Talk:Nathuram Godse

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Biography / Politics and Government (Rated C-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the politics and government work group (marked as Low-importance).
WikiProject India (Rated C-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Politics (Rated C-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Criminal Biography (Rated C-class)
WikiProject icon This article is part of WikiProject Criminal Biography, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed library of criminal-related biographical articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.


As a person who seeks to eliminate 'hindutva' POV ,May I ask your credend who the hell are you to comment on what "side" of the Indian independence struggle is to be endorsed ?

are you even Indian, that you keep spouting your worthless opinions on all hindu related articles everywhere ? (Son of kurus 11:07, 5 March 2006 (UTC))

The picture is disturbingly low-res and unfit for any article. -- 14:23, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

i think it is too much for godse. everyone supports godse- india thegreat-- 12:23, 27 October 2005 (UTC)pp I think the Godse text is rather long for an encyclopedia article. Perhaps it should be in Wikitext? --Saforrest 01:10, Jan 28, 2005 (UTC)

I agree. Zora 04:39, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)


Isn't this a little pro-assasination

Removing the references to patriotism and freedom fighter would help, but other than that, I don't see that the article is POV. But perhaps, as I'm not Indian, I'm missing some code words somewhere. Zora 22:56, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Even if this is thought to be pro-assassination, it is important to retain the full text of Godse's speech, without censoring it, to retain authenticity. As one of the many Indian people with mixed feelings about Gandhi and Godse, I believe it is important to remain faithful to the true nature of the events, without attempting to color it with any agenda. Editing Godse's speech or eliminating it would be a serious case of misrepresentation and bias. PD 09:37, 01 Feb 2005
The speech is still retained if it's in Wikisource and there's a link to it. Currently the inclusion of the speech unbalances the entire article. I don't think that we include long speeches in other Wikipedia historical articles. Zora 00:36, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I agree. An encyclopedia article should not quote a source text of this length. The text should be summarised and, if appropriate, commented on, and the full text should be held in WikiSource and linked to in the 'see also' section. --HappyDog 11:14, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Can someone explain the judge's quote?[edit]

The article says: "Judge Khosla who presided over the trial mentioned before awarding the death sentence, "If the people sitting in the court had been on the jury, they would have acquitted Nathuram".

This makes no sense to me. Indian culture/history is not something I've studied, so I can't fill in the gaps myself. Did the jury not hear the same things the people sitting in the court heard? And why would the people sitting in the court have acquitted Nathuram? Was it that his explanation of his reasons was a very moving speech? ...and maybe it's not important, but is the Judge implying that the people in the court would be more easily swayed by emotional arguments than he is? - this seems to be the case since he (I assume, rightly?) heard what the people sitting in the court heard, and yet he was ok dishing out a death sentence. Any clarification in the article would be welcome. Thanks. Gronky 00:51, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

I believe that there was no jury, just three judges. And yes, the judge was saying that the people in the court were highly moved by Godse's speech. The quote apparently comes from a book Judge Khosla wrote, called Murder of the Mahatma (ISBN: 0-88253-051-8). If I were to read the whole thing, I suspect that I would find that yes, the Judge felt that the people were swayed by emotion. Possibly they were Hindutva believers, there because their beliefs, and predisposed to approve of the murder.
I will see what I can do with the article. It has been a constant struggle to keep the article NPOV and not let anonymous Hindutvas turn it into a tribute to Godse. They're still arguing that he did the right thing! Zora 01:26, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
The actual quote is "I have, however, no doubt 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". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mudeth (talkcontribs) 08:04, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Major revision[edit]

I rewrote and reorganized. I managed to tone down the Godse adulation a bit, but I'm still uncomfortable with the article. It reeks of Hindutva self-justification. The problem is that they are the only ones who pay much attention to this article. I have a feeling other Indians would much rather forget Godse. Zora 09:19, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Removed temporarily the line added by Imc about Apte and G.Godse because it is incorrect in the current form. They weren't the only ones. There were some 8-10 accused of whom only Savarkar and Shankar Kistiya (servant of Digambar Badge) (and perhaps Badge as well) were released. Vishnu Karkare and Gopal Godse got life imprisonments; Apte was hanged; Dattratreya Parchure, Madanlal Pahwa etc got different sentences.
Can someone complete it and add it back. Tintin Talk 12:56, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Slight POV view?[edit]

I was just reading through this article, and one paragraph just caught my attention...

In 1951, the Hindu nationalists created a political wing, the Bharatiya Jana Sangh, which became the Bharatiya Janata Party or BJP, in 1980. Through adroit exploitation of issues such as Ayodhya, the BJP finally won national power. It was the party in power briefly in 1996, and then again from 1998 to 2004, when it was displaced by a revived Congress party.

Isn't that a tad POV?, I mean I personally don't support either the BJP or the Congress for that matter (not really relevant actually), but surely you can't reduce its policies or the reasons for its reaching power to just those mentioned like Ayodhya?

I'd just like to hear what others who have edited this page feel, before making a change like a rephrasing of the paragraph. Regards Kaushik twin 16:12, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Rephrase, if you wish. I think that's my dislike of the BJP and its handling of Ayodhya/Babri Mosque issues seeping into the article. Zora 20:07, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Chitapavan Brahmins[edit]

what makes you say that the konkanasthas are particularly well known for their conservatism??... "He was a Marathi Chitpavan Brahmin - a community known for its social conservatism". I think this sentence is suggestive and airs the writers own personal point of view. It certainly should be mentioned that Godse was a Chitapavan Brahmin but I think the rest of the sentence should be deleted in order to adhere to NPOV There are many liberal chitapavan brahmins...and there is no method of quantifying the degree of conservatism within a particular community.(Saurabhb 21:55, 3 January 2006 (UTC))

Why is Godse not included in 'Indian Hindus' category?[edit]

Ambala prison, Chandigarh?[edit]

The box in the article says he died in Ambala prison, Chandigarh. There may have been such a prison then, at the spot where Chandigarh is now. But I suspect Ambala prison is in Ambala which is now in Haryana and at that time would have been in (East) Punjab. Imc 23:32, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

deeptrivia's revert[edit]

Deeptrivia, you reverted to an old version of the article. I do think that I re-organized it so that it flowed more easily, instead of being a fractured collection of factoids. Also, you restored the description of Godse as a "freedom fighter". That's POV. I don't think we can endorse one side of the independence struggle. Zora 00:02, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Sure, sorry about that! deeptrivia (talk) 00:12, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
All is forgiven! Come home and we will kill the fatted tofu for you. Zora 00:23, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

4th standard - countering systemic bia.[edit]

quote from the article: "Nathuram attended the local school at Baramati up through the fourth standard."

'Fourth standard'? This is not clearly defined in the article. Needs clarification by someone who is familiar with the Indian education system.

P.MacUidhir (t) (c) 08:14, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, I don't understand this term either --AW 22:32, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

It is equivalent to 4th grade.A person who has studied upto this grade is considered literate.Adi4094 (talk) 04:31, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

text on infobox[edit]

trying to remove "[[Image:{{{image_name}}}|none|200px| ]]" from infobox (Saurabhb)

Why Godse's image is removed? 'Was he a bad man or Not', that is not a question here. We read Wikipedia to get "Information" and Not "Opinions" San25872 07:42, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Apparently there was no copyright information on the picture. If you can find a public domain picture of Godse that we can use, please upload it! Zora 07:48, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Removed one recently added section[edit]

A grandson of someone who was present at the assassination was in the news recently, talking about the event as recounted by his grandfather. This may have been in the news, but it's not good history. We have enough eyewitness statements, recorded at the time, that we don't need someone's version of what his aged grandfather told him. So I removed that section. It's not a reliable source. Zora 06:40, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

This is not a valid reason for removal, especially as it was properly referenced. The section could have been rewritten and incorporated properly into the article, but this whole sale deletion is removing content from Wikipedia and thus irresponsible. I'm going to revert your edit later and then work out a way of incorporating the information into the article.
In future, please try to think of valid reasons for removing content beyond personal preferences. Ekantik talk 18:25, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Ekantik, do you have any academic training in history? Do you understand what a reliable source is? Second hand reminiscences are junk compared to first-hand impressions recorded at the time. Just because something got some recent media play (because the media is ignorant of history) is no justification for considering it a useful historical source. Zora 20:05, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

No, I just go to university for the heck of it. How many times do I have to go through this with you? Employing a quote (from someone else) on my own userpage:
Reliable sources → WP:RS. "Academic training in history" has nothing to do with the way an encyclopaedia is formulated, except maybe at Wikiversity. Is this a history textbook or an encyclopaedia? If you want to go ahead and be an exclusionist that's fine with me (although I strongly disapprove), but if you'd bothered to read my comment properly, I said that the information is useful to be retained if it is rewritten properly to fit within the scope of this article. I agree that the article in question is not an ideal source, but there is plenty more in the article that can be used. Fact is, you removed content that was properly referenced without a valid reason: This is not about what you think should be in an encyclopaedia, it is about what should be in an encyclopaedia.
I'd highly appreciate it if you refrained from making patronising/personal remarks in the future, limiting your discussion to the topic only. Thanks, Ekantik talk 23:56, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
That bit would be useful ONLY if there were dozens of other quotes from eyewitnesses. Putting that man's family-glorifying remarks about his famous grandfather on the page as if it were the only useful commentary on the event is a distortion. If you want to set up a section of links to "Current media commentary on the assassination" and put it there, along with links to other essays, that would be OK. Featuring it in the body of the article is giving it way too much importance. Zora 03:12, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
OK, whatever. I'll agree just to keep the peace. :) Ekantik talk 05:07, 22 February 2007 (UTC)


Just a smidgen don't ya think? --Axe27 16:49, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Removed it. --Kamden 19:11, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Please be objective, this is Wikipedia[edit]

Three things.

1 This is Wikipedia, wherein we try to put whatever info is available about a person/event in as much an objective manner as possible without drawing any inferences out of the info available. Let the reader arrive at his/her own conclusions. The page is filled up with content heavy with personal prejudices. Please abstain from doing that. It applies for the talk page as well.
2 Let me know if anybody is actively looking after this article so that we could add citations at places where it is required. I do have the requisite material. Would be glad to help him/her out.
3 Article 3.2 seems to be a tad too short & devoid of the all the info expected for such an important event. Would like to enhance it with some more info that is available. Case in point:,00300002.htm
Please let me know your views on the same.
Kunal.--Kunalpathak13 14:35, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Goadse pretended to be a Muslim ?[edit]

The source cited is a communist rag and the article referenced isn't about Gandhi or Godse. It is about the caste system, and Goadse is mentioned briefly as a Brahmin troublemaker.

You only need to look up Godse's court testimony, which was heavily suppressed until recently, to see that this is just an urban legend. There are several translations from Marathi to English (each has its own biased vocabulary) of Godse's testimony but they all clearly show that Godse clearly identified himself as a hindu.

A fairly mainstream translation used in Indian colleges is...

Why I Assassinated Mahatma Gandhi (Surya Bharti Prakashan, Delhi, 1993)

But I don't know how to cite things on this website so I will leave that to someone else


Bmayuresh (talk) 11:35, 30 January 2009 (UTC)Why is "Aftermath" section on this page. Is the page referred to Nathuram Godse or Gandhi Assaisnation? Also this article is missing lot of details. Nathuram had attempted many more attempt to kill Gandhi and eventually assasinated him on Jan 30 1948. Please mention the same.Bmayuresh (talk) 11:35, 30 January 2009 (UTC)


Although the article mentions (and names) a co-conspirator, there's nothing about the conspiracy or planning of the assassination. It jumps from Godse's political career right to the assassination itself. I'd add an intermediate section—if I knew anything about the subject. Anybody? --Piledhigheranddeeper (talk) 16:50, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Infobox image[edit]

Needs a caption stating which one Godse is. SGGH ping! 21:11, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Based on my own inspection of the subsequent image, I believe he's in the front row at the extreme left. I would point this out myself, but (a) I'm not sure of the proper formatting and (b) without access to the image in its original context, as a reference, it would be original research. -Ashley Pomeroy (talk) 12:09, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
While most people may know which individual is Godse, shouldn't the text under the picture make it explicit? i for one am not entirely sure, and anyway it looks sloppy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:09, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Why the lie about the caliber of gun?[edit]

The Beretta M1934 is a 9mm Browning which is also sometimes called 380 Auto, 9mm Corto, 9mm Kurz, 9mm Short, or 9x17mm. I wonder what the agenda is of the person that posted that misinformation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 12:11, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Godse's statement during the trial[edit]

No discussion of Godse can be complete without including the motives behind the assassination.

I have split up the Trial and execution into 2 sections and added his answer to the charge sheet. Ecthelion 8 (talk) 09:31, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

I find the general tone of this article rather disturbing, as it is absolutely in favor of Gandhi's killer. And having such a long self-apology of himself quoted into the article body just contributes to that. --Gmacks (talk) 20:43, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

This is a page on Godse... so isn't it natural that it would highlight his points of view? Would look forward to what other editors think but i personally don't find anything disturbing in it!! Sayan rc (talk) 14:28, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Trial and death dates[edit]

The trial is talked about as occurring in 1950 but the dates of sentence and death are given as 1949. Please could someone correct this - I don't know which is in error, but one is ceertainly wrong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:58, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Caption for main picture of Godse[edit]

The caption currently states: "Nathuram Godse at Mahatma Gandhi's murder trial". Surely this is ambiguous and should be rewritten - it sounds like Ghandi was the one on trial. Perhaps something like "Nathuram Godse at his murder trial". (talk) 06:08, 4 May 2012 (UTC)


An entire article about a man who committed a murder and no mention of his motives, his statements, the trial (there's exactly 1 sentence), statements from the trial, or the statements of the Judge who sentenced him to death. Great job suppressing the facts. After all, we dont want people forming their own opinions, especially if it differs from the govt approved view. (talk) 16:45, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

'Hanged' vs. 'Hung'[edit]

An edit war is developing between IP and user Ian Rose over the use of 'hanged' vs. 'hung' in this article. IP contends that 'hung' is correct while Ian Rose contends that 'hanged' is correct. Per Hanging > Grammar, 'hanged' is the preferred usage. I've warned IP to not cross 3RR and will leave a note with Ian Rose to discuss this issue here.  —Waldhorn (talk) 20:20, 6 March 2013

With regards to this disagreement surely the usage of the word is to increase the fluency of the text, as mentioned in Hanging > Grammar the traditional usage of the term is ′hanged′ but dictionaries also acknowledge ′hung′ and in regards to the article it makes for more fluent reading and for that reason it should be the preferred usage.  —Ctwhitelaw (talk) 01:45, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

The fact that "hung" is used occasionally doesn't alter the fact that "hanged" is the more common term, and that's what WP should reflect. In any case, consensus for changing the term would need to be gauged on a much wider scale than this one article. IMO this one should simply be protected as it is and those who want to see "hung" used for "hanged" should propose it in a more general forum, where the outcome could be effective Wiki-wide. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:56, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Don't you think it's a tad wrong just to use the common use for the reason its common? when i started reading the article originally it was interesting up until I saw the word "hanged" which stopped the flow of the article and made me not want to carry on. (talk) 09:41, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

I disagree that "hanged" is the more commonly used term at least it isn't is my experience. Upon reading the introduction the term "hanged" caught my attention and my initial reaction was that "hung" would be more appropriate. As I mentioned before it is in the dictionary and carries the same meaning and is in the same tense. In the interest of keeping the fluency of the article I think it should be substituted in this instance, I am not trying to set a wiki-wide precedent but I think that it would be more appropriate in this instance. Ctwhitelaw (talk) 10:24, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

The consultation of any encyclopedic entry related to death by hanging (Britannica or otherwise) will show that hanged is used over hung in terms of tone and of grammar so as to 1) distinguish the entry's academic tone, and 2) specify how a criminal was hung. Ex. If Joe Black died hung by the neck, it's Joe Black was hanged. If he died hung by his heels (etc.), then it's Joe Black was hung. The question of "fluency and article flow" based on personal experience flies in the face of Wiki's rules on PoV. Wiki is an encyclopedia (or an attempt to be one) and its guidelines on grammar, tone, and editing from a neutral point of view (rules easily consulted and open to anyone) ought to be enough to settle a very straightforward matter (editor Waldhorn and others have already proven their point using neutral means). --Jumbolino (talk) 14:29, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

The Oxford English Dictionary has this entry:

Hanged ppl, a, 1451(f. Hang v. + ED) 1 Now obsolete in the general sense; the form being Hung. 2 Put to death by hanging by the neck 1470.

The general sense of the word should not be confused with the specific meaning of death by hanging. To say Godse was hung begs the question where and how? But to say he was hanged means he was put to death by hanging. Graham Colm (talk) 14:49, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Hear, hear! And for those with no easy access to the OED, try the Free Online Dictionary which offers clear and pertinent examples of usage. --Jumbolino (talk) 15:15, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Although this discussion has been put to bed, the fact that it is grammatical means my pedantry won't allow me to let pass Graham Colm's annoying error: "To say Godse was hung" does not beg any question; it might require the questions of where and how, but begging the question is a specific phrase which has been misused, as it so commonly is. Cheers, LindsayHello 08:37, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

What if it were to be changed to "hung by the neck" then it isnt left open for people to question how and so one — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:07, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

There is no need for it. "Hanged" is longstanding usage both in American- and British English (and by implication, Indian English). It has immemorially meant, "executed by hanging," i.e. with a noose around the neck. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 20:11, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Godse' speech "why I killed Gandhi" can be easily found on Google[edit]

... whereas on WikiSource it was apparently eliminated. (Its previous existence there is suggested by comments above on this talk page.) (talk) 16:24, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Either way it doesn't belong in the article.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 16:30, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Nathram Godse Last Speech Nathuram Godse - His Last Speech "May it please Your Honour" Nathuram Godse

[On 8 November 1948, Nathuram Godse (19 May 1910-15 November 1949) rose to make his statement in court. Reading quietly from a typed manuscript, he sought to explain why he had killed Gandhi. His thesis covered ninety-pages, and he was on his feet for five hours. Godse's statement, excerpted below, should be read by citizens and scholars in its entirely, for it provides an insight into his personality and his understanding of the concept of Indian nationhood – Editor]

"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 are 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 which thousands of Hindus, Brahmins, Vaishyas, Kshatriyas, Chamars and B-----s 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 what Veer (brave) 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 factor has done.

All this thinking and reading led me to believe that 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 (three hundred million) of Hindus would automatically constitute the freedom and well-being of all India, one fifth of the human race. This conviction led me naturally to devote myself to the Hindu Sanatanist 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 Lokmanya Tilak, Gandhi'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 these 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 dream if you imagine 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, 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 the 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 essential 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 Govind Singh as misguided patriots, Gandhi 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 forever 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 work 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 in 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 everything; 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 it and when to withdraw it. The movement might succeed or fail, but that could make no difference to the Mahatma's infallibility. 'A Satyagrahi can never fail' was his formula for his own infallibility and nobody except himself knew what a Satyagrahi is.

Thus the Mahatma became the judge and the jury in his own case. 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 policies 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, and disaster after disaster. Gandhi's pro-Muslim policy is blatantly illustrated 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 in India called Hindustani; it has no grammar; it has no vocabulary. It is a mere dialect; it is spoken, not written. It is a tongue and a crossbreed 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 the purity of the Hindi language were 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 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 little 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 was succeeded by Lord Mountbatten. King Stork followed King Log. The Congress, which had boasted of its nationalism and secularism, 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 15 August 1947. Lord Mountbatten came to be described in the Congress circles as the greatest Viceroy and Governor-General this country ever had.

The official date for the handing over of 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 the 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 it '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 considered a deity of worship - my mind was filled with direful anger.

One of the conditions imposed by Gandhi for his breaking of the fast 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 some conditions on the Muslims in Pakistan, here 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 conditions on the Muslims.

He was fully aware from past 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 has failed in his paternal duty in as much 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, his doctrine of non-violence of which so much is made of, all crumbled against Jinnah's iron will and proved to be powerless.

Briefly speaking, I thought to myself and foresaw that 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 thought that the Indian politics in the absence of Gandhiji would surely be practical, able to retaliate and would be powerful with the 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 or 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 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 in 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 preaching and deeds are at times at variance 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 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 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 someday in future."

Nathuram Godse was hanged a year later, on 15 November 1949; as per his last wishes, his family and followers have preserved his ashes for immersion in the Indus River of a re-united India  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vickylawson (talkcontribs) 01:14, 24 January 2015 (UTC) 

Semi-protected edit request on 1 January 2015[edit]

A film, based on his life, titled "Godse" will be released on Janunary 30, 2015. (talk) 12:12, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

X mark.svg Not done - Source? –Davey2010 Merry Xmas / Happy New Year 13:08, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

I will take care of this. Kautilya3 (talk) 14:03, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
Yes check.svg Done. Kautilya3 (talk) 15:40, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
Thanks Kautilya3 :) –Davey2010 Merry Xmas / Happy New Year 17:01, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 January 2015[edit]

Pleasee give me edit request. Vickylawson (talk) 01:12, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: this is not the right page to request additional user rights. You may reopen this request with the specific changes to be made and someone will add them for you, or if you have an account, you can wait until you are autoconfirmed and edit the page yourself. Stickee (talk) 01:52, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Lead: why "sole"[edit]

Why is the word "sole" used in the first sentence of the lead? It seems an unnecessary addition, and would tend to suggest that the conspiracy mentioned in the article did not result in Gandhi's death. This seems to be a problem as Narayan Apte was also executed for his role in the conspiracy. So far as I can tell, neither this article nor the Assassination of Mahatma Gandhi article (nor any other) discuss the nature of the conspiracy. The Assassination of Mahatma Gandhi article merely lists the conspirators and the reasons they felt that Gandhi had to be removed. None of the articles discuss what was conspired about. --Bejnar (talk) 19:04, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Agreed, I changed the definition to something more along the lines of how we usually begin biographic articles.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 19:14, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
Per WP:OPENPARA I have restored the edit twice. We do not mention religious motive in first line, we only mention the nationality and profession. Same with "sole", that was improperly written. OccultZone (TalkContributionsLog) 17:51, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
@OccultZone: The lead, as it stands now, is wrong. Godse wasn't political or religious. He was militant activist of Hindu nationalism, which is an ideology and has very little to do with religion. This was his "profession," unless you want to mention the tailoring which is what he did to earn a living. (I have nothing to do with "sole.") I don't see what WP:OPENPARA has to do with this. Kautilya3 (talk) 18:12, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
That is nonsense being a hind unationalist is both about politics and religion and by profession he was a Hindutva organizer or activist this should be in the lead.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 21:02, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
Per openpara we can only mention the nationality and profession. Being an activist of a political ideology speaks enough for a politician and the article describes how he had some role in the politics. If we have to take idea from any other article(Mark David Chapman), I would go for the previous lead that directly mentioned for what he is notable, but still it has to contain some idea about the nationality. OccultZone (TalkContributionsLog) 18:20, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
The political ideology, Hindu nationalism, is what I had mentioned, which you removed, inexplicably. See these examples:
None of them are called "political organisers!" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kautilya3 (talkcontribs)
Thanks. We should remember that "Hindu" has dual meaning: it stands for a religion, it also stands for a community/ethnicity/nationality. It is the latter sense that is used in "Hindu nationalism" or "Hindutva". Savarkar, who formulated Hindutva, was in fact an atheist. It would be preposterous to call him a religious organizer. Godse was his henchman. Kautilya3 (talk) 22:40, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
Examples that you have mentioned, they have explicitly stated their nationality and that is my main argument, how about "was an Indian assassin," or "was a militant Indian nationalist"? We don't mention ideology per WP:OPENPARA, but nationality. OccultZone (TalkContributionsLog) 00:37, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
I have put the Indian nationality there, if you look closely! We need ideologies for activists. Otherwise the description would be incomplete or misleading. Notice "independence activist", "Serb essayist and revolutionary" etc. in the examles. Kautilya3 (talk) 02:15, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Removal of disputed content[edit]

I have just removed the following content from the lead of the article:

He left RSS in the early 1940s to form a militant organization Hindu Rashtra Dal.

This material is disputed because Nathuram Godse's brother Gopal Godse--also an accused in the Gandhi assassination--has explicitly refuted this claim when he says here:

All the brothers were in the RSS. Nathuram, Dattatreya, myself and Govind. You can say we grew up in the RSS rather than in our home. It was like a family to us. Nathuram had become a baudhik karyavah [intellectual worker] in the RSS. He has said in his statement that he left the RSS. He said it because Golwalkar and the RSS were in a lot of trouble after the murder of Gandhi. But he did not leave the RSS.

Soham321 (talk) 14:39, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Once again, even though I agree with your point of view, I should point out that as per WP:NPOV, all significant scholarly viewpoints should be represented on Wikipedia, duly weighted according to their prominence. So, one interview by one party doesn't wash out all the other opinions. It is improper to delete sourced content. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 15:48, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
In retrospect, i think you are right. The lead can contain a sentence like the following: According to [Scholar1] and [Scholar2], Nathuram left RSS in the early 1940s to form a militant organization Hindu Rashtra Dal; this has been disputed by Nathuram's brother Gopal Godse--also an accused in the Gandhi assassination--who has asserted that Nathuram never left the RSS. Please share your views.Soham321 (talk) 16:47, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
From what I remember, Gopal Godse said that Nathuram was a boudhik karyavah (ideology secretary) of the RSS, and he started doing Hindu Mahasabha work while being in that position. Then he became a militant Savarkarite. So he didn't quit the RSS, but he wasn't active in the RSS organisational set-up either. During the trial of course he said that he had quit the RSS to give the latter deniability. Gopal Godse was also bitter about the RSS disowning him. These are the facts. Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 16:59, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
You are now doing original research--actually pure speculation--when you say Nathuram Godse was not active in the RSS, and that Gopal Godse is making these statements because he is bitter. Nathuram could have been active in both the RSS and the Hindu Mahasabha at the time, and Gopal Godse could be telling the truth despite being bitter. So let us not rely on personal interpretation and personal recollections; let us rely on facts. These are The Facts:

On Nathuram Godse, Advani asserts that Godse had “severed links with RSS in 1933… had begun to bitterly criticise the RSS”. This was flatly contradicted by none other than Godse’s brother Gopal, who was also an accused at the trial for conspiracy to murder. He published his book Why I Assassinated Mahatma Gandhi in December 1993. Speaking in New Delhi on the occasion of the release of his book, Gopal Godse revealed what many had suspected—they had both been active members of the RSS (The Statesman; December 24, 1993). Soon thereafter, in an interview to Frontline (January 28, 1994), he provided the details and angrily scotched Advani’s attempts to disown them: “All the brothers were in the RSS. Nathuram, Dattatreya, myself and Govind. You can say we grew up in the RSS rather than in our home. It was like a family to us. Nathuram had become a baudhik karyavah [intellectual worker] in the RSS. He has said in his statement that he left the RSS. He said it because Golwalkar and the RSS were in a lot of trouble after the murder of Gandhi. But he did not leave the RSS.” Asked about Advani’s claim that Nathuram had nothing to do with the RSS, Gopal Godse replied: “I have countered him, saying it is cowardice to say that. You can say that RSS did not pass a resolution, saying, ‘go and assassinate Gandhi’. But you do not disown him [Nathuram]. The Hindu Mahasabha did not disown him. In 1944, Nathuram started doing Hindu Mahasabha work when he had been a baudhik karyavah in the RSS.”


Soham321 (talk) 17:15, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
These are the facts according to Gopal Godse. But he is only one source among many. There were no known organisational links between the RSS and the Hindu Mahasabha, and I can produce sources that say that Golwalkar and Savarkar didn't get along. But at the grass roots level, there was clearly shared ideology and we can be sure that many workers of the two organisations were in contact with each other. However, the Vinayak Chaturvedi source that you deleted is a good one. I have read it full. Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 17:41, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
Of course, he is one source among many. But he is a very important source because he had first hand information of what was going on. Regarding your claim that there was no known organizational links between the RSS and the Hindu Mahasabha,the following information from a reputed scholar proves your statement to be incorrect:

There has appeared a work of impeccable scholarship by an Italian scholar which exposes, from authentic archival material, the clandestine links between the Hindu Mahasabha and the RSS and Italian fascism. In doing so, she has also brought out the close relationship between the Mahasabha and the RSS.

Soham321 (talk) 17:51, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

The strange new lead[edit]

An editor has replaced the lead that had stood stably in this article for over five years, with the following paragraph:

"Nathuram Vinayak Godse (19 May 1910 – 15 November 1949) was a Hindu nationalist activist from India, who is known for the assassination of Mahatma Gandhi. He shot Gandhi in the chest three times at point-blank range on 30 January 1948 in New Delhi. Born in Pune, Maharashtra, he had been a member of Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) and Hindu Mahasabha. According to Vinayak Chaturvedi and Thomas Hansen, Nathuram left RSS in the early 1940s to form a militant organization Hindu Rashtra Dal.[1][2] However Gopal Godse, Nathuram's brother who was also a co-accused in the Gandhi assassination, has asserted that Nathuram continued to be a member of the RSS.[3] Nathuram resented Gandhi's accommodating attitude to India's Muslims and plotted the assassination with Narayan Apte and six others. After a trial that lasted over a year, Godse was sentenced to death on 8 November 1949 and was hanged a week later."

The old lead had its issues. The editor is right that its language was flowery. It also had some vague or ambiguous language. But the new lead is worse.

Godse was the sole assassin of Gandhi, who shot Gandhi on 30 January 1948. Where does the lead state this cardinal fact? It says, "He was a Hindu nationalist activist from India, who is known for the assassination of Mahatma Gandhi." Godse was little known before he pulled the trigger (see here) and immediately after pulling the trigger was put in jail where opportunities for activism were typically limited. Moreover, the collocation "Hindu nationalist activist" is conspicuous by its absence in the literature published before 1987. In other words, it is a modern term. It is usually applied to the Hindu nationalism that arose in India in the late 1980s, 90, ...

What does it mean to be known for the assassination of Mahatma Gandhi? It is suggests only that he was notably involved in the assassination. But, was he the driver of the getaway car, the supplier of the gun(s), one of three men who each fired one bullet, or merely one in the time-honored Indian crowd that trampled Gandhi underfoot? Or do you mean, "is known for assassinating Mahatma Gandhi?"

"Assassination" is a nominalization, a zombie noun (in Helen Sword's terminology") that "cannibalizes an active verb." Wikipedia stresses clear, direct, active language. Does Lee Harvey Oswald's page say, "He was known for the assassination of JFK?" No. It says , "(he) ... assassinated President John F. Kennedy on November 22, 1963." It is active prose and it is informative.

Then our lead meanders farther by invoking the ancient principle of rhetoric, "It is never too early to make an obscure academic point." That the point is made nowhere else in the article is helpful to the new reader who has never assumed that a lead summarizes article content. The paragraph also recognizes that a new reader is on first-name basis with the subject by the fourth sentence, which states, "Nathuram resented Gandhi's accommodating attitude to India's Muslims ... " The new reader easily interprets that to mean, "Gandhi had an accommodating attitude to the demands of (some) Indian Muslims." The same sentence continues "... and plotted the assassination with Narayan Apte and six others." The new reader sees that such resentment will inevitably lead to a desire to murder with the help of seven others.

I will take out the flowery language from the old lead and remove the vague or ambiguous sentences. But the new lead cannot stand in light of the points I have made above. I am not touching the rest of the article. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:38, 13 January 2016 (UTC)


Naduram godse and semi-automatic pistol[edit]

The Beretta M1934 semi-automatic pistol used by godse is made in Italy. How does the gun came to India from Italy to kill mahatma Gandhi? One should find it? Is that indicates that we face any danger from people belonging to Italy. Only god knows the future of this country. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs) 15 April 2016 08:43 (UTC)