By L.S. Herdenia
BHOPAL: In the eyes of the RSS Indira Gandhi and Rajiv Gandhi cannot be described as “martyrs”. Their killings were nothing but murders. This opinion is contained in an article published in the “organiser” which is regarded as the periodical which propagates RSS views. This article has been published in the June 2 issue of the periodical.
The author Dr. Sudhir Bisht at the outset writes “I seek the indulgence of my readers to examine the ‘sacrifices’ made by Nehru-Gandhi family. As per Priyanka Gandhi Vadra her father Rajiv Ganhdi and grandmother Indira Gandhi achieved martyrdom for the sake of the country. Let us examine if there was any sense of martyrdom involved in unfortunate killings of Indira Gandhi and Rajiv Gandhi. It also needs to be checked if indeed meeting one’s end at the hands of an assassin is the same as achieving martyrdom. And indeed it is necessary to define the term martyrdom itself. We would also find out if the services rendered by the Nehru-Gandhi indeed were not reciprocated in equal measure by our motherland”.
He further writes “A person achieves martyrdom if he or she is killed or made to suffer greatly because of his/her political or religious belief. In case of a martyr, he/she is mostly against the mighty force of the state that is tyrannical, dictatorial, authoritarian and iniquitous.
“Indira ji was killed by her bodyguards, the same men who ironically were supposed to guard her against any harm. Even though she was advised to remove the Sikh bodyguards, she insisted on retaining them as she didn’t believe that her most trusted protectors would ever think of killing her. Indira ji fell to a gory death but wasn’t martyred as she didn’t die in any battle or any war action. It was not as if she knew that she could be killed and yet she ventured to fight and fell in the battle field”.
Referring to Rajiv Gandhi Bist says “Rajiv Gandhi fell to the evil designs of a very determined, very motivated and a very deadly organisation that held much hatred against Rajiv. LTTE held the view that Rajiv Gandhi had tried to finish it off and they wanted to take a revenge on him. The writer of contemporary history will forever be divided on the merits of Rajiv’s direct engagement in the internal, bloody politics of Sri Lanka. Rajiv died a gristly death and his killing was a body blow to India’s morale and its prestige but Rajiv’s end was not something that was an act of laying down one’s life for the country. Many others died in the blast that killed Rajiv and we don’t remember them as martyrs. We remember them as the victims of terrorism.”
The author also asserts that the projection of Nehru as a great patriot is also not proper. In his view “Panditji enjoyed regular periods of parole interspersed with not so unpleasant stay in jail. He could meet people he wanted to see and his supplies of books and other consumables were always in abundance available to him at all times. Nehru never experienced the hard labour from dawn-to-dusk that Veer Savarkar faced”.
Strangely in the opinion of the author “One of the earliest martyrs was Abhimanyu, the young son of Arjun and Subhadra, who died a valiant death in the Chakravyuha battle arrangement of the Kaurava army. Abhimanyu is the most valiant of all heroes of the battle of Mahabharat.
One of the greatest warriors and teachers of Mahabharat, Dronacharya was also killed in Mahabharat. But he was beheaded by the brother of Draupadi, Dhrishadyum (the Panchala prince) when Dronacharya was unarmed and in a state of grief at the perceived loss of his son’s life. Dronacharya didn’t die a martyr’s death. He didn’t die fighting but he died while he was grieving”.
He concludes “Our martyrs died for their sacred cause, for freedom of our country. They didn’t lay down their lives so that their future generations could en cash their martyrdom for the power games. This is what martyrdom is all about”. (IPA Service)