Nehru’s Secularism

Jawaharlal Nehru, India’s first Prime Minister, and Narendra Modi, the present one, are diametrically opposite to each other. Take any parameter, from boorishness to sophistication or religious views, and these two men would remain poles apart. Is it Nehru’s towering presence in history that intimidates Modi into hurling ceaseless allegations against him?

Today, 14 Nov, is Nehru’s birth anniversary and Modi’s tweet was uncharacteristically terse. It said, “Tributes to former Prime Minister, Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru Ji on the occasion of his birth anniversary.” Somebody posted a trenchant cartoon in the comments section. 

Nehru had his flaws, no doubt. He was as human as Modi. But what made him a giant while Modi remains a dwarf – as in the cartoon above – is the way they viewed human beings. For Nehru, all human beings mattered, irrespective of their caste, creed, language, etc. His concept of secularism stands a billion notches above Modi’s Hindutva-nationalism.

Nehru’s idea of secularism was distinctive and central to the Indian Republic he helped shape. It differed from Western notions of religion-state separation. Nehru’s secularism advocated equal respect for all religions, Sarva Dharma Sambhava. His secularism was not anti-religious as in the West. It was non-religious in its functioning while it gave total liberty to every Indian to practise as well as propagate the religion of their choice. Nehru was a non-believer himself.

A crucial component of Nehru’s secularism was rational thinking. He believed India needed a scientific temper to overcome superstition, communal hatred, and irrational traditions. For him, secularism was a way to modernise India, encouraging citizens to think beyond religious identity.

Nehru’s secularism was also a shield for minorities. This is something that irked the right-wingers of India all the time, even today, six decades after Nehru’s death. I think the chief reason why Nehru’s ghost haunts Modi’s psyche is precisely this: the concern for the minority communities in India. While secularism meant pluralism and inclusion for Nehru, his present rival upholds uniformity and exclusion.

Nehru thought of religion as a regressive force, unlike Mahatma Gandhi who believed in deriving values from religion. Nehru wanted social reforms to come not from or through religion but based on rational principles. The present PM of India has taken the country in a direction that is just opposite to what Nehru envisaged. This is the greatest tragedy of today’s India. The country has been taken backward by centuries as far as thinking is concerned.

“Modi has drawn out the very worst in many Indians,” as K S Komireddi puts it in his book, Malevolent Republic. Komireddi’s book ends with a forthright condemnation of Modi’s legacy so far which “has dragged India, already heavy with the vices of yesteryear, to depths from which recovery may take generations.”

In spite of all his drawbacks which are being highlighted today, Nehru was a visionary who had love for his people. That love makes all the difference. Not religion, not at all.