“In one country, two constitutions, two heads, and two flags will not work…”
Dr. Syama Prasad Mukherjee, the founder of the Bharatiya Jana Sangh—ideological predecessor of today’s Bharatiya Janata Party—is remembered as a staunch nationalist, a visionary political leader, and an educationist committed to India’s sovereignty and progress. He died under very suspicious circumstances in jail, martyred defending and upholding the Constitution of India against those undermining it.
PM Modi, on 15 August, paid glowing tributes to Dr. S.P. Mukherjee in his 125th birth anniversary year and called him a first Mahapurush who sacrificed his life upholding the Indian Constitution. He added that the removal of Article 370, and bringing back the reality of “One Nation, One Constitution,” was in a way paying tribute to the memory of this great martyr and nationalist.
The history of Bharat is vast and layered. Its greatness did not arrive in a single stroke of independence, but through years of sacrifice, toil, and the vision of multiple leaders. Mukherjee was one of them: a builder of institutions, a defender of Bhartiya identity, and a guardian of national unity.
However, his obvious omission from history is a significant gap in our understanding of our own past. Until such figures find their rightful place in both public and political discourse, Indian history will remain a selective arc of a few, written about a few, for the benefit of a few. Seventy-two years after his untimely death, Mukherjee’s legacy needs revisiting not out of nostalgia, but because the dilemmas he confronted on identity, unity, dissent, and governance—all of which continue to confront Bharat in new forms in contemporary times.
MAKING OF A NATIONALIST INTELLECTUAL
Born on 6 July 1901 into a distinguished Bengali family, Mukherjee’s early life was shaped by education, scholarship, and public service. His father, Sir Ashutosh Mukherjee, a legendary Vice-Chancellor of Calcutta University, instilled in him a belief in both intellectual pursuit and institutional building.
Following in his footsteps, at the age of 33, Shyama Prasad became the youngest Vice-Chancellor of Calcutta University in 1934, leaving an imprint on higher education that endured well beyond his tenure.
While he began his political career with the Hindu Mahasabha, Mukherjee’s entry into national politics gained momentum during the freedom struggle. Unlike many contemporaries, he viewed nationalism through the prism of political independence and the lens of cultural self-assertion. To him, freedom was incomplete without reclaiming civilizational confidence and institutional autonomy.
Mukherjee’s most defining role came as the youngest member of Nehru’s first Cabinet after Independence, where he served as India’s first Industry and Supply Minister. His work laid the foundation for India’s industrial base, including the promotion of small-scale industries, steel plants, and infrastructure projects.
He recognized that economic self-reliance, which we today understand with policies like Atmanirbhar Bharat, was central to political sovereignty. But Mukherjee also represented a rare phenomenon in early Indian democracy—a dissenting voice inside the ruling establishment.
His resignation from the Cabinet in 1950 over differences on Nehru’s handling of Pakistan, the Nehru–Liaquat Pact, and the government’s inadequate protection of Hindus in East Pakistan, illustrated his preference for principles over conformity. For such reasons, perhaps, he set a unique precedent that illustrated dissent not as disloyalty but as an assertion of principle and values. Such an act of courage distinguished him from many contemporaries who subsumed their convictions under party discipline.
INSTITUTION-BUILDING AND THE J&K ISSUE
Mukherjee was not just a politician of the opposition but also an institution-builder. He founded the Bharatiya Jana Sangh in 1951, which later merged into today’s Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP). At a time when the Congress enjoyed political hegemony, the Jana Sangh created a platform for alternative politics, blending nationalism with cultural identity and economic self-reliance.
His role in shaping India’s industrial and educational policy, strengthening the cooperative movement, and promoting indigenous industries remains undeniable. Unlike the stereotype of cultural nationalists being indifferent to modernity, Mukherjee combined civilizational pride with pragmatic statecraft. In such a sense, he was a forerunner of debates that continue to define Indian politics today between centralization and federalism, identity and pluralism, tradition and modernity.
But if there is one issue that forever tied Mukherjee’s legacy to the Indian republic, it is Jammu and Kashmir. In the early 1950s, when Nehru pursued a special status arrangement under Article 370, Mukherjee warned that it would sow seeds of separatism.
His rallying cry, “Ek desh mein do vidhan, do pradhan, aur do nishan nahi chalenge” (One nation cannot have two constitutions, two prime ministers, and two flags), became a cornerstone of his politics. Mukherjee’s protest culminated in his arrest in Srinagar in 1953, where he died under mysterious circumstances. Even in his death, Mukherjee became a symbol of national unity.
Decades later, when Article 370 was abrogated by the Narendra Modi government, it was seen as fulfilling his unfinished mission. His words acquired renewed resonance in that moment, demonstrating how his vision outlived him.
Atal Bihari Vajpayee claimed in 2004 that the arrest of Mukherjee in Jammu and Kashmir was a “Nehru conspiracy” and that the death of Mukherjee has remained “even now a mystery.” The BJP in 2011 called for an inquiry to probe Mukherjee’s death.
A LEGACY MARGINALIZED, A LESSON FOR THE PRESENT
Despite his contributions, Mukherjee’s legacy was systematically downplayed in the post-Independence narrative dominated by the Congress. Nehru came to symbolize institution-building, Patel became selectively remembered as the “Iron Man,” while Mukherjee was reduced to a footnote, his ideas treated as inconvenient or oppositional.
Yet, as the decades have unfolded, many of Mukherjee’s concerns have proved prescient. The dangers of separatism in Kashmir, the fragility of India’s borders, the unresolved plight of refugees, and the necessity of building self-reliant industries all remain pressing issues.
His life demonstrates that history is not merely the story of consensus but also of contestation, and that dissenting voices often carry the seeds of tomorrow’s solutions. To revisit Mukherjee’s legacy is not to diminish the contributions of others but to expand the canvas of India’s historical memory.
The selective arc that elevates some while erasing others does injustice to the richness of Bharat’s democratic journey. Mukherjee’s life reminds us that nation-building is never the monopoly of one party, one ideology, or one set of leaders. The greatness of Bharat lies precisely in the diversity of voices, sacrifices, and visions that converged to secure her freedom and sovereignty.
Shyama Prasad Mukherjee was one such voice—bold, uncompromising, and deeply committed to the unity and dignity of Bharat. As India navigates its challenges in the Amrit Kaal, his example endures as a reminder that dissent is not disruption but an act of devotion to the nation.
Prof. Santishree Dhulipudi Pandit is the Vice Chancellor of JNU.
