Author: Saurav Basu
Publication: Blogs.Ivarta.com
Date: February 9, 2009
URL: http://www.blogs.ivarta.com/National-awards-Secular-Bharat-Ratna/blog-248.htm
Bharat Ratna is the highest civilian award
for national service. The order was established by Dr Rajendra Prasad, President
of India, on January 2, 1954. Today, there are 41 Bharat Ratna winners in
India, the last being Bhimsen Joshi. And yet, there are noticeable absentees.
Mahatma Gandhi, the most conspicuous but since he was already elevated to
the "father of the nation", his posthumous soul automatically opted
out of the race. But there was no Sardar Patel either, the iron man of India
until 1991, despite the fact that the provision to award the Bharat Ratna
posthumously was enacted way back in 1955. This provision was probably made
to confer the award on Sardar Patel. But Nehru"s profound ideological
and personal differences with Patel came in the way. Patel was intrinsically
a man who connected to the masses unlike Nehru"s Anglicized condescending
approach. Patel was an uncompromising nationalist with an "India first"
approach without any pretensions to internationalism, soviet mania and "Hindi-China
bhai bha at the expense of the right to self determination of the Tibetan
people". Patel sternly objected to minority appeasement in a divided
India, Nehru started the farce of "Haj subsidy" but did not contribute
a single paisa towards restoration of the Somnatha temple. Patel defended
the "right to property" as an inviolable fundamental right and found
intolerable the partially communist ethos of Nehru. Patel gave a clean chit
to RSS in the Gandhi murder case, while Nehru in true totalitarian fashion
incarcerated thousands of RSS workers in jail on the basis of guilt by association
( Nathuram was an RSS member more than 10 years before he killed Gandhi. He
left the organization because he did not find it militant enough). Indeed,
what prevented an open rupture between both these men, in the admission of
a left leaning historian Ramachandra Guha"s words "was mutual regard
and Patel"s stoic decency"
Yet, Nehru gleefully conferred the Bharat
Ratna on himself in 1955 with the full blessings of Rajendra Prasad and other
obsequious Congressmen. This paved the path for sequential undermining of
the credibility of the state awards. Nehru had little to show as positive
achievements when the entire country mass was mired in poverty, illiteracy
and backwardness, a situation which consistently worsened until death forced
Nehru to abdicate his throne in 1963. He left India more poor and more backward,
confesses Walter Crocker in his "Nehru: a contemporary estimate"
L K Advani in his memoirs perceptively notes that "The process of undermining
democratic consultation and decision making within the Congress had begun
with Nehru himself. He often defied the party"s decisions, it was also
Nehru who had planted the seeds of dynasticism in the party by consciously
grooming his daughter as his successor. She triumphed in her battle against
her adversaries, but, in the process, she wrote the epitaph of democracy inside
the Congress Party" Indeed, the most enduring legacy that Nehru left
behind is the Gandhi family.
C Rajagopalachari another scion of the Congress
family and India"s last governor general, who incidentally was one of
the first Congress leaders to find merit in the two nation theory (see Dhananjay
Keer, 1966) was also conferred the Bharat Ratna. But of course, Shyama Prasad
Mukherji, the man who single handedly through his supreme self sacrifice forced
the communal administration of Sheikh Abdullah to abolish the provision of
two heads of state and replacement of the sadar-e-riyasat (head of state)
system with the usual governorship in vogue elsewhere was denied the same.
In fact, Nehru far from taking moral responsibility for Mukherji"s demise
in the prison of his childhood friend Sheikh Abdullah, refused to even order
an inquiry into the death of the martyr when everyone suspected skeletons
in the latter"s cupboard.
Indira Gandhi continued the grand family tradition
by emulating her father self conferment of the Bharat Ratna in 1971. Until
the 1980s, almost 85% of the Bharat Ratna awardees were either full time Congresmen
or their foot soldiers. The others included Nobel Prize laureates, two non
Indians and few apolitical scholars. No man critical of the Congress in his
lifetime could ever hope to win the prize in life or death. B R Ambedkar in
1991, is a notable exception because of the beginnings of dalit mobilization.
Interesting, Rajiv Gandhi won the award more on sympathetic grounds than any
positive contribution. In fact, his irresponsible statements after his mother"s
assassination by her Sikh bodyguards had tragic consequences. His flip flop
in the Shah Bano case proved the paramountcy of votebank politics in his political
career. Similarly, the deployment of the IPKF in Sri Lanka which cost the
lives of thousands of distinguished Indian soldiers is unpardonable.
Other awards have fared hardly any better.
Their rampant political abuse has continued unabated as exemplified by the
case of Pranab Mukherjee, the 2nd in command being conferred the Padma Vibhusan
in 2008 for displaying his incessant and unwavering loyalty to Sonia Gandhi.
The political abuse of the national awards
is also reflected in the fact that several scholars and academicians who push
an academic line favourable to the "secular" politics of the Congress
have been consistently rewarded for their services. For instance, Ramachandra
Guha"s BJP Bash has made him the apple of the eye for the Congress party
and he was compensated with a Padma Bhushan in exchange of his services. Mediamen
like Rajdeep Sardesai, Barkha Dutt have won the Padma Sri because of their
undying commitment to the "secular" cause! Sister Nirmala"s
missionaries are found suitable while selfless Hindu organizations like the
Ramakrishna Mission who serve the nation in a spirit reflecting the Hindu
way of life are excluded. All in all, the absence of a "secular"
connection makes you a persona non grata in the eyes of the Indian state irrespective
of your actual service to the nation.
The record of Atal Behari Vajpayee in this
regard stands out in stark contrast. In his tenure not a single Bharat Ratna
was awarded posthumously to any Hindu activist, not even stalwarts like Shyama
Prasad Mukherje, V.D.Savarkar or Deendayal Upadhyay. Showing exemplary maturity,
Vajpayee understood that the national awards would be trivialised and devalued
if they became instruments of politics. After all, the awards carry any meaning
only when even your bitterest opposition despite mutual differences voluntarily
recognizes your services to the nation. Reason says that any party line relationship,
common ideological dogmas or bias for an individual or organization in the
race for the award should instantly render one a non adjudicator in the selection
process. But the quid pro quo political obligations being gratified through
state awards is a manifestation of the perversion of India"s political
parlance.
Advani had recently requested the Congress
party for conferring the Bharat Ratna to Vajpayee for his lifetime contribution
to Indian politics and successfully leading the first non Congress government
but his dignified proposal was met with a barrage of asinine objections from
the "secularists". Today, Atal Behari Vajpayee is in a critical
condition and it is doubtful if he would ever receive the Bharat Ratna in
his lifetime. But the irony is that there is no other Indian still alive who
is more eligible and yet more justifiably deserves the same.
(Author is an independent researcher, and
freelance contributor based in New Delhi, India)
