The crime of Nathuram Godse

                                                               
There’s a piece of little known history about the man who killed Gandhi. Nathuram Godse’s speech during his trial remains largely unknown. Surprisingly enough his testimony at the trial  sort of blurs the line between right and wrong. Our government has a notorious reputation for banning any sort of literature that even remotely questions the established dictum and they made sure that the 2 books Godse wrote during his time in  prison never saw the light of day. If anything the fact that they don’t want people reading what he has to say probably lends it more credibility. Nathuram Godse shot Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi 3 times on the 30th of january 1948 and surrendered without much resistance. To think that it was a crime of passion motivated by  religion and the like would be a grave mistake since he actively worked against the caste system and untouchability and was in every sense a free thinking man. He gave a lengthy discourse at the trial discussing the moral and philosophical incentives that led him to the act.

I’ve paraphrased the whole thing:-

‘Gandhi’s religious inclinations were inconsistent and hypocritical. Apparently he read the Koran in a temple but wouldn’t dare to read the Gita in a mosque  At the time of the partition hindu’s were being massacred in west Bengal and Gandhi went on a fast demanding that India honour the agreement of paying a certain sum of money to Pakistan. This blatant support for Pakistan at a time when the hindu community at large was in shell shock was insensitive and inconsiderate. This he felt added fuel to fire and added to the growing animosity between the two communities. 

Another point he makes is that Gandhi was a major egotist. To believe in ahimsa and his principles also meant that you considered him to be infallible. He contends that since his policies obviously did not convince Jinnah against the partition he should have let someone else deal with him. But as it panned out he couldn’t bring himself to let go of his lofty principles for the sake of the country.Godse believed that with Gandhi gone the Indian political system would be more practical and powerful and not be constrained by ahimsa. India would finally have its own army which would not have been a likely prospect had Gandhi been around.’

When you think about it I think Gandhi might have gotten lucky with his approach. It sure had novelty going for it but, above all it required the compliance of the enemy for it to succeed. If it was a flawless approach Anna Hazare’s movement would have been a grand success. All the movement managed to stir up were a few weak policy changes. Now that’s the story of a movement that had virtually everything going for it, widespread media coverage, mass support and immense political pressure for change. The story of Irom Sharmila  on the other hand barely made an impact. She has been fasting for well over a decade protesting against the stationing of army men in Manipur who allegedly raped the local women. Both these events reiterates the fact that ahimsa with/without media coverage needs the opposing party to repent and come to terms with the fact that they are the ones that need to change. Call me cynical but I think that’s a mad man’s fantasy. There’s a reason why greedy people keep wanting more, why criminals tend to remain criminals, why slackers don’t turn achievers overnight. It’s because we are hard wired to be that way. People don’t change that easily, at least not in ways that matter.

If you can think about the whole thing from a completely rational point of view Godse had a point, Gandhi would have been a major roadblock if India had any plans of getting itself an army and lets face it, even the most staunch Gandhian would have a hard time convincing people otherwise in the wake of an increasingly hostile world. I can think of no occasion where violence has been used more judiciously and effectively than when Israel retaliated in kind to Black September. Israeli athletes were kidnapped during the  Munich Olympics and murdered by terrorists. The Israeli prime minister formed a special team to track down and take down those responsible. The mission went off like clockwork and to think that they accomplished this in an age where the fastest means of communication was a telegram makes it even more impressive. No one dared mess with Israel in the aftermath of the events that had transpired. Ahimsa (in my opinion) is therefore impractical and arguably ineffective in the modern world.

Godse's original statement also argues that Gandhi was a major egotist. Can you blame him (Gandhi)? I mean its hard not to get delusions of grandeur when you have the kind of support that was hitherto unseen and unheard of. I know I’ve been working with the assumption that everything Godse said makes sense but  he makes a compelling case by very clinically dismantling Gandhi’s aura of infallibility. Also Gandhi was not a true practitioner of ahimsa. He once ordered to kill a cow that was in pain because the noise it made annoyed him (I’m not kidding, his own autobiography corroborates this story). Every human being is inherently flawed and putting Gandhi on a pedestal without due consideration isn’t logical. Everyone’s done something hypocritical in their life and since Gandhi’s life has been under the scanner more than most others it's natural that some one is going to interpret the hell out of the inconsistencies. But then again people tend to have something called confirmation bias. It’s when  they have trouble letting go of their perceived persona of someone. They want good people to remain good and heroes to remain heroes even when there’s stacks of evidence pointing to the contrary. It’s what happened in Lance Armstrong’s case. People only started conceiving the idea of him having doped after he finally admitted to it. It's not about the bike well, apparently it wasn't about the man either.

There is another story surrounding Jinnah's death that if proven to be more than just conspiracy theory would really be bad for Gandhi's legacy. Jinnah was the one man that badly wanted the formation of a muslim state which was a farcry from the stand he took during the 1920's as a devout congressman. Back then he advocated Hindu-Muslim unity but was disillusioned by Gandhi's ways around the 1940's and began demanding that India be partitioned. Jinnah was a heavy smoker and was diagnosed with lung cancer. He died on 11th September 1948 barely a year after the partition. Some claim that Gandhi was aware of Jinnah's medical condition before hand . They argue that Gandhi should've taken advantage of this information and stalled the partition. Without Jinnah the whole notion of a divided nation would've died down. If that's the case then one can't help but question Gandhi's motives. Why would he hold such critical information and not use it for the good of the country? If there's even a little bit of truth to this story then Godse would truly stand vindicated.

I won’t go so far as to say that it was right that Godse killed Gandhi  because that would be mightily unfair and ungrateful but I think I can safely say that he gave Gandhi martyrdom, sort of immortalized him. In a way he made sure that Gandhi didn’t have to live long enough to see himself become the villain.

  

All said, Gandhi did win us freedom. He may have had many flaws but the one thing he had was immeasurable courage. His  methods did bear fruit if only to be made a mockery of in the hands of lesser men. Godse had his reasons and the courage to act on his beliefs and in that both men were equal. Both were selfless and prepared to give themselves to see their dreams realised. The irony is that both men died for the same cause but are remembered in starkly different ways.