Will government of India restrict number of Padma awards?

[JPL]

Here is an interesting article on the awarding of medals. In this case, India:

A fortnight ago, the government issued a revised format for aspirants to apply for Padma awards, the highest state conferred civilian decoration. In the last five years, the government has conferred over 600 awards – 38 Padma Vibhushan, 155 Padma Bhushan and 416 Padma Shri -- on people who could be put in three categories - well-known, not so well-known and unknown. Given the snob value of perceived national (political) recognition through Padma awards, there has been a mad scramble for it in the past. It will be no different for 2014, the application deadline for which is October 15. Every year, a flood of applications deluge a high-level awards committee. Applicants employ the art of verbose eulogy about their achievements. The committee, in turn, waddles through reams of paper before shortlisting the winners, announced on the eve of Republic Day every year. To limit the verbal diarrhoea, the home ministry this year has asked aspirants not to exceed 800 words to detail their achievements.

How are the awardees selected and do they really deserve the nation's highest civilian recognition? Is it just political expediency, appeasement, placation or quid pro quo? Are these akin to titles like Rai Saheb or Rai Bahadur conferred by the colonial masters on their most loyal subjects? Reflection of these questions can be seen in the Supreme Court's 1995 judgment in Balaji Raghavan and S P Anand vs Union of India. It had said, "During the British occupation, India has had a spate of title hunters who brought degradation and much harm to healthy public life. The title hunters have always been considered a menace to the safe growth of a society.

"Though the Padma awards are not titles but in case these awards are given at the whims of the authorities -- without there being proper criteria and method of selection -- they are bound to do more harm to the society than the title-seekers did during the British regime." Many are genuine achievers and conferment of the awards on them remains beyond the realm of question. But several awardees raise more than a question about their credentials. Disgusted over indiscriminate conferment of Padma awards, Acharya J B Kriplani had in 1969 moved 'The Conferment of Decorations on Persons (Abolition) Bill' in Parliament. N K P Salve, despite agreeing with Kriplani's concern, had opposed the bill.

Salve had said, "I am aware that the decorations have been bestowed indiscriminately on businessmen and others. In fact, one of my suggestions is that any decoration awarded to any person who is found guilty of any 'commercial offence' should be withdrawn. We should be extremely, strict about the awarding of decorations. "In fact, it is within my knowledge that some of them have put their decorations to commercial exploitation. In fact, a certain managing director of a company wrote a letter to me some time ago. On his letterhead was written 'Ex-Rai Bahadur, Padma Vibhushan' so and so." The Supreme Court in its 1995 judgment disagreed with the petitioners that these awards were akin to titles, which stood abolished by Article 18 of the Constitution. Amicus curiae Santosh Hegde, who later became a judge of the Supreme Court, argued that the Constitution did not envisage state recognition of meritorious services through conferment of awards. But he suggested that to avoid criticism of creating a separate class of awardees, they must not use the awards as either a prefix or suffix to their names.

The court agreed with Hegde's suggestion but was not averse to conferment of the awards. "The theory of equality does not mandate that merit should not be recognized. In this context, we may refer to the various clauses of Article 51A and specifically clause (j) which exhorts every citizen 'to strive towards excellence in all spheres of individual and collective activity, so that the nation constantly rises to higher levels of endeavour and achievement'. It is, therefore, necessary that there should be a system of awards and decorations to recognize excellence in the performance of these duties," the court had said. Should there be a premium put on the awards by limiting the numbers of awardees to a deserving few rather than over a 100 every year? Should the government also put out the reasons why some known performers were rejected or not considered for these awards? The court had answered this too. "There are no limitations prescribed for the maximum number of awards that can be granted in a given year or the maximum number that is permissible in each category. The Prime Minister's Committee on Awards & Honours, 1948 had recommended certain limitations in terms of numbers but these have not been incorporated in the extant guidelines," it had said.

While strongly advocating a transparent selection process, the court had said, "We may only say that the committee may keep in view our anxiety that the number of awards should not be so large as to dilute their value. We may point out that in some countries, including US, the total number of awards to be given is restricted." Let us hope the high-level committee does not disappoint the Supreme Court for the first time in two decades when it shortlists the winners for 2014.

Read the article: http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Will-government-restrict-number-of-Padma-awards/articleshow/21768901.cms

Jean-Paul

[Brian Wolfe]

It could go either way but lets hope they do put a limit on the awarding, otherwise it means little.

This should probably be moved to the section containing "India" but lets see who responds here first and I'll move it later.

Regards

Brian

[Hugh]

Too bad Ed is no longer with us. I'm sure he'd have some salty comments.

Hugh

Edited August 12, 2013 by Hugh

[JapanX]

"no longer with GMIC"

As far as I know Ed is still alive :whistle:

[Brian Wolfe]

"no longer with GMIC"

As far as I know Ed is still alive

Yes, quite alive and well.

Brian

[Hugh]

Alive, well and holding forth at OMSA.

[JapanX]

Nice to hear that!

[Mervyn Mitton]

Brian - hi. I would agree with moving this to the Indian section. Mervyn

[peter monahan]

Me too!