That every day, the Indians govern themselves in a large democracy with the evidence of its actions and words
Four men expressed the vision of a free India in the 1940s – Gandhi, Nehru, Patel and Ambedkar. Gandhi’s virtues, coupled with the political ambitions of Jawaharlal Nehru, formed a series of tactics and tactics against British rule. Sardar Patel’s strong hand in leadership united the country and established peace and stability. Ambedkar’s awareness and legal knowledge helped to translate the dreams of the generation into a legitimate document that laid the foundation for a stable democracy.
Establish a strategy
As the world was divided into idols, violence, and war, Gandhi taught the values of truth, nonviolence, and peace. When the country stopped shedding blood and killing people, Ambedkar preached on the principles of goodwill and law. Although religious ambitions undermined national unity, Patel led the nation to a vision of unity and a common goal. As mobs marched in the streets demanding revenge, Nehru’s visionary humanity and heresy prompted India to yearn for its former glory.
Of the four, Gandhi and Nehru were well-known. Despite the differences between the two methods (Nehru sought freedom at the same time as Gandhi believed that Indians should prepare for their independence) and philosophy (atheist Nehru had little patience for Mahatma’s spirituality), the two men were very close. Gandhi led Nehru to the pinnacle of politics; Nehru also proved to be a campaign promoter as President of the Indian National Congress, strengthening the country with his speeches and traveling tirelessly.
The keeper of the flame
With the assassination of Mahatma in 1948, just five months after independence, Nehru, the country’s first prime minister, became the country’s president, a clear demonstration of India’s struggle for independence. Gandhi’s death would have caused Nehru to take power. Instead, he spent the rest of his life based on the democratic values that Ambedkar established, trying to instill democratic values in his people – to denigrate dictators, to respect the rule of law, and to adhere to the rule of law. Until the end of the decade, his close friend Patel offered a firm hand on a field in which India could still be divided.
For India’s first 17 years of independence, Nehru was full of distractions – a humorous sage, a sensible thinker who was incredibly saddened by the masses of ordinary people; respectable, privileged, who had satisfying socialist beliefs; produced by the Anglicized Harrow and Cambridge who spent more than 10 years in British prisons; agnostic opponent who became an unexpected supporter of saints Mahatma Gandhi – was India. Indestructible, visionary, ecumenical, politically superior, Nehru’s level was so great that the country he led seemed impossible without him. A year before his death, the American journalist Welles Hangen published a book entitled After Nehru, Who? The unanswered question around the world was: “After Nehru, what?”
Also read | Nehru rewriting?
Today, looking back on his 132th birthday and almost 60 years after his death, we have an answer to that last question. As India seems to have worn most of Nehruvianism since the 21st century, the legacy of Jawaharlal Nehru seems to have not changed – yet it is still widely criticized. India has departed from many Nehru beliefs, and thus (in various ways) has all the other developing countries that Nehruvianism has spoken of. As India approaches 75 years of independence from the British Raj, a change – which has not been achieved – has, in essence, changed the Nehruvian views of the postcolonial state. Nehru himself, as an open-minded and inquisitive person, could have allowed his real thoughts to change with time, even if he remained steadfast in his core beliefs.
Pillars of his seal
In my 2003 history, Nehru: Invention of India, I wanted to examine this great man of the 20th century from the very beginning of the 21st century. The life of Jawaharlal Nehru is an interesting story, and I have tried to say it all, because a fortune teller, an incredible youth, a patriotic youth, and a freedom fighter, all cannot be compared to an unquestionable Prime Minister. head of state. At the same time, I tried to delve deeper into the four main pillars of Nehru’s legacy in India – building democratic institutions, religious stability in India, socialist wealth at home, and foreign policy inconsistencies – all of which were important. to the Indian vision that is challenged today.
Among these, it was the democratic house built by Nehru that remained the most important pillar in its contributions to India.
It was not a matter of concern that a country like India, with its many internal and ethnic conflicts, with deep poverty and division, would remain a democracy. Many developing countries have begun to turn their backs on one another after gaining independence, arguing that a strong hand was needed to promote national unity and lead civilization. With Gandhi’s death, Nehru could have gained unlimited power in the province. And yet, he himself was a determined democrat, very careful about the dangers of autocracy, so that, on board, he wrote an anonymous article warning the Indians of the dangers of inflicting cruelty on Jawaharlal Nehru. “She should be examined,” he wrote of himself. “We do not want Caesar.” And, of course, when his actions were criticized within his party he was giving up his position; he often found his way, but it was not Caesar’s nature.
As Prime Minister, Nehru carefully supervised the democratic institutions of the country. He respected the national leadership and even the vice president; did not allow the people to forget that the celebrities outnumbered him in the protocol references. He wrote regular letters to the Heads of State, explaining his plans and seeking their answers. He questioned himself and his government for questioning in Parliament by small, inconsistent but undoubtedly skilled Opponents, which allowed them to be more important than their numbers, because he was convinced that Great Opposition was essential to a healthy democracy. . He was careful not to disrupt the justice system; One day he openly criticized the judge, the next day he apologized and wrote a defamatory letter to the prosecutor, complaining that he had insulted the courts. And do not forget that he took his power from the people of India; not only was it miraculously available to the man in charge, but he developed the habit of giving daily darshan home for an hour every morning for anyone coming in from the street without a contract, a practice that continued until the security law upheld the reputation of his successors.
It was Nehru who, in his preoccupation with the form and culture of democracy, established the democratic values of our country. His respect for Parliament, his respect for the rights of the judiciary, his respect for the people of the various political parties, his commitment to free elections, and his respect for the institutions of the people, all left us precious rights.
The American editor, Norman Cousins, asked Nehru what he hoped his legacy in India would be. “Four hundred million able-bodied people,” replied Nehru. The numbers have increased, but the fact that every day more than a billion Indians are self-governing in most democracy is proof of the actions and words of a person we remember his birthday tomorrow.
Shashi Tharoor is the third member of Congress Party representing Thiruvananthapuram and 22 award-winning authors, including the most recent, This Battle of Being