While writing this piece, I was reminded of those set of events which eventually led to Jawaharlal Nehru’s successor and India’s second Prime Minister, Lal Bahadur Shastri being not allowed to move into the PM’s official residence – Teen Murti Bhavan – owing to Indira Gandhi’s insistence that the house be converted into a memorial for her father.
Teen Murti Bhavan, a verdant 30-acre property where peacocks still roam and mynas make their music, had been the residence of the commander-in-chief of the Indian armed forces during British rule, and Jawaharlal Nehru had moved there only in August 1948, for the first time occupying a space far grander than the bungalows other ministers in his government had (he had lived in one of those bungalows until then).
The past has a strange way of impinging on the present. This 1964 incident instantly drew me back into the hubbub of the Lok Sabha poll campaign, bringing to mind Rahul Gandhi’s comment about the armed forces not being the PM’s “personal property”.
The truth is that with Rahul as a contender for power, the past has a bearing certainly on the present, but on India’s future too. Rahul was chosen to contest the Amethi Lok Sabha seat in 2004 because he was a member of the Nehru-Gandhi dynasty, and he was later appointed Congress general secretary, vice-president and president on the same grounds, becoming the fifth member of the clan to occupy the party’s top post. If he’s making a claim to power today, it’s again on account of his being the son, grandson and great-grandson of former PMs.
If lineage and the record of that lineage is a person’s calling card and family experience the sparkling point on his CV, then surely, in that same pack will be found by his political rivals other cards which would help them pose a challenge to the dynasty-led party.
And if Congress’s assertions are about Nehru’s vision, Indira’s will and Rajiv’s ushering of India into the computer era, an opponent’s offensive would be centred around their flaws and foibles. Moreover, if the family’s been in power, directly or indirectly (counting the terms of Congress PMs like PV Narasimha Rao and Manmohan Singh and non-Congress ones like Chandrashekhar, HD Deve Gowda and IK Gujral) for over 50 years out of 72, an audit is both inevitable and imperative.
That’s why those who are strenuously objecting to Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s, and BJP’s, attacks on the Nehru-Gandhis are either missing the point or attempting to give credence to the dynasty’s misconceptions and denials.
The Nehru-Gandhis and the so-called ‘left-liberal’ social-political-intellectual elite they’ve patronised are more than approving of a discussion on the dynasty’s legacy so long as it doesn’t get inconvenient. When Rahul and Priyanka Gandhi Vadra talk of their forebears’ contribution to India and their sacrifices, their admirers want more of it. When the Marxists, who’ve had a neat and successful pact with the Congress establishment on the capture of institutions and creation of national narratives, hold forth on the Nehruvian order and how it nourished institutions, the inheritors are delighted.
The ‘cultural synthesis’ of the Marxists and the ruling establishment saw to it that the Nehru-Gandhis virtually monopolised free India’s consciousness. Textbooks were written to maximise their role in building India, while that of other eminent Indians was minimised; roads, places, landmarks and institutions named after members of the dynasty further amplified this image; and things reached a point where the dynasts were described, in strictly feudal terms ironic for those who swore by socialism, as India’s First Family.
Revolutionaries, reformists and other Congress stalwarts of the freedom movement like Patel were made to appear smaller, and if Mahatma Gandhi still remained symbolically tall, it was because invoking his name – and surname – was hugely advantageous.
Now, neither Rahul nor Priyanka can be blamed as individuals for where they were born. But they haven’t had issues with people’s “obsession” with their family if the result is abundant acclaim and applause, and there’s no denying the dynasty acquired, in time, a reputation for rewarding sycophancy and punishing non-conformists like Narasimha Rao.
They themselves aren’t known for linguistic restraint either. In his first speech as Congress president, Rahul referred to VD Savarkar as someone who kowtowed to the British, and he’s kept up this criticism; Congress on Twitter labelled Savarkar a “traitor”. Rahul’s freedom to offer his interpretation of history is complete. But then how is it such a monstrosity if, the moment Rahul talks of India entering an era of dictatorship, someone reminds him of an era of constitutional dictatorship? Or if the minute he talks of an individual assuming far too much centrality in decision-making, DK Barooah’s “Indira is India, India is Indira” comment is pulled out?
Or if, whenever Rahul mentions poverty, he’s told about a slogan raised nearly 50 years ago which had promised to end “garibi”? If national security’s an issue and 1971 a year to talk about, then 1962 can’t be too far behind; and if Hindu-Muslim tensions are up for discussion, then rivals can hardly be expected to help Congress skirt issues like Shah Bano, the ban on ‘Satanic Verses’ and reopening of the Babri Masjid’s locks. The same goes for a slur like “traitor”, thrown about carelessly by both sides.
The level of discourse must indeed be debated, and criticism of crude remarks is only fair. What isn’t is the righteous indignation all around. Regardless of the outcome of these elections, there’s every reason for the Nehru-Gandhi dynasty to have been a subject of debate during the campaign.
