The discourse on Netaji must be kept civilised and abusive language of a shocking order must not be resorted to in one's bid to lodge protest against injustices done to the hero of epic proportions. I am everyday dismayed to see vilification done to our freedom fighters in unholy language, foul filthy expressions used to express anger against those leaders of the freedom movement who harmed Netaji like anything, language used that would us to shame before our children and grandchildren. This ought not to be for it does a greater disservice to the cause of restoration of the revolutionary pride and heritage.
I, personally, am merciless in my verbal attacks on these perfidious elements of our freedom struggle who did everything in their power to weaken our extreme revolutionary movement but never for once do I resort to linguistic abuse so profane that makes democratic discourse an exercise in verbal violation. There must a sense of beauty in presentation of one's views that must not sink to linguistic aberration of a profane kind that makes reading an exercise in absorbing filth. Aesthetics must ever prevail over the entire conversation of the freedom struggle and this we must learn from the revolutionaries themselves who never transgressed the bounds of civilised communication. Perhaps, overmuch of resentment coupled with paucity of vocabulary plays its part in bringing about this obnoxious verbal vitriol interspersed with abusive words to lend force to the presentation.
But this ought not to be. Better reading habits and the pursuit of culture will lend sanity to the discourse. It is perverse to seek to be popular by the use of linguistic profanity. Such measures befit the roguish elements of society and not men of merit who are seeking to bring justice to Netaji and his cause of national regeneration.
This is by no means an apology on behalf of the votaries of non-violence and passive resistance who can hardly bear my stinging criticism of the Mahatma and his men and would rather see me go soft on their national patriarch. No, this is not even by way of an exhortation to people to be less volatile and vocal about the historical injustices meted out to the revolutionaries by Congressmen. It is simply a request to all such who are transgressing limits of linguistic propriety in their bid to achieve justice for the revolutionaries to observe a sense of decency in discourse so that the movement does not go awry by alienating large numbers of civilised thinking men from it.
Communication is at once an art and a science. Pure populism of a perverse kind backfires in the long run and although it whips up temporary passions among the people by resorting to cheap tactics among which number the use of abusive language to press home one's viewpoint, it fails to achieve its nobler objective by itself stooping so low as to lose contact with the higher ideal aspired for. Hence, it is always prudent to do what the wise suggest, to remain within the bounds of decorum and decency while hammering out one's points with unerring accuracy in point of truth and direction. This is what the revolutionaries did when they entered into verbal duel with the Mahatma as is evident in the celebrated long debate between Gandhi and Sachindranath Sanyal in the columns of 'Young India' from 1920 to 1924.
I sincerely hope that my readers are not imagining that I have after all undergone a sudden conversion to the fold of the 'Sage of Sabarmati', to pilfer from Netaji's mischievous mention of the Mahartma, and have taken to the chore of spinning the yarn of good hope and digesting it with the salt obtained from its evaporation. I am still an unrelenting critic of the Mahatma and his methods, inclusive of his machinations as well, and am going to inveigh heavily against all who belonged to his coterie who were participants in the calculated corruption of the revolutionary cause.
Written by Sugata Bose
No comments:
Post a Comment