This year we celebrated the 125th birth
anniversary of our first PM Pt. Nehru amidst widespread concerns over his
legacy and a condescending look on his political career. It is being feared
that Nehru’s position in Indian history will be reduced to being as a mere
children’s icon – a day in November marked for his veneration owing to his love
for children. Although, I do not have a vivid memory of my first Children’s Day
celebration but I do remember that I felt happy to know that there was a day
marked specially for us children just like there was a day earmarked for
Father, Mother and even lovers. My school used to have a non-working day
occupied with cultural activities culminating with distribution of sweet boxes.
Alas, I no longer fit into days named after any of the human entities!
Keeping in mind the sweet memories I and many other
adults (who in their time enjoyed the perks of that lovely day) have, it is
troubling to see that how has there been a sudden shift in the public
perception of Nehru. It is well evident that there is a conscious attempt to
undermine Nehru. There seems to be a constant effort to associate Nehru with
all the problems we have but history seems to suggest otherwise. Of course,
history is open for all to interpret and I have my reasons for drawing a
different understanding than many.
Nehru and Gandhi are the two most celebrated and criticized
figures in Indian history. The two always invite opinions of various hues and color
like some even suggesting that it would have been better if Nathuram Godse had
shot Nehru!! [link] Such degree of hate for the man who laid the foundations of India
we live in today is surprising. Time and again questions are raised over his
handling of the Partition, Kashmir issue, China and his economic policy. Some
of them feel legitimate but then it reminds us that Nehru was a mere mortal like
us and I am sure a flawless political leader exists only in utopia.
There has been a growing disillusionment with Nehru perhaps
because we Indians had decorated and deified him all these years and are now
trying to get him out of our national conscience. It is very easy to criticize him
sitting in the 21st century with 1.877 USD trillion GDP without
realizing the mammoth task he had before him when he took the reins in 1947
inheriting a country with 17% literacy rate and a life expectancy of 32.5
years. To help put it into context, now we are a country with a life expectancy
of 62.4 years - almost double.
A popular accusation against Nehru was his economic
policy which had a dominant Socialism flavor in it. Nehru didn't have
many economic models to choose from when India got independence. At that
time, Soviet economy – a socialist economy was prospering and it strengthened
further in the 1950s, 60s before disintegrating in 1989. The American economy
had adopted a mixed model of Capitalism and Socialism after getting a huge
setback by the Great Depression in 1930s. Rightly so, Nehru opted against
Capitalist model as it was simply not viable and decided on an extensive
involvement of the State in providing services in the social sector. Criticism
against him that he didn't place agriculture in focus is
unwarranted. Many forget that in the 50s, international bodies like IMF, WB
were encouraging industrialization and were happy to provide funds for such
activities. At the same time, they associated agriculture with backwardness and
were not easily doling out money for it. India had almost no investible capital
and had to depend on outside help. Besides, traditional methods of farming were
being employed and to bring in the new, modern methods backed by enough power
and water supply – Nehru felt that India better focus on Industrialization as
it will address all needs – attract capital, improve the basic infrastructure
and then divert the surplus to agriculture.
Also, many despise the State involvement in India’s
formative years but they forget that laissez-faire style of economy
was simply not feasible then as majority of people didn't have
purchasing power and whatever few had would have led them to being
paupers’ in a free economy. In fact Nehru’s decision was vindicated when World
Bank in its report in 1999 titled Entering the 21st Century –
out rightly rejected both Capitalist and State economy models, acknowledging
the need for a mix of the two[link].
Another allegation that is raked up against Nehru is
that he didn't let Patel be the PM and even after assuming Prime
Ministership didn't llaissez faireet him have a free hand in integrating
India. Differences over issues between Patel and Nehru are well documented but
having said that both shared such a degree of mutual respect which is simply
unthinkable in today’s times – allowing each other space to disagree and still
work together. I feel that in a government it is healthy to have disagreements
and the way both Nehru and Patel worked together discussing their opinions and
keeping their disagreements aside is a testament to their greatness.
If we had to talk about only one achievement of
Nehru – it was to establish an India which was secular and not a theological
state as a mirror image of Pakistan. This single act of Nehru eclipses all
his shortcomings/failures in my opinion. During partition, communal feelings
were high as never before with neighbors killing each other in the name of
religion and Nehru did well to curb the rising vengeful feelings to be a “Hindu
Pakistan”. He felt religion had no place in nation building and in a letter to
all Chief Ministers in 1952 he said –
the nation must not be allowed to 'go astray in the crooked paths of provincialism, communalism, casteism and all other disruptive and disintegrating tendencies'.
However, he very well recognized the need for
inculcating scientific temper amongst a population comprising majorly of - in
the true sense -snake charmers and superstition believers. He laid foundations
for the premier educational institutions IITs and space exploration programme.
Here too he perhaps missed a trick by not focusing on basic primary education
but maybe we should realize that it is easy to list all these improvements in
hindsight as if writing an essay on “If I was a Prime Minister …”.
He didn't have such a benefit and was actually fighting his way
through problems and enabling the feeble nation to gain strength.
On foreign policy front, his decision to keep India
equidistant from the two polar powers of that time via Non Aligned Movement has
now been proven to be a masterstroke. He understood correctly much earlier that
for a fledgling nation it was not reasonable to flirt with either of the super
powers without the risk of antagonizing the other. He managed to generate a
fair amount of support in Asian and African countries actively working alongside
Indonesian President Sukarno and Egyptian President Abdul Nasser for this cause.
Also, his handling of the Suez crisis was deft earning respect and plaudits for
a newly born nation holding its own amongst the big boys. Inspite of these
brilliant achievements, Nehru’s foreign policy can be called a mixed bag. His involvement of the UN on Kashmir issue promising plebiscite and then later as India had to go
back on it leaves a small blot on his legacy. His constant on-off relationship
with Sheikh Abdullah also did no good in finding a quick solution to the
Kashmir problem. Also, he failed to judge the intentions of China –
even backing China for a permanent place in the UN Security Council! He was
broken after the backstabbing of China in 1962 and it rapidly deteriorated his
already failing health.
In recent years, there have been a few books which
have targeted his personal space – particularly his relationship with Lady
Mountbatten. Although no one knows the truth what they attempt to do is
actually muddy the water about Nehru. To me it should be of no relevance how a
leader leads his personal life, they are rated on the work they do/fail to do
in public. But again it very well depends on the person who is looking back at
history as to what does his principles allow him to concede.
To sum up my opinion on Nehru I would say that as a
child we look up to our parents, teachers, and idols as simply impeccable with
no blemishes whatsoever. It is only when we grow up we realize that the ones we
were looking up to are not as clean as we thought. It is akin to gazing at a
painting from a distance and finding out a few blotches on it as we go nearer. Of
course, Nehru had his own share of blots but if we look at a broader picture we
will realize that his contributions are bigger than the sum total of his
imperfections. Inspite of the attempts to undermine and imitate him, his legacy
is unparalleled and he will hold his own special place in history. His “Tryst
with Destiny” speech on the midnight of 14th-15th Aug,
1947 still fills me with hope that we as a nation have a bright future.
P.S - I stumbled upon a letter by Nehru to children
where he hopes that they take a long time to grow up – perhaps to become smart
enough to put the blots in context. :-)
