NEHRU AS A PHILOSOPHER

 

DR. A. D. LITMAN

 

Nehru was an original humanist thinker whose views con­stitute a bright chapter in the history of Indian social and philosophic thought. Nehru was a scholar who always sought to go deep into the matter and investigate the inherent con­nections between phenomena and the laws of their develop­ment. Philosophy provided the most adequate channel for Nehru’s intellectual quests.

           

Nehru   himself never     sought to work out a system of views. According to him, life is too complex and our views about it can in no way be reduced to a doctrine.

 

Nehru believed that he had long favoured action that was connected with thought, indeed, that proceeded from and followed thought. There must be a “complete harmony” between thought and action. Translating this principle into philosophy, he believed that philosophy should be wholly in line with the needs of “action”, it should be related to practice.

 

This called for Nehru to determine his attitude to religion. He showed considerable civic courage when he subjected religion to vigorous criticism. He pointed out that religion was at odds with reason and intellect. He saw it as a force that led man astray from the rationalistic study of real-life problems into the realm of groundless dogmas, mysticism and rituals. Nehru wrote conclusively: “We have to get rid of that narrow­ing religious outlook, that obsession with the supernatural and metaphysical speculations, that loosening of the mind’s discipline in religious ceremonial and mystical emotionalism, which come in the way of our understanding ourselves and the world, We have to come to grips with the present, this life, this world, this nature which surrounds us in its infinite variety ... India must therefore lessen her religiosity and turn to science.”

 

Such statements clearly show Nehru to have been a sup­porter of rationalism and science. It was this belief in the creative force of science that led him to a convinced optimism in questions of cognition. He was categorically opposed to scepticism and agnosticism. Recognising man’s natural wish to perceive reality, Nehru emphasised that this wish could well be fulfilled, provided there was a scientific approach to the very process of cognition. To comprehend the facts, to arrive at conclusions and to test the conclusions in practice­–such was the triad of basic elements in Nehru’s approach.

 

Man was central to Nehru’s philosophy. The new political thinking adds another dimension to some of Nehru’s views on human problems, and they need to be re-assessed. One cannot but recognise the fact that he formulated the question of human values and their importance for the formation of the personality as a great service of his. He predicted that these values would take priority in today’s life and in the development of the entire body of man’s socio-historical links.

 

Nehru had a profound respect for man, and he was bitter and anguished over the moral corruption that was caused by social conditions. He addressed the problem of man from two angles: the external, material aspect and the internal, spiritual one. Harmony of the two makes for a harmonious development of the personality. According to Nehru, there were parallel trends in external life and man’s inner world in any culture and any nation. Balance is observed where the two meet or keep close to each other. But if the two diverge, there is conflict and crisis.

 

Nehru saw harmony of the personality as an ideal which though unattainable, should be sought after. He wrote: “Per­fection is beyond us, for it means the end, and we are always journeying, trying to approach something that is ever receding.” This profound dialectic thought was not developed until after India became independent.

 

Nehru saw the moral, spiritual side as the core of man. But this core, with scientific, material and technological pro­gress, and he described this schism as a tragic paradox of our age. With this in mind, Nehru maintained that, no civilisa­tion might be regarded as fully developed if a certain spiritual level was not attained in it as material progress might prove a catastrophe without a balance of spirit.

 

But how could a balance of spirit, even if a precarious one be attained to prevent a global catastrophe? Nehru’s concept of scientific humanism was to solve this problem. He defined the source of this concept in his work Glimpses of World History in the early 1930s: Humanism should not see its object in an abstract individual, it should concentrate on the tens of millions of oppressed, poor, hungry people whom ideologists dismissed as India’s masses. Yet Nehru realised that confining humanism to one country could not address the socio-historical functions of genuine humanism.

 

In Nehru’s view, this genuine humanism had to embody the epoch’s supreme ideals. He classified these ideals into two groups: respect for the personality, the improvement of man, and care for humanity on the one hand, and the scientific spirit on the other. “Between these two,” says Nehru, “there has been an apparent conflict but the great upheaval of thought today, with its questioning of all values, is removing the old boundaries between these two approaches, as well as between the external world of science and the internal world of intros­pection. There is a growing synthesis between humanism and the scientific spirit, resulting in a kind of scientific humanism.”

 

As a profound thinker, Nehru sought to find ways of putting the principles of scientific humanism into practice, which is clear from his interpretation of the category of equality· He realised that being one of the vital humanistic precepts, the principle of equality, a universal value, could not belong to an individual or even a single nation. In his opinion, until there wasn’t any more exploitation of a country or a class, we would not have a genuine civilisation or culture based on equality. Such a society would be creative, progressive and based on cooperation between its members. In the end, it would spread over the whole world.

 

Humanity’s progress to the ideal of universal equality, said Nehru, was accompanied by a bitter fight on the part of progressive forces against those of conservatism and reaction. Essentially, he saw these reactionary forces in capitalism and imperialism. He wrote a full year before the beginning of the World War II that such equality was totally incompatible with imperialism and capitalism, social systems based on the ex­ploitation of nations and classes. Therefore, those who derived benefits from such an exploitation resisted the revolution, and in so much as conflict spread, also rejected political equality and parliamentary democracy.

 

It was quite natural that Nehru’s ideas of scientific huma­nism led him to attempt to incorporate socialist ideas into this concept. He saw a philosophy of life of sorts in socialism. As is known, he came out with the initiative of proclaiming the construction of a society on a socialist model in India as a programmatic goal before the Indian National Congress. Speaking at the INC session in Lucknow in 1936, he boldly declared his conviction that socialism was the only key to resolving the problems before India and the whole world. Also, he emphasised that “socialism” was a precise scientific and econo­mic term for him, not a hazy humanistic concept. Nehru deeply felt and always emphasised one aspect of socialism that is common to all its forms: its humanistic essence. It was this eagerness to bring together humanism and socialism that con­stitutes the best part of Nehru’s legacy as a thinker.

 

Marking the 100th anniversary of Nehru’s birth, we pay tribute to the prominent political and State leader and great humanist thinker whose lofty ideas have been admired by people of goodwill throughout the world.

 

Back