Arindam Chaudhuri in a recent article articulates well on how the country is divided as Bharat versus India which finds its reflection in the continuing diatribes on Modi by those who identify themselves as secular. He makes a powerful statement that "Modi for me represents Bharat while the English media represents India. I am convinced that the English media is now a voice of the old feudal India where just a few claim to know what is best for both India and Indians…
"What is India? If you go by the definition of English media, it is an artificial country that should not have happened, an ungovernable country where religion, caste and ethnic identity matter more than humanity.....
"Besides, most people who subscribe to the English media world-view have a 67-year-old Nehruvian Network to fall back upon, if required. What do I mean by the Nehruvian Network? This is something that has been working in India since before 1947. It is a set of ideas and people who, deep down, think that the system set up by the British was the best. They are the ultimate Brown Sahebs, convinced that Indians need a bit of civilisation."
Reading these line from Arindam Chaudhuri, I thought it is imperative recall certain incidents that happened in choosing Nehru as the Prime Minister of India. Looking back, it seems Gandhi too erred in deciding which way the country must go – Bharat or India! Though Gandhi was basically a Bharathiya, he did not give sufficient thought to what would happen to this country – which was for ages, a large conglomeration of smaller countries with decentralised and mutually helping economies with less space for we versus them differences that made them far far better than what you call being secular – if a new attire was forced on Bharat. In his lack of foresight on what is modernity, he chose Nehru over Patel in an uncharacteristic and undemocratic way – a way that continues even today. The kind of modernity that has come to stay today (particularly with the party of Gandhi and Nehru) is just to perpetuate the divisions of caste and religion, promote hatred as we versus them and to stay in power at any cost. I thought it would be a food for thought if we read Arindam's article along with an article by Raj Singh on "Why Gandhi opted for Nehru and nor Sardar Patel for PM" on the circumstances in which Nehru was chosen over Sardar Patel – a decision that forced India on Bharat. Read on....
From
http://newindianexpress.com/opinion/article1399885.ece?
Why the secular English media hates Modi
By
Arindam Chaudhuri
When the Gujarat election results were being declared, while I was surfing news channels, I could not but help a Bangla expletive escape my mouth when I heard what some experts were saying. One said Narendra Modi and his victory was against the Constitution. Another said how the verdict goes against the spirit of India and how the Idea of India is in danger. I always thought free and fair elections were a celebration of the Constitution, democracy and the Idea of India. The more I watched, the more I realised that these people hate him in a very irrational manner.
So I asked my colleagues to note down the reasons why the English journalists hate Modi. The results were interesting. The first reason: Modi is anti-Muslim and communal. The second: he is interested only in projecting himself. The third: he is supposedly a dictator and a fascist. And the fourth: his claims of a developed Gujarat are, the journalists claim, hollow.
Look at the irony of it. If Modi campaigns on the basis of identity, he is branded a fascist-cum-communal monster. If he campaigns on the basis of his track record of development, a mountain of data is immediately forwarded that says other states are better performers than Gujarat.
The fact is: it is a fight between India and Bharat. Modi for me represents Bharat while the English media represents India. I am convinced that the English media is now a voice of the old feudal India where just a few claim to know what is best for both India and Indians. On the other hand, Modi represents the other India—Bharat, if you will—which is deeply frustrated by the monopoly that the English media and its secular warriors exercise over information.
What is India? If you go by the definition of English media, it is an artificial country that should not have happened, an ungovernable country where religion, caste and ethnic identity matter more than humanity. Besides, most people who subscribe to the English media world-view have a 67-year-old Nehruvian Network to fall back upon, if required. What do I mean by the Nehruvian Network? This is something that has been working in India since before 1947. It is a set of ideas and people who, deep down, think that the system set up by the British was the best. They are the ultimate Brown Sahebs, convinced that Indians need a bit of civilisation. They snort, snigger when a politician like Uma Bharti, Mayawati or Modi rises up from nowhere, proudly displays his or her lack of English communication skills and yet manages to persuade voters to do the right thing. You see, things were much better when only children of politicians and bureaucrats who spoke impeccable English were there to dictate the agenda for the nation.
That is because the gulf between India and Bharat will never cease. But the problem is, people like Modi are actually threatening this feudal cartel of the privileged. You see, not even Atal Bihari Vajpayee threatened this cozy equation. No wonder, the English media hates Modi.
This battle between India and Bharat started in the 1980s. It has thrown up many heroes and heroines who fight for India. Modi is the first person who is fighting aggressively on behalf of Bharat and he seems to be winning. Imagine an India where Congress chamchas, JNU intellectuals and their fellow travellers won't have access to power in Delhi. No wonder, the secular English media hates Namo.
I think this will be the most interesting political battle in India since the days of Mahatma Gandhi. He settled that one in favour of Nehru; and Vallabhbhai Patel, a Gujarati, died a second fiddle. There is no Mahatma now; only voters. So Rahul Gandhi or Modi? We were the first to do a survey between the Rahul versus Modi possibility and Modi came out to be the sure-shot winner. If you have doubts, keep watching the big fight. Bharat is destined to win this time.
Chaudhuri is a management guru and honorary director of IIPM think tank
***********
From
Why Gandhi opted for Nehru and not Sardar Patel for PM
History is written by the victors". The official history of independent India was written and overseen by that faction of the Congress party which emerged victorious in the leadership tussle on the eve of independence with the tacit but partisan support of none other than the all powerful and universally venerable Mahatma Gandhi.
According to this official history, Jawahar Lal Nehru was elected as the first Prime minister of India and Sardar Patel became his deputy and it was all done purely on merit.
The official history has always downplayed the grave injustice that was done to the 'Iron Man of India' – Sardar Vallabh Bhai Patel. It's not that the official history does not mention the emergence of Sardar Patel and not Jawahar Lal Nehru as the overwhelming choice of the Congress party to lead India after independence but it has been reduced to mere footnotes and nothing more.
Today, on the 137th birth anniversary of Sardar Vallabh Bhai Patel, let's revisit the entire intra-party power struggle within Congress on the eve of independence and let's figure out what really went in favour of Jawahar Lal Nehru and what was it that deprived Sardar Patel his moment of glory despite the overwhelming support he enjoyed amongst the Congressmen.
The entire rank and file of the Congress looked at Sardar Patel as the most deserving candidate to be sworn in as independent India's first Prime Minister, given his proven track record of being an able administrator and a no-nonsense politician. Then what really went wrong? To find out the answer, we need to rewind back to 1946.
By 1946, it had become quite clear that India's independence was only a matter of time now. The Second World War had come to an end and the British rulers had started thinking in terms of transferring power to Indians.
An interim government was to be formed which was to be headed by the Congress president as Congress had won the maximum number of seats in the 1946 elections. All of a sudden, the post of Congress president became very crucial as it was this very person who was going to become the first Prime Minister of independent India.
At that time, Maulana Abul Kalam Azad was the president of Congress party. In fact, he was the president for the last six years as elections could not beheld for the Congress president's post since 1940 due to Quit India movement, the Second World War and the fact that most of the leaders were behind bars.
Azad was also interested in fighting and winning election for the Congress president's post as he, too, had ambitions to become the PM, but he was told in no uncertain terms by Mahatma Gandhi that he does not approve of a second term for a sitting Congress president and Azad had to fall in line, albeit reluctantly. Not only this, Gandhi made it very clear to everybody that Nehru was his preferred choice for the Congress president's position.
The last date for the nominations for the post of the President of Congress, and thereby the first Prime Minister of India, was April 29, 1946.
And the nominations were to be made by 15 state/regional Congress committees. Despite Gandhi's well-known preference for Nehru as Congress president, not a single Congress committee nominated Nehru's name.
On the contrary, 12 out of 15 Congress committees nominated Sardar Vallabh Bhai Patel. The remaining three Congress committees did not nominate any body's name. Obviously, the overwhelming majority was in favour of Sardar Patel.
It was a challenge to Mahatma Gandhi as well. He instructed Acharya J B Kriplani to get some proposers for Nehru from the Congress Working Committee (CWC) members despite knowing fully well that only Pradesh Congress Committees were authorized to nominate the president.
In deference to Gandhi's wish, Kriplani convinced a few CWC members to propose Nehru's name for party president.
It's not that Gandhi was not aware of the immorality of this exercise. He had fully realized that what he was trying to bring about was wrong and totally unfair.
In fact, he tried to make Nehru understand the reality. He conveyed to Nehru that no PCC has nominated his name and that only a few CWC members have nominated him. A shell-shocked Nehru was defiant and made it clear that he will not play second fiddle to any body.
A disappointed Gandhi gave into Nehru's obduracy and asked Sardar Patel to withdraw his name. Sardar Patel had immense respect for Gandhi and he withdrew his candidature without wasting any time. And it paved the way for the coronation of Pandit Jawahar Lal Nehru as India's first Prime Minister.
But why did Gandhi overlook the overwhelming support for Sardar Vallabh Bhai Patel? Why was he so enamoured with Nehru?
When Dr Rajendra Prasad heard of Sardar Patel's withdrawal of nomination, he was disappointed and remarked that Gandhi had once again sacrificed his trusted lieutenant in favour of the 'glamorous Nehru'.
Was it the 'glamour' and 'sophistication' of Nehru that floored Gandhi so much that he did not hesitate in doing grave injustice to Patel?
The answer to this question is not that simple. But a closer analysis of Gandhi's approach towards Patel and Nehru throws light over a few facts that can decipher the mystery.
There is no denying the fact that Gandhi had a 'soft corner' for Nehru since beginning and he had preferred Nehru over Sardar Patel at least twice before 1946 for the post of Congress president. It happened in 1929 as well as in 1937.
Gandhi was always impressed with the modern outlook of Nehru. In comparison to Nehru, Sardar Patel was a little orthodox and Gandhi thought India needed a person who was modern in his approach.
But more than anything, Gandhi always knew that Sardar Patel would never defy him. He was not so convinced about Nehru. Gandhi's apprehensions came true when Nehru made it clear to him that he was not willing to play second fiddle to anybody.
Perhaps, Gandhi wanted both Nehru and Patel to provide leadership to the country. He used his veto power in favour of Nehru because he feared Nehru could cause problems in the way of India's independence if he was not given the chance to become Prime Minister.
Some analysts have also claimed that Nehru threatened to split the Congress in case he was not made prime Minister.
According to these analysts, Nehru coerced Gandhi into supporting him by saying that if he split the Congress, the entire independence plan would go awry as the British would get an excuse in delaying independence by raising the question as to who should be handed over the reins of power, Congress with Nehru or Congress minus Nehru.
Gandhi must have thought that it would be safe to ask Sardar Patel for making the sacrifice than to reason with a power-smitten Nehru. In fact, he had commented that Nehru had gone power-mad.
So, we can conclude that Gandhi chose Nehru over Patel because of two main reasons:
1. Gandhi believed a foreign educated Nehru with modern thoughts had an edge over Patel who, according to him, was orthodox in his thoughts.
2. Gandhi feared Nehru would revolt in case he was denied PM's post and that would give the British an excuse to delay transfer of power. On the other hand, he was fully convinced of Sardar Patel's loyalty. He knew Sardar Patel was a true patriot and would never play a spoilsport.
But Gandhi's decision proved too costly for the nation.
First of all, Gandhi introduced the concept of forced decisions by the so-called 'high-commands' that usually means overruling state units. This practice, now being followed across the political spectrum, has negated the very concept of inner party democracy. Nehru's follies on Kashmir and China proved beyond doubt the fact that Gandhi committed a mistake in backing Nehru by showing utter disregard to overwhelming support from the majority of PCCs for Sardar Patel.
Even two known critics of Sardar Patel conceded the point that Gandhi's decision to chose Nehru over Patel was erroneous.
Maulana Abul Kalam Azad confessed in his autobiography that was published posthumously in 1959, "It was a mistake on my part that I did not support Sardar Patel. We differed on many issues but I am convinced that if he had succeeded me as Congress President he would have seen that the Cabinet Mission Plan was successfully implemented. He would have never committed the mistake of Jawaharlal which gave Mr. Jinnah an opportunity of sabotaging the Plan. I can never forgive myself when I think that if I had not committed these mistakes, perhaps the history of the last ten years would have been different."
Similarly, C Rajagopalachari who blamed Sardar Patel for depriving him of the first presidentship of independent India, wrote, "Undoubtedly it would have been better if Nehru had been asked to be the Foreign Minister and Patel made the Prime Minister. I too fell into the error of believing that Jawaharlal was the more enlightened person of the two… A myth had grown about Patel that he would be harsh towards Muslims. This was a wrong notion but it was the prevailing prejudice."
But questions can be raised over Sardar Patel's surrender as well.
Who was he more loyal to? To an individual, to an organization or to his motherland? When he was convinced that Nehru was not fit enough to give the much-needed guidance that a nascent country so desperately wanted, why did he not object even once to the foisting of Nehru as India's first Prime Minister?
History has proved it beyond doubt that had Patel been the PM in place of Nehru, the country would not have faced the humiliation of 1962 war.
Days before his death, Patel had written a letter to Nehru warning him about China's nefarious designs but Nehru didn't pay any attention to that letter. Even Kashmir would not have become a thorn in the flesh for India, had Patel and not Nehru been the first prime minister of India.
10 comments:
Dear Madam,
Good one!! thought provoking!!
Patel gave up presumably he wanted to prove that he is not power hungry compared to Nehru !!
People were cheated by this superficial projection and rested full faith on him for 3 terms which is a first great blow to democracy by Congress. Even great Rajaji realised this very late though he fought to his best in the form of Swatantra Party.
Now we know the Truth that Patel is the real hero for his hardwork in unification especially Hyderabad. But for his health he would have done more even without PMship.
Sheela
//But for his health he would have done more even without PMship.//
Very true Ms Sheela.
Yes, rightly said. It's history but most of the Indian's (who votes) don't know this.
What do you say, how can it be spread. We can't change the history but future is in our hands.
what has happened is good,what is yet to happen is also good
if the above words are true,historians and futurists are obselete,only people win.
There is security for the convicted and there is no security for the evidence.
"it is a fight between India and Bharat. Modi for me represents Bharat while the English media represents India"-media is thinking that they are building a india to a developed state like newfoundland.what an irony :)
From the blog,"Even journalists have every right to hate someone"-this is irrational justification for the irrational media.they have no right except truth.
there is nehruvian network,nehru is part of a network :)
no bharat,no india,only indian people
Somebody gets thrown off a train an becomes a "patriot". Till then he was teaching children to sing " God save the Queen". Unlike Savarkar, he signed the oath of allegiance to the Crown when he became a bar-at-law. Every movement he called was a failure.His experiments on " continence" are sickening.His leeters may have been bough by the GOI to protect his image. His book on swaraj does not quote a single hindu granth.His followers tied " rakhis" on the hands of Paki armymen visiting India. His son coverted to Islam and was re-converted by Savarkar. The case of MKG with regard to NSC Bose is shocking.Rajaji was politely told to leave the Congress by MKG because he could see throgh the subterfuge. No one who reads Godse's statement can ever have an iota of respect for this creature.
I request readers to be polite in their language. Since there is no provision to edit the comments, I am publishing them as they are. I don't agree with the use of certain words about Gandhiji by seadog4227.
I think Gandhiji wanted Bharat that has its roots in village economy. He was sincere in his thoughts on united Bharat but hindsight proved that he could have acted differently. Also it is not proper to criticize that he was the Queen's man initially. It could happen with anyone in any context. What is important is that he came out of that and started looking at things from a perspective that galvanized the nation to fight unitedly against the British. Certainly he gave a leadership and inspiration for everyone across the country. I admire his views on Bhagawad Gita, conversion and women.
@ Rajender
Its in our hands. Today with the reach of internet, we can certainly make people know what happened. One more article that I wanted post in my blog is on how Rajiv and Sonia had no idea of India and how they viewed India.
Excerpted from a book, Durbar, this links gives some information which every Indian must know.
http://bharatkalyan97.blogspot.in/2012/11/sonia-material-girl-expose-by-tavleen.html
This link shows the kind of connect that Nehru's family had with India. Some quotable passages are given below:-
// The first time I met Rajiv after he became a politician was at a dinner party in one of the usual drawing rooms. I cannot remember where it was or who else was there, but it was a small enough gathering for Rajiv and Sonia to be able to talk freely about what they had seen in Amethi. He looked both elated and a little confused, and she seemed quite overwhelmed. I report the following conversation from memory. My recollection remains vivid enough for me to be able to recount it almost verbatim.
‘The real shock is the poverty,’ Rajiv said. ‘I know I should have realized that we are a poor country and that means there would be poverty. And it’s not that I haven’t seen it in the faces of beggars and street children in Delhi. But in the villages it really is something else… beyond anything I had imagined.’
Sonia was appalled by the filth she had seen in the villages. It made her unusually eloquent. ‘In one hut we saw a small baby crawling around right next to this large pile of cow dung. He was playing with it and putting it in his mouth. It was awful and I wanted to tell his mother to stop him from doing this, but I thought she would mind so I said nothing.’
‘It’s better not to interfere in local customs,’ said one of the ladies, sipping delicately at her Campari-soda.
‘We heard from a health worker in one village that the main reason why newborn babies die from tetanus is because midwives put cow dung on their belly buttons to dry up the cord. Can you imagine?’
‘Well, that is the practice…’ someone said.
‘They have nothing,’ Rajiv continued. ‘The women have never seen the inside of a hospital. The men depend on what they can earn from the land, and that isn’t much. I can’t believe that they live without something so basic as clean water.’
‘Indians believe in karma,’ one of the men said, ‘and that makes them believe it is their fate to be poor, that they must have done something bad in their last life to suffer in this one.’//
The game-changer idea of cash transfer perhaps came from the 'good' person attitude of Rajiv family. If someone is poor, give them money. That is enough. This is their economics.
From that link /book, Durbar:-
// It was from the group of friends that surrounded them that I got to know more about Rajiv and Sonia. These friends loved talking about their friendship with Rajiv and Sonia and competed with each other to show how close they were. I learned from them that Sonia hated politics and politicians and was very loyal to her friends, and that Rajiv was a ‘very good person’. When I asked for an example of his goodness, I was told, more than once, that Rajiv saw a beggar in rags on a cold night and immediately stopped his car and gave him his own coat.//
My apologies if I offended you or your readers sensibilities.
I recently came across your blog (not sure how) and this is the first post of yours I read completely and wow what a start! Really good info on Patel Vs Nehru.
Thanks!!!
Post a Comment