Back
Nathuram Godse Was Active RSS Member, Savarkar's Grandnephew Tells Pune Court in Gandhi
In a striking turn during the ongoing against Congress leader Rahul Gandhi, the —Vinayak Damodar Savarkar's grandnephew Satyaki Savarkar—admitted that Nathuram Godse and his brother Gopal Godse were active members of the . The , made on before Special Judge Amol Shriram Shinde at the in Pune, has injected a fresh layer of historical and political complexity into a case that already sits at the intersection of speech, reputation, and legacy.
The case stems from a filed by Satyaki Savarkar in , alleging that Rahul Gandhi, during a speech in London on , falsely claimed that Savarkar wrote a book describing an incident where he assaulted a Muslim person. The argues that the statement was knowingly false and malicious, aimed at damaging Savarkar's reputation and causing mental agony to his family. The trial has now entered the phase, with Gandhi's counsel, , aggressively probing the familial and ideological links between the Savarkar and Godse families.
Family Ties and the Assassination of Mahatma Gandhi
During the , Satyaki confirmed that his mother, Himani Savarkar, is the daughter of Gopal Godse, making Gopal Godse his maternal grandfather. He further acknowledged that Gopal and Nathuram Godse were real brothers, and that the Savarkar and Godse families were related. This genealogical connection placed the squarely within the orbit of Mahatma Gandhi's assassination conspiracy.
Satyaki told the court:
"It is true to say that my maternal grandfather Gopalrao Godse and Vinayak Savarkar were
in the said murder case. It is true to say that my grand uncle Nathuram Godse shot and killed Mahatma Gandhi while he was proceeding to Birla House, Delhi, for prayer."
He then volunteered additional commentary, stating that after the shooting, Gandhi lay unattended for about 20 minutes and was not taken to a nearby hospital, which he described as
"the apathy of the Government at that time towards Gandhiji."
The also recited the full list of eight in the Gandhi assassination case: Nathuram Godse ( No. 1), Narayan Apte ( No. 2), Vishnu Karkare ( No. 3), Madanlal Pahava ( No. 4), Shankar Kistayya ( No. 5), Gopal Godse ( No. 6), Vinayak Damodar Savarkar ( No. 7), and Dr. D.S. Parchure ( No. 8). He confirmed that Nathuram Godse and Narayan Apte were , while Gopal Godse was and later moved to Pune, where he lived for 35 years, writing articles and books.
The on RSS Membership
Perhaps the most significant revelation came when Pawar asked Satyaki about the political affiliations of the Godse brothers. The
unequivocally stated:
"It is true to say that, my grandfather Gopal Godse and Nathuram Godse were active members of Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh."
This statement contradicts the long-standing position of the RSS, which has maintained that Nathuram Godse had left the organization well before the assassination. The Sangh, the ideological parent of the ruling
, has historically distanced itself from the Godse brothers.
However, when asked whether he knew that Gopal Godse had given an interview to a monthly magazine on , or that Nathuram Godse had worked as an "Intellectual Executive" in , Satyaki replied that he did not know. He also denied knowledge of whether RSS's second chief, Madhav Sadashiv Golwalkar, and Digambar Badage were made in the case, or that Badage was arrested from Pune on , and later tendered a . But he did confirm that Nathuram Godse was a member of the political party.
The 's lawyer, , repeatedly objected to these questions, arguing that they were not relevant to the . The court recorded that the would be decided at the time of the .
Application and Security Concerns
In a parallel development, Satyaki filed an application before the court urging it to order Rahul Gandhi to provide a for comparison with the audio recording of the London speech. The application argues that the is being conducted in a "" manner, causing unnecessary delay. It also highlights a seeming inconsistency: while Gandhi had earlier sought exemption from physical appearance in Pune on security grounds—citing the city as Nathuram Godse's hometown—the Leader of Opposition was scheduled to address a public gathering in Pune on or around .
Gandhi's counsel opposed the application orally, but the court directed him to file a written response and adjourned the matter to , when the will also continue.
Legal Implications and Broader Context
The that Nathuram and Gopal Godse were active RSS members carries significant weight, not only for the but also for the broader political discourse surrounding the RSS's historical role. By having the himself concede this fact , the has managed to introduce a potentially damaging narrative that could undermine the of the defamation claim. After all, if the is closely related to individuals convicted for Gandhi's assassination and who were active in the RSS, his motivation for filing the case—to protect Savarkar's reputation—may be viewed as partisan rather than principled.
However, the of these admissions to the actual remains a contested issue. Savarkar's grandnephew is suing Rahul Gandhi for allegedly claiming that Savarkar wrote about beating a Muslim person. The appears to be using the to paint Satyaki as a biased whose family history and ideological affiliations color his perception of Savarkar's legacy. Whether this tactic will succeed in persuading the court to dismiss the complaint or mitigate damages is uncertain.
From a legal perspective, the case raises important questions about the in defamation trials. The court's decision to allow questions about the Gandhi assassination and RSS membership, despite of irrelevance, suggests that the judge is inclined to give the wide latitude. This is consistent with the principle that should be broad to of the . Yet, the eventual ruling on the will clarify whether such historical facts are "necessary" to determine the truth of the defamatory statement.
Impact on Legal Practice and the Justice System
For legal professionals, this case underscores the strategic importance of in . The has effectively used the opportunity to expose the 's personal and familial connections to the very individuals whose actions are central to the political narrative surrounding Savarkar. This approach may become a template for lawyers defending public figures in politically charged defamation cases.
Additionally, the application highlights the procedural tension between a 's and the need for . The court's eventual decision on the order could set a for similar requests in defamation cases involving recorded speeches.
Conclusion
The against Rahul Gandhi is far from over, but the so far has already yielded remarkable admissions. Satyaki Savarkar's acknowledgment that Nathuram and Gopal Godse were active RSS members, along with the detailed account of the Gandhi assassination, has injected a dose of historical reality into the courtroom. As the continues on , and with the application pending, the case will remain a closely watched example of how the law navigates the intersection of reputation, history, and political speech.
The court's final judgment will not only determine the fate of Rahul Gandhi's but also send a message about the boundaries of of historical figures in India's polarized political environment. For now, the has succeeded in putting the 's on trial.
