Interrogating Nehruvian ideals of India

Taylor Sherman's book challenges the widely held belief that Nehru was solely responsible for shaping India's history and argues his guiding principles were nothing more than myths

Nehru’s India: A History in Seven Myths

Author: Taylor C Sherman

Publisher: Princeton University Press

Pages: 284

Price: Rs 863

Taylor Sherman’s book about the history of India during the Nehru era questions the adequacy of belief that Nehru became the architect of independent India. It labels as myths this belief and six principles that are supposed to have driven economic, political, and social development in this era — non-alignment, secularism, socialism, a strong state, a successful democracy and high modernism.

Professor Sherman does not blame Nehru, whom she sees not as an autocrat but as an educator who sought to spread ideas on what India requires. In fact, she frequently refers to Nehru’s own concern and doubts about the realisation of the six principles. But is her scepticism about India’s history being shaped by the six principles well placed?

Take the non-alignment principle. She recognises the role that India played in the Nehru era as a non-aligned force that worked at the international level against imperialism and racism. But her point is that during this era, India remained heavily dependent on the US and UK for trade and defence supplies. Is the later dependence on the Soviet Union/Russia for arms supplies also a failure of non-alignment? Her broader point that many dimensions of India’s foreign policy were shaped by national interest is described in a rather fetching way when she says: “If Indian policy was a six yard sari, non-alignment might be likened to the intricate zari work on the borders and the palloo: it required expertise to imagine, it was laboriously produced, and it drew the eye, but the rest of the garment was woven with a different thread.”

When it comes to secularism Professor Sherman correctly argues that the foundational base of the religious beliefs of the public mattered significantly. Hence secularism had to be conceived as the equality of all religions. She recognises Nehru’s continued attempts at focusing on India as “composite culture” but says that this is one principle that has been substantially challenged now. The Nehru era had many showcase events and public projects involving religions other than the majority Hinduism. Yet, she points out, at the working level of the administration and in private lives there were frequent instances of discrimination and even violence against Muslims and Dalits during this period. She even questions the depth of secularism in the Congress party.

Her assessment of socialism as a principle is rather different.  She does not question the role that the belief in socialism played in the Nehru era when we had planning and a growing public sector in the commanding heights of the economy.  She also recognises the implementation of land reforms and community development. But her point is that the bulk of economic decisions were beyond government control. In fact, she argues that: “Planning for state-run industry was like a painstakingly crafted icing on a cake that otherwise lacked a recipe.”

Her view on whether democracy was a success in Nehru’s era recognises the establishment and consolidation of the constitution and the electoral process. She also notes Nehru’s respect for the Opposition. But the doubt that she raises relates to the emergence of election-related corruption, the growth of caste-oriented politics and the misuse of the administrative system for electoral purposes, most of which became worse in the post-Nehru era with the addition now of religious friction aggravating the problem. Yet to describe democracy in India as a myth is surely misleading.

Her doubts about the principle of a strong state rest on the failure to convert the colonial administrative and police system into one more focused on people’s welfare. Her discussion of the drive for modernism is more descriptive as she draws attention to the great dams being described as “temples” and the highly westernised approach to town planning reflected in the building of Chandigarh.

Professor Sherman’s narrative about the early history of independent India is valuable because of the facts that she presents to advance her argument about the principles being myths. But her description does not take into account adequately the role of Nehru as an educator and the impact of this on those of us who grew up then. A secular, rationalist, articulate and forward-looking Nehru gave us a vision of what we wanted to be.

Today, non-alignment remains the preferred option of most people involved in foreign policy, and we are seeing the impact of this in the consensus on Indian policy on the Ukraine war. Socialism as control on commanding heights has weakened substantially; but it remains influential in shaping demands for support for the poor and underprivileged. Secularism has certainly been heavily eroded, though the idea of India as a “composite culture” is not lost in practice. As for democracy, it is under threat, but it survives because political power still depends on public support and the courts are, generally, supportive of the rule of law. The state capacity is becoming stronger and modernism in India is growing beyond what we saw in the Nehru era because of the spread of education and rising global cultural impact.

What Professor Sherman describes as myths were partially influential guiding principles that, at least, gave a shared idea of India to its powerful elite. But, despite the alternative that has emerged in recent decades, the idea of India that emerged in the Nehru era continues to prevail even now, not just in parts of the elite but also among some in the underprivileged classes.