Sunday, November 22, 2009

Nathuram Godse Speech at Trial

In the early hours of a cold November morning in 1948, two prisoners were escorted from the death row in Ambala prison. Clutching a map of undivided India in one hand and the bhagwa dhwaj (saffron flag) in another, 38-year-old Nathuram Godse and 37-year-old Narayan Apte walked to the gallows chanting in unison a Sanskrit invocation to the motherland. Godse died instantly, but Apte's end was more painful -- he had to be hanged a second time. A few hours later, their bodies were cremated outside the prison walls. Immediately afterwards, the whole area was ploughed and planted with grass so that no one could identify the spot and build a shrine.
Fifty years later, there is no public shrine in Ambala honouring the assassins of Mahatma Gandhi. In history textbooks, Godse is perfunctorily dismissed as Gandhi's killer and Apte's reputation as the brain behind the murder has been forgotten. For generations of post-Independence Indians, they mean nothing and signify even less. Yet, the ghost of Godse refuses to go away.
This is an attempt to let you know about what is Nathuram Godse’s version of saying on killing Gandhi. Following is the text of the speech given by Nathuram Godse during his trial.
Before you read this speech by Nathuram Godse, one request is don’t take it personally. There may be Gandhiji admirers but this is Nathuram Godse's speech, views and reasons (It’s not my creation).
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 leveled 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.
-NATHURAM GODSE

2 comments:

Anonymous said...

Your blog keeps getting better and better! Your older articles are not as good as newer ones you have a lot more creativity and originality now keep it up!

harrshit said...

i feel that people here are sending some wrong and cheap sorts of comments on this speech given by nathu ram godse against gandhi. i personally feel that this verdict of godse is absolutely right about mr. gandhi. he is quite responsible for the formation of pakistan. he has favoured muslims a lot and whatever is written here is quite right. people of india are still doing those stupid things that bhagat singh ever heared. they are doing those things that bhagat have warned of. they are fighting on the basis of caste, religion and creeed. this cannot be called as a republic and a secular state of india. the conditions of present time are again dragging the indians towards another slavery. they are forgetting the indian culture its traditions and customs. we all are just running towards the western culture and this is not the independence the freedom fighters had thought of. we even dont know what is the real history. we dont know what happened in the freedom movoments and we just know what we are shown and taught in the books. we are only taught those things that gandhi did or has been done by the congress. we are not fully aware of the true history. not only gandhi and congress contributed in achieving freedom but there were many other freedom fighters and revolutionaries who sacrificed their lives for the country. but they are hidden in the past and have not been projected in the history of india which is taught to us.

hum log wahi padte hain jo padaya jaata hai. asli sachaai to kisi ko bhi nahi pata hai to hum kyun kisi ki baat ko manle aur us par yakeen kare. yeh azadi ka sapna nahi dekha tha freedom fighters ne. congress ne apne 50 yrs ke governing period mein logon ko yakeen dila diya ki desh ki azadi ke liye jo gandhi ne kiya woh koi aur nahi kar sakta tha. aur congress ne gandhi ke saath azadi dilayi. nehru ne to kuch bhi nahi kiya azadi ke liye. hum kahin unka naam bhi nahin padte phir bhi aaj dovernment offices mein unki photo par mala chadai jaati hai. agar pakistan bana to muslims ne apne liye alag zameen ka tukda maanga tha tab gandhi ne kyun muslims ko india mein rehne diya. agar muslims ko yahi nrehna tha to pakistan nahin banna chahiye tha. dono mein se ek hi kaam hona chahiye tha but dono hue. azadi ke baad saale saare mantri satta ke liye aise bhaage jaise paise ke peeche chor. aur haddi ke peeche kutta. agar jinnah ko pradhan mantri bana diya jaata to pakistan nahi banta. lekin yeh nehru ko manzoor nahi tha aur saala pm ban gaya. kya uddhaar kar liya usne pm banke. azadi ke baad to aur bhi bura haal ho gaya tha. har jagah gareebeee, chori , loot pat, bhookmari, aur sab kuch hi galat ho raha tha.

u know we indians have got addicted to slavery in those 400 years. earlier british ruled us now we are being ruled not by these bastard ministers but their corruption. narendra modi in gujarat had arranged for riots so many times in gujarat over that babri masjid case. hindu and muslim are constantly fighting over there for a small peice of land. its high time that we are doing these foolish things and we should realise our duties and responsiblities towarde our nation towarde our freedom. and if muslims want to serve their religion in a very holy manner then they should think practically and do humanity. they should not go by the foolish traditional ways but they should think logically and globally. they should just not think about their religion but for all. " jihad ke naam par logon ko maarna yeh islam nahi sikhata. khoon bahana koi dharam koi mazhab nahi sikhata." bhagwan ne ek prithvi di hai uska batwara kyun kiya ja raha hai.

concludingly i would lime to ask you that if after reading my article if you can think my way just answer yourself if we deserve this freedom or we were better cleaning the toilets of britshers.???? because freedom was not achieved by a person or a group but it was achieved by shedding of bloods of millions of brave indians who without caring for their families just moved into the freedom movoment!!!!!!!!!!!