This is the most controversial and sensational play of recent times. I watched this play because I was curious after reading about it. It is cleared by the court now and hence it is reliable.
Plot-
The play opens with a monologue. This monologue sets tone for the play.
There was only one spotlight. The rest of the stage was dark. That spotlight was on the man who is a hero for some and a villain for many. He tells people his age. (He was born around 1910). He even jokes, says that he looks young for his age. Then he introduces himself. He is Nathuram Vinayak Godse. People who do not know much about him get some new information about him.
Then we see the situation at that time. I will not list the things that all of us have read in school history.
After NG killed Gandhi, he was arrested and kept in prison. NG becomes friendly with the people around him- Inspector Sheikh and Sawant. Nathuram (in the play) is very calm and balanced in this period, and he doesn’t worry about his obvious fate. (He was executed very soon. When they hanged him, he had Bhagvad Geeta in his hands and Vande Mataram on his lips). The play also indicates that NG was well aware of the risks, and he couldn’t have cared less.
There is a dialogue about difference between ‘murder’ and ‘assassination’.
I am sorry I cannot write in detail, since some parts are very explosive.
The play is in Marathi. I understand Marathi but some part was very high-level Marathi, so I couldn’t understand. Otherwise, anybody with basic knowledge of Marathi will be able to understand.
Intention of this play seems to be to give more information about Nathuram Godse. The play is full of respect for Gandhi. NG respects Gandhi. (He compares his situation with mythological characters, so we can say that his respect for Gandhi was like Arjuna’s respect for Pitamaha Bheeshma.)
Direction by Vinay Apte is good. There was nothing much to do, so he seems to have followed the script. The biggest strength is that this play is based of true data. Whatever historical facts NG states, even Gandhi’s blunders, everything is TRUE. Godse has the most powerful dialogues. He often got thunderous applause from the audience.
To play Godse was a real challenge for any actor, and Sharad Ponkshe has given a sensational performance. The guy who played Sheikh was also fine.
The play tries to justify NG’s actions to some extent. This play is powerful enough to convince even a loyal Gandhian that NG was not a regular ‘criminal’, ‘lunatic’ or ‘murderer’- the way he is described in history textbooks.
He was an intellectual. He was a patriot. A healthy, well-settled man in his 30s, an editor of a newspaper, he had no personal problems with Gandhi. (For people who call him ‘lunatic’- can a lunatic live a normal life till his mid-30s? can a lunatic work as an editor of a newspaper? Above all- will a lunatic go all over the way from Pune to Delhi to do volunteer work in refugee camps?)
The partition did not happen in his city, and he could have been alive even today, living a normal life like everybody else, had he not made that one mistake.
Why did this person feel so much for the refugees that he didn’t even know? Why did their massacres and rapes anger him? Why did he choose to die? Why did he choose to become so infamous?
Now the question is- whether he was misguided or not. That you should decide according to your set of knowledge and opinions.
::Akhil’s Analysis::
(Disclaimer: The following material is my personal opinion, and I don’t expect you to agree with me. This play was thought provoking; so, presenting my ramblings…)
PART 1 - I have huge respect for Gandhi. He was a great freedom fighter. I also admire him for his simplicity, cleanliness, ashrams, frugality, yarn spurning, etc.
I did not agree with some of the stuff said in that play. NG blames Gandhi for the partition. I don’t think it is right to hold just one person responsible for that partition. There were economic reasons. British were the obvious culprits. How can one man- MK Gandhi be considered responsible for that?
Besides, NG simply decided that people of India would be better off without Gandhi. Who gave him this right? Did he have a right to decide what was good /bad for the entire nation? Then what’s the difference between him and Gandhi!
The play doesn’t consider such questions.
PART 2-This play made me think. We often talk about the reasons behind the assassination (how NG wanted to take revenge), and the aftermath.
But what if…. NG’s plans had failed? What if the police had arrested NG before the assassination?
Imagine.
Do you think we would still be holding our Kashmir? Someone would have gone on fast to give away Kashmir, and probably some other states, too.
Gandhi’s ahinsa says that “if somebody wants to kill you, let him kill, don’t fight back”. I do not think that we would have gone to the extent of developing Army, Navy, and Air force. We wouldn’t have fought back during 1962, 65 and 71.
We would have simply allowed our lands to be taken and our women to be raped.
Just like the refugees of 1947.
(In 1947, cruelty had crossed all limits. Trains full of corpses were arriving daily from Pakistan. Gandhi advised the refugees to ''go back where they came from'' and repeatedly told them to ''die bravely''. They were expected to observe non-violence while their wives and sisters were being raped, their children and elders were being killed.)
Think about the protection and stability that our soldiers and scientists have created. They could do it only because no one went on a fast to stop them from killing the enemies or making missiles.
It was one thing to follow ahinsa when British were ruling. Slaves can follow ahinsa if they want, I agree.
But ahinsa doesn’t work when you are dealing with enemies not as slaves, but as masters. The only type of violence that our culture allows is Violence for Self-defense, and I do not see anything wrong in it. Gandhi didn’t support the idea of self-defense.
So, was NG’s action a mere act of revenge by a man who loved his nation too much, or was it done by a man who didn’t care about his own future, but who cared a lot about his nation’s future?
Things change with time.
You never know how future generations will interpret the history.
Let’s give truth a chance. So far we were hearing only side. Now we have started hearing the other side. Major paradigm shifts are likely to happen in the future. Let truth shine.
P.S. - If you want other people to read this review, tell them to do it fast, or save a copy on your machine right now, and forward it to them. There is a possibility that Mouthshut will delete this review.
