The
country has just
witnessed a Shakespearan tragedy when both Houses of Parliament
self-patted themselves and resolved to keep the dignity of Parliament at
the highest. The members were, however, forgetful of the shameful
furore in Parliament on May 11 over the reproduction of a cartoon in
1949 by Shankar depicting the delay in finalising the Constitution
(which was done on November 26, 1949) and which has been included in the
NCERT textbooks on political science of Class XI — the cartoon was
alleged to have insulted Nehru and Dr Ambedkar.
The
more worrying aspect was the almost craven response of the HRD Minister
that he was directing the NCERT to stop the distribution of these
textbooks and to review the same. He even gratuitously said that the
government would review all the cartoons and this year the present
textbooks would not be distributed. How sad? The sneezing irrelevant
remark of a legislator is enough to give them shivers down the spine and
to agree to delete the cartoons, ignoring the fact that these had been
selected by two of our respected social scientists. Such is the panic
of caste-based politics that apparently even sober legislators of all
parties jumped in to support the suppression of the cartoon oblivious to
the fact that both Nehru and Ambedkar took this cartoon as an
expression of a right of free speech guaranteed to Indian citizens. It
may help the legislators to know that Nehru had inaugurated Shankar's
Weekly much earlier in 1948 and encouraged the cartoonist by openly
telling him, "Do not spare me, Shankar". And Shankar went about the work
but never did Pt Nehru or Parliament took any objection.
It
was a surprisingly puerile and deliberately provocative suggestion by a
lone member of Parliament (picked up immediately by all the parties,
panic-ridden as they are by election phobia) that the cartoon should be
treated as a castist slur on Ambedkar. How ironic that these
self-proclaimed admirers of Ambedkar want to pigeon-hole him as a Dalit
leader while in reality Dr Ambedkar's contribution to
Constitution-making has been universally recognised and, in fact, was
openly praised and complimented when President Rajendra Prasad, speaking
during the closing address in the Constituent Assembly, said, "We could
never make a decision which was or could be so right as when we put him
on drafting committee and made him a Chairman. He has added lustre to
the work which he has done."
The
response of Dr Ambedkar was equally gracious when he said, "I feel so
overwhelmed that I cannot find adequate words to express my gratitude to
them. I am grateful to the Constituent Assembly reposing in me so much
trust and confidence and have chosen me as their instrument and given me
this opportunity of serving to country." How can then small
self-appointed Dalit leaders dare to say that the contribution of Dr
Ambedkar was not fully recognised during his lifetime.
Let
me remind everyone that Dr Lohia, himself one of the tallest leaders of
India, had openly stated that he considered Dr Ambedkar as the next
biggest leader after Mahatma Gandhi that modern India had produced.
It
pains one to say that while the country is so proud of its Fundamental
Rights, including the Right of Speech and Press, the discussion in
Parliament should have revolved on how to suppress the freedom of the
Press by deleting the cartoon and also interfering with the freedom of
the students to know about the trends and currents at the time the
Constitution was being framed. This action of Parliament is antithetical
to the strongly held view of Pt Nehru who said, "You do not change
anything, you merely suppress the public manifestation of certain things
thereby causing the idea and thought underlying them to spread
further."
The argument of
the parliamentarians that these cartoons will spread a wrong notion of
the politicians is a self-serving congratulatory observation and is an
insult to the independent and wise-thinking of teachers and students
themselves. Have we not already had in our country the unfortunate
results of yielding to the threats of goons in banning the globally
recognised paintings of Hussain who unfortunately, even after his death,
could not have his paintings shown at an exhibition arranged by a
government-appointed body on the unacceptable excuse that the organisers
could not save the paintings from being damaged at the instance of some
unruly elements.
The
intolerance against certain opinions is spoiling the free atmosphere at
the universities as was demonstrated when Delhi University banned the
teaching of three Ramayanas, a very researched and documented version by
a well-known historian. The present discussion, if it leads to the
deletion of these passages from the textbooks, would strike at one of
our proudest Fundamental Right of Freedom of Speech, a constituent of
democracy. It is well to remind everyone what John Stuart Mill in his
essay on liberty said, "The need for allowing even erroneous opinions to
be expressed on the ground that the correct ones become more firmly
established by what may be called the dialectical process of a struggle
with wrong ones which expose errors.”
The
Supreme Court has also emphasised that "intellectual advances made by
our civilisation would have been impossible without freedom of speech
and expression. The court has drawn its strength from the well-known
expression of democratic faith expressed by the great French
philosopher, Voltaire, "I do not agree with a word you say but I will
defend to death your right to say it." The court has reminded that
"Champions of human freedom of thought and expression through ages have
relied that intellectual paralysis creeps over society which denies, in
however subtle form, due freedom of thought and expression to its
members.
Dr Ambedkar was
conscious of the danger to the dignity of an individual in our political
system and gave the warning thus, "There is nothing wrong in being
grateful to great men who have rendered life-long services to the
country. But there are limits to gratefulness….. no nation can be
grateful at the cost of liberty. This caution is far more necessary in
the case of India than in the case of any other country. For in India
Bhakti or what may be called path of devotion or hero worship plays a
part in its politics unlike any other country in the world. Bhakti in
religion may be a road to the salvation of the soul. But in politics
Bhakti or hero-worship is a sure road to degradation and to eventual
dictatorship".
The writer is a former Chief Justice of the Delhi High Court...Justice Rajindar Sachar (retd)