Nathuram Godse's last speach

[Sahasranama]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

[Ganeshprasad]

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]

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. Indra brings food to Sita and tells her the story of why Ravana cannot simply rape her. The sage Viśwamitra had turned the apsarasa Rambha to stone, and the yakshas had carried her off to the Treasure Lord, Vaiśravana, thinking she was a statue. Rambha returned to life and fell in love with Nalakubara, 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/we...5/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/a.../2murders.html

[Ganeshprasad]

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]

namaskar,

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

[atanu]

As quted by sahsranama
Originally Posted by chandu_69
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)

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?

...