Do you agree with me that THE ASSASINATION OF GANDHI WAS MORALLY JUSTIFIED???

Question

In the Holy book of the Indians (Gita), Krishna had remarked something along the lines of: "It is a sin to commit injustice, but it is an even greater sin to tolerate injustice".

What Gandhi wanted to do, was to establish a status quo whereby Muslims (the same people who should have left our country in 1947) would have greater rights and priviledges than Hindus (who are the majority of india). What Gandhi wanted to do was to establish Muslim supremacy over Hindus in a system which would have been de facto a return to Mughal rule. We all know (as we have witnessed from history) that Muslims are the WORST when it comes to tolerance especially toward non-Muslims.

Even though the old fool was killed, look at how much damage he still managed to do. To this day Hindus are suffering because he convinced the Muslims to stay when they should have left.

Do you agree with me that it was a beautiful event and morally justified, when my brother Godse sent Gandhi to heaven???

Dear Mr Rajesh,
Had I said this under the British raj, maybe I would have been hanged and maybe not. But under the MUGHALS, I would have been burned to death, had my house razored, Had my temple destroyed, had my womenfolk raped. WHY??? For simply being a hindu. Please brother - go and learn your own bloody history before preaching to me about mine!!! You stupid indians don't even know the first thing about british rule or muslim rule because the Congress party has whitewashed all muslim atrocities against hindus in tandem with amplifying all british atrocities against indians.

Answer 1

i completely agree with you. the division of the 2 nations by Jinnah was a very practical thought. he knew that there could be some revivalist tendencies among different religions that would give rise to communalism. As a matter of fact communalism has been on a rise in India which still has a large population of Muslims. Further the political parties are mingling with communalism giving rise to fundamentalism.
even in Pakistan some Hindus are treated as second class citizens.
the division of the nation was right. and it justifies the killing of Gandhi ji.

Answer 2

Today only I read'what lord Krishna wanted to say was, no karma should be left over by anybody, they should do all karmas,if they fail to do any thing it is a sin.In Hindu there are so many rituals to do right from the mother's womb till he goes to his last lap .If any body , fails to do ,he is commiting a sin and he will be paid.So don't try to justify the brutal killing of Nathuram Godse to Lord Krishna' Bgavat Geetha's.
The Hindu culture is a great one , after the invasion of certain Mugal Kings only, the Muslim generation came into existance.Even the Killer King Aurangazeb tried to kill the Great Shivaji , not by war but,by embrassing as a friend.Such agreat killer king,imposed on the people,to convert themselves to muslim or their heads will be severed.Even after that threat also The Hindu religion is still existing means it is because of its ingenuity.In such a state both Muslim and Hindu were living.The muslims activities will be entirely different from Muslims.What Mahatma wanted is an independency for both muslim and hindus,there Md.Ali Jinnah was representing the muslims,after the Indepence also there was difference of opinion between GAndhi and Jinha, and atlost gandhi allowed ,Jinnah to form a separate.At that what Gandhi failed is he could not able to tell all Muslims to go out of India.If he would have told and certain margin would have been fixed,our country will to some extent saved from the barbarians.At the same time what Gandhi would have thought , was one these people will be united and live, but that has not happend.As born Hindu Gandhi never would have thought to take Muslims to have the superacy over Hindu.My dear young man ,any brutal killing can never have a moral.Killngs of Bhutto,Sadam,Indra,Rajiv, is all cold blooded murder , brutal kiliings of the persons ,who don't have the patience, perseverance and even humaness, to settle the issue.Do you mean to say Sadam is worst when comparred to Bush.Zia is better than Bhutoo.No

Answer 3

I would play the devil's advocate and largely agree with the intent of this asker (unlike a really hostile reaction this question has elicited). Half this crowd, without realizing anything that they speak preach them because some they heard some leader on TV :) Where are your brains, Rajesh and co?
People have half baked knowledge of history and for such people politics of minority appeasment seems to be in-thing. It is because they dont have it in them to think for themselves. They just parrot whatever the so called clowns called secularists of this nation blabber.
Whether Gandhi's death is justified or not, his actions were not. Had he not pretended to be renouncing the power (it was a calculated move and shriking of responsibility in difficult times but made out to be a great act of renunciation) I am sure he would have been the common citizen's victim (many Godse's would have made this attempt). A true student of real history (not as we know today) would know that he was put on a pedestal and treated as some haloed figure at the cost of many other freedom fighters like Subash Chandra Bose and many other radicalists. (History pretty much repeated with Sonia Gandhi show of renunciation - she definitely did not renouce, she was unable to ascend the throne). Gandhi also did quite the same thing and pretended not to be after the power. Had he taken the responsibility to rule the nation after the mess he created during the partition, then I am sure no one would have written against this question and would have been appreciated as a thought provoking question.
Yeah! like someone said, glorifying death is not done thing. But I wouldnt ignore it either. Either the argument bolsters some theory or runs it down. People jumped with joy when Saddam was hung to death - death of a saint is as painful as that of a dictator or cruel person. An eye for an eye is not what is secularism (now now, someone thinks this was a wrong comparison). The comparison was intended. To many Saddam was a freedom fighter and their father figure just like Gandhi to a section of this country. But to say, he was singly responsible for all the great things of this country (or the ills too) is an insult to this great nation.
Considering the damage which he could have otherwise inflicted, maybe, maybe taking him out was morally justified. Billa-Ranga, or Dhananjoy, Kolkatta rapist had they been alive would have been threat to the society too and hence their hanging is justified too. What say?
A radically new twist and I am truly the DEVIL's ADVOCATE, Ain't I?

Answer 4

im not gonna answer ur question since i dont have enough information about the topic but u might wanna re-think the whole "muslims are the worst when it comes to tolerance" part. before all the terrorist acts that are happening now which are supposedly all by muslim people there were hundreds of wars against muslims by christians (crusades...) and the reason behind these wars was simply because they are muslim and they dont have the right to be. so before you make judgments about an entire religion research history and get your facts straight. every religion and race has been fought and has fought its the simple reality of life. people cant stand others who are different and are terrified of the fact that maybe the other people's religion is actually the correct one.

Answer 5

The Muslims did leave and that is why there is a Pakistan, they wanted autonomy and their own country. Gandhi opposed this because he knew if the Muslims got what they wanted they would end up fighting India, he was right. Pakistan has been a pain in India's butt since it began and a pain in Afghanistan's butt too.. Fighting between India and Pakistan led to the separation of Bangladesh, which is now the poorest country in the world. Muslims, you can't live with them and you can't live with them without.

Answer 6

No, I do not agree with you. Assassination is never a replacement of the people becoming politically active and making changes through voting and lobbying. No matter the justification made for the supposed moral killing of another, is always the worse course of action and will lead to addition killing.

As the student you purport to be, it is a shame you have little understanding of the subject.

Answer 7

For Indians, Mahatma Gandhiji is the Father of the Nation. Pity on the knowledge, thoughts & wisdom of the Asker for condemning the martyr and appreciating the murderer. The enemies of India cannot succeed in dividing the Indians on castes, religions, regions, languages etc. for more partitions of the motherland. Muslims are spreading and increasing throughout the world despite their massacre; and only the worst are decreasing & diminishing to vanish.

Answer 8

His opponents should have had a level headed logical discussion with him explaining how he was wrong. If he still did not listen then it would be justifiable else no.
People did warn Hitler of the wrongmess of his methods only when he didnt listen did started a war with him.
Krishna did try to convince Kauravas of their wrongful ways only when they didnt listen did the war happen.

Answer 9

I don't agree with you.
And your calling the death of Gandhiji as "beautiful event".

I am a Hindu and I am saying You are a "HINDU SADIST".

Why are you trying to create further rift between Hindus and Muslims. Do you follow what ever it is said in Bhagavad Gita? Tell me that first.

Don't use gita or quran or bible for all your stupid questions.

If you had spoken anything like this during the british rule aganist the british - you would have been hanged to death!

Now you are speaking freely - you have the freedom of speech; WHO GAVE YOU THAT? WHO STRUGGLED FOR THAT,MAN? THINK ABOUT THAT!

DON'T POST ANY STUPID, SADIST QUESTIONS LIKE THIS.

Answer 10

Do I detect a note of hostility here? If so, then all the "holy books" in the world are really useless when it comes to understanding the political process. Maybe you're no wiser than the "old fool" whose dead body you gloat over.