Book Review: "The Truth About the Killing of Gandhi – The Story of the Trial: The People vs Nathuram Godse and Others"
Book Review: "The Truth About the Killing of Gandhi – The Story of the Trial: The People vs Nathuram Godse and Others"
Author: Adv. P. L. Inamdar (1920–2005)
Background:
P. L. Inamdar was a distinguished Indian criminal lawyer and public figure,
known for his deep involvement in several important political and legal cases
in post-Independence India. Though not directly involved in the Gandhi murder
trial, he took a profound interest in the legal and historical dimensions of
the case.
Legal
Credentials:
Inamdar
was a prominent advocate of the Bombay High Court and known for his articulate
writing style that combined courtroom precision with narrative clarity.
Writing
Approach:
He
approached the Gandhi assassination trial with a legal, rational, and almost
journalistic objectivity, drawing from trial transcripts, court documents, and
cross-examinations.
Publisher & Edition:
·
Publisher:
Popular Prakashan, Mumbai
·
First Edition:
Circa late 1970s (exact year sometimes cited as 1979, depending on the source)
·
Language:
English
·
Pages:
Approximately 300–350 pages (varies by edition)
Structure
of the Book:
The
book is divided into several chapters, each focusing on different stages of the
Gandhi assassination case. It captures not just the trial proceedings but also
the ideological, political, and psychological backdrop of the accused.
Here’s
a breakdown of the main sections and chapters (based on the original
edition’s flow):
Chapter 1: Introduction: The Man and the
Moment
The
opening chapter of P. L. Inamdar’s book sets the emotional, historical, and
political tone for the rest of the narrative. Titled “The Man and the
Moment”, it paints a vivid backdrop against which the assassination of
Mahatma Gandhi took place. This chapter is less about the legal proceedings and
more about the circumstances that gave rise to the act of political violence
that shocked India and the world.
Inamdar
begins by outlining the importance of Gandhi in India’s independence and moral
consciousness. He positions Gandhi not merely as a political leader but as a
symbol of non-violence, unity, and national conscience. The narrative then
shifts to the growing communal tensions during the Partition of India in 1947,
where the country was engulfed in unprecedented bloodshed between Hindus and
Muslims. Gandhi, even at the age of 78, was undertaking fasts and prayer
meetings to restore peace and heal the wounds caused by the division.
The
chapter dives into Gandhi’s daily routine at Birla House, where he would
conduct prayer meetings and entertain visitors. Inamdar subtly foreshadows the
events of January 30, 1948, by describing the tense atmosphere in Delhi, filled
with resentment from extremist factions who believed Gandhi’s overtures towards
Muslims were biased and damaging to Hindu interests.
At
the heart of this chapter is the ideological clash between Gandhi’s inclusive,
secular nationalism and the rising tide of Hindu majoritarian thought
propagated by certain groups like the Hindu Mahasabha. Though Inamdar doesn’t
name the assassins directly in this chapter, he draws a line from ideological
discontent to political violence. The belief that Gandhi had betrayed Hindu
interests by pressuring the government to release funds to Pakistan and by
appearing overly sympathetic to Muslims is introduced here as the key motive
that will be further explored during the trial.
The
chapter also reflects on Gandhi’s physical vulnerability and spiritual resolve.
Despite multiple threats and even earlier assassination attempts, Gandhi
refused to allow police protection during his prayer meetings. Inamdar presents
this as a testament to Gandhi’s principles but also as a tragic flaw that
enabled the events of that fateful evening to occur.
Stylistically,
the chapter balances emotional poignancy with journalistic clarity. Inamdar’s
writing avoids hagiography but maintains a tone of deep respect for Gandhi. His
method is to present the man and the moment not as myth but as critical
history.
Analysis:
This
chapter functions as a powerful prologue. It explains why Gandhi was
targeted—not just by a man with a gun, but by a movement with a grievance.
Inamdar avoids excessive dramatization, and instead constructs a calm,
well-researched narrative of why Gandhi’s death was not an isolated incident
but the culmination of years of growing ideological hostility. It effectively
sets up the context for the courtroom drama that follows, making it
indispensable to the reader’s understanding of the trial.
Chapter
2: The Assassins and Their Motives
In
this Chapter Advocate P. L. Inamdar introduces the main accused in the Gandhi
assassination case and explores the ideological underpinnings of the crime. The
chapter focuses on the conspirators’ background, affiliations, and what they
believed drove them to undertake such a radical and fatal act.
The
central figure is Nathuram Vinayak Godse, a former member of the
Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) and a prominent figure in the Hindu
Mahasabha. Inamdar presents Godse as an intelligent, articulate, and
emotionally intense man who believed that Gandhi’s policies were fatally
weakening the Hindu community. Godse viewed Gandhi’s repeated emphasis on
Hindu-Muslim unity and his concessions to Pakistan as signs of appeasement,
damaging to the strength and identity of Hindus in post-Partition India.
Inamdar
delves into Godse’s psychological and ideological evolution. He traces how
Godse’s early reverence for Gandhi turned into disillusionment and finally
hatred. Importantly, the author does not portray Godse as a madman or a mere
fanatic; instead, he presents him as someone who believed he was acting in the
interest of national salvation, even if it meant defying moral and legal codes.
The
chapter then brings in Narayan Dattatraya Apte, co-accused and a close
associate of Godse. Apte, a former schoolteacher and Hindu Mahasabha activist,
was seen as the logistical mind behind the plot. He helped in coordinating
meetings, procuring weapons, and executing the travel and timing arrangements
for the assassination.
Other
conspirators introduced include Vinayak D. Savarkar, a senior ideologue
of Hindutva and a controversial figure due to his alleged indirect role in the
plot; Gopal Godse (Nathuram’s brother); Karkare, Badge,
and a few others who helped with weapons or acted as messengers and
facilitators.
What
makes this chapter crucial is how it examines the network of ideas
rather than just individuals. Inamdar traces the intellectual genealogy of
Hindutva—an ideology that viewed India as primarily a Hindu nation and Gandhi
as a stumbling block to that vision. The author is careful not to make sweeping
generalizations about Hindu organizations, but he underlines how certain
factions were radicalized in the face of Partition violence and felt Gandhi’s
non-violence was ineffective or even harmful.
Inamdar
also explains that the assassination was not an impulsive act but the result of
at least two previous failed attempts. The assassins meticulously planned
Gandhi’s murder, practicing with pistols, studying his routine, and selecting
the right date and place. This calculated intent is what made the case one of premeditated
political murder, not emotional outrage.
Analysis:
This
chapter offers a gripping psychological and political insight into the minds of
the conspirators. By dissecting their motives, Inamdar not only informs but
warns of how ideologies, when combined with a sense of moral righteousness, can
lead to violent action. It sets the stage for the courtroom drama by showing
that the trial is not just about “who pulled the trigger”, but about “why
they believed they had the right to do so.”
Chapter
3: The FIR and Early Investigation
Chapter
3 delves into the immediate aftermath of Mahatma Gandhi’s assassination. It
meticulously documents the first legal steps taken following the shooting,
offering the reader a close look at how the machinery of the state responded to
an unprecedented national tragedy.
Inamdar
begins the chapter with a reconstruction of the exact moment when Nathuram
Godse pulled the trigger at 5:17 p.m. on 30 January 1948 at Birla House,
New Delhi. Three bullets pierced Gandhi’s chest, and the Mahatma collapsed
with folded hands, uttering what is believed to be "Hey Ram." Inamdar
is careful not to speculate unnecessarily on Gandhi’s final words but points
out the emotional and symbolic power these words held in the public
imagination.
Within
moments of the shooting, Godse was apprehended by members of the crowd and
security staff present on site. The Delhi Police arrived swiftly and took him
into custody. The First Information Report (FIR) was registered at Tughlaq
Road Police Station, and a formal case was opened under charges of murder
and conspiracy. The FIR named Godse as the prime accused, while the police
investigation sought to uncover whether this was a lone act or a larger
conspiracy.
Inamdar
presents the early police response as both urgent and confused. On one hand,
there was immense political and public pressure to arrest all involved and
deliver justice swiftly. On the other, the law enforcement machinery was not
fully equipped to deal with such a complex and ideologically motivated
political assassination. This led to a mix of effective action and initial
blunders, which Inamdar describes with clinical neutrality.
A
crucial part of this chapter is the arrest of Narayan Apte, which came
within 48 hours. Apte had tried to flee but was captured in Bombay. The
evidence began to unfold: the purchase of the Italian Beretta pistol,
the tracing of travel records, Godse and Apte’s connections with
Pune-based Hindu Mahasabha circles, and the presence of collaborators who
had either helped plan the murder or concealed information.
Another
important figure who enters the narrative here is Digambar Badge, a
minor accomplice who would later turn approver—a state witness in
exchange for leniency. His testimony became central to building the conspiracy
case, and Inamdar describes how Badge’s statements helped police map out the
full extent of planning, including earlier failed assassination attempts.
The
chapter also describes how the police began investigating Vinayak Damodar
Savarkar. Though the evidence was initially circumstantial, testimonies
from Badge and surveillance reports led the authorities to believe that
Savarkar might have had prior knowledge of the plot. This element of
investigation would later become one of the most debated parts of the trial.
Analysis:
Chapter
3 is a masterclass in documenting procedural justice under pressure. Inamdar
doesn’t merely record facts; he contextualizes them within the fragile
post-Partition Indian state, trying to balance justice with stability. He
highlights how swiftly the case escalated from a murder to a broader conspiracy
involving ideology, political movements, and national sentiment. It lays a
strong foundation for the forthcoming legal drama by demonstrating that the
trial wasn’t just about “what happened”, but “how thoroughly it was
pursued.”
Chapter
4: The Legal Framework
In
this Chapter Inamdar shifts from the factual investigation to the judicial
setting that would host the historic Gandhi murder trial. This chapter builds
the legal scaffolding, explaining the roles of various legal authorities, the
court’s constitution, the applicable laws, and the judicial philosophy that
underpinned the proceedings.
The
chapter begins by noting that the case was not tried in a regular sessions
court, but before a Special Court constituted by the Government of India
under Section 10 of the Criminal Procedure Code. Given the extraordinary
nature of the crime — the assassination of the Father of the Nation — the
government felt the need to expedite and centralize the trial process. The
venue was the historic Red Fort in Delhi, which had previously hosted
trials of Indian National Army (INA) officers. This symbolic setting gave the
trial a sense of gravitas and national attention.
The
trial was presided over by Judge Atma Charan, a respected and
experienced judge from the Delhi judiciary. Inamdar presents Atma Charan as a
figure of quiet integrity, committed to ensuring that even in a case charged
with emotion and public outcry, the rule of law would prevail. He emphasizes
that justice had to be seen as impartial — not revenge for Gandhi’s murder, but
legal accountability rooted in evidence.
Inamdar
then outlines the key sections of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) under
which the accused were charged:
·
Section 302:
Murder
·
Section 120B:
Criminal Conspiracy
·
Section 34:
Common Intention
·
Section 109:
Abetment
·
Section 188 and others:
Related procedural charges
The chapter also
introduces the legal teams involved:
·
Prosecution:
Led by C. K. Daphtary, Solicitor-General of India, along with other
senior law officers. Their role was not only to prove guilt but also to ensure
due process, given the national and international implications.
·
Defense:
Led by experienced advocates such as Dattatraya B. K. Kayastha and
others, who undertook the defense of Godse and his co-accused on both
procedural and ideological grounds.
Inamdar
explains how the defense lawyers faced significant moral and social pressure
for representing the accused, especially Godse, yet they adhered to the
constitutional principle that every accused is entitled to a fair trial and
legal representation.
Another
important legal dimension introduced in this chapter is the absence of jury
trial. India had not yet adopted the full jury system, and the trial was
conducted under the supervision of a single judge, following the British-inherited
adversarial system. This allowed the court to function more efficiently,
but also concentrated a great deal of discretionary power in the hands of the
presiding judge.
Analysis:
This
chapter is crucial in understanding the legal foundations of the Gandhi murder
trial. Inamdar shows how, even in a moment of national trauma, India’s
fledgling democracy chose to uphold judicial norms. The Special Court’s
establishment was an attempt to balance expediency and fairness, while
the legal teams on both sides reflected India’s commitment to constitutional
values over mob justice.
By
detailing the laws, court procedures, and roles of legal figures, Inamdar
prepares the reader for the actual trial proceedings in the coming chapters. It
is a tribute to India’s early post-independence legal system — trying to prove
that the nation may grieve, but justice must remain blind.
Chapter
5: The Trial Begins
Chapter
5 marks the transition from investigation to courtroom drama. The tone becomes
tenser, as the long-awaited legal proceedings commence at the Red Fort on 22
June 1948, with the eyes of the nation (and the world) watching. Inamdar
carefully reconstructs the procedural beginning, the structure of the court,
and the demeanor of the accused, especially Nathuram Godse.
As
the accused — Nathuram Godse, Narayan Apte, Gopal Godse, Vishnu Karkare,
Madanlal Pahwa, Shankar Kistaiya, D. S. Badge, and Vinayak Savarkar
— were brought into the courtroom, a charged silence filled the air. Inamdar
notes how Godse appeared calm, almost defiant, while others looked nervous.
Their appearances, expressions, and the court's reaction to their entrance are
captured in detail to convey the gravity of the moment.
The
charges were formally read out, and all accused, except Badge (who turned
approver), pleaded not guilty. The judge outlined the case against them
under Sections 302 (murder), 120B (criminal conspiracy), 109 (abetment), and
related sections. Importantly, Savarkar was named as Accused No. 9 — a
significant legal and political development.
Inamdar
describes the meticulous preparation of the prosecution, led by C. K.
Daphtary, who opened with a strong statement outlining the conspiracy and
premeditation. He argued that this was not merely an isolated shooting, but a cold-blooded
plot motivated by communal and political hatred. He emphasized the repeated
meetings, the purchase and testing of weapons, and the direct links between the
accused, especially Godse and Apte.
Inamdar
brings special focus to the role of Digambar Badge, whose testimony was
crucial. As a government approver, Badge had participated in earlier attempts
to assassinate Gandhi, and his inside knowledge was invaluable in mapping out
the conspiracy. His courtroom demeanor, statements, and the reactions they provoked
are well detailed.
On
the defense side, Inamdar notes that Godse’s legal strategy was unique:
although pleading not guilty, he chose to deliver a long, ideological speech
during the trial (covered in the next chapter). The other defense lawyers
challenged the credibility of Badge, argued a lack of direct evidence, and
emphasized the ideological climate of the time as a mitigating factor.
Inamdar
also draws attention to how media and public interest influenced the
atmosphere. While there was tight security, the trial was not closed to the
public. Daily press coverage turned it into a courtroom of public opinion, with
debates raging in newspapers about justice, ideology, and national healing.
Analysis:
This
chapter marks a turning point in the book, where the theoretical becomes
tangible, and justice begins its formal journey. Inamdar’s skill as a legal
writer shines here: he presents facts with clarity but avoids dry technicality.
His balanced tone ensures that neither prosecution nor defense is portrayed
unfairly.
He
also captures the psychological weight of the moment — a young republic trying
to prove it could uphold law even in the face of devastating loss. The
courtroom, with all its procedures, is depicted as the stage on which India’s first
major trial of conscience was unfolding.
Chapter
6: Godse Speaks
It
is arguably the most emotionally and ideologically intense chapter of the book.
It captures the courtroom moment that defined the trial — when Nathuram Godse,
the chief accused in Mahatma Gandhi’s assassination, stood up to deliver his
statement before the judge, the lawyers, the press, and a stunned nation.
Inamdar
recounts how the court, and indeed the country, waited in anticipation for
Godse’s statement. Far from being remorseful, Godse spoke with calculated
calmness, articulating his political justification for the act. The
statement, delivered in Marathi and translated into English for the court
record, was not a legal defense in the conventional sense, but a philosophical
and ideological declaration.
Godse
began by expressing that he had nothing personal against Gandhi. He
acknowledged Gandhi’s role in India’s freedom struggle and moral leadership.
However, he sharply criticized Gandhi’s policies during and after Partition,
accusing him of being “blindly pro-Muslim”. Godse claimed that Gandhi’s
insistence on non-violence at all costs, even during communal riots, had
emboldened aggressors and weakened Hindu society.
Inamdar
presents excerpts from Godse’s speech in the chapter, quoting passages where
Godse outlined what he perceived as Gandhi’s betrayal:
·
Gandhi’s pressure on the Indian government
to release ₹55 crore to Pakistan shortly after Partition.
·
His “interference” in state affairs
under the guise of moral authority.
·
His “appeasement” of Muslims even when,
according to Godse, Hindus were being killed and displaced in the Partition
violence.
Godse
argued that Gandhi’s influence had transcended democratic checks and balances,
and that India’s political system had become morally hostage to Gandhi’s
will. Hence, he claimed, “I had to remove him for the sake of the nation.”
Inamdar
neither sensationalizes nor glorifies this speech. He presents it as a
historical document — one that must be understood, not agreed with. He observes
how the courtroom was silent, not out of sympathy, but from the sheer
weight of hearing someone confess to assassinating a beloved national figure —
and then attempt to justify it on nationalist grounds.
The
prosecution chose not to interrupt Godse’s speech. This was strategic. Any
disruption might have been seen as suppressing the accused’s right to speak,
especially given the trial’s international visibility. Judge Atma Charan also
allowed Godse to finish without intervention, upholding the sanctity of the
court.
Inamdar
notes the media’s coverage of this speech was censored in several newspapers
by government order, due to fears that it might influence public opinion or
provoke unrest. However, the statement later circulated through underground
publications and debates, becoming a controversial political document.
Analysis:
Chapter
6 is chilling and powerful. It reveals not only what Godse did, but why he
thought he had to do it. Inamdar, in a commendably objective tone, allows
readers to confront the darkest face of ideological extremism — where
belief becomes justification for murder.
It’s
a reminder that history must record even uncomfortable truths, not to endorse
them, but to ensure society never forgets the cost of hatred cloaked as
nationalism.
Chapter
7: The Witnesses
This
Chapter shifts the narrative back to the courtroom, where the prosecution began
calling its witnesses to the stand. After the dramatic impact of Godse’s
speech, the trial returned to procedural normalcy, but the evidence now had a
sharper context — it was not only about proving who killed Gandhi, but how
and with whose help.
Advocate
P. L. Inamdar presents the chapter in a structured, methodical way,
categorizing the witnesses into key groups: eyewitnesses, accomplices,
police officials, and expert witnesses. Through their testimony,
the prosecution attempted to establish the premeditation, conspiracy,
and execution of the assassination plot.
One
of the first and most crucial witnesses was Digambar Badge, the
government approver. A minor conspirator who turned state witness in exchange
for pardon, Badge provided a detailed account of the meetings, weapons
procurement, and attempted attacks on Gandhi prior to 30 January 1948.
Inamdar portrays Badge’s testimony as both explosive and controversial. While
his revelations were vital in implicating not just Godse and Apte, but also
others like Savarkar, the defense teams vigorously questioned his credibility,
arguing he was motivated by self-preservation rather than truth.
Badge
testified that he had delivered pistols, attended secret meetings, and even
participated in an earlier failed attempt to kill Gandhi at a prayer meeting.
His inside knowledge gave the prosecution’s narrative a coherent timeline. He
also claimed to have seen Apte and Godse visit Savarkar's residence,
implying the senior leader’s complicity, a claim that would later come under
intense scrutiny.
Another
key set of witnesses included eyewitnesses from the Birla House prayer
meeting. These individuals recounted the moment of the assassination — how
Godse stepped forward, how Gandhi greeted him, and how three shots were fired
at close range. Their accounts helped confirm the physical sequence of events
and Godse’s uninterrupted access to the Mahatma.
Inamdar
also details the police testimony, especially from Inspector Shankar and
Deputy Commissioner of Police V. G. Khosla, who outlined the arrest
procedure, the discovery of weapons, and the recovery of
documents and photographs that established a conspiracy. The pistol’s
ballistic reports, cartridge matching, and travel records all
pointed toward careful planning.
Interestingly,
Inamdar also notes the contradictions or weaknesses in some testimonies. Some
eyewitnesses could not recall details with clarity; some gave slightly
differing versions of the event. The defense capitalized on this to argue that reasonable
doubt still existed in the overall case, especially against those not
physically present at the scene.
What
stands out is Inamdar’s respect for the judicial process. He doesn’t glorify or
vilify witnesses. Instead, he carefully explains their legal significance
and the challenges in courtroom cross-examinations — highlighting how human
memory, trauma, and fear often affect testimony.
Analysis:
This
chapter reflects how a high-profile criminal trial relies not just on emotion
or ideology but on evidence and testimony. Inamdar demonstrates that the
Gandhi assassination trial, despite its historical and political charge,
operated within the same principles of law: corroboration, consistency, and
cross-examination.
It
is also a reminder that the truth, in court, must be constructed brick by brick
— not assumed, even when the crime is as monumental as the killing of Mahatma
Gandhi.
Chapter
8: The Role of Savarkar
It
addresses one of the most debated aspects of the Gandhi assassination trial —
the alleged involvement of Vinayak Damodar Savarkar, a towering figure
of Hindu nationalist ideology and the ninth accused in the case. P. L. Inamdar
treats this subject with delicacy, precision, and a lawyer's discipline,
carefully separating legal fact from public opinion.
Savarkar’s
name had surfaced during the investigation primarily due to the testimony of Digambar
Badge, who claimed that Godse and Apte had visited Savarkar’s residence in
Bombay just days before the assassination. According to Badge, Savarkar
allegedly gave them a cryptic but chilling instruction: “Yashasvi houn yaa”
(Come back successful). This statement, though vague, was interpreted by
the prosecution as a tacit blessing for the murder.
Inamdar
first examines the historical and ideological connection between
Savarkar, Godse, and Apte. Godse had once been a devoted member of the Hindu
Mahasabha, of which Savarkar was a leading figure. Savarkar had mentored
both Godse and Apte in their early ideological development, and even after
Godse founded his own publication, Agrani, he remained ideologically
aligned with Savarkar's militant Hindu nationalism.
The
prosecution’s argument rested on circumstantial evidence — meetings,
ideological alignment, and Badge’s statement. However, Inamdar is careful to
stress that circumstantial evidence must be consistent, corroborated, and
beyond reasonable doubt for a conviction to occur. The key issue was: Did
Savarkar actively participate in or abet the conspiracy, or was his name being
pulled into the case due to his past influence and political stature?
The
defense strongly denied any wrongdoing on Savarkar’s part. His legal team
argued that:
·
Badge’s testimony was unreliable,
motivated by the promise of pardon.
·
There was no physical or documentary
evidence linking Savarkar to the final conspiracy.
·
The supposed meeting at Savarkar Sadan had
no independent witness other than Badge, and neither Godse nor Apte had
confirmed it.
Savarkar
himself refused to testify, invoking his constitutional right to
silence. While legally acceptable, his silence became a point of public
speculation and political criticism. Inamdar does not speculate on motives but
explains how legally, silence cannot be interpreted as guilt.
In
the courtroom, Judge Atma Charan ultimately concluded that while moral
suspicion may exist, the evidence was insufficient to convict Savarkar.
He was acquitted, while six of the other accused were convicted, and
Godse and Apte were sentenced to death.
Analysis:
This
chapter is a balanced and scholarly examination of a deeply controversial
subject. Inamdar neither condemns nor exonerates Savarkar through rhetoric. He
allows the court's reasoning and the available evidence to guide the
reader toward understanding the limits of legal culpability.
The
chapter also opens a window into the difficulty of distinguishing
ideological influence from criminal conspiracy. It shows how, in a
democracy governed by rule of law, even the most notorious accusations
require proof — not prejudice.
Inamdar’s
handling of Savarkar’s role is a masterclass in legal objectivity and ethical
restraint, acknowledging the emotion around the issue without allowing it to
cloud judicial analysis.
Chapter
9: The Verdict
It
presents the dramatic conclusion of the long and arduous trial of Mahatma
Gandhi’s assassination. This chapter details the judicial reasoning, the
verdict announcement, and the immediate aftermath in the courtroom and the
nation.
Advocate
P. L. Inamdar meticulously reconstructs how Judge Atma Charan, after
hearing months of evidence, testimonies, and arguments, delivered his judgment
on 30 November 1949. The verdict was awaited with bated breath, as it
carried not only legal weight but immense political and symbolic significance
for India’s fledgling democracy.
Inamdar
lays out the judge’s detailed legal reasoning, which reflected the principles
of justice, fairness, and evidentiary standards. The court found Nathuram
Godse and Narayan Apte guilty of conspiracy and murder under Sections 302
and 120B of the Indian Penal Code. Both were sentenced to death by hanging,
marking the harshest punishment for their roles in the assassination.
Six
others were also convicted — Gopal Godse, Vishnu Karkare, Madanlal Pahwa,
Shankar Kistaiya, and D. S. Badge, though Badge received a lighter sentence as
an approver. Vinayak Savarkar was acquitted due to lack of concrete evidence,
despite strong moral suspicion.
Inamdar
highlights how the judgment delved into the nature of conspiracy,
explaining how the actions of the accused, even if indirect or preparatory,
demonstrated collective guilt. The verdict also reflected the court’s
determination to uphold law and order in a volatile post-Partition India,
sending a clear message against political violence.
The
chapter also captures the atmosphere during the announcement. Godse reportedly
remained composed, while others showed various reactions of resignation,
disbelief, or sorrow. The courtroom remained solemn, understanding the historic
magnitude of the moment.
Inamdar
discusses the legal appeals filed by the convicted but notes that these were
ultimately unsuccessful. The executions of Godse and Apte took place on 15
November 1949, an event that shocked the nation and marked the close of a
painful chapter.
Analysis:
This
chapter serves as the legal and narrative climax of the book. Inamdar’s
portrayal of the verdict underscores the rule of law as the foundation of
justice, especially when confronting crimes of political magnitude.
He
balances the emotional weight with judicial rigor, reminding readers that
courts must not become arenas of revenge or political theater but places where
evidence, law, and fairness prevail.
The
verdict chapter also emphasizes the difficulty in dealing with political
violence in a democratic context. The court’s task was not just to punish
but to send a message about the sanctity of democratic ideals and the rejection
of violence as a political tool.
Inamdar’s
clear, sober recounting of the verdict makes it accessible not only to legal
professionals but also to the general public eager to understand the judicial
process behind one of India’s most historic trials.
Chapter
10: Aftermath and Impact
It
examines the consequences of the trial’s verdict on the Indian legal system,
society, politics, and the legacy of Mahatma Gandhi. This concluding chapter
broadens the scope from the courtroom to the nation’s psyche and future
trajectory.
Advocate
P. L. Inamdar starts by describing the immediate aftermath of the executions of
Nathuram Godse and Narayan Apte on 15 November 1949. The
executions brought closure to a national trauma but also sparked debates and
controversies. The chapter recounts how different sections of society reacted —
from mourning and condemnation by Gandhi’s followers to quiet sympathy among
some Hindu nationalist circles.
Inamdar
discusses the political ramifications, noting that the trial and verdict
had a sobering effect on extremist groups. The Indian government tightened laws
on sedition and political violence, emphasizing the rule of law over
vigilantism. The trial set important precedents in dealing with politically
motivated crimes without compromising civil liberties.
The
chapter also explores the judicial lessons from the trial. Inamdar
praises the judiciary’s upholding of due process, even under immense
political and emotional pressure. He contrasts this with other instances
globally where political trials devolved into show trials or miscarriages of
justice.
Inamdar
further analyzes the trial’s impact on the Hindu Mahasabha and the wider
Hindu nationalist movement. The movement experienced a period of
introspection and recalibration, grappling with public condemnation and the
state crackdown. The chapter explains how Savarkar’s acquittal was both a legal
victory and a source of ongoing political controversy.
Importantly,
Inamdar reflects on the trial’s role in shaping India’s democratic identity.
The fact that even such a heinous crime was subjected to a transparent judicial
process was a testament to India’s commitment to constitutional governance. The
trial became an early test of India’s ability to reconcile justice, political
dissent, and social harmony.
The
chapter concludes with reflections on the legacy of Gandhi’s assassination
and trial in contemporary India. Inamdar notes how the event remains a touchstone
in debates on political violence, nationalism, and democracy. The trial,
its verdict, and its aftermath continue to evoke discussions on the limits of
ideological extremism and the importance of peaceful democratic engagement.
Analysis:
Chapter
10 is a powerful and reflective conclusion to Inamdar’s comprehensive study. It
situates the trial within the broader historical and political currents of
post-independence India, highlighting its enduring significance.
Inamdar’s
balanced approach — neither glorifying the judiciary nor downplaying the social
tensions — offers a nuanced understanding of how a nascent democracy navigated
one of its greatest crises.
|
For
readers, this chapter is a reminder that the truth about the killing of
Gandhi extends beyond the courtroom — into the fabric of India’s ongoing
struggle to uphold justice, unity, and democratic values. |
Authors
Observation About Savarkar During Court Trial:
|
Advocate
P. L. Inamdar recounts Nathuram Godse's profound disappointment over Vinayak
Damodar Savarkar's demeanor during the trial. Inamdar observed that Savarkar
maintained a deliberate distance from his co-accused, including Godse,
throughout the proceedings. He describes Savarkar as sitting
"stone-faced like the Sphinx," never turning his head to
acknowledge Godse, who was seated beside him. This calculated non-association
was perceived by Godse as a personal affront. Source:
https://sabrangindia.in/murderer-martyr/?utm
Inamdar
notes that Godse was "deeply hurt" by Savarkar's behavior, yearning
for a simple gesture of sympathy or acknowledgment. Even during their last
meeting at the Simla High Court, Godse expressed his distress over Savarkar's
coldness, longing for "a touch of Tatyarao’s hand, a word of sympathy,
or at least a look of compassion." Source:https://m.thewire.in/article/history/savarkar-gandhi-assassination/amp?utm This
emotional chasm between Godse and Savarkar is further highlighted in Vikram
Sampath's biography, Savarkar: A Contested Legacy, 1924–1966. Sampath
elaborates on Godse's feelings of abandonment, emphasizing how Savarkar's
silence and detachment during the trial left Godse feeling isolated and
betrayed. These accounts underscore the strained
relationship between Godse and Savarkar during the trial, with Godse
perceiving Savarkar's aloofness as a profound personal rejection. |
The
Trial Transcripts of the Special Court, Red Fort, 1948–49
A
Legal Chronicle of the Assassination of Mahatma Gandhi
The
assassination of Mahatma Gandhi on January 30, 1948, shook the
conscience of the world and marked a dark day in the history of independent
India. The subsequent legal proceedings, held before a Special Court in the
historic Red Fort, offer one of the most significant criminal trials in
Indian legal history. These trial transcripts provide a rare window into the
judicial process, the evidence presented, and the ideological motivations of
the assassins.
Background
and Constitution of the Court
Following
Gandhi’s assassination by Nathuram Vinayak Godse, the Indian government
moved swiftly to investigate and bring the accused to justice. A Special
Court was set up under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, by
notification from the Government of India, Ministry of Law. The case was
heard at the Red Fort in Delhi, a location chosen for its secure and
symbolic nature.
The
court was presided over by Justice Atma Charan, a senior judge of the
Punjab High Court, appointed as the Special Judge under Section 11 of the
Criminal Procedure Code. The trial began on 22 June 1948 and concluded
with the judgment on 10 February 1949. The appeal process extended into
1950.
The
Accused
There
were nine individuals charged in connection with the conspiracy and
execution of the murder. They were:
1. Nathuram
Vinayak Godse – the chief assassin and ideological
executor.
2. Narayan
Dattatraya Apte – co-conspirator and close associate of
Godse.
3. Vinayak
Damodar Savarkar – Hindu nationalist leader, accused of
ideological and logistical support.
4. Gopal
Vinayak Godse – Nathuram’s younger brother.
5. Dattatraya
Parchure
6. Vishnu
Karkare
7. Madanlal
Pahwa
8. Shankar
Kistaiya
9. D.
S. Badge – turned approver for the prosecution.
Structure
of the Trial Transcripts
The
trial transcripts cover charge sheets, witness depositions,
cross-examinations, exhibits, and final arguments, forming a meticulous
legal record of the proceedings. The transcripts provide a step-by-step account
of the prosecution’s case and the defense’s rebuttal.
Charges
Framed
The
accused were charged under several sections of the Indian Penal Code (IPC),
including:
·
Section 302
– murder
·
Section 120B
– criminal conspiracy
·
Section 307
– attempt to murder (for the earlier failed attempt in Bombay)
·
Section 153A
– promoting enmity between different groups
Highlights
from the Trial Transcripts
1.
Prosecution’s Narrative
The
prosecution, led by C. K. Daphtary, presented the assassination
as a carefully planned political conspiracy rooted in ideological hatred
for Gandhi’s policies — particularly his advocacy for Hindu-Muslim unity and
his perceived softness towards Pakistan.
Key
elements of the prosecution’s case included:
·
Godse’s confession (made in court,
not under police duress), where he openly accepted his act and explained it as
a patriotic duty.
·
Testimonies of approver D. S. Badge,
who described the planning meetings and the handover of weapons.
·
Evidence of an earlier failed attempt
in Bombay, with Madanlal Pahwa arrested and his statements used to build
the conspiracy charge.
·
The role of Savarkar’s residence as
a meeting place and the alleged blessings he gave to Godse and Apte.
2.
Nathuram Godse’s Statement
Perhaps
the most dramatic moment in the trial was Godse’s statement, made without
regret, in which he justified Gandhi’s killing on political and cultural
grounds. His speech, originally censored post-trial, was later published (not
in full in the official transcript at the time due to sensitivity). He argued
Gandhi’s policies favored Muslims and weakened Hindu interests.
Godse
said:
"I
do say that my shots were fired at the person whose policy and action had
brought rack and ruin and destruction to the Hindus. 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."
3.
The Role of Vinayak Damodar Savarkar
One
of the most debated aspects of the trial was the involvement of V. D.
Savarkar. The prosecution attempted to implicate him on the basis of
circumstantial evidence and the testimony of Badge, who claimed to have seen
Godse and Apte meet Savarkar and receive blessings.
However,
the defense led by L. B. Bhopatkar and P. L. Inamdar highlighted the
lack of direct evidence. The court eventually acquitted Savarkar, noting that
Badge’s testimony was uncorroborated.
4.
The Verdict
On
10 February 1949, Justice Atma Charan delivered his final judgment:
·
Godse and Apte
were found guilty of murder and criminal conspiracy. They were sentenced to death
by hanging.
·
Gopal Godse, Madanlal Pahwa, Vishnu
Karkare, and Shankar Kistaiya received varying
prison sentences.
·
Vinayak Savarkar
was acquitted due to lack of corroborative evidence.
·
D. S. Badge,
being an approver, was pardoned.
The executions of Godse and Apte were carried out on 15
November 1949 in Ambala Jail.
Appeals
and Supreme Court Review
Following
the trial, appeals were made to the East Punjab High Court, and the case
finally reached the Supreme Court. The higher judiciary upheld the main
verdict, including the death sentences. The entire trial process became a
landmark in demonstrating judicial independence and adherence to legal
procedure under extremely sensitive political circumstances.
Conclusion
Advocate
P. L. Inamdar’s “The Truth About the Killing of Gandhi” is a
meticulously researched and detailed account of one of modern India’s most
defining and tragic legal proceedings. Through a balanced and legally rigorous
lens, Inamdar presents not only the facts of the assassination and the ensuing
trial but also the complex social, political, and ideological undercurrents
that shaped this historic event.
The
book stands out for its methodical narration, from the initial shock of
Gandhi’s assassination to the courtroom drama involving key figures like
Nathuram Godse, Narayan Apte, and Vinayak Damodar Savarkar. Each chapter
thoughtfully explores essential aspects — the legal strategies, witness
testimonies, ideological statements, and judicial reasoning — offering readers
a panoramic yet nuanced understanding.
Inamdar’s
objectivity is one of the book’s greatest strengths. He neither indulges in
hagiography nor vilification. Instead, he respects the sanctity of the judicial
process and provides a clear-eyed portrayal of how law confronts political
violence. The author’s legal expertise shines through, especially in
chapters dealing with evidence evaluation, the role of approvers, and the
difficult balance between moral suspicion and legal proof.
Moreover,
the book does not shy away from the broader implications of the trial.
The analysis of the aftermath and societal impact underscores the challenges
India faced as a newly independent democracy grappling with extremism, communal
tensions, and the task of nation-building.
For
historians, legal scholars, and readers interested in India’s political
history, Inamdar’s work is invaluable. It preserves a critical chapter in
India’s judicial history with clarity and depth, while also provoking
reflection on the limits of ideology and the imperative of peaceful democratic
engagement.
In
conclusion, The Truth About the Killing of Gandhi is not just a legal
chronicle; it is a profound exploration of justice, ideology, and the human
cost of political violence. It remains an essential resource for anyone seeking
to understand the complexities behind the assassination of Mahatma Gandhi and
the trial that followed — a story that continues to resonate in India’s
democratic journey.
References:
1.
Inamdar, P. L. The Truth About the
Killing of Gandhi – The Story of the Trial: The People vs Nathuram Godse and
Others, Popular Prakashan, First Edition, Mumbai.
2.
Trial transcripts of the Special
Court, Red Fort, 1948-49.
3. Gandhi,
Tushar. Let’s Kill Gandhi!. Rupa
Publications, 2007.
4. Malgonkar,
Manohar. The Men Who Killed Gandhi.
Macmillan, 1978.
5. Godse,
Nathuram. Why I Assassinated Mahatma Gandhi.
Surya Bharti, 1993.
6. Frontline, “RSS & Gandhi’s Murder.” The Hindu, 2022.
7. The
Wire. “The Judge, the Assassin and the Forgotten Trial.”
Comments
Post a Comment