Just why was that cartoon in text books?

A cartoon by Shankar Pillai (of Shankar’s Weekly fame) depicts Jawaharlal Nehru holding a whip while standing behind Dr BR Ambedkar who, as the chairman of the Constitution drafting committee, sits on a snail, with a crowd watching the tamasha. As it was published when the three-year work on the Constitution was nearing completion it was in the fitness of the then political context.

While Nehru might have relished the cartoon, Ambedkar might not have; for given his arduous struggle in life to liberate himself from the thralldom of caste, his use of the success of this struggle to liberate others, through democratic means, from the dung heap of the caste society, and his antipathy towards the Congress, it is unlikely that Ambedkar would have entertained the idea of tolerating a Nehru or Gandhi cracking the whip at him. But given his preoccupations and liberal nature, had he seen the cartoon, he might have either dismissed it as trivia or pitied his plight as the chief architect of the Constitution without getting the much-needed support from his caste Hindu fraternity to whom, in his perception, he was still an untouchable. 

The inclusion of the same cartoon in a textbook about 60 years down the line when the political context is vastly different and society is passing through violent churnings with Dalits in most parts of the country rising in revolt against their continuing  discrimination and oppression by caste Hindus and desecration of their Messiah’s statues in many places, any sensible cartoonist would see drawing a similar sketch now showing Nehru as the ringmaster and Ambedkar as a performer under him as mala fide.

It is from this perspective the uproar in Parliament last week ignited by Thol Thirumavalavan, the lone member of the Viduthalai Chiruthaigal Katchi, in Tamil Nadu, over the inclusion of the cartoon in the Class XI textbook on social science by the NCERT as an insult to Ambedkar has to be understood.

In this context the following passage from an editorial, ‘Don’t Laugh’ in The Statesman of May 12 is pertinent to note:

‘Yogendra Yadav, NCERT’s chief adviser, is theoretically right when he regrets that “our parliamentarians (a chief minister no less) do not understand the symbolism of a cartoon as an art form.” The point is well-taken; yet it begs the question — Was it really necessary to purportedly add value to the text? For all its subtlety, the visual could well have been dropped without in any way devaluing the book not the least because it was crafted for students of an impressionable age.’

For the sordid happenings in Parliament over the cartoon, the Congress alone should be blamed. Going  by media reports,  a month ago when a student told PL Punia, chairman, National Commission for Scheduled Castes and Congress MP, that such a cartoon was in the textbook he wrote to the NCERT and the HRD ministry seeking its removal. While the NCERT’s response was audacious, that the cartoon was not against the framers of the Constitution (Dr Ambedkar was not only one of the framers but more importantly, the chief architect of the Constitution), HRD Minister, Kapil Sibal, was apathetic. 

What clinched the issue was unanimity of the MPs from all parties in their condemnation of the ‘insult’ heaped upon Dr Ambedkar; Pranab Mukherjee’s frank admission that the printing of the cartoon in the textbook was ‘totally wrong’; he ‘entirely’ agreed with the sentiments of all sections of the House; Kapil Sibal’s craven apology and admission that inclusion of the cartoon was ‘shameful’ and the decision to stop the distribution of the textbook.

The cartoon issue, however, raises other issues. One is the need for revamping the NCERT, and put an end to nepotism and favoritism in our education system and its and politicisation. The other is the grandstand of sections of the media that have claimed that withdrawal of the book affects the freedom of expression and encourages hero-worship against the dangers of which Dr Ambedkar had cautioned the nation. The response to these claims is only the book containing the cartoon is withdrawn, whereas the cartoon is still available for those who want to see it; freedom of expression here is that of Shankar, which he used liberally as a cartoonist; and restoring the dignity of a dead statesman through Parliament is not hero worship.

The author is a sociologist and media commentator on public affairs prk1949@gmail.com