CHAPTER-V

CONCLUSION

Nehru the architect of modern India, was one of the world’s

most outstanding figures and spokesman. A nationalist, an

internationalist under the leadership of Mahatma Gandhi, headed

India’s anti-colonial struggle and brought it to independence. For

about 17 years following the India’s freedom from colonial rule, in

the eyes of the whole world, he was the symbol of free India. His

remarkable personality was an unusual. Nehru was known not only

as an outstanding statesman and political leader, but as an original

and profound thinker too. His view are shaped by a decisive impact

of the democratic thought of the West and particularly of Britain

where he received his secondary and higher education from Harrow

and Cambridge.

To have a clear idea about his nationalistic and internationalist

thinking first it is imperative to now some of the basic postulates of

his thought. Therefore, a quick view of his ideas on individual

freedom, National freedom, Patriatism, Nationalis, Socialism,

Democracy, Internationalisms, Secularism Humanism have been

attempted. The action of Nehru as a leader of Indian freedom

171
movement as well as a Primeminister and International states man

have also been considered.

The realization of the humanistic ideal in the life of the Indian

people and of mankind as a whole was the supreme aspiration to

which Jawaharlal dedicated himself. He believed in a better man,

one who was practice and pragmatic, ethical and social, altruistic

and humanitarian. With infinite faith in man and with self-dedication

to serve him, he was humanist. His views on socialism, democracy,

nationalism international peace etc. Were based on his humanisms. It

was humanism, which made him a democrat and socialism for

individual well-being.

His commitment to secularism was also derived from his great

regard for human spirit. He was repulsed by the idea of creating

friction between man and man in the name of religion. After the

terrible communal destruction which was witnessed during partition,

the tolerance and harmony and hatred and communal disharmony

were not known to it.

He was determined to eliminate communalism and felt that

India’s strength lay in remaining secular. He argued that a secular

172
state did not mean that prople should give up their religion, rather it

meant a state in which the state protected all religion as state

religion. Thus, he wanted all individuals to enjoy freedom to follow

their won religion issued a statement to the press on January 5, 1934.

Nationalism, as commonly, understood, is a political creed that

brings about an underlying cohesion and unity to modern societies,

protects them against national particularise and disruption and

legitimize their claim to power and authority. Nationalism in its

wider sense referrer to a psychological attitude to national identity

and individually a permanent place in the hierarchy of values. From

this point of view, it is a natural and inevitable phenomenon of all

national movements which represents the tendency of subjects of a

national groups to achieve independence. Therefore, nationalism and

the national movement represented by the contribution of a

democratic movement which after achieving the elimination of all

privileges, distinctions and differentiations of every form of

aristocracy within its own midst, set up its own nation as against the

outside world.

The national movement for independence in India was

certainly a true reflection of the feelings of the masses to achieve

173
freedom from British rule. The Indian nationalism was conditioned

by her social-fabric, the intellectual traditions and socio-cultural

history of the people. It was traditional social and cultural oriented

very closely connected to the religious and social attitudes of the

past. Nationalism represented a effort by the people to invive and

adopt western nationalism to their local scene without any radical

departure from ancient traditions.

In its initial phase the Indian nationalism was not a political

revolution whose most in was to overthrow the British Government,

but a movement for emancipation and constitutional rights. It was

an elite movement of a English educated middle class. Historically

the middle class created the Indian National Congress to act as a

forum of expression for the political ambitions and for the educated

persons in the community development and also advance their

strategies of the press and public opinion in the country as protest

weapon against British rule and provided leadership for the socio-

economic reform movements which grew alongside nationalism.

Furthermore, since despite the differences in ideology and

temperament, Nehru was closely associated with Mahatma Gandhi.

With the advent of Gandhi on the political scene, the Indian National
174
Congress together with Nehru, the combination of Gandhi & Nehru

was transformed into a revolutionary force, combining the ideals of

political freedom and social emancipation. The national movement

released new and powerful forces, involving radical changes in

social ideas, economic system, political institutions and cultural

values. The overwhelming majority of the population was interested

in liberating, the country from feudal and foreign oppression, the

many-mullioned Indian and peasants the working class, the national

elite and the democratic intelligentsia. Their common aim

consolidated these forces, and it was in this sense that Nehru spoke

of common national interest.

During his political activities his mind was infused with the

spirit of his native country and his outlook was dominated by

national ideological traditions and ideological tendencies. Nehru’s

deep understanding of India’s socio-cultural heritage and his

analytical approach to India’s problems is reflected in his masterly

works Glimpses of World History and The Discovery of India. This

is not to suggest that Nehru’s vision was limited to his country only.

His Western educational background gave him enough scope to

175
evaluate the socio-economic conditions of the Western countries vis-

à-vis own country.

The conception of the national liberation movement in India as

viewed by Nehru and turned into a guide to action was not only the

result of his practical struggle but also of this deep thinking. His

broad historical outlook enabled him to take practical and profound

decisions on number of issues which were being faced by the

national liberation movement of India. Jawaharlal Nehru the most

dynamic personality of modern India and was active, during the

struggle for national independence, and in pre independence era, he

tried to lay down the foundations of secular, democratic and socialist

modern India as a Priminister. The pillars of such a social through

resulted in economic planning in large scale industrialization and a

parliamentary form of Government. Nehru had craving for the issues

of individual freedom, and on various other dimensions of freedom,

such as economic, social, political and religious.

So far as an assessment of Nehru’s ideas on National freedom

are concerned, particularly as it during the freedom struggle, Nehru

played a commendable role as a freedom fighter His Nehru views on

nationalism made it clear that he was able to convince masses about

176
dignity of the motherland as. He was an ardent nationalist and on

indomitable champion of freedom and all along been a driving force

for freedom and independence. He is right in his analysis that

nationalism in India was the product of a reaction against foreign

rule and colonialism, However he was against the cult of nationalism

its negative character which was based on hatred for others.

But on the other hand, he was well aware of the brighter

aspects of nationalism as which is his opinion was driving force for

the countries of the East which suffer under foreign domination and

seek freedom. In his conception of national freedom, Nehru was

greatly influenced by miseries of the colonial world. He advocated

freedom for India, not for dominating over other countries, but to

help and promote peace in the world. ‘He equted nationalism to

internationalism’, and his policy of non-alignment was born from the

synthesis of nationalism and inter-nationalism. It is gross perception

of universalisation of thought from India’s traditional ancient

outlook too.

It is a great achievement on the part of Nehru that both as a

freedom fighter and nation builder, his struggle for the establishment

of a democratic state and to attainment of political freedom for the

177
people of India has brought desirable results. He was high on hopes,

that only political freedom will bring unity, harmony and prosperity

in the social, economic, moral fields. He believed that political

oppression to brings stagnation in other fields of individual life.

Thus, his dreams become true when India got independence on

August 15, 1947 from foreign rule. It was all due to reason that

Nehru was pragmatic enough to understand that the immediate

objective was to achieve political freedom from British rule.

Nehru addressed the Constituent Assembly in the evening of

14 August. He said, at the stroke to life and freedom it is fitting that

at this solemn moment we take the pledge of dedication to the

service of India and her people and to still larger cause of the

humanity we end today a period of ill-fortune and India discovers

herself again.

No doubt, Nehru basically believed that political freedom or

political equality is the every basis on which we build up other

equalities, but at the same time he argued that political equality may

cease to have meaning, if, there is gross economic inequality. Thus

political freedom unless and until, it leads to social and economic

freedom will defeat its own purpose. Nehru clarified, that it is by the
178
path of political democracy only that human freedom is really

approached. The way to the Nehru thus, gave and integrated

conception of political, social and economic freedom which could

not be separated from one another. Nehru believed that there could

be no political and economic democracy without social freedom.

Nehru considered with the social and economic aspects of social

while looking for coutries prospective making. But it was to be no

mere constructive making rather a political, social and economic

resolution.

He was also well aware of the importance of state authority

and for the well beings of the individual us important and state is an

essential means of that end. Nehru and Hegel are holes apart so far

as individual freedom is concerned. To Hegel State was the march

of God on earth, and so obviously individuals could have no rights

above the state. However, Nehru was a staunch advocate of the

rights of individuals. In his conception of economic freedom, Nehru

was influenced by western ideology. His education and early

training brought him into contact with scientific and technological

advancement in accordance with the west and the working of

democratic institutions in England. During his visit to Europe and

179
Russia in 1926-27, he was greatly influenced by the achievements of

the Soviet Union. Although, Nehru was westernized in his outlook,

he was greatly influenced by Gandhiji. In fact Nehru had a unique

relationship with Gandhi, in the sense that he was Gandhi’s most

critical followers. Nehru was in reconciling the western ways of life

with the traditional Indian philosophy in order to bring economic

changes. He came under the spell of Marxist socialism which lasted

till mid-thirties. However, contrary to the views of Marxists, Nehru

believed that both the public sector and the private sector are

indispensable in India’s economy Nehru has thus tried to bring about

a synthesis between capitalism and communism and the conflicting

dominant ideologies of the world. Like Marx, Adler, Nehru believed

in ethical socialism and it was to him a philosophy to life, not only a

formula for economic reconstruction. Although, Nehru was not a

pioneer in field of socialism in India compared to others. Thus,

Nehru always have had being under criticism by his colleague and

others.

Nehru had a deep human concern and love for man. As he

was a liberal humanist, an individualist who had an unbounded faith

in human capacities. As a dynamic humanist thinker, Nehru had

180
human oriented views on religion, but not in a narrow dogmatic

sense. Nehru was always critical of superstitious parading in the

name of traditional religious. As such his views of Nehru, however,

did not create avoid in human faith. He advocated some reliance on

moral, spiritual and idealistic conceptions or else, according to him,

there would be no encouragement, no objections, or purpose in life.

For Nehru, true religion lay the realization of the spirit of man. In his

opinion, it was the existence of this spirit, that found all human

beings into one unity. It was in the possession of the human reason

that all men were equal. His religion was the service of humanity.

Similar, while elucidating his ideas of democratic socialism as the

only sensible political philosophy for India in other tones he had

admiration of classical Hindu & philosophy of Vedanta too.

No doubt the efforts of Nehru for the abolition of landlordism

and emphasis on the public sector were steps towards the building of

an equalitarian socialist society, He believed that, it was unwise for

India to intimate any economic model from any other country

therefore, the opted for as a suitable method of developed mixed

economy most suitable method of development for India. But it is

observed that Nehru’s concept of mixed economy despite the years

181
of socialist endeavour, could not remove the economic disparity of

Indian Society structure gave no greater security to the tenants at

will and the share croppers, and despite land ceiling legislation, land

ownership was highly concentrated in small minority of rural, often

absente population. The agrarian economy in fact, showed signs of

capitalist rather than co-operative development. Nehru was so sure

of his belief in socialism that he famously declared only one of

socialism or capitalism would survive.

However, his critics, particularly Shajma Parsad Mukerjee, do

not accept his idea of mixed economic. They blam Nehru for the

economic troubles being faced by our country despite land ceiling

legislation, land ownership was highly concentrated in small

minority of rural, often absente population. Important aspect of the

Indian economy was the uneven development of different regions of

India.

It is significant that during the Nehru era there was also a

proliferation of universities and technical institution. This modern

progressive & scientist outlook lead to speedy progress of the

country. Nehru was not able to give practical shape to all of this

humanist ideals in compulsion of a backward economy, which was

182
ill fatted in every sphere power compulsions and other situations

factors were responsible to a certain extent for developing a gap

between the theory and practice of Nehru’s humanism. It said that

there arose long foreign rule and also due to the portion of India

factors.

Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru was the undisputed leader of the

Indian masses. He determined the course of our socio-economic

transformation during the formative years. Even class, cleavage

have become more in intense today. Even though there was ruling

classes have combined to assert in a great measure. In short of the

actual course of Indian history has been different from what was

versioned by Nehru.

It is in this contest that we propose to conclude the role of

Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru. His commitment to the principles of

socialistic pattern of society has not been realised. In the actual

course, Indian socio-economic development has taken different

from, what Nehru had intended then, one must identify the

subjective and objective force responsible for the distortion. Indeed

a plane of this type can only succeed even in its limited economic

objective provided the state is indifferent to the human factor

183
involved in development efforts. But has not been recognised by his

successors properly. During the last decade of the previous century

the Liberian of coming was started and is still going on. This to

entirely opposite to his idea of equatorial society and self-reliant

foreign policy. Capitalism of American kind is dominating the

forges of the world. Which Nehru never would have liked. This has

given rise to the growing cleavages in the economic strata of society

as well as the poverty & unemployment.

Socialism was not a mere economic doctrine for Nehru. As

Nehru declared: “I work for Indian independence because the

nationalist in me cannot tolerate alien domination;

The crux of his nationalism can be found in his certain well

thought convictions such as socialism based on planed economic

development, freedom to cover demands for economic liberty and

freedom from want of national self-determination etc. Freedom also

involved human well being and human growth. With an opportunity

for everyone to live for the wellbeing of life, physically and

mentally. With socialism giving he objective of enriching human

her personality of peaceful co-existence, goodness of humanity,

justice of truth, character and many more.

184
 Nehru’s nationalism has come largely from his humanism and

the unquenchable and insatiable thirst of the human soul for liberty

for expression and for being conscious of his fellow beings all

round. Nehru’s nationalism was not a product of east. He combined

his nationalism with the rich ideals of West and this is one reason

that after Nehru is referred to as Man of Two cultures. As M.N. Ray

quoted Nehru is so very full of contradiction which puzzle even his

admirers.

Nehru internationalism has come about from his nationalism

and about his internationalism as it did not question the basis of

nationalism; it actually presupposed it. His internationalism was not

Utopian in connection, but was the product of hard thinking and

grounded on the harsh realities of life. Nehru had along possessed a

rare ability to analyse the international situation by placing the

national problem in the wider world context. He opined that

“Nationalism should be a part of everyone’s pride living but

development of other nations. He was internalise of equal level”

The internationalism even today represents a struggle between the

week and the strong nation thereby the virtue of the strong nation

and the involvement of bitter elements in the strong nations and the

185
other hand more alive elements in the weak nations are trying to find

common ground by the world can live as one family.

Nehru’s internationalism was deeply influenced by the Indian

culture and traditions. It reflected the thinking of Swami

Vivekananda, Tagore and Gandhi. Nehru combined their ideals with

his own assessment of ground realities in terms of removal of

imperialism, social injustice and economic dependence. As he was

political figure in a global calibre, and as an outstanding champion

for world peace. Nehru aimed at ensuring a lasting world peace and

eliminating inequality in the international community. Nehru

believed that the dusting of all people without exception is

indivisible, and the world is interdependent in its unity. Nehru

always cherished to have a world peace, free of wars and nuclear

threats, a world of oneness, of growth and development to lot of

better for the oppressed masses humanity.

India’s independence paved the way for other Asian and

African countries to attain independence from European Control.

Nehru extended a helping hand to those countries still under the

colonial heel and assisted them in their struggle for liberation in

other hand the later in their exertions for economic emancipation.

186
After the Second World War Nehru has very clear and offered

India’s refusal to become involved in military blocks called for

continuing the struggle to prevent war and safeguard of peace,

outlined India’s stand against colonialism and imperialism and

formulated its own principles of foreign policy and international

relations. In fact, the policy of non-alignment initiated by Nehru

after independence was mainly aimed at the attainment of the same

objective.

If we wish to interpret Nehru in the context of internationalism

we cannot separate it from the struggle for social justice, for the

abolition of poverty, not only in our own country, but from the world

as a whole and for the success of democracy. His internationalism

cannot be separated from the desire of the country to free itself from

the colonial rule and passionate dedication to the abandonment of

war or be it a nuclear war or a face to face infantry war but Nehru

always believed in the policy of peaceful co-existence and co-

operation among the states which included; the renunciation or war,

of the use of or threat of force as a means of resolving controversial

issues, the settlement of conflicts through negotiations, non-

interference in international affairs and consideration for the

187
legitimate interests of all parties, strict respect for the sovereignty

and territorial integrity of states and for the inviolability of their

frontiers; co-operation on the basis of full equality and mutual

benefit.

Nehru’s policy of peaceful co-existence later gave birth of the

idea of ‘Panchsheel’ and also to ‘Non-Aligned Movement’. With the

help of Nassar Araft and Tito Non-Aligned movement became a

reality. The sincere efforts of President Sockarno helped in getting

the principles of punchsheel and this accepted in the Banduing

Conference by the Asian countries. The policy of Non-Alignment

meant deciding every issue on the merit and had nothing to do with

neutrality or passivity or anything else, whereas Banduing

Conference established Nehru as a leader of the Third World.

Nehru played a very prominent role in transforming what was

once the British commonwealth of Nations into the Commonwealth

of Nation in 1949. His prolonged encounter with the British

authorities made him realise the draw backs of imperialism. By his

sheer statesmanship Nehru assured his critics that India lost no

prestige as an independent nation by being in the commonwealth

offering her own counsel in its discussions and following the path of
188
her own choice in matters affecting national and international

interests. Nehru led newly independent country and maintained

good relation with the British empire under the London Declaration.

In 1950 who he join decided to the commonwealth of Nation and

accept it only the far left and the far right criticised Nehru’s decision.

However, It was Nehru’s considered opinion that no nation can

isolate itself from others and its fate is linked with the rest of the

World. He believed that the countries were inter-dependent and

shared the common fate of peace and prosperity or death and

destruction. He maintained that peace has been said to be indivisible

so is freedom, so is prosperity now, and so also is disaster, in the one

world that can no longer be split into isolated fragments. The world

depends on co-operation and no conflict and the best urge for world

peace is to follow the path of moral law. While delivering his

address at the University of California on October 31, 1949 Nehru

observed, therefore he suggested that while talking for should not be

allowed in the path of peace talk of peace and prepare for war. We

discuss internationalism and one world and narrow nationalism. True

freedom for him, not merely political but also be economic and

spiritual only which can fulfil the destiny of man. The freedom has

189
also to be envisaged today not merely in terms of group freedom,

often resulting in nations warning against one another but, as

individual freedom within free national group in the larger context of

world freedom and order. The Nehru expressed the hope, that

despite conflict and difficulty the sprit of man, will triumph again to

make better humanity in future.

There are many criticism and counter criticism, Jawaharlal

Nehru as sole stale ward played dynamic leader in the long struggle

for freedom and independence. The furthered the of cause popular

idealism of Nationalism and internationalism to promote in order to

international harmony and cooperation. He probably visualised the

emergence of a world federation in which India was to become an

active member after independence. During the constitution of India

was framed, Nehru was keenly interested in incorporating in it some

basic guidelines for the country’s foreign policy. This was provided

under Part-IV of Indian constitution dealing with Directive

Principles of the State Policy. Apart from many other things, the

Directive principles enjoined that the country’s foreign policy shall

be directed with a view to promoting international peace and

security.

190
 Nehru had a deep sense of consmopalitism. He tried to

pressure political and economic internationalism and in which could

play a leading role in International affairs. The conflict of Nehru’s

ideas and thought on humanism was the growing synthesis between

humanism and scientific spirit, resulting in a kind of scientific

humanism.

On the international scene, Nehru was a champion of pacifism

and a strong supporter of the United Nation and Pioneer in non-

alignment movement and Panchsheel. Although Nehru was

criticised for his insufficient attention to defence. Some historians

attribute this dramatic decline his surprise and chagrin over the Sino-

Indian conflict. But this was perceived as betrayal of trust.

The period of Nehru and his versatile leadership being faced in

India’s situational crisis in it internal and external reason which was

affected by the national and international policies of Nehru.

Historian Ramachandra Guha writes, Jawaharlal Nehru’s was the

voice that always stood for the larger principle, which was often a

odds with the aim of his own party and Government and the people,

but it was in all essential particulars, as stated earlier, a Nehru Policy

expressing his ideas, his convictions, and his aims and aspirations.
191
To retain his position as leader of the nation. He was always on the

platform and appeared from time to time on the world stage. He had

failed as a diplomat being too honest to be one.

The corner stone of Nehru’s views and ideology on

nationalism and Internationalism is an achievement and failures and

is a critical appraisal, which are also the achievements and failures

of the nation he led. He is no longer there, either to feel flattered or

to be irrited by anything that other may now say of him. The

greatness Nehru’s views appear in his practical & scientific approach

on national task and proliferation of International relation under the

traditional Indian thoughts of universalism. This it may be of some

value to those who inherit the rich and complex but great legacy he

left, to the present and future leaders who have to carry on with the

task of Nehru.

“Nehru was a great man. …… Nehru gave to Indians an

image of themselves that I don’t think other might have succeeded in

doing”.

Sir Ishaiah
Berlin.

This words significantly sums up his contribution to the India.

192