Nathuram Godse's statement that, "...the 7 conditions that Gandhi had set for breaking the fast started in January 1948 were all anti-Hindu..." We were never told exactly what these terms were when we were taught history in school.
In January 1948
Gandhi was trying for Hindu-Muslim unity through fasting etc. there are superficial references everywhere. So why should Godse say in his speech that all those terms were anti-Hindu?
January 19, 1948 issue of 'The Yorkshire Post' mentions
these 7 conditions. What were the conditions?
Condition 1 - Muslims should be allowed to celebrate their Urus at Mehrauli near Delhi. (There was a mosque of Khwaja Qutbuddin in Mehrauli. It was destroyed in the riots. The Hindus and Sikhs drove out
the Muslims around it. This Khwaja Qutbuddin was supposed to take place on January 26, 1948. But there was a possibility of obstacles in doing so. Gandhi did not want this.)
Condition 2 - Muslims who fled from Delhi should be allowed to return safely.
Condition 3 - Those 118 mosques in Delhi which have been converted into temples should be given back to the Muslims.
Condition 4 - Entire Delhi should be made safe for Muslims.
Condition 5 - Safety of Muslims traveling by rail should be guaranteed.
Condition 6 - Financial boycott imposed by Hindus and Sikhs on Muslims should be withdrawn.
Condition 7 - The remaining parts of Muslim settlements in Delhi should not be used by Hindu or Sikh refugees from Pakistan.
My first thought was, why is protecting Muslims, anti-Hindu?
But then in 1948, why not the same thing for Hindus?Moplah Riots,Direct Action Day,Noakhali etc. saw Hindu Genocide.Violence was happening on both sides.
Didn’t the other sides have the right to protect itself?
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Dr. BR Ambedkar: “When the Prime Minister made me the offer, I told him that besides being a lawyer by my education and experience, I was competent to run any administrative Department… The Prime Minister agreed and said he would give me in addition to Law the Planning Department which, he said, was intending to create. Unfortunately, the Planning Department came very late in the day and when it did come, I was left out.”
Source: Resignation speech from Nehru’s Cabinet, 1951.
Dr BR Ambedkar: “The method of achieving socialism through Parliamentary democracy is the most difficult. Mr. Nehru has no idea of the problem of the Scheduled Castes. He has no sympathy for them.”
Source: “States and Minorities,” in Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar: Writings and Speeches, Vol. 1, p. 381.
Dr BR Ambedkar: “The Congress is not a democratic body. It is a close corporation in which the power is concentrated in the hands of a few individuals.”
Source: “Evidence before the Southborough Committee,” in Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar: Writings and Speeches, Vol. 1, p. 254.
1/ Lord Dalhousie arrived in India with a single, ruthless ambition: “To level Hindusthan.” He wasn’t just a man; he was the embodiment of British greed, cunning, and treachery—unleashing policies designed to dismantle Indian states, heritage, and pride.
2/ Dalhousie’s weapon of choice was the Doctrine of Lapse—a cunning betrayal that struck at the heart of India’s traditions. Under Hindu law, kingdoms passed to adopted heirs, preserving dynasties and their sacred sovereignty. Dalhousie, with callous dishonesty, declared these successions “invalid” and seized the thrones of Satara, Jhansi, Nagpur, and countless others.
3/ Treaties were broken with imperial arrogance. Jhansi, bound by a treaty ensuring succession, was stabbed in the back. When Rani Lakshmibai adopted a son after her husband's death, Dalhousie rejected the heir, declaring, “The state will lapse to the Company.” The ink of agreements meant nothing to the British when their greed came calling.
How did India, once the richest nation globally, manage its vast trade, unparalleled craftsmanship, and advanced knowledge systems without "formal management"? Here's a fascinating deep dive!
🧵👇
2/ India’s Golden Era of Wealth
-Prof. Angus Maddison's studies show India was the world's richest nation for centuries.
-India conducted 1/3 of global trade and held 30% of the world’s wealth.
-Indian ships reached Latin America, and kings across nations sought Indian textiles.
3/ Despite having no "business schools" or "management institutes," India built global trade routes, massive ships, Angkor Wat, and perfected metallurgy.
So, how did our ancestors manage all this?
Bengal fell from glory to ruin:
In 1963, Bengal lost its greatest visionary, Dr. Bidhan Chandra Roy. Under him, Bengal flourished: industrial growth, world-class institutions like IIT, IIM, and ISI, and iconic companies like Birla, JK, Thapar, and Tata thrived in Calcutta.1.How
2.Bengal was the crown jewel of India. Engineering hubs, Chittaranjan Locomotives, Durgapur Steel Plant, Kalyani Satellite Town, and Digha Beach Resort bore testament to Dr. Roy’s vision. Calcutta was the HQ of foreign firms and India’s industrial giants.
3.Calcutta was once the gateway to the world. International flights landed here, clubs were the best in the country, and it was a global city. The culture, education, and work ethic were unmatched. Bengal was unstoppable—until 1968.
1/ In 1948, 7-year-old Mallikarjun Kharge's world was set ablaze. The Razakars, loyal to the Nizam of Hyderabad, torched his family’s home in Varawatti village. His mother and sister died in the flames. Kharge narrowly escaped, carrying wounds deeper than physical scars.
2/ The Razakars represented a violent, sectarian ideology, willing to destroy anyone opposing their oppressive regime. Their terror scorched not just homes but entire communities, forcing them to confront a dark, hateful ideology.
3/ Yet today, Kharge seems to have forgotten this painful history. The man who should embody his family’s sacrifice now aligns with ideologies eerily reminiscent of the very forces that left his loved ones in ashes.