Mahatma Gandhi’s Assassin’s Reasoning

In the Service of our Ancestors and African Love,
Listen Seeker, I come in peace,

“Maybe not all assassins have a story, but [Nathuram Godse] did.” — Onitaset Kumat

Natharum Godse, Mahatma Gandhi’s assassin, killed out of an ethical conviction.  It’s well reasoned in the style of Orientals.  Orientals follow “Contracts” and “clash according to contracts.”  Natharum Godse clashed against Islam for Hinduism.  Understanding his example, and thus Orientalism, is a step toward understanding the Oriental corruption of African people.  Build African Blood Siblings Community Centers to educate us in our ways.

Mahatma Gandhi’s Assassin’s Reasoning
By Onitaset Kumat

Nathurum Godse was the assassin of Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi.  In court he defended the assassination in a detailed speech seen here: http://www.vijayvaani.com/FrmPublicDisplayArticle.aspx?id=365.  Some excerpts from this speech should be analyzed, as it can be informative to an African audience.

“Born in a devotional Brahmin family, I instinctively came to revere Hindu religion, Hindu history and Hindu culture. I had, therefore, been intensely proud of Hinduism as a whole. As I grew up I developed a tendency to free thinking unfettered by any superstitious allegiance to any isms, political or religious. That is why I worked actively for the eradication of untouchability and the caste system based on birth alone. I openly joined anti-caste movements and maintained that all Hindus are of equal status as to rights, social and religious, and should be considered high or low on merit alone and not through the accident of birth in a particular caste or profession.”

This paragraph speaks to the lost African identity of the Western Asians.  The Hindu religion and its caste system are Aryan concepts against the Indus Civilization, one of the more grand civilizations in humankind that has its origin in Africa.  The caste system and its bias against Southern India relates with the European and Asian’s hatred for the African.  This is why shadeism is prevalent in Indian society, even prior to modern Western racism.    It’s proper to be against the Hindu caste system but also Hinduism itself, a concept lost on this murderer: Hinduism is the racist Aryan bastardization of an earlier African spirituality.

His activities for public awakening were phenomenal in their intensity and were reinforced by the slogan of truth and non-violence, which he paraded ostentatiously before the country. No sensible or enlightened person could object to these slogans. In fact there is nothing new or original in them. They are implicit in every constitutional public movement. But it is nothing but a dream if you imagine the bulk of mankind is, or can ever become, capable of scrupulous adherence to these lofty principles in its normal life from day to day. In fact, honour, duty and love of one’s own kith and kin and country might often compel us to disregard non-violence and to use force. I could never conceive that an armed resistance to an aggression is unjust.”

Over here we see a disapproval of Gandhi’s ‘anti-violence’  strategy which we can translate into a disapproval of Martin Luther King Jr.’s tactics which proved to be insufficient in advancing African people in America.  However, what makes this interesting is his emphasis on how he makes the moral statement that one ought be violent against the aggressors.  This is a true statement that goes against Christian sensibilities, also known as ‘slave codes’: “thou shalt not kill [thy master],” “thou shalt not steal [from thy master],” etc, a reference too to a poem in “Maroon and Build For Self,” the ABS’ pamphlet.  In effect Gandhi was an opiate on the India people, as was Martin Luther King Jr. on us. These men who speak the oppressor’s ‘go along to get along’ (another reference) confuse the populace as to what is ethical.

I would consider it a religious and moral duty to resist and if possible, to overpower such an enemy by use of force. (In the Ramayana) Rama killed Ravana in a tumultuous fight and relieved Sita. (In the Mahabharata) Krishna killed Kansa to end his wickedness; and Arjuna had to fight and slay quite a number of his friends and relations, including the revered Bhishma, because the latter was on the side of the aggressor. It is my firm belief that in dubbing Rama, Krishna and Arjuna as guilty of violence, the Mahatma betrayed the total ignorance of the springs of human action. In more recent history, it was the heroic fight put up by Chhatrapati Shivaji that first checked and eventually destroyed the Muslim tyranny in India. It was absolutely essential for Shivaji to overpower and kill an aggressive Afzal Khan, failing which he would have lost his own life. In condemning history’s towering warriors like Shivaji, Rana Pratap and Guru Govind Singh as misguided patriots, Gandhi has merely exposed his self-conceit.”

This is a statement on the ethics of the deities.  It’s worth noting that these deities, especially the earlier ones, were either Africans or based around African deities.  The story of deities are moral stories; Godse points to how Gandhi opposes ‘morality;’ something that is immoral.  Though you’ll notice the Orientalism here–i.e. getting ethics from following contracts.

In the beginning of his career in India, Gandhi gave a great impetus to Hindi, but as he found that the Muslims did not like it, he became a champion of what is called Hindustani. Everybody in India knows that there is no language in India called Hindustani; it has no grammar; it has no vocabulary. It is a mere dialect; it is spoken, not written. It is a tongue and a crossbreed between Hindi and Urdu, and not even the Mahatma’s sophistry could make it popular. But in his desire to please the Muslims he insisted that Hindustani alone should be the national language of India. His blind followers, of course, supported him and the so-called hybrid language began to be used. The charm and the purity of the Hindi language were to be prostituted to please the Muslims. All his experiments were at the expense of the Hindus.”

This here speaks toward Pan-Africanism, particularly related with the language and religion of a unified African continent.  Gandhi tried to facilitate to the Muslims, but one must look into the question on whether he ought to have.  Islam, like Christianity, and like Hinduism, is not a moral religion.  Whereas the language question may be more difficult, it’s actually the case that Gandhi should not have supported the Muslims.  A Muslim sub-state is also disagreeable especially since it solely creates an immoral competitor and makes the Indian country weaker for its larger immoral competitors.  Godse had a point in criticizing Gandhi’s “Pro-Muslim” stance though Gandhi had a point in trying to maintain unification.

Briefly speaking, I thought to myself and foresaw that I shall be totally ruined, and the only thing I could expect from the people would be nothing but hatred and that I shall have lost all my honour, even more valuable than my life, if I were to kill Gandhiji. But at the same time I thought that the Indian politics in the absence of Gandhiji would surely be practical, able to retaliate and would be powerful with the armed forces. No doubt, my own future would be totally ruined, but the nation would be saved from the inroads of Pakistan. People may even call me or dub me as devoid of any sense or foolish, but the nation would be free to follow the course founded on the reason, which I consider necessary for sound nation-building.”

Nathuram Godse had a strong ethical conviction, but it was very late.  It’s apparent that Gandhi’s power was in decline and Pakistan already partitioned.  By Godse’s language alone he would have been ethical had he killed Gandhi earlier.  It’s debatable whether he was right in his slow might.  By the by, his full speech is available above and we can each read what motivated him.  It was a moral conviction, something that history books do not teach, merely “Another Indian killed Gandhi.”  Maybe not all assassins have a story, but this one did.
Subscribe, Share, See:

Two of Aesop’s Fables and a lessonSmart Fables
Diop’s Two Cradle TheorySouthern/Northern Cradle
A quotation on our past renown from Lady Lugard Past Renown
Excerpts concerning the Aryan Invasions of IndiaAncient Invasion
Fable: The “Unwronging” InnocentDo Right

2 thoughts on “Mahatma Gandhi’s Assassin’s Reasoning

  1. Izbelchanad Dghoaurayo

    I am very much so interested as well as intrigued by the depth of info that is being shared through this site. I read Mr. God’s disposition and although I shall retain my conclusion, I simply would inquire of your source to the entirety of the scope of wisdom you proclaim. I am not a aggressor, I do not wish to prove, or disprove ANYTHING, I am simply a TRUE history nerd making an effort if possible to verify new information

    Reply
    1. Onitaset Post author

      Peace,

      If you could be more specific I’d be happy to help. Although, keep in mind that I had written the article a little under five years ago.

      Reply

Please ask any questions that come to mind

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s