2nd October, 1904: Birth Anniversary of Lal
Bahadur Shastri
Shastriji -As Conciliator
Second October is a doubly important,
auspicious day for the people of India: the one, the birthday of a truly great
man of our time of whom Einstein, the eminent scientist said, "generations
to come will scarcely believe that such a one as this ever in flesh and blood
walked upon this earth’’. The other, the birthday of a man of humble origin who
by his character and dedicated service became the First Minister of the Union
Government of India. Even though his tenure was all too brief-cut off by sudden
death - Lal Bahadur Shastri did make an impact on his people and contributed to
national progress.
What was Shastriji’s out standing
contribution or achievement? He embodied what might be called the best in Hindu
temperament in his attitude and approach to problems and relations with men. He
was modest, cautions, tentative, tolerant; he was prepared to listen to views
different and opposite to his own, try to learn from them without giving up his
own basic stand. Succeeding a national figure like Jawaharlal Nehru, he had to
be wary in his steps, watch carefully the trends and forces and movements at home and abroad. He did not wish
to do something spectacular and stagger mankind. Indeed, he had already too
many serious and complex problems economic and regionals to be able to take up a
heroic pose. Food, economic growth, controversy over language, were all there
as legacies and to be faced by a party torn by internal dissensions. The
Chinese episode in the autumn of 1962 had affected the nation's prestige and
self-confidence. Pakistan was, as ever, a disturbing and unpredictable element.
Shastriji faced these formidable problems
as they arose coolly and calmly. He was patient not in the sense of resigning
himself to forces beyond his control or permitting events to work themselves
out and find solution. His patience had an element of persistence and
perseverance. He did not wait patiently for “something to turn up”. But on one
point he was clear. He felt that in a vast country with so many divergences of
religion, community and language, unity had to be obtained the hard way. It
could not be taken for granted or imposed from above. In other words, he wanted
to evolve as far as possible a consensus through consultations with his party
as well as opposition leaders. That was not a sign of weakness but of strength.
Conflict of interests and opinions is the essence of free political life….
...Shastriji had a broad and impartial
mind which was constantly struggling….He recognised, perhaps instinctively, the
value of the politics of consensus. But it takes more than mere ingenuous
tactics or clever manoeuvring to achieve and maintain a worthwhile consensus. And
an enduring consensus cannot be built up by ignoring or blurring vital issues. If
Shastriji did not always succeed, it was not for want of trying.
It was on the international plane, however,
that Shastriji evinced his quality of firmness and resilience. It is in such
crises as he had to face in the summer of 1965 in the Rann of Kutch and in the
autumn that year on the Punjab-Kashmir border that he rose to the occasion. Opportunity
may make a man but it can also unmake him. In a very real sense, during such
crucial events a statesman and his methods are put to severe test. It is at
such times also that reputations are made and enhanced or reduced and shattered.
Shastriji on these two occasions had the final authority and bore the ultimate
responsibility. I believe that he showed courage and statesmanship in standing
by the Kutch agreement and the earlier pact of distribution of the waters of
the Indus basin in face of criticism. And while his conduct of the unfortunate
conflict with Pakistan evoked the admiration and respect of his countrymen, he
never turned bellicose or allowed fanaticism and hatred to pre-dominate. He
emphasised the limited objectives of the conflict which had been imposed upon
our country and which had nothing to do with a destruction or conquest of
Pakistan. And if Shastriji has a place in history, it is because of the way he
handled this war and equally, the subsequent peace at Tashkent. It is easy to
pour scorn on the sincere endeavour to arrive at an honourable settlement with a
neighbouring country which has been consistently hostile. But while we may be
able to choose our allies, we cannot unfortunately choose our neighbours. Shastriji
recognized, as peoples and leaders have to do sooner or later, that we have to
live with many of our problems, that unhappily there are no quick, easy and
satisfactory solutions in international relationship. Conciliation when done
without sacrifice of essential interests is not surrender. It is demagogic to
condemn every kind of compromise or adjustment with other countries as “appeasement”.
Shastriji did not appease Pakistan at Tashkent. What he did was to recognise
that the common interests of two neighbouring countries which were part of one
and a decade and a half ago, should have precedence over their differences,
that development of both was more vital for their mass of people than violent
conflicts engendering bitterness and hatred….If the Tashkent accord has not
worked out as Shastriji and all reasonable people in both countries hoped and wished,
the fault was surely not his. The Tashkent agreement has no built-in weaknesses;
it is singularly unfortunate that the Pakistan leaders have not lived up to it or
imbibed its spirit.
The hour of triumph, said Gandhiji on a
historic occasion, is the hour of humility. For Shastriji, Tashkent was the
hour of his moral victory- victory not only over the armed forces of Pakistan
but, what is not less important, over the evils of hatred and fanaticism. And
yet this hour was also the moment of his sudden and untimely departure and of
deep and genuine sorrow for his countrymen. He signed a peace pact, so to speak,
with his own blood. For him, popular affection was stronger than a fortress. He
had secured his place in the hearts of the people because he was one of them. It
has been said that a politician must never forget that he is just one of the
common folk. Shastriji, whatever his errors and limitations, never forget this;
he never lost touch with the common man not did he encourage hero-worship or
try to build up a personality cult. In politics what is believed is more
important than what is propagated. And people believed in Lal Bahadur Shastri. Great
man expect perhaps some prophets of old or saints do not have the character of
simplicity. Shastriji was by no means as simple as he seemed. But he endeavoured
to be true to himself and was, therefore, not
false to any other man. He may
have been right or wrong on specified issues but so far as I know, he was never
on the side of wrong.
The last enemy of Shastriji faced, as we
all have to some day, was death. But death, too, revealed his poise and
serenity and it could be said of him-he ran
the race too quickly at the end but he kept to the course; fate did not
spare him but he kept his faith with his fellowmen.
____________________________________
Excerpts from a talk given
by Shri G.L. Mehta
over the All India Radio,
on
October 2, 1967
Source: C. Rajagopalachari Papers, MSS, NMML
