Tuesday, January 26, 2010

குடியரசு தினத்தில் கோட்சேயின் நினைவு!



கோபால கோட்சே
நாதுராம் கோட்ஸேவின் சகோதரர்


காந்தியின் மரணம் ஒரு பார்வை....
________________________________________________________________________

'Gandhi used to systematically fool people. So we killed him' - Gopal Godse

Gopal Godse

Do you ever regret Mahatma Gandhi's killing?

Mahatma GandhiNo, never. Gandhi used to claim the Partition would be over his dead body. So after Partition when he didn't die, we killed him. Usually an assassination of a leader is either for personal benefit or to acquire power. We killed Gandhi because he was harmful to India. And it was a selfless act. No one paid us a single penny for it. Our love for the motherland made us do it. We are not ashamed of it. Gandhi should have been honest to admit that his life was a failure.

You see, right from Pakistan and Bangladesh every Muslim is a converted Hindu. Gandhi's appeasement attitude (towards the Muslims) went far too much. That was why we killed him. Two hundred and fifty thousand Hindus were killed in Noakhali in October 1946. Hindu women were forced to remove their sindhoor and do Muslim rituals. And Gandhi said, 'Hindus must bow their heads if Muslims want to kill them. We should follow the principle of ahimsa (non-violence).' How can any sensible person tolerate this? Our action was not for a handful of people -- it was for all the refugees who came from Pakistan.

So, till this day, I have never regreted being one of the conspirators in Gandhi's assassination. In fact, many of Nathuram's friends told me after my release, 'Nathuram ni gadhav pana kela, tyani majha chance ghalavla' (Nathuram did you an injustice. He made you miss your chance to kill Gandhi).

Did your family undergo any social pressure after the assassination?

Yes, very much. No one used to be ready to marry girls from my family. So we decided that the first thing we should put across to the bridegroom was that we are related to Nathuram Godse. It is only now that people appreciate our honesty. Now they are ready for marriage (into my family).

If the Muslim League could influence the Muslims in 1947, why was it that the Hindu Mahasabha could not influence Hindus?

(That was) because I don't have any leadership quality. My talent is to write. And I have convinced my readers with my writing.

Unfortunately, the so-called secular Hindu leaders from the Congress have been ruling the masses since 1885. And they have ruled the country for another 50 years. It is only now that Hindus have become conscious (about the Congress). They have thrown the party out from Maharashtra and all over India.

You cannot gauge a nation in merely five decades. It took 500 years for the Christians to drive away Muslims from Europe. Muslims ruled right up to Spain and Portugal. I don't know how many years it will take for Hindus to rule the entire Bharat. It may be a decade, or it may be a century.

Did you ever contest elections?

Yes, I contested from Ranchi in Bihar. People asked me why I was contesting there. I said my slogan is 'Ab ke bar Ranchi se agli bar Karachi se'. (This election I will contest from Ranchi and the next from Karachi). I was able to secure only 7,000 votes because I did not have any mass support.

Can Muslims and Hindus ever live together in peace?

Yes, if the Muslims give up their blind faith. It is written in the Koran that idol worship is not permitted. If Muslims don't want Hindus to pray to their gods, how can they live together with them (the Hindus)? They want to convert Hindus to Islam not realising that their ancestors were Hindus. They must give up this attitude. Then only the two can live together.

And who created Pakistan? It wasn't the Arabs but the Muslims of Bharat. Who was Jinnah? His grandfather was a Hindu. Benazir Bhutto is also a Hindu Rajput.

Every Muslim nation keeps away from modern science. And when they do that they are left far behind the rest of the world. When the telephone was invented, Muslim countries were not using it. They said it is not mentioned in the Koran, that it was un-Islamic!

Of the 140 million Muslims in India, how many would you say want to convert Hindus to Islam?

The number is not important. What's important is that it is written in their religion. They have already shown that by creating Pakistan. No secular Hindu can go for Haj. Why is it so that only Muslims are allowed there? Is it because only Muslims are secular?

Who wants to expand Islam in India? Can you name them?

No. You have to understand one thing. Individually a Muslim may be good to the Hindus. But when in a group, he will be out of the national mainstream.

குழு புகைப்படம்

'According to Nathuram the Sindhu was the only river which was pure as Gandhi's ashes were not immersed there'

What is the national mainstream?

I can give you an example: There was some inauguration of a dam in Kerala. A Muslim minister was asked to light the lamp. He refused, saying his religion does not permit him to do that! (சமீபத்தில் கூட ஒரு மத்திய மந்திரி அவ்வாறு நடந்து கொண்டார் என்பது செய்தி! அதைக் கண்டித்து ஜேசுதாஸ் கூட வெளிநடப்பு செய்தார்!) That's hypocrisy. Whenever you find benefits you keep your Islam away. And when you are asked to light a lamp you say it's against your religion! That's why I say Muslims in a mob are not in the mainstream.

Veer Savarkar once said, "If a Vithal is worshipped by a Harijan and you say that he is polluted, then he is no Vithal at all."

How can there be a mainstream in India when there are so many castes? A Maharashtrian has a different caste and culture from that of his counterpart in West Bengal.

Britishers created this caste system. Even in Maharashtra they wanted to create a split between the brahmins and the others. Laloo Prasad Yadav and Mulayam Singh Yadav are from the same caste. But still they quarrel. Why? Because they are hungry for power. What has tied them and every Indian together is the common culture. That is what we call Hindutva. For example, a marriage between a Mahar in Maharashtra and a brahmin in West Bengal. They come from the same mantras. That is what we call culture and Hindutva.

The most essential thing is why we are together. Because of language? No. Because of our common culture. And that is why from north to south people are going to attend the Amarnath Yatra. Once you forget your culture, the mere existence of the geographical boundary which is termed India will be of no use.

What were your experiences in jail?

When we took the step, we were sure of the consequences. We took it because we loved our nation. Bhagat Singh did not want to liberate his ancestral land. He wanted to liberate Lahore, Pune and the entire nation. So he sacrificed his life. Revolution is integrated with its leader. A man who sacrifices his life is not bothered about petty things. We knew Gandhi's leadership was not good for the nation. Someone had to jump in the fire. So we did it.

Veer Savarkar was made to do the work which bullocks did in an oil mill. And he did it. Why? Because he was dedicated to the nation. All revolutionaries have to make personal sacrifice. Luckily for us, all the jailers knew we were simple men. They knew our cause. So they never troubled us. And I never violated the prison rules. I studied about life imprisonment and wrote about it.

Can you tell me about your last meeting with Nathuram Godse?

I met him on November 13, 1948 in Ambala jail. It was the day before his execution and there were 20 others with me. Both he and Narayan Apte were jolly.

Nathuram told us that his ashes must not be immersed in any river in India -- it must be scattered only in the Sindhu in Pakistan. His explanation was that Gandhi's ashes have been immersed in all the rivers of the world -- even in the Nile, Volga and Thames. But the Pakistan government refused to immerse his ashes in the Sindhu, saying they didn't want to pollute it with the ashes of a kafir. According to Nathuram the Sindhu was the only river which was pure as Gandhi's ashes were not immersed there.

How do you see India's future?

(Laughs) You make me the prime minister and half the problem of this country will be solved. But I think we will improve only if our leaders adopt a selfless attitude. Take for example the education policy. We must set up a target: in 15 years we will educate so many people. And only those people who can read and write will be allowed to vote. In such an eventuality, politicians will get busy educating the masses in order to get votes.

Another problem is the large number of candidates. And many of them are uneducated. We must make some norms to prevent this. Only then we will improve. To date, nobody has any thought of the nation. Otherwise you would never have heard of recovering more than Rs 30 million from a politician's flat. They don't have any integration with the nation. They are only integrated with their family and sons-in-law.

What is your opinion about secularism in India?

All these 50 years we practised a mockery of secularism. The magistrate has to ask about the religion of a person before giving a judgment. If a man is a Hindu he gets one kind of justice and if he is a Muslim he gets another. Can you call this secularism? This is what is happening in our country. Even in the Property Act you have different rules for Muslims.

What about poverty in India?

Poverty has increased because resources have not increased. On one side you want to increase the life of a person. On the other, you don't want to increase the resources. If you have noticed, during the advertisement of family planning on television you never see a Muslim woman saying 'Hum do Hamare do' (We are two, ours two). And these secularists say that family planning is applicable to all of us! I don't understand why former prime minister Narasimha Rao says 'If there is a Common Civil Code riots will start all over the country'.

Which do you prefer -- the BJP or Shiv Sena?

The Shiv Sena. The BJP is more hesitant to stand by Hinduism. The Shiv Sena supports the killing of Gandhi. People accept them as a Hindu party. When I was honoured, the BJP kept away from it. In Maharashtra the Sena has more respect than the BJP.


Courtesy to: rediff.com

http://www.rediff.com/news/1998/jan/29godse.htm

http://www.rediff.com/news/1998/jan/29godse1.htm


படத்தைப் பெரிதாக்கிப் படிக்க!


___________________________________________________________________________

வன்முறை வேண்டாம் என்று சொன்னவர் மீது நிகழ்த்தப்பட்ட வன்முறைக்கு சொல்லப்படும் காரணம், அவர் வன்முறை வேண்டாம் என்று இந்துக்களிடம் மட்டுமே சொல்லிக்கொண்டிருந்தார். ஏன் மற்றவர்களுக்கும் சொல்லவில்லை? என்பதே! தேசத்தந்தை போலி செக்யூலரிசத்தின் தந்தையாகவும் ஆகிப்போனாரென்பது கோட்சே & கோ வின் வாதம்.

தேசத்திற்க்காக தன் வாழ்க்கையே அற்பனித்த காந்தியடிகள் கொல்லப்பட்டது ஏற்றுக்கொள்ள முடியாததே!. அண்ணல் காந்தி நம்முடன் இல்லை. ஆனால் அவர் மரணத்திற்காக சொல்லப்படும் காரணங்கள் மட்டும் இன்னும் உயிர்ப்புடன் இருப்பதாகவே தோன்றுகிறது.!

அண்ணல் காந்தியடிகளுக்கு அஞ்சலி!


10 comments:

maddy73 said...

Nice one. When I was in Gujarat, I learnt that most of them like Sardar Patel, than Gandhi.

வால்பையன் said...

இன்னும் எத்தனை உசுரு போகபோகுதுன்னு தெரியலையே!

hayyram said...

அது செக்யூலரிச அரசியல் வாதிகள் கையில் தான் இருக்கிறது.

Sathish said...

i wonder why these people are not killing any politicians who are talking against hinduism.. why they are not killing the priests from other religion who convert hindus?

what happened to their policies? what they gained by killing Mahatma? i feel pity towards this person... by killing Mahatma also the country hasn't changed and hindus are still in trouble. Other religions are reaping the benefits! And these cowards just stand still against all these.. shame on u people!

vshe said...

Sathish,

There is no one who is right or wrong, when it comes to politics especially during the freedom struggle.

Please remember, there was no Internet or voice of speech then. All one had was Government controlled media and publications.

I suggest, you read what Nathuram spoke during Gandhi's assassination his trial. (The only direct evidence available, to probe into the mind of Nathuramji, allowed by GOI.)

He is as much a freedom fighter like Gandhiji! If one condemns Nathuramji, Gandhiji is also equally responsible for the conduct of Congress Party during the violent related deaths of the partition.

Their paths crossed and both of them lost their lives.

There are always two sides to a coin.

vshe said...

Sathish,

At the same time, had Gandhiji lived, till his natural end, Congress would not have been any better.

To understand Islam, one needs to read about Islam and vice versa.

True secularism is when no one gets any mileage because of religious affinities. The under dogs of any religion is protected.

India IS NOT Secular at all!
We still have birth dependent birth rights,(call it religion or caste)that decides the fate of a child.

Madhusudhanan D said...

Gandhi did not appeal to Muslims because he could not convince them, ie) he could not win their hearts. He wished to stop violence in India at least the violence by Muslims. He did not do that for his selfishness.

hayyram said...

//He did not do that for his selfishness.// the mistake he made that he would have understand about muslim leaders from the start.

shivamnatarajan said...

Gandhi was killed by hindu fanatics(who r subscribed to foreign ideology) bcz he want to raise the living conditions of harijans (who r natives of this land)

ஆலயம்.எஸ்.ராஜா எனும் ஹிந்துஸ்தானின் சேவகன் said...

இதைத் தமிழில் தந்தீர்களனால் இன்னும் நல்லது...................