Gandhi Assassin Being Made national Hero

M.S. Islam

Ad Honorem
Jul 2012
3,333
Dhaka
That's a bit shocking:

"In 2014, following the Bharatiya Janata Party's rise to power, the Hindu Mahasabha began attempts to rehabilitate Godse and portray him as a patriot. It requested Prime Minister Narendra Modi to install the bust of Godse. It created a documentary film Desh Bhakt Nathuram Godse (Patriot Nathuram Godse) for release on the death anniversary of Gandhi on 30 January 2015.[17] There were attempts to build a temple for Godse and to celebrate 30 January as a Shaurya Diwas ("Bravery Day")."

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nathuram_Godse#Attempts_at_rehabilitation
 

Aupmanyav

Ad Honorem
Jun 2014
5,735
New Delhi, India
:) Has Narendra Modi installed the bust of Nathuram Godse? If Hindu Mahaabha created a documentary, how is Bharatiya Janta Party responsible for that? Again, if Hindu ahasabha celebrates a Shaurya Divas, how is Bharatiya Janta Party responsible for that? Kindly understand that Bharatiya Janta Party and Hindu Mahasabha are two distinct entities and have no connection with each other. Bharatiya Janta Party does not believe in turning the clock back like Hindu Mahasabha and accepts Pakistan as an independent nation. A re-joined India (Akhand Bharat) is not what Bharatiya Janta Party looks for (it is too much of a hassle :D). Your post is wrong on all counts.
 

M.S. Islam

Ad Honorem
Jul 2012
3,333
Dhaka
:) Has Narendra Modi installed the bust of Nathuram Godse? If Hindu Mahaabha created a documentary, how is Bharatiya Janta Party responsible for that? Again, if Hindu ahasabha celebrates a Shaurya Divas, how is Bharatiya Janta Party responsible for that? Kindly understand that Bharatiya Janta Party and Hindu Mahasabha are two distinct entities and have no connection with each other. Bharatiya Janta Party does not believe in turning the clock back like Hindu Mahasabha and accepts Pakistan as an independent nation. A re-joined India (Akhand Bharat) is not what Bharatiya Janta Party looks for (it is too much of a hassle :D). Your post is wrong on all counts.
I don't quite see how your post relates to the point of OP.
 

Aupmanyav

Ad Honorem
Jun 2014
5,735
New Delhi, India
In this way that Bharatiya Janta Party or Narendra Modi will never join a program or project by Hindu Mahasabha. The two parties have totally different views. Hindu Mahasabha has no presence in political field. I do not think they have any elected representative anywhere in India. They are even less powerfull than BNP (1), JI (1), PML-F (1) in Pakistan. Thee parties at least have one representative each in Pakistan Parliament.
 
Last edited:

tornada

Ad Honoris
Mar 2013
15,385
India
Nathuram Godse assassinated Gandhi motivated primarily by his sense of anger at Gandhi's demands that Pakistan be provided the funds allocated to it under the Partition scheme, even as Pakistan had illegally and surreptitiously invaded Indian territory and was in a state of war with India. The massacres of Partition, the heightened tensions between the new countries all of these made for a highly charged political atmosphere.

Godse's actions, and the assassination of Gandhi occurred in a deeply charged political context. He was driven by strong emotions fostered by his political worldview. We can find parallels to his behavior in the motivations and actions of other assassins such as John Wilkes Booth or perhaps more appropriately James Earl Ray. As with all such people, the vast majority of reactions were negative at the time and continue to be so today. But as with all such political assassinations, there continue to be fringe elements who see the actions of these individuals as noble and valid, and slightly greater numbers of people are who can infact be quite mainstream, who while condemning the political murder/violence nonetheless find ways to justify or "accept" it. A classic example of the latter is Ronald Reagan's reaction to the murder of Martin Luther King Jr.

The Hindu Mahasabha was historically a marginal party, and its presence and reach in the Indian polity has since Independence only reduced. They are quite literally a fringe group, not particularly different from public Neo-Nazis in Europe and America today.

I'm a little unclear what exactly is "shocking" here. A small fringe element is undertaking a deliberately provocative and controversial action, likely in an attempt to raise their public profile? How is that any different from a Neo-Nazi march in Europe or the various calls for similar commemoration of assassins or demonetization of their targets by White Supremacist groups in other parts of the world? It is not new knowledge that Nathuram Godse has a fringe fan base. This has always been known.

I'm also unclear as to why the current political dispensation is linked to it (as the above poster rightly also questions). There are Neo-Nazi rallies in London (there was on in 2015 that I remember made the news for some reason) but that hardly means that the Tories are automatically implicated and linked to it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: rvsakhadeo

M.S. Islam

Ad Honorem
Jul 2012
3,333
Dhaka
In this way that Bharatiya Janta Party or Narendra Modi will never join a program or project by Hindu Mahasabha. The two parties have totally different views. Hindu Mahasabha has no presence in political field. I do not think they have any elected representative anywhere in India. They are even less powerfull than BNP (1), JI (1), PML-F (1) in Pakistan. Thee parties at least have one representative each in Pakistan Parliament.
Yet Narendra Modi had no problems honoring Savarkar, Hindu Mahasabha leader & one of the accused (though acquitted) of Gandhi assassination.
 

M.S. Islam

Ad Honorem
Jul 2012
3,333
Dhaka
Nathuram Godse assassinated Gandhi motivated primarily by his sense of anger at Gandhi's demands that Pakistan be provided the funds allocated to it under the Partition scheme, even as Pakistan had illegally and surreptitiously invaded Indian territory and was in a state of war with India. The massacres of Partition, the heightened tensions between the new countries all of these made for a highly charged political atmosphere.

Godse's actions, and the assassination of Gandhi occurred in a deeply charged political context. He was driven by strong emotions fostered by his political worldview. We can find parallels to his behavior in the motivations and actions of other assassins such as John Wilkes Booth or perhaps more appropriately James Earl Ray. As with all such people, the vast majority of reactions were negative at the time and continue to be so today. But as with all such political assassinations, there continue to be fringe elements who see the actions of these individuals as noble and valid, and slightly greater numbers of people are who can infact be quite mainstream, who while condemning the political murder/violence nonetheless find ways to justify or "accept" it. A classic example of the latter is Ronald Reagan's reaction to the murder of Martin Luther King Jr.

The Hindu Mahasabha was historically a marginal party, and its presence and reach in the Indian polity has since Independence only reduced. They are quite literally a fringe group, not particularly different from public Neo-Nazis in Europe and America today.

I'm a little unclear what exactly is "shocking" here. A small fringe element is undertaking a deliberately provocative and controversial action, likely in an attempt to raise their public profile? How is that any different from a Neo-Nazi march in Europe or the various calls for similar commemoration of assassins or demonetization of their targets by White Supremacist groups in other parts of the world? It is not new knowledge that Nathuram Godse has a fringe fan base. This has always been known.

I'm also unclear as to why the current political dispensation is linked to it (as the above poster rightly also questions). There are Neo-Nazi rallies in London (there was on in 2015 that I remember made the news for some reason) but that hardly means that the Tories are automatically implicated and linked to it.
I didn't realize Hindu Mahasabha is such a fringe element, thanks for clarifying.
 

rvsakhadeo

Ad Honorem
Sep 2012
9,212
India
Yet Narendra Modi had no problems honoring Savarkar, Hindu Mahasabha leader & one of the accused (though acquitted) of Gandhi assassination.
You yourself agree that Veer Savarkar was acquitted in the murder trial of Mahatma Gandhi. Have you read any thing about what Savarkar did before Indian independence? Or what was his role in India's struggle for freedom. Savarkar, a learned man, a great patriot was jailed for two life terms to be run separately and put away in the Cellular Jail in the Andaman island. He was jailed for his part in several conspiracies to murder various English officers while studying to be a Barrister in London. He was tortured mercilessly and treated inhumanly in jail.( He was tied in place of the usual pair of bullocks to a grinding wheel rotating in a groove for crushing oil seeds to extract oil with a fixed quota of oil per day.) Yet he composed a long poem in the jail, committed to memory for want of writing equipment etc. A great spirit, he was released early on his request and he did great social work till our independence. His full scale portrait is displayed in the Lok Sabha, lower house of our Parliament.
 
Last edited:
Aug 2014
1,273
pakistan
Gandhi was assassinated because he was protesting against the massacres of Muslims in India. The enraged the Hindu extremists. Today Pakistanis might be calling bad names to Gandhi out of nationalism, but i have read that Gandhi death was also mourned in Pakistan at that time.
 

tornada

Ad Honoris
Mar 2013
15,385
India
Gandhi was assassinated because he was protesting against the massacres of Muslims in India. The enraged the Hindu extremists. Today Pakistanis might be calling bad names to Gandhi out of nationalism, but i have read that Gandhi death was also mourned in Pakistan at that time.
It was far more complicated than that. First off, the Partition massacres were not limited to India. They happened on both sides of the border (and infact preceded the formal announcement of Partition). Infact on a quantum basis the violence en-visited upon the Hindus was far more widespread, whereas violence against Muslims in heartland India was relatively absent. It is why Hindus from across Pakistan had to vacate in large numbers, except from limited areas such as parts of Sindh where they formed a more stable minority, whereas Muslims in most parts of India (even in regions where they were more precariously placed) could and did remain in place. The population displacement in per-capita terms and in terms of economic harm had a greater impact on Sikhs and Hindus.

Now coming to Gandhi. First Gandhi wasn't protesting the massacres against Muslims in India. He was protesting massacres against ALL communities, although the pro-muslim perception that had emerged about him played a role in how his actions were received. The idea that he was "pro-Muslim" wasn't limited to Hindu Extremists, and it was infact an image he had sought to nurture in an attempt to project himself as a legitimate voice for Muslims. The idea that he played a critical role in establishing and shaping Nehru's policies of minority pandering, while debatable, has some merit to it.

Nonetheless the precipitating factor, even if we look at Godse's testimony in court, seems to have been the pressure Gandhi exerted on the Government of India to turn over currency reserves to Pakistan, even as Pakistan waged war on India and no doubt would have sought to use that very capital to fund its war effort. Gandhi's actions invited censure on two grounds. First, to use his stature and standing to blackmail the government into acting against the interests of its own citizens by helping the country attacking it and murdering said citizens. Second the issue was that Gandhi had consciously chosen to stay out of Government. He did not stand for elections, nor did he take any membership in the executive, legislature or the assembly drafting the Constitution. Thus for him to force government policy was regarded as a person exercising power without accountability to push personal agendas.

This does not amount to condoning Gandhi's assassination, and many people who have staunchly attacked and criticized Gandhi, his policies and his statements had then condemned and continue to condemn the actions of Godse. Gandhi's problem was that he let idealism overpower his practicality in his old age. I wouldn't put it past him having started getting a little senile. The younger Gandhi had been an intensely pragmatic politician, willing to temper his ideals (even revise them as necessary in the light of better information or changing scenarios) with practicality. The elder statesman of the final days of British rule seemed far more attached to his personal principles. Consider for instance his actions in over-ruling the Congress as a whole to push Nehru as PM. In contrast Patel remained an individual who had practicality guide his actions right till the end.

It is true that Gandhi was mourned the world over. In part this was because his death was soon after Independence and Partition. Negative feelings between Indians and Pakistanis had not yet been cemented. The situation remained fluid, and identities were far from cast-iron. Indeed the entrenched identities and acrimony between Indians and Pakistanis we see today took a few decades to formalize. The early years and tensions between India and Pakistan, though crucial to forming the acrimony were not as set in hostility as the current attitudes are.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: rvsakhadeo