Can a person be a terrorist for some and a revolutionary for others?
On 30 January 1948, Mahatma Gandhi woke up at 3:30 AM to conduct his morning prayers.
He held meetings with Hindu and Muslim leaders
as he was deeply concerned about the communal violence sweeping the nation in the aftermath of the Partition.
When Prof N.R. Malkhani, the Deputy High Commissioner in Pakistan,
told him of the sad plight of the Hindus of Sind,
Gandhiji replied, “These things would not have happened had people listened to me.”
Many newspapers blamed Congress for the violence.
Some reports even alleged that Sardar Patel and Pandit Nehru had been in disagreement.
To discuss this, Gandhiji summoned Sardar Patel for a meeting at 4 PM.
The meeting lasted for more than an hour,
and it was already time for Gandhiji’s evening prayers.
About 250 people were waiting on the lawn,
among them was a stout, young man wearing a khaki-colored shirt and pants.
This man walked to the Birla House, where Gandhiji had been staying with his colleague Narayan Apte.
Together, they hatched a plan that shook everyone.
Gandhiji then ascended the steps leading to the prayer platform.
As he moved, people began to surround him, with their hands folded.
They made way for him to go to the platform.
Just then the young man in a khaki dress pushed his way through the crowd
and bent over in front of Gandhiji with his hands folded.
It looked as if he wished to touch Gandhiji’s feet to take his blessing.
But he pulled out a pistol
and fired three shots at close range, killing Gandhiji.
This young man was Nathuram Godse.
What can be used to define Nathuram Godse’s actions—nationalism or terrorism?
The Aftermath
After his arrest, Nathuram Godse and his accomplice, Narayan Apte, were taken to the Parliament police station.
According to the account given by Nathuram Godse's brother Gopal Godse in his book,
Gandhiji's youngest son, Devdas Gandhi, came to see him there.
Devdas expected to find a blood-thirsty monster inside the prison cell.
But he was surprised at how Godse behaved.
Godse introduced himself and told Devdas that he was sorry for killing Gandhiji.
He said that his action wasn’t driven by any personal agenda.
He killed Gandhiji purely for political reasons.
Later, Nathuram—along with seven of his accomplices, including Gopal, his brother,
and Veer Savarkar—were charged with murder.
It was revealed that this group had previously attempted to assassinate Gandhiji.
10 days before, on 20th January, Godse and his accomplices followed Gandhiji to a park where he had been speaking.
One of them threw a grenade at the crowd so that it dispersed, leaving Gandhiji alone.
The second grenade was supposed to be thrown at Gandhiji, but the person in charge of this, Digambar Badge,
decided not to throw the grenade and deserted the scene.
Nathuram Godse managed to escape as well,
but 20-year-old Madan Pahwa was taken into custody and charged with an attempt at murder.
A newspaper called Hindu Rashtra reported this incident with a headline that justified the attack.
The report also said that Gandhiji had been appeasing the Muslims.
The hearing against Godse was meticulous in its examination.
More than 150 witnesses were called and a large number of documents and newspaper articles were investigated.
In his defense, Nathuram Godse made a five-hour-long statement.
However, the statement was banned by the court.
When the ban was lifted, the statement was published under the title, ‘Why I Killed Gandhi.”
Why am I talking about this?
The reason why this blog is important for you to read is that some people have begun to hail Godse as a freedom fighter.
These people are celebrating the inauguration of a memorial library dedicated to Godse. ABP News, 👇
["Godse has been revived in Madhya Pradesh.."]
["Hindu Mahasbha has inaugurated a memorial library dedicated to Godse."]
The national secretary of Hindu Mahasabha said, “Godse did the right thing by killing Gandhi”.
BJP MP Sadhvi Pragya agreed with this statement. Sadhvi Pragya said 👇
["Nathuram Godse was a nationalist and he'll remain one forever."]
Gandhiji was assassinated around 75 years ago.
But the incident had a momentous impact on Indian politics.
Ramachandra Guha's book 'India After Gandhi' begins with this incident
and goes on to chart India's journey after independence.
This book has received several accolades.
Why Godse killed Gandhi 1) Muslim Appeasement
So, what were the reasons given by Godse for killing Gandhiji?
The first reason was alleged Muslim appeasement.
To understand this, we'll first have to delve deeper into Nathuram Godse's background.
Godse was born into a Brahmin Hindu family
—a highly devout Hindu family.
In fact, Godse mentioned this in the statement he gave in court.
At the age of 22, Godse joined the RSS.{ At present, RSS is a terrorist organization for Muslim people.}
The RSS was founded by K.B. Hedgewar with the aim to protect Hindu culture and solidarity.
A few years later, Godse shifted to Pune,
where he was appointed as the Secretary of the local branch of Hindu Mahasabha.
Hindu Mahasabha was founded by a group of people within the Indian National Congress
who advocated the interests of Hindus before the British Raj.
But in the 1930s, Veer Savarkar steered Hindu Mahasabha into a distinct political party.
He developed the far-right ideology of Hindutva,
which espoused the secular ideology promoted by the Indian National Congress.
Godse said that Veer Savarkar and Gandhi hugely influenced him and the nation.
As Godse’s involvement with Hindu Mahasabha deepened,
Veer Savarkar's ideology left a profound impression on him.
Like Savarkar, Godse blamed Gandhi for appeasing Muslims.
According to Dhirendra K. Jha, the author of 'Gandhi's Assassin',
developing a hatred for Gandhi's secularism was a core component of Savarkar's politics.
Inspired by Savarkar's ideas, Godse took part in the civil disobedience movement in Hyderabad,
where the Hindus were complaining about being deprived of their rights by the Nizam.
Nathuram was arrested and sent to prison.
This incident solidified Godse’s allegiance to Hindutva
and his hatred of Mahatma Gandhi's alleged appeasement of Muslims continued to grow.
Godse believed that Gandhiji had been ignoring the demands of the Hindus.
But this accusation has two shortcomings.
One, Godse believed that secularism meant giving more rights to a particular community.
In fact, it means that the government shouldn’t favor one community based on their religion.
Gandhiji detested the belief that there was some kind of "inborn enmity" between Hindus and Muslims.
He blamed the British for creating differences between the two communities.
He believed that if India had to seek independence, the two communities needed to be united.
He wrote this in 1909.
Two, Godse believed that Gandhiji was behind the idea of secularism.
In fact, other political leaders sought to unite the two communities as well.
Before Gandhiji, Bal Gangadhar sought to increase the participation of Muslims in India’s struggle for independence.
Under the Lucknow pact, Bal Gangadhar Tilak, Annie Besant, and Mohammad Ali Jinnah
evolved a formula to increase the representation of Muslims in the Legislative councils.
As Muslims constituted around 25% of the Indian population,
these leaders believed that they should’ve a reasonable representation in the government.
Despite this, Godse continued to blame Gandhiji for appeasing Muslims.
He was particularly angry when Gandhiji announced that Hindi wouldn’t be the national language of India.
Instead, Gandhiji proposed what is called Hindustani, a hybrid of Hindi and Urdu.
Godse was against this move.
Godse said that everybody in India knew that there was no language called Hindustani.
While it's true that Gandhiji preferred Hindustani to be the national language of India,
researchers have suggested that it had nothing to do with Muslim appeasement.
Gandhiji wanted Hindustani to represent the secular fabric of India.
For example, Professor Ganpat Teli said that Hindustani was a language that would keep the country united.
But Godse believed that Gandhiji’s sole aim was to appease the Muslims.
What Godse called "appeasement" was in fact an attempt by Gandhiji to unite Hindus and Muslims
so that India could achieve independence.
Why Godse killed Gandhi 2) Partition Support
Godse believed that appeasement led to the partition of India.
In his statement, Godse claimed that Mahatma Gandhi bowed under the will of Muhammad Ali Jinnah and agreed to the Partition of India.
But Godse never explained what would the Muslims be subjected to in a united country.
This is why it’s difficult to judge a historical leader.
People are well aware of all the policies a particular leader supported.
But when they are asked what policies they would’ve preferred instead, they end up choosing only one.
The same was the case with Godse.
He asserted that Gandhiji had been trying to appease the Muslims,
but he never explained what alternative policies the Indian government could’ve implemented.
Even if he had proposed a policy,
what was the guarantee that India could’ve gained independence and lived in harmony by implementing it?
It’s easier to hold an opposite argument without having a logical justification for it.
In fact, Gandhiji went on hunger strikes many times just to unite the Hindus and Muslims.
Therefore, it’s difficult to agree with Godse’s argument of accusing Gandhiji of the partition of India.
He said his dream of a Hindu Rahstra was foiled
when the Congress and Gandhiji agreed to the creation of an Islamic Pakistan and a secular India.
And he blamed Gandhiji for it.
Godse also believed that Gandhiji was responsible for the bloodshed that followed Partition.
But Godse was wrong in believing that Gandhiji supported Partition.
In reality, Gandhi opposed the Partition until the very end.
On the morning of June 3, 1947, the day the Partition plan was announced,
Gandhiji told Dr. Rajendra Prasad that he could only see evil in the plan.
When a reporter asked Gandhiji if he would go on a hunger strike to stop the Partition,
he replied that he wouldn’t pay for the careless decision made by Congress with his life.
Actually, Gandhiji blamed the Congress for the Partition.
To prevent the Partition, Gandhiji even offered the seat of Prime Minister to Muhammad Ali Jinnah.
Therefore, it was wrong for Godse to assert that Gandhiji was responsible for the Partition.
But Godse was steadfast in his belief.
That’s why Godse was filled with hatred against Gandhiji.
This hatred had been brewing for a number of years, but an incident made it spill out of control.
Why Godse killed Gandhi 3) The Final Trigger
On January 13th, 1948, 17 days before he was killed,
Gandhiji undertook a fast unto death to protest the riots taking place across the country, specifically in Delhi.
Gandhi said he would terminate his fast when peace was restored to Delhi
and Muslims could walk around in the city safely.
With this fast, Gandhiji aimed to save both communities from violence.
Gandhiji also put forward a demand that the Indian government should return Pakistan’s cash balance.
The cash balance was worth INR 55 crore.
The Indian government had refused to release the balance
on the charge that Pakistan connived with the Afridi tribesmen to invade and occupy Kashmir.
To save Gandhiji’s life, the Indian government returned the balance to Pakistan.
Many right-wing Hindus were infuriated by this decision.
And one such person was Nathuram Godse.
He claimed that this was another example of Gandhiji’s appeasement of the Muslims.
He said that Gandhiji had been appeasing the Muslims for the past 32 years;
and thus, he had decided to bring an end to it.
It’s ironic how Gandhiji’s hunger strike,
which was aimed at curbing the violence between the Hindus and Muslims,
ended with the violent act of his assassination.💥💥💥🔫
So, was Godse a terrorist or a revolutionary?
So, was Nathuram Godse a terrorist or a nationalist?
To answer, we first need to understand what the terms ‘terrorist’ and ‘revolutionary/nationalist’ mean.
This is V. Prabhakaran, the founder of LTTE,
which was a militant organization that sought to create an independent Tamil state in Sri Lanka.
Several countries in the world, including Sri Lanka, the USA, Canada, and India, considered LTTE a terrorist organization.
While many considered LTTE freedom fighters.
For example, former Tamil Nadu CM, M Karunanidhi, called LTTE "freedom fighters".
But not everybody agreed with this.
In 1988, Indian historian Bipin Chandra referred to Bhagat Singh as a "revolutionary terrorist" in his book.
Yes, a “revolutionary terrorist”.
It’s because decades ago the terms ‘terrorists’ and ‘revolutionary’ had relatively similar meanings.
For example, after the French Revolution,
the word ‘terrorism’ was used to refer to a political ideology that advocated for significant change and reforms in society.
The word ‘terror’ didn't mean creating terror among the masses,
but among the oppressive and corrupt regimes.
Soon, the meaning of the word ‘terrorism’ changed.
Today, ‘terrorism’ means an ideology that sought to use violence to achieve its political objectives.
Instead of targeting the elite and the state, ‘terrorism’ could also target innocent civilians.
Thus, a ‘terrorist’ is said to be a person who uses violence to target innocent civilians to achieve their political goals.
A ‘revolutionary’ aims at bringing a radical change in society,
whereas, a ‘terrorist’ uses terror, panic, and violence to achieve their political goals.
To decide whether Godse was a terrorist or a revolutionary, we first need to discern his political goals.
Did Godse wish to bring a radical change in society?
Or, did he aim to target innocent people and spread ‘terror’ and ‘fear’?
Is Gandhi Innocent
So, there’re two conditions:
One, did Godse want to spread terror?
Two, was the person he targeted innocent?
It’s difficult to evaluate the second condition.
Some people could argue that Gandhiji wasn’t innocent
and is to be blamed for the deaths of Hindus before and after the Partition.
But I don’t agree with this argument.
To prove that Gandhiji was responsible for the death of Hindus, one must present concrete evidence
—evidence that could prove that Gandhiji had an intention of killing the Hindus.
We haven’t found such evidence yet.
In the absence of concrete evidence, one can’t justify violence.
Terror
Another condition is: did Godse want to spread terror?
In my opinion, he did.
He not only targeted the most popular political leader of the country,
but he targeted a person who championed the cause of non-violence.
The aim behind Gandhiji’s assassination was to spread terror among civilians and political leaders.
Conclusion
Now, the question is how do we decide if the civilians were terrified or not.
This is very subjective.
In fact, even the researchers can’t agree on one definition of a ‘terrorist’.
One argument goes that as Gandhiji had millions of followers and he practiced non-violence,
killing him caused the spread of terror.
Whereas, Netaji Subhas Chandra Bose and Shahid Bhagat Singh targeted those whose followers were only a few in number.
I have a question for you:
If Gandhiji had only 50-60 followers, would his assassination be considered an act of terrorism?
This is a complex question. Do share your answer in the comments.
Here’s something else to consider:
What’s the role of political violence in our society?
If you disagree with someone’s political ideology, should you use violence against them?
If your answer is no,
then what does the people hailing Nathuram Godse as a ‘freedom fighter’ indicate about our society…
Thankyou so much 🙏
(NASIR AZMI )
0 Comments