Jump to content

Talk:Assassination of Mahatma Gandhi

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Ambedkar's view on Gandhi's Assassination

[edit]

If someone could kindly take his/her time to add Ambedkar's reaction to the assassination, then I will be obliged, since it would fill up a gap on the opposite side of the spectrum of views. Soham "Samrat" Banerjee (talk) 16:21, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please note the "assassination" picture from Nine hours to Rama

[edit]
A scene from the commercial movie Nine Hours to Rama (1963)—based on UCLA historian Stanley Wolpert's novel of the same name of the year before—purporting to show the assassination of Gandhi.

A heads up: apparently, this movie still has been making the rounds on the internet. (Why now I can't figure out.) It is not an authentic picture of the assassination. Being from a 1963 British movie, its copyright has not expired, but I don't have the time to look into all that. Be warned. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:41, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Fowler&fowler Sorry for reply on the old thread. If this pic is copyrighted it should be deleted. If it is fair use or expired copyright then we should use it in the popular media section with the caption. I think it is useful, copyright permitting. Venkat TL (talk) 16:37, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have asked commons copyright noticeboard to check the copyright status. Venkat TL (talk) 16:41, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good. Even if a movie made in India in 1963 might have lost its copyright, this one likely has not as it was an American movie that was banned in India and probably still is. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:43, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Fowler&fowler ok. Out of curiosity, I just saw the movie on youtube, this exact moment is not in the movie, although the movie shows a few moments after the scene shown in the pic. So it is likely a still camera photo of an ongoing shooting, and not necessarily a screenshot (movie still). Venkat TL (talk) 19:10, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Either that or it is edited for Youtube viewing, given that there would have been protests. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 19:22, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Fowler&fowler yes, that is possible that the youtube print I saw may be edited and not the authentic movie copy. I am not sure what protests has to do with it, but FWIW, the youtube print does have the scene of Gandhi getting shot and a few dialogues in the immediate aftermath. This particular frame was not there. Venkat TL (talk) 19:29, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I mean it is not uncommon for youtube viewers to object for various reasons, and in response, material is removed, or cautionary messages added. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 19:35, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, understood. Venkat TL (talk) 19:37, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Attackers Identity

[edit]

Regentspark, yes, the attackers identity has been restored as it is highly relevant. Chipavan Brahmins were holding all the major posts at RSS that time. Biggest reason to keep this is because RSS tried to spread the rumours of Muslim killer to start riots and civil war. So the identity is historically relevant too. Venkat TL (talk) 16:25, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. I have no clue about caste issues and thought it likely that this was "infamy glorification" of some sort. About Muslim/Pakistan, fyi, the source clearly says Pakistan, not Muslims. --RegentsPark (comment) 17:56, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@RegentsPark I have restored "Pakistan" as you suggested. I had not checked the source. Sorry, that it got caught in the revert. Venkat TL (talk) 18:08, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Version

[edit]

@Fowler&fowler: You got the wrong version here. I had removed the falsification of sources and added information about riots. Both of these have been reverted with your revert. Can you self-revert your last edit? Dympies (talk) 03:36, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not quite. It wasn't "falsification of sources," only you did not find them. I have now cited those sentences. As for what you did add, the isolated incidents of reprisals against Chitapavan or other Brahmins in Maharashtra, it is not clear they are notable. The WP:ONUS to establish notability in an article on Gandhi's death, is yours. Please do so here. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 05:55, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Fowler&fowler: That's wrong because I removed "falsification of sources" right here regarding testimony and Awol Allo. It is not found in the source and is a misinformation. Can you remove it?
Riots caused by the assassination of Mahatma Gandhi are notable here for separate section here. The sources I provided here include NY Times and a recent scholarly source which supports the notability of the incident. I can find many more sources but here is another one: Khandkar, A.C.; Khandkar, A.C. (2019). Swimming Upstream: Laxmanshastri Joshi and the Evolution of Modern India. Oxford University Press. p. 164. ISBN 978-0-19-909826-2. The news unleashed a wave of violence against Brahmins, with rabid mobs violently burning down Brahmin homes, and roiling Maharashtra in particular. Mourning soon turned to violence with riots and arson in Bombay and elsewhere in India.
Can you restore this section regarding riots after Gandhi's death? Dympies (talk) 07:07, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but I don't see that it is notable. It is not mentioned in the Godse page either. You will require more reliable sources than that. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:32, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for removing falsification.
I don't think we should mention riots on page of Godse but here.
@RegentsPark and Kautilya3: Can you guys offer your view if we should restore this section regarding riots that took place after this murder? Above I provided a Oxford source which also discussed it. Dympies (talk) 13:48, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I think the riots should be mentioned, but not in the way done here as if it was the only thing that happened after the death. The entire national reaction should be covered, and riots could be a part of that. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 14:01, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The riots moreover were complicated by traditional antipathy toward the Chitpavans in many regions of Maharashtra. It can be mentioned but not in a section devoted to it.
The old NYTimes reports border on primary sources now. The "Oxford" source is about something completely unrelated. I'm happy to add a sentence with a better source. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:08, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've changed the section title from Legacy to Aftermath, removed some of the less focused sentences in the later paragraph (temporarily) and replaced them with a direct quote from Thomas Hansen, which I will paraphrase later, at which point I will re-add the cites to Yasmin Khan for example. The Hanse quote refers to the anti-Chitpavan violence but also established its context. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:32, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Anti-brahmin riots after the assasination

[edit]

There was widespread violence against the Marathi brahmin community following Mahatma Gandhi's murder at the hands of a man from that community.There are dozens of good reliable sources on these riots.[1]}}[2][3][4][5]Thanks. Jonathansammy (talk) 17:25, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously it was not violence against the Chitpavans, but destruction of their property. Anti-Brahminism, which had been brewing in Maharashtra for quite some time, came to a head with the Gandhi's assassination by a Chitpavan. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:58, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
At best it deserves one sentence of the sort:

Anti-brahminism in Maharashtra, which had been on the rise for many decades, came to a head after Gandhi's assassination with attacks on Chitapavan-owned property, after news broke that Godse was a Chitpavan. In turn, in the years following, some Hindu nationalists attempted to make the case that their supporters had been persecuted by Gandhi's supporters.

Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:58, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is bread and butter early Indian postcolonial history. Plenty academic sources exist. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:59, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"In turn, in the years following, some Hindu nationalists attempted to make the case that their supporters had been persecuted by Gandhi's supporters. Would be WP:UNDUE because Sanghis keep coming up with a new excuse and new number to politically exploit that violence. At times they falsely claim that the violence was committed by Gandhians and at times they falsely claim it was done by Congress members. Not to mention the fake figure which falls anywhere between 1,000 - 8,000 deaths is regularly promoted by such fake news peddlers. The figure was 15 deaths in Bombay (most affected area of riots) alone. [1] Capitals00 (talk) 18:05, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
primary source Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:20, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Old, but not really primary. I mentioned it only for debunking the misinformation from the source which was included here which falsely claims it to be "a pogrom very similar to the 1984 anti-Sikh riots in Delhi". Capitals00 (talk) 18:39, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"And for Chitpavans to think in terms of a hostile world is perhaps not totally unrealistic, because of the frankly anti-Chitpavan Brahman atmosphere abroad in large areas of Maharashtra—the anti-Brahmanism that came to a head in the violent attacks on Chitpavan property in 1948 when it became known that a Chitpavan had assassinated Gandhi. Perhaps it is not coincidental that the increase in family-history writing begins at the same time (in the 1930’s) as the somewhat frantic organization of “Brahman protection societies” (Brahmana Hitasa_ rak aka Sangha, in Satara and Pandharpur), the Chitpavan-dominated Rashtriya Svayamsevaka Sangha (R.S.S.), and so forth—all of which organization seems to have reached a peak in the 1940’s along with a peak in anti-Brahmanism, that is to say, anti-Chitpavanism."
See Barney Cohn and Milton Singer Structure and Change in Indian Society
edited by John C. Hopkins reissued by
Routledge 2017 Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:12, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Wages of Violence: Naming and Identity in Postcolonial Bombay
Thomos Blom Hansen 2018
FOUND INSIDE – PAGE 34
Second, the murder of Gandhi by a Chitpavan Brahman in 1948 boosted anti-Brahman feelings throughout western India. Brahman homes and estates were burned, and families and individuals attacked several places in western Maharashtra, ... Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:19, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hindu Nationalism: Origins, Ideologies and Modern Myths - Page 110
Chetan Bhagat, Routledge · 2020
FOUND INSIDE – PAGE 110
In
1950, the Mahasabha also continued
to
campaign
against
what it saw as the harassment of Maharashtra
brahmins
following Gandhi's murder (All India Hindu Mahasabha 1950b). The Mahasabha political orientation throughout the 1950s was ...
Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:22, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I knew Maureen Patterson, btw, and also that she was in Lahore, I think, during that period, so she was knowledgeable. She only says destruction of property. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:14, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is more relevant to a page on the Chitpavans, RSS, Hindu nationalism. It was a footnote in the aftermath of the Gandhi assassination. The bigger fear was anti-Muslim violence on the assumption that the killer was a Muslim, which the leaders were quick to descredit. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:25, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Burning of homes is something I see which has been mentioned in scholarly sources that have discussed this subject. I wonder if that would require bigger mention than "Anti-brahminism in Maharashtra, which had been on the rise for many decades, came to a head after Gandhi's assassination with attacks on Chitapavan-owned property, after news broke that Godse was a Chitpavan." Capitals00 (talk) 18:45, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
«Talk»Thanks foir the detailed response. BTW, the riots were against Brahmins of Maharashtra rather than the chitpavan community which forms only a small minority of Brahmin population of the region.Also the RSS had very few chitpavans in 1940s. They tended to support the more "extreme" Hindu mahasabha. Also the leadership of the RSS for decades was mostly made up of non-chitpavan Maharashtrian brahmins.It is also wrong to say that the rioters attacked only the chitpavans, they targeted all marathi brahmins. Thanks.Jonathansammy (talk) 19:16, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

True to some extent.

See Wages of Violence: Naming and Identity in Postcolonial Bombay

Thomas Blom Hansen , Princeton University Press, 2001, reprinted 2018

FOUND INSIDE – PAGE 34

"Second, the murder of Gandhi by a Chitpavan Brahman in 1948 boosted anti-Brahman feelings throughout western India. Brahman homes and estates were burned, and families and individuals attacked several places in western Maharashtra, Pune and the Nagpur region (Patterson 1988).  Although part of this rage was spontaneous, it as also subtly encouranged by non-Brahman Congress leaders who sought to establish the credentials in the party."

@Jonathansammy and Capitals00: In light of the above and some of your remarks, please add something reasonable but brief using Hansen. I'm flat out of time now. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 22:56, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ V.M.Sirsikar (1999). Mariam Dossal; Ruby Malon (eds.). State Intervention and Popular Response: Western India in the Nineteenth Century. p. 11. ISBN 9788171548552.
  2. ^ Ullekh N P (2018). The Untold Vajpayee: Politician and Paradox. Random House India. p. 39. ISBN 9789385990816.
  3. ^ Maureen Patterson (October 1988). Donald W. Attwood; Milton Israel; Narendra K. Wagle (eds.). City, countryside and society in Maharashtra. University of Toronto, Centre for South Asian Studies. pp. 35–58. ISBN 978-0-9692907-2-8. Such resistance was to no avail, and the Brahmans' fears and troubles were realized in February 1948 when they were set upon by recently politicized communities - Marathas, as well as Jains and Lingayats - who unhesitatingly took advantage of the opportunity provided by assassin Godse's shots.[page 50]; This is no doubt low since about 1000 houses were officially reported to have been burnt down in some 300 villages spread across all thirteen talukas of the district and Aundh State.[page 40]
  4. ^ Dahiwale, S. M. (1995). Consolidation of Maratha dominance in Maharashtra. Economic and Political Weekly, 336-342.
  5. ^ Nandy, A. (2007). The lure of ‘Normal’Politics: Gandhi and the battle for popular culture of politics in India. South Asian Popular Culture, 5(2), 167-178.

Good faith revert

[edit]

@Fowler&fowler: So the sources you are removing here are sound, and the verifiability is clear, so would you kindly explain your beef. The 'good faith revert' calling it "nonsense" doesn't leave on much the wiser. What's the problem? Iskandar323 (talk) 16:45, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I did not see this. See the section below. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:55, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hindutva terror

[edit]

user:Iskandar323 attempted to add a new section, "Portrayal as terrorism," which had been sourced among others to a book review published in EPW in 2012. Says the review:

An interesting fact that emerges is that the successful assassination was only the last of the five attempts starting in 1934. This lays to rest the idea that it was Gandhi's support for Partition that motivated the killing. Gandhi was a devout Hindu and fairly conservative socially; what made Hindu nationalists hate him so much that they attempted to kill him and finally succeeded?

The idea that the proximate cause of the assassination was not the Hindu nationalist anger at Gandhi for alleged partiality towards Muslims and Pakistan during the Partition of India does not have due weight in the scholarly literature. I quote from the lead of the Mahatma Gandhi page which I had written many years ago, and which I had more recently updated with newer references.

Gandhi's vision of an independent India based on religious pluralism was challenged in the early 1940s by a Muslim nationalism which demanded a separate homeland for Muslims within British India.[1] In August 1947, Britain granted independence, but the British Indian Empire[1] was partitioned into two dominions, a Hindu-majority India and a Muslim-majority Pakistan.[2] As many displaced Hindus, Muslims, and Sikhs made their way to their new lands, religious violence broke out, especially in the Punjab and Bengal. Abstaining from the official celebration of independence, Gandhi visited the affected areas, attempting to alleviate distress. In the months following, he undertook several hunger strikes to stop the religious violence. The last of these, begun in Delhi on 12 January 1948 when he was 78,[3][4][5][6] also had the indirect goal of pressuring India to pay out some cash assets owed to Pakistan,[7][8][9][10] which the Indian government[11] had been resisting.[12][13][14][15][16] Although the Government of India relented,[17] as did the religious rioters, the belief that Gandhi had been too resolute in his defence of both Pakistan and Indian Muslims, spread among some Hindus in India.[18][19][6] Among these was Nathuram Godse,[20] a militant Hindu nationalist from Pune, western India,[21][22] who assassinated Gandhi by firing three bullets into his chest at an interfaith prayer meeting in Delhi on 30 January 1948.[23][24][25][26]

References

References

  1. ^ a b Khan, Yasmin (2007). The Great Partition: The Making of India and Pakistan. Yale University Press. p. 18. ISBN 978-0-300-12078-3. Retrieved 1 September 2013. Quote: "the Muslim League had only caught on among South Asian Muslims during the Second World War. ... By the late 1940s, the League and the Congress had impressed in the British their own visions of a free future for Indian people. ... one, articulated by the Congress, rested on the idea of a united, plural India as a home for all Indians and the other, spelt out by the League, rested on the foundation of Muslim nationalism and the carving out of a separate Muslim homeland." (p. 18)
  2. ^ Khan, Yasmin (2007). The Great Partition: The Making of India and Pakistan. Yale University Press. p. 1. ISBN 978-0-300-12078-3. Retrieved 1 September 2013. Quote: "South Asians learned that the British Indian Empire would be partitioned on 3 June 1947. They heard about it on the radio, from relations and friends, by reading newspapers and, later, through government pamphlets. Among a population of almost four hundred million, where the vast majority lived in the countryside, ..., it is hardly surprising that many ... did not hear the news for many weeks afterward. For some, the butchery and forced relocation of the summer months of 1947 may have been the first they know about the creation of the two new states rising from the fragmentary and terminally weakened British empire in India." (p. 1)
  3. ^ Spear, Percival (1990) [1978], History of India, Volume 2: From the sixteenth century to the twentieth century, Penguin, p. 239, ISBN 978-0-140-13836-8, Gandhi came to Delhi from Bengal in October and now directed his reconciling mission from there. This time it was the Muslims he was championing and he found he was opposed by some elements within the government itself. It was the noblest and most courageous moment of his life. He had quelled the last outbreak of communal rioting in September and in January 1948 the inner voice spoke again. This time the issues were twofold, the payment to Pakistan of her agreed assets which had been withheld owing to the Kashmir dispute and the restoration of peace in the capital. Only when the money had been paid and a peace pact, including the evacuation of the mosques, had been signed, did he give up his fast, on 18th January.
  4. ^ McDermott, Rachel Fell; Gordon, Leonard A.; Embree, Ainslie T.; Pritchett, Frances W.; Dalton, Dennis, eds. (2014). Sources of Indian Traditions, Volume 2: Modern India, Pakistan, and Bangladesh (3rd ed.). New York: Columbia University Press. p. 344. ISBN 978-0-231-13830-7. In January 1948 he fasted successfully again in Delhi to stop Hindu attacks on Muslims and to coerce his own Indian government into payment of large sums of money that were due to Pakistan. He prevailed, extracting both government payment and pledges of peace by leaders of all groups. This enabled him to end his fast; but on January 30, as he was en route to his regular evening prayer meeting, he was shot by Nathuram Godse, a Hindu extremist who believed him too lenient toward India's Muslims and Pakistan.
  5. ^ Wolpert, Stanley (2004). A New History of India (7th ed.). New York: Oxford University Press. p. 358. ISBN 0195166787. On January 11, 1948, Gandhi suggested that it would be better "to dissolve" Congress than allow it to continue functioning as it was, full of "decay and decline," a place of "corruption" and "power politics." The next day he announced his decision to fast "by way of protest" against the persecution of Muslims in India's capital, in an effort to restore "heart friendship" among Indians of every religion. "Death for me would be a glorious deliverance rather than that I should be a helpless witness of the destruction of India, Hinduism, Sikhism and Islam," the Mahatma told his prayer meeting audience that afternoon at Birla House, where he lived. "Let my fast quicken conscience, not deaden it. Just contemplate the rot that has set in in beloved India." It was the last of his fasts. He ended it in less than a week, following messages of sorrow and prayer, including one from Sardar Patel promising to pay Pakistan forty million pounds sterling in cash assets, hitherto withheld by India. The entire cabinet gathered at the Mahatma's bedside to confirm that promise. Nehru announced that the loss of Gandhi's life would be "the loss of India's soul." There were others, however, who chanted, "Let Gandhi die!" Fanatical brahman members of the paramilitary Hindu communal Rashtriya Svayamsevak Sangh ("National Volunteer Association"; hereafter RSS), an offspring of the Hindu Mahasabha, plotted to assassinate the "old man," who had "outlived his time." A Poona Chitpavan, Naturam V. Godse, intellectual disciple of Savarkar, fired the fatal shots at Gandhi as he walked to his prayer meeting platform in the garden of Birla House just before sundown on January 30, 1948.
  6. ^ a b Brown (1991), p. 380: "Despite and indeed because of his sense of helplessness Delhi was to be the scene of what he called his greatest fast. ... His decision was made suddenly, though after considerable thought – he gave no hint of it even to Nehru and Patel who were with him shortly before he announced his intention at a prayer-meeting on 12 January 1948. He said he would fast until communal peace was restored, real peace rather than the calm of a dead city imposed by police and troops. Patel and the government took the fast partly as condemnation of their decision to withhold a considerable cash sum still outstanding to Pakistan as a result of the allocation of undivided India's assets because the hostilities that had broken out in Kashmir; ... But even when the government agreed to pay out the cash, Gandhi would not break his fast: that he would only do after a large number of important politicians and leaders of communal bodies agreed to a joint plan for restoration of normal life in the city."
  7. ^ Metcalf, Barbara D.; Metcalf, Thomas R. (24 September 2012). A Concise History of Modern India. Cambridge Concise History series (3rd ed.). Cambridge University Press. p. 262–263. ISBN 978-1-107-02649-0. Just before his death, Gandhi made one last decisive intervention in the Indian political process. By a combination of prayer and fasting, he forced a contrite ministry to hand over to Pakistan its share of the cash assets of undivided India, some 40 million pounds sterling, which had so far been retained in defiance of the partition agreements.
  8. ^ Balcerowicz, Piotr; Kuszewska, Agnieszka (2022). Kashmir in India and Pakistan Policies. Routledge. ISBN 978-1-138-48012-4. As the partition atrocities continued, on 13 January 1948, Mahatma Gandhi, the widely cherished leader of India's non-violent independence movement, commenced his fast to restore peace between the Hindu, Sikh and Muslim communities and to pressure the reluctant Indian government to transfer to Pakistan a due share of the unified, British Indian military assets and financial reserves.
  9. ^ Ceplair, Larry (2020). Revolutionary Pairs: Marx and Engels, Lenin and Trotsky, Gandhi and Nehru, Mao and Zhou, and Castro and Guevara. Lexington: University Press of Kentucky. p. 134. ISBN 9780813179193. Gandhi undertook his last fast, in January 1948, to protest the Indian government's decision to withhold a large settlement payment due to Pakistan until the Kashmir problem was solved.
  10. ^ Rudolph, Lloyd I; Rudolph, Susanne Hoeber (1987). In Pursuit of Lakshmi: The Political Economy of the Indian State. Chicago and London: The University of Chicago Press. pp. 71–72. ISBN 0-226-73138-3. Patel was not a committed or convinced secularist. His call for Muslims to pledge their loyalty to India as a condition of citizenship after partition, his one-sided defense of Hindus during the communal rioting and carnage that accompanied partition, and his refusal to honor India's commitment to turn over to Pakistan the assets due it were the occasion of Gandhi's last fast in January 1948. The riots in Delhi abated; Patel, after being told by Gandhi on the verge of death, "you are not the Sardar I knew", turned over the assets and deferred to Gandhi's call for brotherhood and forgiveness.
  11. ^ Stein, Burton; Arnold, David (2010). A History of India. Blackwell History of the World Series (2nd ed.). Wiley-Blackwell. pp. 352–353. ISBN 978-1-4051-9509-6. He undertook a fast not only to restrain those bent on communal reprisal but also to influence the powerful Home Minister, Sardar Patel, who was refusing to share out the assets of the former imperial treasury with Pakistan, as had been agreed. Gandhi's insistence on justice for Pakistan now that the partition was a fact ... had prompted Godse's fanatical action.
  12. ^ Elkins, Caroline (2022). Violence: A History of the British Empire. New York, NY: Alfred A. Knopf. ISBN 9780307272423. LCCN 2021018550. A few months later, with war-fueled tensions over Kashmir mounting and India refusing to pay Pakistan 550 million rupees, Pakistan's share of Britain's outstanding war debt, Gandhi began to fast. "This time my fast is not only against Hindus and Muslims," the Mahatma said, "but also against the Judases who put on false appearances and betray themselves, myself and society." The elderly and frail man who was India's symbolic political and spiritual leader went three days without food before India's cabinet agreed to pay Pakistan, something Nehru had long promised Jinnah he would do.
  13. ^ Blinkenberg, Lars (2022). India-Pakistan: The History of Unsolved Conflicts: Volume I. Lindhardt og Ringhof. ISBN 9788726894707. Sardar Patel decided, in the middle of December 1947, that the recent financial agreements with Pakistan should not be followed, unless Pakistan ceased to support the raiders. ... Gandhi was not convinced and he felt—like Mountbatten and Nehru—that the agreed transfer to Pakistan of a cash amount of Rs. 550 million should be implemented despite the Kashmir crisis. Gandhi started a fast unto death, which was officially done to stop communal trouble, especially in Delhi, but "word went round that it was directed against Sardar Patel's decision to withhold the cash balances"... Only because of Gandhi's interference, which was soon to cause his death, Sardar Patel gave in and the money was handed over to Pakistan.
  14. ^ Sarkar, Sumit (2014). Modern India: 1885–1947. Delhi and Chennai: Pearson Education. p. 375. ISBN 9789332535749. This last fast seems to have been directed in part also against Patel's increasingly communal attitudes (the Home Minister had started thinking in terms of a total transfer of population in the Punjab, and was refusing to honour a prior agreement by which India was obliged to give 55 crores of pre-Partition Government of India financial assets to Pakistan). 'You are not the Sardar I once knew,' Gandhi is said to have remarked during the fast.
  15. ^ Gandhi, Gopalkrishna; Suhrud, Tridip (2022). Scorching Love: Letters from Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi to his son, Devadas. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. The national capital and its surrounding areas are gripped by massacres and the spewing of hate. The two Punjabs on either side of the border are aflame. On 1 January 1948, a Thai visitor comes and compliments him on India's independence. "Today . . . Indian fears his brother Indian. Is this independence?', Gandhi asks in response. Gandhi smarts at the Government of India's new cabinet headed by Jawaharlal Nehru deciding to withhold the transfer of Pakistan's share (Rs 55 crores) of the 'sterling balance' that undivided India has held at independence. The attack on Kashmur is cited as a reason for this. Patel says India cannot give money to Pakistan 'for making bullets to be shot at us'. Gandhi's intense agitation settles into an inner quiet on 12 January when the clear thought comes to him that he must fast. And indefinitely. ‘It will end when and if I am satisfied that there is a reunion of hearts of all communities...’
  16. ^ Singh, Gurharpal; Shani, Georgio (2022). Sikh Nationalism: From a Dominant Minority to an Ethno-Religious Diaspora. Cambridge University Press. p. 107. ISBN 978-1-107-13654-0. LCCN 2021017207. For further evidence of Patel's involvement in the clearing of Muslims in north India, see Pandey (2001, 196). Against the background of the India-Pakistan conflict in Kashmir, the dispute between the two countries over the division of cash balances and Gandhi's fast in early 1948, Mountbatten noted the following of his interview with Patel: 'He expressed the view that the only way to re-establish decent relationship between the Muslims and non-Muslim communities was to remove Hindus and Sikhs from Pakistan and drive out the Muslims of the East Punjab and the affected neighbouring areas.' MB1/D76/1. Mountbatten Papers, University of Southampton.
  17. ^ Talbot, Ian (2016). A History of Modern South Asia, Politics, States, Diasporas. New Haven and London: Yale University Press. p. 183. ISBN 978-0-300-19694-8. LCCN 2015937886. Disputes over Kashmir and the division of assets and water in the aftermath of Partition increased Pakistan's anxieties regarding its much larger neighbor. Kashmir's significance for Pakistan far exceeded its strategic value; its "illegal" accession to India challenged the state's ideological foundations and pointed to a lack of sovereign fulfillment. The "K" in Pakistan's name stood for Kashmir. Of less symbolic significance was the division of post-Partition assets. Not until December 1947 was an agreement reached on Pakistan's share of the sterling assets held by the undivided Government of India at the time of independence. The bulk of these (550 million rupees) was held back by New Delhi because of the Kashmir conflict and paid only following Gandhi's intervention and fasting. India delivered Pakistan's military equipment even more tardily, and less than a sixth of the 160,000 tons of ordnance allotted to Pakistan by the Joint Defence Council was actually delivered.
  18. ^ Geva, Rotem (2022). Delhi Reborn: Partition and Nation Building in India's Capital. Stanford University Press. pp. 130–131. ISBN 9781503631199. LCCN 2021051794. It was against this background that Gandhi undertook his final fast unto death on January 12, 1948. Gandhi conditioned the termination of his fast on a complete change of heart and restoration of peace, protection of Muslim life and property, and repairing of shrines and mosques, especially the dargah (Sufi shrine) of Qutbuddin Bakhtiyar Kaki in Mehrauli. Various Congress and socialist groups initiated peace meetings and processions in the city. After key bureaucrats, Congress leaders, nationalist Muslims, and even RSS leaders signed a pledge to restore peace and protect Muslims, Gandhi agreed to end his fast on January 18. A campaign to vacate mosques followed, along with a peaceful celebration of the Urs at Mehrauli, in which Muslims, Hindus, and Sikhs participated. Yet violence continued in the midst of the fast, targeting Muslims and Congress peace processions. The atmosphere in the city was highly polarized. Hindu-right circles resented the Indian government's decision to release Pakistan's share of British India's cash assets while the war in Kashmir raged on, and saw Gandhi's fast as political blackmail to achieve precisely this aim. Hindu Mahasabha leaders criticized the peace pledge and took action against members who signed it. A few days after Gandhi ended his fast, a first attempt on his life was made by Madan Lal. ... On January 30, on his way to a prayer meeting in Birla House, Gandhi was shot dead by Nathuram Godse, who had a long association with the RSS and the Hindu Mahasabha.
  19. ^ Talbot, Ian; Singh, Gurharpal (2009), The Partition of India, Cambridge University Press, pp. 118–119, ISBN 978-0-521-85661-4, It is now almost a cliché that the Partition transformed Delhi from a Mughal to a Punjabi city. The bitter experiences of the refugees encouraged them to support right-wing Hindu parties. ... Trouble began in September (1947) after the arrival from refugees from Pakistan who were determined on revenge and driving Muslims out of properties which they could then occupy. Gandhi in his prayer meetings in Birla House denounced the 'crooked and ungentlemanly' squeezing out of Muslims. Despite these exhortations, two-thirds of the city's Muslims were to eventually abandon India's capital.
  20. ^ Ahmed, Raja Qaiser (2022). Pakistan Factor and the Competing Perspectives in India: Party Centric View. Palgrave Macmillan. p. 11. ISBN 978-981-16-7051-0. Hindu nationalists viewed Pakistan through a communal lens and this embittered context, ingrained in their view of history and culture, plagued India-Pakistan relations. ... Hindu traditionalists in the Indian National Congress (INC) ranks also urged the pursuit of hawkish and chauvinist policies towards Pakistan. Sardar Patel's approach and statements concerning Pakistan were the manifestations of this mindset—many like him wanted to nullify Pakistan's significance. ... The Mahasabha, RSS and other Hindu nationalists were increasingly perturbed over what they saw as INC's meek policy towards Paksitan. ... They hated secular plurialism in India. Nathuram Godse also admitted killing Gandhi on his palpable pro-Pakistan sentiments and his fast unto death to make sure the division of financial assets between India and Pakistan proceeded in a just manner.
  21. ^ Sarkar, Sumit (2014). Modern India: 1885–1947. Delhi and Chennai: Pearson Education. p. 375. ISBN 9789332535749. Three days later the Mahatma was dead, murdered by a Hindu fanatic, Nathuram Godse, as a climax to a conspiracy hatched by a Poona Brahman group originally inspired by V.D. Savarkar—a conspiracy which, despite ample warnings, the police of Bombay and Delhi had done nothing to foil.
  22. ^ Bell, J. Bowyer (2017) [2005]. Assassin: Theory and Practice of Political Violence. London: Routledge. ISBN 978-1-4128-0509-4. The key to the conspiracy was Vinnayak Damodar Veer "The Brave" Savarkar, sixty-five, a Hindu ascetic, slender, intense, with steel-rim spectacles and a dedication to the concept of a greater Hindu India. He opposed the British raj, the concept of partition, the idea of Pakistan and, in 1947, the emerging reality of all those things. Trained in the Inns of Court, he had been imprisoned on the Andaman Islands with a double life sentence for the murder of a British bureaucrat, then freed by a postwar amnesty. He had been involved at a distance in previous attempts on the lives of the governors of Punjab and Bombay. His organization, Rashtriya Swayam Sewak Sangh (RSSS), had an inner and violent core, Hindu Rashtra Dal, established on May 15, 1942, made up of Chitpawan Brahmans fanatically dedicated to the Greater Hindu State. ... By January 1948, he and his followers had grown increasingly frustrated by the direction of events: India had been partitioned, Pakistan existed, and Moslems and Hindus had indulged in a long orgy of massacre that had finally largely ended because of mutual exhaustion, the flight of the vulnerable, and the last fast of Gandhi. On January 18, 1948, after fasting for 121 hours and 30 minutes, Gandhi had forced the government to agree to a series of accommodations and concessions—including turning over 550 million rupees to Pakistan as promised. For the RSSS this was treason, a betrayal of Hindu India, not simply a maneuver to end mass murder but an open recognition of Pakistan by India's most renowned figure—the moral blessing of treachery.
  23. ^ Babb, Lawrence A. (2020). Religion in India: Past and Present. Edinburgh: Dunedin Academic Press. ISBN 9781780466231. But like a recessive gene, Hindu nationalism had been there all along, and now it had sprung back into high visibility. At the time of the assassination, Godse was no longer a formal member of the RSS, but he was strongly anti-Muslim and considered Gandhi a Muslim appeaser, a view shared by many others, especially among Hindu nationalists. With the first Kashmir war in progress, the Congress had decided not to pay money owed to Pakistan as its share of India's assets prior to partition. Gandhi opposed this position and went on a 'fast-unto-death' to get it reversed, which in fact was done in early January 1948. The assassination soon followed. Godse was caught, tried and hanged.
  24. ^ Lelyveld, Joseph (2012) [2011]. Great Soul: Mahatma Gandhi and His Struggle with India. New York: Alfred A. Knopf. ISBN 978-0-307-38995-4. By his assassin's own testimony, it was Gandhi's announcement of his fast on the twelfth that had lit the fuse on the plot he and his main accomplice hatched starting that night; and it was the declaration three days later that the cabinet had reversed itself and decided to transfer the blocked reserves to Pakistan, explaining that it was moved by a desire "to help in every way open to them in the object which Gandhiji has in heart, " that had clinched the secret verdict of the conspirators condemning him to death. ... Of the unfreezing of the assets, the assassin would say: "This decision of the people's government was reversed to suit the tune of Gandhiji's fast. It was evident to my mind that the force of public opinion was nothing but a trifle when compared with the leanings of Gandhiji favorable to Pakistan." The victim's sterling virtues were an inherent part of the problem, of the obstacle he represented. "A most severe austerity of life, ceaseless work and lofty character made Gandhiji formidable and irresistible," the assassin said in his ex post facto justification of his deed. Something had to be done if India was ever to pursue its own interests the way other nations pursued theirs. Therefore, said Godse, he "decided to remove Gandhiji from the political stage."
  25. ^ Cush, Denise; Robinson, Catherine; York, Michael (2008). Encyclopedia of Hinduism. Taylor & Francis. p. 544. ISBN 978-0-7007-1267-0. Archived from the original on 12 October 2013. Retrieved 31 August 2013. Quote: "The apotheosis of this contrast is the assassination of Gandhi in 1948 by a militant Nathuram Godse, on the basis of his 'weak' accommodationist approach towards the new state of Pakistan." (p. 544)
  26. ^ Copland, Ian (2001). India 1885-1947: The Unmaking of an Empire. Seminar Studies in History series. London and New York: Routledge. p. 77. ISBN 978-0-582-38173-5. Gandhi was adamant that the debt to Pakistan had to be paid, and in March 1948 he announced that he planned to embark on another indefinite fast to ensure that the Indian government fulfilled its legal and moral obligations. The Mahasabha and the RSS denounced this plan as tantamount to treason. In the early evening of 30 March, as he addressed a prayer meeting at Birla House, New Delhi, India's prince of peace was shot and killed by a member of an RSS splinter-group, Nathuram Godse.

Best regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:51, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

PS Of course, Gandhi had opposed the Partition of India before, during, and after. But as the remaining major leaders in the Indian National Congress supported it, he was in a minority. But he very much did try to oppose the violence in the wake of the Partition, especially in late 1947 and early 1948 against the besieged Muslims in Delhi at the hands of Hindus and Sikhs, many of whom had just arrived as refugees from Pakistan. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:05, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I find this a little tangential as a reason for removing the material, since the aspect referenced above was not the focus of it, and was not quoted or otherwise directly referenced. Are you saying that because the source makes one supposition that you deem incorrect that the baby must go out with the bath water? The precise motive itself is not exactly central to the material as it had been added: one way or another the motivation was Hindu nationalism, whether directly regarding partition or not. Though on the subject itself, is the point that is made about the assassination attempts beginning in 1934 not at least valid, and how do other sources go about explaining that exactly? Iskandar323 (talk) 17:23, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The first two of those other attempts by Godse in 1944 with a small knife were damp squibs, or busted flushes. Take your pick. They mostly go unmentioned in standard biographies of Gandhi.
The penultimate one was by the 21-year-old Madanlal Pahwa who had just arrived from Rawalpindi—where he claimed he had seen much anti-Hindu violence—and other members of Godse's gang on January 20, 1948.
In other words, his final assassination had little to do with this history of unsuccessful attempts of 1944, and everything with some heightened tempers (among Hindu and Sikh refugees who has arrived from Pakistan) in the wake of Gandhi's last fast and his successful effort at inducing the Government of India to pay out the cash assets to Pakistan (which they were legally required to do, but were resisting). They are all already mentioned in this article, I think. Another reason to not have a second redundant section. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 20:56, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Besides, your sources are abyssymally third-rate and inconsequential compared to the major historians of modern India cited in the paragraph above. You are wasting time. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 21:37, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It was opinion, attributed as such, not anything stated in Wikivoice, so what is your claim here? It cannot be WP:BURDEN, because the material is clearly verifiable, so I presume you are calling upon WP:ONUS and deeming the characterization, regardless of whether it is mere voiced opinion and correctly labelled as such, to be undue and unworthy of mention? Iskandar323 (talk) 10:36, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Could @RegentsPark, Abecedare, Johnbod, Kautilya3, and DaxServer: please weigh in here. I have no patience, and now also no time, for Wikilawyering by editors who have no history of content contributions in a topic. You might have a longer fuse. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 11:37, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It was a simple question that required a simple answer. You do need to state what your actual objection is at some point. I'm not throwing policy at you, just asking which you are applying in this instance. Iskandar323 (talk) 12:14, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Iskandar323 has already made a big concession by calling it "Hindutva terror" instead of "Hindu terrorism". I am afraid Fowler&fowler is quite behind the times. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 13:08, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Hindutva terror" is my talk page title for this section. Iskandar323 had the section title: "Portrayal as terrorism" in the article. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:23, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I know. That is why I called it a "concession". This text has been copied from there. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 17:13, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • (pinged) The way I see it, we have three options. (1) Include the material as a subsection as Iskandar323 has done; (2) Add a single sentence in the article (perhaps in the aftermath section) along the lines of "some recent writers have equated the assassination of Gandhi with Hindu/Hindutva terrorism; or (3) exclude the material entirely. Imo, if we go with (1) we need very strong sourcing since this is a post hoc association. All assassinations are, to some extend, driven by ideology, but not all are automatically associated with terrorism and we need to be careful that we don't do this post hoc association without strong sourcing. We could go with (2) if the proportion of sources that associate the assassination with terrorism are few but good enough to include (if you're looking for policies, WP:WEIGHT). And we exclude everything (option 3) if the weight of sources is very low, low enough for this to be a WP:FRINGE view). As far as I can see, the sources that Iskandar323 is provided definitely do not merit option 1. Of the three sources, the first two (the EPW book review and the Andrean journal) are both referencing the third. The third (Gatade) is a book by a journalist which doesn't rise to the level of scholarship and it also doesn't help that the book is labeled "contentious" in the second source. So, imo, we're left with a tradeoff between the single line and nothing and the parsimonious approach would be to go with nothing. RegentsPark (comment) 13:57, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • (pinged) Just noting for the record that the edit being discussed is this one. Will review the sources and add my 2c later today. Abecedare (talk) 15:16, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    By the way, Ruminations (the source for this article ) is essentially the in-house literary journal of the English department of a small undergraduate college in Mumbai; I believe this is the author although he doesn't list the Ruminations article in his list of publications. IMO that article is not usable as a source. Abecedare (talk) 16:17, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok, here's my 3c after reading/researching the sources cited in this this edit:
    1. The sourcing is too thin to support the weight of the "assassination was terrorism" claim, even if pared down to a sentence. On the one hand (as Rohini Hensman says in the 2nd para of the EPW review), classifying an assassination (ie, politically-motivated killing) as terrorism (ie, politically-motivated violence) is hardly a red-flag claim but if we are going to say anything useful about the topic beyond the mere "some have called it" labeling, we need heftier sources than the two books penned by independent journalist Subhash Gatade and published by two alt-presses, Pharos and Three Essays Collective. Aside from the EPW review, the books don't seem to have garnered any attention from the academia.
    2. That said, the point that Gatade makes, that Gandhi's assassination (setting aside the particulars of the proximal causes) was just one of several instances of Hindutva-inspired political violence, is so obvious IMO that I'd be surprised if other, more-established, scholars of the Indian right-wing (Christophe Jaffrelot?) haven't written about it. The wikipedia article's Aftermath section currently deals only with the immediate effects of the assassination on the partition-linked violence and on RSS. It would be worthwhile to search for sources that look more broadly and further ahead.
    3. Speaking of more broadly: the current article contains a lot of useful detail and seems reasonably well-sourced but its organization is a complete mess! The sectioning makes neither chronological nor thematic sense (cf Death of Subhas Chandra Bose) and requires someone to reshuffle the material, and in parts, hack the undue and redundant details. Volunteers? :)
    Abecedare (talk) 17:33, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Abecedare: I think it was written by Ms Sarah Welch. For one section, it uses the article Herbert Reiner Jr. which I had written earlier. I did tweak the lead later on.
    I don't necessarily dislike the Rashomon-like parallel narratives, but I can see that it could confuse an unfamiliar reader (which you obviously are not).
    As for the other sections, I don't believe the memoir of Maniben, MKG's great niece who was with him when he was shot, is particularly factual, though it might have accurately pegged the mood of the evening.
    When the article was finished, I thought it gave Godse's courtroom melodrama perhaps more platform than an encyclopedic account would warrant, but I haven't reread it.
    I don't have any time for rewriting, but wouldn't mind at all if someone does it along the lines you indicate. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 19:31, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree with RegentsPark. The objection surely is WP:WEIGHT (aka WP:UNDUE). Not my area (but then Iskandar323 is fond of starting hares well outside his area), but I think F&F is correct. Johnbod (talk) 15:28, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note I removed this content from Nathuram Godse pending the result of the discussion here. RegentsPark (comment) 19:56, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @RegentsPark: You re-moved the content rather than removed it. Assuming that was not your intent. Also, as Kautilya pointed out above, the same content is at Hindu terrorism#Assassination of Mahatma Gandhi. Abecedare (talk) 20:12, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks Abecedare. I've fixed the move remove mess and also removed it from the Hindu Terrorism page.RegentsPark (comment) 20:19, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you delete reference to 15 people killed in "Assassination of Mahatma Gandhi" page??

[edit]

Hi,

Can you explain for reversal of my edits on assassination of Mahatma Gandhi page? Wasn't the event of 15 people killed in riots important enough? The fact that it was reported along with Mahatma's death in NYT should make it important enough to be there Factpineapple (talk) 05:23, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@RegentsPark Factpineapple (talk) 10:36, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The "fact" doesn't fit in the paragraph. "In the newly formed Dominion of India, the carnage that had been set off by the Partition of India ended with the shock of Gandhi's assassination.[111] However, at least 15 people were killed in the riots that followed the assassination.[1]The RSS, the Hindu paramilitary volunteer organisation, whose activities had been hidden from public view, and whose member Nathuram Godse had once been, was banned on 4 February 1948. " Perhaps it would if there was a section or a paragraph on the immediate aftermath but that's not there. Finally, of course, a news report from that time that says "reportedly" is not necessarily correct and I suggest you also look for a better source. RegentsPark (comment) 16:05, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Aftermath should include immediate aftermath as well unless someone wants to deliberately hide the atrocities. And there are plenty of other references.
New York Times is gold standard and that is why, I referenced it before.
The fact that you are trying to negate that riots happen by focusing on "reportedly" amounts to historical revisionism in my opinion.
Now, I know, you would discredit some of these sources claiming them to be biased, but has anyone ever denied that it happened? And the 15 deaths number is just for Mumbai, on first day. The actual number could be much higher.
https://www.timesnownews.com/india/article/congress-officials-orchestrated-anti-brahmin-pogrom-after-gandhi-s-death-no-cases-were-filed-vikram-sampath/789834
https://www.history.com/topics/asian-history/gandhi-assassination#assassination-and-trial
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/jan/31/mahatma-gandhi-assassination-archive-1948
https://www.firstpost.com/opinion/how-nehruvian-congress-manipulated-mahatma-gandhis-assassination-to-emasculate-hindu-nationalism-10961811.html Factpineapple (talk) 04:23, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
And shouldn't we at least write, "according to Sampath, 100 congress workers were arrested".
Wikipedia is full of "According to Romila Thapar" everywhere. Factpineapple (talk) 09:50, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I"m not sure what you're trying to say. Clearly, the current text refers to the longer term aftermath of the assassination while the material you're trying to add refers to the immediate aftermath. Your text doesn't fit inside the longer term aftermath. I don't think a NYT article published the day after is necessarily accurate. That doesn't mean it is inaccurate either. What it means is you need to find references that are reasonably distant and preferably that discuss the immediate aftermath rather than merely reporting on it. RegentsPark (comment) 14:15, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Assassination_of_Mahatma_Gandhi&oldid=1216968935"