Conspiracy theory, I admit, was easy- very easy. The real Gandhi-assassination material requires intense research.
There are so many arguments and so many counter-arguments on the subject, that what happens is this: the Gandhi-haters would mostly read the most popular articles (sadly)- that depict the events leading to Gandhi's assassination from Ghodse and his fellow Hindu Nationalists' point-of-view; while the people who'd do anything not to hate Gandhi would sift through the "other material" about Gandhi which describe what happened in a- let's say: sane manner. (I love writing long sentences)
A word of caution: if you are looking for any mention about politics anywhere on this post- you may exit right away. It's about religion. (There's hardly any difference between the two, you say? Hmmm.)
Nathuram Godse delivered a speech stating his reasons for killing Gandhi. The speech is now popularly called "Why I Killed Gandhi". This speech is often regarded as sacrosanct by Gandhi-haters, and they flash it around as a standard- recruiting more people into their club. I do not want to post the entire speech here, but shall quote him from time to time.
"His activities for public awakening were phenomenal in their intensity and were reinforced by the slogan of truth and non-violence, which he paraded ostentatiously before the country. No sensible or enlightened person could object to these slogans. In fact there is nothing new or original in them. They are implicit in every constitutional public movement. But it is nothing but a dream if you imagine the bulk of mankind is, or can ever become, capable of scrupulous adherence to these lofty principles in its normal life from day to day. In fact, honour, duty and love of one's own kith and kin and country might often compel us to disregard non-violence and to use force. I could never conceive that an armed resistance to an aggression is unjust.
I would consider it a religious and moral duty to resist and if possible, to overpower such an enemy by use of force. (In the Ramayana) Rama killed Ravana in a tumultuous fight and relieved Sita. (In the Mahabharata) Krishna killed Kansa to end his wickedness; and Arjuna had to fight and slay quite a number of his friends and relations including the revered Bhishma because the latter was on the side of the aggressor. It is my firm belief that in dubbing Rama, Krishna and Arjuna as guilty of violence, the Mahatma betrayed the total ignorance of the springs of human action."
Both the Ramayan and Mahabharat talk of a strategy to tackle an enemy, when faced with a misunderstanding: Sama-Dana-Bheda-Danda. The strategy is very simple, and is described as follows:
You have a misunderstanding with your enemy. In that case,
1. You offer the enemy Sama (Peace).
2. If Sama doesn't work out, you try to reason with the enemy and come to a compromise- Dana.
3. If both Sama and Dana fail, you use Bheda (diplomatic tactics of creating differences within the enemy camp).
4. If none of the above work out, use Danda (violence) as the ultimate measure.
Two illustrations of the above-said strategy:
A. In the Ramayan, Ravan kidnaps Ram's wife Sita. The misunderstanding is clear- both of them want Sita. But since Ram is the husband of Sita, and Ravan was the one who created the misunderstanding by kidnapping Sita (clearly not a case of Helen and Paris)- the Peace was violated by Ravan and not Ram. There was not point in Ram offering Ravan peace. Ram sends Hanuman as his emissary to Ravan to negotiate the release of Sita. Ravan refuses to negotiate with Hanuman and sets his tail on fire (a clear violation of how an emissary is to be treated, thereby justifying the burning of Lanka). That's Sama and Dana down. Hanuman's visit creates differences within the Lanka camp and Ravan's brother Vibhishan joins Ram's side. That is Bheda. Ram takes up violence at last, and devastates Ravan's armies. During the Ram-Ravan Duel, Ram strips Ravan of all his heads, save one; and totally disarms him. Ravan cries in shame at being so-defeated by a mortal, and Ram takes pity on him- asking him to go back to his chambers and if he so wants, come back the next day to end the fight.
B. In the Mahabharat, the same strategy is used as follows:
Sama: The peace was broken by the Kauravas in the first place. No point in offering them just peace.
Dana: The Pandavas negotiate the return of Indraprastha, and promise that they'd not hold a grudge against the Kauravas. When Duryodhan refuses, Yudhishtir requests for the grant of five villages- as a last resort. Duryodhan refuses even five pin-pricks of land.
Bheda: Krishna reveals Karna his true identity and sends Kunti to emotionally blackmail him. Karna- Duryodhan's trump-card against Arjun is turned. This strategy is used extensively throughout the battle.
Danda: The Epic Battle.
In both the Puranas, the protagonists shun the use of violence, keeping it always as a last resort. Violence is never glorified, and the deep pain caused to the characters for resorting to violence is fully described.
In the Ramayan, Ram breaks down at the sight of the felled monkeys (who were later revived by the Sanjivani herb).
In the Mahabharat, Arjun breaks down at the prospect of having to use violence against his own relatives. The epic closes with great sorrow, after the emptiness caused by so much death and destruction.
Gandhi followed the Puranas, and never wanted to use Danda- knowing full-well what the consequences would be. Godse, on the other hand- seems quite eager to use violence for the sake of his "kith and kin and country". And he claims to follow the example of the Puranas- what a fucking joke! There is no more clarity required on how misguided he was.
Now, having established that non-violence is a Puranically sanctioned tool, what needs to be looked at is- why did non-violence fail? Why did the massacres during Partition occur?
The answers lie in what Godse considered his "kith and kin and country".
Up next: Bharatavarsha.
See this is what backs up your claim and renders my comment on your previous post invalid. Had I known this was coming, I wouldn't have said all that I said. That conversation between the two people and the paragraphs that followed are too pretentious because they lack backing. And ftlog, the fucking in between words is not cool, even for an imaginary discussion. It makes you look like you try to be cool.
ReplyDeleteThis article is nicely written. Whether i completely agree with it is a different matter, but nicely written.
Thanks Sharan. Thing is: the conversation was to establish a base.
ReplyDeleteDude1 is modeled after the wannabe-Indian-patriot, who has half-baked knowledge about everything, but would still not stop from having opinions based on the said knowledge.
Dude2 is the "yuppie"-modeled cool dude- the know-it-all, who'd use his knowledge to ward off idiots like Dude1.
I wasn't obviously trying to sound cool. I made the conversation deliberately disgusting- a literary tool to indicate the disgust one should feel about forming opinions based on unfounded-knowledge.