Nathuram Godse remains one of the most controversial figures in Bharatiya history. Over the years, he has often been portrayed negatively for his role in the assassination of Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi. However, as with any historical event or personality, there are multiple perspectives to consider, and the alternative viewpoint has long been overlooked.

Introduction

History is a complex subject that shapes a nation’s future through interpretations of its past. However, it is often written by those in power to serve their own interests. Victors historically controlled narratives to demoralize the defeated, embedding a sense of inferiority in their descendants.

As the saying goes, “a lie can travel halfway around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes,” and such falsehoods can cause generations to feel ashamed of their heritage, as many Bharatiyas, especially Hindus, do today.

Bharat’s medieval and modern history remains clouded by distortion, making it difficult to distinguish fact from fiction. Although the internet has uncovered valuable new research and forgotten truths, much of this information has yet to enter mainstream discourse, leaving many Bharatiyas unaware of their own historical realities.

Nathuram Godse trial case

Justice Khosla, one of the judges in Nathuram Godse’s trial, admitted that he thought Nathuram’s final statement was a bit dramatic. However, he also wrote, “I have no doubt that if the people present in court that day had been made a jury and asked to decide Godse’s appeal, they would have declared him ‘not guilty’ by a large majority.” Justice Khosla shared this view in his book The Murder of Mahatma, describing the atmosphere in the courtroom after Nathuram finished speaking.

Later, Information Commissioner Sridhar Acharyalu expressed a similar opinion. He said, “People may disagree with Nathuram Godse and his co-accused, but we cannot deny access to or stop the sharing of his views.” In 2017, the Central Information Commission (CIC) decided that Godse’s statement and other records related to Mahatma Gandhi’s assassination should be made publicly available on the National Archives’ website.

I find Acharyalu’s statement more meaningful than Justice Khosla’s because, with time, people can look at Nathuram’s words more objectively, without the strong emotions that earlier generations felt. What Nathuram Godse said during his trial seems to reflect the feelings of many Indians today. His actions are still a matter of debate, people may agree or disagree with what he did, but considering the situation he was in, he might have felt that his actions were the only option available to him.

The following are a few excerpts from his trial statement:

1) On January 13, 1948, I learnt that Gandhiji had decided to go on fast unto death. The reason given was that he wanted an assurance of Hindu-Muslim Unity… But I and many others could easily see that the real motive… [was] to compel the Dominion Government to pay the sum of Rs 55 crores to Pakistan, the payment of which was emphatically refused by the Government…. But this decision of the people’s Government was reversed to suit the tune of Gandhiji’s fast. It was evident to my mind that the force of public opinion was nothing but a trifle when compared with the leanings of Gandhiji favourable to Pakistan

2) In fact, honour, 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

3) 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

4) 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

Even many Hindus are of the opinion that Nathuram erred in judgement and turned Gandhi into a ‘hero’ instead of allowing him to fade into oblivion. However, that is because we have been shown only one side of the coin and through a prism glorifying Gandhi.

I believe it is time that the concluding statement of Nathuram is given serious consideration: “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”.

Nathuram’s act is certainly the best given the circumstances. I have no doubt that if Gandhi had lived longer he would not only forced Bharat to share more resources with Pakistan but also taken Muslim appeasement in Bharat to a point of no return and that too at the cost of Hindus. The first thing we need to do is rid Gandhi of titles like ‘Mahatma’ and ‘Father of the nation’, which he is not. Furthermore, we need to look at events more objectively and understand all perspectives before drawing our conclusions and picking our side.

(Featured Image Source: DNA India)