Author: R.P. Subramanian
Publication: The Indian Express
Date: June 9, 2004
By constantly harping on Manmohan
Singh's religion, one obscures his impressive credentials
Unny's cartoon of June 7 (showing
a smiling Buddhadev Bhattacharya with the caption: "A Muslim President,
a Sikh PM... want a Buddhist FM?") takes a much-needed dig at the way large
swathes of commentators view our nation's leaders in terms of their religious
affinities.
Thus, ever since Manmohan Singh
was sworn in as prime minister, there have been celebrations over how wonderful
it is that "a Sikh PM has been sworn in by a Muslim president in Hindu-majority
India... after a Christian renounced the position." Worse, some have waxed
eloquent on how, by choosing Singh, the Congress under Sonia Gandhi has
sent a powerful "signal" to the minority Sikh community, which had become
"alienated" from the Congress after the 1984 massacres. In effect, we are
being told that Manmohan Singh is a symbolic PM, chosen because he is a
Sikh; that he is a "second-choice" PM who will work under the directives
of Sonia even as she functions as lifetime president of Congress and leader
of the UPA. Could there be a greater disservice to Singh, a man of integrity,
intellect and impartiality, father of economic reforms, the best leader
India can have under the present dispensation?
A.P.J. Abdul Kalam is arguably one
of the best and most pro-active presidents India has had. Surely, we belittle
the man by seeing nothing more in him than his "Muslim" identity? When
Kalam's name was proposed for president by the ruling NDA in 2002, the
Congress supported his candidature (though the Left put up their own candidate,
Lakshmi Sehgal). Yet facile analyses at the time suggested that the BJP-led
NDA was backing Kalam only to appease Muslims. This was an insult to Kalam's
character and capabilities. Indeed, by the same twisted logic the Left
could have been accused of supporting Sehgal against Kalam because it was
"anti-Muslim"!
Mercifully, these voices fell silent
after Kalam's election. Perhaps they realised it would be inappropriate
to gush over "a Muslim being sworn in as president of India by a Hindu
PM in the presence of a Christian defence minister"? That being the case,
why must we suffer such absurd reportage now? When viewed through narrow,
tinted lenses, one's worldview will be narrow and tinted. Kalam, Singh
and Sonia do not wear their religions on their sleeves; we must follow
their example.
