Made a critic a minister, remained strong in the Parliament, why are Pandit Nehru’s relations with the opposition remembered even today?

The country’s first Prime Minister Pandit Jawahar Lal Nehru remains in the memories of the people of the country even after fifty years of his death. There are people who speak in his praise, while on the other hand there are no less people who criticize him. Pandit Nehru’s name is repeated every now and then, from Parliament to the streets. The critics reiterate issues ranging from sowing the seeds of dynasty politics to complicating the Kashmir issue and the shameful defeat of 1962 due to the failure of the China policy. But another aspect of Nehru’s political character is widely respected. And that is tolerance for democratic dissent.

He did not consider the opposition as his enemy. Parliament was not considered merely a game of numbers. He considered debate as the soul of democracy. Today, when parliamentary debates are often filled with noise and bitterness, the parliamentary debates of Pandit Nehru’s era remind of a different tradition of democracy, where disagreements were sharp but dialogue was maintained. The blows were harsh. But within democratic limits. On the occasion of Pandit Nehru’s death anniversary, read some incidents between him and the opposition.

opposition within the ruling party

After the work of the Constituent Assembly was completed, it was converted into a temporary parliament. There was no formal opposition in this 313-member House. Those who were not in Congress were considered unaffiliated members. Initially their number was 22. This number increased to 28 in 1951.

Interestingly, the opposition within the Congress was much larger and more vocal than these unaffiliated members who were considered to be the opposition. There were many members of Congress who did not leave any opportunity to criticize the government. While in the party, government critics Mahavir Tyagi and RK Sidhwa were made ministers. The unique aspect of Pandit Nehru’s personality was that he did not lag behind in criticizing himself. On one occasion in Parliament, he had said about himself, ‘I often wonder why the people of India tolerate a man like me after what has happened in the last few months? I myself cannot say with certainty that if I had not been in the government, would I have been able to tolerate this government?

Those who criticized the government were also made ministers

Nehru included Mahavir Tyagi and RK Sidhwa, who surrounded his government while in Congress, in his cabinet. Acharya Kripalani also never left any opportunity to attack the government. He first formed a democratic party within the Congress itself. Then, after feeling isolated in the party, he formed the Kisan Mazdoor Praja Party. Even after Rafi Ahmed Kidwai separated from the Congress, Nehru urged him to remain a minister.

He said, Honorable members have every right to look at the current picture of the country with a critical eye. If there was an effective opposition in the House, it would certainly be not only its right but also its duty to draw attention to the shortcomings of the government and make constructive suggestions. Since there is no effective opposition, I welcome criticism from my colleagues, who are generally with us on policies.

Mukherjee’s counterattack and laughter again

In the early years, if any leader in the Parliament challenged Nehru the most intellectually, it was Dr. Syama Prasad Mukherjee. He was also the Industry Minister in the Nehru Cabinet, but later parted ways due to policy differences. On Kashmir and Article 370, Mukherjee continuously cornered Nehru on Kashmir policy. Two legislations, two heads and two marks will not work in one country – was not just a political slogan of Mukherjee, but a direct attack on Nehru’s federal and Kashmir policy. Nehru was uncomfortable with these questions, but he never tried to suppress Mukherjee’s voice. He would give long answers and say that Kashmir is not just a legal question but a matter related to historical and international situation. A unique scene of parliamentary etiquette was seen in the Lok Sabha when Panditji apologized to Shyama Prasad Mukherjee without any pretense.

In reply, Mukherjee had said that there was no need for an apology. It is enough that the Prime Minister acknowledged that the language he used was inappropriate. The incident was that without understanding the true context of Mukherjee’s speech, Panditji said, ‘I thought I was listening to a gentleman. He (Mukherjee) should face the truth. ‘ In response, Mukherjee had said, ‘How should I face the truth? I am facing the government. Then the whole house echoed. Pandit Nehru was also included among those who laughed.

Opposition-criticism considered necessary

Nehru’s speech of 22 May 1952 in response to the four-day debate on the President’s address in the first elected Lok Sabha underlines the inevitability of opposition in parliamentary democracy. He had said, ‘I believe that it is necessary for any government to have critics and opposition, because without criticism people start feeling satisfied with themselves. The government becomes complacent. The entire parliamentary system is based on criticism.

Those in opposition are welcome. It doesn’t matter whether we agree with them or not. The importance is that they represent the views of any part of the country. In response to a member’s statement that he (Nehru) had lost his place in history, he had said that it is not important what position history will decide for me? What is important is what effect it will have on the fate of the country and its 40 crore people?

Annoyed by Lohia’s attacks, yet listening and smiling

Dr. Ram Manohar Lohia, who was very close to Pandit Nehru during the freedom struggle, was the most vocal among the leaders who criticized him after independence. If anyone in Parliament unsettled Nehru the most, it was Lohia. Lohia’s attack was not only on policies but on the character of the government. He considered Nehru to be a symbol of elite politics with English mentality. Through the debate of three annas versus fifteen annas, Lohia had very effectively raised the question of economic inequality prevailing in the country in the Parliament.

He said that the vast majority of the people of India live on three annas per day, while the government and the ruling class live in luxury. In this debate he even mentioned Nehru’s expenses. But this was not a personal attack but an attack on the structure of power. Lohia’s speeches contained sharp satire. He used to say that government riches, not socialism, is increasing in the country. Nehru was often irritated by this style of Lohia. Uneasiness was also visible on his face in Parliament. But he listened to them. Once during a debate, Lohia kept interrupting. The noise in the house increased. Nehru smiled and said – Dr. Lohia is so impatient that he wants history also quickly.

The defeat of 1962 broke from within also

The massive defeat by China in 1962 had hurt Pandit Nehru badly. He was not just the target of the opposition. They were broken from within also. Acharya Kripalani, who was once Nehru’s companion, later became his staunch critic. Taking aim at Nehru, he said that there is democracy to speak of but everything is centering around the Prime Minister’s Office. After the defeat of 1962, Kripalani raised serious questions in the Parliament on the preparations of the government. He asked that if China was a friend, then why did the situation of war arise? Said that you dreamed of Panchsheel and on the other hand China kept building roads. Mahavir Tyagi’s attacks were even sharper. Regarding Nehru’s statement that not even a blade of grass grows in the area occupied by China – Tyagi had said to Nehru while presenting his bald head, Panditji, if this part of my head is cut off, can I say that nothing is lost? But even in the pain of defeat, he did not try to shirk his responsibility or shy away from the House.

Remained firm in Parliament even amid harsh criticism

Even despite ill health, Nehru remained alert about his active participation in the proceedings of the House. Through the House, he continued to take the people of the country and other parts of the system into confidence on this delicate question. In the House meetings between 16 August 1961 and 12 December 1962, he made statements or intervened in the debate on 32 occasions regarding China. This statement contains one lakh four thousand words in about two hundred pages.

In three days from 12 to 14 November 1962, 165 members of the House expressed their views regarding the attack on China. The government was sharply attacked for its lack of defense preparedness and failure to safeguard the honor of the country. Pandit Nehru was directly on target. But he sat in the House the whole time. Listened to everyone patiently. He had the dual responsibility of Defense and Foreign Ministry. He replied in detail and assured the House that every piece of paper related to the Chinese attack would be placed before the House.

Nehru, who became the center of constant criticism for Panchsheel and peace efforts, was also conscious of strengthening military power for the country’s security. On August 10, 1960, during a discussion in the Lok Sabha on a detailed report of the Department of Atomic Energy, he had said, ‘As far as we are concerned, we have decided not to make atom bombs or anything like that. But we have no intention of lagging behind in progress in the use of this new power. It is true that a country which has fully developed nuclear energy can ultimately use it for good or bad purposes. What I am saying today does not necessarily mean that there will be bondage on the people of the future. But I hope that we will create such an environment in this country that no government will use it for bad purposes in future.

Nehru-Atal relations; Example of beauty of democracy

The relationship between Pandit Nehru and Atal Bihari has always been a subject of curiosity and discussion in Indian politics. Pandit Nehru was so impressed by Atal Bihari’s first speech in the Lok Sabha and his parliamentary skills that during the visit of the then Prime Minister of the Soviet Union to India and Atal Bihari’s meeting with him, he described him as the future Prime Minister. Despite this, Atal Bihari left no opportunity to corner the Nehru government on all issues including Kashmir and China. But wherever questions of national interest came, they remained united.

On April 20, 1960, during the visit of Chinese Prime Minister Chou En Lai to India, the Parliament was in session. On the same day, in question hour, a starred question of Atal Bihari was asked on the India-China border dispute, which was number one. Pandit Nehru was going to the airport to receive the Chinese Prime Minister. He felt that it would not be appropriate to discuss the question related to the border dispute in Parliament at the time of this visit.

Pandit Nehru called Atal Bihari Vajpayee and requested to postpone the question and Atal Bihari agreed. After the demise of Pandit Nehru, Atal Bihari’s tribute speech in the Parliament is repeated even today. In 1977, Atal ji became the Foreign Minister in the Janata Party government. The officials had got Pandit Nehru’s photo removed from the External Affairs Minister’s office room. Atal Bihari’s eyes went to that empty place. He sat on his chair only after Nehru’s photo was put up. During his famous trust vote speech in the Lok Sabha on 27 May 1996, Atal Bihari had said, Pandit Nehru strengthened the roots of democracy. If he wanted, something else could have happened in this country instead of democracy, but he strengthened the democratic traditions.

Also read: Marriage, divorce, live-in… How different is Assam’s UCC from Uttarakhand-Gujarat?