|
|
|
|
|
| HOME | NEWS | DEAR REDIFF | |||
|
COMMENTARY
|
|
|
E-mail from readers the world over
Date sent: Fri, 24 Jul 1998 10:45:14 -0400 This play begins with a bias toward Nathuram Godse. He is constantly referred to as Pandit, while Mahatma Gandhi is named just Gandhi. This is probably an attempt to bias the reader's mind towards Godse. Nathuram Godse was an activist of the Hindu Mahasabha which at the time of the assassination was led by Veer Savarkar, according to Freedom at Midnight (Larry Collins & Dominique Lapierre). Another person in the group (who plotted the assassination) was a shopkeeper who sold weapons illegally. Other people in the group were in general small minded people who worked on the basis of their whims instead of any sort of knowledge of national politics. Nathuram Godse was a well read man, but only relative to these petty human beings. He is being glorified today by a similar group of petty minded people who are whimsical and ignorant. About 500,000 people died on the Punjab border during Partition. About a couple of hundreds died on the Bengal border. Why? Lord Mountbatten anticipated a greater bloodshed on the Bengal border due to the jam-packed slums with highly intermixed Hindu and Muslim populations. He knew the army would be able to do nothing if riots broke out on the narrow streets and gullies of Bengal. Mountbatten, therefore, sent the only man who held equal respect among the Hindu and Muslim community to Bengal -- Mahatma Gandhi. And there were no riots. It is the greatness of the man, the Mahatma, that in spite of being a Hindu and living in a Hindu majority nation, he could think of the Muslims, a minority, but a people nonetheless. The Mahatma was the only person who opposed Partition until the very end. He was rendered weak as Nehru and Patel desired a quick end to the dispute with Jinnah. People in the Congress were beginning to see him as weak and of no consequence (much as people do today). He had no choice but to keep his mouth shut. Mountbatten was finally convinced by a massacre in a village on the Punjab border that Partition was the only option. The Mahatma was not responsible for Partition. When the nation's resources were being divided, India owed Pakistan several million rupees. In the wake of the all-pervasive Muslim hatred, people like the Hindu Mahasabha gang were demanding that India should not give Pakistan the amount. That the lack of money would lead to the deaths of thousands of Muslims in a newly created nation was scarcely thought about by these petty minded activists. Gandhi went on a fast to demand that the money be paid. It is sad that the Mahatma had to go on a fast to tell his countrymen to be honest!! Imagine feeling proud about defaulting money that we owed to somebody... and Gandhi was touted a Muslim lover and hated by his countrymen? Mahatma Gandhi was a great man. Nathuram Godse took away one of the greatest human beings the world ever had. A play like Mi Nathuram Godse Boltoy belongs to an India where every Indian is well read and knows the details of the fight for Independence. Most of the reasoning presented in the play is petty but will not be recognised for being so, because of the mind-set of a majority of Indians today. People who don't read about Indian history and know nothing about the Mahatma's work towards shaping it, are highly susceptible to fall for this very pathetic attempt to glorify an assassin. India is not yet ready for such a play. Mi Nathuram Godse Boltoy certainly should have been banned.
Date sent: Fri, 24 Jul 1998 14:13:26 -0400 I believe every individual should have a certain amount of freedom to express his views. It is important that the individual doesn't misrepresent facts, but this is better judged by the media and the people, rather than by even a democratically elected government. Media importance given should be justified by the strength of the arguments presented. This was my take on the banning of the play on Nathuram Godse, even before reading its contents. Digressing a little bit -- to what extent can this freedom of expression be exercised? So long as it doesn't affect the sentiments of certain sections of the people? Or doesn't incite hatred or violence? Strict adherence to the former category would imply banning most of the books/plays/movies that are published/produced. A possible solution is, like in the movies, a rating system for this category. However, I believe that the latter category does merit a ban. The classification could be determined by possibly a government constituted panel of experts. After reading up on the play, I am all the more convinced against its censorship. My point is media articles, and people's views should have such arguments for and against the contents of the play.
Date sent: Fri, 24 Jul 1998 11:28:10 -0600 (GMT) This play has stirred my conscience. This is a very well written play. Very informative and an eye opener, specially for the young generations who have been taught that Gandhiji was the greatest and Nathuram Godse, an ordinary criminal. I do respect Gandhiji, but my respect for Nathuram Godse has increased manifold now. Thanks a lot for letting millions of people on the Internet read the play. Congratulations Mr Pradeep Dalvi for a fantastic play. Vinit
Date sent: Fri, 24 Jul 1998 14:07:29 -0400 The play should be allowed and let people have their own opinion.
Date sent: Fri, 24 Jul 1998 12:44:05 -0400 It was a great attempt. I have a question though: Did the play end ...? Or is there something else to it? If so please put it it on your site soon. Gangadhar Rediff On The NeT carried the complete play.
Date sent: Fri, 24 Jul 1998 10:07:05 -0500 This play should definitely not be banned. Nor is there any reason to censor any part of the play. The play does not in anyway hurt the idealism that Gandhi stood for. It only probably brings to light the point of view of Nathuram Godse. Whether he was right or wrong, that, the people from that time can only tell us. Ajay
Date sent: Fri, 24 Jul 1998 14:36:20 +0200 I think it is a great play. We have always been presented with only one side of the picture, but now we can see the other side of it. I fully respect he author and deplore the ban on this play. I had read someone's remarks about the ban that if it is to be lifted then we should accept MF Husain's paintings, but most of us WON'T accept that. Jai Hind
Date sent: Fri, 24 Jul 1998 10:51:09 CDT 'The next moment I fired at Gandhi' was excellent. The play itself is one of its kind. There is no reason for the Indian government to ban it or for the Congress to oppose it. It is the truth, and truth alone triumphs. Pavan
Date sent: Fri, 24 Jul 1998 10:51:09 CDT It is good. Also very good. Satakarni
Date sent: Fri, 24 Jul 1998 07:34:08 PDT It was a nice piece of information. Still I found it a bit incomplete. There are quite a few others reasons why Nathuram murdered Gandhi. I say this with reference to two books. The first one is again in Marathi: Gandhi Khunaachaa Kat meaning "Plot to assassinate Gandhi" by Nathuram's brother Gopal Godse. The other one being Murder of Mahatma and Other Stories by Justice B D Khosla, who delivered the death sentence to Nathuram. I suppose, if the purpose of the extract is to tell people about the "TRUE" history and facts, then all important issues (maybe in short) must be laid in front of the public for them decide. Shrikant
Date sent: Fri, 24 Jul 1998 14:58:15 +0800 I really like the play and there is nothing wrong in staging it. I think Nathuram Godse was really a strong person. I really appreciate Nathuram Godse, not because he assassinated Gandhiji, but because of his great thinking about the nation.
Date sent: Fri, 24 Jul 1998 12:45:54 +0530 I am very impressed by the work of Nathuram. Kumar
Date sent: Fri, 24 Jul 1998 13:36:34 +0530 I firmly believe that all Indians have the right to express themselves, provided no one hurts the sentiments of any religion, community or sect. We are the only country in the world where politicians are idolised and treated as gods. It is disgusting!! Politicians are human too as was Mahatma Gandhi. What Mahatma Gandhi did for our country is undoubtedly priceless. If India is a true democracy, then all must have the right to express themselves through whatever media or form they prefer. Clamping down on a play which goes against our so called "political idolising" is against the Constitution, as it simply revokes every Indian's right to freedom of expression. People of my generation are a cynical lot when it comes to our leaders.
Date sent: Fri, 24 Jul 1998 10:40:37 +0530 I feel both Nathuram and Gandhiji were right in their own way. But Gandhiji failed as a politician and prompted Nathuram to take this extreme step. After going through the script of the play, I do not think that the play is written to glorify any one person, but has successfully presented the views from both the sides. In my view banning such plays are foolish and only our politicians can do that. Anand Prakash
Date sent: Thu, 23 Jul 1998 22:07:54 -0600 I think it was wrong to ban the play.
Date sent: Fri, 24 Jul 1998 10:52:33 +0800 Is this the full content of the play - only this much? I am surprised. If so, I do not feel the Mahatma has been shown in poor light. Though in the beginning it creates such an impression, that it is not so powerful to erase memories and history or rewrite our belief and thoughts. Nathuram Godse's action has not been properly or fully defended or justified. The final impression one gets is, whether Gandhi was right or wrong in his actions, he is a great soul indeed. Bearing that in mind, what Nathuram did is a great crime, blunder and can never be forgotten or forgiven. Bhaskaran
Date sent: Fri, 24 Jul 1998 10:14:20 +0900 It's a well written play which presents the views of both assassin and assassinated. It shows even after uniting India, working for the upliftment of dalits and leading the march to Independence, how Gandhi alienated himself from a large section of his OWN PEOPLE. This is a fact. And, banning such a fact revealing play which can't have any harmful repercussions on the society, just shows how blind and intolerant our government is. It listens what it wants to listen. It sees what it wants to see. And, it bans those who don't see or look with it. And, silent reception of the ban by our society once again validates that we only complain but don't protest. We let these people decide what's good for us. Then, though we are not happy with it, we accept it meekly. We support their deeds by being silent publicly and then, complain of their deeds in private. Girish
Date sent: Thu, 23 Jul 1998 19:50:00 -0400 The play does not reveal any historical facts. It is also devoid of any literary content. It can only be rated mediocre. But I do not agree with those who say that it glorifies Godse. Neither do I feel that it glorifies Gandhi. It gives equal say to both characters. The dialogues contain no substance and do not bring out the intensity of Godse's feeling before he decided to kill Gandhi. The dialogues do not clarify Gandhi's stand also. And, I am not in favour of the ban against it. Freedom of expression is the cornerstone of our democracy and it should not be infringed. People should be allowed the right of choices and allowed to make their choices without restrictions.
Date sent: Fri, 24 Jul 1998 09:06:19 +1000 I am a supporter of freedom of speech and expression. I liked the play, it did not glorify Nathuram or degrade the glory of Gandhi. It was just stating few simple things which everybody would have thought or are still thinking. I will not support the ban of the play, let the public be their own judge, they are smart enough to make up their mind. As stated in the play also the nation is bigger than any person whoever that person is, and this is also true that they have killed Gandhi but they cannot kill Gandhism. I would love to see the BJP government taking a firm stand against this ban. This will be like another feather in their victory cap. Shalini Singh
|
||
|
HOME |
NEWS |
BUSINESS |
SPORTS |
MOVIES |
CHAT
INFOTECH | TRAVEL | LIFE/STYLE | FREEDOM | FEEDBACK |
||