Lessons in Statecraft

 

Lessons in Statecraft

Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru, tasked by history to build a modern democratic Indian nation, wrote every forthright letter to Chief Ministers offering lessons in statecraft. Being concerned about the uphill task of transforming an orthodox, conservative traditional society, into a modern secular liberal democratic Republic, he chose to write to heads of India’s provincial governments on 15 October 1947, a mere two months after Independence. By the time, he wrote his final letter on 21 December 1963, nearly four hundred Lettes had been written. These letters offer lessons in statecraft from the first prime Minister of India, whom Clement Attlee called ‘a doyen of world statemen’. Pandit Nehru emphasized public reasoning and justification as central to democratic participation and accountability.  What is stated below is the quint essence of the lessons, drawn from the edited book Letters for a Nation by Madhav Khosla:

 

In his first letter dated 15 October,1947, Pandit Nehru wrote:

 

I knew there is a certain amount of feeling in the country that the Central Government has somehow or other been weak and following a policy of appeasement towards Muslims.  This, of course, is complete nonsense.  There is no question of weakness or appeasement. We have a Muslims minority who are so large in numbers that they cannot, even if they want to, go anywhere else. They have got to live in India. That is a basic fact about which there can be no argument.  Whatever the provocation form Pakistan and whatever the indignities and horrors inflicted on non-Muslims there, we have got to deal with this minority in a civilised manner.  We must give them security and the rights of citizens in a democratic State. If we fail to do so, we shall have a festering sore which will eventually poison the whole body politic and probably destroy it.

 

The following excerpts from his letters are from the Part II:The Institutions of Democracy of Khosla’s book:

I have written to you often enough on the subject of detenus or people kept in prison or detention without trial. How far it is desirable to keep people for long in detention without trial. I would again ask you to consider how far it is desirable to keep people for long in detention without trial.  It must always be remembered that this is not a normal or proper method of government or administration and that it can only be indulged in in cases of grave emergency.  Our policy is that no one should be detained for holding or expressing any opinion peacefully.

 

We have a special duty to protect our minorities and we cannot permit individuals or groups to take the law into their own hands. It is for us to produce the sense of absolute security in the minds of the Muslims and other minorities. The majority always owes a duty of this kind to minorities. We must not think in terms of copying what Pakistan does or think of retaliation.   Both Hindu and Muslim, as well as Sikh or Christian or Parsi, must believe that they are as good citizens of India as anyone else. If we allow things to go wrong even in a small way, it will be difficult for us to correct them later. We function on the world stage today in a glare of publicity. If anything happens in India which is criticised or condemned outside, it will react very much to our disadvantage. Whatever we do, therefore, we must follow the right path and not imagine that a narrow opportunism of the moment, if it leads us astray, can possibly benefit us in the end.  As a democratic government, we are the servants of the public and must give effect to their wishes.  

 

No country can live in isolated existence in the modern world. Yet it is well to remember that the lesson the Father of the Nation taught us was to rely on ourselves and not to look too much to others for help. The strength of a nation comes from within, not from outside. It is by relying on ourselves that we achieve success. If we look to ourselves and have faith in ourselves and in our destiny, all else will follow. If that is lacking then whatever else comes is of little avail.  Confidence can come in full measure only if we tread a path which we believe to be right. It is this essential belief in the moral rightness of our case and of the methods that we employed under Gandhiji’s guidance, that gave us that strength in the past which brought freedom… the larger morality of having a great cause to work for and adhering to honorable methods. It means taking a broader view of this great country and of the world and rising above pettiness of communalism, provincialism and faction. Mahatma Gandhi taught us by infinite repetition the lesson of truth and non-violence.  Those people who encourage violence in India, in wherever shape or form or with whatever motive, encourage the forces of evil and disruption in this country.  

 

The coming of the Republic is a very big landmark in our history and the beginning of a new era.  It brings fulfilment of the dream of vast number of Indians for generations past.  It is the fulfilment of our pledge… we all know that we have not yet ended our journey, and a very important part of our pledge will remain to be redeemed. That relates to the economic condition of the people.  I hope that we shall try to forget, as far as possible the conflicts and divisions that have invaded our ranks and the bitterness that sometime creeps into our work. We must try to start afresh with open minds and open hearts, even for those who happen to differ from us.  It was the sovereign method of Gandhiji to attract and covert even the doubters and the quibblers.

 

And a prophetic lesson from the letter dated 16 June 1952:

 

We cannot compare India to the European countries or the American. These latter countries have had a long period of growth and industrialization and they have much small populations. We are committed to democratic and parliamentary institutions.  That does not necessarily mean that democracy must be rigid and unable to adapt itself to changing conditions. Democracy, apart from its institutions, is a way of Government and life itself.  I firmly believe that it is a better way than a dictatorship or authoritarianism. In the long run, dictatorships must, I think, rather stunt the growth of the country.  There are initial advantages which are obvious and the outward speed of progress appears to be fast.  But it is very doubtful if the essential quality which underlies human progress, that is the creative spirit of man, can develop adequately under an authoritarian system. To some extent, of course, such authoritarian systems as have economic equality as their goal are initially liberating forces and release tremendous popular energy.  That is a great advantage. But if dictatorship continues, the creative spirit may gradually fade away.

 

Democracy is supposed to nurture this creative spirit but if it cannot bring about a release from poverty of large masses of human beings, then that creative spirit can only function in a few. Poverty is after all is more restrictive and limiting than anything else.  If poverty and low standards continue then democracy, for all its fine institutions and ideals, ceases to be a liberating force. It must therefore aim continuously at the eradication of poverty and its companion unemployment. In other words, political democracy is not enough. It must develop into economic democracy also. The problem before India is to bring about this development as rapidly as possible. In the ultimate analysis, the world will not be governed by theories but by actual results achieved.  If India succeeded in achieving these results under a system of political democracy, that indeed would be a great victory not only for India but for democracy.

 

It is imperative that our politicians who aspire to govern people and ruling classes learn from these lessons in statecraft.   

 

 

 

 

 

.