How do you rule India ?

By M J Akbar

Embarrassing question for Independence Week : how do you rule India? Philip Mason, that chronicler of imperialists more than imperialism (The Men Who Ruled India) thought that he recognised the British formula as a mirror of a traditional Indian pattern. The Raj was also run on the four tier caste system: Scholar, Soldier, Scot, Servant. One has taken a mild liberty with the syntax in the interests of sibilants, but the analogy should be obvious. The Indian Civil Service was the top, trained for two years at Oxbridge and sought by dons who wanted to rule the world through their students. Not for nothing was the ICS known as the realm of the twice-born. The Kshatriya of the British Indian Army came next and, as in the caste system, some space was created for the soldier in the political-administrative apparatus. The Scots were the traders and managers independent, aggressive and formidable in their clubs and chambers of commerce. The bottom was a multiplicity with hierarchies of its own. The rules were strict. The Brahmins of the ICS could not buy land or indulge in trade. Their compensations were power and snobbery.

George Nathaniel Curzon, the ultimate Rajah of the Raj, believed that the British Empire was the ''greatest instrument for good that the world has seen'' and that the noble mission of ruling India was ''placed by the inscrutable decrees of Providence upon the shoulders of the British race''. He did not add that God was white and English, but maybe that was under a good king. Curzon put this notion into Balliol English when once commenting on the tortures of bureaucratic behaviour: ''All these gentlemen state their worthless views at equal length, and the result is a sort of literary Bedlam....Efficiency of administration is a synonym for contentment of the governed.''

What happens when the governed declare their independence from foreign domination, or national despotism, or a plutocracy, however Platonic it might be, and prefer consent to virtue if they have to make a choice? Obviously, in an ideal world there would be perfect marriage between consent and virtue in public life, but such fortune is not in our destiny.

The Indian Brahmin took over from the White Brahmin in Delhi, and handled the transition with some success. The Nehru-Gandhi family, with a pause for a Shastri (a Kayastha, not a Brahmin), understood the dynamics of a coalition concept like the Congress and survived through a system of give and perhaps a disproportionate (though not extortionist) amount of take. When tragedy removed the family from the Congress leadership, the party turned instinctively to a consummate Brahmin. Narasimha Rao was perhaps too Brahminical for his own good, so clever that he became too clever by half. Rao's decline and then fall were the consequence of excess. He was a Brahmin fundamentalist who lost sight of duty in his myopic greed for power. The Rao kind of Brahmin has become the worst enemy of his own interests.

On the other hand, it is not entirely a coincidence that non-Brahmin leaders of both the Congress and other parties proved too brittle to attract either the loyalty of their own organisation or the support of the people. Morarji Desai, irrespective of his last, Janata appellation, was quintessentially a non-Brahmin Congressman anxious to wrest power from the Nehru-Gandhi family. Indira Gandhi's folly gave him the opportunity in 1977. Morarji Desai knew how to administer, but he did not know how to rule. Others from different castes have become Prime Ministers thanks to one set of stars or the other. They will surely blame circumstance rather than themselves for their aborted tenures, but you could be forgiven for tracing a pattern.

The only non-Brahmin Prime Minister to build any rapport with mass sentiment was the Thakur, Vishwanath Pratap Singh, but that story too is such a classic restatement ofcaste temperament as to be almost ironical. V P Singh did not rule Indians; he led them into battle, from the holy war against corruption to the holy war against social injustice. V P Singh was a permanent warrior. He had no time and no use for peace. He disconcerted India.

The only Prime Minster from the non-Congress dispensation to hold a fractious coalition together and delvier a popular vote is another Brahmin, Atal Behari Vajpayee. The reason for his success is that he has moulded himself on the Nehruvian model. He is not a man of sectarian causes; he is, primarily, an assurer and a reassurer. His concerns tend to be national in character, whether he commits himself to better relations with Pakistan or economic liberalisation. Nehru went some steps further, blending his dreams for his nation into a new world order. At heart Vajpayee is a consensual politician, not a provocative one; he leads by keeping his flock together, including a wolf or two who is a danger to his own side. But that is part of the game, part of the process.

The success or failure of such leaders is less important than what they represent. Success in any case cannot be permanent or even long-lasting, which is why sensible systems place a time limit on the longevity of a term of office. (The Romans gave their consuls as little as a year before the Caesars took over.) Second, success in a complex nation like India can only be achieved through an inclusive vision. Sectarians can be essential ministers; the underpinning; they cannot be prime.

Atal Behari Vajpayee could be the last such Brahmin of our times. Son a Gandhi is neither a Brahmin by birth or learning or temperament. When she attempts to be one, the experience is faintly ridiculous. All other parties, barring the Marxists, are sectarian by intention and the Marxists are limited by presence. It is important though to enter a caveat. We are talking of original concepts here, of the meretricious Brahmin and not the hereditary one; of the mind rather than what the caste has become today, another fundamentalist sect.

The BJP's deputy leader, or Prime Minister-in-waiting, Lal Krishna Advani, injuries himself by being shrill. Indians today, like any people who believe that they are under slege, appreciate the need for a general who can raise the temperature or at least survive the heat of battle, but the empirical role of kings is shaded by calmer attributes. A king must flourish in peacetime, even if he does allow generals their excesses in war. No Indian king is a hero if he is an Alexander, who never left the campaign trail. The sage who saw Alexander outside Taxila and later befriended the Greek, first laughed at the conqueror. Conquest for its own sake is an immature ambition.

India's hero-king is one who protects the boundaries and worships the goddess of fertility, the fertility of the field and the fertility of the womb. The hero-king worships Durga, invests in Saraswati, seeks the blessings of Lakshmi- and only has a working relationship with Kali.

How do we come to terms then with this strange phenomenon called democracy that makes a Phoolan part of the ruling class? How do we deal with an upsurge that punishes the avarice of Brahminical excess by excluding its wisdom? What happens when sectarians demand their portion and more in the most strident tones?

We are in fact seeing right now what happens.

Change cannot come without turmoil. Turmoil is not easy to manage. Paradoxically, change does not always promise change. The corruption that has wasted the Brahminical order, for instance, is not always going to be replaced by a Puritanism that places sacrifice on the altar of ideology. The changers may be as, or even more, rapacious than those they have replaced, the greed fuelled by first-generation opportunity. Oppression could give way to counter-rape, in a repetition of a historic syndrome. where the hapless citizenry pays for defeat of its government.

But democracy is meant to be the civilised route map for upheavel, is it not? That is meant to be its affirmed genius.

So is the problem with democracy or is it with India?

It is facetious to believe that democracy is only about political rights. Democracy is not about pressing a button every five years to throw a rascal out. It is a daily business of incremental comfort, however miniscule that might be. Democracy must be an economic fact and the graph most travel in a positive direction. Democracy encourages demands, and any perception of prejudice encourages street theatre in support of retribution. Tricky : Add the problems of rising expectations and the mix becomes more volatile. Mass media, a cornerstone of democracy, becomes a constant reference point for rising expectations as it flaunts the lifestyle of haves in its search for entertainment persona are relevant to our appreciation of British rule. His Eton schoolmates identified him with a doggerel :

My name is George Nathaniel Curzon,

I am a most superior person,

My cheek is pink, my hair is sleek,

I dine at Blenheim once a week.

And when Curzon was leaving for India to become Viceroy, still less than forty years old, Lord George Hamilton, the secretary of State for India in London, advised him: ''Try to suffer fools more gladly; they contribute to the majority of mankind''. It is the kind of advice that a Brahmin fundamentalist like P V Narasimha Rao might have offered if he believed that any subordinate had the intelligence to understand what he was saying.

The flaw in the paradigm must be apparent, particularly to the Brahmins with their sharp minds and clear heads. Whether it was the British Raj at his best or the Hindu caste system at its ideal, the principal that anchored behaviour was good government, not self-government. The British ruling class and the Brahmin were as superior to their own people as they were to those they had conquered. This did not necessarily mean ill-use of power. When famine threatened Gujarat Curzon pre-empted disaster by personal intervention, reinforcing Amartya Sen's thesis that all famines are manmade rather than nature-sent. Appropriate British rule ended in the devastation of the Raj-induced Bengal famine that, curiously, does not seem to arouse the anger or even the curiosity of nationalist historians of any persuasion, left or saffron. In a typically Indian twist to the Gujarat story, the rains came during Curzon's visit to the province, confirming the traditional Indian corelation between nature and power: there is no famine. How then do you rule India? Send an invitation to George Nathanial Curzon, on the assumption that he is still interested ?

The Indian Rope Trick is not the answer, despite its popularity in Indian politics. Politicians enter the arena, accompanied by bugles and trumpets. They dazzle spectators with their oratory, and climb the rope to the summit of their achievement to thunderous applause. Then they disappear. That is a fact, but not an answer.

Is there an answer in the theory of traditional relationships (as opposed to their practice) ? In forming an interdependence between the various communities of India that creates mutual wealth within a system of political preferences that may be different? Above the fray, but not above involvement, is the patriarch, the Prime of the Ministers. He presides by consensus, but has the authority to weed out the poisonous ivy that so often emerges from the undergrowth of human relationships. The patriarch has more responsibility than power. That is the first check on him. His timeframe is defined.

That is the second check. His human tendency towards greed and nepotism is monitored by professional hecklers like us journalists. He belongs to his party but is of the nation. His judgement is his asset, his vision is his weapon. Am I also saying that he does not exist? Maybe.

Whose Flag is the tri-colour, anyway?

By R K Murthi

That is not a question that Amitabh Bachchan is likely to pose to one of the aspiring crorepatis on the hot seat. Siddarth Basu, who is the 'mind' behind the grand show, may view this question as too elementary to be even a starter with a prize tag of Rs. 1,000. Our National Flag is a symbol of India and its people. It represents the essence of India, encapsules the nation's self-respect and dignity, ideals and aspirations, character and history, tradition and heritage. Therefore it is ours by right.

Yet, till recently, only high dignitaries were entitled to fly the Flag at their homes and atop the flag most of their cars. The vast majority of Indians, the commoners, were not entitled to fly the Flag except 'on occaions specified by the Government. So said the official Flag Code - India.

Among the rules laid down by the Code, relating to the colours, design and shape of the National Flag and the procedure to be followed to extend all respect to the symbol, the denial of the right to fly the National Flag struck Navin Jindal, (now Vice -Chairman and Managing Director of Jindal Steel and Power Ltd), as an act of discrimination. He says, "The National Flag was an integral part of my hostel room at the University of Dallas, Texas, where I was the president of the students' union. Unlike in India, everyone in the US has the right to fly the Stars and Stripes. Drawing inspiration from the American example, the first thing I did on returning to India in 1994 after securing an MBA degree was to fly the National Flag atop my factory. No sooner had I done that than complications arose. I was instructed by the Commissioner of Bilaspur not to fly the Tri-colour atop my factory. This resulted in my filing a writ petition with the Delhi High court.

The Delhi High Court, in a landmark judgement, delivered on September 21, 1995, noted that 'the Flag Code - India which defines the use and display of the National Flag, could not be so interpreted as to prevent the ordinary citizen from flying, in a respectful manner, the National Flag from the premises of his or her business or residence.'

The Central Government obtained a stay. However, Jindal daringly displayed the National Flag atop his factory premises. Nineteen-ninety-seven marked the 50th anniversary of Independence. Around this time, Gautam Kaul, the then Inspector - General of Central Industrial Security Force, ran into trouble after the Times of India, in a report dated January 9, 1997, noted that Gautam Kaul had a miniature of the National Flag at his office. The news roused the hackles of the officials of the Home Ministry. He was asked to explain his side of the matter. He sought a revision of the existing Code, begged that the Nattional Flag be released from its bondage by bureaucracy. His appeal fell on deaf years. He was instructed to desist from flying the Flag at his office.

He did not leave it at that. He appealed to the Prime Minister to change the Flag Code. He argued , "The National Tri-colour stands for a very special patriotic emotion. It is the fulcrum around which masses rally when we have to invoke sacrifices."

His was not a voice in the wilderness. Quite a few others joined the chorus, while Jindal waited for the Supreme Court's verdict. It was a long wait. But, now, after nearly five years, the highest court of the land decided to lift the restrictions and to give the citizen the right to fly the National Flag, subject to his extending to the Flag due respect and propriety as enjoined by the Flag Code.

Nobody, can quibble over that. Nor would nor ask, "Why should the Flag command such high esteem?" The answer is readily seen. Loyalty to the nation is paramount. The Flag defines one's nationality. Its very presence rouses the deepest emotions of the people. It breaths into them the courage to fight for the nation's security and defence.

The pains nations take to uphold the prestige of the national flags may be seen in one incident. On July 4, 1978, Chess Master, Viktor Korchnoi, who had defected from the Soviet Union expressed a desire to take on the little bout, flying the Flag of Switzerland, his adopted country, with his opponent, Anatoly Karpov, of the Soviet Union, (The World Chess Federation, FIDE, lays down the condition that every player displays the Flag of his country). The Soviets pointed out that Korchnoi had only applied for citizenship and had not yet become a citizen. so he was legally a Soviet citizen.

The legal quibbling shows the importance attached by nations to their flags. Where springs the importance in the eyes of the Indians of the Tri-colour from?

For that we have to travel back in time and gain an understanding of the evolution of the Flag. India's National Flag, the Tri-colour, didn't evolve overnight, out of thin air. The need for a national Flag was felt by nationalists much before Mahatma Gandhi arrived on the national scene.

The first reference to a Flag that symbolized nationalism goes back to the early 1900s. Those were times when Calcutta was the capital of the British India and therefore the epicentre of the political unrest caused by the rising tide of protest against alien rule. On August 7, 1906, before a fairly large crowd that had gathered at the Parsee Beam Square (Now Green Park) of Calcutta, the earliest known design of the National Flag was unfurled. It was composed of three horizontal stripes. The green stripe, which was at the top displayed eight lotuses. The middle stripe, haldi-coloured, had the words Vandemataram written in Devnagari script in deep blue. The bottom stripe was red and showed the sun close to the mast and a stars and the crescent moon on the free and end. The colours and the motifs had the right blend of religious unity.

The concept crossed national barriers when Madame Cama, an Indian revolutionary, who had chosen to wage the war for liberation from Europe, arrived at Stuttgart in August 1907 to participate in the International Socialist Conference. (She was one with patriots like Savarkar), VVS Iyere and Shymaji Krishna Verma who established the India League at London and provided a pivot around which the battle for liberation could evolve They were revolutionaries with a do or die attitude.

In those days, India was a British colony, and Indian delegates to international conferences were expected to be pleased with the Union Jack's display at the venue. Madam Cama rebelled against the practice. She decided she would farbricate a National Flag. Time was short. But that did not deter her. The design she chose differed slightly from the one unfurled at Calcutta a year earlier. The words Vandemataram where written in white in Devangari on the yellow band in the centre. The design of the sun on the lowest stripe, red in colour, was placed at the free and; the crescent moon lay close to the mast. The star was dropped.

In 1921, the Indian National Congress met at Vijayawada. Gandhi had emerged as the unquestioned leader of the Party. That was clear to one and all. Pingali Venkaiyha, a young man, did not miss that either. He had worked, for some time, on the design of a Flag for the Congress Party. It was made of two bands, one of green and the other of red. The colours represented the major communities. The Charkha, (the spinning wheel), spread its shape over the three bands.

The young man met Gandhi and requested him to study the design for the Party Flag. Gandhi suggested to the youth to add a white band to the flag and to emboss the Charkha in blue. In the issue of Young India (April 13, 1921, which marked the second anniversary of the gory tragedy at Jallianwala Bagh), Gandhi noted that the red in the Flag represented the Hindus, the green stood for the Muslims and the white represented all other faiths. The spinning wheel in the middle reflected this oppressed condition of every Indian and also held out the possibility of rejuvenating every Indian household.

Gandhi also justified the felt need, "A Flag is a necessity for every nation..... It's no doubt a form of idolatry which it would be sin to destroy. For the Flag represents an ideal. The unfurling of the Union Jack evokes in the English breast sentiments whose strength it is difficult to measure. The Stars and the Stripes mean a world to the Americans..... It will be necessary for us Indians ---- Hindus, Muslims, Christians, Jews, Parsis and all other to whom India is their home --- to recognize a common flag to live and die for."

The design of the Party's Flag was widely accepted. But not everyone was quite satisfied. So it was not officially endorsed. It took the Party about a decade more to adopt a design and give it the stamp of approval. A seven member committee was appointed, in 1931, to debate and come up with the design for the Flag. The committee identified saffron as the main body of the Flag. The Charkha was painted at the left in deep red-brown shade. This did not meet with Gandhi's approval. Many members of the AICC too thought it did not reflected the multi-racial character of India. Instead the Congress approved a Tri-colour with three bands..... saffron, white and green, in that order, with the saffron colour at the top. The Charkha was drawn in the blue and placed on the white band. There was logic in this choice..... Saffron for courage and sacrifice; white for truth and peace; green for faith and chivalry.

Dr Radhakrishnan gave a deeper meaning to the colour theme and noted, after the National Flag of Free India was approved in July 1947, "The Bhagwa or the saffron colour denotes renunciation or disinterestedness.... The white amidst is light, the path of truth, to guide our conduct. The green denoted the soil, our relation to the plant life on which all other life depends." The length would be one and half times the width.

The party Flag stuck on this design till independence. Could it be accepted as such as the Flag of the free India? The answer was to be in the negative. The Flag had become too distinctive in its association with the Congress Party. It symbolized the Party. Congress leaders agreed that therein lay the disqualifying note of the Party Flag. Its acceptance without change would have given the impression that the Party was unwilling to shift gears, that it was reluctant to adjust and accommodate to the expectations of diverse sections of views and ideas. The Party resolved, wisely, to design a new Flag for free India.

On July 22, 1947, Nehru presented to the Constituent Assembly the design of the new Flag for its approval. He sent around two replicas of the deisgn. Both of them used hand-spun material, though one was of silk and the other of cotton. Nehru explained the logic behind the design that made only one change from the Congress Flag the Charkha was replaced by the Chakra, the Ashoka Wheel. Nehru moving the resolution, seeking approval of the design by the House said, "Resolved that the National Flag of India shall be a horizontal Tri-colour of deep saffron, white and green in equal proportions. In the centre of the white band there shall be a wheel in navy blue representing the Chakra (wheel).

The design of the wheel shall be that of the wheel that appears on the abacus of the Sarnath Lion Capital of Ashoka. The diameter of the wheel shall be approximate to the width of the white band. The ratio of the width to the length of the Flag shall ordinarily be two breadths by three breadths."

He justified the choice of the Ashoka wheel and stated that during the Ashokan period 'India's ambassadors went abroad as ambassadors of peace and culture and goodwill. Therefore, this Flag that I have the honour to present to you is not, I hope and trust, a Flag of empire, a Flag of imperialism, a Flag of domination over anybody, but a Flag of Freedom, not only for ourselves... And wherever it may go and I hope it will go far, it will bring a message of comradship, a message that India wants to be friends with every country of the world and that India wants to help who seek freedom." The Flag Code too was approved. This code defined who could display the Flag, and also laid down regulations regarding when and where and how the Flag could fly.

Nobody found anything wrong with the Code, except with regard to the right of the ordinary citizen when it comes to displaying the Flag. This restraint, subject to due respect and regard being extended to the Flag, has now been nailed down, thanks to spirited campaigning by men like Jindal and Kaul.
PTI Feature