A glimpse of the real Nehru

India’s Jawahar

“Sir, a dream has been shattered, a song silenced, a flame has vanished in the infinite. It was the dream of a world without fear and without hunger, it was the song of an epic that had the echo of the Gita and the fragrance of the rose…That vibrant personality, that attitude of taking even the Opposition along, that refined gentlemanliness, we may not see again.”

This is how Atal Bihari Vajpayee paid homage in the Rajya Sabha to India’s first Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru when he died in May 1964. Coming from Vajpayee, Nehru’s ardent critic -- especially during the 1962 war with China – the tribute reflects the most beautiful phase of our democracy – those early years. Can one expect such mutual respect and admiration (Nehru had earlier complimented Vajpayee for his criticism of him in Parliament over the 1962 war) in today’s hate-filled atmosphere?

Nehru is an intensely debated personality in Indian politics, a man most abused and a victim of calumny. In his own day, the Communists felt he was not leftist enough, the Capitalists felt he was not on their side, the Socialists felt that he compromised too much. But none of them ever questioned his integrity and dedication to the cause of India. Sadly, that’s not the case today. The online media is full of abuse and conspiracy theories surrounding him.

Long after Nehru’s death, many myths started to be created about his alleged waywardness in his personal life and politics. Rajiv Dixit of ‘Bharat Jago’ fame did not even bat an eyelid when he spread a falsehood in describing him as a philanderer and that Nehru and Jinnah fought over Edwina Mountbatten. Available on YouTube, men like Dixit spoke lies with authority. Dixit said that Jinnah, Edwina and Nehru studied at Harris College in London. In reality, there is no such college. What’s more, Jinnah had returned from England a decade before Nehru even started his journey to the UK. And Edwina never had any college education. Such unabashed calumny is being spread only to make people, particularly Hindus, hate Nehru.

Some people are today adding even more ‘masala’ to such lies, even circulating pictures of Nehru with his sister and niece to show him as a philanderer. Unfortunately, many people get their ‘history’ and ‘facts’ on WhatsApp university.

The great Socialist revolutionary Bhagat Singh, who was executed by the British in 1931 when he was just 23, is often posited against Nehru and Gandhi. What did Bhagat Singh himself think of Nehru? In his 1928 article “Naye netaon ke alag alag vichar” (The different views of new leaders), Bhagat Singh, himself a deep thinker, compared Sadhu Vaswani, a spiritual poet, Subhas Chandra Bose and Nehru. He called Vaswani a romantic idealist and said his vision – of India as a goddess protected by her ancient culture and sages – offered nothing to emancipate India from bondage. He analysed the views and visions of Bose and Nehru, and while they had similar ideas on some issues, he found himself in tune with Nehru. Both Bose and Nehru wanted the youth to rebel in the political sphere, but Nehru also wanted them to rebel in social, economic and religious thought, too. Nehru, Bhagat Singh noted, wanted all that was unreasonable to be discarded. Both Bose and Nehru were sympathetic to the cause of peasants and labourers. But Nehru, he declared, was an epochal change-maker who was energising not just the heart but also the mind of Indians and expressed his inclination towards Nehru’s leadership.

Nehru was also the only leader who would write in newspapers and journals, under a pseudonym or anonymously, criticising himself and warning people not to blindly adore him and make him a Caesar, as he did in the Modern Review in November 1937. He wrote it to prevent Indian National Congress leaders from pressuring him to become its president for the third time.

Elsewhere, Nehru brooded about himself: “I have become a queer mixture of the East and the West, out of place everywhere, at home nowhere, whose thoughts and approach to life are more akin to the Western but within me, India clings like a possessive mother.” He declared that in his subconscious, generations of cultural memories of India were embedded that he would never try to get rid of.

The onslaught on Nehru today is due to two factors: one, a false assumption that he appeased the minorities. Two, that he became India’s first Prime Minister and not Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel. On the second, Nehru was supported strongly by Patel himself to become PM (as letters and documents reveal, edited by Patel’s daughter, Maniben). Conservative, ignorant, closed minds perhaps needed an enemy to project and fight for their own political purpose, and they find one in Nehru.

One should remember that when India became independent, Muslims resided in majority not only in the present Pakistan and Bangladesh, but many lived in every part of the country from Kashmir to Kanyakumari. It was only Nehru and Patel who could instill confidence in the minds of minorities that they were safe in a secular state. Had they not instilled that confidence, the entire country would have become chaotic and anarchy would have ruled. Nehru is also blamed for the Kashmir issue. But wasn’t Patel right there and backing him completely, even on the decision to go to the UN?

Nehru is faulted for the 1962 India-China war. Was he naïve and sentimental about China, as is often depicted? Did he distrust the army and deliberately keep it weak, as is often insinuated? Morarji Desai, Nehru’s Finance Minister, would not allocate enough money for the military because he thought war was un-Gandhian. For the better part of his six years in office, Prime Minister Narendra Modi, with good intention, has tried to keep China in good humour and keep the bilateral relationship from becoming confrontational. Should we call him naïve and sentimental? Should we call him unpatriotic?

Unfortunately, though, many in the Congress party itself have forgotten the values of our founding fathers like Gandhi, Patel, Azad and others. It has even forgotten the ideas of Nehru, who followed the “golden middle path” when ‘baby India’, newly independent, was just trying to stand up and walk on its own.

Criticising Nehru for failures is one thing. Calumnising him and branding him as the cause of all of our present-day problems is not only unethical, but completely idiotic. Let’s remember Nehru today for all the good that he did, for his dedication to India.

(The writer is former Principal, Seshadripuram College, Bengaluru, and KPCC Vice President)