The Courts, the parks and the statues...
Going by reports in the English language media, a full fledged war is in the making. The terrain of this war in the making, if one takes media reports seriously, is going to be one of the court halls in the Supreme Court of India. The provocation for this, according to the media, is Mayawati’s intransigent attitude over the issue of building parks across Uttar Pradesh and more importantly the installation of her own statues there.
To place things on record, let it be stressed that parks are not a bad idea after all. In the manner in which our towns are growing with so much concrete invading the land which was otherwise used to grow plants, we do need parks. Well. Let me hasten to add that it is disturbing to see a lot of concrete and ceramic tiles being used even while parks are constructed, defeating the very purpose of such open spaces. Parks, as we have known, are places where there are trees, plants and preferably a pond with some open space too.
The idea is that the old people go there to spend an evening, the middle aged take a walk and the children play around. We will also remember the character known as Mannaaar and Company in one of our own cinema of yesteryears. Well. Parks serve a lot of purpose and there is nothing wrong with them as such.
So, why is the Supreme Court bothered about parks coming in Lucknow and elsewhere in Uttar Pradesh and even daring the State Government in Lucknow for a confrontation (I presume that one of the papers that reported this was correct) on that issue. It cannot be that the Hon’ble judges are insensitive to the needs of some greenspace in the towns. It also cannot be that they do not go to parks. I know they visit parks, love to take a stroll there and even spend some little money when the travel abroad to walk into parks.
The reason, I can think of, behind all the noise is that it involves Mayawati. This is certainly true of the media and its obsession. I am also unable to desist from placing on record the fact that Abhishek Manu Singhvi, who waxes eloquent on TV, day after day, on the Congress party’s commitment to liberty, equality and fraternity and also its new slogan of ``aaam aadmi’’ happens to be the counsel arguing against these parks in Lucknow and other parts of Uttar Pradesh.
In any case, I am planning to approach Singhvi with a brief. That the stretch between the Rajghat and the Yamuna bridge in Delhi be cleaned up; that the land there shall not have any statues or memorials. The point is that if there is a norm against Mayawati’s statues being installed, it should hold good in case of a Sanjay Gandhi too. Having said this, I am not too sure if I will have the money to pay Singhvi’s fees. I know it runs into a few lakhs for an appearance. That would lead us to the point that the litigant against Mayawati’s statue installation spree is someone who has lots of money to spend on such a public cause!
Lest I am mistaken, let me clarify something. Erecting statues and building parks in the manner in which they are done by Mayawati and many others in our political stable are simply odious. They are done with perverse motives and in order to perpetuate their own memory in the same way as the Kings and the Queens did in the ancient and middle ages. We do visit such places like Sanchi or Agra to see the stupa or the Taj Mahal. And remember Ashoka or Shah Jahan in the process.
But then, let us remember that those were different times. Neither was Shah Jahan a democrat nor was there any such thought during Ashoka’s time. The trouble is that our own kings are queens forget, very often, that they live in times when it is improper to indulge in self perpetuation. Mayawati, it is sad, does not believe that the agenda of Dalit assertion must strive for social, political and economic justice. Instead, she too behaves like another political leader and reduces the cause she claims to represent into one of defending her own right to perpetuate her own self and indulge in preserving herself.
It does substantial harm to the cause of Dalit assertion. But then, there is no way one can see the media’s attitude to the issue as being democratic. It is clearly a reflection of prejudice.
Going by reports in the English language media, a full fledged war is in the making. The terrain of this war in the making, if one takes media reports seriously, is going to be one of the court halls in the Supreme Court of India. The provocation for this, according to the media, is Mayawati’s intransigent attitude over the issue of building parks across Uttar Pradesh and more importantly the installation of her own statues there.
To place things on record, let it be stressed that parks are not a bad idea after all. In the manner in which our towns are growing with so much concrete invading the land which was otherwise used to grow plants, we do need parks. Well. Let me hasten to add that it is disturbing to see a lot of concrete and ceramic tiles being used even while parks are constructed, defeating the very purpose of such open spaces. Parks, as we have known, are places where there are trees, plants and preferably a pond with some open space too.
The idea is that the old people go there to spend an evening, the middle aged take a walk and the children play around. We will also remember the character known as Mannaaar and Company in one of our own cinema of yesteryears. Well. Parks serve a lot of purpose and there is nothing wrong with them as such.
So, why is the Supreme Court bothered about parks coming in Lucknow and elsewhere in Uttar Pradesh and even daring the State Government in Lucknow for a confrontation (I presume that one of the papers that reported this was correct) on that issue. It cannot be that the Hon’ble judges are insensitive to the needs of some greenspace in the towns. It also cannot be that they do not go to parks. I know they visit parks, love to take a stroll there and even spend some little money when the travel abroad to walk into parks.
The reason, I can think of, behind all the noise is that it involves Mayawati. This is certainly true of the media and its obsession. I am also unable to desist from placing on record the fact that Abhishek Manu Singhvi, who waxes eloquent on TV, day after day, on the Congress party’s commitment to liberty, equality and fraternity and also its new slogan of ``aaam aadmi’’ happens to be the counsel arguing against these parks in Lucknow and other parts of Uttar Pradesh.
In any case, I am planning to approach Singhvi with a brief. That the stretch between the Rajghat and the Yamuna bridge in Delhi be cleaned up; that the land there shall not have any statues or memorials. The point is that if there is a norm against Mayawati’s statues being installed, it should hold good in case of a Sanjay Gandhi too. Having said this, I am not too sure if I will have the money to pay Singhvi’s fees. I know it runs into a few lakhs for an appearance. That would lead us to the point that the litigant against Mayawati’s statue installation spree is someone who has lots of money to spend on such a public cause!
Lest I am mistaken, let me clarify something. Erecting statues and building parks in the manner in which they are done by Mayawati and many others in our political stable are simply odious. They are done with perverse motives and in order to perpetuate their own memory in the same way as the Kings and the Queens did in the ancient and middle ages. We do visit such places like Sanchi or Agra to see the stupa or the Taj Mahal. And remember Ashoka or Shah Jahan in the process.
But then, let us remember that those were different times. Neither was Shah Jahan a democrat nor was there any such thought during Ashoka’s time. The trouble is that our own kings are queens forget, very often, that they live in times when it is improper to indulge in self perpetuation. Mayawati, it is sad, does not believe that the agenda of Dalit assertion must strive for social, political and economic justice. Instead, she too behaves like another political leader and reduces the cause she claims to represent into one of defending her own right to perpetuate her own self and indulge in preserving herself.
It does substantial harm to the cause of Dalit assertion. But then, there is no way one can see the media’s attitude to the issue as being democratic. It is clearly a reflection of prejudice.
posted by Krishna Ananth at
6:45 AM
9 Comments:
Sir, I strongly disagree that the parks are Mayawati's megalomaniac visions. Setting aside the case of her statues. The other statues are of Buddha, Ambedkar and Kanshi Ram. Now when we ostentatious temples to the Hindu gods then why not statues of Buddha? Moreover Ambedkar and Kanshi Ram are important people whose statues can be erected if statues of Gandhi, Nehru and even Rajiv Gandhi can be erected.Maybe Mayawati installing her own statues are in bad taste. As an aside, our own Kamarajar's statue outside Gymkhana club was erected when he was alive.
That being that, Dalits today do not have any public space that they can identify with, except the slums especially in old cities such as Lucknow. I am sure you know the importance of identifiable symbols in public spaces.
When we have large temples, mosques and churches, when we have several symbols of other castes in public spaces such as Chaudhary Charan Singh University am not sure Charan Singh appreciated education that much.
These parks will definitely give the dalits public spaces of their own which they can be proud of and can move around with ease in them. It will give them a moral boost.
Congress anyway has thousands of statues of its leaders and as Mayawati says "We did not object to them when they were erected."
I have seen for myself how empowering it is for a dalit to have a positive symbol to associate themselves with. So, perhaps, the parks and statues are necessary.
maybe, the amount mayawati spent on these is very high, but then who is to define a public purpose? is there a constitutional definition of what public purpose is how a govt must spend public funds?
you could throw some light on that, sir...
The amount just seems obscene because it being spent at one go, while the Congress has spent it over many decades and hence we don't really know how much.
Yes, Mayawati could use some judicious approach and political tact instead of being blatant.
Sir, you are right when you say that gardens are importamt for the say environment. But have you seen the way Mayyawati is utilising the system the time she assumed power. Even in the Kanshi Ram memorial case there was an upproar. It is neither to oppose the Dalit rights assertion nor to go against the Dalit upliftment, but the thing is that there are a numbe of instances where she has tried to cash in on especially the situation. Highliting a problem erodig the roots of democratic institutions can never be a prejudice. I accept, at times, media goes over the top in tackling certain issues but we cannot generalise the things. The bone of contention is that every dispensation should gve priority to the peoples' welfare. Let the establishment decide and define the peoples' welfare.
Just because one bunch of gist decide to build statues endlessly does not mean everyone has to follow suit.. as a country, we are way too much obssesed with symbolism, the recent joke of an austerity drive by the centre being an example.Providing good infrastructure, affordable health care and education to all may be a utophian idea, but a start on that score would make any state head on the path of development. building statues may enthuse some, but to the majority of Indian citizens, it would not matter a bit, if they are not able to afford two meals in a day..
I did look forward to such a discussion when I posted this one. And I find a valid point in each one of you.
Let me start with Subbu: At the outset, I do not know the reason behind your remark about Charan Singh and education. Notwithstanding the images of him, Charan Singh had been to the University and did ensure his son too went in for higher education. I do not know about his grandson though!
On a serious note, I am not in the same league as some others who find Mayawati’s project objectionable but do not mind those with the Nehrus. The point is that symbols are important but then those symbols that end up creating such exclusive spaces are a problem. The idea that such parks that are coming up in Uttar Pradesh will mean that space for the Dalit could end up recognising the existing spaces such as the temples and the other parks being retained as exclusive domains for the others. In my view, there is something un-radical about creating exclusive domains/spaces for the dalits. Take for instance the distinct experience of Srinarayanaguru. Though he began with the slogan of ``our’’ own temples, he gave it up soon to stressing on education and empowerment. In my view, the Dalit movement will necessarily have to grow into one with a socio-economic agenda than restrict itself to the political domain alone. I am not, for a moment suggesting that the political be kept on hold. The stress is that the political, bereft of the socio-economic agenda, is bound to get stuck with building symbols and creating exclusive spaces that are, in the very essence, capable of rendering the movement subservient to a few icons. Iconoclasm, after all, has been the creed of any campaign for social transformation and the Dalit agenda in India cannot be an exception.
I presume that this answers Vidya’s point too. The ``solace’’ of finding an exclusive space is not and cannot be the end game of a movement. It has to go beyond.
Asfaque certainly makes a point and I agree with that. And Nikhil, the point is that the criticism about the courts waking up now and did not bother when the Nehru’s were deified is not the same as what you are saying.
And finally, Subbu, let us not disrespect the discipline of history. The temples of ancient India, the forts and mosques from the middle ages and the parks and statues in modern times cannot be seen as the same. They belong to different times. And if Buddha is to be reduced to another god, then we are being anti-Buddha too. Don’t we agree that the Buddha was an iconoclast in his own times???
Had missed out on Vidya's querry as to the Constitution and the public purpose. Incidentally, there is a lead from the Constitution to this. Article 39 (b) and (c) takes us to this and this was clearly sighted in the Keshavananda case while looking at Article 31(A) and (B). In the event we agree with that framework, there is no public purpose served by Mayawati or any of the statues/parks we are now talking about.
This comment has been removed by the author.
Sir, what you say is true. Needed that perspective :)
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home