Fifty-nine years since Nehru’s death, the popular discourse surrounding him and India from 1947-64 is incomplete, and sometimes reductionist. New research, from Nehru’s India: A History in Seven Myths by Taylor C. Sherman, to Planning Democracy: Modern India’s Quest for Development by Nikhil Menon, and a host of journal articles show that the Nehruvian era was a series of experiments in democracy, globalism, economics and culture. It is clear that Indians from all parts of society deftly balanced competing demands of democracy, economic growth, state control, emergency powers, and the Cold War to ensure India survived as a nation. Deifying Nehru as the architect of modern India, or vilifying him as the source of India’s problems papers over the complex challenges that were navigated at the time, and the role that thousands played in shaping independent India. It is essential we unravel the contrasting forces that were at play in 1947 – scientific thinking and religion, Cold War and Non-Alignment, centralised planning and grassroots democracy – and show that they shaped the trajectory of modern India.
India’s strategic priorities during the Nehruvian Era was far more complex than made out to be – in particular, India maintained and expanded its relationship with the West. For example, Sherman draws on trade data to show that 88% of capital goods required for iron and steel under the Second Five-Year Plan (FYP) were purchased from West Germany. India was the second largest exporter to West Germany through the 1950s, and India bought all its ships from Britain, not the USSR, . The lack of sources from the Indian government, compounded with Western sources that tended to adopt a Cold War bias, distort the complexities of Indian foreign policy. For example, many US reports flag Nehru’s interest in Socialism as a reason for India’s socialist tendencies. This data shows the contrary; India’s foreign policy was shaped by its economic priorities and its desire to avoid being co-opted by another global power after 200+ years of colonial rule.
Globally, India expanded its influence and stature by entrenching notions of democracy, non-violence, and human rights to shape the newly formed international order. Indian leaders oversaw key committees and commissions across the world’s international bureaucracy. Hansa Jivraj Mehta drafted the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Rajkumari Amrit Kaur was a founding member of the WHO, and Ramaswami Mudaliar was the first president of the Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC). Indians held 84 of 136 spots in the UN’s technical administration. These efforts allowed India to punch well above its weight in diplomacy. Its emissaries, entrenched in notions of democracy, non-violence, secularism, and anti-racism, made it a model for emerging countries. Indian Foreign Service (IFS) officers and ambassadors had little oversight over their activities and were trusted to spread India’s messages of democracy, non-violence, and secularism abroad. India’s outsized presence in global forums ensured that it was front and centre in mediating several global crises, from the end of the Korean War in 1953 to the Suez Crisis in 1956. At its core, Nehruvian foreign policy was more than just slogans and non-alignment; it was a concerted effort to spread modern India’s principles, bring the post-colonial world on an equal footing with former colonial powers, and create an alternative to the binaries of the Cold War.
Also read: Nehru was way ahead of his time. Seeing him through a 20/20 lens is wrong
A plan for independent India
Domestically, there are limitations to the view that economic policies were forced upon the country in the absence of dissent or opposition. The Planning Commission was not an all-powerful body, as imagined, it often competed with other departments and was routinely shut out of decision-making by other ministers. It nonetheless acted as a medium to galvanise the entire country to participate in nation-building. Planning Democracy work enhances our understanding of post-1947 India by illuminating the significance of participatory planning and grassroots movements.
Major business houses were strongly in favour of centralised state planning. By 1944, it was clear that India would become independent, the question was when. In response, J.R.D. Tata and seven other industrialists and executives — G.D. Birla, Purushottamdas Thakurdas, Ardeshir Darabshaw Shroff, Kasturbhai Lalbhai, Ardeshir Dalal, John Matthai, and, Lala Shri Ram — came together to write a manifesto on the future of the Indian economy post-Independence. This was known as the Bombay Plan: A Brief Memorandum Outlining a Plan of Economic Development for India. The authors were crucial in setting up key institutions from the Reserve Bank of India, FICCI, and the Department of Planning and Development. The Bombay Plan argued that India would benefit from a planned economy and an import substitution model since it would promote economic unity in the country and help the country build its own industrial base. The plan was discussed extensively in India, the British Empire, and the US after publication, coming under heavy criticism and praise for its ideals. The authors’ motives for writing the plan are under debate even today, but there are some clear conclusions that can be drawn from it: it endorsed centralised state planning, for the state to take control of certain industries, and for planning to involve all sections of society.
Once India embarked on its journey of state planning, the FYPs were marketed extensively through the National Advisory Council for Public Co-operation. This body had representatives spanning civil society and politics such as Shyama Prasad Mukherjee of the Bhartiya Jan Sangh, Ashok Mehta of the Socialist Party, JB Kripalani, and Jayaprakash Narayan as well as the authors of the Bombay Plan GD Birla and Lala Shri Ram. This council, along with All India Radio and the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting, developed a dance troupe to take the message of planning to citizens. It was an attempt to show that planning was beyond just targets and figures, but required citizen involvement to be successful. The council’s composition, plus the publication of the Bombay Plan, highlights that planning was not only extensively discussed and debated at the time but also supported by a range of stakeholders.
Also read: Nehru was too modern for India. He suffered from a ‘cultural homelessness’
Building scientific temper
It is ironic that the concepts of planning and ‘scientific temper’ were popularised using religion, arts, and culture. Bollywood and religion were extensively used to promote planning. Menon notes that renowned scriptwriter Khwaja Ahmad Abbas called on the filmmaking fraternity to make movies with planners and spread its messages. Yojana, (The Plan), a magazine created by the government and edited by Khushwant Singh, had advertisements containing pictures of renowned Bollywood celebrities such as Meena Kumari, Manohar Desai, and Kamini Kaushal photographed reading it, with the intent of promoting the Second FYP. Icons such as Mohammad Rafi and Lata Mangeshkar in Kya Baat Hai sang songs emphasising the FYP’s importance.
Simultaneously, Gulzarilal Nanda, the labour, employment, and planning minister, roped in the Bharat Sadhu Samaj to spread the message of planning. The Samaj, it was hoped, would be able to influence its followers to embrace planning, with mixed results. The Kosi River in Bihar was prone to flooding every year, and the cost to build anti-flood measures was prohibitively expensive. Instead, the Samaj convinced landowners to give up small portions of their land to build embankments, significantly reducing the cost and protecting lives and property. It also acted as an intermediary to bring low-cost labour and volunteers to this project. The project was completed two years ahead of schedule, at half the estimated cost.
It is clear that the Nehruvian Era was a moment of reckoning for the Indian Republic as it was faced with multiple choices. Contemporary research unpacks the nuances of Nehruvian India, from questioning the extent to which democracy spread in India, to the limitations of Nehru’s influence and authority in domestic and foreign politics, and the challenges faced by India’s leaders from 1947-64 to hold the country together. Popular discourse on Nehru’s premiership varies from hagiographic to critical, and has been reduced to slogans. India’s post-independent history is far more nuanced. It was a series of complex negotiations – establishing the role of religion and science in society, securing fundamental rights, giving the state emergency powers, promoting Non-Alignment amid the Cold War, and balancing state planning with free enterprise.
Vibhav Mariwala is an independent researcher. He tweets @VibhavMariwala. Views are personal.
(Edited by Prashant)