The discovery of Nehru

On Nehru's birth anniversary, the idea is not to take away from the majesty of the individual, but to bring into focus the dilemmas that human beings who are forced to be what they are not face.

As he could not give them the loin cloth ethnicity that would give them something to talk about, I suspect Nehru used the buzzword 'industrialisation' to make the British feel that they had done a good job of tutoring the natives. He had no agenda for industrialisation (except socialism!) and he was mighty afraid of the spectre he had created and also envious of those who could do so. Therefore, while Gandhi, who had no interest in the subject, happily partook of the hospitality of the Birlas, Nehru the angel of industrialisation stayed away.

It couldn't have been probity. It was contempt for the Marwari community that had the money and the business acumen to take India towards the unholy grail.

It may be difficult to digest the image of Nehru as a communalist, but in a larger sense he was. In that he was aware of where he came from and from where others did. The doyen of the Parsi community, J R D Tata, had an uneasy relationship with him. If Nehru knew his Mozart, had been to Cambridge and used his silverware with a flourish, so did most Parsis. They built an empire, believed in philanthropy and did not think it necessary to hide their westernised thinking. Nehru did not like that.

The final blow came when Firoze Gandhi, no mean parliamentarian himself, swept his daughter off her feet. The father never forgave that. Had he not strictly forbidden Indira during her childhood from reading fairytales?

With Muslims, there was talk of his 'Islamic flavour' and political amity, but when it came to brasstacks, things were different. In 1937, he rejected Jinnah's proposal for a Congress-Muslim League coalition saying that there were only two parties in India - the Congress and the
British. Many believe this was when Pakistan was born.

Another example of his parochialism is evident in his sending his widowed sister Vijayalakshmi's suitor, Syed Hussein, off on an ambassadorial assignment, thus putting an end to the romance. But on the poor man's death Nehru, the public romantic, did not forget to build a mausoleum in his memory. To be fair, he did look after Sheikh Abdullah's family when the latter was in prison, which made the Sheikh weep uncontrollably on the platform where the dead Nehru lay.

Millions may have followed his funeral procession and his popularity in life may been unprecedented, but it is also true that security guards hid behind the bushes of his house and the kitchens of his prospective hosts were examined before he could taste a morsel. His populism put him at risk.

Later in life, he was besotted with "the old Hindu idea that there is a divine essence in the world". His Will stated that his ashes be strewn over the Ganges. It may not have been a religious gesture, but two days before his death he had written about the "concept of dharma".

History judges people in many ways. One is to judge them by their last words. In which case Nehru saw to it that if the divine essence went out of the grasp of his family, divine wrath would turn upon the country. The architect laid the foundation in the form of a magic carpet. He could pull the rug from under our feet anytime he wished.

Did Nehru, then, also believe in voodoo tricks?

---

[This was published in Mid-day, November 13, 1996]

---

Also: Nehru, Ambedkar and a cartoon

Nehru, Ambedkar and a Cartoon

Cartoon controversies have a way of becoming jokes themselves. The latest is in a textbook by the NCERT (National Council of Educational Research and Training). The government is trapped. Here is why.

As you can see, Dr. B.R.Ambedkar is sitting on a snail. Jawaharlal Nehru, the prime minister then, is standing with a whip. Apparently, there is accompanying text in the book that blames Ambedkar for the slow pace of the Constitution that he formulated.

There has been the usual house adjourning, shouting, resignations, apologies. Do we need a committee inquiring into this, or do we need a full-fledged ministry?

There are people who think we lack a sense of humour. I think we lack a sense of proportion. I do not like this cartoon.

NDTV reports:

Sketched by renowned cartoonist Shankar in the 1960s, the cartoon has been part of the NCERT book since 2006. Today, MPs waved copies of the cartoon in Parliament and said it insulted both leaders.

Did Shankar sketch this in the 60s? If so, the Constitution was well in place before that. (It transpires that it appeared in his weekly in 1949, which seems more appropriate.) The problem is not with the Constitution, but the execution of what it lays down. Therefore, this is an insult of the Constitution. It is rather amusing to see a crowd of ordinary folks smiling broadly at this display of Nehruvian aggression. The cartoon insults them, too, for it assumes that they the lowly who will get their rights only when things are whipped into shape. There is no concern for dignity of the human being.

Does it insult both leaders? I’d say it backfires on Nehru. He looks more like a horse attendant, than a trainer. Besides, standing behind with a whip, there appears to be an element of Brutus back-stabbing. Ambedkar remains a jockey steadfastly steering.

I’d definitely see it as misconstruing history, although young people these days have access to other avenues of information and such cartoons and derogatory references do not tarnish the work done by people like Ambedkar. Note: I use the term work and not image.

The politicisation has predictably taken on a high caste vs. Dalits hue. It will fall flat. Mayawati has just been exposed for her indulgences, spending Rs 86 crore on renovating her house. Despite rising to power, and I do commend her for managing it against odds irrespective of her personal whims, she has shown scant regard for the Constitution. She has misused Ambedkar’s name for personal glory and treated his persona as her personal fiefdom.

Our political leaders should have found other ways to deal with it. But, no. This is the age of shoo-shaa as we say. Waving copies of it only drew attention to something that most of us would not have noticed. Now, sides will be taken. As I said, the controversies become the jokes.

Geelani saab, keep your Black Day to yourself

The Hurriyat’s Syed Ali Shah Geelani is right in refusing one more dialogue with home minister P. Chidambaram. This is not the time for it. But he is mucking up the case by asking the people in the state to observe August 15 as a "black day" and Pakistan's foundation day as "a day of solidarity" on August 14.

Not only does it go against his own statement about self-determination – and the reality – that "Pandit Nehru promised Kashmiris the chance to decide their fate in 1948, but never fulfilled the promise", it also demeans the current crisis in Kashmir.

The Kashmir issue has escalated beyond a border dispute. All we are hearing are pathetic noises from almost everyone and long feature articles discussing ‘housewives’ coming out in the street, revealing chauvinism and a lack of understanding of insurgency. We won’t even go into the sad attempts at religious history being touted out that are not only invalid but also factually incorrect.

Mirwaiz Umar Farooq has joined forces against a dialogue, but he should most certainly not agree to be a part of this Black day and Solidarity Day tamasha. He at least seems to have his ideas verbatim, even if he might himself create hurdles to realising them later:

The 37-year-old Mirwaiz said he had proposed specific measures like demilitarisation, revocation of repressive laws and release of political prisoners to build trust to take the dialogue process forward and provide much-needed relief to the people. "But, unfortunately, these demands were not heeded," he said.

Meanwhile, Geelani is acting cute when he met a delegation of Kashmiri Pandits. According to Srinagar-based Kashmiri Pandit Sangharsh Samiti leader Sanjay Tickoo:

"Geelani became emotional and told us that we're a part of Kashmir and our safety is the majority's community's primary duty. Geelani told us that if anything happens to us, it would be like a wound inflicted on his body.”

Again, this is not the time. The kids coming out in the streets are not Kashmiri Pandits. Their concerns are different. He is sending out so many different signals. I think he should himself offer to take house arrest.

- - -

The other case of getting all cute is our Foreign Secretary Nirupama Rao. She has said that India understands Pakistan best. It is such a lover-like comment that it was a dampener to know that in her interview to IBNlive all she was referring to was the Wikileaks and we knew it before it all came out. These darned foreigners. Should we not at least patent our knowledge, since we don’t seem to be acting upon it?

Wah-wah, Ramji, Modi kya banaye

Ram Jethmalani certainly deserves the Rajya Sabha seat. The BJP is happy to acquiesce, at least one section that counts.

He is also making the right noises. About Ajmal Kasab’s death penalty, he disagrees, though:

"Let him rot in solitary consignment in Indian jail till his death so that he realises that what Mullas told him was wrong. This man was ill doctrinated by some Mullas that if he kills some innocent people in the neighbouring country, he will go to Paradise and he will also get the company of beautiful women there.”

This is sheer buffoonery. These are not your everyday mullahs; they hold training camps to kill and they use ideological bait. Women they can get anytime they want because they are powerful. A man of Mr. Jethmalani’s intellect should know that there is no need to mix religious issues here.

He is also exposing his ignorance. Nowhere does it state that you will go to Paradise by killing innocent people.

Reminds me of his quote way back in December 2000 in Rediff:

People who used Hindutva to get into positions of power are quite willing to abandon it when it suits their interests. Some shut it in a closet. Some use it depending on the audience. Some flaunt it when required.

He is showing those same signs. He contested against Vajpayee as an independent with Congress support. Now he is returning home but only if he gets that hot little seat in the RS.

Kasab comes in handy and a pat on the back from Narendra Modi helps.

Modi is a real number. Is it November 14? No. Is there anything happening on the children’s front? No. Was he attending a summer camp for underprivileged kids, you know the ones whose parents his boys did in? No.

Out of nowhere and with reference to nothing he asked:

“Has anyone shed a tear for these children who struggle to get a square meal a day when Children’s Day is celebrated? Nehru was said to be very fond of kids and his birthday has been christened as children’s day. Kids called him ‘chacha Nehru’ and it brought images of a benevolent Nehru flooding our minds. But what good has it done to the kids?”

What is his point? If he wants to rant against Nehru, then there are several other things he could have picked on, especially since he is into the development agenda. Why did he bring in kids? I do not know if Nehru really loved kids; he must have been fond enough of his daughter to ensure that she retained power within the family.

Now Modi may not wish to sire kids, but he can adopt a few at the refugee camps and come out smelling of roses.

How Jaswant Singh is using Jinnah as a genie

This is fun. Jaswant Singh has come out of the closet to tell us that Jinnah is great. No problem. When L.K.Advani did it, they said he was quoting from some speech and that is all. Jaswant Singh, good Rajput that he is, will surely bring out a sword to defend his honour. He will talk like those maharajahs of old who served in Mughal armies and project himself as a balanced person who can see an honourable enemy. This is one more marketing gimmick. We assume that Pakistan needs a certificate from us.

What did he really say that is so significant? And why is it important to emphasise that it is divergent from the Sangh Parivar view? Because, it needs to be marketed that way. Forget historians, even some sharp hacks have written that Jinnah was not the architect of Partition alone; it was the megalomania of all the so-called freedom fighters.

As always, the Congress only thinks it is about their hero, Nehru. And even worse is to bring the Gujarat carnage and the Muslims into this. Their party spokesperson, Abhishek Singhvi, said:

“The BJP and Jaswant Singh can condone the Gujarat carnage and give homilies as Muslims being treated as ‘aliens’ in the same breath.”

How dare they do it. Jaswant Singh has written about Jinnah; Jinnah was a Pakistani, a nationality he chose. Indian Muslims have chosen an Indian nationality. Just don’t confuse the issues. We will handle the BJP and RSS on our terms and not based on what Jinnah did.

If Bal Thackeray says he admires Hitler, does anyone believe that the Sainiks should be judged by German standards?

I would, however, like to know what exactly Jaswant Singh means when he says:

“I think we have misunderstood him because we needed to create a demon... we needed a demon because in the 20th century, the most telling event in the subcontinent was the partition of the country.”

Glad that he has woken up to give us this path-breaking news. Is he implying that by demonising him we have demonised a whole country that he created? Is he then saying that any acts that have occurred on the part of Pakistan are therefore a result of this demonisation? For, whether we like it or not, the residue of the Partition remains with us.

I know we will be told to read the book to know what exactly he means. As I said, this isn’t about Jinnah. This is about selling Jinnah.

- - -

As I mentioned, you don’t need to be a historian; you can just be someone like me. I wrote this on August 25, 1997, and this is merely a peek into a larger piece done a couple of years before that.

The other side of Jinnah

by Farzana Versey
Rediff

The life of the man largely held responsible for the partition of the country has a touch of tragedy to it.

Mohammed Ali Jinnah almost appears like a naive knight in shining armor, blinded by the glitter of his position, rather than a visionary convinced of the soundness of his stand. His major flaw lay in the fact that he was the brash other voice while everyone else was the chorus.

It would be easy to say he was making political capital of the situation by using the minority issue as a shoulder from which to fire the gun, but that would an appalling generalisation.

Like many people in power who portray themselves as saviours, Jinnah was a pawn in the hands of those he promised to free from the majority clutches.The distribution of leaflets bearing pictures of a sword-bearing, sherwani-clad Jinnah was clearly the handwork of a marketing genius. Jinnah, in a spirit of parody, played along, probably for a good laugh and certainly for a pat on the back.

It would, therefore, be unfair to hold him solely responsible for 600,000 deaths and the uprooting of 14 million people.

Even without referring to his taste in Scotch and sausages, one has to admit he was not Islamist. The concept of jihad was totally alien to him and, as Sardar Patel said, he was not a votary of mass movements. H M Seervai, in his book on the Partition, has raised in important issue: "It is a little unfortunate that those who assail Jinnah for destroying the unity of India do not ask how it was that a man who wanted a nationalist solution till as late as 1938, when he was 61 years of age, suddenly become a 'communalist'."

Why were over a hundred million Muslims willing to eat out of his palm? Because Jinnah reflected their fears, even as he spoke of intermarriage to promote communal harmony. Jinnah learned, as does every other politician, that human beings are easily excitable because they are inherently prejudiced.

Jinnah has been accused of being a megalomaniac, but so were most of the leaders of the time. They could not forget they were participants in an epoch-making event.

If he could maintain grace under pressure, at the height of the battle, he would have dealt with many other issues in a similar fashion. If fact, in 1946 he talked of having a metaphorical pistol in a world full of AK-47s and nuclear arsenal. The statement may have seemed terribly outdated and stupid, but it gave a glimpse into an essentially principled man. That we may not agree with his principles is another matter.