Sometimes, in the midst of so much troubling and disturbing news all around, one comes across something that makes one laugh by its sheer absurdity. And yet, it is out there, in all its seriousness, making one wonder what the decision makers were thinking.
The Philately Advisory Committee, a body of presumably eminent and knowledgeable people, has decided that definitive stamps with the likeness of Indira Gandhi and Rajiv Gandhi will no longer be issued. A definitive stamp is something that a country issues on a continuous basis for the regular and daily needs of postal services. This is different from the commemorative stamp, which is to mark an occasion or an anniversary of a famous person, institution or event.
Apparently, two of the definitive stamps had Indira Gandhi and Rajiv Gandhi on them and these will now no longer be printed. Why should only one family get the honour, asked Communications Minister Ravi Shankar Prasad. At the very least, he deserves full marks for honesty, since he has not bothered to camouflage the committee’s decision with any other rationalisation. No one can be under any illusions why this decision was taken and quickly accepted—it is because this government wants to do away with any and every vestige of the Nehru Gandhi family. If the legacy cannot be demolished—one can’t really wipe out history or institutions – let us throw out the imagery, seems to be the thought.
But here are two questions that make one wonder about this government’s priorities—firstly, in this age of email and courier companies, who really uses stamps? Sure, the definitive stamps are used for the millions of packets and letters that still get sent by government offices and others, but does anyone really care what the stamp on them is? Second, and this really makes the argument advanced by Prasad dubious in the extreme, of the 12 definitive stamps issued by the P & T department since 2008 – and thus in circulation, one presumes – two are of Indira Gandhi and Rajiv Gandhi, both former Prime Ministers. Others include Nehru, Gandhi, Homi Bhabha, EV Ramasami Naicker, Mother Teresa, JRD Tata and Satyajit Ray, as wide a spectrum as one can imagine. Surely, this government is well within its rights to include any other name it wants to. But when it goes out of its way to stop two of them and then advances this kind of reason, it is difficult to escape the conclusion that this is a major political decision, borne more out of an antipathy towards the Gandhi parivar than anything else. Prasad says others will be added, “including Jawaharlal Nehru”, as if that somehow shows a broad mindedness, after having taken potshots at “the family”.
This move should be seen in the context of other steps of this government. Recently, there was talk of turning the Nehru Museum into a “Museum of Governance”, sparking off a furore, since this clearly looks like a plan to undermine the importance of not just Nehru but also of an institution. On occasion, Narendra Modi has side stepped any mention of Pandit Nehru, even if the institution he is addressing was created under that Prime Minister’s administration.
Is this part of the BJP’s strategy to make India “Congress mukt”? In the last elections, the BJP decimated the Congress, bringing it to its lowest level ever of just 44 seats in Parliament. Since then, the Congress has lost in all elections. Politically speaking, therefore, the BJP is the dominant force and the Congress a fading old organisation.
Yet, for some reason, the Congress seems to bother the BJP and the Nehru Gandhi family bothers it even more. Watch any BJP spokesperson on television and observe how quickly a reference comes to up to Rahul Gandhi, Sonia Gandhi or the Congress for its many failures of omission and commission. The people of India know all about those sins—that is why they threw out that government. The question now is—what is the BJP doing about all those problems? The days of finger pointing are over.
Whether Nehru or Indira Gandhi or Rajiv Gandhi did good or not is known to the people of this country. However hard anyone tries, it is difficult to do away with Nehru’s fine legacy, or giving this country not just institutions such as the IITs, IIMs and giant public sector companies but also democratic traditions. Similarly, though they made huge mistakes, can anyone forget Indira Gandhi or Rajiv Gandhi? (The same would apply to all other Prime Ministers—just one thing or another cannot define their rule; an overall balance sheet has to be looked at.) To try and finish off every vestige of their presence is not just churlish but is also impossible. Idol breaking is cathartic, but ultimately reality cannot be wiped out.
Prasad and his government may find it satisfying to end the Indira Gandhi and Rajiv Gandhi definitive stamp series, but they will find it impossible to stamp out the legacies of the two Prime Ministers. It is time this government gave up its needless obsession with the Nehru Gandhi parivaar and concentrated its energies on more important matters.
