Skip to main content

Nehru's 1953 BBC TV interview reveals he was already seen as Asia's formidable leader

By Vidya Bhushan Rawat* 

Jawaharlal Nehru’s life and worldview always fascinated me. He speaks like a ‘teacher’. One would be glued to him when we watch old videos of his press conferences or speeches. BBC recently reposted Nehru’s first TV appearance recorded in June 1953 with leading editors in London when he had gone there to participate in the coronation of Queen Elizabeth.
Look at the way the presenter introduced Nehru -- as one of the most important voices from Asia and the Prime Minister of India. Those who think India became Vishwa Guru after May 2014 should watch and see how the veteran editors ask diverse international questions to Nehru right from China to the Asia Pacific, Europe and Africa. There are no ‘advisors’ and support as Nehru faces the mighty editors. India had just got Independence, yet he is continuously referred to as the leader of Asia.
The BBC interview actually gives a lot of insight about Nehru, and about how calmly and confidently he interacts with the top editors. There is no hype but simple answers. His words are measured and to the point. There is no attempt to re-explain or impose his viewpoint. Most of his answers are crisp and straightforward.
It has become more important to read and listen to Nehru in today's time. Globally, it is an acknowledged fact that Nehru nurtured democracy in India, which today is one of the most successful modules world over despite its different failures. He strengthened the public sector and the rule of law. He attended Parliament with all his seriousness and respected leaders of the opposition parties – which is reflected in his answer when an editor says that there is no opposition in India.
He responds, that out of 500 odd seats of Parliament his party has only 350, and the rest 150 are with the opposition, and they raise their voice. He further says that though it is divided and unable to raise issues in one voice, one cannot impose a two party system on our people. There is an opposition, good opposition within and outside Parliament.
Indeed, Nehru respected Acharya Narendra Dev, Jai Prakash Narayan and Ram Manohar Lohia and listened to their speeches in Parliament and outside. It is a well-known fact that he wanted Jai Prakash to be his political heir and wanted him in his Cabinet.
Nehru was determined for ‘secular’ India despite all kinds of divisions and religious polarisations which hurt the subcontinent. He refers to why the Muslim League was unable to stay on. According to him, the Muslim League was a party of zamindars who were afraid of land reforms.
India introduced the first biggest act of social justice – of abolishing zamindari -- in 1950. He categorically emphasised that zamindari must be abolished for an equal society. The Pakistani elite protected itself from such reform. The first “reform” happened in Pakistan was in 1959 under the martial law regime of Ayub Khan, while the second and third reformed happened during Zulfikar Ali Bhutto who himself had a big feudal background.
For the first land reform in 1959, Pakistan imposed a ceiling on 500-acre land for irrigated land and 1,000 acres for unirrigated land. If this can be called a ‘land reform’, I have nothing to say. The feudal elite of Pakistan protected its vital interests. Things have not changed even today.
Bhutto introduced amendments in the 1970s that brought down the ceiling for irrigated land to 150 acres and unirrigated land to 300 acres per individual. The Pakistan Supreme Court declared the Land Ceiling Act as un-Islamic and unconstitutional. Today, Pakistan is ruled by the country’s landed feudal elite from Sind and Punjab. Compare this with India, when in early 1970s Indira Gandhi introduced a ceiling limit of 12 acres for irrigated land.
Look at the democracy that Nehru nurtured in India: Despite all its failures, it provided space to the most marginalized communities to reach up to the top, while in Pakistan it is still a dream. Its Anglicised feudal elite controls the political discourse.
Nehru is often criticised for his approach on caste, but India introduced all the remedial measures. Compare it with other Asian countries, where the issue of caste has not been accepted in political parlance, except in Nepal. The Pakistani elite has not even recognised the Dalit question. One has to recall how its first law minister Jogindernath Mandal was forced to resign, leave citizenship and returned to India.
The most fascinating point I found during the interview is a journalist's attempt to push him to condemn communism. He does not feel any threat from communism to Indian democracy. He does not accept violence, stating it has no role in democracy, but says, there are issues which make the Communist parties popular, and we need to develop our own perception about countries and ideologies, and not from the western lens.
In the interview, Nehru refuses to toe the line of the western criticism of China. He says, India shares a 2,000 kilometres border with it and hence knows better about them. He is fascinated by progress made by China and Russia and feels no threat from communism to Indian democracy, even though he decries their ‘anarchy’. He says:
“But there is a tendency, if I may say so, for leading statesmen in Europe and America to look at the world from Europe and America. Well, if we look at the same world with the same principles, let us say Delhi or Karachi, the world looks slightly different... Geography counts. Take the question of China. China is a distant country to most people in Europe and America. China, the country, having a 2,000-mile frontier with India, well it’s a different picture to us immediately.”
According to Nehru, Muslim League was a party of zamindars who were afraid of land reforms
It is an undeniable fact that the international media and intellectuals looked upon Nehru as a statesman of the developing world or the countries which were decolonised. His voice has the power and courage of conviction. He says:
“There is an awakening and enormous upsurge in a sense after three or four hundred years of European domination in Asia and Africa. It has upset their own order. Asia is coming on its own some time rightly or wrongly. We have to understand it, appreciate it or not get angry with it.”
The editors remind him of the situation in Africa where the anti-colonial struggle continued and tiny white communities dominated politically through racist laws. After decolonisation there might be unrest and tensions with the white communities in these countries, they argue. Nehru responds with great care and statesmanship:
“Africa, please remember, is a continent, the most tragic continent. Hundreds of years it suffered terribly. Maybe they are not as developed as others or because they did not have the opportunity. I am deeply distressed by what is happening in Africa.”
Nehru clearly understands that there is a big difference between the problems in East Africa and West Africa. He also knows well that the western part of Africa was colonised by the French, hence he did not want to poke his nose everywhere. He underscores, as Prime Minister, he has limitations and has to see that all his words are measured as per the Government of India policy.
One can understand how he as Prime Minister he felt constrained and how he was missing his independence as an author, a journalist or a politician.
He says, Africa’s problems are different in north, central and south. Many Europeans may live there but, ultimately, they have to work in cooperation with the native African people. They are outnumbered tremendously by the African population. Either they cooperate or try to suppress each other. If Europeans try to suppress Africans, undoubtedly the African will push them out.
An editor reminds Nehru that Indians too have been there in Kenya and other countries and perhaps more than the Europeans, so what would be his advice to the Indians living over there?
His absolutely candid reply without making any ‘nationalistic’ overtures is:
“Yes, we have told the Indians there year after year that they must cooperate with Africans, they should not ask for any privilege. They must not exploit the Africans or take advantage of them. I have told them, we will not support them for their demand of any privilege against Africans. If they have to live in Africa they must cooperate with Africans otherwise get out of Africa”.
What an unambiguous reply by asking people to be loyal to their countries of residence and cooperate with the majority in those countries! Look at what those who hate Nehru are saying today. They are celebrating English victory over Pakistan, just because the ‘goras’ have a Prime Minister with Hindu lineage, despite the well-known fact that his family had migrated to Kenya and then to UK thereafter.
Nehru’s opponents blame him for the Kashmir crisis and going to the United Nations without knowing facts or distorting history. An editor asks him about whether it would be good for UN or other countries to mediate between India and Pakistan, to which Nehru replies that India went to UN not because it wanted mediation but because Pakistan was the aggressor; he also feels that there is no need for a third-party mediation as the two nations are capable of solving their own issues.
Even today, India continues to have this as the centre of its foreign policy doctrine despite Pakistan’s attempt to internationalise the Kashmir issue and involve third parties from the western world to intervene.
It is sad that Nehru, who respected people’s voice in Jammu and Kashmir and worked hard to get Sheikh Mohammad Abdullah released from the jail and stood with the idea of India, is being targeted in a shameless way.
Be that as it may, Nehru as a politician was a loss to history and literature. His writings and communications with chief ministers and others show his intellect and capacity. If India today feels proud of the diversity and achievements of people from the margins, we cannot ignore that the seeds of modern democratic nation were sown by him.
Nehru’s greatness can be understood from the fact that most of his contemporary anti-colonial leaders, the heroes of their countries, turned dictators and became law unto themselves. It was Nehru who nurtured democracy in India. Just look around any of our neighbouring countries in those times; it was India alone which had democracy and political stability.
Today, the vision that Nehru gave to India is under threat. Instead of respecting diversity, the state keeps imposing oneness on our huge country. Oneness for them is imposition of Brahminical values on everyone in the form of Hindi-Hindu-Hindustan. Oneness can happen despite being diverse, but Hindutva’s oneness is through imposed uniformity, which is threatening our national integrity.
India is not just an administrative unit run by the caste elite of north India but an emotion, where each one, despite diverse languages, regions, religions and cultures, actually feels for each other and cares for the idea of an inclusive India, where all have the space to flourish. We need a Nehruvian India where all communities live together, respect each other and enjoy their relationship on the basis of being citizens of India.
Nehru’s first TV appearance provides us the power of his personality and convictions as he responds to all the questions aimed at him with confidence and absolute clarity. Remember, it was the beginning of the television, and he was speaking for the first time. These editors were not there to ‘flatter’ him, nor was there any PR agency like what we witness today.
Can we expect our leaders speaking to international media in such a simple manner without any ‘assistance’ or ‘makeover’? The Nehru conversation proves that those who are abusing him day and night are suffering from inferiority complex, politically and intellectually.
There are huge lessons for all of us when we hear him. It is time we make use of all his writings and videos.
---
*Human rights defender. Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/vbrawat; Twitter: @freetohumanity

Comments

TRENDING

A comrade in culture and controversy: Yao Wenyuan’s revolutionary legacy

By Harsh Thakor*  This year marks two important anniversaries in Chinese revolutionary history—the 20th death anniversary of Yao Wenyuan, and the 50th anniversary of his seminal essay "On the Social Basis of the Lin Biao Anti-Party Clique". These milestones invite reflection on the man whose pen ignited the first sparks of the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution and whose sharp ideological interventions left an indelible imprint on the political and cultural landscape of socialist China.

Two more "aadhaar-linked" Jharkhand deaths: 17 die of starvation since Sept 2017

Kaleshwar's sons Santosh and Mantosh Counterview Desk A fact-finding team of the Right to Feed Campaign, pointing towards the death of two more persons due to starvation in Jharkhand, has said that this has happened because of the absence of aadhaar, leading to “persistent lack of food at home and unavailability of any means of earning.” It has disputed the state government claims that these deaths are due to reasons other than starvation, adding, the authorities have “done nothing” to reduce the alarming state of food insecurity in the state.

Epic war against caste system is constitutional responsibility of elected government

Edited by well-known Gujarat Dalit rights leader Martin Macwan, the book, “Bhed-Bharat: An Account of Injustice and Atrocities on Dalits and Adivasis (2014-18)” (available in English and Gujarati*) is a selection of news articles on Dalits and Adivasis (2014-2018) published by Dalit Shakti Prakashan, Ahmedabad. Preface to the book, in which Macwan seeks to answer key questions on why the book is needed today: *** The thought of compiling a book on atrocities on Dalits and thus present an overall Indian picture had occurred to me a long time ago. Absence of such a comprehensive picture is a major reason for a weak social and political consciousness among Dalits as well as non-Dalits. But gradually the idea took a different form. I found that lay readers don’t understand numbers and don’t like to read well-researched articles. The best way to reach out to them was storytelling. As I started writing in Gujarati and sharing the idea of the book with my friends, it occurred to me that while...

What's behind Donald Trump's 'narco-state' accusation against Venezuela

By Manolo De Los Santos  The US government has revived its campaign to label Venezuela a "narco-state", accusing its top leadership of drug trafficking and slapping hefty bounties on their heads for capture. This campaign, which only momentarily took a backseat, is a strategic fabrication, not a factual assessment. This accusation, particularly amplified under the Trump Administration, is a calculated smokescreen to justify a long-standing agenda: the overthrow of the Venezuelan government and the seizure of its vast oil and mineral resources. A closer examination of the facts reveals a country that has actively fought drug trafficking on its own terms and a US government with a clear and consistent history of destabilizing independent countries in Latin America.

New RTI draft rules inspired by citizen-unfriendly, overtly bureaucratic approach

By Venkatesh Nayak* The Department of Personnel and Training , Government of India has invited comments on a new set of Draft Rules (available in English only) to implement The Right to Information Act, 2005 . The RTI Rules were last amended in 2012 after a long period of consultation with various stakeholders. The Government’s move to put the draft RTI Rules out for people’s comments and suggestions for change is a welcome continuation of the tradition of public consultation. Positive aspects of the Draft RTI Rules While 60-65% of the Draft RTI Rules repeat the content of the 2012 RTI Rules, some new aspects deserve appreciation as they clarify the manner of implementation of key provisions of the RTI Act. These are: Provisions for dealing with non-compliance of the orders and directives of the Central Information Commission (CIC) by public authorities- this was missing in the 2012 RTI Rules. Non-compliance is increasingly becoming a major problem- two of my non-compliance cases are...

N-power plant at Mithi Virdi: CRZ nod is arbitrary, without jurisdiction

By Krishnakant* A case-appeal has been filed against the order of the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change (MoEF&CC) and others granting CRZ clearance for establishment of intake and outfall facility for proposed 6000 MWe Nuclear Power Plant at Mithi Virdi, District Bhavnagar, Gujarat by Nuclear Power Corporation of India Limited (NPCIL) vide order in F 11-23 /2014-IA- III dated March 3, 2015. The case-appeal in the National Green Tribunal at Western Bench at Pune is filed by Shaktisinh Gohil, Sarpanch of Jasapara; Hajabhai Dihora of Mithi Virdi; Jagrutiben Gohil of Jasapara; Krishnakant and Rohit Prajapati activist of the Paryavaran Suraksha Samiti. The National Green Tribunal (NGT) has issued a notice to the MoEF&CC, Gujarat Pollution Control Board, Gujarat Coastal Zone Management Authority, Atomic Energy Regulatory Board and Nuclear Power Corporation of India Limited (NPCIL) and case is kept for hearing on August 20, 2015. Appeal No. 23 of 2015 (WZ) is filed, a...

1857 War of Independence... when Hindu-Muslim separatism, hatred wasn't an issue

"The Sepoy Revolt at Meerut", Illustrated London News, 1857  By Shamsul Islam* Large sections of Hindus, Muslims and Sikhs unitedly challenged the greatest imperialist power, Britain, during India’s First War of Independence which began on May 10, 1857; the day being Sunday. This extraordinary unity, naturally, unnerved the firangees and made them realize that if their rule was to continue in India, it could happen only when Hindus and Muslims, the largest two religious communities were divided on communal lines.

Ground reality: Israel would a remain Jewish state, attempt to overthrow it will be futile

By NS Venkataraman*  Now that truce has been arrived at between Israel and Hamas for a period of four days and with release of a few hostages from both sides, there is hope that truce would be further extended and the intensity of war would become significantly less. This likely “truce period” gives an opportunity for the sworn supporters and bitter opponents of Hamas as well as Israel and the observers around the world to introspect on the happenings and whether this war could have been avoided. There is prolonged debate for the last several decades as to whom the present region that has been provided to Jews after the World War II belong. View of some people is that Jews have been occupants earlier and therefore, the region should belong to Jews only. However, Christians and those belonging to Islam have also lived in this regions for long period. While Christians make no claim, the dispute is between Jews and those who claim themselves to be Palestinians. In any case...

Fate of Yamuna floodplain still hangs in "balance" despite National Green Tribunal rap on Sri Sri event

By Ashok Shrimali* While the National Green Tribunal (NGT) on Thursday reportedly pulled up the Delhi Development Authority (DDA) for granting permission to hold spiritual guru Sri Sri Ravi Shankar's World Culture Festival on the banks of Yamuna, the chief petitioners against the high-profile event Yamuna Jiye Abhiyan has declared, the “fate of the floodplain still hangs in balance.”