Skip to main content

Nehru had remarkable breadth of vision, unlike 'Gandhians', narrow and scheming

Nehru with Einstein
By Bhaskar Sur*
In his lifetime Jawaharlal Nehru was a legend. He was a remarkable personality -- a leader, a scholar, an internationalist who set himself to the task of bringing peace and sanity in a world emerging from the savagery of the Second World War and already caught between the ambitions of two superpowers.
He had conflicting sympathies -- he loved the freedom and democracy of the West but his radicalism found a deeper chord in the socialist experiments. He wanted India to be a vibrant socialist democracy, leading the decolonized new nations and those which were struggling to be free.
Nehru was an elitist leading a party which was a heterogeneous medley sharing as common feature a hatred of the British and, at a deeper level ,modernity. Nehru could be very intelligent and incredibly naive. Despite his Cambridge education he was so blinded by the negative nationalism, that he was unable to appreciate the great achievements of the British rule and the cultural regeneration it had brought about.
Under the influence of Marxism he had some understanding of class but hardly any of caste, gender and community. Like many uppercase nationalists of the day he came to believe that if only British rule was removed, much of the problems would naturally be solved. What was needed was a progressive, determined leadership which, he persuaded himself, he alone could provide.
Nehru knew the Gandhian movement suffered from utter confusion and was regressive but he also knew Gandhi alone could carry millions with him, which, left to himself, he couldn't hope to. Ambitious, he decided to follow Gandhi, compromising with his deeply held beliefs. MN Roy, his contemporary, rightly noted: “He could not remain the leader of the Congress unless he capitulated to the reactionary forces which controlled the party."
So, unlike Subhas Chandra Bose, Nehru was a clever opportunist, waiting for his moment. His blind ‘anti-imperialism ' and 'anti-communalism' (read a contempt for Jinnah and the Muslim League) led him to wrong conclusions and hastened the communal holocaust and the Partition. It devastated India but helped him to become the Prime Minister who would try to initiate a sort of revolution from above and ended, sadly, in a colossal failure.
I nspite of the ambitious Five Year Plans and numerous public sector projects, or because of it, the economic growth was slow and poverty and illiteracy persisted. His long premiership ended rather ingloriously with an avoidable war with China which India lost. He was largely responsible for it as he destroyed old maps since 1953, arbitrarily redrawing boundaries which the Chinese were loath to accept.
As a leader, he was no match for his democratic contemporaries such as Winston Churchill, Charles De Gaulle, Konrad Adenauer, not to speak of David Ben Gurion. All these steered their nations through difficult times from defeat to victory or from ruins to prosperity. Nehru, on the other hand, led a movement that wanted the defeat of the Allied Forces. So, in a way, he belonged to the defeated side.
Now was he the maker of 'modern India'? This is a problematic question as the term 'modern' is ambiguous. Modernity is a wider concept encapsulating the ideals of the is Enlightenment -- scientific rationality, industrialization, individualism, rights-based democracy and numerous institutions of civil society.
The British, in part under the influence liberalism and also under necessity, introduced a modern state based on bureaucracy, build up judiciary, an new education system, modern communication, banks, print media that facilitated the growth of democratic institutions. India in the beginning of the 20th century was the best administered colony anywhere in the world. In 1913 Rabindranath Tagore received the Nobel in literature, the first Asians to have done it.
In 1930 CV Raman received Nobel in science. There were at least three others -- JC Bose, Satyendranath Bose and Meghnad Saha -- who could have won the honour but missed it, anyway (not owing to any imperialist conspiracy). India was far from being the backward country that nationalist historians labour to portray.
Nirad C Chaudhari
In this context the question that forces itself: Did Nehru leave a better India? The answer is a big 'No'. He left a defeated India where the institutions founded by the British had suffered erosion, efficiency suffered and education declined. There was more incompetence, corruption and political intrigue.
Nehru wanted to surpass all the great rulers of the Raj, particularly the imperialist Lord Curzon, who was a man of scholarship, bold vision and great ability. He, like Curzon before him, worked very hard and overconfident, looked after no less than 40 ministries with more or less ,incompetence and indifference. 
Nirad Chaudhuri feared, Nehru, once gone, Hindu revivalism would come down like  mythical Ganga carrying gibberish secularists down to unfathomable sea with no escape
What Lord Curzon could achieve in matter of just six years (1899-1905) in the field of administration, education, agriculture, Nehru could not even half as much in long 16 years or more. Curzon believed in the providential role of the British and set himself to improve the quality of education, revamped administration, founded the institute at Pusa to revolutionize agriculture and took a deep interest to protect the crumbling ruins of the past. Nor did the area of freedom expand. 
The first thing that Nehru and Sardar Patel did after coming to power was to amend the Constitution abridging rights to the Freedom of Speech (Article 19) and introduced the repugnant retrospective legislation and created a schedule (Ninth Schedule) where laws could not be challenged even though they violated the fundamental rights.
Not content with this, Nehru's administration in 1958 enacted the Armed Forces Special Power Regulation which is 'perhaps the most sanguinary single piece of repressive legislation in the annals of liberal democracy' authorizing unlawful killing of anyone in a group of five persons or more. He gave orders to bomb Naga villages as they were unwilling to remain with the Indian union. Nehru set a bad precedence by dismissing the first democratically elected communist government of Kerala.
Nehru, after all, was a leader of a country with a deep authoritarian culture and he was certainly a democrat by that standard. He was sincere, honest with a remarkable breadth of vision -- again compared with most of the average Gandhians -- narrow minded, scheming, Brahminical crooks, promoted by the Birlas and other Indian business houses.
He was a humanist, an agnostic and a rationalist which again is exceptional in a country where even educated people are deeply superstitious. He wanted science to grow, not in conflict with humanities but in harmony. He was genuinely interested in the world of ideas. He had a distaste for the glorification of terrorism.
He refused to garland the statue of Khudiram at Muzaffarpur and declined to attend a religious function at Ramkrishna Mission. He knew French and wrote English with rare elegance. He strongly stood against the war cry to banish English by half educated clamorous bumpkins. He loved good things of life including graceful women and children.
All these are redeeming graces but all were a product of the British civilization which he acquired and loved ,despite his deeply irrational hatred for the British rule. He was not very critical of the exploitation and horrors of the caste system which was and still is much more hateful than the British rule.
Nirad Chaudhuri, who was a victim of Nehru's uncharacteristic pettiness, looked upon him along with Krishna Menon as the last two pillars of the Western attitudes and views in post-independence India. He feared, once they were gone, the Hindu revivalism would come down like the mythical descent of the Ganga carrying the gibberish secularists down to an unfathomable sunless sea from which there would be no escape.
How prophetic was this wizened little man with impish wit!
---
*Source: The author’s Facebook timeline

Comments

TRENDING

What's Bill Gates up to? Have 'irregularities' found in funding HPV vaccine trials faded?

By Colin Gonsalves*  After having read the 72nd report of the Department Related Parliamentary Standing Committee on alleged irregularities in the conduct of studies using HPV vaccines by PATH in India, it was startling to see Bill Gates bobbing his head up and down and smiling ingratiatingly on prime time television while the Prime Minister lectured him in Hindi on his plans for the country. 

Muted profit margins, moderate increase in costs and sales: IIM-A survey of 1000 cos

By Our Representative  The Indian Institute of Management-Ahmedabad’s (IIM-A's) latest Business Inflation Expectations Survey (BIES) has said that the cost perceptions data obtained from India’s business executives suggests that there is “mild increase in cost pressures”.

Magnetic, stunning, Protima Bedi 'exposed' malice of sexual repression in society

By Harsh Thakor*  Protima Bedi was born to a baniya businessman and a Bengali mother as Protima Gupta in Delhi in 1949. Her father was a small-time trader, who was thrown out of his family for marrying a dark Bengali women. The theme of her early life was to rebel against traditional bondage. It was extraordinary how Protima underwent a metamorphosis from a conventional convent-educated girl into a freak. On October 12th was her 75th birthday; earlier this year, on August 18th it was her 25th death anniversary.

Govt putting India's professionals, skilled, unskilled labour 'at mercy of' big business

By Thomas Franco, Dinesh Abrol*  As it is impossible to refute the report of the International Labour Organisation, Chief Economic Advisor Anantha Nageswaran recently said that the government cannot solve all social, economic problems like unemployment and social security. He blamed the youth for not acquiring enough skills to get employment. Then can’t the people ask, ‘Why do we have a government? Is it not the government’s responsibility to provide adequate employment to its citizens?’

A Hindu alternative to Valentine's Day? 'Shiv-Parvati was first love marriage in Universe'

By Rajiv Shah*   The other day, I was searching on Google a quote on Maha Shivratri which I wanted to send to someone, a confirmed Shiv Bhakt, quite close to me -- with an underlying message to act positively instead of being negative. On top of the search, I chanced upon an article in, imagine!, a Nashik Corporation site which offered me something very unusual. 

IMA vs Ramdev: Why what's good or bad for goose should be good or bad for gander

By Dr Amitav Banerjee, MD* Baba Ramdev and his associate Balkrishna faced the wrath of the Supreme Court for their propaganda about their Ayurvedic products and belittling mainstream medicine. Baba Ramdev had to apologize in court. His apology was not accepted and he may face the contempt of court with harsher punishment. The Supreme Court acted on a public interest litigation (PIL) moved by the Indian Medical Association (IMA).

'Flawed' argument: Gandhi had minimal role, naval mutinies alone led to Independence

Counterview Desk Reacting to a Counterview  story , "Rewiring history? Bose, not Gandhi, was real Father of Nation: British PM Attlee 'cited'" (January 26, 2016), an avid reader has forwarded  reaction  in the form of a  link , which carries the article "Did Atlee say Gandhi had minimal role in Independence? #FactCheck", published in the site satyagrahis.in. The satyagraha.in article seeks to debunk the view, reported in the Counterview story, taken by retired army officer GD Bakshi in his book, “Bose: An Indian Samurai”, which claims that Gandhiji had a minimal role to play in India's freedom struggle, and that it was Netaji who played the crucial role. We reproduce the satyagraha.in article here. Text: Nowadays it is said by many MK Gandhi critics that Clement Atlee made a statement in which he said Gandhi has ‘minimal’ role in India's independence and gave credit to naval mutinies and with this statement, they concluded the whole freedom struggle.

Youth as game changers in Lok Sabha polls? Young voter registration 'is so very low'

By Dr Mansee Bal Bhargava*  Young voters will be the game changers in 2024. Do they realise this? Does it matter to them? If it does, what they should/must vote for? India’s population of nearly 1.3 billion has about one-fifth 19.1% as youth. With 66% of its population (808 million) below the age of 35, India has the world's largest youth population. Among them, less than 40% of those who turned 18 or 19 have registered themselves for 2024 election. According to the Election Commission of India (ECI), just above 1.8 crore new voters (18-and 19-year-olds) are on the electoral rolls/registration out of the total projected 4.9 crore new voters in this age group.

Indians witnessing 'regression to Hindutva politics' under Modi ahead of elections

By Bhabani Shankar Nayak*  The forthcoming general election in India, scheduled from April 19, 2024, to June 1, 2024, to elect the 543 members of the 18th Lok Sabha and the new Government of India, carries immense significance for the preservation of India's identity as a liberal, secular, and constitutional democracy.

An equine landmark, Cheltenham Gold Cup centenary 'epitomized' heights unparalleled

By Harsh Thakor*  The Cheltenham Gold Cup  is the most prestigious jumping race in the British Isles Steeplechasing calendar and the Cheltenham festival, a cynosure of every English and Irish racegoer. Few sporting events match or surpass the sheer intensity, competitiveness and joy that radiates its legacy. Few moments are more pulsating than witnessing a Gold Cup or a Cheltenham festival. In addition to that the race is run amidst the background of an evergreen English countryside, encircled by hills and pastures, giving a sensation of a paradise or heavenly location.