What do you think?
Rate this book
Why I Killed the Mahatma- Uncovering Godse's Defence
The elucidation of Godse’s political testament becomes the methodology adopted by Dr Elst to engage in a wide-ranging and thoughtful discussion of the politics and ideology of India in the immediate decades before independence and the period after its attainment in 1947.
It is common knowledge that Mahatma Gandhi was shot dead in 1948 by a Hindu militant, shortly after India had both gained her independence and lost nearly a quarter of her territory to the new state of Pakistan. Lesser known is assassin Nathuram Godse’s motive. Until now, no publication has dealt with this question, except for the naked text of Godse’s own defence speech during his trial. It didn’t save him from the hangman, but still contains substantive arguments against the facile glorification of the Mahatma.
Dr Koenraad Elst compares Godse’s case against Gandhi with criticisms voiced in wider circles, and with historical data known at the time or brought to light since. While the Mahatma was extolled by the Hindu masses, political leaders of divergent persuasions who had had dealings with him were less enthusiastic. Their sobering views would have become the received wisdom about the Mahatma if he hadn’t been martyred. Yet, the author also presents some new considerations in Gandhi’s defence from unexpected quarters.
It is common knowledge that Mahatma Gandhi was shot dead in 1948 by a Hindu militant, shortly after India had both gained her independence and lost nearly a quarter of her territory to the new state of Pakistan. Lesser known is assassin Nathuram Godse’s motive. Until now, no publication has dealt with this question, except for the naked text of Godse’s own defence speech during his trial. It didn’t save him from the hangman, but still contains substantive arguments against the facile glorification of the Mahatma.
Dr Koenraad Elst compares Godse’s case against Gandhi with criticisms voiced in wider circles, and with historical data known at the time or brought to light since. While the Mahatma was extolled by the Hindu masses, political leaders of divergent persuasions who had had dealings with him were less enthusiastic. Their sobering views would have become the received wisdom about the Mahatma if he hadn’t been martyred. Yet, the author also presents some new considerations in Gandhi’s defence from unexpected quarters.
251 pages, Hardcover
First published January 1, 2001
397 people are currently reading
785 people want to read
About the author
Koenraad Elst
41 books158 followersFlemish writer and orientalist (without institutional affiliation).
Koenraad Elst was an editor of the New Right Flemish nationalist journal Tekos 1992 to 1995 and also contributed to other Flemish seperatist publications like Nucleus, 't Pallieterke, Secessie and The Brussels Journal.
Koenraad Elst is one of the most well-known western writers to actively defend the Hindutva movement.
Koenraad Elst was an editor of the New Right Flemish nationalist journal Tekos 1992 to 1995 and also contributed to other Flemish seperatist publications like Nucleus, 't Pallieterke, Secessie and The Brussels Journal.
Koenraad Elst is one of the most well-known western writers to actively defend the Hindutva movement.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 60 reviews
December 1, 2018
It’s our history which was not told to us. We deserve to know our history as it was and not the changed version. We were taught in our schools that Godse was a bad man as he killed him. Why we were never told why he killed Gandhi? Let the people decide whether he was right or wrong.
For several years these writings or statements were under ban. People should know about the killing.
“The press carried portions of the statement the next day. Both the intelligent calss and mass which were kept in dark came to know of the stand of Godse. They also came to know that he had not denied the charge of assassinating Gandhi. Jawarharlal Nehru was the prime minister of India at that time. On his directions, state after state banned the publication of his statement, in part or in full. After hearing the statement of Godse. No sooner the judges returned to their chambers, the police pounced on the press reporters, snatched their note books and tore them into pieces. They threatened the persons of true reporting”.
Banning or hiding the portions of history is no solution.
Just remember there are always two sides to every story. And most the time no one is completely innocent. Just don't ever second guess it. Most of us knew only one sided truth but if someone wants to discover another side, this is the book.
I was enlightened by the information provided in this book. I am not against Gandhi but undoubtedly blinded by his ideology of non-violence he made many large mistakes which has been deliberately hidden from public knowledge. Read this book to know the other side of story.
Readers should read this book to know the reality. Don’t listen to others what they say. Read this book to educate yourself. You are the one who decide not others. Form your own opinion after reading this book. Everyone should read it, not just Indians.
For several years these writings or statements were under ban. People should know about the killing.
“The press carried portions of the statement the next day. Both the intelligent calss and mass which were kept in dark came to know of the stand of Godse. They also came to know that he had not denied the charge of assassinating Gandhi. Jawarharlal Nehru was the prime minister of India at that time. On his directions, state after state banned the publication of his statement, in part or in full. After hearing the statement of Godse. No sooner the judges returned to their chambers, the police pounced on the press reporters, snatched their note books and tore them into pieces. They threatened the persons of true reporting”.
Banning or hiding the portions of history is no solution.
Just remember there are always two sides to every story. And most the time no one is completely innocent. Just don't ever second guess it. Most of us knew only one sided truth but if someone wants to discover another side, this is the book.
I was enlightened by the information provided in this book. I am not against Gandhi but undoubtedly blinded by his ideology of non-violence he made many large mistakes which has been deliberately hidden from public knowledge. Read this book to know the other side of story.
Readers should read this book to know the reality. Don’t listen to others what they say. Read this book to educate yourself. You are the one who decide not others. Form your own opinion after reading this book. Everyone should read it, not just Indians.
May 31, 2018
The assassination of Mahatma Gandhi is an event that redefined India's political history like no other. Amidst the obvious protests, hatred and condemnation on the death of the father of the nation throughout the years, followed by the Govt. banning any literature that talked about the assassin and the incident, today, there has also been a section of people that immensely supports Godse's action. From Godse's own justifications for the murder during his trial to the countless reasoning of his supporters, the speculations have run far and wide that often one isn't sure what the truth is and what a blatant lie.
In Why I Killed The Mahatma, Koenraad Elst attempts to uncover the events that led to the assassination of Mahatma Gandhi. He dwells deep into the past of Godse, divulging details that shaped his opinions about Gandhi. He carefully analyzes Godse's justifications and supports with facts the points that are true, while at the same time points out the loopholes and exaggerations in his statements. He explains in great lengths the judgemental errors, unforgivable blunders and the stubbornness of Gandhi that changed India for the worst. He time and again quotes prominent figures like Ambedkar, Sita Ram Goel, etc who were against and in support of Gandhi respectively.
What I loved the most about the book is that the author does not try to shove his or any other renowned figure's opinions down the throat of the readers. Rather, he gives the readers the freedom to read all the facts, with an insight into both sides of the story, and to judge for themselves. The author does not care whose side we are on, his intentions are only to bring the truth to light. And for this very reason, I highly recommend this book to anyone who wants to learn more about the assassination of Mahatma Gandhi and is looking for an unbiased opinion.
In Why I Killed The Mahatma, Koenraad Elst attempts to uncover the events that led to the assassination of Mahatma Gandhi. He dwells deep into the past of Godse, divulging details that shaped his opinions about Gandhi. He carefully analyzes Godse's justifications and supports with facts the points that are true, while at the same time points out the loopholes and exaggerations in his statements. He explains in great lengths the judgemental errors, unforgivable blunders and the stubbornness of Gandhi that changed India for the worst. He time and again quotes prominent figures like Ambedkar, Sita Ram Goel, etc who were against and in support of Gandhi respectively.
What I loved the most about the book is that the author does not try to shove his or any other renowned figure's opinions down the throat of the readers. Rather, he gives the readers the freedom to read all the facts, with an insight into both sides of the story, and to judge for themselves. The author does not care whose side we are on, his intentions are only to bring the truth to light. And for this very reason, I highly recommend this book to anyone who wants to learn more about the assassination of Mahatma Gandhi and is looking for an unbiased opinion.
February 9, 2018
In the history of United States, four sitting Presidents have been assassinated and media & the pop culture has never shied away from talking about the assassins.
Cut to India, a certain man named Nathuram Godse, a renowned nationalist and social worker, assassinated probably the most famous world leader of that time, Mahatma Gandhi, on January 30th, 1948. Yet through all these years, the government has relentlessly banned or censored any literature related to the infamous man and the incident. So why is there such a thick coat of secrecy over such an important part of history?
Dissecting the reasons and beyond, is this new release from Rupa Publications, "Why I Killed the Mahatma- Uncovering Godse's Defence" by Koenraad Elst and my review is down below.
https://rareadssite.wordpress.com/201...
Cut to India, a certain man named Nathuram Godse, a renowned nationalist and social worker, assassinated probably the most famous world leader of that time, Mahatma Gandhi, on January 30th, 1948. Yet through all these years, the government has relentlessly banned or censored any literature related to the infamous man and the incident. So why is there such a thick coat of secrecy over such an important part of history?
Dissecting the reasons and beyond, is this new release from Rupa Publications, "Why I Killed the Mahatma- Uncovering Godse's Defence" by Koenraad Elst and my review is down below.
https://rareadssite.wordpress.com/201...
June 21, 2019
Great book.
Suppressed truth should be known and lies should be countered. Read this book to educate yourself. It will changed your perspective. It is such a shame that we live in biased distorted world. This book will change your thinking.
Suppressed truth should be known and lies should be countered. Read this book to educate yourself. It will changed your perspective. It is such a shame that we live in biased distorted world. This book will change your thinking.
August 26, 2015
'Gandhi and Godse' is a critical analysis of Nathuram Godse's speech (of why he assasinated Gandhiji). Koenraad Elst attempts to determine how much of the accusations leveled by Godse are true. In a way this book is also a critique of Gandhi's policies. After Gandhi was assasinated, he was raised to the level of a saint and any criticism of his policies after that was considered blasphemy. It is only in recent times that some authors have tried to analyse Gandhi's policies vis-a-vis the Freedom Movement, Partition, Hindu-Muslim unity etc. This book is one of them, although not a detailed one. As I progressed with the book, I realised that Godse wasn't alone in criticizing Gandhi. And Godse wasn't a total nut-job. Many sane voices of that time shared Godse's views (with the exception that none of them were driven to murder Gandhi). Elst tells us why Godse's anger over Gandhi lending support to the Khilafat Movement was justified. We come to know how Gandhi failed to use his most potent weapon of 'fast unto death' against the Muslim League to prevent Partition or the bloody riots (He used this weapon only to coerce his followers and admirers). Elst strongly agrues that some of Gandhi's gestures amounted to minority appeasement which the Muslim League fully took advantage of. There are many such instances where Gandhi's actions were politically naive, and this lead to Godse's disillusionment. As I mentioned before, this book is not a detailed analysis, rather a concise one. The various sources that Elst uses to make his analysis are a treasure! Anyone interested in more details would do well to peruse those books.
Although concise, this is a great book, and one must acknowledge Elst's endeavour in bringing out this analysis.
Although concise, this is a great book, and one must acknowledge Elst's endeavour in bringing out this analysis.
March 10, 2021
India's independence from British rule in 1947 was hard won, but was marked with heavy bloodshed in the partitioned provinces. Though Partition was accepted and approved by Indian leaders as a necessary evil, they were perplexed by the rivers of blood that flowed across its eastern and western borders. The atmosphere was highly charged that forced political leaders little leeway other than toeing the official line in their dealings with the other nation. Gandhi, rightly or wrongly, stuck to his principle of truth and demanded that it be extended to the sphere of international negotiations. This led India to compromise on its earlier stand of declining to pay Pakistan's allotted share of foreign exchange reserves as Pakistan had invaded Kashmir in the meanwhile. Such acts drove ultranationalists into a mortal hostility to Gandhi. On Jan 30, 1948, Nathuram Vinayak Godse, the editor of a Pune-based Marathi daily, assassinated him by firing his gun at close range. He was immediately apprehended and sentenced to death after trial. Godse chose not to plea for clemency and commutation of his sentence to life imprisonment. A lengthy justification was given by him to the court as part of the proceedings. India under Nehru always chose to keep Godse’s testimony hidden by banning its publication. With the passage of time, the regime’s ardour weakened and many reproductions started appearing in the public domain. This book is a very good work that examines his defence in court and clearly explains the rationale behind India’s most notorious political assassination. Koenraad Elst is a Dutch author who has a strong affinity to Indian culture and society. A few observers even accuse him of having links with rightist movements in the country.
The first part of the book analyses the superficial changes that took root in India at the behest of western-minded elite that closely associated themselves with India’s first Prime Minister, Nehru. The government-sponsored scholars refused to analyse the political rationale behind Gandhi’s murder. This lent unsustainable credence to the idea that his assassin was motivated by religious fanaticism and little else besides. On the other hand, the author finds Godse to be a secular nationalist opposed to religious obscurantism and caste privileges existing in Hindu society. The book includes an introduction by Gautam Sen that lacerates the false pretensions of the ‘liberal’ intelligentsia that drew its strength and sustenance from government funds. The post-independent Indian historical writing is dominated by a monolithic political project of progressivism that eventually lost sight of verifiable basic truths. Dominated by leftists, this genre soon descended into crass, self-serving political activism and censored dissenting views that challenged their institutional privileges and intellectual exclusivity. They successfully imputed mythical status to an alleged threat of Hindu extremism and its complicity in assassinating Gandhi.
Elst lists out the accusations made against Gandhi in some detail and reconciles Godse’s past with the credibility of his allegations. In the early stages of his career in social work, Godse was attracted by Gandhian ideals. Soon he got disillusioned with Gandhian double standards on the face of Muslim extremism. He pandered to their most outrageous demands without a whimper of protest while chastising the Hindus for even the slightest infraction. Godse then took a leadership role in the initiatives to cure Hindu society of casteism and untouchability by organizing inter-caste meals and other symbolic offences to the untouchability taboo. The proximate cause for the murder was the foreign exchange issue. Pakistan demanded Rs. 550 million as its rightful share after Partition. Nehru declined to disburse this amount as Pakistani soldiers were stationed inside Kashmir at that time in their failed bid to wrest the province from India. Gandhi put pressure on the government to pay this amount, even threatening it with a fast unto death. Nehru relented and paid the money which Pakistan used to procure more arms to fight the Indian army in Kashmir. This was the first time in history that a country deliberately financed its battlefield opponent!
This book provides an incisive view into the irrational theory of Gandhi’s nonviolence. Godse also cites this as political justification for his crime. Justice does not figure in Gandhi’s calculus of nonviolence. People should innocently die by way of moral gesture, rather than inflict a just punishment on the aggressor. He advised the refugees who flew for their lives from Pakistan to go back and face their assailants with open arms. If the miscreants wanted to kill them, Gandhi asked to offer their neck to the sword without resistance! Courage is required even for such a thing as suicide. At the same time, Gandhi chose to ignore his advice when the time came for him to follow it. Gandhi always declared that the country would be partitioned only over his dead body. But when the partition plan was put through, he decided not to embark on any fast unto death against the Muslim League since he very well knew that death surely awaited at the end of the fast. Gandhi’s ideas always contained a misplaced kind of personal asceticism eclipsing any socially responsible concern for public justice. Gandhian nonviolence was at best only a technique of applying moral pressure by a weaker party on the stronger, but Gandhi turned it into an article of masochistic surrender to aggression. The applicability of this doctrine was pathetically limited as evidenced by its incapacity to influence the partition crisis.
Irrespective of the political viewpoint, there is near unanimous consensus among observers that Gandhi encouraged Muslim separatism and never took a line opposing them in public. Elst gives a long discussion on this aspect. In India, the Muslim leadership had a historic memory of empire and felt entitled to its restoration after the British left. The only dispute within the Muslim elite was whether they should aim for a gradual re-conquest of the whole of India or to settle for a partition and be secure in the control of a large part of the country. The Muslim League wanted immediate separation while the conservative ulema believed in eventual takeover of the entire country on a future date and remained in the Congress as ‘nationalist Muslims’! Gandhi supported the fanatic Khilafat movement, but suddenly withdrew citing violence at Chauri Chaura. The withdrawal was received as betrayal and led to the biggest wave of communal violence since the establishment of British paramountcy. Khilafat sought to reestablish the fallen Turkish sultan as the leader of all Muslims in the world and as such, was intrinsically anti-nationalist, which united Indian Muslims with their counterparts in other nations against all infidels. Even after the debacle, Gandhi refused to do any serious introspection about its intellectual failure and simply continued peddling cheap observations about Islam as the religion of brotherhood. In this process, he built up medieval obscurantists like Ali Brothers and Maulana Abul Kalam Azad, who later became the nation’s education minister in Nehru’s cabinet. The most shocking incident is Gandhi’s support for inviting Amir Amanulla of Afghanistan to invade India to relieve Muslims of infidel rule. When the Amir showed his reluctance, Maulana Azad convinced the Muslims to migrate to Afghanistan and flee India which had turned into a dar ul-harb (abode of enmity). Thousands heeded his call, sold everything and migrated. But they found the Afghan society hostile and inhospitable, so they returned back to India under great hardship.
The author makes a careful study of the aftermath of Gandhi assassination and its impact on the fortunes of the Hindutva forces. Even at a distance of several decades, people invoking Gandhi’s name still evade the hard questions raised by Godse in his courtroom speech. However, Elst concludes that the killing was a strategic mistake. Godse hurt his own movement far more than any enemy forces ever did. Just before his death Gandhi was a discarded leader, a proven failure hated by many millions of Hindus. The Hindu movement was riding a wave of popular support after Congress had failed in its electoral promises of 1945. Overnight, the tide completely turned against the Hindutva forces and Gandhi was resurrected as a saint and martyr whose failures were strictly a taboo as a topic of discussion. Whatever be the merit of his actions, the concluding paragraph in Godse’s speech exhibit his fervent hope that his actions would be recognized by the nation in the end. He says, “My confidence about the moral side of my action has not been shaken even by the criticism leveled against it on all sides. I have no doubt honest writers of history will weigh my act and find the true value thereof on some day in future” (p.133).
A notable feature of this book is that no holy cow of post-independent India escapes its severe criticism. For Elst, Gandhi is just a political leader as any other. It leaves no stone unturned in nailing Nehruvian secularism for superficiality, flimsiness and conceit. He remarks that the superficiality of thought in Nehruvian secularism is compensated for by thoroughness in dishonesty (p.26). Godse’s comments in his testimony are also critically evaluated and inconsistencies pointed out. By making the speech public in his own way, Elst contributes to the citizens’ right to freedom of speech and expression, as the publication of the speech is still banned in India. The book is pleasantly readable and provides a much-needed alternative perspective of the tumultuous events unleashed by Partition.
The book is highly recommended.
The first part of the book analyses the superficial changes that took root in India at the behest of western-minded elite that closely associated themselves with India’s first Prime Minister, Nehru. The government-sponsored scholars refused to analyse the political rationale behind Gandhi’s murder. This lent unsustainable credence to the idea that his assassin was motivated by religious fanaticism and little else besides. On the other hand, the author finds Godse to be a secular nationalist opposed to religious obscurantism and caste privileges existing in Hindu society. The book includes an introduction by Gautam Sen that lacerates the false pretensions of the ‘liberal’ intelligentsia that drew its strength and sustenance from government funds. The post-independent Indian historical writing is dominated by a monolithic political project of progressivism that eventually lost sight of verifiable basic truths. Dominated by leftists, this genre soon descended into crass, self-serving political activism and censored dissenting views that challenged their institutional privileges and intellectual exclusivity. They successfully imputed mythical status to an alleged threat of Hindu extremism and its complicity in assassinating Gandhi.
Elst lists out the accusations made against Gandhi in some detail and reconciles Godse’s past with the credibility of his allegations. In the early stages of his career in social work, Godse was attracted by Gandhian ideals. Soon he got disillusioned with Gandhian double standards on the face of Muslim extremism. He pandered to their most outrageous demands without a whimper of protest while chastising the Hindus for even the slightest infraction. Godse then took a leadership role in the initiatives to cure Hindu society of casteism and untouchability by organizing inter-caste meals and other symbolic offences to the untouchability taboo. The proximate cause for the murder was the foreign exchange issue. Pakistan demanded Rs. 550 million as its rightful share after Partition. Nehru declined to disburse this amount as Pakistani soldiers were stationed inside Kashmir at that time in their failed bid to wrest the province from India. Gandhi put pressure on the government to pay this amount, even threatening it with a fast unto death. Nehru relented and paid the money which Pakistan used to procure more arms to fight the Indian army in Kashmir. This was the first time in history that a country deliberately financed its battlefield opponent!
This book provides an incisive view into the irrational theory of Gandhi’s nonviolence. Godse also cites this as political justification for his crime. Justice does not figure in Gandhi’s calculus of nonviolence. People should innocently die by way of moral gesture, rather than inflict a just punishment on the aggressor. He advised the refugees who flew for their lives from Pakistan to go back and face their assailants with open arms. If the miscreants wanted to kill them, Gandhi asked to offer their neck to the sword without resistance! Courage is required even for such a thing as suicide. At the same time, Gandhi chose to ignore his advice when the time came for him to follow it. Gandhi always declared that the country would be partitioned only over his dead body. But when the partition plan was put through, he decided not to embark on any fast unto death against the Muslim League since he very well knew that death surely awaited at the end of the fast. Gandhi’s ideas always contained a misplaced kind of personal asceticism eclipsing any socially responsible concern for public justice. Gandhian nonviolence was at best only a technique of applying moral pressure by a weaker party on the stronger, but Gandhi turned it into an article of masochistic surrender to aggression. The applicability of this doctrine was pathetically limited as evidenced by its incapacity to influence the partition crisis.
Irrespective of the political viewpoint, there is near unanimous consensus among observers that Gandhi encouraged Muslim separatism and never took a line opposing them in public. Elst gives a long discussion on this aspect. In India, the Muslim leadership had a historic memory of empire and felt entitled to its restoration after the British left. The only dispute within the Muslim elite was whether they should aim for a gradual re-conquest of the whole of India or to settle for a partition and be secure in the control of a large part of the country. The Muslim League wanted immediate separation while the conservative ulema believed in eventual takeover of the entire country on a future date and remained in the Congress as ‘nationalist Muslims’! Gandhi supported the fanatic Khilafat movement, but suddenly withdrew citing violence at Chauri Chaura. The withdrawal was received as betrayal and led to the biggest wave of communal violence since the establishment of British paramountcy. Khilafat sought to reestablish the fallen Turkish sultan as the leader of all Muslims in the world and as such, was intrinsically anti-nationalist, which united Indian Muslims with their counterparts in other nations against all infidels. Even after the debacle, Gandhi refused to do any serious introspection about its intellectual failure and simply continued peddling cheap observations about Islam as the religion of brotherhood. In this process, he built up medieval obscurantists like Ali Brothers and Maulana Abul Kalam Azad, who later became the nation’s education minister in Nehru’s cabinet. The most shocking incident is Gandhi’s support for inviting Amir Amanulla of Afghanistan to invade India to relieve Muslims of infidel rule. When the Amir showed his reluctance, Maulana Azad convinced the Muslims to migrate to Afghanistan and flee India which had turned into a dar ul-harb (abode of enmity). Thousands heeded his call, sold everything and migrated. But they found the Afghan society hostile and inhospitable, so they returned back to India under great hardship.
The author makes a careful study of the aftermath of Gandhi assassination and its impact on the fortunes of the Hindutva forces. Even at a distance of several decades, people invoking Gandhi’s name still evade the hard questions raised by Godse in his courtroom speech. However, Elst concludes that the killing was a strategic mistake. Godse hurt his own movement far more than any enemy forces ever did. Just before his death Gandhi was a discarded leader, a proven failure hated by many millions of Hindus. The Hindu movement was riding a wave of popular support after Congress had failed in its electoral promises of 1945. Overnight, the tide completely turned against the Hindutva forces and Gandhi was resurrected as a saint and martyr whose failures were strictly a taboo as a topic of discussion. Whatever be the merit of his actions, the concluding paragraph in Godse’s speech exhibit his fervent hope that his actions would be recognized by the nation in the end. He says, “My confidence about the moral side of my action has not been shaken even by the criticism leveled against it on all sides. I have no doubt honest writers of history will weigh my act and find the true value thereof on some day in future” (p.133).
A notable feature of this book is that no holy cow of post-independent India escapes its severe criticism. For Elst, Gandhi is just a political leader as any other. It leaves no stone unturned in nailing Nehruvian secularism for superficiality, flimsiness and conceit. He remarks that the superficiality of thought in Nehruvian secularism is compensated for by thoroughness in dishonesty (p.26). Godse’s comments in his testimony are also critically evaluated and inconsistencies pointed out. By making the speech public in his own way, Elst contributes to the citizens’ right to freedom of speech and expression, as the publication of the speech is still banned in India. The book is pleasantly readable and provides a much-needed alternative perspective of the tumultuous events unleashed by Partition.
The book is highly recommended.
September 13, 2018
It’s our history which was not told to us. We deserve to know our history as it was and not the changed version. We were taught in our schools that Godse was a bad man as he killed him. Why we were never told why he killed Gandhi? Let the people decide whether he was right or wrong.
For several years these writings or statements were under ban. People should know about the killing.
“The press carried portions of the statement the next day. Both the intelligent calss and mass which were kept in dark came to know of the stand of Godse. They also came to know that he had not denied the charge of assassinating Gandhi. Jawarharlal Nehru was the prime minister of India at that time. On his directions, state after state banned the publication of his statement, in part or in full. After hearing the statement of Godse. No sooner the judges returned to their chambers, the police pounced on the press reporters, snatched their note books and tore them into pieces. They threatened the persons of true reporting”.
Banning or hiding the portions of history is no solution.
Just remember there are always two sides to every story. And most the time no one is completely innocent. Just don't ever second guess it. Most of us knew only one sided truth but if someone wants to discover another side, this is the book.
I was enlightened by the information provided in this book. I am not against Gandhi but undoubtedly blinded by his ideology of non-violence he made many large mistakes which has been deliberately hidden from public knowledge. Read this book to know the other side of story.
Readers should read this book to know the reality. Don’t listen to others what they say. Read this book to educate yourself. You are the one who decide not others. Form your own opinion after reading this book. Everyone should read it, not just Indians.
For several years these writings or statements were under ban. People should know about the killing.
“The press carried portions of the statement the next day. Both the intelligent calss and mass which were kept in dark came to know of the stand of Godse. They also came to know that he had not denied the charge of assassinating Gandhi. Jawarharlal Nehru was the prime minister of India at that time. On his directions, state after state banned the publication of his statement, in part or in full. After hearing the statement of Godse. No sooner the judges returned to their chambers, the police pounced on the press reporters, snatched their note books and tore them into pieces. They threatened the persons of true reporting”.
Banning or hiding the portions of history is no solution.
Just remember there are always two sides to every story. And most the time no one is completely innocent. Just don't ever second guess it. Most of us knew only one sided truth but if someone wants to discover another side, this is the book.
I was enlightened by the information provided in this book. I am not against Gandhi but undoubtedly blinded by his ideology of non-violence he made many large mistakes which has been deliberately hidden from public knowledge. Read this book to know the other side of story.
Readers should read this book to know the reality. Don’t listen to others what they say. Read this book to educate yourself. You are the one who decide not others. Form your own opinion after reading this book. Everyone should read it, not just Indians.
August 21, 2022
Gandhi made a blunder by appeasing Muslims
Godse made a blunder by killing a Gandhi
Godse killed the chance of regeneration of the Hindu way of life by killing Gandhi, Gandhi killed Akanda Bharata by being ignorant of radical Islam and believing they will change by his peaceful approach.
Godse and Gandhi represent the entire Hindu population mentality.
We are just morons who can't think critically about the predators walking around us with our pacifist lens.
After reading this book, I realized there is no justification for Gandhi and Godse's blunders. Both became the butchers of Sanatan dharma while trying to serve it with good intentions.
Godse made a blunder by killing a Gandhi
Godse killed the chance of regeneration of the Hindu way of life by killing Gandhi, Gandhi killed Akanda Bharata by being ignorant of radical Islam and believing they will change by his peaceful approach.
Godse and Gandhi represent the entire Hindu population mentality.
We are just morons who can't think critically about the predators walking around us with our pacifist lens.
After reading this book, I realized there is no justification for Gandhi and Godse's blunders. Both became the butchers of Sanatan dharma while trying to serve it with good intentions.
September 28, 2021
Fascinating truth behind Gandhi's killing. so many ugly truths suppressed and hidden by Marxist and Nehruvian historians. Hindus will be forever in debt to Nathuram Godse.
Gandhi and only Gandhi is responsible for the soaring state of India today. From supporting Khilafat movement to agreeing to partition, his every action/agitation cost India and especially Hindus too much loss of land and lives.
Gandhi and only Gandhi is responsible for the soaring state of India today. From supporting Khilafat movement to agreeing to partition, his every action/agitation cost India and especially Hindus too much loss of land and lives.
October 24, 2018
There are lot of things we don’t know. Lot of things of our history this book will tell.
September 13, 2018
It’s our history which was not told to us. We deserve to know our history as it was and not the changed version. We were taught in our schools that Godse was a bad man as he killed him. Why we were never told why he killed Gandhi? Let the people decide whether he was right or wrong.
For several years these writings or statements were under ban. People should know about the killing.
“The press carried portions of the statement the next day. Both the intelligent calss and mass which were kept in dark came to know of the stand of Godse. They also came to know that he had not denied the charge of assassinating Gandhi. Jawarharlal Nehru was the prime minister of India at that time. On his directions, state after state banned the publication of his statement, in part or in full. After hearing the statement of Godse. No sooner the judges returned to their chambers, the police pounced on the press reporters, snatched their note books and tore them into pieces. They threatened the persons of true reporting”.
Banning or hiding the portions of history is no solution.
Just remember there are always two sides to every story. And most the time no one is completely innocent. Just don't ever second guess it. Most of us knew only one sided truth but if someone wants to discover another side, this is the book.
I was enlightened by the information provided in this book. I am not against Gandhi but undoubtedly blinded by his ideology of non-violence he made many large mistakes which has been deliberately hidden from public knowledge. Read this book to know the other side of story.
Readers should read this book to know the reality. Don’t listen to others what they say. Read this book to educate yourself. You are the one who decide not others. Form your own opinion after reading this book. Everyone should read it, not just Indians.
For several years these writings or statements were under ban. People should know about the killing.
“The press carried portions of the statement the next day. Both the intelligent calss and mass which were kept in dark came to know of the stand of Godse. They also came to know that he had not denied the charge of assassinating Gandhi. Jawarharlal Nehru was the prime minister of India at that time. On his directions, state after state banned the publication of his statement, in part or in full. After hearing the statement of Godse. No sooner the judges returned to their chambers, the police pounced on the press reporters, snatched their note books and tore them into pieces. They threatened the persons of true reporting”.
Banning or hiding the portions of history is no solution.
Just remember there are always two sides to every story. And most the time no one is completely innocent. Just don't ever second guess it. Most of us knew only one sided truth but if someone wants to discover another side, this is the book.
I was enlightened by the information provided in this book. I am not against Gandhi but undoubtedly blinded by his ideology of non-violence he made many large mistakes which has been deliberately hidden from public knowledge. Read this book to know the other side of story.
Readers should read this book to know the reality. Don’t listen to others what they say. Read this book to educate yourself. You are the one who decide not others. Form your own opinion after reading this book. Everyone should read it, not just Indians.
May 3, 2019
This book is a great study on the subject of Gandhi's murder. It is a thorough and objective analysis of the murder delving into the causes and consequences of the murder. Elst analyses both sides of the argument and indulges in a very critical, fair and balanced assessment of the situation. Godse's much ignored statement, which was initially banned is put for historical scrutiny and the sainthood of the apostle of ahimsa too is at the same time put to the test.
March 23, 2019
A well written piece of history. After having read the original statement given by Godse, this book was like a summary of the entire Gandhi assassination. This book has an inclination towards the Sangh Parivar side of the story.
November 10, 2019
review
it is good analysis
this book has mentioned few moments of gandhi which are not mentioned by other authors on gandhi
it is good analysis
this book has mentioned few moments of gandhi which are not mentioned by other authors on gandhi
September 13, 2018
It’s our history which was not told to us. We deserve to know our history as it was and not the changed version. We were taught in our schools that Godse was a bad man as he killed him. Why we were never told why he killed Gandhi? Let the people decide whether he was right or wrong.
For several years these writings or statements were under ban. People should know about the killing.
“The press carried portions of the statement the next day. Both the intelligent calss and mass which were kept in dark came to know of the stand of Godse. They also came to know that he had not denied the charge of assassinating Gandhi. Jawarharlal Nehru was the prime minister of India at that time. On his directions, state after state banned the publication of his statement, in part or in full. After hearing the statement of Godse. No sooner the judges returned to their chambers, the police pounced on the press reporters, snatched their note books and tore them into pieces. They threatened the persons of true reporting”.
Banning or hiding the portions of history is no solution.
Just remember there are always two sides to every story. And most the time no one is completely innocent. Just don't ever second guess it. Most of us knew only one sided truth but if someone wants to discover another side, this is the book.
I was enlightened by the information provided in this book. I am not against Gandhi but undoubtedly blinded by his ideology of non-violence he made many large mistakes which has been deliberately hidden from public knowledge. Read this book to know the other side of story.
Readers should read this book to know the reality. Don’t listen to others what they say. Read this book to educate yourself. You are the one who decide not others. Form your own opinion after reading this book. Everyone should read it, not just Indians.
For several years these writings or statements were under ban. People should know about the killing.
“The press carried portions of the statement the next day. Both the intelligent calss and mass which were kept in dark came to know of the stand of Godse. They also came to know that he had not denied the charge of assassinating Gandhi. Jawarharlal Nehru was the prime minister of India at that time. On his directions, state after state banned the publication of his statement, in part or in full. After hearing the statement of Godse. No sooner the judges returned to their chambers, the police pounced on the press reporters, snatched their note books and tore them into pieces. They threatened the persons of true reporting”.
Banning or hiding the portions of history is no solution.
Just remember there are always two sides to every story. And most the time no one is completely innocent. Just don't ever second guess it. Most of us knew only one sided truth but if someone wants to discover another side, this is the book.
I was enlightened by the information provided in this book. I am not against Gandhi but undoubtedly blinded by his ideology of non-violence he made many large mistakes which has been deliberately hidden from public knowledge. Read this book to know the other side of story.
Readers should read this book to know the reality. Don’t listen to others what they say. Read this book to educate yourself. You are the one who decide not others. Form your own opinion after reading this book. Everyone should read it, not just Indians.
April 18, 2012
nice book
April 9, 2020
It was a slow moving book with great enlightening facts.. the author had scope to cover certain topics in details..
September 13, 2018
It’s our history which was not told to us. We deserve to know our history as it was and not the changed version. We were taught in our schools that Godse was a bad man as he killed him. Why we were never told why he killed Gandhi? Let the people decide whether he was right or wrong.
For several years these writings or statements were under ban. People should know about the killing.
“The press carried portions of the statement the next day. Both the intelligent calss and mass which were kept in dark came to know of the stand of Godse. They also came to know that he had not denied the charge of assassinating Gandhi. Jawarharlal Nehru was the prime minister of India at that time. On his directions, state after state banned the publication of his statement, in part or in full. After hearing the statement of Godse. No sooner the judges returned to their chambers, the police pounced on the press reporters, snatched their note books and tore them into pieces. They threatened the persons of true reporting”.
Banning or hiding the portions of history is no solution.
Just remember there are always two sides to every story. And most the time no one is completely innocent. Just don't ever second guess it. Most of us knew only one sided truth but if someone wants to discover another side, this is the book.
I was enlightened by the information provided in this book. I am not against Gandhi but undoubtedly blinded by his ideology of non-violence he made many large mistakes which has been deliberately hidden from public knowledge. Read this book to know the other side of story.
Readers should read this book to know the reality. Don’t listen to others what they say. Read this book to educate yourself. You are the one who decide not others. Form your own opinion after reading this book. Everyone should read it, not just Indians.
For several years these writings or statements were under ban. People should know about the killing.
“The press carried portions of the statement the next day. Both the intelligent calss and mass which were kept in dark came to know of the stand of Godse. They also came to know that he had not denied the charge of assassinating Gandhi. Jawarharlal Nehru was the prime minister of India at that time. On his directions, state after state banned the publication of his statement, in part or in full. After hearing the statement of Godse. No sooner the judges returned to their chambers, the police pounced on the press reporters, snatched their note books and tore them into pieces. They threatened the persons of true reporting”.
Banning or hiding the portions of history is no solution.
Just remember there are always two sides to every story. And most the time no one is completely innocent. Just don't ever second guess it. Most of us knew only one sided truth but if someone wants to discover another side, this is the book.
I was enlightened by the information provided in this book. I am not against Gandhi but undoubtedly blinded by his ideology of non-violence he made many large mistakes which has been deliberately hidden from public knowledge. Read this book to know the other side of story.
Readers should read this book to know the reality. Don’t listen to others what they say. Read this book to educate yourself. You are the one who decide not others. Form your own opinion after reading this book. Everyone should read it, not just Indians.
March 9, 2021
This is an attempt to study Gandhiji's mistakes or failures, most of which have been deliberately omitted or downplayed in the official narratives. Must read - I think there is enough starting material here for a semester long course.
As the author puts it, it does not take an extremist to disagree with the absolutist Gandhian stance on non-violence; the normal operational policy of any State is closer to Sarvarkar's vision of "Peace though Strength" or being able to defend oneself against aggressors. But criticism is not murder and the fact that a lot of people felt the way Godse did means that we should examine those points rather than bury them out of the mainstream viewpoint, as has been done all these years.
Koenraad Elst puts forth a very thorough analysis with a deft hand. There is a lot to unpack here and the author does it very well, conveying each point with all the nuance needed.
As the author puts it, it does not take an extremist to disagree with the absolutist Gandhian stance on non-violence; the normal operational policy of any State is closer to Sarvarkar's vision of "Peace though Strength" or being able to defend oneself against aggressors. But criticism is not murder and the fact that a lot of people felt the way Godse did means that we should examine those points rather than bury them out of the mainstream viewpoint, as has been done all these years.
Koenraad Elst puts forth a very thorough analysis with a deft hand. There is a lot to unpack here and the author does it very well, conveying each point with all the nuance needed.
December 10, 2021
Since long I wanted to read about the justification given by Nathuram Godse for killing M K Gandhi. But more than Godse this book is mainly account of M K Gandhi. The author has scrutinised Gandhi not only from the view of Godse, but from many other view along with the author’s view.
I don’t know whether I am right or wrong but I had similar assessment as author has presented in this book that “had Gandhi not been murdered, his star would have contributed to fall and he would have been consigned to the dustbin of history.”
But contrary to this what Ram Swarup ji said that “such a big tragedy as partition had taken place and if nothing had happened, history would have buried the Hindu society as dead. Godse proved before the whole world that Hindu society was still alive.
I have no doubt that damage done by Gandhi to the Hindu society is biggest in the whole history. With Gandhi being constant failure in Indian Independence movement, I wonder why Congress party and Indian people that time tolerated Gandhi? Why no one objected to his self-righteousness, why no one objected to his brahmcharya experiments, his one sided generosity, his constant appeasement of muslims.
Good part of the book is that the author has not applied his imagination and his creative mind to analyse Gandhi. He has done it from available records.
But I don’t agree with the author that by killing Brahmans after Gandhi’s murder Marathas were avenging the action of Parshuramji. Kshatriya don’t hate parshurmaji for killing Kshatriyas.
Further, I cannot disagree with the author that after the death of MK Gandhi, it is Sangh Pariwar which has been torch bearer of Gandhism in true spirit. After the death of Gandhi, Nehru killed Gandhism. And in the states also the Congress leaders deserted Gandhism in totality. And it is also a major reason behind pitiful condition of hindu society. Kshatra Dharma is disappearing from hindu society.
I don’t know whether I am right or wrong but I had similar assessment as author has presented in this book that “had Gandhi not been murdered, his star would have contributed to fall and he would have been consigned to the dustbin of history.”
But contrary to this what Ram Swarup ji said that “such a big tragedy as partition had taken place and if nothing had happened, history would have buried the Hindu society as dead. Godse proved before the whole world that Hindu society was still alive.
I have no doubt that damage done by Gandhi to the Hindu society is biggest in the whole history. With Gandhi being constant failure in Indian Independence movement, I wonder why Congress party and Indian people that time tolerated Gandhi? Why no one objected to his self-righteousness, why no one objected to his brahmcharya experiments, his one sided generosity, his constant appeasement of muslims.
Good part of the book is that the author has not applied his imagination and his creative mind to analyse Gandhi. He has done it from available records.
But I don’t agree with the author that by killing Brahmans after Gandhi’s murder Marathas were avenging the action of Parshuramji. Kshatriya don’t hate parshurmaji for killing Kshatriyas.
Further, I cannot disagree with the author that after the death of MK Gandhi, it is Sangh Pariwar which has been torch bearer of Gandhism in true spirit. After the death of Gandhi, Nehru killed Gandhism. And in the states also the Congress leaders deserted Gandhism in totality. And it is also a major reason behind pitiful condition of hindu society. Kshatra Dharma is disappearing from hindu society.
December 2, 2021
As one finishes the book, there is an experience of a strange feeling, which takes a little time for recognition. It a feeling of loss of innocence of childhood, something experienced much earlier in life by, say, any child in U.S. as he or she realises the myth maintained around Santa Claus by the nation and community, parents and shops.
If one grew up in India, and especially so in schools maintained by the government, one would recognise that the myths around Gandhi have been maintained just as vigilantly as those around the Christ by church of Rome, and for the same reason, except congress doesn't call Gandhi God, only great soul, father of nation, and admits no faukts; correspondingly, not only Godse but very Hinduism is demonized in as many ways as possible except in categorical, explicit terms. Jawaharlal Nehru is similarly eulogised, and in public life and media, his descendents and most of the family thereof, or the "right" side anyway, have been treated as demigods, with assiduous efforts demonizing anyone else who'd replace the family's assumed status as rightful heir to throne of India, even if it isn't called a throne.
One may not agree with that last bit about the right to throne, and one may point out in debates on internet, that as for sacrifices, there are thousands of names since long ago, beginning with that of Prithviraj Chauhan, the king who defended India against Islamic barbarian invasion for the first time, apart from his soldiers and all other freedom fighters since then; but nevertheless, the amount of information in this book comes as the final removing of all falsehoods maintained by congress for reasons of its power to be maintained and promulgated for ever, and one feels like an adult, with innocence of childhood rent and a sadness that one was lied to by those one trusted wrongly, for no fault of one's own.
This is all the more so if one has been brought up secular, progressive, et al, by parents who followed and believed such values genuinely but didn't give speeches about it, who did not hate either Hindus or Hinduism on one hand, nor the supposedly secular political who did do hatemongering of Hindus and Hinduism, on one hand; and in a region, in a school where multiplicity of ethnicity was taken for granted, communal question was as limited as one small community - Sikhs, not any others - were usually seen with perplexity by the others, chiefly for the aggressive stance of threatening to complain to a particular teacher about any differences between children, completely unrelated to community differences!
One couldn't have been brought up more secular. Mention of traditional castes was limited to those proud of their roots and needing to express it publicly, or not ashamed of it in any way, which wasn't necessarily by upper castes either, and it was only taken as a matter of fact, nobody resented it; wealth was a secret of adults, unrelated to the sizes of homes that were government allocated townhouses of sizes suitable for ranks of the government worker or officials that they were allocated to, but friendships transcended sizes of homes, and there was no claiming of upper or low status of anyone. It was as factual as knowing that one in school had pale hair the colour of Britannia biscuits, but had neither a veneration thereby nor any negative status. Academic achievements alone mattered.
So, all the more, encountering explicit hatred from the supposedly secular, but in reality slaves of West or of the colonial empires of yore, is puzzling, hurting and worse, a rending of the illusions of childhood. As one sees posters abusing Hindu Gods, one wonders, do they even know theirs aren't safe, except India has no indigenous bad words to describe them?
As one grows up, one begins to realise that much of disdain, and worse, hatred, for Indian roots, for Hinduism, for Sanskrit, that one received from osmosis and brushes off - not explicitly taught in schools as such, but percolated down through seniors as peers, from what was said by current political top side or what was said by invading colonial rulers for a millennium and half, is false; Sanskrit, far from incomprehensible, is crystal clear to anyone who grows up speaking any language the roots of which are in ancient India. And more.
But this book gives, not only defence speech of Godse, but far more, making one realise once for all just how much congress and aligned have lied, and still do, doing politics of hatred, towards enslaving majority. The happy innocence is gone, and while one is glad to reclaim ones roots and goodness thereof, one doesn't appreciate having had a very flawed human held up as demigod, and much, much more.
It's not that different from watching JFK and realising that the film, not the official version, is true.
*****
One surprise when reading this is at the very beginning, when one sees the topic being discussed without the usual, unthinking reification of Gandhi, and accompanying, just as or even more usual, immediate condemnation of Godse, and the abuse that is thown at anyone with even a slightly different stance, say, that of not quite so defying of one or not quite so unthinkingly abusive of the other.
And very deep shock while beginning the next, is that anyone not quite entirely part of or even related to India, much less to the community, should know quite so much, about the small number of Chitpaawans, however illuminous their history - for, in general socially throughout India, and not only especially so since independence of India, but going back to the colonial rules by various non Indian invaders and their descendants, not just Chitpaawan Brahmins, but Brahmins in general, have been targeted by a blanket policy established by all such invaders, and explicitly so during the last colonial rule; and the various governments of India since independence, predominantly congress and those allied, have followed this policy, with little variation and few exceptions.
This is largely true, not usually in social setups, but at levels where politics intervenes - society on the whole is far more comprehending of realities, especially so in India, with a tiny exception of the part that's ruled by a communal political party, either fooled by Jinnah and the British or following their direction despite knowing falsehood thereof, for political convenience.
Even post 2014, when facts are being - not discovered, as much as uncovered, after close to seven decades to over a century of falsehoods imposed thereon - some things require still too much of a courage to even hint at, much less state, and the question of whether Godse had any justification is one such issue.
On the contrary, opposition since 2014 has taken to calling him a terrorist, with no thought given to facts, or to definition of the word. This is not isolated, but merely an extension of the general India scorning, and Hindu bashing, indulged in by the said political opposition since 2014. Its not new, but merely stepped up in cacophonous volume since new millennium, for a simple reason. And that reason is as ridiculous, but seemingly believed working, as this - when attacked by beasts of prey, when in need of protection from dinosaurs and raptors loose in the night, instead of being wary of dogs who might just revert to - or be hiding - wolves amongst them, abuse and slaughter innocent domesticated species instead; and cattle, so necessary for survival of human species, are sacrificed to this falsehood before lambs by these preachers of falsehoods!
And so, even before one sees the conclusion, and one has good reason to expect the usual, politically safe conclusion, it's still surprising that there is a different stance, that too in print, even though one really doesn't expect a major breakthrough, any more than one expects the church of Rome to admit to falsehoods it imposed for most of two millennia, along with the antisemitism that belonged to Rome before the church.
*****
It's an unpleasant shock when Elst delves into discussing roots of the Chitpaawan community, asserting casually that they were migrants from Scythia or Afghanistan, based purely on physical characteristics - height, skin colour, mentioning light eyes, "even blue"!
This is the usual racist stance, common in all thise of non Indian and chiefly European ancestry, but just as often from those of other, non Indian ancestry, to assume that India must by definition be a land of the opposite physical characteristics, and those with tall physique or light features - skin, eyes, hair- must be of ancestry other than Indian, however ancient the migration.
The whole theory, now disproved, of Aryan migration and two races in India separated by North vs South along Vindhya ranges, is seemingly based partly on this racist asumption; in reality, it is probably wholly based on Macaulay policy of tearing India into pieces by any and every frsud possible, and this one is as convenient, as flat earth throry or crestion throry are for church to support covertly in the bible belt and other idiot regions.
But it's clear to anyone who cares to think, isn't slave to either European looks or church, and knows anything at all about India, that any migrants to mainland India were not from Europe across Asia but from Mediterranean to Southern coastal regions of India - there are remnants of Roman colonies, ancient coins discovered, and obvious traces of such a migration of people of mixed roots racially, visible in physical features and more - looking at population of Tamil speaking regions, one sees on one hand Roman or Jewish noses, light eyes, and fair skins, and other extremes are clear continuation of looks from New York to Africa to Andaman to Australia, with cadances of language uncannily similar between aftica and Tamil.
Ancient Indian pores, legends and tradition, moreover, have clear mention of such geographical features as Himaalayan ranges rising out of the ocean, river Gangaa being brought down "from heaven", and vanishing of an ocean, but no traces whatsoever of any journey crossing Indus river into India; and this river that is so major a feature for those not from india that The land is named, by those outside India, after the river, has very little, just borderline, significance in Indian tradition, while other rivers are held higher, not only Gangaa and Yamunaa, but even Brahmaputra (literally "Son of Brahma", Brahma here noting Divine without form, not the later transformation thereof into a male God), the only river considered a male God while all other rivers of India are Goddesses.
And there's more, far more significant - the very name of India, for outsiders, is identified with river Indus; but in India, in the most ancient traditions, it's never been anywhere close to that. Moreover, the very name of Indus, in India, since ancient times, is really Sindhu, and has been so for millennia: it was transformed to Indus outside India, due to the usual habit of Europe.
But Sindhu, the original name and in continuous usage even now, literally means ocean.
Which amounts to those of India having witnessed, and known, transformation of an ocean into land as the Himaalayan ranges rising out of the ocean were seen, and also the flowing of this river instead of the ocean that had been there.
As for the blue, green, and other light colours of eyes, especially a light grey or clear gold, but of course hazel too, they're seen commonly enough; light hair is less common, but common enough that one may have known over half a dozen people with light hair - and purely Indian ancestry - in a lifetime; they exist not only in communities North or West but also deep South and East; while families in India often have siblings with seeming disparities across such divides considered ravisl, but without any reason visible in ancestry - for millennia the marriages have not only been arranged within communities, but records kept go back generations.
And, most telling, while light eyes and even light hair are seen commonly enough that not even children think it's strange, thry are never a criteria of beauty, as defined or understood in India; there's no discrimination either in favour thereof or against them.
Which amounts to this - all such theories of foreign roots of such physical characteristics are based, subconsciously or otherwise, in a racism that assumes certain characteristics to be property of Europe, and it's nonsense.
*****
Another shock is when Elst discusses the riots and massacres consequent to the killing of someone who supposedly was a preacher of peace, nonviolence, forgiveness, brotherhood et al, that was a bloodlust only partly of vengeance, exacted against a whole community, mostly poor and almost entirely, but for one or two males, innocent of even a whiff, much less conspiracy, of the killing.
Shock, not because the riots were a secret; that houses of Brahmins were burnt is known. But that so many were killed was certainly kept secret, and it becomes clear that it was chiefly political, leading yo downfall of politics in the state, thereafter degraded to physical force and corruption, after it was out of hands of a community that had always been mostly poor but held up its values of principles, knowledge, clean living in both inner and exterior sense, and politics rooted in values.
Today there's a mess in the state that came to light last year, that cannot be hidden after the gruesome murders of two - or, very possibly, well over two dozen - murders, of some young and other mostly very rich, which has exposed just how horribly the state of normal changed post the riots attacking Brahmins; even a few decades ago, a few decades after 1948, it was known how physical force ruling the state instead of thinking and values, had changed the interior of the state, especially Kolhapur region, and other places, with few exceptions other than Mumbai and Pune and few other towns, so that corruption and murders of weak were norm.
It's not that one ever thought holocaust victims and survivors, and the general community, has ever had it easy in any way, for over two millennia; but realising what really had happened to Brahmins in aftermath of a murder makes one wonder, how did the Jews manage to hold on with tenacity, for two millennia and then after holocaust?
*****
"From August 1946 onwards the private armies of the Muslim League began a massacre of the Hindus. The then Viceroy, Lord Wavell, though distressed at what was happening, would not use his powers under the Government of India Act of 1935 to prevent the rape, murder and arson. The Hindu blood began to flow from Bengal to Karachi ... "
Quoted from
Why I Killed Gandhi
by Nathuram Godse.
*****
Halfway or less than halfway through the book, as one reads through fourth chapter, about the inexplicable, unjustifiable and thoughtless support of khilafat - caliphate, by monarch of Turkey- movement by Gandhi, which led to a vicious cycle of massacres of Hindus by Muslims across India and ever more increasing concessions granted them by Gandhi, who invariably either sympathised or even praised the muslim perpetrators of atrocities, with all this inexorable moving towards partition, and Gandhi's role, his responsibility for the partition - one gets it, sort of; it's all mindboggling, overwhelming, how someone so contradictory was called a saint or a messenger of peace.
Perhaps such epithets are justified if one designates followers of abrahmic religions, but with exception of Jews, human, and the rest - including majority of India, Hindus, and all smaller minorities, such as Jews, Parsis and Sikhs, Buddhists and Jains - on par with slaves or cattle to be butchered at will, then such epithets are unquestionable. And perhaps that is the view adopted, perhaps then subconsciously but increasingly in all but name, by congress, by left, and by most outside India.
So while nobody could say, reading the details of Godse's speech explaining his motives, given by Elst - for, in the book published in name of Godse himself, they are heavily censored, leaving only a few sentences that would confirm congress version of him as a hater of muslims for no reason, a madman, crazed by hatred - that if Godse had put the move to vote with his explanation, people would have voted for it, nevertheless, it stands explained, already.
And that's before one begins to read the vital, later parts, of which most people have a clue - the carnage of partition, the war waged by paki forces disguised initially as tribals sent to attack Kashmir and fighting Indian army thst went to defend it after accession was signed - and gandhi insisting India pay 550 million to pak in midst of that war, despite certainty that it would and did go to buy weaponry, tanks, arms and ammunition, only to kill Indian soldiers!
Did, because Gandhi went on a hunger strike, and cabinet couldn't very well approve letting him starve himself to death - although, once when he did it before independence, both Jinnah and Ambedkar had written to the then British government of India, explicitly, to the effect that they ought not to give in, thst he should be allowed to die if he persisted in fasting to make the government and others fall in line with his decisions every time.
So this much has always been known - this was the final straw thst prompted Godse, who was already moved beyond endurance by the travails of the refugees pouring in from across borders on both sides, having suffered not only exodus and loss of homes, homeland and all property, but massacres, being burnt alive in homes by fire department in Lahore pouring gasoline on homes set on fire by muslims, kidnappings and rapes of women, and subsequent starvation as the millions who did survive managed to travel, often walked, to safety, across the border.
Here in chapter five, for the first time, one gets a clue to real numbers involved - Elst reduces Godse's "hundred and ten million" by tenth, to eleven million, still no small number, massacred; of which, by Elst's reckoning, no more than four hundred thousand were muslims. Which leaves number of Hindus massacred in Pakistan, at and before birth of Pakistan, beginning 1946 and escalating to a crescendo, at well over ten million.
How much is one human life worth, then? Is it more worth than a hundred, a thousand, a million, ten million, depending on whose life is being weighed in the balance? Did the massacre that Gandhi's failure of policies - and his perpetual giving in to others but fasting to force Hindus to his will, chiefly that of giving in to others - led to, massacres of well over ten millions, matter not at all? Did the untimely death of one man old man, who might .... (cont. below).
If one grew up in India, and especially so in schools maintained by the government, one would recognise that the myths around Gandhi have been maintained just as vigilantly as those around the Christ by church of Rome, and for the same reason, except congress doesn't call Gandhi God, only great soul, father of nation, and admits no faukts; correspondingly, not only Godse but very Hinduism is demonized in as many ways as possible except in categorical, explicit terms. Jawaharlal Nehru is similarly eulogised, and in public life and media, his descendents and most of the family thereof, or the "right" side anyway, have been treated as demigods, with assiduous efforts demonizing anyone else who'd replace the family's assumed status as rightful heir to throne of India, even if it isn't called a throne.
One may not agree with that last bit about the right to throne, and one may point out in debates on internet, that as for sacrifices, there are thousands of names since long ago, beginning with that of Prithviraj Chauhan, the king who defended India against Islamic barbarian invasion for the first time, apart from his soldiers and all other freedom fighters since then; but nevertheless, the amount of information in this book comes as the final removing of all falsehoods maintained by congress for reasons of its power to be maintained and promulgated for ever, and one feels like an adult, with innocence of childhood rent and a sadness that one was lied to by those one trusted wrongly, for no fault of one's own.
This is all the more so if one has been brought up secular, progressive, et al, by parents who followed and believed such values genuinely but didn't give speeches about it, who did not hate either Hindus or Hinduism on one hand, nor the supposedly secular political who did do hatemongering of Hindus and Hinduism, on one hand; and in a region, in a school where multiplicity of ethnicity was taken for granted, communal question was as limited as one small community - Sikhs, not any others - were usually seen with perplexity by the others, chiefly for the aggressive stance of threatening to complain to a particular teacher about any differences between children, completely unrelated to community differences!
One couldn't have been brought up more secular. Mention of traditional castes was limited to those proud of their roots and needing to express it publicly, or not ashamed of it in any way, which wasn't necessarily by upper castes either, and it was only taken as a matter of fact, nobody resented it; wealth was a secret of adults, unrelated to the sizes of homes that were government allocated townhouses of sizes suitable for ranks of the government worker or officials that they were allocated to, but friendships transcended sizes of homes, and there was no claiming of upper or low status of anyone. It was as factual as knowing that one in school had pale hair the colour of Britannia biscuits, but had neither a veneration thereby nor any negative status. Academic achievements alone mattered.
So, all the more, encountering explicit hatred from the supposedly secular, but in reality slaves of West or of the colonial empires of yore, is puzzling, hurting and worse, a rending of the illusions of childhood. As one sees posters abusing Hindu Gods, one wonders, do they even know theirs aren't safe, except India has no indigenous bad words to describe them?
As one grows up, one begins to realise that much of disdain, and worse, hatred, for Indian roots, for Hinduism, for Sanskrit, that one received from osmosis and brushes off - not explicitly taught in schools as such, but percolated down through seniors as peers, from what was said by current political top side or what was said by invading colonial rulers for a millennium and half, is false; Sanskrit, far from incomprehensible, is crystal clear to anyone who grows up speaking any language the roots of which are in ancient India. And more.
But this book gives, not only defence speech of Godse, but far more, making one realise once for all just how much congress and aligned have lied, and still do, doing politics of hatred, towards enslaving majority. The happy innocence is gone, and while one is glad to reclaim ones roots and goodness thereof, one doesn't appreciate having had a very flawed human held up as demigod, and much, much more.
It's not that different from watching JFK and realising that the film, not the official version, is true.
*****
One surprise when reading this is at the very beginning, when one sees the topic being discussed without the usual, unthinking reification of Gandhi, and accompanying, just as or even more usual, immediate condemnation of Godse, and the abuse that is thown at anyone with even a slightly different stance, say, that of not quite so defying of one or not quite so unthinkingly abusive of the other.
And very deep shock while beginning the next, is that anyone not quite entirely part of or even related to India, much less to the community, should know quite so much, about the small number of Chitpaawans, however illuminous their history - for, in general socially throughout India, and not only especially so since independence of India, but going back to the colonial rules by various non Indian invaders and their descendants, not just Chitpaawan Brahmins, but Brahmins in general, have been targeted by a blanket policy established by all such invaders, and explicitly so during the last colonial rule; and the various governments of India since independence, predominantly congress and those allied, have followed this policy, with little variation and few exceptions.
This is largely true, not usually in social setups, but at levels where politics intervenes - society on the whole is far more comprehending of realities, especially so in India, with a tiny exception of the part that's ruled by a communal political party, either fooled by Jinnah and the British or following their direction despite knowing falsehood thereof, for political convenience.
Even post 2014, when facts are being - not discovered, as much as uncovered, after close to seven decades to over a century of falsehoods imposed thereon - some things require still too much of a courage to even hint at, much less state, and the question of whether Godse had any justification is one such issue.
On the contrary, opposition since 2014 has taken to calling him a terrorist, with no thought given to facts, or to definition of the word. This is not isolated, but merely an extension of the general India scorning, and Hindu bashing, indulged in by the said political opposition since 2014. Its not new, but merely stepped up in cacophonous volume since new millennium, for a simple reason. And that reason is as ridiculous, but seemingly believed working, as this - when attacked by beasts of prey, when in need of protection from dinosaurs and raptors loose in the night, instead of being wary of dogs who might just revert to - or be hiding - wolves amongst them, abuse and slaughter innocent domesticated species instead; and cattle, so necessary for survival of human species, are sacrificed to this falsehood before lambs by these preachers of falsehoods!
And so, even before one sees the conclusion, and one has good reason to expect the usual, politically safe conclusion, it's still surprising that there is a different stance, that too in print, even though one really doesn't expect a major breakthrough, any more than one expects the church of Rome to admit to falsehoods it imposed for most of two millennia, along with the antisemitism that belonged to Rome before the church.
*****
It's an unpleasant shock when Elst delves into discussing roots of the Chitpaawan community, asserting casually that they were migrants from Scythia or Afghanistan, based purely on physical characteristics - height, skin colour, mentioning light eyes, "even blue"!
This is the usual racist stance, common in all thise of non Indian and chiefly European ancestry, but just as often from those of other, non Indian ancestry, to assume that India must by definition be a land of the opposite physical characteristics, and those with tall physique or light features - skin, eyes, hair- must be of ancestry other than Indian, however ancient the migration.
The whole theory, now disproved, of Aryan migration and two races in India separated by North vs South along Vindhya ranges, is seemingly based partly on this racist asumption; in reality, it is probably wholly based on Macaulay policy of tearing India into pieces by any and every frsud possible, and this one is as convenient, as flat earth throry or crestion throry are for church to support covertly in the bible belt and other idiot regions.
But it's clear to anyone who cares to think, isn't slave to either European looks or church, and knows anything at all about India, that any migrants to mainland India were not from Europe across Asia but from Mediterranean to Southern coastal regions of India - there are remnants of Roman colonies, ancient coins discovered, and obvious traces of such a migration of people of mixed roots racially, visible in physical features and more - looking at population of Tamil speaking regions, one sees on one hand Roman or Jewish noses, light eyes, and fair skins, and other extremes are clear continuation of looks from New York to Africa to Andaman to Australia, with cadances of language uncannily similar between aftica and Tamil.
Ancient Indian pores, legends and tradition, moreover, have clear mention of such geographical features as Himaalayan ranges rising out of the ocean, river Gangaa being brought down "from heaven", and vanishing of an ocean, but no traces whatsoever of any journey crossing Indus river into India; and this river that is so major a feature for those not from india that The land is named, by those outside India, after the river, has very little, just borderline, significance in Indian tradition, while other rivers are held higher, not only Gangaa and Yamunaa, but even Brahmaputra (literally "Son of Brahma", Brahma here noting Divine without form, not the later transformation thereof into a male God), the only river considered a male God while all other rivers of India are Goddesses.
And there's more, far more significant - the very name of India, for outsiders, is identified with river Indus; but in India, in the most ancient traditions, it's never been anywhere close to that. Moreover, the very name of Indus, in India, since ancient times, is really Sindhu, and has been so for millennia: it was transformed to Indus outside India, due to the usual habit of Europe.
But Sindhu, the original name and in continuous usage even now, literally means ocean.
Which amounts to those of India having witnessed, and known, transformation of an ocean into land as the Himaalayan ranges rising out of the ocean were seen, and also the flowing of this river instead of the ocean that had been there.
As for the blue, green, and other light colours of eyes, especially a light grey or clear gold, but of course hazel too, they're seen commonly enough; light hair is less common, but common enough that one may have known over half a dozen people with light hair - and purely Indian ancestry - in a lifetime; they exist not only in communities North or West but also deep South and East; while families in India often have siblings with seeming disparities across such divides considered ravisl, but without any reason visible in ancestry - for millennia the marriages have not only been arranged within communities, but records kept go back generations.
And, most telling, while light eyes and even light hair are seen commonly enough that not even children think it's strange, thry are never a criteria of beauty, as defined or understood in India; there's no discrimination either in favour thereof or against them.
Which amounts to this - all such theories of foreign roots of such physical characteristics are based, subconsciously or otherwise, in a racism that assumes certain characteristics to be property of Europe, and it's nonsense.
*****
Another shock is when Elst discusses the riots and massacres consequent to the killing of someone who supposedly was a preacher of peace, nonviolence, forgiveness, brotherhood et al, that was a bloodlust only partly of vengeance, exacted against a whole community, mostly poor and almost entirely, but for one or two males, innocent of even a whiff, much less conspiracy, of the killing.
Shock, not because the riots were a secret; that houses of Brahmins were burnt is known. But that so many were killed was certainly kept secret, and it becomes clear that it was chiefly political, leading yo downfall of politics in the state, thereafter degraded to physical force and corruption, after it was out of hands of a community that had always been mostly poor but held up its values of principles, knowledge, clean living in both inner and exterior sense, and politics rooted in values.
Today there's a mess in the state that came to light last year, that cannot be hidden after the gruesome murders of two - or, very possibly, well over two dozen - murders, of some young and other mostly very rich, which has exposed just how horribly the state of normal changed post the riots attacking Brahmins; even a few decades ago, a few decades after 1948, it was known how physical force ruling the state instead of thinking and values, had changed the interior of the state, especially Kolhapur region, and other places, with few exceptions other than Mumbai and Pune and few other towns, so that corruption and murders of weak were norm.
It's not that one ever thought holocaust victims and survivors, and the general community, has ever had it easy in any way, for over two millennia; but realising what really had happened to Brahmins in aftermath of a murder makes one wonder, how did the Jews manage to hold on with tenacity, for two millennia and then after holocaust?
*****
"From August 1946 onwards the private armies of the Muslim League began a massacre of the Hindus. The then Viceroy, Lord Wavell, though distressed at what was happening, would not use his powers under the Government of India Act of 1935 to prevent the rape, murder and arson. The Hindu blood began to flow from Bengal to Karachi ... "
Quoted from
Why I Killed Gandhi
by Nathuram Godse.
*****
Halfway or less than halfway through the book, as one reads through fourth chapter, about the inexplicable, unjustifiable and thoughtless support of khilafat - caliphate, by monarch of Turkey- movement by Gandhi, which led to a vicious cycle of massacres of Hindus by Muslims across India and ever more increasing concessions granted them by Gandhi, who invariably either sympathised or even praised the muslim perpetrators of atrocities, with all this inexorable moving towards partition, and Gandhi's role, his responsibility for the partition - one gets it, sort of; it's all mindboggling, overwhelming, how someone so contradictory was called a saint or a messenger of peace.
Perhaps such epithets are justified if one designates followers of abrahmic religions, but with exception of Jews, human, and the rest - including majority of India, Hindus, and all smaller minorities, such as Jews, Parsis and Sikhs, Buddhists and Jains - on par with slaves or cattle to be butchered at will, then such epithets are unquestionable. And perhaps that is the view adopted, perhaps then subconsciously but increasingly in all but name, by congress, by left, and by most outside India.
So while nobody could say, reading the details of Godse's speech explaining his motives, given by Elst - for, in the book published in name of Godse himself, they are heavily censored, leaving only a few sentences that would confirm congress version of him as a hater of muslims for no reason, a madman, crazed by hatred - that if Godse had put the move to vote with his explanation, people would have voted for it, nevertheless, it stands explained, already.
And that's before one begins to read the vital, later parts, of which most people have a clue - the carnage of partition, the war waged by paki forces disguised initially as tribals sent to attack Kashmir and fighting Indian army thst went to defend it after accession was signed - and gandhi insisting India pay 550 million to pak in midst of that war, despite certainty that it would and did go to buy weaponry, tanks, arms and ammunition, only to kill Indian soldiers!
Did, because Gandhi went on a hunger strike, and cabinet couldn't very well approve letting him starve himself to death - although, once when he did it before independence, both Jinnah and Ambedkar had written to the then British government of India, explicitly, to the effect that they ought not to give in, thst he should be allowed to die if he persisted in fasting to make the government and others fall in line with his decisions every time.
So this much has always been known - this was the final straw thst prompted Godse, who was already moved beyond endurance by the travails of the refugees pouring in from across borders on both sides, having suffered not only exodus and loss of homes, homeland and all property, but massacres, being burnt alive in homes by fire department in Lahore pouring gasoline on homes set on fire by muslims, kidnappings and rapes of women, and subsequent starvation as the millions who did survive managed to travel, often walked, to safety, across the border.
Here in chapter five, for the first time, one gets a clue to real numbers involved - Elst reduces Godse's "hundred and ten million" by tenth, to eleven million, still no small number, massacred; of which, by Elst's reckoning, no more than four hundred thousand were muslims. Which leaves number of Hindus massacred in Pakistan, at and before birth of Pakistan, beginning 1946 and escalating to a crescendo, at well over ten million.
How much is one human life worth, then? Is it more worth than a hundred, a thousand, a million, ten million, depending on whose life is being weighed in the balance? Did the massacre that Gandhi's failure of policies - and his perpetual giving in to others but fasting to force Hindus to his will, chiefly that of giving in to others - led to, massacres of well over ten millions, matter not at all? Did the untimely death of one man old man, who might .... (cont. below).
October 16, 2020
Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi - Father of the nation , apostle of peace or architect of partition and appeaser of minorities. These questions have always surrounded the man who has had an overpowering influence in Indian way of life. Admittedly, I was never a fan of his ideology simply because it looked too good to be of any practical benefit. Non violence looked like an excuse by weaklings to not fight injustice.
However Nathuram Godse has almost everywhere been vilified as a villain ,the one who killed our Mahatma out of sheer hatred - an anti national.
With such dynamic personalities at play, this book looked to be a cracker and boy was I right. The book basically takes Mr Godse's famous (but banned for long) speech during his trial wherein he justifies his act. Due to censorship prevalent in those days the speech was not accessible to public for long. This book takes the speech part by part , assesses it alongside verified facts and finds merit (or demerit) in it.
Mr Elst has a reputation of being an Hinduphilic writer so there was an apprehension that this book might turn out to be a one sided fan boy homage to Godse. Suprisingly, the book does a very fair assessment of the assassination , its driver and aftermath. It does not idolise Godse completely or vilify Gandhi. There is a very honest attempt by Elst to present as objective a picture as possible.
I would strongly recommend this book to anyone who has an interest in modern Indian history and wants to read a clinical assessment of the same rather than accounts by court historians .
However Nathuram Godse has almost everywhere been vilified as a villain ,the one who killed our Mahatma out of sheer hatred - an anti national.
With such dynamic personalities at play, this book looked to be a cracker and boy was I right. The book basically takes Mr Godse's famous (but banned for long) speech during his trial wherein he justifies his act. Due to censorship prevalent in those days the speech was not accessible to public for long. This book takes the speech part by part , assesses it alongside verified facts and finds merit (or demerit) in it.
Mr Elst has a reputation of being an Hinduphilic writer so there was an apprehension that this book might turn out to be a one sided fan boy homage to Godse. Suprisingly, the book does a very fair assessment of the assassination , its driver and aftermath. It does not idolise Godse completely or vilify Gandhi. There is a very honest attempt by Elst to present as objective a picture as possible.
I would strongly recommend this book to anyone who has an interest in modern Indian history and wants to read a clinical assessment of the same rather than accounts by court historians .
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
October 20, 2020
A great read for a mind opener. This is our history which was never told to us. We have always been spoon-fed opinions without knowing any facts and ground realities of that time. The author does not bombard his opinions nor hide any side, he puts it all out and lets us be the judge. Highly recommended.
July 3, 2020
I would suggest to read this book only after completing Gandhi's 'My experiments with truth' as the reader could see both sides of the same coin.
Good one to read indeed.
Good one to read indeed.
April 24, 2020
I can’t continue reading this. Bull crap!!!
January 29, 2022
Beweren dat Koenraad Elst een vriend van me is, zou meer dan dik overdreven zijn, maar ik kan daarentegen wél zonder liegen zeggen dat ik de man al jaren persoonlijk ken en ook wel eens een artikel van hem nagelezen en “verbeterd” heb. Beide gegevens kaderen in mijn activiteiten voor Teksten, Kommentaren en Studies, kortweg TeKoS, een pracht van een driemaandelijks blad waarvoor ik al jaren mee de eindredactie verzorg en waarvan ik, onder andere samen met Koenraad Elst, ook in de hoofdredactie zit.
Koenraad Elst is een zeer bezige bij, reist de halve wereld op en af, maar stelt het zonder auto, dus moeten we hem vaker missen tijdens redactieraden dan goed is en krijgen we niet zo heel vaak nieuwe artikels van zijn hand voorgeschoteld, maar als we er weer eens een krijgen – bijvoorbeeld het in de editie van april/mei/juni 2020 (nummer 178) gepubliceerde De China-golf overspoelt het westen – , dan getuigt het immer van een grote belezenheid én de vlotte pen van de auteur. Net zoals voorliggend De moord op de Mahatma (uitgegeven bij Davidsfonds in 1998), dat natuurlijk handelt over het gewelddadige einde van de enige mahatma die we met z’n allen “kennen”: Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi (“mahatma” betekent overigens zoiets als “grote ziel” en de term werd gepopulariseerd door de theosofische geschriften van de fameuze mevrouw Helena Blavatsky aan het einde van de 19de eeuw).
Elst haalde zijn doctoraat aan de Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, waar hij wijsbegeerte, sinologie en oriëntalistiek studeerde en is, zoals vermeld op de achterflap van dit honderdvijftig bladzijden dikke en stampvol informatie zittende boek, “specialist voor de politieke geschiedenis van India”. Geen politiek correcte specialist overigens (politieke correctheid zou sowieso not done moeten zijn voor iedereen die specialist wenst te worden in wat dan ook), dus kan u als lezer van dit boek ook geen hagiografie verwachten:
“Waarom kwam de man die geweldloosheid predikte, zo gewelddadig aan zijn einde? Dat is de vraag waarop Koenraad Elst, vijftig jaar na de feiten, een antwoord zoekt. Hoeveel betekende de Mahatma niet voor zijn volk? Hij had de handschoen opgenomen tegen de Britse kolonisator, zich ingezet om de kasteverschillen te overbruggen, geprobeerd om moslims en hindoes vreedzaam te laten samenleven… Maar ondanks zijn goede bedoelingen ontaardden zijn acties in bloedig geweld. Zijn politieke eindzege, de onafhankelijkheid van India in 1947, werd grondig bedorven door de Verdeling van het land, waaruit de moslimstaat Pakistan gekerfd werd. Tussen de mythe Gandhi die in het Westen opgang maakt en de historische werkelijkheid ligt een afgrond van verschil. Koenraad Elst toont de complexe wereld van het politieke India van de jaren veertig.”
Zelf ben ik begonnen aan dit boek met als achtergrondkennis dat van die geweldloze burgerlijke ongehoorzaamheid, de wetenschap dat er in India ook wel een paar katholieken wonen (ik heb met één van hen en een paar van z’n hindoe-landgenoten samengewerkt ten tijde van de zogenaamde Y2K-bug), dat er kasten waren waar je niet zomaar uit kon komen, en het gegeven dat “ze” er in geslaagd waren Pakistan kwijt te spelen. En van bij de eerste bladzijde heb ik massa’s bij geleerd. Elst begint het boek namelijk met iets wat je absoluut nodig hebt om een béétje zicht te krijgen op de feiten rond de moord op Gandhi: De lange voorgeschiedenis. Hij neemt je mee langs de Oorsprong van de Indiase beschaving (waarbij hij meteen duidelijk maakt dat de plaatsing in de tijd daarvan verre van duidelijk is), De eenheid van India, Religie in India (ook na de afscheiding van Pakistan geen louter kwestie van hindoeïsme), Geweldloosheid (en de radicalisering van dat ideaal bij de jains, “de volgelingen van vardhamana alias Mahavira Jina”), Het kastestelsel (véél ingewikkelder én interessanter dan een mens snelsnel kan leren bevatten), de fameuze Onaanraakbaarheid (“Doorgaans beoefenen de onaanrakbare kasten ook onderling de onaanraakbaarheid.”), en de Impact van de islam en het kolonialisme op het kastenstelsel, India in het algemeen, en Gandhi in het bijzonder:
“De Britse demarche die voor Gandhi de meest noodlottige gevolgen zou hebben, was het aanmoedigen en patroneren van een aparte moslimpartij die de moslims (toen ca. 21% van de bevolking) zou weghouden bij de onafhankelijkheidsbeweging en daarmee elke aanspraak van het [Indiaas Nationaal, noot van mij] Congres op representativiteit voor ‘de’ Indiase bevolking zou ontkrachten. In 1906 richtten moslimaristocraten de Moslim-Liga op, een loyalistische partij die niet hoefde te pretenderen het algemeen belang na te streven, maar openlijk de aparte belangen van de moslimgemeenschap zou behartigen. Daarmee was het toneel klaargezet voor het drama van Mahatma Gandhi’s leven: de hindoes vervoegden in steeds grotere aantallen het heel-Indiase Congres, weliswaar samen met vele moslims, maar een groter aantal moslims werd gerekruteerd door de Moslim-Liga die een politiek separatisme (aparte kieskringen) en uiteindelijk ook een territoriaal separatisme zou nastreven.” Of hoe het verdeel-en-heers-over-India van de Britten leidde tot verdeel-en-heers-over-den-hond-zijn-ellebogen.
Gandhi had meermaals te verstaan gegeven dat zo’n verdeling er “over zijn lijk” zou komen – “hij had al enkele keren politieke tegenstanders tot belangrijke toegevingen gedwongen door letterlijk zijn leven op het spel te zetten, namelijk door een ‘vasten tot de dood’ te beginnen” -, maar ze kwam er, zoals er na zijn dood ook nog een afscheuring kwam van Birma (Myanmar), Ceylon (Sri Lanka) en ten slotte Oost-Pakistan (Bangladesh), al vallen dié afscheuringen buiten het bestek van dit boek. Al goed voor Gandhi:
“Deze bevolkingswissel [in het geval van moslims richting Pakistan doorgaans vrijwillig, in het geval van hindoes richting rest-India doorgaans gedwongen, noot van mij] ging gepaard met zeer veel geweld. Destijds sprak men van twee miljoen doden, tegenwoordig schat men dit aantal op zeshonderdduizend. De Indiase regering en diverse hindoe-organisaties zetten kampen op om de vluchtelingen uit Pakistan op te vangen. Deze slachtoffers van de Verdeling hadden hun hebben en houden moeten achterlaten, hadden vaak familieleden verloren, en waren van allerlei gruwelen getuige geweest. Velen waren daarom vervuld van haat jegens de moslims. Er was echter één niet-moslim die zij nog veel meer haatten dan alle moslims bij elkaar: Mahatma Gandhi. De heiligenverering die Gandhi na zijn martelaarschap te beurt viel, maakt het voor velen moeilijk om zich voor te stellen dat Gandhi in de maanden vóór zijn dood de meest gehate man in India was. Ook vandaag nog verklaren talloze hindoes en sikhs zonder scrupules dat de moord op Gandhi niet meer dan rechtvaardig was. Nochtans hadden zij hem decennialang massaal gesteund in zijn agitatie tegen het koloniale bestuur en hadden zij op hem vertrouwd toen hij zich tegen het in 1940 door de Moslim-Liga gelanceerde Verdelingsplan verzette. Maar dat was het hem juist: zij hadden al hun hoop op hem gesteld en hij had hun vertrouwen beschaamd. Zij hadden in Sindh en West-Panjab op hem gerekend om heel concreet te verhinderen dat zij van de ene dag op de andere vreemdelingen in hun eigen woonplaats zouden worden. En hij had niets gedaan. Erger: zij hoorden dat hij er nu zelfs voor pleitte om hen naar Pakistan terug te sturen. Terug naar het slachthuis, alsof er niets gebeurd was. Hij maakte ook plannen voor een reis naar Pakistan, om er de Mohajirs uit te nodigen naar India terug te keren. En hij eiste nadrukkelijk dat de regering 550 miljoen roepie aan Pakistan zou overmaken als Pakistans rechtmatige deel uit de schatkist van Brits-India. Op zich heel redelijk, maar wel uiterst ongewoon na de invasie van Pakistaanse troepen in Kasjmir (oktober 1947), waarbij de hindoe- en sikh-bevolking van het veroverde gebied tot de laatste man was uitgemoord. Geld toestoppen aan een land waarmee je in oorlog bent, dat was wel een erg wrange wereldprimeur.”
En Gandhi kreeg dan nog zijn zin ook. Genoeg redenen voor Nathuram Godse en vele anderen om hem naar de volgende wereld te sturen (of via reïncarnatie een nieuwe kans te geven in dezelfde). Godse en die vele anderen worden dan door “onze media” aangeduid als “hindoefundamentalisten”, maar Koenraad Elst begint zijn uitleg over Godse en de “Hindoe-Herlevingsbeweging” met de stelling dat dat etiket volkomen onzin is, terwijl hindoes toch wel een paar redenen hebben (of hadden, het boek is per slot van rekening al meer dan twee decennia oud en ik ken de actuele politieke situatie niet) om wat harder voor zichzelf op te komen: “De politieke agenda van de hindoe-activisten (van alle strekkingen) tegenover de staat is dan ook zeer beperkt: een keuze van nationale symbolen die recht doet aan de hindoe-identiteit van India, en het wegwerken uit wet en grondwet van enkele discriminaties ten nadele van de hindoes. Vlamingen zullen begrijpen wat er bij de meeste Indiawaarnemers wereldwijd niet in wil: dat een numerieke meerderheidspositie kan samengaan met een wettelijk achteruitzetten.”
Van daar gaat het verder naar de daders van de moord - behalve Godse ook nog ene Narayan Apte, manager van het dagblad Hindu Rashtra waarvan Godse de hoofdredacteur was –, het proces, en de politieke gevolgen van de moord. Na deze in vogelvlucht doorlopen te hebben, gaat Elst zeer uitgebreid in op Nathuram Godses achtergronden (kasteroeping, invloeden, z’n zogenaamde homofilie, Godse als Gandhiaan en Godse als secularist), met bijzondere aandacht voor de vuilnisbakterm “communalisme”. Godse en de HMS (de Hindu Mahasabha) worden vaak als “communalisten” weggezet, maar da’s wel zeer ver benevens de waarheid, aldus Koenraad Elst: “De Verdeling was de communalistische beleidsdaad bij uitstek, de communalisering van het grondgebied. Welnu, alleen Godses HMS heeft nooit opgehouden zich ertegen te verzetten, terwijl de andere partijen de maatregel actief steunden (Moslim-Liga, Communistische Partij) of passief aanvaardden (Congres). Als woorden nog een betekenis hebben, en als wij zindelijk met woorden willen omgaan, dan moeten we de omschrijving van Godse en zijn geestesgenoten als ‘hindoecommunalisten’ afwijzen en eerlijk vaststellen dat zij tegenstanders van het communalisme waren, en voorstanders van een compromisloos seculaire democratie. Wie zich de moeite niet wil getroosten om dit aan de betreffende documenten te toetsen, kan ten minste logisch bedenken dat de hindoes als meerderheid bij een normale democratie niets te verliezen hadden.”
Waarna Elst datgene doet wat wel bijzonder weinig mensen, zowel buiten India als daarbinnen, hebben gedaan: de apologie van de moordenaar, Nathuram Godse, er bij nemen om het te hebben over Godses kritiek op Gandhi. Hij neemt die niet klakkeloos over, plaatst er kritische noten bij, maar laat ons wel wezen: Godse was hoofdredacteur van een dagblad, geen semi-analfabete rekkenvuller, waarom zou je de door hem zelf gegeven motivatie niét als basis nemen voor wat hij gedaan heeft? Dus leren we aan de hand van Godses rede – waarvan de publicatie in India meteen verboden werd, maar sinds de jaren 1960 toch in verschillende inlandse talen en sinds 1977 ook in het Engels in het land en daarbuiten circuleert – over De kalifaatbeweging, De moord op Swami Shraddhananda, De twee maten, twee gewichten die Gandhi hanteerde ten aanzien van moslims en hindoes, de ondoeltreffendheid van zijn niet eens consequent doorgetrokken geweldloosheid, de aard van het leiderschap van Gandhi, en de vraag of het werkelijk Gandhi’s acties waren die voor India de onafhankelijkheid verwezenlijkten (naar Elsts mening speelde “Gandhi’s mobilisatie van de massa’s” wel degelijk een rol, een even zware als de drie redenen die door Godse opgenoemd worden).
Eindigen doet de auteur met De hindoebeoordeling van Gandhi en Godse, waarbij Godses daad, een strategische blunder genoemd wordt (dat is wel duidelijk) en “vanuit het standpunt van de hindoegezinde politiek (…) de ergst denkbare vergissing” en waarbij Elst ook nog de kans geeft aan een aantal “intellectuelen die niet tot de RSS-zuil behoren, met name (…) de grootste drie onder hen: Ram Swarup, Sita Ram Goël en Arun Shourie” om een pleidooi pro Gandhi te houden. Een pleidooi dat hijzelf aldus afsluit: “Met dit boek is het Gandhidebat natuurlijk niet afgesloten. Integendeel, de drie genoemde en talloze niet-genoemde argumenten ter verdediging van Gandhi’s beleid verdienen een grondige bespreking. Dit boek wilde alleen feiten aandragen – zoals ze beleefd werden door Gandhi’s critici – zodat de hagiografie met een gestroomlijnde feitenlezing rond Gandhi wat kan bijgestuurd worden. Het is een anomalie dat men over Gandhi spreekt zonder dat men kennis neemt van de versie van zijn scherpste criticus, een man die in alle Gandhiboeken wel wordt genoemd maar nooit wordt gehoord. Ten overvloede weze herhaald dat we in dit boek alleen ruimte hadden voor een behandeling van Gandhi’s beleid ten aanzien van de Moslim-Liga en de Verdeling van India, maar dat we Gandhi’s werk daarmee volstrekt niet tot dat ene, minst gelukkige luik hebben willen herleiden. Zo was Gandhi een vruchtbaar denker die originele ideeën ontwikkelde over de meest uiteenlopende maatschappelijke en ethische vraagstukken, dit in tegenstelling met de intellectuele armoede en de monolatrie van het Moederland die zo kenmerkend is voor de beweging waarvan Godse deel uitmaakte. Gandhi was toegewijd aan India en de mensheid, aan het hindoeïsme en de verstandhouding tussen alle religies, en hij deed met veel grotere inzet dan de meesten van ons datgene wat naar zijn inzicht het beste zijn idealen kon dienen. Aan Gandhi’s heroïsche toewijding is geen twijfel; de discussie betreft hier de juistheid van dit feilbare menselijke inzicht. En dan moeten we vaststellen dat ook hij niet het geniale inzicht had dat het eeuwenoude en zeer diepgewortelde hindoe-moslimconflict had kunnen oplossen.”
Tot slot van deze bespreking wil ik u toch nog de reactie van de leider van de Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS), Madhavrao Sadashivrao (doorgaans afgekort tot M.S.) Golwalkar, op het toevoegen van een politieke partij aan zijn beweging meegeven: “Nu ja, een huis heeft ook een toilet nodig.” Klopt, al is het beter die partij te laten voor wat ze is en in een gat in de tuin te schijten. Gaten in de grond zijn immers véél minder schadelijk dan partijen en wie zo’n gat “bemand” voelt doorgaans niet de behoefte zich op tijd en stond een nieuw maagdenvlies aan te meten, de hypocriet uit te hangen als er weer eens een extra slachtoffer valt door een al te laks gevangenisbeleid, of à la 1984 onvrijheid te verkopen voor vrijheid of oorlog voor vrede. Maar dat heeft, behalve het feit dat de ene politicius de andere waard is (niet veel dus), natuurlijk niks meer te maken met deze bespreking van De moord op de Mahatma van Koenraad Elst.
Wat dat boek betreft: ook voor wie wat méér achtergrondkennis heeft aangaande India, is dit zeker een aanrader!
Björn Roose
Koenraad Elst is een zeer bezige bij, reist de halve wereld op en af, maar stelt het zonder auto, dus moeten we hem vaker missen tijdens redactieraden dan goed is en krijgen we niet zo heel vaak nieuwe artikels van zijn hand voorgeschoteld, maar als we er weer eens een krijgen – bijvoorbeeld het in de editie van april/mei/juni 2020 (nummer 178) gepubliceerde De China-golf overspoelt het westen – , dan getuigt het immer van een grote belezenheid én de vlotte pen van de auteur. Net zoals voorliggend De moord op de Mahatma (uitgegeven bij Davidsfonds in 1998), dat natuurlijk handelt over het gewelddadige einde van de enige mahatma die we met z’n allen “kennen”: Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi (“mahatma” betekent overigens zoiets als “grote ziel” en de term werd gepopulariseerd door de theosofische geschriften van de fameuze mevrouw Helena Blavatsky aan het einde van de 19de eeuw).
Elst haalde zijn doctoraat aan de Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, waar hij wijsbegeerte, sinologie en oriëntalistiek studeerde en is, zoals vermeld op de achterflap van dit honderdvijftig bladzijden dikke en stampvol informatie zittende boek, “specialist voor de politieke geschiedenis van India”. Geen politiek correcte specialist overigens (politieke correctheid zou sowieso not done moeten zijn voor iedereen die specialist wenst te worden in wat dan ook), dus kan u als lezer van dit boek ook geen hagiografie verwachten:
“Waarom kwam de man die geweldloosheid predikte, zo gewelddadig aan zijn einde? Dat is de vraag waarop Koenraad Elst, vijftig jaar na de feiten, een antwoord zoekt. Hoeveel betekende de Mahatma niet voor zijn volk? Hij had de handschoen opgenomen tegen de Britse kolonisator, zich ingezet om de kasteverschillen te overbruggen, geprobeerd om moslims en hindoes vreedzaam te laten samenleven… Maar ondanks zijn goede bedoelingen ontaardden zijn acties in bloedig geweld. Zijn politieke eindzege, de onafhankelijkheid van India in 1947, werd grondig bedorven door de Verdeling van het land, waaruit de moslimstaat Pakistan gekerfd werd. Tussen de mythe Gandhi die in het Westen opgang maakt en de historische werkelijkheid ligt een afgrond van verschil. Koenraad Elst toont de complexe wereld van het politieke India van de jaren veertig.”
Zelf ben ik begonnen aan dit boek met als achtergrondkennis dat van die geweldloze burgerlijke ongehoorzaamheid, de wetenschap dat er in India ook wel een paar katholieken wonen (ik heb met één van hen en een paar van z’n hindoe-landgenoten samengewerkt ten tijde van de zogenaamde Y2K-bug), dat er kasten waren waar je niet zomaar uit kon komen, en het gegeven dat “ze” er in geslaagd waren Pakistan kwijt te spelen. En van bij de eerste bladzijde heb ik massa’s bij geleerd. Elst begint het boek namelijk met iets wat je absoluut nodig hebt om een béétje zicht te krijgen op de feiten rond de moord op Gandhi: De lange voorgeschiedenis. Hij neemt je mee langs de Oorsprong van de Indiase beschaving (waarbij hij meteen duidelijk maakt dat de plaatsing in de tijd daarvan verre van duidelijk is), De eenheid van India, Religie in India (ook na de afscheiding van Pakistan geen louter kwestie van hindoeïsme), Geweldloosheid (en de radicalisering van dat ideaal bij de jains, “de volgelingen van vardhamana alias Mahavira Jina”), Het kastestelsel (véél ingewikkelder én interessanter dan een mens snelsnel kan leren bevatten), de fameuze Onaanraakbaarheid (“Doorgaans beoefenen de onaanrakbare kasten ook onderling de onaanraakbaarheid.”), en de Impact van de islam en het kolonialisme op het kastenstelsel, India in het algemeen, en Gandhi in het bijzonder:
“De Britse demarche die voor Gandhi de meest noodlottige gevolgen zou hebben, was het aanmoedigen en patroneren van een aparte moslimpartij die de moslims (toen ca. 21% van de bevolking) zou weghouden bij de onafhankelijkheidsbeweging en daarmee elke aanspraak van het [Indiaas Nationaal, noot van mij] Congres op representativiteit voor ‘de’ Indiase bevolking zou ontkrachten. In 1906 richtten moslimaristocraten de Moslim-Liga op, een loyalistische partij die niet hoefde te pretenderen het algemeen belang na te streven, maar openlijk de aparte belangen van de moslimgemeenschap zou behartigen. Daarmee was het toneel klaargezet voor het drama van Mahatma Gandhi’s leven: de hindoes vervoegden in steeds grotere aantallen het heel-Indiase Congres, weliswaar samen met vele moslims, maar een groter aantal moslims werd gerekruteerd door de Moslim-Liga die een politiek separatisme (aparte kieskringen) en uiteindelijk ook een territoriaal separatisme zou nastreven.” Of hoe het verdeel-en-heers-over-India van de Britten leidde tot verdeel-en-heers-over-den-hond-zijn-ellebogen.
Gandhi had meermaals te verstaan gegeven dat zo’n verdeling er “over zijn lijk” zou komen – “hij had al enkele keren politieke tegenstanders tot belangrijke toegevingen gedwongen door letterlijk zijn leven op het spel te zetten, namelijk door een ‘vasten tot de dood’ te beginnen” -, maar ze kwam er, zoals er na zijn dood ook nog een afscheuring kwam van Birma (Myanmar), Ceylon (Sri Lanka) en ten slotte Oost-Pakistan (Bangladesh), al vallen dié afscheuringen buiten het bestek van dit boek. Al goed voor Gandhi:
“Deze bevolkingswissel [in het geval van moslims richting Pakistan doorgaans vrijwillig, in het geval van hindoes richting rest-India doorgaans gedwongen, noot van mij] ging gepaard met zeer veel geweld. Destijds sprak men van twee miljoen doden, tegenwoordig schat men dit aantal op zeshonderdduizend. De Indiase regering en diverse hindoe-organisaties zetten kampen op om de vluchtelingen uit Pakistan op te vangen. Deze slachtoffers van de Verdeling hadden hun hebben en houden moeten achterlaten, hadden vaak familieleden verloren, en waren van allerlei gruwelen getuige geweest. Velen waren daarom vervuld van haat jegens de moslims. Er was echter één niet-moslim die zij nog veel meer haatten dan alle moslims bij elkaar: Mahatma Gandhi. De heiligenverering die Gandhi na zijn martelaarschap te beurt viel, maakt het voor velen moeilijk om zich voor te stellen dat Gandhi in de maanden vóór zijn dood de meest gehate man in India was. Ook vandaag nog verklaren talloze hindoes en sikhs zonder scrupules dat de moord op Gandhi niet meer dan rechtvaardig was. Nochtans hadden zij hem decennialang massaal gesteund in zijn agitatie tegen het koloniale bestuur en hadden zij op hem vertrouwd toen hij zich tegen het in 1940 door de Moslim-Liga gelanceerde Verdelingsplan verzette. Maar dat was het hem juist: zij hadden al hun hoop op hem gesteld en hij had hun vertrouwen beschaamd. Zij hadden in Sindh en West-Panjab op hem gerekend om heel concreet te verhinderen dat zij van de ene dag op de andere vreemdelingen in hun eigen woonplaats zouden worden. En hij had niets gedaan. Erger: zij hoorden dat hij er nu zelfs voor pleitte om hen naar Pakistan terug te sturen. Terug naar het slachthuis, alsof er niets gebeurd was. Hij maakte ook plannen voor een reis naar Pakistan, om er de Mohajirs uit te nodigen naar India terug te keren. En hij eiste nadrukkelijk dat de regering 550 miljoen roepie aan Pakistan zou overmaken als Pakistans rechtmatige deel uit de schatkist van Brits-India. Op zich heel redelijk, maar wel uiterst ongewoon na de invasie van Pakistaanse troepen in Kasjmir (oktober 1947), waarbij de hindoe- en sikh-bevolking van het veroverde gebied tot de laatste man was uitgemoord. Geld toestoppen aan een land waarmee je in oorlog bent, dat was wel een erg wrange wereldprimeur.”
En Gandhi kreeg dan nog zijn zin ook. Genoeg redenen voor Nathuram Godse en vele anderen om hem naar de volgende wereld te sturen (of via reïncarnatie een nieuwe kans te geven in dezelfde). Godse en die vele anderen worden dan door “onze media” aangeduid als “hindoefundamentalisten”, maar Koenraad Elst begint zijn uitleg over Godse en de “Hindoe-Herlevingsbeweging” met de stelling dat dat etiket volkomen onzin is, terwijl hindoes toch wel een paar redenen hebben (of hadden, het boek is per slot van rekening al meer dan twee decennia oud en ik ken de actuele politieke situatie niet) om wat harder voor zichzelf op te komen: “De politieke agenda van de hindoe-activisten (van alle strekkingen) tegenover de staat is dan ook zeer beperkt: een keuze van nationale symbolen die recht doet aan de hindoe-identiteit van India, en het wegwerken uit wet en grondwet van enkele discriminaties ten nadele van de hindoes. Vlamingen zullen begrijpen wat er bij de meeste Indiawaarnemers wereldwijd niet in wil: dat een numerieke meerderheidspositie kan samengaan met een wettelijk achteruitzetten.”
Van daar gaat het verder naar de daders van de moord - behalve Godse ook nog ene Narayan Apte, manager van het dagblad Hindu Rashtra waarvan Godse de hoofdredacteur was –, het proces, en de politieke gevolgen van de moord. Na deze in vogelvlucht doorlopen te hebben, gaat Elst zeer uitgebreid in op Nathuram Godses achtergronden (kasteroeping, invloeden, z’n zogenaamde homofilie, Godse als Gandhiaan en Godse als secularist), met bijzondere aandacht voor de vuilnisbakterm “communalisme”. Godse en de HMS (de Hindu Mahasabha) worden vaak als “communalisten” weggezet, maar da’s wel zeer ver benevens de waarheid, aldus Koenraad Elst: “De Verdeling was de communalistische beleidsdaad bij uitstek, de communalisering van het grondgebied. Welnu, alleen Godses HMS heeft nooit opgehouden zich ertegen te verzetten, terwijl de andere partijen de maatregel actief steunden (Moslim-Liga, Communistische Partij) of passief aanvaardden (Congres). Als woorden nog een betekenis hebben, en als wij zindelijk met woorden willen omgaan, dan moeten we de omschrijving van Godse en zijn geestesgenoten als ‘hindoecommunalisten’ afwijzen en eerlijk vaststellen dat zij tegenstanders van het communalisme waren, en voorstanders van een compromisloos seculaire democratie. Wie zich de moeite niet wil getroosten om dit aan de betreffende documenten te toetsen, kan ten minste logisch bedenken dat de hindoes als meerderheid bij een normale democratie niets te verliezen hadden.”
Waarna Elst datgene doet wat wel bijzonder weinig mensen, zowel buiten India als daarbinnen, hebben gedaan: de apologie van de moordenaar, Nathuram Godse, er bij nemen om het te hebben over Godses kritiek op Gandhi. Hij neemt die niet klakkeloos over, plaatst er kritische noten bij, maar laat ons wel wezen: Godse was hoofdredacteur van een dagblad, geen semi-analfabete rekkenvuller, waarom zou je de door hem zelf gegeven motivatie niét als basis nemen voor wat hij gedaan heeft? Dus leren we aan de hand van Godses rede – waarvan de publicatie in India meteen verboden werd, maar sinds de jaren 1960 toch in verschillende inlandse talen en sinds 1977 ook in het Engels in het land en daarbuiten circuleert – over De kalifaatbeweging, De moord op Swami Shraddhananda, De twee maten, twee gewichten die Gandhi hanteerde ten aanzien van moslims en hindoes, de ondoeltreffendheid van zijn niet eens consequent doorgetrokken geweldloosheid, de aard van het leiderschap van Gandhi, en de vraag of het werkelijk Gandhi’s acties waren die voor India de onafhankelijkheid verwezenlijkten (naar Elsts mening speelde “Gandhi’s mobilisatie van de massa’s” wel degelijk een rol, een even zware als de drie redenen die door Godse opgenoemd worden).
Eindigen doet de auteur met De hindoebeoordeling van Gandhi en Godse, waarbij Godses daad, een strategische blunder genoemd wordt (dat is wel duidelijk) en “vanuit het standpunt van de hindoegezinde politiek (…) de ergst denkbare vergissing” en waarbij Elst ook nog de kans geeft aan een aantal “intellectuelen die niet tot de RSS-zuil behoren, met name (…) de grootste drie onder hen: Ram Swarup, Sita Ram Goël en Arun Shourie” om een pleidooi pro Gandhi te houden. Een pleidooi dat hijzelf aldus afsluit: “Met dit boek is het Gandhidebat natuurlijk niet afgesloten. Integendeel, de drie genoemde en talloze niet-genoemde argumenten ter verdediging van Gandhi’s beleid verdienen een grondige bespreking. Dit boek wilde alleen feiten aandragen – zoals ze beleefd werden door Gandhi’s critici – zodat de hagiografie met een gestroomlijnde feitenlezing rond Gandhi wat kan bijgestuurd worden. Het is een anomalie dat men over Gandhi spreekt zonder dat men kennis neemt van de versie van zijn scherpste criticus, een man die in alle Gandhiboeken wel wordt genoemd maar nooit wordt gehoord. Ten overvloede weze herhaald dat we in dit boek alleen ruimte hadden voor een behandeling van Gandhi’s beleid ten aanzien van de Moslim-Liga en de Verdeling van India, maar dat we Gandhi’s werk daarmee volstrekt niet tot dat ene, minst gelukkige luik hebben willen herleiden. Zo was Gandhi een vruchtbaar denker die originele ideeën ontwikkelde over de meest uiteenlopende maatschappelijke en ethische vraagstukken, dit in tegenstelling met de intellectuele armoede en de monolatrie van het Moederland die zo kenmerkend is voor de beweging waarvan Godse deel uitmaakte. Gandhi was toegewijd aan India en de mensheid, aan het hindoeïsme en de verstandhouding tussen alle religies, en hij deed met veel grotere inzet dan de meesten van ons datgene wat naar zijn inzicht het beste zijn idealen kon dienen. Aan Gandhi’s heroïsche toewijding is geen twijfel; de discussie betreft hier de juistheid van dit feilbare menselijke inzicht. En dan moeten we vaststellen dat ook hij niet het geniale inzicht had dat het eeuwenoude en zeer diepgewortelde hindoe-moslimconflict had kunnen oplossen.”
Tot slot van deze bespreking wil ik u toch nog de reactie van de leider van de Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS), Madhavrao Sadashivrao (doorgaans afgekort tot M.S.) Golwalkar, op het toevoegen van een politieke partij aan zijn beweging meegeven: “Nu ja, een huis heeft ook een toilet nodig.” Klopt, al is het beter die partij te laten voor wat ze is en in een gat in de tuin te schijten. Gaten in de grond zijn immers véél minder schadelijk dan partijen en wie zo’n gat “bemand” voelt doorgaans niet de behoefte zich op tijd en stond een nieuw maagdenvlies aan te meten, de hypocriet uit te hangen als er weer eens een extra slachtoffer valt door een al te laks gevangenisbeleid, of à la 1984 onvrijheid te verkopen voor vrijheid of oorlog voor vrede. Maar dat heeft, behalve het feit dat de ene politicius de andere waard is (niet veel dus), natuurlijk niks meer te maken met deze bespreking van De moord op de Mahatma van Koenraad Elst.
Wat dat boek betreft: ook voor wie wat méér achtergrondkennis heeft aangaande India, is dit zeker een aanrader!
Björn Roose
July 18, 2024
Political objectives and historical writing are typically inextricably linked, although some institutional pluralism can really provide room for different viewpoints. Unfortunately, a monolithic political vision of progressivism that ultimately lost sight of observable fundamental facts came to dominate post-independence Indian history scholarship.
At a certain point, even the leftist proponents of this genre of Indian history and the social sciences as a whole lost faith in their own purported mission of advancing social and economic justice. It became into crude, self-serving political action with an obsessive need to suppress opposing viewpoints that questioned their own institutional advantages and intellectual exclusivity. This group of historians has accepted some ideological beliefs, such as attributing legendary significance to a purported menace of Hindu fanaticism and its inexcusable culpability in Gandhi's assassination.
Dr. Koenraad Elst, a historian, has skillfully commented on the murderer Nathuram Godse's statement to the court that condemned him to death—a punishment he preferred to imprisonment—into this pivotal discussion surrounding the assassination of Mahatma. While pointing out factual inaccuracies and exaggerations, Dr. Elst takes seriously Nathuram Godse's detailed assessment of India's independence fight, especially Mahatma Gandhi's participation in it and its aftermath. He starts out with a delightful digression into the historical background of the Chitpavan community, to which Nathuram Godse belonged, and its significance in the annals of both Maharashtra and contemporary India. Dr. Elst uses the interpretation of Godse's political testament as a framework for a comprehensive and analytical analysis of Indian politics and ideology in the years leading up to and following independence in 1947.
Godse's long address to the court emphasizes how deeply political Gandhi's assassination was. To support his theory that Mahatma Gandhi was assassinated, Nathuram Godse examines the history of India's independence movement and his involvement in it, concluding that it was an absolute catastrophe. He killed Gandhi not just because he believed that Gandhi had previously betrayed the Hindu population of India, but also because he was probably trying to help the Nizam of Hyderabad, whose supporters were already brutally suppressing the Hindu majority that he ruled over. Many topics that have been assiduously disregarded or purposefully distorted by the dominant genre of communist Indian history writing are scrutinized closely in the context of Godse's political testament. The striking accomplishment of Dr. Elst's sophisticated monograph is bringing to light the real political and intellectual divisions that led to the terrible assassination of Mahatma Gandhi by Godse. Refusing to comprehend its political reasoning gives unsupportable credibility to the theory that his killer was driven primarily by religious zeal. Nathuram Godse, on the other hand, was a secular nationalist who had many of the same beliefs and biases as the Congress party, which led the major independence campaign. He vehemently fought caste privilege and religious obscurantism, pushing for social and political equality for all Indians in the vein of his mentor, Vinayak Damodar Savarkar.
Godse's condemnation of Gandhi's death does not lessen the incredible cogency of his criticism of Gandhi's political approach during the independence movement or of the essentially flawed policy of appeasing Muslims, regardless of the repercussions in the long run. Instead of encouraging collaboration towards a shared goal and national objectives, his subsequent actions exacerbated their desire for independence. His twisted backing of the Khilafat Movement, which Jinnah himself opposed, was exacerbated by deliberate mistakes made during the 1930–1932 Round Table Conference. Without any preparation, he assumed the responsibility of representing the Congress on his own during the second session and enthusiastically championed the Communal Award of distinct electorates. Furthermore, acknowledging that the province of Sindh was created in 1931 as a result of Jinnah's threats and disconnecting it from the Bombay Presidency, ensured the eventual success of separatist movements. Godse also criticized the Congress's policy of first joining the 1937 provincial administrations in the absence of the Muslim League and then abruptly leaving them, losing control over political developments at a crucial time. He also criticizes Gandhi's insincere criticism of the reformist Arya Samaj, Swami Shraddhananda's social work, and Gandhi's startling silence after his assassination by a Muslim.
Even more, Nathuram Godse supported the very views of the progressive school of historical writing in post-colonial India, which held that the British had emphasized religious separation and communalism in order to maintain imperial power. He did, however, object to the communal benefits he believed Mahatma Gandhi gave Muslims, even if he ultimately acknowledged them as necessary to win Muslims' support for an independent, unified India.
Naturally, Gandhi's populism made Muslim politics and Congress into more unstable mass movements. Gandhi's appeasement fostered unwavering separatism in the Muslim political arena, which constitutionalist Mohammed Ali Jinnah had ruled over until 1916 before temporarily resigning to concentrate on his law profession. Godse was adamantly against the partition of India, which demonstrated the futility of Gandhi's efforts to placate Muslims. Godse was most incensed by Gandhi's continuous kindness to them following Partition, even in the face of the atrocities Hindus were suffering in the newly established Pakistan. He was particularly horrified by Gandhi's demand that Pakistan release its portion of the country's foreign exchange reserves, which Jawaharlal Nehru had advised Mahatma Gandhi not to do (during India's war with Pakistan in Kashmir), as the money would help them win the war right away.
Evidently, Godse has realized how important it is to engage in strategic negotiations with the British to preserve the heritage of a unified India. He was critical of the Congress's posturing, which culminated in the terribly misguided Quit India Movement of 1942, which was swiftly followed by Gandhi's complete surrender. In order to avoid Partition, the latter course may have involved giving up all democratic pretenses and entrusting the Muslim League with the rule of independent India. Clearly, Gandhi's killer was a smart, knowledgeable individual who was willing to kill rather than the raging Hindu fanatic that the Indian public often portrays. In certain ways, Dr. Bhimrao Ambedkar was a harsher critic of Gandhi's attempts to pacify Muslims; this opinion was also shared by Annie Besant and Sri Aurobindo Ghose, two other influential figures in Indian politics and the Congress.
Dr. Elst also gives a brief but compelling explanation of the political failings of the Congress party and its well-known members, as well as the destiny of the Hindu Mahasabha and its well-known leaders, Dr. Syama Prasad Mookerjee and Veer Savarkar. He draws attention to the Congressmen's complete foolishness in their interactions with the British throughout the 1940s. To no purpose, the highly regarded Sri Aurobindo Ghose—a previous leader of the Congress himself—had chastised Subhas Bose for siding with the Japanese and pushed for support for Britain's war effort. Furthermore, Dr. Elst meticulously draws attention to Godse's dislike of Gandhi's pacifism's obvious contradictions, both political and philosophical, and challenges them to the lofty ideal of complete non-violence that it was purported to embody. However, Dr. Elst is well aware of the terrible consequences of the Mahatma's killing for India, as well as the severely crippling effects it had on the future rise of Indian nationalism politics. He counterbalances Nathuram Godse's criticism of Mahatma Gandhi in his conclusion by going over the significant criticism of the Hindutva movement offered by prominent intellectuals Ram Swarup and Sita Ram Goel. He provides his own critical evaluation of Gandhi's accomplishments and perversity in advancing antagonistic Islamic and Christian interests in a long final piece. His observations on the state of Indian politics now and the relevance of Gandhi's enduring legacy are insightful.
It is also pertinent to emphasize that highlighting the overwhelming inconsistencies presented by the Indian discourse on secularism and communalism is a significant supplementary contribution of Dr. Elst's superb work. In his compelling narrative, Dr. Elst concludes that it has reversed logic by charging secular nationalists—such as the purported Hindu nationalists of the RSS—of the very political violation of communalism that their own, albeit politically well-intentioned, support for sectarian privilege plainly implies. Paradoxically, politicians in India of all shades still hold fast to the belief that genuine Islam will provide harmony between Muslims and Hindus, triumphing over reality. And the irony of independent India is that, despite the fervent devotion of secular nationalists like Nathuram Godse, it developed into an armed, contemporary reality.
At a certain point, even the leftist proponents of this genre of Indian history and the social sciences as a whole lost faith in their own purported mission of advancing social and economic justice. It became into crude, self-serving political action with an obsessive need to suppress opposing viewpoints that questioned their own institutional advantages and intellectual exclusivity. This group of historians has accepted some ideological beliefs, such as attributing legendary significance to a purported menace of Hindu fanaticism and its inexcusable culpability in Gandhi's assassination.
Dr. Koenraad Elst, a historian, has skillfully commented on the murderer Nathuram Godse's statement to the court that condemned him to death—a punishment he preferred to imprisonment—into this pivotal discussion surrounding the assassination of Mahatma. While pointing out factual inaccuracies and exaggerations, Dr. Elst takes seriously Nathuram Godse's detailed assessment of India's independence fight, especially Mahatma Gandhi's participation in it and its aftermath. He starts out with a delightful digression into the historical background of the Chitpavan community, to which Nathuram Godse belonged, and its significance in the annals of both Maharashtra and contemporary India. Dr. Elst uses the interpretation of Godse's political testament as a framework for a comprehensive and analytical analysis of Indian politics and ideology in the years leading up to and following independence in 1947.
Godse's long address to the court emphasizes how deeply political Gandhi's assassination was. To support his theory that Mahatma Gandhi was assassinated, Nathuram Godse examines the history of India's independence movement and his involvement in it, concluding that it was an absolute catastrophe. He killed Gandhi not just because he believed that Gandhi had previously betrayed the Hindu population of India, but also because he was probably trying to help the Nizam of Hyderabad, whose supporters were already brutally suppressing the Hindu majority that he ruled over. Many topics that have been assiduously disregarded or purposefully distorted by the dominant genre of communist Indian history writing are scrutinized closely in the context of Godse's political testament. The striking accomplishment of Dr. Elst's sophisticated monograph is bringing to light the real political and intellectual divisions that led to the terrible assassination of Mahatma Gandhi by Godse. Refusing to comprehend its political reasoning gives unsupportable credibility to the theory that his killer was driven primarily by religious zeal. Nathuram Godse, on the other hand, was a secular nationalist who had many of the same beliefs and biases as the Congress party, which led the major independence campaign. He vehemently fought caste privilege and religious obscurantism, pushing for social and political equality for all Indians in the vein of his mentor, Vinayak Damodar Savarkar.
Godse's condemnation of Gandhi's death does not lessen the incredible cogency of his criticism of Gandhi's political approach during the independence movement or of the essentially flawed policy of appeasing Muslims, regardless of the repercussions in the long run. Instead of encouraging collaboration towards a shared goal and national objectives, his subsequent actions exacerbated their desire for independence. His twisted backing of the Khilafat Movement, which Jinnah himself opposed, was exacerbated by deliberate mistakes made during the 1930–1932 Round Table Conference. Without any preparation, he assumed the responsibility of representing the Congress on his own during the second session and enthusiastically championed the Communal Award of distinct electorates. Furthermore, acknowledging that the province of Sindh was created in 1931 as a result of Jinnah's threats and disconnecting it from the Bombay Presidency, ensured the eventual success of separatist movements. Godse also criticized the Congress's policy of first joining the 1937 provincial administrations in the absence of the Muslim League and then abruptly leaving them, losing control over political developments at a crucial time. He also criticizes Gandhi's insincere criticism of the reformist Arya Samaj, Swami Shraddhananda's social work, and Gandhi's startling silence after his assassination by a Muslim.
Even more, Nathuram Godse supported the very views of the progressive school of historical writing in post-colonial India, which held that the British had emphasized religious separation and communalism in order to maintain imperial power. He did, however, object to the communal benefits he believed Mahatma Gandhi gave Muslims, even if he ultimately acknowledged them as necessary to win Muslims' support for an independent, unified India.
Naturally, Gandhi's populism made Muslim politics and Congress into more unstable mass movements. Gandhi's appeasement fostered unwavering separatism in the Muslim political arena, which constitutionalist Mohammed Ali Jinnah had ruled over until 1916 before temporarily resigning to concentrate on his law profession. Godse was adamantly against the partition of India, which demonstrated the futility of Gandhi's efforts to placate Muslims. Godse was most incensed by Gandhi's continuous kindness to them following Partition, even in the face of the atrocities Hindus were suffering in the newly established Pakistan. He was particularly horrified by Gandhi's demand that Pakistan release its portion of the country's foreign exchange reserves, which Jawaharlal Nehru had advised Mahatma Gandhi not to do (during India's war with Pakistan in Kashmir), as the money would help them win the war right away.
Evidently, Godse has realized how important it is to engage in strategic negotiations with the British to preserve the heritage of a unified India. He was critical of the Congress's posturing, which culminated in the terribly misguided Quit India Movement of 1942, which was swiftly followed by Gandhi's complete surrender. In order to avoid Partition, the latter course may have involved giving up all democratic pretenses and entrusting the Muslim League with the rule of independent India. Clearly, Gandhi's killer was a smart, knowledgeable individual who was willing to kill rather than the raging Hindu fanatic that the Indian public often portrays. In certain ways, Dr. Bhimrao Ambedkar was a harsher critic of Gandhi's attempts to pacify Muslims; this opinion was also shared by Annie Besant and Sri Aurobindo Ghose, two other influential figures in Indian politics and the Congress.
Dr. Elst also gives a brief but compelling explanation of the political failings of the Congress party and its well-known members, as well as the destiny of the Hindu Mahasabha and its well-known leaders, Dr. Syama Prasad Mookerjee and Veer Savarkar. He draws attention to the Congressmen's complete foolishness in their interactions with the British throughout the 1940s. To no purpose, the highly regarded Sri Aurobindo Ghose—a previous leader of the Congress himself—had chastised Subhas Bose for siding with the Japanese and pushed for support for Britain's war effort. Furthermore, Dr. Elst meticulously draws attention to Godse's dislike of Gandhi's pacifism's obvious contradictions, both political and philosophical, and challenges them to the lofty ideal of complete non-violence that it was purported to embody. However, Dr. Elst is well aware of the terrible consequences of the Mahatma's killing for India, as well as the severely crippling effects it had on the future rise of Indian nationalism politics. He counterbalances Nathuram Godse's criticism of Mahatma Gandhi in his conclusion by going over the significant criticism of the Hindutva movement offered by prominent intellectuals Ram Swarup and Sita Ram Goel. He provides his own critical evaluation of Gandhi's accomplishments and perversity in advancing antagonistic Islamic and Christian interests in a long final piece. His observations on the state of Indian politics now and the relevance of Gandhi's enduring legacy are insightful.
It is also pertinent to emphasize that highlighting the overwhelming inconsistencies presented by the Indian discourse on secularism and communalism is a significant supplementary contribution of Dr. Elst's superb work. In his compelling narrative, Dr. Elst concludes that it has reversed logic by charging secular nationalists—such as the purported Hindu nationalists of the RSS—of the very political violation of communalism that their own, albeit politically well-intentioned, support for sectarian privilege plainly implies. Paradoxically, politicians in India of all shades still hold fast to the belief that genuine Islam will provide harmony between Muslims and Hindus, triumphing over reality. And the irony of independent India is that, despite the fervent devotion of secular nationalists like Nathuram Godse, it developed into an armed, contemporary reality.
July 2, 2021
This is my third book in recent time which has good enough mention of Mahatama Gandhi. Other two being- Shashi Tharoor's An era of Darkness and Neelima Dalmia Adhar's The secret diary of Kasturba.
This book is mainly commentary on Godse's defense speech with some additional commentary on Gandhi's letter. Any text on Mahatama Gandhi is either written by his follower or his critic. Finding anything neutral is just so difficult. And finding anything neutral on Godse is even more difficult. If there is anything neutral on Godse, it will not sound neutral as neutrality will be in favour of Godse. Well, he was murderer. This book is written by Belgium born BHU educated Right wing Ind orian citizen Keonraad Elst. (He may have been leftist for sometime).
Koenraad sounds as unbiased as anybody could. He critisizes Godse where he is wrong (factually or otherewise) in speech and brings out facts in support of Godse where it is required.
Other interesting parts of book was where he draws parallel between Gandhi and Godse.
Book also talk about riot which happened after Gandhi's assaination. I had never heard about it before.
Overall a good commentary on one of most important event in Indian history.
This book is mainly commentary on Godse's defense speech with some additional commentary on Gandhi's letter. Any text on Mahatama Gandhi is either written by his follower or his critic. Finding anything neutral is just so difficult. And finding anything neutral on Godse is even more difficult. If there is anything neutral on Godse, it will not sound neutral as neutrality will be in favour of Godse. Well, he was murderer. This book is written by Belgium born BHU educated Right wing Ind orian citizen Keonraad Elst. (He may have been leftist for sometime).
Koenraad sounds as unbiased as anybody could. He critisizes Godse where he is wrong (factually or otherewise) in speech and brings out facts in support of Godse where it is required.
Other interesting parts of book was where he draws parallel between Gandhi and Godse.
Ashis Nandy has pointed out the parallels between Gandhi’s and Godse’s personalities: they were both deeply religious, ascetic, given to sexual abstinence, and strongly attached to the Bhagavad Gita. We may add that both believed they had a supernatural sense: as a child already, Godse had acted as the oracle of the family goddess, while Gandhi always invoked his ‘inner voice’ to overrule rational considerations. Moreover, their political commitment was largely the same as well, as Nandy, in At the Edge of Psychology (p. 82), observes:
Like Gandhi, Godse refused to let Hindus lay the blame for their sufferings elsewhere but on themselves. In the case of Partition, he looked for Hindu culprits: the Congress leadership and Gandhi.
Book also talk about riot which happened after Gandhi's assaination. I had never heard about it before.
It seems that most hagiographers were embarrassed with the way the apostle of non-violence was mourned by his fans as well as by others who merely used the opportunity for, as in Red Fort Trial (p. 4) P.L. Inamdar puts it, ‘the manhunt of Maharashtrian Brahmins irrespective of their party allegiance by non-Brahmins in Poona and other districts.’ Offices and houses were burnt down, numerous people were molested and at least eight people were killed, according to an official tradition.
Overall a good commentary on one of most important event in Indian history.
February 7, 2021
Just finished this intense read and writing my review with my mind still numb from a few things that I read.
This is not the first attempt by any author to write a book on this topic. Previous many versions were printed and banned from publication as soon as the came out with the Government trying its absolute best to keep it a secret. Many writers even went to innovative ways of telling their story through live theater plays, only to be found out later and banned subsequently.
To this date it remains one of the most widely banned books of all time simply because of how many different versions in different languages and countries it has been attempted before finally succeeding to overturn such bans.
More than a story its an interview transcript and interpretations by the author on various events that led to the killing of Mahatma Gandhi by Nathuram Godse. During his death penalty trial, Godse gave an intense account of his motives and reasons for his action in a 2hrs speech that left everyone in the courtroom stunned. The speech that was given in his native Marathi language was subsequently translated in English language for court records and further translated into many Indian and foreign languages.
While the official Government accounts have labeled the murder as an act of extremist forces, the author instead has tried to connect all the dots and uncover the real reasons behind the incident that changed the demographics of Indian politics forever.
This book is a must read for anyone with a keen interest in Indian history. Half of what is there in the book was kind of known to me, but its the other half that was a real eye opener.
You will be surprised the extent of factual inaccuracy of what they teach us in text books in school, choosing to omit any detail that may cause unrest.
This is not the first attempt by any author to write a book on this topic. Previous many versions were printed and banned from publication as soon as the came out with the Government trying its absolute best to keep it a secret. Many writers even went to innovative ways of telling their story through live theater plays, only to be found out later and banned subsequently.
To this date it remains one of the most widely banned books of all time simply because of how many different versions in different languages and countries it has been attempted before finally succeeding to overturn such bans.
More than a story its an interview transcript and interpretations by the author on various events that led to the killing of Mahatma Gandhi by Nathuram Godse. During his death penalty trial, Godse gave an intense account of his motives and reasons for his action in a 2hrs speech that left everyone in the courtroom stunned. The speech that was given in his native Marathi language was subsequently translated in English language for court records and further translated into many Indian and foreign languages.
While the official Government accounts have labeled the murder as an act of extremist forces, the author instead has tried to connect all the dots and uncover the real reasons behind the incident that changed the demographics of Indian politics forever.
This book is a must read for anyone with a keen interest in Indian history. Half of what is there in the book was kind of known to me, but its the other half that was a real eye opener.
You will be surprised the extent of factual inaccuracy of what they teach us in text books in school, choosing to omit any detail that may cause unrest.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 60 reviews