By IndiaTomorrow.net,
New Delhi, 29 Oct 2015: As debates have surrounded the allotment of ex-President Dr. APJ Abdul Kalam’s bungalow to Union Minister of State for Culture and Tourism Mahesh Sharma, known for making controversial remarks, including one on late Dr. Kalam himself, the big question that surfaces is: has the BJP government fallen so short of space in Delhi that it has only Kalam’s bungalow for allotment? Beyond legalities and realities, another important question is: why Sharma, why not someone, if any, who is at par with Kalam? What was the hurry, and why the demurrer?
Interestingly, while Dr. Kalam was primarily a Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) choice for the presidential position, and when he retired from the Presidency, it was BJP’s arch-rival Congress that was in the power, the Congress chose a hallmark of modern India and Delhi, the city’s architect Edwin Lutyens’ home, as the fitting place for the “People’s President” of India, an old man who was an iconic figure for the country’s youth.
Backing its move to make a place for Sharma, the government argued that because it was only Sharma who was waiting for official accommodation while all other cabinet ministers and ministers of state have been allotted government accommodation, the bungalow is allotted to him on vacation basis. The argument, however good and a legally valid point, falls short of logic because this means the BJP government has no other place to accommodate Sharma. If it was only Sharma who was awaiting an accommodation, was it Kalam’s bungalow alone to satiate Sharma’s need for a government accommodation? What was the hurry that Kalam’s family had to be served a notice to vacate the bungalow at the earliest, even while there have been demands already to turn the residence of the “People’s President” into a memorial centre? Is Mahesh Sharma more important and iconic a figure than Dr. APJ Abdul Kalam?
To make it straight, the most important question asked: Is it a reward for Sharma for his recent comment saying Kalam was a great nationalist “despite being a Muslim,” drawing a clear line between communities and diverting the majority community sentiments towards BJP’s core policy of polarization as “the culture”? Has Mahesh Sharma attained the status of a synonym for the polarization “culture” that BJP wants to develop, and that is why he has been rewarded the bungalow of Kalam and Lutyens, which could have been a heritage place reminding of two great souls, both considered the architects of a modern India? Has the site been given to Shrama to turn the history in a reverse order so that the Golwalkar heritage finds a roost in Lutyens’ and Kalam’s bungalow?
