The Tribune, Chandigarh, India

ARTICLE

Patel adhered to pluralism
Modi uses his image to polarise society
by Kuldip Nayar

INDIA’s interests would have been served better if Sardar Patel, in place of Jawaharlal Nehru, had become the country's Prime Minister. This hypothetical possibility had been voiced by Gujarat Chief Minister Narendra Modi as a poll campaign for the Bharatiya Janata Party's prime ministerial candidate in the 2014
parliamentary elections.

Of all the leaders, Maulana Abul Kalam Azad, Nehru’s friend, guide and philosopher, came to the same conclusion after watching Nehru as an administrator. Azad was in Nehru’s Cabinet and saw him from close quarters. Azad told his secretary, Humayun Kabir, that they should have made Nehru the country's President and Patel its Prime Minister. Kabir and I were close friends. He recalled Azad’s observation when Kabir was the Education Minister in the Nehru Cabinet.

By no stretch of imagination, Azad can be linked with Patel or his philosophy. During the national struggle, both ardent participants were poles apart and made no secret of their stance. Patel was a pro-Hindu but strictly adhered to pluralism. Azad was secular through and through and boldly faced the charge of the "Hindu show boy" that the Muslim League made against him. He did not flinch even for a second to say publicly that the formation of Pakistan would be injurious to the health of the Muslims.

He would say before partition that the Muslims could walk proudly in the country with their heads held high that they were equal partners, even though they were fewer in numbers. Once India was divided on the basis of religion, the Hindus would tell the Muslims that they had taken their share and should, therefore, go to Pakistan.

Patel might not have commented on pluralism in unequivocal terms in which Azad did. But I recall that when after partition I sought shelter in Delhi, journeying from my hometown Sialkot, part of Pakistan, I heard Patel warning Pakistan against the exodus of Hindus. He said that India would send out Muslims in proportion to the Hindus ousted from Pakistan.

It was a strange logic of punishing the innocent Muslims living in India for the sins of Muslims in Pakistan. Even after 67 years of division, this approach has not been disowned either in India or Pakistan. Pakistan has ousted practically all Hindus. But the number of Muslims is around 18 crore in India. When there is tension between the two countries, many Hindus refer to Muslims as Pakistanis. Little purpose will be served in pursuing this point because the wounds of partition are far from healed and the people in both communities continue to be exploited in the name of religion.

Left to Patel, he would have had an exchange of population before accepting partition. Nehru was different. He did not mix religion with politics or the state. The distance in separation in their approach made Mahatma Gandhi, who led the war of Independence, to nominate Nehru as his successor. Hindu-Muslim unity was a matter of faith with Gandhiji, not part of the policy. Gandhiji and Patel came from the same state, Gujarat, ate the same food and represented the traditions of the state in many ways. Yet Gandhiji preferred Nehru to Patel. Gandhiji knew that Nehru even dreamt in English and that he was too much engrossed in world affairs.

But Gandhiji also knew that Nehru would interpret his philosophy of Hindu-Muslim unity more faithfully and employ such methods to implement it as respected scruples and were non-violent and fair. Patel’s biggest achievement is that he got 540-odd princely states integrated to the Indian Union. Hats off to him for what he did. But he believed in the ends, not the means. Some states volunteered to join the Indian Union. But some of them showed resistance. Patel's

secretary, V.P. Menon, had no compunction in admitting in his memoirs that the show of force brought round even the most recalcitrant.

The typical example is that of Travancore. It announced its independence and initiated the process of seceding. VP had an extra man in khaki when he went to the Travancore maharaja. He signed the instrument of accession. He explained subsequently that he did not want his family to suffer and spend years in jail. Gandhiji was also confident that his secular ideals would be safer in the hands of Nehru. This was proved when Patel refused to release Rs. 64 crore to Pakistan. This sum was part of assets which India had agreed to transfer while agreeing to the partition details. Patel argued that how could he release the money when India and Pakistan were engaged in a war over Kashmir. Gandhiji had to go on fast unto death to make Patel relent.

The extremist Hindus had vitiated the atmosphere of amity over the sum of Rs. 64 crore. The society was sought to be polarised. They criticised Gandhiji again and again for being anti-national and anti-Hindu. The RSS, the fallout of the Hindu Mahasabha's philosophy of Hinduva, hatched a conspiracy and shot Gandhiji dead. Patel was quite right in banning the RSS and blaming it for disturbing the atmosphere of secularism. Once again the slant of Patel towards the RSS made him withdraw the ban once the organisation changed its character to become a cultural organisation. This was only a smokescreen behind which the RSS used the BJP for its political activities. Modi is its candidate. In fact, RSS chief Mohan Bhagwat has openly said that the outfit will participate in politics.

Nehru has many a time exposed its duplicity. When Azad thought Nehru's suitability for the office of President, he was confident that the communal forces had been crushed. He commended Patel's quality of being pragmatic and practical. Azad had come to have full faith in Patel's secular aptitude. That Modi is using Patel's image for polarising society is unfortunate. Practical as Patel was, he would have understood that India's destiny lay in a democratic, secular polity. He, as Prime Minister, would have deepened its foundation more firmly than Nehru.

MIDDLE

Humour in police work
by Sukhdarshan Likhi

Some policemen with an unrelenting sternness of mind, overly obsessed with a rigid sense of discipline say and do things which produce results contrary to what may have been intended and in few instances may even be source of anecdotal amusement. No denying the fact that facing hardened criminals, tough, anti-social elements and all sorts of shady characters in day-to-day police work would always require a peculiar mindset so essential for registering suspicions, unearthing clues, sifting evidence and also for bringing coherence in the jigsaw puzzles in them and their crimes. However, in their daily working life many things happen which become an abiding source of laughter which most of the police officers share when they relax at social get-togethers.

In one instance a senior officer, annoyed at the habit of his head constable-rank official driver turning his head as if to look back, was ordered to always sit bolt upright and look straight. While returning from a long distance tour the driver halted the car at Rajpura fuel pump on his way back to Chandigarh. After drawing petrol he got into the car with alacrity and drove fast. On reaching the residence of the officer, he smartly opened the rear left door and found to his shock that his boss was not in the seat. The boss's wife angrily directed him to go back and bring him from Rajpura where he had left him stranded. He sheepishly faced his fuming and fretting boss, who asked him why he could not see him before leaving the place. He said with temerity that how could he do so, when he was all the time looking straight ahead.

Sometimes orders issued to the other ranks on night watch and security duties are accepted without seeking clarifications which are neither sought nor given. The seniormost officer at one of the training institutions ordered his staff to number all fruits growing in the orchard on government land. This was to obviate chances of theft of fruit. It so happened that on a particular windy night a big ripe papaya bearing no. 693 dropped there. The sentry on night duty was so mortified that he carefully wrapped it in his hanky and went to the house of the reserve Inspector at 2 a.m., woke him up, requesting him to write off the papaya as he feared his job would be danger in case he would not do so there and then. The reserve Inspector had to swallow his anger while passing the write-off order and later shared the funny part of this papaya episode with his boss.

Sometimes orders issued to other ranks on guard and security duties are accepted by them without clarifying the implications in their implementation which may sometimes result in unexpected, unpleasant or even funny situations. It so happened that the errant son of a district police chief would trouble his parents by coming late to the house every night. So to discipline him, he ordered the guard not to open the gates of the house without his permission. On a particular night the errant son had a brain wave. He went to the dark corner of the outer perimeter wall, scaled over it, and fell down with a thud. The guard on inner perimeter duty suspected that a criminal had entered the house, went to the spot and gave two-three lathi blows on his leg. His loud yelps woke up his parents, who, no seeing him, went speechless. Embarrassing as the entire incident was, it had to be underplayed for obvious reasons.

In the early 60s getting long leave in the police force was difficult because of the paucity of the force and the growing demands of public duties. So the applicants had to appear before the S.S.P. Now the district S.S.P was exceptionally upright, honest and conscientious officer who would write all orders in his own hand. So he was often too busy to look up. Now an a A.S.I., who appeared for obtaining one month's earned leave in connection with his marriage, was standing before him with an alert salute which he would not drop, till the officer would have looked up. When the officer did so after a few minutes, he was asked to drop the salute. The A.S.I. replied that he could not do so because all the time he was seeing 'divine light' on the face of the officer. He dropped the salute only after leave was sanctioned to him by an overly amused S.S.P.

Men in the disciplined force invariably carry out the orders of their superiors in letter and spirit. However, sometimes orders issued are not carefully thought of and often have unclarified ramifications which sometimes result in avoidable mistakes, besides attracting provisions of some rules/regulations. Seriousness of the matter notwithstanding, the memorable moments in the routine police work are those which are source of some humour.

OPED-HISTORY

Nehru and the building of a public morality
The nation could learn from the choices Jawaharlal Nehru made in a variety of situations and the moral positions he took
Peter DeSouza

IN his delightful book of essays, Patriots and Partisans, Ramachandra Guha has this very adulatory essay on Nehru titled Verdicts on Nehru: The Rise and Fall of a Reputation. If I have any critical comment on the essay, since I share its reading of the man, it is that Guha is not adulatory enough. This is said from a critical and objective reading of the contribution of the first Prime Minister to the making of the Indian nation-state. Today we are in a political mess. We are the producers of that mess. This has happened because we do not have the intellectual capability and the wisdom to see what it takes to keep a nation going, to give it its élan vital and build a state from the embers of Partition. Guha in his essay describes what it takes. We should study the text carefully and debate his analysis. In this article I shall take one quotation from the essay and build my argument on it.

Jawaharlal Nehru was born on November 14, 1889

Jawaharlal Nehru could effectively bridge the gap between the ancient and the modern. Here he is seen addressing the people after inaugurating the Bhakra Dam. File photo: PIB

Rarely does one choose Nirad Chaudhuri to speak well of India but I shall do so here. This is what Niradbabu had to say of Nehru. He “is the most important moral force behind the unity of India”. He was “the leader not of a party, but of the people of India taken collectively, the legitimate successor to Gandhiji”... “if Nehru goes out of politics or is overthrown, his leadership is likely to be split up into its components, and not pass over intact to another man. In other words, there cannot, properly speaking, be a successor to Nehru, but only successors to the different elements of his composite leadership”. (page127) As eulogies go, this is high praise and when it comes from Niradbabu it must be analysed seriously for one can find in it both ethical issues in politics and a philosophy of history.

The key phrase that needs our analytical scrutiny is “the most important moral force behind the unity of India”. What was the nature of this moral force? Is it akin to the moral force of a Narayan Guru or a Ram Mohan Roy or a Mahatma Phule or a Lajpat Rai, reformers who were working to change social mores but who did not have to build a new nation? Does such a moral persona carry a greater burden than that carried by social reformers? Why is such a moral force important for a new nation? What does it do and what happens when we lose it? These are questions that have relevance for us today, for our contemporary discourse, because those sitting in their armchairs in the winter sun as bystanders watching as the public discourse descends into a slanging match have now to take a stand. They would be foolish if they thought otherwise. But, before I illustrate what Niradbabu meant when he made that statement on Nehru, let me briefly reflect on the importance of this moral force.

Moral compass of new nation

A new nation needs to hold together, to bring its diverse parts into the new imagination that is being forged and that the parts can subscribe to. It needs a new iconography. It needs a new moral compass that will help its officials and citizens navigate, both individually and collectively, the troubled waters of a merciless history. A moral force helps a nation choose both the little things that matter and the big possibilities that count. A moral force gives significance to such choices and when ordinary people begin to make this morality a part of their inner being, then a public morality emerges which becomes the supporting glue of our public institutions. A moral force cements a nation especially when the moral force is wise, compassionate and non-partisan. India and Pakistan both needed such a moral force at Partition in 1947. India got one. Pakistan didn't and had to experience another painful partition in 1971. Today we are playing with fire when we begin to mock our moral force, when we seek to dismantle his legacy and descend into the worst form of partisan vituperative politics. When I listen to what is being said the image that comes to mind is of a viper’s tongue.

So what were the elements of this morality that Niradbabu so admired. It refers to both private and public matters, to the choices that Nehru made in a variety of situations, and to the moral positions he took, from which the new nation could learn as it developed its public morality.

Matters of the state

Let me illustrate these choices and these judgments by drawing on the material available in the Selected works of Nehru from 1956 to 1959, which have been recently published by the Nehru Memorial Trust. Let me take four episodes.

The first concerns matters of state. His fortnightly letters to chief ministers were part of the process of building this public morality. In his letter of December 31, 1958, he shares his anguish about judicial pendency.

“There is one matter which has been troubling me very considerably. This is judicial delays. The figures I have seen of arrears of work in some High Courts are appalling. This matter is being considered by our Law Commission. That Commission consists of eminent men. But I suppose they think rather in a groove, accepting the expensive system that we have put up as a base. We have increased the number of High Court judges but this has made little difference to the piling up of arrears. Demands for more judges come. If necessary, we should have more judges. But how many more? … More judges, more lawyers, more work, more delays — and more demand for more judges. Surely this leads to the inevitable conclusion that procedures have to be simplified. … In judicial matters as in so many others, we have often to think of institutional changes.”Here was the Prime Minister worrying about the delivery of justice for his people just eight years after the adoption of the Constitution. Judicial pendency is a grave problem threatening the creation of a fair society and if only our higher judiciary today showed a similar anxiety, in this their activist phase, then maybe we would have a more just society. But reforming the system is harder than simple judicial grandstanding.

Majority & minorities

Let me take another example. In a letter of January 16, 1956, he writes about the responsibility of the majority towards the minority.

“Minorities may be, and sometimes have been, troublesome and have made exaggerated claims. In a democracy however, it is the will of the majority that ultimately prevails. The responsibility therefore rests on the majority not only to do justice to the minority but, what is more important, to win over the goodwill and confidence of the minority group, whether it is linguistic, religious or other.”

The majority must be like an indulgent parent. Nehru knew his history and was aware of the sources of civil strife. He argued for winning over, through gestures and generosity, the goodwill and confidence of an insecure minority. This is mature statesmanship not appeasement. Today we need to think through what a strategy of “winning over” entails because we face grave threats to our attempts in building a plural nation, the only one that can work.

From his letters to chief ministers on the normative issues confronting the young nation, let me move to the second illustration where Nehru speaks to parliamentarians on the normative principles concerning a political community. Responding to Acharya Kripalani during the debate on President’s rule in Kerala, on August 19, 1959, Nehru dilates on the concept of satyagraha.

“… when we use the word satyagraha, surely, we would have in mind the basic elements of what is satyagraha. Surely this house will remember that in the old days, when satyagraha and all these direct action movements were pretty common, how Gandhiji stopped the whole movement, because he thought that it was going wrong; he stopped it. He even said that he was the one and only man in India who could perform satyagraha, nobody else. … with all deference to everybody concerned, I may add that if what I have said is satyagraha then there was no satyagraha in Kerala, none at all, because I have seldom seen any place so thick with hatred and incipient violence; it is amazing; it was a case of thick walls of hatred everywhere, group hatred. … there is so much hatred and so much bitterness about it, then it is dangerous to conduct any satyagraha; you may call it by some other name; it is not satyagraha.

Here was the PM and the prime accused in parliament inviting us to explore one of the key concepts of moral resistance in the face of injustice. He drew on history. He connected form with substance. He stressed the necessary conditions for such moral resistance to be authentic. We need to debate his views since satyagraha remains a key moral-political concept for any nation, especially ours.

Let me now turn to the little episodes. In his letter of November 23, 1959 to Jyotish Trivedi who made a film Kavi Kalidas, he writes,

“As you want my opinion of this film I would like you to know frankly how I feel about it. First of all, it is a very fine subject and there were many parts in the film which moved me considerably… But there were some parts which I did not fancy. It seemed to me that making Kalidasa, to begin with, a perfect idiot was overdoing it. An illiterate person can act foolishly and he can grow out of his folly, but a complete idiot can never become an able person. And I thought some of the dances were inappropriate in the setting and the dresses of the dances, especially the colours, did not seem to fit in”.

Nehru was giving his views on the new modes of public culture and, in his distinction between illiteracy and idiocy, offers here a theory of moral development. While his views may appear a bit patrician, the idiocy he seems to be talking about is a social disposition not a genetic inheritance. Looking at our public culture one feels compelled to endorse the view that an idiot can never outgrow his folly.

Moral force

There many more episodes to detail the moral force that Nehru represented. In his letter to Kamaraj on March 21, 1959 protesting the security arrangements, he writes, “the other day I was in Bombay and was quite shocked to see how the whole city's life was upset by my visit… Far too many police and other cars accompanied me. I was so annoyed with all this that I said I would abandon all my programmes the next day”.

Let me conclude by reference to a private exchange with his sister. In a letter to Krishna Hutheesing on July 21, 1959 he writes: “you can certainly publish those old letters which you have sent me. You have written about other matters also, rather personal ones. Do you think that all this helps? We do not improve each other by chiding and I suppose that, on the threshold of 70, I am a little past improvement even though I try to do so.” In this letter you can hear echoes of King Lear. And this is the man the nation has taken to chiding. Can we improve each other by chiding?

Listen to Lear in Act IV, scene 7:

You do me wrong to take me out o' the grave:

Thou art a soul in bliss; but I am bound

Upon a wheel of fire, that mine own tears

Do scald like moulten lead.

We do Nehru wrong to mock him thus. Nirad babu, it seems, had reason to mock us, not him.

The writer is Interim Director of the Inter-national Centre for Human Development. The views expressed are personal.

A moral force helps a nation choose both the little things that matter and the big possibilities that count. A moral force gives significance to such choices and when ordinary people begin to make this morality a part of their inner being, then a public morality emerges which becomes the supporting glue of our public institutions