When leaping ahead, does the mud have to cling?

India post the 2014 verdict has awakened to sense of hope and shifted to a regimen of stability. The vote share of a 31% for a majority government in 2014 compared to 40.8% of that in 1967 need not be of only a negative connotation of divide but also a sense of pride that diversity and democracy in the nation has thrived farther.

A widely accepted philosophy based on a similar argument is that history “teaches us lessons” and “we learn from history”. All historians and ones perceived among the most unbiased also have had certain ideologies or minor inclinations, needless to say because of human nature. History even in the modern day may consist of facts but also of opinions, which categorizes it as an art that is subject to both criticism and appreciation.

The history of India during the period of independence and later has had stories beyond borders ranging from South Africa, United Kingdom, Japan, Russia and India among others. Many freedom fighters against colonial rule had different ideologies and belief systems based on upbringing, diverse traditions and also surrounding compulsions among many other personal factors. Non-violence to some was imperfect and to others was a gesture India will be symbolic for decades to come. The freedom fighters ranging from Shubash Chandra Bose, Bhagat Singh, BalGangadhar Tilak, Mahatma Gandhi, Jawaharlal Nehru, Sardar Patel and Rajendra Prasad, had different means towards the goal of freedom and Republic of India but their intentions were quite indifferent and pure.

As the saying goes thatperfect can be better. It is to note that there may have been certain circumstances during times which are not known today, which may have pressed for certain decisions, especially the partition. However is condemning or pitting Martyrs or Freedom Fighters against each other the solution at hand?

There are many What If’s being propagated today and some of them are outlined below. What if Shubash Chandra Bose liberated India? What if Sardar Patel was the first prime minister of independent India? What if Rajendra Prasad was the first PM? What if Lal Bahadur Shastri lived a few more years?

Likewise, What if Columbus had found India? What if the 2008 recession didn’t occurred crude prices did not escalate? What if the nuclear deal had not passed? What if Pramod Mahajan were alive?

There were black spots during the rule of UPA-I and UPA-II. The Nehru-Gandhi family has dominated the Indian national congress. It is also the party to which many of the architects of modern India belonged. Other leaders may have been less talked of but definitely not forgotten.

Immoral may this seem but is hijacking leaders for political purposes and creating divide a must for a government which has secured a massive mandate in India on a promise of an agenda of development? Is it time for a leader the aspirational, globalized, forward looking, and impatient, youth and citizenry of India or Bharat (not only Hindustan or Hind) to say ceteris paribus on historical If’s and move ahead on the trusted manifesto of progress?

Must the present government feel history has been unkind it would serve a noble purpose for the 56-inch chest and an equally sized heart embedded leader of the nation to bring a balance upon leaders who are perceived to downplayed through the educational system based on their principles rather than an “eye for an eye”, whilst affiliates are trying to idolizeGodse and create other such unrest based on unnecessary historic ambiguities. When one of the most visible leader’s in the globe, Prime Minister Modi next time begins his speech with “main Mahatma Gandhi kedharti se aayahoon” will hehonor the quote “an eye for an eye will turn the whole world blind” or is he going to make the leap heavier with the mud clinging?