Such endorsements are not unprecedented. Over the decades, demands for the Bharat Ratna have repeatedly emerged from political leaders—both from within ruling parties and across opposition lines. Predictably, the revival of this demand triggered mixed reactions across the political spectrum. While some leaders supported the proposal, others opposed it, revealing deeper ideological and strategic divisions surrounding the conferment of civilian honours.
Before engaging with the question of deservingness, it is necessary to objectively assess Nitish Kumar’s contribution to Bihar and to the nation as a whole.
Political Career of Nitish Kumar
Nitish Kumar is among the most enduring and influential figures in contemporary Indian politics, with a public career spanning over four decades. Emerging from the JP Movement, he fashioned his political identity around socialist ideals, clean governance, and social justice. At the national level, he held several ministerial positions in the Union and earned recognition for emphasising administrative accountability.
As Chief Minister of Bihar since 2005 (with intermittent terms), he is widely credited with restoring law and order, strengthening infrastructure, expanding access to education, and initiating social welfare reforms. His tenure marked a decisive departure from the administrative paralysis that characterised earlier decades. At the same time, his leadership has been shaped by frequent coalition realignments reflecting the complex and fluid nature of Bihar’s political landscape.
Since 2005, Nitish Kumar has governed with alliances spanning both the left and the right. At one point, while aligned with the INDIA bloc, some partners even projected him as a potential Prime Ministerial candidate. Subsequently, he returned to the NDA. These shifts have generated political debate, but they are not the focus of this article. The purpose here is to examine how the Bharat Ratna itself becomes a political instrument rather than a purely merit-based honour.
There is no denying Nitish Kumar’s substantial role in rebuilding Bihar, particularly in restoring governance and public order. However, historical assessment must also acknowledge the contributions of Lalu Prasad Yadav, whose social engineering reshaped Bihar’s political consciousness. At the same time, it is equally true that during his tenure, infrastructure development, industrialisation, and law and order were largely neglected. Ironically, despite Nitish Kumar’s governance-focused reforms, industrialisation in Bihar remains limited, and even his administration has struggled to attract large-scale industry.
Political Strategy Behind the Recommendation
The most critical question arises from recent political behaviour. In the 2020 Bihar Assembly elections, Chirag Paswan positioned himself as one of Nitish Kumar’s strongest opponents. His party contested almost exclusively against JD(U) candidates, resulting in JD(U) being reduced to just 43 seats in a 243-member assembly. At that time, Paswan’s opposition to Nitish Kumar was uncompromising.
Why, then, this sudden endorsement?
The answer lies in political pragmatism. For years, Chirag Paswan has urged the central government to confer the Bharat Ratna upon his late father, Ram Vilas Paswan. However, he has failed to secure sufficient political backing. By recommending Nitish Kumar’s name, Paswan potentially gains reciprocal support from JD(U), thereby advancing his long-standing demand. This episode illustrates how civilian honours are often deployed as bargaining tools in political negotiations, rather than as impartial recognitions of national service.
Bharat Ratna and the Politics of Omission
Civilian honours in democratic societies are not merely cultural recognitions; they are state-sponsored symbols that shape collective memory. In India, the Bharat Ratna has honoured individuals from various fields, including politics, science, arts, sports, and social reform. Yet, because nominations and final decisions remain under executive control, controversies over merit versus political convenience are inevitable.
A striking example is the conferment of the Bharat Ratna on Sachin Tendulkar, while Major Dhyan Chand, universally revered as the “Wizard of Hockey,” was excluded. Dhyan Chand’s omission is not a reflection of inadequate merit, but of historical and political neglect. He represented India in an era devoid of commercial incentives, celebrity culture, or financial reward—playing purely for national pride. His exclusion remains one of the most widely acknowledged failures of India’s civilian honours system.
He is not alone. Many figures whose contributions fundamentally shaped modern India remain outside the Bharat Ratna’s roll of honour.
Why Eminent Figures Were Not Awarded the Bharat Ratna
The absence of towering personalities from the Bharat Ratna list has long generated scholarly, cultural, and political debate. Importantly, non-conferment does not imply lesser contribution. Rather, it reflects institutional limitations and political calculations.
Munshi Premchand
Pioneer of realistic fiction in Hindi and Urdu
Why He Has Not Been awarded?
- Passed away in 1936, well before the award’s institution in 1954
- Early decades favoured political leadership over cultural figures
- Indian-language literature received delayed institutional recognition
- Scholarly view:
- His exclusion reflects early elitist and political bias, not undervaluation of his legacy.
Homi Jehangir Bhabha
Founder of India’s atomic energy program
Why not awarded?
- Died in 1966, when India’s nuclear program remained classified
- Strategic scientific contributions were kept outside public discourse
- Institutional recognition was prioritised over individual glorification
Irony:
Later, scientists built upon his foundations and received national honours.
Verghese Kurien
Architect of the White Revolution (Operation Flood)
Why not awarded?
- Maintained an openly critical and independent stance toward governments
- Opposed political interference in cooperative institutions
- His work was framed as administrative rather than political
Academic interpretation:
Civilian honours tend to favour alignment with dominant political narratives—something Kurien resisted.
Ratan Tata
Expandedthe Indian industry globally
Why not awarded?
- Hesitation to honour corporate leaders at the highest symbolic level
- Fear of perceived favouritism toward capitalism
- Debate over whether business leadership qualifies as “supreme public service”
Notably:
He received both the Padma Bhushan and Padma Vibhushan, indicating recognition without symbolic elevation.
Bhagat Singh
Shaheed-e-Azam Bhagat Singh, a symbol of unparalleled courage and patriotism, was never awarded the Bharat Ratna, despite laying down his life in the relentless struggle for India’s complete freedom from British rule. His supreme sacrifice at such a young age continues to inspire generations of Indians. In recent times, the call to honour his legacy has grown stronger, with prominent leaders—including Rajya Sabha MPs Satnam Singh Sandhu and Raghav Chadha, and Punjab Congress President Amrinder Singh Raja Warring- repeatedly urging the Union government to posthumously confer the Bharat Ratna upon Bhagat Singh, along with his fellow martyrs Rajguru and Sukhdev. For a nation that cherishes its freedom, such recognition would stand as a long-overdue tribute to its immortal sacrifice.
Conclusion
The debate over conferring the Bharat Ratna upon Nitish Kumar is less about individual merit and more about the broader politicisation of civilian honours. While Nitish Kumar’s contributions to Bihar are substantial and deserving of historical acknowledgement, the manner in which political leaders invoke the Bharat Ratna reveals how national memory is negotiated, leveraged, and sometimes compromised.
In a democracy, the credibility of its highest honors rests not on political consensus, but on moral clarity, transparency, and institutional independence—qualities the Bharat Ratna must reclaim if it is to remain a true symbol of national gratitude.
0 Comments