26 J L Nehru and Democratic Socialism

• SYNOPSIS
• LEARNING OBJECTIVES
• ABSTRACT
• INTRODUCTION
• DEMOCRATIC SOCIALISM
• IS DEMOCRATIC SOCIALISM AND SOCIAL DEMOCRACY SAME? NEHRU: A TRUE DEMOCRATIC SOCIALIST
• SOCIALISM AND INDIA
• SOCIALISTS VS CONSERVATIVES
• ACHIEVING THE SOCIALIST STATE IN INDIA
• FEATURES OF SOCIALIST PATTERN OF SOCIETY
• PARLIAMENTARY DEMOCRACY
• PEACEFUL SOLUTION TO CLASS CONFLICT
• SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT THROUGH PLANNING DEMOCRATIC INSTITUTION
• COOPERATIVE SOCIETY
• RELEVANCE OF NEHRU VISION IN TODAY WORLD
• MIXED ECONOMY AND MARXISM CRITICISM
• AS A DEMOCRATIC SOCIALIST AS RADICAL SOCIALISTON EQUALITY
• SUMMARY
• REFERENCES
• SELF ASSESMENT

 

Abstract:

 

Jawaharlal Nehru was a great “Indian Democratic Socialist”. Infact, he was the harbinger of Socialist tends in Indian Nationalist Movement. Democratic Socialism is a political ideology that advocates political democracy alongwith social ownership of means of production. Again, it is an ideology that believes that both the economy and the society should function democratically to meet the needs of the whole community.

 

Key Words:

 

Democracy, Socialism, Capitalism, Communism, Socialistic Pattern.

 

Objectives :

 

To understand Democratic Socialism from Nehru’s Perspective

 

Introduction

 

Democratic socialism

 

Democratic socialism is a political ideology that advocates political democracy alongside social ownership of the means of production, often with an emphasis on democratic management of enterprises within a socialist economic system. The term “democratic socialism” is sometimes used synonymously with “socialism”; the adjective “democratic” is often added to distinguish it from the Marxist – Leninist brand of socialism, which is widely viewed as being “non – democratic” in practice.

 

1 Is Democratic socialism and Social Democracy Same?

 

1Busky, Donald F. (July 20, 2000). Democratic Socialism: A Global Survey. Praeger. pp. 7–8. ISBN 978-0275968861. “Democratic socialism is the wing of the socialist movement that combines a belief in a socially owned economy with that of political democracy. Sometimes simply called socialism, more often than not, the adjective democratic is added by democratic socialists to attempt to distinguish themselves from Communists who also call themselves socialists. All but communists, or more accurately, Marxist-Lenininsts, believe that modern-day communism is highly undemocratic and totalitarian in practice, and democratic socialists wish to emphasize by their name that they disagree strongly with the Marxist-Leninist brand of socialism.”

 

Democratic socialism is also sometimes used as a synonym for social democracy, although many say this is misleading because de mocratic socialism advocates social ownership of the means of production, whereas social democracy does not . 2 In simple terms, Democratic Socialism as an ideology is an extension of the liberal propagation of democracy altered to suit the needs of all the c ountries of the world . The ideology believes that democracy and socialism are one and indivisible, there cannot be a true democracy without a true socialism, and there cannot be a true socialism without a true democracy . The two come together in equality, social justice, fair share for all and an irreversible shift in the balance of wealth and power to workers and their families.

 

Nehru: A True Democratic Socialist

 

One of the main exponents of Democratic Socialism in India was the former Indian Prime Ministe r J L Nehru . He argued that Democratic Socialism could mitigate the evils of all the third world countries .

 

Pt . Jawaharlal Nehru was a great Indian Democratic Socialist . He was the harbinger of the socialist trend in Indian National Movement and, indeed, was instrumental in making India embark upon the path of socialism . However, he wanted to achieve the objectives of socialism gradually within the democratic framework . He was one of the few who did not take democracy forgranted but sought to explain his co nception and show how it could be brought into harmony with his conception of socialism and how it could be implemented . In this connection, he was very much influenced by the British socialists of his days. Nehru was very much moved when he saw his countrymen suffering from poverty, ignorance and disease .

 

He thought socialism was the only panacea for all ills prevalent in the Indian Society . He brought to bear on this central problem his modern mind and scientific temper . Scientific socialism, tempered by his intense humanism thus became his intellectual tool . He was a practical idealist . 3 In a 1963 address to the All India Congress Committee, Indian Prime Minister

 

2 http://www.dsausa.org/what_is_democratic_socialism

3  https://www.jstor.org/stable/41854092

 

Jawaharlal Nehru stated: “Political Democracy has no meaning if it does not embrace economic democracy . And economic democracy is nothing but socialism. ” 4

 

Nehru emphasized on fr ee and fair elections where the suffrage for the citizens is a must, for example, the goal of democratic socialism also encompasses the issues pertaining to the nationalization of means of production . They also include steps like raising the mini mum wages, removal of poverty, securing a national health plan, check concentration of economic power and demanding passage of welfare legislations for the workers . 5

 

Building of A Socialist Thinker

 

Nehru became interested in the philosophy of socialism from an ear ly period in his life, while studying law in London, he was “vaguely attracted to the Fabians and socialistic ideas .”But such ideas on socialism were formed mainly from books and not from practical experiences . In 1920, Nehru visited some of the villages i n U . P . This adventure was a revelation to him. Until now, he was ignorant of village – life and the dumb – misery of the starving peasants who were clad in rags, hunger and emancipation.

 

It was a novel and eye – opening experience for him and he has recalled i n his ‘An Autobiography’ “Looking at them and their misery and overflowing gratitude, I was filled with shame and sorrow, shame at my own easy – going and comfortable life and our petty politics of the city which ignored this vast multitude of semi – naked sons and daughters of India, sorrow at the degradation and overwhelming poverty of India . A new picture of India seemed to rise before me, naked, starving, crushed and utterly miserable . ” 6 International Visits and Socialism

 

After the Brussels Congress, Jawaharlal Nehru visited U . S .S .R . alongwith his father, Motilal Nehru and sister Krishna Nehru . Motilal Nehru

 

4 https://www.jstor.org/stable/ 41854084

5  http://www.yourarticlelibrary.com/essay/nehrus-views-on-democratic-socialism/40303/

6  https://www.jstor.org/stable/41854093

 

“found it hard to understand the new Russia and the collective idea of the Soviet Union. ” But Jawaharlal was greatly impressed by the tremendous changes taking place over there .

 

Nehru has recalled: “My outlook was wider, and nationalism by itself seemed to me definitely a narrow and insufficient creed . Political freedom, independence, were no doubt essential, but they w ere steps only in the right direction; without social freedom and a socialistic structure of society and the state, neither the country nor the individual could develop much . In Soviet Russia, despite certain unpleasant aspects, attracted me greatly and se emed to hold forth a message of hope to the world .” This visit of the Soviet land left a profound impression on Nehru’s mind . Socialism was his new creed now, and the Soviet Union was seen as the land where such a creed flourished, despite many drawbacks. 7

 

Nehru wanted the model of Democratic Socialism which suits Indian traditions and ethos . He was influenced by the Fabian Socialism of Britain . He was of the opinion, that Parliamentary politics is the means of achieving socialism. Multiple social groups an d ideological groups will strengthen Indian democracy . Pluralism will become the ideological foundation of individual liberty and societal demands must have a beautiful reconciliation. 8 Socialism and India:

 

S o c i a l i s t s vs Conservatives:

 

The espousal of socialism as the Congress goal was most difficult to achieve . Nehru was opposed in this by the right – wing Congressmen Sardar Patel, Dr .Rajendra Prasad and Chakravarthi Rajagopalachari . He had the support of the left – wing Congressmen Maulana Azad and Subhas Chandra Bose. The trio combined to oust Dr . Prasad as Congress President in 1936. Nehru was elected in his place and held the presidency for two years (1936 – 37) . 9

 

Nehru was then succeeded by his socialist colleagues Bose (1938 –39) and Azad (1940 – 46) . After the fall of Bose from the mainstream of Indian

 

7 http://inc.in/CongressSandesh/123/Socialism-of-Jawaharlal-Nehru-and-Indian-National-Congress

8  https://www.upscsuccess.com/sites/default/files/documents/Unit-23%20Jawaharlal%20Nehru.pdf

9  https://kufarooq93.wordpress.com/category/indian-national-congress/

 

politics (due to his support of violence in driving the British out of India), the power struggle between the socialists and conservatives balanced out . However, Sardar Patel died in 1950, leaving Nehru as t he sole remaining iconic national leader, and soon the situation became such that Nehru was able to implement many of his basic policies without hindrance . The conservative right – wing of the Congress (comprising of India’s upper class elites) would continu e opposing the socialists until the great schism in 1969 . Nehru’s daughter, Indira Gandhi, was able to fulfill her father’s dream by the 42nd amendment (1976) of the Indian constitution by which India officially became “socialist” and “secular”. 10

 

Nehru’s a cceptance of political democracy was not unqualified. As he considered it to means to achieve the end of social democracy . “I am perfectly prepared to accept political democracy,” he said, “only in the hope that this will lead to social democracy .” He was clear in his mind that political democracy “is only the way to the goal and is not the final objective”. He saw clearly that if profound economic changes did not take place fast enough, the political struct ure would be rendered unstable . If political or social institutions stand in the way of such change, they have to be removed .

 

Achieving the Socialist State in India :

 

Socialism, whose essence is the removal of poverty and establishment of equal opportunities if not of equality in the strictest sense, has ne cessarily to suit the conditions of each country, and Nehru’s constant effort was to bring about changes without destroying the fabric of Indian society, even if certain parts of that fabric were to be replaced .

 

Nehru saw the socialist society as some kind of a cooperative society, in which each individual would give of his best and would find full scope for his own development . The very first step had to be the ending of the profit motive of the acquisitive society to which we are accustomed . The dilemma he faced was the result of his desire to avoid a violent upheaval that could

 

10http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jawaharlal_Nehru#cite_note-42_amend-44

 

have disastrous consequences for future generations of our people and to take the maximum number of people along with him on the new path . This was no easy task, for the vested int erests in the acquisitive society which he wanted to end were entrenched in the party and in the administrative apparatus which had necessarily to be his major instruments . Also it was these interests which were active during the freedom struggle, and even more in the years of freedom, and they were able to create the illusion of democratic functioning without active participation by the masses of our population who were to gain by the changes Nehru envisaged . 11

 

It must be said that Jawaharlal Nehru fully re alised the difficulties inherent in seeking radical change through democratic processes. In thinking of a form of socialism suited to our national needs and national genius, Nehru envisaged a limited place for the private sector, but he was quite clear abo ut the framework. I think it is possible to establish socialism by democratic means provided, of course, the full democratic process is available . 12

 

Nehru said: We have to plan at both ends . We have to stop the cumulative forces that make the rich richer and we have to start the cumulative forces which enable the poor to get over the barrier of poverty . 13

 

Democratic socialism is a synthesis of ‘Democracy’ and ‘Socialism’, the essence of both being equality. It is basic faith of democracy that however men differ in their individual talents and abilities they are equal in their membership of a common society. Society is imbued with the same faith. It recognises the fundamental desire of the vast majority of men and women to be co – operative in solving their common social, political and economic problems and accept this desire as a primary motivation of social organism so as to create a pattern within which the whole personality of a man can develop .

 

No doubt under this broader perspective one can find the common ground, but in fact both, Democracy and Socialism, as separate and

 

11https://www.mainstreamweekly.net/article29.html

12 shodhganga.inflibnet.ac.in/bitstream/10603/49272/8/08_chapter%202.pdf

13 iosrjournals.org/iosr-jhss/papers/Vol19-issue7/Version-3/L01973103105.pdf

 

independent systems, represent two different natures of equalities. Democracy always emphasises ‘political equality’ without taking into account the equitable distribution of wealth and socia l justice . The emphasis of Socialism, on the other hand, has always been on ‘economic equality’ without paying much attention towards political freedom and individual dignity . The insufficiencies of both are sought to be remedied under ‘Democratic Socialis m’ where ‘equality’ in the words of the late Prime Minister Nehru, ‘means not merely the equality of possessing a vote, but economic and social equality .’ It is basically accepted that neither of the equalities can be fully achieved without the help of the other . It is under this impression that Pandit Nehru declared, “Political Democracy has no meaning if it does not embrace economic democracy . And economic democracy is nothing but socialism. 14

 

Features of the socialistic pattern of society:

 

For the promoti on of freedom, a socialistic pattern of society is indispensable . It should involve the features like removal of poverty; reduction of inequalities of income and wealth; provision of equal opportunities to all; check on concentration of economic power, cur bing monopolistic tendencies; democratic values, mixed economy etc .

 

In his words:

 

“I gazed at the millions of friendly eyes that looked at me and I tried to understand what lay behind them. The more I saw of India the more I felt how little I know of her infinite charm and variety .”

 

Being halted by plights of the teeming millions of In dian people, Nehru adopted a socialistic pattern of society.

 

Belief in parliamentary democracy:

 

14https://www.jstor.org/stable/418540

 

Nehru was a firm believer in the parliamentary democracy . He had full faith on the ruling party and healthy opposition. He believed on universal adult suffrage for the success of democracy. For the success of parliamentary democracy, he put emphasis on the rule of majority, methods of discussion, negotiation, persuasion and so on .

 

The press, judiciary and public opinion will have a check on the legislators and will be the guard in checking corruptions in parliamentary democracy .

 

Peaceful solution to class conflict:

 

In a democratic – socialistic set – up, Nehru opined that class conflict should be ended by peaceful solution . He never believed in the Marxian idea of class struggle or communist – policy of ‘ruthless suppression’. On a democratic set – up, due caution should be taken to put an end to the class conflicts inside the society .

 

Social development through planning:

 

Another significant aspect of Nehru’s Model of Economic Development was the creation of Consciousness of Economic Planning . 15

 

Nehru thought to bring all – around development of the society through planning . lt will help in eliminating poverty and achieving social justice for the masses . By planning, he wa nted to raise national income and to spend them in productive channels for the improvement of the lot of the poor people of India .

 

The First Five Year Plan (1951 – 56), the Second Five Year Plan (1956 -61)      and the Third Five Year Plan (1961 – 66) galvanized Nehru’s democratic socialism. 16

 

Belief in Democratic Institutions:

 

15R.C. Pillai; Political Thought in Modern India p-26

16  http://www.preservearticles.com/201106238420/nehru-and-democratic-socialism.html

 

Nehru would not discard the democratic processes or bypass the democratic institutions in order to put his ideas into practice. In the prevalent society with a long history of feudalism, caste hierarchy, religious divergence, multiplicity of languages and customs, in fact of stratification of society in a variety of ways, it has not been easy to correlate tradition and change to work out a viable compromise between the best of cherished values and the urgency of eliminating social and economic inequalities . Jawaharlal Nehru realised that revolution in our situation had to be voluntary and thus could not be imposed . He admired the Soviet achievements and accepted the ultimate ideals of Marxism, b ut he was not ready to apply the same methods in India.

 

In an underdeveloped nation with many layers of development within itself, both vertical and horizontal, and with a variety of vested interests wielding tremendous influence and extremely articulate, the difficulties involved in bringing about radical changes by consent were obvious enough . Yet the alternatives to the democratic system are so risky and unpredictable that he would not lightly discard his faith, even if this meant a visible, often frustrating, slowing down of the process of change. 17

 

Nehru’s acceptance of political democracy was not unqualified. “I am perfectly prepared to accept political democracy,” he said, “only in the hope that this will lead to social democracy .” He was clear in his mind that political democracy “is only the way to the goal and is not the final objective”. He saw clearly that if profound economic changes did not take place fast enough, the political structure would be rendered unstable .If political or social instituti ons stand in the way of such change, they have to be removed .

 

Belief in Cooperative Society

 

Nehru saw the socialist society as some kind of a cooperative society, in which each individual would give of his best and would find full scope for his own develop ment . The very first step had to be the ending of the profit

 

17www.theopinionjournal.com/upload/gallery/1452700996305041198.pdf

 

motive of the acquisitive society to which we are accustomed . The dilemma he faced was the result of his desire to avoid a violent upheaval that could have disastrous consequences for future gene rations of our people and to take the maximum number of people along with him on the new path .

 

This was not an easy task, for the vested interests in the acquisitive society which he wanted to end were entrenched in the party and in the administrative ap paratus which had necessarily to be his major instruments . Also, it was these interests which were active during the freedom struggle, and even more in the years of freedom, and they were able to create the illusion of democratic functioning without active participation by the masses of our population who were to gain by the changes Nehru envisaged .

 

Once Nehru said that two contradictory and conflicting processes could not go on side by side that unfortunately is what has been happening . The Directive Princ iples contain a broad outline of the kind of socialist society envisaged, but the many amendments to other chapters of the Constitution that have been necessitude have brought out the dichotomy in thinking that characterised the Constitution – making body. On another plane, the formulation of the concept of “mixed economy” representated on the one hand the “half – way house” Nehru thought of and on the other the ability of the vested interests to keep “two contradictory and conflicting processes” going on side by side, a situation Nehru did not desire .

 

 

It is no coincidence that the “mixed economy” in operation has resulted in a strengthening of the monopoly and big business houses, and a consequent tightening of their hold on the administrative apparatus. If corruption has increased and the public sector has not been enlarged and strengthened to the extent it should have been, this is because of acceptance of the “mixed economy” as something of a “half – way house” .It must be said that Jawaharlal Nehru fully reali sed the difficulties inherent in seeking radical change through democratic processes .I think it is possible to establish socialism by democratic means provided, of course, the full democratic process is available. ( Emphasis added)

 

There has been mass awake ning as never before in our history and despite massive illiteracy our people have demonstrated their capacity to reject what is against their interests. But the real problem is that the democratic process is not yet fully developed, and the people have on ly limited choice. The limitations imposed by our circumstances, both historical and man – made, have helped both the urban and rural vested interests to twist the democratic process to suit their own ends which are diametrically opposed to the interests of the masses .

 

In thinking of a form of socialism suited to our national needs Nehru envisaged a limited place for the private sector, but he was quite clear about the framework. In all that counts, in a material sense, nationalisation of the instruments of p roduction and distribution seems to be inevitable .

 

The question is whether there can be a step – by – step approach in this matter . Our experience with the takeover of the wholesale trade in foodgrains shows that partial measures in dealing with production and distribution of essential commodities can defeat the very objective . The fate of the land reform measures has shown an administrative machinery that is not geared to the task, can work havoc . The continuing importance and influence of the big business houses seem as the direct result of the failure to involve the people at the grassroot level more and more in the processes of planning, production and distribution .

 

It is possible to find fault with Jawaharlal Nehru for not having made the maximum use of his popularity to force the pace of change, but to do so is to overlook the historical forces that had shaped him and the historical circumstances in which he had to function, apart from his own commitment to the democratic processes as well as to the instrum ents at his disposal . It is debatable how much more he could have achieved in his life – time, but it is indisputable that he laid firm foundations for the kind of society we want to build in this country . It is for us and for future generations to build on these foundations .

 

Nehru View regarding Indian Revolution

 

Nehru was conscious that the Indian Revolution would be long and arduous, for he said: “Leaders and individuals may come and go; they may get tired and slacken off; they may compromise and betray; but the exploited and suffering masses must carry on the struggle, for their drill sergeant is hunger .” If the social and economic burdens of the masses “continue and are actually added to, the fight must not only continue but grow more intense” . The masses would ultimately assert themselves, and of this he had not the least doubt .

 

Goal of Socialism and Theory of Two instruments

 

It was his hope that the political parties and the administrative apparatus would help the masses to assert themselves and secure their rights . He was quite clear in his mind that a leadership that failed to take the masses nearer the goal of socialism would be thrown aside, and the mass upsurge in 1969 following the elimination of the Syndicate from the Congress would appear to bear this out, even if only in a very limited sense .

 

Nehru said:

 

“We have to plan at both ends . We have to stop the cumulative forces that make the rich richer and we have to start the cumulative forces which enable the poor to get over the barrier of poverty. ”

 

The planning process unfortunately has not gone on the way he had intended it to, and this is where the two main instruments on which he had to depend come in .

 

1.    Rejection of “coat and necktie” mentality

 

Nehru wanted the services to “cease to think of themselves as some select coterie apart from the rest of the people”, and he rejected people with the “coat and necktie” mentality . In other words, he wanted a new type of administrator to emerge, who could identify himself with the common people without effort and who would not become either a tool in the hands of vested interests or a self – seeker without a conscience . Unfortunately this kind of change has not come about; on the other hand, the expanded administrative structure has careerists and self – seekers in many key positions . This has to change .

 

2 .  Vision of making Congress a Mass Party

 

As for the other instrument, the Congress, it may now be in better shape than in Nehru’s time, but what he said about Congressmen remains relevant .

 

Congressmen should make the organisation strong and effective . Use of money for boosting individuals in the organisations is extremely undesirable. Bogus members should be weeded out . Those in the organisation for whom the Congress is not an instrument for serving the count ry, who serve themselves and exploit it for their own ends… should be turned out .

 

He wanted the party to be a mass party, constantly in touch with the people and reflecting their aspirations, constantly struggling to end social and economic injustice. Some changes have taken place in the sparty in recent times, but it is still far from being the kind of instrument for change that Jawaharlal Nehru wanted it to be . It is to be hoped that the new forces at work within the Congress and the mass consciousness tha t has developed in the country will make it so .

 

Our aim and our problems were succinctly summed up when Jawaharlal Nehru said:Socialism is the inevitable outcome of democracy . Political democracy has no meaning if it does not embrace economic democracy . An d economic democracy is nothing but socialism. Monopoly is the enemy of socialism. To that extent it has grown during the last few years, we have drifted away from the goal of socialism. 18

 

18https://www.mainstreamweekly.net/article29.html

 

C r i t i c i s m :

 

As a Democratic Socialist:

 

Nehru was not ready to sacrifi ce democratic methods for speedy progress and was firmly committed to democratic socialism.

 

According to Dr . Gopal, this was a flaw in the thinking of Nehru. Nehru felt that democracy and socialism were equal partners and could not be divorced . “But Nehru , although a radical in the European tradition, set out with confidence to work for this unprecedented, almost superhuman experiment of democratic socialism in a setting of Asian tradition and economic backwardness” 19

 

Nehru always remained a sociali st wedded to democratic practices. He made the Indians aware of the value of the parliament as an instrument of social change. As a leader of the majority party Nehru tried to act as far as possible on the basis of consensus . Communists have criticized Neh ru bitterly (R . K . Das Gupta, H . Mukerjee) for having failed to be the leader of the true socialist revolution . Nehru was, according to them, torn between socialism and Gandhism and sacrificed socialism in his devotion to democratic norms and the value of liberalism and individualism.

 

Nehru laid primary stress on democracy and the freedom of the individual for fear that a revolutionary equality might annihilate the individual . It is essential that assessment of Nehru’s concept of socialism should be based on the fact that Nehru always wanted to achieve a socialist reconstruction of society by democratic means rather than by violent revolution. His conviction was that socialism without democracy would be tyranny in any, and especially in the Indian context .

 

It is no doubt true the despite his massive personal popularity and the power at his disposal in the government and in the party, Jawaharlal Nehru could not put into practice many of the ideas he spelt out regarding the

 

19http://shodhganga.inflibnet.ac.in/bitstream/10603/38628/11/11_chapter%205.pdf

 

radical changes, social and economi c, that our society required. But this must be seen in the background of the dilemma he faced as an honest politician committed to socialism on the one hand and to democracy on the other . Rightly, he saw no contradiction between the two, for, who can deny that true democracy is the only viable basis for genuine socialism and that without advance towards the goal of socialism democracy will be bereft of meaning?

 

As a Radical Socialist:

 

Further, according to his estimate, radical solutions were impossible in the Indian situation, where super – situation, fatalism, ignorance, and class distinctions were age – old features . In such a situation socialism could be brought about by gradual, peaceful and democratic means, by a steady conversion of the people and by enli sting their support and participation. Nehru advocated a rapid progress towards radical socialism before independence. After 1947 he adjusted himself to the Indian circumstances and problems . Though he was flexible about tactics, he was rigid about goals . Nehru always considered democracy and socialism as means to the end, not the end itself .

 

On Equality:

 

Nehru contended that liberty and democracy had no significance except in the context of equality . In his presidential address to the Indian National Congress at Lahore in 1929 Nehru declared, ‘Today politics have ceased to have much meaning, and the most vital question is that of social and economic equality” Laying stress on the importance of equality Nehru asserted, “Democracy means equality and demo cracy can only flourish in an equal society” .

 

He realized that political liberty brought the vote but was of little use when society was riddled with poverty and economic inequality . Long back Nehru stated, ‘There cannot be ups and downs and social inequal ities in this country. These must be got rid of . We have to build up a new social order in which everyone will have the fullest opportunity for development, no exploitation, and in which there will not be merely political democracy, but economic democracy, which means economic equality without which political democracy will be a hoax . What does it matter to one whether he has a vote or not, when he is hungry and starving. ” 20

 

Relevance of Nehru’s Vision in Today(Concept of Marxism and Mixed Economy):

 

The relevance of Jawaharlal Nehru remains undiminished today. In fact, his ideas and approach to political, economic and social issues are more relevant now than in his lifetime . It is necessary to state this basic truth and assess the continuing validity and vita lity of his approach, because some who unabashedly use his name seek to project him as a pragmatist rather than as the firmly committed socialist that he was .

 

It is the fashion these days to say that socialism is a vague term, that it is a slogan, and tha t there is no precise definition of what it means . This is essentially the argument of the believers in the status quo, of those who are afraid of radical change that will either hurt their own interests or destroy their pet theories .

 

In our context, with a long history of feudalism, caste hierarchy, religious divergence, multiplicity of languages and customs, in fact of stratification of society in a variety of ways, it has not been easy to correlate tradition and change, to work out a viable compromise be tween the best of cherished values and the urgency of eliminating social and economic inequalities .

 

In an underdeveloped nation with many layers of development within itself, both vertical and horizontal, and with a variety of vested interests wielding tremendous influence and extremely articulate, the difficulties involved in bringing about radical changes by consent were obvious enough . Yet the alternatives to the democratic system are so risky and unpredictable

 

20http://shodhganga.inflibnet.ac.in/bitstream/10603/38628/11/11_chapter%205.pdf

 

that he would not lightly discard his fait h, even if this meant a visible, often frustrating, slowing down of the process of change. 21

 

Jawaharlal Nehru realized that revolution in our situation had to be by consent and could not be by imposition. He admired the Soviet achievements and accepted the ultimate ideals of Marxism, but he did not make a secret of his reservations about applying the same methods in the case of our country. 22

 

The only way to maintain democracy and strengthening it is to accord solutions as per the demand of time and space . In this regard, the views and methodology of Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru can become more or less ideal for those who have concern for challenges facing Indian democracy. Particularly Nehru’s stress upon healthy criticism, according opportunities to opposition, providing a platform for wide discussion on issues, call to observe and resolve problems having national interest supreme, developing a basis for broad outlook, is of utmost importance in the twenty first century for India and the world in this era of globa lization . 23

 

Nehru’s preference for a mixed economy seemed appropriate under the circumstances . To put it in his own words, “I am no believer in Communist theory – there is much in it which I accept in the economic theory, but basically I think it is out of date today, more especially in this atomic age . I think equally that the opposite theory is out of date in the context of modern world affairs .”

 

 

Deviation from Gandhi’s Idea:

 

Though Nehru findin Gandhiji’s conception of democracy something more than the ordinary, stating that “It is based on service and sacrifice, and it uses moral pressure” 24 but Nehru’s value – system was different from that of Gandhi . He believed in science and technology and their application to industrial and agricultural development an d a better ordering of social life .

 

21swapsushias.blogspot.com › … › ESSAY › General Studies (Mains Special) › Socialism

22 http://www.theopinionjournal.com/upload/gallery/1452700996305041198.pdf

23 http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/WO0904/S00143/indian-democracy-in-twenty-first-century.htm

24 http://socialsciences.in/article/jawaharlal-nehru-architect-indian-democracy