Skip to main content

Why should one doubt 'popular' Soviet support to Nehru was spontaneous in 1955

A lot is being written on Prime Minister Narendra Modi's Howdy event in Houston. Indeed, none can can deny it was a grand success, so much so that even Opposition Congress leaders have begun praising it. One of the most commented, adversely of course, is President Donald Trump calling Modi "father of India".
With this comment, it seems, Trump seemed to be making desperate attempt to gather popular support among Indian immigrants when his popularity is sharply falling, if a recent Fox New survey is to be believed. However, what has puzzled many, especially diehard opponents, is, how could Modi gather so much of support -- 50,000 people in a jam packed hall. It was a PR success by Modi lobbyists, helped by Trump's.
One of the more famous comments was triggered by Congress MP Shashi Tharoor, who erroneously tweeted that Jawaharlal Nehru collected spontaneous crowd in USA in 1954. Others said the year was 1956. Pratik Sinha, in an article in his fact-check site, altnews.in corrected all, stating, it wasn't USA but USSR, and the year was 1955.
What was intrigued me was, whether the Soviet crowd which came to Nehru was spontaneous. I don't deny Nehru's standing as one of the greatest statesmen of the 20th century. He was one of the founders of the non-aligned movement (NAM), along with NKrumah of Ghana and Sukarno of Indonesia. A great democrat, Nehru helped democracy take roots in India. The Congress under him had people from heterogeneous ideologies -- left, right and centre -- and all worked together.
No doubt, there were remarkable aberrations such as President's imposed on the Communist government of EMS Namboodiripad in Kerala in 1959. My friend Urvish Kothari has dug out how Nehru banned "Nine Hours to Rama", a fictional account on Mahatma Gandhi's murder by Stonley Wolpert at the hands of India's first terrorist, Nathuram Godse, as also a film based it, in 1962. The story indicated the then government neglect to protect the Mahatma.
Be that as it may, that Nehru was very popular, even after the 1962 India-China war debacle, is without any doubt. I remember my maternal uncle, Lalitmohan Jamnadas, who owned Cosmos, a tubes and tyres factory in Chembur, Bombay, had come to Delhi, where we lived. On May 27, 1964, we had planned to accompany him to a hill station, probably Shimla, in his Fiat car.
Mota Mama, as we used to call him, came to our residence, and the news on the radio flashed the demise of Nehru. Out of utter respect, he proposed to cancel the tour. My parents, both Gandhian freedom fighters, promptly agreed. I was 11, and my father took me to India Gate to see his funeral procession. Hadn't ever seen so many people, many of them weeping. My father put me on back too see Nehru being carried for cremation.
Yet, I was a little astonished when some people say, the Soviets (I had rather call them Russians) came to see Nehru "spontaneously" in 1955. The Communist Party of the Soviet Union (CPSU) had a complete control over the the country. My experience as Moscow correspondent of Patriot and Link from 1986 to 1993 suggests, every move, including demonstrations, were controlled through trained cadres.
This regimentation had just begun to collapse under Gorbachev's perestroika and glasnost in 1986. I could imagine the type of society USSR was in 1955, when the control was extremely tight, no dissent was allowed, it was in fact ruthlessly suppressed. Even before the second world war many who disagreed with Stalin, including top military personnel, would mysteriously disappear, were killed.
Things continued after the war; there was ethnic cleansing of those who were considered "anti-Soviet". It eased a little after Stalin died under Khrushchev, but dissent was not allowed. How could a spontaneous show be allowed, unless permitted by the powers that be? No doubt, Russians liked India and Nehru even in 1980s, when I was there, but not so much as to go out and greet an Indian leader, or for that matter any other foreign dignitary.
I can safely presume, the then Soviet authorities appeared to consider "popular" support an effort to influence Nehru in order to ensure that India, an upcoming influencer under him around the world as a NAM leader, became, if not part of the Soviet bloc, at least a close friend which maintained a distance with "imperialist" USA, the other superpower.
---
This blog has also appeared in Counterview

Comments

ALSO READ

As fear 'grips' right liberals, Arvind Panagariya, too, would be declared anti-national?

It is surely well-known by now that India's top people in the power-that-be have been castigating all those who disagree with them as "anti-nationals". Nothing unusual. If till yesterday only "secular liberals", and "left-liberals" were declared anti-national, facts, however, appear to have begun surfacing that, now, guns are being trained against those who could be qualified as right liberals, too. Let me be specific.

World Bank wants you to believe: Delhi, Mumbai doing so well in border trade

Today, after I took my morning stroll as part of my daily routine, my search for online news led me a tweet by friend and colleague, whom I have for long considered an honest and sincere journalist, Abhishek Kapoor, currently executive editor, Republic TV. Formerly with Indian Express and Times Now, he loudly, perhaps proudly, proclaimed that India has jumped 14 points in the Ease of Doing Business (EDB) in a World Bank ranking.

What's behind rise and rise of Girish Chandra Murmu, Gujarat cadre IAS official

Girish Chandra Murmu. The very name amuses me. A 1985 batch Gujarat cadre IAS bureaucrat, I still remember, during my interaction with him as the Times of India (TOI) man in Gandhinagar, his rather huge laughter (a loud “ha ha ha”) after he would frankly tell me what all was going on in the government. Now, the very same Murmu, 59, has been appointed the first Lieutenant-Governor of the Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir.

Surprised? Communist candidate in Ahmedabad bypoll in a Hindutva bastion

On October 11, 2019 morning, as I was scanning through daily news online (I don’t read papers now), I found that both BJP and Congress candidates from Ahmedabad’s Amraiwadi assembly constituency, which fell vacant following the victory of its BJP MLA in the Lok Sabha polls, have been asked to explain as to why they had cash in hand for election campaign, and why they did not deposit their money in a bank account. Fighting the bypoll, BJP’s Jagdish Patel and Congress’ Dharmendra Patel had declared they possessed Rs 1.81 lakh and Rs 1.70 lakh as cash in hand, respectively, for election expenditure.
The Election Commission notice reportedly said it is mandated for candidates to first deposit their expenditure funds in a bank account and then spend from their bank account money for various purposes. Interesting, but who cares for Election Commission, which has no teeth now, I thought. As it was Amraiwadi, what interested me more was (surprise of surprises), CPI had put up a candidate in …

India’s cyclical slowdown severe, downturn sharp: Now World Bank contradicts itself

For the powers-that be, surely, it is but natural to consider this a proud moment: That the World Bank’s new “Ease of Doing Business” report has shown India jumping 14 points; and that India is one of the two countries across the globe out of 190 economies analysed among the 10 top “improvers” which have shown climbed so sharply – the other country being the tiny Djibouti in the huge African continent.