Ramachandra Guha: Pandit Nehru, Hero of his age and outcast of ours

by Guest Mon May 26, 2014 11:51 am

This week marks the 50th death anniversary of a man much admired in his lifetime yet increasingly vilified since his death. The decline in Nehru’s reputation has two principal causes: (1) the rise to power of parties based on ideologies opposed to that of the Congress; (2) the controversial tenures as prime minister of Nehru’s daughter Indira Gandhi and of his grandson Rajiv Gandhi. If Indira Gandhi departed from her father in her suspicion of debate and dialogue, Rajiv Gandhi abandoned Nehruvian secularism in successively capitulating to Muslim fanatics (by overturning the judgment of the Supreme Court in the Shah Bano case) and Hindu extremists (by opening the locks to the shrine at Ayodhya)...

(Ironically, Nehru himself had no wish or desire to create a political dynasty. When he died in May 1964, Indira Gandhi was in private life. She became prime minister entirely by accident, appointed only because Lal Bahadur Shastri — her father’s successor — died prematurely in January 1966.)
In his pomp — which ran roughly from 1948 to 1960 — Nehru was venerated at home and abroad. Representative are these comments of The Guardian, written after the Indian prime minister had addressed a press conference in London in the summer of 1957:
‘A hundred men and women of the West were being given a glimpse of the blazing power that commands the affection and loyalty of several hundred million people in Asia. There is nothing mysterious about it. Mr Nehru’s power is purely and simply a matter of personality. … Put in its simplest terms, it is the power of a man who is father, teacher and older brother rolled into one. The total impression is of a man who is humorous, tolerant, wise and absolutely honest.’

- See more at: http://www.hindustantimes.com/comment/ramachandraguha/nehru-hero-of-his-age-outcast-of-ours/article1-1222552.aspx#sthash.7nGuM2Pl.dpuf

by Seva Lamberdar Mon May 26, 2014 1:34 pm

Rashmun wrote:This week marks the 50th death anniversary of a man much admired in his lifetime yet increasingly vilified since his death. The decline in Nehru’s reputation has two principal causes: (1) the rise to power of parties based on ideologies opposed to that of the Congress; (2) the controversial tenures as prime minister of Nehru’s daughter Indira Gandhi and of his grandson Rajiv Gandhi. If Indira Gandhi departed from her father in her suspicion of debate and dialogue, Rajiv Gandhi abandoned Nehruvian secularism in successively capitulating to Muslim fanatics (by overturning the judgment of the Supreme Court in the Shah Bano case) and Hindu extremists (by opening the locks to the shrine at Ayodhya)...

(Ironically, Nehru himself had no wish or desire to create a political dynasty. When he died in May 1964, Indira Gandhi was in private life. She became prime minister entirely by accident, appointed only because Lal Bahadur Shastri — her father’s successor — died prematurely in January 1966.)
In his pomp — which ran roughly from 1948 to 1960 — Nehru was venerated at home and abroad. Representative are these comments of The Guardian, written after the Indian prime minister had addressed a press conference in London in the summer of 1957:
‘A hundred men and women of the West were being given a glimpse of the blazing power that commands the affection and loyalty of several hundred million people in Asia. There is nothing mysterious about it. Mr Nehru’s power is purely and simply a matter of personality. … Put in its simplest terms, it is the power of a man who is father, teacher and older brother rolled into one. The total impression is of a man who is humorous, tolerant, wise and absolutely honest.’

- See more at: http://www.hindustantimes.com/comment/ramachandraguha/nehru-hero-of-his-age-outcast-of-ours/article1-1222552.aspx#sthash.7nGuM2Pl.dpuf

Many holes in the article. First of all, Indira Gandhi during Nehru's time was never away from the seat of power and her father as the P.M. -- the reason was simple .. Nehru had no wife, so his daughter fulfilled the role of official "lady" of the P.M., both at home and abroad (including in foreign travels etc.).

by Guest Tue May 27, 2014 6:12 am

MANY years ago, the anthropologist Triloki Narain Pandey told me a story featuring Jawaharlal Nehru and the poet Suryakant Tripathi "Nirala". The Prime Minister had just returned from a visit to the People's Republic of China. He was addressing a public meeting in his hometown, Allahabad, where Nirala then lived and where Triloki Pandey then studied. The poet sat in the front row, bare-bodied, his chest rubbed up with oil — for, he, a passionate wrestler, had come straight from a session at the akhara. He cut a striking figure, the shining torso contrasting with the white beard and shock of white hair.

Nehru accepted a garland or two from his admirers, before launching into his speech. "I have come from China," he began, "and heard there a story of a great king who had two sons. One was wise, the other stupid. When the boys reached adulthood, the king told the stupid one that he could have his throne, for he was fit only to be a ruler. But the wise one, he said, was destined for far greater things — he would be a poet." With these words, Nehru took the garland off his head and flung it as an offering at Nirala's feet.

http://www.hindu.com/mag/2006/03/12/stories/2006031200460300.htm

by Guest Tue May 27, 2014 6:20 am

In this context, it is no surprise that when Andre Malraux, French culture minister, asked Nehru what his “greatest difficulty” since Independence was, he had replied: “Creating a just state by just means.” After a brief pause, he had added: “Perhaps, too, creating a secular state in a religious country. Especially when its religion is not founded on an inspired book.”

http://indianexpress.com/article/opinion/columns/if-nehru-did-not-exist/99/

by Guest Tue May 27, 2014 3:45 pm

Seva Lamberdar wrote:
Rashmun wrote:In this context, it is no surprise that when Andre Malraux, French culture minister, asked Nehru what his “greatest difficulty” since Independence was, he had replied: “Creating a just state by just means.” After a brief pause, he had added: “Perhaps, too, creating a secular state in a religious country. Especially when its religion is not founded on an inspired book.”

http://indianexpress.com/article/opinion/columns/if-nehru-did-not-exist/99/

Since the secularism means separation of state (Govt.) and church (religion). The statement above --- "Perhaps, too (difficult), creating a secular state in a religious country. Especially when its religion is not founded on an inspired book.” -- therefore makes no sense at all. It seems to indicate that either he did not understand secularism well, or religion, or both.

As Amartya Sen has explained, the Indian model of secularism is different from the western meaning of the term.

---
“The meaning of secularism in South Asia is very different from the West's understanding,” said Indian economist Amartya Sen at an event to commemorate Bangladesh at 40 last week. “In the West, it is understood as a person who is not religious or without religion. So if a state is secular it means it has nothing to do with religion. But in South Asia, if you say a state is secular, it means the state treats all religions equally.”

He spoke of how, earlier in that day, he had attended an event at the Bangla Academy to receive an award. There they opened the ceremony by reading a verse from the Quran, a verse from the Bible, and finally a verse from the Bhagavad Gita. “They treated all three religions equally,” the Nobel Laureate explained. “If there was a westerner at this event, they would not have described this as a secular event.”

Using the example of Akbar the Great, Amartya Sen relayed how the Mughal Emperor's own religious views did not interfere with showing respect for or awarding rights to followers of other religions. Though the tradition of Muslim kings marrying Hindu princesses was not uncommon before Akbar's time, the fact he treated the families of his wives, be they Muslim or Hindu, with equal respect and favour was unique. His administration included numerous Hindu landlords, courtiers and military generals and he granted lands and money for Hindu temples and Christian churches across India.

“Mahatma Gandhi,” Sen also added, “was deeply religious at a personal level but was deeply secular in terms of the state. So South Asia's secularism is synthesis, not just distance.”

http://www.thedailystar.net/magazine/2012/01/01/perspective.htm

by Sponsored content

Ramachandra Guha: Pandit Nehru, Hero of his age and outcast of ours

Ramachandra Guha: Pandit Nehru, Hero of his age and outcast of ours

Re: Ramachandra Guha: Pandit Nehru, Hero of his age and outcast of ours

Re: Ramachandra Guha: Pandit Nehru, Hero of his age and outcast of ours

Re: Ramachandra Guha: Pandit Nehru, Hero of his age and outcast of ours

Re: Ramachandra Guha: Pandit Nehru, Hero of his age and outcast of ours

Re: Ramachandra Guha: Pandit Nehru, Hero of his age and outcast of ours