The Indian National Congress High Command has sent a show-cause notice
to the Mumbai Congress chief, Sanjay Nirupam, for publishing an unsigned
article in the November 2015 issue of “Congress Darshan”, a mouthpiece of the
Party in Mumbai, denigrating the first Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru and the
Party’s current president, Sonia Gandhi. While the periodical said that Sonia
Gandhi’s father, Stephano Maino was a fascist and that Sonia Gandhi became
President of the Congress Party within 62 days after becoming one of its
members, it went on to say that Nehru’s faulty Kashmir and China policies have
tied down the country during the last sixty-odd years and their repercussions
may hobble it for years to come.
As was rightly pointed out by reporters, the periodical did not reveal
any secret that was not generally known. Sonia Gandhi became a member of the
Congress Party only after its rank and file kept persuading her to lead the
Party as most of them had lost faith in its senior members. She had refused to
join the Party or to take part in politics after Rajiv Gandhi, her husband, was
assassinated. Having witnessed two assassinations (including that of Mrs.
Indira Gandhi in 1984) in the family she, apparently, had no stomach for
politics. But the insistence of the party members, mostly ambitious sycophants,
brought her round and she joined it after as many as eight years of Rajiv’s
death. Then the Party voted for her to
be its President. They had felt at that time that without a member of the
Gandhi family at the helm the party would go nowhere. The cult of the Gandhi
family and its legions of sycophants is also legacy that Nehru bequeathed
That her father, Stephano Maino,
was a soldier in the army of fascist Benito Mussolini and was a prisoner of war
in the then Soviet Union is also well known. Reports of his swearing allegiance
to the fascist regime and then later promoting the Soviet line were, however,
not quite well known. Before he joined the fascist army he reportedly was of
modest means living in an Italian village. The Maino family is now surprisingly
said to be worth $2 billion. That is saying quite a lot about the family and
its extension to the Indian ruling family that was probably profitably used by
the KGB. No wonder, the diaries of a Soviet sleuth Mitrokhin made mention of
KGB’s penetration in the PM’s House.
What was written in “Congress Darshan” on Nehru for which eventually the
editor was sacked is also largely true. It is true that Sardar Vallabhbhai
Patel differed with Nehru in respect of the latter’s Kashmir and Tibet
policies. While Nehru was a romantic living in his own make-believe world where
everything was hunky dory and where there were no enemies, only friends and
well-wishers, Sardar was a realist and practical and knew how nations play the
power games. Nehru deluded himself by believing that India had no enemies even
as Pakistan-backed raiders were committing aggression in Jammu & Kashmir.
While Nehru did not protest against invasion of Tibet by China, Patel
saw clearly what was coming. His letter of 17th November 1950 to
Nehru is an exceptionally clear-headed exposition of external and internal
implications of Chinese occupation of Tibet. As China was exterminating a
buffer state, bringing the unfriendly neighbour right to the Himalayas Nehru,
taking no note of Patel’s letter, was still singing of “Panchsheel” and “Hindi
Chini bhai bhai”. Only the humiliating 1962 defeat knocked him back into senses.
But it was too late – the animus between the two countries has continued.
Patel, on the other hand, successfully integrated 562 princely states in
the Indian Union by August 1947. These were rendered free after the lapse of
Paramountcy – the supremacy of the British Crown over them. Keen on saving
India from balkanization, he had announced that he did not recognize the right
of any state to remain independent and in isolation within India. With
strong-arm methods he broke the separatist princes’ union and by 15th
August 1947 all princely states except Junagarh, Hyderabad and Kashmir had
joined the Indian Union.
As for Junagadh, a Hindu majority state wth a Muslim Nawab, Patel saw to
it that conditions were created for a forcible takeover despite the fact the
Nawab had opted for Pakistan. Hyderabad was, however, a tough nut – a state
with Hindu majority surrounded by India from all sides. Its Nizam tried all the
options, from remaining independent to opting for Pakistan or remaining as a
dominion under the British Commonwealth. All this was not so difficult to
fathom as was the opposition from within the Indian Government. While Patel
wanted to send in the Army, Nehru would have none of it. There were reportedly
sharp exchanges between Nehru and Patel in a cabinet meeting over sending the
Army during which Nehru is said to have called Patel a “total communalist”.
Soon, however, a report of rape of a British woman in Hyderabad provoked him to
take a “U” turn and the Indian Army, made to wait battle-ready in the wings by
Patel, was asked to march into Nizam’s Hyderabad.
Like all other princely states Kashmir surprisingly was not being
handled by Patel who used to be the Home Minister. Nehru, though was the
Foreign Minister apart from being the Prime Minister, for no rhyme or reason kept
“Kashmir” in his portfolio - and made a thorough mess of it. Firstly he seems
to have been instrumental in having the Kashmir accession delayed because of
his close friend Sheik Abdullah whom he wanted to be freed from the prison term
he was undergoing. (Ironically, he had to put Sheikh under arrest in 1953.)
Thus on 26th October 1947 when the instrument of accession was being
signed Pakistan Army-backed raiders were already in Kashmir. In the ensuing war
Nehru prevented the Indian Army to push the raiders back to where they came
from. Instead he, ill-advisedly, took the matter to United Nations – and that
too not under Chapter VII under which the UN could take armed action against
the aggressors but under Chapter VI for resolution of a dispute. Kashmir was a
case of Pakistani aggression, not a dispute about determination of sovereignty
over the state. The so-called “dispute” has been festering all these years like
a cancer - and there is no end in sight. As if all this was not enough, Nehru
later put another albatross round the country’s neck by forcing Baba Saheb
Ambedkar, despite his vehement protests, to include Article 370 in the
Constitution awarding a special status to Kashmir.
Curiously, the Congress Party is unable to accept the truths about the
mistakes made by Nehru. Despite all his good work in many other spheres, Nehru
was a failure in dealing with Pakistan and China. But for him we would have
been free of many of the serious seemingly perennial issues that have been
plaguing us in respect of our relations with these two countries. His many other
failings and foibles, including dislike for certain contemporaries during the
freedom struggle, are narrated in detail by RNP Singh in his intensively
researched book “Nehru, the troubled legacy”.
On hindsight, Sardar Patel with
much greater administrative acumen may well have made a better and far more
effective prime minister. But all hat is among the numerous “ifs” of our
post-independence history.