By the simple act of removing his own shoes at Mahatma Gandhi’s samadhi, President Abdul Kalam has subtly rewritten the rules of political etiquette in a nation long inured to the wanton disregard of democratic and republican values by its ruling class. It is to be hoped that in future at least those with left-of-centre pretensions will not publicly display contempt for the lower classes by making them handle their footwear.
Since the issue directly contravenes our national rhetoric about human dignity and the rights of the poor and underprivileged, I feel it is worth labouring the point, if only to shame our political chatterati and their media collaborators who have not seen fit to raise a stink over the issue over the past few decades. If memory serves me right, the issue of VIP footwear first hit the front pages two decades ago when an American President visited Rajghat along with his wife and mother-in-law. As Indians are naturally deferential towards old age as also towards dignitaries, a volunteer came forward to help the old lady put on her slippers. The gesture was entirely unexceptionable, yet a leading daily made it a front page box item under the title “dip(low)macy”, because quite a few Indians felt that the lady should have been assisted by staff of the American Embassy.
It is therefore depressing to learn that this has become an institutionalized practice with the power elite –the dignitary is seated and a regular attendant deputed to remove his/her shoes – and no one has felt outraged about it. I am not at all against humanitarian gestures. If a person like the late President Dr. Shankar Dayal Sharma cannot bend, he should be helped by anyone present, regardless of the status of the person rendering such assistance. As a civilized society, we are obliged to offer such solicitude to all regardless of stature. Sevadars care for our shoes when we visit temples, and airline staff willingly ferry the aged in wheelchairs. But to make this an issue of privilege for those enjoying political power is utterly unacceptable in a democracy. All leaders enjoying good health, particularly those with professed socialist leanings, should publicly apologize for their past misconduct in this regard.
Another issue that bears looking at is whether the occupation of high office for a term (or more) entitles one to a life of perpetual luxury at the cost of the exchequer. Independent India’s first President, Dr. Rajendra Prasad, who lived for two terms in the mansion called Rashtrapati Bhavan, and was a highly respected freedom fighter to boot, ended his days at Sadaqat Ashram, the Congress party office in Patna, where he had to share common toilets because he did not have his own home. Safe in the vulgar opulence of Teen Murti House, its high walls reminiscent of Peking’s Forbidden City, Jawaharlal Nehru could hardly be susceptible to the plight of a former Head of State.
In fact, this is a sensitivity that dawned on the country only when the Nehru-Gandhi family was forced to spend time out of power. Other political parties have gone along with the charade because the transitional nature of the polity has propelled leaders of various political formations to power for limited tenures. It has suited them all to extend the areas of privilege for former Presidents, former Prime Minister’s, et al.
There are two aspects to the issue of providing free residential accommodation to former VIPs. The first, which merits greater public attention, is that almost all persons who now enter the political arena have the resources to support themselves and their families when out of power. This applies even to leaders who have been circumspect and have not abused their office for pecuniary gains. It therefore leaves a bad taste in the mouth when persons owning houses in posh colonies badger for state accommodation. In contrast, US Presidents and British Prime Minister’s have no qualms about returning to their home states on demitting office.
Henceforth, it would be a good idea if those seeking state housing make a public declaration of their assets and last income tax returns, along with those of their spouse. Their adult children may also publicly explain why the exchequer should bear their burden. Such transparency would quickly end these unjust demands.
Even worse than the clamour for free housing are the unreasonable demands for security for entire families, which puts unacceptable strain on security forces as well as the exchequer. More often than not, members of such VIP families spend their lives attending frivolous parties and fashion shows, which has a debilitating effect on the morale and combat readiness of the elite commando forces. The nation has the right to know why cocktail circuit-wallahs merit special protection from the terrorist menace.
In the context of terrorism, I would like to some few points about the farewell speech of the outgoing President, Mr. K.R. Narayanan. The first is his virtual allegation that Indian minorities are being subjected to retaliation for Pakistan’s atrocities towards its non-Muslim citizens. Though disguised as a quotation from Jawaharlal Nehru in the aftermath of Partition, it ill-behoves a former Head of State to make such baseless allegations against the majority community.
Mr. Narayanan’s potshots against the BJP government over the Gujarat carnage are unwarranted for two reasons. One, in the run-up to the Presidential election he maintained a studious silence over the mayhem, though it stretched over several weeks. If his conscience pricked only after his strong-arm tactics to pressurize the BJP to give him a second term failed, the Muslim community is better off without such ‘saviours.’ Second, his partisan indictment of the Hindu community while completely ignoring the horror of Godhra is in poor taste, particularly as forensic reports now suggest that the carnage was murderous and pre-meditated to a degree not imagined previously.
Armchair intellectuals and secularists who feel nothing for the people and pontificate over our civilizational ethos of tolerance and syncretism should explicitly state what they understand by this. As far as I am aware, it has never been part of the Hindu ethos to manlessly accept assaults on self, on women and children, on the state, or on dharma. Indeed, the protection of all was the essence of dharma, and through the centuries Hindus have willingly sacrificed their lives by the thousands to uphold their cherished values. The bizarre definition of tolerance as the acceptance of aggravated assault without cost to the culprit is a Nehruvian vulgarity that society rejects wholesomely.
Another lie that needs to be nailed is the myth of syncretism. I am wary when Muslim and secular intellectuals rant about India’s syncretic tradition, because secularists are clueless about what this means and Muslims vehemently reject any genuine synthesis. The traditional definition of syncretism means something formulated out of the elements of two or more systems. One would have thought that President Abdul Kalam, with his deeper appreciation of the nation’s civilizational ethos, symbolized our syncretic culture. Yet aggressive Muslim intellectuals have severely and unabashedly lambasted him precisely because he cherishes India’s non-Islamic values. It follows that for the cerebral fundamentalists, syncretism is a one-way street in which only Hindus accept alien values.
The Pioneer, 30 July 2002