Fatigue, Insult, Injury

President George Washington's first State of the Union address to the US Congress was rather brief—it ran to about 850 words. An event comparable to it is our President's address to Parliament. The one this year, however, was probably the longest: some 8,000 words. For the vice-president—who had to read the Hindi translation—it proved to be extremely exhausting. Standing for more than an hour, he developed a cramp and nearly collapsed. A question that was on the lips of everyone assembled in the Central Hall of Parliament at that time was: should the address be so long?

I believe some ministers too posed the same question when the address came before the cabinet for its approval. But beyond that, they did nothing to ensure that the address was significantly shortened when it was placed before the cabinet for its formal seal of approval. The presidential address to the joint session of both the houses is meant to spell out the government's agenda for the ensuing year and no minister was, perhaps, willing to ask for a shortening of the address at the risk of having the work done by his department go unmentioned. In fact, certain repetitions were also overlooked.

The cabinet, however, did discuss why the facility of simultaneous translation, available in the Central Hall as part of its public address system, could not be used to do away with the reading of the translation. This proposal did not find much support, though. It was stated that a tradition that had been followed for 15 years could not be given up all of a sudden. But the real issue was different: nobody knew which of the two languages—English or Hindi—should be used to compose the original draft. If one were to go by what has been practised till now, English should be the first language. All presidents till today have addressed Parliament in English. I am not sure, though, how long this can continue, given the fact that the Hindi-speaking population overwhelmingly exceeds those who speak English.

The switchover, if and when it takes place, is understandable. But what is not is why should the addresses be so poorly written. What probably happens is that every ministry sends a small statement about its working and future plans to Rashtrapati Bhavan or the cabinet secretariat. A set of bureaucrats put the bits together. It was no reflection on the president that the address was badly written because the responsibility lies with those who prepare the draft. There was not a single quotable quote or a bright phrase in the entire one-and-a-half-hour-long address which President Abdul Kalam delivered. I have a suggestion: why doesn't the cabinet hand over the draft after its approval to some competent writers, inside or outside the government? The US president does so.

The translation itself needs attention. The Hindi words used in the president's address were too bombastic, too difficult and too sanskritised. At least a person like Kalam should have ensured a simple, chaste translation. Once again, some competent writers, not bureaucrats, will have to come in to prepare the Hindi translation. The address looked like the work of some translation bureau with Dr Raghuvira's dictionary in front of it, selecting words that corresponded most literally with their equivalents in the original (English) draft.

The length of the address or its translation may have been exasperating, but it gives no excuse to those assembled in the Central Hall to violate the sanctity of the occasion—I saw some MPs (including a couple of them each from the BJP and the Congress) sauntering around while the president was well into his speech. They did not even feel embarrassed or apologetic. And as soon as the president finished, several MPs, including ministers, trooped out of the hall.

In the face of such an attitude, the ministry of external affairs may find it morally problematic to tick off diplomats who leave functions before the president. I have seen ambassadors and others slipping out of functions after having put in their customary appearance. The press should point out these indiscretions, as it did when US ambassador Robert Blackwill left along with his wife even before the president had withdrawn during the Republic Day reception at Rashtrapati Bhavan.

True, the President of India does not have the powers that directly elected presidents have. But he is the head of our state. Any slight to him is a slight to the nation. Unfortunately, I do not find the BJP-led government sensitive enough to the status that the office of the president demands. That Prime Minister Atal Behari Vajpayee's photo should be hung in government offices is understandable. But why should the president's be missing? I recall Jawaharlal Nehru sending a letter to the state chief ministers telling them that it was mandatory to put up President Rajendra Prasad's photograph. His instructions were carried out. It is not an either/or question. The president's photo should, in fact, take precedence over the prime minister's.

What is becoming increasingly hurtful is that the photo of Mahatma Gandhi is being crowded out. True, ideologically, his philosophy is not to the Sangh parivar's liking. Its headquarters at Nagpur has no Gandhi picture. At times, it looks as if the BJP is behaving like the Bangladesh Nationalist Party (BNP), which has pulled down photos of Sheikh Mujibur Rahman, founder of Bangladesh, from government offices and public places. This, the BNP believes, is its way of settling scores with the Awami League, headed by Mujib's daughter Sheikh Hasina. The Vajpayee government has no such compulsions. It should see to it that Gandhi's photo is before the public all the time because he evokes not only respect but also patriotic feelings.