How Congress and BJP have learnt nothing from Nehru

Nehru has become one of the metaphors of Indian life. And, the metaphor meanders into legend effortlessly. Metaphors persuade, endear, allure, captivate and imprison. They are sui generis, requiring no other reinforcement other than their self-description. Memories of Nehru succumb to the metaphor, which becomes an objective re-statement of the memory, demonstrably unique and pure in itself.

To recall Nehru is to recall an image; and declare the metaphor. It is the image of both Nehru and India as a bouquet imprisoned by the vitality of nature, a kind of human object d’art, allegedly representing a truth of its own. The metaphor projects and gives final shape to the image, completing it with a benign symmetry, without the artificiality of manufacture but sinuously keeping alive a humaneness — which alone can give the metaphor substance and credibility.

Metaphor

The metaphor is displayed visually in picture, piquantly in cartoons, vividly in letters and recollections and — almost invariably — lyrically in prose. To recall Nehru is to encounter the metaphor which personifies him; and him alone.

It is in this sense that an eminent historian — one of the greatest of our age– unabashedly discloses that in remembering Nehru “captivation comes nearer the truth...(like) seeing the Sermon on the Mount practised in real life...without any apparent effort.” No doubt, such a person “deserves to be remembered and immortalised.” He allowed his “captivation” of Nehru “a free rein” to find it “carrying” him “to the length of loving” Nehru. For an Australian diplomat Nehru even if “occasionally disappointing” was to be “admired” for he was “always...fascinat(ing).” There was, alas, “something magical” about him to make “the man still himself more interesting than his political history”. To another famous authoress, Nehru was “unforgettable”; and, it was her “most treasured experience (to) have met him face-to-face and have heard his living voice”. To Gandhi, Nehru was sans peur et sans reproche. To an Indian publicist, Nehru’s “many spledoured life” made him, somewhat, “...like the Pope in the Middle Ages...infallible.” To his biographer Nehru was “a heroic and symbolic force” who would, perforce, “toil in one century so as to reap in another...(as) India’s once and – we may hope – future king.” As the metaphor spreads as emotion, a great deal more is added.

To an American politician “(h)e was one of god’s great creations in our time,” who according to the founder of modern Egypt “never for(got) to give that touch of beauty...of thought and ideal” to things around him.

Dictatorship

To a politician from Ghana it was “better, wiser and richer for having known” what a Sri Lankan prime minister was to describe as a “most charming personality.” To an Indian philosopher president he was “the liberator”, and to a prime minister from Singapore “one of the great revolutionaries of Asia.” The tributes continue into the long hours of the day and through the night.

In November 1949, Ambedkar reminded the nation that “where democracy has been in disuse...(the situation) is fraught with the possibilities of dictatorship.” Look around you at the nations of the sub-continent, India survives as a democracy. The foundations for this was laid by Nehru. He erred over President’s Rule in Kerala and was lenient with Krishna Menon over the Jeep scandal, but he fought corruption as with Krishnamachari and Kairon and establishing the Santhanam Committee. Mrs Gandhi destroyed democracy piece by piece until the foundational democracy established by Nehru reasserted itself. Nehru was wary of business-run media, but refrained from implementing the First Press Commission Report of 1954. Famed pressmen showered on him as can be seen in the biographies of Frank Moraes, Karanjia, Chalapati Rau. He inherited a law and order Raj and took it to the people. Democracy in India is built on Nehru’s edifice.

Nehru’s secularism is criticised as being anti-religious. When we see Nehru dancing with the tribals we know he celebrated the religious and non-religious pageant of India. But what he was concerned about was post-partition communalism. When Nehru saw frenzied mobs destroying mosques, he protected Muslim mosques and places of learning and prayer that were important to secularism.

Challenges

In September 1947, we find him writing to General Lockhart to protect the Anglo Arabic library. Earlier in 1946 he was appalled that in Jalandhar, a cinema had been built between two mosques, and convinced “that this kind of thing should be stopped immediately.” There was a particular no-nonsense quality in his reaction to mosques being taken over and converted into Hindu temples. In September 1948 he was told that there were some “15 or so mosques which had been converted into some kind of temples with an idol installed inside them.” He wanted protection for all. Both Patel and he failed over Babri Masjid. It is the rath yatris (Advani-Joshi) and Modi’s who destroy secularism. Nehru’s socialism had two prongs to it: building educational and economic infrastructure and striving for socio-economic equality. Today, infrastructure is being auctioned and equality is expected to trickle down.

If the Congress are being petty about not inviting Modi to Nehru celebrations, Modi’s followers are being stupid in drawing comparisons with Patel. His farewell speech in Parliament shows Nehru loved Patel and was bereft without him. The Congress do not own Nehru or his image. We all do.

Nehru’s legacy was asking people “not to be petty”. I cried when he died. Faced with today’s pettiness, I am forced to tears again.

(Courtesy of Mail Today.)