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.