Lets Kill Gandhi

by Gandhi, Tushar A.

  SVP: As far as the issue pertaining to the current matter, the concerned person was of a different category and in his case it was impossible for the police to act without seeking his advice.

  RKC: But in the wake of the incident will the Hon. minister ensure and institute procedures so that in the matter of security arrangements the police will be solely responsible?

  Speaker: Quiet, silence. Member, you have started arguing.

  RKC: I am only suggesting that in future all security decisions should be left to the discretion and ability of the police without interference.

  Speaker: It is clear that this will largely depend on the concerned person.

  BS: The Hon. home minister in person has informed the august house that in the matter of the security of our ministers their concerns and wishes are taken into consideration. I would like to appeal that some of our ministers are such that their consent and wishes should not be considered, because....

  Speaker: This is not a question nor an effort to get at the truth, you are being argumentative.

  RKC: Sir, can I ask how did it transpire that Raghu Mali was the first person to catch the murderer? He grappled with the killer and brought him down. The police only reached the spot after some time. Where was the police at that time?

  SVP: I cannot say whether the police reached first or the gardener. These are all unsubstantiated newspaper reports.

  ★

  After the murder there was a spate of arrests all over the Union. Many versions were published by the media, further compounding the confusion. This led to many reprisals against those who were alleged to be involved and a potentially explosive situation developed. This forced many provincial governments from banning the publication of any news concerned with the murder investigation. Under the guise of avenging the murder, gangs vandalised and murdered a few Brahmins in Bombay state and in the princely state of Kolhapur. Patel went on to issue a public appeal: 'In this moment of tragedy if we succumb to the feeling of revenge and counter violence we will fail to be worthy of Gandhiji. I assure the people that the Government will take severe action against people indulging in such activities.... It is only proper for the people to leave the responsibility of investigation on the Government.... I appeal to all the people to maintain clam and remain steadfast and soon return to their work and profession. They must allow the law to do its duty and not do acts of counter violence'.

  The trial of the accused was the third trial to be held at the Red Fort in Delhi, the seat of the Mughal emperors constructed by Emperor Shahjahan in the seventeenth century on the banks of the Yamuna. A few hundred yards ahead, Gandhi's mortal remains had been consigned to flames at Raj Ghat. The structure in which the court was to sit had been built by the British to house its soldiers. In an adjoining barrack in the fort, the trial of the Indian National Army officers had been conducted two years previously. The first trial had been of the last Mughal emperor, Bahadur Shah 'Zafar', the poet, after the first war of independence in 1857.

  A couple of months had passed since the murder and there was widespread speculation. Finally, during the second week of April 1948 news came that the district and circuit judge of Kanpur, Atmacharan ICS, would hear the case. Unconfirmed reports from Delhi suggested that it would begin in May and would be conducted in a special court. Since there was no confirmation from the government on these speculative reports, rumours were flying thick and fast. The Hindu extremist core was hoping that the trial would not begin soon. They needed time to formulate a defence strategy. But as soon as the possibility of an early trial began to gain credence they instituted a 'defence fund' which was to meet the cost of hiring the best defence team for the accused and meet the financial needs of the dependants of the accused. Donations were collected by all the Hindu Mahasabha and RSS members from their supporters and sympathisers. The Bengal Hindu Mahasabha took the lead in this activity.

  On 8 May 1948 the government published a notification no. 54/1/48—Political, Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs, dated 4 May 1948, under Section 10 and 11 of the Bombay Public Security Measures Act, 1947 as extended to the Province of Delhi and the case was made over to the court for trial under Notification No. 54/1/48—Political, Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs, dated 13 May 1948. A building in a specially designated area in the Red Fort was declared a prison, under Notification No. 54/6/48—Political, Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs, dated 15 May 1948.

  The delay occurred because the prosecution were unable to decide whether they wanted to try Savarkar along with Godse and the others, or separately. Eventually, all the accused were tried together. It was also decided to extend Sections 10 and 11 of the Bombay Public Security Measures Act, 1947 to the provinces of Delhi, to facilitate a speedy trial. This empowered the presiding judge to skip the noting of detailed statements of the witnesses and similar time consuming procedures. However, this decision attracted a fair amount of criticism as some felt that a 'constitution bench' comprising more than one judge would have been more fitting. On 15 May 1948 the Union Government of India published a special gazette and proclaimed that the nine accused in the Gandhi murder case would be tried on behalf of the Government of India under Sections 109, 114, 115, 120B and 302 of the Indian Penal Code; Sections 3, 4, 5 and 6 of the Explosive Substances Act of 1908 and under Sections 19(D) and 19(F) of the Arms Act of 1878.

  The nine accused to be tried were:

  1) Nathuram Vinayak Godse: Hindu, 37, Editor, Hindu Rashtra, Shaniwar Peth, Poona.

  2) Narayan Dattatreya Apte: Hindu, 34, Director, H.R. Prakashan Ltd., 22, Budhwar Peth, Poona.

  3) Vishnu Ramkrishna Karkare: Hindu, 37, Proprietor, L.&B. House, Pardeshi Aali, Ahmednagar.

  4) Digambar Ramchandra Badge (Approver): Hindu, 39, Proprietor, Shastra Bhandar, 300, Narayan Peth, Poona.

  5) Madanlal Kashmirilal Pahwa: Hindu, 20, (Punjabi Refugee), Visapur Refugee Camp, Ahmednagar.

  6) Shankar Kistayya: Hindu, 20, Domestic Servant (Yellamma Peth, Sholapur) 300, Narayan Peth, Poona.

  7) Gopal Vinayak Godse: Hindu, 27, Store-Keeper, M.T.S.S. Depot, Kirkee, Poona.

  8) Vinayak Damodar Savarkar: Hindu, 65, Landlord, Savarkar Sadan, Shivaji Park Road, Bombay.

  9) Dattatreya Sadashiv Parchure: Hindu, 40, Medical Practitioner, Station Road, Gwalior.

  Three more accused, from Gujarat, were named absconders:

  10) Gangadhar Sakharam Dandavate

  11) Gangadhar Jadhav

  12) Suryadev Sharma and others.

  THE CHARGE SHEET

  The following separate categories of charges were framed against theeight accused:

  a) Nathuram Vinayak Godse, Narayan D. Apte, Vishnu Ramkrishna Karkare, Madanlal K. Pahwa, Shankar Kistayya, Gopal V Godse, Vinayak Damodar Savarkar and Dattatreya S. Parchure were charged under Section 120-B.I.P.C. (conspiracy) read with Section 302 I.P.C. 9 murder).

  b) Nathuram V. Godse, Narayan Apte, Karkare, Madanlal, Shankar Kistayya and Gopal Godse were also charged under Section 19(D), Indian Arms Act, and Section 19(D), Indian Arms Act read with Section 109 and 114 I.P.C., Section 19(F), Indian Arms Act, and Section 19(F) Indian Arms Act read with Section 114 I.P.C., 4(B), Explosive Substances Act, read with Section 6 of the said Act; Section 5 of the Explosive Substances Act; and Section 5 of the Explosive Substances Act read with Section 6 of the said Act.

  c) Madanlal was separately charged under Section 3 of the Explosive Substances Act. Nathuram Godse, Apte, Karkare, Shankar Kistayya and Gopal Godse were also charged under Section 3 of the Explosive Substances Act, read with Section 6 of the said Act.

  d) Nathuram Godse, Apte, Karkare, Madanlal, Shankar Kistayya, Gopal Godse and V.D. Savarkar were further charged under Section 115 I.P.C. read with Section 302 I.P.C.

  e) Nathuram Godse and Apte were also charged under Section 19(C) of the Indian Arms Act.

  f) Nathuram Godse, Apte and Dattatreya Parchure were further charged under Section 19(C) of the Indian Arms Act, read with Section
114 I.PC.

  g) Nathuram Godse was separately charged under Section 19(F) of the Indian Arms Act.

  h) Apte and Karkare were charged under Section 19(F) of the Indian Arms Act, read with Section 114 I.PC.

  i) Apte and Karkare were further charged Section 302 I.P.C. for the murder of Gandhi.

  j) Apte and Karkare were further charged under Section 302 I.P.C. (murder), read with Section 114 I.P.C. (abetment by presence).

  k) Madanlal, Shankar Kistayya, Gopal Godse, Vinayak Savarkar and Dattatreya Parchure were also charged under Section 302 I.P.C., read with Section 109 I.P.C.

  In the spirit of conducting a fair trial, the accused were also offered legal aid. The Union government provided them with all facilities. Savarkar sent a personal plea to senior advocate L.B. Bhopatkar, requesting him to take up his defence. Savarkar said he trusted Bhopatkar explicitly and would feel he was in safe hands. Bhopatkar could not refuse the plea of an old friend and agreed to personally appear for Savarkar. Being the senior-most advocate of the defence team, he was chosen to head the team of advocates defending the various accused. The Working Committee of the Maharashtra region Hindu Mahasabha formed a Legal Aid Committee and instituted a legal aid fund. The Defence Committee was headed by Bhopatkar, with Rambhau Mandalik as convenor and G.V. Ketkar as treasurer. The committee began work on 2 May 1948. On 6 June it met once again in Poona and an All India Defence Committee was formed with twelve members. The committee requested Dr. Jayakar to defend Savarkar, but the former refused. The Defence Committee also appealed to the Bombay provincial government to pardon or parole Advocate Vasudev Balwant Gogate who was imprisoned in the Yervada Jail as Karkare had requested for him. The provincial government turned down the request.

  The Defence Committee formed two sub-committees which were entrusted with the work of making arrangements for the transportation and accommodation needs of the defence counsels. The members comprised Joglekar of Chalisgaon, Babarao Kale andV.K. Mahendale of Barsi.

  The following is a list of members of the All India Defence Committee:

  1) L.B. Bhopatkar, President

  2) Lala Narayan Dutt, Treasurer, 13 Barakhamba Road, New Delhi

  3) G.V Ketkar (Tilak's grandson), Treasurer, Kesari Office, Poona

  4) Rambhau Mandalik, Convenor

  5) Jamunadas Mehta

  6) Devendrakumar Mukherjee

  7) Captain Keshavchandra

  8) Panchanathan

  9) Ganapati Aiyer

  10) Lakshmishankar Verma

  11)Dr. L.B. Paranjape, Nagpur

  12)R.A. Kanitkar, Buldhana

  Preparations for the trial began in earnest. The historic Red Fort was once again the focus of attention of the entire world. A room measuring a hundred feet by twenty-three feet on the top floor of a twin wing, stone building was selected to house the special court. The building had previously served as the principal camp of the British Military Police. An eight feet high barbed wire fence was erected surrounding the building. Two manned gates served as entry and exit points to the building. Barracks were built close by to house the accused. Reinforced iron doors and window grills were brought from the Delhi Central Jail and installed in the doors and windows of the cells. A raised wooden platform served as the seat of the judge and the court's reporter. Three wooden benches placed on the right side of the room constituted the dock, for the accused. The witness stand was to the left. Two hundred chairs were placed in the room to accommodate press reporters and special pass holders, who wished to watch the proceedings. Chambers were provided in rooms along the corridors on both sides of the courtroom. The judge's chambers, court reporter's room, chambers for the defence and prosecution lawyers, police officer's room and a canteen were located here. The pressroom was equipped with two telephones.

  On the ground floor a big hall was reserved for the Bombay Police. Next to it was the room for the female witnesses. The advocate general of Bombay state and his assistants were given an adjoining room. All other police personnel and witnesses were accommodated in a room in the adjoining wing. The court's registrar issued a notification on 19 May, which stated that only those people who held a valid entry pass would be allowed to enter the court premises.

  On 24 May, Godse, Savarkar and the other accused were brought to Delhi from Bombay by different planes, accompanied by a large contingent of the Bombay Police. They were directly driven from the airport to their cells in the Red Fort, which had been converted into a maximum security prison for the duration of the trial.

  The Bombay Public Security Measures Act of 1947, also known as the 'Goonda Act', and some of its sections, which pertained to special courts, were extended to apply to Delhi to ensure a speedy trial. The Act was instituted in 1947 to enable the speedy trial of those accused in the communal riots that had erupted in the Bombay province. The Fifth Part of this act deals with the rules for constituting Special Courts. The sections were:

  Section 10: The government can institute a Special Court in any part of the Union after duly publishing a notification in the Government Gazette.

  Section 11: The government can appoint any high court or any circuit court judge having a minimum of two years' experience, to head such a court.

  Section 12: By issuing Special Orders the government can ask the presiding judge of such special courts to take up special trials.

  Section 13—1-2: Even if the matter has not been referred to the circuit court by lower courts the special court can take up cases assigned to it. the court is permitted to note only pertinent portions of the statements of witnesses. If after consultation with the accused the court decides that a witness is not required to testify, it can refuse to call such a witness. If the presiding judge feels that it is not necessary to the dispensation of justice he can, for any other reasons refuse, to adjourn the proceedings of the case.

  Section 14: Apart from these two sub sections and those covered by the sections from 10 to 20 any other Penal Codes that are not contrary will be applicable to the special court. The court will be recognised as a circuit court. If the presiding judge so wishes, the statement of any witness will be recorded by a single person commission.

  Section 15: Anyone accused of attempted murder may be sentenced to death by hanging and those accused of murder by stabbing may be sentenced to death by hanging or life imprisonment.

  Section 17: The special judge is empowered to award any punishment prescribed by the law. In case of a fine being imposed the court may issue warrants to impound, confiscate and sell any/all movable immovable assets of the accused to raise the fine.

  Section 18: A person sentenced by the special court may appeal to a higher court within fifteen days. In dealing with such appeals the high court can ask for any/all documents pertaining to the trial and will have privileges of other appeal courts, but no court will have any powers to transfer the case from this special court to any other circuit court or to pass orders affecting the work of this special court. No court will be able to interfere in whatever way with the working of this special court.

  Section 20: No jury or assessor will be appointed for the case before this special court.

  By passing an ordinance the government introduced some amendments to the Bombay Public Security Measures Act. The amendment empowered the special judge, hearing the trial before the special court, to grant a conditional pardon to any person directly or indirectly involved with the case and record their statements. The condition was that such a person would confess to everything he or she knew about the conspiracy and about those who were involved in it.

  THE FIRST THREE PRELIMINARY HEARINGS

  Finally, four months after Gandhi's murder, legal proceedings in the much awaited trial began on 27 May. The first three hearings on 27 May, 3 June and 14 June 1948, dealt with preliminary procedures.

  The first day's proceedings did not reflect the kind of atmosphere, reverence, decorum and importance one would have expected in such a high-profile case. The loudspeaker system installed in t
he court for the benefit of the visitors and press was so bad that on the first day the reporters were reduced to mere spectators; no one could hear what was being said either by the judge or by the lawyers. The proceedings were being conducted in a very informal manner. At one time, ten to twelve lawyers from both sides crowded around Judge Atmacharan and began speaking all at once. Since the courtroom was longish, twenty-four feet wide and a hundred feet long, it looked more like a passageway. It became impossible for those who were positioned at the extreme end of the court to comprehend the proceedings.

  On a request, Judge Atmacharan allowed the photographers to take photographs of the court as well as of the accused. A movie camera used during the proceedings shows some of the accused chatting and smiling among themselves, a very tense, gloomy and frail Savarkar and the murderer Nathuram Godse with a very somber expression on his face. Apte and the others merrily posed for the photographers. Photographs of the first day were widely published all over India and abroad. Photographing the accused and publishing their photographs in the press could have jeopardised the identification proceedings, but this did not seem to concern anyone.

  The continuous movements of drinking water servers compounded the chaos. With earthen pots balanced on their heads and metal glasses in hand, the servers constantly moved around the courtroom, serving the thirsty. The May heat was also adding to the 'heat' of the case being heard. But the trial did not seem to arouse the curiosity of the people of India, who had thronged to Gandhi's funeral in their millions just a few months back. On the first day, apart from about a hundred members of the fifth estate, there were almost no members of the general public in the courtroom. No commoners or VIPs, not a single 'political heir' of Gandhi, nor any 'Gandhians', seemed to be concerned about the proceedings. The surroundings of the Red Fort were also deserted, apart from the cordon thrown around the entry and exit points by 250-300 uniformed police and plainclothes policemen.