Abstract
This is a provocative and bold attempt to (re)assess Nehru as a person, a politician, a prime minister and the most celebrated leader of post-Independence India. The author, a retired officer of India’s Intelligence Bureau, laboriously collected a rich array of evidence, mostly statements, citations, letters, correspondences between Gandhi, Nehru, Patel and others, official memoranda and notes. The aim was to raise some questions none of Nehru’s biographers dared to ask and Nehru’s followers would hear in shock: Was Nehru truly a great democrat? Was he a man of principles, or did he adopt double standards? Did he ever have a proper measure of India’s defence needs? Did he take a strong and principled stand on corruption? Was he not petty and manipulative when his personal interest came in?
The book is a departure from the surfeit of literature on Nehru, certainly not another uncritical glorification. It peeps into Nehru’s human frailties, especially his indulgence in various kinds of manoeuvrabilities to strengthen his position and promote his daughter’s political career. It evaluates the implications of policy mistakes. The author is not the first to do this but is exceptionally bold to say what even ruthless critics of Nehru shied of telling. Maulana Abdul Kalam Azad and Ram Manohar Lohia, Nehru’s contemporaries and absolutely flawless patriots, stand out for their frank opinion on Nehru’s role in the partition of India. Lohia (1970: 17) wrote: ‘I believe that Nehru and his ilk have done a great damage to the country by buying Independence at the cost of unity’. Azad (1988: 198) found Nehru, influenced by Lady Mountbatten and V.K. Krishna Menon, a reluctant accomplice in the decision of partition that, he asserts, was arrived at first by Patel, manoeuvred by Lord Mountbatten.
Nehru has been subjected to critical assessments from many quarters, on various occasions and issues. His socialist democrat credentials have been questioned, also in this book, as at best flirtatious. He remained a mute spectator of the coercive resignation of Subhash Chandra Bose from the elected presidentship of Congress in 1939 after Bose defeated Pattabhi Sitaramayya, a candidate supported by Mahatma Gandhi. Nehru was part of the committee that recommended amendment to the Congress constitution leading to the expulsion of Jayaprakash Narayan, Narendra Deva and other leaders of the Congress Socialist Party from the Congress in 1948. He did not make any serious efforts to implement the Congress Agrarian Reforms Committee report of 1949, headed by J.C. Kumarappa. His impulsive handling of Jammu and Kashmir and naive assessment of Chinese security threats are undoubtedly his thorniest legacies. His non-alignment policy has never gone well with ‘realists’ inside and outside India. His ideas of ‘mixed economy’ and state-controlled planned economy have been criticised for causing India’s slow pace of economic development.
The book is full of illustrations of the flipside of Nehru’s personality and consequences of his policy mistakes for the country. While the tension in Nehru–Prasad relations is well known, the extent of dislike that Nehru harboured for Prasad is a poignant revelation. Nehru favoured C. Rajagopalachari over Prasad as India’s first president. To dissuade Prasad, Nehru wrote a letter to him lying that Patel favoured Rajagopalachari. When Prasad confronted Nehru on this, he tried to wriggle out by writing a long letter to Prasad assuring his support to his candidature. Nehru’s refusal to attend the funeral of both Patel and Prasad and his advice to the then president, ministers and officials not to attend the funerals of these two leaders would not go easy with the followers of Nehru. The Kamaraj Plan of the Congress Party, the author interprets, was a Machiavellian move to weaken the powerful second-rung leaders of the Congress with a view to making Indira’s political ascendancy smooth. Nehru’s inability to take action against the instances of corruption, paying lip services to socialism and covert centralisation of power are other expositions in this book.
Generation after generation has learnt only about the heroic side of Nehru. While Gandhi was worshipped and Patel was admired, Nehru was loved by the masses. His sway over the people was infectious. He continues to draw admiration from intellectuals and his place in history will remain. He commanded larger-than-life influence on India’s post-Independence destiny. To confront such a hero is indeed heroic itself.
However, there are two main flaws. First, according to the blurb of the book, the author aims to make ‘an honest assessment of Nehru—and in effect an honest assessment of India’s contemporary history’. But it seems Singh has been carried away by his own convictions. This project would have been more balanced if the author had also underlined the contributions of Nehru. Even with all the mistakes and flaws, Nehru’s key role in the making of modern India is undeniable. After the sudden death of Gandhi, and soon of Patel, Nehru successfully steered India’s transition from a colony to an independent democratic country. Adopting a secular Constitution was one thing, but practising it in the circumstances of communally surcharged partition was not easy. To institutionalise political democracy in a society organised on the principles of ‘graded inequality’ was a challenge. Nehru’s efforts in economic modernisation by building a strong base of heavy industries, his ambitions to make India’s parliament the model parliament of Asia, his courage to chart the course of non-alignment in a bipolar world were remarkable. He laid foundations for a large number of institutions of scientific research, socio-economic studies, art, literature, theatre and culture. India’s scientific progress, especially the nuclear and space programme, owe a lot to Nehru. Second, many of the positions of the author are opinionated and heavily influenced by the views of others. His assessment of Nehru would have carried more weight had he used more archival materials and untrammeled documents in support of his arguments. This seems to be the main objective of the author, and to that extent he has done his job honestly.
The questions raised in this book are bound to draw the attention of both Nehru’s followers and critics. The study fits into the wider current scenario of a critical re-assessment of the Congress-dominated first few decades of India, in which the Nehru dynasty, despite its flaws, played a dominant and critical role.