What Ambedkar said about Godse
- Thread starter Vikki
- Start date
This is what the Judge hearing the murder case of Gandhi with Nathuram Godse as accused wrote,
Nobody was in any doubt regarding the patriotism of Nathruram Godse.
Speaking of Nehru, do you remember how Dr. Swamy was pilloried when he said Muslims have the same DNA as Hindus ?
Well here is liberatatti's favorite "chacha" giving his opinion on muslims.
Speaking on Ambedkar's views, Here is another one.
Godse was a murderer. But he was also a patriot. Both are not mutually exclusive.
Bhagat Singh was a convicted murderer too for the murder of Saunders. Liberatattis have no problem in calling him a Patriot.
Godse being a patriot does not absolve him of Murder.
The same way Gandhi being a Patriot, does not absolve him of being a Sexual pervert.
Ambedkar had sufficient reason to loath Gandhi. So did Godse and a million other Indians.
Putting Gandhi on a pedestal, does not make him immune to scrutiny or criticism.
baajey
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Jan 23, 2011
- Messages
- 3,572
- Reaction score
- -10
- Country
- Location
ISIS also call themselves patriots. thats their justification of the misery of tens of thousands of ppl.
when u kill ur own just because their ideology doesnt suit u, u cant go around killing ppl.
n btw, learn the difference between patriotism n nationalism, esp majoritarian nationalism.
https://thewire.in/history/rss-hindutva-nationalism
https://www.huffingtonpost.in/2017/04/14/30-ambedkar-quotes-that-may-surprise-the-bjp_a_22039425/
we know how "patriotic" ur beloved organisation was. bunch of cowards.
since u r so good with links and all, try checking these as well.
when u kill ur own just because their ideology doesnt suit u, u cant go around killing ppl.
did ambedkar or subhash bose kill gandhi or nehru ?
n btw, learn the difference between patriotism n nationalism, esp majoritarian nationalism.
https://thewire.in/history/rss-hindutva-nationalism
https://www.huffingtonpost.in/2017/04/14/30-ambedkar-quotes-that-may-surprise-the-bjp_a_22039425/
we know how "patriotic" ur beloved organisation was. bunch of cowards.
since u r so good with links and all, try checking these as well.
Jackdaws
BANNED
- Joined
- Jan 20, 2010
- Messages
- 13,114
- Reaction score
- -49
- Country
- Location
Rubbish. A Patriot cares for the country, not for a particular religion. Bhagat Singh, Bose, Rajguru, Chandrasekhar Azad and their ilk adopted violence to throw off a foreign yoke. Their violence was not driven by religious fanaticism.
This is pure rubbish.
ISIS themselves claim they fight for Religion and not for Nation.
How kind of you to assign them values they do not subscribe to. This is what happens when you rush to act as per godwin's Law proving you lost the argument.
Unlike ISIS and terrorists who think its right to kill in the name of god, Godse knew it was wrong to kill and did not even run away after shooting Gandhi. He admitted his crime in court and even refused an offer from Ambedkar to commute his sentence.
His attempt was to remove the poisonous effect of Gandhi on the Indian polity and policy by removing Gandhi himself. His actions was for the benefit of all and not for one section of the population.
All he wanted was for ALL citizens to be treated equally and not Gandhi style blatant muslim appeasement. Sadly, as subsequent history has shown, the evil effects of Gandhi continue to plague our nation to this day.
Subhash Bose certainly advocated killing Indian citizens if they were White. Especially government officials and Indian soldiers who served in the British Indian army.
How convenient of you to forget that.
The wire article is pure propaganda, with selective cherry picking of facts to paint a deliberate picture that suits their agenda.
Even a cursory reading of that article will show that.
Ambedkar's quote will only surprise those who did not know or study ambedkar. He hated Hindu social practices, he hated islamic practices, thinking and theology even more.
Also quoting Ambedkar without context is to deliberately spin a false narrative. A half truth is a Lie.
If you want to discuss Ambedkar, open a new thread and I will be happy to debate you there.
I agree, and Godse killed Gandhi because he cared for the whole of India, and not just the muslims.
Bhagat Singh was a communist and the communist consider violence the most natural way to gain political means.
Godse's confession clearly shows that he killed Gandhi because he was destroying Indian society by choosing one religion over another. Gandhi was the true religious fanatic , driving by his faith to go out of the way to appease people of a different faith.
Godse OTOH REFUSED to consider muslims any different from Hindus and just wanted both to be treated equally.
Jackdaws
BANNED
- Joined
- Jan 20, 2010
- Messages
- 13,114
- Reaction score
- -49
- Country
- Location
Nah. Gandhi was protecting Indian society. He was stopping riots in Naokhali when others were celebrating Independence. If Godse cared about all Indians, he wouldn't have felt the need to kill anyone. As I said, it is a shame Godse was hanged only once.This is pure rubbish.
ISIS themselves claim they fight for Religion and not for Nation.
How kind of you to assign them values they do not subscribe to. This is what happens when you rush to act as per godwin's Law proving you lost the argument.
Unlike ISIS and terrorists who think its right to kill in the name of god, Godse knew it was wrong to kill and did not even run away after shooting Gandhi. He admitted his crime in court and even refused an offer from Ambedkar to commute his sentence.
His attempt was to remove the poisonous effect of Gandhi on the Indian polity and policy by removing Gandhi himself. His actions was for the benefit of all and not for one section of the population.
All he wanted was for ALL citizens to be treated equally and not Gandhi style blatant muslim appeasement. Sadly, as subsequent history has shown, the evil effects of Gandhi continue to plague our nation to this day.
Subhash Bose certainly advocated killing Indian citizens if they were White. Especially government officials and Indian soldiers who served in the British Indian army.
How convenient of you to forget that.
The wire article is pure propaganda, with selective cherry picking of facts to paint a deliberate picture that suits their agenda.
Even a cursory reading of that article will show that.
Ambedkar's quote will only surprise those who did not know or study ambedkar. He hated Hindu social practices, he hated islamic practices, thinking and theology even more.
Also quoting Ambedkar without context is to deliberately spin a false narrative. A half truth is a Lie.
If you want to discuss Ambedkar, open a new thread and I will be happy to debate you there.
I agree, and Godse killed Gandhi because he cared for the whole of India, and not just the muslims.
Bhagat Singh was a communist and the communist consider violence the most natural way to gain political means.
Godse's confession clearly shows that he killed Gandhi because he was destroying Indian society by choosing one religion over another. Gandhi was the true religious fanatic , driving by his faith to go out of the way to appease people of a different faith.
Godse OTOH REFUSED to consider muslims any different from Hindus and just wanted both to be treated equally.
LOL.... in what way did Gandhi "protect" Indian society ?
Where was he when 3 million Bengali's starved to death ?
All Gandhi did was protect BRITISH LIVES.
EPIC LOL at you for spinning tales of Gandhi trying to stop riots in Naokhali.
Gandhi was trying to stop HINDUS from retaliating to the Naokhali killings.
Naokhali Hindu killings was an extension of the Calcutta killings due to "Direct Action". Police already had information that Muslims were instigating their own community members to kill Hindus.
On 29 August, the day of Eid al-Fitr, Hindu fishermen were killed. Devi Prasanna Guha, the son of a Congressman of Babupur village under the Ramganj police station, was murdered. One of his brothers and a servant were assaulted. The Congress office in front of their house was set on fire. Chandra Kumar Karmakar of Monpura was killed near Jamalpur. Jamini Dey, a hotel worker, was killed near Ghoshbag. Ashu Sen of Devisinghpur was severely beaten up at Tajumiarhat at Char Parvati. Rajkumar Choudhury of Banspara was severely assaulted on his way home.
All the properties of six or seven Hindu families of Kanur Char were looted. At Karpara, a Muslim gang armed with deadly weapons entered the house of Jadav Majumdar and looted properties worth Rs. 1,500. Nakul Majumdar was assaulted. The houses of Prasanna Mohan Chakraborty of Tatarkhil, Nabin Chandra Nath of Miralipur and Radha Charan Nath of Latipur were looted. Five members of the Nath family of Latipur were injured.
The temple of the family deity of Harendra Ghosh of Raipur was desecrated: a calf was butchered and thrown inside the temple. The Shiva temple of Dr. Jadunath Majumdar of Chandipur was desecrated in a similar manner. The household shrines of Nagendra Majumdar and Rajkumar Choudhury of Dadpur were desecrated and the idols were stolen. The Durga images of Ishwar Chandra Pathak of Kethuri, Kedareshwar Chakraborty of Merkachar, Ananta Kumar De of Angrapara and Prasanna Mohan Chakraborty of Tatarkhil were broken.
Hindu shops began to be boycotted. In the Ramganj and Begumganj police station areas, the Muslim boatmen refused to ferry Hindu passengers. In the first week of September, Muslims looted the Hindu shops in Sahapur market. Hindus women were raped when they were returning to their native villages from Kolkata to spend the puja holidays. From 2 October onwards there were frequent instances of stray killings, theft and looting, ALL of them targeting the Hindus.
On October 10, during Laxmi Pooja day, Muslim Mobs began attacking the district collectorate office.
The Muslim mob then attacked Rajendralal Roychowdhury, the president of the Noakhali Bar Association and the Noakhali District Hindu Mahasabha. Roychowdhury fended off the mob from his terrace with his rifle for the entire day. At nightfall, when they retreated, he sent the swami and his family members to safety. The next day the mob attacked again. Rajendralal Roychowdhury's severed head was presented to Golam Sarwar on a platter and his two daughters were given taken as slaves and raped by the two lieutenant of Golam sarwar.
Village after village was forcibly converted to Islam. The men were forced to wear skullcaps and grow beards. The women were stripped of their shankha and sindur and forced to recite the kalma. 22,550 cases of forcible conversion took place in the three police station areas of Faridganj, Chandpur and Hajiganj in the district of Tipperah. The number of Hindu women raped or converted was probably many times the number of Hindus killed. At least 95% of the Hindus of Noakhali were converted to Islam.
IT was under these circumstances the "mahatma" decided to grace Noakhali with his presence.
Gandhi started for Noakhali on 6 November and reached Chaumuhani the next day. After spending two nights at the residence of Jogendra Majumdar, on 9 November he embarked on his tour of Noakhali, barefoot. In the next seven weeks he covered 116 miles and visited 47 villages.
Here he went around telling the Hindus NOT TO RETALIATE. Preaching "peace" to the Victims, and not the perpetrators.
Meanwhile The muslims baited gandhi and began putting dead cows and beef on this path. They boycotted his meetings and finally he quit his "mission" half way and went to Bihar.
Meanwhile those Hindus who were foolish enough to listen to Gandhi where shocked that he left and after a month of him leaving Noakhali, Gandhi received telegrams from Congress Party workers in Noakhali, describing attempts to burn Hindus alive.
Gandhi responded that the situation in Noakhali required that the Hindus should either leave or perish.
If THIS is your definition of "Protecting Indian society" then I am glad that his bastard is dead and THANK YOU Godse for doing all of us a favor.
My blood is boiling reading all those incidents..Gandhi should have been slapped with chappals by hindus to be frank...Leaders like Gandhi were responsible for the killings of lakhs of Hindus...thank god...better late than never..hindus have finally woken up...they are learning their history...INC continued the legacy of gandhi for too long even until 2014...now we have come to a point where no party can ignore hindus sentiments and indulge in muslim appeasement.LOL.... in what way did Gandhi "protect" Indian society ?
Where was he when 3 million Bengali's starved to death ?
All Gandhi did was protect BRITISH LIVES.
EPIC LOL at you for spinning tales of Gandhi trying to stop riots in Naokhali.
Gandhi was trying to stop HINDUS from retaliating to the Naokhali killings.
Naokhali Hindu killings was an extension of the Calcutta killings due to "Direct Action". Police already had information that Muslims were instigating their own community members to kill Hindus.
On 29 August, the day of Eid al-Fitr, Hindu fishermen were killed. Devi Prasanna Guha, the son of a Congressman of Babupur village under the Ramganj police station, was murdered. One of his brothers and a servant were assaulted. The Congress office in front of their house was set on fire. Chandra Kumar Karmakar of Monpura was killed near Jamalpur. Jamini Dey, a hotel worker, was killed near Ghoshbag. Ashu Sen of Devisinghpur was severely beaten up at Tajumiarhat at Char Parvati. Rajkumar Choudhury of Banspara was severely assaulted on his way home.
All the properties of six or seven Hindu families of Kanur Char were looted. At Karpara, a Muslim gang armed with deadly weapons entered the house of Jadav Majumdar and looted properties worth Rs. 1,500. Nakul Majumdar was assaulted. The houses of Prasanna Mohan Chakraborty of Tatarkhil, Nabin Chandra Nath of Miralipur and Radha Charan Nath of Latipur were looted. Five members of the Nath family of Latipur were injured.
The temple of the family deity of Harendra Ghosh of Raipur was desecrated: a calf was butchered and thrown inside the temple. The Shiva temple of Dr. Jadunath Majumdar of Chandipur was desecrated in a similar manner. The household shrines of Nagendra Majumdar and Rajkumar Choudhury of Dadpur were desecrated and the idols were stolen. The Durga images of Ishwar Chandra Pathak of Kethuri, Kedareshwar Chakraborty of Merkachar, Ananta Kumar De of Angrapara and Prasanna Mohan Chakraborty of Tatarkhil were broken.
Hindu shops began to be boycotted. In the Ramganj and Begumganj police station areas, the Muslim boatmen refused to ferry Hindu passengers. In the first week of September, Muslims looted the Hindu shops in Sahapur market. Hindus women were raped when they were returning to their native villages from Kolkata to spend the puja holidays. From 2 October onwards there were frequent instances of stray killings, theft and looting, ALL of them targeting the Hindus.
On October 10, during Laxmi Pooja day, Muslim Mobs began attacking the district collectorate office.
The Muslim mob then attacked Rajendralal Roychowdhury, the president of the Noakhali Bar Association and the Noakhali District Hindu Mahasabha. Roychowdhury fended off the mob from his terrace with his rifle for the entire day. At nightfall, when they retreated, he sent the swami and his family members to safety. The next day the mob attacked again. Rajendralal Roychowdhury's severed head was presented to Golam Sarwar on a platter and his two daughters were given taken as slaves and raped by the two lieutenant of Golam sarwar.
Village after village was forcibly converted to Islam. The men were forced to wear skullcaps and grow beards. The women were stripped of their shankha and sindur and forced to recite the kalma. 22,550 cases of forcible conversion took place in the three police station areas of Faridganj, Chandpur and Hajiganj in the district of Tipperah. The number of Hindu women raped or converted was probably many times the number of Hindus killed. At least 95% of the Hindus of Noakhali were converted to Islam.
IT was under these circumstances the "mahatma" decided to grace Noakhali with his presence.
Gandhi started for Noakhali on 6 November and reached Chaumuhani the next day. After spending two nights at the residence of Jogendra Majumdar, on 9 November he embarked on his tour of Noakhali, barefoot. In the next seven weeks he covered 116 miles and visited 47 villages.
Here he went around telling the Hindus NOT TO RETALIATE. Preaching "peace" to the Victims, and not the perpetrators.
Meanwhile The muslims baited gandhi and began putting dead cows and beef on this path. They boycotted his meetings and finally he quit his "mission" half way and went to Bihar.
Meanwhile those Hindus who were foolish enough to listen to Gandhi where shocked that he left and after a month of him leaving Noakhali, Gandhi received telegrams from Congress Party workers in Noakhali, describing attempts to burn Hindus alive.
Gandhi responded that the situation in Noakhali required that the Hindus should either leave or perish.
If THIS is your definition of "Protecting Indian society" then I am glad that his bastard is dead and THANK YOU Godse for doing all of us a favor.
If YOUR blood is boiling just by reading about ONE incident and that too 70 Years AFTER , Imagine how Nathuram Godse would have felt.
I have not even posted half of what happened because I did not want to make my post too long.
Most people do not even bother to read long posts even if they are educative and instructive.
In Naokhali Gandhi discovered that while Non Viiolence would work with the Elite British because they did not want to get their hands dirty, and were happy to let Hindus kill Hindus.
It would not work with muslism who where only too happy to get their hands dirty and kill Hindus.
And what did Gandhi do when he FINALLY discovered it ? (at the cost of a million hindu lives) He turned tail and ran. That was the depth of his conviction and his integrity.
https://thewire.in/history/gandhi-and-the-trial-of-noakhali
Gandhi and the Trial of Noakhali
Gandhi’s famous sojourn in Noakhali was the ultimate test for the idea and practice of non-violence. It failed.
Gandhi speaking to Muslims in Noakhali. Credit: Photo Division, Government of India
The riots in Bengal’s Noakhali district occurred exactly seventy years ago, between October-November 1946, just before Independence. H.S. Suhrawardy, Bengal’s interim chief minister at the time and a member of the Muslim League, was accused of allowing riots against the region’s Hindu minority to support his party’s demand for partition. It behoves us to remember and pay attention to what was at stake and what was compromised in Noakhali during that month of communal carnage. One way to grapple with the event is following Gandhi’s famous sojourn in Noakhali during the riots, when his idea and practice of non-violence faced its ultimate test. Gandhi knew that the large scale violence in Noakhali was meant to help the Muslim League’s case for Partition. The communal riots presented a serious challenge not only to the idea of a unified Indian nation, but also to Gandhi’s lifelong efforts to establish communal harmony.
Dying a beautiful death
When news of the Noakhali riots reached New Delhi, Gandhi was already considering the possibility of dying there. He wrote in a letter: “There is an art of dying… As it is, all die, but one has to learn by practice how to die a beautiful death. The matter will not be settled even if everybody went to Noakhali and got killed.” Gandhi added that his “technique of non-violence was on trial” in Noakhali and it “remained to be seen how it would answer in the face of the present crisis.” If this technique of non-violence “had no validity,” Gandhi reiterated, “it were better that he himself should declare his insolvency.” Gandhi’s aesthetic of death involved an idea of praxis: risking death in order to calm the atmosphere of violence. In order to die beautifully, one had to perfect a certain mode of living. Gandhi seemed to imply the mere event of people dying in Noakhali wasn’t enough, the people had to die in a particular way for it to be meaningful."
Gandhi’s pilgrimage to Noakhali was summed up well by Nirmal Kumar Bose. He recounts how in a speech on January 4, Gandhi said, “he had not come to talk to the people of politics, nor to weaken the influence of the Muslim League and increase that of the Congress, but in order to talk to them of the little things in their daily life. Ever since he had come to India thirty years ago, he had been telling people of these common, little things which, if properly attended to, would change the face of this land.” This idea of the everyday in Gandhi is what Ajay Skaria has drawn our attention to, by distinguishing between itihaas and history.
In Hind Swaraj, Gandhi contrasted the dominant idea of history with another notion of history, based on the “force of love” and “the force of the soul or truth”. This other history, Gandhi wrote, was captured by the Gujarati phrase: “It so happened”. Gandhi draws out a distinction between the historicity of history on the one hand and itihaas on the other, by using the historicity of Satyagraha (or truth) as a point of departure. With Gandhi, Skaria notes, “(e)veryday, or ordinary life can now legitimately take on the centrality that it does in modern politics.” Since Satyagraha was based on the principle of ahimsa or non-violence, a new mode of politics was introduced into this counter historical movement. It was a political movement based on what Gandhi called the “force of love” and “the force of the soul or truth. This alone could counter, in Gandhi’s conception, the dominant historical politics of mistrust, fear and violence. There was a desire to create an alternative to the politics of fear. The politics of Satyagraha that Gandhi meant to practice in Noakhali was meant to confront, under risks, this politics of fear.
There were other problems related to the prospect of dying non-violently in Noakhali. In Srirampur, when thanked by Nirmal Chandra Chatterjee, the president of the Bengal Hindu Mahasabha, for taking up “the case of Bengal”, Gandhi replied, “it was no kindness; and if it was, it was kindness to himself.” As quoted by Nirmal Kumar Bose, Gandhi further said, “My own doctrine was failing. I don’t want to die a failure but as a successful man.” At another occasion, also in Srirampur, Gandhi said during an interview, that “he was seeking for a non-violent solution for his own sake alone. For the time being, he had given up searching for a non-violent remedy applicable to the masses. He had yet to see if non-violence would be successful in the present crisis or not.” The Noakhali sojourn, which Gandhi suspected would severely put his non-violent method to test, was thus a retreat into himself. It was as if the whole non-violent movement depended on Gandhi’s personal success or failure in the matter. People increasingly turned to violence as it became clear that Gandhi’s talks with Jinnah had failed and so had the Rajaji formula which was a compromise between the Muslim League and the Indian National Congress. Though one wonders why exactly Gandhi held on to the Rajaji formula as the only possible blueprint for establishing peace.
While in Srirampur, Gandhi declared, “I am not going to be a willing party to Pakistan. Even if I fail to prevent it and all Hindus go away, I shall still remain here; and shall not make a single change in my religious practice.” It was clear, Gandhi would not abandon his practices, whether he succeeded or failed. But the question of death and failure in Noakhali haunted Gandhi right from the beginning. In Sodepur, Gandhi said to a Muslim friend: “If necessary I will die here. But I will not acquiesce to failure.” In this regard, Gandhi made an important clarification in a letter he wrote from Srirampur: “I am certain that the principle of truth and non-violence can never be wrong or defective; but this case (of Noakhali) may show up the deficiency of its exponent and avowed representative, i.e., myself. If that be so, I only hope that God will be merciful enough to call me back to Him and get His work done through a worthier soul.” If non-violence failed as a technique, it was the technician’s fault. And the technician would prefer death to failure. (Anybody notice the Irony ?) In Gandhi’s understanding, the success of non-violence was considered a scientific triumph, while its failure was moral. Gandhi had a scientific expectation from non-violence. After all, Gandhi had called Satyagraha not only “a method of securing rights by personal suffering”, but also “a science in the making”.
Gandhi wrote about his “experiments with truth” in his autobiography. Gandhi wrote, “I claim for them nothing more than does a scientist who, though he conducts his experiments with the utmost accuracy, forethought and minuteness, never claims any finality about his conclusions, but keeps an open mind regarding them.” So the realisation of truth was a kind of scientific activity, where the process of trial-by-error constituted a major part of the enterprise.
Despite being aware of the Bengal government’s involvement in allowing the riots to take place, Gandhi nevertheless gave the state government a chance to redeem itself. In Srirampur, he declared, “I have not come to East Bengal to hold an enquiry.” When a Hindu political worker referred to Bengal’s police superintendent, Abdullah Sahib as a “man without conscience”, Gandhi immediately responded, “I have yet to see a police superintendent who has a conscience.” Gandhi firmly maintained that he was not interested in getting the state’s police substituted by the military or the Muslim police by the Hindu police. “They are broken reeds”, he said. It was an exceptional gesture by Gandhi to insist on preserving trust between Hindus and Muslims even in the face of political mischief by Bengal’s administration. But when chief minister Suhrawardy tried to evade a murder charge levied against his government, Gandhi lost his temper and charged Suhrawardy, “Yes, you are responsible not only for that murder but for every life lost in Bengal, whether Hindu or Muslim.” This was a rare public outburst by Gandhi, evoked by the politics of gross untruth. He employed moral pressure on the state’s administration to quell the communal mayhem. But by then, communal politics had dug its venomous roots deep into India’s political soil.
Gandhi in Noakhali, 1946. Credit: Wikimedia Commons
Restoring trust
Gandhi arrived in Bengal without a thought of engaging in politics, but nevertheless wanted to assess the state of politics. For Gandhi, the state of politics meant an abysmal condition where communal politics had managed to replace trust with fear and violence in the everyday life of people. To his horror and dismay, he found that the only kind politics he was capable of launching, the politics of truth or satyagraha, was extremely difficult under the circumstances. Despite the odds weighing more than just a heavily against him, Gandhi took steps to situate himself in the centre of the muck. He supported the Bengal government’s initiative to form a peace committee. When the Hindu Mahasabha leader, Manoranjan Chaudhuri, suggested arrests (as) a condition precedent to the formation of the peace committee, Gandhi told him “it would be wise to place trust” in the appeal for peace by the ministry. In his speech at a prayer meeting in Chandipur, Gandhi told the largely Hindu audience that though the state government had deceived them with its assurances, it was “beneath one’s dignity to distrust a man’s word without sufficient reason. (The apparant evidnce that the state has deceived the Hindus was not good enough
) If all Muslims were liars, Islam could not have been a true religion.” In this way, Gandhi tried to reason with people by distinguishing between the politics of statecraft and the values that dictated Bengali society.To sum it up ,Gandhi was more interested in experimenting his philosophy than to save lives of hindus or point fingers at Muslim leadership who were behind the massacre of Hindus.If YOUR blood is boiling just by reading about ONE incident and that too 70 Years AFTER , Imagine how Nathuram Godse would have felt.
I have not even posted half of what happened because I did not want to make my post too long.
Most people do not even bother to read long posts even if they are educative and instructive.
In Naokhali Gandhi discovered that while Non Viiolence would work with the Elite British because they did not want to get their hands dirty, and were happy to let Hindus kill Hindus.
It would not work with muslism who where only too happy to get their hands dirty and kill Hindus.
And what did Gandhi do when he FINALLY discovered it ? (at the cost of a million hindu lives) He turned tail and ran. That was the depth of his conviction and his integrity.
https://thewire.in/history/gandhi-and-the-trial-of-noakhali
Gandhi and the Trial of Noakhali
Gandhi’s famous sojourn in Noakhali was the ultimate test for the idea and practice of non-violence. It failed.
Gandhi speaking to Muslims in Noakhali. Credit: Photo Division, Government of India
The riots in Bengal’s Noakhali district occurred exactly seventy years ago, between October-November 1946, just before Independence. H.S. Suhrawardy, Bengal’s interim chief minister at the time and a member of the Muslim League, was accused of allowing riots against the region’s Hindu minority to support his party’s demand for partition. It behoves us to remember and pay attention to what was at stake and what was compromised in Noakhali during that month of communal carnage. One way to grapple with the event is following Gandhi’s famous sojourn in Noakhali during the riots, when his idea and practice of non-violence faced its ultimate test. Gandhi knew that the large scale violence in Noakhali was meant to help the Muslim League’s case for Partition. The communal riots presented a serious challenge not only to the idea of a unified Indian nation, but also to Gandhi’s lifelong efforts to establish communal harmony.
Dying a beautiful death
When news of the Noakhali riots reached New Delhi, Gandhi was already considering the possibility of dying there. He wrote in a letter: “There is an art of dying… As it is, all die, but one has to learn by practice how to die a beautiful death. The matter will not be settled even if everybody went to Noakhali and got killed.” Gandhi added that his “technique of non-violence was on trial” in Noakhali and it “remained to be seen how it would answer in the face of the present crisis.” If this technique of non-violence “had no validity,” Gandhi reiterated, “it were better that he himself should declare his insolvency.” Gandhi’s aesthetic of death involved an idea of praxis: risking death in order to calm the atmosphere of violence. In order to die beautifully, one had to perfect a certain mode of living. Gandhi seemed to imply the mere event of people dying in Noakhali wasn’t enough, the people had to die in a particular way for it to be meaningful."
Gandhi’s pilgrimage to Noakhali was summed up well by Nirmal Kumar Bose. He recounts how in a speech on January 4, Gandhi said, “he had not come to talk to the people of politics, nor to weaken the influence of the Muslim League and increase that of the Congress, but in order to talk to them of the little things in their daily life. Ever since he had come to India thirty years ago, he had been telling people of these common, little things which, if properly attended to, would change the face of this land.” This idea of the everyday in Gandhi is what Ajay Skaria has drawn our attention to, by distinguishing between itihaas and history.
In Hind Swaraj, Gandhi contrasted the dominant idea of history with another notion of history, based on the “force of love” and “the force of the soul or truth”. This other history, Gandhi wrote, was captured by the Gujarati phrase: “It so happened”. Gandhi draws out a distinction between the historicity of history on the one hand and itihaas on the other, by using the historicity of Satyagraha (or truth) as a point of departure. With Gandhi, Skaria notes, “(e)veryday, or ordinary life can now legitimately take on the centrality that it does in modern politics.” Since Satyagraha was based on the principle of ahimsa or non-violence, a new mode of politics was introduced into this counter historical movement. It was a political movement based on what Gandhi called the “force of love” and “the force of the soul or truth. This alone could counter, in Gandhi’s conception, the dominant historical politics of mistrust, fear and violence. There was a desire to create an alternative to the politics of fear. The politics of Satyagraha that Gandhi meant to practice in Noakhali was meant to confront, under risks, this politics of fear.
There were other problems related to the prospect of dying non-violently in Noakhali. In Srirampur, when thanked by Nirmal Chandra Chatterjee, the president of the Bengal Hindu Mahasabha, for taking up “the case of Bengal”, Gandhi replied, “it was no kindness; and if it was, it was kindness to himself.” As quoted by Nirmal Kumar Bose, Gandhi further said, “My own doctrine was failing. I don’t want to die a failure but as a successful man.” At another occasion, also in Srirampur, Gandhi said during an interview, that “he was seeking for a non-violent solution for his own sake alone. For the time being, he had given up searching for a non-violent remedy applicable to the masses. He had yet to see if non-violence would be successful in the present crisis or not.” The Noakhali sojourn, which Gandhi suspected would severely put his non-violent method to test, was thus a retreat into himself. It was as if the whole non-violent movement depended on Gandhi’s personal success or failure in the matter. People increasingly turned to violence as it became clear that Gandhi’s talks with Jinnah had failed and so had the Rajaji formula which was a compromise between the Muslim League and the Indian National Congress. Though one wonders why exactly Gandhi held on to the Rajaji formula as the only possible blueprint for establishing peace.
While in Srirampur, Gandhi declared, “I am not going to be a willing party to Pakistan. Even if I fail to prevent it and all Hindus go away, I shall still remain here; and shall not make a single change in my religious practice.” It was clear, Gandhi would not abandon his practices, whether he succeeded or failed. But the question of death and failure in Noakhali haunted Gandhi right from the beginning. In Sodepur, Gandhi said to a Muslim friend: “If necessary I will die here. But I will not acquiesce to failure.” In this regard, Gandhi made an important clarification in a letter he wrote from Srirampur: “I am certain that the principle of truth and non-violence can never be wrong or defective; but this case (of Noakhali) may show up the deficiency of its exponent and avowed representative, i.e., myself. If that be so, I only hope that God will be merciful enough to call me back to Him and get His work done through a worthier soul.” If non-violence failed as a technique, it was the technician’s fault. And the technician would prefer death to failure. (Anybody notice the Irony ?) In Gandhi’s understanding, the success of non-violence was considered a scientific triumph, while its failure was moral. Gandhi had a scientific expectation from non-violence. After all, Gandhi had called Satyagraha not only “a method of securing rights by personal suffering”, but also “a science in the making”.
Gandhi wrote about his “experiments with truth” in his autobiography. Gandhi wrote, “I claim for them nothing more than does a scientist who, though he conducts his experiments with the utmost accuracy, forethought and minuteness, never claims any finality about his conclusions, but keeps an open mind regarding them.” So the realisation of truth was a kind of scientific activity, where the process of trial-by-error constituted a major part of the enterprise.
Despite being aware of the Bengal government’s involvement in allowing the riots to take place, Gandhi nevertheless gave the state government a chance to redeem itself. In Srirampur, he declared, “I have not come to East Bengal to hold an enquiry.” When a Hindu political worker referred to Bengal’s police superintendent, Abdullah Sahib as a “man without conscience”, Gandhi immediately responded, “I have yet to see a police superintendent who has a conscience.” Gandhi firmly maintained that he was not interested in getting the state’s police substituted by the military or the Muslim police by the Hindu police. “They are broken reeds”, he said. It was an exceptional gesture by Gandhi to insist on preserving trust between Hindus and Muslims even in the face of political mischief by Bengal’s administration. But when chief minister Suhrawardy tried to evade a murder charge levied against his government, Gandhi lost his temper and charged Suhrawardy, “Yes, you are responsible not only for that murder but for every life lost in Bengal, whether Hindu or Muslim.” This was a rare public outburst by Gandhi, evoked by the politics of gross untruth. He employed moral pressure on the state’s administration to quell the communal mayhem. But by then, communal politics had dug its venomous roots deep into India’s political soil.
Gandhi in Noakhali, 1946. Credit: Wikimedia Commons
Restoring trust
Gandhi arrived in Bengal without a thought of engaging in politics, but nevertheless wanted to assess the state of politics. For Gandhi, the state of politics meant an abysmal condition where communal politics had managed to replace trust with fear and violence in the everyday life of people. To his horror and dismay, he found that the only kind politics he was capable of launching, the politics of truth or satyagraha, was extremely difficult under the circumstances. Despite the odds weighing more than just a heavily against him, Gandhi took steps to situate himself in the centre of the muck. He supported the Bengal government’s initiative to form a peace committee. When the Hindu Mahasabha leader, Manoranjan Chaudhuri, suggested arrests (as) a condition precedent to the formation of the peace committee, Gandhi told him “it would be wise to place trust” in the appeal for peace by the ministry. In his speech at a prayer meeting in Chandipur, Gandhi told the largely Hindu audience that though the state government had deceived them with its assurances, it was “beneath one’s dignity to distrust a man’s word without sufficient reason. (The apparant evidnce that the state has deceived the Hindus was not good enough
BINGO.
Gandhi was only interested in conducing his "Experiment with the truth" with Hindu lives. Their misery and death were secondary to his quest for the "Truth" via experimentation.
Now tell me how is this any different to the Experiments on Jews conducted by the Nazi doctors and scientists in Nazi Germany ? How is it any different than the experiment conducted by the Japanese on prisoners and civilians during the same time period ?
This is the man we call the "mahatma" and "father of the nation". The man we put on a pedestal and worship.
Is it any wonder that we continue to experiment with our society with "50% reservation "and "minority appeasement" ? This is the legacy of Gandhi.
And in the middle of all this, Nathuram Godse is the "villein" for killing one man, while Gandhi is the "hero" for killing millions. That is the power of propaganda.
The same jokers who absolve Gandhi of Murder via riots are the First to blame Modi of "murder" in Godhra Riots. ............. they represent the worst humanity has to offer.
Last edited:
Similar threads
