Nathuram Vinayak Godse, the first accused in this case, respectfully states the following:
1. Misjoinder of Charges and Request for Separate Trials
Before addressing the specific charges against me, I respectfully submit that the charges as framed are not by the law. There is a misjoinder of charges, and I believe there should have been two separate trials—one for the incident of 20th January 1948, and the other for the event of 30th January 1948. By combining both incidents, the trial has been compromised and is vitiated.
2. Submission on Charges as Framed
Without prejudice to the above submission, I now address the charges individually as framed against me.
3. Overview of the Charge-Sheet
The charge sheet filed against the accused outlines several counts of alleged offenses under the Indian Penal Code and other relevant statutes. The prosecution seems to treat the events of 20th January 1948 and 30th January 1948 as a continuation of the same objective, culminating in the assassination of Gandhiji. However, I wish to clarify that the events up to 20th January 1948 were entirely independent of what transpired thereafter, including on 30th January 1948.
4. Rejection of Conspiracy Allegations
One of the primary charges against me is the alleged conspiracy to murder Gandhiji. I categorically deny the existence of any such conspiracy amongst the accused. There was no agreement, collaboration, or shared objective to carry out any offense as stated in the charge sheet. I also state that I did not aid or abet any of the accused in the commission of these alleged crimes.
5. Unreliable Evidence of Prosecution Witnesses
The prosecution's evidence, particularly the testimony of witness Digambar R. Badge (Prosecution Witness 57), does not establish any conspiracy. Badge is an unreliable witness, as my counsel will demonstrate in the detailed analysis of his statements. Badge's testimony about alleged meetings and discussions involving arms and ammunition is false. I categorically deny ever meeting Badge at the Hindu Rashtra Office or having any conversation with him regarding weapons on 10th January 1948 or any other date.
6. Denial of Arms and Ammunition Charges
Regarding the charge of collecting and transporting arms and ammunition without a license on 20th January 1948, I deny the allegations. I did not carry or transport gun-cotton slabs, hand-grenades, pistols, or ammunition as claimed. I had no involvement in procuring or handling such weapons, nor did I aid or abet any person in doing so.
7. False Claims by Prosecution Witness
The central evidence supporting this charge is again from Badge, whom I have already identified as an unreliable witness. His statements about my involvement in the transportation of arms are fabricated to implicate me in the alleged conspiracy.
8. Denial of Explosives and Attempted Murder Charges
I deny the charges related to the attempt to murder with explosives, specifically regarding the gun-cotton slab incident at Birla House. The evidence presented does not substantiate this charge, and any claim connecting me to the explosion is without merit. There is no evidence linking me to the alleged attempt on Gandhiji's life.
9. Denial of Abetment and Connection with Murder
As for the charge of abetting the murder of Mahatma Gandhi, I categorically deny any involvement. I had no connection to Madanlal K. Pahwa or any other person involved in the attempt on Gandhiji's life. The prosecution's evidence is weak and fails to establish any link between me and the assassination.
10. Denial of Pistol Procurement
The charge of procuring an unlicensed pistol and ammunition with the help of Narayan D. Apte is also false. I deny any involvement in the procurement of weapons and assert that the prosecution's evidence is not reliable. Even if the procurement of such items did take place, the court has no jurisdiction to address these issues as they pertain to other sections of the charge.
11. Acknowledgment of Pistol Possession
While I admit to possessing an automatic pistol (No. 606824) and cartridges, I deny that Narayan D. Apte or Vishnu R. Karkare had any involvement with it.
12. Motive Behind My Actions
I will now explain my reasons for coming to Delhi and my ideological motivations. I have long opposed Gandhiji's teachings of absolute 'Ahimsa' (non-violence), which I believed weakened the Hindu community. Gandhiji's bias toward Muslims, particularly after the partition, led me to think that his policies had caused great harm to the Hindu community. My belief in the necessity of self-defense against such policies led me to form a group to advocate for Hindu unity and oppose Gandhiji's influence.
13. Formation of 'Agrani' and 'Hindu Rashtra'
In response to Gandhi's growing influence, Apte and I decided to start a daily newspaper, Agrani, to promote the Hindu Sanghatan and counter Gandhiji's teachings. We received support from prominent Hindu leaders and from Veer Savarkar, who sympathized with our cause and contributed financially to our project.
14. Personal Connection with Veer Savarkar
During this time, I came to know Veer Savarkar, the leader of the Hindu Mahasabha, and worked closely with him on various projects. However, as the political climate evolved, I became disillusioned with the Mahasabha's approach. I felt that Veer Savarkar and other leaders had become too passive and unable to counter Gandhiji's growing influence and the Muslim League's actions. I decided to take a more active stance and moved away from the traditional approach of the Mahasabha.
15. Disillusionment with the Hindu Mahasabha Leadership
As the situation in India worsened, especially after the partition, my disillusionment with the Mahasabha leadership grew. I began to openly criticize their inability to resist the anti-Hindu policies of Gandhiji and the Congress Party. Apte and I decided to organize a more aggressive movement, separate from the old leadership, to defend the interests of Hindus.
16. The Demonstrations Against Gandhiji
In January 1948, I was part of a peaceful demonstration against Gandhiji's policies in Delhi. However, after Gandhiji's fast for Hindu-Muslim unity, I felt the need to take stronger action. Apte and I planned to disrupt Gandhiji's prayer meetings, but this plan failed. As tensions escalated, I grew more determined to act.
17. Final Steps and the Acquisition of the Pistol
During this time, I traveled to Gwalior, where I met Dr. Parchure, who was unwilling to assist us in our efforts. Disappointed, I returned to Delhi and, after much contemplation, purchased a pistol from a refugee dealing in arms. This weapon was the same one I later used to carry out the assassination.
18. Reflections on My Ideology
I have always been proud of my Hindu heritage, but as I grew older, I became increasingly concerned with the ideological direction of India under Gandhiji's leadership. My study of various political ideologies, including those of Dadabhai Naoroji, Vivekananda, and others, led me to believe that the only way to safeguard Hindu interests was through a strong, unified Hindu movement. This belief ultimately guided my actions, culminating in the tragic event of 30th January 1948.
Conclusion
I assert that my actions were motivated by a deep sense of responsibility to protect Hinduism and the Hindu community, and not as a mere follower of any one person or ideology. My decision to take such drastic action was the result of years of ideological development, disillusionment with the political landscape, and a firm belief in the need for change.