Why Beant Singh Killed Indira Gandhi?

[Guest amar_jkp]

Bhupinder Singh of Delhi has raised (DV Nov.16, 1984) a pertinent question which had struck us even as the Hindus launched the reckless killing of Sikhs as a retaliation to Mrs. Gandhi’s assassination. To some extent our Editorial had analysed the situation leading to her death (DV Nov.16, 1984: “A Dalit kills Indira taking Sikhs closer to Khalistan”). However, the issue needs deeper philosophical analysis because quite a number of readers have sent answers to Bhupinder Singh’s question.

This killing is not a simple affair between two Individuals, Mrs. Gandhi and her assassin, Beant Singh. It has deep philosophical, historical implications.

Hence we want to begin with the Gita which the Hindus hold as holy as the Vedas, the highest of their “sacred scriptures”:-

“GOD” KRISHNA’S CALL TO KILL

(1) The Hindu god, Krishna’s exhortation to Arjuna on the Kurukshetra battlefield (this is the theme of the Bhagawad Gita which the Hindus hold as a revelation and M.K. Gandhi made it his bedside Bible) to kill the Kauravas,

(2) the Poona RSS leader Godse’s murder (1948) of “Mahatma” Gandhi and

(3) the latest, Beant Singh’s assassination of Mrs. Gandhi (1984)

All these three events have to be compared because each is connected to the other.

What does Krishna tell Arjuna? He asks Arjuna to fight and kill. But Arjuna is hesitating to kill his close relatives who are facing him in the battlefield. Arjuna tells Krishna: “How can I kill my close blood-brothers, cousins, uncles, and grand-uncles and gurus?” For this the god himself says (in the famous oft-quoted Sanskrit passage):

“Karmanya Vadikarasthe ma phaleshu kadhachana”.

In the Gita (verse 3.8) the god tells Arjuna: “Do thy bounden duty”. He orders to fight and kill, unmindful of the consequences to root out evil and re-establish the dharma.

The god himself is advocating that:

“Action without any desire for the fruit is superior to abstention from action”. Killing is also told as part of the caste duties of Arjuna.

HINDUISM SANCTIONS KILLING

“Lokamanya” Tilak, who inspired the founding of the RSS and was the guru of Guru Golwalkar, the RSS philosopher, differed from M.K. Gandhi in the interpretation of the Gita only on this issue.

According to Tilak’s interpretation of the Gita, killing is sanctioned under Hinduism. Tilak maintained that Hinduism did sanction violence.

According to Tilak’s magnum opus, Gita Rahasya, his interpretation of the Gita, “practically follows the interpretation of Sri Shankaracharya”. (D.K. Gosavi, Tilak, Gandhi and Gita, Bharatiya Vidya Bhavan, Bombay-7, 1983, Rs. 16).

MANU DEFENDS MURDER

“Manu, the law-giver permits and sanctions the immediate killing of such a reckless person. (Manu VII-35)”. (Ibid p.5).

Tilak says “the Mahabharata also suggests circumstances in which untruth is preferred to truth” (p.5).

Tilak says in the Gita Rahasya:

“When good means prove ineffective, one should use other effective means also in resisting evil. The Hindu scriptures nowhere lay down the injunction that the good should prefer to sacrifice themselves rather than resisting evil with effective evil means on the basis of the dictum of “<banned word filter activated> for tat” (ibid p.7).

Thus Tilak sanctions violence and killing and this interpretation of the Gita is strictly on the lines of Adi Shankara.

Mrs. Gandhi was a disciple of Shankara, the founder of Hinduism and the highest Brahmin scholar. And Tilak is described by the Hindus as a “patriot”, statesman, a great scholar and an authority on the Vedas, and his interpretation was never, ever questioned by any Vedic scholar.

BRAHMINS BACKED TILAK, NOT GANDHI

Gandhi might have differed from Tilak on this interpretation but the Brahmins were with Tilak and not Gandhi and that is why the killing of Gandhi by Godse was held perfectly in accordance with the dictates of the Gita and its interpretation by Tilak. The high caste Hindus might have then mourned the death of Gandhi but we have not come across any document of their questioning Godse’s motive in killing the “Father of the nation”. Not only that. Hindu terorists and their admirers even today worship Godse, take out his ashes in procession on his birth anniversary and they will continue to do this worship until Godse’s dream of Akhand Bharat (united India) is fulfilled.

In the Gita, Krishna tells Arjuna to kill without any fear, ill-will, malice, love or hate. Killing should not be with any selfish motive, but to uphold the dharma. Such a killing is justified. Arjuna had nothing personal against the Kauravas. So also Godse. He had nothing personal against Gandhi (read Why Godse Killed Gandhi?, DSA-1983).

BEANT SINGH NEVER HATED INDIRA GANDHI

So also Beant Singh and Satwant Singh had nothing personal against Indira Gandhi. Both of them were her personal security guards and had close association with her.

Arjuna killed the Kauravas to establish dharma. Godse killed Gandhi to establish dharma. According to Beant Singh he also killed Mrs. Gandhi to establish the dharma.

He had no personal ill-will against her. He never hated her. Nor did Mrs. Gandhi have any doubt about his loyalty. He was with her for 10 years.

The Hindu religion, as per the learned commentaries of Tilak (read Gita Rahasya, 1915) sanctions killing if such a killing is not for personal gain or devoid of any motive. Godse saluted Gandhi before he fired the shot. So also Beant Singh. Godse had never uttered a single word condemning Gandhi. So also Beant Singh. Godse never tried to run away or tried to shoot anybody trying to catch him. So also Beant Singh. After the job was done Godse surrendered and so also Beant Singh. He threw his gun.

HINDUS SLAUGHTERED 3,000 SIKHS

In every respect, the murders of M.K. Gandhi and Indira Gandhi are exactly the same.

Godse in his defence before the court said that in the interest of the “nation” Gandhi had to be killed but in the case of Beant Singh we have not been given an opportunity to know why he killed her. Not only that.

The Ruling Class did not allow his or Satwant Singh’s pictures to appear in the press. But we have press reports about his taking an oath before a Delhi gurdwara that in the interest of the “Sikh nation”, she must go. Godse also had gone to a temple to take a similar oath.

The Hindus not only did not harm the Gandhi assassin (Godse) but gave him a fair trial before he was hanged. But in the case of Beant Singh, not only the Hindus killed him on the spot but slaughtered 3,000 other Sikhs in Delhi city alone apart from millions of rupees damage to their property.

As per the Sikh religion, killing of those who try to destroy Sikhism is sanctioned (Gyani Kirpal Singh, highest priest of the Akal Takht says:

“Sikh religion does say that oppressors of Sikhs should be given befitting reply and punished for their crimes”, Sunday Observer, Nov.18, 2009).

CASTE DUTY

It is the “caste duty” of the Sikhs to punish the oppressors. Krishna tells the same thing to Arjuna to kill the Kauravas “to fulfil his caste duties”. Arjuna was a Kshatriya whose “caste duty” is to kill the oppressors. And the Sikh religion also has the same “caste duties”. And Sikhs are greater warriors than the Kshatriyas.

SHANKARA KILLS HUNDREDS OF BUDHISTS

Shankaracharya had killed hundreds of Budhists at Nagarjunakonda in Andhra Pradesh to save Brahminism from Budhism. (Memoirs of the Archaeological Survey of India, No.54, The Budhist Antiquities of Nagarjunakonda, by A.H. Longhurst, Delhi, 1938, p.6).

And the “caste duties” as defined by Krishna cannot be different to different people. If Arjuna’s caste duty was to punish the oppressor Kauravas, Shankaracharya’s caste duty was to punish the Budhist oppressors. And to Beant Singh also it was the same as per the Sikh caste duty. We cannot say what is a duty for us cannot be a duty for the other.

If the Hindu dharma is important for Godse, the Sikh dharma is important for Beant Singh.

The Hindus know this full well but the only thing is they apply different standards to different people.

AHIMSA EMASCULATES HINDUS

Nathuram Godse, “frankly admitting that he practised violence, possessed a pistol, says that he represented a school of thought (RSS) that has always opposed the ideology of Gandhi. “I believe that the teachings of absolute ahimsa as advanced by Gandhi would ultimately result in the emasculation of the Hindu community incapable of resisting the aggression or inroads of other communities especially the Muslims.

This is an honest confession that Hindus or Hinduism stands for violence”. (Why Godse Killed Gandhi?, p.5).

So Godse killed Gandhi to punish him for favouring Muslims. Nobody can question Godse’s courage of conviction, his honesty and integrity. He practised what he preached. We may not like his killing of Gandhi. That is a different question. Beant Singh and Satwant Singh also possessed guns and after killing Mrs. Indira Gandhi dropped them. “As the security guards seized them, Beant Singh said, I have done what I had to do. You do what you want to do” (Time Magazine, Nov.12, 1984). There is no evidence that they had any personal animosity against her. Their heart was as pure as that of Godse. They saluted her before they fired the shots. None had so far questioned Beant’s sincerity or integrity.

We may not like Beant Singh killing Indira Gandhi. We had mourned her death and felt very sad. But that is a different question. So from all these accounts, they are just repeating what Arjuna, Shankaracharya and Godse did, obeying the dictates of “god” Krishna.

The similarity of the situation does not end here. Immediately after the Gandhi murder (1948) RSS boys distributed sweets all over India and this did lead to some attacks on the RSS shakas. But no RSS man or Chitpavan Brahmin, the killer’s community, was killed.

HINDU LOGIC

If Mrs. Gandhi was killed by her assassins for exactly the same reason advanced by Gandhi’s assassin, why no killing followed Gandhi murder? Why this same vedic logic was not applied in the case of Godse?

This is the question put by the BBC Correspondent in his London interview of the visiting Indian MPs who could not answer the question. Because this is a million-dollar question.

Gandhi was killed by Godse to save Hinduism which means the interest of the ruling class and in Hindu India the ruling class means the Aryans who form not even 10% of India’s 800-million population. This ruling class hated Gandhi so much. Because he went against Hindu interest. Though he too was an Aryan (Bania), the Brahmins resented the national leadership passing out of their hands into that of a non-Brahmin. So to save the ruling class from Gandhi, who according to them was pro-Muslim, his killing was justified and that is the reason why even the much-publicised Gandhi film is silent on Godse’s motive for killing Gandhi. Even a book justifying Gandhi murder came out during the Janata Party regime.

INDIRA AS HINDU LEADER

But what about Mrs. Gandhi? During the past five years Mrs. Gandhi, a Kashmiri Brahmin and a pure Aryan, was fast becoming a Hindu leader giving all-out encouragement to the Hindu terrorist party, and every other revivalist, fascist movements in the country. So much so, she had antagonised over 80% of the India’s population. Before her death, if we go through the press reports then, we will find the statements of Muslim, Christian, Dalit and OBC leaders bitterly criticising her for becoming communal discarding the country’s secular principles.

BRAHMINS FLOURISHED UNDER INDIRA

Religious minorities in particular like the Muslims, Christians, Budhists, Sikhs suffered unprecedented persecution. Tribals, and mongoloid tribals in particular, were crushed. Dalits were thrown out of all positions. OBC’s only hope in Mandal Commission was dashed.

While over 80% of the population was getting pauperized, the Hindu high castes received all-around attention during her regime.

Her cabinet, top govt. services, posts of governors, diplomats and all key positions including the Defence were given to Brahmins. This pleased the RSS so much that during the last two elections it worked for her victory.

RSS and Mrs. Gandhi became two sides of the same coin.

Brahmins and other Aryans were overjoyed when she sent the Army into Punjab (June 1984) and “crushed” the Sikhs and “taught” them a lesson. The Army action was intended to convert herself into a Hindu leader.

Hindu leaders all over India and even in distant Bangalore distributed sweets when Sant Bhindranwale was killed in the Army attack on the Golden Temple along with about 10,000 other Sikhs.

It was said at that time that her killings of the Sikhs would fetch her Hindu votes all over the North India, because the killing was also strictly in accordance with the dictates of the Gita — to punish the oppressors. No Hindu leader had condemned the Army action in Punjab. It was during her regime communal riots came to be renamed as anti-Muslim riots. She went on blaming Pakistan for supporting the Sikh “extremists”, thus automatically forcing the Sikhs to join hands with the Muslims. In Assam, thousands of Muslims were killed. So also in other parts of India. She dismissed Kashmir’s most popular leader Farooq Abdulla and humiliated every Muslim leader from Antulay, Rafique Zakaria to F.M. Khan.

INDIRA AS SUPER R.S.S. LEADER

Christians were declared as anti-national. Dalit leaders like Elayaperumal, Basavalingappa were treated like dogs. During her last days she visited every corrupt Hindu religious leader and fell on their feet.

Even after the Puri priests refused to allow her inside the Jagannath temple she was making frantic efforts and this remained as one of her unfulfilled dreams. If we go on listing her efforts to communalise (read Brahminise) the Indian politics, there is no end. Becoming desperate the Muslims decided to vote against her. On the whole she turned herself virtually into a super RSS leader. No. She surpassed the RSS in communalism and its chief, Balasaheb Deoras, admitted this when he called upon his followers to vote for her party in the coming elections.

RSS people said “she was a better Hindu” than Vajpayee and the BJP.

So at the time of her death, she was a Hindu leader of a country known for its multi-racial, multi-national, multi-religious, multi-lingual character. Every third rate Hindu religious leader became fatter during her rule. A gun-making fake Hindu swami, Dhirendra Brahmachari, became her adviser.

WHAT HINDUS DO IS RIGHT

Every decision was taken after consulting the Shankaracharya of Kanchi Kamakoti Pitam through R. Venkataraman, an ex-RSS chap, promoted Vice-President. She was virtually a dictator. Had there been an election, she would have faced a sure defeat. Instead of facing such a humiliation she faced the bullet and became a martyr. Gandhi became “father of the nation” and she came to be called the “mother of the nation”.

This was the position during her sudden death. The ruling class never had it so good. And naturally it took the revenge on the whole Sikhs for a crime committed by two Sikhs. A Hindu can kill anybody and he has the right to do so. But not a Sikh, who is not a Hindu.

That is why in the case of Mrs. Gandhi’s death the violence following her murder was justified by the Hindus.

There may be every similarity between the killings of M.K. Gandhi and Indira Gandhi. But similarity ends only there. As the rulers of India, what the Hindus do is right and what others do is wrong. Who is to decide it? Who is to decide what is right and what is wrong? They only decide it.

In Hindu India, the police, prosecutor, judge and the hangman are all combined in one person. That is why we often say: Hindus believe what they want to believe. And so Hindu India goes on, neither living nor dead.

(Dalit Voice, Dec.16, 1984).