One of the liveliest discussions you would witness
This thread of discussion took place all of a sudden among a group of friends and is being posted to remember it for time to come.
Disclaimer: - The discussion took place in a friendly manner and has nothing to do with the sentiments of any particular group or community. We all friends are aware and educated enough to understand the sentiments of people and we do not intend to hurt anyone in any form.
ANAND:
The topic of the discussion:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nathuram_Godse
"I would tell the Hindus to face death cheerfully if the Muslims are out to kill them. I would be a real sinner if after being stabbed I wished in my last moment that my son should seek revenge. I must die without rancor. You may turn round and ask whether all Hindus and all Sikhs should die. Yes, I would say. Such martyrdom will not be in vain." (Collected Works of Mahatma Gandhi, vol.LXXXVII, p.394-5) It is left unexplained what purpose would be served by this senseless and avoidable surrender to murder.
Who would escape after such an outrageous statement?
Baba:
I guess Hindus are an extremely tolerant society, if somebody says so in today’s world, nobody is going to care and he would survive.
Anand:
Well, these statements will never be escaped by Shiv-Sena, VHP and RSS group.
Still, In my opinion, I would say the old man had lost his head towards the end of his life.
Probably you would not like it but there are two things that I must highlight here –
- Gandhi was correct in his approach – He cannot have double standards, he said the same very thing for British and the same very thing for Muslims. He was consistent and that is what you should be. A great man and I mean great as in Mahapurush is consistent in behavior – right or wrong is not the basis for greatness because just to imagine that some one will always be correct is stupid unless you are talking about Baba… Another example that I would quote here is of another person that has been considered as a Mahapurush in Indian History and that person is Rama. Do you think he led a completely fault less life… over and over in Ramayana Rama makes mistakes the biggest may be to leave Sita when she is pregnant but that was in accordance to the principles that he had set and that there were no anomalies in his behavior
- I think we live in this great big lie of great Indian bravery, over the ages in history you will find that we (especially the hindus) have been docile and not “brave” There are a few incidents here and there of bravery like Bhagat Singh etc but in all we are weak people. Consider Somnath, the first king of Gujrat region was so terrified that he fled without resistance, the second third ….seventh leader all succumbed without resistance, history shows that the only resistance that was put up was the priests closing the doors of Somnath temple. We were defeated by all invading forces and only once in a 100 200 year span did we have a brave king to show any resistance. We have built palaces and precious gifts for incoming invaders so that they are pleased and we are not man slaughtered. Rajputs in Rajashtan one of the bravest (second only to the Sikh) community in India did follow this approach… and I would not dare go to the west-east where things were even worse. We were at best the land of the kamasutra…..we have temples honoring sex for our and invaders amusement…. Secondly at least for British resistance we were poor and could not match them with any fire power that we might have, we lacked central leadership and there were no operational guidelines therefore we lacked strategy the only thing (except of course the macro economic factors) by which we could have out done the British was via will power our passive resistance was a show of will and of the only strength and courage that we could have shown. Believe me and I dare say believe me when I say that Gandhi was not the corner stone of our independence but his ideology was there was no other way… remember Sub hash Chandra Bose?? Even Nathuram was a big coward how else do you justify some one shooting an old man who has never picked up any arms in his life who would fast unto death even if any body said blood and who was carrying the soul of an impoverished nation? All in all even if we tried and we did too (Remember Sardar Patel’s “Karo aur parda daal do”) we would not have achieved much out of the manslaughter and the damages would be greater on our side.
What I have stated above is without any prejudice or disrespect for our armed forces who through discipline and training are now the best in the world --- some people have considered the Israelis the bravest of brave force but in retrospect they are still serving a mandatory time. India on other hand is voluntarily willing to die for a nation
Anand:
You have written well and I also rated Godse as a coward man only, but one piece of sentence that I have mentioned from the original article is really eye catching and it needs attention from all gentlemen:
"I would tell the Hindus to face death cheerfully if the Muslims are out to kill them. I would be a real sinner if after being stabbed I wished in my last moment that my son should seek revenge. I must die without rancour. You may turn round and ask whether all Hindus and all Sikhs should die. Yes, I would say. Such martyrdom will not be in vain." (Collected Works of Mahatma Gandhi, vol.LXXXVII, p.394-5) It is left unexplained what purpose would be served by this senseless and avoidable surrender to murder."
I fail to understand, who gave him the rights to ask HINDUS to surrender for whatever reason? Just because he was the so called father of the nation, he would do anything he thinks is appropriate? Just to please a particular group or in other words just to follow someone's principle, he doesn’t have any rights to ask for bloods from mass. I would say to hell with such principles.
We as Indians have been losers mainly because of following set principles and those who set them in essence. Following them blindly I would say. I don’t see any sense in his pleading to Hindus to silently be killed as a sacrifice. Wow principle. If your principle is well within the limits of you and those you know and only affects them, you are perhaps allowed to follow them at any cost, not when it is going to affect the whole community.
I am not saying Godse was a big man or anything. But all I want to say, believing the information to be correct is, Gandhi's days were truly numbered. He would have been killed anyways and this has been closely shown in the movie Hey Ram too. If not Kamal Hasan, then someone else, rememeber? It was perhaps in the best interest of India and history.
Chirag:
In concurrence to what Anand said
Think logically about it, INDIAN Government made a decision that Pakistan do not have right to get 550 Million Rupees from India because they occupied a significant part of Kashmir, but this one man(Gandhi) thought that this is a wrong decision and went on unlimited Fasting . What the heck he thought of himself.
I think it was a very good thing that the guy(Gandhi) died early otherwise I am sure there would have been bigger BLUNDERS in history which we must have been discussing today.
Paresh Babu - if what you are saying the definition of Mahapurush (being consistent) then why GANDHI never did fasting for any of the following causes in support of HINDUS.
- Mishandling Khilafat movement
- Mishandling Mopla riots where thousands of Hindu women were raped and double number of men were killed.
- Mishandling Swami Shraddananda's murder by a muslim fanatic. (He called that muslim killer a patriot).
- Forcibly removing Netaji from his post as congress president.
- Ushering in socialist Nehru instead of Patel for the leadership.
- Calling Chatrapathi Shivaji Maharaj, Maharana Pratap, Guru Gobind Singh as "misguided patriots".
- Mishandling the Bhagat Singh case.
- Calling Sardar Udham Singh, who shot that General O'Dwyer, as an insane person.
- Mishandling 1946 Noakhali riots where tens of thousands of Hindus were looted raped and killed. Gandhi came immediately on spot to save the muslims from retaliation. He even called Suhrawardy who led these riots as Shaheed.
- Greatest blunders during partition - always rushing and fasting to save muslims from Hindu retaliation but forgetting to save Hindus when they were first attacked.
- Thousands of Hindu refugees had come to Delhi after being looted of all their property, raped or watching their beloved ones getting raped, injured or watching their beloved ones getting killed. RSS evacuated the mosques in Delhi for these refugees to stay. Gandhi fasted to make these people come out to the streets to let the muslims back in.
- Granting 55 crores to Pakistan.
Vikram:
Good constructive discussion guys. Keep it coming.
Baba:
Yes, very decent, very decent (Boman Irani style in Khosla ka Ghosla)
Paresh:
Chirag,
I will reply to your email once I get time to go through every thing and analyze the same but I do agree to one thing Gandhi was overly generous to Muslims.
And I have thought over the same again and again, one of the possibilities ---It is not my final evaluation and I still am looking for some viable answers to this---
You know in a family say your family your parents would stop you from doing something wrong but they would not put all the same effort in stopping someone else outside the family. We try corrective actions only on our own and not on the whole world …. But this leads me to wonder if Gandhi always considered Muslims as outsiders and that does not make sense.
Another possibility ….
You can only stop things from happening before they happen maybe Muslim insurgents always had the first strike and the only ones that could be stopped were Hindus
2. Gandhi was not a socialist in fact his Gujrathi origins made him empathetic to Indian origin businessmen. Nehru was a socialist after Gandhi died before that the social cause was not that prominent in Nehru. I cannot comment on why Sardar Patel and more importantly why Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose who even won the Congress elections but had to step down due to Gandhis wishes. It is something that will always be subject to speculation but from all that I have seen between Nehru and Patel Nehru was unfortunately always the TOP DAWG.
3. 55 crores – It’s a shame. In a nations history 55 crores is such a trivial matter. In the long run did we suffer more from that 55 crore bounty or our own shoot the foot attitude……
Andy bhai,
Everything else apart, Gandhi has not forced the Hindus and Sikhs for such an action his comment is --
“I would tell…” that is his suggestion and what he feels and thinks right …. Final choice is left to the people. Do remember that it was only Gandhi’s fast unto death when the senseless violence ended
Tell me this, you agree that Dhoni is a good player but tomorrow if Dhoni is not playing well even then if people will ask how Dhoni is what will you say?
Will you say he is a bad player or will you say he is out of form? Would you just change your stance if the player is playing selfishly, has lost all his form? Or would you say that the player is a good player but he has divulged into wrong doings? This is consistency.
I really feel, if Gandhi would have lived for a few more years India Pak would have been a far more peaceful country than what they are today, Because Gandhi was respected in both the countries and he would have traveled to Pakistan often to ease of the tensions there.
I do believe that his death was imminent because just like the present day in those times also the detractors of Gandhi would have spread a lot of misinformation.
You know it is a classic example – a man who stands for non violence dies in violence. Just like Buddha who has always been associated with peace- he died in major pain
I would suggest that you should first watch Gandhi and then read Gandhi’s writings to analyze him and not go by Godse whose only claim to fame is killing Gandhi.
I had similar sentiments about Gandhi earlier and very reluctantly read his autobiography but when I read his stuff it kind of makes sense
Anand:
I have also read his autobiography and I after reading it I had mixed feelings. I have also seen that movie. Most of the things he did initially impressed me and my opinion would not change at any cost regarding those. But somehow I feel towards the end of his career, he was too generous in his approach towards muslims and that was absolutely unnecessary.
About you saying that we cant believe what GOdse has written off him, well at the same time to be neutral, I wont believe what Gandhi has written in his autobiography 100%.
Now about you claiming that had he lived for say another 10-20 years, India and Pakistan would have peace, I would strongly object. Man, you are talking about a race which has consistently went opposite to peace. All countries dominated by Muslims are more or less lagging behind in basic necessities and humanity is at all time risk. I fail to convince myself that any persona be it Gandhi would have single handedly changed that.
Having said all this, I would agree that he did many things good for india but he will be rightly criticized for his obsession towards Muslims for generations to come. Do you think he would have been successful to the same extent even in today’s world? Do you think his mass appeal would have been the same? I would say NO. He was the leader of followers, a mass that was mostly uneducated (literacy rate 12%). Now that people are aware of things and educated, I dont think his principles holds good and that is exactly the reason you don’t see many followers of him among the youngsters now a days. On a lighter not check out the orkut community for Gandhi baba vis a vis that of Sachin Tendulkar or Shahrukh khan or even Dhoni :-)
About your example of Dhoni, well Dhoni has still to prove a lot of things. He has still not done many things a complete cricketer should do. So I won’t say anything. But had you given the examples of Sachin Tendulkar, you would have got the answer. So many people criticize him for so many reasons, but my opinions have remained unchanged over the years and it will not change even if he retires tomorrow. If Dhoni comes to equivalent state, it would be true in his case too. I won’t change side just because someone has been exposed of his weaknesses for some reason. A genius will always be one and a few ups and downs are always there just to prove that the genius is at the end of the day only a human being.
Paresh:
Andy bhai,
As far as an opinion is concerned – your opinion is your own and I respect it as it is, I do not wish that you alter your opinion as much as I do not wish to change mine.
I do believe that Gandhi would be successful even today, yes he wouldn’t be the one in a plain simple dhoti, he wouldn’t act and work within the same framework, depending on the current schema he would adapt, don’t forget Gandhi had a completely different persona in South Africa and it was only when he came to India that he changed to what we know of him today. I think Gandhi was intelligent enough to understand the dynamics of the situation and adapt… the biggest hit of 2006 was indeed Munna bhai meets mahatma?? Underlying principle was the same don’t you agree?
Having said that I don’t think literacy has changed anything in India .. do you wish to tell me that the chosen leaders of today are better than what Gandhi was. Are you telling me that that Mulayam Singh, Karunanidhi, sonia Gandhi, advani , rahul Gandhi, Scindia etc etc any of them are better than Gandhi and if the literate people have chosen these people they are any better. Infact today’s literate people judge politicians as which one of the two are a lesser evil…. This is not leadership not is it an act of intelligence.
I don’t like Pakistan because it is a hostile state but I cannot say the same against the Muslims of the world – not diplomatic just what I feel. I think we have discussed this issue earlier when at times we had realized through our associations in Infosys that everyone is the same. As I said I don’t have anything about why or if Gandhi favored Muslims in the last part.
Again his living another 10-20 years is speculative and opinion only so we cannot do much about it
But again I would ask you to not to consider us Indians as a brave defiant race our success lies in our intellectual capacity and not the muscle power we would not have been successful even with a very aggressive tone. And I believe all the misinformation that has been spread against the man are his cross to bear and nothing can be done about it. Only if we would have lived in the times of Gandhi can we make a subjective evaluation
Finally I would end with the tribute from Einstein for Gandhi
Generations to come will scarce believe that such
a one as this walked the earth in flesh and blood.
Anand:
Your point about whether the politicians elected today are better just because they have been elected by a mass that is more literate in nature is a really good one. And I am with you in this regard. They are definitely not. I am not critical about Gandhi in every respect. I will put my point with another example.
People often compare don bradman with Sachin Tendulkar and discuss who is great. Whether the average 99+ is better than 55+. On papaer yes it is better. But as you said we have to be in the same era to judge these two personalities. Different times and different situations. Whether Bradman would have been equally competent in today's era where each move of yours is subject to enormous scrutiny is very subjective. We can not assume things. In Bradman's era only England was the team against whom he scored heavily. Consider 8-10 different countries of varying standard plus add to that the rising level of the game and different strategies followed by everyone. The batsman is exposed of his weaknesses more and more. So we cant compare the two. It is the same way if you start comparing Shahrukh khan's performace in Baajigar to Bachchan saab in Deewar. We can’t.
That's the reason I said, Gandhi would have been successful to the same extent or not is highly debatable when your every move is watched so much. Your weaknesses would have been exposed more severely and you would have been made to believe to be made of flesh and blood and not the same mahatma image Gandhi had almost close to GOD. It would have been tougher for him.
His dedication towards his own country is commendable for the same reasons. At a time when 95% of the population knew nothing more than bread, if he stood upto the challenge he must be a great man. But all I am trying to say is, he did made mistakes and major ones. No denying that. His statements that we discussed are prone to lead to communal violence in a country like India even now. Having made those statements, he only asked for those bullets. Some X or Y would have killed him anyways. And since he was favoring too much for Pakistan, I believe it happened for good. Because once two countries were separated we had to accept that in the first place that they would not have their own ways. We can't leave in India and be loyal to Pakistan for any reason. If you had do much loyalty to Muslims, you should have gone to Pakistan.
Munish:
I think, the world is changing and even though Gandhi appears to have taken the back burner in our eyes...but still the world knows he is one of the greatest men in the modern history and the kind of thing which he dared to do is something unthinkable. Aan eye for an eye would only make the world blind' and i do abide by that.
Just that you hit someone back after a wrong doing doesn't close the matter. If tomorrow he is going to get back with more people and do you more damage and this goes on. The only thing to be seen is that non-violence doesn't appeal to the youth as a way to achieve means as it makes them look coward. If you realize the power of non-violence did actually work on those countless occasions, when initially all his defiance was crushed down brutally by the British in SA and India, but afterwards they did actually manage to do the same without having to face the same harsh consequences, he actually did gain his strength by doing what he believed in and it did work. He did get under the skin just with his unique way of defiance. Besides, think about the terms India has with England now and think about the terms India has with Pakistan. Also, his inspiration has made two countries proud of what he did - Nelson Mandela and Martin Luther King. They were able to achieve the unthinkable for their people. I don't claim to say that lives are not lost but the approach did help cut on the people who would have otherwise died. How else would you imagine British left India, did they run out of weapons or something?
I never doubted Gandhi’s intentions, you don't have control over results...nobody has impeccable record if you are a human, but I still would call him a brave man who did so much and so much in a self less manner. I give him A grade. Jai Hind. Jai Bapu.
One of the things which I most admire about Gandhi is his leadership skills…In India where it is well nigh impossible to bring a consensus among even five people on any issue…he managed to bring together such a diverse and divided population on same platform and convince them that we could achieve independence through a completely untraditional and unheard of method called ‘non violence’. Even I am critical of many of his decisions and views but again every human being has drawbacks and virtues and what really matters is the overall balance sheet and I think his overall balance sheet looks good.
