The missing Nehru letters from the Prime Ministers’ Museum and Library (PMML) have ignited a storm of controversy, once again putting the Congress party and its dynastic leadership under scrutiny. The BJP, led by Sambit Patra, has raised serious questions about the removal of these historical documents, and the subsequent lack of transparency in their return. Speaker Om Birla’s directive to the concerned Minister for an explanation signals that this matter isn’t just a routine political squabble but a significant issue of public accountability. In 2008, during the UPA regime, letters written by India’s first Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru to various historical figures—including Edwina Mountbatten, Jayaprakash Narayan, and Albert Einstein—were reportedly taken from the Nehru Memorial Museum and Library at the behest of Sonia Gandhi. These letters, now formally requested for return by PMML historian Rizwan Kadri, are invaluable to researchers and the nation’s collective memory. Yet, their absence raises troubling questions: What justifies their removal? Why haven’t they been returned? And more importantly, what is being concealed?
The BJP alleges that 51 cartons of Nehru’s correspondence were taken away, with particular emphasis on letters exchanged with Edwina Mountbatten. These letters, according to Pamela Hicks (Edwina’s daughter), reveal a deeply personal relationship between Nehru and Edwina, marked by mutual respect and affection. While some might argue that these personal exchanges should remain private, the reality is that Nehru was not just a private individual—he was the Prime Minister of India. His communications with global figures, opposition leaders, and personal acquaintances during his tenure belong not to a family but to the nation. Kadri’s insistence on making these letters available to scholars underscores their historical significance. They are not merely pieces of paper but windows into the formative years of independent India, shedding light on Nehru’s relationships, ideologies, and governance. For a political family that claims to uphold Nehru’s legacy, withholding such crucial documents is both ironic and indefensible.
Congress leaders have offered weak defenses, with some suggesting the letters belong to Nehru’s family. This argument falls flat when considering that many of these letters were written during his tenure as Prime Minister. Communications with Jayaprakash Narayan, Albert Einstein, and others transcend personal boundaries; they are historical artifacts that belong in public archives. Congress leader Manickam Tagore’s assertion that the BJP is politicizing the issue rings hollow when one recalls that it was Sonia Gandhi’s actions in 2008 that initiated this murky episode. The Gandhi family’s apparent reluctance to return these documents fuels speculation about their motives. What is so “secretive” about Nehru’s correspondence, particularly with Edwina Mountbatten? BJP spokesperson Sambit Patra’s pointed questions resonate with a nation that has grown weary of dynastic politics and opaque dealings. If there is nothing to hide, why the hesitation to return the letters or provide digital copies? This controversy is not just about missing letters; it is a reflection of the Congress party’s long-standing culture of entitlement. The party, which once spearheaded India’s independence movement, now finds itself mired in allegations of hoarding historical records and undermining public trust. The BJP’s determination to probe the matter is commendable, but it must be thorough and impartial. The Congress’ unwillingness to cooperate only deepens public suspicion. As a historian’s plea to Rahul Gandhi becomes a rallying cry for accountability, the nation demands more than evasions and counter-accusations. The letters of Jawaharlal Nehru belong not to any individual or family but to the people of India. This episode should serve as a wake-up call to protect India’s historical treasures from political exploitation. The Congress party must act decisively, returning the letters and embracing transparency—or risk further eroding its credibility in the eyes of the people. The choice is theirs, but the verdict will be the nations.