Actions Taken by Jawaharlal Nehru in His Development of the State of India

The first issue that needs to be considered is the duties of the states. Clearly, Nehru's ideas about how the state should be developed differed from those of Gandhi. Nehru believed in employing different aspects of Western democracy into the Indian state, while Gandhi supported a more collectivist state. While this central difference is quite clear, when one looks more closely at Nehru's ideas about the duties of the state, it becomes evident that Nehru did indeed support some of the basic ideas about the state as Gandhi.

In an effort to demonstrate the manner in which Nehru developed his leadership for the country, Khilnani observes how Nehru envisioned the development of the state. According to Khilnani, Nehru saw the benefits of employing ideologies of the West in the creation of a national state "whose central responsibility would be to direct economic development" (Khilnani, 30). While this issue was one of paramount concern for Nehru, this leader also recognized the need to "build a constitutional, non religious regime, and maintain sovereignty in the international arena" (Khilnani, 30). What this effectively suggests is that Nehru borrowed heavily from the ideologies of the West when it came to the development of the state; however, Nehru was well aware of the need to codify the development of the state in the context of a non religious regime that could function in the international community.

Clearly, the later sentiments expressed by Nehru held true to the specific ideologies espoused by Gandhi. Gandhi in his writings on religion and truth makes the following observations: "If I were a dictator, religion and State would be separate. I swear by my religion. I will die for it. But it is my personal affair. The State has nothing to do with it. The State would look after secular welfare, health, communications, foreign relations, currency and so on, but not your or my religion" (Gandhi, 79). What this definitively implies is that Gandhi supported the separation of religion and state. Nehru also so the importance of this issue. The central difference is the Nehru believed that this process could be achieved through the development of a Western style government. Clearly, Nehru was attempting to hold true to the ideologies expressed by Gandhi while still providing the best guidance for the development of the state.

The Use of Non-Violent Action

In addition to the fact that Nehru followed Gandhi's ideas on the methods that should be used in the development of the state, it is evident that Nehru also followed Gandhi's ideologies on the use of non-violence as a principle means to develop the state. Khilnani in her explication of the methods that Nehru would use to develop the state in the context of international affairs argues that Nehru envisioned India as growing in peace with the other countries in Asia as well as other countries in the international community. Khilnani argues that this attitude toward peace and nonviolence is clearly reflected in Nehru's actions when it came to China's invasion of Tibet. According to Khilnani, Nehru did not respond to China even after it took this aggressive action. Nehru believed that China was India's friend and ultimately would not harm the state. As Nehru pushed for a non-violent peaceful end to China's aggression, leaders and ambassadors of the state argued that Nehru should have been making preparations for war. When the Chinese invaded the borders, the end result was a crushing defeat of India's armies (Khilnani, 39-40).

Although the sentiments reflected by Nehru on this situation could be construed as naiveté, the reality is that Nehru truly believed in the non-violent resolution of conflict. He further believed that the relationship that he had developed with China would eventually translate into a peaceful and nonviolent end to the war. For Nehru, his belief in non-violence is clearly reflective of the ideologies espoused by Gandhi on the same issue. One only needs to look at Gandhi's writings to understand Nehru's desire to maintain peace. When Gandhi's beliefs and teachings are compared to the larger context of Nehru's actions, it becomes quite clear that Nehru followed Gandhi's lead in mitigating the conflict with China.

With respect to the issue of non-violence, Gandhi wrote the he believed the essence of the individual was supported by the truth that could be found in nonviolent action. Specifically, Gandhi wrote the following with respect to this issue:

There is no escape for any of us save through truth and non-violence. I know that war is wrong, is an unmitigated evil. I know too that it has got to go. I firmly believe that freedom won through bloodshed or fraud is no freedom. Would that all the acts alleged against me were found to be wholly indefensible rather than that by any act of mine non-violence was held to be compromised or that I was ever thought to be in favor of violence or untruth in any shape or form! Not violence, not untruth but non-violence, Truth is the law of our being (Gandhi, 38).

For Gandhi, it is evident that the pursuit of non-violence was the pursuit of truth. Thus, it is not surprising to find that Gandhi lived his life in search of this vision.

When the statements made by Gandhi on non-violence are compared with the actions of Nehru in the context of the conflict with China, it is evident that Nehru followed Gandhi's teachings very carefully. Nehru had no desire to enter into war with China. Further, he truly believed that if he pursed a path of non-violence and peace, he would eventually be able to reduce the tensions between the two countries and develop a formidable relationship based on a mutual pursuit of peace. In this situation one could clearly make the argument that Nehru attempted to adhere to the principles set forth by Gandhi so stringently that it had a negative impact on his overall leadership.

Socialism

Finally, an examination of what Khilnani writes about Nehru's conception of the state of India clearly reflects the basic principles of socialism that were espoused by Gandhi. Khilnani in her analysis of the vision had for the state notes that Nehru envisioned a more modern industrialized society (Khilnani, 62). While this appears to go against the socialist society that had been created under Gandhi, Khilnani does go on to note that Nehru's vision of India was one that encompassed both an industrial state with a socialist culture. Khilnani makes this assertion when examining Nehru's ideologies of development with that of the BJP. According to Khilnani, the BJP's understanding of society is one that was solely focused on the development of one Hindu state at the expense of all other states. The goal was to create an ethnic identity that pervaded not only the country, but the entire national community (Nehru, 187-9).

This view is one that is notably contrary to the one held by Nehru (Khilnani, 188). Overall, Nehru envisioned a state that provided for the needs of all individuals regardless of their religious ideologies. Further, Nehru envisioned as state that took responsibility for many of the larger social issues that could not be mitigated by the individual. As such, Nehru's vision of the state when compared to the more radical views of the BJP clearly elucidates the importance of developing a socialist state that would embrace all individuals, even those that did not conform to the larger context of the vision of "Indianess." However, Nehru clearly saw the benefits of industrial development.

Not surprisingly Gandhi's ideologies on socialism are clearly reflected in the impetus that served as the basis for Nehru to develop his vision of the Indian state. As noted by Gandhi: "...in socialism all the members of society are equal-none low, none high. In the individual body, the head is not high because it is the top of the body, nor are the soles of the feet low because they touch the earth. Even as members of the individual body are equal, so are the members of society" (Gandhi, 82). What this sentiment reflects is Gandhi's larger contention to make society one that was equal for all individuals. Nehru followed this ideology as well. Nehru was interested in developing a state of equality as a means to define "Indianess." Nehru's predecessors however, did not support this vision. Rather the BJP chose to focus on the development of an ethnocentric culture that exclusively limited access to those who were willing to share this vision.

Conclusion

When all of the evidence from Khilnani's text is examined in the context of Gandhi's writings, it becomes evident that Nehru's ideologies and intentions for the development of India were indeed predicated upon the specific teachings and beliefs of Gandhi. While it is indeed evident that Nehru saw the pragmatism of ideas from the West, it is clear that Nehru did not openly embrace Western ideologies over the basic tenets of Gandhianism that had been rooted in society. Rather, what appears to be quite obvious from the writings of Khilnani is that Nehru was seeking a higher level of social development, predicated partly on the practical ideologies of the West and the philosophical tenets of Gandhianism. While this ideology of synthesizing the two discourses appears to be a salient means to advance the state of India along the pathway developed by Gandhi, in the end it seems as if the philosophies of the West could not be easily reconciled with the philosophies of Gandhianism.

Through an examination of the beliefs and actions of Nehru-specifically with respect to the duties of the state, the use of nonviolent action and the theory of socialism-it becomes evident that Nehru's focus was to synthesize the best of theory and philosophy from the West and Gandhianism. Overall, Nehru was focused on eliminating the gaps in social discourse that developed as a result of pure Gandhianism. At their heart however, Nehru's thoughts and actions sought to follow some of the basic ideologies espoused under Gandhianism.

Works Cited

Gandhi, Mahatma. All Men are Brothers: Life and Thoughts of Mahatma Gandhi as Told in His Own Words. Paris: UNESCO, 1958.

Khilnani, Sunil. The Idea of India. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 1999.