Gollum Posted April 21, 2015 Posted April 21, 2015 Taking inspiration from another thread: Check Godse's address to the court and final speech explaining why he killed the man he once respected and looked up to. https://docs.google.com/document/d/1qFsSho6YFpkNRFjrUdn0sjV_pI_jfUyamVtn1hsbOAM/edit?hl=en_US&pli=1 http://creative.sulekha.com/why-i-killed-gandhi-nathuram-godse-s-address-in-court_463732_blog Summary of the reasons he gave why he killed Gandhi: - Gandhi had frustrated many with his brand of non-violence even in toughest of conditions. Godse initially admired Gandhi but later become disillusioned with his ideas. - By 1919, Gandhiji had become desperate in his endeavors to get the Muslims to trust him and went from one absurd promise to another. He backed the Khilafat movement and was able to enlist the full support of the National Congress in that policy. Very soon the Moplah Rebellion(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malabar_rebellion) showed that the Muslims had not the slightest idea of national unity. There followed a huge slaughter of Hindus(more than 1 lakh Hindus died, were forcibly converted or driven away ). The British Government suppressed it in a few months but countless Hindu lives couldn't be saved. At the time, the Indian National Congress ignored the movement and it remained isolated from the wider nationalist movement to preserve communal harmony in the words of Congress. - Direct Action Day(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct_Action_Day) and Noakhali genocide(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noakhali_riots) scared the hell out of the Hindus who until then were following Gandhi's principles of non violence and offered little resistance to the marauding Muslims who raped, plundered, looted and killed thousands of defenseless Hindus. Suhrawady the Muslim League leader(later 5th PM of independent Pakistan) was the Prime Minister of Bengal province of British India at that time and he gave state support to the rioters and was complicit in the sufferings of many Hindu civilians of his province. Later Gandhi left for Bengal for damage control and because he feared Hindus may retort with violence to Muslims. In fact Gandhi came to Kolkata to shield the killer Suhrawady(whom he always liked) and gave him the title of 'Shaheed Saheb' or martyr during his prayer meetings. Hindus who bore the brunt of Muslim League's aggression were mighty pissed off with Gandhi's brown nosing of the mass murderer . These events had shifted bargaining power to Jinnah from Congress and partition was becoming more inevitable by the day. The committee comprising Mountbatten, Jinnah, Nehru and Gandhi discussed the matter. - Gandhi again left for Calcutta to fast for Hindu-Muslim unity.In his absence, Mountbatten Plan assenting partition was passed. Gandhi had earlier objected to partition saying he wouldn't let it happen even over his dead body. However it was happening and disillusioned Indians blamed him for inaction. Godse claimed Gandhi had helped it rather. - Then when partition seemed inevitable, the Mahatma even supported the separation of Sindh from the Bombay Presidency and threw the Hindus of Sindh at the mercy of Muslim League . Numerous riots took place in Karachi, Sukkur, Shikarpur and other places in which the Hindus were the only sufferers. From August 1946 onwards, the private armies of the Muslim League began a massacre of the Hindus from Bengal to Karachi with mild reactions in the Deccan and Kerala also. The Interim government formed in September was sabotaged by its Muslim League members, 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. 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 - According to the partition plan, India owed final installment of Rs 55 crores to Pakistan before Indo-Pak relations on the Kashmir border deteriorated. Nehru and Patel argued that this money would help Pakistan buy weapons and attack Indian interests and hence froze the transaction pissing off people across the border. In name of humanitarian principles and apparently because he wanted to save Hindus in Pakistan by going there, Gandhi once again fasted till this money was given (to have a sensitizing tool in Pakistan). He also fasted for Muslim killings to stop in Delhi. - Godse valued Hinduism staunchly and concluded Gandhi was siding with Muslims & Pakistan. He reasoned killing Gandhi would help Hindus- the followers currently enchanted wrongly with Gandhi as they'd take to calls of violence against Muslims more easily. He subsequently killed Gandhi, and didn't flee because he felt that Indian politics in the absence of Gandhiji would surely be more practical, able to retaliate, and be powerful with armed forces. He was resigned to his own future being ruined but the nation would be saved from the inroads of Pakistan and that was his primary motivation behind the assassination of Gandhi. I am not a Godse bhakt and I admire Gandhi greatly. Gandhi's principles of tolerance/non violence is a lesson for humanity and he was one of the biggest architects of our freedom movement :hatsoff:. Any action of violence must be condemned and dialogue/discussions/debate is the best way to sort out differences. But after reading Godse's point of view and doing a bit of research on my own about the prevalent political situation back then in India it seems to me that Gandhi's words/actions were honorable but not practical. I mean the Muslim League didn't give a **** about Congress' non violent methods. They sabotaged the interim government, unleashed violence(Direct Action Day, Noakhali Riots and various other instances), back stabbed Congress etc. Obviously Hindus bore the brunt of Muslim League's acts of aggression . But Gandhi reprimanded Hindus all the time, asked them not to retaliate, praised Suhrawady/Jinnah/Liauqat Khan all the time and went bonkers even when there was a minor retaliation by Hindus in certain parts of the country. 25 years earlier he was the reason for the Moplah rebellion in Kerala(one of the greatest massacres in India) by stupidly throwing weight behind the Khilafat movement to be popular among Muslims. Even his suggestions w.r.t partition were borderline crazy and his fast to pressurize Gandhi/Nehru to give Rs 55 crores to Pakistan government when Kashmir was under siege was treachery. All this proves that he had his share of faults and was the reason for the murder of thousand of his countrymen. Millions suffered because of him and many were fed up of his ass licking of Muslim League/ Pakistan that time. Godse was just the violent outlet for the grievances of many in India that time. Gandhi isn't some deity, we have every reason to critique some of his actions. Sick of people defending him all the time and trying to portray a picture of him as though he had committed no fault all through his political career and people who have the opinion that anyone who oppose him are traitors/anti India etc.
BeautifulGame Posted April 21, 2015 Posted April 21, 2015 Even Hitler had ramblings justifying his genocide
diga Posted April 21, 2015 Posted April 21, 2015 ^ one persons life against millions who got killed in partition..
BeautifulGame Posted April 21, 2015 Posted April 21, 2015 ^ one persons life against millions who got killed in partition.. The point is u can give justification for any sort of crime in the minds of a mad man .Even for Holocaust
Texan Posted April 21, 2015 Posted April 21, 2015 What Godse did was completely wrong. He was blinded by his vision for an Akhand Bharat. Looking at it in retrospect, imagine if Pak and Bangladesh would have been in India. What a horrible place we would be living in. So, it's a good thing in my opinion that we don't have these problems on our hand. On the other hand though, our history books have painted Gandhi as some kind of saint. He was anything but that. He was a very smart politician who knew exactly how to play with Indian sentiments for freedom and his give and take with the British helped them control all violent armed struggle for independence. He smartly justified participating in World Wars, while at the same time wearing the mask of non-violence. He routinely used campaigns like civil disobedience, non co-operation to show his fight for freedom, but after some time conveniently called them off citing some stray incidents. He was President of the Congress party only for one year (yes only one year) and he mostly nominated his cronies to the post. This was the beginning of the "remote control" politics in our country. It's high time we acknowledge that Gandhi was no saint. He had his flaws, some of them cost us pretty dearly.
BeautifulGame Posted April 21, 2015 Posted April 21, 2015 What Godse did was completely wrong. He was blinded by his vision for an Akhand Bharat. Looking at it in retrospect, imagine if Pak and Bangladesh would have been in India. What a horrible place we would be living in. So, it's a good thing in my opinion that we don't have these problems on our hand. On the other hand though, our history books have painted Gandhi as some kind of saint. He was anything but that. He was a very smart politician who knew exactly how to play with Indian sentiments for freedom and his give and take with the British helped them control all violent armed struggle for independence. He smartly justified participating in World Wars, while at the same time wearing the mask of non-violence. He routinely used campaigns like civil disobedience, non co-operation to show his fight for freedom, but after some time conveniently called them off citing some stray incidents. He was President of the Congress party only for one year (yes only one year) and he mostly nominated his cronies to the post. This was the beginning of the "remote control" politics in our country. It's high time we acknowledge that Gandhi was no saint. He had his flaws, some of them cost us pretty dearly. Any one with a sane mind would have supported British during the 2nd world war though.Particularly when freedom was promised in exchange British were a fading force and our freedom was in sight .If Hitler had won we would be scratching in Holocaust cells
Tapioca Posted April 21, 2015 Posted April 21, 2015 What Godse did was completely wrong. He was blinded by his vision for an Akhand Bharat. Looking at it in retrospect, imagine if Pak and Bangladesh would have been in India. What a horrible place we would be living in. So, it's a good thing in my opinion that we don't have these problems on our hand. On the other hand though, our history books have painted Gandhi as some kind of saint. He was anything but that. He was a very smart politician who knew exactly how to play with Indian sentiments for freedom and his give and take with the British helped them control all violent armed struggle for independence. He smartly justified participating in World Wars, while at the same time wearing the mask of non-violence. He routinely used campaigns like civil disobedience, non co-operation to show his fight for freedom, but after some time conveniently called them off citing some stray incidents. He was President of the Congress party only for one year (yes only one year) and he mostly nominated his cronies to the post. This was the beginning of the "remote control" politics in our country. It's high time we acknowledge that Gandhi was no saint. He had his flaws, some of them cost us pretty dearly. No saint but more principled than almost any other politician in history. But not so principled as to be naive, which some of the quoted part in the OP implies him to be. You cannot remain the top politician of a country (without using force) for some 30 years unless you are very, very smart. In name of humanitarian principles and apparently because he wanted to save Hindus in Pakistan by going there, Gandhi once again fasted till this money was given (to have a sensitizing tool in Pakistan). From that point of view, the above quote about the 55 crore rupee issue makes some sense, no ? This was in December - January 1947/8 when the partition related murders were at their peak. They will probably have continued but for the shock of the assassination of Gandhi. If it continued, it could have ended in a complete genocide of Hindus & Sikhs in Pakistan. Gandhi was planning to go to Pakistan in February 1948 for the sake of peace. Actions like this would have given him a goodwill and bargaining option. Just guessing, but was not so naive as to give away 55 crore without something in mind.
G_B_ Posted April 21, 2015 Posted April 21, 2015 Godse was misguided. What he did was wrong and he was right to be hanged. But one thing I dispute is calling him a terrorist in the media. He was a murderer. He took special care to ensure that he only killed Gandhi for his (misguided beliefs) and took blame for it on himself. He did not go about pointing the blame at his upbringing etc etc and making. In court he basically said I murdered Gandhi for my beliefs. End of discussing. Do what you want with me. Re Gandhi the man was shrewd and that why we got independence. Armed struggle would have got us no where. Stuff like the swadeshi movement etc hit the british where it hurt the most. Their profits. We did win independence because Gandhi played the British well. Now i have not been educated in India, so cant comment on the textbooks. But in general Gandhi despite his flaws is protaryed as a great human being in the UK. Thats depite fighting the UK. Most historical figures do have some baggage. Martin Luther King is reported to have indulged in orgies. I dont know how true it is. With regards to hitler. I dont think he had any interest in Asia or anywhere outside Europe. Asia was left to their ally the Japanese. Considering many Indians did fight for the Japanese I am not 100% sure that Indians would be slaughtered by the Japanese.
Tiger80 Posted April 21, 2015 Posted April 21, 2015 Any one with a sane mind would have supported British during the 2nd world war though.Particularly when freedom was promised in exchange British were a fading force and our freedom was in sight .If Hitler had won we would be scratching in Holocaust cells/b] How will Hitler invade India or you want to say Britains defeat automatically meant India's defeat. Hitler has no plans for asia, that was Europe's battle ,Axis forces victory meant that Subhash chandra bose could have been president of India, not a bad thing
BeautifulGame Posted April 21, 2015 Posted April 21, 2015 How will Hitler invade India or you want to say Britains defeat automatically meant India's defeat. Hitler has no plans for asia, that was Europe's battle ,Axis forces victory meant that Subhash chandra bose could have been president of India, not a bad thing Hitler aim was to colonize all the inferior races .We were just as inferior in his eyes as the Africans or Slaves Weirdly the only country Hitler considered equal was British .He had plenty of times actually prised Britain for being a colonial super power. That's also why he repeatedly offered truce to Britain unlike France or Russia . If Britain had fallen we would faced the same fate Africa or Russia faced under Hitler
Tapioca Posted April 21, 2015 Posted April 21, 2015 How will Hitler invade India or you want to say Britains defeat automatically meant India's defeat. Hitler has no plans for asia, that was Europe's battle ,Axis forces victory meant that Subhash chandra bose could have been president of India, not a bad thing It is too optimistic to think that after conquering India from the British, Japanese would let us rule ourselves.
BeautifulGame Posted April 21, 2015 Posted April 21, 2015 With regards to hitler. I dont think he had any interest in Asia or anywhere outside Europe. Asia was left to their ally the Japanese. Considering many Indians did fight for the Japanese I am not 100% sure that Indians would be slaughtered by the Japanese. Hitler was already involved in the war in Africa .He just didn't go for anywhere else becoz most major powers were in Europe then Please these are the Japanese that used poison gas to kill millions of Chinese .Expecting somehow Japanese to be benovalent to India and let it a independent country when they were trying to control entire Asia pacific is nothing short of fanciful .Japanese even targeted the Indian citizens by bombig Chennai during the war Japan just used INC becoz we were useful against the British The axis countries were ruled by dictators who committed some of the worst human atrocities in human history .It doesn't take a lot figure how we would have ended up if the ever were to win .
G_B_ Posted April 21, 2015 Posted April 21, 2015 Africa hmm thats cause he did not have an ally there. that too be was involved in north africa because of major french enclaves there. Re the Japanese. they killed them cause they resisted their rule. If you look at Thailand, the Japanese came to an understanding with them.
Sachin=GOD Posted April 21, 2015 Posted April 21, 2015 I don't blame Bose at all for trying to go with the Axis powers if it meant the British going from India but as others have said, the Axis powers winning would definitely have meant India being under their rule, which, seeing the inhuman acts they committed during WW2, would probably have been worse than British.
Tiger80 Posted April 21, 2015 Posted April 21, 2015 Hitler aim was to colonize all the inferior races .We were just as inferior in his eyes as the Africans or Slaves Weirdly the only country Hitler considered equal was British .He had plenty of times actually prised Britain for being a colonial super power. That's also why he repeatedly offered truce to Britain unlike France or Russia . If Britain had fallen we would faced the same fate Africa or Russia faced under Hitler In the Asia the agressor was Japan not Germany , Hitler had some weird racial theories but there is nothing to suggest that he wanted to colonise the whole world . His real hatred was for jews and bolsheviks communist Slavs. One of his aim was to defeat Soviet and reclaim the land which once belonged to Aryan race. He could had easily avoid Soviet and went for weaker countries to colonise after the invasion of France and West Europe, but that was not hiss plan . He also made pact with Japan which were not of his race and even declared war on USA after pearl harbour to support Japan. What eve plan Hitler had in mind India or Asia were on last and he may have required 100s of years to implement that Also don't forget Bengal famine in 1943 killed 3-4 million Indians and many blame Britishers for them so India did not get anything from supporting Britain
BeautifulGame Posted April 21, 2015 Posted April 21, 2015 Africa hmm thats cause he did not have an ally there. that too be was involved in north africa because of major french enclaves there. Re the Japanese. they killed them cause they resisted their rule. If you look at Thailand, the Japanese came to an understanding with them. He involved in Africa becoz the incompetent Mussolini dragged him there .Why wouldn't he intervene in Asia on behalf of Japan ? Heck he announced war on US as support of Japan .We are talking about a lunatic here Yeah if we were happy to o be slaves Japan would let as continue .But why would we when revolt against British.British for all its faults and crimes were a democracy .History clearly shows what happens when u revolt against a dictator
Sachin=GOD Posted April 21, 2015 Posted April 21, 2015 Hitler aim was to colonize all the inferior races .We were just as inferior in his eyes as the Africans or Slaves Weirdly the only country Hitler considered equal was British .He had plenty of times actually prised Britain for being a colonial super power. That's also why he repeatedly offered truce to Britain unlike France or Russia . If Britain had fallen we would faced the same fate Africa or Russia faced under Hitler Yes. He considered them equal because he himself dreamt of having his Third Reich as the biggest empire in the world so he admired the British for creating such a huge empire, especially with such little population of its own.
diga Posted April 21, 2015 Posted April 21, 2015 This is digressing from the OPs subjectline... For decades, Indian historians/politicians/media has been demonising RSS for Godse's action and its only fair that there is a debate around this issue to clear the smokescreen around RSS
Gollum Posted April 21, 2015 Author Posted April 21, 2015 This is digressing from the OPs subjectline... For decades, Indian historians/politicians/media has been demonising RSS for Godse's action and its only fair that there is a debate around this issue to clear the smokescreen around RSS The most intriguing bit is that Godse left RSS in 1934 because he felt it was too moderate. RSS has absolutely nothing to do with the Mahatma's assassination. AdLibs twist, lie, fabricate, slander to get their points through and to defame the right wing.
Texan Posted April 21, 2015 Posted April 21, 2015 Any one with a sane mind would have supported British during the 2nd world war though.Particularly when freedom was promised in exchange British were a fading force and our freedom was in sight .If Hitler had won we would be scratching in Holocaust cells No freedom was promised in exchange. During WW I also, there were hopes of freedom but nothing materialised.
Recommended Posts