From Nehru to Modi, the narrative has changed
After Independance, no effort was made to develop a collective identity for the country.
After Independence, we were busy trying to be socialist in our policies, while developing an administrative authority on the basis of languages. Neither was any effort made to develop a collective identity for the country, nor a reason given to the citizens to see each other as workers for, or benefactors of, the same nation state.
Under Jawaharlal Nehru’s Congress rule, we failed to cement sustainable international ties despite his “internationalist” push. Under his leadership, we, as a nation state, found it tough to unite under any one pennant. No one understood what India stood for after Independence. The ideas for a modern independent India were many—from Gandhi’s Swaraj to Subhas Bose’s military rule; from Nehru’s secular India to RSS. And then there was the people’s revolution, embodied in the fast-unto-death of Potti Sriramulu, which led to the creation of Andhra Pradesh by the PMO and also the formation of the State Reorganisation Committee.
After Andhra Pradesh, it was obvious that the country would get redistributed on the basis of language. The bottom line is that the Congress, back then and even in the 21st century, failed to develop a collective identity for our nation, so that a resident of Jammu and Kashmir could relate to a person from Tamil Nadu, Gujarat, Bengal or Manipur. They also failed at running their socialist system efficiently. Everyone in Lutyens’ Delhi knew what a waste investing in government PSUs were. Neither could Patel’s free-market ideas be tested, nor could Gandhi’s swaraj be created, with extensive investments in rural development. And all this because Nehru was too busy cosying up to the Soviets. Even if it was his decision to make India socialist, it was also his moral obligation to see that his vision culminated to a meaningful end. But that would have required a non-biased personality, dedicated towards the nation, and not focused on his personal legacy. It’s here the crux of the problem comes in: that of meritocracy vs dynastic inheritance.
Moreover, Nehru just could not deal with the criticism of his policies or vision. It’s well-known that Nehru came down harshly on those who criticised his foreign policy, especially during the Suez Canal crisis in 1956, when the English-French joint forces invaded Egypt and in response the Soviets rolled their tanks into Budapest. The primary mediator between the two parties was Nehru. He failed in his mission and lost face not only amongst his fanatic fan boys, but also within the official circles of government, especially the Indian Foreign Service, which was his baby in independent India.
Nehru, in his speech in 7 September 1946, a few days after taking over as vice chairman and a member for external affairs of the Viceroy’s Executive Council, had said: “We propose, as far as possible, to keep away from the power politics of groups, aligned against one another, which have led in the past to two World Wars and which may again lead to disasters on an even vaster scale....” According to this “internationalist” point of view, India was to be always maintaining an uncomfortable and inflexible position, which met the Soviets and the West halfway. At the same time, Nehru wanted to negotiate between the two power blocs on matters on which India did not have much say. The country also lacked resources that were required to support either side, Hungary or Egypt. Since Nehru did not like even constructive criticism, especially over affairs that he managed himself, that arrogance towards the administration and especially towards the citizens of the country gave birth to a peculiar work ethic within the government as well as within the Congress.
Things had to change. In Narendra Modi the country has chosen an unbiased leader. His government is ready to listen and converse with its people to build a “new India”, which has its own identity and does not run on the values provided by the West, which the Congress has been mimicking for long. As for the Congress, its arrogance, sense of entitlement, and making ends meet through corrupt and short-lived solutions, is bound to lead to the death of its political identity. Vimal Sana was formerly with the BJP State Executive, and is ex-State Treasurer of BJP Mahila Morcha. By choosing former Lok Sabha Speaker Meira Kumar as the joint Opposition nominee to take on the ruling dispensation’s candidate, Ram Nath Kovind, for the Presidential polls, the Congress, which played a stellar role in convincing its 16 allies, seems to have erred badly. The move is unlikely to reap political dividends, since Kumar, unlike her father, the late Babu Jagjivan Ram, is a lightweight, who, in spite of holding prominent positions, has been unable to garner support across party lines. In fact, her projection has ensured that Kovind may win the elections with a higher number of votes than even Pratbiha Patil and Pranab Mukherjee in 2007 and 2012 respectively as a consequence of cross voting in parties backing her.
The Congress, in particular, should have played its cards keeping in mind its consolidation plans for the future, instead of remaining trapped in the Dalit-Minority mindset that has not yielded results in the past several years. The Dalit vs Dalit contest suits the BJP significantly more than it fits into the game plan the Congress would like to adhere to for the forthcoming elections. It has been observed that the Dalits have demonstrated a clear preference for other parties over the Congress and in Uttar Pradesh have thrown their lot behind Mayawati and her Bahujan Samaj Party. Similarly, Muslims have opted for the Samajwadi Party, the BSP and other regional outfits, rather than supporting the Congress, which continues to suffer on account of the prevailing perception that it had tilted towards the minorities in the past few years.
It is evident that the Congress has lost the initiative and has been driven into making choices by its associates, who have their own political agenda and ideological scores to settle. The Lalus and the Yechurys are shrewd politicians, who have managed to take advantage of the political ambiguity of the Congress high command. Inside the Congress, a handful of advisers of party president Sonia Gandhi have apparently cast a spell on her to persuade her to agree on matters that are not in the immediate interests of the organisation.
The top leadership of the Congress has arrived at the decision without giving a toss of a thought over the fallout of the presidential contest. When the BJP, primarily an upper caste party, announced the name of a Dalit nominee, the Congress should not have fallen into the trap by doing likewise declaring a Dalit candidate. It was under no duress and coercion of any kind and should have instead made a politically prudent decision of wooing back its Brahmin vote bank, which stood by it during Indira Gandhi’s time till P.V. Narasimha Rao’s prime ministership. Therefore, the party, in a carefully calibrated move, should have declared a prominent Brahmin as its candidate. This would have sent a redoubtable signal to the Brahmin community, which continues to wield considerable influence in a caste surcharged political atmosphere. An upper caste contender too would have had an appeal in sections of the Sangh Parivar in general and the BJP in particular.
It would have gone in the favour of the Congress if it had taken into account the mood within the Sangh Parivar following the stupefying declaration of Kovind. It is beyond doubt that not everyone is comfortable within the BJP with the choice and if there is pin-drop silence it is because politicians have perfected the art of often swallowing the bitter pill. Most politicos also lack the pluck to express themselves openly. Since the NDA has the numbers on its side, it would have not been about winning the polls, but in reclaiming its lost ground amongst communities which once formed the backbone of the Congress.
Prime Minister Narendra Modi is an astute politician, who visibly comprehends the chinks in the armour of his opponents. His moves are well thought through and are aimed at astonishing even his closest supporters. He is determined to make the Prime Minister’s Office and position count in the scheme of things, in sharp contrast to the situation as it existed during the UPA regime, where Dr Manmohan Singh played second fiddle to even Rahul Gandhi.
On the other hand, Sonia Gandhi, who led her party to victory in two successive Lok Sabha elections and Assembly polls in more than 16 states during her career, continues to be the prisoner of her coterie. She has failed to correct the perception against the Congress, which is publicly seen as an outfit that abandoned its balanced secular credentials by careening heavily towards the minorities and Dalits, resulting in the alienation of other castes and communities. It makes no difference to her whether any candidate she supports has been a Congress loyalist or not. Most of her picks are from among people she chose after assuming the office of the party chief. In plain speak, she is a confirmed status quoits, so much so she has not been able to give up her own position to make way for her son, Rahul Gandhi, who continues to wait in the wings to be her successor.
The presidential polls are the precursor to the 2019 Lok Sabha elections. The Opposition is groping in the dark, while Modi is conquering one frontier after the other. Meira Kumar is a non starter and Kovind will win hands down. Between us.