Gandhi, Godse and Geeta

Stuka

``The author`s interpretation of Gandhi and Godse is therefore closer to the essence of the Gita. ``

No No No.........how could you deduce that. Even this statement of yours contradict your first paragraph. Let me give you an example how:

Suppose there is a professor of dentistry teaching his class and showing slides to his student. He begines his class by making this statement

OPENING STATEMENT: ``Toothpaste is good for dental health and lack of its use causes dental Health problems``

Next he shows a slide of healthy teeth and makes this statement:

FIRST STATEMENT: ``Regular use of toothpaste has resulted in healthy teeth``

This statement coincides with with his original premise.

Next he shows another slide of decayed teeth and makes this statement:

SECOND STATEMENT: ``Regular use of tooth paste has resulted in decayed teeth``

This statement is inconsistent with his opening statement. When a student points out to this error the professor insists that he is correct. So if you are an independent observer you may deduce one of the following:

- Opening statement, and first statement are correct but second statement is incorrect.

- Second statement is correct and that results in opening statement and first statement being incorrect.

- First and second statement are correct and therefore opening statement must be irrelevant.

The author of this article uses the third case logic and fallaciously insists that opening statement is not irrelevant. Authors opening statement is:

``Gita is a source of moral code and Pandwas acted correctly because they acted on this moral code``

First statement ``Gandhi did what he did because he acted on Gita``

Second statement ``Godse did what he did because he acted on Gita``

So if we apply the toothpaste anonolgy here the Gita becomes irrelevant if we assume that first and second statement are correct..................is anyone reading this? helllo is someone out there?

``There was no joy in this task for Godse. In killing Gandhi...``

ah a joyless assassination!

my sympathies for poor Mahatma Godse.

Godse was not a warrior. He was a cold-blooded murderer.

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.

Your remark re the villiany of the Kauravas is also not accurate. Its not the claim of the Kauravas on the kingdom which makes them villianous, there was a lot of villiany quite apart from this.

The most important part of the Gita is of course that it takes the form of dialog and arguments that took place between Krishna and Arjuna. There was some notion of debate, of coming to an understanding of the consequences of ones action, of determining one`s svadharma.

Can you seriously affirm this was the case for Godse`s actions? If so, what were these arguments? What were Godse`s goals? How did his actions further them?

Godse`s actions are reflected in some other aspects of Mahabharata. I refer here to the revenge killings that took place between the K`s and P`s. And all that came out of them was the deepest suffering and loss. This is made explicit in statements by Arjun and Yudhistira after their victory. So what does this context suggest about Godse?

This article is by Dost Mittar??

Urstruly:

``Gita is a source of moral code and Pandwas acted correctly because they acted on this moral code``

First statement ``Gandhi did what he did because he acted on Gita``

Second statement ``Godse did what he did because he acted on Gita``

You miss the point in the opening statement. The Panadavas were right because they acted on the moral code of the Gita. However, Bhishmapitamah was also correct because he acted on a similar moral code of Karma and Dharma, though he was on the opposite side. If you look at the wider aspect of Mahabharata, mano on the side of the Kauravas are not painted as evil because they are obligated in doing their duty. Examples are Dronacharya, Bheeshma and most of all Karna, the eldest Pandava who fights out of loyalty to Duryodhan though his moral character is different. His loyalty to Duryodhana is not questioned or depicted as evil.

In a similar sense, Gandhi acted correctly as he was following his dharma. So was Godse, who acted on principle and not on the basis of selfish gain.

re sadna #19

Furthermore, Yudhishtir gave up his claim on Hastinapur throne and founded a new kingdom in Indraprastha. Even that was taken away from pandavas for 13 years by deceit. They decided to fight a war after Duryodhana refused to return Indraprastha or even five villages after the 13 years were over.

dost-mittar #25
I am not sure how I guessed, but I`m sorry I prempted you by posting it.

If I may ask, what are your references to statements about Godse?

btw, I meant`` the Mahabharata raises more questions than it answers``

dost-mittar I am not comfortable with the analogy from the Mahabharata. Like Arjuna killed Bhishma Godse killed Gandhiji joylessly and out of a sense of pure duty.

This analogy doesnot work. In the Mahabharata, knowing well the horrific consequences of violence, repeated attempts were made to reach a peaceful settlement and avoid war. When war was finally declared, the enemy was given a chance to mobilise and bear arms, Arjuna didnot fight unarmed enemies. Inspite of knowing all other means to avoid violence had failed, Arjuna was reluctant to kill his elders including Bhishma and when war inevitably led to his defeating Bhishma on the battlefield he tried to atone by making sure Bhishma died a relatively comfortable death.

Unlike Arjuna, Godse seems to have chosen the path of violence straightaway. Did Godse ever try to approach Gandhiji and try to persuade him to change his views or actions about whatever Godse objected to? No. Did Godse ever try any other peaceful form of advocacy or resistance open to a civilised person ?. Did Godse ever issue a formal declaration of hostilities letting Gandhi at least know that such an adversary existed and for what reason? No. Gandhi first met his assassin when he was dying and never knew why he was killed. Thats Godse`s out and out moral cowardice not duty.

btw the Gita says
http://www.bhagavad-gita.org/Gita/verse-18-24.html
18:25 Action which is begun out of illusion without considering consequence, destruction, violence and ones own ability to fulfil is called [tamasic] (ignorant in tendency).

Seems to fit Godse to a t.

my dear dost mitter ji -- I had an inkling somehow or other I was responsible:-) --

`half-seriously`? -- then we are even:-)

Dost-Mittar

I dont get whatsoever moral dilemma you tried to present. The Geeta says that one must carry out his Karma not according to what he thinks right but according to Dharma. Thus it establishes an absolute frame of reference based on which ``right`` can be distinguished from ``wrong``. Without this clearcut understanding of Geeta, one may be mislead into thinking Hitler or Neanderthal Modi were right since they can also claim that they did whatever they thought ``right``. The catch is not what they believe to be ``right`` but whether it is in accordance with Dharma. This is the logical fallacy of ``relativism`` in your article.

Now at the next level the question is what constitutes this body of laws called Dharma that would determine the ``rightness`` of an act. The Dharma, loosely speaking, is a code of ethics incorporating values like honesty,truth, non-violence etc. One of the inscriptions on Ashoka`s rock edict actually defines Dharma in these terms which I can post after some google search if you want. Now we would have to ask whether it is Dharmic to shoot a person who has differing views than you. Did Gandhi go about murdering people who disagreed with him? Why couldn`t Godse have started his own revolution based on followers of his ideology and compete against Gandhi. Gandhi presented his ideas before the people and people followed him of their own volition. If it is not Dharmic to murder a person because of ideological dissent then the act of Godse was un-Dharmic though he might have thought it ``right``. Thus there is no moral dilemma presented by Geeta as far as I can see. The confusion arises because of logical fallacy in the argument and confusing everyone`s conception of ``right`` with the Dharma.

PS
Bheesham and Bheeshma, I am not sure but I think that North Indians generally spell it in the former way and South Indians in the latter way``

I think Banjara is right in this case. The correct Sanskrit spelling is Bheeshma and North Indians, in general, spell it this way and not the other way. Basically Hindi and Sanskrit have a lot of half consonants that are not present in urdu and perhaps Gurmukhee.

Urstruly #15.

The idea is that some time people do things which would normally be considered evil, but they feel they have a justification for doing that evil for greated good or higher calling.

One example could be the concept of honor killings in your country. It is a murder but is refered to as an honor. The killers in this case place a higher value on the family`s izzat than the right to life of a family member.

dost-mittar ji,
tau ye aap they? maafi ka talabgar huN, lekin mera andaza sahi nikla.
Literal translation: nowhere to go away,nor a place to stay. or in simple english : catch-22.

Sadna,

It is beside the point whether Godse was right or wrong, or whether he followed the message a hundred percent. Godse if he was taking his inspiration from Geeta, was interpreting it the way he saw it.

Besides, after the murder of Mahatma Gandhi, all people who did not agree with some of Gandhi`s action were painted black with a large brush. Godse was a maratha and as such did not suffer from the consequences of the partition, however a lot of punjabis who had to come to India after losing everything would have liked to kill Gandhi and felt justified about. I am writing this because I saw with how much passion my grandfather hated him.

dost-mittar #25

And my point is: did Godse employ the methodology employed in the Gita to arrive at his conclusions? As I argued earlier these seem to include dialog, listing of choices, thinking through of consequences of ones actions so as to arrive at a notion of svadharma. I see no evidence of that.

Dost-mitterji
Humans have an infinite capacity for rationalization and religion is often the tool of choice in making ourselves justify some actions which are morally indefensible otherwise. Religion can even make some of us forget the biological imperative of self-preservation. It is not surprising at all that Godse uses Gita to justify his actions to himself. I won`t be surprised if the band of cow-saviours in Jhajjar sleep peacefully at night believing that they have done their dharma by killing five humans.