The Real Debate!

Angie has a point -

Its history and nothing is going to change the fact.

The only fact here which is non-debatable is Gandhi was assassinated by Godse.

Godse's reasons for assassination of Gandhi were given out during his testimony. The Congress also implicated the fact that the entire operation was part of RSS's bigger agenda along with Hindu Mahasabha (I am not sure if that's the right name) which had Godse and Apte as the faces that represented the unrest which had settled amongst old school Hindus. Of course RSS denies all this.

But, here is the thing.

Godse was not the only one to kill Gandhi. He pulled the trigger of .38, yes. But the conspiracy and the planning to do so was done by a group of men. Along with Godse, Apte was also convicted of Mahatma's assassination.

Here is a book which according to author has picked up details from the exact sources - diaries of Godse, Apte, Godse's family and friends. I do not know if everything in this book is real or not. I don't know what's the truth given how there are way too many variants of the same incident. Given how political the entire deal was, no one really knows what is the truth anyway.



Aftermath of assassination showed an aspect of free India which was never seen before - the political stronghold the freedom fighter groups had turned out to be.

I think Godse's testimony is available (which is disputed by people that it has been tampered by the scribe). It makes an...interesting read.

S

Originally posted by: night13

Now that I know how some of you think <really?>, I would like to give you little glimpse on how I think (if you haven't already figured out? 😆). Name is Aarya (as some of you already know!), am a strategist by profession, for which you can guess that I don't do things with out planning or purpose. The earlier topics created by me were merely a base to understand on how everyone processes such topics! As you can see I have a thirst for controversies, for which I am on the fence about everything!😉  So now that we are familiar with each other, and thank you for the warm welcome in the DM!, let the real debate begin...

***
Let's take a little stroll in the history lane... shall we?
Assassination of Mohandas Gandhi, did he deserve it? Was Godse on the right path?

I can see your strategy coming up with new debatable topic but how much we debate we cant clarify few conspiracies theories of history just put that according to our belief and understanding.

My answer will lies in my question. Was Gandhi right in going with his Pact with Lord Irwin and allowed execution of Bhagat Singh, Rajguru, Sukhdev.  I am not supporter of Mr. Gandhi you know that. I can state few of my points which are real controversial ones. I think  Nathuram Godse stated his belief in his book, and few of his points were too controversial to state on open forum.

Originally posted by: -Sookie-

Angie has a point -

Its history and nothing is going to change the fact.

The only fact here which is non-debatable is Gandhi was assassinated by Godse.

Godse's reasons for assassination of Gandhi were given out during his testimony. The Congress also implicated the fact that the entire operation was part of RSS's bigger agenda along with Hindu Mahasabha (I am not sure if that's the right name) which had Godse and Apte as the faces that represented the unrest which had settled amongst old school Hindus. Of course RSS denies all this.

But, here is the thing.

Godse was not the only one to kill Gandhi. He pulled the trigger of .38, yes. But the conspiracy and the planning to do so was done by a group of men. Along with Godse, Apte was also convicted of Mahatma's assassination.

Here is a book which according to author has picked up details from the exact sources - diaries of Godse, Apte, Godse's family and friends. I do not know if everything in this book is real or not. I don't know what's the truth given how there are way too many variants of the same incident. Given how political the entire deal was, no one really knows what is the truth anyway.



Aftermath of assassination showed an aspect of free India which was never seen before - the political stronghold the freedom fighter groups had turned out to be.

I think Godse's testimony is available (which is disputed by people that it has been tampered by the scribe). It makes an...interesting read.

S

'Its history and nothing is going to change the fact.'... true, but it's the present and future which is and will suffer from the past! So, if an event occurred yesterday should it be restricted from today!

Now that I am going to take a stand <help me GOD! 😆>, I am on the side of Godse as Gandhi systematically fooled the people by saying he will never accept the partition of the country over his dead body, but still the partitioned happened, and thus living in war for many decades and more to come.

Godse had no personal grudges over Gandhi, instead he was fighting for a cause which believed in United India and thus no religions segregation or partition. Godse truly respected Gandhi theory on non-violence but this theory denies self-defence and self-interest. The non-violence that defines the fight for survival as violence is a theory not of non-violence but of self-destruction. Was the decision on partition necessary? To me no individual is greater than a nation!

Originally posted by: kuls11

I can see your strategy coming up with new debatable topic but how much we debate we cant clarify few conspiracies theories of history just put that according to our belief and understanding.

Your belief and understanding is what I am interested in, and not some articles from Google! :)

My answer will lies in my question. Was Gandhi right in going with his Pact with Lord Irwin and allowed execution of Bhagat Singh, Rajguru, Sukhdev.  I am not supporter of Mr. Gandhi you know that. I can state few of my points which are real controversial ones. I think  Nathuram Godse stated his belief in his book, and few of his points were too controversial to state on open forum.

Kul, you know me better than this that I am open for all controversial subjects!

Edited by night13 - 12 years ago

Originally posted by: night13

'Its history and nothing is going to change the fact.'... true, but it's the present and future which is and will suffer from the past! So, if an event occurred yesterday should it be restricted from today!

Now that I am going to take a stand <help me GOD! 😆>, I am on the side of Godse as Gandhi systematically fooled the people by saying he will never accept the partition of the country over his dead body, but still the partitioned happened, and thus living in war for many decades and more to come.

Godse had no personal grudges over Gandhi, instead he was fighting for a cause which believed in United India and thus no religions segregation or partition. Godse truly respected Gandhi theory on non-violence but this theory denies self-defence and self-interest. The non-violence that defines the fight for survival as violence is a theory not of non-violence but of self-destruction. Was the decision on partition necessary? To me no individual is greater than a nation!

Godse has problem with Gandhi perception . For me Gandhi Non violience thoery is more poltical agenda than one honest principle which he himself rarely followed in personal life. Many historical document suggested Gandhi was himself a violent men with his own wife (controversial statement) . Gandhi was smart man who knows how to play politics, I feel all his theories from Non Coopreation to Sampoorna Sawraj movement, Champra to dandi march  were politically inspired only to remain as the most prominent name in politics. India would have independent long back. given he didnt played his own politics with Bhagat Singh Execution. Partition went through with Gandhi support. He donated surname to Indra and gifted  whole family legacy to India where only Gandhis rule. Mr Jawahar whom he supported over everyone did his own sets of nonsense for which India is paying on Kashmir.
Edited by kuls11 - 12 years ago