CHAPTER VI
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
The biographer of Jawaharlal Nehru, S.Gopal, observed that Nehru
played a decisive role in the history of the Twentieth century, as a
representative of the new world order and as a spokesman of the
international conscience,1
Nehru's role in evolving a new and
independent policy for India in world affairs was unique and the
inspiration and guidance for such a policy came largely from Mahatma
Gandhi during those eventful years from 1920 to 1947, "An India
awakened and free, declared Gandhiji, "has a message of peace and good
will to a groaning world. Non-cooperation is designed to supply her with
a platform from which she will preach the message."2 Nehru referred to
the influence of Gandhiji on India's policy: "Under Gandhiji's guidance,
we tried to follow the methods of peace and were friendly even to those
who tried to crush us. He taught us the peaceful, yet unyielding
approach; he taught us how to preserve the temper of peace even in a
struggle."3
It was to Gandhiji that Nehru turned for a direction in
enunciating the goals of India's policy and both of them were convinced
that Asia in general and India in particular were destined to play a major
role in world affairs.
Beginning with 1927, wrote Bimal Prasad, Nehru saw "a close
relationship between the struggle for freedom and world affairs".4 That
was the year in which Nehru, as the sole delegate from India, took part in
the International Congress of the Oppressed Nationalities at Brussels.
167
Nehru's mind had taken a big step forward and he came to understand
the motives of British imperialism.5 Nehru's views on the importance of
China and the Soviet Union in world affairs were made in no uncertain
terms. China and India which had close ties for over 3000 years were
destined to play a major role in Asia and the world. No major threat, he
felt, would emanate from the Soviet Union to India and friction between
England and Russia never meant friction between India and Russia.
Nehru was opposed to the British policy of using countries 'as pawns in
England's imperial game to be moved hither and thither for her benefit".
In a note written in Switzerland in September, 1927 Nehru said that India
would cultivate good relations with countries of the East even if they
sought to promote their own religious and national identity and with the
Soviet Union even if India did not wholly agree with her policy.6 Nehru's
antipathy to Western Imperialism stemmed from a conviction that
capitalism and imperialism would have no place in the changing
twentieth century world. He condemned the 'greed and covetousness of
British Imperialism' and became apprehensive of a possible alliance
between British and American imperialism - "an endeavour to create a
powerful Anglo-Saxon block to dominate the world".7 At the same time
Nehru made no secret of his aversion to the dogmatism and
* regimentation of the Communist system. He was opposed to Fascism and
Nazism which threatened world peace and freedom. In a Post-script to his
"Glimpses of World History" Nehru foresaw in November, 1938 the role
168
of the United States and the Soviet Union in saving democracy from the
Fascist menace, "Two great countries stand out," he wrote, "the Soviet
Union and the United States of America, the two most powerful nations
of the modern world, almost self-sufficient within their far-flung
territories, almost unbeatable. For varying reasons both are opposed to
Fascism and Nazism. "s
The struggle for freedom of India, stated Nehru, meant a larger
struggle for human freedom 'which includes the freedom of our people as
well as other peoples.'9
What followed at the Haripura and Tripuri
Congress sessions was therefore consistent with the proclamations made
by Gandhi and Nehru during the fifteen years that proceeded the historic
Congress sessions and declarations. As an independent nation India
would follow a policy keeping away from imperialism and fascism,
committed to the path of peace freedom and good-will towards all
nations, big and small. At the Haripura Congress the declaration was
made that India would respect the freedom of others and work for
international cooperation, goodwill, world order, and disarmament. It
was during the war period, wrote Bimal Prasad, that the Congress
developed 'a sophisticated world view' reconciling the apparently
contradictory pulls of nationalism and internationalism and chalked out
an independent path in world affairs.'10 Nehru foresaw in 1944 the
emergence of rival power blocks and he saw the need for evolving a
policy not only for India but for all those committed to peace and
169
cooperation among the nations of the world. The essentials of India's
policy were declared between 1945 and 1947 and as the Vice-President of
the Interim Government, Nehru stated that India would "follow an
independent policy keeping away from the power politics or groups
aligned one against the other.11 India's foreign policy was "inherent in the
circumstances of India, inherent in the past thinking of India, inherent in
the conditioning of the Indian mind during our struggle for freedom."12
The motto was stated thus: Closer relations with neighbours and good
relations with all".13
Nehru was inspired by the heritage of the great Asian civilisations,
especially the Chinese and Indian, and he did not hesitate to emphasise,
whenever occasions warranted, the greatness, if not the superiority of
these ancient civilisations. Nehru sought to explain how 'the streams of
culture have flowed from India to distant parts of Asia' and how India
absorbed the streams of culture that flowed from the West and the East’
into India. The summoning of the Asian Relations Conference in Delhi in
March, 1947 marked the beginning of a new era of Asian consciousness
and identity in world affairs. "For too long, "Nehru said in his inaugural
address" we of Asia have been petitioners in Western courts and
chancelleries. The story must new belong to the past. We propose to stand
on our own feet and cooperate with all others who are prepared to
cooperate with us. We do not intend to be the play-things of others"14 Yet
Nehru knew that Asia and Europe were 'just geographical expressions'
170
and that the problems faced by the people were not mere Asiatic or
should be given a burial, he felt. It would have been, he stated,
"astonishingly foolish to fall into this business of cold war either on
grounds of principle or on grounds of expediency."16 His speech at the
Columbia University in 1949 and his address before the American
Congress contained a superb exposition of the larger goals of India's
policy. 'Maintenance of Freedom both national and individual the
elimination of want, disease and ignorance which afflict the greater part
. of the world's population' were among the goals of India's policy.
Nehru's non-alignment meant not aloofness from the Western block or
Soviet Union but the assertion of one's right to judge issues on their
merits. It was, explained K.Subramanyam, "a sophisticated policy of
retaining maximum available options at any given time in a bipolar
world."17 The policy would establish for India an independent rule and
as S.Gopal observed, "The concept of non-alignment was formulated as
an assertion of national independence and the national man's duty to
criticize and pose long term values against immediate ends."18
Non-
alignment was not a negative concept. It was not naturality as some in the
West began to label it. Nehru chose to explain his aversion to the term
neutrality at New York: "All my outlook on life is a positive one, not a
171
negative one. Therefore, I do not think that the word 'neutral' suits me at
ail" ,19 Nehru also abhorred the theory that non-alignment was a balancing
in world affairs, "It is not a question of balancing ourselves between
groups or blocks of nations which have arisen. That kind of sitting on the
sense or balancing has not occurred to us at all, we are adopting a positive
policy which we think is right".20 Peter Willetts perceived the distinction
between non-alignment and neutralism as one similar to a difference
between an activist and isolationist approach".21 Nehru believed that a
positive role marked by a policy of friendship with other countries would
help in promoting security.22 His policy towards China in the early years
is example in this regard. Though Nehru conceded after the Chinese
aggression that his China policy was 'not a wise policy' he was in the
beginning optimistic that China could be contained through friendship
and that once China got the recognition she deserved in the comity of
nations (which she did thank to India's helpful role) she would be more
responsible in her relations with other countries. Similarly Nehru felt that
India should adopt towards Pakistan Gandhi's approach even if Pakistan
regarded India as an enemy. Nehru's sympathy and support for the
struggle of the African peoples against colonialism and racialism were of
great help to the exploited and oppressed people of the African countries.
If the fight against colonialism and racialisms found institutional support
it was largely because of Nehru's imaginative role as the crusader for the
cause of these unfortunate people.
172
India's policy, remarked K.P.S.Menon, rested on Nehru's intuition,
'an intuition based on knowledge.'23 Nehru's strength lay in his
knowledge of human history. When he wrote from prison to his little
daughter that "to read history is good but even more interesting and
fascinating is to help in making history."24 Nehru did not perhaps,
visualise that he would one day be making history as a great statesman
and peace-maker of the modern world. The policy-framework Nehru
chose was not limited by any timeframe and the goals he set for the nonaligned movement have relevance for all countries at all times. Nehru's
policy-framework was resilient enough to adjust itself to the changing
world scenario. Nehru's policy, said S.Gopal, was adapted to national
interest and yet helpful in fostering world community. It was, as the
eminent biographer, put it a unique combination of intellectual and moral
authority. The quest for peace might look Utopian "in the moral and
spiritual desert in which the nations of the world conduct the affairs" as
John Lewis Gaddis remarked. But such a quest became meaningful
because of the contribution of Jawaharlal Nehru to the international
system. It is a tribute Nehru's vision and policy that the movement
launched by him forty years ago is being increasingly accepted as the only
viable alternative for a safer and better future for human kind.
There are many who believe that but for Nehru, and the strength
imparted to it, the edifice of Indian democracy would have simply
collapsed long, long ago, there are, on the other hand, several others, who
173
do riot hesitate in the least to attribute all the ills and weaknesses of the
post-independence Indian polity to the single and sole person of Nehru
and the legacy he left behind. Needless to say that both these views are
too extreme to be accepted fully. And yet, none of them is completely
devoid of all truth. It shall be the task of every academic and research
scholar, therefore, to focus on those undeniable facts which facilitate the
formation of as balanced, objective and sound a judgement as possible for.
imperfect human beings on such a delicate and sensitive subject as the
assessment of a democratic mass leader who loved and was loved by the
teeming millions of his countrymen in a manner unparalleled, viewed
from any angle.
In the words of A.B.Shah, "One of the important differences
between Jawaharlal Nehru and other Indian leaders of his stature
consisted in the almost universal acceptance of his leadership. Until two
years before his death, Nehru was the unquestioned supreme leader not
only of the Indian masses but also of an overwhelming majority of Indian
intellectuals. His pre-eminencies as the leader of resurgent India was so
natural that, with a few exceptions, even the best Indian intellectuals,
considered it a privilege to work as an instrument of his will. Such
popularity did not come even to Mahatma Gandhi, the latter could never
strike in the hearts of the educated intelligentsia the same chord as he
could in those of the common men. Many accepted Gandhi's political
leadership without at the same time accepting the ideas and values for
174
which he stood. Indeed, in spite of his deep-seated religiosity it was not
easy for a modern Indian to respond to the political and social ideas
which sacrifice in the cause of the Indian revolution and uncompromising
advocacy of modern values and knowledge distinguished him from all
' the leaders of modern India. Even then Roy could command the
allegiance of only a small number of intellectuals and a few others who
had somehow succeeded in liberating themselves from the myths and
taboos of the Hindu tradition and Indian nationalism. Jawaharlal Nehru
was the only leader whose personality stood out as the one rallying point
for the sentiment and loyalty of every section of the Indian society.25
Seeking the root of the success of Jawaharlal Nehru, both as a mass
leader and a leader of intellectuals in the complex personality of the man,
Shah observes: "He was an aesthete, a writer, a champion of modern
values with a deep sympathy for the oppressed and the disinherited, and
in spite of unlimited power, detached and lonely in a certain sense. Many
of these qualities were also to be found in Roy. And yet the fundamental
failure of Roy in the politics of power in India shows that these qualities
are not by themselves enough to earn a position of successful leadership.
A special aspect of Nehru's personality was that, besides the qualities
mentioned above, it also had some which appealed to the Indian mind.
For instance, while an uncompromising spokesman for freedom and
democracy, Nehru temperamentally was like the Great Moghal. Rational
and pragmatist in public life, on critical occasions Nehru generally
175
allowed his heart to decide for his head. Drawing his titanic self with the
common man or even with his closest associates, till the end, there
remained a certain gulf between him and his colleagues and followers a
lover of discipline and streamlined organization, he was a victim of
prolonged intellectual confusion and perpetuated deep contradictions in
the public life of the land. An interesting sidelight on this aspect of his
personality is provided by a simple incident in his own life. As it well
known, Nehru was always critical superstitions parading in the name of
traditional religion. And yet he could, without any feeling of
contradiction, advise his sister to have the horoscope of a new born
grandson prepared by a competent astrologer. Similarly, while
elucidating his ideas of democratic socialism as the only sensible political
philosophy for India, Nehru could refer in tones of admiration to the
classical Hindu nation of detachment and identification with the universe
as recommended by the philosophy of Vedanta."26
Analysing the merits of Jawaharlal Nehru's personality which was
full of inner contradictions, Shah explains: "Every section of the Indian
society was able to see in it, however inadequately articulated, an ideal of
its own self. His faults could, therefore be easily ignored. Even the
intellectuals who differed with him sharply on certain basic issues could
feel that he was one of them, because he could understand the language
that they talked. Consequently, even the politics of power in a society
which has yet to develop the norms and standards of a modern
176
democracy gained a certain status in the eyes of the Indian people. Also,
Nehru's love for the spirit of democracy and the institutions through
which it finds expression gave them an indispensable period of
comparative stability during the first, fifteen years of independent India.
This helped Parliamentary democracy to strike here considerably deeper
roots than in almost any other country that became free after the second
world war.27
Another important contribution that Nehru made to the building
of Indian nation and polity consists in the development of a tradition of
secularism in public life. In view of the fact that India continues to face a
unique problem in this respect even today making Indian politics
eternally what Selig Harrison chooses to characterise as "Politics of
National Survival, "Nehru's contribution to India's secular could not be
under estimate. While an overwhelming proportion of her people are
Hindu, there is also a fairly large number, nearly fifty million, of them
who subscribed to Islam. This large number of Muslims suffered just as
the Hindus did a traumatic shock as the very moment of the birth of
Independence. The partition of the sub-continent into two sovereign
states, India and Pakistan, as the price of freedom left a legacy of
frustration, bitterness and schizophrenic personality. Added to this was
the fact that never in the preceding countries had the Muslims been able
to participate in the mainstream of Indian life except when they were in a
position of political power. This meant that the problem of integration of
177
the conglomeration of regional and linguistic groups that the Indian
people are into a modern democratic polity was aggravated by the
presence of an obstinate religious factor. Obviously, no solution which
relied mainly on the unifying force of religion could ever meet the needs
of the Indian situation. At the same time, considering the background of
the inter-religious relationship in India, it would have been undesirable to
adopt here the principle of secularism as understood ;in the west,
especially in the United States of America. The state here could not
possibly adopt the position described by Jefferson's picturesque phrase
about an unpassable wall between the state and the church. Not only
could the relations between the two major religious communities of India
be left to the process of spontaneous interaction between them; it was also
necessary to ensure that within each community the strangle hold of
religious tradition and prejudice was steadily relaxed so as to make room
for the growth of a free society. The state in such a situation could not,
therefore, stand aloof from the sphere of religion. It has of necessity of to
concern itself with the operation of religion in interpersonal life and to
take such measures as would enable the citizen to order it in harmony
with the values of freedom and equality for which modernity stands. The
Indian state had, therefore, to be what Ved Prakas Luthera calls a
jurisdictionalist state. This need no detract from the significance of India's
commitments to secularism under the leadership of her first Prime
Minister. As a matter of fact, the secular ideal in India would have been
178
shuttled down, if not completely defeated, in the absence of a policy of
positive intervention on the party of the state in the sphere of God.
A.B.Shah asserts with reasonable confidence that "future historians of the
experiment will agree that this was one of the most important
contribution that Nehru made to the growth of a modern secular and
democratic society in India."28
An equally significant contribution that Nehru made to this task, as
Shah points out, consists in his remarkable efforts to have the idea of
planning for freedom accepted by the common people of this country.
The Indian mind is essentially a social. In other words it is not easily
given to sustained co-operative effort in the pursuit of secular aims.
Nehru was co fronted with the problem of the Hindu mind to an attitude
of indifference to all intermediate, secular institutions like the state in the
ordering of his priorities. In a society like this it would an extremely
difficult task to persuade its members to recognize to worthwhileness of
planned effort for economic development. The measure of the difficulty
becomes a little easy to appreciate when one takes into account the act
that the Indian experience has all along been claim to be unique in the
field of economic planning. Unlike the experiments of the Nazis or the
Communists, Planning India seeks to realize economic growth and social
justice without the sacrifices of freedom and the democratic rights of the
common citizen. Considering the initial handicaps, both of an under
developed economy with a large population and of a backward culture
179
the challenge that Jawaharlal Nehru posed before the country and made it
accept in a spirit of defiance and adventure would naturally make one
grateful to him for his vision and will."29
With all his love conscious or unconscious, for power and
impatience with the weakness and selfishness of others, "Nehru was
committed to democracy and democratic methods of functioning. He
therefore, could never imagine himself or his government adopting the
methods characteristic of a Communist state. The result was an inherent
incompatibility between the blueprints of economic development that he
blessed and the commitment to democratic methods which he insists
upon. ... He began to criticise the craze which was started by none other
than himself, for giganticism and advocated greater attention to small and
medium scale undertaking".30
In his various writings Nehru elaborated his conception of
democratic socialism. His articles reveal a fine, sensitive mind inspired by
a concern for human values and at the same time conscious of its own
limitations and inner contradictions. They reflect in a way the basic
dilemma of the Indian intellectual, namely, the conflict between modern
values and antiquated ideas and attitudes. This was the point on which
M.N.Roy the only major political thinker of modern India, took Nehru to
task. Under his pen-name 'Chanakya' Jawaharlal Nehru present a selfportrait in the following words:
180
"Jawaharlal has learnt well to act without the paint and powder of
the actor. With his seeming carelessness and insouciance, he performs on
the public state with consummate artistry. What is this going to lead him
and the country to? What is he aiming at with all his apparent want of
aim? What lies behind that mask of his? What desires; what will to power,
what ingratiate longings? Is it his will to power that is driving him from
crowd to crowd and makes him whisper to himself I drew these tides of
men into the hands and wrote my will across the sky in stars? Men like
Jawaharlal with all their capacity for great and good work, are unsafe in
democracy. He calls himself a democrat and a socialist and no doubt he
does so in all earnestness, but every psychologist knows the mind is
ultimately a slave to the heart and that logic can always be made to fit in
with the desires and irresponsible urges of men. A little twist and
Jawaharlal might turn a dictator. He may still use the language and
slogans of democracy and socialism, but we all know how, Fascism has
fattened on this language. Jawaharlal cannot become a Fascist. Yet, he has
all the makings of a dictator in him-Vast popularity, a strong will, energy,
pride organization capacity, ability, hardness and with all his love for the
crows, an intolerance for other and a certain contempt for the weak. His
overmastering desire to get things done will hardly break for long the
slow processes of democracy. He may keep the husk but he will see to it
that it bends to his will. In this revolutionary epoch, cesarism is always at
the floor and is it not possible that Jawaharlal might fancy himself as a
181
Caesar? Let us not spoil him by too much adulation and praise. His
conceit, if any is already formidable. It must be checked."31
M.N.Roy who charged Nehru with having failed to rise to the
expectations of the democratic world, felt that the self portrait was "an
unmistakable pointer to Nehru's future, and future of the country if it
followed him."32 He quoted having told a press conference, "I am an
exceedingly bad politician, and functioning in groups I can not function
properly, but 1 can function in the midst of 50,000 or 1,00,000 persons."33
Describing Nehru's self portrait as "honestly and masterfully drawn," he
saw full justification in Nehru a self denunciation as one of the greatest
disappointments of the post-war year, as the New York Times described
him recently. Roy was of the view that Nehru and contempt for the weak
because he was a weak character; weakness was hindrant himself by an
exaggerated belief in his strong will and hardness, and rationalised, when
it could no longer be hidden by the mind was a slave to the heart.
As Shah rightly remarked, Nehru was clear that Caesarism of any
type would be against the best interest of the Indian people. He
succeeded in steering clear of this danger, "This perhaps is his greatest
gift to the people whom he love and who, in return, loved him in a
greater measure than anyone else."34
Similarly the Indian Committee for Cultural Freedom presented a
correct assessment of Jawaharlal Nehru when it said: "His interest in the
182
'moral and spiritual' aspects of life; his insistence that socialism is merely
a means not an end in itself, his support even if sometimes a little late
because of bad advise, to the cause of freedom everywhere in the world;
his concern over issues involving problems of a free development of
culture, and finally, his own love and yearning for the life of the spirit
even though duty compelled him to spend most of his time in the
depressing atmosphere of power politics - all these give him a unique
place in the esteem of those who stand for the freedom and creativity of
the human being. Even those who on certain occasions found it necessary
to criticise him while he was alive would agree that the world is poorer
without him. With the death of Jawaharlal Nehru an age has come to a
close in the history of India."35
The real secret of Jawaharlal Nehru's success as a leader in Indian
Democracy was summed up by Machel Brecher thus: "In the broadest
sense Nehru's influence derives from his role as the strategic link among
diverse groups in Indian society. The older politicians in the Congress
value his loyalty, the younger ones look to him for inspiration; the Right
Wing finds him indispensable, the Left Wing has always considered him
amenable he was as is reasonable enough for capitalists, as their main
hope for land reform. Intellectuals, of course, see him as the bridge
between tradition and the modern world. This unique role is enhanced by
the blend of ideas which constitute Nehru's political philosophy."36
183
Nehru's insistence on technology
was tried
through the
community development programme. Added to it, Government of India
made an Agreement with the United States of America on 5th January
1952.
The
Agreement
was
known
as
"Technical
Cooperation
Programme". The agreement contained full details and break-ups of
programmes relating to agriculture, communications, education, health
training, social welfare, supplementary employment, housing and
organisational matters. The Government of the U.S.A. offered assistance
to the community development programme in the matter of supply of
various items of equipment considered essential for the programme and
not manufactured in the country. The aid so given was under U.S,
Government. Technical Cooperation Mission Programme in the form of
funds which covered the cost, freight and other charges involved in the
import of equipment procured from abroad. The 'rupee' cost on the
import of the equipment like customs duty was borne by the Government
of India. The assistance provided by the U.S. Government was also
„ consisted of equipment, such as jeeps, audio-visual equipment, artificial
insemination, equipment for cattle, road rollers, tractors, etc. The total aid
made available to the community development programme under the
Technical Agreement was about 14 million dollars, the rest being in the
form of grants.
About the functioning of the programme Nehru said that the idea
of community project is something which is basically revolutionary if
184
worked well. We have not paid enough attention to these rural areas in
the past and unless we bring them up to a certain level, we shall always
be weighed down by them. Further he lamented that "The picture that I
have in mind is definitely and absolutely a socialistic picture of society. I
am not using the word in a dogmatic scene at all, but in the sense of
meaning largely that the means of production should be socially owned
and controlled for the benefit of society as a whole. Nehru has often
spoken with pride about the programme. Typical is the following: '1 think
nothing has happened in any country in the world during the last few
years so big in content and so revolutionary in design as the community
projects in India.
They are changing the face of rural India. Further,
Nehru declared within three years that "in a community projects and NEs
have become, more than anything else, symbols of resurgent spirit of
India. These community schemes are suited to Indians conditions and
therefore have solid foundation in the soil and people of India. Nehru
declared and no doubt, believed that, we are building it up from the
grassroots and not imposing it (CDP) from above.
M.C. Setalvad has brought out the best of Jawaharlal Nehru's faith
in democracy in his well written article, "Nehru and Indian Parliamentary
Democracy." "To him, first and foremost, democracy meant individual
freedom.... Secondly, democracy necessarily involved representative
Government; sovereignty in a democracy had to exercised through
elected representatives functioning on the principle of the majority. The
185
third essential aspect of democracy was in Nehru's view economic and
social equality. Fourthly he thought that no democracy could run without
self-discipline, in the units which constitute the democratic state and its
citizens... Nehru was fully alive to the importance of an opposition to the
adequate functioning of a parliamentary system of government."37
The leadership of Jawaharlal Nehru was often described as
'Charismatic'. The mass of Indian people came under the spell of Nehru's
charisma, as they did under Mahatma Gandhi. From this follows that
charismatic leadership is a kind of personal rule in contact to legitimacy
derived from legal rational authority. People followed involuntarily. As a
result of the idolization of the leader, true and secure foundation for
Parliamentary democracy could not laid in India. This was the view of
some critics. However as S.P.Ayyar observed "Nehru saw the strength of
support from the masses. In general he was important only with the
intellectual. The more he saw the surging crowds, the more exhilarated he
became and he drew from them his titanic energy. It is in this relationship
between Nehru and the masses that one has to search for the element of
charisma."38
No account of Jawaharlal Nehru will be completed without
reference to views of veterans like Mahatma Gandhi, Rabindranath
Tagore and Dr.S.Radhakrishnan "We may have intellectual differences,
but our hearts are one" (Gandhi) "He has upheld the standard of purity in
186
the midst of political turmoil where deception including self-delusion so
often destroys integrity. "Jawaharlal has never evaded truth when it
brought danger in its wake nor has be made alliance with falsehood when
it would have been convenient to do so. His brilliant mind has always
turned away in outspoken disgust from the path of diplomacy where
success is as easy as it is mean." (Tagore)
"Nehru held the office of the Prime Minister of our country ever
since the dawn of independence, and in the long years of his Prime
Ministership tried to put our country on a progressive, scientific, dynamic
and non-communal basis. His steadfast loyalty to certain fundamental
principles of liberalism gave direction to our thought and life.'"
(Radhakrishnan).39
Norman D. Palmer, "The measure of Jawaharlal Nehru's success or
failure will be the capacity of the people of India, under lesser successors
to carry on without him". He quoted Nehru himself has having said in
July 1962 "... Nehru's come and go, but the people of India, continue".40
Prime Minister, being the head of the Government, is responsible
for policy formulation, legislation and their execution. Thus, a vast
canvass is spread for discussion in the context of Nehru and Public
Administration. Nehru, as the first Prime Minister of Independent India
was bequeathed a divided India with 556 small states and 361 million
people with hardly 16 per cent literacy rate. The Independent India
187
inherited an English patterned education system and administrative
machinery. India at that time was suffering from shortages of food-grains,
industrial goods, foreign exchange and over used basic infrastructure. In
brief, the socio-economic life of India was caught with the convulsions of
post-war evils. InSpite of all these handicaps, the Government under the
mighty leadership of Nehru could take the country to progress because of
the cultural bondage and committed group of workers. Nehru originally a
literary giant had the heart of a responsive writer and a mind of keen
observer. He acquainted himself with the problems of the Indian milieu
and developed concern for the betterment of the lot of the people. Inspite
of western education acquired by Nehru, he was Indian by heart and
mind. Western education imparted to him the scientific approach and his
attachment to the native land developed love, sympathy for Indians and
consciousness towards the problems of Indians.
As a well trained administrator, Nehru never ignored public
opinion and he was always open to the happenings in and around India.
His fascination for socialism emanated from the successful economic
transformation in Russia, He accepted the introduction of village
Panchayat system because of his broad understanding of rural ethos. A
good administrator will always have the quality of honouring the public
opinion and will have sympathies with their basic requirements.
188
In a socialistic democratic country, public opinion forms the
foundations of policy formulations. Industrial, educational, agricultural
and employment policies of Nehru government were all directed to
achieve a better life to the millions of people. His foreign policy, as
manifested by Panchasheel, though there were a few initial set-backs,
proved to be all time panacea to international problems.
The Parliamentary proceedings during the Nehru regime had
never experienced any disturbances of the type what we often witness.
Though, rough weather in Parliament was not ruled out, it never
interfered with the routine legislative business. Many a major pieces of
legislations covering social, economic and industrial and business areas
were enacted during his period. The legislations made during the Nehru
period were all meant for the development of socialistic economy i.e., the
betterment of the poor.
Implementation of the policies, and legislative enactments, no
doubt is the primary responsibilities of the administrator in power but he
must have the support of a committed public servants. The administrative
machinery established should also go along with him with same speed
and sense of commitment. The administrator alone cannot assure the
results to the ultimate beneficiaries unless the machinery cooperates.
Many critics point out that the working of planned economy had widened
the gap between haves and have-nots, during the 17 years of Nehru rule.
189
At this juncture, one must remember that implementation of the policies
in its correct form is the responsibility of all the functionaries as much as
that of the leader at the helm of the affairs.
Realising the need for decentralised administration, many powers
were given to the local bodies making them the units of self-government.
In the field of public administration, he insisted upon the delegation of
powers to the lower cadres. He held the view that the success of public
enterprises is closely associated with the autonomy they enjoy for which
delegation of powers was the basic requirement. As such, Nehru is that of
socially responsive leader with rational understanding.
The decisions regarding public health, public works, education, the
development of natural resources, transport, care of the handicapped,
population etc., are a few examples of his Long-term perspectives. His
idea of modern India was based on modern technology, research and.
development. Atomic energy and ship-building industry are a few
illustrations of Nehru's modern speech to the problems of developing
countries.
Jawaharlal Nehru, "The Builder of Modern India", dominated the
Indian political and Administrative scene for nearly half a century. He
was one of the few popular leaders India produced during her relentless
struggle for freedom against an oppressive alien rule along with Gandhi
and others, Nehru fought and struggled for the freedom of India. After
190
Independence, he was bestowed with the gigantic task of nation-building
out of a strife-torn population. He became the first Prime Minister, and
was in that position almost for two decades till his death.
Nehru remained, in a way, the leader of the public Administration
in India. His democratic, secular and socialist ideals for United India, his
science and technology policies, and planning for economically selfreliant and industrially developed India, his non-alignment and peace
policy for the security and stability of the country, were unique and
outstanding contributions to the modern Indian polity. His concern for
equality, justice and the socio-economic welfare of the people was well
known. He desired to achieve these goals by establishing a 'socialistic
pattern of society' in India.
Undisputedly Pandit Nehru was an eminent statesman and
recognised leader of the Indian liberation movement. Remarkably he was
a great fighter against colonialism, imperialism and racism. Throughout
his life he dedicated for the cause of peace and friendship among nations.
Like Mahatma Gandhi, Nehru was the closest among his
contemporaries and became a part of our national heritage. There have
been many national builders since Raja Ram Mohan Roy, but for the
boldness of utterance, for unremitting work and for the love of the people
his place on the national scene would be next to Gandhi. From the very
beginning he had a high conception of his contribution, his destiny for his
191
people. He tried to be the chief instrument of social transformation and
builder of modern India. The relevance of Nehru's ideas and ideals are
more, significant in these days when politicians are the most unloved lot.
The generation of Nehru definitely saved India from triviality and an
inner shame of cowardice,
Nehru entered Indian political scene at a time when the country
was passing through a critical phase. On one side were the hopes and
aspirations of the masses and on the other side the ruthless oppressive
machinery of British imperialism. In the beginning neither his
revolutionary father Mothilal Nehru or his close associated the latent
qualities in Nehru. The credit would go to Gandhi who could choose
wisely Nehru as his political heir. Practically by 1929 Nehru had become
for all purposes the heir apparent to Gandhi. Nehru was conscious of the
role of the masses. Soon the rural and the middle class could consider
Nehru as their chief spokesman. At Lahore Presidential Address Nehru
acknowledged the strength of our national movement will be measured to
the peasantry's adherence to it. We can only gain them to our side by
opposing their cause which is really country's cause.41
Nehru accepted Gandhi's views on communal harmony. He was
free from caste, religious or communal virus and also opposed narrower
view of nationalism. He had a sense of history and interpreted India's
national movement as a part of social and political processes taking place
192
in the world. For him the aspirations of the Indian people merged with
the aspirations of the people of the world. Many times he made it clear
that mere nationalism was not enough and that a policy of social
transformation was needed. He was of the firm view that colonial rule
should be waged not only on nationalist lines but also it must find
support of a strong economic foundation. It became imperative for him
during the struggle that imperialism, exploitation cannot be eliminated
without opposing capitalist system. He was fully aware of the scourges
and evils of the capitalist system. He wanted to mould India's destiny
through non-capitalist path when the freedom movement was in full
swing.
Nehru's mental outlook was influenced by many schools of
thought. He absorbed very much ideas of the east and the west. The
influence of Marxism-Leninism42 on Nehru is more evident in his
recognition of the objective laws of history. He believed that scientific
socialism was of tremendous significance in transforming the future of
man. The glorious achievements of USSR also made deep impact on him.
What impact attracted him to the Soviet Union was the progress the
country was making even in the backward regions. However he was of
the view that it was absurd to copy blindly the Russian Model. In 1929
Nehru in his Presidential address to the Lahore session declared so there
is domination of one country over another there will be always attempts
to subvert existing order and no suitable equilibrium can endure. Out of
193
imperialism and capitalism peace can never come.43 Moreover, he realised
that the academic, dehydrated and lavendered socialism he had imbibed
in Cambridge seemed to be of no use to the Indian conditions. Viewing all
these facts at the international setting he wanted to use radical turn to the
freedom movement in order to broad base the movement. He felt that
there was no way of ending poverty, vast unemployment, the
degradation and subjection of the Indian people except through
socialism.44 At Lahore Congress (1929) Nehru boldly said "I must confess
that I am a socialist and a republican and I am no believer in Kings and
princes nor in the orders which, produce modern kings of industry who
have greater power over the lives and fortunes of men than even the
kings of the old and whose methods are a predatory of those of the old
feudal aristocracy".45 He further said: India's immediate goal can,
therefore, considered in terms of the ending of the exploitation of her
people. Politically it must mean independence and severance of the
British connection, which means imperialist dominance, economically
and socially it must mean the ending of all social class privileges and
. vested interest,46 He declared that choice before the world was
socialism.47 Young Congressmen like J.P., Ashok Mehata, N.G.Goray and
S.M.Joshi formed Congress Socialist Party with the tacit support of Pandit
Nehru. It gained some momentum when Pandit Nehru addressed Public
meeting under this banner. The C.S.P. was organisationally weak and
financially crippled.48 It could pay the role of leftist pressure group
194
operating within the framework of the Congress.49 The right wing
* Congress leaders opposed the CSP and Nehru's views and threatened to
resign from the Congress working committee. The conflict between
Nehru and the CWC was peacefully reconciled by Gandhi. No only this,
Nehru developed a lukewarm attitude towards Congress Socialist Party.
The position of Nehru was correctly identified by Subhas Chandra Bose
who said the position of Nehru is an interesting one. His ideas and views
are of radical nature and calls himself full blooded socialist but in practice
he is a loyal follower of the Mahatma. In short, Nehru's mind was with
the leftist group but definitely his heart was with Gandhiji.
Nehru's Policy in Action
After independence Nehru was the first Prime Minister of the
Sovereign State nearly for seventeen years who laid foundation of the
democratic state in India, the secular, socialist ideals and non-aligned
foreign policy. He demonstrated a vision and grasp of events rarely seen
in contemporary statesman. He created political institutions to realise
these ideals.
Nehru was committed to democracy50 but he was aware of the
weakness of liberal democracy. The concentration of economic power in a
few hands negated the very essence of democracy. Again and again
repeated that political democracy by itself is not enough except it may be
used to obtain a gradually increasing measure of economic democracy.
195
He did not subscribe to one party rule, or postponement of democratic
elections. He wanted democracy must be clubbed with socialism in order
to remove disparities. Therefore, he felt that socialism alone could be the
real base for Indian democracy.51 He initiated socio-economic planning to
counter poverty and backwardness. A mechanism was involved for
building up of a socialist society.52 Nehru developed keen interest for
economic planning after his visit to USSR in 1927. It was Subash Chandra
Bose who formed to the National Planning Committee in 1938 to work
out the implications of planning and Nehru was asked to be the
Chairman. This committee prepared 16 final and 10 interim reports on
various aspects of the economy by 1940 but Nehru was in jail During this
period some of the industrial magnets of India prepared a plan which was
published in 1944. It was called the Bombay Plan.
Just before country's independence two streams of thoughts
emerged, one wishes to retain free enterprise and profit motive and the
other wanted equitable distribution. As a method of compromise he
accepted to follow the path of mixed economy. He introduced far
reaching changes in the economy by nationalising Reserve Bank of India,
the Imperial Bank of India and L.I.C. He abolished Zamindary, created
STC, the setting up of institutions of long term finance and the
establishment of Panchayati Raj. The biggest institutional change came
through the institution of planning commission, which designed draft
outline of the First Five Year Plan (1951-56). This indicated that a central
196
planning authority was to be chief agency for economic development of
the country.
The First Five Year Plan aimed to raise the national income by 11
per cent and to tackle essential goods, raw materials and to rehabilitate
displaced persons. In the Second and Third Plan priority was given to
heavy industries. Nehru wanted that the country should use modern
technology and science. Our public sector industries and heavy
engineering industries clearly indicated Nehru's faith in modernisation.
In 1955 the Congress Party in its historical Avadi Session declared that in
order to realise the objectives as laid down in Article I of the Congress
Constitutions planning should take place with the first time the Congress
party whole heartedly agreed to embrass socialism without any dissent.
The Socialistic philosophy was further carried out in the adoption
of industrial policy. In 1948 the Government announced its industrial
policy. It declared the adoption of the socialistic pattern of society as the
national objective as well as the need for planned and rapid development,
requires that all industries of basic and strategic importance or in the
nature of public sector, other industries which are on a scale which only
the state in the present circumstances could provide. The second plan
document also spent out to reduce the concentration of wealth and raising
standards. In 1957 the word cooperative common wealth was added
before socialism. Nehru wanted tolerance and peaceful approach towards
197
socio-economic change in society. In 1964 at Bhubaneswar Session the
ideology of the Congress was summed up as democratic socialism based
on democracy dignity of the individual and social justice. In 1962 itself the
election manifest of the Congress party indicated ceilings on urban
property. Finally in 1976 the word 'Socialist' was incorporated in the
Indian constitution.
Inspite of very many committed objectives the industrial policy of
the Government allowed private enterprises for certain industries. The
public sector could not fulfill the dream of increased production and
employment opportunities. It has been relegated to secondary status. The
v Government has failed to control money bags. In reality the fruits of
freedom could not reach the masses. Nehru's socialism has not been able
to eradicate poverty, unemployment,
hunger and
disease. The
monopolies have fastened after independence. The programme of socio­
economic change was put into background. The government in practice
encouraged the capitalist path of development in the name of class
harmony and class cooperation. The congress leaders were keen to get
more donations from the companies for fighting elections. The planning
commission which is supposed to favour public sector spoke several
times in favour of discarding industrial policy resolutions of 1956. The
committees like S.M.Agarwala and others greatly argued implicitly eveh
for industries like arms and ammunitions and military aircrafts to be
given to the private sector including multinationals. After Nehru's death
198
multi-nationals were welcomed is highly sophisticated and export
oriented industries. The Sixth plan made no provision for the expansion
of public sector in the name of scarce resources.
Both the vagueness of the socialist thought that Nehru proclaimed
and his actions were determined by several factors. He was aware of the’
difficulties blocking the road leading to that aim by his own congress
men. Within the Congress Party there were many conservatives worked
for the preservations of the status quo. Inspite of all the hurdles Nehru
was able to see industrialisation of India much more earlier than many
developing countries in the world.
Nehru's contribution to the international environment was no less
significant. He was consistent advocate of peace and security of the world
and worked for the detente and disarmament. He was the architect of
Panchsheela and the policy of non-alignment.
Nehru's major achievements, apart from his role as the symbol of
Indian unity, are, he stressed the need for an international outlook; he
imposed a social and economic content to the meaning of swaraj; he gave
* the national movement materialist and socialist orientation. Political
stability and democracy, the plans, a secular state and social change are
his contribution to the progress in the country.
199
Nehru's political, moral and personal integrity set an inspiring
example to the rank and file and with less success to his leadership. The
purity of his public life, his honesty and his aversion to corruption served
as a bastion in a movement which like all movement, was affected by
different motives and impulses.
At first glance his failures are formidable. These weaknesses are to
be viewed as those of a giant. Nehru is a giant both as a man and
statesman. He is indeed India's Nation-Builder. Almost single handed he
has endeavoured to life his people into the 20th Century. He has provided
a focus of unity at a time of great stress. He has laid the foundations of a
working parliamentary democracy. He has fashioned the machinery of
planning and has instilled the idea that here lies India's path to material
progress. He provided the philosophy for India's new constitution with
its emphasis on individual rights. He had succeeded in securing wide
acceptance of the ideal of a secular and equalitarian society. He had
reported India's faith in herself as well as her place to family of nations.
He has begun the task of social reform. As in the case of his Master, he
proved to be an idealist and not a realist. To be a successful administrator
one should be a pragmatist. He was no true to himself and to his creator
that he could bot be a practical man. This is the triumph and target of
Nehru of which the country is paying the price after his exit from the
scene.
200
Even after a lapse of three decades, his vision and perspectives still
hold much significance. No doubt during Mrs. Gandhi's regime some
radical steps were taken such as Bank Nationalisation and abolition of
v privy purses by and large private enterprise expanded leaps and bounds.
At the time of Janata rule foreign interest were active to dilute the concept
of planning and then pave the way for its abandoning altogether in the
name of "Rolling Plan".
At the end one can say that the contradictions in Nehru's concept
of planning which even today remains unresolved. The need of the hour
is to recast the priorities and the perspectives of Indian Planning by
means of well oiled political and administrative leadership in order to
transform the vision of Nehru into a reality.
201
REFERENCES:
1. Gopal, S., jawaharlal Nehru - A Biograph}/, (Delhi, Oxford University
Press, 1976), p.5.
2. Quoted by Bimal Prasad, "Foreign Policy in the Making" in a
centenary History of the Indian National Congress, B.N.Pande (Ed.),
(New Delhi, AICC and Vikas Publishing House, 1969), p.812.
3. Jawaharlal Nehru, An Anthology, S.Gopal (Ed.), (Oxford University
Publication, 1983), p.370.
4. Bimal Prasad, Op.cit., p.812.
5. Gopal, S., A Biography, Op.cit., p.101.
6. Gopal, S., Anthology, Op.cit., pp.338-39.
7. Bimal Prasad, Op.cit., p.816.
8. Jawaharlal Nehru, Glimpses of World History, (London, Oxford
University Press, 1982), pp.970-971.
9. Op.cit., p.182.
10. Op.cit., p.825.
11. Pattabhi Sitaramayya, B., History of the Congress, Vol.II.
12. India's Foreign Policy, (Delhi, Publications Division, Govt, of India),
p.83.
13. Pattabhi Sitaramayya, B., Op.cit.
14. Gopal, Op.cit., p.345.
15. Glimpses of World History, p.182.
16. India's Foreign Policy, Op.cit., p.83.
17. World Focus, Annual Number, 1980, p.7.
18. Vol.III, p.273.
19. Haksar, P.N., Man and Development, (New Delhi, CRRID), May 1979,
p.10.
20. Ibid.
202
21. Quoted by P.R.Chari, Man and Development, (Jan, 1981), p.64.
22. Ibid., p.62.
23. Jeffrey Benner, Structure of Decision, (New Delhi, 1984), p.17.
24. Jawaharlal Nehru, Glimpses of World History, (Delhi, Oxford University
Press, 1980), p.4.
25. Shah, A.B. (Ed.), Jaivaharlal Nehru - A Critical Tribute, (Bombay,
Manaktalas, 1965), Introduction, p.13.
26. Ibid., pp.13-14.
27. Ibid., pp.14-15,
28. Ibid., pp.15-16.
29. Shah, A.B. (Ed.), Jawaharlal Nehru - A Critical Tribute, (Bombay,
Manaktalas, 1965), Introduction, pp.16-17.
30. Ibid., pp.19-20.
31. Quoted from Roy, M.N., Men I Met (Bombay, Lalwani Publishing
House, 1968, which reproduced an extract from the articles of
Jawaharlal Nehru in the Radical Humanist (May 4th and 11th, 1952),
pp.5-14.
32. Ibid., pp.5-10.
33. Ibid., pp.10-14.
34. Jawaharlal Nehru, A Critical Tribute, Op.cit,, p.20.
35. Ibid., pp.20-21.
36. Brecher, Michael, Nehru - A Political Biography, (London, Oxford
University Press, 1959), p.598.
37. Setalvad, M.C., Nehru Legacy - A Symposium, (New Delhi, National
Book Club, 1966), pp.15-16 & 22.
38. Jawaharlal Nehru, A Critical Tribute, Op.cit., p.56.
39. Jawaharlal Nehru, Souvenir, 1966.
40. Jawaharlal Nehru, A Critical Tribute, Op.cit., p.60.
41. Congress Presidential Address, No.10, p.894.
203
42. Kul Sobin Pyotr, Jawaharlal Nehru, Asia and Africa Today, No.l, 1985,
p.48.
43. Prasad, R.A., Socialist through Modern India, (Meerut, Meenakshi
Prakasam, 1974), p.70.
44. Gopal, S., jawaharlal Nehru, Vol.I.
45. Congress Presidential Address, No.10, p.894.
46. Nehru,
Whither India, (London, India's Freedom, 1982), p.251.
47. Nehru, J., Whiter India, Recent Essays and Writings, 1934, p.126.
48. Laknanpal, P.L., A History of the Congress Socialist Party, (Lahore,
National, 1946), p.103.
49.Ibid.
50. Saxena, Kiran, "Nehru and His Critics", Link, Nov.16, 1980, p.10 and
also see Mukherjee, Hiren, Remembering Jawaharlal Nehru, Link,
Nov .16,1980, p.8.
51. Rao, Chalapathi, Nehru: Lest We Forger, Link, May 27,1979, pp.7-8.
52. Shukla, V.C., "Nehru's Contribution towards improvements in
Administration, in Jawaharlal Nehru and Public Administration, (New
Delhi, JIPA, 1975), p.7.
204