Mahatma Gandhi: Assassination of
This is a collection of articles archived for the excellence of their content. |
Why Godse killed the Mahatma
Why Exactly Did Godse Kill Gandhi?
It was his hatred of the secular ideology of Gandhi, the true Hindu spirit.
Aakar Patel
India's most famous figure was assassinated on 30 January 1948 by Nathuram Godse. So why exactly did Godse kill Gandhi?
After his arrest, he spotted Gandhi's son Devdas who was editor of Hindustan Times. The encounter was described by Nathuram's brother and co-conspirator and fellow convict (though he was only jailed and not hanged) Gopal Godse, in his book Gandhiji's Murder And After. The younger Gandhi has come to the police station in Parliament Street to see his father's killer. Gopal Godse writes that Devdas "had perhaps come there expecting to find some horrid-looking, blood-thirsty monster, without a trace of politeness; Nathuram's gentle and clear words and his self-composure were quite inconsistent with what he had expected to see."
Of course we do not know if this was the case. Nathuram tells Devdas: "I am Nathuram Vinayak Godse, the editor of a daily, Hindu Rashtra. I too was present there (at Gandhi's murder). Today you have lost your father and I am the cause of that tragedy. I am very much grieved at the bereavement that has befallen you and the rest of your family. Kindly believe me, I was not prompted to do this with any personal hatred, or any grudge or any evil intention towards you."
Devdas replies: "Then why did you do it?"
Nathuram says "the reason is purely political and political alone!" He asks for time to explain his case but the police do not allow this. In court, Nathuram explained himself in a statement, but the court banned it. Gopal Godse reprints Nathuran's will in an annexure to his book. The last line reads: "If and when the government lifts the ban on my statement made in the court, I authorise you to publish it."
So what is in that statement? In it Godse makes the following points:
That he respected Gandhi and "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."
Godse felt about Gandhi that "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 well 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."
This led to thought of action against Gandhi because, in Nathuram's view, "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."
The other charge is that Gandhi helped create Pakistan: "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. 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."
There is a problem with Godse's argument and it is this. He thinks Gandhi was enthusiastic about dividing India when everything in history tells us the case was the opposite. He says Gandhi was a tyrant in Congress but also says Gandhi fasted to get the Congress to see his point of view. Why would a tyrant need to do anything other than just command? Nathuram objects to Gandhi's final fast (against India's refusal to release funds to Pakistan), but that was after India went back on its promise. It was Gandhi who made India act correctly and decently in that instance.
Little of what Nathuram says makes sense by way of logic. It is, contrary to his statement to Devdas, not politics that shaped his actions. It was his hatred of the secular ideology of Gandhi, the true Hindu spirit, that he is finally opposed to, having been brainwashed thoroughly by [right-wing Hindu 'nationalists'].
The fact is that there is no action and no teaching of Gandhi that is exceptionable and this is why his global reputation as a politician has survived the decades intact.
Writing on Gandhi in 1949, George Orwell said: "One may feel, as I do, a sort of aesthetic distaste for Gandhi, one may reject the claims of sainthood made on his behalf (he never made any such claim himself, by the way), one may also reject sainthood as an ideal and therefore feel that Gandhi's basic aims were anti–human and reactionary: but regarded simply as a politician, and compared with the other leading political figures of our time, how clean a smell he has managed to leave behind!"
This is still the case in the 21st century, while Nathuram Godse's complaints have vanished in the mists of time.
Godse’s statement
WHY I KILLED GANDHI – Nathuram Godse's Final Address to the Court.
Nathuram Godse was arrested immediately after he assassinated Gandhiji, based on a F. I. R. filed by Nandlal Mehta at the Tughlak Road Police staton at Delhi . The trial, which was held in camera, began on May 27, 1948 and concluded on February 10, 1949. He was sentenced to death.
An appeal to the Punjab High Court, then in session at Simla, did not find favour and the sentence was upheld. The statement below is the last one made by Godse before the Court on the May 5, 1949.
WHY I KILLED GANDHI
“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 Shiva ji that first checked and eventually destroyed the Muslim tyranny in India . It was absolutely essentially for Shiva ji to overpower and kill an aggressive Afzal Khan, failing which he would have lost his own life. In condemning history’s towering warriors like Shiva ji, 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, Shiva ji 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. 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. 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.”
Justice GD Khosla's memoir
The Murder of the Mahatma www.mkgandhi.org Page 16 time he expressed his willingness to appear before a magistrate and repeat his statement. He was tendered a conditional pardon and thus he became King's evidence. The examination of the witnesses and the recording of their evidence was concluded on November 6. The prisoners made long st atements when asked to explain the evidence produced by the prosecution, b ut they chose not to call any witnesses, though a number of documents were pl aced before the court by way to defence. Arguments of counsel lasted a whole month, and the court pronounced judgment on February 10, 1949. Out of th e men Charged. Savarkar was acquitted, two, viz. Nathuram Godse and his fri end Apte, were sentenced to death and the remaining five were awarded senten ces of imprisonment for life. The trial judge, at the time of announcing hi s order, informed the convicted persons that if they wished to appeal fro m his order, they should do so within fifteen days. Four days later appeals wer e filed in the Punjab High Court on behalf of all the seven convicted persons. Godse did not challenge his conviction upon the charge of murder, not did he qu estion the propriety of the death sentence. His appeal was confined to the find ing that there was a conspiracy. He assumed complete and sole responsibi lity for the death of Mahatma Gandhi, and vehemently denied that anyone e lse had anything to do with it. An appeal in a murder case is, according to High Co urt Rules and Orders, heard by a Division Bench consisting of two judges, but o wing to the unique position which the deceased had occupied, the complexity and volume of the evidence which would have to be considered and appraised and the unprecedented interest aroused by the case, the Chief Justice dec ided to constitute a bench of three judges to hear the appeal by Godse and his ac complices. The judges were Mr. Justice Bhandari, Mr. Justice Achhruram and mys elf. We decided that as a special measure we should resume the old practice o f wearing wigs, and that on our entry into the court-room we should, as in t he olden days, be preceded by our liveried ushers carrying silver-mounted staf fs The Murder of the Mahatma www.mkgandhi.org Page 20 capacity for remaining open till the last word in a cause has been uttered, eminent judges are notoriously obstinate and diffic ult to dislodge from their beliefs and convictions. I have known judges who co me to court even more fully prepared than the lawyers engaged by the parties. I have a suspicion that they do this partly from a sense of their high duty, but also because of their desire to make an exhibition of their industry and eruditi on. No matter how learned and experienced the judge, if he has made a deep st udy of a case he will inevitably have formed an opinion regarding its mer its before he comes to court. So, he will start with a bias and it will be difficult to displace him from his position, for his subconscious mind will refuse to admit that something important escaped his close study of the case or th at a certain piece or evidence was erroneously interpreted. A truly liqui d mind is a very rare commodity among high judicial dignitaries. My friend and colleague Mr. Justice Achhruram has a lways been a very industrious lawyer. He commanded an extensive and l ucrative practice at the bar before he was raised to the bench, and he broug ht with him his inimitable capacity for hard work and his deep knowledge of ci vil law. Criminal law and procedure had remained comparative strangers to him , though he had often sat on a bench dealing with criminal matters. For weeks before the appeal of Godse and his accomplices came up for hearing, he h ad been studying the bulky volumes in which the entire evidence, oral and docu mentary, was contained. There were -in all 1,131 printed pages of foolscap size and a supplementary volume of 115 pages of cyclostyled foolscap paper. He had taken pains to look up a number of reported cases dealing with some leg al aspects of the trial, and had made a note of these rulings. So, when he came to court on the morning of May 2, he showed a complete understanding of the fa cts of the case as well as of the points of law raised in the memoranda of app eals. The Murder of the Mahatma www.mkgandhi.org Page 28 two insurance policies of Rs. 2,000/- and Rs. 3,000 /- respectively on his life. On January 13 he nominated Apte's wife as the benefici ary under the first policy, and on the following day he similarly assigned the second policy for Rs. 3,000/- to his brother's wife. Then, accompanied by Apte, h e left Poona for Bombay, with his mind a little easier in, at least, one res pect. The Murder of the Mahatma www.mkgandhi.org Page 36 all 'Hindu- minded'. He had organised a volunteer c orps to devend Hindus and, in particular, the refugees. On one occasion in the beginning of January he spoke, with a mysterious air, of a plot to murder a leader. Dr. Jain thought the young man was merely boiling over with indignation, and did not believe that there was any truth in what he said. But the next t ime he met Pahwa ne asked with the name of the leader who was to be the victi m of their plot, and when Pahwa revealed the name or Mahatma Gandhi, Dr. Jain , though still increduious, gave him some fatherly advice, telling him not to behave like a foolish child. 'You are a refugee,' he said, 'you h ave suffered a great deal in the Punjab riots. Begin yourself a victim of violence, you should not seek your remedy in violence,' and so on at great length in t his strain. When Pahwa let him, Dr. Jain believed that he had converted the yo ung man, if indeed there was any basis of truth in the story of the plot, an d dismissed the matter from this mind as a thing of small consequence. But when only a week later he read of the outrage a t Birla house and the arrest of Madan Lai Pahwa, he was indignant with himself f or having remained so criminally complacent, and at once telephoned Sarda r Vallabhbhai Patel, the Minister for Home Affairs, who was present at Bomba y, and Mr.S.K. Patil, President of the Bombay Provincial Congress Committ ee. Neither of them was available, but he was able to speak to Mr. Kher, th e Chief Minister of Bombay, first on the telephone and then personally in his o ffice. He also saw Mr. Morarji Desai, who was then the Home minister of Bombay Sta te. He told them the story of the plot to assassinate Mahatma Gandhi jus t as he had heard it from Pahwa. The police at once took the matter up and be gan a vigorous search for the persons who were reported to be Pahwa's associa tes. Godse and Apte arrived at Delhi, by plane, at 12.40 p.m. on January 27. The same afternoon they left for Gwalior by train, reac hing there at 10.38 p.m. They drove in a tonga to the house of Dr. Parchure, and stayed the night with him. The object of their visit was to procure a pis tol which would fire accurately. In this they were successful, and a pis tol was obtained from one Goel who was a member of Dr. Parchure's volunteer c orps. Godse and Apte then The Murder of the Mahatma www.mkgandhi.org Page 45 could make no difference to the Mahatma's infallibi lity. 'A Satyagrahi can never fail' was his formula for declaring his own infalli bility and nobody except he himself knew who a Satyagrahi was. Thus Gandhiji be came the judge and the counsel in his own case. These childish inanities a nd obstinacies coupled with a most severe austerity of life, ceaseless work and l ofty character made Gandhiji formidable and irresistible. Many people thought hi s politics were it- rational, but they had either to withdraw from the Congress o r to place their intelligence at his feet to do what he liked with i t. In a position of such absolute irresponsibility Gandhiji was guilty of bl under after blunder, failure after failure and disaster after disaster. No one s ingle political victory can be claimed to his credit during 33 years of his politi cal predominance.
- * *
So long as Gandhian method was in the ascendance, f rustration was the only inevitable result. He had, throughout, opposed ever y spirited revolutionary, radical and vigorous individual or group, and const antly boosted his Charka, non-violence and truth. The Charka had, after 34 ye ars of the best efforts of Gandhiji, only led to the expansion of the machine- run textile industry by over 200 per cent. It is unable even now to clothe even one per cent of the nation. - As regards non-violence, it was absurd to except 40 crores of people to regulate their lives on such a lofty plane and it broke down most conspicuously in 1942. As regards truth the least I can say is that the tr uthfulness of the average Congressman is by no means of a higher order than t hat of the man in the street, and that very often it is untruth, in reali ty, masked by a thin veneer of pretended truthfulness.
- * *
Gandhiji's inner voice, his spiritual power and his doctrine of non-violence, of which so much is made of, all crumbled before Mr. J innah's iron will and proved to be powerless The Murder of the Mahatma www.mkgandhi.org Page 50 Appendix (A) Letters appeared in times of India Jul y -1998 GANDHI Vs GODSE It is indeed depressing to note that a dastardly mu rderer of the father of our nation who successfully led us to freedom is being depicted as a national hero like Bhagat Singh or Rani of Jhansi in a drama enac ted at Mumbai. Every murder is a crime irrespective of its motive, and the murd er of a world figure who was an apostle of peace and love, and to whom the whole nation owes its deep respect and veneration, is the most despicable and cowardly crime. Its glorification not only hurts the national ethos and culture, but also encourages intolerance in public life, and incites that class of people who are not ready to tolerate the opposite view in public affairs, to re sort to violence to settle the scores.
