The attack on Jawaharlal Nehru in Congress Darshan and the subsequent response have brought to fore the reluctance on the part of intellectuals to objectively analyse certain leaders and damn many others. This is increasingly raising question marks on their credibility
Call it a self-goal or an inadvertent confession. As the Congress celebrated its 131st Foundation Day recently, an article published in a journal published by the party’s Mumbai unit, revived the debate on the contributions and legacy of India’s first Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru, putting the grand old party and the Nehru-Gandhi family in a fix.
The aforementioned article in the Hindi edition of the party mouthpiece Congress Darshan stated that Nehru should have listened to Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel’s views on international affairs — a view often echoed by its arch rival, the BJP.
“Despite Sardar Patel getting the post of Deputy Prime Minister and Home Minister, the relations between the two leaders remained strained, and both had threatened to resign time and again”, the article said in a tribute to the Iron Man, to commemorate his death anniversary on December 15.
If Nehru had embraced Sardar Patel’s foresight, many problems in international affairs would not have arisen, it said, and cited a letter Sardar Patel wrote in 1950, to caution Nehru against China’s policy towards Tibet and where he described China as “unfaithful, and a future enemy of India.”
While the Congress’s reaction was on expected lines, with party leaders condemning the article and making a scapegoat of a journalist, what was more surprising was the silence on the part of the intelligentsia, which at the drop of a hat leaves no stone unturned to question the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh’s contribution to the freedom struggle or Netaji Subhas Chandra Bose’s alleged links with Nazis and Fascists or defend the ‘secular’ character of the likes of Aurangzeb and Tipu Sultan.
It is this reluctance on the part of the so-called intellectuals to objectively analyse certain leaders and damn many others, which is increasingly raising question marks on their credibility among the educated younger generation.
There is a growing undercurrent of resentment against the selective interpretation of history by these intellectuals, who have thrived under previous regimes and pocketed all plum posts and benefits at the cost of genuine scholars. What is fuelling this anger is the double standards of these ‘revolutionaries’ who have never desisted from questioning the role of popular deities such as Ram and Krishna, dismissed epics such as Ramayan and Mahabharat as myths, but hit back with vengeance when it comes to even a remote criticism of their icons.
But the liberal majority in the country never protested. Rather, from time immemorial, at the grassroots level, there remained room for a healthy debate on the propriety of lord Ram making Sita undergo the agni pariksha, deserting her at the instance of a washerman, killing Kishkindha king Bali etc. Even the actions of the Pandavas, led by lord Krishna, have been questioned from time to time, including the means adopted for the killing of Karna andguru Drona.
It was with great reluctance that the Congress apologised for the 1984 massacre of Sikhs even as it failed to take any action against many of the culprits that are still roaming free. The party is yet to formulate a firm position on the imposition of the dreaded Emergency in 1975, with some leaders still defending it. They are yet to apologise for all the major communal riots that took place post-1947.
This is in no way an attempt to rubbish Nehru’s contributions to the making of modern India or the valiant freedom-struggle preceding it. Nevertheless, objective history should make a genuine attempt to study and assess individuals and events in both black and white. No event or individual has ever been perfect. Indian cultural and historic traditions are replete with instances where even the positives of demons and evil rulers have been admired, where the negatives of even gods and iconic heroes have been highlighted.
Notwithstanding the cardinal sin of abducting Sita, Ravan has always been admired for his great learning and administrative abilities. Not just ballads and poets, even lord Ram himself paid tributes to the demon king. In fact, the Onam festival in Kerala is a tribute to the golden era rule of demon king Mahabali even as the people worship lord Krishna, who pushed him to the netherworlds.
The tradition of Vimarsha or Shastrartha (discourse) even on sacred texts is testimony to the nation’s objective outlook to life.
In that spirit, have we yet made an honest assessment of Nehru — and consequentially, an objective assessment of India’s contemporary historyIJ
Was Nehru truly a ‘great democrat’, as many of his admirers suggest, or did he overtly and covertly groom his only daughter to be his successor and dislodge her potential challengers from key positions in the party and the GovernmentIJ Was he a man of principles or did he adopt double standards when it suited his political interestsIJ Did he have an understanding of India’s defence needs or was he foolhardy when it came to defence mattersIJ Did he take a strong stand against corruption or did he turn a blind eye and even went out of his way to protect his favourites who faced serious graft chargesIJ Was he carried away by the Western concepts of socialism and failed to comprehend the economic model suitable for the countryIJ Was he taken in by the idea and ideals of the non-aligned movement and thereby put India at a grave disadvantage in the cold war eraIJ Was he the perfect, infallible leader he has thus far been made out to be, or was he a person given to human frailtiesIJ
Unfortunately, the country’s much-hyped historians and scholars have failed to provide us with a realistic and truthful assessment of the complex relationship Nehru had with other stalwarts of the time including Mahatma Gandhi, Netaji Bose, Sardar Patel, Rajendra Prasad et al.
A rare exception has been Nehru: A Troubled legacy, by former Intelligence Bureau official RNP Singh, published by Wisdom Tree. In this volume, the author of the much-acclaimed Islam and Religious Riots: A Case Study — Riots and wrongs and Bangladesh Decoded, has done a scholarly and dispassionate analysis of many often ignored and hidden aspects and thereby shed new light on Nehru’s handling of the nation and its long-term impact on our national character.
According to Mr Singh, “The general trend has been the magnification of Jawaharlal’s vision at the expense of deciphering his tactical and strategic behaviour as a super-conscious political actor. As a result, for the vast multitude, Nehru has remained the country’s philosopher king, the ideal leader combined with virtue and wisdom. Such an insight, however, does not really help in analysing the long term impact that India’s first Prime Minister had on the country’s subsequent political developments”.
It would be unfair and unacceptable to deny Nehru’s prominent role in the freedom-struggle, in building the parliamentary system, giving the nation a solid infrastructural base in science, technology and research in space and nuclear fields and in laying the foundations of industrialisation.
But, as noted constitutional expert Subhash C Kashyap puts it, “What is needed is a really objective assessment of Nehru’s policies and their impact on subsequent history, without getting into partisan controversies and contrary perceptions. It is not fair to blame Nehru for all the ills or to credit him with all the achievements of post-Independent India.”
(The author is a senior journalist based in Delhi)