Nehru: The Lotus Eater from Kashmir

The exalted status bequeathed to the first Prime Minister of India; Jawaharlal Nehru is unparalleled in Modern History. Together the astounding levels of lavish praise heaped on Nehru by the avowed dynasty courtiers attributing nearly everything under Indian Sky post-Independence to him has only stirred up my genuine curiosity to delve deeper into the Nehruvian phenomenon. The Nehruvian cult which continues to thrive on the patronage of the dynasty besides dominating the academic and literally circles have always been highly critical of any work that projected Nehru in a poor light.

An honest appraisal of a stalwart, acclaimed as triumvirate of Freedom Movement, others being Mahatma Gandhi and Sardar Vallabhai Patel is essential to reminisce his legacy for posterity. More than seven decades to independence shackled by the mistakes of past, India continues to pay heavy price for glaring misjudgements by the man at the helm of affairs, Nehru, who is coveted with the honour of scripting of country’s foreign policy as well. 

Notwithstanding the mess, India has been grappling through since independence; every effort has been made to etch his impregnable mark on India for eternity by naming almost all major projects, government schemes or initiatives, universities after him. With his towering Himalayan blunders continue stare in face, it is important to revisit and rediscover the man and his legacy.

On the eve of Nehru’s birth anniversary, I came across an article where Ramachandra Guha eloquently referred to the testimony of a Nehru-baiter DF Karaka, the author of the book Nehru: The Lotus Eater from Kashmir. As per Greek Mythology, Odysseus during his return from Troy, had encountered a special tribe that consumed mysterious lotus plant which made them dreamy and forgetful. Pejoratively, in the modern world, Lotus eater refers to anyone who is lazy, leads a laidback, peaceful and decadent life. Setting aside the debate, whether Nehru fits this definition, the title of the book and the controversy surrounding it interested me.

Kanaka who was highly derided for his disparaging remarks towards Nehru was indeed, the first person, to have dug out an article printed in Modern Review in 1938. It read, “Jawaharlal cannot become a fascist. And yet he has all the makings of a dictator in him-vast popularity, strong will directed to a well-defined purpose, energy, pride, organisational capacity, ability, hardness, and with all his love of the crowd, an intolerance of others and certain contempt for the weak and inefficient. His flashes of temper are well-known, and even when they are controlled, the curling of the lips betrays him. His overmastering desire to get things done, to sweep away what he dislikes and build anew, will hardly brook for long the slow process of democracy. He may keep the husk but he will see to it that it bends to his will. In normal times he would just be an efficient and successful executive, but in this revolutionary epoch, Caesarism is always at the door, and is it not possible that Jawaharlal might fancy himself as a Caeser?

Therein lies the danger for Jawaharlal and for India…….. Let us not…spoil him by too much of adulation and praise. His conceit, if any, is already formidable. It must be checked. We want no Caesars”.

Nobody indeed paid much attention to this incredible article which verily sums up Jawaharlal, written by the man himself under an anonymous name warning the country of his unchecked consequent rise in future.

Clearly, just months into power, Nehru unleashed the state machinery and instituted the first amendment to take on anyone legally who contradicted him. Rehearsing privately to play the role of ‘Liberator of Asia’, Nehru blissfully chose to ignore Mao Communist driven agenda to usurp Tibet as ‘liberation exercise of Tibet’. Notwithstanding the consequences of recognising the suzerainty of China over Tibet, Nehru ordered the recall of our trade representative from Kashgar and Indian Mission and eventually facilitated the smooth takeover of Tibet by the Chinese forces. Dismissing the momentous consequences of Chinese penetration close to Indian frontiers with a remark that “communists are not unduly manageable”, Nehru has irrevocably emboldened China.

Underscoring the extent of the irreparable damage, Karaka quotes an eminent historian Professor Arnold Toynbee’s prescient observation in “Civilisation on Trial”, “there would be two theatres of war in World War III, and that one of them would be Tibet. Tibet touches not only the disturbed area of Nepal, but also the disputed portion of Kashmir; important trade routes pass through Ladakh. Tibet also borders on Assam, which has been for sometime in a restless state due to perpetual communist activities of which our government is aware, but not poignantly”.

The open-ended standoff with China this year holds a mirror to the misplaced judgements and warped understanding and indifferent response of Nehru towards Chinese Communist agenda. Smitten by neutrality, Nehru continued to side and support China at the UN despite being declared an aggressor in the Korean war. Nehru’s vague and untenable foreign policy exasperated America and Soviet Union.

Karaka’s 114-page racy commentary which sums up his perspective of Nehru is replete of several devastating accounts wherein Nehru’s neutrality and his fetish for enhancing pride and prestige abroad has permanently crippled India’s interests. Elated by a rousing reception in Srinagar, post- Pakistan tribal raids on Kashmir valley, ignoring the devastation heaped by the marauders and the valiant defence put up by the Indian security forces, Nehru promised Kashmiris the right to decide their future. His solemn pledge to people to feel free to choose whatever government they desired notwithstanding the cost of Rs 900,000 incurred by Indian government months after the partition is yet another testimony to Nehru’s instinct of committing at the spur of moment, without any thought on consequences. Seven decades hence, India is still fire-fighting the consequences of his impetuous decision.

Resignation of Finance Minister of John Matthai, impulsive order on stopping food imports in 1949 and the subsequent trail of famines across different parts of India, appointment of Dr Solomon Trone a little known economist at salary more than Prime Minister to devise Industrial Planning for India, classic double stance on Common Wealth and several episodes which etch the book provide a rare insight into the personality of the man who is regarded as “high man on the totem pole”. Driven by instincts, Nehru was never fluent with facts and hardly had the patience to master the details.

More essentially, the book sheds light on the hypocrisies of Nehru and the unbridgeable gap between “theory and practice” which even his staunchest followers might find it difficult to justify. The book encapsulates the first seven years of Nehru’s regime and the irresistible attributes of his personality which includes his great hold over the nation, ability to stand in the face of chaos and uncertainly. Paying ode to his compelling sincerity and intolerance to sectarianism, he hails Nehru’s exceptional ability to bring dissenting forces together. India weathered the most brutal partition, in part due to his emotional force which has been a great unifier.

Surrounded by a legion of sycophants who served as his ears and eyes, Nehru held sway over the people with “his inexplicable mesmeric power”, says the author. The book is an interesting read for anyone who is open-minded and keen on knowing the other side of the story.

@ Copyrights reserved.