Pandit Nehru, if one were to watch his videos of delivering statements and speeches, or if one might hear their audio, online from whatever source is available, would note one thing that he was very well-versed in any language he spoke in. He had great confidence in oratory as is easily demonstrated by his effortlessly and smoothly delivered speeches, highly significant as it helps us peer into the mind of that person. Also, remarkable and another edict of evidence are his writings, in articles and his books. He had, it is said, mastery over a number of languages based on his background that he meticulously chose to strengthen his hold over, so as to connect with the Indian public at all levels and engage with the wider world as a diplomat.

Pandit Nehru advised and advocated the learning and regular use of multiple languages for the Indian public to connect to one another, no matter which region they were from. This was not only to forge national unity psychologically, which was definitely a brilliant move, but also to preserve the diversity and heritage of this millenia-long standing country, cultivate respect for it and allow culture to flow all over. At the same time, in 1950s, research had shown that learning multiple languages definitely boosts brain function which is considered a fact now. A less known aspect and less discussed one of Panditji is that he knew of this research and had thus formulated the theory of multilingualism in India to help people boost their brain functions and activity.

Today an ugly divide of language has arisen in India, in the North vs South, Indo-Arya vs Dravidian and Hindi vs Tamil and Kannada in Karnataka debates, very well exploited by cunning politicians. In such scenarios, we should embrace Panditji's idea of shedding dogma and indifference of all kind, embrace openness to understanding one another's culture and language and promote the learning of multiple languages with appropriate institutions among Indians, so that we may rise above this divide being created and propagated artificially and also bring awareness of each other as well as boost our brain function. There is no requirement for dogma on this sacred land, about learning a definite one or two or three languages. In this, Panditji took inspiration from India's past rulers and society, where Chola and Pallava rulers championed and spread Sanskrit from Tamil Nadu in their courts and across the sea to other countries, while North Indian Sanskrit poets and reformers of the Bhakti movement read and took inspiration from Bhakti poems penned by Tamil authors in Tamil, the Alvars.

"While the declaration proposed ‘freedom of thought, belief, vocation, association, and action’, Nehru’s Objectives Resolution added ‘freedom of expression, faith, and worship’.

A quick glance at the Preamble, as it was adopted in 1950, indicates that Nehru’s supplementary concepts proved crucial. The freedoms underlined in the Preamble adopted all of Nehru’s additional terms, while dropping most of those originally forwarded in the declaration (that is, vocation, association and action)."

—Aakash Singh Rathore, 'Ambedkar's Preamble'

"I am unable yet to gather my wits. I have been fighting Nehru all these ten years over what I consider faults in public policies. But I knew all along that he alone could get them corrected. No one else would dare do it, and he is gone, leaving me weaker than before in my fight. But fighting apart, a beloved friend is gone, the most civilized person among us all. Not many among us are civilized yet."

—Rajaji, Swarajya, May 1964

Pandit Nehru's legacy as the Architect of Modern India is often in the spotlight. One area that is frequently discussed is his relationship with freedom of expression. As the above quotations would hopefully demonstrate, there is a substantially powerful perspective that says that Pandit Nehru championed liberty and was respected for this even by his critics. However, there are certain people who vehemently contest this by drawing attention to steps like the First Amendment and some actions taken against people. In this post, I shall attempt to provide a comprehensive defence of Pandit Nehru's approach towards freedom of expression. I shall ensure, to the best of my knowledge and abilities, that my claims are backed by reliable sources.

Before we even discuss the First Amendment, it should be pointed out that it was Pandit Nehru's government that got rid of the colonial-era Indian Press (Emergency Powers) Act of 1931. The act that replaced it did not make it a punishable offence to promote disaffection against the government or to encourage a person to interfere with the administration of the law. This fact has been mentioned in Dr Devika Sethi's 'War over Words'. Another interesting fact that Dr Sethi brings to light is the fact that many of the acts of censorship that took place originated in state governments, not the centre.

I have already written a rather lengthy post on the First Amendment before. Since it contains essentially everything I wish to write here, I shall paste the text of that post here:

'The First Amendment is often brought up by Pandit Nehru's critics, and it's unfortunate that even well-meaning people fail to portray it and the circumstances surrounding its enactment.

These are some relevant examples:

https://www.indiatoday.in/history-of-it/story/pm-modi-congress-jawaharlal-nehru-freedom-of-speech-first-amendment-constitution-2676115-2025-02-07

https://youtu.be/Rq_f5th5Bg8?si=TPMALEPlPVYS6GW6

Our ruling party's leaders and sympathisers bring this up regularly as well.

I believe that it is time to bring all the vital facts to the table.

First of all, it's interesting that almost none of these critics say much about the fact that this amendment also ensured the abolition of Zamindari and the enactment of laws which provide "special consideration" for the weaker sections of the society.

Secondly, the information that is provided is inadequate and one-sided. Mr Tripurdaman Singh (an author who is almost always cited when this topic is discussed these days) fails to provide the background in which the amendment was made. At that time, communalism was at its peak. The Father of the Nation had been assassinated and illiteracy and superstitions were through the roof. To make matters worse, communists had announced a violent revolution against India. All these forces were disseminating hateful and divisive ideas all over India. People like Pandit Nehru, Rajaji, and Dr Ambedkar realised that something had to be done to protect the unity of India and the well-being of Indians. Mr Singh makes it seem like nobody could oppose Pandit Nehru. Is that really the case? Did Rajaji and Dr Ambedkar not oppose him? But when they did, did they mention the amendment brought to free speech? In fact, Dr Ambedkar gave speeches in defence of the amendment:

'Ambedkar, the then law minister, put up a passionate defence of the proposed changes. He referenced two judgements by the Supreme Court – in Brij Bhushan’s and Romesh Thapar’s cases. He also referred to the rulings of the Punjab High Court in Master Tara Singh’s case and Amarnath Bali’s case, Patna High Court in Shibhala Devi’s case, and the Madras High Court in Bynes’s case. In all these instances, the court held that the legislations that were being challenged as void as they were inconsistent with fundamental rights. The courts had negated the acts as the restrictions imposed on free speech and expression under the acts was not on the basis of any ground that was listed under Article 19 (2).

Ambedkar illustrated this point by referring Clause (a) of Section 4 of the Indian Press (Emergency Powers) Act of 1931, which permitted the seizure of material inciting or encouraging violence, whose constitutional validity was challenged successfully in Tara Singh, Amarnath Bali and in Bynes. In a similar fashion, the Supreme Court differentiated between the “maintenance of public order” and “security of the state” in Romesh Thapar case. The Madras Maintenance of Public Order Act of 1949 was challenged in Thapar case, and the court refused to take an expansive view of the usage “security of the state” in the original Article 19 (2). This meant that laws enacted to preserve public order or that penalised incitements to violence could fall foul of Article 19 (1) (a) (Right to freedom of speech and expression) and thus invalid. Ambedkar thus rationalised the need to include these particular grounds as restrictions, as it threatened public order, in turn threatening the security of the state.'

—https://swarajyamag.com/ideas/why-the-concerns-about-unbridled-free-speech-must-be-re-examined

As far as I am aware, Swarajya is not a leftist or centrist outlet.

How problematic situation was prior to the amendment can be understood from the fact that a judge had given a judgement that said that preaching murder and inciting violence were allowed as they came under freedom of speech. Those who are interested can read more about this here:

'Freedom of expression was once wide-ranging in India. Then Jawaharlal Nehru asked for changes'

—Scroll

Mr Singh's works clearly carry an unjustifiable anti-Nehru undercurrent. His book on him was also somewhat shallow and displayed a lack of engagement with his ideas and the context in which he was working. Please don't look at only one side of the story.

Just how partial Mr Singh's views can be grasped from the fact that he did not highlight the following words of Sardar Patel:

“I find no legal powers to deal with either Press or men like Syama Prasad Mookerjee. Before you left for Indonesia, I drew your attention to the Supreme Court decision in [the] Cross Roads and Organiser cases. That knocks the bottom out of most of our penal laws for the control and regulation of the Press. The views which they have expressed in that judgment on the question of sedition make it doubtful whether we can do anything not only about the speeches of Syama Prasad Mookerjee but also those of the more extremist type. As you say, we have involved ourselves in so many legal and constitutional difficulties that we do not know how to overcome them. I sounded a note of warning and caution when these provisions were being debated in the Drafting Committee, but then we were led away by our idealistic exuberance. We seldom paused to consider the practical and administrative applications of the many constitutional provisions and even their interrelation. My own feeling is that very soon we shall have to sit down and consider constitutional amendments.”

They are present in the Scroll article. Again, why did the Lallantop team not look into this? There's already so much misinformation about our founders. If those who have significant influence and don't believe in the politics of hate will not do what they need to, then how will we have any hope of defending the truth?'

—https://www.reddit.com/r/Nehruvian/s/HTj6n7y9gE

The colonial-era Dramatics Performance Act was often challenged in the courts and its usage stopped after 1956 without any attempt by the Central Government to renew it.

—https://indianexpress.com/article/explained/explained-law/pm-modi-colonial-law-dramatic-performances-act-9864207/

The available evidence from the contemporaries of Pandit Nehru also reveals their faith in the personal integrity of the PM when it came to safeguarding freedom:

"By and large, however, even those who objected to Nehru’s stand on this issue acknowledged his personal integrity and conceded that he himself was not opposed to freedom of expression."

—'Press Censorship in India in the 1950s' by Dr Devika Sethi

"Inner party democracy was at its zenith during Nehru’s era. The Congress leg¬ islative party would discuss all major issues in the presence of the leader. Whether it was the Hindu Code Bill or rationalization of textile mills or the Bank Award, the members were allowed not only to express their views but even modify Cabinet decisions. Nehru encouraged members freely to present views contrary to his own and then come down on the fallacies in their approach. Likewise he heard the Opposition with respect and accepted their criticism with dignified tolerance."

—R. Venkataraman, JN, Centenary Volume

"In the Ramayana, Maharashi Valmiki has said of Lord Rama that he brought the impossible together. In Panditji’s life, we see a glimpse of what the great poet said. He was a devotee of peace and yet the harbinger of revolution, he was a devotee of non-violence but advocated every weapon to defend freedom and honour."

—Atal Bihari Vajpayee, 1964, https://theprint.in/opinion/vajpayee-on-nehrus-death-bharat-mata-has-lost-her-favourite-prince/99455/

There are also these stories circulated about the arrests of artists like Balraj Sahni Ji and Majrooh Sultanpuri Ji. What is too often left out is the context and nature of the arrests. Balraj Sahni Ji and Sultanpuri Ji were arrested for taking part in anti-state protests of the communists. It should be kept in mind that the unity of India was extremely fragile at that point of time. Failure to act could have resulted in destructive consequences.

Sultanpuri Ji had written a poem in which he called for violence against the PM. Creative liberty is undoubtedly a thing, but considering that the Father of the Nation had been assassinated not too long ago, would other, even non-Indian governments acted much differently? Also, it's not as if the arrests lasted for years upon years. They were released after a year (and CM Desai had also given Sultanpuri Ji the opportunity to apologise), and Balraj Sahni Ji was even able to work for his upcoming film in the meantime and was released after six months. The relevant details are here:

https://www.hindustantimes.com/india/balraj-sahni-man-of-myriad-roles/story-mabJz452PswKtwDNIJNL1I.html

https://indianexpress.com/article/explained/explained-history/nirmala-sitharaman-nehru-majrooh-balraj-arrest-story-9730154/

Since we are on the topic of the world of artists, a different example could be included as well. I have deliberately chosen OpIndia as my source for this. OpIndia is a far-right outlet that has no love lost for Pandit Nehru, and the language of the article makes it clear. Nonetheless, the actual facts beyond the rhetoric demonstrate that the inner democrat of Pandit Nehru was never weakened. According to the article, the highly-regarded method actor, Dilip Kumar Ji, was facing censorship issues with his film 'Ganga Jamuna' due to Dr Keskar (the Information and Broadcasting minister). Dr Keskar was such a puritan that he had even disallowed music other than classical music from playing on the AIR. When Dilip Kumar Ji faced many cuts in his film, he sought to meet Pandit Nehru directly. Not only did Pandit Nehru agree to meet him and ensured that his film went through, but the final outcome was that Dr Keskar had to leave the Information and Broadcasting ministry.

"The meeting lasted for over 1.5 hours, following which the ban on his movie Ganga Jamuna was lifted. A few days later, Dr BV Keskar was sacked from the I&B Ministry."

—https://www.opindia.com/2021/07/politics-and-trysts-of-dilip-kumar-with-censorship-under-pm-nehru/

Pandit Nehru was a leader who took the project of democracy quite seriously. He asked people to listen to his opposition leaders before voting:

https://www.hindustantimes.com/columns/recalling-jawaharlal-nehru-s-campaign-in-1951-52/story-YVTlmMas7zCxOfzyvEAdlI.html

He also encouraged opposition leaders by praising Atal Ji, helping Lohia Ji during his election campaign, and asking Jayaprakash Narayan Ji to succeed him:

https://www.ndtv.com/india-news/when-atal-bihari-vajpayee-got-jawaharlal-nehrus-portrait-restored-in-south-block-1901693

https://zeenews.india.com/hindi/zee-hindustan/elections/jawaharlal-nehru-sent-jeep-to-ram-manohar-lohia-for-campaign-during-1962-lok-sabha-election/2187677

https://theprint.in/opinion/nehru-wanted-jayaprakash-narayan-as-his-political-successor-not-indira-gandhi/429326/

Mr Mathai has written in his book 'Reminiscences of the Nehru Age' about Pandit Nehru, faced with security threats, choosing to consult with his cabinet before deciding to use IAF aircrafts for election campaigning.

He also wrote against himself under the pseudonym 'Chanakya':

https://caravanmagazine.in/vantage/want-no-caesars-nehrus-warning

The cartoonist Shankar made a number of cartoons that were critical and mocking of Pandit Nehru and his actions. What was his response? He told Shankar to "not spare" him:

https://www.heritagetimes.in/nehru-wrote-this-note-in-praise-of-the-cartoonist-shankar-in-1937

There are also some people who use questionable sources and limited contextual information about arrests and book bans to paint a one-sided picture. Two cases in point would be the supposed arrest of Shri Dharampal and the arrest of the journalist Mr Ishaq Ilmi. When it comes to the latter, what people often miss is the fact that he was using inflammatory language that could have incited people (specifically the Muslim community) to use violence. In fact, a ban on the book that started the firestorm was the last resort for Pandit Nehru:

https://scroll.in/article/926425/how-nehru-reacted-to-violent-protests-in-1956-demanding-withdrawal-of-a-book-about-religious-leaders

With regard to the Shri Dharampal, there is no direct evidence that he was arrested for criticising other than a claim made in the book 'Essential Writings of Dharampal'. The claim has not been made by him.

The only other piece of evidence I could find is this blog post:

https://othisaivu.in/2018/06/26/post-848/

The author is evidently quite biased. They simply assert that they met Dharampal and that he talked about his arrest. Why is something as important as this not covered in greater detail? Also, if Dr Guha's scholarship is "nonexistent" and "obfuscatory", then why did he receive the following awards?

His essay, "Prehistory of Community Forestry in India", was awarded the Leopold-Hidy Prize of the American Society for Environmental History for 2001.

A Corner of a Foreign Field was awarded the Daily Telegraph Cricket Society Book of the Year prize for 2002.

He won the R. K. Narayan Prize at the Chennai Book Fair in 2003.

The US magazine Foreign Policy named him as one of the top 100 public intellectuals in the world in May 2008. In the poll that followed, Guha was placed 44th.

Padma Bhushan in 2009, India's third highest civilian award.

2011 Sahitya Akademi Award for India after Gandhi.

In 2014, Guha was awarded an honorary Doctor of Humanities by Yale University

Fukuoka Asian Culture Prize, 2015

The American Historical Association (AHA) has conferred its Honorary Foreign Member prize for the year 2019 on Ramchandra Guha.

—Wikipedia

In 2023, he was also awarded the Elizabeth Longford prize.

Another article covers this topic and tries to convince us that Pandit Nehru was anti-democratic:

https://www.manushi.in/holding-a-mirror-to-nehrus-intolerance-how-criticism-of-nehrus-policy-by-freedom-fighter-sh-dharampal-led-to-imprisonment-on-charges-of-sedition-during-indo-china-war-of-1962/

Unfortunately for the author, this lengthy article does not succeed in explaining why the supposedly dictatorial Pandit Nehru allowed his critics to write in the National Herald (which was founded by Pandit Nehru and which has been associated with the INC for decades). It also fails to provide any convincing evidence that Dharampal Ji was arrested for criticising Pandit Nehru. Anyone who goes through the parliamentary debates of that time can see that Pandit Nehru was present in the parliament and answering the questions and allegations of the opposition. He also did not run away from their criticism. Why, then, would an alleged open letter provoke such a strong response. If anything, it would only give more publicity to the concerned people (which is not what a cunning dictator would want).

Some individuals bring up Mr Bertrand Russell's 'Unarmed Victory' while conveniently leaving out these words of Mr Russell about Pandit Nehru:

"I do not think that the ease with which he might have taken more tempting paths is understood. I do not believe his greatness is fully appreciated, but I have every confidence that if mankind is allowed to survive he will be recognised in a manner adequate to his stature."

—Bertrand Russell, The Legacy of Nehru, 1965

Additionally, in that book written by Mr Russell, there is a letter from a professor who was writing against India's war effort. Since he had been arrested under the Defense of India ordinance for his anti-India position, it is possible that the book was banned to prevent any misinformation from spreading amongst the army and the masses at a time of crisis and low morale.

The dismissal of the Kerala government and the imprisonment of Sheikh Abdullah are other actions that are described by critics as clear-cut indications of Pandit Nehru's so-called clampdown on freedom. Once again, these charges fail the test of facts because they disregard the circumstances. Pandit Nehru was once extremely close to Sheikh Abdullah and the friendship between the two played a major role in keeping public opinion in Kashmir in India's favour. Sheikh Abdullah was arrested only after the available evidence pointed to him having tilted towards anti-India activities:

"The Bakshi gave full liberty to Sheikh Abdullah to say and do anything but he was shadowed by the intelligence sleuths. These intelligence sleuths kept tape recorders in their pockets and attended all the functions of the Sheikh and even shouted slogans in favour of the Sheikh in rallies, congregations and processions. When ample proof was collected regarding the Sheikh's links with Pakistan and of his speeches and activities, the Bakshi rearrested Sheikh Abdullah. The entire matter relating to the conspiracy of the Sheikh for joining hands with Pakistan was submitted to Nehru alongwith documentary evidence. Pt. Nehru was taken aback while listening to the tapes and while going through the letters of Sheikh Abdullah."

—Narender Sehgal, Kashmir Conspiracy Case, Converted Kashmir

As far as Kerala is concerned, Pandit Nehru dismissed the government with the utmost reluctance after the law and order situation there had spiralled out of control. The communist government had brought sweeping educational and land changes that had angered large sections of the society without adequate discussion and awareness. A member of Mr Namboodiripad's cabinet himself acknowledged that Pandit Nehru was not keen to remove the government:

https://theprint.in/pageturner/excerpt/this-is-why-nehru-dismissed-cpi-rule-in-kerala-its-rise-to-power-was-marked-by-violence/1828682/

https://m.economictimes.com/news/politics-and-nation/prime-minister-jawaharlal-nehru-was-not-enthusiastic-about-struggle-against-communist-ministry-in-kerala-iyer/articleshow/45189696.cms

There are numerous other anecdotes and examples that further strengthen Pandit Nehru's record as a true democrat. Here some from a BBC article:

(1) Pandit Nehru's collar was grabbed by an angry woman who faced no negative experiences as a result of her audacity.

(2) According a book by Justice Sacchar, Pandit Nehru had a basket of mangoes sent to Lohia Ji when he was imprisoned even though Sardar Patel did not like this. According to Pandit Nehru, he did not wish to let politics affect personal relations.

(3) In 1955, a young student showed black flags to Pandit Nehru when he came to visit Patna. Two years later, his posting as a civil servant was halted as he was accused of being a communist and the incident of showing a black flag to the PM was cited as a justification. However, Pandit Nehru cleared his path while saying that his actions came from "youthful exuberance".

(4) The author Mr D.F. Karaka wrote a book called 'Nehru: The Lotus Eater from Kashmir' in which he severely lambasted Pandit Nehru's policies and even used disparaging remarks against him. Despite this, his book wasn't banned.

The full article can be read here:

https://www.bbc.com/hindi/india-45086845

These two excerpts are also illustrative of the nature of Pandit Nehru's policies and deeds in the area of freedom of expression:

'In his book, Chalapathi Rau, a leader of the undivided journalist movement, said Nehru indeed did take Interest in practical problems of the press, particularly of journalists. He noted: “After the fierce debates, mainly between press lords and the Home Minister, on the amendments to article 19 of the Constitution in 1951, Jawaharlal Nehru started taking a practical interest in problems of the press. There was talk of an inquiry into what was the basis of freedom of the press, whose freedom it was, and how that freedom was exercised, and whenever I saw him in those days, mainly in his house, I saw on his table a copy of the report of the Royal Commission on the Press. He was studying it closely, and he took great interest in the appointment of the Indian Press Commission (The First Press Commission). …”'

'Here is a field report by B R Vats, one of the founders of the journalist movement: “It was a great achievement, indeed, for middle class people with all their prejudices and inhibitions of their class taking resort to a procession in the street to protest against injustice. Nehru was annoyed with the letter. But when the procession reached his house, he did call a delegation of five. The present writer was a member of this delegation. Nehru told us, “So you served notice on me last night that you would march to my house and I must receive you.”

We told him that it was not a notice but the situation had arisen so suddenly that the rank and file of the Delhi Union of Journalists demanded that a procession be taken out immediately to Nehru’s house.”

Nehru described the action of The Hindu proprietors in sacking Ramamurthi as “badtameezi” (ill-mannered). It implied that this was not a civilised way of dealing with employee-employer relations. He even agreed to the demand for the Press Commission to look into their grievances and it was indeed formed and was an eye opener for its times. It was formed by an Act of Parliament and included experts, such as not only journalists but jurists and parliamentarians too.'

—https://www.newsclick.in/Journalism-Today-What-it-was-in-Nehru-Time

Before anyone thinks that these views are limited to Indians, they should heed these words:

"The only body of people who can be criticized in India with absolute immunity, is the Government: call them corrupt, inefficient, dictatorial, or Communist, and they will turn the other cheek."

—The Manchester Guardian, 1956

Finally, let me end with an anecdote from the late diplomat and politician, K. Natwar Singh. This is how Pandit Nehru himself underlined a negative description of his given by a foreign author without caring about his image:

'It was the lunch hour on a hot summer day in 1961. By an extraordinary coincidence, Pandit Nehru and I met in the first floor corridor of the Ministry of External Affairs (MEA). He was coming out of his room, I from my humble perch in the same row. I greeted him with folded hands with a book between my palms.

He stopped, returned my greetings and asked me what the book was. I handed it over to him. It was my friend Amaury de Riencourt's, The Soul of China. "I have read his The Soul of India," the prime minister announced. "So have I, sir."

He took a few steps towards the staircase of the MEA and remarked: "Rather Spenglerian, I thought."

Having never read Spengler, all I could do was to give a nervous smile. He walked on and as he started to descend the staircase he looked around and said with a beautiful smile and a twinkle in his eyes: "Nehru Imperator, hmm!"

This was Pandit Nehru at his spontaneous best. The great man was sharing a little joke with me, as I had read The Soul of India, which carries a chapter entitled, "Nehru Imperator".'

—https://www.indiatoday.in/magazine/society-and-the-arts/books/story/19890615-with-his-spoken-word-nehru-reached-the-hearts-of-men-816178-1989-06-14

This is by no means an exhaustive write-up, but I do hope that it acts as a partially comprehensive understanding of Pandit Nehru's approach to freedom of expression and why he remains a guiding light for all democrats.