Nehru - Visionary or Fool?
Jump to Page:
< Previous [ 1 ] [ 2 ] [ 3 ] [ 4 ] [ 5 ] [ 6 ] [ 7 ] [ 8 ] [ 9 ]
Posted on: 02-03-05 08:52:00
Hi All,
By Popular demand, I have started this thread to discuss another "Great" leader, Jawahar Lal Nehru, Free India's First Prime Minister. 
Before we begin, I'd like to lay down some ground rules.
1. Please refrain from using this thread to settle personal vendettas.
2. Please stick to the subject.
3. Please don't criticize someone for posting an opposing view with statements like "You don't know what you are talking about" or "people like you .....". Let's just stick to the facts.
ENJOY 
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Microsoft - Which end of the stick do you want today?
Guess why there exists, on God's green earth, a place called POK (Pakistan Occupied Kashmir)? It exists simply because the Indian army was stopped from driving Pakistan out of Indian territory by an idealistic Prime Minister, when it was in a position to do so during the Indo Pak war.
One of Nehru's greatest faults was his refusal to recognize the importance of a strong military for Free India. Nehru lived in an imaginary world where no conflict existed and Harmony reigned supreme. As a result, he not only failed to appoint competent military figures to oversee the security of India, he routinely gave in to his prejudice against the military by insulting Senior Military officers and refusing to include them into cabinet meetings and defense related decisions. When he did concede to let the Joint Chiefs of staff attend Cabinet level meetings, he forced them to do so "in mufti", thereby further demoralizing the Officer corps.
Nehru's policies -- his insistence on the public sector, on linguistic states, on non alignment, on blindly imitating the Soviet Union -- retarded India's progress and forced a great nation into the ranks of the Third World.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Microsoft - Which end of the stick do you want today?
Good topic - DT.
I would like to add another "ground rule" for the discussion - when discussing Nehru, the issue of Kashmir and Indo/Pak war is sure to come-up; but please respect the fact that it is a sensitive and political issue, and that there are many people on this group who are from Pakistan.
So let us respect everyone's country and discuss this as objectively and respectfully as possible.
That said, my opinion is that some of the things he did were with the right vision and some turned out to be bad decisions.
His political decisions mostly turned out badly because, as DT said, he had a vision of a world that was in harmony and he was not ready to accept conflict.
It is clear that he was not a politician - very different from M.A. Jinnah, who was a shrewd politicial.
He was, however, a great orator and writer.
His "Discovery of India" is a masterpiece to this day, and I imagine must be one of the greatest books written ever.
I am a great fan of his "Glimpses of World History" and personally love it more than the "Discovery of India".
I used to read it cover to cover during school summer vacations and whatever little history I know, it is owing to that book.
His "Letters from a Father to a Daughter", written from Naini prison are also great.
So basically, he was a great writer, very interested in the history, culture and traditions of India, yet was never a "people's man" the same way as Gandhi was.
In terms of his economic policies, I agree with him by-and-large, although most people will say today that his over-emphasis on public sector to control the "Commanding heights of the economy" was a bad idea.
Alongwith Prof. Mahalanobis, he designed an economic model which is unique to this day in the world - a combination of socialist principles, public welfare, as well as private enterprise.
Today, we may say that it was a wrong direction to take because of the so-called success of the capitalist countries like USA, Japan, Germany, etc.
But think back about the conditions in newly independent India - if we had not gone in that direction, the country would have gone to the dogs.
The USA and Japan were already great capitialist powers at that time - if we had opened up our country to them, they would literally have molded our country in the way they wanted.
In other words, instead of being a colony of Britain, we would have become a financial colony of the US or Japan, or whoever won the trade wars.
In restrospect, we can do a lot of nit-picking and find faults in his visions and policies, but if you put all that into perspective of a newly-independent India, stricken by poverty, lack of public infrastructure, no self-sufficiency, no trade balances, surrounded by enemies on both sides of the border, being prowled upon by the US on one hand, and the USSR on the other - I think we should give the benefit of the doubt to the leaders of those days.
My $0.02 CAD 
-----------------------------------------------------------------
"Mah deah, there is much more money to be made in the destruction of civilization than in building it up."
-- Rhett Butler in "Gone with the Wind"
PratickM, I agree that right after Independence, India lacked a public infrastructure, self-sufficiency and no trade balances She was also surrounded by enemies on both sides of the border and was stricken by poverty.
My question is, Why India fared so poorly after becoming independent? One reason, which some Historians and Economists state, was the misconception of Nehru and nationalist historians that the British Raj had de-industrialised India by policies that favoured export- orientation and foreign investment. Nehru's solution was to reduce the role of foreign trade and investment even as other countries like Hong Kong and Korea increased it. Nehru's wrong analysis led to the wrong solution.
It will be wrong to suggest that Nehru was the "cause" of India's poverty. India fared poorly even with liberal economic policies under the British Raj beacuse of the Raj's appalling neglect of agriculture and education.
Nehru continued the British neglect of agriculture, thinking it had little potential to alleviate poverty, and was simply a holding ground for surplus labour till industry provided jobs. He implicitly taxed farming to finance industry through adverse terms of trade, and depended on food aid. Only after his death, did the Green Revolution demonstrate that dynamic agriculture was the most powerful possible tool to alleviate poverty and accelerate economic growth.
He also repeated the British mistake of neglecting primary education. The British used to pat themselves on the back for bringing "modem education" to India. Macaulay believed such education was essential to create a local Indian community that could help the British rule. But that was the whole problem-the new educational system produced a thin upper crust of educated Indians while the majority languished in illiteracy. The literacy rate was just 16 per cent in 1950, while it was nearer 50 per cent in Japan and Korea. Worse, India neglected literacy after independence, so it stands today at just 52 per cent against 78 per cent even in disaster African economies like Zambia and Kenya.
India adopted most of the worse aspects of welfare capitalism and avoided a majaority of the best. It embraced state paternalism, class war, rigid labour practices and mindless protectionism. And it ignored really important aspects like universal education.
While it wasn't all Nehru's doing, as PM he was responsible regardless.
A stronger and more liberal economy combined with a Stronger Military would have not only kept the Hostile neighbours at bay, it would also have given India the bargaining power needed to avoid becoming a "Financial Colony" for another Country.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Microsoft - Which end of the stick do you want today?
Quote:It is difficult to answer this question without having lots of stats and research to back it up, but my own feeling is that because this policy was not changed after it had served its purpose.
Orginally posted by DesiTiger
My question is, Why India fared so poorly after becoming independent?
Every policy and vision has its lifetime - after that, it becomes merely a fetter to growth and progress.
That is what happened to the Nehruvian socio-economic structure.
It should have been modernised and changed in the 60s or latest in the 70s.
But India was living in the same economic model up until the early 1990s, when Dr. Manmohan Singh liberalised the economy and opened the doors to foreign investment.
India had several golden chances to change its economic structure - but missed all those chances.
In the 60s, during the time of JFK, when J. K. Galbraith was the ambassador to India, India had the chance to open its door to foreign investment, but didn't take advantage.
Even when it became apparent in the 70s and early 80s that the Soviet economic model was not working and even the East European countries in the Soviet Bloc were degenerating, India did nothing.
The result was that by the time India started changing in the 90s, we had huge forex debts, through the roof fiscal deficits and a host of other problems.
So basically, our post-Nehru leaders were not dynamic enough to realise that the economic policies needed a change.
Even Nehru did not realise that during his last days.
Quote:I am not sure that it was the wrong thing to do at that time.
Nehru's solution was to reduce the role of foreign trade and investment even as other countries like Hong Kong and Korea increased it. Nehru's wrong analysis led to the wrong solution.
If we had not done that, India would have become a dumping ground and a "cash cow" for the mightly capitalist economies of the west, namely the USA, Germany, UK, France and possibly Japan too.
And as usual, "culture follows capital" - we are seeing that now anyway.
If Nehru had not done what he did back then, the process of cultural and fiancial ruin would have happened back then.
Quote:
Nehru continued the British neglect of agriculture, thinking it had little potential to alleviate poverty, and was simply a holding ground for surplus labour till industry provided jobs.
I agree absolutely !
He was blinded by the economic model followed by the Soviet Union, which at that time, was the Stalinist model, and not the true Bolshevik model of Lenin and Marx.
The only difference was what Stalin did by brute force and torture, Nehru tried to do in a more "humane" way.
The Stanilist model was to collectivise the farms - no individual ownership.
Extract the surplus labour out of there and feed the heavy industry - thereby creating industrial jungle cities and barren countryside lands.
Collective agriculture destroyed the USSR, and it didn't serve India well either.
Nehru had tunnel vision there.
Quote:I agree with you there, with the exception of Japan.
The literacy rate was just 16 per cent in 1950, while it was nearer 50 per cent in Japan and Korea. Worse, India neglected literacy after independence, so it stands today at just 52 per cent against 78 per cent even in disaster African economies like Zambia and Kenya.
When India became independent, Japan was already a major industrial and economic power (not withstanding the war damage).
Japan had started its modernisation in the 1800s, at a time when India was being pillaged and ravaged by the British Rule.
Quote:I don't think it would have been that easy.
A stronger and more liberal economy combined with a Stronger Military would have not only kept the Hostile neighbours at bay, it would also have given India the bargaining power needed to avoid becoming a "Financial Colony" for another Country.
First of all, where would India have found the money for strengthening its military?
From foreign investment - don't kid yourself.
Do you think the USA would have invested capital in India and at the same time allowed India to modernise its economy?
I agree that had India done so, the result of the '62 war against China would have been a lot different.
The USA at that time was already struggling with what to do about China, which was becoming a regional power.
And of course there was the USSR - do you think they would have let another regional superpower arise in the form of India?
Foreign investment is not without strings - usually those strings are non-financial, and more strategic.
If we had gone this route that time, today we would have had a public infrastructure totally developed and controlled by foreign multi-nationals, a military that was not independent, all the "commanding heights of the economy" controlled by foreign investment.
I am personally glad we didn't go that way.
Also, for the record, I don't consider Hong Kong and S. Korea great models of economic growth - they may be producing the cheapest electronics and the cheapest cars, but they have no identity of their own.
What does Hong Kong have to offer the world, other than cheap electronics?
We at least have a rich, diverse and tolerant culture that still retains its identity, not to mention that we are the leaders in the technological revolution.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
"Mah deah, there is much more money to be made in the destruction of civilization than in building it up."
-- Rhett Butler in "Gone with the Wind"
Quote:
Orginally posted by pratickm
We at least have a rich, diverse and tolerant culture that still retains its identity.
That's what makes me feel proud to be an Indian. We are a Nation with Hindu majority, a Muslim President and a Sikh Prime Minister. No other country in the world can claim that.
That said, I still don't agree with a lot of polices of the Govt. that sidelines the majority Hindu population, but again, that discussion is for another Thread
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Microsoft - Which end of the stick do you want today?
Pratick Bhai, looks like our "Ground Rules" are scaring away people!
Come On Guys, give your opinion. 
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Microsoft - Which end of the stick do you want today?
Advertise Contact Us Privacy Policy and Terms of Usage FAQ Canadian Desi © 2001 Marg eSolutions Site designed, developed and maintained by Marg eSolutions Inc. |