Nathuram Godse - misinterpreted???

Discussion in 'The ChitChat Lounge' started by angel_of_sin, Mar 23, 2009.

  1. angel_of_sin

    angel_of_sin bassist.....

    I was just searching through my e books found a good article...

    * this is not intended to hurt any Gandhian sentiments........

    nathuram godse- misinterpreted?
    once you see this ... you see the man that nathuram godse actually was... its a revelation... since its too long i consider that you copy it read it then comment
    Most of us,right from age 3, are thought to think of Gandhi as some sort of a Moses who lead us to a free country.... and fie upon that unworthy fundamentalist who killed him.. the irony is Gandhi was much more of a fascist than any else one can find in history..
    what many of us have not been told is the other side of the story- why so many erudite men at that time resented many of his ideas and actions...
    there was a play called "me nathuram godse boltey" which tried to explain his side of the matter but it was soon banned in most states of india..

    Following is nathuram godse's defense statement at his trial ...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    angel_of_sin bassist.....

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    horsesmouth Active Member

    I think nathuram was a real sucker, cuz he dint seem to take active part in the freedom struggle, as Gandhiji did. But when it came to his own religious emotions, he chose to pick the gun and shoot at a fellow countryman who contributed heavily to our independence. Still I believe it had become necessary for Gandhiji to die, considering his opinions on the muslim issue. It certainly hurt Hindu sentiments, which led to his assassination. Nathuram was really a braveheart for doing this.

    P.S. no comments on this remark, just meant others to read what I think of this.
    Its all individual choice really...I believe Mahatma was a great man, thats enough for me.
  4. distorted

    distorted satan

    i agree with godse.... we r suffering coz gandhiji appeased muslims... he did a lot fr the country, but ultimately his idea of him being the suprimo was going to harm the country... it ws all destined, he had his peak, he had his fall... luckily his fall too gained him sympathy n he became a hero who sacrificed his life fr the country...
  5. distorted

    distorted satan

    n godse, i respect him... he truly sacrificed his life fr the country evn aftr knowing that he will nvr get credit, all the more he will b spittted upon... dats real selflessness..
  6. angel_of_sin

    angel_of_sin bassist.....

    ^^cant help but agree with you mate..........
  7. horsesmouth

    horsesmouth Active Member

    21-gun-salute for the legend Nathuram Godse

    _________|) ..

    *starts masturbating and cums*
  8. angel_of_sin

    angel_of_sin bassist.....

    ^^ for a minute there i thought it was your signature........
  9. horsesmouth

    horsesmouth Active Member

    if I'd masturbate so many times as to put it into my signature......
    my house needs fresh paint,..
  10. angel_of_sin

    angel_of_sin bassist.....

    you in a recession too?????
  11. horsesmouth

    horsesmouth Active Member

    ^Not so much, but I need colored shades....can
  12. angel_of_sin

    angel_of_sin bassist.....

    ask nathuram godse........
  13. alpha1

    alpha1 I BLUES!

    Anyone who's life's philosophies are dictated by religion is a deemed idiot.
  14. distorted

    distorted satan

    ^But u cant live happily if u behave intelligent amongst idiots...
    alryt, u try yr best to ignore the religion, but dont u feel agitated wen u read the news, 56 died in a bomb planted by terrorists, or sumthing like attack on pilgrims by the terrorists... N the terrorists come out to be none other den yr countrymen, muslims.
    not their fault really, but all this wud nt hv happened if gandhiji wud hv acted practically rather den imposing his fandae on the whole country... The best option ws, put all the muslims in pakistan n india b a land of hindus. Hw cud u ignore these things n say religion doesnt count??
  15. alpha1

    alpha1 I BLUES!

    Did I say religion doesn't count?
    Religion is a blind faith, and like any other faith, it makes ppl mere puppets.

    I said anyone who is like that is deemed idiot. You try not to be one.

    Non-violence doesn't really work, I agree, though.
    Again it cannot work because ppl are suckers, and they get sucked in religious fanaticism, and behave like morons.
  16. detritus

    detritus New Member

    When I see the news about terrorists, I don't feel agitated that Hindus have died or that Muslims have killed them. I feel agitated that people in charge let some stupid braiwashed ****s attack my home.
  17. horsesmouth

    horsesmouth Active Member

    d'you think that can suffice?
  18. thedisciple

    thedisciple New Member

    u already did half of the job by white*cum*washing the walls!;p
  19. alpha1

    alpha1 I BLUES!

    You meant: d'you think that can can suffice for survival
  20. angel_of_sin

    angel_of_sin bassist.....

    well gandhian policies were kind of a put down on indian economic and political growth..........

Share This Page