India’s confused Nationalism
On a cold chilling morning of January’48, just freed itself from the shackles of a ruthless Colonial regime five months back, India witnessed the unfortunate end of a legacy who over the last three decades solemnly pioneered not only India’s quest not for Purna Swaraj, but for the growth of a nationalist movement broadly based on the principle of secularism and an unified India. Gandhiji’s assassination denotes the rise of a growing nationalism within the Hindus who almost in parallel with their alter ego Muslim League developed their own definition of nationalism. Let us see, how ludicrous their idea was which finally culminated in the unfortunate end of Gandhi and the commencement of a series of irrevocable blunders which tend to rapture the social fabric of this country till today.
In his confessional account, Nathuram Godse in defence of his action that left the entire civilized world in utter state of horrible shock and inexplicable grief, ominously blamed Gandhiji for 1. Supporting the idea of Pakistan which in his view was a complete act of treachery against the Hindus of the Subcontinent and a contradiction to the Hindu Nationalist idea of Akhand Bharat, the greater India.2. Gandhiji’s uncompromising tactics of fast till death to compel the Indian Government to release the amount of 55 Crores to Pakistan in spite of its dubious allowance of safe passage to the Pathan tribesmen into the valley of Kashmir. 3. The unpleasant way of minority appeasing politics of Mahatma which led to the unholy indifference of a Hindu India towards the cataclysmic atrocity against Hindus and Sikhs in Pakistan.
From the above argument, it can quite aptly be said that Nathuram Godse was a sacrilegious culmination of a systematic brainwashing whose very basis of ideologies was not only handicapped by refusing the undeniable plurality but fairly remained a confused one throughout the history of organized Indian Independence movement on its perception of an ideal nation state
The patriot’s lies and Goebbelsian propaganda:
First of all, the idea (whether it was logical or not demands an another sphere of debate) of two separate states for Hindus and Muslims, as it is popularly believed to be Md.Ali Jinnah’s formulation, actually was religiously being preached by a Hindu chauvinist almost fifteen years before the name “Pakistan” appeared into India’s political stage. The illustrated writer of “Sare Jahan se accha Hindustan Hamara”, poet Md.Iqbal was first among those who proposed a separate state for Muslims to safeguard muslim interests in the 30’s. There is no reason to doubt the fact that this change in attitude was inspired by the growing dominance of Hindu obscurantist elements in Indian political arena.In his presidential speech in 1937 in Ahmedabad, Savarkar says, : "India cannot be assumed today to be Unitarian and homogenous nation, but on the contrary there are two nations in the main - the Hindus and the Muslims." (Vide writings Swatantrya Veer Savarkar, Vol. 6 page 296, Maharashtra Prantiya Hindu Mahasabha, Pune).
In 1945, he again had stated "I have no quarrel with Mr. Jinnah's two nation theory. We, the Hindus are a nation by ourselves, and it is a historical fact that the Hindus and the Muslims are two nations." Three years later, one of his followers, on the charge of dividing India on the basis of religion, assassinates Gandhi who urged Lord Mountbatten to make Jinnah India’s prime minister and keep the subcontinent as it is.
Secondly, it was an absolute moral bankruptcy from the Hindu Mahasabha and their paraphernalia to associate the release of the pending 55 Crores to Pakistan with Gandhiji’s fast. The fast was undertaken with regard to the large scale massacre and atrocities in Delhi. This was deliberately mixed up with the “transfer of money” saga by the radical elements to justify their own theory of minority appeasement. These serial abusers of facts and history quickly forgot that the decision to deliver the rest of the money according to the signed treaty was taken up during this fast, though there is no official record of claiming Gandhiji took up his fast for releasing the money. Nevertheless, there is no mention of it in the list of assurances given to him by the committee led by Dr.Rajendra Prasad.
Lastly, the very allegation of Minority appeasement cannot be and should not be in any case be thumbed upon Gandhiji. The proponents of this appeasement theory in Mahasabha and the RSS spheres, omits historical occurrences and distorts it according to their own conveniences. Jinnah’s demand for 1/4th representation of minorities in fact was broadly cheered by Motilal Nehru and Lokmanya Tilak and according to them it was the perfect solution of the age old precariousness of the Muslims in India. No wonder the secret cell of Hindu Mahasabha and RSS within Congress saw separate electorate as a more pragmatic solution rather than giving the Muslims their legal numerical advantage in democracy where 3/4th consensus was needed to pass any sort of constitutional resolution. Long before Jinnah came with his demands for a fair amount of Muslim representation Chittaranjan Dash, one of the most sagacious leader Congress could ever have came out with Bengal Muslim pact in 1923 where he tended to secure 70% of Muslim representation in Calcutta Municipal Corporation which after initially been rejected by the fanatic elements within Congress was accepted as whole at length.No doubt the untimely death of this great leader with remarkable foresight had severe consequences in the history of Congress and to the future of India as well.
Netaji Subhas Chandra Bose, another remarkable son of United India vociferously condemned the Muslim League and the Mahabha for introducing Politicization of religion in India.Bose, quite precisely was against Mahasabha’s direct involvement in Political affairs and insisted on limiting itself with boundaries of Humanitarian activities Justifying that resolution in face of the fact that Congress before Gandhi was solidly led by none other than such very communal Hindus as Lajpat Rai and Pandit Malaviya, Bose later wrote a signed editorial in his Forward Bloc weekly on May 4, 1940 under the title of ‘Congress and Communal Organizations’.
“There was a time not long ago”, wrote Bose, “when prominent leaders of the Congress could be members and leaders of the communal organizations like the Hindu Mahasabha and the Muslim League. In those days the communalism of such communal organizations was of a subdued character. Hence Lala Lajpat Rai could be a leader of the Hindu Mahasabha and the Ali Brothers could be the leaders of Muslim League. In Bengal, an ex-president of the Bengal Congress Provincial Committee and of the Bengal Provincial Conference, like Maulana Akram Khan, could be a leader of the Muslim League. But in recent times, the circumstances have changed. These communal organizations have become more communal than before. As a reaction to this, the Indian National Congress has put into its Constitution a clause to the effect that no member of a communal organization like the Hindu Mahasabha or the Muslim League can be a member of an elective committee of the Congress.”
.
Thus the righteousness attitude of Mahasabha in killing Gandhi for his minority appeasement can no way be justified with sound arguments as it is quite evident that HM and other fanatic elements were instrumental in spoiling some logical agreements and their influence was growing within Congress as Bose rightly apprehended and finally it ended up in destroying India’s last hope to remain united, the Cabinet Mission Plan in 1946.
Denied Morality:
Although after the assassination of Mahatma Gandhi, Hindu Right wingers disassociates themselves from being related to anything regarding Godse and disowning him as a RSS cadre, this is an axiomatic fact that in 1930 Nathuram Godse joined RSS soon to be promoted as a Buddhik Pracharak (Intellectual propagator). Being extremely critical about Gandhiji’s non violence movement, Godse virulently supports the idea of reactionary possibilities against the British citing Arjuna and Krishna as exemplary evidences. Although, historically Hindu Mahasabha, RSS and their ilk are conspicuously absent from any kind of substantial direct confrontation against their Imperial masters, they never ceased to quote or give example of Guru Govind Singh or Chatrapati Shivaji to to be used in their organization’s ideological manifesto.
But, Godse may be an essentially RSS man or may not be so. But what on mother earth can justify distributing sweets over the death of a person who was responsible for organized political movement against the British for the last three decades? Is it not a moral bankruptcy from HM or RSS who fervently preaches for a Ram Rajya to celebrate over a dead who in fact, much to the dissension of the secularists sect within Congress was more a religious minded character and a less prejudiced with political manoeuvres. Shyama Prasad Mukherjee on the other hand although being a proponent of Hindu Rashtra theory was a more westernized character who was known for his distinguished modern life style and detachment from orthodox oriental practices.
Also with in a democratic environment where all the differences whether religious, political or ideological are to be settled with by debates and through a peaceful discourse there is no scope for political anarchism in a civilized independent nation. The spirit of respect to constitutional democracy got grossly abused by Mahasabha and RSS leaders. Sardar Patel, who incessantly is projected as the face of United India by BJP and the Sangh today said "All their (RSS) leaders' speeches were full of communal poison. As a final result, the poisonous atmosphere was created in which such a ghastly tragedy (Gandhi's murder) became possible. RSS men expressed their joy and distributed sweets after Gandhi's death." (Excerpts from Sardar Patel's letters to M S Golwalkar and S P Mookerjee. Outlook, April 27, 1998).
This can no way be looked as a justified action in an ideal state (Ram Rajya) to celebrate someone’s unnatural death neither the political anarchism can be proposed or encouraged in it. This was a complete violation of their own ideologies and abuse of one’s own conscience of morality.
Denied Plurality
In their innumerous public commentaries and personal writings, leaders of Hindu Mahasabha quite often uses the term Hindu Rashtra, connoting that this is an essential state for Hindus. By this faulty assessment of their very own country, the Mahasabha continued to deny the magnificent pluralistic character of India which was the foundation of the inherent fabric of its Society. In its remarkable display of being a melting pot of thousand sects and philosophical beliefs over a span of four thousand years, the idea of Indianness out rightly rejects to be an essential Hindu nation. In fact, it never saw itself as a rigid theocratic state ever in its history. During the period of Mayuras, Guptas to the Mughals and the British, religious tolerance was broadly accepted by its magnanimous rulers except few exceptional short lasted regimes like Pushyamitra Sunga’s and Aurangzeb’s. Non Hindu subjects of this country are hardly marginal whether in their numbers or their influence on Indian art, literature and architectural masterpieces. According to B R Ambedkar,” If the Muslims of India are a separate nation,then,off course,India is not a nation.”
The proponents of Hindu Rashtra theory never realized the fact that at one stage, by Persian and Arab travellers, Muslims of India were called “Hindavi Muslims” to distinguish them respectively from Muslims outside India. There are plenty of instances where the British resources where they terms Indian Muslims as Hindoo Moslems!! Muslims in India, over a span of thousand years developed some unique ways of celebrating their religious practices which were no way can be attributed to their Arabic origin. As the Persian chronicler Abdul Lateef Sushtari in the late Eighteenth Century Hyderabad observes with inexplicable horror, the deviation of Indian Muslim Rulers from the rigidity of orthodox Islamic practices and their patronage of Hindu and Buddhist influence on contemporary literature and architecture. Quite distinctly, Muslims in India, surrounded by an obvious Hindu majority were evolved into a moderate society which was largely liberal in their outlook towards religion and its thoughts. This conclusion can quite comprehensively supported by the contemptuous denial of Khilafat Movement in 1920 by the Muslim educated class for its remarkable absurdity and violation of Islamic reformist movement in Egypt by Saad Zhoglul and Turkey by Mostafa Kemal Ataturk.
The very idea of a Hindu Rashtra adopted by Mahasabha and its emphasis on a homogeneous Hindu doctrine can be rejected by the example of eminent Scholar and philosopher of fourteenth century India, Mādhāva Āchārya (Head of religious order in Śringeri,Mysore) introduced his famous Sanskrit treaties Sarvadarśnasamgraha where he emphasizes on the diversity of different systems of Hindu belief. The Hindu philosophers and scholars, during the fourteenth Century Bhakti Movement were inordinately influenced by Sufi schools of thoughts. The extravagant religious amalgamation throughout this period occasioned a hybrid social structure whose importance was venomously rejected by these Religious puritans, furthermore they ignored the obvious presence of a large number of atheists and agnostic Hindus who despised their idea of a delusional nation state.
It was aptly said by Amartya Sen, that “Through their attempts to encourage and exploit separatism,the Hindutva Movement has entered into a confrontation with the idea of India itself.This is nothing sort of sustained effort to miniaturize the broad idea of a large India-proud of its heterodox past and its pluralist present.”
Throughout History, since its beginning, radical Hindu extremist groups remained broadly confused with the idea of Indianness and groped in dark to search for the definition of nationalism, making irreversible errors in every step they made. We can only hope that we learn from our past mistakes and preserve the sentiments of a liberal democratic society where the spirit of religious tolerance and secularism will be accepted and respected so that we never have to feel ashamed of killing any other “Gandhi” in future.
@Joe Shearer @FaujHistorian @Azlan Haider @Ravi Nair @Indischer
On a cold chilling morning of January’48, just freed itself from the shackles of a ruthless Colonial regime five months back, India witnessed the unfortunate end of a legacy who over the last three decades solemnly pioneered not only India’s quest not for Purna Swaraj, but for the growth of a nationalist movement broadly based on the principle of secularism and an unified India. Gandhiji’s assassination denotes the rise of a growing nationalism within the Hindus who almost in parallel with their alter ego Muslim League developed their own definition of nationalism. Let us see, how ludicrous their idea was which finally culminated in the unfortunate end of Gandhi and the commencement of a series of irrevocable blunders which tend to rapture the social fabric of this country till today.
In his confessional account, Nathuram Godse in defence of his action that left the entire civilized world in utter state of horrible shock and inexplicable grief, ominously blamed Gandhiji for 1. Supporting the idea of Pakistan which in his view was a complete act of treachery against the Hindus of the Subcontinent and a contradiction to the Hindu Nationalist idea of Akhand Bharat, the greater India.2. Gandhiji’s uncompromising tactics of fast till death to compel the Indian Government to release the amount of 55 Crores to Pakistan in spite of its dubious allowance of safe passage to the Pathan tribesmen into the valley of Kashmir. 3. The unpleasant way of minority appeasing politics of Mahatma which led to the unholy indifference of a Hindu India towards the cataclysmic atrocity against Hindus and Sikhs in Pakistan.
From the above argument, it can quite aptly be said that Nathuram Godse was a sacrilegious culmination of a systematic brainwashing whose very basis of ideologies was not only handicapped by refusing the undeniable plurality but fairly remained a confused one throughout the history of organized Indian Independence movement on its perception of an ideal nation state
The patriot’s lies and Goebbelsian propaganda:
First of all, the idea (whether it was logical or not demands an another sphere of debate) of two separate states for Hindus and Muslims, as it is popularly believed to be Md.Ali Jinnah’s formulation, actually was religiously being preached by a Hindu chauvinist almost fifteen years before the name “Pakistan” appeared into India’s political stage. The illustrated writer of “Sare Jahan se accha Hindustan Hamara”, poet Md.Iqbal was first among those who proposed a separate state for Muslims to safeguard muslim interests in the 30’s. There is no reason to doubt the fact that this change in attitude was inspired by the growing dominance of Hindu obscurantist elements in Indian political arena.In his presidential speech in 1937 in Ahmedabad, Savarkar says, : "India cannot be assumed today to be Unitarian and homogenous nation, but on the contrary there are two nations in the main - the Hindus and the Muslims." (Vide writings Swatantrya Veer Savarkar, Vol. 6 page 296, Maharashtra Prantiya Hindu Mahasabha, Pune).
In 1945, he again had stated "I have no quarrel with Mr. Jinnah's two nation theory. We, the Hindus are a nation by ourselves, and it is a historical fact that the Hindus and the Muslims are two nations." Three years later, one of his followers, on the charge of dividing India on the basis of religion, assassinates Gandhi who urged Lord Mountbatten to make Jinnah India’s prime minister and keep the subcontinent as it is.
Secondly, it was an absolute moral bankruptcy from the Hindu Mahasabha and their paraphernalia to associate the release of the pending 55 Crores to Pakistan with Gandhiji’s fast. The fast was undertaken with regard to the large scale massacre and atrocities in Delhi. This was deliberately mixed up with the “transfer of money” saga by the radical elements to justify their own theory of minority appeasement. These serial abusers of facts and history quickly forgot that the decision to deliver the rest of the money according to the signed treaty was taken up during this fast, though there is no official record of claiming Gandhiji took up his fast for releasing the money. Nevertheless, there is no mention of it in the list of assurances given to him by the committee led by Dr.Rajendra Prasad.
Lastly, the very allegation of Minority appeasement cannot be and should not be in any case be thumbed upon Gandhiji. The proponents of this appeasement theory in Mahasabha and the RSS spheres, omits historical occurrences and distorts it according to their own conveniences. Jinnah’s demand for 1/4th representation of minorities in fact was broadly cheered by Motilal Nehru and Lokmanya Tilak and according to them it was the perfect solution of the age old precariousness of the Muslims in India. No wonder the secret cell of Hindu Mahasabha and RSS within Congress saw separate electorate as a more pragmatic solution rather than giving the Muslims their legal numerical advantage in democracy where 3/4th consensus was needed to pass any sort of constitutional resolution. Long before Jinnah came with his demands for a fair amount of Muslim representation Chittaranjan Dash, one of the most sagacious leader Congress could ever have came out with Bengal Muslim pact in 1923 where he tended to secure 70% of Muslim representation in Calcutta Municipal Corporation which after initially been rejected by the fanatic elements within Congress was accepted as whole at length.No doubt the untimely death of this great leader with remarkable foresight had severe consequences in the history of Congress and to the future of India as well.
Netaji Subhas Chandra Bose, another remarkable son of United India vociferously condemned the Muslim League and the Mahabha for introducing Politicization of religion in India.Bose, quite precisely was against Mahasabha’s direct involvement in Political affairs and insisted on limiting itself with boundaries of Humanitarian activities Justifying that resolution in face of the fact that Congress before Gandhi was solidly led by none other than such very communal Hindus as Lajpat Rai and Pandit Malaviya, Bose later wrote a signed editorial in his Forward Bloc weekly on May 4, 1940 under the title of ‘Congress and Communal Organizations’.
“There was a time not long ago”, wrote Bose, “when prominent leaders of the Congress could be members and leaders of the communal organizations like the Hindu Mahasabha and the Muslim League. In those days the communalism of such communal organizations was of a subdued character. Hence Lala Lajpat Rai could be a leader of the Hindu Mahasabha and the Ali Brothers could be the leaders of Muslim League. In Bengal, an ex-president of the Bengal Congress Provincial Committee and of the Bengal Provincial Conference, like Maulana Akram Khan, could be a leader of the Muslim League. But in recent times, the circumstances have changed. These communal organizations have become more communal than before. As a reaction to this, the Indian National Congress has put into its Constitution a clause to the effect that no member of a communal organization like the Hindu Mahasabha or the Muslim League can be a member of an elective committee of the Congress.”
.
Thus the righteousness attitude of Mahasabha in killing Gandhi for his minority appeasement can no way be justified with sound arguments as it is quite evident that HM and other fanatic elements were instrumental in spoiling some logical agreements and their influence was growing within Congress as Bose rightly apprehended and finally it ended up in destroying India’s last hope to remain united, the Cabinet Mission Plan in 1946.
Denied Morality:
Although after the assassination of Mahatma Gandhi, Hindu Right wingers disassociates themselves from being related to anything regarding Godse and disowning him as a RSS cadre, this is an axiomatic fact that in 1930 Nathuram Godse joined RSS soon to be promoted as a Buddhik Pracharak (Intellectual propagator). Being extremely critical about Gandhiji’s non violence movement, Godse virulently supports the idea of reactionary possibilities against the British citing Arjuna and Krishna as exemplary evidences. Although, historically Hindu Mahasabha, RSS and their ilk are conspicuously absent from any kind of substantial direct confrontation against their Imperial masters, they never ceased to quote or give example of Guru Govind Singh or Chatrapati Shivaji to to be used in their organization’s ideological manifesto.
But, Godse may be an essentially RSS man or may not be so. But what on mother earth can justify distributing sweets over the death of a person who was responsible for organized political movement against the British for the last three decades? Is it not a moral bankruptcy from HM or RSS who fervently preaches for a Ram Rajya to celebrate over a dead who in fact, much to the dissension of the secularists sect within Congress was more a religious minded character and a less prejudiced with political manoeuvres. Shyama Prasad Mukherjee on the other hand although being a proponent of Hindu Rashtra theory was a more westernized character who was known for his distinguished modern life style and detachment from orthodox oriental practices.
Also with in a democratic environment where all the differences whether religious, political or ideological are to be settled with by debates and through a peaceful discourse there is no scope for political anarchism in a civilized independent nation. The spirit of respect to constitutional democracy got grossly abused by Mahasabha and RSS leaders. Sardar Patel, who incessantly is projected as the face of United India by BJP and the Sangh today said "All their (RSS) leaders' speeches were full of communal poison. As a final result, the poisonous atmosphere was created in which such a ghastly tragedy (Gandhi's murder) became possible. RSS men expressed their joy and distributed sweets after Gandhi's death." (Excerpts from Sardar Patel's letters to M S Golwalkar and S P Mookerjee. Outlook, April 27, 1998).
This can no way be looked as a justified action in an ideal state (Ram Rajya) to celebrate someone’s unnatural death neither the political anarchism can be proposed or encouraged in it. This was a complete violation of their own ideologies and abuse of one’s own conscience of morality.
Denied Plurality
In their innumerous public commentaries and personal writings, leaders of Hindu Mahasabha quite often uses the term Hindu Rashtra, connoting that this is an essential state for Hindus. By this faulty assessment of their very own country, the Mahasabha continued to deny the magnificent pluralistic character of India which was the foundation of the inherent fabric of its Society. In its remarkable display of being a melting pot of thousand sects and philosophical beliefs over a span of four thousand years, the idea of Indianness out rightly rejects to be an essential Hindu nation. In fact, it never saw itself as a rigid theocratic state ever in its history. During the period of Mayuras, Guptas to the Mughals and the British, religious tolerance was broadly accepted by its magnanimous rulers except few exceptional short lasted regimes like Pushyamitra Sunga’s and Aurangzeb’s. Non Hindu subjects of this country are hardly marginal whether in their numbers or their influence on Indian art, literature and architectural masterpieces. According to B R Ambedkar,” If the Muslims of India are a separate nation,then,off course,India is not a nation.”
The proponents of Hindu Rashtra theory never realized the fact that at one stage, by Persian and Arab travellers, Muslims of India were called “Hindavi Muslims” to distinguish them respectively from Muslims outside India. There are plenty of instances where the British resources where they terms Indian Muslims as Hindoo Moslems!! Muslims in India, over a span of thousand years developed some unique ways of celebrating their religious practices which were no way can be attributed to their Arabic origin. As the Persian chronicler Abdul Lateef Sushtari in the late Eighteenth Century Hyderabad observes with inexplicable horror, the deviation of Indian Muslim Rulers from the rigidity of orthodox Islamic practices and their patronage of Hindu and Buddhist influence on contemporary literature and architecture. Quite distinctly, Muslims in India, surrounded by an obvious Hindu majority were evolved into a moderate society which was largely liberal in their outlook towards religion and its thoughts. This conclusion can quite comprehensively supported by the contemptuous denial of Khilafat Movement in 1920 by the Muslim educated class for its remarkable absurdity and violation of Islamic reformist movement in Egypt by Saad Zhoglul and Turkey by Mostafa Kemal Ataturk.
The very idea of a Hindu Rashtra adopted by Mahasabha and its emphasis on a homogeneous Hindu doctrine can be rejected by the example of eminent Scholar and philosopher of fourteenth century India, Mādhāva Āchārya (Head of religious order in Śringeri,Mysore) introduced his famous Sanskrit treaties Sarvadarśnasamgraha where he emphasizes on the diversity of different systems of Hindu belief. The Hindu philosophers and scholars, during the fourteenth Century Bhakti Movement were inordinately influenced by Sufi schools of thoughts. The extravagant religious amalgamation throughout this period occasioned a hybrid social structure whose importance was venomously rejected by these Religious puritans, furthermore they ignored the obvious presence of a large number of atheists and agnostic Hindus who despised their idea of a delusional nation state.
It was aptly said by Amartya Sen, that “Through their attempts to encourage and exploit separatism,the Hindutva Movement has entered into a confrontation with the idea of India itself.This is nothing sort of sustained effort to miniaturize the broad idea of a large India-proud of its heterodox past and its pluralist present.”
Throughout History, since its beginning, radical Hindu extremist groups remained broadly confused with the idea of Indianness and groped in dark to search for the definition of nationalism, making irreversible errors in every step they made. We can only hope that we learn from our past mistakes and preserve the sentiments of a liberal democratic society where the spirit of religious tolerance and secularism will be accepted and respected so that we never have to feel ashamed of killing any other “Gandhi” in future.
@Joe Shearer @FaujHistorian @Azlan Haider @Ravi Nair @Indischer
Last edited:
