Three Brothers & a Violin…

L. Vaidyanathan, L. Subramaniam & L. Shankar were born to V. Lakshminarayana and Seethalakshmi, both accomplished musicians of Tamilian descent. All three brothers received their musical training from their father, who was a professor at the Jaffna College of Music. The three had three more siblings who were also well versed in music but did not attain the peaks of glory as these three did.

I am attaching videos of Subramaniam & Shakar; Vaidhyanathan seems to have kept a low profile with no videos of consequence being available. I guess you can pick up from here.

First, L. Shankar as a part of the group Shakti with Vikku VInayakram, Ustad Zakir Hussein & John McLaughlin. Just take a look at the bow speed.

Now, take a look at Shakar’s Masterpiece – Raga Abheri

And here is L. Subramaniam, live at the Royal Albert Hall

I guess these are all brilliant works – I have a small piece of fusion by L. Vaidhyanathan and that is also brilliant. These guys are gods in their own right. Blessed with talent. Enjoy the videos.

Shashi Tharoor on the Nalanda University…

AS 2006 draws to a close, it is interesting that a year that began with the eruption of the hugely divisive reservation controversy is ending with the impetus being given, inspired by President Abdul Kalam himself, to the endeavour of reconstructing the oldest and greatest of India’s meritocratic universities, Nalanda.

Founded in 427 A.D. by Buddhist monks at the time of Kumaragupta I (415-455 A.D.), Nalanda was an extraordinary centre of learning for seven centuries. The name probably comes from a combination of nalam (lotus, the symbol of knowledge) and da, meaning “to give”, so Nalanda means “Giver of Knowledge”. And that is exactly what the university did, attracting prize students from all over India, as well as from China, Indonesia, Japan, Korea, Persia, Sri Lanka, Tibet and Turkey. At its peak, Nalanda played host to more than 10,000 students — not just Buddhists, but of various religious traditions — and its education, provided in its heyday by 2,000 world-renowned professors, was completely free.

Glorious accounts

The Chinese scholar, Hsuen-Tsiang (or Xuanzang in today’s Pinyin spelling), who visited India in 630 A.D. under the Guptas and stayed for some time at Nalanda, has left us a vivid description of the university. He wrote of “richly adorned towers” with observatories “lost in the vapours of the morning”. The university’s architecture was remarkable, with nine-storey buildings, eight separate compounds, ten temples, several meditation halls, a great library and dozens of classrooms. Its setting, too, was full of beauty, dotted with lakes and parks. Most important, its finances were secure, since the monarch “has remitted the revenues of about 100 villages for the endowment of the convent”. In addition, the villagers supplied food to the students, whose material needs were entirely met by the university so that they could concentrate on “the perfection of their studies”.

True centre of learning

The accounts of foreign travellers portray a university throbbing with intellectual excitement, a centre of learning devoted not only to the study of Buddhist texts but of Hindu philosophy, the Vedas, and theology in general; logic, grammar and linguistics; the practice of medicine and the study of other sciences, notably mathematics and astronomy; and more down-to-earth subjects like politics, the art of war and even handicrafts. Contemporary visitors speak of a system of education that went well beyond the oral recitation and rote-learning normally practised in monasteries. Nalanda’s teachers practised a variety of instructional methods: exposition was followed by debate and discussion, lectures featured lengthy question-and-answer sessions, and ideas were illuminated by extensive resort to parables and stories. Admission required a strict oral examination; literally so, since strangers were not permitted to enter unless they could satisfactorily answer a number of questions from the gatekeeper testifying to their basic level of educational attainment.

An Indian contribution

The university was an Indian invention. In Hindu tradition, education emerged from the gurukul — the teacher’s home, where students went to acquire learning. The Buddhists, however, congregated in monasteries, which became centres of learning in their own right, supplanting the home of the teacher. Nalanda was, of course, not alone as a prominent Indian university. Kasi (Varanasi) and Kanchi were particularly renowned for their religious teaching, and Taksasila (Taxila in today’s Pakistan) placed greater emphasis on secular studies; but Nalanda combined the religious and the secular, a Buddhist university offering a non-sectarian education to young men from near and far. These were the Oxfords and Harvards of their time, centuries before either of those universities was founded. Today, our universities, barring an IIT here and a St. Stephen’s there, are a long way short of world-class. Rebuilding Nalanda must be more than an exercise in constructive nostalgia. It must involve a new level of ambition, or it will be a futile exercise.

Nalanda was destroyed three times by invaders, but only rebuilt twice. The first time was when the Huns under Mihirakula laid waste the campus during the reign of Skandagupta (455-467 A.D.), when Nalanda was only a few decades old. Skanda’s successors Puragupta and Narasimhagupta promptly undertook the restoration of the university, improving it with the construction of even grander buildings, and endowed it with enough resources so that the university could be self-sustaining in the longer term. The second destruction came a century and a half later, with an assault by the Gaudas in the early seventh century. This time the great Hindu king Harshavardhana (606-648 A.D.) restored the Buddhist university, once again upgrading the buildings and facilities.

The desire for excellence

But nearly 800 years after its founding, Nalanda was destroyed a third time and burned by Turkish Muslim invaders under Bakhtiyar Khilji in 1197 A.D. This time there was to be no reconstruction: not only were there no equivalent of the Gupta kings or Harsha to rebuild it, but the university had already been decayed from within by the cancer of corruption on the part of its administrators and by declining enthusiasm for Buddhist-led learning. If we are to rebuild it 800 years later, we will need not just money but the will to excellence, not just a physical plant but a determined spirit. A great university is the finest advertisement for the society that sustains it. If we recreate Nalanda, it must be as a university worthy of the name — and we must be a society worthy of a 21st-century Nalanda.

To read the orginal article by Shashi Tharoor for The Hindu click here

The Monkey Story…

Once upon a time, there was a monkey that lived in the woods just outside the city. Though it could find everything that it needed in the woods, it used to drop into the city for a “snack”, just out of curiosity. On one of its trips, it found a huge pot of peanuts being boiled under a tree.

It’s eyes lit up seeing the catch and immediately jumped to the tree under which the pot was boiling. To its surprise, it also found that no one was really taking care of the pot – they had just left it to boil the peanuts. Slowly descending, the Monkey found a nice shelf off a branch & made itself comfortable. Thanking god for his benevolence, the Monkey bent and took a couple of peanuts & put them into his mouth. And was ecstatic – “what taste, what flavours!!”

It sat there for about half an hour having its fill of the juicy & by-now-tender peanuts. Stomach filled, it let out a deep sigh of satisfaction. And suddenly, the thought occurred – “why shouldn’t it take some peanuts home so that it can have its fill anytime?”

The Monkey was proud of its intelligence and prepared itself for the final assault. Clinging to the branch, it hung low on the branch, put its fist into the pot & grabbed a fist full of peanuts. But much to its chagrin, it found that the more peanuts it tried to fit into its fist, the more peanuts spilled out of the fist.

Morals: Be happy with what you get, There’s only so much that can be done by you, Don’t lose what you’ve got looking for more.

After a while, the Monkey grew tired & decided that it’s going to take what fits into its fist & go. Now there came another problem – when holding so many peanuts, it couldn’t take its fist out of the pot! Earlier, it had been taking just a couple of peanuts and so the hand could easily pass in & out of the pot. Now, with its fist full, the pot’s mouth played truant. The hapless Monkey couldn’t decide what to do – leave the peanuts or take the peanuts.

Morals: Materialistic world binds you down through your attachments to materialistic objects – you have to let go of these attachments to attain salvation, Never take more than what can be managed or you’ll be stuck, Learn when to let it go.

Finally, the Monkey realised that it cannot take a fist full of peanuts and so dropped the peanuts and ran away. But what it thought was that since it knew where the peanuts are boiled, it can at anytime saunter in & have its pick. The ploy worked fine for a while but finally, someone realised that there were peanuts missing all the time. They laid a trap & the Monkey was duly caught & sent to the zoo, where it had to eat what it got.

Morals: Things may work fine for a while but never forever if you do the same thing, Don’t push your luck too much lest it should break.

கடவுள் பிரபஞ்சத்தை படைத்தாரா?

ஈஸ்வரன் இந்த பிரபஞ்சத்தை படைத்தார் என்றால் அதற்கான பொருட்கள் எங்கு இருந்தது? எதிலிருந்து இவை அனைத்தையும் படைத்தார் என கேட்பதுண்டு.

ஈஷ்வர நிலை என்பது இறைநிலையின் முதல் நிலை. ஓர் சிலந்தியை கவனித்தீர்கள் என்றால், தானே தனது வலையை உருவாக்கி அதன் மையத்தில் அமர்ந்துவிடுகிறது. அது போல தன்னையே உலகாக்கி , அண்ட சராசரமாக்கி அதன் மையத்தில் ஈஸ்வர நிலை இருக்கிறது. சிலந்திக்கு தனது வலையை உருவாக்கும் பொருள் எங்கிருந்து கிடைத்தது? தன்னிலிருந்து எடுத்து தனக்காக உருவாக்கியதை போல, இறையாற்றல் தன்னிலிருந்தே அனைத்தையும் உருவாக்கியது. மீண்டும் ஒரு நாளில் அனைத்தையும் தன்னகத்தே எடுத்து ஒன்றாகி விடும். இதையே படைப்பு மற்றும் பிரலயம் என வழங்கப்படுகிறது.

 இதை எப்படி உனக்கு தெரிந்தது? என கேட்கலாம். அந்த பிரம்மாண்டமான சிலந்தியின் ஓர் இழைதானே நானும்? அதற்குள்ளே இருந்து வந்ததால் என் மூலத்தை உணர்ந்தேன். அதனால் தெளிந்தேன். நீங்களும் முயற்சி செய்யுங்கள், நீங்கள் – நான் – அது என அனைத்தும் ஒன்று என உணர்வீர்கள்.

இறைவன் பிரபஞ்சத்தில் பூமியை படைத்து அதில் மட்டும் மனிதர்கள் வாழவைத்தான். ஏன் வேறு இடத்தில் உயிரினம் இல்லை.?

இது உங்கள் அறியமையை காட்டுகிறது. இந்த பிரபஞ்சத்தின் பிற பகுதியில் உயிரினங்கள் இல்லை என எதை வைத்து முடிவு செய்தீர்கள்? சூரிய மண்டலத்தை விட்டு இன்னும் மனித இனம் தாண்ட வில்லை. சில மத நூல்கள் , கடவுள் மனிதனை அழைத்து அவனுக்கு பூமியை உருவாக்கிருப்பதாக சொன்னார் என்கிறது. அப்பொழுது அதற்கு முன் மனிதன் எங்கே இருந்தான்? அடிப்படை நிலையில் இருப்பதாலும், அறியாமையாலும் இந்த கருத்து வெளிபட்டுள்ளது.

பஞ்சபூதங்கள் உயிர் உருவாக்கதிற்கு காரணம் எனும் பொழுது, பிரபஞ்சத்தில் எந்த புள்ளியில் ஐபூதங்களும் சந்திக்கிறதோ அங்கு உயிர் தோற்றம் நிகழும். அவர்களும் நம்மை போல் இருக்க வேண்டும் என்பது இல்லை. வேறு மாதிரியும் இருக்கலாம். எவ்வாறு வேறு மாதிரி என்கிறீர்களா? உங்களை போன்று அறியாமையில் இல்லாமல், நல்ல ஞானத்துடன் இருக்கலாம்.

நமது பிறப்பின் கர்மவினைக்கு முற்பிறவியின் செயல் காரணம் என்றால், இதை பின்னோக்கி பயணித்தோம் என்றால் முதன் முதலில் ஓர் பிறப்பு எடுத்திருப்போம் அல்லவா? அதற்கு எந்த கர்மவினை காரணம்?

நாம் யார் நாம் எங்கிருந்து வந்தோம் எனும் தேடல் இல்லாத காரணத்தால் இக்கேள்விக்கு பலருக்கு விடை தெரியவில்லை. இதற்கு முன் சொன்ன கேள்வி பதில் இதை தெளிவாக்கும் என்றாலும் வேறு கோணத்தில் இதை விளக்குகிறேன். யோக வாஷிஷ்டம் எனும் நூல் இதற்கான தகுந்த விளக்கத்தை தருகிறது. அதில் இருக்கும் ஓர் கதையை எளிய வடிவில் பதிலாக அளிக்க விரும்புகிறேன்.

சிவன் தியானத்தின் உச்சநிலையான சமாதி நிலையில் இருக்கிறார். தனது நிலை கலைந்து வெளியே வரும்பொழுது பரமாத்மா முன் ஓர் தேனீ ரீங்காரம் இடுகிறது. அதை கண்ட பரமாத்ம சொரூபம் தேனீயாக உருவெடுக்கிறது.

தேனீ பல இடங்களுக்கு சென்று தேனை சேகரிக்கிறது. அப்பொழுது அழகிய மலர் ஒன்றை பார்க்கிறது. தேனீ ஓர் மலராக மாற்றம் அடைகிறது. மலர் மணம் கமழ இருக்கும் சூழ்நிலையில் அதை பறித்து கோவிலுக்கு கொண்டு செல்கிறார்கள். அங்கே மலர் அர்ச்சனைக்காக கொண்டு செல்லப்பட்டு கருவறையில் இருக்கும் சிவலிங்கத்தின் மேல் அர்ச்சிக்கப்படுகிறது. மலர் தன்னிலை மீண்டும் உணர்ந்து சிவனாகிறது.

முதல் முதல் பிறவியில் நாம் இறைவனாகவே இருந்தோம். அந்த நிலை பிறப்பாலும் , நான் எனும் இருப்பாலும் மறக்கடிக்கபடுகிறது.

யோக வாஷிஷ்டம் என நான் குறிப்பிட்ட நூல் வஷிஷ்ட முனி ஸ்ரீராமருக்கு கூறிய ஞான கருத்துக்கள்.வஷிஷ்டர் ஸ்ரீராமனிடம் சொல்கிறார் ” நீ பரமாத்மா எனும் நிலை மறந்து இருக்கிறாயே அந்த தூக்கத்திலிருந்து வெளியே வா”. மாபெரும் இறைநிலையின் அவதாரத்திற்கே இந்த கதி எனில் நம் நிலையை எண்ணிபார்க்க வேண்டும்.

ஆணவத்துடன் நானே இறைவன் எனும் தன்மையை உணரும் பொழுது அரக்க குணம் ஏற்படுகிறது. பக்தியுடன் இதை உணரும் பொழுது அங்கே ஞானம் பிறக்கிறது.

நமது தர்மத்தில் இறைவனை தவிர அன்னியமாய் எதுவும் இல்லை. ஹிரண்ய கசிப்பு, கம்சன், ராவணன் என இறைவனுக்கு எதிராக செயல்படுவர்கள் எவரானாலும் அவர்களின் நிலை உணரவைக்கப்பட்டு இறுதியில் இறைவனுடன் இணைந்துவிடுவார்கள். காரணம் அவர்களும் இறைவனின் சொரூபமே.பிற மத கருத்துக்களை போல சாத்தான் என்ற எதிர் இயக்கம் கடவுளுக்கு அன்னியமாய் போர் செய்து கொண்டு இருக்க படைக்கப்படவில்லை.

தத்வமஸி, அஹம் பிரம்மாஸ்மி என்ற மஹாவாக்கியங்கள் உணர்த்தும் செய்தியும் இதுதான். நாமும் நம்மை கடந்து சென்றால் நமது சொரூபத்தை உணரலாம் அப்பொழுது நமது முற்பிறவி மட்டும் அல்ல முழுமுதற் பிறவியையும் உணர முடியும்.

Information Credit & Full Author Rights to: http://vediceye.blogspot.com/

Why Nathuram Godse killed M. K. Gandhi…

The statement that you are about to read is the last made by Godse before the Court on the 5th of May 1949. Such was the power and eloquence of this statement that one of the judges, G. D. Khosla, later wrote, “I have, however, no doudt that had the audience of that day been constituted into a jury and entrusted with the task of deciding Godse’s appeal, they would have brought a verdict of ‘not Guilty’ by an overwhelming majority”

“Born in a devotional Brahmin family, I instinctively came to revere Hindu religion, Hindu history and Hindu culture. I had, therefore, been intensely proud of Hinduism as a whole. As I grew up I developed a tendency to free thinking unfettered by any superstitious allegiance to any isms, political or religious. That is why I worked actively for the eradication of untouchability and the caste system based on birth alone. I openly joined anti-caste movements and maintained that all Hindus were of equal status as to rights, social and religious and should be considered high or low on merit alone and not through the accident of birth in a particular caste or profession. I used publicly to take part in organized anti-caste dinners in which thousands of Hindus, Brahmins, Kshatriyas, Vaisyas, Chamars and Bhangis participated. We broke the caste rules and dined in the company of each other. I have read the speeches and writings of Dadabhai Naoroji, Vivekanand, Gokhale, Tilak, along with the books of ancient and modern history of India and some prominent countries like England, France, America and Russia. Moreover I studied the tenets of Socialism and Marxism. But above all I studied very closely whatever Veer Savarkar and Gandhiji had written and spoken, as to my mind these two ideologies have contributed more to the moulding of the thought and action of the Indian people during the last thirty years or so, than any other single factor has done.“

 ”All this reading and thinking led me to believe it was my first duty to serve Hindudom and Hindus both as a patriot and as a world citizen. To secure the freedom and to safeguard the just interests of some thirty crores (300 million) of Hindus would automatically constitute the freedom and the well-being of all India, one fifth of human race. This conviction led me naturally to devote myself to the Hindu Sanghtanist ideology and programme, which alone, I came to believe, could win and preserve the national Independence of Hindustan, my Motherland, and enable her to render true service to humanity as well.“

“Since the year 1920, that is, after the demise of Lokamanya Tilak, Gandhiji’s influence in the Congress first increased and then became supreme. His activities for public awakening were phenomenal in their intensity and were reinforced by the slogan of truth and non-violence which he paraded ostentatiously before the country. No sensible or enlightened person could object to those slogans. In fact there is nothing new or original in them. They are implicit in every constitutional public movement. But it is nothing but a mere dream if you imagine that the bulk of mankind is, or can ever become, capable of scrupulous adherence to these lofty principles in its normal life from day to day.” 

“In fact, honour, duty and love of one’s own kith and kin and country might often compel us to disregard non-violence and to use force. I could never conceive that an armed resistance to an aggression is unjust. I would consider it a religious and moral duty to resist and, if possible, to overpower such an enemy by use of force. [In the Ramayana] Rama killed Ravana in a tumultuous fight and relieved Sita.. [In the Mahabharata] , Krishna killed Kansa to end his wickedness; and Arjuna had to fight and slay quite a number of his friends and relations including the revered Bhishma because the latter was on the side of the aggressor. It is my firm belief that in dubbing Rama, Krishna and Arjuna as guilty of violence, the Mahatma betrayed a total ignorance of the springs of human action. In more recent history, it was the heroic fight put up by Chhatrapati Shivaji that first checked and eventually destroyed the Muslim tyranny in India. It was absolutely essentially for Shivaji to overpower and kill an aggressive Afzal Khan, failing which he would have lost his own life. In condemning history’s towering warriors like Shivaji, Rana Pratap and Guru Gobind Singh as misguided patriots, Gandhiji has merely exposed his self-conceit. He was, paradoxical as it may appear, a violent pacifist who brought untold calamities on the country in the name of truth and non-violence, while Rana Pratap, Shivaji and the Guru will remain enshrined in the hearts of their countrymen for ever for the freedom they brought to them.”

“The accumulating provocation of thirty-two years, culminating in his last pro-Muslim fast, at last goaded me to the conclusion that the existence of Gandhi should be brought to an end immediately. Gandhi had done very good in South Africa to uphold the rights and well-being of the Indian community there. But when he finally returned to India he developed a subjective mentality under which he alone was to be the final judge of what was right or wrong. If the country wanted his leadership, it had to accept his infallibility; if it did not, he would stand aloof from the Congress and carry on his own way. Against such an attitude there can be no halfway house. Either Congress had to surrender its will to his and had to be content with playing second fiddle to all his eccentricity, whimsicality, metaphysics and primitive vision, or it had to carry on without him. He alone was the Judge of everyone and every thing; he was the master brain guiding the civil disobedience movement; no other could know the technique of that movement.The most dictatorial He alone knew when to begin and when to withdraw it. The movement might succeed or fail, it might bring untold disaster and political reverses but that could make no difference to the Mahatma’s infallibility. ‘A Satyagrahi can never fail’ was his formula for declaring his own infallibility and nobody except himself knew what a Satyagrahi is. Thus, the Mahatma became the judge and jury in his own cause. These childish insanities and obstinacies, coupled with a most severe austerity of life, ceaseless work and lofty character made Gandhi formidable and irresistible. Many people thought that his politics were irrational but they had either to withdraw from the Congress or place their intelligence at his feet to do with as he liked. In a position of such absolute irresponsibility Gandhi was guilty of blunder after blunder, failure after failure, disaster after disaster. Gandhi’s pro-Muslim policy is blatantly in his perverse attitude on the question of the national language of India. It is quite obvious that Hindi has the most prior claim to be accepted as the premier language. In the beginning of his career in India, Gandhi gave a great impetus to Hindi but as he found that the Muslims did not like it, he became a champion of what is called Hindustani.. Everybody in India knows that there is no language called Hindustani; it has no grammar; it has no vocabulary. It is a mere dialect, it is spoken, but not written. It is a bastard tongue and cross-breed between Hindi and Urdu, and not even the Mahatma’s sophistry could make it popular. But in his desire to please the Muslims he insisted that Hindustani alone should be the national language of India. His blind followers, of course, supported him and the so-called hybrid language began to be used.”

“The charm and purity of the Hindi language was to be prostituted to please the Muslims. All his experiments were at the expense of the Hindus. From August 1946 onwards the private armies of the Muslim League began a massacre of the Hindus. The then Viceroy, Lord Wavell, though distressed at what was happening, would not use his powers under the Government of India Act of 1935 to prevent the rape, murder and arson. The Hindu blood began to flow from Bengal to Karachi with some retaliation by the Hindus. The Interim Government formed in September was sabotaged by its Muslim League members right from its inception, but the more they became disloyal and treasonable to the government of which they were a part, the greater was Gandhi’s infatuation for them. Lord Wavell had to resign as he could not bring about a settlement and he was succeeded by Lord Mountbatten. King Log was followed by King Stork. The Congress which had boasted of its nationalism and socialism secretly accepted Pakistan literally at the point of the bayonet and abjectly surrendered to Jinnah. India was vivisected and one-third of the Indian territory became foreign land to us from August 15, 1947.”

“Lord Mountbatten came to be described in Congress circles as the greatest Viceroy and Governor-General this country ever had. The official date for handing over power was fixed for June 30, 1948, but Mountbatten with his ruthless surgery gave us a gift of vivisected India ten months in advance. This is what Gandhi had achieved after thirty years of undisputed dictatorship and this is what Congress party calls ‘freedom’ and ‘peaceful transfer of power’. The Hindu-Muslim unity bubble was finally burst and a theocratic state was established with the consent of Nehru and his crowd and they have called ‘freedom won by them with sacrifice’ – whose sacrifice? When top leaders of Congress, with the consent of Gandhi, divided and tore the country – which we consider a deity of worship – my mind was filled with direful anger.”

“One of the conditions imposed by Gandhi for his breaking of the fast unto death related to the mosques in Delhi occupied by the Hindu refugees. But when Hindus in Pakistan were subjected to violent attacks he did not so much as utter a single word to protest and censure the Pakistan Government or the Muslims concerned. How many such Mahatma’s we have even today in the country who value the support of religious lots more than the need to create a sense of one nation.The PM still continues to divide the nation by addressing the people and Hindu Muslim Sikh Issaye during his address from the Lal Quila.Look how the power in Delhi is being distributed based on all kind of consideration other than ability to built a nation.A school drop out becomes a Cabinet Minister due his hierarchy. Gandhi was shrewd enough to know that while undertaking a fast unto death, had he imposed for its break some condition on the Muslims in Pakistan, there would have been found hardly any Muslims who could have shown some grief if the fast had ended in his death. It was for this reason that he purposely avoided imposing any condition on the Muslims. He was fully aware of from the experience that Jinnah was not at all perturbed or influenced by his fast and the Muslim League hardly attached any value to the inner voice of Gandhi. Gandhi is being referred to as the Father of the Nation. But if that is so, he had failed his paternal duty inasmuch as he has acted very treacherously to the nation by his consenting to the partitioning of it. I stoutly maintain that Gandhi has failed in his duty. He has proved to be the Father of Pakistan. His inner-voice, his spiritual power and his doctrine of non-violence of which so much is made of, all crumbled before Jinnah’s iron will and proved to be powerless. Briefly speaking, I thought to myself and foresaw I shall be totally ruined, and the only thing I could expect from the people would be nothing but hatred and that I shall have lost all my honour, even more valuable than my life, if I were to kill Gandhiji. But at the same time I felt that the Indian politics in the absence of Gandhiji would surely be proved practical, able to retaliate, and would be powerful with armed forces. No doubt, my own future would be totally ruined, but the nation would be saved from the inroads of Pakistan. People may even call me and dub me as devoid of any sense or foolish, but the nation would be free to follow the course founded on the reason which I consider to be necessary for sound nation-building. After having fully considered the question, I took the final decision in the matter, but I did not speak about it to anyone whatsoever. I took courage in both my hands and I did fire the shots at Gandhiji on 30th January 1948, on the prayer-grounds of Birla House. I do say that my shots were fired at the person whose policy and action had brought rack and ruin and destruction to millions of Hindus. There was no legal machinery by which such an offender could be brought to book and for this reason I fired those fatal shots. I bear no ill will towards anyone individually but I do say that I had no respect for the present government owing to their policy which was unfairly favourable towards the Muslims. But at the same time I could clearly see that the policy was entirely due to the presence of Gandhi.”

“I have to say with great regret that Prime Minister Nehru quite forgets that his preachings and deeds are at times at variances with each other when he talks about India as a secular state in season and out of season, because it is significant to note that Nehru has played a leading role in the establishment of the theocratic state of Pakistan, and his job was made easier by Gandhi’s persistent policy of appeasement towards the Muslims. I now stand before the court to accept the full share of my responsibility for what I have done and the judge would, of course, pass against me such orders of sentence as may be considered proper. But I would like to add that I do not desire any mercy to be shown to me, nor do I wish that anyone else should beg for mercy on my behalf. My confidence about the moral side of my action has not been shaken even by the criticism levelled against it on all sides. I have no doubt that honest writers of history will weigh my act and find the true value thereof some day in future.”