Nehru's 97 Major Blunders Page 4

  Gandhi was actually a self-obsessed authoritarian harbouring an overblown self-image, with an inflated ego, believing his all-round quackery represented wide and deep knowledge and wisdom, and that only he knew what was best.

  Didn’t Gandhi realise the immorality of his illegal and undemocratic act—and a repeat act at that? Why did he go against the wishes of the overwhelming majority?

  The ‘Apostle of Non-Violence’ advocated non-violence as an all-encompassing principle: non-violence was not just in the context of use of force, but also about speech, behaviour, other acts, and so on. Was junking majority-vote not a violence against the voice of the overwhelming majority? How was being dictatorial compatible with the principle of non-violence? Is injustice compatible with non-violence? Was gross repeat injustice to Sardar Patel compatible with the principle of non-violence?

  Why Gandhi kept throwing his weight behind Nehru since Nehru’s election as President of the Congress in 1929 (thanks to Gandhi), and kept giving Nehru a leg-up on the far more capable Sardar Patel right through, would remain a mystery! It proved in practice to be a major disservice by Gandhi (though unintentionally) to the nation.

  Further, how could Nehru be called a democrat when he so undemocratically usurped the said post? Height of hypocrisy and brazenness was when Nehru grandly commented on his unjust elevation: “I was, for a long time, unable to make up my mind… But, the day before yesterday, I persuaded myself to shoulder the responsibility on the advice of Mahatmaji and also my colleagues in the Working Committee.”

  “My own understanding is that if Sardar Patel had been Prime Minister during that time and not Nehru, India would have gone further and faster.”

  —Minoo Masani in ‘Against the Tide’

  It cost India heavy to have Nehru in a position that could have been ably handled only by Patel as the President in 1946, and later as PM.

  Even after Patel was no more, it should have been Dr Ambedkar or C Rajagopalachari or some other capable person, rather than Nehru at the helm.

  Somebody asked Gandhi why he did so. Reportedly, Gandhi’s reason was he wanted both Nehru and Patel together to lead the nation, but while Nehru would not work under Patel, he knew that in the national interest he could persuade Sardar Patel to work under Nehru.

  What Gandhi said amounts to this: While Sardar Patel, even though senior and much more experienced, and backed by majority, was patriotic enough to work under Nehru in the national interest, if so prodded by Gandhi; Nehru, junior, less experienced, and not backed by a single PCC, wanted only to become PM, and was not patriotic enough to work under Patel, in the national interest, even if persuaded by Gandhi!

  “...[then] it seemed to me that Jawaharlal should be the new President [in 1946—and hence PM] ...I acted according to my best judgement but the way things have shaped since then has made me to realise that this was perhaps the greatest blunder of my political life... My second mistake was that when I decided not to stand myself, I did not support Sardar Patel.”

  —Maulana Azad, ‘India Wins Freedom’

  Says Kuldip Nayar in ‘Beyond the Lines’:

  “[Humayun] Kabir [translator-editor of Maulana Azad's autobiography] believed that Azad had come to realize after seeing Nehru’s functioning that Patel should have been India’s prime minister and Nehru the president of India. Coming as it did from an inveterate opponent of Patel, it was a revelation...A year earlier, Rajagopalachari had said the same thing...”

  Blunder–7 :

  Cabinet Mission Plan & Nehru’s Blunder

  Prime Minister Clement Attlee told the House of Commons on 15 March 1946: “If India elects for independence she has a right to do so.” The Raj had, at last, decided to pack up. A British Cabinet Mission comprising three cabinet ministers— Lord Pethick-Lawrence, the Secretary of State for India, Sir Stafford Cripps, President of the Board of Trade, and AV Alexander, the First Lord of the Admiralty—arrived in India on 23 March 1946 at the initiative of Clement Attlee, the Prime Minister of the UK, to discuss and plan for the Indian independence, and the transfer of power to Indian leadership. Their discussions with the INC (Indian National Congress) and the IML (all-India Muslim League) did not yield a common ground acceptable to both.

  So as to make headway, the Cabinet Mission unilaterally proposed a plan (“16 May Cabinet Mission Plan”) announced by PM Attlee in the House of Commons on 16 May 1946, which, among other things, stated that Pakistan was no solution for the minority problem.

  ~~~

  Nehru did a blunder at the very start of his Presidency in 1946. After the AICC ratification of the CWC’s acceptance of the May 16 Cabinet Mission Plan, Nehru remarked at the AICC on 7 July 1946: “We are not bound by a single thing except that we have decided to go into the Constituent Assembly.” At a press conference three days later, he declared that the Congress would be “completely unfettered by agreements”, and that “the central government was likely to be much stronger than what the Cabinet Mission envisaged.” Nehru then made controversial remarks on the grouping proposed.

  Jinnah contended with the British that Nehru’s remarks amounted to “a complete repudiation” of May 16 Plan, and therefore the British government should accordingly declare that the Congress had not really accepted the May 16 Cabinet Mission Plan. In the absence of any action in that respect from the British government, Jinnah took the extreme step: he got the Muslim League to revoke its acceptance of the May 16 Plan, and gave a sinister call for the launch of “direct action to achieve Pakistan.”

  Calling for observing 16 August 1946 as Direct Action Day, Jinnah said: “Today we bid goodbye to constitutional methods. Throughout, the British and the Congress held a pistol in their hand, the one of authority and arms and the other of mass struggle and non-cooperation. Today we have also forged a pistol and are in a position to use it.”

  The result was the Calcutta Carnage, the Great Calcutta Killings, the worst communal riot instigated by the Muslim League, that left 5,000 to 10,000 dead, 15,000 injured, and about one lakh homeless!

  Nehru’s indiscretion put paid to the scheme of united India, precipitated Jinnah’s call for Pakistan, and resulted in the ghastly Direct Action above. Patel was aghast both by Nehru’s blunder, and by Jinnah’s momentous decision. Patel wrote to DP Mishra: “Though Nehru has been elected (President) for the fourth time, he often acts with childlike innocence... but we must not allow our anger to get the better of ourselves... His Press conference [was an] act of emotional insanity…”

  Maulana Azad called Nehru’s act “one of those unfortunate events which change the course of history.”

  Maulana Azad confessed in his autobiography, ‘India Wins Freedom’: “It was a mistake on my part that I did not support Sardar Patel. We differed on many issues but I am convinced that if he had succeeded me as Congress President he would have seen that the Cabinet Mission Plan was successfully implemented. He would have never committed the mistake of Jawaharlal which gave Mr. Jinnah an opportunity of sabotaging the Plan. I can never forgive myself when I think that if I had not committed these mistakes, perhaps the history of the last ten years would have been different.”

  Blunder–8 :

  Making Jews out of Hindu Sindhis

  The home of the oldest civilization in the world—the Indus or Sindhu Valley Civilization—highlighted by the excavations at Mohenjo-daro is Sindh. It dates back to over 7000 BCE. The 3,180 km long Indus or Sindhu River that originates near Lake Mansarovar in the Tibetan Plateau runs through Ladakh, Gilgit-Baltistan, Western Punjab in Pakistan, and merges into the Arabian Sea near the port city of Karachi in Sindh. Sindhu means water in Sanskrit. Name India is derived from Indus. Sindhu river has a number of tributaries: Its left bank tributaries are Zanskar in Ladakh, and Chenab in the plains, which in turn has four major tributaries, namely, Jhelum, Ravi, Beas and Sutlej; and its major right bank tributaries are Shyok, Gilgit, Kabul, Gomal and Kurram. The Indus delta (current Pakistan) is mentioned in the Rig-Veda as Sapta Sindhu
(Hapta Hindu in the Iranian Zend Avesta), meaning ‘seven rivers’.

  Aryans were indigenous to India, and hence to Sindh. The Aryan-Invasion Theory (AIT) has long since been conclusively debunked. Genetic studies also prove it. Aryan-Dravidian divide was also a deliberate myth floated by the colonists to serve their divide-and-rule and proselytization strategy.

  Sindh was part of the empire of Dashrath (father of Shri Ram) during the second Vedic period. After Shri Ram returned from vanvas defeating Ravana, and became king, he gave the responsibility to his brother Bharat to rule Sindh and Multan. Later, Gandhar (Kandahar) came under him. To Bharat’s sons goes the credit of building the cities of Peshawar and Taxila.

  Sindh was in good hands till the reign of Harshavardhana who ruled India and Sindh during 606–647 CE, after which it went into weaker hands. Buddhism, which vigorously taught non-violence, and which had its presence in Sindh, too contributed to weakening the defence capabilities. There were several hundred Buddhist Sanghas in Sindh at the time, and many thousand Buddhist monks.

  There were 15 attempted invasions of Sindh both from land and from sea between 638 CE and 711 CE, but all were repulsed. Mohammed Bin Qasim finally managed to plunder Sindh in 712 CE. He first attacked Debal, a temple town near sea, in April 712 CE, won it, and then proceeded to defeat the then king of Sindh, Dahir, which he did on 16 June 712 CE. Qasim and his army plundered the riches of Dahir’s territories, and carted away the booty to the court of Hajjaj in Baghdad. Many women were abducted to Baghdad. All males over 17 years who refused to convert to Islam were killed. But, finding there were too many Hindus to kill, they were granted Dhimmi status upon regular payment of Jizya tax.

  There is an interesting tale on the death of Mohammed Bin Qasim. As per Chachnama, the Sindhi chronicle of the times, Qasim had sent the two daughters of King Dahir as presents to the Khalifa for his harem. To avenge their father’s death by Qasim, the daughters lied to the Khalifa that Qasim had violated them before sending them. Enraged, the Khalifa ordered that Qasim be wrapped and stitched in oxen hides, and brought to Syria. That resulted in his death from suffocation. Upon discovering the sisters’ subterfuge, the Khalifa then ordered that the sisters be buried alive in a wall.

  ~~~

  The home of the oldest civilization in the world highlighted by the excavations at Mohenjo-daro—the Indus or Sindhu Valley Civilization—is Sindh. Name India is derived from Indus. The Indus delta (current Pakistan) is mentioned in the Rig-Veda as Sapta Sindhu (Hapta Hindu in the Iranian Zend Avesta), meaning ‘seven rivers’.

  Sindh came under the British in 1843, and was included as a part of the Bombay Presidency. At the time of partition Sindh was a British India province. It was bordered by Baluchistan and West Punjab (to the north), and by the Princely States of Bahawalpur (northeast), Las Bela (west), Kalat (west), and Khairpur (east: Sindh province surrounded it from three sides). To its east was Rajasthan, and Gujarat was to its south. As per the census of 1931, Sindh’s population was 4.1 million, of which 73% were Muslims, 26% were Hindus, and the remaining 1% were Christians, Sikhs, etc.

  Hindus were concentrated in urban areas, while Muslims dominated the countryside. Hindus were in absolute majority in four of Sindh’s five largest cities (for example, Hyderabad was 70% Hindu), the exception being Karachi which was about 48% Muslim, 46% Hindu, and the remaining 6% non-Muslims belonged to other religions—there also Muslims were not in absolute majority. Four sub-districts to the southeast—Umarkot, Nagar Parkar, Mithi, and Chachro—adjoining India had Hindu majority of 57%. Several nearby sub-districts too had about 40–45% Hindus. In view of these, Southeast Sindh, plus certain adjoining areas to compensate for Hindu Sindhis leaving other parts of Sindh, could well have been partitioned as Hindu or Indian Sindh to give space and justice to Hindu Sindhis.

  But, nothing of the sort was done. Hindu Sindhis were deprived of their homeland of thousands of years. They became the new Jews, although their history and homeland was much older than those of the Jews and Israel. Why that injustice and neglect? Why Gandhi, Nehru, and other Indian leaders did little for them?

  One argument is that the Thar Desert formed a natural boundary between India and Pakistan, and Sindh fell beyond the Thar Desert. That’s a reasonable argument if India–Pakistan partition was done taking the natural boundaries into account. But, that was not the case. Where was the natural boundary between East Punjab (India) and West Punjab (Pakistan)? Or, between East Bengal (Pakistan, now Bangladesh) and West Bengal (India)? Or, between J&K (India) and PoK (Pakistan)? If Punjab, Bengal, and J&K could do without a natural border, why not Sindh?

  Another argument is not all regions could have been partitioned. Otherwise, why not earmarked areas for Muslims elsewhere too, say in UP? There are several reasons for this. There was NO Muslim-majority district then in UP. Partition was restricted to border areas, and not anywhere within India or within Pakistan. Sindh fell in the border area. Initially, the concept of Pakistan was restricted ONLY to northwest India—it did not even include East Bengal.

  When Sindh was included as one of the components of future Pakistan by the League in the 1930s and later, Indian leaders should have objected to the inclusion of whole of Sindh as a Muslim-majority area in Pakistan. They didn’t.

  As per the “May 16 [1946] Cabinet Mission Plan” Provincial Legislatures were to be grouped as under: (A)Group-A: Madras, UP, Central provinces, Bombay, Bihar & Orissa. (B)Group-B: Punjab, Sindh, NWFP, Baluchistan. (C)Group-C: Assam and Bengal.

  The intention of the British and the Muslim League was to make Group-B and Group-C Muslim-majority, and ultimately create Pakistan out of them, leaving only Group-A for India. Nehru had surprisingly expressed approval for the groupings, although many Congress leaders opposed it. However, as it transpired, despite the groupings, Assam was kept out on account of its Hindu majority, and Punjab and Bengal were partitioned. That being the logic, why was Sindh, grouped with Punjab in Group-B, not partitioned?

  Apparently, Nehru and the Congress would perhaps have taken notice if like the Sikhs and Hindus of Punjab, Hindu Sindhis too had resorted to violence.

  A related case was of Khairpur. Khairpur was a Princely State adjoining India on the east, and surrounded on the other three sides by Sindh. Its Mir had offered to Nehru its merger with India. But, the offer was declined by Nehru, and India sent their accession papers back to them! Had the offer been accepted, Khairpur plus the adjoining Hindu-majority area could have been Hindu or Indian Sindh.

  Blunder–9 :

  Pre-Independence Nepotism & Dynasty Promotion

  Jawaharlal Nehru’s dynastic tendencies, inherited from his father Motilal, were apparent in the 1930s itself, much before he became the prime minister and brazenly and nepotistically promoted his daughter, and established his dynasty.

  After the 1937 elections when the ministry was being formed in UP, Govind Ballabh Pant, who became the Chief Minister, and Rafi Ahmed Kidwai proposed to Nehru inclusion of Mrs Vijaylakshmi Pandit [Nehru’s sister] in the ministry, which Nehru readily agreed.

  Why did they do so? Not because they considered Vijaylakshmi competent! But, by doing so, they hoped to receive Nehru’s favour, and hoped to save themselves from unnecessary interference and outbursts of Nehru!

  On Vijaylakshmi Pandit, there is an episode of the time Nehru was head of the Interim Government in 1946, as written by Stanley Wolpert in his book, ‘Nehru: A Tryst with Destiny’: “Liaquat Ali Khan and Nehru almost came to blows in the interim government’s cabinet, when Nehru named his sister Nan [Vijaylakshmi Pandit] as India’s first ambassador to Moscow. Liaquat was livid at such autocratic blatant nepotism, but his protests fell on deaf ears. Nehru yelled louder and threatened to resign immediately if Dickie [Mountbatten] supported Liaquat in the matter.”

  Indira Gandhi was yet too young for Nehru to promote her at that stage.

  Integration of Princely States

  Blunder–10 :

  Independent India dependent upon the Bri
tish!

  God only knows why India chose to appoint Mountbatten, a British, as the Governor General (GG) of India after independence! Jinnah didn’t do that blunder—he himself became the GG of Pakistan. Why Gandhi always shirked responsibilities, not taking any official positions? He could have become the GG. Or, made another Indian the GG.

  Mountbatten was a representative of Britain, and it was natural for him, rather, expected of him, to safeguard and promote the interests of Britain; and keeping British Government informed of the goings on, including confidential matters.

  Sarila points out in ‘The Shadow of the Great Game’: “Another factor that distinctly influenced the situation was Nehru’s offer to Mountbatten to chair the Defence Committee of the Indian Cabinet. It was this committee and not the Indian Cabinet as a whole that made decisions on Kashmir war policy. This power gave the governor-general enormous power to influence the course of fighting.”

  Britain wanted Kashmir, a strategic territory, to be under their influence. That was possible if it was either independent or with Pakistan, which was pro-West. Towards this aim, Mountbatten ensured that as GG he did not remain just a titular head. He manipulated to get himself appointed as ‘Head of the Defence Committee of India’ ensuring that C-in-C of both the Indian and the Pakistani Army and the Supreme Commander, Auchinleck, reported to him. In that capacity, Mountbatten secretively co-ordinated with the transitional British Commander-in-Chief of the Pakistan Army; had private strategy sessions with the transitional British C-in-C of the Indian Army, without the knowledge of the Indian leaders; and manipulated to the extent feasible, decisions and actions in the direction the British Government wanted.

  In case the Indian leaders felt that having a British GG, and a British C-in-C, did help in some way, they should have accounted for the fact that it could also be counter-productive in certain cases—and it did prove to be so. Their basic allegiance being to Britain, between them, these British were able to manipulate matters—many contrary to the interests of India.