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

The Rediff Special/Arun Gandhi

Gandhi, Godse and the truth

The controversy over Pradeep Dalvi's play Mi Nathuram Godse Boltoy raises many questions. My first reaction reflected the same sentiments as Pritish Nandy expresses in his article on Rediff On The Net.First, that people have a right to their opinions and the right to express them as they please. Second that I, as a grandson of the man at the centre of the controversy should not be the one to refute Pradeep Dalvi's conclusions. I now believe that on both these counts I am wrong.

I have a great regard for Pradeep Dalvi and read the text of the play on the Internet. It was difficult to believe that an erudite litterateur like Dalvi, who has many good plays under his belt, could create something so historically incorrect. It was even more painful to read the question and answer interview appearing on Rediff On The NeT that he could not even cite the books from where he got the facts. To say that he merely translated the Gujarati version of the play does not behove someone of Pradeep Dalvi's abilities. He used to be a great playwright when I lived in Bombay and worked for The Times of India. What happened, Pradeep?

I was also shocked to learn that the demonstrations and the subsequent banning of his play by the state government anguished him. I don't need to recount all the sentiments he expressed upholding his rights and freedom and the voice of the poor etc. The reason I am shocked is because I don't recall any of the eminent people involved in this controversy, including Pradeep, raising the same vociferous arguments when M F Husain was stopped from exhibiting his paintings and continues to be hounded? Does it mean the liberties that we want to uphold today are conditional upon our religious beliefs?

I don't wish to dwell on the historical inaccuracies of the present controversy except to say that Dalvi contradicts himself when he tries to interpret what Nathuram Godse felt about Partition of the country.

Dalvi agrees and so did Nathuram that Gandhi said Partition will occur only "over my dead body."

Gandhi did say that and remained loyal to that belief until he was betrayed by the Congress leadership with the threat of another civil war in India if Jinnah was allowed to become the first prime minister. It was, therefore, not Gandhi who accepted Partition but the Congress leadership. Gandhi felt betrayed, did not want to witness another bloodbath and decided to devote the rest of his life to bringing peace between Hindus and Muslims.

While Gandhi was in Noakhali, the part of Bengal that became East Pakistan and now Bangladesh, the Congress leadership was planning festivities to celebrate India's independence on August 15. They wanted Gandhi to participate in the rejoicing over the transfer of power.

An emissary was sent to Noakhali with a letter from Nehru urging Gandhi to come to Delhi. Gandhi read the letter and expressed in absolute shock: "Rejoice!! At a time when my brothers and sisters are killing each other what is there to rejoice?" This anguished statement does not appear to be from one who wanted Partition so Nehru could become prime minister.

Gandhi's last fast that inspired Nathuram to assassinate him, was against a patently immoral act of the government. When the Indian government accepted Partition it tacitly also accepted the consequences of Partition -- a bloodbath. Then, the Indian government had no moral right to withhold from Pakistan what legally belonged to them. Had Gandhi not taken this stand there would, most certainly, have been a worse bloodbath than the one the subcontinent witnessed. And, we would have stood naked and guilty before world opinion. However, I have said more than I intended on the historic accuracy of Dalvi's play.

To me the most pertinent question that this controversy raises is one of 'freedom' and 'rights'. I find Pritish Nandy's arguments, based on the principles of democracy that Western commentators frequently express, equally unacceptable. Freedom and Rights can be enjoyed only in proportion to the responsibilities that one is willing to shoulder. If one does not hold oneself responsible in anyway towards the individual or the society then one cannot expect to enjoy unlimited rights.

If people have the right to distort history, incite emotions, propagate hate and greed, in short do everything that goes against the "social contract" on which democracy is based, then how can one expect to enjoy rights? Then the social contract becomes meaningless and society becomes a free-for-all arena where the fittest, the loudest and the meanest can survive.

If democracy is about rights and freedom without responsibility then why do we penalise criminals? They too should then enjoy the privilege to do what they think is right and the freedom to take what they need. The fact that a society needs to be governed by law indicates that not even a society that believes ardently in the principles of democracy is willing to give its citizens the blanket right and freedom to do what they want.

The United States, which is arguably the most democratic country, has more laws on its statute governing the rights and freedoms of its citizens than any other. Whether a woman should have an abortion or not, whether a person has the right to decide when s/he wants to die or whether one should drive with or without a seat-belt is decided by law.

If we truly believe that a society must ensure the rights and freedoms of its citizens then we have two options -- we must either accept a lawless society or we must have a strong moral code that ensures we behave responsibly. We cannot have both at the same time.

Nandy talks of how India as a nation responded to Indira Gandhi's Emergency regulations, which sought to take away the freedoms and the rights enjoyed by the citizens of India. Yes, we upheld the rights and the freedoms but at what cost? Ironically, the free nations of the world are closer to anarchy today than ever before, especially India.

Some may consider this to be over-reaction. Life is not all that bad in a free society. Sure, that's what people said when Hitler came into power. Everyone pretended that life was not all that bad even under the Nazis until the horrors were exposed. We have spent the last fifty years making excuses for our inaction.

In a very different way, almost imperceptibly, the path that we have chosen for the free societies of the world -- rights without responsibilities -- will eventually lead us to the same end as Nazism. Is there hope of change before the next millenium? I don't know. But let us not blame our follies on someone who is dead and gone for fifty years.

The Rediff Specials

Tell us what you think of this feature