Apart from devaluing the contribution made by countless others who have chosen to remain nameless, this tendency has completely overlooked those who truly loved their country. For them political and material perks meant nothing
Rajiv Gandhi is my father! He martyred himself for the country and in my estimation, no one can even come close to him.” Those were the sentiments expressed by Ms Priyanka Vadra as a sharp rejoinder to the media reports that Mr Narendra Modi had indicated that he regarded her as his ‘daughter’.
There are simply so many aspects about this saga that are profoundly distasteful and it certainly succeeded in debasing that bitter electoral campaign even further. The source of this alleged remark was an interview that Mr Modi had granted to Doordarshan. As facts emerged, it turned out that Doordarshan, the national broadcaster had indulged in an unforgivable journalistic misconduct. Mr Modi had never made the remark and after having watched the entire interview, it became obvious that he was not even hinting at anything remotely suggestive. His contention was that he understood Ms Vadra’s utterances as those coming from a daughter/sister who was supporting her mother/brother and he was simply not inclined to take any offence.
Doordarshan attempted to explain it away by suggesting that this was in conformity with its usual editorial practices but this was patently disingenuous — as was its contention that this action was not the result of the influence, covert or overt, of the ruling party in power. Anyone with the most cursory insight into the workings of Prasar Bharati would be conversant with the governmental hand that governs it. There have been numerous instances where Doordarshan had wrapped itself with discredit bowing to UPA desires. But equally disingenuous was the NDA attempt to project itself as clean and innocent of this tendency.
Even more disconcerting was the substance of Ms Vadra’s angry rejoinder. There is no problem with her identifying herself as Rajiv Gandhi’s offspring, completely superfluous though it was. What in a way irked me was her emphasis that her father had martyred himself for his country. It was an implicit suggestion — that because of her father’s sacrifice, her countrymen were perpetually indebted to her family.
There is something fundamentally wrong with the practice of the family members of those who have been entrusted with the running of the country, taking it upon themselves to remind everyone of their seminal and unprecedented contributions which place them in a league of their own. This tendency has bedevilled not just our country but the entire Indian subcontinent. I am old enough to vaguely recall then Prime Minister of Ceylon, SWRD Bandarnaike, being shot in Colombo — and his wife being made the Prime Minister on the strength of her husband’s sacrifice. She incidentally was the very first female Prime Minister anywhere in the world but we can hardly forget her phenomenal ineptitude which brought the country to economic ruination and concomitant difficulties. Sadly the rest of the countries in the region refused to take lessons.
Apart from devaluing the contribution made by countless others who have chosen to remain nameless (their contribution being no less seminal), this tendency completely overlooks another dimension; for those who truly loved their country, political and material perks meant absolutely nothing. For them, the supreme honour was being accorded the opportunity to serve the country.
Rajiv Gandhi’s assassination was a tragedy of monumental proportions. We all felt slighted. Politics is a risky undertaking and I am sure most who indulge in it are cognizant of it. It falls upon us in a democracy to somehow diminish the prospects of a tragedy of this magnitude — and clearly we failed in some measure. As did the Americans when they could not prevent John F Kennedy’s assassination. But if my recollection is accurate, the Americans did not automatically assume that his family should be extended administrative privileges of running the country without satisfactory apprenticeship or a credible track record.
More recently we would do well to recall two Israeli statesmen — Golda Meir and Yitzhar Rabin. Golda was a tough lady by any reckoning. After leading the country through a tumultuous phase, she lost an election. She refused to seek any governmental accommodation and retired to a private one bedroom apartment block. And it is nobody’s case that the security concerns of Israel are less pronounced than those of India.
Rabin was a statesman who when he became the Prime Minister, negotiated a deal with his sworn enemy Yasser Arafat countering the fierce opposition within his own country. For this Arafat and Rabin along with Mr Shimon Peres were awarded the Nobel Peace Prize. Almost immediately after this, he was shot dead. His widow leah Rabin was publicly offered a political platform. She very gracefully refused everything — including state security — declaring that the country had accorded her husband the supreme honour of serving his nation for which she and her family would forever be grateful.
It is not that we do not have similar examples in our own country but for some reason we have not seen it fit to emulate them. With the record number of first-time voters, we can have a meaningful debate on how to eliminate this practice completely inimical to every democratic value we seek to espouse.