“Breaking Free of Nehru” – Book Review

I agree with Ashwin that the socio political system of the 50’s should be understood before jumping to conclusions on the actions of Nehru. (For the record, I think Nehru as the worst PM in India’s history).
But I have got certain sections from Sanjeev’s website and I strongly urge readers to read the snippets from his site here
http://www.sanjeev.sabhlokcity.com/breakingfree.html
While Nehru’s actions might’ve caused consternation for most of the public, a large portion of the blame should go to the leaders of that era both Congress and others for not being able to create a viable alternative to Nehurvianism.
Ergo I believe that this unbridled power let him rule as a King, than first among equals.

Early comments after reading the Preface of the book
1. Makes a sweeping statement “socialists trampling our system, moral character and genius” – how has this been done, what genius are we talking here, what moral character is the author referring to.
2. Bring back India to the right path of freedom – almost assumes the path travelled by India is wrong – if so does the author acknowledge that the benefits of the system he has grown up and has the freedom now to write about all come by means of illogical policies or fallacies
3. Indian Government failed in providing the services they were elected for – why blame the system per say here, also blame the people who voted the system and the moral quotient of those who empower the system i.e. we the people. As system is a mere by product or representative of we the people.
4. I agree that we need changes and there needs a more accountable delivery mechanism which in my view has been plaguing the system. But the root cause of this plague is not the system per say, but more to do with the general moral character, structure of the society we lived and are living in. Again the distinction needs to be made for the reason it is easy to pass the blame or make sweeping statements – but as a counter point a alternative approach or way of life had to be proposed, this was not done not for lack of leadership values – but more importantly due to the failing moral character of the society – which has nothing to do with system but more to do with the society.
5. The author says the adopted model of socialism was failed and he quotes countries like USSR, Cuba and others – was USSR a failed state in 50s, 60s and is the health system not more representative in Cuba? Also India did not adopt a full fledged socialism – what Nehru understood well and early was internationalisation and he was good in trying to mix and match different approaches – I am not disagreeing with the author that the govt failed on more points that one, but the failures if taken a hard look throws up interesting mix of factors – it happened because the society structure was complex in India, also the character of India was indifferent though sharing the same high level morals
6. Also the author statement “Capitalism is successful and socialism is not” – well one needs to understand for capitalism to be successful in west – it took them ages and eons of experimentation to reach where they have as opposed to India which adopted a combination of socialism, liberalism and globalisation. Time, environment and context needs to be evaluated before making such a sweeping statement.
7. Socialism is immoral and capitalism brings about ethical values – this is a classic sales pitch of the book which I fundamentally disagree with – there are no co-relations between the end value points and the philosophies. Also don’t forget the fundamental point of Indian independence was to take all sections of society to deliver fruits of independence – hence they had to cater for all sections of society. This aspect has not only been forgotten but glossed over as a failure.
There are my comments just from the preface of the book – already I get a feeling it is a sales pitch for capitalism. There can equally be a sales pitch one can write on socialism – but fundamentally Nehru’s concept of socialism was internationalization which married the concepts of capitalism and socialism and created a customization to cater India’s needs.

I look forward to this discussion.

In his book, ‘The Social Contract’, Rousseau’s wrote “Man is born Free, And Everywhere He Is In Chains?” How true it was for the Hindus of India at independence except perhaps Sardar Patel. When one looks at Sardar Patel, he was such a giant of a man of action that he had no need of crutches in the way Nehru and Gandhi needed. Patel had no difficulty standing tall amongst the best of the British he had to deal with. He certainly had no need of socialism for that reason.

To Nehru eyes Hindu orthodoxy was reactionary. He was not confident that the traditional Hindu society would reinstae inequity which he felt was what the fight for Indian independence was about. It could equally be said that it was also Nehru’s answer to Patel’s towering personality. It was for no reason that Gandhi had to smooth Nehru’s path to the Prime Ministership by asking Patel to stand aside.

Support for India’s independence came from Btitish socialists and it was a bond that had meaning for both Gandhi and Nehru but in reality it is only side of the truth. If it was intended that Nehru’s socialism was the answer to the two nation theory, he found it painfully to be wrong. Ownership and sanctity of property predicated capitalism in equal measure. I assumed Nehru recognised that much as not to lean so far as to fall into communism. These provide the classic divides in the West but even in today’s India, politics is really a shambles as to be ruled by neither rime nor reason of any such ideology. In the West, the first past the post election system provides almost always a majority government, but in India that has not been the case for some decades now.

Even socialist governments must govern within the constraints of the budget but India’s incompetent governments far from being prudent have indebted its population for generations to come. The bribery and indulgence of the electorate has been such that no party could hope to come to power in any other way. What was contested in this election involved such great stakes that it could only be seen by the most descerning eye and that was for the very future of India by a mishmash of anti-hindu actors.

Now that India is split everyway how along regional, liguistic, and religious lines, any significance socialism had as a unifying force has evaporated. If socialism was easy to adopt in theory, could capitalism have provided India an alternative? Patel was certainly impatient with Nehru as a champion of socialism. This leads me to the conclusion that there has been nothing more destructive of India than the deluded Gandhi as the king maker. If Patel had preceded Nehru, despite his early death, how different India’s history might have been? The civil service and the armend forces would have more than a match for any of more Nehru’s hairbrained schemes. Sense might have prevailed, and the door might have been shut on Nehru’s prime ministership.

Now I turn to Hindutva. With someone like Patel at the helm of Indian affairs, there was no vacuum for any Hindu group to fill. But the Patel legacy if there was any proved short lived and that left only the forces of Hindutva to take on the responsibility for the country. In its original meaning as given by Savarkar it basically defined Hindu identity. Integral humanism, the word used to describe inclusive politics was fine when Savarkar first elicited it as his way of uniting all Indians in the fight to expel the British. To the extent that partition made this grandiose claim less relevant, the years since independence has not seen Muslims of India sign up to the idea. Now it seems that the Christian’s are ranged against the idea too.

If Hindutva was likened to an idealogy, it is one the Muslims for obvious reasons are in no need of for the obvious reasons all the divisions in India of today. In this election as in the previous one, Muslims have been able to ensure that Hindus do not come to power at the centre. If the majority Hindu population of India have not been perplexed by this state of affairs, it is because throughout India’s long history, Hindus have not necessarily seen themselves as a clearly defined group that have given rise to the nations of today. Their shared cultural identity from having lived in the same land has obscuficated rather than helped clarrify the identity of the Hindu because the Muslims share everything in common except the religion. The idea of culture that is so strong a feature in defining a nation is overstated or even irrelevant in the Hindu nation for this reason: India’s defences against invaders has been non-existant to weak throughout very long strecthes of its long history leaving it to become a hapless victim of the culture and laws of its many invaders which had then subsumed its own.

Nothing will be lost by the Sangh giving the idea of Hindutva a quiet buriel. The RSS can carry on its good work, and the BJP can remain a Hindu party open to talent from all sections of the nation. The Muslims will no doubt continue to self-select for Congress. By removing the irreconcilable baggage of Hindutva, the Hindus could redefine themselves as Sardar Patel wished.

Excellent piece by R. Jagannathan

http://www.dnaindia.com/opinion/column_the-china-challenge_1265849

China has always been the biggest roadblock to India’s rise in the world, but what we know privately we have always sought to deny publicly. It all started with Nehru’s disastrous handling of foreign policy in the 1950s, which culminated in our humiliating defeat in the 1962 border war.

A vain Nehru ignored sane advice from people of the eminence of Sardar Patel and Rajendra Prasad and the Chinese ran circles around him all through the 1950s while they were building up their military might and subjugating Tibet.

In the early 1960s, when China was sure it was militarily stronger, we got hammered. The only good thing to emerge from that war is that Indians have intuitively understood that China is not a friend. While we can be partners in the economic sphere, civilisationally we are rivals.

Unfortunately, this is not something we are willing to acknowledge formally. The only non-hypocritical official statement made by India about China came in 1998 after Pokharan II.

Defence minister George Fernandes said that our nuclear tests were intended to redress the power asymmetry with China. He was roundly criticised for speaking the truth, but he has been proved right.
…………..
Read the web site posted

Dear All

Interesting comments. Given serious limitations of time, I’ll just make one comment now:

@: Kaffir:
“7. Socialism is immoral and capitalism brings about ethical values..”
=>
“That’s the classic Ayn Rand/Objectivist view, which ignores a long list of corporate scandals like Enron etc. and makes a huge assumption – not backed by objective facts – that CEOs always act in a manner that is ethical and honest.”

==
Dear Kaffir

I do encourage you to watch out your own assumptions about what I am trying to communicate! I am me and Any Rand is Any Rand. Let’s not mix up and create confusion. Whether your assumptions about what Ayn Rand said are right or wrong (they are wrong), the issue is what am I saying?

Do read chapter 3 of my book that deals AT LENGTH with the problems of cheating and deception in ANY society and how, through the systems it creates, capitalism will reduce these. I claim that ALL humans – including you and me – are designed by nature to be opportunist and potentially corrupt. Only a strongly regulated society that capitalism offers can ensure that the bad elements of human nature are curbed and good elements can flourish.

India is the world’s most corrupt country. Others who follow at least a semblance of capitalism are far less corrupt. That is the empirical test of socialism.

Capitalism is not just free markets. It is about good regulation. That is the key message of my book. DO NOT make the assumption that I’m advocating laissez faire. Capitalism is all about appropriate regulation and creating the right incentives.

I will welcome debate from people who have ACTUALLY read me (and that means the entire book), not just made huge leaps of judgement from reading its Preface.

Regards
Sanjeev

@KAffir,
Well you quoted Sanjeev’s words. The topic was about Nehru’s policies and your statement did focus exclusively on the shortcomings of capitalism. Guess this was more than enough to show your intentions. But if your intent was somehow to use that statement for example to say attack the BCCI for India’s world cup failure then sorry for our misunderstanding 🙂

Dear Mr.Sabhlok,

I just read your book(on internet) titled “Breaking free of Nehru”. I admire you for writing such a scholarly well researched work which analyses various elements affecting our system of governance namely history, political economy and constitution etc. I like your frank criticism and bold solutions. I admire you because of your nationalistic views. Let me say that reading your book made me find answers to many questions that I always used to pose to myself without much success.

As I see your whole thesis is based on corruption ridden India, and how to get rid of it which you attribute to the policy of Nehruvian socialism, and by adopting a complete capitalist system we can get out of this mess. In this regard, I appreciate your ambition of initiating a party based on liberal democratic values.

You hold responsible Nehru’s statist policy for weak governance which I largely buy. But corruption in India is just not an emanation of socialist economy, this disease has been ingrained into Indian mind during the British raj itself, which latter encouraged, consolidated with strong state centered economy. You focus strongly on corruption but neglected other important elements affecting our country more viciously like poverty, poor education and health system. And these elements further leads to a more corrupt system. As I think one of the reasons behind poverty is our feudal system which unfortunately did not end with independence but got recreated with centralized strong state system.

I liked your comparative analysis of Nehru and Gandhian way of governance. But I don’t agree when you say “rights is a dangerous word, it conjures up a free lunch”. I think a fundamental right is complimentary to freedom. Without asking for rights to state, it can’t deliver all alone. If people are inept to exercise their rights then such state can become a less responsible thus inactive one. Rights is legal concept, freedom is social(individual and communitarian) construct, so one can’t exist or flourish without other one.

I share disagreement on certain issues like government’s role in religious issues, land-reform and reservation policy.

State and religion should be entirely separate, I fully agree on this view of post modern Westphalia state’s secular vision. Let me just take you back to those lines when you say that government should not give subsidy for Haj yatra etc. I believe state is a conglomeration of institutions which are run by various executive structures headed by elected politicians. In India, religion plays large role in people’s daily life, sometimes it becomes a way of life for most of them especially in India. In such country, a politician’s role is to support their such important activities but not to discourage them. By extending financial support to Haj or Vaishnav devi yatra, the government t simply shows a good-will gesture of fulfilling their needs; by not providing such help the government will not be termed as secular but as insensitive (who does not understand the needs of its own people). Being irreligious in the name of secularism is western form of secularism, it’s not Indian.

I agree with your view of abolition of caste system, I always considered it to be a barrier on the path of development for Indian society. But not supporting reservation policy, it means not giving enough opportunity to oppressed ones to meet up the level of general category people. Yes, once after giving it then after certain period of time, it should be lifted too, it should not remain there for always otherwise it will affect negatively. I’m in favour of such affirmative action because such policies give opportunities to those whom have been denied rights for centuries.

Thirdly, your view on land reform is equally unacceptable to me. Because that was an effective way of dismantling the deep rooted feudal system. Your saying “ could we not have, through equal opportunity and rule of law, made zamindars completely irrelevant” sounds biased. How can one allow such system where a handful people possess hundreds of bigha of land where as a huge chunk of people will have nothing apart from working in their land at low wage and getting exploited in all forms. Many of such zamindars inherited the land, if government had not snatched them away then that piece of land still remained under traditional owners’ possession who continued to exploit their workers till today if land reform had not happened. It’s the role of state to distribute wealth in such a just way that one section should not exploit the vulnerable ones; especially in a newly formed state like India where, before 1947 the society was very unjust in terms of caste(lower caste people) and class(landless laborers). So here I support Nehru’s policy of land reform and affirmative action. How can be achieved equality in society if you don’t protect oppressed ones by providing them extra safety net against the rich, and giving them extra opportunity to grow to come up to level of middle class?

On the issue of women reservation, you have compared India with Sweden(with Australia too) which sounds a bit unrealistic. Both counties have different past, different set of society, different geography, so the comparison is not logical.

Your sense of comparison sometimes goes too far as if a non Indian writing this book based on facts and figure and without respecting the sentiments of people. For example, when you compare Australian system with Argentinean football team and Indian administrative system with some rural team of Bihar, it does not sound good. Your selection of word of “ rural team of Bihar” shows that you are discriminatory against one particular region of India. This is rude journalistic way of comparing two extreme things, but reader expects you to be sober. You can’t love your country by singling out a state because of its backwardness.

Your views of reducing the constitution up to 10 pages (drafted by 20 peoples) is something that I don’t understand that how the book of “we the people” weaken the governance; I believe we’re bad at the level of implementing things which can be improved by reforming the judiciary system.

Over all I enjoyed very much reading your well researched book which is more scholarly than political. Thanks to your book I found answers for many questions that I often asked myself. You heavily concentrated on corruption, and gave a little space to other important factors like poverty alleviation and education, I think lack of these two nurture the former most. But I understand having been in civil services made you experienced corruption more than anything else. I admire your insightful description of many ideas(for example, high economic growth itself discourages population growth)

I feel sorry for your being leaving country, and settling in Australia. You should have more attempts, because India needs experienced and scholar people like you as political activist. I myself am a nationalist person so I admire your effort that you’ve put into. People are fade up with the present way of governance especially at state level, they want and deserve a liberal political party away from statist congress and communal BJP, I think that time has come to revive the Swatantra party of Rajaji because today’s growing middle class needs a centre right pro-business party with refined ethics and integrity. I don’t think I have any personal attribute of a leader but I do a have strong desire to serve my nation and people, and to change things the way it’s happening. I’d like to remain in touch if you wish, and to receive your comments on my reflections on your book.

Sincerely,
Ajitabh DAS
ESC(Lille) Paris