Question

We Indians are not comfortable with the idea of raising questions challenging existing notions. Most of us are a conventional lot, content with whatever is. This is especially true of political parties. So when Minister of State for External Affairs Shashi Tharoor criticizes Jawaharlal Nehru’s foreign policies — ‘‘more like a moralistic running commentary’’ — all hell breaks loose in the Congress. How Tharoor, a Congressman, dare that? Must not every Congressman pretend to be in absolute agreement with whatever Nehru said and did? Tharoor has now been forced to rather blame the media for its ‘‘tendentious reporting’’, but the fact remains that such challenges to the existing discourse are very unwelcome. For the Congress, Nehruvianism must remain unchallenged, in spite of the times that have changed beyond recognition and of so many ideas of the past having become totally redundant. The Congress, the so-called liberal political face of the 21st-century India, should have appreciated the Tharoor syndrome if it were really serious about one of the hallmarks of liberalism — free discussion. Where is the harm in discussing Nehru or, for that matter, anyone from among the great Congress stalwarts of the past? Would not the Congress look genuinely liberal if it were to openly deliberate on subjects like Nehru? Would not that be radical? This applies to the rest of the country’s political parties as well. They should have the courage to visit their leaders of the past and analyse them deeply and freely. THE SENTINEL