An Examination of the Partition of India and the Ultimately Fateful Killing of Gandhi

India’s partition in 1947 remains one of the most profound and perhaps contentious events in its history. This piece explores why Vinayak Damodar Godse chose to assassinate Gandhi instead of Jinnah, providing a broader context to understand the motivations and dynamics behind this historical event.

The Role of Gandhi and Jinnah in Partition

Prior to the partition, both Mahatma Gandhi and Mawlana Muhammed Ali Jinnah played pivotal roles in Indian history, each with their own motivations and objectives. While Gandhi is often celebrated for his non-violence and spiritual leadership, Mark Twain famously said, "Mahatma Gandhi, in the silent lips of tortured, starving India, we read 'Murder!'” This perspective challenges the widespread belief and highlights the complexities of Gandhi's stance on partition.

Why Did Godse Overlook Jinnah?

There are several reasons why Vinayak Damodar Godse chose to assassinate Gandhi in 1948 rather than Mawlana Jinnah, who was the leader of the All-India Muslim League and actively advocating for partition. Below, we address three primary reasons for this decision.

1. Gandhi's Power and Influence

Godse recognized Gandhi's considerable influence over not only the Indian National Congress but also the broader political ecosystem. Gandhi’s ability to sway opinion and policy made him a potent figure in the lead-up to the partition. Even when he verbally opposed partition, his actions suggested otherwise. Gandhi's statement, “partition will happen on my dead body,” was not merely camouflaged but outright insidious, as seen in his support for the British plan for partition and his silence on the 1941 census boycotted by Hindus but not Muslims.

2. The British Exodus and Partition

By 1948, the British empire was in decline, and the demand for independence had reached a crescendo. The terms of independence, particularly the issue of partition, had significant implications that activists and ideologues of the era grappled with. While Gandhi supported partition due to his desire for Muslim appeasement and his role in the Congress, Jinnah had a more straightforward approach. The British had already announced they would leave India, and the choice was between an instantly independent, potentially partitioned India or a delayed independence with uncertain outcomes. Godse, an ardent patriot, viewed Gandhi’s influence as a hindrance to achieving an undivided India, whereas Jinnah’s advocacy for Pakistan was a clear and direct path toward partition.

3. Ideological and Emotional Factors

Godse's intent was driven by a deep-seated conviction that Gandhi was a "demon" who had led India to a disastrous partition. To Godse, Gandhi was not an unarmed man of peace but a strategic puppet who manipulated the political landscape for his own ends. This perception was reinforced by Gandhi’s statements that Muslims could overcome and rule all Hindus, and his support for the British partition plan. Therefore, Godse saw it as his duty, for the sake of India, to eliminate Gandhi, just as Ram (an avatar of Krishna in the Hindu texts) was portrayed as having killed the demon Ravana.

Misplaced Questions about the Assassination

Many have posed three questions in relation to the assassination: Why didn’t Godse target Nehru, why didn’t he target any British national before independence, and why didn’t he target Jinnah. Here are the answers to these questions:

1. Raychand Bhagat’s Influence and Nehru’s Position

Nehru was indeed a better choice in many ways, but Gandhi was in a unique position to influence the Congress and the broader political environment, something Nehru could not do. Gandhi often went against popular opinion to prop up a wrong narrative (like promoting Muslim appeasement), and his stature was so dominant that he overshadowed Nehru in the eyes of many Indians. Moreover, Gandhi’s decisions often affected the trajectory of Indian independence, and his actions in the lead-up to partition were seen as ambiguously manipulative, as evidenced by his participation in the British partition plan.

2. Post-1935 Scenario

After the 1935 Government of India Act, the British were on the brink of a total withdrawal, and the focus shifted entirely to the terms of withdrawal. By 1948, the choice was clear: partition or no partition. The debate on armed revolt against the British had effectively ceased by then, and the concept of armed revolution had become obsolete, as seen in the actions of Netaji Subhas Chandra Bose and his Azad Hind Fauj. Godse, a fervent nationalist, believed that Gandhi’s influence was the primary obstacle to an undivided India.

3. The Role of Congress and Muslim League

Both the Indian National Congress and the Muslim League were complicit in the partition process. Congress, under Gandhi’s influence, had undermined the unity of Hindus by refusing to participate in the 1941 Census, thereby aiding in the mislabeling of majority areas as Muslim-majority. Additionally, Jinnah’s demand for Pakistan was facilitated by Gandhi’s own actions, such as his support for the British partition plan and his collaboration with the British in the Quit India Movement, which was labeled a “Split India Movement.” Fundraising efforts under Gandhi’s name were also misused for the Pakistan cause, and the public support of Muslims was evident in Gandhi and Rajaji's efforts to appease them.

In conclusion, the assassination of Gandhi by Vinayak Damodar Godse was a complex act that was deeply rooted in the broader political and historical context of India’s struggle for independence. While Gandhi is often lauded as a great leader, this piece offers a different perspective, highlighting the broader implications of his actions and the ultimate fateful decision to kill a man seen as a demon in the eyes of his assassin.