Even ancient Indian history, a golden period for them, was manipulated to show the Aryans, their ancestors were the indigenous people of this land. Coming to the freedom movement they first focused on Nehru, the colossus who articulated and practiced secularism in India. He was aware that practicing secularism in India is not easy as large sections of Indian society are in the grip of blind religiosity. He was the one to see the threat of majortarian (Hindu) communalism and equated it to fascism. He said minority communalism was at worst separatist. His mentor Gandhi, though murdered by the one who was trained by RSS and was working for Hindu Mahasabha, could not be demonized easily. Gandhi’s place in the global arena and in the heart of Indian people was at its peak.

Now as the communal right wing feels it is on firm feet, its ideologues are beginning the exercise of over projecting some of his shortcomings and undermining his contribution to freedom. This 30^th January 2025 as the nation was paying tributes to the father of the nation many portals were relaying videos to propagate that Gandhi’s was just one of the efforts in India getting freedom. In various podcasts and social media channels they are propagating that Gandhi’s efforts had just a marginal effect on the British leaving India.

From the last few years glorification of Godse in the form of Twitter storms for ‘Mahatma Godse Amar Rahen’ (Long Live Godse) have been witnessed painfully. Ilk of Poonam Prasun Pandey have been enacting shooting of Gandhi’s effigy and then blood dripping from it have been a common site. Observing national mourning on 30^th January by siren being sounded at 11 AM on 30 January for two-minute silence has been muted. This year the Maharashtra state circular on two-minute silence at 11 AM, did not mention even the name of Gandhi.

As we observed the Gandhi Martyrdom Day on this 30^th January many of these irritants flashed to our minds. He was given the honorific Mahatma by none other than Guru Ravindra Nath Tagore. It is propagated that Gandhi-Congress ignored Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose. The fact is that Bose and Congress had some differences on strategy but the core agenda of freedom from British rule remained the same. It was Netaji who addressed Gandhi as ‘father of the Nation’. He also named one of his battalions of Azad Hind Fauz (Free India Army) as Gandhi battalion. It was Gandhi-Congress who fought the cases of prisoners of Fauz by forming a committee with top lawyers like Bhulabhai Desai, Kailashnath Katju and Jawaharlal Nehru.

Also, the propaganda that Gandhi did not do anything to save Bhagat Singh’s hanging is being instilled into the social common sense. They hide the fact that it was Gandhi who wrote to Lord Irwin to cancel Bhagat Singh’s hanging. Irwin showed his inability to accept this request as all British officers in Punjab had threatened to resign if Gandhi’s request was accepted. Most interestingly Bhagat Singh requests his father Kishan Singh to support ‘General’ of the Freedom movement (Gandhi), which his father did by working for Congress.

The attempt to undermine Gandhi comes in the form of nit-picking the three major movements which Gandhi launched. The non-cooperation movement of 1920 which was the first real attempt to involve the average people in the struggle against British, as per them was ineffective as it was withdrawn due to the Chauri Chaura incident, where the crowd had burnt to the police station killing many policemen. Also, they allege that Gandhi’s support for Khilafat was demoralizing, as it related to supporting the restoration of the Ottoman Empire in Turkey. Let’s remember it was this move which brought in Muslims in large numbers into the vortex of popular anti-British struggle. Also, Mappila (Moplah) rebellion is supposed to have been an aggressive move by Muslims against Hindus. The fact is this rebellion was a rebellion of poor Muslim farmers against Janmis (Landlords, who were mostly Hindus), and the British authorities were protecting the interests of landlords.

As far as Civil disobedience of 1930 the counter is that it just led to Gandhi–Irwin Pact. This pact was a major step in furtherance of the pressure by Indian freedom Struggle. The accusation is that the Salt March did not lead to abolition of the salt tax which it aimed at. The fact is people could produce salt after this, its illegality was lifted.

As far as the 1942 ‘Do or Die’, ‘British Quit India’, it is true that as Gandhi and the major leaders of Congress were arrested; the movement did take a violent turn. The point is, it created a huge awareness about getting freedom from the British, it came as a culmination of the long process of creating mass consciousness which began picking up after the 1920’s Non-Cooperation movement.

There is no denial that revolutionaries, Bhagat Singh and his likes, Subhash Bose’s Azad Hind Fauz and revolt of Naval ratings, were valuable add-ons to the whole process of rising consciousness among people towards longing for freedom and cementing the bonds of Indian-ness. Gandhi’s contribution is monumental as it created the fraternity, Indian-ness among the people. As Surendranath Bannerjee very aptly described it as “India: nation in the making”.

These were twin aspects of the freedom movement. One was to struggle against the British and two to ‘build a Nation: India’ through this. Gandhi understood that bringing people together is the core of the process of getting freedom. A Recent flourishing attempt by Right wing communalists totally ignores the process of people, masses waking up and constituting India, as a nation. This was the greatest endeavours for which Gandhi is really the ‘Father of the Nation’.

Also Read:

Between Hope and Despair: 75 Years of Indian Republic

When did India Get Independence?

Is Narayan Guru Part of Sanatan Dharma?

The post Attempts to Undermine Gandhi’s Contribution to Freedom Movement: Musings on Gandhi’s Martyrdom Day appeared first on SabrangIndia.

This year, 2025, marked the 77th anniversary of the commemoration of the Martyrdom of Gandhiji, who was murdered on January 30, 1948, precisely at 5.17 pm. In keeping with the national tradition, this platform, HBKL has endeavoured to involve citizens, peoples’ movements and political parties across the spectrum, to mark this day, as a day of national introspection. The aim is to recall the Martyrdom of Mahatma Gandhi in the context of his values and teachings, even as we recall all the martyrs of our freedom movement.

Towards this end, the platform had, with local support, put up six hoardings in Nagpur city, where Hum Bharat Ke Log (Nagpur) and Gandhi Smarak Nidhi (Nagpur) were actively involved in the initiative. The billboards, based on a creative effort of a Keralite artist, were put up in six locations across Nagpur.

The locations included – Variety Square FTF Lokmat, Gandhi Statue CA Road, Trimurti Nagar Square, Laxman Nagar Square, Akashwani Square & Bhole Petrol Pump. The billboards were put up in the late evening of January 29. One of the locations included the constituency of Maharashtra CM Devendra Fadvanis (BJP).

According to Prajwala Tatte (HBKL, Nagpur), who was coordinating this brave effort, “The company that we had given the contract to, began to call us that they would have to remove the hoardings, as they ‘portrayed violence’. Clearly, the advertising company was being threatened & and pressured by the government, though he was not willing to say this on record. He also said that you could maybe put up hoardings of Gandhiji’s funeral procession. Well, I told him that’s not for him to decide. The billboards were taken down between 1.00 pm and 2.00 pm yesterday, that is January 29.”

In a statement issued on January 31, the HBKL platform has stated that, under the present regime at the centre, the entire country has witnessed the video of Puja Shakun Pandey (Hindu Mahasabha, National Secretary), shooting at an effigy of Gandhiji, to mark the death anniversary of Gandhiji, as Shaurya Divas, in Aligarh. No visible action has been taken against her for promoting hate and violence – and the fact that she was eulogising the murder of the Father of our Nation.

At a time when “temples are being made in honour of Nathuram Godse, the murderer of our Bapu, the Father of our Nation,” the removal of billboards visually portraying Bapu’s death were pulled down, that too in a town that has the headquarters of the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS).

The organisation has called for a national debate on the murder of Mahatma Gandhi and re-iterated their commitment to Mahatma Gandhi;s thoughts and moral values.

The statement has been issued by Dr. G. G. Parikh, Tushar Gandhi, Feroze Mithiborwala, Guddi S L, Sharad Kadam, Dhananjay Shinde, Santosh Ambekar, Ali Bhojani, Siddesh Kadam, Vanita Tondwalkar, Yashodhan Paranjpe and Archana Tajane.

Related:

Courts and the Gandhi murder case: What happened on January 30 and who was behind it?

Remember when RSS-Jan Sangh leaders (clandestinely) apologised for opposing Emergency, called Gandhi murderer “patriot”

Real History: Gandhi’s Murder, Godse & the RSS

The post Nagpur: Billboards portraying Gandhi Bapu’s murder pulled down appeared first on SabrangIndia.

What would Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi have made of a society, which has turned its back so soon on his attempts to usher in a culture of progress, science, and tolerance in a fundamentally violent society where the lives of the traditionally disadvantaged castes were nasty, brutish and short? An extreme example is provided in Nisha Pahuja’s documentary The World Before Her, in which Prachi Trivedi, 24, a stocky Durga Vahini, women’s youth wing of the Vishwa Hindu Parishad, activist who fiercely says: “Frankly, I hate Gandhi.” Probably his lifelong adherence to Jesus’s maxim of turning the other cheek would have made him accommodative of her antagonism also.

This culture of forgiving, which the Mahatma advocated made him a moral exemplar for statesmen and world leaders such as Rev. Martin Luther King, Nelson ‘Madiba’ Mandela, Rev. Desmond Tutu and Rev. Jesse Jackson. “Prior to reading Gandhi, I had concluded that the ethics of Jesus were only effective in individual relationships. The ‘turn the other cheek’ philosophy and the ‘love your enemies’ philosophy were only valid, I felt, when individuals were in conflict with other individuals; when racial groups and nations were in conflict, a more realistic approach seemed necessary.

But after reading Gandhi, I saw how utterly mistaken I was. Gandhi was probably the first person in history to lift the love ethic of Jesus above mere interaction between individuals to a powerful and effective social force on a large scale. Love for Gandhi was a potent instrument for social and collective transformation. It was in this Gandhian emphasis on love and nonviolence that I discovered the method for social reform that I had been seeking.” – Stride Toward Freedom {p.96-97}, Martin Luther King; who warmed to the Mahatma post-Montgomery.

Decades later, in an address at the unveiling of the Gandhi Memorial on June 6, 1993, in Pietermaritzburg, Mandela was to declare : “He negotiated in good faith and without bitterness. But when the oppressor reneged he returned to mass resistance. He combined negotiation and mass action and illustrated that the end result through either means was effective. Gandhi is most revered for his commitment to non-violence and the Congress Movement was strongly influenced by this Gandhian philosophy, it was a philosophy that achieved the mobilisation of millions of South Africans during the 1952 defiance campaign, which established the ANC as a mass based organisation. The ANC and its alliance partners worked jointly to protest the pass laws and the racist ideologies of the white political parties.”

In the domain of economics, where Gandhian views are considered antediluvian and Luddite, there is a necessary and differing Occidental academic opinion. Delivering the Gandhi Memorial Lecture at the Gandhian Institute of Studies at Varanasi in 1973, Dr. EF Schumacher, the humane socialist economist, narrated this story: “A German conductor was asked who he considered as the greatest of all composers. ‘Unquestionably Beethoven’ was his answer. He was then asked ‘Not even Mozart?’ He said ‘Forgive me. I thought you were referring to the others.’

Drawing a telling parallel Schumacher said the same initial question might be put to an economist as to who was the greatest. The reply invariably would be ‘Definitely Keynes.’ ‘Would you not even consider Gandhi?’ ‘Forgive me; I thought you were referring to the others.’”

And in the Orient, Masanobu Fukuoka, the Japanese author of One Straw Revolution, which inspired many to convert to Natural Farming too was inspired by Gandhi. In Fukuoka’s words: “I believe that Gandhi’s way, a methodless method, acting with a non-winning, non-opposing state of mind, is akin to natural farming. The ultimate goal of farming is not the growing of crops, but the cultivation and perfection of human beings.”

Such striving for a life of ethical rectitude can be glimpsed from this episode from My Experiments with Truth. Gandhi mentions the bitter fight he had with Kasturba over her refusal to clean the latrine, wanting a ‘bhangi’ to do it instead. When Kasturba refused to give in, Gandhiji did the job himself. This brings to mind the anecdote of a chance visitor catching President Abraham Lincoln polishing his own shoes: “Mr. President, you are polishing shoes?” “Of course, I do my own,” answered Lincoln innocently, “So, whose do you polish?”

Mahatmaji’s culture of secularism needs special mention. The first principle of democratic secular humanism is its commitment to free inquiry, which opposes any tyranny over the mind of man, any efforts by ecclesiastical, political, ideological, or social institutions to shackle free thought. Free inquiry entails recognition of civil liberties as integral to its pursuit, that is, a free press, freedom of communication, the right to organise opposition parties, and freedom to cultivate and publish the fruits of scientific, philosophical, artistic, literary, moral and religious freedom.

Free inquiry requires that we tolerate diversity of opinion and that we respect the right of individuals to express their beliefs, however unpopular they may be, without social or legal prohibition or fear of sanctions. The guiding premise of those who believe in free inquiry is that truth is more likely to be discovered if the opportunity exists for the free exchange of opposing opinions; the process of interchange is frequently as important as the result. This applies not only to science and to everyday life, but to politics, economics, morality, and religion.

Because of their commitment to freedom, secular humanists believe in the principle of the separation of religion and state. The lessons of history are clear: wherever one religion or ideology is allowed dominant status, minority opinions are jeopardised. A pluralistic, open democratic society allows polyphony or multiplicity of voices. Compulsory religious oaths and prayers in public institutions {political or educational} are also a violation of the separation of powers principle.

A repeated usage of the term occurs early in Gandhi’s writings and speeches in 1933. Later, on January 27, 1935, Gandhi, addressing some members of the Central Legislature, said that “even if the whole body of Hindu opinion were to be against the removal of untouchability, still he would advise a secular legislature like the Assembly not to tolerate that attitude.” {Collected works}. On January 20, 1942 Gandhi remarked while discussing the Pakistan scheme: “What conflict of interest can there be between Hindus and Muslims in the matter of revenue, sanitation, police, justice, or the use of public conveniences? The difference can only be in religious usage and observance with which a secular state has no concern.”

In September 1946, Gandhi told a Christian missionary: “If I were a dictator, religion and state would be separate. I swear by my religion. I will die for it. But it is my personal affair. The state has nothing to do with it. The state would look after your secular welfare, health, communications, foreign relations, currency and so on, but not your or my religion. That is everybody’s personal concern!”

A part of his conversation with Rev. Kellas of the Scottish Church College, Calcutta, on August 16, 1947, was reported in Harijan thus: “Gandhiji expressed the opinion that the state should undoubtedly be secular. It could never promote denominational education out of public funds. Everyone living in it should be entitled to profess his religion without let or hindrance, so long as the citizen obeyed the common law of the land. There should be no interference with missionary effort, but no mission could enjoy the patronage of the state as it did during the foreign regime.” This was subsequently reflected in Articles 25, 26 and 27 of the Constitution.

Gandhi observed in a speech at Deshbandhu Park, Calcutta on August 22, 1947: “Religion was a personal matter and if we succeeded in confining it to the personal plane, all would be well in our political life… If officers of Government as well as members of the public undertook the responsibility and worked wholeheartedly for the creation of a secular state, we could build a new India that would be the glory of the world.”

On Guru Nanak’s birthday on Nov 28, 1947, Gandhi opposed any possibility of state funds being spent for the renovation of the Somnath temple. He reasoned thus: “After all, we have formed the Government for all. It is a ‘secular’ government, that is, it is not a theocratic government, rather, it does not belong to any particular religion. Hence it cannot spend money on the basis of communities.”

Six days before Gandhi was felled by a Chitpavan Brahmin, he presciently wrote: “A well-organised body of constructive workers will be needed. Their service to the people will be their sanction and the merit of their work will be their charter. The ministers will draw their inspiration from such a body which will advise and guide the secular government.”

Both Gandhi and Nehru favoured territorial nationalism, clearly demarcating themselves from the Hindu Mahasabha, which would define nation or nationality on the basis of religion.

Perhaps Gandhi’s greatest achievement in the historic Non-cooperation movement of 1920-22 was the amazing participation of Muslims, which lent it an inclusive and mass character. This, in turn ensured communal harmony, rending to shreds the till then successful snare of the British in playing off the two communities against each other. In fact, so pronounced was Muslim support to the cause of the freedom struggle that history is our witness that in some places two-thirds of these arrested were from that community.

This remarkable spirit of the man who could bend the societal arc of his time to the moral compass of his conscience was best grasped by a little known Australian-born British classical scholar and public intellectual. “Persons in power,” Gilbert Murray prophetically wrote about Gandhi in the Hibbert Journal in 1918, “should be very careful how they deal with a man who cares nothing for sensual pleasure, nothing for riches, nothing for comfort or praise, or promotion, but is simply determined to do what he believes to be right. He is a dangerous and uncomfortable enemy, because his body which you can always conquer gives you so little purchase upon his soul.”

There is a reason for this reminder to ‘persons in power’. As per reports on December 25th at a function in Patna organised by a former Union minister in Modi’s cabinet folk singer Devi was stopped from singing Gandhi’s favourite Bhajan, ‘Raghupati raghav raja ram’, when she reached the stanza ‘Ishwar Allah tero naam’. She was allegedly forced to apologise by BJP workers at Bapu Sabhagar auditorium gathered to celebrate the 100th birth anniversary of former Prime Minister Vajpayee. Following the apology, it is further reported that the audience chanted “Jai Shri Ram” in full volume.

These bigoted hatemongers will yet come to realise that the syncretic teaching of Gandhi, mirroring the composite ethos of our accommodating shores, which still resonates in the hearts of his beloved daridra narayans and narayanis, will prevail forever. For the flame that was lit on that funeral pyre in 1949 is and will be the lingering light of the innumerable flickering chirags that brightens lives across India.

Courtesy: The AIDEM

The post Gandhi, the Flame Eternal appeared first on SabrangIndia.

One had expected much better from Dabholkar who has adapted the original Pradeep Dalvi play in Marathi Mee Nathuram Godse Boltoy (I am Nathuram Godse speaking). I had seen it more than 25 years ago in Mumbai. Even then people had clapped, I immediately wrote a report for the Times of India where I was working, it was, however, suppressed. The Marathi version was directed by Vinay Apte, who was associated with the Sangh Parivar, and the actor Sharad Ponkshe, playing Godse, remains to this day a great admirer of Godse in real life.

Dabholkar is much better educated than Dalvi, has a much better social exposure with his experience in advertising and other fields; he is financially better off. I have enjoyed some of his humour. Unfortunately, he leaves a a much worse taste in the mouth, with this play, than the earlier one. He claims to be impartial but gave himself away during the bow to the audience after the performance when he announced that those who wanted to see the clothes and other belongings of Godse could see them in Godse’s house in Pune. This clearly shows his bias in favour of Godse. He retains some of the wildest distortions of the original with clearly fake characters and scenes regarding the trial.

As Y.D. Phadke[1], the eminent scholar and political science professor, wrote in response to the Marathi play that characters of inspector Shaikh and sub inspector Sawant simply did not exist in real life, in the trial. There is so much nonsensical fiction thrown into the play, Devdas Gandhi , son of the Mahatma, is shown to be a lawyer who wants to take up the case of Godse, his meetings with Godse are shown. In fact, no such meetings took place and Devdas was not a lawyer. More ludicrous is the scene of a burqa clad Zubeida, showing her great afffection, respect for Godse, and she is the sister of the fictitious inspector Shaikh who also becomes an admirer of Godse! Too many falsehoods to be mentioned here.

A note. Since the issue dealt here is sensitive, comments if any may be moderate in tone. (This was for Meta Facebook where the post appears) Extremists, please look elsewhere if you want to write on this.

The volume, Beyond Doubt, A Dossier on Gandhi’s Assassination, edited and introduced by Teesta Setalvad brings to light the report of the Kapur Commission which was appointed by the Government of India in 1965 to examine the depth and scope of the conspiracy that lay behind the killing of Gandhi.

This three-volume report has been absent from the public domain though it contains invaluable evidence—intelligence reports, oral and documentary evidence—of the extent of complicity behind the hate-driven conspiracy that resulted in the Mahatma’s killing.

On November 12, 1964, at a programme organized in Pune, Dr G.V. Ketkar, the grandson of Bal Gangadhar Tilak, disclosed that six months before the actual criminal act, Nathuram Godse had disclosed his intentions to kill Gandhi. This information was passed on by him via others to the Chief Minister of the then Bombay state, B.G. Kher. Not only was Ketkar arrested but a furore ensued in the Maharashtra State Assembly and the Indian Parliament at the time. In 1965, the Government of India set up a Commission of Inquiry into the Conspiracy to Murder Mahatma Gandhi, headed by Justice Jeevan Lal Kapur, a former judge of the Supreme Court. The commission examined evidence not produced during the trial. Justice Kapur concluded that the facts showed that a clear conspiracy existed on the part of Hindu supremacist groups.

(The author, a senior journalist with The Times of India wrote this on meta/Facebook; https://www.facebook.com/share/p/gnM6x6wsr1ykaXp7/?mibextid=WC7FNe; this version has been edited slightly–Editors)

[1] Communalism Combat, in October 2000 published, in translation, extracts from noted historian, YD Phadke’s book in Marathi, Nathuramayan. This was titled, The murderer as martyr https://sabrang.com/cc/comold/oct00/cover1.htm. It is also available on https://sabrangindia.in/murderer-martyr/#:~:text=In%20independent%20India%2C%20politics%20has,his%20statement%20to%20the%20court. This article by eminent historian YD Phadke had exposed Pradeep Dalvi’s claim about his play, Mee Nathuram Godse Boltoye, being based on historical facts as completely bogus. Nathuramayan is a compilation of a series of incisive articles by the (The article in Marathi was first published in the Marathi eveninger, Apla Mahanagar and translated for us into English by Mukta Rajadhyaksha). 

The post Bharat Dabholkar’s adulation of Nathuram Godse is titled Nathuram Godse Must Die appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Severe criticism of his ten year regime on issues of employment, rising prices, plight of farmers, paper leaks, Agniveer scheme etc. was getting traction. How to divert the attention from these core issues of people was his major concern. It’s another thing that the tactic not only failed to fructify but attracted sharp rebuke from several quarters.

This outpouring on Mahatma Gandhi served another function, apart from distracting attention from people’s issues; it targeted Nehru and earlier Congress regimes for ignoring the popularization of Gandhi on the global arena.

More than criticism of Nehru-earlier Congress regimes, actually it shows Modi’s ignorance about the life and works of Gandhi, the Mahatma’s international prestige and his role in being the lighthouse for major figures of the world. It shows Modi’s ignorance  about Gandhi’s influence on global politics from the decade of 1930s itself, much before Richard Attenborough came out with this biopic on him, based on the biography written by Luis Fisher.

With Gandhi’s struggles in South Africa, he came to be recognized as a major leader against apartheid. With his coming to India and leading the Champaran movement for farmers, his friend Charlie Andrews spread to the world the unique nature of the Champaran Satyagraha. His unique tool of Satyagraha based on truth and non-violence began to draw the attention of the world towards the problems of the weak and the exploited.

Later other movements launched by him — Civil Disobedience and Salt March — were widely covered in the global media.

The attention paid to him was mainly a source of inspiration for the struggle for justice and the involvement of people around the concerns of the society. His lifework and messages spread with lightning speed on the global scale.

On one hand, the British rulers intensified the repression in India, and, on the other, those respecting peace, justice and non-violence started noticing Gandhi’s contribution to the principles of humanism at the global level.

While Modi may not know the real contribution of Gandhi and his great popularity in the world since that time, he needs to know that the English Newspaper, “The Burlington Hawk-Eye”, September 20, 1931,, carried a full page feature on him, “Most Talked About Man in the World”. The renowned American magazine, “Time”, carried him on the Cover as ‘Man of the Year in 1931’, and on two other occasions he was on the cover of this coveted magazine again. Similarly, a “Time” companion magazine, “Life”, also carried a feature on him.

Global personalities contributing to the process of peace and justice through their works and ideas started getting attracted to him. Albert Einstein wrote in 1939:

“I believe that Gandhi’s views were the most enlightened of all the political men of our time. We should strive to do things in his spirit: not to use violence in fighting for our cause, but by non-participation in anything you believe is evil.”

He said of Gandhi that “Generations to come will scarce believe that such a one as this ever in flesh and blood walked upon this earth.”

Severe criticism of Modi on issues of employment, rising prices, plight of farmers, paper leaks, Agniveer scheme etc. was getting traction

Charles Chaplin, inspired by Gandhi’s movement, ensured a meeting with him, and reflection of Gandhi’s values is very much there in his films, ‘Modern Times’ and ‘The Great Dictator’. In the latter Chaplin contrasts Gandhi with Hitler. Similarly French dramatist Roman Rollain in the French edition of “Young India” wrote, “If (Jesus) Christ was the Prince of Peace, Gandhi is no less worthy of this noble title.”

Two major activists of the twentieth century, Martin Luther King and Nelson Mandela, drew inspiration and direction for the path of their struggle from Gandhi. In an article in “The Hindustan Times” (1959) King wrote:

“I came to see at a very early stage that a synthesis of Gandhi’s method of non-violence and the Christian ethic of love is the best weapon available to Negroes for this struggle for freedom and human dignity ”

And finally, the massive and prolonged struggles of Nelson Mandela had the underlying values derived from Gandhi’s life and teachings. He lauded “Mahatma Gandhi combined ethics and morality with a steely resolve that refused to compromise with the oppressor, the British Empire.”

Modi should just know that today there are a large number of universities in the world where Gandhian studies are a part of their curricula. There are many schools trying to teach his values. Nearly 80 global cities have Gandhi streets and Gandhi statues installed in their prominent places.

As far as films are concerned, our own Films Division had come out with a documentary film, made by Vithalbhai Jhaveri, much before Attenborough. As a matter of fact, Attenborough saw this film twice and advised the lead actor of the film, Ben Kingsley, to watch it to understand Gandhi’s mannerisms etc.

As for the Modi’s allegation that the previous regimes did not do anything to popularize Gandhi in the world, even in the making of Attenborough film, the Indian Government through the National Films Development Corporation contributed a major sum for making this movie.

For Modi’s information, the Attenborough film is dedicated amongst others to Nehru also. It was Nehru who advised him not to present Gandhi as a superhuman being, but as the one with all his weaknesses and strengths as he led the nation. Gandhi’s international reputation is not due to films but films have been made due to his fame and reputation. The number of books written on and about him are astounding.

It’s time we revisit the Father of the Nation, whose teachings on harmony and peace are far more relevant today than when he preached and practiced those.

Author is Political commentator 

Courtesy: CounterView

The post ‘Flopped diversionary move’: Modi view on Gandhi popularity during polls appeared first on SabrangIndia.

On Admiral Ramdas’ passing on March 15, 2024, we find it relevant to reproduce this article we published as cover story in the tabloid issue of our magazine; an article that touches on issues of hate and bigotry that beset us still.

THE FIRE NEXT TIME

Admiral Ramdas & Lalita Ramdas

January 30, 1996

An impassioned plea to the nation for communal sanity, respect for the rule of law and social justice, penned on Martyr’s Day, by the former chief of the naval staff and his wife, ADMIRAL RAMDAS and LALITA RAMDAS

AS THE nation pays its ritualistic homage to the Mahatma today, Martyr’s Day our minds go back to the basic is-sue for which Gandhiji laid down his life — building harmony and goodwill, especially between Hindus and Muslims, the two major communities in this land. The phenomena of political violence that began through that action of a fanatic has continued to haunt us over all these years as religion is used more and more cynically as a political tool to incite communal passions.

Eleven years ago, in November 1984, many of us were jolted out of our comfortable existence when the assassination of yet another Gandhi —Indira —, let loose the most atrocious spate of vengeance and killing of thousands of innocent God fearing Sikhs in the Capital.

We were living between Delhi and Vizag in those days — the Admiral commanding the Eastern Fleet, the wife continuing to work with an NGO in Delhi’s resettlement areas.

On the afternoon of October 31, 1984, we had just ended a staff meeting at Ankur, a small urban NGO, when the first news came about Mrs. Gandhi’s assassination and tension in the city. We had Sikh women among a wide range of other Ankur teachers — some had long distances to travel to get home. I spent hours on the telephone, gathering reports of growing incidents, fires, ugly mob behaviour, from across the city.

Several hours and phone calls later, a few of us made our way to one of the worst affected areas, curfew notwithstanding. It was in this way that I came to be among the many who came to help —shocked out of our wits at the carnage, the senseless killing of husbands, sons, fathers and brothers. We worked under the banner of Nagrik Ekta Manch.

I was assigned to take charge of the Relief Camp at Nanaksar, my daughters and other friends were working at Farsh Bazaar — the two key holding camps where the victims from East Delhi were brought. For nearly two weeks we worked round the clock, recording affidavits and eyewitness accounts from hundreds and hundreds of widows, their daughters and young sons who survived and had fled for their lives.

Night after night, my home at 32, Lodi Estate became like an Operations Control Room, as the two teams met and systematically filled up hundreds of cards with information —name, house number, gali, who came, who did you see, how did your husband die… And there was a clear pattern emerging — of systematic, planned and merciless slaughter, as also of names that came up over and over again — H.K.L Bhagat being one of the leading figures among many other luminaries.

The news of Bhagat’s arrest was followed shortly by the shocking announcement of the winding up of the Srikrishna Commission of Inquiry by the present regime in Maharashtra…We would like to add our voices to all those others and register our serious disapproval and dismay at this undemocratic action

Painful lessons were also learned along the way about the attitudes and increasing communalisation — especially among the well-to-do, the elite. I can still count the many doors slammed in our faces in the posh areas of New Delhi as we went around seeking clothes, food, medicines…

Months later, I was called to testify before the Ranganath Misra Commission. I had worked painstakingly to put together a huge file of sworn testimonies, affidavits, as also a personal report to add to all the others that had been presented to the Commission. But it was a depressing and disheartening experience, to say the least. From 1984 till my husband’s posting out of Delhi in end 1987, I worked in Tilak Vihar, where most of the widows were “rehabilitated”, along with several others.

It appeared that all our efforts to secure justice and to punish the perpetrators were coming to naught. I left Delhi unhappy, disturbed about the situation — imagine the impact on the young children who were growing up in an atmosphere which was certainly not designed to deal with the trauma and the bitterness in-side — and completely disillusioned about our political, bureaucratic and judicial system.

For the wife of a service man to be involved in this kind of work is itself unusual. For her to tread on ground which would clearly be seen as “political” was nothing short of a “hot potato”! For us as a family it was a hard time and called for many tough decisions. Most of those whom we consulted advised us that Mrs. Ramdas should not testify — there was no telling the effect it could have on her husband’s naval career!

The family discussed the issue. This was too serious, a matter of conscience and principle, and we agreed that she should testify and place on record all the devastating evidence gleaned through months of heart-breaking work.

By some in-explicable set of events, and despite all these “unconventional” activities of different family members, the V.P. Singh government saw fit to select Admiral Ramdas to head the Indian Navy as the Chief of Naval Staff. We re-turned to Delhi in 1990.

The years 1984 and 1992 taught us in no uncertain terms that the virus of communal thinking had al-ready taken root among far too many of our own friends and colleagues. There was no question but to combat this in every way and at every opportunity. The phenomena of several retired servicemen joining hands with avowedly rightwing, communal political parties had already begun — a warning signal to all those who believed in India’s secular vision and Constitution.

This period saw more violence, to yet another Gandhi —this time it was Rajiv. It was also during this tenure as Naval Chief that the second lot of major communal horrors occurred. It was the destruction of Babri Masjid this time, with all that went on before and, most horrendously, what hap-pined after.

“This is perhaps not the time or place to speak of the attempts made by me as Service Chief, to push the political system and government to take some action before it was too late. It was clear that the situation was building towards a show-down of some kind. However, it is only too easy for bureaucrats and politicians to ignore advice which is unpalatable, the bogey of Civil vs Military control continues to be a block to any real teamwork or dialogue even at the highest levels.”

And so it was with an inevitability that could almost be predicted, that the mosque came down, more communal frenzy was unleashed, and once again, as in 1984, poor and dispossessed communities of one sect were deliberately incited to perpetrate unspeakable acts of barbarism against the poorest Muslims of Bombay, Surat and elsewhere. Inevitably these led to more destruction, retaliation and deaths.

Once again citizens and NGOs swung into action. Com-missions of Inquiry were established and the due processes of law were begun. Painstakingly, evidence was recorded. Though media moved on to more exciting issues, the Srikrishna Commission seemed to be the one area of continuing hope, where com-mitted and dedicated lawyers and others systematically piled up evidence which might bring the guilty to book.

Time moved on, and so did we. Having done what we could to spread a more secular and progressive culture within the Service, we retired and moved out of Delhi in late 1993. The years 1984 and 1992 taught us in no uncertain terms that the virus of communal thinking had already taken root among far too many of our own friends and colleagues. There was no question but to combat this in every way and at every opportunity.

The phenomena of several retired servicemen joining hands with avowedly right-wing, communal political parties had already begun – a warning signal to all those who believed in India’s secular vision and Constitution.

Today, we are ordinary citizens again, and have been living in this little village in the Konkan, building a roof over our heads and learning about the realities of rural life.

The economics of survival, the struggle for water, fuel, employment, a clean administration (!), dependence on the family as the main social security; propitiating the rain gods, and preserving faith in someone up there – be it Allah or Ram, these continue to be the defining parameters of people where we live, even today.

Science and technology, while having invaded the area all around here — RCF, IPCL, Nippon Denro and many more — has not materially impacted the daily existence of the bulk of the people for the better. The wells in our village, Bhaimala, are already dry, the fish in the rivers and coastal waters are no longer there thanks to the poisonous effluents discharged by every single industry. (And we are speaking of a relatively progressive state like Maharashtra, albeit the back-ward Konkan region).

“This is perhaps not the time or place to speak of the attempts made by me as Service Chief, to push the political system and government to take some action before it was too late. It was clear that the situation was building towards a show-down of some kind:’

Whilst realising that religion, culture and daily living are inextricably inter-woven for the mass of our people, we have also seen that the average villager is basically a simple, god-fearing and fundamentally SECULAR human being. It is only the machinations and sinister agendas and preaching by party organisers which gradually transform good people into developing a warped communal prejudice and bias.

Once again, as we have done throughout our nomadic existence, we began to get to know our new environment and to project through what-ever forums we could, the message of secularism, of integration, in the only way that we have known best – one of personal precept and example.

Gradually people are get-ting to understand that this “odd couple” are actually Tamil (Brahmin) and Telugu (non-Brahmin) by birth; domiciled in Matunga, Maharashtra, where the Admiral’s family moved many decades ago. They have met, interacted with, and accepted our daughters, and our three sons-in-law — a Bihari-Muslim-US/Pakistani; an Andhra rural activist; and a Bihari-Madhya Pradeshi combination.

We have spoken from the platforms of the Shiv Sena, Congress and Shetkari Sangathana, stressing always that the strength of India lies in this very plurality which has also been the bedrock of life in the Navy and in the other Services.

After a long absence — we have been travelling extensively across south east Asia, (including China, for the Beijing Conference), the USA, South Africa we returned a few weeks ago to welcome 1996. Some things don’t change. It was a strong feeling of deja vu to see the usual agonising over the ‘state of the Nation’ in both the print and the electronic media.

With all the depressing disclosures in the Hawala case, the amusement at the re-emergence of a suddenly white-washed Enron, and the usual mud-slinging that heralds an election build-up, the one re-deeming news .item was the announcement of H.K.L Bhagat’s arrest, “illness” and hospitalisation. Yes, we thought, the wheels of justice grind slowly, but they grind surely.

The faces of the widows stood out so clearly in the mind’s eye – their grief, turning to anger, pain and total cynicism in the system of governance and justice. What must be the thoughts in their minds as they are called upon to testify against this man because of whom and many others their lives and futures had been ruined forever?

Most persons advised us that Mrs. Ramdas should not testify — there was no telling the effect it could have on her husband’s naval career! .. but.. This was too serious, a matter of conscience and principle, and we agreed that she should testify and place on record all the devastating, evidence..

But our joy and relief was short-lived. The news of Bhagat’s arrest was followed shortly by the shocking announcement of the winding up of the Srikrishna Commission of Inquiry by the present regime in Maharashtra. There has been widespread condemnation of this from several quarters. We would like to add our voices to all those others and register our serious disapproval and dismay at this undemocratic action -unacceptable in a country and state which claims to respect the rule of law and the constitution.

Inevitably, the voices that are raised seem to be largely the same voices – from the few urban activists, who are seen to be the protestors on all issues! While it is easy to raise a voice of protest and find space in the English language newspapers, it is not so easy to build up a really effective movement against such practices. (We have seen that vitiating the democratic process is not the prerogative of any one political party).

For an effective movement to evolve, there is no substitute for a much more painstaking, long term process whereby the ‘people in my gaon and yours, every basti and colony, can really be concerned and raise their voices. As of now, to the Archana Bais and Bharatis, the Gawdas, the Mhatres and the Patils on our farm and in our gaon, as much as to the women in our Bhaimala village, Mahila Mandal, Ranganath Misra and H.K.L Bhagat, Srikrishna and NHRC (National Human Rights Commissions) are not even familiar names, for-get about their being issues around which to rally support and protest. Until that hap-pens, human rights and due process of law will continue to be stamped upon and violated at will.

More than ever there is a need for a very different process of education – education for citizenship and democracy – which can truly build towards a sustainable grass-roots democracy, and which is the only sure and effective measure that can guard against the march of fascist and dictatorial tendencies which are raising their heads on all sides.

For all the education com-missions and new and alternate education policies, the Literacy Mission and foundations, no political party is actually interested in creating a genuine critical and thinking mass of people in this country. Therefore, we continue to churn out human products who are trapped somewhere between ritual and orthodoxy, and superficial modernity of the worst kind — the variety vacuously dished out by the hundreds of TV Channels.

Many of us are frustrated, searching desperately for alternatives, be they alternate political formations or platforms of some kind. Invariably these efforts seem to surface just before the next election – when it is perhaps already too late. There is need for many more of us at all levels and ages to talk to each other about these issues — not only in the context of an election but on an ongoing basis.

As persons with a defence background and with more and more unthinking comment about military takeover being the only ‘salvation’ doing the rounds, we need to be clear that this is the most dangerous of philosophies to propagate. Yet it is one which finds far too many takers, especially among the educated middle classes.

We urgently need to develop a totally new paradigm and a national level under-standing of the much (mis)used term “National Security” whereby the people in whose name wars are fought, can also understand the issues and have a say. Decisions on serious issues such as the Nuclear Question, Kashmir, Water and much else are being dictated by the minimum of discussion and debate let alone evolving any national position or consensus.

Painful lessons were also learned along the way about the attitudes and in-creasing communalisation — especially among the well-to-do, the elite. I can still count the many doors slammed in our faces in the posh areas of New Delhi as we went around seeking clothes, food, medicines…

Why can’t all parties agree to come together to seriously address these concerns and develop a long term perspective as a large, mature nation can and should. But this too demands the involvement of several sectors from across the board. There are too many issues jostling for priority and we have increasingly lost sight of the basics.

Two years in rural India has taught us many lessons and shown us only too clearly the limits of the gospel of liberalisation. If any-thing, it has brought even greater hardships and precious little advance for those who live cheek by jowl with the biggest industrialists. But an alternative model has not yet emerged. For all the talk about such a model, these have not yet left the drawing boards.

With polls around the corner, perhaps the first step is to work with the electorate and persuade people to turn in what Krishan Kant and others have termed a negative vote, that is, blank papers. Perhaps that could be a first step to-wards collective responsible behaviour towards the people.

Maybe it is the only way to upturn and boot out many of the “bandicoots”, to use a term coined by my colleague, the then Army Chief, for which he had his knuckles severely rapped! It certainly appears that the judiciary is taking steps to do so – increasingly, the Supreme Court appears to be the only source of decision-making and action!

It is also time that many more of us actually got involved with the community – especially the vast neglected numbers who live in the villages across this land in an effort to truly play a watch-dog and monitoring role, so that communities have the confidence and capability to ensure that the monies spent actually go for the development for which it is intended. It is not always necessary to stand for election in order to do something effective on the ground.

Certainly there is a long, long road ahead — and many miles to go before any of us really deserve to sleep. But there are also challenges and opportunities aplenty for the adventurous, there is enough mental and physical stimulus to keep both mind and body healthy and happy.

Listening to all of this, the Mahatma whose martyrdom we observe today would have certainly said with a chuckle: “But I told you so — there is no easy road to Freedom.”

(Admiral L Ramdas (Retd)
PVSM AVSM VrC VSM
Former chief of the Naval
Staff

&

Ms. Lalita Ramdas
Ramu Farm —’Lara’
Alibag — 402201
Raigad Dist
Maharashtra

In July 1995, we had to suspend publication of Communalism Combat, not because the battle for secularism and democracy had already been won but because we ran into financial difficulties.We are extremely grateful to Ms. Shabana Azmi, Mr. Farooque Shaikh, Mr. Javed Siddiqui and Mr. Feroz Khan for giving us a free show of their very popular play, Tumhari Amrita. Thanks to them and our sponsors for the show, we are back on the road. We are equally grateful to many prominent citizens of Bombay and other well-wishers who have helped us raise additional funds through patron subscriptions (Please see the last page).Nor can we forget our advertisers who have reaffirmed their support in helping us spread a simple message: Hate hurts, harmony works.This issue of Combat will convince you, we hope, that the struggle for tolerance is far from over. To live up to that challenge, we continue to depend on your support.—Editors

The post The Fire next time: an impassioned plea to the nation for communal sanity appeared first on SabrangIndia.

“He had barely covered six or seven steps when a person whose name I learnt later as Narayan Vinayak Godse, resident of Poona, stepped closer and fired three shots from a pistol at the Mahatma from barely 2 / 3 feet distance which hit the Mahatma in his stomach and chest and blood started flowing. Mahatma ji fell backwards, uttering “Raam – Raam“. The assailant was apprehended on the spot with the weapon.”

– Nand Lal Mehta, F.I.R. filed in the Gandhi murder case 

Case- Rex v. Nathuram Vinayak Godse and Others        

It was on January 30, 1948, almost 76 years ago, that our beloved Mahatma Gandhi was assassinated by Nathuram Godse. Godse had put three bullets into Gandhi’s chest. The trial and appeal of Godse’s case, also known as the Mahatma Gandhi Murder case, was concluded within 2 years of his assassination. A total of twelve were chargesheeted for the charges of conspiracy (under section 120B of the Indian Penal Code) and murder (under Section 302 of the IPC) of Gandhiji.

While Nathuram Godse, the assassin from the Hindu Mahasabha previously with the Rashtriya Swayam Sevak Sangh (RSS) and Narayan Apte were given death sentences after being held guilty of murder—the bench observing his actions to be both “deliberate and calculated,” —investigation into the conspiracy angle in the attack on the Mahatma was sharply criticised and Vikram Damodar Savarkar was let off on count of lack of evidence. Four of the accused, namely Vishnu Karkare, Madanlal Pahwa, Shankar Kistayya, Gopal Godse, were given life sentence. The remaining Dattatraya Parchure was given a sentence of seven years of imprisonment.  In fact the judgement observes that the assassination may have been avoided had previous attacks on Gandhi and statements of Madanlal Pahwa and Dr JC Jain been delved into.

Out of these twelve, nine were tried, namely Godse, Narayan Apte, Vishnu Karkare, Digambar Badge, Madanlal Pahwa, Shankar Kistayya, Gopal Godse, Vinayak Savarkar and Dattatreya Parchure. The remaining three accused, namely Gandadhar Dandwate, Gangadhar Jadhav and Suryadeo Sharma, were declared absconding. It is essential to note that Accused Digambar Badge had turned approver in the said case and was granted pardon later in June, 1948.

The build-up to the killing- the explosion, the misdirected anger, the murder of the father of the nation

Ten days prior to the murder of Gandhiji, on the evening of January 20, 1948, an explosion had taken place near the compound wall of Birla House, New Delhi. Birla House was where Gandhiji had been staying, holding his prayer meetings on the lawns. Since these were the days following the partition of India with Pakistan being carved out, the atmosphere in Delhi and other parts of the country was tensed and charged. Gandhiji, along with many leaders of the Indian National Congress, had been raising calls for non-violence, urging for the citizens to maintain Hindu-Muslim unity and uphold the values of secularism.

Since India had chosen to remain a secular nation, many were enraged with Gandhiji. Police were posted at Birla House to protect him from any possible assault. At first, it was believed that the explosion of January 20, was not aimed at Gandhi as it had taken place almost a hundred and fifty feet away from the dais where he sat. However, it was during intestigation that the police had revealed that the explosion was a part of the conspiracy to kill Gandhi off. Notably, Madanlal Pahwa had been apprehended on spot on the day.

Even when the police had gotten information that Madanlal had other accomplices in the plot and that the plan did not work and that his co-conspirators had fled, the police was unable to apprehend the others. The Government had also reinforced the police force and tightened the security measures at Birla House.

At 5 pm on the evening of January 30, 1948, Gandhi was shot point-blank by Godse as he was on his way to the dais for the prayer meeting, which he had continued with even after the explosion attack. After firing the three bullets, Godse had raised his hand with the gun and had been caught red-handed by the police. It is essential to highlight here that Godse was one of those involved with the explosion and the police had been looking for him.

For the case, the Investigations were confined mainly to Bombay, Delhi and Gwalior. Though Gandhi was shot in Delhi, the plot was hatched in the erstwhile Bombay Province.

The trial of the murder of Mahatma Gandhi-

The trial of the said case had been held in the Special Court of Red Fort, Delhi in the court of Special Judge Atma Charan, ICS. The said special court had been constituted on May 4, 1948 under Sections 10 and 11 of the Bombay Public Security Measures Act, 1947. After the chargesheet was submitted and the charges were read out to the accused, the accused had pled not guilty and the trial had ensued.  The prosecution had been led by the then advocate general of Bombay, C.K. Daphtary. It is essential to note that while Godse was initially represented by advocate V.V. Oak, he had later on applied to argue the case himself, who which he was given permission.

The prosecution: The prosecution’s evidence in the aforementioned case began on June 24, 1948, and continued until November 6, 1948. In addition to calling 149 witnesses for examination, the prosecution also filed 404 documentary evidence and 80 material exhibits. The recording of the statements of the accused commenced on November 8, 1948 and carried on till November 22, 1948. Documentary exhibits totalling 119 were brought on record. It is pertinent to note that Morarji Desai, the then home minister of the Bombay was one of the witnesses examined by the prosecution. His evidence had been used by the prosecution to establish a fact in relation to the explosion which had taken place at Birla House at the behest of Madanlal Pahwa and others.

The defendants: Interestingly enough, accused Godse had declined to adduce evidence in his defence. Rather, in his ninety-two page long written statement, which he had gotten the chance to read out loud, Godse took full ownership of the heinous act committed and denied the involvement of any other accused in the conspiracy to murder Gandhi. His statement was more of an ideological assault on the principles and values of Gandhi rather than a statement of defence, which was surprisingly allowed to be read in an open court for nine hours.

In regards to the other accused, some of the accused pleaded alibi. Kistayya, in his written statement, had stated that the acts committed by him were at the bidding of Badge. Notable, while Kistayya had taken the responsibility for transporting revolvers and bombs from place to place, he had later retracted his statement. In his statement, Savarkar had denied the charges against him in totality and had contended that he had no control over the acts of Godse and Apte.

The judgment: The judgment in this historical case, delivered on February 10, 1949, ran into 111 pages. The said judgment had been divided into a total of 27 chapters which cover the role played by each of the accused, the incidents as they took place, the evidence and written statements submitted and the offences made out.

In the portion of offences made out and the sentencing, the bench of special judge Charan that based on the evidence provided, illegal acts of conspiracy and murder were committed by the accused. Through the judgment, the bench convicted seven of the accused while acquitting one, namely Savarkar. The said seven were held guilty of transporting arms without license, abetting each other of the commission of the offences described above and kept possession of arms without license. In reference to the January 20 explosion, the seven were held guilty of possessing explosive substances and abetting each other to commit the offending acts.

The judgment clearly holds Nathuram Godse to be guilty of intentionally and knowingly cause the death of Mahatma Gandhi, an offense that will within the ambit of Section 302 of the IPC and constitutes murder. In the judgment, the bench observed that “the act of Nathuram V Godse in committing the murder of Mahatma Gandhi was a deliberate and calculated one. No extenuating circumstances have been pointed out nor could have been pointed out in his behalf. With this, the court gave accused Nathuram Godse and Narayan Apte death sentences. Four of the accused, namely Vishnu Karkare, Madanlal Pahwa, Shankar Kistayya, Gopal Godse, were given life sentence. The remaining Dattatraya Parchure was given a sentence of seven years of imprisonment. While acquitting Savarkar, judge Charan had noted in the judgement that the case against him by the prosecution had only depended on the evidence supplied by the approver Badge, and depending on the same alone for the conviction would not be in the sake of justice.

Towards the end of the judgment, special judge Charan also highlighted the “slackness of the Police in the investigation of the case” during the period of the ten day between the explosion at the Birla House and the shooting of Gandhi. As per the judgment, passing strictures against the casual conduct shown by the police in investigating the conspiracy to kill Gandhi, “the police had miserably failed to derive any advantage from the statements [of Madanlal Pahwa and Dr. JC Jain]. Had the slightest keenness been shown in the investigation of the case at that stage, the tragedy would probably have been averted.”

The complete judgment can be read here:

The appeal in the East Punjab High Court at Shimla:

A period of 15 days had been provided to those convicted to file the appeal against the judgment in the Punjab High Court. All the seven accused had moved the appeals. In the High Court too, Godse had sought permission to argue on his behalf and had been granted the same. Significantly, keeping up with the “heroic” image that Godse saw himself as, in his Godse had not appealed against his death sentence and had only appealed against the conviction of criminal conspiracy under Section 120 B and other charges.

The appeals filed by the convicts were heard swiftly, with the hearings taking place in the month of May and June and the verdict being pronounced by the end of June. By a judgment dated June 21, 1949, the three-judge bench of the High Court comprising Justices Bhandari, Achhru Ram and Khosla had upheld the conviction for five of the accused persons and acquitted two of the accused persons, namely Shankar Kistaiya and Dr. Parchure. The sentences granted by the trial court to accused Vishnu Karkare, Gopal Godse and Madanlal Pahwa were confirmed. In addition to this, the Judges had also confirmed the death sentence of Narayan Apte.

The judgment ran to a total of 561 pages. Justice Achhru Ram’s 360 paged judgment formed the main part, accompanied by Justice Bhandari’s long concurring judgment. A one paragraph judgment was also written by Justice Khosla through which he had simply disagreed with the recommendation of the Justice Achhru Ram to commute the sentence of Pahwa.

The judgment of Justice Acchru Ram contained the sequential history of India and of Gandhi since 1914, which contained the principles of togetherness and non-violence of Gandhi and the objections that “Hindu nationalists” had against him. The judgment recounts the various meetings that took place between the accused at different points of time to conspire to kill Gandhi, the preparation in furtherance of the conspiracy, the arms and the attempts. A major chunk of the judgment traces the events that took place in the month of January 1948. In the later part of the judgment, the court weighs the statements and evidence provided by approver Badge in the case along with the other witnesses and corroborators. In the operative part of the judgment, Justice Ram accepted the appeals filed by accused Kistayya and Parchure and acquitted them from the charges filed against them. On the other hand, Justice Ram dismissed the appeals filed by Godse and four others, namely Apte, Gopal Godse, Pahwa and Karkare, and upheld their convictions. It is important to note that Justice Ram recommended commutation of sentence for accused Gopal Godse as well as Pahwa in view of their young age and them being in “bloom of their lives”. Rather, in regards to the role played by Gopal Godse and Pahwa, Justice Ram stated that the two seemed to have acted under the influence of the other “stronger and determined persons”.

Towards the end of the said judgement, Justice Ram specifically pointed towards the comments made by Special Judge in the trial court judgement against the police. Observing the said strictures passed by the trial judge against the Delhi Police to not be justified, Justice Ram deemed the same to be uncalled for.

The reasons behind the Justice Bhandari authoring a nearly 100-paged concurring judgment remained unclear. Through his judgment, Justice Bhandari also acquitted the two accused Parchure and Kistayya on the ground that there was insufficient evidence while convicting Godse and four others. Similar to Justice Ram, Justice Bhandari also suggested commuting the sentences of Gopal Godse as well as Pahwa for commutation of sentence in regards to their young age.

Similar to Justice Ram, Justice Bhandari too found the remarks made by the special judge against the Delhi Police to be unjustified, observing that it would have been impossible for any police officer, however capable and efficient he might have been, to have prevented Nathuram from committing the crime on which he had set his heart.

In the one paragraph authored by Justice Khosla, the acquittal granted to two accused as well as the conviction of the remaining five accused was concurred with. However, Justice Khosla disassociated himself from the recommendations made the other two members of the High Court bench in favour of the commutation of sentence of accused Pahwa in view of the prominent part played by him in the conspiracy to kill Gandhi. In his judgment, Justice Khosla wrote that “The fact that the place of January 20 miscarried does not, in my opinion, extenuate Pahwa’s guilt.”

The complete judgment can be read here:

The last avenue for appeal- the Privy Council

There remained only one possible course of action- to file appeals in the Privy Councils. All five of the individuals who were found guilty and convicted by the high court—Nathuram Godse, Apte, Karkare, Pahwa, and Gopal Godse—filed a special leave petition to appeal to the privy council. John McGaw represented the appellants. Members of the privy council’s judicial committee included Sir John Beaumont, Sir Lionel Leach, Lord Greene, Lord Simonds, and Lord Radcliffe.

Upon considering McGaw’s arguments, the Privy Council decided not to grant special leave to appeal, citing no need for the Crown to respond. Following this, the governor general in council also denied the mercy pleas filed by Apte and Nathuram Godse. It is to be noted that Godse had not himself filed the mercy pleas, rather his family had on his behalf. Till the end, Nathuram Vinayak Godse, a Hindu Mahasabhaite, was not ashamed of having killed Mahatma Gandi, the father of the nation.

Godse and Apte were hanged in Ambala jail on November 15, 1949.

Plea for re-investigation into Gandhi Murder Case dismissed by the Supreme Court

The saga of courts and the Gandhi murder case did not end with the Privy Council. In the year of 2017, a Special Leave Petition was moved in Supreme Court by Pankaj Phadnis urging for the reopening of the criminal investigation of Gandhi’s assassination. In his plea, the petitioner had suggested that there was a foreign conspiracy involving ‘Force 136’ and presence of a second assassin as well as a ‘fourth bullet’ fired at the Mahatma Gandhi on January 30, 1948. Through the plea, it had also been alleged that “adverse, unfounded” remarks were made by the Kanpur Commission in 1969 against Savarkar and therefore, it was pleaded to setup a commission to review the same and find out the conspiracy behind the incident.

In the judgment passed by the Supreme Court bench comprising former Justices S A Bobde and L Nageswara, the Court refused to enter into the arena of reviewing the correctness and fairness of the findings of the report.

As per a report in the LiveLaw, the bench had observed “You said people have the right to know about what happened. But it appears that people already know about it. You are creating suspicion in the minds of the people. The fact is that the people who committed assassination have been identified and hanged. It (the incident) is too late in the day. We are not going to reopen or correct it.”

With regards to the arguments raised in regards to the “unfairness” shown by the Commission to Savarkar, the bench held “The submission of the petitioner that Shri Savarkar has been held guilty for the murder of Gandhiji is misplaced.” (Para 7)

In the judgment, the bench further stated, “We are, however, not inclined to enter into the correctness or fairness of the findings in this report. That would be another exercise in futility and would none the less pan new fires of controversy. This Court must at all cost be vary of such contentious issues and must not allow its jurisdiction to be invoked for such purposes.” (Para 8)

Dismissing the PIL moved, the bench stated “We consider the petitioner’s attempt to reopen this controversy as an exercise in futility.” (Para 9)

The complete judgment can be read here:

Three bullets, one freedom fighter, one aggrieved supremacist

The assassination of Mahatma Gandhi by Nathuram Godse has been etched into the collective memory of every citizen of India, every follower of the Gandhian principles of non-violence, tolerance and togetherness. It has been evident from the brief overview of the judgments by the Courts in the Gandhi Murder case that his assassination was not a spontaneous reaction, but an elaborate conspiracy by certain Hindu supremacists to hamper his message of peace.

In January of 1948, only two weeks prior to his assassination, Gandhi had sat on a fast at Birla House, stating that he will only end his protest when an atmosphere of Hindu-Muslim amity and harmony returns to Delhi. These were days when the newly partitioned India had been under the grips of violence and certain “anti-national elements” want the nation to be a Hindu nation. Three days prior to the killing of Gandhi, a Hindu Mahasabha Delhi meeting had demanded that Gandhi and his “anti-Hindu forces” should go to Pakistan.

The cracks in the Hindu-Muslim unity and secularism had become evident the day our beloved Gandhi had died.

It is also crucial to highlight here that the Courts had acquitted Savarkar from having played any role in the assassination of Gandhi due to “lack of evidence”. Savarkar, under whose guidance the Hindu Mahasabha worked, threw Godse and Apte under the bus to save himself and the two, who believed to have been working for a greater purpose, had happily refused any involvement of Savarkar. Many articles have been written about the “cowardly” attitude of Savarkar during the trials of the Gandhi murder case. In an article by the Wire, it was written that “During the trial, Savarkar did not even turn his head towards.. Nathuram.. much less speak with him (Godse).” Many have also alleged that the contentious speech delivered by Godse in the trial court for his defence, in which he has revered the falsifying and divisive ideologies of Savarkar, was written by Savarkar himself.

Today, the current ruling regime, who had backed the demand of the Hindu Mahasabha to install Godse statues in temples across the country in the year 2015, have been on the mission to cleansing and easing Savarkar in our minds and lives by distorting history. The partisan and supremacist ideology of Savarkar, who some regard as a Hindutva Hero, into the Indian pantheon and re-shaping India into Hindu Rashtra (Hindu Nation).

As we observe a two-minute silence today to show our respect for the man whose ideologies and path of non-violence led us to attain freedom and independence for our country, it is also necessary that we learn from our past. Neither Gandhi nor those convicted are alive today. What remains are their ideologies. Gandhiji- who stood for the rights of the oppressed and believed in unity or Savarkar and Godse- who believed in violence, otherisation and oppression. It is our choice to choose our paths.

Related:

76th Anniversary of Gandhiji’s Martyrdom: Killers identified by Sardar Patel, then Home Minister of India

Temples should propagate equal respect to all religions: Gandhi on inaugurating Birla Temple

Real History: Gandhi’s Murder, Godse & the RSS

Urging preventive action against hate offenders, Gandhiji’s grandson, Tushar urges Navi Mumbai police to act

The post Courts and the Gandhi murder case: What happened on January 30 and who was behind it? appeared first on SabrangIndia.

These documents also carry comments of a contemporary senior officer of the Indian Civil Service (ICS) on the linkages of the killers with RSS. Another shocking document is from 2013, the Goa conference for the “Formation of the Hindu nation” organised by the Hindu Janjagruti Samity which was inaugurated with a congratulatory message from Narendra Modi (then chief minister of Gujarat), during which Gandhiji’s killing was celebrated.

FEBRUARY, 4, 1948 UNION GOVERNMENT COMMUNIQUÉ BANNING RSS: 

“Undesirable and even dangerous activities have been carried on by members of the Sangh. It has been found that in several parts of the country individual members of the RSS have indulged in acts of violence involving arson, robbery, dacoity, and murder and have collected illicit arms and ammunition. They have been found circulating leaflets exhorting people to resort to terrorist methods, to collect firearms, to create disaffection against the government and suborn the police and the military.”
[Cited in Justice on Trial, RSS, Bangalore, 1962, pp. 65-66.]

SARDAR PATEL LETTER TO NEHRU:    FEBRUARY 27,1948

“All the main accused have given long and detailed statements of their activities. In one case, the statement extends to ninety typed pages. From their statements, it is quite clear that no part of the conspiracy took place in Delhi…It also clearly emerges from these statements that the RSS was not involved at all. It was a fanatical wing of the Hindu Mahasabha directly under Savarkar that (hatched) the conspiracy and saw it through. It also appears that the conspiracy was limited to some ten men, of whom all except two have been got hold of.”
(RSS supporters quote the above part of Sardar’s letter and hide the following text of the same letter which is very significant)

The letter continues: “In the case of secret organization like the RSS which has no records, registers, etc. securing of authentic information whether a particular individual is active worker or not is rendered a very difficult task.”
[V. Shankar, Sardar Patel: Select Correspondence 1945-50, Navjivan Publishing House, Ahmedabad, 1977, p. 283-85 ]

SARDAR PATEL LETTER TO SYAMA PRASAD MOOKERJEE: JULY 18,1948

“As regards the RSS and the Hindu Mahasabha, the case relating to Gandhiji’s murder is sub judice and I should not like to say anything about the participation of the two organizations, but our reports do confirm that, as a result of the activities of these two bodies, particularly the former, an atmosphere was created in the country in which such a ghastly tragedy became possible. There is no doubt in my mind that the extreme section of the Hindu Mahasabha was involved in the conspiracy. The activities of the RSS constituted a clear threat to the existence of Government and the State. Our reports show that those activities, despite the ban, have not died down. Indeed, as time has marched on, the RSS circles are becoming more defiant and are indulging in their subversive activities in an increasing measure.”
[Letter 64 in Sardar Patel: Select Correspondence1945-1950, volume 2, Navjivan Publishing House, Ahmedabad, 1977, pp. 276-77.]

SARDAR PATEL LETTER TO THE THEN SUPREMO OF RSS, M S GOLWALKAR: SEPTEMBER 19, 1948

“Organising the Hindus and helping them is one thing but going in for revenge for its sufferings on innocent and helpless men, women and children is quite another thing…Apart from this, their opposition to the Congress, that too of such virulence, disregarding all considerations of personality, decency or decorum, created a kind of unrest among the people. All their speeches were full of communal poison. It was not necessary to spread poison in order to enthuse the Hindus and organize for their protection. As a final result of the poison, the country had to suffer the sacrifice of the invaluable life of Gandhiji. Even an iota of the sympathy of the Government, or of the people, no more remained for the RSS. In fact opposition grew. Opposition turned more severe, when the RSS men expressed joy and distributed sweets after Gandhiji’s death. Under these conditions it became inevitable for the Government to take action against the RSS…Since then, over six months have elapsed. We had hoped that after this lapse of time, with full and proper consideration the RSS persons would come to the right path.” But from the reports that come to me, it is evident that attempts to put fresh life into their same old activities are afoot.”
[Cited in Justice on Trial, RSS, Bangalore, 1962, pp. 26-28.]

COMMENT OF A SENIOR ICS WHO WAS FIRST HOME SECRETARY OF UP

“Came January 30, 1948 when the Mahatma, that supreme apostle of peace, felt to a bullet fired by an RSS fanatic. The tragic episode left me sick at heart.”
[Rajeshwar Dayal, A Life of Our Times, Orient Longman, 94.]

Cartoons like this were published in Hindutva publications which created hatred against Gandhiji

MODI AS CHIEF MINISTER OF GUJARAT SENT A CONGRATULATORY MESSAGE TO GOA HINDU RASHTRA CONFERENCE (2013) WHERE GANDHI’S ‘VADH’ WAS CELEBRATED. THIS REFLECTS THE RSS’ HATRED FOR GANDHIJI EVEN TODAY.

Goa in June 2013 for the BJP executive committee meeting Gujarat CM, Modi sent a message to the ‘All India Hindu Convention for Establishment of Hindu Nation’ organised by the Hindu Janajagruti Samiti (HJS) on JUNE 7TH. Modi’s message read: “Even though every Hindu conducts himself with love, compassion and intimacy with god, giving precedence to non-violence, truth and “satvikta”, repelling demoniacal tendencies is in our destiny. It is our tradition to remain alert and raise a voice against persecution…Only by protecting our culture, can the flag of “dharma” and unity be kept intact. Organisations inspired by nationalism, patriotism and devotion for the Nation are true manifestations of people’s power.”

On the third day from the same dais in this convention from where Modi’s felicitation message was read, one of the prominent speakers, K.V. Sitaramiah, declared that Gandhi was ‘terrible, wicked and most sinful’. Rejoicing the killing of M.K. Gandhi, he went on to declare, “As Bhagwan Shri Krishna said in the Gita, ParitranayaSadhunamVinashaya Cha Dushkritam/ DharamasansthapnayaSambhavamiYuge-Yuge (For the protection of the good, for the destruction of the wicked and for the establishment of righteousness, I am born in every age) On…30th January 1948 evening, Shriram came in the form of Nathuram Godse and ended the life of Gandhi.”

Let me add that K.V. Sitaramaiah has also authored a book titled ‘Gandhi was Dharma Drohi and DesaDrohi’ in which the back cover matter, quoting from the epic Mahabharat, demands ‘Dharma Drohis must be killed’, ‘Not killing the deserved to be killed is great sin’ and ‘where the members of Parliament seeing clearly allow to kill Dharma & truth as untruth, those members will be called dead’.

Copy of the CM Modi’s felicitation letter to Hindu Janjagruti Samity

Disclaimer: The views expressed here are the author’s personal views, and do not necessarily represent the views of Sabrangindia.

Related:

Temples should propagate equal respect to all religions: Gandhi on inaugurating Birla Temple

Real History: Gandhi’s Murder, Godse & the RSS

Urging preventive action against hate offenders, Gandhiji’s grandson, Tushar urges Navi Mumbai police to act

The post 76th Anniversary of Gandhiji’s Martyrdom: Killers identified by Sardar Patel, then Home Minister of India appeared first on SabrangIndia.

At the same time Suranya Aiyer, a lawyer and author has undertaken a fast and penitence, calling it 72 hours of love and sorrow to fellow Muslims. She proclaims her pride in Mughal heritage. One can see the creation of a stifling atmosphere of divisiveness around, which sounds very intimidating.

As such temple inaugurations have also been occasions of promoting communal harmony as a couple of instances will show. Mahatma Gandhi while inaugurating Laxminarayan Temple (Birla Temple) in Delhi in 1939 had stated:

“It must be the daily prayer of every adherent of the Hindu faith … that every known religion of the world should grow from day to day and should serve the whole of humanity… I hope that these temples will serve to propagate the idea of equal respect for religions and to make communal jealousies and strife, things of the past.”

More or less on similar lines Swami Vivekananda had earlier stated, “It is here in India that Hindus have built and are still building churches for Christians and mosques for Mohammedans.” In his book ‘Lectures from Colombo to Almora’ we see Swamiji stating:

“Nay more, to understand that not only should we be charitable, but also positively helpful to each other, however different our religious ideas and convictions may be. And that is exactly what we do in India as I have just related to you… That is the thing to do.”

The present atmosphere is in total contrast to this as reflected by the fast of Suranya. It is also reflected in the incidents where cultural activists screening censor approved all time classic by Anand Patwardhan, ‘Ram Ke Naam’ are being arrested and issued non bailable arrest warrants. This happened in Hyderabad on 20th January.

Then there are claims by the likes of Prafulla Ketkar, editor of the unofficial RSS mouthpiece “Organiser” claiming that “the pran-pratishta (consecration ceremony) of Ram Lalla in Ayodhya was not simply the culmination of the decades-old Ram Janmabhoomi movement, but the beginning of a “reconstruction of national consciousness”.

This essentially means the whole process of social change and the idea of India which accompanied the freedom movement now stands to be negated and what can roughly called ‘Hindu India’ is already there and multiple steps towards Hindu rashtra have been achieved by the communal forces.

What accompanied the ‘Idea of India’ was a coming together of different sections of society to fight the colonial powers, with the aspirations of striving for Liberty Equality, Fraternity and Justice for all. This massive movement had the overarching ‘Idea of India’, which culminated in the values of Indian Constitution.

There were challenges to this idea of India, which were rooted in the values of Kingdoms and what can be roughly called feudal society. The core of these values which are being hailed by the forces creating hysteria around temple consecration were/are the birth based hierarchies of caste, class and gender.

The roots of these lay in the Kings and landlords of different religions and their ideologues who came forward as Muslim League, Hindu Mahasabha and RSS. While Muslim communal forces are implementing their idea of feudal values in Pakistan, the Hindu communal forces are now rejoicing, in gradually increasing intensity, now reaching its semi-peak with Ram Temple consecration.

The idea of India of freedom movement got manifested in the values of Bhagat Singh, Ambedkar and Gandhi focusing on Liberty Equality and Fraternity or friendship. Despite few differences with the father of Nation, Subhash Chandra Bose was also firmly committed to this “idea of India’.

Only ray of hope for Idea of India is the same classes of society who ushered in the Idea of India during freedom movement to come together

The elite landlord and Manusmiriti worshipping ideology was the social base of Hindu Rashtra, Hindutva. These forces and this ideology have grown stronger particularly during last four decades and are rejoicing the sectarianism becoming stronger by the day. They are also giving narrow projection of the temple consecration in contrast to what Gandhi and Vivekananda stood. The sectarian nationalists are for the further deepening of particular ‘civilizational values’ inherent in what can be called as Brahmanism inherent in Manusmriti.

Those standing for doing away with the values of Manusmriti, those integrating all into the umbrella of Indian-ness, those who have stood together cutting across class, caste and gender are currently under different types of intimidations of Hindu India, the parallel and opposite of Muslim Pakistan are emerging.

The only ray of hope for ‘idea of India’ is the same classes of society who ushered in the Idea of India during freedom movement to come together. It is their collective movement; the overarching effort to undermine the forces which gloat over the birth based hierarchical values in the name of religion, those who uphold the Holy Scriptures in contrast to the Indian Constitution.

Their movements have been scattered. Their group interests may be different but their interests in protecting the Indian Constitution and Idea of India which emerged during freedom movements does need a collective expression, cutting across the groups- party lines.

Many non-sectarian parties do exist today. The predecessors of many of these had fought the British colonial powers together despite their differences. It is time that the social and political alliance of these sections of society given primacy. As colonial rule was detrimental to the interests of large sections of society, similarly those in power ruling through polarization are also out to undermine the rights of weaker sections of society. This is abundantly clear during the last ten years or so.

Hysteria cannot be combated by hysteria. We need the ideology which binds the weaker sections of society, the Dalits, religious minorities, women, workers and Adivasis. They have many common values to protect and that is the ‘Idea of India’ which came with freedom movement. Can Bharat Jodo Nyay Yatra be the first step in building such a common platform, can the yatra succeed in doing this is the question baying us all?

Author is well-known political commentator

Courtesy: CounterView

The post Temples should propagate equal respect to all religions: Gandhi on inaugurating Birla Temple appeared first on SabrangIndia.

MK Gandhi, Young India. December 8, 1920

“Untouchability is a snake with a thousand mouths, through each of which it shows its poisonous fangs.”

MK Gandhi, Young India. July 11, 1927

“I do not believe in caste in the modern sense. It is an excrescence and a hindrance on progress. Caste in so far as it connotes distinctions in status is evil.”

MK Gandhi, Young India. June 4,1931

“Untouchability is a sin against God and man. There is no warrant in the Shastras for untouchability as we practice it today.”

MK Gandhi, Harijan. March 2, 1934

“And why do I say untouchability is a curse, a blot and a powerful poison that will destroy Hinduism? It is repugnant to our senses of humanity to consider a single human being as untouchable by birth. If you were to study the scriptures of world you do not find any parallel to untouchability.”

MK Gandhi, Harijan. June 2, 1936

“Untouchability is a blot against Hinduism and it must be removed at any cost. Untouchability is a poison which, if we do not get rid of it in time, will destroy Hinduism.”

MK Gandhi, Harijan. June 20, 1936

“Caste has nothing to do with religion. It is a custom whose origin I do not know, and do not need to know. But I do know it is harmful, both to spiritual and national growth.”

MK Gandhi, Harijan. July 18, 1936

“Soil erosion eats up good soil. It is bad enough. Caste erosion is worse; it eats up men and divides men from men.”

MK Gandhi, Harijan. May 5, 1946

“None can be born untouchable, as all are sparks of the same fire. It is wrong to treat certain human beings as untouchable from birth.”

MK Gandhi, From Yeravada Mandir, Page 31

“The untouchables have been so much oppressed by the Caste Hindus that we can find no parallel to it in any other religion.”

MK Gandhi, Speeches and Writings of Mahatma Gandhi, Page 905

“I am a touchable by birth, but I am an untouchable by choice; and I have endeavoured in my own fashion to represent not the upper ten even amongst the untouchables, because, be it said to ourselves there are caste and classes even amongst the untouchables.”

MK Gandhi, Speeches and Writings of Mahatma Gandhi, Page 952

“There was once a scientific expedition in search of God. The scientists are reported to have come to India and to have found God, not in the homes of Brahmins, nor in the palaces of kings, but they found Him in the hut of an untouchable. Hence my cry to God is to admit me to the untouchable fold.”

MK Gandhi, The Collected Works of Mahatma Gandhi, Vol LI, Page 198

“There is an ineffaceable blot that Hinduism today carries with it. I have declined to believe that it has been handed to us from immemorial times. I think this miserable, wretched, enslaving spirit of untouchability must have come to us when we were in the cycle of our lives at our lowest ebb… That any person should be considered untouchable in this sacred land, passes one’s comprehension.”

MK Gandhi, Speeches and Writings of Mahatma Gandhi, Page 387

“I believe that if untouchability is really rooted out, it will not only purge Hinduism of a terrible blot, but its repercussions will be worldwide. My fight against untouchability is a fight against the impure in humanity!”

MK Gandhi, Mahatma, Vol III, Page 203

“What I want, what I am living for and what I should delight in dying for is the eradication of untouchability, root and branch.”

MK Gandhi, Mahatma, Vol III, Page 205

“Removal of untouchability means love for and service of the whole world, and thus merges into Ahimsa. Removal of untouchability spells the breaking down of barriers between man and man, and between the various orders of Beings.”

MK Gandhi, From Yeravada Mandir, Page 33

“It is a sin to believe that anyone else is inferior or superior to ourselves. We are all equal. It is the touch of sin that pollutes us, and never that of a human being. None are high and none are low for one who would devote his life to service. The distinction between high and low is a blot on Hinduism, which we must obliterate.”

MK Gandhi, The Diary of Mahadev Desai, Page 286

Why did I begin with a string of quotes by Bapu? When we read them chronologically, we understand his evolution. From the first, where he endorses the Varna Vyavastha, our caste system, for which he was rightly criticised by Dr Babasaheb Ambedkar, to branding untouchability and the caste system as a thousand-headed venomous snake and to warning that the Varna Vyavastha would eventually lead to the annihilation of Hinduism, Sanatan Dharma. This is a dramatic about-turn in Bapu’s evolution. Bapu had said that if he were to express contradictory opinions on any subject, what he said last was to be considered his belief because time and life would have taught him that he was wrong earlier.

There have been many reformers who strove throughout their lives to purge Sanatan Dharma of the evil of untouchability but they all failed – from Sant Gnyaneshwar and Sant Tukaram to Ambedkar and Bapu. Sanatan Dharma has proven to be obstinate.

Periyar, the militant reformer, also failed. Tamil Nadu, where parties born out of his ideology have ruled for long, is still as deeply divided along caste lines and caste-based oppression is rampant. Sanatan Dharma and its traditions are so wired into the collective psyche that even those who left Hinduism, fed up of the caste oppression, still carry their caste identities into the religions they embrace.

People will argue that all Hindus must not be branded casteists, and it’s true that not all of them actively practise caste oppression. But we too remain silent when atrocities occur. The silence and inaction stems from the deep-rooted prejudice they harbour. Take a few incidents in the recent past.

Inder Meghwal, a nine-year-old Dalit, was so brutally thrashed by his upper caste teacher that he died. His crime? He drank water from the pot kept exclusively for the teacher. Did Indians who don’t harbour or practise caste prejudice rise up in anger? No!

A video of a lout peeing on the face of an Adivasi went viral on social media. The Adivasi was so accustomed to being insulted thus that he did not even attempt to move away. The lout was a Brahmin and the president of his community brazenly said it was his right to behave that way. Did Indians who do not harbour caste prejudice rise in anger? No!

A Harijan bridegroom rode a horse to his wedding. This offended the upper castes in his village and he was lynched. Did we react? No!

Recently, a Dalit was brutally beaten for wearing good clothes and dark glasses. Does it make our blood boil? No!

As far as caste discrimination and atrocities are concerned, it does not bother us enough. I could write volumes listing caste atrocities over just the past decade.

But when Udhayanidhi Stalin points out how Sanatan Dharma has been corrupted, all of us are annoyed. How dare he call for its eradication? Ambedkar called for the ‘Annihilation of Caste’. Bapu too, in his own gentle manner, called for it. None of them called for a genocide of Hindus or the upper castes. Let’s not allow sanghis and bhakts fool us into believing it.

All reformers warned about the danger institutionalised oppression poses to the existence of Sanatan Dharma but we have not heeded the warnings. What is being sought to be eradicated is Varna Vyavastha and the prejudices it instils in all of us and the oppression which is its very creed. That cancer afflicting Sanatan Dharma must be eradicated. Otherwise, one day, it will ensure the demise of Sanatan Dharma itself.

Vasudaiva Kutumbakam must be based on samata, equality, otherwise it is just a string of meaningless words.

 Tushar Gandhi, great grandson of the Mahatma, is an activist, author and president of the Mahatma Gandhi Foundation. Reach him here: gandhitushar.a@gmail.com.

Courtesy: https://www.allindiansmatter.in

The post Caste, the cancer afflicting Sanatan Dharma appeared first on SabrangIndia.