After Mount Everest was first climbed, in summer of 1953, Jawaharlal Nehru wrote a remarkable letter to Chief Ministers about the achievement. It is a letter that is timeless; yet also particularly timely today. Read on... (1/6)
Nehru, 1953: "The final ascent of Everest has been a great achievement in which all of us should take pride. Here again there has been great pettiness and the narrowest type of nationalism shown by some people" (2/6)
Nehru, 1953; "Controversies have arisen as to whether Tenzing got there first or Hillary, and whether Tenzing is an Indian national or a Nepalese national. It does not make the slightest difference ... Neither could have done so without the help of the other." (3/6)
Nehru, 1953: "Indeed, both of them could not have done so without the help of the whole party, ... and the whole party could not have done so without the accumulated experience, labour and sacrifice of all their predecessors who tried to reach the top of Everest."(4/6).
Nehru, 1953: "Great human achievements are always the result of combined endeavours in which numerous people take part. It may be that one person takes the last step, but the other persons also count and should not be forgotten." (5/6)
Nehru, 1953: "For us to show a narrow and deplorable nationalism in such matters is not to add to the credit of our country but to lead people to think that we are petty in outlook and suffering from some kind of inferiority complex."(6/6)
Since this is Twitter, as well as election season, I am obliged to add this otherwise unnecessary caveat: do not confuse or conflate Jawaharlal Nehru with those who carry his genes. They perhaps understand him as little as the man who now holds the office that Nehru once did.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Only at its birth in 1947 did the Indian nation face a crisis as grave as the one it is facing now. Our leaders should draw lessons from the leaders of that time. Nehru and Patel reached out for assistance & advice to the country’s best minds, regardless of party affiliation. 1/5
Between 1947 and 1950, experts from outside the Congress, such as BR Ambedkar, John Matthai, AK Aiyar and others, played a major role in stabilizing the economy, healing the wounds of Partition, and forging a democratic and federal Constitution (2/5).
Whiie a National Government may not be feasible today, the Prime Minister must actively consult & take advice from outside his circle. There is a vast amount of talent and expertise among Opposition politicians that, if properly used, can help us come through this crisis. (3/5)
Before May 2014, four public institutions were moderately autonomous and independent: the Armed Services, the RBI, the EC, and the Supreme Court. Now all are subject to various degrees of capture and intimidation by the ruling party at the Centre.
It was Indira Gandhi who first began capturing and politicizing the police, the civil services, the tax authorities, the universities. She also did this with the SC, though later the SC partially escaped the state's clutches.
What the Congress started in the 1970s, other parties deepened and furthered. All State and Central Governments since have had top public appointments made on communal or ideological considerations.
The riots in Delhi are only the latest in a series of disasters that have unfolded under the watch of the Home Minister. The draconian shutdown in Kashmir, the polarizing and unnecessary CAA, the vandalizing of universities by the Delhi police, precedes them. 1/5
That the Home Minister should resign or be removed is, I believe in the national interest. It would fix accountability, and help us work collectively towards restoring our badly damaged social fabric. Will he be asked to leave? There is a lesson from history here. Read on. 2/5
In 1959, by which time it was clear that Krishna Menon was a disastrous Defence Minister, the Opposition, led by Acharya Kripalani, demanded his resignation. Nehru, bound to Krishna Menon by close personal and ideological ties, refused to yield. 3/5
In view of the kerfuffle (to use a Tharoorian term) caused by the slanted and selective PTI report on my #KLF speech, a thread stating/restating my views on Rahul, Modi, Hindutva and India. 1/7
His lack of focus and administrative experience and, most importantly, his being a fifth generation dynast are a great disadvantage for Rahul when it comes to winning General Elections. That said, it was patronizing of me to chastise Malayalis for sending him to Parliament. 2/7
In ‘Presidential’ style General Elections, voters tend to prefer Modi to Rahul because the former is more experienced and in political terms self-made. That said, I have been for many years a sharp critic of Modi‘s policies, as in my columns in @httweets and @ttindia . 3/7
Therea are two reasons for the failures of Narendra Modi as a Prime Minister; (i) his sectarian ideology; (ii) the narcissism of his personality, as in his inability to share credit or trust capable advisers.
My column in @ttindia : telegraphindia.com/opinion/how-th…
@ttindia As I argue, anyone who works with Modi has to observe one rule: ‘Total obsequiousness, no credit’. There is one exception to this rule — the home minister.
The disastrous DeMo was the result of not listening to expert advice; whereas the disastrous CAA was piloted by the HM.
@ttindia With two electoral mandates, Modi could have taken India to the next level; economically, politically, socially. Instead, he has blown it away. Our economy is more fragile and vulnerable. Our society is more fearful and divided. Our institutions more compromised and corroded.