Atanu Dey

Well you appear to see a clear line between self Defense and aggression which in reality is a very blurred line. Just look at the recent police killings of unarmed people of colour. The perpetrators always claim self Defense and are almost always acquitted.

But my point on self Defense is that it is partially based on what we perceive to be threats. If a fist is swung at us the we block because we perceive the threat of it hitting us. We do not wait for the violent act to occur first (unless you’re Gandhi) but rather perceive a high probability of it happening and seek to stop it in other words we see a threat of violence and then react to it.

Fact of the matter is that how we see self Defense is important only to us. The only opinion that matters is that of a judge and jury in a courtroom.

It appears to me that you see the world only in extremes. In your eyes one is either a sociopath or a peaceful human being. One either thinks Gandhi was a psychopath or one is a Gandhi bhakt. It is either black or white.

The fact that Gandhi never killed anybody or ordered the killing of anybody makes him a very strange psychopath if indeed he was one. You called the deaths of Biharis in the earthquake murders. I’d call them tragic deaths. It is not murder when it’s a force of nature. Off course it was wrong of Gandhi to claim god had killed the victims because of caste oppression but religious preachers use the wrath of god for all kinds of disasters. What’s more preachers usually blame some action of the people for the wrath of God. They have done it in the past, they still do it and some probably always will.

You claim that I have no knowledge of history or that I only read the version of history endorsed by the congress. With all due respect that would be like me asking you if you got your history from the saffron booklets of the sangh parivar.

I simply try to see the good in all people and there was some good in Gandhi. He also had some good ideas like the swadeshi movement.

You wondered why Gandhi was not executed by the British. Well unlike other revolutionaries he did not use violence, which gave the British government less reason to kill him. Secondly no one in the British Raj took him seriously. But his influence did grow and after the ww2 when the Labour Party came to power Gandhi was a person the British could negotiate with. The British feared the reprisals killing Gandhi would have had and they feared the alternatives to Gandhi (for example Subhas Chandra Bose).

Gandhi was no saint but I doubt he was truly evil at heart. He was most definitely misguided and dangerous to some degree but did have a conscience. Still in many respects he incorporates the flaws of the overzealous, dogmatic, over dedicated ideologue.

If you respond to this piece of writing then I demand you answer this question. You may insult me and question my knowledge and intelligence as long as you answer following question: Do you think the assassination of Gandhi (one could call it his murder) was morally acceptable and the right thing to do? Would you have done it if you had been in Nathuram Godse’s place?