Below is the recreation of my understanding in their own words - based on some internet reading and has nothing to do with my view or conclusion about any thing.
Mahatma 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.
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.
‘If it is going to satisfy them that they have penalised a criminal named Mohandas Gandhi, I am prepared to give them my blood.
But the trigger-puller knows the difference between a a commoner and a saint.
Nathuram Godse:
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! Gandhi blackmailed the cabinet 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?
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.
a different view:
Why did not Nathuram discussed his concerns with Mahatma.... Should we have lost two great visionaries this way?
the Other side:
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.
It was all in your name, Hey Ram!
