Pavan K. Varma | Govts a continuum: Modi, Nehru face-off ill-advised

History should never be judged only by the advantage of hindsight. Leaders, in the context of their own time, take decisions which they think are right, but posterity has the right to evaluate whether they were wrong. Certainly, Nehru was not infallible. When a person is the first Prime Minister for 17 years of a newly independent nation, which faces huge challenges and infinite competing priorities, of which healing the wounds of Partition and tackling abject and pervasive poverty are perhaps the two most important, he or she takes decisions according to that situation.

Uniting a very diverse multicultural and multireligious country through the tapestry of democracy and respect for all faiths, and ensuring that India remains a democratic nation when all around so many decolonized nations had lapsed into dictatorships or military rule, was no mean achievement, and credit must be given to Nehru for this. In this process, it is true too that he made mistakes. The fiasco of the 1962 war with China was certainly one such.

Another of his failings was that he saw India’s future largely through a Western prism. Nehru was impatient to make India a modern and scientifically-minded nation, and in doing so, he was often much too dismissive of our ancient past, conflating it largely with ritualism, superstition and prejudice, thereby ignoring our profound cultural and civilisational wisdoms. His definition of secularism, as the complete separation of the church and the state, was also extreme, as for instance when he protested against President Rajendra Prasad inaugurating the renovated Somnath Temple. Perhaps, he was — for well-intentioned reasons — concerned about ensuring that minorities do not feel alienated in an overwhelmingly Hindu country, but to many it seemed like minority appeasement. An example often cited is that he brought in the reformatory Hindu Personal Code, but left untouched the retrogressive practices in the personal laws of other minorities.

However, it is only a highly ungrateful nation that will forget the tremendous sacrifices he made during the freedom movement including spending nine years in jail, and the exemplary democratic inclusiveness he laid as the foundation of the Republic. To paint him entirely with a black brush — as some overzealous spokesmen of the BJP do — is a superficial display of ignorance, sycophancy and bias.

Narendra Modi, too, has his strengths and weaknesses. His political tenacity is undoubted, rising from poverty to the pinnacle of power, without any dynastic patronage. He is also a leader who knows the pulse of the people, and this is based on his vast experience in grass root politics, first as a pracharak for three decades, chief minister for 10 years, and now as PM for a further 10 years. He also has resolve, as Balakot shows, strong decision-making abilities, a tremendous capacity for hard work, unparalleled eloquence, and a vision for the future of India, a viksit Bharat. Among his signal achievements are a successful foreign policy, enhancing the stature of India in the world, the revolutionary digitisation of the economy, targeted welfarism, economic reform in bringing in key laws like RERA and the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, and an infrastructure push, which have cumulatively contributed to making India the fastest growing economy in the world.

However, some of his decisions, like demonetisation, were hugely disruptive of the economy. Rampant unemployment, food inflation, and rising inequalities taint his economic record. His style of functioning is autocratic, and his tolerance to dissent, limited. Moreover, in consolidating Hindu vote, he has created avoidable communal disharmony, and alienated the minorities, especially Muslims, which could lead to endemic social instability. For the first time since 1947 we have a ruling party with an absolute majority which does not have a single representative of the largest minority in the country, either in the parliamentary party or the Cabinet.

Mr Modi is also accused, like Indira Gandhi, of creating a supra-party personality cult, where the leader becomes bigger than the party. Today, it is all about “Modi ki guarantee”, where the BJP is not even mentioned. Such a strong emphasis on one leader thrives on absolute obeisance, and summarily deals with those who are even suspected of falling short of it. The combined Opposition also alleges — not without substance — that under Mr Modi’s watch, autonomous institutions have become handmaidens of the government, relentlessly targeting the Oppositionand others who don’t fall in line, while whitewashing those very Opposition leaders when they defect to the BJP.

Both Nehru and Modi were exceptionally popular leaders; Nehru was PM for three terms, and Mr Modi seems set to become one too. Absolute comparisons in politics are both expedient and simplistic. Atal Behari Vajpayee, in paying tribute to Nehru, realised that. When Atalji became the foreign minister, he noticed that the picture of Nehru had been removed from his office. He issued instructions that it be reinstated. He recounted this incident in an unforgettable speech in Parliament in 1999, which should be read and heard by every citizen.

There is a very important lesson in what Vajpayee did and what he said. Governments are a continuum. Different political parties come and go. But the contribution of leaders of each plays a role in the making and evolution of the modern Indian nation. By attempting to erase history, or negating iconic leaders of the past, you do not elevate yourself but denigrate this enrichening continuity. Ultimately, history will make its own judgement. In the case of Nehru, some people seem to think they already have the right to absolutely condemn him. They are as wrong, as those who think that Mr Modi is flawless. Or that Mr Modi is entirely blemished and Nehru was infallible.