This is from The Hindu of 9 January 2010, which reproduces what it had said over 50 years ago in its issue of 9 January 1960: “Prime Minister Nehru categorically ruled out any proposal for appointing a high power tribunal to enquire into and investigate charges of corruption against Ministers or persons in high authority, for the main reason that, in India, or for that matter any other country where there was a democratic set-up, he could not see how such a tribunal could function. The appointment of such a tribunal, Mr. Nehru felt, would produce an atmosphere of mutual recrimination, suspicion, condemnation, charges and counter-charges and pulling each other down, in a way that it would become impossible for normal administration to function. More than half the time of the Press conference was devoted by Mr. Nehru to deal with this question of appointing a tribunal to enquire into cases of corruption as recently urged by India’s former Finance Minister, Mr C.D.Deshmukh.”
That indeed must be a very innovative restriction of democracy! It’s like saying a Lokpal would subvert democracy and adversely affect administrative functioning. And Nehru suggests no alternative to curb corruption!
Nehru had commented thus on the charges against Pratap Singh Kairon: “The question thus arises as to whether the chief minister is compelled to resign because of adverse findings on some questions of fact by Supreme Court. The ministers are collectively responsible to the legislature. Therefore, the matter was one which concerned the assembly. As a rule therefore, the question of removing a minister would not arise unless the legislature expressed its wish by a majority vote.”
So, even if a minister is corrupt he can’t be removed, unless voted out! So you can buy immunity by manipulating or managing votes.
Dr Rajendra Prasad wrote to Nehru: “I must say that I am somewhat disappointed. The question of corruption has been too prominently and too long before the public to brook any further delay in making a probe into it. I think Deshmukh has given enough details about cases to be traced and once the Government makes up its mind and gives immunity to informants against vindictive action, proofs will be forthcoming. I would therefore suggest that thought be given to finding out cases. It is not enough that you are satisfied that all is well. A popular Government’s duty is to give satisfaction to the people also... I have been worried by your suggestion that I should send for you and speak to you if I have anything to communicate rather than write. I am afraid this will stultify me in performing my constitutional duty...”
What does this mean? Nehru neither wanted to set up an Ombudsman on corruption nor a tribunal nor did he want the President to put anything in writing on corruption-related matters. He wanted the President to be satisfied with his verbal assurance that all was well! Asking for anything more was an unfriendly act against him! Was Nehru running some personal, private-limited government?
Blunder–63 :
Messy Reorganisation of States
In India, distinct geographical areas have their own distinct language; and associated with them a distinct set of culture, customs, dresses, music, dance, arts, literature and so on. Indian freedom fighters, except perhaps the anglicised-set that included Nehru, were deeply aware of the love and attachment of the people to their mother-tongues and the associated culture, and its power in harnessing them to the cause of freedom; because political freedom would also have meant freedom from English and colonial culture, and its replacement by their mother-tongue and their culture.
It was therefore natural for the leaders of the Indian Independence movements to have worked out back in the beginning of the twentieth century itself that upon independence India should be reorganised along the lines of the major languages so that the people of the concerned regions could fulfil their aspirations, and their language and culture flowers. The Congress Party had committed itself to this way back in 1917.
In the constitution that was framed by the Congress under the inspiration and guidance of Mahatma Gandhi, India was divided into provinces along linguistic lines, and the Provincial Congress Committees (PCCs) were as per the linguistic zones, like Orissa PCC, Karnataka PCC, and so on. All the leaders of the independence movement from different regions and language areas were agreeable on this—there were no two opinions.
No one thought it would be divisive in nature and a threat to the national unity. That there were distinct languages and cultures was a fact on the ground; and if that meant divisive tendencies, then that would have been there whether or not separate states were carved on that basis.
On the contrary, by not carving out the states as per the major-language regions there was a good possibility of dissatisfaction, frustration, anger and mischief leading to bad blood among people and divisive tendencies.
Those who were close to the ground and genuinely understood India knew that what held India together through thousands of years and through trying times was the overarching culture of broad Hinduism and associated religions that evolved in the Indian soil like Jainism, Buddhism and Sikhism. This unique Indian combination cut across languages and local cultures and stitched together the larger entity, Bharat Varsh.
However, in the wake of partition, the division of India on the Hindu-Muslim religious lines was extrapolated to include possible future divisions on linguistic lines, and a needless fear psychosis developed.
What was decided coolly and rationally in the pre-independence times and was taken for granted, and what most people implicitly looked forward to as a logical post-independence step was sought to be given a go by, as a panic, irrational reaction to the partition.
Rather than forming a competent body to go into all aspects of reorganisation of India and making recommendations, Nehru’s government sought to postpone the whole issue indefinitely.
Doing nothing is always more convenient than doing something worthwhile. One can always come up with some reasoning to maintain the status quo. Nehru’s government did not realise the consequences of trying to sweep the whole issue under the carpet.
The issue erupted. First, for Andhra. The government tried their best to suppress the agitation. The more they tried the worse it became. Ultimately, they had to give in, and the state of Andhra Pradesh was formed in 1953.
All the violence, destruction to property, and bad blood among people speaking different languages could have been avoided had the issue been rationally and peacefully settled through a body that could have been set up. Ultimately, States Reorganisation Commission (SRC) was formed in 1954. It submitted its report on 30 September 1955 recommending reorganisation of India's states. The Parliament debated the Report, and passed the States Reorganisation Act on 31 August 1956, as per which the reorganisation was effected on 1 November 1956.
However, the matter of Maharashtra, Gujarat and Mumbai was again allowed to hang for too long, leading to agitations and violence. Eventually, Nehru had to give in. The states of Maharashtra and Gujarat were created on 1 May 1960.
It showed that the Nehru’s government lacked the wisdom to do the right thing at the right time, and created avoidable problems for itself and for the country. Only when forced did they do what people demanded and aspired for. If you indeed had some great and valid principles behind what you did, you should have stuck to your stand, even if you became unpopular. (But, for Nehru, popularity and power was the priority.)
What was the down side, if any? Nothing.
The linguistic states never asked for secession. Indian unity actually became stronger. The language and culture of different linguistic states flourished—compared to what the status was earlier.
The problem with Nehru was that most of his major stands—whether on Kashmir, or on Hyderabad, or on India-China border issues, or on economy, or on the Northeast, or on States’ reorganisation—displayed lack of grasp and clarity.
Nehru was not rooted in India; nor was he a rational, scientific thinker, with wisdom and guts to take right decision at the right time. Fortunately, he retracted on States’ reorganisation, else there would have been further problems.
Educati
onal & Cultural Mismanagement
Blunder–64 :
Neglect of Education
Neglect of education, especially at the primary and the secondary level during the Nehruvian era sealed India’s fate as a prosperous emerging nation and a genuine, enlightened democracy. Among the first things that the countries like Japan, South Korea and Singapore did to become prosperous was to focus on education—both mass education and higher education. Nehru knew only one formula for development: socialism and public sector—which took India to dogs.
Considering how backward the home constituencies of the Nehru-Gandhis have been, despite the fact that they have been representing them for decades, it would appear they have had a vested interest in keeping people illiterate and backward—such people can be easily fooled into voting for you through emotional trickery and sops.
The education under Nehru became elitist. There was regrettable compartmentalisation into the HMTs (Hindi-Medium types) and the EMTs (English-Medium types), with EMTs cornering most facilities and opportunities. There were little efforts to make education universal and of high quality. Policy restrictions and the bureaucratic-maze spread by the Nehruvians ensured peripheral role for the private sector in education, thus severely limiting the already limited educational sector further.
Nehruvians flaunt establishment of IITs and IIMs during the time of Nehru. The question is whether just five IITs and a few IIMs were enough for a country of India's size. Shouldn't there have been several IITs and several IIMs in each state?
Universal literacy and an informed public were the two factors Nehru-Dynasty could not have survived; so it seems they let wide-spread illiteracy prevail.
Blunder–65 :
Messing Up the Language Issue
Gandhi had advocated Hindi or Hindustani as the national language and the link language. All the top leaders, whether from South or North, East or West, were agreeable on it. Yet, the matter was allowed to become controversial under the watch of Nehru after independence.
After considerable deliberations the Constituent Assembly agreed that the official language of the Union shall be Hindi in the Devanagari script; but for 15 years from the commencement of the Constitution, that is, from 26 January 1950, the English language shall continue to be used for all the official purposes of the Union—that is, till 25 January 1965.
The Official Languages Act of 1963 stipulated that English “may” be used along with Hindi in official communications after 1965. That left it ambiguous. Was it optional?
Lal Bahadur Shastri as prime minister stood by the decision to make Hindi official with effect from 26 January 1965, and all hell broke loose in the South. Ultimately, Shastri had to back out.
The question is not Hindi or English, the question is why the matter was allowed to drift for 15 years under Nehru? If indeed all were not agreeable on Hindi, then it should have been announced well in advance that the status quo would continue till as long as all were not agreed.
Nehru’s drift and lack of clarity eventually led to massive agitations and violence and bad blood among people, which were quite avoidable. Shastri too should have been careful not to go along with a decision that was not acceptable to a large section.
If it was thought that English is a useful global language, then, as a matter of policy, it should have been made compulsory for all from the primary school itself. Government should have pumped in money to ensure there were facilities available in all schools to teach English, apart from the regional language and Hindi.
Doing so would have ensured a level-playing field for all students. With all children knowing English, the “English Language Aristocracy” would have been dead. This is not to say that the medium of instruction should have been English. It should have been in the mother tongue in the schools, and optionally also in English or Hindi—with no privileges attached to learning in English or Hindi. But, it should have been compulsory for all to learn English—and good English. That way, English would have been just a foreign language everyone knew. If English became a factor in getting jobs, like in IT or BPO or KPO, then with all students knowing it, it would not have given an edge to the less deserving.
In sharp contrast to India, it is admirable what Israel did. Upon formation of Israel in 1948, many Jews scattered all over the world came over. They spoke different languages. To ensure a unifying language, many linguists, backed by the State, set about reviving Hebrew, Israel’s ancient language, which had fallen in decrepitude. Now, all Israelis speak Hebrew. It has given them an identity, and has greatly helped unify Israel. Most also know English, as it is taught from the primary school itself.
A miniscule English-speaking elite, a miniscule set of Hindi diehards and a non-visionary, incompetent leadership messed up the language issue.
A vast majority of people in the South knew neither Hindi nor English, so where was the question of their preferring either?
Why should Hindi diehards have tried to impose Hindi? It is a democratic nation, and a consensus should have been evolved; and till that was ensured, nothing should have been done to force any language.
Further, why shouldn’t an ancient nation like India have its own national language known to all for easy communication, without in anyway ignoring the regional languages or English or affecting the job-prospects?
Who cares what language is so chosen? What is important is that there should have been at least one common language. It could have been Hindi or Hindustani, with liberal borrowing of words from other regional languages and English; or it could have been simplified Sanskrit or Tamil or Bengali or any other or a new hybrid language, with borrowings from all!
Language Commission setup in 1955 examined the progress in Hindi to replace English as the union language by 26 January 1965 as provided in the constitution, reiterated the constitutional obligation, made various recommendations, but left the decision to the government.
A Parliamentary Committee, with GB Pant (the then Home Minister) as the Chairman, was appointed in 1957 to scrutinize the commission’s recommendations. Its unanimous (but for one dissent) recommendation was that Hindi should be the principal language from 26 January 1965, and English a subsidiary one, with no target date for the switch over. Pant sent the draft-report of the Parliamentary Committee to Nehru.
Here are the extracts from Kuldip Nayar’s ‘Beyond the Lines’ on what transpired: “The use of the word ‘subsidiary’ for English infuriated Nehru, who argued that the word, subsidiary, meant English was the language of ‘vassals’. [Various substitute words were suggested by Pant]... Nehru disagreed with Pant and worse, he was quite indignant and reportedly made some harsh comments. Finally, the word subsidiary was substituted by 'additional'. Pant told me, ‘Mark my words, Hindi will not come to the country’. He was dejected. That very evening, Pant had his first heart attack…”
Blunder–66:
Promoting Urdu & Persian-Arabic Script
Hindi is written in the Devanagari script from left to right, while Urdu is written from right to left, being derived from a Persian modification of the Arabic script. High variants of Hindi depend on Sanskrit for enrichment, while Urdu looks to Persian and Arabic for its higher variants.
Rather than giving Hindi its due, Nehru insisted that Urdu was the language of the people of Delhi, and should accordingly be given official recognition. When the Home Minister Pant told him that the statistics showed only 6% of the Delhiwalas had claimed Urdu as their language, Nehru tried to rubbish the statistics, though he didn’t press further with his crazy idea.
Nehru was also in favour of Persian-Arabic script in which Urdu is written, rather than Devanagari script in which Hindi and Sanskrit are written. It seems that anything Indian or Hindu or representing Hindu/Indian heritage, and Nehru had some problem with it, and he tried to abort it. Ram Manohar Lohia had rightly said that Nehru was against anything that would give Indians a sense of Indianness!
Also, Nehru promoted what he was personally comfortable with: Eng
lish and Urdu. Not what was good for the nation.
Hindi clearly had association with nation, India, Hindu, and Sanskrit; while Urdu has been advocated by Muslim leaders. The states that became West Pakistan and East Pakistan (now Bangladesh) had no association whatever with Urdu; their languages were Punjabi, Sindhi, Bengali, etc. But, the Muslim leaders from UP who migrated to Pakistan imposed Urdu on Pakistan. What business Nehru had in trying to favour Urdu and Persian-Arabic script can only be understood if we account for his pseudo-secular character, and eagerness to appease Muslims for votes.
Blunder–67 :
Neglect of Sanskrit
With the ascendency of English Language Aristocracy and the Brown Sahibs (Nehru being its most prominent representative), work in Indian languages and Sanskrit suffered a setback.
Look at the condition of Sanskrit—unarguably the greatest and the most scientific language. It is becoming extinct. And unless you have mastery in Sanskrit and other older languages you can’t do effective research in past Indian history.
Reportedly, those who have genuine interest in working on the Indian past now go to certain reputed universities in the US, who not only have a rich collection of relevant books, but also have faculty proficient in Sanskrit! So, to research India, go abroad!!
India was the motherland of our race, and Sanskrit the mother of Europe's languages: she was the mother of our philosophy; mother, through the Arabs, of much of our mathematics; mother, through the Buddha, of the ideals embodied in Christianity; mother, through the village community, of self-government and democracy. Mother India is in many ways the mother of us all.
—Will Durant, American historian and philosopher
The adverse fallout of the above is that distortionists of the Hindu cultural and religious heritage like Wendy Doniger of the University of Chicago, and Sheldon Pollock of the Columbia University have become respected global authorities on Sanskrit, Sanskrit literature and ancient Indian heritage.
Nehru's 97 Major Blunders Page 15