A leader is a dealer. No, no, I do not mean the "under the table" deals which people often associate with leaders. I can never be that cynical. In my opinion, a leader is a dealer in hopes, in aspirations, in idealism, in everything that builds the character of a country, that shapes the contours of a country's future, that gives a country, a nation its unique identity.
Actually, such a description suits, for example, a good father, a wonderful teacher/lecturer, a spiritual 'guru', too, right? Then why am I referring to 'country', and 'nation'? Is that your question? Well, May 27 marks Pandit Nehru's death anniversary, and his famous "Destiny at Dawn" speech in a way captures all the points mentioned in Paragraph I of our blog.
Currently, Nehru's stars are not exactly in the ascendant. Very many are the reasons for the decline of his reputation and the downfall of the once mighty Congress Party. Actually, in Indian English Literature, he has been (lam)b(l)asted long time back.
Want examples? Okay, read Girish Karnad's "Tughlaq". I taught this 1964 play to two consecutive batches of my post-graduate students reading Indian English literature with me. Apparently, an obvious, easily recognisable/located satire which opens up the Tughlaq years, the play is an evident political allegory that critiques the Nehruvian idealism, socialism, alignment policies as vague rather than dreamy, divorced from realities, rather the "beating in void his wings" kind of idealist Mathew Arnold thought Shelley was.
Much more biting is Shashi Tharoor's depiction in "The Great Indian Novel", yet another political allegory cum satire. This chronicle of post-Independence India, published in 1989, presents Nehru as Dhritrashtra, the blind king, given his blind idealism, while De Mokrasy is his illegitimate daughter with Lady Drewchap. So obvious are the parallels that they need no explication. Let me not lengthen the blog much too much by references to "The Midnight's Children", and many other creative attempts such as Nayantara Sahgal's.
How to evaluate the legacy of a leader who is no more? Well, in my opinion, it is always easy to analyse any individual, another era in hindsight. I always feel that the contexts make/un-make each and everyone amongst us. Given those contexts in which an individual operates or an era is defined, may be, (s)he is right, relevant, regal, right? In brief, passing judgements is easy. Better it is to understand! What say?
Pratima@"Walk a mile in their shoes" should be the only, the actual, the real paradigm of judgement, right?
No comments:
Post a Comment