By Rajiv Shah
A few days back, I was a little surprised to receive a Hindi article in plain text format from veteran Gujarat Dalit rights leader Valjibhai Patel, known for waging many legal battles under the banner of the Council of Social Justice (CSJ) on behalf of socially oppressed communities.
The article did not mention its author. However, Valjibhai—an impassioned commentator who usually writes only in Gujarati—strongly objected to the article, which appeared to suggest that Dr. B.R. Ambedkar sympathised with Gandhi’s assassin Nathuram Godse. Valjibhai said the article was “spreading lies” about the foremost Dalit icon.
I searched for the article online and found that it was published on indiaspeakdaily.in, which had reproduced it from a 2005 piece. Authored by one Shankar Sharan, the article begins with the words “Thank you Mr Godse,” claiming that Ambedkar, then law minister, sent a message to Godse’s lawyer offering to commute Gandhi’s assassin’s death sentence into life imprisonment.
Widely circulated in Hindi media and blogs, the article revisits the final days of Godse. It opens with the provocative line, “Thank you, Mr. Godse!” and explores a lesser-known claim: that Ambedkar sent a message to Godse’s lawyer offering to commute his death sentence to life imprisonment.
Godse reportedly declined the offer, insisting that his execution would symbolize the rejection of Gandhi’s philosophy of nonviolence. According to the article, Ambedkar conveyed through a lawyer that Godse could be spared the death penalty if he wished. However, Godse refused, stating that he wanted to die in order to make a point about Gandhi’s ideology.
Objecting to the article circulated to him as an email alert, Valjibhai said, “The propaganda of lies run by the Godse-worshipping gang of the RSS has sunk to a very low level,” adding that he had received the “shocking” article in an email. “Such lies cause great damage to the reputation of Dr. Ambedkar and deeply hurt the sentiments of all Ambedkarites. Are we just going to remain silent and watch?” he asked.
In a subsequent reply to me, when asked why he had shared the article, Valjibhai asserted that he was going to file a petition in the Gujarat High Court against the alleged move to tarnish Ambedkar’s image. I asked him to send me a copy of the petition so that I could write about it, though I do not know if he has filed it.
Be that as it may, an online search suggests that Shankar Sharan’s article is not a conventional historical account but a polemical reflection that seeks to reframe Godse’s actions in ideological terms. The claim about Ambedkar’s message is not widely documented in mainstream historical sources. It appears to rely on anecdotal or secondary accounts, possibly from legal memoirs or oral history.
Searches also indicate that no official record confirms Ambedkar’s involvement in any such clemency offer, making the article more speculative than evidentiary. In fact, the opening line, “Thank you, Mr. Godse!” is deliberately provocative, intended to challenge dominant narratives about Gandhi’s martyrdom. It uses rhetorical contrast to elevate Godse’s ideological conviction while implicitly questioning Gandhi’s political legacy.
I was amused to see an ardent Ambedkarite apparently seeking to defend Gandhi, especially at a time when attempts are being made to portray Ambedkar’s alleged dislike for Gandhi as akin to Godse’s hatred. I have personally witnessed how this dislike has influenced grassroots activists. A senior Dalit rights activist, actively engaged in organizing the Valmiki community in Gujarat, even posted on Facebook justifying Godse’s murder of Gandhi.
This activist, whom I know well, deleted the post within 24 hours after being told that it would send a “wrong message.” When contacted, he told me, “I went to a Dalit rally in Dholka. There I came to know for the first time how Gandhi pressured Babasaheb Ambedkar into giving up the demand for a separate electorate for Dalits, which would have allowed us to elect our own representatives to legislatures.”
The activist, who has been at the forefront of the struggle for the rights of manual scavengers and manhole workers in Ahmedabad, continued: “Gandhi betrayed us Dalits. This was pretty evident. This angered me. Why did Gandhi, who is called a Mahatma, blackmail Ambedkar like this? In my angry mood, I began surfing Facebook and found a post justifying Godse killing Gandhi. I copied it and posted it on my timeline.”
The grassroots activist, who has worked tirelessly to identify manhole workers who died of asphyxiation and to secure the Rs 10 lakh compensation ordered by the Supreme Court, admitted, “Of course, I didn’t know the implications of the post. Once it was pointed out to me, I deleted it.”
No doubt, online sources clarify that Ambedkar was a trenchant critic of Gandhi, particularly on social and political issues related to what he termed the “depressed classes.” In a letter written shortly after the assassination (January 30, 1948), Ambedkar even expressed a complex view, suggesting that some “good” might come out of it, drawing on the Biblical phrase that “sometimes good cometh out of evil.”
 |
| Valjibhai |
The full quote reads: “As the Bible says that sometimes good cometh out of evil, so also I think good will come out of the death of Mr Gandhi. It will release people from bondage to supermen, it will make them think for themselves and compel them to stand on their own merits.”
The letter from Ambedkar to Savita Ambedkar (then Dr. Sharada Kabir) dated February 8, 1948, which contains these controversial lines, is considered authentic by historians and is widely reproduced in collections of Ambedkar’s correspondence.
The letter, published in compilations such as Letters of Ambedkar (p. 205), shows that Ambedkar regarded Gandhi as a “positive danger to this country” who “choked all thoughts,” and that his death would free people from the “bondage to supermen.” These views are entirely consistent with Ambedkar’s long-standing, often bitter, public and private criticism of Gandhi’s philosophy and political role, particularly concerning the upliftment of the depressed classes.
The letter, published in compilations such as Letters of Ambedkar (p. 205), shows that Ambedkar regarded Gandhi as a “positive danger to this country” who “choked all thoughts,” and that his death would free people from the “bondage to supermen.” These views are entirely consistent with Ambedkar’s long-standing, often bitter, public and private criticism of Gandhi’s philosophy and political role, particularly concerning the upliftment of the depressed classes.
However, those who have studied Gandhi would agree that this was not a public statement. It was addressed to his close confidante (and later wife), a context in which he would naturally express his most candid views, in contrast to the more restrained tone he maintained publicly. It is not without significance that he visited Gandhi’s body at Birla House and attended the funeral procession.
Further, despite his strong criticism of Gandhi, Ambedkar also expressed sadness over the assassination, stating that “it would have been wrong for anybody to commit such a foul deed.” He noted that he was “very much moved on seeing his dead body” and attended the funeral procession.
Hence, there is ample reason to dismiss Shankar Sharan’s claim that “Law Minister Dr. Ambedkar had sent a message through Godse’s lawyer to seek Godse’s consent, saying that if Godse agreed, then in the name of Gandhiji’s non-violence, he could commute Godse’s death sentence to life imprisonment.”
There is no credible historical documentation—such as official government files, court records, or verified correspondence—to support the claim that Ambedkar, in his capacity as Law Minister, made such an offer to Nathuram Godse through his lawyer. The execution of Godse (and Narayan Apte) was a decision made at the highest executive level after the appeals process had failed.
In fact, my searches show that Gandhi’s own sons, Manilal and Ramdas Gandhi, pleaded for the commutation of the death sentence based on their father’s principle of nonviolence, but their pleas were rejected by Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru, Deputy Prime Minister Vallabhbhai Patel, and Governor-General C. Rajagopalachari. If commutation had been possible, the executive clemency route (mercy petition) would have been the formal mechanism. The alleged offer by Ambedkar falls outside this constitutional process.
Moreover, while Ambedkar was Law Minister and a known advocate for the abolition of the death penalty (which he argued against in the Constituent Assembly), he was not the authority empowered to grant clemency or commute a sentence. That power rested with the Governor-General (and later the President). A “message” from the Law Minister offering such a deal is not a recognized legal procedure.
Comments