http://www.bagchiblog.blogspot.com
Installation
of statues, wherever, possible seems to be the flavour of the season. The trend
apparently was set off by the Statue of Unity, the 182 metres tall statue of
Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel, the first Home Minister of Independent India. It has
been erected near the Sardar Sarovar Dam in Gujarat and is reputed to be the
tallest statue in the world. It has beaten the Statue of Liberty of New York in
height and, to give a clearer perspective, it would have been perhaps as tall
as the Gwalior Fort had it been erected anywhere in the town. It is a massive
statue with a museum and a hotel within easy reach. No wonder, it is billed as
a tourist venue.
One
must say, it has been very appropriately named as Sardar Patel was the national
leader who was involved in integration in the country of more than six hundred
principalities all over India. That is why the country was called in initial
years “Union of India”. It is largely felt that the Sardar was kept away from
Kashmir by Jawharlal Nehru. Had he been handling it. It is generally believed,
there would have been no Kashmir Problem
With
the installation of the Statue of Unity a statue of Ram is in the works for
installation in Ayodhya. The demand is that it should be a very tall statue and
somebody has even asked for it to be taller than the Statue of Unity. Another
statue, of Shivaji, the Maratha legendary fighter, is in works for being
installed on the coast in Mumbai. The idea seems to be that the sea-faring
vessels should be able to see the statue from afar before they even enter the
port of Mumbai.
A
statue of Lord Shiva is also under construction. I recall having seen quite a
tall statue of Shiva near Haridwar. Likewise, there is one of Shiva in sitting
posture near Dwarka in Gujarat. Statues are expensive toys for those who want
to swing the people’s opinion in their favour. But then, sooner or later, they
become useless and the administrators of various cities, not knowing where to
stack them, confine them in museums. Numerous statues of Queen Victoria,
one-time Empress of India, are lying in museums in various towns uncared for.
At one place I remember to have seen one such statue of the Empress outside the
museum of the town uncared for and gathering dust.
These
were all made by the British regime at our own cost – the money that they
collected as revenues from our people which should have been spent for our
welfare. Even the princes followed the same course, installing statues of their
forefathers in their respective principalities. I remember to have seen some
such statues of Scindias in Gwalior. Scindias had a short rule over Gwalior and
yet the Gwalior town had almost their entire genealogy scattered around it in
the shape of statues. I remember the satue of Mahadji Scindia, Jayajirao Scindia,
Madhavrao Scindia and there was a small bust somewhere of Daulatrao Scindia.
While the statues of Britishers have been removed those of former princely
rulers have been allowed to remain as they were our own people.
The
statue of Unity reportedly cost the exchequer a large sum of more than Rs. 3200
crore. The height of the statue and the amount spent on it alarmed the
Westerners who always looked down upon the inhabitants of their former
colonies. They thought these people were good for nothing and therefore
wondered how they could build a statue that was taller than the Statue of
Liberty. A lie was, therefore, spread in the media saying that Britons were
outraged that their tax money handed over to India as aid was used to build
this monstrously tall statue. The Daily Mail of England published a report that
said that the money spent on the statue was, in fact, the aid of a billion
pounds that was given to India by UK.
People
in India did not allow this canard to go un-rebutted. A fact check was carried
out and the facts tumbled out. It was the Central Government and its public
sector units like ONGC, BPCL HPCL, Indian Oil and OIL pumped around 146 crore
towards the project out of their CSR funds, their ticket sales in the future
and revenues received from the 3 star hotel located at the site. Clearly the
news spread in the Western media about the funding of the project of Statue of
Unity out of the British aid was a lie and a check of the facts nailed it.
So
far so good! The question that now emerges is whether use of CSR funds for the
statue was proper or rather ethically proper. The CSR was defined by one
Carroll as use of corporate funds for ethical and philanthropic purposes. It is
also defined as a company’s sense of responsibility towards the community and
environment (both ecological and social). The companies express these
responsibilities through waste and pollution reduction processes, by
contributing to social and educational programmes and by obtaining adequate
returns on the resources deployed by them.
If
tested on any of these parameters, expenditure out of CSR funds only on
educational and social programs would perhaps qualify as legitimate. Spending
these funds on erecting of a statue, however, under the parameter described as
social and/or educational would seem to be farfetched. If that were to be done
it would seem as if an activity like erection of a statue is dragged miles away
to make it fall under a parameter to which it did not conform.
To
my mind, therefore, the use of CSR funds of the Public Sector Units for
installation of the Statue of Unity was not quite ethical especially when the
concept of CSR itself is based on principles of ethics in relation to their application
to business.
Be
that as it may, expenditure of crores of rupees on statues of various
personages on the whims and fancies of political class is sheer waste of public
money. This money could be better utilized to open schools and hospitals in
areas where educational and healthcare facilities still remain wanting. India
is not yet an affluent country and hence it can ill-afford this kind of waste
of financial resources. A corrective policy in this regard seems to be
indicated
No comments:
Post a Comment