Why Godse Killed Gandhi?

Nathuram Ghodse is often a misunderstood character. He is referred to as a Hindu fanatic. It is often hard to understand Godse because the Government of India had suppressed information about him. His court statements, letters etc. were all banned from the public until recently. Judging from his writings one thing becomes very clear – He was no fanatic. His court statements are very well read out and indicate a calm and collected mental disposition. He never even once speaks ill about Gandhi as a person, but only attacks Gandhi’s policies which caused ruin and untold misery to Hindus. Another interesting point to note is that Godse had been working with the Hindu refugees fleeing from Pakistan. He had seen the horrible atrocities committed on them. Many women had their hands cut off, nose cut off, even little girls had been raped mercilessly. Despite this Godse did not harm even single Muslim in India which he could easily have. So it would be a grave mistake to call him a Hindu fanatic.

Let us start by studying the motive behind Godse’s act. By seeing the nature of the assassination in public space and Godse’s act of turning himself over to the Police, we can see that Godse did not do this for personal reasons. He very well knew that he would be hanged and his name would be disgraced as Gandhi was considered a saint. And again Godse could have ran away and escaped punishment. But he did the reverse. He called a police officer and courted arrest. Before we proceed it would be wise to understand the backdrop of the assassination. The central government had taken a decision — Pakistan will not be given Rs 55 crores. On January 13 Gandhi started a fast unto death that Pakistan must be given the money. On January 13, the central government changed its earlier decision and announced that Pakistan would be given the amount. On January 13, Nathuram decided to assassinate Gandhi. Nathuram Godse was a learned man, very sharp and intelligent – editor of “Agrani” (one of the most famous newspaper of that time – with Nana Aapte). In his last editorial of “Agrani” which he changed overnight – he said “Gandhi must be stopped – at any cost” and he justified why Gandhiji’s assassination was not only inevitable but also a delayed action, sth tht shud’ve happened LONG AGO. In Nathuram’s words – “ I don’t refute Gandhi’s theory of non-violence. He may be a saint but he is not a politician. His theory of non-violence denies self-defence and selfinterest. The non-violence that defines the fight for survival as violence is a theory not of non-violence but of self-destruction.The division of the nation was an unnecessary decision. What was the percentage of the Muslim population as compared to the population of the nation? There was no need for a separate nation. Had it been a just demand, Maulana Azad would not have stayed back in India. But because Jinnah insisted

and because Gandhi took his side, India was divided, in spite of opposition from the nation, the Cabinet. An individual is never greater than a nation. In a democracy you cannot put forward your demands at knife-point. Jinnah did it and Gandhi stabbed the nation with the same knife. He dissected the land and gave a piece to Pakistan. We did picket that time but in vain. The Father of our Nation went to perform his paternal duties for Pakistan! Gandhi blackmailed the cabinet with his fast unto death. His body, his threats to die are causing the destruction — geographical as well as economical — of the nation. Today, Muslims have taken a part of the nation, tomorrow Sikhs may ask for Punjab. The religions are again dividend into castes, they will demand sub-divisions of the divisions. What remains of the concept of one nation, national integration? Why did we fight the British in unison for independence? Why not separately? Bhagat Singh did not ask only for an independent Punjab or Subhash Chandra Bose for an independent Bengal? I am going to assassinate him in the open, before the public, because I am going to do it as my duty. If I do it surreptitiously, it becomes a crime in my own eyes. I will not try to escape, I will surrender and naturally I will be hanged. One assassination, one hanging. I don’t want two executions for one assassination and I don’t want your involvement, participation or company. (This was for Nana-Apte and Veer Savarkar as they were against ghandhi’s policies too, Godse wanted to assassinate gandhi all by himself and took promise from Nana Apte that he will continue helping Veer Savarkar in rebuilding India as a strong free nation.) On January 30, I reached Birla Bhavan at 12 pm. Gandhi was sitting outside on a cot enjoying the sunshine. Vallabhbhai Patel’s granddaughter was sitting at his feet. I had the revolver with me. I could have assassinated him easily then, but I was convinced that his assassination was to be a punishment and a sentence against him, and I would execute him. I wanted witnesses for the execution but there were none. I did not want to escape after the execution as there was not an iota of guilt in my mind. I wanted to surrender, but surrender to whom? There was a good crowd to collect for the evening prayers. I decided on the evening of January 30 as the date for Gandhi’s execution. Gandhi climbed the steps and came forward. He had kept his hands on the shoulders of the two girls. I wanted just three seconds more. I moved two steps forward and faced Gandhi. Now I wanted to take out the revolver and salute him for whatever sacrifice and service he had made for the nation. One of the two girls was dangerously close to Gandhi and I was afraid that she might be injured in the course of firing. As a precautionary measure I went one more step ahead, bowed before him and gently pushed the girl away from the firing line. The next moment I fired at Gandhi. Gandhi was very weak, there was a feeble sound like ‘aah’ (There are proof that Gandhi did NOT say “Hey Raam” at that time – it’s just made up stuff ) from him and he fell down.

After the firing I raised my hand holding the revolver and shouted, ‘Police, police’. For 30 seconds nobody came forward and I scanned the crowd. I saw a police officer. I signalled to him to come forward and arrest me. He came and caught my wrist, then a second man came and touched the revolver… I let it go…”
This entry was posted on December 18, 2007 at 9:51 pm and is filed under Articles with tags fanatic, gandhi, godse, hey ram, hindu, killed, mahatma gandhi, murderer, nathuram ghodse, speech, veer savarkar. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

Speech by Nathuram Ghodse
The judge who convicted Nathuram was on record saying that had the public been the jury, Nathuram Godse would have been surely aquitted. In the pic (L to R)
:Nathuram Godse, Narayan Apte and Vishnu Karkare

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 Nairoji, 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 forever 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 everything; 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 crossbreed 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.

Date:20/09/2004 URL: http://www.thehindu.com/2004/09/20/stories/2004092006840100.htm Back Front Page

"Please don't get angry with your shishya"
By Jyotirmaya Sharma PUNE, SEPT.19. During the Gandhi murder trial, the Mahatma's assassin, Nathuram Godse, spoke of his casual visits to Savarkar Sadan and the nature of these visits being restricted to access to the Hindu Sangathan office on the ground floor of the Savarkar residence in Bombay. Likewise, Vinayak Damodar Savarkar distanced himself from Nathuram by telling the Court on November 20, 1948 that he was introduced to Godse and Apte, co-conspirator in the Gandhi assassination, as Hindu Sabha workers. Recently, the news weekly, Outlook, carried excerpts from a letter dated February 28, 1938 that establishes, to an extent, the close bond shared by Godse and Savarkar. The Hindu now has in its possession copies of five hitherto inaccessible letters written by Nathuram Godse to Savarkar between 1938 and 1946. They conclusively establish Savarkar's mentorship of Godse — and the latter's acknowledgement of Savarkar as his guru. These letters reveal another aspect of a relationship that has, until now, gone unnoticed. Godse felt that Savarkar was not doing enough to consolidate the Hindu Mahasabha into a viable political organisation. The letters contain startling material about Godse's barely concealed impatience over this. His tone is often beseeching, but also takes on the quality of a harangue. Significantly, Nathuram strongly advocates that Savarkar and the RSS founder, Dr. Keshav Baliram Hedgewar, ought to make common cause to consolidate the efforts for achieving a Hindu Rashtra. The letter dated April 2, 1944 is revealing. It begins by describing the work

being done by Godse's Marathi daily Agrani (which in 1946, following a ban, became Hindurashtra). Godse promises Savarkar an article on the Kasturba Nidhi the following Tuesday. Barely a month later, on May 14, 1944, Savarkar issued a statement asking Hindu Sanghatanists not to contribute to the Kasturba Gandhi Memorial Fund (quoted in A.G. Noorani, Savarkar and Hindutva: The Godse Connection, pp. 92-93). Is this too much of a coincidence? The 1944 letter then shifts to an unrelated but equally interesting topic. Savarkar is to visit Shimoga. Godse says he wants to travel there with Savarkar. Not only does Godse want to travel with Savarkar, he asks his mentor to get a berth reserved for him for the journey. More importantly, he wants the reservation done in the same compartment as Savarkar. Why? Because he wishes to discuss some "issues" with him. "I need to consult you and apprise you of certain `data'," he says. He assures Savarkar that he will pay for a third class fare himself and not from the Agrani account; and he requests Savarkar to pay the difference, if any. The rest of the letter deals with Godse's efforts to collect money for an ailing Rajabhau Rajwade, and he requests Savarkar to contribute. An undated letter, written in 1946 (since Godse mentions the upcoming second anniversary, in March, of Agrani, which was founded on March 28, 1944), is the most significant. The letter ends thus: "Whether your answer is yes or no, do not get angry with your shishya or hold it against him. This is my entreaty to you." The word Godse uses for signifying himself is `shishyavar', meaning a disciple. The word for entreaty used is `abhyarthana', a Sanskrit derivative that means `request', `entreaty' or `petition'. The context: the fate and fortunes of Godse's newspaper. The first part of the letter is devoted to listing the financial constraints under which Agrani is operating. It speaks of Savarkar's handsome donation to the paper. "You have given me a large sum of Rs. 15,000 for the purpose," says Godse, adding that this shows "how close this cause is to your heart." There is a detailed account of the way Agrani managed to survive in the face of newsprint shortages, a ban, and a lack of funds. Godse also mentions the hostility of some Hindu Mahasabha leaders who, he claims, are working for the demise of the paper. He asks Savarkar for an additional "loan" of Rs.10,000, promising to repay the amount at an interest of 3 per cent a month. Later in the letter, Godse tells Savarkar that the terms of repayment signify that Agrani does not want to use his intellectual wealth free of cost. Godse assures Savarkar that Agrani is the only newspaper in Maharashtra that is working towards disseminating Savarkar's thought: "In Maharashtra today, the only paper that works towards disseminating your ideas is this, and your contribution of Rs. 15,000 is testimony of your association with it. This is common knowledge and requires little proof." In Harijan, notes Godse, there are at least ten articles contributed by Gandhi. He remonstrates with Savarkar for not writing regularly and enough for Agrani. Citing the example of Gandhi

and Tilak in relation to Harijan and Kesri respectively, Godse wants Savarkar to emulate their example by writing for Agrani. Savarkar must write not only about politics, but also about Hindutva, revolution, technology, science, psychology, literature, history, philosophy, and poetry. Such writing, Godse feels, will be beneficial to "pudhil peedhi" (the younger generation) and also help in making "avatirna" ("immanent") Savarkar's "vaicharik sampatti" ("vast intellectual wealth"). Godse makes it clear that Agrani and other matters need to be discussed with Savarkar in person. "These matters, and some other matters need to be discussed with you in person," writes Godse, "but I desisted from doing so because of your indifferent health." He fears that in the absence of a discussion, there might arise a "distance" between the two. He asks his mentor to read the letter carefully and adds that he intends to visit him, in the company of Apte, at Walchandnangar the following week to discuss all matters. © Copyright 2000 - 2009 The Hindu

Date:18/08/2004 http://www.thehindu.com/2004/08/18/stories/2004081805151100.htm Back National

URL:

RSS releases `proof' of its innocence By Neena Vyas NEW DELHI, AUG. 17. The Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh today denied that it had anything to do with the assassination of Mahatma Gandhi and as "proof" of its innocence circulated a copy of a letter written by Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel to Jawaharlal Nehru just 28 days after the murder. However, it seems that the RSS overlooked the fact that the same letter blamed V.D. Savarkar for hatching the conspiracy and "seeing it through" while emphasising that "the assassination was welcomed by those of the RSS and the [Hindu] Mahasabha." Defamation suit Today, the RSS spokesperson, Ram Madhav, told a press conference that the organisation would wait for a week for a formal reply to its legal notice to the Human Resource Development Minister, Arjun Singh, after which it would file a criminal defamation suit against the Minister under Section 500 of the Indian Penal Code for his written statement that the Mahatma's murder was the "only achievement of the RSS." Mr. Singh has already challenged the RSS to "do its worst" and has said that there is no question of his offering an apology. To substantiate his assertion that the RSS had nothing to do with the Mahatma's assassination, Mr. Madhav circulated copies of Sardar Patel's letter of February 20, 1948 addressed to Nehru. The three-page letter went into details of the investigation into the assassination and said that, "it clearly emerges from these statements [made by various people

during investigations] that the RSS was not involved in it at all." But the very next sentence stated: "It was a fanatical wing of the Hindu Mahasabha directly under Savarkar that [hatched] the conspiracy and saw it through." The letter also stated that the Mahatma's assassination "was welcomed by those of the RSS and the [Hindu] Mahasabha who were strongly opposed to his way of thinking and to his policy ... the RSS has undoubtedly other sins and crimes to answer for, but not for this one." Savarkar controversy It appeared that while the RSS was absolving itself of any guilt in the Mahatma's assassination, it unwittingly added fuel to the Savarkar controversy that raised its head in Parliament today. Mr. Madhav today charged Mr. Singh with having no commitment to any ideology but power and for using the RSS as a "whipping boy" and the Mahatma's assassination as an instrument in the Congress' internal power politics. "Whenever there is an internal power struggle in the Congress party the often repeated old charges related to Gandhi's assassination surface," Mr. Madhav said. Admitting that the Mahatma's assassin, Nathuram Godse, was an RSS member, he said, "he had left [the RSS]" before the assassination. "So many become our members and then leave," he added. Mr. Madhav said that the Sarshanghchalak at that time, M.S. Golwalkar, had condemned the assassination and had ordered the suspension of all RSS activities for 13 days as a mark of respect. Asked whether the Sangh had ever condemned Godse, Mr. Madhav shot back: "When we condemned the assassination did not that mean condemnation of the assassin?" © Copyright 2000 - 2009 The Hindu

"May it please Your Honour" Nathuram Godse 30 Jan 2009

[On 8 November 1948, Nathuram Godse (19 May 1910-15 November 1949) rose to make his statement in court. Reading quietly from a typed manuscript, he sought to explain why he had killed Gandhi. His thesis covered ninety-pages, and he was on his feet for five hours. Godse's statement, excerpted below, should be read by citizens and scholars in its entirely, for it provides an insight into his personality and his understanding of the concept of Indian nationhood – Editor] "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 are 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 which thousands of Hindus, Brahmins, Vaishyas, Kshatriyas, Chamars and B-----s 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 what Veer (brave) 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 factor has done. All this thinking and reading led me to believe that 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 (three hundred million) of Hindus would automatically constitute the freedom and well-being of all India, one fifth of the human race. This conviction led me naturally to devote myself to the Hindu Sanatanist 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 Lokmanya Tilak, Gandhi'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 these 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 dream if you imagine 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 the 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 essential 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 Govind Singh as misguided patriots, Gandhi 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 forever 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 work 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 in 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 everything; 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 it and when to withdraw it. The movement might succeed or fail, but that could make no difference to the Mahatma's infallibility. 'A Satyagrahi can never fail' was his formula for his own infallibility and nobody except himself knew what a Satyagrahi is. Thus the Mahatma became the judge and the jury in his own case. 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 policies 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, and disaster after disaster. Gandhi's pro-Muslim policy is blatantly illustrated 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 in India called Hindustani; it has no grammar; it has no vocabulary. It is a mere dialect; it is spoken, not written. It is a tongue and a crossbreed 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 the purity of the Hindi language were 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 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 little 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 was succeeded by Lord Mountbatten. King Stork followed King Log. The Congress, which had boasted of its nationalism and secularism, 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 15 August 1947. Lord Mountbatten came to be described in the Congress circles as the greatest Viceroy and Governor-General this country ever had. The official date for the handing over of 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 the 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 it '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 considered a deity of worship - my mind was filled with direful anger.

One of the conditions imposed by Gandhi for his breaking of the fast 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 some conditions 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 conditions on the Muslims. He was fully aware from past 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 has failed in his paternal duty inasmuch 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, his doctrine of non-violence of which so much is made of, all crumbled against Jinnah's iron will and proved to be powerless. Briefly speaking, I thought to myself and foresaw that 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 thought that the Indian politics in the absence of Gandhiji would surely be practical, able to retaliate and would be powerful with the 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 or 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 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 in 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 preaching and deeds are at times at variance 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 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 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 someday in future." Nathuram Godse was hanged a year later, on 15 November 1949; as per his last wishes, his family and followers have preserved his ashes for immersion in the Indus River of a re-united India

English translation of F.I.R. of Mahatma Gandhi Assassination case - 1948 Police Station : Tughlak Road No. : 68 District : Central Date and hour of occurence :

original

First Information of a Cognizable Crime Reported under Section 154, C.P.C.

30.1.1948 / 5:45 P.M.

1 Date and hour when reported Name and residence 2 informant /complainant Shri Nand Lal Mehta, son of Shri of Natha Lal Mehta, Indian, Building Lala Suraj Prasad M Block, Connaught Circus Brief description of offence (with section) and of property 302 I.P.C. carried off, if any Place of occurence and distance/ direction from Police Birla House, distance 2 furlongs Station Name and address of the criminal Steps taken regarding investigation/ explanation of delay in recording information

3

4 5 6

Statement of Shri Nand Lal Mehta, son of Shri Natha Lal Mehta, Indian, resident of Connaught Circus Building Lala Sarju Prasad Today I was present at Birla House. Around ten minutes past five in the evening, Mahatma Gandhi left his room in Birla House for the Prayer Ground. Sister Abha Gandhi and sister Sanno Gandhi were accompanying him. Mahatma was walking with his hands on the shoulders of the two sisters. Two more girls were there in the group. I alongwith Lala Brij Kishan, a silver merchant, resident of No. 1, Narendra Place, Parliament Street and Sardar Gurbachan Singh, resident of Timar Pur, Delhi were also there. Apart from us, women from the Birla household and two-three members of the staff were also present. Having crossed the garden, Mahatma climbed the concrete steps towards the prayer place. People were standing on both the sides and approximately three feet of vacant space was left for the Mahatma to pass through. As per the custom the Mahatma greeted the people with folded hands. He had barely covered six or seven steps when a person whose name I learnt later as Narayan Vinayak Godse, resident of Poona, stepped closer and fired three shots from a pistol at the Mahatma from barely 2 / 3 feet distance which hit the Mahatma in his stomach and chest and blood started flowing. Mahatma ji fell backwards, uttering "Raam - Raam". The assailant was apprehended on the spot with the weapon. The Mahatma was carried away in an unconscious state towards the residential unit of the Birla House where he passed away instantly and the police took away the assailant. Sd/N.L. Mehta/30.1.1948. Having received the information I rushed to the Birla House to find the dead body of the Mahatma at room No. 3. Met Shri Nand Lal Mehta, his statement recorded and got confirmed after reading it out to him. Copy of the statement handed over to him. Came to know that the assailant was whisked away by the Assistant Sub-Inspector. It was a case of Section 302 Indian Penal Code. All the case papers were sent to the Police Station Tughlak Road and I got engaged in conducting investigations. A special report may be forwarded through the police station. Sd. in English/30 January

Nathuram Godse
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Nath uram Gods e नन ू नन नन ू

Born Died

Baramati, Pune District, British India 15 November 1949 (aged 39) Ambala Prison, Haryana, India

Nathuram Vinayak Godse (Marathi: नथूराम िवनायक गोडसे) (19 May 1910 – 15 November 1949), a Hindu nationalist from the city of Pune, India was the assassin of Mohandas Gandhi. Along with his brother Gopal Godse and six other co-conspirators, he executed a plot to assassinate Gandhi.

Contents
[hide] 1 Early life 2 Political career 3 Assassination of Mohandas K. Gandhi ○ 3.1 Trial and execution ○ 3.2 Aftermath ● 4 Notes ● 5 References ● 6 External links
● ● ●

[edit] Early life
Nathuram Godse was born in Baramati, Pune District in a Chitpavan Brahmin family. His father, Vinayak Vamanrao Godse, was a post office employee and his mother was Lakshmii (née Godavari). At birth, he was named Ramachandra.
" The The A And story way bullet came shot J ended its out the usual always from Godse's beggar S way been gun clean Khurmi

Collected Poems "

A commonly held theory suggests that Nathuram was given his name because of an unfortunate incident. Before he was born, his parents had three sons and a daughter, with all three boys dying in their infancy. Fearing a curse that targeted male children, young Ramachandra was brought up as a girl for the first few years of his life, including having his nose pierced and being made to wear a nose-ring ("Nath" in Marathi). It was then that he earned the nickname "Nathuram" (literally "Ram with a nose-ring"). After his younger brother was born, they switched to treating him as a boy.[1][2] However, other biographers dismiss this claim, together with claims that Godse was a homosexual, as a fabrication by the Congress Party of India, meant to exploit the prejudices against transvestites and homosexuals in conservative Indian society in order to demonize Godse.[3] Nathuram Godse attended the local school at Baramati through the fifth standard, after which he was sent to live with an aunt in Pune so that he could study at an Englishlanguage school. During his school days, he respected Gandhi a lot.[4] In 1930, Nathuram's father was transferred to the town of Ratnagiri. While staying with his parents at Ratnagiri, the young Nathuram first met Veer Savarkar, a proponent of Hindutva, a friendship developed between the two.

[edit] Political career

Group photo of people accused in the murder of Mohandas Gandhi. Standing, L to R: Shankar Kistaiya, Gopal Godse, Madanlal Pahwa, Digambar Ramchandra Badge. Seated, L to R: Narayan Apte, Vinayak D. Savarkar, Nathuram Godse, Vishnu Karkare Godse dropped out of high school and became an activist with the Hindu Mahasabha. There is no evidence available for the popularized claim that he was an Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) activist.[5] They were particularly opposed to the separatist politics of the All India Muslim League. Godse started a Marathi newspaper for Hindu Mahasabha called Agrani, which some years later was renamed. Hindu Rashtra. The Hindu Mahasabha had initially backed Gandhi's campaigns of civil disobedience against the British government. Godse and his mentors later rejected Gandhi, as they felt that Gandhi was sacrificing Hindu interests in an effort to appease Muslim interests. They blamed Gandhi for the Partition of India, which left hundreds of thousands of people dead in the wake of religious unrest. Godse was against the teaching of Gandhi of extreme non violence. He thought that this teaching would lead to Hindus losing the will to fight needed for self defense and becoming permanent slaves. This has been said to be one of the major reasons behind his decision to kill Gandhi.

[edit] Assassination of Mohandas K. Gandhi
Godse approached Gandhi on January 30, 1948 during the evening prayer and bowed. A girl accompanying Gandhi said, "Brother, Bapu is already late" and tried to put him off but he pushed her aside and shot three times at point-blank range with a .38 Beretta semiautomatic pistol. After shooting, he did not try to run or threaten anyone else. He was pinned to the ground and subsequently arrested.

[edit] Trial and execution

Following the assassination of Mohandas Gandhi, he was put on trial beginning May 27, 1948. During the trial, he did not defend any charge and openly admitted that he killed Gandhi after a long disposition on his reasons for killing Gandhi.[6] On November 8, 1949, Godse was sentenced to death. Among those calling for commutation of the death sentence for the defendants were Jawaharlal Nehru, as well as Gandhi's two sons, who felt that the two men on trial were pawns of RSS higher-ups, and in any case, executing their father's killers would dishonour his memory and legacy which included a staunch opposition to the death penalty. Godse was hanged at Ambala Jail on November 15, 1949,[7] along with Narayan Apte, the other conspirator. Savarkar was also charged with conspiracy in the assassination of Gandhi, but was acquitted and subsequently released.

[edit] Aftermath
Millions of Indians mourned Gandhi's assassination.The Hindu Mahasabha was vilified and the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh, the RSS, was temporarily banned. However, investigators could find no evidence that the RSS bureaucracy had formally sponsored or even knew of Godse's plot. The RSS ban was lifted by Prime Minister Nehru and Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel in 1949. The RSS to this day denies any connection with Godse, and disputes the claim that he was a member. After the assassination, many criticized the Indian government for not doing more to protect Gandhi who, earlier in the week, had been the target of a bomb plot by the same conspirators who later shot him. Of particular concern, was the fact that a Bombay detective had wired the names and descriptions of the assassins along with the fact that they were known to be in Delhi stalking Gandhi. On the other hand, Gandhi had repeatedly refused to cooperate with his own security and had resigned himself to a violent death which he accepted as an inevitable part of his destiny. A film, Nine Hours to Rama, was made in 1963 and was based on the events leading up to the assassination, seen mainly from Godse's point of view. The film Hey Ram, made in 2000, also briefly touches upon events related to the assassination. The popular Marathi language play Mee Nathuram Godse Boltoy (Marathi: मी नथुराम गोडसे बोलतोय)("I am Nathuram Godse, Speaking") was also made from Godse's point of view.[8]

[edit] Notes
1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6.

^ Jeffrey, Robin (1990). India, Rebellion to Republic: Selected Writings, 18571990. Sterling Publishers. p. 105. ^ Gandhi and Godse: a review and a critique By Koenraad Elst,Original from the University of Michigan ISBN 8185990719, 9788185990712 ^ Gandhi and Godse: a review and a critique By Koenraad Elst,Original from the University of Michigan ISBN 8185990719, 9788185990712 ^ Time (14 February 2000). "His Principle of Peace Was Bogus". Retrieved 3 July 2007 ^ The Hindu (18 August 2004). "RSS releases 'proof' of its innocence". Retrieved 26 June 2007 ^ "Godse's Final Words to the Court". May it please Your Honour. 8 November 1948.

7. 8.

^ The Times (London), pg. 3. 16 November 1949. ^ Rediff on the NeT. There is a play called Gandhi vs Godse to make the point of Godse's."Mee Nathuram Godse Boltoy - The Transcript". "Watch Marathi Play on Youtube

[edit] References
1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6.

Elst, Koenraad Gandhi and Godse - a Review and a Critique, Voice of India, 2001. ISBN 8185990719 Godse, Nathuram, Why I Assassinated Mahatma Gandhi, Surya Bharti, Delhi, India, 2003. OCLC 33991989 Godse, Nathuram May it Please Your Honor!, Surya Bharti, India, 2003. Khosla, G.D. Murder of the Mahatma and Other Cases from a Judge's Notebook, Jaico Publishing House, 1968. ISBN 0-88253-051-8. Malgonkar, Manohar (2008). The Men Who Killed Gandhi, New Delhi: Roli Books, ISBN 978-81-7436-617-7. Phadke, Y.D. Nathuramayan

[edit] External links
India portal Biography portal

Godse's Final Speech to the Court Nathuram Godse and Gandhism with interviews and links Time Magazine's February 2000 interview of Gopal Godse Rediff's January 1998 interview of Gopal Godse Article discussing pro-Godse play Eyewitness to Gandhi assassination Eyewitness: Mahatma Gandhi Assassination on YouTube First Information Report (FIR) by police Why Godse killed Gandhi- by Rajeev Srinivasan Mi Nathuram Godse Boltoy Categories: People executed for murder | People executed by hanging | 1910 births | 1949 deaths | Hindutva | People from Pune | Indian assassins | Nationalist assassins | Executed Indian people | People executed by India | 20th-century executions | People convicted of murder by India | Indian people convicted of murder | Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi | Indian Hindus
● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●

Charges Framed against Savarkar and other accused

Background (extracted verbatim from Printed Record of Mahatma Gandhi Murder case Volume III; Judgement of the Special Judge, Red Fort, Delhi): On 30 January 1948, at around 5.00 p.m., Mahatma Gandhi, as usual, was proceeding to the prayerplatform behind Birla House, New Delhi when he was assassinated. The following were accused in what is known as the Mahatma Gandhi Murder Case:
1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11.

Nathuram V. Godse Narayan D. Apte Vishnu R. Karkare Madanlal K. Pahwa Shankar Kistayya Gopal V. Godse Vinayak D. Savarkar Dattatraya S. Parchure Gangadhar S. Dandawate Gangadhar Jadhav Suryadeo Sharma

Digambar R. Badge turned approver A Special Court was constituted under notification No. 54/1/48-Political, Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs, dated 4-5-48, u/ss 10 and 11 of the Bombay Public Security Measures Act, 1947, as extended to the Province of Delhi, and the case was made over to the Court for trial, under notification No. 54/1/48-Political, Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs, dated 13-5-48. Mr. Atma Charan, Esq., I.C.S. was appointed Special judge. The Court held its sittings in a hall on the upper storey of a building in the Red Fort. Nathuram V. Godse, Narayan D. Apte, Vishnu R. Karkare, Digambar R. Badge, Madanlal K. Pahwa, Shankar Kistayya, Gopal V. Godse and Vinayak D. Savarkar, who were present at Bombay , and Dattatraya S. Parchure, who was then at Gwalior, were all brought to Delhi before the commencement of the trial, and were lodged in the Red Fort in a specially selected area, which was declared to be a ‘prison’ under notification No. 54/6/48-Political, Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs, dated 15-5-48. The charge-sheet against the accused was submitted to the Court on 27-5-1948. A summary of the main prosecution evidence was furnished to the defence by the prosecution before the commencement of the trial before the Court. Digambar R. Badge was tendered a pardon on 21-6-1948. The prosecution filed the sanction of the District Magistrate, dated 18-5-1948, u/s 29 of the Indian Arms Act, the sanction of the Central Government, dated 26-5-1948, u/s 7 of the Explosive Substances Act and the sanction of the Central Government, dated 18-6-1948, u/s 188 of the Cr.P.C., on 22-6-1948. The charges were then read out and explained to the accused. The accused pleaded ‘not guilty’ and pleaded to be tried.

Mr. C.K.Daphtary, Advocate-General of Bombay, appeared as Chief Public Prosecutor, and was assisted by Messers. N.K. Petigara, M.G. Vyavaharkar, J.C. Shah and Jwala Prasad. Savarkar was represented by Messers. L.B. Bhopatkar, Jumnadas Mehta, Ganpat Rai, K.L. Bhopatkar, B. Banerji, J.P. Mitter and N.P. Aiyer Although u/s 13(2) of the Bombay Public Security Measures Act extended to the Province of Delhi only a memorandum of the substance of the evidence was required to be recorded by the court, but at the request of all the accused and their counsel and with the approval of the counsel for the prosecution, a complete record of the evidence was maintained in English for the convenience of all concerned. The recording of the prosecution evidence began on 24-6-1948 and continued till 6-111948. The prosecution produced in all 149 witnesses, and their evidence consists of 720 pages. The prosecution brought on the record of the case 404 documentary exhibits and 80 material exhibits. The recording of the statements of the accused began on 8-11-1948, and continued till 22-11-1948, and their statements consist of 106 pages. All the accused except Shankar Kistayya filed written statements and their written statements consists of 297 pages. The defence through the prosecution witnesses brought on the record of the case 119 documentary exhibits. The accused were asked whether they meant to adduce evidence in defence. All of them declined to adduce any evidence either in rebuttal of the prosecution evidence or in support of the allegations made by them. The hearing of the arguments began on 1-12-48 and continued till 30-12-48. Nathuram V. Godse argued his own case. Mr. P.R. Das of Patna argued the case on behalf of Vinayak D. Savarkar. Charges framed against Savarkar (extracted verbatim from Printed Record of Mahatma Gandhi Murder case Volume III; Judgement of the Special Judge, Red Fort, Delhi): On the prosecution version of the story, the following charges were framed against the accused:I.- FIRSTLY That youNATHURAM V. GODSE, NARAYAN D. APTE, VISHNU R.KARKARE, MADANLAL K. PAHWA, SHANKAR KISTAYYA, GOPAL V. GODSE, VINAYAK

D. SAVARKAR AND DATTATRAYA S. PARCHURE between December 1, 1947 and January 30, 1948, at Poona, Bombay, Delhi and other places agreed and conspired among and between yourselves and Digambar R. Badge who has been tendered a pardon, Gangadhar S. Dandavate, Gangadhar Jadhav and Suryadeo Sharma, who along with others not known are absconding, to do or cause to be done an illegal act viz., to commit the murder of Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi more popularly known as ‘Mahatma Gandhi’ and the same act viz., the murder of ‘Mahatma Gandhi’ was done in pursuance of the said agreement and conspiracy at Delhi on January 30, 1948, and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 12-0 B of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and within the cognizance of the Court; II- SECONDLY That in pursuance of the said agreement and conspiracy between January 10, 1948, and January 20, 1948, you, NATHURAM V. GODSE, NARAYAN D. APTE, VISHNU R.KARKARE, MADANLAL K. PAHWA, SHANKAR KISTAYYA, GOPAL V. GODSE along with Digambar R. Badge A (1) transported without a licence to Delhi arms and ammunition viz., 2 revolvers with cartridges, in contravention of the provisions of Section 10 of the Indian Arms act and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 19(d) of the Indian Arms Act and within the cognizance of the Court; (2) abetted each other in the commission of the above offence and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 19(d) of the Indian Arms Act read with Sections 109 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code, and within the cognizance of the Court. B (1) at Delhi, had without a licence in your possession and under your control arms and ammunition, viz., 2 revolvers with cartridges, in contravention of the provisions of Section 14 and 15 of the Indian Arms Act and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 19(f) of the Indian Arms Act and within the cognizance of the Court; (2) at Delhi, abetted each other in the commission of the above offence and thereby an offence punishable under Section 19(f) of the Indian Arms Act read with Sections 109 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code, and within the cognizance of the Court; III-THIRDLY

That in pursuance of the said agreement and conspiracy between January 10, 1948, and January 20, 1948, at Delhi you NATHURAM V. GODSE, NARAYAN D. APTE, VISHNU R.KARKARE, MADANLAL K. PAHWA, SHANKAR KISTAYYA, GOPAL V. GODSE along with Digambar R. Badge A (1) had in your possession and under your control explosive substances, viz., 2 guncotton-slabs and 5 hand-grenades with detonators and wicks, with intent to endanger life by means thereof or to enable any other person to endanger life by means thereof and thereby committed an offence punishable under section 4(b) of the Explosive Substances Act and within the cognizance of the Court; (2) abetted each other in the commission of the above offence and thereby committed an offence punishable under section 4(b) of the Explosive Substances Act read with Section 6 of the Act and within the cognizance of the Court; B (1) had in your possession and under your control explosive substances, viz., 2 guncotton-slabs and 5 hand-grenades with detonators and wicks, under such circumstances as to give rise to a reasonable suspicion that you did not have them in your possession or under your control for a lawful object and thereby committed an offence punishable under section 5 of the Explosive Substances Act and within the cognizance of the Court; (2) abetted each other in the commission of the above offence and thereby committed an offence punishable under section 5 of the Explosive Substances Act read with Section 6 of the Act and within the cognizance of the Court;

IV-FOURTHLY That in pursuance of the said agreement and conspiracy between January 10, 1948, and January 20, 1948, at Delhi you

A (1) MADAN LAL K. PAHWA - Unlawfully and maliciously caused an explosive substance viz., a gun cotton-slab, to explode, which explosion was of a nature likely to endanger life and to cause serious injury to property and thereby committed an offence punishable under section 3 of the Explosive Substances Act and within the cognizance of the Court;

(2) NATHURAM V. GODSE, NARAYAN D. APTE, VISHNU R.KARKARE, MADANLAL K. PAHWA, SHANKAR KISTAYYA, GOPAL V. GODSE -along with Digambar R. Badge abetted Madanlal K. Pahwa in the commission of the above offence and thereby committed an offence punishable under section 3 of the Explosive Substances Act read with Section 6 of the Act and within the cognizance of the Court;

V - FIFTHLY That in pursuance of the said agreement and conspiracy on January 20, 1948, at the Birla House, Delhi, you NATHURAM V. GODSE, NARAYAN D. APTE, VISHNU R.KARKARE, MADANLAL K. PAHWA, SHANKAR KISTAYYA, GOPAL V. GODSE, VINAYAK D. SAVARKAR -along with Digambar R. Badge abetted each other in the commission of an offence viz., to commit the murder of ‘Mahatma Gandhi’ which offence is punishable with death or transportation for life and which offence was not committed in consequence of the abetment and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 115 of the Indian Penal Code read with section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and within the cognizance of the Court;

VI- SIXTHLY That in pursuance of the said agreement and conspiracy between January 28, 1948, and January 30, 1948, you A (1) NATHURAM V. GODSE AND NARAYAN D. APTE - brought without a licence from Gwalior to Delhi arms and ammunition, viz., Automatic Pistol No. 606824 with cartridges, in contravention of Section 6 of the Indian Arms Act and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 19(c) of the Indian Arms Act and within the cognizance of the Court; (2) NATHURAM V. GODSE, NARAYAN D. APTE AND DATTATRAYA S. PARCHURE -abetted each other in the commission of the above offence and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 19(c) of the Indian Arms Act read with Section 114 of the Indian Penal Code and within the cognizance of the Court;

B (1) NATHURAM V. GODSE - at Delhi, had in your possession and under your control arms and ammunition, viz., Automatic Pistol No. 606824 with cartridges, in contravention of Sections 14 and 15 of the Indian Arms Act and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 19(f) of the Indian Arms Act and within the cognizance of the Court; (2) NARAYAN D. APTE AND VISHNU R. KARKARE at Delhi, abetted each other in the commission of the above offence and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 19(f) of the Indian Arms Act read with Section 114 of the Indian Penal Code and within the cognizance of the Court;

VII.- SEVENTHLY That in pursuance of the said agreement and conspiracy on January 30, 1948, at the Birla House, Delhi you A (1) NATHURAM V. GODSE did commit murder by intentionally and knowingly causing the death of ‘Mahatma Gandhi’ and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and within the cognizance of the Court; (2) NARAYAN D. APTE AND VISHNU R. KARKARE abetted Nathuram V. Godse in the commission of the above offence, which offence was committed in your presence, and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 114 of the Indian Penal Code and within the cognizance of the Court; (3) MADANLAL K. PAHWA, SHANKAR KISTAYYA, GOPAL V. GODSE, VINAYAK D. SAVARKAR AND DATTATRAYA S. PARCHURE along with Digambar R. Badge abetted Nathuram V. Godse in the commission of the above offence, which offence was committed in your presence, and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 109 of the Indian Penal Code and within the cognizance of the Court. The accused pleaded ‘not guilty’ and ‘claimed to be tried’. Dattatraya S. Parchure further pleaded that he was a subject of the Gwalior State and that, as such, he was not amenable to the jurisdiction of the Court.

STATEMENT OF VINAYAK D. SAVARKAR, U/S 364 OF THE Cr. P.C. Vinayak Damodar Savarkar, Hindu, aged 66, Savarkar Sadan, Dadar, Bombay. (English) :Q. – You have heard the entire evidence produced on behalf of the prosecution as against you what have you to say ?

A. – I file my written statement. Note :- Vinayak D. Sarvarkar reads out his written statement the written statement is signed and dated by me. Q. – It is in evidence as below :– About 2-3 days after the end of the first week of January 1948 Madanlal told Dr. J.C. Jain that when you heard of his (Madanlal’s) exploits at Ahmednagar you sent for him, had a long talk with him for about two hours, patted him on his back and said ‘carry on’. Would you like to suggest anything ? A. – This is all false. Q. – It is in evidence as below :On 14th January at about 7-30 p.m. Miss Shanta B. Modak dropped Nathuram Godse and Apte opposite your house. Would you like to suggest anything ? A. – I know nothing about it. Q. – It is in evidence as below :On 14th January 1948 at about 9-00 p.m. Nathuram Godse and Apte went to your house with a bag said to be containing explosives. They then left your house shortly thereafter with the bag. Would you like to suggest anything ? A. – This is all false. Q. – It is in evidence as below :On 15th January 1948 in the compound of the house of Dixitji Maharaj Apte in the presence of Nathuram Godse told Badge that you had decided that Mahatma Gandhi, Jawaharlal Nehru and Suhawardy should be ‘finished’ and had entrusted that work to them. Would you like to suggest anything ? A. – This is all false. Q. – It is in evidence as below :On 17th January 1948 Nathuram Godse, Apte and Badge went to your house. Nathuram Godse and Apte went upstairs, and Badge waited in the room on the groundfloor. Nathuram Godse and Apte then came down after 5-10 minutes. They were followed immediately by you. You said ‘yashasvi houn ya’. Would you like to suggest anything ? A. – This is altogether false. Q. – It is in evidence as below :-

Apte on return from your house told those in the taxi that you had predicted that Gandhiji’s hundred years were over. Apte than said that there was no doubt that their work would be successfully finished. Would you like to suggest anything ? A.- I did not say any such thing to anyone at any time. I cannot say what Apte said on his own behalf to anyone. Q. – It is in evidence as below :On 19th January 1948 at about 9-20 a.m. a telephonic call was booked for Damle or Kasar from Delhi 8024 to Bombay 60201. Damle is your Secretary and Kasar your BodyGuard. Bombay 60201 is your telephone number at Savarkar-Sadan. Would you like to suggest anything ? A. – I know nothing about the booking of the telephonic call. Damle is my Secretary and Kasar my Body-Guard. The call, if so booked, was booked not in their official capacity but in their personal capacity. Bombay 60201 is the telephone number of my residence. Q. – It is in evidence as below :On 31st January 1948 a search was made of your house and a large volume of correspondence was taken possession of by the Police. Exhibits P.87, P.88 and P. 277, P. 302 are said to be part of the correspondence so seized from your possession. Exibits P.87 and P.88 bear the signatures of Badge. Exibits P. 277 and P. 302 bear the signatures of Nathuram Godse and/or Apte or your signature or signatures on your behalf. Would you like to suggest anything ? A. – Yes, it is so. Q. – It is in evidence as below :You are said to have been well acquainted with Nathuram Godse, Apte. Karkare, Madanlal, Parchure and Badge prior to 17th January 1948. Would you like to suggest anything ? A. – I was well acquainted with Nathuram Godse and Apte in their capacity as workers of the Hindu Mahasabha. I had heard of the names of Karkare, Parchure and Badge, but did not know them personally, I did not at all know Madanlal and had not even heard of his name. Q. – You have heard the entire evidence produced on behalf of the prosecution as against you would you like to say or suggest anything more before the Court ?

A. – No. I have already filed my written statement. Q. – Do you want to adduce evidence in defence ? A. – No. I do not want to adduce evidence in defence. (Sd.) V.D. SAVARKAR. ATMA CHARAN, I.C.S., Judge, Special Court. 20-11-1948.

Read over, and verified as correct.

ATMA I.C.S.,

CHARAN,

Judge, Special Court. Certified that the examination of the accused was done in my presence and hearing and that the record contains a full and true account of the statement made by the accused. ATMA CHARAN, I.C.S., Judge, Special Court. 20-11-1948. Dated this day of November 1948.

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful