Don’t Mock It !
Air Marshal Brijesh Jayal on the Country’s Honours System
The British honours system is one of the oldest in the world and has evolved over six centuries as the country found alternative means of recognising merit, gallantry and service. John Lidstone, a commentator on the honours system has noted that “every country needs to honour by exception people who have done outstanding things in bravery, civilian life or elsewhere”. That India also opted to follow this tradition from its colonial rulers speaks of the sagacity of our founding fathers. Whilst military awards for gallantry, operations and distinguished service continued as per tradition after Independence, the institution of civilian awards only came into being in 1954 some years after India became a Republic.
Civilian awards are essentially graded by degrees of honour with the Bharat Ratna being the highest and most prestigious followed by the Padma series of Vibhushan, Bhushan and Shri. The decoration is conferred by the President by a Sanad under his hand and seal. Like military awards, these are Presidential awards announced in the annual Republic Day Honours list and conferred on those who have excelled in their field of work and made the nation proud. As per the awards’ statutes, while there are no specific criteria for an award to be annulled or cancelled, this can only be done by the President of India. Three such cases are on record.
Whilst military personnel are eligible for a civilian award, the reverse is not normally the case. Again, whilst military awards can be suffixed to the recipient’s name, in the case of civilian awards, the recipients are not entitled to use these as titles or suffix. This perhaps stems from Article 18 of the Constitution that forbids titles. Apart from particular awards for the police and acts of bravery, the National Award system has further been expanded by both central and state governments to include various literary, cultural, educational, sports, entertainment and other fields to recognise works of distinction and exceptional achievements where citizens distinguish themselves.
It stands to reason that disrespect to any award bestowed on an individual under the national honours and awards system, is a slight to the nation itself. This is the sanctity of a national award and those chosen for such an honour are expected to respect this sacred unwritten code. Unfortunately, we live in times where public discourse sometimes tends to verge on the uncivil and under the banner of freedom of speech and democratic right to protest, even national awards have now become a handy tool.
Commenting on the recent ‘award wapsi’ of a Padma Vibhushan by a senior political leader and erstwhile CM of Punjab, the current chief minister, himself a very distinguished military veteran and historian is reported to have wondered why the former was awarded the Padma Vibhushan in the first place and what sacrifice had he made for the community? Further, he compared this award to that of a senior Indian army Lt Gen who was awarded for his contribution to winning the 1965 war with Pakistan. Clearly, the veteran CM was attempting to score a political point and one wishes that he had not only left the military alone but also not dragged the Honours and Awards system into the political arena.
India perhaps has the dubious distinction of being the first country to have actually formalised the practice of a recipient of a national award returning the honour as a means of protest by coining the phrase ‘award wapsi’. This has now become one more weapon in the armoury of those that wish to either lodge a democratic protest, express their displeasure on any issue of their choice or indeed just attempt stealing the limelight. However selfless or noble be the motive, such an unfortunate step is a direct slight to the National Honours and Award system and its very ethos.
With the British Honours System, there is also an ad-hoc ‘Honours Forfeiture Committee.’ This considers cases where an individual’s action subsequent to their being awarded an honour either brings the honour system into disrepute or raises questions whether they should be allowed to continue to be a holder. One can only guess that whilst our founding fathers chose to follow the British tradition of the Honour System, in the euphoria of our hard-won independence and national pride in its achievement, they felt no need to consider a forfeiture option. This optimism now stands belied.
It is perhaps time for us in India to emulate the British example and institute a ‘Reward Annulment Committee’, whose task should be to consider cases brought to its notice of those awardees that have allegedly brought disrepute to their award under the National Honours and Award system and consider recommending its annulment to the awarding authority. No self-respecting nation should be seen to sit idly by whilst those it chooses to honour mock it’s Honour System.