Those 8 Bit Days!

Cherish them again :)

Nathuram Realized the Gandhian Dream!

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.