Their
Split philosophy which turned over them
Date-
10 January 1945
Dr. Shyamaprasad Mukherjee and Veer Savarkar have difference of opinion, Dr. Shyamaprasad had different
thoughts than Veer Savarkar’s was a type
of prevalence which congress had started from their overall thoughts which they
were provoking were that Dr. Shyamaprasad Mukherjees’s thoughts were more
towards congress with this prevalence they wanted to try and make differences
between the members of Hindusabha. By talking good about one member and
criticizing the other member the strategy of the split philosophy.
As the congress was getting
disturbed by the increasing effects of Hindusabha. They are trying their best
in all possible ways to oppose Hindusabha.
There in now difference of
Opinion in Hindusabha and Dr. Shyamaprasad Mukherjee’s thoughts are more better
was the strategy of congress which should affect Hindusabha in its prevalence.
But instead of Hindusabha this policy started making differences in the members
of congress was the most funniest part. They were getting thrown into the
pithole which they were making for Hindusabha.
The Communist party is such a
party in Hindustan which has no self respect who think the Muslim for wretched
policy is obstinate and the only way before us ahead in to surrender solely to
the muslims. This party has no self program me or plans other than just watching
the Muslims and congress together for which they show this by their prevalence
rounds, script and advertises that in their daily routine
When Gandhiji accepted Pakistan
and Rajaji stared a rigorous prevalence of Pakistan this party could not
control its happiness. Hindusabha‘s strong opposition to Pakistan was the most
important hazard in their way and so giving bad words to Hindusabha was their
important program me.
But when they said that Dr.
Shaymaprasad speech was at right then their party was astonished some members
of congress who were thoughtful started accepting that the thoughts of
Hindusabha were right which stared hampering the unity of congress.
So the communist party started
explaining in its weakly newspaper “ Lokyaddha” They published a newsletter
saying ‘ people do not get confused Dr. Shyamaprasad and Veer Savarkar’s speech has no difference of thoughts. They are
of the some community. Both are equally against the Muslim for policy of
congress. Both have the same bad qualities of self respect and respect for the
nation. So comparing both Dr. Shyamaprasad and Veer Savarkar and praising one
of them would be great fault. Due to such a prevalence many congress men
started moving to Hindusabha and Muslim for policy was under great danger.
One para from the Lokyudh was
purposely published as it is in the Agrani magazine of Sunday 7th.
The poison they were preparing for others had started affecting the congress
men which had disturbed the congress party.
Those who had read the whole
speech of Dr. Shyamaprasad would very easily recognize that those thoughts of
Hindutva which savarkar had always mentioned were totally similar to the
thoughts of Dr. Shyamaprasad. This year Dr. D.B. Bhopatkar had put three
resolutions which were accepted, which now has made it more difficult for the
congress to oppose Hindusabha this can be seen from many publishing's.
Some few shrewd and honest
members remaining in congress had the only way to secure the respect of
congress by changing its nation opposing polities to true national strategy.
They need not have to think much for what is true national policy as Hindusabha
has already putforth the policy and by following it, would help to uplift the
congress. Otherwise the disgusting split policy is putting them into what mess
in being experienced by them already.
Translated by Mrs. Vitasta Kashikar
er.ankush46.blogspot.in
ReplyDeletecan i get the books written on nathuram godse as pdf
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteHi,
ReplyDeleteI understand that you are putting so much effort to bring Nathuram Godse to good-light. But let me tell you one thing, If you feel that Nathuram was also a true Hindu despite what he did, then you are wrong. I don't see a difference between king Rawana and Naturam. Rawana kidnapped somebody's wife, though he didn't touched her (decent act), kept her safe, gave her treatment what a royal woman should get; still Lord Ram killed him. In this case one should also call that Rawana was a true Hindu, he avenged his sisters insult in not so right but in way which suited him right (what more one can expect from a 'Asura', a clan famous for causing unrest and spreading fear). He did one wrong thing while many things he did in past were not wrong, he was a scholar and a strong follower of Lord Rudra. Do you see him that way, no Hindu does! So stop chanting that Nathuram Godse was a true Hindu. According to you, according to him and may be many of other people too, he might have done something to save Hindu ideology, but you all are at wrong side. You are justifying the same ideology what many terrorist organisations are entangled with. Please open your eyes and accept it that whatever the reason was, NathuRam Godse was a murderer and he killed somebody for his religious ideology. I don't see a difference between him and Al-jawahiri or Rawana. Gandhi stood for his ideology of humanity. It was the other leaders those who betrayed him. If they would have stayed strong, India might not have divided. Well you can twist the words the way you want and I have gone through the Nathuram godse's defense transcripts many times and I still see him a blind follower of his narrow ideology. It is because of his act that we are still suffering from a capitol or religion or cast driven rule not an humanity driven rule.
Thank you.