India, July 20 -- We all know the Bharat Ratna is India's highest award, and we all hope it is conferred after careful deliberation and close scrutiny. After all, you don't want to scatter the most vaunted accolade like confetti. The English call that casting pearls before swine, but I won't use that phrase. Yet, that's what seems to be the case. Consider these facts. Of the 53 people awarded the Bharat Ratna starting with the first in 1954, by my count, 31 are politicians. That's almost 60%. Doesn't this seem to suggest it's been strategically given for political reasons rather than as recognition of merit? Sometimes, it has been given to Congress leaders by their worshipful colleagues. Doesn't that cheapen the award? It certainly diminishes it. The other disturbing fact is that 18 awardees got the Bharat Ratna posthumously. It may have been remiss not to recognise them in their lifetime but to make up for that decades later seems foolish if not risible. For instance, Vallabhbhai Patel got it 41 years after his death. In fact, he died before the Bharat Ratna was established. BR Ambedkar and Maulana Azad got it 34 years after their death. Karpoori Thakur 36 years after he passed away and Madan Mohan Malaviya was conferred the award an astonishing 69 years after he died. Actually, he died before India even became independent. So, if it was justified to give it to these worthies, why not Mahatma Gandhi? Let's ask the question: How many of the 53 deserved India's highest award? Your answer will differ from mine, and it is possible we will all have our own divergent views. That said and done, by my estimation, at least 14 awardees did not deserve it. Should it really have been given to Govind Ballabh Pant, Zakir Husain, VV Giri, K Kamaraj, MG Ramachandran, Rajiv Gandhi, Morarji Desai, Gulzarilal Nanda, Gopinath Bordoloi, Pranab Mukherjee, Nanaji Deshmukh, Karpoori Thakur, LK Advani and Chaudhary Charan Singh? Today, many people may not even remember who they were, leave aside recall what they did. However, there are also people who clearly should have been given the award but were not. I can think of at least two. The first is Field Marshal SHFJ Manekshaw. Without doubt, he was India's greatest military hero. He commanded the Army in the only war we have decisively and irrefutably won. I know he was given the rank of Field Marshal, but he should also have been given the Bharat Ratna. Today, if it is denied on the grounds he is dead, wouldn't that be hypocritical double-standards? The other person can still be given the award. But does our government have the vision and the wisdom to do so? I'm referring to the Dalai Lama. The truth is the world has recognised his enormous contribution but we in India, where he lives and the country he considers himself a son of, have remained blind to his merit. Or, is it that we don't want to offend China? He got the Nobel Peace Prize in 1989. That means we are already 36 years too late. In fact, we should have awarded him before the Nobel Committee. After all, he lives amongst us. We should have been the first to recognise him. But now we have another opportunity. The Dalai Lama has just celebrated his 90th birthday. By all count, it is a landmark. Surely this is a moment to make up for our lapse? Don't you agree? Also conferring the Bharat Ratna on the Dalai Lama would add distinction to the award. But there is one other person we could consider - Amitabh Bachchan. I don't doubt there have been great actors and actresses before him but they died without this recognition. Bachchan is still alive. And he was - for many still is - a legend. As big as Satyajit Ray, who got it in 1992, or Lata Mangeshkar, who received it in 2001. So why not him? No one has got the award for their acting. Let him be the first....