Blog parivaar

Sunday, March 20, 2011

Nathuram Godse' final address to the court

Gandhiji Assassin: Nathuram Godses' Final Address to the Court.

Nathuram Godse was arrested immediately after he assassinated
Gandhiji, based on an F. I. R. filed by Nandlal Mehta at the
Tughlak Road Police station at Delhi. The trial, which was held in
camera, began on 27th May 1948 and concluded on 10th February 1949. He
was sentenced to death.

An appeal to the Punjab High Court, then in session at Simla, did not
find favourable and the sentence was upheld. The statement that you
are about to read is the last made by Godse before the Court on the
5th of May 1949.

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


Born in a devotional Brahmin family, I instinctively came to revere
Hindu religion, Hindu history, and Hindu culture. I had, therefore,
been intensely proud of Hinduism as a whole. As I grew up I developed
a tendency to free thinking unfettered by any superstitious allegiance
to any isms, political or religious. That is why I worked actively for
the eradication of untouchables and the caste system based on birth
alone. I openly joined RSS wing of anti-caste movements and maintained
that all Hindus were of equal status as to rights, social, and
religious and should be considered high or low on merit alone and not
through the accident of birth in a particular caste or profession.

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

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

Since the year 1920, that is, after the demise of Lokamanya Tilak,
Gandhijis' 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 ones' 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 historys' towering warriors like Shivaji, Rana
Pratap and Guru Gobind Singh as misguided patriots, Gandhiji has
merely exposed his self-conceit. He was, paradoxical as it may appear
a violent pacifist who brought untold calamities on the country in the
name of truth and non-violence, while Rana Pratap, Shivaji, and the
Guru will remain enshrined in the hearts of their countrymen for ever
for the freedom they brought to them.

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

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

He alone was the Judge of everyone and every thing; he was the master
brain guiding the civil disobedience movement; no other could know the
technique of that movement. He alone knew when to begin and when to
withdraw it. The movement might succeed or fail, it might bring untold
disaster, and political reverses but that could make no difference to
the Mahatma's infallibility.

'A Satyagrahi can never fail' was hisformula for declaring his own
infallibility and nobody except himself knew what a Satyagrahi is.
Thus, the Mahatma became the judge and jury in his own cause.
These childish insanities and obstinacies, coupled with a most severe
austerity of life, ceaseless work and lofty character made Gandhi
formidable and irresistible.

Many people thought that his politics were irrational but they had
either to withdraw from the Congress or place their intelligence at
his feet to do with as he liked. In a position of such absolute
irresponsibility Gandhi was guilty of blunder after blunder, failure
after failure, disaster after disaster.

Gandhi's pro-Muslim policy is blatantly in his perverse attitude on the
question of the national language of India. It is quite obvious that
Hindi has the most prior claim to be accepted as the premier language.

In the beginning of his career in India, Gandhi gave a great impetus to
Hindi but as he found that the Muslims did not like it, he became a
champion of what is called Hindustani.

Everybody in India knows that there is no language
called Hindustani; it has no grammar; it has no vocabulary. It is a
mere dialect, it is spoken, but not written. It is a bastard tongue
and cross-breed between Hindi and Urdu, and not even the Mahatmas'
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 Gandhis 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
Pakistanliterally at the point of the bayonet and abjectly surrendered to Jinnah.
Indiawas vivisected and one-third of the Indian territory became foreign land
to us from August 15, 1947.

Lord Mount batten came to be described in Congress circles as the
greatest Viceroy and Governor-General this country ever had. The
official date for handing over power was fixed for June 30, 1948, but
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 the ocratic state was established with the consent of Nehru and his
crowd and they have called 'freedom won by them with sacrifice' - whose sacrifice?

When top leaders of Congress, with the consent of Gandhi, divided and tore
the country - which we consider a deity of worship - my mind was filled with
direful anger.

One of the conditions imposed by Gandhi for his breaking of the fast
unto death related to the mosques in Delhi occupied by the Hindu
refugees. But when Hindus in Pakistan were subjected to violent
attacks he did not so much as utter a single word to protest and
censure the Pakistan Government or the Muslims concerned.

Gandhi was shrewd enough to know that while undertaking a fast unto
death, had he imposed for its break some condition on the Muslims in
Pakistan, there would have been found hardly any Muslims who could
have shown some grief if the fast had ended in his death.

It was for this reason that he purposely avoided imposing any condition
on the Muslims. He was fully aware of from the experience that Jinnah
was not at all perturbed or influenced by his fast, and the Muslim League
hardly attached any value to the inner voice of Gandhi.

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

He has proved to be the Father of Pakistan. His inner-voice, his
spiritual power and his doctrine of non-violence of which so much is
made of, all crumbled before Jinnah's iron will, and proved to be

Briefly speaking, I thought to myself and foresaw I shall be totally ruined,
and the only thing I could expect from the people would be nothing but
hatred and that I shall have lost my entire honor, even more valuable
than my life, if I were to kill Gandhiji. Bu,t at the same time, I felt that the
Indian politics, in the absence of Gandhiji, would surely be proved practical,
able to retaliate, and would be powerful with armed forces.

No doubt, my own future would be totally ruined, but the nation would
be saved from the inroads of Pakistan. People may even call me and
dub me as devoid of any sense or foolish, but the nation would be free
to follow the course founded on the reason which I consider to be
necessary for sound nation-building.

After having fully considered the question, I took the final decision
in the matter, but I did not speak about it to anyone whatsoever. I
took courage in both my hands and I did fire the shots at Gandhiji on
30th January 1948, on the prayer-grounds of Birla House.

I do say that my shots were fired at the person whose policy and action
had brought rack and ruin and destruction to millions of Hindus. There
was no legal machinery by which such an offender could be brought to
book and for this reason I fired those fatal shots. I bear no ill will towards
anyone individually but I do say that I had no respect for the present
government owing to their policy which was unfairly favorable towards
the Muslims. But at the same time I could clearly see that the policy
was entirely due to the presence of Gandhi.

I have to say with great regret that Primes Minister Nehru quite
forgets that his 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 Gandhis' persistent policy of
appeasement towards the Muslims.

I now stand before the court to accept the full share of my responsibility
for what I have done and the judge would, of course, pass against me
such orders of sentence as may be considered proper. But I would like
to add that I do not desire any mercy to be shown to me, nor do I wish
that anyone else should beg for mercy on my behalf.

My confidence about the moral side of my action has not been shaken
even by the criticism leveled against it on all sides. I have no doubt
that honest writers of history will weighs my act and find the true
value thereof some day in future.






    1. What about Muhammad who committed mass-murderer, ordered assassination, rapes, looting?

      Rape of non-Muslim women:

      Qur'an (4:24) - "And all married women (are forbidden unto you) save those (captives) whom your right hands possess." Allah even permitted Muhammad and his men to have sex with married slaves, such as those captured in battle.
      Qur'an (23:5-6) also says the same thing. Qur'an (33:50) allows Muhammad to have sex with female captives.

      Violence against non-Muslims:

      Quran (2:216) - "Fighting is prescribed for you, and ye dislike it. But it is possible that ye dislike a thing which is good for you, and that ye love a thing which is bad for you. But Allah knoweth, and ye know not."

      Quran (3:151) - "Soon shall We cast terror into the hearts of the Unbelievers, for that they joined companions with Allah, for which He had sent no authority".

      Quran (4:74) - "Let those fight in the way of Allah who sell the life of this world for the other. Whoso fighteth in the way of Allah, be he slain or be he victorious, on him We shall bestow a vast reward."

      Quran (8:12) - "I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Therefore strike off their heads and strike off every fingertip of them"

      Quran (9:29) - "Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued."

      Quran (9:38-39) - "O ye who believe! what is the matter with you, that, when ye are asked to go forth in the cause of Allah, ye cling heavily to the earth? Do ye prefer the life of this world to the Hereafter? But little is the comfort of this life, as compared with the Hereafter. Unless ye go forth, He will punish you with a grievous penalty, and put others in your place."

      Quran (9:123) - "O you who believe! fight those of the unbelievers who are near to you and let them find in you hardness."

      Hate speech against non-Muslims:

      Quran (48:29) - "Muhammad is the messenger of Allah. And those with him are hard (ruthless) against the disbelievers and merciful among themselves"

      Quran (8:55)- Surely the vilest of animals in Allah's sight are those who disbelieve, then they would not believe.

      Verse 7:176 compares unbelievers to "panting dogs" with regard to their idiocy and worthlessness. Verse 7:179 says they are like "cattle" only worse.

      Violence against non-Muslims in Hadiths:

      Bukhari (52:220) - Allah's Apostle said... 'I have been made victorious with terror'

      Muslim (1:33) - the Messenger of Allah said: I have been commanded to fight against people till they testify that there is no god but Allah, that Muhammad is the messenger of Allah

      Muslim (1:30) - "The Messenger of Allah said: I have been commanded to fight against people so long as they do not declare that there is no god but Allah."

      Ibn Ishaq/Hisham 992: - "Fight everyone in the way of Allah and kill those who disbelieve in Allah." Muhammad's instructions to his men prior to a military raid.

  2. .

    @ Irfan -

    At least I was not aware that why he killed Mahatma Gandhi . I am thankful to the one who forwarded this mail and I got to read a very relevant piece of information about History.

    I am not questioning court's decision , but I want others also to go through the facts.

    Everyone has the right to speak his mind, so did Godse . It is not justification . His opinion may offend some people , while his opinion may genuinely appeal millions.


  3. "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."

    By the own sacrafice of Godse,and murder of Mahatma Gandhi
    Could the nation be saved from the inroads of Pakistan?
    Could the nation be free to follow the course founded on the reason which he consider to be necessary for sound nation-building?
    If not,then think about whether the decision of Godse was matured enough.Had he ever tried to convey his feelings to Gandhiji and put his opinion before public for an open discussion before murdering Gandhi ji.
    As far as,Gandhiji is concerned his feelings and opinion were not in privacy,he was quite an open book.Saint by his thinking and deeds as it deemed to be.Was Gandhi ji betraying the public at large.why no agitation or movement arose in public aganist Gandhiji.I had read some of the speeches of Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose.He had a great respect for Gandhiji,though he was not fully convinced with the policies of then congress(may be including Gandhi ji).Did murder of Gandhiji not make him much more famous all around the world.How can we say then the approach of Godse was right when he was failure on all fronts.Did he achieve the level of Ram or Krisna or Arjun in his life before taking the one sided decision of murder.Did Ram not send his messangers{Hanuman,Angad)to Ravana before killing him.Did krisna not tried to avoid unpleasant fight of Mahabharat.Godse's opinion may genuinely appeal millions,as "utsav's attempt to attack Dr.Talwar may appeal millons.
    Anyway,I am not at all convinced with the logics
    placed by Godse.

  4. आपका ब्लॉग पसंद आया....इस उम्मीद में की आगे भी ऐसे ही रचनाये पड़ने को मिलेंगी कभी फुर्सत मिले तो नाचीज़ की दहलीज़ पर भी आयें-

    रंग के त्यौहार में
    सभी रंगों की हो भरमार
    ढेर सारी खुशियों से भरा हो आपका संसार
    यही दुआ है हमारी भगवान से हर बार।

    आपको और आपके परिवार को होली की खुब सारी शुभकामनाये इसी दुआ के साथ आपके व आपके परिवार के साथ सभी के लिए सुखदायक, मंगलकारी व आन्नददायक हो।

  5. Mr Godse killed the mahatma gandhi not an ordinary person thus there was several intellectuals, advocated,& supporters might be
    involved in this case during the court hearing who defended to Mr Godse, and the speech was the result of this nothing else. Do you think befor killing did he analysed all these facts ? I doubt it.

  6. Dr.Divya,
    It is nice to go through this document. It is difficult to say who was right and who was wrong. These are two different points of view. Neither Mr.Godse nor Mahatma Gandhi lived for self interest. Both were working in the interest of India. What I came to know in my childhood about the incident that Mr. Godse had taken days together by practising firing on the statue of Mahatma Gandhi just to test his courage whether he can kill him. Godse too had respect for Mahatma Gandhi. But after all justifications adduced before the court, killing of a person cannot be justified. Mahatma Gandhi may be wrong, but his assination cannot be accepted.
    However, there are certain aspects of this incident, which we need not to discuss. Thanks.

  7. @ Irfan,
    The court(though it was British)also decided the case of Bhagat Singh,Sukhdev and Rajguru).That court was honourable for a lot of "We people" but what do you think about the Trio? I dont question the judgement but what I liked is the fact that Zeal brought into light such a rare document.I praise her spirit.

  8. gandhi ji had done many reforms in india ..not only in idea but he was a leader of masses ..
    truth and no-cooperation movement were miracle
    self-dependence in form of charkha was and swadeshi andolan was also very good weapon

    yes jallian wala kand was a very brutal act by dyer who also got punishment
    those british rulers of east india company believed in divide and rule policy and where they find differences they make their way to harm india..

    regarding was divide and rule policy of britishers which seperated us from pakistan....

  9. @-Abhishek ,

    The post is not against Gandhi ji . In Godse's words , one must try to see the situations at that time .

    No one is denying Gandhi ji's contribution . But condemning Godse without knowing his perspective is kinda kiddish.


  10. I've read something about this subject earlier, but this detail information was good. Congress did not made Nathuram Godse's statements publicly. On this topic a book was also published which was banned by the congress. Finally something was wrong.
    I don't think that Nathuram Godse was a wrong person. Actually conditions were such that Gandhi was necessary to die. At last his policies were proven to be harmful for India and Hindus. The partition of India was the result of his policies. Ginocide of Hindus in Pakistan was wrong, but still Gandhi wanted to grant Rs 55 crore to pakistan. It is not a justice. In fact, through this he was promoting the violence in India and Pakistan. So here talking about non-violence is meaningless.

    Divya didi thanks for giving these information in detail.

  11. Gandi was a traitor. Don't believe? Go through...

  12. Gandi was a traitor, and a sex maniac. Don't believe, go through...
    Well done Godseji!

  13. कांग्रेस की हकीकत क्या है ये सब जानते हैं फिर भी ये आज तक इस देश पे राज कर रहे हैं इन्हें यहाँ से खदेड़ा गया तो ही इस देश में हमारी संस्कृति, सभ्यता, संस्कार को अच्छी दिशा दी जा सकती है !
    संतोष यादव

  14. कांग्रेस की हकीकत क्या है ये सब जानते हैं फिर भी ये आज तक इस देश पे राज कर रहे हैं इन्हें यहाँ से खदेड़ा गया तो ही इस देश में हमारी संस्कृति, सभ्यता, संस्कार को अच्छी दिशा दी जा सकती है !
    संतोष यादव

  15. दिवस भाइ का समर्थन। मैने इसी विषय मे पोस्ट लिखी है। हेल्प टु स्प्रीड इट।

  16. नमस्ते
    क्रपया इसे हिन्दी में भी लिखेंगें

  17. नमस्ते
    इसे हिन्दी में भी लिखें

  18. No Doubt about Godse,s devotion and commitment to the nation.We need many Godses today to get rid of This anti-Bharat anti-Hindu secular traitors .


  20. लेखिका महोदया आपने लोगों तक सच्चाई पहुंचा कर हिन्दुओं पर या यो कहना चाहिए देश-भक्तों पर बहु उपकार किया है, हर एक का अपना अलग नज़रिया हो सकता है लेकिन मुस्लिम लोगों का गोडसे के इस करनी पर एक ही नकारात्मक नज़रिया देखने को मिलेगा यह निश्चित है, इस पूरे वक्तव्य को पढ़ कर अधिकतर देश-भक्तों की आँखों में आंसूं आ ही जाते हैं, जो हिन्दू हो कर भी गोडसे को अपराधी ठहराते है उन्हें कौन समझाए की इससे गोडसे का व्यक्तिगत क्या फायदा था क्या गोडसे का परिवार नहीं था जब गोडसे ने जानते बूझते गांधी-वध किया की इसके एवज में म्रत्यु-दंड निश्चित है फिर भी वह पीछे नहीं हटा, जब गांधी वध के पश्चात भी भारत-वर्ष को देश के बलात्कारियों से झूझना पद रहा है अगर यह वध ना होता तो क्या हिन्दुओं का आस्तित्व भी होता.

  21. लेखिका महोदया आपने लोगों तक सच्चाई पहुंचा कर हिन्दुओं पर या यो कहना चाहिए देश-भक्तों पर बहु उपकार किया है, हर एक का अपना अलग नज़रिया हो सकता है लेकिन मुस्लिम लोगों का गोडसे के इस करनी पर एक ही नकारात्मक नज़रिया देखने को मिलेगा यह निश्चित है, इस पूरे वक्तव्य को पढ़ कर अधिकतर देश-भक्तों की आँखों में आंसूं आ ही जाते हैं, जो हिन्दू हो कर भी गोडसे को अपराधी ठहराते है उन्हें कौन समझाए की इससे गोडसे का व्यक्तिगत क्या फायदा था क्या गोडसे का परिवार नहीं था जब गोडसे ने जानते बूझते गांधी-वध किया की इसके एवज में म्रत्यु-दंड निश्चित है फिर भी वह पीछे नहीं हटा, जब गांधी वध के पश्चात भी भारत-वर्ष को देश के बलात्कारियों से झूझना पद रहा है अगर यह वध ना होता तो क्या हिन्दुओं का आस्तित्व भी होता.

  22. कृपया हिंदी में उपलब्ध कराइए