A Tapestry of Merit, How India’s Civilian Honours Are Weaving Consensus and Celebrating the Unseen
In an era marked by heightened political polarization, where public discourse often fractures along ideological fault lines, India’s civilian honours system—the Padma awards and the Bharat Ratna—has quietly undergone a subtle yet significant transformation. Once scrutinized primarily as a barometer of political favor or ideological alignment, these awards have, in recent years, emerged as a rare and vital space of continuity and consensus. While not immune to debate, the selection process has demonstrated a discernible, dual-track effort: to rise above partisan divides by recognizing contributions across the political spectrum, and, perhaps more consequentially, to democratize honour itself by embracing the unsung heroes of India’s grassroots. This dual emphasis is forging a more inclusive and layered narrative of national service, one that acknowledges both the towering architects of public life and the quiet architects of social change in remote villages and marginalized communities.
The Bridge Over Partisan Waters: Honouring Rival Traditions
The most visible shift in the honours list has been its deliberate transcendence of political tribalism. In a country where electoral battles are fiercely contested, the decision to honour leaders from rival traditions sends a powerful message about the separation of political service from partisan identity. This trend of bipartisan recognition has been steadily institutionalized.
The posthumous Padma Bhushan for former Jharkhand Chief Minister Shibu Soren, a stalwart of tribal politics, and the Padma Vibhushan for V.S. Achuthanandan, a veteran Communist leader from Kerala, exemplify this ethos. Their recognition alongside figures from other traditions paints a picture of a republic honouring public service, irrespective of the ideological banner under which it was rendered. This is not an isolated phenomenon. The Padma Vibhushan for socialist leader Mulayam Singh Yadav (2023), and Padma Bhushans for Congress veterans Ghulam Nabi Azad and Tarun Gogoi, illustrate a consistent pattern. Leaders like Sharad Pawar, P.A. Sangma, and others have also been acknowledged, suggesting a framework where long-standing contributions to governance and public life are assessed on their own merit.
The apex honour, the Bharat Ratna, has followed this bipartisan arc to a symbolic crescendo. The 2019 award to former President Pranab Mukherjee (a Congress stalwart) alongside Nanaji Deshmukh (a RSS pracharak and social worker) and cultural icon Bhupen Hazarika already signaled a broad embrace. However, the 2024 announcements marked a historic moment: five Bharat Ratnas were conferred in a single year. The selection was a masterclass in bridging divides: Karpoori Thakur, the socialist champion of backward classes; L.K. Advani, the pillar of the Bharatiya Janata Party and the Ram Janmabhoomi movement; P.V. Narasimha Rao, the Congress Prime Minister who ushered in economic liberalization; Chaudhary Charan Singh, the Jat leader and farmers’ voice; and M.S. Swaminathan, the father of the Green Revolution. This list spanned the ideological spectrum from Left to Right, included figures from different eras of independent India, and cut across professions from politics to agriculture. It was a deliberate curation of India’s pluralistic polity, suggesting that the nation’s highest honour is a canopy large enough to shelter its diverse historical narratives and contributions.
The Quiet Democratization: The Grassroots Embrace of the Padma Shri
If the recognition of political figures represents a broadening at the elite level, the transformation of the Padma Shri represents a deeper, more profound democratization of the honours system. This is where the “wider embrace” becomes tangible. The Padma Shri has increasingly become the award for the “unsung India”—the social workers, educators, artists, environmentalists, and healthcare providers whose impact is profound but whose fame seldom reaches the national capital.
Recent awardees list reads like a journey into the soul of India’s hinterlands, highlighting individuals from Dalit, tribal, and backward communities who have created transformative change with minimal resources. This shift represents a fundamental redefinition of “merit” and “national service,” moving it away from conventional metrics of fame or power.
-
Anke Gowda, a former bus conductor from Karnataka, did not hold a high office or command a vast organization. His life’s work was collecting books and building what has become one of the world’s largest free-access libraries in a small village, opening windows to the world for generations of rural children. His Padma Shri honours not just a man, but the very idea that empowering minds is a supreme national service.
-
Tulasi Gowda, an elderly, barely literate woman from the Halakki tribal community in Karnataka, received the Padma Shri for her encyclopedic knowledge of the forest. She is a living repository of biodiversity, having planted and nurtured tens of thousands of trees. Her award elevates indigenous knowledge and environmental stewardship to the level of national honour.
-
The Godbole couple, Drs. Prakash and Mandakini Amte, were recognized for their lifelong service running a hospital in the conflict-ridden forests of Bastar, providing healthcare to some of India’s most isolated tribal populations. Their award underscores that service in the face of adversity, in zones the state often struggles to reach, constitutes exceptional patriotism.
-
The list extends to countless others: professionals dedicated to rehabilitating the disabled, innovators creating low-cost medical solutions for the poor, teachers revolutionizing education in remote areas, and artists preserving dying folk traditions.
By foregrounding such individuals, the Padma Shri does more than honour them; it narrates a different story of India. It tells a story where heroism is found in relentless perseverance, where service is measured in lives touched rather than headlines grabbed, and where the nation’s strength is seen to emanate from its resilient, creative, and compassionate grassroots.
The Synergy and the Sheen: Why This Dual Approach Works
The dual emphasis—on consensus-building at the political level and democratization at the grassroots—creates a powerful synergy that enhances the legitimacy and sheen of the awards system.
First, it insulates the honours from charges of pure partisan patronage. When awards are given simultaneously to leaders from opposing parties and to apolitical grassroots heroes, it becomes harder to dismiss the entire exercise as a political tool. The bipartisan political recognitions act as a balancing mechanism, while the grassroots awards anchor the system in unimpeachable social virtue.
Second, it broadens the public’s emotional connection to the awards. A citizen may not identify with a veteran politician from another party, but they can easily connect with the story of a teacher from a similar remote district or a social worker helping a marginalized community. This creates a shared sense of pride and ownership. The awards cease to be about “them” in New Delhi and become about “us” across India.
Third, it promotes a holistic and layered understanding of nation-building. It acknowledges that a nation is built both by the visionaries who shape its policies and institutions and by the countless individuals who, through daily acts of courage and compassion, strengthen its social fabric. The scientist in the lab, the politician in parliament, the doctor in a tribal clinic, and the librarian in a village are all, in this framework, contributors to the national project.
Navigating Scrutiny and the Road Ahead
This is not to suggest the system is beyond criticism. The very act of selection is subjective and will always invite scrutiny. Omissions can cause heartburn, and the timing of some awards can be questioned. The refusal of awards by some, like former CPI(M) leader Buddhadeb Bhattacharjee, is a reminder of the political consciousness that still surrounds them.
Yet, the recent trajectory suggests a conscious institutional effort to use the honours as an instrument of national integration and moral recognition. By reaching into remote geographies and marginalized communities, the state is performing a symbolic act of inclusion, telling citizens from all corners and strata that their work is seen and valued by the republic.
The challenge ahead is to sustain and deepen this approach. It requires a continued commitment from the selection committees to seek out genuine grassroots changemakers, resisting any drift back to a more conventional, “elite-only” list. It also requires maintaining the delicate balance in political recognitions, ensuring it remains a genuine cross-section rather than a fleeting tactic.
Conclusion: Honouring the Soul of the Republic
In a polarized age, India’s civilian honours have become an unexpected site for stitching together a broader national consensus. By honouring political rivals, they affirm that service to the nation exists beyond the party whip. By celebrating unknown heroes from villages and tribes, they democratize the idea of excellence and proclaim that the republic’s highest accolades are within reach of every citizen.
The Padma awards and Bharat Ratna are, in this evolving sense, more than just awards. They are a narrative tool, a mirror held up to the nation, reflecting not just who we celebrate, but who we aspire to be. They are weaving a new tapestry of merit—one where the threads of political legacy and grassroots resilience are intertwined, creating a richer, more inclusive, and ultimately more authentic portrait of Indian nationhood. In doing so, they honour not just individuals, but the very soul and diverse genius of the republic itself.
Q&A: India’s Evolving Civilian Honours System
Q1: How have the Padma awards and Bharat Ratna moved from being seen as political tools to instruments of consensus?
A1: The shift has been achieved through a deliberate, visible strategy of bipartisan recognition at the elite level. By consistently honouring prominent figures from across the political spectrum—from Left veterans like V.S. Achuthanandan and socialists like Karpoori Thakur to right-wing stalwarts like L.K. Advani and centrist Congress leaders like P.V. Narasimha Rao and Pranab Mukherjee—the awards have dissociated the idea of “national service” from partisan loyalty. The 2024 cluster of five Bharat Ratnas was a pinnacle of this approach, symbolically embracing competing narratives of India’s political history. This pattern makes it difficult to label the honours as a patronage system for the ruling party alone, fostering a perception that they reward enduring contributions to public life, irrespective of ideology.
Q2: What does the “democratization” of the Padma Shri entail, and why is it considered a consequential shift?
A2: The democratization of the Padma Shri entails a fundamental redefinition of merit and national service to include grassroots, often invisible, contributions. It moves the focus from fame, power, and metropolitan achievement to impact, perseverance, and community transformation in remote or marginalized settings.
This shift is consequential because:
-
It Validates Alternative Forms of Excellence: It honours the environmental wisdom of a tribal woman (Tulasi Gowda), the educational activism of a bus conductor (Anke Gowda), and medical service in conflict zones, asserting that these are forms of nation-building as critical as scientific discovery or artistic fame.
-
It Promotes Social Inclusion: By consistently selecting awardees from Dalit, tribal, and backward communities, the state performs a powerful act of symbolic inclusion, telling these communities their work is valued at the highest level.
-
It Builds Emotional Connectivity: Ordinary citizens see people like themselves being honoured, which strengthens the public’s emotional bond with the awards and the idea of the nation they represent. It makes the honours relatable and aspirational for the many, not just the few.
Q3: The article mentions the 2024 Bharat Ratnas spanned “ideologies, eras and professions.” What is the significance of this specific curation?
A3: The curation of the 2024 Bharat Ratna list was a profound symbolic act of historical and political reconciliation. Its significance is multi-layered:
-
Ideological Span: By honouring Advani (right-wing Hindutva politics), Rao (centrist economic reformer), Thakur (socialist backward-class politics), and Charan Singh (farmers’ leader), it acknowledged that the nation’s journey was shaped by conflicting ideologies, all of which contributed to its democratic tapestry.
-
Eras: It connected pre-Mandal socialism (Thakur), the post-Emergency BJP rise (Advani), the post-Cold War economic shift (Rao), and the enduring agrarian political voice (Charan Singh). This presented a continuous, if contested, national story.
-
Professions: Including M.S. Swaminathan (agricultural science) alongside politicians elevated the contribution of scientific intellect to national security and prosperity.
Together, this curation sent a message that the Bharat Ratna is not the trophy of a single ruling narrative, but the nation’s highest acknowledgment of its own complex, multifaceted evolution.
Q4: Can this consensus-building through honours genuinely mitigate deep political polarization, or is it merely symbolic?
A4: The impact is primarily symbolic and normative, but not therefore insignificant. It is unlikely to directly mitigate heated electoral polarization or resolve policy disputes. However, symbolism in statecraft carries weight. By consistently modelling recognition across divides, the honours system:
-
Establishes a Norm: It sets a public standard that even in disagreement, mutual respect for service is possible. It normalizes the idea that political opponents are not enemies of the state.
-
Creates Shared National Rituals: The announcement and celebration of awards become moments where citizens, regardless of political affiliation, can share in pride for individuals from different camps.
-
Offers a Counter-Narrative: In a media ecosystem often amplifying division, the awards provide an annual counter-narrative of unity and shared purpose. While not a solution to polarization, it acts as an important ballast against its most corrosive effects, reminding the polity of a shared civic space above the partisan fray.
Q5: What are the potential pitfalls or challenges in sustaining this evolved approach to civilian honours?
A5: Sustaining this balanced approach faces several challenges:
-
Political Pressure & Perception Management: Future governments must resist the temptation to tilt the lists overtly towards their own ideological pantheon, which would break the nascent consensus. Maintaining the credibility of the bipartisan and grassroots selections is delicate.
-
Grassroots Dilution: There is a risk that the focus on genuine, unknown heroes could be diluted by favouring those with better connections or media savvy, turning the “unsung hero” category into another networked elite. The selection committees must maintain rigorous, on-ground verification processes.
-
Expectation & Disappointment: As the system celebrates wider inclusion, the number of deserving individuals is virtually limitless. Managing expectations and the inevitable disappointments of those not selected will become more complex.
-
Instrumentalization Refusal: The system’s integrity relies on awards being an endpoint of recognition, not a starting point for political co-option. Honourees must remain free to critique the government without fear of the award being weaponized against them as a marker of compliance.
The system’s future credibility hinges on navigating these pitfalls with transparency and an unwavering commitment to its dual principle of political breadth and social depth.
