Silence on US aggression, noise over Nehru: Politics of selective nationalism

By Vidya Bhushan Rawat 

American forces attacked Indian sailors in the Persian Gulf, reportedly killing several of them. Yet the Government of India, along with its prime-time cheerleaders and devoted supporters, has remained conspicuously silent. There has not been a single strong word of condemnation directed at the United States. Instead, we are being lectured about "international law" and the "legality" of the incident. Ironically, it was Iran that condemned the attack and described the United States as an international pirate.

This silence reflects a larger political reality. India today appears to be engaged in reinventing a version of varna dharma politics. The government seems less concerned with issues that directly affect people's lives and more focused on temple tourism, renaming cities and institutions, renovating ghats, and demolishing historical structures. The objective appears to be the creation of a new cultural landscape painted in a uniform saffron hue.

The transformation of New Delhi's historic Lutyens' Zone is often cited as an example. Across the country—from Badrinath and Kedarnath to Kashi Vishwanath and several historic sites in Delhi—there is a visible attempt to leave a distinct ideological imprint on public spaces. Such projects require enormous public expenditure. Funds are allocated for demolition, followed by additional allocations for reconstruction. While employment generation remains a challenge, opportunities seem readily available for those close to power.

Three days have passed since the attack, yet there has been no meaningful condemnation of the American action. The Ministry of External Affairs' restrained response reveals much about the government's functioning. It reflects what Dr. B.R. Ambedkar described as the "ascending order of reverence and descending order of contempt" embedded within hierarchical social structures. In practice, this often means displaying deference before powerful nations while adopting an aggressive posture toward weaker neighbours.

Had a similar incident involved Pakistan or Bangladesh, television studios would likely have been filled with nightly outrage. Prime-time anchors would have performed their familiar spectacles of nationalism. Yet in this case, there is an uncomfortable silence.

Part of this may be explained by the realities of global capitalism and geopolitical dependence. Many among India's political, bureaucratic, military, legal, business, and media elites have children studying, working, or residing in the United States and other Western countries. Consequently, much of our public discourse is shaped through Western lenses. Those who routinely proclaim patriotism have found little to say about an attack on Indian citizens. Their understanding of international politics is often shallow, and many seem more concerned about safeguarding their access to the West than questioning American power.

Meanwhile, Donald Trump recently congratulated Narendra Modi on becoming India's longest-serving democratically elected Prime Minister. The ruling establishment celebrated the milestone enthusiastically. Yet comparisons with history require accuracy. To surpass Jawaharlal Nehru's tenure of over seventeen years, Modi would need to remain Prime Minister beyond 2031. To exceed Indira Gandhi's nearly sixteen years in office, he would need to continue until at least 2030.

The problem is not celebration. Every leader is entitled to acknowledge political achievements. The problem arises when such celebrations become intertwined with efforts to diminish or erase the contributions of predecessors, particularly Jawaharlal Nehru.

As June arrives, India will once again witness annual commemorations of the Emergency. The courage of figures such as Ramanath Goenka will be celebrated. Yet there is little discussion of how sections of today's media have surrendered their independence and often function as amplifiers of official narratives rather than as watchdogs of democracy.

Why, then, is there a sustained campaign to denigrate the nationalist movement and many of its leaders?

The Constituent Assembly emerged from the democratic aspirations of the Indian people. It was not merely Nehru who participated in that historic institution. Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel, Dr. B.R. Ambedkar, M.R. Jayakar, Syama Prasad Mukherjee, Maulana Abul Kalam Azad, Dr. Rajendra Prasad, C. Rajagopalachari, Rajkumari Amrit Kaur, and many others played crucial roles. The Constitution was drafted under the chairmanship of Dr. Ambedkar after extensive debates and deliberations within the Assembly.

Does the BJP wish to suggest that the Constitution was not a product of the Indian people but a colonial gift? Such arguments would undermine the collective efforts of an entire generation of nation-builders.

Independent India's first Cabinet itself reflected diversity and inclusion. Alongside Congress leaders were representatives from different ideological traditions, including Syama Prasad Mukherjee, Dr. B.R. Ambedkar, Sardar Baldev Singh, R.K. Shanmukham Chetty, and John Matthai. Members associated with the Hindu Mahasabha, the Scheduled Castes Federation, the Justice Party, and the Akali Dal all found representation. This broad-based composition was intended to reflect the plural spirit of the newly independent nation.

Of course, no leader is above criticism. Nehru is not beyond scrutiny, nor is anyone else. Democracy is a continuous process of evaluation, correction, and reform. The late 1940s were formative years when institutions were still taking shape. The Constituent Assembly played a central role in guiding India's destiny.

India's first general election was held between October 1951 and February 1952. The Congress secured a decisive mandate, winning 364 seats with approximately 45 percent of the vote. Sadly, Sardar Patel had passed away in December 1950 and therefore did not participate in the election campaign or the government that followed. Nevertheless, he remains India's first Deputy Prime Minister. To deny his democratic legitimacy would be both historically inaccurate and disrespectful to one of the foremost leaders of the freedom movement.

The electoral process was different in those formative years because India's democratic institutions were still evolving. Yet the constitutional framework established by our founding generation proved resilient and effective. It enabled India to emerge as the world's largest democracy, despite the pressures and challenges it continues to face.

It is also important to remember that longevity in office does not automatically confer greatness. Mahatma Gandhi held no governmental position, yet his influence exceeded that of many Prime Ministers. Similarly, Periyar's social and intellectual impact in Tamil Nadu often surpassed that of elected Chief Ministers.

Likewise, V.P. Singh served as Prime Minister for only a brief period, yet his decisions transformed India's social and political landscape. Any history of social justice and the empowerment of marginalised communities must acknowledge his contribution through the implementation of the Mandal Commission recommendations.

People are not judged solely by the offices they hold but by the actions they take and the values they uphold. Narendra Modi has won repeated electoral mandates and occupies a significant place in contemporary Indian politics. However, there is no need to diminish Nehru in order to elevate Modi. Historical facts remain unchanged. Jawaharlal Nehru was independent India's first Prime Minister.

History can be inconvenient for those in power. It may be ignored temporarily, but it cannot be erased. Facts eventually outlive propaganda. The credibility of media institutions that function merely as instruments of power continues to erode.

Rather than obsessing over Nehru, the present regime would do better to focus on the pressing challenges confronting the nation. The more Nehru is targeted, the greater the public curiosity about the political climate of the 1940s, when organisations such as the RSS and the Hindu Mahasabha followed very different political trajectories from those who led the struggle for independence and endured imprisonment for the cause.

Nehru will continue to be remembered as Hind ke Jawahar—not because he was flawless, but because he articulated and championed an inclusive, secular, democratic, and modern vision of India. Whether one agrees with him or not, that vision remains central to India's place and reputation in the world.