Sunday, May 30, 2010

Why I KIlled Gandhi?

Got this amazing fwd!

It is my humble request to all the readers to read this piece because it has that rare part of our history that is so important but is shunned all the time and is treated as a taboo.

I've maintained the original format of the mail.


WHY I KILLED GANDHI!!!

NATHURAM GODSE 'S ADDRESS IN COURT*



*Gandhiji Assassin: Nathuram Godse's Final Address to the Court*.


Nathuram Godse was arrested immediately after he assassinated Gandhiji,
based on a F. I. R. filed by Nandlal Mehta at the Tughlak Road Police
station at Delhi .

*The trial, which was held in camera, began on 27th May
1948 and concluded on 10th February 1949. He was sentenced to death..*

An appeal to the Punjab High Court, then in session at Simla, did not find
favourable and the sentence was upheld.

*The statement that you are about to
read is the last made by Godse before the Court on the 5th of May 1949**. *

*Such was the power and eloquence of this statement that one of the judges,
G. D. Khosla, later wrote, "I have, however, no doubt that had the audience
of that day been constituted into a jury and entrusted with the task of
deciding Godse's appeal, they would have brought a verdict of 'not Guilty'
by an overwhelming majority"**
*

*WHY I KILLED GANDHI*


"Born in a devotional Brahmin family, I instinctively came to revere Hindu
religion, Hindu history, and Hindu culture.

*I had, therefore, been
intensely proud of Hinduism as a whole.

* As I grew up I developed a tendency
to free thinking unfettered by any superstitious allegiance to any isms,
political or religious.

*That is why I worked actively for the eradication
of untouchables and the caste system based on birth alone. I openly joined
RSS wing of anti-caste movements and maintained that all Hindus were of
equal status as to rights, social, and religious and should be considered
high or low on merit alone and not through the accident of birth in a
particular caste or profession. *

I used publicly to take part in organized anti-caste dinners in which
thousands of Hindus, Brahmins, Kshatriyas, Vaisyas, Chamars and Bhangis
participated. *We broke the caste rules and dined in the company of each
other. I have read the speeches and writings of Ravana, Chanakiya, Dadabhai
Naoroji, Vivekanand, Gokhale, Tilak, along with the books of ancient and
modern history of India* and some prominent countries like England , France
, America , and Russia . Moreover I studied the tenets of Socialism and
Marxism. But above all *I studied very closely whatever Veer Savarkar and
Gandhiji had written and spoken, as to my mind these two ideologies have
contributed more to the molding of the thought and action of the Indian
people during the last thirty years* or so, than any other single factor has
done.

All this reading and thinking led me to believe it was my first duty to
serve Hinduism and Hindus both as a patriot and as a world citizen. *To
secure the freedom and to safeguard the just interests of some thirty crores
(300 million) of Hindus would automatically constitute the freedom and the
well-being of all India , one fifth of human race. This conviction led me
naturally to devote myself to the Hindu Sanghtanist ideology and program,
which alone, I came to believe, could win and preserve the national
independence of Hindustan , my Motherland, and enable her to render true
service to humanity as well. *

*Since the year 1920, that is, after the demise of Lokamanya Tilak,
Gandhiji's influence in the Congress first increased and then became supreme
*. His activities for public awakening were phenomenal in their intensity *and
were reinforced by the slogan of truth and non-violence* which he paraded
ostentatiously before the country. No sensible or enlightened person could
object to those slogans. In fact there is nothing new or original in them.
They are implicit in every constitutional public movement. But it is nothing
but a mere dream if you imagine that the bulk of mankind is, or can ever
become, capable of scrupulous adherence to these lofty principles in its
normal life from day to day.

In fact, honour, duty, and love of one's own kith and kin and country might
often compel us to disregard non-violence and to use force. *I could never
conceive that an armed resistance to an aggression is unjust*. I would
consider it a religious and moral duty to resist and, if possible, to
overpower such an enemy by use of force. *[In the Ramayana] Rama killed
Ravana* in a tumultuous fight and relieved Sita.. [In the Mahabharata] , *
Krishna** killed Kansa *to end his wickedness; and Arjuna had to fight and
slay quite a number of his friends and relations including the revered
Bhishma because the latter was on the side of the aggressor. It is my firm
belief that in dubbing Rama, Krishna , and Arjuna as guilty of violence, the
*Mahatma betrayed a total ignorance* of the springs of human action.

*In more recent history, it was the heroic fight put up by Chhatrapati
Shivaji that first checked and eventually destroyed the Muslim tyranny in
India* . It was absolutely essentially for Shivaji to overpower and kill an
aggressive Afzal Khan, failing which he would have lost his own life. In
condemning history's *towering warriors like Shivaji, Rana Pratap and Guru
Gobind Singh as misguided patriots, Gandhiji has merely exposed his
self-conceit. * He was, paradoxical as it may appear a violent pacifist who
brought untold calamities on the country in the name of truth and
non-violence, while Rana Pratap, Shivaji, and the Guru will remain enshrined
in the hearts of their countrymen for ever for the freedom they brought to
them.

The accumulating provocation of thirty-two years, culminating in his last
pro-Muslim fast, at last goaded me to the conclusion that the existence of
Gandhi should be brought to an end immediately. *Gandhi had done very well
in South Africa to uphold the rights and well-being of the Indian community
there. But when he finally returned to India he developed a subjective
mentality under which he alone was to be the final judge of what was right
or wrong. If the country wanted his leadership, it had to accept his
infallibility; if it did not, he would stand aloof from the Congress and
carry on his own way. *

Against such an attitude there can be no halfway house. *Either Congress had
to surrender its will to his and had to be content* with playing second
fiddle to all his eccentricity, whimsicality, metaphysics and primitive
vision, *or it had to carry on without him.*

*He alone was the Judge of everyone and every thing*; he was the master
brain guiding the civil disobedience movement; no other could know the
technique of that movement. He alone knew when to begin and when to withdraw
it. The movement might succeed or fail, it might bring untold disaster, and
political reverses but that could make no difference to the Mahatma's
infallibility. 'A Satyagrahi can never fail' was his formula for declaring
his own infallibility and nobody except himself knew what a Satyagrahi
is. *Thus,
the Mahatma became the judge and jury in his own cause. These childish
insanities and obstinacies, coupled with a most severe austerity of life,
ceaseless work and lofty character made Gandhi formidable and irresistible.
*

Many people thought that his politics were irrational but they had either to
withdraw from the Congress or place their intelligence at his feet to do
with as he liked. *In a position of such absolute irresponsibility Gandhi
was guilty of blunder after blunder, failure after failure, disaster after
disaster. Gandhi's pro-Muslim policy is blatantly in his perverse attitude
on the question of the national language of India .* It is quite obvious
that Hindi has the most prior claim to be accepted as the premier language.
In the beginning of his career in India , Gandhi *gave a great impetus to
Hindi but as he found that the Muslims did not like it, he became a champion
of what is called Hindustani.. Everybody in India knows that there is no
language called Hindustani;* it has no grammar; it has no vocabulary. It is
a mere dialect, it is spoken, but not written. It is a bastard tongue and
cross-breed between Hindi and Urdu, and not even the Mahatma's sophistry
could make it popular. But in his desire *to please the Muslims he insisted
that Hindustani alone should be the national language of India .* His blind
followers, of course, supported him and the so-called hybrid language began
to be used. The charm and purity of the Hindi language was to be prostituted
to please the Muslims. All his experiments were at the expense of the
Hindus.

>*From August 1946 onwards the private armies of the Muslim League began a
massacre of the Hindus. The then Viceroy, Lord Wavell, though distressed at
what was happening, would not use his powers under the Government of India
Act of 1935 to prevent the rape, murder and arson. The Hindu blood began to
flow from Bengal to Karachi with some retaliation by the Hindus. The Interim
Government formed in September was sabotaged by its Muslim League
member right from its inception,
*but the more they became disloyal and treasonable to the government of
which they were a part, the greater was Gandhi's infatuation for them.* Lord
Wavell had to resign as he could not bring about a settlement and he was
succeeded by Lord Mountbatten. King Log was followed by King Stork. *The
Congress which had boasted of its nationalism and socialism secretly
accepted Pakistan literally at the point of the bayonet and abjectly
surrendered to Jinnah. India was vivisected and one-third of the Indian
territory became foreign land to us from August 15, 1947.*

Lord Mount batten came to be described in Congress circles as the greatest
Viceroy and Governor-General this country ever had. The official date for
handing over power was fixed for June 30, 1948, *but Mount batten with his
ruthless surgery gave us a gift of vivisected India ten months in advance.
This is what Gandhi had achieved after thirty years of undisputed
dictatorship and this is what Congress party calls 'freedom' and 'peaceful
transfer of power'. The Hindu-Muslim unity bubble was finally burst and a
the ocratic state was established with the consent of Nehru and his crowd
and they have called 'freedom won by them with sacrifice' - whose sacrifice?
When top leaders of Congress, with the consent of Gandhi, divided and tore
the country - which we consider a deity of worship - my mind was filled with
direful anger. *

One of the conditions imposed by Gandhi for his breaking of the fast unto
death related to the mosques in Delhi occupied by the Hindu refugees. But
when Hindus in Pakistan were subjected to violent attacks he did not so much
as utter a single word to protest and censure the Pakistan Government or the
Muslims concerned. Gandhi was shrewd enough to know that while undertaking a
fast unto death, had he imposed for its break some condition on the Muslims
in Pakistan , there would have been found hardly any Muslims who could have
shown some grief if the fast had ended in his death. It was for this reason
that he purposely avoided imposing any condition on the Muslims. He was
fully aware of from the experience that Jinnah was not at all perturbed or
influenced by his fast and the Muslim League hardly attached any value to
the inner voice of Gandhi. Gandhi is being referred to as the Father of the
Nation.

*But if that is so, he had failed his paternal duty in as much as he has
acted very treacherously to the nation by his consenting to the partitioning
of it. I stoutly maintain that Gandhi has failed in his duty*.

*He has proved to be the Father of Pakistan*. His inner-voice, his spiritual
power and his doctrine of non-violence of which so much is made of, all
crumbled before Jinnah's iron will, and proved to be powerless. Briefly
speaking, I thought to myself and foresaw I shall be totally ruined, and the
only thing I could expect from the people would be nothing but hatred and
that I shall have lost my entire honor, even more valuable than my life, if
I were to kill Gandhiji. *But at the same time I felt that the Indian
politics in the absence of Gandhiji would surely be proved practical, able
to retaliate, and would be powerful with armed forces. No doubt, my own
future would be totally ruined, but the nation would be saved from the
inroads of Pakistan . *People may even call me and dub me as devoid of any
sense or foolish, but the nation would be free to follow the course founded
on the reason which *I consider to be necessary for sound nation-building. *

After having fully considered the question, I took the final decision in the
matter, but I did not speak about it to anyone whatsoever. I took courage in
both my hands and I did fire the shots at Gandhiji on 30th January 1948, on
the prayer-grounds of Birla House. *I do say that my shots were fired at the
person whose policy and action had brought rack and ruin and destruction to
millions of Hindus. There was no legal machinery by which such an offender
could be brought to book and for this reason I fired those fatal shots. I
bear no ill will towards anyone individually but I do say that I had no
respect for* the present government owing to their policy which was unfairly
favorable towards the Muslims. But at the same time I could clearly see that
the policy was entirely due to the presence of Gandhi.

*I have to say with great regret that Primes Minister Nehru quite forgets
that his preaching's and deeds are at times at variances with each other
when he talks about India as a secular state in season and out of season,
because it is significant to note that Nehru has played a leading role in
the establishment of the theocratic state of Pakistan,* and his job was made
easier by Gandhi's persistent policy of appeasement towards the Muslims. I
now stand before the court to accept the full share of my responsibility for
what I have done and the judge would, of course, pass against me such orders
of sentence as may be considered proper. *But I would like to add that I do
not desire any mercy to be shown to me, nor do I wish that anyone else
should beg for mercy on my behalf. My confidence about the moral side of my
action has not been shaken even by the criticism leveled against it on all
sides. I have no doubt that honest writers of history will weighs my act and
find the true value thereof some day in future.*
?

NOW YOU DECIDE HOW HISTORY SHOULD JUDGE ME?

JAI HIND

16 comments:

  1. Good to know some facts.....!!

    ReplyDelete
  2. wow, if its true thn its v good article.. i believe it ws a grt sacrifice done by Godse..
    somthin interesting and good.. thanks for info..
    good luck for the nxt article..

    ReplyDelete
  3. U r most welcome!

    I like to believe it's true!

    ReplyDelete
  4. history being written by victors is really true...

    ReplyDelete
  5. Hmm.... Do u mean to say d history written by d winners/ winning side is true?

    I disagree. History written by the winning side is always biased towards them. That is the reason Indian history is biased towards the British and the English culture!

    ReplyDelete
  6. Nobel Prize winner the distinguished Prof. Amartya Sen in his famous book “The Argumentative Indian” at page 51 writes:-
    “While it is often assumed that in pre-partition India the claim that the Hindus and Muslims formed two distinct nations – not two parts of the same Indian nation – was formulated by Muhammad Ali Jinnah (in the context of making a case for the partition of the country on religious lines) it was in fact Savarkar who had floated the idea well before – more than fifteen years earlier than – Jinnah’s first invoking of the idea, Nathuram Godse, who murdered Mahatma Gandhi for his failure to support the demands of Hindu politics of the day, was a disciple of Savarkar”.
    Only a Person who has a higher claim to wisdom and better grip over contemporary than Mr. Amartya Sen can dare challenge his findings.
    I only thought it appropriate that the radical statements that were sopken by the Killer of the Father of Our Nation should be appended by the thoughts expressed on Savarkar and Godse by the Intellectual Ambassador of India Mr. Amartya Sen.

    ReplyDelete
  7. I am Proud of the Legacy that Mahatma gave unto us. Please do not make this an Anti Mahatma thread. I would much rather be an Ordinary Indian than be a impassioned Hindu. Once we have read The above speech delivered by Nathuram Godse, PLEASE DO NOT JUMP TO A CONCLUSION BEFORE YOU'LL HAVE READ.... NANI PALKHIVALA, RAM PUNIYANI, MARTIN LUTHER KING JR., NELSON MANDELA, DALAI LAMA, MOTHER TERESA.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Well! You've really brought all arguments to a full stop by sighting this imp piece of information.

    But I am more convinced with what Godse did and why he did it. Maybe because I can not take any Individual calling himself secular and taking Pro- 1 religion decisions! I feel that's extremely double standard! I rather accept a Fundamentalist who stands for what he believes!

    ReplyDelete
  9. This isn't an Anti Gandhi thread.

    It's just that I am not a Gandhi fan!
    Not just for what he did in politics but also for what he did in his personal life especially to his wife!

    It's not mandatory for every Indian to love Gandhi, is it?
    Because I'd rather be an ordinary Indian than be an ardent Gandhi fan!

    ReplyDelete
  10. No Human Being is Infallible, and the Mahatma was as much a Human Being. Godse on the other hand a brainwashed fanatic who had an extremely good sense of oratory but very very biased and fundamentalist principles to stand by. Hindu Rashra, Hindu Culture, Hindu this and Hindu that.. It seems that when the likes of Bhagat Singh, Subhash Chandra Bose, Ram Prasad Bismil, Sukhdev, Rajguru, Mahatma Gandhi, Chatrapati Shivaji, Tipu Sultan were fighting the Foreign Invaders IN THEIR RESPECTIVE WAYS, Mr. Godse was more frustrated that his conservative Hindu dominamce was ending. He was more frustrated because the muslims were being treated at par. Let me tell Mr. Godse Clan that do not ever dare to compare Godse with stalwarts like Bhagat Singh and Rajguru, whose methods, although markedly different from the Mahatma's, were all the same for the cause of the Bharat or India and not for petty Hindu Culture of Mr. Godse. A Fanatic that he was, he will always remain a fanatic.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Our Country has far too many heroes and we do not want to see Godse's being elevated to the level of a Hero. Godse seemed to infuriated by Indians the by the foreign invaders. I would really want to know how many British officials, who used to met-out atrocities on the Indians day after day, did Mr. Godse managed to gun down. How many times did Mr. Godse managed to get Jailed and suffer the atrocities that Bhagat and Sukhdev and his band of spirited heroes suffered. Reading a few books on socialism or books by Chanakya or Ravana does not make one a freedom fighter Godse. You need muscles of Iron and Nerves of Steel for that. You are not a National Hero, but a National Shame.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Now that both r dead, it's easier for us to comment on them!

    Anybody who has ever stood by Hindu culture or proudly spoken about it is looked down upon as a fanatic, why?


    I am against any kind of favoritism to any religion- that is why I do not ideologies Gandhi. Especially by calling oneself secular?

    It would be wrong to call Godse "Just a mad man or a fanatic" , I believe there was more to him.

    Now that we've already crossed years of Independence , we don't really feel the pinch of what might have really happened at that time. The riots that broke out, the people that were killed. I many times wonder sunil, if we were a part of that era, and there were riots happening, what would we be doing? Would we be standing and trying to explain to people our ideologies and principles? especially when everybody around you is killing anybody from the opposite religion? or would we protect ourselves with a weapon?

    I would anytime in my life like to protect the Indian culture- which was made up of mainly Vedic culture!

    And about Godse gunning down Mahatma and not a Britisher!
    If Gandhi was causing the harm, then Gandhi would have to be gunned down right? He was left with no options! Someone had to do it!

    The point is simple Sunil, I appreciate Gandhi for his contribution in the freedom struggle, but I appreciate Bhagat Singh, Subhash Chandra Bose and the likes of them much more!

    And about Godse who falls in a completely different category... For me , at least, my individual opinion is by him!

    And it's like no matter what you say about Gandhi, it will never impress me much!

    And I am not sorry to say that! We all are entitled to our opinions!

    ReplyDelete
  13. Hindu by definition which is taught to me by RSS, is the one who believe in this country, as his motherland, who worships it, and can lay down his life for this country. Hindu is not mere religion but an identity for an individual who belongs to this country. Godse was a true Hindu because he believed in this ideology. His decision was aimed towards betterment of this Hindu-Stan. He thought about the people who are suffering here, he thought about indian political scenario of that time, he looked at the way gandhi was using his weapon of Satyagraha, "Aamaran Uposhan" against indians to blackmail indian politicians, and what Godse did was justified for being a Hindu. No one can compare Godse against Bhagat Singh, or Rajguru, they are on the same side. What the freedom would mean if the people aren't happy with it? what would it mean, if they have to loose their family, their homes, their loved ones?? Partition was avoidable. On that quote, Godse did the right thing, otherwise rest 50+ years of Indian Independence wouldnt have been so beautiful as we are seeing them now.

    ReplyDelete
  14. (1) Not everyone who has stood by Hindu Culture has been branded as a Fanatic. Swami Vivekananda, Ram Krishna Paramhansa, Raja Ram Mohan Roy and all the Bhakti cult mystics have been propagators of essentially Hindu way of Life. But none of them have been branded as a Fanatic. Do we call Vivenkananda a Fanatic? Instead, he's been the most prolific ambassador of all that Hinduism stands for.
    (2) We are all against favoritism towards any particular religion. And if Gandhi showed Favoritism towards any religion, it could be a political move. Ramachandra Guha, Country's top Historian, has defined Gandhi as an Astute Politician.
    (3)It is difficult to believe Gandhi was doing more harm to India then the Britishers.

    Gandhi, is someone without whom Independence and establishment of a Nation State would not have been possible. His foresight far exceeded that of most others at his time. Violence in retaliation is good. No doubt. But none of the Maharana Prataps, Shivaji's and the rest were successful in Political unification of the Country as much as Gandhi was. With violence we would have been able to some extent drive the Britishers out of the Country but we would have then been thrown into an anarchic society. Establishment of civic society needs a statesman and Gandhi was a Statesman. He would not allow any of his movements to go out of hand. We all know how intelligent Indians can be during anarchic situations. People here can take advantage of any and every situation. A simple riot immediately puts into action people who will resort to looting and arson. It was very important to have a controlled and a sustained rebellion. We have to read the cuban and Russian Histories to understand what happens in the aftermath of an armed rebellion.
    But all in all, i am yet to be convinced of Godse's positive role in India's freedom struggle. He is just another RSS hothead who can stir up emotions by his oratory but falls short after having done that.
    Tuning the lyre and handling the harp were no achievements of Gandhi but he knew how to raise a small and obscure city to greatness and glory. Remember, a thousand years scarce serve to form a state, an hour may lay it in dust.
    Yes, all this is my personal opinion. Everyone is entitled to one.

    ReplyDelete
  15. How can someone say that we would not have got freedom ... If mr Gandhi was not there.. We would have got freedom much before 1947 if gandhi would not hv been there.. N How can mr sunil is saying we would have been anarchic society... It is just India who got freedom by way of Gandhi movement.. There is no other country in the world which got freedom by peace.. N they r not anarchic society n there r hell lot of example of those country... We r leaving in such dire situation just due 2 one person Mr Gandhi..

    ReplyDelete

Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...