JAWAHARLAL. NEHRU. The Discovery of India. DELHI. OXFORD UNIVERSITY The decision of the Jawaharlal Nehru Memorial Fund to. JAWAHARLAL NEHRU The Discovery of India JAWAHARLAL NEHRU The .. The roots of that present lay in the past and so I made voyages of discovery into. The Discovery of India by Jawahar Lal Nehru PDF Language: English Author: Jawahar Lal Nehru. If any of the above links are not working.
|Language:||English, German, Japanese|
|ePub File Size:||29.46 MB|
|PDF File Size:||15.82 MB|
|Distribution:||Free* [*Sign up for free]|
Jawaharlal Nehru wrote the book 'The Discovery of India', during his imprisonment at Ahmednagar fort for participating in the Quit India Movement ( The Discovery of India was written by India's first Prime Minister Pt. Jawaharlal Nehru during his . Create a book · Download as PDF · Printable version. The Discovery of India is, in fact, the discovery or Nehru's rich and graceful personality. It India's greatest men, that we discover in The Discovery of India. .. This PDF is simple an extract from the website for educational purpose and rights of.
The motive for this spurious quote and other such troll attacks is clearly to discredit Nehru amongst Hindus. Nehru had written, ".. Any Indian born and brought up in 'Nehru's India' would find this statement bizarre. I contested this scholar's statement and, at least for the moment, succeeded in making her see the point. Unfortunately, many liberals have also unwittingly helped the Hindutva project of discrediting Nehru by imposing their own culturally deracinated selves upon Nehru, who was 'secular' in the specifically Indian sense of the term, which goes beyond its dictionary meaning.
None of those leading men and women who fought for a 'secular nation' during the freedom movement were detached from their Indian cultural moorings.
They, of course, learnt from the 'West' through formal education and beyond it , but constantly endeavoured to undertake the 'discovery of India' in their own ways.
In his Discovery of India, , Nehru reiterated his aversion to "superstitious practices and dogmatic beliefs" and "uncritical credulousness" going with religion. But he also noted that, "religion had supplied some deeply felt inner need of human nature, and the vast majority of people all over the world could not do without some form of religious belief. It had produced many fine types of men and women, as well as bigoted, narrow-minded, cruel tyrants.
It had given a set of values to human life, and though, some of these values had no application today, or were even harmful, others were still the foundation of morality and ethics. This comes out beautifully in texts like Nasadiya Sukta from the Rigveda quoted in the Discovery of India in full. Nehru also wrote, "What is the mysterious, I do not know. I do not call it God because God has come to mean much that I do not believe in. I find myself incapable of thinking of a deity or of any unknown supreme power in anthropomorphic terms, and the fact that many people think so is continually a source of surprise to me.
Any idea of a personal God seems very odd to me. Intellectually, I can appreciate to some extent the conception of monism, and I have been attracted towards the advaita non-dualist philosophy of the Vedanta…I realise that merely an intellectual appreciation of such matters does not carry one far…The diversity and fullness of nature stir me and produce a harmony of the spirit, and I can imagine myself feeling at home in the old Indian or Greek pagan and pantheistic atmosphere, but minus the conception of God or Gods that was attached to it.
Not only his writings, but his public speeches and acts, too, were rooted in this understanding of the 'religious' and the 'spiritual' which is so integral to the typical Hindu mind, irrespective of the presence or absence of formal education.
That is why Nehru could so easily strike a chord with the people. That is why those who wish to monopolise all things Hindu feel so helpless, and end up expressing this helplessness in expressions of anger against Nehru.
Indian religious tradition celebrates a multitude of divinities, male and female. It does not insist on an anthropomorphic conception of only one true, supreme, Male God. It has been quite happy with its "pantheistic" atmosphere, and has left the question of choosing or not choosing anthropomorphic personal God or gods to each individual.
Even the theoretically monotheistic faiths, Islam and Christianity, in practice have a number of divinities providing spiritual solace and pragmatic solutions to the faithful. A celebration of diversity, tolerance of differences and respect for the faith of others are not politically motivated slogans. Indian religious tradition celebrates a multitude of divinities.
And, this sadhana with all its brooding reflection, is not a synonym for sadness. He called himself a 'pagan' yet again, contrasting his nature to the pessimist tendency 'to walk away from life and its problems'; "I was somewhere at the back of my mind, a pagan, with a pagan's liking for the exuberance of life and nature, and not very much averse to the conflicts life provides. What Nehru could not tolerate was the political use of religious identity.
He continued to fight against the use of religion to gain political power, 'communalism', as it is known in the politics of modern India. It is important to remember that Nehru sought to counter communalism—Hindu, Muslim, Sikh—not merely through 'secularism', but with 'Indian nationalism' which, for him, included a firm belief in diversity and was much more than mere emotionalism.
Nehru's favourite metaphor for his idea of India was that of a palimpsest, i. Reflecting on its "depth of soul", he wrote about India: "It was not her wide spaces that eluded me, or even her diversity, but some depth of soul which I could not fathom, though I had occasional and tantalising glimpses of it. She was like some ancient palimpsest on which layer upon layer of thought and reverie had been inscribed, and yet no succeeding layer had completely hidden or erased what had been written previously.
All of these existed in our conscious or subconscious selves, though we may not have been aware of them, and they had gone to build up the complex and mysterious personality of India. After the Nasadiya Sukta, the Upanishads reiterate the same point —of avoiding the pitfalls of rigid certitude — even more insistently.
Yet from then on, the yardstick of his economic thinking remained Marxist, adjusted, where necessary, to Indian conditions. Gandhi also correctly calculated that, with added responsibility, Nehru himself would be inclined to keep to the middle way.
Although Gandhi did not officially designate Nehru his political heir until , the Indian populace as early as the mids saw in Nehru the natural successor to Gandhi. Ultimately, it provided for a federal system composed of the autonomous provinces and princely states. Although federation never came into being, provincial autonomy was implemented. During the mids Nehru was much concerned with developments in Europe, which seemed to be drifting toward another world war.
He was in Europe early in , visiting his ailing wife, shortly before she died in a sanitarium in Lausanne , Switzerland. When the elections following the introduction of provincial autonomy brought the Congress Party to power in a majority of the provinces, Nehru was faced with a dilemma. The subsequent clash between the Congress and the Muslim League hardened into a conflict between Hindus and Muslims that was ultimately to lead to the partition of India and the creation of Pakistan.
Initially, Gandhi believed that whatever support was given to the British should be given unconditionally and that it should be of a nonviolent character. Nehru held that nonviolence had no place in defense against aggression and that India should support Great Britain in a war against Nazism but only as a free country. If it could not help, it should not hinder. In October , Gandhi, abandoning his original stand, decided to launch a limited civil disobedience campaign in which leading advocates of Indian independence were selected to participate one by one.
After spending a little more than a year in jail, he was released, along with other Congress prisoners, three days before the bombing of Pearl Harbor in Hawaii.
When the Japanese carried their attack through Burma now Myanmar to the borders of India in the spring of , the British government, faced by that new military threat, decided to make some overtures to India.
Prime Minister Winston Churchill dispatched Sir Stafford Cripps , a member of the British War Cabinet who was politically close to Nehru and also knew Jinnah, with proposals for a settlement of the constitutional problem. The initiative in the Congress Party then passed to Gandhi, who called on the British to leave India; Nehru, though reluctant to embarrass the war effort, had no alternative but to join Gandhi. Following the Quit India resolution passed by the Congress Party in Bombay now Mumbai on August 8, , the entire Congress working committee, including Gandhi and Nehru, was arrested and imprisoned.
Nehru emerged from that—his ninth and last detention—only on June 15, Within two years after his release, India was to be partitioned and free. The question was no longer whether India was to be independent but whether it was to consist of one or more independent states. Hindu-Muslim antagonism, culminating in late in clashes that killed some 7, people, made the partition of the subcontinent inevitable.
JAWAHARLAL NEHRU THE DISCOVERY OF INDIA
While Gandhi refused to accept it, Nehru reluctantly but realistically acquiesced. On August 15, , India and Pakistan emerged as two separate independent countries.
Achievements as prime minister In the 35 years from , when Gandhi chose Nehru as president of the Congress session at Lahore, until his death, as prime minister, in , Nehru remained—despite the debacle of the brief conflict with China in —the idol of his people.
The real difference between Nehru and Gandhi was not in their attitudes toward religion but in their attitudes toward civilization. There seemed to be no near prospect of social revolution in other countries, and so the idea of a 'world revolution' faded out for the time being.
With Eastern countries Russia developed a policy of friendship and co-operation, although they were governed under the capitalist system. This Soviet solution of the minorities problem has interest for us, as we have to face a difficult minority problem ourselves.
The Soviets' difficulties appear to have been far greater than ours, for they had different nationalities to deal with. Their solution of the problem has been very successful. They went to the extreme length of recognizing each separate nationality and encouraging it to carry on its work and education in its own language.
This was not merely to please the separatist tendencies of different minorities, but because it was felt that real education and cultural progress could take effect for the masses only if the native tongues were used. And the results achieved already have been remarkable. The reason is that they have common ideals and they are all working together in a common enterprise. Each Union Republic has in theory the right to separate from the Union whenever it wants to, but there is little chance of its doing so, because of the great advantages of federation of socialist republics in the face of the hostility of the capitalist world… "These Central Asian republics have a special interest for us because of our age-old contact with Middle Asia.
They are even more fascinating because of the remarkable progress they have made during the past few years. Under the Tsars they were very backward and superstitious countries with hardly any education and their women mostly behind the veil.
Today they are ahead of India in many respects. The whole country had been surveyed by scientists and engineers, and numerous experts had discussed the problem of fitting in one part of the programme into another.
For, the real difficulty came in this fitting in But Russia had one great advantage over the capitalist countries. Under capitalism all these activities are left to individual initiative and chance, and owing to competition there is waste of effort. There is no co-ordination between different producers or different sets of workers, except the chance co-ordination which arises in the downloaders and sellers coming to the same market The Soviet Government had the advantage of controlling all the different industries and activities in the whole Union, and so it could draw up and try to work a single co-ordinated plan in which every activity found its proper place.
There would be no waste in this, except such waste as might come from errors of calculation or working, and even such errors could be rectified far sooner with a unified control than otherwise. All this construction, all this machinery that came from outside, had to be paid for, and paid for in gold and cash. How was this to be done? The people of the Soviet Union tightened their belts and starved and deprived themselves of even necessary articles so that payment could be made abroad.
They sent their food-stuffs abroad, and with the price obtained for them paid for the machinery.
They sent everything they could find a market for: wheat, rye, barley, corn, vegetables, fruits, eggs, butter, meat, fowls, honey, fish, caviare, sugar, oils, confectionery, etc. Sending these food articles outside meant that they themselves did without them. The Russian people had no butter, or very little of it, because it went abroad to pay for machinery.
And so with many other goods Nations have, in the past, concentrated all their efforts on the accomplishment of one great task, but this has been so in times of war only. To that purpose everything else was subordinated. Soviet Russia, for the first time in history, concentrated the whole strength of the nation in a peaceful effort to build, and not to destroy, to raise a backward country industrially and within a framework of socialism.
But the privation, especially of the upper and middle-class peasantry, was very great, and often it seemed that the whole ambitious scheme would collapse, and perhaps carry the Soviet Government with it. It required immense courage to hold on. Many prominent Bolsheviks thought that the strain and suffering caused by the agricultural programme were too great and there should be a relaxation. But not so Stalin. Grin-fly and silently he held on. He was no talker, he hardly spoke in public.
He seemed to be the iron image of an inevitable fate going ahead to the predestined goal. And something of his courage and determination spread among the members of the Communist Party and other workers in Russia. But, as I have told you, this Five Year Plan brought much suffering, and difficulties and dislocation. And people paid a terrible price willingly and accepted the sacrifices and sufferings for a few years in the hope of a better time afterwards; some paid the price unwillingly and only because of the compulsion of the Soviet Government.
Among those who suffered most were the kulaks or richer peasants. With their great wealth and special influence, they did not fit into the new scheme of things. They were capitalistic elements which prevented the collective farms from developing on socialist lines.
Often they opposed this collectivization, sometimes they entered the collectives to weaken them from inside or to make undue personal profit out of them. The Soviet Government came down heavily on them. The Government was also very hard on many middle-class people whom it suspected of espionage and sabotage on behalf of its enemies. Because of this, large numbers of engineers were punished and sent to gaol. The tremendous growth of the Soviet Union was in itself a remarkable sign of prosperity.
It was not due, as in America, to immigration from outside. It showed that in spite of the privations and hardships of the people there was, as a general rule, no actual starvation. A severe system of rationing managed to supply the absolutely necessary articles of food to the population.
Competent observers tell us that this rapid growth of population is largely due to a feeling of economic security among the people. Work remains, and must remain, though in the future it is likely to be pleasanter and lighter than in the trying early years of planning.
Indeed, the maxim of the Soviet Union is: 'He that will not work, neither shall he eat. In the past, idealists and stray individuals have been moved to activity by this incentive, but there is no previous instance of society as a whole accepting and reacting to this motive. The very basis of capitalism was competition and individual profit, always at the expense of others.
This profit motive is giving place to the social motive in the Soviet Union and, as an American writer says, workers in Russia are learning that, 'from the acceptance of mutual dependence comes independence from want or fear'.
This elimination of the terrible fear of poverty and insecurity, which bears down upon the masses everywhere, is a great achievement.
It is said that this relief has almost put an end to mental diseases in the Soviet Union. I shall tell you just a few odd facts which might interest you. The educational system in Russia is supposed by many competent judges to be the best and most up-to-date in existence. The old palaces of the Tsars and the nobility have now become museums and rest-houses and sanatoria for the people I suppose the old palaces now serve the purpose of children and young people. Children and the young are the favoured persons in Soviet land today, and they get the best of everything, even though others might suffer lack.
It is for them that the present generation labours, for it is they who will inherit the socialised and scientific State, if that finally comes into existence in their time.
Soviet Russia has been behaving internationally very much as a satisfied Power, avoiding all trouble, and trying to keep peace at all costs. This is the opposite of a revolutionary policy which would aim at fomenting revolution in other countries. It is a national policy of building up socialism in a single country and avoiding all complications outside. Necessarily, this results in compromises with imperialist and capitalist Powers.
But the essential socialist basis of Soviet economy continues, and the success of this is itself the most powerful argument in favour of socialism. The conflict between capitalism and democracy is inherent and continuous; it is often hidden by misleading propaganda and by the outward forms of democracy, such as parliaments, and the sops that the owning classes throw to the other classes to keep them more or less contented. A time comes when there are no more sops left to be thrown, and then the conflict between the two groups comes to a head, for now the struggle is for the real thing, economic power in the State.
When that stage comes, all the supporters of capitalism, who had so far played with different parties, band themselves together to face the danger to their vested interests. Liberals and such-like groups disappear, and the forms of democracy are put aside. This stage bas now arrived in Europe and America, and fascism, which is dominant in some form or other in mast countries, represents that stage. Labour is everywhere on the defensive, not strong enough to face this new and powerful consolidation of the forces of capitalism.
And yet, strangely enough, the capitalist system itself totters and cannot adjust itself to the new world. It seems certain that even if it succeeds in surviving, it will be but another stage in the long conflict.
For modern industry and modern life itself, under any form of capitalism, are battlefields where armies are continually clashing against each other. The Soviet Union in Europe and Asia stands today a continuing challenge to the tottering capitalism of the western world. While trade depression and slump and unemployment and repeated crises paralyse capitalism, and the old order gasps for breath, the Soviet Union is a land full of hope and energy and enthusiasm, feverishly building away and establishing the socialist order.
And this abounding youth and life, and the success the Soviet Union has already achieved, are impressing and attracting thinking people all over the world. Great progress was made and the standards of life went up, and are continually going up.
Culturally and educationally, and in many other ways, the advance all over the Soviet Union has been remarkable. Anxious to continue this advance and to consolidate its socialist economy, Russia consistently followed a peace policy in international affairs. In the League of Nations it stood for substantial disarmament, collective security, and corporate action against aggression.
It tried to accommodate itself to the capitalist Great Powers and, in consequence, Communist Parties sought to build up 'popular fronts' or 'joint fronts' with other progressive parties.
In spite of this general progress and development, the Soviet Union passed throught a severe internal crisis during this period It is difficult for me to express a definite opinion about these trials or the events that led up to them, as the facts are complicated and not clear. But it is undoubted that the trials disturbed large numbers of people, including many friends of Russia, and added to the prejudice against the Soviet Union.
Close observers are of opinion that there was a big conspiracy against the Stalinist regime and that the trials were bonafide.
It also seems to be established that there was no mass support behind the conspiracy, and that the reaction of the people was definitely against the opponents of Stalin.
Nevertheless, the extent of the repression, which may have hit many innocent persons also, was a sign of ill-health, and injured the Soviet's position internationally. The people inhabiting it [Palestine] are predominantly Muslim Arabs, and they demand freedom and unity with their fellow-Arabs of Syria. But the British policy has created a special minority problem here — that of the Jews — and the Jews side with the British and oppose the freedom of Palestine, as they fear that would mean Arab rule On the Arab side are numbers, on the other side great financial resources and the world-wide organization of Jewry The Jews are a very remarkable people.
Originally they were a small tribe, or several tribes, in Palestine, and their early story is told in the old Testament of the Bible. Rather conceited they were, thinking of themselves as the Chosen People, But this is a conceit in which nearly all people have indulged This declaration was made to win the good will of international Jewry, and this was important from the money point of view.
It was welcomed by most Jews. But there was one little drawback, one not unimportant fact seems to have been overlooked. Palestine was not a wilderness, or an empty, uninhabited place.
So that this generous gesture of the British Government was really at the expense of the people who already lived in Palestine, and these people, including Arabs, non- Arabs, Muslims, Christians, and , in fact, everybody who was not a Jew, protested vigorously at the declaration The Jewish population is already nearly a quarter of the Muslim population, and their economic power is far greater.
They seem to look forward to the day when they will be the dominant community in Palestine. The Arabs tried to gain their co-operation in the struggle for national freedom and democratic government, but they rejected these advances. They have preferred to take sides with the foreign ruling Power, and have thus helped it to keep back freedom from the majority of the people.
It is not surprising that this majority, comprising the Arabs, chiefly, and also the Christians, bitterly resent this attitude of the Jews.This stage bas now arrived in Europe and America, and fascism, which is dominant in some form or other in mast countries, represents that stage. They imparted to the future Prime Minister of India a sense of nationalism, love for country and a belief in democracy, as well as an intimate understanding of politics and working the levers of power. They have tried to appropriate Gandhi, Patel, and Bose; but Nehru has always been an anathema to them.
It shows us how advanced a civilization indians were, when compared to the Greeks or Romans. Nehru emerged from that—his ninth and last detention—only on June 15, Sending these food articles outside meant that they themselves did without them.
DPReview Digital Photography. In October , Gandhi, abandoning his original stand, decided to launch a limited civil disobedience campaign in which leading advocates of Indian independence were selected to participate one by one.
- THE OTHER WES MOORE EBOOK
- THE COMPLETE BOOK OF FOOD COUNTS PDF
- THE GIRL NEXT DOOR BOOK
- THE CUPCAKE DIARIES PDF
- NOVEL TERJEMAHAN THE DA VINCI CODE PDF
- THE ANATOMY OF BEING SHINJI MOON PDF
- THE CLIENT JOHN GRISHAM EBOOK
- THE SECRET LIBRO PDF
- 16 PF TEST QUESTIONNAIRE PDF
- EBOOK WUTHERING HEIGHTS BAHASA INDONESIA
- PHARMACOKINETICS MADE EASY EBOOK
- DRAW LIKE A BOSS PDF
- EBOOK POCONGGG JUGA POCONG