Bashing Pragya is also shortsighted: one who doesnt realize the subtle significance of ideology in civilizational struggles, is more foolish than one who realizes but lacks linguistic diplomacy in putting her realization into words. https://twitter.com/madhukishwar/status/1200083257146015744

It was Gandhi who put Nehru in power in the first place. If Gandhi lived longer, there is nothing in his history of backing Nehru, once he rather mysteriously gave in to Motilal's demand to promote his son-in 1928, after having refused until 1927-that he wd stop empowering JLN.

Once Gandhi was helped to establish his trusteeship model of leadership on the Indian nationalists, introducing the political funding model that allowed colonial business interests to have greater influence over politics - all alternatives were systematically destroyed.

No other nationalist movement than Gandhians, in colonial era show such a deep animosity by the political side against militant wings of the same nationalist movement: in fact almost every successful movement retained both legal political as well as revolutionary/armed sections.

In the absence of alternative strands of nationalism, which wr successfully destroyed in a combo move by both Gandhians& Brit admin, new regime put in place through transfer of power with colonial admin intact, wd always act anti-Hindu - whether Godse did anything or sat idle.

Only those r fools who fail to recognize that the very nature of Gandhian politics represented mindset of the "elite" Hindu - who saw greater threat to their power in the common Hindu, than in the mullah& saw the mullah an useful ally to check aspirations to power frm below.

It simply would not have mattered - for Gandhians to be extremely anti-Hindu for distant parts even if a minority showed occasional overt religious or ritual display of being pro-Hindu, regionally limited to what they possibly considered their "home-audience".

Its time folks start calling the bluff of virtually justifying the anti-Hindu core that drives Gandhian politics - by joining in the bashing of Godse. Godse didnt succeed politically - just as many assassinations dont seem to succeed immediately.

its also foolish not to understand that merely because a particular "statecraft" or "road to power" seems to hv succeeded, implies that the road was beneficial for the long run. Some successes ensure long term failure, with bonus of destroying chances of recovery or correction.