HERE & THERE THIS & THAT (Part 1)

A- REVISIT REQUIRED

There are three specific institutions or rituals, as below, where there is need for the Government to make a revisit.

1 ) RASHTRAPATI BHAVAN

Huge majestic building equivalent in grandeur with the best buildings in the world. Built by British as the official residence of its Viceroy, after Independence of India, the same became the official residence of successive Presidents.

Rashtrapati Bhavan has 350 rooms ( most of them opulent suites with precious paintings and artifacts ), a number of large conference rooms / dining halls, a vast garden and considerable open space. It is a self contained establishment, with a number of staff, kitchen, security and ceremonial guards.

In the initial period after Independence, apart from being the residence of the President of India, it was the place for stay of visiting Heads of States, but over a period of time most of the Heads of States started to stay in Hotels. It is said that this is largely from security angle, because constructed as it is, providing adequate security in Rashtrapati Bhavan is difficult. Governors visiting Delhi are entitled to stay at Rashtrapati Bhavan and some do, while many a time they stay at the respective State Guest houses ( where it is easy for them to conduct politics - Governors are not immune from this disease ). Cabinet oath taking ceremonies and formal lunches / dinners to visiting dignitaries are organized in Rashtrapati Bhavan.


Hence Rashtrapati Bhavan is the most under-utilised building in the country. But what use it can be made of. There would be all kinds of arguments against using part of Rashtrapati Bhavan for other activities or for stay of others.. It has never been used so. Does it matter if some of the rooms are kept locked. President is the symbol of the country and his/her place of stay cannot be used for sundry activities. Many other Government buildings are not fully used. Once it is agreed to use part of it for other uses, then there would be similar suggestions for the use of Raj Bhavans, i.e., official residences of the Governors. Most of the countries have vast residences for the Heads of State, though very few are as big as the Rashtrapati Bhavan. President of India symbolizes the country and his staying place must be majestic. In totality of Union Budget, the amount spent in maintaining Rashtrapati Bhavan is only a miniscule. More unrelated activity or presence of people will be a safety hazard, etc., etc.,

Yet the matter needs revisit. Some way could be found to make better use of the place, without compromising on any of the above mentioned and other objections. Because if the matter left as it is would mean after twenty or thirty years the same would be the position as today. It is possible that after mature consideration by eminent people the consensus may be that nothing need to done. So be it.

2 -REPUBLIC DAY PARADE

Started after India gaining independence. Head of one country is invited to be the chief guest. Diplomats attend and watch. So there is need to show-case progress made by India in different fields. Unity in diversity of a country like India is exhibited. There is also depiction of our military power. After the starting of the Republic Parade in Delhi, the States started their own Republic Day parades.

It is a grand spectacle. There are march pastes of adorable children and soldiers head held high, enchanting tableaux of States and organizations, aircrafts flying in unison and with precision, President and the Chief guest arriving with the cavalcade of horses, etc., It is also an occasion to pay homage to the oft forgotten martyrs. The grand finale is marked by the poignant Beating Retreat ceremony where massed bands of the armed forces leaven music with marching to enthrall the crowds. And at the conclusion of the Beating the Retreat, when the lights come on almost magically to illuminate Rashtrapati Bhavan, the entire visual spectacle embellished by caparisoned camels silhouetted on the ramparts of South and North Block, it is that ‘ lump-in-the throat moment.’

When the Parade was started in the fifties, accoding to Uday Bhaskar ‘ the spectacle as related to the power of the state served a deeper societal purpose and from imperial Rome through the Soviet experience to present times, the historical continuum provides the contextual relevance. In the Indian case, past 1947, nascent years of freedom from colonial rule and later consolidation of Indian nation indeed makes such events relevant. The idea of a United India that was made up from former princely states and remnants of the British Raj, even as the trauma of partition uprooted millions, called for a an appropriate spectacle. The Republic Day Parade was an apt symbol of national integration. Unity in diversity was the leitmotif of the imposing parade, where religion, language and ethnicity were sought to be subsumed under
the overarching pan-Indian identity. Over the period of time progressively the composition changed to reflect both the military and the development profile of the Indian state.’ But then the Republic has since then been consolidated.

At the same time enormous financial expenditure is incurred in organizing the function. Further, most countries do not indulge in such a show business. Secondly, since each State is having its own function, why not leave it at there. Exhibition of military might?. Every important country spies on other important countries in areas of defense. No other country will get any additional information from the exhibition of tanks and planes in the Republic Day parade. As an aside, most people of different States would be seeing for the first time the folk dances of their States from the State tableaus which have folk dancers.

Nobody would disagree that the whole affair is eye catching. It gives the viewers a feeling of the progress in various fronts we are making. We feel proud in the unity in diversity. Some may say that a country with millions starving should not go for such extravagant charades. But then this argument could be advanced for various expenses of the State.

Yet no harm would be done in revisiting this activity. Yes, it is realized that on issue like this cost – vs – return cannot be the only criteria.





3- NATIONAL AWARDS LIKE BHARAT RATNA, etc.,

Honouring by Awards, titles or pecuniary benefits including titles for land, those who served the country ( or pleased the King ) was started in India and in other countries by the Kings of yester years. Then British during its rule over India started giving honours, such as, Knighthood ( Sir ), Order of the British Empire (OBE ), Rai Bahadur, etc., British Government also gave Awards to British Civil servants serving in India. It is quite another matter that British are continuing to name Order of British Empire, though it has long ceased to be an empire.

Some time after Independence, Indian Government emulated the example of British and started in 1954 the institution of giving awards to outstanding individuals or those who had done meritorious service to the country. Bharat Ratna, is the highest Award. Then there are other Awards in descending order, such as, Padma Vibhushan, Padma Bhushan and Padma Shri. Defense Services have separate awards, though in the above general category, members of Defense Services have also been given Awards. Then there are Bravery awards, named Arjuna and Film Awards.

Between 1954 and till date Bharat Ratna Award has been bestowed on 40 eminent persons, some of them posthumously. The Award was given to two non Indians, i.e., Ghan Abdul Ghaffar Khan and Nelson Mandela. Mother Therasa is also a recipient of the Award. The total number of awardees in other categories is quite large.

Nobody would argue that those who have rendered yeomen service to the country or who have excelled in fine arts or
sports or jurisprudence need to be recognized by the State and hence such awards should be given. Further, the love of titles is inborn in people around the world, including Indians.

The Supreme Court has also upheld the legality of these Awards.

Revisiting in this matter has been suggested from the point of view of making the system not partisan, as occasionally it has become. There is politicking and influence pedaling at times. Further, there is too much focus on politicians in bestowing the awards. Since the criteria or yardstick for selection has not been made public and hence some have questioned the Awards stating that the same are given on based on personal preferences or some sort of trade off happens occasionally. It must be said that evolving yardstick on such matters is not easy. But when persons who have rendered yeomen service, i.e., Shourie of Common cause, Kuriyan of Amul Milk, Ela Bhat of SEWA and Pathak of Sulab are left out ( nobody knows whether they have been sounded and declined ) there is some sort of feeling of partisanship.

A number of persons have refused to accept the Award on one ground or another, as indicated below, which is another reason why the whole matter needs to be revisited. In U.K. also in the past some of the persons have declined to accept the Awards on one ground or another.



1. Abdul Kalam Azad, freedom fighter, refused the Award arguing that those who selected awardees should not themselves be recipients. Government in the subsequent period bestowed the Award to him posthumously.
2. Romila Thapar, historian, turned down Padma Bhushan twice because she wanted to ‘ only accept awards from academic institutions or those associated with my professional work.’
3. Dattopant Thengadi, RSS leader, refused to accept Padma Bhushan ‘until revered Dr. Headgewar ( RSS founder ) and Shri Guruji ( RSS ideologue Golwalkar ) are not offered Bharat Ratna.’
4. Ustad Vilayet Kan, Sitar Maestro, turned down Padma Shri and Padma Bhaushan later saying the awards committee was not competent enough to judge his music.
5. Ratan Thiyam, theatre personality, returned his Padma Shri Award to protest the Centre’s decision to extend the Naga ceasefire, saying he had taken the step as ‘ a compulsion of my bleeding heart.’ In a letter to the President, Thiyam said the Government’s decision had caused deaths, injuries, turmoil and restlessness in the North East.
6. Nikhil Chakravarty, journalist, turned down Padma Bhushan because he believed journalists should not be identified with the establishment.
7. Sukumar Azhikode, Malayalam writer, did not accept Padma Shri terming it unconstitutional.
8. Khushwant Singh, Journalist, returned his Padma Bhushan in protest against Operation Blue Star. Subsequently he was awarded Padma Vibhushan..
9. K. Subrahmanyam, Defense Analyst, turned down Padma Bhushan because he believed that bureaucrats and journalists should not accept any award from the Government because they are more liable to be favoured.

10. Kanak Sen Deka, Assamese writer, refused Padma Shri saying the love and affection shown by the people of Assam would be lowered by his acceptance.
11. Sitara Devi, Kathak Diva, refused Padma Bhusan, calling it an insult pointing out that younger and lesser known people had got Padma Vibhushan, and hence nothing less than Bharat Ratna would do.
12. Eminent Jurist Rajinder Sachar, former Delhi High Court Justice, declined to accept Padma Vibhushan Award bestowed on him in 2008 on the ground that ‘ in principle that recognition of merit or public service must be left to peer organizations. The Government’s involvement in these awards was out of sync with the principles of equality and democracy but also created tension and strain in the political field..’ He excused from accepting the Award ‘ to keep public life free from any pollution.’

One may agree or not with the stand point taken by the above mentioned persons. Yet, it would appear that successive Governments have not given serious consideration to the above views. Could it be that it has been the lot of this country with the passage of time to have more run of mill politicians and arrogant bureaucrats, who crave for awards and cannot fathom why anybody would reject the award. The Governments could have avoided the ignominy of such rejection, had they only informally sounded the persons on whom such awards are to be bestowed prior to announcement.

It is generally accepted that the Awards are given primarily for meritorious service to the country. Yet the fact that large percentage of the Awards have been given to politicians,

followed by some distance to bureaucrats, would lead to the conclusion that Government feels that it is the politicians and bureaucrats who are eligible for most of the awards, from the criteria of ‘service.’

How could M.G. Ramachandran, late Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu get the Award posthumously ( It was widely whispered when the Award was given that this was done to please AIDMK ) or to V.V. Giri, who was a mediocre politician and President of the country, whose credentials for the highest award would be questioned by many. Many would be dispute selection of Mrs Indira Ganghi and Rajiv Gandhi for the Awards. Yes, they were Prime Ministers of the country. Both got killed, which indeed was a tragedy. But did they really deserve the Award

In the past, only two businessman, i.e., JRD Tata and G.D. Birla hav been honoured with Bharat Ratna and Padma Vibhushan respectively. That many a businessman has done yeomen service to the country will not be disputed by most of the people. Yet, as said above, in Government reckoning, they had not done memorable ‘ service ‘ to the country to deserve the award. Partially correcting this position, in 2008 three eminent industrialists, i.e., Ratan Tata, Narayana Murthy and L.N. Mithal have been given Padma Vibhushan Award.
No posthumous Bharat Ratna Award had been given to Mahatma Gandhi. Was it due to the fact that everyone knows that while living he would have declined the Award. But then since Azad refused to accept Award while living and hence was given the Award posthumously, why was it that Mahatma Gandhi was not given the Award



posthumously. In 1992 Government bestowed posthumously this Award to Subhas Chandra Bose but then withdrew the same since somebody went to the court taking the stand that there was no clear evidence that he was dead and hence he award cannot be given posthumously. The Court upheld the contention. But then can’t the Award be given now. Both Patel and Azad were posthumously given the Awards only in 1991 and 1992, i., over forty years after their death, when they were more deserving to receive the Award than most of the persons to whom the Award had been bestowed. So far no sports-person or painter has been given Bharat Ratna Award. Baba Amte who recently died devoted his life in looking after lepers, something even the best Samaritan would find it somewhat revolting. He was awarded Padma Vibhushan. But did he not deserve Bharat Ratna. Rarely agriculturists have been given these awards. In respect of each crop there are a few farmers who had excelled in creating productivity. Do they not deserve the above awards. Dr. M.S. Swaminathan, the noted agro-scientists had expressed his disappointment at the farmers being sidelined in the matter. There are many NGOs which are doing yeomen service because of self work of a few persons. Then there are sportsmen who had given sparkling performance. So also cine stars who through their sterling film performances have made millions of people happy for the duration of the film, enabling them to forget their worries. Is that not service.

Further, many on whom the Award is given, may not be financially well off. Hence should not they be monetarily rewarded also alongwith conferring the Award. The problem here is the double standards we adopt. Publicly we want to disassociate money with service.

Why revisit this subject has been suggested is because from the few examples given above, it would be amply evident that the Award has been given often on whims of politicians and there is no proper selection criteria. A feeling is gaining currency is that any one who opposes the Government of the day does not get the award. With passage of time influence pedaling has become part of the award system, according to many who watch such matters. This is such an important matter, where the prestige of the country is involved and hence the matter should not be left entirely at the discretion of politicians and babudom. It is time that these and other related matters are looked into. In any case if we want the Awards above controversy and given to only those who deserve, the selection should be taken out of politicians and babus. There should be a collegiums of eminent personalities to make the selection, subject to the approval of Prime Minister and President. During his recent visit to India, Prime Minister of U.K. Mr Gorden Brown was asked whether British Government is considering to award Knighthood to Sachin Tendulkar. Reply of Mr. Brown was that in U.K. this is decided by a committee. He did not say that it is decided by the Cabinet. Could be a Cabinet Committee or an independent committee. All the same, in the Indian context, all would welcome a committee of eminent persons selecting the awardees rather than politically aligned Cabinets of Governments.

****