Dismiss Notice
Welcome to IDF- Indian Defence Forum , register for free to join this friendly community of defence enthusiastic from around the world. Make your opinion heard and appreciated.

Gandhi's Assassin.

Discussion in 'National Politics' started by RoYaN, Jan 29, 2012.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Osiris

    Osiris Major SENIOR MEMBER

    Joined:
    Apr 15, 2010
    Messages:
    3,494
    Likes Received:
    742
    Hindu nation is dream of many Hindu's (my dream also)
     
  2. Guynextdoor

    Guynextdoor Lt. Colonel SENIOR MEMBER

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2010
    Messages:
    4,855
    Likes Received:
    1,740
    Dude, do you read the stuff you post? The logic of 'social organization' and 'peace and stability' has always been the basis for defending the caste system and your guy is basically repeating that.In fact, instead of eradicating caste, he says, caste based organizations should flourish coz they are a 'historic inevitability' and some day (in the land of milk and honey) they'll all be 'equal' and then it'll be 'easy' to manage the equation (yeah that's gonna happen). No hindu group has openly mainatined that caste system is not flawed coz from the 18th century onwards there has been a strong counter narrative to it. Nor do they ever say that birth, theoretically, is the only basis for determining caste fully satisfied in the knowledge that de facto that is the caase. Historically, true social reformers have advocated eradication of caste through inetrmarriage and eualization while those like the ones you have quoted muddy the waters with long winded justifications. What savarkar is doing, is sounding politically correct by saying 'caste based on this thing is wrong, but it's inevitable that caste will be there, so we need to reorganize caste that way'. (and then you'll see land of milk and honey and stuff like that).

    Plus, there is a certain hypocrisy to your links- they have selectivly
     
    1 person likes this.
  3. RoYaN

    RoYaN Lt. Colonel ELITE MEMBER

    Joined:
    Aug 22, 2010
    Messages:
    6,454
    Likes Received:
    917
    A wet dream it shall be for the republic is here to stay and many who believe in the republic will fight to the end to keep the republic alive.
    As long as it is a dream people don't have problems with that once it starts become a little more that a dream than the problem starts.
     
    2 people like this.
  4. ManuSankar

    ManuSankar Major SENIOR MEMBER

    Joined:
    May 31, 2011
    Messages:
    2,323
    Likes Received:
    588
    Do you guys know,after the creation of Pakistan many attempts were made on Jinnah's life by Muslim extremists.According to them due to Jinnah's fault they have recieved an unjust deal from hindu India.Funny isn't it? My point here is,we cannot imagine what kind of challenges our leaders faced in those days.There is no point in blaming them now ,they had to make tough choices and because they made those choices we still have a country we can be proud of.
     
    4 people like this.
  5. Osiris

    Osiris Major SENIOR MEMBER

    Joined:
    Apr 15, 2010
    Messages:
    3,494
    Likes Received:
    742
    India is a country with 80% hindus ..not a distant dream ..look like u dont know the difference between dream and wet dream ..thats problem of ur age
     
  6. Guynextdoor

    Guynextdoor Lt. Colonel SENIOR MEMBER

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2010
    Messages:
    4,855
    Likes Received:
    1,740
    Ya....and then there will be the land of milk and honey where hindus will miraculously be equal coz all the hindu caste groups will be 'equal' (savarkar's words in your link). Because of the 'historic inevitability' of caste groups, they will flourish but because the caste group of scavengrs will be equal to that of the ruling elite (again savarkar's words in your link) scavengers and ruling elite will be equal.
    and orisis will be living in a elysian paradise of growth and drink honey everydaY and will look at the road in a forlorn way at that gleaming statue of savarkar (along with marx- never mind marx thought relegion was an opiate and wanted savarkar lynched coz a few differences are expected to be between leaders) and think- how we revived this great land and restored to glory that great and misunderstood man! Thank god we saved our country from those hypocritical $hits (like Guynextdoor and congress stooges).
    And all that will be left would be to get a nobel prize for peace since the hindu rashtra will be the greatest contribution to peace in history and then that state funeral.
     
    2 people like this.
  7. Osiris

    Osiris Major SENIOR MEMBER

    Joined:
    Apr 15, 2010
    Messages:
    3,494
    Likes Received:
    742
    amen
     
  8. Bang Galore

    Bang Galore Lieutenant FULL MEMBER

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2010
    Messages:
    603
    Likes Received:
    341
    Godse was no terrorist since he did a single assasination & did not try to terrorise anyone else. "Scumbag" would be a more appropriate desciption for Godse.
     
  9. GUNS-N- ROSES

    GUNS-N- ROSES Major SENIOR MEMBER

    Joined:
    Jun 3, 2011
    Messages:
    2,389
    Likes Received:
    843
    Country Flag:
    India
    absolutely right. not all terrorists are murderers and not all murderers are terrorists.

    Hafiz sayeed might not kill anyone, but he is a terrorist because he spreeads hate and terror
     
  10. Nirvana

    Nirvana Major SENIOR MEMBER

    Joined:
    May 3, 2011
    Messages:
    2,297
    Likes Received:
    664
    As GnR Pointed
    I Would still stick to my Point that "Godse" was not a Terrorist and should not be viewed as one !!

    Today was the same day he Killed "Gandhi" , This are the Final statement of Nathuram Godse in court

    He did killed "Gandhi" , but there was some Motive behind Killing him and Anger in many people against Gandhi.
    As Royan Said he want to know my Views , I would like to add that i am Happy with this country with what it is right now "A Secular Republic " , A country Where all the Religion's and Point of views should be and Must be Respected.I Don't want this Country to be a "Hindu Nation" , We don't want to go on the Path of Pakistan.

    In the end, I want to say that I Do not Condemn Murder of Gandhi either , But that should not make me a "Traitor" .Groups Like RSS,Shiv sena Or any Right wing groups are as much part of this nation as other's and Should not be compared to "Terror Outfits" like some member said here.

    Godse,Savarkar and Many other Right wing Activist Constituted to Freedom of this nation as much as Gandhi and deserve equal Respect.
     
  11. vstol jockey

    vstol jockey Colonel MILITARY STRATEGIST

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2011
    Messages:
    13,790
    Likes Received:
    15,448
    Country Flag:
    India
    I personally hate Gandhi for what he allowed to be done to hindus knowingly or unknowingly. His assasination was actually a combined effort of Hindu Mahasabha and Congress. Pls do not start shouting yet. Pls read my complete article.

    The division of the nation was a very painful episode for everyone in India irrespective of one's religion. In a charged atmosphere its very easy to sway tempers of the hurt. It is true that even Muslims had tried to kill Jinnah but could not succeed. Why did Nathuram and Hindu Mahasabha succeed?

    Nehru needed Gandhi to be the PM and keep a check on Sardar Patel. He got what he wanted. But once India became independent, Nehru found that Gandhi had become a liability. In Dec 1947 Gandhi went on fast to force Nehru to release 55 crores to Pak which was due as part of partition settlement. Nehru and Patel refused as Pak had intervened in J&K and we were at war with Pak. Nehru tried to reason with gandhi that this money will only be used to buy more weapons and kill Indians. But Gandhi had other ideas. He went on Hunger strike to force Nehru and Patel. It was this which triggered the resolve in Nathuram and his fellow assasins. Their first attempt on 20th Jan 1948 failed and Mohanlal Pahwa was arrested. Nehru did nothing to provide security to Gandhi. Nehru knew very precise details of the entire plot as Pune police had even sent them the Photos and names and location of these would be assasins. Finally on 30 Jan Nathuram became infamously famous in Indian History.

    Let us now go back to Mahabharat. Bhishma was the most loyal warrior of Hastinapur. Duryodhan needed him for the protection of his empire and to keep Pandavas under check. Just the way Nehru needed Gandhi. When the battlelines were drawn and forces reached Kurukshetra, Bhishma was made the Senapati of Kauravas. He waited for that so that he could than dictate his terms of battle to Kauravas and Pandvas. He Knew that Pandvas will not follow him as they are the opponents. So in a way he was cheating the Kauravas. Just the way Gandhi did nothing to stop muslims from killing Hindus and never went to Dhaka/Karachi or Lahore to stop the bloodshed. He never even forced Jinnah to stop it. And Like Bhishma, Gandhi also waited to have an Independent India under Nehru so that he could demand his pound of Flesh.

    Some of the conditions put by Bhishma for the war were, no fighting at night, only equals to have duals, will not kill any Pandva and will not allow Kaurava to be killed. The most shocking was that till he is the senapati, he will not let Karn to fight in the war. Even though he knew that Karn was a kshatriya.

    Duryodhna knew that if somehow Arjun is killed, he will be able to eliminate all the Pandvas. So he wanted Karn in the battle asap and let him use his Ekadhawani astra to kill Arjun. For ten days of the war Bhishma ensured that they reach nowhere as far as winning or losing was concerned. Arjun wanted Bhishma dead or removed and more than that Duryodhan wanted Bhishma out. Just like Hindu Mahasabha wanted Gandhi killed and Nehru did not like Gandhi dictating the matters of the state and he wanted to emerge out of the shadows of Gandhi to be his own as a statesmen and a womeniser. So what happened?

    In comes Shikhandi to kill Bhishma, When the fight was on, all kauravas watched silently. They could have come to the rescue of Bhishma but they did not. Arjun achieved what he wanted and became infamous for using a women to fight battles. Duryodhana thought that finally he will be able to kill Arjun and has seen the last of Bhishma.

    Gandhi met the same fate. Nehru could have stopped his assasination but did not. Hindu Mahasabha got bad name and Nehru used that to ban RSS and hindu right wing parties to ensure that he clips the wings of Patel who was once again becoming powerful with the backing of Hindus. BUT UNLIKE MAHABHARAT WHERE THE RIGHTEOUS PANDVAS CAME TO RULE HASTINAPUR, IN THIS KALIYUG, THE YUGA OF CHEATS AND LIERS, DURYADHAN/NEHRU AND HIS FAMILY BECAME RULERS OF INDIA/HASTINAPUR.
     
    1 person likes this.
  12. Guynextdoor

    Guynextdoor Lt. Colonel SENIOR MEMBER

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2010
    Messages:
    4,855
    Likes Received:
    1,740
    ^^^ Dude, your post is really weird. This aint the age of sitaram kesri and PV Narasimha Rao but a more idealistic generation. It is a historical fact that Nehru repeatedly tried to get the security at gandhi's residence increased and gandhi refuted, blackmailed that he would leave the premises altogether, therefore the security remained lax. Most people who come to the conclusion that gandhi's handing over of the money was a mistake are people who know little of the history of the time. The fact is that when Gandhi was assasinated, he was about two months away from one of the most historic achievements (probably for the whole world). He had decided to lead one million hindus back to pakistan and bring one million muslims from pakistan- both displaced by the partition and thereby kickstart a REVERSE MIGRATION of the populations displaced by the partition, effectively reuniting India, no one can be sure if politically but definitely culturally. And Jinnah, shaken by the massacres of the partition had agreed to the plan. If Gandhi had lived another year- the history of India and Pak would have been different.
     
    2 people like this.
  13. vstol jockey

    vstol jockey Colonel MILITARY STRATEGIST

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2011
    Messages:
    13,790
    Likes Received:
    15,448
    Country Flag:
    India
    Bro, Hate and likes are a matter of one's understanding of facts. The truth is that Gandhi did pay games and took sides to further his own ambition. Regarding his threats to Nehru regarding his security, what stopped Nehru from arresting these asaasins? What prevented him from providing plainclothsmen for security of Gandhi? had Nehru done it, we would have been able to see what you have written and also seen its effects. I am sure, had Gandhi even tried what you have stated, there would have been unprecedented bloodbath. A Hindu does not call a muslim Kafir, but they do call us. Our religion does not allow us to rape women of Kafirs as gifts of god. Muslims do it. Why Jinnah agreed for reunification was that he too faced same problem as Nehru. he too was blackmailed and taken for ride by the same Nawabs and Jamindaars who helped him create Pakistan. They did not let him enforce his vision of a seculer Pakistan and equality by dismantling feudalism like we did in India. He too wanted to avenge but could not as he died soon after.

    Why did Nehru ordered that the trial of Nathuram and othrs be held in Camera? He did not want his own inaction to be highlighted as that could have made Nehru and his cabinet an accused. Why did he go on AIR to announce that Gandhi has been killed by Hindu Militants?

    In Pakistan Gen Mushraf is an accused in the assanition of Benazir not as an assasin but for failing to provide adequate security for her. Do you think Nehru would have escaped the wrath of this nation had it come to be known in those days that he had advance warning and complete details of the plot to assasinate Gandhi?

    is Raul Vinci and Digyy saying something new when they talk about hindu terror and threat to India from Hindu terrorists who comprise 80% of our population? They are just repeating what Nehru did in 1948.
     
    Last edited: Jan 30, 2012
  14. Guynextdoor

    Guynextdoor Lt. Colonel SENIOR MEMBER

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2010
    Messages:
    4,855
    Likes Received:
    1,740
    ^^^ it's also true that for large durations of the Indian independence movement, Gandhi did get support of muslims and that muslim league lost frequently to congress during elections- including- surprise, surprise- NWFP. I have learnt to recognize that a few leaders in history are able to overcome all the conventional wisdom regarding people, relegions etc. and Gandhi was among them. Our understanding says that there would have been blood-bath but gandhi's track record is...well, very different. I know that he sometimes lost in corridoor politics, like the negotiations of indian independence, but he was a VERY different player in mass movements. I think that too must have been his realization. He may have lost to divisionists in the board rooms but he decided to go to the people when he realized his failure because he rarely looses there. There is enough to justify putting faith in him there.
     
  15. vstol jockey

    vstol jockey Colonel MILITARY STRATEGIST

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2011
    Messages:
    13,790
    Likes Received:
    15,448
    Country Flag:
    India
    Bro, now you are hitting the nail on the head with precision. Imagine a democracy wherein the people have faith in a non state actor? Gandhi was not part of GOI. He was a saint/Massiha. he did not have power in his hands but he commanded more power than the entire congress as the masses were with him. he asked Patel to withdraw from PMship in 1946 as Nehru convinced him that British will exploite it to deny freedom to India. Nehru was supposed to be a PM only for the transfer of power. What took place on 15th Aug 1947 was a transfer of power. We truely became a soveriegn nation once our own constitution was adopted by our constituent assembly. It was well known that after we have our own constitution and once we have our own free elections, The congress will once again decide on its PM. Nehru feared it so he played this game to checkmate Patel by cutting away his support from RSS and Hindus.

    Bro I am not against your views but if you study the complete history written by various people between 1946 and 1949 you too will arrive at my conclusions. No one ever writes history as it is. They all have biases. But once you read many accounts, you can filter out the truth. You must realise that every issue has three diff stories to it. one each of the two parties involved and a third one which is the correct one. You have to use your analytical skills to filter the truth out or may be come out with a fourth story.

    I do not say or claim to be true and correct. But after a very thorough research this is what I have been able to conclude. Maybe you will reach some other conclusion. We can have diifering conclusions, but can we deny that even congress had rejected Nehru to be our PM? It is recorded history. Can we deny that Edwina asked Nehru to accept the UN intervention in 1948 and Nehru rejected the advice of his own Cabinet to accept it? Can You??????
     
    Last edited: Jan 30, 2012
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page