Ambedkarite politics is based on hatred of Brahmins (though Ambedkar's second wife was Brahmin). Their political program was based on Churchill's speech 'our duty in India' given in March of 1931 which insisted that 'Gandhi stands for the substitution of Brahmin domination for British rule in India.' Churchill believed Gandhi to be a charlatan or a simpleton who had been given command of the Congress only so as to pull the wool over the eyes of the British, the Muslims & the 'depressed classes'. Churchill said 'Already Nehru, his young rival in the Indian Congress, is preparing to supersede him the moment that he has squeezed his last drop from the British lemon'.
Nehru was aware of Churchill's views. He saw that 'federation', which Churchill championed, would leave the Brits in charge and thus became the strongest voice for a unitary India- a fact which Rahul doesn't seem to understand. Interestingly, in his Autobiography, he called for the 'Brahminization' (as opposed to Baniaization) of India. Gandhi was a bania- i.e. a businessman just as the Brits were a 'nation of shopkeepers'.
Churchill's intellectual heirs are firstly the Pakistanis- who embrace the two nation theory that he propounded. Secondly, the DMK in Tamil Nadu which is the successor of the 'Justice Party' and which holds 'sanatan dharma' as anathema. Thirdly, we have the Ambedkarites. Indeed, Ambedkar himself welcomed the killing of the Mahatma. At the time, he wrote as follows in a private letter-
"My own view is that great men are of great service to their country, but they are also at certain times a great hindrance to the progress of the country. Mr Gandhi had become a positive danger to this country,"
"He had choked all the thoughts. He was holding together the Congress which is a combination of all the bad and self-seeking elements in society
this is precisely the gravamen of Churchill's 1931 speech. His own Tory colleagues thought he was mad. Brahmins couldn't be uniquely evil. If there were corrupt and cowardly Brahmins, the same could be said of every other community.
who agreed on no social or moral principle governing the life of society except the one of praising and flattering Mr Gandhi. Such a body is unfit to govern a country,"
Idolatry of Ambedkar or Periyar, on the other hand, is perfectly fine.
"As the Bible says that sometimes good cometh out of evil, so also I think good will come out of the death of Mr Gandhi. It will release people from bondage to supermen, it will make them think for themselves and compel them to stand on their own merits,"
Sadly Ambedkar & his pal J.N Mandal (who was Jinnah's law minister) had no merit. Mandal had to run away to India. Ambedkar couldn't get elected to Parliament. Without the Brits to prop them up, they collapsed.
Anand Teltumbde is married to a grand-daughter of Ambedkar. He writes in 'the Wire'-
Reflections on the Murder of Gandhi and the State of India
Gandhi’s murder cannot be viewed merely as an event of the past.
Nor can the pogrom carried out against Brahmins in Pune by the Congress party.
It marked the beginning of an ongoing project.
As did the killing of two other people with the surname 'Gandhi'.
January 30, 1948 was not an end; it was the first shot in a long war against pluralism,
the country had been partitioned. Pluralism was dead in the water. Ambedkar may have dismissed his contribution to the Constitution as 'hack work' but, the fact remains, the Constitution is unitary and it stripped Muslims of any type of affirmative action (e.g. such as had been given to Muslim Dalits by the 1935 GoI Act)
secularism,
Cow protection is a Directive Principle
and constitutional democracy in India.
The Constitution creates a unitary State with an overmighty Centre. Moreover, it permits its own suspension as Mrs. Gandhi's opponents discovered during the Emergency.
Reflections on the Murder of Gandhi and the State of India
Seventy-seven years ago, on January 30, 1948, three bullets struck down Mahatma Gandhi at a prayer meeting in Birla House. The gunman, Nathuram Godse, was a Chitpavan Brahmin from Pune.
The previous assassination attempt was made by a Punjabi refugee some of whose family had been massacred by Muslim mobs. He was angry that Gandhi was saying the refugees should go back while Muslims who had fled should be allowed to return.
It was however no simple act of homicide. It was the Brahminical ideology
Madanlal Pahwa was Khatri
that sought to exterminate Gandhi’s plural, inclusive vision of India
which had already been exterminated by Jinnah
as an obstacle to a project of Hindu supremacy
established by Nehru & Indira
and a nostalgic yearning for a restored Peshwai order.
This is the crux of the matter. Ambedkar had got it into his head that the Peshwas had discriminated against his community. This was the line that British officials were pushing in the Nineteenth century. Gokhale must be just as bad as Tilak because both are Chitpavan. But the founders of the RSS weren't Chitpavan.
The assassin did not act in isolation. He was backed by the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS)
No. The RSS wasn't stupid or crazy. Killing Gandhi was foolish. If it must be done, get a Muslim to do it.
and the Hindu Mahasabha, and blessed by V. D. Savarkar
who had suffered so much when in prison that he wasn't quite sane
the father of Hindutva.
He only adopted it after the War when it became obvious that the Brits were on the way out. The question was whether they could leave India weak by creating an artificial coalition of Muslims, Dalits, Dravidians & the Princes as a check to the Hindu majority. Thanks to Nehru, the answer was no.
After the assassination, the RSS sought to distance itself from Godse. But historians like D.N. Jha
who was so shit at history that he said there was never any temple at the Ram Janambhumi.
demolished that claim.
By lying.
In his memoir, Godse’s brother Gopal Godse himself confessed that all the Godse brothers had been associated with the RSS at the time of the murder.
They were also associated with the King Emperor because, in law, they were his subjects. OMG! King killed Gandhi!
Public anger followed reports that RSS members had celebrated the murder by distributing sweets in parts of Maharashtra provoked public attacks on Brahmin houses at many places.
Distribution of sweets should be banned. It provokes 'public attacks'. Jews were distributing sweets in Poland. That is why Hitler was provoked into attacking that country.
Ideological disposition
The historical disposition of Brahminical ideology has been to secure and preserve supremacy over the religio-social and cultural order,
So, Churchill was right! Indian 'freedom struggle' was actually a cunning Brahmin plot! Ambedkar should be praised for serving the Brits. Jagjivan Ram should be castigated for going to jail.
rather than to exercise political power directly. Within the varna hierarchy, rulers who wielded temporal authority were placed below Brahmins, their legitimacy dependent on rituals, codes, and moral sanction controlled by them.
Very true. Brahmin priests controlled British & Muslim rulers.
This deeply entrenched hierarchy shaped Brahminical attitudes towards political power, particularly when external forces entered the subcontinent. As a social group, Brahmins were rarely opposed to being ruled by outsiders;
Peshwa didn't fight the British. He distributed sweets. That provoked the Brits to attack him.
instead, they tended to accommodate and even support the dominant power, provided it guaranteed the preservation of their social hegemony.
Very true. Brahmins in Pakistan supported Muslim League. J.N Mandal was actually a Brahmin.
There is no sustained historical instance of Brahmins as a community organising resistance to an external ruling power merely on the grounds of foreignness.
Just as there is no historical instance of Ambedkarites telling the truth.
Even under Muslim rule – so relentlessly vilified in contemporary Hindutva discourse – Brahmin elites adapted, served as advisers, administrators, and intellectual intermediaries, and secured their privileged position within the social order. This pattern repeated itself under British rule.
Smart people do well. Ambedkar did well. His Brahmin wife must have been controlling him.
The only moment of collective Brahminical rage was provoked not by colonial domination per se, but by the defeat of the Peshwai in Pune – the singular historical instance of direct Brahmin political sovereignty.
Because Brahmins were seldom Kings. This proves they must have been controlling Kings- more particularly British Emperors of India.
The subsequent rebellions, including participation in the events of 1857 (later romanticised by Savarkar as the “First War of Independence”), were driven less by a universal anti-colonial vision than by the desire to restore lost Brahmin rule.
Mangal Pandey was a Brahmin. Thus, he was very evil.
Even here, the acceptance of Bahadur Shah Zafar’s nominal leadership illustrates a familiar strategic flexibility: political alliances were negotiable, so long as the deeper structure of social dominance could ultimately be reclaimed.
Did you know Brahmins are dominating Pakistan? Field Marshall Munir is secretly wearing janeo.
Birth of Hindu consolidation
In Indian history, most external groups that entered the subcontinent eventually settled, assimilated, and made India their home.
Unless like Nadir or Abdali, they were content to simply loot it and then withdraw- no doubt, because they were secretly wearing janeo.
The British – and other Europeans – were different. They arrived as merchant capitalists, captured political power to secure commercial interests, and never intended permanent cultural integration.
A.O Hume, founder of the Congress party, was a vegetarian Vedantist advocated cow protection on agronomic grounds.
This distinction mattered.
The Brits didn't want to lose power to a miscegenated Creole caste.
For Brahminical elites, the real historical disruption had come earlier from large-scale conversions of marginalised castes to Islam,
plenty of Brahmins converted to Islam. Iqbal was related to Sapru. Incidentally, Acharya Kripalani's elder brother had become a Muslim.
which weakened their demographic and cultural monopoly. Islamic civilisation posed a sustained challenge to their authority, creating a deep, if often tacit, resentment toward Muslim rule.
Why did J.N Mandal run away from Pakistan? Do Dalits in that country not feel any resentment to 'Muslim rule'?
When the British defeated the Muslim powers, they were naturally happy.
As were Dalits.
The British, unlike earlier rulers, were expected eventually to depart. By the mid-nineteenth century, it became clear that preparations had to begin for reclaiming political authority by exterminating Muslims as the competitors.
By contrast, Muslims never dreamed of re-establishing a Caliphate.
This shift is traceable to eastern Bengal,
which is where J.N Mandal came from. He got the Namasudras in Sylhet to vote for joining Pakistan. They soon had to run away from there.
where Brahminical elites felt threatened by Muslim numerical strength and by colonial policies that empowered Muslim peasantry.
Tagore warned his people not to cut their own throats by supporting the Freedom struggle.
Religion was increasingly mobilised to consolidate Hindu identity against the “Muslim other.”
While J.N Mandal was mobilizing Dalits to vote for the Muslim brother. But he soon had to run away.
The intellectual fountainhead of this turn was Bankim Chandra Chattopadhyay (1838–1894). In his later novels – Anandamath, Devi Chaudhurani, and Sitaram – Bankim articulated a vision that cast Muslim rule as civilisational darkness and imagined Hindu regeneration through militant unity.
Meanwhile, plenty of Muslims were talking of killing kaffirs the way God commanded us to do.
Anandamath (1882) depicted Hindu ascetics rising violently against Muslim authority and introduced Vande Mataram, equating the nation with Hindu goddess imagery, implicitly excluding Muslims and Christians from the imagined community.
Ambedkarites think Hindus are very evil for not wanting to live under Muslim rule. But, J.N Mandal- Ambedkar's most important ally- had to run away from such rule.
Bankim’s project was clearly anti-Muslim.
Because Muslims are against kaffirs.
British rule was portrayed as a one that had ended Muslim dominance and thus as benefactor.
This is also what Raja Ram Mohan Roy & Dwarkanath Tagore thought. But the Peshwai regime disagreed.
Thinkers such as Ahmed Sofa
who wasn't actually a Sofa
later observed that Bankim was among the first to articulate the dream of a Hindu Rashtra.
He himself supported the dream of a Bengali Muslim Rashtra.
Organisationally, this vision was seeded through movements like the Hindu Mela of 1867, led by figures such as Debendranath Tagore, Nabagopal Mitra, and Rajnarayan Basu.
The last two were Kayastha, not Brahmin.
These gatherings, often described as “national,” were explicitly Hindu in character, defining Indian identity through religious symbolism and excluding Muslims from the cultural imagination. The ideological seed had been sown.
It is fair to say that Hinduism was the 'seed' of Indian nationalism. It is what holds the country together. That is why anti-nationals hate it. Yet, without a strong India, they too will suffer. Like J.N Mandal, they may have to run away to some place where kaffirs are protected.
The birth and shaping of the RSS
Two Marathi Medical Students in Calcutta before the Great War were inspired by the 'Anushilan Samitis' of 'Jugantar'. Later on, Dr. Hardikar founded the Congress Seva Dal which his pal, Hegdewar, joined. When it appeared likely that the Seva Dal would be banned. Hegdewar founded the RSS. By then, communal riots had become widespread as local politicians jockeyed for power.
Reform currents within Hindu society arose along two tracks: Western-educated reformers seeking modernisation,
i.e. Brahmo & Prarthana Samaj
and orthodox revivalists seeking a return to scriptural “originals.”
Which was also the claim of the Brahmos & Prarthana Samajis.
The most influential of the latter was the Arya Samaj, founded by Dayanand Saraswati, a Gujarati whose movement found its strongest base in Punjab.
Arya Samaj is anti-casteist. Its leaders belong to different castes. Since Indian Arya Samajis are patriots of India (just as British Arya Samajis are British patriots) they are very evil.
After his death in 1883, its followers decided to establish Hindu Sabhas, culminating in the foundation of Punjab Hindu Sabha on December 16, 1906 under leaders such as Lal Chand,
a Khatri
U.N. Mukerji,
Bengali Brahmin
and Lala Lajpat Rai.
from a Jain Agrawal family.
This consolidation of Hindu organisational politics was mirrored among Muslims. On December 30, 1906, Muslim elites gathered in Dhaka to found the All-India Muslim League under figures including Khwaja Salimullah, Aga Khan III, and Hakim Ajmal Khan, to articulate Muslim socio-economic and political concerns.
It had predecessors in the 1880s.
While the Muslim League evolved into a political counterweight to the Congress – widely seen as the majority organisation – the Hindu Mahasabha made little headway beyond a largely upper-caste constituency.
It decided to follow an appeasement strategy in 1916. That is why it promoted Motilal Nehru & Mahatma Gandhi.
In the interwar years, the rise of fascism in Italy under Benito Mussolini impressed sections of India’s right wing.
Mussolini impressed Gandhi, Tagore, Iqbal & Bose.
Marathi journals associated with Bal Gangadhar Tilak praised European nationalist icons such as Giuseppe Mazzini. Vinayak Damodar Savarkar and his brother Ganesh had earlier founded Abhinav Bharat, inspired by Mazzini’s Young Italy. Though Savarkar once influenced revolutionary circles in England, his incarceration in the Cellular Jail marked a turn: he submitted mercy petitions to the British
because a lot of other prisoners were given an amnesty. The fact is, the Brits had conceded the principle of transfer of power. The only question was whether Hindus would be masters in their own house. Gandhi only had salience when it appeared that he could deliver a united India strong enough to protect minorities if not its own borders (because the Royal Navy would remain necessary till India built up its own fleet. The first Indian admiral was only appointed in 1958.)
and later articulated Hindutva as a political doctrine for Hindu consolidation.
Hindutva is ecumenical and anti-casteist. Since this is good for India, it is very evil.
B.S. Moonje,
a Doctor who had seen service in the Boer war.
a Savarkar associate
a Tilak associate. The Savarkars were junior to him.
and mentor to K.B. Hedgewar,
and Hardikar
the founder of the RSS drew organisational lessons from Mussolini’s youth brigades
No. He was imitating what his pal Hardikar had already done at the end of 1923. There may have been a member of the Seva Dal committee who had returned from Italy and who knew about the Black Shirts. However, the inspiration for Seva Dal was Bengal's 'Anushilan Samitis' from before the Great War. I should mention that all the nationalists of the period paid reverence to Sri Aurobindo who was in exile in Pondicherry.
and shaped RSS as a secretive militant organisation.
A voluntary organization which is a cross between the Boy Scouts & the Rotarians.
The RSS, from its inception, kept itself aloof from the anti-colonial struggle.
It was an over-ground 'social' organization which, it was hoped, would not be banned when the Seva Dal was banned. Nehru was an enthusiastic member of the Seva Sal.
Myths and falsehoods
Stupid myths and falsehoods are Teltumbde's stock in trade.
The Hindutva movement is deliberately founded on the myths and falsehoods.
It is founded on the vision of a Hinduism purged of hereditary distinctions of caste and sectarian squabbles about dogma. Since it is good for India, anti-nationals hate it.
It follows the Goebbelsian dictum that “If you repeat a lie often enough, people will believe it, and you will even come to believe it yourself.,”
That is the Ambedkarite stock in trade. The problem is that repeating stupid lies causes people to think you are a stupid liar. Nobody cares if you rot in jail.
The propaganda machine assumes bigger importance in this than the truth. The RSS followed this dictum in its tenacious spread.
No. It followed the dictum that if you are part of a voluntary organization, then you need to be polite and to behave decently. It is this ingrained habit which has helped RSS pracharaks to rise. Other Sangh Parivar outfits may lack this organizational ethos.
At his trial, Nathuram Godse read a 92 page hand-written statement justifying killing of Gandhi. Each reason he cited rested on a selective or false reading of events.
Sadly, there was more truth in them than in any tome written by Teltumbde.
Partition of India: Godse blamed Gandhi for “vivisecting” the nation.
Gandhi could have launched an agitation to prevent it. There is such a thing as 'command responsibility'.
In fact, Gandhi opposed Partition to the end
by going on a fast? He would do that in order to get India to pay money to Pakistan despite ongoing hostilities. The truth is he didn't oppose Partition. It is a different matter that it saddened him.
and held no executive authority;
yet he had been acclaimed by Govind Vallabh Pant, Premier of UP, as the Il Duce & Fuhrer of India'. He had command responsibility even if he held no legislative or executive office.
the decision emerged from negotiations among the British, the Congress leadership, and the Muslim League amid spiralling communal violence.
Ambedkar supported Partition. So did his pal, J.N Mandal. But Mandal had to run away to India.
“Muslim appeasement”: He claimed Gandhi “privileged Muslims over Hindus”,
true enough. He actually offered Jinnah the post of Prime Minister of a united India.
citing Gandhi’s fasts and support for Hindustani.
India decided Godse, not Gandhi, was right. Hindi in Devanagari script is the official language.
Those fasts in Calcutta and Delhi sought to stop retaliatory killings
they failed utterly.
and restore civic peace for all citizens, while Hindustani was proposed as a bridge language in a deeply divided society.
India decided it didn't need no stinkin' bridge.
Release of Rs 55 crores to Pakistan: Godse treated this as Gandhi’s betrayal.
It was. There's a good reason Congress did little to keep the Maha-crackpot safe.
The transfer was a Cabinet decision honouring financial commitments made at Independence; Gandhi’s fast pressed for communal peace in Delhi,
this failed. The Muslim percentage of the population dropped from 33 to 5 percent. Nehru brought in a law to prevent Muslim refugees who had fled in panic from returning to India and reclaiming their property.
not for overriding state policy.
State policy was right to override the Mahacrackpot.
Non-violence (ahimsa): Godse argued that Gandhi’s creed weakened Hindus.
Gandhi, writing after the Second World War broke out, said Congress was the party of the High Caste Hindus. They were devotees of Ahimsa- i.e. shit at fighting. Thus the Brits should hand over the Army to Congress otherwise the Muslims & the Punjabis (regardless of creed) and perhaps also the Gurkhas, would take over the country. The anal cherries of the Dalits might be protected by the Ahimsa fairy, but, otherwise, the Hindus would be reduced to destitution and virtual enslavement.
Godse was right to say that Gandhi's creed weakened Hindus. It also weakened India. If the majority won't fight, even the minorities are fucked.
Gandhi’s non-violence was a mass political strategy against colonial rule and communal hatred,
which failed utterly the moment it was tried
not a denial of a state’s right to maintain order or defend citizens.
Gandhi thought the Brits should hand over their country to Hitler. He didn't think the British state had a duty to fight.
Undue influence on government:
Which was fucking obvious.
Godse portrayed Gandhi’s moral authority and fasts as coercion outside democracy. Gandhi held no office; his interventions were appeals to conscience in moments of breakdown, not instruments of state power.
Those appeals stopped once he was shot. A nuisance had been curbed.
Long before January 30, 1948, Gandhi had faced a string of threats and failed attempts by Hindu extremists. A bomb was hurled at his motorcade in Pune on June 25, 1934 during his Harijan tour against untouchability; in May and September 1944 at Panchgani and Sevagram, Nathuram Godse himself was stopped while trying to attack Gandhi with a dagger and released when Gandhi refused to press charges.
If this is true, then the Police should have kept Godse under observation. They have a duty to prevent crime irrespective of the target of the crime. The big question is why Morarji Desai, when informed of the wider conspiracy of which Pahwa was part, refused to take any action. Maybe he was simply stupid. Equally odd is the fact that Godse was caught by an American.
In June 1946, boulders placed on a rail track near Nerul – Karjat derailed the train carrying him; a bomb planted at a Bombay venue in September 1946 exploded prematurely; and on January 20, 1948 a grenade was thrown at Birla House to create confusion for an assassination attempt that failed.
Pahwa was arrested. He had previously made a confession to a Sociology Professor who informed Desai. Yet, no action was taken. Why?
This record predates both Partition and the Pakistan payment controversy, undercutting claims that these were the motive. The earliest attack was clearly against Gandhi’s anti-untouchability campaign after the Poona Pact, suggesting their Opposition to Gandhi’s social reform agenda and hatred for the Dalits.
It was the suggestion Gandhi himself made. Nobody believed him. The Poona Pact was based on Rajah-Moonje pact- i.e. it was seen as a smart move by the Hindutvadis.
Rather, the Hindutva hostility toward Muslims, Christians, and Communists – articulated by M. S. Golwalkar – can also be read as reflecting
their virulent attacks on Hinduism?
a deeper hatred for the lower strata of Hindu society, which formed the bulk of these targeted groups.
Sadly, it is the lower strata of Hindu society which attacks Dalits.
Gandhi might seem an odd target for a Hindu assassin.
Which is why people didn't believe there were any such attempts. People assumed it would be a crazy Muslim who would get rid of the Mahacrackpot.
He proclaimed himself a sanatani Hindu, invoked Ram Rajya, drew on bhajans and epics, and for much of his life accepted varna and even caste as moral ideas. What Godse and the Hindutva camp opposed was not Gandhi’s religiosity but the political use he made of it; his vision of inclusivity.
i.e. everybody, including the Brits, should do what he told them to do- e.g. surrender to Hitler.
Using Hindu idiom to argue for coexistence and caste reform, he undercut the project of Hindu consolidation.
No. His one good idea was that Congress-wallahs should spend time in jail. This built esprit de corps and was good for Hindu consolidation. On the other hand, when rioting occurred, his financiers stepped in to make sure Hindu gangsters killed plenty of Muslims. Gandhi was cool with that. He said that he personally knew which Bihari Congressmen had killed innocent Muslims. Did he demand their suspension from the Party? Nope. As he said to Viceroy Wavell, if India wanted a blood-bath, let it have a blood-bath. The soldier was shocked by the callousness of the civilian.
It was antithetical to Godse’s worldview: Gandhi blocked the idea of India as a Hindu nation, humanised Muslims amid communal fury, and redefined Hindu virtue away from revenge and dominance.
No. Gandhian administrations after 1937 alienated Muslims who complained of school-children having to sing 'Vande Mataram' etc.
He was dangerous not because he was insufficiently Hindu, but because his moral politics hollowed out the case for Hindu majoritarianism.
He was a nuisance. Godse is praised for having curbed it. But he too was a nuisance and was hanged.
The attitude returns: From Gandhi to Gauri
Although moral censure curbed its open expression, Hindutva ideology did not disappear; it
was the basis of the Congress party. Nehru succeeded in 'Brahminizing' India by using 'Socialism' to clip the wings of the mercantile and productive classes.
receded and endured. Its subdued existence is reflected in the permission for Godse to read out his long justification for his crime though Justice Khosla was inclined to bar it as irrelevant.
It relevant. The danger was that rumours would spread that the actual assassin was a Muslim close to Nehru or something of that sort.
Over decades, this current moved from the margins toward state power,
Lohia & JP had brought the Jan Sangh into the mainstream in the Sixties. The RSS played a big role in bringing down Indira in 1977.
culminating in 2014 with a former RSS pracharak becoming the prime minister.
Vajpayee became a pracharak in 1947. He became PM in '97-98.
In the run-up to the 2014 elections, a high-octane campaign backed by the RSS was launched against the Congress-led United Progressive Alliance (UPA)
Rahul had refused to become PM. Moreover, he wouldn't let anybody else take that job. Thus, it was a case of 'Modi or nobody.' Sadly, that remains the case today.
II government on patently false alibi but it succeeded.
I suppose Teltumbde means 'allegations (not alibis) of corruption were false.' But, they were irrelevant. Rahul should have become PM saying he would root out corruption. He'd have won a majority before fucking up and getting shot or blown up like Daddy and Granny.
The defeat of the Congress at the polls appeared certain. From 2013 onward, a grim pattern re-emerged: public intellectuals
whom nobody had heard of
marked, tracked, and shot at close range for what they wrote and said. Narendra Dabholkar was killed in Pune on August 20, 2013. His work against superstition and for scientific temper made him a target.
Of some nutter whom nobody has heard of.
Govind Pansare was shot outside his home on February 16, 2015 after challenging sectarian readings of history and organising workers.
Sadly, Teltumbde wasn't shot because he was utterly useless.
M. M. Kalburgi was murdered at his doorstep in Dharwad on August 30, 2015 for his critique of blind faith and Brahminical practices. Gauri Lankesh
was important because of the Lingayat/Veerashaiva controversy.
was gunned down in Bengaluru on September 5, 2017 for her relentless journalism against hate politics. As the investigations revealed they were planned and executed by Hindutva outfits – Sanatan Sanstha
founded by a crazy hypnotherapist who had spent a couple of decades in the UK
and the Hindu Janajagruti Samiti.
Which denounces films. It is harmless.
These killings
didn't matter at all, save in that Lankesh was a Lingayat journalist with her own magazine.
reflected the same animus that once marked Gandhi as an obstacle, now marking rationalists, scholars, and journalists who stand in the way of a Hindu Rashtra vision.
Teltumbde doesn't stand in the way of any vision. Nobody wants to kill him. Sad.
Godse’s Deification
After 2014, Nathuram Godse – long confined to the margins of public memory – began to surface in ways that would have been unthinkable in earlier decades.
Why? The Mahacrackpot had made Nehru his heir. Indira had made Congress dynastic. So long as Gandhi parivar was willing to supply Prime Ministers (or Regents like Manmohan keeping the seat warm for Rahul), it made sense to say 'Gandhi was great'. But those days are gone. Currently, Modi is the only guy who can run the country. The Opposition don't have a candidate. Thus, precisely because nutters like Teltumbde say 'RSS killed Gandhi' we are obliged to say 'killing Gandhi was an act of great heroism.' The real problem, however, is that autocracy is curbed by assassination. Indian politicians don't want to get shot. Rahul knows that if he is PM, he will get blamed for some stupid shit and thus become a target for some group or the other.
The shift did not come through official endorsement, but through a loosening of taboos in parts of the public sphere: fringe groups openly praising him, attempts to install his busts, small shrines dedicated in his name, and social media campaigns recasting him as a “patriot” rather than an assassin. What had earlier been whispered in closed circles started appearing in rallies, local commemorations, and online networks.
Why? Teltudmbe's answer is 'It is a Brahmin plot dating back thousands of years!'
Elected representatives from the ruling ecosystem occasionally made statements praising Godse or calling him a nationalist, triggering controversy but also revealing how far the moral boundary had moved.
Moral boundaries don't matter. What matters is whether the Gandhi dynasty will appoint a technocrat to run things so that they don't get shot when GoI does stupid shit.
Each episode followed a pattern – outrage, tactical distancing by party leadership, and then quiet return of the same sentiment in another form. The cumulative effect was to normalise public ambivalence toward Gandhi’s assassin in a way that steadily eroded the earlier national consensus that treated the act as a civilisational shame.
Ambedkarites did much to paint Gandhi as an evil bastard. Logically, they should praise Godse as their deliverer. Had Gandhi lived, would the Hindu Code Bills have been passed?
Digital media accelerated this rehabilitation. WhatsApp forwards, Facebook pages, and YouTube channels circulated selective readings of Godse’s courtroom statement, stripped of context, presenting it as heroic testimony.
It is better than this cretin's testimony.
This cultural re-framing did not require state proclamation.
RSS was banned because of Gandhi's assassination. Yet it could grow so large as a Parliamentary party that it got Cabinet seats in some States by the end of the Sixties. From '77-to '79 if even had a Cabinet minister at the Centre. But the first BJP Chief Minister dates from around 1990. The killing of Rajiv Gandhi gave it the chance to gain power at the Centre. But once Rahul returned to India in 2002, Congress regained momentum. Thus 'cultural framing' doesn't matter. What matters is whether the owner of a dynastic party has a dog in the manger attitude. Rahul won't rule- because he doesn't want to get shot- but he also won't let any one else rule. This is the political 'framing' which decides outcomes.
It flourished in an atmosphere where majoritarian assertion,
i.e. what happened in 1947
grievance politics,
see above
and hostility to dissent
see above. Ambedkar approved India's First Amendment which goes in the opposite direction to America's.
had become mainstream. In that climate, the assassin of Mahatma Gandhi could be reimagined not as a warning from history but as an icon for the present.
It is obvious that a lot of people who joined the RSS in the Fifties, Sixties, Seventies etc. thought the Mahacrackpot was a nuisance. Thanks, first to Indira & Buta Singh and then to Rao & Manmohan, Gandhianism was kicked out of Indian politics long ago. Ambedkarite shite was given a shot in the arm by Mayawati. Let us see if she can make a comeback in the Hindi belt after delimitation.
Millions of Godses Murdering India
What is alarming today is not an isolated act of violence but the gradual social production of a mindset in which hostility is moralised and prejudice is recast as patriotism.
This happened when Muslims were massacred or chased out of Delhi. Nehru was Prime Minister at that time.
The outlook once identified with Nathuram Godse now circulates through a broad ecosystem of schooling, cultural work, and media messaging that presents India as exclusively Hindu, treats minorities with suspicion, and brands dissent as betrayal.
Custodian of Evacuee (later 'Enemy') Property treated Muslims with suspicion. They seized property because they 'anticipated' that the owner might migrate to Pakistan.
This reproduction happens across channels. Institutions linked to the RSS, thousands of schools and hostels where cultural instruction shades into ideological orientation. Curricular revisions soften or omit difficult histories
stupid lies spread by Leftist Professors
– Gandhi’s assassination context, caste oppression, communal violence
this nutter is pretending that Brahmins love Muslims and want to kill only Dalits. That may have been J.N Mandal's belief but he had to run away to India.
– while elevating civilisational pride.
Indians should hate and be ashamed of Indian civilization.
Social media sustains a flow of grievance narratives, misinformation, and selective hero-making;
e.g. Ambedkar worship
parts of broadcast media echo majoritarian frames and stigmatize critics as “anti-national.”
This works if the shoe fits. It doesn't work- as with Owaisi- if it doesn't fit at all.
Even fringe attempts to memorialise Godse, though not mainstream, signal how far the moral threshold has shifted.
The 'moral threshold' for this nutter shifted when he started to tell stupid, paranoid, lies. If was genuinely smart, he'd be an IT billionaire.
Gandhi’s murder cannot be viewed merely as an event of the past. It marked the beginning of an ongoing project.
To make India strong and prosperous. That's what this nutter objects to.
January 30, 1948 was not an end; it was the first shot in a long war against pluralism,
which succeeded at Partition. The word 'pluralism' was coined for Burma which had already split off from India.
secularism,
i.e. saying Hinduism is evil. Taliban is very nice.
and constitutional democracy in India.
Dynasticism. Why is a low-born chai-wallah sitting in the office which used to belong to Cambridge alumni like Nehru, Indira & Rajiv? Incidentally, Rahul has an MPhil from Cambridge. Also, he is a janeodhari Brahmin.
The forces that killed Gandhi are today in power. They are no longer rebels
There were Communist rebels. There were no Hindu rebels in independent India because the country was ruled by Hindus.
but the rulers of the state. The danger, therefore, has multiplied many times over.
In which case, Muslims should be fleeing.
Every attack on minorities, every killing in the name of cow protection,
e.g. the cow protection riots in Bihar in 1917? Gandhi was sent to Champaran to distract attention from it.
every hate speech,
so long as only Hinduism is attacked
every communal riot, every attempt to erase composite culture – these are all part of the same project that killed Gandhi.
& which succeeded thanks, in some part, to him. Going to jail together created esprit corps. Gandhi's son married Rajaji's daughter- thus breaking caste taboos. More remarkably, when Nehru's sister married a Muslim, it was Gandhi who broke up the marriage and got her a suitable Brahmin groom.
The incidents may appear separate, but the ideology behind them is coherent.
It is the Indian national ideology. If the majority won't fight for India, the minorities are equally doomed.
Millions of Godses are at work to destroy India in body and spirit.
In which case the country should be getting poorer and weaker. Yet, under Modi, the opposite has been the case.
Bodily India is being disfigured by their regime through silence over or the lies about the effective loss of control on vast lands along the Line of Actual Control (LAC) in eastern Ladakh at Galwan, Depsang and Hot Springs.
More was lost under Nehru. But then, had Gandhi prevailed, the whole country would have been lost to the Japs in '42.
Simultaneously, India is being devastated daily by flattening of hills, ecological damage, diversion of forest lands, devastation of environment and destruction of rivers through policies that favour big capital.
Big Capital has the money to finance the State. This cretin thinks India should emulate Venezuela.
All facilitations for rich and wealthy at the cost of the people are being sold as development and people are being intoxicated with religion and silenced with free rations and occasional freebees.
Rich and wealthy foreigners finance the Wire and publicize this cretin's worthless books.
India is being killed in spirit through systematic destruction of her history, disfiguration of its archaeology, culture, and trampling upon all the values embodied in the Constitution.
Also, Modi is incessantly sodomizing Dalits like Teltumde. He is too traumatized to talk about it but we should do so for him.
In this, we must acknowledge our own responsibility.
Teltumbde should not tried to suck Modi off. That randy bugger went ass-to-mouth on him. Dr. Ambedkar must be turning in his grave.
By remaining silent,
because Modi has shoved his dick in your mouth
by treating all this as ‘normal,’
It isn't normal for the Prime Minister of a big country to sodomize an elderly shithead every day.
and by viewing each incident in isolation, we too have become complicit with Godses’ projects.
Fuck Godse's projects. It is Modi's project of going ass-to-mouth on every elderly Dalit which should worry us. By not speaking out against this atrocity, the editors of 'the Wire' are complicit in Teltumbe's brains having been buggered to buggery. Omidyar Sahib should kindly take action.
