Gandhi, Godse and Geeta

Anyone still here ?

Read ``The Crime of Nathuram Godse`` by Chief Justice Khosla ...
http://www.mahatma.org.in/books/showbook.jsp?id=2&link=ld&book=ld0001&lang=en&cat=books

The first part where he talks about being the Custodian of Evacuee Property in Delhi and dealing with the Punjabi refugees and the Muslim residents in Delhi right after Partition is facinating. Godse`s testimony is intresting too.

Zafar #144
Good question :). The episode where their destruction is described is about the Yadava warriors in Dwarka. Perhaps the Bhagavatam has more information on what followed.

There are sure to have been Krishna`s Yadava kinsmen in other places too, for instance a few of his grandsons ruling elsewhere presumably survived and there were bound to be Yadavas still living in the Brijbhumi region.

One website has something about how Arjuna visited Dwarka to carry out the obsequies of Balram and Krishna and took the widows, orphans and old people back with him. Then he was ambushed on the way and the survivors were kidnapped. Those kidnapped were absorbed into the clan of their kidnappers (the Abhirs/Ahirs) and descendents of the mix were called Yadavs. But I donot how much supporting evidence from the Puranas, this particular story line has, it could be wishful thinking. btw, the Yadava caste exists in the south too.

Nand/dost mittar . . . I think Hindus tend to continue re-evaluating and re-interpreting religion of all sorts (not just ``Hinduism``) at all times and don`t seem to find much wrong in such evolution . . . so debate on religion can proceed with a lot of hot air and good rich heavy food and arts song and dance in the evening . . . but back to Gandhi & Godse, who followed the Geeta ``better``?

I would like to think Godse followed it better. Mainly because he ended up with the greater sacrifice, especially if you read the Geeta along with the Katha Upanishads?

I wonder how many posters here have actually read Mahabharat and Bhagvad Geeta.
Fisrt of all Dost-Mittar, to be technically correct you should call Geeta as Bhagvad Geeta, coz there are three different Geetas. The word Geeta merely means dialogue in sanskrit. So Bhagvad Geeta is a dialogue between the Godhead(Bhagvad) and Arjun, Ashtavakra Geeta, dialogue between Ashtavakra and Janaka and Uddhava Geeta, dialogue between Uddhava and Sri Krishna.
Pardesi, your comment on intent of action and whether it affected Krishna, is reflexcted in his response to Gndhari after being cursed by her. He goes on to say to her, that in both the victor and the vanquished, he is the one who has suffered as he resides in every living soul. So the pain suffered by the dying and wounded is suffered by him. And he does accept however, that he too is bound by the laws of Karma since he has taken this human body. His own kingdom ends when all the yadavas fight each other to the end, while the sea invades Dwarka (now Bet Dwarka) drowning the city. He is the last one to leave his body among Yadavas afetr going through the pain Gandhari had gone through, seeing her own seeds disappear and the ``vansh`` die.
Moral of the story of Mahabharat is that no one not even God`s own representative gets special treatment. We are all bound by the same laws. There are no miracles which can spare anyone from his/her misdeeds/deeds. This might look very bleak and hopeless to most of the humans, but actually is quite the contrary. It would require an article to be written by someone in defense of Hinduism perhaps. Especially more so, when you consider that the lure of miracles and forgiveness from any crimes is easily accepted by all and sundry, when it applies to there own misdeeds, but when the same principles are applied to anyone else, they call it injustice. Mahbharat perhaps is the only honest scripture ever written in mankind, delineating human character in its best and worst, wihout passing judgements on either. Thats the way reality actually exists.
Adios

Pardesi #139
Pardesiji, you are a real expert on the Mahabharata. Re Nobel, we should present a copy of the Mahabharata to the Nobel committee, instead?

btw, I too meant to say Gandhari cursed Krishna for the death of her son(s).
In C Rajagopalachari`s version it was Duryodhana`s thighs that Bhima hit. When the Kauravas tried to disrobe Draupadi in the Assembly Hall, Bhima took a vow to break Duryodhana`s thighs.

Nevertheless, Balram, who returned from his journey just in time to witness the duel, condemned Bhima and almost killed him with his plough till Krishna dissuaded him.

Balram still said `It will be said among men that the son of Pandu broke the laws of war in attacking Duryodhana. It will remain foreever a blot on his name. I hate to stay here any longer` and left for Dwaraka.

Yudhishthira knew of the vow but was upset for another reason `it hurt me to see Bhima leap on cousin Duryodhana`s mortal wounded body and trample on his head. I see the end of the glory of our race. We were wronged by the Kauravas. I know the full measure of grief and anger in Bhima`s heart and don`t wish to blame him beyond reason`. `But when men transgress the law, extenuations and excuses are of no avail in giving satisfaction`.

Arjuna `was silent and didnot show approval of Bhima`s act nor did he say anything by way of detraction`.
Duryodhana who was not yet dead, was full of anger for Krishna `I saw you instigate Bhima to aim his blow to your thigh.... Till then it had been equal battle. ..I go to swarga with my friends and relatives But you and your friends will live on earth to suffer grief. ..Who is more blest, I or you who doomed to linger here, mourning for slaughtered friends in desolate homes, find the long-sought triumph but ashes in your mouth`.

Gods showered flowers and Krishna and the Pandavas felt small. `There is truth` said Krishna, `in what Duryodhana said. You couldnot have defeated him by fair means. This wicked man was invincible in battle.`

Reply dost-mittar #119

``Hope you are enjoying your stay in Palam Vihar (or is it Ansal Vihar?).``

Ansal`s Palam Vihar :-) and yes, thank you, I am.



Reply Nasah #123

``…why not -- purde ke bahar -- get together in USA when u r in USA``

Absolutely Hasanbhai, but till that happy day…(actually, I think that we should do this in Australia.)



Reply veeresh #124

``. . . yes, it would be good to meet Unkils too?``

I thought that you said I was too old to call you unkil Veereshji?? But yes please, I would be most honoured to meet you. I currently languish in my Ammi Huzoor`s custody in Palam Vihar, but kabhi kabhi parole bhi hotha hai. Please email me at zafreallyzaf@yahoo.com with a contact # if you feel up to it. (Perhaps add to the hamara yeh bahthar hai list - my fist suggestionis traffic.) Salaams.



Reply sadna #136

``… as all her sons had been wiped out, so would all his kinsmen, the Yadavas. And thats what eventually happened.``

And Lalooji?

Sadna #136
Sadna, I can not resist temptation to correct you on Gandhari. She was not upset at Krishna on what he did to Dronacharya. She cursed him because he got her oldest son Duryodhan (Du) killed through another plot.
You see, after 99 other Kauravs died, and the war left both sides with tremendous losses, it was decided that Du and Bhim (#2 pandav brother) should have a one on one fight with their “Gaddas” and decide the matter once for all. Kauravs had a plan. Their mama (Gandhari) was blessed with a “one time” power – when she takes off her eye cover, the person in front of her will become indestructible rock solid. The reason for this power was due to her voluntary covering of eyes after she married a blind husband.
Krishna got wind of the plan and was worried. He approached Du (an “enemy”, but approachable) and asked about the plan. Du had no worries in talking about it since it was a foolproof plan. Krishna shamed the poor guy into putting some minimum langot over his private parts before appearing naked in front of his mother. When poor Du asked if that would leave him weaker at his “Achilles’ heel” area, Krishna assured him that the rules of the fight do not allow anyone to hit below the belt.
Gandhari, takes off her eye cover and starts crying at seeing the private part cover (she knew some one has left her last son with a weak spot), Bhim hits the poor guy below the belt and like they say rest is Mahabharat.
Gandhari curses destruction of Krishna’s clan.
Do you know Sadna, if posthumously Mahabharat writer can win a noble prize?

dost-mittar #134
I want to add, I`m sorry to read about your father being grievously hurt in riots. In that terrible period, Gandhiji must have sounded extremely inhuman when he told people they should not flee the horrible situation, they should die instead. I can fully understand that reason for disliking him intensely, whoever did so.

What confused me was one Punjabi`s argument for disliking Gandhiji which was Godse-like. I wondered about the person and others like her, that if the two communities were so estranged and she hated Muslims and blamed them for the things that happened, how would Gandhiji`s preventing Partition at a given point in time have helped her in any way? Its a difficult question to ask those who suffered in ways I cannot possibly comprehend, so I didnot. Sorry if I hurt you or anyone else by this.

Does anybody think that untimely death (assassination) of Gandhi helped Nehru to prolong his rule and through total control of Congress party, establishing a dynasty in Indian politics continuing to this day?
What is the probability of having Gandhi living 10 more years and never coming in conflict with Nehru on any major issue?
Sadna: You are right that not just Gandhi but Nehru and Jinnah never had personal popularity in Punjab the way they enjoyed in many other part of India. Eevn now various Muslim Leagues do not use Jinnah speeches or Independendent movement history to win votes because it won`t work. I know in Congress rallies, Nehru dynasty pictures alongwith Gandhi dominate, not so for Jinnah and other ML leaders in P-Punjab.

THIS IS AN ENLIGHENING ESSAY ON THE EFFECT OF HOLY SCRIPTURE ON MORALITY ELUCIDATING GHANDI,S IMAGE OF A PERSON OF GREAT ACTION DUE MAINLY TO THE EFEECT OF GEETA ON HIM IN THE CHILDHOOD. THIS IS SOMETHING VERY INSIGHTFUL.

dost-mittar #134
Just to clarify, I was not doubting there were threats to Gandhiji`s life. The quote in #88 seems to indicate he himself expected them.

Pardesi #133
Thats right. What you relate is also quoted as the reason why Yudhishthira had to go to hell for a spell in the version I know, ie he said `Aswathama the elephant is dead`, intending that Dronacharya should think its his son. It didnot help Yudhishthira that it was technically not a lie and that Krishna put him up to it.

As for Krishna, he was the Supreme Self which is the seed in every being and etc, but in his bodily form he didnot escape unscathed. Gandhari, the mother of the Kauravas, is said to have cursed him, that as all her sons had been wiped out, so would all his kinsmen, the Yadavas. And thats what eventually happened.

harimau #132
``the Kauravas do not have the legal right to inherit half the kingdom. So, why were they given half of the kingdom? ``

The answer is a bit long and anyone may correct me if I am wrong.
After the cousins` education, they all returned to Hastinapur. Yudhishthira as heir apparent became very popular with his subjects and Duryodhana got jealous. So he plotted to kill the Pandavas. He got King Dhritrarashtra to send the 5 Pandavas and Kunti to attend a Shiva festival in Varanavrata where he got built a highly infammable lac palace for them to stay. The plan was to burn them to death, only the Pandavas and Kunti escaped in time. Everyone thought the Pandavas and their mother had died in the blaze because the bodies of some beggars who had stopped for the night were later found.

After an year spent hiding in the forest, the Pandavas emerged from hiding so that Arjuna could attend Draupadi`s swayamvara, win her and ally himself with his future in-laws as a step towards recovering their kingdom.

Once she had been won and the Pandavas` identity revealed, Bhishma, Dhritrarashtra and other elders decided to keep the peace by splitting the kingdom into half between the Kauravas and Pandavas and to give the Pandavas the ancient capital Khandavaprastha. The Pandavas cleared the forests around the old overgrown capital and rebuilt it calling it Indraprastha which is said to be Delhi.

Sadna # 130 . . . exactly my point to . . . logical inference and illogical inference are almost the same thing . . . thus, what is evidence for one person is not for the other! The other point is that the missing 4th corner was my mising 4th corner, my child had his/her own missing 4th corner, which was not related to mine.

Please appreciate the concepts of illusion?

As for Gandhiji wrt Punjabis . . . I have heard it so often . . . who gave a billy-goat about religion? How come Punjabis got shafted, along with bengalis, in what was essentially a game over imperial ambitions by British WOG lawyers? Did you read Jack Straw`s latest statements in England?

Ref sadna #19

[harimau #7
You are mistaken. The story goes that legally, being blind Dhritrarashtra could not be king and so his brother was King. When King Pandu died, Dhritrarashtra became the Regent while waiting for the princes to grow up while Yudhishtra was heir apparent all along. Looking at C Rajagopalachari`s Mahabharata in English, Duryodhana himself mentions this in a number of conversations, eg when persuading his father to allow him to plot against the Pandavas.]

So, since Dhritarashtra was never King, the Kauravas do not have the legal right to inherit half the kingdom. So, why were they given half of the kingdom?

[Its not the claim of the Kauravas on the kingdom which makes them villianous, there was a lot of villiany quite apart from this.]

Hey, villainy is not the issue here. The question is who has legality on his side. Sometimes, the villains do. We must then swallow hard and grant the villains their due.

Sadna, Dost-mittar 112 & 118
We learned another version of Yudhishtra (Y)’s last journey.
In their last journey, while others died for different reasons (e.g., Draupadi died for her special love, little extra than her other four husbands, for Arjun), Y lost a thumb before reaching heaven. When he asked, he was told that he had knowingly kept quite during Krishna inspired trick they played upon Draunacharya (D).
You see, in order to kill D (the master of all his student warriors) with shocking, but false, news of his son Ashvasthama (A)’s death, Krishna prepared a game plan. D would only believe the news if it comes from Y, due to his 24-carat reputation. They found an elephant whose name just happened to be A, and they first slaughtered him. Now all our saintly prince Y had to do was to say, in front of D, that A the elephant has died, and that was technically right. However, Krishna, our holy avatar, blew his shankh, for a few moments when the word elephant was mentioned. Poor D, did not hear the word elephant and believing Y, died due to his enormous love for his only son A.
Moral of the story, when you go upstairs they do take into consideration the intent not just legalities of your actions. If this is true, I wonder how Krishna was judged. But then he must have been exempt from all this since his intentions, on a higher level, were to promote peace by winning war. Not to mention the fact that he himself is the ultimate boss or avatar. Who knows.

veeresh #124
A number of things we can safely accept by logical inference though we cannot see it with our own eyes. For example, that each of us has a brain(have you ever seen yours?), that ABVajpayee is our Prime Minister, that if you lived on a higher floor and the 4th corner was indeed a Mars traveller, your small children would fall off whenever you turned your back. Trust noone`s small children are habitual Mars travellers too :).

dost-mittar #118
There are holy scriptures and then there are the Sopranos and car commercials. Given that the West`s policy toward one major region is shaped by the philosophy in one of the above items .. :)
--
It so happens that my mom was in N.Delhi in 47-48. She herself doesnot remember any anticipation of an assassination, though perhaps others did. She remembers the Thursday fasts when children took their share of flour to school for the refugees. She says that she too attended a few of Gandhiji`s weekly prayer meetings at Birla house. One Friday they found the Birla House gardens were all laid waste and that the prayer meeting was cancelled. The next week`s meeting(which they didnot attend) was the one where Gandhiji was assassinated. They got the news from the radio and the announcer wept while announcing his death.

I`ve met Punjabis who hated Gandhi, but I donot fully understand why. Recently events in Gujarat have revived curiosity about Bengali/Punjabi nostalgia about commonalities. It is without doubt a very worthwhile blessing now. But were there similar sentiments back then and if so why didnot these sentiments translate into bonds strong enough to get through those difficult times? What is it that Gandhiji could have done which these bonds failed to do?

Nooralain 127
I am neither anybody`s grave-kisser nor anyone`s ass-licker. If you find some brilliance in my writings then it obviously means that you have not come across brilliant writings.

I do not fancy myself a `writer` at all. Most present-day `writers` and `poets` are losers anyway. Please spare me the `honor` to seat me in their midst.