Friday, 03 June 2005
Nathuram Godse's defense speech in court
(This is the speech given by Nathuram Godse in the court when he was tried for the murder of Mahatma 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 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 Nairoji, Vivekanand, Gokhale, Tilak, along with the books of ancient and modern history of India and some prominent countries like England, France, America and' Russia. Moreover I studied the tenets of Socialism and Marxism. But above all I studied very closely whatever Veer Savarkar and Gandhiji had written and spoken, as to my mind these two ideologies have contributed more to the moulding of the thought and action of the Indian people during the last thirty years or so, than any other single factor has done.
All this reading and thinking led me to believe it was my first duty to serve Hindudom and Hindus both as a patriot and as a world citizen. To secure the freedom and to safeguard the just interests of some thirty crores (300 million) of Hindus would automatically constitute the freedom and the well being of all India, one fifth of human race. This conviction led me naturally to devote myself to the Hindu Sanghtanist ideology and programme, which alone, I came to believe, could win and preserve the national independence of Hindustan, my Motherland, and enable her to render true service to humanity as well.
Since the year 1920, that is, after the demise of Lokamanya Tilak, Gandhiji's influence in the Congress first increased and then became supreme. His activities for public awakening were phenomenal in their intensity and were reinforced by the slogan of truth and non-violence, which he paraded ostentatiously before the country. No sensible or enlightened person could object to those slogans. In fact there is nothing new or original in them. They are implicit in every constitutional public movement. But it is nothing but a mere dream if you imagine that the bulk of mankind is, or can ever become, capable of scrupulous adherence to these lofty principles in its normal life from day to day. In fact, honour, duty and love of one's own kith and kin and country might often compel us to disregard non-violence and to use force. I could never conceive that an armed resistance to an aggression is unjust. I would consider it a religious and moral duty to resist and, if possible, to overpower such an enemy by use of force. [In the Ramayana] Rama killed Ravana in a tumultuous fight and relieved Sita. [In the Mahabharata], Krishna killed Kansa to end his wickedness; and Arjuna had to fight and slay quite a number of his friends and relations including the revered Bhishma because the latter was on the side of the aggressor. It is my firm belief that in dubbing Rama, Krishna and Arjuna as guilty of violence, the Mahatma betrayed a total ignorance of the springs of human action.
In more recent history, it was the heroic fight put up by Chhatrapati Shivaji that first checked and eventually destroyed the Muslim tyranny in India. It was absolutely essentially for Shivaji to overpower and kill an aggressive Afzal Khan, failing which he would have lost his own life. In condemning history's towering warriors like Shivaji, Rana Pratap and Guru Gobind Singh as misguided patriots, Gandhiji has merely exposed his self-conceit. He was, paradoxical, as it may appear, a violent pacifist who brought untold calamities on the country in the name of truth and non-violence, while Rana Pratap, Shivaji and the Guru will remain enshrined in the hearts of their countrymen forever 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 well 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 everything; 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 crossbreed between Hindi and Urdu, and not even the Mahatma's sophistry could make it popular. But in his desire to please the Muslims he insisted that Hindustani alone should be the national language of India. His blind followers, of course, supported him and the so-called hybrid language began to be used. The charm and purity of the Hindi language was to be prostituted to please the Muslims. All his experiments were at the expense of the Hindus.
From August 1946 onwards the private armies of the Muslim League began a massacre of the Hindus. The then Viceroy, Lord Wavell, though distressed at what was happening, would not use his powers under the Government of India Act of 1935 to prevent the rape, murder and arson. The Hindu blood began to flow from Bengal to Karachi with some retaliation by the Hindus. The Interim Government formed in September was sabotaged by its Muslim League members right from its inception, but the more they became disloyal and treasonable to the government of which they were a part, the greater was Gandhi's infatuation for them. Lord Wavell had to resign as he could not bring about a settlement and he was succeeded by Lord Mountbatten. King Log was followed by King Stork.
The Congress, which had boasted of its nationalism and socialism, secretly accepted Pakistan literally at the point of the bayonet and abjectly surrendered to Jinnah. India was vivisected and one-third of the Indian territory became foreign land to us from August 15, 1947. Lord Mountbatten came to be described in Congress circles as the greatest Viceroy and Governor-General this country ever had. The official date for handing over power was fixed for June 30, 1948, but Mountbatten with his ruthless surgery gave us a gift of vivisected India ten months in advance. This is what Gandhi had achieved after thirty years of undisputed dictatorship and this is what Congress party calls 'freedom' and 'peaceful transfer of power'. The Hindu-Muslim unity bubble was finally burst and a theocratic state was established with the consent of Nehru and his crowd and they have called 'freedom won by them with sacrifice' - whose sacrifice? When top leaders of Congress, with the consent of Gandhi, divided and tore the country - which we consider a deity of worship - my mind was filled with direful anger.
One of the conditions imposed by Gandhi for his breaking of the fast unto death related to the mosques in Delhi occupied by the Hindu refugees. But when Hindus in Pakistan were subjected to violent attacks he did not so much as utter a single word to protest and censure the Pakistan Government or the Muslims concerned. Gandhi was shrewd enough to know that while undertaking a fast unto death, had he imposed for its break some condition on the Muslims in Pakistan, there would have been found hardly any Muslims who could have shown some grief if the fast had ended in his death. It was for this reason that he purposely avoided imposing any condition on the Muslims. He was fully aware of from the experience that Jinnah was not at all perturbed or influenced by his fast and the Muslim League hardly attached any value to the inner voice of Gandhi.
Gandhi is being referred to as the Father of the Nation. But if that is so, he had failed his paternal duty inasmuch as he has acted very treacherously to the nation by his consenting to the partitioning of it. I stoutly maintain that Gandhi has failed in his duty. He has proved to be the Father of Pakistan. His inner-voice, his spiritual power and his doctrine of non-violence of which so much is made of, all crumbled before Jinnah's iron will and proved to be powerless.
Briefly speaking, I thought to myself and foresaw I shall be totally ruined, and the only thing I could expect from the people would be nothing but hatred and that I shall have lost all my honour, even more valuable than my life, if I were to kill Gandhiji. But at the same time I felt that the Indian politics in the absence of Gandhiji would surely be proved practical, able to retaliate, and would be powerful with armed forces. No doubt, my own future would be totally ruined, but the nation would be saved from the inroads of Pakistan. People may even call me and dub me as devoid of any sense or foolish, but the nation would be free to follow the course founded on the reason which I consider to be necessary for sound nation-building. After having fully considered the question, I took the final decision in the matter, but I did not speak about it to anyone whatsoever. I took courage in both my hands and I did fire the shots at Gandhiji on 30th January 1948, on the prayer-grounds of Birla House.
I do say that my shots were fired at the person whose policy and action had brought rack and ruin and destruction to millions of Hindus. There was no legal machinery by which such an offender could be brought to book and for this reason I fired those fatal shots.
I bear no ill will towards anyone individually but I do say that I had no respect for the present government owing to their policy, which was unfairly favourable towards the Muslims. But at the same time I could clearly see that the policy was entirely due to the presence of Gandhi. I have to say with great regret that Prime Minister Nehru quite forgets that his preachings and deeds are at times at variances with each other when he talks about India as a secular state in season and out of season, because it is significant to note that Nehru has played a leading role in the establishment of the theocratic state of Pakistan, and his job was made easier by Gandhi's persistent policy of appeasement towards the Muslims.
I now stand before the court to accept the full share of my responsibility for what I have done and the judge would, of course, pass against me such orders of sentence as may be considered proper. But I would like to add that I do not desire any mercy to be shown to me, nor do I wish that anyone else should beg for mercy on my behalf. My confidence about the moral side of my action has not been shaken even by the criticism levelled against it on all sides. I have no doubt that honest writers of history will weigh my act and find the true value thereof some day in future.
-NATHURAM GODSE
(One of my friends posted this to me, and I felt like worth reading by you all, thats why I have posted it on this page.)
08:40 Posted in Blog | Permalink | Comments (85) | Email this
Comments
The history books when brought up under a microscopic view always reveal a different point of view altogether. As it is said history is written by the one who ruled, as a result what we term as history is in fact the ideologies represented by the victors or the powerful, whose point of view could not have been questioned at that moment.
What we get digging up the past, are the shades of gray. Every event of the past has a debatable corner, which cannot be answered even to this date, but can be questioned and cross questioned.
The recent advent of L.K Advani's statement in Pakistan brought repercussions in the country. Jinnah never told that "I am secular", it the way how you ensemble his words. But turning back the history pages can be ominous to a senior politician.
Read the complete Jinnah's 11 August Speech---
http://pakistanspace.tripod.com/archives/47jin11.htm
Posted by: Asheesh | Tuesday, 07 June 2005
After Reading the above inpecchable speach of Nathuram Godse, I donot know what to say(frankly speaking).
I would say M.D.K.Gandhi rightly should not be called "Mahatma".
Gandhi; I would say was a person of autocratic thinking, he wanted all the powers to be with him. He wanted people to listen to him.
I can compare Gandhi to be bad dictator of our fight for independence.
Posted by: simha | Thursday, 09 June 2005
'Mahatma' was mahatma. no doubt. One important aspect of fanaticism is that it twists language in such a way that mesmerizes people and make them fanatics. This speech is one among such.
The reasons stated by Godse for killing Gandhi are strange. He forgets that armed struggle against British wouldnot have brought India freedom even now! Gandhi was the biggest practical visionary we ever had . And speaking of nonviolence Gandhi wrote that, nonviolence is the weopen of the brave not the cowards. and that nonviolence should not be used against those who are brutal and wouldnot accept it. Read the book 'Hindu Dharma' of Mahatma for more on this.
And simha here writes that ' I would say was a person of autocratic thinking, he wanted all the powers to be with him. He wanted people to listen to him.
I can compare Gandhi to be bad dictator of our fight for independence.'
Man, Gandhi didnt force anyone to follow him, he didnot accept any positions in govt that he could have easily gotten, by just muttering his wishes. 'He wanted everyone to listen to him' yeah, who wouldnt want everyone to listen to them? But did he impose it upon anybody? said that if you dont I would shoot you or something like that? India wanted Gandhiji , so she followed everything that he said. It's not his fault if people didnt listen to someone else( yes, Veer Savarkar or Jinnah). He lived a frugal life, and didnt have any luxuries. yes, he had his own whims and fancies but he was only a human and this seems a sin to us since we are used to seeing Gandhiji as a superhuman. why cant we forgive him for a few such things?
And speaking of Pakistan, Gandhiji had said that he would not allow India to be partitioned even if it meant his own death. And nobody was there to listen to Mahatma because once Independance was assured, Gandhi had already become a thing of the past. Now we had to play power politics. Nehru and Jinnah fought for it and in the end India was partitioned. And thinking of Gujarat pogrom, I must say Partition was not a bad idea after all! And we are currently holding the debate whether Jinnah was secular! he was, if Veer Savarkar was, if Advani is, and RSS chief Sudarshan is!
Today 57 years after Godse killed Gandhi , this speech still remains significant since we hear the same sentiments echoed by leaders such as Praveen Togadia and other people of Sangh Parivar. Accept Pakistan as a reality and that's the only thing we can do to bring peace to our country. And forget Godse and what he said. Let's work together for an AMAN PARIVAR.
Posted by: Anna | Friday, 10 June 2005
'Mahatma' was mahatma. no doubt. One important aspect of fanaticism is that it twists language in such a way that mesmerizes people and make them fanatics. This speech is one among such.
The reasons stated by Godse for killing Gandhi are strange. He forgets that armed struggle against British wouldnot have brought India freedom even now! Gandhi was the biggest practical visionary we ever had . And speaking of nonviolence Gandhi wrote that, nonviolence is the weopen of the brave not the cowards. and that nonviolence should not be used against those who are brutal and wouldnot accept it. Read the book 'Hindu Dharma' of Mahatma for more on this.
And simha here writes that ' I would say was a person of autocratic thinking, he wanted all the powers to be with him. He wanted people to listen to him.
I can compare Gandhi to be bad dictator of our fight for independence.'
Man, Gandhi didnt force anyone to follow him, he didnot accept any positions in govt that he could have easily gotten, by just muttering his wishes. 'He wanted everyone to listen to him' yeah, who wouldnt want everyone to listen to them? But did he impose it upon anybody? said that if you dont I would shoot you or something like that? India wanted Gandhiji , so she followed everything that he said. It's not his fault if people didnt listen to someone else( yes, Veer Savarkar or Jinnah). He lived a frugal life, and didnt have any luxuries. yes, he had his own whims and fancies but he was only a human and this seems a sin to us since we are used to seeing Gandhiji as a superhuman. why cant we forgive him for a few such things?
And speaking of Pakistan, Gandhiji had said that he would not allow India to be partitioned even if it meant his own death. And nobody was there to listen to Mahatma because once Independance was assured, Gandhi had already become a thing of the past. Now we had to play power politics. Nehru and Jinnah fought for it and in the end India was partitioned. And thinking of Gujarat pogrom, I must say Partition was not a bad idea after all! And we are currently holding the debate whether Jinnah was secular! he was, if Veer Savarkar was, if Advani is, and RSS chief Sudarshan is!
Today 57 years after Godse killed Gandhi , this speech still remains significant since we hear the same sentiments echoed by leaders such as Praveen Togadia and other people of Sangh Parivar. Accept Pakistan as a reality and that's the only thing we can do to bring peace to our country. And forget Godse and what he said. Let's work together for an AMAN PARIVAR.
Posted by: Anna | Friday, 10 June 2005
The conclusion is that hardliners in either sides of the divide did not like Gandhi. That in itself could be taken as a clear cut evidence that Gandhi was right afterall.
Posted by: uma | Sunday, 12 June 2005
Mahtma Gandhi was most certainly not secular, nor was the congress then or now. Appeasing minority community is a habit that has developed since pre-independence. Why did Mahatma Gandhi remain silent when Hindus were killed all over Naukhali and go on a hunger strike when there were riots in Pakistan. Were Hindu lives not precious ? Why did he not go on an indefinite fast during violence in Naukhali ? Mahatma tells Hindus that if Muslims want to kill you, bend before them (this is a well documented quote of the Mahatma), you have got be out of your mind to believe or follow that.
Shri Nathuramji Godse, you saved India from The Mahatma. A time will surely come when all of India will realize your great sacrifice.
Jai Hind !!!
Posted by: Kalpana | Monday, 20 June 2005
kya sarsij koi kam dham nahi bacha hai kya
Posted by: santosh | Monday, 20 June 2005
Mahatma Gandhi was human, and it is human to err. His intentions may have been the purest, but it did cost a lot. I would not agree that we would still be a british colony if it wasnt for Gandhi, that is too presumptious. You cant ignore the enire socio-political atmosphere and look at colonization of India in total isolation. Coming back to the point of Godse's defnse, it is a really strong one. I dont see any logical flaw in it. And in fact his opinion was vindicated in 1948 when pakistan attacked india. And it is true that Gandhi always appeased the minority because he assumed that it was minority who were oppressed, and hence need 'deliverence'. That was the exact responsibility that he assumed. He may have been a great leader, but he was a total failure as a husband and father. Non violence worked because the numbers were on his side. There were too many indians willing to lay their lives instead of submitting themselves, and that effectively crippled the economic value that India provided to the british empire. The british had no choice but to leave.
Posted by: semantic overload | Friday, 24 June 2005
Hello, a couple of points to prove that Gandhi was indeed dictatorial and cunning in a way.
1. Subhas Chandra Bose was elected as President of the Congress against the Gandhi supported candidate Pattabhi Ramayya. In true democratic tradition Gandhi should have accepted the view of the majority. But instead he went on a fast and Subhas Bose out of reverence for Gandhi stepped down. This proves that Gandhi was by no means a Mahatma but a person who had his selfish reasons.
2. Gandhi to appease the Muslims wanted every Indian to support the Khilafat movement, which was happening in a far-off land and of no relevance to India and its freedom struggle. Why did he do that? anu answers??
3. Sardar Patel had the support of an overwhelming majority to be the PM candidate but Gandhi's insistence made Nehru the PM.
What I mentioned above are historical facts. You can rub it off as errors of a human being, so Gandhi was in fact a human like anyone of us and not a Mahatma. He was selfish, conceited, egotistic etc like anyone of us. So Nathuram did a good thing by ending his life at that age during which period he became senile and was proving to be a disaster for Hindus and India.
Posted by: Madhav | Tuesday, 28 June 2005
A true Hindu!
Posted by: Arnab | Saturday, 06 August 2005
hi all
Posted by: vinay pandey | Wednesday, 14 September 2005
Who are we to question Gandhi. Let us salute father of nation for the sacrifice that he has given for the nation.
Jai Hind!!!!
Posted by: Ritesh Koickel | Friday, 16 September 2005
This message is just for Ritesh.......
Man...we are not questioning Gandhi here. I am just trying to present things as hard facts.....infact, not even facts, Like some data. Whether you like this data or not will make it facts or waste for you.
This blog was just to bring out something which was being hidden by some political parties since ages......definately for their own benefits.......I am not here to promote anything, but being an Indian I have this right to know all the facts.....so this is just an attempt to achieve the same.
Posted by: Sarsij | Friday, 16 September 2005
I too agree that Gandhi was a human and was not and will not be a Mahatma...
Also, in addition to the above points - he could have save Bhagat Singh if he wanted to, but his focus on non-violence did not bend to support thousands of Indians. He used to get VIP treatement in jails compared to other leaders like Sardar, Netaji, Tilak, Bhagat Singh where they had to suffer in terms of food and support.
Gandhi was a dictatorship and did not like any other person/party to stand against the Congress..
Godse - the world will remember you for whatever you have done. But in my view, ur deed will be recognized by a few who want to get out of the obvious and look for the truth beyond.
Posted by: Saurabh | Monday, 19 September 2005
Mahatma's contribution to make out a new India can only be estimated with the back drop of situations he was operating with. Post facto analyses of events are easy to peep in to pros and cons of them. Can we not under-stand: India was not a country (but merely an unripe amalagam) and could never have been emerged in a monolithic appearance awithout the British shadow? Existence of highly conflicting multi racial and multi religious population - and absence of effective administrative patterns - certainly did not give the right breeding ground for Gandhi's experimentation. Gandhi's both experiments, namely - Secular and Non-Violence did not get correct opportunity of time under an alien administration. After India gained Independence Mahatma lived no longer to voice his specific views on the above subjects. Well, if he lived longer and then the power-hungry Congress did not seek his advice, it might suggest a different conclusion. The impatient killing of Gandhi reaffirmed his Mahatma-hood.
Posted by: Rabi Kanungo | Tuesday, 27 September 2005
To say that without Gandhi we wouldn't have achieved independence even today is to totally ignore the reason why independence was granted to us.
The British empire (not just in India, but elsewhere) stood on the shoulders of the Royal Indian Army. Netaji Subhashchandra Bose's INA was draining the already bleeding (due to World War 2) Indian army of morale. Subsequently, when the "traitors" from the Indian armed forces were killed at the Bombay docks, there was a significant amount of mutiny in the Royal Indian Army. This was the last push which convinced the British that they could no longer depend on the Royal Indian Army. Subsequently, a widespread mutiny would have resulted in their losing control of their other colonies as well.
That was the biggest contributor to our independence.
As much as we may love to believe in the fallacy of a non-violent birth of our nation, it seems ridiculous to believe that an oppressing imperialist power who considers your life to be worth less than that of a dog's, will grant you independence if you threaten to starve yourself and die.
The British Prime Minister, Clement Atlee, was once asked about the reason for granting independence. What I have mentioned above is a paraphrasing of his statement.
When asked how much effect Gandhi and his actions (civil disobediance etc.) had, his answer was, "Minimal."
With all due respect to whatever beliefs you may hold, Gandhi was a politician with a massive ego and a false belief in his own infallibility. He was a brilliant Public Relations Manager and an opportunist.
Unfortunately, he has been deified and his killer, villified.
I think Shri Godse deserves to have his side of the story told to every Indian.
Posted by: Shaunak Agarkhedkar | Tuesday, 27 September 2005
Those who insist upon calling Gandhi "Mahatma", kindly read on...................
It is the very complacent attitude in human nature which makes us forget what rights are rightly ours, the right of judging and asserting our judgement against public opinion. This is what most of the Gandhians did and it is exactly what those who wish not to refute his fabled authority as the "Father of the Nation". I do not wish to theorise on human nature any more so lets move on to the hard facts.
When Hindus started fleeing Pakistan due to blood chilling the atrocities meted out to them, their women, their children, their ancestral lands and boarded the fateful trains from Pakistan, the Muslims started "chopping" them with butcher's knives. Oh, I must mention that this was not immediately done. They first raped( in the most unimaginably ignominous manner possible) the women amongst the refugees, they forced open their husbands', fathers' and even sons' eyes to stamp all that they saw onto their minds forever. This was followed by leaving the poor women minus their genitalia and then making strategic cuts in the bodies of the men so that they wont die immediately. So much so for the benefits of non-violence. When news of such occurences reached others potential emigrants' ears, they had started burning their own women alive or pushing them into the local wells, thus making the water undrinkable and leaving the others to the mercy of the Providence. At that time, the Congress was celebrating India's independence.
Soon, as the news of the massacre reached New Delhi, the Hindus were up in arms against the local Muslims and in turn started killing those Muslims who were on their way to Pakistan. It was then, that Gandhi started his "fast unto death". And where, in Kolkata. Of all the places, where no Hindu refugees had a chance to go and protest.
Many like me would identify with these facts if their grandparents missed getting butchered by the fraction of a inch's distance.
But sadly the NCERT textbooks never recount these incidents and just mention one line alluding to those times as a sad part of the period which was filled with festivities of India having become independent.
Posted by: shikha | Wednesday, 28 September 2005
So called Mahatma Gandhi is the main reason why so many Indian soldiers are brutally killed on the border.This would have never happened if he would not have given Pakistan to Jinnah.
They say "Badi Logon Ki Badi BAtein" ... Gandhi when he was shot said "Hey Ram" was made such a big issue.I dont think it is somthing gr8. Millions of people die uttering the same words.
British left because there was nothing left in India to be taken.And we give the credit to Gandhi. My grandfather told me that thousands and thousands of Indians laid their lives fighting for Indian Indepandance... I asked him why wasn't Ganhi or Nehru one of them. People like Bhagat Singh, Sukdev, Rajguru, Bose,Lala Lajpet Rai and many more who are not even mentioned in the history books are the ture heros.
Posted by: Sid | Friday, 30 September 2005
I strictly agree with those who oppose gandhi and gandhian policies. As i see the discussions that are laid here are a proof very much for gandhi's dictatorship or what ever it is called.
One thing in Godse's speech ,in the court, what i could infer is
Gandhi said that if partition of india and pakistan would happen then it should happen with his death.
Initially The govt doesn't wanted the partition. so it strictly opposed it . But it is due to gandhi the partition had happened.
So the patition had happened and as gandhi said, he must have died then and Godse did it.
This forms a general maths or a logic in computer programs . do u see this.
Posted by: raghu | Monday, 03 October 2005
With all due respects the numerous facts brought forth as "mistakes and follys and fallacies" in Gandhi's nature and work, I sincerely believe that hindsight judgements of a man's work is an easy job. Frankly, I do not feel that it is correct to judge Gandhi. While I agree that on a political front he may not have necessarily made all the correct decisions but I definitely respect the man's resolve. I personally do see him as a Mahatma not for his political views or work but for his ability to formulate a set of idealogies in his own mind and then sticking to them no matter what. One must compare one's own ability to stand by what one claims. He had an obsession with truth... yes... but he also had the mettle to stick to it no matter what. Was he shrewd... very subjective... was he biased... again... subjective... but was he great in terms of his austerity... not subjective... he definitely was. And as one of the posts earlier say, he did not force anyone to follow or not. Those were beliefs of a nation in turmoil and a nation caught in a frenzy of events. They needed leaders and here was Gandhi! Thats all!
Posted by: Kaustubh Sarwate | Wednesday, 05 October 2005
Reading this speech of Nathuram's something that immediately makes me ponder is how people take things for granted or say, as it is served before them.
Now there is no doubt that Bapuji was a real
'Mahatma' and father of nation. During late 18th and early 19th century we were diveded among ourselves.Only common interests could have brought all leaders to one platform.So someone like Bapuji was the need of the time.
But in Later years there was little place for ideology, principles and dogmas.A move much more practical and diplomatic was required... S.C.Bose, Chandrashekhar, Bhagat Singh chose this path and went ahead with it......
Godse was different from other intellectuals, he studied the situation more closely than others. He wanted the congress leaders who represented the country bcoz of Gandhiji's support to go against the impractical and utopian (that appeared biased) policies of Gandhiji's. But going against Bapuji meant the end of your political career and so nobody dared to do so..As an example,we take the above speech of Godse's, Why was it buried??
Godse was tough and bold, in no mood to give-up. Seeing nobody backing him, frustrated he took that courageous, daring step..not to mention...
The speech is a Good debating topic..............but its really shocking to see the comments people have to this speech. Most have sympathized with Godse and have praised him, which is ok, but cursing the Mahatma, just shows poor mental state......... At times Gandhi may have proved wrong, afterall its human nature..But then the Holy soul who's goal was not only to get free from colonial rule but to demolish the much dangerous barriers of race, caste, colour, creed, language, sex....
I think each one of you will agree that although we got our independence 57 yrs back but still we are in clutches of caste, language,sex religion,rich/poor.. to mention a few...... the only way to conquer over these is by using Gandhian Philosophy...
Mahatma Gandhi gave greatest lesson of 'Love and Non-violence' to the whole mankind. Truly speaking as said by Einstein "Generations to come, it may be, will scarcely believe that such a one as this ever in flesh and blood walked upon this earth." He is 'Man of the Century'.
'A True Hindu'.....'A Holy Spirit'.
Posted by: ADITYA | Thursday, 06 October 2005
Hi,
Thats a great debatable topic but has anyone analysed that even if we wouldnt have got independence with the help of our Great so called Mahatma, we could have achieved a lots things better than what we have currently. Our education is the best but its not spread there are more people illitrate than educated, the industrialization could have started a long time back and so on and so forth...
Have your ever thought where did the word "Hindustani" came from, let me tell you no where but just a dialect created by Gandhi to praise the Muslims. Try comparing the nations the ratio between the Hindus and Muslims in India and Pakistan. I would still say that India would have more minority Hindus than Muslims but Gandhi went with Jinnah to call Muslims a minority to get his powers intact. Gandhi always knew that Jinnah would never budge for an idiotic, selfish satyagrahi like Gandhi and the outcome was India and Pakistan. It was something like he wants the apple and eat it too so he tought of division, this way he can eat half apple and retain the other half... but he over took people like Godse, Bhagat singh and other freedom fighters who live for the nation come what may... I never knew about godse till i read some books about them...
I would like to say only one thing... Godse you are an Idiot because you took so long a time to decide a good thing like assasination of Gandhi.... my due respect to you and your soul....
Think again if Gandhi was a real mahatma ...
Posted by: Venkat | Monday, 10 October 2005
Masses, in general, never think. Give them something on a platter and call it an already accepted fact, it will unanimously be accepted. Gandhi- a Mahatma? Well yes, a great man he was, for no other individual has ever been able to have such a great following. It is a feast that no one else has ever been able to perform. Having the whole country with you is not just anyones job. So what would any wise person do? Become a follower of 'The Mahatma', and get all his followers on your side, become the leader, form the government, and send all your competitors into oblivion - pretty simple. This is what politics is, and they say that it is only recently that politics has degenerated into a dirty game. Truth exits everywhere, which one is glorified, is what actually matters. And whom this glorified truth glorifies is the real game....
Posted by: Rhythm | Tuesday, 11 October 2005
About Mohandas Gandhi : I dont know wheather he was a Mahatma or not. Surely, he was not to be a political leader. He should have confined himself teaching his theory, than entering into the politics.
A country needa a couragious leader, who looks at the interests of the country. I dont care his personal faiths.
If MK Gandhi takes rebirth, I would pray God, that I should be given an opportunity to kill him.
Posted by: Ramakrishna | Monday, 17 October 2005
snag?asserted canons sympathies:hedges!Cornelian,poises disabler:supplements bet bet http://www.online-forex-trading-currency-exchange.com/tourist-exchange-rates.html http://www.online-forex-trading-currency-exchange.com/tourist-exchange-rates.html residential.
Posted by: bet | Monday, 31 October 2005
You idiots!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Bapuji is the best person in the world. He was just a citizen so he was doing more than most people would do. NATHURAM GODSE WAS AN IDIOT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Posted by: gayathri | Friday, 18 November 2005
You idiots!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Bapuji is the best person in the world. He was just a citizen so he was doing more than most people would do. NATHURAM GODSE WAS AN IDIOT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Posted by: gayathri | Friday, 18 November 2005
YOU ARE SUCH STUPID IDIOTS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Gandhiji was a kind considerste person that cared only for the well bieng of his people and freedom through non-violent ways! Power and greed? There was none of it! Gandhiji had no political or economical gain among his people! NATHURAM GODSE WAS A LUNATIC !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Posted by: Derek Johnson | Friday, 18 November 2005
A bit late I am ...??
Gandhiji...i take it for granted that if anyone is giving his/her view about Gandhij ( regardless of -ve or +ve views) he/she has read his autobiography. ( i had read it in gujju " Satya Na Prayogo")
Killing a person ( and that too the one who had played the biggest part in gettin freedom to india) doesnt need jus a one or two reasons. If you have gone through Gandhiji's autobiogrpahy, you must be knowing the fact that Jinna and Nehru both wanted to become PM of independent India and Britishers knowing that there is a conflict, they were ready to take its advantage...the situation was too bad..and a small delay in taking decison would have kept india in the same bad position ( Give a thought of having Blair of president of India ruled by britishers in this 2005 !!!)...there was a time to take a decision and that too fast enough for throwing britishers away
i agree that Gandhiji had to play with some of ours emotions in doing that and he created a large group of people who still hate them. many of the ppl in that group think that we got freedom too late coz of gandhiji's peaceful protest and Bhagatsingh would have got us early independence ( not really !! ) ... and so many of them got the reason for beleiving the same due to his assasination by godse ( hmm Godse must have got some reason for taking that step !!).
I cant really support godse's decision of killing Gandhiji for whatever reasons he had..it was nothing but his aggression...he didnt think of what he got from Gandhiji but he just couldnt sacrifice some stuff after this big event ( independent india ...!! ).
if anyone thinks that godse did right thing then i think we need some more GODSES who can kill N. Modi and L.Yadav...same ppl who hate gandhiji are appreciating Modi for blabla steps hi took after Godhra Event....Country doesnt run that way my fren..we are livin in a secular country having great laws..if everyone will start supporting godse..and would start killing Clearks/officers/ministers/professors who are not honest..then there will not be any development in country...Each system has some faults in them..it jus needs some maintanance...
Gandhiji was never rigid..if someone had problem with him, he was always ready to discuss it out with them and Godse might not be an exception ( I am sure that if godse would have had a personal talk with gandhiji about this matter..gandhiji might hav changed his mind very easily ..and logically).
Unfortunately Godse left a very bad example and created lot more ppl who took some stand without knowing the facts...and such a speech of him will be creating same flavor in the minds of our next generation..
But again....we are now in Independent India ( Thanx to Mahtama Gandhi !!) and therefore everyone has a right to take his/her stand. I will pass "satya na prayogo" to my child in future and after that will let him take whatever stand he wants about Godse's decision
peace
Posted by: Harsh | Monday, 28 November 2005
It is very difficult to forget what the entire Mahatma has done for the mankind and ultimately for India. (I am sure people still remember the aggression against Hindu Mahasabha after Mahatma's assassination)
I guess since independence, it has been demonstrated several times how Nathuram's thoughts were right and Mahatma was wrong.
Even rest of the congressmen at that time probably wanted to get rid of Mahatma as his job was over and was proving a thorn in the neck. I won't wonder if congressmen secretly would have planned Mahatma's assassination. But Nathuram did it before congressmen would plan and execute. Thus "Saap bhi mare our lathi bhi na tute" for the rest of the congress mafia.
Posted by: Milind Gokhale | Monday, 28 November 2005
For the people who have not read the statement provided by Godse at court, you can read it at the top of the page and those are the first comment exactly presented to you direct from the court.....For the people who cannot find it click on the link provided at the bottom of the message. As you said about Modi and Lalu let me tell you one thing they are two different entities and two different reasons.... Not going deep into it... Lalu is corrupt but not biased with religion however the Godhra thing happened due to the seed that was sown deep into our emotions the utter religionism in us... I think Gandhi forgot what one needs to think ... Irrespective of who would like to be our PM there have always been election and would always be the "MAY THE BEST MAN WIN" situation. Even now... if i got my stats right we have had Venkataraman R as our president and similarly now we have Abdul kalam. So it was never a decision of who it would be... its always if you can prove yourself do it... but Gandhi had some other thoughts ... might be he enjoyed some emotional benefits of Muslims than those of Hindus.... If talking about Bhagat Singh .. he was a man of substance as he carried the patriotism in himself rather than being like gandhi who played games trying to keep the Britishers as well as the people happy. Remember Gandhi could have been the person who could have stopped the death penalty.. but no he saw Bhagat Singh as a better contender for bringing the independence for India, hence he let the britishers crusify him.
When you are at the top you need to think of the repurcussions that can happen due to a small decision.... Due to the division we lost our basic humanity that we carried in ourselves. Where we once used to help people who were hurt, we started killing each other becoming barbaric killers with cold heart. He might have brought independence in Africa but remember there was a racial discrimination and not a pool of culture .. but in India it is a mixture of all class, kinds, religion so theories need to change here....
Further let me get it right that it was not even half the time that Bhagat Singh took to shake the British empire as to what Gandhi took... Gandhi wanted to move slow but then you need to think how slow you want things to happen and even then there were more people killed due to Gandhi than due to Bhagat Singh..
He could have simply refused signing on the pact and sat on satya graha again for withdrawing the charges on Bhagat Singh but no he has his own perversions and ideoligies. If Bhagat Singh survived then the image created by Gandhi would have been lost as at the time of crusification the popularity chart shows that there were more followers of Bhagat Singh than Gandhi's.
He had lost his credentials, so in order to get things better and in favor for himself he let bhagat die and let get India divided into two. This was the past but its reflection is there still on present and we can feel the pain that they had then even now...
Still paskistanis see us as murderers irrespective of forgetting what they did to Hindus.... do you why ... coz gandhi gave them that right to believe that and motivated them by going on fast due to loss of life in Pakistan (Muslims).
Get things straight he is not the father of nation for India.. but True he is the father of nation but for Pakistan as he was the one who gave birth to that country and also a step father to Bangladesh... coz that too was created by the land that we gave to Pak. Check out the chain... if you untie one loop there wud be many loops that would open by itself
I still feel that the step that was taken by Godse should have been done early.... where by letting India stay in one peice....
"I have One regret with Godse, Why didnt you do this early idiot" coz this could have saved lots of lifes and india being divided in peices
Regards
http://isuman.blogspot.com/2005/11/godses-defense-speech-in-court_05.html
I hope that you understand the repurcussions that took place due to gandhi's decision... so hence cannot be named as the so called Great Man of India
Posted by: Venkat | Wednesday, 30 November 2005
Very late but nevertheless : )
I'm certainly not here to debate on Gandhi's 'impurities' or Nathuram's Speech. Infact Godse's speech adorns my wall for its sense of belief rather than political cleverness. Freedom and love are probably two of the most subjective topics that exist today. And the former tends to get a little more sensitive as it affects a mass of people at a time, rather than one. Narrowing down to the point, how can we ever judge events and actions of two influential people through just verbal records? Consider an octagenarian sitting in front of you this very moment. There's a certain glimmer in his eye as he tells you the story of how he escaped death by 2 cms. A tear escapes his eye as he explains how he saw his father being butchered by a muslim. His whole perception of the world revolves around that one single moment; a moment that was enough to generate hatred for the next 100 generations or so. Now cut to a sexagenarian. She would probably shiver as she narrates how a group of Hindus raped her 'good-looking, kind, warm and gentle' neighbour. The hatred towards Hindus would be absolutely inescapable, as you record what she has to say. None of their experiences can be proven wrong to them by a textbook, a speech or a political agenda.
We have records, newspaper articles, biographies and auto-biographies that are a 100 years old. And they all finally scream just one note, 'There was war alright, and there was blood. And we're free at last!' Jinnah, Gandhi, Nehru and Godse had their own perception of what 'freedom' would finally be. The british played catalyst and these people found a common ground to, according to many people, happily twist the fate of a nation. How will you ever know if Gandhi did completely believe in non-violence? How will you ever know if Godse was completely right? Books? Words? Videos or paper clippings that hold smiling faces and hidden missions? Opinions?
Right.
We need to stop looking on the surface and remove the layers of every historical character. Take Gandhi's message of love and compassion, Godse's undying belief in his principles, Hitler's confidence, Rasputin's Logic, Martin Luther's passion... the list is yours to pile on.
Today is tomorrow's history. And history tomorrow might glorify Laloo and demean Abdul Kalam. Once again... will we ever know?
I truly hope that one day, we understand rather than just know. That's the only common thought that all these people shared.
Posted by: Karishma | Saturday, 10 December 2005
what facts he is taking about, gandhiji is a father of nation and the sacrifice along with other leader he has given is impensable.
who is godse?? who is to operate with RSS who killed 100 of lives during partition. My dear friend publish the full and right facts. half knowledge is dangerous.
Jai Hind
Posted by: Sanjay | Sunday, 11 December 2005
i do agree gandhi is true father of pakistan not india. he neither cared for our culture nor for hindus. by his nonviolence he killed millions of innocent people. what ghandhi did for the freedom? he wasted much of his time on justifying all the bloody acts of muslims. it was sardhar patel who gave shape to our present motherland. every body thinks that british handed over this country to gandhi, which is a myth. british gave freedom only to the princely states & declared they can either remain independent or join the indian union or pakistan. it was sardhar patel who acted wisely and unified all the states. he is the true father of this nation. rubbing salt on the wound gandhi demanded Rs.44 crores to pakistan govt. when govt of india refused to transfer this amount he started his fasting untill death. only false hood holding gandhi as father of this holy nation. i dont find any difference between gandhi & hitler. Hitler was madly driven by his ideology fascism. many innocent people lost their life because of gandhi's non violence movement. why gandhi's non violence did not prevent partition of this country? and killing of innocent people? if freedom to this country is credited to gandhi's nonvoilence movement a/c then in which account blood of nethaji's soldiers, blood sheds of my unsung heros to be accounted?
i dare all those who advocate for gandhi to release the statements made by shri nathuramji godse in the court.
Posted by: ravi krishna | Sunday, 18 December 2005
Non-Violance - Killing sardar Bhagat singh was non-violance?
- Killing lakhs of hindus and then standing by the side of murders by going on fast untill death was Non-violance?
These and many other instances prove gandhi to be a man of double standards and a hypocrite?
Posted by: Ravinder Dahiya | Thursday, 22 December 2005
i know that in india people are thinking that gandhi is the grea person and a person but according to me the actuall person who brought freedom to india is nathuram godse from gandhi a peson who allways wanted to sacrifice hindus for the muslims....a salute to nathuram godse.......i still remember this story where gandi told a hindu to put his wepons down and to go back home, and the guy listened to gandhi and when the guy reached his home his 8year old son was killed by a muslim, so this guy brings the body of the son to gandhi and says when u break u r satyagraha dont drink water or juice, drink my sons blood because u will atleast be stisfied that the muslims are saved.....so i think we should remember nathuram godse in india and not that gandiji.
Posted by: praneeta | Thursday, 29 December 2005
i think gandi brought independence to pakistan and not india...........i hate u gandhi..........salute to nathuram godse...u saved india from gandhi.........u r great........
Posted by: praneetar | Thursday, 29 December 2005
Hi,
Gandhi was a hypocrate and a dictator no doubt,if one goes through the Subash chandra Bosh's autobiography
one can get an idea about the character of Gandhi.Some people thrive for money some for fame.His behaviour towards his wife and family and those who do not obeyed him clearly shows his character.He was not interested in Indian independence ,he was interested in power and fame.(when Deshbandhu chiteranjan Das rouse to power and peope were following him Gandhi took sanyas from politics came back to politics only after chiteranjan das's death ).The jails were he was imprisoned were mostly palaces(Aga khan palace ) with first class treatment.He was an egoistic and a hypocrate and a fool .
Posted by: SUJAN | Tuesday, 31 January 2006
We got independence not because Gandhi,but because of second world war and because of pressure form other contries like America.
Gandhi could have easily saved Bagatsingh and others but alas! they were not his followers and at that particular moment Bagath singh's fame was at the peak .This selfish fellow gandhi's one word to the viceroy would have saved them (death penality could have been converted to life impresonment)
but this fellow would have thought if Baghat servives he would become more famous than him ....
Posted by: sujan | Tuesday, 31 January 2006
Dear all
History is reported, filtered etc and for the next generation, it will help if the good of everyone is accepted. If a nightmare bothers you, you shouldn't describe in detail to get rid of it. Who are we to debate who was great and who was not? Only the people who have interacted with gandhiji would know how he was.
It is very difficult to forgive - but forgiveness is the biggest strength
Violence can never bring about peace
Think over it.
Try to forgive - forgive he armed, forgive the mistaken, forgive the ignorant, forgive!
Regards
Saurabh
Posted by: Saurabh | Wednesday, 01 February 2006
Dear all
History is reported, filtered etc and for the next generation, it will help if the good of everyone is accepted. If a nightmare bothers you, you shouldn't describe in detail to get rid of it. Who are we to debate who was great and who was not? Only the people who have interacted with gandhiji would know how he was.
It is very difficult to forgive - but forgiveness is the biggest strength
Violence can never bring about peace
Think over it.
Try to forgive - forgive he armed, forgive the mistaken, forgive the ignorant, forgive!
Regards
Saurabh
Posted by: Saurabh | Wednesday, 01 February 2006
I would say that we as indian citizens have complete right to decide who was great and who was not.
Ghandhi always wanted fame and that's why he followed the path of non violence. He should not be called a "mahatma" at all.It was bhagat Singh and others who gave their lives for the country.I would also agree that gandhi could have saved BhagatSing gandhi always followed a path that would lead him to fame. He always supported muslims and partitioned india.Nehru and Gandhi are two such politicians who dont deserve any respect.
And why did he always had to ladies to support him?? Why not men or boys.....
Posted by: Godse | Friday, 10 February 2006
i wouldn't just relate this to religion, and say i agree with godse just cuz of religion, but he is right, i mean nothing against gandhiji either, but india was partitioned cuz of stupid politicians. and yeah if ganhdhiji hadn't supported the british during world war one and there was an uprising at that time india could have been freed, cuz the british were much to week to care, and i don't understand how did british forcefully rule india when most of their army was indian soldiers. i know i am putting too many points out all at once and am not making sense, but some things to think about.
british army in india was full of indian soldiers
british divided us causing religious and sectarian wars we fel in their trap
two parties congress and muslim league led to partition we agreed with them
man we have always been too gullible we deserved that crappy history for all i think, how do 300 million people follow somebody like that?????????? how did leaders lead us too fight each other divide us based on religion, divide our country??????????????? and gandhi well was one of them leaders.
Posted by: nick | Monday, 27 February 2006
Judging a man of the stature of Gandhiji needs at least a fair assessment of the great man's good deeds.
How can a harmless - non-violent, peace loving person be held for causing unrest in the nation?
The truth is that no one had the courage to follow Gandhiji's doctrine of non-violence
They all admired him but never followed him
Our people wanted to fight
Hindus wanted to foght - muslims wanted to fight
Don't blame a great man for your weaknesses
Whatever good we are seeing in our country and a little bit of peace which is there is because of people like Gandhiji and not Godse -
Let us not spoil the paradise of earth which will also be the living place of the future generation
Don't poison their minds with the venom of senseless claims to being religious
No offence meant- if you disagree - then please don't reply defending yourself or attcking me cause I am convinced that it is shameful to say something bad about a great man who had the courage to bring riots at Naukhali to a stop - who had cleared the shit of a dalit with his hands, who had shed all materialism, who lived with basic necessities, who was eyond his times, who is still misunderstood
regards
Saurabh
Posted by: Saurabh | Monday, 27 February 2006
Telefonsex
Posted by: Telefonsex | Thursday, 09 March 2006
Cams
Posted by: Cam | Thursday, 09 March 2006
Friends,
Just look around everywhere -what do u see in india's socio-political scene ? Dont u see muslim-appeasement everywhere, at the cost of subjugation of hindus? Just tell me, what contribution have the muslims made to this country, after independence? Are there any prominent faces to name , who have made us feel proud? ANd then look at the other side. ABU SALEM (UNDERWORLD DON), ABDUL KARIM TELGI (STAMP PAPER SCAM), DAWOOD IBRAHIM , LASHKAR-E-TOIBA, etc, not to mention the numerous criminal politicains of UP & Bihar and tha dozens of maulanas and maulvis who keep issuing idiotic fatwas and therby try to create a parallel judiciary. What about the crores of rupees that go into maintaining a huge army at the north-west, money that could have gone for some benevolent purpose- not to mention the constant killings of innocent hindus and of our army men in kashmir? WHat do all of u think are the causes of these non-democratical ways of functioning, which the majority of the muslims closely adhere to ? ( majority of the muslims are uneducated, and i surely believe in this fact !! ). I certainly beleive that our 'mahatma' failed to anticipate these ungrateful overtures of the indian nad pakistani muslims ( who were then a part of india), and he continued to believe with his own set of dogmas. THough his beliefs in the priciples of non-voilence and satyaghaha were derived from our rich hindu tradition, yet he failed to understand that india -at the time of independence-was comprised not of hindus only, but of muslims also . Muslims are, in general, known in the indian history as rapacious looters, grabbers, killers and destroyers of idolatory and infidels( ie hindus). Not have once in the indian history, the muslims budged from their fanaticism and bigotry. Thoufh the hindus were accomodating to the extent of making Mughal King Akbar as avataar in Allopanishad, Muslims had completely failed to assimilate into the hindu society at large. After the advent of the british rule in india, muslim rulers lost their right to rule, and this greivance was largely manifested in the Mutiny of 1857, in which muslims constituted a large proportion. It was not the idea of uniting with the hindus and seeking freedom from the british tyranny that inspired the muslims to fight, but the idea of regaining their lost power and to once again continue with their rule of opression, tyranny, idol-breaking and temple destruction; and thereby to oppress the fragile hindus.
Tell me, is it only the right of muslims, christains etc to to exercise their religious rights ? Dont the hindus have even the right to freely express their own ideologies?
We have huge demonstrations and govt outrage against the gujarat riots, but everyone conveniently forgets that it was the godhra incident that 'inspired ' these riots?
India's superstar Shahrukh khan says the following in an interview with the magazine Fimfare - It feels great to be a muslim superstar in india! What meaning shud we derive from such statements?
Back to Gandhiji-No doubt, the principles of non-voilence and satyagraha were laudable, bu they shud have applied discriminately and not across the board. Isnt the integrity & unity of a nation more important than the appeasement of a particular communiy, especially in the backdrop of indian medeival history ? Again , u could probably be succesful with 'satyagraha techniques' against the gentle and un-offensive hindus, but here we were facing a political genius like the british and the warring islamic fanatics. in such a situation, non voilence and satyaghaha could have only aggravated the problem.
I certainy believe that the hardships and economic constraints imposed on britain by the second world war were the principal causes for the british to give up on india .
Mahatma's ideologies were lofty, but they were not suited for the time and the age, and most importantly, for the long-term future of our nation.
From the turn of events that have taken place after independence till date, i wud say that mahatma was not the father of the nation, but the breaker of the nation!!!
Posted by: anirudh dharwadkar | Saturday, 01 April 2006
While I am impressed with your knowledge on history, I cannot say the same about your tolerance.
Try to think deeply.
Only non violence can end violence
Whatever violence we are seeing today is because of the avoidable acts of violence our ancestors indulged in
In such a scenario even atheists are better as at least they respect every human life
Please don't spread the venom of violence
Whatever peace we are seeing is because of great souls like Mahatma Gandhi and not intolerant fanatics
Even if there are some anti-social elements, tolerance and sacrifice alone can bring a total end and not retaliation
The beauty of goodness is that it is absolute and not conditional
That explains the obsession of the Mahatma with truth and non violence
He was right then, he is applicable today and he will be applicable always
Have peace - shed avoidable unnecessary thoughts
Regards
Saurabh
Posted by: Saurabh | Saturday, 01 April 2006
gandhi was a fukin fag who did nothing to save Bhagat Singh , RajGuru and Sukhdev who give up their livies with a smile for the freedom of their follow indians. gandhi was a selfish bustard who care about no one but him self , all he wanted was to have power and control every one. He did not give 2 shits about the freedom of india. He can go lick balls oh wait i forgot he's dead lol lfukin fag deserved to die and thumb up to the guy did kill him.
Posted by: gandhi hater | Saturday, 22 April 2006
Clear your mind of the polluted thoughts you have. Violence is bad - an apostle of non violence cannot support violence. With due respect to Bhagat Singh's contribution, it is better not to influence youth with such revolutionary ideas.
Unless the min of a person changes, whatever he will do under coercion will not serve the purpose. Think and ask your heart and your conscience. The answers are all there - not in books of history.
It will help if good things of history are discussed and not such irrelevant thoughts.
Value the feredom you have got. Acknowledge everyone's contribution
Stop spreading venom of hatred
Regards
Saurabh
Posted by: Saurabh | Saturday, 22 April 2006
Hey Saurabh,
As you are talking about concience, tell me one thing, wat happened to the concience of Gandhi when so many hindu's and muslims were slaughtered just because of what he did. What happened to the concience of Gandhi when so many people where being shot at Jallianwala bagh, just because they believed in him and in his non voilence..
Even at that time Gandhi had slaughtered his concience due to his urge to have supreme power. He did not care of who died and who is alive and what he can reep of a Good India, wat he wanted his how much control and power he can hold. The venom that we have right now and even the venom thats in the body of our brother muslims in Pakistan is due to what he put in us.
As talking about bhagat singh, he did not preach voilence, he preached to "OPPOSE THINGS THAT ARE NOT RIGHT" or in other words "FIGHT FOR YOUR OWN RIGHT IF THE OTHER PERSON IS NOT LISTENING IN SOFTER TONE". It is more or over a self defence, which even you would use if some one tries to poach into your home.
Think what would be ur perception if someone comes in to your home, stays there as a permanent resident and tries to bully you, mock you and treat you as a servent, no; no one wud accept that.. so GANDI IS A CRAP AND IS BETTER DEAD THAN ALIVE.. or else we would not have reached even now where we are in the world.. we would still have been slaves and treated as a lower section in the world like Africans who are still treated as nomads.
Regards'
Posted by: Venkat | Sunday, 30 April 2006
Hi All,
I read the statement by Sri Nathuram Godse and comments passed in favor and against his speach and him as well.
I can say some for extent the idealogy of Nathuram is correct, since so many indians (before the partition) were burnt and killed after the partition, and there was no action taken against Jinna or the government of Pakistan. I feel it was in gandhi's hand since people were following his words and works before independence India and after as well. Jinna was also an indian before partition and he stayed in the Indian National congress for many years, so GandhiJi should have taken steps to correct him but he did the other way.
I always accept he is a Mahatma since people are not dumb at that time and now also. If we go through all the comments passed by me like people, you can find many readers contradicting others view then how far we can achieve or reach the level of Mahatma (bring 300 Millian people under one roof).
Yes, I can say one thing Gandhiji is not a good decision Maker, I have read his autobiography in which we can see him as timid. But he is an example of self mastery. I can proudly say he is not less than Jesus.(in future may be prayed as GOD).
Some readers comments, in which he went on fast when Sri Subhash chandra Bose was elected as the president of INC, I do agree with them since Gandhi him self named Subhash chandra as Netaji, then why he went on for fasting??
Some comments saying others as IDIOTS, in their view the other may be wrong, but they dont have the right to scold other directly..
At this stage where india is at the moment, we need Godse like people not Gandhi like minded, since there is a limit for patience..if we go back about some years back when the Kargil was took place the Government should have attacked the enemies but it was not happend, I feel this only due to the Secular Flag which our beloved politicians are carrying in their hand for the vote bank.
Here i would like to give an example when America took action against Iraq. They said they have clues on Iraq is having nuclear weapons but the surveys showed no they IRAQ do not have, but just to take the control over the petrol which Iraq is having America took the extreme step of bringing down Saddam Government. If this type of action can be taken against a country which is not fighting against any one then why we can't take a fight against a country which always encourages terrirism.
As some one said about N.Modi, I can say N.Modi may not be prominent but he is dynamic. Indian should have the leaders like him at the present situation other wise again some BABAR or AKBAR may come and rule india.
Finally in my view, Nathuram Godse is not wrong as per his idealogy as his patience corssed its limits, I will read more books from history on Him and try to correct my self if I am incorrect saying him right. And GANDHI JI, he always stands above all.
Our present Motto is to build a strong india now, so if we think like Gandhi at this moment (about non-violence) then we will be payed for our mistake(Killed), I will follow the principle of Talwar ka Jawab Talwar se...Eeet ka jawab pathar se....and we need netas like Subhash chandra bose and Lalbahdur shastry......(its only terrorism perspective)
Regards,
Shashi
Posted by: Shashidhar | Tuesday, 02 May 2006
read it
Posted by: rama | Wednesday, 10 May 2006
I refer to Venkat's comments
You know, Venkat I have thought about this for long.
Primafacie, impatience may lead us to believe that it is right to take a life
However real victory lies in changing the mind of the person and not finishing him
The whole debate lies here
Pro-violence people presume that people cannot be changed
Anti violence people believe that people can be chanegd or so they hope
Gandhiji belonged to the latter category
Moreover, how can you hold a man who loved peace responsible for acts of violence?
Our people did not want to stay united
Don't make Gandhiji responsible for what our silly ancestors indulged in
I hope I have made my point clear
Regs
Saurabh
Posted by: Saurabh | Wednesday, 18 October 2006
prati pamelaatc bolognaappartamento veronacentro benessere toscanafoto anna falchiprofumi giorgio armani
Posted by: wasszv | Friday, 27 October 2006
Dear Saurabhji,
Do you hope that changing the mind of a dictator
like gandhi is easy?, who's acting to only his thoughts ,beleving he is the only master of the universe......
you must understand one thing. violance is different from self-defence. you must be strong enough to protect your self.
if you wait for people to change then your life will be over!
k.p.senthilkumar
Posted by: K.P.SENTHILKUMAR | Monday, 30 October 2006
Dear Mr Senthilkumar
A heart that's free from any kind of insecurity is what Gandhiji had. He was not a dictator. People voluntarily world over admire him and his principles. Martin Luther King and others have not been insane to follow his principles
Harmless and peaceful coexistence - that was the path of Gandhiji
I am clear about my faith in his ideologies
If someone will not understand by love, he will never ever understand by violence
What's more the future generations will have to pay the price despite having done nothing to earn that
Do let me know if your queries remain unanswered
Regards
Saurabh
Posted by: Saurabh | Monday, 30 October 2006
dear sarubji,
Gandhi may had an heart that is free from any kind of insecurity but the nation it self not!.
we blindly can't follow the world as the world saw gandhi
and his activitys as a spectator. But we are the real sufferers of the mindless policys of gandhi.
If One nation is suffering because of one person , who not at all can't understand the real problems of the people, is called in general a dictator.
By this way gandhi was clearly a dictator who even can't be a good father to his very own son.
Ahimsa is a policy for an able person,able society, able nation not for an impotent person or society or nation.
But what gandhi preached was uttermost cowardness which is against our dharma and which was in line with the christien teachings .(if one slapps you in one cheek show him the other - Bible) .So the christien world admiring him for what they can not .
Finally one thing : we can sacrifice one person for a family,
one family for a village,and one village for a nation.
By this way what godse did was nothing, one person for a nation which is quit acceptable!
K.P.SENTHILKUMAR
Posted by: k.p.senthilkumar | Tuesday, 31 October 2006
I am not surprised
Goodness comes with a great cost
Gandhiji was willing to pay that cost
Despite knowing that his life was in danger he did nto demand protection
He had already been attacked 5-6 times before the final shot.
Violence does no good.
You may choose to agree or not- but dear Mr Senthil Kumar the truth will not change for you and for me
The truth was what Gandhiji knew
He stood for truth and for non violence
Cheers!
Regs
Saurabh
Posted by: Saurabh | Tuesday, 31 October 2006
mr. sarub,
I am not saying all this to surprise you but you must understand things. One must have an open mind to accept things out of a debate. If you stay strong in only your opinion then it waste of time and other resources.
That's what gandhi also did never bothering about reality but hanging on his dry thouhts.
One sarub or senthil's opnion does no harm
to anybody but a leader like gandhi? He was a clean leader
with mass supporters and the effect of his thoughts among
common men was amazing.
But what he done for the people who admired him to the level of god?
From your own words, truth is al ways truth. Oneday it will come out definitly.
k.p.senthilkumar
Posted by: K.P.SENTHILKUMAR | Wednesday, 01 November 2006
ng
Posted by: r.v.shah | Monday, 15 January 2007
bank fat photo swimsuit tyra
barack obama swimsuit
free lindsay lohan swimsuit
louis vuitton swimsuit
junior swimsuit
toddler swimsuit
venus swimsuit
serena williams swimsuit
nike swimsuit
preteen swimsuit
ecco golf shoes
footjoy golf shoes
oakley golf shoes
dexter golf shoes
etonic golf shoes
womens ecco golf shoes
tommy bahamas golf shoes
bally golf shoes
golf shoes spike
etnies golf shoes
Posted by: Hahrumxa | Monday, 18 June 2007
bank fat photo swimsuit tyra
barack obama swimsuit
free lindsay lohan swimsuit
louis vuitton swimsuit
junior swimsuit
toddler swimsuit
venus swimsuit
serena williams swimsuit
nike swimsuit
preteen swimsuit
ecco golf shoes
footjoy golf shoes
oakley golf shoes
dexter golf shoes
etonic golf shoes
womens ecco golf shoes
tommy bahamas golf shoes
bally golf shoes
golf shoes spike
etnies golf shoes
Posted by: Hahrumxa | Monday, 18 June 2007
bank fat photo swimsuit tyra
barack obama swimsuit
free lindsay lohan swimsuit
louis vuitton swimsuit
junior swimsuit
toddler swimsuit
venus swimsuit
serena williams swimsuit
nike swimsuit
preteen swimsuit
ecco golf shoes
footjoy golf shoes
oakley golf shoes
dexter golf shoes
etonic golf shoes
womens ecco golf shoes
tommy bahamas golf shoes
bally golf shoes
golf shoes spike
etnies golf shoes
Posted by: Hahrumxa | Monday, 18 June 2007
bank fat photo swimsuit tyra
barack obama swimsuit
free lindsay lohan swimsuit
louis vuitton swimsuit
junior swimsuit
toddler swimsuit
venus swimsuit
serena williams swimsuit
nike swimsuit
preteen swimsuit
ecco golf shoes
footjoy golf shoes
oakley golf shoes
dexter golf shoes
etonic golf shoes
womens ecco golf shoes
tommy bahamas golf shoes
bally golf shoes
golf shoes spike
etnies golf shoes
Posted by: Hahrumxa | Monday, 18 June 2007
bank fat photo swimsuit tyra
barack obama swimsuit
free lindsay lohan swimsuit
louis vuitton swimsuit
junior swimsuit
toddler swimsuit
venus swimsuit
serena williams swimsuit
nike swimsuit
preteen swimsuit
ecco golf shoes
footjoy golf shoes
oakley golf shoes
dexter golf shoes
etonic golf shoes
womens ecco golf shoes
tommy bahamas golf shoes
bally golf shoes
golf shoes spike
etnies golf shoes
Posted by: Hahrumxa | Monday, 18 June 2007
bank fat photo swimsuit tyra
barack obama swimsuit
free lindsay lohan swimsuit
louis vuitton swimsuit
junior swimsuit
toddler swimsuit
venus swimsuit
serena williams swimsuit
nike swimsuit
preteen swimsuit
ecco golf shoes
footjoy golf shoes
oakley golf shoes
dexter golf shoes
etonic golf shoes
womens ecco golf shoes
tommy bahamas golf shoes
bally golf shoes
golf shoes spike
etnies golf shoes
Posted by: Hahrumxa | Monday, 18 June 2007
bank fat photo swimsuit tyra
barack obama swimsuit
free lindsay lohan swimsuit
louis vuitton swimsuit
junior swimsuit
toddler swimsuit
venus swimsuit
serena williams swimsuit
nike swimsuit
preteen swimsuit
ecco golf shoes
footjoy golf shoes
oakley golf shoes
dexter golf shoes
etonic golf shoes
womens ecco golf shoes
tommy bahamas golf shoes
bally golf shoes
golf shoes spike
etnies golf shoes
Posted by: Hahrumxa | Monday, 18 June 2007
1315925924fromspbwhislove
Posted by: fromspbwhislove | Wednesday, 19 September 2007
2534117321fromspbwhislove
Posted by: fromspbwhislove | Thursday, 20 September 2007
6194335991fromspbwhislove
Posted by: fromspbwhislove | Thursday, 20 September 2007
37101511fromspbwhislove2
Posted by: fromspbwhislove2 | Wednesday, 26 September 2007
NATHURAM GODSE A REAL HERO.
Posted by: Balwinder | Friday, 26 October 2007
replica designer handbag wholesaler comfort fit stretch jeans 27ins dance belt
Posted by: inkusdw | Tuesday, 08 April 2008
karate belt rack
new jersey mental health
tights pussy
Posted by: dorinpj | Wednesday, 25 June 2008
Hi boys and girls ;-)
Anybody can give me link to the XRumer's homepage?
Or maybe some information...
Thank you very much!!!
P.S. Вот уроды...
Posted by: JeyramoXRu | Saturday, 18 October 2008
Posted by: Serega4356 | Saturday, 24 January 2009
Nehru was never tried or made accountable for murders of voilence in 1947-48. But media talks about Narendra Modi.
Most of the communal voilence happened in India is during Congress Rule which ever faction it was either Indira/ old.. etc no body talks about these mascares as its sufferred by Hindu community.
Godse did not complete the job... bykilling Nheru... resulting our suffering now.
Posted by: Surya | Monday, 15 June 2009
Posted by: elmariec | Monday, 20 July 2009
Posted by: hdrufnhrfju | Thursday, 13 August 2009
Posted by: ghjghhjgyh | Friday, 14 August 2009
Posted by: valinivan2012 | Saturday, 05 September 2009
Godse! you had done a great job but 10 years late. If you done it timely, you could save the lifes of millions people.
But finally I salute you.
Posted by: sanjay bisht | Thursday, 17 September 2009
gandhi is a big fuckin bastard in the wide world. and i had to do a fuckin project ever.he is a bloody dog
Posted by: Avneet | Monday, 05 October 2009
GODSE I LOVE YOU BECAUSE YOU KILLED GHANDI THE DIRTY HEAD DOG
Posted by: GURMEET SINGH | Monday, 05 October 2009
Post a comment