Political Diary

New Delhi, 30 January 2010

Politics Of Padma Awards

TAINT? HOW DOES IT MATTER!

By Poonam I Kaushish

Prestige and honour vs darbari politcs and taint? No guess, obviously taint wins hands down! This, dear aam aadmi, is how the country’s highest civilian honours the Padma Awards: Padma Vibhushan, Padma Bhushan and Padma Shri are decided. The awards are all about petty politricking!

How else should one react when controversial scam-tainted US-based NRI hotelier Sant Chatwal, who counts Hillary Clinton among his friends, has been awarded the Padma Bhushan. Given that between 1992 and 1994, the CBI registered five cases against him for “conniving to defraud Bank of Baroda and Bank of India of US 9m dollars.” Not only that he was arrested in Mumbai and had to flee the country.

Predictably, all hell broke loose. While the BJP petitioned President Patil and Prime Minister Manmohan Singh to withdraw Chatwal’s award because of his controversial financial connections. The Congress distanced itself from the decoration averring that Padma awards “should not go to a tainted person," Throwing the ball back in the Government’s court to explain why and how Chatwal had been selected for the award.

Caught on the back-foot, the Union Home Ministry confessed there was “nothing adverse on record presently” against Chatwal because of the five cases, three were closed by the CBI itself, while the court discharged him in the other two. No matter that privately Ministry officials admit that he was not on the original Padma list. So, who put him in and why? Also, why does it not bare the truth that there is nothing adverse against Chatwal because two successive CBI Directors rejected the advice of a string of its investigators not to appeal his discharge in the cases.

Importantly, the respect that is expected of us for national awards of this stature can only take a massive dip after a decision like this and has once again put a question mark on the civilian awards. Besides, Chatwal many are wondering whether Ramakant Panda, who treated Manmohan Singh, has been nominated for the Padma Bhushan as a ‘heart-felt’ thank you, just as A.B. Vajpayee’s doctor Chittaranjan Ranawat was in 2001.

Also perplexing is why scientists and engineers of India’s most impressive scientific feat last year, the prestigious Rs 386 crore Chandrayaan-1 mission which located water molecules on the lunar surface find no mention in the Padma awardees list. Specially, as in 2009, Chairpersons of ISRO and DAE, Madhavan Nair and Anil Kakodkar respectively, were given Padma Vibhushans. Was it in lieu of supporting the Indo-US nuke deal?

Adding insult to injury, while an idli hotelier finds mention Beijing Olympic medallist star wrestler Sushil Kumar has been left out in the cold. Said he, “ the awards are embroiled in petty politics. What more do I have to do to prove my mettle”? Given that Beijing gold medallist shooter Abhinav Bindra got the Padma Bhushan last year and bronze medallist boxer Vijender Singh was named for Padma Shri. There is no gainsaying that Government stooges, wannabe pseudo-secularists and popular Bollywood stars take priority over achievement and talent.

Instituted in January 1954, the Padma Awards: Padma Vibhushan, Padma Bhushan and Padma Shri are to honour citizens who have excelled in a field and made a stellar contributions to nation building. Our founding fathers, mindful of the colonial past, when State awards, were given to those who supported the British, wanted these  be awarded to people of impeccable integrity, extraordinary service towards advancement of art, literature and science, and in recognition of public service.

Sadly, however over the years successive Governments have treated these awards as favours to be bestowed in exchange of personal loyalty while ignoring deserving people in civil society. Never mind that it lowers the value, prestige and dignity of the awards. Worse, the awards are trivialized to an extent whereby conmen and fortune-tellers too can boast about being the proud recipients.

Recall the 1960’s, when the then Defence Minister YB Chavan secured a Padma Bhushan for his professor N.S.Phadke, a popular Marathi writer of kitsch romances, even as senior and more deserving littérateurs were left out. The 2001 list of the Padma awards figured a relatively junior Mumbai vocalist whose sole claim to glory was her ‘singing’ Vajpayee’s poems. The politics of largesse continues unabated.

Given the notoriety these awards generate every year, some aver these be "scrapped". The selection process is wrong, merit is no longer the criteria, there is no transparency and people have lost faith..Especially, when those honoured refuse them or they become controversial. Recall, M.G. Ramachandran refusing the Padma Shree because the citation was in Devanagari script, Khushwant Singh returning his Padma Bhushan after the anti-Sikh riots and Manipuri theatre doyen Ratan Thiyam his Padma Shree over differences on the Naga peace process.

Others argue, the awards are necessary as a form of national recognition for meaningful contribution to society. But changes need to be made and the flaws rectified in the basic selection process. However, the moot point: What do they actually honour? Is it excellence in a specific area or contribution to nation building?

In most cases, neither. Not a few smack of favouritism, politicisation and political sops for the party in power while some border on incompetence. Remember, 2007 when the then President Kalam sent back the awardees file to the Prime Minister’s Office as there were grave irregularities in the selection. Three names had been included without the approval of the inter-ministerial committee and the final list had 12 names against which there were adverse reports of the Intelligence Bureau.

Either way, certainly the Government is not the competent authority to judge this. How does a incongruent committee of politicians, bureaucrats, technocrats and artists judge the musical brilliance of one artiste over the other? Decide who gets the Padma Shree, Padma Bhushan or Padma Vibhushan? As historian Romila Thapar argued when she rejected the Padma Bhushan in 2005, how is the State competent to know whether she is a good historian?

Pertinently, in January 2004 President Kalam sent a “secret” note (accessed recently under RTI by activist Subhash Agrawal) to then PM Vajpayee following “some criticism” over 2003 Padma awardees and advised “extra caution” in the selection process “to ensure that no adverse reaction takes place in regard to conferring of these prestigious awards.” He also laid down important criteria for selection. Namely, “no adverse reports” against selected candidates “from any of the investigation agencies/organizations.” Two, no person be selected “except on the recommendation of the Awards Committee.” The note assumes significance in the context of the controversy surrounding Chatwal.

Scandalously, last year the Home Ministry also consigned to the dustbin another “secret” report” by the K.R. Narayanan (then Vice-President) High Level Review Committee of 1996. The committee, which met between July and October 1996, noted that Padma Bhushan was to be awarded only for “exceptional and distinguished service.” It was emphatic that “no Padma award should be conferred except on the recommendation of the Awards Committee.” It sought strict adherence to guidelines and advised that October 1 be observed as the deadline for receiving recommendations.

In its replies to Agarwal, the Ministry insisted that there was no fixed date for receiving recommendations and confessed that some of the 2004 awardees were finalised after the meetings of the Awards Committee and approval for these were taken on telephone. It also held that the Prime Minister was the final authority in deciding the awardees and was entitled to delete names approved by the Awards Committee. Acknowledging that there were no iron procedures for selection of awardees, the Ministry revealed that under NDA rule, names were added to the list finalised by the screening committee after MHA officials got calls from quarters that mattered.

Worse, shockingly, religion and castes too are being taken into consideration while entertaining nominations for these titles. The columns that are required to be filled up in the nomination Form clearly include “Religion” and another “Category”, asking whether the person belongs to the Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe or Other backward Castes or General Castes. This goes against the tenets of national integration.

What next? Clearly, the cesspool of awards needs to be cleansed. Greater transparency and accountability should get precedence over politicians’ personal whims and Ministers should be kept out of the selection process. The State is not the competent authority to judge and award excellence in a person’s work and professional practice. Two, the committee should include people with unimpeachable credentials and the awards should be weighed carefully on the scale of creative freedom and professional integrity. Three, there should be uniformity in the selection from the States and religion and caste should find no place.

Time to cry a halt to competitive ‘awardmanship.’ Awards must be given for distinguished service to the nation given that they involve national pride and prestige. Not given to tainted politricking darbaris who aver, “Taint? How does it matter! ---INFA

(Copyright, India News and Feature Alliance)