Meaning of Nehru

8/10/2019 Meaning of Nehru

1/6

THE ECONOMIC WEEKLY SPECIAL NUMBER JULY 1964

The Meaning of Jawaharlal NehruRajni Kothari

The greatest contribution of Jawaharlal Nehru, the first Prime Minister of independent India, to the development of the Indian nation was neither the policy of non-alignment nor the conception of the five year plans, butthe practical achievement of providing a durable basis to India's democratic institutions and of endowing them withan aura of legitimacy.

It is an achievement more lasting and pervasive than any of the doctrines by which he used to move India'sintellectuals from time to time.

Nehru's life-work was not so much of having started a revolution as of having given rise to a consensus.

Curiously, he did not himself see the real significance of his work.

NEH RU'S role in the developmentof a nat ional consensus has

been rather complex. He bot h embodied its spirit and worked for itssubstance. The former aspect hasattracted more atten tion than thelatter, his "charismatic" power morethan his role as a nation- builder .Now no one can deny the great unifying role of a powerful personalityin the difficult period of transitionand instit ution al fluid ity. Such a personality symbolises a new age, quickens the pace of history, and drives andpresses diverse elements into a singlestream. Nehr u did all this and thereby consolidated the more subtle basesof the Indian poli ty. But he didmore. He gave to it a more dura ble found ation by incorporat ing his

life's workand the work of all hisdistinguished forbearsinto a framework of rules, institutions and conventions.

Beginning, Not End

Nehru doggedly allowed free scopeto parliamentary government, was thechief operator of its mechanism ofpower, and through his long tenurelegitimised its institutions and working princip les. He was himself nottoo confident of this aspect of hiswork and often held too exaggerateda view of his own personality in hold

ing the country together, and of thepossible danger of disintegration afterhi m. But here he reflected the emptymood and naivette of the Indian intelligentsia1 who projected him astheir chief showboy than his ownachievements as a pol itic ian and aman of affairs. It was in his socialengineering capacities rather than hisneat ideological formulations thatNehru's lasting contribution lies.

We have been told that with thepassing away of Nehru an era hascome to an end, but the fact is that

the era of whic h Nehru laid thefoundations through his long and uninte rrupted leadership is only now

beginning to take roots. No thi ng hasended wit h the passing away ofNehr u: everything of value he leftbehind is going to last. Indeed, fromall indications, things may take aturn for the better.

Proof of Maturity

The ease with which the successionissue for long a bogey of bothwestern and westernised intellectualshas been settled is a testimony tothe maturity to which this country'sinstitutions have arrived. In manyways we have now entered a periodwhich is more fruitful and one withgreater developmental poten tial thanthe one we have been through. Everydeveloping society has to go throughan inte grat ive stage before it canthink of building its productive powers and its national strength on anorganised basis, or of even formulating a policy to this end. It cannotbe different wi th India . Those whohave so often lamented at the failing of the Indi an pol itic al systemhave done so because they have puttheir fingers on the wrong problemsand because they lack a perspectiveon national development. What thecountry has achieved under i ts firstPrime Minister is no mean achievement by any standards. And it is notjust the achievement of one man .

Several factors have contributed tothis maturing of the nation's institutional growth under Nehru's leadership. The first biggest factor nodoubt was the wo rk done and thelegacy left behind by the nationalist movement led by the Congressunder the leadership of MahatmaGandhi, A proper appreciation of therole of the nationalist movement inIndia's nation-building has not beenmade by academic historians. Wor king simultaneously on so many frontsand adopting a strategy remarkable inits unifying character, the "movement" took the Ind ian people to anew level of self-awareness. The

legacies it left behind have also served us for a pretty long time. Firstly,there was the organ isational legacy,a structu re around whic h men andinstitutions could function at variouslevels, channelise their loyalties anddraw upon the loyalties of others. Itwas, secondly, a leadership legacy,the availability of tall men the like ofwhich has not been found in anynewly-independent country after theUnite d States. It is true that boththese legacies have, with the passageof time, thinned out, the organisationhas been weakened, and the menhave been demoralised under thestrain of more exacting tasks. An dthis has its problems. Meanw hile,however, other structures have beencreated and these are likely to take

roots.At the Grassroots

Secondly, building on the legacy ofthe nationalist movement, there hasbeen the penetration of the countryby new ins tit uti ona l developments,especially at the lower tiers of thenation. In this, the system of patronage to which the Congress has givenrise in the States and the districts isof great importance. It has enabledthe spreading of distributive benefitsand the involvement of tradi tiona lelites and entrenched social interests

in the political-competitive processesof Indian democracy. The great driveof the Congress to either capture orneutra lise labour and peasant organisations, to set up anc illa ry agenciesin the cooperative, community development and local government sectors,and to penetrate caste and communityorganizations, has led to an integration into the national mainstream ofcritical subsections of the public, Finally, there is the new multi-tier systemof Panchayati Raj which has led to afurther penetration into society o f

democratic institutions adopted by themodernist leadership at the nationa llevel.

1203


2/6


3/6


The th ir d factor that contributedpositively to India's institutionalgrowth is the result of the legislative-deliberative process. It consists inthe removal of major sources of cleavage and disaffection from the Indian

po lit y. The end of feudalism andlandlordism removed the biggestsingle source of antagonism from theInd ian countryside. The reorganization of the States on linguistic basisremoved a major source of cleavagefrom the political elite. Legislationdealing with labour disputes and providing protection and welfare toworkmen contained, and brought contentment to, this potentially volatilesection of the publi c. Laws dealingwith property and inheritance rights,as well as with compensation for for-feiture of inherited rights, removed

gross inequalities in the treatment ofdifferent classes and legitimis ed amore rational system of economic relations. And, finally, the partialsuccess in handling the communal problem has helped contain the forces ofdisr upti on. Such a policy of neutralising social fissures has made obsolete the "class confl ict" model ofdevelopment in the Indian case.Thi s is one imp orta nt reason whystability has been made possible.2 To gether with the institutional growthfactors mentioned above, these measures have provi ded us wi th a remarkable consolidation of our independence.

Amorphous with a Purpose

Fourthly, and providing the framework to these other factors, has beenIndia'sand primarily Nehru'sfaithin the values and institutions of democracy; and sincere and sustainedefforts to put these into practicethro ugh the general elections. Thereis no doubt that wit hou t this lastfactor, all the other factors mentioned

above would not have resulted in thepresent nationa l consensus wh ich isNeh ru' s greatest legacy. Even themechanics employed by Nehru, whichwere the object of frequent criticism,such as the "balancing" of politicalgroups and the consequent "amor-phousness" of the political structure,had a role to play in the integrativestage of our development, It ensuredthat no single element in the Constitutio n of the nati on was carrie d toofar, lest this may disrupt the entirenation -build ing enterprise. It is truethat at times Nehru carried his ap

prehension of disruptive forces alittle too far and this often inhibited

a free competition between opposingpoints of new. But the logic of hisapproach is quite clear. It is alsotrue that Nehru's preoccupation withthe maintenance of his own personalpower and ascendancy often led to

acute pol itic al factionalism and theneed for political scapegoats from timeto time. This affected morale andgave rise to bitterness. On the otherhand, by basing pol iti cal power onself-interest (thus goin g against thecannons of India's political tradition),Nehru gave rise to a pragmatic orientation to politics, taught Indian leaders the art of managing men and institutions, and based political solidarityon the complex mechanics of secularrelationships rather than on neat notions of sacrifice and transcendentalnationalism. Nehru's role (often uncon

sciously played) was both to holdgroups together under him and to tiethem into a competitive web of relationships whic h wou ld crystallizeinto more normal channels once hisown personal weight was lifted.

Gift from China

There are also negative factors whichhave contributed to our stability andinstitutional development. Thus a substantial dose of political realism wasinjected in this nation through theChinese aggression. By sti rri ng thenation to its depths, the Chinese action forced us to come face to facewi th our strengths and weaknesses,destroyed our illusions and even managed in distributing the all too comforting symbol provided by the latePrime Minister. The results have inthe long run been salutory. The Chinese would never have expected theconstructive and integrative impact oftheir action on this country. Secondly,the bitter struggle for power that ended in the implementation of the "Ka-maraj Plan" crystallised forces whoseeffects are only now being realized.

The remarkable instrument of powerand discipline called the Congress HighCommand that was forged by Ma-hatma Gandhi, and which was allowedto be overshadowed by the personali ty of Jawaharlal Nehru for sometime, has again reasserted itself andis likely to hold power for a prettylong time. Thi rdl y, even the PrimeMinister's illness in Bhubaneswar andin Delhi thereafter led to a crystallisation of individuals and positions whichaccounts for the ease with which thetransition to the new collective hasbeen made possible. It is this smoothtransition, after a brief period of openconfrontation and tri al of strength,

that has given a stamp of legitimacyand competence to the institutionaldevelopment that has been describedabove.

Path Clear for the Centrists

As said in the beginning, we havearrived at a stage which may be morefruitful and exciting for the country'sdevelo pmen t There are many reasonsto support this point. For one thing,the wholly artificial left-right dichotomy in our politics will now lose muchof its force. For all practical purposes,the "Left" in the Congress wasboth an unnecessary usurpation fromthe oppositi on and an unseemly assertion against the traditional leadership of the Congress party. It nowseems that this leadership will find thecrystallisation which was not possible

under the shadow of JawaharlalNeh ru. Afte r nearly fifteen years, thetraditi ona l Congressmen wi ll againcome int o their own. It should be realised that these are powerf ul men,that the small and weak men who hadfound shelter for so long will have togo, and that a powerful and homogeneous group will emerge.

More importantand without thissuch a pragmatic group could nothave emergedis the fact that therehas taken place and has cry stll isedover the last few years an ideological

consensus in this country, a consensusthat has been ably summed up in the"Democracy and Socialism" resolutionof Congress party. Academic critics ofthe resolution have characteristicallymissed the substance in it which consists in the compromise and consensus that it represents. It is a consensus to the making of which Nehru'slife work was devoted. Significantly,the new leadership has emphasisedthis very aspect: Prime Minister Shas-tri, in his first broadcast to the Indiannation on June 11, described the taskahead as the building of a "socialistdemocracy".

Finally, and providing a frameworkto all these, is the crystal lisation ofthe party system of Ind ia. It is aparty system which is in many wayswi tho ut parallel. It can be characterised as a one party dominance systemwhich, while it is open and competitive, assigns rathe r special roles tothe opposition parties on the one handand the state and national factionswithin the ruling party on the other. 3

Again, the passing away of Nehru has

brought into bold relief the clear features of this party systemthe importance of the Congress High Com-

1205


4/6

SPECIAL NUMBER JULY 1964 THE ECONOMIC WEEKLY


5/6


mand as a collective, the complex relationsh ip between the Hi gh Command, the Parliamentary Party andregiona l Congress chiefs, and thecrucial role of the party organisationin critical decision-making, and of party

discipline in cementing differences. Atany rate, single personalities will nowplay a lesser role in the party systemthan was the case so far. And theartic ulat ion and further crystallisation of the political consensus will bebased on a more compl icated inte r-group structure than was the case sofar, and on ideas and policies whichare more the product of compromiseand bargaining and less of theoreticalor administrative rationale.

Genesis of the Consensus

Observers of India n affairs have

often crit icised the "consensal" approach to politics and have traced itto conformist trends in Indian traditi on .' What these writ ers overlook isthe vital fact that every society mustfind its way to forming a consensus,and that a modernising society has todo so even more assiduously, especially where a colonia l interlude hasshaken traditional structures andvalues wit hou t replacing them wi thanyth ing more durable. It is truethat traditions of social and ri tu alisti c conformism have left a deepmark on contemporary India, al

though contrary traditions can also betraced. It is also true that such conformist trends often militate againstcompetitive politics and inhibit organisations built around the compet itive principle. It is important to realise, however, that there is morethan meets the eye here, that the emphasis on consensus and integrationreflects an important problem of contemporary nation-building and is notjust a carry-over from the past, tha tthe democracy we study here is democracy at a particular stage of development, and that at this stage ofdevelopment the competitive component in it is not the only or even themost important component to attendto. It is imperative at this stage tomaintain order in the midst of change,to hold the temper of political struggle low, and to maintain a balancebetween competitive and consensalelements in the operation of democratic institutions,

At the same time, as seen above,the consensus that has been developing in India is not any single productof social conformism but the result of

an involved process of interactions, inwhich force of personality, organisa

tional discipline, penetration of political forms in society, pol itic al andfactional struggle, and a drive for theremoval of major sources of dissension have played the ir respectiveparts. The result is an increasingly

pragmatic orientation of politics, apolit ical culture that manages to beconsensal by being accommodative andflexible, and a complicated structureof political decision-making. It wouldbe a mistake to view the consensalforms in which Indian politics operates out of both the histo rical andthe situational contexts that I havementioned here. The best and mostrecent example is the "consensa l"form in which Shri Kamaraj announced his party's decision on the questionof the succession to Prime MinisterNehru.

My attempt in this article has beento describe more than to assess. Consequently , it perhaps leaves more ofan impression of optimism than I hadintend ed. However, this does notmean that I undervalue the tasks thatlie ahead. The tasks are many andin some ways overpowering. Theycan be divided under two broadheads. The first are the consol idat iontasks. The work of consolidati on andintegration is not yet over. The taskis to meet the impending critical problems with equanimity, to keep the

ideological temper low. and to putdown with a strong hand the forcesof disruption whenever they raisetheir ugly head. (It shou ld be remembered that the communal problem has only been partially tackledin the past and it still remains largelyunsolved. It can again be triggeredoff by either an internal or an externalevent.) This also brings out thecritical importance of our external relations. More thou ght needs to begiven to this than was done underPrime Minister Nehru.

Crucial Tasks

Secondly, there are what may becalled the developmental tasks. Havingachieved a degree of consolidation andintegration, and having brought aboutan element of consensus in the nation,the leadership should look beyond,towards the produ ctive functions ofnation -build ing. The critical areaswhich require a determined approachare the reorganisation of the administrative structure and personnel inthe coun try (the real bli nd spot inthe nation), the building up of themilitary infra-structure of Indian de

mocracy (necessarily a part of thedevelopmental effort), and the pushing

ahead with the programme of economic development thro ugh a greaterconcern for encouraging and mobilising voluntary effort and people's w i l l -ing participation, with or without thehelp of the bureaucracy. These are

tasks that may require substantial rethinking on some of our per theoriesand models. Knowin gly or unknow ingly, Prime Minister Nehru had oftenpermitted a simplistic view of things toprevail in his government. Himself ,however, he had always shown a readiness to change outdated ideas andtheories that had become dysfunctional to the tasks in hand. Preoccupiedwith his integrative role, he did nothave enough time to implement thisoutlo ok in the realm of policy. Therecan be no better memoria l to himthan a continuous search for building

further on the foundations he leftbehind and, wherever necessary, improving upon them.

Notes1 Sister Gupta has expressed the

view that Nehru provided theonly symbol of unifica tion inIndia. See his "Some aspects ofthe Problem of Nati onal Integration in Ind ia, Pakistan andCeylon", Parliamentary Studies.New Delhi, Vol 8, Nos 1 and 2.For a more naive presentation ofthe problem of disintegration, seeSelig S Harrison: "India, theMost Dangerous Decades", (Princeton: Princeton University Press,1960). Harr ison, who sub-titleshis book, "Can the Nation HoldTogether?", found a very receptive audience among Indian intellectuals.

2 For another view on the reasonsfor India's stab ility , see SisirGupta, "Indian Democracy:What gives it Stability?", The

Economic Weekly, Special Number, June 1960.

3

For a more elaborate discussionof the one party dominancesystem, see Rajni Kothari, "PartySystem", The Economic Weekly,Vol XI I I , No 22. and "Developing

Political Pattern", Seminar, NewDelhi, February 1962.

4 A large number of westernobservers take such a posi tion .See, especially. S H Rudolph,"Consensus and Conflict in IndianPolitics", World Polities, April1961. Sec also Myron weiner,"The Politics of Scarcity" (Chica-go and Lond on: The Univer sity

of Chicago Press 1962 and Bom-bay: Asia Publishing House 1962),

1207


6/6

SPECIAL NUMBER JULY 1964THE ECONOMIC WEEKLY

Documents

Meaning of Nehru