There is something strange about articles that start like this:
There was a time when India looked at the poor as the yardstick for policy making. Today she looks at the middle class and the rich, the poor having disappeared from the map of progress and development.
(The two faces of India)
Go on and read the article if you want. It is 9 months old (and I got it from a 9 month old post on Charukesi’s blog. Don’t ask how I got there. It was a mix-up), but the lamentation is standard and could have been written any time in the past 13 years. It is about how the neo-liberal economic policies and the forces have globalisation are unfortunately leaving the poor behind, unlike before, when India used to “look at the poor as the yardstick for policy making”
I find those arguments really, really, weird coming from hardcore leftists. Because during the supposed Golden Age of Nehruvian Socialism, they used to say the same things about Nehru’s policies.
We like to call Nehru’s policies “Socialist” – with good reason – but the truth is that the poor fellow got a lot of grief from those to his left for following, not insufficiently socialist policies, but for following capitalism. A guy like Bidwai may weep buckets of tears about how we have abandoned the principles that were leading us on the right path till May 1991 when, suddenly and inexplicably, we were possessed by a deathwish, but during Nehru’s time an “intellectual” of his ideological persuasion would have claimed that because of Nehru’s faux socialist policies, the rich were getting richer, the poor were getting screwed, agriculture was being neglected, etc. Basically the same things you are hearing now from him about the current policies.
In fact, immediately after independence, the communists raised the the battle cry of “Yeh azadi jhooti hai!” and went off to organise a revolt in the countryside. Swatantrya party notwithstanding, the real choices at that time were between Nehru’s socialist policies and communism. Nehru believed that by keeping India a democracy, we would avoid the excesses of communism and also achieve development. On the other hand, communists believed that Nehru’s socialism was fraudulent and was just capitalism in disguise.
By Indira Gandhi’s time, it had become clear to everyone that those policies had flopped badly. Communists and harder-core leftists essentially cried “I told you so!” They claimed that the mess the country was falling into was because we hadn’t gone fully down the path of socialism and because we had allowed private business to exist and take advantage of the regulations. They pointed out to the “successful” economies of Soviet Russia and other East European countries to illustrate the dangers of following a mixed economy. Even supporters of the Indira-Nehru policies speculated about what was going wrong. Usually the speculation consisted of 1) wondering if the commies might be right after all, 2) blaming population growth, 3) blaming the people of India for being too lazy, 4) blaming rich business, the foreign hand and other assorted demons for not letting India develop, among other things.
You’d be hard put to find anyone who thought that we were a success, or even a partial success, or, for that matter, that we were going on the right path.
So I am frankly amazed that an entire tribe of such people has emerged out of nowhere. I mean, I can understand that a socialist would think that the current policies are wrong. But praising Nehru’s policies? How shameless can you get?
The basis of Marx – Dialextical Materialism is full of holes. How come those leftist don’t ever question that?…but question wealth creation?
Can someone pull the trigger on Sitaram Yechury?..please..
>>Nehru believed that by keeping India a democracy, we would avoid the excesses of communism and also achieve development.
This is what the world has been led to believe–I don’t mean to sound presumptous–but it’s false. If anything, Nehru was a patent communist; he’d have turned out the Stalin of India had the post-independence situation been close to the Russia of Lenin’s days. I’m having a post lined up at my blog soon on this subject, but because you mentioned this here, I thought it relevant to mention it.
So wait with bated breath….
Well, Sandeep.. Nehru visited Russia in 1927 with his father. He really admired the goverment’s structure then. But he absolutely against dictatorship. He wanted socialism rather than communism.. He publicly disregarded communism! Set your record straight..
Gandhuuuuuu
Bhenchoddhh
Fucking indiands i hate all u u stinkly bastards
Excuse the last comment…. it is not worth noting and clearly is a reflection of the ignorance of many. Let the debate continue, as the pursuit of learning is on the path to understanding. The noise of the ignorant, as the above comment is clearly, is only meant to distract. Let there be respect and peace among us all, regardless of race, colour or religion.
Modern History Sourcebook:
Jawaharlal Nehru:
Marxism, Capitalism and Non-Alignment
Nehru, India’s first Prime Minister after independence, (1947) was the creator of such terms as “neutralism”, “Third World”, and “non-alignment”.
Marxism, Capitalism and India’s Future (1941)
As our struggle toned down and established itself at a low level, there was little of excitement in it, except at long intervals. My thoughts traveled more to other countries, and I watched and studied, as far as I could in jail, the world situation in the grip of the great depression. I read as many books as I could find on the subject, and the more I read the more fascinated I grew. India with her problems and struggles became just a part of this mighty world drama, of the great struggle of political and economic forces that was going on everywhere, nationally and internationally. In that struggle my own sympathies went increasingly toward the communist side.
I had long been drawn to socialism and communism, and Russia had appealed to me. Much in Soviet Russia I dislike-the ruthless suppression of all contrary opinion, the wholesale regimentation, the unnecessary violence (as I thought) in carrying out various policies. But there was no lack of violence and suppression in the capitalist world, and I realized more and more how the very basis and foundation of our acquisitive society and property was violence. Without violence it could not continue for many days. A measure of political liberty meant little indeed when the fear of starvation was always compelling the vast majority of people everywhere to submit to the will of the few, to the greater glory and advantage of the latter.
Violence was common in both places, but the violence of the capitalist g order seemed inherent in it; while the violence of Russia, bad though it was t aimed at a new order based on peace and coÂoperation and real freedom for the masses. With all her blunders, Soviet Russia had triumphed over enormous difficulties and taken great strides toward this new order While the rest of the world was in the grip of the depression and going backward in some ways, in the Soviet country a great new world was being built up before our eyes. Russia, following the great Lenin, looked into the future and thought only of what was to be, while other countries lay numbed under the dead hand of the past and spent their energy in preserving the useless relics of a bygone age. In particular, I was impressed by the reports of the great progress made by the backward regions of Central Asia under the Soviet regime. In the balance, therefore, I was all in favor of Russia, and the presence and example of the Soviets was a bright and heartening phenomenon in a dark and dismal world.
But Soviet Russia’s success or failure, vastly important as it was as a practical experiment in establishing a communist state, did not affect the soundness of the theory of communism. The Bolsheviks may blunder or even fail because of national or international reasons, and yet the communist theory may be correct. On the basis of that very theory it was absurd to copy blindly what had taken place in Russia, for its application depended on the particular conditions prevailing in the country in question and the stage of its historical development. Besides, India, or any other country, could profit by the triumphs as well as the inevitable mistakes of the Bolsheviks. Perhaps the Bolsheviks had tried to go too fast because, surrounded as they were by a world of enemies, they feared external aggression. A slower tempo might ; avoid much of the misery caused in the rural areas. But then the question rose if really radical results could be obtained by slowing down the rate of change. Reformism was an impossible solution of any vital problem at a critical moment when the basic structure had to be changed, and, however slow the progress might be later on, the initial step must be a complete break with the existing order, which had fulfilled its purpose and was now only a drag on future progress.
In India, only a revolutionary plan could solve the two related questions of the land and industry as well as almost every other major problem before the country….
Russia apart, the theory and philosophy of Marxism lightened up many a dark corner of my mind. History came to have a new meaning for me. The Marxist interpretation threw a flood of light on it, and it became an unfolding drama with some order and purpose, howsoever unconscious, behind it. In spite of the appalling waste and misery of the past and the present, the future was bright with hope, though many dangers intervened. It was the essential freedom from dogma and the scientific outlook of Marxism that appealed to me. It was true that there was plenty of dogma in official communism in Russia and elsewhere, and frequently heresy hunts were organized. That seemed to be deplorable, though it was not difficult to understand in view of the tremendous changes taking place rapidly in the Soviet countries when effective opposition might have resulted in catastrophic failure.
The great world crisis and slump seemed to justify the Marxist analysis. While all other systems and theories were groping about in the dark, Marxism alone explained it more or less satisfactorily and offered a real solution.
As this conviction grew upon me, I was filled with a new excitement, and my depression at the nonsuccess of civil disobedience grew much less Was not the world marching rapidly toward the desired consummation? There were grave dangers of wars and catastrophes, but at any rate we were moving There was no stagnation. Our national struggle became a stage in the 1onger journey, and it was as well that repression and suffering were tempering our people for future struggles and forcing them to consider the new ideas that were stirring the world. We would be the stronger and the more disciplined and hardened by the elimination of the weaker elements. Time was in our favor.
The policies adopted by Congress post-indepence have been to create a basis for launching capitalism. UNtil, the crisis of 1970s, banks remained int he hands of a few capitalists, who used the deposts for their exploitative pursuits. It was only after the nationalisation of banks that the deposits, which were 5000 crore rupees, have grown by leaps and bounds. Now, the same old, private control of capital (Banks) is being suggested, which is one of the reasons for the distress in agriculture.