Attacks on Nehruvianism : Ideological misgivings or Ideological Emptiness ?
A set of ideas propounded by a person or a group, inherited or self originated with a set of followers forms the basis of an ideology. Gandhism as an ideology is often contested but triumphs as far as the idea of India is concerned. The country fought for its independence on the principles of truth and non violence and Nehru laid its foundation post independence on liberal democratic principles of secularism, equality, cosmopolitanism, liberty and among others. If Gandhi was the ideal then Nehru formed the real. If Gandhi was hypothetical then Nehru was practical. If Gandhi was law then Nehru followed and implemeted those principles in the formation of the country.
Nehru was a man ahead of his times. He read enormously, wrote immensely and travelled the world immeasurably. All this made him develop an outlook ready to embrace the modern liberal principles of rule of law, democracy, liberty, justice, equality, freedom of speech and expression etc. Having established a bond with them he was out to cement them in the foundations of independent India. The objective resolution of 1946, defining the aims of Indian Consitution was based on these very ideals. The Constitution of India formed was a modern constitution admired across the world. Its efficacy can be judged from its pluralist approach to link and accommodate disparate Indian populace, its ability to evolve with changing times and its unrelenting relevance.
The ideals described above were an outcome of 18th century. They may have been evolved by western philosophers like Locke, JS Mill, Montesquieu etc but they were not in vogue in western societies too. They were new to them as well. A lot of western countries were running on feudal lines with authoritarianism and subjugation and so was India. On the periphary the British administration was running on modern lines with parliamentary system, organised police and army, rule of law etc but the core of India was living with a dominant- subservient relationship. A few set of wealthy and rich belonging to ‘upper’ castes had a say in all affairs while others were living under their hegemony. Amid this muddle the country woke to freedom.
With the ouster of the British, the country could have gone in the hands of an authoritarian regime akin to Mughals, could have gone on the lines of its neighbours with military dictatorships or could have gone with princely class regaining their reign. But India did not choose that path. India went for a written constitution formed on liberal lines delegitimising the old feudal order, all women and men of the country unaware went to vote for the first time and freedom fighters went in the election field giving the masses the choice to choose or reject them. The tenets of democracy since then have seeped into our psyche so deeply that elections are held to choose a trade union leader or a municipal councillor. The freedom of expression is excercised widely by everyone to raise their opinions. The transition of power post election is smooth without any coup or violence. The armed forces maintain a distance from political affairs. Many will contest and disagree but cannot ignore the contribution of Jawahar Lal Nehru in the orientation of the country towards this modern path. The leadership of Nehru in pre and post independent India buttressed the strong foundations of India. In true words, he is called the architect of Modern India.
The reason Nehru is denigrated and maligned today by the ruling government because they consider ideals of modern democracy as foreign and antithetical to Indian culture . They envisage a ‘NEW INDIA’ with an old order comprising caste hierarchy, irrational beliefs, disdain for logic and scientific temper, brahminical domination, dalit subjugation, minority marginalisation and pure dictatorship. To realise this ‘project’ Nehru and his tall ideals stands as a grand impediment. Wide propoganda machinery is working incessantly to smear Nehru and also rebuff all that he stood for.
What does it all show? It shows the paucity of thought in the present regime. They do not have an ideology for a future India. To reject everything happened in the past and attempts to change what has already formed the basic structure of Indians is an impossible task.The democratic ideals are not just tools for governance instead they have formed the Indian way of life. The unity in diversity is the basis of Indian state and not unity in uniformity. The country is moving ahead embracing individualism and liberalism with Supreme Court holding the guard freeing Indians with each successive judgements– decriminalisation of Art 377 regarding same sex relationship, recognising privacy as fundamental right, recognising live in relationships, limiting the scope of Aadhar only to subsidies and assuaging fears of its misuse, decriminalising adultery, allowing women in Sabrimala temple, expanding the scope of right to information in high judiciary etc.
With the closure of Ram Mandir issue it is hoped that the communal polarisation and hindutva deployed for political gains will take a beating. The country has never fallen prey to Hindu Rashtra project judged by its secular credentials. The country has rejected to go back in time and opted to move ahead.The country has rejected to go back in dark ages and opted to move ahead on progressive lines. The economy is in a tailspin with highest record of unemployment, low manufacturing output, and dismal fiscal positioning,defeating the ache din gimmick .There is nothing new the establishment has to offer now neither intrinsic nor instrumental. The countering of an existing ideology is the new ideology of the ruling class. They should get out idelogical emptiness for their own survival.
On a last note, there may not be Nehru today but his ideals resonate in millions of Indians. It is because of which the country remain undeterred and speaks truth to the power without fear. An example is me today.
