Nehru and National Philosophy of India

Nehru and the National Philosophy of India
Author(s): Bhikhu Parekh

Source: Economic and Political Weekly, Vol. 26, No. 1/2 (Jan. 5-12, 1991), pp. 35-39+41-43+4548
Published by: Economic and Political Weekly
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/4397189 .
Accessed: 01/11/2014 06:35
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
Economic and Political Weekly is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to
Economic and Political Weekly.
http://www.jstor.org
This content downloaded from 210.212.129.125 on Sat, 1 Nov 2014 06:35:39 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
SPECIAL ARTICLES
Nehru
and
the
National
Philosophy
of
India
Bhikhu Parekh
Consistentwith his belief that everystate neededa 'nationalphilosophy'to sustain it, give it coherenceand
to directit, Nehru devotedattentionto the elaborationof a unifyingnationalphilosophy.For him 'modernisademocracy,
tion' wasIndia'snationalphilosophyand involvedsevennationalgoals-national unity,parliamentary
industrialisation,socialism, scientific temper,secularismand non-alignment.This paper comments on this
philosophy and examineshow he sought to obtain its public acceptance.
FOR JawaharlalNehru every state needed
a 'national philosophy' or 'national
ideology' to hold it together and give it
coherenceand a sense of directionand purpose. In his view the need for such a
philosophy was particularlygreat in a new
countrylike Indiawhose peopleweredivided
on religious, ethnic, linguistic and other
grounds,economicallyundeveloped,socially
static and politicallyinexperienced.As such
they desperately needed a shared public
philosophy to unite them and providethem
with a set of clearly defined 'goals' or
'objectives'.As India's first prime minister
he thought it one of his most important
tasks to developsuch a nationalphilosophy.
In this paperI proposeto outlineand briefly
comment on it, and to examinethe ways in
which he soughtto persuadehis countrymen
to accept it.
Like most nationalist leaders Nehru was
convinced that India had become deeply
degenerateand requiredradicalrestructuring. Its regenerationconsisted in modernising itself among the lines of modern
European societies, which too had for
centuries remained degenerateand turned
the cornerin the nineteenthcenturyby comprehensivelyreorganisingthemselvesalong
the lines requiredby the modern industrial
civilisation.For Nehru 'modernisation'was
India's national philosophy and invovled
seven 'national goals' namely, national
unity, parliamentary democracy, industrialisation, socialism, developmentof the
scientific temper, secularism and nonalignment. We shall take each in turn.
National
Unity
For Nehru national unity or what he

sometimes called national integrationwas
the sine qua non of national independence.
'We must give the topmost priority to the

development of a sense of unity in India
because these are critical days' Over the
centuriesIndiahad fallenpreyto foreignrule
because of such factors as the lack of a
strong centralgovernmentunderpinnedby
a nationwidestructureof authority,narrow
regionalloyalties,divisionsamongits people
sometimes so deep that they did not mind
invitingoutsidehelp to settleold scores,and
the absence of public spirit and patriotism.
Unless India put these right, it was doomed. Nehru thought that the Constitutionof
India had takencare of some of them and
for the first time in its history given it a
strongstate, reconcilingthe regionalaspirations for autonomy with the need for a
central governmentstrong enough to hold
them all together and protectthem against
external threats.
In Nehru's view India had never before
enjoyeda centralisedstate and it was deeply
suspicious of one. The modern state could
not therefore strike roots and become
accepted as a legitimate and indispensable
part of society unless it enjoyed undivided
loyaltyand unrivalleddomination.The local
and regionalunits based on primordialand
naturalloyaltieshad kept Indiadivided for
centuriesand beenthe sourceof its fragmentation and political ruin. For years Nehru
was thereforedeeply hostile to the demand
for its linguistic reorganisation.The state
was a rationaland secularinstitutionbased
on a sharedperceptionof commoninterests.
As such it should only be divided-on the
rationally demonstrated criteria of administrative convenience. To divide it on
linguistic, ethnic and other grounds was to
plant a non-rational, emotional and alien
principleat its heart, to confuse its identity,
and to pave the way for its eventual
disintegration.' Even when he reluctantly
conceded linguisticreorganisation,he con-'
tinued to resistit elsewhere,especiallyin the
old Bombaystate. It took him some time to
appreciatethat the linguisticstates and the
cultural flowering of regional identities
deepenedratherthan underminethe Indian
unity. Even then he refused to accept the
formation of states on ethnicgrounds as in
the case of the Nagas and the Sikhs.
As for the othercausesof Indiandisunity
that he had skilfully analysed in the
universities, national academies, public

enterprises and central and state governments would generatesharedperceptionsof
interests.He seemsto havebelievedthat like
Gandhi,he washimselfa sym-bolof national
unity and could transmutehis countrymen's
great love and affection for him into loyalty
to India. Though Nehru had considerable
successin unitingthe country,he continued
to feel that the process of national integration remainedslow, patchyand superficial.
Industrialisationtook decades to produce
results and both united and divided the
country.The nationalphilosophytook time
to gain acceptanceand was too rationalistic
to touch 'deep nerves'.And loyalty to him
was necessarilyfragile and not easy to institutionalise. Increasingly worried by
regionalconflicts and 'narrow-mindedness
he beganto pleadfor the 'emotionalintegration' of India, but neithergaveit a concrete
meaning nor traced its causes.
Surprisingas it mayseemin someonewith
an acute sense of history and a deep appreciationof the need to activate'historical
memories' and the 'sub-conscious mind',
Nehru took little interestin culture as one
of the bases of national unity.2 He well
knew that though Hindu India had lacked
such unifying agencies as the state, the
churchand a single sacredtext, its far flung
parts were for centuries united by a shared
culture,which was no doubt vague and differentlyinterpretedin differentparts of the
country but neverthelesspossessed enough
elements in common to providea common
frameworkof thoughtand life Overthe centuries that culture had been periodically
reinterpretedand revisedin the light of new
needsand problemsand usedto uniteIndia's
diverseand fluctuatingcommunities.During
Nehru's lifetime Gandhi had revived and
reinterpretedtraditionalmemories, images
Discovery of India and some of which were
and symbols, and helped createa common
mentioned earlier,Nehru had little to say. culture -capable of underpinning the
He thought that industrialisation would nationalist movement, a task for which
bind the country together in a network of
Nehru warmlycomplimentedhim.
economic interdependence,and that planNehru'sreasonsfor ignoringcultureseem
ning wouldensurethat no regionfelt exclud- to be varied. Though familiar'with the
ed from the fruits of economic growth. He classical Indianculture,he lackedGandhi's
thought too that increasingpopularisation familiaritywith and high regardfor the folk
of his 'national philosophy' would forge culture.He also seems to haveacceptedthe
common politicaland intellectualbonds. He orientalist view that the traditionalculture
hoped that increasedtravel,improvedmeans was ill-suitedto modern India and best left
of communication and elite circulation in alone to die an inevitablehistoricaldeath.
Economic and Political Weekly January 5-12, 1991

35
Indeed he thoughtthat apartfrom a couple

of brief periodsin ancient India, the rest of
its history was a story of degenerationand
decline.Whateverhis reasons,Nehru'sIndia
was unable to integrateits past and present,
with the result that it lacked cultural and
historical depth. It was intensely obsessed
with the futureand remaineddeeplynervous
and ambivalentin its attitude to the past.
Since Nehru ignored the need to give the
new state cultural and historical roots, he
failedto appreciatethe importanceof education as one of the major tools of national
integration. Unlike Europe which heavily
relied on education to integrateits citizens
into the state and to develop a shared civic
culture, Nehru largely viewedit as a means
of producing'trainedmanpover'ratherthan
a cultural and nation-buildingactivity. He
concentrated on higher education and ignored primaryeducation. He devoted vast
resourcesto universities,IndianInstitutesof
Technology, national science laboratories
and researchinstitutes,but starvedprimary
and secondary schools. None of his
ministers of education was a man of imagination and drive. During the colonial
period, India had developed such a wide
assortment of schools as private, public,
convent-runas well as secular,vernacularas
well as English medium, gurukuls and
madaresas. After independence their
number and variety increasedand parents
sent theirchildrento whatevertype of school
caught their fancy. There was little coordination between them, and no overarchingframevorkof objectivesto givethem
coherence.In manycases the curriculumhad
only a limitedrelevanceto Indianconditions
and made little attempt to ground pupils in
Indian history and culture.The text-books
variedgreatlyand wereoften suffused with
religious,ethnic, gexist,linguisticand other
prejudices. Thanks to all this, the future
citizens of India grew up with little in
common and sometimes sharing only the
barestminimumof memoriesand values in
common with their parents.Manyof them,
especially the products of certain types of
English-medium schools, greiwup neither
Indian nor western,culturallyconfused and
lackinga coherentsystemof values.Nehru's
own two grandsons were products of such
a system.3
II
Parliamentary Democracy
Parliamentarydemocracywas the second
'nationalgoal' for Nehru.He was convinced
that India needed a democratic form of
government not only because the latter
respectedthe individualand was inherently
desirable,but also becausea diverse,vast and
divided country could not be held together
and governed in any other way. He also
thought that it, especially the national and
state elections, had the great advantage of
drawing the masses into the conduct of
public affairs and giving them a stakein the
new polity. As he put it:4
36
I inay say that it is a most satisfying and

encouraging experience to see such an
enormous electorate of more than 200
million people going through this primary
responsibility of parliamentary democracy
with such smooth efficiency. Ours is not only
the biggest democracy in the world, but
among the electorate almost every civilisation from tribal culture and the stone-age to
the modern nuclear era is represented. This
makes the achievementof such a big job well
done, barringa few exceptions hereand there,
something to be proud of. For me this
business of electioneering is a most exciting
experience in mass democraticeducation. We
get an opportunity of explaining our ideals
and objectives to the people; and the people
in their own way educate us to appreciate
their wants and complaints. All of us are
richer by the experience...
This fact speaks well for the future of
parliamentary democracy in our country.
One gets the feel, and truly, of a whole
people waking from the sleep of centuries,
standing up and marchingforwardto a better
and fuller life. It is this aspect of a whole
nation in movement that I welcome above
all things.
Until the few years before his death,
Nehru did not think much of the currently
canvassed alternatives to parliamentary
democracy especially the ideas of 'communitarian' and 'organic' democracy
advocated by such diverse thinkers as
Vivekananda, Aurobindo and M N Roy, and
opted for the liberal democracy of the individualist variety. He was convinced that that
was the only way the Indian mind could be
freed of the traditional constraints of castes,
villages and other narrow units, and the
Indian society energised. Of the various
forms of liberal democracy he favoured the
Westminster parliamentary model, largely
because it was already familiar to India and
guaranteed stability.
Parliamentary democracy involved such
conventional institutions as universal adult
suffrage, free and fair elections, the separation of powers, an independent judiciary,
free prcss, civil liberties and constitutionally
guaranteed basic rights. Nehru was unsympathetic to the Gandhian idea of a loosely structured polity on the grounds that it
fragmented the country, hindered national
unity, and exposed India to the dangers that
had rendered it vulnerable to foreign invasions in the past. He preferred a federal
polity with a strong centre and administratively autonomous states. Parliament was to
be the central arena of political life providing
an over-arching link between different
linguistic and religious, racial, ethnic and
other groups. Within each state the legislative assembly was to play a similar unifying
role. Nehru was so concerned 'not to take
any step that might lead towards loosening
the fabric of India' that he got reversed the
original plan to elect governors and had
them appointed and dismissed by the

president.
N tnru knew that parliamentary
democracy depended for its success on a
strongand unitedopposition,and that India

not only had none but was unlikelyto have
one for some time. Since he was convinced
that it was the only appropriate form of
governmentfor India, he exploredways of
compensatingfor the absenceof opposition.
He regularlyconsultedand briefedopposition leaders, and unsuccessfully tried to
involve them in supervising the work of
governmentdepartments.He urgedhis party
to thinkof itself in nationalterms,encouraged vigorous internal debates and even
welcomed dissent. On many occasions he
internalisedthe oppositionandhimselfacted
as the leaderof opposition, publiclycriticising his colleagues and even himself and
acknowledging his mistakes.5He also encouragedthe pressto play the oppositional
role and chidedchief ministerswho tried to
penalise over-criticaljournalists. None of
these came anywherenear filling the role of
a strong opposition party, but they did
humanise the exercise of power and introduce a moderatedegree of check on its
abuse.
III
Industrialisation
Industrialisationwas the thirdcomponent
of the nationalideology.ThoughNehruwas
persuadedthat India needed to encourage
cottageand small-scaleindustriesto ease the
problemsof povertyand unemployment,he
saw them as a temporary expedient only
necessaryuntil the countrybecamefuly industrialised.UnlikeGandhihe was convinced that India could not permanently
eliminatepovertyand satisfy the legitimate
aspirationsof its people withoutlarge-scale
industrialisation. More importantly the
modern world was industrialised, and a
country that failed to keep pace with it
remained weak and vulnerableto foreign
domination. As he put it:6
It can hardly be challenged that, in the context of the modern world no country can be
politically and economically independent,
even within the framework of international
interdependence, unless it is highly industrialised and has developed its power
resources to the utmost. Nor can it achieve
or maintain high standards of living and
liquidate poverty without the aid of modern
technology in almost every sphereof life. An
backward
countrywillcontinualindustrially
ly upset the world's equilibrium and encourage the aggressive tendencies of more
developedcountries.
For centuries India had remainedscientifically and technologicallyprimitive and
carried on with its centuries old mode of
production.Thatwas whyit fell an easy prey
to industrialisedBritain. Now that it had
learned the 'painful lessons' of history, it
must speedily 'catch up' with the advanced
western nations.7
We are trying to catch up in India with the
changesthat camein the worldhundredor

hundredand fiftyyearsago. Thatis, the industrial revolution... And what does it

mean? ... It means exploiting the mighty

forces that lie hidden in nature.. . As a result
of that western nations became powerful,
became rich, and the gap between them and
the non-- industrialised nations became a
tremendous, ever-growing gap...
Now... another mighty revolution is constantly coming over the world and setting the
stage for additional changes all the time...
So we have to go through not only one
revolutionbut two. We have to cover the track
of the 19th century and having reached the
middle of the 20th, we have to function in
this jet age, atomic energy age and the like.
Industrialisation had its inexorable

momentum. A country . could not industrialiseitself in parts or in degreesor up
to a point as Gandhi had proposed. And
evenif it could, the fact that othercountries
did not do so left it no alternativebut to go
all the way. Industrialisationwas not just a
means of solving the problems of poverty
and unemployment as Gandhi and others
had thought, but necessaryin orderto keep
pace with the restof the world in a globally
interdependenteconomy. Its logic was inherentlycomparativeand beyond the control of individual countries. As Nehru put
it:8
If technology demands the big machine, as
it does today in a large measure, then the big
machine with all its implications and consequences must be accepted... the latest
technique has to be followed and to adhere
to outworn and out-of-date methods of production, except as a temporary and stop-gap
measure, is to arrest growth and
development.
For Nehru industry not agriculturewas

the lever of economic development. That
was the economic orthodoxy of the time
based on a misreadingof the Europeanexperience,and he and his colleaguesmore or
less uncriticallyaccepted it. He was also in
a hurry, and thought that industry-led
growth transformedthe economy far more
quickly and effectivelythan agriculture-led
growth. Nehru was also guided by deeper
cultural considerations. The degenerate,
static and tradition-bound Indian society
desperately needed to be energised and
radically overhauled,and its people made
to think in a scientific, rationaland secular
manner.Economic developmentwas necessary not just to eliminate povertyand raise
the standardof living but to regeneratethe
Indian society and people, and hence its
pattern,pace and directionwereto be determined by the wider culturalindeed ontological aspirations.
For Nehruagriculturewasa primitiveand
culturally inferior activity. It was tied to
land, parasitic upon the forces of nature,
made man a plaything of nature and
encouraged 'fatalisti' and 'obscurantist'
ways of thought. It also fragmented the
country,confinedman'svisionto the narrow
limits of his village, and was a breeding
ground of ignorance, traditionalism, pasand superstition.
sivity, narrow-mindedness
As such it lacked the power and energy to
haul the country out of its 'traditional

grooves' and 'propel' it along the path of
modern ways of life and thought. As Nehru
repeatedly argued, villages had been responsible for IndiAs degeneration and changing
their 'antiquated' ideas and habits was the
'very basic problem' of independent India.
He did not therefore think much of agriculture as an activity and of the -peasantry
as a social class. His vieWs were widely
shared by the westernised professional elite
and the urban classes, and shaped their
choice of the path of economic development.
Since Gandhi had brought the peasantry
into public life and regarded it as the social
bearer of his vision of India, those critical
of that vision had an additional reason to
marginalise the peasantry.
IV
Socialism
For Nehru socialism was both a 'scientific'
method of social analysis and a normative
doctrine describing a 'desirable' society. Like
Marx, by whom he was once deeply influenced, he found it difficult to integrate
the two and ran into all kinds of difficulties.
As a method of analysis socialism was
based on a belief in the primacy of the
economic factor. The belief was not a mere
conjecture or a. hypothesis, but a 'fact of
history' as Marx had 'proved' with a wealth
of historical detail.9 Nehru observed: ?
If there is one thing that history shows, it is
this: that economic interests shape the
political views of groups and classes. Neither
reason nor moral considerations override
those interests.
For Nehru the 'socialist method' explained
phenomena no other method could. The
British had colonised India not in a fit of
absent-mindedness, nor lo 'civilise' its
people, but to procure cheap raw material
and a captive market for their goods. The
recurrent religious conflicts in India too had
an economic origin and content, and were
in fact economic conflicts played out on the
religious terrain."
It is nevertheless extraordinary how the
bourgeois classes, both among the Hindus
and the Muslims, succeeded, in the sacred
name of religion, in getting a measure of
mass sympathyand support for programmes
and demands which had absolutely nothing
to do with the masses, or even the lower
middle class. Every one of the communal
demands put forward by any communal
group is, in the final analysis, a demand for
jobs, and these jobs could only go to a handful of the unper middle class.
Nehru was convinced that once independent India tackled the economic roots of
religious conflicts, the latter would more or
less disappear. 'Class conflicts there might
well be, but not religious conflicts, except
insofar as religion itself representedsome

vested interest.'
IncreasinglyNehru began to doubt the
validityof the 'socialistmethod'of analysis.
As one would expect in the Indiancontext,

it was its failure to explain religion that
worried him most. He had argued that.
almost all Muslimreligiousdemandsboiled
down to demands for jobs. The jobs,
however,only benefited, 'a handful of the'
upper middle class and yet the demands
were vigorously supported by the Muslim
masses who had nothing to gain and their
lives to lose in the likely riots. They might
be victims of false consciousness or propaganda,but that was too condescendinga
view of them and could not in any case provide the wholeexplanation.Moreimportantly Nehru found it difficult to explain why
economic demands were articulated in a
religious rather than any other language.
Either this was just an accident, in which
case he was offering no explanationat all,
or the religious emotion was independent
and powerful,in which case the belief in the
primacy of the economic factor needed to
be revised.
Gandhipuzzledhim evenmore Herewas
a man who preachedausterity and 'reactionary' and 'confused'ideas and made no
or only limitedappealto economicinterests.
Yet he 'spellbound' and 'magnetised' the
masses and inspiredthem to most 'heroic'
sacrifices.'2 By contrast the Indian comrnunists, who concentrated on their
economic interests and promised them
nothingless than total controloversociety's
resources, made only a limited impact.
Nehru thought that Gandhi's success was
owedto the factthat unlikethe communists,
he activated and mobilised their 'subconscious' historical memories, skilfully
employedevocativeimagesandsymbols,and
appealedto theirreligioussentiments.Gandhi also had a tremendous 'force of personality' and was able to chargethem with
his immense energy.This meant that men
weremovedby a host of factorsand that the
economic factorswereneitherthe only ones
nor the most important.IncreasinglyNehru
began to grope for a moresatisfactoryform
of explanation, but never managed to
develop one. His analysis of social
phenomena throughout the years of his
premiershipremainedeclecticand confused.
Socialism as a normativedoctrine fared
better. Nehru remained a socialist all his
adult life and entertainedthe same broad
view of it. For him socialism was not just
an economic doctrine, nor just a form of
social organisation,but a 'newcivilisation'
basedon a radicallytransformed'humanity'
It was classless, democratic,provided the
materialand moralconditionsnecessaryfor
the fullestdevelopmentof the humanpotential, and encouragedco-operativeand nonacquisitiveimpulses. Productionwas planned, organised on co-operative.lines, and
directedtowardsthe satisfactionof human
needs rather than accumulationof profit,
and the basic freedomsand rightsof citizens
were fully guaranteed.It was striking that
unlikeMarxand other socialists,Nehrudid
not define man as a producing being, or

37
place muchemphasis on popularparticipation, egalitarianism,gradualwitheringaway

of the state class struggleand new forms of
communalliving. His socialismwas basically aestheticand liberal,concentratingon the
individual ratherthan the community and
stressingself-expression,individuality,social
justice and human creativity.
Though Nehru's vision of the ideal
socialistsocietyand his moraland emotional
attachmentto it remainedconstant,his view
of what was practicaland his political will
to fight for it variedgreatly.Fromabout the
mid-1920suntil mid-1930she openly called
himself a socialistalong the lines mentioned
earlier.His views werewell-expressedin his
long presidentialaddress at the 1936 Congress session in Lucknow.He was a socialist
'not in a vaguehumanitarianway but in the
scientific economic sense' and wanted to
build a new social order on co-operative,
classless and democratic times. Socialism
was not just his personal greferencebut an
'objectivenecessity'built into the historical
process. Even at this stage, however,he was
worried about two things. 'One is how to
apply this approach to India. The other is
how to speak of socialism in the language
of India... Merely to use words and
phrases, which have meaning for us but
which arenot currentcoin amongthe masses
of India, is often wasted effort."3
Nehru'suncompromisingstatementof his
socialist aspirations at the Lucknow Congress frightenedmany of his colleagues and
the Indian capitalists. It led to several
resignations from the Congress working
committee and threatened to isolate him.
Though the crisis was eventually resolved,
he learned important political and ideological lessons. He realised that he risked
being condemned to political impotence
without the support of the Congress, and
that he could not carry it with him beyond
a certainpoint. More importantlyhe realised that sincehe was committedto democracy
and rejectedboth the dictatorshipof the proletariatand the use of violenceto overthrow
capitalism, his socialism was subjectto and
neededto'be reconciledwith the inescapable
constraintsof democracy.His countrywide
campaign duringthe 1937elections further
reinforced the point.
He now startednot only to play down his
socialism but also to tone down its content.
He argued that the Indian middle classes
were'too strong'and entrenchedto be easily
subdued, and that there was 'a tremqndous
lack of human material in any other class
to take its place effectivelyor to run a planned society'.14Attemptsto achievesocialism
werebound to provokestrongresistance,and
a 'prematureconflict on class lines' would
not only lead to bloodshed but also break
up the country. Instead of talking about
ending capitalism as he had hitherto done,
he now talked of ending poverty and
unemployment,improvingthe standardof
livingof the mases, and increasingnational
wealth. lie even thought that since most
Indians including the capitalists had come
38
round to acceptingthe idea of planning, it

was betterto introducesocialism throughit
ratherthan stressit explicitly.It would seem
that he had at last found a way of talking
about socialism in the 'language of India'.
As he wrote to K T Shah, secretaryof the
National Planning Committee, in 1939:'5
If we start with the dictum that only under
socialism there can be planning we frighten
people and irritate the ignorant. If, on the
other hand, we think in terms of planning
apart from socialism and thus inevitably

arrive at some form of socialism, that is a
logical process which will convert many who
are weary of words and slogans.
After 1947 Nehru was in power and did

not have to be so cautious. In the AICC
resolution of November that year and
especiallyin the reportof its EconomicProgrammeCommitteechairedby him, he laid
down a fairly detailedsocialist programme.
Banking and insurancewereto be nationalised. Defence, key and public utility industries were to be confined to the public
sector.All industrieshavingto do with food,
clothing and other consumergoods wereto
be reserved for the cottage or small-scale
sector and managedon a co-operativebasis,
thereby further reducing the scope for
private sector. The state was to control investment, income and dividends in the
privatesector,fix land ceilings,and organise
the surplus land in village co-operatives.It
was to set up. a Planning Commission to
work out an overalleconomic strategyand
to discourage 'creation of private monopolies and the concentrationof wealth.
The cumulative impact of the fears
aroused by the two documents, the earlier
'soak the rich' budget and the economic
havoc caused by the partition, led to an
economiccrisisand the strikeof capital.The
IndustrialPolicy Resolution of 1948 represented a climb-down by the government.
Though it talkedabout 'justiceand equality
of opportunity... to all the people', it
insisted that the 'emphasisshould be on the
expansion of production' A 'meredistribution of existingwealth'would 'merelymean
the distributionof poverty'The government
was to eschewnationalisationand extension
of its rangeof industrialactivities.As Nehru
put it, he was determined'not to.injurethe
existing structuretoo much. K T Shah, his
economic advisorfor manyyears,called the
resolution an 'utter disappointment'.
D R Gadgil observed a year later that the
'old socialistic programme has... receded
more and more into the background'.'
The FirstFive-Year
Plan foliowedthe 1948
Resolution and did not registeran advance
towardssocialism.It underplayedthe importanceof equitabledistributionon the ground
that it 'might only end up dislocating production and evenjeopardisingthe prospects
of an ordered growth' The 'bulk of the
industry'was left to the privatesector,only
a small percentageof the availableresources
was providedfor the public sector, and the
latter continued to be seen as a way of sup-
plementing and facilitating the private

sector.
Around 1955Nehru'sthoughtunderwent
an importantchange. He was increasingly
dissatisfiedwiththe rateof economicgrowth
and deeply worried about unemployment
and the scale of poverty.He was also feeling politically more confident, and impressed with what he had seen in China in
October 1954. He now began to stress
socialism once again. He first talked about
it at a meetingof the NationalDevelopment
Council in November that year. The Lok
Sabha passed a resolution a month later
stating that the government aimed at a
'socialisticpatternof society' A month later
the Avadi Congress reiteratedthe commitment and declaredthat a welfarestate and
a socialisticeconomywereto be the national
goals. The Imperial Bank of India was
nationalised four months later, followed
shortly by the nationalisation of life
insurance companies.7 Around that time
the NationalDevelopmentCouncilapproved
the criticallyimportant'plan-frame'-forthe
Plan developedby MahalaSecondFive-Year
nobis. Its declared goal was to create a
'socialistsociety' It assignedan increasingly
dominant role to the public sector, and
stressed the need both to exercise 'considerable vigilance' against the growth of
industrial houses and to broad-base industrial ownership by assisting small
businesses.It laid down the overallstrategy
for the rest of the Nehru period.
From 1954 until his death in 1964,
socialismto Nehrulargelymeanta planned
mixed economy dominated by the public
sector.He stressedplanning not-somuch on
the socialistgroundsof equitableredistribution or eventhe provisionof the basic needs
of the people,as becauseit ensurednational
autonomy, represented a 'scientific' and
'efficient' way of utilising the limited
availableresources,and guaranteedoverall
state control of the economy."8He welcomed theprivatesectorbecauseit introduced a healthy dose of competition and;
preventedthe public sector from becoming,
'slow' and sluggish,releasedentrepreneurial!
energy, mobilised private wealth, and also
becausean attemptto abolishit was 'bound'
to lead to a class-warand a 'prolonged inabilityto buildanything'The dominantrole
of the public sector was justified on both
political and economic grounds. Only the
state had the ability to generate the vast
resourcesneeded to set up huge industries
in 'strategic areas' The public sector
guaraniteedthe state a powerful economic
presencenecessaryto avoidit being controlled, manipulated or blackmailed by the
private sector. It provideda 'counteracting
power' to the capitalists and constituted a
vital safeguardagainsttheir addingpolitical
powerto theirconsiderableeconomicpower
and threateningdemocracy.It also ensured
that productionwas guided by social need
ratherthan the profits of a few.The public
sector was to-be built up by the entrepreneurialactivitiesof the state ratherthan
Economic and Political Weekly January 5-12,41991

by nationalisationbecausethe space for-industrial expansion was vast, the country's

resourceswerelimited, and it was better for
the state to start new industries than to
nationalise obsolescent ones in the private
sector.
Nehru's socialism was inspiredas much
by economic as by political considerations.
For him it offered the best means of securing economic growth, rapid industrialisation, national self-sufficiency and an
equitable distribution. It also ensured that
the state remainedautonomous and powerful, retained overall control over the
economy, kept capitalism within bounds,
and preventedit from forgingunacceptable
links with its foreign counterparts. For
Nehru only socialism could- guarantee
nationalindependence,an autonomousstate
and democracy.
It was striking that the economic objectives of socialism did not give high priority
to equitabledistributionor even to the provision of the basic needs of the masses. No
doubt Nehru constantlytalkedabout these,
but largely as distant goals rather than
urgentobjectives,and they did not form the
operative principles of the three five-year
plans. He was more concerned to lay the
foundationsof a futuresocialistsociety and
in the meantimeto increaseproductionthan
to eliminatepovertyand providea national
miniimumto all Indians.The five-yearplans
gave low priorityto public action aimed at
eliminating endemic undernourishment,
banishingilliteracy,providingbasic medical
facilities,and ensuringclear drinkingwater
and cheap food, Nehru did not appreciate
that extensivepublicinvestmentin such areas
as education, health, housing and goods
distribution was not merely a matter of
justice but also a vital social and economic
investment capable of yielding high longterm dividends."9In that sense his conception of socialism was structurallyflawed,
both morally and in its economic strategy.
V
Scientific
Temper
The fifth national goal consisted in the

cultivationof the 'scientifictemper''culture
or 'approachto life'. By this Nehru meant
not so much the developmentof scienceand
technology, which was but a part and product of it, as fosteringrationaland empirical
waysof thoughtand life Fornearlya millennium India had remainedin 'deep slumber'
and come to grief because it had become
dogmatic, mystical, speculative,uncritical,
inward-lookingand addictedto undisciplined fantasy. If it was to turn the corner and
become a strong and vibrant society like
Europe,it had to learn to think and behave
scientifically. Nehru's view of scientific
thinkingwas fairlyconventional.It involved
checking and relyingon facts alone, taking
nothing on 'blind trust' or faith, changing
beliefs in the light of new evidence, being
precise and exact, relyingon the method of
trial and error, ceaselessly searching for
truth, keepingan open mind, and in general

developingthe 'harddisciplineof the mind'
characteristicof the 'modernage'. Such an
approach applied to beliefs as much as to
social practices.As we saw NehruadvocatecL
economicplanningon the groundthat it was
the only scientific way of running the
economy.
Though Nehru emphasised the importanceof the scientifictemper,he was acutely
awareof the limits of science, and anxious
to avoid the positivist mistakeof regarding
it as the only valid formof knowledge.That
was why he talkedof the scientific 'temper',
implying that it was to be an importantbut
only one of the severalorganisingprinciples
of life. He drewup quitea catalogueof areas
wherescience was either inapplicableor inadequate.20It was incapable of answering
questions about the meaning, purpose and
significance of life. It did not extend to
'muchthat is vitalin life',suchas the human
emotionsof loveand beautyand the literary
and moralexperience.Humanbeingsneeded
faith in some ideal, 'some distantobjective',
some vision of a neverfully realisablestate
of perfection,'orelse we haveno anchorage',
and such ideals wereincapableof scientific
proof or demonstration. Science gave no
guidance on how to use its results, and
neededto be 'temperedby spirituality'which
alone gave us 'the right measure,the right
Excessive
perspectiveand the rightdirectioW.
preoccupationwith 'hard'factshad blinded
the modern man to the 'innerspirituallife'
and coarsened his moral sensibility. The
scientific and technological developments
had created a highly 'mechanicalcivilisation', and ran the risk of producing a
'mechanisedmind... thinkingin groovesof
thought' and drying up 'creativegeniusO2`
Scientists were postulating hypothetical
entities they had never encountered and
never will, thereby radically revising the
traditional ideas of fact and truth. It was
also widely recognised that the knower
necessarilymediated the process of knowledgeand thatthe scientificknowledgecould
never be wholly objective.
It would seem that in exposingthe limits
of science, Nehru was characteristically
taking away with one hand what he had
given with the other. But that would be
unfair.'Realisingthese limitationsof reason
and scientific method, we havestill to hold
on to thepnwithall our strength,for without
that firmbasis and backgroundwe can have
no grip on any kind of truth or.reality. Nehru was keento insist that scienceshould
remainsupreme in those areas such as the
natural sciences with which it was ideally
equipped to deal. It should be given full
weight in those areas such as the study of
society where it constituted an important
elementin the overallprocessof knowledge.
So far as such areasas the belief in the.existence of god, the soul or thleother world
were concerned,science at least exerciseda
negative check and helped decide what
beliefs one may not hold. Furthermore
Nehru was concerned with science not so
much as a body of knowledge or even a

method of inquiryas a mannerof reaching
decisions in matters relatingto belief and
behaviour.And here he largely equated it
with rationality in the weak sense of not
going beyond what was warrantedby the
availableevidence.This, of course, raisesa
host of diffcult philosophicalquestionswith
which he was deal.
VI
Secularism
Since the early years of the twentieth
centuryespeciallythe agitationsurrounding
the partitionof Bengal,the relationbetween
the stateand religionhad becomean impor:
tant politicalissue.The resolutionof this difficult question was complicatedby several
factors that were almost unique to India.
Indiahas severalreligionswithverydifferent
history and background. Islam had ruled
large parts of the country for many centuries.And thoughit hadbecomeindigenised, unlike Christiaaityit neverwholly lost
its quasi-aliencharacterat least in the.eyes
of the Hindus. Hinduism had a vague and
diffused identity, consisted of countless
schools and sects sharinglittle in common,
and was unableto speak with one voice let
alone form the basis of the state. Unlike
Islam it prided itself on its pluralism,
toleranceand respect for all religions, and
that renderedthe idea of the Hindu state
even more problematic.
The answersto the question of the relation between the state and religion in independent India covereda very wide spectrum,rangingfromthe incoherentnotion of
'Hindu raj' to the impractical idea of
suppressing religion altogether.23 Most,
however,fell underone of threecategories.
First, for some India should become a
Hindu state, not in a religiousbut cultural
or civilisationalsense.Overseveralmillennia
Indiahad developeda commoncivilisation,
that is, a shared body of values, attitudes,
ways of looking at the world and forms of
social relationship.Though the civilisation
had benefited from the contributions of
Muslims, Parsis, Christians and others, it
was basically a creation of the Hindus.
Hinduism or Hindu religionwas unique to
the Hindusand distinguishedthem fromthe
other Indiancommunities,but the Hinduor
ratherIndian civilisation or Hindutva was
common to thetnall. Overthe centuriesthe
Indiancivilisationhad mouldedand provided a common underlyingbond betweenthe
different Hindu sects and schools. It had
also shaped and indigenised such alien
religionsas Islam and Christianity.Despite
their different origins, belief systems, and
social structures, all Indian con.munities
thus shareda common'ethos'or 'spirit'and
were bound together by deep civilisational
bonds. A common civilisational basis was
thus not only availablein India but formed
the ineliminablesubstanceof its collective
life. Howeversecularthe IndianstateGmight
oretendto be, it could nevertranscendand
oomicand PRlticalWeekly January5-12,1991

39
avoidbeing structuredby the 'spiritual'ethos

of the civilisation in which it was deeply
embedded. Both intellectual honesty and
prudence requiredthat it should explicitly
recognise this central fact and constitute
itself accordingly.The advocatesof this view
gued that such a civilisationally but not
religiously Hindu state tolerated and even
welcomedreligiousdiversityas the necessary
expressionof its inner nature,and granted
the minorities full legal and cultural
protection.
Second, some Indian leadersarguedthat
India had no alternative but to become a
multi-religiousstate, that is, a state that did
not just respect religious diversitybut embodied it in its very structure.Such major
Indian religions as Hinduism, Islam and
Sikhismwereethnicreligions,religionsintegrally connectedwith specific communities
and intenselyself-consciousof their unique
history,customs, legal systemsand ways of
thought of life They desiredanddemanded
to preserve their communal identity. The
Indian state should therefore be so constitutedthat it left them alone to be governed by their own legal systems, and granted
them proportional representation in the
institutionsof government.Such a state was
obviously neither secular nor merely
'tolerant'of all religions. They were woven
into its very structureand ran it together in
a spirit of partnership.The fact that the
colonial rulershad instituted separateelectorates for some of the religiousminorities
and communalisedthe state lent plausibility
to this idea.
Third, most Indian leaderspleaded for a
secular state but disagreedon its meaning.
For some it meantsarvadharmasamabhava
or equal respectfor all regions.The statewas
not to be tied to a particularreligion and
was to patronisethem all equally.They differed from the advocates of the previously
discussed multi-religious state in insisting
that religious plurality was not to be built
into the structure of the state. The state,
restingon liberalindividualisticfoundations,
was to keep religionat a respectableinstitutional distance.For some othe, secularism
meant dharmanirapekshaor indifferenceto
religion.Religionhad nothingto do with the
state and was to be confined to the private
realm. They never, however, defined the
nature.and boundary of the private realm
and tended to equate the state with the
nebulously defined public realm. For yet
otherssecularismmeantnot just indifference
but hostility to religion. Though the state
was not to suppressreligion,it was to do all
in its powerto undermineits continuinghold
over the Indian mind by educational and
other means.
Nehru vigorously pleaded for a secular
state, but his view of secularism was complex and vague. He distinguished between
the spiritual and ideological-cum-institutional dimensions of religion. He was intensely hostile to the latter but deeply sympathetic to the former,especiallyduringthe
pre-independencedays and the last yearsof
his premiership.Thoughhe frequentlytalked

about spirituality,he never clearly defined
the term. Sometimes he equated it with
morality. On other occasions he used it to
referto concernwith the natureand destiny
of man and the meaningand purposeof life;
to be spiritual was to be sensitive to these
importantand 'irrepressible'questions. On
yet other occasions Nehru gave the term
substantivecontent and took it to mean a
broadlyadvaitametaphysic;spiritualityconsisted in recognising the presence of a
creativeforce or vital energyat work in all
living beings and appreciatingthe unity of
life.
Despite this ambiguity Nehru was convinced that although spirituality was the
inspiring principle of religion, it was not
confined to the latter and formed part of
every thinking man's consciousness. No
human being could avoid asking questions
about the meaning of his actions, his relation to the non-humanworldand the point
and purpose of his life. Spirituality thus
dealt with issues fallingoutsidethe jurisdiction of scienceand complementedand gave
it philosophical depth. Religion sought to
deal with these issues and was close to
spirituality.However,religiousanswerswere
not the only ones possible.Indeedtheyintroduced an untenabletheologicalbaggageand
wholly distortedthe originialquestions.For
these and other reasons Nehru sometimes
sharplyseparatedspirituality,a delicatesensitivity to the deeperand perplexingdimension of life, from religion, a dogmaticbody
of assertions claiming to offer definitive
answers to questions that did not permit
conclusive resolution.
Nehru had no sympathywhateverfor the
ideological and institutional aspect of
religion.24 By the former he meant
theological dogmas including the belief in
the existenceof god and the after-life,and
by the latter organised church, religious
organisations and religiously prescribed
rules and practices.For him this aspect of
religion had been a source of unmitigated
harm. It had encouraged ignorance and
superstition, 'shackled' the human spirit,
discouraged science and rationality, and
renderedthe human mind 'vague and soft
and flabby' It had also hinderedeconomic
and social progress, sanctioned oppressive
and exploitativesystems,perpetuatedgrave
injusticeand led to most brutalwars.It had
also bred profound selfishness and encouragedan 'asocialquest for god' In these
and other ways it impoverishedman and
contained a deep anti-humanistthrust.
LikeGokhaleand Gandhi,Nehruthought
that spirituality had an important role to
play in political life. Unlike them, however,
he assignedit a limited,diffused and largely
psychological role. The awareness of the
spiritual dimension of life ensured that
politics did not confine itself to the pursuit
of materialwell-being,and remainedmindful of the largerquestions about the meaning and significanceof life. It also ensured
that politics did not become all-encompassing and totalitarian,and remaineddeeply

awareof the factthat it has littleto say about
the largeand profoundquestions lying outside its jurisdiction.Nehrualso thoughtthat
something like advaita, which stressed the
unityof man and epistemologicaland moral
pluralism,providedthe philosophicalbasis
of and encouraged the spirit of internationalism, religioustolerance,and moral
and intellectual humility.25
While welcomingspiritualityin politics,
Nehrusawno politicalroleat all for religion,
that is, for its ideological and institutional
apparatus. Apart from its generally deleterious consequences,religioncreatedadditional problemsin politicallife. It introduced
absolute moral principlesinconsistentwith
the pragmatic and consensual nature of
politics. Besides religion had alwaysbeen a
deeply divisive force in all societies, having
led to bloody civil warsin Europeand to the
partitionof the countryin India. 'How long
that will take I cannot say, but religion in
India will kill that country and its peoples
if it is not subdued'.The state could not be
run without an agreedbody of values. And
since religiousmoralityvaried,the statehad
no choice but to bpllowits own autonomous
and secularmoralitybased on a sharedconception of materialinterests.For these and
otherreasonsreligionhad to be scrupulously
kept out of political life. The state should
neither patronise nor associate itself with
any of them.
For Nehruthen the statehad to be secular
in the sense of transcendingand being indifferentto religion.The statewas a 'public'
institution, religion an entirely 'private
matter.Secularismin this senseinformedhis
policies and attitudes. He condemned
religious political parties and, although he
did not ban them, he refused to have any
dealings with them. He did not officially
associate himself with religiousleadersand
religious functions. He strongly but unsuccessfullyobjectedto RajendraPrasadinaugurating the rejuvenated Somanath
temple. He objected to Bande Mataram-on
the groundsthat, among otherthings,it had
a religiousprovenanceand connotation.He
did not allow religious symbols and images
to be associatedwith official functions,and

insisted on debating such religious or
religiously mediated issues as the Hind[u
personal law and ban on cow-slaughterin
secular terms.
Since no state could be wholly secular in
Nehru'sse4se especiallyin such a religiously
embeddedcultureas the Indian, his secularismremainedlimitedin its scopeand depth.
In spite of his desire to change parts of it,
he dared not touch either the Muslim
personal law or the Hindu, Muslim, Christian and otherdenominationalschools. The
state continued to observe public holidays
on major religiousoccasions. The Benares
and the Aligarh Muslim
Hindu UJniversity
University,the only two universitiesto be

41
associated with specific religious communities,wereaccordedthe privilegedstatus

of central universities. Chief ministers in
variousstates continuedto attend religious,
mainly Hindu functions.And constructions
of severalgovernmentbuildings and dams
were preceded by religious ceremonies.
Though religionhad no place in political
life, Nehru knewthat the state could not remain indifferentto it. It was concernedwith
such vital tasks as preservationof the country's integrity, tts economic and social
development,and protectionof the constitutional rights of all its citizens. If some
religiousbeliefs and practicesfrustratedthe
VI
Non-Alignment
International affairs were Nehru's

favourite area of interest. During the independencestrugglehe constantlydrewhis
countrymen'sattentionto theirvital importance, and was the principal architect of
many an importantCongress,resolutionon
internationalsubjects.Duringhis'periodof
office as primeministerhe mmainedhis own
foreign minister.
Since India was a new state without a
tradition of foreign policy except that
developed by the colonial government to
serveits geopoliticalinterests,Nehruhad to
realisation of these goals, it had both a right
and a duty to interferewith them. The fact fashion it almost single-handed.And since
that they were religiously enjoined did not it also lacked a coherent and collectively
put them outside the reachof the law. That shared conception of its vital interestsand
was why he thought that the Constitution place in the world, he had to articulateone
himself. His conduct of foreignaffairs was
was right to declare untouchability a
cognisable offence. That was also why his initially guided by little more than vague
government did not hesitate to pass the principlesand aspirations.It took him some
Hindu Code Bill and regulatethe manage- years to develop what could be called a
ment of some Hindu temples.When it came foreign 'policy',that is, a reasonablylongto the Muslimpersonallaw,Nehrurefrained term, coherentand well thoughtout viewof
from 'interfering'.He found some of its the content and ways of promoting India's
practicesunacceptable,and evenwhenhe did vital interests.In some areassuch as India's
not mind them, he was anxious that all relations to the scatteredmass of overseas
Indians should be subjectto a uniformcivil Indiansand the countriesof theirsettlement,
code. Howeverhe concludedthat any 'inter- Nehru never managed to develop a clear
policy.
ference' with the Muslim personal law so
soon after the partitionwas likely to arouse
For Nehru India had severaladvantage
deep fearsand provokestrongresistance,and denied to most other states. Though it was
that he ought to wait until the Muslim a new state,it was an old civilisation,in fact
opinion was ready.
the oldest livingcivilisationin the world.As
While he was right to do so, he exposed such it had a 'certainmeasure of wisdom
himself to a legitimate criticism. Many a and maturity' that came with age and exHindu includingthe presidentof Indiawere perience. It also had a distinct outlook on
opposed to some of the provisions of the the world derived from its philosophical
Hindu Code Bill.26Yet Nehru insisted on heritage,especiallythe advaita.Gandhihad
their enactment and threw all his prestige enrichedthat heritageand developedan unand authoritybehind them. They werealso iquely Indianwayof resolvingconflictswith
uneasy with the governmentinterferencein considerablerelevancett the violence-weary
the managementof temples, yet he refused world. India, further,had been exposed to
to give in. He and the overwhelming the west for nearly two hundredyears and
majority of his cabinet and parliamentary had learned much from it. It therefore
colleagues were Hindus, and thought that representedan unique synthesisof the east
they were not and could not be seen to be and the west and was ideally placed to
'interfering'with Hindu practices.Besides, mediatebetweenthe west and the restof the
as Hindus they knew what was in the best world. The fact that it was outsidethe main
interestsof their religion and were entitled arena of internationalconflicts meant that
to pressahead. In other wordsNehru'sstate it was able to bringto them a certaindegree
acted as, and claimed all the rights of a of detachmentand impartiality.For these
Hindu state in its relationto the Hindus. It and other reasons Nehru thought that Inwas because he and his colleagueswereand dia had a creativerole to play in the world.
thought of themselvesas Hindus that they He thus did not just have a foreign policy
both dared take liberties with the Hindus but also a distinct view Qf the world and a
and darednot take them with respectto the strongdesireto influencethe prevailingways
Muslims and even the Sikhs. This createda of thinking about and conducting internaproblem. In claimingthe rights of a Hindu tional affairs. His view of the world was
state, Nehru's governmentencouragedthe groundedin and shapedby India'shistorical
Hindu expectationthat it will also acceptthe experiencesand representeda distinctively
obligations of such a stateincludingdefend Indian perspectiveon world affairs.
Nehruwasdeeplyconcernedaboutthe inand promote their religion and collective
interests.It rightlyrefusedto do so, thereby creasingpolarisationof the world into two
incurringthe charges of inconsistencyand rigid power blocks. Capitalism and codisingenuity,of behaving in its relationsto munism were both 'outdated'ideologies, a
the Hindus as both a Hindu and a secular legacyof the nineteenthcentury.Capitalism
would not sulrvivewithout extensive state
state as suited its interests.
42
interventioninto the economy and accommodating the increasing demands for

equalityand justice.Communismcould not
last long unlessit safistifedthe 'irrepressible'
humandesirefor freedomand individuality.
Eachthereforehad to changeand in fact was
changing,and the two systemswereincreasingly cobvergingtowardsa sharedbody of
ideals. Nehruwasconvincedthat 'enlightened capitalism can co-exist with liberalised
communism' and that the two systems,
beiRgsomewhatdifferentwaysof realising
common ideals,could competein a spiritof
friendly rivalry.27Each had much to learn
fromand benefitedfromclose contactswith
the other.Peacefulco-existencewas thus the
only rationalwayof organisinginterr1ational
relations.
Nehru thought that India had a considerable historical experiencein this area
and might offer one possible model. Different religious, ethnic, racial and other
groups had for centuriesco-existed within
its boundary in a spirit of harmony,and
learnedto negotiate their relationswithout
an overreachingstate determiningand imposing the terms of their engagement.
India'sexampleshowedthat it was possible
to create order without a state, and that
worldpeacedid not requirea worldstatebut
only a willingnessto work together within
a frameworkof insgitutionsand over time
building up a consciousnessof common interests and habits of co-operation. Nehru
also thought that India could make a
genuine contributiontowardsdevelopinga
philosophy of and creating the.condjtions
of peaceful co-existence.Indiancivilisation
was basedon the deeplyheld belief that differentmen andsocietiesperceivedrealitydifferently,that truth was not a monopoly of
any of them, and that a dialogue between
them wasboth possibleand necessary.While
acknowledgingtheirdifferencesit knewthat
they shared many things in common to
which their heightenedsense of difference
temporarilyblindedthem.Overthe centuries
and especially under Gandhi's leadership,
India had accquired
specialskills in uncovering the common ground and opening up a
dialoguebetweenapparentlyoppositepoints
of view. Nehru thought that a political
philosophybasedon such a metaphysicwas
the indispensablebasis of world peace.
Nehruinsistedthat the majorpowershad
not fullygraspedthe importanceof nationalism. Since the west had paid a heavy price
for it duringthe secondworldwar,it regarded nationalism as a dangerous and reactionary phenomenon,ignoringthe creative
role it had playedin its history.The Soviet
Union had arrivedat a similar conclusion
by a differentroute.ForNehruthe newstates
emergingfrom centuriesof alien rule were
passionatelyconcernedto asserttheir identity, pursue their vital interests,unite their
dividedpeople,and piecetogethertheirrupturedpast. Nationalismwas both an expression and a meansof promotingtheiraspirations. The west needed to realise that not
communism but nationalismwas the most
Economic and Potitical Weekly January 5-12, 1991

powerfulforcein the world,that it could not

for long continue with its colonial and neocolonial policies, and that it stood a far
greaterchanceof retainingthe friendshipof
the new states and arrestingthe spread of
communism by aligning itself with their
nationalistaspirations.Forits partthe Soviet
Union had to realise that it could not for
long suppressthe deepest aspirationsof its
nationalitiesand client states,and that communismhad no chanceof successin the new
states unless it indigenised itself and spoke
in the languageof theircharacteristicidioms
and images. Nehru was convincedthat once
that legitimateaspirationsof the new countries wererespectedand allowedto run their
course, their nationalism would lose its
narrowness and become more open and
relaxed.
Nehru thought that as the first country
to be free from colonial rule, India's
experiences and insights had particular
relevancefor othersin a similarposition. He
supportedtheir strugglesfor independence,
spoke for them in internationalforums,emphasised their common intersts, and explored ways of bringing them together. In
many ways he created the third world and
gave it a distinct identity and role. For him
it was a worldof new and proudstates,sharing in common their experiencesof oppression and struggle, and striving, each in its
own way,to attain the four crucialgoals of
nationalintegration,economicdevelopment,
self-determinationand freedom from external interference.The third world included
not only European ex-colonies Out also
countries like Yugoslavia which sought
liberation from the Soviet oppression, and
those like China that never were colonies.
For Nehru it was not so much an economic
category which it has since become, but a
politicaland culturalcategory,not a negative
and residualentity consisting of states that
fell outsidethe ambitof the two superpowers
but a positive and self-defining entity, not
a passiveimitatorof eitherof the two dominant political systems and a meek recipient
of their aid but an active explorerof a new
way of life, not a descriptivebut prescriptive categorysignifyinga genuinedesireand
determination to be independent and
self-determining.
That was why Nehru felt that a new state
that aligneditself to a powerbloc and mortgaged its economic and political independence betrayedboth itself and the other new
states. It negated its struggle for independence, wasted the sacrifices made by
the countless men and women in the name
of freedom, and lacked self-respect and
pride.It also brokerankswith the otherthird
world states, weakened their international
solidarity, encouraged manipulation and
interventionby major powers, and made it
extremelydifficult both for itself and them
to fight for their rights in world forums.
Nehru's conception of the third world was
an internationalextension of his socialism.
The third world representedthe exploited
and oppressed states of the world, whose
strength lay in organisation and unity. In

taking this view he linkedup their concerns
with those of the oppressed classes in the
west, and involvedwesternsocialistsin their
struggle.
Given Nehru's view of the world and
India'splace in it, he insistedthat it should
remain outside the two power blocs and
follow an independent foreign policy. He
justified this on threegrounds. First, it was
a necessaryexpressionand an indispensable
means of preservingIndian independence.
Second, it was the only common groundon
which Indians of different ideological persuasionscould be united.Third,Indiacould
not mediate between the superpowers,
mobiliseworldopinion on importantissues,
j !tain a fresh and pragmaticperspectiveon
world affairs, open up and reconstitutethe
rigidinternationalsystemon a broaderbasis,
and speak for the third world if it aligned
itself to one of the power blocs.
In much of the literatureon the subject
Nehru's foreign policy is misleadingly
describedas nonaligned,neutraLorindependent. Nonalignmentwas just one aspect of
and did not exhaust his foreign policy.
Besides,it was largelya preconditionof the
latterand not its goal. Again, it was important not in itself but as a means of serving
India'svital interests,includingthe kind of
mediator'srole Nehru had in mind. It was
disputes, and recaptured its cultural unity.

Nehru's view was a source of both the
strengths and weaknesses of his foreign
policy, particularly with respect to India's
neighbours.
Like the orient, Asia was a European invention and had only a limited basis in
history. Unlike European countries, the
Asians were not involved in constant interaction and had neither a common religion
nor a shared cultural source. No doubt, the
Hindu and Buddhist ideas had travelled to
different parts of Asia, but their spread and
impact were limited. Not surprisingly Tagore
was received in Japan with a mixture of incomprehension and ridicule when he talked about Asian civilisation and Asian role
in the world. India had never seen itself as
an Asian country and its contacts with its
neighbours were limited in nature. This was
also true of China. It had enjoyed only intermittent contacts with India and nursed
painful historical memories. It had long
resented India's rejection of Buddhism.
Under British leadership Indian soldiers had
fought the Chinese and engaged in theft and
pillage during the Boxer Rebellion. The
Chinese held India in low esteem because of
its inability to organise its public life and
preserve its national integrity, one of the important tests by which they have traditionally
judged a country. Though Nehru's celebrathus not a political principle but a policy re- tion of the Buddha's two thousand and five
quiredby the contingent internationalcon- hundredth anniversary made some impact
text and to be changed with changes in the on some south-east Asian countries, it had
latter. Nehru's foreign policy could not be none on China. Indeed China thought that
adequatelydescribedas neutraleither.India Nehru was being inauthentic in celebrating
neither remained nor wished to remain a figure whose followers had been persecuted
neutralon any of the major issues. It freely and hounded for daring to revolt against its
expressedeven pressedits views, took sides, dominant religion. Nehru thought of India
and found itself allied to different groups and China as old friends who had sadly lost
on different occasions. Eve'nthe term 'in- contact. For China they were relative
dependent' does not quite capturethe cen- strangers burdened with pockets of unhaptral featuresof India'sforeignpolicy.Under py memories.
To be sure Nehru's invocation of the Asian
Nehru India did not merely pursue its interestsas it thought proper;it intervenedin identity did have some advantages. It revivinternationalaffairs, mobilised world opi- ed several ancient memories and breathed
nion in supportof its views, activelyled the life into the small and long-neglected seeds
third world, and sought to restructurethe from which a common civilisational tree
establishedpatternof internationalrelations. could grow. It highlighted the inescapable
The term independenceonly highlights the compulsions of shared geography, and the
fact that its foreign policy was formulated need to forge direct bonds between countries
withoutexternalinterferenceand the institu- hitherto related by European mediations. It
tional constraints of membership of a also however, had its disadvantages. Other
political groupor militarybloc, and ignores Asian countries resented India's claim to
its interventionistthrust and wider global speak in their name in international forums.
objectives. Insofar as Nehru was primarily Since the Asian identity as Nehru defined
concernedto reconstitutethe worldpolitical it had a cultural and religious core and made
order, his foreign policy could be better India its historical source, it was seen as a
vehicle of hegemonic ambitions. It also luldescribed as constructivist.
In his view of the world Nehru saw India led Nehru and his countrymen into thinkas an Asian country and assigned Asia an ing that their neighbours would settle their
important international role.28 For him, territorial and other disputes with them as
Asia was a home of many ancient civilisa- 'fellow-Asians'. The painful realisation that
tions, the cradle of all great religions in- the Asians were in that regard no better than
cluding Christianity,and the largest conti- the Europeans almost killed him.
Thanks to Nehru's foreign policy, India
nent in terms of area and population. As
such it had a right and a duty to speak up

on world issues. It was unlikelyto be effective unlessit spokewithone voice,peacefully
resolved its inherited territorialand other
acquiredhigh political visibilityand played

a creativeinternationalrole.It mediatedand
contributedtowardsa betterunderstanding
between the two superpowersand between

43
the metropolitan countries and their excolonies. It brought the countries of the third
world together, helped forge common bonds
between them, and made them a moderately effective world force. India also linked up
with the progressive elements in the west and
helped create a powerful world opinion in
favour of peaceful co-existence and the
economic development and territorial integrity of the new nations.
So far as India itself was concerned,
Nehru's international role had mixed consequences. It broadened and deepened its
political consciousness and gave its nationalism an international orientation. It
strengthened India's self-confidence and selfesteem, and gave it easy access to an influential constituency in the west and a positive
image abroad. It brought India into various
international commissions and organisations, offered it valuable insights into the
workings of the international system, and
enabled it to build up useful contacts. India's
international prominence also had its disadvantages. It developed an exaggerated
sense of its importance and mistook visibility for power. It euphoriantly saw itself as
a political darling of the world and remained blind to the way the cynical world used
it and dropped it the moment it stopped serving a useful role. It made Indian self-esteem
heavily dependent on international good
opinion, and both perpetuated its sense of
inferiority and rendered it vulnerable to
international manipulation.29 The relative
ease with which India secured international
recognition inflated its national ego, encouraged political jactation, and rendered
it insouciant to the need to build up its inner
strength and vitality.
Convinced that the world was behind it
and that it was therefore more or less invulnerable, India tended to take a somewhat
patronising attitude towards its neighbours.
This is not at all to deny that Nehru genuinely desired good relations with them and
sometimes went out of his way to placate
them. In spite of strong internal opposition,
he readily recognised the Chinese suzerainty
over Tibet. He refused to interfere in the
internal affairs of Nepal even when he was
invited to do so. He not only accepted the
legitimacy of Pakistan whose creation he
had passionately opposed for years, but even
offered to unite the two countries in a confederation. He helped China play a crucial
role at Bandung, and showed great generosity in dealing with the problem of Indians
in Sri Lanka. While all this was most commendable, the fact remained that his policy
towards India's neighbours lacked consistency and coherence. It was a strange mixture
and intransigence,
of accommodation
equality and condescension, goodwill and
uncompromising pursuit of narrowly defined national interests. Thanks to his concern
to play a leading role on the world stage, an
aspiration which China never shared, Nehru
saw India's neighbours in a global rather

than regionalcontext and did not give them
the degree of attention and priority they
deserved.Sincehe wasconvincedof his good

intentionstowardsthem, he was inadequately sensitive to their suspicions and fears of
him. Predictablyhe madethe doublemistake
of neithercoming to an understandingwith
them nor guardingagainst their aggressive
designs.
VIII
of National
Justification
Philosophy
Weoutlined and analysedabove Nehru's
'national philosophy' for India. We shall
now briefly examine the way in which.he
sought to persuadehis countrymenthat it
wasthe only adequatebasison whichto constructthe newpolity.He neededto showthat
it was not a matter of his personal
preference, not an ideological 'fad', and
deservedtheir support and sacrifices. The
need to do so was particularlygreatbecause
Gandhi, a far more influential figure than
him, had canvasseda very different vision
of Indiainvolvingeitheraltogetherdifferent
goals or a radicallydifferentinterpretation
of those the two sharedin common. Nehru's
legitimisation of the national philosophy
was somewhat muddled and articulatedin
three different idioms.
First, he argued that it was groundedin
Indiancivilisation, and an 'integralpart of
He went on, 'Our
our historyand culture'3"'
philosophy and ideology are not some
private fads or creations of mine. They
belong to the ethos of our nation and
people! And again, 'our ideology springs
from the very sources of our history and
civilisation'.Apart from vaguereferencesto
the 'centrallessons' of Indian history and
the character of the Indian people and
civilisation, Nehrugave no evidenceto support his viewand it is doubtfulthat he could
have.
For Nehrusecularismmeantexclusionof
religion from political life. Such a not-ionis
alien to Hinduism.For the Hindus, religion
although it valued justice, it derined it in

non-egalitarian terms. Indeed since the individual's birth and natural endowments were
believed to be determined by his karma in
the previous life and thus fully deserved, the
modern notion of justice has no analogue
in much of Hindu thought. In the Hindu
theory of purusharthas the acquisition of
artha was hedged in by a number of constraints and could not form the basis of the
modern industrial society as Bankim
Chatterjee had skilfully shown in his Samya.
As Kautilya insisted in his Arthashastra,
foreign policy was entirely a matter of expediency, and involved both alignment and
nonalignment as the circumstances required.
Second, Nehru argued that the national
ideology had been 'agreed' by the Indian
people and was based on their 'willing consent'. It represented their free and uncoerced choice and enjoyed popular 'legitimacy'
and 'support'. Nehru's claim was only partially valid. Some of the national goals were
embodied in the Constitution of India passed by the elected representatives of the
people. The others had formed part of the
Congress programme endorsed by the electorate at successive elections fought under
Nehru's leadership. However the constituent
assembly was elected on a very limited franchise, barely a third of the adults enjoying
the right to vote. More than half the electorate never voted for Congress in any of the
three elections during Nehru's premiership.
The elections were fought on a number of
issues, the national ideology being only one
of them. Even the Congress itself was deeply
divided, and a sizeable section of it did not
subscribe either to some of Nehru's goals or
to his interpretation of them.
Nehru's third argument, upon which he

mainly relied, was articulated in a historicist
language and appealed to the vital interests
and deepest fears of his countrymen. The
national ideology, he argued, was 'vital to
India's survival', 'imperative to our existence
and progress', in 'our national interest' and
grounded in the 'logic of history'.3 India
is a total way of life regulating not just the
personal but also political life. In a tradi- needed to modernise itself because that was
tional Hindu kingdom, the polity and the the only way it would be able to solve its
social orderwereinseparableand the king's economic, political and other problems and
rajdharmaconsistedin, among other things, regenerate its intellectual and moral life.
preserving and enforcing the caste-based Second, modernisation had a comparative
social structure.Furthermoreunlikealmost logic. India could not remain a viable polity
all semitic religions,most Hindus conceive unless it kept pace with the advanced western
god in intra-cosmicand immanentistterms. states. The painful lessons of its history were
Sincehe 'pervades'and 'infuses'the universe clear. It had a constant tendency to become
and since everythingin it is divine, the con- complacent, inward-looking and static, and
cept of secularism, at least in Nehru's to fail to keep pace with the rest of the world.
sense, does not fit in with the Hindu That was why it had attracted and fallen prey
Likesecularismsuchother to foreign invaders. It could not afford to
Welianschauung.
national goals as parliamentarydemorcracy, make that mistake again, especially now
socialism, industrialisationand non-align- when the technological advances had
ment too had no or only a limited bhsis in brought the world so close. If it did not
Indiancivilisation.Neitherthe moderncon- become a 'contemporary' of the rest of the
and world in its ways of thought and life, it
cept of democracynor its representative
individualisticallystructuredparliamentary
articulation-has a parallel in Indian
thought and practice. The Hindu society
never set much store by equality and,
would remaina source of constanttemptation to stronger nations. In Nehru's view

modern westerncivilisation was 'superior'
not only to one that existedin Indiabut also

to all othersavailableto it, and India should

adopt it. We shall presentlysee why Nehru
took this view. He was thus convinced that
India had 'only' two alternatives. It must
either 'progress,that is, 'catchup' and 'keep
pace' with the advancedwesternnations, or
become their 'plaything'and eventuallyface
extinction.ForNehruthe choicewas obvious
and inexorable
Establishing the superiority of modern
civilisation was not an easy area of inquiry
and caused Nehru considerable difficulty.
Though he was much confused, he seems to
have held this view on two grounds both
derivedfrom an uncriticallyacceptedliberal
philosophicalanthropology.First, man was
the highestbeingon earth,the fullestrealisation of his potential was the highest ideal,
and morality consisted in serving one's
fellow men and helping them develop their
distinctively human capacities. Modern
civilisation was based on that ideal. It was
true that capitalism rested on the opposite
principlesof selfishness,greedand exploitation. However,it was a corruption of the
'truespirit'of modernityand rightlyrejected
by the 'bettertype of the modern mind'. If
modern civilisation had thrown up
capitalism, it had also thrownup an answer
to it in the form of a body of ideals with
which to embarrassit and groups ready to
die for them. Nehru observed:32
The modernmind, that is to say the better
type of the modernmind, is practicaland
pragmatic,ethicaland social,altruisticand
humanitarian.It is governedby a practical
idealism for social betterment.The ideals
whichmoveit representthe spiritof the age,
the Zeitgeist, the Yugadharma. It has dis-
cardedto a largeextentthe philosophicapproach of the ancients, their search for

ultimatereality,as wellas the devotionalism
and mysticismof the mediaevalperiod.
Humanityis its god and social serviceits
religion.
Wehavethereforeto functionin linewith
the highest ideals of the age we live in,
thoughwe mayaddto themor seekto mould
withournationalgenius.
themin accordance
Thoseidealsmaybe classedundertwoheads:
humanismandthe scientificspirit.Between
these two therehas been an apparentconflict,butthegreatupheavalof thoughttoday,
with its questioningof all values,is removing the old boundariesbetweenthese two
approaches,as well as betweenthe external
worldof scienceand the internalworldof
introspection.Thereis a growingsynthesis
betweenhumanismand the scientificspirit,
resultingin a kind of scientifichumanism.
The second reason why modern civilisation was superiorhad to do withthe fact that
it was in harmonywith some of the deepest
impulses of human nature. As 'history'
amply showed, man was a progressivebeing
desirefor freedom.He
with an 'irrepressible?
chafed against naturaland social restraints,
asked to see their point, and imagined and
sought to realise alternative possibilities.
During his long historical journey he had
fought against ignorance,superstition,starvation, material scarcity,slavery,serfdom,
46
economic and social injustices,political oppressionand tyrannicalcustoms,and created

a freer and fairer world in each successive
epoch. Obviouslythe progresswas not linear,
continuous and uniform, and often marked
by setbacks. HoweverNehru found it striking that the setbackswereneverpermanent.
'History, as a famous writer has described
it, is a record of the martyrdom of man.
Perhaps so. It is also a record of repeated
resurrections after every crucifixion'.33
Moderncivilisationwas a productof man's
search for freedom and satisfied it to a
greater degree than all others. It had conquered large parts of nature, removed
naturaland social obstacles standingin the
way of the unity of man, overcomematerial
scarcity,and developednew waysof protecting and nurturingfreedom and individuality. Industrialisation was not merely a
technological but a moral phenomenon
representing a vital step in man's 'long
march' towards freedom. Modern civilisation did haveits limitations,some profound.
Howeveron balance it was superior to all
available alternatives, and capable of
recognising and correcting its faults.
For Nehru then India both must and
should moderniseitself: 'must' becausethis
was a historicalnecessityand the indispensable conditionof its survivaland economic
development: 'should' because modernity
representeda highercivilisation. Withinhis
historicist world view, necessity and
desirability, history and ethics, tended to
coincide. Modernisation involved not just
industrialisation but also a secular, rationalist, humanistand scientificworldview
and all that it entailed. To accept it was to
acceptall the seven'nationalgoals'discussed
earlier, Nehru argued.
Nehru had to reassure his countrymen
that modernisation did not amount either
to 'copying the west' or to 'rejectingtheir
past',the two sore points for most of them.
Likethe other nationalistleadershe invoked
the overworkedideas of yugadharma and
samanvaya. Indianshad always recognised
that the wheel of kala was relentless, the
times changed, one yuga yielded place
another, each yuga had its own unique
problemsand needs, and that a wise society
discoveredand followed the dharma of the
yuga in which it lived. Modernisationwas
the 'supremedharma'of the modernyuga.
Furthermorethe Indianshad alwaysknown
that truth was not the monopoly of any
society or civilisationand that each must be
preparedto learn from the rest. In modernising themselvesIndianswerenot 'blindly'
copying the west but only appropriating
whateverwas valuable.They had their own
'great past' and their own distinctive
'national genius' and there was no reason
why they should not be able to integratethe
this, Nehru also inconsistentlykept talking

about the 'inexorablelogic' of modernisation and the need for radicalchanges in all
areasof personaland social life, Judgingby
his practice Samanvaya remained merely a
soothing rhetoric intended to soften his

message.
ThoughNehru'shistoricistjustificationof
his national ideology was widely popular
and captured the dominant mood of the
time, it was open to severalobjections. He
was wrongto arguethat moderncivilisations
was morally superior.Civilisation are selfcontainedwholes and not amenableto comparativeor transcendentalevaluation. The
two standardsthat he used to establish its
superiority, namely rationalist humanism
and human search for freedom were both
derived from moderncivilisation, and thus
renderedhis argumentcircular.Furthermore
though Nehruwas rightto insiston the need
for modernisation,he was wrongto take an
essentialist and totalist view of it and to
ascribeto it an inexorablelogic. Modernisation was not an undifferentiatedpackage
which had to be either acceptedor rejected
in toto. Its constituent elements such as
rationalism, individualism, liberal democracy,the state,technology,scientificworldview,utilitarianismand economismwerenot

all logicallyrelated.They had come together
in Europeas a resultof contingenthistorical
factors, and could be combined differently
in differentsocietiesand some of themcould
even be dropped. It was thereforeopen to
India to develop its own distinct model of
modernisation.The alternativesof catching
up with the westor going underwereunduly
restrictive, and foreclosed a number of
options.
Even if one accepted Nehru's national
ideology, one could still disagree with his
definitions of its constituent goals. There
was no obvious reason why secularism
should be understoodto mean exclusionbf
religionfrom politicallife ratherthan equal
publicstatus for all religionsas Gandhiand
some modernists had argued. Nehru's
secularismdid not evenobtainin Britainand
many other westerncountries. The British
monarch is the defender of the Anglican
Church and not at liberty to marry or be
crownedoutside it. The churchis constitutionally entitled to representationin the
House of Lords and privileged under the
anti-blasphemylaw. In many an European
country religiouspolitical parties are common and accepted as a matter of course
without anyoneaccusingthem or the countries concerned of being 'reactionary'or
'obscurantist'.
One could also arguethat Indianreligions
desperately needed to be reformed and
helped to come to terms with the secular
natureof the modernstate,and that driving
them out of the publicrealmwas hardlythe
way to do so. It might be better to allow
two. Indeed, such a 'spirit of samanvaya'
was one of their great national characteri- them to operatein political life openly and
stics enviedby foreignersand evidentin their without stigma, subject them to its
relationswith all the earliercivilisationsthat discipline, competitive ethos and the need
had settled in their midst.34While saying to form inter-religiousalliances and corliEconomic and Political Weekly

January 5-12, 1991
tions, and in these and other waysto loosen

up theirideologicaland institutionalrigidity.
Not that this is necessarilya better way of
relatingthe state and religionthan Nehru's,
only that the latter was not the only choice
before India as he insisted.
The same was true of the other 'national
goals'. India could have opted for other
forms of liberal democracy than the
Westminstermodel. It did not haveto go for
either the capitalist or the Soviet models of
planning,and could haveopted for one that
was more decentralisedand participatory.It
could also have explored a home-grown
varietyof socialismand a lesspositivistview
of science.In shortone could acceptNehru's
national ideology and yet arriveat either a
differentvision of the countryor a different
way of realising it.
Nehru then failed to makeout a convincing case for his national ideology, partly
becausehe was not a rigorousthinker,more
importantlybecausepoliticalideologiescan
neverbe rationallydemonstrated.That did
not, however, prevent it from acquiring
political dominance. In the battle ot
ideologies the victory generallygoes to onc
that representsthe viewsand interestsotfthc
most influentialgroups, is vagueenough to
permit a variety of glosses and accommodate new groups,apothematicenough to
be easily appropriatedby the masses, and
enjoys politicalpatronage.Nehru'sideology
scored well on all these points, and did so
better than all its rivals.
Nehru's national ideology primarily
reflected the political consciousness of the
westernisedelite, especiallythe professional
classes to whom it assigneda crucial role in
the construction of the new state. Not surprisingly they were its ardent champions
both before and after independence. The
otherclasseswereattractedby differentparts
of it. Almost all Indians were enthusiastic
about the goals of national unity, strong
state and even nonalignment. The big
bourgeoisiewelcomedindustrialisationand
parliamentarydemocracy.And though they
were hostile to socialism, their hostility
diminished once Nehru acknowledgedthe
role of the private sector, stressed the entrepreneurialratherthan the nationalising
role of the state, and underplayedthe importanceof equitabledistribution.The petty
bourgeoisietook a similarviewand welcomed his idea of broadeningindustrialownership. The middle and upper peasantry
welcomed many of his goals, including
socialismwhichguaranteedit high pricesfor
agriculturalproducts and a supply of fertilisers and other rmaterialneeded for
agriculturalproductionrat relativelystable
prices. lt was strongly opposed to his
agrarian reforms, and used its growing
political power to prevent him from introducing them and the state governments
from implementingthose he did manage to
introduce. The expanding and well-paid
public sector createda huge, privilegedand
state-dependentclass of managers,technicians and workers.The industrialworking
class in the private sector welcomed industrialisation,socialismand the progressive

industriallegislation.The minoritiesfelt safe
with Nehru's secularism. The urban and
ruralpoor, the unemployedand the Hindu
fundamentalists benefited the least from
Nehru's ideology and remainedits critics.
Nehru'snational ideology thus represented the optimum common programmeacceptable to the largest numberof Indians.
To be sure,no group exceptthe westernised
professional classes was happy with the
whole of it. However almost every group
exceptthe poor found enoughin it to extend
it its support.Nehru increasedits appeal.by
systematicallyrefusing to define it in unambiguousterms.The vaguenesspermitted
a wide varietyof glosses and deniedopposition a.clear target. Broad enough to offer
somethingto everybody,concreteenough to
promote discussion and providea sense of
direction, ambiguousenough not to alarm
and alienatea sizeablesection,and visionary
enough to inspireand motivatemillions,his
national philosophy enjoyed widespread
popularsupport and formed the basis of a
national consensus.
Passionatelyconvinced that his national
ideology held the key to India's political
salvation,Nehruthrewall his enormouspersonal and political authoritybehind it. He
totallyidentifiedhimselfwith it and became
its living and inspiringsymbol. He was his
cause incarnate,and fought for it with immense energy and passion. He used every
conceivable occasion to convince his
countrymen of its vital importance, and
mocked, ridiculed,attackedand challenged
its criticswith almost fatidicalcertainty.He
fought three elections on the basis of his
national philosophy,and pointedto his victories to reinforce its moral and political
legitimacy.He used the power of the state
to populariseit, especiallyamongthe young.
And he articulated it in different idioms,
useda widevarietyof rhetoricaldevices,and
justified it on differentgroundsto renderit
acceptableto differentconstituencies.Over
time he succeeded in making it so integral
a.part of national self-consciousness and
self-definition that hardly any influential
Indiandaredcontrovertit. Indeedit became
dominates India today has not radically

changedsincehis death,and sincea coherent
and equally broad-basedideology has not
yet been developed by its critics, Nehru's
ideology continues to enjoy a dented but
dominant position. Giving India such uncoercedideologicalcoherenceand continuity
for over four decades was a remarkable
historical achievement, almost unique in
third world countries, and amply entitles
him to the status of the founder of the
modern Indian state.
Notes
I Nehru's speeches on the subject both before

and after independence stress the 'rational'
character of the state, and attack the
political role of group-based emotions and
sentiments.
2 Nehru repeatedly invoked the role of subconscious cultural and historical memories
in his analysis of Gandhi. See, for example,
his Discovery of India, (Delhi: Oxford
University Press, 1985), pp 358 f and 515 f.
3 It is strikingthat although Nehru was acutely aware of India's vast diversity and deep
divisions he paid little attention to the need
to evolve a shared culture, even in its
specifically political form. He had neither
a well thought-out cultural nor educational
policy. Thanks to his legacy, the ministry
of education continued to enjoy a low
status, and in vulgar hands became a
'ministryof human resources' His two sons
conducted politics in a language unintelligble and even repulsiveto the vast masses of
their countrymen,includingeven the westernised elite. The decline of Englishhas meant
that even the limited link between the different section of society has weakened,
creating severalmutually incomprehensible
'Indias'.
4 R K Karanjia, The Philosophy of
Mr Nehru, (London, Allen and Unwin,
1966), p 89.
5 Nehru repeatedly insisted that Congress
should not monopolise legitimate political
activity and encourage and co-operate with
other political parties engaged in desirable
nation-building activities. See his rebuketo
B C Roy for thinking otherwise in Shriman
Narayan, Letters from Gandhi, Nehru,
Vinoba, (London: Asia Publishing House,
1968), p 85 f.
a kind of national mantra and a badge of
patroitism.He ensuredthat it was regarded 6 Discovery of India, op cit, p 413.
7 Baldev Singh, ed, Jawaharlal Nehru on
as 'settledonce and for all' and acceptedas
Science and Society, (Delhi: Nehru
the 'absolute'and unquestionedpremiseof
Memorial Museum and Library, 1988),
after
Even
years
twenty-five
the Indianstate.
p 202 f.
his death, it continues to enjoy that status.
8 Discovery of India, op cit, p 414.
As its consequencesin some cases turn9 Ibid, p IS, see also his An Autobiography,
and
ed out to be problematicor acarpous,
(London: Bodley Head, 1958),pp 362 f and
as new social groups with new interestsand
591.
ideas began to emerge, Nehru's ideology 10 Ibid, p 544.
came to be subjectedto &iticismboth from 11 lbid, p 138.
within and outside its conceptual
12 Ibid, pp 72 f and Discovery of India,
framework.Though none of its goals has
p 516 f.
been openly rejected, many have been 13 Cited in Michael Brecher, Nehru: A Con,
radically redefined. Socialism and
temporary's Estimate (New York, Oxford
secularismhave become ersatz versions of
University Press 1966), p 218.
the original, and the scientific temper has 14 Cited in Baldev Raj Nayar, India's Mixed
been vulgarisedinto technologicalfetishism.
Economy (London: Sangam Books; 1989),
p 158.
Howeversince the coalition of intereststhat

47
15 Ibid, see also Discovery of India, op cit,

p 410 f.
16 Cited in Nayar, op cit, pp 184 and 185.
17 The Nasik resolution of 1950 had declared
the Congress objective to be one of creating
a 'welfare state'. The Avadi resolution of
1955 spoke of the 'establishment of a
socialistic patternof society' Nehru'schoice
of the strange term 'socialistic' rather than
'socialist was intriguingand perhaps intended not to frighten his right-wing critics.
18 For Nehru's reasons for stressing planning,
the public sector and the mixed economy,
see the severalvolumes of his Speeches (New
1958
Delhi: Publications
Division,
onwards).
19 The Bhuvaneshwar Congress session just
before Nehru's death was an exception. Its
resolution on 'Democracy and Socialism'
explicitlycommitted itself to providingevery
Indian with a 'national minimum' in food.
clothing, housing, education and health.
20 Discovery of India, op cit, p 512 f. See also
Baldev Singh (ed) Nehru on Science and
Society, op cit, p 179;and BaldevSingh (ed)
Jawaharlal Nehru on Science, (New Delhi:
Nehru Memorial Museum and Library,
1986), pp 77, 88 and 107.
21 Jawaharlal Nehru on Science, op cit, p 31.
23 See my Colonialism, Traditionand Reform,
(Delhi and London: Sage, 1989), ch I1.
24 Discovery of India, op cit, pp 509 f.
25 Jawaharlal Nehru on Science and Society,
op cit, p 179 f. See also K P Karunakaram,
The Phenomenon of Nehru, (New Delhi:
Gitanjali Prakashan, 1979), p 156 f.
26 The opposition was so fiercethat Nehru had
to drop the draft Hindu Code Bill in
September 1951 just in case it affected the
Congress chances at the election. He took
it up after the 1952 election and got it passed in separate and attenuated bills in 1955
and 1956.
27 The Philosophy of Mr Nehru, op cit, p 50.
28 Nehru thought that the Asian Conference
on Indonesia in Delhi in 1947 was a 'turning point in history' and 'enhanced the
prestige of India all over the world'. He
thought too that the Asian-African Conference in Bandung in 1955 reflected the
,new resurgent spirit of Asia'. During his
American tour in 1949 he said that 'the
futureof Asia will be powerfullydetermined
by the future of India, more and more the
pivot of Asia'. See his Letters to Chief
Ministers (Newt Delhi: Nehru Memorial
Fund) Vols I to V.
29 Nehru's letters to chief ministers, especially in the early years of his premiership,contain countless referencesto foreign opinion
of India and the need to safeguard its
,reputation among progressive circles
abroad'.
30 The Philosophv of AMr
Nehru, op cit, pp 38
and 142 f.
31 Ibid, p 45 f. See also Nehru's Speeches,
op cit and Sarvepalli Gopal, ed Jawaharlal
Nehru: An Anthology (Delhi: Oxford
University Press, 1980).
33 Jawaharlal Nehru: An Anthology, op cit,
p 537.
34 Discovery of India, op cit, pp 517 and 565 f;
see also The Philosophy of Mr Nehru,
op cit. p 44.
48
SPECIALSTEELSLIMITED
Registered Office: Dattapara Road, Mouje Magathane,
Borivli (East), Bombay 400 066.
N O T I CE
It is hereby notified for the information of the Public that SPECIALSTEELSLIMITED,
proposes to give to the Central Government in the Department of Company Affairs,
New Delhi, a notice under sub-section (1) of Section 21 of the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1969, for substantial expansion of their undertaking. Brief
particulars of the proposal are as under:1)
2)
Name and address of the owner

of the undertaking
Capital structure of the owner

organization
: Special Steels Limited
Dattapara Road
Mouje Magathane
Borivii (East)
Bombay 400 066
As on 31st December, 1990.
Share Capital
Authorised
Equity:
1382.00
Preference:
118.00
1500.00 lacs
Issued & subscribed
Equity:
3)
Location of the unit or division

to be expanded
4)
In case the expansion relates to

the production, storage, supply,
distribution, marketing or control
of goods, indicate:
(i) Name of goods
(ii) Licensed capacity/Turnover
before expansion
(iii) Expansion proposed
1138.95 lacs
Plot No. F-8/1

MIDC Industrial Area
Tarapur District, Thane
Maharashtra
Steel Wire Rods.

96,000 M.Tonnes per annum.
The proposal is for increasing to
higher capacity of 1,50,000 M.Tonnes
per annum.
5)
In case the expansion relates to

any service, state the extent of
expansion in terms of usual
measures such as value, turnover,
income, etc.
Not applicable.
6)
Cost of the Project
Rs. 256 lacs.
Scheme of finance indicating the

From Internal Accruals.
amounts to be raised from each
source
Any person interested in the matter may make a representation in quadruplicate
to the Secretary, Department of Company Affairs,Government of India, ShastriBhawan,
New Delhi, within 14 days from the date of publication of this notice, intimating his
views on the proposal and indicating the nature of his interest therein.
7)
V SUNDARAM
Dated this 31st day of December, 1990.
CompanySecretary
Economic and Political Weekly January5-12, 1991


Nehru and National Philosophy of India

Încărcat de

Informații document

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Nehru and National Philosophy of India

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Nehru and the National Philosophy of India

Author(s): Bhikhu Parekh

This content downloaded from 210.212.129.125 on Sat, 1 Nov 2014 06:35:39 AM

For Nehru national unity or what he

'We must give the topmost priority to the

universities, national academies, public

Economic and Political Weekly January 5-12, 1991

This content downloaded from 210.212.129.125 on Sat, 1 Nov 2014 06:35:39 AM

Indeed he thoughtthat apartfrom a couple

I inay say that it is a most satisfying and

them appointed and dismissed by the

strongand unitedopposition,and that India

changesthat camein the worldhundredor

Economic and Political Weekly January 5-12, 1991

This content downloaded from 210.212.129.125 on Sat, 1 Nov 2014 06:35:39 AM

mean? ... It means exploiting the mighty

Industrialisation had its inexorable

For Nehru industry not agriculturewas

haul the country out of its 'traditional

insofar as religion itself representedsome

As one would expect in the Indiancontext,

Economic and Political Weekly January 5-12, 1991

This content downloaded from 210.212.129.125 on Sat, 1 Nov 2014 06:35:39 AM

place muchemphasis on popularparticipation, egalitarianism,gradualwitheringaway

round to acceptingthe idea of planning, it

apart from socialism and thus inevitably

After 1947 Nehru was in power and did

plementing and facilitating the private

Economic and Political Weekly January 5-12,41991

This content downloaded from 210.212.129.125 on Sat, 1 Nov 2014 06:35:39 AM

by nationalisationbecausethe space for-industrial expansion was vast, the country's

The fifth national goal consisted in the

truth, keepingan open mind, and in general

much as a body of knowledge or even a

oomicand PRlticalWeekly January5-12,1991

This content downloaded from 210.212.129.125 on Sat, 1 Nov 2014 06:35:39 AM

avoidbeing structuredby the 'spiritual'ethos

his premiership.Thoughhe frequentlytalked

that politics did not become all-encompassing and totalitarian,and remaineddeeply

to be associatedwith official functions,and

Economic and Political Weekly January 5-12, 1991

This content downloaded from 210.212.129.125 on Sat, 1 Nov 2014 06:35:39 AM

associated with specific religious communities,wereaccordedthe privilegedstatus

International affairs were Nehru's

interventioninto the economy and accommodating the increasing demands for

Economic and Potitical Weekly January 5-12, 1991

This content downloaded from 210.212.129.125 on Sat, 1 Nov 2014 06:35:39 AM

powerfulforcein the world,that it could not

strength lay in organisation and unity. In

disputes, and recaptured its cultural unity.

such it had a right and a duty to speak up

acquiredhigh political visibilityand played

Economic and Political Weekly January 5-12, 1991

This content downloaded from 210.212.129.125 on Sat, 1 Nov 2014 06:35:39 AM

saw India's neighbours in a global rather

deserved.Sincehe wasconvincedof his good

although it valued justice, it derined it in

Nehru's third argument, upon which he

would remaina source of constanttemptation to stronger nations. In Nehru's view

Economic and Political Weekly January 5-12, 1991

This content downloaded from 210.212.129.125 on Sat, 1 Nov 2014 06:35:39 AM

to all othersavailableto it, and India should

cardedto a largeextentthe philosophicapproach of the ancients, their search for

economic and social injustices,political oppressionand tyrannicalcustoms,and created