The Gopalkrishna Gandhi I know
It is a great feeling that we have a candidate like Gopalkrishna Gandhi in the fray for the office of the vice president. It is good for the country, and for each one of us, to be represented by persons like him. But there is, as things stand now, also cause for anxiety, which needs to be named. It will reflect poorly on us as a nation if someone like him is willing to serve the country, but is prevented from doing so by the arithmetic of political gain or loss. No political party should look smart, if its gain proves the nation’s loss.
Plato sounded anxious, some 2,500 years ago in The Republic, that public life could be crippled by the reluctance of good human beings to hold offices of importance; it being in the nature of the “good” to be self-effacing.
That doesn’t seem to be our problem at least in the present instance. The issue, which will soon be settled is if we as a nation are sensible enough to accept the very best, when it is on offer. What we choose paints who we are.
In that sense, the outcome of the forthcoming election of the vice president of India is a test of who we are and what the state of the nation is. Gopalkrishna Gandhi is nobody to me, personally. Of course, he is a fellow Stephanian; but that is not the reason I’d love to see him chair the Rajya Sabha. I write this because I happen to know him; also because I happen to know many others as well. It is no longer in fashion, I admit, to speak well of people in public. Speaking ill is the reigning taste. One almost feels guilty saying that the grass is still green! This is an inhibition we need to break.
I invited Gopal to address the outgoing students, some years ago, at what, in the antique lingo of St. Stephen’s College, is called the Dismissal Service. This was my first face-to-face with him. Good heavens! How well he carried himself! How mesmerised he held the audience! What an impression he left on the entire college community!
The only other person who addressed the same function on a previous occasion, who could be compared with Gopal, was the late President Abdul Kalam. This is not a matter of a man speaking elegantly; for there are many we know who speak well. It used to be said of a preacher, “When he is in the pulpit, we wish he won’t get out of it; but when he is out of the pulpit, we wish he would never get into it!”
In or out, Gopal is the same. Or, in the words of Shakespeare, he does not seem. He doesn’t put on a mask for public consumption. He doesn’t endeavour to impress; he simply is. If that impresses, how can you blame Gopal for it?
I happened to visit Kolkata several times during Gopal’s tenure as the governor of West Bengal. From almost everyone I met, I used to hear admiring reports about the dignity and idealism with which he adorned that office; sometimes, I must admit, to the chagrin of politicians. Was there a power cut in the city? Gopal ensured that it applied to Raj Bhavan too. Did he carry it too far? Well, not if you are Gopalkrishna Gandhi.
A passenger, I was told by a fellow Stephanian, was once stranded on his way to the airport. Fortunately for him, the then governor of West Bengal was on his way to the airport. He happened to notice – it must have been when destiny was working the wheel of fortune – the stranded man. The governor stopped to inquire. The desperate man soon found himself seated next to the governor, travelling to the airport. He did not miss the flight, thanks to Gopalkrishna Gandhi.
How wonderful it would be to have a vice president who can ensure that at least a few don’t miss their flights – and the nation, the bus – in times such as these? Should a governor have a commoner, an utter stranger, travel in his car and not ask his security to help him reach the airport? “How silly,” Gopalkrishna Gandhi would say, “...what matters is that he boarded the flight.”
I have heard, on occasion, accounts of the extent to which the governor of West Bengal used to go in ensuring the well-being of the Raj Bhavan staff.
I have heard much also of the economy measures he implemented to avoid waste, so that public resources can be put to better use. Yet Gopal never waxed eloquent about “good governance”.
He merely endeavoured to be the sort of governor that he thought the people deserved. The beautiful thing about him was that he was unaware of being good or kind or noble. Only a person who is greater than the office he holds can conduct himself as humanely as Gopal did.
I sincerely hope the debate that Gopal has suggested between the two candidates in the fray comes off. What is at stake is, after all, the image of the country and the dignity of the people of India.
Even if the outcome is not to be decided by direct voting, who occupies offices of such national significance is a matter of concern for all Indians. It is a pity that the presidential election did not involve such a debate. Debate, after all, is of the essence of democracy. The alternative is to make the outcome of the exercise depend on a play of numbers.
Even worse is the possibility that the connect there must exist between such high constitutional offices and the people of India – which president Kalam tried hard to maintain – will be weakened yet again and functionaries like the president and the vice president shrink into adjuncts of political dispensations, which is unlikely to redound to the glory of Indian democracy.