On January 30 1948, NATHURAM GODSE—a Hindu fanatic fired at Gandhi, thus ending and era to Indian political struggle, pre-Independence. In a sense, this man who lived only 655 days (January 30, 1948 to November 15, 1949) never ever spoke ills about Gandhi, as the person but a hardliner critic to government policies, especially of Gandhi.
Unbelievable…Unheard of!
The ‘MAN’ (or as he’s considered ‘mahatma’) who is regarded as one of the greatest politicians of 20th century; having inspired political histories/ideologies to many others, and propagated non-violence to humankind found a critic in his own homeland. Thus, when I decide to publish a series on Indian Independence I choose Godse over Gandhi as one of my subject.
There are two reasons for doing so. First, the age and generation that I belongs ‘lived under terrorism’ and conflicting ideologies witnessing more bloodshed ever in the history of mankind, borne out of ideological battles between these men. Second and most important, Jinnah’s plea for an independent Muslim nation to uphold “Islamic sentiment and Faith…” [that] otherwise would have crumbled under Hindu dominion find rebuttal. Here’s the man and his faith [who] claimed “we killed with a motive, to serve the highest interests of our people” is a result of vindication afflicted to all Hindus when Hindus are a majority. How ironical!
So, I traced to find how majority in a country is treated as minority and do that led further to Indian politics, in its contemporary time. The debate is left open to intelligent masses and scholars while my role in writing this article is similar to that of a chronicler.
Gandhi, as we traced his political days emerged as one of the most talked-about politician since his South-African days. Not until 1920, when Gandhi joined Indian freedom struggle amidst ‘lull’ with prominent leaders like Tilak, Gokhale succumbed to death leaving a room for a new aspiring leader to emerge and guide. Gandhi fit the structure whether as [an] ideal candidate of coincidence or calculative is disputable. But indeed, he was the most undisputed one for a long time.
When I use the term ‘for a long time’ it need to be clarified that Gandhi was always never an undisputed figure in the political history or to be correct, Indian freedom struggle. Few like Bhagat Singh or Subhas Bose appeared to challenge and add a new political ideology to the freedom struggle that challenged Gandhi’s non-violence. It is sad that new crop of freedom struggle either succumbed to execution or disappeared leaving Gandhi and his [ism] to be alive. So, we can’t say Godse was completely an insane or a fanatic who criticized Gandhi’s political ideologies but a follower to few of his predecessors.
This opens a new question about what’s wrong with Gandhi’s ideologies. Aren’t they good enough to any political movement? Or has they lost their motif and failed to achieve what Indians sought for?
When I talked about this research to most of my friends, bloggers, and generation born post-independence I countered comments which are not of suitable to write and largely venomated. In fact, I find there are more Nauthram Godses’ born post-independence though a majority of them are largely opinionated and not having a proper ideological bases yet, hard to dissuade.
So…it is better to analyze Gandhi’s feat and understand what’s went wrong with this great man that beget Godse. Indeed, Gandhi’s work in South Africa upholds a highest order that a political leader could offer. Yet, it is also to be noted that Indians living in South Africa, irrespective of their castes and faithdom treated similarly by both Britons and Bocans. India is a different ball game, a different platform with different and divergent ideologies [which] forced Gandhi to develop a more subjective mentality on his appearance and offered nothing new or innovative, but crippled or ‘customized’. To understand the fragilities of [his] ideologies in Indian perspective it is worthy to take a dig at the Hindu-Muslim relationship in India. Interestingly, the relationship has always been under the scanner and tried to unity yet, never successfully achieved. Added to it, India which always been a Hindu dominion with Muslim rulers; historical events show Hindu communities as ‘guinea-pig’ on whom policies are executed, since Khijlis. Gandhi was not an exception.
Stranded between Moderates and Extremist groups, Gandhi with his non-violence stride was a more moderate and harsh critic to extremist powers. In fact, Moderates in India are largely pro-liners to Islamic faith. Well, there’s nothing wrong to be one yet, members of Muslim League since its inception were disloyal and treasonable to the Union government. They played a fiddle to British Governance as Syed Tyabji or Iqbal either been nostalgic or too concentrated to upliftment of people belonging to their faith in terms of education and social order, and has least devotion to non-violence practiced by ‘so-called political seer’. [Note: Jinnah’s wish for a separate nation is chiefly inspired from the teaching of Tyabji and Iqbal].
What about Gandhi? As Nathuram Godse claimed, “He alone was the judge of everyone and everything; he was the master brain guiding the Civil Disobedience movement; no other could know the technique of that movement. He alone knew when to begin it and when to withdraw it. The movement might succeed or fail, but that could make no difference to the Mahatma's infallibility. 'A Satyagrahi can never fail' was his formula for his own infallibility and nobody except himself knew what a Satyagrahi is.”
Gandhi’s predicament was a real wish-wash and followed with guilty of blunder after blunder, failure after failure, disaster after disaster. His pro-Muslim policies though commendable in theory yet practical in achieving and hence, [they are] irrational. Also to noted, with a most severe austerity of life, ceaseless work and lofty character Gandhi to many Congressmen was too precarious, thus either they withdraw or dissolve their own independent views to a sublimated whole.
One of the few events, if we analyze, such as question of national language in India, Gandhi’s support for ‘Hindustani’ is farcical. It is quite obvious that Hindi has the most prior claim to be accepted as the premier language and has a vernacular to offer. Gandhi gave a great impetus to Hindi but as he found that the Muslims did not like it, he became a champion of what is called Hindustani. Earlier I coined it as a farce because ‘Hindustani’ is not a language but a mere dialect. It has no grammar or a vocabulary – a crossbreed of Hindi and Urdu (the language most favored in Muslim literary).
He, therefore, made Hindu-Muslim Unity as the foundation to his political ideology yet find no-acceptance among Muslim leaders. As I am working on my research paper that discuss events led to Indian Independence on the midnight stroke of August 15, 1947 – ‘Partition’ is one of the issue where the role of a feeble Gandhi and rise of Godse clan is evident. Jinnah’s claim for an independent nation supported by colonial kinsmen and on the reluctance of Nehru [the consort] brought Gandhi back to his ideologies and find him ‘dead’.
Initially though, he [Gandhi] delivered speeches against partition but wise enough to analyze that it would have little effect on Muslim League and its practitioners. He was fully aware from past experience that Jinnah was not at all perturbed or influenced by his fast and the Muslim League hardly attached any value to the inner voice of Gandhi. This I say is the dilemma of a ‘great man’ – The Father, whose sons have grown-up too big to fit his own shoe. The partition is regarded as the top ten tragedies of the world.
But what about Hindus and their guinea-pigness? Hindu dominated areas like Lahore went to Pakistan and in order to 'purify' the land many Hindus were massacred, women abducted and married off to Muslims, and other such heinous acts were committed. Similar actions against Muslims are carried out at Muslim quarters by Hindu groups. Gandhi went on a fast in order to protest the violence against Muslims. But, the fast was never been came across him to protest subjugation of Hindu communities in Pakistan (both East and West). He has purposely avoided any imposing any conditions to Pakistan on the issue or massacre during ‘Partition’. After Pakistan is separated on 14th August, 1947 the Government of Pakistan demanded that India should give it Rupees 55 crores as its share from the Government treasury. This was quite an extraordinary amount at that time yet Gandhi supported despite of Congress reluctance.
The hope of Hindu Muslim Unity was hardly entertained in history by anybody; but Gandhi continued to be resolutely optimistic and surrendered and thus, born a man with gun ‘Nathuram Godse’.
The pyres of both have been dead. All the men – Jinnah, Gandhi and Godse cremated and dead. What remains is the ever-lasting and unending prelude of difference, in terms of faith, ideologies, and guineapigness’. As I conclude this part of my research phase, I wonder what should I be rejoicing on the eve of India’s sixtieth Independence. The cause of freedom? Division of nation? End of an era and there born a fanatic? Should I celebrate Gandhi or should I moan for Godse?
This is great info to know.
ReplyDelete