Listen to Podcast: The Godse Dilemma - Is murder wrong?
Is murder wrong?
Apparently, Indians can't understand why murder is wrong. The jury is still out on whether Nathuram Godse was justified in assassinating Gandhi. Actually, it is a thought-provoking question, because throughout most of history murder was just fine. Aurangzeb saw nothing wrong with it. Even Lord Rama didn't consider it wrong when he assassinated (vadh'ed) Bali.
 |
| Scene from the Ramayana, depicting Bali and Sugreev, with Lord Rama and Lakshmana in the background, Image source. |
Bali accused Rama of violating Kshatriya dharma (unwritten code). However, Rama countered that Bali had forfeited dharma's protection by taking his brother's wife. Rama further reasoned that if taking another's wife was considered lawful in the animal kingdom, then his assassination amounted to hunting an animal—not subject to Kshatriya dharma. While this reasoning may be compelling, it raises a question: can someone serve as judge in their own case?
 |
| L-R: M. Bagde (bearded), Nathuram Godse, Narayan Apte, Vishnu Rama Krishna, during their trial, Image source. |
Is retribution justified?
In many tribal cultures today, including much of the Islamic world and Africa, murder is justifiable at the slightest provocation, as is retribution. Retribution usually means inflicting greater harm to humiliate, punish, and deter the other side. Such tribal impulses manifested when Congress goons (peaceful adherents of Gandhi) led a pogrom against Chitpavan Brahmins—the community to which Godse belonged.
 |
| The front page of The Washington Post from Saturday, January 31, 1948, Image source. |
Violence flared across 300 districts in Maharashtra. Estimates indicate approximately 8,000 deaths, 1,500 homes burned, and thousands displaced. Homes, shops, and factories owned by Brahmins were destroyed.
Godse supporters must therefore address a critical question: if assassination was justified according to their tribal thinking, was the retaliatory pogrom also justified?
Historical confusion
Godse supporters often compare his actions to other political assassinations, including Bhagat Singh's role in the killing of Police Officer John Saunders in 1928 and Udham Singh's shooting of Punjab Lieutenant Governor Michael O'Dwyer in London in 1940. Since there's considerable confusion surrounding this historical period, I'll clarify some key facts.
 |
| The front page of the Daily Herald newspaper from March 14, 1940, Image source. |
Many Indians incorrectly believe that Udham Singh killed Brigadier General Reginald Dyer, who ordered the Jallianwala Bagh massacre in 1919. In reality, Dyer retired in 1920 and died of natural causes in 1927. During his final years, he suffered multiple strokes, cerebral hemorrhage, and arteriosclerosis, leaving him paralyzed and unable to speak.
Retribution and revolution
 |
| A news article from December 24th, 1919, Image source. |
Young Bhagat Singh visited the Jallianwala Bagh at age 12, which drove him to become a socialist revolutionary against British imperialism. He joined the organization Hindustan Socialist Republican Association (HSRA) around age 18. This organization decided to avenge the death of Lala Lajpat Rai by assassinating Superintendent of Police James A. Scott, who had ordered a lathi-charge that severely injured Rai.
 |
| Indian nationalist leaders "Lal Bal Pal", Lala Lajpat Rai, Bal Gangadhar Tilak, and Bipin Chandra Pal, Image source. |
On December 17, 1928, at the police headquarters in Lahore, Shivaram Rajguru shot 21-year-old officer John Saunders by mistake. During the escape, Chandra Shekhar Azad shot an Indian police constable named Chanan Singh. Bhagat Singh was present at the scene but did not fire the fatal shots, though he may have fired into Saunders's body after he was already dead. Another co-conspirator, Sukhdev Thapar, was not present during the incident.
 |
| A newspaper clipping from the Daily Milap, Lahore, dated October 10, 1980, detailing the judgment of the Lahore Conspiracy Case, Image source. |
On April 8, 1929, Bhagat Singh and Batukeshwar Dutt entered the visitors' gallery of the Central Legislative Assembly (Parliament Building) in Delhi during a session debating the Public Safety Bill and Trade Disputes Bill, which aimed to curb political dissent and labor movements. The majority of the members were Indian, and Vithalbhai Patel (elder brother of Sardar Patel) was President (Speaker). Other prominent members present included Motilal Nehru, Madan Mohan Malaviya (founder of Banaras Hindu University), and Muhammad Ali Jinnah.
Bhagat Singh and non-violence
The two revolutionaries carried revolvers, home-made bombs, and leaflets. The bombs were non-lethal, meant to produce noise and smoke, which they threw at empty benches. They shouted slogans like "Inquilab Zindabad" and "Down with imperialism," and threw their leaflets in which they condemned British colonial rule as "tyrannical" and exploitative. After this, they voluntarily surrendered and discarded their revolvers, saying that their protests were symbolic and non-violent.
 |
| A newspaper headline from April 9, 1929, reporting on the bombing of the Indian Legislative Assembly in Delhi, Image source. |
This symbolic act led to the exposure of their organization. An informant, Hans Raj Vohra, revealed their involvement in the Lahore Conspiracy case. Police subsequently discovered HSRA manifestos, bomb-making equipment, and plans for future attacks, characterizing the group as a revolutionary movement opposing British rule.
Bhagat Singh and his comrades openly confessed to all their activities and transformed the trial into a platform for their cause. They delivered eloquent speeches, wrote letters, and undertook hunger strikes to protest inhumane prison conditions and amplify their message. Jatindra Nath Das died after a 63-day fast during this protest. Explaining their philosophy, Bhagat Singh stated, "We hold human life sacred beyond words, but we had to make the deaf hear."
 |
| Chandra Shekhar “Azad” Sitaram Tiwari, b. July 23, 1906, d. February 27, 1931, Image source. |
Chandra Shekhar Azad, evaded capture and chose death over surrender, honoring his vow to never be taken alive by the British. He died on February 27, 1931, during a shootout with British police in Alfred Park (now known as Azad Park) in Allahabad. On March 23, 1931, Bhagat Singh (age 23), Shivaram Rajguru (age 22), and Sukhdev Thapar (age 23) were hanged in Lahore Central Jail. Batukeshwar Dutt received a life sentence.
War against the King-Emperor
During these incidents, Bhagat Singh was only about 21 years old. While he embraced revolutionary ideas—common for people his age—and participated in HSRA activities, nothing in his character suggested he posed a significant threat to British Imperialism. Despite this, he was convicted of waging war against the King-Emperor (George V).
 |
| Last surviving photo of Bhagat Singh, in Lahore Central Jail, c. 1931, Image source. |
Now, it is perfectly legitimate to wage war against King-Emperors. American revolutionaries won their war of independence against George III in 1776, knowing full well that if they lost they would be hanged. Moreover, the British were not really oppressing them, but rather greatly benefiting them. Nevertheless, the thirteen colonies chose independence simply because it was abhorrent to them that they should be dictated to by the British Parliament.
Revolution is risky. The American Revolution stands as perhaps the only successful revolution (most others devolved into massacres and genocide). The American War of Independence was led by elected individuals who could not only win the conflict but also establish a government that endured the test of time. In contrast, the HSRA revolutionaries were very young and offered no such assurance. Even if they had succeeded, power would likely have transferred to those already seated in the Legislative Assembly. Unfortunately, this assembly neither approved of the revolutionaries' actions nor adequately advocated for clemency for Bhagat Singh and his comrades.
Patriotism and martyrdom
The HSRA members, like the American revolutionaries before them, engaged in their activities willingly, accepting potential consequences. Through their patriotism and martyrdom, Bhagat Singh and his comrades inspired the freedom movement. Public outrage swept across India when news broke of their secret execution and the disrespectful disposal of their bodies. Even moderate Indian leaders like Gandhi, who had previously accepted the possibility of dominion status, were forced to change their position and demand complete independence.
Similarly, Udham Singh's act of retribution can be viewed through a historical lens. As a survivor of the Jallianwala Bagh massacre, he targeted O'Dwyer, the Lieutenant Governor who had defended the atrocity. After shooting O'Dwyer twice at point-blank range, Singh wounded three others with additional shots: Lord Zetland (Secretary of State for India), Lord Lamington (former Governor of Bombay), and Sir Louis Dane (O'Dwyer's predecessor in Punjab). Singh made no attempt to escape and was immediately apprehended by a woman ambulance driver and an RAF officer.
 |
| A newspaper headline announcing the arrest of the assassin, Udham Singh, on March 13, 1940, Image source. |
Singh expressed no regret and clarified his intention, saying, "I did it because I had a grudge against him. He deserved it. He was the real culprit." During his trial, he declared, "I don't care about the sentence of death. It is not worrying me. I am dying for a purpose," and "What greater honour could be bestowed on me than death for the sake of my motherland?" On July 31, 1940, Udham Singh was hanged at Pentonville Prison, London, at age 40.
Revolutionary War and assassination
There is absolutely nothing wrong with Udham Singh's actions, except it violates the Judeo-Christian religious commandment "Thou shalt not murder," whereby only a government can execute someone acting within the law. Unfortunately, under existing law, the King’s forces could massacre people like Udham Singh, but he did not have the right to bear arms and defend himself. Thus a perverse situation was created where certain individuals or groups were at "war against the King-Emperor" due to atrocities committed by his men. This war wasn't fought on battlefields but in public spaces, between the King's men and civilians.
 |
| Archbishop's visit to Jallianwala Bagh, September 10, 2019, Image source. |
So the crucial question emerges: Is assassination justified during a war (against the King-Emperor)?
American revolutionaries would agree that when any government becomes oppressive, people have the right to overthrow it by force. In the Declaration of Independence, adopted on July 4, 1776, Thomas Jefferson wrote:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.—That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,—That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
 |
| Declaration of Independence, adopted by the Continental Congress on July 4, 1776, declaring the thirteen American colonies independent from Great Britain, Image source. |
The Declaration of Independence was a de facto declaration of revolutionary intent, as it rejected British authority and set the stage for armed conflict, which had already begun with battles like Lexington and Concord in April 1775. The Continental Congress, as the de facto governing body of the 13 colonies, also took other actions to formalize the war effort, such as authorizing the formation of the Continental Army in June 1775 and appointing George Washington as its commander.
Who’s in charge of war?
Ideally, assassination should not be carried out by self-appointed individuals or groups, but rather authorized by a representative body responsible for the consequences of war. A lone act by Udham Singh could have given British authorities an excuse to crack down on innocent civilians. When legitimate governing bodies undertake such actions, they can anticipate and prepare for the repercussions.
Godse supporters believe that their ancestors were all ardent supporters of revolutionaries, but this is historically inaccurate. Many Indians actually benefited from British rule and were content being part of a global empire. While Gandhi enjoyed quasi-religious popularity among the Indian masses as a "Mahatma" or saint, he wielded limited influence over the actual power brokers. His position on revolutionary activities was measured—he acknowledged the patriots' love for their country while disagreeing with their violent methods.
High crimes & misdemeanor
Godse supporters are correct in thinking that abuses of power or breaches of public trust often go unpunished. They harbor antipathy toward Gandhi, rejecting his honorific "Mahatma" and opposing his designation as the father of the nation. Courts, however, had no grounds to convict Gandhi of anything beyond naive political posturing and making insensitive statements.
As for Brigadier General Dyer, on April 17, 1919, four days after the massacre, the British-appointed Sikh clergy at the Golden Temple in Amritsar honored Dyer with a Siropa (robe of honor) and declared him a Sikh, presenting him with a ceremonial sword.
 |
| The Morning Post campaign (July 1920) to raise funds for General Reginald Dyer, the officer who ordered the Jallianwala Bagh Massacre in Amritsar, India in April 1919, Image source. |
In July 1920, the conservative British newspaper The Morning Post launched a public fund for Dyer, portraying him as a hero who saved India from rebellion. The campaign raised £26,317 (equivalent to over £1 million today), with contributions from thousands of Britons, including prominent figures like author Rudyard Kipling, who donated £10 and described Dyer’s actions as “correct.” The fund was presented to Dyer with a jeweled sword inscribed with “Saviour of the Punjab.”
Was Godse a Hindutva activist?
The meaning of Hindutva during this period was ambiguous, as Hindus were deeply divided by caste tensions. This division became starkly evident in the violent aftermath of Gandhi's assassination. Following the murder, Congress workers incited Marathas, Jains, and Lingayats to attack Chitpavan Brahmins—a community that produced prominent leaders like Bal Gangadhar Tilak and Veer Savarkar. These attacks extended to other Brahmin communities, including the Deshastha and Karhade groups. The violence also targeted the Marwari community in Bombay due to their support for RSS and Hindu Mahasabha.
These were not days of mass communication. The speed at which the atrocities flared across Maharashtra, the use of weapons and devices like cotton soaked in kerosene, and the targeted attacks on Brahmin-owned homes, schools, shops, factories, and movie studios indicate that this was a pre-planned operation awaiting political support. The assassination of Gandhi served merely as a spark, or rather an excuse used by people like Nehru who gave his tacit approval by blaming RSS for inflaming tensions.
 |
| A historical map titled "INDIA In the time of Clive 1760" depicts the political geography of India during the mid-18th century, a crucial period in the rise of British influence, Image source. |
This presents a significant inconvenience for modern Hindutva activists who claim that the Marathas led by Brahmin Peshwas were the legitimate rulers of Hindu India (Maratha Empire) until they and the Sikhs were displaced by the British. In their narrative, the entire Hindu nation was poised to expel the British and defeat the Muslims, but was supposedly held back by Gandhi.
Where was Sardar Patel?
Following Gandhi's assassination, Sardar Patel banned the RSS on February 4, 1948. The Home Ministry's official communiqué cited the organization's "undesirable and even dangerous activities," including "acts of violence involving arson, robbery, dacoity, and murder" and the collection of "illicit arms and ammunition" across India.
 |
| A newspaper clipping from February 1948, Image source. |
Patel observed that RSS members celebrated Gandhi's death by "distributing sweets." In his September 19, 1948 letter to RSS chief M.S. Golwalkar, Patel wrote, "All their speeches were full of communal poison... As a final result of the poison, the country had to suffer the sacrifice of the invaluable life of Gandhiji."
 |
| Vinayak Damodar “Veer” Savarkar with Madhav Sadashiv “Guruji” Golwalkar (RSS Chief), Image source. |
In another letter to Hindu Mahasabha leader Syama Prasad Mookerjee on July 18, 1948, Patel asserted that the RSS's activities "constituted a clear threat to the existence of Government and the State," noting that despite the ban, their "subversive activities" persisted.
 |
| Syama Prasad Mookerjee (1901-1953), Founder of Bharatiya Jana Sangh, Image source. |
The ban was eventually lifted on July 11, 1949, after Golwalkar accepted certain conditions, including pledging loyalty to the Indian Constitution and respecting the national flag. Patel remarked in July 1949 that he was "keen to remove the ban" once the RSS provided assurances of good behavior.
Was Godse justified?
Gandhi's efforts at Hindu-Muslim unity had failed disastrously. Though powerless to prevent atrocities against Hindus, Gandhi consistently worked to discourage Hindu retaliation. Amid the ongoing bloodshed, he provoked anger among Hindus with actions and statements stemming from his vague religious practices and experiments. However, he had ultimately become politically irrelevant after the power transfer following independence.
 |
| The front page of the "Amrita Bazar Patrika" newspaper from August 17, 1946, Image source. |
Ironically, even Godse supporters acknowledge that Gandhi's assassination served no purpose and ultimately damaged the Hindutva cause, transforming Gandhi into a "martyr." This admission weakens their position further, reducing the assassination to nothing more than an act of hatred without political justification—murder in its simplest form.
 |
| The Godhra train burning incident, February 27, 2002, Godhra, Gujarat, Image source. |
Consider a more recent parallel: many believe P.M. Narendra Modi bears moral responsibility for the Godhra riots. However, multiple inquiries and commissions have cleared him of responsibility. If we commit to living in a nation governed by law, we must accept these judgments. Believing the justice system is flawed does not justify taking matters into one's own hands. If such basic rules are not followed, there will be chaos.
Law vs. Dharma (on murder & nation-building)
Who is to say murder is wrong? Godse supporters believe "constitutionalism" hinders their vision of Hindu resurgence and decolonization. They claim to follow "dharma" and think others merely have "religion" (myths and superstitions). They fail to grasp that the Law is "Dharma." These laws stem from Judeo-Christian religious principles found in the Bible—essentially a greater constitution. This legal framework actively opposes tribal thinking, but Indians don't understand the religious foundations, resulting in confusion about the law.
Throughout history, people justified murder in countless ways until Jews conceived the innovative concept of "nation building"—uniting twelve tribes under a single law. Under tribal customs, when someone from another tribe harmed one of your own, you were obligated to seek revenge, often with escalating brutality. This system demanded unwavering loyalty to your tribe, regardless of whether they were right or wrong.
 |
| The Ten Commandments, Image source. |
For the purpose of nation building, God gave the Jews explicit commandments, including "Thou shalt not murder." They taught and practiced formal law and established courts, rather than following unwritten codes (dharma) based on personal interpretation. Their jurists interpreted "An eye for an eye, tooth for tooth" as requiring monetary compensation rather than physical retribution. Under such a system, only a government acting within the law has the right to execute someone.
Thus, whether murder is justified depends on the legal framework. Two groups operating within different frameworks can reach opposite conclusions, as demonstrated in America's infamous O.J. Simpson case in 1995. In India, the 1959 Nanavati case saw a jury vote 8–1 to acquit a man who had murdered his wife's lover. This verdict ultimately led to the abolition of jury trials in India, as our cultural sense of honor clashed with the Judeo-Christian legal system we had adopted. The shift to bench trials subsequently contributed to the degradation and corruption of a legal system that has served us poorly ever since.
Dharma vs. Truth paradox: Why is law so confusing?
India's current legal system derives from Roman legal customs (hence the Latin phrases) and embeds Christian ethical principles. While some groups advocate for alternatives like Sharia law or attempt to decolonize existing laws by introducing Hindi terminology, our fundamental challenge in adhering to current laws stems from our lack of understanding of Truth.
In India, different groups maintain their own versions of truth. This tribalistic behavior permeates law courts, TV debates, politics, and religion, where people shout, insult each other, and lie to defend their tribe—even when they're clearly wrong. Most Indians seem comfortable justifying virtually anything that serves their tribe. This is precisely why God commanded the Jews not to lie.
Despite India being a deeply religious/dharmic country, it lacks the concept of God as an ethical Judge and law-giver. While the notion of Karma exists, people often justify their own wrongdoing by pointing to others, or believe they can erase bad deeds through religious ceremonies. This creates a paradox: there are stringent laws against corruption, yet India ranks among the world's most corrupt countries.
Instead of holding politicians accountable for corruption, voters elect “leaders” based on tribal loyalties that can be purchased. These allegiances elevate group identity above truth and moral principles. The Mahabharata perfectly illustrates this phenomenon: most kings fought alongside the Kauravas despite knowing they stood on the wrong side of dharma.
Conclusion
It is deeply concerning that a Senior Advocate would endorse a serious crime and promote tribal thinking among young people. Ethical questions require thoughtful reflection rather than appeals to pseudo-religious patriotism based on historical misconceptions. There's a striking irony in calls for decolonization coming from individuals who themselves benefit from Western education and colonial institutions. I strongly believe that the speaker should reconsider his position and withdraw these problematic statements along with issuing an apology.
I recognize that many Indians are sensitive about Christian influence due to our colonial history and resist learning from other traditions because of our "Vishwa-guru" self-perception. However, the Jewish people have never colonized India and have maintained friendly relations with Hindus throughout history. Why not learn from their legal and ethical frameworks? Adopting universal ethical principles as embodied in the law, would help build a more unified nation. Without adherence to truth, we'll remain divided along ethnic, social, and political (i.e. tribal) lines on virtually every issue.
No comments:
Post a Comment