Nathuram Godse as much a patriotic as Mahatma Gandhi: BJP MP Sakshi Maharaj

[Texan]

People are failing to see the true intention of the OP.......to malign the RSS......what the OP won't tell you is that Godse was not a part of the RSS when he committed the assassination......he was part of his own isolated group that was not supported by mainstream Hindus..... In no way do I support what Godse did......infact.....his actions have proven to be counter-intuitive to his goals......Mahatma Gandhi's legacy as a Martyr/Saint gained even more credence and Godse is now nothing but a footnote in history.......had he led a political charge against the Congress and won.......he would've been a Titan in Indian history...... But saying that, I personally feel that Gandhi's role in our freedom struggle is overstated........his satyagraha movement was not what ultimately won us independence.......after WWII, it had become unfeasible for the British Empire to carry on governing it's colonies......that unfeasibility, along with the INA's armed struggle to the East of India during the World Wars greatly crippled the British.......by 1945 itself.......Britain's exit from India was certain....... But why I really feel that Gandhi was a failure was because he and the Congress ultimately failed to win over their own people and couldn't keep India united.......had his non-violence strategy really been as effective and all encompassing as people claim, then he would've had all Indians, including the Muslims of Punjab and NWFP, on board......however.......there were cries for the formation of Pakistan way back in 1933......a time when Gandhi was meant to be at the peak of his popularity.......and ultimately he was the one who convinced the Congress to accept the partition of India........the consequences of which we are still facing today....namely, the state of perpetual enmity with Pakistan.........a nation that has and continues to be a thorn in our side.......and has accounted for thousands of dead Indians....... So.....I feel it is wrong to eulogize Godse's actions........but there needs to be serious revisionism on Gandhi's role in our independence struggle........

Do you think OP can process all of that? He could not even answer a simple Yes/No question about whether Bhagat Singh was a patriot or not :winky:

[jalebi_bhai]

He is by far the greatest mobilizer of indians in recorded history. Nobody came close to having as much indians do his bidding for the sake of india. Bose is a very very distant second. That makes gandhi well deserving of father of nation title. Sent from my GT-S5830D using Tapatalk 2

He may have been popular..........but he was not a pan-India icon........If he was.......Pakistan would not have been formed........If Indian Hindus and Muslims could work together in the past, like they did in Shivaji's army to fight against Aurangazeb who had Rajputs among his ranks, then surely they could've united to ward off an even more foreign enemy....... Gandhi had grown extremely unpopular among the Muslims in the early 1940s.......the British in fact preferred having Gandhi around as they knew that they could keep any armed struggle within mainland India in check as long as Gandhi was around.........he appealed to the masses by twisting the tolerant ethos of Hinduism into something that was far too utopian and passive......The Bhagvad Gita says that people should not hesitate to defend themselves and retaliate against wrong-doers......the British were exactly that...... The British Empire had no problem dealing with a coercive fringe as long as the masses protested passively........and we know exactly how the British responded to peaceful protests during the Jallianwala Bagh massacre....... There is a reason why Subhash Chandra Bose and the INA had to function from abroad........in a largely underground manner to boot........the Congress leaders would not have supported the INA's armed struggle........as long as the British could ensure that the Con leaders were still in a state of perceived 'power'.........only after WWII, when the British Empire was in disarray, did Gandhi truly step up.......so you can give him credit for leading the final charge in our independence struggle and eventually getting rid of the British......but he did so at a great cost..... Whether we like it or not, the truth is that we needed direct and indirect assistance from the Axis powers to secure our independence.....

[jalebi_bhai]

Do you think OP can process all of that? He could not even answer a simple Yes/No question about whether Bhagat Singh was a patriot or not :winky:

Obviously not.......hence didn't bother asking him anything........baat ko sau baar ghuma-phira ke anth mein gaali-galoch thak baat pahunchegi........he will bite at the slightest provocation and end up calling us the B word.........:giggle:

[Shivaji bhonsle]

I agree, godse was as patriotic as anyone, but what he did was wrong. You can't justify what he did to Mahatma Gandhi.

[Khalpat]

OP, I want to ask you a couple of questions, hopefully you will attempt to answer them: 1. Did Godse have any personal animosity with Gandhi due to any personal feud or was his feud with Gandhi something to do with his idea of India being different from Gandhi's? 2. Do you consider Bhagat Singh to be a patriot?

Please do not waste your time bro. You will be given a mouthful of abuses and will be termed as bhakth and everything just because you thought of asking uncomfortable and debatable question. This is no place to discuss, it is ICF people have been programmed in this way: This is how most of them have been designed by all mighty: Gandhi is good Godse is Bad Kejriwal is honest Modi is corrupt SP is secular RSS is communal If you dare to ask any question on any of the above thing, you will be rediculed called zahil, called Bhakth. It is not only in ICF this happens in all over India which is ironically a secular and democratic country and constitution has given freedom of speech. How come that MP has an opinion about Godse, he should be having same what Raghav has or else he is bad man and should be killed. Their is no place of differences of opinion in this country.

[Precambrian]

No murder can be justified. Agreed people are giving Gandhi more credit than probably due but lets not forget the chap committed cold premeditated murder. I cannot understand how you can possibly justify it anyway. Head in the **** moment.

[Tapioca]

But why I really feel that Gandhi was a failure was because he and the Congress ultimately failed to win over their own people and couldn't keep India united.......

With the help of hindsight, it was an extraordinarily perceptive decision to let Pakistan go. They have a different culture and irrespective of whether they were inside or outside India, the nutcase elements would have surfaced soon.

[G_B_]

what a great guy' date='he sacrificed himself by killing the father of our nation.[/quote'] now your just connecting fictional dots. I did not say he was great. But he was a patriot. No doubt murder is murder. But he did not run. He touched Gandhis feet shot Gandhi stood there and that was the end of that. He did not run or try to put the blame on anybody else. Just to make things clear, Godse was an assassin. Not a terrorist. He did hold extremist views in what he thought was for the great and good of India. Keep in mind despite handing himself in and pleading guilty, it did not stop the Congress workers from rampaging and killing members of Godse's community who had no role or even not even know what had happened. I guess history repeated itself in 1983

[G_B_]

and personally i feel that the death of Gandhi allowed Nehru to have an iron hold on the congress. Had Gandhi ji been alive then IMO the congress would have been an organisation bereft of the family. A proper democratic center left party. In that sense Godse's action for me backfired.

[Number]

now your just connecting fictional dots. I did not say he was great. But he was a patriot. No doubt murder is murder. But he did not run. He touched Gandhis feet shot Gandhi stood there and that was the end of that. He did not run or try to put the blame on anybody else. Just to make things clear, Godse was an assassin. Not a terrorist. He did hold extremist views in what he thought was for the great and good of India. Keep in mind despite handing himself in and pleading guilty, it did not stop the Congress workers from rampaging and killing members of Godse's community who had no role or even not even know what had happened. I guess history repeated itself in 1983

After Gandhis murder was there a pogrom against MH brahmins by Congressis ?

[Texan]

Since OP is not even going to attempt the questions I put to him, I am going to put my point across anyway. Godse was indeed a patriot. I don't understand why being patriotic is always considered as a good attribute. It is not, if your methods are wrong. Godse's methods were completely wrong. But if you detest Godse's methods, you must also detest the methods adopted by Bhagat Singh, who committed murder as well. They were all patriotic - Gandhi, Bhagat and Godse. They had different methods though. In fact, I don't even agree with most of Godse's views on "Akhand Bharat". But, you can't deny the fact that he was a patroit.

[jalebi_bhai]

With the help of hindsight' date=' it was an extraordinarily perceptive decision to let Pakistan go. They have a different culture and irrespective of whether they were inside or outside India, the nutcase elements would have surfaced soon.[/quote'] Sorry......absolutely no.........it was 100% the wrong decision.......as I mentioned in one of my earlier posts......Hindus and Muslims had in the past been able to work together to ward off foreign powers.........Shivaji's army being a prime example........ Let me give you two points as to why I think so 1. Jinnah did not personally believe in the bogus two nation theory.........it was more of a Muslim League demand......which at the time was dominated by the power hungry Feudal lords.......Jinnah only used it as a black mailing tactic.....he was very much in support of a Muslim dominion within India......but once it became clear that Nehru was unwilling to let a dying Jinnah become PM, following Gandhi's failed attempt at convincing Nehru, only then did Jinnah use it as a tool to satisfy his hunger for power....... How do we know that the two nation theory was bogus? Bangladeshi war of independence 1971..... Partition or not.......there would've been riots.......what we needed the most at that time were more leaders like Sardar Vallabhai Patel.........people with a spine and who were not caught up in the delusions of their own philosophies........ 2. By accepting to partition India, Gandhi was sending out a strong message to the whole world that 'yes.....the two nation theory is right.......Hindus and Muslims cannot live together......and religion is the primary identity of Muslims in the subcontinent'....... If today we go tell a Pakistani that their version of history is false (which it is) and that they are deluded if they think that they are descendants of Arabs/Mughals........they can straight up tell us to go take a hike by saying that 'Gandhi agreed with us....hence why he approved the partition.......are you saying that the father of your nation was wrong?'.......and it would be a very logical thing to say...... Now Gandhi may not have personally believed that......but that is the message him and the Congress sent out.......a decision for which we are still bearing the brunt.......a decision which is still the cause of an identity crisis among the Muslims of our country........ 4 full blown wars.......and a perennially hostile neighbour.......the final phase of India's freedom struggle simply spiraled into one messy power struggle.......sad but true......

[Happy]

We all have got certain preconceived notions and always see things with the prospect with which we wanna see....here is a man who killed a national icon (leaving aside the ideology of both assassinate and assassin) but how on earth can we justify a murder...??? Been from an RSS run school I do know that there is a section of society who took pride in the "Gandhi vadh" and firmly believe that Gandhi's assassination was utmost important for the National interest....So there is nothing new as to what Sakshi Maharaj has just said... I have read enough about the Gandhi as well as about Godse and know for sure that Gandhi's principles were far more superior than these fringe ideologues'.... Godse wanted India to run on the path of Pakistan full of hatred and animosity towards the other religions... Now the Pakistan that we see, makes us realize which ideology was correct... Gandhi so rightly said that "An eye for an eye only ends up making the whole world blind".

[jalebi_bhai]

and personally i feel that the death of Gandhi allowed Nehru to have an iron hold on the congress. Had Gandhi ji been alive then IMO the congress would have been an organisation bereft of the family. A proper democratic center left party. In that sense Godse's action for me backfired.

No.....quite the opposite.......Gandhi was batting for Nehru.......The Congress had unanimously voted for Sardar Patel to be the first PM.......but Gandhi was indebted to Motilal Nehru.......hence why he went against the majority and backed Jawaharlal........ Godse's failure was that by assassinating him........he solidified Gandhi's legacy as a Martyr/Saint/Mahatma.......something he really wasn't........why do you think the West loves Gandhi? It's because he neutered us as people........he convinced a lot of people that you could solve the problem of an armed foreign aggression by taking the moral high ground......something incredibly impractical and stupid.......

[hhunaeh]

After Gandhis murder was there a pogrom against MH brahmins by Congressis ?

must have been patriots who did this. Patriots like godse. Did they touch the feet of the people before killing them?

[Number]

must have been patriots who did this. Patriots like godse. Did they touch the feet of the people before killing them?

In the hindsight Godse should have touched Nehru's feet.:giggle:

[Shivaji bhonsle]

Not sure how many of you have read what Godse said in the court after killing Mahatma Gandhi. Although this speech is eloquent, one can't agree with him that killing Gandhi was necessary. He was a patriot, no doubt but I don't agree with his views. This is what he had said. WHY I KILLED 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 RSS wing of 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 Ravana, Chanakiya, Dadabhai Naoroji, 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 for ever 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 good 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 every thing; 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 cross-breed 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.

[surajmal]

He is by far the greatest mobilizer of indians in recorded history. Nobody came close to having as much indians do his bidding for the sake of india. Bose is a very very distant second. That makes gandhi well deserving of father of nation title. Sent from my GT-S5830D using Tapatalk 2

So community organizing is the single biggest factor in bestowing of title Bapu? I'll let Lee Kuan Yew know that all his work was for naught. Lawd, you people are stupid. No wonder, obomber won twice. I'm assuming he is also waiting for his father of the nation titlehood with all the mobilizing he did in his pre senate days.

[Cricketics]

I am not a Congress fan or Gandhian but Godse didn't have any right to kill a person whether it's Gandhi or anyone else. He will go down as a Criminal for killing someone and not any patriot.

[surajmal]

Sorry but this is nonsense. Murder is murder and it cannot be justified, the murderer deserves condemnation and the strong arm of the law. This is also the kind of sentiments that makes hinduvtas closer to jihadi jaahils than civilized people : they are quite ok to break the law if it suits their purpose. History and current status quo shows that societies that have a stong respect and enforcement of law dominates the ones who are less inclined to respect the law. Nathuram godse was an ill educated, racist murderer. Sent from my GT-S5830D using Tapatalk 2

http://www.indiancricketfans.com/showpost.php?p=2979581&postcount=31 Took me 2 seconds to find you justifying murder of not 1 man but hundreds of thousands.