ELECTIONS '98
COMMENTARY
SPECIALS
INTERVIEWS
CAPITAL BUZZ
REDIFF POLL
DEAR REDIFF
THE STATES
YEH HAI INDIA!
ARCHIVES

Don't demonise Godse, don't deify Gandhi either

The controversy over the play Mi Nathuram Godse Boltoy has, once again, brought into focus the question how much of liberal values have really seeped into the nation's ethos.

Critics of the play, which attempts to present Godse's point of view, overlook one basic point when they allow emotion to cloud their reason. Dissent, disagreement, and the articulation of the counterpoint, are the basic underpinnings of democracy. Even the leading Gandhian alive today would agree that Gandhiji's vision for India, was that it would flower into a liberal democracy, one that has a plurality of ideas, sometimes in conflict, and other times in confluence with each other.

The gravamen against Mi Nathuram Godse Boltoy appears to be that it articulates the point of view of a criminal, a man whose crime is compounded by the fact that he killed none less than the Father of the Nation.

This argument overlooks a basic point, that Godse *was* a criminal who has finished serving his sentence. His family has suffered enough ignominy, stigma over the last 50 years. Given that Indian jurisprudence believes in reform and restitution, and also that a criminal ceases to be one on serving his sentence, how fair is to expect the Godses to carry the cross forever?

The basic function of history is not merely to record events as they happen, but also to re-evaluate heroes. The process of re-evaluation is a constant one, and often is indication of society's vibrancy. Naturally, such re-evaluation is often subjective.

An example to illustrate this point: Ram may be deified by millions across the country, but still from B R Ambedkar's perspective he was the fountainhead of all that was and is wrong with Hindu/Indian society.

Godse's act of 50 years ago was born not merely of anguish. Nor was it a simple crime, on the lines of the countless murders Bombay's bylanes are today witness to. It was a clash of ideologies, a clash that has endured five decades and has come to the fore once again. The right way to deal with it is not to muffle it. The experience of totalitarian regimes over the last 50 years has shown that stifled sentiment explodes with greater force.

What Indians have been guilty of since Independence, if not for many millennia before that, is to elevate mortals into gods. Our mythology is full of such hyperbole, and we have carried on with the tradition blithely, even when it flies in the face of reason.

Gandhiji, no doubt a phenomenon of our times, has unfortunately been subject to the same treatment. We have elevated him to demi-god status, and cannot bear it when the devil has his say. The fact the nation collectively overlooks is that Gandhi was a mortal, with very human failings. The fact that he galvanised the nation into a non-violent force that resisted the might of the British empire has blinded us to the fact that apart from being a leader of men and women, he was just another human being, subject to the same pulls and pressures that all of us are.

And like the rest of us, he was prone to error of judgement. Admitting as much, does not detract from his greatness as a leader, nor is it meant to. On the contrary, it should help in a better understanding of his actions and words, many of which were and continue to be controversial.

If they weren't, he would not have paid for what he believed in with his life.

Gandhi's life is evidence that he did not seek any deification while he was alive, and certainly not when he was dead.

India's experience is also evidence that hatred does not survive. If it did, the Bharatiya Janata Party would not have abandoned its divisive politics in favour of consensus.

Mi Nathuram Godse Boltoy could at best be termed offensive, as not being in tune with majority sentiment. As far as I recall, there is no law banning Godse's thoughts and sayings in the country. Furthermore, there is something in the Constitution that guarantees freedom of speech and expression. It is ironic that the biggest proponents of these fundamental values, are in the forefront of muzzling opinion when the latter runs contrary to what they believe in or contrary to what they believe to be right for the nation.

The Constitution of India, while ensuring freedom of thought and expression, does not seek to tell us what these thoughts and words have to be, it if did we would not be a free country. Moral and thought policing belong in dictatorships, not democracies, not even pseudo-democracies.

Those who find the play on Godse offensive have the option not to patronise the drama hall where it is being staged. And the fact that patrons continue to attend the performances, is evidence that there is at least one section that endorses the views expressed in the play. Democracy may be rule by the majority, but it also means that the minority gets a chance to articulate its views.

And where this view is contrary to what is either fashionable or acceptable to the majority or when it is offensive, there is a procedure for redressal that is also in tune with democratic traditions. Bypassing this, and either entering an artist's house and ransacking it or calling for an executive ban on holding and propagating such views, is not certainly not democratic, whatever else it may be.

For the simple fact is that it is the government's job to govern the country, not go around policing the people's thoughts and expressions. An executive that is empowered to dictate what can be said and done, will go around using this authority in a partisan manner, with an eye on votebanks, as we saw over the ban on Salman Rushdie's Satanic Verses.

I rather the government referred the matter to the courts and abide by whatever decision it took in this matter and all such matters. The deification of Gandhiji maybe complete, but it is still not too late to stop the demonisation of Godse.

Saisuresh Sivaswamy