Followers

Friday, May 13, 2016

Work in Progress : 9

GEM OF A NATION
A Political biography of Dr Rajendra Prasad

By Dr BSM Murty

This extract (Part VII, Ch. 3) from a seven-part book relates to President Rajendra Prasad’s visit to the Soviet Union in June-July, 1960. During the firt eight years of his Presidency (till 1958)  the External Affairs Ministry under Nehru had always been reluctant towards Dr Prasad’s foreign visits, even though there were a number of standing invitations extended to him by visiting Heads of State from several countries, including UK and USA. It was only during 1958-’59 that his foreign tours were finally approved. His first ever foreign tour was to Nepal followed quickly by a long tour of Japan and the countries in the South East Asia – Malayasia, Indonesia, Cambodia, Vietnam, Laos and Ceylon. This in turn was followed a year later by his visit to the Soviet Union. Here is the story of that visit to the Soviet Union.


Visit to the Soviet Union
A year later, in June 1960, Dr Prasad went on a fortnight’s visit to the Soviet Union. If Buddhism and common cultural heritage was the central theme of his visit to the South East Asian nations, this time it was professedly political – non-alignment and disarmament. After more than a decade of independence India had come to have, under the dynamic leadership of Nehru, an unenviable position as a champion of political neutrality and world peace. With the swift ascendancy of  communism in the Soviet Union and China a formidable power bloc had emerged in Euresia that was in direct confrontation with the erstwhile imperialist nations of the West. At the same time, in the post-World War scenario, an all-round rapid decline of colonialism had brought about a sudden upsurge of freedom and progress in the Afro-Asian countries that were ready to impinge upon the ‘Cold War’ equilibrium between the two mighty power blocks of East and West. In short, the visit of the Indian President to the Soviet Union had come at a time when the international political situation was under great turbulence both at home and abroad. And though Dr Prasad in his writings and speeches always evinced genuine concern with all issues of foreign affairs with both national and international ramifications, he scrupulously kept himself aloof from any direct involvement in the foreign policy area.

Dr Prasad was now seventy-six with only two years left for his final leave-taking after a twelve-year long tenure as President. Also, this journey to Soviet Russia was to be the last of his foreign sojourns. Exchanges of reciprocal visits between the two countries had taken place in the recent past by the top Russian leaders, Khrushchev and Bulganin and Nehru and Dr Radhakrishnan, and there was a distinct tilt in the Indian foreign policy towards the Soviet Union foreshadowing an uneasy equation with the USA. Though an apparent façade of diplomatic equilibrium was being maintained through  more recent visits of  the US President Eisenhower and the Soviet President Voroshilov in quick succession. However, being a pacifist supporter of world peace through complete disarmament, Dr Prasad’s sympathies were clearly tilted against the Western powers, the perpetrators of the recent nuclear holocaust in Japan and adherents of a manifest policy of aggressive armament. His forthcoming visit to the Soviet republics was fairly to augment his interest in the pro-people communist dispensation with its palpable faith in a peaceful world order and its amazing achievements in building a prosperous, egalitarian social order in rapid strides. As R.L.Handa, Dr Prasad’s Press Secretary who accompanied him on these travels, writes in his memoir:  “The President was keen to acquire first-hand knowledge about [the Soviet Union’s] economic development and the standard of living of the people there. The bewildering variety of races constituting its population and scores of languages spoken by them also attracted Rajendra Prasad…[He] was particularly keen to know [about] the general tenor of of people’s life, their views on religion and the nature of their response to the Communist way of life.”

Only a few months before Dr Prasad’s sojourn to the Soviet Union began, both President Voroshilov and Premier Khrushchev  had come to India on a goodwill mission as India was already under various kinds of aids from the Soviet government in its ongoing agricultural and industrial enterprises. President Voroshilov’s  visit happened in January, 1960, which included his formal presence as a special guest at the Republic Day function. President Voroshilov’s visit had been followed a fortnight later by the Premier Khruschev’s visit, and both these high-profile visits were in a way part of a diplomatically designed cultivation of increasing goodwill preparatory to the ensuing visit of the Indian President to the Soviet republics barely four months later. During his two-week stay in India, President Voroshilov seems to have struck a very amiable companionship with Dr Prasad. “A nice old man”, recalls Handa,  “ [President Voroshilov] felt quite homely during his stay at Rashtrapati Bhavan…[he] met Rajendra Prasad quite a few times, twice during his morning walks in the Mughal Gardens.” In his diary, Dr Prasad himself reminisces about those morning encounters.

He said more than once that the [Mughal] Garden was a paradise…He told me that his own garden was not like this  but he used it for regular walks. There are marks to indicate distance and his ADC makes note of the distance covered everyday. It came to about 240 or 250 kilometres in a month. He used to do more than double of what he does now….[He] insisted that I should walk everyday starting with a short distance and increasing it gradually…[He even] suggested that yogic exercises would cure my asthma and that I could begin it even at this age as I was not older than him… I find Mr. Voroshilov quite frank and friendly and taking interest in everything that he sees. He started life as a worker and rose to be a Marshal of the army and has been the President for the last 5 or 6 years.”

During his stay at the Rashtrapati Bhawan,  writes Handa, President Voroshilov, “talked freely and, without touching on politics, would project an unbiased picture of the varying stages of development obtaining in western and Asian Republics of the Soviet union. “ Dr Prasad was quite impressed by his talks, “particularly [his] views on religion, which he  thought were marked by a deep understanding”. This short stint of familiarity with Voroshilov, gave Dr Prasad a soft spot for the old man, three years his elder, and when four months later, he visited Soviet Union, he carried two boxfuls of gifts for him and his family. Voroshilov had meanwhile been replaced by Breznev as Preident of the Soviet Union and there occured a small episode of discomfiture for Dr Prasad as during his visits to Moscow and Leningrad he could neither meet Voroshilov nor present him the boxes of gifts as the latter’s  whereabouts could not even be ascertained by  the concerned Russian Protocol officer.

By the time Dr Prasad’s visit to the Soviet Union began the political configuration of leadership there had undergone a change. Khrushchev was now the man at the helm with Breznev as President of the Union. Voroshilov, an old associate of Stalin, had been quietly pushed into oblivion under Khrushchev’s new power set-up. Though aware of this change, Dr Prasad, in a typical Indian gesture of goodwill, still desired to renew his contact with the genial Voroshilov which sadly resulted in some embarrassment. Handa recounts that small glitchy story.

[Before embarking on his journey] Prasad took personal interest in procuring suitable presents for [Voroshilov], his wife and children to be handed over to them during his impending visit to their country. Besides, he also looked forward with eagerness to meeting the old man in Moscow and chatting with him…On the second day of his arrival in Moscow…he was reminded of Voroshilov whom he wanted to see, if possible, or at least to pass on to him the presents he had brought for him and his family. So, the President asked his Military Secretary to find out from the Russian Chief of Protocol about Voroshilov’s whereabouts. When asked about Voroshilov, the Russian officer said he would try to find out and inform the General on the following day. The President felt happy when he was told about it. On the following day before leaving for a formal lunch, the same Russian officer spoke to the Military Secretary, on his own, giving the impression that Voroshilov was out of town, possibly in Leningrad. The President who was scheduled to visit Leningrad  after two days felt quite happy at the prospect of meeting Voroshilov there. The two boxes containing the presents meant for Voroshilov were therefore taken to Leningrad as the President’s party moved there….[In Leningrad] the President reminded his Military Secretary of the presents. Again the General asked the same Russian officer…This time, his reply was ready. He made no pretence of trying to trace  Voroshilov’s whereabouts, and said instead that being in indifferent health the Marshal preferred to spend most of his time in the countryside. To the best of his impression, he added, he might be staying at some spa. If Sochi be his choice, it would be lucky, the officer said, for within a few days the President was going to visit that beautiful health resort on the Black Sea…[After knowing all this] the President gave up the idea of either seeing Voroshilov or sending the presents to him. “I am wiser now. Give up the idea. Don’t ask about the Marshal any more,” he told the General.
 
 Arrival in Moscow
“I flew from Delhi to  Tashkent and thence to Moscow”, writes Dr Prasad in a long note on his “Impressions of the Soviet Union”.  In a brief stopover at Tashkent, he expressed his happiness to have arrived with all the goodwill from India in the land of the Soviet people. Though it was his first visit to their country,he said, he had heard so much about the great achievements of the Soviet people during the past few decades, and particularly  during  the last seven years, that he already felt so familiar and at home in their wonderful country.

When his presidential plane, escorted by Soviet jet fighters, landed at the sprawling  Vnukovo  airport near Moscow,  large welcome posters with images of President Breznev, Premier Khrushev and himself greeted the Indian President’s entourage that consisted of Morarji Desai, the Finance Minister, Jagjivan Ram, Railways Minister and close confidante of Dr Prasad, and other officials of the Indian government. Replying to President Breznev’s welcome speech, Dr Prasad expressed his gratitude for the ‘kind and gracious welcome’ extended to him and ‘the generous assistance’ India had been receiving from the Soviet government  in its zealous efforts  in the fields of  agriculture and ‘rapid industrialisation’. He also referred to the ‘question of world peace’ and the dedicated efforts the Soviet  government was making towards that goal, a theme that was to be reiterated in all his speeches during his fortnight-long stay there.

Dr Prasad’s itinerary included visits to some of the major cities of the Soviet Union like Leningrad, Kiev, Sochi, Stalinabad, Samarkand and Tashkent. “Moscow, Leningrad and Kiev”, he writes in his long note of ‘Impressions’, “are the three biggest cities in the USSR, and Stalinabad is the capital of the Republic of Tajikistan and Tashkent the capital of the Republic of Uzbekistan. We covered in this way, apart from the Federation of Rusian Soviet Republics, the Republics of Ukraine, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan.”  The first three days of the itinerary were spent in Moscow with a series of formal meetings with President Breznev and visits to the Lenin and the Stalin mausoleums and other historical monuments, including Lenin’s study and flat in the Kremlin where the guide told him, among other things, about the Indian delegation that had come as early as November, 1918, to meet Lenin with a message of  goodwill and friendship. On the evening of 21 June, Dr Prasad attended with President Breznev, Mikoyan, Furtseva and other senior Russian leaders a performance of Chaikovsky’s ballet ‘Swan Lake’ at the famous Bolshoi Theatre. The audience in the theatre greeted the two Presidents with a ‘stormy applause’
.
Among the next day’s important engagements was the reception given in honour of Dr Prasad by the diplomatic representatives of the Bandung signatory countries in which President Breznev was also present along with the other senior Soviet leaders. Addressing the distinguished gathering, Dr Prasad said that Bandung represented ‘the end of one epoch in the history of Asia and Africa and the beginning of another’, heralding ‘the march to complete liberation of Asia and Africa from colonial rule’. But he added: “Independence is no longer an issue either in Africa or in Asia. The question is one of consolidating freedom by giving it a broad economic base. In this there is considerable room for mutual cooperation and assistance amongst the Asian-African countries themselves. Indeed one of the main objects of the Bandung Conference was to discuss ways and means by which the Asian and African people could achieve fuller economic, cultural and political cooperation”. At the end of his speech he also expressed his ‘appreciation’ for the ‘generous assistance that we in Asia and Africa have received from the Soviet Union’.







 President Breznev in his concluding speech also emphasized the ‘growing unity’ among the Afro-Asian nations and said that ‘the solidarity of the Asian and African countries and their friendship with the Soviet Union and other socialist States have become one of the most important factors of the present international situation’.

The same evening Dr Prasad and his presidential contingent left by train for Leningrad. In his diary Dr Prasad describes that overnight train journey.

The train which was their special show piece was a pretty long one with a large number of carriages, each with some compartments. They were all well furnished and looked quite clean. I do not know the speed, which can be calculated on the basis of the information I got. The distance of about 450 miles between Moscow and Leningrad was covered by our train in something like 10 to 11 hours, There was no appriable jolting and shaking and in this respect it seemed to be even better than our saloons in India….

The President’s special train reached Leningrad’s Moscow station on the morning of 23 June where Dr Prasad received a tumultuous welcome by Soviet officials and the common citizens. Later in the afternoon Dr Prasad visited Smolny where he saw the room in which Lenin lived during the stormy days of the October Revolution. He also visited the assembly hall in the Smolny Institute ‘where Lenin, addressing the Second All-Russia Congress of the Soviets, proclaimed Soviet power and the policy of peace and friendship among nations’. [CSD21/403] After Smolny the presidential party went sightseeing to the Russian Museum and the Pushkin monument and from there to see the Baltic Shipyards production unit. “We visited the ship building yard”, writes Dr Prasad in his diary, “ and saw the constructing of a 4,000 ton tanker named Budapest….[The] workers told me enthusiastically that not only the tanker with all its parts were built by them but that many of the heavy machines which had been used in building such ships had been forged and constructed there.” [CSD21/32] It was in Dr Prasad’s presence, amidst music and cheers of the workers, that the massive tanker Budapest slowly slid down its launch pad into the mouth of the Neva river. Later in the evening, amidst great ovation, Dr Prasad witnessed a ballet named ‘The Fountain of Bakhchisarai by Asafyev at the Kirov Opera and Ballet Theatre
.
On the next morning, Dr Prasad visited the Institute of Oriental Studies, a part of the USSR Academy of Sciences, where high-level research was carried on in a number of Eastern languages: Sanskrit, Hindi, Punjabi, Tamil, Telugu and Marathi. A senior scientist at the Institute, Prof. Kalyanov, read part of his speech in Sanskrit as a tribute to Dr Prasad’s own proficiency in the classical Indian language. Translations of Sanskrit classics like Kautilya’s Arthashastra and Mahabharata, along with an encyclopaedia of Indian culture had already been published by the Institute which specialized in the training of Indologists and other orientalists in the Soviet Union. The President was also shown an exposition of  ancient manuscripts on different branches of India’s  ancient and medieval science. Gifts of a Sanskrit dictionary and some books by Soviet Indologists were made to the President who also reciprocated by presenting to the Institute an eight-volume biography of Mahatma Gandhi. Later Dr Prasad visited the large, sprawling Hermitage Museum comprising of six historic buildings including the old Winter palace of the Russian Tsars. It is said to be the oldest museum in the world with the largest collection of paintings and various items of historical value. In his diary he writes:
Today we visited the old palace of Peter the Great which was largely destroyed during the war but has since been practically rebuilt. Its great beauty consists in the large number of fountains which I was told did not sprout water under artificial pressure but under force of gravity as the water came from a place some 30 kilometres away….[There were a] number of  statues and figures which were all gilt and looked like shining gold and through different parts of which jets of water came out…[with] coloured light passing through fountains
The big museum and collection of works of art of things of antiquity at the Hermitage are superb. There are some 300 rooms of which nearly 30 contain paintings of masters, a few of which we could see. We saw however a large collection of gold ornaments and other things which were said to be of 4th or 5th century B.C. The collection of paintings and statues of masters is wonderful. It is a pity we had so little time.

The President’s next stop was the capital of Ukraine, Kiev, built on both sides of the river Dnieper. The flight from Leningrad took two hours to Kiev where he was warmly welocomed at the airport by the President of the Ukrainian Republic. His stay in Kiev was to be brief, he said, but he would be happy ‘to see its sights and meet with its residents’. As the presidential convoy drove to the President’s residence, tens of thousands of people lined the road on both sides swaying flags and streamers and chanting welcome. “In the afternoon,” Dr Prasad notes in his diary, “we saw the exhibition of what they call achievements. In every big city they have a permanent exhibition like this. They are beautiful permamnent pavilions….At night we saw an opera in which [the] scene was laid in a forest and the story was of nymphs…The scenry that was depicted on the screen  was marvelous….We had seen the ballet at Moscow and Leningrad but the scenery here was superb.”
Next day, on 26 June, Dr Prasad and his party spent several hours at a collective farm in a village near Kiev. He notes in his diary:

In the morning we visited the Drujba (‘friendship’) Kolkhoj (‘collective farm’). It is about 50 kilometres from Kiev with a population of 4,200 comprising 1,020 families and has 567 hectares of land…They grow beet, maize, wheat, barley and peas in the 750 hectares…. Seeds are supplied. Each family with two workers working 200 days of 8 hours each in a year…and each gets as his share from the collective farm according to his work 13 to 14 thousand roubles for the year at its end,….Each family has a house which it acquires after paying 7, 8 or 10 annul instalments fixed by the committee according to his capacity to pay. It also gets [some] land attached to the house on which it can grow fruits, vegetables and anything else it likes….It was a most interesting and informative trip. I took full notes….In the afternoon we went out on [a] boat trip on the Dneiper….We saw thousands of people on the left bank having river and sun bath. They were all dressed in very scanty clothes,”  

From Kiev the President’s contingent flew to Sochi, the world-famous largest health resort city in Russia; a large sprawling city along the northern shores of the Black Sea which is a part of the Caucasian Riviera. The beautiful city is located on the slopes of the western Caucasus mountain gradually descending to the pebble and sand beaches of the Black Sea. It is famous for its hot spring spas and  health sanatoria. Dr Prasad visited some of these palatial snatoria and met the holiday-makers. Next morning he was taken in a motor launch along the sea coast and in the afternoon he visited the Riviera park where he planted an evergreen magnolia tree. Interestingly, only recently the erstwhile President Voroshilov had also planted some trees in the same glade. Dr Prasad recalls that Sochi visit in his diary:

It is a health resort and has some 49 sanatoria…and has always about 15 to 20 thousanf visitors in the sanatoria, Very few individuals from the country come here on their own. But foreigners do in large numbers [and] the various institutions remain full with men and women of different trades and factories. The charges which they have to pay are very low, the rest being met by the factory or trade union on whose behalf they are sent. The rooms and other apartments are of modern type and uptodate. In the sanatoria ther are swimming pools and establishments for treatment with various types of baths, etc. We saw some people bathing their hands and legs…

After a two-day stay at Sochi, Dr Prasad and his presidential contingent returned on 29 June.
 to Moscow where this time he hosted a reception in the evening in the Grand Kremlin palace.  On this occasion, besides President Breznev, Foreign Minister Gromyko, the Indian Ambassador Benedictov and other senior Soviet leaders, along with Russian army generals, scientists, artists, writers and foreign diplomats, Premier Krushchev with his wife was also present there. Although throughout the rest of Dr Prasad’s tours in Russia, for reasons unknown, Premier Krushchev had remained aloof and away. Welcoming his distinguished Soviet guests, Dr Prasad said: “I am now half way on my voyage of discovery of the Soviet Union. What I have seen during the last few days has left a powerful impression on me. But what has touched me most is the warmth of friendship and welcome which the people and leaders of this great country have extended to me….We are overwhelmed by this evidence of sympathy and goodwill which the Soviet Union has for India.” Deeply impressed by the ‘phenomenal progress’ achieved by the Soviet people in such short span through ‘proper planning and harnessing of the human and material resources under inspiring leadership’, Dr Prasad emphasized the need for peace and total abnegation of war and violence, in the present international scenario, for ‘those of us in Asia and Africa, who have only recently become free after long periods of subjection’, particularly in view of the recent hazardous developments in nuclear science.

Earlier, in the late afternoon on that day, Dr Prasad had visited the house where Leo Tolstoy, the great Russian writer, lived for almost two decades, from 1882 to 1901, as a winter retreat from his ancestral estate at Yasnaya Polyana, about 200 kilometres south of Moscow. Dr Prasad gives a detailed description of the excellent preservation of the place in his diary:

It is remarkable how they preserve everything connected with a notable personality. Not only is the house with all its rooms and apartments preserved as it was in those days, but even the furniture, and every little thing he was connected with, are in perfect preservation.We saw the small dining table with sevn or eight seats…the chair he used to sit on [as well as] the other  chairs occupied by his wife and sons and daughters. The bed and the blanket which he used is also kept there. In another room on a small writing table are kept the pens which he had made with his own hand with twigs of trees, the chessboard he used,,, as also some of his and his children’s writings are displayed there. The chair occupied by him while receiving guests in the reception room is also kept and shown to visitors. His clothes and shoes and other articles of daily use, as also his tools and two pairs of boots he made himself are also exhibited.

The Tolstoy House has been made into a literary Museum in surroundings that look like ‘a small corner of rural life in the centre of Moscow’. It was here, living in this house, that Tolstoy changed his life style from aristocratic living to a common man’s simple, hard life following strict moral rules and developing a philosophy of life that later influenced Gandhi in his South Africa civil disobedience struggles.

Next day in the forenoon he visited the Moscow State University where in the Assembly Hall he was awarded an honorary degree of ‘Doctor of History’ by I.G. Prtrovsky, Rector of the university, amidst distinguished academicians and hundreds of cheering students. The Rector said that the university was honouring Dr Prasad for ‘his research into the history of the national liberation movement in India’. In his reply, Dr Prasad said: “I regard this not only as a personal honour, but as a manifestation of the goodwill of the Soviet people for the people of my country”. Soon thereafter, in the afternoon, a reception was given to Dr Prasad in the Grand Kremlin Palace under the auspices of the Soviet-Indian cultural Relations Society by scientist, workers of culture and students which was attended by President Breznev and other senior Soviet leaders. Welcome speeches were made by eminent academicians, scientists and writers.  Writer Sofronov, speaking on behalf of the  Soviet Afro-Asian Solidarity Committee, hailed Dr Prasad as a ‘distinguished statesman  and public figure, the man who has devoted much strength and wisdom to the struggle for the independence and freedom of India’.
 President Breznev in his long speech began by emphasizing the ‘traditional friendship [between the two countries] deep-rooted in history’. He appreciated the great role India was playing ‘in the struggle for the implementation of the principles of peaceful coexistence’. He referred in detail to the proposals made by the Soviet government to the United Nations on a phased programme of ‘general and complete disarmament’, notwithstanding the overall superiority of the Soviet Union in ‘the most up-to-date nuclear weapons’ and their effective delivery system. “Nevertheless, we propose”, Breznev continued, “ that all means of delivery of atomic and nuclear weapons be destroyed already in the first stage of disarmament, with the simultaneous abolition of military bases on foreign territory.”  Expressing his exasperation over the dilly-dallying of U.S, and the other Western powers on the issue, he pointed out that the ‘goal is to put an end to wars for good from the life of the society, and base relations between states on the principles of peaceful coexistence’. Such efforts being made by these nations towards the aggravation of the international situation will severely affect the countries in Asia, Africa and Latin America ‘which are upholding their national independence and fighting for full liberation from colonial bondage’. He assured that ‘we shall render assistance to the peoples who have already won political independence but are still economically dependent’, and it will be ‘disinterested assistance of the Soviet Union’.

In his thanksgiving reply, Dr Prasad said: “This vivid manifestation of friendship towards my country and my people has moved me deeply…This meeting is the culmination of the numerous manifestations of friendship which I witnessed wherever I went…Everywhere I saw that people are happy, that they work much, are devoted to the cause of peace, show an interest in India and are full of enthusiasm as regards Indo-Soviet friendship.” He recalled how around 1917  two great men – Lenin in Russia and Gandhi in South Africa – were engaged in almost identical struggles against imperialism and racialism and how ‘Gandhi was under a profound influence of a kindred spirit in Russia, the spirit of Leo Tolstoy, who also was embittered by inequality expressed in racial and political domination in various regions of the world’. He hoped  the ‘remarkable edifice of Indo-Soviet cooperation’ will grow and strengthen further in its quest for universal peace as envisaged in Lenin’s political philosophy. “While building our country”, he said, “we also build peace. The USSR and India have shown to all sceptics and cynics on the right and left that two great countrie adhering to different traditions and different philosophies can cooperate freely and successfully in furthering not only the improvement of the well being of the people, but also the consolidation of peace.”

‘Da svidaniya’!
 The same evening a reception was given to Dr Prasad in the Grand Kremlin Palace on the eve of his departure from Moscow to ‘two Asian Republics of the Soviet Union [Tajikistan and Uzbekistan] before finally leaving Soviet territory’. In his farewell speech, Dr Prasad said
:
 I have spent ten days in the Soviet Union and I am leaving Moscow tomorrow….These ten days will remain in my life as an indeliable impression….I am amazed at the colossal progress you have attained in all fields….Your collective farms and huge industrial establishments are only one aspect of the Soviet Union’s achievements of the recent years. The loving care with which you preserve the heritage of your past in libraries, museums, picture galleries and other cultural centres is a vivid expression of your pride in the history of your country.

On his way back home, Dr Prasad stayed for two days at Stalingrad, capital of Tajikistan which had made tremendous progress in all fields since the October revolution. “Tazekistan before the revolution”, notes Dr Prasad in his diary, “ was under Czarist regime. In those days there was practically no education and no school in existence in this area. After revolution Tazik was recognized as a national language and schools, colleges and a university have been functioning giving education in humanities and in scientific and technical subjects upto the highest standards….They teach all subjects in Tazik and textbooks have been,  where necessary, translated from Russian….This is very remarkable. We have not done anything like this and on this scale in our country.”

On the morning of 3 July, Dr Prasad and the presidential contingent flew to Tashkent, capital of Uzbekistan, with a short stopover at Samarkand where in a 3-hour stay he ‘saw the remains of the days when Timur and his empire flourished’. Timur’s grandson Ulugh Beg, he notes:
…built mosques and a most remarkable observatory [like Jantar Mantar in Delhi]….The mosques are in the style of Moghul mosques in India. The surface is all a mosaic of variegated coloured pieces set to regular patterns and bringing out various figures and flowers There are also inscriptions of Koranic verses just as we have in many of the structures in India. This give a clue to the pattern on which the Moghul architecture of India was based,

After spending a day in Tashkent, on the morning of 5 July, Dr Prasad and his party were finally given a farewell on their flight back to Delhi. Speaking at the Tashkent airport, Dr Prasad said that he was particularly impressed how the ‘multi-national family of the Soviet Union is playing an active part in the building of the state’
.
I wish to refer in particular[he said]  to my visit to Tajikistan and Uzbekistan. With wonder and admiration I have watched your efforts to fuse into one community peoples with different social, historical and ethnic backgrounds. At the same time, you are sparing no effort to preserve what is valuable and distinctive in the art and culture of different nationalities. I am sure we can profit by your practical solution of a problem similar to one facing us in India….The Indian people will always be on the side of those who are working for peace.

After his return home, Dr Prasad wrote a  long note about his impressions of the Soviet Union in which he expressed his amamzement over the rapid and near uniform progress made in almost every field in that vast land comprising a federation of 15 republics spread over a land mass more than seven times that of India. What struck him most was that ‘there was no visible sign of poverty or starvation’ anywhere.

…another thing which struck me most was the way in which the problem of nationalities and the problem of language have been dealt within the USSR. There are several nationalities within the Russian Federation also. But apart from the Russian Federtion, which of course constitutes the greatest part of the USSR, the other 14 Republics have each its own language and its own nationality. But they all have somehow woven together into one texture so that they all constitute parts of one single whole….All of them have their own separate language….But they look somehow or other, one unified whole today….I was so much impressed by the way in which the question of different nationalities and different language have been solved in Russia that I felt that the ways and means employed in that country for achieving the result  should be studied in a practical way and with a view to adopting them with necessary modifications for the solution of a similar problem in our own country.

They had also solved the problem of a single script for the entire Union, though the diversity of languages was sedulously maintained in the internal educational system across the federal states. “In the Central Asian Republics also [ he continues] all the writing and printing is done in the Rusian script although the language is the language of the particular Republic. Russian is learnt by all although the education imparted is in the local language
.”
For Dr Prasad the fortnight-long sojourn in the communist states of the Soviet Union proved to be a voyage of discovery where he saw with his own eyes how the communist system had transformed vast backward regions in Russia and Central Asia into a unified modern developing nation with astonishing achievements in social, economic, agricultural and scientific fields - all within a few decades of the early twentieth century.

© Dr BSM Murty
No part of this or earlier extracts on this blog can be used in any way so as to infringe pre-publication rights. Note : References are indicated only in the original text.
More extracts can be read on this Blog from the book GEM OF A NATION                                                    on Please click on the Archive year and scroll down to the extract.
2011: May 28: The Indigo Story; July 8:The Butcher of Amritsar; July 17: A Planter’s Murder           2014:Sep 14: The Seven Martyrs;Dec 3: Early childhood in Jeeradei                                                         2015: Jun 30: Congress in disarray; Aug 27: Clash of Convictions; Oct 8: Presidential Itineraries;         Dec 20: Congress at crossroads;                                                                                                                      2016: Mar 15: Election for Second Term

Photos : Courtesy Google (from top)  1. Dr Rajendra Prasad in Leningrad 2. Lenin Mausoleum, Moscow 3. Moscow Bolshoi Theatre 4. Pushkin Monument, Leningrad 5. Kiev 6. Sochi 7.Tolstoy 8. Tolstoy House, Moscow 

Tuesday, March 15, 2016

Work in Progress: 8
GEM OF A NATION
A Political biography of Dr Rajendra Prasad

By Dr BSM Murty


It’s a first full-scale biography of Dr Rajendra Prasad who was known as the ‘Gem of a Nation’, an appellation given him by the people during India’s freedom movement. He was among the most respected national leaders in the country. The book is divided into seven parts. Part I covers the first 30 years of Rajendra Prasad’s life from early childhood till completion of education and beginning of his law practice at Patna. With Part II begins his political life with Gandhi’s Champaran Satyagraha. Part III takes the story upto the Lahore Congress (1929) where ‘Poorna Swaraj’ was declared as the ultimate objective of the freedom movement. Part IV covers the ‘Strife and Tumult’ of the 30s. Part V takes the story through the Second World War till the tragedy of India’s partition. Part VI brings the narrative from independence right upto 1952 when the first General elections were held. The last Part VII deals with the decade-long period of Rajendra Prasad’s two consecutive presidencies, his post-retirement life and death at Sadaqat Ashram in Patna.

The extract given here is from Part VII, Chapter 3 narrates the inside story of Dr Rajendra Prasad’s  election for a second term of Presidency (1955-1960) and the controversy surrounding it.

Since his elevation to the presidency, Dr Prasad had already become largely detached from the affairs of the party. And yet surprisingly, the majority groups in the party both at the national and the provincial levels were reverently beholden to him for his sterling qualities of dedication to the Gandhian ideals and his innate sense of justice and moral values. Among the leaders at the top who were staunch supporters of Dr Prasad was Maulana Abul Kalam Azad, another Gandhi loyalist. He was one person who would not mince words whenever he had to confront Nehru on critical issues. It was Azad who had played a key role – more assertive even than Patel’s - in Dr Prasad’s election as interim President. And he played an equally crucial role once again when the issue of Dr Prasad’s re-nomination for a second term as President came to the fore.

Election for Second Term

Prasad always believed in principled demeanour in life - whether personal or public. He was now past seventy. He had subscribed to those sterling moral principles of unity of thought, speech and action throughout his life. Like his mentor, Gandhi, he also always tried to follow the bidding of his ‘inner voice’ whenever he was faced with a moral perplexity. During the past decade of his serving in the pre- or post-independence government positions where, in every case, he had joined in only on peer-pressure and never on his own volition,his experiences had not been particularly gratifying or congenial to his fragile health. But he had borne all the vicissitudes with humility and grace. The memories of his elections as President of the Constituent Assembly, or as interim President had not been quite happy. And his two-year tenure as interim President, in particular, had had its somber moments. As a result, almost midway in his first full term as President, in January 1955, he had started thinking in terms of retirement on the constitutional plea of having virtually completed the ordained five-year term for a serving President. As he wrote in his diary on 24 July, 1956:

Last year when I had completed five years as the interim President and just a little less than three years after my election in 1952, I felt that the spirit of the Constitution required that a President’s term should be five years and although interms of the Constitution I had not completed five years, I felt my turn should be over according to the spirit of the Constitution. I decided, therefore, to send my resignation which I did after due deliberation. The Prime Minister and others whom I consulted did not like it and so I had to keep quiet. [POPI/131]

There must have been some inexplicable personal reason behind this unusual decision to quit midway by a person who never shied away from his obligations. In his biography of Radhakrishnan, Sarvapalli Gopal writes about Nehru’s apparent ambivalence on the issue: “Perhaps Nehru was concerned that relinquishment of office by the president in mid term would be endowed with political overtones…” For Nehru, it would surely have been an embarrassment, and all kinds of misgivings would have been generated by such a sudden step by a person of Dr Prasad’s tranquil and sagacious temperament. But Nehru chose to interpret it as signifying Dr Prasad’s strong desire to demit office after completion of his full term, and not as indicative of any latent discontent in Dr Prasad’s mind over the prevailing state of affairs. It only guaranteed for Nehru that there would be no hitch in his having a person of his choice as the second President in 1957. Also a relinquishment by Prasad in the mid-term would have had unpropitious implications. Indeed, all these days as 1956 drew to its close and the second presidency loomed large on the political horizon, Dr Prasad was faced with recurrent queries from friends and visitors about the possibility or otherwise of his renomination as th second President. Meanwhile, a lot of speculative reports were being published in the newspapers which were obfuscating the issue all the more.Dr Prasad, in the same diary entry, had more to say defending his non-committal stand in the matter.

Up to this time I have never stood as a candidate for any position of power or honour but have been put in almost all the highest positions by the free and unsolicited support of those entitled to vote at such elections. Indeed, on some occasions in the Congress organization, I have been asked to take up positions of responsibility and honour but requiring unpleasant duties to be performed. I have not shirked or avoided such positions also. With this background I can hardly be expected to seek election at the end of my career. I may find it difficult to refuse an offer, if it is made, although my own private inclination may be otherwise. As reagrds my private inclinations,… I feel like retiring from active political life, so that I may live my own life unhampered by limitations and restrictions of office and without the burden of office hanging heavy on my mind. How I wish I could go wherever I liked and with or without whomsoever I chose and without being accompanied…by half a dozen eyes…gazing at me and watching me;…[Again a month later, as the elections drew near, he would dwell on the same point.]It is against my nature [he wrote] to seek office or honour by election or otherwise and I have never up to now stood as a candidate for any office or honour. But it is true that both honour and office have come to me inabundance on account of the kindness of friends and admirers. It is also true that I have not refused any office even if it involved unpleasant duties. …[If] I were left to myself I would prefer to take leave of office and to devote what little of strength and life is left to me to something which suits my temperament and my age….There are, apart from age and its concomitant weaknesses, also other reasons which would induce me to get out of the present surroundings, but once again I must say I have no choice in the matter. If my services are required I cannot say no to any proposal. [133-134] [23.8.56]

In this context, Sarvapalli Gopal’s remarks that Nehru wanted Dr Prasad to go ‘whom he had found  “stuffy and slow-going, [and] in Bagehot’s phrase a “consecrated obstruction”’, or that‘Prasad was disinclined to leave Rashtrapati Bhawan’, seem neither fair to Nehru nor gracious to Dr Prasad. [287, 287]We have already seen that Prasad never felt comfortable in that fortress like prison nor ever showed any inclination to live in it for long. Nor could he ever accept the illogical constitutional position of the President on exact par with the British royalty. If he stayed on in that position for more than a decade, it was not because of his personal preference or inclination, but the prevailing political situation and the desire of the people reflected in the overwhelming majority of the electoral college votes. If he had ever sensed that the popular mandate in the electoral college was not overwhelmingly in his favour, he would never have stuck to that high position even for a moment.Nehru may have had his own reasoning for preferring Radhakrishnan over Prasad for the second presidency in 1957, as he had shown for Rajagopalachari for the first presidency in 1952.But it certainly led to a repugnant controversy on both occasions which weakened Nehru’s political position and led to unnecessary embarrassment. R.L. Handa, the President’s Press Secretary, narrates the inside story of how this unseemly controversy rose to a fever-pitch as the Second General elections in 1957 drew near. “In the first week of December 1956”, writes Handa, “Maulana Azad came to Rashtrapati Bhawan…[and] asked Rajendra Prasad frankly if he would agree to run a second term in case the Congress Parliamentary Board renominated him.” [67] Dr Prasad told him that ‘mentally he had not taken any stand, positive or negative’. But when Azad bluntly asked him ‘whether he would stand by the decision of the Congress High Command if it renominated him, the President committed himself to accepting the said decision whatever it was’.

Meanwhile, the second general election began on 24 February, 1957 and continued for about three weeks. Michel Brecher gives his observations on this second election in his biography of Nehru.

The largest democratic pollin history, there were 193 million electors, 20 million more than in 1952, and some 3,400 seats at stake.  This time, however, the number of ‘national parties’ was reduced to four as a result of a ruling by the Election Commission: the Indian National Congress; the Praja Socialist Party; the Bharatiya Jana Sangh; and the Communist Party of India. Seven other groups were designated ‘state parties’….Except for a few remote constituencies the poll was completed in three weeks, instead of two months as in 1952. Perhaps the most encouraging feature was that over 60 per cent of the electorate actually voted – this in a population of which more than 80 per cent are illiterate. [179-80]

Except for CPI, the two other major parties fared rather poorly in almost every State. Yet Congress ‘won a very large majority of seats at the Centre and was returned topower in all but one of the thirteen State Assemblies’.Only in Kerala, the CPI had ‘won a major prestige victory’. It had also emerged ‘as the leading opposition party’ at the Centre. As in 1952, the Congress sweep remained ‘impressive’ winning ‘75 per cent of the seats in the Parliament and 65 per cent of all seats in the State Assemblies’; the reasons being the same - its legacy of the freedom struggle, ‘a nation-wide political machine rooted in the village’, ‘ample campaign funds’, the charisma of  Gandhi’s and Nehru’s name, and the ‘disunity among the opposition parties’. And yet the overall vote share – though slightly higher than in 1952 – was yet around 47 per cent only. This general decline could, of course, be attributed to ‘the gap between promise and fulfillment, and the lengthy tenure of power by the Congress’. The trend clearly showed the rise of the Left, the all-round dilution of the socialist creed, and the general erosion of credibility in the Congress.

In terms of the presidential election this meant an obviously large majority of the Congress votes even in the electoral college. If this could be seen as indicative of a probable preference for Dr Prasad for a second term, Nehru was once again on shaky ground in championing the cause of the elevation of Radhakrishnan to the presidency. But there were many twists and turns in this highly charged drama of the President’s election for the second term: 1957-’62. Wild speculations had been made in the press about the probability of Dr Prasad retirement after completing his first full term, particularly after his Independence day speech in Madras. But as Handa says, the general opinion in the press in South was that Dr Prasad should continue for the second term in view of his sustained efforts to ‘reconcile the South and assuage the feelings of South Indians during the last eight years or so’. [64-65] His ‘voluntary retirement at this juncture’ would have been seen as ‘something unpatriotic’. Also as a national leader, he was seen as ‘a symbol of the Indian nation’. Nehru, on the other hand, in the context of the states’ reorganization, had lost some popularity in the South. As against Nehru, according to Handa, ‘Dr Rajendra Prasad was surely the one man who inspired universal respect and… [represented]the feeling of unity in every part of the country’.

The controversy got stoked up again, after Nehru’s return from the US, with a circular letter he issued ‘to all Central Ministers, Chief Ministers of States and even to the President’s Secretary’. The letter reiterated that ‘the question of President’s election was an open one’, and that there was a general feeling ‘that someone from the South should be elected and that it was not desirable to have the same person over and over again for that high office’. This was surely a faux pas on the part of the Prime Minister who had utterly failed to gauge the general mood of the MPs, ‘including some from the South’.[69] There was a lot of hue and cry over the matter, but Dr Prasad remained unruffled as ever, and it was left to be finally decided in a meeting of the Congress Parliamentary Board.

Handa gives an inside account of the proceedings in that CPB meeting attended by Nehru, Pant, Dhebar, Jagjivan Ram and Maulana Azad. Surprisingly, the meeting was over within half an hour and the CPB had finally nominated Dr Prasad for the second term. The real story, as Handa could gather later from Dr Prasad himself, was that the meeting began with Pant putting forth arguments in line with Nehru’s circular letter. Pant made the same points – that it must be someone this time from the South, that a healthy convention must be set ‘in favour of one term for the incumbent of the high office’, this being particularly necessary ‘in view of Rajendra Prasad’s ill health’, and so forth. As Handa continues:

Nehru, who must have known what Pant had to say, preferred to keep quiet and wait for the reaction of the Maulana who obliged him too readily. The first point Azad made was that it was wrong to believe Rajendra Prasad was unwilling to be renominated. He said he (Azad) had met him and talked to him at length on the subject. A noble and selfless man like him, Azad added, could not be expected to make his candidature known or to betray any anxiety for any honour. Just for this reason, which the Maulana said was on the credit side, his claim to continuance in that office could not be ignored… Next the Maulana touched on the regional question. Though Pant had not mentioned Radhakrishnan by name, Azad did. He asked them point-blank if they had any other man from the South in view. On a clear denial from Pant and Nehru, Azad looked into their eyes and said, “I would ask you in all earnestness if there is any comparison between Prasad and Radhakrishnan so far as eligibility for this high office is concerned. Look into their past, their service to the nation and their respective images as national leaders.”[72]

Pant had nothing more to say and Nehru feebly tried to repeat the same arguments of ‘one-man-one-term convention’ or ‘ill health’, and plead for Radhakrishnan’s‘standing as a scholar and philosopher of international fame’. But Azad countered the ‘ill health’ argument as totally incongruous because all of them were sailing in the same frail and aged boat. As for the‘one-man-one-term convention’, it should properly be applicable to all high offices, including that of the Prime Minister himself. “Would it not be more convincing”, asked Azad, “ if the tenure of these [high] offices were also limited to convention?” [73] Facing Nehru directly Azad said: “Jawaharlal,it is manifestly unfair to ignore Rajendra Prasad just because he is too much of a gentlemen and being the President thinks it below the dignity of his high office either to press his claim or even to make his wishes known to anyone.” A few moments of silence ensued; then ‘abruptly Nehru said, if that was the view, the Board should renominate Rajendra Prasad for Presidentship and Dr Radhakrishnan for Vice Presidentship’. And that clinched the issue of both Dr Prasad and Dr Radhakrishnan being renominated for a second term. Soon thereafter both Dr Prasad and Dr Radhakrishnan were formally elected for the second term - Dr Prasad elected President with over 99 % votes cast in his favour and Dr Radhakrishan elected Vice President unopposed, almost a fortnight earlier.

Sarvapalli Gopal’s account of the controversy vis a vis this elctioncomes up with subtle innuendoes about the interelationships between Dr Prasad and Nehru on the one hand and Dr Radhakrishnan and Azad on the other. Yet it remains a fact that inspite of deep divergences with Dr Prasad. Nehru also had great regard for the sagacity and nobility of demeanour of the former. Similarly both Dr Radhakrishnan and Azad were outstanding scholars and great human beings as individuals in spite of their temperamental angularities. Azad’s soft feelings for Prasad were essentially due to their long political companionship and the latter’s incomparable sacrifices during the freedom struggle, besides being Gandhi’s alter ego.At the CPB meeting Azad had bluntly said to Nehru : “I would ask you in all earnestness if there is any comparison between Prasad and Radhakrishnan so far as eligibility for this high post is concerned. Look into their past, their services to the nation and their respective images as national leaders.” He even hinted that the brouhaha in the northern press about the north and south divide over the issue had been carefully raisedonly from a particular corner. [Handa/68]

Gopal’s biased opinion of Dr Prasad becomes still more apparent when he says that ‘Prasad had clealrly not given up hopes of a third term even after twelve years in office’.[304]This seems so unjust, firstly, because Dr Prasad had never expressed his desire for any covetable position in his life either in the party or the government. And secondly, he had accepted even a second term, rather unwillingly, only on popular demand and in the larger interest of Nehru’s own credibility in the party. Handa tells us that on completion of his first full term he had already packed his things to exit from Rashtrapati Bhawan at short notice. In the ultimate analysis,for sure, Dr Prasad, a man of great eminence and dignity who served the nation three times as President, appears a tragic figure like Lear – ‘more sinned against than sinning’.

Dr Prasad’s relations with Dr Radhakrishnan also remained very cordial and mutually deferential throughout their decade-long close association. It was Nehru who was responsible for the temporary disaffection between them on the eve of the second term of the presidency. And though even during that controversy the others fished in the troubled waters, they themselves never stooped to personal bickerings. In fact, during their first term in the presidency, they evinced the best of mutual respect and conviviality. After his return from the USSR as ambassador, he was elected as the first Vice President in 1952. When he met the President, Dr Prasad, he said he was now ready to serve ‘at [his] command’ as ‘deputy to the President’; that he was ‘willing to work as [Dr Prasad] desired’. Dr Prasad told him that ‘it was kind of him to feel that way and it was a pleasure [for Dr Prasad] to have a counselor of his eminence’. They had a long pleasant chat over several matters of state policy. Dr Radhakrishnan said that while serving as ambassador in the Soviet Union he had frankly told Stalin that unlike their communist ideology promoting violence, India had brought about a socio-political revolution through non-violence (ahimsa).“We were making a colossal experiment with democracy,” he said, “and couldn’t desert that either. So we could not adopt communism as long as it had differences on these basic issues”. [CSD/15.255] With his reverence for the ancient Indian religious and philosophical values and traditions, Dr Radhakrishnan, in that sense, was closer to Dr Prasad than to Nehru’s westernized values and beliefs. In fact, he had the best of the East and the West conjoined in his fundamental beliefs.With Dr Prasad he fixed up a weekly meeting on Saturdays to which he stuck routinely. One day when Dr Prasad invited him to tea he said to him that ‘we ought to keep ourselves in touch with what went on in the Government’. Since then they met regularly and discussed various issues of dayto day government policy and, as occasion demanded, shared it with Nehru and his Cabinet colleagues.

The impression that we get from Sarvapalli Gopal’s account of the controversy regarding the election for the second presidency is of a vitiation of a relationships among the major players in that unfortunate drama, particularly between Dr Prasad and Dr Radhakrishnan, or between Nehru and Dr Prasad, or Azad and Nehru. Gopal also throws clear hints of unsavoury relationship between Azad and Dr Radhakrishnan. But notwithstanding the exigencies of the crucial situation, all of them did also realize the momentous implications of that historic event. For instance, Nehru had as high regard for Dr Prasad as Azad himself. He may have misjudged the political equations prevailing at the time, and may have had his own perception about Dr Prasad’s continuing on an extra-long innings with his frail and precarious health. (Dr Prasad was already seventy-three, an advanced age in those days. And Nehru himself being sixty-seven survived Dr Prasad only by one year, with both Azad and Pant pre-deceasing them soon after that event.)

They were all men with great souls and prodigious intellects, men who were not only highly learned and highly regarded, but men who had an enviable background of making great contributions in their own fields, be it national service or scholarship. And when we look at their inter-relationships after that litmus test of their integrity was over, we find them as amiable and genial as ever, which in itself  is ample proof of their greatness. Both with Nehru and Dr Radhakrishnan, Dr Prasad remained as convivial and comfortable throughout as they had been during his last presidency. In a long diary entry for 8 May, 1952, Dr Prasad had written:‘Dr Radhakrishnan came to see me’. They first discussed various issues of common interest. And then they turned to high intellectual discourse in the lighter vein of a ‘casual chat’.

Then we moved to a casual chat. He said he was translating the Upanishads. He had already translated the Gita, and when he is free from the Upanishads he would move to another translation. The more he studies the ancient texts, he remarked, the more is his revernce or the seers of India.  What the philosophers of the West have told us or are telling us today, we find it already enshrined in the Upanishads. Our ancient sages have expressed them in almost identical words. As an example, Dr Radhakrishnan referred to Spinoza and Hegel whose phiolosophical postulates may be found expressed in similar terms in Chhandogyopanishad. The findings of the great physicist Dr Einstein are in tune with the views of our philosophers which we can feel and experience in our physical world. Consder, for instance, the terms ‘sansar’ and ‘jagat’ (both standing for world), etymologically derived from a root which means ‘to move’. The Western philosophers too emphasise the relationship between ‘motion; and ‘matter’. We don’t see these correspondences between Indian and Western systems and therefore have scant respect for our heritage. If we value our heritage we shall have found solutions to all our problems there….While leaving he presented me a copy of an anthology of some select texts from his writings compiled by a British editor. .[CSD/15.283]

With Nehru, of course, Dr Prasad would not engage in  such high philosophical discourses, and would generally discuss more mundane matters of government policies and actions. But with Dr Radhakrishnan their level of discussions was, by and large, on a higher plane of spiritualism. And this spirit of conviviality and mutual respect between the two great men continued in spite of the second  prsidential election controversy, till the very end ofDr Prasad’s last term as President.

When Dr Prasad’s second term of presidency was drawing to a close, he seemed to have grown rather more sullen and frustrated about the way things were being run both in the government and the party. “He had long ceased bothering the Prime Minister”, writes Handa, “with his suggestions and advice. About the future of the country he could not help thinking, but most of the thoughts he preferred to keep to himself. With sorrow he recollected the advice he had tendered on various occasions to the Prime Minister.” [164] No doubt, all along the presidential decade, the official relationship between the President and the Prime Minister had seldom been on an even keel. But his relationship with Dr Radhakrishnan even till the very end had remained as pleasant and genial as ever. As Handa recalls in his memoirs,

Radhakrishnan and Rajendra Prasad had never been so close to each other as now; they had always been good friends, though.Whatever misunderstanding there might have cropped up immediately before the 1957 Presidential election was now cleared. The intiative in making a clean breast of everything, it must be said, was taken by Radhakrishnan himself. He pooh-poohed the idea of anyone suggesting a change in 1957 on the plea of placating the South. “To think of it, Rajen Babu, is as unfair to you as to the South”, he said. Referring to Nehru in that context, Radhakrishnan pleaded that with all his experience of men and matters, the Prime Minister was too much of an innocent who lent his ears to others too readily. Both of them laughed and looked into each other’s eyes. [165]

Sarvapalli Gopal’s innuendoes in his biography of Dr Radhakrishnan about Dr Prasad’s keenness for his presidential tenures, or his alleged lure for them, therefore, seem rather indecorous and unfair. For instance, it seems patently scurrilous when, commenting on Dr Prasad’s unconvincing‘desire to retire from office’, he brashly observes: “But it was thought that, even if he had to go, he would have preferred someone other than Radhakrishnan to succeed him.” [305]Indeed, it is difficult to see how Radhakrishnan himself would have reacted to such an improper and unsubstantiated insinuation! True, great men, too, have their frailties, their moments of vulnerability, and quite often they commit historical errors – sometimes even ‘Himalyan blunders’ –but history always venerates them for their great deeds. And inperpetuating their  memories in reminiscences and solemnizing their lives in biographies we must be as objective and unbiased as possible, both in respect of theirpetty flaws and their sterling virtues.

(C) Dr BSM Murty
No part of the extract an be used in any way so as to infringe pre-publication rights.

More extracts can be read on this Blog from the book GEM OF A NATON
Please click on the Archive year and scroll down to the extract.

2011: May 28 : The Indigo Story; July 8: The Butcher of Amritsar; July 17: A Planter’s Murder
2014: Sep 14 : The Seven Martyrs; Dec 3 : Early childhood in Jeeradei
2015: Jun 30: Congress in disarray; Aug 27: Clash of Convictions; Oct 8: Presidential Itineraries;             
             Dec 20: Congress at crossroads