Realm of Nehruvian Legacy

“The woods are lovely,dark and deep,But I have promises to keep,And miles to go before I sleep,And miles to go before I sleep…”

During the last phase of Nehru’slife, Nehru’s India was haunted by the question, after Nehru, who?No leader of his stature appeared to be even remotely visible on the horizon. With his passing away on analysis Realm of Ne hruvian Legacy May 27, 1964, the mantle of Prime Ministership fell on the able shoulders of Lal Bahadur Shastri amidst whispers – not without doubt – of “promises to keep”.

Lal Bahadur Shastri’s personality was diametrically opposite to that of Nehru. Schooled and nurtured in traditional Indian thought and culture of Kashi Vidyapeeth,Varanasi, and with no foreign exposure, this unassuming man with diminutive features was an unlikely successor to the tall, stately, handsome and charismatic Nehru.

I recall how so many people in India felt that here was a Prime Minister who not only looked every bit an Indian but also behaved like one. Few expected much from him, not realizing that Nehru’s vision of a socialist democratic India and his promise of making India a world power could perhaps be best fulfilled through a departure from Nehru’s philosophy and style of politics. And Shastri epitomized this.

His innings started on great promise and was marked by a new practical approach to politics. The slogan he coined “Jai Jawan Jai Kisan” not only aptly summarizes the contributions of those who feed and protect Mother India but also awakened and inspired a harassed nation.But unfortunately, it was short-lived. He died a tragic death at Tashkent, following a “humiliating agreement” that he was perhaps compelled by force of circumstance, to sign after a ‘short,sharp and bloody’ war with Pakistan in September, 1965.

The Tashkent Agreement was the outcome of the combined pressure of Soviet Russia, USA and western powers. These “World Powers” favoured the restoration of status quo ante as a strategy to enhance their dominance in world politics. But it was extremely unfavourable and unfair to India.

The Tashkent Agreement equated the aggressor with the victim.According to the agreement, India was to lose control of Haji Pir Pass and Uri-Poonch Bulge, both of which were not only strategic grounds but had been recaptured at a terrible cost. Their relinquishment to Pakistan pushed India back to the ceasefire line (CFL) of 1948, and compromised the security of Jammu & Kashmir by enabling Pakistan to once again start infiltrating India through these areas.

The agreement cast its shadow on the Indian Cabinet, temporarily headed by the acting Prime Minister Gulzarilal Nanda. Rehabilitation Minister Mahavir Tyagi opposed the signing of the accord at a cabinet meeting and followed it through by submitting his resignation on Jan 14, 1966 – which was promptly accepted.

Prof.B.B.Dutta

(Professor B.B.Dutta is the former member of Rajya Sabha)

To read full the text online subscribe to the magazine

OR

Get the copy of the magazine for details contact at email:This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.