Gandhiji Assassin: 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 station
at Delhi . The trial, which was held in
camera, began on 27th May
1948 and concluded on 10th February 1949. He was sentenced to death. An
appeal to the Punjab High Court, then in session at Simla, did not find
favourable and the sentence was upheld. 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 doubt 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"
****************************************************************************
WHY I KILLED GANDHI?
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 untouchables and the caste system based on birth alone. I
openly joined RSS wing of 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 Ravana, Chanakiya,
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 molding 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 Hinduism 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 program, 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
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.
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 member’s 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 Mount batten
came to be described in Congress circles as the greatest Viceroy and
overnor-General this country ever had. The official date for handing
over power was fixed for June 30, 1948, but Mount batten 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 the ocratic 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 in as much 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
my entire honor, 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 favorable 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 Primes Minister Nehru quite forgets that his
preaching's 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 leveled against it on all sides. I have no doubt that
honest writers of history will weighs my act and find the true value
thereof some day in future.
JAI HIND !
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
He
has made some points----will we consider them while teaching HISTORY to
our children. He might not be correct in killing GANDHI---He got the
punishment for it---He was hanged---but I don't think HE WAS THE DEVIL
WHICH OUR TEXT BOOKS of history have been telling generations of school
children. He was AN ANGRY YOUNG MAN who could NOT CONTROL HIS EMOTIONS
DUE TO VISIBLE FOLLIES OF CONGRESS and MK GANDHI. Do think about it.
