Terming it as ‘Balidan Diwas’ (Day of Sacrifice), the Hindu Sena recently commemorated the death anniversary of the assassin of Mahatma Gandhi.

In the videos of the celebration, people can be seen bursting firecrackers and raising slogans in support of Godse such as “Nathuram Godse Zindabad”, along with slogans of Jai Sri Ram and Bharat Mata Ki Jai.

The organisation has routinely celebrated the birthday of Godse, from 2015 to 2022 to 2024.

The current national president of the organisation is Vishnu Gupta, who according to Economic Times, has been arrested earlier for having filed a fake complaint over beef being served at the Kerala House, a state government canteen in New Delhi.

Hate Detectors, which is an X social media account that posts incidents of atrocities in India, shared a video of the celebrations, which was also retweeted by Gupta.

This is from #Ahmedabad, #Gujarat.

On May 19, Hindu Sena members celebrate birth anniversary of #MahatmaGandhi’s assassin #NathuramGodse. pic.twitter.com/fKYZ2aIwux

— Hate Detector (@HateDetectors) May 21, 2024

Interestingly, the organisation has also in  2019 paid tribute to Empress Queen Victoria of England.They expressed their admiration towards her for taking power from ‘Islamic invaders’, and for giving India its “first independence from Muslims.”

BJP and its affiliates on Godse

While Prime Minister Modi has often praised Mahatma Gandhi as father of the nation, do his party officials reflect the name? As recently as March 2024, a former Calcutta High Court judge who has now joined the BJP, Abhijit Gangopadhyay spoke in favour of Godse saying that he must understand why Godse killed Gandhi and that “cannot choose between Gandhi and Godse.”

Nathuram Godse was the person who assassinated Mahatma Gandhi. He was sentenced to death for the assassination by a court in Delhi in 1948 and finally hanged a year later in 1949. While the BJP has earlier distanced themselves from the Hindu Sena’s celebrations, several instances have risen where their approach has been put into question. For instance, MP Pragya Thakur has called Godse a ‘deshbhakt’, (patriot), even though she later apologised for her words. The Hindu Mahasabha, of which Godse was a member, has made repeated attempts to rehabilitate the image of Godse and characterise him as a patriot.

In 2017, the Hindu Mahasabha sought to make a temple for him and even laid the foundation stone for the temple in the Gwalior office of the organisation. The opposition in Madhya Pradesh had even alleged that the step was supported by the government led by the BJP in secret. Furthermore, there were even reports of the UP government asking the district magistrate’s response for a proposal to change Meerut’s name to Pandit Nathuram Godse Nagar. This took place after activists from the Hindu Mahasabha wrote to the district administration. The District Magistrate however had ruled out the possibility.

Related:

How BJP is accused of violating 48 Hours-Silence Period even on Poll Day?

Spewing hate, slurring Muslims: an unchecked decade-long diatribe by Bharatiya Janata Party?

Real History: Gandhi’s Murder, Godse & the RSS

Have planted Godse on every street: Hindutva activist’s online threats 

The post Gujarat: Hindu Sena celebrates birthday of Nathuram Godse appeared first on SabrangIndia.

“He had barely covered six or seven steps when a person whose name I learnt later as Narayan Vinayak Godse, resident of Poona, stepped closer and fired three shots from a pistol at the Mahatma from barely 2 / 3 feet distance which hit the Mahatma in his stomach and chest and blood started flowing. Mahatma ji fell backwards, uttering “Raam – Raam“. The assailant was apprehended on the spot with the weapon.”

– Nand Lal Mehta, F.I.R. filed in the Gandhi murder case 

Case- Rex v. Nathuram Vinayak Godse and Others        

It was on January 30, 1948, almost 76 years ago, that our beloved Mahatma Gandhi was assassinated by Nathuram Godse. Godse had put three bullets into Gandhi’s chest. The trial and appeal of Godse’s case, also known as the Mahatma Gandhi Murder case, was concluded within 2 years of his assassination. A total of twelve were chargesheeted for the charges of conspiracy (under section 120B of the Indian Penal Code) and murder (under Section 302 of the IPC) of Gandhiji.

While Nathuram Godse, the assassin from the Hindu Mahasabha previously with the Rashtriya Swayam Sevak Sangh (RSS) and Narayan Apte were given death sentences after being held guilty of murder—the bench observing his actions to be both “deliberate and calculated,” —investigation into the conspiracy angle in the attack on the Mahatma was sharply criticised and Vikram Damodar Savarkar was let off on count of lack of evidence. Four of the accused, namely Vishnu Karkare, Madanlal Pahwa, Shankar Kistayya, Gopal Godse, were given life sentence. The remaining Dattatraya Parchure was given a sentence of seven years of imprisonment.  In fact the judgement observes that the assassination may have been avoided had previous attacks on Gandhi and statements of Madanlal Pahwa and Dr JC Jain been delved into.

Out of these twelve, nine were tried, namely Godse, Narayan Apte, Vishnu Karkare, Digambar Badge, Madanlal Pahwa, Shankar Kistayya, Gopal Godse, Vinayak Savarkar and Dattatreya Parchure. The remaining three accused, namely Gandadhar Dandwate, Gangadhar Jadhav and Suryadeo Sharma, were declared absconding. It is essential to note that Accused Digambar Badge had turned approver in the said case and was granted pardon later in June, 1948.

The build-up to the killing- the explosion, the misdirected anger, the murder of the father of the nation

Ten days prior to the murder of Gandhiji, on the evening of January 20, 1948, an explosion had taken place near the compound wall of Birla House, New Delhi. Birla House was where Gandhiji had been staying, holding his prayer meetings on the lawns. Since these were the days following the partition of India with Pakistan being carved out, the atmosphere in Delhi and other parts of the country was tensed and charged. Gandhiji, along with many leaders of the Indian National Congress, had been raising calls for non-violence, urging for the citizens to maintain Hindu-Muslim unity and uphold the values of secularism.

Since India had chosen to remain a secular nation, many were enraged with Gandhiji. Police were posted at Birla House to protect him from any possible assault. At first, it was believed that the explosion of January 20, was not aimed at Gandhi as it had taken place almost a hundred and fifty feet away from the dais where he sat. However, it was during intestigation that the police had revealed that the explosion was a part of the conspiracy to kill Gandhi off. Notably, Madanlal Pahwa had been apprehended on spot on the day.

Even when the police had gotten information that Madanlal had other accomplices in the plot and that the plan did not work and that his co-conspirators had fled, the police was unable to apprehend the others. The Government had also reinforced the police force and tightened the security measures at Birla House.

At 5 pm on the evening of January 30, 1948, Gandhi was shot point-blank by Godse as he was on his way to the dais for the prayer meeting, which he had continued with even after the explosion attack. After firing the three bullets, Godse had raised his hand with the gun and had been caught red-handed by the police. It is essential to highlight here that Godse was one of those involved with the explosion and the police had been looking for him.

For the case, the Investigations were confined mainly to Bombay, Delhi and Gwalior. Though Gandhi was shot in Delhi, the plot was hatched in the erstwhile Bombay Province.

The trial of the murder of Mahatma Gandhi-

The trial of the said case had been held in the Special Court of Red Fort, Delhi in the court of Special Judge Atma Charan, ICS. The said special court had been constituted on May 4, 1948 under Sections 10 and 11 of the Bombay Public Security Measures Act, 1947. After the chargesheet was submitted and the charges were read out to the accused, the accused had pled not guilty and the trial had ensued.  The prosecution had been led by the then advocate general of Bombay, C.K. Daphtary. It is essential to note that while Godse was initially represented by advocate V.V. Oak, he had later on applied to argue the case himself, who which he was given permission.

The prosecution: The prosecution’s evidence in the aforementioned case began on June 24, 1948, and continued until November 6, 1948. In addition to calling 149 witnesses for examination, the prosecution also filed 404 documentary evidence and 80 material exhibits. The recording of the statements of the accused commenced on November 8, 1948 and carried on till November 22, 1948. Documentary exhibits totalling 119 were brought on record. It is pertinent to note that Morarji Desai, the then home minister of the Bombay was one of the witnesses examined by the prosecution. His evidence had been used by the prosecution to establish a fact in relation to the explosion which had taken place at Birla House at the behest of Madanlal Pahwa and others.

The defendants: Interestingly enough, accused Godse had declined to adduce evidence in his defence. Rather, in his ninety-two page long written statement, which he had gotten the chance to read out loud, Godse took full ownership of the heinous act committed and denied the involvement of any other accused in the conspiracy to murder Gandhi. His statement was more of an ideological assault on the principles and values of Gandhi rather than a statement of defence, which was surprisingly allowed to be read in an open court for nine hours.

In regards to the other accused, some of the accused pleaded alibi. Kistayya, in his written statement, had stated that the acts committed by him were at the bidding of Badge. Notable, while Kistayya had taken the responsibility for transporting revolvers and bombs from place to place, he had later retracted his statement. In his statement, Savarkar had denied the charges against him in totality and had contended that he had no control over the acts of Godse and Apte.

The judgment: The judgment in this historical case, delivered on February 10, 1949, ran into 111 pages. The said judgment had been divided into a total of 27 chapters which cover the role played by each of the accused, the incidents as they took place, the evidence and written statements submitted and the offences made out.

In the portion of offences made out and the sentencing, the bench of special judge Charan that based on the evidence provided, illegal acts of conspiracy and murder were committed by the accused. Through the judgment, the bench convicted seven of the accused while acquitting one, namely Savarkar. The said seven were held guilty of transporting arms without license, abetting each other of the commission of the offences described above and kept possession of arms without license. In reference to the January 20 explosion, the seven were held guilty of possessing explosive substances and abetting each other to commit the offending acts.

The judgment clearly holds Nathuram Godse to be guilty of intentionally and knowingly cause the death of Mahatma Gandhi, an offense that will within the ambit of Section 302 of the IPC and constitutes murder. In the judgment, the bench observed that “the act of Nathuram V Godse in committing the murder of Mahatma Gandhi was a deliberate and calculated one. No extenuating circumstances have been pointed out nor could have been pointed out in his behalf. With this, the court gave accused Nathuram Godse and Narayan Apte death sentences. Four of the accused, namely Vishnu Karkare, Madanlal Pahwa, Shankar Kistayya, Gopal Godse, were given life sentence. The remaining Dattatraya Parchure was given a sentence of seven years of imprisonment. While acquitting Savarkar, judge Charan had noted in the judgement that the case against him by the prosecution had only depended on the evidence supplied by the approver Badge, and depending on the same alone for the conviction would not be in the sake of justice.

Towards the end of the judgment, special judge Charan also highlighted the “slackness of the Police in the investigation of the case” during the period of the ten day between the explosion at the Birla House and the shooting of Gandhi. As per the judgment, passing strictures against the casual conduct shown by the police in investigating the conspiracy to kill Gandhi, “the police had miserably failed to derive any advantage from the statements [of Madanlal Pahwa and Dr. JC Jain]. Had the slightest keenness been shown in the investigation of the case at that stage, the tragedy would probably have been averted.”

The complete judgment can be read here:

The appeal in the East Punjab High Court at Shimla:

A period of 15 days had been provided to those convicted to file the appeal against the judgment in the Punjab High Court. All the seven accused had moved the appeals. In the High Court too, Godse had sought permission to argue on his behalf and had been granted the same. Significantly, keeping up with the “heroic” image that Godse saw himself as, in his Godse had not appealed against his death sentence and had only appealed against the conviction of criminal conspiracy under Section 120 B and other charges.

The appeals filed by the convicts were heard swiftly, with the hearings taking place in the month of May and June and the verdict being pronounced by the end of June. By a judgment dated June 21, 1949, the three-judge bench of the High Court comprising Justices Bhandari, Achhru Ram and Khosla had upheld the conviction for five of the accused persons and acquitted two of the accused persons, namely Shankar Kistaiya and Dr. Parchure. The sentences granted by the trial court to accused Vishnu Karkare, Gopal Godse and Madanlal Pahwa were confirmed. In addition to this, the Judges had also confirmed the death sentence of Narayan Apte.

The judgment ran to a total of 561 pages. Justice Achhru Ram’s 360 paged judgment formed the main part, accompanied by Justice Bhandari’s long concurring judgment. A one paragraph judgment was also written by Justice Khosla through which he had simply disagreed with the recommendation of the Justice Achhru Ram to commute the sentence of Pahwa.

The judgment of Justice Acchru Ram contained the sequential history of India and of Gandhi since 1914, which contained the principles of togetherness and non-violence of Gandhi and the objections that “Hindu nationalists” had against him. The judgment recounts the various meetings that took place between the accused at different points of time to conspire to kill Gandhi, the preparation in furtherance of the conspiracy, the arms and the attempts. A major chunk of the judgment traces the events that took place in the month of January 1948. In the later part of the judgment, the court weighs the statements and evidence provided by approver Badge in the case along with the other witnesses and corroborators. In the operative part of the judgment, Justice Ram accepted the appeals filed by accused Kistayya and Parchure and acquitted them from the charges filed against them. On the other hand, Justice Ram dismissed the appeals filed by Godse and four others, namely Apte, Gopal Godse, Pahwa and Karkare, and upheld their convictions. It is important to note that Justice Ram recommended commutation of sentence for accused Gopal Godse as well as Pahwa in view of their young age and them being in “bloom of their lives”. Rather, in regards to the role played by Gopal Godse and Pahwa, Justice Ram stated that the two seemed to have acted under the influence of the other “stronger and determined persons”.

Towards the end of the said judgement, Justice Ram specifically pointed towards the comments made by Special Judge in the trial court judgement against the police. Observing the said strictures passed by the trial judge against the Delhi Police to not be justified, Justice Ram deemed the same to be uncalled for.

The reasons behind the Justice Bhandari authoring a nearly 100-paged concurring judgment remained unclear. Through his judgment, Justice Bhandari also acquitted the two accused Parchure and Kistayya on the ground that there was insufficient evidence while convicting Godse and four others. Similar to Justice Ram, Justice Bhandari also suggested commuting the sentences of Gopal Godse as well as Pahwa for commutation of sentence in regards to their young age.

Similar to Justice Ram, Justice Bhandari too found the remarks made by the special judge against the Delhi Police to be unjustified, observing that it would have been impossible for any police officer, however capable and efficient he might have been, to have prevented Nathuram from committing the crime on which he had set his heart.

In the one paragraph authored by Justice Khosla, the acquittal granted to two accused as well as the conviction of the remaining five accused was concurred with. However, Justice Khosla disassociated himself from the recommendations made the other two members of the High Court bench in favour of the commutation of sentence of accused Pahwa in view of the prominent part played by him in the conspiracy to kill Gandhi. In his judgment, Justice Khosla wrote that “The fact that the place of January 20 miscarried does not, in my opinion, extenuate Pahwa’s guilt.”

The complete judgment can be read here:

The last avenue for appeal- the Privy Council

There remained only one possible course of action- to file appeals in the Privy Councils. All five of the individuals who were found guilty and convicted by the high court—Nathuram Godse, Apte, Karkare, Pahwa, and Gopal Godse—filed a special leave petition to appeal to the privy council. John McGaw represented the appellants. Members of the privy council’s judicial committee included Sir John Beaumont, Sir Lionel Leach, Lord Greene, Lord Simonds, and Lord Radcliffe.

Upon considering McGaw’s arguments, the Privy Council decided not to grant special leave to appeal, citing no need for the Crown to respond. Following this, the governor general in council also denied the mercy pleas filed by Apte and Nathuram Godse. It is to be noted that Godse had not himself filed the mercy pleas, rather his family had on his behalf. Till the end, Nathuram Vinayak Godse, a Hindu Mahasabhaite, was not ashamed of having killed Mahatma Gandi, the father of the nation.

Godse and Apte were hanged in Ambala jail on November 15, 1949.

Plea for re-investigation into Gandhi Murder Case dismissed by the Supreme Court

The saga of courts and the Gandhi murder case did not end with the Privy Council. In the year of 2017, a Special Leave Petition was moved in Supreme Court by Pankaj Phadnis urging for the reopening of the criminal investigation of Gandhi’s assassination. In his plea, the petitioner had suggested that there was a foreign conspiracy involving ‘Force 136’ and presence of a second assassin as well as a ‘fourth bullet’ fired at the Mahatma Gandhi on January 30, 1948. Through the plea, it had also been alleged that “adverse, unfounded” remarks were made by the Kanpur Commission in 1969 against Savarkar and therefore, it was pleaded to setup a commission to review the same and find out the conspiracy behind the incident.

In the judgment passed by the Supreme Court bench comprising former Justices S A Bobde and L Nageswara, the Court refused to enter into the arena of reviewing the correctness and fairness of the findings of the report.

As per a report in the LiveLaw, the bench had observed “You said people have the right to know about what happened. But it appears that people already know about it. You are creating suspicion in the minds of the people. The fact is that the people who committed assassination have been identified and hanged. It (the incident) is too late in the day. We are not going to reopen or correct it.”

With regards to the arguments raised in regards to the “unfairness” shown by the Commission to Savarkar, the bench held “The submission of the petitioner that Shri Savarkar has been held guilty for the murder of Gandhiji is misplaced.” (Para 7)

In the judgment, the bench further stated, “We are, however, not inclined to enter into the correctness or fairness of the findings in this report. That would be another exercise in futility and would none the less pan new fires of controversy. This Court must at all cost be vary of such contentious issues and must not allow its jurisdiction to be invoked for such purposes.” (Para 8)

Dismissing the PIL moved, the bench stated “We consider the petitioner’s attempt to reopen this controversy as an exercise in futility.” (Para 9)

The complete judgment can be read here:

Three bullets, one freedom fighter, one aggrieved supremacist

The assassination of Mahatma Gandhi by Nathuram Godse has been etched into the collective memory of every citizen of India, every follower of the Gandhian principles of non-violence, tolerance and togetherness. It has been evident from the brief overview of the judgments by the Courts in the Gandhi Murder case that his assassination was not a spontaneous reaction, but an elaborate conspiracy by certain Hindu supremacists to hamper his message of peace.

In January of 1948, only two weeks prior to his assassination, Gandhi had sat on a fast at Birla House, stating that he will only end his protest when an atmosphere of Hindu-Muslim amity and harmony returns to Delhi. These were days when the newly partitioned India had been under the grips of violence and certain “anti-national elements” want the nation to be a Hindu nation. Three days prior to the killing of Gandhi, a Hindu Mahasabha Delhi meeting had demanded that Gandhi and his “anti-Hindu forces” should go to Pakistan.

The cracks in the Hindu-Muslim unity and secularism had become evident the day our beloved Gandhi had died.

It is also crucial to highlight here that the Courts had acquitted Savarkar from having played any role in the assassination of Gandhi due to “lack of evidence”. Savarkar, under whose guidance the Hindu Mahasabha worked, threw Godse and Apte under the bus to save himself and the two, who believed to have been working for a greater purpose, had happily refused any involvement of Savarkar. Many articles have been written about the “cowardly” attitude of Savarkar during the trials of the Gandhi murder case. In an article by the Wire, it was written that “During the trial, Savarkar did not even turn his head towards.. Nathuram.. much less speak with him (Godse).” Many have also alleged that the contentious speech delivered by Godse in the trial court for his defence, in which he has revered the falsifying and divisive ideologies of Savarkar, was written by Savarkar himself.

Today, the current ruling regime, who had backed the demand of the Hindu Mahasabha to install Godse statues in temples across the country in the year 2015, have been on the mission to cleansing and easing Savarkar in our minds and lives by distorting history. The partisan and supremacist ideology of Savarkar, who some regard as a Hindutva Hero, into the Indian pantheon and re-shaping India into Hindu Rashtra (Hindu Nation).

As we observe a two-minute silence today to show our respect for the man whose ideologies and path of non-violence led us to attain freedom and independence for our country, it is also necessary that we learn from our past. Neither Gandhi nor those convicted are alive today. What remains are their ideologies. Gandhiji- who stood for the rights of the oppressed and believed in unity or Savarkar and Godse- who believed in violence, otherisation and oppression. It is our choice to choose our paths.

Related:

76th Anniversary of Gandhiji’s Martyrdom: Killers identified by Sardar Patel, then Home Minister of India

Temples should propagate equal respect to all religions: Gandhi on inaugurating Birla Temple

Real History: Gandhi’s Murder, Godse & the RSS

Urging preventive action against hate offenders, Gandhiji’s grandson, Tushar urges Navi Mumbai police to act

The post Courts and the Gandhi murder case: What happened on January 30 and who was behind it? appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The murder of Mahatma Gandhi, or more dramatically put, the assassination of Mahatma Gandhi was the first act of terror committed in independent India, as I wrote in the introduction to the volume, Beyond Doubt-A Dossier on Gandhi’s Assassination (2015, Tulika). It was also, I wrote, a declaration of war and a statement of intent.

It was a declaration of war by a section of society which remained largely on the fringes during the independence struggle and was committed to religion-based nationhood, and wanted India to become a Hindu rashtra. This was a section that bore visceral dislike toward the idea of composite culture and inclusive nationhood advocated by the Mahatma.

It is this ideology that unashamedly rules India today.

Any discussion on the assassination, therefore, needs to address the issues around the killing, the motives of the assassins. It should also examine further why Gandhi and what he stood for posed such a dire threat to the worldview of the killers.

Whenever the murder is discussed, and the factors responsible for the killing tossed around, public memory can often become carelessly selective, unwarrantedly perhaps spawning a dangerous ambivalence. I refer here specifically to the July 21 article that deliberately or otherwise skips crucial bits of the event. There are also several inaccuracies in the report that has carelessly quoted from earlier published articles.

Setting the record straight
There is need to set the record straight. The killing of Gandhi was not an isolated act but the last successful one of a series of attempts that began as early as 1934. Since the first attack on June 25 1934, there had been a total of five attempts on Gandhi’s life: in July and September 1944, September 1946, and January 20, 1948, ten days before he was actually shot dead.

Nathuram Godse was involved in two of the previous attempts besides the last one – that is, in a total of three, completely upsetting the comfortable narrative of Godse’s actions not being pre-meditated and coldly and carefully planned.

This aspect is completely missing from the article that fails to ask (while superficially relying on a sinister justification for the killing that Godse’s belief that “Gandhi helped create Pakistan” was the reason behind the killing) why some groups of persons found Gandhi and his beliefs so thoroughly repugnant that they had to eliminate him.

It was Gandhi’s commitment to composite nationhood as opposed to a religion-based state (Pakistan or Hindu Rashtra) and his support for the law against untouchability (he made a historic speech in the Central legislature in 1935) that made him enemy No 1 for all those who dreamt then – and conspire even today – to convert India into a Hindu Rashtra.

One of the crucial reasons for editing the volume Beyond Doubt was to bring to readers in English the seminal work of senior journalist and writer Jagan Phadnis who researched the killing back in 1998 as also the important contribution of Chunibhai Vaidya from Gujarat. These works along with historian YD Phadke’s analysis of the Kapoor Commission Report published in Communalism Combat are crucial reading for serious readers on the subject, and are included in the volume.

That the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh was banned by the government of India within two days of the assassination, through a Government Resolution dated February 2, 1948, is surely a critical part of the narrative, which is absent in its recounting 68 years later. The language of this resolution, reproduced in Beyond Doubt, is unequivocal when it speaks of the determination of the government of India

“to root out the forces of hate and violence that are at work in our country and imperil the freedom of the Nation and darken her fair name. In pursuance of this politics [the GR says] the GOI has decided to declare as unlawful the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh in the Chief Commissioner’s Provinces. Similar action is also being taken in the Governor’s provinces.”
The banning of the RSS within five months of India becoming independent and within two days of the dastardly killing of Mahatma Gandhi has been linked to the ‘undesirable and even dangerous activities carried out by individual members of the Sangh who have indulged in acts of violence involving arson, robbery, dacoity and murder and have collected illicit arms and ammunition. They have been found, “circulating leaflets exhorting people to resort to terrorist methods, to collect firearms, to create disaffection against the government and suborn the police and the military….The objectionable and harmful activities of the Sangh have, however, continued unabated and the cult of violence sponsored and inspired by the activities of the Sangh has claimed many victims. The latest and the most precious to fall was Gandhiji himself.” The GR was first published in the August 2004 issue of Communalism Combat, as part of the cover story, titled Hey Ram.

Ban and lifting the ban
The story does not end here. The communications between the Government of India through then Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru and Home Minister Vallabhai Patel with the RSS also show up the falsehoods perpetrated by the Sangh, which has tried to distort even this part of history.

On September 11, 1948, the famous letter written by Patel to RSS chief MS Golwalkar strongly decries the systematic hate tactics of the Sangh before and after Gandhi’s assassination. This letter has been quoted in full in Desraj Goyal’s Rahstriya Swayamsevak Sangh (First published in 1979, Revised edition in 2000, Radhakrishna Prakashan Pvt Ltd, New Delhi).

More importantly, this and another letter written by Patel to the founder of the Bharatiya Jana Sangh Dr Shyama Prasad Mukherjee dated July 18, 1948 make clear the links between the RSS and the Hindu Mahasabha.
The September 11, 1948 letter is of particular significance as it outlines the kind of activities the RSS was observed to indulge in.

“But the objectionable part arose when they, burning with revenge, began attacking Mussalmans. Organising Hindus and helping them is one thing but going in for revenge for its sufferings on innocent and helpless men, women and children is quite another thing……..All their speeches were full communal poison. It was not necessary to spread poison and enthuse the Hindus and organise for their protection. As a final result of the poison, the country had to suffer the sacrifice of the valuable life of Gandhiji. Even an iota of sympathy of the Government or of the people no more remained for the RSS. In fact the opposition grew. Opposition turned more severe, when the RSS men expressed joy and distributed sweets after Gandhiji’s death. Under these conditions it became inevitable for the Government to take action against the RSS.”

A government of India press note of November 14, 1948 relates to the outright rejection of a representation by Golwalkar to lift the ban on the RSS by the Home Ministry, refers to the “anti-national, often subversive and violent activities of the RSS”.

This press note, also obtained from the archives of the government of India, was first published in the August 2004 issue of Communalism Combat, as part of the cover story, titled Hey Ram.

The government of India took into account the considered opinion of provincial governments before arriving at its decision to ban the RSS. An article of The Indian Express dated February 7, 1948 reports that an RSS leader from Nagpur who had presented Godse with the revolver with which he killed Gandhi had been arrested. Other persons arrested included Professor Varahadpande of the City College, Nagpur.

This news report states that another professor of Nagpur had told his students a day before the assassination that “Gandhiji would be murdered”. An associate of the gang of conspirators, Devendra Kumar, was reported by the same newspaper to have surrendered to the District Magistrate, Mirzapur and taken to Lucknow under armed escort.

There is more such material which forms part of the annexes to the Kapoor Commission which will form part of the second volume of Beyond Doubt that I am currently annotating and editing. For the record, towards the end of the judgement in the Gandhi Murder case, Special Judge Atmacharan made the following remarks in regards to the conduct of the police with relation to the bomb attack on Gandhi on January 20, barely ten days before the day he died.

“ I may bring to the notice of the Central Government the slackness of the police in the investigation of the case during the period between January 20-30,1948… Had the slightest keenness been shown in the investigation of the case at that stage, the tragedy could have been averted.”

The terms of reference to the Kapoor Commission clearly show that it was not within its ambit to investigate whether or not the RSS was involved in the murder. It would be pertinent to again quote from the Government communiqué dated 11 July, 1949 provided in Appendix IV to Desraj Goyal’s Rahstriya Swayamsevak Sangh which laid down the conditions for lifting the ban on the RSS.

“The RSS leader has undertaken to make the loyalty to the Union Constitution and respect for the National Flag more explicit in the Constitution of the RSS and to provide clearly that persons believing or resorting to violent and secret methods will have no place in the Sangh..”

Among other conditions was that the RSS would function only as a cultural organisation.

Hindu rashtra

A genuine understanding of the motivations behind the ideology that killed Gandhi cannot skirt around the fundamental issue of religion-based nationhood. The contempt for the Indian Constitution is writ large in MS Golwalkar’s Bunch of Thoughts, which is proudly available on the RSS website even today (for example, see Page 119).

Despite its assurances to the government of India, the Indian tricolour remained anathema to the Sangh for 52 years after India became independent. It was only on January 26, 2002, that the RSS hoisted the tricolour on its headquarters. Until then it was always the bhagwa dhwaj, representing the Hindu nation.

In fact, the English organ of the RSS, Organiser (dated August 14, 1947) carried a feature titled “Mystery behind the bhagwa dhawaj” which, while demanding hoisting of the saffron flag at the ramparts of Red Fort in Delhi, openly denigrated the choice of the Tri-colour as the National Flag in the following words:

“The people who have come to power by the kick of fate may give in our hands the Tricolour but it never be respected and owned by Hindus. The word three is in itself an evil, and a flag having three colours will certainly produce a very bad psychological effect and is injurious to a country.”

It became even more brazen once the first RSS-driven government in New Delhi under Atal Behari Vajpayee came into power as the organisation’s mouthpiece Organiser proudly advertised the books published by Surya Bharati Prakashan, Gandhi Ji’s Murder and After by co-accused and brother of the assassin, Gopal Godse, as also May It Please Your Honour, by Nathuram Godse.

Both the RSS and the Hindu Mahasabha have made money by glamourising the killer of Gandhi and claimed proud privilege for the reasons for the killing.

The crux of the issue for the Sangh and those who have opposed its supremacist ideology has always been about who has or has not the right to equal rights and citizenship in the India of today. On this issue Gandhi and the RSS stood on the extreme opposites ends of the spectrum. Not only can no one deny this, but it is this crucial issue that remains central to the debate around which forces were responsible for the murder of the Mahatma.

Courtesy: Scroll.in

The post No discussion on who killed Mahatma Gandhi is complete without addressing idea of a Hindu Rashtra appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Muzaffarnagar: The Akhil Bhartiya Hindu Mahasabha took out a Tiranga Yatra in Muzaffarnagar on Monday with a photograph of Nathuram Godse at the front.

The matter came to light only after a video clip of the yatra went viral on social media, late on Monday night.

Hindu Mahasabha leader Yogendra Varma said, “We had organised a Tiranga Yatra on Independence Day and the rally travelled across the district. All prominent Hindu leaders participated in it. We had put up photographs of several revolutionaries and Godse was one of them.”

He further said that Godse was compelled to assassinate Mahatma Gandhi only because of the policies that he pursued.

#सच्ची_आजादी#IndependenceDay2022
Terrorist organisation
“HINDU MAHASABHA”in #muzaffarnagar #UttarPradesh took out the #TirangaYatra with the Hindu flag and the picture of Gandhi’s assassin Nathuram Godse!#IndependenceDay #HarGharTiranga #AzadiKaAmritMahotsav #Joker_Savarkar pic.twitter.com/gCmVImR6qX

— محمّد آشیف _____ aasif (@mohmmad_aasif1) August 15, 2022

“Godse fought his own case and the government should make public all that he said in court. The government does not want the people to know why Gandhi was assassinated. Some of the policies of Gandhi were anti-Hindu. During partition, 30 lakh Hindus and Muslims were killed and Gandhi was responsible for this,” he stated.

Yogendra Varma further said that if Godse assassinated Gandhi, he faced death sentence for it too.

“Just like some believe Gandhi to be their inspiration, we have similar feelings for Godse,” he added

Meanwhile, district officials, when contacted, either feigned complete ignorance about the rally or refused to comment on it.

Courtesy: The Daily Siasat

The post Watch: Hindu Mahasabha’s rally with Godse picture goes viral appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Madhya Pradesh got another building dedicated to the assassin of Mahatma Gandhi. An organisation named the Akhil Bharatiya Hindu Mahasabha opened a library in Gwalior ‘dedicated to the life and ideology’ of Nathuram Godse, reported the Indian Express.

According to the group, which has for long been working on an image makeover for Godse, the idea is to show that he was a “true nationalist’. Madhya Pradesh already has had attempts to build a ‘temple’ dedicated to Godse set up by the Mahasabha at their Gwalior office. It was removed following an uproar by the Congress reported IE.

However this library, named the ‘Godse Gyan Shala’ (literally translates as Godse Knowledge Centre), seems to have taken off for now, and was set up on Vishwa Hindi Diwas. It was inaugurated at the Mahasabha’s office at Daulat Ganj. According to IE’s news report the library is stocked with literature on how Godse ‘plotted the assassination of Mahatma Gandhi, his articles and his speeches’.

Hindu Mahasabha opened a “gyanshala” on Nathuram
Godse, the assassin of Mahatma Gandhi, at its office in Gwalior to ”educate” youngsters on the Partition of
India and to spread awareness about historical personalities
like Maharana Pratap @ndtv @ndtvindia pic.twitter.com/IwM6wgJvon

— Anurag Dwary (@Anurag_Dwary) January 10, 2021

The Mahasabha’s vice-president Jaiveer Bharadwaj, told the media, “The library was opened to put before the world the true nationalist that Godse was. He stood and died for an undivided India. The purpose of the library is to instil true nationalism which Godse stood for in today’s ignorant youth.” According to Bharadwaj, India was divided to “fulfill the ambitions of Jawaharlal Nehru and Mohammad Ali Jinnah, who both wanted to govern a nation, while Godse opposed it.” The city of Gwalior was chosen by the Mahsabha, as the site of the library dedicated to Godse, as the assassination of Gandhi was plotted in the city, and a gun was also purchased there.

Meanwhile, protem Speaker Rameshwar Sharma on Sunday called the partition of India a mistake by Mahatma Gandhi. “It was Mahatma Gandhi’s mistake that Mohammad Ali Jinnah succeeded in dividing India into two parts,” he told IE.

Nathuram Godse, a proponent of Hindu nationalism in his life, shot Gandhi thrice in the chest on January 30, 1948. Each year, on this date an online feud ensues between Gandhi-supporters and Nathuram-supporters.

 

Related:

Patriotism, Religion and RSS Ideology

I’m also a Muslim, a Christian, a Buddhist, and a Jew: Gandhi’s memo to Mohan 

Godse trends on Gandhi Jayanti! Twitter becomes a platform for Us vs Them narrative

Andhra Pradesh BJP man hails Mahatma Gandhi’s assassin Nathuram Godse as a “patriot”

Banned organisations in India

No discussion on who killed Mahatma Gandhi is complete without addressing idea 

The post After Godse ‘temple’ fiasco, a library dedicated to Mahatma Gandhi’s assassin appeared first on SabrangIndia.

On the 150th birth anniversaryof Mahatma Gandhi, a hashtag by ‘followers’ and ‘admirers’ of his assassin NathuramGodse also trended on Twitter. For much of the morning, the hashtag Gandhi Jayanti lorded over the microblogging site with over 114k tweets. Several other hashtags like Mahatma Gandhi and Gandhi at 150 were also floated.

However, by 5 PM, pro-Godsehashtags started to rise up on Twitter trends. The most prominent hashtag eulogizing Gandhiji’s assassin was #Godse_Amar_Rahethat trended with nearly 20k tweets.

While Brand India has been synonymous with Gandhi, it came as a shocker to see that while w#GandhiJayanti was trending worldwide, the troll army of BJP, paradoxically, came out in support of his assassin, NathuramGodse. What was as shocking was the fact that it were affiliates of the parent organization that prime minister, NarendraModi owes allegiance to, that was clearly behind the pro-Godse tweets.

On studying their profiles, we found that these users were mostly rightwing supremacists who are a part of the RashtriyaSwayamSevakSangh (RSS), the AkhilBharatiyaVidyarthiParishad (ABVP), theBharatiyaJanata Youth Morcha (BJYM) and in their own words ‘kattar Hindus’.

It is ironical that on the 150^th birth anniversary of the most important man in India, the troll army orchestrated the move of trending the hashtag about NathuramGodse. On the one hand when PM Modi was paying obeisance to Gandhiji at Rajghat, the rightwing army of organizations associated with BJP tried to put forward their agenda of Hindutva by claiming that Godse was true Hindu. So, while America’s prestigious newspaper, the New York Times carries an article on Gandhi penned by Modi, RSS affiliates and their members praised his assassin.

Is the BJP then just paying lip service to Gandhiji and his ideals? Are the affiliates of the National party spreading their communal agenda of ‘Hindutva’ under the garb of promoting ‘Hinduism’?

The post Who was behind the #Gandhi Jayanti vs #Godse_Amar_Rahe: India’s Twitter War? appeared first on SabrangIndia.

In this episode of NewsChakra, senior journalist Abhisar Sharma questions whether the “new India” will belong to the Gandhi doctrine or Godse doctrine. The ruling Bharatiya Janata Party seems to be embracing Gandhi’s ideology, but in practice, it goes against Gandhi’s principles. While Gandhi propagated secularism, BJP conforms to the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh’s dream of a ‘Hindu nation’.

Courtesy: News Click

The post Whose New India Is This? Gandhi or Godse? appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The said tweet was posted by an account called Nita AmbaniFan.

NathuramGodse, Gandhi’s murderer, became a topic of discussion during these recent LokSabha campaigns. While actor Kamal Hasan said that he was independent India’s “first terrorist”, Malegaon balst accused SadhviPragya Thakur said that he was a “patriot”. Pragya Thakur was severely criticised for her comments. Since 2014 when this regime first rode to power, talk of Gode temples springing up have regularly done the rounds.
 

The tweet created outrage among twitter users, with one user asking the telecom provider to change its name to “Official NathuramGodse.”
 
AisiTaisi Democracy tweeted,
 

 

After facing a lot of flak, MTNL deleted the tweet and shared an official statement saying, “At the outset, MTNL regrets the inconvenience caused by the two objectionable tweets circulated on social media and Twitter.com and purportedly made @MTNLOfficial.We strongly condemns the above tweets and committed to investigate the matter. Press release enclosed.”

Taimur is the child of actors KareenaKapoor and Saif Ali Khan. His name, which also resembles that of a 14^th century Mongol invader has, has since the beginning generated a lot of interest among Hindutva supporters and media personnels.
 

 

The post “Hard to digest Truth”, India’s official telecom provider tweets in Support of Godse appeared first on SabrangIndia.

We build temples for any person from God, Gandhi to Godse, and personalities like Amitabh Bachchan, Sachin Tendulkar, Khushboo and Sonia Gandhi. Also Read – Race, sexual politics in spotlight at Broadway’s Tony awards Advertise With Us Kamal Haasan, actor-turned-politician is free to say that Godse was the first Hindu terrorist and the BJP’s candidate and now MP, Sadhvi Pragya Singh Thakur, describes him as desh bhakth. Haasan reportedly said at a public meeting in Tamil Nadu on May 12: “Free India’s first terrorist was a Hindu, his name is Nathuram Godse. There it (terrorism) starts”. Then after four days, Sadhvi Pragya Singh Thakur exercised her Constitutional freedom by saying, “Nathuram Godse was a desh bhakt, is a desh bhakt and will remain a desh bhakt.”

Exercising his creative expression right, Kamala Hassan scripted, acted, directed ‘Hey Ram’ movie, where hero Saket Ram Iyengar thinks like Godse and plans like him to kill Gandhi. ‘Hey Ram’ is an Indian alternate historical fiction released in 2000. Saket Ram Iyengar played by Kamal, plans like Nathuram Godse to eliminate Gandhi alleging pro-Pakistan politics. By the time Saket Ram reaches Delhi he starts admiring him, and then gets surprised to see Godse firing bullets at the Father of the Nation. When Kamal Haasan categorised Godse’s act as terrorism or extremism, he must have forgotten that 19 years ago he tried to justify the attempt in Hey Ram for his cinema commerce. Whether this political drama of Kamal supports the Godse’s terrorism, so called by him?

Interestingly, both Kamal and Pragya have exercised their freedom to retract their statements like Saket in Hey Ram changed his mind in the last phase. Kamal Haasan said he did not use the word terrorist but said he was an extremist. Sadhvi Pragya Singh Thakur, under pressure from the BJP leadership, apologised and withdrew her statement. Prime Minister said he cannot forgive her for this. She is elected to Lok Sabha from Bhopal and she is one among 353 who elected Modi as leader again.

Even Godse has repented! According to G D Khosla, a High Court judge who heard appeal in Punjab High Court, the assassin Godse repented for his deed and vowed to work for peace like Gandhi. Justice G D Khosla, a member of three-judge Bench, who heard the appeal filed by Godse and his co-convicts against the trial court’s verdict in the Mahatma Gandhi’s assassination case, published a book in 1965 recording the legal aspects of these events. Justice Khosla observed “the decision to strike was taken on January 13, when it was learnt that Mahatma Gandhi had started his fast to put pressure upon the Government of India and compel it to review its former decision to withhold the payment of 55 crores rupees to Pakistan… the conspirators could wait no longer”.

According to Justice Khosla, Godse had “repented his deed and declared that were he to be given another chance he would spend the rest of his life in the promotion of peace and service of the country”. If this is true, it means, even Godse changed his mind about Gandhi’s peace mission. (Godse did not appeal neither on his conviction nor on death sentence. He only preferred appeal on a limited point of conspiracy).

It’s interesting that two politicians, Godse and a principal character of a movie “Hey Ram’ also changed their minds. Another dispute is whether Gandhi said ‘Hey Ram’ at the end of his life. Kamal’s movie cleverly avoids it as Gandhi in ‘Hey Ram’ dies without spelling ‘Hey Ram’.
With all this backdrop, what moral right Pragya and others have to categorise Godse as desh bhakt? We the people, build temples for both Gandhi and Godse. We defeat Kamal and his candidates but elect Pragya Thakur from Bhopal. What moral right we have to say either Godse or Gandhi are correct?

On November 16, 2017, Hindu Mahasabha at its office in Daulatganj in Gwalior district laid foundation stone for construction of a temple in the name of Nathuram Godse, though district administration has not permitted it. A statue has already been put up in their office and they observe November 15, 1949, the day on which he was hanged to death as ‘sacrifice day.’ Later the Gwalior administration gave a notice to remove the temple from that place.

On May 21, 2019, the police arrested six Hindu Mahasabha activists in Surat for allegedly celebrating the birth anniversary of Nathuram Godse, with lighting lamps, singing bhajans and exchanging sweets. It appears they have built a temple there for Godse. There are temples for Gandhi at several places, including one in Sambalpur, Orissa, and another in Peddakaparthi village of Nalgonda district in Telangana.

If these love-hate conflicts of Gandhi and Godse impacted the campaign and impressed voters, God only must save our democracy. Because we, the people of India, are desh bhakths, and we decide our democracy.

(The writer is former Central Information Commissioner and Professor of Law, at Bennett University, Greater Noida)

Courtesy : Hans News Service, published on  4 Jun 2019.
https://www.thehansindia.com/hans/opinion/news-analysis/right-to-analyse-gandhi-and-appraise-godse-534835
 

The post Right to Analyse Gandhi and Appraise Godse appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Here is an excerpt from Subhash Gatade’s recent book, Hindutva’s Second Coming, throwing light on the ‘love of the assassin’. (Pages 272, Media House, 2019, http://www.mediahouse.online/product/hindutvas-second-coming/)

Jawaharlal Nehru was an inveterate letter writer, like many of his contemporaries.

Perhaps it was a reflection of the times in which he lived – when you had not many options to communicate – letter writing seemed to be the cheapest way to communicate.  Nehru’s letters to his daughter Indira – when she was ten years old – later published in a book form aimed at developing sensitive perception of the world are a literary treasure.

One can get a glimpse of Nehru, the architect of free India, via his fortnightly letters to chief ministers on issues of concern – which have been compiled in five volumes. His correspondence with his contemporaries, colleagues in the tumultuous period after achievement of Independence which was accompanied by post-partition riots, can give us a feel of the challenges awaiting a newly independent nation.

It would be opportune here to reread his letter to Shyama Prasad Mukherjee, who was part of his cabinet, merely two days before Gandhi’s assassination.

“For some time past I have been greatly distressed by the activities of the Hindu Mahasabha. At the present moment it is functioning not only as the main opposition to the government and to the Congress in India but as an organisation continually inciting to violence. The RSS has behaved in an even worse way and we have collected a mass of information about its very objectionable activities and its close association with riots and disorder.” (Jawaharlal Nehru, Selected Works, 2nd Series, Vol 5, 1987, p.30).

Anybody can sense through these letters/circulars the storm which was brewing in the country, when he castigates the ‘extraordinary virulence’ in speeches of those leaders of RSS and Hindu Mahasabha and says “…I fear that the limit is being reached if it has not already been crossed’’ (-do-)

This particular letter was written with an expectation that Mukherjee — who was part of the government led by him — would condemn such acts and raise his voice against communal organisations but Mukherjee remained silent.

There are enough documentary proofs available which show how these Hindu communal groups were trying for direct provocation of ‘organised’communal violence. Dr B S Moonje, a Hindu Mahasabha leader, who was also one of the founders of RSS, had observed that to counter Jinnah “we will have to organise violence on a scientific basis”, in his Presidential address to the All India Hindu Mahajati Sammelan. (All India Hindu Mahasabha Papers, File C-105/46, Nehru Memorial Museum and Library, quoted in RSS, School Textbooks and Mahatma Gandhi’s assassination ed. p 60).

Perhaps an extract from a book (Mridula Mukherjee, Aditya Mukherjee, Sucheta Mahajan, RSS, School Textbooks and Mahatma Gandhi’s assassination ed. p 60) is worth quoting in full to know to what extent they were ready to go.

Hindu Mahasabha workers publicly charged the national leaders with betraying the interests of the Hindus. They threatened that Nehru, Patel and Azad would be hanged and Gandhi Murdabad (Death to Gandhi) became a common slogan at Mahasabha meetings. Delhi Police Abstract of Intelligence dated 18 December 1947 reported an annual rally of the RSS attended by 50,000 volunteers, where Golwalkar described the attitude of the government as ‘un-Indian and Satanic’. At a meeting of 2,500 workers on 8 December 1947 Golwalkar said: (Kapur Commission Report, Chapter XIX: 66)

The Sangh would finish Pakistan and if anybody stood in their way they will finish him also, “No matter, whether it would be Nehru government, or any other government.” India, he said, was no place for them to live. They [the RSS], he said, had means whereby their opponents could be immediately silenced. (p 65) 

Publications owning allegiance to the idea of Hindu Rashtra were openly threatening death for Mahatma Gandhi in an oblique way. Sample this one: Dainik Hindu Rashtra wrote merely six days before the assassination: “We request that the Government of India should provide more armed soldiers for Gandhiji’s protection so long as he makes anti-national and terrible statements as above”.

Well-known journalist Bharat Bhushan had in a write-up provided details of Delhi CID’s report which corroborate this which told how “RSS chief Golwalkar threatened to kill Gandhi” (http://www.catchnews.com/politics-news/exclusive-rss-chief-golwalkar-threatened-to-kill-gandhi-1947-cid-report-1469535385.html ) It also had details of Lucknow CID’s letter which told how on 1 Dec, 1950 RSS men met at Mathura, allegedly discussed assassinating Congress leaders.

This was the ambience when Gandhi was assassinated by Nathuram Godse and his accomplices; a conspiracy which was hatched by the leading lights of Hindutva supremacist forces, chief among them was Savarkar and his close associates.

Definitely it was no ordinary killing of an individual by another, not just a murder committed by a youth in a fit of rage without any planning, rather a day long awaited by the Hindutva supremacists for which they had been planning at least since a decade and half ago.

As Teesta Setalvad in her introduction of a book (Beyond Doubt: A Dossier on Gandhi’s assassination’, Tulika, 2015, Page 1) rightly puts it, the murder was not only the first terrorist act in Independent India but it,

‘[w]as a declaration of war and a statement of intent. To those forces, which …, conspired in the killing, the act declared a lasting commitment to India as a Hindu Rashtra, and announced how the RSS and its affiliates would be at perpetual war with the secular, democratic Indian state as well as any and all who stood to affirm these principles. It remains to be seen how far they could and are still prepared to go. The assassination was also an act to signal the elimination of all that Gandhi and the national movement against imperialism stood for. Equality of citizenship and non-discriminatory democratic governance has been and remain anathema to the Sangh’s ideal political order. ..

What is disturbing to note is that this “declaration of war” normally understood as the “first terrorist act in independent India” does not carry the importance it deserves now. In fact, it is the exact opposite today. With a majoritarian government led by the ideas of RSS at the Centre, we find increasing glorification of the act and its perpetrators.

How did the killers of Gandhi [try] to rationalise their criminal act?

According to them, Gandhiji supported the idea of a separate state for Muslims; thus in a sense he was responsible for the creation of Pakistan. Secondly, the belligerence of Muslims was a result of Gandhiji’s policy of appeasement. Thirdly, in spite of the Pakistani aggression in Kashmir, Gandhiji fasted to compel the Government of India to release an amount of Rs 55 crore due to Pakistan.

Anyone familiar with that period of history can decipher that all these allegations are malicious and factually incorrect also. In fact, the idea of communal amity which Gandhi upheld all his life was a complete anathema to the exclusivist, Hindu supremacist world view of the members of the RSS, Hindu Mahasabha. And while the nation was a racial/religious construct in the imagination of the Hindutva forces, for Gandhi and the rest of the nationalists it was a territorial construct or a bounded territory comprising different communities, collectivities living there.

Looking at the fourteen-year-old history of unsuccessful attempts on Gandhi’s life – which stretched from 1934 to 1948 – it becomes clear that the conspiracy to eliminate Gandhiji was conceived much earlier than the “successful accomplishment” thereof.

A simple query comes to mind: would it be possible for us to deliberate over the fact that the idea of elimination of Gandhi emerged with lot of vehemence in mid-thirties among the Hindutva supremacists?
Remember it was the period when masses of Indian people were fighting the British colonials in myriad ways, not only the Congress but the socialists and the communists were also on the offensive. The stream of social revolutionaries led by Ambedkar- Periyar – Mangoo Ram-Achutanand etc was also engaged in launching struggles for social emancipation and the Hindutva supremacists who were far away from all these struggles, focussing themselves on building their organisation, conspiring to kill the Mahatma.

One thing is certain that with passage of time as the idea of composite nationalism started taking deep roots in the society where Gandhi was a key figure, the Hindutva warriors became more and more convinced that their project of carving out Hindu Rashtra would always remain in wilderness, if something drastic was not done. For them Gandhi was THE target because he was unquestioned leader of the anti-colonial struggle and secondly, the discourse he used and propagated — the language of religion which he believed in — the proponents of Hindu Rashtra were convinced that till he is around, they would not be able to make headway on the path of Hindu unity.

Interestingly, with Gandhi their struggle was at two levels:
First, on the idea of nationhood — whether it should be a composite one or should be based on religion.

Second, on the idea of Hinduism — for Gandhi Hinduism it meant ‘Sarv Dharm Sambhav’ whereas for the Hindutva people it meant the exact opposite.

The decade of thirties is also known for the martyrdoms of Bhagat Singh, Rajguru and Sukhdeo (23rd March, 1931) and feeling of anger and grief which had gripped the broad masses of the people then and the historic Karachi Congress which also reflected it, followed by Congress’s bold move to put forward the idea of Swaraj. The Karachi Congress which was presided over by Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel where all the leading lights of the Congress were present also stipulated state’s religious neutrality. Providing details Teesta Setalvad tells us, this session

‘[r]esulted in the Congress adopting a resolution on Fundamental Rights and Economic Policy which represented the party’s social, economic and political programme.. for the first time, it tried to define what would be the meaning of Swaraj for the common Indian. Some important aspects of these resolutions were: basic civil rights of freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of assembly, equality before law, elections on the basis of universal adult franchise; free and compulsory primary education; substantial reduction in rent and taxes, better conditions for workers… Relevant sections constituted a legal attack on the institution of untouchability,… These principled statements were later included in the Constitution of India. (Beyond Doubt, A Dossier on Gandhi’s Assassination, p 2, Tulika, 2015).

Taking the discussion forward Teesta tells how “Communal amity remained central to the constructive programmes of the Congress Party” and how attempts were made to include leading Muslim intellectuals and leaders into the Congress fold and how it was the same period when “majoritarian as well as minority communal forces were at play pushing their narrow, hate-driven, communal agendas”. According to her the evolution of a,

‘[s]ecular and composite Indian nationhood was a deep source of resentment for the proponents of Hindu Rashtra, it was the democratic and egalitarian agenda articulated by the national leadership through the Karachi resolution that they also resented. The attempts on Gandhi’s life that began in 1934 were a response to the dominant political articulations of nationhood, caste and economic and other democratic rights which directly challenged the idea of a hegemonistic and authoritarian Hindu Rashtra. (- do -, p 3).
..
 

The post Why the love for the Mahatma’s Assassin Godse appeared first on SabrangIndia.