Atal Bihari Vajpayee, one of India’s greatest statesmen and politician, once stated about the erstwhile Prime Minister of India, Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru that he is a “mix of Churchill and Chamberlin”. While Churchill lead the Allied forces to victory over the Nazis, Chamberlin, was a puny leader known for his appeasement policy towards the Nazis.
The spirit and soul of any country lies in its institutions and the capability of its leaders to build these institutions. I strongly agree that Nehru’s character and his policies were an amalgamation of both strength and weakness. On the one hand, he was an institution builder and paved the way for accelerating the growth and development of India but on the other hand, he made a few blunders when it comes to some of the most contentious issues facing the country even to this day.
As the first prime minister of independent India, he prioritized boosting domestic production thereby reducing the reliance solely on imports. He boosted industrialization and promoted social equality uplifting millions of Indians out of sheer poverty. His reforms in the agriculture sector are undoubtedly evident in establishment of agricultural universities across the country. His administration abolished the “Zamindari” system thereby giving profits of the land to the cultivators. He played a pivotal role in creation of National Cadet Corps which empowered youth of the country and increased their participation in nation building.
Nehru was instrumental in orchestrating planning commission which focused on formulating five year plans channelizing the country’s resources towards progress. His policies in the educational sector were impressive and deserve credit too. The establishment of four of the India’s premier technology institution’s namely, Indian Institutes of technology, or IIT’s , was brought to fruition under his leadership. Massive projects were launched under his governance ranging from setting up steel industry and to the creation of hydroelectric plants.
Another aspect that I appreciate about his outlook and his personality was his stand on secularism. His thoughts on religion were broad minded and accommodated religious belief’s of all sects of the Indian society. He was instrumental in launching uniform civil code which fostered social equality and created common platform under the Laws for all the religious groups represented in the country. I strongly believe that there is no place for religious bigotry and extremism in any democratic country.
While I do commend and acknowledge Nehru’s immense contribution in igniting the much needed growth and development, especially in those initial years of the country when it was still taking its toddler steps, I strongly disagree his policies and decisions on three fronts.
In 1947, Pakistani mercenaries and tribesmen attacked the princely state of Kashmir and occupied what is now called the “Pakistani Occupied Kashmir”. The Maharaja of Kashmir appealed to India for assistance and it took several days for Nehru and his administration to send in the Indian armed forces to counter the Pakistani assault. It is even speculated that Nehru did not intimated Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel on the situation, a grave mistake considering the role that the “Iron man” played in uniting Princely states with India. Even after the army was sent in, Nehru made another diabolical mistake by approaching the United Nations for mediating in calling the ceasefire. Did we missed an opportunity to take back the entire Kashmir region had the UN not stepped in or our advancing army not stopped? I think yes. Had Patel played a more decisive role in getting back Kashmir instead of Nehru? I again think, yes.
Nehru’s appeasement policy with China is another front where I think he displayed his incapability, or rather feebleness. He signed Panchsheel, or the five principles of peaceful co-existence with China in 1954. His imprudence in judging our larger adversary cost us dearly in the 1962 debacle when the Chinese army invaded Indian northeastern states and parts of Kashmir region. The loss is still imprinted on the minds of Indian people and our armed forces. His “unwavering” trust on China reflected an enormous gap in his foreign policy.
I am also critical of Nehru’s (and Congress to a larger extent) policy of inclining towards Soviet Union rather than towards the Western block. USSR was a communist country and it is widely reported that it funded the Communist Party of India and shaped the Indian polity to its benefit. While I do agree that Soviet invested in India laying the foundation of much of our infrastructure, our Space program and our defense ecosystem, I do not believe in the basic tenets of communism. The ideology curbs personal freedom, liberty, and enterprising spirit of an individual. India’s policy of shifting towards the United States started with the rise of Jan Sangh, but the major change came in under Prime Minister P.V Narsimha Rao and the then Finance minister Dr. Manmohan Singh. I firmly maintain that had we joined the Western block in our early stages of independence, we would not have experienced the economical crises that we faced in 1991 following the disintegration of USSR.
Overall, while I do think that the bedrock of development laid by Nehru in our nascent years which focused on self reliance took us far ahead than our neighbor Pakistan, his policies on Kashmir and China unfolded insurmountable challenges for our country that we continue to face to this day
Site Title 