................................................................................................
................................................................................................
Why I Killed Gandhi,
by Nathuram Godse.
................................................................................................
................................................................................................
The book is very short, naturally - it's the statement allowed in the court for the man convicted of having shot dead Gandhi.
And, moreover, not everything he said has been included.
There is an account, much more extensive, where he points out the details of Gandhi playing with autocratic politics, changing policies and ruining lives. It's much longer.
The material omitted here is significant, and the omission amounts to a lie, forced for convenience of the political party that ruled India for most of decades between independence and millennium. Whether the publisher chose this or was forced to do so is a good question.
But the redaction amounts to leaving the reader unable to see the facts given by Nathuram Godse that went into his decision - facts about Gandhi's wrong decisions affecting those that followed him and the rest of India - while leaving the uninformed with an impression that Nathuram Godse was merely a communal bigot filled with hatred.
There is much not told about the story, just as much isn't told about Gandhi, as a part of his deification that was necessary for a political party to hold on to a rule, almost as if heritage handed over from mughal to British to congress; and within the party, most personalities of tall stature, mentally or generally, were sidelined in favour of the single leader, whether they were his seniors or otherwise.
So for example it's constantly dinned into people that this was a crazy killer, and he belonged to a Hindu party, and that any association with such an organisation makes a person unquestionably evil.
Facts do not support any of this. However, facts known widely enough, that are incontrovertible, include a great deal against the official stance about the persons involved.
For example, Nathuram Godse could have hidden, shot, vanished. He did none of the above - he approached, did an obeisance, shot, and stood right there, knowing full well what came next - not only arrest, conviction and execution, but the official stance of pouring hatred, not only on him, but far more.
What hasn't been told, but known through those who were there, is that the trial footage was shown by the government in cinema halls in Delhi, expecting a public uproar demanding immediate execution of Nathuram Godse. Those that planned this, were completely taken aback, however, when people instead applauded his appearance on screen - and the screening of the trial footage stopped immediately.
Government had forgotten a vital fact - this was soon enough after partition, when millions had been butchered in NorthWest across the new border of India. Far more millions had fled homes to arrive penniless, often having lost everything including members of family. And the government policy favoured being fair to those who were leaving, or returning to claim property, while the traumatised and bereft refugees in Delhi , from across border on either of both sides, were expected to be Gandhian about their losses, and brotherly to the community that had forced them to leave.
Compare an Israeli government being fair to nazis if they demanded pieces of land in Tel Aviv.
Nathuram Godse's brother wrote and published his account after leaving prison. It's worth a read.
................................................................................................
" ... 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." ... "
"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."
"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 ... "
................................................................................................
At the end, Nathuram Godse states that he wishes no applications for mercy on his behalf, being fully aware of the hatred that would be poured on him by the government.
What he may not have known, is that politics of convenient spreading of hatred had goons burn and loot homes of everyone of a particular community, which he belonged to, across a whole state, one he came from.
That was definitely not according to preaching of Gandhi, if those attacking innocent were really Gandhian and not merely taking advantage of the event to hit out at the innocent for their own benefit.
................................................................................................
................................................................................................
................................................
................................................
August 08, 2021 - August 08, 2021.
Purchased August 07, 2021.
ebook, 64 pages
Published August 5th 2019
by General Press
ISBN9389440076
(ISBN13: 9789389440072)
................................................
................................................
................................................................................................
................................................................................................
................................................................................................
................................................................................................
https://www.goodreads.com/review/show/4362142336
................................................................................................
................................................................................................
https://www.goodreads.com/review/show/4162584732
................................................................................................
................................................................................................
Quoted from extracts of Nathuram Godse's defence speech published elsewhere -
Since they are not extracted from the original speech as published - because this book was heavily censored, and only material allowed to be read in India is the version that suited congress government view, to go with their image of Godse as a fanatic crazed by hatred, which is as false as most propaganda of the party - the arrangement, numbers of paragraphs and reference numbers, are all from the source that the material coukd be extracted from, which is in an order rearranged, but quite coherent.
................................................................................................
"‘34. Some three years ago, Veer Savarkar’s health got seriously impaired and since then he was generally confined to bed. (…) Thus deprived of his virile leadership and magnetic influence, the activities and influence of the Hindu Mahasabha too got crippled and when Dr. Mookerji became its President, the Mahasabha was actually reduced to the position of a hand-maid to the Congress. It became quite incapable of counteracting the dangerous anti-Hindu activities of Gandhiite cabal on the one hand and the Muslim League on the other. (…) I determined to organise a youthful band of Hindu Sanghatanists and adopt a fighting programme both against the Congress and the League without consulting any of those prominent but old leaders of the Mahasabha.
"‘41. (…) To my mind to recognise a State of Divided India was tantamount to being a party to the cursed vivisection of India. (…) Veer Savarkar went further and actually insisted that the tri-colour flag with the wheel should be recognised as a National Flag.
"‘42. (…) In addition to that, when Dr. Mookerji asked his permission through a trunk call to Veer Savarkar as to whether Dr. Mookerji should accept a portfolio in the Indian Union Ministry, Veer Savarkar emphatically replied that the new Government must be recognised as a National Government whatever may be the party leading it, and must be supported by all patriots (…).’
"‘43. (…) I myself could not be opposed to a common front of patriots, but while the Congress Government continued to be so sheepishly under the thumb of Gandhiji and while Gandhiji could thrust his anti-Hindu fads on that Congressite Government by resorting to such a cheap trick as threatening a fast, it was clear to me that any common front under such circumstances was bound to be another form of setting up Gandhiji’s dictatorship and consequently a betrayal of Hindudom.’"
"‘44. Every one of these steps taken by Veer Savarkar was so deeply resented by me that I myself along with Mr. Apte and some of the young Hindu Sanghatanist friends decided once and for all to chalk and work out our active programme quite independently of the Mahasabha or its old veteran leaders. We resolved not to confide any of our new plans to any of them including Savarkar.’
"‘48. The background to the event of the 30th January, 1948, was wholly and exclusively political and I would like to explain it at some length. The fact that Gandhiji honoured the religious books of Hindus, Muslims, and others or that he used to recite during his prayers verses from the Gita, the Quran and the Bible never provoked any ill will in me towards him. To my mind it is not at all objectionable to study comparative religion. Indeed it is a merit.’
"‘49. The territory bounded by the North Western Frontier in the North and Cape Comorin in the South and the areas between Karachi and Assam, that is the whole of pre-partition India, has always been to me my motherland. In this vast area live people of various faiths and I hold that these creeds should have full and equal freedom for following their ideals and beliefs. In this area the Hindus are the most numerous. They have no place which they can call their own beyond or outside this country. Hindusthan is thus both motherland and the holy land for the Hindus from times immemorial. To the Hindus largely this country owes its fame and glory, its culture and art, knowledge, science and philosophy. Next to the Hindus, the Muslims are numerically predominant. They made systematic inroads into this country since the 10th century and gradually succeeded in establishing Muslim rule over the greater part of India.
"‘50. Before the advent of the British, both Hindus and Muslims as a result of centuries of experience had come to realise that the Muslims could not remain as masters in India; nor could they be driven away. Both had clearly understood that both had come to stay. Owing to the rise of the Mahrattas, the revolt of the Rajputs and the uprise of the Sikhs, the Muslim hold on the country had become very feeble and although some of them continued to aspire for supremacy in India, practical people could see clearly that such hopes were futile. On the other hand, the British had proved more powerful in battle and in intrigue than either the Hindus or Mussalmans, and by their adoption of improved methods of administration and the assurance of the security of the life and property without any discrimination both the Hindus and the Muslims accepted them as inevitable.
"‘50 (continued). Differences between the Hindus and the Muslims did exist even before the British came. Nevertheless it is a fact that the British made the most unscrupulous use of these differences and created more differences in order to maintain their power and authority. The Indian National Congress which was started with the object of winning power for the people in the governance of the country had from the beginning kept before it the ideal of complete nationalism which implies that all Indians should enjoy equal rights and complete equality on the basis of democracy. This ideal of removing the foreign rule and replacing it by the democratic power and authority of the people appealed to me most from the very start of my public career.’
................................................................................................
"‘51. In my writings and speeches, I have always advocated that the religious and communal consideration should be entirely eschewed in the public affairs of the country, at elections, inside and outside the legislatures and in the making and unmaking of Cabinets. I have throughout stood for a secular State with joint electorates and to my mind this is the only sensible thing to do. (…)’1
"It should be clear by now that the conflict between Gandhi and Godse was not one between secularism and communalism (i.e., a system of community-based rights, of allotting privileges to or imposing disabilities on citizens on the basis of their communal identity, especially their religious community membership), except if we identify Godse with secularism and Gandhi with communalism. Both were religious men, but Godse wanted a secular polity while Gandhi condoned political arrangements along communal lines. ...
‘51 (continued). Under the influence of the Congress, this ideal was steadily making headway amongst the Hindus. But the Muslims as a community first stood aloof and later on under the corroding influence of the Divide and Rule Policy of foreign masters were encouraged to cherish the ambition of dominating the Hindus. The first indication of this outlook was the demand for separate electorates instigated by the then Viceroy Lord Minto in 1906. The British Government accepted this demand under the excuse of minority protection. While the Congress party offered a verbal opposition, it progressively supported separatism by ultimately adopting the notorious formula of “neither accepting nor rejecting” in 1934.’"
"‘53. In spite of my advocacy of joint electorates, in principle I reconciled myself with the temporary introduction of separate electorates since the Muslims were keen on them. I however insisted that representation should be granted in strict proportion to the number of every community and no more. I have uniformly maintained this stand.’3
"‘54. Under the inspiration of our British masters on the one hand and the encouragement by the Congress under Gandhiji’s leadership on the other, the Muslim League went on increasing its demands on Communal basis. The Muslim community continuously backed the Muslim League; each successive election proved that the Muslim League was able to bank on the fanaticism and ignorance of the Muslim masses and the League was thus encouraged in its policy of separatism on an ever increasing scale year after year.’"
"‘‘56. Since the year 1920, that is to say after the demise of Lokmanya 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 ostentatiously paraded before the country. No sensible or enlightened person could object to these slogans; in fact there is nothing new or original in them. They are implicit in every constitutional public movement. To 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 is a mere dream. In fact honour, duty and love of one’s own kith and kin and country might often compel us to disregard non-violence. I could never conceive that an armed resistance to the aggressor is unjust. I will consider it a religious and moral duty to resist and if possible to overpower such an enemy by the use of force. (…)’7
‘59. [Upon returning to India from South Africa,] Gandhiji began his work by starting an Ashram in Ahmedabad on the banks of the Sabarmati River, and made truth and non-violence his slogans. He had often acted contrary to his professed principles and if it was for appeasing the Muslims, he hardly had any scruple in doing so. truth and non-violence are excellent as an ideal and admirable as guides in action. They are, however, to be practised in actual day-to-day life and not in the air. I am showing later on that Gandhiji himself was guilty of glaring breaches of his much-vaunted ideals.’8
"‘56 (continued). Shri Ramchandra killed Ravan in a tumultuous fight and relieved Sita. Shri Krishna killed Kansa to end his wickedness. In the Mahabharat, Arjun 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."
"‘57. Each of the heroes in his time resisted aggression on our country, protected the people against the atrocities and outrages by alien fanatics and won back the motherland from the invader. On the other hand, during more than thirty years of the undisputed leadership of the Mahatma, there were more desecrations of temples, more forcible and fraudulent conversions, more outrages on women and finally the loss of one third of the country. It is therefore astounding that his followers cannot see what is clear even to the blind, viz. that the Mahatma was a mere pygmy before Shivaji, Rana Pratap and Guru Govind. His condemnation of these illustrious heroes was to say the least, most presumptuous.
"‘58. The clique which has got into power with the patronage of British imperialism by a cowardly surrender to the Partition of India at the point of Muslim violence is now trying to exploit Gandhiji’s death in hundred hectic ways for its own selfish aims. But history will give to them their proper place in the niche of fame. Gandhiji 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."
................................................................................................
"‘66. (…) The Muslims did not obstruct the war [World War II] efforts and the Congress sometimes remained neutral and sometimes opposed. On the other hand, the Hindu Sabha realised that this was an opportunity for our young men to have a military training, which is absolutely essential for our nation, and from which we were rather kept far away intentionally by the British. But due to this war, the doors of Army, Navy and Airforce were opened to us, and Mahasabha urged our countrymen to militarise Hindus. The result was that nearly 1/2 millions of Hindus learnt the art of war and mastered the mechanised aspect of modern warfare. The Congress Governments are enjoying the fruits of the Mahasabha’s foresight because the troops they are using in Kashmir and had employed in Hyderabad would not have been there ready-made but for the effort of men with such outlook. (…)’17
"‘61. When Gandhiji finally returned to India at the end of 1914, he brought with him a very high reputation for courageous leadership of Indians in South Africa. (…) He was honoured and obeyed by Hindus, Muslims and Parsis alike and was universally acclaimed as the leader of all Indians in South Africa. His simplicity of life, his unselfish devotion to the cause which he had made his own, his self-sacrifice and earnestness in fighting against the racial arrogance of the Afrikaners had raised the prestige of Indians. In India, he had endeared himself to all.
"‘62. When he returned here to serve his countrymen in their struggle for freedom, he had legitimately hoped that as in Africa he would command the unchallenged confidence and respect of all communities. But in this hope he soon found himself disappointed. (…) In South Africa, Indians had claimed nothing but elementary rights of citizenship which were denied to them. (…) Hindus, Muslims and Parsis therefore stood united like one man against the common enemy. (…) The Indian problem at home was quite different. We were fighting for home rule, self-Government and even for independence. We were intent on overthrowing an Imperial Power, which was determined to continue its sway over us by all possible means, including the policy of ‘Divide and Rule’ which had intensified the cleavage between Hindus and Muslims. (…)’28
................................................................................................
"‘65. Our British rulers were able, out of Indian resources, continuously to make concessions to Muslims and to keep the various communities divided. By 1919, Gandhiji had become desperate in his endeavours to get the Muslims to trust him and went from one absurd promise to another. He promised ‘a blank cheque’ to the Muslims. He backed the Khilafat Movement in this country and was able to enlist the full support of the National Congress in that policy. (…) the Ali Brothers became de facto Muslim leaders; Gandhiji welcomed this as the coming promise of leadership of the Muslims. He made most of the Ali Brothers, raised them to the skies by flattery and unending concessions; but what he wanted never happened.’
"Indeed, the Khilafat Movement was a tragi-comical failure. Its demands lost their object when Turkish republicans under Mustafa Kemal Ataturk deposed the Caliph and abolished the very institution of the Caliphate (1923–24), in spite of the prestige which it used to confer on Turkey in the eyes of the Muslim world. But even before that, the agitation had been derailed when Gandhi’s inner voice expressed its disapproval of the violent turn which the movement was taking. After the murder of some policemen in Chauri Chaura (UP) on 5 February 1922, Gandhi called off the agitation, to the surprise and dismay of his Muslim allies. Muslim anger at Gandhi’s typically Hindu pusillanimity led to the biggest wave of Hindu-Muslim riots since the establishment of British paramountcy in India:
"‘65 (continued). The Muslims ran the Khilafat Committee as a distinct political religious organisation and throughout maintained it as a separate entity from the Congress; and very soon the Moplah Rebellion showed that the Muslims had not the slightest idea of national unity on which Gandhiji had set his heart and had staked so much. There followed, as usual in such cases, a huge slaughter of the Hindus, numerous forcible conversions, rape and arson. The British Government, entirely unmoved by the rebellion, suppressed it in a few months and left to Gandhiji the joy of his Hindu-Muslim unity. The Khilafat agitation had failed and let down Gandhiji. British Imperialism emerged stronger, the Muslims became more fanatical and the consequences were visited on the Hindus. (…)’30
................................................................................................
"‘65 (continued). Mr. Jinnah who had staged a comeback was having the best of both worlds. Whatever concessions the Government and the Congress made, Mr. Jinnah accepted and asked for more. Separation of Sindh from Bombay [Presidency] and the creation of the N.W. Frontier [Province] were followed by the Round Table Conference in which the minority question loomed large. Mr. Jinnah stood out against the federation until Gandhiji himself requested Mr. McDonald, the Labour Premier, to give the Communal Award. Further seeds were thereby sown for the disintegration of this country. (…) The Congress continued to support the Communal Award under the very hypocritical words of “neither supporting nor opposing”, which really meant its tacit acceptance. During the War, Mr. Jinnah (…) promised to support the war as soon as the Muslim rights were conceded; in April 1940, within six months of the War, Mr. Jinnah came out with the demand for Pakistan on the basis of his two-nation theory. (…)’32"
................................................................................................
"‘65 (continued). The services began to be distributed on communal basis and the Muslims obtained high jobs from our British Masters not on merit, but by remaining aloof from the struggle for freedom and because of their being the followers of Islam. Government patronage to Muslims in the name of minority protection penetrated throughout the body-politic of the Indian State and the Mahatma’s meaningless slogans were no match against this wholesale corruption of the Muslim mind. But Gandhiji did not relent. He still lived in the hope of being the common leader both of the Hindus and Muslims and the more he was defeated, the more he indulged in encouraging the Muslims by extravagant methods. The position continued to deteriorate and by 1925, it became patent to all that the Government had won all along the line; but like the proverbial gambler, Gandhiji increased his stake. He agreed to the separation of Sindh [from the Bombay Presidency] and to the creation of a separate province in the N.W. Frontier. He also went on conceding one undemocratic demand after another to the Muslim League in the vain hope of enlisting its support in the national struggle. (…)’34
"‘66. The British Government liked the Pakistan idea as it kept the Hindus and Muslims estranged during the war and thereby avoided embarrassing the Government. (…) The Congress in 1942 started the ‘Quit India’ Movement in the name of Freedom; violent outrages were perpetrated by Congressmen in every Province. In the Province of North Bihar, there was hardly a railway station which was not burnt or destroyed by the Congress non-co-operators; but in spite of all the opposition of the Congress, the Germans were beaten in April, 1945 and the Japanese in August, 1945. (…) The “Quit India” campaign of 1942 had completely failed. The Britishers had triumphed and the Congress leaders decided to come to terms with them.
"‘Indeed in the subsequent years the Congress policy can be quite correctly described as “Peace at any Price” and “Congress in Office at all costs”. The Congress compromised with the British who placed it in office and in return, the Congress surrendered to the violence of Mr. Jinnah, carved out one-third of India to him, an explicitly racial and theological State, and destroyed two million human beings in the process. Pandit Nehru now professes again and again that the Congress stands for a secular State and violently denounces those who remind him that only last year he agreed to a communal and theological State; his vociferous adherence to a “Secular State” is nothing but a case of “my lady protests too much”.’
................................................................................................
"‘70 (a). Khilafat. (…) The Indian Muslims’ devotion to the Khilafat was strong and earnest and they believed that it was Britain that had brought about the downfall of the Sultan and the Khilafat. They therefore started a campaign for the revival of the Khilafat. In the moment of opportunism, the Mahatma misconceived the idea that by helping the Khilafat Movement he would become the leader of the Muslims in India as he already was of the Hindus and that with the Hindu-Muslim unity thus achieved, the British would soon have to concede Swaraj. (…) Gandhiji miscalculated and by leading the Indian National Congress to identify itself with the Khilafat Movement, he quite gratuitously introduced a theological element which has proved a tragic and expensive calamity. (…) When failure came, the Muslims became desperate with disappointment and their anger was visited on the Hindus. Innumerable riots in various parts of India followed, the chief victims being the Hindus everywhere. The Hindu-Muslim unity of the Mahatma became a mirage.’2"
................................................................................................
"‘70 (c). Afghan Amir Intrigue. When the Khilafat Movement failed, the Ali Brothers decided to do something which might keep alive the Khilafat sentiments. Their slogan was that whoever was the enemy of the Khilafat was also the enemy of Islam, and as the British were chiefly responsible for the defeat and the dethronement of the Sultan of Turkey, every faithful Muslim was in solemn duty bound to be a bitter enemy of Britain. With that object, they secretly intrigued to invite the Amir of Afghanistan to invade India and promised every support. There is a long history behind this intrigue; the Ali Brothers never denied their share in the conspiracy. The Mahatma pursued his tactics of getting Hindu-Muslim unity by supporting the Ali Brothers through thick and through thin. (…)
"‘70 (c) (continued). Even with regard to the invasion of India by the Amir, the Mahatma directly and indirectly supported the Ali Brothers. This is proved beyond the shadow of doubt. The late Mr. [Srinivasa] Shastri, Mr. C.Y. Chintamani the editor of The Leader of Allahabad and even the Mahatma’s life-long friend, the late Rev. C.F. Andrews, told him quite clearly that his speeches and writings amounted to a definite support to the Ali Brothers in their invitation to the Amir of Afghanistan to invade India. The following quotations from the Mahatma’s writing in those days should make it clear that he had forgotten his own country in his one consuming desire to please the Muslims and had become a party to the invasion of his motherland by a foreign ruler. The Mahatma supported the invasion in the following words:
................................................................................................
"‘70 (d.) (i). Attack on Arya Samaj. Gandhiji ostentatiously displayed his love for Muslims by a most unworthy and unprovoked attack on the Arya Samaj in 1924. He publicly denounced the Samaj for its supposed sins of omission and commission; it was an utterly unwarranted, reckless and discreditable attack, but whatever would please the Mohammedans was the heart’s desire of Gandhiji. The Arya Samaj made a powerful but polite retort and for some time Gandhiji was silenced, but the growing political influence of Gandhiji weakened the Arya Samaj. (…)
"‘70 (d.) (ii). Gandhiji’s attack did not improve his popularity with the Muslims but it provoked a Muslim youth to murder Swami Shraddhanandaji within a few months. The charge against the Samaj that it was a reactionary body was manifestly false. Everybody knew that far from being a reactionary body, the Samaj had been the vanguard of social reforms among the Hindus. The Samaj had for a hundred years stood for the abolition of untouchability long before the birth of Gandhiji. The Samaj had popularised widow remarriage. The Samaj had denounced the caste system and preached the oneness of not merely the Hindus, but of all those who were prepared to follow its tenets. Gandhiji was completely silenced for some time, but his leadership made the people forget his baseless attack on the Arya Samaj and even weakened the Samaj to a large extent. (…)"
................................................................................................
"‘70 (e). Separation of Sindh. By 1928, Mr. Jinnah’s stock had risen very high and the Mahatma had already conceded many unfair and improper demands of Mr. Jinnah at the expense of Indian democracy and the Indian nation and the Hindus. The Mahatma even supported the separation of Sindh from the Bombay Presidency and threw the Hindus of Sind to the communal wolves. Numerous riots took place in Sindh-Karachi, Sukkur, Shikarpur and other places in which the Hindus were the only sufferers and the Hindu-Muslim unity receded further from the horizon.’11"
"‘70 (f). League’s Good Bye to Congress. With each defeat, Gandhiji became even more keen on his method of achieving Hindu-Muslim unity. Like the gambler who had lost heavily, he became more desperate increasing his stakes each time and indulged in the most irrational concessions if only they could placate Mr. Jinnah and enlist his support under the Mahatma’s leadership in the fight for freedom. But the aloofness of the Muslims from the Congress increased with the advance of years and the Muslim League refused to have anything to do with the Congress after 1928. (…)’12"
"‘70 (g). Round-Table Conference and Communal Award. (…) at the Karachi Congress of 1931 it was decided to send Gandhiji alone as the Congress Representative to the Second Session of the Round Table Conference. Anybody who reads the proceedings of that Session will realise that Gandhiji was the biggest factor in bringing about the total failure of the Conference. Not one of the decisions of the Round Table Conference was in support of democracy or nationalism and the Mahatma went to the length of inviting Mr. Ramsay MacDonald to give what was called the Communal Award, thereby strengthening the disintegrating forces of communalism, which had already corroded the body politic for 24 years past. (…)
"‘Gandhiji himself put an axe on the communal unity on which he had staked so much for the previous fifteen years. (…) Those elected on the communal franchise would be naturally communal-minded and would have no interest in bridging the gulf between communalism and nationalism. The formation of a parliamentary party on political and economic grounds thus became impossible. (…) Almost everywhere Hindus became victims of communal orgies at the hands of the Muslims. People became perfectly cynical about any possibility of unity between Hindus and Muslims, but the Mahatma kept on repeating his barren formula all the time.’13"
................................................................................................
"‘70 (h). Acceptance of Office and Resigning in Huff. (…) [The Congress] decided to accept office in July, 1937; in doing so it committed a serious blunder in excluding the members of the Muslim League from effective participation in the Cabinet. They only admitted into the Cabinet such Muslims as were Congressmen. This was the right policy for a country with citizen franchise and without communal representation, but having accepted communal electorate and communal franchise and other paraphernalia of separatism, it became untenable to keep out the members of the Muslim League who represented the bulk of the Muslims in every province where they were in a minority. The Nationalist Muslims who became Ministers were not representatives of the Muslims in the sense in which the Muslim League members were, (…) the rejection of Muslim League members as Ministers gave Mr. Jinnah a tactical advantage which he utilised to the full and in 1939, when the Congress resigned Office in a huff, it completely played in the hands of the Muslim League and British Imperialism.’14"
"‘70 (j). Cripps’ Partition Proposal Accepted. The Congress did not know its own mind as to whether it should support the war, oppose or remain neutral. All these attitudes were expressed in turn one after the other; (…) The war was carried on without let or hindrance till 1942. The Government could get all the men, all the money, and all the material which their war efforts needed. Every Government loan was fully subscribed.
"‘In 1942, came the Cripps Mission (…) with a clear hint of partition of India in the background. Naturally the Mission failed, but the Congress even while opposing the Mission’s proposals yielded to the principle of partition (…) At a meeting of the All India Congress Committee held in April 1942 at Allahabad, the principle of partition was repudiated by an overwhelming majority (…) but Maulana Azad, the so-called nationalist Muslim, was then the President of the Congress. He gave a ruling a few months later that the Allahabad Resolution had no effect on the earlier resolution of the Working Committee which conceded the principle of Pakistan however remotely. The Congress was entirely at the end of its wits. (…)’16
................................................................................................
"‘70 (l). Hindi versus Hindustani. Absurdly pro-Muslim policy of Gandhiji is nowhere more blatantly illustrated than in his perverse attitude on the question of the National Language of India. By all the tests of a scientific language, Hindi has the most prior claim to be accepted as the National Language of this country. In the beginning of his career in India, Gandhiji gave a great impetus to Hindi, but as he found that the Muslims did not like it, he became a turncoat and blossomed forth as the champion of what is called Hindustani. (…) It is a bastard tongue and a 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. (…) ‘All his experiments were at the expense of the Hindus. His was a one-way traffic in his search of Hindu-Muslim unity. The charm and the purity of the Hindi language was to be prostituted to please the Muslims, but even Congressmen, apart from the rest of India, refused to digest this nostrum. For practical purpose, Hindustani is only Urdu under a different name, but Gandhiji could not have the courage to advocate the adoption of Urdu as against Hindi, hence the subterfuge to smuggle Urdu under the garb of Hindustani. Urdu is not banned by any nationalist Hindu, but to smuggle it under the garb of Hindustani is a fraud and a crime.’20
"‘70 (l). Hindi versus Hindustani. Absurdly pro-Muslim policy of Gandhiji is nowhere more blatantly illustrated than in his perverse attitude on the question of the National Language of India. By all the tests of a scientific language, Hindi has the most prior claim to be accepted as the National Language of this country. In the beginning of his career in India, Gandhiji gave a great impetus to Hindi, but as he found that the Muslims did not like it, he became a turncoat and blossomed forth as the champion of what is called Hindustani. (…) It is a bastard tongue and a 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. (…) ‘All his experiments were at the expense of the Hindus. His was a one-way traffic in his search of Hindu-Muslim unity. The charm and the purity of the Hindi language was to be prostituted to please the Muslims, but even Congressmen, apart from the rest of India, refused to digest this nostrum. For practical purpose, Hindustani is only Urdu under a different name, but Gandhiji could not have the courage to advocate the adoption of Urdu as against Hindi, hence the subterfuge to smuggle Urdu under the garb of Hindustani. Urdu is not banned by any nationalist Hindu, but to smuggle it under the garb of Hindustani is a fraud and a crime.’20"
"‘70 (m). Vande Mataram Not to Be Sung. The infatuation of Gandhiji for the Muslims and his incorrigible craving for Muslim leadership without any regard for right and wrong, for truth or justice, and in utter contempt for the sentiments of the Hindus as a whole was the high watermark of the Mahatmic benevolence. It is notorious that some Muslims disliked the celebrated song of Vande Mataram and the Mahatma forthwith stopped its singing or recital wherever he could. (…) The right way to proceed would have been to enlighten the ignorant and remove the prejudice, but that is a policy which during the thirty years of unbounded popularity and leadership Gandhiji could not muster courage to try. (…)’21
"We now know what followed. In the Constituent Assembly, Nehru successfully lobbied to have Vande Mataram replaced with Rabindranath Tagore’s song Jana Gana Mana.
"Likewise, Gandhi set the trend of avoiding references to Shivaji, the seventeenth century Hindu freedom fighter against the Moghul empire.
"‘70 (n). Shiva Bhavani Banned. Gandhiji banned the public recital or perusal of Shiva Bhavani, a beautiful collection of 52 verses by a Hindu poet in which he had extolled the great power of Shivaji and the protection which he brought to the Hindu community and the Hindu religion. The refrain of that collection says: “If there were no Shivaji, the entire country would have been converted to Islam.” (…)’22
"Even the Congress’s own design of a national flag had to give way to the merest expectation of Muslim objections:
"‘70 (y). Removal of Tricolour Flag. The tricolour flag with the Charkha on it was adopted by the Congress as the National Flag out of deference to Gandhiji. (…) When the Mahatma was touring Noakhali and Tippera in 1946 after the beastly outrages on the Hindus, the flag was flying on his temporary hut. But when a Muslim came there and objected (…), Gandhiji quickly directed its removal. All the reverential sentiments of millions of Congressmen towards that flag were affronted in a minute, because that would please an isolated Muslim fanatic (…).’23"
................................................................................................
"‘70 (x). Gandhiji on Cow-Slaughter. Gandhiji used to display a most vehement desire for the protection of the cow. But in fact he did no effort in that direction. (…) An extract from his speech in this connection is reproduced below:
"The Muslim League mounted pressure for Partition by means of street violence, so as to impress upon everyone the impossibility of governing India against the will of the Muslims, and also to polarize the situation and provoke Hindu retaliation against random Muslims so as to influence wavering and recalcitrant Muslims about the absolute necessity of a separate Muslim state. The greatest instance of this premeditated communal violence was the Direct Action Day (16 August 1946) in Calcutta, commonly known by its characterization in a Statesman headline: ‘the Great Calcutta Killing’, with 6,000 mortal victims."
"‘70 (o). Suhrawardy Patronised. (…) On the 16th of August 1946 (…) there broke out in Calcutta an open massacre of the Hindus which continued for three days unchecked. (…) At the time, it was considered that the Government which could permit such outrages on its citizens must be thrown out (…). Gandhiji, however, went to Calcutta and contracted a strange friendship with the author of these massacres; in fact he intervened on behalf of Suhrawardy and the Muslim League [and] publicly described Suhrawardy as a martyr.’"
................................................................................................
"‘70 (p). Attitude towards Hindu and Muslim Princes. Gandhiji’s followers successfully humiliated the Jaipur, Bhavnagar and Rajkot states. They enthusiastically supported even a rebellion in Kashmir State against the Hindu prince. This attitude strangely contrasts with what Gandhiji did about the affairs in Muslim States. (…) In a recent casual Hindu-Muslim clash in Gwalior, because the Mussalmans suffered some casualties, Gandhiji came down upon the Maharaja with a vitriolic attack wholly undeserved.’27
"70 (v). Ill Advice to Kashmir Maharaja. About Kashmir, Gandhiji again and again declared that Sheikh Abdullah should be entrusted the charge of the state and that the Maharaja of Kashmir should retire to Benares for no other reason than that the Muslims formed the bulk of the Kashmir population. This also stands out in contrast with his attitude on Hyderabad where although the bulk of the population is Hindu, Gandhiji never called upon the Nizam to retire to Mecca.’28"
................................................................................................
"‘70 (q). Gandhiji on Fast to Capacity. In 1943, while Gandhiji was on fast to capacity (…) Mr. C. Rajagopalachari smuggled himself into Gandhiji’s room and hatched a plot of conceding Pakistan, which Gandhiji allowed him to negotiate with Jinnah. Gandhiji later on discussed this matter with Mr. Jinnah in the latter part of 1944 and offered Mr. Jinnah virtually what is now called Pakistan. (…)"
"Incidentally, the Cabinet Mission Plan illustrates the British desire to keep India united. .... Jawaharlal Nehru who caused the failure of this last-ditch attempt at keeping India substantially united. ... "
................................................................................................
This next paragraph is practically the only one allowed to remain uncensored in the version of Godse's book, published not only posthumously but several decades later,containing his defence speech - and perhaps the only time he spoke his heart out, according to most of his intimate circle, who always described him as introvert - allowed in India to be read.
"68. ... One hundred and ten millions of people have become torn from their homes, of which not less than four millions are Muslims, and when I found that even after such terrible results, Gandhiji continued to pursue the same policy of appeasement, my blood boiled, and I could not tolerate him any longer.
‘71. (…) there was never a more stupendous fiction fostered by the cunning and believed by the credulous in this country for over a thousand years. Far from attaining freedom under his leadership, Gandhiji has left India torn and bleeding from a thousand wounds.’12
"‘85. (…) I am therefore surprised when claims are made over and over again that the winning of freedom was due to Gandhiji. My own view is that constant pandering to the Muslim League was not the way to winning freedom. It only created a Frankenstein (…) permanently stationing a hostile, censorious, unfriendly and aggressive neighbour on what was once Indian territory. About the winning of Swaraj or freedom, I maintain that the Mahatma’s contribution was negligible. But I am prepared to give him a place as a sincere patriot.’13
‘85 (continued). In my opinion, S.C. Bose is the supreme hero and martyr of modern India (…) advocating all honourable means, including the use of force when necessary, for the liberation of India. Gandhiji and his crowd of self-seekers tried to destroy him.’14
‘86. The real cause of the British leaving this country is threefold and it does not include the Gandhian method. The aforesaid triple forces are:
"‘86 (i). The movements of the Indian Revolutionaries right from 1857 to 1932, i.e., up to the death of Chandra Shekhar Azad at Allahabad; then next, the movement of revolutionary character, not that of Gandhian type, in the countrywide rebellion of 1942; and an armed revolt put up by Subhas Chandra Bose, the result of which was a spread of the revolutionary mentality in the Military Forces of India; are the real factors that have shattered the very foundations of the British rule in India. And all these effective efforts to freedom were opposed by Gandhiji. (…)’17
"‘93. (…) extracts given below from Gandhiji’s post-prayer speeches: ‘93 (a). (…) Hindus should never be angry against the Muslims even if the latter might make up their minds to undo even their existence. If they put all of us to the sword, we should court death bravely (…) We are destined to be born and die, then why need we feel gloomy over it? (…) (6th April 1947)
"‘93 (b). The few gentlemen from Rawalpindi who called upon me (…) asked me, what about those who still remain in Pakistan. I asked them why they all came here (to Delhi). Why they did not die there? I still hold on to the belief that one should stick to the place where we happen to live even if we are cruelly treated and even killed. Let us die if the people kill us, but we should die bravely with the name of God on our tongue. Even if our men are killed, why should we feel angry with anybody, you should realise that even if they are killed they have had a good and proper end. (…) (23rd September 1947)
"‘93 (c). (…) If those killed have died bravely they have not lost anything but earned something. (…) They should not be afraid of death. After all, the killers will be none other than our Muslim brothers. Will our brothers cease to be our brothers after change of their religion? (…)’ (no date given for this last quote)27 The instances can be multiplied, e.g., when meeting Hindu refugees from West Punjab, Gandhiji told them to return to their homes, even if this meant certain death: ‘If all the Punjabis were to die to the last man without killing, the Punjab will become immortal. Offer yourselves as nonviolent, willing sacrifices.’28
Elst comments.
"The lightness with which Gandhi calls on people to give up their lives is simply stunning. ... "
Elst quotes Godse.
‘97. He first gave out the principle that no help should be given by India to the war between England and Germany. (…) But the wealthy companions and followers of Gandhiji added enormously to their wealth by undertaking contracts from the Government for the supply for the materials of war. (…) Not only that, but Gandhiji had given his consent to taking up the contract for supplying blankets to the Army from the Congress Khadi Bhandar.’30
Elst comments.
"In spite of the disastrous Bengal famine of 1943, India generally fared well under the war circumstances. Indeed, after the United States, India was probably the country that gained most from World War II in economic terms. The war effort generated many jobs, and at the end of it all, Britain had incurred an astronomical debt vis-à-vis its premier colony; for years to come, its payment was to finance Nehru’s socialist development policies. It is quite true that Indian industrialists, including prominent Gandhians, did excellent business with the British war machine.
Elst quotes Godse.
"‘101. The problem of Kashmir followed very closely that of Pakistan. (…) Pt. Nehru consulted Gandhiji about sending military help to Kashmir and it was only on the consent of Gandhiji that Pt. Nehru sent troops for the protection and defence of Kashmir. (…)’
"‘103. Had Gandhiji [had] a firm belief in the doctrine of non-violence, he should have made a suggestion for sending Satyagrahis instead of the armed troops and tried the experiment. (…) It was a golden opportunity for Gandhiji to show the power of his Satyagraha (…)
"‘104. But Gandhiji did nothing of the sort. (…) Gandhiji was reading the dreadful news of the Kashmir war, while at the same time fasting to death only because a few Muslims could not live safely in Delhi. But he was not bold enough to go on fast in front of the raiders of Kashmir, nor had he the courage to practise Satyagraha against them. All his fasts were to coerce Hindus.’32
"‘133. (…) It is not at all necessary to refer to the atrocious misdeeds perpetrated by the Nizam’s Ministers and the Razakars. Laik Ali, the Prime Minister of Hyderabad, had an interview with Gandhiji during the last week of January 1948. It was evident from the manner in which Gandhiji looked at these Hyderabad affairs that Gandhiji would soon start his experiments of non-violence in the State of Hyderabad and treat Kasim Razvi as his adopted son just as Suhrawardy. It was not at all difficult to see that it was impossible for the Government in spite of all the powers to take any strong measures against a Muslim State like Hyderabad so long as Gandhiji was there (…) for Gandhiji would have gone on fast unto death and Government’s hands would have been forced to save the life of Gandhiji.’
"‘135. (…) I felt that Indian politics in the absence of Gandhiji would surely be 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. (…)’ ‘138. The problem of the State of Hyderabad which had been unnecessarily delayed and postponed has been rightly solved by our Government by the use of armed force after the demise of Gandhiji.’33
"‘136. There now remains hardly anything for me to say. If devotion to one’s country amounts to a sin, I admit I have committed that sin. If it is meritorious, I humbly claim the merit thereof. I fully and confidently believe that if there be any other court of justice beyond the one founded by mortals, my act will not be taken as unjust.’ ‘139. I am prepared to concede that Gandhiji did undergo sufferings for the sake of the nation. He did bring about an awakening in the minds of the people. He also did nothing for personal gain, but it pains me to say that he was not honest enough to acknowledge the defeat and failure of the principle of non-violence on all sides. (…) But whatever that may be, I shall bow in respect of the service done by Gandhiji to the country (…) and before I fired the shots I actually (…) bowed to him in reverence. But I do maintain that even this servant of the country had no right to vivisect the country (…) There was no legal machinery by which such an offender could be brought to book and it was therefore that I resorted to the firing of shots at Gandhiji as that was the only thing for me to do.’34
Elst comments.
"The argument is similar to the one given by Caesar’s killer, Brutus, in Shakespeare’s Julius Caesar: I killed him ‘not because I loved Caesar less, but because I loved Rome more.’ The former Gandhian activist Nathuram Godse thought that Gandhi had become an obstacle to the well-being of the nation to which both of them were devoted. In that case, the interests of the nation had to be put before the lives of its servants.
Elst quotes Godse.
"‘147. May the country properly known as Hindusthan be again united and be one and may the people be taught to discard the defeatist mentality leading them to submit to the aggressors. This is my last wish and prayer to the Almighty.’
"‘149. It is a fact that in the presence of a crowd numbering 300 to 400 people I did fire shots at Gandhiji in open daylight. I did not make any attempt to run away; in fact, I never entertained any idea of running away. I did not try to shoot myself, it was never my intention to do so, for it was my ardent desire to give vent to my thoughts in an open Court.
"‘150. 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 honest writers of history will weigh my act and find the true value thereof on some day in future.
"‘Akhand Bharat Amar Rahe!
"‘Vande Mataram!’36
No wonder people in courtroom in tears! Not even the refugees, much less anyone from his own side of politics, or - especially - anyone of his community, would even then have agreed with his action, much less sanctioned it; but noon could doubt thst this was a sane, erudite man, however introvert, and had only acted in interest of his nation, of truth.
................................................................................................
While nobody could say, reading the details of Godse's speech quoted by Elst, explaining his motives in context of history of Gandhi and his words, his actions and the disastrous effect on India, that if Godse had put the move to vote with his explanation, people would have voted for his action, nevertheless, it stands explained, already.
Until one is more than halfway through the fifth chapter, and Godse talks about what if, in context of Gandhi's words to refugees from genocide acroas the border, telling them to go back and face death and not hate the muslims while being murdered - what if Gandhi had lived, as Hyderabad crisis raged, and genocides in Pakistan were being rejected in Hyderabad?
And, while still not clear that, given a choice one woukdnt tell Godse to refrain from his action - in all likelihood, one would; most people, especially most people of his own community, would, from a cautious refraining if nothing else - still, one is glad Sardar Patel had a clean slate so to speak, without Gandhi going on a fast to force government of India to act in favour off the perpetrators and advise Hindus of Hyderabad to die loving their murderers, not try to escape the state and death.
And that's only one state, less than two years later. Gandhi could have lived long, and possibly interfered with defence of India in 1965. What if he'd been alive, and gone on a fast to force India into neutral position in 1971, despite the genocide and rapes of millions in East Bengal? What if he'd advised surrender of Indian territory when Pakistan attacked India in 1971, as he did at partition when Pakistan claimed over a million square miles more in East, and he made India agree?
One is glad it wasn't a decision one had to make, seeing future and the possibilities; one is glad it isn't a judgement one has to make, and the Indian way, the Hindu way, is to leave judgement to Divine, while doing ones best.
............................................................................................
................................................................................................
................................................................................................
................................................................................................
................................................................................................
https://www.goodreads.com/review/show/4362142336
................................................................................................
................................................................................................
https://www.goodreads.com/review/show/4162584732
................................................................................................
................................................................................................