Pages

Friday, April 29, 2011

Gandhi v/s Godse: Conflicting Nationalism


Recently i happened to read a book on Nathuram Godse, yes the assassin of one of the greatest apostle of truth and non violence 'Mahatma Gandhi'.
Almost 60 and odd years after that mournful event ghost of Godse refuses to go away and still emerges out time and again to haunt a nation which can still feel the warmth of its struggle for independence but still unsure how to cope with its history.

In the cold wee hours of 15 November 1949, Godse and his co-conspirator Narayan apte were executed. Clutching a map of undivided India in one hand and the bhagwa dhwaj (saffron flag) in another, 38-year-old Nathuram Godse and 37-year-old Narayan Apte walked to the gallows chanting in unison a Sanskrit invocation to the motherland. Godse died instantly, but Apte's end was more painful, he had to be hanged a second time. A few hours later, their bodies were cremated outside the prison walls. Immediately afterwards, the whole area was ploughed and planted with grass so that no one could identify the spot and build a shrine.

Nathuram was the Editor of a Marathi newspaper - Hindu Rashtra and a well-known member of the Hindu Mahasabha. He had written scathing editorials denouncing Gandhiji and the Congress party. On 8 November 1948, he was allowed his day in the sun when he rose to make his statement. Reading quietly from a typed manuscript, he sought to explain why he had killed Gandhiji. His thesis covered ninety-pages, and he was on his feet for five hours. Godse's statement should be quoted extensively, for it provides an insight into his personality.

In this thesis Nathuram vehemently condemned Gandhiji for his monopoly over congress. He accused Gandhiji claiming that "He was, paradoxical, as it may appear, a violent pacifist who brought untold calamities on the country in the name of truth and non-violence, while Rana Pratap, Shivaji and the Guru will remain enshrined in the hearts of their countrymen forever for the freedom they brought to them. ....he failed in his paternal duty in as much he has acted very treacherously to the nation by his consenting to the partitioning of it. I stoutly maintain that Gandhi has failed in his duty. He has proved to be the Father of Pakistan. His inner-voice, his spiritual power, his doctrine of non-violence of which so much is made of, all crumbled against Jinnah's iron will and proved to be powerless."(Sources: “Why Gandhi Assassinated” by Gopal Godse)

Nathuram's ideology of armed struggle for freedom was not suited to the mass of india in that era. There was a total lack of political consciousness. Workers and Peasants,the backbone of any struggle, had to liberate themselves not only from the grip of British Imperialism but also from the landlords and capitalists. India was neither united nor politically awake.

Gandhiji knew that the real power to revolt lies in the workers and peasants of this country. An Armed Revolt could have never been successful in india. In 19th century India was a 'Nation in Making'. Gandhiji did a brilliant work in politicizing and uniting indian people without which independence would have been a far cry.
Moreover great Martyrs like Bhagat singh and Ram Prasad Bismil were also convinced at the end that Armed struggle, revolutionary terrorism and individual vendetta could not gain us anything. Gnadhiji had faith in his non-violent Satyagraha and in the capacity of the indian people to adopt it.

After the introduction of swarijsts and other left wings like Communists and Socialist there was always a possibility of Congress to get split into pieces but He saved congress on many occasions by avoiding an impending split and made all his fellows in congress to remain united even though they differed in their views and style of politics.Had a split occured Moderates would have been pacified by mere constitutional reforms and extremists would have been repressed with violent measures. Any further political awakening would have been crushed. An entire generation of leaders would have been beheaded like what happened after 'Gadhar revolt' and 'Kuka Revolt'. Thus Gandhiji was the only person who could have pacified all the disagreement and conflict in views of fellow leaders and kept them all united. It was some of the basic features of his political style and ultimate leadership,especially when dealing with co-workers.That is why leaders of all groups fully accepted the essentiality of Gandhiji's leadership  in which Nathuram perceived fascism, a radical and authoritarian nationalist political ideology, self-conceit and irresponsibility.

Though we may classify all the movements launched by Gandhiji as failures that brought untold disaster as put by Nathuram instead of freedom, but the success or failure of a political movement is not always to be measured in terms of its achievement of stated objectives. But if success or failure are to be measured in terms of the deepening of national consciousness,the evolution and testing of new methods of struggle then the movements certainly contributed their share to the india's struggle for freedom.

Nathuram Godse in his last speech tried to degrade Mahatma Gandhi by saying him a dictator and someone who forced his thinking on masses but what he himself did? He made up his mind on certain own explained principles and killed mahatma. On one side he condemned Mahatma Gandhi's  efforts to maintain communal harmony and at the same time he is pleading for a united India. Was it possible to have a united India with the kind of Ideologies Nathuram had? Of-course to patronize one section of the society and neglect the other can not be accepted but no one has a right to kill some great leader on some debatable issues.

Many people condemn Mahatma's way of struggle but every great leader has many debatable issues. Still Gandhiji had done a lot for india and truly deserves the honour of 'Father of Nation'. 
When Godse's associate Madanlal Pahwa, a refugee from Punjab, threw a bomb at his prayer meeting a few days before the assassination, Gandhiji implored forgiveness and understanding. For thousands years we were ruled and exploited by outsiders because we lacked unity. Gandhiji united this country and centralized the power vested in indians especially peasants, and workers. He gave a voice to india and created a central force which uprooted the British Imperial empire. In his absence from the indian polity i believe india was not matured enough to get the freedom and the same was believed by other global leaders as well.

Last lines of Godse were "I have no doubt that honest writers of history will weigh my act and find the true value thereof someday in future." But what i see in Nathuram is an extreme and fanatic communalist whose views were based on hatred, fear, psychosis and irrationality which he falsely proclaimed as patriotism. His act will always be condemned and can never gain any historians sympathy. Communalism has brought many catastrophes to our country, took away millions of lives and even 'Father of Nation' fell prey to this while fighting against it.

Nathuram might have some valid points against discrimination of Hindus by government but his act was totally wrong and unacceptable. Even his views regarding pure Hindi as national language have no relevance in today’s contest while Hindi as Hinusthani is getting better acceptance all over the India in which the words and phrases of other languages are included.

Godse saw only one aspect of his suffering or his Hindus suffering. He had to understand the things in broder perspective. He holds Gandhiji responsible for such a massacre. Godse did not understand the people(both Hindus and Muslims) who liked Gandhiji, were responsible for such a mayhem. People who justify Godse's act of violence to serve Hindu community also justify the violence erupted like a wildfire after the partition because every person involved in riots had their legitimate reason like Godse, a reason of narroewdness lacking the haumanity. Godse too has some points like Gandhiji was involved in Muslim appeasment. My strong conviction is Gandhiji tried to appease Muslims but he did not try to hurt the sentiments of Hindus. Circumstances went out of hand. Gandhiji's non-violence got a hit during partition because humanity failed. Again it is because of the people like Godse it happened even though he could be corect in his logic.


I also do not agree completely with Gandhiji's ideologies which were inspired by the sanskrit phrase 'Ahimsa Paramo Dharma' but i also accept the next phrase 'Dharma Himsa Tathaiva cha'(Non-violence is the ultimate dharma. So too is violence in service of Dharma.). I revere non violent freedom fighters but also revere equally the great revolutionaries who sacrificed their lives for their motherland. No doubt that our freedom fighters who wanted to get freedom by violent means had a great role in the freedom struggle but the roles of leaders like Mahatma Gandhi, Nehru etc. can not be downgraded. 

Jawaharlal Nehru rightly addressed the nation through radio after the assassination:
“Friends and comrades, the light has gone out of our lives, and there is darkness everywhere, and I do not quite know what to tell you or how to say it. Our beloved leader, Bapu as we called him, the father of the nation, is no more. Perhaps I am wrong to say that; nevertheless, we will not see him again, as we have seen him for these many years, we will not run to him for advice or seek solace from him, and that is a terrible blow, not only for me, but for millions and millions in this country.”

It is understandable that Godse didn't understand Gandhiji because of the prevailing circumstances and was led by extreme communal ideologies, but it is unfortunate that educated people like us still debate over the righteousness of a person who killed Truth, Peace and Unity and became the emblem of communalism which has plagued the country even now. 

Let's free ourselves from the ghost of Godse forever and revere our great leaders instead of stirring fanatic and irrational communalism.





                                                                                                          - Saurabh
"The world suffers a lot. Not because of the violence of bad people, but because of the silence of good people."

Thursday, April 21, 2011

Logic v/s Faith


There is amazing amount of confusion how logic relates to faith. This question often arises when we challenge the conception of GOD.
  Logic is the study of the principles of reasoning, principles governing the validity of arguments basically your intellect whereas faith is a confidence or trust in trustworthiness of a conception, in simple words what you feel at heart which is beyond rationality.
  I always believed there are two kinds of people, those who believe in GOD (Theists) and those who do not (Atheist), but then i observed the third kind which surprisingly holds the majority, those who believe in GOD but live as if they do not. They usually vacillate dallying with the superiority of either faith or logic and take the lead in the battle of wits.

  Question is, does the existence of one challenge the other, does the one subordinate the other, does the one presuppose the other, which one is greater. Lets ponder on this.

  Logic and faith both are powerful enough to bring catastrophes or harmony in the world. Both are two different worlds, quite exclusive to each other. Being humans we are equipped with the rational power and obviously rationalized things are weighed more than the things which are founded only on faith. So which is greater? Well Still tough to decide!!!

  Thinking logic alone can gain faith of somebody is like convincing someone that something is beautiful. Lets consider a situation that you visited Rajasthan and actually liked the barren sand dunes in the deserts. Would logic convince your friend that the deserts are beautiful. certainly not. We all love our parents but have your parents ever tried to make you believe how much they love you by logic and reasoning? You just feel the affection of your loved ones and have faith in the same.
  Some of the most beautiful things of the world like Love, Care, Beauty and even GOD transcend logic. No one can even think of attempting a logical proof of all this, If one does he will be far from understanding them. These things are perceived by something more than our minds. Can someone claim that watching travel documentaries brings the same excitement as by actually going somewhere and doing some adventure. Accepting the superiority of logic over faith is like making someone taste the sweets by explanations and logic.

  Logic even sometimes makes apriori assumptions and tells us to take certain things on faith. We say 'testability is truth' but its again based on faith. Irony is, Its an untestable assumption that testable is true. When Einstein gave his Relativity Theory and claimed that an object travelling with the speed of light will have an infinite mass, many people agreed and hailed him but again this involves a little bit of faith. Faith on him, faith on mathematics. As there is no possible way to detect a case which can prove this.

  As per Holy Bible:
"Everyone who does evil hates the light, and will not come into the light for fear that his deeds will be exposed. But whoever lives by the truth comes into the light, so that it may be seen plainly that what he has done has been done through God."
Fear from truth causes unbelievers to use their intellect in rejecting it. It seems reasoning for doing evil is the consequence and not the cause.

  For those who only like to think rationally, existence of GOD, Love, Care and Beauty can never be logically proven to someone who doesn't want to believe it. You cannot get at a clear conception of God by speculation, or by thinking about Him or about what He is in Himself. Lay hold of the clue of His acts, and it leads you straight into His heart. They say GOD exists only in the brains of Humans, I say HE exists in the hearts. Ultimate choices should not only be of mind alone but also of heart. In the world of faith your deepest emotions are your compass to let you navigate through it and consequently these convictions don't need the base of logic .
Well both have their own system of reasoning but In brief  logic can not stand without the support of faith instead Faith accompanied by Logic holds universal acceptance.


                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                             - Saurabh
"The world suffers a lot. Not because of the violence of bad people,but because of the silence of good people."
                                                                                             

Friday, April 15, 2011

EVIL v/s GOD


In the philosophy of religion and theology, the coexistence of GOD and evil has gnawed many great thinkers. A chronic philosophical dilemma is to reconcile the existence of evil with the idea of an omnipotent, omnibenevolent  and omniscient  deity.
  They say existence of such a GOD is incompatible with the existence of evil outright. I say God's creation of persons with morally significant free will corroborates HIS diligence.True free will cant exit without the possibility of evil, that suffering is necessary for spiritual growth of Humans.
Time and again tycoons of theology have attempted to draw a parallel between evil and GOD.An example of many such attempts as follows

  • If an all-powerful and perfectly good god exists, then evil does not.
  • There is evil in the world.
  • Therefore, an all-powerful and perfectly good god does not exist.

Later philosophers also added some alluring refinements:

  • God exists.
  • God is omnipotent, omniscient, and perfectly good.
  • A perfectly good being would want to prevent all evils.
  • An omniscient being knows every way in which evils can come into existence.
  • An omnipotent being, who knows every way in which an evil can come into existence, has the power to prevent that evil from coming into existence.
  • A being who knows every way in which an evil can come into existence, who is able to prevent that evil from coming into existence, and who wants to do so, would prevent the existence of that evil.
  • If there exists an omnipotent, omniscient, and perfectly good being, then no evil exists.
  • Evil exists (logical contradiction).

They try to show that an assumed hypothesis leads to a  logical contradiction so our hypothesis of GOD's existence is erroneous.
  This seems preposterous to me as i reckon GOD and Evil are compatible. This can be best explained  in great scientist and philosopher Albert Einstein's words:  "Evil does not exist, or at least it does not exist unto itself. Evil is simply the absence of God. It is just like darkness and cold, a word that man has created to describe the absence of God." How beautifully he explained God did not create evil. Evil is the result of what happens when man does not have God's love present in his heart. It's like the cold that comes when there is no heat, or the darkness that comes when there is no light.". 
I have a strong conviction that God has taken utmost care in defining the norms of this world. Free will which is the ultimate privilege to make choices free from any constraints has been bestowed upon us. In a simple analogy, like a mother gives freedom to her child to make choices. 
  We can conceive a parallel world in which an omnipotent and omniscient God exists and He corrected this abuse of evil by HIS creatures only and consequently free will is absent. A metal beam becomes a straw of grass when used as weapon and air refuses to carry your sound waves if it doesn't contain truth. Air stops to receive any foreign element in it which pollutes it. Seemingly this hypothetical world seems to me prefect but when i fancy myself to be a resident of such a world i feel a suffocation there. God would seem a traitor to me making us to move at the stroke of HIS fingers and obnoxiously enjoying the game. One can never feel the prestige of taking birth and realize the worth of this life. Such a toy world has no value. God  would  never be so Great in my eyes as HE is now by giving me the "free will".
  Irony is that the coexistence of  free will and evil satisfies the conception of  compatibilism. Evil is caused by original sin which in turn is caused by free will. Free will could exist without the degree of evil seen in this world and can be accomplished by inducing humans to make more and more just and moral decisions and circumventing the woeful deeds and having faith in the supremacy of insuperable GOD.
  This world and this birth as humans is a gift to us by the almighty. The ultimate honor to the free will bestowed upon us is to be righteous accepting the almighty's supremacy and treating all your brothers equal as "Children of GOD". Lets Honor HIM by being morally strong , incorruptible, invidious to none, pure, just and noble and make HIM feel that HE made no mistake creating this world or at least by giving us FREE WILL.

                                                                                                                     

                                                                                                                                                                        
                                                                              - Saurabh
"The world suffers a lot. Not because of the violence of bad people,but because of the silence of good people."

Proud to be an INDIAN!

Social Share!

Get Social Share 2.0!