Nehru: “Communism use harsh language and violent concepts.”
Jawaharlal Nehru wrote an article titled “The Basic Approach” for the AICC’s Economic Review on August 15, 1958, discussing how the principles of communism ran counter to Gandhi’s.
The Awadh Times– Great Speeches: Despite their numerous qualities, the ancient civilizations have clearly fallen short. There is a growing sense that something is amiss with our civilization since the new Western civilization, with all its successes and accomplishments, including its atomic weapons, also seems insufficient. In fact, our issues are fundamentally those of civilization as a whole.
In addition to providing a certain moral and spiritual discipline, religion attempted to maintain social customs and superstition. In fact, the true essence of religion was entwined and overshadowed by such superstitions and social usages. Disillusionment ensued.
This disappointment is followed by communism, which provides some form of discipline and faith. It somewhat bridges a gap. It gives man’s life purpose, which helps it prosper in some ways.
However, despite its seeming effectiveness, it falls short, in part due to its inflexibility but more importantly because it disregards some fundamental human needs.
The inconsistencies of capitalist society are frequently discussed in communism, and such analysis has merit. However, we observe the increasing inconsistencies within the strict structure of communism itself. Strong emotions result from its repression of personal freedom.
Nehru: Communism uses harsh words and violent ideas
In addition to ignoring something fundamental to humanity, its disdain for what may be referred to as the moral and spiritual aspects of existence also deprives human behavior of norms and values. A particular bad inclination in humans is encouraged by its regrettable link with violence.
Many of the Soviet Union’s accomplishments are ones for which I am most admiring. The importance placed on children and the average person is one of these outstanding accomplishments. There are perhaps the greatest health and education systems in the world. However, it is said—and correctly so—that there is a repression of personal liberty there.
However, the growth of knowledge in all its manifestations is a powerful liberating force in and of itself, and it will eventually not put up with that repression of freedom.
This is yet another paradox. Unfortunately, the ideal that communism imposed on the world became polluted as it became too intimately linked to the need for violence. means skewed goals. Here, we witness the potent impact of improper tactics and means.
Communism accuses the capitalist social system of being founded on class strife and brutality. Though the capitalist system itself has changed and continues to change due to democratic and other pressures, I believe this to be basically true. Nevertheless, it is undeniably true that inequality and class conflicts exist.
How to eliminate inequality and create a society without classes where everyone has equal opportunity is the question. Is it feasible to do this by violent means, or is it feasible to implement such reforms in a peaceful manner?
Undoubtedly, communism has associated itself with the use of violence. Even if it does not often engage in actual violence, its language and thoughts are violent, and it seeks to alter things via force, destruction, and annihilation rather than through democratic pressures or persuasion. Fascism has no acceptable goal while also having all these negative elements of murder and annihilation in its most heinous manifestations.
This is totally at odds with the nonviolent strategy Gandhiji taught us. Both communists and anti-communists appear to believe that a cause can only be vehemently upheld by using violent rhetoric and denouncing those who disagree with it.
There are only black and white for them both; there are no hues. That’s how certain faiths used to handle its intolerant elements. It is not a method of tolerance or the belief that other people could possibly have some truth.
My opinion on Nehru Speech:
In my opinion, this method is completely unscientific, irrational, and primitive, regardless of whether it is used in the context of economic theory, religion, or anything else. Aside from its religious components, I like the old pagan attitude to tolerance better. Regardless of our opinions, we have reached a point in the modern world when attempts to forcefully impose beliefs on a sizable population are certain to fail.
Given the current situation, this will result in conflict and massive devastation. Everyone will lose; there won’t be any triumph. Aside from this, we have seen in the past year or two that even the Great Powers find it difficult to impose colonial rule over freshly independent areas.
The 1956 Suez Affair served as an example of this. Furthermore, the events in Hungary showed that the will for national liberation is more powerful than any ideology and cannot be repressed in the end. There was more to what transpired in Hungary than a clash between communism and anti-communism. It stood for nationalism’s quest for autonomy from outside authority.
Violence is therefore unable to solve any significant issue in the modern world as it has grown to be much too horrible and destructive. The practical side has now strongly supported the moral approach to this matter.
Will small-scale violence be helpful if large-scale violence is unable to create the society we seek? Definitely not, in part because it creates a hostile and disruptive environment and in part because it may trigger widespread violence.
The idea that progressive social forces would always prevail in conflict is ludicrous. Hitler destroyed both the Social Democratic Party and the Communist Party in Germany.
This may also occur in other nations. Any call for violence is especially risky in India due to its inherently disruptive nature. We are not risk-takers because we have too many fissiparous inclinations.
However, all of these factors are comparatively insignificant. The fundamental idea, in my opinion, is that using improper methods will not provide the desired outcomes; this is no longer just an ethical principle; it is now a reality.
Read This Also: How Nehru defeated Sardar Patel to become Congress president
