A friend mailed me the extract from Godse’s defence speech, which is available on Google. I have read it with great interest because I tried to fathom from Godse’s address whether there was any rational basis for his hatred for Gandhi. I must confess I got nowhere.
What was the freedom and the “just interests” of some thirty crore Hindus that Godse was trying to safeguard that were not already there? From the little that I have read of India’s economic history the Hindus were clearly more prosperous and better educated than the Muslims. Where (meaning in what journal or speech) did Gandhi dub Ram, Krishna and Arjun as “guilty” of violence? Similarly, where did Gandhi condemn Shivaji, Rana Pratap and Guru Gobind Singh as misguided patriots?
I really would like to know this from an academic perspective because we need to get our history right - not just a biased view trotted out for decades, but a detached vision of what happened.
I seriously doubt if Gandhi considered himself “infallible”. Time and again he swayed from one point of view to another depending upon the circumstances and the reasons put forward by the protagonists. In fact, Gandhi himself was quick to admit that he was wrong when another better point of view was put across. One could at times call Gandhi wishy-washy, but infallible? I seriously doubt that. On the contrary, Godse established his own twisted sense of “infallibility” by doing the ultimate act of a person who thinks he can never be wrong – he simply shot the person he disagreed with.
By grudgingly admitting that “Either Congress had tosurrender its will to his and had to be content with playing secondfiddle to all his eccentricity, whimsicality, metaphysics andprimitive vision, or it had to carry on without him”, Godse acknowledges Gandhi’s towering leadership. Need one say more? And what kind of a leader is one who does not show the way? Gandhi did, and millions followed. Not many takers for Godse’s thoughts, I must add.
Godse’s diatribe against Hindustani is again as irrational as his dislike for Gandhi. It is said that Sanskrit and Latin are amongst the very few core languages. All other languages are mere derivatives. Indeed, the way a language is spoken undergoes a change every few kilometres. The Arabic spoken in Morocco is different from that spoken in Dubai. The Marathi spoken is Poona is different from what is spoken in Nagpur and Bombay. And English is not the same in England, the US, Canada and Australia. So one really does not know what Godse’s problem with Hindustani was, which is a mix of Urdu and Hindi. Urdu is a mish-mash of Persian-Arabic and Hindi. Hindi itself is far removed from its ancestor Sanskrit. So what really is Godse’s objection? That Gandhi was a communicator par excellence? Besides, do we ourselves talk any pure language today? And what would he have said to the fact that we are communicating today in English! A big question-mark on Godse’s beliefs.
Just about the only thing that I can agree with Godse is when he says that Gandhi “was the master brain guiding the civil disobedience movement; no other could know the technique of that movement. He alone knew when to begin and when to withdraw it”. Now, I cannot make out from his defence speech what Godse had against the civil disobedience movement. Did Godse and Co. have any means to wrench independence by violent means? Did he even try to secure independence, like Bhagat Singh, Rana Pratap and the others did? Hollow beliefs, I must say. But he had the courage to rain bullets on the one person he knew would ‘turn the other cheek’ and not retaliate. Bravo, Mr. Godse!
The civil disobedience movement was unique in history. It attained its objective with the minimum loss of lives and property. It was successfully implemented by Mandela and to a great extent by Martin Luther King.
Now let us look at the flip side. Other colonies attained independence too, through violence – Algeria and Viet Nam from the French, Congo from Belgium, Angola from Portugal, etc. The cost? Enormous, both in terms of lives and material. Can one give any example of any freedom fighter from these countries being accorded a welcome by cheering crowds in the colonial country PRIOR to independence? Gandhi was welcomed so in England, particularly in Liverpool – not by the few Indians residing there but by hordes of Englishmen. Was Godse envious of Gandhi’s steamrolling popularity? Maybe, maybe not. England, I believe, is India’s biggest trading partner. Wonder what Godse would have had to say about that!
It has become fashionable to run down Gandhi. Not surprising, for as an icon he towered far above the rest despite his five-foot nothing frame; and to bring down an icon gives us great satisfaction. Mr. Khosla’s observations that an open trial would have fetched the judgment of “Not Guilty” is neither here nor there. I simply cannot understand how Mr. Khosla says so. Godse shot Gandhi in broad daylight in a public prayer meeting, and the assassination was witnessed by the scores of people present. Above all and most important, Godse – like Pravin Mahajan now - made no attempt to shirk off his act. Godse was not a common criminal, but a highly motivated individual who did what he did for his beliefs, parochial and skewed as they may have been. In fact, it brings the judge Mr. Khosla to disrepute for not having had the moral courage to hold Godse “Not Guilty”, if he thought so.
As for Godse, he will enjoy the same status as John Wilkes Booth – the assassin of Abraham Lincoln – did: as a footnote in history.
Deepak Tralshawala
" "Gandhiji Assassin Nathuram Godse's Final Address to the Court
Nathuram Godse was arrested immediately after he assassinatedGandhiji, based on a F. I. R. filed by Nandlal Mehta at the TughlakRoad Police staton at Delhi . The trial, which was held in camera,began on 27th May 1948 and concluded on 10th February 1949. He wassentenced to death. An appeal to the Punjab High Court, then insession at Simla, did not find favour and the sentence was upheld. The statement that you are about to read is the last made by Godsebefore the Court on the 5th of May 1949. Such was the power andeloquence of this statement that one of the judges, G. D. Khosla,later wrote, "I have, however, no doubt that had the audience of thatday been constituted into a jury and entrusted with the task ofdeciding Godse's appeal, they would have brought a verdict of 'notGuilty' by an overwhelming majority".
WHY I KILLED GANDHI
Born in a devotional Brahmin family, I instinctively came to revereHindu religion, Hindu history and Hindu culture. I had, therefore,been intensely proud of Hinduism as a whole. As I grew up I developeda tendency to free thinking unfettered by any superstitious allegianceto any isms, political or religious. That is why I worked actively forthe eradication of untouchability and the caste system based on birthalone. I openly joined anti-caste movements and maintained that allHindus were of equal status as to rights, social and religious andshould be considered high or low on merit alone and not through theaccident of birth in a particular caste or profession. I used publiclyto take part in organized anti-caste dinners in which thousands ofHindus, Brahmins, Kshatriyas, Vaisyas, Chamars and Bhangisparticipated. We broke the caste rules and dined in the company ofeach other. I have read the speeches and writings of Dadabhai Naoroji,Vivekanand, Gokhale, Tilak, along with the books of ancient and modernhistory of India and some prominent countries like England , France ,America and Russia . Moreover I studied the tenets of Socialism andMarxism. But above all I studied very closely whatever Veer Savarkarand Gandhiji had written and spoken, as to my mind these twoideologies have contributed more to the moulding of the thought andaction of the Indian people during the last thirty years or so, thanany other single factor has done.
All this reading and thinking led me to believe it was my first dutyto serve Hindudom and Hindus both as a patriot and as a world citizen.To secure the freedom and to safeguard the just interests of somethirty crores (300 million) of Hindus would automatically constitutethe freedom and the well-being of all India , one fifth of human race.This conviction led me naturally to devote myself to the HinduSanghtanist ideology and programme, which alone, I came to believe,could win and preserve the national independence of Hindustan , myMotherland, 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 becamesupreme. His activities for public awakening were phenomenal in theirintensity and were reinforced by the slogan of truth and non-violencewhich he paraded ostentatiously before the country. No sensible orenlightened person could object to those slogans. In fact there isnothing new or original in them. They are implicit in everyconstitutional public movement. But it is nothing but a mere dream ifyou imagine that the bulk of mankind is, or can ever become, capableof scrupulous adherence to these lofty principles in its normal lifefrom day to day. In fact, honour, duty and love of one's own kith and kin and countrymight often compel us to disregard non-violence and to use force. Icould never conceive that an armed resistance to an aggression isunjust. I would consider it a religious and moral duty to resist and,if possible, to overpower such an enemy by use of force. [In theRamayana] Rama killed Ravana in a tumultuous fight and relieved Sita..[In the Mahabharata], Krishna killed Kansa to end his wickedness; andArjuna had to fight and slay quite a number of his friends andrelations including the revered Bhishma because the latter was on theside of the aggressor. It is my firm belief that in dubbing Rama,Krishna and Arjuna as guilty of violence, the Mahatma betrayed a totalignorance of the springs of human action. In more recent history, itwas the heroic fight put up by Chhatrapati Shivaji that first checkedand eventually destroyed the Muslim tyranny in India. It wasabsolutely essentially for Shivaji to overpower and kill an aggressiveAfzal Khan, failing which he would have lost his own life. Incondemning history's towering warriors like Shivaji, Rana Pratap andGuru Gobind Singh as misguided patriots, Gandhiji has merely exposedhis self-conceit. He was, paradoxical as it may appear, a violentpacifist who brought untold calamities on the country in the name oftruth and non-violence, while Rana Pratap, Shivaji and the Guru willremain enshrined in the hearts of their countrymen for ever for thefreedom they brought to them.
The accumulating provocation of thirty-two years, culminating in hislast pro-Muslim fast, at last goaded me to the conclusion that theexistence of Gandhi should be brought to an end immediately. Gandhihad done very good in South Africa to uphold the rights and well-beingof the Indian community there. But when he finally returned to Indiahe developed a subjective mentality under which he alone was to be thefinal judge of what was right or wrong. If the country wanted hisleadership, it had to accept his infallibility; if it did not, hewould stand aloof from the Congress and carry on his own way. Againstsuch an attitude there can be no halfway house. Either Congress had tosurrender its will to his and had to be content with playing secondfiddle to all his eccentricity, whimsicality, metaphysics andprimitive vision, or it had to carry on without him. He alone was theJudge of everyone and every thing; he was the master brain guiding thecivil disobedience movement; no other could know the technique of thatmovement. He alone knew when to begin and when to withdraw it. Themovement might succeed or fail, it might bring untold disaster andpolitical reverses but that could make no difference to the Mahatma'sinfallibility. 'A Satyagrahi can never fail' was his formula fordeclaring his own infallibility and nobody except himself knew what aSatyagrahi is. Thus, the Mahatma became the judge and jury in his owncause. These childish insanities and obstinacies, coupled with a mostsevere austerity of life, ceaseless work and lofty character madeGandhi formidable and irresistible. Many people thought that hispolitics were irrational but they had either to withdraw from theCongress or place their intelligence at his feet to do with as heliked. In a position of such absolute irresponsibility Gandhi wasguilty of blunder after blunder, failure after failure, disaster afterdisaster.
Gandhi's pro-Muslim policy is blatantly in his perverseattitude on the question of the national language of India. It isquite obvious that Hindi has the most prior claim to be accepted asthe premier language. In the beginning of his career in India, Gandhigave a great impetus to Hindi but as he found that the Muslims did notlike it, he became a champion of what is called Hindustani. Everybodyin India knows that there is no language called Hindustani; it has nogrammar; it has no vocabulary. It is a mere dialect; it is spoken, butnot written. It is a bastard tongue and cross-breed between Hindi andUrdu, and not even the Mahatma's sophistry could make it popular. Butin his desire to please the Muslims he insisted that Hindustani aloneshould be the national language of India. His blind followers, ofcourse, supported him and the so-called hybrid language began to beused. The charm and purity of the Hindi language was to be prostituted toplease the Muslims. All his experiments were at the expense of theHindus. From August 1946 onwards the private armies of the MuslimLeague began a massacre of the Hindus. The then Viceroy, Lord Wavell,though distressed at what was happening, would not use his powersunder the Government of India Act of 1935 to prevent the rape, murderand arson. The Hindu blood began to flow from Bengal to Karachi withsome retaliation by the Hindus. The Interim Government formed inSeptember was sabotaged by its Muslim League members right from itsinception, but the more they became disloyal and treasonable to thegovernment of which they were a part, the greater was Gandhi'sinfatuation for them. Lord Wavell had to resign as he could not bringabout a settlement and he was succeeded by Lord Mountbatten. King Logwas followed by King Stork. The Congress which had boasted of itsnationalism and socialism secretly accepted Pakistan literally at thepoint of the bayonet and abjectly surrendered to Jinnah. India wasvivisected and one-third of the Indian territory became foreign landto us from August 15, 1947. Lord Mountbatten came to be described in Congress circles as thegreatest Viceroy and Governor-General this country ever had. Theofficial date for handing over power was fixed for June 30, 1948, butMountbatten with his ruthless surgery gave us a gift of vivisectedIndia ten months in advance. This is what Gandhi had achieved afterthirty years of undisputed dictatorship and this is what Congressparty calls 'freedom' and 'peaceful transfer of power'. TheHindu-Muslim unity bubble was finally burst and a theocratic state wasestablished with the consent of Nehru and his crowd and they havecalled 'freedom won by them with sacrifice' - whose sacrifice? Whentop leaders of Congress, with the consent of Gandhi, divided and torethe country - which we consider a deity of worship - my mind wasfilled with direful anger. One of the conditions imposed by Gandhi for his breaking of the fastunto death related to the mosques in Delhi occupied by the Hindurefugees. But when Hindus in Pakistan were subjected to violentattacks he did not so much as utter a single word to protest andcensure the Pakistan Government or the Muslims concerned. Gandhi wasshrewd enough to know that while undertaking a fast unto death, had heimposed for its break some condition on the Muslims in Pakistan ,there would have been found hardly any Muslims who could have shownsome grief if the fast had ended in his death. It was for this reasonthat he purposely avoided imposing any condition on the Muslims. Hewas fully aware of from the experience that Jinnah was not at allperturbed or influenced by his fast and the Muslim League hardlyattached any value to the inner voice of Gandhi. Gandhi is beingreferred to as the Father of the Nation. But if that is so, he hadfailed his paternal duty inasmuch as he has acted very treacherouslyto 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 theFather of Pakistan. His inner-voice, his spiritual power and hisdoctrine of non-violence of which so much is made of, all crumbledbefore Jinnah's iron will and proved to be powerless. Brieflyspeaking, I thought to myself and foresaw I shall be totally ruined,and the only thing I could expect from the people would be nothing buthatred and that I shall have lost all my honour, even more valuablethan my life, if I were to kill Gandhiji. But at the same time I feltthat the Indian politics in the absence of Gandhiji would surely beproved practical, able to retaliate, and would be powerful with armedforces. No doubt, my own future would be totally ruined, but thenation would be saved from the inroads of Pakistan . People may evencall me and dub me as devoid of any sense or foolish, but the nationwould be free to follow the course founded on the reason which Iconsider to be necessary for sound nation-building. After having fullyconsidered the question, I took the final decision in the matter, butI did not speak about it to anyone whatsoever. I took courage in bothmy hands and I did fire the shots at Gandhiji on 30th January 1948, onthe prayer-grounds of Birla House. I do say that my shots were firedat the person whose policy and action had brought rack and ruin anddestruction to millions of Hindus. There was no legal machinery bywhich such an offender could be brought to book and for this reason Ifired those fatal shots. I bear no ill will towards anyone individually but I do say that I had no respect for the presentgovernment owing to their policy which was unfairly favourable towardsthe Muslims. But at the same time I could clearly see that the policywas entirely due to the presence of Gandhi.
sammy parekh " "
