13

Nehru: Ideas of Development

Himanshu Roy

Nehru’s ideas of development are part of his efforts to modernize the Indian society. Generally, modernity is understood as a social process of change, beginning with renaissance, which incorporates new technology, creates balanced social relations and introduces rationality of thought. Over the centuries, it has become a metaphor of social progress associated with the rise of liberalism and capitalism. The process of change, however, is witnessed in every age and is a constant act that actuates either subterraneously or in bold reliefs. Contrary to the popular perception, it is not a one-time occasional phenomenon, event, occurrence or process, but an ad continuum, a transformation that is taking place continuously in every large society including the pre-renaissance social formations. Thus, modernity is a combination of (a) deliberate overt and covert policies designed for social change and (b) a passive, subterranean or collateral effect that emerges as a result of intended and unintended social acts over decades and centuries. It is a combination of individual and collective efforts in different forms.

Nehru’s modernity was a conscious design for rapid technological and relational (institutional as well as social) change mediated through dynamic policy formulation and their application through state interventions and mass participation. It was intended to shatter or transcend the feudal structures and their related associations, both ideational and actual, and to substitute them with a holistic democratic structure, both societal and governmental. This democratic social structure in India was ideally to be a classless society of the future, ‘the final goal … might well be communism’.¹ However, in the historical context situated in post-colonial economy, this structure was to be a transitional liberal-democratic society, an euphemism for bourgeois-democracy uninhibited by the pre-capitalist primordialities, designed to propel rapid social mobility for better material existence and equitable citizenship. It was to be a society governed through active participation of citizens imbued with knowledge imparted through command guidance; and for it, there was to be ‘a raging campaign to secure popular support and participation … (through) a more effective machinery and a more far-reaching outlook’.²

Economy and Technology

The dynamics of this development, assisted by the intervention of state, was premised on the rapid development of the bourgeois economy. This economy was being expanded into rural hinterland through land reforms, agricultural cooperatives, bank loans, subsidies, cottage industries, etc. Nehru had argued that ‘scientific as well as mechanized agriculture (has) to be promoted and attention given to providing better ploughs, seeds and manure … (also) to extending credit and market facilities …. Intensive cultivation to enable not only self-sufficiency but a surplus was crucial if India were to progress’.³ In urban areas, it was primarily through the production process of state-owned capital, euphemistically called the public sector which reserved the right to start new industries ‘in coal, iron and steel, aircraft manufacturing, shipbuilding, telephone and telegraph, materials and minerals, and in munitions, atomic energy and railways’.⁴ The focus was on growth which essentially meant enhanced production (which itself was the result of improved techniques based on scientific advancement), industrialization, capital formation and expanded reproduction of bourgeois social formation that negated pre-capitalist relations. For all this, ‘the state (was to) control the principal means of production and strategic points of the economy’.⁵ The modernization drive hinged on planned development which intended to (i) pre-determine the objectives of different projects proposed for initiation, (ii) regulate the market, (iii) check the crisis of unbridled production leading to glut, (iv) generate resources to fund projects and (v) to industrialize all the regions to create a uniform capital-labour relations and market economy. It initiated scientific management to enhance its profit through constant introduction of new technology in every sphere and to improve productivity and the quality of products. The idea was that scientific management would ensure non-conflicting capital-labour relations. Nehru reiterated this, time and again, in his speeches: ‘the approach had to be clearly defined and production formulated and controlled in the right direction and at the right pace … Merely to make a list of schemes and up the cost without formulating basic policies was not planning … The purpose of planning was controlled growth, balance in agriculture and industry, and between production, consumption and purchasing power, all maintained in equilibrium on an ever-rising spiral’.⁶

The Nehruvian state, under the rubric of planned development and nation building, created new markets (which subterraneously undermined the semi-feudal relations), and through it speeded up the transformation of the isolated diversities of the village autarkies into a unifying commonality of a homogeneous society. The market, through the standardized attributes of the production process and the general features of the economy, generated similar social requirements and created a kind of interdependence among people across diverse regions, facilitating integration and universalism. In fact, it was the socialized functioning of the new production process that acted as the fulcrum of national unity. Simultaneously, the protected market, under the rubric of a socialistic pattern of society, provided opportunities to business for capital formation, uprooted the peasants and created a new unequal society. It expanded the monetization of social relations, standardized functioning of the service providers and discarded the carefree approach of the past. It facilitated the transformation of time into money and polity into a corporate organization; at least, the signs had begun to appear in elementary form.

Thus the bourgeois economy presided over by Nehru was deepened and expanded during his tenure, benefitting, primarily, the business environment. It was the driving force of his modernization initiative that put an end to the semi-feudal past and expanded the colonial foundation of a new divisive social structure. It expedited the formation of new monetized social relations and positioned the ruling class in the international business arena between the two power blocs, without allying with either, to seek economic benefits from both in the emergent historical context. His was the era of expansion of industrial-infrastructural base in the early decades of the postcolonial economy which had nothing socialistic about it expect for the rhetoric. He had once remarked, ‘I don’t myself see where socialism comes in the present policies that we are pursuing. It is true that we have some major industries in the public sector. That is hardly socialism’.⁷

Culture

The ideological representation of this economy, in its best crystallized form, was reflected in the formation and functioning of different institutions which were partly indigenous but substantively western in content and form. These were academic, political and cultural in nature which perpetuated bourgeois social relations in the public sphere and created a replica of themselves in new areas. These institutions were part of the state as they were funded, promoted or recognized by the state which, in turn, was itself the apex juridical representative of the new dominant Indian bourgeoisie that emerged triumphant over the zamindars and princes representing the legacy of the feudal relations of the colonial era.

The Nehruvian state did not leave the job of expansion of the new bourgeois relations to the market alone because ‘mere economic development, however essential, was not sufficient. There was a need too for modernization of society if India were to be a civilized nation’.⁸ The state, therefore, vigorously pursued the expansion of its ideological apparatus as the new symbol of progress to be emulated by all. Through its various mediums and justificatory kernel, it influenced the thought process of the citizens to make them regard bourgeois social relations as avant-garde, desirable and fashionable. The objective was to transform the ideas of these specific social relations as the dominant ideas of society. In fact, more pertinently, the intention was to mould the mind of the citizens, preferably from childhood, to avoid the application of a coercive state apparatus. It was in the ‘impersonal context of binding the masses to the government’. The grooming was patronized in the public domain through interpretation of history or through critical appreciation of the functioning of polity, promotion of visual and performing arts or of popular culture, formulation of curriculum, loyalty to nation (and through it to the ruling class) and its symbols, etc. The citizens were encouraged, in their personal spaces, to promote the niceties of liberalism, respect for their laws, avoidance of politics, etc. Through the combination of the two—public and personal—domains the critical faculties of the citizens were guided to limit themselves, at best, to reforms within the existing polity. The citizens were conveyed in the public sphere, through logic and facts, about the occurring radical transformation in the society manifesting in the emergence of public sectors, abolition of estates and principalities, beginning of land reforms, creation of linguistic provinces and panchayati raj, etc. It was argued that these economic-infrastructural— administrative developments were socialistic and in the interest of the democracy. The intent of this rhetoric, however, was to subtly confuse or resist the existence or progression of revolutionary ideas and the actual overthrow of the existing system. It was to sanitize the revolutionary contents of the ideas and to posit them for public discourse bereft of their context. The ideas were, however, thus ultimately transformed into semantics.

Thus the Nehruvian cultural modernity represented itself as a paradigm shift from the past in terms of its critique of colonial and feudal narrowness and its progression to contemporary universalism. Its social matrix contained, as per its representation, opportunities for all in their social mobility through growth and elimination of cultural discrimination. It represented juridical equality. In essence, it was the expression of interests of the expanding new bourgeois social formation which was striving for its predominance against the existing culture. In the personal domain, however, Nehru retained, to the end, his wide range of sympathy and interest, his sensibility and his dislike of vulgarity in all its forms and saw no reason why all Indians should not, like him, posses energy, gaiety and imaginative curiosity. He sought to enlarge their values till they matched his vision and conceptions.⁹ The strength of his policy lay in being new and different to its immediate regressive colonial and feudal contest.

Politics

Nehru’s political modernity envisaged the negation of the existing primordial political structures, their transformation into contemporary relevance and creation of new institutions if required. It was an endeavour to democratize the urban and rural political structures, to reform the administration and its functioning to discard the colonial/feudal residues of being subjects and rulers, to create modern citizenry, and to institutionalize equitable governance, transparency and accountability. His goal was diminution of bureaucratic control, open discussion and consultation in policy formulation, freedom of expression and criticism, and creation of new methods of representative governance which he equated with self/collective governance. Moreover, he encouraged new ideas, constructive criticisms and tolerated political dissent. He strove ‘to strengthen libertarian traditions’ and provided ‘importance to the institutional aspects of the democratic system’ which was reflected in his insistence that ‘all important matters should at some stage be brought up in cabinet (and) the procedures of collective policy making be established’.¹⁰

But Nehru was not open to the idea of formal power-sharing where powers of his office were to be collective and he was to be only the first among equals. His opposition to it was premised on the logic that ‘by virtue of his office (he) was more responsible than anyone else for the general trends of policy and it was his prerogative to act as coordinator and supervisor with a certain liberty of direction. This meant that, if necessary, he should intervene in the functioning of every ministry though this should be done with tact and with knowledge of the minister concerned. It would be impossible for him to serve as prime minister if this overriding authority were challenged, or if any minister took important decision without reference to the prime minister or the cabinet’.¹¹ His tussle with Patel or his stance on a strong centre vis-à-vis states in the federal structure reflected his political stand. Patel’s interpretation of the prime minister’s role, for example, was very different from that of Nehru. Patel argued that once the cabinet adopted a decision, ‘it was for each ministry to implement the decisions of the cabinet; and the prime minister’s responsibility was merely to see that there was no conflict between ministries’.¹² The ministry was responsible to the cabinet in the collective system of the governance and the prime minister was the coordinator. It was the cabinet that was supreme and was to guide the ministries. The interference of the prime minister in the functioning of the ministry, therefore, was unjustified.

Nehru’s stand for a strong centre (his rejection of the Cabinet Mission Plan which was highly federal), his dismissal of the Communist Party-led government in Kerala, the repression of the Telangana movement led by the Communist Party of India (CPI), opposition to the linguistic provinces (which were equated with parochialism and rejected twice by him), etc. demonstrates his attitude to ‘supervise every branch of policy’. His long story at the helm provided continuance of his ideas and their application.

His paradigm of political development was critical of the colonial past in which citizenship was limited, secularism distorted and the role of the state in economic development minimal. He transcended these barriers through the medium of the Constituent Assembly and state intervention, and was instrumental in facilitating the expansion of democracy (which had a narrow base of only 27 per cent of the population with voting rights in 1946) and of citizenship for every Indian. The chapter on fundamental rights, both of political and economic nature, was largely formulated/guided by him (in consultation with Patel). It bestowed liberal democratic rights of citizenship to Indians. It was a combination of individual and community rights which determined the nature of relationships between citizens, and between the elite and the masses. However, despite shattering many colonial distortions of citizenship, the classical liberal revolutionary rights prevalent in Europe, like the uniform civil code which was much appreciated by Nehru, could not be transplanted in India; something Nehru was to regret later.¹³ Nehru’s efforts to secularize Indian minds are unquestionable and were primarily based on the formulation and application of secular laws, confinement of religious beliefs to the personal domain and the state’s neutrality towards religion by not being theocratic and by being equal to all the religions. He always remained sensitive ‘to the needs and complaints of the minority communities’ so that ‘they should have no sense of grievance’. He, therefore, encouraged chief ministers and his cabinet colleagues to provide them more representation in jobs to inculcate a sense of partnership in them.

He strove to keep the public sphere bereft of any display of religiosity or any primordiality. Democracy to him was ‘something deeper than voting, elections or a political form of government: in the ultimate analysis, it (was) a manner of thinking, a manner of action, a manner of behaviour to your neighbour and to your adversary and opponent’.¹⁴ He, therefore, endeavoured to free the citizens’ minds, even in their private domains, from any regressive ideas inherited from the feudal-colonial past. In brief, he desired to create a realm of avant-garde ideas, even if it came from a labourer, to formulate policies for their development.

Nehru never appreciated primordial (caste, language, religion) parameters of protective discrimination which, to him, were archaic in content and form that preserved the old world. Their role in facilitating social uplift was minimal and, therefore, his unwillingness to extend these parameters to other sections of society for their development, beyond the measures applicable for the scheduled castes and tribes, was palpable in his ruling years. Even the reservation for the scheduled castes and tribes was conceded as a one-time historic measure for a primal social category which under capitalism and democracy was becoming redundant. The better measure, to him, was to create conditions for individual mobility for all through new job opportunities, compulsory school education, expansive health services, and removal of discriminatory laws and social practices. The intent, in a nutshell, was to provide a condition to every citizen for their positional shift according to their abilities. In essence, it was a social democratic parameter that was holistic rather than segmentary.

Foreign Policy

His foreign policy, similarly, was to break away from the past given the historical context. A manifestation of the collective interests of the dominant class was reflected in the resolution passed by the Constituent Assembly, in the wake of the legacy of the freedom struggle, for a ‘free and sovereign’ republic. It meant, derivatively, to maintain independent relations with the two global power blocs who had their protected market and multifarious internal economic linkages. It reflected, simultaneously, the determination and capability to decide their own interests demonstrating the popular support base and using and benefiting from the inner contradictions of the two power blocs. The intention behind remaining non-aligned was to appropriate the maximum economic benefits on a long-term basis from both the blocs with minimum conditions laid down or to secure the time for it through negotiations from a vantage point without being bound by any conditions in a hurry. Indian business had the breathing space and time to expand its market at home, which it preferred, rather than to accept the strings of conditionalities from either of the blocs for a quick inflow of capital in the domestic market, risking political stability at home.

It was such enlightened self-interest that had prompted Nehru to turn down the proposal of Attlee for allegiance to the British crown and had suggested in return for a ‘Common Commonwealth Citizenship’. The argument was that ‘the commonwealth countries would not be treated as foreign states or their citizens as foreigners; and in any new commercial treaties it would be made clear that for the purpose of the most favoured nation clause the Commonwealth countries were in a special position and not regarded as foreigner states’. Similarly, when the Soviet Union was willing to help India with regard to Kashmir and Hyderabad, Nehru did not seek their help. India, however, was definitely willing to seek help from both the blocs for her economic development, preferably with no or least conditions, and not antagonizing them to adopt an anti-India stance.

Thus the foreign policy, in the making of which Nehru played a prominent role, was an outward reflection of the inner strength of the dominant class and of its determined pursuit to maintain political freedom. It succeeded substantively in its path, compelling the power blocs to modify their policies to expand their arena of interests.

To summarize, Nehru’s modernity was the reflection of the collective interests envisaged and endeavoured by the triumphant bourgeoisie in the wake of the freedom struggle which underwent partial modification with the change in the circumstances after the transfer of power. In the making of it, Nehru’s influence was substantive; therefore, he could not transcend or break away from the bourgeois political economy. In fact, as an individual in history who was at the helm of the liberal democratic state for so long, his role cannot be, primarily, more than taking care of the collective interests of the class which dominated the governance in the exploitative property regime and expanded it further. Yet he created an autonomous political space for himself through which he posited new ideas for societal consideration and attempted to minimize the social pain of a transitional society. He facilitated the expansion of democracy and its liberalization, and sensitized the ideological state apparatus towards scientificism and folk culture. His role in expanding the secular public sphere was creditable. A cultured gentleman, he was a classical liberal democrat who implemented new ideas but was flexible to compromise if the circumstances compelled him.