Atal Bihari Vajpayee’s demise and the Kerala floods have
hogged the limelight last week, from news studios to office cafeteria and
social parties- and understandably so. One gives us a glimpse of the terrible consequences
of human fallacy with nature, while the other gave hope by the very fact that
such a soul existed among us. For a dinner at a friend’s house the discussions
inevitably turned to Vajpayee’s death. Our friend, who’s not into politics (or probably
not as much as I believe I am!) remarked “Well I felt sad on his death. But I was
more saddened when Dr. Kalam passed away”. This was an innocent and honest
statement coming from a friend. I nodded halfheartedly and we continued with
other discussions. Halfheartedly because –although I respected Kalam sir and
was aggrieved at his demise as much as any patriotic Indian would, the sheer
thought of comparing them disturbed me. Besides this was a very dangerous territory
to venture into! I mean, discounting the extreme (and perhaps flawed) political
ideologies, who in their right mind would disregard the contribution of either
of these men? Still, the question got me
thinking over the rest of the evening. Whose death aggrieved me more? In other
words, whose contribution do I acknowledge the most?
At the outset,
there seemed to be little common ground except perhaps for the popularity they
enjoyed and their vision of India. One was a scientist to the core while other
was a hardcore politician and a poet. Apart from his oratory par excellence and
depth of poetry, Vajpayee was a metaphor for ‘good politics’. Everything that
can be good in a democracy. Running a coalition of twenty odd parties successfully
for five years, he gave us the confidence that a non-congress government could
indeed survive, thereby deepening the democratic roots in this country. A
statesman par excellence, he steered the country out of complex economic and
strategic challenges leading to emergence of a stronger India. Dr Kalam on the
other hand was an out and out technology man with significant contributions to
the Indian space and missile program, making the country more self-reliant and
militarily stronger. His vision, simplistic living and love for the nation was
unparalleled. A sage whose purpose in life was devotion to the nation. In terms
of ‘popularity charts’, Dr Kalam might win hands down. Primarily because he was
‘apolitical’ and we Indians were moved by his simplistic living, struggles in
life and his vision for the country. Vajpayee on the other hand was a
politician and that too from the BJP- a party still untouchable to many
Indians. Besides few understand the nuances of politics and International
affairs to give him credit.
Why then was I in the dilemma?
At the
core of this seemingly unrelated comparison lies the core question- Who has
contributed more to the evolution of mankind- Scientists or statesmen? I must
say that for the five thousand years or a little more of known history, we have
been a bit unkind to the men of science, not calling out or lauding their
contributions exclusively. Given that the human race has continuously evolved
should be attributed to the millions of scientific minds who gave the ‘next’
breakthrough all these centuries. Unfortunately the credit of the technological
advances have more often been attributed to regimes, with rare mention of individuals-with
a few exceptions ofcourse. However the numbers are miniscule given the
thousands of years of history. Compare this against the vast history of rulers
and aggressors whose ‘achievements’ have been listed at greater lengths. One could attribute this to the social dynamics of the respective era
where the King ‘had’ to be the tallest being of all of his subjects. It’s only
since the past century and a half that the world has started taking note of
scientists and Engineers- attributing a ‘face’ to the great discoveries,
inventions and engineering feats. Of course, technological advancements have led
to more wars and destruction of mankind. But here as well, the politicians and
rulers are as guilty (or tad more) as the technologists. One must also not
forget the fact that most of these scientists were employed and nurtured by the
ruling class, not always for reasons of war. So in a sense the ruling class was
equally responsible for the technological evolution – good or bad.In other
words they have always been ‘hand in glove’!
Coming back to the Vajpayee-Kalam argument, as I said both
were men of exceptional vision and commitment. Kalam-the thinker gave us a
vision of developed India and left it to likes of Vajpayee (and his brethren)
to implement it, while Vajpayee gave us a roadmap for a strong and developed India,
and left it to the comrades of Kalam to execute the same! This relationship can
best be exemplified by the history of Pokhran. Kalam wanted the bomb for a
stronger India and it was Vajpayee who ordered the tests, executed with
perfection by Kalam and the team! So the discussion about Kalam and Vajpayee is
not ‘apples and oranges’ or 'Kohli vs Smith' but more like what makes a good ‘chai’! A good blend
of tea leaves brewed to perfection? Or the right amount of milk and sugar? One
could still live without the other and add value .But it’s the right mix of
both that wakes you up! Add a little ginger from me and you are ready to roll!
I imaging them discussing over a cup of tea in heaven and
wondering ‘What next’? J
P.S – Please contribute to the Kerala relief fund if you
have not already done so.
