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 TechnologyThe 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’.6The
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
CultureThe 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.PoliticsNehru’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’.10But 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
PolicyHis 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.