The legacy of India’s first Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru has been systematically dismantled over the years – through articles, memes and WhatsApp forwards. He has been demonized for his role in nation-building, Kashmir and secular pronouncements among other things. This week, Madhya Pradesh’s former CM Shivraj Singh Chouhan even called Nehru a ‘criminal’ for the ‘Kashmir blunder’.
ThePrint asks: Is Congress defending Jawaharlal Nehru as well as it protects Sonia and Rahul Gandhi?
Not just Congress, every right-thinking Indian should protect Nehru from illogical and obscene attacks
Purushottam Agrawal
Professor and author
The Congress would naturally defend Rahul Gandhi and Sonia Gandhi because the attacks on them have been deeply personal and even obscene. When it comes to Jawaharlal Nehru, maybe the party should do more than what it has done. But the question is: do we consider Nehru only as a Congress leader?
Nehru was a visionary leader who clearly articulated what has come to be known as the ‘idea of India’. The Nehruvian vision for India comprises an inclusive society in which the idea of national progress is, at least theoretically, to take everybody along, and thus upholding democratic values. Leaders like Bhagat Singh, during the freedom movement, were critical of the Congress for not being inclusive enough
On the other hand, we have had the RSS and the Muslim League criticise the Congress for being too inclusive. While the Muslim League claimed that the Congress was a party of Hindus and had no business representing Muslims, the RSS and its political arm the BJP continue to project the Congress as a party for Muslims. RSS leader M.S. Golwalkar, in his book ‘Bunch of Thoughts’, has said that Muslims, Christians, and communists, and not poverty and injustice, were India’s internal threats. Basically, the RSS sees India’s diversity, with its various ethnic groups and ideological differences, as a threat.
I believe every right-thinking Indian, and not just the Congress, should defend Nehru from such illogical and obscene attacks. It is not to say that Nehru didn’t make any mistake, but you cannot dismiss all that he did for India.
Also read: 5 criteria Rahul Gandhi’s successor must meet – even if it means burying Congress
Congress has not defended its own govt’s record, so there’s little chance it will defend Nehru
Zoya Hasan
Professor Emerita, Centre for Political Studies, JNU
Jawaharlal Nehru was the founder of modern India and instrumental in establishing India’s secular democracy. He died 55 years ago but is still under attack from various quarters, mostly from the Right-wing.
It is easy to point out his mistakes and policy errors, but difficult to emulate his overall concerns, which were part of the wider liberal, democratic nationalist project –economic development through industrialisation, strategic autonomy through non-alignment, and creation of new institutions. As Prime Minister, he understood the imperative need to accommodate different ethnicities, languages, religions and culture in a pluralistic society.
The Congress has not defended Nehru despite the fact that it owes much of its longevity and what it is today to his leadership. But this is not surprising because it has failed to defend even its own government’s record at a time when there has been a concerted attempt to rewrite India’s development history as though development started only in 2014.
Arguably, there is a discernible reluctance within the Congress in defending Nehru. The constant attacks made against the Nehru-Gandhi family could be fuelling fears that defending Nehru could reinforce the prevalent perception that the Congress is a family firm.
Equally important is the shift in the Congress’ political and economic paradigm beyond Nehru’s legacy. The party became the architect of economic liberalisation, compromised on secularism, and allowed the conflation of nationalism with Hindu nationalism. These mark a departure from the Nehru era and could be another reason for the Congress’ reluctance in defending Nehru.
The Congress is caught in a bind. If it takes a stand now, it would end up defending Nehru and not Nehruvian ideas. And defending Nehru would mean feeding into the charge of dynasty politics, even though he had little role to play in this.
Also read: Five big challenges Sonia Gandhi has to deal with as interim president of Congress
Nehru’s Congress had strong ideological positions, which Congress lacks today
Rahul Verma
Fellow at Centre for Policy Research
Most political parties defend their leadership, so the Congress doing it for the members of the Gandhi family is not a big issue. The problem with the Congress is that it has not yet identified the root cause of why it is facing an existential crisis. In fact, the party does not even seem to acknowledge the severity of the situation it is currently in. It seems that many in the Congress brush aside the outcome of the 2014 and 2019 Lok Sabha elections as just defeats when in reality they were political disasters.
Currently, the Congress is a ‘sinking ship’ but instead of finding its purpose and direction, the party’s concern seems to be limited to choosing the captain of the ship.
Jawaharlal Nehru’s Congress had clear ideological positions on most issues facing the country, which is why he is regarded as the tallest leader of the party. This is also why he has been attacked the most by the BJP whose ideological position is completely opposite to Nehru’s.
On several occasions, Congress leaders go out of their way to defend Rahul Gandhi and Sonia Gandhi – courtiers being more loyal to the king than the king himself. These leaders would serve their party well if instead of acting like a fan club to the current leadership, or for that matter even to Nehru, they focussed on defending the ideas that Nehru and other Congress stalwarts promulgated. Instead of just harping on the phrase ‘Idea of India’, Congress leaders would help their party by reflecting on the Nehruvian idea of building a modern India in a democratic framework.
Congress’ dynastic politics and loyalist culture is anti-Nehru
Hilal Ahmed
Associate professor at CSDS
The symbolic presence of Nehru in the political imagination of the contemporary Indian politics should not be compared with the Congress’ reliability on the so-called Gandhi family for its survival.
The Congress leaders claim to inherit Nehru both as a leader as well as the country’s first Prime Minister largely to commemorate their incontestable power they’ve held for decades.
Yet, the Congress is not comfortable with Nehru’s ideas, and its leaders cannot be called Nehruvian in any way.
Nehru as a practising democrat was deeply interested in institution-building. This was the reason why the Congress as an institution could survive under him. But Indira Gandhi deviated significantly from her father’s politics. She systematically destroyed the Congress as an institution by establishing a new culture of loyalty, faithfulness and devotion to the party leadership.
This ‘loyalist culture’ evolved over the years and finally paved the way for what is now popularly called ‘dynastic politics’.
The Congress of today does not have any set of ideas to call itself an organisation. Rather, it relies heavily on the heritage of its ‘loyalist culture’ — promoting individuals over the institution. This is precisely why it cannot think beyond Sonia and Rahul Gandhi for the post of party president.
Nehru does not need any protection; he still survives as a powerful idea. Unfortunately, Congress leaders do not understand this.
Congress is prepared to either swim or drown together but not get fragmented at any cost
Rasheed Kidwai
ORF Visiting Fellow and author of Sonia, a Biography and 24 Akbar Road
For the Congress, defending its leaders like Jawaharlal Nehru, Indira Gandhi, Sonia Gandhi, Rajiv Gandhi and Rahul Gandhi has become an article of faith. Narendra Modi’s emergence as one of the most powerful Indian politicians and the BJP’s electoral success have compelled the Congress to depend more on its family legacy and history for survival. The ‘naamdar’ versus ‘kaamdar’ narrative has rattled the Congress internally but very few in the party are actually willing to accept this reality.
Rahul Gandhi’s resignation on 25 May 2019 triggered an in-house debate in the Congress on whether the party could be headed by a non-Gandhi family member. But 75 days later, the party collectively decided to back Sonia Gandhi once again. The Congress leadership supports the Gandhis, which is why there are no challengers within the party. In uncertain times like now, the legacy of Nehru and current leaders like Sonia, Rahul and Priyanka give a sense of confidence and continuity. Together, the Congress is prepared to either swim or get drowned instead of getting fragmented and having to look for alternatives.
By Taran Deol and Revathi Krishnan
Javaharlal Nehru was true nationalist who founded the modern India. The new leadership is finding fault with whatever he and successive governments did to conceal their own short commings. One cannot really compare the situation prevailed during the time of independence and now. Hope better sense will prevail in the days to come.
Nothing can absolve Nehru and the rest of India’s ‘ eminent leaders’ for the way partition was handled. No amount of white washing can absolve Nehru of this original sin. For all his mass following, Nehru never truly understood the people he ruled. His monumental blunder in neglecting primary education, healthcare and the welfare of the masses and his misguided social and economic policies laid the foundation of a denuded India, that is still struggling to get out of the ill effects of his legacy. All in all his mistakes far exceeded his achievements.
India’s literacy rate in 1947 was 12%, life expectancy was 31 years. The country’s economy under colonial rule had grown at 1% per annum, roughly equal to farmers’ incomes in the last five years. The ravages of WW II were still fresh memories. Amidst these ruins, no excuses or alibis, no cursing the past. The vision to create IITs, IIMs, ISRO, AEC, dams, steel mills. Each successor has had a bigger, stronger foundation to build upon. He loved the Indian people so profoundly, nothing would have pleased him more to have had his records and achievements eclipsed completely by his successors.
Yes from a certain point of view IITs, IIMs, steel mills, dams, AEC, ISRO etc. can be considered successes. IITs / IIMs provided excellent manpower for the West, subsidised by the Indian tax payer. The less said about India’s public sector behemoths, who are excellent at converting tax payer’s money into zilch, the better. Unfortunately Nehru with his Fabian socialist views and upper class British snobbery, laid down the map for India’s mai baap sarkar, where government knows everything, should do everything including running businesses, temples, banks, hotels etc. All his successors unfortunately followed in the same path, but he bears the cross for being the originator/ inspiration for all the policies that have resulted in India having one of the Lowest HDIs on the planet. His immense love for his people did not stop him from condemning them to a life of abysmal poverty, suffering and misery. But I do agree with you that he is not solely to blame.
Vish: I can suggest to you to read the chapter on Indira Gandhi (Chapter 46) in Sunil Khilnani’s beautiful book, ‘Incarnations – India in 50 Lives’. It offers a little window on Nehru’s attitude towards dynastic politics, and his integrity. And that for me personally reinforces my admiration for Nehru. Here’s an excerpt.
If you are read the hardback version, the last paragraphs on pages 536-537 and the first paragraph on page 538 are interesting. Just a little quote: “Although Nehru’s letters make clear he initially saw his daughter as more of calming influence than an adviser, she was soon taking over internal Congress matters for which he had little stomach…Shastri offered Indira Gandhi the portfolio of I&B, a minor cabinet position. She took it partly from a desire for financial security. Her estranged husband had died, leaving her no property. Her only income was the royalties from Nehru’s books. The family mansion had been donated to the nation as a museum, and she could no longer live in the PM’s residence.”
There is something called ‘bounded rationality.’ Every leader (in fact every human suffers from it). And that’s what happened during partition, 1962 war, Jinnah’s own vision of Pakistan. To be very honest, this current Kashmir move MAY become another example with Modi and Shah both getting struck by bounded rationality. The same will be the said of these two that they handled the whole thing very badly. And by the way, the link to buying this book is: https://www.amazon.in/Incarnations-History-India-50-Lives/dp/0143429337/ref=sr_1_1?keywords=incarnations&qid=1565780060&s=gateway&sr=8-1
Thanks. Read the book and heard it on BBC as well. I haven’t commented on his views on dynastic politics because can’t be sure if he wanted his daughter to take his place. Opinions are divided on that. But his dismissal of Kerala’s elected government ( on advice of his daughter?) does leave questions both on his integrity and his plans for his daughter. As for present government less said the better, the same old failed policies of the past, under new names.
Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru has the stature of Everest. He needs neither an outsized statue, nor an army on social media to defend his record of public service, broken into two parts, one ending, the other starting, on 15th August 1947. To be perfectly honest, he does not even require a port or roads or welfare schemes to be named after him. A very elegant, classy gentleman, but not in an affected, foppish way. He made his share of mistakes and misjudgments, notably 1962. However, educated Indians, who go to a conventional university, not the tacky WhatsApp groups, generation to generation, will learn to respect and admire him.