PDA

View Full Version : Nathuram Godse's last speach



Sahasranama
04 January 2011, 07:03 PM
JANUARY 30th, 1949 - The Mahatma was assassinated by a man called Naturam Godse.
After he shot him, instead of running away, he stood his ground and surrounded. He said, "No one should think that Gandhi was killed by a madman"

One of the best speeches of All time, which is compared to Socrates's speech in his trial. The Judge was astonished by his speech and commented that if India had followed the Jury system of giving judgments, Godse would have been adjudicated as "Not Guilty" by the Jury, cause after the speech, the whole audience was in tears.

This is the speech given by Nathuram Godse in the court in his last trial for the murder of Mahatma Gandhi

Born in a devotional Brahmin family, I instinctively came to revere Hindu religion, Hindu history and Hindu culture. I had, therefore, been intensely proud of Hinduism as a whole. As I grew up I developed a tendency to free thinking unfettered by any superstitious allegiance to any isms, political or religious. That is why I worked actively for the eradication of untouchability and the caste system based on birth alone. I openly joined anti-caste movements and maintained that all Hindus were of equal status as to rights, social and religious and should be considered high or low on merit alone and not through the accident of birth in a particular caste or profession. I used publicly to take part in organized anti-caste dinners in which thousands of Hindus, Brahmins, Kshatriyas, Vaisyas, Chamars and Bhangis participated. We broke the caste rules and dined in the company of each other.



I have read the speeches and writings of Dadabhai Nairoji, Vivekanand, Gokhale, Tilak, along with the books of ancient and modern history of India and some prominent countries like England, France, America and' Russia. Moreover I studied the tenets of Socialism and Marxism. But above all I studied very closely whatever Veer Savarkar and Gandhiji had written and spoken, as to my mind these two ideologies have contributed more to the moulding of the thought and action of the Indian people during the last thirty years or so, than any other single factor has done.



All this reading and thinking led me to believe it was my first duty to serve Hindudom and Hindus both as a patriot and as a world citizen. To secure the freedom and to safeguard the just interests of some thirty crores (300 million) of Hindus would automatically constitute the freedom and the well being of all India, one fifth of human race. This conviction led me naturally to devote myself to the Hindu Sanghtanist ideology and programme, which alone, I came to believe, could win and preserve the national independence of Hindustan, my Motherland, and enable her to render true service to humanity as well.



Since the year 1920, that is, after the demise of Lokamanya Tilak, Gandhiji's influence in the Congress first increased and then became supreme. His activities for public awakening were phenomenal in their intensity and were reinforced by the slogan of truth and non-violence, which he paraded ostentatiously before the country. No sensible or enlightened person could object to those slogans. In fact there is nothing new or original in them. They are implicit in every constitutional public movement. But it is nothing but a mere dream if you imagine that the bulk of mankind is, or can ever become, capable of scrupulous adherence to these lofty principles in its normal life from day to day. In fact, honour, duty and love of one's own kith and kin and country might often compel us to disregard non-violence and to use force. I could never conceive that an armed resistance to an aggression is unjust. I would consider it a religious and moral duty to resist and, if possible, to overpower such an enemy by use of force. [In the Ramayana] Rama killed Ravana in a tumultuous fight and relieved Sita. [In the Mahabharata], Krishna killed Kansa to end his wickedness; and Arjuna had to fight and slay quite a number of his friends and relations including the revered Bhishma because the latter was on the side of the aggressor. It is my firm belief that in dubbing Rama, Krishna and Arjuna as guilty of violence, the Mahatma betrayed a total ignorance of the springs of human action.



In more recent history, it was the heroic fight put up by Chhatrapati Shivaji that first checked and eventually destroyed the Muslim tyranny in India. It was absolutely essentially for Shivaji to overpower and kill an aggressive Afzal Khan, failing which he would have lost his own life. In condemning history's towering warriors like Shivaji, Rana Pratap and Guru Gobind Singh as misguided patriots, Gandhiji has merely exposed his self-conceit. He was, paradoxical, as it may appear, a violent pacifist who brought untold calamities on the country in the name of truth and non-violence, while Rana Pratap, Shivaji and the Guru will remain enshrined in the hearts of their countrymen forever for the freedom they brought to them.



The accumulating provocation of thirty-two years, culminating in his last pro-Muslim fast, at last goaded me to the conclusion that the existence of Gandhi should be brought to an end immediately. Gandhi had done very well in South Africa to uphold the rights and well being of the Indian community there. But when he finally returned to India he developed a subjective mentality under which he alone was to be the final judge of what was right or wrong. If the country wanted his leadership, it had to accept his infallibility; if it did not, he would stand aloof from the Congress and carry on his own way. Against such an attitude there can be no halfway house. Either Congress had to surrender its will to his and had to be content with playing second fiddle to all his eccentricity, whimsicality, metaphysics and primitive vision, or it had to carry on without him. He alone was the Judge of everyone and everything; he was the master brain guiding the civil disobedience movement; no other could know the technique of that movement. He alone knew when to begin and when to withdraw it. The movement might succeed or fail, it might bring untold disaster and political reverses but that could make no difference to the Mahatma's infallibility. 'A Satyagrahi can never fail' was his formula for declaring his own infallibility and nobody except himself knew what a Satyagrahi is.



Thus, the Mahatma became the judge and jury in his own cause. These childish insanities and obstinacies, coupled with a most severe austerity of life, ceaseless work and lofty character made Gandhi formidable and irresistible. Many people thought that his politics were irrational but they had either to withdraw from the Congress or place their intelligence at his feet to do with, as he liked. In a position of such absolute irresponsibility Gandhi was guilty of blunder after blunder, failure after failure, disaster after disaster.



Gandhi's pro-Muslim policy is blatantly in his perverse attitude on the question of the national language of India. It is quite obvious that Hindi has the most prior claim to be accepted as the premier language. In the beginning of his career in India, Gandhi gave a great impetus to Hindi but as he found that the Muslims did not like it, he became a champion of what is called Hindustani. Everybody in India knows that there is no language called Hindustani; it has no grammar; it has no vocabulary. It is a mere dialect; it is spoken, but not written. It is a bastard tongue and crossbreed between Hindi and Urdu, and not even the Mahatma's sophistry could make it popular. But in his desire to please the Muslims he insisted that Hindustani alone should be the national language of India. His blind followers, of course, supported him and the so-called hybrid language began to be used. The charm and purity of the Hindi language was to be prostituted to please the Muslims. All his experiments were at the expense of the Hindus.



From August 1946 onwards the private armies of the Muslim League began a massacre of the Hindus. The then Viceroy, Lord Wavell, though distressed at what was happening, would not use his powers under the Government of India Act of 1935 to prevent the rape, murder and arson. The Hindu blood began to flow from Bengal to Karachi with some retaliation by the Hindus. The Interim Government formed in September was sabotaged by its Muslim League members right from its inception, but the more they became disloyal and treasonable to the government of which they were a part, the greater was Gandhi's infatuation for them. Lord Wavell had to resign as he could not bring about a settlement and he was succeeded by Lord Mountbatten. King Log was followed by King Stork.



The Congress, which had boasted of its nationalism and socialism, secretly accepted Pakistan literally at the point of the bayonet and abjectly surrendered to Jinnah. India was vivisected and one-third of the Indian territory became foreign land to us from August 15, 1947. Lord Mountbatten came to be described in Congress circles as the greatest Viceroy and Governor-General this country ever had. The official date for handing over power was fixed for June 30, 1948, but Mountbatten with his ruthless surgery gave us a gift of vivisected India ten months in advance. This is what Gandhi had achieved after thirty years of undisputed dictatorship and this is what Congress party calls 'freedom' and 'peaceful transfer of power'. The Hindu-Muslim unity bubble was finally burst and a theocratic state was established with the consent of Nehru and his crowd and they have called 'freedom won by them with sacrifice' - whose sacrifice? When top leaders of Congress, with the consent of Gandhi, divided and tore the country - which we consider a deity of worship - my mind was filled with direful anger.



One of the conditions imposed by Gandhi for his breaking of the fast unto death related to the mosques in Delhi occupied by the Hindu refugees. But when Hindus in Pakistan were subjected to violent attacks he did not so much as utter a single word to protest and censure the Pakistan Government or the Muslims concerned. Gandhi was shrewd enough to know that while undertaking a fast unto death, had he imposed for its break some condition on the Muslims in Pakistan, there would have been found hardly any Muslims who could have shown some grief if the fast had ended in his death. It was for this reason that he purposely avoided imposing any condition on the Muslims. He was fully aware of from the experience that Jinnah was not at all perturbed or influenced by his fast and the Muslim League hardly attached any value to the inner voice of Gandhi.



Gandhi is being referred to as the Father of the Nation. But if that is so, he had failed his paternal duty inasmuch as he has acted very treacherously to the nation by his consenting to the partitioning of it. I stoutly maintain that Gandhi has failed in his duty. He has proved to be the Father of Pakistan. His inner-voice, his spiritual power and his doctrine of non-violence of which so much is made of, all crumbled before Jinnah's iron will and proved to be powerless.



Briefly speaking, I thought to myself and foresaw I shall be totally ruined, and the only thing I could expect from the people would be nothing but hatred and that I shall have lost all my honour, even more valuable than my life, if I were to kill Gandhiji. But at the same time I felt that the Indian politics in the absence of Gandhiji would surely be proved practical, able to retaliate, and would be powerful with armed forces. No doubt, my own future would be totally ruined, but the nation would be saved from the inroads of Pakistan. People may even call me and dub me as devoid of any sense or foolish, but the nation would be free to follow the course founded on the reason which I consider to be necessary for sound nation-building. After having fully considered the question, I took the final decision in the matter, but I did not speak about it to anyone whatsoever. I took courage in both my hands and I did fire the shots at Gandhiji on 30th January 1948, on the prayer-grounds of Birla House.



I do say that my shots were fired at the person whose policy and action had brought rack and ruin and destruction to millions of Hindus. There was no legal machinery by which such an offender could be brought to book and for this reason I fired those fatal shots.



I bear no ill will towards anyone individually but I do say that I had no respect for the present government owing to their policy, which was unfairly favourable towards the Muslims. But at the same time I could clearly see that the policy was entirely due to the presence of Gandhi. I have to say with great regret that Prime Minister Nehru quite forgets that his preachings and deeds are at times at variances with each other when he talks about India as a secular state in season and out of season, because it is significant to note that Nehru has played a leading role in the establishment of the theocratic state of Pakistan, and his job was made easier by Gandhi's persistent policy of appeasement towards the Muslims.



I now stand before the court to accept the full share of my responsibility for what I have done and the judge would, of course, pass against me such orders of sentence as may be considered proper. But I would like to add that I do not desire any mercy to be shown to me, nor do I wish that anyone else should beg for mercy on my behalf. My confidence about the moral side of my action has not been shaken even by the criticism levelled against it on all sides. I have no doubt that honest writers of history will weigh my act and find the true value thereof some day in future.


-MAHATMA NATHURAM GODSE

Sahasranama
04 January 2011, 07:21 PM
He is the real Jesus, he died for our sins. ;)

NayaSurya
04 January 2011, 09:13 PM
Thank you so much for posting this, I knew and understood some of the reasoning behind this act, but never knew this man was such a brilliant being.

devotee
05 January 2011, 11:26 AM
My dear NayaSurya,


Thank you so much for posting this, I knew and understood some of the reasoning behind this act, but never knew this man was such a brilliant being.

It is unfortunate to see the young generation of India so much misled by the propaganda against Gandhi & our history. I only hope that one day these children (who have learnt history perhaps only through internet & reading articles by biased people) would certainly know the truth. Therefore, I prefer not to intervene in such discussions. My college going son too had lot of such ideas about Gandhi ... and then I spent an hour with him telling of Gandhi, India's political, social and economic situation before independence, the available political options, failure of great revoultionsits like Bhagat Singh, Chandrashekhar Azad, Subahsh Chandra Bose, Ramprasad Bismil & the likes (who in spite of their best intentions could not achieve anything with the weapon of violence). And I also told him how the man who could have lived the life of a rich barrister in those times lived like the poorest man of India choosing to wear one piece of cloth (remaining half naked) the whole of his life during scorching heat of Summar in India and also in chilling weather of England. If Gandhi's advice was heard we would never had a separate Nation called Pakistan today which has become a pain in the neck for the entire world.

Dear NS, please don't get carried away by such posts. This is not the truth. It has become a fashion among the young generation to malign this saint who was One without a second one like him. How many are here who would make even 1/10th of sacrifice that he made for the country & the Truth ? Godse ! ... who knew Godse before he killed Gandhi ? He was never a recognised leader even of the Garam-dal (Hot Party or the party which believed in violence as the weapon for making India free) what to say of the majority of India ! He had to fabricate something to justify the heinous crime he committed.

What a shame ... Godse is our saint (Mahatma) of the day !

Sorry my dear young friend, I had to speak because it was giving a wrong picture to someone who is not from our country. Please forgive me.

OM

Sahasranama
05 January 2011, 11:32 AM
An old post on this forum quoted:


Namaste Ganeshprasad ji,

[font=Book Antiqua]

Mahatma Gandhi ji indeed answered to this.

Quote.......
Gandhi advised them that if a Muslim expressed his desire to rape a Hindu or a Sikh lady, she should never refuse him but cooperate with him. She should lie down like a dead with her tongue in between her teeth. Thus the rapist Muslim will be satisfied soon and sooner he leave her...
.......unquote

Ref: (From the book (Freedom at Midnight, Vikas(reprint), 1997, p-479 D Lapierre and L Collins, ).
(original:http://www.amazon.com/Freedom-at-Midnight-Larry-Collins/dp/0006388515)

Is this the Mahatma the youth should respect?

NayaSurya
05 January 2011, 11:55 AM
My dear NayaSurya,



It is unfortunate to see the young generation of India so much misled by the propaganda against Gandhi & our history. I only hope that one day these children (who have learnt history perhaps only through internet & reading articles by biased people) would certainly know the truth. Therefore, I prefer not to intervene in such discussions. My college going son too had lot of such ideas about Gandhi ... and then I spent an hour with him telling of Gandhi, India's political, social and economic situation before independence, the available political options, failure of great revoultionsits like Bhagat Singh, Chandrashekhar Azad, Subahsh Chandra Bose, Ramprasad Bismil & the likes (who in spite of their best intentions could not achieve anything with the weapon of violence). And I also told him how the man who could have lived the life of a rich barrister in those times lived like the poorest man of India choosing to wear one piece of cloth (remaining half naked) the whole of his life during scorching heat of Summar in India and also in chilling weather of England. If Gandhi's advice was heard we would never had a separate Nation called Pakistan today which has become a pain in the neck for the entire world.

Dear NS, please don't get carried away by such posts. This is not the truth. It has become a fashion among the young generation to malign this saint who was One without a second one like him. How many are here who would make even 1/10th of sacrifice that he made for the country & the Truth ? Godse ! ... who knew Godse before he killed Gandhi ? He was never a recognised leader even of the Garam-dal (Hot Party or the party which believed in violence as the weapon for making India free) what to say of the majority of India ! He had to fabricate something to justify the heinous crime he committed.

What a shame ... Godse is our saint (Mahatma) of the day !

Sorry my dear young friend, I had to speak because it was giving a wrong picture to someone who is not from our country. Please forgive me.

OM

Thank you for this...never apologize for adding enlightenment for this lower portion.<3

I do like to see the different sides and views of this. A being once only considered angry and irrational is given dimension.

satay
05 January 2011, 12:06 PM
namaste Devotee,


failure of great revoultionsits like Bhagat Singh, Chandrashekhar Azad, Subahsh Chandra Bose, Ramprasad Bismil & the likes (who in spite of their best intentions could not achieve anything with the weapon of violence). OM

I really am biting my tongue after reading your above statements. Failure of Bhagat Singh? This is how we respect his sacrifice by calling it failure?!!

In your rush to protect the pacifism of Gandhi let's be careful that we don't belittle the young men and women who actually happily gave their lives away so that we indians can enjoy our freedom. Calling their sacrifice a 'failure' is a great disrespect to their atma.

I had never read Godse's speech before nor do I know much about the man nor do I condone his actions but I am curious though do you have a comment on the speech? Is the speech real or do you think that it has been tempered with to make him look like he had a justifiable reason to murder Gandhi? Honest questions.

Sahasranama
05 January 2011, 01:08 PM
Learning from Mahatma Gandhi's mistakes
Dr. Koenraad Elst


http://koenraadelst.bharatvani.org/articles/fascism/gandhimistake.html

Believer
05 January 2011, 08:28 PM
Sahas, Please make up your mind. You can't refer to them both as 'Mahatma'. ;) Only one of them deserves that title.

devotee
05 January 2011, 09:43 PM
Namaste Satay,


I really am biting my tongue after reading your above statements. Failure of Bhagat Singh? This is how we respect his sacrifice by calling it failure?!!

In your rush to protect the pacifism of Gandhi let's be careful that we don't belittle the young men and women who actually happily gave their lives away so that we indians can enjoy our freedom. Calling their sacrifice a 'failure' is a great disrespect to their atma.

I am sorry if it sounded as a disrespect to those great revolutioneries. I have highest regards for them. In fact, I can never forgive Gandhi for not negotiating the release of Bhagat Singh and his friends with British even though he was at an advantageous position to bragain with them at that time. I can hardly forgive Gandhi for his step-motherly treatment to Subhash Chandra Ghosh for favouring Nehru during Congress elections.

Hearing names of Bhagat Singh, Chandrasekhar Azad, Ashfaqullah Khan, Ramprasad Bismil and the likes fills me with pride as it does to you. May be, if I was born in his times, I would have joined his party and would have chosen to be happily hanged ! :)

However, what did these scarifices result in gain for us in the bargain ? We lost such highly precious lives for almost nothing. After the Kakori incidence, the atrocities committed on the revolutionists and killing of most of the prominent leaders almost broke the backbone of armed struggle against the British. We have to keep in mind that though there was sympathy of the Indian people for these revolutioneries, it failed to bring the masses to rally behind them ( there are various reasons for that, one is that Indians, in general, were psychologically not ready for this. The country was not one but divided into many segments on region, caste, creed, economical and social disparity.). If it would have been successful in getting that, the armed struggle would not have failed so miserably. All those great revolutioneries were killed either by bullets directly or by fake judicial proceedings. Subhash Chandra Bose was successful in raising an army in Burma to fight the British ... but it hardly made any difference to the political scenario in India. His plan to meet Hitler and garner his support could not succeed.

So, as I see it ... sacrifices were great ... the ultimate sacrifice ... but it failed to bring in the desired results. We lost heavily and we gained too little.

If you think, I could have chosen better words for pointing this out ... I think my English failed me, it was certainly not intended ... I am sorry.

Regarding Godse's speech : Please read the passage carefully. It is highly distorted by his own poisonous opinions. This is what he believeyd. Osama also has some beliefs on which he is out on his killing spree. Every murderer has something to say why he murdered someone. After all, he has to answer to his own conscience. Godse is not different. It is factually incorrect too. It was not Gandhi but Jawahar Lal Nehru from Congress side who should be held responsible for the partition. After independence, Gandhi didn't choose to have any position of authority in the Government and it resulted in ignoring Gandhi at every political convenience. Gandhi had advised Nehru and others that British should have no role in partition even if it was inevitable ... it was our internal matter & we would sort it out after the British left. But who was there to listen to Gandhi ?

OM

Believer
06 January 2011, 12:06 AM
Regarding Godse's speech : Please read the passage carefully. It is highly distorted by his own poisonous opinions. This is what he believeyd. Osama also has some beliefs on which he is out on his killing spree. Every murderer has something to say why he murdered someone. -
Good God!
Mahatma Nathuram is going to be compared to Osama?
While we are there, why not find a way to compare him to Hitler too!
We must be in Kali-yuga!!
-

Sahasranama
06 January 2011, 12:39 AM
Sahas, Please make up your mind. You can't refer to them both as 'Mahatma'. ;) Only one of them deserves that title.

I am just quoting the title of a Dr. Koenraad Elst article.

sm78
06 January 2011, 01:12 AM
Since scriptural passages (often without context) holds great value to many posters here, I demand scriptural evidence from vedas, itihasas and puranas which demonstrates that any oppression and victory against demons has been ever and can be ever won by the means of non-violence. Please show us a single instance of support for Gandhi's strange method in scriptures, I can show hundreds, perhaves thousands instances where violence has been used as the only option and has been greatly praised....the persons we so fondly refer as avataras are called avataras solely because they resorted to violence to eradicate the demons and freeing humanity for oppression. There is no single avatara of vishnu (except Buddha who is not traditional inclusion and absent in many lists) who did not practice violence in some form.LOL.

But I am not a man of scriptures, the known history, some of which I have witnessed myself is enough proof that nothing could be achieved by non-violence except injustice. As Nathuram said, Gandhi's so called movement was one sidedly most violent. And it had hardly anything to do with India's so called freedom. India achived freedom in the same period with many other colonies including the obscure, small & insignificant ones - and none erected a false hero out of false freedom struggle a.k.a Gandhi's non-violent movement. The only and sole reason of our freedom was 2nd World War - the most violent recorded event in human history. Along with WWII, Netaji did cause some irritation to the Raj, but even his role is minimal to the Global event that shaped the history of the world in 20th century including India. The only thing Gandhi achieved was forever enslaving India under his bastard dynasty and creating a generation of educated Hindus who take great pride in misinterpreting, universalizing and destroying hinduism and this nation.

satay
06 January 2011, 10:34 AM
namaste Devotee,



If you think, I could have chosen better words for pointing this out ... I think my English failed me, it was certainly not intended ... I am sorry.


Thanks for the clarification and for me at least no apologies necessary.

Regarding Godse, you have your opinion and I respect that. In my opinion comparing him to osama is too dramatic but we can leave it at that.



But who was there to listen to Gandhi ?


Now, this is a good question and I wonder about this all the time. Gandhi did what he had to do perhaps. I can't be the judge of his actions as I didn't grow up in gulami. Perhaps his antics brought a lot of indians together in a group format and that kind of 'organization' of indians made the oppessors worried a bit.

But I often wonder what his actions brought for India after azadi if anything. Why no one carried forward his gandhivadi techniques after his murder. As soon as we got the 'freedom', Gandhi's pacifism was put to the side. Like you asked, Who was there to listen to him? It seems no one! I wonder why... That's a rehtorical question.

satay
06 January 2011, 10:43 AM
namaste Singhi,

You brought up a good point. In fact I think most of the Gandhi's peers wondered about the same yet because of his one sided view he was even able to strech the meaning of some verses of Gita in order to get support for his non-violent techniques.

That all being said, In my opinion it is wrong to ignore his contribution and his techinque. The fact that no one has ever been able to successfully apply his technique of non-viloence in the history of the world shouldn't make us discredit his drive and passion for it. It should be viewed as a great experiment and I think even Gandhi's peers, the likes of tilak, bose and aurobindo sat on the sidelines watching the experiment hoping that it might be successful.


Since scriptural passages (often without context) holds great value to many posters here, I demand scriptural evidence from vedas, itihasas and puranas which demonstrates that any oppression and victory against demons has been ever and can be ever won by the means of non-violence. Please show us a single instance of support for Gandhi's strange method in scriptures.

satay
06 January 2011, 10:47 AM
namaste,


The only thing Gandhi achieved was forever enslaving India under his bastard dynasty and creating a generation of educated Hindus who take great pride in misinterpreting, universalizing and destroying hinduism and this nation.

I don't know about that. As soon as he was dead everyone just turned the non-violence 'switch' off and went on their merry ways. No one cared. So saying that he forever enslaved us under his dynasty is a bit too much I think but... whatever.

PARAM
06 January 2011, 11:11 AM
He is the real Jesus, he died for our sins. ;)

Please don't use Jesus word


---------

This is nothing, many sadhus have done and lived more tyag life then M.K.Gandhi, even Swami Dayanand wore only one cloth, but his teachings brought revolutionists like Lala Lajpat Rai, Syamji Krishan Varma, Pandit Parmanand, Lala Hardyal, Veer Savarkar etc.

So what was that advice ? All his advice was to Hindus to become non violent, and allows Muslims to do anything, he only requested Muslims to consider Hindus as their brothers and sisters, but if those Muslims do any wrong to Hindus, M.K Gandhi objected Hindus. Episode of Swami Shraddhanand murder case is well known proof.

Already told, there are many to whome Gandhi cannot be compared. Gandhi himself declared Swami Dayanand as Grandfather of the Nation, he knows that, freedom fighters will never like him (Gandhi) be called top National Hero


Godse ! ... who knew Godse before he killed Gandhi ? He was never a recognised leader even of the Garam-dal (Hot Party or the party which believed in violence as the weapon for making India free) what to say of the majority of India ! He had to fabricate something to justify the heinous crime he committed.

Gandhi was a politician so he made a name, can you name some who died in rallyies for freedom ?


What a shame ... Godse is our saint (Mahatma) of the day !Whats wrong in calling Godse as Mahatma, we have called Swami Dayanand as Maharshi, and so dose for Mahesh Yogi, while Maharshi title is a very high title often given by Bhagwan Brahma.


Sorry my dear young friend, I had to speak because it was giving a wrong picture to someone who is not from our country. Please forgive me.

OM Even NayaSurya is not from India.


Namaste Satay,



I am sorry if it sounded as a disrespect to those great revolutioneries. --------- sacrifices were great ... the ultimate sacrifice ... but it failed to bring in the desired results. We lost heavily and we gained too little. So what Gandhi achived ? He bosted India will be divided only over his dead body, but he lied. I will say Gandhi was a Hindu, he belived in authority of Geeta, he asked for Ram Rajya and not secular state, he wanted only saffron colour as Indias national flag but what he did for this.



Regarding Godse's speech : Please read the passage carefully. It is highly distorted by his own poisonous opinions---------But who was there to listen to Gandhi ?
OMI don't know about Godse's speach, why this was hided by the Government ? and later accusing Veer Savarkar too ? Who listened to them.


---------------------
Buddha was no Avtar of Vishnu, Buddhists in later part showed him as Avtar so Hindus could accept him, on the other way in Sri Lanka Vishnu is shown as future Buddha.

Nothing wrong in this speech, from Mahatma Nathuram Godse

satay
06 January 2011, 11:52 AM
namaste,
An interesting short documentary.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IxczJnMjlc8

Ganeshprasad
06 January 2011, 01:48 PM
Pranam

Gandhi ji did what at the time the best course off action he thought that would bring independence for Bharat and too a large extent he did succeed in brining the masses together, got us the independence but made mistakes getting there, we can debate about it but what good does it do.
Fact is Mahatma is a title given to him and he is an iconic figure commands respect through out the world why knock that?
where else Godse did what he thought was right for him but he murdered Gandhi ji in cold blood, in my book he is no Mahatma.

I am no fan off Gandhi ji but he does deserve a bit more respect.

Jai Shree Krishna

satay
06 January 2011, 05:09 PM
namaste,


Pranam
I am no fan off Gandhi ji but he does deserve a bit more respect.

Jai Shree Krishna

I am basically of the same opinion. In fact, I have been doing a bit of internet searching on godse since last night and from what I have read of him and about him is that he himself respected Gandhi very much. He accepts Gandhi as a great saint but not as a politician.

Godse's problem seems to be that Gandhi was making incorrect political decisions always favouring the muslims. He couldn't accept this fact I suppose and decided that Gandhi has to be eliminated from the political scene of India.

However, I fail to see Godse's logic. Why murder the man? Why not wait a few years till he gets dignified natural death? Godse himself says that before he shot Gandhi that Gandhi was frail and weak (possibly just like our nation then). Why kill a weak man? Why not wait for his natural death? What more could India have lost that it didn't already in the past 200 years since then?

Godse is an intellectual yet he allows his emotions to take over and makes the emotional decision of taking matters into his own hands.

sm78
07 January 2011, 12:07 AM
However, I fail to see Godse's logic. Why murder the man? Why not wait a few years till he gets dignified natural death? Godse himself says that before he shot Gandhi that Gandhi was frail and weak (possibly just like our nation then). Why kill a weak man? Why not wait for his natural death? What more could India have lost that it didn't already in the past 200 years since then?

That's because once you have been convinced of your duty, you need to carry it, disregarding the consiquence to oneself.

I imagine it was extremely difficult for Nathuram to witness godification of a man he has come to believe has evil and needs to be removed. Each second of waiting is equivalent to that much thwarting of one's own conscience and sense of duty.

There is another basic fact explained in Gita about karma. We as individuals have only the ability and right to control & direct our own actions. We neither have right to its fruits nor ability to control actions and consiquences of things around us. Nathuram had no business in postulating what might happen to Gandhiji and undermine his own karma - since that's all he had control over.

If we stop thinking us as the overlords whose actions really matter to the world and just concentrate on our part, most course actions become much easy to decide and act upon.

In present day logic, a killer automatically gets branded as fanatic and equiated to Osama bin laden, while person directly responsible for death of unteem millions are branded as Mahatmas, just because they talk from a high pedestal and don't dirty their hands. With such myopic vision and understanding of whats consitititues right and wrong action, there is little hope of getting beyond imposters.

Believer
07 January 2011, 01:32 AM
Not to sidetrack the issue, but in the same vein, when we were growing up, any mention of the question, 'after Nehru who?' was almost treated as treason. Our simple minds did not want to think that Nehru would ever die and India would have to replace him with a new PM. We were living in a dreamlike state where we were somehow going to cheat Yamraj himself and keep Nehru alive for ever, because he was synonymous with the very existence of the Indian nation. How stupid were we to have worshiped a man like him. He did his bit to the best of his abilities. That is all that can be expected from a man. But to idolize him and never see his faults and expect him to live for ever was crazy. Coming out of the shock of partition put lot of people in a trance type psyche. Whatever he could not accomplish (=screw up) is being finished by his descendents. What a disgrace!

To keep living that lie and to never think about their accountability even after the passage of so much time is unfortunate to say the least. But everyone is entitled to his/her opinion. As long as both sides of the issue are presented here, observers/readers can decide for themselves. And how the heck did I get sucked into this debate in the first place? Oh yeah! because of the discussion about the Mahatma (Nathu Ram).

harekrishna
07 January 2011, 05:54 AM
It is unfortunate to see the young generation of India so much misled by the propaganda against Gandhi & our history. I only hope that one day these children (who have learnt history perhaps only through internet & reading articles by biased people) would certainly know the truth.

Devotee Jee -
So true. People are getting carried by some irrational and emotional issues about Gandhi Ji. One can dislike his principles, his method; but one cannot doubt his intention to bring about changes in ordinary, poor Indian. When most of the leaders in Congress at his time were making speeches travelling in airconditioned cars, he gave up all these, connected with people, started and inspired so many movements in the country that they still continue today.
I have read his books, and can have a separate discussion about what I find appealing, and what not about his ideas.

Looking at Nathuram's actions, I assume he acted in Ksatriya Dharma. He thought (I believe wrongly) that by killing Gandhi he was protecting the Dharma. The question to ask is - if Arjuna were there, and Krishna was advising him what to do? What would he advise? Go and kill an old man on his way to temple for a prayer. Can you believe it?

If he really wanted to fight, he could have fought the adharmis. But it is not as easy as shooting an unarmed old man. Is it?

Nathuram's actions were Adharmic. He did not follow his Dharma.

HariH Om!
Hare Krishna

Sahasranama
07 January 2011, 06:40 AM
In present day logic, a killer automatically gets branded as fanatic and equiated to Osama bin laden, while person directly responsible for death of unteem millions are branded as Mahatmas, just because they talk from a high pedestal and don't dirty their hands. With such myopic vision and understanding of whats consitititues right and wrong action, there is little hope of getting beyond imposters.

Well said. The shastras say that himsa is not only hurting someone, but also not fighting when it's your duty to protect. Intelligent people will see that Gandhi did not uphold the principles of ahimsa at all. We can not justify Gandhi's actions as "an experiment," Gandhi did not have the right to experiment with Hindu lives, the time proven method in all history and in the shastras is to fight against evil. Gandhi's admiration for the Gita was only lipservice, because he did not adhere to its teachings. Gandhi said he rejected the parts of the Gita where violence is recommended, many Indians are worshipping the teachings of Gandhi above the teachings of Sri Krishna. Gandhi went so far as to demand 55 crore rupees to support an enemy nation, he blackmailed the goverment with his "fast unto death." Nathuram did what every Hindu should have done.

devotee
07 January 2011, 07:16 AM
Namaste Harekrishna,


Looking at Nathuram's actions, I assume he acted in Ksatriya Dharma. He thought (I believe wrongly) that by killing Gandhi he was protecting the Dharma. The question to ask is - if Arjuna were there, and Krishna was advising him what to do? What would he advise? Go and kill an old man on his way to temple for a prayer. Can you believe it?

If he really wanted to fight, he could have fought the adharmis. But it is not as easy as shooting an unarmed old man. Is it?


That is an excellent observation Harekrishna ! You are right. If he was such a great hero & considered himself the champion of the Hindus why didn't he go & fight the British commandars who perpretrated inhuman crime against Indians including Hindus ? Yes, it was so easy to kill an unarmed old man than to fight a young armed British ! and so, his choice was clear !! He certainly was an intelligent man, I agree. Can we call him a Mahatma or a coward of the first order ?

********************
The follwing passage is only for people who may like to think rationally and not for everyone. Those who are die-hard anti-Gandhi, may please excuse me :

The biggest and (may be) valid objection to Gandhi's policies was his so-called appeasement policy towards Muslims (even at the cost of Hindu interests). Why did he behave in this manner ? I have done some analysis and I produce it below :

a) Let's understand that the Nation was not one. It was yet to built up as one India. Let's remember that in the round-table conference the representations from different sections within India was a clear signal that even if granted freedom, India would disintegrate into at least 4-5 different countries. This would have been the greatest blow to India. This had to be stopped at all costs. So, it was very important that the Congress which was claiming as the One acceptable voice of India should talk for all sections within India without any discrimination towards region, religion or caste.

Now, keeping the above constraint in mind, let us remember that Jinnah and his supporters were hell bent on giving credence to Two-nation theory & that was to be effectively countered. Mahatma Gandhi's and Congress's policy towards soft attitude towards Muslims paid dividends and Muslim League was badly defeated in provincial elections & therefore, the bargaining power of Muslim League was greatly reduced by this masterstroke.

We have to keep in mind that though we still lost East and West Pakistan but we could have lost much more as there were many places in India where the Muslims were in larger numbers.

Those who criticise Gandhi's so-called appeasement policy, fail to realise that Gandhi had no personal motive to adopt this policy except the greater cause of the Nation. He didn't have any political or financial or any ambitions to fulfil. The "half-naked fakir" may have made mistakes but his love towards India and the Indian people even at the cost of his personal life cannot be questioned.

b) Now the question is what cost we paid for such a policy ? Almost nothing. We can see the numbers of Muslims and Hindus killed in riots which followed after partition. Gandhi's policy didn't help Muslims in such situations. This policy can work only when sanity is there and not in fit of madness of the mob. Can we say that because of Mahatma's policy more Hindus were killed or Hindus lose something more than they were otherwise had to ?

c) Godse killed Gandhi because he thought he was serving the cause of the Hindus. The reality is that he did the greatest disservice to Hindus and Hindutwa by this act. This cowrdice of Godse spoiled the image of Hindu organisations like RSS (who were critical of Gandhi's appeasement policy but were no way connected with killing of Gandhi). The entire organisation's image took a severe beating which could not be said to be advantageous to Hindus. Till today, at every political opportunity, this & similar organistaion are blamed for their extremist theories (including killing Gandhi) & they are required to defend themselves. Let me remind you that during emergency, RSS was banned for a pretty long time & anyone associated with this organisation had to hide to evade arrest and prosecution. I was one of the active members of RSS at that time.

d) For Gandhi, the nation was important. The Hindus and Muslims are both the children of the same country. Whom should he favour ? None ! But it is natural tendency of the weaker child of parents to feel threatened and he has to be again and again reassured by parents. The parents don't discriminate among their children but they take care that their weaker child is not left behind in the race of life. This I have felt in my own family. Gandhi did choose to ignore Muslims' faults and that was politically right (as if he had chosen to speak against them, he could have only added fuel to the fire and the already threatened Muslims could not have courage to stay in this country).

Why did (or do) Muslims feel threatened ? This is natural psychology of the minority living in any country. We can't blame them.

***************************

I din't intend to act as Gandhi's advocate & I am not qualified for that but that is what I attempted to do here above ! Just a food for thought, you are free to agree or disagree.

OM

Ganeshprasad
07 January 2011, 10:33 AM
Pranam Devotee


I din't intend to act as Gandhi's advocate & I am not qualified for that but that is what I attempted to do here above ! Just a food for thought, you are free to agree or disagree.

OM

Nice try anyway, i do not think indulging in character assassination is very healthy, we Hindus are very good at shooting ourselves in the foot. also where is the logic in holding someone directly responsible for mass murder of millions. Last time i checked the partition was desire of Jina and musalman how can we hold someone else responsible for it.

Jai Shree Krishna

satay
07 January 2011, 10:47 AM
namaste,


That's because once you have been convinced of your duty, you need to carry it, disregarding the consiquence to oneself.

I imagine it was extremely difficult for Nathuram to witness godification of a man he has come to believe has evil and needs to be removed. Each second of waiting is equivalent to that much thwarting of one's own conscience and sense of duty.


I see your point but Godse was born in a Brahmin family. If anything it wasn't his 'duty' to kill anyone let alone Gandhi. Also, I don't think Godse thought of Gandhi as 'evil' godified individual. In fact, he bowed down to the guy before shooting the frail and weak man.

Saying that it was every hindu's duty to kill such a man as Gandhi is a very hard pill for me to swallow.

My opinion is that Godse just acted in a haphazzard way without thinking and without planning. Why not plan to shoot some high officials of british government like Bhagat singh and his group did. Why shoot Gandhi, the easy target...

I agree with Godse that Gandhi's policies were not in favour of the hindus but I don't see the logic of shooting the man down. There were others much worse than Gandhi that deserved to be shot.

Sahasranama
07 January 2011, 11:51 AM
This was his reason to kill him, Gandhi controlled the goverment like his puppets:

"The central government had taken a decision -- Pakistan will not be given Rs 55 crores. On January 13 Gandhi started a fast unto death that Pakistan must be given the money. On January 13, the central government changed its earlier decision and announced that Pakistan would be given the amount. On January 13, I decided to assassinate Gandhi. "


I see your point but Godse was born in a Brahmin family. If anything it wasn't his 'duty' to kill anyone let alone Gandhi.Brahmins have to step up when the kshatriyas are irresponsible. Parashurama was a brahmin and he killed the kshatriya kings.

satay
07 January 2011, 12:04 PM
Yes, Sahas, I know that was his reason. My argument is that it wasn't a good enough reason...

Gandhi's blackmailing antics could have been taken care of in other ways. 55 Crore rupees is not the end of the world nor is it the end of the hindus. Even when we gave this dana/charity to the pakis did they accomplish anything with it? It's a bankrupt piece of **** even today.



Brahmins have to step up when the kshatriyas fail. Parashurama was a brahmin and he killed the kshatriya kings.

Yes, in that case though Godse should have planned it properly and created of hit list of people that deserved to be shot, not just Gandhi. But I don't know what was going on in Godse' mind so I will stop judging him now.

Sahasranama
07 January 2011, 12:11 PM
I don't know how much 55 crore rupees was worth in that time, but any dime that goes to pakistan is one too much. Hindus in Papisthan were not save and are still to this day living in fear in Papisthan. Gandhi did not care about that and told Hindus not to leave the country, but rather stay there and die. What did Papisthan do with the money, weren't they involved in terrorist attacks against kashmir at that time? How rational and non violent was it to financially support the people who were attacking innocent Hindus.

satay
07 January 2011, 12:19 PM
I don't know how much 55 crore rupees was worth in that time, but any dime that goes to pakistan is one too much. Hindus in Papisthan were not save and are still to this day living in fear in Papisthan. Gandhi did not care about that and told Hindus not to leave the country, but rather stay there and die. What did Papisthan do with the money, weren't they involved in terrorist attacks against kashmir at that time? How rational and non violent was it to financially support the people who were attacking innocent Hindus.


Pakiland was a terriost state then and it is a terriorst state today. No amount of our money given as bakshish is going to help them. They were beggers then and they are beggers today...

Sahasranama
07 January 2011, 12:40 PM
Indeed they are, but they are dangerous beggers with nuclear power. Even if the money they get is not benefitting them, it's being used for terrorist attacks against India. The government withheld the money, because Papisthan was invading Kashmir. What kind of government would send money to an invading force, but Gandhi blackmailed them to send the money anyway.

satay
07 January 2011, 02:40 PM
namaskar,

here is an interesting blog http://gandhi-facts-vs-falsehood.blogspot.com/

Sahasranama
07 January 2011, 04:20 PM
Thanks for the link, I have not read it all yet. Here is another interesting link:
http://koenraadelst.bharatvani.org/articles/fascism/2murders.html

devotee
07 January 2011, 09:10 PM
Lies and the Truth

A Criminal lies to himself first to convince himself about the necessity of committing the crime and later on keeps lying to the world to hide his blood-tainted hands.

I would like to nail down the lies in support of killing of Gandhi here.

a) 55 Crores rupees to Pakistan ... was it really the reason ?

Godse's statement that he took the decision of killing Gandhi after his fast-unto-death for releasing the second instalment of Rs. 55 Crores to Pakistan is a blatant lie. The fact is that he and his friends had made 5 failed attempts before January, 30, 1948 starting from 1934. First was made in June 1934, second and third in 1944 (July and September), 4th on September 1946 and fifth on 20 January, 1948. So, where was Pakistan and its due money before 1947 ?

b) Who bought the two-nation theory and who were behind the partition ? :

Let's hear Veer Sarvakar (with due respect to him), the mentor of Godse :

1937 in meeting of Hindu Mahasabha :

"India cannot be assumed today to be unitarian and homogenous nation, but on the contrary there are two nations in the main - the Hindus and the Muslims."

1945, he gave another statement :

"I have no quarrel with Mr. Jinnah's two nation theory. We, the Hindus are a nation by ourselves, and it is a historical fact that the Hindus and the Muslims are two nations."

What did Gandhi do as a last attempt to save Nation from partition :

Gandhi formally conveyed to lord Mountbatten on 5th of April 1947 that he was opposed to partition in such conditions. It was better if Britishers left India as it was and if Jinnah insisted, he be made the Prime Minister of India.

Congress and Lord Mountbatten didn't agree with Gandhi.

So, how much was Gandhi responssible for the partition ? These words of Gandhi would demonstrate how helpless he felt at that time :

Who am I? As an individual I have no value. The people, whom I represented and spoke for, have deserted me. They do not share my views. They have accepted the partition. It might be their helplessness. I have an unswerving faith in my ways even today. But for whom shall I struggle when those whom I represented and fought for so far find the partition acceptable and have lost faith in me? The whole country has been staging the dance of death and violence. They are not happy with my plea for friendship, fraternity, peace, and love. The Hindus want to drive the Mahomedans out of this country. When the entire situation has changed, with whose support shall I fight for the integral and undivided nation? The negation of partition is no small job!

c) Did Mahatma Gandhi go for fast-unto-death for releasing 55 Crores Rupees to Pakistan ?

This is another blatant lie for justifying the dastardling killing of the great soul. Let's see how much truth it holds :

i) The reality is that two events were mixed up to concoct this lie. It was as per agreed terms of partition that India would pay Rs 75 Crores to Pakistan as compensation. Out of this amount, Rs. 20 Crores was already released and Rs. 55 Crores more was to be released in the next instalment. The Govt of India initially took a decision not to release this second instalment as Pakistan was behaving as an enemy nation. Mountbatten saw this as not-honouring an international agreement & against the norms of the international agreements. He conveyed to the Government and Gandhi that it would be improper not to respect India's own commitment and would lower the credibility of India in the eyes of the world. Gandhi agreed with the views of Mountbatten but he didn't force the Government for this. There is no record in Indian history and the official records which can establish this .... because it is a blatant fabricated lie.

ii) Why did Gandhi go on fast-unto-death ?

Gandhi during that time had come to Delhi from Calcutta in September 1947 and had to go to Panjab to restore peace there (which was under the grip of communal riots). However, the situation of Delhi was uncontrollable due to these riots. Sardar Patel requested Gandhi to stay in Delhi and restore the peace there first before going anywhere. Gandhi stayed back and when everything failed .... went to fast-unto-death as the last attempt to restore sanity in Delhi. These are the proof :

Dr. Sushila Nair's testimony : As soon as she heard Gandhi's decision to go on fast-unto-death, she rushed to her brother Pyarelal and informed him that Gandhiji had decided to undertake fast till the madness in Delhi ceased.
Gandhi's own announcements on 12th January followed by his statement on 13th January on his fast
Gandhi's specific reply on the 15th January regarding the purpose of his fast
Gandhi broke fast after Dr Rajendra Prasad (the head of Govt-set-up committee) handed over a list of assurances to persuade Gandhi to give up his fast. This list has no mention of payment of Rs. 55 Crores to Pakistan ! My dear friends, you can yourself see the truth behind Godse's heaps of lies !! :)

OM

Believer
08 January 2011, 08:42 PM
1. In the history of free India, there have been a total of three assassinations of prominent leaders. All three of the victims shared the same last name of Gandhi - Mohan Das, Indira, Rajiv. Is it just a coincidence or is the name Gandhi really jinxed? Have we seen the last of it, or would this kind of misfortune continue to befall the future generations of the Gandhi dynasty?

2. In the BG, Lord Krishna says that we are not the original doers but mere executors of His will. For those of us who do have reverence for the BG, that would imply, that the above three leaders were ordained by the Divine to die at the hands of specific assassins; the people who pulled the trigger or blew themselves up were merely instruments of Krishna's will. The accumulated karma of the three Gandhis had become so bad that the Lord had them removed from our amidst. The assasins doing HIS bidding were mere actors, acting on the orders of the director - the Lord Himself. Should their motives/state of mind even be the subject of a discussion?

harekrishna
09 January 2011, 01:47 AM
Lies and the Truth

Who am I? As an individual I have no value. The people, whom I represented and spoke for, have deserted me. They do not share my views. They have accepted the partition. It might be their helplessness. I have an unswerving faith in my ways even today. But for whom shall I struggle when those whom I represented and fought for so far find the partition acceptable and have lost faith in me? The whole country has been staging the dance of death and violence. They are not happy with my plea for friendship, fraternity, peace, and love. The Hindus want to drive the Mahomedans out of this country. When the entire situation has changed, with whose support shall I fight for the integral and undivided nation? The negation of partition is no small job!

OM

Very good points, Devotee jee. Gandhi Ji till his last breath tried to keep a united country. He truly believed and practiced non-violence. Ahimsa paramodharmah. With this, he brought about changed in people's attitude, bringing about peace and calm in the regions that he travelled and concentrated on. You have rightly quoted what he did at Delhi by stopping the riots. He did the same in Calcutta, Noakhali. In Champaran, leaving the smoke filled rooms of the then typical congressis, he plunged into the darkness created in Chamapran by English settlers, and forced them to mend their ways. In many ways, many of his victories were moral victory. The downtrodden saw hope in his intentions. The English masters felt that they really did not have any moral (and hence racial) superiority. This was a very powerful weapon against the British.

One can disagree with his extreme reliance on non-violence, but it is very difficult to question his motives - and that was to bring peace in the regions ravaged by war. To assassinate such a person, for wrong reasons is work of a confused mind, not a great soul.

HariH Om!
Hare Krishna

Ganeshprasad
09 January 2011, 07:53 AM
Pranam Believer


1. In the history of free India, there have been a total of three assassinations of prominent leaders. All three of the victims shared the same last name of Gandhi - Mohan Das, Indira, Rajiv. Is it just a coincidence or is the name Gandhi really jinxed? Have we seen the last of it, or would this kind of misfortune continue to befall the future generations of the Gandhi dynasty?

2. In the BG, Lord Krishna says that we are not the original doers but mere executors of His will. For those of us who do have reverence for the BG, that would imply, that the above three leaders were ordained by the Divine to die at the hands of specific assassins; the people who pulled the trigger or blew themselves up were merely instruments of Krishna's will. The accumulated karma of the three Gandhis had become so bad that the Lord had them removed from our amidst. The assasins doing HIS bidding were mere actors, acting on the orders of the director - the Lord Himself. Should their motives/state of mind even be the subject of a discussion?

Where exectly Lord says in the Gita that we are executorss of his will?

Are we letting our imagination running wild yes it is an interesting observation about Gandhi surname although not related. Nor it is a new phenomena, assassination has taken place in Bharat, the history would bare witness to it.

To equate it somehow to the will of god is bit far fetched. Arjun is directly instructed by the Lord to do his will where as the murderers have no means to know that. What is the different when a jihadis kills in the name off god can that be construed as will off God?

Jai Shree Krishna

Sahasranama
09 January 2011, 08:07 AM
I don't think "the will of god" is a good justification. It's more a question of svadharma.


All three of the victims shared the same last name of Gandhi - Mohan Das, Indira, Rajiv.This is a good observation, who knows whether the next in line will be the infamous Rahul Gandhi. I don't think it will be a good thing though that Rahul Gandhi will be assasinated, the Indian people are too emotional and if someone gets shot, they turn into heroes.

Ganeshprasad
09 January 2011, 11:14 AM
Pranam Sahasranama


I don't think "the will of god" is a good justification. It's more a question of svadharma.



Which Dharma Shastra speaks of a savdharma of killing someone in cold blood, unarmed going for prayer?

i can relate a good example where Duroyodhan was most unpleased when Ashvasthama on his behalf killed young Pandavs in their sleep. something to reflect on.

Jai Shree Krishna

Sahasranama
09 January 2011, 11:33 AM
There was no lawful way of doing it, but he felt that Gandhi needed to be stopped, so he did what he could. What he did may be hard to justify using lawbooks, but he could not stand there still like a napunsak. Gandhi followers overreacted and started killing brahmins, just because they belonged to the same gotra as Nathuram Godse. It shows how sentimental the Indians were about Gandhi.

Ganeshprasad
09 January 2011, 12:39 PM
Pranam

If we know of no Shastra that promote the cold blooded killing then why do we try and pass it as Savadharma? This is Hindu dharma site it is our duty to represent it, truthfully. As you have now agreed that there is no Shastra pramana yet you still try justify it!

Misrepresenting Bhagvat Gita like some do, calling some thing Savadharma when we know it is not, is not Hindu Dharama period.

Jai Shree Krishna

Sahasranama
09 January 2011, 01:07 PM
Indians were more Machiavellian than you might think, for example the kauthilya artha shastra says:


Or having put a banished prince in the enemy's camp; a spy disguised as a vintner in the service of the enemy, may distribute as a toast hundreds of vessels of liquor mixed with the juice of the madana plant; or, for the first day, he may distribute a mild or intoxicating variety of liquor, and on the following days such liquor as is mixed with poison; or having given pure liquor to the officers of the enemy's army, he may give them poisoned liquor when they are in intoxication...

...Or in accordance with a preconcerted plan, they may, on the occasion of a night-battle, go to the enemy's capital, and blowing a large number of trumpets, cry aloud: "We have entered into the capital, and the country has been conquered." After entering into the king's (the enemy's) palace, they may kill the king in the tumult; when the king begins to run from one direction to another, Mlechchhas, wild tribes, or chiefs of the army, lying in ambush (sattra), or concealed near a pillar or a fence, may slay him; or spies, under the guise of hunters, may slay the king when he is directing his attack, or in the tumult of attack following the plan of treacherous fights. Or occupying an advantageous position, they may slay the enemy when he is marching in a narrow path passable by a single man, or on a mountain, or near the trunk of a tree, or under the branches of a banian tree, or in water; or they may cause him to be carried off by the force of a current of water let off by the destruction of a dam across a river, or of a lake or pond; or they may destroy him by means of an explosive fire or poisonous snake when he has entrenched himself in a fort, in a desert, in a forest, or in a valley. He should be destroyed with fire when he is under a thicket; with smoke when he is in a desert; with poison when he is in a comfortable place; with crocodile and other cruel beasts when he is in water; or they may slay him when he is going out of his burning house.

Ganeshprasad
09 January 2011, 02:13 PM
Pranam


Indians were more Machiavellian than you might think, for example the kauthilya artha shastra says:

kauthilya artha shastra
"One of the most notorious features of the Arthashastra is its obsession with spying on the king's subjects. Kautilya sometimes goes to amusingly absurd lengths to imagine various sorts of spies. He even cynically proposes using fake holy men for this purpose."

are we not clutching at straw here, how can you equate this with Dharma shastra?
even Ravan was a great pundit but no one says he was Dharmic

Jai Shree Krishna

Sahasranama
09 January 2011, 02:44 PM
In times of distress (aapattakala) dharma is different, in politics sometimes cunningness is necessary. It's too bad that Gandhi in his naivety didn't realise this. He could have strived for making India a Hindu nation, but he was adament on Hindu muslim unity. Nathuram had to witness the violence against innocent Hindus with his own eyes when he was working at camps. This was Gandhis do or die policy. They say, if you kill one man you go to prison, if you kill a forty you are sent to an insane asylum, if you kill a thousand, you are invited to peace conferences. Gandhi had so much love for the muslims who are now ethnically cleansing Hindus, making sure that no Hindu remains in Pakistan, Kashmir and Bangladesh.



even Ravan was a great pundit but no one says he was Dharmic

Ravana surely was a mahatma! compared to muslim scum. Ravana kidnapped Sita, but he did not rape her. Muslim raped and killed Hindu ladies and this was Gandhi's pseudo-dharmic answer to that: "Gandhi advised them that if a Muslim expressed his desire to rape a Hindu or a Sikh lady, she should never refuse him but cooperate with him. She should lie down like a dead with her tongue in between her teeth. Thus the rapist Muslim will be satisfied soon and sooner he leave her..." http://www.amazon.com/Freedom-at-Midnight-Larry-Collins/dp/0006388515 (http://www.amazon.com/Freedom-at-Midnight-Larry-Collins/dp/0006388515)

Ganeshprasad
09 January 2011, 04:08 PM
the saying goes aapattakale vinash budhi, only reason he the Ravan could not, i cant bare to finish the sentence, is because he was cursed should he touch her, otherwise he rapped thousand of women.

we have really lost the plot here, condoning one because we have more hate for the other.
there are lost of innuendos and accusation in the Internet if you believe everything without proof of Ghandi ji saying that that is your problem, i am no advocate of Ghandhi nor am i here to defend him but i can not condone a cold blood murder.

Jai Shree Krishna

Sahasranama
09 January 2011, 04:23 PM
That is correct about Ravana*, but I don't think Gandhi was a veera purusha to say the things he said. While condoning a murder is difficult, I can certainly understand the motives of Nathuram to do what he did. Vinasha buddhi might have applied as much to Gandhi as to Nathuram. It's actually Nathuram** who immortalised Gandhi by his actions.

*"Sita in Lanka. Ravana holds Sita captive in Lanka (http://www.mythfolklore.net/india/encyclopedia/lanka.htm). Indra brings food to Sita and tells her the story of why Ravana cannot simply rape her. The sage Viśwamitra (http://www.mythfolklore.net/india/encyclopedia/viswamitra.htm) had turned the apsarasa Rambha (http://www.mythfolklore.net/india/encyclopedia/rambha.htm) to stone, and the yakshas had carried her off to the Treasure Lord, Vaiśravana (http://www.mythfolklore.net/india/encyclopedia/vaisravana.htm), thinking she was a statue. Rambha returned to life and fell in love with Nalakubara (http://www.mythfolklore.net/india/encyclopedia/nalakuvara.htm), the son of Vaiśravana. Meanwhile, Ravana had decided to acquire all kinds of wives, and he wanted to have an apsarasa. He saw Rambha and raped her. When Nalakubara heard what Ravana had done, he put a curse on Ravana: if he ever raped a woman again, his heads would explode. This was why Ravana had not simply raped Sita. Instead of taking her by force, he needed to persuade her to give in to him, as all the other women had, except for Rambha." http://www.mythfolklore.net/india/weeks/week05/readingb.htm

**"Secondly, and ironically, the murder revived the Mahatma's own fortunes. It is insufficiently realized today that just after the Partition, Gandhi was discredited and demoralized. He regained some credibility after his last "fast unto death" managed to make Hindu and Sikh refugees vacate Muslim property in Delhi, a feat which cooled communal tempers. But this could not remove the blot of the unprevented Partition from his name. It was his martyrdom which assured his place of honour in history." http://koenraadelst.bharatvani.org/articles/fascism/2murders.html

Ganeshprasad
09 January 2011, 05:32 PM
but I don't think Gandhi was a veera purusha to say the things he said. While condoning a murder is difficult, I can certainly understand the motives of Nathuram to do what he did. Vinasha buddhi might have applied as much to Gandhi as to Nathuram. It's actually Nathuram** who immortalised Gandhi by his actions.



That is fine as long as it has nothing to with svadharma or the will off god, rest is matter off opinion, there are a lot of contentious information on the net, i can not blame Gandhi ji for partition, he was not responsible for it.
Briton played a big part in it as well. western country played a bigger part in it after the independence by keeping the two state at war, if we look at the bigger picture there has been a lot of dirty politics played to keep us down.

Jai Shree Krishna

satay
09 January 2011, 06:33 PM
namaskar,

You guys are still going on about this? I thought devotee put the topic to bed already.

atanu
10 January 2011, 06:36 AM
As quted by sahsranama
Originally Posted by chandu_69 http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/showthread.php?p=30692#post30692)
Namaste Ganeshprasad ji,

Mahatma Gandhi ji indeed answered to this.

Quote.......
Gandhi advised them that if a Muslim expressed his desire to rape a Hindu or a Sikh lady, she should never refuse him but cooperate with him. She should lie down like a dead with her tongue in between her teeth. Thus the rapist Muslim will be satisfied soon and sooner he leave her...
.......unquote

Ref: (From the book (Freedom at Midnight, Vikas(reprint), 1997, p-479 D Lapierre and L Collins, ).
(original:http://www.amazon.com/Freedom-at-Mid.../dp/0006388515 (http://www.amazon.com/Freedom-at-Midnight-Larry-Collins/dp/0006388515))


The above is too strong an accusation against any one.

'Freedom at Midnight', 1997 version does not contain Page 479.

In the 700 page version that I have nowhere Gandhi is cited as saying the above.

This was already discussed in the original thread.

Can any one show from any original source that Gandhi spoke these words?

...

satay
10 January 2011, 10:58 AM
namaste atanu,
Nice to see you posting again. Please log in and read my PM when you get a chance.
Thanks

devotee
12 January 2011, 07:10 AM
Hi, Atanu,

Welcome back ! Nice to see you posting again !! :)

OM

anisha_astrologer
14 December 2011, 11:43 PM
I am not supporting any one's ideology or reasoning but we should not reject Nathuram Godse's reasoning on the single premise that he killed Gandhi. Gandhi was a great man and it needed a lot of courage and logical reasoning to kill him.

JaiMaaDurga
15 December 2011, 06:26 AM
Namaste,

I have read through the entire thread with some interest. While anyone is certainly entitled to any opinion on historical occurrences or personages they care to hold, on such a forum as this I feel it inappropriate for me to offer any direct opinion of Gandhi or Godse as individuals, or their motivations, for this simple reason: I was not even alive, let alone able to know either of them personally, when what was done or said by either of them was done or said...

As for the intrinsic morality of this or that, I have been witness to too many discussions elsewhere which proceed along the lines of "Murder is evil, yet what if the opportunity to murder Hitler before his rise to power presented itself? Would doing so then be evil, or would it be evil to avoid such an action?" While such discussions may be somewhat useful (in the context of inducing an individual prone to overly simplistic or "black-or-white" thinking to consider the potential complexity inherent in any given value-judgement), that is the limit of it, to my mind being a fruitless exercise otherwise.

All hypothetical questions have this problem. What if (using the previous example) Hitler were to have been killed- and a far more militarily gifted and mentally stable man (yet with the same basic worldview) took his place on the world stage, avoiding Hitler's massive strategic blunders and leading to a Nazi victory; or, perhaps Germany remains a republic- and Stalin (who also killed millions) comes to dominate?

There is no question of the reality of imperfect knowledge, for such as we, who take birth and death. Even perfect knowledge of the present moment in time, as is experienced in our immediate vicinity by the five senses, is denied to us. How therefore can any of us speak in a truly knowledgeable fashion concerning the minds or intent of others, let alone the reality of the past or the future?

Having said all that, I must note that one sheerly practical aspect of non-violent protest or passive resistance, is to deny or weaken a ruling party's ability to claim their opposition constitutes a threat to public safety, a danger to national security, as "disturbing the peace", etc. Again, I merely mention this to point out a practical aspect I had not seen mentioned in earlier posts, concerning the political application of non-violence.

May Maa take pity on Her children, who more and more attempt to make their own songs heard, by singing louder than all others... this cacaphony is the asuric symphony known as "Divide and Conquer", and ends only when all have lost their voice completely...

JAI MATA DI

Omkara
06 October 2012, 01:32 AM
JANUARY 30th, 1949 - The Mahatma was assassinated by a man called Naturam Godse.
After he shot him, instead of running away, he stood his ground and surrounded. He said, "No one should think that Gandhi was killed by a madman"

One of the best speeches of All time, which is compared to Socrates's speech in his trial. The Judge was astonished by his speech and commented that if India had followed the Jury system of giving judgments, Godse would have been adjudicated as "Not Guilty" by the Jury, cause after the speech, the whole audience was in tears.

This is the speech given by Nathuram Godse in the court in his last trial for the murder of Mahatma Gandhi

Born in a devotional Brahmin family, I instinctively came to revere Hindu religion, Hindu history and Hindu culture. I had, therefore, been intensely proud of Hinduism as a whole. As I grew up I developed a tendency to free thinking unfettered by any superstitious allegiance to any isms, political or religious. That is why I worked actively for the eradication of untouchability and the caste system based on birth alone. I openly joined anti-caste movements and maintained that all Hindus were of equal status as to rights, social and religious and should be considered high or low on merit alone and not through the accident of birth in a particular caste or profession. I used publicly to take part in organized anti-caste dinners in which thousands of Hindus, Brahmins, Kshatriyas, Vaisyas, Chamars and Bhangis participated. We broke the caste rules and dined in the company of each other.



I have read the speeches and writings of Dadabhai Nairoji, Vivekanand, Gokhale, Tilak, along with the books of ancient and modern history of India and some prominent countries like England, France, America and' Russia. Moreover I studied the tenets of Socialism and Marxism. But above all I studied very closely whatever Veer Savarkar and Gandhiji had written and spoken, as to my mind these two ideologies have contributed more to the moulding of the thought and action of the Indian people during the last thirty years or so, than any other single factor has done.



All this reading and thinking led me to believe it was my first duty to serve Hindudom and Hindus both as a patriot and as a world citizen. To secure the freedom and to safeguard the just interests of some thirty crores (300 million) of Hindus would automatically constitute the freedom and the well being of all India, one fifth of human race. This conviction led me naturally to devote myself to the Hindu Sanghtanist ideology and programme, which alone, I came to believe, could win and preserve the national independence of Hindustan, my Motherland, and enable her to render true service to humanity as well.



Since the year 1920, that is, after the demise of Lokamanya Tilak, Gandhiji's influence in the Congress first increased and then became supreme. His activities for public awakening were phenomenal in their intensity and were reinforced by the slogan of truth and non-violence, which he paraded ostentatiously before the country. No sensible or enlightened person could object to those slogans. In fact there is nothing new or original in them. They are implicit in every constitutional public movement. But it is nothing but a mere dream if you imagine that the bulk of mankind is, or can ever become, capable of scrupulous adherence to these lofty principles in its normal life from day to day. In fact, honour, duty and love of one's own kith and kin and country might often compel us to disregard non-violence and to use force. I could never conceive that an armed resistance to an aggression is unjust. I would consider it a religious and moral duty to resist and, if possible, to overpower such an enemy by use of force. [In the Ramayana] Rama killed Ravana in a tumultuous fight and relieved Sita. [In the Mahabharata], Krishna killed Kansa to end his wickedness; and Arjuna had to fight and slay quite a number of his friends and relations including the revered Bhishma because the latter was on the side of the aggressor. It is my firm belief that in dubbing Rama, Krishna and Arjuna as guilty of violence, the Mahatma betrayed a total ignorance of the springs of human action.



In more recent history, it was the heroic fight put up by Chhatrapati Shivaji that first checked and eventually destroyed the Muslim tyranny in India. It was absolutely essentially for Shivaji to overpower and kill an aggressive Afzal Khan, failing which he would have lost his own life. In condemning history's towering warriors like Shivaji, Rana Pratap and Guru Gobind Singh as misguided patriots, Gandhiji has merely exposed his self-conceit. He was, paradoxical, as it may appear, a violent pacifist who brought untold calamities on the country in the name of truth and non-violence, while Rana Pratap, Shivaji and the Guru will remain enshrined in the hearts of their countrymen forever for the freedom they brought to them.



The accumulating provocation of thirty-two years, culminating in his last pro-Muslim fast, at last goaded me to the conclusion that the existence of Gandhi should be brought to an end immediately. Gandhi had done very well in South Africa to uphold the rights and well being of the Indian community there. But when he finally returned to India he developed a subjective mentality under which he alone was to be the final judge of what was right or wrong. If the country wanted his leadership, it had to accept his infallibility; if it did not, he would stand aloof from the Congress and carry on his own way. Against such an attitude there can be no halfway house. Either Congress had to surrender its will to his and had to be content with playing second fiddle to all his eccentricity, whimsicality, metaphysics and primitive vision, or it had to carry on without him. He alone was the Judge of everyone and everything; he was the master brain guiding the civil disobedience movement; no other could know the technique of that movement. He alone knew when to begin and when to withdraw it. The movement might succeed or fail, it might bring untold disaster and political reverses but that could make no difference to the Mahatma's infallibility. 'A Satyagrahi can never fail' was his formula for declaring his own infallibility and nobody except himself knew what a Satyagrahi is.



Thus, the Mahatma became the judge and jury in his own cause. These childish insanities and obstinacies, coupled with a most severe austerity of life, ceaseless work and lofty character made Gandhi formidable and irresistible. Many people thought that his politics were irrational but they had either to withdraw from the Congress or place their intelligence at his feet to do with, as he liked. In a position of such absolute irresponsibility Gandhi was guilty of blunder after blunder, failure after failure, disaster after disaster.



Gandhi's pro-Muslim policy is blatantly in his perverse attitude on the question of the national language of India. It is quite obvious that Hindi has the most prior claim to be accepted as the premier language. In the beginning of his career in India, Gandhi gave a great impetus to Hindi but as he found that the Muslims did not like it, he became a champion of what is called Hindustani. Everybody in India knows that there is no language called Hindustani; it has no grammar; it has no vocabulary. It is a mere dialect; it is spoken, but not written. It is a bastard tongue and crossbreed between Hindi and Urdu, and not even the Mahatma's sophistry could make it popular. But in his desire to please the Muslims he insisted that Hindustani alone should be the national language of India. His blind followers, of course, supported him and the so-called hybrid language began to be used. The charm and purity of the Hindi language was to be prostituted to please the Muslims. All his experiments were at the expense of the Hindus.



From August 1946 onwards the private armies of the Muslim League began a massacre of the Hindus. The then Viceroy, Lord Wavell, though distressed at what was happening, would not use his powers under the Government of India Act of 1935 to prevent the rape, murder and arson. The Hindu blood began to flow from Bengal to Karachi with some retaliation by the Hindus. The Interim Government formed in September was sabotaged by its Muslim League members right from its inception, but the more they became disloyal and treasonable to the government of which they were a part, the greater was Gandhi's infatuation for them. Lord Wavell had to resign as he could not bring about a settlement and he was succeeded by Lord Mountbatten. King Log was followed by King Stork.



The Congress, which had boasted of its nationalism and socialism, secretly accepted Pakistan literally at the point of the bayonet and abjectly surrendered to Jinnah. India was vivisected and one-third of the Indian territory became foreign land to us from August 15, 1947. Lord Mountbatten came to be described in Congress circles as the greatest Viceroy and Governor-General this country ever had. The official date for handing over power was fixed for June 30, 1948, but Mountbatten with his ruthless surgery gave us a gift of vivisected India ten months in advance. This is what Gandhi had achieved after thirty years of undisputed dictatorship and this is what Congress party calls 'freedom' and 'peaceful transfer of power'. The Hindu-Muslim unity bubble was finally burst and a theocratic state was established with the consent of Nehru and his crowd and they have called 'freedom won by them with sacrifice' - whose sacrifice? When top leaders of Congress, with the consent of Gandhi, divided and tore the country - which we consider a deity of worship - my mind was filled with direful anger.



One of the conditions imposed by Gandhi for his breaking of the fast unto death related to the mosques in Delhi occupied by the Hindu refugees. But when Hindus in Pakistan were subjected to violent attacks he did not so much as utter a single word to protest and censure the Pakistan Government or the Muslims concerned. Gandhi was shrewd enough to know that while undertaking a fast unto death, had he imposed for its break some condition on the Muslims in Pakistan, there would have been found hardly any Muslims who could have shown some grief if the fast had ended in his death. It was for this reason that he purposely avoided imposing any condition on the Muslims. He was fully aware of from the experience that Jinnah was not at all perturbed or influenced by his fast and the Muslim League hardly attached any value to the inner voice of Gandhi.



Gandhi is being referred to as the Father of the Nation. But if that is so, he had failed his paternal duty inasmuch as he has acted very treacherously to the nation by his consenting to the partitioning of it. I stoutly maintain that Gandhi has failed in his duty. He has proved to be the Father of Pakistan. His inner-voice, his spiritual power and his doctrine of non-violence of which so much is made of, all crumbled before Jinnah's iron will and proved to be powerless.



Briefly speaking, I thought to myself and foresaw I shall be totally ruined, and the only thing I could expect from the people would be nothing but hatred and that I shall have lost all my honour, even more valuable than my life, if I were to kill Gandhiji. But at the same time I felt that the Indian politics in the absence of Gandhiji would surely be proved practical, able to retaliate, and would be powerful with armed forces. No doubt, my own future would be totally ruined, but the nation would be saved from the inroads of Pakistan. People may even call me and dub me as devoid of any sense or foolish, but the nation would be free to follow the course founded on the reason which I consider to be necessary for sound nation-building. After having fully considered the question, I took the final decision in the matter, but I did not speak about it to anyone whatsoever. I took courage in both my hands and I did fire the shots at Gandhiji on 30th January 1948, on the prayer-grounds of Birla House.



I do say that my shots were fired at the person whose policy and action had brought rack and ruin and destruction to millions of Hindus. There was no legal machinery by which such an offender could be brought to book and for this reason I fired those fatal shots.



I bear no ill will towards anyone individually but I do say that I had no respect for the present government owing to their policy, which was unfairly favourable towards the Muslims. But at the same time I could clearly see that the policy was entirely due to the presence of Gandhi. I have to say with great regret that Prime Minister Nehru quite forgets that his preachings and deeds are at times at variances with each other when he talks about India as a secular state in season and out of season, because it is significant to note that Nehru has played a leading role in the establishment of the theocratic state of Pakistan, and his job was made easier by Gandhi's persistent policy of appeasement towards the Muslims.



I now stand before the court to accept the full share of my responsibility for what I have done and the judge would, of course, pass against me such orders of sentence as may be considered proper. But I would like to add that I do not desire any mercy to be shown to me, nor do I wish that anyone else should beg for mercy on my behalf. My confidence about the moral side of my action has not been shaken even by the criticism levelled against it on all sides. I have no doubt that honest writers of history will weigh my act and find the true value thereof some day in future.


-MAHATMA NATHURAM GODSE

My God!This speech is an eye opener.Thank you very much for sharing this!

Omkara
06 October 2012, 01:34 AM
Pranam



kauthilya artha shastra
"One of the most notorious features of the Arthashastra is its obsession with spying on the king's subjects. Kautilya sometimes goes to amusingly absurd lengths to imagine various sorts of spies. He even cynically proposes using fake holy men for this purpose."

are we not clutching at straw here, how can you equate this with Dharma shastra?
even Ravan was a great pundit but no one says he was Dharmic

Jai Shree Krishna

Wasn't the Arthashastra compiled from all earlier Dharma Shastras and Artha Shastras?

Anirudh
08 October 2012, 01:02 AM
I have read this long before. Inevitably discussion on this topic was always seen as anti national and Adharmic.

In the last 60+ years history of Bhaarath has been manipulated and distorted by many politicians especially by the longest ruling dynasty. It s time we re educate ourselves with our TRUE history.

If we are open and willing to correct ourselves, we will regain our lost pride.

For eg, no one is dared discuss 1961/62 fiasco and it s great injustice to those who laid their lives to safeguard our motherland in spite the stupidity committed by the National Leader.

Why are we afraid to discuss our failures and take ownership, instead we cover it and end up insulting our patriots.

Jai Hind!!

Believer
08 October 2012, 12:04 PM
Namaste,

"Among those calling for commutation of the death sentence for the defendants were Nehru, as well as Gandhi's two sons, who felt that executing their father's killers would dishonor his memory and legacy which included a staunch opposition to the death penalty."

A nation that honored/loved/respected the one who believed in Ahimsa, could not live up to his ideals. In the end 'a life for a life', 'blood for blood', a 'state sponsored murder' for a 'murder committed by an accused nationalist' were all that the judiciary could come up with. There was no raising of the moral consciousness of the political establishment that enacts the legislation, or the judiciary, that enforces it. All this big talk about non-violence was fake. Why? Because it involved commuting the sentence of a Hindu. The radical Islamists who attacked the parliament building few years back and killed quite a few security personnel are still alive and well, despite being handed down the death sentence. One might ask why were they not executed a week after their sentencing, like Godse was? The muslim appeasement which riled up Hindu nationalists like Mahatama Godse, continues on.

Pranam.

Anirudh
09 October 2012, 12:44 AM
The muslim appeasement which riled up Hindu nationalists like Mahatama Godse, continues on.

The FB Status "Mango Men in the Banana Republic" is a testimony to what you have concluded.

We are living in a democracy which level sedition charges against a youth for his emotional outburst (pent up for about 60+ years) while the GOI and PM comes in rescue instead of investigating the case.

Compton
21 October 2012, 10:02 AM
Even without Nathuram Godse's last speech, any thinking person will come to understand the failure of the Indian leaders of the time. Ever since I was a young man of about seventeen I have wondered how Indian leaders could have agreed to the partitioning of India. Was no one aware of history? Was no one in the country, in 1947, aware of what Americans went through to preserve the unity of their country and avoid a break-up? Did they not worry about what future generations would have to say about them?

After decades of effort for Indian independence, involving many people and lives, how could you call agreeing to the partitioning of your historic and beloved homeland, an accomplishment? To every thinking man this is clearly no accomplishment, but a tragedy and failure of epic proportions. This immense failure sowed the seeds of conflict for Indians for all time.

We Indians need our heroes, but let us be honest to the facts. The independence movement ended in a disaster and tragedy. Our "noble" leaders of the era agreed to the break-up and partitioning of this historic country. We lost a third of the land mass, created an eternal enemy, and demonstrated our weakness, which will have dire consequences. Jammu, Kashmir, and others want independence from India. Why? People intuitively feel this is easily achievable.

The world at large does not recognizing Gandhi as accomplishing anything related to the independence of India, people remember Gandhi as a man of peace and non-violence, and that is what we could say about him. It is best to carefully avoid talking about his agreeing to the partition of India, because future generations will come to see the immense failure of Indian leaders of the time. But whether we talk about it or not, thinking people will come to understand the tragedy that came out of the independence movement.
Compton Singh

dogra
23 October 2012, 08:44 AM
good post Compton

Sudas Paijavana
11 October 2013, 07:38 AM
delete

Anirudh
12 October 2013, 08:39 AM
Namaste Sudas Paijavana,



Deva Paramatma Mahatma Aryottama Suyodhana Parameshwara Rajadhiraja Samraat Kshatrapati Devanam-Priya Maha-Kshatriya Vigneshwara Purushottama Nathuram Godse


After reading your felicitation, contemplated for a day to reply. I am not inciting any form of violence as that was not my intention.

From what I gather N.V.G was against pseudo secularism and must have come to a conclusion that M K G was promoting it. He apparently did what he thought as correct.

I don't possess the necessary wisdom to judge N.V.G but feel that for the benefit of Bhaarathvarsh, the ideology of pseudo secularism should be uprooted from our system in the most democratic and dharmic way.

We do have a golden chance to do the squirrel's job (http://rahulbemba.blogspot.in/2011/02/ram-setu-and-contribution-of-squirrel.html) in the up coming general elections...



I have to say with great regret that Prime Minister Nehru quite forgets that his preachings and deeds are at times at variances with each other when he talks about India as a secular state in season and out of season, because it is significant to note that Nehru has played a leading role in the establishment of the theocratic state of Pakistan, and his job was made easier by Gandhi's persistent policy of appeasement towards the Muslims.

redifflal
14 October 2013, 10:47 AM
He should have killed Jinnah instead.