Epitome of pluralism

One of the most renowned historians and noted parliamentarians, Professor Hirendranath Mukherjee, authored a book on Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru, titled ‘The Gentle Colossus’. In that particular book, he portrayed Pandit Nehru as having a lasting impact on Indian politics. Unfortunately, it appears, at least based on some surveys and reactionary opinions, that justice is not being done to the achievements of this man who took up the reins of the country when most people would have turned away. Now, by the courtesy of many self-declared historians and intellectuals spreading their profound historical knowledge through WhatsApp or Facebook University, Nehru's stature and moral authority appear to be under attack; the Nehruvian consensus seems under siege, but ironically, these qualities were the guarantors for modern India's social contract.

When India achieved freedom, or to be more correct, when the transfer of power took place, it was a thorn of roses for any Prime Minister. Today's generation, mostly relying on suggestive reading and selective learning, to a large extent lacks the proper historical knowhow of the crisis in which Nehru found himself and the entire nation. The first world was apprehensive of India's ability to sustain its independence. Leaders like Winston Churchill had opposed India's independence with the argument that power was getting transferred to a group of rogues and rascals and men of straw, incapable of maintaining social and political unity. The task of rebuilding the nation was like creating cosmos out of chaos. The ulcer of communal riots gripped the entire country. Freedom came with the dear price of the Partition. It was a display of superhuman inhumanity. All forms of atrocities were committed, resulting in one of the largest political exoduses in recent history. Hapless, listless masses, uprooted overnight from their ancestral homes and properties, rushed desperately to save their lives. The whole country, newly free, was reeling under the confusion and fear of communal disharmony. It needed an immediate response to allay the phobia of the masses and calm the spirit of religious hatred. The task was special, and Pandit Nehru rose to the occasion. Had it not been for his inclusive political approach, the newly independent country would have witnessed far more devastating scenes of religious disdain and divide; the political unity of India might have become more fractured.

Strangely, the mention of Jawaharlal Nehru evokes grotesque reactions nowadays. Many don't even try to understand the enormity of difficulties in which Pandit Nehru must have found himself. The language of political tolerance that Nehru bore and practiced was not only paramount at that crucial hour of political instability but holds good even today. Today, as we move through an intolerant regime and discourse, Nehru seems more palpably relevant in his ideas and political conduct.

In one of his memoirs in Parliament, our former Prime Minister, Atal Behari Vajpayee, once shared his interactions with Pandit Nehru. In a discussion in Parliament, Vajpayeeji had called Pandit Nehru a mixture of Churchill and Chamberlain. Later, when Pandit Nehru met him, he praised Vajpayeeji for his fiery speech. Vajpayeeji recollected this incident in Parliament when he was the Prime Minister, clearly stating how such things got lost over time. Now, that is the Nehruvian legacy that we need to inherit. In any ambiance of political democracy, mutual respect and acceptance are mandatory. Pandit Nehru realized this long ago and fostered that spirit. It is alarming to find how the spirit of political endurance is fading fast.

Unremembering Jawaharlal Nehru is to forget that there is an alternative to narrow nationalism. The biggest socio-political problem of modern India is a parochial approach to political ideas. Thoughts are channelled in a unidirectional flow by creating a kind of pseudo-nationalism that contradicts the democratic spirit of our constitution. Combining the best is always healthiest in democracy. Nehru believed in this and hence promoted politicians like Shyamaprasad Mukherjee and BR Ambedkar to his own cabinet, even though they did not belong to the Congress and had been staunch critics of the Congress and Gandhiji.

Today, many efforts are being made to efface Nehruvian contributions towards the freedom struggle and setting up democratic principles in independent India. In fact, critics attempting to do so either lack historical knowledge or are historically perverted. This is a glorious example of intellectual miscarriage because while ignoring Pandit Nehru, these analysts tend to glorify individuals who have had very little or no role to play, either in the freedom struggle or in nation-building. It is time that we understand the public use of history. Pandit Nehru was a political cosmopolitan, a true democrat who believed in pluralism. His thoughts on non-alignment forged a joint front against modern imperialism. If this country gained the right to universal adult franchise within five years of independence, it was because Pandit Nehru wanted it. Many people criticize Nehru for his economic ideas, but they are not obsolete even today. In a country where a considerable size lives below the poverty line, Nehruvian socialism cannot be rejected altogether. His concept of economic planning was essential at that point in time. When we celebrate Chandrayan, we must remember Nehru; when we boast about our IITians and how they rule the technocratic world, we need to appreciate Nehru; when we pride ourselves on being the largest democracy, we should acknowledge Nehru. Even medical institutions like AIIMS were his initiative. Here is a man who, while inaugurating the Hirakud Dam, could boldly proclaim the dams as temples of modern India.

Today, when the secular fabric of our Constitution appears redundant to many, Nehru stands even taller. It is this sense of secularity that saved the country from further disintegration. When we look at what is happening in Pakistan, we should all the more assimilate the ideas of secular democracy. Pandit Nehru advocated the growth of science and technology; he had a rational attitude that he tried to introduce in his governance. This rationality paved the way for democracy, political tolerance, pluralism, and psycho-social freedom. India has been enjoying all these since independence and needs to continue doing so. In a letter written in 1958 by US President Dwight Eisenhower to Pandit Nehru, Eisenhower urged Nehru not to retire from politics as the world needed him as a messenger of peace. Modern India also needs his principles today. While talking about his social philosophy and political ideals, we overlook Nehru as a writer. Remember, here also Nehru is someone to be imitated, for he changed the very course of Indo-Anglican prose. When we look at today’s India, we find the roots of success tracing back to Nehruvian times. It is he who bequeathed the legacy of political internationalism to India as an accepted global leader. Once asked about his legacy to India, Pandit Nehru replied that it is the people, capable of governing themselves. It is our responsibility to maintain this legacy.

The writer is an educator from Kolkata. Views expressed are personal