Abstract
Rajurkar, in his book Nehru: Utopian or a Statesman, captures the essence and contribution of Jawaharlal Nehru as a freedom fighter and as a statesman. In his work based on primary sources and the authors personal interviews with Nehru, have further enriched this work which is about a person who captured the imagination of India, nay the world at large with his struggle, work and writings during the pre-Independence and post-Independence era, when he was anointed as the first prime minister of an independent democratic nation, India.
The book is divided into eight major chapters. In the initial two chapters, the author captures the initial years of Nehru’s life, the experiences and influences that shaped his personality and outlook. The influence of Garibaldi, Karl Marx and their works, the revolution in Russia of 1917, Fabianism were all responsible for making Nehru adopt socialistic perspectives in both the domestic and international arena. Besides these the author argues, the English education that he received early in life in England and above all his exposure to Mahatma Gandhi and his ideas/life left a permanent imprint in Nehru’s demeanour. In fact, Gandhi had a sobering influence on the youthful Jawaharlal that ultimately led to his plunging into the struggle for India’s freedom movement, led by the Mahatma.
In Chapter 3, the author deals with Gandhi and his impact on Nehru. He was greatly influenced by Gandhi and his ideas though he did not subscribe to some of the methods adopted by Gandhi, completely. It was Gandhi who inspired Nehru and a host of Indians to be fearless both physically and more so mentally. Nehru was drawn to Gandhi as he was a man of action. Nehru was attracted to the method, adoption of good means to achieve ones ends. Nehru did not allow his support to certain Gandhian methods alter his socialistic leanings, another major facet that Nehru supported was industrialisation that Gandhi opposed. Nehru was of the view that only industrialisation and use of technology and machinery could uplift the poor peasant-oriented economy of India.
Chapter 4 of the book is entitled Communism and the Communists.
Jawaharlal Nehru was greatly influenced by Marxism/Marxist tenets/Socialist Revolution in Russia and the emergence of the Soviet Union. However, the attitude of the communists to divorce themselves from the historical experiences of one’s own Nation and look to Marx and Russia as a model for a permanent solution/guidance to solve India’s problems was neither nationalistic nor advisable, felt Nehru. In fact, he reckoned it to be reactionary. Although he was initially enamoured by Marxism/communist ideology he later distanced himself from it and always regarded himself to be a democratic socialist. In this chapter the author has lucidly expounded this fact.
Towards Democratic Socialism is the title given to Chapter 5. Herein the author expounds Nehru’s attempt to establish a socialistic pattern of society and governance in India. In this direction he advocated the abolition of Zamindari, as he reckoned it to be the root cause for a majority of the Indians remaining poor and a few rich living in opulence. However, he did not rule out paying just and adequate compensation for the land taken over keeping in view the community’s interests also. Professor Rajurkar in this chapter argues that Nehru’s approach vis-à-vis socialism was pragmatic and realistic and not dogmatic and doctrinaire.
In Chapter 6, The Unity of India, Rajurkar holds that throughout his life Nehru stood for the cause of building a united India. However, the stance of the Muslim League and the mechanisation of the British government with its policy of divide and rule ultimately led the congress leadership to agree for the partition of the country, as the alternative to it, at that juncture, was strife, chaos and civil war. So Pakistan came into being. Further the constitutional provisions provided in Part III of India’s Constitution, cemented secularism and secular practices in India. On the language issue Nehru though opposed initially to the linguistic division of the states, accepted it as per the 1953 State Reorganization Commissions recommendations. Nehru advocated the three language formula, giving a place for English, as it would benefit the country in the global arena.
Nehru all through strived for unity in the country and worked towards emotional integration of the people of India, he believed in the dictum Unity in Diversity and strove hard to preserve India’s diversity.
Policies and decisions in perspective: In Chapter 7, the author deals with the issues in post-Independent India. Dealing with the 1962 debacle the author contends that Nehru followed the policy of accommodation with China and in a way neglected the issue of India’s defence, which China exploited to humiliate India. Despite the author’s contention, as the leader of the nation and the government, it was Nehru’s responsibility to uphold national security. To this end despite all the arguments presented by the author placing all the blame on the defence minister for India’s defeat at the hands of China in 1962, Nehru as the head of the government was ultimately responsible for the 1962 debacle.
The greatest contribution of Nehru was the incorporation of Part III of the Constitution of India dealing with fundamental rights for the people of India. Further, basing governance on the process of planning and the establishment of the Planning Commission has been a seminal contribution of Nehru.
On the issue of Princely States’ integration with India, both Nehru and Patel both achieved the goal of incorporation of over 500 Princely States into the Indian Union.
Policies and Decisions in Perspective II, Chapter 8: In this chapter, the author once again reiterates that Nehru was wedded to democracy and democratic principles while upholding individual freedom.
Jawaharlal Nehru was the advocate of the principles of nonalignment as the guiding light of India’s Foreign Policy. Nonalignment enabled the country to steer clear of both the United States and the former Soviet bloc; nonalignment enabled India to oppose both the countries and its allies, on important international issues. The pacifist in Nehru with the adherence to the concept of Nonalignment strove for upholding world peace. Nonalignment was a pragmatic policy as it enabled India to secure aid and assistance for its needs, from both the West and the Soviet bloc.
On the issue of continuing in the Commonwealth of Nations as an independent/sovereign state, Nehru opined that the commonwealth was beneficial for a nascent state like India to maintain friendly ties with its erstwhile links, essentially for economic/defence reasons.
As regards Kashmir dispute, the author contends that Nehru was committed to hold a plebiscite in Kashmir subject to Pakistan withdrawing from the occupied territories, the United Nations giving commitments of a genuine plebiscite and Pakistan not using religion as a mechanism to sway the Muslims of the valley on the issue of Kashmir. Pakistan refused to withdraw from the occupied area and held on steadfast to using religion as a basis for appealing to the residents of the valley and under such circumstances free and fair plebiscite was not possible and to blame Nehru on reneging on India’s commitment to the United Nations Security Council, to hold a plebiscite is flawed. It was Pakistan which was responsible and uninterested in a peaceful legal plebiscite.
Rebutting all criticism of India’s weakness and its weak response towards a belligerent China and the debacle of 1962, Professor Rajurkar once again, in this chapter, holds that to contend that Nehru’s foreign policy was naïve vis-à-vis China, is far from the reality. Notwithstanding this argument put forth by the author, one has to accept the fact that Nehru was ultimately responsible, as the head of the government for ignoring India’s border security vis-à-vis China, notwithstanding the several constraints faced by the country. National security cannot be compromised at any cost. However, one tends to agree with Professor Rajurkar that the Chinese attack on India in 1962 was a blessing in disguise, as since then India has emerged stronger both militarily and in several other sectors.
Nehru and Patel decided on initiating the police action against the Nizam of Hyderabad. It was the government’s decision and Hyderabad became part of the Indian Union in 1948.
Regarding the dissolution of the Congress Party after Independence Nehru and others opined rightly that in the interest of a strong and stable government at the centre/states, a strong and well organised and highly popular party was indispensable and the Congress Party fulfilled all these requirements.
Nehru: The Architect of Modern India
Nehru as prime minister for the first 17 years of India’s freedom played a very decisive role in building India as a democratic nation. His influence in the drafting the Constitution, the incorporation of experts in his government, and his adherence to the core of Gandhian values, notwithstanding his difference with him on economic issues, and his adherence to secularism enabled him to lay the foundation of the Indian state.
Although critics have criticised Nehru as a visionary/idealist far removed from reality, the fact is Nehru was a towering personality and on balance his achievements are far greater than his short-comings.
Nehru was a builder of institutions that the country needed. The River Valley projects, Steel Plants, Scientific Labs, Technical Institutes (IITs), Cultural Centres and several such important schemes were developed during his stint as the prime minister of the country, when one takes into account all these facts one cannot but agree as stated by Professor Rajurkar in closing that Nehru was indeed ‘the architect of Modern India’.
This work of Professor Rajurkar, documents the entire phase of Nehru’s career as a freedom fighter and statesman, a very well-written book based on essentially primary sources and his personal contacts with India’s first prime minister, is a major contribution to the country. It is a treasure house of facts that many of us are not aware of and this work is a must for every scholar/teacher/politician and above all every citizen of this great country. Professor Rajurkar’s long association with teaching, especially the course on the Indian national movement has enabled him to deal with the issues of both the pre-Independence and post-Independence Nehruvian phase in a realistic, authentic and a scholarly manner. This work is of particular significance, as the year 2014, is the 50th anniversary of Nehru’s departure from this world, his people and the country that he loved the most.