The writer is the editor and translator of Why I write: Essays by Saadat Hasan Manto, published by Westland in 2014. His book, India, Low Trust Society, will be published by Random House
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 Nathuram'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 Nathuram felt about Gandhi that "the accumulating provocation of 32 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."
The other charge is 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."
Nathuram 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. 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 the RSS.
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 2015, while Nathuram Godse's complaints have vanished in the mists of time.
Published in The Express Tribune, January 25th, 2015.
Like Opinion & Editorial on Facebook, follow @ETOpEd on Twitter to receive all updates on all our daily pieces.
COMMENTS (24)
Comments are moderated and generally will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive.
For more information, please see our Comments FAQ
I do not believe ordinary folks like us can gauge Gandhiji's greatness. However, Aakar Patel's has failed to do justice either to Gandhiji or to Godse in this article. A reading of Nathuram's 150 paragraph statement before the Simla court under the shadow of the noose (he was appealing not against the sentence of death passed against him, but against the charge of conspiracy so as to get his colleagues exonerated), shows him as an erudite and sincere if misguided thinker, but not as a fanatic or terrorist. Similarly, one needs to read Erik Erikson's Freudian analysis of Gandhiji to understand his journey from an ordinary person to a Mahatma. The events around independence were tumultuous and earth shattering; and the circumstances made ordinary people do extraordinary things, not all of which were right or good, and some were outright wrong and bad. Let us just leave it at that.
......because his killer hated him.
@observer:
Thank you observer for shedding light on people like Rangoonwala who are the ones suffering from the real inferiority complex.
@Rangoonwala:
Because Nathuram represents Bharat in full color. The inferiority complex, inability to grasp complex narratives,or concepts and.years of being under the yoke of one foreign ruler after another has created an intellectually bankrupt population.
Allow me to address all your peeves one at a time,
A. Inferiority Complex- As in disowning your ancestors and pretending to be sired by Arab invaders?
B. inability to grasp complex narratives, Complex Narratives? As in , Muslims are one nation,One Unit, Bengalis Are Traitors, Ahmadis are Wajibul Qatl, Cars run on water, Malala is a Western stooge, Muslims did not do Peshawar? The list of 'Complex Narratives' can go on and on.
C. years of being under the yoke of one foreign ruler- To the best of my knowledge NONE of the Ghaznavis and Ghoris and Lodis and Mughals came from Pakistan. The only ruler that ruled Pakistan and was from Pakistan was a Sikh called Ranjit Singh. Every now and then Foreign Citizens like Shaukat Aziz and Rehman Malik get a chance to rule. And Foreign citizens like T-ul-Q and Altaf Hussain have more followers than any Pakistani.
D. an intellectually bankrupt population- As in 7 Nobel Prizes, including Genetics, Physics, Economics and Peace.
Moderator ET- If Rangoonwala's pure bilge can pass muster, then surely there is nothing objectionable in a factual rebuttal.
This is reason this guy is hired by PT.Try so worthy article in positive mood.
@Bewildered: Many scholars and historians who spent life time in understanding Satyagraha and Gandhi will disagree with you. There are over 3000 hours of British News reels narrated by the Gandhi's contemporaries speak a different story than the BBC documentary.
When His disciple Vinoba and company went around India asking for "Land as Alms" (Bhoomi Dhana) land owners in most part of India gave acres of land. Ask yourself Why.
Dissociate yourself from the nationalism and study Why he is still important and transcends India.
No politician or leader of a nation or a movement can be successful without studying Gandhi. He is a Book in political science, Social Science, Indian Philosophy, Human Frailty and Strength.
@Gulwant Singh Bedi: Is there such a thing as a True Hindu? No clue dude. Keep looking.
Here's why Godse killed Gandhi (and I'm grateful to him).. 1. Gandhi was a dictator and used non-violence to blackmail and get his way. A capable leader Subhas Chandra Bose elected as the chief of Congress through democratic means was chucked out by Gandhi. 2. A secular leader Jinnah (who was appreciated by Tilak and Gokhale as ambassador of Hindu-Muslim unity) was sidelined and chucked out of the Congress by Gandhi. 3. Instead of supporting a secular Muslim leader like Jinnah, Gandhi chose to side with the obscurantist elements from the Muslim community during the Khilafat movement. Result was a Moplah riots in Kerala with 20000 Hindus killed or converted. Gandhi did not fight for the truth then. 4. Gandhi took the high moral ground refused to condemn and fight for Bhagat Singh, Sukhdeo & Rajguru as they were hanged. 5. Need I say about his refusal to partition India and then acquiescing and then fasting for 55 crores to be transferred to Pakistan. This resulted in abandoning the Frontier Gandhi who remarked "you have thrown us to the wolves" 6. Gandhi blackmailing for Patel to step down as the PM (after being voted democratically) and putting Nehru on the PMs position. 7. Lastly the bogus Gandhian ideology of unlimited non-violence, which shaped our country's policy, underestimating the Chinese strength, leaving us unprepared and handing us a humiliating defeat in 1962.
If all of the above doesn't boil your blood, then you're one of the spineless Hindus (sadly most of our co-religionists are) inhabiting this country.
@Hmm: Who is Ashoka? And sorry to tell you this but Raja Porus did not defeat Alexander the Great. Alexander's armies, the core, comprising of Greeks, simply wanted to turn back, and go home. Back to Greece. They were homesick. Wanted to see their wives, children, their homes, left so long ago. Might be advisable, if YOU, speak for yourself only.
"Nathuram thinks Gandhi was enthusiastic about dividing India when everything in history tells us the case was the opposite."
No Sir. You are again wrong. Nathuram was right in this regard, though in his/RRS's own skewed way. Authentic historical records clearly reveal that it was Gandhi who was responsible for the division of the Indian sub-continent. Quaid-e-Azam was willing to remain in the Indian union as late as of mid 1946 given the rights of the Muslims were constitutionally protected through arrangements similar to Article-370, but Congress lead by Gandhi outrightly refused to accept it, rather threatened to undo such provisions later if imposed by the British. Watch the 3rd part of BBC documentary "Gandhi, The Road to Freedom", available on P2P networks for download, and listen to the neutral British (White) historian who she holds responsible for the partition in the light of the official records of the British government.
Gandhi acceptance to give Muslims right to kill and rape non-muslims was the reason. Gandhi was not secular person but a pluralistic person just like Jinnah. As Ambedkar said, Congress never objected for the creation of Burma but was very much against Pakistan/partition. It was no one but the vote of Indian Muslims for Pakistan in 1946 election created Pakistan. Irony is that Gandhi himself supported Khilafat movement which ultimately let to partition. Gandhi is also not responsible for Indian Independence. Gandhi supported caste system and was against women rights. Gandhi represented more to HIndu Mahasabha ideology.
@BlackJack: Is there such a thing as a True Hindu? Where does this exotic species live? In the bowels of RSS? Shiv Sena?..And by extension pollutes the ranks of BJP. Could it be these True Hindus are destroying a social fabric, that took hundreds of years to weave. Then there is Ghar Wapsi campaign; truly an extremists agenda. that is literally destroying India. Think Arunachal Pradesh, Tripura, Mizoram, Manipur, Assam, Meghalaya, Bodoland. They are all getting ready to depart, because of True Hindus.....As people of your ilk say Bharat is for these Super Hindus only. The rest, get packing, leave, They will depart alright, and take that part of the country with them.
Hindus and other indigenous Indian religious people are and were never brainwashed by religion and we take that credit . King Ashoka followed Buddhism when he found a silver lining in Buddhist principles . King Porus fought against so-called great Alexander and brought an end to his conquest . Who can forget the sikh man's bravery who traveled to England to kill Jaliwanabag massacre's culprit . If you read Godse's biography, you will find the reasons why he killed Gandhi. Motherland or country has been a priority for us over the religion . We are not the people who went on Khilafat because some other country was in occupation while own country is under siege . We are proud for our religion and culture . Religion is important, but when it comes to nation and national interest , every other thing is secondary .
In a way therefore it may be claimed that Gandhi was the first individual to lay down his life for Pakistan
I have read Godse's full statement, published in a tiny booklet called 'If it may please your honor' and he explains, in a rather warped fashion that he felt that Gandhiji was willing to sacrifice national interest in order to satisfy the dictates of his moral compass that had lost its bearings. Godse's understanding of Gandhi was simplistic and confused, resulting in the heinous crime; however I also believe that his fears were a self-fulfilling prophecy as in light of Gandhijis' assassination, Congress politics then over-corrected to the left and purged itself of all nationalists setting the stage for the regressive vote bank and appeasement politics of today.
Little of what Nathuram says makes sense. When did it become a rule that murderers need to satisfy someone's logic to be able to achieve their purpose. In fact it is your statement that makes little sense, because he had nothing to oppose in Gandhi the individual other than the ideological context of actions undertaken in a political framework; even today his (Gandhi/ Godse) name is being used in this op-ed only in a political context (as a tool to bash the RSS - although these days the pseudo-seculars have also appropriated the right to define what is truly Hindu).
Gandhiji always supported muslims. I still dont understand why pakistanis hate him. I am really surprised... because Nehru, Jinnah and all the congress gang were fighting for independance but failed. It was only after Ghandiji came to India and because of his non-violent movement that we drove the british out. But pakistanis never give any credit to him. Why?
"..Nathuram Godse’s complaints have vanished in the mists of time."
If they had, you wouldn't have needed to write this article, no?
Perhaps to save him from inane articles of another Gujarati? ;)
Jokes apart - Every terrorist has a cause & explanation. It is invariably absurd & unacceptable. Godse & many of Hindu Mahasabha had an idea of India that was at variance from what the majority wanted. So, they decided to resort to violence to enforce their will.
This is what every terror group does. Enforce its narrow view on others by threatening others of dire consequences through violence.
In plain terms - Godse was a terrorist. He thought an act of violence can correct what he thought is wrong with system/polity or society. Any other glib explanation of his action is futile.
Was Nathuram very different from most so called leaders. I have only been around for 80 years or so, but in that time have become aware that men and women who get into power use that power to kill people quite coldly and remorselessly without a good reason although they think they have. In that 80 years at least 100 million have been needlessly killed. The big problem is that the average person usually supports our psychotic governments.
The population of Hindus in India drops to less than 80 per cent.
"This is still the case in 2015, while Nathuram Godse’s complaints have vanished in the mists of time", Let's face it that is mostly because of the rather well made Hollywood film on Gandhi carefully scrutinized and partly financed by the Indian government under Nehru.
"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 the RSS."
One cannot say his hatred was religious as you put it "the Hindu spirit. After all Muslims leaders complained to Gandhi that he was being more Hindu and alienating muslims.
However, Godse hated the partition and blamed Gandhi for his still steadfast support for the fund release, like many others as well. The RSS stand against partition was a motivation. For Godse, Gandhi let him and India down. The trauma of partition and chaos that followed did not spare non RSS people ( non Muslims and Muslims alike ) either.
Who is Gandhi and why his words and works still inspire? After all , he is a very "conservative" man stead fast in his "Hindu" belief, and "made people of the subcontinent as one", European Christian pastors were his advocates, Jews and Muslims were his supporters, Atheists of that time admired him, Indians did whatever he asked for both rich and poor, educated and illiterate,
In my opinion, Gandhi was a social revolutionary of human spirit, absolutely followed the "Sermon on the Mount"-more a Christian than the Pope, Asked his followers the question in Mahabaratha -Are you with Dharma or Adharma. This conscience awakening life and works brought people to him and disappointed many who expected more out of the spiritual awakening. There is more to Gandhi than India's freedom struggle.
He was sent , He did his work, and He was taken aback.
If Bharatis look in their mirror of history, they will see a very stark reflection staring back at them. A closer deeper look will reveal a carbon copy, a duplicate of Nathuram Godse. Because Nathuram represents Bharat in full color. The inferiority complex, inability to grasp complex narratives, or concepts and.years of being under the yoke of one foreign ruler after another has created an intellectually bankrupt population. The ignorant minds of Hindustan with their infinite afflictions, passions and evils are rooted in 3 poisons :- Anger, delusion and greed. The trade mark motto of Bharat.