Playing statue-statue

The Tamil political pantheon is finding a place in the hushed precincts of Parliament, and the Dravidian parties have chosen the occasion to make strident political points. After the unveiling of the statue of M.G. Ramachandran on Thursday, AIADMK chief J. Jayalalithaa targeted Congress President Sonia Gandhi for skipping the ceremony. With the late DMK leader, Murasoli Maran’s statue scheduled to be unveiled today, a careful comparison of attendees will certainly ensue, what with Jayalalithaa already setting the air rife with predictions of political realignment. This would be unfortunate. It shows that we have still to imbibe a minimal bipartisanship required in enlarging the space for all-India icons.

Parliament as a site for portraits and statues has, of course, been deeply contested. Two former Speakers of the Lok Sabha, for instance, held almost diametrically opposite views in allowing new installations. P.A. Sangma took a rather stern position, while Manohar Joshi famously said he’d welcome as many inclusions as could be had. It is a valid point that the diversity and richly layered history of India are well-served by making the politics of portraiture and statues as inclusive as possible. Some argue that it visualises the political and ideological options provided by recent history; others hold that it democratises the national imagination.

But as the recent violence over the vandalisation of B.R. Ambedkar’s statues shows, political parties have yet to gather the maturity that iconography requires. The crowding of Parliament with statues, after all, reflects the continuing proliferation of statues in village squares and city streets. The politics of statues also, sadly, serves to reflect the kind of intolerance seen on the streets. Street violence and impassioned responses by political parties are, admittedly, intimately connected. But just as vandalisation and obstructionism cannot be condoned, it cannot be anyone’s case that participatory reverence be mandatory.