The Hindu Business Line : Safeguarding civil public discourse

One cardinal feature that distinguishes the bygone era of about 40-50 years ago from the present one is the scrupulous adherence in those far-off days to high standards and decencies in public discourse.

It is not that there were no heated differences of opinion among persons prominent in public life in earlier days. The freedom struggle was at various times polarised between ‘no-changers’ and ‘pro-changers’ in respect of conte sting elections for the assemblies set up under the Government of India Act, extent of application of Gandhiji’s principles of non-violence and civil disobedience, the opposition mounted against him by Subhash Chandra Bose, Rajaji’s support for partition, and the like.

Moderates such as Tej Bahadur Sapru, Hriday Nath Kunzru and V.S. Srinivasa Sastri often wrote in the media and spoke on public platforms about the country being taken on the wrong path by Gandhiji’s encouragement to the breaking of laws as part of his mass movement, since they felt that this would set a bad precedent for the citizens of free India.

In the early years after Independence too, there were many contentious issues on which public figures had strong differences.

Rajaji, for instance, was uncompromising in his opposition to Jawaharlal Nehru’s economic policies founded as they were on his socialistic pattern of society. There were many, especially in the Left of the political spectrum, who could not stomach Rajaji’s taking them to task in the Assembly and outside.

At no time in the course of airing these differences, however heated the controversy, did the participants take recourse to abusive or undignified language.

While still being honest in expressing their opinion, they saw to it that they did not hit below the belt. The cut-and-thrust of debate was invariably kept within bounds of gentlemanliness and courtesy. So much so, friendships flourished intact across political or ideological divide.

Changed times

Alas, how times have changed! Exchanges between political rivals have begun to descend to very low depths. Even a visit by the Chief Minister, Mr M. Karunanidhi, to the party headquarters of his own alliance partner is viewed as an unthinkable phenomenon. Of course, factions within the same party indulging in fisticuffs and MPs/MLAs throwing chairs, mikes and other missiles at each other have become a familiar sight.

Mr George Fernandes’ statement that a bullet in the Prime Minister’s head would have been his instant punishment, had he, as a Chinese functionary, resorted to the same kind of ‘bluffing’ as he did on the nuclear deal, is of a piece with the prevailing milieu. While it is possible to make some allowances for politicians, a trained and polished civil servant like Mr Ronen Sen, India’s Ambassador to the US, throwing his breeding to the winds and stooping to describing the critics of the nuclear deal as ‘headless chickens’ only shows how deep-rooted the malaise of maligning others has become.

Mr Sen is reported to have asked with a pomposity and self-righteousness that comes of scant stuff: “I am really bothered that 60 years after Independence they (critics) are so insecure...they have not grown up...” What has the number of years got to do with exercising vigilance against threats to a country’s sovereign rights?

Did not the lynchings of Blacks and denial of basic civil rights to them continue till the mid-20th century? Did the US not seek, 200 years after its Independence, to crush a tiny country like Viet Nam out of existence, and tell monstrous lies, 240 years after its Independence, for invading Iraq? Did it not abruptly and without notice renege on its solemn agreement on Tarapore simply because India conducted a test? Is there any sense in forgetting these lessons of history?

B. S. RAGHAVAN