Nehru’s Parliament: Legacy of Autocracy and Oppression vs. Modi’s Era
Nehru’s Parliament: Legacy of Autocracy and Oppression vs. Modi’s Era
The Indian Parliament has seen a significant shift in its nature since its inception. From the autocratic rule under Jawaharlal Nehru, marked by a suppressing environment for free speech, to today's era under Narendra Modi, which attempts to foster a more inclusive and democratic environment, there is a clear difference in the political landscape. This article explores the contrasting experiences of freedom of expression under Nehru's Congress and the current political climate under Narendra Modi.
Autocracy in Nehru's Era
Nehru's Parliament was heavily influenced by autocratic and oppressive policies. This was due in part to the dominance of the Indian National Congress (INC) and its close ties with British interests.
Political Oppression: Nehru witnessed and imposed a narrative on India that suppressed multiple opposition voices. The Congress Party, founded by British in 1885, was not just an Indian party but acted as a proxy for British interests after independence. It decimated all opposition parties, governed India for nearly six decades, and enjoyed full media attention and publicity, thanks to its financial support from British and their cronies.
Freedom of Expression: Nehru had a selective approach to freedom of expression. While he was tolerant of criticism towards himself, especially from cartoonists and journalists, he was harsh on any dissent that threatened the Congress ideologies. He demonstrated this through several instances of suppression and authoritarian behavior.
Key Instances of Autocracy
Nokha Riots: During the Nokha Riots, Nehru threatened to use bullets and aerial bombing to curb Hindu retaliation. He remained oblivious to the fact that Muslims initiated the attack and unleashed mayhem before the Hindus retaliated. Banning of Vividh Bharti: Nehru banned the popular radio channel, Vividh Bharti, out of political fear, despite it being just a song program. This shows the extent of his control over media and suppression of dissenting views. Banning of Utpal Dutta's Drama: The stage drama "Navy Mutiny of 1946" was banned by Nehru as it portrayed an alternative success story beyond the Congress in securing British exit from India. Suppression of Poets: Poets like Veer Savarkar and Sudhir Phadke faced restrictions in their works that went against Congress ideologies. Even notable figures like Pt Hridaynath Mangeshkar faced threats under Nehru's regime. Political Placements: Nehru did not entertain political opponents such as Savarkar, and instead sought approval fromthen Governor-General, not the local government, for decisions like Cabinet appointments in 1948. Feud with Hindu Mahasabha: Nehru did not share the stage with opposition parties like Hindu Mahasabha, instead relying on intermediaries from the women's section to get their support.Modern Era under Modi
Compared to Nehru's era, the current era under Narendra Modi has seen significant changes. While India still faces challenges, it has made strides towards a more inclusive and democratic environment.
Freedom of Expression: Today, India is witnessing a more open discussion of diverse opinions, though it occasionally faces controversies. The government, under Modi, has made efforts to streamline and modernize the parliamentary process.
Media: The media landscape in India has evolved, with more channels available for dissenting voices. The rise of social media and other digital platforms has provided a new arena for freedom of expression.
Opposition: Today's opposition parties have a greater autonomy and space to function, contributing to a more balanced political discourse.
Conclusion
The journey from Nehru's autocratic Parliament to the more open and democratic era under Modi marks a significant shift. While the legacy of Nehru's dominance and suppression is significant, the strides made towards a more inclusive and democratic India under Modi are noteworthy. The path ahead continues to be one of balancing tradition with progress, striving for a more open and fair political environment.