Discussion in 'Politics & Society' started by ashdoc, Oct 3, 2016.
I don't understand why some so called "liberal" media personnel thinks such things as taboo. Nathuram had an opinion and he killed Gandhi, as simple as that, and if few people think that Nathuram was patriot then, whats wrong in that. He actually killed gandhi, because gandhi was incompetent in saving the partition of India.
When people asked for his help then he went to his "Maun" vrata, so he actually abandoned his people when he was most required to the nation.
nathuram killed gandhi because gandhi fasted to force the indian government to give pakistan 55 crore rupees---money that was used by pakistan to finance it's invasion of kashmir .
The judge who gave Godse the death penalty observed that if his statements were made public, there would be a huge sway in the public opinion which could undermine the legal proceedings. Such was the validity of Nathuram's cause.
This is no surprise. Behind all this loud howl of "Bharat Mata ki Jai," this is the real face of the crypto-nationalists. No wonder they worship a convicted criminal murderer, and they seem to be pretty proud of it.
Sure, everyone has an opinion. Who gives anyone the right to take another person's life?
Crypto Nationalists are those who offer enemy nation 20crore rupees as compensation after they attack an integral part of India. His supporters and sympathisers are bigger crypto nationalists those who advocate he is some Mahatma whence all he did was stop Quit India movement at its peak and did all he could to get the English off the hook whenever they were in trouble.
Now some people ask "Who gives anyone the right to take another person's life?"
Funny, some people would say terrorists are persons too, and who gave the Indian commandos right to neutralise them, even though all they did were "peaceful" aggregation across the LoC. Funny indeed!
We as a nation and people do venerate Chandrashekhar Azad, Bhagat Singh, Udham Singh and countless others who took lives and gave their lives for this country. They neither had the "right" nor they "had to". But they did.
The British and their collaborators designated them as terrorists.
Let's accept, taking some lives is more acceptable than taking others.
If you want to debate with me, please quote me.
If Nathuram Godse or his compatriots were such great "patriots," they should have fought against the British.
Instead, they picked a weak target.
Do not justify a murder.
They fought against a violent British Empire. Godse murdered a man of peace.
Gandhi was not always correct in his decisions, but for all his flaws, he was a non-violent man, and this is indisputable.
Indira Gandhi was a "non violent" woman. Just because somebody is unarmed doesn't mean that somebody is "innocent".
Gandhi's killing was a Political Assassination, it was a necessity.
I wonder why were the followers of a man of peace, the Ahimsha chaaps so eager to hang Godse? Was hanging of Godse an act of retribution?
That only underscores my point- taking some lives is more acceptable than others, especially when done "extralegally".
Who do you think the Hindu Mahasabha was fighting? Definitely not the Muslims, not the Congress either. Just because you have read a Congi tinted version of Indian History, does not mean that no one else struggled against the British or that there struggle were any less meaningful than that of the "humble subjects of the empire" otherwise known as Indian National Congress.
There is no comparison between Indira Gandhi and Godse. One acted violently against a violent regime. The other murdered a man of peace. Quite the contrast.
No, it was not a necessity, and it was plain and simple wrong.
As I said, if one can be an apologist for Godse who murdered an old defenceless and peaceful man, then one can also be an apologists for Kasab, who also murdered a lot of innocent defenceless civilians.
There are no two standards on this.
What Congi tainted history?
The facts are facts, and these very facts make many people uncomfortable. That is why the attempts at re-writing history. No everyone has to agree with the manufactured revisionists history that is coming out of the crypto-nationalists.
The kind of man of peace who remained mum when Hindus were butchered by Muslims and termed the butcher Moplas as brave. Man of Peace indeed. Definitely supported the Religion of Peace.
So it is always "Facts" when leftist writers author a history book, and always "Manufactured revisionism" when a right tilted author pens it. Quite a liberal view, might I say.
Violence comes in many different forms pm. But I am not sure what you mean by "One acted violently against a violent regime." Whom are you referring to
Disappointing to see you go down that route pm, but if you really wish to compare, whatever maybe Godse's motivations (right or wrong), he shot Gandhi and only Gandhi (as reprehensible as that act maybe). He did not spray bullets on others in the praarthna sabha just because they were Gandhians. Kasab mowed down innocents just because they were Indians and kaafir. He did not have personal enmity with either one of those he killed.
No, apparently it was an act of non-violence as propounded by "Mahatma".
And who give right to these liberals commies to ban book ideologies and even court proceedings. If someone want to know why ghandi was killed he can not do so because liberals want to change the history.
If he is wrong then these libs are also wrong when they talk about justice but behind close doors. Because they if that comes in public then congress will be killed by bare hands of public of india.
Separate names with a comma.