Nathuram's self-prepared defense in the court Nathuram Godse's Deposition in Court. 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 too support it .. -- 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 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. > support it. -- 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. > u talked only of hindudom . what abt serving all people irrespective of their religion .. hinduism speaks of 'wasudhav kutumbakam' or all people of the world are my realtives .. (irrespective of religion) then how can one think his first duty is to serve just hindus and not all humans as a whole .. if u narrow down .. then come down to serving just one self then why talk of serving hindus .. why make ur service constrained to just one group of people with some (birth) characteristics . it makes it similar to casteim in hinduism where we feel we should help only people of our caste (which's determined by birth) and not other's .. so if talk to service of others make it service to all irrespective of any contraints .. else make it service to self .. pre-independance. India had hindus along with muslims,sikhs,christians and others .. then how can freedom of only hindus be freedom of whole india .. is it making only hindu literate mean making india literate ( as it is now .. muslim literacy is too low) .. i feel its a misplaced ideology making only hindus as indians and taking other groups account - a misplaced sangh ideology -- 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, hunour, 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. > at least he believes the principles were correct . how come then their adherence be a problem to him .. we say we should speak truth .. and try that everyone should do so . although everyone knows its not possible .. but what's the problem in trying for it .. just knowing that all people won't do it even though its correct doesn't make any attempt to popularise it and showing that it can be a way of life, a nonsense, a dream . or is it wrong for gandhiji to show these principles can be practised in normal life as he did if the person has guts to do so (although not all people have that much guts) .. indian philosophy (on which all of us including godse takes pride) speaks of man to rise above kam, krodh, moh & maya and all those things which godse has enumerated fall in one or more above categories .. so is he confused .. we speak of forgiveness and their are numerous tales in Indian history as well as modern india where people have forgiven others who have killed their near and dear ones and even hurt them .. so do u think they are utter fools, cowards or they have the guts to do so and not use force and follow the path of non-violence . take an example . india has a civilazation of 5000 yrs and europe barely 500 .. america even less 300 .. but never in indian history have their come a point where even 10% of its people get killed or their was a danger to the civilisation itself . if we believe that non-violence is a product of indian thinking .. we should think that the non-warring attitude of indians had a role to play to achieve this feat . whereas for west europe faced 2 world wars last century itself leading to almost complete destruction of europe .. america although quite young ha so many enemies .. ( by enemies i don't mean states . but people who want to hurt america . states r unable to do so due to many reasons chiefly military, political, economic and self interest of leaders) . and this enemity is already showing . take the recent attacks on americans and 9/11 case .. i don't know whether america as it is now will be able to see next century as USSR couldn't see this century ( although it was a super power in the last ) now coming to point .. non-violence can be practised.. although its extreme form cant be folowed in present . gandhiji presented before us a lifestyle .. he asked us to show self-restraint for violence .. if we have the guts to take death following our principles which he did .. we can then follow complete non-violence .. else we can go till the point where we have set the limit and retaliate . but this doesn't justufy the use of violence .. it just shows that we didn't have the guts to take more . the examples of Rama and Krishna are true but on a wrong context .. the whole essence of Gita is that one should go on doing his duty and not think of consequenses .. it talks of duty not of violence . now duty of Rama and Arjun was to make war (and it was in a symbolic sense as these are books of knowledge and not historical accounts of actual wars ( i can't say this with confidence as their are claims for it and i am not a historian)) .. thus in gita krihna speaks to Arjun to do his duty .. however bad it is .. or however unwilling he is to do it .. it never speaks of glorification of war .. or to assume violence . it speaks that it is your karma and u should do it come what may. -- 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. > now how do we define patriotism .. is it a king warring to get a kingship or service to motherland .. i don't understand why patriotism is always talked with war .. why not service to the fellows who were born their .. I am more intersted in what Shivaji did for the people he ruled and not just a change of kingship from Auranzeb to Shivaji .. in present context ..we should be more interested in what BJP/Cong gave to the people in their regime than who giverns us .. their will be one to govern .. we shoud treat him on merit .. it doesn't matter whether shivaji made many forts built a big army . fought with aurangzeb .. in some cases defeated him .. but how does all this effect the people . in many cases they had to pay double tax .. isn't it just king worship helped by poets . i just want to know how is Rana Pratap more beneficial to the people of Mewar by giving Akbar a tough fight . after all they had to pay tax . who cares to whom it goes as long as it goes to the one who provides us with maximum benefit.. and memories which get enshrined are more of a work of the poets, story writers and historians .. or the media in the present sense .. they make heroes out of nothing and leave aside many unsung heroes .. take an example Rani LakshmiBai is at present the most well known hero the the 1st war of Indian Independence thanx to the poem.. 'Khoob ladi mardani woh to jhansi wali rani thi' but actaully she fought only a few battles (i think its less than 5 .. although i am not sure of that) that too in here homeland where she had a lot of resources .. well she was the queen there .. but what about the sepoys and their leader(i don't even remember their name thanx to media) who actally made the war . they started it .. started it from Bengal and went on to Delhi.. fighting numerous wars at numerous places ( which they had never been in their lifetime) for more than a year . are these guys less praiseworthy than Rani who fought much less wars that too at homeland and for a much lesser time .. still she gets the lion share of praise .. that's the power of the pen ---- 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 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. > it was the indian people who made the him the judge .. they belived in him and believed that he had the capacity of decide right and wrong .. after all what is right/wrong .. something accepted to be right by the majority is right ..and the majority believed in him .. its quite similar when we say we believe on vedas or we assume that what is written in it is correct .. after all to make some deductions we need to have some basic assumptions .. and at that time it was gandhiji who decided it . and it was agreed to by the majority. he had his principles and he stuck to it . does it make him wrong .. if congress does not support his principles at some point of time .. should he change them .. now saying it as his eccentricity is wrong . he has his decisions and in most cases the majority feels its correct then its correct .. if majority feels its not correct than should he change his decisions.. why should one make his decisions on what others think .. then on satyagrahi .. it was his concept and was novel and was never used in the past so he only has the ability to define him .. he laid down some charcteristices for one to be a satyagrahi. and many people tried to be so .. leading to success to the movements he launched. so whats so disastorous in it .. even it the movement failed .. a lot of blame should go to the person who took the wrong decision of becoming a satyagrahi with the qualities laid down by gandhiji .. for ex .. if someone asks me to do something and I do it ..and it wromg does the blame wholly lies on the person who asked me to do it and not me myself after all I am not a mechanical robot and have my own consciousness and ability to think ---- 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. > Ganhiji became formidable as majority of Indians found his ideas correct .. if someone disagrees he should withdraw from congress and propagate his own ideas to the masses ... if the masses find it correct they will come to him .. just as ganhiji did when the congress didn't accept his views.. so some people want to enjoy the popularity of Congress bestowed by Gandhiji but find him irrational .. so why don't do just withdraw .. take the example of Subhas.C.Bose .. he didn't agree to Ganhiji so for his principles he left Congress and tried to gain India's Independence .. where he failed and Ganhiji succeeded .. so majority is with Ganhiji.. then how is ganhiji irresponsible .. what blunder did his commit .. what disaster did he cause? ---- 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. > every sangh speaks of Ganhiji's Muslim Policiy .. why can't we take muslims as a part of India ( then it was undivided too) so a person to be a national leader has to think of all which includes hindus, muslims, etc. How do we define pro-Muslim policy.. he stopped the use of communal elecorated . was it promuslim..? give some examples to show it. with regards to hindi .. i don't know how many indians speak it .. and how come hindi is associated to hinduism .. hindi in it true form is spoken only in western UP .. and then there are numerous local languages which are all cross breeds .. and even here we leave aside the south indian languages .. when he talked of Hindustani we talk of cross breeds ..the common spoken which we all truely speak .. which is really a mix of hindi and urdu . here gandhiji is quite true .. as its the language we speak . so why call it it with dirty names .. and talking of muslims .. how can they be satisfied by it .. why shouldn'd they go for urdu better arabic .. i dont feel that it has a religious tinge. else hindus will better go for sanskrit ( which is more pure than hindi which shares it origin with urdu when both originated from mixing of awadhi and similar north indian dialects with persian and urdu getting more persian words and hindi more awadhi .. and both share the same tone ).. -- 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. > Ok there was violence but both the communities had their part in it . in India its told the muslims started it .. and in Pakistan its told the hindus started it. I was not even born at that era so don't really know the truth after all truth gets so much changed by media .. even if we believe godse .. it shows what violence does. shedding of blood .. Pakistan was created on basis that muslims cant live with hindus hence need a separate state .. gandhiji tried to prove it wrong by showing that can live together with hindus in India (and he has proved it true as it is in present day India) .. thus diproving the whole basis of Pakistan .. Gandhiji tried his best to stop the violence .. showing peaceful hindu-muslim co-existance .. what the wrong was he doing .. 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. > just the opposite .. gandhiji tried to prove that the basis of creation of pakistan was false and hence tried to prevent partition.. we indians never will understand the game played by the british and will fight among ourselves ' Divide and rule ' british wanted to make a weak India .. they supported the thesis of Jinnah that Muslims need a separate state as they cant live with majority hindus .. gandhiji tried to prove it wrong but why will the british believe it .. they would have been forced to believe it had the riots stopped which ganhiji would have done if he had time ..so when the riots were at prime they hastily made the partition and provided India independance 10 months earlier . had the riots stopped and it would have been proved that hindus and muslims can live together .. the british game plan to break india would have been more tougher . hence the hurry .. they whole process was completed in much less than a year .. which they were unable to do for 5 years ( from 1942 Quit India movement since when Labour party came and were convinced on principle to make its colonies independanr) .. so in face of riots we got our freedom with the sucess of british gameplan of hightened animosity among brothers their was never a consent in Congress on partition .. and all spoke against it even after the independance .. it was forced on them by the british giving the riots an explanation .. which the congress people wanted to prove wrong but were given time to do so . its true people will be angry .. but what can be done .. it was a game which the british had perfected centuries ago .. and had captured India using it.. ---- 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. > Note it was one of the conditions not his only condition .. he went to fast to stop people to kill each other. and maintain human dignity and respect .. now if ordinary people want a tit for tat .. its not for individuals having high ideals .. who dont think everything in tit for tat logic.. and with conditions on muslims .. asking people not to riot .. doesnt it hold on muslims else were only hindus rioting and not a single muslim involved in violence .. in that case only can godse say the gandhiji has asked only hindus to stop violence .. talking of muslim league . they also knew his power so supported the british in their moves.. and wanted an early independance so that gandhiji cant use his influence to stop partition and hence they will lose governance of a state they had dreamed of. ---- 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. > again I say ..never have I heard Ganhiji or any other Congress leader consenting the partition. we can say they cant stop it ..and not they didn't stop .. they tried but were unable to do so . but this doesn't make him non-fatherly .. every father his two sons to live together ..still in many cases they get separated .. does it make the father less fatherly .. and it really doesn't make it the father of Pakistan .. withour Jinnah and british support it has no existance .. if his doctrine proved to be powerless India today wont have the 2nd largest muslim population in the world much larger than Paistan. --- 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. > True he ruined himself .. but nowadays due to some wrong policies of India he has got undue popularity .. by preventing his speeches like this one . it has created in the minds of a few that may be he was right which is fuelled by certain sections of the media .. make all his thinkings to people and let them decide right/wrong.. by just censoring it, they have simply added validity to his thoughts .. now coming to his speech . i don't know what he gained by killing gandhiji.. anyway he was quite old and might have died in a few years . and without him too their were many leaders in Congress who governed India with similar ideas.. u can kill a man but not his ideas which still affest the present generations. ----- 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. > their cant be a legal machinery to prove him wrong as his principles were based on time proved Indian Philosophy which Indians believe so now law based on it can prove him wrong. ------ 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. > attack on Nehru on similar lines which I have already debated .. no need to discuss the same points again. --------- 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. If I had been the judge I would have forgiven him as it would be what Gandhiji would have done .. as he stood for it for his whole life .. and it would have been wishes to forgive him . and we shouldn't have sentenced hime .. kill the wrong not the qrong doer-- is what he said .. let him live .. let him think of his actions .. then only can he find whether what he has done is right or wrong . killing him was not the solution .. may be keep him in custody .. sentencing him makes him a 'shahid' a hero out of him who died for his cause .. Mar 15, 2003, 6:30 am Go back to main page