Views on Nathuram Godse’s Last Speech

I read Nathuram Godse’s last speech. You can read it here.

This is my response.

From the speech and his words what I can understand is that he was over-zealous and fanatic nationalist and for him nation meant Hindu nation. I don’t find any fault in that. As I also sometime think whether we justify being a secular state. Are we doing justice to each and everyone? Two parts of our land which are now called Pakistan and Bangladesh have been given to elements that were foreign to our soil. History of India has a major part of celebration in Indus valley and most of it has now lost forever to people who were once upon a time aggressors and attackers.

I fail to understand what part has Jinnah played in the Freedom struggle so that he was able to ask for his share in the form of Pakistan. I don’t find any. Muslim League since its inception was anti-nationalist and pro-Britain then how could they claim for a free state of Pakistan? Just for the fear of civil war (which happened) our leaders obliged Jinnah with his demand for Pakistan.

I agree with Savarkar when he says that India is a Hindu nation and Muslims had to stay like a minority with no special privileges. But again I think whether it will be true for all non-Muslims. Do we consider Sikhs, Jains, and Buddhists in the fold of Hindus? If not, then whether they also will not have any rights?

Jains and Buddhist have also helped in carving the Indian culture. If Ashoka would have been a Hindu ruler then I am sure that Hinduism would not have to create the character of Ram. Ashoka would have sufficed. But it is a separate discussion. Let’s continue with the present discussion only. If Jains and Buddhist can be considered the sons of this soil as they have emerged from this land of ours and have contributed to the Indian culture than the same can be said for Muslims too. Though the religion didn’t emerged in our land but with time these aggressors imbibed Indian culture and became Indians. Saying that Muslim rulers were ruthless and didn’t care for India would be wrong. They were as much Indian as we can assume ourselves to be. I don’t consider Muslims as foreigners. But at the same time I also think that they don’t have any right to take away a part of our land claiming as their own alone.

But here my agreement with Nathuram Godse ends. I don’t agree with Godse when he says that Gandhi was guilty of blunder after blunder, failure after failure, disaster after disaster. He fails to understand the characteristics of a Mass based movement. A mass-based movement can not continue for ever. It must be stopped at a time to rejuvenate and restarted at the apt time. If he could have understood so then he would have not blamed Gandhi for failure. Also, I don’t agree when he says that he doesn’t agree with the leadership of Mahatma Gandhi. If you can’t understand your leader or you can’t follow his steps that mean you don’t trust your leader. If you assume someone as your leader, why can’t you follow him? In a war, if soldiers start doubting their commander, what would be the scene? It would be a chaos all around. Nathuram fails to understand this. Gandhi asked the people to follow his steps only when he was asked to lead them. If you cannot come in terms with your leader then you don’t understand the basics of anything though you may have read thousands of books.

Nathuram Godse fails to understand few basics tenets of life and like a fanatic tries to justify his action – the action which can never be justified.


89 thoughts on “Views on Nathuram Godse’s Last Speech”

  1. Good one! though, I don’t understand deep histories but still lke the way u write n put forward ur thoughts in perfect words

  2. @Shailendra Thank you for the support!! I read many discussions on this speech and people without knowing anything about Gandhiji or Godse started blaming Gandhi for all the mess. This is ridiculous. They don’t know any thing about history or Gandhi’s methods but still like to comment on things which they hardly can comprehend. I feel disgusted. I had written something about Gandhi few months back. You can read it here.

  3. I completely agree with your words Palak. People always try to justify their actions (right/wrong) and to do that they use all sort of justifications. Everyone feels that whatever he/she is doing is correct even if that is a crime in the eyes of the world. That’s what Godse did and just gave lame justifications to support his actions.

  4. Yesterday I heard some guys discussing how great it would be to have Maharashtra as a separate country with marathi as it national language. How’s that? Breaks your heart, doesn’t it!

  5. @Amit Doesn’t it breaks your heart? It does and so did the partition of India. I am against any separatist tendencies. If you had read the complete post then I had already condemned it and supported Nathuram Godse’s feeling on that. But when he goes on to say that the reason to kill Gandhi was because Gandhi was a failure and responsible for the partition, though it doesn’t matter whether I agree or not with second, I surely disagree with the first part saying Gandhi was a failure. If you still insist than it is upto you. It is a trend in India, that people tend to listen to some voices and make their opinions on them without themselves working on it and making their views.

    Is it trendy to criticize Gandhi?

  6. Oh yes I read the complete post and I agree with your comment. It was not a question to you, it was just an exclamation. Just an experience, a feeling i wanted to share here. I don’t criticize Gandhi; I respect him for putting in an organized effort to our goal of independence. Partition was the cost we had to pay. I don’t know enough about how the idea emerged in the firs place and how it got approved; hence I cannot point figure at any one. But I can say Godse was wrong because I know he killed the man who led us to independence.

    1. What Godse did is condemnable. But simply judging him from the angle of a suave Bahritya is not suffice. We are Bhartiyas but at the same time Hindus also. The most talked about weakness of a Hindu is his sense of tolerance up to the limit of cowardice. Gandhi may had a misconception that Hindus are in majority hence minorities are to be given extra attention. But he failed to realize that Muslim may be in minority but they are 100 times more violent than Hindus and rather Hindus needed care and protection against the onslaught of Muslims. But he went other way round and thus enraging Godse and his team mates (I will not call them a Gang as those sacrificing their lives for the cause of Nation, religion or group can not be demeaned in such manner)

  7. Hi,

    If freedom fighters think about the basic fundamental rules or life, nobody invoked in the freedom fight. First know what is Nathuram Godse. He was the person won’t think about his name in the history. He was the best ultimate son of Bharata mata.

    Not only Gandhi, lot of people lost their lives and their families. What Gandhi lost when compare to those people like Bose, Bhagat Singh, Sukhadev, Azad, RajGuru, Savarkhar….

    200% Gandhi was a failure and responsible for the partition.

    Gandhi & Nehru cheted the nation for their sake. Think about the Bose place in our government (Congress) files.

    Before discussing any thing about others, read their actual life. but not government book. If Godse was wrong then why government did not allow his actual speech into news. Why they place the ban on release of his speech for 40 years.

    Think about the leader ship qualities (taking risk) Godse had that. Gandhi didn’t have that. Giving speech & making group is not only the leader ship.

    1. you are absolutely right. Gandhi is really Mahatma there is doubt about that. But Godse is also is more deshbakth than most of other leaders. On google Godse speech is available please everyone read that then make a comment on Godse.

  8. Ask the people who lost the lives in that partition incident. They know what is Godse. What is the definition of pain. Think about any of your children are going to die before you in such manner, then you can understand what is Godse and what is Gandhi.

    If you are supporting Gandhi, that means you have to support Mumbai terror attack. This incident is 200% minute when compared with that incident.

  9. @Sailaja I don’t think that you understand Gandhi well. I don’t deny that Godse was a nationalist but his outlook was wrong.

    I don’t buy your arguments. They are superficial without involving thorough analysis. Don’t ask me to analyse right and wrong as I am still doing so.

    Who says Godse is not a part of history? He has his name written all over in History and people like you nurture his thoughts even now.

    I don’t deny it was the fault of Congress that led to the partition of India. But it was not because of its intention but because of the path it chose. You need to read history first and that too from neutral perspective. It could not understand that it is going on a wrong track. Though itself secular, trying to woo Muslim League and other communals it certainly gave place to communal politics. Partition was not just because of Congress, there were many parties involved and British policies played a major role.

    If you really want to identify the reasons for the partition then we will have to trace the history since the Partition of Bengal in 1905. But we need to discuss it at length and this comment column will neither be sufficient not will be able to justify the discussion. Will write an article on it and hope that you will try to see my point. But till I do so, I would recommend you to read Modern India by Sumit Sarkar. I think you will not considered inclined towards Congress. I found it neutral. Bipan Chandra is also neutral if you like to read.You will find it sometimes biased as I myself felt but the flow of history will be clear and overall Bipan Chandra maintains his neutrality.


    I am supporting Gandhi, but why will I have to support Mumbai terror attack? Your logic seems out of line and I would be grateful if you can please give the reasons. I am again saying that I still support Gandhi!!

  10. Hi Mathur,

    1. Partition of Bengal in 1905: Why British people didn’t get success in that? In Pakistan partition, Gandhi policy played the active role. Gandhi had the habit of pointing people with religion & caste. After lot many incidents, that gave pain to Jenna & in turn led to partition. Our people named it as British policy.

    2. Think about the Bose situation which is only due to Gandhi & Nehru. If you observe the record of our government and British government, you can easily get the clarification.

    3. Godse issue: Think as a normal person who can do for his family in crisis to protect them and understand the Hindu society rule which Chauhan kingdom followed. Study the Gandhi statements during the partition (not the government books)

    4. Neutral person: Person who bares the pain of the situation, those people have the right to talk about the Godse decision. Bhagat Singh like lot many people are fools for the neutral person. Neutral person can analyze life as a project. Life is not the project. Mumbai attacks also gave the pain to sufferer not to the neutral person.

  11. 1. Ridiculous to say that Gandhi gave pain to Jinnah by calling him by his religion, caste or race. It was political reasons that Jinnah got separated from Congress and joined Muslim League.

    2. What is Bose situation? He was a nationalist and we all love him. He got selected as President of Congress defeating the candidate supported by Gandhi. But he was not ready to select his own working committee as he wanted Gandhi to implement his policies which Gandhi didn’t accepted. It is mere conflict of ideology. He quit. It was his decision. What he did next was his call not Gandhi’s or Nehru’s. Don’t excuse Gandhi or for that matter Nehru for Bose’s decision. If you are talking about after Bose death – which surely is a mystery – than I, like others, want Congress and GoI to come out with all the information and data related to Bose for the world to see. I am curious to know what happened to him. I don’t believe that he died in a plane crash.

    3. I don’t want to talk about Chauhans and for that matter any of the Rajputs kingdom that came up in10th-11th century. They were complacent digging graves of each other and they were not willing to come together even when foreigners invaded India.
    As far as Godse’s is concerned, I am not denying his nationalist thoughts or for that matter is his Indianness. I can’t do that. But for me he was mis-guided missile. Nothing else. Do you think that merely killing Gandhi would have saved the house? He was just taking revenge and killed someone else though he should have killed Jinnah.

    Can you give me the list of Government Books that you are talking about?

    4. I think you are wrong when it comes to neutrality of a person and for that matter with your comments I find you having strong prejudice against Gandhi. I am a neutral person and I have same respect for Bhagat Singh, Surya Sen, Tilak, Gandhi, Nehru, Mehta, Gokhale and others. You have to analyse life as well. Whether you call it a project or whatever. Since I was not there I have to analyse things. I can’t be 100% sure that Gandhi was right and Godse was wrong. I am just analyzing their acts and I consider Gandhi more righteous than Godse. I neither know Gandhi nor Godse personally so I will have to analyze their acts. If you know Godse better than it is an other thing. But I think you know Godse so much from his speech only. So judging Godse just on his speech and denying Gandhi because of that is simply ridiculous.

    I really start liking Gandhiji after ever discussion I have with people who are against him. It is amazing that after doing so much for his country he failed to earn respect or even consideration from them. It is another aspect of his greatness that you can easily criticize him; like him or dislike him. But you can’t do so with any other personality who is known and was a part of Freedom Struggle. What an irony!!!

    1. A comment after nearly 2 years.

      Regarding “Bose was not ready to select his working committee.”

      Um, not entirely true. He was elected as the President of INC for a second term when Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi publicly said “Pattabhi Sitaramaiah’s defeat is my defeat.” Had Gandhi, taking the defeat in his stride, supported Bose things may have been different. This statement of Gandhi and his subsequent decision of not supporting the chosen leader was the reason for Bose resigning. Bose could have brought about a working committee (after all, he won by a margin of 205 votes!).

      A true leader is one, who gracefully accepts his defeat at all times.

      Of course, you may read into the statement and infer differently in which case we can agree to disagree but we need to state facts as they happened.

  12. In one of your previous comments you said,

    “What Gandhi lost when compare to those people like Bose, Bhagat Singh, Sukhadev, Azad, RajGuru, Savarkhar….?”

    What Gandhi lost is difficult to answer. I think he lost the faith of his people after doing so. If Gandhi did a fault or blunder then it is an issue but we are not going to say anything on mistakes and blunders that others did. Why? Was Gandhi more than a human? I don’t think so. He was mortal like all of them; like all of us. Then why is he criticized for his actions, for having faith in his people? Why?

  13. You didn’t replied to one of my questions:-
    I am supporting Gandhi, but why will I have to support Mumbai terror attack? Your logic seems out of line and I would be grateful if you can please give the reasons. I am again saying that I still support Gandhi!!

  14. dear palak,
    I have read with considerable interest your views on gandhi and godse.While I maintain that he was a fanatic and guilty of a rash act in a democracy like ours, you need to go into his psyche to understand his forget that he was backed in his ideology by one of the greatest patriots, veer savarkar. the problem is that our concepts on indian history are biased by the texts printed by congress govts. who have ruled us for the majority of the time. i don’t think that there ever has been a fair debate on the role of gandhi post 1947.we have been made to worship him and not consider or discuss the merits and demerits of his actions in that period just as the actions of lord ram who was a human being and a king but always seen as god by the hindu community .i suggest you read books like “freedom at midnight’ and watch plays like mee nathuram godse boltoy before you form your opinion. i can only say that godse was short sighted and didnot take into account the political scenario. he should have killed nehru instead.that would have ensured a balance in the govt at that time with a practical man like sardar patel at helm and you would never have heard about the problem of kashmir or china.india would have been a nuclear power long back with a permanent seat on the UN security council. It is the legacy of gandhi and nehru especially their global policies and views on secularism that havemade us the toothless tiger that we are.I admire both in many ways but what they did to the political psyche of india with chamcha giri,dynastic transfer of power and exploitation of diversity of religion in the name of secularism is not pardonable.As godse said then- today it is a muslim nation for sake of peace, tomorrow sikhs will agitate for a nation and then the four castes of hindus will want a separate state. the present day mayawatis and paswans are going in the same direction. how prophetic were godse’s words! unfortunately he will not arise from his ashes to to teach the new divisors of society a lesson.HIS DREAM OF AKHAND BHARAT WITH SINDHU RIVER IN IT WILL REMAIN A DREAM FOREVER

  15. Sorry for answering out of turn… but Savarkar believed that a minority cannot dictate terms for the majority… he didn’t mean to deny any rights to the minorities… and Jinnah cud have done w/o Pakistan if only he was elected the prime minister… w/ more Muslim representation in the assembly which of course was not agreed upon by Nehru… n not to mention that Gandhi is responsible for many deaths… Bhagat Singh, Sukhdev to name a few… n many others… Gandhi cud have easily helped save ’em in one way or the other… but he feared losing popularity may be… most pple were/are Gandhist… only bcoz u don’t fall under any other category… either category of pple who gave their lives fighting for the country… u may think India got freedom due to Gandhi… u must learn that the most important reason for Indian independence was that Britain was financially and politically weak from world war 2 n managing colonies like India was not a straight task… i revere Gandhi for his efforts in SA… but somewhere i feel the political bug ate into him… and a great person began to treat himself as God…

  16. also that I can almost imagine how it ‘d b like when a million well-to-do people suddenly are left w/o a home, business or nething substantial… most businesses in Lahore were run by Hindus… they bcame the poor overnight… not many Muslims lost out on businesses… Gandhi and Nehru shud have given them shelter in their own abodes…

  17. Hi guys,
    Now a days criticising Gandhi become fashion, why these people are not understanding the things, even thoug who dont know gandhi’s date of birth. I request all the people, before discussing about any national leader or any big peronality please read about them and come to the conclusion, otherwise stop barking.

    1. critisizing gandhi is a fashion??? excuse me, kindly understand that the superficial layer of thoughts that people had on Gandhi has started diminishing lately… and this is the result… simple!!. Gandhi was also another wise and clever politician who strived for name and fame ..

        1. Very interesting!. Glad our desh is waking up to realize all those injustices done in the name of non-violence and ahimsa are coming out to light. Gandhi was a powerful being. But he had some kind of Stockholm syndrome and other psychological issues just like Hitler or Mussolini and other dictators. But the way he implemented his thoughts was phenomenal. Sorry guys!. He was the real misguide patriot and not shivaji, gobind or bhagat singh. He was instrumental in bringing unity among Hindus. The sheep mentality still exists after 60 yrs and Nehru dynasty and Gandhi were the architects of that mind set.

          1. I really don’t subscribe to Godse’s view. And I think the new generation is misguided by our politicians on the role of Gandhi & Nehru, who hoped for a better India than what it has turned.

  18. @Hemant I have read Freedom at Midnight and many other books as well, so if you can judge Gandhi on reading books than why can’t you let me form my opinions on him as well. If one book that you have read, one play that you have watched and one speech that you have listened can make your form your opinions then I would say that please sir, you need to really work hard. I have still not formed opinions. I still can think what Godse might have thought and I can still see why Gandhi might have made his moves. But I cannot form opinions. I can only analyze.

    Why should have Godse killed Nehru? Why? If you wanted Nehru to get killed then I think you will want “aam aadmi” and all idealistic persons to get killed.

  19. @Willie I agree when you say that British left India for the reasons that you mentioned. However, does it in anyway undermine the role of Gandhi in India’s independence struggle? No. With due respect to Bhagat Singh, Sukhdev, Rajguru, Surya Sen and others, I want to ask a question – is it possible to carry on a violent struggle against a mightiest power in which you have all the people of India attached. Read history first then draw conclusions.

  20. dear palak,
    you are right we may not form opinions but at least we can debate the actions of individuals based on their effects and facts. i am no one to judge gandhi or godse. all i can say is no individual is bigger than nation and please don’t compare nehru with aam admi. he was only a dreamer and had no pragmatism whatsoever.leader of the nation puts nation first and not himself or his is bad luck of india that it has always been ruled by old,weak and impractical people. destiny has always taken away more capable leaders like shershah suri, shivaji, netaji bose and lately rajiv gandhi or madhavrao scindia. so you will always have bahadur shah zafar, nehru or manmohan singh at the helm,great men and popular but weak

  21. @Hemant Agree with your last comment. But let us not discuss leaders like Sher Shah Suri and Shivaji here. They are heroes of pre-modern era. If you like you can call Medieval Heroes, and can’t be compared with modern India’s leaders.

  22. I am no historian nor i am aware of gandhi’s birthday or birth place (as some reader pointed out) .. But i would like to read 10-15 visionary anecdotes about gandhi or came from gandhi about India as country from the readers.. i know i can get that in some history book… but hearing it from readers will be reassuring to juge the respect they have for gandhi…

  23. Nathuram’s brother served in Iraq as a clerk in Armory during WWII.
    He had stolen a gun for himself but later Nathuram stole that gun from his brother and used it to shoot and kill Gandhi.

  24. “If Ashoka would have been a Hindu ruler then I am sure that Hinduism would not have to create the character of Ram.” Bloody mathur try to use the verbiage does convey that the character of Ram is created and it did not happen. We believe in our religion and we feel the pride in it. You got no right to insult that by putting your views in a god damn way…Now don’t reply back saying that don’t take the words in a pure grammatical way or all such rubbish things.

  25. @YKP First of all, I don’t feel like replying to you at all. Your usage of word Bloody in itself means what kind of personality you must possess. You believe in Ram and your religion. Are you a hindu? I don’t think that you would be better follower of hinduism than me. Is it an insult to Hinduism, I don’t think so. Where is your faith gone? I have complete faith in Ram, so I am sure enough that my writing about him won’t effect his character or hamper the religion. It is people like you who say they are religious and don’t have faith in their religion.

    You want to say everything, but don’t want to let others express themselves. You are welcome to comment anything.

  26. From your reply I understood that you don’t really mean what you say through your words…So you put your words in any haphazard way you wish and say that they doesn’t make any difference to the actual referred thing ..great ! coz people need not follow your blog at all as they really are no views of yours.

    Now bloody Mathur listen this again, thank god that people are trying to make you realize that use proper words when you post something on web which is viewed by many and can influence many by just referring you with a common colloquial word Bloody which in your view shouldn’t make any sense or insult to you.

    Your improper writing doesn’t definitely hamper the religion, but it does give an opinion that people who follow the religion they themselves don’t have a proper understanding of their avatars.

    For you your ego stands ahead of your faith in Ram and I can say that coz before replying to my comment you would have atleast changed the verbiage which I was pointing to which you didn’t. Faith should be uplifted by us but should not be demeaned.

  27. नाथूराम के भाई शस्त्रागार में एक लिपिक के रूप में इराक में सेवा के दौरान
    वह खुद के लिए एक बंदूक चोरी की थी लेकिन बाद में नाथूराम अपने भाई से कि बंदूक चुरा लिया है और इसका इस्तेमाल और शूटिंग के लिए गांधी की हत्या.

  28. I believe that Godse was a nations man and he was frustrated about the partition of India as many Indian nationalists. What he did was right in his and many others’ way. I personally believe that even most of the political parties like to hang the picture of Father of Nation in their offices but no one actually follows his route. In this manner everybody is killing and assasinating Mahatma anyways everyday.
    Even I believe that it was his Assasination that made him more dear to everyone, I would like to imagine what would he be teaching if he would not have been died then. He might had been in the race of politics. No one knows. But now he is treated and also known as the greatest link for Indian Independence and Father of Nation.
    I personally am not the follower of Gandhi as I feel that I cannot put my head in a tray and put in front of my enemies rather I would fight for my rights and would love to die fighting………………………………………..

  29. I also think that Nathuram Godse was a nationalist to the core.

    However, I will beg to differ about your opinion on Mahatma Gandhi. You are ready to believe a person about whom you know nothing much but not ready to believe a person about whom you know almost everything.

    Gandhiji never said not to fight your enemies. He fought with them; just that his method was different.

  30. Palak…
    Gandhi wanted Noble Prize, Noble Prize was his hidden agenda, that is the only reason he did not say any thing when lakhs of hindus killed in pakisthan by muslims. Gandhi knows the atrocities on hindus by muslims which still continues where ever the muslim population is morethan hindus(Kashmir). I will suggest you to read few words from the autobiography of Nathuram Godse… You should always learn to listen / see both sides or views… and in my opinion you are denying to do that… But i am reproducing few words from the biography for you.. hope that you will go through it as you did it for other books which were written on Gandhi.

    “I never stole in my childhood, so there was no question of apologising to my father. I never took a vow of celibacy as I was already practising celibacy. I was moving around the refugee camps and helping the destitute with food and clothes. But I did not wander half-naked because the refugees were naked. I never spun yarn, never cleaned my toilet, never observed silence till I was hanged. There was only one common factor in Gandhi’s life and mine. We were both the cause of each other’s death. He wanted to live for his principles and I was prepared to die for my principles.

    But the interesting part of the biography of Nathuram Godse starts on January 30, 1948. After the assassination of Gandhi.

    In a sense, I lived only for 655 days — from January 30, 1948 to November 15, 1949. But January 30 was an outcome of January 13.

    The central government had taken a decision — Pakistan will not be given Rs 55 crores. On January 13 Gandhi started a fast unto death that Pakistan must be given the money. On January 13, the central government changed its earlier decision and announced that Pakistan would be given the amount. On January 13, I decided to assassinate Gandhi. ”

    If we were giving 1/3 part of our national wealth to Pakistan, then was it wrong to expect from Pakistan to share 1/3 part of debts that India was having at that time? After partition,when refugees were coming to India (approx 40 lakhs, 2/3 were killed and bodies were sent to India with a quotes written on train”aazadi ka tohfa”, rest were tortured) , they were homeless, no shelters were made available to them, also thrown out from the Mosque when they tried to take temporary arrangement of stay in huge Mosque of Delhi, by orders given by Gandhi and Nehru. (please refer Government documents for this orders given by Gandhi, you will get a PROOF for this). Are you aware of these things? If not i would like to suggest you to go through the link.

  31. @Leena I have read it all. I don’t deny that Godse was a true nationalist. I will reproduce here what I had written:-

    “I agree with Savarkar when he says that India is a Hindu nation and Muslims had to stay like a minority with no special privileges. But again I think whether it will be true for all non-Muslims.”


    “They were as much Indian as we can assume ourselves to be. I don’t consider Muslims as foreigners. But at the same time I also think that they don’t have any right to take away a part of our land claiming as their own alone.”

    But I condemn the act of Nathuram Godse and his understanding of national movement.

    Also, please don’t give me the link of Nathuram Godse’s biography or speech. You were talking about some government documents. Please provide the link to the same.

  32. I am completely satisfied with the action of Nathuram Godse, if Gandhi, would have been alive today, , he would given, Sikkim, Manipur, Meghalaya to China, and kashmir to pakistan forever through in Non Violence, May Nathuram Godse, soul rest in peace

  33. Hi Palak Mathur,

    You are an amazingly good writer and judging by your photo you are young and yet cautious.
    I am no fan of Gandhi or Godse.
    But i can suggest only one thing in the matter, Gandhi was a self obsessed leader who adamantly did what he thought is right. You say why cant we follow our leader, but I believe (it my personal thought) that a leader is not who shapes a crowd, but the crowd is what shapes the leader. Gandhi was accepted only because of the emotional side of the brain of “aam admin” in India is strong.
    A true story to prove it.
    “My friend wanted to stand for the election of commerce secretary in his college. The stronger rivals one day bet him up. What he did was he gathered a crowd and said that it was for them that he was beaten and would like being beaten up for them again and again. he won the seat. It was never because he wanted to be beaten that he was beaten. he was beaten because he was weak.”

    Now you will say Gandhi was not weak. But another human psyche is what influences our decision the most. It to retain an image. Every thing you do is a function of what is your image and past doings. So I suppose when Gandhi started he was weak and due to it got support. Yet, to retain his support he had to portray not weakness but strength, so came non-violence.

    Coming to Godse, he was completely wrong in communal approach in killing Gandhi. But I see no reason for Gandhi to have allowed the biggest mistake of modern politics (India – Pakistan Partition).

    Now if I start hitting you you are supposed to hit me back. That’s not just nature but also reflex (stimuli). So waht he sis was correct to him and we are no body to say other-wise.

    My biggest regret with Mr. Mahatma Gandhi is if he advocated non-violence so much then why in gods name did he never stopped the British VIOLENCE against all highly acclaimed revolutionaries (Bhagat Singh and co, Subash and co etc)
    If he would have wanted on the leverage of of Gandhi Irwin pact he could have had Bhagat Singh released.

    It was never any one except him who denied the ideology of other leader. It was solely Mr. Gandhi who as rightly said by Mr. Godse was so solemnly involved in the notion of his own rightness that he didn’t have the guts to accept others.

    “No good leader can stay long if he forgets how to listen”

  34. i do not want to comment about Nathurans speech, but Dear Palak i Quote ur words
    “If Jains and Buddhist can be considered the sons of this soil as they have emerged from this land of ours and have contributed to the Indian culture than the same can be said for Muslims too. Though the religion didn’t emerged in our land but with time these aggressors imbibed Indian culture and became Indians. Saying that Muslim rulers were ruthless and didn’t care for India would be wrong. They were as much Indian as we can assume ourselves to be. I don’t consider Muslims as foreigners. But at the same time I also think that they don’t have any right to take away a part of our land claiming as their own alone”
    when India got independence no sikh, buddhist or Jain demanded sepereate land on the basis of religion, for them nation was first and religion nest, but can we say same things about Muslims, whey did they demanded the creation of Pakistan on the basis of religion and after fibble resistance Ghandi Ji agreed, but when muslims were given a separate state why were non Muslims denied of non muslim state, it is the same decision of Ghandiji for which we are still paying,Muslims are even today aggressive as they were in 1947, they are continusly fighting for another Islamic state, if India is a secular country why were hindus thrown out of kashmir just they were non muslims.
    what ever the Nathuram has done is Justified, who ever divided the motherland as destroyed by the command of God, when revered Pithamaha Bishma in Mahabaratha favored the division of his mother land there came Arjun and Destroyed him, so Nathuram Is Modern Arjun
    i suggest u to read my blog on the given link

  35. Ghandi Ji once said
    If a muslim strikes you it is his nature but a hindu and Sikh should not strike back as eye for eyes makes whole world blind

  36. @Ramprasad Then you do not understand Gandhi
    @Surajbhan Do you think a weak man can do what Gandhi did in SA or in India? I do not think so.
    Weaknesses are also of two types – physical and psychological. Gandhi may be weak physically but psychologically I do not think that any of the freedom fighters that we have had were weak. And same is true for Gandhi.
    —My biggest regret with Mr. Mahatma Gandhi is if he advocated non-violence so much then why in gods name did he never stopped the British VIOLENCE against all highly acclaimed revolutionaries (Bhagat Singh and co, Subash and co etc)

    British raj was not his raj. He was using non-violence against the VIOLENCE of British Raj. You are mixing up. You are not clear in your thoughts.

    @Vijay Bhat Things have gone bad not because of Gandhi but because of us all. If he had been here, I think he must have solved the problems that we face today. But he was killed. Actually, I can’t even say that he would have solved all the problems. May be he would have failed.

    You cite example of Bhishm Pitamah. Same thing happened with Gandhi. But aren’t both genuine persons? Arjun fought a face-to-face war where both sides had their weapons. But in Nathuram vs Gandhi case, only Nathuram held the gun, not Gandhi. Comparisons can not be drawn.

    —-If a muslim strikes you it is his nature but a hindu and Sikh should not strike back as eye for eyes makes whole world blind

    You can see Hindus and Sikh also striking back. We have to decide what kind of society we want to live in?

  37. Dear Palak,

    I am clear enough in my thought process. Also, if you are justifying Gandhi’s action during Gandhi Irwin Pact (Bhagat’s death) then you are hopelessly in love with the lean man and to such incredible blind faith, no one can do anything.

    Sorry if any Gandhiwadi has felt offended. But he was a hippocrate and its true.

  38. @surajbhan My answer was not to your Gandhi-Irwin Pact thing. I only answered to your following statement:-

    — My biggest regret with Mr. Mahatma Gandhi is if he advocated non-violence so much then why in gods name did he never stopped the British VIOLENCE against all highly acclaimed revolutionaries (Bhagat Singh and co, Subash and co etc) —

    I am not saying that I am blindly in love with Gandhi. I do not like some of his acts too like signing of Gandhi-Irwin pact. I do not have a blind faith in Gandhi.

    No Gandhiwadi (I think you are referring me) is offended. I am not Gandhiwadi at all. I am just a neutral person. I just fail to understand why a person who did so much for the country in uniting it failed to convince his colleagues and why he does not get his due from the people of his own country.

    I do not think he was a hypocrite. Why was he a hypocrite? Because he favored giving the money to Pakistan? What would have he gained from Pakistan for doing so?

  39. Gandibaba was a demagouge. He was a master hypocrite. He gained fame at the cost of national interests. In our country leader are greater that nation for their followers. He conducted many nonsense ideas like sleeping nude with young girls, taking goat to london for it’s milk. His naturopathy experiments were also rediculous, he used to eat and next day used to observe stool. He was anti democratic , hence forced the congress party to select Nehru as a leader. Bloody Gandhi always spoke of conservation of water , he said even a glass with left over water should not be trown away but to be poured at trees. In wardha we find Gandhi Bath tub, how he could save water using Bathtub. How he used bathtub when millions were thirsty for water. His simple leaving was meant to impress the people as in India , simplicity, poverty and celibacy are glorified. He was a leader of convinience for British, evry time, he used to call of the movent once it takes full swing He was a safty valve to ruling british. He supported british in world war II. Tell me a single good thing that Gandhi dis for this nation. Gnadhi’s leadership is greatest tragedy of our nation. It has caused irreperable damage to our nation.

  40. Forget about what Godsey has done to Gandhi, How much respect our govt given to Bhagat Singh, Azaad , Subhash Bose , Rajguru . We still live in un secular country with prejudice. We always wanted every body should prosper with us but is the same thinking of others ? no we believe others are human and have the right to stay as we are but no. Dont talk about secularism . We are governed by dirtiest politicians which will reflect our younger generation. First understand what is secularism ? If so Lawa to every citizen should be same , facility to all citizens should be same , are we getting ? why this discriminating between Hindus and other. You go to any country , every citizen has to follow the country of law whether he is visitor, non resident . We lack patriotism, and having very good habit of downgrading our own country. Let us fight for real secular which give right to every one with out any discriminating in all sectors.

  41. Some questions if you can answer. I am not justifying Godse here, but then

    1. If Gandhi was so against partition, couldn’t he have just fasted his way to prevent it?
    That not being done, so second thing, why did he fast to protect the Muslims alone when Trains full of dead, mutilated bodies of Hindus and Sikhs were arriving from Pakistan on a daily basis? Were these souls children of a lesser God to him?

    You and me blogging, retrospectively, almost 60 years after the incident will not take away the fact that we are utterly incapable of experiencing the passions running at that time. Imagine you going to the railway station and see an entire train of your dead countrymen. What would you have done?

    Gandhiji knew it, so in the next prayer meeting why did he advocate forgiveness? Yes non-violence is appreciated, but this philosophy against the barbaric hordes who just wanted to kill, is as useless as a swimming trunk in the Sahara desert. Why couldn’t he have just declared a fast till all, i mean ALL violence was stopped?

    And finally, you know Pakistan attacked Kashmir in 1947 rt. So we were technically at war with Pakistan. And you do not give money to the country you are at war against. Its simple logic. Russia had grain shipments pending for export to Germany when the latter attacked. So u think russia fulfilled that contract? There are some things you don’t do, and Gandhiji violated that simple rule, only because of his ego and may be his insecurity.

    And as someone said, for all you know he may have fasted so that India gives Kashmir to Pakistan

    The method is wrong, but I will say this with conviction that what Godse said was absolutely right..

    1. If you are talking about Godse alone then I like what he said during his trial.

      Remember in Mahabharata, when the battle had ended and Bhisma “pitamaah” was breathing his last. I remember at that point he said, he is responsible for the battle and killing of his own kins as just for the sake of his promise he let the battle took place. Bhisma means a terrible oath. He took the vow of life-long celibacy and of service to whoever sat on the throne of his father, ie, Hastinapur. This oath to service whoever sat on the the throne was his misgiving as according to him it was his duty to protect his motherland and prevent any partition. One who doesn’t do so has to suffer greatly. He also said that human makes mistake but a Kshatriya should not make one because if he does then it not only harms him but also the entire clan. (Something like this)

      On the same lines, I find everyone from Gandhi to Nehru to Patel to be not true to the service of the nation. I also not deny that they had no right to make any mistakes.

      You and me blogging, retrospectively, almost 60 years after the incident will not take away the fact that we are utterly incapable of experiencing the passions running at that time. Imagine you going to the railway station and see an entire train of your dead countrymen. What would you have done?

      That is what I am saying we are blogging retrospectively. How can we be so sure that they would not have tried hard enough to prevent partition? Just because History books say so? So, give them their space and do not judge them. They worked hard we all know, at least give credit to them.

  42. You seem to know Hindu scriptures .I would like to know if you have read Quran. Reading Quran is not sufficient; you must read it along with Tafseer & Hadith.
    Only after that you can see the things as they are. I have nothing against Muslims. After all we all have the right to live & follow the path we like & believe.
    I am asking you to do this because the complexities involved are not as simple as you have put it.

    I have done the study & also had questioned few well known scholars Dr. Naik, Mr. Bilal Philips & Mr. Jamaal Dhooky. Now it is very clear to me that if Muslims insist on following Islamic rules in India they will have no chance of living peacefully until & unless all of us follow their system or they compromise with their religion which again is a shirk for them.The Sharia law is something which we can not come to terms with. Rest will not be a problem. It is this that created the hitch.

    More over the Muslims scholars were and are unknowingly (in their enthusiasm of preaching Islam) leaving no stone unturned to misguide Muslims regarding all other religions.
    In such situation loving coexistence without bitterness is a mere dream.

    If all Muslims would have moved to Pakistan it would have been much more sensible as they can have their own law governing their society & we ours. From distance respecting each other is much more plausible solution and internal peace due to religion would not have been at stake for both.

    Gandhiji , with all due respect to him,I definitely feel had prevented such a thing from happening by giving the choice of staying back to muslims. His own objective of peace & non violence has been defeated by his decision. I respect Gandhiji as a saint. But as a politician (in the real sense & not how it is understood commonly) has been a failure. He could not foresee the outcome just like Bhishma of Mahabharata because of his vow towards non violence. In that sense he was not a visionary.

    All said and done, at common man’s level I must say both Muslims and Hindus have learnt to mind their own business as none wants unrest. Whatever the differences, are limited to only opinions. It is not crossing the boarders of the heart in recent times. As we all have learnt that we have to pay heavy prize which is completely going in favour of politicians.

  43. I want to clarifyi my stance regarding few things in my previous post. I had read few of Gandhiji’s works including “My experiments with truth”. The impression I had was …..depending on the result of his experiments he developed a strong belief on non violence. But this belief was developed without understanding how the principals worked in various real life situations.

    To have a success mantra is not sufficient we have to know how it works. Blind belief may land us in disaster. It is like this. If I believe that my God say Rama is going to protect me. I stand on one side of the highway with speeding cars & close my eyes uttering the name of “Rama” & I start crossing the highway. The chances are I may be safe . If I am safe I my belief will become stronger. But the chances of killing myself are high. To go across high way I need clarity along with my belief. That is how it is definitely going to work. Please see this.

    Gandhiji always treated peace & non violence as “his” goals that are to be achieved. That is reason why we landed up getting a train packed fully with dead bodies. Had he treated peace & non violence as fundamental requirement of every human being ,be it a Muslim or a Hindu his approach would have been totally different. Without peace we cannot enjoy the simple task of even eating our food. Sardar Vallabhai a supporter of non violence,peace & truth understood these mantras with far better clarity & perspective than Gandhiji.

    In my opinion we cannot call Nathuram Godse a violent or anti peace person. As per his speech he had fully weighed pros & cons of his actions. He did not do it in a fit of frenzy. It was well thought over deed. May be he saw what Gandhi was refusing to see i.e. his ways were peaceful but were not giving way to peace & mutual understanding between Hindus & Muslims. We cannot judge a person just by his actions. Intention behind the action is of high importance. That is the reason why stealing of cooked food from a house is not a punishable offence in Indian law.

  44. It is so easy to defend a murderer called Godse ( in this case you think that you belong to an elite) and it is so difficult to follow Gandhiji ( because you are one of some millions, so nothing specai,!!)
    I do not see any of Gandhiji’s act as a failure.
    was it failure that he defended Indians in South Africa??
    was it a failure that he said to Tilak and Gokhle that he will follow their actions?
    was it a failure that he supported «quit India”?
    was it a failure to make “Dandi Yatra”?
    was it a failure to say no to imported stuff from Britain?
    was it a failure that he defended the poor?
    was it a failure that he said to the representative” yes, just simply you will quit Indian?
    was it a failure that he started the movement of Ahimsa?
    was it a failure that “fasted” against this and that”?
    was it a failure that he defended Indian made goods?
    was it a failure that he studied Geeta and Quran and gave the recitals of Bible?
    was it a failure that he made efforts for Hindu-Muslim conciliation ( and all other communities)?
    was it a failure that he was polite?
    was it a failure that he did not mix up (later on) with the party politics?
    was it a failure that he begged Jinnah” not to insist on making of Pakistan”?
    was it a failure that he went into the villages to see the disappearing handicrafts like “indigo makers”
    was it really a failure that when the whole India was celebrating the independence he was absent and was looking after the affected people in Bengal??

    I can go on with my list for a while and I challenge to all readers here to reply to me in yes or no to all my sincerely asked above mentioned questions
    was it a failure that he gave his life for …. Oh my god ( he said .Hey Raam…….)
    Godse in a simple word was a culprit and coward having a gun hidden and Gandhi( apart from what he did for you and me) was a generous man who served tea to the invitees of another person
    I am not ashamed but I am shocked to see how ignorant people can be, how narrow minded, how short their memory is and how aggressive people can be. Under the banner of freedom of speech and communication and democracy and new wave and modern world, people abuse and give free path to a phobia which is really not logic, nor sincere nor honest nor deeply thought in vision, in intelligence and in spirit. I am not ashamed but I am sad to see that people do not see violence in Godse’s act and see him as “visionary”
    Oh how easy it is to kill (Gandhi, Martin Luther King, Mandela !!!, Kennedy) how easy, really how easy, can you imagine how easy?? you just have to take a gun and shoot and then say I am not Violent but have another idea of my country. JESUS,HOW EASY IT IS TO PUT SOME ONE ON A cross and become hero and how easy it is to burn Rome and become Nero.
    I ask myself who will be the next on the list???
    I address myself to the younger generation: have you studied history and philosophy?? have you any civic sense, have you any other values than the materialism. Do you care for humanity and human beings?? If the answer is yes, then please, please read the life, biography of Gandhi, read Fisher. Do not go for an easy shot, go for the truth.
    What did you say? Godse saw what Gandhi refused to see? Will you say the same for Hitler, who was the initiator of Killing some millions?
    Or do you want to say that this was Gandhi who was responsible for the killings at the time of partition???
    Godse coming from nowhere, knowing nothing, a karya karta of an extremist movement, instrument of a group of antinationalist(I can not name them nationalists, because they do not even know what “nation” means) from the same earth of Maharashtra where Tilak and Gokhle came from ( at this moment I am ashamed that people in India just open their mouth to express themselves but have no education in history) is now on the way to become a hero?
    what does it mean “speech of Godse”?? can anybody explain to me ??
    alone the fact that it is defined as speech is something very curious?
    will we in the near future publish the last words of killers as speech
    How can we in this civilized India of today, take positive position for a killer??
    I know that since a while in India there is a sort of fashion to insult Gandhi, Nehru and similar( I said insult , not criticise..) Beacuse they have nothing else productive to do???
    I challenge also that these people are” revisionists” and not the historians. Because it is easy to insult and very difficult to study the history. I do not want to waste here the time of readers giving references of books, historians and facts about mahatma, but I ask last question
    was it failure that Gandhi struggled for the independence of India?
    he struggled very hard my friends, contrary to what some people think

  45. do you very sincerely feel that nehru to rahul(incl indira gandhi and rajeev) have no black money stashed away in their names in swiss and other banks. well there are others but they are supposed to be the holiest as they have ruled our nation, hearts and minds……please be honest in ur views


  47. Natu Ram Godse was real freedom fighter and Gandhi was the main culprit for partion and I appreciate him for killing Gandhi he was not mahatma and I salute him may god bless Natu Ram Godse

    1. I have removed one of your comments for lack of proper sentence structure and also because you were not citing sources for your claims. Also, please mention proper website address, if you have otherwise leave it blank. Or I will mark it spam.

  48. Palak Mathur

    Gandhi achchha aadmi tha ya bura ye na to aap decide kr sakte aur na maio. ap 100 persons se puchhiye wo kaisa aadmi tha. Most of them would disapprove of him as they r doing in response to ur post. And again u say. u fail to understand why nobody respect him even if he did so much for india. What the hell he actually did. Can u tell me. And people respect only the genuine person. Nt a hypocrite like gandhi. Cn u gv me name of any other fredom fighter whom ppl despise despite their efforts

  49. Godse was a patriot alright but a fool! He jumped the gun and ended mahatmas life, a task the then congress had taken onto itself and have finally succeeded in this era. Mahatma was shot by that fool on 30jan48, he died a painful slow death in hands of congress who never reached out to the last man of the society who was the inspiration behind mahatmas struggle.

  50. I am satisfied with your views. There was a great mis-understanding between Gandhi & Godse
    It will be remembered forever.

  51. As a Hindu who is very proud to be one, I know only one fact…Most of the countries in our world are either Christian or Muslim…India is the only Hindu country in the world and if we don’t preserve it, our Hindu identity will be lost forever.

    As for Jains, Buddhists and Sikhs, how many have tried to convert Hindus? Do any of these religions have the concept of Kafirs, Jihad or Sharia? Hinduism is not a religion, its a way of life which is very tolerant and inclusive and it is indeed an insult to this great ideolgy if our governments ignore it to please a bunch of people belonging to the most regressive religion of this world.

  52. some of his views on bringing caste discrimination in a multicultural nation is contrast but there are even many other views on Gandhi that created doubt on him if some other things might have truly happened behind screens.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s