On This Day: 30th January 1948 - Mahatma Gandhi was assassinated

MenInG

PakPassion Administrator
Staff member
Joined
Oct 2, 2004
Runs
217,565
Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi, the political and spiritual leader of the Indian independence movement, is assassinated in New Delhi by a Hindu fanatic.

Born the son of an Indian official in 1869, Gandhi’s Vaishnava mother was deeply religious and early on exposed her son to Jainism, a morally rigorous Indian religion that advocated nonviolence. Gandhi was an unremarkable student but in 1888 was given an opportunity to study law in England. In 1891, he returned to India, but failing to find regular legal work he accepted in 1893 a one-year contract in South Africa.

Settling in Natal, he was subjected to racism and South African laws that restricted the rights of Indian laborers. Gandhi later recalled one such incident, in which he was removed from a first-class railway compartment and thrown off a train, as his moment of truth. From thereon, he decided to fight injustice and defend his rights as an Indian and a man. When his contract expired, he spontaneously decided to remain in South Africa and launched a campaign against legislation that would deprive Indians of the right to vote. He formed the Natal Indian Congress and drew international attention to the plight of Indians in South Africa. In 1906, the Transvaal government sought to further restrict the rights of Indians, and Gandhi organized his first campaign of satyagraha, or mass civil disobedience. After seven years of protest, he negotiated a compromise agreement with the South African government.

In 1914, Gandhi returned to India and lived a life of abstinence and spirituality on the periphery of Indian politics. He supported Britain in the First World War but in 1919 launched a new satyagraha in protest of Britain’s mandatory military draft of Indians. Hundreds of thousands answered his call to protest, and by 1920 he was leader of the Indian movement for independence. He reorganized the Indian National Congress as a political force and launched a massive boycott of British goods, services, and institutions in India. Then, in 1922, he abruptly called off the satyagraha when violence erupted. One month later, he was arrested by the British authorities for sedition, found guilty, and imprisoned.

After his release in 1924, he led an extended fast in protest of Hindu-Muslim violence. In 1928, he returned to national politics when he demanded dominion status for India and in 1930 launched a mass protest against the British salt tax, which hurt India’s poor. In his most famous campaign of civil disobedience, Gandhi and his followers marched to the Arabian Sea, where they made their own salt by evaporating sea water. The march, which resulted in the arrest of Gandhi and 60,000 others, earned new international respect and support for the leader and his movement.

In 1931, Gandhi was released to attend the Round Table Conference on India in London as the sole representative of the Indian National Congress. The meeting was a great disappointment, and after his return to India he was again imprisoned. While in jail, he led another fast in protest of the British government’s treatment of the “untouchables”–the impoverished and degraded Indians who occupied the lowest tiers of the caste system. In 1934, he left the Indian Congress Party to work for the economic development of India’s many poor. His protege, Jawaharlal Nehru, was named leader of the party in his place.

With the outbreak of World War II, Gandhi returned to politics and called for Indian cooperation with the British war effort in exchange for independence. Britain refused and sought to divide India by supporting conservative Hindu and Muslim groups. In response, Gandhi launched the “Quit India” movement it 1942, which called for a total British withdrawal. Gandhi and other nationalist leaders were imprisoned until 1944.

In 1945, a new government came to power in Britain, and negotiations for India’s independence began. Gandhi sought a unified India, but the Muslim League, which had grown in influence during the war, disagreed. After protracted talks, Britain agreed to create the two new independent states of India and Pakistan on August 15, 1947. Gandhi was greatly distressed by the partition, and bloody violence soon broke out between Hindus and Muslims in India.

In an effort to end India’s religious strife, he resorted to fasts and visits to the troubled areas. He was on one such vigil in New Delhi when Nathuram Godse, a Hindu extremist who objected to Gandhi’s tolerance for the Muslims, fatally shot him. Known as Mahatma, or “the great soul,” during his lifetime, Gandhi’s persuasive methods of civil disobedience influenced leaders of civil rights movements around the world, especially Martin Luther King Jr. in the United States.

http://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/gandhi-assassinated
 
A thinker, an idealist, a realist.

So much has been said and written about him already that there is literally nothing left to be said anymore. All i can say is there's never been another one like him on both sides of the border. Phenomenal person. I wish i could watch him with my own eyes delivering one of his soul captivating speeches as the face of the indepedence movement.
 
Violence is not the answer!

My school use to provide a diary which had quotes from martin luther king, mandela, muhammad ali and ghandi at the top of each page for a specific week
 
A thinker, an idealist, a realist.

So much has been said and written about him already that there is literally nothing left to be said anymore. All i can say is there's never been another one like him on both sides of the border. Phenomenal person. I wish i could watch him with my own eyes delivering one of his soul captivating speeches as the face of the indepedence movement.

Mr. Gandhi's own message of non-violence took a blow from this act. How strange and ironic?
 
Got lucky IMO. Didn't have to do much considering the British Empire was on its last legs thank to WW2. Had Gandhi used his pacifist approach in gaining independence in say the 20s or 30s, then I would rate him. Otherwise his achievements were a fluke.
 
Subhash Chandra Bose

Mohandas Gandhi did not really got India independent on the other hand he delayed India's independence by about 15 years and was responsible for partition of India.

Subhash Chandra Bose and his Indian National Army even as it fail in Kohima during second world war was responsible for large scale unrest in Indian navy, Army and Air force. British sensed that soldiers will not be with them and thus declared that India will be independent in June of 1948

Then suddenly dissecting India in 90 days left in August of 1947 (10 months earlier than declared date)
 
Gandhi’s ideas on non-violent protest certainly gave Indian nationalism a distinctive form. But its success, as the eminent historian D.A Low reminded us, depended also on the character of British rule. Britain was determined to hold on to India and prepared to resort to force and to imprision nationalists. As Low states, this was unlike the Americans in the Philippines. Yet, they never went as far as the Dutch and the French in Indonesia and Vietnam respectively - unlike the Dutch they did not banish nationalist leaders for life and unlike the French they did not murder hundreds of them. Britain adopted a far more ambiguous and ambidextrous approach and in Low’s words “found it exceedingly difficult to reconcile their intense imperial instincts with the liberal political values they held so dear.”

It is within this context that we need to remember that non-violent satyagraha was a particularly potent technique. Mere petitioning and pleading was never going to be enough to dislodge Britain. But nor was Britain likely to be yield to violence either. Non-violent protest was therefore an ingenious response, effective precisely because of the nature and double-think of British rule.

It also points to the fact that non-violent struggles will not work in all circumstances. In Indonesia or Vietnam, is is likely that Gandhian style protest would have faced a much harsher response. In the striking comment of Ho Chi-minh in 1925, “The Gandhis and the De Valera would have long since entered heaven had they been born in one of the French colonies.”
 
Gandhi as great as he was, was not the real reason British left, British left because they lost control of the Indian army's loyalty, from then it was only a matter of time before they were thrown out.

Gandhi provided the British with a face saving exit rather than being grabbed by collar and thrown out by the Indian army..

One of my biggest gripes with Gandhi was that he was a typical North Indian, he was one of the reasons why Hindi was made the national language of India when the oldest or one of the oldest Languages from the subcontinent was of Tamil should have taken Hindi's place.
 
Gandhi’s absence was filled by Nehru.

Jinnah’s absence was filled by Liaquat Ali Khan but cut abruptly short.
 
Else you would have had generals ruling the country for half of your existence ...

Sardar Patel would have led India better and he was not a general or a dictator, instead with Raul Puppu's great grand father we lost half of Kashmir, 35,000 Kms of Indian territory to China.
 
Last edited:
Sardar Patel would have led India better and he was not a general or a dictator, instead with Raul Puppu's great grand father we lost half of Kashmir, 35,000 Kms of Indian territory to China.

If you want to test a man’s character, give him power.

I doubt any man could keep sane ruling 360m (Indian population in 1948), especially one with a military background that goes back to the officer’s mess hall.
 
If you want to test a man’s character, give him power.

I doubt any man could keep sane ruling 360m (Indian population in 1948), especially one with a military background that goes back to the officer’s mess hall.

Nehru was a splendid leader, not only did he make sure India did not get into the UNSC council but recommended China to be a member. In return, China after they became a security council member, gave him and his India a butt whooping and took their territory.

Forever indebted to this Mahaaaan Sickular Congi leader
 
Fake mahatma. His basic definition of violence is wrong. When you respond to the oppressor with physical force, that is not violence. He was ideologically bankrupt to equate both sides as violence.
 
One of my biggest gripes with Gandhi was that he was a typical North Indian, he was one of the reasons why Hindi was made the national language of India when the oldest or one of the oldest Languages from the subcontinent was of Tamil should have taken Hindi's place.

Gandhi was Gujarati and not North Indian. He wasn't a Hindi buff either, and did almost all of his correspondence in (extremely good) English.

Hindi was imposed as a National Language by some of the North Indian freedom fighter types who had a lot of clout in India' constituent assembly. It included Beohar Rajendra Simha, Maithili Saharan Gupt and Hazari Prasad Dwivedi. They got away with getting Hindi as a national language in a country where more than 50% of the people did not speak it. The likes of Vallabhai Patel, Rajaji, Shanmukhananda Chetty, B.R.Ambedkar and other powerful non-Hindi speakers merely sat and watched.

I feel English should have been the national language of India, with Hindi and others getting official language status.
 
Gandhi’s absence was filled by Nehru.

Gandhi and Nehru formed a close attachment - a relationship with perhaps filial undertones - and Gandhi effectively anointed Nehru as leader of free India. Yet, it is remarkable how different their visions of an ideal society were.

Nehru was a ‘statist’, who believed that change in society was to be directed from above. The state would be the central agent of transformation. He was a strong believer in modernisation, industrialisation and science. Modernity and progress were to be ushered in by an educated elite employed by the state.

Gandhi was distrustful of the state. His vision of change instead focussed on the individual guided by inner truth. Change was to come from below, from morally self-aware individuals. True freedom was “Government of self.” Unlike Nehru, Gandhi rejected notions of modernity and progress and advocated instead a political system of self-governing and self-sufficient villages. Gandhi was, in sum, an advocate for ‘enlightened anarchy’, or a ‘stateless society’.
 
Gandhi and Nehru formed a close attachment - a relationship with perhaps filial undertones - and Gandhi effectively anointed Nehru as leader of free India. Yet, it is remarkable how different their visions of an ideal society were.

Nehru was a ‘statist’, who believed that change in society was to be directed from above. The state would be the central agent of transformation. He was a strong believer in modernisation, industrialisation and science. Modernity and progress were to be ushered in by an educated elite employed by the state.

Gandhi was distrustful of the state. His vision of change instead focussed on the individual guided by inner truth. Change was to come from below, from morally self-aware individuals. True freedom was “Government of self.” Unlike Nehru, Gandhi rejected notions of modernity and progress and advocated instead a political system of self-governing and self-sufficient villages. Gandhi was, in sum, an advocate for ‘enlightened anarchy’, or a ‘stateless society’.

In simpler terms a liberterian?
Small government?
 
Gandhi was Gujarati and not North Indian. He wasn't a Hindi buff either, and did almost all of his correspondence in (extremely good) English.

Hindi was imposed as a National Language by some of the North Indian freedom fighter types who had a lot of clout in India' constituent assembly. It included Beohar Rajendra Simha, Maithili Saharan Gupt and Hazari Prasad Dwivedi. They got away with getting Hindi as a national language in a country where more than 50% of the people did not speak it. The likes of Vallabhai Patel, Rajaji, Shanmukhananda Chetty, B.R.Ambedkar and other powerful non-Hindi speakers merely sat and watched.

I feel English should have been the national language of India, with Hindi and others getting official language status.

We will get there slowly but surely.


 
Political assassinations have ramifications, and in 1914, Gavrilo Princip fired a pistol in Sarajevo, Bosnia (modern day). This triggered World War 1.

Ghandi's pacifist approach was a fluke; no Garvilo Princip, no end of British Empire, no independence.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
In simpler terms a liberterian?
Small government?

You could certainly argue that there is some overlap in Gandhi’s ideas and libertarianism, but I think it is important not to lose sight of the fact that Gandhi’s ideas seemed to owe more to Indian philosophical traditions than western thinking. His focus was not on individual rights as much as individual duties.
 
You could certainly argue that there is some overlap in Gandhi’s ideas and libertarianism, but I think it is important not to lose sight of the fact that Gandhi’s ideas seemed to owe more to Indian philosophical traditions than western thinking. His focus was not on individual rights as much as individual duties.

Interesting cause the results of thier philosophies maybe similar but thier POV wasn't

Old world philosophies very much focused on duties and honor but in new world the idea is more towards freedoms and the fact that no one owes any one anything (let alone people owing anything to the general society)

I mentioned Libertarianism with New world cause this idea is not at all popular in rest of the world except for US and parts of South America
 
India’s rising tide of Hindu nationalism is an affront to the legacy of Mahatma Gandhi, his great-grandson said ahead of the 75th anniversary of the revered independence hero’s assassination.

Gandhi was shot dead at a multi-faith prayer meeting in January 1948 by Nathuram Godse, a religious zealot angered by his victim’s conciliatory gestures to the country’s minority Muslim community.

Godse was executed the following year and remains widely reviled, but author and social activist Tushar Gandhi, one of the global peace symbol’s most prominent descendants, said his views now have a worrying resonance in India.

“That whole philosophy has now captured India and Indian hearts, the ideology of hate, polarisation, divisions,” he told AFP news agency.

“For them, it’s very natural that Godse would be their iconic patriot, their idol.”

Tushar, 63, attributes this tectonic shift to the rise of Prime Minister Narendra Modi and his Hindu nationalist Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP).

Modi took office in 2014 and Tushar says his government is to blame for undermining the secular and multicultural traditions that his great-grandfather sought to protect.

“His [Modi’s] success has been built on hate, we must accept that,” Tushar added. “There is no denying that in his heart, he also knows what he is doing is lighting a fire that will one day consume India itself.”

Reverence for Godse

Gandhi’s assassin is revered by many Hindu nationalists who have pushed for a re-evaluation of his decision to murder a man synonymous with non-violence.

A temple dedicated to Godse was built near New Delhi in 2015, the year after Modi’s election, and activists have campaigned to honour him by renaming an Indian city after him.

Godse was a member of the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS), a still-prominent Hindu far-right group whose members conduct paramilitary drills and prayer meetings.

The RSS has long distanced itself from Godse’s actions but remains a potent force, founding Modi’s party decades ago to battle for Hindu causes in the political realm.

Modi has regularly paid respect to Gandhi’s legacy but has refrained from weighing in on the campaign to rehabilitate his killer.

Since Modi became prime minister, the country has seen increased attacks against Muslims, who form 15 percent of India’s 1.4 billion population.

Modi’s BJP and the RSS have warned Hindus against religious conversions to Islam and Christianity and called for action to prevent a “demographic imbalance” in the world’s second-most populous nation.

The ruling BJP has been accused of encouraging the persecution of Muslims and other minorities by hardline Hindu nationalists since coming to power, allegations it denies.

Last week, the Indian government used emergency powers to block the airing of a documentary that questioned Modi’s leadership during the 2002 Gujarat riots and banned its sharing on social media. Twitter and YouTube complied with the request and removed many links to the documentary.

Modi was the chief minister of the western state of Gujarat when it was gripped by communal riots.

The violence began after 59 Hindu pilgrims were killed in a fire on a train. Thirty-one Muslims were convicted of criminal conspiracy and murder over that incident. About 2,000 people, mostly Muslims, were killed in the unrest that followed.

India’s foreign ministry has dismissed the documentary as a “propaganda piece”.

https://twitter.com/AJEnglish/status/1619624689118093318?t=QW-OP9n6zZQZ4jm7894CXQ&s=08
 
I read a rather disappointing article by Ramachandra Guha’s on Gandhi in the Financial Times - ‘India against Gandhi — a legacy rewritten' (https://www.ft.com/content/a0b17ed9-092d-4e83-90fe-2a6cea952518).

While he laments the rise of Modi-fied India, in the article Guha is also making the case for the relevance of Gandhi and his vision of religious pluralism and tolerance.

He writes that Modi has instrumentalised Gandhi. This might be so, but Guha seems oblivious to how he too uses Gandhi as an instrument, albeit for different ends. In the process of projecting “the father of the nation” as a great moderate force, what we get from Guha is an anodyne Gandhi.

Anyone reading Guha may get the impression that Gandhi was a moderate liberal. Yet, Gandhi was not a liberal. He wanted “a state of enlightened anarchy in which each person will become his own ruler.” His ideas were idiosyncratic. He was not a structured thinker. He is an interesting figure because he was so different from other political figures at the time. He did not seek power for himself - most unusual for a prominent politician. Compared with his contemporaries he was far less influenced by the rationalism and positivism that was a feature of post-Enlightenment thought. As he said of himself, “It is true that I don’t depend upon my intellect to decide upon any action. For me the reasoned course of action is held in check subject to the sanction of the inner voice."

As Faisal Devji showed, Gandhi’s idea of non-violence and suffering was also not based on a liberal human rights discourse. It was not based on an objection to violence rooted in humanitarianism. For Gandhi, preservation of life was not the end in itself. Suffering and death were in fact human duties and not something to be avoided. He was not really interested in what he perceived as suffering of ‘victims’. Rather he wanted individuals that had been wronged to be active agents whose suffering could potentially transform their tormentors. It is only in this context, that we can understand his notorious speech in October 1920, when he said: “The men and women who died in Jallianwala Bagh were not martyrs or heroes. Had they been heroes, when General Dyer came on the scene in all his pride, they would have fought with swords or sticks or would have stood up before him and faced death.”

His disdain for ‘life as an absolute value’, for those who suffered - in his mind - as mere victims, provides a contrast to the softer image of him peddled by many.

But of this we get nothing from Guha. Part of the problem is that whilst he writes that “revisionism and iconoclasm are infinitely preferable to idolatry,” his own position is not in fact far from idolatry. Indeed, Pratinav Anil in a contrasting article (‘Gandhi hasn’t aged well’) that certainly embodies the spirit of iconoclasm (https://unherd.com/2023/01/gandhi-hasnt-aged-well/) refers to Guha’s two hefty books on Gandhi as a “double-decker hagiography.”

Guha uses Gandhi to fight the battles of today, and to venerate India’s “greatest modern figure.” But in doing so he presents a bland, cardboard-cut-out Gandhi.
 
I read a rather disappointing article by Ramachandra Guha’s on Gandhi in the Financial Times - ‘India against Gandhi — a legacy rewritten' (https://www.ft.com/content/a0b17ed9-092d-4e83-90fe-2a6cea952518).

While he laments the rise of Modi-fied India, in the article Guha is also making the case for the relevance of Gandhi and his vision of religious pluralism and tolerance.

He writes that Modi has instrumentalised Gandhi. This might be so, but Guha seems oblivious to how he too uses Gandhi as an instrument, albeit for different ends. In the process of projecting “the father of the nation” as a great moderate force, what we get from Guha is an anodyne Gandhi.

Anyone reading Guha may get the impression that Gandhi was a moderate liberal. Yet, Gandhi was not a liberal. He wanted “a state of enlightened anarchy in which each person will become his own ruler.” His ideas were idiosyncratic. He was not a structured thinker. He is an interesting figure because he was so different from other political figures at the time. He did not seek power for himself - most unusual for a prominent politician. Compared with his contemporaries he was far less influenced by the rationalism and positivism that was a feature of post-Enlightenment thought. As he said of himself, “It is true that I don’t depend upon my intellect to decide upon any action. For me the reasoned course of action is held in check subject to the sanction of the inner voice."

As Faisal Devji showed, Gandhi’s idea of non-violence and suffering was also not based on a liberal human rights discourse. It was not based on an objection to violence rooted in humanitarianism. For Gandhi, preservation of life was not the end in itself. Suffering and death were in fact human duties and not something to be avoided. He was not really interested in what he perceived as suffering of ‘victims’. Rather he wanted individuals that had been wronged to be active agents whose suffering could potentially transform their tormentors. It is only in this context, that we can understand his notorious speech in October 1920, when he said: “The men and women who died in Jallianwala Bagh were not martyrs or heroes. Had they been heroes, when General Dyer came on the scene in all his pride, they would have fought with swords or sticks or would have stood up before him and faced death.”

His disdain for ‘life as an absolute value’, for those who suffered - in his mind - as mere victims, provides a contrast to the softer image of him peddled by many.

But of this we get nothing from Guha. Part of the problem is that whilst he writes that “revisionism and iconoclasm are infinitely preferable to idolatry,” his own position is not in fact far from idolatry. Indeed, Pratinav Anil in a contrasting article (‘Gandhi hasn’t aged well’) that certainly embodies the spirit of iconoclasm (https://unherd.com/2023/01/gandhi-hasnt-aged-well/) refers to Guha’s two hefty books on Gandhi as a “double-decker hagiography.”

Guha uses Gandhi to fight the battles of today, and to venerate India’s “greatest modern figure.” But in doing so he presents a bland, cardboard-cut-out Gandhi.


A thought-provoking post. I nominate this for POTW.
 
Back
Top