Such a line of argument would help protect not just Apte and Savarkar, but also Gopal. This line of argument also suited Godse’s self-image—by doing so, he could carry the glory all on his own.
In any case, the rectification was to be a mammoth exercise, involving a serious perusal of questions of law. It is unrealistic to expect that Godse, with his limited legal knowledge and command over the English language, managed these questions on his own. There is evidence that the statement he would read out in court was not entirely of his preparation.
Inamdar subsequently noted that Mehta, a prominent member of the group of lawyers defending the accused and a staunch Savarkarite, helped him draw up a calculated written statement. ‘In Nathuram’s case, it was primarily Jamnadas Mehta, Barrister-at-Law from Bombay, who assisted him in preparing the statement,’ Inamdar wrote. The ponderous statement that ran into 150 paragraphs took Godse five hours to read in the courtroom.
Speaking quietly in English, he attempted at the very beginning to remove all traces of guilt from Apte, Savarkar and the other accomplices. ‘I say that there was no conspiracy of any kind whatsoever amongst the accused to commit any of the offences mentioned in the charge-sheet [sic],’ Godse read. ‘I may also state here that I have not abetted any of the other accused in the commission of the alleged offences.’
While giving an account of his past life, Godse also claimed that he had broken with the RSS long before he killed Gandhi. The claim ran contrary to what he had told the interrogators and what the documents seized from the RSS Nagpur headquarters had revealed.
Years later, Gopal, on seeing the RSS brazenly forsake Godse, sought to set the record straight. ‘He [Godse] said it because Golwalkar and the RSS were in a lot of trouble after the murder of Gandhi,’ Gopal declared. ‘But he [Godse] did not leave the RSS.’
Godse’s statement in the court showed his impeccable command over English, a language he supposedly did not know well.
In the group of lawyers defending the accused, Inamdar was the odd man out. While the others had been picked by L.B. Bhopatkar, who headed the team of advocates, Inamdar had joined them independently. He had been sent by Parchure’s wife from Gwalior as her husband’s counsel. In a way, therefore, both Inamdar and Godse shared the status of an outlier in their respective groups.
‘During the whole of the trial, I never saw Savarkar turning his head towards even Nathuram, who used to sit by him, in fact next to him, much less speak with him,’ Inamdar noted.
‘During the various talks I had with Nathuram, he told me that he was deeply hurt by this—Tatyarao’s calculated, demonstrative non-association with him either in court or in the Red Fort Jail during all the days of the Red Fort Trial. How Nathuram yearned for a touch of Tatyarao’s hand, a word of sympathy, or at least a look of compassion in the secluded confines of the cells! Nathuram referred to his hurt feelings in this regard even during my last meeting with him at the Simla High Court!’