---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: sudheer mahajan <sudheermahajan@rediffmail.com>
Date: May 7, 2009 10:05 AM
Subject: [aryasamajonline] Nathuram Godse's final address to the court
To: abhinavsethi@in.ibm.com
I found this extremely informative. 
Nathuram Godse's final address to the court 
Nathuram Godse was arrested immediately after he assassinated Gandhiji, based on a F.I.R. filed by Nandlal Mehta at the Tughlak road Police staton at Delhi.The trial, which was held in camera began on 27th May 1948 and concluded on 10th February 1949. He was sentenced to death.An appeal to the Punjab High Court, then in session at Simla, did not find favour and the sentence was upheld. 
 
The statement that you are about to read is the last made by Godse before the Court on the 5th of May 1949.Such was the power and eloquence of this statement that one of the judges, G.D.Khosla, later wrote, " I have, however, no doudt that had the audience of that day been constituted into a jury and entrusted with the task of deciding Godse's appeal, they would have brought a verdict of "not Guilty" by an overwhelming majority" 
 
WHY I KILLED GANDHI 
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 Naoroji, Vivekanand, 
Gokhale, Tilak, along with the books of ancient and modern history of 
India and some prominent countries like England, France, America and' 
 Russia. Moreover I studied the tenets of Socialism and Marxism. But above 
all I studied very closely whatever Veer Savarkar and Gandhiji had written 
and spoken, as to my mind these two ideologies have contributed more to 
 the 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. In fact there is nothing 
 new or original in them. They are implicit in every constitutional 
public movement. But it is nothing but a mere dream if you imagine 
that the bulk of mankind is, or can ever become, capable of scrupulous 
adherence to these lofty principles in its normal life from day to day. 
 In fact, hunour, duty and love of one's own kith and kin and country might 
often compel us to disregard non-violence and to use force. I could never 
conceive that an armed resistance to an aggression is unjust. I would 
 consider it a religious and moral duty to resist and, if possible, to 
overpower such an enemy by use of force. [In the Ramayana] Rama killed 
Ravana in a tumultuous fight and relieved Sita... [In the Mahabharata], 
 Krishna killed Kansa to end his wickedness; and Arjuna had to fight 
and slay quite a number of his friends and relations including the 
revered Bhishma because the latter was on the side of the aggressor. 
It is my firm belief that in dubbing Rama, Krishna and Arjuna as guilty 
 of violence, the Mahatma betrayed a total ignorance of the springs of 
human action. 
In more recent history, it was the heroic fight put up by Chhatrapati 
Shivaji that first checked and eventually destroyed the Muslim tyranny 
 in India. It was absolutely essentially for Shivaji to overpower and kill 
an aggressive Afzal Khan, failing which he would have lost his own life. 
In condemning 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 for ever for the freedom 
they brought to them. 
The accumulating provocation of thirty-two years, culminating in his last 
 pro-Muslim fast, at last goaded me to the conclusion that the existence 
of Gandhi should be brought to an end immediately. Gandhi had done very 
good in South Africa to uphold the rights and well-being of the Indian 
 community there. But when he finally returned to India he developed a 
subjective mentality under which he alone was to be the final judge of 
what was right or wrong. If the country wanted his leadership, it had to 
 accept his infallibility; if it did not, he would stand aloof from the 
Congress and carry on his own way. Against such an attitude there can be 
no halfway house. Either Congress had to surrender its will to his and had 
 to be content with playing second fiddle to all his eccentricity, 
whimsicality, metaphysics and primitive vision, or it had to carry on 
without him. He alone was the Judge of everyone and every thing; he was 
the master brain guiding the civil disobedience movement; no other 
 could know the technique of that movement. He alone knew when to begin 
and when to withdraw it. The movement might succeed or fail, it might 
bring untold disaster and political reverses but that could make no 
 difference to the Mahatma's infallibility. 'A Satyagrahi can never fail' 
was his formula for declaring his own infallibility and nobody except 
himself knew what a Satyagrahi is... 
Thus, the Mahatma became the judge and jury in his own cause. These 
 childish insanities and obstinacies, coupled with a most severe austerity 
of life, ceaseless work and lofty character made Gandhi formidable and 
irresistible. Many people thought that his politics were irrational 
 but they had either to withdraw from the Congress or place their 
intelligence at his feet to do with as he liked. In a position of such 
absolute irresponsibility Gandhi was guilty of blunder after blunder, 
failure after failure, disaster after disaster. 
 Gandhi's pro-Muslim policy is blatantly in his perverse attitude on 
the question of the national language of India. It is quite obvious 
that Hindi has the most prior claim to be accepted as the premier 
language. In the beginning of his career in India, Gandhi gave a great 
 impetus to Hindi but as he found that the Muslims did not like it, he 
became a champion of what is called Hindustani. Everybody in India 
knows that there is no language called Hindustani; it has no grammar; it 
 has no vocabulary. It is a mere dialect, it is spoken, but not written. 
It is a bastard tongue and cross-breed between Hindi and Urdu, and 
not even the Mahatma's sophistry could make it popular. But in his 
 desire to please the Muslims he insisted that Hindustani alone should be 
the national language of India. His blind followers, of course, 
supported him and the so-called hybrid language began to be used. 
The charm and purity of the Hindi language was to be prostituted to 
 please the Muslims. All his experiments were at the expense of the 
Hindus. 
From August 1946 onwards the private armies of the Muslim League began 
a massacre of the Hindus. The then Viceroy, Lord Wavell, though 
 distressed at what was happening, would not use his powers under the 
Government of India Act of 1935 to prevent the rape, murder and arson. 
The Hindu blood began to flow from Bengal to Karachi with some 
retaliation by the Hindus. The Interim Government formed in September 
 was sabotaged by its Muslim League members right from its inception, 
but the more they became disloyal and treasonable to the government of 
which they were a part, the greater was Gandhi's infatuation for them. 
 Lord Wavell had to resign as he could not bring about a settlement and 
he was succeeded by Lord Mountbatten. King Log was followed by King 
Stork. 
The Congress which had boasted of its nationalism and socialism 
 secretly accepted Pakistan literally at the point of the bayonet and 
abjectly surrendered to Jinnah. India was vivisected and one-third of 
the Indian territory became foreign land to us from August 15, 1947. 
Lord Mountbatten came to be described in Congress circles as the greatest 
 Viceroy and Governor-General this country ever had. The official date 
for handing over power was fixed for June 30, 1948, but 
Mountbatten with his ruthless surgery gave us a gift of vivisected 
India ten months in advance. This is what Gandhi had achieved after 
 thirty years of undisputed dictatorship and this is what Congress party 
calls 'freedom' and 'peaceful transfer of power'. The Hindu-Muslim 
unity bubble was finally burst and a theocratic state was established 
 with the consent of Nehru and his crowd and they have called 'freedom 
won by them with sacrifice' - whose sacrifice? When top leaders of 
Congress, with the consent of Gandhi, divided and tore the country - 
 which we consider a deity of worship - my mind was filled with direful 
anger. 
One of the conditions imposed by Gandhi for his breaking of the fast 
unto death related to the mosques in Delhi occupied by the Hindu 
 refugees. But when Hindus in Pakistan were subjected to violent attacks 
he did not so much as utter a single word to protest and censure the 
Pakistan Government or the Muslims concerned. Gandhi was shrewd enough 
 to know that while undertaking a fast unto death, had he imposed for 
its break some condition on the Muslims in Pakistan, there would have 
been found hardly any Muslims who could have shown some grief if the 
fast had ended in his death. It was for this reason that he purposely 
 avoided imposing any condition on the Muslims. He was fully aware of 
from the experience that Jinnah was not at all perturbed or influenced 
by his fast and the Muslim League hardly attached any value to the 
inner voice of Gandhi. 
 Gandhi is being referred to as the Father of the Nation. But if that 
is so, he had failed his paternal duty inasmuch as he has acted very 
treacherously to the nation by his consenting to the partitioning of it. 
 I stoutly maintain that Gandhi has failed in his duty. He has proved 
to be the Father of Pakistan. His inner-voice, his spiritual power and 
his doctrine of non-violence of which so much is made of, all crumbled 
 before Jinnah's iron will and proved to be powerless. 
Briefly speaking, I thought to myself and foresaw I shall be totally 
ruined, and the only thing I could expect from the people would be 
nothing but hatred and that I shall have lost all my honour, even more 
 valuable than my life, if I were to kill Gandhiji. But at the same time 
I felt that the Indian politics in the absence of Gandhiji would surely 
be proved practical, able to retaliate, and would be powerful with 
 armed forces. No doubt, my own future would be totally ruined, but the 
nation would be saved from the inroads of Pakistan. People may even 
call me and dub me as devoid of any sense or foolish, but the nation 
would be free to follow the course founded on the reason which I consider 
 to be necessary for sound nation-building. After having fully considered 
the question, I took the final decision in the matter, but I did not 
speak about it to anyone whatsoever. I took courage in both my hands 
 and I did fire the shots at Gandhiji on 30th January 1948, on the 
prayer-grounds of Birla House. 
I do say that my shots were fired at the person whose policy and action 
had brought rack and ruin and destruction to millions of Hindus. 
 There was no legal machinery by which such an offender could be 
brought to book and for this reason I fired those fatal shots... 
I bear no ill will towards anyone individually but I do say that I had 
no respect for the present government owing to their policy which was 
 unfairly favourable towards the Muslims. But at the same time I could 
clearly see that the policy was entirely due to the presence of Gandhi. 
I have to say with great regret that Prime Minister Nehru quite forgets 
 that his preachings and deeds are at times at variances with each other 
when he talks about India as a secular state in season and out of 
season, because it is significant to note that Nehru has played a 
leading role in the establishment of the theocratic state of Pakistan, 
 and his job was made easier by Gandhi's persistent policy of 
appeasement towards the Muslims. 
I now stand before the court to accept the full share of my responsibility 
for what I have done and the judge would, of course, pass against me 
 such orders of sentence as may be considered proper. But I would like 
to add that I do not desire any mercy to be shown to me, nor do I wish 
that anyone else should beg for mercy on my behalf. My confidence about 
 the moral side of my action has not been shaken even by the criticism 
levelled against it on all sides. I have no doubt that honest writers of 
history will weigh my act and find the true value thereof some day 
 in future. 
"Income & wealth are two different things,NEVER mistake one with the other,but each should create the other."
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Change settings via the Web (Yahoo! ID required)
Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Daily Digest | Switch format to Traditional
Visit Your Group | Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use | Unsubscribe
--
Yours faithfully,
Ayodhya Prasad Tripathi, (Press Secretary)
Aryavrt Government
77 Khera Khurd, Delhi - 110 082
Phone: (+91) 9868324025/9838577815
Email: aryavrt39@gmail.com
Blog: http://aaryavrt.blogspot.com
If you feel that this message be telecasted, donate us. Rush your contribution in the account of Manav Raksha Sangh Account No. 016001020168 ICICI Bank Ltd. Else keep ready for your doom. Remember! Whoever you are, you won't be able to save your properties, women, motherland, Vedic culture & even your infants. Choice is yours, whether you stick to dreaded usurper Democracy & get eradicated or survive with your rights upon your property, freedom of faith & life with dignity?
 
 
No comments:
Post a Comment