 |
|
|
The decline of the Congress in the last decade cannot be denied.
The martyrdom of Rajiv Gandhi provided a sympathy cushion but it
could not last long because the then dominant leadership of the
Congress did not want it to continue. It was determined to prove
that the Congress could not only survive but prosper by
disconnecting itself from the Nehru family and heritage. The
Congress has certainly survived but it has not prospered as a
result of such attempts at disconnection.
Ibis is not the only attempt at disconnection. For a very long
time an antagonistic polarisation was sought to be projected
between Jawaharlal Nehru and 'Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel. The two
were, of course, very different persons and held differing views.
They had, however, a common overriding passion - to free India and
make it a great, secular and democratic power. They had also an
unswerving loyalty to Mahatma Gandhi which withstood differences
and controversies, including the supremely important question of
the partition of the country. And it is of the greatest importance
that they trusted and were fond of each other.
This has been brought out with great artistic force and truth in
the film Sardar directed by Ketan Mehta. What comes through are
not only the grandeur of the deeds of the Sardar and of his ideas
but the humane nature of the relations between him and Nehru. This
is as it was. Differences were not the product of rivalry but due
to divergences of perception of the interests of India.
A similar game is sought to be played often enough by the same
people using the celebration of the birth centenary of Netaji.
This time the thrust of their appeal is to the more radical and
left-inclined persons. The same theme, as in the case of the
Sardar, of rivalry and of the greater stamina and consistency of
Subhas Bose as compared to Nehru is played. The aim again is not so
much to elevate Netaji as to downgrade Nehru. It is not a case of
liking Netaji more but disliking Nehru more.
It is true that strains developed between the two leaders of the
left in the Congress. It came to a head when Subhas Bose wanted
Nehru, the Communists and the Congress first to break from the
Mahatma and a little later to leave the Congress and set up another
party. When he did leave the Congress and set up the Forward Bloc,
none of the other left formations and personalities went with him.
The Communists did not want the Congress to be split nor the left
to be pitted against it. The Congress Socialists, with Jayaprakash
Narayan and Acharya Narendra Deva as their chief representatives,
had no intention at all at the time to leave the Congress and, in
any event, were far closer to the Mahatma despite all their
differences with him than to Subhas Bose despite all their radical
affinities with him.
Nehru explained his position in one of his most analytical writings
entitled A Survey of Congress Politics 1936-39 as also in a patient
reply to a vituperative letter from Subhas Bose. Apart from his
appraisal of the indispensability of the Congress and Mahatma
Gandhi for the freedom struggle he emphasised the revolutionary
character of both. He also insisted that the left should become
more Indian, i.e., not be either too foreign or too provincial, and
that it should not think in terms of the European stereotypes of
Left, Right and Centre. Finally he advised the Left not to make a
premature bid for leadership of the national movement.
The other issue on which these two leaders differed was on the
relation between our struggle for freedom and the worldwide
struggle against fascism. Nehru differed from the Communists who
in 1942 wanted to subordinate the former to the latter. He also
differed from Netaji who saw no connection between the two and
considered the fascist powers as allies because they were at war
with British imperialism.
Nehru wanted India to be a part of the worldwide anti-fascist
struggle and war but as an independent power. But he never failed
to appreciate the patriotism of Netaji. The Communists have had to
repent for their assault on Netaji's patriotism. Nehru did not
have to do so. On this issue as well history's judgement would be
in favour of Nehru.
Who can say what Netaji's reaction would have been to the goal and
strategy which have come to be associated with Nehru? Going by his
views in the 1930s and 1940s, however, one can say that there would
have been broad agreement and approval. Secular democratic
nationalism, civil libertarian multi-party parliamentary democracy,
planning, land reforms, industrialisation, public sector,
non-alignment, friendship and co-operation with the Soviet Union so
long as it was there. It would have been astonishing had he cast
in his lot with either the BJP or the CPI(M).
As for corruption and factionalism, Subhas Bose was quite
conversant with these evils and the difficulties combating them as
one of the leaders of the Congress in both Bengal and India as well
as when he handled the business of the Calcutta Corporation. It is
difficult to imagine that he would have been more successful in
dealing with these evils than Nehru was.
Those who want to run down Nehru by comparing him with what Subhas
Bose was and might have been are doing a disservice not just to
both of them but to our history. Both these leaders were
consummate patriots and wore themselves out in the service of our
motherland and our people. Both brought in new currents of
radical, left and socialist thought and helped to make them a part
of national consciousness. Both suffered and sacrificed for their
ideals and inspired millions of others to enlist themselves as
soldiers in the brave army of the Indian revolution. Now and for
generations to come the spirit of India will be uplifted when these
two leaders are remembered.
Unhappy the nation, Bertolt Brecht wrote, which needs heroes.
Unhappier the nation which has no heroes or whose heroes are stolen
from them. At present the target of these herostealers as far as
we are concerned is Nehru, the Nehru heritage and the Nehru family.
We are informed that a Pakistani academician, whom Cambridge
dishonours itself by harbouring, is making a TV serial which is to
begin with Nehru and Edwina Mountbatten in bed with their clothes
off. The purpose is said to be to demonstrate that Jinnah was
cheated by Mountbatten because his wife was enamoured of Nehru. A
bizarre explanation but intended to pander to the voyeurists among
the public.
The writer is general secretary of UCPI
|
|
|