Idealism as a way of cultural life has always been intricately associated with Indian civilization. The global recognition it has entertained for ages can be credited to the ideals of cultural plurality, respect for dissent, democratic principles of decision making and mutual respect for religious differences that it holds. Despite numerous contradictions and flaws, ranging from the cruel caste system to dominant masculinity, it has accomplished in retaining its moral stature throughout the globe. The Buddha, Swami Vivekananda and the Mahatma are often said to be symbolizing the defining character of India. Even the freedom struggle remains unique of its kind because of the ideals of non-violence and Satyagraha.
But the post-independence India witnessed an unprecedented debate around idealism and pragmatism, the latter often made synonymous with realism. The debate continues even today. It has extended in recent times. Jawaharlal Nehru, commonly known as a preacher of idealism and generations of leaders succeeding him is often associated with pragmatism. Jawaharlal Nehru’s tenure as the Prime Minister was marked by idealism. This was vividly reflected in his foreign policy, as the External Affairs Minister S. Jaishankar elaborately explains in the Ramnath Goenka Memorial Address 2019. Often termed as the era of idealism, experts and politicians have presented numerous criticisms of this phase of our foreign policy. This underlying idealism of Nehruvian policy helped us attain a global status, extraordinary for a recently decolonized country like India with a mostly illiterate electorate and poverty-ridden population. Non-alignment, non-aggression, uncompromising stand against imperialism were key aspects of this idealism. Nevertheless, this policy ultimately failed because of the lack of pragmatic decision making during the 1962 war with China. As Shashi Tharoor writes in his masterpiece Pax Indica, “When defeat in the war with China in 1962 seemed to expose the hollowness of India’s claims to global leadership, the country’s standing went down in the eyes of the world -this timely also disproportionate, given India’s real worth and potential.”
This experience from post-colonial history points to a well-known fact that mere idealism cannot suffice the interests of a nation. But this well-known fact is often manipulated to argue that idealism itself is flawed and to progress, it has to be compromised.
But while we point to the defeat of 1962 as the failure of idealism, we tend to overlook how it has helped and still help us in articulating and emphasizing arguments in the global stage. American scholar Stephen Cohen said, “Whether a realist or an idealist, almost every member of the Indian strategic community thinks that India’s inherent greatness as power is itself a valuable diplomatic asset.” Moreover, apart from the issues of foreign policy, a considerable part of our post-independence achievement in different spheres is the direct result of our foundational ideals. Nehru’s idealism might have numerous shortcomings. But his firm conviction to the abstractions of constitutional morality, democracy or secularism, ensured stability and progress in the country. It inculcated a matured political decision-making capability among the people. When American editor Norman Cousins asked Nehru what he hoped would be his legacy to India, Nehru replied, “Four hundred million people capable of governing themselves.” Successive events in the history of democracy proved it true.
What is historically evident is that mere pragmatism falls short, when it is not backed by a strong sense of idealism. The tenure of Indira Gandhi, for instance, was marked with so-called pragmatic decision making, nationalization of banks, abolishing purvey purses or her stand in the Bangladesh war, being such examples. But that hyper pragmatism ultimately culminated into the dark era of Indian democracy.
This trend has been again intensified in recent times. Compromise of the foundational principles of the state-nation in the name of development and national interest is a common event today. Rapid decision making without complying with the actual procedures, utter neglect of the constitutional spirit are a few of those numerous instances. These might seem justified now but these will have deeper implications in the coming times. Fast decision making by ignoring the actual procedures, for example, might seem to make the parliament efficient. But this erodes the effectiveness of the same in the long run. Economic development is a must. But how sustainable and equitable developments will it be which costs democracy?
The survival of India depends on the retaining of its founding ideals as much on pragmatic policymaking. The former is even more imperative. “India’s rise is inevitable “, as Nehru believed. But only if it retains its characteristic principles. The gravity of subjectivity in the terms idealism and ideals cannot be undermined. But the clarity in the notion India’s founding principles as a modern democracy can also not be denied. Moreover, idealism and pragmatism are not contradictory doctrines. They can be complementary to each other. In fact, pragmatic idealism is no oxymoron.
(Mondeep Borah is a student from Guwahati, Assam. This is an opinion piece and the views expressed above are the author’s own. Headline 8 neither endorses nor is responsible for the same.)