Congress and the Nehru legacy

As the nation celebrates the 125 birth anniversary of Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru the first PM of India we see a slew of articles and analysis not to speak of the competitive politics in his name. What amuses me in this whole exercise apart from the immaturity of the political parties especially the Congress is how almost every single writer is viewing the events of 1947-1964 from a 2014 prism and then passing value judgements. The congress is doing the biggest disservice to his memory by insulting the chair/ position of the PMO since from whatever I have read of him Nehru was a man who respected institutions, opponents and displayed graceful behaviour. Having said that let me move on.

Let’s view the situation of India in 1947. Britain which had entered India as the East India Company to trade had over time conquered the country and ruled it for 200 years. The East India Company ruled from 1757 to 1858 and then on until 1947 the British queen ruled. We must remember here that long before this and even during this period India is known to have transacted globally across the seas with spices, silk and what have you.  The Indians under the collective tutelage of the Congress party and with active support from many others who did not agree with the ideas and policies contributed in their own fashion to the common goal of Swaraj or Freedom for India. The goal was common.

So in 1947 anyone in his right mind while encouraging trade and economy would have been foolish to follow a policy other than that of socialism, state control and swadeshi.  So to today raise questions on the Congress policy lead by Nehru is to me rather stupid. To me the Congress decision then was a no brainer.  The only country/ philosophy that came close to it was the Russian model and the Russian economy in the post world war era was growing much faster than all others. So it was but a natural decision to take up the path of socialism in India.

Also it must be remembered here that every single leader in those times who had an exposure to the globe be it the Mahatma or Nehru or Patel or people like Birlas, Tatas, Bajajs their horizon and  travel was limited to Europe/ Britain and at best to South Africa. The exposure of the Indian leaders or businessmen in that era to USA was practically zero and they never ever saw an alternative economic view of the world and the USA anyway was not too enthused about the sub continent. Once India embraced Russia it was but natural that like elsewhere globally USA embraced Pakistan.

It must go to the eternal credit of Pandit Nehru that inspite of the embrace with Russia he pushed for a democracy in India that was shaped in administration/ culture along the Westminster model but had the soul of the American spirit. Whether he imagined it to be so and shaped it or it happened by chance we will never know but post 1947 the people to people ties and the aspiration goal became America but the economy was inspired by Russia. By allowing the American spirit of democracy to grow even while following a Russian socialist policy Pandit Nehru comes across as a most tolerant and broad minded leader which the current Congress has failed to imbibe.

To me Pandit Nehru was a dreamer and thus sometimes failed to be realistic and ended up being idealistic and even naive. While at one level he had the supreme far sightedness to create enduring institutions in  Atomic energy, Space, Education, Defence, Aerospace, Manufacturing etc he was also prone to make mistakes like on Kashmir and  China where he failed to see beyond his nose.

The socialist approach and philosophy should have been modified and changed as we grew and became more confident but we failed miserably in that and to blame Panditji for it would be misplaced.  Let us digress for a minute here.

Why the Mahatma did not choose to become the PM is still a mystery to me.  Sure there are many reasons that are given but to me I call that a major failure on his part. After having willingly accepted the leadership of a nation to lead them to freedom he walked away from leading it to its future.  Again for whatever reason he chose Panditji over Patel for his own reasons. I daresay here that hailing from Gujarat maybe he did not want to be accused of nepotism and so chose Nehru? We hear many waxing eloquent of what if Patel had become PM but none once ask what if the Mahatma had become PM. The Mahatma was 78 (compared to Morarji at 81, Vajpayee at 74, Manmohan Singh at 72) and in my opinion if he had become PM who knows what contours this country would have taken. What if India had not been partitioned? Each of these questions are superfluous and indulging in fantasy and whatever happened, happened so lets deal with it.

Panditji for whatever faults he had created institutions and  encouraged them to grow but we as a people soon got used to the state patronage and we became in a sense parasites on our own system.  For example the idea of small scale industries was that they grow over time from childhood to adulthood but instead most people started multiple small scale industries in different names to stay small and keep availing state support. They refused to grow and the government administration soon got compromised and after that the two were like conjoined twins, living of each other. We never developed economies of scale and became competitive. We liked to be mollycuddled and the babu loved to be fawned upon and the neta enjoyed the adulation of the masses. The system was fast becoming naked and no one noticed. 

Once Panditji died in 1964 Shastri was too timid in my opinion to lead the country. Sure he gets accolades for the 1965 war and the agricultural revolution but unlike Nehru he did not display the drive, energy, action, passion which was needed to push this country fast forward. Like Jack Welch said that his successor must flip the company to grow and not follow the same path we needed someone who would do that and Shastri died rather early and Indira came in. To me given her boundless energy, support base, decisiveness she could have flipped this country over whichever way she wanted and she failed. She instead drove this country faster in the same direction that was established 20 years ago in 1947. But she lacked the grace and dedication to systems, institutions and traditions unlike Panditji and she trampled across them and broke their back alongwith a passive babudom that sailed along and a pliable congress party that had lost its spine completely.

To blame Panditji for this is incorrect since he steered the country in a particular direction without much choice and built the foundation required in every possible manner but his progeny stuck at these very foundations weakening them.

The Janata experiment in 1977 was the AAP of those times which actually won the elections and did not resign but had the same anarchist ideas and in those 3 years they destroyed Indian economy beyond hope in the name of power to the people. They had zero vision on economics, thought that destruction would mean that a new country would emerge without know how to construct.

In reality barring for Shastri every subsequent PM and the Congress party which ruled the country did acts that Nehru would never have approved off. The culture and behaviour progressively deteriorated. Indira retained some aspects of Panditji but more as an exception. Lets consider these 2 incidents involving the armed forces.

Panditji was asked by an Indian army officer why the PMship should not be given to a foreigner since Nehru had no experience and thus Gen Cariappa was appointed the first Chief of the Army by him. Panditji never took umbrage at this question and the officers had courage to voice their opinions in such a manner. Similarly Indira respected the decisions of  FM Manekshaw when it came to the 1971 war and also subsequently when she suspected that an army coup was being planned she handled it with maturity.

Rajiv again had energy, youth, passion, drive and the political mandate to bring whatever changes he wanted  but not only did he not do so but showed a lack of maturity in handling people. Just look at the way he sent back his chief of security/ secretary from the Andamans because they objected to him driving a new car very fast, his dismissal of the Foreign Secretary Venkateshwaran, his treatment of the Andhra Chief Minister Anjaiah and dismissal of a duly elected  NT Rama Rao.  With him the destruction of grace, politeness, and tolerance in Congress was complete.

Panditji who called the factories, educational institutions as temples of modern India and spoke of a vision for India, enthused the people across the spectrum of society  to believe in a brighter future and work as a team. Whether it was a Patel or Ram Manohar Lohia he tolerated a opposing point of view and defended their right to disagree but as a nation he carried them along. His differences with Patel are legion whether it was on Kashmir or Hyderbad but  there is no evidence to suggest that it created animosity or bitterness between them. The goal and idea of India was common to them and while they could disagree on a particular point their destiny was entwined towards a strong united India.

Panditji enjoyed life, lived in the fast lane be it with a stylish cigarette or a beautiful woman or simply dancing with visitors and playing with children and rubbing shoulders with global leaders as an confident equal with a drink in hand.  He wasn’t hypocritical about it.

Yes he was not perfect, made mistakes and never claimed to be what the Congress today claims him to be.

So today when there is so much  competitiveness  to appropriate Nehru and a Congress party says that they would not invite the  Prime Minister of India claiming he doesn’t believe in democracy  when he has been elected by the people of India in a democratic vote  the party is failing Panditji on every single count that he stood for. They are not only insulting Panditji but also the people of India by this action. Whether the Congress agrees /disagrees with Modi the man is their point of view and they are entitled to it but to insult the chair of PM of India is unacceptable and they are doing exactly the opposite of what Panditji did for this country – building and respecting institutions and being tolerant in the common goal & destiny of India. Congress is demonstrating that they don’t respect the chair, the institution or even the people.

Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru must be rolling in his grave at these antics of Congress and must be wishing he had followed the advice of the Mahatma which was to dissolve the Congress party upon attainment of independence.