TACTICS OF SANGH PARIVAR
Dr.K.Veeramani
The father of the nation, M.K. Gandhi, affectionately called ‘Mahatma’ was assassinated on January 30, 1948 by a conspiracy, hatched out by a Hindutva fanatic team and administered by Nathuram Godse, an original R.S.S. activist who later became associated with Hindu Maha Sabha, under the leadership of Vinayak Damodar Savarkar. In Gandhi murder, 12 persons were accused and charge sheeted of whom only 9 were arrested. The trial court, formed on special ground, convicted SEVEN of them, V.D. Savarkar was acquitted owing to lack of concrete evidence on his involvement in the conspiracy of murder and one was pardoned for having turned approver. On appeal by the convicted, the High Court heard and gave the verdict wherein two more accused were acquitted. Untimately Nathuram Godse and Narayan Apte were sentenced to death and the rest were for life imprisonment.
Nathuram Godse had openly admitted the crime as divine duty form the beginning itself and the two were hanged in Ambala (Punjab) prison on November 15, 1948. The convicted others underwent life imprisonment and got released in 1964. Many doubts were raised on the acquittal of V.D. Savarkar. Despite being resjudicata, a commission headed by Justice Jivanlal Kapur was formed in 1966 to opine whether Savarkar was guilty or not.
In 1969, the Commission submitted its report with criticism on the handling of Gandhi’s assassination case by the police with negligence. In conclusion it said, “All these facts taken together were destructive of any theory other than the conspiracy to murder by Savarkar and his group.”
All the persons, associated with the assassination who were convicted, acquitted and pardoned are dead now.
Recently, an activist of Abhinav Bharat, Mumbai, Dr. Pankaj Phadnis has filed a petition to the Supreme Court of India to appoint a new inquiry commission to re-investigate the murder conspiracy. He argues that four bullets were fired at Gandhi, not three. The three bullets flew from Nathuram Godse’s Beretta pistol and the fourth one from that of Narayan Apte who did not feel guilty about the crime of murder of Gandhi till his last breathe. The petitioner alleges Narayan Apte was an agent of a British secret organization called ‘Force 136’. The Supreme Court has appointed former additional solicitor general, Amarendra Sharan as amicus curie to deal with Phadnis’ plea.
In an interview to the English weekly ‘The Week’, Arun Gandhi, grandson of Mahatma Gandhi hopes the Supreme Court to realize that there are much more important and long standing issues that need their attention. Getting involved in such blatantly frivolous and nonsensical litigation is diverting their attention from other matters of importance. He concludes the plea for reinvestigation is nothing but an attempt to re-write history.
Nearly 70 years have lapsed since the assassination of Gandhi. What is the necessity of re-commencing the investigation? What is the background?
The petitioner Dr. Pankaj Phadnis, is an activist of Abhinav Bharat, which was formed originally by V.D. Savarkar in 1906. The petition says in an interview to ‘The Week’ that his objective is to write the true history. Phadnis claims that Abhinav Bharat was the first organization to demand absolute political independence, which was closed down later. He feels proud in setting up Abhinav Bharat, Mumbai in 2002, and says that he is not a blind follower of Savarkar. He is concerned with the views of Savarkar expressed as a member of Abhinav Bharat and not the views expressed as a member of the Hindu MahaSabha…..
Besides Phadnis says he has no reason to believe that Savarkar was involved in the conspirancy to kill Gandhi. He has pointed out that the claim of prosecution that Godse and Apte had met Savarkar before they killed Gandhi was not established.
The main task of Phadnis is to single out Narayan Apte from the conspiracy of the killing of Gandhi and to match it with the opinion that unidentified foreign elements were involved in the killing of Gandhi. For that the new story of the ‘fourth bullet’ has been raked up.
Savarkar was sent to Andaman Cellular jail in 1910 as the follow up of sentencing him with imprisonment for 50 years for having associated with the supply of pistol to the killers of then English Collector of Nasik, of the then Bombay Province. After completing 10 years’ imprisonment, Savarkar came out by tendering an apology that he would be loyal to the Royal British rulers and not associate with any activities to demean such loyalty.
Phadnis comes to the rescue of Savarkar saying that the apology of Savarkar was only a tactic and he did not leak out names of any freedom fighters, and concludes that Savarkar’s apology has no meaning.
The main blame of Phadnis is that Kapur Commission had not discharged its role correctly. In support of this, he points out that Kapur Commission had said that Narayan Apte was a recruiting officer for Royal Indian Air Force. To nullify the observation of Kapur Commission he seeks the support of the earlier defence minister of BJP government, Manohar Parrikar through his official reply letter which states that there are no records of Apte being in the Air Force.
The main task of Phadnis is to single out Narayan Apte from the conspiracy of the killing of Gandhi and to match it with the opinion that unidentified foreign elements were involved in the killing of Gandhi. For that the new story of the ‘fourth bullet’ has been raked up.
The plea of Phadnis lacks substantial evidence except the hearsay, said to have been held, alleging some foreign force being involved in the conspiracy, between the Ambassadors of European countries with Vijayalakshmi Pandit, the then Ambassador of to the USSR, when Gandhi was assassinated. This hearsay evidence becomes meaningless when the respective States of the Ambassadors had condoled the demise of Gandhi without the mentioning of any involvement of foreign elements in the conspiracy of killing Gandhi. It is stated that the deadly noise of firing of fourth bullets was mentioned by the journalists / press persons both foreign and inland who were present at Birla House, the place where Gandhi was shot at. No one is alive to testify to such mentionings at present. Coverage of news will endure till it is not objected to. When the question of objection for the veracity of the news coverage arises, in most of the cases, it is customary on the part of the press to state that with the inputs available the news had been published; in case it is found to be false, we are ready to withdraw it.
Besides, Tushar Gandhi, great – grand son of Mahatma Gandhi, and the author of “Let us kill Gandhi” in an exclusive interview to ‘The Week’ had stated:
“There was no fourth bullet. There was no fourth entry wound in Babu’s body. There were only three entry wounds and two exit wounds. And yet, one of the three bullets is being magically reproduced to become the fourth”.
Further Tushar Gandhi says, “their basic point is to create enough confusion about the murder so that the spotlight shifts from Savarkar’s involvement and the RSS’s involvement”.
Many points are substantial against the plea to reinvestigate the conspiracy of Gandhi murder. On the rationalistic and practical aspect, what it is going to be served to act on the plea? Even for arguments’ sake if the points focused in the plea are correct, how could it be proved? There are no witnesses, there are no new accusation, there is no new proof. What are they going to investigate?
The claim of Phadnis is that he wants true history of Gandhi murder. Being a learned man, it is not impossible for him to understand the reality and practicality involved in the translation of his plea.
Nathuram Godse had intention to kill Gandhi, confirmed that he committed the crime and at no point of time Godse disputed it during the entire proceedings of the court. Even in his appeal petition to the High Court he never disputed the crime but the appeal plea was on some other ground on the way the proceedings were conducted.
Phadnis, when asked on the effect of his plea, invalidating the findings of Kapur Commission, he says that he objects seriously to some specific part about the mentioning of Maratha army in the report. He vehemently states that he is not asking for exoneration of Godse….. and he (Godse) was a murderer and he got what he deserved.
When Phadnis was clear enough on this, can it be construed that he lacks prudence on the effect of his plea? If the plea is entertained it would create sympathy over the Godse team. When the scenario at present tries to get dominated by the glorification of Godse by installing statue and building temple to him, the reinvestigation plea made by Phadnis would be supportive to such deeds. More than effect of the plea – the more would be the likely deed of glorifying Godse, by the so-called ‘true patriots’ of the country. Let the wisdom dawn on the knowledgeable and learned Phadnis to understand the dominance of the negative effects over the cause raised by him!
But the plea is blatantly to alienate V.D. Savarkar from the conspiracy of Gandhi murder.
The active involvement of Savarkar has been emphasized by Kapur Commission. Phadnis gets exposed openly for his inclination towards Savarkar, through his plea that is confirmed in his interview:
“The Kapur Commission is destructive of every other theory than the theory to kill by Savarkar. He (Kapur) mentions it not in his findings, but in the observations.”
Arun Gandhi aptly says, “despite no tangible evidence linking him (Savarkar) to the actual assassination, Savarkar planted the idea and encouraged its growth. If a father brings up a child to be a murderer, the law will not punish the father but the son, because he committed the actual act. But usually the father is as guilty as son.”
Phadnis justifies his plea of involvement of foreign force in Gandhi murder without any concrete evidence. Similarly, he has to accept the role of Savarkar in the conspiracy hatched for Gandhi murder despite not been proved due to lack of evidence by the court.
The intention of the learned Phadnis gets exposed in his contradictory stand which is revealed through his plea favourable and facilitative to the ‘true patriots’ of the country, glorifying the murder of Gandhi, praised as ‘Father of the Nation’ by the populace of the country.
The plea of Phadnis will not facilitate writing the true history as claimed by him.
The plea will be confined as diverting and distorting tactics, mitigating the role of Godse in Gandhi murder.
———————————————————————————————————————————
UNCONSTITUTIONAL UTTERANCE OF CM
Yogi Adityanath, the very active and vociferous Chief Minister of Uttar Pradesh has said that the word ‘secular’ was the ‘biggest lie’ that has been told since independence and has damaged the country.
The Constitution of India maintains the country to be a ‘Sovereign Socialist Secular Democratic Republic and all ministers, Chief Ministers, Members of Parliament and Members of State Legislatures take an oath to uphold the Constitution. Does the statement by the honourable Chief Minister not amount to denigration of the Constitution? If anybody belonging to any other party had made such a statement, the charge of sedition might have been slapped on him. But in this case?
