Nehru Imperator

JAWAHARLAL NEHRU read history, wrote history and made history. He was a great man. He was one of the tallest leaders of the 20th century. Yet, history has been grossly unfair to him. My generation revered and venerated Mahatma Gandhi. Its hero was Jawaharlal Nehru. He inspired, his magnetism, vitality and good looks made him stand out in any gathering. Gandhiji gave an ethical and moral dimension to our freedom struggle. Nehru provided the intellectual, rational and anti-imperialist dimensions. (I am not touching his foreign policy because this is not the occasion to do so.) He not only laid the foundations of a modern, democratic, secular, pluralistic India, but also achieved all these against daunting odds. His biographer, S Gopal writes, that Nehru gave India, “adult suffrage, sovereign Parliament, a free press, an independent judiciary. These are Nehru’s lasting monuments.” 

I have called Nehru a great man. Isaiah Berlin, the brilliant Oxford historian-cum-philosopher, said, “To call someone a great man is to claim that he has intentionally taken… A large step, one far beyond the normal capacities of men, in satisfying or materially affecting, central human interests. A great thinker or artist must deserve this title, advance society, to an exceptional degree… alter its ways of thinking or felling to a degree that would not, until he had performed is task, have been conceived as being within the powers of a single individual… In the realm of action, the great man seems able, almost alone and single-handed to transform one form of life into another or permanently and radically alters the outlook and values of a significant body of human beings.” I have quoted Isaiah Berlin at some length because I do not know of any other man who could excel Berlin. I briefly met him twice in London, once in the company of the British poet, Stephek Spender. I recall this because Berlin possessed an aura which even in a very brief encounter left a lasting impression on my intellect.

To me, Nehru, on all counts, passes the Berlin criteria. At the moment, the bigots are hell-bent on demonising Nehru. They will, of course, not succeed, but it is galling that some of these unworthies have attained positions of power and authority. They have deliberately invented the Nehru-Patel controversy. Let us for a moment concede that Sardar Patel would have made a better prime minister. In that case, Sardar Patel would have been at the helm for less than three-and-a-half years. He passed away on December 15, 1950, at the age of seventy-five. Who would have been his successor? Nehru, of course. Both were great in their own way. Those denigrating Nehru surely are aware of the fact that Sardar Patel was number two in Nehru’s first Cabinet, consisting of 15 ministers, including Nehru and Patel. Of these 14, six were non-Congress men — Shyama Prasad Mukherjee, BR Ambedker, Shanmukham Chetty, CH Bhaba, Baldev Singh and John Mathai.

Patel could well have stayed out. As a great patriot he rejected personal ego to serve and give his best to the country.

A few days back, the Editor-in-Chief of this paper reminded us of the HVR Iyengar episode. He was an ICS officer who, for some time, worked with Nehru and Patel. The incident was blown out of all proportion by both (The Sardar’s letter to Nehru had the V Shankar touch in it. He was Sardar Patel’s private secretary. Shankar had subtlety of mind but not openness of character.)

Serious differences between the two emerged in January 1948. As usual, Gandhiji was the umpire. On  January 30, Sardar Patel met the Mahatma at 4 pm at Birla House. Patel opened his heart to Gandhiji, who told him that his presence in the Cabinet was indispensable. So was Nehru’s. Any breach between them would be a disaster. Gandhiji would meet the two the next day to resolve their problems. At 5.10 pm the Mahatma was shot dead.

I very much doubt if the critics of Nehru have read the letters exchanged between Nehru and Patel in the first week of February 1948. Both rose to the occasion. Both realised that it was their duty to together serve India. They transcended their divergences. Only very high-minded and large-hearted men could pen such epistles. I quote a paragraph from each. On February 3, 1948, Nehru wrote, “It is a quarter century since we have closely associated with one another and have faced many storms and perils together. I can say with full honesty that during this period my affection and regard for you have grown, and I do not think anything can happen to lessen this.” Sardar Patel replied on February 5, 1948, “I am deeply touched and overwhelmed by the affection and warmth of your letter. I fully and heartily reciprocate the sentiments you have so feelingly expressed. We have both been lifelong comrades in a common cause. The paramount interests of our country and our mutual love and regard, transcending such differences of outlook and temperament as exist, have held us together.”

I end this on a personal note. I was private secretary to secretary-general RK Nehru between 1960-61. His and my modest office was on the same floor as that of the prime minister. When Parliament was not in session, The Prime Minister came to South Block at 9.30 am and left for lunch at 1.30 pm. At times, I ran into him. One afternoon I almost collided with him. I greeted him with folded hands, with a book between them. He asked me what the book was. It was Amaury de Riencourt’s The Soul of China. The prime minister said, “I have read his Soul of India.” “So have I, Sir” was my response. He then walked towards the stairs which led to Gate 1 and remarked, “Rather Spenglerian I thought.” I gave a nervous smile, not having read Spengler’s The Decline of the West. When he reached the stairs, he paused, looked at me and said, “Nehru Imperator”. He said so because I had read The Soul of India which has a chapter entitled Nehru Imperator.

— The writer is a former Union Cabinet minister