Men of History

Arguments and counter arguments put forth about Nehru, as an individual, his beliefs on religion, politics , political economy and world affairs, political leadership and contribution to the nation , suffer from one major fallacy. He is pulled from other world by both his admirers as well as his adversaries, into the present day socio- political space and contemporary world affairs and discussed in  present day context .His beliefs and style of leadership are then repudiated or validated , as the case may be , with equal fervour and angry notes . Adversaries tend to portray  him as a completely idealistic person, a cool aristocratic guy detached from stark realities of nation and its people. And admirers see him as a visionary statesman with deep knowledge about India and architect of modern India. Both of them can't be right and both of them can't be wrong too. There can't be any person living or dead, however great he may be, not having committed mistakes or erred on judgement, notwithstanding the position he or she occupied. Therefore  we can't place men of history in boxes  labelled "BAD"  "GOOD" and "NEUTRAL". Absolutes don't exist at all. Historical personalities of past, in my opinion should be evaluated for their major traits and responsibilities  they had undertaken to discharge. Say major traits of Gandhi were simplicity and commitment to non violence and responsibility undertaken to free India from British rule. He, I presume scored well on these counts - but there were some connected actions of him  which to some may look wrong like  support Khilafat movement, sitting  on fast  to give share of treasure to Pakistan , knowing that they would misuse it against India etc. Some may look at these incidents without critical examination and turn into Gandhi baiters, ignoring his work for liberating country from colonialism, ignoring  his philosophy of non violence which has gained universal appeal and world has acknowledged him as apostle of peace. The things turn ugly not because  admirers and adversaries are holding their respective views but for reasons which are beyond arguments and counter arguments.