Page 181 - DHIS204_DHIS205_INDIAN_FREEDOM_STRUGGLE_HINDI

Indian Freedom Struggle (1707–1947 A.D.)

Notes Despite the dominance of the Congress party the role of the Opposition was strengthened during
the period. Nehru gave full play and respect to the Opposition parties and was quite responsive
to their criticism. He once defined democracy as follows: ‘In the ultimate analysis, it is a manner
of thinking, a manner of action, a manner of behaviour to your neighbour and to your adversary
and opponent.’ The Opposition parties, though small numerically, were able to take advantage of
the fact that the Congress was not a monolithic party and encompassed within itself several
political and ideological trends. They were able to influence the government policies by influencing
the different ideological strands in the Congress. Nehru also respected and promoted internal
democracy and debate within the Congress party and encouraged it to accommodate new social
forces and trends.
Federalism, provided for in the constitution, also was established as a firm feature of Indian polity
during the Nehru years, with a genuine devolution of power to the states. Respecting the states’
autonomy, Nehru would not impose decisions on the state governments or interfere with their
policies, though he took care to inform them of his own thinking and occasionally advise or even
insist on their acceptance of a particular policy. He also permitted the state Congress parties to
choose their party and government leaders. He relied upon the state leaders and governments to
understand better their own intricate problems. In the process, he was willing to put up with a
great deal. In fact, one reason why Nehru would not go too far in forcing the states to effect land
reforms the way he conceived them was because land reforms were a State subject and he would
not ride roughshod over the states’ rights and powers even for a favourite cause of his. Nehru
would guide and advise and urge but would not step out of constitutional boundaries; he would
observe constitutional niceties in spirit and form. In fact, a major reason for the weaknesses of the
agricultural, educational, health and other social welfare programmes lay in the Centre’s
dependence on the states for their implementation, for these were State subjects.
At the same time, Nehru did not permit any weakening of the prestige or authority of the central
government. He always maintained a sharp distinction between the centralization of power or
centre’s domination of the states and a strong centre needed for nation-building and maintenance
of the unity and independence of the country as also to keep under check disruptive and divisive
forces.
A major reason that led to the development of harmonious relations between the Centre and the
states and which kept in check centrifugal forces was the fact that the same party ruled in both
places. The leading role of the Centre was also facilitated by the fact that some of the tallest men
and women in Indian politics held office in the cabinet as well as the Congress Working Committee.
The tradition of the supremacy of the civil government over the armed forces was fully established
during these years. The Indian armed forces had been traditionally non-political and had accepted
civilian control and leadership. But the continuation of this role by them was not guaranteed.
Nehru, in particular, was worried about the possibility of the armed forces intervening in politics
and the government in case of exceptional circumstances, as happened in nineteenth-century
France and Germany and in many Third World countries. To avoid such a possibility in India he
took several steps in this regard. He kept the size of the armed forces relatively small, refusing to
permit their expansion even after large-scale US military aid to Pakistan began in 1954. The
expenditure on the defence forces was also kept extremely low, less than 2 per cent of the national
income. Abandoning the British colonial practice of recruiting men in the army on the criterion of
‘martial’ classes, the armed forces were given a heterogeneous character, with almost every region
and section of society being represented in them. India was thus protected from the danger of
militarism in its formative years. The small size of the armed forces and of expenditure on them
were also prompted by two other considerations: avoidance of diversion of scarce resources from
economic development; and given the absence of domestic defence industries, to avoid dependence
on foreign powers and the possibility of their intervention in India’s internal and foreign affairs.

176 LOVELY PROFESSIONAL UNIVERSITY