Fallacies of Nehru: From Kashmir to China to promoting dynastic politics, the nation continues to pay the price

Madhav Godbole called him “The God That Failed”; Margaret Fisher said that his life, personality, and works are a “Confusing Welter of Words” and Ramchandra Guha criticised him for being “Romantic in the Politics”. All these define the contested legacy of Jawaharlal Nehru. As the first Prime Minister of independent Bharat, he is often remembered for his significant contributions to nation-building. But he is also criticised in equal measures for his inefficient policies and problematic decisions, which led to various setbacks during his tenure, for which the nation is still paying a heavy price.

Cradled by Privileges, Forged in the West

Nehru was born with a silver spoon and an Anglophilic attitude and taste. It is no surprise that Nehru was a product of Harrow School in London, known for producing Prime Ministers and Monarchs in Britain. Here, students were trained to be administrators and Nehru got his training in Western diplomacy through such institutions, reflected in the colonial hangover in his thought process.

His Western education and the impact of Russian socialism moulded his character, but ironically, it also alienated him from the masses. His privileged background gave him a superficial perspective on the matters that concerned Indian society. And such a perspective led to short-sighted policies that proved costly for the nation in the long run. It has been pointed out that at the time of Independence, India was a wounded nation with the deep scars of colonial oppression and communal riots that needed immediate redressal, which could have been resolved only if there was a firm leadership at the centre. Nehru could not provide the necessary gravitas to relieve the pain of the masses and resolve the critical situation.

The Architect of Kashmir Crisis

One of Nehru’s notable failures was his handling of the Kashmir issue. Following the partition of India in 1947, Kashmir emerged as a bone of contention, with both India and Pakistan laying claim to it, and Pakistan instigating the Kashmir War in 1947-48. Nehru’s decision to take the Kashmir issue to the United Nations (UN) in 1948 is widely regarded as a strategic blunder. The UN intervention led to the establishment of the Line of Control (LoC), which has since been a source of constant conflict and instability in the region, and a major chunk of our resources and manpower is deviated to resolve this crisis every year.

The political instability in Kashmir is largely a product of Nehru’s mishandling of the Kashmir problem, his blind faith in Sheikh Abdullah, and his reluctance to actively engage with Maharaja Hari Singh. Ramachandra Guha has rightly summarised the whole issue by saying that the problem of Kashmir was not the failure of the military, it was the failure of Jawaharlal Nehru. Nehru was ready to sign the treaty of confederacy with Kashmir granting it an autonomous status. Had the treaty materialised, India would have lost Kashmir forever. Nehru was similarly ignorant of the strategic importance of Kashmir and the mountainous terrains of the Karakoram Range and was ready to give up the land at the suggestion of Sheikh Abdullah, who wanted him to cede the territories which are culturally different from Mainland Kashmir. Nehru was so reluctant to build the military power of India that when the Commander in Chief Sir Rob Lockhart came to him with a defense policy, Nehru out rightly rejected it. Within a few months of this incident, India had to face the attack on Kashmir by Pakistan-sponsored tribal groups.

Bumbling Foreign Policies: China and Beyond

Similarly, Nehru’s approach to foreign policy was deeply flawed, particularly regarding his Non-Alignment stance during the Cold War era. While Non-Alignment was intended to maintain India’s independence and promote peace, it often resulted in India being perceived as indecisive and ineffective on the global stage. India failed to secure long-term decisive alliances because Nehru refused to take a firm stand on international issues and refused to participate in Cold War diplomacy. Neither the USA nor Britain supported India during the military struggles, nor countries like China openly sided with Pakistan. Even the USSR, which India considered an ally, didn’t give any worthwhile support to the Indian regime at the time of need and declared its neutrality during the Indo-China war.

On his part, Nehru refused the offer of a permanent seat in the UN Security Council, which could have proved to be a major diplomatic victory for India in the world. Nehru’s naive idealism of “peaceful co-existence” with China, as reflected in the Panchsheel agreement, received a rude shock, when China attacked India in 1962, and the Indian army was unprepared to put forward a proper defense. Nehru’s faith in the idea of “Hindi-Chini Bhai Bhai” proved costly for the nation, as Nehru neglected the military preparations of the nation in favor of peaceful diplomatic relations. General Thimayya was highly critical of Nehru’s reluctance to provide resources to the army and blamed him for the failure of the state to resolve the issue with China. Thimayya decided to hand over his resignation in protest but was called back by Nehru fearing political backlash.

He dared to justify his failure to protect against infiltration of the Chinese army in Ladakh by making irresponsible statements like- “It is a region where not even a blade of grass grows. It is a waste uninhabitable land. I don’t even know where it was”. When he was asked in the parliament if China has acquired territories in Aksai Chin and that China is showing these territories as part of their territory, Nehru replied that he was aware of these developments. Still, the area claimed by China is located in the high hills, which remains inaccessible for most of the year and therefore the loss is minimal as the land is uninhabited.   Due to this debacle, India lost a lot of territories in the North-East and Aksai-Chin region, which China still claims as part of its territory, and which remains a major challenge for Indian foreign policy even now.

Nehru’s faulty policies were also in a way responsible for the Indo-China conflict when Nehru decided to support the cause of Tibet, going against the Chinese government. He went one step ahead and provided asylum to Dalai Lama when he left Tibet with the Chinese authorities. Both these events brought the wrath of China on India, which could have been avoided by adopting the policy of non-intervention. The failure to make the right decisions at the right time remained a hallmark of the career of Jawaharlal Nehru.

Democratic Much?

Despite projecting himself as a great supporter of democracy, he lent support to the despotic rulers like Tito from Yugoslavia, Nikrumah from Ghana, Abdul Nasser from Egypt, and Sukamo from Indonesia, all of whom were declared dictators. This was a major diplomatic failure of Nehru, who aligned with countries with terrible human rights track records and political instability to ally for “Global Peace”, which reflects both the contradiction in his ideas vis a vis practice and the lack of clarity in his policies.

On the domestic front too, Nehru’s policies failed to offer a vision for the future. His economic policies emphasised a lot on centralised planning and heavy industry through initiatives like the Five-Year Plans and the Industrial Policy Resolution, 1948 and IDRA (Industrial Development and Regulation Act, 1951), etc. While these policies laid the foundation for industrialisation in India, they also stifled entrepreneurship and hindered the growth of small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) because of the stringent regulations of the government and the License Raj system.

Additionally, Nehru’s welfare economics led to the neglect of agriculture, which remained largely stagnant under his leadership. His attempts to bring land distribution in India and regulate land ceilings failed because of their uneven execution and lack of grassroots initiatives as well as rampant corruption at the administrative level. India is still grappling with issues such as income inequality, unemployment, and rural distress as a result of the inefficient policies of Jawaharlal Nehru and his lack of a robust policy framework for the nation.

A Shortsighted Approach to National Integration

Another major criticism of Nehru’s policies is directed towards the question of national integration, particularly the handling of the integration of princely states with diverse populations into the Indian Union, which had serious flaws in its planning as well as execution. The superficial division of states on a linguistic basis and Nehru’s failure to address the grievances of minority groups led to violent movements for separate statehood, the rise of identity-based politics, regionalism, and separatist movements in various parts of the country. Regions like Hyderabad and Junagadh and many other princely states could be assimilated into India due to the committed effort of Sardar Patel.

Babubhai Patel criticized him saying that the only effort of national integration done by Nehru was in 1961 in the liberation of Goa, and that too was a tad too late, as the major chunk of the work was already done by the Rashtriya Swayamsewak Sangh. The liberation of Goa in 1961 was an attempt to seek brownie points before the 1962 elections. But the setback Nehru received in the 1962 Indo-China war greatly hampered his political prestige, and for the rest of his two years, he lived as a disappointed man, introspecting his failures that couldn’t be undone.

Inhabiting an Echo Chamber

In addition to these policy failures, Nehru’s leadership style and personal decisions were heavily criticised during his time and in ours. His tendency to centralise power and surround himself with a close circle of advisors often referred to as the “Nehruvian consensus,” and the personality cult he developed around himself, barely left any space for registering dissent against his policies. He was responsible for starting the narcissistic trend of naming institutions, and policies in his name, and bestowing himself with the highest civilian order in India, Bharat Ratna in 1954. This also promoted red-tapism and rampant corruption in the bureaucracy which the nation still struggles to cope with. Nehru was particularly ruthless against political criticism during his tenure, and many prominent leaders, intellectuals, and social activists had to face prison time for voicing their dissatisfaction against the Nehruvian regime. Furthermore, Nehru also patronised dynastic politics, epitomised by the rise of his daughter, Indira Gandhi, as his political heir, setting a precedent for familial succession in Indian politics that continues to this day.

In conclusion, Jawaharlal Nehru’s legacy is too complex to be pigeonholed into neat categories. We need to take cognizance of his failures as much as his achievements are raved about. His failure as a policymaker and the shortcomings in his overall personality are too critical to be ignored, which did irreparable damage to the past and future of India. Most of the people in India still believe that Sardar Patel would have proved to be a better Prime Minister of India during the initial years after Independence, and had Nehru not received the unflinching support of Mahatma Gandhi, the destiny of Indian nationhood could have been way different.