I remember reading this in the excellent book 'Letters for a Nation'- it is true Nehru said this, but context is essential . 1954 was 7 yrs after a bloody partition of India on blatantly communal lines with the two-nation theory loudly proclaimed. It cannot guide policy in 2020. https://twitter.com/Ram_Guha/status/1250380465577459713

I remember being in two minds at the time: I completely understood the absolute necessity for the Indian state to display it stood for genuine secularism then. It required the majority to, in some ways, oblige religious minorities to make them believe that India was for all.

Yet, it was also slightly uncomfortable to see that the burden is being placed on the majority, rather than stress equality. I resolved this dichotomy by agreeing with Nehru that this was crucial for this young, poor, multi-religious, multi-ethnic democracy to hold.

But Nehru's (correct) decisions from 1947 to 1964 were made in a different world, a different India. I do not understand why his detractors blame India's current woes on his decisions then, and I also do not understand why his cheerleaders believe we must slavishly follow him now

Indian national identity is firmly in place in 2020, so it is disheartening to see a communal angle in politics, no matter from which side. The conversation needs to be about equality, genuine secularism, uniform treatment - not extra duties that a majority or minority has.

Arguments that one religion has primacy and others must accept it as first among equals are divisive and dangerous to Indian nationalism. But equally, some misconceived notions of championing minorities at the expense of the majority community sets the stage for majoritarianism.

I suspect Mr Guha is too tone-deaf to understand this. Just like the traditionalists he derides, he harks back to a historical vision which he imagines and is fond of - where it is the majority's duty to make the minorities feel welcome. This view is a guaranteed electoral dud.

For the record, I think Jawaharlal Nehru was India's best Prime Minister. Idealistic? Sure. But that's exactly what you need when you are leading a civilization from the shackles of colonialism to freedom as a nation-state. In my view, Nehru had many more hits than misses.

Yet even I wouldn't enact policies for the country today just because 'Nehru said so in 1954'. Nehru also thought socialism was the direction India should take and that didn't end so well. END