HVK Archives: Pu La Deshpande and Balasaheb Thackeray
Pu La Deshpande and Balasaheb Thackeray - (no publication)
Ashok Chowgule
()
10 Janaury 1996.
Title: PU LA DESHPANDE AND BALASAHEB THACKERAY
Author: Ashok Chowgule
Publication:
Date: Janaury 10, 1996.
The recent efforts of some Marathi literary personalities to pass a
resolution at the 72nd Marathi Sahitya Sammelan (Marathi Literary
Conference) at Ahmednagar, condemning the statement of the Shiv Sena
Pramukh, Balasaheb Thackeray, on Pu La Deshpande is yet another classic
case of the way the progressives are perverting discussion on social
issues and, in the process, creating confusion in the society. The
manner in which they have tried to make a mountain out of a molehill
clearly shows that they have no compunction of stooping to an abysmally
low level just so that their political objective is achieved.
The Maharashtra government has created a new award called Maharashtra
Bhushan. It is the normal practice of various governments, including
the central, that such awards are given to a person who is close to the
ruling party as a reward for his services. The present government (a
coalition of Shiv Sena and Bharatiya Janata Party) decided to honour Pu
La, a Marathi literary giant, well known not only in Maharashtra but all
over the world.
Given the controversy that has been created, it is necessary to
understand the political background of Pu La. He belongs to what is
called progressive circles and subscribes to an ideology which is
opposed to the party in power in the state. It is, therefore, clear
that the government had broken new grounds, and made a choice on the
basis of what would bring honour not only to the person, but also to the
state.
In his acceptance speech, apart from the usual comments, Pu La made an
extremely disparaging remark about the parties in power. He said that
while they have promised Shivshahi (rule by the principles of
Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj) they actually practice thokshahi (rule by
muscle power). The speech of Pu La was read by his wife, since his
health does not permit him to speak. He suffers from a severe case of
Parkinson's disease.
Without going into the merits of the comments, which I think has no
basis, had Pu La made them on another platform the issue would have had
a different dimension. But, here is a case where a person receives an
honour from a government which he is antagonistic towards, carrying a
cash prize of Rs 5 lakhs, at the hands of the Chief Minister, and makes
these comments at a function where the award is given. Surely, this is
in very bad taste, and reflects poorly on Pu La himself. If this was
his opinion about the government, the honourable thing for him to do was
to reject the award, and publicly state the reason why he has done so.
There have been instances where people have returned the awards, after
many years, to express their displeasure against the government. Such
an action would have made his protest more dignified, and would have
elevated his status further. His statement would have received even
greater publicity, and the impact would have been much greater.
The comments of Pu La, predictably, brought out a reaction from
Balasaheb Thackeray. At a function of opening a new bridge, he said
that while old bridges are falling down, new ones have to come up. This
is a play on words, for the word for bridges in Marathi is pula, which
is similar to the initials of the first Maharashtra Bhushan. Balasaheb
also said that he has high respects for the literary contribution of Pu
La. However, he disapproved of the statement of Pu La on the platform
that was made. Balasaheb's argument has been summarised above.
The progressives in Maharashtra thought that they had been given a
handle with which to beat the government in the state. Their propaganda
machinery got into gear to conduct a campaign of calumny, similar to the
ones that they have been doing in the past. The ethos of these
progressives is never to offer anything positive, and they are past
masters at attempting to destroy what is positive. The people at large
have become fed up of these antics, and they have deserted these
progressives, who are today tilling a lonely furrow. But, these
progressives command the reigns of instruments of dissemination of
information, and thus they can pervert the way the news is conveyed.
Conveniently, they will not inform the public the whole background. The
impression that is created is that Pu La made his statement at a
function which had nothing to do with the government. They will also
not inform the public the true import of Balasaheb's statement. The
impression that is created is that Balasaheb has abused Pu La, without
any justification. What Balasaheb has objected to is a political
statement of Pu La. He has not questioned Pu La's literary excellence -
in fact he has praised it. They think that creating a political
controversy of this type at a Sahitya Sammelan is within their rights.
But, if all this is said, then the progressives know that they have no
case, and thus cannot criticise the government.
To understand the whole controversy better, it is necessary to bring in
some aspects of Pu La into the picture. One is forced to mention these
incidences, because of his unprofessional behaviour. While Balasaheb
has expressed a desire to end the controversy, before the Sammelan
began, Pu La has made no statement, apart from what he had said when he
accepted the Maharashtra Bhushan award. These incidences, of course, do
not detract Pu La the literary man, but they are definitely a reflection
on Pu La the political man.
In his writings, Pu La has said that he is afraid of taking up a stand
against the government. This was much before the Shiv Sena-BJP
government came into power. One does wonder how come he has suddenly
mustered the courage to make this allegedly bold statement of his. The
conclusion that one arrives at is that in the previous cases, he would
have to bear not only verbal 'abuse' but something more. It may well be
that he would have been deprived of government patronage - this is
something that has happened to others. Or that would be subjected to
physical attacks. Yet, the progressives have labeled the present
government as fascist, and the previous governments as democratic. This
is another instance of the perversion that the progressives are famous
for.
A second example relates to another Marathi Sahitya Sammelan. In 1974,
Shri Purshottam Bhaskar Bhave, a Hindutva protagonist and a devotee of
Savarkar, was duly elected as the President of the Sammelan. The
progressives hatched a plan to disrupt the presidential address, and put
forward some members of the dalit community as a front for this
nefarious plan. It is believed that Pu La was one of the main
conspirator in this episode. In any case, Pu La has been not condemned
the progressives on the issue. Who is a fascist, and who a democrat?
Before going on to comment why I think these progressives behave in this
manner, one needs to mention the names of a couple of people in the
controversy. The first is Shri Girish Karnad, who was the chief guest
of the function. He too made his own contribution of politicising the
event by making political statements in his speech. Although these were
general statements, the target is clear. Another person is Shri Ramdas
Athawale, a self-styled dalit leader and a minister in the previous
Congress governments. He led the shouting brigade which raised slogans
against Balasaheb. Yet he received no censure from the progressives in
the media, while those who responded to these slogans were commented
upon unfavourably.
In an article on the Husain controversy, I had shown that those who
supported him for depicting Saraswati in the nude were alienated from
our civilisation and culture. They refused to distinguish between a
nude goddess and nudity per se. The present episode clearly shows the
arrogance of the same group of people. They think that whatever they
say has to be accepted by the people as the gospel truth. They are
unable to accept that it is their dharma to put forward issues in a
logical manner. They think that it is perfectly legitimate for them to
mix electoral politics in everything, and perversion of issues, so long
as their political objective is achieved, is nothing to be ashamed
about. However, if their opponents employ similar tactics, they will be
the first one to cry and shout. This double standard is their forte,
and they will use each and every opportunity to put their distorted view
point across.
It seems that the world that these progressives are living in revolves
around what comes in the print. They live only to write, and think that
only what is written is what others think. And, since they control the
media, they can ensure that what is written is only what they think.
The progressives have become an isolated group. They refuse to listen
to an alternate logic, on an arrogant assumption that whatever they say
or think is the only right thing, and that everything else is
automatically wrong. Having decided so, they are convinced that it is
not necessary to explain to the people why they are right. And to
'prove' that they are right, it does not matter what tactics they use,
and whom they use.
But, as they say, you cannot fool all the people all the time.
January 10, 1997.
Back
Top
|
