What the
great-grandson didn’t learn
VIDYA
SUBRAHMANIAM
AGREEMENT WITHIN
DIFFERENCES: Nehru (right) and Patel differed with the utmost respect for each
other, and concurred and united with the utmost respect. Photo: Gandhi Smriti
Should Rahul Gandhi read the
correspondence between Nehru and Patel, he would know that differences can be
expressed with greater finesse than what he has shown us
The walloping Rahul Gandhi gave the
Manmohan Singh government on the ordinance to protect convicted lawmakers has
expectedly led to shock-and-awe in Congress and government circles.
Rahul has a way of springing
surprises but the angry-young man-act executed in full public view crossed the
boundaries not just of decency but the rules by which the Cabinet system of
government runs.
Mercifully, the United Progressive
Alliance government did not treat Rahul’s “nonsense” diktat as an announcement
in itself. It undid the ordinance by due process — by having the Union Cabinet
reconsider and withdraw a decision taken by the Union Cabinet.
The most striking thing about Rahul’s
theatrics was his vocabulary which did not go beyond “rubbish” and “nonsense.”
Of course, anyone hearing him at the Press Club of India, which was the chosen
venue for the mutiny, would have got the drift — that he was lamenting the loss
of principles in current-day politics. Noble thought, but can principles be
restored by disobeying the principles of governance?
Partition
If Rahul had gone to his own library,
he might have chanced upon a volume containing letters exchanged between
Jawaharlal Nehru and Sardar Patel. If he read the correspondence, he might know
from whom he has inherited his temper and a somewhat irksome tendency to be
self-righteous: his great-grandfather. But he is also likely to know he has
missed out on many of Nehru’s great qualities. His towering intellect and the
scholarship he brought to any discussion. The elegance and beauty of his
writing. And the most relevant attribute in the current context: the civility
with which he treated his colleagues. Nehru differed strongly with Patel but
held him in deep affection and respect, and when needed, readily admitted that
he was in the wrong.
Nehru and Patel clashed rather
fiercely on the functions of the Prime Minister and his position within the
Cabinet (Nehru-Patel; edited by Neerja Singh, 2010). Nehru argued that
the Prime Minister should “have full freedom to act when and how he chooses”
and if he was restrained from doing so, he would be reduced to a “figurehead.”
Patel’s counterview was that a Prime Minister acting this way would be a
“virtual dictator.”
The differences arose following
Nehru’s decision to send his emissary, H.V.R. Iyengar, to Ajmer with the brief
to report back to him on the adverse situation faced by Muslims in the
disturbed aftermath of Partition. The time was December 1947-January 1948 and
Nehru and Patel furiously corresponded on the propriety of Iyengar intervening
in a matter that Patel said fell in his domain. Exception to Iyengar’s visit
was also taken by Ajmer’s Chief Commissioner, Shankar Prasad, who in a letter
to Patel’s private secretary, V. Shankar, argued that the visit had “weakened
my position, bred public distrust and aroused bitter partisan comment.”
Nehru saw no wrong in Iyengar
visiting Ajmer on his behalf. Writing to Patel on December 29, 1947, Nehru said
Iyengar was only deputing for him, and besides there was an immediate need to
“calm down the apprehensions of Muslims” who were “terrified and leaving in
large numbers.” Nehru and Patel thereafter decided to take the matter to
Mahatma. Each wrote a note to Gandhiji, and importantly, with a copy to each
other in order that there was no mistrust between them.
In his note to Gandhiji, Nehru argued
that the Union Cabinet was the final authority, “…but in the type of democratic
set-up we have adopted, the Prime Minister is supposed to play an outstanding
role. This I think is important, as otherwise there will be no cohesion in the
Cabinet and the Government and disruptive tendencies will be at work…” Nehru
said if a difficulty arose in this way of functioning it could be easily
resolved by “personal contact and discussion between the parties concerned.” He
himself, he said, had endeavoured “in almost every matter of importance to
confer with Sardar Patel.”
For his part, Patel wrote to Gandhiji
conceding that he and Nehru had “temperamental differences and different
outlook on economic matters and those affecting Hindu-Muslim relations.” But he
also noted that they placed the country above everything else and cooperated in
their common endeavours aided by “mutual regard, respect and love for each
other.” Patel’s case was that if Nehru’s concept of Prime Ministerial supremacy
was accepted, “(that) conception would raise the Prime Minister to the position
of a virtual dictator… (which) in my opinion is wholly opposed to democratic and
Cabinet system of Government.” Patel said while the Prime Minister’s position
was “certainly pre-eminent,” he had “no overriding powers over his colleagues;
if he had any, a Cabinet and Cabinet responsibility would be superfluous.”
Gandhiji’s assassination
Interestingly, Nehru and Patel both
offered to resign from their respective positions, while insisting at the same
time that the other should stay. In the end, the differences were not resolved
because of the assassination of the Mahatma on January 30, 1948.
The murder devastated the two
leaders. They were stricken that they were quarrelling while the country badly
needed them to stay united.
On February 3, 1948, Nehru wrote to
Patel emphasising their close bond over a quarter century: “… in the crisis
that we have to (face) now after Bapu’s death, I think it is my duty, and if I
may venture to say, yours also for us to face it together as friends and
colleagues. Not merely superficially, but in full loyalty to one another and
with confidence in each other. I can assure you that you will have that from me
…”
Patel responded two days later with
equal grace and affection: “The paramount interests of our country and our
mutual love and regard, transcending such differences of outlook and
temperament as existed, have held us together… His (the Mahatma’s) death
changes everything and the crisis that has overtaken us must awaken in us a
fresh realization of how much we have achieved together and the need for
further joint efforts in our grief-stricken country’s interests.”
Nehru and Patel differed with each
other with utmost respect, and concurred and united with utmost respect. Later
on too, there were serious differences between the stalwarts but these were
acknowledged in a language that was unfailingly civil and polite.
There is much Rahul can learn from
this. Differences have to be intellectually argued out and not by calling a
decision “nonsense.” There can be no excuse for incivility in the language
used, especially when it is directed at the head of government. Rahul
undermined and insulted the office of the Prime Minister, whose occupant, the
great-grandfather insisted “must have full freedom to act when and how he
chooses.” Finally, no matter whose side Rahul takes in the discussion between
Nehru and Patel on the power and position of the Prime Minister, he should know
that neither would have liked a partyperson to publicly disparage a Cabinet
decision. More so a partyperson with a vaguely defined role but with seemingly
unlimited authority.
நன்றி -தி ஹிந்து
No comments:
Post a Comment