Nehru was a good writer and orator, he had the legacy of Matilal Nehru, he had the blessings of Gandhiji. However Nehru did not have that overarching love for India above everything else. Nehru loved his power, position and authority more that overshadowed his love for his country. In the words of Subhas addressed to Nehru in his 27 page letter after Tripuri Congress, “When a crisis comes, you often do not succeed in making up your mind one way or the other." Nehru's doublespeak was thoroughly exposed in that letter. Subhas was disdainful about Nehru's foreign policy. "Frothy sentiments and pious platitudes do not make foreign policy", he said. He said that Patel and others would let Nehru talk and talk and in the end ask him to draft their resolution. Subhas had reasons to be peeved, Nehru had not only let him down, he deliberately betrayed him. Nehru replied about the misgivings of Subhas that "I plead guilty to them." He also expressed his view that Gandhi should accept Subhas as the president. He was clearly riding two horses as Subhas had charged him to do.”
Nehur was a European first, Indian last. His heart was in Europe while his foot was in India. He had a deep contempt for the Indian and Hindu civilization and culture and coupled with his atheistic tendencies he was more interested in rooting out spirituality from India. Subhas loved India as a whole - its ancient culture and civilization and wanted to built modernity without destroying tyhe ancient edifice. Subahs was spiritual and he could bind the different communities through the message of love, not by the message of Western secularism and appeasement as Nehru did.
Subhas had neither forgiven nor forgotten the duplicity of Jawaharlal. He continues, "In this internal crisis the man who was inconvenienced most was Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru. Up till now, he had, with great skill and ingenuity, been able to ride two horses at the same time and had thereby been able to secure the support of the Gandhi Wing, while being a friend or patron of the Left. Challenged by the Forward Bloc, he had to make his choice and he began to move towards the Right — the Gandhi Wing. And as the relations between the Gandhi Wing and the Forward Bloc became strained, Nehru rallied more and more to the support of the Mahatma."
Subhas again exposes Nehru's duplicity, "More strange even than Gandhi's attitude was the attitude of Nehru. From 1927 to 1938, he had figured prominently in all the anti-war resolutions of the Congress. Consequently, when the war broke out, people naturally expected him to take the lead in an anti-war policy. According to the previous resolutions of the Congress, the party should have immediately non-cooperated with Britain's war-effort in September, 1939 and if after that, the Government had exploited India for the war — the Congress party should have actively resisted the British Government. Not only did Nehru not adopt this policy, but he used all his influence in order to prevent the Congress from embarrassing the British Government while the war was on." On 14 September Congress passed a resolution to the effect of supporting the war initiatives of Britain in the hope that Britain would reciprocate. Subhas asked Congress to launch a mass movement to wrest the freedom of India from Britain, but Congress leadership was clearly in no mood to do the same. Subhas observed in Indian struggle, "if the Congress as a whole had taken up a bold and unequivocal attitude of determined opposition to the war from the very outset — Britain's war-production in India would have been seriously affected and it would not have been easy for the British Government to send Indian troops on active service to different theatres of war, far away from India. Consequently, in his view, by postponing a final decision on the war-issue — Gandhi, Nehru and their followers helped the British Government indirectly. It is but natural that when the Congress did not give a clear lead to the country, the propaganda carried on by the agents of British Imperialism in India should partially succeed in winning the cooperation of certain sections of the Indian people."
Nehru always went with the prevailing tide. He wanted to be popular not patriot. He was a fine orator, a great writer, a darling of the intellectuals. But what differentiated him from Subhas Chandra Bose was his lack of that overarching love for the country that would wash away all selfish considerations. Subhas was patriotism personified, selfless courageous hero. Nehru could, on the other hand, betray a cause owing to his own selfish considerations - as he did on advice of Mountbatten to disengage INA and look the other way when the INA soldiers were killed or the INA monument in Singapore was destroyed.
NB: Nehru’s personal side has not been touched upon here. But the lack of his ethical side, his dharma, is also evident from the way he dealt with his adversaries. As long as you were on the right side of Nehru he was great and charming. Moment you are on the wrong side of him, he would be a dangerous and ruthless person. He was susceptible to flattery and would reward his sycophants handsomely. He was the modern day version of Duryadhana. Jealousy had caused his downfall, along with that his disdain for anything rooted in Indian culture. History will evaluate him properly in the light of the new facts in days to come.
Taken from HOME | netajisubhasbose