Friday, May 27, 2022

A CRITICAL TRIBUTE TO NEHRU: THE VISIONARY FIRST PRIME MINISTER OF INDIA

 

On his 58th death anniversary, Pandit Jawahar Lal Nehru, the first Prime Minister of independent India, appears a highly polarising and controversial personality. This was not the case a few decades back when I was studying in a university in the national capital named after him -   Jawahar Lal Nehru University (JNU). But even during late 1980s and early 90s, Pandit Nehru was not a very popular figure even in a premier University that was named after him. But he was definitely not hated or despised by any standard. 

We are the largest democracy in human history with free speech enshrined in our constitutions as a fundamental right. But I don't remember at any point of time in my entire life, at least from mid 1970s since when I remember things clearly, that  one could either admire or criticise  a big leader or even disapprove of his/her decisions at any public platform, without losing  goodwill or inviting some retribution. Today, strangers, if not bots, are waiting to pounce upon anyone on social media with all kinds of vituperative diatribe over any divergent perception on an issues or even a leader. 

Nevertheless, in the best interest of democracy and governance, decisions of every important leader, howsoever great, must be open to impartial and enlightened public inquest or intellectual scrutiny. One must never be insulting or prejudiced in such exercise. But an honest venture with candour shall certainly helps build better perspective on governance and democracy. 

During my days in JNU, leftists not only dominated the intellectual discourse on the campus but virtually bullied, mocked and intimidated the rest. They often mocked Pandit Nehru, describing his vision of socialism as fake, insincere and utopian. This was prior to collapse of communism in 1989. This was the time, when even the remotest association with Congress Party or BJP, or for that matter any centrist party, was considered a stigma on JNU campus. I remember during 1988-89, Congress Party had arranged a series of cultural programmes to mark birth centenary of Pandit Nehru. But I doubt it had any positive impact at least in JNU.   

Interestingly, certain shades of socialists, opposed to Congress Party in 1980s, hailed Nehru as their own icon.  They showed enormous praise for Nehruvian socialism, even while opposing and condemning Indira Gandhi over her assaults on democracy during the famous "Emergency" era  and eroding and scuttling integrity of nearly all institutions. Some of the elderly and towering socialist leaders like late Shri Chandrashekhar ji and his associates cited Nehru's five-year plans, or his initiatives to build s strong public sector and institutions of learning, his leadership of post-colonial Afro-Asian world to resist “neo-imperialist, neo-colonial hegemonic agenda of the United States” in 1950s, without capitulating to Russia, as hall-mark of great leadership.  

They particularly praised Pandit Nehru’s vision of a modern and scientific India, which in their opinion were manifest in Bhakhra Nangal project to IITs to steel plants to atomic power projects etc. We hardly talk about Bhakhra Nangal today, but I was told that it was inaugurated with festivity and joy, befitting a national festival. They opined that these were so very difficult to conceptualise in the atmosphere prevailing in the immediate aftermath of independence. 

Many politicians who were young in 1950s and 1960s, had mentioned that despite all its claims to promote democracy, the United States had refused to help India with steel manufacturing technology or any heavy engineering industry or technological modernization plan on which Nehru ji was very keen. Later suspicion of American hand in killing of Homi J Bhabha virtually confirmed Indian apprehensions of  American hostility. With John Foster Dulles vindictive policy of 1950s that those who were not with America were against it, was yet another indicator of American disdain towards India's autonomy and independence in conduct of foreign policy.  Under these circumstances, Nehru appears to have handled initial challenges of governance and geopolitics so very well.  

But these admirers of Nehru also criticized the latter's overly anglicized ways, his stance on Tibet, his follies over Kashmir and of course the debacle that he invited in the war with China in 1962. They identified the root cause  of these failures in Nehru's patronizing and self-righteous approach that bordered on some degree of narcissism. Yet in hindsight, his narcissism was far less malevolent compared to not only Mao, Stalin, Khrushchev or even Churchill but also likes of even Tito, Nasser, Sukarno and Nkrumah, who were suspected to have clandestinely eliminated/oppressed some of their key rivals.  

Nehru's financial integrity, as per all available records, was impeccable. Unlike Jinnah, who was committed to excesses in luxury and sensuous indulgences, Nehru led an austere life. This was despite having seen luxury and comfort that his father had once provided for. His association with several women were well known. But that was the case with nearly all men in power of that era, in almost every part of the world, varying from Churchill to Mao.

 

Nehru was thoroughly committed to governance and remained fairly impartial in dealing with of most his colleagues. Chinese betrayal in 1962 had left him shattered and he made no bones about it. In the last interview of his life, which I have inserted in this blog, he was unequivocal that India had to become a strong military power to repel Chinese threat via Tibet. Even at the height of his soft corner for China, he never hesitated in giving shelter to young Dalai Lama.




 Source: https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=nehru%27s+last+interview&docid=607999303091500460&mid=733C6AD9FEBFFABB87B4733C6AD9FEBFFABB87B4&view=detail&FORM=VIRE


When India, with its rich civilizational heritage, gained independence as a vast and yet fractured nation, with a set of challenges that were far too complex and  yet humongous, it needed an exceptional and towering leader to preside over the initial phase of tumult and uncertainty. Even if Nehru was not the perfect choice, he was certainly one of the best options that the country had at that point of time. He had several strengths but also a share of follies. How Subhash Chandra Bose or Sardar Patel would have acted is a hypothetical proposition. But these leaders did appear more decisive, forceful and realist on several parameters. But Bose was not there and Sardar Patel passed away prematurely. 

There was no dearth of a galaxy of brilliant leaders even in cabinet of Pandit Nehru or outside. Nehru did occasionally support even those who were opposed to his views but in few cases, he did appear vindictive. I am not citing specific examples only to avoid controversies. But I doubt that there was any leader in any part of the post-colonial world at that point of time, who was better. We can argue that as the first Prime Minister, he could have done more. But this is an endless debate.   

Subsequent researches, incorporating some de-classified military-diplomatic documents, demonstrate that Nehru ji was least receptive to the then military, security and diplomatic establishments of the country. He over-rode institutional wisdom on several issues of critical importance.  Deadlock in Kashmir in 1948 or Chinese intrusion in Aksai Chin in 1950s or abdicating offer of a permanent seat in UN Security Council in favor of China or ultimately being surprised by the Chinese attack in 1962 are some of the examples in this direction.

It is debatable whether such lapses emanated from Nehru's romanticist view of the world that he had nurtured as an idealist freedom fighter under the patronage of Mahatma Gandhi. He lacked adequate exposure to geopolitics and security issues or one can say the very principles and practices of statecraft and warfare. Alternatively, he had remained distrustful of incumbents in those very military, intelligence and diplomatic institutions, who until sometime back had faithfully served an external colonial master, helping in oppression of their own people. 

Nehru in his bonhomie with Mao in 1950s, failed to appreciate Chinese or Maoist psyche emanating from long uninterrupted tradition of deceptive warfare and diplomacy. Mao was a top guerrilla warrior, adept in overwhelming bigger adversary exploiting their trust and complacence. Nehru had virtually given up on North-East India during the Chinese war besides letting down troops with deficient supply of essentials. He probably acted far too naively in dealing with Islamist radicals, as if they were liberal Muslims.  

But a great  leader cannot hide behind these excuses. Sardar Patel too had no exposure to statecraft. But he acted with such levels of realism, pragmatism, integrity and vision – in uniting 500 plus princely states, including difficult ones like Hyderabad and Junagadh among others- that could pale even the most seasoned governance and statecraft strategists. 

Leaders cannot be omniscient. But they must optimally harness all their resources, including their associates. With all his strengths and good intent, Pandit Nehru could not sufficiently trust his own associates and he probably remained far more than the first among equals in his council of Ministers. He trusted his own wisdom and decisions far too often, ignoring his associates. This contributed to a great visionary and idealist flounder on some major issues of strategic importance. 

         But today, Nehru is no more and India and the world and the larger context and sub-contexts of governance and geopolitics have significantly transitioned. United States is the closest partner of India, notwithstanding India's refusal to directly condemn Russia for invasion of Ukraine. India- China competition and rivalry is likely to stay forever. Successes and failures of Nehru offer huge lessons in leadership, politics, governance and geopolitics and diplomacy.  The biggest criticism that Pandit Nehru faces is on introduction of dynastic politics in India. Probably, it never happened during his own life time. It was Lal Bahadur Shastri who had succeeded Pandit Nehru but following his unexpected death in Tashkent, Indira Gandhi took over premiership with help of some clever courtiers, who had intended to exploit her naivete. She outsmarted all of them and turned out to be exact opposite to her father on tolerance to dissidence or even corruption. But it is pertinent to ask, what were the rest of Congressmen & women doing? 

Even today, the Nehruvian idea of egalitarianism is neither fake nor irrelevant. An extreme inequality in society disturbs its strategic equilibrium, undermining the quality of cohesion and competition and consequently the capacity of a society evolve and flourish optimally. Today, China with 109+ highly profitable public sector companies in the list of Forbes Fortune 500, has demolished the myth of inefficiency of public sector. Ability of these companies to invest in R&D without worrying for immediate returns, has helped  China surge ahead of even the United States in many critical areas of fundamental research. Yes, we need to avoid obtrusive controls of the kind that the Soviet Russia and erstwhile communists practiced, killing innovation and excellence and choking output of their societies. 

Nehruvian model sought to retain people's control over mega companies and major resources without curbing freedom of ideas, initiative and enterprise. The model could have been refined alongside transformation of larger ecosystem to foster higher quality of trust, collaboration, competition and excellence. 

But it is time Nehru is liberated from partisan, acrimonious and politically discordant discourses. His lapses must be remedied and  his contributions need to be consolidated upon. But this is possible only if his great grand children set an example of some self-sacrifice. Their presence at the helm of Congress Party, by virtue of sheer birth in a family rather than any accomplishment as well as their association with dishonest courtiers, amounts to the biggest indictment of Nehru as harbinger of nepotism, favouritism, dynastic entitlements and corruption in every sector in contemporary India. 

Pandit Nehru's great grand children can emerge as powerful agents of change to redeem not only pride of  their own great grandfather but also help India realise its optimum potential as a state and society, that Pandit ji had envisioned. 


Sunday, May 15, 2022

Racial Mass Shooting in New York: Need For Re-Structuring Governance Priorities In Democracies

        Shock and anguish were the first reaction to a news this morning about a racially motivated shoot out at a grocery store in New York. An 18 year old white supremacist young man had shot 13 persons, killing 10 of them. 11 of the 13 victims were coloured people. 

This Victims in this case were all innocent and none deserved to lose their lives the way they did. Their families also did not deserve the ordeal and trauma or scar that may persist for life. The debate over this killing even in the United States focuses on gun laws. People assume that once access to guns is stopped, probably such killings may stop. They may not be entirely be wrong. With knives and hammers, far lesser casualties can be inflicted. Victims in such cases, may have better prospect to fight back and protect themselves. But what is more serious is the depth of hatred and poison in the hearts of such assailants as well as social and otherwise conditions promoting such state of mind or mental instability among a few.  

There has been a complaint from sections within the American society, that most stakeholders of United States lack sincerity or conviction to address this menace. Their condemnations of such killings and expression of outrage sounds more like hollow rituals rather than real intent or purpose. Probably a steeply inequal and materialistic society, that worships wealth, may struggle to attach priority to an issue where victims are irrelevant in larger economic and political power equations. 

This incident happened far too away and it may look absurd for an Indian to take it so seriously. People in most parts of the world are least impacted by it, even though some Indians may feel concerned as they may have their family  or relations in New York or similar other parts of the world. But I assume that most of them probably may not be required to frequent such neighborhoods.  

Nevertheless, I feel that the regularity with which such shootouts have been taking place in the world's most powerful democracy, reflects serious deficiencies and dysfunctionality of some of their institutions. But such phenomenon is nearly universal in many democracies, even though their forms and contents may vary. Some of the underlying conditions that drive such racial or hate-filled attacks are omnipresent in nearly all plural societies. 

But apathy towards human life may be more pronounced in some of the authoritarian societies as well as post-colonial democracies. Even the better governed authoritarian states, where masses may not have access to guns, it is enforcement agencies and their personnel who frequently unleash such or somewhat similar terror which may not even get reported. Many excesses and acts of violence by them may not have sanction of the political leadership.   

Since the world look up to  America to assess the standards of governance, integrity and efficiency of institutions and state of human rights in their own countries, it becomes imperative to delve deeper into this phenomenon and explore solutions that may be universal in nature.

Of course the American gun-laws are outrightly atrocious. There is no place for such laws in a society that aspires or pretends to be a beacon for entire humanity. But probably abolition of laws in themselves may not be sufficient. It is more important that effort is made to eliminate those conditions where people need such deadly weapons of mass killings. If they need it for their own security from wild animals or deadly criminals, let there be a less lethal weapon in the market that only immobilizes  people  but only temporarily, without causing any injury. Even sale and use of such weapons must be strictly regulated only for self-defense. 

The second question that has come to fore is racial prejudice and motivation of the assailant. I have always maintained that democracies all over the world need to pay serious attention to usher in a firm and effective mechanism of rule of law. Even political mobilization in  the name of identity- race, religion or language- must be banned. Attempt to profiteer out of identity politics is nothing but day light assault on principles of democracy and equality. This holds true not only for politicians but also religious seminaries or civil society groups who have been seeking to demonize all members of other identity. 

I realize that there are certain theological principles and so-called religious texts that instigate violence against members of other faiths. These must be banned. Preaching or advocating violence or hatred against any community is no freedom. It is rather abuse of freedom and the biggest threat to lives, liberty and security of people as well as security and stability of states and societies. 

Finally, I would call for re-prioritization of some of the governance objectives, especially in democracies. Human health-both physical and mental- has to be at the top. I am not advocating that democratic states should create an army of lazy parasites who produce nothing and consume a lot. But probably, all democracies need to create a citizenry that is physically and mentally healthy, professionally and technically skilled  and ethically conscientious to foster optimal collaboration of the highest possible quality.  

The attacker in this incident is certainly a mentally ill person. There are lot of mentally unstable and ill people around us. Some of them are sadly harming themselves but many among them are inflicting severe harm on their societies and people around them.  If mentally ill persons get power- either in the form of a gun or even a position of authority- they may simply become unmanageable monsters. 

A deterrent action, howsoever strong, can do very little to retrieve the situation once the harm of this nature has already been inflicted or some human lives have already been lost.  Hence, it is important that democratic states restructure their priorities to attach optimal importance to physical and mental health of their citizenry.  Wherever required, even families must be counselled to ensure that they provide optimal conditions for wellbeing of their children. A regular physical and mental health check-up must be mandatory in all societies for all individuals. 

Similarly, universal access to quality education, dignity of labour, basic economic security must be prioritized.   Leadership in democracy, or what I envision as Indocracy in its more humanised form, is all about leading people towards a better society that fosters better collaboration and trust. Hence, leaders must harness collective strengths and capacities of their people towards collective goals. Today the victims of attack from a mentally unstable may be few poor hapless black citizens of a mighty democracy. But tomorrow even the mightiest among the mighty may face consequences of reckless actions of normal looking insane persons, with lot of destructive power at their disposal.     

Saturday, May 14, 2022

Indocracy and An Indigenous Strategy on Terrorism for India

 


Dear Readers, I had taken probably the longest break from my blog due to a variety of factors.  I had promised that I shall soon be spelling out certain details of Indocracy and the one year period is too long. One can write a series of books in such a duration.  

Meanwhile, I have spelled out my ideas of Indocracy at various other platforms as well. Interestingly, many other people have started using the phrase or caption "Indocracy" @ "Bharat Tantra". I wish they used it to produce some meaty and thought-provoking concepts. But this is simply not possible for plagiarists or people lacking even basic integrity to acknowledge that they have got an idea from somewhere.  

While at one level I was eager that many people used or at least became conscious of the requirement of something like Indocracy or Bharat Tantra. But at another, I remain apprehensive of distortion of this idea. Indocracy @ Bharat Tantra is not about going back to past, howsoever glorious it may have been. It is also not about anguish and pain over certain developments that may not be perfect. It is more about a scientific knowledge and practice driven futuristic perspective on governance, geopolitics, national security and leadership to drive these.  It is neither possible for researchers nor for specialists. 

Anyways, the most hilarious encounter I had on this issue was by an acquaintance from JNU who teaches Hindi in some college of Delhi University. During a casual interaction, I mentioned to him about my idea of Indocracy. He became excited and soon invited me to a WhatsApp group that was captioned JNUites for Indocracy. I was appalled that many ideas from my own blog were being rehashed and in some cases even people did not bother to change the language. Meanwhile, I was told that the concerned acquaintance used his connections to organise seminars and public meetings and started peddling his own interpretation or misinterpretation of my ideas as Indocracy @ Bharat Tantra. I exited that platform and took resolve to avoid something like that. 

Integrity and Humanism are at the core of the idea of Indocracy. Indocracy is an intellectual revolt against the idea of entitlement and dishonesty. Indocracy envisions innovation and excellence, which is impossible through petty theft of ideas or wealth. The concept of leadership in Indocracy is driven by the highest form of altruism and one feels quite disturbed to see people claiming to be creator of some concept like this in name of our civilisation and making a beeline for personal favour at corridors of power.   

While our detailed interaction on Indocracy shall continue, I am taking liberty to post a research paper of mine that I wrote last year on need for an indigenous strategy on terrorism. There is a world-wide decline in terrorism but the larger ecosystem of terrorism in South Asia shall ensure that the problem shall persist. Further, massive counter-terror infrastructure shall start hurting us soon. It is time that we modify these institutions with larger change in the context. 

Though many factual details have changed since the paper went to press but most of its contents remain relevant even now. It will be pleasure to have feedback of my valued readers.    


 


Jitendra Ojha's Paper on Terrorism

LOOKING AT UKRAINE WAR FROM INDIAN PRISM

INDIAN EXPERTS ON THE WAR      Discussions in India's intellectual spaces on Russia-Ukraine war were initially focused on humanitarian e...