30th January 1948 evening, Birla Bhavan, Delhi saw an irony being realized. The apostle of peace and non-violence was brought down by violence. 22 months after the assassination pens were broken for two of the convicts while third of them got life imprisonment. But, all this must have preceded by a series of events that brought the outcome.
The worst thing with history is that very often, it is biased to one or the other side and this case is no exception. Peeping into the controversial part of the history is a although a daunting task but becomes obligatory for an illumination.
The incident on the penultimate evening of that January was not the first attempt on Mahatma Gandhi's life. The period between 1934 and 1948 saw 5 such attempts, last of which was a success. More socking is the fact that the last three involved the same person.
The reasons speculated by the people, politicians, convicts and historian amass from all the possible corners. Some call the assassinators religious fanatics (Who was an intellectual and scholar), they call themselves patriots or revolutionaries and so on. Was it just about these handful convicts or some multidimensional conspiracy? Why did the trial of the convicts were kept secret for a long time? Did the over stature of Mahatma Gandhi in subcontinent politics, play a role? Hard to reach a conclusion, different opinions- different theory.
The reasons that come up from different sources are the partition of the country, the 550 million episode and so on. Is there something more that all this. If its about 550 million what about at least two of the early attempts. If it is about partition of India, how far was Mahatma gandhi responsible for it?
Politics behaves like a blackbox model; no one knows how it worked, only the outcome pops up. The partition, as known, was always opposed by Mahatma gandhi (“My whole soul rebels against the idea that Hinduism and Islam represent two antagonistic cultures and doctrines. To assent to such a doctrine is for me a denial of God.”). It will not be so obvious to deny a third tussle in progress among the men in power at that time, fueled by their personal ambitions. Mahatma Gandhi had to accept it when it became inevitable.
Thinking about the 550 million issue might have created anger in Godse's mind, but here Pandit Nehru's point of view was Pakistan may use the money against India whereas, Mahatma Gandhi's logic might have considered a less harmful Pakistan when it is financially stable. And even if this was a reason, what about the earlier attempts?
Accusing Mahatma Gandhi for misuse of his repute and stature is although hard to accept, but if true, can anyone consider it fair for a nationalist assuming himself to be above the nation? I wish I could hear the complete trial using a time machine, to get closer to the truth.
As of now I am not in a position to draw some acceptable conclusion. As I said History is biased, politics is blackbox and finally we love to live in ignorance and illusions created by it around us which, sometimes brings peace and stability.
Paurush Praveen Sinha
