People eulogise Nehru for his expertise in international affairs, and credit him as the founder of India’s foreign policy. Founder he was, but were the foundations solid? Or, were they rickety? Or, were there no foundations at all? Was it all airy ad-hocism, and one-man’s-pontifications? Crucially, was it a foreign policy that benefited India? Or, was it merely a device for Nehru for self-posturing and to project himself internationally?
If ours was a good foreign policy, how come all our major neighbours became our enemies? And, a friendly neighbour, Tibet, disappeared as an independent nation? How come all our borders turned insecure during the Nehruvian era, costing us a fortune to defend them? How come no nation came to India’s rescue (including Nehru’s non-aligned friends) in its war with China, except the nation Nehru and Krishna Menon always panned—the United States; or the nation Nehru refused to recognise—Israel?
You evaluate a policy by its results, not by its verbosity and pompousness.
BR Ambedkar criticised Nehru’s foreign policy for trying to “solve the problems of other countries and not [exerting] to solve the problems of our own country!”
Wasn’t it ironic that Nehru internationalised a matter he should not have, while he refused to internationalise a matter that he should have. He referred J&K—an internal, domestic matter—to the UN, which he should not have internationalised; while he refused to refer the Tibet-issue—a serious, external security matter—to the UN, which he should have.
Nehru, thanks to his inexplicably adamant and unreasonable approach, ended up creating and complicating India-China border problem and allowed it to drift into an unfortunate war.
Nehru rooted India’s foreign policy in abstract ideas rather than a strategic conception of national interests. He disdained alliances, pacts, and treaties, seeing them as part of the old rules of realpolitik, and was uninterested in military matters... Nehru tended to put hope above calculation. When he was warned that Communist China would probably seek to annex Tibet, for example, he doubted it, arguing that it would be foolish and impractical adventure. And even after Beijing did annex Tibet in 1951, Nehru would not reassess the nature of Chinese interests along India’s northern border…
—Fareed Zakaria, The Post-American World
Nehru campaigned for China’s entry in the UN, and for making it a member of the UN Security Council! And, let go our own chance of becoming a member of the UN Security Council!! He thus jeopardised our critical national security interests. No country with a mature and prudent foreign policy would engage in a massive give-away like India did under the Panchsheel in 1954 and the Indus Water Treaty in 1960, with zero reciprocity—without getting anything in return.
Walter Crocker writes in ‘Nehru: A Contemporary's Estimate’: “He [Nehru] insisted on keeping the portfolio of external affairs for himself. It was a disadvantage to him that he did so, because, as head of the whole government of India, he had to deal with a range of internal problems already too much for one mind. And it was a disadvantage to the Indian foreign office and the Indian diplomatic service. In effect he did damage to both, and at a formative and impressionable stage of their growth...”
Internal Security
Blunder–49 :
Compounding Difficulties in Assam
In the pre-independence blunder, “Blunder-5: Assam’s Security Compromised”, detailed earlier, we saw how Nehru’s wrong decision ultimately resulted in adverse demographic change in Assam, with the influx of Muslims from East Bengal.
In the 1930s and later, when the Muslims of East Bengal (now Bangladesh) began migrating to Brahmaputra valley in Assam for livelihood, pooh-poohing the grave warnings from sane quarters, pseudo-secular, naive Nehru made an irresponsible statement: “Nature abhors vacuum, meaning where there is open space how can one prevent people from settling there?” Savarkar responded with his masterly prediction: “Nature also abhors poisonous gas. The migration of such large numbers of Muslims in Assam threatened not just the local culture but would also prove to be a national security problem for India on its north-east frontier.”
Taking note of that, any nationalist, concerned about the fate of the indigenous people, their property, their well-being and their culture in Assam, would have ensured that the Muslims migrations from East Bengal were stemmed at least after independence, with the power in our hands. Unfortunately, even after independence, when the Central Government could have taken a tough stand and effectively dealt with the problem, it remained ostrich-like, and demographic invasion from East-Pakistan continued, becoming a major source of ethnic bitterness and tension. The ongoing Bodo-Bangladeshi Muslim clash is an offshoot of this bitterness.
The adverse situation continued. Not just out of negligence, but out of design too. What became paramount for the Congress and Nehru after independence were votes—votes even at the cost of national interests. Muslim migrants swelled their vote bank. Why not then turn a blind eye to it, even if the people of Assam and the Northeast ultimately suffer! And, all that despite severe opposition of many local Congress leaders like Gopinath Bordoloi and Medhi. The effectively anti-national vote-bank politics of the Congress is not a recent phenomenon, or something since the times of unscrupulous Indira Gandhi, it started soon after independence under Nehru.
“The state subsequently paid the price...when illegal migration from the then East Pakistan reduced the Assamese-speaking population in Assam to a minority... In fact, the entire party [Congress] was guilty. Its simplistic solution was to win elections in Assam by allowing would-be settlers from across the border into the state thus creating a vote bank...[Gobind Ballabh] Pant [the then Home Minister] knew that large number of people were coming across the border. After all, his party had connived at the migration since independence...”
—Kuldip Nayar, ‘Beyond the Lines’
In early sixties, Assam Chief Minister Bimala Prasad Chaliha launched an aggressive campaign to flush out the immigrants. However, Nehru wanted him to go easy on deportations and even stop them.
The problems of Assam and the Northeast have their roots in the Nehruvian era on account of faulty understanding of the issues, distorted world view, defective grasp of national security interests, and the faulty policies and remedies that flowed from them. Nehru, thanks to his policies, managed to make all our international borders and the regions in the border areas sensitive and insecure, costing us a fortune to maintain them. Nehru could have and should have put in place a reliable and robust mechanism to plug the migrations from East-Pakistan after Independence; but he remained casual and indifferent.
Blunder–50 :
Neglecting the Northeast
The problems of the Northeast have their roots in the Nehruvian era on account of faulty understanding of the issues, distorted world view, defective grasp of national security interests, and the faulty policies and remedies that flowed from them. Also, no-holds-barred proselytization by the Christian missionaries dealt with in the next blunder.
Nehru’s policy of division of Assam into a number of smaller states to satisfy certain ethnic groups has actually been counter-productive.
One, because there are so many different ethnicities—over 220 ethnic groups. To what extent can one keep dividing?
Two, it started divisive identity politics. Others too have raised their demand for separation.
Three, such small states are not economically viable.
Egged on by Verrier Elwin, Nehru’s advisor on tribal matters and a British missionary and anthropologist, Nehru’s broad policy was to treat Nagas and the like as “anthropological specimen”. This came in the way of development and integration of the Northeast.
Looking to the fact of scores of ethnic groups and languages in the Northeast, Nehru should have understood that sub-dividing the region into multiple states would be an endless process that would give rise to further divisiveness, without doing any good for the people at large, each new state being economically unviable.
What would have won t
he hearts of the people and brought them into the mainstream would have been not a State for each group, for that benefits only the elites; but solid, good, empathetic governance, effective criminal-justice system, assurance of security to people, delivery of services, education, health-care, providing connectivity and communications, putting in place adequate infrastructure, and economic development.
But, that requires dedicated, committed, competent, empathetic and honest human resources, ensuring which should have been the top-priority task of independent India. But, no. The arrogant, callous, selfish, self-serving, exploitive, rent-seeking, corrupt, anti-people babudom and the criminal-justice system continued, and rather than being replaced or reformed, became worse and vicious, as amply brought out by Ved Marwah in his book ‘India in Turmoil’.
In short, Nehru did little to spruce up the administration and the criminal-justice system. Secondly, with socialism as the Nehruvian creed, India had condemned itself to poverty, want and international beggary, and had neither the surplus to invest in development, nor policies to promote private investments and foreign investments.
The NE states are unable to take care of either their development or their expenses. All the states have been categorised as Special Category States: they get 90% of the funds as grants from the Centre, and have to only generate the remaining 10%. In other words, all are totally dependent upon the Centre for their expenditure for salaries of government employees, maintenance, and development.
The PCB nexus (“P” for politicians, “C” for contractors, and “B” for businessmen and bureaucrats), and in many regions the PCBI nexus (PCB plus “I” for insurgents) takes care of major portion of the funds. Without ensuring proper end-use of funds, the Central Government keeps announcing special economic packages for the region, most of which go to line the pockets of the PCBI. Continued militancy, and need for development to tackle it, provide a convenient pretext to get more and more funds to loot.
Blunder–51 :
Ignoring Illegal Proselytization
It is impossible for me to reconcile myself to the idea of conversion after the style that goes on in India and elsewhere today. It is an error which is perhaps the greatest impediment to the world's progress toward peace. Why should a Christian want to convert a Hindu to Christianity? Why should he not be satisfied if the Hindu is a good or godly man?
—Mahatma Gandhi, Harijan: January 30, 1937
Religion is important for humanity, but it should evolve with humanity. The first priority is to establish and develop the principle of pluralism in all religious traditions. If we, the religious leaders, cultivate a sincere pluralistic attitude, then everything will be more simple. It is good that most religious leaders are at least beginning to recognize other traditions, even though they may not approve of them. The next step is to accept that the idea of propagating religion is outdated. It no longer suits the times.
—HH Dalai Lama
Nehru turned a blind eye to illegal and rampant proselytization by the Christian missionaries that adversely affected national interests.
Writes Durga Das in ‘India from Curzon to Nehru & After’ (Rupa, Page# 274): “The Constitution-makers swept under the carpet the important matter relating to the scheduled tribes in the Assam hills in the north-east. They adopted a formula virtually placing the region outside the pale of normal Union laws and administrative apparatus. Nehru did this on the advice of Christian missionaries. His colleagues in the top echelons let it pass, treating the matter, in the words of Azad, as ‘a Nehru fad’.”
It is worth noting that Sir Reginald Coupland (1884–1952), a historian and a professor of the Oxford University who had accompanied the Cripps Mission as an adviser in 1942, had recommended for a statutory guarantee that the work of the Christian missions in the hill tracts of Assam (Assam then included all the NE states) would continue uninterrupted.
Massive conversions in the Northeast states, particularly Nagaland and Mizoram, have led to secessionist movements.
Christian missionaries and a number of foreign-funded NGOs have deliberately propagated and funded the myths of Aryan-Dravidian conflicts and differences. They have been active in anti-Brahmanical and anti-Hindu propaganda. They have taken advantage of the poverty and wants of the dalits and the tribals. Why? All this helps than in conversions. It is they who have fuelled Aryan-Dravidian politics in Tamil Nadu to help than in their proselytization project. It is necessary to realise that conversions (at least over 99% of them) to Christianity or Islam are actually spiritual murders more heinous that physical murders, as they unhinge a person from her roots.
It seems Nehru did not understand the correlation among religion, nation, partition, and divisiveness; despite being a witness to creation of Pakistan. It may be fine to be personally an atheist, or agnostic, or above religion; but it is definitely foolish and irresponsible, as a national leader, to ignore the reality of religions, particularly the latter two Abrahamic religions, and their effect on people and regions and their potential for divisiveness. There are 126 Christian-majority, and 49 Muslim-majority countries in the world, but just one Hindu-majority country—that is, India (leaving the tiny country Nepal). Is it not an Indian leader’s responsibility to ensure that at least one country remains Hindu-majority, and safe for Hindus, and to which prosecuted Hindus elsewhere in the world (like in Pakistan and Bangladesh, and, sadly, even from its own state of Kashmir) could seek refuge. Isn’t it the least that Hindus, who have suffered a millennium of slavery and prosecution at the hands of Muslims and Christians, must expect from the Indian leaders. People of other religions must, of course, have full freedom as equal citizens; but they can’t be allowed to dominate, illegally proselytize, and displace the Hindu majority.
Christian missionaries and their illegal proselytization has created havoc in many parts of India, and it is high time India woke up to them and took effective counter measures. Nehru dynasty never cared about India’s religious and cultural foundations and heritage, but non-Dynasty governments need to act differently.
Proselytization in India has been solely for economic reasons, and to a lesser extent on account of societal reasons. Religion or spiritualism, or ‘seeking God’, or appreciating that the religion one is converting into is “better”, has nothing whatsoever to do with it. Hence, all conversions are illegal (barring perhaps 0.01%). There is, of course, no question of the two latter Abrahamic religions, the “religion of compassion”, and the “religion of peace”, which have caused terrible and indescribable miseries to uncountable millions of locals belonging to other faiths in Africa, Asia, Europe, North America, South America, and Australia through the centuries, being superior or the only true religions. None can come even remotely near to the essential Hinduism. There can, therefore, be no conversion through rational analysis and conviction.
Conversions actually got a fillip thanks to the Nehruvian policies. If you have chosen the socialist path, which benefits only the politicians and the babus, poor can never really come up. Deprived of medical facilities, free education, other necessities, and even food, they become easy targets for conversion. Had India followed free-market policies, India would have been a prosperous first-world nation, with better administration and justice, long ago; leaving little scope for illegal conversions.
Blunder–52 :
Insecurity of the Vulnerable Sections
Among the very basics expected from any government is safety for its citizens, particularly the vulnerable sections like the minorities, dalits, women and children. This is fundamental. Other things come later. People should not feel vulnerable to communal, caste, gender or domestic violence. They should be able to breathe freely and live fearlessly—otherwise what is the point of gaining “independence”.
Safety is what independent India should have firmly ensured within the first five to ten years of its existence. Not a difficult goal to achieve at all, given the desire and the will. The safety and social justice should have been ensured whatever
it took: persuasion, education, publicity, unbiased and empathetic governance and criminal-justice system—even violence where needed.
However, post-independence, there was no change, rather, there was a change for the worse. The heartless anti-weak, anti-poor and corrupt criminal-justice-police system continued as in the colonial days. There was no reform or replacement. Minorities, dalits, women and children continued to remain highly vulnerable. There were reportedly 243 communal riots between 1947 and 1964 and there was little improvement in the lot of the Dalits.
For a political leader, is it sufficient to be personally non-communal, but do little to ensure communal harmony? If communal riots continue to take place, if the minorities, the dalits and the weaker sections continue to be on the receiving end, what’s the use of your being personally non-communal or pro-weaker sections. The real test of secularism for a leader and for his empathies with the weak is what did he achieve on the ground. India and its rulers since independence cut a sorry figure on this aspect.
This is what Dr Ambedkar had to say in his resignation letter (from the Nehru’s cabinet) of 27 September 1951: “What is the Scheduled Castes [status] today? So far as I see, it is the same as before. The same old tyranny, the same old oppression, the same old discrimination which existed before, exists now, and perhaps in a worst form. I can refer to hundreds of cases where people from the Scheduled Caste round about Delhi and adjoining places have come to me with their tales of woes against the Caste Hindus and against the Police who have refused to register their complaints and render them any help. I have been wondering whether there is any other parallel in the world to the condition of Scheduled Castes in India. I cannot find any. And yet why is no relief granted to the Scheduled Castes? Compare the concern the Government shows over safeguarding the Muslims. The Prime Minister’s whole time and attention is devoted for the protection of the Muslims. I yield to none, not even to the Prime Minister, in my desire to give the Muslims of India the utmost protection wherever and whenever they stand in need of it. But what I want to know is, are the Muslims the only people who need protection? Are the Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes… not in need of protection? What concern has he shown for these communities? So far as I know, none and yet these are the communities which need far more care and attention than the Muslims.”
Nehru's 97 Major Blunders Page 12