The Memory of Steve Biko

Steve Biko, founder of the Black Consciousness Movement in Apartheid era South Africa is perhaps the most famous martyr of anti-Apartheid movement. With his writings and political work, this young intellectual changed the whole outlook of the anti-Apartheid struggle by motivating the oppressed Black people of South Africa to think that "Black is Beautiful." He ceaselessly campaigned to establish a grass root organization while helping the Black people to emancipate them from the sence of inferiority vis-a-vis the Whites. Arrested on August 18, 1977, he was murdered by the police less than a month later, on September 12.

Born in 1946 in King William's Town in Eastern Cape, young Stephen Bantu Biko began his education in the backdrop of the Bantu Education Act of 1952 which was aimed at restricting education opportunities for Black people. However, Steve was able to enter the University of Natal. There he joined the National Union of South African Students (NUSAS). However, the NUSAS was based on the white universities, there was almost no chance of a Black person rising to its leadership. Also, Biko recognized the need for a more grass root movement. It was with these in mind that he created the South African Students Organization (SASO). The SASO adopted a new pro-black and radical doctrine that became known as "Black Consciousness" which by Biko defined as the "cultural and political revival of an oppressed people."

Within a few years, by 1971, Black Consciousness had spread out far and wide and to incorporate adult elements to it, Biko created the Black People's Convention (BPC). Also, they started Black Community Programmes.

One tactic of the Apartheid regime to contain their opponents was to 'ban' them, thereby restricting their movement to a small area. By 1973, Biko and some of his colleagues were banned. However, their ideas had spread, inflaming the oppressed Black people. When the government introduced Afrikaans as the medium of academic instruction in schools, the Black people erupted at Soweto on June 16, 1976. Violence gripped the country for several months.

Although the BCM played a large role in the Soweto uprising, the ultimate beneficiaries were the African National Congress (ANC). The BCM faced harsh measures of the regime which arrested a number of their leaders. On August 18, 1977, the security police arrested Steve Biko and held at Port Elizabeth. Following his transfer to Pretoria, he died on September 12. He was nearly 31.

Police maintained that he died of a hunger strike. But, the truth was revealed later, largely by the efforts of Donald Woods and Helen Zille, the current leader of Democratic Alliance and Premier of Western Cape. It was found that Steve Biko died of severe brain damage.

Much international attention was generated by the death of the young leader. His funeral on September 25 was a day of protest with 15,000-20,000 people attending and many more prevented by the police from doing so. A dozen Western countries sent their delegates, which was a rebuke of the apartheid regime.

The memory of Steve Biko is still alive although his ideas were different from those of the ANC which has ruled South Africa since 1994. Ten years after his death, Richard Attenborough made the film "Cry Freedom" based on the books on Biko written by his old friend Donald Woods. After years of campaigning against the doctors who treated him in the last days, his supporters had reason to cheer when Justice W G Boshoff, said in a landmark judgment that there was prima facie evidence of improper or disgraceful conduct on the part of the doctors in a professional respect. After the fall of apartheid, five policemen involved with his death were not given amnesty by the Truth Commission but charges were never brought up against them.

German Reunification of 1990

After 45 years of separation, Germany was reunified in 1990, less than a year after the dramatic fall of the Berlin wall.

In 1945, just after World War II, the defeated Germany was reduced in size and the remainder was divided among the four principal allies: Britain, France, the United States (USA) and the Soviet Union (USSR). It was intended to be a temporary arrangement until the reunification of the country. This temporary arrangement was to remain for 45 years.

Power Politics and Fear of a United Germany

Due to her central position in Europe, Germany was very important in post second world war power politics. Both the West and the Soviets wanted her under their own influence and therefore were reluctant to dispense with the control they had. The West wanted a unified Germany based on free elections while the Soviets wanted a Germany under their control. However, some parties in the West, especially the French, were apprehensive of the reunification of Germany, because of their knowledge that they would be weaker than a unified Germany. Her recent agonies at the hands of the Germans in two wars were still not distant memories.

In 1946, when the Americans wanted to bring the four zones in to a common economic zone, the French chose to disagree based on this apprehension. Naturally, the USSR also disagreed. Thus the Bizonia was born with the economic unification of U.S. and British sectors.

However, in 1948, with the Czechoslovak coup, the French realized the larger threat from the East and chose to agree to the lesser evil, that of a unified Germany. With the three zones joined economically, Trizonia was born.

Germany East and West

Introduction of monetary reform in Trizonia led to the Berlin blockade which ended in 1949 with a Western victory. In May 1949, Trizonia was declared an independent federal republic, the Federal Republic of Germany (FRG). In the following October, the German Democratic Republic (GDR) was declared in the Soviet sector.

For many years FRG enjoyed wide diplomatic recognition whereas the GDR was recognized only by the socialist camp. The GDR economy was based on the Stalinist model which did not help the country. In June 1953, the workers rioted against the “workers’ state”. Soon economic difficulties and political repression was forcing thousands to leave the GDR through the still open city of Berlin.

To stop this emigration, the GDR authorities erected die Berliner Mauer, the Berlin Wall, on August 13, 1961.

Berlin Wall Falls

Although they were virtually prisoners of their regime, the Germans in the GDR were not totally ignorant of the life in the FRG. Radio and even television signals coming from the West could be picked up and many people had relatives in the West. The fact that they enjoyed a better standard of living than other Eastern Europeans did not matter for the GDR citizens because they were aware of a much better life across the wall and the border fences.

The wave of reform sweeping through Eastern Europe had a direct effect on the GDR when Hungary opened her borders. GDR citizens wanted to leave. As the regime was celebrating its fortieth anniversary in Berlin, it was crumbling on the streets across of the country. With Gorbachev’s USSR not willing to intervene to protect the communists, they had no ally. The replacement of the long standing leader Erich Honecker on October 18 came far too late to save the regime. Its fate was sealed on November 9, 1989, as the Berlin wall fell.

Last Days of the GDR

With the Communist Socialist Unity Party (SED) out of power, the GDR prepared for its first and what turned out to be the only democratic election. On March 18, 1990, East German Christian Democrats, with the support of the FRG Chancellor Helmut Kohl, swept the polls whereas the former Communists polled only 16% of the votes. Lothar de Maiziere became the first and only democratically elected prime Minister of the GDR.

Two months later, on May 18, the FRG and GDR signed a treaty by which they agreed upon monetary, economic and social union between the states. On July 1, 1990, the Deutsche Mark was introduced to the GDR replacing the East German Mark. With the economies and societies linked, the political reunification became just a formality. The reunification treaty was signed on August 31, to be ratified by the legislatures of both countries with vast majorities. On October 3, 1990, Germany was reunited officially.

Sources

Cyril E. Black, Jonathan E. Helmreich, Paul C. Helmreich, Charles P. Issawi, A. James McAdams. Rebirth: A History of Europe Since World War Two, Westview Press (1992)

Mills, Clifford W., Angela Merkel, Chelsea House, NY (2008)

Taylor, Frederick. The Berlin Wall: A World Divided. Harper Collins (2007)

Opening of the Berlin Wall and Unification

The Controversial Salvadoran Presidential Election of 1972

El Salvador, a small Central American country, was ruled by various military governments, with the support of the rich oligarchs, from 1932 until 1984. However, the military attempted to give the regime a democratic face to mollify public opinion. In the 1960s, opposition political parties were allowed to participate in the electoral process. Soon, several parties were to appear, including the largest opposition party at the time, the Christian Democratic Party (PDC). Meanwhile, the government had formed an official party, the National Conciliation Party (PCN).

In 1968, the National Assembly elections saw the opposition parties winning 25 out of 52 seats with the PDC winning 19. In 1970 however, the opposition seats fell by seven to 18, with the PDC winning 16. The decline of the opposition was not due to any improvement in the Salvadorian people’s lives but a result of the popularity of the regime due to the so-called ‘Soccer War’ of 1969.

In late 1960s, two political parties had sprung up in the opposition camp. One of them was the Revolutionary National Movement (MNR), a moderately leftwing party affiliated to the Socialist International, despite its ‘revolutionary’ name. The other, the Nationalist Democratic Union (UDN), was closely associated to the proscribed Salvadoran Communist Party (PCS), despite its more moderate name. The Secretary General of the MNR was Guillermo Manuel Ungo, the son of one of the founders of the PDC.

In September 1971, the PDC, MNR and UDN declared the intention of forming a coalition, the National Opposition Union (UNO). The PDC had opposed engaging in coalitions throughout its decade in existence. Yet, especially after the setback in the 1970 National Assembly and local elections, they recognized that the greatest obstacle the opposition was facing was its own disunity. With a much larger following than her two junior partners, the PDC wished to work inside the UNO from an advantageous position. Furthermore, they had Jose Napoleon Duarte, by far the most popular opposition figure, in their ranks. Duarte was chosen as the presidential candidate of the UNO while he chose Ungo as his running mate.

General Fidel Sanchez Hernandez chose his presidential chief of staff Colonel Arturo Armando Molina as the PCN candidate. Meanwhile, two people representing the oligarchs also ran for the presidency. The landed oligarchs were represented by the ‘Soccer War’ hero, General Jose Alberto Medrano, while those engaged in industries and commerce supported Jose Antonio Rodriguez Porth.

However, from the onset, the contest was between Molina and Duarte. Both the PCN and the UNO launched vigorous campaigns. In December 1971, the Duarte campaign caravan was shot at by unidentified assailants and the driver of the leading car died. But it was the only physical attack on the UNO during the campaign.

Meanwhile, other attacks on the UNO continued. The PCN camp viciously attacked the credentials of Duarte and Ungo, accusing them (as the military had almost always accused their opposition) of being communists. Furthermore, the UNO tickets for the six larger departments of El Salvador for the National Assembly elections scheduled for March 1972 were disqualified on a technicality. The government could be almost certain on winning the presidency. In the case of any candidate not being able to obtain 50% of the votes, the president was to be elected by the National Assembly. With the Assembly elections more than two weeks away, the PCN had a majority in that body to ensure that Molina will be president. But, understandably, they were worried about the Assembly elections on March 12. If Molina was not to get enough support, the opposition would have been in an advantageous position during the Assembly election. The disqualification of the UNO lists took care of that also.

Election Day, February 20, 1972

The election went on with no major incident and the turnout was high. As the first results were being released, Molina took an early lead. However, Duarte took two thirds of votes in San Salvador. It was there that almost a third of all eligible voters lived. The government at once stopped releasing results. Later it was announced that Molina won the election with 334,600 (43.42%) against Duarte’s 324,756 (42.14%). The UNO alleged that it was Duarte who actually won with about 9,500 votes more than Molina. However, it did not matter as no one had obtained 50% of the vote. The National Assembly duly elected Molina as president of El Salvador on February 25, 1972.

National Assembly Elections, March 12, 1972

The UNO had another trump card to play. According to Salvadoran election law, defaced ballot papers were considered to be null votes and if these exceeded half the total votes cast, the election could be declared null. The UNO asked their supporters in San Salvador to do precisely this at the March 12 elections. More than half of the voters (almost 75,000 out of 144,101) who cast their votes heeded this call. The UNO asked the San Salvador Department elections office to nullify the election and it did so on March 23. The Central Elections Council (CCE) promptly overturned that decision.

Coup d’état: March 25, 1972

The immediate result of the election controversies was the military coup led by Colonel Benjamin Mejia. The rebel troops quickly took San Salvador and took President Sanchez into custody. Then Mejia announced the ‘triumph of the military youth’ on national radio. However, this was premature as the Air Force and the National Guard turned against the coup. The National Guard converged on the capital and the coup turned into a bloody battle for the capital. Duarte, who had gone on air on national radio asking the people to support the rebels, sought sanctuary in the residence of Venezuelan Embassy’s first secretary. He was found and taken away by the government forces. Strong pressure from Venezuela may have saved the lives of the rebel leaders including Duarte. They were exiled and Molina was inaugurated as the president on July 1, 1972.

Reference

Montgomery, T.S. Revolution in El Salvador: From Civil Strife to Civil Peace, Westview Press, 2nd ed. 1995.

East vs West: All-German Encounter in Football World Cup 1974

The only professional international football match between East Germany and West Germany was played in the World Cup of 1974.

The FIFA world cup of 1974 was held in West Germany across nine cities. The host nation was drawn in Group One along with Chile and new comers Australia and East Germany. The city of Hamburg was to hold the first and what turned out to be the only East-West German professional international ever.

East and West: A Comparison of German Teams

West Germany was the reigning European champions. With players of the likes of Beckenbauer, Breitner, Overath, the ever dangerous Mueller and goalkeeper Maier they were a formidable outfit and were playing on home soil too. They were coached by veteran coach Helmut Shoen.

The East Germans were comparatively inexperienced in professional international level, even though they had done well in Munich Summer Olympics in 1972. Their football, as well as every other aspect of life, was under the influence of the Ministry of State Security (MfS, commonly known as the Stasi) and the communist regime. The Stasi minister Erich Mielke was an ardent football fan and therefore the domestic league was heavily manipulated by him. This did not help the development of a good domestic league.

Countdown to the Game: Preliminary Round

West Germany opened their world cup with a lackluster performance against Chile to the utter disappointment of the home crowd. This prompted them to attack in full force at the hapless Aussies but the 3-0 win was not convincing enough. However, they had by then advanced to the next round.

East Germany started well with a 2-0 victory against the Australians and then drew the match with Chile. But since the Aussie-Chilean match was drawn, by the time the East-West game started, they also had advanced. (Before 1986, the practice of staging the last games of a group simultaneously was not started.)

However, a victory was important for both teams. Helmut Shoen, the West German coach who was born in Dresden wanted his team to win. Beckenbauer would say “we are playing this for Shoen.” For the East German regime, which was trying to prove that they were better than the Westerners in anything, this was a political issue also.

The Match……

The game started at 19:30 hours (Central European Time) at the Volksparkstadion in Hamburg in front of 60,350 spectators including a group of 2,000 ‘loyal’ East German supporters, carefully selected by the communist regime. The players themselves were somewhat confused as to how to behave in such an encounter. First half did not produce a goal despite both teams having chances. Mueller hit the post once and the East Germans missed an open goal.

In the second half, West Germany dominated the game but it was a break at the other end which allowed Juergen Sparwasser to score in the 77th minute, instantly transforming him to an East German legend. The stadium went quiet except for the 2,000 East Germans chanting “sieben, acht, neun, zhen, Klasse” (seven, eight, nine, ten, (top) class) while frantically waving their flags. For the remainder of the game the East Germans managed to defend their lead despite everything their opponent threw at them and won the game.

...and the Aftermath

Helmut Shoen was considerably demoralized by his team's defeat and Beckenbauer had to step in to the void during the remainder of their world cup. Their fans were totally disappointed also. However as the then Dutch captain Cruyff would say at a later time, “Every disadvantage has an advantage” and the West Germans went on to prove it. Their defeat meant that they were the second of the group behind the East Germans. Therefore, the Germans did not meet the Dutch powerhouse until the final. They became better and better as the tournament progressed and ultimately won it. Meanwhile, the East Germans were eliminated at the second round.

In the long term, the East Germans never consented to another East-West game to preserve their clean record. They preserved it successfully but could not preserve their communist regime which finally disappeared from the face of Earth. With the reunification of Germany in 1990, the East German football team disappeared also and the East German football federation was amalgamated to the German Football Federation.

Sources

1. Glenn Phillips and Tim Oldham, World Cup '98, London (1998)

2. FourFourTwo, December 2009

Vietnam Declares Independence: September 2, 1945

After more than six decades of French rule, the independent Democratic Republic of Vietnam was formed by the Vietminh in 1945.

Vietnam lost her independence on August 25, 1883, after decades of resistance to Europeans, when the court at Hue recognized French protectorate in Tonkin and Annam in North and Central Vietnam respectively. The south, Cochin China was already under French sovereignty.

The French Impact

The French colonialists transformed many aspects in Vietnamese life. Extensive public works and road building was carried out. But the benefits of these developments did not reach the vast majority of the locals. Heavy taxing and usurious interest rated kept the rural population in constant debt. Even by 1940, the peasant population was more than 85% of the total.

Replacement of local village leaders by French trained Vietnamese officials removed the traditional village authority and the communal life style of the villages was also shattered. Introduction of French law which was administered by French judges, who were generally ignorant of local language and customs, was another death blow to the Vietnamese people.

Growth of Nationalism

Vietnamese people resisted the French after 1883, well into the 20th Century. A new chapter began with the growth of nationalist organizations. Some of these were Marxist oriented but the leading group, Viet Nam Quoc Dan Dang (VNQDD-Vietnamese Nationalist Party) was not. In February 1930, an uprising by VNQDD was crushed by the French authorities. The decimation of these nationalists paved way for the Communists to fill the vacuum among the freedom fighters for a national organization.

The Communists were instrumental in forming the Viet Nam Doc Lap Dong Minh (League for the Independence of Vietnam, commonly known as Viet Minh) a decade later. However, this group was an alliance of democrats, socialists, communists and other interested groups.

Japanese Intervention

In 1940, with France defeated and Vichy France in power, the Japanese were able to establish military bases in Northern Vietnam. Japan took complete control of Indochina on March 9, 1945, months after the liberation of France by the Allied forces. To the Viet Minh, the Japanese were just another invader, which was a fact epitomized by their slogan, “Neither the French, nor the Japanese as masters”.

August Revolution and Declaration of Independence

The same week the Japanese surrendered, the Viet Minh held a congress in Caobang, near the Chinese border, where a provisional government was formed. This government took control in Hanoi after some minor, scattered clashes with the Japanese troops and puppet militia on August 19. Soon the country was largely under the Viet Minh. The puppet ‘Emperor’ Bao Dai abdicated. Declaring his abdication in a remarkable document, it was stated that, “We cannot but regret the thought of our twenty years’ reign during which it was impossible for us to render any appreciable service to our country”. He ended by declaring, “Long live the independence of Vietnam! Long live the Democratic Republic!”

The government issued the declaration of independence of the Democratic Republic of Vietnam on September 2, 1945. It accused the French imperialists of depriving the Vietnamese of their liberties, imposing inhuman laws upon them, ruining the country’s resources, building more prisons than schools among other things. “They have drowned our revolution in blood”, it further stated. For these reasons, they broke off all ties to the French and stated that the leaders of the provisional government “…..solemnly declare to the world that Vietnam has the right to be a free and independent country-and in fact it is so already”.

Long Road to Peace

Almost simultaneously, the British arrived in Cochin China and started to ‘restore order’ for the interests of France. In doing so, they even got the assistance of the Japanese troops remaining in the country, just days after the British and Japanese had stopped shooting each other in Burma, not so far away from Vietnam. By the end of the year, French troops were able to arrive take their colonial lands once again. France tried to defeat the viet minh both militarily and politically, even bringing in Bao Dai back, coaxing him to form a puppet national government to counter the Democratic Republic. The Viet Minh fought on for 8 years until the French met their nemesis at Dien Bien Phu in 1954. But, it was to take more than two more decades for Vietnam to see peace in the country when it was re-unified under the communist rule in 1975.

Sources

Primary Source- Vietnam: History, Documents and Opinions on a Major World Crisis ed. Marvin E. Gettleman. Fawcett Publications Inc. USA (1965).

From the above source, the following excerpts were also referred

Jumper, Roy and Normand, Marjorie Weiner, Vietnam: The Historical Background

Isaacs, Harold, Independence for Vietnam?

Declaration of Independence of the Democratic Republic of Vietnam Sep. 2, 1945.

Abdication of Bao Dai, Emperor of Annam August, 1945.

Image: "Vo Nguyen Giap (left), the military leader and Ho Chi Minh (right) the political leader of Vietnamese independence struggle." In Ha Noi (1945). From Wikimedia Commons.

The Death of Trotsky

After eleven years living in exile, Stalin's arch-rival met his death at the hands of an audacious Soviet agent whose identity remained a mystery for years.

Lev Davidovich Bronstien (Leon Trotsky) was born exactly 38 years before the October revolution on November 7, 1879. After playing a leading role in the 1905 revolution, he played a crucial role in the Bolshevik revolution of 1917. In the Soviet government, he was to become the arch-rival of Stalin and was out maneuvered by the latter in to insignificance within the communist party of the Soviet Union (CPSU) in the 1920s. Exiled from the USSR in 1929, he was pursued by Soviet agents around the world, until his death in 1940.

Exiled from the USSR

In 1928, Trotsky was exiled to Kazakhstan and a year later from the Soviet Union itself. He was never to return to the country where he once held immense power. For four years, he stayed at an island off the coast of Istanbul, Turkey. Then he was offered asylum in France. After two years, he was no longer welcome in France. The next two years were spent in Norway and he was forced to leave that country also. His last destination was Mexico, where he was greeted warmly by the Mexican president. Trotsky settled in Coyoacan in Mexico City, first at the house of Diego Rivera and later in a heavily guarded compound which was near by.

During the exile, his battle with Stalin continued. He wrote The History of the Russian Revolution (1930) and The Revolution Betrayed (1936) and continued his criticism of Stalin in The Stalin School of Falsification (1937). This was the times of the notorious Moscow show trials, where Stalin eliminated all possible threats to his leadership in the USSR. Meanwhile, Soviet agents were in hot pursuit for Trotsky himself, assassinating his secretary in 1936 and possibly assassinating his son in 1937. But, the revolutionary himself was still out of their reach.

Assassination in Mexico

Then, on the 20th of August, 1940, Trotsky was attacked with an ice-axe by a man who identified himself as Jaques Mornard after the incident. Trotsky died the next day of his head wound.

Although he claimed to be a disillusioned Trotskyite, questioning revealed that he had deep Stalinist views. Also, his apparently flawless French had traces of Spanish accent. The identity of Mornard was not known for a decade until it was found by Dr. Alfonso Quiroz Cuaron, professor of criminology at the national University of Mexico, among the police archives in Madrid. Jaques Mornard was actually a Spanish communist and a NKVD (predecessor of the KGB) agent named Ramon Mercader. In 1989, the Soviet authorities finally confirmed the story of the assassination of Trotsky by the NKVD.

The Road to Mexico City

Ramon Mercader was recruited by a NKVD Colonel, Leonid Eitingon, who had a relationship with his hard-line communist mother, during the Spanish Civil War. Mercader’s fluency in Spanish, which is the spoken language of Mexico, was an added qualification for the clandestine operation.

In 1938, Mercader befriended Sylvia Ageloff, an American Trotskyte in Paris. The following year, under an assumed identity and a forged passport, a certain “Frank Jacson” followed Sylvia to the U.S.A. Then appearing to do business, he made to Mexico City. Ageloff joined him and through her, Mercador gained access to the Trotsky household.

The details of the inside of the house he supplied were essential for the attack undertaken in May 1940. About a score of gunmen, dressed in Mexican police uniforms, stormed in and shot at the bedroom of Trotsky. But he and his wife miraculously escaped. Although the people responsible for the attack were uncovered, Mercador’s role was not found.

Thereafter, Mercador was instructed to befriend Trotsky, posing as an admirer of his views. The fact that he went about the job just after a raid had been thwarted is an indication of his iron will and skills of deception.

The Assassination of Trotsky

On August 17, Mercador met Trotsky to discuss the outline of an article he was writing. They were alone in the latter’s study for eleven minutes. Three days later, Mercador returned, clad in a raincoat, which was surprising for a sunny day. Mrs. Trotsky inquired him about it and he told her “Yes. But you know, it won’t last long-it might rain.” What he could not tell her was that in one of its pockets, he had an ice-axe concealed, for a more sinister purpose.

According to the description of Mercador in his trial, once inside Trotsky’s study, he placed the raincoat in such a way as to be able to retrieve the ice-axe. Once Trotsky started reading his article, he took out the axe and hit Trotsky on his head with his eyes closed. The blow was not critical and Trotsky struggled with the assailant. Guards rushed in and nearly killed Mercador, but Trotsky himself prevented them, declaring that he was to made to answer questions. Rushed to the hospital, Trotsky died due to severe brain damage the next day. His assassin, Mercador, spent 20 years imprisoned in Mexico and then made his way to Cuba, where he died in 1978.

Sources

1. Levine, Isaac Don, Secrets of a Soviet Assassin. In Great True Stories of Crime, Mystery and Detection, Readers Digest (1965)

2. Volkogonov, Dmitri, Trotsky: a Deamon of the Revolution. In Sputnik, Digest of the Soviet Press (May 1989)

3. Vasetsky, Nikolai, Lev Trotsky: Personal and Political Profile. In Sputnik, Digest of the Soviet Press (April 1990)

4. Soviet Readers Finally Told Moscow had Trotsky Slain NY Times Jan 4, 1989. Retrieved Aug 20, 2010.

India under a Father and his Daughter: Impact of Jawaharlal Nehru and Indira Gandhi on India’s Development

India is the world’s largest democracy, and has been so throughout its independent existence, except for the period of emergency in 1970s. The Nehru-Gandhi family or as some may call dynasty, has been an integral part of India’s politics. The history of India’s government has more or less been the history of the ‘dynasty’, except for certain intervals.

Jawaharlal Nehru, India’s first Prime Minister ruled the country for nearly 17 years, from 1947 until his death in 1964. The 15 year duration of his daughter Indira Gandhi’s time at the Prime Minister’s office was to be interrupted for 3 years by the Janatha Party regime. When Indira Gandhi was assassinated in 1984, the father-daughter duo had ruled India for 32 out of 37 of its existence as an independent state.

Both the father and the daughter had their own independent ideas. They both had their share of successes and failures. It is interesting to investigate as to who made the more lasting impact on India’s quest for modernization and development.

Cultivating the Indian Identity

Nehru inherited a country of 389 million people with a rising population of around half a dozen million per year. Poverty was widespread and so were social inequalities. Nehru faced the challenge of converting a colonial society into a modern society while preserving the unity of the country after the partition and immediate war over Kashmir.
India, as Ramanujan wrote, is both singular at the top but plural at the bottom, similar to an Irishman’s description of trousers (Khilnani, 1997, p. 6). In 1947, Indian people had a sense of identity, mainly due to the long struggle for independence. However, the Indian society has many ethnic, religious and other social divisions. Caste and class divisions were major issues in the still backward society. All these could have polarized the Indian society to such an extent that the Union could have disintegrated.

However, Nehru’s long reign was instrumental in holding the Union together. Despite all the differences, during his time, secessionist movements did not rise to dangerous levels. At times, Nehru was late in recognizing the linguistic demands of different people. Perhaps it was because he feared that the linguistically based states would increase secessionism. However, when he was certain that not granting them will lead to secession nevertheless, he created various such states, starting from Andhra. The holding together of the new nation and giving it the political stability which is vital for its development was a major contribution of Jawaharlal Nehru.

Democracy, Secularism and Development

Nehru had every reason to disregard democracy. His country was poor, the people were largely illiterate and the society was extremely backward. Despite the partition, India still had a Muslim population bigger than either side of Pakistan. The ‘Untouchables’ were another large and largely marginalized community.

Unlike many other leaders of post colonial countries, Nehru attempted to solve these problems and transform the Indian society through a democratic path. It does not mean that he was always mild on every issue. He made the discrimination of ‘untouchables’ a criminal act and changed the status of the women in India by legislation passed in mid-1950s. But he did so only after ascertaining his power within the Congress Party. There was a time, when Patel was alive, that Nehru was shackled by the conservative majority of his own party. Although the Congress Party dominated India and Nehru was the leader of the nation, there was a brief period of history when Nehru did not control the majority in his own party. However, he understood the importance of holding the Congress together to hold India together. During Nehru’s era, except for a few parties in the left, all secular forces were under the Congress banner. Therefore, religious extremism was largely curbed. Nehru remained open to forces of both left and right while following a safe path until the time was ripe for the implementation of his ideals.

The preservation of democracy let the people have the power of the vote. Therefore, the marginalized populace had a mean to express their views at least during elections. The ‘untouchables’ have come a long way from the years of discrimination. They are now playing an important role in Indian politics.

However, as Ambedkar was to point out, the vote was not enough if people have no proper source of livelihood (Khilnani, 1997, p. 15). Nehru understood this well. He implemented three five year plans. While he wanted to industrialize the country, his first aim was to develop agriculture and irrigation. New dams were built for the dual purposes of irrigation and power generation, the latter being a prerequisite for industrialization. For Nehru, these dams were the temples, mosques and gurudwaras of secular and developing India (Khilnani, p. 61).

Another important feature of Nehru’s leadership was the promotion of science and technology. He formed the IITs and other scientific institutions to propagate scientific knowhow. These institutes are one of his main long lasting legacies for India.

Shortcomings of Nehru’s Premiership

Unlike many leaders of the developing nations of contemporary world, Nehru abhorred the notion of a personality cult. However, in practice, Nehru was involved in too much of state duties. He was almost omnipresent in domestic affairs and was the sole director of the foreign relations. This meant he had to be on the alert of ‘anything and everything’, deliver numerous speeches and carry a heavy workload. Despite being in very good health until the last few years, this was never an easy task.

Nehru’s domestic policies did not achieve the goals he outlined. His five year plans did not achieve all their goals, despite a number of successes. Illiteracy remained high despite all the institutions he formed, and the gap between the rich and the poor increased. The Companies Act, introduced to curb monopolies helped them on the contrary. It gave rise to corruption-although not as high as his daughter’s reign-and the ‘License Raj’.

There was no real effort to curb the population growth which undermined the efforts of Nehru. The so called ‘Hindu rate of economic development’ and the increase in agricultural production was no match for the increasing mouths to feed. India was not destined to achieve self-sufficiency in food under Nehru.

Given the popularity he enjoyed, Nehru may have done better in changing the Indian society with measures such as family planning established firmly. However, there is another side of the story. Nehru, the arch-democrat of his time, enjoyed that much popularity because he did not try to force radical measures on the backward society. He understood that the transformation of such a society by democratic means is a slow process.

But, in the long run, his policy of consensus building and gradual democratic change can be steadier. They can be justified by observing the resurgence of fundamentalism in former Soviet Central Asia and Afghanistan where at a certain time atheism was forced upon the populace.

Despite everything, Nehru himself may have felt that his mission was incomplete. After he died in May 1964, a piece of paper was found among his papers, with a stanza of a Robert Frost poem scribbled on it:

The woods are lovely, dark and deep,
But I have promises to keep,
And miles to go before I sleep,
And miles to go before I sleep

Indira Gandhi: Different from her Father

Indira Gandhi became India’s third Prime Minister in 1966 after the death of Lal Bahadur Shastri. She was elevated to that position by Congress Party leaders known as “the syndicate”, who hoped to control her. However, she was to display her mettle and become the sole leader of the nation.

Mrs. Gandhi was much more authoritarian than her father. While her father was able to preserve the unity of the left, right and center groups within the Congress Party, the divisions were to break the party asunder under Indira’s leadership. The challenge for her leadership came from the conservative faction of the party, which led her to adopt more socialist type policies than even her father.

More a Politician than an Economist

She nationalized many privately owned banks and some heavy industries. This bolstered the public sector but on the other hand, encouraged corruption at various levels. This was a growing problem in “Indira Raj” as she had to increasingly rely on civil servants to carry out her policies.

Indira Gandhi continued some earlier projects and initiated some new ones. Her land reforms were criticized by opposition members and chief ministers of some states. Her move to abolish privileges of the Maha Rajas also attracted much criticism. These were proposed when India’s rich and poor gap was increasing and economic situation was deteriorating.

The subsequent elections, where Indira rallied her faction of the Congress Party on the slogan “Garibi Hatao” (remove poverty) while the opposition wanted to “Indira Hatao”, was a huge success for Indira. It was a public endorsement of her policies. However, many of her policies were directed by political and not economic needs.

There were some success stories of great importance. They were the two revolutions, the Green Revolution and the White Revolution, officially known as “Operation Flood”. The former was started during Shastri’s era in 1965, but Indira continued it and reaped its results. India, for the first time in her modern history, could achieve self-sufficiency in food.

The White Revolution, aimed at increasing the milk production in India, was a success story of Indira Gandhi. It can be seen as an instance of utilizing the untapped resources in the country skillfully for the improvement of the people’s livelihoods by a grass-root movement.

However, Indira’s economic policies had a strong political backing and not a strong management. The Prime Minister herself was not entirely conversant with economic issues. While politically driven movements suited her, hard-core economic issues remained unattained. Corruption was growing. So were inflation, unemployment and mal-distribution of wealth.

She was also being accused, quite fairly, of nepotism. Her backing of Sanjay, her son, was seen by some as grooming a successor. His own economic aptitude was in question. Appointed as the top manager of India’s new automobile industry, he took a rather long period of five years to produce the first car (Wolpert, p. 384).


Emergency and Beyond

The emergency was the first and only time when India’s democratic tradition was neglected by the central government. Brought about by a political crisis, this gave Indira the opportunity to run the country as she wished. Within two weeks of the emergency, she published a 20 point program of economic reform, a radical document. The main benefactors were to be the rural poor. Indira’s measures were once more successful to a greater extent. Inflation dropped, tax evaders were frightened, government offices worked punctually and suddenly, and surprisingly, “trains were running on time” (Wolpert, 1993, p.399).

However, the political opposition was towards denial of democracy was very strong. Ultimately, Mrs. Gandhi had to relent, but given her achievements, she was quite certain of victory in the 1977 election. But, the Indian people rejected her and the ‘dynasty’ outright, by defeating both Indira and Sanjay, a reminder of what could have happened to Nehru if he had forced his ideas on the Indians.

Indira’s second term in office was once more totally engulfed in politics. She cultivated dangerous people for her requirements, such as the Punjabis like Bhindranwale and Tamil militants of Sri Lanka. Ultimately, two Sikhs killed her and later, Tamil militants were to claim her son Rajiv’s life.

Nehru and Indira in Retrospect

Nehru’s challenges were immense as the Indians were so backward in 1947. His progress was slow, but steady. Despite achieving only a “Hindu rate of growth”, the educational, scientific and technological knowhow gained by the Indians in that period is hard to evaluate.

Indira Gandhi, mainly focused on populism and ‘people power’ making things happen, except for the emergency years. While, some things were done, it did not help India in many matters. Her consensus building ability was much less than that of father and in the long run it undermined her efforts.

In retrospect, it can be said that Nehru laid the foundation for an exciting future for India and his daughter developed some aspects of it. But, observing India in 1964 and 1984, one may say that both of them could have done more.

References

1. Khilnani S., The Idea of India (Penguin, 1997).
2. Wolpert S., A New History of India.(Oxford and New York: 1993)
3. Gopal S., Jawaharlal Nehru: A Biography: Volume Three (1956-1964). Oxford (1975).
4. Crocker, W., Nehru: A Contemporary’s Estimate London (1966).
5. Moraes F., Jawaharlal Nehru: A Biography 2nd impression, Mumbai (2008).
6. Gupte P., Mother India: A Political Biography of Indira Gandhi, New Delhi (2009)
7. Tammita-Delgoda S., A Traveller’s History of India (Windrush Press, 2006)