Hindu Mahasabha head speaks to Firstpost: Godse was a 'martyr' and 'patriot'

[Bitter Melon]

Bhagat singh threw bombs on UNARMED CIVILIANS.

Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose declared WAR on the British and Fought their ARMY, he did not kill or harm unarmed civilians.

1947 was a time of GREAT social awakening and social contract implementation. The Entire Freedom movement was a result of social action. Vigilantism was uncalled for. It had the potential to throw the entire movement into chaos and soceity would have been worse off for it.

Making Godse the villain was one of the ways it was prevented. It was a bit of social and political engineering which was necessary BACK THEN.

Today it is no more necessary which is why Godse can be discussed impartially and should be part of a healthy debate.

1947 was the time they hijacked our freedom movement and denied Hindus a Hindu country while giving Muslims a Muslim nation. This was fraud committed on the Indian Dharmics. It was no social contract implementation, rather it was continuance of British rule under Brown Sahibs. Godse saw this and acted. He was right. The vilification of Godse was done in furtherance of Nehru-Gandhi family rule.

 

[Guynextdoor2]

Hindu Mahasabha logic-Godse was a martyr because he avenged the division of India. And Hindu Mahasabha was against that division so that they could no longer have the opportunity to attack and reconvert muslims whom they considered inferiors.....

 

[SanjeevaniButi]

1947 was the time they hijacked our freedom movement and denied Hindus a Hindu country while giving Muslims a Muslim nation. This was fraud committed on the Indian Dharmics. It was no social contract implementation, rather it was continuance of British rule under Brown Sahibs. Godse saw this and acted. He was right. The vilification of Godse was done in furtherance of Nehru-Gandhi family rule.

You are mistaken, in 1947 India WAS committed as a Hindu Rashtra by ALL its Founding Fathers.

It was Indira Gandhi with her Muslim Husband and Christian daughter in Law who inserted "Secular" into the Constitution in 1976 (to justify creation of Bangladesh) and cheated the vast Majority of Hindus.


If you glorify Godse you also Glorify EVERY POLITICAL ASSASSIN in the world who did it for his "beliefs" all through out History.

 

[Bitter Melon]

If you glorify Godse you also Glorify EVERY POLITICAL ASSASSIN in the world who did it for his "beliefs" all through out History.

Yes, I do including killing of Bali by Rama.

 

[SanjeevaniButi]

Yes, I do including killing of Bali by Rama.

Bali was challenged to a dual to death by Sugreev. He was in battle and had come prepared to kill and to die.

 

[Bitter Melon]

Bali was challenged to a dual to death by Sugreev. He was in battle and had come prepared to kill and to die.

Rama was not the combatant in that duel. Political assassins have been part of Indian history for ever including killing of Kansa by Krishna. No community in the world is free of this and should never aver to being so.

 

[[Bregs]]

these past issues related to history are better left under wraps now, in 21st century we will be better off without these controversial issues. Public know all what happened that time and they may have drawn conclusion based on there wisdom

 

[SanjeevaniButi]

Rama was not the combatant in that duel. Political assassins have been part of Indian history for ever including killing of Kansa by Krishna. No community in the world is free of this and should never aver to being so.

Wrong. Rama was a combatant and an allie of Sugreeve and had promised him help in getting back his kingdom and wife. Bali was just ignorant of this alliance.

Kansa too was defeated in battle and Krishna was unarmed too.

 

[Bitter Melon]

Wrong. Rama was a combatant and an allie of Sugreeve and had promised him help in getting back his kingdom and wife. Bali was just ignorant of this alliance.

Kansa too was defeated in battle and Krishna was unarmed too.

No, as per the rules of war alliances were to be declared and no one was to fire from behind or in hiding. It is immaterial what Rama promised to Sugreeve. Rama broke the rules of war and it was considered dharma because dharma is only between two followers of Dharma and not between an adharmic and a dharmic. Gandhi was not a dharmic having messed up teachings of Hinduism and substituted Christian principles for Dharma.

 

[SanjeevaniButi]

No, as per the rules of war alliances were to be declared and no one was to fire from behind or in hiding. It is immaterial what Rama promised to Sugreeve. Rama broke the rules of war and it was considered dharma because dharma is only between two followers of Dharma and not between an adharmic and a dharmic. Gandhi was not a dharmic having messed up teachings of Hinduism and substituted Christian principles for Dharma.

There is no need to disclose war Alliance. That is just stupid. Which is why there were Spies even back then.

Bali asked Shri Rama the same question on his deathbead and Rama answered that he was not bound by khshtriya Dharma since Bali was an animal (monkey) and not Human. (since animals are hunted by hiding from sight)

Gandhi's dharma is not the point of discussion here. Is it ?

 

[Bitter Melon]

There is no need to disclose war Alliance. That is just stupid. Which is why there were Spies even back then.

Bali asked Shri Rama the same question on his deathbead and Rama answered that he was not bound by khshtriya Dharma since Bali was an animal (monkey) and not Human. (since animals are hunted by hiding from sight)

Gandhi's dharma is not the point of discussion here. Is it ?

Of course there is a need. That is how the Dharma yuddha rules were formed. Spies are not combatants, but information gatherers.

That was not Rama's reply to Bali. Instead he said Bali was no upholder of Dharma to speak of Dharma on his deathbed. Since he was corrupt he deserved his fate to be defeated by corruption.

 

[SanjeevaniButi]

Of course there is a need. That is how the Dharma yuddha rules were formed. Spies are not combatants, but information gatherers.

That was not Rama's reply to Bali. Instead he said Bali was no upholder of Dharma to speak of Dharma on his deathbed. Since he was corrupt he deserved his fate to be defeated by corruption.

Wrong. It was Shri Rama's reply to bali.

The conversations starts by Bali challenging Shri. Ramas action and then asking him why he did what he did.

Shri. Rama then replies by first asking Bali what right/Moral authority he has to challenge Shri. Rama's action by saying what you have quoted. He then proves the explanation for what he did.

The Moral of this particular incidence/story is to be taken after consider both part of the reply.

Following is the rules of battle agreed by the Pandava and Kaurava before Mahabharata, (Nothing about Full Disclosure)

1. Fighting must begin no earlier than sunrise and, should end by exact sunset.
2. Multiple warriors must not attack a single warrior.
3. Two warriors may duel, or engage in prolonged personal combat, only if they carry the same weapons and they are on the same mount.
4. No warrior may kill or injure a warrior who has surrendered.
5. One who surrenders becomes a prisoner of war and will then be subject to the protections of a prisoner of war.
6. No warrior may kill or injure an unarmed warrior.
7. No warrior may kill or injure an unconscious warrior.
8. No warrior may kill or injure a person or animal not taking part in the war.
9. No warrior may kill or injure a warrior whose back is turned away.
10. No warrior may strike an animal not considered a direct threat.
11. The rules specific to each weapon must be followed. For example, it is prohibited to strike below the waist in mace warfare.
12. Warriors must not engage in any 'unfair' warfare whatsoever.
13. The lives of women, prisoners of war, and farmers are sacred.
14. Land should not be pillaged.


PS: I never said Spies are combatants, but they are considered Prisoners of War when captures. e.g. When Ravana's spies Shuka and Sarana, were captured by Shri. Rama army he set them free and sent them back. It was "indirect" disclosure.

 

[Bitter Melon]

Wrong. It was Shri Rama's reply to bali.

The conversations starts by Bali challenging Shri. Ramas action and then asking him why he did what he did.

Shri. Rama then replies by first asking Bali what right/Moral authority he has to challenge Shri. Rama's action by saying what you have quoted. He then proves the explanation for what he did.

The Moral of this particular incidence/story is to be taken after consider both part of the reply.

Following is the rules of battle agreed by the Pandava and Kaurava before Mahabharata, (Nothing about Full Disclosure)

1. Fighting must begin no earlier than sunrise and, should end by exact sunset.
2. Multiple warriors must not attack a single warrior.
3. Two warriors may duel, or engage in prolonged personal combat, only if they carry the same weapons and they are on the same mount.
4. No warrior may kill or injure a warrior who has surrendered.
5. One who surrenders becomes a prisoner of war and will then be subject to the protections of a prisoner of war.
6. No warrior may kill or injure an unarmed warrior.
7. No warrior may kill or injure an unconscious warrior.
8. No warrior may kill or injure a person or animal not taking part in the war.
9. No warrior may kill or injure a warrior whose back is turned away.
10. No warrior may strike an animal not considered a direct threat.
11. The rules specific to each weapon must be followed. For example, it is prohibited to strike below the waist in mace warfare.
12. Warriors must not engage in any 'unfair' warfare whatsoever.
13. The lives of women, prisoners of war, and farmers are sacred.
14. Land should not be pillaged.


PS: I never said Spies are combatants, but they are considered Prisoners of War when captures. e.g. When Ravana's spies Shuka and Sarana, were captured by Shri. Rama army he set them free and sent them back. It was "indirect" disclosure.

Alliances were declared before war and spies do not declare war. Combatants do. As a Kshatriya, it was even more incumbent on Rama to declare his alliance with Sugreeva. It is plain adharma to talk about Sugreeva being an animal and hence not deserving Kshatriya chivalry if that is what you claim Rama told him. Then why talk about honor/dishonor at all since hey they are animals.

 

[SanjeevaniButi]

Alliances were declared before war and spies do not declare war. Combatants do. As a Kshatriya, it was even more incumbent on Rama to declare his alliance with Sugreeva. It is plain adharma to talk about Sugreeva being an animal and hence not deserving Kshatriya chivalry if that is what you claim Rama told him. Then why talk about honor/dishonor at all since hey they are animals.

Bali had renounced all dharma and deserved punishment. The one to punish is the one sworn to protect Dharma.

This is part of Shri. Rama's reply,

"I have neither angst nor ire in this matter of my eliminating you, or, your reviling me, oh, best monkey, but listen to the other point I wish to make clear. People will be capturing several animals, either covertly [secret] or overtly [open to view], with snares, springs and even with numerous contrivances."

"Meat eating people will undeniably kill animals, either they are speedily sprinting or standing steadily, fully dismayed or undismayed, vigilant or unvigilant, and even if they are facing away, in that there is no sacrilege."

"In this world even the kingly sages well-versed in virtue will go on hunting, and hunting is no face to face game, as such, oh, Vanara, therefore I felled you in combat with my arrow because you are a tree-branch animal, whether you are not combating with me or combating against me."

"Kings are the bounteous benefactors of the unobtainable righteousness and propitious lifestyles, oh, best Vanara, no doubt about it. They the kings are not to be harmed, also not to be reproved, not disparaged and nothing displeasing is spoken to them, as they are the divinities conducting themselves in human form on the plane of earth."

"I am abiding by the ethicalness practiced by my father and forefathers, but you revile me without the knowledge of rightness, just by clinging to your rancor." Thus said Rama to dying Vali."


You can Read about Bali's charges and Shri. Rama's reply in the link below. Do take the time to read it,

Ramayana - Vali Criticizes Rama
Ramayana - Vali Begs Rama’s Forgiveness

 

[vayuputhra]

No wonder may he was awarded Bharat Ratna under Modi's rule, why not when Hindus can elect murderer as P.M why not Godse be awarded.

Good idea, why not pics of godse on currency it will be a balancing act