PDA

View Full Version : Nathu Ram Godse's Speech At The Trial



ganeshjat
February 4th, 2005, 03:20 PM
NATHU RAM GODSE'S SPEECH AT THE TRIAL



Nathuram Godse's speech at trial .. DO read it fully
Full text of Godse's speech at his trial.....

" On January 13, 1948, I learnt that Gandhiji had decided to go on fast unto
death. The reason given was that he wanted an assurance of Hindu-Muslim
Unity... But I and many others could easily see that the real motive...
[was] to compel the Dominion Government to pay the sum of Rs 55 crores to
Pakistan, the payment of which was emphatically refused by the
Government.... But this decision of the people's Government was reversed to
suit the tune of Gandhiji's fast. It was evident to my mind that the force
of public opinion was nothing but a trifle when compared with the leanings
of Gandhiji favourable to Pakistan.

....In 1946 or thereabout, Muslim atrocities perpetrated on Hindus under the
Government patronage of Surhawardy in Noakhali made our blood boil. Our
shame and indignation knew no bounds when we saw that Gandhiji had come
forward to shield that very Surhawardy and began to style him as 'Shaheed
Saheb' - a martyr - even in his prayer meetings...

....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 slogans of truth and non-violence which
he ostentatiously paraded before the country... I could never conceive that
an armed resistance to the aggressor is unjust... Ram killed Ravan in a
tumultuous fight... Krishna killed Kansa to end his wickedness... In
condemning Shivaji, Rana Pratap and Guru Govind as 'misguided patriots,'
Gandhiji has merely exposed his self-conceit... Gandhiji was, paradoxically,
a violent pacifist who brought untold calamities on the country in the name
of truth and nonviolence, while Rana Pratap, Shivaji and the Guru will
remain enshrined in the hearts of their countrymen forever...

....By 1919, Gandhiji had become desperate in his endeavours to get the
Muslims to trust him and went from one absurd promise to another... He
backed the Khilafat movement in this country and was able to enlist the full
support of the National Congress in that policy... very soon the Moplah
Rebellion showed that the Muslims had not the slightest idea of national
unity... There followed a huge slaughter of Hindus... The British
Government, entirely unmoved by the rebellion, suppressed it in a few months
and left to Gandhiji the joy of his Hindu-Muslim Unity... British
Imperialism emerged stronger, the Muslims became more fanatical, and the
consequences were visited on the Hindus...

The accumulating provocation of 32 years, culminating in his last pro-Muslim
fast, at last goaded me to the conclusion that the existence of Gandhiji
should be brought to an end immediately... he developed a subjective
mentality under which he alone was the final judge of what was right or
wrong... Either Congress had to surrender its will to him and play second
fiddle to all his eccentricity, whimsicality... or it had to carry on
without him... He was the master brain guiding the civil disobedience
movement... The movement may succeed or fail; it may bring untold disasters
and political reverses, but that could make no difference to the Mahatma's
infallibility... These childish inanities and obstinacies, coupled with a
most severe austerity of life, ceaseless work and lofty character, made
Gandhiji formidable and irresistible... In a position of such absolute
irresponsibility, Gandhiji was guilty of blunder after blunder...

....The Mahatma even supported the separation of Sindh from the Bombay
Presidency and threw the Hindus of Sindh to the communal wolves. 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... Hindu blood began to flow from Bengal to Karachi
with mild reactions in the Deccan... 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...

....The Congress, which had boasted of its nationalism and socialism,
secretly accepted Pakistan and abjectly surrendered to Jinnah. India was
vivisected and one-third of the Indian territory became foreign land to
us... This is what Gandhiji had achieved after 30 years of undisputed
dictatorship, and this is what Congress party calls 'freedom'...

....One of the conditions imposed by Gandhiji for his breaking of the fast
unto death related to the mosques in Delhi occupied by 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...

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... The people of
this country were eager and vehement in their opposition to Pakistan. But
Gandhiji played false with the people...

....I shall be totally ruined, and the only thing I could expect from the
people would be nothing but hatred... if I were to kill Gandhiji. But at the
same time, I felt that Indian politics in the absence of Gandhiji would
surely be proved practical, able to retaliate, and 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...

....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 do not desire any mercy to be shown to me... I did fire shots at
Gandhiji in open daylight. I did not make any attempt to run away; in fact I
never entertained any idea of running away. I did not try to shoot myself...
for, it was my ardent desire to give vent to my thoughts in an open Court.
My confidence about the moral side of my action has not been shaken even by
the criticism levelled of against it on all sides. I have no doubt, honest
writers of history will weigh my act and find the true value thereof some
day in future. "

ramksehrawat
February 4th, 2005, 04:11 PM
I wonder what M.K. Gandhi's attitude to Kashmir problem would have been ? I am sure, if remained alive, he would have gone on another fast to force Indian Government to give it to Pakistan !!

anujkumar
February 4th, 2005, 05:13 PM
aur kuch ho na ho, Godse kee angrezee to bahoot sahee thee

:)

raj2rif
February 4th, 2005, 06:12 PM
While, I am not in favor of Mr. Godse and don't condemn the entire work done by Mr. Gandhi, what Godse has said does have merit. The book "The man who killed Gandhi" by Lt. Col. Manohar Malgaonkar, gives day by day account of the history, the plan and execution of Gandhiji's assassination.

The book was banned in India, but I was able to get a copy in 1979 in Allahabad. It makes an interesting reading. Also, people interested in Indian history of independence/partition, may like to read the book titled "Facts are facts: untold story of India's partition" by Khan Wali Khan- Leader of opposition in Mr. Bhutto's time and son of Frontier Gandhi. This book does not make an interesting reading but is based on the facts and reproduces the despatches the governor general of India had sent to Britain during that time.

Mr. Nathuram Godse, had visited Noakhali with Mr. Gandhi. He was against the partition of the country and thought that Mr. Gandhi was responsible for India's partition.

I agree with Mr. Godse on one account, that Mr. Gandhi did act in a dictatorial manner many times, taking advantage of his popularity and ignoring the decisions of members of congress. The one example was his threat of resigining from Congress after Netaji's election as congress president against Mr. Gandhi's candidate. This led to Netaji leaving the congress and forming Republican Party.

All said and done. We really can't forget contribution of Mr. Gandhi for our independence. Every person have some weaknesses and Mr. Gandhi was no exception. He did do a great job of uniting the entire nation even at the cost of apeasing a particular community. Usually, the big brother has to forgo a lot to keep the younger brother happy and keep the family united. Probably that is what Mr. Gandhi's opinion was. It is difficult to justify or condemn their decision at this time, we can only analyze those.

Mr. Godsy had no links with then Jansangh or RSS, but he used RSS dress to hide his pistol to enter the Birla Mandir. His wearing RSS dress was cashed politically by Congress and Jansangh party probably paid the heavy price of Mr. Godse's selection of his dress on the faithfull day.

rkumar
February 4th, 2005, 07:30 PM
NATHU RAM GODSE'S SPEECH AT THE TRIAL



Nathuram Godse's speech at trial .. DO read it fully
Full text of Godse's speech at his trial.....

" On January 13, 1948, I learnt that Gandhiji .....
................the criticism levelled of against it on all sides. I have no doubt, honest
writers of history will weigh my act and find the true value thereof some
day in future. "

Just for my information, what is the source of this speach of Godse ? Is it recorded some where in the records of court proceedings ?

RK^2

shailendra
February 4th, 2005, 07:49 PM
All said and done. We really can't forget contribution of Mr. Gandhi for our independence. Every person have some weaknesses and Mr. Gandhi was no exception. It is difficult to justify or condemn their decision at this time, we can only analyze those.

...Too costly a 'weakness' when it comes to the Future of a Nation! Normal men can maybe afford to make mistakes but when you are someone who is actually responsible for signing a bleak future of lakhs of countrymen....I am sorry, but that is sacrilegious and nothing short of a horrible and gross mistake that will continue to haunt the two nations and it's countrymen forever!!!

anilkc
February 4th, 2005, 07:58 PM
Everything is in court records.
"What remains of Nathuram Godse is the statement he gave in his own defence during the trial, on 8 November 1948. After the statement was read in court, its publication was prohibited. However, after the release of Godse’s accomplices from prison in the 1960s, translations in Indian languages started appearing, and in 1977, Nathuram’s brother Gopal published the English original under the cautious title May it Please your Honour. A new edition, with a long epilogue by Gopal on the background and the events in prison, was published in 1993 under the more revealing title. Why I assassinated Mahatma Gandhi.

"Justice Gopal Das Khosla, one of Godse’s judges, and whose sympathies were certainly not with "Hindu communalism", has left us this impression: "The audience was visibly and audibly moved. There was a deep silence when he ceased speaking. Many women were in tears and men were coughing and searching for their handkerchiefs…. I have, however, no doubt that had the audience on that day been constituted into a jury and entrusted with the task of deciding Godse’s appeal, they would have brought in a verdict of ‘not guilty’ by an overwhelming majority."

rkumar
February 4th, 2005, 10:09 PM
Dear Friends,

I have been able to get the whole text of the speech by Godse on following link;

http://library.thinkquest.org/26523/mainfiles/nathuram.htm

Assuming that this is the correct version of his speech, I have the following comments to offer;

1. If one read Hitler, he was more than convincing on the killing of jews.
2. If one looks at each and every event of Ramayana and the actions of Rama and Ravan, one can easily argue the actions of Ravan better than those of Rama. One can easily argue that Ravan did nothing wrong in taking away Sita as Lakshman humliated and cut the nose of his sister Supnakha.
3. Lergally speaking Duryodhan did not do anything wrong as his father was the elder brother and legally he was the heir to the throne. Then why everone talks of him being evil?

In history one can extend logics to win the popular opinon. Every killer has a logic in his head to kill some one and that does not mean he is right. All terrorists operating in Kashmir have very convincing logics to kill innocent people..I would call it bankrupcy of thoughts when one submits to the logic of a killer. May I ask where these Godse and his alike were sleeping when British were running the show in India ? How many times Godse and his alike came out in open and fought against British?

To best of my knowledge Gandhi never said anything against Rama, krishna and their methods of wars. Had that been the case, Gandhi would have never popularised the famous bhajan, " Raghupati Raghav Raja Ram..." Ganhdi was a strong advocate of the preachings of Geeta.

Condemming great people like Gandhi has always been a well known tool of demoralising the people of a country. British used it in calling our freedom fighters as mutiners. Muslims condemmed our Gods and our great heros.. BJP and their branches like Hindu Maha Sabha, RSS etc have been using the same method in painting Gandhi black. Gandhi was not the only great leader who was killed. There have been many great leaders in history were killed by some idiots who had one sided extreme views.

Gandhi was the greatest leader ever born in last 1000 years in India and he would remain so till we have some one of his level..Godse was nothing but an exteremist like one of those who are on killing spree every where..

Let us not glorify the extremists/ terrorists like Godse...They are shame on humanity and on nation..

Rajendra

chhoraharyanada
February 4th, 2005, 11:29 PM
(I received this by email some months ago. It is interesting).

GANDHI & GODSE. 5 FACTS YOU NEEDED TO KNOW ...


1. Yeah ... so this Gandhi bloke. Know the name. Heard of the film ...
So, who has he?

Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi was born on 2nd October 1869 in Porbandar, Gujarat. He was married at age thirteen to Kasturbai. At age eighteen, he set sail for England to study Law. After passing his exams, he practiced Law in Pretoria, South Africa.
There, he was involved in a famous incident on a train, where a white man wanted him out of a particular carriage, but Gandhi stood his ground. He was forcibly thrown out. After that incident, he became a champion of Human Rights for Indians - and returned to a hero's welcome in his Native India.

2. The whole Indian Independence thing ... what happened then?

Gandhi became a household name, and a thorn in the side of the British. He was jailed on numerous occasions as the British feared his popularity could spark nationwide anti-British protests/riots.
Gandhi's core doctrines were:
1. "ahimsa" or non-violence
2. the 'brotherhood' of Hindus and Muslims, who according to him were one and them same(?!).
Most famously, in 1930, Gandhi marched 240 miles upto the coastal shores of Gujarat in Dandi to protest against the British for not allowing Indians to make their own salt. Again, he was arrested for this and gained much iconic popularity.

3. Godse ... never heard of him.
So who has he?

NathuRam Godse was born on 19th May 1910 in Poona, Maharashtra. Godse was born into a pious family of Brahmin caste. NathuRam was known for his social work with (so-called) 'untouchable' castes, and during the tragic times of the partition in 1947, he aided many Hindu and Sikh refugees who had been victims of horrific injuries and rapes etc.

4. So what did Godse do then?

Godse will go down in history as the man who assassinated Gandhi at point blank rage on 30th January, 1948.

5. Why did he do it?

Gandhi, despite all the love and attention heaped on him by many, remained a power-hungry, extreme left-ist who was happy to put the needs of Hindus second to the appeasing of the Muslim minorities.

In the late 1930's, Gandhi was defeated by one Subhash Chander Bose in a Congress leadership election. Bose was renowned for his hatred of the British and his willingness to take up arms in the endeavour of Indian Independence. This conflicted with Gandhi's doctrine of non-violence. So, Gandhi went on a hunger strike against Bose's legitimate victory, and caused a rift in the Indian National Congress forcing other senior leaders like Nehru to not back Bose.

In 1940, a Sikh by the name of Udham Singh travelled to England and assassinated Sir Michael O Dwyer. O Dwyer was the man who gave the go-ahead for the firing of innocents in the massacre of Jallianwala Bagh in Amritsar, Punjab back in 1919. This brutal attack took place on Vasakhi - a religious day for the Sikhs, and a state-wide holiday for all Punjabis. Upto a thousand men, women and children were gunned down in cold blood.
Udham Singh waited twenty years to exact revenge for this terrible scar. After having assassinated O Dwyer, what did Gandhi do?
Gandhi wrote a letter of apology to the British!!!

And finally, during the tragic times of Partition, Gandhi went on a hunger strike because of the violence inflicted on Muslims by Hindus and Sikhs in the Punjab. The fact that brutalities had been meted out to Hindus in other states like Bengal at the behest of his Muslim League cronies was of little or no significance.
Gandhi went on a hunger-strike and proposed that FIFTY-FIVE CRORE RUPEES (that's £68million in today's value - imagine how much it would have been 56 years ago) BE GIVEN TO PAKISTAN AS "GOODWILL" MONEY.

This was the final insult, and Godse felt that Gandhi's life had to be ended as this man who was so warped in his extreme left-ist ideals, would be the death of hindu pride or the concept of a hindu nation.

shailendra
February 5th, 2005, 02:18 AM
Dear Friends,

Gandhi was the greatest leader ever born in last 1000 years in India and he would remain so till we have some one of his level..

Rajendra

Oh Phuleeeseeee!!! :cool:
Let's not start this debate again, probably if anything one can go and refresh the memory form those other past related strings...

This debate about Gandhi is becoming so overated!!!

Mr. Khalkhundeji tell you what; if you are one of those that has a portrait of Gandhi on the wall of the bedroom and bow to his 'greatness' every morning; you are obvioulsy a great fan and devotee....and really I admire that and have no argument to give for someone who is apparently so enamored with that public figure. But then if the devotion never has reached that kind of level :rolleyes: - then maybe... you should really consider resting your case on this one; apparently everyone (going by this thread at least) is quite clear where the 'Mahatma' stands on being the greatest leader born in the last 1000 years in India...

rkumar
February 5th, 2005, 03:37 AM
Oh Phuleeeseeee!!! :cool:
Let's not start this debate again, probably if anything one can go and refresh the memory form those other past related strings...

This debate about Gandhi is becoming so overated!!!

Mr. Khalkhundeji tell you what; if you are one of those that has a portrait of Gandhi on the wall of the bedroom and bow to his 'greatness' every morning; you are obvioulsy a great fan and devotee....and really I admire that and have no argument to give for someone who is apparently so enamored with that public figure. But then if the devotion never has reached that kind of level :rolleyes: - then maybe... you should really consider resting your case on this one; apparently everyone (going by this thread at least) is quite clear where the 'Mahatma' stands on being the greatest leader born in the last 1000 years in India...

I know values of leaders change with time like stocks in share market..I won't be surprised if Statues of people like Godse come up in few years like those of Ambedkar in a big way.....Those who left hinduism and converted to islam and other religions call even Rama and Krishna also useless....Don't tell me that Godse stands taller than Mahatma Gandhi.....who knows that day also might come when Godse is called father of nation....

RK^2

raj2rif
February 5th, 2005, 08:00 PM
While I have no doubt that Mr. Gandhi did a great job of uniting the national politicians on one plateform and provided the much needed leadership and a new weapon of Ahinsa, which probably surprised Britishs, as they never faced such a weapon. Mr. Gandhi himself had acted on many occassions with the attitude of either "MY WAY OR NO WAY".

Probably the civil disobedience movement was some thing Britishers were not trained to counter and that is why it succeeded. At the end of the day, it is only success that matters. So, I find no reason to condemn Mr. Gandhi's achievement, for they were extremely valuable and difficult to achieve. At the same time, I find no reason, for not pointing out any mistakes that he committed, and some of them extremely costly as Mr. Shailendra has mentioned. After all Mr. Gandhi was a human being too. There is nothing wrong in calling him father of nation, because he did a lot for the country. If he failed on some account some times, then that is natural. Don't we fail as father some time in our own small family. It is difficult to keep every one in such a large population happy.

Godse's reasoning to kill Gandhi was justified in his mind and that is why he did it. What is mentioned in the above speech is naturally convincing and is backed by facts. So there is no dispute on that issue as well. Surely, Godse can never take the place of Mr. Gandhi, for his act was a negative in nature. If he felt so strong against Gandhi, it would have been better for him to mobalize public and convince them to get away from Gandhi. I am sure he could have prepared such speech for the public with Gandhi still alive. He also had the plateform to air his views, for he himself was the editor of the newspaper.

A lot can be written on this subject and a lot has already been written. I think the need of the hour is to analyze both the ideologies and ascertain as to what would have been better for the country. The lesson should be that we should not repeat those mistakes which Mr. Gandhi or Mr. Godse did.

rkumar
February 5th, 2005, 09:15 PM
Totally agree with you Tavathia Sahab...

Rajendra

adhanda
February 6th, 2005, 06:06 PM
Dear Sir,

I wonder these are the comments of an Army personnel, I personally think we could have got independence much earlier had we adopted the path of Mr. Bose or extremists like Bhagat Singh. To me Ahimsa is no weapon, just a euphemism of cowardliness. This is all because of the attitude gifted to us by Gandhi et al. that we still arent ready to face n solve problems, have 'chalta hai' attitude, no courage no pride and most importantly we dont understand the meaning of 'freedom', because we never actually fought for that ..i would even say our so called 'freedom' from british rule was a gift of Hitler..no credits to Gandhi or ahimsa !!!,

Still, one good thing that Gandhi actually did was to unite the people, but he never could motivate the mass to fight for freedom, It might seem strange, but congress demanded for swaraj only in late 30s...

--
Abhishek









While I have no doubt that Mr. Gandhi did a great job of uniting the national politicians on one plateform and provided the much needed leadership and a new weapon of Ahinsa, which probably surprised Britishs, as they never faced such a weapon.

raj2rif
February 6th, 2005, 09:45 PM
Dear Sir,

I wonder these are the comments of an Army personnel, I personally think we could have got independence much earlier had we adopted the path of Mr. Bose or extremists like Bhagat Singh. To me Ahimsa is no weapon, just a euphemism of cowardliness. This is all because of the attitude gifted to us by Gandhi et al. that we still arent ready to face n solve problems, have 'chalta hai' attitude, no courage no pride and most importantly we dont understand the meaning of 'freedom', because we never actually fought for that ..i would even say our so called 'freedom' from british rule was a gift of Hitler..no credits to Gandhi or ahimsa !!!,

Still, one good thing that Gandhi actually did was to unite the people, but he never could motivate the mass to fight for freedom, It might seem strange, but congress demanded for swaraj only in late 30s...

--
Abhishek

Dear Abhishek,

Being an army personal does not mean the meaning of any thing changes. It is not a cult. Actually a cult always gets you on the wrong side of logic. No one gives you freedom in gift. One has to fight for it and Gandhi Ji and Congress did that, let us not neglect that fact.
Hitler was defeated in 1945 and we got freedom in 1947. Hitler's actions have no bearing whatsoever on India's freedom. That is an argument propogated who don't see any thing right in what Gandhi did. As has been mentioned earlier, Gandhi did make some mistakes and few of them costly one, but that should not take away the credit for what he did for our nation and human race. There is a difference in being decent and coward. In civilized world the war should only be the last mean to achieve peace. How many nations have got freedom by fighting alone? Palestanians are fighting for over half century with best possible support an armed struggle can get, including the UN plateform. How come they have not got it so far. Compare this to what resources India had to fight at that time and against which army.
Discussing fighting may be some thing and doing it on ground is a whole diffrent ball game. Ask the person who has actually fought, what it takes to sustain a long struggle. I am not saying that fighting should never be resorted to, but it should not be the first thing to do.
Majority of people don't want to leave their air conditioned rooms to go and vote for it causes physical discomfort for a few hours, and then they curse the politicians for what ever they do. Here is a man, who was a barrister and could haves lived a lavish life, he gave up that life and lived a simple life, united the country and fought for independence. How many of us can actually do that?
I would say, what Netaji did was also good and what Gandhi did was also good. Every thing contributed to India's freedom, that we enjoy today. If a child is locked for few hours he cries. Here these people were in jails for months and years, and we say that they did not fight for freedom. I don't think that is right.

rkumar
February 6th, 2005, 10:49 PM
Dear Sir,

I wonder these are the comments of an Army personnel, I personally think we could have got independence much earlier had we adopted the path of Mr. Bose or extremists like Bhagat Singh. To me Ahimsa is no weapon, just a euphemism of cowardliness. This is all because of the attitude gifted to us by Gandhi et al. that we still arent ready to face n solve problems, have 'chalta hai' attitude, no courage no pride and most importantly we dont understand the meaning of 'freedom', because we never actually fought for that ..i would even say our so called 'freedom' from british rule was a gift of Hitler..no credits to Gandhi or ahimsa !!!,

Still, one good thing that Gandhi actually did was to unite the people, but he never could motivate the mass to fight for freedom, It might seem strange, but congress demanded for swaraj only in late 30s...

--
Abhishek

Dear Abhishek,

There are lots of violent groups in world who have been fighting for independent homeland for decades..I have not seen any one of them getting success. Lal Denga from Mizoram who fought for many many years once told Punjab millitants about the futility of violence. People of India had all the freedom to choose the path of Bose or Bhagat Singh. As far as I know, no one prevented people to choose path A or path B. It was the collective wisdom of people that they approved the path choosen by Gandhi ji and extended their whole hearted support to him..Finally the taste of pudding is in eating...We got freedom and that proved the point..If and buts don't carry any meaning in history...facts speak louder than ifs and buts..

Rajendra

ganeshjat
February 7th, 2005, 11:24 AM
Some important fact about Gandhi ,Geeta and Godse (GGG)

Mahatma Gandhi first read the Geeta at the age of 20 and it made a deep impression upon him. He quoted it often and used it in his daily prayers. It served as a guiding spirit throughout his life. The Geeta taught him the philosophy of karma, or action. He learnt from it that one must do one’s dharma or the right course regardless of the consequences of one’s actions. He learnt from it to pursue satyagraha or the path of truthfulness - inaction was not an option.
A question frequently asked is how Gandhi reconciled his message of non-violence with Krishna’s message to Arjun to pick up arms and kill those whom he was reluctant to kill?

While Gandhi’s fascination with Geeta is well-known, a lesser known fact is that his assassin, Nathu Ram Godse, too claimed to get his inspiration from the very same scripture. He said in his statement at his murder trial that he was an admirer of Gandhi and indeed revered him as a Mahatma. Gandhi was to him what Dronacharya, Arjun’s guru, was to Arjun. Arjun revered Dronacharya, Bheesham Pitamah and other elders who were in the enemy camp, whom he was required to kill in the battlefield and the thought of killing whom was the reason of his despair and his pangs of conscience. Godse, indeed, bowed before Gandhi in reverence before he shot him to death, just as Arjun showed reverence to Bheesham Pitamah while he pierced him with his arrows.

Godse believed that Gandhi was responsible for the vivisection of his beloved motherland, had betrayed the Hindu nation and was the cause of the loss of life and honour of millions. Therefore, he deserved to die. There was no joy in this task for Godse. In killing Gandhi, he was just fulfilling what he believed to be his dharma. In his mind, he was following the same course of action that Krishna had asked Arjun to follow in the Geeta. Having accepted the role of the assassin, he did not let his personal feelings for Gandhi prevent him from carrying out his “dharma”.

So, who was following the message of Geeta in the true sense? Gandhi, Godse or both? If both, should holy scriptures play a role in morality?







Dear Friends,

To best of my knowledge Gandhi never said anything against Rama, krishna and their methods of wars. Had that been the case, Gandhi would have never popularised the famous bhajan, " Raghupati Raghav Raja Ram..." Ganhdi was a strong advocate of the preachings of Geeta.

Rajendra

rkumar
February 7th, 2005, 01:58 PM
Some important fact about Gandhi ,Geeta and Godse (GGG)

Mahatma Gandhi first read the Geeta at the age of 20 and it made a deep impression upon him. He quoted it often and used it in his daily prayers. It served as a guiding spirit throughout his life. The Geeta taught him the philosophy of karma, or action. He learnt from it that one must do one’s dharma or the right course regardless of the consequences of one’s actions. He learnt from it to pursue satyagraha or the path of truthfulness - inaction was not an option.
A question frequently asked is how Gandhi reconciled his message of non-violence with Krishna’s message to Arjun to pick up arms and kill those whom he was reluctant to kill?

While Gandhi’s fascination with Geeta is well-known, a lesser known fact is that his assassin, Nathu Ram Godse, too claimed to get his inspiration from the very same scripture. He said in his statement at his murder trial that he was an admirer of Gandhi and indeed revered him as a Mahatma. Gandhi was to him what Dronacharya, Arjun’s guru, was to Arjun. Arjun revered Dronacharya, Bheesham Pitamah and other elders who were in the enemy camp, whom he was required to kill in the battlefield and the thought of killing whom was the reason of his despair and his pangs of conscience. Godse, indeed, bowed before Gandhi in reverence before he shot him to death, just as Arjun showed reverence to Bheesham Pitamah while he pierced him with his arrows.

Godse believed that Gandhi was responsible for the vivisection of his beloved motherland, had betrayed the Hindu nation and was the cause of the loss of life and honour of millions. Therefore, he deserved to die. There was no joy in this task for Godse. In killing Gandhi, he was just fulfilling what he believed to be his dharma. In his mind, he was following the same course of action that Krishna had asked Arjun to follow in the Geeta. Having accepted the role of the assassin, he did not let his personal feelings for Gandhi prevent him from carrying out his “dharma”.

So, who was following the message of Geeta in the true sense? Gandhi, Godse or both? If both, should holy scriptures play a role in morality?

I am told, Bin Laden also got a copy of Geeta which he mastered word by word and always keeps with him..He makes it a point to hand over a copy to every recruit for his Holy Jihad. He has made it mandatory for every Al Qaida member to read it five times a day.
By the way, why did it take so long for Godse to follow the teachings of Geeta ? If he was such a strong believer in the teachings of Geeta and killing as an answer, one would expect him to kill many of English officers and people like Jinnah also who were the main cause of all these problems ? Godse should have organised killing squads to eliminate all those who were the enemies of nation...

Rajendra

shailendra
February 7th, 2005, 09:17 PM
I am told, Bin Laden also got a copy of Geeta which he mastered word by word and always keeps with him..He makes it a point to hand over a copy to every recruit for his Holy Jihad. He has made it mandatory for every Al Qaida member to read it five times a day.

Rajendra


YOU ARE KIDDING...RIGHT??? :confused: I hope you know you are talking about a Muslim fanatic and his fanatic followers here. Isa hon lag gyaa tae saare muslamaan usne chod-chod ke bhajan laag jaange!!!

chhoraharyanada
February 7th, 2005, 09:22 PM
People of India had all the freedom to choose the path of Bose or Bhagat Singh. As far as I know, no one prevented people to choose path A or path B. It was the collective wisdom of people that they approved the path choosen by Gandhi ji and extended their whole hearted support to him..

Rajendra

RAM RAM

Actually Rajendra Ji, this is not true. Bose defeated Gandhi fair and square in the All Indian Congress elections in the late 30's. Gandhi refused to accept this, and made it a case of "my way or no way at all". The likes of Nehru, Patel etc sensed a split in the congress and had to back Gandhi. The whole democratic process was undermined.

And forget about the rest - ie, "people of India" ... we are Jats. Ahimsa is not a path for us. It may be OKay for Gujju bhais and Keralites, but not us!

Regards, and RAM RAM.

rkumar
February 7th, 2005, 09:41 PM
RAM RAM

Actually Rajendra Ji, this is not true. Bose defeated Gandhi fair and square in the All Indian Congress elections in the late 30's. Gandhi refused to accept this, and made it a case of "my way or no way at all". The likes of Nehru, Patel etc sensed a split in the congress and had to back Gandhi. The whole democratic process was undermined.

And forget about the rest - ie, "people of India" ... we are Jats. Ahimsa is not a path for us. It may be OKay for Gujju bhais and Keralites, but not us!

Regards, and RAM RAM.

I am not doubting the credentials of Bose or any other great Indian leaders. They were all great and their patriotism is unquestioned. Some times strong convictions harden the attitude of a person and might be Gandhi also had the same about his method of gaining freedom. Force alone is not sufficient to achieve the end results. There are many ingridients to make success. In my view Gandhi Ji used the Indian respurces in most optimum manner to gain us freedom.

Now coming to Jats and Ahimsa. Personally I am not against the use of force in certain situations and in some degree. However, I won't buy the logic of killing some one and justifying it by giving quoting Geeta slokas..By that logic every murderer is right. There was no warrier greater than Ashoka the great in written Indian history. We all know what happened to his philosophy in the great battle of Kalinga..

Might be my knowledge is deficient. I would like the learned members to quote some famous names who got freedom to their countries purely by gun power? I have seen many Yasar Arafats failing badly in their life time missions of having homeland via violant methods..

Once Akbar asked Birbal as to what is the most effective weapon? Birbal answered that the one which is most handy and available when needed..This sums up the whole thing..Gandhi ji used non violence as the most effective weapon to gain freedom for India.

Rajendra

mukeshkumar007
February 8th, 2005, 01:42 PM
I am not doubting the credentials of Bose or any other great Indian leaders. They were all great and their patriotism is unquestioned. Some times strong convictions harden the attitude of a person and might be Gandhi also had the same about his method of gaining freedom. Force alone is not sufficient to achieve the end results. There are many ingridients to make success. In my view Gandhi Ji used the Indian respurces in most optimum manner to gain us freedom.

Now coming to Jats and Ahimsa. Personally I am not against the use of force in certain situations and in some degree. However, I won't buy the logic of killing some one and justifying it by giving quoting Geeta slokas..By that logic every murderer is right. There was no warrier greater than Ashoka the great in written Indian history. We all know what happened to his philosophy in the great battle of Kalinga..

Might be my knowledge is deficient. I would like the learned members to quote some famous names who got freedom to their countries purely by gun power? I have seen many Yasar Arafats failing badly in their life time missions of having homeland via violant methods..

Once Akbar asked Birbal as to what is the most effective weapon? Birbal answered that the one which is most handy and available when needed..This sums up the whole thing..Gandhi ji used non violence as the most effective weapon to gain freedom for India.

Rajendra

100% agree with you rajendrji. Actually first I did not want to participate in this thread, because I feel said when I saw some one to criticize the gandiji on what he did for nation to got rid from British ruler. But 20 replies attracted my attention toward this link to read it.
I am unable to understand that why people compare Gandiji to other patriot leader. Gandiji is only one person in Indian history who went away against the British Empire and could bring the people into one flag. It was only the Gandiji’s efforts by which we could get freedom.
Any one who is criticizing the Gandiji, in reality who don’t know about the diverse conditions of that time.
We Indians always be ready to criticize a person who did or doing something good for nation without thinking about ourselves that what we did or doing or will do.
Na to Hum kisi ko Kuch Karne Dete Hai Na hi Khud Karte Hai. I am sorry about it but it is truth.
Col Virendrji Unclji truthly said that every human being has some weakness and Gandjiji was also not the exception. He was not the God.
So It is unfortunate that Gandiji is losing his place and faith in his own nation even he did a great work for this country.

gaganjat
February 8th, 2005, 02:50 PM
Mohan das was good , Godse was better

amar0974
February 8th, 2005, 03:32 PM
Mohan das was good , Godse was better

Your Answer is Best :)

rkumar
February 8th, 2005, 03:32 PM
Mohan das was good , Godse was better

Sounds interesting Gagan at least if one goes by names;

Mohan das= Mohan (Bhagwan) ka Das
Godse= God jaisa..

God to upne sevak se better hoga hi aur God ko upne sevak ki jaan lena ka bhi poora haq hai..... ...So I conclude that Godse Bhagwan ka avtaar thaa aur hum sabko uskee pooja karnee chahiye.......Godse ke mandir banne chahiyen...aur Gandhi ji ki jagah Godse ke charnon me honee chahiye...I am sure all Godse bhakt will be so happy...

Rajendra

prayas
February 8th, 2005, 03:59 PM
Hi,

I am a daily visitor of our Jatland, I never forget to read and observe all the articles and activities happening on this website every day. And this is my first reply to any of the articles. Since I am following this discussion for last few days, some of the points and views have given me an impetus to get engrossed in it.

Let me first take reference of few of the views presented in this discussion of which I would like to take note of.

Col. Tavathia gave it quite a laissez-faire thought that Yes, Nathuram would have had some point ot justify what he did. So he concluded that both were right to some extent, fine a very generous.

Mr Rajendra then went thru the whole speech and concluded that
"If one read Hitler, he was more than convincing on the killing of jews" and "Gandhi was the greatest leader ever born in last 1000 years in India and he would remain so till we have some one of his level..Godse was nothing but an extremist like one of those who are on killing spree every where.. " I feel there is a negation in these two statements. Can it be a possibility that when we say Gandhi was greatest just because we have read good a lot about him all through our life. Gandhi may also have sounded bad if we would have been taught all about Godse, rite from our child hood.

Abhishake said its strange to read an army person saying gandhi may also have made mistakes and Godse was also right at some point. If you are reading something just for entertainment then Abhishake it should definitely sound strange to you.

I never read about what Godse said, but after reading this I think Gandhi was given so much of popularity and all his good deeds were highlighted much just because congress party intended to make him the "Poster Man" of independence. Gandhi said to people who were violent: Try to be nonviolent. Then their nonviolence comes out of violence, so their nonviolence is just a facade, just a face to show. Deep down, they are boiling with violence.

I am not trying to judge anything, and I am not saying that these thoughts were not right. But I would say if you are really trying to find the truth then the first thing you should do is remove all the previous perceptions what ever you had about the person in context. Before reading Godse's speech, if I say in my sub conscious that "Gandhi was the greatest leader and was always self less and lets see what this scoundrel had to say", then I would say I am reading just for entertainment. And I will always conclude that Gandhi was not at all on fault. In that case I w'd say there is no need to read anything against or in favor of Gandhi, because you already know the summery, you w'd have decide that even before reading it.

Prayas

ganeshjat
February 8th, 2005, 04:45 PM
Godsays last words : Godse's final speech moved all, says secret document

(Satyen Mohapatra , The Hindustan Times , 15th Feb 1999)

http://www.geocities.com/indianfascism/fascism/godsays_last_words.htm

adhanda
February 8th, 2005, 05:03 PM
Hi Prayas,

Please note that my comments were in reply to

Originally Posted by raj2rif
While I have no doubt that Mr. Gandhi did a great job of uniting the national politicians on one plateform and provided the much needed leadership and a new weapon of Ahinsa, which probably surprised Britishs, as they never faced such a weapon.

i.e, Ahimsa as an effective weapon.

PS: its Abhishek not Abhi'shake'




Hi,

I am a daily visitor of our Jatland, I never forget to read and observe all the articles and activities happening on this website every day. And this is my first reply to any of the articles. Since I am following this discussion for last few days, some of the points and views have given me an impetus to get engrossed in it.

Let me first take reference of few of the views presented in this discussion of which I would like to take note of.

Col. Tavathia gave it quite a laissez-faire thought that Yes, Nathuram would have had some point ot justify what he did. So he concluded that both were right to some extent, fine a very generous.

Mr Rajendra then went thru the whole speech and concluded that
"If one read Hitler, he was more than convincing on the killing of jews" and "Gandhi was the greatest leader ever born in last 1000 years in India and he would remain so till we have some one of his level..Godse was nothing but an extremist like one of those who are on killing spree every where.. " I feel there is a negation in these two statements. Can it be a possibility that when we say Gandhi was greatest just because we have read good a lot about him all through our life. Gandhi may also have sounded bad if we would have been taught all about Godse, rite from our child hood.

Abhishake said its strange to read an army person saying gandhi may also have made mistakes and Godse was also right at some point. If you are reading something just for entertainment then Abhishake it should definitely sound strange to you.

I never read about what Godse said, but after reading this I think Gandhi was given so much of popularity and all his good deeds were highlighted much just because congress party intended to make him the "Poster Man" of independence. Gandhi said to people who were violent: Try to be nonviolent. Then their nonviolence comes out of violence, so their nonviolence is just a facade, just a face to show. Deep down, they are boiling with violence.

I am not trying to judge anything, and I am not saying that these thoughts were not right. But I would say if you are really trying to find the truth then the first thing you should do is remove all the previous perceptions what ever you had about the person in context. Before reading Godse's speech, if I say in my sub conscious that "Gandhi was the greatest leader and was always self less and lets see what this scoundrel had to say", then I would say I am reading just for entertainment. And I will always conclude that Gandhi was not at all on fault. In that case I w'd say there is no need to read anything against or in favor of Gandhi, because you already know the summery, you w'd have decide that even before reading it.

Prayas

shailendra
February 8th, 2005, 08:27 PM
I am unable to understand that why people compare Gandiji to other patriot leader. Gandiji is only one person in Indian history who went away against the British Empire and could bring the people into one flag. It was only the Gandiji’s efforts by which we could get freedom.
Any one who is criticizing the Gandiji, in reality who don’t know about the diverse conditions of that time.
We Indians always be ready to criticize a person who did or doing something good for nation without thinking about ourselves that what we did or doing or will do.
Na to Hum kisi ko Kuch Karne Dete Hai Na hi Khud Karte Hai. I am sorry about it but it is truth.
So It is unfortunate that Gandiji is losing his place and faith in his own nation even he did a great work for this country.

Take it easy Mukesh, yhaan pe fair and clear discussion ho raha hai...agar kisi bhi side ki taraf se apna khud ka opinion hai to kaho baki don't make sweeping statements like "We Indians always be ready to criticize a person who did or doing something good for nation without thinking about ourselves that what we did or doing or will do"... if anything speak for yourself when you say 'we Indians always this or that..." :rolleyes:
As for your last sentence about Gandhi losing his place and faith; News Flash!!!-Gandhi already is completely controversial as to how he handled the post freedom India! ;) No one refutes his immense contribution AS ALSO SUPPORTED BY THE OTHER HUGE FREEDOM FIGHTERS OF THAT TIME BE IT IN THEIR OWN WAY. ('I am unable to understand that why people compare Gandiji to other patriot leader')... Aare bhale manas, It was not a sole fight that Gandhi was waging against the British, so do not be-little the efforts of the other greats without whose own contributions and constant pounding and chipping away at the colonial apple cart, I doubt the 'Mahatma' would have got anywhere in his efforts to topple it! :mad:

And listen, time ho to saare post phir se padhna, yhaan sirf baat ho rahee hai us race ke ghode ki jo finish line be paunchte-paunchte lidd kar gaya! When the nation was most looking for leadership and a vision for the future, when it was reeling on it's unsteady legs like a new born baby; united for the first time as a nation and under one flag......Gandhi's magic had all but forsaken him and he was nothing but just a pawn in the political mire that was a British-muslim-Hindu triology!...

If you have any lights to shed on the topic about what you think (quote-unquote"Any one who is criticizing the Gandiji, in reality who don’t know about the diverse conditions of that time!!!") then please tell us as I am sure we all would like to hear your version of what were the diverse conditions of that time!

On an ending note, like I have mentioned before; if somebody is in the Public eye and resposible for making the most critical decisions, then he better not make any costly mistakes...it's not only that person's future reputation at stake but also at stake is the future of maybe millions and generations to come who are going to feel the affect.

devdahiya
February 8th, 2005, 08:58 PM
My dear worthy members,

On the very outset i would like to request you to be topic specific if we want others to benefit with the thought process and ideas of participants.This forum should not be used to settle scores and to prove one's might.Let us be tolerent ant topic specific and indvidual statements should not be taken as GOSPEL TRUTH, as there is always a scope of mistakes in all of us. I wanted to participate in this discussion from day one but purposly desisted the temptation,because i anticipated the net result which is infront of you all.

GANDHI JI AND GODDSE BEHAVED IN THEIR OWN MANNER, AS PER THE PREVAILING CONDITIONS OF THAT TIME AND AS PER THE CHARACTER THEY POSSESED. SO WE CAN DO HARDLY ANYTHING ABOUT IT. IT IS BETTER FOR ALL OF US TO ACCEPT THE STRONG POINTS OF BOTH GENTLEMEN AND LEARN FROM THE MISTAKES THEY MIGHT HAVE COMMITTED. IT IS ABSOLUTLY RIDICULOUS TO COMPARE THESE TO DIVERSE BUT GREAT PERSONALITIES [WITHIN THEIR RIGHTS].


" DONT ASK ME WHAT MY FATHER WAS AS I HAD NO CONTROL ON HIM.?.........PLEASE TALK TO ME AS TO WHAT I STAND FOR."

rkumar
February 8th, 2005, 09:01 PM
On an ending note, like I have mentioned before; if somebody is in the Public eye and resposible for making the most critical decisions, then he better not make any costly mistakes...it's not only that person's future reputation at stake but also at stake is the future of maybe millions and generations to come who are going to feel the affect.

In my view Gandhi Ji's whole focus was on how to get the British out. He got so absorbed in the whole thing that he hardly spent any time trying to figure out how things can go wrong at microscopic level. Though he is called father of nation, but he somehow failed to be good father to take good care of his own children..But I suppose this is the price one has to pay in such cases. Gandhi ji took too simplistic view of human relations and could not foresee the poisonous role Jinnah would play in the years to come. Remember, he was less of a politician and more of a mass leader. Gandhi could not deal with the BAL HUTTH of Jinnah and Nehru type leaders..

Again this is my own thinking and and need not necessarily be the final say on the matter. Probably communal forces were too strong and complicated even for Gandhi to understand...and remain so even for the best brains of today.... There is an old saying that sword can not take the role of a needle.. Might be Gandhi was cut for dealing with mighty British and no so much with communal forces..

Rajendra

chhoraharyanada
February 8th, 2005, 11:39 PM
Mohan das was good , Godse was better

I agree 100%.

Bose & Savarkar over Gandhi/Nehru any day of the week!

Regards, and RAM RAM.

ganeshjat
February 9th, 2005, 10:13 AM
No doubt Mahatma Gandhi is a hero. He sacrificed a lot. it was the leadership of gandhiji that bought all indians (from different parts of the country, from different castes, from different economic) together.He was not hypocratic, but beleived too much in non-violence and tolerance. It is a very common practice in any family that the parents support the weakest child. Gandhi thought he is exactly did that. In a family it can be done, but not in a society. He did it because he sincerely beleived in what he was doing. That was not correct. He did it not to gain publicity or to please masses. He beleived he was doing morally correct thing. Nobody should deny his sacrifice, his sincearity and his love towards mankind. He is a Mahatma who made some error in his judgement which costed dearly for India.

If any way sardar Patel had become the PM we would have some less problem to deal with. We all know from our history that gandhi had done a grave injustice with vallabhbhai, even though he was the most deserving PM then and was the favorite of the entire cabinet but bacause gandhi liked nehru better, he ended up being the PM...and look the entire dynasty is out ot ruin the country.

"What exactly made mr.Gandhi to go for the appeasment of Muslims?"More than half of his life he faught for the independence of India,is a fact.He united people,he made a common cause known to us and that is Independence.So why ultimately he went for the apeasement policy.If he wanted to appease Muslims,he was in a position at that time,to make Zinna PM of undivided India.After all he was above the congress party.Gandhi was a farsighted man and I don't believe that he would have been unawrae of mishappenings and riots that were to break.So why Gandhi did it.A popular saying that he went for the devision because of his love and promise to Nehru and jinnah.But it is hard to beleive,the love at the cost of 300 to 400 thousand lifes.

raj2rif
February 10th, 2005, 11:10 AM
I am told, Bin Laden also got a copy of Geeta which he mastered word by word and always keeps with him..He makes it a point to hand over a copy to every recruit for his Holy Jihad. He has made it mandatory for every Al Qaida member to read it five times a day.
By the way, why did it take so long for Godse to follow the teachings of Geeta ? If he was such a strong believer in the teachings of Geeta and killing as an answer, one would expect him to kill many of English officers and people like Jinnah also who were the main cause of all these problems ? Godse should have organised killing squads to eliminate all those who were the enemies of nation...

Rajendra
Dear Rajendra Ji,

1 Godse had nothing against Gandhi ji till 13th January 1948. When he thought that probably Gandhi Ji was the problem and decided to kill him, he made first attempt on 22 January 1948, i.e. in less than 10 days of making his decision. Madan Lal Pahwa was caught on 22 January failed attempt. During his interrogation he told the Delhi Police, that "they will come again and one of them is an editor of a newspaper published from Pune". This information was passed to Bombay Police, and with the life of a leader of Gandhiji's popularity being in danger, no action was taken by Bombay police or government. Interestingly, Mr. Morarji Desai was the Mayor of Bombay at that time.

Now the question of not killing Jinnah. Actually, Nathuram and his team first wanted to kill Jinnah and his counsil of ministers. They had no expertise of weapons though. They acquired a mortor to kill them in Parliament house (Pakistan Government initially was sitting in same parliament as Indian Government in Delhi). They did not even know that a mortor is a high trajectory weapon and thus can't be used in an enclosed space.

By the time they could make other planse to kill Jinnah, the Pakistan government had moved to Karachi. So they just did not have the reach.

After that they also tried to kill Nizam of Hyderabad for not joining the Indian Union.

(source: The book, The Man who killed Gandhi by Lt Col Manohar Malgaonkar)

I don't think the information about Bin Laden following Gita and making his followers read it five times is correct. I have atleast not heard of it.

gaganjat
February 10th, 2005, 02:56 PM
Sounds interesting Gagan at least if one goes by names;

Mohan das= Mohan (Bhagwan) ka Das
Godse= God jaisa..

God to upne sevak se better hoga hi aur God ko upne sevak ki jaan lena ka bhi poora haq hai..... ...So I conclude that Godse Bhagwan ka avtaar thaa aur hum sabko uskee pooja karnee chahiye.......Godse ke mandir banne chahiyen...aur Gandhi ji ki jagah Godse ke charnon me honee chahiye...I am sure all Godse bhakt will be so happy...

Rajendra

Names are just the names sir!
Doesnt bring the fame sir!
Its all political game sir!
Gandhi has to be blamed sir!
or its a big shame sir!
You got to know the same sir!

ganeshjat
February 10th, 2005, 03:04 PM
"Yadi DeshBaqti paap hain to main manta hoon ki maine paap kiya hain.Yadi prashanshniya hain to main apne aapako us prashansha ka adhikari samajhata hoon.Mujhe viswas hain ki manushayo dwara sthapit nyayalaya ke uper koi nyayalay ho to usame mere kaam ko aparadh nahi samajha jayega.Maine desh aur jati ki bhalai ke liye yah kaam kiya hain.Maine us vyakati per goli chalai hain jisaki neetiyo se hindu per ghor sankat aaye hindu nast huye"

Last word of Nathuraam godse ...........

Ye lines nathuram godase ke bhai Gopal Godase ki book "Gandhi vadh kyun" ki hain jo gopal godase ne nathuraam ke jail se likhe gaye letters aur usaki trial statement ke aadhar per likhi thi.



My own impression of Nathuram Godse is that he was a very principled, patriotic and nationalistic Hindu who was deeply affected by the Partition and held Gandhi responsible for all the suffering the hindus went through.it is a huge misfortune that people do not know about his true motivations and what he did for India.

Godse's belief was sumed up in just few line in his book, "He may be a saint but he is not a politician. His theory of non-violence denies self-defence and self-interest. The non-violence that defines the fight for survival as violence is a theory not of non-violence but of self-destruction."

I cannot digest the fact that the play(Me nathuraam godse boltouya) is banned in India. When are we as a country going to learn and value the freedom of speech? The successive govts. in India have been pathetic in this matter. I think the people have enough brains to watch such plays and develop their own views.
Indian governament always shown only Gandhi and Nehru as freedom fighters,they never bothered to honour many other freedom fighters.Always pointed them as non secular leaders. press should have right to express the views to public,let people decide,who is right who is wrong?

I think it's great that people are out here who really want to know and share the truth behind the partition of India, the assassination of Gandhi and most importantly about Nathuram Godse, his brother and friends' justification for the assassination.

rkumar
February 10th, 2005, 03:10 PM
Names are just the names sir!
Doesnt bring the fame sir!
Its all political game sir!
Gandhi has to be blamed sir!
or its a big shame sir!
You got to know the same sir!

wah..poetry to bahut achee kar lete ho gagan bhai....

You really have brain sir.
Write poetry again sir
Publish them in Britain Sir
High level you will attain Sir...

RK^2

ramksehrawat
February 10th, 2005, 03:53 PM
We Indians have this abominable habit of people worshipping. Everyone becomes Mahatma, if he can pause that he is doing something for them. India has become a land of Bhagwans and Mahatmas. What is their message to Indians? If someone slaps your right cheek turn your left cheek too. I think we followed the same principle when the Bangla Rifes butchered our BSF man. We are doing the same thing in Kashmir. This a good alibi to hide the cowardice. By following these so called mahatmas we have reduced the country to mockery and become impotents. We always says bahaduri se ladte huye jaan de di, have we ever heard "bahaduri se lade aur jaan le li". If we had fought bravely and sincerely, without following the edicts of our Mahatmas, we would not have been enslaved for so long. It is more painful when some jats also follow the path of these so called mahatmas and bhagwans. The question is how they become mahatmas. Our elders used to say : "4 latth ka chaudhary, 5 ala panch, jiske ho 6-7 latth, ke anch kare ke panch". As a sequence to it, I am of the view that "jiske pichhe bewkoof athma, wohe mahatma".

rkumar
February 10th, 2005, 04:53 PM
We Indians have this abominable habit of people worshipping. Everyone becomes Mahatma, if he can pause that he is doing something for them. India has become a land of Bhagwans and Mahatmas. What is their message to Indians? If someone slaps your right cheek turn your left cheek too. I think we followed the same principle when the Bangla Rifes butchered our BSF man. We are doing the same thing in Kashmir. This a good alibi to hide the cowardice. By following these so called mahatmas we have reduced the country to mockery and become impotents. We always says bahaduri se ladte huye jaan de di, have we ever heard "bahaduri se lade aur jaan le li". If we had fought bravely and sincerely, without following the edicts of our Mahatmas, we would not have been enslaved for so long. It is more painful when some jats also follow the path of these so called mahatmas and bhagwans. The question is how they become mahatmas. Our elders used to say : "4 latth ka chaudhary, 5 ala panch, jiske ho 6-7 latth, ke anch kare ke panch". As a sequence to it, I am of the view that "jiske pichhe bewkoof athma, wohe mahatma".

Sehrawat Ji,

Its a misconception that wars are fought only with laths and guns. It needs lots of analysis as to what method would be the most appropriate under given conditions. In my view there are major drawbacks in any armed stuggle because;

1. Rarely it becomes public movement as very few people take part in it.
2. The leader of Armed struggle often becomes dictator like Prabhakaran...
3. The very nature of armed struggle needs secracy of operation for its success. This installs the mentality of not trusting anyone in the minds of its leaders..One ends up in leaders like Stalin..
4. Even if one gains freedom through armed struggle, one has to deal; with dictators and chances of democracy in such countries are remote.

Choice of weapon is a very important issue. Lord Krishna did not use weapons in Mahbharat and that does not mean his contribution in making Pandwas win, was any less than Arjun.

Walking into eneny's house unarmed, needs more courage...Maintaining one's views under pressure and threat needs more courage..

Rajendra

ramksehrawat
February 10th, 2005, 07:00 PM
Dear Rajendra ji,

While agreeing with you that wars are not always fought with weapons, wish to point out that war is introductory to a new historical chapter. War does not merely mean "is ka latth uske sir and vice versa". It is a very wide term which cannot be explained in a few words or even pages. Rather it means aggression, even in talks. Agression must be shown when called for. Even for day-to-day survival one has to be aggressive. A non-agressor or ahimsak will remain jobless in present times ! Krishna, though may not have resorted to weaponary himself but he did not preach ahimsa either, rather in Geeta he encouraged himsa where necessary, even if it is against one's own kins. Generals themselves do not fight in the battlefield. Rather they win the wars with their brains ? Krishna too was a general leading truth against untruth and deceipt. There is a misconception that Indian independence was a result of ahimsa !! No it was not because of ahimsa. Here again the introductory part is WW II. Had it been the result of ahimsa, we would have got it much earlier. Ahimsa and peace has already cost us too much, including 1/3rd of Kashmir and its aftermath ? Let us not resort it as a substitute of himsa wherever called for.

devdahiya
February 10th, 2005, 09:52 PM
wah..poetry to bahut achee kar lete ho gagan bhai....

You really have brain sir.
Write poetry again sir
Publish them in Britain Sir
High level you will attain Sir...

RK^2

LET ME ALSO TRY RAJENDRA JI:

Gandhi -Goddse ki kyun bannai train sir
Both took different kinds of pains sir
One was a tiger another one was saint sir
aggar aur discussion kiya to jatland ke sarre members aur administrator ho jyange faint sir.

MEHARBANI..............RAM-RAM

rkumar
February 10th, 2005, 10:12 PM
LET ME ALSO TRY RAJENDRA JI:

Gandhi -Goddse ki kyun bannai train sir
Both took different kinds of pains sir
One was a tiger another one was saint sir
aggar aur discussion kiya to jatland ke sarre members aur administrator ho jyange faint sir.

MEHARBANI..............RAM-RAM

wah bhai..kiya baat hai...jis baat ka nichod kavita se ho, wo baat hi alag hotee hai.....

You are the great Sir
baki sab 16 dunee 8 Sir

RK^2

devdahiya
February 10th, 2005, 10:15 PM
wah bhai..kiya baat hai...jis baat ka nichod kavita se ho, wo baat hi alag hotee hai.....

You are the great Sir
baki sab 16 dunee 8 Sir

RK^2

RAJENDRA JI,

KIMMEN JAMMI NAHIN............EDIT KARO.

shailendra
February 10th, 2005, 10:18 PM
Sehrawat Ji,

Its a misconception that wars are fought only with laths and guns. It needs lots of analysis as to what method would be the most appropriate under given conditions. In my view there are major drawbacks in any armed stuggle because;

1. Rarely it becomes public movement as very few people take part in it.
2. The leader of Armed struggle often becomes dictator like Prabhakaran...
3. The very nature of armed struggle needs secracy of operation for its success. This installs the mentality of not trusting anyone in the minds of its leaders..One ends up in leaders like Stalin..
4. Even if one gains freedom through armed struggle, one has to deal; with dictators and chances of democracy in such countries are remote.

Choice of weapon is a very important issue. Lord Krishna did not use weapons in Mahbharat and that does not mean his contribution in making Pandwas win, was any less than Arjun.

Walking into eneny's house unarmed, needs more courage...Maintaining one's views under pressure and threat needs more courage..

Rajendra

Real wars ARE fought with lath and guns people, let's not be confused on that!...Romantic words and ideology are for poets!

The US of A (no matter what all of the other European stronghold countries think about it!) are still out there kicking ass in Iraq and Afghanistan, yes...the terrorists are doing something here and there,...but believe me it is a total annihilation out there. That's what you do when someone even remotely threatens the citizens' of your country, you do not sit back and wait for round table conferences and politics to meet out justice. That form of ideology is nothing but cowardice. Do you think that the opposition in the US bangs tables telling the govt to back off? No, you need to see how the politics is just the opposite and they actually approve and pump more monies to get more troops out there and wipe out every single one of the aggressors!!!
Look at Israel, look at any country that is fighting for a cause against all odds (do you think being a Nation of people despised by almost every country in the world and being a race almost totally wiped out by the Nazi's is easy?) But have they backed out from striking against strikes? Has the development of that nation slowed down? Is the uncertainty of people being blown any day there any worse than any of the possibilities in our own crowded marketplaces being blown up any day??? :confused:

But then THAT'S WHAT any self respecting Nation DOES, dealing aggressively about what it thinks is an attack on it's sovereignty! Now what has been the fallout of the attack on Parliament in India??? There is just more infighting within those damn politicians, nothing else (It might have actually saved the nation a lot of worries if some of those bad apples had weeded out! :rolleyes: ),...What is the fallout of amassing all battalions available on the Pakistan Border for more than year? Just more frustrated and low on morale soldiers!!! :mad:

I know the discussion is not this....but let's not get carried away with the 'one slap deserves another cheek' ideology! That was for fools and a Nation still reels under that terrible mistake. So let's bygones be bygones and let's just say if nothing else that the justice meted out by a frustrated national was too late and too little!...

rkumar
February 10th, 2005, 10:30 PM
Real wars ARE fought with lath and guns people, let's not be confused on that!...Romantic words and ideology are for poets!

The US of A (no matter what all of the other European stronghold countries think about it!) are still out there kicking ass in Iraq and Afghanistan, yes...the terrorists are doing something here and there,...but believe me it is a total annihilation out there. That's what you do when someone even remotely threatens the citizens' of your country, you do not sit back and wait for round table conferences and politics to meet out justice. That form of ideology is nothing but cowardice. Do you think that the opposition in the US bangs tables telling the govt to back off? No, you need to see how the politics is just the opposite and they actually approve and pump more monies to get more troops out there and wipe out every single one of the aggressors!!!
Look at Israel, look at any country that is fighting for a cause against all odds (do you think being a Nation of people despised by almost every country in the world and being a race almost totally wiped out by the Nazi's is easy?) But have they backed out from striking against strikes? Has the development of that nation slowed down? Is the uncertainty of people being blown any day there any worse than any of the possibilities in our own crowded marketplaces being blown up any day??? :confused:

But then THAT'S WHAT any self respecting Nation DOES, dealing aggressively about what it thinks is an attack on it's sovereignty! Now what has been the fallout of the attack on Parliament in India??? There is just more infighting within those damn politicians, nothing else (It might have actually saved the nation a lot of worries if some of those bad apples had weeded out! :rolleyes: ),...What is the fallout of amassing all battalions available on the Pakistan Border for more than year? Just more frustrated and low on morale soldiers!!! :mad:

I know the discussion is not this....but let's not get carried away with the 'one slap deserves another cheek' ideology! That was for fools and a Nation still reels under that terrible mistake. So let's bygones be bygones and let's just say if nothing else that the justice meted out by a frustrated national was too late and too little!...

I agree with you Shailendra , what the India of today should do. No second opinion on that. However, we hardly had a India when Gandhi ji descended on the scene. How could one think of nation acting with force when we hardly had a nation? Country was divided in small kingdoms and there were as many views as people. Think of India of that time and not of today..

Rajendra

rkumar
February 10th, 2005, 10:32 PM
RAJENDRA JI,

KIMMEN JAMMI NAHIN............EDIT KARO.

umm..arrey bahi tum tehre Kavi...mere liye utna hi accept kar lo...jama lo esko hi kisi tarah se...LOL

RK^2

raj2rif
February 17th, 2005, 01:20 AM
But then THAT'S WHAT any self respecting Nation DOES, dealing aggressively about what it thinks is an attack on it's sovereignty! Now what has been the fallout of the attack on Parliament in India??? There is just more infighting within those damn politicians, nothing else (It might have actually saved the nation a lot of worries if some of those bad apples had weeded out! ),...What is the fallout of amassing all battalions available on the Pakistan Border for more than year? Just more frustrated and low on morale soldiers!!!

I know the discussion is not this....but let's not get carried away with the 'one slap deserves another cheek' ideology! That was for fools and a Nation still reels under that terrible mistake. So let's bygones be bygones and let's just say if nothing else that the justice meted out by a frustrated national was too late and too little!...

Dear Shailendra Ji,

While points you have raised are very pertinent it would not be best thing to equate our nation with Israel purely because of the huge disparity of size and population.

Not taking a strong retaliatory action after attack on parliament probably was a mistake, but when you are huge nation, a lots of international pressures act against any hasty actions. The war would not have weeded out any of those bad apples, but we would have definitely lost some very valuable lives.

Surely, a strong action was necessary at that time. The inaction and a prolonged deployment did result in a lots of frustration among the troops as well as majority of civil population.

I am personally against war, for it only causes destruction. War must be used only as a last resort. Probably, the Vajpayee govt, thought that the time is not ripe for war and they chose the actions that they did. If we can solve any problem by diplomacy, probably that is the best.

shailendra
February 17th, 2005, 03:09 AM
Dear Shailendra Ji,

While points you have raised are very pertinent it would not be best thing to equate our nation with Israel purely because of the huge disparity of size and population.

Not taking a strong retaliatory action after attack on parliament probably was a mistake, but when you are huge nation, a lots of international pressures act against any hasty actions. The war would not have weeded out any of those bad apples, but we would have definitely lost some very valuable lives.

Surely, a strong action was necessary at that time. The inaction and a prolonged deployment did result in a lots of frustration among the troops as well as majority of civil population.

I am personally against war, for it only causes destruction. War must be used only as a last resort. Probably, the Vajpayee govt, thought that the time is not ripe for war and they chose the actions that they did. If we can solve any problem by diplomacy, probably that is the best.

Oh but then I think the issue about size and population has (and should not have to) do anything when it comes to self respect and ideology of a Nation!!! Hume apni izzat size or population ke hissab se nahi milegi kisi doosre Nation se...
Just like I shall always equate myself against any individual from any nation when it comes to a job, sport (or even a fist fight)...similarly we shall always equate our great nation against the best of them out there, be it Israel or any other. It is time to drop the shackles that we seem to mentally put on ourselves when thinking about size, poverty and the so called 'peace loving' status we have imposed on ourselves when it comes to taking a strict stand on Foreign issues!!!

Believe me, I am not preaching here about any unnecessary war either or trying to condone any small reasons to going into one...but if by not going to war means doing it at the cost of losing even a tip of our nation's self respect and being the laughing stock of the 21st Century, then no thanks...I don't want that sacrifice from us either!

Col Saab, I only ask taking the good points from these other Nations. Israel, USA are not necessarily the best examples in everything....but we can at least appreciate that they do not back off from taking a strong stand....just like even you agree that recognizing to grab the opportunity immediately when the National security is threatened just proves my point that we may be progressing in a lot of spheres but so should we become more aware of our self image amongst other nations and stride up and take our now almost imminent place in this rising sun of a changed world!

rkumar
February 20th, 2005, 02:42 PM
I was glancing through the columns of Hindustan Times and came across a beautiful article ;

http://www.hindustantimes.com/news/5983_1024915,004300140011.htm

Not namy muslims liked the creation of Pakistan as against the general perception among most of us. Even today, most of them curse the creation of Pakistan..Had there been plebisite amond muslims on the issue, Jinnah would have got not more than 1% of muslim votes...Unfortunately, its the few idiots who hijack the society and rest who decide to be silent spectators, suffer for generations...

So moral of the story is learn how to raise voice againts any injustice...Don't sing the tune of some hard liners..

RK^2

raj2rif
February 20th, 2005, 09:52 PM
Dear Rajendra Ji,

During the partition time, the vote was taken with each state muslim state making a choice, while then East Bangal chose to be part of Pakistan, the NWFP the state having maximum % of Muslim population chose to be part of India. In the meeting with Jinnah and Governor, Mr. Frontier Gandhi was told that how can he be part of India with a Pakistan in between? He replieds that when there can be Pakistan with 1400 miles of India in between, why can't there be India with only 300 miles of Pakistan in between.


The book, Facts are Facts, Untold Story of India's Partition by Khan Wali Khan is a revealing book. You should be able to get the copy of this book in UK.

dahiyarules
September 19th, 2005, 10:04 AM
Gandhi's speach at his execution (asassination): Hey Ram !

Words say it all. Godse had to use thousands of words to justify his actions. Gandhi had just two.

I dont support most of the things about Gandhi. But I think that he got executed, without trial, witnesses, courts, lawyers, Judges and Justice. He got an unfair trial. While Godse went on to yank about his this and that. What a pathetic looser. I hope they hung him twice, in case it dindt break his breath the first time.

Gandhi was a great individual. Not one ofus can match our step with him. He may have been a bad policymakes, but his contribution to mankind is unmatched. He is the only indian person from last century, who people recognize in every corner of the world. And love him too.

I wish Gandhi never became Gandhi ji, and remained MK Gandhi. I wonder what I would say to him if I had a chance to talk to hime.

l0rdaryan
October 18th, 2005, 10:07 AM
Dont bother sumit, if you have read the interview of Gopal Godse(brother of Nathu Ram Godse), he mentioned that Nathu Ram Godse used an automatic pistol which on pressing trigger shoots all the bullets, and on that day, Mr. Godse shot 7 bullets in a vein , Gandhi oranyone cant even have concious to say even an alphabet

Its only the congress who used gandhi after his death too, they used media , indeed they were true politicians

No one can say 2 words after being shot 7 bullets within a second or two, Gandhi never said "Hey Ram"


Regards

sjakhars
August 22nd, 2009, 12:46 AM
A good and sincere discussion.
New members might be interested.

nijjhar
August 29th, 2009, 03:58 AM
NATHU RAM GODSE'S SPEECH AT THE TRIAL



Nathuram Godse's speech at trial .. DO read it fully
Full text of Godse's speech at his trial.....

" On January 13, 1948, I learnt that Gandhiji had decided to go on fast unto
death. The reason given was that he wanted an assurance of Hindu-Muslim
Unity... But I and many others could easily see that the real motive...
[was] to compel the Dominion Government to pay the sum of Rs 55 crores to
Pakistan, the payment of which was emphatically refused by the
Government.... But this decision of the people's Government was reversed to
suit the tune of Gandhiji's fast. It was evident to my mind that the force
of public opinion was nothing but a trifle when compared with the leanings
of Gandhiji favourable to Pakistan.

....In 1946 or thereabout, Muslim atrocities perpetrated on Hindus under the
Government patronage of Surhawardy in Noakhali made our blood boil. Our
shame and indignation knew no bounds when we saw that Gandhiji had come
forward to shield that very Surhawardy and began to style him as 'Shaheed
Saheb' - a martyr - even in his prayer meetings...

....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 slogans of truth and non-violence which
he ostentatiously paraded before the country... I could never conceive that
an armed resistance to the aggressor is unjust... Ram killed Ravan in a
tumultuous fight... Krishna killed Kansa to end his wickedness... In
condemning Shivaji, Rana Pratap and Guru Govind as 'misguided patriots,'
Gandhiji has merely exposed his self-conceit... Gandhiji was, paradoxically,
a violent pacifist who brought untold calamities on the country in the name
of truth and nonviolence, while Rana Pratap, Shivaji and the Guru will
remain enshrined in the hearts of their countrymen forever...

....By 1919, Gandhiji had become desperate in his endeavours to get the
Muslims to trust him and went from one absurd promise to another... He
backed the Khilafat movement in this country and was able to enlist the full
support of the National Congress in that policy... very soon the Moplah
Rebellion showed that the Muslims had not the slightest idea of national
unity... There followed a huge slaughter of Hindus... The British
Government, entirely unmoved by the rebellion, suppressed it in a few months
and left to Gandhiji the joy of his Hindu-Muslim Unity... British
Imperialism emerged stronger, the Muslims became more fanatical, and the
consequences were visited on the Hindus...

The accumulating provocation of 32 years, culminating in his last pro-Muslim
fast, at last goaded me to the conclusion that the existence of Gandhiji
should be brought to an end immediately... he developed a subjective
mentality under which he alone was the final judge of what was right or
wrong... Either Congress had to surrender its will to him and play second
fiddle to all his eccentricity, whimsicality... or it had to carry on
without him... He was the master brain guiding the civil disobedience
movement... The movement may succeed or fail; it may bring untold disasters
and political reverses, but that could make no difference to the Mahatma's
infallibility... These childish inanities and obstinacies, coupled with a
most severe austerity of life, ceaseless work and lofty character, made
Gandhiji formidable and irresistible... In a position of such absolute
irresponsibility, Gandhiji was guilty of blunder after blunder...

....The Mahatma even supported the separation of Sindh from the Bombay
Presidency and threw the Hindus of Sindh to the communal wolves. 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... Hindu blood began to flow from Bengal to Karachi
with mild reactions in the Deccan... 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...

....The Congress, which had boasted of its nationalism and socialism,
secretly accepted Pakistan and abjectly surrendered to Jinnah. India was
vivisected and one-third of the Indian territory became foreign land to
us... This is what Gandhiji had achieved after 30 years of undisputed
dictatorship, and this is what Congress party calls 'freedom'...

....One of the conditions imposed by Gandhiji for his breaking of the fast
unto death related to the mosques in Delhi occupied by 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...

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... The people of
this country were eager and vehement in their opposition to Pakistan. But
Gandhiji played false with the people...

....I shall be totally ruined, and the only thing I could expect from the
people would be nothing but hatred... if I were to kill Gandhiji. But at the
same time, I felt that Indian politics in the absence of Gandhiji would
surely be proved practical, able to retaliate, and 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...

....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 do not desire any mercy to be shown to me... I did fire shots at
Gandhiji in open daylight. I did not make any attempt to run away; in fact I
never entertained any idea of running away. I did not try to shoot myself...
for, it was my ardent desire to give vent to my thoughts in an open Court.
My confidence about the moral side of my action has not been shaken even by
the criticism levelled of against it on all sides. I have no doubt, honest
writers of history will weigh my act and find the true value thereof some
day in future. "

I was 15 years old when Partition of India took place. My late father Chaudhry Udham Nijjhar was Assistant Inspector of Schools and he was demoted to a teacher for not taking or passing on bribes. It was a blessing in disguise that he had to live in Montgomery and not touring in the villages with no safety net. He was a staunch supporter of Chaudhry Chhotu Ram Ohlayan and when we moved to Rohtak in 1951 or so, my father met many Jatts and tried to make them understand that we are one. I remember attending the anniversary of Chaudhry Chhotu Ram Ohlayan too.

Whilst in Pakistan, my father told our Mohammedan Jatts the mischief by the three Lalas, Lala Gandhi, Lala Tara Singh Malhotra Khatri and Lala Mohd. Ali Jinnah, a Babla Bhatia and told them to look after each other. They did. My father did write to Lala Gandhi to hold general elections for taking over the reigns of the country but he refused to do so that Jatts would invite the British back. The British hypocites wanted to see bloodshed toprove that freedom and partition was not a wise move by their leaders, the three Lalas.

However, the bloodshed was there and these three Hypocrite Lalas are responsible for the killing and no wonder Godse killed him.

rakeshsehrawat
August 29th, 2009, 09:00 AM
I was 15 years old when Partition of India took place. My late father Chaudhry Udham Nijjhar was Assistant Inspector of Schools and he was demoted to a teacher for not taking or passing on bribes. It was a blessing in disguise that he had to live in Montgomery and not touring in the villages with no safety net. He was a staunch supporter of Chaudhry Chhotu Ram Ohlayan and when we moved to Rohtak in 1951 or so, my father met many Jatts and tried to make them understand that we are one. I remember attending the anniversary of Chaudhry Chhotu Ram Ohlayan too.

Whilst in Pakistan, my father told our Mohammedan Jatts the mischief by the three Lalas, Lala Gandhi, Lala Tara Singh Malhotra Khatri and Lala Mohd. Ali Jinnah, a Babla Bhatia and told them to look after each other. They did. My father did write to Lala Gandhi to hold general elections for taking over the reigns of the country but he refused to do so that Jatts would invite the British back. The British hypocites wanted to see bloodshed toprove that freedom and partition was not a wise move by their leaders, the three Lalas.

However, the bloodshed was there and these three Hypocrite Lalas are responsible for the killing and no wonder Godse killed him.

Thanks sir for giving us the words of wisdom and showing us the truth of our partition. It was told to us by leaders who seek their benifit only but you yourself have seen and felt the pain of the moment. My regards to you.

drssrana2003
August 30th, 2009, 10:53 PM
Assuming Godse's perception of Gandhi's role was right, he had no right to take his life. This was sheer madness,inhuman act. On merits Gandhi stands tall among the greats of the world of our times and has a place of honour among the greats of all times. The more we go ahead in time ,the more we would miss him. We can understand gandhi fully only when we ourselves become one.

ganeshjat
August 31st, 2009, 12:30 PM
Gandhi ji ek mahtma the , Aur ek aam aadami ke liye ye possible nahi ki wo unake view ko puri tarah samajh sake.Unaki souch aam insaan ki souch se bahoot pare thi.
Nathurams ka sochana ye tha ki agar Muslims ko alag desh mil gaya hain phir unaka india me rahana allow nahi hona chahiye.Gandhi should not allowed them to be stay here in india. Agar us samay ki 'think tank' ne ye decide kar liya tha , and both the parties India & pakistan were aggred on that. Tab Mushalamano ko india me nahi rahane dena chahiye tha . agar us samay Nathuram aur aisha hi sochane wale dusare logo ki baat man li jati to , pichale 60 salo se Hindustan jo bugat raha hain wo nahi hota... hamari aadhi problems shirf us ek galat decision ke karan hain. Aaj wo hi decision Terrorism ke rup me hamare samane hain.
Mujhe nahi lagta ki Gandhi ji ne aisha kisi rajnitik karan se kiya hoga, Wo tab bhi Hindhu Musalmano ko Bhai bhai ki tarah rahate aur ek dusare ko pyar karate dekhna chahte honge , Ghar ka koi bhi Bujurg Parivar ka batwara nahi chahta , wo ye hi chahta hain ki sab mil jul ke rahe aur progress kare.Lekin Practically ye possible nahi hain.
Nathu ram ne Gandhi ji ko mara isake liye usaki desh bhakti per saq karna sahi nahi hain , usako laga ki Gandhi ji hi wo insaan hain jinake karan mushlman alag desh milane ke baad bhi is desh me rah sakate hain ,agar unako(gandhi ji) hata diya jaye to mushalmano ko bhi yaha se bagaya ja sakta hain.is souch me usaka koi niji swarth nahi tha. Aur aaj ke halat dekh kar lagta hain ki wo desh/samaj/dharm ki bhalai hi chahta tha, aur isake liye use jo sahi laga wo usane kiya.Ho sakta hain wo koi rasta bhi apana sakta tha, lekin usane sare option pe vichar karane ke baad hi aisha decision liya hoga.Per afsos wo jo chahta tha waisa nahi hua aur mushalman aaj bhi problem ke rup me hamare samane hain aur kuch salo ke baad ek aur alag desh mangane lagenge.

prashantacmet
August 31st, 2009, 02:39 PM
It's has been a real pain to see that how Gandhi was glorified and all other real freedom fighters were undermined during the course of freedom struggle and even in the independent india. Gandhi was merely a cunning politician who always overshadowed the efforts of other fighters. At times, when his popularity was dwindled down by real heroes like shaeed-e-azam bhagat singh and netaji, he took all means to evacuate his way. He was teh one who could have saved Bhagat singh. He was the one conspired against neta ji and compelled him to leave the party. On account of his love for his *** friend nehru, the country was divided and lacs of innocent were slaughtered. Even after that, he went on fasting to force gov. to reward crores of rupees to pakis and put the national interest on stake. I wonder how the ppl can befooled that India got independence due to gandhi. Most of the countries which were enslaved by Britain were freed in that decade. So better remeber teh unsung heroes of freedom struggle not the one who would get the special treatment even in the jail.

rajpawariya
September 6th, 2009, 12:34 PM
It's has been a real pain to see that how Gandhi was glorified and all other real freedom fighters were undermined during the course of freedom struggle and even in the independent india. Gandhi was merely a cunning politician who always overshadowed the efforts of other fighters. At times, when his popularity was dwindled down by real heroes like shaeed-e-azam bhagat singh and netaji, he took all means to evacuate his way. He was teh one who could have saved Bhagat singh. He was the one conspired against neta ji and compelled him to leave the party. On account of his love for his *** friend nehru, the country was divided and lacs of innocent were slaughtered. Even after that, he went on fasting to force gov. to reward crores of rupees to pakis and put the national interest on stake. I wonder how the ppl can befooled that India got independence due to gandhi. Most of the countries which were enslaved by Britain were freed in that decade. So better remeber teh unsung heroes of freedom struggle not the one who would get the special treatment even in the jail.
100 % correct. We had forgotten real freedom fighters and worshiping power mongers, whose generations had been enjoying real fruits of independence.