Exit Narayanan - (Indolink.Com, 26/07/2002)

-- By Dasu Krishnamoorty

There is a change of guard at Rashtrapati Bhavan. Exit Kocheril Raman Narayanan. Enter Avul Pakeer Jainulabdeen Abdul Kalam. There was nothing in Narayanan´s farewell speech that should attract protest or praise. In the strict and secular traditions of the Republic of India he said what the media and the polity expected of him. He had to do some tight rope walking, torn between the urge to be himself and the dignity of the office of the President. Neither on economic reform nor on communalism what he said signified a departure from the farewell speeches of earlier tenants of Rashtrapati Bhavan. But we are all programmed to do what the Verities of the world did with the works of Shakespeare -- see what we wanted to see. Simple cussedness erects a wall between the truth and us.

The atmosphere is so thick with the ´poison of communalism´ that if Narayanan had not referred to it, his post-retirement ratings would have suffered. Communalism, a lens through which the Indian media see the outside world, claimed a lot of attention from Narayanan, as did economic reform. From the archives he retrieved a 1947 letter of Jawaharlal Nehru who pioneered a strange brand of secularism based exclusively on religion, and delivered a few sermons to the errant majority community.

Nehru wrote to chief ministers that the Muslim community was "so large in numbers that they cannot, even if they want to, go anywhere else. They have got to live in India. That is a basic fact about which there cannot be any argument. Whatever the provocation from Pakistan and whatever the indignities and horrors inflicted on non-Muslims there, we have got to deal with this minority in a civilised manner." We have been doing that, Narayanan Sir, all these years and continue to do that despite the ´indignities and horrors inflicted on non-Muslims´, not in Pakistan but in Kashmir, an integral part of India.

This civilised manner has disappeared from our society because in the half a century that followed Nehru´s letter; political parties discovered a new and expanding constituency benefited by a constant influx from across the borders, which would swell their vote banks. The visionary that he was, Nehru perhaps failed to foresee the birth of a new political tradition that would eternally divide India into fratricide-prone communities using discord and conflict as a weapon of survival. The Congress party and later other parties ensured a constant flow of oxygen to these divisive forces, a reference to which the nation expected from Narayanan, specially when he was walking out of the Lutyens mansion to freedom. That was not to be.

The Times of India was thrilled that "Narayanan´s direct reference to the Muslim victims was a first for any high state functionary since the Gujarat carnage." Yet, I think he did only what everyone else does: playing safe by doling out advice to the majority community to deal with its Muslim minority in a civilised manner, ensuring them security and the rights of citizens in a democratic state. Narayanan may not remember that exactly fifty years ago, the Constitution conferred on the minorities a clutch of articles that created an entrenched stake for them to remain as apartheid communities. Nothing symbolises this exclusivism more than the Kashmir problem.

If the minorities are insecure, how did they manage to proliferate from 10 per cent of the Indian population before independence to 14 per cent now? Listen to what Mashirul Hasan (The Indian Express, 24 July 2002) has to say: "Mercifully, we live in a democratic country. Though demonised and willfully persecuted by the likes of Narendra Modi, the Constitution has guaranteed to us, as to the other religious minorities, equal rights of citizenship. Fundamental rights, the essence of democracy, must be safeguarded through the existing democratic structures. At the same time, their real benefits would accrue only if the Muslim traditional and secular leadership pays more attention to its constituency’s intellectual regeneration. They can render no greater service to their followers and religion than the removal of rigid formalism, which, to their discredit, is always associated with Islam."

Narayanan failed to grab an opportunity to be different and to tell the truth and nothing but the truth. The truth is: there is no need to discover or rediscover tolerance because it has always been there and will be there even if it hurts national security. If tolerance were an infallible weapon to fight terrorism, the United States would have used it against the Talibans. In India, no harm can come to the minorities without their invitation. Since the constitutional privileges enjoyed by the minorities are so zealously protected by the secular community that the happy prospect of the country blossoming into a nation of minorities is not too distant. There would be no majority that could be asked to exercise tolerance. If any, the threat of communalism will be from one minority to another.

Harish Khare of the Hindu is anesthetised by what he calls Narayanan´s favourite theme: the need for egalitarian sensitivity. The entire speech is full of such trite terminology and generalities. Khare is happy that Narayanan had refused, as he had done for the last five years, to be swept off his feet by the razzle-dazzle of the ´market magic.´ So what? As the head of the state for five years, what did he do to undo this magic? If Khare thinks that the Indian President is only a titular head and acts only on the advice of the Council of Ministers, why take such sentiments so seriously and swoon at the drop of every word of the outgoing President? If that makes any difference, I am as worked up about liberalisation as Narayanan is. If you are trying to distance a President from his government, you cannot flaunt ceremonial speeches as evidence of bold disagreement. But it is no fault of Narayanan that Khare reads what he wanted to read in his speeches.

It is surprising that a person of Narayanan´s knowledgeability should say that perhaps "the older generation has failed to set an example and role models to our youth for social action in the service of the nation." We owe our freedom to the older generation -- the generation of Gandhi's, Nehru's and Subhash Chandra Bose's. The independence struggle was not limited only to the overthrow of a foreign regime. It covered social action. It is the independence era which saw reforms such as the removal of untouchability, temple entry for Harijans, widow remarriages, land ceilings, swadeshi movement to achieve economic self-reliance, temperance drive etc. Indian polity was generally free from corruption, horse-trading, floor crossing and economic crime as long as that independence generation was at the helm.

All this is not to deny Narayanan his due as an eminent man of learning and scholarship. One can only say that by accepting to become the President, Narayanan has, for five years, denied the nation the benefits of his wisdom and erudition. He belonged properly to the world of academics and diplomacy. He held high ambassadorial assignments representing the country in the United States and the Peoples´ Republic of China. He was the Vice Chancellor of Jawaharlal Nehru University. Narayanan did the country proud in several areas including economic planning and science and technology. He was no mean journalist having worked with the Hindu and the Times of India. We wish him long life and more years in the service of the nation.

Today, Abdul Kalam became the twelfth occupant of Rashtrapati Bhavan carrying with him the tag of a missile man. After he was sworn in, the new President made a reference to his vision that was none other than making India a developed nation. He also made a mandatory mention of his unflinching commitment to the principle of secularism. The constitutional framework of the republic has really no room for presidential activism in politics. But it does not prevent him from leading a Gandhi-like movement to ignite the minds of the people and involve them in nation building. To do this, the President will have to overcome the temptation to make speeches and instead inspire people by personal example and action. We wish him all the best.