It has been roughly a decade since we began witnessing a systematic effort to tarnish the reputations of India’s founding leaders, particularly Jawaharlal Nehru and Mahatma Gandhi. These attacks, often led by self-proclaimed nationalists, rely on misleading claims that distort historical reality. I want to address some of these claims and offer my own reflections on the political landscape they have created.
One of the most persistent narratives is that Nehru became Prime Minister by a fluke or through fraud, supposedly overstepping Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel, who is said to have held the majority of the party’s support. This claim has gained so much traction that it is now often accepted as fact.
However, a simple fact-check clarifies the situation: the vote in question was an internal party matter, not a direct election for the premiership. Gandhi’s choice was strategic and visionary. He recognized in Nehru a unique blend of international appeal, charm, exceptional communication skills, and a rigorous scientific temper, qualities essential for a statesman leading a newly born, diverse nation. While Patel possessed immense organizational strength, he was also at a stage in his life where his health was failing; he was often too frail to walk unaided. Gandhi assigned roles based on capacity and long-term stability, ensuring that both leaders served the nation in the roles where they could be most effective.
Another flashpoint in the current cultural war is Vande Mataram, India’s national song. Originally appearing in Bankim Chandra Chattopadhyay’s Anandamath, the song, and the book itself, was deeply provocative for its time. When it was later adapted into the 1952 film (with the iconic version sung by Lata Mangeshkar), it was framed within a narrative of “holy war.”
The song contained a specific passage equating Bharat Mata (Mother India) with the Goddess Durga. Nehru and other secular leaders sought to omit this passage from official use, not out of disrespect, but to stabilize communal tensions in a fragile, post-Partition India. They understood that in a secular republic, national symbols must be inclusive. Groups like the RSS and Hindu Mahasabha opposed this then, and they continue to use it as a point of contention today. This brand of extreme patriotism, frequently championed by the current political establishment, fills me with a sense of horror because it prioritizes symbolic purity over social harmony.
We must never forget that both the Hindu Mahasabha and the Muslim League were, in many ways, facilitated by British interests to keep India divided. It is a historical irony to see modern followers of these groups claim the mantle of “true nationalism.”
Consider the record: Mr. Jinnah initially demanded separate electorates long before the demand for a separate state. The Hindu Mahasabha boycotted the Quit India Movement in 1942. They formed coalition governments with the Muslim League in provinces like Sindh and Bengal while the Congress leadership was in jail. They supported the British during World War II, and Savarkar’s letters to the British government remain a matter of public record.
I am personally inspired by Nehruvian ideals, his commitment to secularism, science, and democratic institutions. This does not mean I agree with every decision he made or that I worship him blindly; in fact, I find it contradictory when current student movements at places like JNU reflect a picture of intolerance that stands in total opposition to Nehru’s liberal spirit. However, Nehru remains my favorite because he understood the “cycle” of political reality. Think of Machiavelli or Chanakya; they recognized that politics is often a disturbing, ugly business that sets standards for future generations. Nehru tried to set a higher standard.
To those who would dismiss these views as the thoughts of a “Macaulay’s slave,” I ask: what is your alternative? It is easy to point out flaws in a democratic structure, but how else would you organize a society of this scale? Countries that were never ruled by Britain, Japan, Korea, Russia, still utilize similar modern administrative and legal structures. We are no longer living in the medieval period where power is decentralized and empires are fragmented. To move forward, we must stop looking back with a distorted lens and start building upon the foundation of unity and tolerance that was so carefully laid seventy years ago.