Indira Gandhi: Never Forget
Tuesday, 3. November 2009 - 3:08 AM
It is 25 years and three days after Indira Gandhi was assassinated. Expectedly, most prominent newspapers carried a “heritage” piece on arguably the most important political figure in post-Independence history. Of all pieces I read, two articles stand out as interesting for two different reasons.
The first, by Subramanian Swamy. This piece is interesting only because he talks more about himself than Indira Gandhi’s “legacy.” Swamy’s piece is basically a disguised ego trip. The most telling sample:
In the last three years before her assassination in 1984, after I had done a favour to her government on the China question by meeting Deng Xiaoping in Beijing, cordiality in my relations with her was restored.
This is beyond comment. And this person, by the way, is now on the forefront of fighting for Hindu causes.
The second piece is fairly balanced and makes a couple of good points but is written poor prose.
You might think it would be difficult to explain to those of us with only dim recollections of Mrs Gandhi’s life what she stood for. But so many try anyway. “Inclusive growth” is merely “garibi hatao” updated, we are told. Never mind that one actually mentions growth and the other never provided it. There are even claims, either painfully ignorant or shockingly cynical, that bank nationalisation “saved” us from the recession. (Aren’t we clever! We demolished a city in 1969 – and so not a single house fell in that earthquake last year!)…So the strangling licence-permit raj which she nourished, and fed, and defended, and that she above all others was most responsible for, has its villains, but they don’t include her. Instead we hate the avaricious mid-level neta, the tyrannical petty bureaucrat. That is sadly so often the way that leaders of a certain stamp are remembered. For the leadership they provided, regardless of where they were leading us.
All good stuff but like most others, it scrapes only the surface. Any talk about Indira Gandhi’s negative legacy inevitably hinges around these themes: her unholy political moves, regressive economic policies, broken promises, the post-war succumbing to Pakistan, the Emergency, and Operation Bluestar. Every one of these are but outward–tragic in quality and epic in proportion in some cases–manifestations of a far more fundamental damage she inflicted on the very soul of the nation.
The massive electoral mandates she received were from a people who were subconsciously united by the broad ideals of dharma. These were the simple rural masses who were still reconciling themselves to the idea of an alien–democratic system of government. They voted because they were told that this was the new law (kanoon)–broadly speaking–from now on. Essentially, their mindset was still in the raja-praja, the King-subject mode. They believed that the duty of the king was to protect his/her subjects and ensure their well-being.
She abolished privy purses on the pretext of “equal rights for all citizens” and to ostensibly free India from the vestiges of a past represented by an unequal monarchical form of government (sic). A cursory history of how Indian provinces fared under kingly rule in the late 1800s to almost till 1947 tells a different story. Baroda, Mysore, Travancore, and Kochi were among the best governed princely states, each competing with the other to deliver quality governance. They provided inspiration to other princely states. Independent India both before and after Indira Gandhi abolished privy purses on the grounds of ensuring a better life for the people needs to show a comparable record in governance or economic attainments. Instead, we have a sorry record of undoing these very attainments of the then recent past.
These simple masses were led to believe and believed that she was the avatar of Goddess Durga as much as they believed that people in high places were worth emulating. The Indian ideal was to lead by example. The King or the Guru or the reformer was definitely not perfect but he strove to remain as close to the ideal as possible. This practice is again rooted in Indian philosophy, which was not idle intellectual speculation about the mysteries of the universe but had every bit of application in practical life. This is one of the reasons Gandhi, who practised what he preached–chiefly, truth and non-violence–earned him his millions of followers. Indira Gandhi perversely capitalized this naïveté to disastrous consequences. When she first closed her eyes to corruption and then institutionalized it, people followed suit. Because the nature of politics and people coagulates around how the reward system is set up, the inevitable downfall was unstoppable.
The rationale behind the law of Karma, a simple belief in Dharma and similar ideals is probably debatable but it ensured and sustained a high degree of cohesion in the Indian society for thousands of years. What do our modern/contemporary thinkers offer in comparison, now that these ideals have all but been destroyed on the basis of mostly ignorance if not outright hatred?
This exactly has been ignored by our commentators on Indira Gandhi’s unhealthy legacy specifically, and on corruption in public life in a wider sense. Which is why I said these commentaries focus on sciolistics rather than prying open uncomfortable fundamentals. Worse, some analyses even offer justifications on the basis of “realism” and similar, lazy intellectualism when they are not busy dissecting Indira Gandhi’s psychological insecurities. The much celebrated victory over Pakistan in 1971–as deserving as it is–is rather overrated. As Prime Minister of the nation, she merely discharged her duty to the nation by responding to Pakistan’s pre-emptive military strike in kind.
The only enduring legacy of Indira Gandhi is the subversion of every known nuance of decency in public life by launching a fatal blow on the ethical–the dharmic foundations India was built upon. Indira Gandhi betrayed the simple trust millions had placed in her, and had willingly put their destinies into her hands–her greatest, and only true treason. More importantly, her betrayal is unforgivable because she knew what she was doing and did it repeatedly.
3. November 2009 - 5:31 AM
Some points need to be considered. Corruption did not start with Indira. Subversion of decency in public life did not start with Indira. Sidelining of dharma did not start with Indira. Betrayal of trust … the people who voted for her in 1980 overwhelmingly did the same for her son in 1984. So the millions did not feel betrayed- they willingly put their destinies in her hands, her son’s hands and her daughter in law’s hands again and again. So’ treason and unforgivable’ does not hold water, at least not for the majority of indians, so it appears.
But there is substance in these charges.
The issue is, when Indira is analysed in a stand alone mode a correct appreciation may not be feasible.
When a larger picture is considered, a better appreciation may be made.
Indira’s subversion of Indian institutions were only a continuation of what had happened in her father’s time. Which was again, a continuation of what happened in the time of his mentors- the british and so on. Subsequent to Indira, as before Indira, virtually every minister has continued to betray the ‘trust’ people have put in them, whether it is VP Singh or Deve Gouda or Gujral. Even Vajpayee did not really deliver on the expectations of the people who voted him. Even now the subversion of public institutions continue, as the appointment of PM, President, CEC, even Chief Justice apart from various state CMs and governors, are all controlled or influenced by one person.
In this long running play Indira was only one player, whose role ended. The play continues on.
Only when this play is recognised for what it is, its origins , its direction and production motivations are understood, will an accurate placement of the role of each character become possible.
Indira was a product of her times. A character playing out her part. Based on her conditioning, there were limitations that would prevent her from acting too different from how she did.
Sonia is also a player in this play. She too has limitations that prevents her from being a Harischandra or Sri Rama when it comes to upholding dharma.
Probably she has good intentions for India and is doing what she considers best for India’s interest. The majority of Indians, so to speak, also thinks so.
Rather than criticising each such player individually, more useful may be to understand how this play is runnning, how each such character gets to the place where they are, and how their roles get defined and are played out.
Such understanding alone will provide indians the opportunity to direct this play to suit India’s larger interest and to uphold dharma.
The post is quite good.
Dhanyavaad
3. November 2009 - 8:51 AM
The massive electoral mandates she received were from a people who were subconsciously united by the broad ideals of dharma. These were the simple rural masses who were still reconciling themselves to the idea of an alien–democratic system of government. They voted because they were told that this was the new law (kanoon)–broadly speaking–from now on. Essentially, their mindset was still in the raja-praja, the King-subject mode. They believed that the duty of the king was to protect his/her subjects and ensure their well-being.
This means that such power at the hands of an enlightened leader would do wonders, and this is correct. The institution of a raja is not at fault here, nor the masses who look up to a leader as king, but rather the one who did not carry out the entrusted function properly. But an individual does not rule alone–the Congress as a whole is responsible for the alien culture it has forcibly imposed upon the country, taking India ever further away from its essential heritage–But the worst legacy of the Congress is the fourfold increase in India’s population since the time of independence , something that will permanently cripple India in the future as a massive population entails a mass culture –
3. November 2009 - 11:29 AM
Successive electoral wins of Indira can be attributed to TINA factor too. This massive mandate for Indira or Sonia etc are misnomer as a matter of fact Higher % of voting population votes against the ‘incumbent Government’ of any hue. This is ‘directly’ against the very basic fundamental of Democracy which is: the rule of majority or the majority opinion. Majority voted against the Incumbent Government – ‘against’ votes divided among a spectrum of usurpers. Now this is ‘Democracy’! First past the post?
Indira perfected the art of dividing ‘against’ votes and Sonia has mastered this technique. As for Indira and her legacy ’she’ and socialism +secularism was to keep people ever in perpetual poverty, shortages,nepotism,corruption. For those who were born after 84, let me remind them that Indira and her Government used to levy penalties on those ‘enterprising’ who excelled and produced more than permitted. Such were those days when for a ‘Fiat’ car one had to wait for years, to buy an obsolete tech Bajaj scooter waiting time was minimum three years, for a telephone connection – you need to be well connected first and then just before every Diwali your phone would die and revived only after the local line man would be ‘pleased’ with 50 Rs. or a bottle of ‘Rum’ (My dad used to buy a cartoon of army Rum @ 18Rs/bottle
for the purpose.)
Above is just the glimpse of Indira’s legacy which Sonia wants to emulate!!!
As for Indira and 1972:Indira did what was expected from her more than Indira it was Sam Manekshah who scripted the win. And what did Indira do with POW? Instead of using them as ‘negotiating tool’ to settle ALL AND EVER DISPUTE conclusively and ON OWN TERMS – she set them free because Bhutoo and Indira has a walk on Simla’s mall Road!!!!!!
What happened between the two on this walk only Indira and Bhutoo know.
This is the ‘Iron Lady’!
This is the ‘visionary’!
This is the ‘greatest leader’ post Independence!
FINALLY THIS IS THE GREAT WHOSE DEATH BECAME AN EXCUSE FOR CONGRESSMEN/WOMEN/BABAS AND BABES TO DRAG OUT AND BURN ALIVE MORE THAN 3000 SIKHS IN FLAT THREE DAYS!
Our Sikh/Economist/Clean MMS Prime Minion who calls Gujarat Riots as ‘HOLOCAUST’ does not have balls to call this as same. He and his madame’s charltans in MSM refer to ‘congress sponsored and executed orgy of violence on hapless Sikhs as RIOTS! RIOTS? Will MMS and his stooges name ONE SINGLE NON SIKH KILLED? Will they cite ONE INSTANCE WHERE POLICE OPENED FIRE ON MOB?
Friends, I witnessed 1984 with my own eyes, I was in Collage. I know what had happened then. Let me tell you one more thing in 1991 when Rajiv was killed in TN, every South Indian in Delhi then, were scared to death fearing the bloody reprisal from Congress goons. But it was NON CONGRESS GOVT @ center (Chandershekhar) so preventive measure were taken and not a single incident happened. Need I say more?
PI.
3. November 2009 - 12:54 PM
Incognito
>>Corruption did not start with Indira. Subversion of decency in public life did not start with Indira. Sidelining of dharma did not start with Indira. Betrayal of trust … the people who voted for her in 1980 overwhelmingly did the same for her son in 1984. So the millions did not feel betrayed- they willingly put their destinies in her hands, her son’s hands and her daughter in law’s hands again and again. So’ treason and unforgivable’ does not hold water, at least not for the majority of indians, so it appears.
My point was simple: she more than anybody propelled India’s downward spiral with astonishing speed and wreaked havoc in all spheres, to a point of no return. Nehru had a high tolerance for corruption but for a few years at least he had some good men around him to keep some of his excesses in check. Indira had no such thing.
You’re talking about 1984 and 84 by which time the corruption was all pervasive, so isn’t it kinda irrelevant? This is the reason I said, we’re engrossed in scratching the surface not looking at the root.
>>Indira was a product of her times. A character playing out her part. Based on her conditioning, there were limitations that would prevent her from acting too different from how she did.
Oh please! With due respect, this is sloppy reasoning. The “product of his/times” is in my view a very convenient excuse that you can use in any number of ways and justify almost anything. Are you seriously telling me that because she was a product of her time, it was ok to impose the Emergency, split the society, kill all decency in public life, etc? Sure, she was playing her part but the “life is a drama” line is used merely as an ANALOGY. Life is reality, not a play.
I’m really sorry but your reasoning doesn’t stand the test of logic.
3. November 2009 - 2:55 PM
Loyalism in Congress shot up to great levels after Indira Gandhi assumed power. Infact congress broke into 2 factions and that was when Congress(I) came to existence. The new congress was full of Indira apologists(not that the original congress didn’t have apologists). This gave rise to incompetent MPs and ministers in Govt who got their position because they were Gandhi family loyalists. So the dynastic culture though was the very brain child of Indira Gandhi.
What was the examples that Indira Gandhi gave to the society?
1. It is ok to be corrupt
2. It is ok to distribute money and liqour to win elections
3. It is ok to over-rule the SC just because you have numbers
4. It is ok to impose emergency for 2 years just because you could not have contested elections till then
5. It is ok to be democratic for namesake and follow a dictatorship model
6. It is ok to use all non-political space to accommodate your apologists and hence expect back returns.
I know people will talk about she being probably the strong willed authoritative PM, but she has actually used all that authority to abuse the rules just because she had numbers on her side.
@Incognito, everybody is a product of their times.. because you can neither live in future nor in past. Everyones responsibility lies in moulding yourself to be good to the society, irrespective of times.
3. November 2009 - 7:14 PM
Point taken agree completely with Sandeep.
Democracy itself is alien to our sanskriti and parampara, we should never forget that. Another point for a future post and the cosmopolitanism of our Kings, would be keen to know your views on this topic and others
http://acorn.nationalinterest.in/2009/11/01/curry-roast-beef-italian-wine/
arun
4. November 2009 - 10:20 AM
@Arun Narendranath
True Democracy is not alien to us, its our long lost tradition. What we see is continuation of monarchy with it sycophant subjects sucking out the life out of people of the nation.
4. November 2009 - 3:56 PM
I think Incognito has really touched upon the essence of the issue.
We must remind ourselves that our problems are not individual specific, they are systemic.
4. November 2009 - 3:56 PM
I think Incognito has really touched upon the essence of the issue.
We must remind ourselves that our problems are not individual specific, they are systemic. They are not shallow, they are tangled at the roots.
4. November 2009 - 6:48 PM
True Democracy is not alien to us, its our long lost tradition
this is very vague talk, the kind spoken by those who like to defend the status quo and not dig deeper into why things are they way they are–”true monarchy” is not alien to us by the same token–something a change from the top does wonders–look at the Meijii restoration in Japan–But even if there was someone “enlightened” at the top, secularism has so corrupted the state of affairs that these days there can be no proper “command and obedience”–the ability to carry out orders is also the sign of a great peoples and requires discipline on the part of a peoples–a cachoponous, amorphous, mass culture never has lead to a great civilization anywhere–
4. November 2009 - 10:31 PM
I prefer a democratic monarchy to a despotic democracy.
India today is a despotic democracy, where the common man’s only political power is the measly vote (which gets subverted anyway).
5. November 2009 - 2:25 PM
thanks sandeep for the writing. we forget the basic facts. we are a nation of dishonest people. this dishonesty does not percolate from above downwards. Its actually going in the reverse direction. what we discuss here is what i call intellectual masturbation. the dishonesty must only be seen to be believed. we shout at the top of our voice at corrupt people and encourage the same at everystep in our daily life. even buying a cinema ticket, getting a seat in a city bus, we are corrupt to the core. I am really amazed at the Jekyl and Hyde face of every one of us.
5. November 2009 - 8:00 PM
to the above commentator:
Why do you think this is so? Is it because Hindus are congenitally incapable of self-rule as was said by the British to justify their rule? Something to think about. In the time of the Greeks Hindus were known for their honesty–Now? I think it has a lot to do with the kind of ideals imposed by the state–a strong state can make people disciplined–but then there has to be “unity” and a “culture” for the people to protect their ideals–I think a large part has to do with the history of India and that Hindus have lost the sense to protect what is “their own”–partly due to repeated barbarian attacks throughout history which kept diluting the native culture and disorientating it…Today India is a State that just “exists” without a direction, without purpose, as the state has no goals or direction for the people except the adoption of a secular culture which dilutes whatever sense of culture people have–
Moreover, with a huge illiterate population, democracy is a farce–I mean when the last three leaders of the leading political party do not even have college degrees, and are virtually illiterate in this sense (not to say that education consists solely in a degree), and people do not even object to this in principle in the sense questioning what example does this set for the nation– well then you know that the population is just just passive–and the great “passivity” of Hindus is touted as a sign of a “tolerance”…
5. November 2009 - 8:29 PM
Well it is clear that India has gone the wrong way after independence, with the result that now it houses the largest numbers of poor people, with the population increasing fourfold (Nehru used to take pride in the fact that India had a lot of people–what a shortsighted man. India had slightly more people than Russia at the time of independence–the population of Russia remained roughly the same, but in India the increase was fourfold) and the population keeps increasing and getting ever more unwieldly. The “secularism’ is eating away at whatever the sense of identity and culture that Hindus had preserved and eating away at their traditional values, or whatever they have preserved of it. It’s all depressing.
One has to ask oneself, what are the goals of the Indian state? What are the goals of the nation apart from the vague socialist “alleviate poverty” which just seems to increase it? One sees that the state has no goals and just rides along, so the nation as a whole just goes along without a goal or purpose…The Chinese have a goal, even if it is the goal of a totalitarian state…What is the goal of the Indian state? Is is a question Hindus have to ask themselves….
7. November 2009 - 2:17 PM
Good riddance to bad rubbish—hope the rest of the family follows soon!
7. November 2009 - 9:49 PM
http://hinduonline.blogspot.com/
Before the grand lanch function of “Bharat Swabhiman Mission”
Baba Ramdev seems to be genueinly interested
in the betterment of desh, dharam, rajniti
and i used to watch him on Aastha channel regularly
But right from the lanch function of “Bharat Swabhiman Mission”
where Babaji had invited a Shia Muslim maulaavi
and introduced him as his darling brother
speeches of Babaji has lost its sharpness
for the protection of desh, dharam, rajniti
Maybe its the price one has to pay
to garner support of all residing in india
and whether they are muslim
it does not matter
As a common hindu
what more could i have done but
only stopped actively watching Babaji
from that lanch function
though i still regard Babaji
as a great yoga master
and for his oratory skills
But, now in the present controvercy
of Devband fatva against Vande Mataram
attended by Babaji and home minister
hindus should protest and show their displeasure
to both Babaji and home minister
for agreeing to be a part of function
working against the spirit of Bharat
and consolidating/ fanning the Jihadi movement
As politicians support Jihadis
for capturing muslim vote bank
is Babaji trying to capture
muslim and sickular followers
by agreeing to attend Jihadi function
and not speacking out against
the fatva then and there
not even 2 days after that
all this when Babaji is
the most outspoken hindu guru
who is more than ready to
give sound bytes on each and every
topic including yoga
and never take any nonsense
laying down from any celebrited reporters/ editors
is it that like all other leaders
whether they are politicians or not
they are always supporting Jihadis
at the cost of hindus
and like them Babaji too
wants to capture muslim and sickular followers
and / or
even Babaji fears from Jihadis
O Hindus come out of your hibrenation
how long you want to wait
for things to get worse
before trying for their recovery
its easy to get charged up against Jihadis
but path to recovery goes first
by winning over the sickular hindus
O Hindus, this is the time
to lanch campainge against
all sickular hindus
in the form of Babaji
and dont wait for RSS/ BJP/ VHP
dont look forward for their orders
listen to your heart/ mind
Babaji has a reputation
of coming out sucessfully
from every controvery in the past
which where lanched by sickulars
but this time
if common hindus campainge
against his sickular tendencies
at least he has to say sorry
for his moments of weakness
i appeal all PRO-HINDU bloggers
to write-up on this topic from their heart
so that greater clearity and publicity to
hindu’s view emerage in media
also remember that
blogging alone cannot provide
answers to worldly problems.
http://hinduonline.blogspot.com/2009/11/original-post-no-4-o-hindus-come-out-of.html
.
8. November 2009 - 12:58 AM
Sandeep,
excellent analysis.
8. November 2009 - 8:51 AM
The point of the first comment was to shift the focus of attention from one tree branch- one individual, to the trunk that sprouts such branches- the system, to the roots that nourishes the trunk and to the soil that holds up the tree and provides it with necessary nutrients.
The tree of corruption, such as it is, has been growing for centuries now, spanning many generations. Its trunk is huge, branches numerous and wood seasoned with age. Hacking at the branches, though fully justified, may be uneconomical expenditure of efforts. The tree, so long as it lives, so long as it gets nourishment from the soil, will continue to grow new branches and prosper.
It is the soil around the tree that needs to be removed, and its roots exposed and severed.
Only such act will cause the tree of corruption to die permanently.