The enduring relevance of Nehru ’s legacy
1
F our men embodied the vision of free India in the 1940s — Gandhi, Nehru, Patel and Ambedkar. Gandhi’s moral recti- tude, allied to Jawaharlal Nehru’s political passion, fashioned both the strategy and tactics for the struggle against British rule. Sar- dar Patel’s firm hand on the admi- nistration integrated the nation and established peace and stabili- ty. Ambedkar’s erudition and legal acumen helped translate the dreams of a generation into a working legal document that laid the foundations for an enduring democracy. Setting the way While the world was disintegrating into fascism, violence, and war, Gandhi taught the virtues of truth, non-violence, and peace. While the nation reeled from bloodshed and communal carnage, Ambed- kar preached the values of consti- tutionalism and the rule of law. While parochial ambitions threa- tened national unity, Patel led the nation to a vision of unity and common purpose. While mobs marched the streets baying for re- venge, Nehru’s humane and non- sectarian vision inspired India to yearn again for the glory that had once been hers. Of the four, Gandhi and Nehru stood out. Despite differences over both tactics (Nehru wanted Inde- pendence immediately whereas Gandhi believed Indians had to be made ready for their own free- dom) and philosophy (the agnostic Nehru had little patience for the Mahatma’s spirituality), the two men proved a formidable combi- nation. Gandhi guided Nehru to his political pinnacle; Nehru in turn proved an inspirational cam- paigner as President of the Indian National Congress, electrifying the nation with his speeches and tire- less travel. Keeper of the ame Upon the Mahatma’s assassination in 1948, just five months after In- dependence, Nehru, the country’s first Prime Minister, became the keeper of the national ame, the most visible embodiment of In- dia’s struggle for freedom. Gand- hi’s death could have led Nehru to assume untrammelled power. In- stead, he spent a lifetime im- mersed in the democratic values Ambedkar had codified, trying to instill the habits of democracy in his people — a disdain for dicta- tors, a respect for parliamentary procedures, an abiding faith in the constitutional system. Till the end of the decade, his staunch ally Pa- tel provided the firm hand on the tiller without which India might yet have split asunder. For the first 17 years of India’s Independence, the paradox-rid- den Nehru — a moody, idealist in- tellectual who felt an almost mysti- cal empathy with the toiling peasant masses; an aristocrat, ac- customed to privilege, who had passionate socialist convictions; an Anglicized product of Harrow and Cambridge who spent over 10 years in British jails; an agnostic radical who became an unlikely protégé of the saintly Mahatma Gandhi — was India. Incorruptible, visionary, ecumenical, a politician above politics, Nehru’s stature was so great that the country he led seemed inconceivable without him. A year before his death a leading American journalist, Welles Hangen, published a book entitled After Nehru, Who? the un- spoken question around the world was: “after Nehru, what?” Today, looking back on his 132nd birthday and nearly six de- cades after his death, we have so- mething of an answer to the latter question. As an India still seeming- ly clad in many of the trappings of Nehruvianism steps out into the 21st century, a good deal of Jawa- harlal Nehru’s legacy appears in- tact — and yet hotly contested. In- dia has moved away from much of Nehru’s beliefs, and so (in diffe- rent ways) has the rest of the deve- loping world for which Nehruvian- ism once spoke. As India nears its 75th anniversary of Independence from the British Raj, a transforma- tion — still incomplete — has taken place that, in its essentials, has changed the basic Nehruvian as- sumptions of postcolonial nation- hood. Nehru himself, as a man with an open and questing mind, would have allowed his practical thinking to evolve with the times, even while remaining anchored to his core beliefs. The pillars of his imprint In my 2003 biography, Nehru: The Invention of India, I sought to exa- mine this great figure of 20th-cen- tury nationalism from the vantage point of the beginning of the 21st. Jawaharlal Nehru’s life is a fasci- nating story in its own right, and I tried to tell it whole, because the privileged child, the unremarka- ble youth, the posturing young na- tionalist, and the heroic fighter for independence are all inextricable from the unchallengeable Prime Minister and peerless global sta- tesman. At the same time, I sought to analyse critically the four prin- cipal pillars of Nehru’s legacy to India — democratic institution- building, staunch pan-Indian secu- larism, socialist economics at home, and a foreign policy of non- alignment — all of which were inte- gral to a vision of Indianness that is fundamentally challenged today. Of these, it is the edifice of de- mocracy that Nehru constructed that remains the most indispensa- ble pillar of his contributions to India. It was by no means axiomatic that a country like India, riven by so many internal differences and diversities, beset by acute poverty and torn apart by Partition, would be or remain democratic. Many developing countries found them- selves turning in the opposite di- rection soon after Independence, arguing that a firm hand was ne- cessary to promote national unity and guide development. With Gandhi’s death, Nehru could have very well assumed unlimited pow- er within the county. And yet, he himself was such a convinced de- mocrat, profoundly wary of the risks of autocracy, that, at the crest of his rise, he authored an anony- mous article warning Indians of the dangers of giving dictatorial temptations to Jawaharlal Nehru. “He must be checked,” he wrote of himself. “We want no Caesars.” And indeed, his practice when challenged within his own party was to offer his resignation; he usually got his way, but it was hardly the instinct of a Caesar. A deference to the system As Prime Minister, Nehru carefully nurtured the country’s infant de- mocratic institutions. He paid de- ference to the country’s ceremo- nial presidency and even to its largely otiose vice-presidency; he never let the public forget that these notables outranked him in protocol terms. He wrote regular letters to the Chief Ministers of the States, explaining his policies and seeking their feedback. He subject- ed himself and his government to cross-examination in Parliament by the small, fractious but un- doubtedly talented Opposition, al- lowing them an importance out of all proportion to their numerical strength, because he was con- vinced that a strong Opposition was essential for a healthy democ- racy. He took care not to interfere with the judicial system; on the one occasion that he publicly crit- icised a judge, he apologised the next day and wrote an abject letter to the Chief Justice, regretting hav- ing slighted the judiciary. And he never forgot that he derived his authority from the people of India; not only was he astonishingly ac- cessible for a person in his posi- tion, but he started the practice of offering a daily darshan at home for an hour each morning to anyone coming in off the street without an appointment, a prac- tice that continued until the dic- tates of security finally overcame the populism of his successors. It was Nehru who, by his scrup- ulous regard for both the form and the substance of democracy, in- stilled democratic habits in our country. His respect for Parlia- ment, his regard for the indepen- dence of the judiciary, his courte- sy to those of different political convictions, his commitment to free elections, and his deference to institutions over individuals, all left us a precious legacy of free- dom. The American editor, Norman Cousins, once asked Nehru what he hoped his legacy to India would be. “Four hundred million people capable of governing themselves,” Nehru replied. The numbers have grown, but the very fact that each day over a billion Indians govern themselves in a pluralist democra- cy is testimony to the deeds and words of the man whose birthday we commemorate tomorrow. Shashi Tharoor is a third-term Member of Parliament (Congress Party) representing Thiruvananthapuram and an award-winning author of 22 books, including most recently, ‘The Battle of Belonging’ The enduring relevance of Nehru’s legacy That each day, Indians govern themselves in a pluralist democracy is testimony to his deeds and words Shashi Tharoor THE HINDU PHOTO ARCHIVES
Transcript of The enduring relevance of Nehru ’s legacy
Four men embodied the visionof free India in the 1940s —Gandhi, Nehru, Patel and
Ambedkar. Gandhi’s moral recti-tude, allied to Jawaharlal Nehru’spolitical passion, fashioned boththe strategy and tactics for thestruggle against British rule. Sar-dar Patel’s fi�rm hand on the admi-nistration integrated the nationand established peace and stabili-ty. Ambedkar’s erudition and legalacumen helped translate thedreams of a generation into aworking legal document that laidthe foundations for an enduringdemocracy.
Setting the wayWhile the world was disintegratinginto fascism, violence, and war,Gandhi taught the virtues of truth,non-violence, and peace. Whilethe nation reeled from bloodshedand communal carnage, Ambed-kar preached the values of consti-tutionalism and the rule of law.While parochial ambitions threa-tened national unity, Patel led thenation to a vision of unity andcommon purpose. While mobsmarched the streets baying for re-venge, Nehru’s humane and non-sectarian vision inspired India toyearn again for the glory that hadonce been hers.
Of the four, Gandhi and Nehrustood out. Despite diff�erences overboth tactics (Nehru wanted Inde-pendence immediately whereasGandhi believed Indians had to bemade ready for their own free-dom) and philosophy (the agnosticNehru had little patience for theMahatma’s spirituality), the twomen proved a formidable combi-nation. Gandhi guided Nehru tohis political pinnacle; Nehru in
turn proved an inspirational cam-paigner as President of the IndianNational Congress, electrifying thenation with his speeches and tire-less travel.
Keeper of the fl�ameUpon the Mahatma’s assassinationin 1948, just fi�ve months after In-dependence, Nehru, the country’sfi�rst Prime Minister, became thekeeper of the national fl�ame, themost visible embodiment of In-dia’s struggle for freedom. Gand-hi’s death could have led Nehru toassume untrammelled power. In-stead, he spent a lifetime im-mersed in the democratic valuesAmbedkar had codifi�ed, trying toinstill the habits of democracy inhis people — a disdain for dicta-tors, a respect for parliamentaryprocedures, an abiding faith in theconstitutional system. Till the endof the decade, his staunch ally Pa-tel provided the fi�rm hand on thetiller without which India mightyet have split asunder.
For the fi�rst 17 years of India’sIndependence, the paradox-rid-den Nehru — a moody, idealist in-tellectual who felt an almost mysti-cal empathy with the toilingpeasant masses; an aristocrat, ac-customed to privilege, who hadpassionate socialist convictions;an Anglicized product of Harrowand Cambridge who spent over 10years in British jails; an agnosticradical who became an unlikelyprotégé of the saintly MahatmaGandhi — was India. Incorruptible,visionary, ecumenical, a politicianabove politics, Nehru’s stature wasso great that the country he ledseemed inconceivable withouthim. A year before his death aleading American journalist,Welles Hangen, published a bookentitled After Nehru, Who? the un-spoken question around the worldwas: “after Nehru, what?”
Today, looking back on his132nd birthday and nearly six de-cades after his death, we have so-mething of an answer to the latterquestion. As an India still seeming-
ly clad in many of the trappings ofNehruvianism steps out into the21st century, a good deal of Jawa-harlal Nehru’s legacy appears in-tact — and yet hotly contested. In-dia has moved away from much ofNehru’s beliefs, and so (in diff�e-rent ways) has the rest of the deve-loping world for which Nehruvian-ism once spoke. As India nears its75th anniversary of Independencefrom the British Raj, a transforma-tion — still incomplete — has takenplace that, in its essentials, haschanged the basic Nehruvian as-sumptions of postcolonial nation-hood. Nehru himself, as a manwith an open and questing mind,would have allowed his practicalthinking to evolve with the times,even while remaining anchored tohis core beliefs.
The pillars of his imprintIn my 2003 biography, Nehru: TheInvention of India, I sought to exa-mine this great fi�gure of 20th-cen-tury nationalism from the vantagepoint of the beginning of the 21st.Jawaharlal Nehru’s life is a fasci-nating story in its own right, and Itried to tell it whole, because theprivileged child, the unremarka-ble youth, the posturing young na-tionalist, and the heroic fi�ghter forindependence are all inextricablefrom the unchallengeable PrimeMinister and peerless global sta-tesman. At the same time, I soughtto analyse critically the four prin-cipal pillars of Nehru’s legacy toIndia — democratic institution-
building, staunch pan-Indian secu-larism, socialist economics athome, and a foreign policy of non-alignment — all of which were inte-gral to a vision of Indianness that isfundamentally challenged today.
Of these, it is the edifi�ce of de-mocracy that Nehru constructedthat remains the most indispensa-ble pillar of his contributions toIndia.
It was by no means axiomaticthat a country like India, riven byso many internal diff�erences anddiversities, beset by acute povertyand torn apart by Partition, wouldbe or remain democratic. Manydeveloping countries found them-selves turning in the opposite di-rection soon after Independence,arguing that a fi�rm hand was ne-cessary to promote national unityand guide development. WithGandhi’s death, Nehru could havevery well assumed unlimited pow-er within the county. And yet, hehimself was such a convinced de-mocrat, profoundly wary of therisks of autocracy, that, at the crestof his rise, he authored an anony-mous article warning Indians ofthe dangers of giving dictatorialtemptations to Jawaharlal Nehru.“He must be checked,” he wrote ofhimself. “We want no Caesars.”And indeed, his practice whenchallenged within his own partywas to off�er his resignation; heusually got his way, but it washardly the instinct of a Caesar.
A deference to the systemAs Prime Minister, Nehru carefullynurtured the country’s infant de-mocratic institutions. He paid de-ference to the country’s ceremo-nial presidency and even to itslargely otiose vice-presidency; henever let the public forget thatthese notables outranked him inprotocol terms. He wrote regularletters to the Chief Ministers of theStates, explaining his policies andseeking their feedback. He subject-ed himself and his government tocross-examination in Parliamentby the small, fractious but un-
doubtedly talented Opposition, al-lowing them an importance out ofall proportion to their numericalstrength, because he was con-vinced that a strong Oppositionwas essential for a healthy democ-racy. He took care not to interferewith the judicial system; on theone occasion that he publicly crit-icised a judge, he apologised thenext day and wrote an abject letterto the Chief Justice, regretting hav-ing slighted the judiciary. And henever forgot that he derived hisauthority from the people of India;not only was he astonishingly ac-cessible for a person in his posi-tion, but he started the practice ofoff�ering a daily darshan at homefor an hour each morning toanyone coming in off� the streetwithout an appointment, a prac-tice that continued until the dic-tates of security fi�nally overcamethe populism of his successors.
It was Nehru who, by his scrup-ulous regard for both the form andthe substance of democracy, in-stilled democratic habits in ourcountry. His respect for Parlia-ment, his regard for the indepen-dence of the judiciary, his courte-sy to those of diff�erent politicalconvictions, his commitment tofree elections, and his deferenceto institutions over individuals, allleft us a precious legacy of free-dom.
The American editor, NormanCousins, once asked Nehru whathe hoped his legacy to India wouldbe. “Four hundred million peoplecapable of governing themselves,”Nehru replied. The numbers havegrown, but the very fact that eachday over a billion Indians governthemselves in a pluralist democra-cy is testimony to the deeds andwords of the man whose birthdaywe commemorate tomorrow.
Shashi Tharoor is a third-term Member ofParliament (Congress Party) representingThiruvananthapuram and anaward-winning author of 22 books,including most recently, ‘The Battle ofBelonging’
The enduring relevance of Nehru’s legacyThat each day, Indians govern themselves in a pluralist democracy is testimony to his deeds and words
Shashi Tharoor
THE
HIND
U PH
OTO
ARCH
IVES
