he Sengol controversy has given us the chance to look into the legacy of Nehru and his dynasty. The Sengol is related to the ritual practiced by the kings who followed the Shivite tradition of Hinduism. The ritual was observed by the Shivite kings at the time of the coronation to ensure prosperity of the people of the kingdom and for the prolonged substance of the person as the ruler. As claimed by Nehruvian intellectuals, Pundit Nehru was a Shivite Kashmiri Brahmin. Therefore, there is nothing wrong in observing Shivite rituals at the time of transfer of power from the British to India. The only doubt is that why Nehru and the Nehruvian intellectuals concealed this historic incident from “we the people of India”? Is it not the part of hypocrisy practiced by Nehru and his sycophants?
Jawahar Lal Nehru was an obedient son of an ambitious father and he tried his level best to realize the dreams of his father, Motilal Nehru. When his son was a school student at Harrow, Motilal wrote: “I think I can without vanity say that I am the founder of the Nehru family. I look up on you, my dear son, as the man who will build upon the foundations I have laid and have the satisfaction of seeing a noble structure of renown rearing up its head to the skies.” Jawaharlal took up the reins of his family and established the Nehru-Gandhi family fiefdom in Indian polity. As a dutiful son, he increased the wealth invested by his father in AICC to more than ten times.
This letter exposes the reason why the Nehru family began its written legacy from Motilal ignoring the story of Gangaram Kotwal, who was the ill-fated father of Motilal and a poor police man who served the king of Kashmir. Motilal extended financial support to the national movement with a specific motive to get his son appointed as the chief of the Indian National Congress. He openly revealed his intention to Mahatma Gandhi and pressurized Gandhi to take a decision in favor of his son. Gandhi appointed Motilal as the president of AICC in 1928. Immediately after assuming the charge of the president of AICC Motilal could get his son appointed as the ‘trusted working general secretary’ to the AICC president. Jawaharlal was the first salaried general secretary who was appointed ignoring the protocols prescribed in the rule book of AICC. Motilal the incumbent president of AICC submitted a suggestion to Gandhi that either his son or Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel might be appointed as the next president of AICC fully knowing that Gandhi could not spare the services of Patel because he was acting at the forefront of Bardouly peasant struggle for and on behalf of Gandhi. Thus, Motilal could see the elevation of his son Jawahar Lal to the top of the organization in 1929 and he was honest enough to confess Gandhi that he invested money to the party specifically for this purpose.
Thereafter, Jawahar Lal followed the legacy of his father and he insisted that he was badly in need of the services of a ‘trusted secretary’ when he became the Prime Minister of India and Jawahar could influence the party to appoint his daughter Indira as his secretary. It was well-thought out decision of the Nehru family to keep up the power with the family and they still keep up the legacy established by Motilal, holding the power of the party. Nehru permitted his daughter Indira to suffix the surname Gandhi with her name though her Husband Feroze Gandy was not a Gandhi but a Parsi, as, he knew the socio-political market value of the surname Gandhi in Indian politics at that time. The sycophants of Nehru-family and their historians coined the term ‘Nehru-Gandhi family’ and they could make use of the market potentials of the surname Gandhi in Indian politics. At present, the surname Gandhi has been suffixed to Sonia, frankly speaking, who, being a Euro-centric, does not know who Gandhi is and what Gandhi preached.
Nehru was a hypocrite of the first order as he could project himself as a Euro-centric secularist, observing the traditional Hindu religious rituals if such rituals were beneficial to him. He was projected as a true follower of Gandhian legacy by the text-book historians though he declared it openly that he did not believe in the concepts of truth and non-violence as preached by Gandhi in 1927 itself. Gandhi raised the doubt, to Nehru, in a letter, that “I do not know whether you still believe in unadulterated non-violence.” Gandhi wrote this letter after Nehru’s visit to Soviet Union, that too immediately after his appointment as the ‘working general secretary’ of the AICC. Nehru wrote a detailed reply to Gandhi criticizing Gandhian view of winning freedom through the propagation of Khadi movement and he placed it on record that “But such faith for an irreligious person like me is a poor reed to rely on………….”. Then, Gandhi wrote back: “the difference between you and me appear to be so vast” and Gandhi observed that “there seems no meeting ground between us” and he lamented that he had ‘lost a comrade’. In this context, we could not but ask the question, how such a person could be the true follower of Gandhi.
Surprisingly, the ‘irreligious’ secularist Nehru observed the Hindu religious ritual of Saivite tradition on August 14, 1947 to ensure the transfer of power from the British to India and for its prolonged sustenance for him and his family. The details of the ritual have been narrated, might be for the first time, in the “Freedom at Midnight”. The INC brigade led by Jayaram Ramesh argue that the “Sengol” ritual was not the part of the official ceremony of transfer of power because if, it was an official function it would have been recorded by both Mountbatten and Rajaji. Since, they had not recorded it, Jayaram Ramesh concluded that such a ritual would not have been occurred. It is not my duty to narrate the logical blunder inherent in the argument as, it is explicit in the argument itself. But I have to ask one question to the Nehruvian secularists that was it not a hypocritic act when a publicly acclaimed irreligious man performs religious rituals privately. Why Nehru and his associates concealed this incident as secret act? Again, how a person who did not lay faith in ‘unadulterated non-violence’ can be a follower of Gandhi, who declared it openly that faith in non-violence was his powerful weapon to gain freedom and without which he cannot live a single moment?