Dec 29 2014 : The Economic Times (Delhi)
The Mahatma Versus Nathuram Godse
Seeking a structural readjustment of history is a hallmark of most social, religious and political movements. In India, this often means reinterpreting figures. The Dalit movement, for example, tries this with its construction of statues and monuments, arguing that upper class and caste history have sought to erase those of marginalised sections. So, now, is also the Hindu Mahasabha (HM), among other sections of the Sangh Parivar. After a BJP MP called Nathuram Godse, Mahatma Gandhi's murderer, a patriot, the HM has raised another controversy by demanding that Godse's statues should be put up in public places. What is the difference between these two examples? And should the HM be allowed to put up the statues of the killer of the father of the nation?
The key difference is violence, and the idea of embedding that violence within the polity while seeking that readjustme nt of history . In principle, thus, given the fact that we are a democracy , there can be no objection to a body , even if it be called a fascist organisation, voicing such a demand. But what we are treading here is the fine line between freedom of speech and expression and hate speech or acts designed to, again, embed violence.Gandhi represented a vision, of minorities being an organic part of India, for which he was killed. And if and when free speech or ostensibly democratic demands veer into eulogising violence indirectly or offer an incitement to strife and violence, which we can call `hate speech', then the notion of `public order' comes into play against it. The fight is as much about preserving democracy , and the rights of even extreme bodies to make demands, as it is about preserving the idea of a secular India, and of politically fighting off challenges to it. A sensitised polity, not bans, is the solution.
The key difference is violence, and the idea of embedding that violence within the polity while seeking that readjustme nt of history . In principle, thus, given the fact that we are a democracy , there can be no objection to a body , even if it be called a fascist organisation, voicing such a demand. But what we are treading here is the fine line between freedom of speech and expression and hate speech or acts designed to, again, embed violence.Gandhi represented a vision, of minorities being an organic part of India, for which he was killed. And if and when free speech or ostensibly democratic demands veer into eulogising violence indirectly or offer an incitement to strife and violence, which we can call `hate speech', then the notion of `public order' comes into play against it. The fight is as much about preserving democracy , and the rights of even extreme bodies to make demands, as it is about preserving the idea of a secular India, and of politically fighting off challenges to it. A sensitised polity, not bans, is the solution.
