POLITICAL THOUGHT PROJECT

ON

NEHRU’S VIEWS ON INTERNATIONALISM

SUBMITTED TO

Dr. B K Mahakul
Faculty, Political Science

SUBMITTED BY

Yash Tiwari
Roll No.190

SECTION A

SEMESTER V

B.A. LLB (HONS.)

SUBMITTED ON

February 18th, 2016

1
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

I feel highly elated to work on the topic “NEHRU’S VIEWS ON

INTERNATIONALISM”. The practical realization of this project has
obligated the guidance of many persons. I express my deepest regard for my
professor Dr. B K Mahakul for his unstinted support. His consistent
supervision, constant inspiration and invaluable guidance and suggestions have
been of immense help in understanding and carrying out the nuances of the
project report.

I take this opportunity to also thank the University and the Vice Chancellor for
providing extensive database resources in the Library and through Internet.

Yash Tiwari
Sem V, Sec A

2
 INTRODUCTION
Jawaharlal Nehru was an internationalist is widely accepted. But the extent to which Nehru’s

internationalist ideas informed and permeated the foreign policy that he crafted and practised

has not been hitherto fully explored. This project highlights the internationalist aspect of

Nehru’s worldview, so as to enable a more comprehensive understanding of Nehru the

statesman as the title suggests; the project examines one of the significant aspects of Nehru’s

ideas on internationalism. The purpose of the project is to explore how this idea of

internationalism evolved during the freedom struggle and made a passage thereon to be a part

of independent India’s foreign policy. Nehru’s aim in advocating the principles of

internationalism was to realise the creation of the ideal of One World centred on the United

Nations which represented the world community. Keeping this in mind, he crafted

independent India’s foreign policy composed of five elements: opposition to colonialism,

imperialism and racialism; concept of non-alignment vis-à-vis the two Cold War blocs to

preserve Asia in particular as an ‘area of peace’; prevent internationalization of conflict;

disarmament; and peaceful co-existence as embodied in the Panchsheel agreement for the

evolution of a peaceful and co-operative international order, thus paving the way for realising

the ideal of One World. These elements became the framework through which the foreign

policy of India was conducted, mostly connected and identified with ‘non-alignment’. The

author clearly expresses that all these elements including non-alignment were designed for

the realization of the ideal of One World.

3
 OVERVIEW OF LITERATURE

Book: - Jawaharlal Nehru's world view internationalism vs nationalism

Author: - Taufiq A. Nazami

Publisher: - Three Way Printers, Aligarh, 2002

Note: - This book contains all the papers presented at All India Seminar on "Nehru's World

View: Internationalism Vs Nationalism," held on 8-9 February, 2001, at Aligarh.

Speech: - Tryst with Destiny

Delivered By: - Pt. Jawaharlal Lal Nehru

Note: -"Tryst with Destiny" was a speech delivered by Jawaharlal Nehru, the first Prime

Minister of independent India, to the Indian Constituent Assembly in The Parliament, on the

eve of India's Independence, towards midnight on 14 August 1947. It focuses on the aspects

that transcend India's history. It is considered to be one of the greatest speeches of all times

and to be a landmark oration that captures the essence of the triumphant culmination of the

largely non-violent Indian independence struggle against the British Empire in India.

Book: - Indian Political Thought

Author: - Urmila Sharma and S.K. Sharma

Publisher: - Atlantic Publishers and Distributors

Note: - This book describes the views and Nehru’s ideas on the internationalism, his foreign

policy ideas and his ways that gave India its foreign policy after independence.

4
 Objectives
To examine the views of Pt. Jawahar Lal Nehru on Internationalism.

To examine foreign policy that is result of Nehru’s views on

internationalism.

To examine the idea of One World by Pt. Jawahar Lal Nehru

Research Methodology

The objective of this project is to study the Pt. Jawahar Lal Nehru’s views on.

This research is descriptive in nature. Secondary resources have been used

extensively to gather data about the topic.

Books and other reference as guided by faculty of Political Science have been

primarily helpful in structuring the project. Websites and articles have also been

referred to.

Footnotes have been provided wherever needed to acknowledge the sources.

5
 Origins of Indian Internationalism

Internationalism emerged as an integral part of Indian nationalism in the 1920s when the
Indian national congress first began to systematically think about it, and articulate its views
on, foreign affairs. Also they consistently expressed their sympathy for and solidarity with
colonised peoples everywhere. This sense of solidarity led to the idea of an Asian identity and
of Asianism in a nascent form. It was in 1920s It was in the 1920s that international co-
operation and internationalism emerged as a theme in Congress articulations on foreign
affairs. And this coincided with the evolution of its political goal from self-government to
complete independence. During the decade, Congress began to complement its nationalist
demand for full independence with the internationalist call for ‘the elimination of political
and economic imperialism everywhere and the co-operation of free nations’. Congress also
began to take greater interest in the progress of other nationalist movements like those in the
Dutch East Indies, Indo-China, and in West Asia including Egypt.

Moreover, considering that ‘the struggle for freedom was common against imperialism and
joint deliberation and, where possible, joint action were desirable’, Congress appointed Nehru
as its official representative to the Congress of Oppressed to oppose the vulgar, brutal and
racist regime of Nazi Germany? When war broke out and the Viceroy declared that India too
was at war, the Congress refused to associate the Indian people in the war.

At the same time, in tune with its internationalism, Congress also expressed an interest in a
free and democratic India associating itself with ‘other free nations for mutual defence
against aggression and for economic co-operation’ as well as for the establishment of a real
world order based on freedom and democracy’.1 It was through such a finessing of the issue
that the Congress sought to reconcile its nationalism with its internationalism. Subsequently,
it espoused its internationalist ideas to a fuller degree in the Quit India Resolution of August
1942 in which it concretely established the link between Indian nationalism and
internationalism.

The Resolution went on to talk about the Congress’ vision of the future of the international
system. It began by asserting that ‘the future peace, security and ordered progress of the

1
Ibid., p.472

6
world demand a world federation of free nations’ and that the modern world’s problems
cannot be solved on any other basis. It then went on to note that:

Such a world federation would ensure the freedom of its constituent nations, the prevention
of aggression and exploitation by one nation over another, the protection of national
minorities, the advancement of all backward areas and peoples, and the pooling of the
world’s resources for the common good of all. On the establishment of such a world
federation, disarmament would be practicable in all countries, national armies, navies and air
forces would no longer be necessary, and a world federal defence force would keep the world
peace and prevent aggression."

Nehru’s Views on Internationalism

Nehru regarded nationalism not as an end in itself, but as just a step towards the goal of
internationalism. Thus, he harmonized the two concepts. Nationalism grows into
internationalism. Nehru rejected the view that internationalism hinders the growth of a
nationalist sentiment. The truth of Jawahar Lai Nehru’s views can be seen in the history of
the twentieth century. Today, not merely the slave nations but even independent nations
consider nationalisms as the final criterion because of which the stronger nations are engaged
in arms race. The world is split into two contending blocs. Hence, it is not appropriate to say
that the era of nationalism is over, but as Nehru made clear, this same nationalism will
ultimately lead to internationalism.

Foreign Policy
In order to understand Nehru’s views on internationalism, it is necessary to analyse his
foreign policy also. As in the case of the nation, in the sphere of internationalism, too, Nehru
laid great stress on synthesis, harmony, cooperation and peace. For this, conflict and struggle
must be replaced by harmony in the sphere of international relations. Nations should abandon
their colonialist aims and substitute democratic goals for them instead.

Nehru was no less critical of capitalism than he was of colonialism. It is for this reason that
he did not want India to take the help of any capitalist, fascist or colonialist nation in its
struggle for freedom.
7
 Emphasis on Development of Backward Nations
If internationalism is to develop, then political cooperation must be accompanied by the
development of backward and poor countries, because, prosperity, like peace, must be
established everywhere if it is to exist anywhere. On October 27, 1949, in Chicago, Nehru
declared, that even the supremely powerful nation must remember that if it leaves the poor
nations to wallow in their poverty and suffer, these nations can become the cause of its
ultimate downfall. Consequently, the prosperous nations should extend their best help to the
economically backward nations.

Efforts for World Peace

In addition to his profound nationalism, Nehru maintained as unshakable faith in the glorious
future of the human race and in internationalism. He advised all the nations of the world to
strive for the establishment of world peace. The theory thereby expounded was the Gandhian
lesson of moral struggle, which inspired Nehru throughout the period that he led the Indian
National Congress.

Non-Alignment
Jawahar Lai Nehru maintained that the world could escape another world war only by
following Gandhi’s principle of non-violence. The same principle formed the backbone of
Nehru’s policy of non-alignment, which thought in terms of harmony and peaceful
cooperation between nations. On the basis of this policy, every effort was made to avoid
being aligned with any power bloc and to act as a mediator between the two major power
blocs. Even when the nation had to pay a price for remaining non-aligned from any power
bloc by sacrificing some vital national interest, Nehru favoured this rather than sacrificing

The principle of non-alignment, so as to maintain the thrust towards true internationalism.

However, this non-alignment was not intended to imply alienation. Thus, in Nehru’s opinion,
if there is a danger to a nation’s independence, it may be desirable to enter into some kind of
agreement or pact, but otherwise a nation should remain non-aligned and make every effort to
create harmony between the different power blocs. Nehru’s ingrained internationalism is
most clearly manifested in his concept of Panchshcel.

8
Most of the non- aligned nations of Asia welcomed this policy, although it could not be
implemented to the extent desirable. Nehru’s internationalism was founded on his humanistic
philosophy. He stressed that peace and happiness should be promoted everywhere in the
world through mutual cooperation, goodwill, liberty, equality and fraternity. He was a
rationalist democratic thinker who had implicit faith in science. Like the positivists he
believed that science can help us to make this world better. Consequently, he insisted on the
establishment of large industries along with small industries as a means to eradicating India’s
age- old poverty. His secular, naturalistic humanism, which can also be labelled scientific
humanism, was the basis of his entire political thinking.

Some scholars even argued that this whole area had once formed a single ‘cultural federation’
permeated by Indian influence and referred to this region as ‘Greater India’.2 The idea of a
‘Greater India’ was never officially endorsed by the Congress because of the risk of India
being perceived as expansionist. Nehru’s own view was that there was a residual ‘feeling of
respect and friendship’ for India in the countries of Southeast Asia, because of its past role as
‘a mother country’ which had ‘nourished them with rich fare from her own treasure-house’
and which had left ‘its powerful impress’ upon them.3 Indeed, Nehru and others envisaged an
important and even influential role for India in Asia. In January 1947, Nehru reminded
members of the Indian Constituent Assembly that they not only shouldered the responsibility
of the freedom of the Indian people but also ‘the responsibility of the leadership of a large
part of Asia, the responsibility of being some kind of guide to vast numbers of people all over
the world’. Two months later, inaugurating the Asian Relations Conference, he noted that
India ‘is the natural centre and focal point of the many forces at work in Asia’ because of its
location at ‘the meeting point of Western and Northern and Eastern and South-East Asia’,
which, in the past, had led to a great deal of economic and cultural flows in all directions.4

The larger point to note in all this was the perceived contrast between, on the one hand, the
spiritual unity and peaceful intercourse that had marked Asian history, and on the other hand,
the hatred, nationalistic rivalry, power politics and imperialism that characterised Europe and
the West.

2
Nehru, Discovery of India, p. 211
3
Nehru, Discovery of India, p. 212
4
Nehru, ‘Asia Finds I Icrself Again’, in India’s Foreign Policy, p. 250

9
While Nehru was initially sceptical about Asian unity and the idea of an Asian federation, he
came to embrace it later. His reappraisal was based on the understanding that the world,
passing as it was through the Second World War, had come to a stage where ‘the day of small
countries is past’ and where ‘the day of even big countries standing by themselves is past’.
This trend meant that even super powers such as the United States and the Soviet Union,
although capable of standing by themselves, were likely to join with other countries or
groups. Nehru felt that ‘the only intelligent solution’ for a conflict-riven planet was ‘a world
federation of free countries’.

He emphasised that Asian countries had assembled together in a spirit of co-operation to

further ‘the great design of promoting peace and progress all over the world’. The role of
Asia in the maintenance of peace was particularly important given that the West had
repeatedly driven the world into innumerable wars and conflicts and even now, in the
immediate aftermath of a world war and after the birth of the atomic age, was talking about
another war. In contrast, the countries of Asia did not have a ‘legacy of conflict’, though they
may have had the odd quarrel with their neighbours. Nehru contended that given that ‘the
whole spirit and outlook of Asia are peaceful’; the continent’s emergence would prove to be
‘a powerful influence for world peace’. Indeed, there could be no peace in the world unless
Asia played its part. The promotion of peace would, in turn, make possible movement
towards the ideal of One World, because some sort of a world federation was essential to deal
with the pressing problems confronting humanity at large. While there were many obstacles
and dangers in the path of achieving this ideal, Nehru concluded that the way forward lay in
Asian countries extending full support for the fledgling United Nations and in co-operating
together to bring about this One World.

One World: Nehru’s Dream

It was this internationalist aspiration to nudge the world towards One World that animated
independent India’s foreign policy during the Nehru years. Nehru reiterated this
internationalist vision in the very first statement on foreign policy that he made six days after
assuming charge of the interim Government and of the Foreign Affairs portfolio in early
September 1946. ‘Free India’, Nehru clearly stated, ‘would work to bring about a “One
World,” ‘a world in which there is the free co-operation of free peoples, and no class or group
exploits another’. For this purpose, he called for an end to colonialism, imperialism and

10
racialism because ‘peace and freedom are indivisible and the denial of freedom anywhere
must endanger freedom everywhere and lead to conflict and war’.5 In order to build this One
World, India, for its part, would not participate in the power politics of the Cold War blocs
that had by then begun to emerge. Nehru contended that in the past power politics had led to
world wars, and pursuing such policies would in future lead to ‘disasters on an even vaster
scale’.

Thus, the responsibility for ensuring peace and fostering co-operation lay not only with the
superpowers but also with the newly emerging free countries of the world and particularly
those in Asia. In this regard, he had provided an early indication in his September 1946
statement as to how Asia was likely to shape itself and position itself vis-a-vis Cold War
politics by noting that ‘the future is bound to see a closer union between India and Southeast
Asia on the one side, and Afghanistan, Iran, and the Arab world on the other.”'

A natural corollary to the imperative of creating an ‘area of peace’ was India’s opposition to
all superpower alliances and specifically to the two US-sponsored Cold War alliances in Asia
- Southeast Asia Treaty Organization (SEATO) and Central Treaty Organization (CENTO).
Nehru simply could not understand the military rationale for alliances between a superpower
endowed with enormous capabilities including nuclear weapons and ‘a little pigmy of a
country’.61 These small and weak allies which did not possess the bomb could have ‘little or
no military value’ for the superpower from the point of a nuclear war.

at the United Nations in September 1960. On this occasion, Nehru launched what was
described as a ‘one-man effort to end the Cold War. In order to gain support for an Indian
resolution calling for the re-establishment of contact at the highest level between the two
superpowers, on a single day Nehru conferred with several world leaders - US President
Eisenhower, British Prime Minister Macmillan, Soviet Premier Khrushchev, the Canadian
Prime Minister Diefenbaker, UN Secretary General Hammarskjold, Egyptian President
Nasser, and the Ghanaian President Nkrumah - but all to no avail.bNehru followed this up a
year later with a direct appeal to the two superpowers to stop nuclear tests and proceed
towards effective disarmament.

5
Nehru, ‘Future Taking Shape’, in India's Foreign Policy, p. 2

11
To Nehru, the rationale for disarmament was twofold. First of all, the danger of nuclear
weapons use was likely to continuously grow given that it was becoming progressively easier
and cheaper to acquire nuclear and even thermonuclear bombs. He even considered that it
was only a matter of time before any industrialised country would be able to produce such
weapons. If the number of countries with nuclear and thermonuclear bombs were to increase,
it would become progressively more difficult to control nuclear weapons. Nehru even thought
that a situation might in fact arise where even individuals are able to acquire such weapons
and terrorise the world’.

Given all this, he contended that it was best to move towards disarmament ‘before the danger
spreads too much Secondly, Nehru thought that disarmament would ‘remove fears and
apprehensions, hatreds and suspicions’ and create ‘an atmosphere of co-operation’. Such a
co-operative atmosphere would, in turn, enable ‘the larger efforts to rid the world of war and
the causes of war’. In Nehru’s view, peace in the nuclear age was not merely a moral
imperative but a practical necessity. For, the choice was between ‘utter annihilation’ and
‘peaceful co-existence between nations’.

That all these elements were integral parts of a unified conception of internationalism and of
the imperative of nudging the world towards the ideal of One World centred on the United
Nations is clearly evident in a speech that Nehru delivered at the General Assembly on
December 20, 1956.

Critical Analysis
While non-alignment undoubtedly helped in many ways to facilitate India’s security and
economic requirements, the changing geopolitical dynamic in Asia, especially between China
and India meant non-alignment’s limitations soon became clear. As China stabilized
domestically under the leadership of Mao and Zhou Enlai, its desire to involve itself more
meaningfully in the affairs of neighbouring states also increased. The Bandung Conference in
1955.highlighted this shift as delegates encouraged by the example of Indonesia’s

The vehemently anti-imperialist Chinese, sensing an opening to diminish India’s role in the
NAM strongly backed Sukarno, while Nehru continued to stress negotiation and peaceful
resolution of the dispute. When Nehru further criticized the Indonesian position at the 1961
Belgrade Conference, relations between India and Indonesia soured.

12
This also coincided with China’s ability to also extend greater economic assistance to its
NAM partners besides its political support while India could only offer political support but
little else.

The NAM’s tilt towards China and a perceived naiveté of Nehru’s idealism meant the
grouping yielded little dividend for India from the 1960s onwards. The Chinese, who had
been expanding their military presence in ill-defined Himalayan border region with India,
seized the opportunity to, despite Zhou Enlai’s assurances to Nehru to punish India’s ongoing
consolidation of the region. They launched a surprise invasion of Indian territory and rapidly
defeated the local Indian security forces. This perceived betrayal caused great consternation
in India and an inquest over the role of Nehru and V. Krishna Menon in the debacle. While
Nehru undoubtedly recognized the incipient Chinese threat to Indian claims in the region and
disaffection with the colonial-era McMahon Line had placed his trust in Zhou’s promise for a
negotiated settlement; thus he was profoundly shocked by Chinese duplicity.

The situation seemed so dire that Nehru, much to his embarrassment, was forced to turn to
the US and UK for emergency military aid to halt further Chinese advances into Indian
territory

Nehru felt betrayed and became utterly disillusioned with non-alignment. He did not live
long, dying in 1964 and bringing an end to the most vigorous phase of Indian non-alignment
diplomacy.

Conclusion
Pt. Jawaharlal Nehru’s internationalism motives and ideas were really good. He always talked
about unity, peace, and harmony between the countries to provide better future to our coming
generations but somewhere along the line he forgot that everybody doesn’t think the same
way he thought there were people and countries who wanted to impose themselves on the
world. Mainly Nehru’s views on internationalism revolve around world to be treated as one
and everybody should spend their lives in peace and harmony. He always talked about
welfare of all countries and groups not for only specific set of countries. He always stood up
for his great views and will be always considered as one of the most influential and gritty
world politician.

13
 Bibliography
Pt. J L Nehru, Discovery of India
Taufiq A. Nazami, Jawaharlal Nehru's world view internationalism vs
nationalism
Indian Political Thought
Chandra ctal , India’s Struggle for Independence
Jawaharlal Nehru, ‘We Wish for Peace’, in India's Foreign Policy:
Selected Speeches, September 1946-April 1961 (New Delhi: Publications
Division, Ministry of Information and Broadcasting, Government of
India, 1961).
Prasad , Origins of Indian Foreign Policy
Rana , Imperatives of Nonalignment

14