NEHRU THE NATION-BUILDER
PROF. M. VENKATARANGAIYA
[Padmabhushan Prof. M. Venkatarangaiya served in the
Mahatma Gandhi and Pandit Nehru are the two greatest
men in the history of twentieth century
The
ideals for which Pandit Nehru stood are, broadly–Nationalism, Secularism,
Socialism, Parliamentary Democracy and World Peace. It was on the basis of
these ideals that he tried to build the future of the Indian nation.
Nationalism,
in the sense of the inherent right of every nation to be free from foreign rule
and to enjoy complete independence, was the ideal which inspired him in the
days of the struggle for Swaraj. The significance of
the stand he took in favour of the complete
independence of the country can be understood only in the light of the views
held by most other leaders at the time of the struggle. Swaraj
was accepted as the creed of the Congress at the Nagpur session in 1920, the
session which immediately preceded the launching of the non-co-operation
movement. But there was ambiguity about the meaning of the term Swaraj and even Gandhiji left it vague. Many understood it
as Dominion Status–the kind of self-government which the white colonies of the
It
was his faith in nationalism in this sense that made him an advocate of the
freedom of all colonial peoples in Asia and Africa who, like
One
aspect of this faith is his advocacy of complete racial equality. In all
countries subject to European rule the white rulers adopted an attitude of
arrogance towards the ruled and treated them as inferiors, however cultured the
subject peoples happened to be. Nehru tells us in his Autobiography that during
his childhood: “I listened to the grown-up talk of my cousins without always
understanding all of it. Often this talk related to the overbearing character
and insulting manners of the English people, as well as of Eurasians, towards
Indians, and how it was the duty of every Indian to stand up to this and not to
tolerate it. I was filled with resentment against the alien rulers of my
country who misbehaved in this manner and whenever an Indian hit back I was glad.”
It is no wonder that as he grew older he stood for the principle of complete
racial equality. Nehru’s condemnation of the Apartheid policy in
The
nationalism for which Nehru stood was not the nationalism of an aggressive and
expansionist character, as was the case with fascism. Fascism became anathema
to him, because it was based on racial arrogance, and was imperialist in
character. This was the reason why if the choice lay between fascism and
communism, he would prefer, he said, the latter to the former. Though both were
dictatorial and totalitarian, communism according to him had the merit of recognising racial equality. He often stated in public that
Indian nationalism would never be aggressive, that it did not aim at the
conquest of the smaller countries in its neighbourhood,
and that it did not aspire even to leadership over them. All this is in
contrast to Chinese nationalism of today which, in spite of its communism, is
determined on reviving the old and antiquated imperialist tradition.
Nehru
also made it clear that Indian nationalism did not mean
The
second great ideal which inspired Nehru was secularism. He realised,
more than anybody else, that the political freedom which was achieved after
such a hard struggle could not be maintained unless there was complete unity
among the various religious communities in the country–the Hindus, Muslims,
Sikhs, Christians etc., and such a unity was possible only if India became, not
only in theory but also in practice, a Secular State. Negatively secularism
means the absence of any State religion or favour to
any one particular religion. Positively it means equal treatment by the State
of the members of all religious communities. Nehru saw to it that this
principle of equality and non-discrimination was embodied in the Constitution
and guaranteed as one of the citizen’s fundamental rights. He knew full well
that any the least suspicion entertained by the minorities–and especially the
Muslim minority –towards the majority, would lead to the disruption of the
country. It was such a suspicion that led to the Muslim League’s intransigence
in the days of the struggle for Swaraj and the
partition of the country into
The
importance of Nehru’s secularism can be best understood if it is contrasted
with what may be called the religious outlook of Gandhiji and the communalism
of most of his Congress followers. It is true that Gandhiji can never be
accused of having been a Hindu communalist. He stood for the equality of all
Indians and this made him start his non-co-operation movement, not so much for
securing Swaraj, as for redressing the wrong done by
the British to the Khilafat, in which the Muslims
were interested. All the same he was a Hindu traditionalist and supported the Varnashrama Dharma. He spoke the language of the ancient
Hindu religion. It was his aim to establish what he called Rama Rajya. All this gave cause for Muslims to misunderstand
him. Nehru himself criticised, in his Autobiography,
this attitude of Gandhiji and called it reactionary revivalism. Even his
doctrine of Ahimsa was looked at with suspicion by the Muslims. Nehru had also
the feeling that, “many a Congressman was a communalist under his national
cloak.”
It
was conditions like these and the fierce communal riots to which they led after
1923 that made Nehru conclude that secularism–pure and simple–was the only
basis on which the Indian nation could be built. Secularism also came naturally
to him. By birth, upbringing, and education, he became a rationalist and an
agnostic. He had no belief in religion, which he regarded as doing more harm
than good. He says: “
It
was Nehru’s secularism that saved the country from the continued horrors of
communal frenzy in the days following the partition and the achievement of
independence. Even his bitterest critic, admit that, in the aftermath of
partition, it was Nehru alone who held the nation together. Another biographer
says: “Without his decisive leadership at the time, the fate of millions of
Indian Muslims would have been infinitely worse.” In a world which witnessed
the extermination of six million Jews at the hands of Hitler and the evacuation
of millions of Germans from Eastern Europe, it would not have been surprising
if communal frenzy in
The
secular outlook of Nehru also made him fight against untouchability and
casteism. He might not have succeeded completely in eradicating untouchability
and the evils of the caste system. Untouchability continues to persist,
especially in the rural areas. Caste has also been a source of strife inside
the Congress party in most of the states. The remedy however for all this, and
for the persecution of some of the old higher castes by the other castes, lies
in giving greater reality to the secular policies of Nehru. In the view of
several observers, secularism is the most important contribution made by Nehru
to the national unity of
Socialism
The
third ideal on which he tried to build the Indian nation is socialism. In this
respect also he differed from Gandhiji and many other Congress leaders. He held
the view that nationalism by itself is a narrow ideal, and that national
freedom has significance, only when it leads to economic and social freedom–a
concept which was alien to the thought of the Congress till the
The
theoretical basis of his socialism was the Marxian interpretation
of history, and its practical basis, the Soviet experiment. He
said “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 these interests. Individuals may be converted,
they may surrender their special privileges, although this is rare enough, but
classes and groups do not. The attempt to convert a governing and privileged
class into forsaking power and giving up its unjust privileges has therefore
always failed, and there seems to be no reason whatever to hold that it will
succeed in the future.” To him the nationalist movement in
It
would however be a mistake to draw the conclusion that he accepted the whole
philosophy of Marxism. He was primarily an individualist; his general outlook
was liberal– and he had intense faith in democracy. Naturally he was averse to
become the slave of any dogmatic creed. To him communism was such a creed. On
one occasion he observed: “I am not a communist, chiefly because I resist the
communist tendency to treat communism as holy doctrine. I do not like being
told what to think and do.” On another occasion he said: “Huge monolithic
States under communist guidance may answer the economic question in certain
countries, but at a tremendous cost. I do think that individual liberty, that
is, normally considered political liberty, does not exist in monolithic
authoritarian countries.” A little later he went to the extent of saying that
Marx is out of date. “To talk about Marxism today, if I may say so, is
reaction. I think communists with all their fire and fury are in some ways
utterly reactionary in outlook.” His hatred of communism became all the greater
when he found Indian communists taking their orders from outside and even
supporting the Chinese aggression on
Nehru’s
socialism does not mean, the equal or equitable distribution of poverty, but of
ever-increasing wealth. Though it stands unequivocally for lessening the
disparity between the rich and the poor and establishing a more equalitarian
society, its basis is increased production. This conception of Socialism is
entirely different from that of Gandhiji. Nehru had no faith in the revival of
village industries or the establishment of village self-sufficiency as a
panacea for economic ills. His aim was the modernisation
of the country through the application of science and technology to all
economic concerns and processes. It meant large-scale production, heavy
industries, and mechanisation of agriculture and
transport. It also meant centralised, planned economy–an
idea which he borrowed from Soviet Russia and which influenced him even before
he became Prime Minister. From the point of view of both justice and increased
production, he advocated the abolition of antiquated systems of land-tenure
like the Zamindari tenure, and numerous land reforms
of other kinds. He created a large public sector controlled by
the State. Heavier burden of taxes was imposed on the rich and
the middle classes with a view to promote schemes of social welfare. By
socialistic policies and measures like these Nehru placed the country on the
path of modernisation and there is now no prospect of
going back to the kind of rural economy advocated by Gandhiji. Years ago Nehru
said that he stood for the establishment of a socialist order, first within
national boundaries, and eventually in the world as a whole, with controlled
production and distribution of wealth for the public good.” This is a far cry
from Gandhiji’s stand, that that government is best which governs least.
Nehru
laid the foundations for a socialist pattern of society. It now remains for his
successors to raise the superstructure. National unity in the modern age can be
built only on the basis of greater equality among all sections of the people.
Socialism is the instrument for achieving such equality. The masses today are
too impatient to bear their poverty any longer. Nehru declared some years ago
with a great deal of truth: “I believe that self-government is good for any
country. But I am not prepared to accept even self-government, at the cost of
real, good government. Self-government if it is to justify itself must stand
ultimately for better government for the masses.” This is his case for
Socialism. This is the one effective way of satisfying the masses.
Parliamentary
Democracy
Another
great ideal for which Nehru stood was parliamentary democracy.
Through what he did as Prime Minister over the long period of seventeen years
he gave reality and stability to this form of government. He took a leading
part in framing the Constitution of India on a democratic
basis, and in granting to citizens the fundamental rights of freedom of speech
and of association, without which democracy becomes a meaningless farce. He saw
to it that general elections were held at regular intervals, as laid down in
the Constitution, and that they were fair and free. He recognised
the supreme role of parliament, made it a point to attend its meetings, answer
questions and take part in debates and discussions. He made it clear that he
and his cabinet were responsible to that body. He allowed complete freedom to
the opposition parties to carry on their activities inside and outside
parliament. It is not his fault if these parties continue to be weak and
disunited. He paid respect to the Rule of Law, and to the principle of judicial
independence, though at times he swerved a little away from it. It is these
features of his tenure of office as Prime Minister that contributed to the
stability of the parliamentary form of government, and have made many observers
conclude that it has come to stay. It is true that he dominated his cabinet and
the parliament, but this domination was like that of powerful ministers like
Gladstone or Churchill over the British Parliament. It is the outcome of his
powerful personality, but there was nothing dictatorial about it.
All
this stands in contrast to what has happened in most other countries of Asia
and Africa–countries like Pakistan, Burma, Indonesia, Egypt etc.–which, along
with India, achieved freedom after a long period of colonial rule. Democracy
has practically disappeared from them and its place has been taken by some form
of dictatorship, military or other. The tendency everywhere is in the direction
of one-party totalitarian regimes.
It
is true that the ruling Congress party is riven with
factions and groups making a stable government difficult. Speaking of the
Congress during the period of the freedom struggle Nehru said that Gandhiji was
the Congress. We will not be far from the truth if we say that, since his fight
with Tandon in 1951-52, Nehru was the Congress, and
his grip over it prevented the factions from undermining the political
stability of the country. Now that it has been deprived of his unique leadership
there is cause for misgiving. In addition to this there is
widespread corruption from the highest to the lowest in all departments of
administration and there is the consequent danger of the
machinery of government breaking down. There is also the growing danger of war
as a result of the aggressive attitude adopted by
World Peace
We
now come to the last ideal of Nehru–the ideal of World Peace. He lived at a
time when the cold war was going on between the Soviet and the American blocs,
threatening to become a hot war with the use of nuclear weapons, which are sure
to destroy the larger part of humanity. He stood on the side of peace between
them, and his policy of non-alignment, though misunderstood at one time by
them, went a long way in preventing the outbreak of a world war between them.
He fought against regional military pacts which extended the area of the cold
War. He mediated between the warring camps in
Nehru
is dead and laid to eternal rest. But the ideals which he cherished, and to
which he strove his best to give reality throughout his public life, should
Continue to inspire and guide us.