Home » Pandit Nehru: The Immortal Moribund Redeemer

Pandit Nehru: The Immortal Moribund Redeemer

As the country’s befouled political landscape evolves around Ayodhya, the profound influence of Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru, the begetter of independent India and the architect of the existing nation’s democratic ideals cannot easily be forsaken. Whereas, the murky political aura has opened up his party’s ideological hollowness and steered the very essence into the opposition’s relentless political trap, reigniting debates over secularism and religious identity. The critics argue that the Bharatiya Janata Party’s emphasis on Hindutva politics has led to a redefinition of the nation’s identity, straying from the inclusive vision envisioned by the Pandit.

Nehru’s vision of the infant nation was deeply enrouted to the values of democracy and secularism. Pandit, as a Fabian socialist who was also admiringly impressed by the emergence of the socialist superpower in the north managed to embrace the coexistence of religious communities and emphasised the importance of religious harmony. It was a backbreaking task for a statesman who faced a devilish religious separation during the independence. His charisma and ideological backbone succoured him in the making of a disbanded nation.

Nehru was the prime minister when the Ayodhya dispute of Ram Janmabhoomi firmed its roots. He already had the assorted princely state’s dilemma to deal with. His views on the Babri Masjid-Ram Janmabhoomi dispute too were in line with his commitment to India’s secular fabric. In the context of Ayodhya, he aimed to maintain a secular character for the newborn promising nation, advocating for the protection of religious sites of all communities.

Ayodhya has been a continuing dispute topic since the 1940s. After independence, from the followed Ram-Janmabhoomi movement, the BJP took up their potent trump card against the then so-called “secular” party. They managed to construct a narrative that, the government explicitly favouring Muslims by opposing Hindu interests to perpetuate a secular badge. Congress after Smt. Gandhi could not even handle this political trap forged by the then “truly secular” Bharatiya Janata Party. They could even posterize the “pseudo-secular” imprint on Congress through lustrous propaganda.

On the night of December 23, 1949, two idols, representing Lord Ram and Sita, mysteriously appeared inside the central dome of the Babri Masjid in Ayodhya. The placement of these idols led to conflicting claims, with some asserting a miraculous appearance and others contending that a group had surreptitiously introduced them. This incident heightened communal tensions in Ayodhya and across the United Province (as Uttar Pradesh was then known).

Govind Ballabh Pant, a seasoned Congress leader, was the Chief Minister of the United Province at that time. Concerned about the unfolding situation, Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru urgently communicated with him via telegram regarding the Ayodhya dispute. Nehru expressed his disturbance over the developments, emphasizing the need for his immediate involvement in the matter. In his message, Nehru underscored the potential dangers of the precedent being set in Ayodhya and warned of adverse consequences. Some reports suggest that Nehru additionally penned a note instructing the state government to relocate the idols of Ram Lalla and Sita from the premises of the Babri Masjid.

K.K. Nair, who became a Member of Parliament through Jan Sangh’s ticket, was the District Magistrate the while. The nefarious intention of the bureaucrat made the atmosphere belligerent. Even though the Prime Minister constrained for executive action to remove idols from the mosque through the state government, Nair hung back and dumbly abetted the zealots. From there, events unfolded.

Pandit Nehru was a self-declared atheist, who dreamt of a nation set apart religion from the political penumbra. Till the last breath, Pandit showed his boldness against divisive politics. Expostulated the president against the Somnath temple opening ceremony was a crucial historical juncture. Pandit insisted that the democratic head should steer clear of religious ceremonies.

Invoking the legacy of the last “messiah” is the only hope for the revival of the contemporary Congress party. The party cannot think of any drastic hopeful strides against the mammoth ruling party without moulding its political position. The recent poll retorts from the Hindi heartland states exhibited the impotence of the party machinery against the hardcore “Hindutva”. It was evident that anything softer would not help anymore.

Apart from the rotten political howlers, where the newly baked schismatic agendas nearing, while the Party navigates through the complexities of contemporary politics, where the historical crossroad demands a trailblazer’s visionary strategies, Pandit’s vision of a secular, inclusive, and democratic India remains the only suasive approach. Let this not be the history’s impending “what if!”