needed-nehruvian-savarkarite-synthesis

The country has never been ideologically so polarised as it is today on the issue of nationalism. This is primarily because Congress leader Rahul Gandhi appears to have adopted a stringent posture against the ‘nationalism’ being preached and practised by the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh and the Bharatiya Janata Party.

 

Gandhi appears to be taking an extreme leftist position on nationalism as well as on other socio-economic issues facing the country. This is even though an overwhelming majority of Indians have now repeatedly, three times in a row, endorsed the ‘nationalism’ interpreted, preached, propagated and practised by the BJP.

 

The confrontation turned stringent, during the current debate in both the houses of the parliament on the ‘75 Years of Adoption of the Constitution’.

 

As the BJP and its leaders have always been attacking Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru for all that ails the country, the Congress leaders, particularly Rahul and the party president Mallikarjun Kharge picked up the gauntlet and hit back in the same measure, while targeting Vinayak Damodar Savarkar, also known as Veer Savarkar, attacking his ideological stance.

 

Kharge, as usual, was at his argumentative best, quoting history, facts and figures and also from the debates in the Constituent Assembly. 

 

Nehru and Savarkar were contemporaries. Nehru was born on November 14, 1889 and passed away on May 27, 1964. Savarkar was born on May 28, 1883 and passed away on February 26, 1966. 

 

Not only did their lives run almost concurrently, but they also had many similarities. Both were born into Brahmin families. Both were great patriots and nationalists. Both were thorough intellectuals and both have written books. Both were strongly opinionated. But the two were poles apart when it came to political ideology. 

 

While Nehru was born to well-to-do parents in north India, Savarkar was born in an ordinary family in a village in the western part of the country. While Nehru was an idealistic liberal, secular and a democrat, in a true sense of the word, almost rather actually to the degree of fault, Savarkar was a passionate nationalist with extreme views.

 

While the second half of the twentieth century for India was ‘Nehruvian’, the first half of the twenty-first century is unfolding as ‘Savarkarite’.

 

It no longer matters to Nehru or Savarkar to be admired or to be demonised, but it does matter to the people of the country how to treat both the leaders who have laid the “ideological foundations” for the nation, without getting into the business of proving one wrong and the other right. None of them was wrong in any manner in any way. 

 

As we look back as a nation, Nehru’s and Savarkar’s ideologies complimented each other. Both ideologies are helping the nation evolve and emerge stronger. 

 

The only problem is that people on the two sides of the binary need and must respect each other and each other’s ideologies. The best thing for the people on the two sides of the aisle will be not to judge any of the two leaders, who of course undoubtedly were right in their respective ways.

 

As we look around today, not only in our neighbourhood but across the globe, India stands out tall and strong as a democratic, sovereign nation. Whether anyone agrees or not, the greatest credit goes to Nehru for establishing firm constitutional and democratic roots for the country. 

 

Besides, he built up a strong, progressive and scientific temperament in the country not just ideologically but practically on the ground by setting up institutions of great learning like the IITs and universities across the country. 

 

The network of All India Institutes of Medical Sciences laid the foundation for affordable and specialized healthcare for the country. It is a different story that the country took a long time to improve and further build upon it.

 

The Post Graduate Institute of Medical Sciences Chandigarh or the AIIMS Delhi, are still the most respected institutions across the country when it comes to “the best” treatment and medical care despite the emergence of so many “super-speciality” hospitals in the private sector.

 

One of the greatest achievements of Pandit Nehru, which is overlooked and not recognised, is that he saved the country from getting into the “Capitalist trap”.

 

At the same time, he did not let the nation go into the “Communist lap”. He drew a masterly balance between socialism and capitalism. Just because the vested interests abused the system after him, does not mean the system failed. Moreover, it was the need of the hour for the nascent nation at that time.

 

One of the most unjustified charges levelled by the RSS/BJP against Nehru is that the Kashmir problem is because of him. It was due to Nehru that the Kashmiris under the iconic leadership of Sheikh Mohammad Abdullah (grandfather of current CM Omar Abdullah) opted for a secular India against an Islamic Pakistan. 

 

The root cause of the Kashmir problem was the then Maharaja Hari Singh’s ambition to retain sovereignty and establish a “buffer state” between India and Pakistan. He had entered into a ‘Standstill Agreement’ with Mohammad Ali Jinnah, who outfoxed him by ordering an attack by the tribals led by the Pakistan Army.

 

Nehru went to the United Nations, as India had a strong case. The ruler of the State of Jammu and Kashmir had duly acceded with India. Legally the entire Jammu and Kashmir should have been with India. If the UN did not do justice to India, it cannot be held against Nehru. 

 

That time like always, the UN was the only available forum for settling an international dispute. 

 

Unlike Nehru, Savarkar did not get a chance to frame and formulate anything officially. But he did sow the seeds of “nationalism” in the country, which are bearing the fruits now. 

 

If he made the ‘Hindu religion’, the majority religion in the country, the basis of the nation's identity, it cannot be held against him. The circumstances prevailing at that time in the country, when it had been partitioned in the name of religion, obviously would have made him believe what he propagated. 

 

Moreover, the Congress experience was not encouraging in terms of Muslim support. Despite the Congress being an extremely secular organization, an overwhelming majority of Muslims in the subcontinent opted for the Indian Muslim League.

 

Jinnah would describe Congress as a ‘Hindu Communal organization’ (Hindu firqa-parasti jamaat) and the majority of Muslims agreed with him, even if Maulana Abdul Kalam Azad, a devout Muslim and an erudite Islamic scholar of eminence was the Congress president at that time. 

 

Nehruvian and Savarkarite thoughts will continue to run parallel to each other in the country. What India needs, is a synthesis and not an antithesis between the two. If the Savarkarite thought has currently gained prominence across the country, credit goes to Nehru for that.

 

The Nehruvian thought laid down such foundations for the country that any idea could flourish freely, whether one agreed with it or not, as Voltaire’s biographer, Evelyn Beatrice Hall wrote about his (Voltaire’s) belief in freedom of speech, “I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it”.

 

It was not always like this. There were good times also in Indian politics. It was Pandit Nehru who had spotted Atal Bihari Vajpayee long ago, saying he was ‘Prime Ministerial material’. When India defeated Pakistan and liberated Bangladesh, Vajpayee went out of their way to praise Ms Indira Gandhi, although he never described her as Durga, as if often misreported. 

 

The Savarkar, the Congress is so critical of today was held in high esteem by Ms Indira Gandhi, who wrote about Veer Savarkar, as quoted by union Home Minister Amit Shah in parliament, “His (Savarkar’s) courageous resistance to the British government holds an important place in the history of our freedom struggle. I extend my heartfelt best wishes on the centenary of this extraordinary son of India”. Ms Gandhi had written it in tribute to Savarkar during his birth centenary celebrations in 1983.