Agents
Some people ask me what proof do I have that Gandhi, Jinnah, RSS, Muslim League and their leaders, Subhas Chandra Bose, etc were agents.
My answer is that I call them agents objectively. In other words, by their deeds they served the interests of the British, Japanese, etc ( as the case may be ).
For instance, it is well known that the British policy was divide and rule ( see online ' History in the Service of Imperialism ' by B.N. Pande and my article ' The Truth about Pakistan ' ). The British wanted Hindus and Muslims to fight with each other so as to retain control over the subcontinent. So those who furthered this policy of divide and rule, consciously or unconsciously, wittingly or unwittingly, were British agents.
Gandhi and Jinnah were two sides to the same coin, just as RSS and Muslim League were two sides to the same coin, the coin being the British policy of divide and rule ( see my blogs on Gandhi, Jinnah and RSS on justicekatju.blogspot.in )
So when I call someone an agent I mean that he was objectively an agent, in the sense of furthering the policy and interests of the British ( or Japanese ).
Whether he was also subjectively an agent, in the sense of being a conscious agent, I cannot say, because I cannot enter into someone's mind and know what is going on there. But how does that matter ? The relevant thing is whether his deeds are in fact furthering the policy and interests of the British ( or Japanese ).
Also, when I call someone an agent of the British ( or Japanese ) I do not mean he was getting salary or other benefits from the British or Japanese. I mean that his deeds served the latter's interests, and in fact that is what really matters.
Some people ask me what proof do I have that Gandhi, Jinnah, RSS, Muslim League and their leaders, Subhas Chandra Bose, etc were agents.
My answer is that I call them agents objectively. In other words, by their deeds they served the interests of the British, Japanese, etc ( as the case may be ).
For instance, it is well known that the British policy was divide and rule ( see online ' History in the Service of Imperialism ' by B.N. Pande and my article ' The Truth about Pakistan ' ). The British wanted Hindus and Muslims to fight with each other so as to retain control over the subcontinent. So those who furthered this policy of divide and rule, consciously or unconsciously, wittingly or unwittingly, were British agents.
Gandhi and Jinnah were two sides to the same coin, just as RSS and Muslim League were two sides to the same coin, the coin being the British policy of divide and rule ( see my blogs on Gandhi, Jinnah and RSS on justicekatju.blogspot.in )
So when I call someone an agent I mean that he was objectively an agent, in the sense of furthering the policy and interests of the British ( or Japanese ).
Whether he was also subjectively an agent, in the sense of being a conscious agent, I cannot say, because I cannot enter into someone's mind and know what is going on there. But how does that matter ? The relevant thing is whether his deeds are in fact furthering the policy and interests of the British ( or Japanese ).
Also, when I call someone an agent of the British ( or Japanese ) I do not mean he was getting salary or other benefits from the British or Japanese. I mean that his deeds served the latter's interests, and in fact that is what really matters.
