Tuesday, March 19, 2013
Tuesday, March 5, 2013
“Father of the Nation” Mahatma Gandhi
The Government has informed Aishwarya that the title of “Father of the Nation” was never conferred on Mahatma Gandhi. How is it then that we have been referring to him as “Father of the Nation” for last several decades? Well, while it is for the historians to do a detailed research as to since when Mahatma Gandhi came to be addressed by this title, a little Google search made by me shows that as early as on 30 January 1948 (i.e., the day Mahatma Gandhi died), the then Indian Prime Minister Pandit Jawahar Lal Nehru referred to Mahatma Gandhi as “Father of the Nation”. Here is the relevant extract from the radio speech delivered by Nehru as a “Broadcast to the Nation” on the evening of 30 January 1948 after the death of Mahatma Gandhi [taken from page 45 of the book “Commissions and Omissions by Indian Prime Ministers”, Volume I, 1947-1980, by Dr. Janak Raj Jai, 280 pages, published by Daya Books in 1996; this page is available online here; you can also read full transcript of the said speech of Pandit Nehru online here]:
“Friends and Comrades, the light has gone out of our lives and there is darkness everywhere. I do not know what to tell you and how to say it. Our beloved leader, Bapu as we called him, the Father of the Nation, is no more. Perhaps I am wrong to say that. Nevertheless, we will never see him again as we have seen him for these many years. We will not run to him for advice and seek solace from him, and that is a terrible blow, not to me only, but to millions and millions in this country. And it is a little difficult to soften the blow by any other advice that I or anyone else can give you.” (emphasis supplied by me)So, isn’t it true that Mahatma Gandhi has been referred to as “Father of the Nation” at least since the day of his death in 1948, and by a person no less than the then Indian Prime Minister Pandit Jawahar Lal Nehru himself?
Let me now address the other issue that no such title could be conferred on any person in view of the provisions of Article 18(1) of the Constitution. Article 18 is reproduced below:
“18. Abolition of titles.—(1) No title, not being a military or academic distinction, shall be conferred by the State.Thus, it is no doubt true that Article 18(1) of the Constitution does not permit the Government to confer any titles other than a military or an academic title on any person. It is pertinent to point out that Article 18 belongs to the group of articles (i.e., from Article 14 to Article 18) which are collectively referred to as “right to equality”.
(2) No citizen of India shall accept any title from any foreign State.
(3) No person who is not a citizen of India shall, while he holds any office of profit or trust under the State, accept without the consent of the President any title from any foreign State.
(4) No person holding any office of profit or trust under the State shall, without the consent of the President, accept any present, emolument, or office of any kind from or under any foreign State.”
Interestingly, as you might have noticed, Article 18(2) lays down that no citizen of India shall accept any title from any foreign State. Recently, Sachin Tendulkar has been honoured with “Order of Australia” by the Australian government. So, how is it possible for him to accept this “title” from a foreign State? Well, call it an “award” instead of calling it a “title”, and it now becomes permissible under Article 18(2) of the Constitution. Am I kidding? Of course not. This is what in fact has been held by a 5-Judge Constitution bench of the Supreme Court, as explained below.
It is well known that every year, on the occasions of Republic Day and Independence Day, certain National Awards such as “Bharat Ratna”, “Padma Vibhushan”, etc., are conferred by the Government of India on many distinguished persons in various fields. In 1992, a person named Balaji Raghavan filed a writ petition before the Kerala High Court seeking a writ of mandamus to prevent the Government of India from conferring any of these National Awards in view of the provisions of Article 18 of the Constitution. A similar petition was filed in 1992 by a person named S.P. Anand before the Indore Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court praying for the same relief. Both these matters were transferred to the Supreme Court and were heard together by a 5-Judge Constitution bench of the Supreme Court in the case of Balaji Raghavan v. Union of India, (1996) 1 SCC 361 : AIR 1996 SC 770. The Supreme Court held that these National Awards such as “Bharat Ratna”, “Padma Vibhushan”, etc., are not “titles” within the meaning of the aforesaid Article 18(2). These are awards given to the citizens for exceptional and distinguished services rendered in the fields of art, literature, science, etc. Observing that these National Awards not violative of the principles of equality as guaranteed under Articles 14 and 18 of the Constitution, the Supreme Court held as under (at page 374 of SCC):
“The National Awards are not violative of the principles of equality as guaranteed by the provisions of the Constitution. The theory of equality does not mandate that merit should not be recognized. Article 51-A of the Constitution speaks of the fundamental duties of every citizen of India. In this context, we may refer to the various clauses of Article 51-A and specifically clause (j) which exhorts every citizen “to strive towards excellence in all spheres of individual and collective activity, so that the nation constantly rises to higher levels of endeavour and achievement”. It is, therefore, necessary that there should be a system of awards and decorations to recognise excellence in the performance of these duties.”Thus, awards such as “Bharat Ratna”, “Padma Vibhushan”, etc., are not prohibited under Article 18 of the Constitution because these are not “titles”.
It is pertinent to point out that, in the aforesaid case, the Supreme Court has further held that these awards (i.e., “Bharat Ratna”, “Padma Vibhushan”, etc.) cannot be used as prefixes or suffixes to the names of the persons who have been so awarded (because in that form, they become “titles”). However, sadly, it is a common practice to use these awards as prefixes or suffixes to the names of the awardees. One routinely comes across names such as “Bharat Ratna —-” or “Padma Shri —”, in violation of the aforesaid judgment of the Supreme Court.
So, does it mean that it is alright if “Father of the Nation” title is to be conferred as an “award” to Mahatma Gandhi instead of as a “title”? Well, this may also perhaps be impermissible under the right to equality guaranteed under Article 14 of the Constitution for being an unreasonable classification of singling out a “single” person since that is usually not permissible.
In any case, does Mahatma Gandhi really need any such “title” or “award”, by whatever name it is called, legal niceties notwithstanding? Moreover, while no official or legal title of “Father of the Nation” might have been conferred on Mahatma Gandhi, can’t we, the ordinary people of India, still continue to affectionately call him as such? If law did not prohibit Pandit Nehru from calling Mahatma Gandhi as “Father of the Nation” way back in 1948, can it prohibit us from doing so? Of course, I forgot to mention that in 1948, the Constitution of India did not exist and accordingly Article 18 thereof also did not exist at that time. I leave the rest to you.
About the Author
Dr. Ashok Dhamija is a Delhi-based Advocate and a former IPS officer. He holds a doctorate degree in Constitutional Law and has written several law books and articles.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)