Opinion - News Analysis   

Awards earned, awards fixed?

EVERY SOCIETY finds ways of identifying and rewarding success of an outstanding kind. Every society needs to celebrate success and to serenade the successful. When a country chooses to confer state honours on some citizens it in effect identifies "role models", successful individuals who become sources of inspiration for the rest of society.

After Independence, we instituted the practice of conferring "Padma awards"; these are intended to be republican honours, to be given to those who served the country, in sharp contrast to the titles such as the "rai bahadur" the British imperial regime used to confer on its favourites. As Jawaharlal Nehru formulated in a letter to the Chief Ministers in 1954, the awards were meant for "rather distinguished people in science, engineering, medicine, art, literature and social work. This indicates the way India looks today. We honour the creative and the developmental activities of the nation and we wish people to honour them".

When a person is conferred a honour such as Padma Vibhushan or Padma Shri, it is a recognition of the values, traits, behaviour, attitudes and skills the person stands for, and which need to be acknowledged beyond his or her peers' esteem. And higher the award, the lesser should be the room for any kind of moral ambivalence about the awardee's credentials.

A Bharat Ratna, for example, should invite no reservation or doubts or questions in any part of the country or with any section of society.

The expectation is that the man or woman so singled out for a state honour would feel encouraged to carry on the "good work"; the prestige implicit in the social recognition is presumed to vaguely compensate for worldly rewards.

The hope is that good men and women would not be tempted by crass commercial considerations and would continue to put their talent to use for the larger good. In the process, society keeps renewing the standards and traditions of self-less public service.

But as genuine heroes and authentic role models have faded out of public space, the politician and the fixer have stepped in. The Padma awards too have got mired in controversy and doubts. According to formal procedure, as it has evolved over the years, the initial selection is made by a committee, headed by the Cabinet Secretary; also included are the Secretary to the President, the Union Home Secretary, and a number of "eminent" representatives from various fields such as science, medicine, culture, media and sports.

The role of this Committee was kind of sanctified when the Supreme Court held that the names outside the ones short-listed by this committee would not be considered. The trick since then has been in the selection of the so-called "eminent" experts.

According to a former Cabinet Secretary, the recommendations made by the Committee represent a mix of subjectivity and objectivity as well as of noble ignorance and low cunning. The Committee examines the recommendations, roughly about 500, from the State Governments and the Union Ministries; this crop of 500 is pared down to 150, and out of which about 100 make the final "Padma" grade in various categories. Some names get weeded out when the various "agencies" are asked to give their "clearance" on the moral standing or otherwise of a proposed awardee. An unwritten rule is that generally ten years must intervene before someone gets to get a higher Padma category award.

The final selection criterion of course is political. The Prime Minister has the final say, though Presidents too are known have played activist roles in these state honours. For example, R. Venkataraman cites, in his presidential memoirs, many instances when his advice was sought.

Or, the former Prime Minister, I. K. Gujral, revealed that it was the then President, K. R. Narayanan, who had suggested a Bharat Ratna for C. Subramaniam in January 1998. Or, it is generally believed that it was the then President, V. V. Giri, who had suo motu decided to award a Bharat Ratna to Indira Gandhi after the Bangladesh war.

The presidential intervention, however, is at best confined to one or two cases each year. The awards are a political business. There is considerable lobbying by award-seekers, just as political or bureaucratic patrons push for their friends, proteges or benefactors.

For instance, B. N. Tandon, who was a joint secretary in the Prime Minister's Office during Indira Gandhi's prime ministerial innings and who has recently published his diary, has this entry, dated January 17, 1975: "This afternoon, at lunch, the topic of the Padma awards came up. This year I have not taken any interest in this. It is true that I wanted Amjad (Ali Khan) to get the Padma Shri because last year his name had been left out. The committee of secretaries has recommended his name again this year, but it has been removed by the Prime Minister at the instance of Usha Bhagat. Sharda (Prasad) didn't approve of this and he told the Prime Minister that it was his and my view that it would be wrong to deny this award to Amjad this year. Then something happened which necessitated consultation with (P.N.) Haksar who also took the view that Amjad should definitely get the Padma Shri. Now his name is on the list, but I haven't told him." (PMO diary-I, page 157)

Another glimpse of the calculations and cunning is provided by K. Natwar Singh who in 1983 had organised the two successful summits, NAM and CHOGAM in New Delhi. He wanted Padma Bhushans and Padma Shris for those who had helped organised the two summits, just as those who had organised the Asian Games in 1982 were awarded.

He writes that Indira Gandhi did not approve of the idea. "I told her: `Don't give me any award (Alexander had sent my name) but surely the others need some recognition.' She did not budge. Only two awards were announced on January 26, 1984. K. Natwar Singh, Padma Bhushan, Hamid Ansari, Chief of Protocol, Padma Shri." (Profiles and Letters, P. 204)

The Government of the day invariably seeks to reward its loyalists. Sometimes, there is downright political judgment involved, like the Rajiv Gandhi Government's decision to award the Bharat Ratna posthumously to M. G. Ramachandran.

However, the expectation is that the awards would not go to those individuals who have an obligation to maintain distance and detachment from the executive of the day.

Judges of the Supreme Court and the High Courts as well as those manning the UPSC, the Election Commission or the Comptroller and Auditor General should decline any kind of honour, if proposed by a Government.

Barring a few exceptions, the temptation has been resisted as there is a recognition that their institutional role would stand compromised if they open themselves to a kind of "bribe".

A special category is of the media. By the very definition, mediapersons are expected to keep their distance from the Government of the day, even if they choose not to play the role of an institutional adversary. Because the Governments themselves have such a partisan approach even the most deserving journalist gets branded.

Of late, there seems to be a mad rush to be branded, though the pretence is of disinterest. The assertion is invariably without credibility. The giver and the receiver both stand diminished. After all, a society is known by the awards it gives.

Printer friendly page  
Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

Opinion

News: Front Page | National | Southern States | Other States | International | Opinion | Business | Sport | Miscellaneous |
Advts: Classifieds | Employment | Obituary |

Stories in this Section

• Awards earned, awards fixed?
• Denied their due?
• Artistes' angst
• Hardly sporting
• Nagas yearn for peace

Copyright � 2003, The Hindu. Republication or redissemination of the contents of this screen are expressly prohibited without the written consent of The Hindu