The speech that Nehru did not make
Published by Ravikiran Rao February 24th, 2004 in GovernanceOne Kersi Shroff makes the following comment in response to this entry of mine
Just one little point to be noted….
The IITs which are government run educational institutions giving top notch education at amazingly reasonable prizes(compared to the top western universities) were entirely a Nehruvian socialist idea. So stop critcizing Nehru when you’re just a lucky product of his vision
Why should I stop criticizing Nehru because I am a product of an IIT? I am not cribbing that I got a bad deal out of Nehru’s policies. I am complaining that his policies were wrong. The vision he set out for India was not
I will create five institutes of higher learning that will be comparable to the best western universities. The smartest Indians will go there. Most of them will go abroad after they finish their education because the India of my dreams will be unable to utilise their talents.
His vision in fact was:
…the service of the millions who suffer. It means the ending of poverty and ignorance and disease and inequality of opportunity. The ambition of the greatest man of our generation has been to wipe every tear from every eye.
He was prescient in that he admitted the task was probably beyond him, but that was the task he set out to do, and if I think that he failed completely in that task, I am certainly entitled to criticize him. In fact, you should praise me for looking beyond my narrow self interest and at the larger picture. Instead all that we IITians get is harangues about how we should be grateful that Nehru’s policies worked for us. It is a thankless world we are living in.
But do you find today’s leaders as committed to democracy as Nehru was.
One small example. Here is what Dalai Lama has to say about Nehru: “I told him about the Chinese atrocities and casually mentioned that we had re-established the Tibetan government in Mussoorie. He maintained that he couldn’t recognize our government. I said okay, but asked if he could do anything to stop the atrocities. He became angry and banged his hand on the table. I think he felt that even though we’d set up our government and were fighting for our independence, at the same time we were also putting pressure on him and asking him to solve our problems.
Later, I told him about our intention to raise the Tibetan issue at the United Nations. And he said, there’s no use, America would not force China to leave Tibet. He advised very strongly that we should not raise the issue at the UN. But we decided to do so anyway, and found some sponsors. So at my next meeting with Nehru I was afraid of what was going to happen. But I found no indication of anger. I felt that this was true democracy, he accepted my decision despite disagreeing.” more here (http://www.rd-india.com/dalai.htm)
And another from Ramachandra Guha: “I admire his practice of social tolerance, his respect for diversity and for democratic procedure, his refusal to reduce India or ‘Indianness’ to a dominant religious or linguistic ethos.”
Ramnath,
I don’t think anybody criticizes Nehru for his commitment to democracy and tolerance (other than hindu fanatics). His chief failure was that he failed to create institutions and systems that would withstand even if India is ruled by thugs like Indira, Rajiv, Advani etc. Just one example: the concept of secularism as practised in India is deeply flawed. It allows prime ministers to pass law banning alimony and open temples (both acts of rajiv gandhi). We need a secular constitution similar to that of USA (strict separation of church and state). Can you imagine an american president ordering opening of a religious institution? My point is Nehru created an institution that will work only with nice guys like nehru or jefferson, whereas the need was to create a system that could withstand people like indira or rajiv or advani.
(+) The IITs have been an oasis of meritocracy in the wilderness that is the Indian educational system.
(-) Why should the Indian taxpayer subsidize the IITs, most of whose graduates leave India?
(-) We talk about welfare & subsidies: to me, the most shameful subsidy in India is that for higher education. That same money invested in primary education would yield much higher returns to the country.
- Ramnath
Nehru was both an idealist and a charismatic leader and managed to drag the nation along atleast during his life time (and a little later) on his path of Fabianism, but I think he paved the road to serfdom, much in the way that Hayek seems to have warned. Many socialists are kindly creatures who want to see society progress, and are democrats to boot, but they just don’t see that what they propose is not only unfeasible, but also a stepping stone to viler sins, such as the Emergency.
- Prashant
I don’t think spending money on primary education is going to do any good, if you have been to a non-elite Indian university you will know that most of the faculty’s time is spent on internal politics and procedural issues. If you ever have the misfortune of entering a BMC school in Mumbai, you will observe the large class size, low teacher attendance, and a strong stench coming from the toilets.
If government spends more on primary education, all you will have is more dilapidated buildings with unwashed toilets and Machiavellan machinations in staff rooms that would put coalition politics to shame.