Gandhi, a votary of non-violence and truth, credited for
shaping India’s democratic and secular ideals. He was a one man army; people
followed his words and trusted his actions. Such was his impact, that people
could lay life for him. He is crowned “Man of the Year” in 1930 by the Time
magazine. Today, Martin Luther King, Dalai Lama, Nelson Mandela are known as “Children
of Gandhi”. Movies made on his life and beliefs have won various International awards. His birthday is “International Day of Non-Violence”.
Those and plethora of other praises for the dhoti clad
revolutionist. How could Gandhi’s killer being an Indian killed the man who was
fighting for the same cause? Nathuram Godse, often criticized for killing the
peaceful man, played a pivotal role in the securing the Indian borders.
In 1906, the Muslim league was formed to support the needs
of Muslims. By then Mohd Jinnah was an ambassador of Hindu-Muslim unity.
However, after Congress won the 1937 election by extreme majority, and rejected
coalition with Muslim league (who won 4.5% votes) demanding a big proportion of
Muslims in coalition government. Furious with Congress and to fulfil his
political ambitions turned to British rule. Jinnah promised to support British
rule at centre if they supported Muslim interests in Congress provinces. ”It is
not because we are in love with Imperialism”, Jinnah explained to the
annual League session in December 1938, “but in Politics one has to play one's game
as on a chessboard.”
In 1940, Mohd Jinnah
made a statement that demanded a separate nation for Muslims. Gandhi opposed the
idea of partition saying "My whole soul rebels against the idea that
Hinduism and Islam represent two antagonistic cultures and doctrines. To assent
to such a doctrine is for me a denial of God." Many other Muslim parties opposed such a
division but they were subdued. There were several Hindu-Muslim riots in East
Bengal which was a Muslim Majority region. A venomous document called Lal
Ishtahar , or Red Pamphlet incited the Muslims to kill Hindus.
This extract is from R.C Majumdar’s book “Struggle For Freedom” -> Red
Pamphlet
“Ye Musalmans arise awake! Do not buy
anything from a Hindu shop. Do not give any employment to a Hindu. Do not
accept any degrading office under a Hindu. You are ignorant, but if you acquire
knowledge you can at once send all Hindus to jahannum(hell) ………..”
Millions of Hindus were slaughtered. Being aware of all
this, Gandhi was still adamant on his non-violent policy and advised Hindus to
stick to ahimsa. Such a staunch approach towards non-violence proved fatal for
Hindus. Many more such incidences caused a total divide of India.In the end, it
was the Indians who suffered and paid the price of Jinnah and Nehru’s ego with the
partition.
Gandhi was responsible for killing of the innocent Hindus.
He also didn’t support revolutionists like Bhagat Singh. Even after partition,
he fasted so that India released a substantial amount of money for Pakistan. He
fasted so that Hindus behave normally with Muslims in India whereas in
Pakistan, Muslims kept supressing Hindus but that didn’t affect him. He was violently non-violent. So, he
was killed!
Soon after Independence, there were several wars with
Pakistan and when they can’t win a war they depend on terrorism. None can deny
he wanted peace but expecting a Lion to eat grass is asking too much. If Gandhi
was alive, he may have handed Kashmir to Pakistan and that still wouldn’t have
quenched their thirst. They would ask for more states and Gandhi who loathed bloodshed
would have surely made India bend. His way could arouse national integrity but couldn’t
crucify the greed for power and fame. So, his killing was vital for India’s
security. Therefore, Nathuram realized
the Gandhian dream more than Gandhi could do if he was alive.
However, killing of a great man like him also had the other
side. It paved the way for the rise of dirty politics in the country. The loss
of such a leader who was devoted to the nation proved disastrous. Indian borders were far stretched and freedom
gained was soon lost due to ineffective government policies and lack of strong
leader.
This is in response, to the various videos and comments of
people who are taking sides of (Gandhi) or (Nathuram and Bhagat Singh). Had we
got freedom Bhagat Singh’s way then a wrong message would be sent. A loss is
better than false victory, and so independence through violent measures is more
of a false victory. It may have freed the country but all those violent leaders
would have their say and would have divided India into more parts as per their domination.
An organised and united approach was needed which cemented all and Gandhi’s
approach was equitable.
Thus, taking sides of either would not give us what we have
now. Each freedom fighter was instrumental for the turnout.
Presently, corruption and dynastic ruling have crippled the Gandhian
ideals. Somehow, he is revered by history books, celebrities, and movies but no
more resides in people’s heart. He is
everyone’s need but only on currency notes. The nation has suffered due to over
ambitious leaders of past and is turning a blind eye to the lessons it learnt. The leaders shouldn’t forget that they are
a part of nation and nation isn’t a part of them. Therefore, their good lies in
the good of the nation.
