Picture: Nathuram Godse (1910-1949)
Member of Parliament Sadhvi Pragya
Thakur has landed herself into a
controversy by calling late Nathuram Godse a “patriot”. During a debate on Special
Protection Group (SPG) amendment bill, a DMK member A. Raja quoted Nathuram
Godse’s statement on why he had killed Mahatma Gandhi. At this point, Sadhvi
Pragya interrupted and said, “you cannot give example of a patriot”. Even
earlier this year when Kamal Hassan had called Nathuram Godse as “India’s first
terrorist was a Hindu”, Sadhvi Pragya had protested it and called Godse a
patriot. From the pattern we can see that she ends up speaking for Godse in “reaction”
when she hears something against him.
While her complete opinion on Nathuram
Godse may not be available, the very choice of the term “patriot” attributed to
Nathuram Godse appeared to be so provocative to our politicians that they
created an uproar and mainstream media followed them. Although Sadhvi Pragya
Thakur has apologized, her party, the BJP, is in no mood to let her go. As a
punishment, she has been dropped
from a parliamentary panel and it is being said that she can be also sacked
from other party positions or from the BJP itself. All these decisions point
out to the fact that speaking about Nathuram Godse is a “taboo” in India. It is
a taboo even in the 21st century when we are regularly being taught
to “speak out” on other taboo subjects like menstruation, our body, sexual
offenses, or men’s mental wellbeing. It seems India is ready to be liberated on
all other subjects barring Nathuram Godse. It should make us think if our position
is rational at all.
The reason why Nathuram Godse became a
taboo is very simple. Nathuram Godse is not only the name of a person but also
an idea. The idea will get very clear if we follow the sequence of events.
After World War-II, the British were
ready to leave India. They wanted to transfer the power to an establishment
which could rule and take the country forward. Muhammed Ali Jinnah was demanding
a separate nation for Muslims. The other Indian leaders had two choices: (1)
Not agree to Jinnah and delay independence, or (2) Agree to Jinnah leading to
partition and get “instant” independence. Despite the risk, Indian leaders
decided to go for the second option. The idea of having Pakistan in two pieces –
one in East and other in West part of India, and to move millions of people across
borders was so illogical that today we can certainly question the wisdom of our
leaders of those times. Since India was being divided because of demand from
minority Muslims, the atmosphere was naturally too much communally charged. Communal
riots followed the partition and up to about 2 million (20 Lakh) people died. Thousands
of women were raped or abducted. It was an apocalypse.
While people were naturally angry at
the wisdom of Indian leaders, and angrier at the Muslim community whose demand
for separate nation caused this massacre, there was one man who decided to do
something about it. He used his own independent thought and came to the
conclusion that Congress Party leaders must be held accountable for making such
a reckless, selfish and disastrous decision which led to Lakhs of people being massacred
and disgraced. He decided that as the most powerful person in the Congress
Party, Mahatma Gandhi should be held accountable for this. And he also decided
on the quantum of punishment – it should be no less than a death punishment. Therefore,
Nathuram Godse acted as lawyer, judge and police – all by himself - and gave death
penalty to the person responsible for murder and humiliation of millions of
Indians. Even if such a case was run in any international court, the punishment
for death and disgrace of 2 million innocent people would definitely be a death
penalty.
Now this “idea” that a common citizen
can “judge” the powerful politicians and messiahs of the elite and can even
carry out the punishment like Robin Hood was an idea that was so provocative to
the government. If more people started doing that, there would be complete anarchy
all around. Especially at that point of time in India’s history when the nation
had just got freedom and was busy trying to stand on its feet and wounds from
partition were yet to heal, our leaders decided to shut this whole topic down.
It did not matter that Nathuram Godse had given his arguments in the court of
law and tried to explain his rational position behind his act. The book based
on his speech was banned. And Indian parliament banned the word “Godse” as
unparliamentary. Soon after Godse killed Mahatma Gandhi, riots happened in Maharashtra
against the caste/community Godse belonged to. Several people from his
community changed their surnames to avoid being lynched for being a “Godse”. Godse
and Nathuram Godse had become a complete taboo. No one wanted to talk about Nathuram
Godse. No one was allowed to talk about him.
But if we look at the rationale
behind making Godse a taboo; it appears to be more of a situational tactic.
India was then a nascent nation whose priorities were communal harmony and self-reliance.
Hence it sacrificed freedom of speech and a rational discourse by banning references
to Nathuram Godse. With the passage of time there was no longer any clear
threat from the idea of Nathuram Godse. In 1989, Pradip Dalvi’s Marathi play Me
Nathuram Godse Boltoy told the story of Mahatma Gandhi’s assassination from
the perspective of Nathuram Godse. In year 2000, Kamal Hassan made a movie
called “Hey Ram” about assassination of Mahatma Gandhi. In the year 2015, the
word “Godse” was finally removed from the list of banned words in Indian
parliament after a complaint by Shiv Sena MP from Nashik, Mr. Hemant
Tukaram Godse who asked a very valid question about how could a “surname” be
banned in Indian parliament! But somehow when Sadhvi Pragya Thakur calls
Nathuram Godse a “patriot”, it sounds too provocative to be accepted. And there
are reasons behind this.
I think the reason why Sadhvi Pragya
Thakur is shunted after her comment in Parliament is that we can’t switch from
a “taboo” to “appreciation” abruptly. Indian society has not been given a
chance to discuss about Nathuram Godse yet. Indian artists, playwrights or
movie makers have not been given enough chance to explore the psyche of
Nathuram Godse. Because Godse has been banned from public discourse for so
long, Indian public is not much aware about him or his ideas. Hence when
someone like Sadhvi Pragya calls him a “patriot”, it is something which is difficult
to be digested by politicians and people alike.
Therefore we must reflect if this is
the right time to remove the taboo around Godse and to “normalize” him and his ideas.
In this age of social media and free flows of ideas and thoughts, Indian public
is mature enough to understand, accept, differentiate and disagree while
maintaining the needed calm. Indian politicians and political parties should
stop being so touchy about Nathuram Godse. Let movies, art and literature
explore Godse and his ideas along with those of Mahatma Gandhi too. If we allow
this, there will be less risk of misleading or false propaganda being passed
for or against Nathuram Godse.
As a bottom line, I think it is high
time we must remove the taboo around Godse for once and forever.
- Rahul Tiwary
No comments:
Post a Comment