity ( see my article ' What is India ? ' on my blog justicekatju.blogspot.in and the website kgfindia.com ). Hence the only way to keep India united was by giving equal respect to all communities and sects. It was because of this realization that Akbar adopted the wise policy of Suleh-e-Kul, that is, Universal Toleration of all Religions.

 In this respect, Akbar was far ahead of his times, and far ahead of even Europeans who were at that time massacring each other in the name of religion, Catholics massacring Protestants e.g. the St. Bartholomew Day massacre in 1572 by Catholics of the minority Protestant community ( called Huguenots ) in France, the massacre of Protestants by the Spanish Duke of Alba in Holland, the burning at the stake ( auto de fe ) of heretics during the Inquisition, etc, the subsequent massacre of Catholics in Ireland by Cromwell, and the mutual massacre of Catholics and Protestants in the Thirty Year War  in Germany ( 1618-1648 ) as well as the killing of Jews by Christians throughout Europe ( culminating in the Holocaust in the Second World War, 1939-1945 ).

 In my judgment in  the Supreme Court in Hinsa Virodhak Sangh vs.Mirzapur Moti Koresh Jamaat, 2011 ( see online ) I observed :

"  The architect of modern India was the great Mughal Emperor Akbar who gave equal respect to people of all communities and appointed them to the highest offices on their merits irrespective of their religion, caste, etc.

The Emperor Akbar held discussions with scholars of all religions and gave respect not only to Muslim scholars, but also to Hindus, Christians, Parsis, Sikhs, etc. Those who came to his court were given respect and the Emperor heard their views, sometimes alone, and sometimes in the Ibadatkhana (Hall of Worship), where people of all religions assembled and discussed their views in a tolerant spirit.

The Emperor declared his policy of Suleh-e-Kul, which meant universal tolerance of all religions and communities. He abolished Jeziya in 1564 and the pilgrim tax in 1563 on Hindus and permitted his Hindu wife to continue to practise her own religion even after their marriage. This is evident from the Jodha Bai Palace in Fatehpur Sikri which is built on Hindu architectural pattern.

In 1578, the Parsi theologian Dastur Meherji Rana was invited to the Emperor 's court and he had detailed discussions with Emperor Akbar and acquainted him about the Parsi religion. Similarly, the Jesuit Priests Father Antonio Monserrate, Father Rodolfo Acquaviva and Father Francisco Enriques etc. also came to the Emperor 's court on his request and acquainted him about the Christian religion. The Emperor also became acquainted with Sikhism and came into contact with Guru Amar Das and Guru Ram Das (see`The Mughal Empire by R.C. Majumdar).

Thus, as stated in the Cambridge History of India (Vol.IV The Mughal Period) Emperor Akbar conceived the idea of becoming the father of all his subjects, rather than the leader of only the Muslims, and he was far ahead of his times. As mentioned by Pt. Jawahar Lal Nehru in `The Discovery of India , " Akbar 's success is astonishing, for he created a sense of oneness among the diverse elements of India ".

In 1582, the Emperor invited and received a Jain delegation consisting of Hiravijaya Suri, Bhanuchandra Upadhyaya and Vijayasena Suri. Jainism, with its doctrine of non-violence, made a profound impression on him and influenced his personal life. He curtailed his food and drink and ultimately abstained from flesh diet altogether for several months in the year. He renounced hunting which was his favourite pastime, restricted the practice of fishing and released prisoners and caged birds. Slaughter of animals was prohibited on certain days and ultimately in 1587 for about half the days in the year.

Akbar 's contact with Jains began as early as 1568, when Padma Sunder who belonged to the Nagpuri Tapagaccha was honoured by him.

As mentioned in Dr. Ishwari Prasad 's `The Mughal Empire' , the Jains had a great influence on the Emperor. A disputation was held in Akbar s court between the Jain monks Buddhisagar of Tapgaccha and Suddha Kirti of Khartargaccha on the subject of Jain religious ceremony called Pansadha in which the winner was given the title Jagatguru by Akbar.

Having heard of the virtues and learning of Hir Vijaya Suri in 1582 the Emperor sent an invitation to him through the Mughal Viceroy at Ahmedabad. Suri accepted it in the interests of his religion. He was offered money by the Viceroy to defray the expenses of the journey but he refused. The delegation consisting of Hir Vijaya Suri, Bhanu Chandra Upadhyaya and Vijaya Sen Suri started on their journey and walked on foot to Fatehpur Sikri and were received with great honour befitting imperial guests.

 Hir Vijaya Suri had discussions with Abul Fazl. He propounded the doctrine of Karma and an impersonal God. When he was introduced to the Emperor he defended true religion and told him that the foundation of faith should be daya (compassion) and that God is one though he is differently named by different faiths.

The Emperor received instruction in Dharma from Suri who explained the Jain doctrines to him. He discussed the existence of God and the qualities of a true Guru and recommended non-killing (Ahinsa). The Emperor was persuaded to forbid the slaughter of animals for six months in Gujarat and to abolish the confiscation of the property of deceased persons, the Sujija Tax (Jeziya) and a Sulka (possibly a tax on pilgrims) and to free caged birds and prisoners. He stayed for four years at Akbar' s court and left for Gujarat in 1586. He imparted a knowledge of Jainism to Akbar and obtained various concessions to his religion. The Emperor is said to have taken a vow to refrain from hunting and expressed a desire to leave off meat- eating for ever as it had become repulsive.

When Suri was leaving for Ahmedabad,the Emperor presented to him Padma Sundar scriptures which were preserved in his palace. He offered them to Suri as a gift and he was pressed by the Emperor to accept them. The killing of animals was forbidden for certain days.

Emperor Akbar was a propagator of Suleh-i-Kul (universal toleration) at a time when Europeans 

were indulging in religious massacres e.g. the St. Bartholomew Day massacre in 1572 of Protestants, (called Huguenots) in France by the Catholics, the burning at the stake of Protestants by Queen Mary of England, the massacre by the Duke of Alva of millions of people for their resistance to Rome and the burning at the stake of Jews during the Spanish Inquisition. We may also mention the subsequent massacre of the Catholics in Ireland by Cromwell, and the mutual massacre of Catholics and Protestants in Germany during the thirty year war from 1618 to 1648 in which the population of Germany was reduced from 18 million to 12 million. Thus, Emperor Akbar was far ahead of even the Europeans of his times.

Emperor Akbar himself abstained from eating meat on Fridays and Sundays and on some other days, as has been mentioned in the Ain-I-Akbari by Abul Fazl.

It was because of the wise policy of toleration of the Great Emperor Akbar that the Mughal empire lasted for so long, and hence the same wise policy of toleration alone can keep our country together despite so much diversity. ".

 The tragedy is that the 90% fools and idiots living in India today do not even know who is the real Father of their Nation !

 It is said that Gandhi gave us Independence in 1947. This is totally false. In fact by diverting the genuine revolutionary independence struggle against the British in India ( see my previous post ) to harmless and nonsensical channels like n' Satyagrah ' Gandhi was ensuring that India should not become independent.

 Why then did the British leave ? Surely it was not because of the dramas Gandhi was doing ( fasting, salt march, etc ). Does anyone give up an Empire because of this ?

 No, it was because Germany attacked England in the Second World War and considerably weakened it ( in fact Germany would probably have conquered England if America had not helped it ) that England, realizing that she could not continue holding on to India politically, withdrew. So it is not Gandhi who gave us Independence but Adolf Hitler ( though of course that was not his intention )

Gandhi---A British Agent

This post is bound to draw a lot of flak at me, but that does not matter as I am not a popularity seeker  I have often said things knowing that initially that will make me very unpopular, and I will be vilified and denounced by many. Nevertheless I say such things.as I believe they must be said in my country's interest.

I submit that Gandhi was objectively a British agent who did great harm to India.

 These are my reasons for saying this :

1. India has tremendous diversity, so many religions, castes, races, languages, etc ( see my article ' What is India ?' ). Realizing this the British policy was of divide and rule ( see online ' History in the Service of Imperialism ' , which is a speech delivered by Prof. B.N. Pande in the Rajya Sabha ).

 By constantly injecting religion into politics continuously for several decades, Gandhi furthered the British policy of divide and rule.

 If we read Gandhi's public speeches and writings ( e.g. in his newspapers 'Young India', ' Harijan ', etc ) we find that ever since Gandhi came to India from South Africa in 1915 or so till his death in 1948, in almost every speech or article he would emphasize Hindu religious ideas e.g. Ramrajya, Go Raksha ( cow protection ), brahmacharya ( celibacy ), varnashram dharma ( caste system ), etc ( see Collected Works of Mahatma Gandhi ).

 Thus Gandhi wrote in ' Young India ' on 10.6.1921 " I am a Sanatani Hindu. I believe in the varnashram dharma. I believe in protection of the cow ". In his public meetings the Hindu bhajan ' Raghupati Raghav Raja Ram ' would be loudly sung.

 Now Indians are a religious people, and they were even more religious in the first half of the 20th century. A sadhu or swamiji may preach such ideas to his followers in his ashram, but when they are preached day in and day out by a political leader, what effect will these speeches and writings have on an orthodox Muslim mind ? It would surely drive him towards a Muslim organization like the Muslim League, and so it did. Was this not serving the British policy of divide and rule ? By constantly injecting religion into politics for several decades, was Gandhi not objectively acting as a British agent ?

2. In India a revolutionary movement against British rule had started in the early 20th century under the Anushilan Samiti, Jugantar, and revolutionaries like Surya Sen, Ramprasad Bismil ( who wrote the song ' Sarfaroshi ki tamanna ab hamare dil mein hai ), Chandrashekhar Azad, Ashfaqulla, Bhagat Singh, Rajguru, etc ( who were all hanged by the British ). Gandhi successfully diverted  the freedom struggle from this revolutionary direction to a harmless nonsensical channel called Satyagrah. This also served British interests.

3. Gandhi's economic ideas were thoroughly reactionary. He advocated self sufficient village communities, though everybody knows that these communities were totally casteist and in the grip of landlords and money lenders..Gandhi was against industrialization, and preached handspinning by charkha and other such reactionary nonsense. Similarly, his ' trusteeship ' theory was all nonsense, and an act of deceiving the people

 Some people praise Gandhi's bravery in going to Noakhali, etc to douse the communal violence at the time of Partition. But the question is why did he help setting the house on fire in the first place by preaching religious ideas in public political meetings for several decades, which were bound to divide the Indian people on religious lines? First you set the house on fire, and then you do the drama of trying to douse the flames.

Mahatma Gandhi as a lawyer

People know Mahatma Gandhi as a political leader, but few people know about his law practice in South Africa for 20 years. I may mention about one of his earliest cases in Pretoria,when he had just started law practice, as a young man in his early 20s.

The case was a civil dispute between two businessmen of Indian origin settled in South Africa and doing business there, Dada Abdullah and Tyeb Seth. Gandhiji was the lawyer for Dada Abdullah.

 I may now continue this narrative in Gandhiji's own words, in his book ' The Story of my Experiments with Truth ' :

" I saw that the facts of Dada Abdullah's case made it very strong indeed. But I also saw that the litigation, if persisted, would financially ruin both sides, who were relatives, and belonged to the same city. No one knew how long the case might go on.

 I approached Tyeb Seth, and advised him to go for arbitration. I recommended him to see his counsel, and suggested that if an arbitrator enjoying the confidence of both parties were appointed, the case would quickly finish. The lawyers' fees were so rapidly mounting that they would devour the financial resources of both litigants, even though they were big merchants. Moreover, the case occupied so much of their time that they had no time left for any other work. In the meantime, mutual ill will was steadily increasing

 I became disgusted with the legal profession. I felt that my duty was to befriend both parties, and bring them together. I strained every nerve to bring about a compromise. At last Tyeb Seth agreed. An arbitrator was appointed, the case was argued before him, and Dada Abdullah won.

  But that did not satisfy me. If my client were to seek immediate execution of the award, it would be impossible for Tyeb Seth to pay the whole of the awarded amount, and there was an unwritten law among the Porbander Memons living in South Africa that death should be preferred to bankruptcy.

 It was impossible for Tyeb Seth to immediately pay the whole sum awarded, but he meant to pay not a pie less, and he did not want to be declared bankrupt.

 There was only one way. Dada Abdullah ( Gandhiji's client ) should allow him to pay in moderate instalments. He was equal to the occasion, and granted Tyeb Seth instalments spread over a very long period. It was more difficult for me to secure this concession ( from Dada Abdullah ) than to get the parties to agree to arbitration. But both were happy over the result, and both rose in the public esteem.

  My joy was boundless. I had learnt the true practice of law. I realized that the true function of a lawyer was to unite parties riven asunder.

  The lesson was so indelibly burnt into me that a large part of my time during the twenty years of my practice as a lawyer was occupied in bringing about private compromises in hundreds of cases. I lost nothing thereby, not even money, certainly not my soul. "