"Not a pin was manufactured, really?": Indians counter Congress leader's claims, asserting Nehru's socialist zeal post-Independence crippled Indian industries, debunking myths of his economic ingenuity & exposing enduring consequences on national progress

On Jawaharlal Nehru’s birth anniversary, Congress MP KC Venugopal’s glorification of Nehru as the architect of modern India and his assertion that "not a pin was manufactured in India" before Nehru's leadership, has sparked a flurry of criticism and satire. This statement glosses over the complexities of India's pre-independence industrial landscape and oversimplifies the historical narrative.

Contrary to Venugopal’s laudatory remarks, critics argue that Nehru's socialist zeal post-independence actually hamstrung India's industrial potential. The picture painted of Nehru as a messianic figure single-handedly steering India towards industrialization is met with derision, considering the realities of his economic policies.

“Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru is the architect of modern India. When he took over the reins of India’s destiny, not a pin was manufactured in India. But instead of blaming the past, cursing his predecessors, and making excuses, he rolled up his sleeves and built our modern republic,” KC Venugopal said on Twitter.

Nehru's socialist framework, characterized by heavy state control and the infamous Licence Raj, is seen as a monumental blunder in India's economic history. This system, requiring businesses to navigate a labyrinth of bureaucratic permits, effectively strangled private enterprise and innovation. Rather than fostering an industrial boom, Nehru’s policies are critiqued for wrapping the potential of a nascent independent India in layers of red tape.

The satirical retort to Venugopal might be that Nehru indeed built something – a towering edifice of bureaucratic obstacles rather than the factories and industries he envisioned. His focus on state-led heavy industries often neglected the more pressing needs of India's agrarian economy, leading to a lopsided development that left many sectors, including agriculture and small industries, languishing.

Furthermore, Nehru’s approach to economic planning is criticized for its lack of foresight and adaptability, setting the stage for the economic stagnation that India experienced in subsequent decades. The narrative of Nehru transforming a pre-industrial India into a thriving modern republic is, in this view, a tale more of missed opportunities and misdirected efforts than triumphant progress.

The critique of Nehru and his supporters is not just about questioning his economic policies but also challenging the oversimplified historical narratives that paint him as the sole architect of modern India. The reality, as argued by his critics, is that Nehru's socialist policies were perhaps more a hindrance than a help in India's quest for economic and industrial development.

On Nehru's birth anniversary, Congress MP KC Venugopal's lavish praise of Nehru came with a controversial assertion: “In a neighborhood where ethnic conflict and authoritarian rule is commonplace when many in the West doubted whether we would survive as a democratic and secular republic, it was Nehru ji’s efforts of building a democratic ethos that stood the test of time. Today, as India is in a difficult place with a fascist regime in power in New Delhi, it is Nehru’s path that we must always walk on.” This statement paints Nehru as a stalwart defender of democracy and secularism, a bulwark against authoritarianism, and a guiding light against current political challenges.

However, this narrative was met with skepticism and satire, especially the comparison to the current regime and the call to follow Nehru's path. Critics argue that Nehru's policies, particularly in economics, were far from infallible. His approach is often blamed for setting the stage for economic inefficiencies that plagued India for decades. The establishment of the License Raj under his leadership, which required businesses to obtain numerous government permits, is frequently cited as a prime example of overregulation that stifled entrepreneurship and innovation.

This critique is echoed in a netizen's comment, “Nehru was the architect of license-quota Raj that stifled entrepreneurship & encouraged crony capitalism. India was the richest country in Asia in 1947 after the War. By 1964, India was left behind by others in Asia & by 1980 poorer than others, all due to Nehru’s PanchBhool policies (5-year plans).” This statement sharply counters Venugopal's glorification of Nehru, highlighting the negative impacts of his economic policies. It suggests that Nehru's socialist approach, encapsulated in the five-year plans, led to India's relative economic decline in Asia, a far cry from the prosperous trajectory it had been on at independence.

In this light, the suggestion that Nehru's path is the one to follow appears more as a satirical remark on political nostalgia than a viable blueprint for the future. The call to walk on Nehru's path in the face of current political challenges is met with a critical perspective that questions the efficacy and outcomes of Nehru's policies. The debate reflects a broader discourse on the legacy of Nehru's leadership, encompassing not just his achievements in establishing a democratic and secular state but also scrutinizing the long-term impacts of his economic and political decisions.

The narrative praising Nehru as the harbinger of industrial growth in India faces stark criticism from various quarters. One user highlighted that major industries like Birla, Tata, Dabur, Britannia, Godrej, Bajaj, and Dalmia were already established and thriving in the 19th century, long before Nehru's prime ministership began in 1947. This fact directly counters the claim that Nehru was the architect of India's industrial sector. It points out that these industries were already leading the economy, suggesting Nehru's impact on industrial growth was minimal.

This critique is furthered by another user, who challenges the notion that Nehru was responsible for the Green Revolution in India. They stated, “His socialist policies screwed our industry and after 41 years of his and his family’s rule India was on the verge of bankruptcy in 1991.” This comment underscores the view that Nehru's socialist policies were detrimental to India's economic health, culminating in the near bankruptcy of the nation in 1991. The Green Revolution, a major agricultural transformation, actually began in 1965-66 under Lal Bahadur Shastri's tenure, after Nehru's death, and continued under Indira Gandhi. This directly contradicts claims crediting Nehru for this pivotal development in Indian agriculture.

Additionally, some users expressed regret over Nehru becoming the first, unelected Prime Minister of India. They blamed him for being the root cause of problems India faces even today. This sentiment reflects a deep-seated discontent with Nehru's policies and leadership style, suggesting that his tenure laid the foundation for long-term issues in India.

These critiques, laced with facts and a satirical undertone, challenge the glorified image of Nehru painted by his supporters. They argue that Nehru's economic policies, far from boosting India's growth, actually stifled it, and his leadership decisions have had lasting negative impacts. This perspective presents a starkly different view from the conventional narrative of Nehru as a visionary leader and instead portrays him as a figure whose policies and decisions have been detrimental to India's long-term development.

How Nehru became the first Prime Minister of India

The story of how Jawaharlal Nehru became India’s first Prime Minister remains a contentious topic in Indian political history, especially given his role as an unelected leader. His ascendancy to the prime ministership, influenced by Mahatma Gandhi's intervention, has been a point of debate and criticism.

Notably, after India's independence, the Congress party faced an existential crisis. Mahatma Gandhi suggested its dissolution, given that its primary aim of achieving independence was fulfilled. However, Nehru, seeing the 'brand value' of Congress, chose to ignore Gandhi's advice, believing the party could serve the 'betterment' of the country. This decision to persist with the Congress party has been viewed critically, seen as a strategic move by Nehru to maintain his political influence rather than a genuine effort towards nation-building.

The internal elections within the Congress to elect India's Prime Minister further highlight the contentious nature of Nehru's rise to power. Sardar Patel, a leading candidate and a figure widely respected for his administrative acumen, was on the verge of being elected. However, Gandhi's intervention, asking Patel to step aside in favor of Nehru, dramatically altered the course of Indian politics. The satire in this situation lies in the irony – Nehru, a proponent of democracy, ascended to the highest democratic office in India without a democratic mandate.

This episode led to considerable speculation about what might have been had Patel, instead of Nehru, been India’s Prime Minister. Several Congress leaders, including Maulana Azad and C. Rajagopalachari, later expressed that India might have been better served with Patel as Prime Minister and Nehru as Foreign Minister. This sentiment reflects a belief that Nehru's leadership, while impactful, was not necessarily the best option for India at that critical juncture.

Nehru's tenure as Prime Minister, and the path he charted for India, has been the subject of intense scrutiny. His failures in various domains have had lasting impacts on India, with critics arguing that some of the nation's persistent challenges can be traced back to his decisions and policies. Nehru's legacy, thus, is a mix of significant achievements and notable shortcomings, with his rise to power itself symbolizing the complex and often contradictory nature of Indian politics.

Under Nehru's leadership, two critical decisions had far-reaching consequences for India's geopolitical standing: the handling of the Kashmir issue and the rejection of a permanent seat at the United Nations Security Council.

Creation of the Kashmir Issue

The Kashmir conflict, one of the most enduring and complex geopolitical issues in South Asia, was significantly shaped by Nehru's actions. When Pakistan instigated a tribal militia attack to annex Kashmir, the Indian army was effectively countering these intruders. However, Nehru's decision to take the matter to the United Nations is often seen as a critical error. Critics argue that this move not only halted India's military momentum but also internationalized a bilateral conflict, giving Pakistan a platform to claim Kashmir as a disputed territory. This decision is viewed as an example of Nehru's diplomatic naivety, where he "snatched defeat from the jaws of success." The consequences of this decision have been profound, with the Kashmir issue remaining unresolved and continuing to cause significant bloodshed and tension in the region.

Rejected a Permanent Seat at the UN

Another major critique of Nehru's foreign policy was his decision to decline a permanent seat on the United Nations Security Council. Offers from both the United States and the Soviet Union to take China's place were turned down by Nehru, largely to avoid conflict with China. This decision is often labeled as a monumental blunder in Indian foreign policy. Holding a permanent seat at the UN Security Council could have dramatically improved India's global standing and influence. Nehru's refusal of this opportunity, in a bid to foster cordial relations with China, is criticized especially in light of the ongoing strained relations between the two countries. The irony of this situation is not lost on critics, who point out that Nehru’s aspiration for friendly ties with China remains unfulfilled, making the rejection of the UN seat all the more egregious in retrospect.

These decisions by Nehru are often cited as examples of poor strategic judgment that have had lasting impacts on India's international relations and national security. The criticism highlights not only the immediate repercussions of these decisions but also their long-term effects on India's geopolitical landscape.

43,000 sq km of Land Captured by China in Aksai Chin

Nehru's foreign policy, particularly towards China, led to one of the most significant setbacks in India's history. Despite his intentions to foster friendly relations, China viewed Nehru with skepticism, even disdain. This diplomatic miscalculation became glaringly evident during the 1962 Indo-China war. Nehru's failure to anticipate China's aggressive intentions and his lack of emphasis on defense preparedness resulted in a tragic loss of over 3,250 Indian soldiers. Additionally, India lost a substantial territory of approximately 43,000 square kilometers in Aksai Chin to China. This loss symbolizes not just a territorial setback but also the failure of Nehru's diplomatic strategy, highlighting his inability to balance idealism with realpolitik. The repercussions of this blunder continue to influence India's geopolitical strategy today.

Nehru Did Not Implement Universal Primary Education

Nehru's tenure, while marked by the establishment of premier institutions like IITs and IIMs, notably lacked a focus on universal primary education. In a country where literacy was critically low, this oversight by Nehru significantly hampered socio-economic development. Judith Brown, Nehru's biographer, considers this as his greatest failure, underlining the missed opportunity to lay a solid foundation for India's human resource development.

Contrasting Nehru's approach, the post-2014 period under the Modi government saw substantial strides in expanding higher education infrastructure. This era witnessed the establishment of 6 new IITs, 16 new IIITs, and 7 new IIMs, reflecting a renewed emphasis not just on higher education but also highlighting the growing focus on universal primary education. This expansion underscores a more comprehensive educational strategy, addressing both the need for advanced academic institutions and the foundational requirement of widespread literacy and primary education. The stark difference in educational priorities between Nehru’s era and the current administration illustrates a shift towards a broader and more inclusive approach to education in India, acknowledging the critical role of basic education in national development.

Favoured socialism

Nehru's adoption of socialist policies marked a significant departure from India's historical free-market economy, which had thrived on trade and private enterprise for centuries. His assertion that "profit is a dirty word" encapsulates his economic ideology, which favored the Soviet model of state-run enterprises across various sectors, from industries to hotels. This approach fundamentally altered the economic landscape of India, with far-reaching consequences.

Under Nehru’s socialist regime, high taxes were imposed, ostensibly to ensure wealth redistribution. However, this policy had the unintended effect of stifling the accumulation of wealth among ordinary citizens, making them more reliant on the state. The entrepreneurial spirit, a cornerstone of a free-market economy, was actively discouraged. This shift not only dampened economic dynamism but also ingrained a mindset that was antithetical to wealth creation and entrepreneurship.

Nehru's policies inadvertently fostered income inequality and crony capitalism. By placing the economy predominantly under state control, opportunities for genuine free-market competition were limited. This scenario often led to a nexus between politicians and businessmen, where success in business became increasingly dependent on political connections rather than entrepreneurial merit.

Furthermore, these policies contributed to the demonization of wealth and success in the Indian psyche. Entrepreneurs were often viewed with suspicion and moral disdain, a perspective that was antithetical to the spirit of innovation and risk-taking essential for economic growth. This demonization of wealth and success had a lasting impact on the cultural and economic attitudes of Indians, impeding the development of a robust, entrepreneurship-driven economy.

In retrospect, Nehru's socialist policies, though perhaps well-intentioned, are criticized for their detrimental effects on India’s economic vitality. By deviating from the country’s traditional free-market roots and imposing a socialist framework, Nehru inadvertently hampered India's economic progress and shaped a societal mindset that was averse to wealth creation and entrepreneurial endeavor. The legacy of these policies is a topic of continued debate and criticism in discussions of India's economic history.

Rejected Nepal’s and Balochistan’s Offer to Join India

Nehru's rejection of offers for Nepal and Balochistan to join India highlights a critical aspect of his foreign policy, often viewed as a missed strategic opportunity. When Nepal’s King Bikram Shah proposed making Nepal a province of India, Nehru declined, citing Nepal's status as an independent nation. Similarly, he turned down the offer from Mir Ahmadyar Khan, the Khan of Kalat, for Balochistan's integration into India. Critics argue that Nehru failed to recognize the strategic significance of both regions. Balochistan, in particular, has been a region of geopolitical interest and continues to face severe human rights violations under Pakistan's administration. Nehru's decisions in these instances are often critiqued for lacking foresight, especially considering the long-term strategic and security implications for India.

Dubious Claims About Nehru’s Contributions to Green Revolution and Manufacturing

KC Venugopal's attribution of the Green Revolution and the growth of the manufacturing sector in India to Nehru has been met with skepticism. Historical records indicate that several leading manufacturing companies were established in India well before Nehru’s tenure as Prime Minister. The formation of major conglomerates like the Aditya Birla Group in 1857, Tata Group in 1868, Dabur India Ltd. in 1884, Britannia in 1892, Godrej in 1897, and Bajaj Group in 1926, demonstrates a robust pre-existing industrial base in India. These companies were significant contributors to the Indian economy and continue to be dominant players in the market.

This historical context challenges Venugopal's claim that Nehru was the architect of India's industrial and manufacturing growth. It suggests that the foundation for India's industrial sector was laid much earlier, and Nehru's role, if any, was more about steering the existing industrial landscape rather than creating it from scratch. Furthermore, the Green Revolution, which transformed India's agricultural sector, gained momentum in the years following Nehru's death, raising questions about the extent of his direct involvement in this pivotal development.

In summary, the critique of Nehru's foreign policy decisions regarding Nepal and Balochistan, combined with the scrutiny of claims about his economic contributions, paints a picture of a leader whose actions and legacy are more complex and contested than the straightforward narrative of visionary leadership often presented by his supporters. These critiques highlight missed opportunities and questionable decisions that have had lasting impacts on India's geopolitical and economic landscape.

Green Revolution Spanned After Nehru’s Death

The Green Revolution, a significant milestone in India's agricultural history, occurred posthumously to Jawaharlal Nehru, contradicting claims attributing it to his leadership. This agricultural transformation, led by M. S. Swaminathan, a renowned Indian agronomist, began in the mid-20th century and was marked by the introduction of high-yielding variety seeds, notably enhancing wheat and rice production.

Transforming India from a food-deficient nation to a leading agricultural powerhouse, the Green Revolution spanned from 1967-68 to 1977-78. This period began almost three years after Nehru's death in 1964, casting doubt on KC Venugopal's assertion crediting Nehru with this achievement. Nehru's involvement in the Green Revolution is a historical inaccuracy, as he had passed away before its commencement.

The erroneous credit given to Nehru for the Green Revolution highlights a broader issue with the portrayal of his legacy. It reflects a tendency to attribute posthumous achievements to his foresight or policies, often overlooking the actual timelines and the efforts of others who were instrumental in these successes. This misattribution not only skews historical understanding but also diminishes the contributions of figures like Swaminathan, who played pivotal roles in these landmark developments.

In light of these facts, the claim that Nehru was responsible for the Green Revolution is seen as an example of historical revisionism, attempting to bolster his legacy by associating him with achievements that occurred after his tenure. This approach is critically viewed as a distortion of history, necessitating a more nuanced and accurate assessment of Nehru's contributions and shortcomings.

While Jawaharlal Nehru is often celebrated as one of India's most capable leaders, a critical review of his tenure reveals several significant missteps that have had lasting impacts on the nation. His handling of the Kashmir issue set the stage for a prolonged and complex conflict, the consequences of which are still felt today. Nehru's approach to corruption and his decision to abolish Hindu personal laws are also points of contention, seen by critics as examples of poor governance and policy-making.

His foreign policy, particularly his support for China and the rejection of overtures from Nepal and Balochistan, is viewed as a series of diplomatic blunders. These decisions not only failed to secure India's strategic interests but also led to long-term regional instability. Additionally, his opposition to the restoration of the Somnath Temple is often cited as an example of his controversial stance on cultural and religious issues.

Perhaps most significantly, Nehru's economic policies are seen as leading India towards a state of bankruptcy by 1991. His socialist approach, characterized by state control over major sectors of the economy and heavy taxation, is criticized for stifling economic growth and innovation.

In light of these aspects of Nehru's legacy, the current Congress party's unqualified praise of Nehru for advancing India's economic, social, and industrial growth is seen as a distortion of historical facts. Furthermore, the pledge by current Congress leaders to follow Nehru's path, especially with the critical 2024 elections on the horizon, is viewed with concern. Critics argue that adhering to Nehru's policies and approach in today's context could be detrimental to India's progress, considering the vastly different challenges and opportunities that the nation now faces. This perspective suggests a need for political strategies that are more attuned to the current realities and future aspirations of India, rather than a nostalgic adherence to the past.