Murder of Mahatma Gandhi & Hindutva.

Gandhi's 240-mile journey marked the start of colonialism's demise. Courtesy: Time Weekly - Soon after saying his customary dawn prayers, Mahatma Gandhi emerged from his ashram to greet a crowd of thousands gathered to witness the start of his latest and most defiant protest against the "curse" of British rule. A volunteer band raised its horns and, it was reported, blared a few bars of God Save the King before it apparently dawned on the musicians that a rousing salute to the English sovereign was not the most appropriate send-off. Their fading notes were overtaken by the sound of coconuts being smashed together, a traditional Hindu sign of devotion. Gandhi, leaning on a lacquered bamboo staff, soon set out along the winding, dusty road. His destination: Dandi, 240 miles away, where 25 days later he would collect a few grains of salt in defiance of the British tax that forced locals to pay prices for the compound that were said to be up to 2,000% greater than its production costs. Following his lead, thousands of Indian villagers waded into the sea to extract salt themselves. Thus began Gandhi's campaign of nonviolent civil disobedience—and the beginning of the end of the British Empire. REFERENCE: 1923-1939 A Disobedient Saint's March By AMANDA BOWER Monday, Mar. 31, 2003 http://www.time.com/time/specials/packages/article/0,28804,1977881_1977883_1978093,00.html

1969 Report of Jeevan Lal Kapur Commission of Inquiry in to Conspiracy to Murder Mahatma Gandhi (Part 1 and Part 2) - Full text of the report of Commission of Inquiry in to Conspiracy to Murder Mahatma Gandhi 1965 - 1969. Published in 1970 by India’s Ministry of Home Affairs, the report is now not so widely known since its has been out of print. This two part report has been now been digitised and uploaded on the internet in public interest with the intent to permanently keep it in the public domain. http://www.sacw.net/article2611.html

Special Thanks: We suggest people should read as an introductory note a comment by the historian Dilip Simeon on his blog. Here are some excerpts: On January 20, a bomb exploded 75 feet away from the dais at Gandhi’s prayer meeting. One Madanlal Pahwa was arrested. Six other men escaped in a taxi. This was the fifth attempt on his life since 1934, and all of them were made by extreme Hindu nationalists. [. . .] On January 30, soon after he arrived at his prayer meeting, Nathuram Godse, editor of a Poona-based Marathi journal called Hindu Rashtra, fired three bullets at him at point-blank range and killed him. The story of this crime is complex (Payne 2003, 609-35). On February 4, the Government of India declared the Rashtriya Swayamsewak Sangh to be unlawful, noting that its members had “indulged in acts of violence involving arson, robbery, dacoity and murder.. carried on under a cloak of secrecy.” It accused the Sangh of “exhorting people to resort to terrorist methods.” The communique went on to state that “the cult of violence sponsored and inspired by the activities of the Sangh has claimed many victims. The latest and the most precious to fall was Gandhiji himself” (Goyal 1979, 202). The trial of eight conspirators including V.D. Savarkar took place through 1948. Godse made a speech stating his belief in in Savarkar’s ideal of Hindu nationalism, and his conviction that Gandhi was “a political and ethical imposter…a traitor to his faith and his country, a curse to India, a force for evil.., and the greatest enemy not only of Hindus, but of the whole nation” (Payne 2003, 637-41). Parts of the speech suggest that Godse saw himself as an agency of Lord Krishna. The speech remains popular with a certain section of political opinion. Godse and Narayan Apte were sentenced to death in February 1949 and hanged in November. They went to the gallows shouting Akhand Bharat amar rahe, not realising that a united India was also Gandhi’s dearest ideal. Unlike them, however, he did not believe that united India could be a Hindu Rashtra. Five conspirators were sentenced to life imprisonment, which in India those days meant fourteen years. Savarkar was acquitted for lack of evidence. However, doubts remained about the extent of the conspiracy; the behaviour of the Bombay and Delhi police between January 20 and 30; and the evidence of V.D. Savarkar’s involvement. In 1965, the Government of India set up a Commission of Inquiry into the Conspiracy to Murder Mahatma Gandhi, headed by Justice Jivanlal Kapur of the Supreme Court. It examined evidence not produced during the trial, including the testimony of Savarkar’s bodyguard Appa Ramachandra Kasar, and his secretary Gajanan Vishnu Damle. Had they testified in 1948, Savarkar would have been convicted. The evidence confirmed Godse and Apte’s visits to Savarkar on January 14 and 17, 1948. Kasar told the Commission that they visited Savarkar again on or about January 23, upon their return from Delhi after the bomb incident. Damle stated that Godse and Apte saw Savarkar “in the middle of January and sat with him in his garden.” Justice Kapur’s findings were clear. He noted the deadly negligence of the police. And he concluded that the facts taken together undermined “any theory other than the conspiracy to murder by Savarkar and his group.” (Noorani, March 2003). REFERENCE: 1969 Report of Jeevan Lal Kapur Commission of Inquiry in to Conspiracy to Murder Mahatma Gandhi (Part 1 and Part 2) Thursday 29 March 2012 http://www.sacw.net/article2611.html

Mahatma Gandhi Speech on Pakistan

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vbWDvVGFRww

Murder of Mahatma Gandhi & Jeevan Lal Kapur Commission Report PART 1

At the unveiling of a portrait of Savarkar in Parliament House on February 26. (From left) Parliamentary Affairs Minister Sushma Swaraj, Vice-President Bhairon Singh Shekhawat, President A.P.J. Abdul Kalam, Prime Minister Atal Behari Vajpayee and Lok Sabha Speaker Manohar Joshi. The Sangh Parivar has, after long years of public silence on Vinayak Damodar Savarkar - the originator of the concept of "Hindutva", a `freedom fighter' who repeatedly gave undertakings and apologies to the British Raj to get out of harsh incarceration, and a conspirator in the Mahatma Gandhi assassination - brought him out of the closet as one of its heroes, as the original `Hindu nationalist'. On February 26, 2003, at the instance of the Bharatiya Janata Party-led government and in the face of Opposition protest, Savarkar's portrait was unveiled in the Central Hall of Parliament by the President, A.P.J. Abdul Kalam. Ten months earlier, on May 4, 2002, Union Home Minister and Deputy Prime Minister, L.K. Advani, was in the Andaman Islands to rename the Port Blair Airport as the Veer Savarkar Airport. Frontline columnist A.G. Noorani is the author of the illuminating, meticulously documented, definitive book, Savarkar and Hindutva: The Godse Connection, published in 2002 by LeftWord Books, Delhi. Frontline's Editor invited the author to contribute an article on Savarkar and Gandhi in the context of the former's portrait being unveiled in Parliament. WOULD one shake hands with a person who was acquitted of the charge of conspiracy to murder one's friend solely because the approver's evidence, though trustworthy otherwise, lacked independent corroboration as the law required? Gandhi was no ordinary mortal. Vinayak Damodar Savarkar, who had a track record of complicity in at least two murders, was acquitted of the charge of conspiracy to Gandhi's murder only because the approver, Digambar Badge's evidence lacked independent corroboration; a common flaw in conspiracy cases. But Judge Atma Charan accepted Badge as a truthful witness. "He gave his version of the facts in a direct and straight-forward manner. He did not evade cross-examination or attempt to evade or fence with any question."

Badge's version was that on January 17, he went with the assassin, Nathuram Vinayak Godse, and their accomplice, Narayan Apte, to Savarkar's home and that he heard Savarkar, while bidding them farewell, say, "Yashasvi houn ya" (Be successful and come back). On the way back, Apte told Badge that Savarkar had predicted that "Gandhiji's 100 years were over - there was no doubt that would be successfully finished." The verdict of acquittal was sound in law. However, Union Home Minister Sardar Patel had "kept myself almost in daily touch with the progress of the investigation regarding Bapu's assassination case. I devote a large part of my evening to discussing with Sanjevi (the top police officer) the day's progress and giving instructions to him on any points that arise". His conclusion was characteristically clear: "It was a financial wing of the Hindu Mahasabha directly under Savarkar that (hatched) the conspiracy and saw it through". (Emphasis added, throughout.) When persons charged with the murder of its president Deen Dayal Upadhyaya were acquitted, the Jan Sangh demanded that a Commission of Inquiry be appointed to unravel "the whole truth". (The Chandrachud Commission rejected the Sangh's charges against political opponents of complicity in that murder.) By the same token, the Report of the Commission of Inquiry into the Conspiracy to murder Mahatma Gandhi, which was set up in 1965, deserves greater weight than the verdict of the Sessions Court. It was headed by Justice Jivanlal Kapur of the Supreme Court and was provided with evidence not produced in the court; especially the testimony of two of Savarkar's close aides - Appa Ramachandra Kasar, his bodyguard, and Gajanan Vishnu Damle, his secretary.

Had they testified in Court, Savarkar would have been convicted. There was none of the ambiguity surrounding Godse and Apte's visits to Savarkar on January 14 and 17, 1948. Kasar told the Kapur Commission that they visited him on or about January 23 or 24, which was when they returned from Delhi after the bomb incident. Damle deposed that Godse and Apte saw Savarkar "in the middle of January and sat with him (Savarkar) in his garden." Justice Kapur's findings are all too clear. He concluded: "All these facts taken together were destructive of any theory other than the conspiracy to murder by Savarkar and his group." In his crime report No.1, the main police investigating officer, Jimmy Nagarvala, had stated that "Savarkar was at the back of the conspiracy and that he was feigning illness." Nagarvala's letter of January 31, 1948, the day after the assassination, mentioned, on the strength of what Kasar and Damle disclosed to him, that Savarkar, Godse and Apte met for 40 minutes "on the eve of their departure to Delhi" and that these two had access to the house of Savarkar without any restriction." In short, Godse and Apte met Savarkar again, in the absence of Badge, and in addition to their meetings on January 14 and 17.

No government with any sense of decency would unveil such a person's portrait in the hallowed premises of Parliament - there, to face the portrait of the very man he had, as Patel and Kapur found, conspired to murder. Another person familiar with police investigations was the Home Minister of the Bombay Province, Morarji Desai. He had assigned his best police officers to the investigation. Desai's carefully worded judgment on Savarkar in the Bombay Legislative Council on April 3, 1948, when R.N. Mandlik referred to "the past services of the Savarkar brothers," is relevant. Morarji Desai's retort was devastatingly brief: "May I say, Sir, that the past services are more than offset by the present disservice?" THE verdict of acquittal of Savarkar pronounced by Judge Atma Charan was sound in law, given the evidence before him. The evidence that surfaced thereafter impels a different verdict at the bar of history, which is, surely, more weighty morally. This is especially so in the light of Savarkar's own conduct in two significant respects.

First, arrested on suspicion of complicity in Gandhi's murder, he wrote this in a demeaning letter to the Commissioner of Police, Bombay, on February 22, 1948: "Consequently, in order to disarm all suspicion and to back up the above heart representation, I wish to express my willingness to give an undertaking to the government that I shall refrain from taking part in any communal or political public activity for any period the government may require in case I am released on that condition." It was contemptuously rejected. Secondly, Savarkar lied in court about his proximity to the assassin Godse and accomplice Apte. "Pandit Godse and Narayan Apte got themselves introduced to me as Hindu Mahasabha workers at Nagar and Poona and later on came to be personally acquainted with me." After Savarkar's death, Godse's brother, Gopal, revealed the closeness of the relationship in his Marathi book Gandhi Hatya, Ani Me ("Gandhi's Murder and I"), published in 1967. An English translation was published later. Gopal Godse's revelations about their relationship totally belie Savarkar's version. It was much more than an "acquaintance." Once Savarkar was set free in 1937, "Nathuram started going about with Veer Savarkar everywhere." Savarkar's biographer Dhananjay Keer wrote: "In his early youth Godse was a worker of the RSS and later, he was a prominent member of the All India Committee of the Hindu Mahasabha. He was a well-known journalist in Maharashtra and the editor of a Marathi daily, the Agrani - the Leader - changed to a new name, the Hindu Rashtra at a later stage. Better known as Pandit Nathuram Godse, this editor was a staunch Savarkarite, and was fairly known as the vanguard and lieutenant of Savarkar." Would Savarkar have lied thus if he were innocent of the charge?

The letter to the Commissioner of Police is only the fourth in a series of abject apologies and undertakings. An earlier one in 1925 was first exposed in Frontline ("Far from Heroism" by Krishnan Dubey and Venkitesh Ramakrishnan, April 7, 1995). To secure release from jail, Savarkar undertook "that he will not engage publicly or privately in any manner of political activities without the consent of the government for a period of five years, such restriction being renewable at the discretion of government at the expiry of the said term." The government resolution, which recorded the undertaking, continued: "Mr. Savarkar has already indicated his acceptance of these terms. He has also, though it was explained to him that it was in no way made condition of his release, submitted the following statement - `I hereby acknowledge that I had a fair trial and just sentence. I heartily abhor methods of violence resorted to in days gone by, and I feel myself duty bound to uphold Law and the Constitution to the best of my powers and am willing to make the Reform a success insofar as I may be allowed to do in future'." This was a reference to the Montford Reforms of 1918, which fell short of Indian expectations. It is disingenuous of apologists to argue that ill-treatment in the Andamans led to a collapse of his health and broke his spirit; hence the apologies. This is untrue.

Savarkar was brought to the Andamans on July 4, 1911. Before the year ended, he sent his first petition for clemency. He was in perfectly good health. It is referred to in the second petition of November 24, 1913, in which he wrote: "In the end I remind your honour to be so good as to go through the petition for clemency, that I had sent in 1911, and to sanction it for being forwarded to the Indian government? The latest development of the Indian politics and the conciliating policy of the government have thrown open the constitutional line once more. Now no man having the good of India and humanity at heart will blindly step on the thorny paths which in the excited and hopeless situation of India in 1906-1907 beguiled us from the path of peace and progress. Therefore if the government in their manifold beneficence and mercy release me, I for one cannot but be the staunchest advocate of constitutional progress and loyalty to the English Government, which is the foremost condition of that progress... . Moreover my conversion to the constitutional line would bring back all those misled young men in India and abroad who were once looking up to me as their guide. I am ready to serve the government in any capacity they like, for as my conversion is conscientious so I hope my future conduct would be. By keeping me in jail nothing can be got in comparison to what would be otherwise. The Mighty alone can afford to be merciful and therefore where else can the prodigal son return but to the parental doors of the government? Hoping your honour will kindly take into notion these points." Mark the words "loyalty to the English government."

Which other freedom fighter has so sustained a record of abject apologies and undertakings? They were given in 1911, 1913, 1925, 1948 and 1950. The last was given in the Bombay High Court on July 13, 1950 to secure release from preventive detention. Advocate-General L.K. Daphtary, who had prosecuted him in the Gandhi murder case, told the court that "he was authorised to state that if Savarkar would give an undertaking that he would not participate in political activities and would remain at his own house in Bombay, government would agree to his release". Savarkar's lawyer gave the undertaking on his behalf. IT took the Sangh Parivar long to own up Savarkar. The Jan Sangh never spoke of him or of Hindutva from 1951-1977. The BJP, formed in 1980, took up Hindutva only in 1990 and Savarkar in 2000, through Prime Minister Atal Behari Vajpayee. His Deputy, L.K. Advani, spoke of Savarkar in the Andamans on May 4, 2002. He admitted his intellectual debt to Savarkar and his essay Hindutva. Advani said: "Today, Hindutva is considered an offensive word. But we must remember that the pioneers of Hindutva like Veer Savarkar and RSS founder Hedgewar kindled fierce, nationalistic spirit that contributed to India's liberation."

This is a brazen falsehood. Savarkar met the arch imperialist Viceroy of India, Lord Linlithgow, in Bombay on October 9, 1939 - the month Congress asked its Ministers in the provinces to resign and pledged his enthusiastic cooperation to the British. Linlithgow reported to Lord Zetland, the Secretary of State for India: "The situation, he [Savarkar] said, was that His Majesty's Government must now turn to the Hindus and work with their support. After all, though we and the Hindus have had a good deal of difficulty with one another in the past, that was equally true of the relations between Great Britain and the French and, as recent events had shown, of relations between Russia and Germany. Our interests were now the same and we must therefore work together. Even though now the most moderate of men, he had himself been in the past an adherent of a revolutionary party, as possibly, I might be aware. (I confirmed that I was.) But now that our interests were so closely bound together the essential thing was for Hinduism and Great Britain to be friends, and the old antagonism was no longer necessary."

It was a clear offer of collaboration with the British to suppress the Congress' movement. Savarkar's colleague in the Hindu Mahasabha and founder of the Jan Sangh, Shyama Prasad Mookerjee, was Finance Minister in the Bengal Ministry headed by Fazlul Haq. Mahasabhites were members of the Muslim League Ministry in Sind. On July 26, 1949, Mookerjee wrote to Governor John Herbert renewing this offer in these explicit terms:

"I have been thinking over the questions which we discussed at some length at the last Cabinet Meeting, specially arising out of the threatened Congress movement. It is of utmost importance that there should be complete understanding between you, as Governor, and your colleagues during the present critical period... . "Let me now refer to the situation that may be created in the province as a result of any widespread movement launched by the Congress. Anybody who, during the war, plans to stir up mass feelings, resulting in internal disturbances or insecurity, must be resisted by any government that may function for the time being."

Such, if Advani is to be believed, is the "fierce nationalistic spirit that contributed to India's liberation". Why, then, are Advani & Co. so eager to honour Savarkar? It is because the Sangh Parivar was never part of the freedom movement led by Gandhi. It needs a "national" hero, one who reflects its communal credo in opposition to the nationalist credo. Savarkar is the obvious choice. He pronounced the two-nation theory, first, in 1923 in his essay Hindutva and next in 1937 in his presidential address to the Mahasabha. In 1923 he wrote: "We Hindus are bound together not only by the love we bear to a common fatherland and by the blood that courses through our veins... but also by the tie of the common homage we pay to our great civilisation - our Hindu culture... we are one because we are a nation, a race and own a common Sanskriti (civilisation)."

As soon as Savarkar was free from the humiliating undertaking he had given to the British in 1925 not to engage in "political activities", he presided over the Ahmedabad session of the Hindu Mahasabha in 1937 when he said: "I warn the Hindus that the Mohammedans are likely to prove dangerous to our Hindu Nation... India cannot be assumed today to be a Unitarian and homogenous nation, but on the contrary there are two nations in the main: the Hindus and the Moslems in India." A year later, in 1938, at the Nagpur Session, he went one better. He rejected the concept of Indian nationalism on which the entire freedom movement led by the Congress was based: "The original political sin, which our Hindu Congressites... committed at the beginning of the Indian National Congress movement and are persistently committing still of running after the mirage of a territorial Indian Nation and of seeking to kill as an impediment in that fruitless pursuit the lifegrowth of an organic Hindu Nation... . We Hindus are a Nation by ourselves because religious, racial, cultural and historical affinities bind us intimately into a homogenous nation." This is the concept of "cultural nationalism" as opposed to "territorial nationalism", which the RSS boss M.S. Golwalkar derided in his Bunch of Thoughts (Chapter X). Everyone born in India does not belong to "the nation". He must also accept the credo of Hindutva, "cultural nationalism". As Savarkar put it: "The Hindus are the nation in India - in Hindusthan, and the Moslem minority a community." Now read these lines: "Our nationalist vision is not merely bound by the geographical or political identity of India, but defined by our ancient cultural heritage. From this belief flows our faith in `cultural nationalism', which is the core of Hindutva. That, we believe, is the identity of our ancient nation - Bharatvarsha. Hindutva is a unifying principle which alone can preserve the unity and integrity of our nation." They occur in the BJP's election manifesto of 1996 under the section, significantly, on Ayodhya. The formulations are repeated in the 1998 manifesto under the heading "Our national identity, cultural nationalism". Advocacy of Hindutva ends with the explanation: "It is with such integrative ideas in mind, the BJP joined the Ram Janmabhoomi movement." Advani's falsification of history conveyed a strong political message. The installation of Savarkar's portrait in Parliament buttresses it. The BJP regime is out to promote its agenda. It will fight the elections on the Hindutva plank. The unveiling of Savarkar's portrait shows that it is prepared to stoop very low in order to accomplish its sordid ends. It will replace the national ideology of secularism with Hindutva and the national hero Gandhi as the Father of the Nation, with Savarkar who, Justice Kapur found, had conspired to kill him. REFERENCE: CONTROVERSY Savarkar and Gandhi A.G. NOORANI - The unveiling of Savarkar's portrait in Parliament shows that the BJP is prepared to stoop low to accomplish its sordid ends. It will replace the national ideology of secularism with Hindutva and Gandhi as the Father of the Nation, with Savarkar who, the Kapur Commission found, had conspired to kill him. Volume 20 - Issue 06, March 15 - 28, 2003 India's National Magazine from the publishers of THE HINDU http://www.frontlineonnet.com/fl2006/stories/20030328003603400.htm

Why did Nathuram Godse kill Mahatma Gandhi?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GvZXnHDTXuE

Murder of Mahatma Gandhi & Jeevan Lal Kapur Commission Report PART 2

NEW DELHI: It is an irony of history that Mahatma Gandhi, who led India to independence from British colonial rule in 1947, is now in a popularity contest with Veer Savarkar, arrested for the assassination of the 'Apostle of Peace' but acquitted for lack of corroborative evidence. Gandhi was shot dead at a prayer meeting on June 30, 1948, by Nathuram Godse, who like most Hindu chauvinists to this day, blame him and his philosophy of non-violence for the partition of the sub-continent into Muslim Pakistan and Hindu majority India immediately before independence. In fact, it was Savarkar who was a staunch proponent of the idea that India consisted of two 'nations' - Hindu and Muslim. Gandhi, on the other hand, agreed to the partition only because he saw the futility of resisting and was keen on avoiding bloodshed. During its six years in power that ended with the surprise electoral defeat in May, the pro-Hindu, Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) did its best to rehabilitate Veer Savarkar. The BJP even unveiled his portrait in Parliament House at a ceremony boycotted by the Congress and other parties that were then part of the national opposition. Savarkar is considered a staunch patriot, especially in his native Maharashtra state, but his critics accuse him - apart from conspiring to assassinate Gandhi - of winning his way out of a British jail set up in a penal colony on the Andaman Islands jail by swearing fealty to the British Crown. On a recent visit to the Andaman Islands, senior Congress party leader and cabinet minister Mani Shankar Aiyar ordered the removal of a plaque inscribed with the sayings of Savarkar, set up during BJP rule, and replaced it with another bearing quotes from Gandhi. With Maharashtra set to elect a new assembly next month, in the first major trial of strength after the April/May general elections, the BJP has discovered in the 'insult' to Savarkar a convenient election issue in a state where he has iconic status rivalling that of Gandhi. In fact, BJP members did their best to use the plaque issue to stall the just concluded budget session of Parliament and the important finance bill which brought in sweeping social changes. The bill was then passed without the participation of the BJP-led opposition. Sensing danger to its prospects in Maharashtra, the Congress party quickly distanced itself from Aiyar's opinions of Savarkar with Prime Minister Manmohan Singh himself saying at a weekend press conference to mark the 100 days in office of his Congress-led government that he considered Savarkar to be a "patriot and a freedom fighter." Despite the partition, India continues to have the second largest Muslim population in the world after Indonesia. Winning the Maharashtra elections could give the BJP the morale booster it badly needs after its shock defeat in the general elections which many of its own hardline leaders said came about because it had abandoned its core ideology of 'Hindutva' (or Hinduness). On the other hand, the Congress party and its allies in the ruling United Progressive Alliance (UPA) attribute their victory to their championship of the essentially secular character of the Indian republic - which the party has been relentlessly maintaining. In practical terms, that boils down to the Congress championing the ideals of Gandhi and the BJP doing its best to deify Savarkar and present him as an alternative - at least for the Maharashtra campaign. In the latest episode of this war of icons, the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) which provides men and muscle to the BJP, filed a defamation suit against Union Human Resources Development Minister Arjun Singh for accusing the organisation of involvement in the Gandhi assassination. Arjun Singh reacted by saying that he stood by the charges he made at a national convention earlier this month where he said the country could expect little from an organization (the RSS) whose "biggest achievement was the killing of Mahatma Gandhi." The ties that Gandhi's assassin Nathuram Godse maintained with the RSS were sufficiently close for a ban to be slapped on the organization for more than a year afterwards by the post-independence Indian government. The RSS has consistently denied having anything to do with a murder that caused the United Nations to declare a period of mourning. One reason that the BJP is falling back to historical figures and 'national' issues is that its allies in the ousted National Democratic Allies (NDA) have warned that they would quit the coalition if the BJP persisted with its communal agenda. Many of the BJP's allies, notably the Telugu Desam Party (TDP) in southern Andhra Pradesh have blamed the electoral debacle suffered by the NDA on the 2002 anti-Muslim pogrom in western Gujarat that continues to be ruled by the BJP - as also the major states of central Madhya Pradesh and western Rajasthan. Clearly, the BJP's pro-Hindu stance is suffering from the law of diminishing returns. A 'Mood of the Nation' opinion poll commissioned by the pro- BJP 'India Today' newsmagazine and released on Sunday showed the Congress- led United Progressive Alliance (UPA) rapidly gaining in popularity over the NDA that was favoured to win handsomely in the April/May elections on a supposed 'feel-good factor.' The BJP is far from anything like reviving the wave of pro- Hindu sentiment it generated in 1992 around the emotive issue of building a temple to the warrior deity Rama on the site of the Babri Mosque - which BJP supporters demolished in northern Uttar Pradesh's northern Ayodhya town. Yet, the Congress party-led, communist backed United Progressive Alliance (UPA) government is treading warily on issues that could give its arch rival an emotive edge and regain the political initiative. Manmohan Singh's government has left it to the Supreme Court to sort out issues arising from the worst legacy of the BJP rule - the 2002 anti-Muslim pogrom in western Gujarat that left more than 2,000 people dead and tens of thousands of others homeless in the state where Mahatma Gandhi was born and spent much of his life. -Dawn/The Inter Press News Service. REFERENCE: Gandhi's idealism & Hindu fundamentalism still at odds 09 September 2004 Thursday 23 Rajab 1425 http://archives.dawn.com/2004/09/09/fea.htm

Mahatma Gandhi Speech

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_SakitCoNYc

Murder of Mahatma Gandhi & Jeevan Lal Kapur Commission Report PART 3

Mahatma Gandhi Talks- First Indian Talking Movie

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZX7PIKMrJUs

Murder of Mahatma Gandhi & Jeevan Lal Kapur Commission Report PART 4


Gopal Godse- "THE LAST CONFESSION OF THE ASSASSIN" - Part I


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gWZU5yROdkU

Murder of Mahatma Gandhi & Jeevan Lal Kapur Commission Report PART 5

Gopal Godse- "THE LAST CONFESSION OF THE ASSASSIN" - Part II


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BVF8Z_K84co

Murder of Mahatma Gandhi & Jeevan Lal Kapur Commission Report PART 6

Gopal Godse- "THE LAST CONFESSION OF THE ASSASSIN" - Part III


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hc0MxxyDNiw

Murder of Mahatma Gandhi & Jeevan Lal Kapur Commission Report PART 7



Murder of Mahatma Gandhi & Jeevan Lal Kapur Commission Report PART 8

Justice Jeevan Lal Kapur's account of the murder of Mahatma Gandhi -published by the Ministry of Home Affairs in 1970- is an important document that has been all but forgotten in contemporary India. Read below a short background: 'volume' citations are from Gandhi's Collected Works. Gandhi had arrived in Delhi from Calcutta in September 1947. He planned to walk to Pakistan, leading Hindu and Sikh refugees back to the homes whence they had fled, and return with Indian Muslims who had left their homes out of fear. He postponed this plan upon realizing the extent of communal violence and hatred in Delhi and its environs. Between January 13 and 18 he undertook a fast – his last, as it turned out – to obtain the return of a shrine to its proper owners. Here is what he said about it on December 22 1947:

“Some eight or ten miles from here, at Mehrauli, there is a shrine of Qutubuddin Bakhtiyar Chisti. Esteemed as second only to the shrine at Ajmer, it is visited every year not only by Muslims but by thousands of non-Muslims too. Last September this shrine was subjected to the wrath of Hindu mobs. The Muslims living in the vicinity of the shrine for the last 800 years had to leave their homes. I mention this sad episode to tell you that, though Muslims love the shrine, today no Muslim can be found anywhere near it. It is the duty of the Hindus, Sikhs, the officials and the Government to open the shrine again and wash off this stain on us. The same applies to other shrines and religious places of Muslims in and around Delhi. The time has come when both India and Pakistan must unequivocally declare to the majorities in each country that they will not tolerate desecration of religious places, be they small or big. They should also undertake to repair the places damaged during riots.” (Collected Works vol 98, p 98-99).

The Delhi fast was immensely successful and an agreement emerged for the maintenance of communal harmony. (The story is told elsewhere: see Another time, another mosque). But on January 20, a bomb exploded 75 feet away from the dais at Gandhi’s prayer meeting at Birla House, New Delhi. One Madanlal Pahwa was arrested. Six other men escaped in a taxi. This was the fifth attempt on his life since 1934, and all of them were made by extreme Hindu nationalists. Gandhi was unruffled. Upon being asked to agree to additional policemen for his meetings, he refused, saying that his life was in the hands of God, that if he had to die, no precautions could save him. He would not agree to restricted entry to his prayer meetings or to anybody coming between his audience and himself. At the next day’s meeting he said that “the man who exploded the bomb obviously thinks that he has been sent by God to destroy me… He had taken it for granted that I am an enemy of Hinduism. When he says he was doing the bidding of God he is only making God an accomplice in a wicked deed. But it cannot be so… those who are behind him or whose tool he is, should know that this sort of thing will not save Hinduism. If Hinduism has to be saved it will be saved through such work as I am doing. I have been imbibing Hindu dharma right from my childhood” (CW vol 98: 279-81). On January 30, soon after he arrived at his prayer meeting, Nathuram Godse, editor of a Poona-based Marathi journal called Hindu Rashtra, fired three bullets at him at point-blank range and killed him.

On February 4, the Government of India declared the Rashtriya Swayamsewak Sangh unlawful, noting that its members had “indulged in acts of violence involving arson, robbery, dacoity and murder.. carried on under a cloak of secrecy.” It accused the Sangh of “exhorting people to resort to terrorist methods.” The communique – that must have been vetted by Home Minister Sardar Patel - went on: “the cult of violence sponsored & inspired by the activities of the Sangh has claimed many victims. The and most precious to fall was Gandhiji himself”. (D.R. Goyal 1979; Rashtriya Swayamsewak Sangh, p.202)

The trial of eight conspirators including V.D. Savarkar took place through 1948. Godse made a speech stating his belief in in Savarkar’s ideal of Hindu nationalism, and his conviction that Gandhi was “a political and ethical imposter…a traitor to his faith and his country, a curse to India, a force for evil.., and the greatest enemy not only of Hindus, but of the whole nation.” Parts of the speech suggest that Godse saw himself as an agency of Lord Krishna. Godse and Narayan Apte were sentenced to death in February 1949 and hanged in November. They went to the gallows shouting Akhand Bharat amar rahe, (Long Live United India) not realizing that a united India was also Gandhi’s dearest ideal. Unlike them, however, he did not believe that united India could be a Hindu Rashtra - an Indian version of Hitlers Reich. Five conspirators were sentenced to life imprisonment, which in India those days meant fourteen years. Savarkar was acquitted for lack of evidence.

However, doubts remained about the extent of the conspiracy; the behaviour of the Bombay and Delhi police between January 20 and 30; and the evidence of V.D. Savarkar’s involvement. In 1965, the Government of India set up a Commission of Inquiry into the Conspiracy to Murder Mahatma Gandhi, headed by Justice Jivanlal Kapur of the Supreme Court. It examined evidence not produced during the trial, including the testimony of Savarkar's bodyguard Appa Ramachandra Kasar, and his secretary Gajanan Vishnu Damle. Had they testified in 1948, Savarkar would have been convicted. The evidence confirmed Godse and Apte's visits to Savarkar on January 14 and 17, 1948. Kasar told the Commission that they visited Savarkar again on or about January 23, upon their return from Delhi after the bomb incident. Damle stated that Godse and Apte saw Savarkar “in the middle of January and sat with him in his garden.” Justice Kapur's findings were clear. He noted the deadly negligence of the police. And he concluded that the facts taken together undermined “any theory other than the conspiracy to murder by Savarkar and his group.”

Gandhi died standing up, with God’s name on his lips, just as he had wanted to. He had always said that he was prepared to die for his beliefs. His death could have been prevented. Who can say what would have happened if he had been allowed to perform his padyatra to Pakistan? But it was not to be. “In the eyes of too many officials, he was an old man who had outlived his usefulness: he had become expendable. By negligence, by indifference, by deliberate desire on the part of many faceless people, the assassination had been accomplished. It was a new kind of murder – the permissive assassination, and there may be many more in the future” (Robert Payne, The Life and Death of Mahatma Gandhi; 647).

In February 2003, the Indian Union’s highest officials unveiled a portrait of V.D. Savarkar in the Central Hall of Parliament. Knowingly or otherwise our leaders and representatives have hailed and honoured the man who was a prime accused in the Gandhi murder case. They continue to do so till this day. When we realise that independent India's criminal justice system was inaugurated by a denial of justice to Gandhi, we need not be surprised at its steady deterioration ever since. REFERENCE: The Assassination of Mahatma Gandhi: Inquiry Commission Report (1969)Friday, March 30, 2012  http://dilipsimeon.blogspot.in/2012/03/report-of-commission-of-inquiry-into.html

Communal Politics in India - Part 1

The assembly elections have been declared in Maharashtra, and with this the atmosphere is heating up politically. In this state there have been substantial number of farmer’s suicides, all over there are serious issues related to rising prices, unemployment and other problems of daily life. But it seems that some political parties in Maharashtra are not much concerned about these core issues of society and seem to be more interested in the identity issues emerging from the past. Recently (September 3rd, 2009) tension developed in Miraj, Sangli and neighboring areas during Ganesh festival. This is the major festival of the state. During the festival trouble began with the erection of an arch on the route of Ganesh Visarjan, this arch depicted the slaying of Afzal Khan by Shivaji. Anticipating trouble due to the communal polarization around Shivaji and Afzal Khan, to maintain peace, the police removed the arch. Protesting against this removal of the arch some Ganesh Mandals decided not to immerse the Ganpati idols till the arch was restored. This is what led to the violence in due course, in which one person died and five got injured. BJP leadership condemned the Governments’ step of removing the arch. Shiv Sena leader asserted that they will put posters of Shivaji slaying Afzal Khan all over the state and stated that had Shivaji been not there all of us would have been reading Namaz! The state administration did control the situation but since by now lot of emotive appeal has been generated around Shivaji it was an easy job. Few years ago during the previous Parliamentary elections, the same parties had tried to organize the procession to demolish the tomb of Afzal Khan. Fortunately at that time it was brought to people’s notice that this tomb was built by Shivaji himself and the matters came to a rest, but not before it created lot of bad blood. The matters related to Shivaji are very sensitive in Maharashtra, the state administration has even planned to construct the statue of Shivaji in the Arabain sea, costing thousands of crores, from public exchequer, at the cost other public necessities. As a matter of fact, Shivaji is popular amongst people, not because he was anti Muslim or worshipper of Cows and Brahmins, but because he reduced the taxation on the poor peasants. Shivaji adopted humane policy in all the aspects of his administration, which did not base itself on the religion. In the recruitment of his soldiers and officers for army and navy, religion was no criterion and more than one third of his army consisted of Muslims. The supreme command of his navy was with Siddi Sambal, and Muslim Siddis were in navy in large numbers. Interestingly his major battles were fought against the Rajput army lead by Raja Jaisingh, who was in the administration of Aurangzeb. When Shivaji was detained at Agra forte, of the two men on whom he relied for his eventual escape, one was a Muslim called Madari Mehtar. His confidential secretary was Maulana Haider Ali and the chief of his cannon division was Ibrahim Gardi. Rustom-e-Jamaan was his bodyguard. His respect for other religions was very clear and he respected the holy seers like 'Hazarat Baba Yaqut bahut Thorwale', whom he gave the life pension and also he helped Father Ambrose, whose church was under attack in Gujarat. At his capital Raigad, he erected a special mosque for Muslim devotees in front of his palace in the same way that he built the Jagadishwar temple for his own daily worship. During his military campaigns Shivaji had issued strict instructions to his men and officers that Muslim women and children should not be subjected to maltreatment. Mosques and Dargah's were given due protection. He also ordered that whenever a copy of Koran came into the hands of his men, they should show proper respect to the book and hand it over to a Muslim. The story of his bowing to the daughter-in-law of Bassein's Nawab is well known to all. When she was brought as a part of the loot and offered to him, he respectfully begged her pardon and asked his soldiers to reach her back from the place from where she was forcibly brought in. Shivaji was in no way actuated by any hatred towards people of other religions. As a matter of fact he had great respect for holy people of all religions. All this goes on to show the values of communal harmony which Shivaji pursued, and that his primary goal was to establish his own kingdom with maximum possible geographical area. To project him as anti-Muslim and anti-Islam is travesty of truth. Neither was Afzal Khan an anti Hindu king. When Shivaji killed Afzal Khan, Afzal Khan’s secretary Krishnaji Bhasker Kulkarni attacked Shivaji with a sword. Today communal forces are out to ‘use’ Shivaji issue, to communalize the same for their political goals. In Maharashtra, Shivaji Afzal Khan have been projected as Hindu and Muslim kings. From amongst all the possible pictures of Shivaji, why is the one related to Afzal Khan is chosen? One can also show the pictures of his Pratapgadh fort with Afzal Khans tomb in that, one can show Shivaji paying respect to the Mazar of Madari Mehtar, a Muslim prince, who helped him to escape from Agra? The very selection of this picture is to divide the communities along religious lines. Communal interpretation of History, Communal historiography has been the major tool in the arsenal of communal forces. Minorities should not react to such things and try to call for peace with all the communities all the time. Now we are witnessing this pattern of history being used to communalize the society, to create sectarian divides in society. What is needed is to overcome these communal angles, to undermine identity issues, to build the Indian nation. We need to look at historical icons, as kings ruling for power, rather then the representatives of a particular religion. REFERENCE: Communalizing History: Shivaji And Afzal Khan By Ram Puniyani 30 September, 2009 http://www.countercurrents.org/puniyani300909.htm

Dr Ram Puniyani on Partition Tragedy

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eR_AaflTIFM

The Partition of India - Demographic Consequences

The interrogation of Narendra Modi by SIT, appointed by Supreme Court was a major landmark in the investigation of Gujarat carnage. Over a period of years the gradual erosion of democratic values has led the situation to a sorry pass where the Gujarat related cases had to be shifted out of Gujarat, and finally even Supreme Court had to step in, to take charge of investigation of the brutal killing of Congress MP Ahsan Jafri, who was brutally massacred by a mob. Jafri had made multiple calls, and the top police official Pandey had visited the place few hours before the tragedy took place. Congress was totally helpless as the total chain of command from local level to the central level was controlled by the BJP. Modi did try to create some more haloes around his head by appearing for being questioned. There were reports that he was to appear in front of SIT on 21st March, SIT Chief R K Raghavan stated on March 11 that Modi was summoned to appear before SIT for questioning on March 21. The SIT office was kept open the whole day but the chief minister did not turn up. Contrary to this fact Modi lashed out on the media and ‘vested interests’ saying they are trying to defame Gujarat (for Modi, Gujarat is Modi and Vice versa). Now those demanding the justice for the victims of Gujarat carnage are presented as vested interests. This statement of his was hardly challenged by anyone. SIT kept quiet about it and it sounded as if he carried the day. Truth is the contrary, the SIT office was kept open for him. And who has vested interests in Gujarat, those using religion to come to power or those human rights activists who are struggling for the rights of minorities which are being reduced to second class citizenship? Modi presented himself to SIT in grand style and this was pronounced as a political victory for him. It was claimed that the faith of BJP workers went up in his leadership. Now what does one say to this? Does fulfilling a legal obligation tantamount to political victory? This formulation was deliberately floated to hide the ignominy of a Chief Minister having to appear before an investigating agency for the first time in India. A matter of shame projected as political victory! Only the followers of Gobbels can do it for sure. Whenever BJP is caught with blood on its hands or doing partiality or discrimination the first thing it does is to deflect the issue by citing other cases with some parallels. If one talks of rehabilitation for victims of communal violence, the rhetoric is what about Kashmiri Pundits? As if two wrongs make a right! The comparison of Gujarat carnage is immediately done with the anti Sikh pogrom of 1984. Of course there are lot of similarities between the anti Sikh pogrom and the anti Muslim Gujarat carnage, but there are many a differences also. By all accounts it seems the anti Sikh pogrom; equally tragic was a spontaneous one while Gujarat carnage in all probability was a preplanned one, using the train burning of Godhra as a pretext for the violence. The dead bodies of victims of train burning were deliberately paraded on the streets of Ahmedabad, under full glare of TV cameras, top level meetings were held instructing officers concerned to let the Hindus vent their anger and the rest is too well known to be recounted. Congress can never be exonerated from the cruel role it played in the anti Sikh pogrom. There is an interesting sidelight to the tragic pogrom also. What was BJP doing when the pogrom was underway? About this some inference can be drawn from the article by the then veteran RSS worker Nanaji Deshmukh. In his article in Hindi magazine Pratipaksh 'Moments of Soul searching', which was written in 1984, in the wake of Anti Sikh pogrom, Deshmukh blames the Sikh community for the murder of Indira Gandhi and advices Sikhs to keep patience and tolerance while they were being butchered. One can draw one’s own inference about the role of followers of this ideology. All said and done, Congress workers played pro active to passive role during this pogrom for three full days after which military took over and brought this insanity to a halt. Babu Bajrangi and others involved in the massacres in Gujarat told Tehelka, sting operation, that they had been given three days to complete the retaliation. But here the processes were so complex that the violence went on and on for a painfully long period. Tavleen Singh a senior journalist, points out that if Rajiv would have to face SIT, the Gujarat violence would not have taken place. There is some truth in that as by now the section of political groups have known the rewards of unleashing these murders, Rajiv came back to power with largest majority ever for Congress and Modi has returned to power twice after the carnage. As a matter of fact, culprits of most of the acts of communal violence have generally not been punished. The chain of command culpability is not there and while most of the perpetrators of communal violence get away with the crime, the top one’s who are really behind the violence are hardly touched as their culpability is not direct. A demand is coming up from a section of Sikh community that a similar SIT should be formed for the anti Sikh pogrom also. The demand has all the merit, despite the lapse of long years after the pogrom. While one does not hope BJP can keep aloof from communal politics, one hopes Congress gets over its crime of 1984 in an honest way. Congress, despite its serious fallacies, is not a child of organization like RSS, which is opposed to Indian Democracy and Constitution and wants a Hindu nation. Congress needs to get over such tendencies lurking within its massive umbrella, those who are there despite no faith in the values of freedom movement. This needs to be sorted out and Congress needs to come out clean from this murky past. Justice must be done to all irrespective of whose victims they had been. REFERENCE: BJP And Congress In The Dock For Communal Violence By Ram Puniyani 12 April, 2010 http://www.countercurrents.org/puniyani120410.htm

Role of RSS in Communal Politics of India - Part I

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mgvGDMTfZ1s

Genocide in Gujarat the Sangh Parivar Narendra Modi and the Government of Gujarat

Let the temple come up." This was the remark by Atal Behari Vajpayee when I asked for his reaction to the destruction of the Babri Masjid one day after the incident. I was surprised by his comment because I considered him a liberal force in the Bhartiya Janata Party (BJP). Yet, I did not attach much importance to his remark. Now that the one-man commission on the demolition, headed by Justice Manmohan Singh Liberhan, has named Vajpayee as one of the collaborators in the pulling down of the mosque, his remark falls into the slot. How could he have reacted differently when he was a party to the "meticulously planned" scheme to demolish the mosque? That L.K. Advani and Murli Manohar Joshi, the other two BJP leaders, were co-conspirators was known on December 6, 1992, itself. The surprising name for me is that of Vajpayee. I would have been indulgent towards him if I had not seen a clip of his speech. A television network showed it on the day a Delhi paper had published the leaked report. Vajpayee said on December 5, one day before the demolition of the masjid, at Lucknow that the ground would be "levelled" and a yangya (religious celebration) held at that place. The commission has said that the destruction of the masjid was "preventable." Advani could have done it. But all of them, "pseudo-moderates" as the commission has described them, knew about what was happening and were "not innocent of wrongdoing." The indictment has exposed our polity because all the three came to occupy top positions in the country. Vajpayee became the prime minister, Advani the home minister and Joshi, the human resources development minister. If all the three were collaborators in the demolition of the Babri Masjid, they were dishonest in taking the oath of office which demanded that the oath taker would work for the country's unity and uphold the constitution, which mentions secularism in the preamble. The Liberhan Commission has said that they were among the 68 who were "culpable" in taking the country to the brink of "communal discord." Not only that. The three leaders acted against the Supreme Court's order "not to disturb the status quo." In other words, they made a mockery of the country's judiciary and the constitution to which they swore before assuming power. And they ruled for six years without a tug of conscience. The question is not only legal but also moral and political. How can the planned demolition be squared up with the holding of office by Vajpayee, Advani and Joshi? This is a matter that the nation must debate to find an answer, at least for the future. Those who have no clean hands should not be allowed to defile the temple of Parliament. And if they do so, what should be the punishment when facts come to light? True, the BJP came to power through the Lok Sabha election. Would the party have won so many seats if the commission had submitted its report before 1999, when the BJP led the coalition? It is unthinkable that the commission should say that the centre could not have interfered in the affairs of Uttar Pradesh until the state governor had asked it to do so. This is an alibi. My experience is that the governor adjusts his power to suit the convenience of whichever party is at the helm of affairs in New Delhi. The governor was bound to report according to the wishes of Prime Minister P.V. Narasimha Rao, whom he personally knew because both belonged to Andhra Pradesh. Even otherwise, the centre has an overall responsibility to protect the constitution. Rao could have easily acted before the demolition took place. The proclamation to impose president's rule was ready a fortnight earlier. It was awaiting the cabinet approval. The prime minister did not convene the meeting. This means his connivance, although in his book Rao mentions the pressure of his party men that did not allow him to react in time. When the demolition began, there were frantic calls to the Prime Minister's Office. He was said to be at puja (prayer) and continued to be at it till the demolition was over. What should one make out of this? Even if the Congress were to deny the allegation against Rao, the party should explain how a small temple was built overnight at the site where the Babri Masjid stood a few hours earlier. The centre was then in full control because UP had been put under president's rule after dismissal of the state government. In any case, the Babri Masjid-Ram Janmabhoomi dispute had transcended the state borders and the centre was following the developments every day. The commission's silence on Rao's behaviour is meant to cover up his complicity and that of the Congress party.

One thing that Justice Liberhan has not explained in his 900-page report is the span of 17 years between his appointment and the submission of his findings. Though he has blamed it on the commission's counsel for the delay, it is still difficult to understand that the probe should have taken such a long time. A sum of Rs.8 crore was spent on the commission and people have commented that he was prolonging his job. I expected the government's Action Taken Report to be precise and meaningful. But it is too general and too vague. And it is shocking that the government should say that there wouldn't be punitive action against anybody. Some of the guilty are saying openly that they are not repentant over what they have done. It would be tragic if those who demolished the mosque went scot-free. They are also responsible for the killing of 2000 people in the wake of the masjid's destruction. The danger of communal discord confronts the nation in one form or another. The Liberhan Commission has rightly underlined it: the basic difference between those who want a pluralistic society and those who are obsessed with Hindutva. The ideology of the BJP, or more so of its mentor, the RSS, is clear. But those who are playing politics over the demolition are doing the greatest disservice to the country. The report parked at the home ministry a few months ago was waiting to be scooped. It is the prerogative of journalists to do so. Why should political parties make its publication an issue instead of discussing how to punish those who conspired to pull down the mosque? Significantly, all secular parties came to the rescue of the BJP when the question of the report's leakage was raised. It was sought to be made a privilege issue. This is one way to evade the real problem. Kuldip Nayar is an eminent Indian columnist. REFERENCE: Politics Of Babri Masjid By Kuldip Nayar 28 November, 2009 The Daily Star http://www.countercurrents.org/nayar281109.htm

Role of RSS in Communal Politics of India - Part II

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cf3vZibsZdw

Hindutva's Foreign Tie-Up in the 1930s

RSS Genesis: Political Agenda - Part - I

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vgXZlFLpWSc

It is truly unfortunate that Kavita Karkare, widow of the slain Anti Terrorism Squad (ATS) chief, is expressing concern about Hemant Karkare’s death being politicised when the whole investigation and the aftermath of the 26/11 trial has been. It takes away from the relevant issue of saffron terror, something that has only just come out in the open. It also negates her own earlier position and makes one rather uncomfortable to even wonder whether she has been politically co-opted. The current controversy stems from the statement made by Digvijay Singh saying, “Two hours before 26/11 started, Karkare rang me and told me how his life was blighted by constant threats from people annoyed by his investigations into Malegaon blasts.” Ms Karkare’s immediate reaction was, “Such statements will mislead people and benefit Pakistan. Mockery of my husband’s sacrifice for political gain should stop.” The mockery started when Narendra Modi came to Mumbai soon after the attacks. He was not needed. He is another state’s chief minister. By announcing Rs 1 crore compensation to the kin of the victims he was only playing electoral politics. Then he visited Hemant Karkare’s widow. This same man, and the same BJP, had been critical of the ATS chief when he was investigating the Malegaon blasts. And how will Digvijay Singh’s words mislead people and benefit Pakistan when during the course of the inquiry Prime Minister Manmohan Singh asked the ISI chief to come to India? Did he imagine he would admit that Pakistan was involved? It is not surprising that the Congress party has distanced itself from Digvijay Singh’s comments. This is reminiscent of what happened to A.R.Antulay. He too might have politicised the issue, but as the holder of a sop portfolio, Minority Affairs Minister, he had nothing much to gain. His error? “I said a man like Karkare is born among millions... Who pushed him into the trap of death? Who sent him there to be killed by the Pakistanis?’’ Many people want to know about Hemant Karkare. Many people are interested that the probe into the Malegaon blasts must not stop. Some wonder about bad timing. Actually, this was the only time to talk because the events may not be connected like Siamese twins, but the Mumbai carnage pushed the Pragya-Purohit enquiry on the backburner. But he too copped out and said, “There was no need for a further probe. The home minister has clarified all doubts.” It is a huge tragedy for India that we are too insecure to even afford a rebel or two, whatever be the motives. The Shiv Sena and BJP, emboldened now by revelations of former US ambassador David Mulford in the WikiLeaks cables about the Congress party’s “crass political opportunism” and how it would “stoop to old caste/ religious-based” politics after 26/11 – which for the US obviously did not exist before 26/11 – is now yapping away. The BJP spokesman Shahnawaz Hussain said, “The Congress has to apologize to the nation for its general secretary’s remarks and get him to resign...otherwise, it will mean they were instigating Singh to make remarks that trigger communal passions and later condemn it too, to escape blame.”

His party is the last one to talk about communal passions. The escapism is on the part of political parties for various reasons and in their endeavour they will manage to get anyone on their side. Digvijay Singh has altered his tune, but he reiterated, “I want to ask L K Advani and Rajnath Singh why they went to meet the PM after Sadhvi Pragya was arrested after Malegaon blast. Why did Rajnath go to jail to meet her?” As happens often, he has had to declare that it is his personal statement and not that of the party. This is fine and needed. However, it reveals a paucity of open-mindedness when anyone raising questions about any other kind of terror is seen as a Muslim Messiah. It reduces the argument to the lowest common denominator which we as a society are so good at doing. For the sake of argument, even if he is, so what? Does it take away from the questions he is asking? How many Muslim leaders get voted in national elections because of their faith? To question something ought to be a part of democracy and civil society. Kavita Karkare is now doing a balancing act: “When my husband was investigating the Malegaon blast and was looking for Hindu accused, there were reactions from Hindu organizations. Earlier, when he was looking for Muslim accused there was a similar reaction from that community.” She has never talked about the latter, although it is most likely to have happened. However, what about the Public Interest Litigation (PIL) she filed? Her response to the Ram Pradhan Committee report last year was this: “If nobody had been at fault, I would not have lost Hemant. The chief of ATS died like a dog on the street, but nobody wants to take the responsibility. I expected this. Somebody had already told me that it was going to be a goody-goody report. Nobody wants to take responsibility. Everybody is giving clean chit to everybody.”

Her stance had been one of doubt:

“When his body was found, the bullet-proof jacket was missing...even at the hospital. From that time on, I have been fretting about this and I felt the need to file an RTI application. The reply I got was that his bullet-proof jacket had gone missing…I think I am being misled. Neither the police nor the government is providing me with the facts as to who killed Hemant. I now feel that they have cooked stories about the missing bulletproof jacket…I am not accusing either the state government or the Mumbai police. But my point of contention is that I want true answers to the several questions that are still lingering in my mind.” As they are for Vinita Kamte: “(Rakesh) Maria has been negligent. Karkare had called the control room at 11.24 pm asking for reinforcement, which did not reach him till 12.05 am, even though the police were at Anjuman Islam School, behind Cama Hospital. Being in charge of the control room, was Maria not supposed to coordinate? They say they sent 200 policemen to Karkare and Kamte; where did they go? My husband has laid down his life for the country, and as his wife I am entitled to know what happened with him that night. Why don’t they tell me, if there is nothing to hide?” Soon after these queries there was a news overdrive on defective bullet proof vest materials. While it is much appreciated for future action, was it a way of trying to run away from other important issues? Soon after the attacks, in a television interview Kavita Karkare had clearly spoken about Hindu terrorism. She spoke about how questions ran through her mind about the three senior officers being together at one place at one time. At the time I had hoped she would be able to continue as she had. She had retained her integrity and individuality. The lurking fear was that it would not take long for politicians and activists to use her. It would be a pity to see her being made into some sort of totem by those who have their own agendas. And, yes, it is widow’s right to express regret over her husband’s death being politicised. But he was also an officer, and for that reason his life was and his death is a matter of national concern. She may not wish to raise the questions she did earlier, but those queries must not die. REFERENCE: Why Can’t Hemant Karkare’s Death Be Politicised? By Farzana Versey 13 December, 2010 http://www.countercurrents.org/versey131210.htm Farzana Versey is a Mumbai-based author-columnist. She can be reached at http://farzana-versey.blogspot.com/

RSS Genesis: Political Agenda - Part - II

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kSln0ETXPaM

The Truth About V. D. Savarkar Dr.J. Kuruvachira

Myths against Minorities- Part 1

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HkVAkAyfMXw

Dayanand Pandey: Yesterday Brig. Mathur of the Deolali Cantt called and said, give me 20 men, I will train them.Col. Purohit: Maj. Prayag Modak was the one who came in our meeting and is helping us. There is Col. Raikar and Col. Hasmukh Patel. On 24 June 2007, we were to have a meeting with King Gyanendra. Col. Lajpat Prajwal, who is now a brigadier, was the one who made the meeting possible. Tehelka has accessed 37 audio tapes, two videos and several witness statements that cast further light on the Malegaon blasts case of 2008. This conversation is just a snippet of the voluminous — and self-incriminating — evidence in these tapes which reveal the right-wing Hindutva terror network beyond Sadhvi Pragya and Colonel SP Purohit. The fact that such damning evidence has been in the possession of investigative agencies for a while but has not been acted upon, is testimony to a disturbing unwillingness by the State to unearth the larger conspiracy behind the blasts. .

Transcripts of some of these video and audio tapes were first published in Tehelka (Scheming, Hatred and Porn on Tape, 23 January 2009). They ­expose not just the complicity of members of various ultra Hindutva organisations from across the country but, interestingly, their vituperative hatred even for Sangh Parivar members who they ­believe are diluting their hate agenda against Muslims.

The Maharashtra Anti Terror Squad (ats) under its late chief, Hemant Karkare, had arrested high-profile seer Dayanand Pandey alias Shankaracharya and Col. SP Purohit for the planning and ­execution of the Malegaon blasts (2008) which claimed five lives. Another blast had taken place around the same time in Modasa, Gujarat, killing one. The tapes show that the conspiracy was not just restricted to the 12 who were arrested. They throw up names of those who were sympathisers and funders, as suggested by Hemant Karkare in his last ­interview to Tehelka on 25 November 2008, a day before his death. The people mentioned are majors, brigadiers, police chiefs and politicians. But after the filing of the chargesheet, there has been silence.

Damningly, Tehelka also has a copy of an important department communication to a top ats official officials in the beginning of the year, with information on Ramji Kalsangra, a key accused. Kalsangra is wanted not just in the Malegaon blasts case but also for the Ajmer dargah, Mecca Masjid (Hyderabad), Malegaon mosque and Samjhauta Express blasts. Kalsangra was the one who planted the bombs and rode the bike used in the blasts. He was declared absconding. However, the department communication accessed by Tehelka speaks of specific information about Kalsangra’s whereabouts — the fact that he visited his mother on Diwali and Makar Sankranti and was being sheltered by a Patidar family in Gopipur, Madhya Pradesh. It also mentions his voter identity (MP 33 258 192304 Shajapur). Yet no action was taken.

Disillusioned officials say they were dismayed by the disinterest in pursuing these leads. In fact, the nexus between these blasts and the Modasa one now being established by central agencies could have been done much earlier had the ats not sat on the evidence.

At the time of filing its chargesheet in 2009, the Maharashtra ats had asserted that it had a watertight case against the accused. However, it ­remained silent on the involvement of the same accused in the Mecca Masjid blast of May 2007 which killed 14 people as well as the Ajmer dargah blasts of October 2007 which took four lives. It dismissed a statement by Maj. Nitin Joshi, member of Abhinav Bharat, that his colleague Col. Purohit had said that the rdx used in the Malegaon blasts was the same as that used for the Samjhauta blasts.

The tapes accessed by Tehelka also contain what amount to confessions of rioting. For instance, RP Singh, an ­endocrinologist at Apollo Hospital, tells Dayanand Pandey, “We burnt 25 Muslims at one go. Killing Muslims by day, practicing medicine at night: we have to do this. We have to spread terror. No more crying” (translated from Hindi). Further in the same conversation, Singh is heard discussing with BL Sharma Prem, former bjp mp, Maj. Ramesh Upadhyay and Col. Purohit (in custody for the Malegaon blasts) of attempting to kill Vice-President Hamid Ansari. Singh, also associated with the World Hindu Federation, says: “I had a very good relation with Ashok Singhal from the vhp. He is a great guy but the Sangh men did not let him continue… rss should also pay a price for its betrayal”.

Col. Purohit: “The Israelis ask us to give them proof of our involvement. What more proof do they need? We have done two such operations earlier which were successful. I was the one who had got the equipment for all of them”.

Ramesh Upadhyay: “Hyderabad mein jo bomb blasts kiya thha woh apna hi admi thha. Woh colonel apko batayenge kisne kiya thha. (The Hyderabad blasts were done by our man. The colonel can tell you who it was).”

In a curious twist — and in grotesque proof of the lengths this group is willing to go — the tapes also reveal big fissures within the Sangh Parivar. A week ago, a story broadcast by a television channel obliquely implicated rss leader Indresh Kumar in the terror conspiracy. However, in the tapes accessed by Tehelka, senior rss leader from Pune, Shyam Apte talks of meeting members of Abhinav Bharat. Startlingly, he is recorded talking to Dayanand Pandey about getting ­Indresh Kumar eliminated through a chemical which one of their men was to procure, for not sufficiently supporting their ultra-hardline activities. Pandey says: “Post mortem mein bhi woh cheez nahi aayegi, mere liye toh usmein koi risk nahi hai. (The post-mortem won’t show the chemical, there is no risk for me.) I have told him whatever time it takes, we are fine with it.” To which Apte adds that whatever money is needed for this should be given.

If sources in the Maharashtra ats are to be believed, Apte was on the verge of being arrested in November 2008 and broke down when confronted with the evidence by the ats team. However, ats chief Hemant Karkare died soon after in the Mumbai 26/11 attack and Apte was never arrested. Today, both he and RP Singh are walking free because agencies claim they have no corroborative evidence against them. Apart from these voluntary admissions on tape, of course.

Another example of inexplicable lethargy is Swami Aseemanand, who used to run the Shabri Ashram in the Dangs region of Gujarat. He is an accused in the Malegaon case, and the cbi now believes could be a key figure in the Hyderabad and Mecca Masjid blasts. He was spotted two months ago in Waghai village in Dangs in a blue Santro by local police informers. He was also spotted in April in Mahal district of Gujarat driving a white van. But no move was made against him.

Another despairing investigator says there did not seem to be a will to question vhp leader Pravin Togadia whose name crops up many times in the tapes: “They just could not prove that Togadia had given Rs 1 lakh to Abhinav Bharat. Nor were they able to investigate why Col. Purohit’s email account shriyaak@yahoo.co.in had four email ids of Praveen Togadia.”

YP Singh, ips officer and law expert, is also baffled by the go-slow. “How much really was done to make it a ­watertight case and to put in the dock all those in whose direction the leads were pointing?” he asks. The answers are disturbingly evident. REFERENCE: Malegaon. Mecca Masjid. Ajmer Sharif. Why are tapes implicating ultra Hindutva outfits in terror blasts gathering dust? BY RANA AYYUB From Tehelka Magazine, Vol 7, Issue 30, Dated July 31, 2010 http://www.tehelka.com/story_main46.asp?filename=Ne310710malegaon.asp Read excerpts of transcripts of two tapes http://www.tehelka.com/story_main46.asp?filename=Ne310710TerrorTapes.asp

Myths against Minorities- Part 2

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fl6NjsjbrtE

The 2008 Malegaon blasts investigations have, for the first time, linked the right wing organisations to terrorist acts in the country. ATS Joint commissioner Hemant Karkare was spearheading the investigation. In an interview with TEHELKA, he had clarified the ATS stand on the conflicting reports that have been trickling out regarding the investigations.

Reports suggest that VHP strongman Pravin Togadia funded Abhinav Bharat, the organisation which is allegedly involved in the Malegaon blasts? Has this been confirmed?

There was a reference to his name during the investigation, but that has nothing to do with the Malegaon blasts investigations of 2008. At this point of time, we are only looking into the 2008 blasts.

Will Pravin Togadia be questioned, since his name has also cropped up in the narco tests done on the accused in the Nanded blasts of 2006?

No, as of now there is no evidence against him. As I said earlier, we are looking at only the Malegaon blasts, so there is no question of interrogating Pravin Togadia.

Reports suggest the involvement of high-profile seers in the Malegaon blasts. Has the ATS got proof of this?

We are not looking at seers or saints in relation to the Malegaon blasts. We are not looking at people from a particular community when we question them. We are just detaining people on the basis of evidence. As for Dayanand Pandey, he has proclaimed himself to be a seer. There are a lot of people going around claiming to be saints.

Was Swami Aseemanand from Dangs involved in other blasts, including the one at Ajmer, as reports suggest?

A reference has been made to his name during the investigations, we cannot divulge much at this stage. These people might not have been seers. Aseemanand could also have taken the garb of a seer.

While presenting its case, the ATS said that there was a possibility of those arrested in the Malegaon blasts case also being involved in the blasts that took place in the Marathwada region in 2006. Is there evidence to prove this? Has the ATS been able to link those arrested to other blasts?

There are agencies that have been looking at the various links, namely the CBI, which has been looking at the Malegaon blasts of 2006. The link we found is that of Rakesh Dhawre. He is a Pune-based counterfeit arms dealer who was involved in the training that took place for the blasts of 2006. He is the common link between the 2006 blasts including the ones in Purna and Parbhani, and the 2008 Malegaon blasts. Investigating agencies are working on it.

There are reports that police officials from other states have been coming to interrogate those arrested by the ATS. Is that true?

Yes, police officials from other states have been coming but that’s something which is protocol in such cases. They wanted to know of the modus operandi so that they could figure out if there are similarities to other blasts, in Andhra Pradesh and Chandigarh. What they found out is something only they will be able to tell you.

The ATS made a flip-flop on the links of those arrested with the Samjhauta blasts, which raised questions when it found no mention in the remand copy. A lot has been made of the Samjhauta Express statement that was made by the public prosecutor in the case. There was a statement made by the witness that Purohit helped in the procurement of RDX. That was a part of the case diary. It cannot be taken as gospel truth. What was wrong was the mention of the same to the media, although we had said that there is no such evidence of the same.

The BJP has targeted the ATS for its investigations. Has there been any political pressure?

We are here to do our job as an investigating agency and bring out the truth. Having said that, it’s baseless to say that we are working under political pressure. There is absolutely no pressure on me or my officials. We are doing our best to bring the truth out.

Abhinav Bharat has come out as having played a key role. Is the ATS planning to question Himani Savarkar, its founder member?

We look at individuals and not organisations when we carry out our investigations. We are not looking at Abhinav Bharat, we are looking at the individuals involved. We have not questioned Himani Savarkar so far, and as yet, there is no evidence against her.

There are reports that an ATS team has left for Delhi. Is it true?

No, it’s absolutely untrue.

There were also reports that the army was not cooperating with the ATS with regards to information on Col Purohit and his leave records?

I would like to clear this. The army has given cooperation to the ATS right from day one on every aspect of the interrogation. There have been reports that the army has not been cooperating with the ATS and that’s absolutely untrue. The army gave us his leave records and other documents, which we needed.

Is the ATS looking at arresting more army officials?

No, we are not looking at arresting or detaining any more army officials in the case.

Most of the accused have alleged that they have been subjected to physical and mental torture.

We are doing our duty as investigating agencies. Such allegations come during the course of investigations. But they are untrue. We cannot do anything about such allegations

Can Purohit and Dayanand Pandey be called the key conspirators in the Malegaon blasts? Is this evident from the narco tests of the accused?

We are yet to get the narco reports. There is evidence against Purohit, but we can’t reveal anything at this stage

As the findings of narco tests are not admissible in court, does the ATS have substantial proof to nail the accused in the case?

The ATS has been carrying out investigations. We have enough evidence against the people we have arrested and we will present it in court.

There has been a report that Purohit and Dayanand Pandey had conspired to kill RSS veterans like Mohan Bhagwat and Indreesh. What do you have to say on this? Have those arrested confessed to the same? The name of Delhi-based doctor RP Singh too has cropped up during the course of investigations. Does the ATS have evidence suggesting his involvement?

The name of RP Singh came up during the investigation of Dayanand Pandey. I can’t reveal much about it at this stage. As for the assassination of RSS leaders, some references had emerged but they can’t be linked to any organisation.

Are more arrests likely to be made by the ATS in the Malegaon blasts? Do you also see the involvement of Hindu organisations like the Bajrang Dal, RSS, and Sanatan Sanstha in various terror acts in the country?

The ATS had filed a chargesheet against the Sanatan Sanstha in a different case, but there is no proof to link organisations as yet with the blasts. We are just looking at individuals.

Does the arrest of seers and armymen in terror acts suggest a trend?

Col Purohit was just an aberration. Just because one man has been arrested it does not mean that the entire army is tainted. Tomorrow, you cannot blame the entire police force just because one officer is arrested.

Have some other names cropped up during the investigations of the accused? Has the name of Nitin Joshi, one of the key members of the Abhinav Bharat, cropped up?

At the moment we are looking for Shyam Apte and Ramji, who have been named in the investigations. They played an important role and are absconding. REFERENCE: There is enough evidence against Col Purohit; we will present it in court’ ATS chief Hemant Karkare told RANA AYYUB, shortly before his death in the Mumbai terror attacks, that more army officers will not be arrested From Tehelka Magazine, Vol 5, Issue 48, Dated Dec 06, 2008 http://www.tehelka.com/story_main40.asp?filename=Ne061208thereis_enough.asp