Gandhi to Gandhis - Betrayal of the People

That someone as intellectually handicapped as Rahul Gandhi could overtly covet our country’s premier political post and that our media enthusiastically endorses his candidature is one of our many descents from the times of the iconic Gandhi to that of his surname hybrids. In our chequered history, we were always called upon to make a political choice between two contrasting characters - Gandhi or Bose, Nehru or Patel, Morarji or Indira, Rao or Sonia et al were the earlier dilemmas, and if the media were to be taken seriously, Modi or Rahul would be the question before us in 2014 - but in the hindsight it appears that either having been emotionally swayed or for being politically naive we had always picked the wrong one.

To begin with, had we made Bose our leader of the freedom struggle and opted for Patel as our first Prime Minister, surely, we could be living in a different India today and to speculate what it would have been like, it suffices if we appreciate how we were undone by Gandhi’s pacifism and Nehru’s idealism. Gandhi, instead of infusing a sense of self-belief in us, afflicted with political servitude and feudal oppression for a millennium, turned our haplessness into the tyranny of his non-violent movement. While the communal carnage that preceded and succeeded the division of our land exposed the fallacy of his philosophy, the sense of purpose that his persona briefly inculcated in us, in later days, gave way to the bane of self-aggrandizement, thereby bringing into question the validity of his legacy. But had we marched under Bose’s banner of revolt, in the process of wresting our country from the British domain, we would have consigned our defeatist past to the dustbin of history to hold our heads high all again after a millennium of bowing.

Nehru’s abhorrence of the idea of Indian nationalism on the untenable premise that it would be hurtful to the residual Muslim population had been the sole hurdle to our country’s emotional unification.

What logic it was?

When it was okay for the Muslims with an ancestry of a millennium on this soil to have a homeland of their own in Pakistan, what’s so unnatural for the Hindus, who were there for ages that too after centuries of alien rule, wanting to imbibe nationalistic feelings amongst them! More so, Nehru made the kashmiriyat, a Muslim aberration of yore (which the Islamists had since rectified to the hurt of the Kashmiri Pundits) as the leitmotif of India’s cultural idealism; unpardonable for he had the full intellectual grasp of the Islamic separatist ethos and the Muslim sense of umma that suffers not the geographical constraints of national boundaries. What’s worse, as he had succeeded in making his wooly romanticism the touchstone of distorted secularism, in the comity of nations, ours is the only country that scorns the right of the majority of its citizens to imbibe nationalism because the religion of its dominant minority doesn’t subscribe to it; and no nation had ever yielded and continues to yield so much to appease the minorities at the cost of national integration.

That’s not all, overawing his ideological opponents, as he succeeded in making his personal sophistry (in spite of the Muslim opposition to vande mataram as the national anthem on the specious ground that Islam does not allow bowing before any but Allah) as the political correctness of our Semitic-naive discourse (evident in the nation’s media), sixty-seven years after his ‘tryst with destiny’, we are condemned to live in a land perilously divided by communal, regional and caste fault lines in both letter and spirit. That even our classes leave alone the masses, still fail to conceptualize what the state of the nation would have been like had not Mohandas Gandhi blocked Sardar Patel’s way to the Teen Murti Bhavan is indicative of the dwarfish grasp of our intellectuality.

Had not the cussed congress syndicate, so as to thwart Morarji Desai the stalwart from becoming our prime minister, thrust Indira Gandhi the ‘goongi gudiya’ upon us, our Bharat would not have been accursed by the Nehru dynasty with the Gandhi surname. And if only our countrymen, ‘alive’ to the fact that Narasimha Rao was at penning an epitaph for Sonia’s hegemony, had put the reins of power back into his hands, the ‘first family’ of the congress, at the turn of the new millennium would have been a history; since it was not the case, our descent into disarray was steeper than ever before. As it takes years of painstaking research and acres of foolscap paper to record the inimical effects of the dynasty from Nehru (whose ancestral State remains a disputed territory) down to Sonia (whose much delayed citizenship is a matter of controversy) this piece is restricted to the latter’s retribution on Narasimha Rao and Andhras’ capitulation regardless.

Courtesy the sympathy votes her widowhood earned for her husband’s party, which mid-poll was heading towards an electoral rout, Sonia became a kingmaker, and had chosen Rao the statesman politician to be the king beholden, who to her chagrin turned out to be a Chanakya-like tactician. So long as the ‘dutiful’ king was at her beck and call and was wont to report at 10, Janpath, all was well, but as sycophancy is not a scholarly vice, Rao stopped stooping down to courting her and instead started governing the country by acquiring some grip over her party. Proving William Congreve right that ‘heaven has no rage like love to hatred turned, nor hell a fury like a woman scorned’, Sonia bade her time to avenge herself and that came when Rao failed to lead the Congress back to power. If in Iliad the Greeks had to build a Trojan Horse to enter into Priam’s Fort, Sonia found readymade stuff in the congress stable first to bust Rao and then to oust Sitaram Kesari, for her to take over the party reins in right earnest.

When Rao died, albeit after firmly placing our country in the reform mode, Sonia had ensured that his body was ill-treated, a la affair Achilles, where the Greek had abused Hector’s corpse in the Tojan war, but unlike Paris the sibling of the slain hero, who avenged the offender, Indians, more so Andhras, to whose flock he belonged, anointed the Italian as their unofficial queen; that much for the Telugu pride and the Telangana sentiment for Rao was their own man.

The question that naturally arises is why that was so, and the answer lies in the Nehru’s legacy of non-nationalism; after all for the non-Andhras, Rao did not belong to their region and even for the majority of his own people, he was of not of their respective caste, and so runs our country’s political story.

When such was the account the Andhras and their leaders gave about them, what was so strange that Sonia took them all for granted and treated them with the contempt they deserved, and eventually it was their pusillanimity that held them from raising a little finger at what was being meted out to their tallest leader’s mortal remains and his political legacy that had proved to be the bane of their people, embroiling them all in the Telangana imbroglio.

Woe betides our intellectuals, who all along failed to realize that Nehru’s dynasty had been the bane of our country, and it took a chaiwala from Gujarat to give a clarion call for a Congress Free India; by not reelecting Rao in 1996, we failed ourselves, would we make amends in 2014 by electing Modi is the question.


More by :  BS Murthy

Top | Opinion

Views: 3397      Comments: 14

The Gujarat tragedy occurred in 2002 when Vajpayee was PM and Modi the CM of Gujarat. Curiously, the writer willingly accepts the queer suggestion of KPS Gill to put the entire blame on the top brass of the state Police, sparing Modi and Vajpayee both in the matter. However, he does not apply the same yardstick with regard to the Delhi’s turn of events in 1984, wherein he does not bring in either the Delhi Police, or its Lieutenant Governor, and indicts Rajiv Gandhi directly, who had taken over as PM only hours before and whose mother’s mortal remains were still waiting for their last rites. So one genuinely wants to know as to “what logic it (is)?” and whether or not it is a hypocrisy?
Besides, does he really feel that winning an election is so powerful a detergent as to wash away the blood stains of any magnitude? Also, why to wait until 2014 and why not to have a few more exchanges in the matter meanwhile? Nevertheless, I genuinely feel that it is high time one appreciated that between “Modi-haters and Modi-admirers”; there is one more class, which is that of the balanced viewers. Isn’t it Mr. Murthy?

07-Nov-2013 23:30 PM

Comment 1) The stigma on Modi's is a propaganda of the motivated charade that the Supreme Court monitored SIT had exposed.
2) As the media cries hoarse about Modi's guilt without a shred of an evidence at last there is a media focus on Gill's 'informed' stand on Modi and Lata's good wishes to him. Now the media game is not one-sided and it began to hurt the Modi-biters.
3) Those who indulge in the Gujarat blame-game cannot grumble when they are reminded about the Delhi thing.
Given the preceding in her rejoinder Ms. Shubha's this "in fact, to defend Rajiv, or somebody else, for any of his actions is none of my business" is bit of a hypocrisy.
Anyway, the Shubha-minded might relish N. Ram's "Narendra Modi and why 2002 cannot go away" published in his family owned "The Hindu" of 06 Nov 2013. But to borrow Ms. Shubha's " it is pitiable that the learned writer" that is Ram refers the Gujarat riots as "Gujarat pogrom " when he is not known to have referred the 1984 Congress-butcher of Sikhs as 'Indian pogrom'.
Whatever, there seems to be no intellectual meeting point between Modi-haters and Modi-admirers, and all have to wait till the 2104 vote-count to know who among them would win politically.

BS Murthy
06-Nov-2013 00:14 AM

Comment It is pitiable that the learned writer has resorted to fallacious arguments in a bid to espouse a wrong cause. The question is if Modi does not carry any stigma, why the report of KPS Gill on Gujarat carnage should be hailed in BJP quarters as a clean chit to him, or the good wishes of a bollywood singer expressed casually should be blown beyond the proportion. It is also preposterous to justify the Gujarat (2002) killings by comparing the same with the unfortunate incidents of Delhi (1984) that followed the assassination of Mrs. Gandhi, the PM in office, alleging that as against the Delhi killings the Gujarat killings were ‘balanced’ ones, as they included Muslims and Hindus both.
Besides, in an obvious reference to Rajiv’s controversial statement, made soon after he was sworn in as the PM of India on 31/10/1984 evening, wherein he purportedly stated that “it might cause a little tremor should a huge tree fall”, he willfully infers that Rajiv inspired, the Delhi ‘genocide,’ though while doing so he conveniently becomes oblivious of Modi’s statement on Gujarat catastrophe that “every action has a reaction”.
In fact, to defend Rajiv, or somebody else, for any of his actions is none of my business, but I would still say that to demean somebody posthumously and that too on a wild presumption is unethical and against the basic principles of the Indian Culture. Moreover, an inadvertent mistake committed by somebody earlier does not confer upon one a legitimate right to repeat the same deliberately

04-Nov-2013 05:00 AM

Comment The perception of Ms. Shubha and such that Narendra Modi is a sinner proves Goebbels right - a lie repeated ten times becomes a truth.
These are some of the the lies vs. true facts about the riots that the media propagates and suppresses respectively.
a) 2,000 Muslims were killed in the genocide vs. 790 Muslims and 254 Hindus got killed, which proves it was no 'genocide' by any stretch of imagination.
b) Narendra Modi was a modern Nero vs. Many of the 254 Hindus in those riots
died in police firing, which proves he tried to contain and control the situation.
It is disgusting that Ms. Shubha and such fail to appreciate the Rajiv Gandhi inspired 'all India' butchering of some 8,000 Sikhs (3,000 in Delhi alone) in 1984 was the true genocide and not the 2002 Gujarat riots. The moot point is who is the real sinner - 'Bharat Ratna' Rajiv Gandhi or Narendra Modi?
The emergence of Narendra Modi as a colossus on the Indian political scene is bound to bring in a new vigor to the country's intellectualism, and this is evident from Lata Mangeshkar's endorsement of him as the country's Prime Minister, just to site an example.

BS Murthy
03-Nov-2013 00:54 AM

Comment If you think that your personal infatuation for a nuisance like Modi and your tricky pleadings in his favor can make him the PM of India, means you are living in a fool’s paradise. For, a clean chit, absolving him from all his sins, obtained, one does not know on what cost, from as controversial a figure as KPS Gill instead of rescuing may land him in further trouble.

01-Nov-2013 23:08 PM

Comment While expressing his deep hatred towards Gandhi and Nehru, the two unparalleled heroes of the Indian freedom movement, Mr. Murthy has sought simply to air the traditional views of the RSS and its cronies, distinguished broadly as the Sangh Pariwar. It is also deplorable that the language used by him is hopelessly wanting in decency, as calling somebody as “intellectually handicapped” and using a suggestive expression as “surname hybrids” for him is contemptuous that perhaps defines negatively the class of the author himself. Besides, blaming people for not making a right choice by throwing their lots with Gandhi, Nehru, Indira, and Sonia disregarding the claims of Bose, Patel, Morarji and Rao, respectively, is hypothetical and factually incorrect, which is tantamount to a wishful distortion of history, obviously for certain ulterior motives.
Though Bose being a radical was critical to Gandhi’s moderate policies, there never arose an occasion of a choice between the to. In fact Bose regarded Gandhi as a fatherly figure and an undisputable leader of the masses, while Gandhi treated him like a son and praised his self sacrifice, integrity and devotion to the national cause. Nehru and Patel too had a wonderful understanding and smooth working relationship, as had it been otherwise Patel, a self respecting individual, would have not remain a part of the cabinet headed by Nehru. Similarly, an occasion of choice between Rao and Sonia also never happened as Rao became unopposed the PM of India after 1991 Parliamentary Elections held in the shadow of Rajiv Gandhi’s assassination. Then while he was already in office Congress lost the next elections held in 1996, and when another chance of choosing a PM arose before Congress in 2004 Rao was seriously unwell, who passed away only a few months later. Thus, to suggest that there had ever been a leadership clash between Gandhi and Bose, Nehru and Patel, or Rao and Sonia, is nothing but false and mischievous.
However, there was undoubtedly an occasion of a choice between Morarji Desai and Indira Gandhi in January, 1966 for the top position, in the wake of the death of Prime Minister Lal Bahadur Shastri, which the former lost by a huge margin. Nevertheless, he agreed to serve as a Deputy Prime Minister and Finance minister in her cabinet until his resignation in 1969, following the nationalization of the fourteen Indian banks by Mrs. Gandhi, to which Mr. Desai was totally opposed. In fact, the wonderful record of Indira Gandhi as PM, which was applauded even by her worst detractors, bears the testimony to the fact as to how politically correct the people were in electing her. So readers please beware of such pseudo intellectuals and distorters of history…

31-Oct-2013 00:55 AM

Comment Belated

He stands for Modi
Elect him, there is no question for 2014 election.

pranlal sheth
17-Oct-2013 22:26 PM

Comment I am from Gujarat, so I understand Gujarat CHAIWALA language. He wants
dynasty free India when onion and potato prices are sky rocketing. That is
nothing wrong. When coalgate and scum like Government is there, he wants
India to become shackle free from CONGRESS. That is nothing wrong.
Little said, more you understand!


pranlal sheth
17-Oct-2013 22:18 PM

Comment The assessment of the regrettable state of affairs in the present from what occurred in the past leads to the conviction that things could have been different. The dwelling on this fantasy, for so it must be in relation to the way things unfolded is not merely counter-productive, but not fully in recognition of the circumstances at the time. It is not merely in retrospective analysis to debunk Gandhi and Nehru, but to recognise that it was not otherwise at the time - and to imagine it could be otherwise always is a perspective from a later time that amounts to no more than idle speculation, and it is certainly not demonstrative by some miraculous transformation of a reality one indeed can regret did not occur.

16-Oct-2013 18:31 PM

Comment PV as he was affectionately remembered by Telugu people and 'Telugu Bidda' sarcastically referred to by some non-Telugus at times , Rao gave a direction to the drifting, rudderless vessel called India.Quite sadly, ill-treatment started when he was there very much, in denying him all decency while allotting ticket to contest next general elections after his term as P.M was over.
Decline started with denial of decency.So pathetic!

T.S.Chandra Mouli
15-Oct-2013 10:11 AM

Comment Dear Murthy,
You may please use simple & idiomatic language for more peope to read , understand & appriciate.

14-Oct-2013 12:08 PM

Comment excellently expressed anguish, disgust and contempt
i'm glad intellectuality is rising raising people from reckless stupor
more and more people must write about our sense of shame and disgust
hope let's hope fpr hope is the thing without feathers as an American poet(ess) said in strong hope
rama rao

dr v v b rama rao
14-Oct-2013 00:52 AM

Comment Dear Mr. Bohre:
It's said that if after reading a piece one feels why didn't he think about it or he could have written it himself, it's a rare compliment to the writer. Thanks.
BS Murthy

BS Murthy
14-Oct-2013 00:18 AM

Comment Mr. Murthy,

Someday, somewhere I myself wanted to write what you already have written in first 6 para if this article. I have questioned this manytimes to myself - "What logic it was ?"

Today, in name of secularism, govt does not enforce a public holiday on the occasion of Dussera (and the 5 days of Diwali as well), leaving MNCs to let kill the spirit of the festival. What logic it was ? Or it was not any logic there ?

Dinesh Kumar Bohre
13-Oct-2013 13:01 PM

Name *

Email ID

Comment *
Verification Code*

Can't read? Reload

Please fill the above code for verification.