Nehru for Today

I am convinced that the only key to the solution of the world’s problem and of India’s problems lies in socialism, and when I use this word I do so not in a vague humanitarian way but in the scienfitic, economic sense. Socialism is, however, something even more than an economic doctrine; it is a philosophy of life and as such also it appeals to me. I see no way of ending the poverty, the vast unemployment, the degradation and the subjection of the Indian people except through socialism. That involves vast and revolutionary changes in our political and social structure, the ending of vested interests in land and industry, as well as the feudal and autocratic Indian states system. That means the ending of private property, except in a restricted sense, and the replacement of the present profit system by a higher ideal of co-operative service. It means ultimately a change in our instincts and habits and desires. In short, it means a new civilisation, radically different from the present capitalist order. Some glimpse we can have of this new civilisation in the territories of the USSR. Much has happened there which has pained me greatly and with which I disagree, but I look upon that great and fascinating unfolding of a new order and a new civilisation as the most promising feature of our dismal age. If the future is full of hope it is largely because of Soviet Russia and what it has done, and I am convinced that, if some world catastrophe does not intervene, this new civilisation will spread to other lands and put an end to the wars and conflicts which capitalism feeds on...

Socialism is thus for me not merely an economic doctrine which I favour; it is a vital creed which I hold with all my head and heart. I work for Indian independence because the nationalist in me cannot tolerate alien domination; I work for it even more because for me it is the inevitable step to social and economic change. I should like the Congress to become a socialist organisation and to join hands with the other forces in the world which are working for the new civilisation. But I realise that the majority in the Congress, as it is constituted today, may not be prepared to go thus far. We are a nationalist organisation and we think and work on the nationalist plane. It is evident enough now that this is too narrow even for the limited objective of political independence, and so we talk of the masses and their economic needs. But still most of us hesitate, because of our nationalist background, to take a step which might frighten away some vested interests. Most of those interests are already ranged against us and we can expect little from them except opposition even in the political struggle.

Much as I wish for the advancement of socialism in this country, I have no desire to force the issue in the Congress and thereby create difficulties in the way of our struggle for independence. I shall co-operate gladly and with all the strength in me with all those who work for independence even though they do not agree with the socialist solution. But I shall do so stating my position frankly and hoping in course of time to convert the Congress and the country to it, for only thus can I see it achieving independence. It should surely be possible for all of us who believe in independence to join our ranks together even though we might differ on the social issue. The Congress has been in the past a broad front representing various opinions joined together by that common bond. It must continue as such even though the difference of those opinions becomes more marked.
(From the Presidential Address to the Indian National Congress, Lucknow, April 12, 1936)

•

WE have achieved political freedom but our revolution is not yet complete and is still in progress, for political freedom without the assurance of the right to live and to pursue happiness, which economic progress alone can bring, can never satisfy a people. Therefore, our immediate task is to raise the living standards of our people, to remove all that comes in the way of the economic growth of the nation. We have tackled the major problem of India, as it is today the major problem of Asia, the agrarian problem. Much that was feudal in our system of land tenure is being changed so that the fruits of cultivation should go to the tiller of the soil and that he may be secure in the possession of the land he cultivates. In a country of which agriculture is still the principal industry, this reform is essential not only for the well-being and contentment of the individual but also for the stability of society. One of the main causes of social instability in many parts of the world, more especially in Asia, is agrarian discontent due to the continuance of systems of land tenure which are completely out of place in the modern world. Another—and one which is also true of the greater part of Asia and Africa—is the low standard of living of the masses.

India is industrially more developed than many less fortunate countries and is reckoned as the seventh or eighth among the world’s industrial nations. But this arithmetical distinction cannot conceal the poverty of the great majority of our people. To remove this poverty by greater production, more equitable distribution, better education and better health, is the paramount need and the most pressing task before us and we are determined to accomplish this task. We realise that self-help is the first condition of success for a nation, no less than for an individual. We are conscious that ours must be the primary effort and we shall seek succour from none to escape from any part of our own responsibility. But though our economic potential is great, its conversion into finished wealth will need much mechanical and technological aid. We shall, therefore, gladly welcome such aid and co-operation on terms that are of mutual benefit. We believe that this may well help in the solution of the larger problems that confront the world. But we do not seek any material advantage in exchange for any part of our hard-won freedom.
(From a Speech in the House of Representatives and the Senate, Washington D.C., October 13, 1949)

•

INDIA may be new to world politics and her military strength insignificant in comparison with that of the giants of our epoch. But India is old in thought and experience and has travelled through trackless centuries in the adventure of life. Throughout her long history she has stood for peace and every prayer that an Indian raises, ends with an invocation to peace. It was out of this ancient and yet young India that Mahatma Gandhi arose and he taught us a technique of action that was peaceful; yet it was effective and yielded results and led us not only to freedom but to friendship with those with whom we were, till yesterday, in conflict. How far can that principle be applied to a wider sphere of action? I do not know, for circumstances differ and the means to prevent evil have to be shaped and set to the nature of the evil. Yet I have no doubt that the basic approach which lay behind that technique of action was the right approach in human affairs and the only approach that ultimately solves a problem satisfactorily. We have to achieve freedom and to defend it. We have to meet aggression and to resist it and the force employed must be adequate to the purpose. But even when preparing to resist aggression, the ultimate objective, the objective of peace and reconciliation, must never be lost sight of and heart and mind must be attuned to this supreme aim and not swayed or clouded by hatred or fear.

This is the basis and the goal of our foreign policy. We are neither blind to reality nor do we propose to acquiesce in any challenge to man’s freedom from whatever quarter it may come. Where freedom is menaced or justice threatened or where aggression takes place, we cannot be and shall not be neutral. What we plead for and endeavour to practise in our own imperfect way is a binding faith in peace and an unfailing endeavour of thought and action to ensure it.
(From a Speech in the House of Representatives and the Senate, Washington, D.C., October 13, 1949)

•

WE call our state a secular one. The word ‘secular’ perhaps is not a very happy one. And yet, for want of a better, we have used it. What exactly does it mean? It does not obviously mean a state where religion as such is discouraged. It means freedom of religion and conscience, including freedom for those who may have no religion. It means free play for all religions, subject only to their not interfering with each other or with the basic conceptions of our state. It means that the minority communities, from the religious point of view, should accept this position. It means, even more, that the majority community, from this point of view, should fully realise it. For, by virtue of numbers as well as in other ways, it is the dominant community and it is its responsibility not to use its position in any way which might prejudice our secular ideal.

The word ‘secular’, however, conveys something much more to me, although that might not be its dictionary meaning. It conveys the idea of social and political equality. Thus, a caste-ridden society is not properly secular. I have no desire to interfere with any person’s belief, but when those beliefs become petrified in caste divisions, undoubtedly they affect the social structure of the state. They prevent us from realising the idea of equality which we claim to place before ourselves. They interfere in political matters, just as communalism interferes. We have opposed communalism and continue to be stoutly opposed to it. It is, in fact, a negation of nationalism and of the national state. Communalism means the dominance of one religious community. If that community is in a minority, this is opposed to all ideas of democracy. But if that community is in a majority, even so its dominance over others as a religious community would be wholly undemocratic.

….Therefore, we have opposed communalism not only in minority communities, but also in the majority community.
(From a Circular to the Pradesh Congress Committees, August 5, 1954)

•

Q. You said that Kashmir is part of India. When did it become part of India?
JN: A few hundred years ago, and Kashmir has always been in history for thousands of years, not always a political part but essentially a part of India and for hundreds of years a political part of India long before the British came. It has been essentially and culturally one of the biggest seats of Indian culture and learning. So the finest books about Indian history have been written in Kashmir. Then came the partition of India and certain rules were laid down about it. According to the rules, Kashmir acceded to India and became part of the Indian Union as an autonomous State of the Indian Union. That is why I say that Kashmir is as much a part of India as Calcutta or Bombay or Madras. At that time, Kashmir was invaded through Pakistan and later by Pakistan.

I don’t think it is possible for anyone, even a Pakistani, to say that that was not aggression. There have been a number of cases of aggression in the world in the last 10 years or so. There has been no case of clearer and more flagrant aggression than that of Pakistan over Kashmir territory which was Indian Union territory. Now, whatever legal or other arguments one may have about Kashmir in the Indian Union, there is not a shadow of doubt over the argument in favour of the presence of Pakistani troops in Kashmir and that aggression is continuing today. Over one-third of the territory of Jammu and Kashmir State is in the occupation of the Pakistan Army... It is a continual aggression, and there is absolutely no kind of justification. One justification Pakistan has put forth is that the majority of the people in Kashmir are Muslims. Now, that is a very old argument. Once we admit that states are formed on the basis of religion, we go back to the Middle Ages in Europe or elsewhere. It is an impossible argument. If we admit it, then, within India, as it is today after partition, there are 40 million Muslims. Are they Pakistani citizens and do they owe allegiance to Pakistan? Every village in India has Muslims. There are Christians. Is there Christian nationality or Muslim nationality or Buddhist nationality, a Hindu nationality? It is an impossible proposition so that the present position is that Kashmir is, undoubtedly, that is, legally speaking, historically speaking, constitutionally speaking, a part of India, a part of the Union of India.

The Jammu and Kashmir State has been invaded, aggression committed against it by Pakistani forces who are still continuing that aggression by occupying it. It is only a country like India, peacefully inclined, that would have stopped its military operations against the aggressor and decided to deal with it peacefully and I would be very much surprised if any other country would have done that. In keeping with our tradition of peace and what Mr Gandhi taught us we were anxious to stop it. We stopped at cease-fire even though the aggression is continuing and we said that we would decide it by peaceful methods and that is our present policy. We wanted to decide every question by peaceful methods but that does not mean and will not mean our submission to aggression, and I regret that this fact has not been adequately appreciated by some of the great powers, who talk about aggression in other places. But in Kashmir were there is an act of international gangsterism they support it; I am astonished. I wish to make it perfectly clear that whatever happens we shall never submit to this aggression and it does not matter what powers in the wide world support it, we will not accept it. It think it is a shameful thing that this fact is slurred over...

I have seldom come across such double standards as in this matter of Kashmir. Here is the barest and the most blatant piece of aggression and continuing aggression and we are told: Oh, forget the past, forget the past, whatever it was. Well, well, if we are prepared to forget the past, the history of the world today will be very different from what it was.

[From The Journal of the Indo-Japanese Association (July-November 1957)]