• Saurabh Tyagi

The dawn of Indian independence is often referred to as the ‘Nehru era’. The primary reason for this is Nehru’s ability to interpret Gandhi’s ideals through his vision, elevating them to new heights. As a result, the citizens witnessed the foundation of an advanced, sophisticated system taking shape before their eyes, and the entire nation envisioned a prosperous future driven by order and progress. Each individual had a clear mental picture of India’s future. Trust in their leader, who was tirelessly working to bring this vision to life, was profound and unwavering.

Dada Dharmadhikari once remarked that there is a distinction between a disciple, a follower, and a successor. A successor does not merely tread the well-worn path, but comprehends the direction and forges new ways forward. Nehru openly embraced the responsibility of leading the newly independent nation and handled it with great vigilance. Gandhi was deeply impressed by Nehru’s frankness, organizational ability, and the profound impact he had on the Indian psyche.

The India, Nehru laid the foundations for, was undoubtedly a manifestation of Gandhi’s dream. Gandhi’s vision of Swaraj was one where the king and the farmer, the wealthy landlord and the landless laborer, Hindus, Muslims, Sikhs, Christians, Jains, and Parsis would all have equal standing. There would be no place for caste, creed, religion, or class discrimination. In essence, Nehru never distanced himself from Gandhian values, whether it was the issue of civil liberty, communal harmony, equality among humans, or the pursuit of international peace and goodwill. There was little difference between the thoughts of Gandhi and Nehru.

On the eve of independence, on August 14, 1947, Nehru addressed the Constituent Assembly and stated, “At the stroke of the midnight hour, when the world sleeps, India will awake to life and freedom.” Such moments come but rarely in history, when a nation embarks on a path of newness with skill and competence when an era ends, and when the suppressed soul of a nation finally finds expression. On this auspicious occasion, Nehru deemed it fitting to pledge service to India, the Indian people, and, more broadly, to humanity as a whole.

He had remarked on another occasion that long ago, they had taken a pledge and dreamed a dream. Now that the dream of independence had come true, the work was far from complete. Until the hungry, impoverished masses of the nation had their basic needs met, they must continue striving for true freedom.

In his message on August 15, 1948, Nehru stated that freedom does not merely result from a political decision, the drafting of a new Constitution, or the formulation of economic policies. Freedom is of the heart and mind. If narrow-mindedness clouds our thoughts, if bitterness and hatred fill our hearts, it signifies that we are not truly free yet.

To Nehru, serving India meant serving millions of suffering people, eradicating poverty, ignorance, disease, and inequality of opportunity. His ambition was for the able and privileged to rise and wipe away the tears of all. While he acknowledged that this might not be fully achievable, he asserted that their work would not be complete until suffering and tears were vanquished. On August 15, 1949, during his address to the public from the Red Fort on the second Independence Day, Nehru emphasized that the work of a nation is never finished. While individuals come and go, and generations pass, the life of a nation continues. He affirmed that the people have the right to change laws and, if necessary, can peacefully change governments through democratic means. However, those who believe in violence do not believe in democracy.

On January 26, 1950, he declared in his address to the nation that though one journey had ended, another—perhaps even more important—had begun. He asserted that if they wanted to make India worthy, their hearts and minds would need to be expanded, for small-hearted and narrow-minded individuals could not face great challenges and responsibilities.

Nehru was not just an administrator; he was also an eloquent orator and prolific writer. His renowned book ‘The Discovery of India’ offers a comprehensive account of Indian civilization and culture. In this work, he narrated India’s journey from the Indus Valley Civilization to the Mahabharata, the Gita, Buddha, Mahavira, Chandragupta Maurya, Ashoka, India’s relations with Persia and Greece, India’s commercial policy, agriculture, warfare, and various challenges, all in a novelistic style. Another famous work of his is ‘Glimpses of World History’. His autobiography, titled ‘An Autobiography’, which he wrote during a period of hardship, is not just his life story but also a historical document of the Indian freedom movement and the global situation.

Ideologically, Nehru was inclined toward socialism. On November 30, 1929, in his presidential speech at the All-India Trade Union Congress in Nagpur, he stated that the gap between classes had been created due to the benevolence of capitalism. During the Indian National Congress session in Lucknow on April 12, 1936, he remarked that the solution to the problems of the world and India lay in socialism. Nehru strongly felt the need for revolutionary changes in political and social structures.

He opposed the centralization of power and wealth, yet India’s industrial development naturally resulted in that very phenomenon. While Nehru supported industrial growth, he also recognized the significance of Khadi and village industries. On February 2, 1953, during the inauguration of the Khadi and Village Industries Board, Nehru said that while large industries would grow, the importance of expanding village industries in a country like India would always remain. They wanted the development of Khadi and other small sectors not just for display but for tangible results. However, Nehru also believed that a modern nation could not preserve its freedom without the support of large sectors. He advocated for these industries to remain under state ownership and control, a stance he later acknowledged as a mistake.

Nehru expressed his preference for socialism because, to him, it did not espouse extremism. He believed that the real conflict in India was not between Hindu and Muslim cultures but between these two and the modern scientific culture, which was rapidly gaining dominance. Both needed to confront the menace of outdated ideologies from the West. Nehru considered the struggle against the suppression of civil rights an integral part of the fight for freedom. He never feared criticism, welcoming it even in its harshest form, as long as it was not malicious or personal.

For the healthy and democratic development of public life, Nehru believed that open and strong criticism was essential, which is why he staunchly supported press freedom. In a letter to Tushar Kanti Ghosh, the editor of Amrita Bazar Patrika, Nehru wrote that newspapers should have the freedom to express their opinions and critique policies. To him, press freedom was the foundation of public life. He believed that when speaking of democracy, liberty, and civil rights, responsibility and discipline must also be considered. Nehru was strongly opposed to censorship, believing that the history of tolerance and culture was India’s invaluable heritage. He argued that the more one tried to suppress ideas, the more they spread. In an article written for the National Herald, he stated that entrusting the task of deciding what people should or should not read to ignorant officials was a civilized form of tyranny.

Pandit Sundarlal wrote that during the 1926 elections for the Councils and Assemblies, when prominent Congress leaders like Lala Lajpat Rai, Madan Mohan Malviya, and Swami Shraddhanand became the pillars of the Hindu Mahasabha and began advocating communalism, it was Pandit Motilal Nehru who courageously stood up against the tide of communalism. This courage of his father was inherited by Nehru, though he has been unfairly accused of appeasing Muslims. It is often overlooked that Nehru did not need to engage in such appeasement for electoral gains. He was a leader accepted by both Hindus and Muslims.

Between 1945 and 1946, Nehru, in various speeches, vehemently criticized the Hindu Mahasabha and the Muslim League, condemning their exploitation of people in the name of religion and labelling them as pawns of the British Raj, whose commitment to freedom was secondary. In his address to students at Banaras Hindu University, Nehru also expressed his views on communalism, which prompted sharp reactions from Hindu extremists. He wrote that commenting on Muslims was often labelled as unpatriotic and irreligious. Nehru’s approach to communalism wasn’t just about political tactics but deeply embedded in his vision for a secular, harmonious India. The ideals he championed in governance and policy continued to steer the nation for decades after his leadership, and his legacy as a key architect of modern India remains indelible.

In his November 1935 speech, Nehru expressed his anger over the reactionary activities of communal forces. In response to the personal attacks made by the Hindu Mahasabha, he wrote an article highlighting that communal leaders were aligned with the most reactionary factions in both India and England and were fundamentally opposed to political, and more so, social progress. Nehru considered appeals and sermons futile, believing that unity would not magically appear through mere repetition. He placed significant importance on economic factors, along with social elements, as the driving forces behind communalism.

India’s foreign policy was not based on rigid nationalism but had an internationalist approach. In a radio broadcast, Nehru said that despite wars, hatred, and internal strife, the world was inevitably moving toward greater cooperation and the formation of a global commonwealth. He clearly stated that independent India would move forward to build such a world, where all free nations would cooperate freely and no class or group would exploit another. Gandhi had said that the goal of his Swaraj was to serve the entire world. He stated that just as it was an individual’s duty to serve their society, village, and province, it was equally India’s duty to serve other nations once free. In his statement broadcast from New Delhi on September 7, 1946, he said that India was re-establishing ancient cultural ties and that contact with South-East Asia, Afghanistan, Iran, and Arab countries would increase. He wanted to create a society in India where people would have real freedom. Freedom, according to him, brought strength and prosperity. He considered war to be foolish and believed that if war was not stopped, they would not be able to address any of their problems. On February 18, 1953, Nehru stated in Parliament that the military mindset infiltrating embassies around the world was a dangerous trend.

On December 7, 1950, he said in Parliament that the true strength of a nation lies in its industrial resources. He noted that it was difficult to fight on both the domestic front and the war front simultaneously.

His clear views on peace were expressed during a radio broadcast on December 31, 1950. He stated that peace could neither be bought by compromising with evil nor achieved through prohibitive methods. He also said that they would face threats calmly and steadfastly, always remembering their great leader who had won them freedom. Nehru’s contributions to areas such as Non-alignment and Panchsheel can be seen as the international application of Gandhi’s ideas. Like Gandhi, Nehru’s nationalism had an international outlook. During a session in the Lok Sabha on August 10, 1960, Nehru stated, while discussing the report on the Atomic Energy Department, that no future government would use this power for malicious purposes. He also emphasized that atomic energy was essential for saving traditional fuels, which were likely to become scarce in the future.

(The author is a National Joint Co-ordinator, All-India Kisan Congress)