Rational Leadership of

RATIONAL LEADERSHIP OF
JAWAHARLAL NEHRU

The world has witnessed on its stage many a great life with different characteristics. At every stage of human history, we find great men, with different virtues, powers and capacities, participating in the great play of human development. In spite of their vast differences, all of them influence the masses and leave their impact, great or small, on the human race.

Although the great men differ in their outlook, as also in the force of their actions, they set the wheel of human history moving onward. And the world is not so much concerned with their differences, as with their thoughts and activities. Such persons, although their number is insignificant, are needed in every society and in every period of human advancement, because without them good traditions cannot be built up and history cannot be shaped.

In human society, there are two types of people (1) the people whom we call great men or great personalities, and (2) the ordinary human beings. The first kind of persons are born with some mission in their life. With the force of their character, they come forward, influence the common people and soon become an asset to human society. These are the persons whom we call leaders. The second type of people, who form the great majority, look forward to the guidance of persons, under the first category. According to Max Weber of Germany, leadership can be divided into three categories (1) Traditional, (2) Legal-Rational and (3) Charismatic.

Traditional leadership mostly depends upon faith in ancient culture and old belief and traditions. It is exhibited in all spheres of social life and state actions. This kind of leadership may accept slight modifications in the existing social structure, but on the whole it attempts to maintain the status quo. It is not in favour of radical changes and quick reversals in the established set-up. In fact, ancientness is the main-stay of it.

Rational leadership stands for a rational and scientific outlook in life. It is mostly exhibited through the State power. This kind of leadership pays due respect to the past culture, but its main concern is with gradual change for the better in every sphere of social and political life. It tries to bring about the desired changes through State laws and State authority.

The third and most influential type of leadership is the charismatic leadership. This kind of leadership is based on a divine vision. Charismatic leadership mostly depends upon the spiritual force, found in the character of the leader. It is the most effective kind of leadership. We can easily distinguish such a leader from the ordinary human beings. A charismatic leader has a wonderful divine force within him and is able to revolutionise the entire social and political order of the day.

We find two great personalities in the history of modern India, whom we can conveniently count in the third category of leadership. They are Mahatma Gandhi and Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru. Both of them were extra-ordinary human beings, with a magnetic power to influence the people. They were international figures. They not only guided the Indian people, but they also influenced the peoples of other countries by their great human qualities. Their impact on the minds of almost all the peoples of the world was decisive.

Besides, we in India divide leadership yet from a different standard. This division is mainly confined to the third type of leadership. We thus divide charismatic leadership into– (l) rational and (2) spiritual or supernatural. Accordingly, some leaders are rational-cum-idealist in their approach to human affairs and some are idealist-cum-spiritual in their attitude towards life. Under the first category we include the names of Lokmanya Tilak and Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru, and under the second category we can include the names of Mahatma Gandhi and Vinoba Bhave. We can easily mark out the difference between these two types of leadership by observing and analysing the different ideas and ideals of Mahatma Gandhi and Jawaharlal Nehru.

Spiritual leadership is supernatural and metaphysical, while rational leadership is earthly or physical. Spiritual leadership is founded on religion and divine power. The spiritual leader sees God even in the smallest atom and, as such, he ponders over all human problems from a metaphysical standpoint. Gandhiji’s life was moulded in a religious matrix, while Nehru’s personality was shaped by his scientific outlook and by his belief in the value of this life only. Nehru was sceptical about the truth that life here-after also exists. Gandhiji interpreted every human or natural happening from a religious angle, but Nehru was a scientist and so he tried to find an explanation of every human or natural occurrence in science. We can mark out this difference in their approaches by reading the words of Pandit Nehru himself, which he wrote in his Autobiography about the earthquake in Bihar:

“During my tour in the earthquake area I read with a great shock Gandhi’s statement to the effect that the earthquake had been a punishment for the sin of untouchability. This was a staggering remark and I welcomed and wholly agreed with Rabindranath Tagore’s answer to it. Anything more opposed to the scientific outlook it would be difficult to imagine.”

The second example of disagreement between their outlooks can be found when Mahatma Gandhi decided to withdraw the non-cooperation movement and Nehru was not in favour of the withdrawal. Nehru writes in his Autobiography:

“He (Gandhi) was practically entitled to treat his Ashram inmates in any manner he liked. They had taken all kinds of pledges and accepted a certain regime, but the Congress could not do so. I had not done so. Why should we be tossed hither and thither for what seems to be metaphysical and mystical reasons in which I was not interested?”

Mahatma Gandhi used to do all his work through inspiration of God. He thought that everything in this world happened at the will of God. But Nehru’s outlook was fully practical. He neither believed in any metaphysical force, nor did he preach. Gandhiji’s actions were guided by his inner voice, but Nehru’s approach was quite rational or intellectual. The aim of Gandhi’s life was self-realization and deliverance of soul, but Nehru was concerned with the problems of this life. Gandhi was more concerned with the means than with the end, while to Nehru both means and end were equally important.

Gandhi’s leadership was based on the principles of sacrifice or self-abnegation and Ahimsa, but Nehru’s leadership was found on belief in material prosperity. Although both wanted to reform the lot of the poverty-stricken people of India, they differed in their methods: Gandhiji asked the people to cut their desires, lead a simple life and to cherish the old ideals of simplicity and contentment. Nehru had no faith in this philosophy. On the contrary, he always worked for the material advancement of the people. Nehru could not digest the Gandhian ideals of simplicity and self-realization. He (Nehru) felt that such a philosophy could not be profitable to the people at large from the viewpoint of their social and economic development, although he was not against those persons who wanted to practise it in their personal lives. Gandhiji’s approach was entirely individualistic. He wanted that every individual should produce for himself what he needs in life, and that he (individual) should be self-sufficient and self-dependent. But Nehru believed in collective production of things and in heavy industrialisation of the country. In short, Gandhi did not attach as much importance to the material advancement of man as to his spiritual development. But Nehru wanted to remodel Indian society on the western pattern.

As a spiritual leader, Gandhiji believed in cleanliness of mind and body, but he was no adorer of physical beauty. He thought that physical beauty had nothing to do with spiritual beauty. What he wanted in life was not earthly beauty, but the purity of heart and mind. His own life was an example of it. For purity of thought and actions, he believed that one should practise celibacy and avoid the use of rich food and spices. Gandhiji was the symbol of life-long renunciation and dedication. Many Indians differed with him; many rejected his quaint ideas about continence, complete pacifism and nature cure. But all respected his sincerity, wisdom and passion for truth.

Nehru’s leadership, on the other hand, was quite practical and his ideals could be easily followed by everyone. His ways were quite familiar to the people. He was a great lover of beauty. The rose in his button-hole was a symbol of his great attraction for beauty. He had a passion for good food and good clothes. He had no idea of a simple life, nor did he like to lead the life of an ascetic. Although Nehru had great respect for the ideals of Gandhiji, he believed that they could not be easily practised by the common people. Strictly speaking, he considered them impracticable.

In short, spiritual leadership is a thing for adoration only. It leads towards purification of soul and is a way towards deliverance. It touches the human heart and ennobles the soul. But rational of scientific leadership studies the conditions of the people and tries to bring about necessary social, political and economic reforms in the existing set up of society. Hence, the ways of Pandit Nehru can be followed by a large number of people, while those of Mahatma Gandhi can be adopted only by a very few persons. But both Gandhi and Nehru were great in their own spheres. Gandhi helped India to see the beauty and greatness of her own soul, while Nehru helped the people of India and of the world to understand the basic needs of their life and work for their fulfilment. Gandhi prepared the design of the picture of life on which Nehru tried to erect the building. Although the world seems to be more apt to follow the rational and scientific leadership, the importance of spiritual leadership cannot be denied. Both types of leadership are required for building up a healthy society. Our country has to coordinate both the philosophies with a view to practising the principle of world peace and enriching human life. In fact, the progress of humanity depends upon the coordination of these two leaderships.