Did we honour E Ahamed's death by holding Budget session?
The sad and untimely demise of the former Union minister E Ahamed hours before the presentation of the Union Budget (2017-18), has occasioned a relevant debate. At the time of writing this, it was not clear whether the Budget would be postponed by a day, as demanded by the Congress.
Should it have been? Well, every issue is decided with reference to something that corresponds to it in the larger context: either law or convention. Law is set, but convention is fluid and can lend itself to discriminatory treatment.
Conventions are not written in stone. They originate contextually and are open to modification; though once a convention is set, it acquires the sanctity of a precedent,bolstered with entitlements presumed by individual or group interests.
 |
| Former Union minister E Ahamed. |
The core question in this context pertains to how the dead should be honoured. Sentiments are subjective. The subjective needs to be given an objective expression. Language and customs are the means for it.
What is important is not what conventions are in vogue. What is important is how we understand life and death and, therefore, how we ought to show our respect to the departed.
To those who think rationally, rather than sentimentally, on the subject the first general principle relevant to the context is that life is the primary reality and death is itscorollary. There can be no death without life. Also, death borrows its aspect from life. The death of one who has wasted his life has a feel about it different to that of one who has invested it well in the service of his fellow human beings.
The second principle is this: how we honour a person, whether in life or in death, depends on what he lived for and how we view the significance of his life and work.
This can be seen easily with reference to hospitality. If we are hosting a glutton, we need to mind only the sumptuousness of the table. But, if we are hosting an enlightened person we better be prepared for meaningful conversation. Above all, to listen to him! Listening to him may honour him more than feeding him.
The third principle is: how we show our respect could amount to an insult, if all we do is to follow conventions mechanically. Why? Conventions are meant for the general run of things. They cannot address the specificity and uniqueness that go with individuals. It was Charles Lamb who said that he would like to inhale his last breath through a pipe and exhale it as a pun! How shall we honour such a person? May be by organising a pipe-smoking session? (We are recommending smoking!) May be, if there are sufficient wits around, organising a pun-spinning competition!
I have always felt uncomfortable about October 2nd each year being institutionalized as a holiday. Gandhi lived through work. Work was integral to his spirituality and personal authenticity. His mission was to uphold dignity of labour. And we honour his memory by sanctifying laziness. We insult him, under pretext of honouring him. For years now, the present authors have made it part of their discipline to do maximum work on Gandhi Jayanti, even if it is done unseen by any.
We must abjure the senseless practice of honouring the departed through holidays. We must honour them through holy days. Work is holy. Laziness is ugly. It is self-denigrating. It undermines human dignity. We do not know of a single distinguished person who was less than ecstatic about work. They should be role-models for us and standing invitations to develop an honest and robust work culture.
Should the Union Budget be postponed as a mark of respect to the deceased distinguished parliamentarian and former minister? No! Unless we assume that Ahamed was only a political ornament and not a sturdy worker, which simply not the case. He could not have reached where he did and contributed what he has to the national cause, had he preferred leisure to work.
This is the opportune time to start a new convention. We should not turn a sober thing like the death of a person of distinction into an alibi for laziness. There is nothing great about leisure. Second, we should honour his memory meaningfully, and not in mechanical compliance with conventions. It makes sense, when a sluggard dies, to declare a holiday. In other instances of death, we should observe holy days and rejuvenate our attitude to life, work and public service.
Let the irony of this situation be not lost on us. A person becomes distinguished in life by virtue of his significant work; even herculean work. And we know only one way to honour him: by suspending work!