Click to see the Time magazine's interview.
MY COMMENTS
Was it proper to shoot Gandhi brutally , even assuming that he was appeasing Muslims at the cost of Hindus?
The right thing for Gopal Godse and his ilk ought to have been to present the facts and their views to the people and clarify the people's doubts. Those who didn't heed to Godses' words were to have been left to themselves.
I personally do not contribute to the Godse's view that non-violence per se was impracticable. Here is what he said in that interview :
Non-violence is not a principle at all. He did not follow it. In politics you cannot follow non-violence. You cannot follow honesty. Every moment, you have to give a lie. Every moment you have to take a bullet in hand and kill someone. Why was he proved to be a hypocrite? Because he was in politics with his so-called principles. Is his non-violence followed anywhere? Not in the least. Nowhere.
Violence might become necessary sometimes. The quantity and quality of defensive violence in repulsion should be proportionate to the offensive violence.
When it comes to the question of witnessing masses of people getting massacred for a filthy flimsy reason like religion, some restraint might have helped.
The blame should lie on Jinnah. Here also, I shall not say that Jinnah should have been killed, though he tried to cash on the legitimate apprehensions, fears and grievances of Muslims in a post-British free India.
Godses should have tried to get Jinnah prosecuted and punished by the State for creating hatred and violence. Did they try? Instead , they exacerbated the problem by killing Gandhi.
I believe that Godses might have been under the influence of some narcotic drugs when they plotted and executed their plan to kill Gandhi. Even otherwise, religion was an opium.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Anonymous scathing harsh comments against author, are also welcome. Pl. do not praise author. Spam comments will be deleted.