The Hindu Business Line : Of `freedom' and its heroes

A COUPLE of years ago, and before the last Assembly elections in Andhra Pradesh, while doing a survey of what its Chief Minister, Mr Chandrababu Naidu's rating was in his Assembly constituency of Kuppam, one was surprised to hear many dissenting voices.

He had then started making waves for being the most tech-savvy CM and corporate honchos and television anchors could not stop singing his praises. But in his own constituency, the common man had his own tale of woes to relate — rising prices, lack of employment opportunities and little access to decent, affordable health care. That was only to be expected. What came as a surprise was that the Telugu Desam Party cadres were quite sore with their party chief.

Their refrain was as follows: "We worked so hard to ensure the party's victory. We slogged so that he may become the chief minister. But now when it is time to get the rewards, we hardly have any opportunity to make money by getting contracts for all and sundry government jobs."

Now, this cannot be taken as a certificate for the clean government Mr Chandrababu Naidu provided then or now. The logic seems to be simple: `It is our party at the helm, and if during our own reign we don't get the opportunities to make money, what is the use of such power'.

This kind of logic is not confined to Kuppam or Andhra Pradesh. In the run-up to the Tamil Nadu Assembly elections in 2001, one saw a similar kind of "demoralisation" among the DMK men. They too found very little opportunity to make money through such favours as a ruling party is expected to bestow on its supporters. Again, this was not a certificate for clean governance.

On the contrary, the refrain one heard was that the DMK regime had indeed provided opportunities for its supporters to make money, but these opportunities were confined only to the party's top brass and their relatives. The ordinary cadres were left out.

The discussion then moved to the AIADMK, and even the DMK cadres acknowledged that during its 1991-1996 regime, there was a "great economic churn" and in this, the supporters of the party, right from the top through the middle to the bottom rung got an opportunity to make money.

Now let us move over to the hullabaloo over the BJP-led NDA Government deciding that the Sangh Parivar's hero, V. D. Savarkar, who is known as "Vir Savarkar" is a national hero and deserves to have his portrait in the Central Hall of Parliament, sharing the honours with the likes of Mahatma Gandhi.

The Opposition, including the Congress(I), boycotted the ceremony, where the portrait was unveiled on Wednesday by the President, Mr A. P. J. Abdul Kalam. During the last couple of days a petition, addressed to the President had been doing the rounds asking people to sign it and forward it to the Rashtraphati Bhavan. It said that the signatories — citizens of India and particularly the residents of Maharashtra — "sincerely believe that the proposed unveiling of the portrait of Vinayak Damodar Savarkar in Parliament is a matter of disrespect to the Indian Constitution. We appeal to you as the honourable guardian of the Constitution of India to protect the sanctity and honour of the Indian Constitution and Parliament by ordering a stay on the unveiling of the portrait."

The reasons cited for this request included Savarkar's views being in stark contrast to that of the Constitution which guaranteed equal rights to all Indians, irrespective of their caste, creed or religion.

"According to him, the Christians and Muslim do not deserve citizenship and equal rights granted to them by the Indian Constitution. We believe that hanging on the walls of the Parliament the portrait of one who was committed to destroy values of democracy and citizenship brings shame and dishonour to our Parliament and disrespect to Constitutional values."

Also, he was one of the accused in Gandhiji's murder. Another reason cited was that "unlike the fearless, revolutionary spirit of the era, Savarkar never held a gun in his hand. His role in murder of British official Jackson was limited to instigating others but covering his own track.

Further, after conviction, the prison hardship demoralised him and he sought amnesty by writing letters of apology to the British." The petition adds that in direct opposition to the 1939 call given by the Indian National Congress for non-co-operation with the British, "Savarkar called upon the people to co-operate with the British. This, we believe is ample proof that the glorified patriotism of Savarkar is misplaced." One does not know how many people signed the petition and forwarded it to the President. That their effort had no bearing can be seen from the fact that Dr Abdul Kalam went ahead and unveiled the portrait. The Opposition parties boycotted the function and the BJP and the Shiv Sena MPs shouted, "Swatantryaveer Savarkar Amar Rahe" (Champion of freedom Sarvarkar remains immortal).

Now that all the song and dance over the issue belongs to history, one can return to the simple logic advanced by the cadres of the TDP, the DMK and the AIADMK. BJP and Shiv Sena's supporters can press in the same logic. "What is the use of winning an election and leading a coalition government in New Delhi, if we cannot even achieve as measly a target as putting up a portrait of one of our heroes in Parliament?"

For a moment, if we go along with the bard and adopt the theory of willing suspension of disbelief, if tomorrow Mr Laloo Prasad Yadav heads a government in the Capital, he may want to unveil the portrait of his gwala (milkman) colleague of yesteryear.

Or, if Ms Mayawati becomes the second woman Prime Minister, she may want to adorn the place with the portrait of a Dalit friend. Mr Mulayam Singh Yadav may want to honour thus a pehalwan (wrestler) who had once upon a time humbled him in one of the akhadas of Lucknow. Or, the VHP General Secretary, Mr Praveen Togadia, the portrait of the man who poured in the maximum blows to bring down the Babri Masjid. To each his hero! One can think up of so many such interesting possibilities.Ordinary people like us, who get all charged up over such issues — which are non-issues for our political masters — need to remind ourselves that our politicians have their voter constituencies to answer. It is easy for us; after all we are answerable only to our families and sometimes our conscience. And, hence, we can raise such "non-issues."

But, strangely enough, we seem to have millions of ordinary people like us around the world who are all charged up about the two Big Bs — Bush and Blair — who are convinced that the evil President of Iraq, Saddam Hussein, has to be dethroned at any cost. So what if thousands of Iraqi civilians, including women and children, have to die and millions flee their homes and become refugees? The "civilised" world just cannot take the chance of allowing Mr Saddam Hussein to hatch devious plots targeting them at some unknown date in the future.

Of course, the British Prime Minister{lt} Mr Tony Blair, is facing a tough time at home from the British public as well as many of the Labour Party MPs. Can you imagine nearly a million people coming out from their homes to march against the war in London's Hyde Park?

There is a huge anti-war constituency in the US too, but then from time to time, Mr Bush does manage to confuse quite a bit of his janata with reminders of what happened on 9/11 and what worse horrors could hit them in the future "if we do not act now".

The American media is on his side and such premier publications as The New York Times and Time magazine are straining every nerve to justify the war. But of course as this is the country which places "freedom above everything else" (no prices for guessing who voiced this lofty thought), some space is set apart in the opinion column for dissenting voices.

The BBC's ace anchor Tim Sebastian has made up his mind which side he is on and flexes his muscles, grits his teeth and lashes out at any voice that advocates caution against rushing into a war or suggests that the UN inspectors be given a chance.

But, then, the BBC has to depend heavily on government patronage. Have you noticed the shrill pitch in The Economist of late? After having taken enough pot shots at Mr Bush in the past, it has suddenly become its great admirer, given him the certificate of having "worked carefully through the Security Council", and now finds the French position against the war "exasperating".

Consider this editorial comment in its Febrary 8-14 issue: "He (Jacques Chirac) is doubly wrong if he expects to constrain America by frustrating its efforts in the United Nations. Nothing could be better calculated to strengthen the spirit of American unilateralism he purports to detest. If France cannot in conscience support this war, better to stand aside than to stand in the way."

Response can be sent to rasheeda@thehindu.co.in

Article E-Mail :: Comment :: Syndication

Stories in this Section
More ritual, less conviction

The chakravyuh of local loop

Budget should focus on rural infrastructure

B-Day ahoy!

Will we be pampered?

Of `freedom' and its heroes