The article, ‘A shameful legacy’, Mint, 12 April, is absolutely brilliant, though I shall start with a disagreement. It is not the Nehru-Gandhi family, but simply the Nehru family. This Gandhi addition was made some time during Indira Gandhi’s era to lend an air of respectability and the media has to be blamed for this. Apart from the points mentioned by Amit Varma, one major disservice this family did to this nation is that it systematically destroyed all democratic institutions and ensured that none from outside the family grew in stature. They symbolize feudalistic society and exploited the weakness of Indians for hero worship, uncritical loyalty and even servility. The next-generation India does not need leadership from that family for democracy’s sake. Let a thousand flowers bloom from other gardens of India which are more deserving and more capable.
—N.K. Raveendran
Nehru, Indira Gandhi and Rajiv Gandhi ran the country for almost 40 years. But for their policies, India would be thrice as wealthy as it is today. Consider: 46% of India’s children (over 50 million) suffer from malnutrition. Over 400 million Indians, in my estimate, live in abject poverty (the government’s definition of poverty is ludicrous). At least a million Indians die prematurely each year, many due to poverty—inadequacy in nutrition, pre- and post-natal care, health care, sanitation, and filthy water, etc. Hundreds of thousands of our best minds have emigrated.
Contemporary historians estimate that Stalin and Mao caused, directly and indirectly, the deaths of well over a hundred million people (India’s communists still deify them!) The Nehru-Gandhi family wasn’t far behind, for entirely different reasons. Ill-conceived policies and callousness can be as deadly as tyranny. Worse, the victims don’t quite realize they are victims and die slow deaths. Far better to be shot than watch your child die of malnutrition or cholera. Most galling is Rahul Gandhi’s campaign slogan: “I am Indira Gandhi’s grandson.”
—N. Bala Ganesan
Rajiv Gandhi has been rightly criticized for his serious mistakes (avoidable interventions in the Shah Bano case and the Sri Lankan crisis). But I’m not ready to accept there was a Tata alternative to the economic policies of the Nehru-Indira Gandhi governments, at least till the late 1980s, by when we had made progress on the farm front.
It is well known that in times of scarcity, we are a nation of profiteers. We recognize values at the individual level, but are poor value creators at the community level. Our ideas of community welfare—building temples anywhere, for example—are queer, to say the least. We can’t fall prey to the fashion of blaming others for our shortcomings as a nation. About dynastic tendencies, politicians of all parties, except the Left, perhaps, behave in the same way. We have to find ways to deal with dynastic preferences or accept them as the Indian way of life!
—Narendra M. Apte
It is well-researched and timely. He should elaborate on it in a book—he will find enough hard facts in the newspapers since 1948. The article has apt examples of economic hardships caused to the innocent masses. Sadly, the same applies to what has happened to casteism, social fragmentation, minority communities, etc. Either they joined hands with parties with similar mindsets in states or parties with the same intentions and practices have helped them form the government at the Centre.
—S.R. Singh
Millions in this country share Varma’s views. One hoped Rahul would set new trends. But his recent comments suggest this is a distant dream. How many generations of Indians will be slaves to this family?
—K. Sahi
The Indian voter is prone to idol worship and to look up to this family as a natural ruler. This has destroyed the country. I fear we may elect Rahul to rule us.
—Prafulla Mishra