In his eagerness to portray himself as greater than Nehru, Narendra Modi is attempting to project his tenure as Prime Minister as both longer and more illustrious than Nehru's. This is precisely what constitutes the distortion of history. The reality is that Jawaharlal Nehru served continuously as the country's Prime Minister from independence on August 15, 1947, until his death on May 27, 1964, with a total tenure of 6,130 days (16 years, 9 months, and 12 days). This remains the longest tenure of any Prime Minister in India. To break this record, the current Sanghi Prime Minister Modi still has a long and arduous road ahead, as he has served for only 4,400 days so far. Breaking Nehru's record would require the Earth to complete 1,733 orbits around the Sun —meaning Modi would need to hold firmly onto the legs of his chair for 149,731,200 seconds — because his "non-biological" body lacks the capacity to accelerate the Earth's axial rotation or its orbital speed around the Sun to shorten the 24-hour day-night cycle or the 365-day year. Mother Ganga has not yet bestowed such a boon upon him.

What is the real point? Simply that his tenure as an elected Prime Minister has now equaled Nehru’s. Had Nehru lived, it is highly probable that he would have remained Prime Minister for an even longer period — and perhaps even Modi would not have been able to break that potential record! Of course, no one has control over death, and through the celebrations marking his 12 years in office, Narendra Modi is, in a sense, thanking Nehru for having been claimed by time so prematurely.

Modi and the Sanghi brigade are in a great rush. They want to erase from history the first five years of Nehru's tenure, during which he held office as the country's interim Prime Minister. At the time of independence, the Constitution had not yet come into effect, and the country was governed by the Government of India Act, 1935, and the Indian Independence Act, 1947. The Constituent Assembly — an elected body with the status of a parliament — had elected Nehru as Prime Minister; Lord Mountbatten appointed him as India's interim Prime Minister and handed over power to the Congress, as it had emerged as the largest organization in the country during the freedom struggle.

The Constitution came into force in our country on January 26, 1950, declaring it a sovereign, democratic, and secular republic. This Constitution was adopted and given to themselves by "We, the People of India." India's first general elections were held two years after the Constitution came into effect, following which Jawaharlal Nehru became the elected Prime Minister.

The history of any nation shows that an elected government is not formed the very day after gaining independence. Only those who fought for the country's freedom could truly describe the arduous journey between independence and the first election, or the immense challenge of nurturing the nation's newfound liberty. Those who stood apart from that struggle — who actually strengthened the British hand and advocated for the country's division along religious lines — still swear by Babasaheb’s Constitution today, yet they persist in stoking Hindu-Muslim discord. They do so to reap a bountiful harvest of votes that keeps them in power, allowing them to wield that authority to run bulldozers and pave the way for the creation of a Hindu nation. So, if the first general election took place in 1952 — after independence — and Nehru served as interim Prime Minister for those five years, how can that be considered his fault?

But were they any less than an elected Prime Minister? While serving as interim Prime Minister, were they deprived of the powers vested in an elected Prime Minister? No. They possessed the authority to form the cabinet, formulate policies, determine foreign policy, and exercise all the powers that an elected Prime Minister holds. Therefore, the exclusion of Nehru's first five-year tenure — served as interim Prime Minister — from the count by the 'Sanghi' brigade and Prime Minister Narendra Modi constitutes political immorality and a fraud upon history.

It is noteworthy that the 'Sanghi' brigade was never in favour of the Constitution drafted under the leadership of Babasaheb Ambedkar. This implies that it had no desire to reconstruct Indian society based on the Constitution's foundational values — democracy, social justice, equality, secularism, and universal adult suffrage. For them, the Manusmriti was the sacred text they wished to elevate to the status of a constitution, aiming to reorganize society around feudal values and the Varna system. Even today, the Manusmriti remains their guiding text ; the history of their twelve years in power at the Centre reveals that they have imposed the Manusmriti upon our society in daily life while undermining the Constitution and its core principles. Every calculated move they make is aimed at shackling our country within the framework of Manuvad.

But is it something to be celebrated — which Prime Minister has ruled longer than a past Prime Minister? It is the height of shamelessness! Yet, is there any political shame left in the 'Sanghi' brigade and the Modi government?

Yet, the question remains : who is greater—Nehru or Modi? The answer can only be found by comparing their respective contributions. It was Nehru who steered the nation out of the trauma of Partition following independence — a period of anguish that also witnessed the assassination of the Father of the Nation, Mahatma Gandhi, at the hands of a Sanghi brigade. It was Nehru who championed scientific education for national progress and laid the foundations for modern development through Five-Year Plans and the public sector. Under his leadership, India became the voice of impoverished and underdeveloped nations -- a voice heard across the globe through the Non-Aligned Movement — precisely because he refused to yield to any form of imperialist pressure. It was during Nehru’s tenure that India began to ascend the ladder of human development indicators and transformed a subjugated economy into a self-reliant one. And indeed, while acknowledging these achievements, it is also crucial to remember that he did not cultivate any form of "Godi Media".

And what of Modi’s achievements? He is diligently working to render ineffective the very Constitution he swore by upon assuming power. He is transforming a sovereign nation into a strategic ally subservient to the United States. He is replacing the legacy of communal harmony with hateful Hindu-Muslim bigotry. He is mastering the art of bridging the fiscal deficit to run the country by selling off public sector industries. Under his rule, income and wealth inequality is rising faster than the GDP itself. The country continues to slide down the Human Development Index rankings across the board. It is Modi who, in his subservience to Adani and Ambani, beats drums and dances before world diplomats, and diminishes India’s dignity with spectacles like the "Melody hai Chocolaty" routine. Under Modi’s reign, our India is losing its character as a democratic, secular republic and rapidly transforming into a hardline Hindu-fascist authoritarian state, where minorities and the poor are left with nothing but a disenfranchised, second-class citizenship. Yet, Narendra Modi and the Sanghi brigade clique do possess a "Godi Media" —born of the nexus between corporate interests and Hindutva — that works tirelessly to portray even the blemishes on his record as the beauty of the moon.

Yes, one must not overlook another historical fact : throughout his tenure, Nehru served as Prime Minister leading a government with an absolute Congress majority, and his premiership did not depend on the goodwill of any specific party. In contrast, Narendra Modi has headed coalition governments for the past 12 years ; indeed, in his third term, his party -- the BJP — falls so far short of a majority that it requires two "crutches" to keep his government afloat.

In essence, the Nehru era was a time that led India from darkness to light, whereas the past twelve years of Modi's rule represent an era that is leading our country from light to darkness — moving it from civilization towards incivility and barbarism.

However, the history of any nation or civilization witnesses dark moments — much like the one our country is currently traversing. Yet, moments of darkness are not permanent. What endures is the light that has propelled humanity from primitive times to modern civilization ; indeed, no wall of darkness in the past has ever managed to obstruct the light of a progressing civilization. The darkness of the Modi era is incapable of extinguishing the radiance of the Nehru era. This is the very reason behind the agitation and hatred Narendra Modi and the Sangh harbor towards Nehru. The more they attempt to erase Nehru’s legacy, the more their own legacy will appear diminished.

Let this article conclude with a fable. The leader of a frog colony became obsessed with the idea of becoming — and appearing — bigger than every other creature. He would constantly ask, "Who is the greatest, brother? Who is the greatest?" The group of frogs would answer in chorus, "You, Sire — you!" One day, a frog spotted an ox and mustered the courage to point the creature out to the leader. The frog leader began inflating his body like a balloon to compete with the ox, and eventually, his entire body burst. Modi finds himself in the same situation ; he asks, "Who is the greatest, brother? Who is the greatest?" and the 'Godi Media' responds in chorus, "You, Sire—you!"

Everyone knows the fate that awaits this balloon being inflated by the 'Godi Media' — everyone, that is, except Modi and the Sangh brigade. This is the inevitable fate of every fascist dictator.


The author is an independent writer on politics, social and agrarian issues. The views are personal.