The Challenges Of Nation Building

India gained independence at 12 a.m. on the 14th and 15th of August, 1947. That night, Jawaharlal Nehru, India's first Prime Minister, spoke to a special session of the Constituent Assembly. You're probably familiar with the famous "tryst with destiny" speech. This was the long-awaited moment for the Indians. You are aware that our national movement had many voices. 

 

1.    After independence, we will run our country through democratic government

 

2.    Government will be run for the benefit of all people, particularly the poor and socially disadvantaged. Now that the country had gained independence, it was time to put freedom into practise.

•    It wasn't going to be simple. India was born into a difficult situation. Perhaps no other country had ever been born in a more difficult situation than India in 1947. With the partition of the country came freedom. 1947 was a year marked by unprecedented violence and displacement trauma. 

 

•    In this context, independent India embarked on a journey to achieve a number of goals. Despite the upheaval that accompanied independence, our leaders did not lose sight of the numerous challenges that the new nation faced.

 

•    The first day of free India, August 15, 1947, was marked with great joy and jubilation. Generations of patriots' sacrifices and the blood of countless martyrs had paid off. But, because the country had been divided, this joy was tainted by despair. 

 

•    Communal riots erupted in large parts of the two new countries. The new borders resulted in a mass exodus of people from both states. There was a scarcity of food and other consumer goods, as well as a fear of a breakdown in the administrative system.

 

•    Independence had brought with it a slew of issues, and centuries of backwardness, prejudice, inequality, and ignorance still weighed heavily on the land. The wreckage of two centuries of colonialism had to be cleared, and the promises made during the freedom struggle had to be kept. The journey had only just begun. 

 

•    ‘The achievement we celebrate today is but a step, an opening of opportunity, to greater triumphs and achievements,' Nehru declared in his 14 August speech. That future is not one of ease and rest, but of constant striving to keep the promises we have made so often.' Jawahar Lal Nehru was the first Prime Minister of India.

 

•    There were immediate issues such as princely state territorial and administrative integration, communal riots that accompanied Partition, the rehabilitation of nearly six million Pakistani refugees, the protection of Muslims threatened by communal gangs, the need to avoid war with Pakistan, and the Communist insurgency. 

 

•    Other immediate tasks included restoring law and order and political stability, as well as putting in place an administrative system that had been threatened by Partition and the illogical division of the army and higher bureaucracy along religious lines. 

 

•    There were also the medium-term challenges of drafting a constitution and establishing a representative democratic and civil libertarian political order, holding elections to establish a system of representative and responsible governments at the national and state levels, and ending the semi-feudal agrarian order through comprehensive land reforms. 

 

•    Long-term goals for the newly formed independent government included promoting national integration, advancing the nation-building process, facilitating rapid economic development, alleviating endemic poverty, and initiating the planning process. 

 

•    It also aimed to close the gap between popular expectations sparked by the independence struggle and their fulfilment as quickly as possible, to end centuries of social injustice, inequality, and oppression, and to develop a foreign policy that would defend Indian independence and promote peace in a world increasingly engulfed by the Cold War and divided into hostile power blocs. 

 

•    All of these issues had to be addressed within the framework of the fundamental values to which the national movement had pledged allegiance, as well as the parameters of a broad national consensus.

 

•    The people and political leadership set out to address these short- and long-term issues with optimism, a sense of hope for the country's future, and a sense of fun. This mood would last for the majority of Nehru's presidency. 

 

•    Despite the fact that many people, particularly on the left, were dissatisfied with and generally critical of Nehru and his policies, they shared this sense of optimism. Those who lived through the Nehru era often consider themselves fortunate to have lived through it. 

 

•    With the 1962 India-China war, some of this euphoria faded. Despite the fact that the war brought a sense of realism, neither Nehru nor the country felt defeated. ‘India's greatest need is for a sense of certainty concerning her own success,' Nehru had always believed. And it was this sense of anticipation and impending success that he was able to instil in the minds of millions.

 

•    Independent India began its tasks with the support of a strong national party, the Congress, as well as an outstanding leadership with tremendous dedication and idealism. 

 

•    A group of leaders who had played a significant role in the freedom movement stood beside the great Nehru. There was Sardar Patel, his deputy prime minister, a leader with a strong will, who was decisive in action and strong in administration. Then there were the learned Maulana Abul Kalam Azad, the erudite Rajendra Prasad, and the razor-sharp intellect C. Rajagopalachari. 

 

•    At the state level, several leaders wielded absolute power, including Govind Ballabh Pant in Uttar Pradesh, B.C. Roy in West Bengal, and B.G. Kher and Morarji Desai in Bombay. 

 

•    All of these leaders possessed the knowledge and experience necessary to lead a modern and democratic administrative and political system, which they had gained through organizing a mass movement, forming a political party, and serving in colonial legislatures for decades. 

 

•    They also had a lot of talent for bringing people together. The national movement had brought together people from various parts of the country, as well as different socioeconomic groups and ideological currents, around a common political agenda. 

 

•    The Socialists, Acharya Narendra Dev and Jayaprakash Narayan, the Communists, P.C. Joshi and Ajoy Ghosh, the Jan sangha leader, Shyama Prasad Mukherjee, and the Dalit leader, Dr. B.R. Ambedkar, were all outside the Congress. Dr. S. Radhakrishnan, a distinguished philosopher, Dr. Zakir Hussain, an educationist, V.K. Krishna Menon, who had fought for India's independence in Britain, and a host of dedicated Gandhian leaders sat on the periphery.

 

•    The leaders of independent India were men and women of absolute personal integrity who lived a simple life. Even as he performed the unenviable but necessary task of raising funds for the Congress from the wealthy, no finger was ever pointed at Sardar Patel. 

 

•    The leaders of the Congress also shared a vision of an independent India. They were dedicated to the national movement's goals of rapid social and economic change, as well as the democraticization of society and polity. Nehru's dedication to these ideals is well known. 

 

•    Sardar Patel, Rajendra Prasad, and C. Rajagopalachari, on the other hand, were equally committed to the values of democracy, civil liberties, secularism, independent economic development, anti-imperialism, social reforms, and a pro-poor orientation. These leaders disagreed with Nehru primarily on the issues of socialism and societal class analysis. 

 

•    In this context, it's worth noting that Patel has been widely misunderstood and misrepresented by both admirers and detractors.

 

•    Right-wingers have portrayed him as the archetypal rightist, while his leftist critics have portrayed him as the anti-Nehruvian vision and policies. Both, however, were incorrect. In any case, it is critical to note that Nehru and the other leaders shared the belief that a national consensus was required for the country's development. 

 

•    The leadership's position was bolstered by the fact that they were extremely popular and respected by almost every segment of the population. Furthermore, this team was led by Jawaharlal Nehru, who held unchallenged power in the party and government after December 1950.

 

•    Another positive aspect of the Indian situation was the existence of the Congress, a powerful, democratically functioning, India-wide national party with a well-established leadership and widespread public support. 

 

•    Except for the Communist Party, no one questioned its authority or legitimacy. Even as Congress struggled to maintain its politically all-encompassing and ideologically diverse character as it transitioned from a movement to a party, its leadership recognized that the country needed a government that represented the widest possible consensus and carried with it different shades of opinion and sections of society during the troubled post-partition period. 

 

•    Despite the fact that the Socialists and Communists had joined the Opposition and that the Congress had an overwhelming majority in the Constituent Assembly and unchallenged power, the Congress leadership sought to broaden the constituency of the Constituent Assembly and the government by including prominent and representative non-Congressmen. 

 

•    The government was effectively transformed into a national government. For example, five non-Congressmen were included in Nehru's first cabinet of fourteen: Dr. B.R. Ambedkar and Shyama Prasad Mookerjee, both of whom had previously opposed the Congress, John Mathai, C.H. Bhabha, and Shanmukham Chetty. 

 

•    Dr. B.R. Ambedkar was also named Chairman of the Constitutional Drafting Committee. Dr. S. Radhakrishnan, India's first Vice-President and second President, had never been a member of the Congress.

 

•    Since 1947, India's colonial past has weighed heavily on her development. British rule drastically altered India's economy, as well as other aspects of life. However, the changes that occurred resulted in what A. Gunder Frank aptly described as the "development of underdevelopment." 

 

•    Agriculture, industry, transportation and communication, finance, administration, education, and so on all underwent changes, many of which were positive in nature, such as the development of railways. 

 

•    However, because they operated within and as part of the colonial framework, they became inextricably linked to the underdevelopment process. 

 

•    They also caused the colonial economic structure to crystallize, resulting in poverty, reliance on, and subordination to Britain. The colonial structure in India had four basic characteristics. 

 

•    First, colonialism resulted in India's economy being fully integrated, albeit in a subservient position, into the global capitalist system. India's economic interests have been completely subordinated to Britain's since the 1750s. This is an important consideration, because integration with the global economy was unavoidable and a feature of independent economies as well. 

 

•    Second, India was forced to adopt a peculiar production structure and international division of labour to suit British industry. 

 

•    It produced and exported foodstuffs and raw materials such as cotton, jute, oilseeds, and minerals, as well as importing British manufactured goods such as biscuits and shoes, as well as machinery, cars, and locomotive engines.

 

•    Even when India developed a few labor-intensive industries, such as jute and cotton textiles, colonialism remained. This was due to a unique pattern of international labour division in which Britain produced high-tech, high-productivity, and capital-intensive goods while India did the opposite. 

 

•    The state's crucial role in constructing, determining, and maintaining other aspects of the colonial structure was the fourth feature of colonialism in India. India's policies were shaped in the United Kingdom, with the British economy and capitalist class in mind. 

 

•    The denial of state support to industry and agriculture was an important aspect of India's underdevelopment. This was in stark contrast to what occurred in nearly all capitalist countries, including the United Kingdom, which benefited from active state support during their early stages of development. 

 

•    In India, the colonial state imposed free trade and refused to protect Indian industries with tariffs, as Britain, Western Europe, and the United States had done. Following the national movement's pressure in 1918, the Indian government was forced to grant some tariff protection to a few industries. However, this was insufficient and ineffective. Furthermore, since the 1880s, the government has manipulated currency policy toavour British industry at the expense of Indian industry.

 

•    The colonial state appropriated a large portion of India's social surplus, but only a small portion of it was spent on agriculture or industry development, social infrastructure, or nation-building activities such as education, sanitation, and health care. 

 

For the entire country, the British developed a general educational system based on English as the common language of higher education. This system eventually produced an intelligentsia across India that shared a common approach to society and ways of looking at it, and that, at its best, was capable of developing a critique of colonialism—which it did in the second half of the nineteenth century and after. 

 

1.    For starters, it widened the gap between the educated and the rest of the population. Though the national movement, which drew its leaders and cadres from the intelligentsia, bridged this chasm to some extent, it continued to haunt independent India. 

 

2.    Second, the focus on English hampered the development of Indian languages as well as the spread of education to the masses. The colonial educational system, on the other hand, had many flaws that can still be found in India's schools and colleges. It promoted rote learning, text memorization, and proof by authority. The students' rational, logical, analytical, and critical faculties remained underdeveloped; in most cases, they were able to reproduce others' opinions but struggled to formulate their own. The neglect of mass education, as well as scientific and technical education, was a major flaw in the colonial educational system. There was also a near-total lack of concern for girls' education, with only eight out of every 100 women in India being literate in 1951.

 

The colonial state's personality was quite contradictory. While it was primarily authoritarian and autocratic, it did have some liberal features, such as the rule of law and a relatively independent judiciary. 

 

•    In most cases, the administration was carried out in accordance with laws as interpreted by the courts. This served as a partial check on the autocratic and arbitrary administration and, to some extent, protected citizens' rights and liberties from the bureaucracy's arbitrary actions. 

 

•    However, the laws were frequently oppressive. They left a great deal of arbitrary power in the hands of civil servants and the police because they were not framed by Indians and through a democratic process. There was also no separation of powers between judicial and administrative functions. 

 

•    As collector and district magistrate, the same civil servant oversaw the administration of a district. The colonial legal system was founded on the principle of equality before the law for all people, regardless of caste, religion, class, or status, but it failed to live up to its promise. Whenever an attempt was made to bring a European to justice, the court acted in a biassed manner. Furthermore, because court procedures were relatively expensive, the wealthy had greater access to legal resources than the poor.

 

•    In normal times, colonial rulers extended a certain amount of civil liberties, such as freedom of the press, speech, and association, but severely restricted them during times of mass struggle. However, after 1897, even in normal times, these liberties were increasingly tampered with and attacked. 

 

•    Another paradox of the colonial state was that, after 1858, it routinely made constitutional and economic concessions while maintaining control of the state. 

 

•    Initially, British statesmen and administrators were adamant in their opposition to the idea of establishing a representative government in India, claiming that democracy was unsuited to the country. Because of India's culture and historical heritage, they claimed that only a system of "benevolent despotism" was appropriate. 

 

•    Elections and legislatures were introduced both at the national level and in the provinces as a result of Indian pressure. Despite this, the franchise (or right to vote) was extremely limited. After 1919, only about 3% of Indians were eligible to vote, and only about 15% after 1935. 

 

•    The government hoped to use the constitutional structure to maintain its political dominance by coopting and weakening the national movement. The legislatures, on the other hand, did not have much power until 1935, and even then, the British held supreme power. 

 

•    The government could take any action it wanted without the approval of the legislatures, and could do so whenever it wanted. However, legislators had the opportunity to expose the government's fundamental authoritarian nature and the hollowness of colonial constitutional reforms.

 

•    The legislatures did, however, provide some Indians with experience in voting and working in elected bodies at various levels. After 1947, when Indians gained representational institutions, this experience proved useful. 

 

•    Meanwhile, nationalists used the constitutional space to overthrow colonial rule, combining mass protests with intense political and ideological campaigns. The colonial legacy of India's unity was marked by an odd paradox. 

 

•    The colonial state brought India closer together politically and administratively than it had ever been before. It established a uniform administrative system that penetrated the country's most remote areas and created a single administrative entity, based on the Mughal administrative system. 

 

•    The British also developed a common educational structure, which eventually produced an intelligentsia across India with a shared outlook on society and polity and a national mindset. 

 

•    Colonialism, when combined with the development of a unified economy and modern means of communication, helped lay the groundwork for the formation of the Indian nation. However, after uniting India, the British set in motion opposing forces. They followed the classic imperial policy of divide and rule, fearful of the Indian people's unity, which their own rule had contributed to. 

 

•    The diverse and divisive features of Indian society and polity were emphasised in order to exacerbate social divisions and turn provinces against provinces, castes against castes, classes against classes, Hindus against Muslims, and princes and landlords against the national movement. They were mostly successful in their endeavours, which culminated in India's partition.

 

•    The British ruled India through a modern bureaucracy led by the well-paid Indian Civil Service (ICS), whose members were chosen on the basis of merit in an open competition, and which was rule-bound, efficient, and, at the top, fairly honest. 

 

•    After 1918, the various services were gradually Indianized in response to Indian pressure—by 1947, nearly 48% of the members of the ICS were Indian—but British positions of control and authority were retained until the end. 

 

•    In these services, Indians also served as British agents. Though their senior echelons developed traditions of independence, integrity, hard work, and subordination to higher political direction, they also developed a rigid and exclusive caste, with a conservative and narrow social, economic, and political outlook. 

 

•    After 1947, when massive social change and economic development were sought, the bureaucracy's rigidity and outlook became a major roadblock. While the ICS was relatively free of corruption, it thrived at the lower levels of government, particularly in departments with opportunities for corruption, such as public works and irrigation, the Royal Army Supply Corps, and the police. Because of government regulation and controls during WWII, corruption and black marketing spread throughout the administration, as did tax evasion, once income tax and excise rates were raised to extremely high levels. There was also the emergence of a parallel, underground economy.

 

•    The British left behind a powerful, but expensive, armed force that served as a key pillar of the British regime in India. The British had made every effort to keep the armed forces separate from the rest of the population's life and thought, particularly the national movement. 

 

•    The soldiers' and officers' mess halls were barred from receiving nationalist newspapers, journals, and other publications. The other side of the medal, of course, was the army's tradition of being "apolitical" and thus being subordinated to the political authorities, just like the civil service. 

 

In contrast to the newly-created Pakistan, this would be a long-term blessing for independent India. Rabindranath Tagore wrote just three months before his death in 1941, referring reproachfully to colonialism's legacy: The wheels of fate will someday compel the English to give up their Indian Empire. But what kind of India will they leave behind, what stark misery? When the stream of their centuries’ administration runs dry at last, what a waste of mud and filth will they leave behind them?