jawaharlal nehru tribute

WHEN we think of Marshal Stalin, a panorama of the history of the last 35 years passes before our eyes. All of us here are the children of this age and have been affected by it in many ways. We have grown up not only participating in our own struggles in this country but, in another way, with the mighty struggles that have taken place in this world, and we have been affected by them. And so, looking back at these 35 years or so, many figures stand out; but perhaps no single figure has moulded and affected and influenced the history of these years more than Marshal Stalin. He became gradually almost a legendary figure, sometimes a man of mystery, at other times a person who had a rather intimate bond not for a few but with a vast number of persons.

He proved himself great in peace and in war. He showed an indomitable will and courage which few possess. Perhaps when history comes to be written about him, many things will be said and we do not know what varying opinions may be recorded in subsequent generations. But everyone will agree that here was a man of giant stature, a man who, such as few do, moulded the destinies of his age and although he succeeded greatly in war, a man who ultimately will be remembered by the way he built up his great country.

Again, people may agree or disagree with many things that he did or said. But the fact remains that he built up that great country, which was a tremendous achievement. In addition to that, and this was a remarkable fact which can be said about very, very few persons—he was not only famous in this generation but he was in a sense intimately concerned, if I may say so, with vast numbers of human beings. At any rate, vast numbers thought of him in an intimate way, in a friendly way, in an almost family way, certainly in the Soviet Union, and by many others too outside.

I have known people who were associated with Marshal Stalin or the work that Marshal Stalin did and who subsequently disagreed with him. They told me that while they disagreed with him, they felt a personal wrench because of the personal bond that had arisen between them and him, even though they had not come near him or had merely seen him from a distance.

So here was this man who created in his lifetime this bond of affection and admiration among vast numbers of human beings, a man who has gone through this troubled period of history. He made mistakes in the opinion of some or he succeeded—that is immaterial—but everyone must necessarily agree about his giant stature and about his mighty achievements.

So it is right that we should pay our tribute to him on this occasion, because the occasion is not merely the passing away of a great figure but, perhaps in a sense, the ending of an era in history.

Of course, history is continuing, and it is rather absurd, perhaps, to divide it up into periods as historians and others seek to do. History goes on and on. Nevertheless, there are periods which seem to end and take a fresh lease of life and, undoubtedly, when a very great man passes away who had embodied his age to a great extent in a certain measure there is an end of that particular period.

I do not know what the future will hold. But, undoubtedly, even though Marshal Stalin has passed away, because of the great hold he had on their minds and hearts, his influence and memory will continue to exercise people’s minds and inspire them. He has been described by many persons, including some who have been his great opponents on the world stage, and those descriptions vary and sometimes are contradictory. Some of them describe him as a frank and even gentle person. Others describe him as hard and ruthless. Maybe he had all these features in him. Anyhow, a very great figure has passed away.

He was not technically head of the Soviet State, but Marshal Stalin was something much more than the head of a state. He was great in his own right, whether he occupied office or not, and I believe that his influence was exercised generally in favour of peace. When war came he proved himself a very great warrior. But from all the information that we have had, his influence has been in favour of peace even in these present days of trouble and conflict.

I earnestly hope that his passing away will not mean that that influence which was exercised in favour of peace is no longer to be available. Perhaps I may express the hope that this event may loosen all our minds a little from their rigidity in all countries, and that we may view the present problems of the world not in that rigid way which develops when people are continually in conflict and argument with each other but in a somewhat more responsive and understanding way, so that his death may serve to bring us more to think of this troubled world and to endeavour even more than before to secure peace in this world and to prevent any further disaster and catastrophes from happening.

[Mr. Nehru disclosed that when news of Marshal Stalin’s serious illness came, he was reading a long report from the Indian Ambassador in Moscow about the recent interview; at which Stalin expressed his desire that world peace might not be broken.]

He expressed then, also, his goodwill for India and sent his good wishes to our country and to some of us. And it was interesting how he discussed with our Ambassador some of our cultural problems, showing a certain knowledge which was slightly surprising. He discussed—it may interest the House—the languages of India, their relationships, their parentage and their extent, and our Ambassador gave him such replies as he could on the subject.

So, while paying our tribute on this occasion, we may also hope that the world may be excited by this event into thinking more in terms of peace.

 Jawaharlal Nehru was lucky in life. He was born with a silver spoon in his mouth, gold cup in his hand and silken slippers to his feet as the only son or an affluent lawyer. He had the best of education at Harrow and Cambridge. While in England he sympathised with the extremist leaders of India and incurred the wrath of his father who was then a Moderate. He returned as barrister and was at the Bar for a brief spell. His father chose a charming bride for him. But his family life was sporadic and short lived.

            He had no struggle existence and initially joined Annie Besant’s Home Rule movement. He plunged into the national struggle under the leadership of Mahatma Gandhi without any mental reservations. His father Motilal followed suit. C.Y. Chintamani used to say that while Motilal was the physical father of Jawaharlal, Jawaharlal was the political father of Motilal. Gandhiji joked that while Motilal loved the country, he loved his son more than the country. In the fitness of things Jawaharlal succeeded his father as Congress President.

            His visit to the Soviet Union in 1927 influenced him ideolo­gically. “The Times” of London described him as a product of pre-war Harrow and post-war Moscow. He was a queer mixture of East and West and was out of place every where and at home no where. He was a Hindu by birth, Muslim by culture and English by education. Sardar Patel once joked that Jawaharlal was the only nationalist Muslim in India. On his own admission he took to the crowd and the crowd took to him. Though he was always in it, he was never of it. While drawing inspiration from the masses, he was lonely and introspective.

            At Lahore session of the Congress in 1929 riding with his sense of theatre on a white changer fitted to perfection as Gandhiji has prophesied the role of youngGalabadi in revolt. Rabindranath Tagore hailed him as a soldier whose banner was the banner of the exploited and a patriot whose humanity and vision was not obstructed by the barriers of his land and its past. He toured extensively in India and abroad and got first hand knowledge of men and matters. He had charm and glamour of a prince, the mass appeal of a proletariat leader who could sway the masses. In short he was charismatic. In a land of hero-worship, he became the hero of heroes.

            The passing away of his wife Kamala in 1936, left a void in his life. Referring to her cremation he stated “that fair body with parts admirably proportioned, that beautiful face which smiled so often and well and that sweet voice were consumed by fire and reduced to ashes.” He was loyal to her and did not remarry and dedicated his autobiography to her memory. He discharged his duties with detachment and magnanimity. He made his mother and sisters feel as if his father were alive. He exercised only advisory Jurisdiction.

            As president of the Lucknow session of the Congress he held out socialism as the solution to India’s problems. He encouraged formation of Congress Socialist Party without joining it, to allay the fears of the old guard. He thought about the Indian problems internationally since poverty and oppression in any part of the world was a challenge to prosperity and liberty in other parts. He condemned Italian aggression in Abyssinia, invasion of China by Japan and civil war in Spain. He foresaw the menace of Fascism and Nazism and condemned them outright and refused to meet Mussolini and Hitler. He was equally opposed to purges and liquidations of dissidents in Stalinist Russia. He condemned Britain for speaking in two voices–democratic at home and imperial abroad.

            When the Second World war broke out, his sympathies lay with democracies. But he felt that India in bondage would continue to be a symbol of British imperialism and supported “Quit India” movement. While opposing Subash Chandra Bose for seeking support of Axis Powers to liberate India, he took active part in arranging defence of Indian National Army Per­sonnel before the Court Martial at Red Fort in New Delhi. Thus he reacted democratically to the changing situation. He fought for democratisation of native states and abolition of Zamindaris. He proclaimed that Black-marketers should be hanged. He spoke as he felt on the spur of the moment.

            He was obliged to agree to partitioning the country under sad necessity. But he stuck to socialism, secularism and democracy and successfully evolved the policy of non-alignment· When freedom was in peril whether in Indonesia, Korea, Vietnam or countries of Africa, he extended active support. In Parliament he behaved with dignity and fair to all. From a position of strength he showed remarkable tolerance. When he wanted to amalgamate the posts of Law Minister and Attorney-General. Rajaji retorted why the positions of President and Prime Minister should not be amalgamated. Then he abandoned the idea. If he wanted he could have become a dictator. But he was a democratic to the core. According to an astrologer of Varanasi, his horoscope corresponded to that of Emperor Asoka. In 19th century terms he may be compared to cavour with an admixture of Garibaldi and the dash of a romantic nationalist. To this may be added Woodrow Wilson in the 20th century. In him Brahmin pride, Hindu thought, Islamic influence and Western ideas competed for supremacy. Indira Gandhi said that her father was a saint who strayed into politics. Rajaji remarked that though Jawahar­lal was eleven years younger to him, he was admittedly eleven times greater.

            As a Writer he secured a place in history. His “Autobio­graphy”, “Glimpses of World History” and “Discovery of India” are classics marked by chaste language, chiselled diction and a fund of information presented in a capsule form. He prized his presidentship of Sahitya Akademi as more important than that of the Prime Ministership of the country. Even after he is forgotten as a Prime Minister, he will be remembered as man of letters. He was builder of New India and promoted scientific outlook and technological advance.

            He stood by friends through thick and thin. He constantly espoused the cause of Arabs in spite of their sympathy for Pakistan. He defended V.K. Krishna Menon to the last. He protected his special Assistant M.O. Mathai till the situa­tion became intolerable. He was opposed to racism, regionalism, casteism andlinquism. He was explosive in speech, cautious in action, impulsive in gesture, deliberate in judgment, self-­assertive in little acts and self-effacing in big deeds. Unfortuna­tely he had no sympathy for middle class. He loved Children and his birth day is rightly celebrated as “Children’s Day”.

            Though he was in prison nearly for a decade during the national struggle, he had no hatred or malice against the British. Winston Churchill openly expressed his admiration for this remarkable quality and wished he were with Nehru during his American tour to introduce him to the audience. When Ram Mohan Lohia was lodged in prison in free India for his unlaw­-activities, he sent him a basketful of best mangoes. He rendered financial assistance to M.N.Roy who always criticisedhim. He was intensely human and humane.

            With active and industrious habits he worked for 16 or 17 hours a day. He was an agnostic with detachment. He dis­liked ease and luxury. He hated poverty with no contempt for the poor. He was incapable of harbouring illwill and nursing grievances. Gandhiji, naming him as his heir, said that he was pure as crystal and truthful beyond doubt and adding that the nation was safe in his hands. Our world is a better place on account of his having lived in it. As long as our sensibility lasts, we cannot cease to cherish memory of a gem of this man. The red rose is gone but its fragrance never fades. We cannot denigrate or deny his place in history.

            He has a sure seat among the great of the world. He left enduring impact on India’s recent history as history is made and nations are shaped by outstanding individuals. He was greater than his deeds, and truer than his surroundings. He occupies a high pedestal in the imposing edifice of Indian nationalism. Among the illustrious that adorn history he is a prominent one. What ever be his achievements he was always in motion fretting at limits and longing to be universal. How many of his type our country produced?

Posted in: world leader (celebrity)