The Fifth Estate

Burke said that there were three Estates in Parliament, but in the Reporters Gallery yonder, there sat a fourth Estate more important far than they all.

- Thomas Carlyle (1841)

In Britain, the three estates of government referenced Parliament: The House of Lords (the Lords Temporal and the Lords Spiritual - nobles and clergy) and the House of Commons were the earliest system of checks and balances, with each estate in place to ensure that neither of the other estates became too strong. The clergy couldn’t dominate — but then again, neither could the nobility, and neither could “the people,” whether they were people of wealth or people of more common means.

The americans established a unique, experimental and untested form of democracy, which divided the powers of government among three branches. This was a new concept of the “three estates.” They carefully crafted the legislative, the executive and the judiciary branches with an elaborate method of checks and balances. In a young nation which had just won its independence from an authoritarian British monarch, these checks and balances were of the highest priority.

But soon it turned out that three estates were not enough - Someone needed to keep an eye on the people in power. So the concept of a "Fourth Estate" — what we know today as the press (the "press" includes all news media, not just newspapers) emerged. Throughout the nineteenth and the twentieth century the freedom of press was debated, but it played a crucial role in influencing the msses. It was the only link they had with the Government. In the later half of the twentieth century the sanctity of the press became questionable due to commercialization and political influence. 

The Fourth Estate was toppling.

Charles Darwin once said -

It is not the strongest of the species that survives, nor the most intelligent that survives. It is the one that is the most adaptable to change.

It was high time we change, so we took the things in our own hands. In the past fifteen years, the spread of the Internet and other advanced technologies had a dramatic effect on the way people access and perceive information. One of the most revolutionary technological novelties that characterizes the modern "digital revolution" has been the explosion of the world wide web. It has impacted numerous facets of international politics including elections, media reporting from zones of conflict, and corporate and congressional policies. They also have potentially significant implications for policy making of the future and for national and global security. It has been suggested that the internet deserves the title of the "Fifth Estate".

As a matter of constitutional tradition, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we presume that governmental regulation of the content of speech is more likely to interfere with the free exchange of ideas than to encourage it. The interest in encouraging freedom of expression in a democratic society outweighs any theoretical but unproven benefit of censorship.

-Justice John Paul Stevens, in Reno v. ACLU, 1997.

The current debates on internet censorship is nothing but analogous to the earlier debates held on curbing the power of press. Decades ago the press exposed the Bofurs gun scandal which involved the then Prime Minister Gandhi who was accused of receiving kickbacks from the Bofurs Company to the story of the Fodder scam which involved embezzlement from the treasury of the Indian state of Bihar. And today we have Wikileaks exposing the US Government. This is the prime reason internet censorship is being talked about. But supressing this new wave of the people is morally wrong.

Web censorship, is only part of the government's efforts to control information flow. The more freely information flows, the stronger the society becomes, because then citizens of countries around the world can hold their own governments accountable. They can begin to think for themselves. 

It is high time we say no to internet censorship.

The Flip Side #2 : The Fourth Estate

Thomas Carlyle in his book On Heroes and Hero Worship:

Burke said there were Three Estates in Parliament; but, in the Reporters' Gallery yonder, there sat a Fourth Estate more important far than they all.

It was 1980s when journalism actively emerged in India. From creating the first and most influential piece on the Bofurs gun scandal which involved the then Prime Minister Gandhi who was accused of receiving kickbacks from the Bofurs Company to the story of the Fodder scam which involved embezzlement from the treasury of the Indian state of Bihar. There was a time when the fourth estate played a prominent role in enlightening the commons. But it seems those days are gone - be it a national daily or an international newsroom, shoddy journalism is at its peak and it is degrading further every day. You can find a transcript below which provides a flip side of the fourth estate.

Shoddy Journalism ^[1]

Appalling journalism. Absolute blasphemy! As I watch the news from home, I am dumbfounded to see Barkha Dutt of NDTV break every rule of ethical journalism in reporting the Mumbai mayhem.

Take a couple of instances for example:

• In one instance she asks a husband about his wife being stuck, or held as a hostage. The poor guy adds in the end about where she was last hiding. Aired! My dear friends with AK-47s, our national news is helping you. Go get those still in. And be sure to thank NDTV for not censoring this bit of information.

• In another instance, a General sort of suggests that there were no hostages in Oberoi Trident. (Clever.) Then, our herione of revelations calls the head of Oberoi, and the idiot confirms a possibility of 100 or more people still in the building. Hello! Guys with guns, you’ve got more goats to slay. But before you do, you’ve got to love NDTV and more precisely Ms. Dutt. She’s your official intelligence from Ground zero. You do not need to be a journalist to understand the basic premise of ethics, which starts with protecting victims first; and that is done by avoiding key information from being aired publicly — such as but not limited to revealing the number of possible people still in, the hideouts of hostages and people stuck in buildings.

Imagine you’re one of those sorry souls holed-up in one of those bathrooms, or kitchens. A journalist pulls your kin outside and asks about your last contact on national television, and other prying details. In a bout of emotion, if they happen to reveal more details, you are sure going to hell. Remember these are hotels, where in all likelihood, every room has a television. All a terrorist needs to do is listen to Ms. Barkha Dutt’s latest achievement of extracting information from your relative, based on your last phone-call or SMS. And you’re shafted —courtesy NDTV.

If the terrorists don’t manage to shove you in to your private hell, the journalists on national television will certainly help you get there. One of the criticisms about Barkha Dutt on Wikipedia reads thus:

During the Kargil conflict, Indian Army sources repeatedly complained to her channel that she was giving away locations in her broadcasts, thus causing Indian casualties.

Looks like the idiot journalist has not learnt anything since then. I join a number of bloggers pleading her to shut the f*** up.

Update: In fact, I am willing to believe that Hemant Karkare died because these channels showed him prepare (wear helmet, wear bullet-proof vest.) in excruciating detail live on television. And they in turn targeted him where he was unprotected. The brave officer succumbed to bullets in the neck.
Update 2 [28.Nov.2300hrs]: Better sense appears to have prevailed in the latter half of today— either willfully, or by Government coercion2, and Live broadcasts are now being limited to non-action zones. Telecast of action troops and strategy is now not being aired live. Thank goodness for that.
Update 3 [30.Nov.1900hrs]: DNA India reports about a UK couple ask media to report carefully:

The terrorists were watching CNN and they came down from where they were in a lift after hearing about us on TV.
— Lynne Shaw in an interview.

1. Oh, they have a lame excuse pronouncing that the television connections in the hotel has been cut, and therefore it is okay to broadcast. Like hell!
2. I’m thinking coercion, since Government has just denied renewing CNN’s rights to air video today; must’ve have surely worked as a rude warning to the Indian domestic channels.
Instead of apologizing, and introspecting on how to improve, this is the kind of crap we get in response to shoddy journalism.
Radhika Sahasranaman rips the guts of that response on a 3000 strong, and growing Facebook group, whose title couldn't have sent signals any clearer:

NDTV's response is in itself a giveaway of misplaced notions: "In the absence of any instructions on site and in the absence of any such framework we broke NO rules" ("convenient transference of responsibility" or what?); and the entire argument, she concludes, amounts to "which television journalist tops the charts or falls to the bottom" (is that how they keep score?). It is important that we don't shoot the messenger but when the messenger loses the message, there is something to be done. Which is why, for once, I will take Barkha's advice. Use the remote control when emote control doesn't work

-Radhika Sahasranaman

Here's another:

TV news would no doubt argue that most other critiques of 26/11 coverage have been answered, too. Shoving mikes in front of distressed people? They wanted to share. Too close to the theatre of operation? If someone told us we would have moved away. And just in case anyone still has doubts,
Narayana Murthy and Suketu Mehta, among many others, rated 26/11 coverage as first class.
Maybe the Government goofed up not laying down rules of coverage. Does that end all questions on journalistic responsibility? Think about it. If journalists, especially senior editors, say they need the government to tell them how to do their business, they are opening a door many politicians would love to never shut again.
— Saubhik Chakrabarti on Indian Express

The choice could not have been simpler: you either kick the idiocy, and if that does not work, then
kick the idiot out.
Update: Oh, by the way, there is a framework (Self-Regulation Guidelines for the Broadcasting
Sector [pdf]) for anyone who cares— and has been in existence for more than a year.
Update 2: NSG says media got in the way, wants guidelines.
Update 3: Presstalk: In the name of fair and balanced.
Update 4: The Hoot: "Those who argue that viewers can use the remote to not watch what they find
unethical or irresponsible should note that many in India did, people went to offices and went to
vote but the TV all the same managed to give important information to the backers of the terrorists
who were glued to their screens. The remote is not the solution to such irresponsibility."
Harini Calamur: "Week 1-Post 26/11-Quo Vadis News Media?"

The above transcript you read was written by Chetan Kunte on his blog and within a few days he was silenced where NDTV probably sent Kunte a legal notice, asking him to pull the post down, apologize, never write about them again, and pay an absurdly massive amount of money.

The percentage of truth in this post is surely questionable, but I wonder why Barkha Dutt and NDTV took it so seriously. After all he was just another common man who posted it in his personal blog.
Why?

To answer this question you need to look into Dr Nayef R.F. Al-Rodhan's paper^[2]
where he talks about the concept of The Fifth Estate :

In the past fifteen years, the spread of the Internet and other advanced technologies has had a dramatic effect on the way people access and perceive information. One of the most revolutionary technological novelties that characterizes the modern "digital revolution" has been the explosion of weblogs. Blogs have impacted numerous facets of international politics including elections, media reporting from zones of conflict, and corporate and congressional policies. They also have potentially significant implications for policy making of the future and for national and global security. This has led to the claim that blogs deserve the title of the "fifth estate," following an analogy with the other four estates that influence modern policy shaping: executive, legislative, and judicial branches of the state and the media.

Today blogs have become the reality check for policy makers, opinion shapers, and interest groups. With the fall of the reliability on the Fourth Estate today a Fifth Estate led by the commons have started to play a major role in making an impact in this society. With its disturbingly alarming growth we still can't predict whether it will be good for our society in the long run or not, but the real question is - Do we have any option?   

PS. After writing this post I realised that the latest film on Wikileaks is also named The Fifth Estate.

The Flip Side #1 : Mi Nathuram Godse Boltoy

It’s natural to be influenced when we hear or read something — especially if it’s well presented, but it’s important to remember that you may not have the whole story. There are always  two sides to every story, and it benefits us to make sure we know and understand both sides before making a judgment or rendering an opinion. The Flip Side is an attempt to present you the less familiar aspect of some stories.

The Flip Side #1 : Mi Nathuram Godse Boltoy

Pradeep Dalvi's controversial play which ruffled feathers in 1989, when the playwright was denied permission by the Maharashtra government to stage the drama. After its brief resurrection nine years later, the state government banned the play. Read the play and judge for yourself if the ban was justified.

(The stage is dark save for one spotlight, which is focused on Nathuram, who is standing with his back to the audience. Suddenly he turns and starts looking at the faces in the audience, as if he is searching for someone. Ultimately, he jerks his neck indicating denial or negation and looks up. Now he is directly looking at the audience.)

Nathuram: No. All the faces are unknown. Actually 'unknown' is the wrong word to use in this ... All your faces are very fresh to me...fresh and new. They are, of course, new to me, but mind you, they are not unfamiliar.

The youngsters among you, were not even born at that time. You must have read about me as a Hindu fanatic in the history written by the government. The middle-aged amongst you must be very confused clinging to their parents, who in turn were running around to save themselves from the massacre of Brahmins as the outcome of the assassination -- asking: 'Who is the Nathuram? Why are our houses being burnt because of him?"

But the elders among you... You must remember me! You must have heard about me on the radio. Some of you might have read Agrani, the newspaper run by myself and Nana Apte. Some of you might have attended my meetings and heard my speeches. Some of you may be knowing me directly or might have met me, but must be refusing the acquaintance after January 30, 1948.

Do you know how old I am? eighty-eight, nearly 90! Do you think I am lying, because I look young? Do you know, the mystery behind my youth is my death. My death...it was untimely, but it was heartily accepted!

I was born at the beginning of this century on May 19, 1910. My father Vinayakrao was in the postal service, my mother's name was Laxmi.

Vinayakrao was drawing a salary of Rs 15 per month. He used to spend Rs 10 on his family and send Rs 5 to his parents. Vinayakrao and his wife had three sons, none of them survived. They prayed to God, had their fourth son, Nathuram. Nathuram survived because they were destined to suffer for their young son's death and Gandhi was destined to be assassinated.

The rest of my life was very smooth.

I never stole in my childhood, so there was no question of apologising to my father. I never took a vow of celibacy as I was already practising celibacy. I was moving around the refugee camps and helping the destitute with food and clothes. But I did not wander half-naked because the refugees were naked. I never spun yarn, never cleaned my toilet, never observed silence till I was hanged. There was only one common factor in Gandhi's life and mine. We were both the cause of each other's death. He wanted to live for his principles and I was prepared to die for my principles.

But the interesting part of the biography of Nathuram Godse starts on January 30, 1948. After the assassination of Gandhi.

In a sense, I lived only for 655 days -- from January 30, 1948 to November 15, 1949. But January 30 was an outcome of January 13.

The central government had taken a decision -- Pakistan will not be given Rs 55 crores. On January 13 Gandhi started a fast unto death that Pakistan must be given the money. On January 13, the central government changed its earlier decision and announced that Pakistan would be given the amount. On January 13, I decided to assassinate Gandhi.

January 13, 1948

(The editorial room of Agrani. There is the normal chaos that exists in the editorial room of any newspaper. Nana Apte enters.)

Nana: Pandit, where are you? Visu...

Visu: (Enters) Sir.

Nana: Have you composed and assembled the first page? Break the compose. This is a stop press news.

Visu: You want me to recompose the first page? There will not be any issue tomorrow.

Nana: Listen, we just have to reassemble the first page. This is a very important news. It was on the radio.

Visu: But Panditsaab is rewriting the editorial. I have to recompose and print that matter. How can we...

Nana: Where is Pandit?

Visu: He is sitting in the composing section. He is completing the pages and giving them for composing.

Nana: Call him.

Nathuram: Call? Whom?

Nana: I wanted to call you. We have to prepare the front page again.

Nathuram: No need. My new editorial is on the same subject. Visu just get us coffee. (Visu goes)

Nana: Do you know the news I am talking about?

Nathuram: Yes, of course. The Cabinet has changed its decision. It is giving Rs 55 crore to Pakistan. Gandhi has broken his fast.

Nana: You changed your editorial?

Nathuram: Yes. I thought that my previous editorial was nothing but a pack of lies.

Nana: Pack of lies? And written by you? Impossible!

Nathuram: Yes. Tomorrow is January 14, Makar Sankranti. I had written in the editorial, 'Don't celebrate Sankranti tomorrow, don't take sweets, don't behave in a sweet manner. Distribute rifles, bullets, weapons. Don't talk sweet, talk of war. Kill the enemies.''

Nana: It is true, what you had written.

Nathuram: You have not asked me about the title of my new editorial.

Nana: What is that?

Nathuram: Mere talk without actions is futile.

Nana: Meaning...?

Nathuram: It is time for protests in constitutional ways, processions, pickets to come to an end when the establishment resorts to mindless injustices. You can't just warn the government through editorials at such hours. Tell me Nana. What do you mean by people will not tolerate, people will revolt...and so on? Who are these people? Do you mean our readers or those who attend our meetings and listen to our speeches? No, Nana, people also mean you and me, us. If we forget what we write and what we talk then our editorials and brave speeches in the meetings and futile. A man addressing from the dais is also a part of the crowd sitting before him. When we say that the people should revolt, it means that we should revolt!

Nana: You have written all this?

Nathuram: Yes, I have written celebrate Dassera tomorrow, the festival on which war is proclaimed.

Nana: Pandit, we will be arrested.

Nathuram: I don't think, our Agrani is the mouthpiece of Hindu religion. When the government does not give importance to Hinduism, the question of being a mouthpiece does not arise. Our restraint is misinterpreted. Our massacre is neglected. They presume that we will bear everything with folded hands. Our anger has lost its fuel to burn, we know only the art of pardoning. They will torture us and massacre us and we will bear it coolly... it has become a law of nature. I don't think they will take cognisance of this mouthpiece of Hinduism. Yes, the government will think seriously while arguing the case in the court.
Nana: Which case?
Nathuram: IPC 302, the assassination of Gandhi.
Nana: Pandit, what are you talking?
Nathuram: Of course Nana, while writing the editorial, I was constantly telling myself -- these are not mere thoughts, they are a prelude to an action!
Nana: I have utmost confidence that Nathuram can never make a mistake, he is always right. But I want to ask you something because a blind follower cannot be a genuine friend...
Nathuram: Gandhi must be stopped at any cost.
Nana: I do agree with you.
Nathuram: And there is only one remedy to stop him. His assassination.
Nana: But don't you think it's a hasty decision?
Nathuram: You are wrong Nana. Assassination is never as easy as picking up a rifle and pulling the trigger, assassination is never an accident. Yes, murder could be an accident but not assassination. In this case of Gandhi, it could never be...
Nana: Are you convinced that it is inevitable?
Nathuram: Of course, it is not only inevitable, but is a delayed action.
Nana: Don't you feel that we would be tampering with an important era of history?
Nathuram: I differ with the word era. It could be a page, a leaf of history. Certainly not an era. Nana, if we don't turn this page today, the rest of the pages of the history of our nation will remain unwritten, blank...
Nana: Listen, Pandit...
Nathuram: Time is eternal, indestructible. You can turn its pages but never, never tear them out. Gandhi has acquired some position in history which nobody can deny, not even Nathuram. The page will be there forever in fact. Sometime in the future, in some storm, the pages will flutter and there will be that same Gandhi's page before the world. I don't refute Gandhi's theory of non-violence. He may be a saint but he is not a politician. His theory of non-violence denies self-defence and self-interest. The non-violence that defines the fight for survival as violence is a theory not of non-violence but of self-destruction.
Nana: I do agree with you Pandit, but don't you think that your decision is risky, dangerous?
Nathuram: But somebody has to do it! You can't afford to wait for somebody else to do it. It will be improper.
Nana: If we picket severely?
Nathuram: We have been doing it. Did it help? The division of the nation was an unnecessary decision. What was the percentage of the Muslim population as compared to the population of the nation? There was no need for a separate nation. Had it been a just demand, Maulana Azad would not have stayed back in India. But because Jinnah insisted and because Gandhi took his side, India was divided, in spite of opposition from the nation, the Cabinet. An individual is never greater than a nation, Nana. But Gandhi has stared considering himself greater than the nation.
Nana: Jinnah wanted to be the prime minister...
Nathuram: But we never opposed a Muslim prime minister. In a democracy you cannot put forward your demands at knife-point. Jinnah did it and Gandhi stabbed the nation with the same knife. He dissected the land and gave a piece to Pakistan. We did picket that time but in vain. The Father of our Nation went to perform his paternal duties for Pakistan.
Nana: The Cabinet consented to that...
Nathuram: The Cabinet also consented to the demand of Rs 55 crores today...
Nana: They are also equally responsible.
Nathuram: Of course, they are responsible! Gandhi blackmailed them with his fast unto death. His body, his threats to die are causing the destruction -- geographical as well as economical -- of the nation. Today, Muslims have taken a part of the nation, tomorrow Sikhs may ask for Punjab. The religions are again dividend into castes, they will demand sub-divisions of the divisions. What remains of the concept of one nation, national integration? Why did we fight the British in unison for independence? Why not separately? Bhagat Singh did not ask only for an independent Punjab or Subhash Chandra Bose for an independent Bengal?
Nana: Pandit, if you will write this, people will get agitated, the government will get agitated, the government will have to bow down.
Nathuram: I had written this before. At the time of Partition, when Suharawady surrendered only due to political pressure, but only Suharawady, not his followers...they went on with the massacre. Gandhi started his fast, the Hindus put their weapons down. I still remember that day. A poor Hindu told Gandhi, 'I am putting down my weapons because I don't want your death on my conscience but I am staying alone with my family in the Muslim area. That night, before leaving Hyderabad I visited his home. The whole household was screaming, weeping, his only eight-year-old son had been killed by the Muslims. He had no weapon to defend himself. He threw his son's body on my lap and said, "Take his blood to your Mahatma. Tell him, if he goes on fast again, he can finish it by drinking not orange-juice but my son's blood." I could not say anything. Gandhi was the Father of my Nation. For a moment, I was tempted to pull out the Muslims from their homes and chop them down. But I controlled myself. Violence for self-defence is justified, otherwise it is an ill-cultured act. I returned to where Gandhi was staying but he had already left by car. Of course, there would have been no point in meeting him... he would only have prayed for both the killer and the victim.
Nana: Pandit, I sincerely feel that we should seek the advice of Tatyarao.
Nathuram: No. Because I am going to assassinate Gandhi even if Tatyarao tells me not to. Then why involve him unnecessarily? I, neither want Tatyarao's involvement nor participation. He has suffered a lot for the nation. Now it is our turn. Tatyarao had once sad, if Gandhi is a political saint, then he should follow in the footsteps of Ramdas Swami. Ramdas Swami was always there to advise Shivaji whenever the need arose, but he never interfered.
Nana: Pandit, if you are firm, then I promise you...
Nathuram: I want two promises ...
Nana: I promise!
Nathuram: You didn't ask me what promises?
Nana: A shadow has not to ask the body as to where it is going and why it is going? A shadow has just to be with the body, that's all. When I walk, you become my shadow Pandit, now you are walking... I will be your shadow.
Nathuram: This is the first promise I want from you... This time I walk alone...mind you, alone...
Nana: You have trapped me.
Nathuram: But you promised me..! I am going to assassinate him in the open, before the public, because I am going to do it as my duty. If I do it surreptitiously, it becomes a crime in my own eyes. I will not try to escape, I will surrender and naturally I will be hanged.
Nana: Pandit!
Nathuram: One assassination, one hanging. I don't want two executions for one assassination and I don't want your involvement, participation or company.
Nana: Pandit, you want to end our friendship of so many years?
Nathuram: Of course not. At the time of hanging. I will remember my motherland, my parents and my friend -- you, Nana...
Nana: But if I won't be with you, won't you feel lonely at the gallows?
Nathuram: You promised me.
Nana: What is the second promise?
Nathuram: Today I wrote two editorials. I have not put any date on the second editorial as only God knows the date. I want you to print the second editorial in Agrani, the day after Gandhi's assassination.
Nana: I promise you my friend. The first promise accidentally but the second promise out of necessity. (Nathuram is alone on the stage)
Nathuram: I was convinced that though Gandhi is called the Father of the Nation, he delivers his paternal duties not towards India but towards Pakistan. I came to the decision that as a son of the soil, it was my first, foremost and divine duty to assassinate Gandhi.
On January 30, I reached Birla Bhavan at 12 pm. Gandhi was sitting outside on a cot enjoying the sunshine. Vallabhbhai Patel's granddaughter was sitting at his feet. I had the revolver with me. I could have assassinated him easily then, but I was convinced that his assassination was to be a punishment and a sentence against him, and I would execute him. I wanted witnesses for the execution but there were none. I did not want to escape after the execution as there was not an iota of guilt in my mind. I wanted to surrender, but surrender to whom? There was a good crowd to collect for the evening prayers. I decided on the evening of January 30 as the date for Gandhi's execution.


January 30, 5.00 PM
(Birla Bhavan. DCP Arjundas and a servant appear on the stage.)

Servant: No. Bapuji cannot spare any time now. He will be late for his evening prayers.
Arjun: I know. But I have come because the work is important. In fact it is to do with Bapuji's prayers.
Gandhi: (Enters) Who is it, Mahadevbhai?
Servant: Somebody to see you. I told him, you are getting late.
Gandhi: Who are you?
Arjun: (Salutes) I am DCP Arjundas, Bapuji...
Gandhi: We have met before... Wait a minute, don't tell me ... let me recollect. Yes, when Jawahar had come to Hyderabad, you were with him.
Arjun: (Smiles) Your memory is fantastic. You were very weak at that time.
Gandhi: It is the body that becomes weak. But fasting sharpens of the mind. Why have you come today? For prayers?
Arjun: Yes. I want to request you to let me accompany you for the prayers...
Gandhi: Anybody can attend my evening prayers. How can I refuse you?
Arjun: Okay then. I will be with some of my ...
Gandhi: But not in these uniforms. Not with the revolver in your waistband.
Arjun: But Bapu ...
Gandhi: Why do you need the revolver?
Arjun: For your protection.
Gandhi: If somebody attacks me, you will shoot him with this revolver. Kill at the time of prayers?
Arjun: But Bapuji, if somebody attacks you ...
Gandhi: He is welcome. I don't mind my own killing, but I don't want anybody to die just for saving my skin.
Arjun: Panditji sent me. I am his bodyguard.
Gandhi: Then what are you doing here? Go, guard his body.
Arjun: Panditji said he had spoken to you, Sardar Patel also talked to you, but you are adamant in this matter. Today the intelligence bureau sent this file to Panditji. He has asked me to show it to you. Bapuji, you need protection.
Gandhi: I don't need protection.
Arjun: Bapuji... How can I convince you? Can you see the crowd gathered outside? One of them might be a killer, your killer. All the people attending the prayers are not devotees.
Gandhi: No. Only devotees attend the prayers.
Arjun: But those who threw a bomb here on January 20 were not devotees. The bureau has cracked down on them. Madanlal and Shankar Kistaiyya. They are talking. They are workers of the Hindu Mahasabha. Bapu, that bomb blast was not an accident. It was sabotage, it was an attempt on your life.
Gandhi: The Hindu Mahasabha and the Muslim League ... I don't differentiate between them.
Arjun: They don't understand it.
Gandhi: You are wrong Arjun: When I started the fast, both Hindus and Muslims put their weapons down.
Arjun: Bapu, a bullet does not differentiate between a commoner and a saint.
Gandhi: But the trigger-puller knows the difference.
Arjun: The refugees are furious. They hold you responsible for their massacre. The Hindu Mahasabha claims you are responsible for Partition. These handful of people are conspiring to assassinate you. It is dangerous to move around among the people at the time of prayers. Can you stop the prayers for a few days?
Gandhi: You want me to stop my prayers? It has never happened before. I did not let it happen. Be it imprisonment, detention, fasting or sickness ... I never let anything stand between me and the prayers. Kasturba was serious when prayer-time approached. I started getting up from her bedside. She held my hand, pressed it. I waited ... Ba slowly slipped into death. I got up and went for my prayers first, and then I mourned for my Ba. And today you want me to discontinue the prayers... for my life?
Arjun: But your life we need Bapuji.. all of us. That day you waited for some time for Kasturba, now for the sake of all of us wait for some days. If you want, let us pray here... You, Mahadevbhai myself, Panditji, we all will join the prayers... here.
Gandhi: And what about the people gathered outside? There could be one killer outside among them. But what about the others? They are not killers. I don't want to disappoint them for one Gandhi!
Arjun: But Bapuji...
Gandhi: Jawahar is childish, and Arjundas... you also. You are banking on the revolver that is in your waistband. My killer also has confidence in his revolver. I don't want to participate in your gun war. My weaponless confidence is much mightier than your gun-worn confidence.
Arjun: Maybe the weapons are small, but they do great harm.
Gandhi: That is the misplaced confidence of you gun-toting people. I was in South Africa, where Jawahar was not with me to protect me, the police hit me, imprisoned me. I didn't have a revolver, I had my confidence. Ultimately. I won the war.
Arjun: Bapuji, I am not talking about canes, I am talking about bullets.
Gandhi: I am talking about non-violence, a powerful weapon like non-violence.
Arjun: It is a question of a few days...
Gandhi: It is a question of principle. I am not immortal. I have to die one day. If my blood is going to cool down their anger, if it is going to stop riots and arson, if it is going to satisfy them that they have penalised a criminal named Mohandas Gandhi. I am prepared to give them my blood.
Arjun: Bapu...
Gandhi: I don't differentiate between Ram and Rahim or Krishna or Karim. I am not overwhelmed about the fact that I am a Hindu and I don't repent because I was not born a Muslim. I am I. And I am honest to my principles and to the truth. Arjundas you want me to discontinue the prayers for a few days... but I say, even today, if the killer is waiting outside for me. I am prepared to welcome him with folded hands. He can kill Gandhi, not Gandhism.
Servant: Bapuji...
Gandhi: Aah! Today I am late for the prayers. Arjundas, feel like joining me?
Arjun: But of course!
Gandhi: Come on. Excuse me, please. Keep your revolver here... beside my charkha.

Black out.
(Birla Bhavan. The prayer place is visible: It is a square cement block with greenery in the middle. A small lake is on the left and an arch-shaped, small, wooden bridge on it. Gandhi's sitting place is situated exactly opposite the lake.)

Nathuram: It was 4.45 pm when I reached the gate of Birla Bhavan. The security staff at the gate was scrutinising the crowd entering and I was a little worried about them. I mingled with a small gorup of people and sneaked inside.
It was 5.10 pm when I saw Gandhi and his close associates coming to the prayer place from his room inside. I approached the passage from where he was likely to climb the steps of the lawn, in such a way that I was covered by a few people.
Gandhi climbed the steps and came forward. He had kept his hands on the shoulders of the two girls.
The revolver was in my pocket, I released the safety catch. Though Gandhi was surrounded by people I was looking for an opening.
I wanted just three seconds more. I moved two steps forward and faced Gandhi. Now I wanted to take out the revolver and salute him for whatever sacrifice and service he had made for the nation. One of the two girls was dangerously close to Gandhi and I was afraid that she might be injured in the course of firing. As a precautionary measure I went one more step ahead, bowed before him and gently pushed the girl away from the firing line.
The next moment I fired at Gandhi. Gandhi was very weak, there was a feeble sound like 'aah' from him and he fell down.
Those who were close to me saw the weapon in my hand. They rushed away from the spot. Gandhi had fallen to the ground, I was standing and the crowd had formed a ring around us.
After the firing I raised my hand holding the revolver and shouted, 'Police, police'. For 30 seconds nobody came forward and I scanned the crowd. I saw a police officer. I signalled to him to come forward and arrest me. He came and caught my wrist, then a second man came and touched the revolver... I let it go...

(Black out... Sounds of wireless, Hullo, Victor calling. Victor calling... Gandhi killed in firing. IGP and home minister rushing to Birla Bhavan. Inform the PM).