Old malaise survives as dynasty

History spares none. And truth, inevitably and invariably, erupts from unexpected corners and at unexpected times. Dynasties in power leave no stone unturned to inflict their subjective, personalised and laudatory versions to obliterate uncomfortable facts and disastrous misdeeds from the generations ahead. Recall how the ‘Time Capsule’ was ‘earthed’ in 1976-1977, and how unceremoniously that was, or had to be,   ‘unearthed’! History ruthlessly rejects ‘ifs’ and ‘buts’ but never discards facts. Visualise the image of Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru before the youth of today, if the Kashmir issue had not been taken to the United Nations; if the Chinese had not humiliated India; if the Gandhian model of development was not fully ignored. But these and many more things did happen. 

The ‘valiant freedom fighter’ who gave up a cosy aristocratic life and suffered lathi blows and imprisonment in British jail, deserved, and got in full measure, unfathomable admiration, love and affection from his countrymen. An extraordinary individual with sterling qualities that the world admired, he was also a human being who had his preferences, biases, prejudices and jealousies, most of which became more evident after he majestically assumed unchallenged power and authority to rule over India. This great warrior of freedom struggle was found unprepared, reluctant, and even unaware of the ground realities when 1962 happened. People began recalling how he treated Netaji Subhas Chandra Bose, how he handled his disappearance, how he tried to prevent Rajendra Prasad from going to Somnath. He did not attend the funeral of the first President of India! A serious re-thinking about his persona had begun immediately after the humiliation inflicted by China. As years passed by, and the Nehru dynasty took over the reins of power, academic, scholarly and historical assessment of Nehru became the monopoly, mostly of those wedded to the ideology that brought plaudits from those in power and authority, and who could bestow favours. The extended monotony of smooth narratives now comes face-to-face with the incisive, scholarly researched and dexterously articulated work of a former intelligence officer RNP Singh that appears in very aptly titled work: Nehru: A Troubled legacy, very well produced by  Wisdom Tree, New Delhi.

Which scholarly mind would not get alarmed to learn how Nehru could write to  Rajendra Prasad that he had consulted Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel and the two had decided that ‘the safest and best course’ would be to have Chakravarti Rajagopalachari as the first President of India! He later acknowledged his folly. Indira Gandhi had probably taken the cue from her father and imposed Emergency without the mandatory consultation with the Cabinet or even any individual Minister. What she and Congress did not learn from their illustrious predecessor was Nehru’s confession: “Vallabhbhai (Patel), in any event, has nothing to do with what I wrote to you. I wrote entirely at my instance without any reference to Vallabhbhai or consultation with him.” There is ample scope for an objective analysis of how personal liking and disliking shaped Nehru’s vision and its impact on national policies. 

The contradiction between the approaches of the two could very well explain why the traditionally strong practice in Indian culture of the acceptance of other religions on equal footing deteriorated to the level of political secularism that generates distrust at the cost of traditional bonhomie and religious amity that existed for ages. DP Mishra had this to say about the secularism of Nehru: “And so far as Nehru was concerned, he had apparently expected secularism to be practised only by Hindus. When he (Nehru) had written to Patel that the Muslims of Hyderabad should be given weightage on the ground that ‘Hyderabad had been a 100 per cent Muslim State’, he seemed to forget that in that sense, Kashmir too had been a 100 per cent Hindu State and that while he was placating the Nizam and the Muslim minority in Hyderabad, he had ignored the Maharaja of Kashmir and the wishes of the Hindu minority in Kashmir in order to placate Sheikh Abdullah. But perhaps his yardstick, applied in case of the beautiful valley of Kashmir, was not applied to the rugged Deccan plateau. Nehru was rather uncomfortable with the national Cabinet, formed on August 15, 1949, as on most of the issues, it sided with Patel.  This made Nehru so unsure of control over his Cabinet that whenever possible, he ignored the Cabinet. Even on the very vital question of plebiscite in Kashmir, Nehru virtually bypassed it. Nehru’s ‘secular’ ideas had made him reluctant regarding strong actions against the Nizam of Hyderabad, but the Cabinet voted with Patel.” 

What happened in June 1975 had its seeds sown immediately after independence. The material in RNP Singh’s book can create a flutter, at least  among eminent historians who have all along towed an ideological line that had the dynasty’s approval. The narration also establishes the continuity of dynastic, autocratic traits.