From the 2005 Exam
To what extent did Nehru's government in India (1947-64) fulfil its expectations?
The era from 1947 to 1964 in India, marked by the administration of Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru, was undoubtedly one of the most critical and transformative periods in the country's history. The hopes and aspirations tied to Nehru's leadership were as varied as they were profound, influenced by his role as a central figure in the struggle for independence and his visionary approach to India's future. Nehru's government embarked on a mission of nation-building, striving to realise democratic ideals, social justice, and economic development. The multifaceted expectations vested in his leadership, ranging from the abolition of poverty to the fostering of secularism and democracy, deserve to be analysed in depth to discern the extent of their fulfilment. This essay will dissect the efficacy of Nehru's government by examining its pursuit of social equality, economic development, and democratic consolidation, while also taking into account the critical evaluations by Chandra, Guha, and Nanda.
Nehru's administration espoused the cause of social equality, aspiring to dismantle archaic societal norms and create a more inclusive society. His focus on educational reform and the promotion of scientific temper reflected this vision. According to Kumar, Nehru invested in science and technology as engines of social change, transforming the Indian Institute of Science into a significant scientific research hub and initiating the establishment of the Indian Institutes of Technology. Simultaneously, his push for universal elementary education, while only partially successful due to logistical constraints, laid the groundwork for future advances in literacy rates and human development indices. However, despite these strides, Nehru's quest for social equality encountered formidable obstacles. The most glaring of these were the deeply entrenched caste-based inequalities and gender disparities. Although Nehru initiated policies such as the Hindu Code Bills to offer greater rights and freedoms to women, and affirmative action policies to uplift the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, these measures fell short of comprehensive societal transformation. As Chandra notes, while legal provisions for equality were put in place, their translation into everyday reality was often stymied by societal resistance and lack of political will among Nehru's successors. Nehru's attempt to address religious discord and foster secularism merits special mention. He aimed to construct a secular state that safeguarded religious freedoms while refraining from religious partiality. Guha argues that Nehru’s secularism was not the complete negation of religion, but the affirmation of mutual respect and tolerance among all religions. The adoption of the Indian Constitution, which unequivocally promoted secularism, was a major achievement in this regard. However, the partition riots, the issue of integrating the princely states, and communal tensions tested the strength of this secular fabric. As Nanda posits, while Nehru's secular ideals held steadfast, they were often challenged by the complex realities of India's religious diversity. This paragraph has analysed Nehru's efforts towards promoting social equality, educational reforms, scientific temper, secularism, and women and caste-related reforms. Despite commendable efforts, the extent of fulfilment in these areas varied, largely contingent on socio-cultural dynamics and administrative limitations.
Nehru's vision for India's economic development was rooted in socialism, embodying a mixed economy model that balanced state control with private enterprise. As a precursor to the later five-year plans, Nehru envisaged rapid industrialisation to reduce dependence on agricultural output and raise living standards. According to Das, the establishment of major public sector enterprises in steel, heavy machinery, and chemical industries, combined with the expansion of infrastructural projects under Nehru's leadership, testifies to the government's aggressive push for industrialisation. The introduction of the five-year plans was another significant development. The First Five Year Plan (1951-56), with its focus on agriculture and irrigation, yielded a reasonable 3.6% annual growth rate according to official statistics. However, the Second Five Year Plan (1956-61), the 'Nehru-Mahalanobis Plan,' symbolised a shift towards heavy industries and import substitution. While the Plan aimed to lay the foundation for long-term industrial growth, Das critiques its neglect of agriculture and small-scale industries. Additionally, Nehru's socialist policies were often criticised by free-market advocates, such as Rajagopalachari, for stifling entrepreneurial spirit and promoting a 'licence-permit-quota raj'. Nehru's government also confronted the challenge of poverty alleviation. Despite introducing agrarian reforms, land ceiling laws, and cooperative farming, the government could not significantly reduce poverty levels or address income disparities. Bhagwati and Panagariya argue that these shortcomings were partly due to the state's excessive focus on heavy industrialisation at the expense of agriculture and small-scale industries. Despite these criticisms, it should be noted that Nehru's policies set the stage for future economic planning and provided crucial infrastructure for India's industrial growth. Yet, one cannot overlook the economic crises that unfolded during the final years of Nehru's term. The Sino-Indian war of 1962, coupled with severe droughts, led to a balance of payments crisis and food shortages, significantly straining the Indian economy. These events, as Guha suggests, illustrated the limitations of Nehru's economic policies and his government's handling of emergencies. In sum, while Nehru's government laid the foundations of modern industrial India and initiated significant economic planning, the extent of its success in fostering economic development and poverty alleviation remained mixed.
The consolidation of democratic values and institutions formed a pivotal expectation of Nehru's government, driven by his steadfast belief in democracy as a vehicle for India's progress. Nehru's tenure saw the institution of democratic principles through a republican constitution, the conduct of regular elections, and the preservation of civil liberties. According to Nanda, the decision to adopt universal adult suffrage, despite initial apprehensions, exemplified Nehru's democratic conviction and contributed significantly to India's democratic consolidation. Furthermore, Nehru's respect for parliamentary procedures and his commitment to the freedom of press played a critical role in cementing democratic norms. As Guha notes, Nehru often expressed his disagreements with press coverage but staunchly upheld their right to criticise, thereby promoting a culture of democratic dialogue. His engagement in parliament, readiness to respond to criticisms, and adherence to constitutional norms underscored his commitment to democratic principles. However, Nehru's critics argue that his commitment to democracy often conflicted with his style of leadership. Thapar opines that while Nehru was democratic in spirit, his centralising tendencies and the absence of a strong political opposition fostered a 'one-man rule' perception. Similarly, Nandy suggests that the dominance of the Indian National Congress under Nehru's leadership led to the party's institutionalisation, often at the expense of the development of a robust multi-party system. Nehru's foreign policy also resonates with his democratic ethos. His commitment to anti-colonialism, non-alignment, and peaceful coexistence on the global stage, according to Chandra, reflects the democratic values of self-determination and peaceful negotiation. However, these policies faced serious challenges, as evidenced by the Sino-Indian war and the subsequent strain on India's international standing and domestic resources. In conclusion, Nehru's role in establishing and nurturing democratic institutions was paramount. While criticisms related to his centralised leadership style and the dominance of the Indian National Congress persist, the enduring legacy of democratic principles and institutions ingrained during his tenure validates his significant contribution towards democratic consolidation. I have reached the word limit for this portion.
In retrospect, the extent to which Nehru's government fulfilled its expectations emerges as a complex mosaic, tinged with both considerable achievements and significant shortcomings. Nehru's leadership undoubtedly moulded the nascent Indian state, erecting democratic institutions, pursuing social equality, and embarking on ambitious economic planning. The legacy of his government is discernible in the democratic and secular fabric of contemporary India, the strides in science and technology, and the framework for economic development. Nonetheless, this exploration also unveils the inconsistencies and failures of Nehru's era. The pursuit of social equality, while marked by laudable intentions, was undermined by the resilience of traditional social structures and inequalities. The economic development model, though a radical departure from the colonial past, suffered from uneven sectoral emphasis and led to crises towards the end of Nehru's tenure. Furthermore, the dominance of the Congress party and Nehru's centralising tendencies raised questions about the maturity of the democratic ethos. These considerations suggest a balanced evaluation of Nehru's government, acknowledging both its visionary leadership and its limitations. The expectations were arguably too varied and colossal for any government to entirely fulfil in a span of seventeen years, particularly for a nation as diverse and complex as India, emerging from the throes of colonial rule and partition. As the analyses of Chandra, Guha, Nanda, and others suggest, the Nehruvian era's legacy is an amalgam of significant foundational work, missed opportunities, and learning experiences for future administrations. In the final estimation, the measure of Nehru's government's accomplishments cannot be detached from the contextual challenges of its time. It offers vital lessons in leadership, policy-making, and nation-building, serving as a mirror to reflect upon India's journey as a nation and the path it continues to tread.
From the May 2011 IBDP Paper 2 Exam:
Analyse the extent to which Nehru was successful in overcoming the challenges he faced in governing India from 1947 to 1964.
In the wake of British departure from India in 1947, Jawaharlal Nehru, as the first Prime Minister, was faced with a multitude of complex challenges, both at the political and social fronts. To assess the extent of Nehru's success in overcoming these, a comprehensive exploration of three critical areas is undertaken: the political consolidation of a fragmented nation; the socio-economic reforms to build an egalitarian society; and the adoption of a balanced foreign policy.
In a newly independent India, one of Nehru's principal tasks was to forge unity among a vastly diverse populace riven by linguistic, religious, and cultural differences. Decolonisation had given rise to princely states which, according to Menon, posed an immediate challenge to the unity and integrity of the nascent Indian state. The success of Nehru in this aspect is evident in the way he managed to integrate over 500 princely states into the Indian union. This feat was achieved through a combination of diplomatic negotiations and, where required, the application of force, as was the case in Hyderabad in 1948. Beyond the princely states, the issue of communal disharmony, particularly between Hindus and Muslims, loomed large in the aftermath of the traumatic Partition of 1947. Copland noted how Nehru strived to counter this by promoting secularism, an approach that was instrumental in mitigating communal tensions to a certain extent. As an exemplar, the prevention of a second partition, following the demands of Dravidian nationalists in South India in the late 1950s and early 1960s, demonstrated Nehru's astute political leadership. However, Nehru's political consolidation faced limitations. The inability to effectively manage religious strife, best demonstrated by the 1964 communal riots in Calcutta and the festering Kashmir issue, underline the incomplete nature of his efforts. Historian Guha points out that Nehru's secular ideals did not resonate with a significant proportion of the population, thereby undermining the creation of a cohesive national identity. To that end, while Nehru's leadership enabled the fusion of the disparate princely states and averted further fragmentation, the challenge of communal harmony was not entirely overcome under his rule.
In a bid to bring about socio-economic transformations, Nehru turned his attention towards formulating policies aimed at development and poverty reduction. A firm believer in a mixed economy, Nehru sought to strike a balance between public and private enterprises, leading to the establishment of many public sector units. Economic historian Panagariya argued that this was instrumental in laying the foundations of an industrialised India. In a country where agrarian strife was a historic reality, Nehru introduced land reforms and implemented community development programmes, intending to improve the plight of farmers. According to Frankel, while these efforts were commendable, the results were mixed. The ambitious 'Grow More Food' campaign was only partially successful in attaining self-sufficiency, as the country had to import food grains during the food crisis in the late 1950s and early 1960s. In terms of education, Nehru's efforts have been praised. Initiatives like setting up the University Grants Commission and the Indian Institutes of Technology were crucial steps towards enhancing access to quality education. Yet, Dreze and Sen argue that Nehru's focus on higher education, often at the expense of primary education, was a significant oversight, creating an educational divide that India struggles with even today. Furthermore, social reforms, such as the Hindu Code Bills, aimed at promoting gender equality, were significant. Yet, their effect was arguably more symbolic than substantive, as many discriminatory practices persisted, and the position of women in Indian society improved only marginally during Nehru's rule, as pointed out by Basu. In summary, while Nehru initiated several policies to bring about socio-economic transformation, the tangible outcomes of these were mixed. His efforts did set India on the path of industrialisation and modernisation, but the limitations in execution and societal resistance to change somewhat hindered their full realisation. Please confirm if I can proceed with the next section.
Nehru's foreign policy, built on principles of non-alignment and Panchsheel (Five Principles of Peaceful Coexistence), emerged as a response to the bipolar world order of the Cold War. Nehru's vision for India as an autonomous actor on the world stage, navigating its path without succumbing to the pressure of either of the two superpowers, was arguably successful. The historian Zachariah posits that this stance allowed India to secure developmental aid from both the United States and the Soviet Union, thus fostering economic growth. Nehru's commitment to peace was demonstrated through his role in the creation of the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM). India's central role in the Bandung Conference of 1955, leading to the formation of NAM, marked India's ascendancy on the global stage. According to Jones, Nehru's leadership in NAM enhanced India's international stature and provided a platform to voice concerns of newly decolonised nations. However, Nehru's idealistic approach to foreign policy was not without its failures. The most glaring was the Sino-Indian war of 1962, where Nehru's belief in 'Hindi-Chini Bhai Bhai' (Indians and Chinese are brothers) was shattered, leaving a lasting scar on India's national psyche. According to Maxwell, Nehru's handling of the conflict was marked by miscalculations, misunderstanding China's intentions and the military's capabilities, which led to a humiliating defeat. In summary, Nehru's foreign policy was successful to an extent in ensuring India's autonomy and enhancing its international stature. Nevertheless, the devastating setback in the Sino-Indian War pointed towards the limitations of his idealistic approach, indicating an underestimation of realpolitik dynamics in international relations.
waharlal Nehru's tenure as India's first Prime Minister was one marked by numerous triumphs, along with a notable set of failures. In the face of profound challenges, Nehru's success in political consolidation was significant, seen in the integration of princely states and the prevention of further partitions. Yet, the challenge of communal harmony remained a partially fulfilled task. Similarly, his socio-economic reforms initiated the process of transforming an agrarian society into an industrialised nation. However, shortcomings in implementation and the socio-cultural resistance limited their full efficacy. In foreign policy, Nehru achieved success in ensuring India's strategic autonomy during the Cold War and enhancing its global stature through the Non-Aligned Movement. Still, the humiliation in the Sino-Indian war marked a significant failure. Nehru's efforts in shaping a newly independent India, striving to balance myriad internal and external pressures, should not be underestimated. Yet, as this analysis demonstrates, the outcomes of his leadership were a complex mix of successes and failures, revealing the nuances of governing a diverse, newly independent nation. The evaluation of Nehru's tenure underscores the essential truth that the journey of nation-building is fraught with triumphs and trials, successes and setbacks. As with any historical figure, Nehru's legacy is one that invites continued examination and reevaluation in the light of the ever-evolving understandings of history.
From the May 2013 Paper 2 Exam:
Identify the social and economic problems faced by Nehru (1947–1964) and evaluate the policies adopted to deal with them.
India's transition to independence in 1947 heralded a new era of opportunities and challenges, with Jawaharlal Nehru at the forefront as the first Prime Minister. Tasked with the monumental responsibility of nurturing a young nation, Nehru grappled with a myriad of social and economic issues that threatened to hinder India's growth and development. From attempting to maintain social cohesion among a vastly diverse population to confronting economic uncertainties, his tenure was characterised by constant problem-solving and policy-making. This essay aims to explore the social and economic issues faced by Nehru during his term (1947-1964) and to critically evaluate the effectiveness of his strategies in addressing these complexities.
The first major challenge confronting Nehru was the daunting task of unifying a country that was deeply fragmented by religion, caste, language, and socio-cultural nuances. The violent aftermath of partition, punctuated by mass migration and gruesome bloodshed, cast a long shadow on the nascent nation. It was against this backdrop of disarray and discord that Nehru, armed with a vision of unity and secularism, ventured to create a cohesive national identity. The implementation of a secular constitution in 1950, hailed by Guha as an instrumental step in defining the ethos of the newly independent nation, sought to establish the state's impartiality towards all religions and affirmed equal rights for all citizens irrespective of their religious affiliation. Further adding to the complexity of the social mosaic were the entrenched caste hierarchies that had persisted over centuries, effectively segregating the Indian society into myriad layers of privilege and deprivation. With the intent to uproot these deep-seated social inequalities, Nehru embarked on a series of legislative reforms. Reservation policies, which involved setting aside a fixed proportion of positions in government jobs and educational institutions for the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, were introduced to redress historical injustices and promote social mobility among these disadvantaged groups. In parallel, to navigate the linguistic and cultural diversity that characterised the Indian society, Nehru advocated a policy of 'unity in diversity'. He sought to foster a sense of national identity that would transcend provincial allegiances while accommodating regional variations within the broader framework of Indian nationalism. This delicate balancing act, notes Guha, facilitated the consolidation of national unity without necessitating homogeneity or sacrificing the cultural richness of the country. However, the success of Nehru's social policies in achieving their desired outcomes presents a complex picture. While the constitution provided the theoretical framework for a secular state, the lived reality of religious plurality, marked by sporadic inter-religious conflicts, reflects the challenges in translating this ideal into practice. Similarly, the policies aimed at caste upliftment, though pioneering in their intent, could not completely eradicate the deep-rooted prejudices, and caste-based discrimination persists in various forms even today. The effectiveness of these policies in shaping a cohesive national identity, while notable in some aspects, remains constrained by these persisting social divisions.
Notwithstanding the shortcomings, Nehru's vision of secularism and social justice formed the bedrock of the country's constitutional ethos, guiding its trajectory in the years following independence. Nehru's commitment to secularism, in the face of escalating communal tensions, laid the foundation for the pluralistic fabric of Indian democracy, a characteristic which continues to distinguish India in the comity of nations. As noted by Tharoor, this steadfast adherence to secularism, amidst mounting communal pressures, underscores Nehru's political acumen and his unwavering dedication to the principles of inclusivity. In a similar vein, the reservation policies, though falling short of completely obliterating caste hierarchies, initiated a process of social transformation by providing the marginalised sections with unprecedented access to education and employment opportunities. Guha contends that these affirmative actions, while eliciting considerable backlash from the privileged classes, represented a seminal shift in the state's approach towards addressing social inequalities, setting the stage for the subsequent expansion of similar policies in the ensuing years. Further, Nehru's policy of 'unity in diversity', by acknowledging and accommodating the heterogeneity of Indian society, imparted a sense of collective identity that was instrumental in holding together the diverse and disparate strands of the country. AccorThe inception of the five-year plans, mirroring the Soviet model of centralised planning, marked a turning point in India's economic policy. The first of these, launched in 1951, was geared towards revitalising the agrarian sector and building a strong base for industrial development. Subsequent plans followed a similar pattern, with a strong emphasis on state-led industrialisation and infrastructural development. Nehru's policy of mixed economy, blending state control with a measure of private enterprise, sought to strike a balance between the need for rapid industrialisation and the aspirations of the capitalist class. To further this objective, large-scale public sector enterprises were set up, with the state assuming the 'commanding heights' of the economy. However, the efficacy of Nehru's economic policies in addressing the multifaceted challenges confronting the Indian economy has been a subject of intense debate. Critics, such as Rajagopal, argue that the emphasis on heavy industries under the second five-year plan diverted crucial resources from the agrarian sector, exacerbating rural poverty and underemployment. The neglect of small and medium enterprises, coupled with the restrictive regulatory environment, stifled entrepreneurial initiative and resulted in what Bhagwati famously termed as the 'Hindu rate of growth'. The focus on import substitution industrialisation, Rajagopal contends, insulated the Indian economy from global competition, impeding technological progress and fostering inefficiencies. On the other hand, proponents of Nehru's economic strategy, including Sen, contend that the state-led model of industrialisation was a necessary phase in India's economic transition. They argue that the establishment of public sector units in key sectors such as steel, power, and telecommunications provided the necessary infrastructure for the future growth of the economy. The planned development approach, despite its shortcomings, enabled the creation of a broad industrial base, paving the way for more diversified economic growth in the subsequent decades. However, the deep-seated economic inequalities, manifested in the persistence of poverty and unemployment, bear testament to the limitations of Nehru's economic policies. While the state-led model of industrialisation yielded some gains in terms of infrastructural development, its impact on income distribution and poverty reduction was far less impressive. The emphasis on heavy industries and neglect of the agrarian and informal sectors resulted in skewed development, with large swathes of the population remaining untouched by the fruits of economic growth.ding to Thapar, this delicate negotiation of unity and diversity, though fraught with challenges, served as the linchpin of India's nation-building project under Nehru. In conclusion, the social issues faced by Nehru were enormous in scale and deeply entrenched within the Indian society. His policies of secularism, social justice and unity in diversity, though met with varying degrees of success, significantly shaped the contours of the nascent nation. Despite the persistent social divisions and inequalities, these policies established a direction for the Indian state, anchored in the principles of inclusivity and equality, setting a path for future administrations to follow.
Nevertheless, it is important to note that, while these criticisms offer valuable insights into the limitations of Nehru's economic policies, they should be evaluated against the backdrop of the daunting challenges and resource constraints confronting the Indian economy in the immediate post-independence period. Indeed, as Chandra points out, the very fact that India was able to maintain economic stability and avoid the kind of economic collapse that several newly independent nations experienced, testifies to the relative success of Nehru's economic strategy. Furthermore, it was under Nehru's leadership that the foundations for a modern scientific and technological infrastructure were laid, an aspect often overlooked in assessments of his economic policies. The establishment of premier institutions such as the Indian Institutes of Technology, the Indian Institutes of Management, and the Council of Scientific and Industrial Research, among others, was a significant achievement of Nehru's tenure. These institutions, Mukherjee contends, not only played a pivotal role in creating a pool of skilled manpower necessary for the country's industrial and technological advancement but also instilled a scientific temperament among the populace, a factor instrumental in fostering innovation and entrepreneurial drive in the later years. In sum, while Nehru's economic policies were far from perfect and had their share of shortcomings, they were instrumental in steering the Indian economy through a tumultuous period. The mixed economy model, the five-year plans, the emphasis on self-reliance, and the creation of a scientific and technological infrastructure were all important components of Nehru's economic vision. Although these policies may have fallen short in terms of their impact on poverty and income inequality, they succeeded in laying the foundations for a diversified and resilient economy, capable of sustaining long-term growth and development.
Nehru's tenure as India's first prime minister, from 1947 to 1964, was marked by significant social and economic challenges, but it was his approach to these issues that shaped the nation's trajectory in the decades that followed. Despite the profound social upheavals caused by partition, Nehru managed to consolidate the nascent Indian nation-state and lay the foundations for a democratic and inclusive society. His policies on caste and religious tensions, though often critiqued for not completely eradicating these social evils, were nonetheless pioneering steps towards a more egalitarian society. On the economic front, despite facing a lopsided economy marked by a rudimentary industrial sector and widespread poverty, Nehru's strategy of planned economic development and the mixed economy model brought about vital infrastructural developments and created the base for future growth. Though his policies have been critiqued for neglecting the agrarian sector and small to medium enterprises, and for fostering an insular economy, it is important to consider the significant constraints of the period, as well as the transformative impacts of the institutions he established. In the end, evaluating Nehru's policies in dealing with the social and economic problems of the time requires a nuanced understanding of the historical context. While it is evident that his policies were not without their shortcomings and unintended consequences, they must be recognised for their instrumental role in steering the newly independent nation through a period of immense volatility and laying the groundwork for future development. This delicate balancing act between criticism and recognition helps in fostering a more nuanced understanding of Nehru's leadership and his enduring impact on India's socio-economic landscape.
From the November 2013 exam
By what methods, and with what success, did Nehru deal with the internal and external problems facing India (1947–1964)?
In the immediate aftermath of gaining independence in 1947, India faced a plethora of internal and external issues. Being the first Prime Minister, Jawaharlal Nehru was tasked with addressing these challenges that ranged from political instability and economic underdevelopment to border conflicts and the thorny issue of national identity formation. This essay aims to evaluate the methods that Nehru employed to tackle these problems and assess the extent of their success or failure.
Nehru's initial struggle revolved around framing the nation's constitution and addressing communal tensions that had emerged in the aftermath of partition. Implementing a secular constitution, Nehru aimed to incorporate a broad array of religions and cultures under one national identity. His commitment to secularism was not merely symbolic; he advocated the adoption of a Uniform Civil Code as envisioned in Article 44 of the constitution. Despite this, the implementation of secularism faced criticism from both conservative Hindus who felt it undermined their customs, and from minority groups who perceived it as a threat to their religious autonomy. To mitigate these tensions, Nehru's administration worked towards ensuring the protection of religious rights while striving to create a secular public sphere. Sarkar notes that Nehru's secularist approach fostered a degree of national unity, while also arguably leading to tensions in the long run. Despite facing economic stagnation, Nehru took decisive steps to spur industrialisation and modernisation. Inspired by the Soviet model, he implemented a series of five-year plans focusing on the public sector as the growth engine. His approach, termed 'Nehruvian Socialism', emphasised the state's role in stimulating industrial growth, fostering technological progress, and reducing income inequality. While scholars like Chandra suggest that this approach resulted in the creation of a strong industrial base, others like Das argue that the emphasis on heavy industries at the expense of agriculture led to imbalanced development and food scarcity. On the question of linguistic and regional diversity, Nehru followed a conciliatory path. Acknowledging the immense linguistic diversity, he oversaw the State Reorganisation Act of 1956, which led to the formation of states on linguistic lines. This decision, while appeasing linguistic sentiments, also presented challenges in the form of increased regionalism and parochialism, which Sen identifies as a potential source of the separatist movements in the following decades.
Externally, Nehru's primary challenge lay in managing India's relations with its neighbours and positioning India in a world divided by the Cold War. Nehru formulated a foreign policy based on the principle of non-alignment, maintaining equidistance from the two power blocs led by the United States and the Soviet Union. This was done in an effort to safeguard India's recently won sovereignty, and ensure that India's development needs were not hampered by Cold War dynamics. Guha notes that this policy allowed India to receive aid from both sides without explicitly aligning with either. Nehru's non-alignment policy, however, came under criticism for its inability to secure India's strategic interests. The Sino-Indian border dispute culminating in the 1962 war was a significant blow to Nehru's non-alignment policy. Many argue, including Tharoor, that Nehru's belief in Chinese goodwill and his lack of foresight in military preparedness led to India's humiliating defeat. This event had long-term ramifications, leading to a policy reorientation towards realism and increased defence preparedness. Another external issue Nehru grappled with was the India-Pakistan conflict over Kashmir. The contentious issue led to the first India-Pakistan war in 1947. Nehru's decision to take the dispute to the United Nations has been analysed in diverse ways. While some like Bose view it as a strategic mistake that internationalised a bilateral issue, others like Talbot see it as a necessary step, given the conditions at the time.
Nehru was also faced with maintaining a steady balance of power within the South Asian region. Specifically, the 'Panchsheel' or 'Five Principles of Peaceful Coexistence' was signed in 1954 between India and China. The agreement was touted by Nehru as a new way of managing international relations based on respect for sovereignty, non-aggression, non-interference, equality and mutual benefit, and peaceful coexistence. However, the subsequent Sino-Indian conflict of 1962 revealed the inherent flaws within this doctrine, as Barnes points out. The doctrine failed to prevent conflict, raising questions about the effectiveness of Nehru's idealistic approach. In addition to this, Nehru's efforts to tackle India's international standing extended to his promotion of anti-colonial and anti-racial struggles worldwide. As part of this effort, he was instrumental in organising the Bandung Conference in 1955, which was a significant milestone in the emergence of the Third World. Brown highlights Nehru's role as a spokesperson for developing nations, calling for disarmament and an end to nuclear testing. Despite this, some critics, like Harrison, question the extent to which Nehru's moralistic rhetoric translated into practical success. Addressing India's foreign relations under Nehru, one cannot ignore the significant relations with the Soviet Union. Though professing non-alignment, Nehru was partial towards the Soviet Union, finding an ideological ally in its opposition to colonialism and racial discrimination. However, this tilt towards the Soviet Union, especially after the Sino-Indian war, attracted criticism from western powers and risked portraying non-alignment as mere rhetoric.
Looking at the socio-economic front, Nehru's government aimed to enhance human development and social equity. To realise this goal, he embarked upon ambitious programmes of rural development and education. The Community Development Programme initiated in 1952, focused on village-level development, while the First Five-Year Plan prioritised education and health care. Nehru sought to achieve a 'scientific temper' in society and his efforts resulted in the establishment of renowned institutions like the Indian Institutes of Technology. While Jaffrelot credits Nehru for sowing the seeds of India's technological progress, Desai points out that the focus on higher education often came at the expense of primary education, resulting in persistent illiteracy. Land reform constituted a significant aspect of Nehru's strategy to address socio-economic disparities. The abolition of the Zamindari system aimed to distribute land more equitably among the peasantry. However, the success of this programme was mixed, largely due to resistance from the landed elites and weak implementation at the local level. Patnaik argues that while land reforms had some success in certain regions, on a broader scale, it fell short of achieving a significant redistribution of land or empowering the rural poor. Nehru's commitment to social justice was also reflected in his efforts to uplift historically disadvantaged groups. He spearheaded a reservation policy to provide representation for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes in education and government jobs. While Nanda views this as a step towards affirmative action, Omvedt suggests that without accompanying social reform, reservations risked creating a narrow elite among the disadvantaged groups, leaving broader caste hierarchies intact.
IBDP History Internal Assessment from a former student:
Failure of Negotiations:
The Forward Policy and how it led to its debacle:
The importance of this investigation is that it was this policy that provided the stated reason for China to decide to launch invasion. In fact, the Forward Policy not only contributed as a chief reason for China to trigger the invasion, but a main factor for India’s defeat as well by putting the Indian army into a great military challenge to a far stronger power. It is clear that the Indian army was unprepared with its army lacking 60,000 rifles, 700 anti-tank guns, 200 two-inch mortars and its supply of artillery ammunition kept critically low. Furthermore, two regiments of tanks could not be operated and when the Forward Policy began to be implemented, the troops contained only two militias of Indian soldiers with winter clothing inadequate.
Word Count: 596
Evaluation of Sources:
《尼 赫鲁外交研究》，张忠祥著。 中国社会科学院出版社 (Zhongxiang Zhang, The Research of Nehru’s Foreign Affair,(Zhong Guo She Hui Ke Xue Yuan Chu Ban She, 2002 )
Analysis:
Foreign Policy and Nehru’s Political Struggle:
Word Count: 698
Conclusion:
Word Count: 155
Total Word Count: 1953
