Decade of Parliamentary Progress! by Rajinder Puri SignUp
Boloji.com

Channels

In Focus

 
Analysis
Cartoons
Education
Environment
Opinion
Photo Essays
 
 

Columns

 
A Bystander's Diary
Business
Random Thoughts
 
 

Our Heritage

 
Architecture
Astrology
Ayurveda
Buddhism
Cinema
Culture
Festivals
Hinduism
History
People
Places
Sikhism
Spirituality
 
 

Society & Lifestyle

 
Health
Parenting
Perspective
Recipes
Society
Teens
Women
 
 

Creative Writings

 
Book Reviews
Computing
Ghalib's Corner
Humor
Individuality
Literary Shelf
Love Letters
Memoirs
Quotes
Stories
Travelogues
Workshop
 
 
Analysis Share This Page
Decade of Parliamentary Progress!
by Dr.Rajinder Puri Bookmark and Share

Last Sunday Parliament held a special session to commemorate sixty years of its existence. About fifteen years ago Parliament had held a special session to mark the half century of India's Indpepnedence. A brief comparison of the mood prevalent in both these sessions is instructive. Fifteen years ago at the end of the debate Parliament unanimously passed a resolution to struggle for India’s Second Freedom. To achieve it the Agenda for India was formulated. The Agenda sought an end to communalism, casteism, criminalization and corruption. In his speech the Prime Minister of the day Mr. Inder Kumar Gujral urged all members to struggle for the success of the agenda even if that meant passive resistance on the streets and going to jail. The whole gathering of both Houses clapped. Things last Sunday were a little different.

The overriding concern of members was to preserve the supremacy and dignity of the House by avoiding unseemly disruptions and misconduct. No member offered any concrete suggestions for ending casteism, communalism, criminalization or corruption. Most speakers sought greater caste, community or gender representation. Currently the issue of maintaining supremacy which united members across parties appeared to be a cartoon featuring BS Ambedkar published in a government text book. All members objected to the publication of the cartoon and the government’s ministers apologized to the House while promising to delete the offending cartoon from all text books. Parliament could not have chosen a worse issue to unite all members. It could not have chosen a more glaring example to betray the ignorance and incompetence of all its members.

The controversy did not arise from a flash of emotion. It was deliberately thought out. Days before the Ambedkar cartoon controversy the MPs’ Parliamentary Forum on children approached the government to demand that all cartoons should be withdrawn from text books. They did not want political leaders to be displayed in cartoons. I will not dwell upon the particular cartoon of Ambedkar and Nehru drawn by the Father of Indian Cartooning, KP Shankar Pillay, sixty years ago. Nor will I reiterate the fact mentioned by many that the cartoon was complimenting both Ambedkar and Nehru. I would rather draw attention to a more basic question.

Do our politicians know what a cartoon signifies? A cartoon like an article is a medium of expression. No more, no less. An article has greater scope to delineate on a problem to expand comment. A cartoon condenses comment through a single visual with perhaps an added brief caption. It has greater scope than an article to create an instantaneous and powerful impact. Also, a cartoon mixes entertainment with comment by generally using wit and satire. That is why some have described a cartoon in terms of its impact to be worth a thousand words. However, although relying on wit and satire a cartoon is not, repeat not, a vehicle necessarily to denigrate personalities. In fact some of the greatest compliments to personalities have been paid through cartoons.

Recall the masterpiece by America’s legendry cartoonist, Herblock of the Washington Post, who drew a cartoon on the death of Einstein. He simply displayed the galaxy with the earth at the centre. On the earth was planted a signpost saying: “Albert Einstein lived here!” Or recall that memorable cartoon by Vicky in the New Statesman after Labour leader Anuerin Bevan complained that he could not attend a disarmament conference because he felt naked as long as Britain did not have the Bomb. The cartoon showed Mahatma Gandhi up in heaven in loin cloth telling Bevan that he always attended conferences half naked without facing any problem! After Nehru died I drew a cartoon showing the map of India as a multitude of people. At the heart of the map was a large empty space indicating the outline of Nehru’s profile. The cartoon was captioned: “The Void.” Would the honourable MPs object to any of these cartoons appearing in text books for children? Today’s children are very well informed because of the information revolution. Today’s MPs are ignorant despite the information revolution.  

Share This:
14-May-2012
More by :  Dr. Rajinder Puri
 
Views: 1047      Comments: 3

Comments on this Article

Comment I don't think our political class is ignorant. Quite many of them are very knowledgeable. The thing is they don't want to carry out their responsibilities, All they want is power without responsibilities or accountability.

nr
05/17/2012 06:32 AM

Comment Looking to what goes in the parliament, donot you think we should have any other type of political system than ours? or hold tight. do or die!

WE DO NOT WANT TO LEARN FROM THE PAST EXPERIENCE.

Members should be educated to pass how to carry out their duties.

People should be educated whom to vote their representatives

pranlal sheth
05/15/2012 09:06 AM

Comment Sir, your last sentence says the stark truth. But it is not only the MP's but the entire political class seems to be ignorant. It seems we are living in the age of pygmies as our rulers. The country is paying a very high price due to this curse of pygmies on us.

Krish
05/15/2012 05:58 AM




Name *
Email ID
 (will not be published)
Comment
Characters
Verification Code*
Can't read? Reload
Please fill the above code for verification.
 
Top | Analysis



 
 
 
 
 
 
 
2018 All Rights Reserved
 
No part of this Internet site may be reproduced without prior written permission of the copyright holder
.