Despite the fact that a tiniest of error would cost him his
life and Troy, the ongoing battle, King Priam, in the darkest hours of night,
went to Achilles’ camp to plead for his son’s dead body which Achilles, after
killing him had kept in his captivity, robbing him off of his last rituals. Achilles, although being an enemy, was moved by Priam's gesture and returned him Hector's body and promised a truce of twelve days to allow the Trojans to perform funeral rites for Hector. Priam returned to Troy with the body of his son, and it was given dignified funeral honours.
Not only in Greek mythology, but also in the community we
live, ‘Shok Sabha’ is organised where
we gather to offer our condolences and pay honour to the deceased for all their
contributions to this world, be that in any form. Even the persons one has
always lived in disagreement with, come to put an end to their differences and
acknowledge the worth of the deceased in the society. Although, few argue against this practice, calling it ‘pretence’ and ‘fake’ but the notion behind
paying testimonial homage and commendations is, setting a moral persona of the
departing soul; untarnishing the spirit and establishing an image for us to
remember the nobility of the dead.
So it was upon King Priam to decide whether Hector should be
remembered as the man who was killed by Achilles, tied to his chariot and was dragged
to the enemies camp or, the brave leader who he’ll be claimed to have been in farewell
speeches of the people of Troy in his dignity. King Priam opted the latter and
hence risked his life for procuring Hector’s dead body.
We remember Hector as the man who stood for the honour of
Troy, fought for his brother and his people. We remember him as the glorified warrior
who died combating the man who was known to be immortal!
The act of remembering someone isn’t just an algorithm for
sustaining the structure of a society, but your entire identity, foundation and
school of thought depends on how you are remembering the people you are
remembering. For example, in July, 2016, ‘Hindustan
Times’, published a story where it reported that actor Naseeruddin Shah
believes that late actor Rajesh Khanna’s entry in Bollywood changed the way
films were made, but not for good. According to the report, he also said that
Rajesh Khanna was a poor actor and his era of acting was an era of mediocrity
of Bollywood. The credibility Naseeruddin Shah holds as an actor, changed the
way his fans used to remember Rajesh Khanna. The memories of same Rajesh Khanna
which were filled with ‘Anand’, ‘Kati
Patang’, ’Amar Prem’, and as a pictorial
representation of the evergreen voice of Kishore Kumar, was adulterated with
doubts of him even being a good actor. In Rajesh Khanna’s defence, Twinkle
Khanna, his daughter, replied to Naseeruddin Shah through a tweet saying, ‘Sir, if you can’t respect the living,
respect the dead. Mediocrity is attacking a man who can’t respond’.
Naseeruddin Shah, as per democracy, is rightfully entitled
to have an opinion but was it required to dishonour a man’s entire life and an
institute’s entire era by calling it an era of mediocrity which was generally
known to be a golden era of Bollywood? Was there no other way to put his
opinion than to discredit a man’s entire work, who must, on his deathbed, be
lying satisfied thinking about the fact that he did justice to his institute by
giving 15 consecutive solo hit films?
Declarations like these not only change the way people look
at somebody, but also fabricate the history of an institute; Bollywood in this
case. Because as Twinkle said, the man is no more to undo the damage that has
been done to the memories of his existence. The man has probably lost the
co-ordinates he earned for himself in the mapping of history and sadly, he didn’t
have the opportunity to fix it!
It’s 2019. We have grown almost 3 years older since this
incident but, did we really grow up? Because in 2016 it was Rajesh Khanna and
in 2019, it is Mahatma Gandhi, Jawaharlal Nehru, Sardar Patel, Bhagat Singh,
Subhash Chandra Bose and many more. A certain section of the society is
practising this idea of demeaning historic leaders of opposition to earn some
political benefit in the coming Lok Sabha election. The humungous circulations
of questions, being raised to justify the credibility of our leaders of the
past, on social media under the banner of election campaign, is not just
adulterating our memories of these great leaders but is also tarnishing the history
of our country. The same leaders who lost their lives fighting for country’s independence
are being charged with having alliances with the people they were fighting
with. And sadly, just like Rajesh Khanna, they are no more to answer to those
questions.
How unfortunate is this, that the people who believed that
their martyrdom will be paid off with honour, that their contribution in the
freedom struggle will be paid off with respect, that their death will be paid
off with immortality, are being accused of treason!
And all this just for winning an election! The campaigns for
the elections are being designed in a way which could hit our psyche and change
the way we remember our history and historical figures. To win a Parliament for
5 years, the campaign has been designed to destroy decades of our narratives
forever.
It’s time for us to understand that no matter what outcome the election will bring to the political party of our choice, no matter who wins or loses, the glory of our leaders should remain intact,
the sanctity of our history must remain intact, the decency of our ‘Shok Sabha’ must remain intact. It is
for us to understand that the polarisation on the basis of our political
opinions, is blinding us too much to hold on humanity. It is for us to
understand that unlike King Priam, we are digging our warriors from their
graves and dragging their bodies in the battlefield.
The greatness of our Hectors must remain intact!
Jai Hind!
