• stumble
  • youtube
  • linkedin

Gandhi wasn’t murdered for the money given to Pakistan. There were 5 attempts before

 Rukmini Sen

On the 16th of March, Monday Hansal Mehta, Tushar Gandhi and Kumar Ketkar came together in support of Teesta Setalvad’s book Beyond Doubt: A Dossier on Gandhi’s Assasination.

Hansal 2Tusharhansal T


Teesta Setalvad in her short address to the guests and the Press on this occassion said-

“Gandhi’s assassination was not a spontaneous act. There were five murder attempts made before Gandhi was actually killed. Godse was involved in two of the previous attempts. RSS’s visceral hatred towards Gandhi was because of his commitment to composite nationalism and his position on untouchability”.


Godse in characteristic RSS style lied blatantly when he claimed he killed Gandhi for the issue of Partition or the transfer of Rs 55 crores to Pakistan. Setalvad writes in the introduction of the Dossier- “The attempts on Gandhi’s life that began in 1934 were a response to the dominant political articulations of nationhood, caste, and economic and other democratic rights which directly challenged the idea of a hegemonistic and authoritarian Hindu Rashtra. In 1933, a year before the first attempt on his life, Gandhi had declared firm support to two Bills, one of which was against the abhorrent practice of untouchability.”  RSS in its vicious propaganda never dares to mention the same she said.

In her introduction to the Dossier on Gandhi’s assasination Teesta Setalvad continues-

“The run up to Independence and, unfortunately, Partition, was the arena or battleground for fundamentally opposing notions of nationhood.While over a hundred years of sustained movements and mobilizations to throw off the British yoke came together in the united battle of all Indians against foreign rule, the early to mid-1900s saw the emergence of sectarian and communal definitions of Indian and Pakistani nationhood. With the birth of the Hindu Mahasabha, the Muslim league and the RSS, these movements – which on different occasions actually collaborated with the British – were in constant battle with the larger national movement. This volume also contains valuable references to how and when these right-wing protagonists collaborated with the colonial rulers. Parallel to Gandhi’s clear articulations about India as a secular state from the early 1930s, there was also the emergence of clear positions among the national leadership on the caste question as well as on the issue of the economic rights of large sections of Indians. Repeated use of the term ‘secular’ appears quite early in Gandhi’s writings and speeches of 1933.

A comprehensive understanding of the political context around this period of time is critical to locate the motivations that led to the systematically planned attempts on his life. As mentioned above, two proposed laws were before the Central legislature at the time, and one of these related to untouchability. Though much reviled in public discourse for his compromises on the caste question, Gandhi was clear that a ‘custom that is repugnant to the moral sense of mankind’ should be outlawed by a secular law. Such a practice, he said on 6 May 1933, ‘cannot and ought not to have the sanction of the law of a secular state’. In November 1933, he defended the Bill against the charge that it was an undue interference in religion, saying that there were many situations in which it was necessary for the state to interfere even with religion; only ‘undue’ interference ought to be avoided. In 1934, a year after his speech in support of the law against untouch-ability in the Central legislature, the first attempt on Gandhi’s life was made. At the time there was obviously no question of the grouse against him being the
issue of Partition or the transfer of Rs 55 crores to Pakistan. It was the fact that Gandhi was a vocal proponent of India as a secular state, and, moreover, that he was at the forefront in striving for legal mechanisms to abolish discriminations based on religion, that made him unpopular among Hindutva fanatics.”
Teesta Setalvad’s introduction talks about the differences between Ambedkar and Gandhi-
“In 1925, Gandhi offered unqualified support to the Vykom Satyagraha, launched by the local leaders of Travancore (in present-day Kerala) who were protesting the ban on the entry of ‘untouchables’ on roads surrounding the Vykom temples. Through Young India Gandhi carried the message of the struggle of the satyagrahis to the rest of India until, finally, the matter began to be addressed by the national press. In March 1925 he went to Vykom and addressed public meetings there, besides holding discussions with leaders of the orthodoxy who were opposing the campaign. Finally, in January 1926, the Travancore government had to yield to the satyagrahis and announced the opening of roads around temples in Vykom to the ‘untouchables’. Gan-dhi pushed further, insisting that all public institutions, including temples, be opened to all. A few years later, on 20 September 1932, he undertook a fast
unto death to implement the Communal Award. The Poona or Yervada Pact
which came in its aftermath also gave a huge impetus to the movement for
justice to the ‘untouchables’.
Diffferences between Ambedkar and Gandhi on this issue have been widely documented and analysed. Ambedkar’s valid criticism of the goals and priorities of the All India Untouchability league (later re-named the Harijan Sevak Sangh), which he thought were individualistic and reform-driven and
not aimed at the political and social emancipation of all Dalits, can be seen, among other places, in the correspondence between the two great leaders and thinkers. Even on the two Bills that came before the Central legislature in 1933, Ambedkar and Gandhi had detailed discussions, as well as differences.
The point, however, remains. Gandhi, who drew his moral force from his religion and wished to fundamentally reform and alter its approach to the structured inequity and indignity of caste, posed a great threat to those who would rather speak in the name of the Hindu faith, i.e. the fanatical fringe.”

Seniior Journalist Kumar Ketkar observed that “RSS is not an organization anymore. It is an ideology that is present in all sections of the society and across all political parties.”

#mustread" data-image-description="<p>– Sadanand Patwardhan<br /> Agitation against the Koodankulam Nuclear Power Plant (KNPP) has intensified just as the Nuclear Power Corporation of India Ltd (NPCIL) began the work for loading nuclear fuel into reactors. Those who criticise the People’s Movement Against Nuclear Energy (PMANE), which is spearheading the agitation, have based their arguments either without understanding the concerns of people of the region or to simply vilify the movement and discredit it. National media had to take note now because of the never say die spirit of the peaceful agitators. Yesterday, 11 September, on CNN-IBN debate, Dr. Subramaniam Swamy, said: Maoists and LTTE are leading the agitation, it is foreign funded, KNPP is founded on a solid rock above sea level unlike Fukushima and faces therefore no threat from tsunami, the violent agitators must be *firmly dealt with and calm restored* before their fears and misapprehensions could be addressed, and A P J Abdul Kalam has endorsed that KNPP is safe -QED. In a nutshell he has summarised all that the detractors of the movement have had to say.</p> <p>Lie #1: Detractors impute to PMANE an ulterior motive of sabotaging the KNPP when it is about go on-stream. They say, why did not PMANE raise the issue earlier?, Why now? and Isn’t this anti-national behaviour when so much money has already been sunk? The fact is that people of the region including S P Udaykumar, leader of PMANE have been opposing the project right from the day it was signed in 1988. Ever since independence, the sovereign Indian State, acting on behalf of *we the people of India*, has behaved as if it knows what is best for the people, and has arrogated the right to acquire any land and natural resources, displace people, destroy their traditional livelihoods, and do all this in the name of growth and development for *greater good*. Almost without exception the people who paid the price for this *growth &amp; development* were the most destitute and marginalized sections of the society like Adivasis, marginal farmers, landless agriculture labourers, small fishermen, and in general poor villagers. Forget participation in the *pie of development*, even the meagre compensation promised to these project affected persons (PAP) did not reach them in time or in full or at all, in case after case. While victims of development have always protested the injustice meted out to them, in the early decades of our nationhood it was seen as necessary sacrifice (by someone else) to be made for the greater good of the country. Over the years however it started becoming clear that while benefits are reaped by one section of the society, the others were made to sacrifice. The inherent dichotomy of this development paradigm has snowballed into a consciousness that has sprouted today many grass-roots level people’s movements across the country.</p> <p>One of the reasons why the *invisible protest* of 1988 against KNPP has now become so visible and spread wide now.</p> <p>Lie #2: Evidence cited for LTTE participation in the KNPP protests is the support given to the agitation by some smaller parties from Tamilnadu, who have also supported LTTE in the past. On the other hand, what is ignored is that both mother in law and husband of current Congress President and UPA chairperson, Sonia Gandhi, had funded, trained, and supported Tamil armed resistance groups like TELO, EPRLF, PLOT, EROS and LTTE; and so had Jayalalitha -current Chief Minister of Tamilnadu and Karunanidhi. Since Man Mohan Singh and Jayalalitha are ardent supporters of KNPP and are in power at centre and state, doesn’t now it transpire that LTTE has an hand in KNPP? As far as the other outfit is concerned, not even attempt was made to justify Maoist link, because in the current political discourse it is not needed. Suffice it is to brand anybody Maoist. The onus of proving that one is innocent of Maoists rests with the accused. Less said the better about such *evidence*.</p> <p>Lie #3: On the issue of foreign funding of the PMANE and others participating in the agitation, even Man Mohan Singh had put his reputation, now in tatters, at stake by picking up the accusation. The whole might of the State at his command, such as Intelligence Bureau- Research &amp; Analysis Wing- Directorate of Enforcement, was made to weigh in on the issue since early this year. But, so far the government has failed to find even a shred of evidence to back its accusation. Yet the fact that a notice was issued under the Foreign Contributions Regulation Act (FCRA) is taken in itself as evidence of some vague wrongdoing, though subsequent investigations by the concerned agencies has yielded nothing to prove the trumpeted charges. There are other dark insinuations too of *foreignness* based on religion. The people in this region are Christians. Some priests in the region too have joined the struggle concerned as they are for the welfare of the people among whom they serve. The opposition to the project is not on religious grounds. It is for the colossal risks it entails and is being driven from a secular platform. The religion of the protesters is incidental. Does their religion make them any less Indian? If yes, then let the Indian state give up its hypocrisy and say so openly. If not, then stop these dark hints. (See the face of *foreign funded* KNPP protesters):</p> <p>mor lies below read on</p> <p></p> " data-medium-file="" data-large-file="" class="alignnone size-full wp-image-7522" src="" alt="Teesta single" />

Kumar Ketkar added that Modi’s victory was ten percent because of Development propaganda but mostly because of  2002 Gujrat. According to the Seniior Journalist RSS has managed to penetrate into some sections of Bengal also. While they may not emerge as the biggest party in West Bengal in next elections they may loom up menacingly as the second most important party, he said.

Mahatma Gandhi’s great-grandson Tushar Gandhi pointed out that “Teesta Setalvad’s forthcoming book which would include Kapur Commission report will be an important book to watch out for. Kapoor Commision Report has more evidence on the buildup to the assassination than the evidence that was available during the trial.”

In the 60s when some of the convicts of Mahatma Gandhi’s assassination case came out after serving their term the conspirators talked openly about the details of the conspiracy leading to the assassination. It is then that the Central Government set up Kapur Commission to further look into the details of the conspiracy.

hansal pic

Hansal Mehta, the Director of City-Lights and Shahid welcomed Teesta Setalvad’s book Beyond Doubt: A Dossier on Gandhi’s Assassination and stated in no uncertain terms that he was there to support Setalwad’s relentless work on secularism. He stated that the fabricated History of the Hindutva Brigade will destroy India. Hansal articulated strongly that he is an observer of the present day hate-mongering.

The program on Gandhi’s Assassination started with remembering Comrade Pansare and Gandhian leader Narayanbhai Desai. It was followed by a beautiful rendition of Vaishnava Jana Te by Sufi singer Ragini Rainu.

Related posts

Leave a Reply

%d bloggers like this: