we are informed that Shrimati Sonia Gandhi is back to work. There have been precisely three official statements regarding her unfortunate indisposition. The first was on 4 August to Parliament by Congress general secretary Janardan Dwivedi that she was diagnosed with a medical condition and has been advised surgery and that on the advice of her doctors, she has travelled abroad and is likely to be away for two-three weeks. The second statement was on 5 August that the surgery was over, the surgeon had indicated that the operation was
successful, and Sonia Gandhi was recovering in an intensive care unit. He added that “as this is a personal matter that pertains to her health and medical treatment, her family requests that her privacy be respected.” The last public statement was made on 8 September, by Rashid Alvi: “Sonia Gandhi is back and in good health” and that he could not say anything more on this matter.
Other than this, there was a blackout regarding her location, the nature of her ailment and the stability and prognosis of her health condition. Sonia Gandhi was last seen in public during her visit to Bangladesh on 25 July. The nation is naturally concerned and expects more information regarding what is wrong with her, how serious it is and how long she will be away from performing her functions fully or partially.
There is also discomfiture across all sections, including reportedly within the Congress, at this opacity. The aam admi finds it reminiscent of the old feudal regimes when equal communication between rulers and subjects was unthinkable. The general population has remained muted in their reaction, but feel a sense of alienation in bonding with her in her difficult hour, as if they are not worthy enough to be taken into confidence.
This is an occasion to put the privacy of public persons in proper perspective. The freedom movement and the sacrifices of our heroic leaders gave us the gift of Constitutional democracy. The humblest citizen got his freedom of speech, the chief component of human liberty. The Greeks and the Romans had enjoyed democracy, an imperfect one though, both in its content and duration. But with the Semitic religions that posited a supreme all powerful Ruler of the Universe, democracy died a natural death. Divine rights of kings became the prevailing doctrine. After many centuries we witnessed the first glimmer of the reincarnation of democracy when some brave individuals challenged the power of the Pope and some free thinkers acquired the courage to deny the existence of God and his self-proclaimed agents on earth.
Thomas Paine proclaimed the Rights of Man and the American Constitution explained to the world that the right to criticise holders of public office is the vital building block of a Republican edifice. Then came the role of the eminent judges of the US Supreme Court. In 1964, citizen Sullivan made a vicious attach on the head of the state police, who sued and obtained a decree of damages. Sullivan appealed and the Supreme Court reversed the verdict in a celebrated judgement which holds the field even today. Fortunately, India too found a great judge in Justice Jeevan Reddy who made the Sullivan pronouncement a part of Indian law too.
Briefly the rule is that the people have the right to know practically everything about a person aspiring for political power. It does not matter whether it is for himself or herself or a relative or friend. Even if the criticism turns out to be factually erroneous or false and also hurtful to the plaintiff the latter cannot succeed unless he proves that it is deliberately or recklessly false. Truth must collide with error in the free market place of ideas and win in fair combat. Law will not peremptorily suppress error.
The privacy debate has been going on in some sections in the media and over the internet. But to what extent does firewall privacy apply in this case? Mrs Sonia Gandhi is not on holiday, nor is she a private person like Marlene Dietrich, who went to neurotic lengths to hide herself from the public. We are talking about an extremely important public figure of India who chairs the UPA, which runs the Government of India, a person who heads the ruling Congress that appoints the Prime Minister, and the chairperson of the National Advisory Council, where she holds Cabinet minister status, and performs an Eva Peron role of initiating laws for public good and to benefit the poor and marginalised, after her renunciation. Does that make her sound like a private citizen of India?
It is ironic that in this day and age, such legitimate information is being withheld from the public, and that too concerning the chairperson of the NAC, who was said to have been the chief architect of the Right to Information Act. The media, normally hungry for breaking news, seems either unconcerned, or has been given strict instructions from invisible powers to lay off. No panel discussions on the subject or political analyses, not even basic information of where she is. Rather unusual. Neither are there spontaneous public gatherings at her residence, or mass prayer meetings for her health and long life. Has everyone been gagged and all spontaneity crushed, or does it mean that the public gatherings and spontaneous adulation of the past can only happen when allowed?
Respect for privacy during a political leader’s difficult hour is basic to civilised democratic behaviour. Our people know that. But who has directed this information blackout? Is it she herself and the “Family”, or is it the Congress? Whoever it was should have realised its negative fallout. Shrouding Sonia Gandhi in such secrecy is not really in her or her party’s interest. Nor does it demonstrate a healthy relationship with the government and the people in a democracy. It would have been better strategy to recognise the distinction between privacy and secrecy and that intersection where privacy must give way to democratic obligation and ethics. This obligation got completely obliterated by secrecy. The health of the person who heads the ruling UPA as chairperson, is a virtual Prime Minister, is the chairperson of the NAC and president of the Congress is legitimately the concern of the people (without prying into intimate details) and should not be kept under total wraps. It is quite clear that Sonia Gandhi’s presence and capacity to function optimally have a direct impact on the future of our polity, and a direct bearing on the way our country is run. So why is there this medieval secrecy? As if we are some dictatorship of the old Communist variety or a totalitarian regime of Latin America.
I wonder if the Congress is aware of the kind of speculation, most of it distasteful and insulting, that has been expressed by the citizenry on the electronic information highway. Wouldn’t it have made better public relations sense to inform the people in some more detail regarding the Congress president’s health and progress? It would have struck an emotional rapport between her and the people of this country, all the more important, since she is not a natural born Indian. The present attitude only strikes a chord of alienation between her and the people, who perceive that she owes them no communication and rules only through dynastic right sans responsibility. Bodily infirmities are often transmitted by genes. The required information is relevant on that score too.
I have no idea of Sonia Gandhi’s present state of health, but I do hope and pray that she has recovered completely and will be active very soon. Just as I hope and pray for our country whose health continues to deteriorate and remains unattended.