There
are many reasons to criticize Nehru, but one must look at the merit of
those criticisms. One of the things that bothers me is criticism for
partition. While Vallabhbhai Patel who was equally guilty for partition, if not more, by the same standards is
exonerated by the Sangh. If you read the political history of
partition, Patel was the first congress leader to publicly accept
partition as the reality, even before Nehru.
Also, in later part of the history, after the constitution was framed, one of the most contentious issues was the Hindu Code Bill. While Ambedkar was quite adamant on the need for social reforms which critically attacked and tried to reform the Hindu society by politically upstaging the rights of Hindu women & Dalits, not everyone in Congress accepted the bill. Notably, the President and the Home Minister of India, Dr Rajendra Prasad & Vallabhbhai Patel respectively, publicly opposed the bill. The bill couldn't have been passed without the political weight of Nehru who supported the reforms in the bill. Obviously, in this context, contribution and support of women like Amrit Kaur, Hansa Mehta etc are generally overlooked.
Obviously, the RSS and Sangh were opposed to the bill to the extent that they burned effigies of Ambedkar and Nehru.
It is also interesting to note that Hindu Mahasabha and RSS favoured partition, just like Muslim League and they had been pushing forward the idea that India should be partitioned based on religion as a Hindu and a Muslim nation. So, what credibility do they have to accuse Nehru (selectively not Patel) for partition when they were themselves in favour of the idea from the beginning?
And here is my theory. Nehru blocked the Hindu nation dreams of Sangh by accepting the Hindu Code Bill into our legislation, while Patel opposed the bill, just like the Sangh. This very act of Nehru makes him a greater evil in the eyes of Sangh. Patel, who had lost all respect for RSS after assassination of Gandhi, was at least much closer to the vision of India that RSS dreamt.
As I see it, Nehru ensured that the Hindu society doesn't fall into despotism by supporting an outsider like Ambedkar and made enemies within Congress and outside (Sangh). If Nehru should be condemned, he should be condemned by Muslim women for not giving the political tool to get their rights in Indian society and not by the Hindus.
I wasn't even born then, but to think of society that we lived in, between 1947-1964, it is remarkable that Nehru maintained the popularity even among the "betrayed Hindus". But then, the Sangh didn't had the tool of social media, back in those days.
Also, in later part of the history, after the constitution was framed, one of the most contentious issues was the Hindu Code Bill. While Ambedkar was quite adamant on the need for social reforms which critically attacked and tried to reform the Hindu society by politically upstaging the rights of Hindu women & Dalits, not everyone in Congress accepted the bill. Notably, the President and the Home Minister of India, Dr Rajendra Prasad & Vallabhbhai Patel respectively, publicly opposed the bill. The bill couldn't have been passed without the political weight of Nehru who supported the reforms in the bill. Obviously, in this context, contribution and support of women like Amrit Kaur, Hansa Mehta etc are generally overlooked.
Obviously, the RSS and Sangh were opposed to the bill to the extent that they burned effigies of Ambedkar and Nehru.
It is also interesting to note that Hindu Mahasabha and RSS favoured partition, just like Muslim League and they had been pushing forward the idea that India should be partitioned based on religion as a Hindu and a Muslim nation. So, what credibility do they have to accuse Nehru (selectively not Patel) for partition when they were themselves in favour of the idea from the beginning?
And here is my theory. Nehru blocked the Hindu nation dreams of Sangh by accepting the Hindu Code Bill into our legislation, while Patel opposed the bill, just like the Sangh. This very act of Nehru makes him a greater evil in the eyes of Sangh. Patel, who had lost all respect for RSS after assassination of Gandhi, was at least much closer to the vision of India that RSS dreamt.
As I see it, Nehru ensured that the Hindu society doesn't fall into despotism by supporting an outsider like Ambedkar and made enemies within Congress and outside (Sangh). If Nehru should be condemned, he should be condemned by Muslim women for not giving the political tool to get their rights in Indian society and not by the Hindus.
I wasn't even born then, but to think of society that we lived in, between 1947-1964, it is remarkable that Nehru maintained the popularity even among the "betrayed Hindus". But then, the Sangh didn't had the tool of social media, back in those days.
No comments:
Post a Comment