Bias Ratna: Criticism of Modi govt's choice for India's greatest award betrays the pettiness in our political psyche
The controversy over Bharat Ratna awardees is yet another example of how the Narendra Modi government can never do anything right in the eyes of the old establishment.
It is conceivable that, had the present government conferred the decoration on Sonia Gandhi, it would have still attracted flak from the same quarters.
But first, let us put it up-front, the criticisms were in bad taste and the media has not helped the cause of protecting the prestige of the awards by fanning the debate with its #hashtag journalism. In any selection process, be it the Nobel or the Ratna, there can always be a view that some others were equally or more deserving. But to disparage a recipient as a mere “gayak” (singer), as Congress’ Mallikarjun Kharge did, displays a singular lack of grace.
In contrast, Salman Khurshid came across as much more gracious and circumspect. Apart from his own Oxbridge background, Khurshid is the grandson of another Bharat Ratna — Dr Zakir Hussain — so one would not expect anything less elegant from him. With characteristic suavity, he said, to guess whom another party or government may have chosen would be mere speculation.
It is not for the first time that the Bharat Ratna has stirred up a hornet’s nest. In the past, the awards have not only been the subject of political slugfests, but have also been challenged in court more than once.
Famously, the government had to withdraw the press communique announcing the Bharat Ratna posthumously to Subhas Chandra Bose at the directions of the Supreme Court.
In a PIL filed in the Calcutta High Court, the petitioner questioned how Bose could be awarded “posthumously” when the government had not officially accepted his death — a fine technical point. Bose's family members too expressed their unwillingness to accept the award.
Accusations of political overtones are also not new. Both Indira Gandhi and Rajiv Gandhi were accused of regional appeasement when they awarded Bharat Ratnas posthumously to K Kamaraj and M G Ramachandran respectively — just prior to elections.
Of course, there were the classic instances of two Prime Ministers, Jawaharlal Nehru and Indira Gandhi, receiving the Bharat Ratna during their own rule.
Then why this furore now?
It is undeniable that a section of the elite and political classes are yet to come to terms with the legitimacy of this democratically elected government. And, their hostility is only getting sharper as the government is nearing the end of its term.
Confident of a change in regime in the coming election, they have started viewing this as a caretaker government with a lame-duck Prime Minister, keeping the seat warm for the rightful rulers to return. Thus, every politically significant move of the government is being challenged as if it has acted beyond its brief.
But, in the case of the Bharat Ratna, the rub lies elsewhere.
When Pandit Madan Mohan Malaviya was awarded the Bharat Ratna in 2015, there were some murmurs. Janardan Dwivedi of the Congress alleged that Malaviya, who worked predominantly in Varanasi, was "deliberately chosen" by Prime Minister Modi, who is the incumbent Member of Parliament from Varanasi.
However, the criticisms were muted as Malaviya, a founding member of the All India Hindu Mahasabha, had also been a President of the Indian National Congress for four terms, besides being the founder of the haloed Banaras Hindu University (BHU). But, by nominating Nanaji Deshmukh, Modi has struck at the heart of the “ecosystem” as it were — which considers anyone not beholden to the Gandhi-Nehru legacy to be a pariah.
It is another matter that, in criticising the choice of Nanaji Deshmukh, just because of his Jana Sangh and RSS roots, people are displaying a pathetic lack of knowledge about his life and work.
It also betrays the bias and pettiness ingrained in our political psyche by the dominance of a singular stream of thought — in this worldview, anyone who does not have the blessings of the certified intellectuals is simply not kosher.
Thus, in all these years, rarely has anyone from across the aisle, let alone from a different ideology, been honoured with national awards by the party in power.
So, even someone as moderate and non-polarising like Atal Bihari Vajpayee, who was out of political life for all practical purposes after 2004, had to wait for the BJP to come to power for the honour.
It is precisely this discriminatory mindset that has invited the kind of nationalistic backlash, evident in the BJP’s renaming spree or celebrating alternative national heroes like Patel and Subhas Bose.
But picking someone from the RSS hall of fame was the BJP’s way of cocking a snook at its opponents, who have for long treated the Sangh as an anathema.
However, awarding Pranab Mukherjee takes rubbing salt on the wound to another level.
In today’s context, no non-Gandhi Congressman, past or present, can dream of being awarded the Bharat Ratna, no matter how deserving.
If PV Narasimha Rao could not make the cut, Mukherjee had even less of a chance. He was overlooked for the PM's post not once but twice, and even denied temporary charge, being the seniormost cabinet member when Manmohan Singh was on extended medical leave for his cardiac multiple by-pass surgery.
This was strong messaging indeed.
First, it was a signal to all Congressmen of substance that there is life beyond the Congress. You do not have to depend on the largesse of the family to get your rightful recognition.
Secondly, it puts the BJP and Narendra Modi on a higher pedestal — making them appear non-partisan and large-hearted.
Finally, it is also a wink at leaders like Sharad Pawar, who have chosen to cosy up to the Congress now.
Pranab Mukherjee’s award is something that the Congress can neither throw up, nor swallow. So, after the half-hearted acknowledgement, the party let loose its proxies to run Mukherjee down as a purported favourite of an industrial group and someone who had apparently inveigled his way into the good books of the RSS high command.
Undoubtedly, this is unfair on Mukherjee, who has for decades been at the fulcrum of national politics, commanding respect from across the political divide.
His last innings at the Rashtrapati Bhavan was a textbook performance. He developed a positive working relationship with both the UPA and the NDA governments, while maintaining the high dignity of the office.
Pranab Mukherjee is a dyed-in-the-wool Congressman — that he and Modi could work together in tandem with mutual respect and understanding is a huge testimony to the maturity and statesmanship of both the men.
It can be counterfactually argued that if the Congress and other opposition parties had taken a cue from Pranab Mukherjee and hadn't adopted a disruptive and confrontationist stand with the Modi government right from the start, we may have had a more productive five years in Parliament. But let us not digress.
The Congress is being politically disingenuous in countering the BJP’s perceived overtures towards the North East and Bengal, with Bharat Ratnas for Bhupen Hazarika and Pranab Mukherjee, needling Lingayat sentiment in the South by making an issue of the just departed Karnataka seer Shivakumara Swami being left out from the list of honour.
Equally, there is nothing spiritual about Baba Ramdev’s suggestion on Bharat Ratna for saints.
Both Kharge and Ramdev know that a BJP government bestowing the country’s highest civilian honour on a Lingayat saint would have been walking into a minefield with other religious groups demanding similar recognition for their own spiritual leaders.
It is a separate argument that neither did the Karnataka government send any nomination request for the Swami, nor did the UPA consider the revered sage for the Bharat Ratna during its long reign.
Besides, it is matter of conjecture if a true spiritual leader would ever hanker for “sarkari recognitions”. Chances are the Swami, during his lifetime, would not have accepted such an award.
The list of people for whom the Bharat Ratna has been demanded is endless — starting from Swami Vivekananda, Rabindranath Tagore, Mahatma Gandhi (whose work precedes the institution of the award) to more recent politicians like Jyoti Basu, NT Rama Rao and Kanshi Ram.
The award to Sachin Tendulkar raised questions about other iconic Indian sportsmen like Dhyan Chand having been left out. When the Congress awarded the Bharat Ratna to Dr CNR Rao in 2013, it was pointed out that Homi Bhabha and Vikram Sarabhai had made much more lasting and important contributions to science and PILs were filed contesting the choice.
So, it can be said the opaque and discretionary selection process for the Bharat Ratna makes it designed for politics and open to controversy.
The Modi government has done well to democratise the election process for the Padma Awards. Many unknown people doing extraordinary work have been recognised over the past four years — making it truly the “People’s Padma”.
Hopefully, we shall not go back to the days when one could lobby for awards or politically manipulate the system.
There is an apocryphal story about a former President proposing the name of his personal nurse for a Padma Shree. There were unconfirmed rumours about a sitar maestro lobbying for the Ratna. Therefore, maybe it is time to revisit the selection process for the huge award.
While it may not be possible to make it entirely transparent, it could be definitely more structured. Perhaps there can be a system of inviting nominations that can be screened by a bipartisan committee of eminent individuals before putting it up to the PMO for the final decision.
Or we can leave it as it is.
After all, we all love hashtags and controversies.