Congress calls PM Narendra Modi ‘chief peddler of fear’ over Rabindranath Tagore plaques row
Congress calls PM Narendra Modi ‘chief peddler of fear’ over Rabindranath Tagore plaques row
The recent controversy surrounding the omission of Rabindranath Tagore’s name from newly installed plaques at West Bengal’s Visva-Bharati University has sparked political criticism, with the Congress party squarely blaming Prime Minister Narendra Modi for the oversight. The absence of Tagore’s name, the esteemed founder of the university, on the plaques, despite the inclusion of PM Modi’s name with the title ‘Acharya,’ has triggered accusations of deliberate neglect and erasure of the poet’s legacy.
The Congress party’s strong condemnation of the incident, coupled with the insinuation that it is part of a pattern of erasing significant historical figures, notably Jawaharlal Nehru, reflects the deep-rooted political tensions and ideological conflicts in the region. By positioning PM Modi as the central figure responsible for the purported “erasure” of both Nehru and Tagore, the Congress party seeks to underscore its stance against what it perceives as a deliberate attempt to downplay the contributions of prominent national figures.
Jairam Ramesh’s pointed statement, characterizing PM Modi as the “chief peddler of fear, hate, and division” and implying that he is orchestrating a deliberate erasure of significant historical figures, reflects the heightened political rhetoric and polarization surrounding the issue. By drawing attention to the alleged erasure of both Nehru and Tagore, the Congress party aims to mobilize public sentiment against what it perceives as a systematic attempt to undermine the legacies of eminent national figures.
The contentious episode at Visva-Bharati University underscores the complexities of historical interpretation and the role of political narratives in shaping public discourse. As the controversy unfolds, it remains crucial for all stakeholders to engage in constructive dialogue and discourse, emphasizing the preservation of historical legacies and the promotion of a pluralistic and inclusive understanding of the nation’s diverse cultural and intellectual heritage.
The strong remarks made by Pawan Khera and KC Venugopal in response to the recent incident at Visva-Bharati University reflect the mounting political tensions and deep-seated ideological debates within the country. Pawan Khera’s wry suggestion of renaming “narcissism as modicissism” serves as a pointed commentary on the perceived self-centeredness and self-promotion attributed to the Prime Minister.
KC Venugopal’s sharp critique, invoking Rabindranath Tagore’s renowned words on freedom from fear, serves to emphasize the significance of Tagore’s ideals and the values he espoused. By drawing attention to the current political climate characterized by what he refers to as the “peddling of fear, hate, and division,” Venugopal implicitly criticizes the actions and policies of the government, suggesting that they run counter to the principles and vision advocated by Tagore.
The reference to the Prime Minister naming himself “Acharya” at the revered Shantiniketan, while omitting Tagore’s name, highlights the perceived dissonance between the actions of the government and the principles on which institutions like Visva-Bharati University were founded. This narrative seeks to underscore the apparent contradiction between the government’s actions and the values that institutions like Shantiniketan symbolize.
The use of Rabindranath Tagore’s words to critique the government’s approach serves to evoke the spirit of the revered poet and his commitment to ideals of unity, freedom, and inclusivity. These statements not only reflect the intensified political rhetoric but also underscore the significance of preserving the legacies of eminent figures like Tagore and the importance of upholding the values they championed. As the discourse continues, it remains imperative for all stakeholders to foster constructive dialogue and uphold the principles that promote unity and respect for diverse perspectives within the nation.
The installation of the plaques mentioning Prime Minister Narendra Modi and the vice-chancellor Bidyut Chakrabarty in the revered Shantiniketan town has sparked intense controversy and public debate. Many individuals and groups have voiced concerns about the potential politicization of the historically and culturally significant space of Shantiniketan.
Given the legacy of Rabindranath Tagore and the rich cultural heritage associated with Visva-Bharati University, the presence of plaques featuring political figures has been viewed by some as an intrusion into the sanctity of the educational and cultural space. The inclusion of the Prime Minister’s name on the plaques might have been perceived as an attempt to appropriate the legacy of Tagore and his vision for the university for political gain. This move has likely raised questions about the preservation of the institution’s academic independence and its cultural ethos.
The decision to replace the controversial plaques, as indicated by officials, signals a potential effort to address the concerns raised by various stakeholders. The move to replace the plaques can be seen as a step to mitigate tensions and reaffirm the commitment to maintaining the historical and cultural integrity of Shantiniketan and its associated educational institution, Visva-Bharati University.
The statement by Mahua Banerjee, the spokesperson of the university, clarifies that the controversial plaques were intended as temporary markers for the heritage site. The upcoming replacement of the plaques with inscriptions provided by the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) and UNESCO indicates a concerted effort to ensure that the new plaques align with the historical and cultural significance of the site. This approach suggests a commitment to preserving the heritage of Shantiniketan and maintaining its integrity as a world-renowned cultural and educational landmark.
The expressed displeasure by Tagore’s great-grandson, Supriyo Thakur, underscores the sensitivity of the issue. His concerns about the university authorities potentially attempting to diminish Tagore’s legacy within the institution reflect the broader sentiments shared by those who view the presence of the controversial plaques as a distortion of the cultural ethos and values of the university.
The planned installation of new plaques by the end of October, with inscriptions provided by the ASI and UNESCO, not only signifies a resolution to the ongoing controversy but also highlights the collaborative efforts between the relevant authorities to ensure the appropriate representation and preservation of the historical and cultural legacy of Shantiniketan. This step is likely to reassure both the public and stakeholders about the commitment to upholding the principles and values associated with the esteemed institution.
