Column

Manmohan Singh says that “labelling people terrorists on the basis of their country or community will not help.” A few weeks ago, President-in-waiting Pratibha Patil said that the office of President should be kept above controversy.

These are sentiments few good people would disagree with. But do these speakers understand the full implications of their viewpoints?

Let’s take Pratibha Patil’s statement first. Ever since the BJP has been digging up dirt on her antecedents, especially about her over-acquisitive spouse, it has become fashionable to say that political parties shouldn’t stoop so low.

After all, we are talking about the highest office in the land.

Implicit in all these viewpoints are some, or all, of the following assumptions: One, it is all right to rake up the muck about MPs or other lesser politicians, but not the President.

Two, because it is the BJP that is doing the dirty work, there must be something unholy about it. Nobody remembers, as a colleague pointed out the other day, that the Congress party’s dirty tricks department was busy at work against Neelam Sanjiva Reddy when he was the official party candidate against Indira Gandhi’s conscience nominee, VV Giri.

Three, and this is important, once a presidential candidate is announced, or is elected, her conduct should be above scrutiny. The law provides holders of the office substantial immunity from prosecution.

Now let’s see the absurdity of these positions. One would have thought that the holder of the highest office in the land should be held to higher standards of conduct than mere MPs or ministers.

If Caesar’s wife is expected to be above suspicion, Pratibha Patil’s husband should be, too. Does keeping the office of President above controversy mean no one should check whether her spouse is a louse?

Next, is it the substance of the accusation that matters or the complexion of the accuser? The BJP will, for obvious reasons, want to embarrass the UPA, but does this mean all the charges have no substance?

The allegations highlighted in the press, including DNA, suggest that her family members could be guilty of unethical conduct. The allegations are matters for further investigation, not for brushing under the carpet.

Lastly, it is one thing to say that we should not drag the presidency into controversy, but it is quite another to hold that once you are a candidate, you can’t be called to account for anything.

If we adopt this as standard policy, the BJP merely has to nominate Narendra Modi for President and we can put the whole Gujarat communal conflagration behind us, no questions asked.

Quite clearly, Indian politicians make statements without understanding their full import. In an emotional outburst made soon after the failed UK suicide bombing, the prime minister said it was wrong to name communities as linked to terror. These are fine sentiments, but will he apply the same logic elsewhere?

If blame for one person’s actions should not be apportioned to the whole community (one cannot but agree with this), is this applicable to all situations or just currently favoured political constituencies?

For example, it is part of official political policy to rail against upper castes and Brahmins in general. We know that several members from the upper castes are bigoted, but we blame everybody in the community — they are always referred to as upper caste bigots. An atrocity by any member of the upper caste is seen as reflecting the values of all.

In Tamil Nadu, the worst atrocities on Dalits are perpetrated by non-Brahmin bigots, but this never gets reflected. It’s not politically convenient.

Two, if blame for individual acts should not be laid at the door of specific communities, should praise? When we say Parsis have made huge contributions to nation-building, we are talking about achievers — JRD, Homi Bhabha —not the whole community. Why should praise and largesse be general, and only blame specific?

Gandhi said one should hate the crime, not the person committing it. It is good advice if applied uniformly. Selectivity destroys the validity of the argument.

Email: r_jagannathan@dnaindia.net