Bhupesh Baghel’s editorial piece titled “Nehruvian consensus under siege” (Nov. 14) was a poignant reminder of what is severely lacking in the current political realm in India. Fifty-five years after his death, Jawaharlal Nehru’s vision (and that of Gandhi) of a secular, robust and ideologically thriving India is coming under threat. Our political system has disintegrated into one composed of leaders trading barbs like children in a playpen, backstabbing and engaging in underhand dealings. Add to this mix a political majority that is frequently seen using religious dissimilarities to strengthen their foothold, and denizens that seem unable (or unwilling) to see through the smoke-and-mirrors.
Mariyam Saviour,
Panangad, Ernakulam, Kerala
One reason why Nehru’s legacy is vulnerable to criticism is due to his sparse and rather dispirited support for universal primary education. It is unlikely that he did not recognise that the ideal fuel for egalitarianism was enlightenment, the first step to which was basic education. Mahatma Gandhi’s nayi taalim was a sound foundation on which to build this idea. And through the nearly 17 years he was at the helm, Nehru would have seen for himself the maturing of an entire generation, which should have made him support more vocally the cause of primary education, given its in building a healthy society capable of securing its own welfare.
Devraj Sambasivan,
Alleppey, Kerala
The article, intended as a tribute to Jawaharlal Nehru, is long on metaphorical exuberance and short on an objective analysis. Adopting a combative polemical posture, the author has exalted Nehru as India’s ideological mascot who created and practised distinct values that came to be identified as the ‘Nehruvian consensus’.
Nehru was a liberal intellectual and a nation-builder who efficiently steered the nation across the choppy waters of post-independent India. At the same time, the so-called ‘social contract’ that he authored was nothing but the values enshrined in the Constitution. India owes its foundational ideas of liberty, equality, and justice to the farsightedness of the members of the Constituent Assembly that drafted the Constitution. The much-trumpeted ‘Nehruvian consensus’ is nothing but an ideological construct contrived by the Congress Party and its sympathisers. Nehru was true to the spirit of the Constitution despite the fact that he had few challengers inside and outside the party. However, a steadfast practitioner of the constitution’s values doesn’t become their progenitor.
V.N. Mukundarajan,
Thiruvananthapuram
