• PAGE ONE
• INDEX
• HOME

Invertebrata?

B. S. Raghavan

THE OTHER day, at a public meeting, the former Chief Election Commissioner-turned-social activist, Mr. T. N. Seshan, denounced the civil servants ``from the chief secretary down to the peon'' as belonging to the zoological category o f `invertebrata'. Translated into the language once used to describe Prime Minister Ramsay Macdonald and some of his colleagues, it means ``boneless wonders''.

Mr. S. Varadan, who retired as Secretary to the President, in a newspaper article, has recounted an episode early in his career to illustrate how civil servants of yore were persons of mettle. When Nijalingappa was Karnataka's Chief Minister, Mr. Varada n took an implacably courageous stand against some demands of the ruling party. Nijalingappa was so impressed that he made him his Secretary. Of course, this is equally a tribute to Nijalingappa's own nobility.

Mr. V. Vaikunth, former Inspector-General of Police of Tamil Nadu, in his reminiscences, recently released with much fanfare by Mr. C. Subramaniam at Chennai and Mr. L. K. Advani at Delhi, has also taken credit for boldly telling the political tigers of his day whenever they indulged in foul play where they got off.

The tendency on the part of retired elders well into their anecdotage is to compare members of the tribe of their generation with the species of the present day to the latter's disadvantage. Their published recollections are replete with acts of heroism performed in the course of their colourful lives. This is applicable to all persons who rise to prominent positions in various services -- civil as well as military. The impression left in the readers' minds is: Here were Davids who did not hes itate a wee bit to take on and trounce the Goliaths crossing their path.

In many cases, it is impossible to verify the true nature of the incidents, because the personages whom the retirees claim to have torn to pieces are no more. Thus, the last word remains with the raconteurs.

Does this mean they are telling what Winston Churchill called ``terminological inexactitudes''? By a long chalk, no. To be charitable to them, they are saying only what they believe to be true. It is even possible that some of the instances related by th em of incredible intrepidity on their part are, indeed, true. Side by side, however, there is also the possibility, as years roll on, of certain inconsequential events acquiring, in the imagination of the narrators, a golden halo and larger-than-life dim ension which lead them to blow them up out of proportion.

It is a vulnerability from which no autobiographer is free. In fact, the very fact of his sitting down to write so expansively about himself is indicative of his narcissistic conviction of his self-importance. It is this consideration that must have weig hed with Rajaji when he stoutly refused to leave any memoirs for posterity, despite persistent pleas of his admirers. Holding it to be a waste of time, energy and resources, he asked, ``What is the point? Five years after my passing, will anyone remember who C. Rajagopalachari was?''

But such humility and consciousness of one's impermanence are extremely rare.