Against Shri Nathubhai Godse (2-Feb-2012) No.1

February 2, 2012

https://www.facebook.com/mehtarahulc/posts/10150512830541922

Against Shri Nathubhai Godse

(Summary : Consider the demand of Mohanbhai that India should give Rs 55 cr , about Rs 100,000 cr by today’s level, to Pakistan or he will fast till death. Shri Nathubhai should have asked citizens of India to demand a referendum on such demands. The outcome of the referendum would have been --- (A)don’t give even 55 paise to Pakistan (B)end Mohanbhai’s fast by giving him poison. And that would have solved both problems --- Rs 55 crore issue as well as his fast till death. But Shri Nathubhai did not campaign for such referendums --- he instead wanted decided to take a shortcut. This shortcut caused immense damage to India).

===

I am anti-Nathubhai, because he took shortcut of killing Mohanbhai and not the hard but needed way of destroying Mohanism by exposing Mohanbhai to people of India. Many of my colleagues refer to Shri Nathubhai Godse as Mahatma Nathubhai Godse, which I do NOT. I despise him for his bad decision. Nevetheless, his bad decision did result in one good –-- Shri Sardar Vallabhabhai Patel could use Indian Army against Hyderabad, something that Mohanbhai would have opposed and delayed or even aborted. So as a tribute, I do refer to him as “Shri Nathubhai Godse”.

Shri Nathubhai should have seen that this nonsense of Mohanbhai was not liked people or even Congress worker. Even in 1940, Mohanbhai’s chamcha Pattabhi lost against Mahatma Subhash Chandra Bose, even though Mohanbhai had spent 10-100 times more money than Mahatma Subhashji and had more media/travel coverage. So in 1947, the anti-Mohanbhai sentiment was much higher and universal. Shri Nathubhai should have seen that Mohanbhai was dominant due to paid-media, nit due to its rational appeal. The solution was to create a good media and while the good media comes, take efforts to spread correct information at personal levels. All non-violent ways, like pamphlet distribution, speeches and even burning effigies of Mohanbhai, are OK. But killing Mohanbhai was a wrong idea.

A homicide is Vadh only when speech against that person is punished with death, otherwise it is murder. Eg Homicide of Sanders was Vadh, because if Mahatma Bhagat Singh had made a speech demanding execution of Sanders, British would have murdered him. Homicide of Governor Dwyer was Vadh because British would have murdered Mahatma Udham Singh if he had made a speech asking for Governor Dwyer’s execution. Further, Homicide is Vadh only when majority has agreed that person should killed. In case of Sanders and Dwyer, the majority of Indians wanted them dead. But Shri Nathubhai Godse did NOT have sanction of majority --- neither explicit nor implicit. Further, Shri Nathubhai had alternate remedies. Eg Consider the demand of Mohanbhai that India should give Rs 55 cr (about Rs 100,000 cr by today’s level) to Pakistan or he will fast till death. Or many such useless demands. Shri Nathubhai should have asked citizens of India to demand a referendum on such demands. The outcome of the referendum would have been --- (A)don’t give even 55 paise to Pakistan (B)end Mohanbhai’s fast by giving him poison. And that would have solved both problems --- Rs 55 crore issue as well as his fast till death. But Shri Nathubhai did not campaign for such referendums --- he instead decided to take a shortcut which had no implicit or explicit sanction of majority. This I see as a proof of laziness. All in all, Shri Nathubhai had alternate remedy --- demanding referendums --- which he was free to take and was never stopped. But he out of laziness did not take those route. And so his act was murder, not vadh.

Referendum could have been a powerful tool till prove that people of India hated Mohanbhai. The people of India were already realizing that Mohanbhai was a willful liar, not just wrong. Eg crores of citizens were questioning --- that if Mohanbhai actually believed that fasting, singing bhajan, spinning charkha etc is cool, why didn’t he go to Lahore, Karanchi, Islamabad, Dhaka and fasted there? As more and people asked this question, the answer was becoming clear that Mohanbhai knew that fasting etc was a useless method and that he was a willful liar. If Mohanbhai were alive, within 2-3 years, people of India would have said the following to Mohanbhai

1. see Mohanbhai, pls change your name to Mohasinbhai
2. and pls go to Haj right away
3. and on your way back, pls stop in Pakistan
4. and pls stay in Pakistan for ever and never come back to India

In sep-1947, the common men, not RSS, in Harijan Basti in Delhi had ransacked his Ashram’s furniture and told Mohanbhai not to even come again in Harijan Basti. Mohanbhai could not find even one residential colony in Delhi which would give him a house to stay, which is why Mohanbhai had to live in Birla Temple. So with campaign, it was possible to convince every citizen of India to ask Mohanbhai to leave India. And all that was needed to convince all that all hate Mohanbhai was one general election. One general election – and he and all his men would have lost so badly, everyone would have come to know that everyone hates Mohanbhai. After facing one general election, Mohanbhai himself would have drowned himself in Sabarmati river --- if he had any shame left. But by killing Mohanbhai, Shri Nathubhai ended up giving an opportunity to Congress leaders to create a sympathy wave and false image of popularity.

So IMO, Shri Nathubhai should have taken the good, though hard way, of informing citizens about defunctness of Mohanbhai and demanding referendums on “give Rs 55 cr to Pakistan” and other issues. He should have asked Mohanbhai to fast in Lahore and asked more and more people to ask Mohanbhai to fast in Lahore. Mohanbhai knew that Ahmisa was just a bluff which can work when paid-media supports it, and would not work in Lahore where media was against him. So Mohanbhai would have never fasted in Lahore and would have stood exposed. All this were hardcuts --- needed a lot of work, lot of time, lot of efforts and yes, also needed money to print pamphlets etc. This was the least unethical way --- far less unethical than killing unarmed man, no matter how dangerous his speech may be.

All in all, if a bad leader is yet unarmed, but still has image in paid-media, then solution is to expose his lies --- not kill him. Killing unarmed man will do more damage than good. Which is what happened --- Shri Nathubhai killed Mohanbhai and his action enabled Congressmen to extend life of Mohanbhai by 60-70 years and do more damage.

One lesson to learn from Shri Nathubhai is --- shortcut never helps. Have patients, be prepared to lose all --- but never take a shortcut.