Revisiting Nehruvian Idealism in the Context of Contemporary Imperialism

Author(s): Anirudh Deshpande

Source: Economic and Political Weekly, Vol. 41, No. 52 (Dec. 30, 2006 - Jan. 5, 2007), pp. 54085413
Published by: Economic and Political Weekly
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/4419087 .
Accessed: 15/01/2015 10:22
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Economic and Political Weekly is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to
Economic and Political Weekly.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 14.139.214.178 on Thu, 15 Jan 2015 10:22:58 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Revisiting Nehruvian Idealism in the

Imperialism
Context of Contemporary
A critical understandingof Nehruvian idealism is needed especially when there
is a tendencyto hold Nehru responsiblefor nearly everythingthat was wrong with
India before liberalisation and globalisation. This paper evaluates Nehru's vision
on Asian cooperation and argues that this was neither an armchair nor an utopian
vision but historically grounded in concrete political struggle and personal
experience.Revisitinghis idealism offers the possibility of fashioning a
stronger and real groundfor shaping another resurgence.
ANIRUDH DESHPANDE

The routineway to overthrowa civilian governmentis to establish

relations with elements in the military, the folks who will have
to do thejob. The projectsometimesmeets with success;Indonesia
andChile were two recentexamples. Iranturnedout to be a harder
nut to crack. Rights accrue to various actors according to their
place within the general strategicconception. The US has rights
by definition.The cops on the beat have rightsunless they defect,
in which case, if too independent,they become enemies. The local
managershave rights as long as they keep to their business. If
an "iron fist" is needed to preserve "stability",so be it.
-Noam Chomsky, Powers and Prospects, 1996, pp 139-40.
The ideaof a mixedeconomy is possibly the most valuableheritage
that the 20th century bequeathed to the 21st in the realm of
economic policy.
-Dani Rodrik, 'Development Strategies for the 21st Century',
Annual World Bank Conference on
Development Economics 2000.

rT heopening decade of the 21st century is quite significant

from the viewpoint of evaluating Jawaharlal Nehru's

conception of Asian solidarity both for contemporaryand
historical reasons. After all, it is increasingly being asserted in
various quarters that the coming century will most probably be
dominated by China and India. Glorious days seemingly await
these ancient civilisations which, we are being repeatedly informed by the apologists of globalisation, are said to be poised
on the threshold of global dominance once again. Since the 18th
century history seems to have come a full circle.1 One only hopes
it is not repeated!Analysts tell us thatwhile the west, and specially
a heavily indebted US, is declining, Asia, led by its two giants,
is rising to claim a rightful place in world history. Such views
are hardly new and have periodically surfaced to hold sway over
opinion in the past with reference to other countries. For instance,
the Bolshevik revolution and subsequent formation of the USSR
inspired seven decades of socialist experiments across the globe.
Perhaps the rise of Japan at the beginning of the 20th century
had inspired similar feelings, and fears we must not fail to
mention, in a different context. However, it was the promise that
Asia's futureheld for many of his anti-imperialistcontemporaries
thatbegan JawaharlalNehru's political journey. Fromthe moment
Japan defeated Russia, Nehru began dreaming of leading India
to freedom from colonial slavery. Japan, to begin with, did not
appear as an imperialist power to Nehru. In 1905, it was more
an apposite symbol of Asian awakening in the face of western
imperialism and colonialism than the exemplary marriage of

5408

nationalismand imperialistaggressionwhich it laterbecame.2

By the 1930sand 1940sNehru'sviews on Japanesenationalism
had changedradicallyin line with his critiqueof fascism and
Nazism.
Nehru'sAutobiographymentionsthe tremendousimpactthe
warof 1904-05hadonhim.TheJapanesevictories,
Russo-Japanese
he wrote, "stirredup my enthusiasmand I waitedeagerlyfor
thepapersforfreshnewsdaily".Thisis easilyunderstood
because
forthefirsttimein moder historyanAsiancountryhaddefeated
an imperialistEuropeanpower. Japan,in 1905, demonstrated
whatanAsiancountryfreeof foreigndominationcouldachieve.
For all fightersagainstEuropeancolonialism,this turnedout to
be an inspiringevent;in Bengalwherethe Swadeshimovement
had gatheredsteamJapanesenamesbecamequite commonin
the households.In Russia,it precipitatedthe Menshevikrevolutionwhichpavedthewayfinallyfortheearth-shaking
October
Revolutionof 1917. Therefore,it is not surprisingthatthe rise
of Japan"filled"Nehru'syouthfulmindwith nationalisticideas
and the young visionaryalmostimmediately"musedof Indian
freedomandAsiaticfreedomfromthethraldomof Europe".This
historicmomentproduceda young idealistin him; an idealist
whoseAsianvisionwouldneverdeserthim.As subsequentevents
in Nehru'slife proved,this vision grew andmaturedin India's
fightagainstBritishimperialism.Oneday,logicallyandhistoriconsciousnesswoulddrawa lastcally, Nehru'santi-imperialist
ing boundarybetweenthe colonialworldandthe aspirationsof
a new post-colonialorder.The relevanceof his ideas, as the
growingeconomicties betweenIndiaandChinaindicate,is not
diminishedbytheblurringof thisboundaryin themindsof India's
contemporaryruling classes. Nehru's dreamswere seriously
woundedtwice - once in 1947, whenIndiawas partitionedand
thenin 1962,dueto theSino-Indianborderwar.But,as thisessay
triesto prove,the worthof dreamscannotbe measuredonly by
theirabilityof becomingreal. Dreamsand ideals have always
been pursuedto make the worlda betterplace and thereis no
reasonto believethatthisshouldnothappentodayor tomorrow.
Barely a year has passed since the 50th anniversaryof the
the event remainedunBandungConference.Understandably
sung in our globalisedmedia.The mythsof globalisationseem
to haveburiedmostdiscussionson imperialismeven as the war
in Iraqrages. Contraryto popularopinion this articleclaims
thatrememberedor not, Nehruis still relevant.The growthof
Nehru's modernist, anti-imperialistand secular-nationalist
ideasspannedthe 50 yearsbetween1905and 1955.Theseyears
also comprisedimportantdecadesof crucialAsian andAfrican
liberationmovements against imperialismand colonialism.
Economicand PoliticalWeekly December30, 2006

This content downloaded from 14.139.214.178 on Thu, 15 Jan 2015 10:22:58 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

practical people are drawn into social, cultural or religious

movements but this happens without their necessarily becoming
visionaries. Once these movements decline people return to
their routine. This is being written not to endorse the elitist view
of history but to highlight the difference between individual
pragmatism,the reigning "wise-guy scepticism", to use Amartya
Sen's words, of our times and the pursuit of ideals in history.
The world has always been divided between those who want
to interpret and change it and those who seek practical
accommodation with it most of the time.
Visionaries aremen andwomen firedby dreamsof changing the
world substantially. JawaharlalNehru, the foremost representative of modern India and its synthesis with the west, belonged to
the community of dreamers.According to the dictionarymeaning,
an idealist is someone who places "ideals before practical considerations". Further, idealism is a "theory that the essential
nature of reality lies in consciousness or reason". An idealist,
above all, is someone who wants to change the world and thinks
the world can be changed by reasonable action. In contradistinction to this stands, pragmatism according to which practical
considerations should outweigh ideals in our dealing with the
world. According to pragmatism,maximum gain must be derived
from a given situation without thinking too much about the future.
To be fair to both sides it can be said that while idealism carries
thedangerof utopianism,pragmatismgenerallyslides intoreaction.
A realist may find himself between these extremes but most
realists don't end up changing much. On the other hand, Nehru's
progressive idealism, which is different from communal or
imperialist idealism, was underlinedby the belief that conscious,
rational and scientific action can improve society and elevate
civilisation. It has been said before that Nehru, quite like the
Indian civilisation he symbolised, upheld the middle path, the
'madhya marg'. His views sometimes appear to be a curious
mixture of Buddhism and western notions of modernisation.
Applied to modern foreign policy and statecraft this meant
recognising the historical specificity of the inter-acting parties,
learning to live and progress despite differences and renouncing
expansionist wars. In a letter to the presidents of Provincial
Congress Committees dated July 4, 1954, Nehru, spelling out
the dialectical nature of his beliefs, wrote that a "foreign policy
must be in keeping with the traditional background and temper
of the country. It should be idealistic and realistic".
Nehru's formulations of what I have called progressive
idealism were based on his belief in the role of human volition
in history. He extended this volition to the nation state, the modern
expression of national identity, will and nationalism. His Fabian
views implied that ideas, related to the material forces of history
as they are, have a great role to perform in the shaping of human
society. That is why abjuring a lucrative legal practice, which
(being the practical thing to do in most bourgois households)
he would have inherited in due course from his famous father
Motilal Nehru, he jumped into India's freedom struggle reposing
complete trust in the ability of Indians to overthrow colonialism
andthereafterbuild a free country. As it turnedout, Nehru's vision
A Journey into Nehru's Thoughts
was progressive, modernist and emanated from a unique encounThis journey into the universe of Nehru's thought begins with ter of European and Asian civilisations. Due to the nature of his
a simple submission on the role of the individual in history. upbringing, education and the colonial conditions in which he
Assuming that in given historical contexts the individual plays spent the formative years of his life he developed a fecund hybrid
an important role in history we find that there are individuals intellect - a fact common to most western educated Asian intelwho make a big difference to history and the way we remember lectuals. This intellect is the source of multiple identities and
it. Hence, entire epochs get named after some remarkable indi- hence is best suited to a pluralistic ambience. It is guided as much
viduals. In contrast, the vast majority of people are born and by a cosmopolitan affiliation as its local roots and there is little
brought up in accordance with the historical conditions prevalent point in trying to compress it into a "solitarist" human identity
in theirtimes. Historians know thatthey question these conditions critiqued recently by Amartya Sen (Identity and Violence - The
occasionally and fleetingly. Beyond these subaltern moments Illusion of Destiny, Penguin, 2006). In any attempt to define and
most of them live good simple conforming lives. Often these critique Nehruvian modernity it is importantto note that Nehru,

As the ruling classes of India become increasingly intimate with

Washington, the principles of non-alignment and national
sovereignty appear more as hindrances to them than the guiding
principles of Indian nationhood. The time has, therefore, come
to revisit Nehru's ideas and examine the possibility of fashioning
a stronger and real ground for India's national resurgence.
Evaluating the salience of Nehru's vision of Asian cooperation
in the contemporaryhistorical context is the purpose of this paper.
This paperargues thatthe idealism which shaped Nehru's views
on Asian cooperation was neither an armchair nor an utopian
but historically grounded - it emerged from his submergence in
concrete political struggles and personal experience of some of
the most traumatic events of the previous century. It was born
in the mind of a person given to intense reflection over long years
spent in colonial Indian jails. Much has happened since 1905.
A century after the Russo-Japanese war, Asia has become the
engine of internationalgrowth. It is hopefully beginning to regain
its centrality in history. Since the 1980s, if the media is taken
seriously, a new, energetic, vibrantand hopeful Asia has emerged.
According to some projections, after three more decades the two
most powerful countries after the US will be China and India
although China is far ahead of us in many things. On the other
hand, the dismantling of the USSR has added an important
dimension to these changes. Undoubtedly, Asia today comprises
a site for momentous historical changes about to occur in the
next few decades. But how much room do we have for the
complacence which has entrapped our bourgeoisie. How many
of these double edged material changes will usher in progress
which, to rememberthe wise words of BertrandRussell, continues
to remain a matter of ethics.
This Asia, to which everyone refers these days, also appears
vulnerable in many ways. It is not free of internal strife, imperialist domination and colonial exploitation all of which are interrelated. Millions of Asians remain poor and uneducated. They
areexposed to environmentaldisasters many of which result from
the irresponsible behaviour of third world elites. In India alone
the human development index narratesan abysmal story in stark
contrastto what its government claims. Scores of peasant suicides
go virtually unnoticed in a mainstream media obsessed with
glamour and the shenanigans of politicians. The condition of
women is particularlybad andrampantfemale feticide is making it
worse. Hence, there are obvious differences between a history of
economic reforms and the history of Asian people in the same
period. And let us not forget that these differences have the capability of upsetting the neoliberal applecarts pushed around by
most thirdworld ruling elites. The rising socio-economic violence
in many parts of India is a reminder of the fact that globalisation
is not working for the majority of people and that the regime is
increasinglyfailing to translategrowthinto equitable development.
From here the road leads to either state authoritarianismor some
sortof socialist alterative. Globalisation,as the experienceof Latin
America shows, ultimately makes the majority prefer socialism.

Economic and Political Weekly

December 30, 2006

This content downloaded from 14.139.214.178 on Thu, 15 Jan 2015 10:22:58 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

5409

unliketherepresentatives
of theurbanIndianelitethesedays,was
bothanadmirerandcriticof westernhistoryandpolitics.He was
trulya cosmopolitan.Thereinlies thecauseof his transhistorical
relevanceto India, Asia and the modernworld in general.
What emerges clearly from Nehru's ideas is an attemptto
dilemmainheritedby
resolvea simplebutvastlyunderestimated
manyAsiancountriesfromtheircolonialpast.Thismultifarious
dilemmawascreatedby thearrivalof modernityin Asianhistory
throughthe mechanismsof colonialism.It emanatedfrom the
inabilityof Asiato eitherfullyrejectorcompletelyacceptwestern
civilisation.Underliningthe westernconquestof Asia was the
industrialrevolutionandimperialismbothproducedby modem
Europeanhistory.Sincethewheelsof historycouldnotbe turned
back,Asia could not completelyignorethe westernway in its
pathof progress.The questionwhichhad to be answeredin his
times,andstill remainsunanswered,appearselementarybuthas
profoundimplications:Howmuchof thewesternwaycouldAsia
safely emulate?
The Western Way
Theeconomicandphilosophicalconsequencesof colonialism
havebeenprofoundinthethirdworld.Theapparentcontradiction
duringdecolonisationwasbetweenthelegacyof colonialismand
a postcolonialmodernitywhichhadto breakfreefromthislegacy.
No less than the world view of most leaderswho had fought
againstimperialismand were leading their countriesafter the
second world war was dependenton the ideologicalmeansto
resolvethiscontradicton.Uponthe worldbecomingmodern,the
west couldnot be ignoredandaftergainingindependenceAsian
countriescould no longer negotiatewith the west on colonial
terms.Norcouldtheyallow"tradition"
to pullbacktheprocessof
modernisation.They had no choice but to industrialiseand
modernisebut this could hardlybe achievedon termsentirely
favourableto the west or by not rejectingthe harmfulconsebetween
quencesof the Europeanexperience.The contradiction
nationalismand imperialismremainedstrong.Today it is also
between growth and sustainabledevelopment and between
developmentandsocialjustice.Whilethe sovereignnationstate
was importantto staveoff a regressionintoneo-colonialismhow
much nationalismbased on the nationstate was healthy?The
intoregionalimperialismhad
dangerof nationalism
mushrooming
to be curbed,if peace andprogresswere to prevailin Asia. On
the otherhand,nationalsovereigntyhadto be guaranteed
against
whichoccurredin manyformsincludimperialistencroachments
ing cold war alignments,debt and so-called free trade.
Thegenerationof AfricanandAsianstatesmento whichNehru
belongedpaid considerableattentionto these problems.However, to assumethatthese problemsare of archivalinterestin
the age of globalisationwould constitutea grave error.In the
era of liberalisationand globalisationthe Asian dilemmahas
assumeda new significance.The fast growingcountriesof Asia
mustnegotiatewiththewestonnewterms.Thenatureandhistory
of globalisationindicatesthatthesetermshaveyet to be defined
and implementedto the satisfactionof non-westerninterests.
Non-alignmentcouldbe the pivotof any arrangement
necessary
to renegotiatethesetermsif westerndominationof international
relationsand tradeis to be overcome.Hence, the southcannot
huntwiththehoundsandrunwiththehare.Translated
inNehruvian
parlancethismeansupholdingnationalsovereigntyinthecontext
of regionalcooperationand peace.Accordingto him, and contrarytothecanardpopularthesedays,thepolicyof non-alignment
"does not mean passivity of mind or action, lack of faith or
conviction".The policy was based on the premise,"thateach
countryhas not only the rightto freedom,but also to decideits
own policy and way of life". Once a country's"wayof life" is
5410

threatened
inthegarb
by eitherpoliticalalignmentorintervention
of trade,freedomorsocialism,etc,manyreactionsin thatcountry
arise. Some of these reactions,like fundamentalism,
terrorism
orcommunalviolence,forinstance,divertpopularattentionfrom
real issues andconfoundthe understanding
of historicalcauses
andeffects in general.In the globalisingframeworkof internationalintercourse
providedbyNehru,greaterinteractionbetween
countrieswould be more importantthan integration- thereis
no one solutionto differentproblemsandthereis no one culture
suitedto all countries.This is the antithesisof whathis myopic
successorsareimposingonIndiain thegarbof economicreforms.
Nehru'sparadigmtries to resolve the contradictionbetween
Asian traditionand westernmodernityby synthesisingcertain
andindustrialmodernitywiththe
key elementsof enlightenment
longcherishedAsianpracticesof peacefulco-existence,cultural
pluralismandpoliticalgradualismin a historicalcontinuum.His
thoughton the subjectwas informedfirstly by the will of the
colonialsubjectsin Asia.Thiswasexpressedin thepopularmass
movementsagainstimperialismand colonialismall over Asia.
This widespreadanti-imperialist
feeling logically impliedthat
fraternalanti-colonialfrontswouldleadto friendlypostcolonial
ties betweenindependentcountries.Since they were unitedby
their past their salvation too lay in friendship.Secondly, it
emanatedfromtheexperienceof thehorrorsof totalwarproduced
by imperialistandinter-imperialist
rivalryin the firsthalfof the
20th century.The rejectionof expansionistwarswas combined
withan emphasison the welfarestate,peace,treatyobligations,
disarmament
andthepolicyof non-alignment
in Nehru'sscheme
of things.Thirdly,hisviewswereinfluencedbytheorganisational
natureof theIndianmassmovementagainstBritishrulealthough
his differenceswithGandhion mattersof scientificprogressand
industrialisation
remainedstrong.All thisunderscored
thephilosophical and methodologicalimportanceof secularism,nonviolence,persuasion,discussion,consensusanddemocracyinthe
Nehruviandiscourse.Thesevalues,IndiraGandhionwards,were
graduallyjettisoned
bytheIndianpoliticiansin favourof electoral
opportunismand politicalcynicism.
On Asian Fraternity
Accordingto Nehru a fraternityof Asian countrieswas a
necessaryconditionfor the resolutionof Asia's historicalproblemscausedprimarilybyimperialismandcolonialism.Forif Asia
were to be at war with itself or at the mercy of greatpowers,
thedoorsto imperialismwouldopenonceagain.AlthoughNehru
was an Asianleaderhis view of Asiancooperationwas partof a
largervisionof Afro-Asianandfinallyinternational
cooperation.
Deeply shakenby the enormouslydestructivewarsof the 20th
centurycaused,as they were,by the combinationof capitalism,
nationalismandimperialism,
Nehruultimatelyemergedasacritic
of war,atomicweaponsand the cold warwhichthreatenedthe
veryexistenceof humanityduringthe 1950sand1960s.Although
at hearthe was an internationalist
and,like Rabindranth
Tagore,
a believerin universalhumanismhe was nonethelessreconciled
to the idea that the modernworld would remaina community
of sovereignnationstatesfor a long time to come. In theirrush
to integratewith the world economy, knock down national
boundariesand indulgein nucleardoublestandardsthe Indian
rulingelite should not forget Nehru's words on this subject:
Thefirstthingto remember
is that,whiletheworldis inevitably
- becausethishas
commonwaysof actionandthinking
developing
becomeessential- inevitably
also,therearegoingtobedifferences
whichwe mustrecogniseandallowfull play,withouttryingto
imposeourwill on othersin orderto obliteratethosedifferences.
Individualdifferenceshad to be toleratedin the interestof
communityhealth.If thesedifferencesdeclinednaturallyit was
Economicand PoliticalWeekly December30, 2006

This content downloaded from 14.139.214.178 on Thu, 15 Jan 2015 10:22:58 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

one thingbutcountrieshadno right"tothinkthatit is theirduty

to makeotherslike themselves".These views were not unique.
DuringNehru'syears they were also expressedby democrats
like JohnF Kennedyaccordingto whom therecould not be an
Americansolution to differentcountries'problems.The relevance of these views, as foreign interventionin Vietnam,
hasnotdiminishedwith
AfghanistanandIraqhavedemonstrated,
the passageof time.Historyoften shows thatthe unfashionable
is neitherirrelevantnor necessarilyunworthyof emulation.
Nehru in the Politico-Historical

Context

ToarestlessdreamerlikeNehruchanginghumanconsciousness
anddevelopingreasonandscientifictemperweresimultaneously
necessaryfor nationaland internationalgrowth and regional
cooperation.Nehru'scritics,bothon the rightandleft of India's
politicalspectrum,makethe mistakeof placinghim outsidehis
context.ThehistorianRamchandra
Guhaonce
politico-historical
remarkedin a piece on Nehruin the EPWthatcriticsoftenhold
himwronglyresponsibleforthesinsof his followers.Whilethere
is meritintheargument
thatNehrutookthediscourseof modernity,
specially in the mattersof large projects such as dams and
industrialplants,alittletooseriouslyhe certainlydoesnotdeserve
theepithetsreservedforhimin Indiandrawingrooms.Butis there
any doubtthatthe educationalinstitutionsset up by his regime
have paidoff in the long run?In these neoconservativetimesit
hasbecomefashionablenotonlyto rundownNehru,buteven hold
himresponsiblefornearlyeverythingwhichwaswrongwithIndia
Allsaidanddone,his contriandglobalisation.
beforeliberalisation
butionto the makingof modernIndiashouldbe criticallyunderstood.Itis awellknownfactthatmanyAsianandAfricancountries
continueto look upon Indiaas an exampleof workingparliamentarydemocracyand economic gradualism.Frompersonal
experienceI knowthatfor muchof pluralisticsouthAsia, India
remainsa sourceof inspirationalbeittheIndianelite'sfascination
withthewest is frownedupon.Indiais seen by manyas a microcosmof Asia.If Indiabecomesa globaleconomicpowerinfuture,
Indianswill ultimatelythankthe middle of the road stability
providedto its polityby the nationalconsensusforgedby Nehru
soon after Indianindependence.It goes withoutsaying that a
strong,stable and independentIndiaimplies a well knit Asia.
The late J N Dixit, in an appraisalof Nehru'scontributionto
Indianforeignpolicy in 1992,unequivocallystatedthatNehru's
idealismwas not naive but basedon concretehistoricalconditions. In the postcolonialperiodNehrurealisedthatthe world
was increasinglybecoming multipolarand polycultural.His
vision of international
cooperation,and "peacefulcompetition"
was predicateduponthisrealisationandwas in tunewith major
developmentsin the world history.Hence to comprehendhis
visionof Asiancooperation,it is importantto recollecthis views
on history- a subjectdeeply examinedand loved by Nehru.
Pertinentin thiscontextis the historyof the 20th centurywhich
produced,and was in turn guided by, statesmen like him.
Vietnam,Palestine,Afghanistan,Iraqand the gatheringclouds
overIranaremilestonesof a postcolonialhistorywhichis rarely
freeof imperialism.Sinceanti-imperialism
was a cornerstoneof
Nehru'svisionof international
relations,his views retaina contemporaryresonancein the contextof postcolonialimperialism
and neocolonialismwhich often entersthe thirdworldthrough
thebackdoordeckedupinglobalisation.Thisis notto saythathis
view mustbecomea dogmafor us or thatwe shouldrejectthe
possibilitiesevidentintrade- anoutcomehe wouldhavecertainly
disliked- butonly to assertthelastingsalienceof his perspective
and therebyremainalertto the dangersposed by globalisation
to India'sregionalspecificities,culturaldiversityand national
sovereignty.
Economic and Political Weekly

In Nehru'shistoricalperspectiveIndian,and by implication
Asian, historywas divided into the pre-colonial,colonial and
postcolonialperiods.To begin with, in his holistic scheme of
historyAsiaappearedas a deeplyinterconnected
regionwithsubregional variations. The interconnectedand cosmopolitan
evolutionof Asia from the prehistoricto moder periodproceededalong the lines of migrations,culture, linguistic and
religiousinfluences,tradeandthe rise andfall of kingdomsand
empires.Althoughconflict and changewere very mucha part
of Asianhistory,they were subduedin comparisonwith forces
whichencouraged
coexistence,harmonyandculturalcontinuities.
This becomesclearin the way Nehrudealtwith Asia's military
historyandthevariousmilitaryinvasionsof Indiafromthenorthwestern regions. Accordingto him the militaryphenomena,
markedby periodiccrossAsianinvasions,weremererippleson
the surface of the Asian civilisation. These were temporary
phenomenawhichultimatelygave way to socio-culturaladjustmentsandeventuallymanyregionsof Asiadevelopeda syncretic
culture.Inthecontemporary
languageemployedbyAmartyaSen,
thismeansa culturebasedupona generallypeacefulcoexistence
of diversedifferencesand multipleidentities.
In the Asia of Nehru'shistoriography
people had learnthow
to thrivewithoutlettingthesedifferencescomein theirway.Their
culturewas secureyet not closed to externalinfluences.In fact,
a civilisationalsyllhesis characterisedthe culturalevolutionof
Asia. The atmospherepervadingthe past of this continentwas
characterised
by politicalconflictbetweenelites amidstgeneral
socio-culturalaccomodationand peace. Religiousconflict was
knownandresolvedbutreligiouswars,likethosewhichoccurred
in Europeanhistory,were almost unknown.The persecution
of minoritiesand genocides resultingfrom racism and ultranationalism,as in some Europeancountries,was simplynot the
Asian way. Till the rise of communalismin the colonialperiod
Indianeitherhad its Jews nor a two-nationtheory.In contrast,
persecutedminoritieselsewhereoftensoughtandfounda home
in India.Nehru'sAsia was shapedby Hinduism,Buddhismand
Islamandmanyothersectsandreligionssincethe ancienttimes.
It had also createda great deal of space for Christianity.
Thefluidhistoryof thiscontinentwasinterrupted
anddistorted
by the adventof moder imperialismand colonialismwhich
resultedfrom the developmentof capitalismand an industrial
revolutionin Europe.Accordingto Nehruthe villain in Asian
historywasnota particular
religion,racialgrouporAsiancultural
traitbuttheinsufficientgrowthof scientifictemperandAsian
politicalconsciousnesswhich in the first place madeAsia vulnerableto imperialistconquestandcolonialexploitation.Hence,
modernisation,unity
logically following this, industrialisation,
and political cohesion would prove to be Asia's strengthsin
future.Thealternativeto this, as Nehru'sgenerationunderstood
ratherwell,wouldbearepetitionof historybecausedecolonisation
was only a check on imperialismnot a guaranteeagainstit.
Ambience of Peaceful Coexistence
Inthepast,likethepresent,Asian
countrieswerecloselyrelated
to eachotherby landandsea routes.Longbeforethe Europeans
"discovered"
the sea routeto Indiathe Arabs,Chinese,Persians,
IndiansandMongolshad convertedthe land mass of Asia and
the Indian Ocean region into a tolerantcosmopolitantradeorientedregion. In the Nehruvianparadigman ambienceof
peacefulcoexistenceis noticeablein ancientandmedievalAsia.
However,the pictureis not idyllic. Violencewas not a stranger
to theregionandits complexstratifiedsocietybutthesystematic
useof violencein commercialandimperialistinterestengendered
by Europeanpowers laterwas not the norm. Hence, if Asian
countriesstressedregionalcooperation
inthecontemporary
period,

December 30, 2006

This content downloaded from 14.139.214.178 on Thu, 15 Jan 2015 10:22:58 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

5411

they were only reiterating a historical fact in changed circumstances. There was no harmin locating useful traditionsin history
and reinventing them to serve the present.
The pre-colonial period of Asian history lasted till the Europeans colonised different Asian regions. The epoch of imperialism and colonialism which began in the 18th century was one
in which many Asian people were enslaved by imperialism and
their countries were exploited ruthlessly by the colonial powers.
Their wealth was drained away and their civilisation distorted.
The colonial interlude in Asian history was marked by unprecedented violence, economic destruction, social exploitation
and cultural oppression of the Asian societies which came under
imperialist rule and influence. However, the colonial period also
produced the historical conditions for the rise of modem Asian
nations. The impact of western civilisation, spread of modern
education, ideas of modernity, industrialism and technology and
finally the sharpening of the colonial contradictions produced
an Asian middle class and the kernels of modern Asian nation
states. On the other hand, due to the class contradictionsproduced
and sharpened by capitalism, the socialist alternative was conceived by the leftist critics of capitalism in Europe. Colonialism
also gave rise to communalism and official policy promoted it
as a counterpoise against nationalism. The greatest inspiring
example of socialism would be the Bolshevik revolution and the
subsequent transformation of Tsarist Russia into the USSR.
Hence, when Nehru was still a reasonably young man in the
1920s, three models of modern nationhood were already in
existence laying down the future of international relations and
shaping his views on regional cooperation.

Modern Nationhood Models

The first model was presented by the capitalist nation state
which had evolved in some countries of Europe. Many of these
nation states like Britain, France and Holland grew into imperialistpowers. The extreme form of Europeannationalism,fascism
and nazism, emerged in the imperialist latecomers. Both these
ideologies exemplified the horrors of racism and extremist
nationalism while imperialism, which Japan began to emulate
from the early 1930s, condemned the vast majority of humans
to subservience. Nehru categorically rejected these models. The
second model was emerging in the colonies where new nation
states were being articulated by the anti-colonial movements.
Anti-imperialism, anti-colonialism, emphasis on welfare, education, modernisation, development and sympathy with fraternal
movements was integral to the formation of nationalism in the
Asian and African colonies. As far as imperialism, socialism,
fascism and Nazism were produced by modernity, Asian nationalism had important lessons to learn from all of them. Fascism
and Nazism were forms of extreme nationalism produced by the
crisis of industrial capitalism and were rejected by all secular
nationalists. However, we must not fail to notice, the secularnationalism which evolved in the colonies was largely bourgeoisbased and could develop hegemony over the masses in the
postcolonial period only with the aid of a successful welfare state.
Nehru took this for granted given the popularity of the Indian
National Congress and the planning process.
The third model was presented by the rise of socialism - but
even here ambiguities remained. The socialist experiment was
unique to history. Between the two world wars, and in comparison
with the capitalist countries, the USSR demonstrated how a
country could industrialise in a period of crisis and depression.
The impact of the USSR on Nehruvian socialism should not be
underestimatedbut we must never lose sight of the fact that while
drawing importantlessons from the Soviet experiment, more so
in the inter-war period, Nehru remained critical of communist

5412

methods.While he remainedcriticalof totalitariancommunist

practices,thepoliticalwill, socialenergy,industrial,educational
andscientificacievementsof the USSR neverthelessimpressed
andinspiredhim.SinceSovietindustrialisation
andmodernisation
were takingplace outsidethe capitalistworld,the USSR presentedanalluringmodelto theex-colonialcountries.A backward
countrylike India had a lot to lear from the USSR where
moderisation was rapidlyprogressingin relativelybackward
conditionsbutit couldhardlyemulatewhatMoscowwas trying
to achieve. Even as the search for paradigmscontinuedthe
element of doubt remained because Nehru's thought was
historicalenoughnot to fall preyto a naive theorisingwhichis
so popularthese days.
Therewas, in his view andcontraryto whatwe arewitnessing
today, no solitaryapproachsuitableto all countries.En route
to theSovietUnion,writingto thechief ministersof Indianstates
in flight from Bombayto Cairoon June 5, 1955, he admitted
thatdespitethe limitationsof communism"theeconomicappeal
[of USSR]remained".However,he wonderedwhetherthe "new
economic approach,shorn of its violence and coercion and
suppressionof individualliberty,couldbe helpfulin solvingour
problemsor the world'sproblems.The oldermethods,evolved
by thecapitalistworld,hadfailedandofferedno solution.Indeed,
they had led to greatwarsand they themselves,whatevertheir
protestations,werebasedon violenceand suppressionof countriesandpeople,andlackof integrityandmoralapproach."
This
certainambivalence,whichhas given way to the undemocratic
ties of our times, left ample room for departuresboth from
Moscow and Washingtonand eventuallybecome the basis of
the non-alignmentmovement.
Theanti-colonialstrugglesof theAsianpeopleshadto succeed
for the new Asian nationstatesto be free and independentand
only then would a new era in Asian cooperationbegin. It was
thisneedof allpeopleandcountrieslabouringagainstimperialism
that led to the left-initiatedformationof organisationssuch as
the InternationalLeague againstImperialism,which held the
Congress of Oppressed Nationalities in Brussels. Nehru
addressedthiscongressin February1927beforevisitingMoscow
forthefirsttimelaterthatyear.His ideason cooperationbetween
ex-colonialcountrieswere forminginto a flexible perspective
in the inter-waryears.At theBrusselsCongresshe madeit clear
that "the strugglefor freedomwas a commonone againstthe
thing thatwas imperialism,...and,wherepossible,joint action
was desirable".Further,hintingat the dangerwhich excessive
nationalismposedto freedom,he paraphrased
Gandhiby saying
thatthe nationalismof the IndianNationalCongresswas "based
on the most intenseinternationalism".
Two yearslaterhis idea
of Asiancooperationwas crossingthe limits of nationalism.In
December1929,in his presidentialaddressto theLahoreSession
of the IndianNationalCongress,he even spokeof toningdown
individualsovereigntyin theinterestof regionalorsupra-regional
groups."Havingattainedherfreedom"he said,"Ihaveno doubt
thatIndiawill welcome all attemptsat worldcooperationand
federationand will even agree to give up part of her own
to a largergroupof whichsheis anequalmember".
independence
This was the perspectivewhich ultimatelyled to the Asian
RelationsConferencein New Delhi in 1947, the articulationof
the 'Panchsheel'(The five principlesof peacefulcoexistence)
and finallythe evolutionof non-alignment,a phrasecoinedby
Nehru,fromtheBandungAfro-AsianConferencein 1955onwards.
Despite an admirableunderstandingof world history and
internationalrelationsNehrucould not have possibly foreseen
the demiseof the USSR. Nor could he have developeda more
comprehensivepost-modernistcritiqueof modernityto which
we havebecomeaccustomedtoday.Althoughneverenamoured
of communistmethods,socialismexcitedhim andthe palpable
Economicand PoliticalWeekly December30, 2006

This content downloaded from 14.139.214.178 on Thu, 15 Jan 2015 10:22:58 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

vitalityin the young Soviet Union impressedhim greatly.The

simplicityof the Bolshevikleadersandtheirearnestattemptsto
industrialisea backwardfeudalcountryleft a lastingimpression
on the youngnationbuilder.Socialism,as far as the radicalsof
the 1920s could see, could help liberatethe Asian people from
the yoke of imperialism.Unlike exploitativecapitalismit was
viewed as a window of opportunityoffered by historyto the
backwardregionsof the worldspeciallyin the 1920sand 1930s.
In the event Soviet communismcollapsedunderthe weight of
its own contradictions,but this hardlysignalledthe victoryof
historyshowsthatcapitalismhasfailed
capitalism.Contemporary
to solve the numerousproblemsbesettinghumanityat the beginningof the21stcentury.Indeedglobalisation,thenew 'avatar'
of internationalfinancecapital,has alreadycreatedintractable
problemsin mostcountries.It excludesneitherwarnorpoverty.
In the 1950s the world was bipolarbut now it is increasingly
becomingmultipolarthusironicallyhighlightingthe importance
of the Nehruvianvision once again.Trendsindicatethatin the
long run this multipolaritywill emerge in the context of a
protracteddecline of the US, the resilience of anti-western
terrorism,growthof left wing movementsin manypartsof the
world and the rise of China. Only time will tell whethera
policy of alignmentwithWashingtonor detachmentfromimperialism,the bedrockof Nehruvianforeignpolicy, will helpIndia
in future.
Forthe presentwe cannotthinkof an Asian federationbeing
predicatedupon anything but theprinciple of equality and mutual

are not even guaranteed to the majority, can hardly behave

irresponsibly towards its immediate neighbours and other Asian
countries in the vain hope that it has Washington's certificate
to do so. Nor should globalisation be allowed to create an illusion
that the west is willing to treat the third world as an equal. A
grave errorhas already been committed by the UPA government
in respect of Iran. Earlier the NDA government would have sent
the Indian army to Iraq but for rising public criticism of the
American occupation and plunder of that country. Much before
that India had refused to condemn the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan in appropriateterms. Premier Nehru would have disapproved of such diplomatic opportunism on grounds which are
as importanttoday as they were in the 1950s and 1960s. As the
war clouds gather over the Persian Gulf and the western powers
plan to send Iran back to the stone age the time for some serious
soul searching has come for the Indian ruling elite. They could
begin by asking whether there is a "pragmatic"alternativeto the
abandonmentof vison. They must also look at history and wonder
if any country has ever become a great power with the assistance
of an imperialist. In sum, and as internationalopportunism over
Iraq has shown, a divorce from principles and common sense
only leads to national and regional disaster. If New Delhi assumes
an ostrich like posture in becoming an agency of western imperialism, history might repeat itself because, like individuals,
countries which surrendertheir freedom for complacence neither
remain free nor prosperous for very long. And to begin with,
India is neither prosperous nor can it risk regional isolation.
Therefore, it is only reasonable thatIndia's approachto Asia must
be underlinedby the ten principles of Bandung which retain their
relevance despite our being informed that the world has become
flat in the age of globalisation. Furthermore,the five principles
of non-alignment Panchsheel have, unfortunately for Nehru
bashers, regained their relevance to Asian cooperation despite
the end of the USSR and the cold war. The enormous natural
and national resources of Asian countries like oil, mineral and
forest wealth have made them vulnerable to imperialist exploitation once again in history and this highlights the salience of
anti-imperialism mentioned in this paper. Above all, it is in the
interest of all Asian countries to oppose the monopoly over
the oil reserves of Iraq and Iran which the western powers so
desperately seek and express solidarity with the victimised
people of these countries. 01

benefitgoverningthe relationsbetweenvariousAsiancountries
- an integralpartof the Nehruvianvision. The inter-country
parity,whichthe imperialistdeniesto beginwith,is the sine qua
non of negotiations.The alternativeto this has alreadyunderminedAsiansolidarity,economicdevelopment,regionalbalance
andultimatelycompromisedpeace.As longas regionalorglobal
imperialismremains,threateningregionalbalance,destroying
nationaleconomiesandcreatingperpetualwarlikeconditionsby
their imperatives,Nehru'santi-imperialistvision of Asian cooperationwill remainrelevant.A large partof Nehru'sdream
was conceived with the lofty aim of saving the ex-colonial
countriesfromfurthervisitationsof the most balefulaspectsof
westernhistory.He told the west thatAsia, havinghadenough
of imperialistimpositionsand war in the colonial part of its
history,desirednothingfromthe worldbutrespitefromwarand
a relationshipconducive to its progress.Without peace and
equality,as the late EdwardSaid often observedin the context Email: anidesh6@yahoo.co.in
of themiddle-east"peaceprocess",therecannotbe development
andwithoutpopulardevelopmenttherecan be no realprogress.
Notes
Concluding Remarks
This paper is neither a comprehensivereview of Nehru's
positionon mostpoliticalanddiplomaticmattersnoranunqualifieddefenceof theNehruvianthought.It is basedon a historian's
contentionthat despite various limitations,the frameworkof
foreign relationsand Asian cooperationdeveloped by Nehru
retainsa certainrelevancetoday in the same way as the state
does in certaincontextsreviewedby the anarchistcriticNoam
India'sattitudetowardsAsian counChomsky.Contemporary
triescannotbe obliviousto an Asian destinybeing plannedby
elementswho
thewesternimperialistsledby theneoconservative
rule the US today. It is only reasonableto suppose that if
imperialismdesires an ideal world in which only imperialist
interestsmatterthen the forces which seek independencefrom
such an ordermust have their own counter-ideals.
Countrieson theimperialistradarscreenscannotaffordto drift
forvariousreasons
anchorless,ascenariopreferred
byimperialism
sincethe 19thcentury.India,wherehumanrightsanddemocracy

[I am indebted to Anu for drawing my attention to Dani Rodrik's paper

mentioned in the beginning.]
1 A seminaron JawaharlalNehru's ideas and vision was organisedby the
Indian Embassy, ICCR and the KazakhstanGovernment in Almaty,
Kazakhstan,a hundredyears after the resoundingJapanesenaval victory
over Russia in 1905 and 50 years after Nehru's long official visit to the
USSR in 1955. This paperis a greatlyrevised versionof the one presented
by the authorat that seminar (June 17, 2005).
2 We are remindedby the apologists of US policies thatJapanwas helped
by Washingtonand prosperedunderthe US nuclearumbrelladuringthe
cold war. Similarideas are floating in the Indianmedia and government
circles with respect to the growing Indo-US economic and nuclear
cooperationin the context of Chinahaving emergedas the greatestthreat
to US hegemony in Asia. Will Indiabecome an effective counterto China
in alliance with America and Japan or will it ultimately go the Latin
Americanway? Will it balance the power equationin Asia to check the
growinghegemony of China?Or will India's growing tilt towardsthe US
and indulgenceof nucleardouble standardsforce some of its neighbours
like Pakistanand Chinato forge a strategicalliance againstit? This paper
tries to understandthe Nehruvianvision of Asian solidarityin response
to these questions.

Economicand PoliticalWeekly December30, 2006

This content downloaded from 14.139.214.178 on Thu, 15 Jan 2015 10:22:58 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

5413