Statue vandalism: Politics in India hits a new low

The toppling of Lenin’s statues in Tripura, after the election results, where the Left Front was defeated and BJP was victorious, reopened an ugly chapter of statue politics in India. What followed was a series of such vile incidences. The country witnessed S.P. Mukherjee’s bust defiled in Kolkata, and Ambedkar’s statue in Uttar Pradesh and statue of Periyar in Tamil Nadu was defaced. These acts of distortion and damage are indicators that Indian politics is hitting a new low. The statues which were symbolic of history, heritage and values suddenly seem to have become source of disapproval, conflict and even violence. Is this sudden upsurge politically coloured, or are there underlying reasons to statue politics in India?

Roben Jeffrey defines political statues as a publically displayed representation of a real person, or of dead icon, embodied in bronze or stone, and that something happens which provokes the society or group to erect the statue for the first time. In 17th-18th century, statues were built in memory of those who suffered or died during conflicts and wars. In later years, statues were built to commemorate the past, and to address the contemporary issues. The focus was on promoting learning, critical thinking and peaceful future. The statues were representative of cultural, historic and educational significance. They retold history to future generation, and reminded them not to forget the past and repeat the mistakes. In 19th century, statues also began to be erected to crystallize a sense of victimisation, injustice and discrimination. Erecting such statues was figurative of seeking visibility and asserting one’s right to access public space. It was a process which created self-confidence and pride in oneself.  

In today’s time, every single statue can stimulate different interpretations by different schools of thought. Let’s take an example of the Statue of Liberty in The United States. This statue is considered as symbol of national unity, some view it as victory over slavery, some infer it as freedom, and for some it represents French-USA cooperation as the statue was gifted by France to USA. For every Indian visiting Trafalgar Square in London, the sight of statue of Mahatma Gandhi fills them with the nostalgia of India’s freedom movement, while for the world it is a symbol of non-violence and peace. 

Actually, erecting a statue is an opportunity for different people; justice experts, historians, public artists, museum designers, human rights activists, to work together, as their skills and interests intersect in key ways in erecting such statues. However, the conflicts on statues begin when one tries to read and interpret the implicit political statement represented in these statues. Besides the controversy on matters like size of the statue, the metal to be used, the location for it, the financial costs involved etc, the bigger issue shoots up when the statue is used to reinforce the primacy of contemporary political power. This can jeopardise the entire process of social reconstruction and reconciliation of societies. The statues could be an asset if built for remembering the past heritage and reflecting on it, but when they are deliberately used to promote a political position, to fan flames of communal hatred, to demarcate the differences among the identity groups or simply used to promote political agendas, it can result in divisive politics. 

Even if different emotions emanate from a particular statue, it need not be alarming as long as they supplement each other and strengthen the feeling of unity. But when the emotions in the people contradict, it results in disapproval and even in violence. For e.g. if upper caste people in India cannot come to the terms that Dalits also need visibility in politics and there is dire need for democratising the process of Indian polity, they may have different emotions for statue of Dr Babasaheb Ambedkar. 

What could be the possible way to refrain conjoining of politics of art and art of politics, and to promote aesthetics and unity of purpose. One way suggested, is to have Statues Park, where statues will no longer adorn public places, but will have more explicit heritage space. But sometimes site becomes an important focal point to erect the statue, and may not be just an incidental material backdrop. Another suggestion is that the statues should not be based on iconography but should be more symbolic. But here too there can be controversy. For example, gender in statuary is often questioned where men often appear as themselves, while women attest the identity and value of someone or something else. An important suggestion is that subaltern should be given due representation in most narrative structures and murals. If need be, the interpretations of statues should be reconstructed to create a positive response from the groups and communities. More importantly the State should have a clear and transparent policy on statues to be built in the state. The community, who are the major stakeholders, should be taken into confidence while making and implementing any such policy. Intensive research should be conducted, options and opinions sought, and impact assessment of such statues should be done. Community approval and accessibility of the statue site to the people should form important components of such policy. Exorbitant spending on the statues at the cost of the state exchequer should be strongly discouraged. The purpose of any statue erection should be very loud and clear, that is to promote and adhere to democratic values of our country; the values of freedom, public order, emancipation and more importantly national unity. 

(Dr Seema P. Salgaonkar, Associate Prof. in Political Science, Govt. College, Khandola, Marcela