Economic Modernist to Populist Personalism

The base for newly independent India’s development was set in the 1950s during a crisis period in the world

- Arun Kumar

WHEN Jawaharlal Nehru became prime minister, there was euphoria across India on gaining independence, but it was also a time of crisis. A long and devastating colonial subjugation was ending. The world was emerging from the ravages of World War II. India was racked by poverty, illiteracy and ill-health. Access to roads and electricity was inadequate. The world witnessed a Cold War, militarisation and the formation of blocs.

A comparison with what has happened in Pakistan helps us to understand the difficulties faced by a newly independent nation. Both belong to the same stock, got independence simultaneously and had similar history and structures of governance. The two nations, which started with similar circums tances, have had divergent development paths, principally bec ause of the vision and the nature of their political leadership.

The leadership in India asserted its independence—it stayed out of the emerging great power blocs and provided the vision of the Non-Aligned Movement to the emerging free nations. In contrast, Pakistan joined the Western bloc, militarised and could not break the shackles of feudalism. It allowed the military to dominate the nation and went for theocracy and not secularism. Democracy did not have a chance to flourish because the political leadership was weak.

Historical narratives are always tricky since they require interpreting the past with present-day lenses. For instance, during the height of the Mughal rule, with Akbar at the helm, there was no electricity, no cars or airplanes or telephones.

From today’s perspective, the country was obviously underdeveloped. But is that a fair judgement? Several factors need to be taken into account such as the availability of technology, resources and the prevailing social situation.