There is saying in Hindi, when a lie is told hundred times, it becomes truth. People start believing it.
All generations in India which were born after 1950 or so, have been taught history in a particular way. As they say, winner takes it all. It is the winner who writes history or gets it written. The loser is no more there to witness the writing of history or to influence its writing.
Since the time we learn how to sit, how to walk, how to talk, and so on, we are taught about Chacha and Bapu. The first piece of paper that you hold in your hand, which has any worth, carries the photograph of the Mahatma. Rich and poor, both have to value this piece of paper.
It is not 100 times or not 1000 times. Nor 10000 times. It is an unlimited number of times. We are told the history of India, which has been written in a specific manner. And, of course, I agree, this history may not be a complete lie. It may be a mixture of truth, myth and lie. And, of course, of exaggerations too.
If a lie can become truth when told hundred times, what do you think would a half-lie-half-truth become if told an unlimited number of times? And, that too, since the time your brain is not developed yet? Since the time when your brain would be adaptive to whatever is taught to you, since it does not have any past knowledge to contradict what is being told?
So, friends, like all of you, I too studied in an environment where Chacha and Bapu were Gods for the Indians. They got us independence. They brought democracy in India. Without them, we are told, we would have been worse than North Korea.
Well, this was the reality till not long ago. Our knowledge was controlled. Even in my generation, when preparing for the examination for top civil services, we were advised to study NCERT history books. The trend continues till date, I understand. No other viewpoints would be acceptable. You cannot worship Bhagat Singh and Subhash Chandra Bose.
Not any more. Come 21st century. With the arrival of Internet, knowledge is democratized. With the arrival of social media, the media is democratized. Knowledge (including, that of history) is no more the monopoly of experts from some select universities. More experts are researching (or, re-researching) history. So, truth does not come in a single shade now, of black or white, but various shades of grey. We can now read independent accounts of history from many scholars, who may not have got special grants from patronising Government interested in writing history in a particular manner only.
Just to give an example, recently, being a regular member of Kindle Unlimited on Amazon, I took a book from it.
THE GOD WHO FAILED
Yes, this was the title of this book. The next line, in slightly smaller font, in the title was:
An Assessment of Jawaharlal Nehru’s Leadership
So, we can now read titles like: Nehru – the God, failed!!!
We can now read, Gandhi: Naked Ambition, by Jad Adams, a US scholar.
Previously, it was not possible.
Well, the above book on Nehru is not by any Tom, Dick and Harry. The author is Madhav Godbole, Retired IAS officer of 1959 batch. He was a former Union Home Secretary. Almost all his service period was during Congress rule. He has done a good job in analysing the performance of Pandit Nehru and also compared it with that of Sardar Patel. It is not a criticism but a critique. And, I would say a reasonably fair one.
Well, let me tell you, and here I come to the question asked, what PM Modi said in the Parliament about Nehru is nothing in comparison to what Godbole wrote in his book.
In my life, I have learnt one thing. When you say something, don’t merely say that, substantiate it with facts and detailed reasoning. People will believe it then. No need to repeat it hundred times. You are not telling a lie. There is no dearth of rational people in the world. They will appreciate your reasoning if it is properly explained with facts. Of course, there are some who are governed more by emotions rather than rational thinking. And, I don’t think anybody can explain anything to them, least of all – me, something that is against their emotional thinking.
What do I feel about Nehru? No doubt, Gandhi and Nehru were among the tallest leaders during freedom struggle. No doubt, their contribution was immense. I respect them. But, can we forget the role of other freedom fighters who sacrificed their lives and who also made their immense contribution, with their blood and sweat? Can we say that Nehru never committed any mistake, whatsoever? Can we call him a God, and that too, an infallible one? No doubt, Nehru had a very important role to play in pre-independent and post-independent India. But, the importance of his role has been grossly exaggerated. His main mistakes, if I may be permitted to say so, were:
- Kashmir issue badly handled, for which we are paying by our blood, till date.
- Socialism, for which we are paying till date, by being a developing country, forever. For the so-called Hindu rate of growth, which should instead have been called the Socialistic rate of growth.
- China policy, which has hurt our psyche more than the defeat and slavery of 1000 years.
- Defence preparedness of the country was completely neglected.
- Personality cult, dynastic culture.
- Not enacting a Uniform Civil Code (UCC), but only a Hindu Code in the form of certain personal laws. Even though the Constitution desired UCC.
- Meaning of secularism was changed, it was secularism only if there was minority appeasement.
- Putting restraints on the private sector, and promoting only public sector. We suffer till date, while many of our Asian siblings have gone much ahead of us.
- Stifling of the property right to the extent of even denying reasonable compensation for acquisition of land from landlords. The First Constitutional Amendment laid the foundation stone for it.
- Stringent labour laws, that have stifled industrial development, leaving majority of population to depend on agriculture which is not paying much, leading to farmer distress. Even China, a socialist nation, has more liberal labour policies than India.
- Institutionalisation of the licence permit raj.
- Unproductive foreign policies like panchsheel, non-aligned movement.
- Not accepting offer of UN security council membership, and instead volunteering that China be given that privilege.
- Reorganisation of states on linguistic basis.
Was Nehru the democratic choice of Congress? The practice of installing the favourite leader in power, by suppressing merit and democratic principles, was started by none other than the Mahatma himself to favour Nehru. Here is what is mentioned in Madhav Godbole’s book:
“During the freedom struggle, Patel commanded more support in the Congress Party as compared to Nehru. In his book, D.V. Tahmankar has stated that in 1929, the provincial Congress committees had voted Gandhi, Patel and Nehru, in that order, for the presidency of the Lahore Congress. Gandhi declined the honour, and according to the rule, the next choice, Patel, became the successful candidate. But Jawaharlal’s father, Motilal Nehru, wanted to see his son attain that national honour before his death—he died in 1931—and pleaded with Gandhi to persuade Patel to withdraw. The Mahatma intervened. Patel agreed and Nehru became president. Tahmankar has given…another instance of Patel’s submitting to the advice of Gandhi [which] was no less disastrous. In 1946, twelve provincial Congress committees had nominated Patel for the presidency; and only three [had nominated] Nehru. Again the Mahatma intervened and made his loyal follower retire. Gandhi thought Nehru, with his wide contacts with the British, would be able to negotiate with them more effectively than Patel. If he had resisted Gandhi’s advice, Patel would certainly have become the first prime minister of India. (Tahmankar 1970; pp.262–3)”
So, what PM Narendra Modi said about Nehru in the Parliament is supported by historical facts. There is nothing wrong about that. We should not go by one-sided history taught to us. In any case, most of what is said as a critique of Nehru, is clear to any impartial observer, even without reading unbiased history, such as his failure on China front, Kashmir issue, Stifling private industry, etc.
Jay Hind.
0 Comments