—S. Nijalingappa, ‘My Life and Politics’
Durga Das writes in his book ‘India from Curzon to Nehru & After’ that in 1957 in his weekly column in Hindustan Times he wrote Nehru was building up his daughter for succession. He says he had checked with Maulana Azad before writing the column, and Azad had said he too had independently reached the same conclusion. Even Govind Ballabh Pant had the same opinion. Later, when Nehru remonstrated with Durga Das on the column, to mollify Nehru, Durga Das assured him that what he had written would bring good publicity to Indira and would stand her in good stead—at which Nehru felt happy and smiled.
India is a country whose culture and thinking has been so vitiated by the dynasts and their hangers-on and direct and indirect beneficiaries that even the indefensible—dynastic democracy—is defended. Dynacracy-tolerant “intellectuals” often question: Are the dynasts trying to get in undemocratically? No. Then, what is the problem. If one fights an election, gets elected, and becomes a political leader, what illegality or wrong is committed—everything is democratic and above board.
Although obviously absurd, one is not surprised to hear such pleas. What is happening dynasty-wise, be it Nehru-Gandhi or DMK or Lalu or any of the scores of other dynasties, is so obviously wrong that it should neither attract any defence, nor any arguments to demolish that defence. However, the original Dynasty has been able to do such publicity over the decades through the compliant MSM, intellectuals and netas that the reverse has happened: questioning the dynastic succession has become questionable!
A prominent argument advanced goes like this. Dhirubhai Ambani’s sons are also businessmen. That is, businessmen's wards generally become businessmen. Progeny of artists—singers, musicians, writers, and others—also become artists. Sons or daughters of Bollywood actors also become actors. Doctor's wards also become doctors. Farmer's son is often a farmer. Dynasty is everywhere. So why pick on only political dynasties? This superficial argument can fool only the gullible. Progeny of doctors, artists, actors, businessmen becoming also doctors, artists, actors, businessmen affect them only, not others. However, progeny of a neta/politician becoming a neta affects people at large. It is the requirement of a democracy to be representative and hence non-dynastic. Business houses or art houses or professional establishments are not required to be representative.
In politics too, you once had hereditary rajas and maharajas and kings and queens. But the days of those retrograde systems are gone—now replaced by a democratic system. In a way, therefore, hereditary or dynastic succession is unconstitutional. Then, why bring it in from the backdoor. It is against the spirit of the Constitution. Dynastic succession is feudal, inappropriate, unjust, and harmful for the nation, whether it happens in the communist North Korea or the Islamic Saudi Arabia or in the democratic or dynacratic India.
To the pro-dynasty “Don’t they fight elections and win” argument, the question is: How do they win? A far more competent competitor would not even get the party-ticket. But for the dynasty scion, it is for the asking. They get on a platter the constituency nursed for years by their parents. And they have money to splurge to get elected. After getting elected, a high position within the party-organisation or the government is assured to them—something denied to the many much more competent but less-connected contenders. The whole thing is unjust, unfair and undemocratic.
Don't those who defend dynasties on the specious plea that “after all they get elected” realise that it is thanks to their running, or rather, running down the country for decades that India could do no better than rank among the poorest and the most corrupt countries in the world and remains in “dark” ages, with millions of malnourished children, unjust criminal-justice system loaded against the poor and the powerless; continuing reprehensible caste, class and religious distinctions and social evils; and vicious, indifferent and incompetent Babudom.
The sophists question: “Are you saying that children of a politician should be denied a political career? Would that be democratic?” It is not that the progeny or relatives of a politician should be denied a political career. Only thing is that they should not be allowed to derive an unfair advantage. That is possible when things are enforced to be genuinely democratic, nepotism is rooted-out, and talent and ability take the front-seat. Is there any inner-party democracy in the political parties? What if the person from the so-called dynasty also has merit? Well, does he or she have more merit compared to the many with merit? If yes, fine. But, let there be a fair comparison, competition and debates.
The principal hazards of dynasty politics are the following: (a)It discounts merit and prevents competent from rising. (b)It thwarts internal democracy in political parties. (c)Dynastic politics, nepotism, institutionalised corruption and non-accountability go together. (d)Dynastic politics is always at the expense of the nation. (e)It is the biggest menace. It’s the foundation of India’s misery.
The dynastic politics that Nehru started and thus sanctified has now vitiated and poisoned our whole democratic system. Following in his footsteps, now most leaders promote their own dynasty in politics. It has become all pervasive. Now, it’s not just Nehru’s heirs—we now have heirs and relatives in nearly every state.
The funny thing is that the younger political leaders from the dynasties, who have got the position for free, thanks to the power-structure built by their parents, were being called by the media the young turks! How can successors in a dynastic-line be ever young turks! They may be young, but certainly not turks. The nomenclature “Young Turks” or “Jön Türkler” in Turkish came to signify young reformists and revolutionaries—not the dynasts and the status-quoist lording over their parental turf that the current Indian crop is. In any case, how can HMPs—Hereditary MPs—be young turks?
Blunder–92 :
Nehruvian Gift: Democracy or Dynacracy?
Not seldom are those who tend to be critical of Nehru reminded it is thanks to Nehru India is a democracy, whose fruits all Indians are enjoying—including criticising him. Does the contention hold?
Elections were conducted in India during the British times too. Congress had not only won the 1937-elections and formed ministries in many states; post elections, with power in their hands, they had already become so corrupt that Gandhi had desired disbanding of Congress after independence. The last pre-independence elections were held in 1946. Independent India inherited many democratic institutions, including election machinery—only it needed a boost to handle universal suffrage.
It was, in fact, the Constitution of India framed under Dr Ambedkar, and passed by the Constituent Assembly comprising scores of worthies and headed by Dr Rajendra Prasad, which had provided for universal adult franchise and democratic setup. So, how can the credit be given to Nehru?
Nehru’s own election as the President of Congress in 1946, that led to his becoming India's first prime minister upon independence, was undemocratic. For details, please see Blunder-6.
In the long-term interest of the nation, a responsible democrat would have assiduously worked to establish a multi-party, or at least a two-party democratic system. However, too keen for himself and his dynasty to forever remain in power, he saw to it that India’s nascent democracy was not nurtured for a robust opposition. He tried all the tricks to defame, belittle and weaken the opposition. What he worked for and established was Dynacracy (Dynastic democracy), where the dynasts, though they got elected, so manipulated the party machine that both the government and the party ran to their diktats. Unlike Nehru, Gandhi and Patel did not promote their own.
Blunder–93 :
Election Funding, Exposure & Publicity
One of the main causes of corruption is election funding. That was the only area for which Rajaji advocated nationalisation. But, Nehru did not listen. Nehru nationalised what he should not have, and did not nationalise what he should have—the state-funding of elections. Had he done so, one could have said he was genuinely a true democrat. It would have helped the poor oppos
ition take roots in the nascent democracy. Opposition was starved of funds. Besides, they did not have any publicity machinery at their disposal.
Nehru ranted against capitalists, but if they obliged his party by filling-in its election war-chest for a quid pro quo, Nehru’s “principles” never came in the way.
As all the election funding was being received by the Congress—of course, in expectation of quid pro quo—why would Nehru have tried to strengthen the Opposition by arranging funding for them? Nehru took care to jealously guard the large donations received by the Congress from corporates.
When Rajaji, deeply concerned with Nehru's economic policies taking India to dark ages, formed Swatantra Party with like-minded persons, and fought the elections, Nehru dubbed them as pro-money-bags. Those adjectives remained stuck to them, even though it was the Congress Party which was getting all the money from the money-bags, and Swatantra Party was finding it very hard to find money to fight elections.
Nehru, his government, and the Congress Party monopolised radio. There was a demand to make All India Radio (AIR) an autonomous body; and even Nehru had once stated that he would like the AIR to be modelled on the lines of BBC; but looking to its huge reach, and the tremendously unfair advantage it provided him of hogging all publicity, Nehru conveniently forgot restructuring and reforming it. AIR never made any adverse comments on Nehru or his policies or the government. AIR became the propaganda vehicle of Nehru, and later his dynasty, providing no space to the opposition.
Nehru and the Congress used carrot and stick to ensure the print-media was compliant. Nehru’s pictures, statements and speeches used to crowd out the views and comments of the opposition.
Government’s vast Publication Division was dedicated to publishing all kinds of selected and collected works and letters and speeches of Nehru and his mentor Gandhi, but steered clear of giving any importance to the far better works and letters and speeches of Sardar Patel or Netaji Bose or Dr Ambedkar.
PIB’s (Press Information Bureau) photographic department liberally released photos of Nehru on various occasions providing him vast publicity.
Nehru and his dynasty so misused and manoeuvred the AIR, the government-controlled institutions, the academia, and the media as to project a picture and an impression to the public at large that only they could lift India out of poverty, that only they could keep India united, that only they knew how to govern a country as big and varied, that only they could protect the minorities and the weaker sections, and that they alone could be saviours of India!
In short, Nehru and his dynasty tried all their tricks to ensure India remained a one-Party-dominated democracy; and that their dynasty remained overwhelmingly dominant in that party. What could have been a more irresponsible, and a worse disservice to the nation!
Blunder–94 :
Communal, Vote-Bank Politics
Congress which tom-toms its secular credentials started its communal politics from the Nehruvian era itself. Massive Muslim migrations from East-Bengal were ignored to get Muslim votes to win elections in Assam. When asked, Nehru had advised even a person of the stature of Maulana Azad to contest elections from a predominantly Muslim area, despite Zakir Hussain’s hang-ups, keeping in mind the secular faith of the Congress—vote-bank politics took precedence.
Since the Nehruvian times, Congress played on the insecurity of dalits and Muslims to get their votes, without really doing anything concrete to make them feel secure and equal citizens of independent India. Neither the exploitation and ill-treatment of dalits was stopped, nor the communal riots halted, nor were they offered better economic opportunities.
In short, the Nehru-Gandhi-Dynasty-perpetuation formula is this: Take money from the corporates and the rich, as a quid-pro-quo, of course, for money is essential to winning elections. However, engage only in pro-poor talk publicly. Talk secular always, but play communal politics to get votes. Project Congress as pro-poor, pro-minority, pro-dalit and pro-disadvantaged. However, let the poor remain poor forever, and let the minorities and dalits feel insecure forever—how else to get their votes? Use carrot and stick to keep MSM (Main Stream Media) on your side.
Wrote Durga Das in ‘India from Curzon to Nehru & After’ (Page# 377-78): “But Azad revised his opinion of Nehru in the last two years of his life… Towards the end of his life, Azad realised that the best protection for the Muslims was the goodwill of the Hindus and a strong government. He told me…that Nehru’s policies had weakened the administration and that his economic theories had failed to improve the living conditions of the people, especially the Muslims.”
Blunder–95:
Promoting Incompetents & Sycophants
Nehru’s hubris was such that he thought he was the wisest person around who knew what was good, and what was bad, which was the right way, and which wrong. He, therefore, looked for “Yes-men”. Those who would toe his line, do his bidding, and even anticipate his likes and dislikes, and act accordingly.
No wonder the frank, forthright and competent were sidelined. This became glaringly obvious in the way Nehru and Menon played favourites in the army, politicised postings and promotions, and awarded top positions to those who ultimately let India down in the India-China war.
The position was such in the first general elections in 1952 that whoever got a Congress ticket was likely to win. It was said that even a lamp-post carrying a Congress ticket would win. Gandhi had desired after independence that honest, competent and deserving persons from varied spheres willing to serve the country must be inducted. In 1952, there was a golden opportunity to identify and induct such persons. But, did Nehru do so? No. Patel was no more. Nehru had a free hand. He herded-in as many loyalists and sycophants as he could.
Nehru even saw to it that Dr BR Ambedkar—by far the most erudite and competent—was defeated! Expectedly, the 1952-election results threw up a large band of Congress MPs and MLAs who were courtiers, sycophants and hangers-on.
Maulana Azad had commented: “We are still feudal, but what has distressed me is that many good persons have been denied tickets because the trusted courtiers had labelled them as anti-Nehru.”
Wrote Louis Fischer: “Without free criticism and potent opposition, democracy dies. Without political criticism and opposition, a nation’s intellect, culture and public morality stagnate; big men are purged and small men become kowtowing pygmies. The leaders surround themselves with cowards, sycophants and grovelling yes-men whose automatic approval is misread as a tribute to greatness.”
Nehru promoted and consulted people like Krishna Menon, about whom Khushwant Singh who had worked in the Indian High Commission in London under Krishna Menon had the following to say in his autobiography ‘Truth, Love and a Little Malice’: “...he [Krishna Menon] set up many sub-organisations of his India League and got money from rich Indians and his English friends as donations to his organisations; in return, he gave the latter contracts for supply of arms to India. He had no scruples in business matters. He was also a congenital liar and regarded truth as good enough for the simple-minded and lying as the best exercise for the mind... Why Menon got where he did under the patronage of Pandit Nehru remains, and probably will remain, unexplained… General Shiv Varma summed him up aptly when he said, 'Menon was a bachelor, the same as his father.’”
David Lloyd George, the British PM during 1916-22, had advised Winston Churchill : “It is important for a Prime Minister to be surrounded by people who could stand up to him and say, not once but thrice, ‘No’.” One wonders if it was Nehru’s hubris, dictatorial mindset, overt arrogance, or covert inferiority complex that made him shun stalwarts like Patel, Ambedkar, and many such persons far more competent than him, and embrace sycophants, grovelling pygmies, and lesser persons.
Blunder–96 :
Not Limiting the Term of the PM
If Nehru was a true democrat, he should have taken a page out of the US Constitution, and limited the term of a prime minister to just two terms—like the President of the U
S.
Not only that, on completion of two terms passing on the baton to one’s kin should also have been prohibited, to ensure dynasties did not take over politics. Dynasties have a vested interest in continuance at the expense of the nation. They also have a vested interest in covering up all the wrong doings of the dynasty.
Following Nehru’s footsteps, you find a strange spectacle of people—whether young or old, and whether in a political position or a bureaucratic position or a position in a sports body—not wanting to ever quit. Where extension is not possible, bureaucrats would seek some position or the other post retirement.
Contrast the above with George Washington, co-founder of the USA. He was proclaimed the “Father of the Country” and was elected the first president of USA in 1789 with virtually no opposition. Washington retired in 1797, firmly declining to serve for more than eight years—two terms—despite requests to continue. His tremendous role in creating and running America notwithstanding, he didn’t harbour or propagate self-serving notions of indispensability.
The 22nd amendment to the US constitution setting a maximum of only two terms for the president came only in 1947. Prior to that it was only an observed good practice for over a century.
Thomas Jefferson, the 3rd President and one of the founding fathers of the US, famous for his many achievements and for having originally drafted the Declaration of Independence of the US in 1776, was also requested, pressurised and persuaded to consider continuing as President after completion of two terms in 1808, on account of his excellent performance on multiple counts—during his tenure the geographical area of the USA almost doubled, upon purchase of Louisiana from the French, which in turn ended the dispute about the navigation of the Mississippi.
Nehru's 97 Major Blunders Page 22