Numbers didn’t give glory to Jawaharlal Nehru. Not even 4,398, the number of days that Narendra Modi surpassed this week apparently to become the longest-serving “elected” prime minister of India. Nehru earned fame and respect because of his sacrifice and service; the actual number that strikes awe into most Indians is the 3,259 days Nehru spent in jail for the national cause. Petty politicians flaunting superiority because of sundry factors are insulting the freedom movement.Nehru is considered one of the ideal politicians the world has seen because of his exceptional moral fortitude and intellectual prowess. His political charm is eternal because of his value system – that gave birth to the idea of India – and success in building a modern nation-state.How many days he served as prime minister is irrelevant to his saga of greatness. Even six decades after his death, veneration for Nehru among the intelligentsia as well as the masses hasn’t diminished; he remains at the top of any global chart of statesmen who left an indelible mark on history.It’s undesirable, if not cheap, that the number 4,399 triggered frenzied celebrations in the BJP. This means nothing for the country grappling with myriad crises – social, economic, political and cultural. How many days Modi sat on the throne makes absolutely no difference to national life because every section of society – from students and unemployed youth to farmers and entrepreneurs – is in distress.Modi’s tenure has anyway been the most controversial in India’s history. There is a fierce debate on his politics, value system and achievements. While Modi’s supporters think India started rising only after his ascent to power, such an assessment lacks conviction and rationale. Though Modi has dreamt up a spot among the best, the majority opinion rates his leadership as the worst.The desire for a comparison with Nehru is truly scandalous. While Nehru surprised the world by building a thriving democracy in the formative years of an illiterate and vastly diverse nation grappling with wretched poverty and lack of infrastructure, the Modi regime is seen by international agencies, historians and political scientists as a disturbing phase of diminishing democracy.Nehru built great institutions – academic to cultural – and created a robust industrial base, but Modi is condemned for creating monopolies and selling national assets. Nehru earned global praise with his non-aligned, conscientious foreign policy that made India a credible moral voice, while Modi’s timidity against America and China, and alignment with Israel, robbed India of her ethical lustre.Nehru didn’t face a strong opposition but he was so democratic that he warned the nascent nation against the possibility of his own tyranny. Using a pseudonym, he wrote:“Men like Jawaharlal with all their capacity for great and good work, are unsafe in a democracy… A little twist and Jawaharlal might turn a dictator sweeping aside the paraphernalia of a slow-moving democracy. He might still use the language and slogan of democracy and socialism, but we all know how fascism has fattened on this language … He has all the makings of a dictator in him – vast popularity, a strong will directed to a well-defined purpose, energy, pride, organisational capacity, ability, hardness and with all his love of the crowd, an intolerance of others and a certain contempt for the weak and the inefficient … his over-mastering desire to get things done, to seep away what he dislikes and build anew, will hardly brook for long the slow process of democracy. Caesar-ism is always at the door, and is it not possible that Jawaharlal might fancy himself as a Caesar?”Fake certificationA comparison between the author of The Discovery of India and the author of Exam Warriors is a crime. Modi supporters may dismiss such critical assessments as biased. Let’s recall the views expressed by two prominent leaders – former Prime Minister H.D. Deve Gowda and former Bihar chief minister Nitish Kumar – who came forward to write articles on Modi’s greatness during the “4,399” celebrations this week. Though both Gowda and Nitish are the BJP’s allies today, both of them have viciously attacked Modi for communal politics and false propaganda.In his latest article, Nitish wrote about the “public trust” that Modi enjoys and his success in setting “a new benchmark in democratic politics”. He went so far as to say that Modi consistently focussed on “transparency and accountability”, and public trust in institutions strengthened during his tenure. He also pointed to cooperative federalism and Modi’s zero tolerance to corruption.The same Nitish had in the past accused Modi of fooling people with “hawabazi”, failing to bring back black money and becoming totally untrustworthy because of his tendency to make false promises and claims. He even said Modi lowered the prestige of the Prime Minister’s Office with his low-grade discourse, ripped into his hypocrisy on corruption and warned the nation against the evil designs of Sangh.Gowda had said in parliament that Modi “asked his establishment not to go to the rescue of the minorities” and described the 2002 violence as “state-sponsored terrorism”. What’s most fascinating is Gowda’s reference to media in the Modi regime, as he wrote in his article this week:“Nehru had to, at most, deal with half a dozen newspapers but Modi has to endure the scrutiny of millions every single second, because of social media platforms, on which criticism can be unverified, unfair and also terribly harsh and personal. Plus, he has to contend with round-the-clock criticism, and sometimes hostility, of mainstream press.”A former prime minister advertising his ignorance by saying that the mainstream media is hostile to Modi should worry citizens. His illogic and sophistry either indicate the article was conceived by a juvenile mind, or indicate that Gowda has begun to value post-truth mendacity as a legitimate political tool.While Modi has never addressed a press conference in India and refused to answer questions in parliament, Nehru made conversation his most powerful weapon in politics. The truth is that the mainstream media, which freely examined Nehru and other prime ministers, is now just an instrument of sycophancy. Both the articles, written by a former prime minister and a former chief minister, exposed the farcical nature of public discourse in today’s India.Virtue and viceIn 1952, both Indian and foreign observers certified that India’s first election was free and fair. Even the opposition parties didn’t whisper about any kind of rigging. Unlike Modi’s endorsement of the exclusionary and discriminatory special intensive review, Nehru had entreated the first Chief Election Commissioner, Sukumar Sen, to undertake house-to-house surveys to ensure no eligible voter is left out. Many women still couldn’t be enrolled because their conservative families refused to reveal their names.Nehru wrote to all chief ministers in 1951: “There could be no greater folly for a government, such as we are, than to use the repressive apparatus of the state to benefit any party. That itself will arouse antagonism and loss of support for that party.”Most opposition parties today accuse Modi of “vote chori”, pointing to the manipulation of electoral rolls, alleged rigging through electronic voting machines and the use of other unfair means in elections. These parties have been saying all democratic institutions have been captured and Modi intends to impose dictatorship.Modi hasn’t offered any credible resolution so far. Nehru had all along cautioned the nation against this, writing: “This is too large a country with too many legitimate diversities to permit any so-called strongman to trample over people and their ideas.”Finally, the difference between the two leaders is manifested most vividly on the question of secularism. Modi parrots “sabka saath” and allows discrimination and violence against minorities.But Nehru wrote: “If any person raises his hand against another person on the basis of religion, all the resources at the command of the government will be used to put him down with an iron hand.”He insisted that no amount of economic policies and development projects would be of any use if the people were divided. Arguing that communalism in India bears a striking resemblance to fascism, Nehru wrote that an ideological battle along with state power must be used “to uproot this despicable communalism. It must be obliterated from the land so that it may not take roots again. This poison … has permeated the land.”Modi wouldn’t have been the political pygmy that he is if he tried to learn something from Nehru instead of defaming and demonising him without any sense of remorse.Sanjay K. Jha is a political commentator.