Sunday Special: Excerpts from an Autobiography: 1
Saturday, 8. August 2009 - 11:22 PM
When I landed in Delhi sometime in the January of 1967, Indira Gandhi was already ensconced in power…almost every other day witnessed hordes of “associations”–the Footpath Vendors Association, the Autorickshaw Drivers’ Association, the Slum Dwellers’ Association, the Onion Sellers’ Association and so on– parading on the streets of Delhi, petitioning her with a list of their respective grievances amid noisy slogans of Indira Mata Desh ki Neta!… In reality, this was a sponsored stunt to “prove” her superior popularity over Congress party veterans like S Nijalingappa. The press was well-versed about this stunt much better than I was. Yet, they regularly glorified her political acrobatics on their front pages as if the nation’s future depended on these antics. Equally, they wrote scathing pieces about Nijalingappa et al. I thought about this phenomenon at length… one significant reason was that a majority in the press back then strongly leaned to the Left. Indira Gandi’s bank nationalization and abolition of privy purses had completely won them over.
I never had a special regard for royal families–not too many royal families genuinely cared for the welfare of their citizens like the Mysore Wodeyars did. Yet, my sense of ethics felt very wounded when the overnight order to abolish privy purses was announced. Sardar Patel’s scheme of privy purses provided for a yearly grant of a certain sum from the national treasury to existing royal families. Upon the death of the existing head of the royal family, 50% of the current amount would be paid to his successor yearly, and an even lesser sum to the succeeding generation, and so on. This scheme ensured a logical end to the privy purses without reducing the royal families to instant penury. Sardar Patel’s promise convinced the 500-odd royal families to join the Indian Union…The Indian exchequer spent around 20 Crore Rupees annually on privy purse payments to all these families. By Indira Gandhi’s time, this translated to less than a thousandth of the total she received in kickbacks as “party fund” from various sources.
But Indira Gandhi’s political ambitions demanded every kind of sacrifice from others. One result was the overnight abolition of privy purses. She unilaterally erased the privy purse provision from the Constitution by ushering the patently unjust 26th Amendment proving yet again that the Mighty can break any promise. She trampled on both the nation’s and its Constitution’s ethical foundations. Her relentless political vandalism didn’t just stop at shredding the ethical backbone of India: it aroused the worst of the basest passions in people. She emerged as the severest wrecker of India’s moral and ethical fibre in those days. My opinion on this remains unchanged even today….
I used to attend the Supreme Court hearings on the privy purse case everyday. With my background in Philosophy, and Ethics, I held many strong views opposing the abolition of privy purses. N.A. Palkhivala, the lawyer arguing against the government presented these very views in his powerful argument that had firm roots in fairness, justice and ethical principles. I heard him on another occasion when I attended the hearings on the bank nationalization issue. My esteem of N.A. Palkhivala as an eminent lawyer steadily grew. I still retain immense respect for his breadth and depth of study, adherence to justice and fairness, and his overall personality… any argument shorn of moral and ethical substratum is mere prostitution of language.
Excerpted from Bhitti, an autobiography of SL Bhyrappa
9. August 2009 - 4:42 AM
Sandeep:
Interesting and informative post, and good to know the background of her decision. In mainstream media, whenever Indira’s decision to do away with privy purses is mentioned, it is presented as a positive decision, and on the face of it, the decision does appear to be a positive step, keeping in mind that India is a democracy. I’ve also read that Indira’s decision to do away with privy purses stemmed from her rivalry with Rani Gayatri Devi, who challenged her abuse of power.
The decision re: privy purse seems to be similar to how “secularism” was
sneaked intoadded to the Constitution without any debate or discussion, and today, we take it as a positive step and make certain assumptions about it, which are proven wrong when deep digging is done. Initially, I wasn’t aware that “secularism” was added during the Emergency, and wasn’t part of the Constitution when it was drafted.9. August 2009 - 11:35 AM
Another reason why the press was polishing the boots of Madam Gandhi: editors and owners were being paid by the KGB, according to the records buried in the Mitrokhin archives.
9. August 2009 - 12:04 PM
Another argument for retaining privy purses is “traditional continuity”. As a milestone in transition from Monarchy to Democracy.
A “handshake and farewell”, as it were.
Is there danger of Monarchical takeover? Constitutional provisions can take care of that.
Practically speaking, in my opinion, reinstitution of purses now will be a bad idea.
An organic link was broken with Indira G’s decision. That broken link has been allowed to rust. Any such monies will go into the hands of idiots and philanderers who have already lost their people’s respect.
Kaffir, not just Secularism but Socialism too.
9. August 2009 - 2:59 PM
SL Bhyrappa seems to be an interesting writer. How many of his works have been translated in English? I’ll have to learn Kannada otherwise, I can’t wait to get hands on his works. Btw, N.A. Palkhivala, was an amazing fellow. You oughtta read him, if you haven’t already.
9. August 2009 - 7:38 PM
when the majority of the population is composed of morons, honorable/ethical things should not be expected of the democratically elected leaders. I am sorry to say but bhyrappa and his ilk(including the blog author) seem to always put the blame on few individuals, (which is true yet not complete). A significant amount(in fact most) of the blame
rests on morons who vote for them and have absolutely no interest to change their lives. (please dont argue on the lines that they are just helpless civilians and i am blaming the victim )
9. August 2009 - 8:17 PM
Baddimaga – Certainly both leaders and voters are responsible. You and I are morons too.
Now what next?
9. August 2009 - 8:25 PM
@ palahalli
There have been enuogh articles blaming the leaders, seems that they haven’t been effective in changing anything, lets try blaming the voters, may be it will start working !
what say you
9. August 2009 - 8:37 PM
I agree on one condition.
That we not keep ourselves out of the blame list.
Now what’s next?
9. August 2009 - 9:22 PM
@Kaffir
I’ve also read that Indira’s decision to do away with privy purses stemmed from her rivalry with Rani Gayatri Devi, who challenged her abuse of power.
Well Indira Gandhi was a dictator and could not stand any opposition towards her–I am sure she was jealous in a different way of Gayarti who was beautiful.
I was reading about the Maharani who reciently died– most royals were indeed like parasites, just British lackeys and before that Moghul lackeys (there were powerful to unite and overthrow the Moghuls but were more content about ego and were divided amongst themselves), and Rajasthan that Gayatri and family ruled over was a very, poor backward place…
However, I respect this Maharani for opposing Congress and its policies…I also liked the fact that she gave Nehru a heavy scolding telling him he did not know what he was doing when China attacked India.
Moreover she was very beautiful in a natural dignified way that puts most plastic movie starlets to shame…
9. August 2009 - 9:25 PM
Well, I found Indira G to be quite beautiful too.
9. August 2009 - 9:41 PM
Well, I found Indira G to be quite beautiful too.
Well she certainly outsmarted the men who put her in power thinking that she would do as told…something quite different emerged much to everyone’s surprise…Well apart from being a shrewd dictator (who kept hold on power), I don’t find her impressive…Her father must not have taught her anything worthwhile…
9. August 2009 - 9:43 PM
=>
Practically speaking, in my opinion, reinstitution of purses now will be a bad idea.
=>
Palahalli, I haven’t argued anywhere for restitution of privy purses for erstwhile kings today, so my apologies if my previous comment gave that indication. Furthermore, doing away with privy purses hasn’t done any harm – other than some bruised egos, though the money saved from privy purses probably found its way into some corrupt politicians’ bank accounts.
My point is that those who are not aware of the reasons and circumstances behind that decision, will likely get an incorrect picture when they read “Indira Gandhi did away with privy purses” and lavish praise on Congress Party.
9. August 2009 - 9:53 PM
When privy purses were banned all across the country, they made atleast one exception. That of the ‘Arcot Nawab’ residing in Chennai.
Not only this Nawab not face such a ban but also he gets favoured treatment from the secular gangs.
This Nawab also came in the news recently for walking into an exhibition on the complete aspects of Aurangazeb and making a nuisance. The organisers protested but ultimately the police arrested them instead of the Nawab and his group.
It also helped that the Nawab is close with the TN CM Karunanidhi.
9. August 2009 - 10:36 PM
SL Bhyrappa seems to be an interesting writer. How many of his works have been translated in English?
translating popular regional works into English so that they can have a larger audience–this sounds like an interesting task for a publishing house…I think many works are lost to a larger audience due to the language issue. My mother recently read a book which was written by a man who was living in a remote hill district–she was amazed at how talented this man was although he had been just educated in his remote village–such books lost to a larger audience– I remember my grandfather used to do the opposite…translate from english( back in the days when not everyone knew english) to the regional language so people could read these works, but there is no market for such translations now owing to the popularity English….
9. August 2009 - 10:56 PM
No Sir. I wasn’t really responding to your observations but making my own independent one.
My apologies for any misunderstanding.
9. August 2009 - 11:11 PM
My point is that those who are not aware of the reasons and circumstances behind that decision, will likely get an incorrect picture when they read “Indira Gandhi did away with privy purses” and lavish praise on Congress Party.
Indira Gandhi as is common knowledge introduced the politics of “servility” which continues in Congress till today…just as her son Sanjay introduced “goonda” politics in India…
9. August 2009 - 11:26 PM
Larissa,
>>SL Bhyrappa seems to be an interesting writer. How many of his works have been translated in English?
Most of his works have been translated to English. Several have been translated into most Indian languages.
But that’s a very interesting point you made here:
>>translating popular regional works into English so that they can have a larger audience–this sounds like an interesting task for a publishing house…I think many works are lost to a larger audience due to the language issue.
Someday I hope to make a post on this explaining the issues surrounding this.
10. August 2009 - 3:58 AM
Interesting article on Indira Gandhi appearing a while back–while one might not agree with the entire article certainly the part of Indira Gandhi is correct…
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/story/cms.php?story_id=4345&page=0
10. August 2009 - 8:39 AM
Translation is a difficult task,English has a good reach but loss of information is high.
Since his thoughts are pan India translation into other regional languages will not have bigger impact on loss of Information.
There is good news for all the Byrappa’s fans, his new novel is in the making,and will be released shortly.
10. August 2009 - 6:46 PM
@ Raghavendra,
Translation of Bhyrappa’s novel’s into Hindi and Tamil would be sufficient for our cause.. after all, awakening Indians in the hinterlands is more essential than allowing our thought process to be exposed to Westerners..
10. August 2009 - 7:13 PM
Kalidas,
IMHO, you’re taking a very short-sighted view of things. The war against Hinduism is actually being waged on a global scale through newspapers, TV, Internet, and other media.
>>is more essential than allowing our thought process to be exposed to Westerners..
Dude, you need to seriously reexamine your own thought processes!
10. August 2009 - 7:37 PM
But isn’t it more essential to consolidate the base of the society, the rural and semi-urban populace of India before spreading the message alround the globe?
What I meant was that the easier thing should be done first.. check the impact of our cultural re-education maneuvers, derive experience from it and then venture abroad.
10. August 2009 - 9:52 PM
When a dictator assumes power, he/she immediately grows jealous of the monarchy which had ruled the same country at some earlier point of time and seeks to destroy or root them out completely. Always happens in history.
Anybody read about Hitler’s hatred and distrust of the Hohenzollerns?
10. August 2009 - 10:17 PM
Yes! as Sandeep said, War against Hindus are indeed global,best way to mend the Indian alienates is to teach their masters in west.This do not mean we shouldn’t be consolidating within, in fact we need both.
And moreover, Sanatana Dharma might have roots in India ,but its universal in nature, it should be accessible to any true seeker anywhere in the world,it is beyond physical boundary.
We should not be conservative and should take the lead in Spirituality,art and literature which are the traditional stranglehold of India,and if possible even in modern science and technology. But at the same time we should not exercise missionary zeal one anyone, we don’t need converts, we need true seeker.
11. August 2009 - 8:07 AM
Interesting. Is the english translation of Bhyrappa’s autobiography available ? or for that matte of his other books?
rg
Usha
11. August 2009 - 11:07 PM
“Anybody read about Hitler’s hatred and distrust of the Hohenzollerns?”
I think that Hitler’s hatred of the Prussian aristocracy came from the fact that he was from a working class background and resented it as he was treated with contempt by them…
As for the Indian rulers (I have very little sympathy for them although I dislike Indira Gandhi)–they were mostly useless and god knows what horrible decisions such people would have made had they not been forced to join India by Sardar Patel…
11. August 2009 - 11:58 PM
Larissa, Adolf’s father was a civil servant in Austria. That’s very white collar, was even back then.
There is no evidence Adolf thought very highly of the working class too. He himself tried his best to avoid that kind of work.
12. August 2009 - 12:28 AM
Well he was certainly not from the aristocracy and resented it, just as he perhaps resented the working class because he thought he was higher than they as he had pretentions of himself as “artist”–
Regarding Indira Gandhi, true she presided over India during the cold war and that was a tough era especially with the Soviet Union and China in close proximity…but still her policies were very short sighted, especially her economic ones…Many older Hindus admire her (I know a few myself)–I think they are just blind to her faults…
17. August 2009 - 4:29 AM
Are Bhyrappa’s works available in English?