· Why Mahatma
GANDHI was assassinated?
· Had he committed
some mistakes, during fight for freedom?
· Why was it
important to kill a man of 80 years?
· Why was the date
January 30, 1948 important for assassination?
COUPLE OF MY OBSERVATION:
· He was not
involved in transfer of power.
· In any case he
was not going to live long.
SOME
FACTS TO BE KEPT IN MIND:
· How many
MUSLIMS were killed while migrating from India to Pakistan?
· How many HINDU
were killed while migrating from Pakistan to India?
For facts refer FREEDOM AT
MIDNIGHT
Published May 4th 2001
Reader
will get some other incredible details; away from the subject.
ABOUT THE WRITERS
They are
· Neither HINDU nor MUSLIM.
· Neither INDIAN nor PAKISTANI.
· Not politically or any other motivations as British had left
India more than 50 years back. When the book was published.
Reader
will get some other incredible details/information; away from the subject.
NATHURAM GODSE'S ADDRESS IN COURT on the reason
WHY I KILLED GANDHI!!!
Born in a devotional Brahmin family, I
instinctively came to revere Hindu religion, Hindu history and Hindu culture. I
had, therefore, been intensely proud of Hinduism as a whole. As I grew up I
developed a tendency to free thinking unfettered by any superstitious
allegiance to any isms, political or religious. That is why I worked actively
for the eradication of untouchability and the caste system based on birth
alone. I openly joined RSS wing of anti-caste movements and maintained that all
Hindus were of equal status as to rights, social and religious and should be
considered high or low on merit alone and not through the accident of birth in
a particular caste or profession.
I used publicly to take part in organized
anti-caste dinners in which thousands of Hindus, Brahmins, Kshatriyas, Vaisyas,
Chamars and Bhangis participated. We broke the caste rules and dined in the
company of each other. I have read the speeches and writings of Ravana,
Chanakiya, Dadabhai Naoroji, Vivekanand, Gokhale, Tilak, along with the books
of ancient and modern history of India and some prominent countries like
England, France, America and Russia. Moreover I studied the tenets of Socialism
and Marxism. But above all I studied very closely whatever Veer Savarkar and
Gandhiji had written and spoken, as to my mind these two ideologies have
contributed more to the moulding of the thought and action of the Indian people
during the last thirty years or so, than any other single factor has done.
All this reading and thinking led me to
believe it was my first duty to serve Hindudom and Hindus both as a patriot and
as a world citizen. To secure the freedom and to safeguard the just interests
of some thirty crore (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 Sangthanist ideology and programmer, which alone, I came to
believe, could win and preserve the national independence of Hindustan , my
Motherland, and enable her to render true service to humanity as well.
Since the year 1920, that is, after the
demise of Lokamanya Tilak, Gandhiji’s influence in the Congress first increased
and then became supreme. His activities for public awakening were phenomenal in
their intensity and were reinforced by the slogan of truth and non-violence
which he paraded ostentatiously before the country. No sensible or enlightened
person could object to those slogans. In fact there is nothing new or original
in them.. They are implicit in every constitutional public movement. But it is
nothing but a mere dream if you imagine that the bulk of mankind is, or can
ever become, capable of scrupulous adherence to these lofty principles in its
normal life from day to day.
In fact, honour, duty and love of one’s
own kith and kin and country might often compel us to disregard non-violence
and to use force. I could never conceive that an armed resistance to an
aggression is unjust. I would consider it a religious and moral duty to resist
and, if possible, to overpower such an enemy by use of force. [In the Ramayana]
Rama killed Ravana in a tumultuous fight and relieved Sita.. [In the
Mahabharata], Krishna killed Kansa to end his wickedness; and Arjuna had to
fight and slay quite a number of his friends and relations including the
revered Bhishma because the latter was on the side of the aggressor. It is my
firm belief that in dubbing Rama, Krishna and Arjuna as guilty of violence, the
Mahatma betrayed a total ignorance of the springs of human action.
In more recent history, it was the heroic fight put up by Chhatrapati Shivaji
that first checked and eventually destroyed the Muslim tyranny in India. It was
absolutely essentially for Shivaji to overpower and kill an aggressive Afzal
Khan, failing which he would have lost his own life. In condemning history’s
towering warriors like Shivaji, Rana Pratap and Guru Gobind Singh as misguided
patriots, Gandhiji has merely exposed his self-conceit. He was, paradoxical as
it may appear, a violent pacifist who brought untold calamities on the country
in the name of truth and non-violence, while Rana Pratap, Shivaji and the Guru
will remain enshrined in the hearts of their countrymen for ever for the freedom
they brought to them.
The accumulating provocation of
thirty-two years, culminating in his last pro-Muslim fast, at last goaded me to
the conclusion that the existence of Gandhi should be brought to an end
immediately. Gandhi had done very good in South Africa to uphold the rights and
well-being of the Indian community there. But when he finally returned to India
he developed a subjective mentality under which he alone was to be the final
judge of what was right or wrong. If the country wanted his leadership, it had
to accept his infallibility; if it did not, he would stand aloof from the
Congress and carry on his own way.
Against such an attitude there can be no
halfway house. Either Congress had to surrender its will to his and had to be
content with playing second fiddle to all his eccentricity, whimsicality,
metaphysics and primitive vision, or it had to carry on without him. He alone
was the Judge of everyone and every thing; he was the master brain guiding the
civil disobedience movement; no other could know the technique of that
movement. He alone knew when to begin and when to withdraw it. The movement
might succeed or fail, it might bring untold disaster and political reverses
but that could make no difference to the Mahatma’s infallibility. ‘A Satyagrahi
can never fail’ was his formula for declaring his own infallibility and nobody
except himself knew what a Satyagrahi is. Thus, the Mahatma became the judge
and jury in his own cause. These childish insanities and obstinacies, coupled
with a most severe austerity of life, ceaseless work and lofty character made
Gandhi formidable and irresistible.
Many people thought that his politics
were irrational but they had either to withdraw from the Congress or place
their intelligence at his feet to do with as he liked. In a position of such
absolute irresponsibility Gandhi was guilty of blunder after blunder, failure
after failure, disaster after disaster. Gandhi’s pro-Muslim policy is blatantly
in his perverse attitude on the question of the national language of India . It
is quite obvious that Hindi has the most prior claim to be accepted as the
premier language. In the beginning of his career in India , Gandhi gave a great
impetus to Hindi but as he found that the Muslims did not like it, he became a
champion of what is called Hindustani.. Everybody in India knows that there is
no language called Hindustani; it has no grammar; it has no vocabulary. It is a
mere dialect, it is spoken, but not written. It is a bastard tongue and
cross-breed between Hindi and Urdu, and not even the Mahatma’s sophistry could
make it popular. But in his desire to please the Muslims he insisted that
Hindustani alone should be the national language of India . His blind
followers, of course, supported him and the so-called hybrid language began to
be used. The charm and purity of the Hindi language was to be prostituted to
please the Muslims. All his experiments were at the expense of the Hindus.
From August 1946 onwards the private
armies of the Muslim League began a massacre of the Hindus. The then Viceroy,
Lord Wavell, though distressed at what was happening, would not use his powers
under the Government of India Act of 1935 to prevent the rape, murder and
arson. The Hindu blood began to flow from Bengal to Karachi with some retaliation
by the Hindus. The Interim Government formed in September was sabotaged by its
Muslim League members right from its inception, but the more they became
disloyal and treasonable to the government of which they were a part, the
greater was Gandhi’s infatuation for them. Lord Wavell had to resign as he
could not bring about a settlement and he was succeeded by Lord Mountbatten.
King Log was followed by King Stork. The Congress which had boasted of its
nationalism and socialism secretly accepted Pakistan literally at the point of
the bayonet and abjectly surrendered to Jinnah. India was vivisected and
one-third of the Indian territory became foreign land to us from August 15,
1947.
Lord Mountbatten came to be described in
Congress circles as the greatest Viceroy and Governor-General this country ever
had. The official date for handing over power was fixed for June 30, 1948, but
Mountbatten with his ruthless surgery gave us a gift of vivisected India ten
months in advance. This is what Gandhi had achieved after thirty years of
undisputed dictatorship and this is what Congress party calls ‘freedom’ and
‘peaceful transfer of power’. The Hindu-Muslim unity bubble was finally burst
and a theocratic state was established with the consent of Nehru and his crowd
and they have called ‘freedom won by them with sacrifice’ – whose sacrifice?
When top leaders of Congress, with the consent of Gandhi, divided and tore the
country – which we consider a deity of worship – my mind was filled with
direful anger.
One of the conditions imposed by Gandhi
for his breaking of the fast unto death related to the mosques in Delhi
occupied by the Hindu refugees. But when Hindus in Pakistan were subjected to
violent attacks he did not so much as utter a single word to protest and
censure the Pakistan Government or the Muslims concerned. Gandhi was shrewd
enough to know that while undertaking a fast unto death, had he imposed for its
break some condition on the Muslims in Pakistan , there would have been found
hardly any Muslims who could have shown some grief if the fast had ended in his
death. It was for this reason that he purposely avoided imposing any condition
on the Muslims. He was fully aware of from the experience that Jinnah was not
at all perturbed or influenced by his fast and the Muslim League hardly
attached any value to the inner voice of Gandhi.
Gandhi is being referred to as the
Father of the Nation. But if that is so, he had failed his paternal duty in as much
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 leveled
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.
One may agree with him or not, but
will acknowledge he had very clear thoughts and was not even partially insane.
Pakistan was created in two parts
(West Pakistan and East Pakistan) a big security problem for India. This was no
hypothesis. It was proved at the time of Independence as well as partition. Indication
was visible earlier also; there was no Hindu Sangathan or Christian Forum.
There was only Muslim League.
There are some hidden facts,
which, so called secular leaders never made public. Only Doctors of Political
Science know.
Mahatma Gandhi had plans to visit
Pakistan on February 03, 1948.
Pakistan had a big problem. East
Pakistan and West Pakistan were located separately about 1,377.5 miles 2,204 km
away.
To go from one to other by flight was
very costly.
To travel by sea was too much time
consuming as the ship had to sail through bottom of Sri Lanka. The ship could
not sail through the Kanya Kumai, as the depth is very small between India and
Sri Lanka.
In turn Pakistan wanted a 12 Mile (19.2
km) wide corridor through India.
Mahatma Gandhi was agreed to it and was going
to announce the approval from Pakistan.
This meant India had to protect borders with
Pakistan (TOTAL 11,704 km)
· 3,200 km from West Pakistan
· 4,096 km from East Pakistan
· 2,204 x 2 = 4,408 km on both sides of corridor
This was the position at the time of
partition.
Just think what would have been position
on date with existing terrorism.
We Indian are thankful to Iron Lady Indira Gandhi for separating
East Pakistan now Bangladesh from West Pakistan.
