Prime Minister Narendra Modi was at his garrulous best when he addressed the nation from the ramparts of the Red Fort on Tuesday. For a change, his salutation to the “brothers and sisters” of the country was missing. Instead, he addressed them as “members of my family”. In short, he spoke like a paterfamilias, informing his family members what he has done during the last nine years as prime minister. However, his description of the last 1000 years as a period of slavery did not gel with true facts and figures. There are many reasons why parts of the country came under colonial rule. Out of the 1000 years that he mentioned, 700 years belonged roughly to the period when the Mughals ruled. The British did not snatch power from the Hindus but from the Muslims. It is not proper to say that the Mughal and British periods were a total wastage of time for they were able to provide a centralised rule, uniting the country.
Even when India became an independent nation in 1947, Sardar Patel and his right-hand man VP Menon had the onerous task of integrating over 500 native states into the Indian Union. Perchance, India had attained Independence in 1857 following the “first war of Independence”, there was no middle class which could hold the reins of power and keep the nation united. Small wonder that those who mutinied against the British had only the narrowest nationalism. Otherwise, they would not have installed a doddering Bahadur Shah Zafar as the emperor of the country. And if within no time the British were able to recapture power, it was because of the support they received from various sections of the Indian people. No, this is not to suggest that India should have remained under foreign subjugation but, then, there was a time for everything.
Modi mentioned Quit India but there were political groups which believed that it was not the time to seek independence. They wanted to unite the majority community and that is why they preferred to keep aloof from the freedom struggle. To describe the whole 1000 years as a period of servility is not to understand history and the evolutionary process that brought various political parties to power at the Centre and in the states. It is a measure of megalomania that a person speaks of himself in the third person. True, Modi has a lot to take credit for. But to hint that real freedom came only in 2014 is to take the argument to bizarre levels. When India attained Independence, the situation was pathetic as the British were more interested in taking away India’s capital. Over the last seven decades, the country has achieved commendable progress.
If today India is on the verge of becoming the third largest economy, it is the result of the strenuous efforts made by successive governments, including the one led by AB Vajpayee, VP Singh and PV Narasimha Rao, not to mention Jawaharlal Nehru, who invested the country's scarce resources in projects like the Bhakra Nangal dam. The so-far successful Chandrayan project began with a humble rocket-launching station at Thumba in Kerala, courtesy a UN agency. It is true that the people of India overcame the challenge of Corona and they did it without much help from the government, unlike in many other countries.
What the nation needs is peace and tranquility and the rest will fall in place. Modi mentioned that peace would be restored in Manipur and it would have made sense if he had shown the roadmap for the same also. He mentioned Sant Meerabai in his speech. She used to travel in the Mewat area of Rajasthan and Haryana singing hymns in praise of Krishna. Today the same area is in trouble. Forces are at work, threatening to take out a procession which was disrupted. The people of India have always stood like one man when the country faced external and internal threats and they will continue to do so, no matter who is in power. A democracy can be said to function only when the Opposition is free to critique the government and keep it on its toes. Silence, when eloquence is needed, will not take the nation far.
