Maulana abul kalam azad , first education awards or rewards

Maulana Abul Kalam Azad, first Education Awards or Rewards
Kuldip Nayar

Minister after independence, was sounded for the Bharat Ratna, the country’s highest
civil award, announced annually on January 26 to commemorate the declaration made in 1930 that India’s objective was to have complete independence from British rule. His role during the freedom struggle was crucial and his erudition was recognized throughout the Islamic world.

Azad declined the award. He reportedly told the then Prime Minister Jawarharlal Nehru that how could they pin the medal on themselves when they were the ones to decide who should get the award? Being a top man in the ruling Congress, his word carried weight.

The Maulana’s objection startled the government. The Cabinet is said to have met informally to discuss his rejection. But he did not relent despite Nehru’s pressure. The party leaders, Azad argued, could not hog the glory that their government had the authority to bestow on them. Still the government went ahead and gave awards to the Congressmen as well. Many years later Azad was given the Bharat Ratna posthumously.

The then Congress government did not respect the sentiments he had expressed. The point Azad made some 50 years ago, soon after the awards were started, is as relevant today as it was then. How could the government the ruling party leads be an arbiter of the country’s awards and confer them on those who are close to the rulers? It reminds me of a Punjabi saying: When a blind man distributes sweets, he gives them to his own people again and again.

The selection of awardees by different Congress governments during the last many years, when analysed, shows a definite tilt towards the people who suited their book. They were the ones who towed the party line. Critics or opponents never figured anywhere. For example, Ram Manohar Lohia, the socialist leader, or the Marxist EMS Namboodipad, were not even considered.

THE INP(BJP) - LED GOVERNMENT DID NO BETTER .IT SAFFRONIZED THE LIST OF RECIPIENTS AND GAVE AWARDS TO EVEN THE FANATIC RSS WORKERS.

I saw the subjective exercise from close quarters when I was the Information Officer in the Home Ministry for six years till 1964. The ministry would receive names from individuals or organizations that were close to the Congress party. Central and State ministers also sent their suggestions. A deputy secretary in the Home Ministry and I would prepare the list of names alphabetically and summarize their bio-data. It was a clerical job and the entire exercise was arbitrary. There were no rules to guide, nor any norms to follow. We even dropped names that we did not like. The list was sent to the Home Secretary who forwarded it to the Home Minister.

Politics was injected at this stage. The minister decided who would get which award, Padma Shri, Padma Bhushan or Padma Vibushan. The Prime Minister was always in the picture. Between the two, names were added to the list or deleted from it. The President who authorized the gazette notification seldom changed the list received from the government.

However, once the then President, Dr Rajendra Prasad, added one name when I was still in the ministry. He wrote in his own hand the name of a lady from the South. We, in the Home Ministry worked hard to find who she was. There was an educationist by that name at Chennai. But when the list went back to Dr Prasad, he corrected her profession to say that she was a nurse.

His ADC informed us that she had treated him when he fell sick while travelling by road. We were able to spot her out. That year two ladies by the same name received the award.

The screening committee is relatively a recent phenomenon. There was a public interest litigation to challenge the awards on the ground that they were banned legally. Article 18 of the Constitution says: "No title, not being a military or academic distinction, shall be conferred by the state." The Supreme Court, however, did not regard civil awards as titles. But it did suggest the constitution of a screening committee.

The objection that the selection tended to be biased would have gone if the Supreme Court had itself appointed members of the committee. The court left the job to the government. It, in turn, appointed persons who were cast in the mould of the ruling party. The fact that the Manmohan Singh government constituted a committee, different from the one the Vajpayee government had, to process the names of the awardees this time indicated that the Congress was particular about who did the screening. Of course, the Home Minister and the Prime Minister remained the final authority.

Whoever the person or whatever the method, the fact of subjectivity cannot be ruled out. Even if by some quirk or miracle the bias were to disappear, the question to ask would be: Are the awards necessary?

The Janata Party government that came to power in 1977 after retrieving democracy from authoritarianism did away with them straightaway. It thought that the titles of the British days had been brought back.

Indeed, the titles were conferred on toadies or those who were on the side of foreign rule. So long as the Janata Party stayed in power, there was no award.

After so many decades, I still cannot figure out how Rabindra Nath Tagore accepted the title of ‘Sir.’ True, he returned it after the Jalianwala Bagh massacre. But why did he accept it in the first instance? Freedom fighters did not like it. To that extent, the stature of Tagore came down by several pegs.

After the Janata Party rule, awards have come back with a vengeance and so have the fawning flatterers and sycophants. Once again the award has begun to appear on the letterheads and visiting cards of the recipients. The government’s repeated announcements not to use awards as titles have been of little avail. Self-importance is natural for a recipient because the government distributes awards like rewards. It should not expect people to think otherwise because the very selection lacks objectivity.

However, there have been many persons who have refused to accept awards. Gandhian Siddharaj Dhadda is a recent example. He declined the Padma Vibushan which the Vajpayee government sought to confer on him. Journalists too have refused to accept awards. The late Nikhil Chakraborty was one of them.

Ultimately, it depends on individuals: how do they look at awards. The successive governments at the Centre have played havoc with the selection because the ruling parties have given them to such people who have earned little recognition in the field they work except a few. In fact, the government has spoilt the reputation of even those who deserve laurels and to whom the nation is indebted.