Congress or any other organisation in the country can not
shy away from the questions like Narendra Modi tossed in his speech, when
sharing Dias with the Prime Minister Manmohan Singh. That had Sardar become
first Prime Minister of India. Picture and fate of the country would have been
different. The reply of the Prime Minister that Sardar was from the same
congress, which he represents can not be treated as be fitted reply. I would
not go in to the details of history and the divisions congress had faced during
the preceding years after 1947. But I am of the opinion that no one can be stopped from opening up of such debates. Every citizen of the country has right of making assessment and
taking stock of such situations in the country, after laps of a period. Specially in the cases
like Sardar Patel, who was completely ignored from his so called disciples for a long period. He was only remembered and become so much important when Modi prime ministerial candidate of BJP started using his name.
Historians often ask counter factual questions to figure out
how history could have evolved differently . While making such assessment people
take account of different qualities of the persons and turn out of the situations. Personalities, knowledge, acceptability and level
of sacrifice they are ready to make for the country, may also be taken in to account. Different opinion may come
out. One may like someone, while other the other one. But in democracy like
ours it is quite fair to go through such debates. Peoples learn for future, out of it and realize the mistakes and positive contributions of a person. Capability of such person in Industrial, home,
foreign, education and economic policies can definitely show a way to the
country. And in process if any one feels some one better over the other, it may
be his choice. If Congress is not if favor of such debates. They can move to a
side but can not stop the country from going for it.
I wonder and feel pity to the friends of Congress. Who
probably not gone through the book written by historian Ramchandra Guha named “Patriots
and Partisans”. Other wise they would have come out on leaps and bounds. In the
book Ramchandra Guha asks and answers one such question in an essay titled “A
Short History of Congress Chamchagiri”. In this essay Guha briefly discuss what
would have happened if Lal Bahadur Shastri, the second prime minister of India,
had lived little longer. Shastri died on January 11, 1966, after serving as the
prime minister for a little over 19 months.
The political future of India
would have evolved very differently had Shastri lived longer, feels Guha. As he
writes “Had Shastri lived, Indira Gandhi may or may not have migrated to
London. But even had she stayed in India, it is highly unlikely that she would
have become prime minister. And it is certain that her son would have never
have occupied or aspired to that office….. Sanjay Gandhi and Rajiv Gandhi would
almost certainly still be alive, and in private life. The former would be a
(failed) entrepreneur, the later recently retired airline pilot with a passion
for photography. Finally had Shastri lived longer, Sonia Gandhi would still be
a devoted and loving housewife, and Rahul Gandhi perhaps a middle-level manager
in a private sector company.”
Our’s is a democratic country.
And we should put forward our ideas. At the same time we should respect the
ideas put by the other person. We may agree or disagree to that, but it is a
process go on moving in a democratic country.
No comments:
Post a Comment