It has recently been claimed that Jawaharlal Nehru was an ardent democrat and that he always upheld the democratic spirit in his belief and activities. In reality, however, history recounts a very different story.
When he became the Prime Minister of India, he seemed to be a power-monger and in order to retain authority, he discarded all democratic values. First, his relationship with the President suggests that he was a strong believer in Prime Ministerial ascendancy, emphasising that we had adopted the cabinet system as in Britain. In his reckoning, the President must act upon the advice of the cabinet and, thus assume a passive role. But, obviously, the President, as the Head of State had a dignified role to play and, as a person, he was entitled to have his own ideas, prejudices and beliefs. This was the reason why, soon after the Constitution came into force, the then President, Dr Rajendra Prasad, was not able to maintain cordial relations with Nehru.
In fact, Dr Prasad once wrote to him that in certain matters, he would take his own decision. Nehru sent two copies of the letter to Alladi Krishnaswami Ayar, one of the framers of the Constitution, and MC Setalvad, the Attorney-General, for their opinion. However, both of them stressed that in a cabinet system, the President must accept a passive role and abide by the ministerial advice. Inspired by this favourable opinion, Nehru intended to belittle the President. Dr Prasad once again raised the issue before the Delhi Law Institute and claimed that the Constitution did not ask the President to act upon the ministerial advice in all matters. Surely, for Nehru, it was fuel to the fire.
In certain minor matters such as the religious ceremony in Varanasi in which Dr Prasad washed the feet of the priests and pundits, his visit to Somnath temple and presence at the funeral of Sardar Patel, he acted against the wishes of Nehru. As regards General Thimaya’s resignation, Nehru’s Tibet policy and corruption in high places, Dr Prasad expressed considerable dissatisfaction. He did not support the imposition of President’s rule in Kerala in 1959 and the introduction of the Hindu Code Bill in Parliament. He even sent a message, under Article 86(2), urging Parliament to carefully and cautiously consider the Bill as it was awfully defective (Editorial, the Modern Review, November 1978).
As Nehru felt slighted, he wanted to reach a parting of the ways with Dr Prasad after the conclusion of his first term. But, it was Abul Kalam Azad who persuaded the Prime Minister to offer a second term to Dr Prasad. But when the latter sought a third term, Nehru firmly opposed the proposal. Dr Prasad reluctantly resigned office in 1962.
Nehru picked Dr Radhakrishnan for President with the fond hope that the distinguished philosopher would be immersed in his library and would hardly interfere in political affairs. But the Prime Minister was disillusioned because the new President also wanted to play a positive role in matters of State. He was annoyed with Nehru’s defence policy which led to our military debacle against China in 1962 and he had reportedly wanted to remove Nehru from the office of Prime Minister. The rift soon widened and Nehru decided to give him an honoured farewell after the end of his first term.
Similarly, as head of the cabinet, Nehru behaved like a political colossus. Of course, under Article 75(2) of the Constitution, the cabinet is ‘collectively responsible’ to the Lok Sabha and, hence, the cabinet collectively takes the decision in all matters. But Nehru discussed such matters with only a few colleagues of his choice and expected others to readily agree. As VK Kulkarni has pointed out, Nehru merely raised the issues at cabinet meetings and such meetings ended there (Problems of Indian Democracy, page 158). In this way, the cabinet became, as Percival Spear wrote, a mere ‘registering body’ (A Modern History, p 437). In 1956, Bombay was bifurcated by Nehru without the resolution of the cabinet. CD Deshmukh, Finance Minister, promptly resigned. But, Nehru bluntly observed that he was the Prime Minister and that ‘the Prime Minister can lay down the policy of the government’. During his time, a number of ministers notably RR Diwakar, Dr KM Munshi, S Chetty, KC Neogi and C Biswas, had resigned. Nehru functioned in league with some “yes men”.
Of course, Sardar Patel, the Home Minister and No. 2 in the cabinet, believed that the Prime Minister was primus inter pares. No wonder he couldn’t suffer Nehru’s attitude. In the Prime Minister’s scheme of things, though the cabinet was the ultimate policy-maker, ‘the Prime Minister is supposed to play an outstanding role’. Sardar Patel wanted to resign, but Mahatma Gandhi persuaded him to continue.
Within the Congress, Nehru sought to play the role of supreme head. In 1950, a contest for the office of the party president led to a major crisis. JB Kripalani and P Tandon were two rival candidates, the former represented the Nehru group and Tandon stood for Patel. Eventually, Mr Tandon won the election. But Nehru, in order to keep the party within his grip, observed that the Congress must choose either him or Mr Tandon. As Chalapati Rau has observed, ‘The struggle really was who was to lead the Congress, Tandon or Jawaharlal’ (Jawaharlal Nehru, p 205). Though Mr Tandon was duly elected in a democratic manner, he had to step down. Nehru became the party president and retained the office till the early part of 1954. To quote Rajni Kothari, ‘All future incumbents of the post until his death owed their position to Nehru’s will” (Politics In India, p 169). Some of his colleagues, like C Rajagopalachari and JB Kripalani parted with him and founded separate political parties, in order to fight against the Congress.
Moreover, Nehru virtually reduced Parliament to a subordinate institution. Constitutionally, of course, the cabinet is responsible to the Lok Sabha. But Nehru held the Prime Ministerial office three times and, on each occasion, he was backed by an overwhelming majority. So, he was never worried about the stability of the government which was actually made independent of the Lok Sabha. On occasions, he even dared to incur the wrath of the judiciary for his irresponsible comments. He was truly a dictator in the democratic structure.
When he became the Prime Minister of India, he seemed to be a power-monger and in order to retain authority, he discarded all democratic values. First, his relationship with the President suggests that he was a strong believer in Prime Ministerial ascendancy, emphasising that we had adopted the cabinet system as in Britain. In his reckoning, the President must act upon the advice of the cabinet and, thus assume a passive role. But, obviously, the President, as the Head of State had a dignified role to play and, as a person, he was entitled to have his own ideas, prejudices and beliefs. This was the reason why, soon after the Constitution came into force, the then President, Dr Rajendra Prasad, was not able to maintain cordial relations with Nehru.
In fact, Dr Prasad once wrote to him that in certain matters, he would take his own decision. Nehru sent two copies of the letter to Alladi Krishnaswami Ayar, one of the framers of the Constitution, and MC Setalvad, the Attorney-General, for their opinion. However, both of them stressed that in a cabinet system, the President must accept a passive role and abide by the ministerial advice. Inspired by this favourable opinion, Nehru intended to belittle the President. Dr Prasad once again raised the issue before the Delhi Law Institute and claimed that the Constitution did not ask the President to act upon the ministerial advice in all matters. Surely, for Nehru, it was fuel to the fire.
In certain minor matters such as the religious ceremony in Varanasi in which Dr Prasad washed the feet of the priests and pundits, his visit to Somnath temple and presence at the funeral of Sardar Patel, he acted against the wishes of Nehru. As regards General Thimaya’s resignation, Nehru’s Tibet policy and corruption in high places, Dr Prasad expressed considerable dissatisfaction. He did not support the imposition of President’s rule in Kerala in 1959 and the introduction of the Hindu Code Bill in Parliament. He even sent a message, under Article 86(2), urging Parliament to carefully and cautiously consider the Bill as it was awfully defective (Editorial, the Modern Review, November 1978).
As Nehru felt slighted, he wanted to reach a parting of the ways with Dr Prasad after the conclusion of his first term. But, it was Abul Kalam Azad who persuaded the Prime Minister to offer a second term to Dr Prasad. But when the latter sought a third term, Nehru firmly opposed the proposal. Dr Prasad reluctantly resigned office in 1962.
Nehru picked Dr Radhakrishnan for President with the fond hope that the distinguished philosopher would be immersed in his library and would hardly interfere in political affairs. But the Prime Minister was disillusioned because the new President also wanted to play a positive role in matters of State. He was annoyed with Nehru’s defence policy which led to our military debacle against China in 1962 and he had reportedly wanted to remove Nehru from the office of Prime Minister. The rift soon widened and Nehru decided to give him an honoured farewell after the end of his first term.
Similarly, as head of the cabinet, Nehru behaved like a political colossus. Of course, under Article 75(2) of the Constitution, the cabinet is ‘collectively responsible’ to the Lok Sabha and, hence, the cabinet collectively takes the decision in all matters. But Nehru discussed such matters with only a few colleagues of his choice and expected others to readily agree. As VK Kulkarni has pointed out, Nehru merely raised the issues at cabinet meetings and such meetings ended there (Problems of Indian Democracy, page 158). In this way, the cabinet became, as Percival Spear wrote, a mere ‘registering body’ (A Modern History, p 437). In 1956, Bombay was bifurcated by Nehru without the resolution of the cabinet. CD Deshmukh, Finance Minister, promptly resigned. But, Nehru bluntly observed that he was the Prime Minister and that ‘the Prime Minister can lay down the policy of the government’. During his time, a number of ministers notably RR Diwakar, Dr KM Munshi, S Chetty, KC Neogi and C Biswas, had resigned. Nehru functioned in league with some “yes men”.
Of course, Sardar Patel, the Home Minister and No. 2 in the cabinet, believed that the Prime Minister was primus inter pares. No wonder he couldn’t suffer Nehru’s attitude. In the Prime Minister’s scheme of things, though the cabinet was the ultimate policy-maker, ‘the Prime Minister is supposed to play an outstanding role’. Sardar Patel wanted to resign, but Mahatma Gandhi persuaded him to continue.
Within the Congress, Nehru sought to play the role of supreme head. In 1950, a contest for the office of the party president led to a major crisis. JB Kripalani and P Tandon were two rival candidates, the former represented the Nehru group and Tandon stood for Patel. Eventually, Mr Tandon won the election. But Nehru, in order to keep the party within his grip, observed that the Congress must choose either him or Mr Tandon. As Chalapati Rau has observed, ‘The struggle really was who was to lead the Congress, Tandon or Jawaharlal’ (Jawaharlal Nehru, p 205). Though Mr Tandon was duly elected in a democratic manner, he had to step down. Nehru became the party president and retained the office till the early part of 1954. To quote Rajni Kothari, ‘All future incumbents of the post until his death owed their position to Nehru’s will” (Politics In India, p 169). Some of his colleagues, like C Rajagopalachari and JB Kripalani parted with him and founded separate political parties, in order to fight against the Congress.
Moreover, Nehru virtually reduced Parliament to a subordinate institution. Constitutionally, of course, the cabinet is responsible to the Lok Sabha. But Nehru held the Prime Ministerial office three times and, on each occasion, he was backed by an overwhelming majority. So, he was never worried about the stability of the government which was actually made independent of the Lok Sabha. On occasions, he even dared to incur the wrath of the judiciary for his irresponsible comments. He was truly a dictator in the democratic structure.
