In this note, I will address only the first of these charges and show that he may be acquitted on this score. I will do this not by arguing that  socialism was right for India at the time, but rather by reminding us of the historical context which it is easy to forget in hindsight. For my material, I will draw on Nehru's "The Discovery of India" for a view into his mind on the eve of Independence. Since few accuse him of being devious, I will assume that the views he expresses in that book are those that he genuinely held. I will also draw on Paul Johnson's "Modern Times", a world history of the 20th century, for the global context of Nehru's decision.

First, a read of "The Discovery of India" quickly shows that Nehru was not an idiot. He may not have been an especially intelligent man - truly intelligent men are few and far between - but he would easily qualify as an "intellectual" (a lower standard, but of some value nonetheless). His detailed and interpretive history of India, although possibly drawing more from the erudition of his learned colleagues in jail than from his own knowledge, and the lessons that he tries to glean from it, make for highly interesting reading. Yet what is even more attractive is his open mind. Far from using rhetoric, he is continually considering both sides of any argument, often making points on behalf of the side of the argument opposite to his own that are simultaneously strong and not obvious. One would not do this unless he was in some way actually seeking the truth, an unusual thing to do in politics.

For example, even while writing in a British jail protesting for India's freedom, and writing a book that was published before Independence, he notes that the "ancient memories and traditions" of India had long since become more a source of weakness than a source of strength, that India and indeed Asia had become increasingly "static", "dormant" and "exhausted" even before the eighteenth century when the British empire began in India, that "the dynamic quality which was becoming evident in Europe was almost wholly absent in India". He goes on to say, "A civilization decays much more from inner failure than from an external attack. It may fail because in a sense it has worked itself out and has nothing more to offer in a changing world, or because the people who represent it deteriorate in quality and can no longer support the burden worthily. It may be that the social culture is such that it becomes a bar to advance beyond a certain point, and further advance can only take place after that bar has been removed or some essential qualitative variation in that culture has been introduced." (He is not always self-flagellating; this is of course a very biased sample.) So we see Nehru as a man who is reasonably honest in his investigations, preferring plainspeak over rhetoric. 

Now let us jump forward a few years from the time of writing of "Discovery". The Soviet Union had beaten back the mighty fascist forces in the War. While western governments were uneasy, western intellectuals were completely smitten by the concept of socialism. They saw the Soviet Union as the country of the future. These intellectuals (incidentally with the exception of the truly intelligent Bertrand Russell) even turned a blind eye to Stalin's excesses or condoned them as a "necessary evil" for realizing the golden fruit of socialism. It was thus quite natural for Nehru and other Indian leaders to believe that socialism would help the young country avoid the pain and suffering that had accompanied industrialization in the west under the capitalist system.

Further, the distribution of wealth in India was already far more polarized than in western countries, making socialism even more attractive. This polarization and consequent catastrophes must have been a huge moral motivation for choosing socialism over capitalism. During the War, while India was still under British rule, the "man-made" Bengal famine claimed somewhere between 1.5 million (British figures) and 3 million lives. Even the official British commission of inquiry blamed the decontrol of foodgrains that led to widespread hoarding and "moral breakdown". As Amartya Sen would later study, the famine was a result of the collapse of the capitalist system in the extreme circumstances of Bengal at that time; there was enough foodgrain to go around but the rules of the capitalist economy did not direct it to the starving. While millions starved to death, the rich life continued unabashed in Calcutta with, to quote Nehru, the races going on as usual and attracting the fashionable crowds, and racehorses being brought by train in special boxes when there was not enough transport for food. 

The Bengal famine naturally etched itself deeply into the minds of the leaders of that era. It convinced the Congress of the importance of planning in post-Independence India. Faced with such a stark reminder that the majority of India's citizens teetered precariously on the very edge of survival, even the businessmen and industrialists of pre-Independence India, who were incidentally represented in large numbers in the Congress committees on planning, came out in support of socialist planning and control in a gesture of nationalism and humaneness.

In this context, the original decision to adopt socialism does not seem unnatural at all. But was Nehru unwise in not realizing later, despite the passage of many years, that his "elimination of the profit motive" was not succeeding? Did he get carried away by the adulation he received as the charismatic leader of the young country whose freedom was symbolic of a new era? I cannot say; I will like to look at the economic indicators of those years to see what Nehru saw.

Yet, it would appear from his writing that he was aware that corrections to the course which he was setting for the country may well be necessary. "Planning by itself has little meaning and need not necessarily lead to good results", he says at one point as a prelude to a long discussion on that subject. At another, he says that it is not clear whether state-owned farms or cooperative farms are preferable, and that experimentation will be necessary to find out. His entire attitude is one of a seeker of truth rather than pedagogical. He quotes Aurobindo Ghose as pointing out that "every truth, however true in itself, yet taken apart from others which at once limit and complete it, becomes a snare to bind the intellect and a misleading dogma; for in reality each is one thread of a complex weft and no thread must be taken apart from the weft."

Unfortunately, socialism went awry in India as elsewhere. Rather than protecting masses from special interest groups, it led to a state that became the most powerful and selfish special interest group of all. State control became a favorite of "the professional politicians" as Johnson calls them, as well as of dictators who found it very convenient. Yet, it is important to understand the historical context of the decisions that Nehru and his compatriots made. Socialism was then almost as strong a dogma then as unbridled capitalism is now. Those who ignore history are condemned to repeat it, and I say it even as a believer in capitalism myself.

We today have the spectacle of much lesser men lampooning Nehru for choosing socialism, growing bolder under the cover of the latest "wisdom" of the day. Yet, such herd condemnation is as bad as herd adulation and holds similar dangers for the future.