Spotlight

New Delhi, 4 November 2015                                                                  

Returning State Awards

WHOSE INTOLERANCE IS IT?

By Dr S Saraswathi

(Former Director, ICSSR, New Delhi)

The ‘movement’ of returning State awards is turning into a political conflict and has introduced “intolerance” as a hot issue in elections. In recent weeks, several scholars, intellectuals, writers and film personalities have given back the awards they have received in protest against what they perceive as an atmosphere of intolerance pervading the entire country. The action is growing day by day.

A group of scholars and artists called upon the President to advise the Government to ensure freedom of life, faith and expression. The occasion was the birth anniversary of Narendra Dabholkar, a rationalist writer who was murdered in August 2013 in Pune. They sought to raise their voice “in protest and in resistance” against growing intolerance. In a joint statement, a group of about 230 academics, writers, and intellectuals from universities in India and abroad also expressed protest against the murders and failure of the Government to condemn the action.

The murder of M M Kalburgi, who was a member of the Sahitya Akademi, it is said, did not receive immediate condemnation by the institution. It hurt the feelings of a number of writers prompting surrender of awards by many in protest.    

Returning the award is not just a reaction to the murder of free thinkers like Kalburgi, Govind Pansare and Narendra Dhabolkar. It was said to be against the ‘growing intolerance’ in the country manifested in different ways like ban on films, restrictions on food habits (read beef), opposition to inviting Pakistani artistes, and reorganization of academic and cultural bodies. Over 30 writers have so far returned their awards and 20 of them returned the cash award also.

For several days, the Akademi mutely witnessed the return of awards. Protesting awardees include literary figures from different parts of the country who have contributed works in different Indian languages.

Some BJP leaders accuse the Congress, Left thinkers, and activists of practising “ideological intolerance” towards Prime Minister Modi and the BJP and trying to project India as an intolerant society through structured and organized propaganda. Finance Minister Arun Jaitley views this revolt as intolerance to alternative ideological pole. The perpetrators of this propaganda were seen as enemies to alternative viewpoints in universities, academic institutions, and cultural bodies.

While addressing the media in Varanasi, Jaitley stated: “Those returning awards are playing politics by other means…they are rabid anti-BJP elements”. He called this a “manufactured rebellion going on at a fast speed” and a “disproportionate political reaction, mostly by those opposed to what the BJP believes in”.

The Executive Board of the Sahitya Akademi broke its silence and held a meeting and passed a resolution to strongly condemn the killing of Professor Kalburgi, other thinkers and intellectuals and violence against fellow citizens in the country. The Resolution asked the Union and State governments to maintain the “ambience of peaceful coexistence” in society.

The Resolution sent a political message by registering its protest against violence and not just violation of freedom of expression of writers. The Akademi, however, wants the award winners who have surrendered their awards to take these back. Its meeting brought into the open the clash of interests between two groups – one condemning attacks on writers, and the other hitting out at politicization of the issue. Impartial observers and the general public must know whose intolerance is playing politics as the two contending groups accuse each other of “intolerance”.

In a way, it is diversionary tactics to replace “development” with appeal to sentiments and emotions as prime national issues. Emotional issues have contagious effect and spread much faster than localized practical life issues. These draw people from all sections, rich and poor, educated and uneducated, men and women.

The Congress President Sonia Gandhi led a protest march with 125 party members and met President Mukherjee to discuss the “rising intolerance” across the country. It was her second meeting with him. She conveyed her party’s “grave concern” at the “growing atmosphere of fear, intolerance, and intimidation being deliberately created by sections of the ruling establishment”. A memorandum charging Ministers for supporting people spreading hatred and divisions was submitted.

Union Minister M Venkaiah Naidu ridiculed the Congress move saying: “Congress talking about intolerance is like the devil quoting the scriptures. Their plan to meet the President of India protesting against intolerance is the joke of the decade. Congress and its political friends are intolerant of people’s mandate.”

The protests have also been ridiculed by Modi during his election tour in Bihar reminding the nation of the massacre of Sikhs in Delhi in 1984 following the assassination of Indira Gandhi. He made a pointed attack that the Congress had no moral ground to give a lecture on “tolerance” with its record of violence against a religious community.

Whatever may be the reason for returning the awards, such an act betrays that the award is seen as a political reward. Sahitya Akademi award, for instance, is meant as national recognition of excellence in intellectual, literary, academic, and creative work and should not have political implications. So also, the cultural and educational awards.   

To offer political support to the return of awards and to organize party protests and rebuttals have all turned the episode as a political conflict. Intolerance, wherever exhibited and whom so ever is the culprit, needs to be addressed legally. No purpose could be served by an individual by surrendering his award --- not even symbolic.

Honours system, as it is known, recognizes people who have made achievements in public life. The awardees are such people who would have dedicated themselves to make life better for other people or committed themselves to attain excellence in their chosen fields and succeeded.

Honours system is in vogue in many countries. Political patronage was shown in titles like “Sir” and “Rao Sahib” in colonial days. Today, honours are given to people involved in different fields such as education, health, sports, science and technology, arts and music, civil and political service, besides police and military service.

The method of selection of recipients has also raised controversies many times. Lack of transparency and political interference are common grievances. There are cases of rejection of Padma awards for late recognition. It is common knowledge, that for one awardee, several thousands of competent people may have vanished and still vanishing without recognition and without opportunities to get recognition.

Awards including the highest honour of Bharat Ratna do not always mean that the holders are the best in their fields. While the honours system itself needs reforms, the recipients are not concerned with that and have fallen prey to party politics. It is most deplorable.

Returning awards is a method of symbolic gesture without much substance. For fighting intolerance of the ruling groups or opposition forces, it is not likely to be effective. On the contrary, it can only raise questions of manifestations of intolerance in the past and the blissful silence of award holders at that time.  

The onlookers fail to understand whose intolerance is now on display – ideology of power holders or the anger of power losers? ---INFA

(Copyright, India News and Feature Alliance)