Was Nehru that bad?

 *Was Nehru that bad?*

There has been a considerable shift in opinion about Nehru in India. He was idolised by the public while he lived but nowadays there is a tendency to try and actively diminish his role, or blame Nehru for all the problems faced by the country.

Ever since the BJP swept to power in 2014 and PM Narendra Modi outlined his plan for *Congress Mukt Bharat*, perception about Nehru has changed.

PM Modi has a set political agenda. While speaking on policy matters, he will criticize past governments and their leaders.

But nowadays one finds a disturbing trend of political nobody's of the BJP, speaking about and commenting on Nehru in a certain derogatory fashion.

I pity the intellect of these people (if they have any).

Undoubtedly, Jawaharlal Nehru was the tallest leader of the Indian freedom movement after Mahatma Gandhi.

He also was the first Prime Minister of the country and ruled the country for 17 years - all of them, the formative years.

He has had his good times and bad times - but to ridicule him for all the country's ills is gross injustice - what is happening today.

This article is an honest effort to look at Nehru in an unbiased manner and then try to answer the question: Was Nehru all that bad?

Nehru can be regarded as the founder of the modern Indian state. 

For Nehru, modernization was the national philosophy, with seven goals: national unity, parliamentary democracy, industrialization, socialism, development of the scientific temper, and non-alignment. The philosophy and the policies that resulted from that benefited a large section of society such as the public sector workers, industrial houses, middle and upper peasantry.

Nehru not only had a sense of the civilisational continuity of India but he also could not digest the idea of India playing second fiddle to any one. 

Therefore he coined nonalignment in foreign policy - while domestically he created a strong public sector within the framework of the mixed economy and had a futuristic vision of scientific research and cultural development keeping in view both the continuities and discontinuities of Indian tradition. 

His policies, broadly speaking, were rooted in the wisdom coming out of the varied cultural experience and memories of the Indian people. 

The essence of this wisdom is avoidance of extremes—‘Madhyama Pratipada, middle path, as Buddha has put it. 

His policies have certainly paid off, as they have provided the country with a strong foundation to build upon. 

The inclusive idea of India constantly underlined during the freedom movement had to be translated into a modern nation-state, and this is exactly what Nehru and his colleagues did.

Despite his incomparable contribution to the making of modern India, Jawaharlal Nehru is a much-reviled man today because of a deliberately twisted history which is being peddled today.

Yet, for someone like me, born in the 1960s and thus untouched by his charisma but fairly well acquainted with his life work through books, it is bewildering to hear the reasons given to the lay man by today's politicians to diminish this tall leader:

Hating the Gandhi dynasty is in vogue and, perhaps, Indira Gandhi and Rajiv Gandhi did provide reasons for justifiable anger. 

It is even understandable that Sonia Gandhi could be disliked simply for her foreign origins and Rahul Gandhi mocked for being ineffectual. But why should that be a reason to hate Nehru?

Nehru was a freedom fighter, a sagacious leader and a respected statesman in his own right. He didn't anoint Indira Gandhi his successor. So why use dynasty to trash him?

The past

We have to put things into proper perspective before even holding anyone responsible for any problem or situation.

• Let's shift back a few decades, when our *peace loving neighbour* attacked J&K and tried to annex it, just as they had invaded and annexed Balochistan. 

Based on historical evidence, the then Maharaja signed the treaty of accession to India. 

Indian forces were on the verge of driving out the enemy from every inch of our territory, when the then PM Nehru, unilaterally & without consulting Parliament (which in itself makes the act illegal) went to UN and called for ceasefire. 

So, would PoK have come into existence if not for Nehru's colossal mistake? 

Continuing on this part do we acknowledge that due to our belligerent neighbour, we have lost more soldiers in J&K during peace time than in war.

Also, the terrain of Siachen where temperatures dip to -50°c , our soldiers had to be stationed there solely due to our first PMs folly of going to UN.

• Next comes the introduction of article 370. 

Which country in the world has got a separate constitution and a flag (please do not bring in Hong Kong here, it's a different issue altogether). 

And who was it introduced for, as the average Kashmiri never prospered because of article 370. Power remained in the hands of a chosen few, specifically 50 families, as PM Modi has put it. 

In fact Dr. Ambedkar who  Congress bogusly shows that they follow him,  they conveniently forget that Dr. Ambedkar resigned in protest against the introduction of 370.

These are two colossal blunders of Nehru that have cost India dear.

Socialism: Nehru baiters target him for his decision to adopt socialist, centrist policies rather than the capitalist, market-oriented model. Perhaps Nehru erred, but this criticism simply disregards the complexities and realities of his times and the economy and country he inherited — appalling poverty, mind-boggling inequalities, agrarian and backward society. Added to that, the state of the world, in which the unbridled imperialism and capitalist greed of the previous century had culminated in two devastating world wars. 

To deny the wisdom and practicality of the mixed-economy pattern Nehru opted for at that juncture, and the impetus he provided through it for India to become a modern industrial country, is to betray one's colossal ignorance of one of the most pragmatic impulses of the 20th century. 

China war 1962: India's humiliating defeat by China is another indefensible chink in Nehru's formidable armour. 

Indeed, his colossal misjudgment, questionable strategy that was compounded by putting the wrong people in charge, offers enough opportunity for people to make mincemeat of his reputation. 

Everybody becomes wise after the event.

When one doesn't have solutions to modern problems you need to distract people by giving them a target to vent their frustrations and anger on.

This is exactly what is happening in the country today.

Nehru made mistakes but he also made historic decisions in putting this country back on its feet post British exit.

Problem is he died decades ago (1964).

We had many more Prime Ministers after him who also did a great job and also made horrendous mistakes and this list also includes Vajpayee.

Ever since Narshimha Rao liberalized the Indian economy with Manmohan Singh all policy mistakes of past PM's are nullified and void.

I did not see any major changes under Vajpayee either, who honoured the dictum that governance is a continuous process.

UPA 1 had a good run but got ruined with corruption in UPA 2.

Modi has had 7 whole years, earlier with a simple majority and now an overwhelming one coupled with sheer brute force at state levels to bring in phenomenal reforms.

After a series of Below the line (meaning quiet) legal reforms in the first term, he took some major decisions in this term - abrogation of article 370 and 35A, Triple Talaaq, CAA - when Corona struck and changed the entire focus of the govt.

While it is impossible to expect Nehru baiters to be charitable, they should develop some perspective and not forget that the Vajpayee government too was caught napping at Kargil and had to accept humiliation at Kandahar.

It is imperative that the citizens in our country learn to respect our Prime Ministers - past and present.

@ Dayanand Nene

(With media inputs)