Jawaharlal Nehru not only strove ceaselessly for the liberation of India from foreign yoke but also constantly applied his mind at the same time to the socio-economic and political problems that confronted India and the possible solutions to them. Through his books and speeches in the pre-independence period, as also through the resolution that he moved in the various sessions of the Indian National Congress, Nehru more or less placed before the country, his blueprint of Independent India’s policies and programmes. Thus, when Nehru became the Prime Minister of the country in August, 1947, he was clear in his mind about the path that India should follow and the direction in which it should move.

Nehru was a very clear-sighted political leader. His study of the history of the world in general and India in particular, coupled with his profound knowledge of the present day world, resulted in his developing very clear ideas in regard to the basic policies that India should pursue for the overall good of its people.

By temperament as well as training, Nehru was a democrat. His seven year stay in England during the earlier part of his life strengthened his natural predilection to a democratic approach to problems1. Moreover, the movement for freedom in our country to which Nehru was instantaneously drawn and of which he became an intrinsic part a few years later, was itself based on the democratic principle of self-rule. Thus, temperament, education in England and the prevailing ‘political atmosphere in the country, had their due share in making Nehru a firm believer in democracy as a form of government and as a way of life. It was therefore but natural that Nehru’s vision of India should have had democracy as one of its important facets.

Nehru’s unshakeable faith in democracy had global implications too. During the thirties and early forties of this country, Nehru came out with all his might against the ideologies of Fascism and Nazism, which stood for the negation of all that democracy stands for. In fact, he refused to see Mussolini in 1936 and declined an invitation ·from Hitler a little later to visit Germany. On the other hand, he went all the way to Spain during the Spanish Civil War of 1936, to lend his moral support and that of India, to the cause of Spanish republicans, who were valiantly fighting against General France. Thus, Nehru did not allow the cause of democracy to suffer even on the international plane, because he very rightly believed that in the modern world national boundaries do not mean much and what is good for the world would ultimately be good for India. The Spanish struggle was for Nehru a part of a world conflict between Fascism and

Imperialism on the one side and Democracy and Freedom on the other. He wanted the people of India, who stood for Spain, to clearly understand that by implication they stood for putting an end to Fascism and empire and all that they symbolished.2 Nehru’s reaction to the Spanish War showed very clearly as to how he considered India’s struggle for freedom, not as an isolated phenomenon, but as an integral part of a much wider movement against colonialism, imperialism and other anti-democratic forces. During this period, he began to think of the political or economic problems of the different parts of the world, whether those of China, Abyssinia, Spain, Central Europe, India or any other part, not in isolation or separately, but rather as the different facets of a world problem.3

Since Nehru stood for democracy ever since his emergence on the political scene of India, it was but obvious that his vision of independent India was that of an India which had a democratic set-up. There is however hardly anything in Nehru’s pre-Independence writings and speeches to show that the type of democracy that he visualised for independent India was any other than the Parliamentary type of democracy.

Nehru’s support to and attraction for a democratic way of life, could be attributed, apart from other reasons, to his faith in the value of individual freedom. In the Unity of India, Nehru stated: “Civil Liberty is not merely for us an airy doctrine or a pious wish, but something which we consider essential for the orderly development and progress of a nation. It is the civilised approach to a problem on which people differ, the non-violent way of dealing with it.”4 

The great importance that Nehru always attached to individual liberty, could be gauged by the resolution on Fundamental Rights and Economic Programme, drafted by Nehru and adopted by the Karachi Congress of 1931. The resolution in part stated: “The Congress ... declared that any constriction which may be agreed to on its behalf should provide or enable the swaraj government to provide the following.

Some of the more significant clauses were as follows:

(i) Every citizen of India has the right of free expression of opinion, the right of free association and combination and the right to assemble peacefully and without arms, for a purpose not opposed to law and morality.

(ii) Every citizen shall enjoy freedom of conscience and the right freely to profess and practice his religion, subject to public order and morality.

(iii) The culture, language and script of the minorities and of the different linguistic areas shall be protected.

(iv) All citizens are equal before the law, in respect of religion, caste, creed or sex.

(v) No disability attached to any citizen by reason of his or her religion, caste, creed or sex in regard to public employment, office of power or honour, or in the exercise of any trade or calling.

(vi) No person shall be deprived of his liberty, nor shall his dwelling or property be entered, sequestered or confiscated, save in accordance with laws.

(vii) Every citizen is free to move throughout India and to stay and settle in any part thereof, to acquire property and to follow any trade or calling, and to be treated equally with regard to legal prosecution or protection in all parts of India.5

Democracy and secularism should normally go together and more specially so in a country like India, with a great deal of diversity in terms of religions and castes. In fact, it is difficult to conceive of India as a democracy without secular and vice-versa. Three of the clauses of the resolution on Fundamental Rights and Economic Programme, viz., Clause number (ii), (v) and (ix) merit attention from the point of view of Nehru’s support to the basic principles of secularism, the (ix) being: “The state shall observe neutrality in regard to all religion”.6

Even a cursory glance at the Karachi resolution, referred above, should convince anyone about Nehru’s intense desire to lead the country in the direction of democracy and secularism. The members of the Drafting Committee of the Indian constitution took cognisance of this resolution of Nehru, adopted at the Karachi session of the Congress, sixteen years before India became free.

Nehru always considered the economic problem the most important one that India faced. He was convinced that most other problems would cease to be problems, once the economic problem was taken care of. The solution to the economic problem, thought Nehru, lay in the acceptance of socialism. Moreover, felt Nehru, in a country like India, democracy itself would lose much of its content and value, if it was not backed up by socialism. In fact, he repeatedly stated during the thirties of this century that democracy in a capitalist setup was not the rule of the people, but the rule of the capitalist class for its own benefit.

Though Nehru’s adherence to socialism became a matter of all India knowledge only after the Lahore Congress of 1929, he had gone a long way in the socialist direction by that time. His interest in socialism dated back to his days at Cambridge, when he was drawn to Fabian Socialism, and other slightly more socialistic ideas. However, it has to be remembered that there were many socialists in India before Nehru became one,7 but his importance lay in his being a prominent Congressman. Some leading Congressmen shared Nehru’s views on socialism, but their number was very small and amongst them it was Nehru who took the initiative in giving a socialistic bias to the national movement.

For Nehru, socialism was not merely an economic doctrine, promising better economic standards and the removal of poverty (though these were matters important enough for Nehru in the context of the poverty of the Indian people); it was for him in the final analysis, a way of life which called for a profound transformation in the habits and instincts of men and one which would establish a new civilisation, wholly different from the capitalist order.8

In his Presidential address at the Lucknow Congress session in 1936, Nehru gave expression to his conviction that the key to the solution of the problems of India lay in socialism. He stated:

I see no way of ending the poverty, the vast unemployment, the degradation and. subjection of the Indian people except through socialism. That involves vast and revolutionary changes in our political and social structure, the ending of vested interests in land and industry, as well as the feudal and aristocratic Indian States System. That means the ending of private property except in a restricted sense, and the replacement of the present profit system by the higher ideal of service. 9

Nehru’s approach to socialism even during the earlier part of his life was not doctrinaire. In his presidential address to the Lahore Congress of 1929, Nehru had pointed out that India might evolve its own methods and might adopt the ideal of socialism to suit the genius of its race.10 Years later, in the year 1960, Nehru reiterated his belief in the non-doctrinaire approach to socialism when he stated that he did not like the idea of accepting any particular dogma of socialism or about the approach to it. What he broadly desired was that every individual should be given equal opportunity and that there should not be inequalities, at least in respect of the opportunities that were given. Moreover, he desired that the gulf between the rich and the poor, should be narrowed down as far as possible.11

While emphasising the need of accepting that form of socialism which was in accordance with a country’s genius, Nehru gave the example of Buddhism and pointed out that though it took its birth in India it put on the garb of the country to which it went. In China it took on a Chinese orientation, in Burma and Japan, Burmese and Japanese orientation and so on. In other words, it meant that Buddhism got itself engrafted in the national soul, wherever it went. Thus, thought Nehru, one should choose that form of socialism for one’s own country, which was compatible with the country’s genius and which could be an answer to the country’s peculiar needs and requiremments.12

Though Nehru gave expression to the idea that the brand of socialism that was compatible with the country’s genius should be chosen, one does not find such evidence to prove that he evolved a particular form of socialism that would suit the country’s genius. In fact, many of Gandhi’s ideas are of the indigenous variety, their validity or otherwise to the present day conditions apart.

Nehru, the Prime Minister, spoke more like a pragmatic statesman than a socialist. He realised sooner than others that economic advancement of India, demanded, not a complete break with the existing capitalist order but a compromise with it. Any dogmatic or doctrinaire approach, felt Nehru, would only aggravate the conditions, instead of solving any problem. Any method that delivered the goods was to be used, regardless of the ‘ism’ with which that method and approach was associated. “I am not enamoured of these ‘isms’ “, said Nehru shortly after independence. “My approach is and I should like to say the country’s approach should be, rather aplegmatic in considering the problem and I want to forget the ‘ism’ attached to it. Whatever the method may be, the method ... which brings about the necessary changes and gives satisfaction to the masses will justify itself and give hope.” 13

Nehru always held the view that the economic progress and prosperity of India depended primarily on the growth of large-scale industries in it. Not only for the purpose of eradicating poverty but also from the point of view of perpetuating political independence and preventing the country from falling a prey to economic imperialism (which rendered the country’s independence nominal) a very probable consequence of economic insufficieny, industrialization, thought Nehru, had become necessary for every poor and backward country. “It can hardly be challenged,” Wrote Nehru, “that in the context of the modern world, no country can be politically and economically independent even within the frame-work of international interdependence, unless it is highly industrialised and has developed its power resources to the utmost.. .. An industrially backward country will continually upset the world equilibrium and encourage the aggressive tendencies of the more developed countries. Even if it retains its political independence this will be nominal only and economic control will tend to pass to others. This control will inevitably upset its own small economy which it has sought to preserve in pursuit of its own view’ of life. Thus an attempt to build up a country’s economy largely on the basis of small-scale industries is doomed to failure. It will not solve the basic problems of the country or maintain freedom, nor will it fit in with the world frame-work, except as a colonial appendage. 14

The passage quoted above is significant in many ways. It shows that Nehru not only gave a thought to the economic implications of industrialisation at the national level, but also took into account the possible political consequences of a policy of depending on small-scale industries only and opposing large-scale industries, so long as no one advocated an economy based largely on it. In fact, Nehru approved the method suggested and advocated by Gandhi to achieve the goal of the economic betterment of the people belonging to rural India the method of spinning wheel and village industry. He felt that there was no other way than the one suggested by Gandhi,- if the very large number of unemployed or partially employed persons were to be given immediate relief, if the standards of the villagers were to improve and if they were to become self-reliant, specially in view of the fact that all those things had to be accomplished without much of capital.15 However, he did not share with Gandhi, the latter’s well-known view on large-scale industrialisation and thereby revealed a more realistic approach and greater insight into the present day international politics.

It is not necessary for the purpose of this paper to go into the entire question of Gandhi - Nehru relationship and to ascertain the impact of Gandhi’s ideas on Nehru or for that matter to examine the question of the vital differences in their ideas on socio-economic and political problems. It should suffice to point out here that Gandhi’s emphasis on the purity of means in politics deeply impressed Nehru and his oft-repeated-strees on seeking peaceful solutions to national and international problems was in no small measure due to the Gandhian influence in this regard.

Gandhi’s ideas, though very important, were not always relevant to a given situation. As Raghavan Iyer points out: “In assessing the thought of Gandhi, it is essential to see that he was mainly a political moralist who wrote from the stand-point of the rebel, who did not concern himself with the ethical and practical problems facing men in authority”.16 Nehru, on the other hand, even in the pre-independence period, never allowed himself to forget either the realities of the modern world or for that matter the problems that men in authority in independent India would have to face. It is in this context that, I have repeatedly ventured to express the opinion that of all the leaders of the Gandhian era, it was Nehru alone, who tried to sort out the Gandhian ideas and accept only those which could be fitted in the frame-work of the modern world and modernity.

Nehru dreamed of an India which was advanced not only industrially but also in terms of science and technology. The policies that he pursued and the steps that he took to ensure India’s progress in these domains are too well-known to need any mention. He believed that the domains are too well-known to need any mention. He believed that the industrial, scientific and technological advancement of India would not only raise the economic standards of the people but would also serve as a catalyst in bringing about social changes. In the words of Aneurin Bevan:

The greatest thing that Nehru is doing in India is his massive support for science and technology. This will bring you rich dividends in the future in terms of economic development and social change. 17

The essential factor in the proper growth of a nation, according to Nehru, was the capacity of its people to look at problems in perspective. They should imbibe from the past whatever was really good, and at the same time should endeavour to keep pace with the present by keeping the windows of their minds open. Any dogmatism in clinging to the country’s past and considering everything about it as extremely good and applicable to the present was highly detrimental, so was the belief that the past represented what was dead and gone and had nothing to do with the present and that everything about the present was good and desirable.

The individual human being or race or nation must necessarily have a certain depth and certain roots some where. They do not count for much unless they have roots in the past, which past is after all the accumulation of generations of experience and some type of wisdom... On the other hand one cannot live in roots alone. Even roots wether unless they come out in the sun and the free air. Only then can the roots give sustenance. Only then can there be branching out and flowering. 18

Thus Nehru concluded that what was needed was the balancing of the two. It should not be forgotten that flowers and leaves flourished on the branches because of the stout root; and at the same time too much of importance should not be attached to roots and it should not be forgotten that the flourishing of flowers and leaves was also a result of fresh air and sunshine.19 So, what was really required, according to Nehru, was neither a blind reverence for the past nor a disrespect for it, as the future could not be founded on either of these. 20

Even during the period of India’s struggle for independence, Nehru thought in terms of reconciling nationalism with internation he dangers of nationalism and stated that she entirely agreed with the views of Lord Cecil. Nehru then pointed out that though he stood for Indian nationalism and Indian independence, he did so on the basis of true internationalism. “We in India”, stated Nehru, “will gladly co-operate in a world order and even agree to give up a measure of national sovereignty, in common with others, in favour of a system of collective security. But this can happen only when nations associate on a basis of peace and freedom”.21 Nehru was fully convinced that the ideal of national independence was not inconsistent with internationalism and believed that the question of a world order “, would remain only a remote ideal so long as several countries of the world continued to be the victims of imperialism, as freedom like peace and war, had become indivisible in the Age of today. 22

Twenty years later, in spite of his mind being full of problems that independent India would have to solve, Nehru moved a resolution on the midnight of August 14, 1947, in the Constitutent Asembly, requesting its members to dedicate themselves to the service of India and the world. This resolution bore an eloquent testimony to Nehru’s genuine desire to harmonise India’s interests with those of the world. The resolution stated:

At this solemn moment, when the people of India, through suffering and sacrifice, have secured freedom, I... a member of the Constitutent Assembly of India, do dedicate myself in all humility to the service of India and the people to the end that this ancient land attain her rightful place in the world and make her full and willing co-operation to the promotion of world peace and the welfare of mankind. 23

Thus it would be seen that Nehru was eager to work for world peace and prosperity and was very anxious that the people of India as a whole should develop a world outlook. The basic tenets of India’s foreign policy were clearly and categorically stated in Resolution V (drafted by Nehru), a Jaipur session of the Indian National Congress in 1948. One of the important sentences therein reads as follows:

The foreign policy of India must necessarily be based on the principles that have guided the Nehru always Congress in past years. These principles are promotion of world peace, the freedom of all nations, racial equality and the ending of imperialism and colonialism. 24

The sentence quoted above also unmistakably indicates as to how Nehru expected India to serve the larger cause of humanity. I am not suggesting that while formulating India’s foreign policy, Nehru did not take into account the interests of India; all that I am trying to point out is that he constantly tried to reconcile realism with idealism through his approach to international problems.

Nehru’s constant support to the United Nations Organisation was a result of his world outlook. He consistently supported the U.N .0. in spite of the fact that it had deviated from its aims sometimes and in spite of other lapses on its part. He way in the organisation the seeds of a world order and as such took care not to do anything that would have had the effect of weakening that organisation. In March 1948, he stated that the U. N .0., was something worthwhile and that it needed support and encouragement so that it might in the long run develop into some kind of world government or world order. 25

In August 1952, Nehru expressed similar sentiments. He once again put forward the view that in spite of its demerits, the U.N.O., deserved the backing of India. He told the Members of the Parliament as to how he himself had been critical of the U.N.O., whenever its actions seemed to him inconsistent with its charter, past record and professions. However, stated Nehru, the U.N.O., in spite of its weaknesses was a basic and fundamental thing in the world and if it ended, it would be a tragedy, to the whole of humanity. As such, he desired that India should not do anything that would jeopardise and effect adversely the growth of U.N. in some kind of a world structure in the long run. 26

In the normal course of things one comes across intellectuals and thinkers who have very little or nothing to do with politics on the operational side or, alternatively, we have politicians who are far from thinkers. In Nehru, we had the combination of a thinker and a political leader. Again, no contemporary political leader of the pre-independence period, gave as much of thought as Nehru did to the various ills from which India suffered and the possible remedies for them. His study of history as also contemporary conditions - socio-economic and political, gave him a sense of direction, the correctness of which could not be easily questioned. His vision of India was one of a country that was socially and economically advanced and politically mature. He wanted the people of India to retain all that was worth-while about the past and combine it with all that was worth imbibing from the present. He believed, and rightly too, that a country like India could not but be democratic, secular and socialistic. Slowly and steadily he led India on this path, without precipitating a crisis in the party, either before or after independence. He was convinced that many of the evils from which India suffered and many of the problems that it faced, including the problems vis-à-vis different castes and communities, would cease to be problems once India became economically sound and scientifically and technologically advanced. Being a humanist, his sensitivity to the happenings in other countries too was very great. In his book ‘The Unity of India’, Nehru had described the setback to the cause of the Republicans in Spain in 1936 as something that came to him as a ‘personal sorrow’. It was thus but natural that he should have stood for the cause of freedom, individual as well as national, as also for world peace. And understandably, he expected India to work for these goals, regardless of national boundaries. In the ultimate analysis he stood for some sort of a world order and he wished and hoped that the people of India in the years to come would lend support to this ideal in thought and deed.

Through his spoken and written word, as also through the lead that he gave to the country in the period before and after independence, Nehru revealed himself as a person who had a very clear vision in regard to the direction in which India should move in the years to come.

REFERENCES

1. Jawaharlal Nehru, An Autobiography, The Bodley Head, London, 1953, p.591.

2. Jawaharlal Nehru, Eighteen Months in India, Kitabistan, Allahabad and London, 1938, p.131.

3. Jawaharlal Nehru, an Autobioglphy, p. 601.

4. Jawaharlal Nehru, The. Unity of India, Lindsay Drummond Ltd., 1948, p. 67.

5. Ibid, pp. 206·407.

6. Ibid., p.406

7. Jawaharlal Nehru, An Autobiography, p. 182.

8. Jawaharlal Nehru, India and the World, George Allen and Unwin Ltd., London, 1936, Pp.82-83.

9: Jagat S. Birght, Important Speeches of jawaharlal Nehru (1922-’45) The Indian Printing Works, Kacheri Road, Lahore, 1945, p.13.

10. Ibid., p.134.

11. R.K. Karnanjia, The Mind of Mr. Nehru, George Allen and Unwin Ltd., 1960, p.57.

12. Ibid., p.27

13. jawaharlal Nehru, Independence and After: A collection of the more important speeches of Jawaharlal Nehru, from September 1946 to May 1949, the Publication Division, Ministry of Information and Broadcasting, Government of India, Calcutta p. 190.

14. Jawaharlal Nehru, The Discovery of India, Signet Press, Calcutta-20, Fourth Printing, September, 1948, p. 342.

15. Ibid., p. 339.

16. Raghavan Iyer, The Moral and Political Thought of Mahatma Gandhi, Oxford University Press, 1973, p.374.

17. M.O. Mathai Reminiscences of the Nehru Age, Vikas Publishing House, New Delhi, 1978, p. 104.

18. jawaharlal Nehru’s Speeches (1949-1953), The Publication Division, Ministry of Information and Broadcasting, Government of India, Calcutta, 1954, p. 359.

19. Ibid., Loc. Cit.,

20. Jawaharlal Nehru, The Discovery of India, p. 435.

21. Jawaharlal Nehru, The Unity of India, p. 279.

22. Ibid. loco Cit.

23. Speeches of jawaharlal Nehru, VoUI, Ed. by Jaget S.Bright, M.A., Indian Printing Works, New Delhi, 1958, p. 534.

24. N.V. Rajkumar, Background of India’s Foreign Policy, A.I.CC., New Delhi, 1953; p. 9.

25. Jawaharlal Nehru, Independence and After: A Collection of the more important speeches of Jawaharlal Nehru from Sept.,1946 to May’ 1949, p.214.

26. Jawaharlal Nehru’s Speeches (1949-1953), p. 349.