NEHRU THE NATION-BUILDER
PROF. M. VENKATARANGAIYA
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
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 India and Pakistan. Secularism should
remove such suspicion.
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: “India is supposed to be a religious country, above
everything else, and Hindu and Muslim and Sikh and others take pride in their
faiths and testify to their truth by breaking heads. The spectacle of what is
called religion, or at any rate, organised religion,
in India and elsewhere has filled me with horror, and I have frequently
condemned it and wished to make a clean sweep of it. Almost always it seems to
stand for blind belief and reaction, dogma and bigotry, superstition and
exploitation, and the preservation of vested interests.”
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 Delhi and elsewhere had resulted in the massacre of
millions of Muslims. It was Nehru’s courageous statesmanship that saved them
from such a fate. It was again his secularism that created confidence among the
Muslims in 1950, and led to the conclusion of the Nehru–Liaquat
Ali Pact. There were, at that time, in his Cabinet, some who said that for
every one Hindu expelled from East Pakistan ten Muslims should be sent out of
India, that Muslims could never be relied upon to be loyal to India, that they
were all pro-Pakistanis at heart, and that exchange of populations was the only
effective remedy for communalism. Nehru stood against them, and during all the
subsequent years, he held fast to the concept of the Secular State, even though
several accused him of appeasing the Muslims. Even today communalism is not
dead. There are communal parties in the country whose thinking is similar to
that of the cabinet ministers of 1950. Rut all right-minded men should hold
firmly to the view that Nehru’s secularism is not only right as a matter of
policy but it is the only just basis for maintaining the unity and integrity of
the country. It is also the only course consistent with Indian
tradition of tolerance.
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 India. Irrespective of what happens in regard to the
treatment of minorities in Pakistan, it ought to be the duty of the majority
community in India to respect the rights guaranteed to the minority communities
by the Constitution. The doctrine of vicarious punishment has no place in our
polity. Self-determination for Kashmir may be objected to on many grounds, but
it should in no way affect the civic rights of our Muslim minorities. They are
as much a part and parcel of the Indian Republic as Hindus, Sikhs and
Christians. This is the true spirit of Nehru’s secularism.
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 Karachi session of 1931. Even then Nehru’s thesis was not
accepted wholeheartedly. In 1927, on his return from the European tour he said:
“My outlook was wider (than that of other Congressmen) and
nationalism by itself seemed to be definitely a narrow and insufficient creed.
Political freedom and independence were no doubt essential,
but they were only steps in the right direction; without social freedom
and a socialist structure of society and the State, neither
the country nor the individual could develop much.”
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 India was a
bourgeoise movement, the leaders of which cared little to change the status quo
in economic matters. Even when it became a mass movement, as it did in
1930–’32, it was dominated by the lower middle class. All this was in strict
accordance with Marx’s economic interpretation of history, with its implication
that what is needed is revolution and not reformism.
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 India.
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. India alone has so far escaped from this
tendency, and this is essentially due to the leadership of Nehru, a sincere
believer in democracy. The army in India continues to be loyal to the civilian
authorities. There is nothing to show that it is dissatisfied with the
conditions as they are, or that it will ever attempt a Coup. Such an
attempt may not in any case succeed, when we take into consideration that the
army is not quite homogeneous, drawn as it is from several
sub-nationalities–the Sikhs, the Rajputs, the
Marathas etc.–inhabiting the country.
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
Pakistan and China in combination. Here and there we also see the existence of
communal parties with fascist tendencies. But these are defects which can be
remedied and steps are being taken to remedy them. There is therefore no cause
for alarm at present and there is a fair prospect of parliamentary democracy
functioning smoothly.
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 Korea and Indonesia. World peace
he felt was necessary not only in the interests of humanity, as a whole, but
also of India in particular, if the Indian nation is to be built on the basis
of economic prosperity and socialism. War or even preparation for it by the
richer nations of the world would result in diminishing the amount of economic
aid given by them to developing countries. For these and other reasons his
became the voice of peace throughout the World.
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.