Recent interpreters of Nehru have pointed out that there ended up being a huge gap between Nehruvian ideals and the actual reality by the time of Nehru’s death. Despite the fiery rhetoric, the lofty idealism, the grand claims that independence would pave the way for the delivery of social justice, much of Nehru’s vision miscarried. Two key reasons centre around the nature of the Congress party and the Civil Service.
To achieve more of his aims, Nehru needed to transform the nature of the Congress party, into an ideologically coherent cadre based party. This would inevitably have led to splits and ruptures within the party. But Nehru seemed more intent on preserving its unity as he sought stability.
The Congress remained as it had done prior to independence, home to diverse interests. It was not easy to square Congress’s call for unity (and its projection as an embodiment of that unity) with its professed aim of social transformation. The latter objective, if seriously pursued, would have put a strain on the idea of unity as it would have brought social groups into conflict. Privileged social groups, interested with maintaining the status quo, had supported the Congress during the freedom movement and stayed with the party after independence. The Congress was a weak instrument to achieve Nehru’s lofty ideals of social transformation but it did play a key role in sustaining Indian democracy and achieving stability.
The Civil Service had been the object of much criticism during the colonial period by nationalists, including Nehru. As the “steel frame” of British rule it was geared towards imperial ends, concerned with maintaining order rather than creating radical change. Under Nehru, it was not seriously reformed and remained conservative and ill-equipped to achieve dynamic change. Nevertheless, it provided administrative continuity and stability.
In the end, we might note that many movements around the world that have espoused a revolutionary rhetoric have taken a rightward and more conservative turn when in government. This is because they wish to avoid anarchy. There is a tension that exists between seeking to secure stability and to achieve radical social transformation and often the former wins. In the Nehru years, we can see this with respect to how he dealt with the Congress party and the Civil Service.
