Mahatma Gandhi - Gandhi's Assassination And the Truth
1) Although no one knows it today, it should be noted that Lala Lajpat Rai proposed the partition plan in 1924. The division seems to have happened as per their original plan. In 1925, he became the president of the Hindu Mahasabha. Earlier, he was the founder president of the Punjab Hindu Sabha. The meeting was increasingly anti-Muslim. In fact, they made alliances with the Muslim League.
2) Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar, in his book "Pakistan or Partition of India," published in 1945, also presents the role of partition.
3) Sir Syed proposed binationalism in 1887. He is credited with being the first to articulate binationalism.
4) The later president of Hinduism, Mahasabha Savarkar, was also a supporter of the two-nation theory. He used to say publicly that Hindus and Muslims are two nations. Jinns also picked up the theory of Lala Lajpatrai and Savarkar or found it helpful to their position.
5) Hindu Mahasabha, in alliance with the Muslim League, formed governments in Sindh, North-West Frontier, and Bengal provinces. (1937). In March 1943, the government of Sindh province decided to establish Pakistan. Although there was strong opposition to this resolution, not a single minister of the Hindu Mahasabha resigned in protest. (All these three parts are in today's Pakistan and Bangladesh.)
6) Tilak sowed the seeds of partition (or accepted its inevitability) by signing the Lucknow Pact.
7) Gandhi was against partition till the end. The Hindu Mahasabha also had the idea that there would be a brief partition. In fact, partition was approved. Savarkar's binationalism and the concept of a single Hindu nation could not go hand in hand. Looking at the above points, now the question arises:
Why did Nathuram Godse decide Mahatma Gandhi was responsible for the partition and kill him?
Partition was accepted by the Hindu Mahasabha itself. There may be differences in details, but what were Lala Lajpatrai, Jinnah, and Savarkar saying differently?
He even made an alliance with the Muslim League. Run governments together. Despite Pakistan's resolution, it only showed indirect acceptance without resigning as a protest.
What was the morality of hating Muslims on the one hand and gaining power by allying with the League on the other?
Nathuram was a Savarkar follower. He was a worker for the Hindu Mahasabha. Giving the reason for partition, he killed Gandhi. Considering the above points and the reality, holding Gandhiji responsible for partition became a lie. If responsible, then the Hindu Mahasabha. Because his philosophy was not only favourable to partition itself but an active supporter.
Otherwise, the ministers of the General Assembly would have resigned when the Sindh provincial government proposed the resolution of independent Pakistan and would have resisted. But it didn't happen. That is, partition cannot be the cause of Gandhi's murder. 55 crore is pure delusion.
If you say Muslim persuasion, it has been done by Hindu Mahasabha and Tilak himself. Gandhi was against partition till the end. So the real reasons for Gandhi's assassination have to be found elsewhere. It seems clear that this was a struggle between Gandhiji as a people's hero and the Savarkarist tendency to define himself as a Hindu national hero.
The violent ones won temporarily. Gandhi: Gandhi was assassinated. No one is pro-partition. It is natural for Savarkarists to think that it will be easier to implement their Hindutva (Pakshi Vedic) politics after the partition of India. But the biggest challenge on that path was Gandhi.
So, it is natural that eliminating them has become their priority. That's how they killed Gandhiji. Nathuram was a kind of suicide terrorist pawn. He acted. But those who ordered him or committed violent acts against him remainder nameless. But even after giving false reasons for the murder,
Gandhi's defamation campaign did not end. It continues even today. But those who spread the philosophy of partition are not, and have not been, owners of criticism. It is because of this that we have to realise that this is a crude and dangerous nationalism based on crude but violent partial Vedic values.
Postbox Team
0 Comments