Out of my mind: Legacy Wars
- CBI sought part RTI exemption, Govt gave it full
- Screen Awards: Milkha, Ram-Leela and Madras Cafe dominate
- DGCA seeks fresh public objections after clearing AirAsia for take-off
- Delhi: 51-year-old Danish national alleges gangrape, 15 detained for questioning
- I wonder if I will be able to ever reunite with my husband, my kids. I miss them: Devyani
Was Thomas Jefferson a pioneer of freedom or a hypocritical slave owner? Was Winston Churchill a war hero or a racist? The Americans and British debate such matters all the time. Indians are shy of debating even their recent history. The Congress, having nothing to show on the economic or governance front, is nervous that its last strong card — its monopoly of Indian history — is being challenged by Narendra Modi, who recently claimed Sardar Patel as his icon.
The Congress believes it made India's history all by itself — the Independence movement led by Gandhi-Nehru and the Nehru-Gandhi years in government. Suddenly, Congress leaders are falling over each other praising Patel. But alas, their knowledge of their own history is fragile since the memory of Patel has been erased from books written by their house historians. Patel is now hailed as 'secular and liberal', and an enemy of the RSS. For those who were alive then, history is very different.
The Congress had, from 1885 onwards, a predominantly Hindu membership. This was inevitable because the Hindu elite had taken advantage of British education and joined new professions. Muslims lagged behind. Gandhiji tried to forge a united Hindu-Muslim struggle for Khilafat. When he abandoned it after Chauri-Chaura, he alienated Muslims.
The Congress never regained the support of the Muslims. The Motilal Nehru Report spurned Jinnah's request for seat sharing because the Hindu Mahasabha was against it. The Congress promised a coalition with the Muslim League in UP after the 1937 elections. When it got absolute majority, Nehru reneged on the promise. In the 1946 Constituent Assembly polls, the Congress did not win a single Muslim seat, despite the fact that Maulana Azad was its president.
The leadership of the party was largely Hindu. Nehru was isolated as a rare secular liberal leader who had the backing of a few 'nationalist' Muslims and socialists. And he was Gandhiji's choice for PM. The other leaders — Patel, Rajendra Prasad, Purushottamdas Tandon — were staunch Hindu traditionalists. Mountbatten first convinced Patel about why Partition made sense. Patel got Nehru to go along. Patel was much more staunchly anti-Pakistan than Nehru. They quarrelled about protecting Muslims in India, who were being attacked by refugees arriving from Pakistan. The Hindu traditionalist wing of the Congress wanted the RSS to merge with the Congress but Nehru was against this. The Nehru-Patel quarrel nearly split the government. They asked Gandhiji to intervene, but he was assassinated on the very day he was going to reconcile them.
- Live: Kejriwal does a U turn, urges people to come in largeÂ numbers
- Women competent enough, they need opportunities, saysÂ Rahul
- â€˜Modi has a majoritarian, authoritarian attitudeâ€¦ such a policy and style of govt would be a disaster for thisÂ countryâ€™
- â€˜Narmada water not reaching farmers for want of minor canalsâ€™ | The Indian Express