Filed under: Uncategorized
(This is the speech given by Nathuram Godse in the court when he was tried for the murder of Mahatma 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 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.
-NATHURAM GODSE
40 Comments so far
Leave a comment
<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <pre> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>
Hi Sarsij,
I am reading a book by Khushwant Singh.”The end of India” and ive realised that India being a secular country instead of a Hindu nation is the credit of Gandhi , Nehru et all. I believe it is right of them. Imagine Hindu ruling come to India.- Jains,Sikhs n all will be first Imagine Hindu extremists instead of progressing getting our country to go into the past and medival ages(old customs like Sati, we wearing dhotis n pyjamas etc will be back, trade betw mmuslim countries will be stopped –ending my mouth here,left 2 ur imagination wht wud have happppened).The same book also gives a small reason why Islamic countries are backward and why theyll not progress further…..read the book is my say. ….the contests are biased someway against BJP, RSS, Shiv Sena.
They were the 1s who protected the Hindus during the 1992 riots.
.All have their good n bad sides. Will update this.
Comment by Rahul M November 17, 2005 @ 7:04 pmThis is the Hindu cummunity which chages according. I agree we had a no of old customes like sati pratha but again a Hindu Raja Ram Mohan Roy raised voice against it and we are free from all such old custom. I’ll say the most flexible dharma is this world is The Hindu Dharma, which keeps changing according to the time. Can any one give any such example for other religion. Muslim they are saying every body who is not a muslim has no right to live on this earth. Christins who keep trying to convert hindus to christinity. I don’t say every muslim is a terrorist but why is this that every terrorist is a muslim.
Every body says Mr Godse killed Gandhi Ji. I say he killed that Gandhi who was a victim of division and this was just because of the Congress party. And why our leaders accepted division, see the logic because “they wanted to stop the killings” but the fact is millions of people died after division.
Every body knows about Geeta and The Mahabharata. Does any body knows why Bhisma was sleeping on a bed of “tirs”, becasue he accepted the division of his Mother land and its there is Geeta When you can not accept the division of your mother how can you accept the division of your mohterland.
Comment by Sanjeev Singh January 23, 2006 @ 6:13 amGreat Mr Sanjeev Singh I m fully satisfied by ur comments…….
But I have a problem to accepting the thoughts of Mr. Rahul M
I think b’coz of only the people like Mr. Rahul M
Hindus are in the condition of fighting to live in their own nation.
I m running out of time ,So I m finishing it off
PAWAN……..
Comment by Pawan May 8, 2006 @ 9:45 amHello everybody,
I think Nathuram Godse was very right in doing this act. People like Gandhiji & Nehru deserved that. They were brilliant & manipulative but should have used those qualities for betterment of the society & the country. They probably have done a few good things but when people with such high accountability make such disasterous decisions they deserve the fate Gandhiji had. People like Savarkar, Tilak, Bhagat Singh, Azad, Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel deserve a lot more than what they got. I personally think that Gandhiji should have stopped the hanging of Bhagat Singh & other martyrs when he was capable of doing that. Gandhiji made terrible mistakes when he was looked upon as a leader by the whole nation. All the difficulties India is facing in Kashmir is because of Nehru. When the Indian forces had captured whole Kashmir & most of Pak, he called the Forces back & took the issue in UN. This mistake is costing India even today will be costing us for a long time in future too. These are the reasons I agree with Nathuram Godse & I also think that Gandhi & Nehru should have been killed long back before they actually died. I would appreciate everybody thoughts on this.
Darshan
Comment by Darshan Tadvalkar July 20, 2006 @ 5:59 amThe biggest mistake Gandhi did:
Not becoming the President of India.
Winning a freedom is just one part.
Establishing a working democracy is the other part.
Gandhi kept himself away from taking responsibility.
Not becoming the President of India is Gandhi’s first mistake.
Second mistake is, being freiendly with Nehru.
Just Imagine:
Like George Washington, Gandhi beome the President of India.
There would not have been a Partition.
Gandhi could have very well told both Nehru & Jinna that,
this freedom is my baby. I will not let you guys cut this baby into two.
As a President of India, Gandhi would have been escorted with security staffs. This godse could not just walked in and shot him.
Partition:
It was not Jinna.
It was not Gandhi.
It was, Nehru.
What Jinna asked was the whole state of Punjab, Kashmir, etc.
Jinna did not ask for dividing the States.
Jinna’s ambition was to becoming the Prime Minister of a country.
Gandhi suggested Nehru to let Jinna becoming the Prime Minister of India.
Nehru said No!
If Jinna had become the President of India, the Partition would have been avoided.
Coming to Jinna’s partition adn Nehru’s partition…
Jinna’s partition – not dividing the states.
Form the Pakistan with states like Punjab, Kashmir, Sind & Balusistan.
Nehru’s partion – divide the states of Punjab & Bengal.
Pubjab was divided into East & West.
Bengal was divided into East & West.
There would not have been loss of lives in Jinna’s partition.
No one need to vacate their houses and move to an other location.
More….visit http://www.muthamil.com
Comment by Balachandran July 22, 2006 @ 12:40 amGandhi and Nehru were the biggest disasters to have hit Hindus. Hindu community deserve their fate. They blindly followed and worshipped these two gentlemen, when it was apparent to everybody else that Gandhi and Nehru were anti-Hindu and pro-Muslim. Worse, Nehru was a Marxist too.
Hindus have a long history of backing the wrong horse. While Savarkar and Hindu Mahasabha, who were genuinely interested in the welfare of the Hindus, couldn’t get any votes, Congress kept winning everywhere. Hindus very well knew that Gandhi and Nehru were rabid Muslim appeasers and their interests were not safe with them, but they kept voting for them. The problem is the blind Hindu obedience and worship of anyone who talks in the language of a Hindu saint, which Gandhi did.
It is the political blindness of the Hindus and their habit of backing the worng horse that is going to be their donwfall. Even today, in August 2006, it is very clear on whose side Congress is on, still many Hindus keep voting for it. IN a way, they deserve what is happening to them.
Comment by sanjay choudhry August 6, 2006 @ 11:16 amWhat hinduism you guys are talking about ???
Comment by Apna Desh September 11, 2006 @ 8:38 amHinduism which restricted people from entering the temple
of Hindus just because they belong to certain professions.
People of india grow beyond Hinduism.
The word Hinduism has been sold at big price in the past at the
Comment by Apna Desh September 11, 2006 @ 9:03 amcost of self-esteem and self-respect of the downtroddens.
Now it is sold out. No use using this word again. It will create
violence and nothing else in favour of majority Indians.
I am looking for the full defense/statement which was sealed in the court and then unsealed. It was about 50 typed pages. Can you direct me where I can find this?
Comment by Ram Kumar Singh October 3, 2006 @ 9:35 pmHindus have no clue about what they are doing. After doing some research in recent times truth has began to unfold about why the average Hindu is so lost.
Comment by DWDM December 17, 2006 @ 12:05 pmLong live Nathuram Godse. May God bless him
Comment by Aspi Kootar February 14, 2007 @ 1:56 amTake Gandhi’s face of all the bank notes in India. And put his face on all the bank notes in Pakistan.
The holyland must be reunited, under a secular, federal entity. Jai Hind.
Comment by Voice of truth April 19, 2007 @ 2:51 pmi think gandhi ji has served a lot for the nation a, and by writting such stuff about him we are actually insulting them. we ourself are deviding our society into hindus and muslims,he took both the religions to be equall ,it is very shameful that in 21st century literate people are talking like this,it was britisher’s policy to devide india,they have left the nation still the division is still their, which is very shameful
Comment by gunjan chauhan July 9, 2007 @ 4:54 pmM.K Gandhi:——(on the day of assasination)….
I don’t differentiate between Ram and Rahim or Krishna or Karim. I am not overwhelmed about the fact that I am a Hindu and I don’t repent because I was not born a Muslim. I am I. And I am honest to my principles and to the truth. Arjundas you want me to discontinue the prayers for a few days… but I say, even today, if the killer is waiting outside for me. I am prepared to welcome him with folded hands. He can kill Gandhi, not Gandhism.
I salute do u people???
Comment by Prajwal August 9, 2007 @ 10:53 amI am British but also a citizen – I hope – of the world. I am surprised that no-one here is blaming the British for the terrible events surrounding partition. When I was at school we were taught in 6th form (just before university) that the British should not have departed so abruptly and that over time the small incidents that led to the bigger ones and then even worse might have been avoided. But if some act of violence takes away your child a frightful seed is sewn and things go on from there. I do not think the killings were about religious differences. They were about killings which once started became unstoppable. I arrived in Delhi on the last day of October 2005 after many had died in markets there. No further violence occurred. What restraint and courage among those who said we will return to the market and continue despite the blood. I think it may be easier to avid these chains of murder and revenge when we understand our own impulses to rage and hatred. At the time of partition people experienced unprecedented disruption in their lives. To have to leave everything you know and take all your possessions to another strange place already predisposes you to anger and resentment and then if in the stress of the great movement one of my family dies. Is it not natural for me in the intensity of my grief to look for someone to blame and then to lash out at them. Should the British administration have stayed a little longer – or would that just have postponed the Midnight Hour? I am trying to learn more about the Greek Civil War (half my family is Greek) in which there was also a British presence and people still argue about the events of To Dekemvria, when British soldiers welcomed as liberators with much rejoicing found themselves shooting at Greeks. Terrible things had already happened and worse followed with many massacres and scores settled across Greece. How do we humans end up doing such things to our neighbours. i think it is only luck of timing and place that I have not been drawn into such a tragedy. With bombs likely to be set off anywhere I realise i could still lose my humanity and fall into rage and lust for revenge.
Comment by Simon Baddeley August 18, 2007 @ 3:14 pmi support veer savarkar…….. he just was an awesome hindu actist of course our country is hindusthan no wrong in punishing ppl like m.k.
Comment by kjredd August 25, 2007 @ 7:22 ami realy thank the person, who has posted this speech in the internet, i strongly believe the new generations of india must also know certain facts and history. we are only made to learn, that gandhiji is the father of the nation, i think, today if u ask any child, who is the person behind india’s independence, he will have only one answer “Mahatma Gandhi”. In my view, gandhiji was one among many people who fought for india’s independence..
We all respect indian currency, Every human in our india is survived by earning that. its being used by all religion. I strongly feel, there are many people with different religions who are not agreeing to gandhiji’s act for independence. Some people may be hating or disliking him too. then why our currency has his picture. Lets free our currency from gandhi. I feel, our currency has more value than a human being.
Comment by Rahul Nair September 21, 2007 @ 7:23 pmHello Sarsij,
Comment by prasad October 5, 2007 @ 8:06 pmI am looking for the books written on Nathuram Godse, I would like to purchase & read them. Please guide me where can I get the books.
Hello MR rahul nair. For people like you we indians are fighting for our own rites in our own nation. Better you change ur mind. It seems you must be a high school teacher.
Comment by dunguri October 6, 2007 @ 11:48 amSorry it was for prajwal. For believing such a brilliant story.
Comment by dunguri October 6, 2007 @ 11:52 amIn Simple words Gandhi n Nehru both are qualified bastards…. If these peoples are not with us then our Country will be more peaceful n developed than others.
Comment by Debasis October 30, 2007 @ 12:31 pmIf you judge Gandhi from the prism of hinduism, he deserved his death. But what did Godse achived by killing Gandhi after everything had been finished, that is after the partition had been done. Nehru and congress used his killing brilliently and even to this day, RSS and BJP is paying the price for Godse’s action. Even after 50 years of misrule by Congress, mismanagement, bringing the country to the verge of disastor, BJP being the main opposition, cannot able to get more then 25 % of the overall popular vote in any parlementary election.
Comment by vidyadhar November 16, 2007 @ 9:19 amTwo new studies show why some people are more attractive for members of the opposite sex than others.
The University of Florida, Florida State University found that physically attractive people almost instantly attract the attention of the interlocutor, sobesednitsy with them, literally, it is difficult to make eye. This conclusion was reached by a series of psychological experiments, which were determined by the people who believe in sending the first seconds after the acquaintance. Here, a curious feature: single, unmarried experimental preferred to look at the guys, beauty opposite sex, and family, people most often by representatives of their sex.
The authors believe that this feature developed a behavior as a result of the evolution: a man trying to find a decent pair to acquire offspring. If this is resolved, he wondered potential rivals. Detailed information about this magazine will be published Journal of Personality and Social Psychology.
In turn, a joint study of the Rockefeller University, Rockefeller University and Duke University, Duke University in North Carolina revealed that women are perceived differently by men smell. During experiments studied the perception of women one of the ingredients of male pheromone-androstenona smell, which is contained in urine or sweat.
The results were startling: women are part of this repugnant odor, and the other part is very attractive, resembling the smell of vanilla, and the third group have not felt any smell. The authors argue that the reason is that the differences in the receptor responsible for the olfactory system, from different people are different.
It has long been proven that mammals (including human) odor is one way of attracting the attention of representatives of the opposite sex. A detailed article about the journal Nature will publish.
Comment by Durochurhoott November 16, 2007 @ 9:42 amWell I believe what has happened has happened. All said and done…I honestly did not believe Gandhi died for the country, or got us independence….if he was anything more than a politician who saw India being divided and let it happen, was more infamous for using 2 women on either sides rather than a walking stick…and was probally just concentrating on being a a hero in everyone’s eyes..or a stubborn kid who was just going after what he thought was right ignoring what was hapenning around him…..
I beg to Differ from Balachandran that Ghandhi would have stopped India from being divided…read your history man…..this had been decided even before Ghandi’s assasination.
Having said that i also believe that killing one man was not the solution…Godse should have killed Neru , Jinnah..and all there followers as well…….oh ya and did i forget the British rulers who started this in the first place..and maye the mugal rulers as well who ruled India……
Our problem is that we are not one……we are proud of our religion. jobs, family, kids, having money, having good looking gf/bf’s….but not of our counrty….had the county been one..or we had the right rulers to start with we would probably still been “THE GOLDEN BIRD”
Comment by daisy December 5, 2007 @ 5:43 pmI have no knowledge other than the fact that I am ignorant myself, but I should, in the light of the above-posted comments, like to express my views. I am in class XII at present, and therefore, have much to see of and learn about the world at large.
Comment by Sujaan December 18, 2007 @ 4:04 pmWhat I found rather disturbing is someone’s calling India a nation for the Hindus (saying something to the effect that Hindus have to fight for our own nation). A certain rather controversial author, but of an admirable English, says that India is almost a dream-state. The British are generally all British, the Brazillians all Brazillians, but look at us, SIkhs, Hindus, Muslims, Christians, Buddhists, Jains, you name it, we’ve got it! Isn’t that something to take pride in?
I quite admit the faults Nehru and Gandhi both had, but even as retaliation could have been a way out, would we have placed ourselves, in no one’s but our own eyes, anywhere above the oppressors (and I don’t just refer to the British, but also to the Brahmins and other sects and sections who had exercised their power over weaker communities) had we, ourselves, resorted to those means of fighting? I quite appreciate it is illogical to ask of dumb millions a practice of such high ideals of non-violence, it is almost foolish.
The point is that even after the British have left, Pakistan formed, are we socio-culturally much better off? Maybe a dictatorial rule would have seen to quicker progress of the nation, but isn’t there something special in the fact that we (at least) tried to build our nation on the principles of liberalism and freedom and all of what is enshrined in our constitution? Isn’t in conscientiously (wrong use of the word I guess) better? Those who call Nehru and Gandhi bastards should try and do something about the nation themselves, that too in state of affairs where you don’t get arrested for every next move.
Okay, okay, extremely sorry about are we much better off…Got passionate. What I meant to point out was all the bribery and stuff which goes on and all the people you see dying unnecessarily and all the people who have to wait and wait and wait for justice which never comes their way and all the villages where women are still oppressed and all the children you’ll get to see washing cups and dishes and working in the shops through out the day. I know they won’t be able to earn their bread unless they work themselves but isn’t it in all a pitiable situation? It’s really confusing.
Comment by Sujaan December 18, 2007 @ 4:13 pmThe only objection i have to Nathuram’s Godse’s act is the killing. Killing should not be solution to problems. RSS or Hindu Mahasabha or hinduism as a matter of fact does not teach killing. At the same time, I appreciate the person who posted Nathuram Godse’s defense speech as it is highly educative. As a child i had always learnt that Mahatma gandhi was the father of our nation and was a great soul, which i still think so. What we were not tought was why would someone kill him. There was always a question mark. If someone was to be punished, then that should have been Jawahar Lal Nehru or Jinha who were there only for power and were politician more than freedom fighters. At the same time i would also like to say that in many ways Sardar patel was a much better and stronger leader and a statesman as compared to Jawahar Lalji. It is very sad that in the history that we are tought in schools, not much credit is given to many others for the freedom struggle and is concentrated to just two leaders. Vande Matram..!!
Comment by Abhinav Karir January 14, 2008 @ 5:15 pmwhere is the actual complete speech and defence statement of Godse. There are more facts for all you Indians to know. I read it somewhere but now forgot where it was I read.
Comment by Simhesvara February 10, 2008 @ 2:35 pmSimhesvara from Malaysia
You can find the whole speech of Nathuram Godse in a marathi book written by his youngest brother Mr.Gopal Godse named ” Gandhihatya ani Mi”
Comment by Milind February 11, 2008 @ 9:22 amHere is the link to the interview with Mr.Gopal Godse.
http://www.asuku.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=5286
Comment by Abhinav Karir March 12, 2008 @ 3:18 pmAs a Jew who is terrorized to give up his homeland to the MUslim dictators, I salut Nathuram Godse as a hero and saviour of India.. You Indians should be proud of this man. If not for him, you may all be urdu speakers today and being forced at gunpoint to recite Koran verses. Your wives and mothers woudl be prostitutes for deranged imams and shieks. Islam is a disaster and like Nazism has only one cause, world domination and wiping out the entire non-Muslim race. Look at all the brilliant cultures destroyed throughout the world because of this barbaric religion and people. The world always gives honor to criminals and puts to death the martyrs. Godse is a friend of India and Israel.. God bless you in the 7th heaven.
Comment by Yonatan March 24, 2008 @ 4:11 amDear Rahul M, you are obviously an uneducated idiot who has no idea what he is talking about. Anybody who knows anything about Indian politics knows that the BJP and RSS fervently support the Sikh and Jain communities as they are “native religions of India” and that the RSS and BJP shielded and protected the Sikhs from the massacre against them instigated by the Congress Party in 1984. I am astounded and ashamed that you would bring up such a thing as Sati, as there has not beena recorded incident of it since the 1980s as far as I am aware and that every major Hindu political organization is extremely opposed to any such practice as it undermines the Hindutva movement. Wearing Dhotis and pajamas? What in the world are you talking about? Are you saying that people in India today don’t wear dhotis? Is this a joke? Futhermore, what’s wrong with that, people should be free to wear whatever they want, unlike in Muslim countries where dress is dictated sometimes under pain of death. If you were an Indian Hindu stuck somewhere in Pakistan, Bangladesh, Afghanistan, or anywhere else in the world where Hindus are treated like dogs and regularly killed and raped with no repercussions, you would be the first person begging the RSS, the BJP, or any “extremist” organization whose only goal is to preserve Hindu cultre to come and save you.
Comment by Neel C August 1, 2008 @ 4:23 amFuck These Bastards like Rahul M and Gunjan Chauhan. Who don’t know about India and Indian History. They Claim themselves Hindu or Indian But they don’t know what it is all about. They don’t know what this forum is discussing about. One say it
Comment by samresh Singh August 6, 2008 @ 12:06 amwas a policy of Britishers, but don’t realize who accepted these were our great Indian leaders (Gandhi,Nehru).
One Say that” India being a secular country instead of a Hindu nation is the credit of Gandhi ,Nehru” But forgot that Muslim country Pakistan is also their credit. Godse was never against the Secular state, but he want to save d intrest of hindus.
I wonder if it is educated, enlightened indians who post in this forum. What is this bane that grips this country that people can not rise above religion? why is it always hindu, muslim, christian and sikh? why not just the people of india? i am sure as a human being Gandhiji had his faults.. but i can not believe that educated people are justifying his killing in 2008! is taking a life the answer to any problem? NEVER. it is sad that 60 years after Gandhi’s time, the people of this nation have not been able to look at religion as what it was meant to be, a way to promote self-discipline and not as a tool of hatred and bloodshed. We sure have miles to go before we sleep… it saddens me deeply.
Comment by Shreedhar October 4, 2008 @ 5:15 pm[...] never betrayed doubt or regret. On the contrary, he cogently justified the murder at trial: I thought to myself and foresaw I shall be totally ruined, and the only thing I could [...]
Pingback by ExecutedToday.com » 1949: Nathuram Godse, Gandhi’s assassin November 16, 2008 @ 3:59 amEvery body is right.Ultimately it is the wish of GOD.
Comment by sushil December 22, 2008 @ 11:30 amShivaji was a secular man as was Akbar. Both of them respected other’s religion. Mind it, I say it once again, Shivaji was a secular man and be a better Hindu by knowing this fact. I am not talking about Aurangzeb who indeed was a bigot like present day Narendra Modi. In Shivaji’s time Indian contitution was not written and there was no notion of present day India spanning from Nagaland to Kashmir and as much down south. And same for Akbar and Aurangzeb’s time. Yet two of them, Shivaji and Akbar clearly maintained secular credentials, Aurangzeb did not. Read more to know details and read unbiased and scholarly works. Aurangzeb in his time did what Narendra modi is doing in his time, tyranny and nothing more. Shivaji did not indulge in tyranny though he resorted to gurella technique of modern times, yet he was clearly not aiming against muslims. Many muslims were with him on his side and this is very much a recorded history that Maratha were even led by brave and trusted Muslim general one of whom was leading and even died defending Maratha against Abdali in one of the most famous battle medival India has witnessed. Read man, read, and you will know that whoever is proud of Shivaji as a great hindu warrior must know that the great warrior was essentially a secular man. And as a present day man one can clearly see that things have always been like this on this great land whom we now address- India and at that time when concept of a Hindu nation was just developing, India of that time was essentially enough secularised by the efforts of Akbar and Shivaji. As for Afzal Khan he was an insignificant felow who died while attempting to kill Shivaji. Gandhi was no Shivaji who could have retaliated as swiftly to his killer Nathuram Godse as Shivaji did to Afzal Khan. Shvaji was against Aurangzeb and not muslims as such. He wanted his motherland which he considered those regions which were regions near present day Pune and neighbouring areas to be free from occupied forces of Mughals under Auranzeb. He had no problem if Aurangzeb remained confined to his Delhi region. He even attended once the court of Aurangzeb to bargain a deal where deal was not materialised and he got arrested and the famous escape happened and after which he wanted to decisively free his region from Aurangzeb’s occupation, something like present day struggle of various states Nagaland, Kashmir, parts of Assam, once even Punjab too asked for it, demanding freedom from India. Now tell me, while Gandhi too advocated secularism, he might not be in his style as Shivaji, he nevertheless was a brave man just like as it is attributed to Sawarkar. Both Sawarkar and Gandhi have displayed their resentment against tyranny of British at that time when they were yet to be famous for their those very acts which brought them laurel and praise. Gandhi and Sawarkar were however at variance about issue of secularism. Gandhi was more in tune with Shivaji about the concept of secularism. Sawarkar was neither as brave as Shivaji nor was in tune with secular beliefs of Shivaji. At least he is not celeberated to be as brave as Shivaji. About Jinnah and Nehru, both were secular and both wanted to be the prime minister of undivided India. About Jinnah’s secularism we all get to know when we read his side of narration of history, but even without reading, if we are to beleive what Advani says and still maintains, Jinnah was secular man, yet he was not like Gandhi who would give up. But Nehru was not the man who would let Jinnah have the cake so easily. How could he let him be the prime minister when he too was as good a candidate and more popular plus with support from Gandhi and Patel and Azad. He in fact with his team of Patel and Azad proved his point that he was a secular man, while Jinnah could not do so. Moreever, Nehru was un tune with Gandhi who himself was in tune with Shivaji’s secularism. So one can see there was nothing else but secularism everywhere and India was like the child born of secular parents. Just how could the child be non-secular? The only non-secular voices were of Muslim League whom Jinnah rided to get away with his ambition of being head of the state, however small it may be. Or the other non-secular voice was that of the kind of Sawarkar who was unlike Shivaji – a secular and celeberated brave warrior. Sawarkar was no match to Shivaji’s personality or achievement. Nor Shivaji would have approved of his inclination if he had been born in these modern times and definitely Nathuram Godse stands no where in front of Gandhiji or Shivaji, just as Afzal Khan stands nowhere in front of Shivaji.
Comment by sadaf January 28, 2009 @ 3:29 amSo dear friends get all your facts rechecked and read well and then form opinion. India was on course to become a secular nation from the times of Shivaji and even before him, from Akbar’s time. I must add even before Akbar, that of Ashok’s time, India was to be secular, and it has really and deservingly arrived to be secular India and I am proud to an Indian. Proud of its secular legacy left by Ashoka, Shivaji, Akbar, Gandhi and Nehru.
Jai Hind.
It is more than 60 years now, still in schoold books it is taught to children that “Gandhiji was killed by a fanatic.” If Natghuram was a fanatic, how he could have himself given his defence speach in the in-camera hearing. At the end of his speech, the judge ,hearing the case asked ” Nathuram, What is your qualification?” Pat came reply that “I am a matriculate.”. The surprised judge lauded Nathuram’s speech as if it was made by an experienced advocate of a high-court.
Nathuram was a journalist, he was running a fortnightly in Pune. Still journalists today, take pride in calling him “fanatic”, without caring for going through the facts of history. The partition of India, was the culmination of “idea of separatism” nurtured tactfully by British in the minds of Indian Muslms after the 1857 War of Liberation. (Remeber, the 1857 war was faught together by Hindus and Muslims. Rani Zasi’s military commander was a Muslim. The british realised the danger of Hindu-Muslim unity. If Hindus and Muslims remained together, the British rule would have ended much earlier.) So british tactufully divided Hindus & Muslims and ruled India for 150 years.
After Lokmanya Tilak’s death in 1920, Gandhiji arrived from Africa on Indian political scene. Trying to be hero of all Indians (Hindus, Sikhs, Muslims etc.etc.-as he was in South Africa), Gandhiji failed to realise that in India, Muslims had carefully nurtured the idea of separatism. He also forgot that there already was Muslim League, which was taking care of interests of Muslim Communities in India.
But still, Gandhiji continued the British policy of “appeasement of Muslims in India”, always neglecting the interests of Hindus, who were forming almost 80-90% of Indian population then. The continued appeasement of Muslims in India and their pamperring ultimately lead to the partition of India. The creation of Pakistan is the greatest folly, the dangerous fruits of which we have been experienceing for last 50-60 years in the form of extremists and terrorist activities throughout India. This is a permanent and life-long headache not only for India, but for the entire humanity.
In fact Partion of India, is a gift of Gandhiji total weaked polcies of Muslim appeasement, culminating in formation of Pakistan.
So in real terms Gandhiji is father of Pakistan, not India. And he is totally responsbile for massacre of lacs of Hindus during partition. When , instead of going to Eastern Punjab (present Punjab-on Pakistan border- to calm down the situation, Gandhiji was fasting in Nowkhali in West Bengal bordering East Pakistan (now Bangla Desh), miles away from the place of carnage of Hindus in Punjab and borders of West Pakistan then.
Now, atleast after 60 years of Gandhi’s murder, let our scholars, historians, reporters take a subjective view, study the history with a right perspective and decide for themselves, was Nathuram really wrong in killing Gandhiji ? Wasn’t he representing the psyche of millions of Hindus all over the country at that time ? Atleast accept the fact that Nathuram was not fanatic at all. He had given a detailed thought to his deed , before executing Gandhiji.
Atlease let us accept, that it was not an act by fanatic and let us tell our future generations what were the real facts, that let to killing of Gandhiji. Atleast now in 2009, that event is 60 years old.
Come on let’s make an introspection….Avinash Bhome.
Comment by Avinash Bhome May 14, 2009 @ 1:05 amMany of the readers have requested for ” the book/articles for complete/detailed statement of Nathuram Godse etc.”, in their aforesaid comments.
I suggest they should read:–
1)” Gandhi Murder & After ” by Gopal Godse, brother of Nathuram Godse, who was also in jail for 25 years – life imprisonment. This is English version of famous and banned Marathi book” Gandhi Hatya Ani Mee i.e. Gandhi Murder and I “.
This book was banned in Maharashtra/India from 1950 to 1965-70, as it was an attempt to tell the other side (real side ?) of the story. This was naturally was not liked by the Congress — which ruled India and almost all the states of India, till 1967.
2) ” May it please your Honour ! “- a complete and detailed 50-60 page defence speech of Nathuram Godse, which he made in the secretly held in-camera court proceedings, where press-reporters were not freely allowed to make reporting of the case freely in newspapers at that time.
These books are available all-over India, in English/International book – stalls.
Those who want to know the other side of the story and the real facts of the history, should well take troubles in reading these books.
Comment by Avinash Bhome May 16, 2009 @ 5:31 amehh… 10x
Comment by incest mom chat July 24, 2009 @ 11:52 am