#dnaEdit: Vajpayee deserves it

Predictably, the Narendra Modi government has conferred Bharat Ratna, the highest civilian award of the country, upon former Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee and also Madan Mohan Malviya, prominent right-wing Congress leader, the founder of Banaras Hindu University (BHU). No one — not even ardent secularists — would quarrel with the choice of the recipients of the award. 

However the decision does seem to raise certain significant issues. The present generation of politicians often forgets that during the freedom struggle, people holding diametrically opposed views worked together and respected each other despite differences. For example, Malviya opposed the 14-point proposal of the Muslim League led by Mohammed Ali Jinnah which included reservations for Muslims at the special session of Congress at Calcutta in 1928. Motilal Nehru, the author of the famous Nehru Report on constitutional arrangements, would not have opposed the reservations idea. There were genuine differences between the senior Nehru and Malviya. It is necessary to remember that Malviya remained a pillar of Congress till his death. It would be a mistake for the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) to believe that Malviya was a Hindutva leader as it defines the term. 

Vajpayee deserves the award and the reasons go beyond partisan politics. It would have been better if the Congress-led UPA government had chosen him during its 10 years in power, proving that national honours are not bound by political ideologies. The Modi government can set an example by awarding the Bharat Ratna to former Prime Minister Manmohan Singh. Vajpayee again is an admirable democrat, who chose to reach out to people with whom he differed and whom he opposed on the basis of ideas. He was both a fiery anti-Congress and anti-Communist leader, but he did not ever forget the show of courtesy to his political rivals. In honouring Vajpayee, it will be good if the BJP leaders remember the cultured bearing of Vajpayee with those on the other side of the barricade. The BJP-led NDA however cannot be faulted for naming Vajpayee, who is frail and old.

What remains open to debate is the rationale of choosing leaders and luminaries long-dead for the Bharat Ratna award. It does not withstand scrutiny. These leaders, including conservative stalwarts like Malviya, are already enshrined in the undeclared national pantheon. There is no need for present-day politicians to score brownie points on the issue. A look back at the list of the Bharat Ratna award shows that it had been given to Congress right-wing leader Purushottam Das Tandon in 1961 and to Mahamahopadhyay PV Kane, who had written a multi-volume history of the Dharmasastras, in 1963. It would be sensible to honour the living rather than the long-dead. Unfortunately, the trend of awarding the award posthumously to BR Ambedkar in 1990 and to Sardar Patel in 1991 by then Prime Ministers VP Singh and Chandrashekhar, continued. It is a bad practice and it would be better if politicians in power pick up the courage not to indulge in these gimmicks. The Bharat Ratna and other civilian awards should be confined to the living.

The argument that the army awards like the Ashok Chakra and the Param Vir Chakra are often given posthumously is valid only in a limited sense. The bravery awards are given immediately after a soldier or officer has died in an engagement in the last one year. Similarly, Lal Bahadur Shastri and Rajiv Gandhi were given the Bharat Ratna awards immediately after their deaths.