My & Take
Feudal hangover
SAMIR NAZARETH
|
In a democracy, lingering rituals like presenting swords to politicians should have no place.
|
There are occasions when politicians are given weapons — no I am not talking about their attempts to procure weapons illegally, nor am I talking about the times when they have taken to streets or have incited others to take to the streets to kill. Politicians are given weapons by other representatives of the common man in full view of the public. These are on the occasions of political rallies. During the Ram Lila, it usually is a bow and arrow.
So what happens is that after everyone is on stage and garlands have done the rounds not only to pay respects to political leaders but also to introduce these leaders to their minions, the swords come out. Either a senior party official hands over the sword to the star or a minion does that.
Different connotations
Each routine has a different connotation — if a senior leader presents a sword it could be construed as s/he handing over power or sharing power. It could also be construed as public recognition of a party member.
If, however a minion presents a sword to an official it could be understood to be a plea to safeguard the others and further, as recognition of the politician as a saviour.
So after these subtle messages have been conveyed to the masses, the politician raises the sword above his (it can also be her) head and everyone claps. A sheepish grin accompanies the raised sword — may be because the fingers recognise the familiar grasp of the hilt for example, or it takes the politician back to his wilder days. The sword is raised so that everyone recognises who the leader is and therefore rallies around him.
When the dais has a galaxy of stars, in the spirit of democratic bonhomie, they all wait till everyone has received a sword and then they raise it in unison to the jubilation of those on the dais and watching throngs.
Those holding the swords feel that they are empowered to continue representing the masses in the way that they have been. An aura of conquering heroes descends over the dais; the sweet promise of hope and well being fills the watching masses. Slogans rend the air vocalising all these emotions.
The need to be protected has always been there — earlier it was the monarchy that the people looked up to for justice and succour. With the abolition of monarchy and the birth of democracy, this need for protection morphed into a need for a symbol that typified justice and succour.
Besides dispensing justice the king was also supposed to protect his subjects from harm — the sword did that. The sword was also used to vanquish enemies, lead from the front and used as a rallying point.
These facets of a good king are now transplanted into a sword which is handed over to politicians. And this symbol is then passed on like an Olympic Torch.
One could question the legitimacy of calling ourselves a democracy after such displays of hangover of a monarchy by democratically elected politicians. However, the aptness of such a symbol does not go unnoticed. India is stilled riddled with social inequity, social divides, educational distortions — people are willing to believe that the sword-bearer will cut a path through the Amazon of social and economic diversity and lead them forward. People still remember good kings, democracy has not been able to define what a good politician is nor has democracy been able to come up with a logo that captures its values.
Need for accountability
By handing over a sword to a politician, people are forgetting that they voted him to serve them. This position is no longer a birth right or a god-ordained position that needs a certain amount of servitude, obeisance. There is a need to demand, to get them to comply with — and presenting these people with a sword will not do that. The sword cannot do for the politician what it did for the king. The sword in fact protects the politician from accountability because the sword is actually in wrong hands — the buck does not stop with the politician — the buck is pushed higher up until it vanishes into the ether of inaccessibility, he is no longer easily approachable, the only time he shows his face is just before an election or when he comes for a quick round of his constituency. As we are a democracy there are institutions to deal with everything that the sword epitomised.
There needs to be a change in what is handed over to politicians — not only because they do not seem to know what to do with it, it is also an anachronism. Politicians should be handed symbols of our fundamental rights, for example pencils and books for a start, to indicate that they should not only be educated but they should educate their electorate too.
For a politician to receive a sword is for him to recognise the failure of democracy and its institutions.
Printer friendly
page
Send this article to Friends by
E-Mail
Magazine
