Of all the depressing news going around from the shamelessly smirking DGP S.S. Rathore (a disgrace to humanity and to his uniform) to Shibu Soren auctioning himself to the highest bidder to the Telangana agitation to a governor allegedly caught in a sex scandal, let me initiate – hopefully - a discussion on issues at our doorstep and in our own backyard. I am referring to the BMC.
We read in the papers a few days ago that the Bombay High Court ordered the razing of 17 floors – illegally constructed - of Gagan Gaurav building in the suburb of Kandivli. It was built by Ravi Real Estate Developers [Incidentally, it’s ironical how these guys call themselves ‘developers’]. I read this news with mixed emotions.
Firstly, THREE CHEERS to the Bombay High Court for sending a clear message that illegal constructions will neither be tolerated nor regularised, and for recognising that indiscriminate regularization can have disastrous consequences. Not a moment too soon, I’d say.
Next, SYMPATHY & TEARS for those who had bought the flats in this building. The life savings of many have come to naught, not to speak of the huge burden on those who had availed of housing loans to buy these flats.
Finally, JEERS, BRICKBATS & BOOES for the Municipal Corporation that turned a blind eye to the illegal additions to the sanctioned floor area. The newspapers tell us that the BMC had sanctioned stilt plus seven floors in January 1992. However, during a “routine inspection” in 1997 (a good 5 years later, mind you – these guys are ever soooo busy!) the BMC officers “discovered” that the builders had constructed 24 floors!
Now what I’d like to know is, don’t these BMC officers take rounds to see what is happening? Were these 17 illegal floors so utterly cloaked in invisibility that the officers could not notice this? If you were to so much as put an awning on your balcony you will have these leeches at your doorstep. But 17 illegal floors was something that these fellows did not see, until 5 years later! And why did they wake up 5 years later? Yes, your first guess is probably the right answer.
Gagan Gaurav is not an isolated case. In March 2009, according to the DNA of this December 22, an entire illegal 7-floor wing of Bharat Nagar GHS at Chembur was demolished. Way back in 1996, 8 illegal floors of Pratibha building on Breach Candy were demolished. But this is just a miniature sample of what plagues Bombay. Scratch the surface and you will find that perhaps half the buildings of Bombay are illegal. But are these demolished? Oh no, they are regularized. And why are these not demolished? Again, your first guess is probably the right answer.
Yes, I do agree that as a buyer I should verify the title deeds and all the permissions obtained from the municipal authorities. But then . . . Call me naïve, but I have EXPECTATIONS from the government. I do EXPECT that a corporation functioning under the Government will be vigilant enough to ensure that a builder delivers according to the letter of the law, and in conformity with the permissions granted. And if he does not so deliver, I EXPECT the government or its bodies to come down heavily on the builder – immediately, NOT 10 YEARS LATER! I have never heard or read of such utter fraud and treachery perpetrated upon a buyer in Dubai or London, that too in direct connivance with the local government! I mean, if a passport or a driving license is issued to me I would naturally assume that it was legally issued by a person duly authorized to do so. Call me naïve, BUT I DO HAVE EXPECTATIONS FROM THE GOVERNMENT and government agencies. So, in my view, the responsibility for this open mis-governance lies squarely at the doorstep of the BMC. Multiply this news item a thousand-fold, and you have the true colours of the BMC, and a scam of epic proportions.
So what’s my take on this? Quite simply, it is this:
• File a case against the builder in the civil and criminal courts by the affected parties
• Demand compensation with interest from this rogue
• Run a systematic FB and Twitter campaign highlighting this builder
• Find out through the RTI Act why 17 illegal floors were allowed to come up
• Ask why the Corporator did not act
• Find out which Department of the BMC was responsible
• Identify the officers of the BMC responsible for this fraud
• Initiate a departmental enquiry under the relevant Conduct Rules against them
• File cases against these BMC officers in the civil and criminal courts
• Pressurise the Income Tax Deptt to scrutinize their cases
In short, MAKE THESE GUYS IN THE BMC ACCOUNTABLE. Set the ball rolling. Ask questions. And, above all, demand answers.
Cheers and Merry Christmas.
Friday, December 25, 2009
Sunday, December 20, 2009
GAFOOR’S GAFFES
The knives are out for Hasan Gafoor, former Police Commissioner of Bombay. The ostensible reason is his off-the-record interview where he castigated 4 senior IPS Officers for shirking their responsibility during the 26/11 attack on Bombay.
Mr Gafoor had it coming, and I shall tell you why.
But first, a brief mention about how secure we feel in Bombay. I don’t know about you, but frankly, I feel safe. However, that feeling of security is borne more out of faith in God than an inherent confidence in our police. My confidence is further eroded when I read the strong accusations of incompetence, inefficiency and even conspiracy levelled against the Bombay Police by Mrs. Hemant Karkare and Mrs Ashok Kamte, wives of the killed IPS Officers. I mean, if IPS wives do not have faith in the police force, what about we ordinary folks? Hardly ever has the morale of the Bombay Police, once rated as the best in the country, been so low. Bombay has seen many Police Commissioners – a few were brilliant, some were average, some less than that, a few were the Page 3 butterfly-types, and one or two outright crooks. But never have the Bombay Police been made so much of a laughing stock as now. Mr Julio Ribeiro was the last of the icons – straight-talking, no-nonsense, leading from the front with an I-give-a-bloody-damn-to-the-politicians attitude. Nobody has come anywhere near him, so far. A shame and a pity, for it reflects poorly on the political leadership.
In a face-saving exercise CM Ashok Chavan joined by former DG of Punjab Police Mr KPS Gill grandiosely said the other day that the police are a disciplined force. Pardon me, gentlemen, but this is a view held only by you two! Nobody else, least of all any policeman, anywhere in the country has said so. In the present context it is as laughable as saying that the IT Department will bring Koda and his crores to book! Incidentally, Mr Gill is immortalized not only for his role in tackling extremism in the Punjab but also for supposedly having pinched the bottom of a senior lady IAS officer. He bit off more than he could chew, for the “pinchee” took the pincher right upto the Supreme Court which substantially said that he was guilty of focussing his attention and fingers on the posterior of the lady.
But to come back to Gafoor’s Gaffe. After the stink hit the ceiling Mr Gafoor first denied having said anything bad about the 4 officers, only to admit a few days later that he did say it but that it was in a private conversation off the record. Now, now, wait a minute, Gafoor sa’ab. After 35 years in the IPS, surely you should know that there is no such thing as “off the record”! Politicians can say anything, and get away with it because nobody takes them seriously in any case. But NOT you! And if what you say is true, Mr Gafoor, why did you wait for a whole year to say it? And again, if what you say is true, Mr Gafoor, why have you not taken any action against the 4 Officers for dereliction of duty?
Surely you know that Rule 3(1) of the Central Civil Services (Conduct) Rules says that every Government servant shall at all times maintain absolute integrity, devotion to duty and do nothing which is unbecoming of a Government servant! And if you failed or forgot to take action against them then for violating Rule 3(1), why don’t you do so now?
The aggrieved officers have threatened to take their erstwhile boss to court for defamation, the CM and the Home Minister have certified that the wounded 4 are actually good lads, and one senior officer with a reputation for uprightness threatened to resign if the Government did not back him. What a joke! It is this demoralization and division in the ranks that makes us feel downright insecure. In fact CM Ashok Chavan must ask Mr Gafoor to explain why he treated the alleged dereliction of duty by the 4 officers so casually. Rule 3(2) of the above Rules says that every Government servant shall take all possible steps to ensure the integrity and devotion to duty of all Government servants under his control and authority. Clearly Mr Gafoor has failed in this task.
Now, I grant that most senior Government officers have abysmally failed in this task and have habitually violated Rule 3(2). But when one desists from taking action under the Conduct Rules while at the same time despairing and bemoaning the lack of devotion to duty, it is a different thing altogether. That’s why I say that Mr Gafoor had it coming. Gafoor failed to crack the whip when he should have.
Actually, I feel sorry for Mr Gafoor and his Hamlet-esque inaction, so let me say something in his defence. The CM and the HM have threatened Mr Gafoor with a major penalty, not for not taking action against his subordinates for alleged dereliction of duty but for giving an interview. This is another joke! Demotion and dismissal from service are some of the major penalties, neither of which can be invoked for shooting off the mouth. The foot-in-mouth disease does not call for a major penalty, unless confidential documents or state secrets have been leaked. At worst, Mr Gafoor can be censured - a minor penalty - for giving an interview without prior approval.
I have a suggestion to offer Mr Gafoor. He should start penning his memoirs before 26/11 fades into the misty haze of history. As for the dispensers of jokes in Mantralaya, they should seriously prepare a succession line of Ribeiro-like Commissioners who will turn us ordinary folks into Believers – not only in the Almighty but also in the Bombay Police.
Cheers, and have a safe New Year!
The knives are out for Hasan Gafoor, former Police Commissioner of Bombay. The ostensible reason is his off-the-record interview where he castigated 4 senior IPS Officers for shirking their responsibility during the 26/11 attack on Bombay.
Mr Gafoor had it coming, and I shall tell you why.
But first, a brief mention about how secure we feel in Bombay. I don’t know about you, but frankly, I feel safe. However, that feeling of security is borne more out of faith in God than an inherent confidence in our police. My confidence is further eroded when I read the strong accusations of incompetence, inefficiency and even conspiracy levelled against the Bombay Police by Mrs. Hemant Karkare and Mrs Ashok Kamte, wives of the killed IPS Officers. I mean, if IPS wives do not have faith in the police force, what about we ordinary folks? Hardly ever has the morale of the Bombay Police, once rated as the best in the country, been so low. Bombay has seen many Police Commissioners – a few were brilliant, some were average, some less than that, a few were the Page 3 butterfly-types, and one or two outright crooks. But never have the Bombay Police been made so much of a laughing stock as now. Mr Julio Ribeiro was the last of the icons – straight-talking, no-nonsense, leading from the front with an I-give-a-bloody-damn-to-the-politicians attitude. Nobody has come anywhere near him, so far. A shame and a pity, for it reflects poorly on the political leadership.
In a face-saving exercise CM Ashok Chavan joined by former DG of Punjab Police Mr KPS Gill grandiosely said the other day that the police are a disciplined force. Pardon me, gentlemen, but this is a view held only by you two! Nobody else, least of all any policeman, anywhere in the country has said so. In the present context it is as laughable as saying that the IT Department will bring Koda and his crores to book! Incidentally, Mr Gill is immortalized not only for his role in tackling extremism in the Punjab but also for supposedly having pinched the bottom of a senior lady IAS officer. He bit off more than he could chew, for the “pinchee” took the pincher right upto the Supreme Court which substantially said that he was guilty of focussing his attention and fingers on the posterior of the lady.
But to come back to Gafoor’s Gaffe. After the stink hit the ceiling Mr Gafoor first denied having said anything bad about the 4 officers, only to admit a few days later that he did say it but that it was in a private conversation off the record. Now, now, wait a minute, Gafoor sa’ab. After 35 years in the IPS, surely you should know that there is no such thing as “off the record”! Politicians can say anything, and get away with it because nobody takes them seriously in any case. But NOT you! And if what you say is true, Mr Gafoor, why did you wait for a whole year to say it? And again, if what you say is true, Mr Gafoor, why have you not taken any action against the 4 Officers for dereliction of duty?
Surely you know that Rule 3(1) of the Central Civil Services (Conduct) Rules says that every Government servant shall at all times maintain absolute integrity, devotion to duty and do nothing which is unbecoming of a Government servant! And if you failed or forgot to take action against them then for violating Rule 3(1), why don’t you do so now?
The aggrieved officers have threatened to take their erstwhile boss to court for defamation, the CM and the Home Minister have certified that the wounded 4 are actually good lads, and one senior officer with a reputation for uprightness threatened to resign if the Government did not back him. What a joke! It is this demoralization and division in the ranks that makes us feel downright insecure. In fact CM Ashok Chavan must ask Mr Gafoor to explain why he treated the alleged dereliction of duty by the 4 officers so casually. Rule 3(2) of the above Rules says that every Government servant shall take all possible steps to ensure the integrity and devotion to duty of all Government servants under his control and authority. Clearly Mr Gafoor has failed in this task.
Now, I grant that most senior Government officers have abysmally failed in this task and have habitually violated Rule 3(2). But when one desists from taking action under the Conduct Rules while at the same time despairing and bemoaning the lack of devotion to duty, it is a different thing altogether. That’s why I say that Mr Gafoor had it coming. Gafoor failed to crack the whip when he should have.
Actually, I feel sorry for Mr Gafoor and his Hamlet-esque inaction, so let me say something in his defence. The CM and the HM have threatened Mr Gafoor with a major penalty, not for not taking action against his subordinates for alleged dereliction of duty but for giving an interview. This is another joke! Demotion and dismissal from service are some of the major penalties, neither of which can be invoked for shooting off the mouth. The foot-in-mouth disease does not call for a major penalty, unless confidential documents or state secrets have been leaked. At worst, Mr Gafoor can be censured - a minor penalty - for giving an interview without prior approval.
I have a suggestion to offer Mr Gafoor. He should start penning his memoirs before 26/11 fades into the misty haze of history. As for the dispensers of jokes in Mantralaya, they should seriously prepare a succession line of Ribeiro-like Commissioners who will turn us ordinary folks into Believers – not only in the Almighty but also in the Bombay Police.
Cheers, and have a safe New Year!
Sunday, December 6, 2009
Nathuram Godse - Hero or Hamlet
A friend mailed me the extract from Godse’s defence speech, which is available on Google. I have read it with great interest because I tried to fathom from Godse’s address whether there was any rational basis for his hatred for Gandhi. I must confess I got nowhere.
What was the freedom and the “just interests” of some thirty crore Hindus that Godse was trying to safeguard that were not already there? From the little that I have read of India’s economic history the Hindus were clearly more prosperous and better educated than the Muslims. Where (meaning in what journal or speech) did Gandhi dub Ram, Krishna and Arjun as “guilty” of violence? Similarly, where did Gandhi condemn Shivaji, Rana Pratap and Guru Gobind Singh as misguided patriots?
I really would like to know this from an academic perspective because we need to get our history right - not just a biased view trotted out for decades, but a detached vision of what happened.
I seriously doubt if Gandhi considered himself “infallible”. Time and again he swayed from one point of view to another depending upon the circumstances and the reasons put forward by the protagonists. In fact, Gandhi himself was quick to admit that he was wrong when another better point of view was put across. One could at times call Gandhi wishy-washy, but infallible? I seriously doubt that. On the contrary, Godse established his own twisted sense of “infallibility” by doing the ultimate act of a person who thinks he can never be wrong – he simply shot the person he disagreed with.
By grudgingly admitting that “Either Congress had tosurrender its will to his and had to be content with playing secondfiddle to all his eccentricity, whimsicality, metaphysics andprimitive vision, or it had to carry on without him”, Godse acknowledges Gandhi’s towering leadership. Need one say more? And what kind of a leader is one who does not show the way? Gandhi did, and millions followed. Not many takers for Godse’s thoughts, I must add.
Godse’s diatribe against Hindustani is again as irrational as his dislike for Gandhi. It is said that Sanskrit and Latin are amongst the very few core languages. All other languages are mere derivatives. Indeed, the way a language is spoken undergoes a change every few kilometres. The Arabic spoken in Morocco is different from that spoken in Dubai. The Marathi spoken is Poona is different from what is spoken in Nagpur and Bombay. And English is not the same in England, the US, Canada and Australia. So one really does not know what Godse’s problem with Hindustani was, which is a mix of Urdu and Hindi. Urdu is a mish-mash of Persian-Arabic and Hindi. Hindi itself is far removed from its ancestor Sanskrit. So what really is Godse’s objection? That Gandhi was a communicator par excellence? Besides, do we ourselves talk any pure language today? And what would he have said to the fact that we are communicating today in English! A big question-mark on Godse’s beliefs.
Just about the only thing that I can agree with Godse is when he says that Gandhi “was the master brain guiding the civil disobedience movement; no other could know the technique of that movement. He alone knew when to begin and when to withdraw it”. Now, I cannot make out from his defence speech what Godse had against the civil disobedience movement. Did Godse and Co. have any means to wrench independence by violent means? Did he even try to secure independence, like Bhagat Singh, Rana Pratap and the others did? Hollow beliefs, I must say. But he had the courage to rain bullets on the one person he knew would ‘turn the other cheek’ and not retaliate. Bravo, Mr. Godse!
The civil disobedience movement was unique in history. It attained its objective with the minimum loss of lives and property. It was successfully implemented by Mandela and to a great extent by Martin Luther King.
Now let us look at the flip side. Other colonies attained independence too, through violence – Algeria and Viet Nam from the French, Congo from Belgium, Angola from Portugal, etc. The cost? Enormous, both in terms of lives and material. Can one give any example of any freedom fighter from these countries being accorded a welcome by cheering crowds in the colonial country PRIOR to independence? Gandhi was welcomed so in England, particularly in Liverpool – not by the few Indians residing there but by hordes of Englishmen. Was Godse envious of Gandhi’s steamrolling popularity? Maybe, maybe not. England, I believe, is India’s biggest trading partner. Wonder what Godse would have had to say about that!
It has become fashionable to run down Gandhi. Not surprising, for as an icon he towered far above the rest despite his five-foot nothing frame; and to bring down an icon gives us great satisfaction. Mr. Khosla’s observations that an open trial would have fetched the judgment of “Not Guilty” is neither here nor there. I simply cannot understand how Mr. Khosla says so. Godse shot Gandhi in broad daylight in a public prayer meeting, and the assassination was witnessed by the scores of people present. Above all and most important, Godse – like Pravin Mahajan now - made no attempt to shirk off his act. Godse was not a common criminal, but a highly motivated individual who did what he did for his beliefs, parochial and skewed as they may have been. In fact, it brings the judge Mr. Khosla to disrepute for not having had the moral courage to hold Godse “Not Guilty”, if he thought so.
As for Godse, he will enjoy the same status as John Wilkes Booth – the assassin of Abraham Lincoln – did: as a footnote in history.
Deepak Tralshawala
" "Gandhiji Assassin Nathuram Godse's Final Address to the Court
Nathuram Godse was arrested immediately after he assassinatedGandhiji, based on a F. I. R. filed by Nandlal Mehta at the TughlakRoad Police staton at Delhi . The trial, which was held in camera,began on 27th May 1948 and concluded on 10th February 1949. He wassentenced to death. An appeal to the Punjab High Court, then insession at Simla, did not find favour and the sentence was upheld. The statement that you are about to read is the last made by Godsebefore the Court on the 5th of May 1949. Such was the power andeloquence of this statement that one of the judges, G. D. Khosla,later wrote, "I have, however, no doubt that had the audience of thatday been constituted into a jury and entrusted with the task ofdeciding Godse's appeal, they would have brought a verdict of 'notGuilty' by an overwhelming majority".
WHY I KILLED GANDHI
Born in a devotional Brahmin family, I instinctively came to revereHindu religion, Hindu history and Hindu culture. I had, therefore,been intensely proud of Hinduism as a whole. As I grew up I developeda tendency to free thinking unfettered by any superstitious allegianceto any isms, political or religious. That is why I worked actively forthe eradication of untouchability and the caste system based on birthalone. I openly joined anti-caste movements and maintained that allHindus were of equal status as to rights, social and religious andshould be considered high or low on merit alone and not through theaccident of birth in a particular caste or profession. I used publiclyto take part in organized anti-caste dinners in which thousands ofHindus, Brahmins, Kshatriyas, Vaisyas, Chamars and Bhangisparticipated. We broke the caste rules and dined in the company ofeach other. I have read the speeches and writings of Dadabhai Naoroji,Vivekanand, Gokhale, Tilak, along with the books of ancient and modernhistory of India and some prominent countries like England , France ,America and Russia . Moreover I studied the tenets of Socialism andMarxism. But above all I studied very closely whatever Veer Savarkarand Gandhiji had written and spoken, as to my mind these twoideologies have contributed more to the moulding of the thought andaction of the Indian people during the last thirty years or so, thanany other single factor has done.
All this reading and thinking led me to believe it was my first dutyto serve Hindudom and Hindus both as a patriot and as a world citizen.To secure the freedom and to safeguard the just interests of somethirty crores (300 million) of Hindus would automatically constitutethe freedom and the well-being of all India , one fifth of human race.This conviction led me naturally to devote myself to the HinduSanghtanist ideology and programme, which alone, I came to believe,could win and preserve the national independence of Hindustan , myMotherland, and enable her to render true service to humanity as well. Since the year 1920, that is, after the demise of Lokamanya Tilak,Gandhiji's influence in the Congress first increased and then becamesupreme. His activities for public awakening were phenomenal in theirintensity and were reinforced by the slogan of truth and non-violencewhich he paraded ostentatiously before the country. No sensible orenlightened person could object to those slogans. In fact there isnothing new or original in them. They are implicit in everyconstitutional public movement. But it is nothing but a mere dream ifyou imagine that the bulk of mankind is, or can ever become, capableof scrupulous adherence to these lofty principles in its normal lifefrom day to day. In fact, honour, duty and love of one's own kith and kin and countrymight often compel us to disregard non-violence and to use force. Icould never conceive that an armed resistance to an aggression isunjust. I would consider it a religious and moral duty to resist and,if possible, to overpower such an enemy by use of force. [In theRamayana] Rama killed Ravana in a tumultuous fight and relieved Sita..[In the Mahabharata], Krishna killed Kansa to end his wickedness; andArjuna had to fight and slay quite a number of his friends andrelations including the revered Bhishma because the latter was on theside of the aggressor. It is my firm belief that in dubbing Rama,Krishna and Arjuna as guilty of violence, the Mahatma betrayed a totalignorance of the springs of human action. In more recent history, itwas the heroic fight put up by Chhatrapati Shivaji that first checkedand eventually destroyed the Muslim tyranny in India. It wasabsolutely essentially for Shivaji to overpower and kill an aggressiveAfzal Khan, failing which he would have lost his own life. Incondemning history's towering warriors like Shivaji, Rana Pratap andGuru Gobind Singh as misguided patriots, Gandhiji has merely exposedhis self-conceit. He was, paradoxical as it may appear, a violentpacifist who brought untold calamities on the country in the name oftruth and non-violence, while Rana Pratap, Shivaji and the Guru willremain enshrined in the hearts of their countrymen for ever for thefreedom they brought to them.
The accumulating provocation of thirty-two years, culminating in hislast pro-Muslim fast, at last goaded me to the conclusion that theexistence of Gandhi should be brought to an end immediately. Gandhihad done very good in South Africa to uphold the rights and well-beingof the Indian community there. But when he finally returned to Indiahe developed a subjective mentality under which he alone was to be thefinal judge of what was right or wrong. If the country wanted hisleadership, it had to accept his infallibility; if it did not, hewould stand aloof from the Congress and carry on his own way. Againstsuch an attitude there can be no halfway house. Either Congress had tosurrender its will to his and had to be content with playing secondfiddle to all his eccentricity, whimsicality, metaphysics andprimitive vision, or it had to carry on without him. He alone was theJudge of everyone and every thing; he was the master brain guiding thecivil disobedience movement; no other could know the technique of thatmovement. He alone knew when to begin and when to withdraw it. Themovement might succeed or fail, it might bring untold disaster andpolitical reverses but that could make no difference to the Mahatma'sinfallibility. 'A Satyagrahi can never fail' was his formula fordeclaring his own infallibility and nobody except himself knew what aSatyagrahi is. Thus, the Mahatma became the judge and jury in his owncause. These childish insanities and obstinacies, coupled with a mostsevere austerity of life, ceaseless work and lofty character madeGandhi formidable and irresistible. Many people thought that hispolitics were irrational but they had either to withdraw from theCongress or place their intelligence at his feet to do with as heliked. In a position of such absolute irresponsibility Gandhi wasguilty of blunder after blunder, failure after failure, disaster afterdisaster.
Gandhi's pro-Muslim policy is blatantly in his perverseattitude on the question of the national language of India. It isquite obvious that Hindi has the most prior claim to be accepted asthe premier language. In the beginning of his career in India, Gandhigave a great impetus to Hindi but as he found that the Muslims did notlike it, he became a champion of what is called Hindustani. Everybodyin India knows that there is no language called Hindustani; it has nogrammar; it has no vocabulary. It is a mere dialect; it is spoken, butnot written. It is a bastard tongue and cross-breed between Hindi andUrdu, and not even the Mahatma's sophistry could make it popular. Butin his desire to please the Muslims he insisted that Hindustani aloneshould be the national language of India. His blind followers, ofcourse, supported him and the so-called hybrid language began to beused. The charm and purity of the Hindi language was to be prostituted toplease the Muslims. All his experiments were at the expense of theHindus. From August 1946 onwards the private armies of the MuslimLeague began a massacre of the Hindus. The then Viceroy, Lord Wavell,though distressed at what was happening, would not use his powersunder the Government of India Act of 1935 to prevent the rape, murderand arson. The Hindu blood began to flow from Bengal to Karachi withsome retaliation by the Hindus. The Interim Government formed inSeptember was sabotaged by its Muslim League members right from itsinception, but the more they became disloyal and treasonable to thegovernment of which they were a part, the greater was Gandhi'sinfatuation for them. Lord Wavell had to resign as he could not bringabout a settlement and he was succeeded by Lord Mountbatten. King Logwas followed by King Stork. The Congress which had boasted of itsnationalism and socialism secretly accepted Pakistan literally at thepoint of the bayonet and abjectly surrendered to Jinnah. India wasvivisected and one-third of the Indian territory became foreign landto us from August 15, 1947. Lord Mountbatten came to be described in Congress circles as thegreatest Viceroy and Governor-General this country ever had. Theofficial date for handing over power was fixed for June 30, 1948, butMountbatten with his ruthless surgery gave us a gift of vivisectedIndia ten months in advance. This is what Gandhi had achieved afterthirty years of undisputed dictatorship and this is what Congressparty calls 'freedom' and 'peaceful transfer of power'. TheHindu-Muslim unity bubble was finally burst and a theocratic state wasestablished with the consent of Nehru and his crowd and they havecalled 'freedom won by them with sacrifice' - whose sacrifice? Whentop leaders of Congress, with the consent of Gandhi, divided and torethe country - which we consider a deity of worship - my mind wasfilled with direful anger. One of the conditions imposed by Gandhi for his breaking of the fastunto death related to the mosques in Delhi occupied by the Hindurefugees. But when Hindus in Pakistan were subjected to violentattacks he did not so much as utter a single word to protest andcensure the Pakistan Government or the Muslims concerned. Gandhi wasshrewd enough to know that while undertaking a fast unto death, had heimposed for its break some condition on the Muslims in Pakistan ,there would have been found hardly any Muslims who could have shownsome grief if the fast had ended in his death. It was for this reasonthat he purposely avoided imposing any condition on the Muslims. Hewas fully aware of from the experience that Jinnah was not at allperturbed or influenced by his fast and the Muslim League hardlyattached any value to the inner voice of Gandhi. Gandhi is beingreferred to as the Father of the Nation. But if that is so, he hadfailed his paternal duty inasmuch as he has acted very treacherouslyto the nation by his consenting to the partitioning of it.
I stoutly maintain that Gandhi has failed in his duty. He has proved to be theFather of Pakistan. His inner-voice, his spiritual power and hisdoctrine of non-violence of which so much is made of, all crumbledbefore Jinnah's iron will and proved to be powerless. Brieflyspeaking, I thought to myself and foresaw I shall be totally ruined,and the only thing I could expect from the people would be nothing buthatred and that I shall have lost all my honour, even more valuablethan my life, if I were to kill Gandhiji. But at the same time I feltthat the Indian politics in the absence of Gandhiji would surely beproved practical, able to retaliate, and would be powerful with armedforces. No doubt, my own future would be totally ruined, but thenation would be saved from the inroads of Pakistan . People may evencall me and dub me as devoid of any sense or foolish, but the nationwould be free to follow the course founded on the reason which Iconsider to be necessary for sound nation-building. After having fullyconsidered the question, I took the final decision in the matter, butI did not speak about it to anyone whatsoever. I took courage in bothmy hands and I did fire the shots at Gandhiji on 30th January 1948, onthe prayer-grounds of Birla House. I do say that my shots were firedat the person whose policy and action had brought rack and ruin anddestruction to millions of Hindus. There was no legal machinery bywhich such an offender could be brought to book and for this reason Ifired those fatal shots. I bear no ill will towards anyone individually but I do say that I had no respect for the presentgovernment owing to their policy which was unfairly favourable towardsthe Muslims. But at the same time I could clearly see that the policywas entirely due to the presence of Gandhi.
sammy parekh " "
What was the freedom and the “just interests” of some thirty crore Hindus that Godse was trying to safeguard that were not already there? From the little that I have read of India’s economic history the Hindus were clearly more prosperous and better educated than the Muslims. Where (meaning in what journal or speech) did Gandhi dub Ram, Krishna and Arjun as “guilty” of violence? Similarly, where did Gandhi condemn Shivaji, Rana Pratap and Guru Gobind Singh as misguided patriots?
I really would like to know this from an academic perspective because we need to get our history right - not just a biased view trotted out for decades, but a detached vision of what happened.
I seriously doubt if Gandhi considered himself “infallible”. Time and again he swayed from one point of view to another depending upon the circumstances and the reasons put forward by the protagonists. In fact, Gandhi himself was quick to admit that he was wrong when another better point of view was put across. One could at times call Gandhi wishy-washy, but infallible? I seriously doubt that. On the contrary, Godse established his own twisted sense of “infallibility” by doing the ultimate act of a person who thinks he can never be wrong – he simply shot the person he disagreed with.
By grudgingly admitting that “Either Congress had tosurrender its will to his and had to be content with playing secondfiddle to all his eccentricity, whimsicality, metaphysics andprimitive vision, or it had to carry on without him”, Godse acknowledges Gandhi’s towering leadership. Need one say more? And what kind of a leader is one who does not show the way? Gandhi did, and millions followed. Not many takers for Godse’s thoughts, I must add.
Godse’s diatribe against Hindustani is again as irrational as his dislike for Gandhi. It is said that Sanskrit and Latin are amongst the very few core languages. All other languages are mere derivatives. Indeed, the way a language is spoken undergoes a change every few kilometres. The Arabic spoken in Morocco is different from that spoken in Dubai. The Marathi spoken is Poona is different from what is spoken in Nagpur and Bombay. And English is not the same in England, the US, Canada and Australia. So one really does not know what Godse’s problem with Hindustani was, which is a mix of Urdu and Hindi. Urdu is a mish-mash of Persian-Arabic and Hindi. Hindi itself is far removed from its ancestor Sanskrit. So what really is Godse’s objection? That Gandhi was a communicator par excellence? Besides, do we ourselves talk any pure language today? And what would he have said to the fact that we are communicating today in English! A big question-mark on Godse’s beliefs.
Just about the only thing that I can agree with Godse is when he says that Gandhi “was the master brain guiding the civil disobedience movement; no other could know the technique of that movement. He alone knew when to begin and when to withdraw it”. Now, I cannot make out from his defence speech what Godse had against the civil disobedience movement. Did Godse and Co. have any means to wrench independence by violent means? Did he even try to secure independence, like Bhagat Singh, Rana Pratap and the others did? Hollow beliefs, I must say. But he had the courage to rain bullets on the one person he knew would ‘turn the other cheek’ and not retaliate. Bravo, Mr. Godse!
The civil disobedience movement was unique in history. It attained its objective with the minimum loss of lives and property. It was successfully implemented by Mandela and to a great extent by Martin Luther King.
Now let us look at the flip side. Other colonies attained independence too, through violence – Algeria and Viet Nam from the French, Congo from Belgium, Angola from Portugal, etc. The cost? Enormous, both in terms of lives and material. Can one give any example of any freedom fighter from these countries being accorded a welcome by cheering crowds in the colonial country PRIOR to independence? Gandhi was welcomed so in England, particularly in Liverpool – not by the few Indians residing there but by hordes of Englishmen. Was Godse envious of Gandhi’s steamrolling popularity? Maybe, maybe not. England, I believe, is India’s biggest trading partner. Wonder what Godse would have had to say about that!
It has become fashionable to run down Gandhi. Not surprising, for as an icon he towered far above the rest despite his five-foot nothing frame; and to bring down an icon gives us great satisfaction. Mr. Khosla’s observations that an open trial would have fetched the judgment of “Not Guilty” is neither here nor there. I simply cannot understand how Mr. Khosla says so. Godse shot Gandhi in broad daylight in a public prayer meeting, and the assassination was witnessed by the scores of people present. Above all and most important, Godse – like Pravin Mahajan now - made no attempt to shirk off his act. Godse was not a common criminal, but a highly motivated individual who did what he did for his beliefs, parochial and skewed as they may have been. In fact, it brings the judge Mr. Khosla to disrepute for not having had the moral courage to hold Godse “Not Guilty”, if he thought so.
As for Godse, he will enjoy the same status as John Wilkes Booth – the assassin of Abraham Lincoln – did: as a footnote in history.
Deepak Tralshawala
" "Gandhiji Assassin Nathuram Godse's Final Address to the Court
Nathuram Godse was arrested immediately after he assassinatedGandhiji, based on a F. I. R. filed by Nandlal Mehta at the TughlakRoad Police staton at Delhi . The trial, which was held in camera,began on 27th May 1948 and concluded on 10th February 1949. He wassentenced to death. An appeal to the Punjab High Court, then insession at Simla, did not find favour and the sentence was upheld. The statement that you are about to read is the last made by Godsebefore the Court on the 5th of May 1949. Such was the power andeloquence of this statement that one of the judges, G. D. Khosla,later wrote, "I have, however, no doubt that had the audience of thatday been constituted into a jury and entrusted with the task ofdeciding Godse's appeal, they would have brought a verdict of 'notGuilty' by an overwhelming majority".
WHY I KILLED GANDHI
Born in a devotional Brahmin family, I instinctively came to revereHindu religion, Hindu history and Hindu culture. I had, therefore,been intensely proud of Hinduism as a whole. As I grew up I developeda tendency to free thinking unfettered by any superstitious allegianceto any isms, political or religious. That is why I worked actively forthe eradication of untouchability and the caste system based on birthalone. I openly joined anti-caste movements and maintained that allHindus were of equal status as to rights, social and religious andshould be considered high or low on merit alone and not through theaccident of birth in a particular caste or profession. I used publiclyto take part in organized anti-caste dinners in which thousands ofHindus, Brahmins, Kshatriyas, Vaisyas, Chamars and Bhangisparticipated. We broke the caste rules and dined in the company ofeach other. I have read the speeches and writings of Dadabhai Naoroji,Vivekanand, Gokhale, Tilak, along with the books of ancient and modernhistory of India and some prominent countries like England , France ,America and Russia . Moreover I studied the tenets of Socialism andMarxism. But above all I studied very closely whatever Veer Savarkarand Gandhiji had written and spoken, as to my mind these twoideologies have contributed more to the moulding of the thought andaction of the Indian people during the last thirty years or so, thanany other single factor has done.
All this reading and thinking led me to believe it was my first dutyto serve Hindudom and Hindus both as a patriot and as a world citizen.To secure the freedom and to safeguard the just interests of somethirty crores (300 million) of Hindus would automatically constitutethe freedom and the well-being of all India , one fifth of human race.This conviction led me naturally to devote myself to the HinduSanghtanist ideology and programme, which alone, I came to believe,could win and preserve the national independence of Hindustan , myMotherland, and enable her to render true service to humanity as well. Since the year 1920, that is, after the demise of Lokamanya Tilak,Gandhiji's influence in the Congress first increased and then becamesupreme. His activities for public awakening were phenomenal in theirintensity and were reinforced by the slogan of truth and non-violencewhich he paraded ostentatiously before the country. No sensible orenlightened person could object to those slogans. In fact there isnothing new or original in them. They are implicit in everyconstitutional public movement. But it is nothing but a mere dream ifyou imagine that the bulk of mankind is, or can ever become, capableof scrupulous adherence to these lofty principles in its normal lifefrom day to day. In fact, honour, duty and love of one's own kith and kin and countrymight often compel us to disregard non-violence and to use force. Icould never conceive that an armed resistance to an aggression isunjust. I would consider it a religious and moral duty to resist and,if possible, to overpower such an enemy by use of force. [In theRamayana] Rama killed Ravana in a tumultuous fight and relieved Sita..[In the Mahabharata], Krishna killed Kansa to end his wickedness; andArjuna had to fight and slay quite a number of his friends andrelations including the revered Bhishma because the latter was on theside of the aggressor. It is my firm belief that in dubbing Rama,Krishna and Arjuna as guilty of violence, the Mahatma betrayed a totalignorance of the springs of human action. In more recent history, itwas the heroic fight put up by Chhatrapati Shivaji that first checkedand eventually destroyed the Muslim tyranny in India. It wasabsolutely essentially for Shivaji to overpower and kill an aggressiveAfzal Khan, failing which he would have lost his own life. Incondemning history's towering warriors like Shivaji, Rana Pratap andGuru Gobind Singh as misguided patriots, Gandhiji has merely exposedhis self-conceit. He was, paradoxical as it may appear, a violentpacifist who brought untold calamities on the country in the name oftruth and non-violence, while Rana Pratap, Shivaji and the Guru willremain enshrined in the hearts of their countrymen for ever for thefreedom they brought to them.
The accumulating provocation of thirty-two years, culminating in hislast pro-Muslim fast, at last goaded me to the conclusion that theexistence of Gandhi should be brought to an end immediately. Gandhihad done very good in South Africa to uphold the rights and well-beingof the Indian community there. But when he finally returned to Indiahe developed a subjective mentality under which he alone was to be thefinal judge of what was right or wrong. If the country wanted hisleadership, it had to accept his infallibility; if it did not, hewould stand aloof from the Congress and carry on his own way. Againstsuch an attitude there can be no halfway house. Either Congress had tosurrender its will to his and had to be content with playing secondfiddle to all his eccentricity, whimsicality, metaphysics andprimitive vision, or it had to carry on without him. He alone was theJudge of everyone and every thing; he was the master brain guiding thecivil disobedience movement; no other could know the technique of thatmovement. He alone knew when to begin and when to withdraw it. Themovement might succeed or fail, it might bring untold disaster andpolitical reverses but that could make no difference to the Mahatma'sinfallibility. 'A Satyagrahi can never fail' was his formula fordeclaring his own infallibility and nobody except himself knew what aSatyagrahi is. Thus, the Mahatma became the judge and jury in his owncause. These childish insanities and obstinacies, coupled with a mostsevere austerity of life, ceaseless work and lofty character madeGandhi formidable and irresistible. Many people thought that hispolitics were irrational but they had either to withdraw from theCongress or place their intelligence at his feet to do with as heliked. In a position of such absolute irresponsibility Gandhi wasguilty of blunder after blunder, failure after failure, disaster afterdisaster.
Gandhi's pro-Muslim policy is blatantly in his perverseattitude on the question of the national language of India. It isquite obvious that Hindi has the most prior claim to be accepted asthe premier language. In the beginning of his career in India, Gandhigave a great impetus to Hindi but as he found that the Muslims did notlike it, he became a champion of what is called Hindustani. Everybodyin India knows that there is no language called Hindustani; it has nogrammar; it has no vocabulary. It is a mere dialect; it is spoken, butnot written. It is a bastard tongue and cross-breed between Hindi andUrdu, and not even the Mahatma's sophistry could make it popular. Butin his desire to please the Muslims he insisted that Hindustani aloneshould be the national language of India. His blind followers, ofcourse, supported him and the so-called hybrid language began to beused. The charm and purity of the Hindi language was to be prostituted toplease the Muslims. All his experiments were at the expense of theHindus. From August 1946 onwards the private armies of the MuslimLeague began a massacre of the Hindus. The then Viceroy, Lord Wavell,though distressed at what was happening, would not use his powersunder the Government of India Act of 1935 to prevent the rape, murderand arson. The Hindu blood began to flow from Bengal to Karachi withsome retaliation by the Hindus. The Interim Government formed inSeptember was sabotaged by its Muslim League members right from itsinception, but the more they became disloyal and treasonable to thegovernment of which they were a part, the greater was Gandhi'sinfatuation for them. Lord Wavell had to resign as he could not bringabout a settlement and he was succeeded by Lord Mountbatten. King Logwas followed by King Stork. The Congress which had boasted of itsnationalism and socialism secretly accepted Pakistan literally at thepoint of the bayonet and abjectly surrendered to Jinnah. India wasvivisected and one-third of the Indian territory became foreign landto us from August 15, 1947. Lord Mountbatten came to be described in Congress circles as thegreatest Viceroy and Governor-General this country ever had. Theofficial date for handing over power was fixed for June 30, 1948, butMountbatten with his ruthless surgery gave us a gift of vivisectedIndia ten months in advance. This is what Gandhi had achieved afterthirty years of undisputed dictatorship and this is what Congressparty calls 'freedom' and 'peaceful transfer of power'. TheHindu-Muslim unity bubble was finally burst and a theocratic state wasestablished with the consent of Nehru and his crowd and they havecalled 'freedom won by them with sacrifice' - whose sacrifice? Whentop leaders of Congress, with the consent of Gandhi, divided and torethe country - which we consider a deity of worship - my mind wasfilled with direful anger. One of the conditions imposed by Gandhi for his breaking of the fastunto death related to the mosques in Delhi occupied by the Hindurefugees. But when Hindus in Pakistan were subjected to violentattacks he did not so much as utter a single word to protest andcensure the Pakistan Government or the Muslims concerned. Gandhi wasshrewd enough to know that while undertaking a fast unto death, had heimposed for its break some condition on the Muslims in Pakistan ,there would have been found hardly any Muslims who could have shownsome grief if the fast had ended in his death. It was for this reasonthat he purposely avoided imposing any condition on the Muslims. Hewas fully aware of from the experience that Jinnah was not at allperturbed or influenced by his fast and the Muslim League hardlyattached any value to the inner voice of Gandhi. Gandhi is beingreferred to as the Father of the Nation. But if that is so, he hadfailed his paternal duty inasmuch as he has acted very treacherouslyto the nation by his consenting to the partitioning of it.
I stoutly maintain that Gandhi has failed in his duty. He has proved to be theFather of Pakistan. His inner-voice, his spiritual power and hisdoctrine of non-violence of which so much is made of, all crumbledbefore Jinnah's iron will and proved to be powerless. Brieflyspeaking, I thought to myself and foresaw I shall be totally ruined,and the only thing I could expect from the people would be nothing buthatred and that I shall have lost all my honour, even more valuablethan my life, if I were to kill Gandhiji. But at the same time I feltthat the Indian politics in the absence of Gandhiji would surely beproved practical, able to retaliate, and would be powerful with armedforces. No doubt, my own future would be totally ruined, but thenation would be saved from the inroads of Pakistan . People may evencall me and dub me as devoid of any sense or foolish, but the nationwould be free to follow the course founded on the reason which Iconsider to be necessary for sound nation-building. After having fullyconsidered the question, I took the final decision in the matter, butI did not speak about it to anyone whatsoever. I took courage in bothmy hands and I did fire the shots at Gandhiji on 30th January 1948, onthe prayer-grounds of Birla House. I do say that my shots were firedat the person whose policy and action had brought rack and ruin anddestruction to millions of Hindus. There was no legal machinery bywhich such an offender could be brought to book and for this reason Ifired those fatal shots. I bear no ill will towards anyone individually but I do say that I had no respect for the presentgovernment owing to their policy which was unfairly favourable towardsthe Muslims. But at the same time I could clearly see that the policywas entirely due to the presence of Gandhi.
sammy parekh " "
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)