Beyond death

Sir — As stated in the editorial, “Prize after death” (Jan 28), the government should clearly specify how far back in time an award should go while considering candidates for national honours. The Bharat Ratna, India’s highest civilian honour, has been awarded posthumously to 11 luminaries till date. So much emphasis has been put on the posthumous nature of the award in certain cases that the 1992 award to Subhash Chandra Bose had to be withdrawn because of the lack of conclusive evidence related to his demise. The government should have resolved the issue then and there instead of dragging it for so long.

Considering that we are already in the second decade of the 21st century, few important changes need to be made in the government’s policy pertaining to awards. Nominations should be strictly based on contributions made in sovereign India rather than in colonial India. A copious amount of literature is available on pre-Independence India that has immortalized the contributions of our freedom fighters and social reformers. There is no need to impose modern-day hierarchies on these personalities by honouring a handful and overlooking others. Posthumous awards, if allowed to exist at all, should be declared within a year of the recipient’s death, so that the country may cherish his or her work before it fades from public memory. For living persons, there should be a minimum age limit, say 60 years, so that the country gets sufficient time to evaluate and appreciate the individual’s contributions. Although Mother Teresa and Nelson Mandela had been honoured with the Bharat Ratna in spite of not being citizens of this country, it would be prudent to restrict the nominees to Indian citizens in future.

Of course, these suggestions would be applicable to civilian honours only. Gallantry awards, by their very nature, often pay tribute to the exemplary valour and courage of members of our armed, paramilitary or police forces who have sacrificed their lives to protect our nation.

Yours faithfully,
Sudipta Das, Calcutta

Sir — The point raised in the editorial about posthumous awards is a very serious one, especially in relation to India’s highest civilian award, the Bharat Ratna. India has had many jewels in the past — Rabindranath Tagore (in literature), A.J.C. Bose (in science), Dhyan Chand (in sports) and so on — who have not been awarded the Bharat Ratna till now. If posthumous awards are allowed, and some great persons are awarded while others are not, this would amount to an injustice to those not honoured. There must be a way out of this dilemma. Otherwise, given India’s glorious past, less living legends and more dead heroes would end up being honoured.

The editorial says that “Posthumous civilian honours, more often than not, serve some obscure, and not so obscure, political purposes — like kowtowing to some interest or regional group.” I cannot agree with this statement. A few awards, which are usually bestowed after death — such as the Param Vir Chakra or the Ashok Chakra — signify a grand honour for the family of the recipients. There can be no question of some “interest or regional group” benefiting from this.

Yours faithfully,
Ashish Kabra, Hindmotor, Hooghly

Sir — A person’s contributions in a particular field should be officially appreciated in his or her lifetime. Posthumous recognition has no meaning; even belated recognition may seem hurtful to the person concerned. Sisir Bhaduri, the great scholar and celebrated actor-dramatist, had turned down the Padma Shri because he believed that a national award would not add to his achievements.

Yours faithfully,
Govinda Bakshi, Budge Budge

Without respect

Sir — The Union government has punished four senior space scientists, including the former chairman of the Indian Space Research Organisation, G. Madhavan Nair, without specifying any wrongdoing but alluding to their role in a controversial satellite deal scrapped last year (“Isro ex-boss barred, not told why”, Jan 26). Nair was the leader of the Chandrayaan, India’s first scientific mission to the moon, and jointly with Nasa, found evidence of water in the moon. Some of us consider the attitude of the government to be unprecedented and high-handed. Isro has considerable similarity with the Atomic Energy Commission — no projects involving big money can go through either of these institutions without rigorous checks and balances. The chairman cannot take a unilateral decision involving financial outlay of the magnitude we are talking about. We are here dealing with a fantastically ambitious project. So it is quite natural that we have to take bold steps, sometimes without any precedence whatsoever. The government probably has not got a clue about these issues. Unlike in any other scientifically and technologically advanced country, in India, not only do we lack respect for our scientists — who are the most important component of the human resources required for building the nation — but we also treat them like the A. Rajas of the world, the real scamsters who started this problem in a big way.

Yours faithfully,
Bikash Sinha, Calcutta