India at 75, A Secular Democratic Republic Held Hostage

 

India at 75, A Secular Democratic Republic Held Hostage

At the stroke of the midnight hour 75 years ago, India began her ‘tryst with destiny’, a country with long and ancient history and civilisation, freed of the shackles and servitude of the British Empire. At the midnight of August 14, 1947,Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru, as the first Prime Minister of free India and the worthy political heir of the Mahatma, made a stirring historical speech: “Long years ago, we made a tryst with destiny and now the time comes when we shall redeem our pledge, not wholly or in full measure, but very substantially. It is fitting that at this solemn moment, we take the pledge of dedication to the service of India and her people and to the still larger cause of humanity… The ambition of the greatest man of our generation has been to wipe every tear from every eye. That may be beyond us, but as long as there are tears and suffering, so long our work will not be over.” The power of that magical moment, and then hopes raised of what we would make of that freedom, shall be etched in people’s memory for generations to come.

 

The years 1947 to 1952 were the period of construction, with the partition of India resulting in more than a million people killed and 15 million migrated to either side of the border, and the savage communal carnage posing serious danger to internal security, holding together India, with the second largest population and massive illiteracy and hundreds of religions and languages and communities and cultures, and ensuring its survival was the biggest challenge. The Western world written off India at birth.  And after Gandhi’s assassination in January 1948, it was predicted India would break up as a country. Churchill declared: “In handing over the Government of India to these so-called political classes we are handing over to men of straw, of whom, in a few years, no trace will remain.”

 

If India had survived the horrors of partition, it was due to the visionary leadership of Nehru and his commitment to inclusive, pluralistic, democratic and just India. On Gandhi’s assassination, Prime Minister Nehru, in his letter dated 5 February 1948 to the Chief Ministers, expressed concern about the diabolic plot: “It would appear that a deliberate coup d’état was planned involving the killing of several persons and the promotion of general disorder to enable the particular group concerned to siege power…We must remember that the people opposed to us are thoroughly unscrupulous. They will say one thing and do another.”

 

And after Patel’s departure in 1950, the task of consolidating, unifying a diverse country, and building the nation was left to him, with his erstwhile colleagues and comrades- Bhimrao Ambedkar, J.B. Kriplani, Jayaprakash Narayan, C Rajagopalachari - deserting him and turning his bitter critics. Nehru provided the  philosophical foundation for the Constitution, drafted by some 300 eminent men and women of India(83% of whom were Hindus), that had a text of 145,000 words long, and its imagination of a diverse and vibrant democracy; laid the foundation for the largest Parliamentary democracy in the world based on universal adult franchise, with emphasis on science and technology; built the IIMs and the IITs; established the BARC; and , by building dams, steel plants and heavy industries, laid a solid foundation for industrialisation. He ensured conducting free and fair general elections thrice in 1952,1957 and 1962, reposing unwavering faith in the people India. He built and nurtured democratic institutions; independent judiciary and free Press- the pillars of democracy. He treated Parliament as a serious august body to which he was accountable. He set the example himself, spending hours in parliament, suffering Prime Minister’s Question Time and responding seriously to queries unworthy of his attention. And through the Five-Year Plans, he ceaselessly worked towards establishing a ‘socialistic pattern of society’, to eradicate poverty, disease and ignorance.  

 

To Nehru a good society meant: “Broadly speaking, apart from the material things that are necessary obviously, a certain individual growth in the society. For I do believe, that ultimately it is the individual that counts…the old Hindu idea that if there is any divine essence in the world every individual possesses a bit of it… Every individual has an importance and he should be given full opportunities to develop- material opportunities naturally, food, clothing, education, housing, health. etc. They should be common to everybody. I do believe in certain standards. Call them moral standards, call them what you like, spiritual standards. They are important in any individual and in any social group. And if they fade away, all the material advancement you may have will lead to nothing worthwhile.” As the pre-eminent figure in India’s era of transition, Nehru bears comparison with Roosevelt and Churchill, Lenin and Mao, men who guided their people through a period of national crisis.

 

Transgressing the founding principles of the Republic

 

India, under the present right-wing regime, as she celebrates 75 years of her independence, has transgressed the founding principles of the Republic.  First, the ideals that inspired the freedom movement no longer guide the nation. There is an orchestrated campaign of calumny to erase Nehru’s legacy. The history of the freedom struggle and the history of post- independent India is being tampered beyond redemption to suit the political narrative. It is so disgraceful that Nehru- a principal architect of the freedom movement and the father of modern India- doesn’t even figure in the Azadi Ka Amrit Mahotsav. It is a very colored and partisan celebration. 

Why this pathological hatred of Nehru by the BJP-RSS? Purushottam Agrawal- writer, academic and political commentator- has this to say: "The RSS has tried to appropriate Gandhi, Patel, Shastri, Bose, Bhagat Singh, Tagore, even Ambedkar, but never Nehru.  Because Nehru- the moderniser rooted in tradition- was firmly against the ideological vision of Hindutva and no one knows better than Hindutva ideologues. They hate him precisely because he earned the trust, respect and faith of people the hard way, without catering to their baser instincts and phony sentiments. They also fear him because he could connect with Indian people without using the religious idiom, he could chide them when needed as he had earned their faith not by endorsing reactionary attitudes, but by his attempt to lead them towards enlightenment. He was a true leader. It is this fear which has led to the pettiness not only on the part of the government, but also on the part of some media houses who undertake dirty tricks to erase his memories. And that is why no amount of calumny is too much and no low is low enough for demeaning Nehru.". 

Second, politics is now all about being in power by any means. And democracy is reduced to a sheer number game, with rising intolerance and increasingly belligerent majoritarianism turning communal and politically and socially regressive. Third, Parliament has lost its sheen.  It is no longer a house for open-ended free discussion and debate on issues of national and global ramifications. The ruling party’s idea of transmitting business in Parliament is ‘constructive work’, tolerating no criticism of its polices, and passing legislations without any ‘disruption.’ And the Prime Minister doesn’t even bother to attend the sessions.

 

Fourth, the voice of opposition is muzzled. The political opposition is equated to enemy, calling the opposition leaders unpatriotic and anti-national. Opposition is the lifeline of a parliamentary democracy. On July 16, addressing the All-India Legal Service Authorities Meet at Jaipur, the Chief Justice of India N.V. Ramana, observed that the diversity of opinion enriches polity and society: “Political opposition should not translate into hostility, which we are sadly witnessing these days. These are not signs of a healthy democracy. Strong, vibrant and active Opposition helps to improve government and corrects the functioning of the government.” He expressed concern that there used to be mutual respect between the government and the Opposition earlier, which is now ‘diminishing’, with the government making no effort to reach out and accommodate the opposition.

 

Fifth, the biggest crisis facing India at this juncture is ‘collapse of the nation’, said the Noble laureate Amartya Sen, while inaugurating the Amartya Research Centre recently in Kolkata: “There is a reason to be afraid now.  The current situation in the country has become a cause for fear.”  It is ‘extraordinary’ that the colonial laws were being used to put people behind bars. He said: “India has an inherent culture of being tolerant. India was not a country representing only Hindu culture…Muslim culture was also part of the country’s vibrant history.” He recalled how Dara Shikoh -Shah Jahan’s eldest son- translated 50 Upanishads from the original Sanskrit to Persian that enabled the world to know about Hindu scriptures. Hindu culture and Hindu traditions.

 

Sixth, saffronising education. The administrative positions in universities and colleges are being filled with persons subscribing to the RSS ideology. Vice President Venkaiah Naidu has recently asked: ‘what is wrong with saffronising education?’ Well, as a person groomed in the RSS school of thought he should know it better. The UGC has recently issued a show-cause notice to a political science teacher of the private Sharda University for setting a question in the BA first year paper: ’Do you find any similarities between Fascism/Nazism and Hindu right-wing Hindutva? Elaborate with arguments.” This is how saffronising education means controlling the young minds and aborting the critical thinking.  It is interesting to recall what Dr.S. Radhakrishnan, whose knowledge of the depth and quality of Indian civilization earned him the position of a Spalding Professor of Eastern Religions and Ethics at Oxford University, had recommended, as the Chairman of the University Education Commission, in 1949, the introduction of religious education in our universities. He suggested that students in the first-year degree course be introduced to the lives of great thinkers such as “Gautama the Buddha, Confucius, Zoroaster, Socrates, Jesus, Somkara, Ramanuja, Madhava, Mohammad, Kabir, Nanak, Gandhi.” It was very inclusive and showed the openness of his curious mind. By including the founders of major religions, he was affirming their value for an Indian education.    

 

Seventh, emergence of an oppressive corrupt political culture. Misusing the central agencies and toppling the elected governments has become a new norm. Unleashing the central agencies-like ED, CBI, IT-against the political rivals and the critics to intimidate and silence made the democracy and the rule of law untenable, with the money power making the anti-defection law almost redundant. In our criminal justice system, the process has become the punishment, says Justice Ramana. Out of 6.1 lakh prisoners, around 80% are under trials.  They are one of the most vulnerable sections of society. From hasty, indiscriminate arrests to difficulty in obtaining bail, the process leading to the prolonged incarcerations of undertrials, denying them the right to life and liberty.

 

And finally, glorifying Godse and equating Savarkar with Mahatma Gandhi. The June 2022 issue of Antim Jan, a magazine published by the Gandhi Smriti and Darshan Samiti (GSDS), of which Narendra Modi is the Chairman., stood out for a reason.  According to Seema Chishti, Vinayak Savarkar, a central figure in Mahatma Gandhi’s assassination trial, “was let off for lack of adequate corroborative evidence, but the Jivanlal Kapur Commission set up in the 1960s concluded: ‘All these facts taken together were destructive of any theory other than the conspiracy to murder by Savarkar and his group.’ No further inquiries about Savarkar role were made as he was dead by then (The Hindu,29/07).”  In the article in Antim Jan, BJP leader Vijay Goel- the Vice Chairman, GSDS-tries to place Savarkar on the same footing as Mahatma Gandhi: ‘Savarkar’s place in history and stature in freedom struggle is no less than that of Gandhi. The lionising of Savarkar and the diminution of Gandhiji have implications in terms of the essence of India’s future.”  And “If the nation is now only about one faith and a permanent line between two identities that Hindutva politics obsesses about (Hindu and Muslim) then the entire larger India project would be jeopardy. This was a framing Gandhiji opposed vehemently and paid for with his life.”

 

What we are witnessing in ‘New India’ is not only discrediting Nehru and the values and ideals that he held dear to keep India unified; but also disengaging with Gandhiji’s ideas even as stated ideals. A Secular Democratic Republic that the founding fathers established is held hostage by falsification and divisive politics of hatred and violence.