These solutions may offer step-by-step problem-solving explanations or good writing examples that include modern styles of formatting and construction of bibliographies out of text citations and references. Students may use these solutions for personal skill-building and practice. Unethical use is strictly forbidden.Here at the outset, it is important to note that I think there is a vast gulf between what Godse finds objectionable in Gandhi and anything that could be construed as a compelling argument. It may be that my definition of what constitutes an argument differs from that of Godse (and from that of other overly charitable commentators). But, as will be seen in the last section of this discussion—with groundwork presented in this section—I think there are more compelling reasons to be skeptical of regarding the position Godse presented in his trial speech as something warranting the status of an argument. My claim is this: There is little in Godse’s position beyond his perceptions of Gandhi’s ideas and commitments; crucially, those perceptions were comprehensively colored by Godse’s ideological commitments—and little else—concerning the supposedly rightful and true nature of “the country properly known as Hindusthan” (McDermott, 2013, p. 442) and the means putatively necessary to its protection and furtherance. Thus, in examining Godse’s trial speech, this section presents a detailed summary of the position Godse stakes out for himself regarding Gandhi, with some accompanying critical commentary in preparation for this discussion’s final section.
The clearest statement of Godse’s position comes at the start of his speech: Godse proclaims his firm belief that “absolute “ahimsa”” of the sort adhered to and promoted by Gandhi would lead to “the emasculation of the Hindu Community”, in turn resulting in an inability to withstand “the aggression or inroads of other communities, especially the Muslims...
By purchasing this solution you'll be able to access the following files: