The relevance of Jawaharlal Nehru remains undiminished today.

In fact, his ideas and

approach to political, economic and social issues are more relevant now than even in his
life-time.
It is necessary to state this basic truth and assess the continuing validity and vitality of
his approach, because some who unabashedly use his name seek to project him as a
pragmatist rather than as the firmly committed socialist that he was.
It is the fashion these days to say that socialism is a vague term, that it is a slogan, that
there is no precise definition of what it means. This is essentially the argument of the
believers in the status quo, of those who are afraid of radical change that will either hurt
their own interests or destroy their pet theories.
It is no doubt true the despite his massive personal popularity and the power at his
disposal in the government and in the party, Jawaharlal Nehru could not put into practice
many of the ideas he spelt out regarding the radical changes, social and economic, that
our society required. But this must be seen in the background of the dilemma he faced as
an honest politician committed to socialism on the one hand and to democracy on the
other. Rightly, he saw no contradiction between the two, for, who can deny that true
democracy is the only viable basis for genuine socialism and that without advance
towards the goal of socialism democracy will be bereft of meaning? Nehru would not
discard the democratic processes or bypass the democratic institutions in order to put his
ideas into practice. In our context, with a long history of feudalism, caste hierarchy,
religious divergence, multiplicity of languages and customs, in fact of stratification of
society in a variety of ways, it has not been easy to correlate tradition and change, to
work out a viable compromise between the best of cherished values and the urgency of
eliminating social and economic inequalities. Jawaharlal Nehru realised that revolution in
our situation had to be by consent and could not be by imposition. He admired the Soviet
achievements and accepted the ultimate ideals of Marxism, but he did not make a secret
of his reservations about applying the same methods in the case of our country.
In an underdeveloped nation with many layers of development within itself, both vertical
and horizontal, and with a variety of vested interests wielding tremendous influence and
extremely articulate, the difficulties involved in bringing about radical changes by
consent were obvious enough. Yet the alternatives to the democratic system are so risky
and unpredictable that he would not lightly discard his faith, even if this meant a visible,
often frustating, slowing down of the process of change.
Nehrus acceptance of political democracy was not unqualified. I am perfectly prepared
to accept political democracy, he said, only in the hope that this will lead to social
democracy. He was clear in his mind that political democracy is only the way to the
goal and is not the final objective. He saw clearly that if profound economic changes did
not take place fast enough, the political structure would be rendered unstable.

If political or social institutions stand in the way of such change, they have to be
removed.
Socialism, whose essence is the removal of poverty and establishment of equal
opportunities if not of equality in the strictest sense, has necessarily to suit the
conditions of each country, and Nehrus constant effort was to bring about changes
without destroying the fabric of Indian society, even if certain parts of that fabric were to
be replaced.
Nehru saw the socialist society as some kind of a cooperative society, in which each
individual would give of his best and would find full scope for his own development. The
very first step had to be the ending of the profit motive of the acquisitive society to which
we are accustomed. The dilemma he faced was the result of his desire to avoid a violent
upheaval that could have disastrous consequences for future generations of our people
and to take the maximum number of people along with him on the new path. This was no
easy task, for the vested interests in the acquisitive society which he wanted to end were
entrenched in the party and in the administrative apparatus which had necessarily to be
his major instruments. Also, it was these interests which were active during the freedom
struggle, and even more in the years of freedom, and they were able to create the
illusion of democratic functioning without active participation by the masses of our
population who were to gain by the changes Nehru envisaged.
Once Nehru said that two contradictory and conflicting processes could not go on side by
side. That unfortunately is what has been happening. The Directive Principles contain a
broad outline of the kind of socialist society envisaged, but the many amendments to
other chapters of the Constitution that have been necessited have brought out the
dichotomy in thinking that characterised the Constitution-making body. On another
plane, the formulation of the concept of mixed economy representated on the one
hand the half-way house Nehru thought of and on the other the ability of the vested
interests to keep two contradictory and conflicting processes going on side by side, a
situation Nehru did not desire. It is no coincidence that the mixed economy in
operation has resulted in a strengthening of the monopoly and big business houses, and
a consequent tightening of their hold on the administrative apparatus. If corruption has
increased and the public sector has not been enlarged and strengthened to the extent it
should have been, this is because of acceptance of the mixed economy as something
of a half-way house.
It must be said that Jawaharlal Nehru fully realised the difficulties inherent in seeking
radical change through democratic processes.
I think it is possible to establish socialism by democratic means provided, of course, the
full democratic process is avail able. (emphasis added)
There has been mass awakening as never before in our history, and despite massive
illiteracy our people have demonstrated their capacity to reject what is against their

interests. But the real problem is that the democratic process is not yet fully developed,
and the people have only limited choice. The limitations imposed by our circumstances,
both historical and man-made, have helped both the urban and rural vested interests to
twist the democratic process to suit their own ends which are diametrically opposed to
the interests of the masses.
In thinking of a form of socialism suited to our national needs and national genius,Nehru
envisaged a limited place for the private sector, but he was quite clear about the
framework.
In all that counts, in a material sense, nationalisation of the instruments of production
and distribution seems to be inevitable. The question is whether there can be a step-bystep approach in this matter. Our experience with the takeover of the wholesale trade in
foodgrains shows that partial measures in dealing with production and distribution of
essential commodities can defeat the very objective. The fate of the land reform
measures has shown that an administrative machinery that is not geared to the task can
work havoc. The continuing importance and influence of the big business houses must be
seem as the direct result of the failure to involve the people at the grassroots level more
and more in the processes of planning, production and distribution.
It is possible to find fault with Jawaharlal Nehru for not having made the maximum use of
his popularity to force the pace of change, but to do so is to overlook the historical forces
that had shaped him and the historical circumstances in which he had to function, apart
from his own commitment to the democratic processes as well as to the instruments at
his disposal. It is debatable how much more he could have achieved in his life-time, but it
is indisputable that he laid firm foundations for the kind of society we want to build in this
country. It is for us and for future generations to build on these foundations.
Nehru was conscious that the Indian Revolution would be long and arduous, for he said:
Leaders and individuals may come and go; they may get tired and slacken off; they may
compromise and betray; but the exploited and suffering masses must carry on the
struggle, for their drill sergeant is hunger. If the social and economic burdens of the
masses continue and are actually added to, the fight must not only continue but grow
more intense. The masses would ultimately assert themselves, and of this he had not
the least doubt. It was his hope that the political parties and the administrative
apparatus would help the masses to assert themselves and secure their rights. He was
quite clear in his mind that a leadership that failed to take the masses nearer the goal of
socialism would be thrown aside, and the mass upsurge in 1969 following the elimination
of the Syndicate from the Congress would appear to bear this out, even if only in a very
limited sense.
Nehru said: We have to plan at both ends. We have to stop the cumulative forces that
make the rich richer and we have to start the cumulative forces which enable the poor to
get over the barrier of poverty.

The planning process unfortunately has not gone on the way he had intended it to, and
this is where the two main instruments on which he had to depend come in.
Nehru wanted the services to cease to think of themselves as some select coterie apart
from the rest of the people, and he rejected people with the coat and necktie
mentality. In other words, he wanted a new type of administrator to emerge, who could
identify himself with the common people without effort and who would not become either
a tool in the hands of vested interests or a self-seeker without a conscience.
Unfortunately this kind of change has not come about; on the other hand, the expanded
administrative structure has careerists and self-seekers in many key positions. This has to
change.
As for the other instrument, the Congress, it may now be in better shape than in Nehrus
time, but what he said about Congressmen remains relevant. Congressmen should make
the organisation strong and effective. Use of money for boosting individuals in the
organisations is extremely undesirable. Bogus members should be weeded out. Those in
the organisation for whom the Congress is not an instrument for serving the country, who
serve themselves and exploit it for their own endsshould be turned out.
He wanted the party to be a mass party, constantly in touch with the people and
reflecting their aspirations, constantly struggling to end social and economic injustice.
Some changes have taken place in the party in recent times, but it is still far from being
the kind of instrument for change that Jawaharlal Nehru wanted it to be. It is to be hoped
that the new forces at work within the Congress and the mass consciousness that has
developed in the country will make it so.
Our aim and our problems were succinctly summed up when Jawaharlal Nehru said:
Socialism is the inevitable outcome of democracy. Political democracy has no meaning if
it does not embrace economic democracy. And economic democracy is nothing but
socialism. Monopoly is the enemy of socialism. To that extent it has grown during the last
few years, we have drifted away from the goal of socialism.