Greatest Assasin of Indian history: Untold

Since been a kid every child learns and knows the things and facts which his parent, teachers and society wants him to know…
Now as we are grown ups we listen and discuss only those topics which media hypes and are interesting to us, sometimes we miss some points due to negligence and sometimes some points (some very important points) are not given any importance by media and society for various reasons.
I want to share my views on one of those points, you can add some points to this or can contradict on these, I will welcome every comment
We all Know who was Nathuram Godse ……… assassin of Mahatma Gandhi, He committed one of the greatest crime of Indian history, we all read this in history books. Now let us discuss the untold.
We read about the crime but what was the motive behind the crime, before going to that point we must know who Nathuram Godse was…
Nathuram Godse was born in Baramati , Maharashtra in a Brahmin family. His father Vinayak Vamanrao Godse was a post office employee. It is hard to understand Godse as governmement has suppressed the information about him including the court statements, letters etc were banned for public until recently.

       Histories are always written according to the king
Sometimes I ask to myself what would be the reason behind this, didn’t he have the freedom to express himself or he was an exception to that freedom or something else.

Preliminary investigations of the Gandhiji’s murder case revealed that he was the editor of a Marathi newspaper– Hindu rashtra, and one of the biggest follower of Veer Savarkar and Mahatma Gandhi.
Nathuram Godse was arrested moments after shooting Gandhi, and was taken to the nearby Tughlaq Road police station. A reporter somehow managed to see him and ask him whether he have anything to say ‘For the present I only want to say that I am not at all sorry for what I have done‘, he replied. ‘The rest I will explain in court.
On 8 November 1948, he was allowed his day in the sun when he rose to make his statement. Reading quietly from a typed manuscript, he sought to explain why he had killed Gandhi. His thesis covered ninety-pages, and he was on his feet for five hours. Godse’s statement should be quoted extensively as it provides the insight of his personality and some reasons..

“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.
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.
In his words “I don’t refute Gandhi’s theory of non-violence. He may be a saint but he is not a politician. His theory of non-violence denies self-defence and self-interest. The non-violence that defines the fight for survival as violence is a theory not of non-violence but of self-destruction.The division of the nation was an unnecessary decision. What was the percentage of the Muslim population as compared to the population of the nation? There was no need for a separate nation. Had it been a just demand, Maulana Azad would not have stayed back in India. But because Jinnah insisted and because Gandhi took his side, India was divided, in spite of opposition from the nation, the Cabinet. An individual is never greater than a nation. The central government had taken a decision — Pakistan will not be given Rs 55 crores. On January 13 Gandhi started a fast unto death that Pakistan must be given the money. On January 13, the central government changed its earlier decision and announced that Pakistan would be given the amount. In a democracy you cannot put forward your demands at knife-point. Jinnah did it and Gandhi stabbed the nation with the same knife. He dissected the land and gave a piece to Pakistan. We did picket that time but in vain. The Father of our Nation went to perform his paternal duties for Pakistan! Gandhi blackmailed the cabinet with his fast unto death. His body, his threats to die is causing the destruction — geographical as well as economical — of the nation. Today, Muslims have taken a part of the nation, tomorrow Sikhs may ask for Punjab. The religions are again dividend into castes, they will demand sub-divisions of the divisions. What remains of the concept of one nation, national integration? Why did we fight the British in unison for independence? Why not separately? Bhagat Singh did not ask only for an independent Punjab or Subhash Chandra Bose for an independent Bengal?
I am going to assassinate him in the open, before the public, because I am going to do it as my duty. If I do it surreptitiously, it becomes a crime in my own eyes. I will not try to escape, I will surrender and naturally I will be hanged. One assassination, one hanging. I don’t want two executions for one assassination and I don’t want your involvement, participation or company. (This was for Nana-Apte and Veer Savarkar as they were against Gandhi’s policies too, Godse wanted to assassinate gandhi all by himself and took promise from Nana Apte that he will continue helping Veer Savarkar in rebuilding India as a strong free nation.
On January 30, I reached Birla Bhavan at 12 pm. Gandhi was sitting outside on a cot enjoying the sunshine. Vallabhbhai Patel’s granddaughter was sitting at his feet. I had the revolver with me. I could have assassinated him easily then, but I was convinced that his assassination was to be a punishment and a sentence against him, and I would execute him. I wanted witnesses for the execution but there were none. I did not want to escape after the execution as there was not an iota of guilt in my mind. I wanted to surrender, but surrender to whom? There was a good crowd to collect for the evening prayers. I decided on the evening of January 30 as the date for Gandhi’s execution.
Gandhi climbed the steps and came forward. He had kept his hands on the shoulders of the two girls. I wanted just three seconds more. I moved two steps forward and faced Gandhi. Now I wanted to take out the revolver and salute him for whatever sacrifice and service he had made for the nation. One of the two girls was dangerously close to Gandhi and I was afraid that she might be injured in the course of firing. As a precautionary measure I went one more step ahead, bowed before him and gently pushed the girl away from the firing line. The next moment I fired at Gandhi. Gandhi was very weak, there was a feeble sound like ‘aah’ (There are proof that Gandhi did NOT say “Hey Raam” at that time – it’s just made up stuff) from him and he fell down.
After the firing I raised my hand holding the revolver and shouted, ‘Police, police’. For 30 seconds nobody came forward and I scanned the crowd. I saw a police officer. I signalled to him to come forward and arrest me. He came and caught my wrist, then a second man came and touched the revolver… I let it go…”

It’s just a small part of his speech, is it worth to be banned?
Do you think he had a single genuine reason to put his life and his earned respect as a freedom fighter on stake?


Posted on September 25, 2011, in Politics and tagged , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink. 18 Comments.

  1. what all Mr Godse has written in his defense , certainly they may look extraordinary facts to a layman that may give an intense impact upon their thought process .But being a Lawman , and to my view point , it is totally a story of person who could not prove his notions and ideology to the society at large , mounting of that frustration added to his injury and he committed an offense that is not only inhuman but also a whole mark of sick and wicked mentality , shooting a person who in almost on the verge of death on gun point is no bravery to prove your ideology and justifying your own opinion . If he was that confident with his ideals and had strength to influence the masses , also was able to provide solutions the given problem , then why he did not opted the methods like Subash Chandra bose , Bhagat singh opted , they were also anti Gandhi ideology .

    He opted for method of killing that can only end the man , i.e Mr M.K Gandhi but his ideals are still alive , If he had balls of a man , then why he did he never exercised his Right to freedom of speech and expression .To me he was a person on only pure emotions towards Hinduism , But Mr M.K Gandhi was a highly educated and man of gr8 principles . He was a political genius .

    • As per my view Ankur Mudgal is right. If anybody removes the filter google from his eyes then only he understand the truth. अगर पूर्वाग्रह हो, तो तथ्यों की कोई कीमत नहीं रह जाती |

  2. @Ankur Mudgal:
    Some answers to your questions, already mentioned in the article you should have read, again mentioning
    1. He was not totally in oppose to Gandhi ideology. He Fought with him shoulder to shoulder in the independence of country. He was a common man who believed in Ahimsa upto some extent. But when Ahimsa becomes a reason for terror to the country then he was not with ahimsa.
    2. He was using his right to freedom of speech as he was an editor of a newspaper , but can you tell me what would be the reason behind suppressing his court statements, letters banned from public until recently, were they afraid it would harm Gandhiji’s image as Mahatma???
    3. Yes his emotions were towards hindu, as hindus were the main who suffered during the partition as there was no gandhi in pakistan to stop killing of hindus.
    4. Surely he was a political genius that’s why he is remembered the most of all patriots of india.

  3. indeed he(naathuram) was gr8…..weldone…….nicely written……

  4. The point is not that he fought shoulder to shoulder or not , but killing someone can never be answer to stop killing someone or riots , though he believed in ahimsa but still he never professed it by heart , if everyone on some or the other issues start killing people for vengeance and provide serious provoking statements to justify himself ,then soon there will be Taliban rule in India , his papers were banned because they may hamper the unity ,solidarity and communal harmony in the nation .

    it is very easy to stand and throw shit upon others on the basis of shear patriotism and religious ideals , but when it comes to provide solutions , then people don’t have any say , he was a complete loser and will remain one .

    and regarding Hindu Muslim spark , it was due to British divide and rule policy ,their administrative actions leaded to hatred which Gandhi Ji tried his best to lower down ….

    what looks fascinating to naked eye , the moment you enter inside and try go in depth , things start becoming complex ….

    People follow someone who at the end provide them with the hope to live , prosper and develop …not who talks mandir , masjid all the time and don’t have any ability to provide solution to a given problem .

  5. also , you cannot become a hero by killing another , he thought the same way , he foreseen everything before hand and has a meticulous plan to go with modus oprendi . Every thing was preplanned by him , even all his statements , as he was having ability to mold it in best form because he was a journalist himself ,that may look fascinating to a naked eye ..

    his sheer was non following of his own ideals , i.e veer savarkar and others , it was an EGO issue with him not even patriotism i would say ….

  6. sheer anger and agony ( above correction)

  7. This actually answered my drawback, thanks!

  8. you’ve an awesome blog right here! would you like to make some invite posts on my weblog?

  9. @ankur mudgal
    By your means Bhagat Singh and Azad were all emotionally weak…thatsy they killed Sanders, then Dyer also got killed…all these were acts of weakness…we shouldn’t have killed them all and let them play there whims and fancies…
    Ankur, it’s you who should enter inside and try go in depth and will come to know that Gandhi didn’t like Sri Krishna’s or Guru Gobind Singh’s ideology….what do you have to say about that, he was just a stubborn man who wanted to change the corrupt by self-pity. It was correct for a while but you can’t put the life of crores of Indians at stake for your ideology. Read about Clement Attlee, who when visited India after Independence, told that it was mainly because of Subhash Bose’s Forward Bloc and RIN Mutiny combined with the loss of Britishers in WW II that lead India to Independence. If you really feel Gandhi lead us to Independence then tell me about any movement that Gandhi started between 1943 – 1947, the answer is none. So, how did he contribute explain me this. He thought he could humiliate courrupt people and bring them on right track but I assume you are grown up guy with enough of world seen and you know that doesnt work mostly…and you cant make decisions based on that.
    You should know that Subhash Bose and Gandhi both hated each other, so if you say that both of them were right then that’s an oxymoron. Either Subhash was correct or Gandhi.
    I only dislike Nathu Ram for two reasons…
    1. He was late in killing Gandhi, he should have acted way earlier but what ever he did was worth praising.
    2. He should have killed Nehru too.

  10. erratta corrige – Not Dyer but Dwyer(Michael O Dwyer)

  11. please read this also

    पाकिस्तान से दिल्ली की तरफ जो रेलगाड़िया आ रही थी,उनमे हिन्दू इस प्रकार बैठे थे जैसे माल की बोरिया एक के ऊपर एक रची जाती हैं.अन्दर ज्यादातर मरे हुए ही थे,,गला कटे हुए.रेलगाड़ी के छप्पर पर बहुत से लोग बैठे हुए थे,,डिब्बों के अन्दर सिर्फ सांस लेने भर की जगह बाकी थी.बैलगाड़िया ट्रक्स हिन्दुओं से भरे हुए थे.रेलगाड़ियों पर लिखा हुआ था…,,” आज़ादी का तोहफा ” – – जैसे ही अदला बदली हुई इस्लाम हावी हुआ हिन्दू पर चढ़ा गांधी की अहिंसा का बोलबाला, यह वही लोग थे जो बटवारे से पहले इन हिन्दुओ के साथ रहते थे…अब काट रहे है

    सरदार पटेल ने कहा की ठीक हैं अगर भाई को इस्टेट में से हिस्सा देना पड़ता हैं तो कर्ज की रकम का हिस्सा भी चुकाना पड़ता हैं. गंदिजी ने कहा बराबर हैं…पटेल जी ने कहा,,”फिर दुसरे महायुद्ध के समय अपने देश ने 110 करोड़ रुपये कर्ज के रूप में खड़े किये थे,अब उसका एक तृतीय भाग पाकिस्तान को देने का कहिये,,आप तो बैरिस्टर हैं आपको कायदा पता हैं. ” गांधीजी ने कहा,,नहीं ये नहीं होगा

  12. I got what you convey, thanks for putting up. Woh I am glad to find this website finished google. Thanks For Share Greatest Assasin of Indian history: Untold Critical-Thinkers.

  13. are these true???…..on what proofs did u state the above, if i may ask!

  14. All those expressing doubts and finding out lacunae in Abhas’s arguments are requested to kindly find the time and go through ‘The Men Who Killed Gandhi’ by Manohar Malgaonkar. I am sure you will find all your queries answered automatically.
    @Abhas- Brilliant! The very choice of the topic is commendable.

  15. I really like to get letters with U.S. commemorative stamps on them; I collect these. How are your letters stampedor are they metered (yech)?

  1. Pingback: Simon Says: Daily Food Quote | The Rambling Epicure

Add your views

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s