Defending Nehru
Published by Ravikiran Rao March 4th, 2004 in GovernanceLook people, Nehru’s claim to greatness is that he was supposedly a visionary. A visionary doesn’t mean “someone who saw visions”. If your visions are any different from hallucinations, then they must roughly correspond to what actually happens in the future. So if you think that Nehru was a visionary, then it is only right that we who live in the future that he allegedly saw should evaluate how close to reality his vision was.
Which is why I don’t care much for these defences of Nehru, defences I hear quite often.
He made a mistake in his Economic Policies, but that’s okay because those mistakes were the flavour of the times. Everyone else was making them.
I actually agree with this claim, but it undermines the claim that Nehru was a visionary. He was an ordinary man who made ordinary mistakes. Worse still, there were people who pointed out the folly of his actions and he disregarded them. There was an economist called B R Shenoy who wrote a dissent note to the
Second Five year plan (that introduced Industrial licensing). He predicted accurately what would happen as a result. But it was just a dissent note and not the majority opinion and Nehru ignored it.
Everyone else did too, but does that absolve Nehru’s mistake? We do not measure a man’s greatness by how close to the majority he was. We measure it by seeing how close to reality he was, and how much ahead of his times he was. By that measure, Nehru was a very ordinary man indeed.
As such, this defence of Nehru is harmless. It eulogises Nehru unfairly, but atleast acknowledges that he was wrong. But the real danger is that it is often used to provide a shield for the second type of defence of Nehru, which is that
Socialism was right for his time. The real mistake was committed by Indira Gandhi who failed to roll back socialism when the time for it passed.
Firstly this actually counts as an argument against introducing Socialism in the first place. Even if there are theoretical cases where Government intervention actually helps the economy, it is awfully hard to get the government to figure out the cases in which the intervention will actually help, and once it starts the government has no incentive to get out.
Secondly if you are making this defence, then you have some explaining to do. Nehru didn’t just channel public money into heavy industry. He also introduced industrial licensing which made it particularly difficult to set up industries in the same heavy industry sector. If you think that these were right things to do, please tell me how.
Nehru was a democrat. He respected freedom of speech, secularism, etc.
True enough, but if you are a visionary, you’ll have to be measured by how you ensure that freedom of speech, democracy and secularism are respected in the future when you aren’t there. Five thousand years of Indian history, indeed world history, would have told him that good governance is the exception, not the norm. Nehru seems to have studied history well enough to write two books on it, but learnt nothing from it.
I am also not going to listen to the argument that Nehru designed a good system which was corrupted by those who “ran” the system. It is equivalent to either a) not having a law against murder and being utterly shocked when murderers run loose and kill with impunity or b) having a law against murder, but having no rules of evidence, no judge, no jury, just let the police punish whom they think is guilty, and acting completely surprised when the police misuse the law to target the innocent. We need a system precisely because we cannot trust our rulers to be benevolent. If we could, then there would have been no need for a constitution and a system of checks and balances.
Nehru’s vision, probably an extended version of Gandhiji’s vision, was a free self reliant India. Sure this is a very broad version and anyone could argue that it was an eventuality. But he worked towards making this possible. So the basic premise on which your argument is based i.e. about his claim to greatness is being a visionary is incorrect!
it seems to be a pretty waste of time, intellectual energy and drive to fight against and for him. Why bother about a past man’s greatness?
There is a time and place for every ideology & policy. Archaic ideologies have to be revamped to
suit the modern mindset. To simply discredit a man or call his policies wrong at a different time and age is …… :/
Actually, Nehru was a moron (I am not competent to judge his economic policies fully, but I don’t support his socialist style of economics at the very basics) who juxtaposed his warped idea about India.
When India attained independence, Nehru thought India was a “new” civilization, which I believe forms the premise for his moronity. His “tyrst with destiny” speech might be great to hear and read, but look where it led us to!
Another point about this man is that he *refused* to heed an alternate viewpoint–this is the genesis of the infamous cotorie of sycophants who knew they could get away with anything as long as they were loyal to the Dynasty. The results have been disastrous, ever since: Kashmir, Tibet/China, and the farce called NAM.
>>To simply discredit a man or call his policies wrong at a different time and age…
At Nehru’s time, especially post WW2, the world was beginning to realize the horrors of Russians under Stalin, and Chinese under Mao. Was Nehru so blind not to realize that? Was he so dimwitted that his Socialistic Pattern of Society (whatever that means) was doomed? Or was it just that he was an incredible egomaniac?
Show me one instance where criticism of Nehru during his (and the Dynasty’s subsequent rule) time was exposed to public? HOw is it that I (and several of my contemporaries) grew up adoring Chacha Nehru only to be rudely shocked at the not-so-flattering stuff that I read later? Is this the democracy he envisioned: where criticism was not tolerated?
Is this the democracy he spawned, which allowed Indira Gandhi to impose the nefarious Emergency? Ravikiran has I think, meant the same when he said,
>>We need a system precisely because we cannot trust our rulers to be benevolent.
How is it that despite having the said checks and balances we are not truly a democracy where dissent is either clamped down, or the dissenter is labelled a “fascist” or “communalist?”
If we look at the current scenario, no objective/sane/meaningful debate seems possible. The moment a person speaks in favour of Hindus/Hinduism, he’s branded a “Sanghi;” similarly, a person speaking about genuine problems faced by Moslems is labelled a Jihadi.
I agree that Nehru was pretty committed to democracy, etc, but he enforced his version of democracy/history on the country, and devised a system which would collapse under its own weight. This is why I hold him responsible for most of the ills in INdia today.
beginning to realize the horrors of Russians under Stalin, and Chinese under Mao. -
am sure had it been the communists who had been alive today then you would have “read” somewhere differently!
Stalin propoganded growth, but am not too much interested him so wont bother about him. As far as Mao was concerned the “Horros” you were talking about are tying Zamindars to pots and shooting them! Let me see, 80% of these zamindars had been extremely cruel to their tenants. As a true example i would state where they actually tied the tenants sister or mother to the same post and force him to undress them! Such zamindars should be burnt alive!!!
Rememebr Mao is revered in china and they are pretty happy worshipping him! He never talked about how he was going to make the world happy, if chinese peasants are free he considered his job done! Again i’ll point out that am no fan of Mao either, it is only that his ideology and methods were different!
>>> and devised a system which would collapse under its own weight. This is why I hold him responsible for most of the ills in INdia today.
any system has to be fine tuned, this is no piece of machinery that you have everything set right on paper and you can go ahead and implement it, if this system is not working as well you think it should YOU and ME my friend, are partly to blame for it! Because we never changed it while we had the oppurtunity to. Looking for a scapegoat is the worst justice anyone can do to his country and to himself!!
on a parting note, it would do everyone good to read about those times from both perspectives beore arriving at a conclusion, afterall isn’t that the wisest thing to do? :)
i apologise for my typos, i simply can;t seem to get rid of them!!
i apologise for my typos, i simply can’t seem to get rid of them!!
agree with sandeep’s comments. i was under the impression (lot of people still do) that china was to blame for the disastrous war. turned out our beloved chacha was at fault…
there is a time and place for everything. gandhi was successful partly due to the WW2, partly labor party coming in, and partly his persistence. read a comment which sums up my feeling on the subject of independence http://www.scholars.nus.edu.sg/landow/post/singapore/government/leekuanyew/lky1.html
if you make a mistake, you look around and ADAPT. chacha didn’t do it, he may not have had plenty of time to observe japan, w.germany but indira had time to observe them as well as maybe s.korea and the best of them all, singapore. imho Lee Kuan Yew was the best asian visionary post WW2. the reason the dismantling of license raj will continue is that the economic advisers are getting the message across to our netas. methinks it is irrelevant who is there, as long as its not laloo, amma etc.
Chacha Nehru my arse!
Um, that’s all I have to say at the moment.
(Sorry for the outburst. As a new entrepreneur, I have to face daily the effects of the bureaucracy he bequeathed to us. I curse Nehru every day.)
India is now #2 on the corruption scale in Asia while Singapore, a country with barely 30 years of “development” to its time, flourishes.
I agree with what you say, Ravikiran, as far as these “defences” go. Especially stupid is the argument that Nehru designed a good system which was corrupted by those who “ran” the system. Pretty much in the same way vein as this present day argument of our esteemed governments - “Do not blame us for this scam because we were unaware of it when it was taking place.”
>>Stalin propoganded growth…
Hmmm…..agree, that’s what the “official” (read: party line) version says. In reality, Stalin was, like the other European powers before him, an ambitious conqueror. Stalin’s secret pact with Hitler is no secret now:-) If Hitler didn’t embark on conquering Russia, imagine what the consequences would have been. If you read the preface of Ayn Rand’s “We the Living,” she’s beautifully outlined the “progress” of communism in Russia, as well as the “amazing economic growth.” What growth could he expect when he employed demented people like Lysenko, who prostituted Science to suit the party line?
The stuff about Mao’s retribution against the zamindars sounds fine on the surface. However, if you dig deeper, it is fallacious to generalize that all zamindars were cruel. His purge of millions of his own countrymen can hardly be justified either on the grounds of “social justice” or on economic motives.
Here’s an analogy: Indira Gandhi introduced the Land Reforms/Ceiling act where she famously declared that “the tiller is the owner of the land.” Whatever her motives, this action led to awakening of the baser passions of human nature. The hitherto-poor tillers (who weren’t land owners) showed that they had no scruples because they knew the law was on their side, and that they could get away with whatever they did. What about the land owner, the original possessor of the land? He found himself on the streets.
>>Rememebr Mao is revered in china and they are pretty happy worshipping him!
They don’t dare say otherwise. I agree that there are plenty of Mao-worshippers today, but there’s certainly lot of discontentment against Communism. What about the Tianmen Square episode?
>>any system has to be fine tuned, this is no piece of machinery that you have everything set right on paper and you can go ahead and implement it
Agree fully. But if you start building your machinery with the wrong components, what are your chances that it’ll work well? When you start with an idea that was already found to be unworkable, aren’t you creating a problem where none existed?
>> this system is not working as well you think it should YOU and ME my friend, are partly to blame for it! Because we never changed it while we had the oppurtunity to….Looking for a scapegoat is the worst justice….
Agree that we are partly to blame for it, etc etc, etc, but when the whole nation trusted Nehru assuming that he was sensible to lead the country, he proved them otherwise. Does anybody remember the real reason why Nehru assented to Partition? Remember the scene in the film, “Gandhi” where Jinnah is offerred the post of PM of India and he says, “Partition or civil war?” The reason Nehru agreed to paritition is to be found here: he would’ve otherwise been deprived of the precious position of power. Isn’t that an act of betrayal? I don’t need to reiterate the bunglings of China, and Kashmir. Keeping facts that are clear, is this an act of finding a scapegoats to blame? After all, I’m merely quoting the incidents that have actually taken place.
On the question of opportunities, most people in the Nehruvian era didn’t quite have the said opportunities. Dissent was quietly stamped out, akin to the Communist style of functioning. Patel had on several occasions warned Nehru about the dangers of appeasing, in the Kashmir scenario. No, Chacha wouldn’t heed sane advice. He instead relied on his pet sycophant, Krishna Menon’s “advice.” Read Arun Shourie’s “A Secular Agenda” for a full transcript of the conversation between Nehru and Patel and Nehru and Menon.
On the economic front, what have his “Pillars of modern democracy,” the PSUs achieved so far? When a friend of a friend recently applied to a PSU for employment, he was asked one question: What is your caste? If you are an upper caste guy, you need to pay Rs.5 Lakhs, if you are from a lower caste, the fee is Rs.3 Lakhs. On the same note, I suppose you are aware of the kind of clout a person as insignificant as the leader of the “Canteen Staff” wields. With such pillars, how can the modern democracy function effectively?
This is why I said in my previous comment that he devised a system which would collapse under its own weight.
If only Sardar Patel had been Prime Minister…
>>f you read the preface of Ayn Rand’s “We the Living,…
I have but i must also add Ayn Rand had her own brand of pilosophy which to be proved had to push its opposite i.e. communism down. Not defending or anything simply stating a point!
>> In reality, Stalin was, like the other European powers before him, an ambitious conqueror..
True that’s why i said no point on us talking about people we dont really care for ;)
>>His(Mao’s) purge of millions of his own countrymen can hardly be justified either on the grounds of “social justice” or on economic motives.
Agreed, I also agree to the point that not all zamindars can be categorized as bad, many of them were victim to the new regime!!
>>>But if you start building your machinery …. … creating a problem where none existed?
Well i can only say maybe we shouldn’t use a sword for a needles job, But keep changing our tools to suit the changing world!!
And i think this is infact proved true in the sense that when BJP was not ruling, it was all swadeshi and when they finally assumed the mantle it was privatisation and foreign investment, Not that they are doing the wrong thing.
About “..pillars of democracy..”, what can i say except sadly nod, part of the blame also lies with the bribe giver. Now this is a controversial topic but perhaps another post for bribe issue would do justice!! I would like to hear Madman’s comments since he is an entrepreneur dealing with bureaucracy on a regular basis!!
>>>If only Sardar Patel. …
If only … :/ but who knows how he might have been pressurized into making wrong moves!!
Ravi I would be interested to know what it is that you would have done if by some quirk of fate you were PM of India in 1947.
I’m no socialist.
And fully agree with the opening up of our markets which is taking place today.
But here we’re only analyzing Nehru from the economic angle.
Socially he helped create the worlds largest democracy. While most of the other countries which gained independece at that time soon become accustomed to milatary coups and fake elections India has remained mostly democratic.
Nehru was also one of the fiew Asian leaders to envision a secular society. Unlike the muslims in the west or communists to our east he created a society where all religions were tolerated and given equal treatment. An achievement very few other leaders of developing countries could claim.
And finally take an overall view of things. Stop comparing India with Singapore and Hongkong compare it with our nearest neighbor Pakistan. 50 years back the 2 countries were at the same level. But Pakistan chose to avoid policies like non-alignment and sold out immediately to the west. The result: Unlike India, Pakistan has no major educational institutions of repute (eg. IIT, a Nehruvian creation.) their indegenous industries are almost non-existant and they depend massively on imports even for basic material. India on the other hand is one of the worlds leading steel producers, is self sufficiant for food (thanks to the green revolution:another socialist creation) and even after liberalization and globalization can proudly claim many of its own industries as amongst the worlds finest
(eg. ONGC shares were sold within 20 minutes. I doubt investors would be so highly interested in a ‘failing’ state run enterprise, would they?)
I agree that liberalization was needed waay earlier, maybe in the mid-60’s but in the words of Shakespeare….”The evil that men do live after them. The good is oft interred with the bones.”
So if India soon gets a permanant place in the Security counsel its chiefly Nehru’s vision to thank.
Another thing, do you think any of the present ‘developed’ nations became so by uncontrolled libralization…then I think you need to educate yourself a little about the policies of ‘protectionism’ for Godsake!!!!Look at what America is doing right now about outsourcing and SHUT UP!! about one of our countries finest leaders.
Atleast he didn’t have a constantly changing view like our present hypocrite of a Prime Minister
When we got independence popln was at 400 mn. We were reeling under partition, yrs of colonial exploitation and had no industrialisation 2 speak of. the popln was totally dependent on agriculture,life exp was at 31 yrs, inf mortality rate 130 per 1000, literacy less than 20 %, poverty i think 60 % +.what wud u hv done ravi?