Mortal, non-mortal deaths
Let us first understand what is meant by killing. It is to put to death or to destroy vitality or put an end or neutralize or destroy and so on. Hence, to understand who killed Mahatma Gandhi we need to understand what Mahatma Gandhi means in its totality and how it has been put to death, decimated, destroyed or neutralized.
Every individual human being, more so, great souls like Gandhi, is not just his physical and mortal body as is readily seen by other humans. It is far more than the mortal body. The greater is the soul or the greater is the leader and the greater is the achiever then to that extent the person is far more than mere his physical mortal body.
Such great people, in addition to their mortal bodies, have the mental, psychological and intellectual personality unique of their own. The body is tangible and its end is readily seen but the rest of the personality is intangible and cannot be readily seen. The others have to tune themselves with the great personality to feel it. Common humans see more the tangible body than the intangible personality.
When any human being dies even on account of his natural death it is the physical body that is cremated and removed from our eyes forever. But the person survives by his mental, psychological, intellectual and spiritual personality in the memories of others, more so among his followers. These aspects of one’s personality are not tangible to get destroyed once and for all by cremation.
Even after the cremation, these aspects of the concerned personality remain behind and they remain live in the minds of others to appreciate, follow and strive upon to achieve his unrealized goals. In a way, even after mortal death, the person lives amongst his followers as long as his intangible personality is attuned to the minds of the followers.
Besides this, the institutions created by him to help evolve his ideals, ideas, and perceptions remain intact both tangibly and intangibly. Although these institutions look as separate entities because of their physical structure, they also have their own intangible personality matching with that of the great soul. The followers may run them to continue the work left unfinished by the leader, to still greater heights in the same or modified directions after the demise of the great leader.
Hence his mortal death is survived by his thoughts, philosophies, ideals and the institutions he erected in his lifetime to realize his goal. Death is bound to come some day. Murdering only brings it close. But the ideals which he cherished are remembered for long by his followers and thereby he lives even after his mortal death. He gets killed completely only by destroying and eliminating his ideals.
Ordinary and great men
For ordinary folks, the death practically eliminates the concerned person from their memories. Millions die every day like this without being noticed except by his kith and kin; even that too lasts only for a short duration after the death. People often remember him till they are at the cremation site. As they come out of the cremation site the death is practically forgotten almost forever. Hence killing an ordinary person in the colloquial sense may mean eliminating almost his entire personality completely forever. But the same does not hold true with great personalities.
They remain behind, even after their mortal death, in the form of their perceptions, ideas, ideals, views, philosophy, institutions they built and so on. True followers are supposed to carry all these further as if the great person is still alive amongst them. Even if somebody kills the great man he remains immortal by his contributions and continuation of his work by his followers.
Far more important than the death of the great soul is the band of followers he has trained, inspired, and motivated to carry on his work further to still greater heights after him. Greatness lies in the number of such followers created by him and the number and quality of institutions he built in his lifetime for the welfare of the future generations. In reality, such continuity of his work would survive him more effectively and much longer than his mortal body. His killing does not come in the way as it comes in the way of ordinary folks. The killing of the mortal body, though irreparable a loss ipso facto, can be tolerated by the followers by living up to his ideals. It defaces in a way the mortal killing.
Thus, the great soul may live longer in spite of his mortal death; his vision is more important than his mortal death. The sign of greatness of such people is that they leave behind the number of ardent followers who carry the bacon further and by their deeds convey to others that the great soul is still alive even after his mortal death.
If this is agreed then let us analyze what happened to Mahatma Gandhi. No doubt his mortal body was killed by Nathuram Godse on 30th January 1948 in the evening at the Birla House in Delhi. Do his followers feel that he is survived in spite of his mortal murder? It is true that in spite of Mahatma Gandhi’s greatness and lofty contributions his avowed followers, unfortunately, remember him just for name’s sake and have deserted all his ideals, perceptions, philosophy, and institutions he built to cherish Gandhi further.
Quite ritualistically and that too mechanically his so-called great followers go to his Samadhi at Rajghat every year to offer floral tributes. For the rest of the year, he is essentially forgotten. This is what has unfortunately happened to Mahatma Gandhi. Had he not been murdered he would have carried out his work further for a few years more, to perhaps still greater heights.
His murder was indeed a great loss. But the contributions he made in whatever life-span he got were so great and because of which only that he is called ‘Father of Indian Nation’ and also ‘Mahatma’ to show our reverence to him.
It was natural to expect that his sworn followers would take his contributions to still greater heights, perhaps as the best vengeance of his mortal killing by Nathuram Godse. Gandhi would have survived more in our memory, as a live ideal, if his followers had taken the work he left midway to its logical and desired end in the direction of social and national uplift.
The mental, psychological, intellectual and spiritual personality of Gandhi could not survive further through his followers by way of enlightening the next generations about his philosophy and ideals and also by running the institutions he erected more efficiently for social uplift.
The truth about all non-mortal things of Gandhi is all damning, bleak and dark. One who claimed as his great follower and who always referred Gandhi as ‘Bapu’, that is the father, and who became first Prime Minister of independent India, as per insistence of Gandhi alone, after becoming PM, almost forgot Gandhi completely.
He as a prime minister openly disagreed with Mahatma Gandhi about his views and policies for developing India in the post-independence era. Perhaps Gandhi was useful to him to become Prime Minister only. Once he became Prime Minister practically no further use of Gandhi was left for him. What is the kind of disciple he was? Was it for selfish political interests alone? Gandhi was bound to be killed in non-mortal form by him and followers.
Nehru was all for modern-day industrialization of India on the same lines as it had taken place earlier in the Western European countries. Gandhi was all for village-centric development in line with the agricultural era as has been going on for many millennia before in India. Gandhi was all for bringing in Ram-Rajya, the ideal Hindu kingdom in India and just for that millions believed in him and followed him and sacrificed for him.
On the contrary, Nehru’s proclaimed aim was to bring in the socialistic pattern of society in India, as was evolved in the then Soviet Union. It was in a way killing the real India. Gandhi was a devout Hindu and therefore truly a secular. He did not conceal it either. Nehru loathed to be called a Hindu and instead was apologetic about it. He thought that being Hindu was anti-secular.
Had Gandhi not been murdered, there is every likelihood of open clashes between Nehru and Gandhi, since the latter was all for speaking plain truth and not saying something that was politically convenient. In that case, there is every doubt if Gandhi would have become Mahatma ever.
Even though Gandhi’s mortal body was killed by Nathuram, his social ideals, his points of faith like truth and non-violence, were thus killed by Prime Minister Nehru. Let there be no doubt that it was also killing of Gandhi as well since it was part and parcel of Gandhi’s total personality. How Gandhi would have taken such a scenario in post-independent India, had he survived further mortally, is anybody’s guess?
Dissolution of Congress
On the fateful day of 30th January 1948, in the morning, Gandhi had decided to disband the Indian National Congress since it had served its purpose of getting independence from the British. Gandhi thought that since Congress then was all inclusive for gaining independence, it was better to organize the Indian polity after independence as per groups of different socio-political ideas.
Gandhi, therefore, had drafted such a resolution, for dissolution of Congress of pre-independence India, as per the then prevailing practice of passing resolutions in the Congress, and had handed it over to his secretary Pyarelal.
Gandhi also wanted to replace the pre-independence Congress by Lok Sevak Sangha (LSS) – a non-political platform for social uplift. Pyarelal later published it in the Congress publication titled ‘Swaraj’ on 15th Feb. 1948. It is still available in the Congress archives.
During the pre-independence movement, Nehru swore to be an ardent follower of Gandhi. Why did he not obey Gandhi’s last wishes by forming some other political party, as per his distinctive socio-political ideas, and help dissolve Congress as per almost the last desire of Mahatma Gandhi?
With all his other great qualities, Nehru was to the core a power monger. He did not want to take a chance on his newly started political career, as Prime Minister, on any platform other than the Congress brand because it was already mentally built-in in the mindset of the ignorant and gullible Indian voters.
What was the guarantee that Nehru would have become Prime Minister, after the first general election, on any other new platform because most of the Congress leaders, in that case, would have deserted him anyway? By not dissolving the Congress of the pre-independence period as per Gandhi’s last desire, Nehru killed Gandhi decisively.
The other side of Nehru of holding on to as the leader of Congress and continuing as Prime Minister is still interesting. Nathuram after firing at Gandhi did not flee from the site; he coolly surrendered to the police. He was an active worker of Hindu Maha Sabha, founded and led by revolutionary V. D. Savarkar, since its inception in 1937, as different from the earlier Hindu Sabha as merely a platform within the Congress.
Nathuram was earlier a swayamsevak of RSS but had deserted it for its overall pusillanimity and for being opposed to die-hard Hindu Maha Sabha. Nehru was all along worried and felt the possible formidable challenge to his Prime Ministership from the Hindu forces, represented by the RSS, in the next general elections since they had done exceptionally good work to save millions of Hindus at the time of partition.
Moreover, he knew the strength of RSS cadre in the pre-independence era. Hence at the time of partition RSS was a force to reckon with; relatively the Hindu Maha Sabha was not a force to be worried about. Hence Congress Government and Nehru as its leader were looking for some opportunity to subdue the Hindu force led by RSS.
They got the first opportunity when Gandhi was murdered by a Hindu fanatic. A politician never misses any opportunity to crush the opposition. Hence Nehru banned RSS for Gandhi murder, linking the two without any proof, but did not do anything to the Hindu Maha Sabha except implicating its leader V D Savarkar in the heinous act.
The first Government at the center headed by Nehru was a coalition of various parties including Hindu Maha Sabha. Dr. Shyama Prasad Mukherji as a leader of Hindu Maha Sabha was a cabinet minister in his cabinet. Nehru did not ban Hindu Maha Sabha for Gandhi murder though three of their leaders, including its president, were directly implicated in the murder charge.
Nehru still did not ask Dr. Mukherji to resign from his cabinet for being a part of Hindu Maha Sabha. Gandhi stood for truth under any circumstances. Nehru cared less for the truth and wrongly implicated RSS in the murder and thereby killed Gandhi’s ideals.
Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel initially thought of possible involvement of RSS in Gandhi murder but within a month after the murder Patel was convinced that RSS had nothing to do with the murder. It had everything to do with the Hindu Maha Sabha only. But in spite of the recommendation of his Home Minister Sardar Patel, Nehru was not in favor of lifting the ban since it politically helped him to establish himself as the undisputed leader of the nation.
Hence the ban continued for nearly nineteen months. Surprisingly the Hindu Maha Sabha was never banned for Gandhi murder. Gandhi was all for truth and non-violence, the backbone of all his social perceptions. After one month after the murder, Nehru killed the truth and proved that he was more a politician than Gandhi’s follower.
Soon after Gandhi’s murder Congress-sponsored violence was let loose to attack RSS offices and workers’ houses as if they were traitors. Nehru never criticized this vandalism and proved that he did not believe in Gandhi’s non-violence. Gandhi was thus further killed directly by Nehru.
The same thing was repeated by the Congress when Prime Minister Indira Gandhi was murdered by a Sikh in 1984. The Congress-sponsored the Sikh carnage by its workers. Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi indirectly justified this carnage and further killed Gandhi. Congress under Rajiv Gandhi put the last nail on his intangible body once and for all time.
Contrasting Dr. Hedgewar
In contrast look at the RSS history. Its founder Dr. K. B. Hedgewar died in 1940 when RSS was a very small organization. But after his death, it grew into a mighty organization about which even Nehru was worried as a counter force to Congress.
Dr. Hedgewar died fairly prematurely at the age of only fifty years. He was in a way prematurely killed by improper nourishment in his growing years (on account of extreme poverty) and improper medical care later for want of money and other resources.
But his perceptions, ideas, ideals and institutions he built grew leaps and bounds after him because of his committed followers. No wonder it has now become a huge ‘RSS-pariwar’ unparalleled by any other organization all over the globe. In comparison where are the institutions, Gandhi built, in his life time, in and around Wardha – his karma bhumi?
They have been reduced to a lifeless museum in spite of huge financial support extended to them by both the central and state Congress governments. On the contrary, the RSS swayamsevaks made Dr. Hedgewar immortal through their activities, by growing RSS and other institutions, whereas Gandhi was repeatedly killed by his followers even after his murder.
It is because though Gandhi was accepted as the supreme Congress leader, not many of his followers, in reality, believed in his ideals and philosophy and therefore did not bother about them after Gandhi’s mortal death. In a way, they killed him fully.
It is true that a number of biographies were written in more number of languages than any other leader all over the world, about Mahatma Gandhi. Top-most management gurus hailed him as the supreme organizer and an idealist. But no Congressman ever exhibited to follow these. Hence almost none of the organizations he floated in his life time are now functioning.
They are reduced to a museum to remember Gandhi, if at all. It is simply because Gandhi was only mortally killed by Nathuram Godse but the Congress leaders, right from Nehru downwards and his followers killed all the ideas, perceptions, ideals, institutions and so on of Gandhi thereafter and finally put him in the dustbin of history to be remembered only once a year at Rajghat only.
Gandhi may be a unique example amongst great men, that his own followers, after his mortal killing by a lunatic, killed his personality through and through, to leave behind almost nothing. Surprisingly the RSS introduced his name in the early nineteen sixties as a great leader of India worth remembering in their pratah smaran (the shlokas that are recited in the morning to remember past great men to get inspired to do something good for the society/nation).
Incidentally, Dr. Ambedkar’s name was also included along with. It was because RSS wanted to cherish his memory in the future generations. They emulated him in thousands of their social service projects accepting his greatness. They also quote him as yet another great soul in unifying the dilapidated Hindu society in the form of immortal great men.
The leftists inspired by the Marxian philosophy did not believe that India had any achievement to its credit in the past. They branded Gandhi even during the independence movement as bourgeois, agent of the western capitalistic world and therefore, no leader of India for anything.
Even in independent India they never go to Rajghat to pay homage to Gandhi, even for the sake of a mere lip service. They killed Gandhi in the embryo itself.
Travesty of truth
The travesty of truth about Gandhi is that the real Gandhi is forgotten by the Indians almost completely. The new generation does not even enjoy talking about him. On the contrary, the fake Gandhi who have very conveniently assumed his name roam around as if they are the real Gandhi before the ignorant, poor and gullible masses, particularly before every election. They pose as if they are the real saviors.
No wonder the real Gandhi is totally killed by one family, for its own sake, to rule India indefinitely without regard to any morality – the values so dear to the real Gandhi.
The special and first family of Nehru for four generations accused RSS pariwar as the murderer of Gandhi. For their misfortune, an RSS pracharak in the form of Narendra Modi has now become the Prime Minister of India with a comfortable majority in the Lok Sabha. It is he who has resurrected Gandhi’s name again for his ideals in social service, in particular for making India very hygienic in the form of his ‘Clean-up-India’ campaign. Guess who is killing Gandhi day in and day out?
Who then really killed Gandhi? The readers should draw their own conclusions. Mortal killing is not at all pardonable. But more than that the non-mortal killing of Gandhi’s intangible personality is far more heinous? The world recognizes the greatness of Gandhi and tries to emulate him. Unfortunately, the Indians don't. Why?