Explaining Godse

Book review of Why I Killed the Mahatma: Uncovering Godse's Defence

Why I Killed the Mahatma

Uncovering Godse’s Defence

Koenraad Elst

Rupa 251 pages; Rs 495

This monograph centers on the 150-paragraph statement read out by Nathuram Godse on November 8, 1948 at his defence before the trial judges. Koenraad Elst, a Belgian academic specialising in Sinology and Indology, has used the statement to dissect Godse’s political and ideological defence in six chapters that also assess Mahatma Gandhi’s political legacy.

As the author explains, “The fact that he [Godse] murdered the Mahatma eclipsed every other fact in his… long and detailed statement. We hope that this study will enable the readers to see Godse with their own eyes rather through the eyes of those who have thus far monopolised the discourse on the Mahatma murder.”

The chapter headings offer some clues to the tenor of the analysis. Thus: (i) The Murder of Mahatma Gandhi and its Consequence; (ii) Nathuram Godse’s Background; (iii) Critique of Gandhi’s policies; (iv) Gandhi’s Responsibility for Partition; (v) Godse’s Verdict on Gandhi; and (vi) Other Hindu Voices on Gandhi.

None of these headings convey the venomous hatred that Godse sustained against Gandhi’s politics and public beliefs. It is necessary to flag upfront that the author suffers from Islamophobia, which encourages him to assess Godse’s defence with more sympathy than objectivity.

Mr Elst’s mission appears to be to project Godse’s rationale for his actions. He appears to ignore the fact that Godse’s political justification for the assassination of Gandhi is the direct consequence of his biased and prejudiced reading of the history of India’s struggle for independence, and Gandhi’s leadership of it, starting from the non-cooperation movement and support for the Khilafat movement till January 30, 1948, when he was assassinated 70 years ago.

It was, in essence, Godse’s politics versus Gandhi’s politics that motivated Godse to kill Gandhi. There was no meeting ground between these two actors.

Godse was hostile to Gandhi because he perceived him as a “pro-Muslim” leader. As a believer in the concept of Akhand Bharat, he saw Gandhi’s “appeasement” of Muslims as being responsible for partition. Mr Elst observes, “Godse was in fact, willing to consider compromises if these were required by the goal of an independent and united India.” This is hard to square with paragraph 69 of Godse’s statement that “the accumulating provocation of 32 years culminating in his last pro-Muslim fast goaded me to the conclusion that the existence of Gandhiji should be brought to an end immediately”. Gandhi’s last fast that so goaded Godse was undertaken in January 1948 for the safety of Delhi’s Muslims who were targeted by Hindu communalists during the post-Partition riots.

This monograph and Godse’s defence statement of 1948 are must-reads for anyone who wants to understand the true ideology and politics of Hindu communalists. Both amply emphasise that Godse is levelling similar allegations against Gandhi as the Hindu Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) and its political affiliate Jana Sangh/ Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) have been making against the Congress party. It is, in fact, disingenuous for the present leadership of the RSS and the BJP to disown Godse and appropriate Gandhi.

Indeed, Godse’s ideological and political background in the RSS and the Hindu Mahasabha cannot be repudiated. In his 1969 book The Jana Sangh: A Biography of an Indian Party Craig Baxter provides impeccable evidence that Godse “joined the RSS and worked for it”. Later, however, “to pursue political activities he joined the Hindu Mahasabha maybe because the RSS claimed and pretended at that time that it was a ‘cultural organisation’ obviously for strengthening the Hindus.” 

“It remains true, moreover, that the RSS had professed a very negative opinion of the Mahatma’s failed policy of “Hindu-Muslim unity,” Mr Baxter added. “Much of Godse’s speech consisted of comments which Hindu activists of any affiliation, including the Hindu RSS, have been making ever since the Mahatma’s involvement in the Pan-Islamist Khilafat movement of 1920-21”.

Godse did not only oppose Gandhi’s project of Hindu-Muslim unity, but also found inconsistencies in Gandhi’s doctrine and praxis of “non-violence and truth”. Godse juxtaposed Gandhi’s non-violence against Hindu heroes who made sacrifices in defence of the motherland. He was an ardent supporter of V D Savarkar’s programme of militarising Hindus to defend “Bharatmata” or the Hindu motherland.

The last part of Godse’ statement makes a significant observation about himself: “If devotion to one’s country amounts to a sin, I admit, I have committed that sin”. The real moral of the story is that religious fanatics who are trained to obey blindly their ideological beliefs cannot think rationally. 

On Gandhi, in spite of his fundamental differences, it is striking that Godse in his final statement stated, “…I shall bow in respect of the service done by Gandhi to the country…” The author who is sympathetic to Godse’s ideology and politics, also admits, “It cannot be denied that the Congress movement under Gandhi’s leadership had contributed substantially to the achievement of freedom.” 

This book is educative because thinkers like Godse are growing in number and this ideology of targeting communities has to be opposed vehemently in the interests of preserving the founding principles of Indian democracy. Hindu majority rule negates the principles of democracy based on the equality of citizenship. In that sense, this monograph offers important lessons from the past.