Civilization: The Problem with Nehruvians

There are many problems with Nehruvians of India. For the first time in the post independent India, Nehru's legacy is being genuinely challenged. This challenge has all angles - political, economical, cultural and social. While it has always been challenged on the economic front in the institutional and academic sections, on other fronts any challenge so far has been wishy-washy. However, the current dispensations and social media has altered the equations of power forever. It has led to strong confrontations between the Nehruvians and the Traditionals. This is now playing out at all levels between the wide spectrum of genuine intellectual to the freestyle street fight. It is quite a complex phenomenon and it is important to make sense of it. The anti-Nehru narrative built up over the last few years is a complex chemistry of truth, half-truths, exaggerations and falsehoods. However, the evident falsehoods can no more be used as purdah to cover the ugly truths as they lay themselves bare for large scale public gaze - with the advent of social media.

At the same time, nothing can takeaway some greatness from Nehru. He was indeed a towering figure and one among the stalwarts of the freedom movement. We just need to place his contribution in the right perspective and accord him the right place of significance rather than a high seat that tries to make the rest pygmies.

Here are 10 problems associated with Nehru and Nehruvians. It is now very difficult to separate the man from his bhakts - yes Nehruvians are the original bhakts of India, a term which the Nehruvians themselves use, contemptuously, to mock and look down upon those who are getting at them with rare aggression.

1. They neglected/denigrated/refused to acknowledge the Indian past

Nehruvians have peddled multiple narratives over the years but a common element across all the narratives is their refusal to acknowledge the Indian past. Nehru himself may have contributed to this significantly. The moment I say this Nehruvians may throw 'Discovery of India' at me and pounce. However, any Traditional/Classical Indian liberal will tell you that the presentation of Discovery of India is a conveniently pruned version of India. It is a merely an acknowledgement of some milestones. However, it is a condescending acknowledgement with a refusal to pivot the civilizational future of India in the genius of the past. The intellectual thought, cultural vibrancy, social organizations, emotional sensitivities/sensitivities are nothing but mere relics that need to be fossilized and studied anthropologically but not to be strongly leveraged to build the future of India. Nehruvians have steadfastly executed this narrative, at the same time paid lip service to the past confusing the larger country for a very long time. But the society has seen through them.

The cunning has been criminal with respect to how any traditionalist has been treated - one who raised the banner of civilizational continuity with a sense of pride about the past. All such attempts have been dubbed 'Reactionary' an apartheid/untouchability like term which permanently damage career/life prospects of anybody suffering the tag. This is how Nehru ended Purushottam Das Tandon's career. This is how academicians and institutions were purged with traditionalists. Such attempts were dubbed - useless, dangerous, communal, hot-headed, regressive and what not - in the process forcing inferiority among the educated about their past and creating frustration in those who viewed it otherwise.

2. They completely grabbed academic, intellectual institutions and positions and controlled entire civilizational narratives

With Nehru himself being the first Prime Minister of India and with Indira Gandhi almost inheriting from him, Nehruvians managed to occupy all seats of narrative across the country. Indira Gandhi threw any subtlety to the window and brazenly gave all control of academic, institutional, cultural control to Nehruvians and Leftists. Ideologically this created two kinds of citizens in scale

• disguised leftists and 
• proclaimed leftists 

However, that is quite hard to distinguish for a common man. Practically it created two new kinds of citizens

• The Techno-Professional - One who studied Science or Commerce and working in an Industry, generally cut-off from the Traditional India culturally without being aware, as one did not get to study culture in continuity and one who gradually moved to areas which had less and less of the past
• The Social Science Professional - who actively seeks to create an India that is cutoff from the Traditional India by the way of receiving enormous ideological education in sociology, politics, culture and other intellectual disciplines, and one who is on a proselytizing mission to create more of the self

The clueless citizens of India have quietly walked into a trap of transformation.

What then were the traditional intellectuals - the classical liberals doing? Why did they not arrest this colossal? This is a self-serving question that the Nehruvians pose to create artificial legitimacy to their vision. The power of institution, government, education and propaganda is immense. Add to it pressure of livelihood and one realizes the enormity of what was unleashed against the classical liberal to weaken the strength of his carrier wave, however substantial was his signal. 

3. They heralded Nehru as the Chief Architect of Modern India called the Idea of India

Nehruvians unequivocally declare him as the Father/Chief Architect of Modern India including what forms the bedrock which is referred to as the very Idea of India. It is one thing to denigrate India's past, it is another to give maximum credit/if not all credit to one personality for its future.

This they do deftly with amazing intelligence - paying lipservice to peer contributions but smartly deflect all crucial, foundational credits for modern India to Nehru. They have created a sense of all that is good today post independence as having a strong design element shaped by Nehru - others either did not have necessary ability or did not measure up sufficiently or did not have necessary conviction or Nehru was the greatest of those progressives with others playing a part/side role. This becomes easy once they ignore India's past and the contributions of other stalwarts.

It obviously cannot be denied that Nehru substantially contributed to institution building. One, he was the first Prime Minister and second, he was an intolerant loner who pushed his way through sidelining quite a few stalwarts which we shall elaborate further. His legacy has 4 different streams

• Strengths of Traditional India he continued
• Weaknesses of Traditional India that he resolved
• The New Legacy he established all by himself
• The New Legacy he established either by borrowing or in close collaboration

On the second, it can easily be established that it is only in resolving certain accrued weaknesses in the society that his efforts were positively partially. On the fourth, many of his New Legacy successes had enough precedents in modern India for which he can be credited certainly - for having effectively borrowed and implemented. But, on the third, everything that he did by himself has been a disaster. And lastly, on the first aspect, he has almost nothing to show at all.

In the end, he needs to be remembered for giving a consistent leadership for India for 17 years after independence - again consistency in life is something that culturally India values. He certainly was a great institution builder but his sensitivities that shaped institutions have caused more harm and created a cultural schism the result of which we witness today.

He certainly should not be credited for anything beyond. India remained united post independence because culturally India was always one and political India was a reality under the British. He certainly needs to be applauded for pushing Universal Adult Franchise and establishing it through the Election Commission although a gradual transition may have been better. He needs to be appreciated for taking 5-Year Planning forward but many had implemented before him. But for much of all this the society itself deserves a larger credit for adopting even culturally alien measures and moving forward, trusting its leadership blindly without sufficient questioning - even when the leadership was indulging in cultural castration.

4. They over-project his achievements as a Prime Minister

Nehruvians leave no stone unturned to sing paeans of his achievements. The IITs, the Dams, the Scientific institutions such as DRDO, BARC, ISRO, the Public sector industry, all the democratic and academic institutions such as Planning Commission, the Banks were all his creations according to them. However, truth is different. All the above mentioned institutions were already a success in the princely state of Mysore. Lets walk through what Mysore achieved with no contributions from Nehru between 1881 to 1947.

• Variety of Technical Institutions including Engineering Colleges and the high seat of advanced learning IISc, Bangalore
• The entire public sector culture through institutions such as Bhadravathi Iron and Steel company
• Variety of Banks including the state run Corporation Bank and State Bank of Mysore
• The Krishna Raja Sagar Dam
• Cultural Institutions like the Saahitya Parishad and The Oriental Research Institute
• The re-emergence of Yoga
• Akashavani - the pre-All-India-Radio version that ran within the Mysore State
• Bhadravathi Iron and Steel Company, Mysore Soap Factory
• The quasi democratic institutions such as The Prajapratinidhi Sabha 
• The 4 Year Plan

The list is endless. Nearly everything that Nehru was successful in his 3 terms, the old Mysore State had achieved under the leadership of the 4th Krishna Raja Wodeyar and Sir. M. Vishweshawaraiah. Infact, based 'Planning Commission' was originally supposed to be private affair led by the Bombay Industrial Group and Sir. MV. However, PC Mahalanobis convinced all with the need to have a political leader leading the institution and that is how Nehru came to be associated with it. Post independence this piece of pre-independence journey has been whitewashed to give sole credit to Nehru and a bit of it to Mahalanobis.

Now, the Mysore state did something else that Nehru consciously refused to do.

• Mysore openly and proudly established itself in continuation with the civilization and tradition of India. All its institutions ran with the sensitivities of the larger culture without trying to proselytize it into a new modern. Instead Mysore created its own version of modernity which seemed more like a natural journey from India's cultural past. On the contrary, Nehru's secularism kept India's past away in the name Hinduism with disastrous consequences which in itself is a separate story.
• Mysore encouraged private industry with great passion by appealing to the conscience of the businessmen (much in-tradition) as well as creating suitable opportunity. The HAL, IISc, many banks were all private. Businessmen actively collaborated with the state in building a future and the citizens respected the rich and wealthy without harboring hatred. The businessmen themselves lived within their communities and most of them actively contributed through resources and infrastructure in this modernizing journey.
• Mysore paid a huge emphasis on primary education

Nehru utterly failed in these three and the consequences of the misdemeanor are littered all over for us to witness. He ignore primary education and over-emphasized higher education. His contempt for the private industry resulted in utter poverty and the contemptuously termed Hindu growth rate. In the end, the post-independence era has witnessed further progress of all such states that were already ahead. Nehruvian era did not propel any region to move faster much less catch up with regions that were ahead.

4. They try to rationalize his mistakes as the Prime Minister, rather they try to whitewash it

Nehru made some critical mistakes in his 17 years as Prime Minister - particularly in the realm of politics. Some of them are genuine mistakes - which any other leader could have made. A few others are a result of deep-rooted bias arising out of excessive western education and some are typical human limitations. In a realistic scrutiny, all of them ought to be accepted and moved-on, which Nehruvians find it very difficult - as the castles they have created are dependent on Nehru being correct on those counts.

• The Kashmir Fiasco - Nehru kept Sardar Patel out during the entire process of Kashmir's annexation, famously saying 'Leave it to me'. In the end, he had to rely on Sardar Patel for the article 370 and article 35A to be ratified by the Constituent Assembly. Dr. Ambedkar was famously opposed to it and refused to draft it. Leaving Patel out proved costly as Sheikh Abdullah managed to negotiate unequal terms for Kashmir resulting in India starting its democratic journey on a deep fault-line. Shyam Prasad Mukherjee paid with his life for standing upto this under the watchful eyes of Nehru and Sheikh Abdullah.
• The China Blunder - Nehru ignored defence preparation and very poorly collaborated with the armed forces resulting in the 1962 humiliation. This is far too famous and beaten to death to be elaborated. Worse, Nehru actively trusted China much more and unwittingly contributed it becoming a bigger power. He famously refused to occupy the Security Council seat as he believed that belonged to China.
• The Undemocratic Behaviour - Nehru demonstrated an undemocratic conduct and intolerance for dissent in a multitude of times in his journey. His conduct resulted in all dissenters moving out the party progressively. This crime is the most white-washed crime of his, its amazingly audacious of Nehruvians to elevate him as the Great Democrat.
• The Weakening of Private Industry - His keeping out the private industry can be singled out as the sole reason for continued poverty over the next few decades.

Many more - but the issue is the Nehruvians find it difficult to plainly accept these facts. Instead, they give irrational explanations to each of the above and try to white wash, inspite of the detractors establishing evidences that are beyond doubt.

5. They sidelined other Indian Freedom Fighters

In the post-independent India's history, the contributions of a lot of freedom fighters suffered the fate of a foot-note with the exception of Gandhi and Dr. Ambedkar. For obvious reasons, Gandhi was beyond upstaging, hence Gandhi was appropriated. Dr. Ambedkar was the supreme leader of Dalits and hence there was no question of sidestepping him without political implications. The rest like Lala Lajpat Rai, Madan Mohan Malaviya, Sardar Patel were quietly sidelined. People like Shyam Prasad Mukherjee were demonized and continue to be so. The great unifier of modern political India, Patel, did not even get a memorial in Delhi.

How did the Nehruvians achieve this? It cant get simpler than this - they just did not write enough about others, and they wrote excessively about Nehru. In particular after Indira Gandhi, this process achieved industry-grade acceleration. The academicians from India who are occupying high-seats abroad have significantly contributed to this. Every now and then others are served lip-service but Nehru is in the centre of those conversations too. When one of them becomes impossible to ignore - such as Patel because of competitive politics getting the better of them, they minimally compensate but forge a positive collaboration with Nehru and an inch smaller pedestal, thereby maintain the higher pedestal occupied by Nehru. Worse, when things get the better of them, they use all their academic and institutional power to create a huge noise of vilification.

6. They desperately try to portray him as having cordial relationship with Sardar Patel

The most ridiculous of all things is their attempts to portray that all was well between Nehru and Patel. If the entire piece of evidence is surfed through, we can at best call it a complex and problematic relationship that worked like a seesaw. If anything, credit goes to Sardar Patel for being the magnanimous man to report into a junior and work through conflicts to ensure India transitioned into the modern world with least damage. The most damning evidence against Nehru in this context are the following

• He thrice pipped Patel into Leadership positions in Congress through undemocratic means
• There is atleast one reference to Nehru suspecting Patel as being communal
• Maniben Patel, Sardar Patel's daughter, wrote a diary that paints a highly negative picture of their relationship
• Nehru's refusal to rely on Patel on Kashmir
• Their conflict with respect to how Hyderabad was supposed to be dealt with
• The election of Patel's choice, Purushottam Das Tandon as President of Congress in 1949 and his being pushed out soon after Patel's death
• The conflict during the election of First President of India - Patel's choice Babu Rajendra Prasad winning over Nehru's choice Rajaji losing
• The renovation of Somnath temple in Saurashtra

In all these incidents, there is ample evidence to prove that their relationship was one with immense conflict - driven both by personality clash as well as ideology - but conducted with great culture, poise and professionalism, with Nehru at times being a tantrum. That Patel did not share Nehru's ideology was crystal clear. Its intellectually insincere to paint coherence - which in reality was nothing but professional conduct and far-sight on Patel's part to ensure no political infighting in the initial years.

7. They tried to paint him as an epitome of democrat

The most insincere of their Nehru indulgence is their attempt to carve a niche for him as the greatest democrat of modern India - crediting all that is democracy to largely his efforts. This also enables them to deny any credit to India's past for creating a culture that sustains democracy. The reality though is this

• In 1929 Nehru assumed the position of President of Congress Session through the immense pressure that Motilal Nehru on Gandhiji while Patel was the favourite. Patel eventually became the President next year
• In 1946 all the state units elected Patel as the President. The larger understanding was that - the elected person will eventually head the interim government and become the Leader of Constituent Assembly, and finally become the Prime Minister of India. However, when Gandhiji invited Nehru to communicate lack of support in the party, Nehru responded with a studied silence. Gandhiji communicated this studied silence to Patel clearly indicating that Nehru is unlikely to take up a second police. Sensing the imminent split Patel was made to withdraw. Even a Nehruvian supporter like Rajmohan Gandhi has written about this in his book 'Patel: A Life". Rajmohan Gandhi has made a best effort to show that the state units did not know about the importance of election - how that would lead to the eventual Prime Minister of India but that is a very weak undocumented defence. Hard reality is that during the most crucial time Patel had a near total support of all state units. In summary, India became a Democratic, Republic with a leader who was thrusted upon itself and not democratically chosen. His three consecutive victories in the post-independence Elections for self and the party cannot be considered as a vindication of either Gandhiji's stand or his own undemocratic conduct. He inherited the legacy of the party and Gandhiji's popularity by being hand-over the premiership in 1947 and the rest is an outcome of that. An unsuspecting electorate simply paid back the legacy through trust. Nehru was both the inheriting Prince and the elected PM at the same time.
• Nehru once again pushed Purushottam Das Tandon out of Congress Presidency post Patel's death through sheer methods that could be loosely turned as blackmail and undemocratic. Reasons - Tandon was Patel's nominee, detractor and communal in thought in Nehru's view.
• Nehru introduced the infamous restrictions to freedom of expression as he perceived the communist indulgence and Shyam Prasad Mukherjee's speeches as having damage potential to the cause of the just formed nation. Patel seemed to be in agreement but the law was passed post his death. These are exactly the restrictions that the Nehruvians and other Liberals term as illiberal when other political leaders use but refuse to term Nehru himself as illiberal. This is hypocrisy at best.
• Nehru allowed Indira Gandhi to be made as the President of Indian National Congress in 1958 when there were other stalwarts
• People like Majrooh Sultanpuri and Dharam Pal spent many months in India just because they opposed Nehru. Probably overzealous follower politicians and administrators probably misused freedom of expression laws, but that happened under the watchful eyes of Nehru. Nehruvians have completely buried such evidences and continue to herald his terms as the great liberal times of India, until the netizens mined such truths from the Internet.
• Under his watchful eyes - stalwarts such Ram Manohar Lohia, Dr. Ambedkar, Rajaji, Acharya Kripalani were steadily pushed out or rather made to move out from the Party as their views were not tolerated, leaving people of much lesser stature within who found it difficult to stand upto Nehru.

So, the evidence grows on.

How do the Nehruvians deal with this monumental evidence? For all the crimes of Nehru, the chosen worst belongs to Nehruvians. They first deny, then desperately try to downplay his mistakes, eventually try and create alternate explanations to whitewash - one can read Ramachandra Guha, Sunil Khilnani, Sanjay Subramaniam and Ashutosh Varshney to understand. However, the above evidences have stood the test of manipulation and remain as embarassment to their attempts to eulogize Nehru beyond. In summary, Nehruvians remain highly intolerant of any criticism of Nehru. As they retained immense hegemony over academics, institutions and media, all formal public expressions were under their control frustrating those who had alternate views on Nehru and those who felt violated in this process.

They did not expect their luck to run out so soon though. They underestimated the speed with which technology was galloping crossing them over and creating platforms for the larger society to get back. They did not anticipate the Tsunami of social media and the resulting restoration of power with respect to public expression. Knowledgeable netizens have now built a necklace of evidence against their claims of higher pedestal for Nehru. At the same time frustrated anti-Nehruvians have unleashed verbal violence on all kinds of media compensating for their pent-up frustration. Nehruvians' current strategy is to hoodwink the core issue by demonizing the attacking fringe on social media and strategically use them to discredit the genuine Classical Indian Liberal dissenting with them by clubbing the latter with the former, thereby regain legitimacy in the eyes of the larger society which is cultured, innocent, confused but not willing to concede space to the fringe. 

But you cannot fool everybody all the time. Nehruvians are up against a Tsunami of evidence both against them and in favour of the Classical Indian Liberal perspective. Its time they abandon strategies and indulge genuine cultural engagement and see if their Social Liberalism has any substance left it and if they are themselves true to the sensitivities demanded by their ideology.