8.1] Nehruvian and Gandhian Perspectives

1. Gandhi

Gandhi was not an economist in conventional sense, nor has he given any systematic views on the model of development to be adopted by India. We get the blueprint of Gandhian idea of development in his book HIND SWARAJ. Gandhi was critic of the western model of development and believed that that if others adopt the same model, 9 more earths will be needed.

1.1 The 3 pillars of Gandhian approach were:

1. Economic growth.
2. Redistributive Justice.
3. Moral regeneration.

1.1 7 Sins according to Gandhi.

Gandhi’s approach towards way of life can be understood on the basis of his concept of 7 sins.

1. Wealth without work
2. Pleasure without conscience
3. Knowledge without character
4. Commerce without morality
5. Science without humanity
6. Worship without sacrifice
7. Politics without ethics

Gandhi’s perspective on economic development was rooted in his philosophy of self-reliance and simplicity. Gandhi championed the idea of ‘Sarvodaya’ or the welfare of all, focusing on rural development and small-scale, decentralized economies. He believed in the empowerment of villages through cottage industries, promoting Khadi and handicrafts as symbols of economic independence.

Gandhi was of the view that industrialization would lead to environmental degradation and social inequalities. His vision aimed at a self-sustaining village economy, where the focus was on local resources and labor, ensuring that development was inclusive and environmentally sustainable.

1.3 Gandhian Plan

Post independence, although Gandhi was not around to guide the economic policy of new India, Gandhians like SN Agarwal, Sriman Narayan proposed Gandhian Plan, which reflected Gandhi’s ideas. The plan proposed:

1. Reform of Agriculture: This will address the issues of hunger and unemployment. Government should focus on land reforms, cooperatives and rural credit.
2. Revival of cottage industries: It will not only provide supplementary income; Khadi was also a way to address the requirement of clothing.

Thus, the focus of Gandhian plan was to fulfil the basic necessities as a priority.

There is also a misunderstanding that Gandhi was against machines and industrialization. However, Gandhi was not against machines per se, he was only against imitating the western model in Indian situation. His main concern was:

1. Machines should not be pitted against humans.
2. Machinization results into accumulation of wealth and increases exploitation.

Thus, Gandhian approach was to make Indian villages self-sufficient entities. He was for the revival of village republic as he believed that ‘India lives in villages’. Without revival of villages, goal of Swaraj would be incomplete.

Gandhian approach was not adopted and we can see the consequences of its neglect. The economic model which we have adopted, to catch up with western countries, is unsustainable and full of conflicts. The developmental model has resulted into imbalanced growth and widening of gap between Indian and Bharat.

Schumacher in his book ‘Small is Beautiful’, has suggested the concept of sustainable development based on Gandhian principles. And it indirectly comes from Buddhist model.

2. Nehru

Nehru was also not an economist. Nehru was modernist. He was impressed by the achievements of the USSR. He wanted to make India a modern and scientific society. He described his philosophy as progressive socialism and wanted India to be a society based on socialistic pattern.

Thus, Nehru advocated for a centralized planning system, believing that the state should play a key role in directing economic development. This approach led to the establishment of the Planning Commission and the introduction of Five-Year Plans, aiming to transform India into a modern, industrialized nation. Nehru emphasized heavy industries, large-scale infrastructure projects, and technological advancements, seeing them as essential for economic self-sufficiency and growth.

We can understand the Nehru’s real approach towards development strategy from 2nd Five Year Plan which was based on Nehru-Mahalanobis model.

1. Investment in heavy industries: It will promote capital formation. It will make India independent of foreign imports and essential goods. Consequently, India will be able to exercise more autonomy in other areas and protect itself from bargaining of western countries.
2. Nehru introduced centralized planning, despite the fact that it goes against the spirit of federalism.
3. Nehruvian model neglected consumer industries. Indians were to make sacrifices in short term for better life in long term.
4. Nehru was not against agrarian reforms, but he believed that industrialization will create more demand for agricultural goods and will provide fertilizer, equipment for promotion of agriculture.
5. Nehru knew that his model will create shortages of basic commodities, hence he introduced physical control or rationing and fiscal control or administrative pricing.
6. In order to avoid income disparities, Nehruvian model had put state in the commanding heights of economy and kept private sector weak to check accumulation of wealth.
7. Public sector will not only address the concentration of wealth, it will also provide employment.

Nehruvian policies could not address the structural weakness of Indian economy. The rationing resulted into black marketing and public sectors were not working on economic logic, producing poor quality goods at a higher price.

Nehruvian model was import substitution and export promotion. However, India could not produce manufactured goods that can compete with western goods.

Ultimately, Nehruvian model resulted into India becoming ‘license, permit, quota raj’. This made India an Inspector Raj or an overdeveloped state.

Unfortunately, the successors of Nehru did not make any correction, despite understanding the weaknesses. They rather continued with more populist policies like ‘garibi hatao’. Garibi hatao remained a rhetoric in pre-reform period. As good as 45% of Indian population was living below poverty line.

3. Gandhian and Nehruvian Approach

While Nehru’s approach was top-down, prioritizing rapid industrial growth and state intervention, Gandhi’s believed in bottom-up approach, emphasizing grassroots development and minimal state interference. Nehru saw large-scale industries as engines of progress, while Gandhi viewed small-scale industries as means to sustain rural life and prevent urban migration. While Nehru sought to integrate India into the global economy through industrial prowess, whereas the Gandhian model aimed to build a self-sufficient, harmonious society, reducing dependence on foreign technology and capital.

While we can say that Nehru’s policies led to significant industrial growth and infrastructural development, it also created issues like bureaucratic inefficiency and economic disparity. Gandhi’s ideals, though less implemented at the national policy level, reflect sustainable development, rural upliftment, and community-based economic models.

A balanced approach, incorporating the strengths of both models, might have been the most effective for India post-independence. Combining Nehru’s emphasis on industrialization and infrastructure with Gandhi’s focus on rural development and sustainability could have led to more balanced and inclusive growth. For instance, while developing heavy industries and modern infrastructure, policies could have simultaneously promoted rural industries, sustainable practices, and decentralized economic activities. Instead of imitating either east or west, India should have gone for independent, innovative and sustainable economic model, setting example on its own.