INVOKING national heroes within shallow political discourses is a well-established practice among politicians. Political parties have skillfully aligned themselves with the national heroes fitting them into their own ideological lines. They have employed these figures both to glorify their virtues and to discard those with differing viewpoints. The efficacy of this strategy over the years cannot be overlooked.While some may question the purpose of this practice beyond diverting from discussions about tangible on-ground efforts, one cannot dismiss the fact that it has prompted the public to delve into history textbooks to acquaint themselves with the country’s illustrious past. However, the narrow understanding held by our elected representatives, or what they choose to disseminate, imposes limitations on these great figures. These great social reformers have been categorised along the lines of caste, community and religion. By confining these figures to communities and ideologies, the politicians have deprived citizens of the opportunity to fully comprehend and appreciate great men’s contributions. Politicians often invoke Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj in Maharashtra, pairing the great king’s name to ‘Marathi pride.’

 

However, the fact is, Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj championed the rights of all those who were marginalised by the ruling powers of the Deccan and Delhi. ‘Hindavi Swarajya’ was established for everyone, and not just Marathi population. Similarly, leaders have attached Dr Babasaheb Ambedkar solely with the Dalit movement.What the leaders never mention is that Dr Ambedkar's endeavours sought a broader societal transformation, one imperative for the country's progress as a whole. Why can't a young nonDalit boy, grappling with the challenges of life, find inspiration in Dr Ambedkar as a beacon of hope? This possibility materialises only when Dr Ambedkar is presented in a universal context, detached from exclusive associations with just one community. When today’s political leaders restrict these icons to ideologies or communities for the purpose of appeasement, they inadvertently undermine these legends’ contributions. The society is compelled to view these heroes in stark binaries - either as virtuous or as flawed. This approach fails to acknowledge the multifaceted contributions each figure has made.

 

Why should one not be able to extract the positive aspects from all of them? All these heroes have left their distinct marks.The confinement of these icons leads to the emergence of‘selectivism.’ Our leaders deliberately pick icons that resonate with their ideology and magnify only a limited set of their attributes. They disregard other facets of these same personalities that do not correspond to their political stance.

 

The Congress party criticises Swatantryaveer Savarkar for political expediency. Not a single Congressman acknowledges the admiration expressed by former Prime Minister Indira Gandhi for the esteemed leader. After Veer Savarkar's demise in 1966, Indira Gandhi released a commemorative postage stamp in his honour. She also commissioned a documentary film about Savarkar under the auspices of the Central Government’s Ministry of Information and Broadcasting. Similarly, the Bharatiya Janata Party, known for venerating Veer Savarkar, becomes visibly uneasy when the topic of Veer Savarkar's perspective on cow arises. Despite being an ardent opponent of cow slaughter, Veer Savarkar believed that cow could be regarded as a mother, but not as a deity. The act of cow worship, he argued, might lead to passivity among people, as God’s attributes are absorbed by the worshippers. According to him, Hindus should revere a deity as formidable as Lord Narsimha. As ‘Azaadi Ka Amrit Mahotsav’ concludes, it’s time we reclaimed our heroes and set them free from shackles of narrow confinements. Let us strive to build a society where no one would be judged or labelled as an ‘opportunist’ for honouring both Veer Savarkar and Mahatma Gandhi at a time, or two leaders with completely different viewpoints and methods.