The tug-of-war between the Congress and the BJP as to who is the real precursor of Gandhiji’s legacy is evident in the two articles, “
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT
Ravi Mannethu,
Pullad, Kerala
I am one of those born just after Independence and one of those fed on history largely written by British and Nehru-era historians. Till I read certain articles and books by nationalist authors, I had believed that it was largely Nehruvian leaders who fought for Independence and played a major role in shaping India’s destiny. The fact is that people are slowly opening their eyes to the real history. I also don’t agree with Subramanian Swamy that books written by Nehruvian historians should be burnt. Real history should be written by patriotic people. The truth cannot be suppressed for long.
ADVERTISEMENT
Basavaraj Modi,
Gulbarga
Dr. Swamy might be right in saying that there is a political conspiracy as far as the teaching of history is concerned. The time has come to reframe the school curriculum to teach “correct history”.
R.K. Pandey,
New Delhi
It is accepted that Jawaharlal Nehru stands tall among all Prime Ministers despite his failures, including Kashmir and China. We do not know what was in the mind of Gandhiji when he focussed on Nehru despite the overwhelming support Vallabhbhai Patel had. In this, it is the maturity and wisdom of Patel that stands out; he continued to function despite being relegated. Dr. Swamy should remember that the Congress has had more intellectuals in it than in any other national party. Nehru himself was a great writer and noted for his scientific temper. Who can forget stalwarts such as Rajaji, Pattabhi Sitaramayya, K.M. Munshi and C.R. Doss? Do present-day Congressmen even know of Sitaramayya’s The History of the Indian National Congress, running to 600-odd pages? While it is essential to update history, this can be done without casting aspersions on freedom fighters.
R. Krishnamurthy,
Coimbatore
The “hijacking” of Sardar Patel as a representative of rightist nationalists is absurd and irrational. Nehru and Patel were politicians who worked in congruence and not against each other. The denigration of Nehru reveals a lack of understanding of his contributions towards laying the foundation for an edifice of development, progress, scientific temper and pluralism.
Arjun Phillips,
New Delhi
Dr. Swamy’s article tries to characterise any struggle against anyone who was not Hindu as a “freedom” or “independence” struggle, and a clear inkling of the right-wing agenda of rewriting history. The rise of intolerance and fundamentalism in all their shades starts from the basic principles that Dr. Swamy espouses.
Rahul Menon,
New Delhi
Historical facts must be studied with reference to political and social circumstances. Dr. Swamy does not mention the role of the right wing in escalating communal tensions. He also does not mention its role in opposing social and political reforms such as child marriage, sati pratha and widow remarriage by various reformers, which it did in the name of preserving culture. It also distanced itself from movements such as the Quit India Movement. His rhetoric has more political than academic overtones.
Vasu Vatsyayan,
Lucknow