Assasination Of Mahatma Gandhi

10-14-2006, 09:45 PM

QUOTE(acharya @ Oct 14 2006, 08:38 PM)
..... British did not want to negotiate with Gandhi since was too powerful and he negotiated <b>under his own terms</b>.
[right][snapback]59102[/snapback][/right]


Acharya, what might be those terms?

10-14-2006, 10:09 PM

Politically, when (almost) everyone else sought to achieve complete independence through armed struggle the congressites (Gandhi, Nehru et al - esp gandhi) wanted greater power and privileges but within the framework of basic dependence on the imperialists.

QUOTEIts "<b>non-cooperation was only a step towards cooperation</b>." See G. D. Birla, Bapu: A Unique Association, III (Bombay, 1977 ); B. Pattabhi Sitaramayya , History of the Indian National Congress.

The method was non-violence in thought and deed in achieving that. Gandhi, who played the "dual role of saint for the masses and champion of big business" told Guy Wint, a British journalist, in 1939: <b>"We cannot become an utterly. independent nation. . . . And so if we could becorne partners on equal terms I want the Indo-British partnership to be permanent." </b>

Gandhi also wrote that if dominion status was offered, I would take it. ( Harijan, 16 December 1939).

Those were his terms. The less said about Gandhi's terms on Hindus-Muslims, the better.

Another good book to read is Panigrahi's "India's Partition: Imperialism in Retreat".....

**acharya** · (This post was last modified: 10-15-2006, 03:27 AM by acharya.)

QUOTE(k.ram @ Oct 14 2006, 04:15 AM)<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(acharya @ Oct 14 2006, 08:38 PM)
..... British did not want to negotiate with Gandhi since was too powerful and he negotiated <b>under his own terms</b>.
[right][snapback]59102[/snapback][/right]


Acharya, what might be those terms?
[right][snapback]59106[/snapback][/right]
</div>

Satyagraha was Gandhi's biggest weapon and he used it to put the govt of the British India to their knees. Gandhi' was able to manipulate the terms of negotiation and kept the Govt under pressure who could never fanthom his next move.

Some of the quotes from the British govt officials and British politician will show that they did not want to negotiate with Gandhi during the independence and avoided dealing with the crucial talks with Gandhi.

Gandhi was still a product of his time and may have the socially engineered thought process of living in a dominion just as his generation had come to accept for over 100 years. But he had the clarity of mind to see that the British were weak and British cannot rule over the country without the support of the people.

Once he found a way to completely change the loyalty of the people in the villages and towns away from the British govt he knew that he could make the British come to his terms. It took him some time but the 1942 Quit Indian movement was the most critical juncture in Indian History where Indian Independence leaders and Gandhi found that they had the power to put pressure on British govt when British govt was down under the weight of WWII.

Churchill and Britian never forgave Gandhi and Nehru for that blow to the war effort in WWII which undermined the British plans to start a second front in Europe against Nazi Germany after 1941. This information from the Britian side and WWII side of the history is never explained to the Indians. The enormity of this situation has to be seen that Britian raised the biggest army at that time with Indian troops of 2.5 Million. Britain owed $15 BILLION to the dominions/Princes for the war effort and the troops for the WAR. They had to get a loan of $4 BILLION from the US after the war to keep solvent.

One of the reason that the Indian soldiers of the WWII in the British Indian army are not recognized after WWII is because British were not happy with 1942 Quit Indian Army. Of course they didnt have to pay for the troops since all the Princely states of India who loaned troops to the Crown were completely dissolved after independence.

Quit India movement along with the Indian Navy Mutiny completely made the British govt vulnerable in 1945 itself. They actively worked with Jinnah and ML after 1946 for the partition of India.

There is lot of information which is still not open yet.
Few people who have been researching these information now believe that British govt is responsible for the death of Mahatma Gandhi. There is a rumour that British paid of Congress and Hindu Mahasabha so as not to investigate the murder and take the blame for the murder!

10-15-2006, 04:02 AM

We have really deviated from the purpose of this thread. This thread almost looks like the Gandhi ideology thread. The purpose of this thread is to discuss the impact of assasination of MKG rather then MKG himself.

Having said that here are some writings from some of the men that we admire..

Swami Vivekananda..

QUOTEIt has been for the good of India that religious preaching in the West has been and will be done. It has ever been my conviction that we shall not be able to rise unless the Western people come to our help. In this country, no appreciation of merit can yet be found, no financial strength, and what is most lamentable of all, there is not a bit, of practicality...I have experienced even in my insignificant life that good motives, sincerity, and infinite love can conquer the world. One single soul possessed of these virtues can destroy the dark designs of millions of hypocrites and brutes...I only want to show that our wellbeing is impossible without men and money coming from the West.

Rabindranath Tagore..

QUOTEOur country having lost its links with the inmost truths of its being, struggled under a crushing load of unreason, in abject slavery to circumstances. In social usage, in politics, in the realm of religion and art, we had entered the zone of uncreative habit, a decadent tradition, and ceased to exercise our humanity.

Rammohun Roy types were worse. This was the environment and the leaders were definitely the product of their times.

---------------

PS : Guys read the Dharampal thread and his books.

10-15-2006, 08:20 AM

Cripps mission was sabotaged to begin with, by folks like Viceroy Linlithgow (not sure how much role Churchill himself played and they say he changed post Attlee's involvement, but that is another discussion). India was still sending material and money anyways, it did not stop, did it? India did, per Linlithgow himself. After the failure of Cripps mission, of course, Indians were frustrated, but it demonstrated that the British desire for talks was merely to gain time and to impress upon its allies of its resolve to break the deadlock, as Winston Churchill observed both in the War Cabinet. The Indians again felt betrayed etc etc, and then decided they will have nothing to do with any British largesse etc. The Indian elites in politics and freedom fights, were now disillusioned with their fancy of being British slavelets in the dominion, HAD to call for "Quit India" movement. During these times, I am sure any politician could have yelled "Do or Die" and India would have risen, just the same. Nothing special about Gandhi.

The Congress indeed had not anticipated any action from the government, but swoop the British did in arresting INC leaders. In fact, Gandhi contemplated launching a mass struggle only after a week or two. He later remarked "I have definitely contemplated an interval between the passing of the Congress Resolution and the starting of the struggle. I do not know if what I contemplate doing according to my wont can be in any way described as being in the nature of negotiation but a letter will certainly go to the Viceroy, not as an ultimatum but as an earnest pleading for avoidance of a conflict. If there is a favourable response, then my letter can be the basis for negotiation."

Satyagraha as Gandhi practiced it is bunch of ideas from Henry David Theoreau and Tolstoy that has been Indianized with some sanskrit sounding names. There is no satya in it, nor rightful aagraham in this philosophy. Let alone Dharma. It is wayward thinking of an individual who imposed his beliefs on an innocent nation and people and got them slaughtered, a nation divided and Hinduness crushed. Satyagraha was only powerful to bring the hindus down to their knees with Gandhis blackmailing, it did not bring anyone down.

In 1944 itself, with Allied victory in sight, British started looking at Indian problem. With Lord Wavell, who was directed to be more imaginative in the solution, and then that lead to Simla conference to 1945 (post gandhi - jinnah meet, and gandhi who in principle agreed with soverign state of pakistan but NOT two nation theory and thus failed), to partition. Anyway all the known Lords, Viceroys and etc were all antagonistic towards hindus, as they thought, rightfully so, only Hindus opposed British.

Anyways, said all that, I am waiting for the new research with an open mind - British killing Gandhi, and HMS taking the blame for it, etc.

Rajesh, let's move couple of these posts to the right thread. We, indeed have strayed.

Hey Ram!

**acharya** · (This post was last modified: 10-16-2006, 04:46 AM by acharya.)

QUOTEThe Congress indeed had not anticipated any action from the government, but swoop the British did in arresting INC leaders. In fact, Gandhi contemplated launching a mass struggle only after a week or two.

I agree with the gist of your post but It hardly matters if Gandhi took two weeks for the agitation. But the main point is that Gandhi was able to rally a large group of Indians. Of course others should also be given the credit for the agitation during those times and Gandhi was not the only person for various sacrifices during the struggleQUOTEAnyway all the known Lords, Viceroys and etc were all antagonistic towards hindus, as they thought, rightfully so, only Hindus opposed British.


And the British identified the entire INC and supporters as Hindus even if there was a large Muslim supporters of INC. They wanted the Hindus or Indians to understand that they are the losers during the independence. Hence they made sure that partition happened and also Pakistan was encouraged to attack Kashmir just after independence.

One man was able to rally the Hindus in an united manner. And they were opposed to that man and wanted to avoid negotiating with that man.

10-16-2006, 04:21 AM

QUOTE(k.ram @ Oct 14 2006, 12:15 PM)<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(acharya @ Oct 14 2006, 08:38 PM)
..... British did not want to negotiate with Gandhi since was too powerful and he negotiated <b>under his own terms</b>.
[right][snapback]59102[/snapback][/right]


Acharya, what might be those terms?
[right][snapback]59106[/snapback][/right]
</div>

Mahatma Gandhi was a "soft" bully who manipulated people who respected him to get what he wanted. The British, with their parlimentary sense of fair play found it difficult to be violent to a man preaching non-violence. It was the first time satyagraha was used protest. Hindus also respected Mahatma Gandhi and followed him. He used this respect to go into fast until death to get concessions regarding Bose election, Patel election, the issue of partition, the rioting hindus at Naukhali and giving 55 crs to pak. He has repeatedly bullied hindus and people who loved and respected him. It is this respect that made him powerful. Imagine what would have happened if india was ruled by less principled country like the portugal/spain/germany/US. Gandhi would have been nuetralised very early, possibly even in South Africa and we would have had to win our freedom thru war.

But all this bullying stops when it comes to muslims and muslim league, who deeply distrusted him and made Gandhi bend to their wishes. This is a character flaw in the Mahatma that made him a liability for hindus and india. Islam teaches its followers to exploit these weeknesses, things like fair play and justice. No wonder muslims thought Gandhi was weak, the more he tried to win them over, more concessions he made and more they lost respect.

The key to hindutva is to reverse the softening of hindus because of gandhi.

**acharya** · (This post was last modified: 10-16-2006, 05:06 AM by acharya.)

QUOTE(LSrini @ Oct 15 2006, 10:51 AM)

The British, with their parlimentary sense of fair play found it difficult to be violent to a man preaching non-violence.Â


That is the term in which Gandhi made sure that the British govt negotiated.
Because the British govt was ruling India in the name of justice and fairplay and perpetuating their hegemony in those terms - hence Gandhi held them to that stds.
British wanted a dominin status for India based on those sense of 'fair play'.

If the British govt was a tyranical and oppressive in nature then there would have been another kind of leader under whom the people would have rallied together. This is the key to kind of leaders who get support during struggle.

After 60 years the world is under the assult of terror and violence inthe name of religion. This will generate a different kind of leadership who will find the appropriate kind of response. For Hindus with the kind of targetted anti-Hindu killings by the Islamists-fascists this will require totally different kind of response. The sense of history now in the 21st century is different from those days when the modern world was opening up just before independence.

The softening of Hindus in 60 years is due to indoctrination and false liberal movement by deracinated Indian elite which just perpetuated this Gandhi philosophy without looking into the sense of History. The current liberal movement is a false movement and has no connection to the liberation movement during the independence of India.

The concept of non violence response to a world at relative peace may need a change and upgrade.

10-16-2006, 09:41 AM

QUOTE(acharya @ Oct 15 2006, 07:24 PM)
That is the term in which Gandhi made sure that the British govt negotiated.
Because the British govt was ruling India in the name of justice and fairplay and perpetuating their hegemony in those terms - hence Gandhi held them to that stds.
British wanted a dominin status for India based on those sense of 'fair play'.


There was nothing that prevented the british from going back on their word. How else did Jalianwala bagh happen? Remember is was the days of no TV and electronic news. It was just that British played fair in india. Churchill had gassed the turks without any remorse. So they could have very well done another gassing and had a fall guy. They probably had a policy of tit-for-tat and that is why Gandhi's satyagraha succeeded. Did the british not hang Bhagat singh?

QUOTEIf the British govt was a tyranical and oppressive in nature then there would have been another kind of leader under whom the people would have rallied together.Â This is the key to kind of leaders who get support during struggle.


I am not sure I would go to the extent to say that! It was not a govt for indian people benefit. British is what is referred to as stationary bandit, like any dictator who want to make money. They laid down railways etc that helped them loot india better that also benefited indians. But still, had it not been for the two worldwars, british might have been around much longer.

QUOTEAfter 60 years the world is under the assult of terror and violence inthe name of religion.Â This will generate a different kind of leadership who will find the appropriate kind of response.Â For Hindus with the kind of targetted anti-Hindu killings by the Islamists-fascists this will require totally different kind of response.Â The sense of history now in the 21st century is different from those days when the modern world was opening up just before independence.

The softening of Hindus in 60 years is due to indoctrination and false liberal movement by deracinated Indian elite which just perpetuated this Gandhi philosophyÂ without looking into the sense of History. The current liberal movement is a false movement and has no connection to the liberation movement during the independence of India.

The concept of non violence response to a world at relative peace may need a change and upgrade.

That is exactly what I am also saying. Non-violence would only work with an enemy that plays fair even in battle field. Muslims have never played fair, right from the days of muhammad when they looted unarmed caravans etc. So Non-violence is not an answer. I think hindus believe their own delusion that god would punish evil-doers. Although it is this belief that sustained them thru mughal rule and other periods of atrocities.

The current liberal movement is a commie inspired propaganda to diminish hinduism.

**acharya** · (This post was last modified: 10-17-2006, 04:04 AM by acharya.)

QUOTE(LSrini @ Oct 15 2006, 04:11 PM)Â
The current liberal movement is a commie inspired propaganda to diminish hinduism.



The current liberal movement has been hijacked by the Indian commie and leftist movement for the last 30-40 years.
THey have appropriated the name of Gandhi and Gandhism and abused the entire philosophy. They are also using that to go after the Hindus and traditional moderates.

So we need to identify who is abusing the philosophy and go after them. Commies and leftist liberals are the main culprit who are trying to defame and slander Hindus and Hinduism under the fake liberal movement.

Gandhi has his own fault but the main culprit are the leftist who are doing a covert and overt attack on Hinduism in the name of fake Human rights, fake liberal movement and also conversion.

They have used assasination of Gandhi as an attack on the liberal movement and leftist movement in India. This is a very clever psy ops used by the leftist to undermine the Nationalist forces in India for the last 50 years.

10-17-2006, 07:11 AM

Acharya,
Gandhi was a crowd puller before partition.
Gandhi never represented Hindus; in fact he went on fast for Muslims when Hindus and Sikhs were being butchered by Muslims in now Pakistan and Punjab. Even kids used to spit on Gandhi posters in Punjab. Adults used slap Gandhiâs posters by slippers.

Nehru used Gandhi's death to suppress Hindus in North India by placing ban and arresting every single local Hindu leader in Punjab whether they were connected by RSS or not. No doubt Gandhi was one of the most hated man in North India especially border area.
Nehru promoted his own family members by placing them in every cushy job.
Current leftist and Congress are using Gandhi and Nehru policies to suppress majority. Nehru used to ridicule Hindus and their customs; he was more British than Britishers.

Gandhi and Nehru relationship after partition was not so good.
Together these two guys killed majority population customs and aspiration.

10-23-2006, 07:33 AM

QUOTE(k.ram @ Oct 14 2006, 10:09 PM)Politically, when (almost) everyone else sought to achieve complete independence through armed struggle the congressites (Gandhi, Nehru et al - esp gandhi) wanted greater power and privileges but within the framework of basic dependence on the imperialists.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTEIts "<b>non-cooperation was only a step towards cooperation</b>." See G. D. Birla, Bapu: A Unique Association, III (Bombay, 1977 ); B. Pattabhi Sitaramayya , History of the Indian National Congress.

The method was non-violence in thought and deed in achieving that. Gandhi, who played the "dual role of saint for the masses and champion of big business" told Guy Wint, a British journalist, in 1939: <b>"We cannot become an utterly. independent nation. . . . And so if we could becorne partners on equal terms I want the Indo-British partnership to be permanent."</b>

Gandhi also wrote that if dominion status was offered, I would take it. ( Harijan, 16 December 1939).

Those were his terms. The less said about Gandhi's terms on Hindus-Muslims, the better.

Another good book to read is Panigrahi's "India's Partition: Imperialism in Retreat".....
[right][snapback]59108[/snapback][/right]
</div>

So there you have it. In one line (permanent partnership etc) Gandhi also crowns himself the king of all Macaulites and Westophilles.

"Father of the nation" eh?? a Father who wanted a permanent partnership??

If gandhi and his chamcha Nehru were the only names in the indian freedom movement horizon, than thats what we would still have been - a "permanent partner" of the brits.

10-23-2006, 07:59 AM

QUOTE(Mudy @ Oct 17 2006, 07:11 AM)Acharya,
Gandhi was a crowd puller before partition.
Gandhi never represented Hindus; in fact he went on fast for Muslims when Hindus and Sikhs were being butchered by Muslims in now Pakistan and Punjab. Even kids used to spit on Gandhi posters in Punjab. Adults used slap Gandhiâs posters by slippers.

Nehru used Gandhi's death to suppress Hindus in North India by placing ban and arresting every single local Hindu leader in Punjab whether they were connected by RSS or not.Â No doubt Gandhi was one of the most hated man in North India especially border area.
Nehru promoted his own family members by placing them in every cushy job.
Current leftist and Congress are using Gandhi and Nehru policies to suppress majority. Nehru used to ridicule Hindus and their customs; he was more British than Britishers.

Gandhi and Nehru relationship after partition was not so good.
Together these two guys killed majority population customs and aspiration.
[right][snapback]59240[/snapback][/right]


Thats one heartfelt post and one of the more accurate ones in this forum.

**acharya** · 10-23-2006, 10:08 PM

QUOTE(Mudy @ Oct 16 2006, 01:41 PM)Acharya,
Gandhi was a crowd puller before partition.
Gandhi never represented Hindus; in fact he went on fast for Muslims when Hindus and Sikhs were being butchered by Muslims in now Pakistan and Punjab. Even kids used to spit on Gandhi posters in Punjab. Adults used slap Gandhiâs posters by slippers.

Nehru used Gandhi's death to suppress Hindus in North India by placing ban and arresting every single local Hindu leader in Punjab whether they were connected by RSS or not.Â No doubt Gandhi was one of the most hated man in North India especially border area.
Nehru promoted his own family members by placing them in every cushy job.
Current leftist and Congress are using Gandhi and Nehru policies to suppress majority. Nehru used to ridicule Hindus and their customs; he was more British than Britishers.

Gandhi and Nehru relationship after partition was not so good.
Together these two guys killed majority population customs and aspiration.



I agree with the gist of your post. But Gandhi influenced every nook and corner of the country. He was able to awaken the masses as never before and changed the political map of India.
Hence even though Punjab and Delhi and other parts were burning and were angry at Gandhi , the rest of the country gives credit to Gandhi atleast for the awakening. The partition and violence and the govt formation with Nehru are seen as pawn games by the British govt where Gandhi and Nehru were really pawns in the chess board with British having secret agreement with the Muslim League.

The decision of Nehru and his idea of modernization built on denegrating Hinduism is a monumental blunder.

10-24-2006, 04:10 AM

QUOTE(acharya @ Oct 23 2006, 10:08 PM)
I agree with the gist of your post. But Gandhi influenced every nook and corner of the country.Â He was able to awaken the masses as never before and changed the political map of India.
[right][snapback]59569[/snapback][/right]


The simple reason is the prevailing conditions. People wanted some "direct action", and they were completely unarmed (Indian Arms Act, after 1857), which deprived all Indians, excluding Europeans living in India, of their right to have in their possession any arms of any kind. Now, what do you fight with, when leaders are all part of "debating society" and elite of those days who showed nothing else - no other option. Masses were already awake - Gandhi had little to do with it. Peculiar historio-social-political conditions, misinterpretation and misapplication of Ahimsa/karma/bhakti of the "nation of cowards" (As Gandhi called India), and previous violent struggles (by illicit arms) which failed to resonate with Indians in intertial. Gandhi merely exploited it.

10-24-2006, 04:25 AM

QUOTE(k.ram @ Oct 24 2006, 04:10 AM)<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(acharya @ Oct 23 2006, 10:08 PM)
I agree with the gist of your post. But Gandhi influenced every nook and corner of the country.Â He was able to awaken the masses as never before and changed the political map of India.
[right][snapback]59569[/snapback][/right]


The simple reason is the prevailing conditions. People wanted some "direct action", and they were completely unarmed (Indian Arms Act, after 1857), which deprived all Indians, excluding Europeans living in India, of their right to have in their possession any arms of any kind. Now, what do you fight with, when leaders are all part of "debating society" and elite of those days who showed nothing else - no other option. Masses were already awake - Gandhi had little to do with it. Peculiar historio-social-political conditions, misinterpretation and misapplication of Ahimsa/karma/bhakti of the "nation of cowards" (As Gandhi called India), and previous violent struggles (by illicit arms) which failed to resonate with Indians in intertial. Gandhi merely exploited it.
[right][snapback]59582[/snapback][/right]
</div>

Let Gandhi sleep in peace. We need to have good burial for present Gandhism. Gandhi might have been relevant before 47, not so now in 21st century.

Bodhi · (This post was last modified: 10-24-2006, 05:25 AM by Bodhi.)

to help the thread back to the topic which is "ASSASSINATION of Gandhiji, and after-effects" - rather than the life and philosophy of Gandhiji.

I recently read that after Gandhiji's death, Pakistan and UK were the first nations to react and send in their condolences within minutes. And only one important country, which did not even react to the news, was USSR of Marshal Joseph Stalin. Stalin and USSR did not condole the death of Gandhi in any ways.

QUOTE" When Mahatma Gandhi was assassinated, the Indian Embassy in Moscow opened a condolence book but no Soviet official came to sign it ..."

"Foreign Intrigue Against India" By Bhagat Vats published in 1967

10-24-2006, 05:35 AM

QUOTE(prem @ Oct 24 2006, 04:25 AM) Let Gandhi sleep in peace. We need to have good burial for presentÂ Gandhism. Gandhi might have been relevant before 47, not so now in 21st century.
[right][snapback]59584[/snapback][/right]


The point is not to either deify or demonize any politician of yesteryears, who may very well have made a virtue out of necessity. No problem with that. Happens all the time. It is for us to understand the epoch, compulsions, conditions of those time, and learn something and move on - only not to repeat any mistakes, if they had made any. If we want a 21st century India, we must understand, to start with, a deep deplection, a dispassionate process that focuses on accurate history, and political organization and institutions, on power (and privilege) and authority, players involved and their compulsions, and the behavior of rulers and subjects (not homogenous in India's case, with sub and concurrent histories and all the above categories again, within that), as they are major forces of social human activity. We have to deconstruct and unlearn before we learn anything and build on that. Don't you agree?

**acharya** · 10-25-2006, 01:46 AM

Can you take the discussion to ther misc thread since this is MK Gandhi thread.

11-18-2006, 07:13 PM

<img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/argue.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='argue.gif' /> No role of RSS in Gandhi's killing: Sudershan
[ 18 Nov, 2006 1215hrs ISTPTI ]

RSS Feeds| SMS NEWS to 8888 for latest updates

YAMUNANAGAR: Blaming the Congress for spreading the propaganda that Nathuram Godse acted on the behest of Rashtriya Swayam sevak Sangh, its party chief on Saturday reiterated that his party had no role in the killing of Mahatma Gandhi.

"It is the old practice of the Congress party and its leaders to defame RSS for achieving political mileage, a practice which is still continuing. RSS had no hand in the murderer of Mahatma Gandhi," RSS Chief K C Sudershan said while addressing a gathering at Jagadhri in Yamunanagar.

He also blamed the then policies of the Congress as "weak" and the reason behind the split of the Indian mainland.

The 'Quit India' movement of 1942 led by Mahatma Gandhi was a failure due to non-planning of the movement. Pt Jawahar Lal Nehru had to admit that China has 'deceived' India when the 'friendly' country occupied Tibet during its invasion in 1962, he accused.

Claiming that Tibet was an Indian territory, Sudershan said that it has not mentioned anywhere in the history of China that Tibet is its part.

Login




Remember me Lost Password?