Introduction:
Any interest in the outstanding figure such as
Jawaharlal Nehru does not diminish with time.
More so, with his relevance which needs hardly
to be overemphasized. It is mostly due to his
charm coupled with far-sighted vision and
statesmanship, his personality and concern for
the masses and downtrodden that he remains
ever fresh in the minds of the people. It is
also due to fascination of not only those who
were lucky to work with him personally but
also those who came to know him through his
rich literary works, numerous memoirs and
several scholarly publications about him.
The other reason for the unflagging interest
and relevance of him in the readers and
researchers lies in the fact that as a thinker
he touched upon a vast variety of problem
which concern mankind today. As a matter of
fact, Nehru does not belong only to India he
belongs to all mankind. He was one of the
architects of international peace and
solidarity. He believed in a common destiny of
mankind, in rapprochement between the West and
the East. ‘Panchsheel’ became the beacon light
for all peace loving countries in the world.
Sino-Indian relations were built upon this
idea in the hey day of Nehruvian politics.
Nehru was, in fact, a multifaceted
personality. In him we have a happy blend of
western scientific temper and modern Indian
idealism. He accepted Gandhi’s moral
leadership and yet he retained his modern
outlook. He was a great democrat and a true
socialist. He was a nationalist of the first
order, yet an internationalist of great
repute. In short, must I say that Nehru was a
rare phenomenon in the history of mankind?
Relevance of Nehru:
With all these contributions in the
background, can we today visualize any good
reason to relegate Nehru’s relevance? On the
contrary the more world communities march
ahead towards closer international
co-operation and better understanding between
countries, Nehru’s relevance becomes not only
relevant but increasingly becomes
indispensable, particularly for the Third
World countries who in their strive towards
the goal of becoming developed nations follow
a non-aligned path.
What appeals us most in his relevance to us
today is his intense love for India and the
Indian people. He loved his motherland more
than anything else in his life. To keep alive
his thoughts and ideals we have nowhere to go
but study those clearly expressed views in his
own writings that stand out today unparalleled
in their range and variety.
In his writings are revealed his hopes and
aspirations, struggles and the patterns on
which he hoped and strongly expressed to shape
the future of our country. He was indeed
passionately devoted to his ideas that are
being vigorously pursued even today. It is
given cognizance by all international
communities as an up-coming great power of the
world. Can we dispense with his relevance
today? Perhaps not.
We know that Nehru was a prolific writer and
an acknowledged master of English prose. He
corresponded with his friends, colleagues and
admirers both in India and abroad. In his
‘Autobiography’, ‘Glimpses of World History’
and ‘Discovery of India’, are found his ideals
and thoughts written in lucid and flawless
language, which are frequently interspersed
with rare beauty of thoughts. Indeed, such
noble thoughts have seldom been enshrined in
such a noble language. These three great works
of Nehru encompass the inevitable relevance of
him today. To illustrate let me discuss in
brief about them.
India old and new:
It is generally acclaimed as among the
few truly great memorable autobiographies of
the country. Nehru himself proclaimed it as
having traces of his mental development which
surveyed the courses of events in India prior
to attainment of independence and revealed an
insight into the blueprints of the ‘New India’
he cherished that was soon to emerge. In this
work he reflected how greatly were his father,
Motilal Nehru, Gandhiji and Rabindra Nath
Tagore, influential upon him and who molded
his life and the love for his country.
This may be summed up in his own words.
“And yet India with all her poverty and
degradation had enough of nobility and
greatness about her, and though she was
overburdened with ancient tradition and
present misery, and her eyelids were a little
weary, we had a beauty wrought from within
upon the flesh, the deposit little cell by
cell, of strange thoughts and fantastic
reveries and exquisite passions.” Behind and
within her battered body one could still
glimpse a majesty of soul. Through long ages
she had traveled and gathered much wisdom on
the way, and trafficked with strangers and
added them to her own family, and witnessed
days of glory and of delay, and suffered
humiliation and terrible sorrow, and seen many
a strange sight; but throughout her long
journey she had clung to her immemorial
culture, drawn strength and vitality from it,
and shared it with other lands. Like a
pendulum she had swung up and down; she had
ventured with the daring of her thought to
reach up to the heavens and unravel their
mystery, and she had also had bitter
experience of the pit of hell. Despite the
woeful accumulations of superstition and
degrading custom that had clung to her and
borne her down, she had never wholly forgotten
the inspiration that some of the wisest of her
children at the dawn of history, had given her
in the Upanishads. Their keen minds, ever
restless and ever striving and exploring, had
not sought refuge in blind dogma or grown
complacent in the routine observance of dead
forms or ritual and creed. They had demanded
not a personal relief from suffering in the
present or a place in a paradise to come, but
light and understanding: “Lead me from the
unreal to the real, lead me from the darkness
to light, lead me from the death to
immortality”. In the most famous of the
prayers recited daily even to-day by millions,
the ‘Gayatri Mantra’ the call is for
knowledge, for enlightenment.
The variety and unity of
India:
With such background as legacy, Nehru
expressed his cherished dream to see a unified
India despite multiple ethnic diversities with
differing religious beliefs that were embraced
by its multitude populace as expressed in his
work, the ‘Discovery of India’. This book is
his last major work wherein he sets out to
discover his own country. Coverage of the book
ranges from the earliest days of Indian
history to the dawn of independence. This
survey provides clear interpretations of
history and the complexity of contemporary
problems as revealed through the mind and
personality of one of the noble sons of India
whose importance in the framing of policies is
as ever more relevant in contemporary India
than before. Instance of his vision is found
in that —
“The Pathan and the Tamil are two extreme
examples, the others lie somewhere in between.
All of them have their distinctive features;
all of them have still more the distinguishing
mark of India. It is fascinating to find how
the Bengalis, the Marathas, the Gujaratis, the
Tamils, the Andhras, the Oriyas, the Assamese,
the Canarese, the Malayalis, the Sindhis, the
Punjabis, the Pathans, the Kashmiris, the
Rajputs, and the great central block
comprising the Hindustani-speaking people have
retained their peculiar characteristics for
hundreds of years, have still more or less the
same virtues and failings of which old
tradition or record tells us, and yet have
been throughout these ages distinctively
Indian, with the same national heritage and
the same set of moral and mental qualities.
There was something living and dynamic about
this heritage which showed itself in ways of
living and a philosophical attitude to life
and its problems. Ancient India, like ancient
China, was a world in itself, a culture and a
civilization, which gave shape to all things.
Foreign influences poured in and often
influenced that culture and were absorbed.
Disruptive tendencies gave rise immediately to
an attempt to find a synthesis. Some kind of a
dream of unity has occupied the mind of India
since the dawn of civilization. That unity was
not conceived as something imposed from
outside, standardization of externals or even
of beliefs. It was something deeper and,
within its fold, the widest tolerance of
belief and custom was practiced and every
variety acknowledged and even encouraged.
“Differences, big or small can always be
noticed even within a national group, however
closely bound together it may be. The
essential unity of that group becomes apparent
when it is compared to another national group,
though often the differences between two
adjoining groups fade out or intermingle near
the frontiers, and modern developments are
tending to produce certain uniformity
everywhere. In ancient and medieval times, the
idea of the modern nation was non-existent,
and feudal, religious, racial, or cultural
bonds had more importance. Yet I think that at
almost any time in recorded history an Indian
would have felt more or less at home in any
part of India, and would have felt as a
stranger and alien in any other country. He
would certainly have felt less of a stranger
in countries which had partly adopted his
culture or religion.
Those who professed a religion of non-Indian
origin or, coming to India, settled down
there, became distinctively Indian in the
course of a few generations, such as
Christians, Jews, Parsees, Moslems. Indian
converts to some of these religions never
ceased to be Indian on account of a change of
their faith. They were looked upon in other
countries as Indians and foreigners, even
though there might have been a community of
faith between them.
“Today, when the conception of nationalism has
developed much more, Indians in foreign
countries inevitably from a national group and
hang together for various purposes, in spite
of their internal differences. An Indian
Christian is looked upon as an Indian wherever
he may go. An Indian Moslem is considered an
Indian in Turkey or Arabia or Iran, or any
other country where Islam is the dominant
religion.” It speaks volumes of his concept of
Indian ‘Unity in diversity’ which still binds
the people of India together.
Old Civilization:
India’s inheritance and present age:
This work of Nehru is astonishing in
its range and in projecting great sweeps of
the mind-set of the author. It also reveals
the breadth of Nehru’s culture and his ability
to write clearly in an interesting manner for
the young. His comprehension of the old
civilization and India’s inheritance and of
our present age was unique. He wrote, “Egypt,
Knossos, Iraq and Greece - they have all gone.
Their old civilizations, even as Babylon and
Nineveh, have ceased to exist. What, then of
the other two ancients in this company of
these old civilizations? What of China and
India? As in other countries, they too have
had empire after empire. There have been
invasions and destruction and loot on a vast
scale. Dynasties of kings have ruled for
hundreds of years and have been replaced by
others. All this has happened in India and
China as elsewhere. But nowhere else, apart
from India and China, has there been a real
continuity of civilization. In spite of all
the changes and battles and invasions, the
thread of the ancient civilization has
continued to run on in both these countries.
But it is interesting and rather wonderful to
think of this long range and continuity Indian
culture and civilization right from the dawn
of history, through long ages, down to us”.
Tribal policy and
evolution of States in the North East:
In addition, to mention an instance relating
to Nehru’s relevance in the North East is that
of his policy on tribals which is a landmark
in the evolution of States in the north east.
Despite his advice not to take extreme step to
adopt Assamese language, the then Congress
Ministry did so. This hastened the process of
formation of non-viable States in the region;
particularly the hill districts of Khasi and
Jaintia and Garo Hills, Naga Hills, Lushai
Hills and North-Eastern Frontier Areas into
separate States. With them, so were Manipur
and Tripura, which were then already princely
States.
Nehru wanted that tribals and their land
should be left to themselves to develop their
own genius. We may recall an instance wherein
he spelled out part of his policy on tribals
particularly of the North-East India in his
public meeting in Shillong which ran as
follows: “Tribal rights on land and forest
should be respected. These hill people who
love to have good communication in their areas
have lost much of their enthusiasm with the
apprehension that good communication means
forfeiture of their lands, and economic and
social exploitations on the other.
Thus, even good communication, instead of
being an asset to the development of the hill
people, works adversely to the interest of the
said people. This is so, in as much as the
rights to administer and govern to suit the
peculiar nature of the people and along the
lines of their own genius have been denied to
the people”.
Nehru’s concern for
women upliftment:
It goes without saying that Nehru’s
concern for the welfare and upliftment of
status of women had manifested in more than
one way right from his assumption of the
office of the first Prime Minister of India.
His letters to his daughter, Priyadarshni
Indira Gandhi, gave enough witnesses to it. He
inducted Padmaja Naidu to the high office of
Governor, assigned Vijay Lakshmi Pandit as
Indian Representative to the UNO and
Ambassador of India and was instrumental in
Indira Gandhi becoming the Prime Minister of
India on her own merit.
He was fascinated with the womenfolk of
Manipur for their active role in the fields of
social, economic and political life that
prompted him to call Manipur as the ‘Jewel of
India’. Similar is the case with his exceeding
appreciation of the courage of young
‘Gaidinliu’ whom he saw in a Jail in Assam
imprisoned by the British Indian Government
for her spearheading the ‘religio-cultural’
movement of the Zeliangrong Kabui tribes of
Manipur whom he decorated with the title of
‘RANI’ and a life-time pensionery benefits and
accorded the status of a “Very- Very Important
Person. These are few instances of his vision
for the upliftment of women that had
definitely paved the way for the present day
politicians and the Government of India for
intense desire to introduce a bill on women
upliftment. He was also opinionated for
setting aside a certain percentage of
reservation of seats in Parliament and State
Legislative Assemblies. Recent trend of
introducing the bill on women is a reminder of
the relevance of Nehruvian farsightedness and
incisive understanding of the needs of our
society.
Legacy of subverting
democracy:
In Constitutional matters written text
of the Constitution, Constitutional
conventions and judicial interpretations of
various articles of the Constitution are
equally important elements. These have not
been given serious consideration and violated
by the Congress Party since the days of Indian
Freedom struggle despite the fact that the
party had incorporated these elements which
were framed by their legal stalwarts. It
became more apparent during the regime of
United Fronts. Sinha described it as follows:
“The United Front, a conglomeration of the
rejects of the Congress, also wants to remain
stuck to the chair till death doth them part.
For this, they are bent upon wiping out all
noble traditions of a democracy”. The legacy
is seen from the time when Jawaharlal Nehru
was elected to the office of presidentship of
Congress Party despite his getting support
only from three Provincial Committees out of
eighteen against Sardar Patel for two terms at
the interference of Mahatma Gandhi in favor of
Nehru who also superseded in becoming Prime
Minister of India in preference to Chakravatty
Rajagopalan, respectively in 1929, 1937 and
1946.
Brushing aside the majority vote, Gandhiji
pleaded very strongly with the delegates of
the Congress session in favor of Jawaharlal
Nehru. He said: “Seniors had their innings.
Future struggle to be carried on by young men
and women... Jawaharlal has all the qualities
for which he deserves to be recommended....
For his bravery, determination, behavior,
honesty and patience, he is held in high
esteem by the youth of this country. He has
come in contact with farmers and workers. He
is close to European politics... They (youth)
would consider as an award to them if
Jawaharlal is elected. And they would consider
it as proof of belief of the nation in its
youth. Give them an opportunity to prove
themselves worthy of this trust”. Gandhiji
said this in consideration of the sacrifices
made by Jawaharlal’s family.”
The circumstances thus highlighted above have
simply manifested that in the Congress set-up,
there has never been any respect for majority
or democracy. Another argument put forward by
Gandhiji in favor of Jawaharlal was that when
negotiations were going on with the British
for the independence of the country,
Jawaharlal would be more suitable for the
office, because Nehru and the Englishmen spoke
in ‘common idiom’.
Durga Das wrote in his book on India from
Curzon to Nehru and after that the same year
when Nehru took over as Prime Minister of
Interim Government “... most of the members of
Working Committee were not altogether happy.
They preferred Sardar Patel who was the “Iron
man with his feet firmly planted on earth”,
and that he would be able to deal better with
Jinnah than Nehru with the firm belief that
even at that late stage could ensure the
solidarity and integrity of the sub-continent.
It was further argued that crucial hours lay
ahead and the Sardar’s rugged realism, would
provide a ‘safe-shield’.
Durga Das asked the reactions of Gandhi on the
above contention of the Congress Working
Committee, and Gandhi readily agreed that
Patel would have proved a better negotiator
and organizer as President of Congress Party,
but added that Jawaharlal would not take the
‘second place’. Thus despite the fact that
Sardar Patel had more organizational
capability and administrative efficiency,
Nehru was made the Prime Minister in the
interim Government because he ‘spoke English
better than others in the Congress and also
because he was not prepared to take the
‘second place’. Patel, unlike Nehru did not
have Gandhi as ‘Godfather’. Obviously,
democracy did not have a place in the scheme
of things; it was only of cosmetic value in
the Congress.
It is written that Gandhiji wrote a
confidential letter dated the 15th July, 1946,
to Jawaharlal Nehru on his becoming President
of the Congress Working Committee saying;
“You are in
office, but you are not in power yet. To put
you in the office was an attempt to find you
in power, quicker than you would otherwise
have been. Anyway that was at the back of my
mind when I suggested your name for the crown
of thorns. Keep it on though the head be
bruised”.
Nehru followed the advice in letter and spirit
and bound them upon his neck. However, he
refused to write them upon the table of his
heart therefore, did not accept moral
responsibility for the debacle in the wake of
Chinese aggression in 1962, compelling VK
Krishna Menon to be the sacrificial goat that
resulted in the latter's resignation from his
Ministership. Thus despite the fact that his
head was seriously bruised and bleeding,
keeping the advice of his Godfather - Gandhiji
- Nehru refused to part with the crown of
thorns, till he breathed his last.
The Good Boatman
sidelined:
Mohandas Karamchand, best known the
world over as Mahatma Gandhi of the twentieth
century, is best understood not so much in
words as in his actions. His action speaks
more than his word for he lived a full life of
action from the time he went to South Africa
to serve as a lawyer to a Muslim client to the
day he was assassinated in Delhi on one cold
day of January, 1948.
Many books have been written about him and
many works have analyzed his life and work
than one can remember. Yet, it is sad to say
that his memory is fast receding in the minds
of his own countrymen. Therefore, it is
imperative that his memory should be revived
not because we are important to Gandhi but
because Gandhi is important to us. And he is
important to us not because his image has been
simplified as “Father of the Nation” and
frozen in few statues of indifferent merit but
because his life has a message. In much the
same manner as Gandhi himself once said
succinctly, his life was his message. The one
cannot be separated from the other. And so,
his message is best understood in his actions.
This action-filled life has been
discriminatingly described... consciously
marginalized his relevance and deliberately
sidelined his importance. It was true that
among his disciples was Chakravarti
Rajagopalachari, a rich lawyer from Madras who
gave up his practice to join the National
Movement, the man with whom Gandhi had best
relationship, reposed highest confidence and
had ‘greatest hope’ on him, but in the end he
turned to Jawaharlal Nehru. In early 1942, he
told the All India Congress Committee, “I have
said for some years and say it now, that not
Rajaji, not Sardar Vallabbhai Patel, but
Jawaharlal Nehru will be my successor. You
cannot divide water by repeatedly striking it
with a stick. It is just as difficult to
divide us. ... When, I am gone, he will speak
my language...”
Rajmohan Gandhi recounted that when Nehru
heard this, he, who till then was sitting
cross-legged on the floor with a bolster
behind his back “sprang from his seat and sat
on top of his bolster”. To complete the
record, it must be stated that after Gandhi
was gone, Nehru forgot to speak his Master’s
language. Gandhi was forgotten in deeds and
remembered in words.
Legacy of corruption:
The issue may be traced back to the
period 1937- 38 before independence of India
in the Congress regime in the then Central
Provinces and Berar, now called Madhya
Pradesh, when Dr. N.B. Khare was the Chief
Minister (then called Prime Minister), he was
forced to quit the office by the Congress High
Command allegedly for asking action against a
couple of his corrupt Ministers.
On being out of office, Khare published some
letters from High Command members recommending
appointments to some top positions, like
Advocate General of the State. Later, after
independence, while he was a Member of Lok
Sabha in 1952-55, in reply to charges of
rampant corruption in early fifties, Nehru
stated that there was more corruption in the
British time than in the free India Congress
regime. Reacting to it, Khare claimed that as
member of Viceroy’s Advisory Council in
194346, he knew how the corrupt were pulled up
quickly in British times, contrary to the
lenient view of Nehru. He was followed by
another Member of the Parliament, Dr.
Harindranath Chattopadhyaya, the younger
brother of Sarojini Naidu, composing a
couplet, recited as follows:
The expenditure on dams
is souring like rockets
It does not irrigate the lands,
it irrigates the pockets.
In this context, it is pertinent to note of
the serious concern of Gandhiji about the
complaints received on rampant corruptions
soon after independence as highlighted by
Durga Das, the former Editor of Hindustan
Times, in his book of personal reminiscences
of 50 years of journalistic career, titled,
India: From Curzon to Nehru as follows:
“But it was not only the communal situation
that troubled Gandhi in those months following
independence. He was also deeply concerned
about the rot that was setting into the
Congress party. He also received information
that some Congress legislators were taking
money from businessmen to get them licenses
that they were indulging in black-marketing
and subverting the judiciary and intimidating
top officials to secure transfers and
promotions for their protégés in the
administration. Gandhi thought of a remedy for
this alarming state of affairs...”
Earlier to this, Saratchandra Bose, elder
brother of Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose
complained of the corruption in Delhi even
during interim Government of 1946.
Durga Das continued to state that since the
general election of 1952 Nehru started
subverting the election processes by
exploiting the State apparatus for the
election campaign. The AIR blared out his
election speeches million fold to drawn his
opponent’s voices as cries in wilderness. In
any case, as Rajaji said, corruption like
water flows from top to bottom. Verily, the
system has become a ‘Thieves’ Kitchen. The
dynastic dispensation has reduced Indian
democracy to a Kloptocracy - rule by
compulsive thieves. And Gandhiji is no less
responsible for this state of affairs. Gandhi
knew well that Nehru abhorred tenets of
Gandhian austerity, and personal probity, and
how he himself injected massive doses of
hypocrisy in public life through tattered
marks of truth and non-violence.
Kashmir - the legacy of
personal likes and dislikes:
August 15, 1947 was a historic day. On this
day, partition of India on communal lines
became a ‘fait accompli’ and a truncated India
got freedom. At this point of time, Kashmir
was under the rule of Maharaja Hari Singh. He
was in a dilemma as to whether should he cede
the State to India or Pakistani. Therefore, he
did not accede to either of them, though he
was inclined towards India. And as for Sheikh
Abdullah and his National Conference Party, he
wanted that the Dogra Maharaja should quit
Kashmir so that he might be in control of the
Kashmir Valley in 1946 before the British left
for good for which he landed himself in jail.
As against it, Pandit Ram Chander Kak, the
Prime Minister of the Maharaja wanted the
State to remain as sovereign State for which
he sought the assistance of Sardar Patel and
also requested both Pakistan and India for
Stand-Still Agreements to gain time, which was
readily accepted by Pakistan.
On the other hand, while all the Princely
States of India were given to Sardar Patel as
Home Minister to deal with, Nehru kept Jammu
and Kashmir under his charge.
Nehru had a soft corner for Shiekh Abdullah
and wanted him to be released from Jail and
the power transferred to him as a
pre-condition for acceptance of accession of
Jammu and Kashmir to India. The Maharaja was
not agreeable to it. Thus, the issue relating
to accession of Jammu and Kashmir either to
India or Pakistan was entangled into multiple
issues of action and reaction that were
associated with inevitable result of ‘Indo-Pak
tension’, resulting in Indo-Pak War of 1947,
1965 and 1971. And without an inkling it must
be said that the Indo-Pak tension will persist
till such time as Pakistan exists that will
thus remain a Nehru Legacy as constant
reminder of his being relevant so long as
India exists. Because, instead of learning
from experience and history, Nehru allowed his
personal likes and dislikes and his idealistic
imagination to run riot, particularly in
regard to Kashmir.
Now as we turn towards the North-East of
India, particularly the Naga issue, it may be
equated with that of Kashmir. It was generally
considered that the opportunity to settle the
Naga problem once and for all came when the
Prime Ministers of India and Burma, Pandit
Jawaharlal Nehru and U Nu respectively visited
Kohima on March 30, 1953. But the then Deputy
Commissioner of Kohima, for reasons best known
to him, did not allow the Nagas to submit a
Memorandum to the visiting Prime Ministers.
The several thousand Nagas gathered at the
venue to receive the VIPs turned and left the
ground enmass when they learned they were not
to make themselves heard before the Prime
Ministers. Visibly disappointed with
humiliation Nehru was reported to have
murmured to his daughter, Indira Gandhi, that
he would never visit Nagaland again in his
life-time, and so did he live thus till he
breathed his last, shelving all possible
solution of the Naga problem till date.
Conclusion
And thus his relevance today is best said in
the words of Reid Escott (Envoy to Nehru:
1952:57) 1981, Oxford University Press,
Canadian High Commissioner to India which runs
as follows:
“He will become even more conscious of his
place in the history of India and of the
world. He must already know that he will be
ranked with India’s two great rulers of the
last 2500 years, Ashok and Akbar, that if
India succeeds he will be called the Creator
of Modern India, and that whatever happens, he
will go down in history as one of the great
men of the world...”.
Nehru was a vanguard for social change. He
needed peace for development. He had therefore
made no compromise on nuclear armament despite
India’s deep concern of the Chinese threat to
its frontiers. His worst fear had come true.
Sino-India relationships had never dived
during his lifetime. India had been subjected
to aggressive Chinese intrusions in NEFA and
other areas. India’s friendship stood
shattered. Pained as he was he never recovered
from that set back and we lost him, his
statesmanship and the dynamism that his
policies had displayed.
Relevance of Nehruvian policies remained much
longer after he has died. His progenies
carried on with his policies in frontiers of
education, industries and foreign policy. His
daughter Indira Gandhi and her son Rajiv
Gandhi displayed Nehruvian acumen in politics
and in understanding the needs of the country.
However, all said and done about Nehru’s
ideology at the end we cannot but conclude
that some of the nagging problems like that of
Kashmir and Sino-Indian relations has been the
gifts of his prolonged inactive policies. In
order to gain international accolades for
being projected as apostles of peace Nehru had
compromised India’s interests for which
several times questions had been raised in the
Parliament. The other aspect was that of
corruption. Though he was against corruption
of his colleagues he sheltered them and
sometimes interfered in the process of law to
save them. This soft-pedaling made politicians
of different times to follow more and more
corrupt ways in public life. His soft
attitudes had created more problems than
solving them. This was a bane to our society.
Today we are more corrupt because of the
relevance of his policies.
*** This article was presented at the
National Seminar on 'Relevance of Nehru Today'
sponsored by Nehru Museum, Allahabad, held at
Srimanta Sankardev Kalakshetra Society,
Guwahati. |
