Nehru and Nation-Building in India

Jawaharlal Nehru was son of eminent lawyerpolitician Motilal Nehru and he was born in the midst of
wealth. Motilal was a great admirer of English and he provided all kinds home teaching in English to
his son. In 1905 young Nehru was sent to Harrow for education. In 1907 Nehru joined Trinity College
at Cambridge and in 1910 he obtained a degree in Natural Sciences. He was called to the bar in 1912.

Nehru returned to India at the age of twenty three and he was a queer mixture of the East and the
West. He joined Allahabad bar and in 1913 he became a member of the United Province Congress.
Of course, in England he had joined the Fabian Socialist Group. In 1917 he was elected Secretary of
Allahabad Home Rule League and also a member of All India Congress Committee. During the
agitation against Rowlatt Act in 1919 he met Gandhi and was attracted towards him. By that time he
was leading a leisurely life amidst plenty. He was not aware of the Socio-economic conditions of the
then British India. In 1920 he visited some U.P. villages and was shocked to see the sub-human
conditions of living of the village peasants. He called the then picture of India as naked, starving and
utterly miserable.

During the non-cooperation movement, he was arrested. For the first time the movement gave him a
sense of freedom. In 1922 he was again arrested and had a jail term of about nine months. In 1923
he became a general secretary of the Congress and also he was elected as Chairman of Allahabad
Municipality. In 1929 Nehru was elected President of AICC. Under Nehru’s leadership the party
passed the ‘Independence Resolution’ at Lahore on 31s t December, 1929. He also took the
‘Independence Oath’ on 26 January, 1930. Nehru became the President of AICC in 1936, 1937, 1946
and 1951.

He participated in the Civil Disobedience Movement of 1930 but was very critical of the Round Table
Conference of 1931 which was attended by Gandhi. He wrote- We saw the pitiful and absolutely
inadequate attempts to scratch the surface of national and economic problems at the conference. He
was again arrested in 1932 and jailed for two years.

Though Nehru was drawn towards Gandhi and his approach towards the freedom struggle yet Nehru
differed from Gandhi on Various issues. The most prominent was related to economics. Gandhi
looked to be backward on matters of economics yet Nehru was with him because Gandhi was more
radical on political matters. The pastime of both was different. Nehru spoke on Science, economic
and Socialism. But Gandhi was more concerned with truth, God and religion.

Though Nehru had many differences with Gandhi he regarded him as man for the masses and
considered Gandhi as progressive in political as distinct from social and economic matters. He also
welcomed the Gandhian method of peaceful resistance as the most civilized form of warfare. He also
liked the Gandhian doctrine that the end could not be separated from the means. In fact, Nehru was
bridge between Gandhites and Socialists because of the seminal contributions of Gandhi over the
means-end concept.

Nehru headed the interim government set up in September, 1946 prior to transfer of power. He
became independent India’s first Prime Minister. While the new Constitution of India was in the
process of making several questions were raised. In 1930s Nehru was in favour of Soviet democracy
as against the British model. There was also the question of government based upon a network of
Panchayats. A visible support for British Parliamentary system was also observed. The Assembly
envisaged the establishment of a centralised political democracy based on universal adult suffrage.
Nehru believed in Parliamentary democracy. But to him democracy was not only a form of
government, it was a way of life, a way of solving problems by argument, discussion and persuasion
Democracy involves tolerance and restraint.

According to Nehru, “You may define democracy in a hundred ways but surely one of the definitions
is self-discipline of community. The less of the imposed discipline the more the selfdiscipline, the
higher is the development of democracy”. This statement of Nehru caused awkward situation when
the ‘Preventive Detention Act’ was introduced. He observed – The Act is required to meet the
situational exigencies. The act had to be passed because of the lack of self-discipline. He further
stated that agitational approach or taking resort to direct action weaken the democratic structure. It
was under the able leadership of Nehru India’s journey of electoral democracy commenced in 1952
with 173 million voters being asked to give their consent. It was a stupendous task. Nehru led
Country’s democratic process in the first three general elections with exemplary conduct and
massive popular support. The second and third general elections held in 1957 and 1962 were repeat
performances. He was at the helm of one party dominant era in India. Even prominent political
scientist Rajni Kothari interpreted the electoral performance and party system in Nehru’s India as
'Congress system'. He thus laid the foundation of world’s largest electoral democracy with the
provision of universal adult suffrage.

From the days of national movement he provided the glimpse of making of a great leader. He
thought and spoke clearly on the action and interaction between nationalism and internationalism
during the movement. He discovered India only after making glimpses on world history. He was
earliest to recognise that India was an essential part of the world. His views on Fascism, Imperialism
and Communism testified to that. He identified fascism as a greater danger than western European
imperialism. He named the Second World War as peoples war against Fascism.

Nehru wrote clearly on the role of religion and other traditions in public life. He was a student of
History and was aware of the strength of religious traditions. But as an exponent of rationalism he
rebelled against superstition, faith and other aspects of religion. He opined that communal and other
questions are connected to economic problems. His realistic understanding of religious traditions and
their role paved the way for adopting a secular mode which later made tremendous impact on Indian
society and polity.

He was very much concerned with the problems of national unity and of linguistic and cultural
groups. During the national movement he was not fully aware of the intrinsic merits and demerits of
these ideas. Neither Gandhi nor Stalin was fully understood by him. But after studying their ideas he
developed a new approach – Cosmopolitan approach – to find a way between.

Apart from Gandhi he was the only leader of the nationalist era who was concerned with the
problem of economic growth. This haunted him till independence. The first problem he faced after
freedom was the issue of nation-building. The immediate challenges were the post-partition
problems, the rise of Hindu Communalism and the role of Indian Communists who questioned the
very basis of Indian political structure. The agitation for linguistic states was more dangerous than
the economic issues. He gave emphasis to the development of national consensus as it was essential
for India’s unity and progress. He pleaded that conciliation and negotiation are the best methods to
arrive at the solution. He had no illusions on the capacity of the State. He wanted politics and not
administration to be in command.

Nehru’s greatest contribution was to introduce planning in the capitalist society. He wanted the state
to control the commanding heights of economy. He had some unbaked socialist ideas with regard to
public sector. In his approach he could come in contact with both national and international
economists. One researcher has opined that one of the weaknesses of Nehru was that he could not
comprehend the important role of social revolution in regard to economic development.

Nehru was a great admirer of the role of science and technology in the nation-building process and
economic reconstruction of the postcolonial society. In this area he did not agree with Gandhi. He
was responsible for installation of national laboratories and cosmopolitan centres. Yet the success
was limited. India is a land of villages. His approach could not help the villages and villagers. But one
cannot deny his contribution to this area.

He believed that social and economic transformation is feasible within the frame work of
parliamentary system even in post-colonial backward economies. In this field he was ahead of many
socialist leaders in the world.

Nehru developed a perspective on international relations and worked out a feasible foreign policy
with the objective of preserving India’s national interest. His failure in 1962 was the only dark spot,
or else he had phenomenal success in uniting the undeveloped and postcolonial states and made the
voiceless full of assertive statements and opinion. He was father of the policy of equidistance and
promoter of the cult of non-alignment. He urged to end war for all times since the nuclear weapon
can destroy the human civilization.

His intellectual thrust towards modernisation of Indian society was praiseworthy. It was evident
during his unqualified stand on Hindu Code Bill.

Nehru was not an original thinker on many socio-political ideas. But his views on these areas had an
international approval. He never suggested for any socio-political upheaval. His views on
Nationalism, Internationalism Democracy, Fascism, Communism and Gandhism were well taken by
the posterity. His most significant contribution was that he rejected all the dogmas connected with
religion, fascism, communism and anti-communism.

Nehru had a very powerful pen. He could communicate as effectively as any established writer. His
autobiography stands as testimony to this. Nehru’s unusual ability to think, reflect and contemplate
vigorously, effectively and intensively was second to none. He is not with us for the last ‘fifty years’.
But the impact of Nehruvian strategy on economic planning based on equity and social justice
continue to be the focal theme of the nation-building process in India.