These are my very personal thoughts on awards. What I mean are the civilian awards like the Bharat Ratna, the Padma awards and similar ones.
The gallantry awards given to the men in uniform for their heroics in battle and many of them, for the supreme sacrifice while laying down their lives defending their motherland, are a different matter altogether and do not come under the purview of this discussion. Period!
Over the past few days there have been heated discussions, in the media, on the likely Bharat Ratna awardees. Hearing the political class go about strutting their views on the subject, berating and poo-pooing some of the earlier recipients and making a case for fresh ones, makes one feel sad. That the criterion for picking on the likely recipients has been based on political expediency is a matter that has been established beyond doubt.
What amuses me further is that, as per existing norms, the final list is prepared by the Prime Minister for approval by the President of India and that being so, there have been instances when serving Prime Ministers have received the award! One can only rue the fact that such an important subject of selecting national icons has been reduced to a farce!!
So what should be the criterion? Should it be given posthumously and that too in retrospect? There was this panelist, on one of the television channels, making a serious case for Shaheed Bhagat Singh to be awarded the Bharat Ratna. I could only have a laugh at the gentleman's expense because:-
(a) How many icons - say, for example, from the aspect of India's freedom struggle only - will we select?
Similarly, there are so many other fields in which Indians have brought glory to the country. By awarding
everyone - the assumption being that no one would be left out on the basis of narrow considerations -
there would be a proliferation of the award, lowering its prestige.
(b) To my mind, it should be given when the worthy is alive or latest, within a year of his or her passing
away. Further delays, definitely reduces it to a laughing matter because it brings political expediency into
play.
Let's not demean the value of a coveted award and here's wishing that all the recipients are indeed 'Bharat Ratnas', that we can be proud of!
Tailpiece.
In a similar vein, even apologising for a past event by the government of the day does not erase the painful memories or the bitterness of the times. The rightful thing would be to reiterate that the past mistake will never be repeated which is seldom done!
The gallantry awards given to the men in uniform for their heroics in battle and many of them, for the supreme sacrifice while laying down their lives defending their motherland, are a different matter altogether and do not come under the purview of this discussion. Period!
Over the past few days there have been heated discussions, in the media, on the likely Bharat Ratna awardees. Hearing the political class go about strutting their views on the subject, berating and poo-pooing some of the earlier recipients and making a case for fresh ones, makes one feel sad. That the criterion for picking on the likely recipients has been based on political expediency is a matter that has been established beyond doubt.
What amuses me further is that, as per existing norms, the final list is prepared by the Prime Minister for approval by the President of India and that being so, there have been instances when serving Prime Ministers have received the award! One can only rue the fact that such an important subject of selecting national icons has been reduced to a farce!!
So what should be the criterion? Should it be given posthumously and that too in retrospect? There was this panelist, on one of the television channels, making a serious case for Shaheed Bhagat Singh to be awarded the Bharat Ratna. I could only have a laugh at the gentleman's expense because:-
(a) How many icons - say, for example, from the aspect of India's freedom struggle only - will we select?
Similarly, there are so many other fields in which Indians have brought glory to the country. By awarding
everyone - the assumption being that no one would be left out on the basis of narrow considerations -
there would be a proliferation of the award, lowering its prestige.
(b) To my mind, it should be given when the worthy is alive or latest, within a year of his or her passing
away. Further delays, definitely reduces it to a laughing matter because it brings political expediency into
play.
Let's not demean the value of a coveted award and here's wishing that all the recipients are indeed 'Bharat Ratnas', that we can be proud of!
Tailpiece.
In a similar vein, even apologising for a past event by the government of the day does not erase the painful memories or the bitterness of the times. The rightful thing would be to reiterate that the past mistake will never be repeated which is seldom done!
No comments:
Post a Comment