Nehru’s Democratic Socialism-Promise of a New World Order

 

 

Nehru’s Democratic Socialism-Promise of a New World Order

The gap between the rich and the poor is widening at an alarming pace in the modern world. Economic inequality and social injustice are the result of exploitation of the poor and the weak due to the capitalist mode of development. Even the Communist China, in spite of its authoritarian structure and totalitarian regime, with the brutal oppressive state machinery, has not succeeded in reducing the economic disparities between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat.  Paradoxically, the present day Communist China is more a capitalist state.

Nehru’s democratic socialism- as a middle path between the two ideological extremes of capitalism and communism- laissez faire capitalism versus state controlled command economy -offers  a more enduring new world order. The selected excerpts from the research Work Nehru and World Peace of this author, reproduced in this piece, give an account of his Democratic Socialism. It is a peaceful social revolution.  It is a liberal constitutional democracy with state intervention, turning India into a modern welfare state, ensuring, as the Article 39 of the Indian constitution affirms, “that the ownership and control of the material resources of the community are so distributed at best to subserve the common good; that the operation of the economic system does not result in the concentration of wealth and means of production to the common detriment.”

Nehru introduced the mixed economy, public and private sectors operating side by side, where vital public utility services and core sectors of economy remained under public sector with the administrative control of the State, so that the marginalized and deprived get equal opportunities and derive the benefits of essential services. Democratic socialism as advocated by him aims at securing a just social order, upholding civil liberties and the dignity of the individual, by restructuring the present socio-economic order which produces strife and conflicts. Neither the capitalist nor the communist doctrines offer solutions to human problems.

Although, politically India was closer to Western model, the Western capitalist economic system would not suit India as Nehru perceived, “we want to progress rapidly and we want to remove the disparities which exist in our country…those disparities are likely to increase by what may be called, the capitalist approach…Therefore, we are driven to what might be called a socialist approach; socialist, but not in the doctrinaire sense of the word.”

Though he believed in socialism, he was not a communist or Marxist as the means adopted by the communists to achieve the ends are unethical. He was sensitive to injustice and exploitation, but would reject violent means to secure justice and equality.  He wanted to solve the class conflicts in a peaceful and cooperative spirit. Class conflicts cannot be solved by eliminating or liquidating classes by force and violence as the communist regimes do.

Nehru rejected the capitalist approach to the socio-economic problems. Delivering the inaugural lecture in the First Series of the Azad Memorial Lectures, he observed that power and wealth are sources of rivalry and conflict in as much as poverty and misery also lead to conflicts. And both “result in fear and insecurity. Too much concentration of wealth and power does not bring security and prevents a proper understanding of the forces at play in the world”.  According to him, the passion for riches, for acquisition, for more and more wealth tends to corrupt and arouse jealousies and conflicts. Poverty is degradation and to talk of freedom in poverty is a contradiction in terms.

Justifying why India opted for socialism, he said: “We have accepted socialism as our goal not only because it seems to us right and beneficial, but because there is no other way for the solution of our economic problems”.  And India did not opt for the socialism of the authoritarian or the communist mode because as he believed, “any attempt to discard democratic methods would lead to disruption and would thus put an end to an immediate prospect of progress”.  The Marxist philosophy of a classless and caste-less society appealed to him; but the regimentation of society by an authoritarian political system repelled him.

He believed that the acquisitive and competitive society must end and in turn give place to a socialist order where individuals cooperate with each other and nations work in cooperation for human advancement. He was conscious of the fact that if democratic socialism- the new socio economic world order- that he was trying to establish  in his country succeeds , the democratic India rather than the communist China would become a model of governance for the new Afro-Asian nations. And India’s successful experiment would, eventually, checkmate communism in the world and ultimately contribute to the rise of liberal forces inside the communist world.

In a conversation with the French journalist Tibor Mende, Nehru asserted: “today there is an almost universal understanding and appreciation of what we are trying to do on the economic plane…that is planning under a democratic pattern of socialism.  This has set a new pattern for Asian and African development and it is significant that economists and other experts from both the worlds, particularly the West to which economic planning is something foreign, are extremely interested in development plans and progress…This makes India itself a kind of an area of agreement between the opposing ideological forces.”

Socialism, in the Indian context, meant producing plenty, distributing equitably, because in “India there is no existing wealth…there is only poverty to divide”. Socialism also meant planned economic development and making maximum use of science and technology, as “no country can be politically and economically independent, even within the framework of international interdependence, unless it is highly industrialized and has developed its power resources to the utmost. Nor can it achieve or maintain high standards of living and liquidate poverty without the aid of modern technology in almost every sphere of life.” The prophetic words of a visionary far ahead of his times.

By seeking to establish a socialistic pattern of society in India, Nehru did not blow up the taluqdars with cannons, yet they disappeared for ever; he did not wage war to liquidate Rajas and Maharajas, yet the entire princely class vanished from history; he did not turn over the Tata Iron Works to the workers, yet he inaugurated  major steel plants set up by the State; he did not divide the total land by the total population, yet he attempted to affect land ownership patters through land reforms for the benefit of the tiller. He was experimenting with a socio-economic order which was unique both from the capitalist and the communist approaches.

His experiment with socialism had influenced many leaders of Afro-Asian countries. It also influenced the Arab community.  The Lebanese author Edward Atiyah, in his book Exemplar of Afro-Asian Unity, wrote: “Nehru made his first individual contribution as distinct from Gandhi, to the intellectual and social revolution that was taking place in the Arab countries. He emerged as the first great apostle of socialism in the East, a democrat and a liberal, yet a planner, a believer in the value of improving the material conditions of the people by using industry and Western civilization into the life of India to form a new synthesis.” The reason why Nehru exercised a lasting impact on the new countries of Asia and Africa was his stress upon the inter-relationship between the political and social revolution and their recognition that the political revolution consummated in national independence was a necessary prerequisite to the social revolution. 

And as compared to the Communist China’s model of development, “the importance of India- the democracy of India led and inspired by Nehru-as offering an alternative example to the Arab countries of how to bring about a social revolution and economic betterment without communist totalitarianism can hardly be exaggerate…So far the Arab social revolution has been following the Indian example, most of the Arab reformers and planners have drawn their inspiration from Nehru, not from Mao or even Lenin.”

Nehru’s doctrine of socialism had impacted the Lebanese leader Kemal Jumblat, the Syrian thinker Michel Aflaq and his disciples of the Baath Party in Iraq, Jordon and Lebanon as well as in Syria and also Nasser and the Iraqian leader Kassim. Although the Egyptian and Iraq’s military junta overthrew their governments in 1950s, they did not do so in favor of communism but in the long term interest of true social democracy… inspired by Nehru’s India. The first step towards Arab unity was taken by an Arab Socialist Party whose thinking had been much influenced by Prime Minister Nehru. Egypt, under President Nasser, had reconstructed its economy on his model of planned economy.

And his democratic socialism had contributed to minimizing the ideological warfare between the nations, paving the way for the process of democratization and undermining the rise of communist totalitarianism.  Bertrand Russell believed that had Nehru not opted for democracy, the rule of law or representative institutions would have had no chance of being adopted by the new emerging nations of Asia and Africa.  Had he opted against democracy, the varied and rich Indian culture would have been subjected to uniform control in the name of security. The renowned historian Arnold Toynbee said, Nehru was responsible for laying the foundation for democracy in Asia and elsewhere.