Obsession with Nehru will only magnify the first prime minister of India

 Nehru remains India's first democratically elected prime minister and none can snatch that title from him

Vidya Bhushan Rawat

The American forces attacked Indian sailers killing several of them in the Persian Gulf yet the government of India and its prime time loudspeakers and 'devotees' have remained completely silent. There is not even a word of condemnation of the US government. Rather, we are being told about the 'international law' and 'legality' of the issue. Ironically, Iran has condemned this act and called US as international pirate.

Actually, India is 'reinventing' varnashramdharma at the moment. The government does not bother about the things which concern people. It is more focussed on temple hopping, name changing, renovating Ghats and demolishing historical buildings so that everything in India can be painted and rebuild in the saffron of Gujarat style. They haave converted the entire beautiful Lutyen's Zone into obscene Gujarati style structure. Yes, each stone in India everywhere right from our historical places at Badrinath, Kedarnath, Kashi Vishwanath or historical buildings in Delhi must now have a Gujarati imprint. And obviously, all this is not free of cost. Huge funds have been provided for demolition and then a separate fund will be made available for construction everywhere. This is the government, which create news to manage things. It might not have created any 'employment' but it finds ways and means to create 'opportunities' and 'employment' for the 'cronies'.

Now, three days have passed yet there is no condemnation of the US action. The tame press release by the Ministry of External Affairs show how this government function. It is the Varna order or what Baba Saheb Ambedkar said ascending order of reverence and descending order of contempt. It means that behave spinelessly before the powerful adversary but become a lion or tiger if the adversary is deemed to be not so powerful. If this was a case of Pakistan, Bangladesh etc, these loudspeakers would have made a 'speakrfod' performance on their prime time but they remain shamelessly silent.

But that is the compulsion of all this and one must understand how capitalism and imperialism function. Most of our opinion makers, our politicians, bureacrates, militarymen, lawyers or judges, business leaders have their wards or families studying or working/living in the USA and other western countries. That is the reason that they are habitual of looking everything around us from a western perspective. The hyper active Bhakts are silent and unable to condemn the absolutely unlawful American attack on Indian citizens. The Bhakts are ignorant about international politics like their Gurus and hence are desperate to keep their 'Greencard' safe from the wrath of Trump administration.

Donald Trump 'congratulated' Narendra Modi for becoming the 'largest serving' 'democratically elected' prime minister. Now, Modi and his government was busy celebrating the biggest 'achievement' of becoming India's largest serving prime minister. I felt that Narendra Modi will have to be the prime minister of India beyond 2031 to cross over the 17 years stint of Jawahar Lal Nehru and till 2030 to pass through the almost 16 years period of Mrs Indira Gandhi. Narendra Modi is not satisfied with merely that. He want all the memories and historical facts about Nehru be erased.

But what about media. This is the month of June and we will have a rituals of 'remembering' 'emergency'. Ramanath Goenka's bravery will be 'celebrated' along with others vastly ignoring the dirty reality that Indian Express today is nothing but a propaganda paper of the government in Power and spread the lies of the government.

Why is the BJP and its shameless promoters denigrading the historical nationalist movement ? A Constituent Assembly of Indian came into being from the vast mandate of the people. It was not merely Nehru who got elected here. Sardar Patel, Dr Ambedkar, M L Jayakar, Syama Prasad Mukherjee, Maulana Azad, Dr Rajendra Prasad, C Rajagopalachari, Rajkumari Amrit Kaur and many more leaders got elected for the constituent assembly. It was a people's mandate to make a decide a Constitution for India which was drafted by Baba Saheb Ambedkar taking into account all those intricacies in debates and discussion which happened in the Constituent Assembly. Does the BJP want to tell us that this Constitution was not made by the people of India and was gifted to us by the British ? In the Nehru cabinet, which has wider representation from across the political parties. Sardar Patel was the deputy Prime Minister and among the non Congress stalwarts were Syama Prasad Mukherje, Dr Baba Saheb Ambedkar, Sardar Baldev Singh, R K Shanmukham Chetty, John M Matthai. This representation was meant to make the cabinet look wider and inclusive. So Hindu Mahasabha, Scheduled Caste Federation, Justice Party, Akali Dal and independent candidate formed part of the first Cabinet on August 15, 1947 apart from Congress Party which has a huge presence because of the largest number of elected representatives.

One may have differences of opinion with leaders. Nehru is not beyond criticism and for that matter nobody is above criticism. We must understand that the process of political democracy and devising a system is an ongoing process. That was the time, when things were just taking shape and Constituent Assembly guided the fate of India. The first Lok Sabha elections were held between October 25th, 1951 till February 21st, 1952 and Congress won with a huge mandate with 45% vote and 364 seats. Unfortunately, Sardar Patel has passed away on December 15th, 1950 so he could not become part of the election campaign or new government but he will always be called India's first Deputy Prime Minister and to say that he was not elected is a blatant lie and mean disgracing our national leaders of the freedom movement. The process of election might have been different that time as democratic system was still evolving and we must give credit to our constitutional forefathers for evolving a system which fuctioned efficiently till date to make us the biggest democracy of the world though assault on that system has now taken place systematically.

It is equally important to understand that numbers dont make a person great. Gandhi ji did not held any position yet he was much bigger than any Prime Minister of India like Periyar in Tamilnadu was much more powerful and bigger than the chief ministers of the state. Second, prime minister such as V P Singh remained in power for a very short period but he made history by his actions and deeds. Whenever history of social justice and political empowerment of the marginalised will be written, VP Singh will remain the greatest prime minister of India from a social justice narrative or perspective.

People dont become big or small by the position they uphold but it is important to see them from their actions and facts. Narendra Modi can be great and he has been elected by the people of India but for that he does not need to compare with Nehru. You cant get away from the fact that Jawahar Lal Nehru was independent India's first prime minister. Ofcourse, if you want to communicate that Nehru was elected prime minister of India only after 1952 then you should not call Sardar Patel as India's duly elected Deputy Prime minister as he could not participated in 1951-52 general elections.

History is brutal. It will not get reflected today when one is in power. It haunt when you are not there. It brings facts and the facts may not be rosy all the time. The spineless propagandists calling themselves as 'media' are nothing but a big farce and have lost whatever little credibility they had. Nobody can deny the fact that Nehru was India's first Prime minister duly elected by the people of India. It will better for the current regime to foccus on the issues confronting the nation. The more you target Nehru, the bigger will be the interest of people on searching more about the political climate of India in the late 1940s when RSS and Hindu Mahasabha were just chanting Hindu Muslim and terming British as their friend while other nationalists were seeking complete independence and going to jail. Nehru will always remain 'Hind ke Jawahar' for powerfully propagating for the idea of an inclusive, secular and liberal India which is needed so that we are heard globally with respect and admiration.

Myth verses Reality of Indian Polity

 

Debunking Myths About India's First Prime Minister: Setting the Record Straight on Nehru's Legacy

Vidya Bhushan Rawat

Recent social media posts have sparked controversy by claiming that Prime Minister Narendra Modi has surpassed Indira Gandhi’s uninterrupted tenure as India’s prime minister. These narratives conveniently omit that Indira Gandhi served not only from 1966 to 1977 but also from 1980 until her tragic assassination on October 31, 1984. More disturbingly, some have falsely labeled Jawaharlal Nehru as an “unelected” prime minister from 1946 to 1952, alleging he swore allegiance to the British Crown rather than the Indian Constitution. Such claims, often propagated by ideologically driven groups, distort India’s political history and undermine the legacy of its freedom struggle. This article sets the record straight by examining the facts surrounding Nehru’s tenure and the interim government of 1946–47.

The Interim Government of 1946: A Diverse Coalition

The interim government, formed on September 2, 1946, under Jawaharlal Nehru’s leadership, was a critical step in India’s transition to independence. It was not a unilateral appointment but a coalition reflecting India’s diverse political landscape. The first cabinet included:

1. Jawaharlal Nehru – Vice-President of the Executive Council, External Affairs & Commonwealth Relations
2. Vallabhbhai Patel – Home Affairs, Information & Broadcasting
3. Baldev Singh – Defence
4. John Matthai – Finance
5. C. Rajagopalachari – Education
6. C.H. Bhabha – Commerce
7. Rajendra Prasad – Food & Agriculture
8. Asaf Ali – Transport & Railways
9. Jagjivan Ram – Labour
10. Sarat Chandra Bose – Works, Mines & Power (resigned; replaced by Vallabhbhai Patel)
11. Syed Ali Zaheer – Law
12. Cooverji Hormusji Bhabha – Commerce (later handled Works, Mines & Power)

On October 26, 1946, the Muslim League joined, adding members like Liaquat Ali Khan (Finance), I.I. Chundrigar (Commerce), Abdur Rab Nishtar (Posts & Air), Ghazanfar Ali Khan (Health), and Jogendra Nath Mandal (Law, representing Scheduled Castes). This coalition, formed under British oversight, required all members to take an oath of allegiance to their office, administered by the Viceroy. There is no evidence suggesting Nehru’s oath differed from that of his colleagues, including Patel or Mandal.

The First Cabinet of Independent India

After independence on August 15, 1947, Nehru led India’s first cabinet, sworn in under Governor-General Lord Mountbatten. This cabinet was equally diverse, comprising:

1. Jawaharlal Nehru – Prime Minister, External Affairs & Commonwealth Relations, Scientific Research
2. Vallabhbhai Patel – Home Affairs, Information & Broadcasting, States
3. Baldev Singh – Defence
4. Rajendra Prasad – Food & Agriculture
5. Maulana Abul Kalam Azad – Education
6. John Matthai – Railways & Transport
7. Rafi Ahmed Kidwai – Communications
8. Rajkumari Amrit Kaur – Health
9. B.R. Ambedkar – Law
10. R.K. Shanmukham Chetty – Finance
11. Syama Prasad Mookerjee – Industry & Supply
12. C.H. Bhabha – Commerce
13. Jagjivan Ram – Labour
14. N.V. Gadgil – Works, Mines & Power

This cabinet included luminaries like Patel, Ambedkar, and Mookerjee, all of whom took the same oath of office as Nehru. Claims that Nehru alone swore allegiance to the British Crown are baseless and lack documentary evidence. The oath was a standard procedure for all ministers during the transitional period.

Debunking the “Unelected” Myth

The assertion that Nehru was an “unelected” prime minister from 1946 to 1952 is a gross misrepresentation. The interim government was formed following the 1946 provincial elections, where the Indian National Congress secured a significant mandate. Nehru was chosen as the leader by elected representatives, not appointed by the British. The Constituent Assembly, tasked with drafting India’s Constitution, was also elected indirectly through provincial assemblies. To dismiss Nehru’s leadership as “unelected” is to question the legitimacy of the entire Constituent Assembly, including the contributions of figures like Ambedkar, who drafted the Constitution, and Patel, who unified the princely states.

The transfer of power was a gradual process, beginning in the 1930s with the Government of India Act, 1935, which introduced provincial autonomy and elections. The Indian National Congress boycotted the 1930 elections but participated fully in 1937 and 1946, winning majorities in most provinces. Nehru’s appointment as head of the interim government and later as India’s first prime minister was rooted in this democratic mandate, not British fiat.

The RSS and Historical Revisionism

Certain groups, often aligned with the RSS, have propagated narratives that vilify Nehru while ignoring the collective contributions of his contemporaries. These narratives falsely single out Nehru for taking an oath of allegiance, conveniently ignoring that Patel, Mookerjee, and others took the same oath. Such selective storytelling aims to discredit Nehru’s legacy while whitewashing the contributions of others who worked alongside him.

The claim that Nehru was solely responsible for post-independence challenges is equally misleading. The partition, communal violence, and economic difficulties were complex issues tackled by the entire cabinet. Patel’s role in integrating princely states, Ambedkar’s work on the Constitution, and Azad’s contributions to education were integral to India’s early years. To pin all failures on Nehru while ignoring the collective responsibility of his cabinet is intellectually dishonest.

A Unified Vision for India

Nehru, Patel, Ambedkar, and their contemporaries had differences, as is natural in a democracy. However, they shared a commitment to a secular, democratic, and inclusive India. Their debates—whether between Nehru and Patel on governance or Nehru and Ambedkar on social reforms—were rooted in a shared vision for a united nation. The Constitution, a product of their collective efforts, embodies this vision with its emphasis on secularism, socialism, and republican democracy.

Critics who reject secularism or socialism as foundational principles are, in effect, challenging the very framework of India’s Constitution. The freedom struggle, led by these leaders, was not a gift from the British but a hard-won victory through decades of sacrifice. To reduce it to petty political point-scoring is to diminish the legacy of India’s independence movement.

Conclusion

India’s rise as a global power owes much to the visionary leadership of Nehru, Patel, Ambedkar, and others who laid its foundation. Distorting their contributions for political gain undermines the nation’s history and the sacrifices of its freedom fighters. Nehru was not an unelected leader imposed by the British; he was a democratically chosen prime minister who led a diverse cabinet through tumultuous times. The facts are clear: Nehru, like his colleagues, took the same oath, worked for the same nation, and shared the same dream of a free, inclusive India. Let us honor their legacy by embracing truth over propaganda. Moreover, it is equally important that a prime minister might have a short tenure but might be much more respected for his life. Two of India's greatest prime ministers were Lal Bahadur Shastri and Vishwanath Pratap Singh and their term was limited but when history was written then their role as political leaders, their simplicity of life, honesty of ideology would always be remembered. Let us be clear that a nation wil not count days and years of somebody's prime ministership. Leaders remain in our heart with the empathy they have for people and the vision for the future which is inclusive in nature and respect for diversity, liberal values and social justice.