Interview:Kancha Ilaiah on Dalit-Bahujans, Hinduism and Spiritual Fascism

Interview:Kancha Ilaiah on Dalit-Bahujans, Hinduism and Spiritual Fascism

Kancha Ilaiah, Professor of Political Science at Osmania University, Hyderabad, is a leading ideologue of the Dalit-Bahujan movement.  He is a prolific writer, and among his best known works are 'Why I Am Not a Hindu: A Critique of Hindutva From a Dalit-Bahujan Perspective', 'God as a Political Philosopher: The Buddha's Challenge to Brahminism' and 'Buffalo Nationalism: A Critique of Spiritual Fascism'.  In this interview with Yoginder Sikand he talks about his work and reflects on the role of religion in the Dalit-Bahujan struggle.

 

Q: All of your major works deal with the Dalit-Bahujans, but they are in English, a language that few Dalit-Bahujans can read. So, then, whom do you write for?

A: My English works are, of course, addressed primarily to a middle-class readership, but I also write for several Telugu papers. My works have also been translated into several Indian languages. 'Why I am Not a Hindu', for instance, has come out in Hindi, Telugu, Malayalam, Tamil, Kannada and Marathi.

Q: What about Urdu? Do Muslim papers also publish you? After all, most Indian Muslims are descendants of oppressed caste converts and count among the Dalit-Bahujans.

A: Some of my articles have been published in Urdu newspapers, but no one has yet taken any initiative to translate my books into Urdu. Perhaps that is because of some sort of resistance that I perceive among many Muslims to certain critical ideas and social issues. That, in turn, has probably to do with the fact that while Muslims were once carriers of an evangelical ideology, today that evangelical spirit, of seeking to reach out to oppressed communities, to the oppressed castes, is now almost lost. We in the Dalit-Bahujan movement have been shouting hoarse for Muslim-Dalit-Bahujan unity for the last thirty or forty years, but the elite Muslim leadership does not take this seriously. Instead of joining hands with us, they want to dialogue with 'upper' caste Hindu-led parties—the Congress and the Left—and even with various Shankaracharyas! They aren't even very concerned about their own fellow Muslims who live in the ghettos and slums, most of who are descendants of Dalit-Bahujan converts.

 I, for one, am all for Muslims to take to missionary work among the Dalit-Bahujans in a major way. In that way, they would revive the tradition of the Sufis of the past, who reached out to the oppressed caste victims of Hinduism, and won their hearts and their allegiance with their love and message of equality and liberated them. Islam became attractive to the labouring castes of India when the Sufis went and lived among them, ate with them, spoke their languages. They invited them inside their mosques and Sufi hospices, and allowed them to touch the Quran. Imagine what a revolution this was for the oppressed castes, who were forbidden by the Brahmins, on pain of death, from entering temples, forbidden even from so much as listening to, leave alone touching, the Vedas! Only when that evangelical spirit of the past is revived can the critical ideas of the sort that I am seeking to advance on issues related to caste and Brahminism win serious attention in Muslim circles.

Further, interacting with and living with the Dalit-Bahujans in this manner can help bring Muslims out of the ghettoes into which they have been forced. They would solidify fraternal bonds with the Dalit-Bahujans and this can go a long way in curbing anti-Muslim violence, where, routinely, Dalit-Bahujans are instigated by the oppressor castes into attacking hapless Muslims.

Let me elaborate on this. I am not a Muslim, but I have read about Islam. The Quran exhorts Muslims to tell others about their socially liberating faith, and also to practically exert themselves in seeking to liberate them from oppression. In the Indian context, this means that Muslims must take this task earnestly in reaching out to the oppressed castes, the Dalit-Bahujans, who are victims of Hinduism, which is another name for Brahminism or what I call spiritual fascism. They must present before them genuine Islamic spiritual democracy as an alternative, as a source of liberation.

Q: Isn't that what Babasaheb Ambedkar also said, about how every socio-political revolution of the oppressed castes in India was preceded by a spiritual revolution?

A: Exactly. And this has been the case not just in India. The black struggle for liberation in America started in the black churches and in the mosques. There are four major spiritual cultures in the world today: Christianity, Islam, Buddhism and Hinduism. The first three are what I call democratic spiritual cultures. They preach the fundamental equality of all believers. Hinduism is what I call spiritual fascism, for caste, caste oppression and caste-based inequality is ingrained in it. All the Brahminical Hindu scriptures champion caste.  And Hindu spiritual fascism leads to political fascism as well. So, obviously, the complete liberation for the Dalit-Bahujans must start with renunciation of Hinduism that has kept them as slaves for centuries and accepting one of the three democratic spiritual cultures, Christianity, Islam or Buddhism. And this is precisely what is happening in India today. I regard this as a very welcome development, which needs to be speeded up. I personally don't describe myself as a secularist. I am a spiritual democrat, and I realise that my people, the Dalit-Bahujans of this country, are also desperately in search of spiritual democracy, which cannot be found in Hinduism, which is its complete opposite.

So, conversion to Christianity, Islam or Buddhism is a must for our people. Let these three religions and their followers work among our people in a democratic manner.  There are some possibilities of resuscitating egalitarian trends in Dalit-Bahujan religious traditions, but this project has its limits. In today's globalised world why should our people stop at our local Pocchamma or Elamma or other such village goddesses? In their search for empowerment and liberation they must join one of the three global spiritual cultures. 800 million Dalit-Bahujans are ready to hear the word of God as the democratic spiritual traditions understand it. They have been kept ignorant of spiritual democracy for over three thousand years.

Q: But what about Hindu missionary work? Surely that is also happening, and vast numbers of Dalits and Adivasis are rapidly being Hinduised.

A: Let our people choose whichever religion they want. Let the Hindus also engage in missionary work. But, increasingly, Dalit-Bahujans will realise the truth, that all the major Brahminical Hindu scriptures are all predicated on caste and sanctify caste-based oppression. The Rig Veda says that Brahmins were created from Manu's mouth, and the Shudras from his feet. Thankfully and luckily, the Dalits were not created from this Manu at all! The Gita also champions caste.  The Ramayana says that Ram killed the Shudra Shambhukh. The same is true for the other Brahminical scriptures. There is simply no way to reform Hinduism to remove caste. I am sure as awareness of this spreads among our people they will begin to reflect and will protest. That is already happening today, although the media prefers to remain silent on it. Conscious Dalits, followers of Navayana Ambedkarite Buddhism, are fighting Hindu spiritual fascism in an open ideological battle.

Q: But is mere conversion enough?

A: It depends on what one means by conversion. Conversion of self-identities and cultures through religious conversion is a major step, but this is must be accompanied by conversion of oppressive social structures through peoples' struggles. Preaching is just part of the process. It also involves living with, empathising with and struggling along with the Dalit-Bahujans for liberation and emancipation from Brahminism.

 

 

Kancha Ilaiah can be contacted on kanchailaiah@yahoo.co.in

'Brahmins do not have right to call themselves Indians'

 

 

 

The Rediff Interview/Dr Kancha Ilaiah

'Brahmins do not have right to call themselves Indians'

http://www.rediff.com/news/2001/jan/17inter.htm

Dr Kancha Ilaiah, associate professor of political science at Hyderabad's Osmania University, is known for his fierce attacks on Hindu religious and political leaders.

In 1996, his first book

"Why I am not a Hindu" was accused of inflaming communal passions. Last month, he published another controversial tract, 'God as a Political Philosopher: Buddha's Challenge to Brahminism.'

Dr Ilaiah, 48, says his tirade against Hinduism stems from the inhuman and humiliating caste-ridden conditions in which he was born and brought up. Born in a backward caste family in Andhra Pradesh's Warangal district, he was lucky to get a university education because of the reservation system.

"I am a product of the post-Independence rural caste whom Brahminical forces wanted to destroy. So I will continue to agitate against Hinduism," he says.

In an interview with Senior Associate Editor

George Iype, he explains why he harbours so much anger against Hinduism.

What is God as a Philosopher: Buddha's Challenge to Brahminism about?

This book deals with the struggles that Buddha carried out against Brahminism in India. In India, there are two streams of religious thought: the dalitbahujan and brahminical streams. In the ancient world, actually at the time of the formation of Brahminism, high caste Brahmins tried to divide society into caste. That was when Buddha was born.

Buddha was basically a non-Aryan and came from a tribal background. He felt the Brahminical restructuring of society was going to destroy the edifice of India. So he began to search for an alternative, both in the philosophical realm and in civil society. My book deals with Buddha's struggles against Brahminism. The book captures the whole argument that Buddha himself developed against the Brahminical order.

Why are you a ferocious critic of Hinduism?

My criticism has grown out of my experiences and convictions in life. The Hindu religion and the Hindutva movement describe all Sudras, Chandalas and Adivasis as Hindus. That is wrong. I come from an Other Backward Class family called the Kurumas. The question is if I am a Hindu, my parents should have known that they were part of a particular religion. But they never knew whether they belonged to the Hindu religion.

Hinduism never initiated me or my people into its religion. We do not wear the threads, we cannot become temple priests, we do not have childhood formations like Brahminical children. Moreover, if I belong to Hinduism, I should share the food habits and ritual symbols of that religion. We do not share them also.

So, in your opinion, OBC Hindus do not believe in Hindu religious texts?

OBC Hindus cannot believe in the religious texts for various reasons. Take Hindu religious texts like the Rig Veda and Bhagwad Gita. According to these books, the Sudras were born from the feet of God and the Brahmins from the head. So if we were born from the feet, how do we go towards the head, which belongs to the Brahmins?

I believe the Hindu religious texts are not divine. They did not come from God. Brahminical forces deliberately wrote these religious texts showing the entire Sudra community as their feet boys. This is a very dehumanising proposition. And the tragedy is there is no way that we, the lower caste people, can escape from the tyranny of the Brahmins.

Do you hate Hinduism?

Yes, I hate Hinduism. Hinduism is not ours, it is against us. If we have to become Hindus, the Brahmins will have to change the entire religious texts, our food habits, our gods and goddesses and images. I am angry at the Hindu gods.

Why are you angry with Hindu gods?

Look at the images of Hindu gods. They wield weapons. We read that Hindu gods killed our own ancestors. How can I worship the killers as divine? What kind of a religion is it? There are three major religions -- Buddhism, Christianity and Islam. These major religions were constructed by prophets who sacrificed and struggled in life for people's liberation. All these three religions never said that the larger sections of their people were born from the feet of God.

So you do not consider Hinduism a religion?

Is Hinduism a religion of the stature of Buddhism, Islam and Christianity? In my view, Hinduism is not a religion. It is a cult of worshipping certain violent figures. A religion never worships a violent figure. Religion is a very enlightened social force. Religion is a very civilised thing that came into existence. Religion establishes certain agreements and covenants.

Hinduism does not have any divine covenants. Hinduism is a cult of Brahmins, Baniyas and Kshatriyas worshipping violent gods. This cult was constructed against the Sudras, Chandalas and Adivasis.

If it is not a cult, but a religion, it should have at least a holy book that gives all people equal rights. Does the Bhagwad Gita give equal rights? In the Bhagwad Gita, God says I have created four Varnas and the Sudra, Chandalas and Adivasis were created to serve the Brahmins. If that is the statement of a God, then I do not consider Hinduism a religion.

What is your advice to Hindu religious leaders?

I am asking Hindutva forces to liberate the OBCs, SCs, and STs from inhuman conditions. They do not have any religious rights. We can be given religious rights only if Hinduism is reformed.

Do you think India cannot be modernised if Hinduism is not reformed?

If India has to become a modern nation, it has to Dalitise itself. It has to discover its villages where 80 per cent of Indians, the SCs, STs, and OBCs, live. It has to establish an egalitarian relationship between Brahmins and the lower castes.

What should Hindu religious leaders do to create such an egalitarian relationship?

To begin with, they should sit down with the Sudras to rewrite a true Hindu religious holy book. It should be an egalitarian, spiritual democratic book written by the people's covenants. But again, for that, I think we the Sudras should be allowed to initiate the writing. Because we do not trust the Shankaracharyas and other religious leaders. We do not trust the Brahmin leaders. We cannot trust the sadhus and sanyasis who are going naked at the Kumbh Mela. Can we take those people who walk naked as spiritually advanced people?

All these Brahmins in the name of the Kumbh Mela are walking naked before the nation. I am terrified seeing the naked sadhus taking out processions. The sight is inhuman. Is it an enlightened religion? It is these VHP leaders and sadhus who are parading naked who want to take a decision whether the Ram Mandir should be built at the Babri mosque site. This is the greatest tragedy of India.

If you are against everything in Hinduism, how would do you describe the religion?

Hinduism is basically a spiritual fascist cult. It does not give rights to the lower castes. If the Brahmins want us to become Hindus, they should respect our food, culture and language. Why do Hindu leaders say only vegetarianism is divine? Why do Hindu leaders say prayers should be only in Sanskrit? Why can't I pray in Telugu?

Hindutva leader Human Resource Development Minister Murli Manohar Joshi is spending Rs 200 crore to establish Sanskrit schools across the country. Whom will he teach Sanskrit?

Let me tell you the statistics. Nearly 90 per cent of Brahmin students in the country are in English medium convent schools. They are sending their children to Christian schools and at the same time attacking Christian missionaries. Why should low caste Hindus learn Sanskrit? Having mastered Sanskrit, do we get the rights to control temples?

What then are your struggles for?

Our struggle is to have our own religious rights. When we are not Hindus, don't we have the right to embrace any other religions that gives equality? Why are the Brahmins attacking Christianity and Islam? Because there is a possibility that during this era of globalisation, global religions like Christianity and Islam can firmly establish themselves in India. For spirituality and religion, there are no borders.

If tomorrow, Hinduism gets established in Europe, will anybody stop it? So when Christianity and Islam are here, why are the Brahmins objecting? Because they fear that the Sudras, Chandalas and Adivasis may get empowered with the new English education that the Christians are giving to our people. That is why they are attacking Christians these days.

This is the grotesque conspiracy that Brahminical forces sitting and ruling us from Delhi under Atal Bihari Vajpayee, L K Advani and Arun Shourie have.

Do you think the Dalit movement in India is united to to take on the Brahminical forces?

We are fighting for equal rights. We are united. I have shown that in my book. Buddha started the struggle against Brahmins. We are continuing it. Now we are talking about our own liberation. The problem is that the Hindutva forces are in collusion with all temple priests, the Shankaracharyas; the VHP and RSS leaders are giving money to SCs and STs to work as full timers. I am now making a case for a global debate between the Sudras and Brahmins. I think Brahmins do not have the right to call themselves Indians.

Why?

Brahmins are basically Aryans who came from outside. They brought the cow along with them. They were eating the flesh of cows. But they began worshipping the cow as a sacred animal after Buddha took up a campaign saying stop killing animals. Then they said the cow is a sacred animal and it is in the Constitution.

Look at the reality. Eighty per cent of the milk in India comes from buffaloes. Buffaloes are the native Indian animals, but they do not have any rights to be protected in the Constitution. Because the buffalo is a Dravidian animal, whereas the cow is an Aryan animal.

The buffalo is a black animal and we are black people. We low caste people represent the rights of the buffaloes. Cows cannot be sacred and buffaloes cannot be devilish and yet India can become modern. It is not just possible. All Brahmins in India have been consumers in the history of India. They were never the producers. So, this has to be debated.

Are Hindu leaders ready for a debate with you on the points you have raised?

No, they are not ready for a debate. Even the Brahmins in the Communist and liberal parties are not ready for a debate. The people in the press are not ready for a debate. Because all these structures are headed by Brahmins. The question is inconvenient to all of them.

+++

 

 

Title:	God as Political Philosopher : Buddha's Challenge to Brahminism
Author:	Kancha Ilaiah
ISBN:	8185604444 : 9788185604442
Format:	Hardback
Size:	145x215mm
Pages:	244
Weight:	.42 Kg.
Published:	Stree - April 2001
List Price:	36 Pounds Sterling
Availability:	In Print
Subjects:	Oriental & Indian philosophy: Philosophy of religion: Buddhism: Womens studies: India

Ilaiah demystifies Buddha whom he sees as a man and not a god and as India's first social revolutionary. Critical of the caste system, Buddha inducted low caste members into the sangha and made them his trusted advisers. Dissent was given a constructive place. In contrast with contemporary Hindu society, Buddha gave women an honoured place in the sangha. Pre-dating Socrates and Plato by years, Buddha also foreshadowed key elements of their philosophy and propounded theories of the state, the individual, and the role of society with the signal difference that he also put his ideas into practice. But European scholarship sought to deny his relevance as a thinker, while nationalistic Hindu historiography sought to subsume his achievements into a monolithic Hindu past.

__._

.

__,_._,___

 

Speech given by Nathuram Godse in the court when he was tried

 

This is the speech given by Nathuram Godse in the court when he was tried for the murder of Mahatma Gandhi

 

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 were 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 to publicly take part in organized anti-caste dinners in which thousands of Hindus, Brahmins, Kshatriyas, Vaisyas, Chamars and Bhangis 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 whatever Veer 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 single factor has done.

 

All this reading and thinking led me to believe 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 (300 million) of Hindus would automatically constitute the freedom and the well being of all India, one fifth of human race. This conviction led me naturally to devote myself to the Hindu Sanghtanist 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 Lokamanya Tilak, Gandhiji'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 those 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 mere dream if you imagine that 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 a 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 essentially 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 Gobind Singh as misguided patriots, Gandhiji 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 well 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 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 and when to withdraw it. The movement might succeed or fail, it might bring untold disaster and political reverses but that could make no difference to the Mahatma's infallibility. 'A Satyagrahi can never fail' was his formula for declaring his own infallibility and nobody except himself knew what a Satyagrahi is.

 

Thus, the Mahatma became the judge and jury in his own cause. 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 politics 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, disaster after disaster.

 

Gandhi's pro-Muslim policy is blatantly 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 called Hindustani; it has no grammar; it has no vocabulary. It is a mere dialect; it is spoken, but not written. It is a bastard tongue and 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 purity of the Hindi language was 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 the 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 some 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 he was succeeded by Lord Mountbatten. King Log was followed by King Stork.

 

The Congress, which had boasted of its nationalism and socialism, 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 August 15, 1947. Lord Mountbatten came to be described in Congress circles as the greatest Viceroy and Governor-General this country ever had. The official date for handing over 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 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 '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 consider a deity of worship - my mind was filled with direful anger.

 

One of the conditions imposed by Gandhi for his breaking of the fast unto death 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 for its break some condition on the Muslims in Pakistan, there 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 condition on the Muslims. He was fully aware of from the 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 had failed his paternal duty inasmuch as 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 and his doctrine of non-violence of which so much is made of, all crumbled before Jinnah's iron will and proved to be powerless.

 

Briefly speaking, I thought to myself and foresaw 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 felt that the Indian politics in the absence of Gandhiji would surely be proved practical, able to retaliate, and would be powerful with 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 and 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 to be 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 of 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 preachings and deeds are at times at variances 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 establishment of 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 else 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 some day in future.

 

NATHURAM GODSE