Freedom: The Mind of Jawaharlal Nehru

Dr. C. R. Reddy, M.A. (Camb.)

In this representative selection* of Mr. Jawaharlal Nehru’s writings, it is difficult to single out one letter or one essay for comprehensive comment. The passionate patriotism, of which none can be in doubt, tears through even the socialist inclinations of the Congress President. In fact, Patriotism, the Lesser category, often overcomes Socialism, the higher and Nature proves to be stronger than idea. “I work for independence, because the nationalist in me cannot tolerate alien domination”. But he has no hatred for Englishmen. He wants Independence because he would have no truck or barter with Imperialism, and the British Empire is, in his opinion, the most conspicuous example of Imperialism in action, though how he can reconcile this with the Statute of Westminster and the Federalism it embodies is difficult to perceive. Is Ireland under Imperialism to­day, though she is anti-socialist?

            That does not mean that necessarily we lay stress on an isolation of India or a breaking away of India from such associations as might exist with England of other countries, but it does mean the word Independence is specially used to lay stress on the fact that we want to break the Imperialist connection with Great Britain. If Imperialism survives in England, we must part from England, because, so long as Imperialism survives in England the only connection between England and India is likely to be the connection of an imperialist dominate in India in some form or other....Therefore in terms of Imperialist Britain, the Independence of India means the separation of India from England. Personally, I can conceive and welcome the idea, of a close association between India and England on terms other than those of Imperialism.

Mr. Nehru’s case for the country’s Independence is based upon his deep conviction that it is in the interest both of world civilisation as of the economic well­being of the masses of the Indian peasantry and workers.

            Capitalism has led to Imperialism and to the conflicts of Imperialist powers in search for Colonial areas for exploitation, for areas of raw produce and for markets for manufactured goods. It has led to ever­-increasing conflict with the rising nationalism of colonial countries, and to social conflicts with powerful movements of the exploited working class......Asia is the main field of conflict between Nationalism and Imperialism. Asia is still undeveloped as compared to Europe and North America. It has a vast population which can consume goods if they had the necessary purchasing power to do so....Hence the talk of a “push to Asia” to find an outlet for the surplus goods for the West and thus stabilize Western Capitalism for another period. Capitalism is a young and growing force in the East; it has not, as in India, wholly overthrown feudalism yet. But even before Capitalism had established itself, other forces, inimical to it, have risen to challenge it. And it is obvious that if Capitalism collapses in Europe and America, it cannot survive in Asia .... Capitalism, in its difficulties, took to Fascism with all its brutal suppression of what Western civilisation had apparently stood for: it became, even in some of its homelands, what its imperialist counterpart had long been in subject colonial countries. Fascism thus stood out as two faces of the now decaying Capitalism.....Socialism in the West and the rising Nationalisms of the Eastern and other dependent countries opposed this combination of Fascism and Imperialism. “I am convinced that there is intimate connection between world events and our national problem is but a part of the world problem of Capitalist ­Imperialism.....India’s struggle to-day is part of the great struggle which is going on all over the world for the emancipation of the oppressed”.

He regards the freedom movement in India as linked up with the Socialist movement abroad. He would have the English or the French Socialist remember that Indian Nationalism is “essentially different from the new and terribly narrow Nationalism of Fascist countries; the former was the historical urge to freedom; the latter the last refuge of reaction”. There can be no hope for the successful establishment of socialist governments in the politically free states of the world, unless Imperialism is overthrown and subject peoples are given their political freedom. Nay, it is even more important to realise the essential and organic connection between Fascism and Imperialism; for only a destruction of both can ensure a stable world peace without which it would be impossible to retain the fruits of civilisation. If only the British Labour Party could realise this connection!

Our freedom movement is thus not merely an Indian affair but forms a part of the historic fight of progressive forces all over the world against reaction. It is also an essential condition for dealing with the problems of Indian poverty and unemployment.

            Indian freedom is necessary, because the burden on the Indian masses as well as the middle classes is too heavy to be borne and must be lightened or done away with. The measure of freedom is the extent to which this burden is removed... I see no way of ending the poverty, the vast unemployment, the degradation and subjection of the Indian people except through Socialism. That involves vast and revolutionary changes in our political and social structure, the ending of vested interests in land and industry as well as the feudal and autocratic Indian States system. That means the ending of private property, except in a restricted sense and the replacement of the present profit system by a higher ideal of co­operative service. ... I work for Indian freedom because it is the inevitable step to social and economic change.

Whether one agrees or not with Mr. Nehru’s reading of the situation, one cannot but admit the sincerity, vigour, and eloquence with which his ideas are put forward in these pages. There is no doubting the fundamental conviction of the man. He may have started life as a pure nationalism is a half way shelter to socialism, and he is a socialist, not only because he cannot bear to see poverty but it is the only ‘ism’ which appears to him to give reasonable hopes of the maintenance of world peace as well as of world civilisation.

Nevertheless, he is not a doctrinaire politician. He is willing to take count of reality and work with even those with whom he may have fundamental differences. Even Socialists are capable of compromise!

            Much as I wish for the advancement of Socialism in this country, I have no desire to force the issue in the Congress and thereby create difficulties in the way of our struggle for Independence. I shall co­operate gladly and with all the strength in me with all those who work for Independence, even though they do not agree with the socialist solution.

His little essay on “Mahatma Gandhi” is a remarkable exposition of the ties that still link these two famous figures, in spite of their extreme differences, amounting to antagonism in ideas and policies.

            To us he (Mahatma Gandhi) has represented the spirit and honour of India, the yearning of her sorrowing millions to be rid of their innumerable burdens, and an insult to him by the British Government or others has been an insult to India and her people.

Their spirit is alike, though their minds are different.

Mr. Nehru is not only a politician; he is essentially humanitarian in outlook and his sympathy always flows to the suffering. Has he not himself suffered? His essays on “Prison-Land” and “The Mind of a Judge” are a terrible indictment of the administration of justice in India, the needlessly heavy punishments, the almost complete absence of any modern ideas of punishment in both prosecutors and Judges and the way in which gaol administration sets out deliberately to destroy the: soul of the prisoner. His constructive suggestions for prison reform may well illumine the mental and moral darkness of the authorities in India.

Mr. Nehru has it quiet and restrained style that runs smoothly and yet can rise on occasions of intense emotion to sublime heights of feeling. He can be sarcastic, ironical, and thrust his points deep into the flesh. It is hard to resist quoting an illustration. Relating the study of a Naib­ Tahsildar and twopersons who, in the course of realising irrigation dues from the residents of a village, beat an unhappy peasant with sticks, and his subsequent death.

The Naib and peons were subsequently tried and convicted for simple hurt, but they were forthwith released on probation of good conduct. The good conduct I suppose, signified that they must not beat another man to death within the next six months.

Even those who cannot agree with him in his policies must admit and admire his soulful sincerity and stem resolve for action. He has the grace, not over-plentiful in India, of living the principles he preaches and paying the price that Imperialism exacts of Liberators. The instruction he sent his daughter Indira in his first letter to her from prison: “Be brave and all the rest follows”, finds ample illustration in his crowded life. Courage is the key-note of his character, as it is the salt and salvation of life.

All the same, I cannot hail his message as unassailable gospel and infalfible remedy. The way the word ‘Imperialism’ is repeated makes one feel that it is a mantra which does duty for clear, classified thought and definition. Is it merely the opposite of Socialism? And can a State or a race, socialistic within itself, not be imperialistic relatively to other countries and races, more especially such as are regarded as inferior? Is Nationalistic Socialism a self­contradictory ‘conception? And may not a Socialistic State, when sufficiently strong, tend to become Imperialistic by imposing its domination on other races and exploiting them for the benefit of its Proletariat? Or is it that a Socialistic State, is a contradiction in terms and that there can be no true Socialism except in a World Socialistic State or rather Society? To Mr. Nehru, the revolt of the Arabs against the Jews and their Protectors the British, in Palestine, is a fight against Imperialism. Almost every fight of the weaker against the stronger or a subject race against the suzerain, even when bereft of economic motives and led by the aristocracy, is a fight against Imperialism. What the Devil was to the Medieval Monk, Imperialism is in Mr. Nehru’s interpretation of history - the author of all evil and the only author of evil.

Capitalism, he says, has led to Imperialism. When Yudhistra invaded the neighbouring kingdoms and subjugated them and even sacrificed a king with all due ceremony as a symbol of his over-lordship, was that, I wonder, a Capitalistic overflow into Imperialism? In terms of race psychology, it seems to me, Capitalism and Imperialism are factors and symbols of Power, and it is Power that the virile races covet and pursue, and it is in the quest for increased Power that they come into conflict with each other. The love of domination appears to be a natural trait in the character of races, and the acquisition and employment of Capital and Colonies a process for achieving the idea of power and proud supremacy.

In linking up the freedom movement in India with the socialistic movement abroad, he is indulging in a metaphysical interpretation. For, the freedom movement in India, as idea, arose long before Socialism made itself felt in Europe; and the historical urge referred to has been apparently very leisurely in its operation. Nor can he on his own hypothesis hold that there is essential unity between the two forces and that there will be eternal co-operation between them. For he admits that Socialism is not consistent with Patriotism or Racialism and Nationalism is the embodiment of both. In describing Fascism and Nazi-ism as the last refuge of reaction, he misses their true character. Their great aim is to develop the power of the State or of the Race. Whether this is to be achieved by a Capitalistic or a Socialistic policy, by promoting individual liberty or by suppressing it, are subordinate considerations. It is the easy-going Cosmopolitanism of the Italian Socialists and the low estimate in which, they held or professed to hold the Military forces of the country that was one of the causes that engendered Mussolini’s movement in Italy. As has been illustrated by the German persecution of the Jews, the essence of Nazism is Racialism and race power and prestige. All else are means to this end. The cultural reaction witnessed towards Paganism in Germany is a further illustration of this point, viz., that the soul of Nazi-ism is not Capital and Property but Race.

As regards Mr. Nehru’s present position in Indian politics, he himself seems to be aware that he has made the position of the Congress and Nationalism more difficult and less united by the interjection of Socialism and class cleavage. True, he would like to postpone socialism till after Nationalism is achieved and Patriotism has had its brief but transcendent hour. But this explanation cannot undo the mischief disunity already wrought. Human nature being what it is it is no use telling people that patriotism is the lesser thing and asking them to concentrate on it, while revealing a different road supposed to lead to greater glories and prosperity. Furthermore, human nature being what it is, to ask the different classes to join together and wage a fight to-day under promise that they will after the fight is successfully accomplished, be let loose against each other, does not appear to be the most inviting way of engendering or maintaining national unity.

I have deliberately relegated my criticism to the end after, first giving a continuous exposition of Mr. Jawaharlal Nehru’s remarkable book; for a reviewer should not as a rule, stand between the author and the audience, though he may wind up the proceedings as a Chairman.

Post Script: “Since the above was written Romain Rolland, in his greetings to the Indian National Congress, has employed the expressive phrase ‘Racial Fascism’, which I regard as a confirmation of one of the central points I have emphasised”.

* INDIA AND THE WORLD By Jawaharlal Nehru (Adlen & Unevin Ltd.)

[Courtesy “Indian Review, January, 1937].