In close to around 2 centuries of rule by the British, India has had its fair share of English rulers. Governors, Governor-Generals, Viceroys and figuratively, the Emperor / Empress of India were the different titles accorded to the British who wielded their power over Hindustan. But who exactly was that Last Englishman in power? Lord Louis Mountbatten?
Not quite. Pandit Nehru gave himself this moniker; the Harrow educated son of a wealthy barrister was not the archetypal 'son of the soil', as many of his contemporaries were. Nehru was more English than Indian in his customs and behavior, and was more at ease with his Western counterparts. His reputation of being a gentleman was indeed true and this often was shown in the political arena with his friends and foes.
17. Thats the number of years Nehru was India's Prime Minister. In hindsight, its easy to say that he was the best choice for the job, the only practical choice. But pre-independence, this was not true. His competitors had often got the better of him, and Nehru might not even have gotten close to being considered for the post he later held. The 1946 Congress Presidential election is an example of this. The person chosen for this would go on to lead Free India. Out of the 16 state votes, Nehru only won 3. The remaining 13 were won by Sardar Vallabhai Patel, who was considered by many to be a statesman superior to Nehru. As we all know, Patel did not go on to lead. And that is because Gandhi asked him to step aside in favor of Nehru; a tactic that had been used in the past, and a point often cited by Nehru's detractors. Patel would serve as the country's Home Minister and was credited with many achievements, with the Political integration of India standing out as his crowning glory.
But the uncertainity about Nehru's abilities faded rather quickly after coming into power. After Patel's death, he established himself as India's undoubted leader, and as the first Prime Minister, he made decisions (good or bad, to be discussed later) that would still have a great impact even fifty years after.
Nehru's tenure certainly was eventful, and probably because he was faced with issues only a newly freed democratic country could have. During his time, he oversaw the Kashmir situation, introduced Socialist Economic Planning through the Five Year Plans, set up institutions of higher learning for Science & Technnology, improved primary education country-wide and lost a war against China. Other less tangible achievements included giving Indians an Identity of India, successfully Integrating an eclectic mix of people belonging to all religions, castes, creeds and reagions and finally, and perhaps most importantly, ensuring that Indian democracy was not a distant dream, but a reality.
Kashmir is an Issue that has grown exponentially in political significance since Nehru's time. Wars with Pakistan were fought by his successors (Shastri & Indira) for this very reason, and in the modern millenium, the State has become focal point of dispute between India and Pakistan.
Nehru is often blamed for this problem, but is this blame justified?
Kashmir @ 1947 was ruled by Hari Singh. But having a Hindu ruler in a state with a 77% majority Muslim population was asking for trouble, at the time of the Partition. While Jinnah and his counterparts assumed that it would be a part of Pakistan, Hari Singh had other plans. He tried, in vain, for a while not to join either country, but that was no longer a realistic option. When Pakistani raiders invaded Kashmir to frighten him into submission, he contacted Governor General Mountbatten. Indian troops were offered to help him, but on the condition that Kashmir would acede to India. Vallabhai Patel's right hand man, V P Menon, was sent to get the Instrument of Accession signed. This document is of utmost importance, as it legitimizes India's claim over Kashmir - evidence that the independent sovereign ruler was in favor of his state becoming wholly a part of the Indian Union.
Many point a finger at Nehru for his next act - Approaching the United Nations, something that was recommended by Lord Mountbatten, possibily to get the International Community on the side of the country in this territorial dispute. The decision made by the UN was perhaps quite unanticipated - it has failed to recognize Pakistan as the aggressor. Its only recommendation for to hold a plebiscite (a referendum), but that was not feasible given the various objections that Jinnah, Nehru and others, brought up at various times. The plebiscite ultimately never took place, and most people never forgave Nehru for taking this dispute to an international arena. But in all fairness, Mountbatten and Nehru jointly believed that the UN would make a positive (for India) decision and that the Instrument of Accession was enough to keep Pakistan quiet forever. Is Kashmir a failing of Nehru's wrongdoing? Perhaps not, but the responsibility always falls on the throne.
(To be continued)
No comments:
Post a Comment