Glorifying Godse

I thought the context in which Professor Chaturvedi ends his story about the origins of his name was really interesting. Rather than focusing on (not) identifying with Savarkar, he concludes with, “a large image of the assassin Nathuram Godse, who was being celebrated as an incarnation of Vinayak and the remover of obstacles [was above the door]” (227). More than a story about his name, his paper acknowledges the perpetuation of the sad support for violence as a means to an end. Godse thought it was necessary to save India by killing the man who he felt divided it – physically – with the creation of Pakistan. However, transcending mere geography, Godse and the fellow conspirators knowingly divided India even further, separating ideologies of violence vs. non-violence, and Hindu vs. non-Hindu. Even though Savarkar supported the necessity of separating Indian citizens using the above criteria, Godse’s assumed justified violence in saving “Mother India” is inconsistent with his claimed motives. He argues that as the son, he must protect the mother as “Gandhiji failed in his duty as the Father of the Nation” (221). By getting rid of Gandhi, he just perpetuates that alleged division and is guilty of the exact thing that he claims is wrong.
For some reason, the last sentence of Professor Chaturvedi’s paper really bothered me. I was surprised that Upendra agreed with his father, Godse and Savarkar’s ideologies, so much as to glorify Godse. But having a morally egoistic bias was only going to obfuscate my reasoning. I decided that it’s important to note that Upendra probably doesn’t honor Godse as a murderer, but as a righteous activist in furthering what he felt was just. My initial reaction hinged off of blind accusation, but in the end I felt that one of Chaturvedi’s motives for ending with this was to force readers to take into account the importance of remaining open and at least respect an individual’s ideals; having a more condemning stance would only further that perpetuation of violence.