When Nehru spoke to India through Goa: 1963 revisited

GOA: At a time when a conscious attempt is being made to portray the Nehruvian legacy as the root cause of all maladies that India faces and counter-narratives are being projected, it becomes interesting to revisit a small yet important part of this legacy which has acute semblance for today’s Goa and India. As the nation celebrates yet another birth anniversary of the architect of modern India, the speech that he delivered in Panaji on May 22, 1963, exactly a year before his death is as timeless and relevant as it can be.It also offers a good template for the ruling class of Goa and India today.
First, a bit of the backgrounder as speeches and their impact must be judged in the times they were made, for us to see their relevance today, something that most of our Nehru critics miss out. Even as he was coping with one of his biggest foreign policy setbacks post the Sino-Indian War, he used the occasion to reiterate his faith in the ideals and principles that India stood for, his clear articulation of what he meant by socialistic pattern of society and how preservation of Goa’s identity and natural resources were central to that idea. He might as well have been giving the same speech in 2018.
On a country premised on the ideal of peace confronted with war, he said, “We do stand for peace and we think war is not a civilized way of settling questions…but loving peace does not mean submitting to aggression and violence. We will fight if India is attacked and we will prepare to defend ourselves. If peace becomes a synonym for surrender to violence and aggression, then that peace becomes disgraceful. Peace itself must derive from strength.” So much for those labelling Nehru as a utopian idealist. He further extended the logic to the other neighbour. “Whether it is China or Pakistan, they can get plenty from us through friendly approaches. But if it is a question of threats, we will resist them to the end.”
On the question of economic challenges facing India and the means to confront them, he was equally clear about his non-dogmatic or doctrinaire approach, unlike what his critics point out today, forgetting that the base of India’s industrial and technological capacity was laid during his time. “What does (National Planning) mean? Planning simply means that we make a well thought out approach to solve our problems. When you have a problem, you must first make it clear to yourself what you are aiming at. We said that we want to aim at a society where every person in India—man, woman and child—will have full opportunities to grow and prosper.” Perhaps NITI Ayog manadarins can take a leaf or two out of this. “Broadly speaking, we laid it down that we want a socialistic society not in a dogmatic or doctrinaire sense, but where opportunity will be open to everybody” he added.
And then came his classic quote on Goa. “I have felt for a long time that Goa had a distinctive personality, and it would be a pity if anything were done to take away that personality. It may be that gradually time and other factors will bring about changes, but it is not for the government to enforce changes that will affect Goa’s personality….Goa can develop as it likes within the framework of India and thus add to the richness of India.” Pointing to Goa’s future he said, “It would be wrong to divert your energy to anything but the task of building up Goa, building up India and thus bequeath a great heritage.” One is yet to hear such a quote on Goa from any national leader, more so the present ones who on one hand have marveled at Goa’s quest for unique identity premised on its natural and human resources, only to reject any aspiration for maintaining that identity from Goan society on the other.
Critics would still say that Nehru should also be judged by what he accomplished on the ground, but ignore that those who followed him had equal onus. Meanwhile, Nehru would continue to speak to India, through Goa.
The writer teaches political science at Goa University. Views expressed are personal.