The Hans India: Hyderabad: Tuesday,
March 14, 2017.
RTI requests
regarding information about prosecution and punishment of accused in
assassination of Gandhi have raised various points:
a) There is no comprehensive record of Gandhi files compiled
at one place on the assassination of Gandhi;
b) There is no response to the question about two important
records as alleged by the appellant; and
c) The National Archives of India is not having all files on
Gandhi Assassination with them, and they cannot say anything about it as they
are merely recipients of records given by others.
The
Information Commissioner visited the National Archives of India, where a
section exclusively was arranged for Bapu, with all documents and books on
Gandhi. It also has more than 11,000 pages of Mahatma Gandhi Murder Trial
records from FIR registered at Tughlak Road Police Station, New Delhi, to the
final judgement in East Punjab High Court at Shimla. As the records are old
enough and difficult to be handled, the NAI has rightly digitised it and made
accessible to them in CD form.
The
assassination-related issues were discussed in Constituent Assembly and also in
Parliament, a decade after assassination. From the Constituent Assembly of
India, following statements were quoted:
“Is it true
that on the day of the bomb blast during the search of the room at Marina Hotel
clothes were found bearing the initials N.V.G. (Nathuram Vinayak Godse) on the
basis of which the police went to Bombay and requested the Bombay police to
look for this person, the Bombay police assured the Delhi police to do the
needful and asked them to return, but did nothing. Is it true that the Bombay
Police failed in tracing Nathuram Vinayak Godse? Balkrishna Sharma, during
the debate on murder of Mahatma Gandhi in the Constituent Assembly of India.
To comment on
matters under investigation is both difficult and unwarranted. I can only say
that after the arrest and interrogation of the bomber, an officer of Delhi
police went to Bombay and briefed the C.I.D. in Bombay. After the briefing, it
was decided that some people should be arrested but to arrest them immediately
would lead to the other conspirators going underground.
So the Delhi
police and Bombay C.I.D. decided to defer the arrests for some time to enable
them to uncover the conspiracy and all who were involved in it. It is true that
the police were on a look out for them but all of them were not in Bombay, Sardar
Patel, during the debate on murder of Mahatma Gandhi in the Constituent
Assembly of India.”
Parliament
was agitated about this incident and the then Home Minister Guljari Lal Nanda
responded to the feelings of the members of Rajya Sabha. This discussion led to
appointment of Justice Jivanlal Kapur Commission of Inquiry into the conspiracy
to assassinate Mahatma Gandhi.
Author Jagdishchandra
Jain, in his book ‘Gandhi, the forgotten Mahatma,’ summarised the work of JL
Kapur as follows:
“Justice
Jivanlal Kapur was appointed as a one-man Commission to conduct inquiry into
the conspiracy to murder Gandhi on November 21, 1966 and was completed on
September 30, 1969. It examined 101 witnesses, 407 documents were produced, by
witnesses, and the governments of India and Maharashtra.
It had 162
sittings and traveled to Mumbai, Delhi, Nagpur, Dharwad, Pune, Baroda and
Chandigarh. Counsels for Governments of Maharashtra and India were R. S. Kotwal
and B. B. Lal respectively, they argued their cases for 37 and 13 days
respectively. G. V. Ketkar was the first witness to be examined. J. D.
Nagarwala and Morarji Desai were the key witnesses who were examined for 15 and
7 days respectively. J. D. Nagarwala was the Deputy Commissioner of Police who
was appointed as investigating officer on the murder case and Morarji Desai the
Chief Minister of the then Bombay State. (Jain, Jagdishchandra (1987). Gandhi
the forgotten Mahatma. New Delhi: Mittal Publications. ISBN 81-7099-037-8.)”
Historian A G
Noorani wrote that the Kapur Commission was provided with evidence not produced
in the court; especially the testimony of two of Savarkar's close aides - Appa
Ramachandra Kasar, his bodyguard, and Gajanan Vishnu Damle, his secretary. The
court had earlier exonerated Savarkar for want of corroborative evidence in
support of the approver’s confession.
However,
Justice Kapur's findings are all too clear. He concluded: "All these facts
taken together were destructive of any theory other than the conspiracy to
murder by Savarkar and his group” (Noorani, A. G. (March 15–28, 2003).
"Savarkar and Gandhi". The Hindu).
Quoting
Noorani, A G (15–28 March 2003). "Savarkar and Gandhi". FrontLine.
(The Hindu) and Rajesh Ramchandran The Mastermind? Outlook Magazine 6 September
2004, it was explained: “Kapur commission also examined Savarkar's role in the
assassination. Godse had claimed full responsibility for planning and carrying
out the attack, in absence of an independent corroboration of the prosecution
witness Digambar Badge's evidence implicating Savarkar directly, the court
exonerated him citing insufficient evidence.
According to
Badge, on 17 January 1948, Nathuram Godse went to have a last darshan of
Savarkar in Bombay before the assassination. While Badge and Shankar waited
outside, Nathuram and Apte went in. On coming out Apte told Badge that Savarkar
blessed them “Yashasvi houn ya” (“यशस्वी
होऊन या”) return victorious). Apte also said that
Savarkar predicted that Gandhiji's 100 years were over and there was no doubt
that the task would be successfully finished. However, Badge’s testimony was
not accepted as it lacked independent corroboration.
This was
later corroborated by the testimony of two of Savarkar's close aides Appa
Ramachandra Kasar, his bodyguard, and Gajanan Vishnu Damle, his secretary who
had not testified in the original trial but later testified before the Justice
Kapur Commission set up in 1965. Kasar told the Kapur Commission that they
visited him on or about 23 or 24 January, which was when they returned from
Delhi after the bomb incident. Damle deposed that Godse and Apte saw Savarkar
in the middle of January and sat with him (Savarkar) in his garden. Justice
Kapur concluded: "All these facts taken together were destructive of any
theory other than the conspiracy to murder by Savarkar and his group."
Supreme Court
Advocate Anil Nauriya wrote in his article in the Hindu, on September 18, 2004:
“The Trial Court Record and the Kapur Commission of the Sixties indicate also
that the Government had additional material. Morarji Desai, then Bombay's Home
Minister, was asked in the trial by Savarkar's lawyer about his reasons for
directing "a close watch on Savarkar's house and his movements" after
the bomb incident 10 days before the murder.
Desai
countered: "Shall I give my reasons? It is for Savarkar to decide whether
I should answer. I am prepared to give my reasons." Upon this, Savarkar's
lawyer said: "I withdraw my question". [See J.C. Jain, The Murder of
Mahatma Gandhi: Prelude and Aftermath, Chetana Ltd, Bombay, 1961, p. 104].
Savarkar personally gave an assurance to the Police Commissioner of Bombay on
February 22, 1948 of non-participation in politics if "released on that
condition." [For text see K.L. Gauba, Assassination of Mahatma Gandhi,
Jaico, Bombay, 1969, pp 208-9]
http://www.thehindu.com/
2004/09/18/stories/2004091803791000.htm “
Union
government has a duty under Section 4 of the RTI Act to explain these questions
about the conspiracy angle in Gandhi’s murder conspiracy before it, earlier
attempts on his life, absconding accused, acquittal of some accused, lapses in
security, lack of further investigation etc. The people have a right to know
this. Like Netaji files, the Gandhi
files also need to be disclosed.
Unfortunately, there is no official compilation record at one place
about his death. If the Ministry of Home Affairs could trace the entire record
of JL Kapur Commission’s hearings and depositions, documents, and file notings
on the same, it will enrich collection.
All this
information should be placed in public domain to facilitate research or answer
curiosity of the generations to come. The people of present and future ages
should have liberty of thought based on entire factual information/documents on
this national tragedy of assassination of Mahatma Gandhi, and enough freedom to
formulate their own opinion on his life and achievement. (Based on the CIC
decision in CIC/SH/A/2016/001055, Hemanta Panda v. PIO, M/o Culture, dated
16.2.2017)