There is some irony, and a lot of hypocrisy, when a person like Modi chooses to disdain Nehrus popularity. Does this man, who is considered Indias most popular leader as of today, believe that popularity is of little concern when it comes to choosing leaders, asks Amberish K Diwanji. <\/p>\n
It is fashionable of late to abuse and accuse Jawaharlal Nehru for everything that ails India, real or imaginary. Thus, right-wing nationalists blame him for Indias 1962 humiliation at the hands of China, taking Kashmir to the United Nations and not pushing Pakistan out, appeasement of Muslims, curbing the private sector (and thereby Indias industrial growth), and so forth. <\/p>\n
The left wing blames him for Indias still abysmal human development indices, such as the lack of universal healthcare and primary education, incomplete land reforms, inability to eliminate poverty, and so forth. <\/p>\n
But of all the criticism, none is more odious than the latest Nehru versus VallabhbhaiPatel comparisons, which has taken on a life of its own ever since Narendra Modi became prime minister. To believe that if and only if Patel had become prime minister, would India have become a land of milk and honey isnt just pure naivety but downright stupidity. <\/p>\n
The first criticism that Mahatma Gandhi erred in anointing Nehru as his heir over Patel misses the most crucial point of Nehrus immense popularity. Nehru had that X factor called charisma. He was popular and ages to come will wonder why. Here was a man who preferred to speak in English, whose breakfast comprised eggs and bacon (while others in jail with him like Gandhi had Indian food); he was an aristocrat who despised all that was wrong with India (excessive religion, superstitions, traditions, feudalism, communalism), and did not hesitate to say it. So why did the people love him so much? <\/p>\n
Actually, that very same question should be asked of Gandhi. As some historians have remarked, when civilised Europe turned towards murderous dictators (Franco, Mussolini, Stalin, Hitler), the awesome genius of India saw millions turn towards a certain Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi, whose fads and contradictions were enough to exasperate the calmest individual. <\/p>\n
Why do some men emerge as leaders is a question that no historian or philosopher has been able to answer. But what is clear is that the best leaders are those who capture the imagination of their people at a given time. Gandhi did that. As did Nehru. <\/p>\n
Perhaps it was Nehrus very disdain for religion, his agnosticism (rather than atheism), his dream that India was too great a nation to play a middling role in the world that made so many religious Indians hail him as their greatest leader after the Mahatma. Nehru was Indias second most popular leader from the 1930s, and post-Gandhis assassination, the most popular leader. That cannot be denied. <\/p>\n
It was the genius of India, the brilliance of our grandfathers, that they chose Gandhi and Nehru. <\/p>\n
So when Gandhi anointed Nehru as his political heir, he was merely blessing the person chosen by the people of India. Even Sardar Patel acknowledged this when, at a huge public rally, he once grudgingly remarked that the people have come to hear Nehru! <\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
See the rest here: There is some irony, and a lot of hypocrisy, when a person like Modi chooses to disdain Nehrus popularity. Does this man, who is considered Indias most popular leader as of today, believe that popularity is of little concern when it comes to choosing leaders, asks Amberish K Diwanji. It is fashionable of late to abuse and accuse Jawaharlal Nehru for everything that ails India, real or imaginary Continue reading
\nPatel over Nehru is like Gadkari over Modi<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"