By Tushar Singh
The Ministry of External Affairs recently uploaded an E-Book on Deendayal Upadhyaya, on his birth centenary. According to Sushma Swaraj, the book is a result of the “hard work of MEA officials”. However, according to its critics, the book contains some biased content, which shows the political affiliation of the MEA. Critics say that ideally, a ministry shouldn’t waste its time and resources in spreading propaganda, as it functions to serve the national, not political interest.
The controversial statements
“The democracy of the country required a capable Opposition; Bharatiya Jansangh (sic) emerged as a strong Opposition in the first three Lok Sabha elections. He (DeendayalUpadhyaya) made full preparations so that with time this Opposition becomes alternative…From 1951 to 1967 he remained the general secretary of BharatiyaJanshangh (sic). He got the responsibility as President in 1968. Suddenly he was murdered. Only the party, Bharatiya Janata Party, developed by him became the political alternative.”
The above lines in the E-book are factually wrong, as well as ambiguous. It is factually wrong in the sense that the Bharatiya Jana Sangh was far from a strong opposition. In the elections of 1951-2, 1957 and 1962, the Jan Sangh won four, four, and fourteen seats, respectively. The actual Opposition to the Congress was the Communist Party of India, which won sixteen, twenty-seven and twenty-nine seats respectively.
The last line of the quoted paragraph is ambiguous, which has led to a lot of criticism. If interpreted in one way, the line “Only the party, Bharatiya Janata Party, developed by him became the political alternative”, without any context seems to suggest that BJP is the only political alternative in India. Also, the use of the word ‘Only’ in the following lines has sparked off another controversy- ‘Spiritualism is the basis for the unity of humanity. Only India and Hindu society has spiritualism… In order to defend the basis of this unity of humanity, Hindu society has begun the work of organizing itself.”
Reactions from critics
Several former diplomats have slammed the MEA for publishing such a politically biased E-book.
“MEA’s credibility and its standing as an institution that has always upheld professionalism have been severely damaged and will be difficult to repair,” a former foreign secretary not willing to be named said.
“I find it incomprehensible and sad that the MEA, which should represent India, has chosen to be politically partisan like this”, said former national security advisor and foreign secretary, Shivshankar Menon.
Critics say that if the BJP wants Upadhyaya to be immortalised, then it should disseminate his original writings through embassy libraries and the cultural centres. The government can organise lectures by foreign academics on his thoughts and his legacy. The government can also organise cultural events (which it recently did) to further his school of thought without using official channels like The Ministry of External Affairs.
Have some sections overreacted?
To some extent, there has been an overreaction. The criticism against an official Ministry being used to spread political propaganda is welcome. However, there has been some undue criticism with respect to what the book says about Hindutva and Bharatiya thought. The so-called seculars, due to their superiority complex, are also criticising Deendayal Upadhyaya’s philosophy without even trying to understand the spirituality behind it. For example, the following lines have been criticised, -“Nature provides mankind with all the means and resources for its nourishment and protection. Nature itself is a part of God, This is how we all are inalienably united with the Ultimate. This is the essence of Hindu thought. Bhartiya thought. Deendayalji named this thought only integral Humanism.”
Critics have claimed the above-quoted lines to be propaganda by the government, which is hurtful to the minorities, in particular, and a liberal society, in general. The critics have said how many of the views of Deendayal Upadhyaya are hurtful to the minorities. However, they say this because they do not understand the true meaning of the above-quoted lines or the essence of integral humanism. Tracing its origins to the non-dualistic philosophy of Advaita Vedanta, integral humanism propagated the oneness of various souls, be it of human, animal or plant origin. Rejecting the intrinsic diversity based on race, colour, caste or religion, it identified all human beings as part of this one organic whole, sharing a common consciousness of rational thought. He said every individual was interconnected through his soul, and instead of differentiating amongst people on the basis of religion or caste, everyone should be thought of to come under the umbrella identity of being Bharatiya or Indian. Upadhyaya said there should exist no concept of minority or majority. Everyone should simply be Bharatiya. Upadhyaya opined that there is only one nation.
Has this happened before?
In fact, this has happened all through history. Congress has been involved in immortalising its own party members, particularly the Nehru-Gandhi family, both covertly and overtly. In 1989, to commemorate 100 years of Jawaharlal Nehru, the MEA, under Congress rule then, organised international seminars to mark Nehru’s centenary in India. Indian missions abroad were supplied with photographs and films on Nehru for exhibitions. Moreover, Congress has, in a biased manner, never missed an opportunity to immortalise its leaders, with no regard to their competence. Over the previous two and a half decades, 450 central and state government programs, projects and institutions, involving public expenditure worth lakhs of rupees, have been named after Jawaharlal Nehru, Indira Gandhi, and Rajiv Gandhi.
In fact, both Jawaharlal Nehru and Indira Gandhi misused their powers as Prime Ministers, as they nominated themselves to receive the Bharat Ratna, and remain the only Prime Ministers to do so till date. When Mr Nehru and Mrs Gandhi were nominating themselves for the Bharat Ratna, the architect of our constitution, Dr BR Ambedkar, and the Iron Man of India, Sardar Vallabhai Patel, hadn’t even been recognized (they were posthumously awarded in 1990 and 1991 respectively).
A fair perspective
Ultimately, it can be said that on a principle level, the MEA shouldn’t be used as a political tool. However, this rule should apply to every political party. Therefore, it is quite shocking that one E-book dedicated to an ideologue by the BJP has created ripples, when the Congress doing the same, using official means to bring into the limelight their leaders, garners almost no criticism anytime. Therefore, Congress should agree to take away the Bharat Ratna conferred on Nehru and Indira Gandhi before the BJP is asked to take away the E-book from the website. (Mis)Using official mechanism for political vendetta should either be prohibited for everyone or be restricted to no one.
Featured Image Source: Wikimedia Commons
Stay updated with all the insights.
Navigate news, 1 email day.
Subscribe to Qrius
