There are people who deserve the Bharat Ratna and get it; there are those who deserve it and don’t get it; and, there are others who do not need the Bharat Ratna to underline their greatness. Politics in neither case is good
The year was 1961. As an impressionable youngster, I was seated among the guests waiting for the function to commence in the salubrious surroundings of the Rashtrapati Bhawan. The occasion was the conferment of the prestigious Bharat Ratna award to two individuals who had rendered seminal and outstanding contribution to the nation. The two individuals who were to be bestowed this honour were Bidhan Chandra Roy and Rajarshi Purushottam Das Tandon.
I must confess that I knew very little about their respective contributions when the announcement was made but had made several enquiries to acquaint myself, however nominally, of the qualities they represented which made them stand out from the rest.
Unfortunately, for the present generation, these two names may not strike a chord of familiarity. Roy was the Chief Minister of West Bengal and had been at the forefront of nationalist movement in that province for years. But even more than that, he was a medical practitioner par excellence and universally respected for his superb clinical skills. He had trained both as a surgeon and a physician and despite his very taxing schedule, his first and foremost commitment was always to his patients who came from all over the country.
The leader —in those days the top newspaper in Uttar Pradesh — had once described him as a modern day Charaka and Susruta rolled into one. Countless people can still narrate tales on how Roy was successfully able to treat someone who had been given up as a gone case by many other medical practitioners.
He wore this skill with utmost humility. I have an interesting anecdote coming from a very reliable source. Roy was in the United States and an appointment was arranged with President John Kennedy as part of the protocol. The President walked into the room expecting to see a career politician who had to be accorded a few minutes. He was clearly in pain. Roy requested to be allowed to examine him, which Kennedy did with some reluctance. He made a clinical diagnosis of Addison’s disease which was confirmed later on. A very impressed Kennedy wrote a long letter afterwards to thank this doctor extraordinaire.
Purushottam Das Tandon was one of the leading Congressmen in Uttar Pradesh who had served the party in different capacities with utmost distinction. He was a very active member of the Constituent Assembly and later contested elections for the post of Congress president against Jawaharlal Nehru’s declared candidate, JB Kripalani in 1950. He defeated Kripalani but Nehru was so antagonistic towards him that he was compelled to resign. The interesting fact here is that in 1961, it was Nehru who had recommended his name for the highest honour notwithstanding his personal antipathy.
Delving into the reservoirs of my now-fading memory, I vividly recall every Opposition leader of any substance at the function — Humayun Kabir, Ram Manohar lohia, AK Gopalan etc. All of them applauded whole-heartedly when these two statesmen were honoured. The President of India in his address pointed out that Bharat Ratna was a symbol of the entire nation’s appreciation for their contributions and while it was unlikely to enhance the stature of the recipients, a gesture by the nation would ensure that their work would serve as an inspiration for the posterity.
Even in those days, there were some glaring omissions, the most prominent being that of Maulana Abul Kalam Azad. Much later did I come to know that his name was suggested in 1956 but he declined as he felt it would be improper for him to accept the honour while serving as Cabinet Minister. Many Congress worthies should have taken a lesson from this noble gesture. The Maulana was conferred this honour many years after his death.
The problems arose when political considerations started taking precedence over the need for a national consensus in the nomination process and the introduction of the practice of conferring the award posthumously. The latter came into being when lal Bahadur Shastri was conferred the award in 1966, 16 days after his death. My own view is that Shastri’s Bharat Ratna was perhaps the only posthumous award that can be justified. The decision had already been taken before his untimely death in Tashkent — I recall S Radhakrishnan’s radio address to the nation on the day. All the other posthumous awards are open to legitimate questions.
Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel did not need a Bharat Ratna. Having died in 1950 when the award was not even conceived, it was a manifestation of gaucheness to award him decades after his death-when Sardar Patel’s stature was much higher than that of the award. The same arguments could be applied to the other posthumous awardees. I applaud Netaji Subhas Chandra Bose’s family for dismissing a move to honour him in this manner.