આ જવાહરલાલ નહેરુના શબ્દો છે. આજની ચોવીસે કલાક ધમધમતી સેટેલાઇટ ન્યૂઝ ચેનલોના જમાનામાંય આ વાત કેટલી બધી રિલેવન્ટ લાગે છે. આ શબ્દો નહેરુજીએ પચાસ વર્ષ પહેલાં એક મેગેઝિનને આપેલા ઇન્ટરવ્યૂમાં ઉચ્ચાર્યા હતા. આ મેગેઝિન એટલે'પ્લેબોય'! 'પ્લેબોય' એટલે શું એ એડલ્ટ વાચકોને સમજાવવાનું ન હોય. પાનાં ભરી ભરીને સંપૂર્ણ નગ્ન સ્ત્રીઓની ભમરાળી તસવીરો છાપતાં આ અમેરિકન મેગેઝિનની બ્રાન્ડ-વેલ્યૂ એટલી ઊંચી છે કે વિશ્વની સૌથી સફળ મેગા બ્રાન્ડ્સમાં એનું નામ લેવાય છે. એક સમયે તેનું સરક્યુલેશન ૭૧,૬૧,૫૬૧ નકલો સુધી પહોંચી ગયું હતું. જોકે ઇન્ટરનેટ અને મોબાઇલ પોર્નોગ્રાફીના જમાનામાં'પ્લેબોય'નાં વળતાં પાણી થયાં છે. સાઉથ આફ્રિકામાં તેની પ્રિન્ટ એડિશન બંધ થવાની છે અને તેનું સ્થાન ડિજિટલ એડિશન લેવાની છે એવા સમાચાર છે, પણ નહેરુજીની મુલાકાત છપાઈ ત્યારે'પ્લેબોય' એકદમ રેડ હોટ ગણાતું હતું. ઓક્ટોબર-૧૯૬૩ના અંકમાં આ દસ પાનાંનો વિસ્તૃત અને સરસ ઇન્ટરવ્યૂ છપાયો હતો. મુખપૃષ્ઠ પર એલ્સા માર્ટિનેલી નામની ઇટાલિયન હિરોઇનની અર્ધનગ્ન તસવીર હતી. ભારતમાં 'પ્લેબોય'ના વેચાણ પર પ્રતિબંધ હતો એટલે આ અંકની કેટલીય નકલો દાણચોરીથી દેશમાં ઘૂસી ગઈ હતી.
'પ્લેબોય' વિશેનો એક જાણીતો જોક છે. સંસ્કારી લોકો કહેતાં હોય છે કે ના રે ના, અમને ક્યાં નાગડાપુંગડા ફોટાઓમાં રસ છે, અમે તો ઇન-ડેપ્થ ઇન્ટરવ્યૂ વાંચવા માટે 'પ્લેબોય' હાથમાં લઈએ છીએ! સાઠ વર્ષનું 'પ્લેબોય' શરૂઆતથી જ નગ્નિકાઓની તસવીરોની સાથે સાથે વિશ્વકક્ષાના નેતાઓ, કલાકારો, રમતવીરો અને અન્ય સેલિબ્રિટીઝની બીજે લગભગ ક્યાંય વાંચવા ન મળે એવી અફલાતૂન મુલાકાતો છાપતું આવ્યું છે તે હકીકત છે. મુલાકાત લેનારની પણ એક કક્ષા હોય.
'પ્લેબોય' લોન્ચ થયું એ જ વર્ષે એટલે કે ૧૯૬૩માં નેહરુજી ઉપરાંત બબ્બે નોબેલ પ્રાઇઝ વિજેતાઓની મુલાકાતો છપાઈ હતી - માર્ચમાં બ્રિટિશ ફિલોસોફર બર્ટ્રાન્ડ રસેલ અને ડિસેમ્બરમાં આલ્બર્ટ સ્વાઇટ્ઝર. પછીના વર્ષે કોની કોની મુલાકાતો છપાઈ? માર્ચના અંકમાં 'ફ્યુચર શોક' પુસ્તક લખીને મશહૂર થઈ ગયેલા એલ્વિન ટોફલર વીસમી સદીની મહાન રશિયન-અમેરિકન લેખિકા એન રેન્ડની મુલાકાત લે છે. એન રેન્ડ અને તેમની 'ફાઉન્ટનહેડ' અને 'એટલાસ શ્રગ્ડ' જેવી અમર નવલકથાઓના ચાહકો માટે આ ઇન્ટરવ્યૂ મસ્ટ-રીડ છે. જૂનમાં સ્વીડિશ માસ્ટર ફિલ્મમેકર ઇન્ગમાર બર્ગમેન, જુલાઈમાં મહાન સ્પેનિશ સર્રિયલ પેઇન્ટર સાલ્વાડોર ડાલી, સપ્ટેમ્બરમાં અમેરિકન લેખક હેનરી મિલર અને ડિસેમ્બરમાં ઝીરો-ઝીરો-સેવન જેવું અમર પાત્ર સર્જનાર ઈયાન ફ્લેમિંગનો ઇન્ટરવ્યૂ છે! એક જ વર્ષમાં આટલા બધા મહાનુભાવો! ૧૯૬૫ના જાન્યુઆરીના અંક માટે માર્ટિન લ્યુથર કિંગ જુનિયરે અને ફેબ્રુઆરીના અંક માટે લોકપ્રિયતાની ચરમસીમા વટાવી જનાર રોકબેન્ડ બીટલ્સે મુલાકાત આપી છે. ફિડલ કાસ્ટ્રો, જિમી કાર્ટર, મોહમ્મદ અલી, સ્ટીવ જોબ્સ, બિલ ગેટ્સ... આ લિસ્ટ જેટલું લાંબું છે એટલું જ પ્રભાવશાળી છે. 'પ્લેબોય'ના ઇન્ટરવ્યૂઝના સંગ્રહો પુસ્તક સ્વરૂપે બહાર પડયા છે, જે ખરેખર વસાવવા જેવા છે.
રાજીવ ગાંધી ભારતના વડાપ્રધાન હતા ત્યારે તેમણે 'પેન્ટહાઉસ' નામના મેગેઝિનને 'ભૂલથી' એક ઇન્ટરવ્યૂ આપી દીધો હતો, જે ૧૯૮૭માં છપાયો હતો. 'પેન્ટહાઉસ' એ 'પ્લેબોય'ની તુલનામાં ખાસ્સું ડાઉનમાર્કેટ મેગેઝિન ગણાય. છેલ્લાં પંદરેક વર્ષથી તે હાર્ડકોર પોર્ન મેગેઝિન બની ગયું છે. ખેર, રાજીવ ગાંધીના નાનાજી પર પાછા ફરીએ તો જવાહરલાલ નહેરુને 'પ્લેબોય'ના ઇન્ટરવ્યૂ દરમિયાન ૪૫ પ્રશ્નો પુછાયા હતા. આ તમામને તેમણે સંતોષકારક જવાબ આપ્યા. ઘણી વાતો કરી છે એમણે. ચીન, આંતરરાષ્ટ્રીય રાજકારણ, ગાંધીજી, મીડિયા વગેરે વિશેના એમના વિચારો આજે પણ પ્રસ્તુત લાગે છે.
ખેર, કહાનીમાં ટ્વિસ્ટ તો હવે આવે છે. જવાહરલાલ નહેરુની મુલાકાતવાળો અંક ક્લોઝ થઈ રહ્યો હતો ત્યારે વોશિંગ્ટન ખાતેના ભારતીય રાજદૂતાલયે'પ્લેબોય' નો સંપર્ક કરી બોમ્બ ફોડયોઃ અમારા વડાપ્રધાન જવાહરલાલ નહેરુએ 'પ્લેબોય'ના કોઈ પ્રતિનિધિને ક્યારેય મુલાકાત આપી જ નથી! મુલાકાતવાળાં પાનાં ઓલરેડી છપાવા જતાં રહ્યાં હતાં એટલે એનું હવે કશું થઈ શકે એમ નહોતું. આથી'પ્લેબોય'ના એ જ અંકના ત્રીજા પાના પર બોક્સ આઇટમમાં તંત્રીનોંધ છપાઈઃ
'પ્લેબોય'નો આ અંક બજારમાં આવ્યો તે પછી સાત મહિના બાદ ૨૭ મે, ૧૯૬૪ના રોજ નહેરુજીનું નિધન થયું. મતલબ કે નહેરુજીની ૪૯મી પુણ્યતિથિ બે દિવસ પહેલાં જ ગઈ. મજાની વાત એ છે કે ઇન્ટરવ્યૂ જેન્યુઇન નથી એવા ખુલાસા છતાંય અંકનું મહત્ત્વ ઘટયું નહીં. આજની તારીખેય નહેરુચાચાવાળો 'પ્લેબોય'નો અંક 'કલેક્ટર્સ આઇટમ' ગણાય છે!
that we consider of essential value to truth
or to our own genius – then we shall be led not only towards understanding but
towards the right type of understanding.
Playboy: How
does this philosophy – the concept of the open hand and the open heart – relate
to India’s foreign policy? (6)
Nehru: There are only two
ways of approaching the problem of international relations. One is the
conviction that, even though we try to avoid it, war is bound to come.
Therefore, we should prepare for it and when it comes, join this side or that.
The other way starts with the feeling that it can be avoided. Now, there is a
great difference in these two approaches. If you are mentally convinced that
war is bound to come, you naturally accustom yourself to the idea and, perhaps unconsciously,
even work for it. On the other hand, if you want to work for the avoidance of
war, you must believe that it can be avoided. Of course, no country can
entirely ignore the possibility of being entangled in a war; it must take such
precautions as it ought to.
Playboy: For
India, this possibility
became reality last October when 110,000 Red Chinese troops poured down from
the Himalayas into Ladakh and the North East Frontier
Agency to launch a month-long border war which ended with the present uneasy
ceasefire. Is it true, as has been reported, that you believe communism per se
had nothing to do with China’s attack? (7)
Nehru: Yes. Chiang Kai-shek makes the same
claims on our territory as those made by the Chinese Communists.
Playboy: At
the time of the Chinese invasion, India’s military forces
appeared to be poorly equipped and inadequately armed, a condition for which
many blamed former Defence Minister V.K.Krishna Menon. In fact, it has been
suggested that were it not for India’s dispute with Pakistan over Kashmir the Indian army might
scarcely have been maintained at all. What is your attitude toward armed forces
in general – and as they affect India? (8)
Nehru: Our army, navy and airforce are not
worth mentioning compared with the armadas of other nations. But have these
countries solved their problems with the help of their armed forces? I am of
the opinion that they have not. We find that somehow the methods we adopt to
deal with evil only result in more evil. We have to meet the evil with armed
force; yet in doing so we are ourselves corrupted by that evil. Eventually, we
develop what may be called the military outlook. While there have been
great soldiers in the past, I do not think that the military outlook or the
purely military method has yet solved any major problem of the world. That was
why a great Frenchman once said that was was much too serious to be entrusted
to soldiers. But if it is too serious to be entrusted to the soldier, to
entrust it to a civilian with a military outlook is worse.
Playboy: In
view of what you have just said, would you characterize as a pacifist? (9)
Nehru: I am not a pacifist. Unhappily, the
world of today finds that it cannot do without force. We have to protect
ourselves and to prepare ourselves for evey contingency. We have to meet
aggression and evils of other kinds. But in resisting evil, we must not allow
ourselves to be swept away by our own passions and fears and act in a manner
which is itself evil. Even in resisting evil and aggression, we have always to
maintain the temper of peace and hold out the hand of friendship to those who,
through fear or for other reasons, may be opposed to us. That is the lesson
that our great leader Mahatma Gandhi taught us and, imperfect as we are, we
draw inspiration from that great teaching.
Playboy: You
once wrote that only two people have genuinely influenced your life – your
father, personally, and Mahatma Gandhi, ideologically. What in Gandhi’s
thinking most impressed you – and your countrymen? (10)
Nehru: Mahatma Gandhi, in a sense, burst upon
the Indian scene. He was, of course, known before and loved and admired for his
work in South Africa but he had not
functioned on an all-India plane. He suddenly started functioning. And there
was magic about the message he gave. It was very simple. His analysis of the situation in India was essentially that we were suffering terribly from fear, so he
just went about telling us. ‘Don’t be afraid. Why are you afraid? What can
happen to you?’ Of course, when he talked in these terms he was thinking of our
political fears. If we did something that the British Government did not like,
well, we’d be punished. We’d be sent to prison. We might be shot. And so a
general sense of fear pervaded the land. It would take hold of the poorest peasant,
the lowliest of all our people, whose produce or nearly all of it went to his
landlord and who hardly had enough food to eat. This poor man was kicked and
cuffed by everybody – by his landlord, by his landlord’s agent, by the police,
by the moneylender.
Playboy: Why
was Gandhi so dramatically effective in dispelling this sense of fear? (11)
Nehru: Whether there was
something in the atmosphere or some magic in Gandhi’s voice, I do not know.
Anyhow, this very simple lesson – ‘Don’t be afraid’ – caught on and we
realized, with a tremendous lifting of hearts, that there was nothing to fear.
Even the poor peasant straightened his back a little and began to look people
in the face and there was a ray of hope in his sunken eyes. Obviously, if we had
gone to prison for some high misdemeanor with disgrace attached to it, it would
have been terribly painful. But because we felt we were serving a great cause,
it became not a fate to be afraid of but something to be coveted. Many of us in
India have spent a great part
of our lives in trying, tough imperfectly, to follow the teachings of our great
leader. We were poor stuff. Again and again, he gave us strength and the vision
to achieve our goal. For 30 years or more, we took shelter under his shadow and
under his guidance.
Playboy: A
profoundly important part of his teachings was, of course, the commitment to
nonviolence. Do you consider nonviolence to be an effective tool of
international diplomacy today? (12)
Nehru: The efficacy of nonviolence is not
entirely convincing. None of us would dare, in the present state of the world,
to do away with the instruments of organized violence. We have, indeed, fallen
far below what might be called the Gandhian ideology, though it still
influences us to some extent. Anyway, it is not a question of ideologies at
all; it is a question of looking at the world with clear eyes. Mahatma Gandhi
once spoke warningly of the countries of the world looking at one another with
bloodshot eyes. I try, as far as I can, to keep my eyes clear; bloodshot eyes
bode no clear thinking, and no clear action.
Playboy: In
your eloquent and moving funeral oration following Gandhi’s assassination in
1948, you said: ‘The light that has illumined this country for these many, many
years will illumine this country for many more years, and a thousand years
later, that light will still be seen in this country…’ While Gandhi’s memory
quite obviously still lives, do you feel that his light still shines on your
country with undiminished brilliance? (13)
Nehru: Mahatma Gandhi and
the Hindu poet Rabindranath Tagore gave birth to India as she is today. We are their children in thought – very
imperfect, very foolish children but their children, nevertheless. Both of
them, though vastly different, sprang from the soil and culture of India and
are rooted in the 10,000 year old Indian tradition – both so different but both
reminding us of the innumerable facets of India. They represented the
ideal of young India – the ideal which I
had in my young days and which possibly many people still have. And yet I find
that those two men somehow seem very distant now. Though we speak of them very
often, we have fallen into different ways of thinking and taken to other
ideals. Instead of that mighty sprit of creative effort and faith and hope,
which those men in their own different ways represented in the modern age, India, as also other
countries, begins to represent more and more a spirit of denial and
destruction. And so, a fear creeps into my mind; are all our labors possibly
going to be swept away by something totally beyond our control?
Playboy: In
an effort to maintain a degree of control in international affairs, India has pursued the policy
of nonalignment. You have been quoted as saying that the existence of this
independent force lessens the danger of war between the two major groups.
Exactly what can a third force do? (14)
Nehru: We cannot influence other countries by
force of arms or pressure or money. What we can do positively is not much. To
imagine that we will shake the world or fashion international affairs according
to our thinking is absurd. We cannot issue ultimatums or make demands; nor can
we express our views in strong language to the world at large because it has
little meaning unless we are in a position to do something about it. It is
certainly within our power not to do anything or say anything which will
increase the fear and the hatred. We should not indulge in the contest of
shouting, cursing and slandering which seems to have replaced diplomacy. Where
we can help positively, we should help, although there is always the risk that
our attempts may fail. We cannot take the world on our shoulders and remodel it
according to our heart’s desire – but we can help in creating a climate of
peace which is so essential for the realization of our objectives.
Playboy: Was
this the philosophy underlying your efforts as peacemaker in the power
struggles in the Congo, Indochina and Korea? (15)
Nehru: Yes. I have often pointed out that our
policy is not merely negative or neutral or passive; so far as I can see, it is
a very active one. We do not wish to play a large part in the affairs of the
world. We have troubles of our own. But, where our voice is sought, it will be
given in accordance with our views and nobody else’s, regardless of the
pressure that is brought to bear upon us.
Playboy: And
there times when candor should be muted by diplomatic considerations – or do
you believe that honesty is always the best foreign policy? (16)
Nehru: We naturally like to avoid what might
be called defamatory attacks against leading foreign nations or personalities.
You can criticize as much as you like either our policy or any other country’s
policy but you must always keep in mind that the affairs of the world are in a
very delicate state and words,whether oral or written, count; they make a
difference for good or for evil. A word said out of place may create a grave
situation, and often does. In fact, it would be a good thing, I think, if most
statesmen dealing with foreign affairs became quiet for a few months. It would
be still better if newspapers became quiet for a few months, too. It would be
best of all if everybody were quiet for a few months.
Playboy: You
have at times been critical of the United Nations – for example, when that
organization branded the Red Chinese as aggressors in Korea. What, exactly, is
your attitude toward the UN? (17)
Nehru: I believe all of us are liable to error
and I rebel against the notion that an organization or idea or country can be
infallible. So, I have ventured, in all humility, sometimes to criticize those
developments at the United Nations which seemed to me to be out of keeping with
its charter and its past record and professions. Nevertheless, I have believed,
and I do believe, that the United Nations, in spite of its many faults, in
spite of its having deviated from its aims somewhat, is a basic and fundamental
part of the structure of the world today. If the United Nations ceases to be,
or if it radically changes its position and nature, then there is nothing left
which would inspire hope for the future. We shall have to go through terrible
experiences and face disasters again before we return to something which offers
a forum for all nations, differing as they do from one another.
Playboy: Then
India’s foreign policy
includes firm support of the UN? (18)
Nehru: We are a member of the family of
nations and we have no wish to shirk any of the obligations and burdens of that
membership. We have accepted fully the obligations of membership in the United Nations
and intend to abide by them. But that can only be done effectively in our own
way and of our own choice. Our immediate needs are economic betterment and
raising the standards of our people. The more we succeed in this, the more we
can serve the cause of peace in the world.
Playboy: Do
you ever see the UN as a forum for debate between the forces of evil and the
forces of morality? (19)
Nehru: We here and elsewhere are apt to say
that a country is good or bad, as though countries were solid blocks which are
good or bad. They consist of millions of human beings – very decent and
peaceful human beings. Governments may go wrong and more so politicians. But do
not ever talk of countries and peoples as bad. There is a great deal of common
humanity in all of us, and in all the countries, although we may differ
outwardly a great deal. Yet we find people, nations and statesmen talking in
terms of the greatest certitude about their being right and about their
undertaking some moral crusade or other for the benefit of mankind. Sometimes,
I feel that the world might be better off if there were fewer of thse modern
crusaders about. Everyone wants not only to carry on a moral crusade in his own
environment but to impose his moral crusade upon another. When moralities or
the objectives of the moral crusades differ, conflict inevitably comes.
Playboy: In
a speech given in 1947, on the eve of Indian independence, you said, ‘Long
years ago we made a tryst with destiny, and now comes the time when we shall
redeem our pledge, not wholly or in full measure, but very substantially.’ How
substantial has the redemption of this pledge been? What is the spiritual and
material condition of India today, after 16 years
of independence? (20)
Nehru: India today presents a very
mixed picture of hope and anguish, of remarkable advances and at the same time
of inertia, of a new spirit and also of the dead hand of privilege, of an
over-all and growing unity and of many disruptive tendencies. There is a great
vitality and a ferment in people’s minds and activities. Perhaps we who live in
the middle of this ever-changing scene do not always realize the full
significane of all that is happening. Often outsiders can make a better
appraisal of the situation. It is remarkable that a country and a people rooted
in the remote past, who have shown so much resistance to change, should now be
marching forward rapidly. We are making history in India even though we might
not be conscious of it.
Playboy: In
that same 1947 speech you specifically called for ‘the ending of poverty and
ignorance and disease and inequality of opportunity’ in India. Are you still
optimistic about the eventual elimination of these conditions? (21)
Nehru: What tomorrow’s India will be like, I cannot
say. I can only express my hopes and wishes. Naturally, I want India to advance on the
material plane, to fulfill her plans, to raise the standard of living of her
vast population. I want the narrow conflicts of today in the name of religion
or caste, language or province, to cease, and a classless and casteless society
to be built up where every individual has full opportunity to grow according to
his worth and ability. In particular, I hope that the curse of caste will be
ended, for with it there cannot be either democracy or socialism. Tomorrow’s India will be what we make
it by today’s labors. I have no doubt but that India will progress industrially
and otherwise; that she will advance in science and technology; that our
people’s standards will rise; that education will spread; that health
conditions will be better; and that art and culture will enrich people’s lives.
We have started on this pilgrimage with strong purpose and good heart, and we
shall reach the end of the journey, however long that might be. But what I am
concerned with is not merely our material progress, but the quality and depth
of our people. Gaining power through industrial processes, will they lose
themselves in the quest of individual wealth and soft living? That would be a
tragedy for it would be a negation of what India has stood for in the
past and, I think, in the present time also as exemplified by Gandhi. Power is
necessary, but wisdom is essential. It is only power with wisdom that is good.
Playboy: In
point of material progress, it has been observed that at the time of the Red
Chinese attack last year, India – then entering her
third Five Year Plan – had a greater growth rate than the Chinese. Is it your
own belief that India is the faster growing
of the two countries? (22)
Nehru: It is not fair to
compare India with China. I do not mean to imply that we are cleverer than China or that we are going ahead faster. The Chinese are an amazing
people – amazing in the sense of their capacity for hard work and for
cooperative work. I doubt if there are any other people quite equal to them in
this respect. But, between us, there is a very big difference, the effects of
which it remains for history to show. The difference is that we are trying to
function in a democratic setup.
Playboy: Do
you believe that a democratic setup is morally superior to one that is
communistic? (23)
Nehru: It is no good saying that we are better
or more virtuous than others. No question of virtue is involved in this.
Ultimately, it is a question of which setup and which structure of government –
political or economic – pays the highest dividends. When I say highest
dividends, although they are important, but cultural and spiritual dividends
also. We have deliberately chosen a democratic setup and we feel that it is
good for our people and for our country in the ultimate analysis.
Playboy: What
do you consider to be the major defects of a democratic system? (24)
Nehru: Democracy does not like stinting in the
present – not usually. In times of great crisis, it might. Democracy wants
today the good things of today. That is its disadvantage. Too, with all my
admiration and love for democracy, I am not prepared to accept the statement
that the largest number of people are always right. Now, I have little doubt
that democracy is the best of all the various methods available to us for the
governance of human beings. It offers society something of the highest human
values. At the same time, we are seeing today the emergence of democracy in a
somewhat uncontrolled form. When we think of democracy, we normally think of it
in the rather limited sense of the 19th Century or the early 20th Century use
of the term. Owing to the remarkable technological growth, we now have vast
masses of human beings brought up by the industrial revolution, who are not
encouraged or given an opportunity to think much. They live a life which, from
the point of view of physical comfort, is incomparably better than it has been
in any previous generation, but they seldom have a chance to think. And yet, in
a democratic system, it is this vast mass of human beings that will ultimately
elect those who govern.
Playboy: Do
you think that the judgment of the electorate is likely to improve? (25)
Nehru: That becomes a little doubtful. I think
it may be said without offense – for I belong to that tribe of politicians –
that the quality of men who are selected by this modern democratic method of
adult suffrage gradually deteriorates. There are outstanding individuals
chosen, no doubt, but their quality does deteriorate because of this lack of
thinking and because of the application of modern methods of propaganda. All
the noise and din and the machinery of advertisement prevent men from thinking.
They react to it by producing a dictator or a dumb politician, who is
insensitive, who can stand all the noise in the world and yet remain standing
on his two feet. He gets elected while his rival collapses because he cannot
stand all this din. It is an extraordinary state of affairs.
Playboy: The
story is told that when the first airplane landed in Ladakh in 1948, the
country people ran up with bundles of hay to feed it. Apocryphal or no, the
tale serves to dramatize the sharp wrench which technology is giving – and will
continue to give – to accustomed ways of thinking in India. What is your personal
reaction to modern mechanization? (26)
Nehru: I admire the machine greatly. But it
grows and grows and grows till it becomes almost human; it begins to think – to
give answers to questions. It becomes human, and the human being appears to
become more and more a machine. If the human mind loses its creative faculty
and becomes more and more of a machine, then surely that is a tragedy for
humanity.
Playboy: Do
you feel that this sort of mechanical perversion can also extend into the realm
of science? (27)
Nehru: We come up against a certain inherent
conflict in society between the coexisting principles of continuity and of
conservatism and the scientific principle of discovery which brings about
change and challenges that continuity. The scientific worker, although he is
praised and patted on the back, is, nevertheless, not wholly approved of,
because he comes and upsets the status quo. Normally speaking, science seldom
really has the facilities that it deserves except when some misfortune comes to
a country in the shape of war. Then everything has to be set aside and science
has its way, even though it is for an evil purpose.
Playboy: Is
the fact that India’s population is now
approaching 440,000,000 – more people than the combined populations of South America, Africa and Australia – a matter of
immediate concern to you and your government? (28)
Nehru: It is expected that the world
population may be anything between 3,500,000,000 and 5,000,000,000 by the end
of this century. In India, the estimates vary
between 600,000,000 and 680,000,000 by the year 2000. The figure of 600,000,000
is the least that we can expect, provided we can check the pace of growth to
some extent. There are two aspects of this growth of population. The one with
which we are most concerned is that it comes in the way of our economic advance
and keeps standards low even though we might be making progress in other
directions. The other is that this tremendous world growth is eating up the
world’s resources and industrial materials at a terrific pace. Thus two
consequences flow; one is that we must check the rate of growth of population
and the other that we must find other power sources and materials. Possibly the
development of nuclear energy will provide us with other sources of power. We
in India are most concerned
with checking the growth of population and this has become a matter not only of
importance but of urgency.
Playboy: One
means of raising the standard of living of such a vast number of people is
education – and one means of education is through the existence of a vigorous
press. Are you in favor of forceful governmetal control or intervention to
insure that the news is properly reported by a country’s newspapers? (29)
Nehru: Very few individuals are competent
enough to know facts or form an opinion about distant occurrences
independently. They are naturally guided by what the press says. Newspapers
are, of course, of all kinds. There are responsible newspapers; there are
newspapers which are sometimes responsible; and there are some sheets which
seem to excel only in flights of imagination and other acts of
irresponsibility. In the old days, it was, or at least was thought to be, the
function of the government to suppress the newspapers that had an evil
tendency, in the opinion of the government. That, of course, is an utterly
wrong approach because you cannot cure the evil by trying to suppress it.
Playboy: As
an advocate of freedom of the press in theory, do you ever find fault with it
in practice? (30)
Nehru: The person who gets
the opportunity to express himself nowadays is the person with means. He can
run newspapers, buy them or stop them, employ people who he likes and dismiss
people who he dislikes. So, it may be that the freedom of the press means not
so much freedom of the writer to write what he will, but rather of the owner of
a newspaper to see that the writer writes something that he wants him to write.
The freedom of the press may come to mean the freedom of persons who have a
knack of making money and that, after all, is not such a noble thing. I think
of all these difficulties and wonder how we can have real freedom of the press
– a real expresion of opinion for or against whatever it might be, and no
suppression of any real opinion – provided it is not indecent or vulgar and
provided it is not exploited for wrong ends.
Playboy: Do
you believe that newspapers influence political opinion to any great degree?
(31)
Nehru: I rather doubt it.
They give the news, of course, but I doubt if they have any great influence
politically. You have seen in other countries – democratic countries – how a
great number of newspapers have supported one party while another has won the
elections.
Playboy: You
yourself, of course, have not been exempt from editorial criticism either at
home or abroad. What is your reaction when, for example, the Indian Express
labels your farm cooperative plan ‘economic rubbish’, or when the American
press berates you for your Goa policy? (32)
Nehru: I should like to say that I endeavor to
consider matters as dispassionately and as objectively as possible. I have
tried to profit by the comments and criticisms made. I shall, however,
repudiate the charge of complacency and smugness that has been leveled against
me and my colleagues. I cannot conceive how any person charged with
responsibility can be complacent today. Complacency comes when one’s mind is
closed and one accepts a dogmatic phrase. Complacency is a narrowness of
outlook.
Playboy: As
a statesman who has had considerable experience with both newspapermen and
politicians, how would yoy compare the two professions? (33)
Nehru: To some extent,
politicians and newspapermen or journalists have much in common. Both presume
to talk too much, to deliver homilies; both, generally speaking, require no
qualifications at all for their job. If a politician or a newspaperman has a
certain gift of expression, he gets going; whether or not there is any content
behind that expressin is totally immaterial. Normally a politician or a
newspaperman has few lucid moments, because he functions from day to day, hour
to hour, and minute to minute. He does not have the time to think. I suppose
this is an inevitable development of technological improvements and
advancement. We apply the newspaper habit of reading to books, with the result
that our minds sometimes function with brilliance but hardly ever with depth.
Playboy: Which
approach is the more effective in dealing with your own duties – the cerebral
or the pragmatic? (34)
Nehru: I am a humble seeker after truth, one
who has continuously struggled to find the way, not always with success, to fit
action to the objectives and ideals that he had held. The process is always
difficult. Politicians have to deal with day-to-day problems, and they seek
immediate remedies. Philosophers think of ultimate objectives, and are apt to
lose touch with the day-to-day world and its problems. Neither approach appears
to be adequate by itself.
Playboy: As
the leader of one of the world’s most religious peoples, how would you assess
the impact of religion upon a nation’s social progress? (35)
Nehru: We have had great religions and they
have had an enormous effect on humanity. Yet, if I may say so with all respect
and without meaning any ill to any person, those very religions, in the measure
that they made the mind of man static, dogmatic and bigoted, have had, to my
mind, an evil effect. The lessons they taught may be good but when it is
claimed that the last word has been said, society becomes static. Almost every
country in the world believes that it has some special dispensation from Providence, that it is of the
chosen people or race and that others, whether they are good or bad, are
somewhat inferior creatures.
Playboy: What
effect has such thinking had on the countries of Asia? (36)
Nehru: The nations of the East are strongly
entrenched in their own ideas and convictions and sometimes in their own sense
of superiority about certain matters. Anyhow, in the course of the last two or
three hundred years, they have received many knocks on the head and they have
been humiliated, debased and exploited. And so, in spite of their feeling that
they were superior in many ways, they were forced to admit that they could be
exploited. To some extent, this brought a sense of realism to them. There was
also an attempt to escape from reality by saying that it was sad that we were
not so advanced in material and technical things, but that these were after all
superficial; nevertheless, we were superior in essential things, in spiritual
and moral values. I have no doubt that spiritual and moral values are
ultimately more important, but this method of finding escape in the thought
that one is spiritually superior, simply because one is inferior in a material
and physical sense, is surprising. It does not follow by any means. It is an
escape from facing up to the causes of one’s degradation.
Playboy: Such
reservations notwithstanding, you have been quoted as believing that it is
‘natural’ to extend a religious outlook to international affairs. Would you
amplify this thought? (37)
Nehru: In this torn and distorted world, I am
a very confused person. I often stumble. I try to search for what is lacking in
me and to find out what is wanted of me by my country and my people. The
message of Buddha may well help to solve the problems of our troubled and
tormented world. I often feel that, perhaps, if we think more of that basic
teaching of the avoidance of hatred and violence, we may be nearer the solution
of our problems.
Playboy: Looking
back on a lifetime of dedicated service to your country and considering the
international recognition and respect that this service has brought to you,
what do you feel to be your single greatest honor? (38)
Nehru: The affection that has been lavished
upon me by the people of my country is the greatest honor that can come to
anybody. It is overwhelming and makes me feel very humble.
Playboy: If you were given your life to live
over again, would you try to effect any major changes? (39)
Nehru: I would endeavor to improve in many
ways what I had previously done, but my major decisions in public affairs would
remain untouched. Indeed, I could not vary them, for they were stronger than
myself, and a force beyond my control drove me to them.
Playboy: Your
heavy round-the-clock work schedule, and your apparent aversion to vacations
have become almost legendary in New Delhi. Do you every rely on
pills as a source of energy? (40)
Nehru: No. I am a very bad product of the
pharmaceutical age because I have hardly ever taken any medicine, pills or
drugs.
Playboy: As
a lifelong student of history, and the author of such historical works as
Glimpses of World History and The Discovery of India, would you give us a
capsule summation of how you view the historical process? (41)
Nehru: Men of law lay down
constitutions, but history is really made by great minds, large hearts and
stout arms; by sweat, tears and toil of a people. A country’s real strength
lies in the capacity of her people for disciplined work. It does not really
matter very much whether you remember the names of kings or not, but it is
important that you remember the achievements of a race.
Playboy: The
Indian writer Santha Rama Rau, in summarizing your achievements, has described
you as a statesman who is ‘the initiator of revolutionary ideas that have affected
most of Asia and a great part of Africa, a figure who has left his mark on the
world and his name in history’. With so much accomplished, what now is your
major ambition? (42)
Nehru: Many years ago I read in the writings
of George Bernard Shaw a passage that moved me and found an answering echo in
my mind and heart. He wrote: ‘This is the true joy in life, the being used for
a purpose recognized by yourself as a mighty one; the being thoroughly worn out
before you are thrown on the scrap heap; the being a force of Nature instead of
a feverish, selfish little clod of ailments and grievances, complaining that
the world will not devote itself to making you happy.’ The only ambition I have
is that, to the end of my days, I should work my hardest, and then, when I have
done my job, that I should be thrown on the scrap heap. When I have done my
job, there is no need to bother about me further.
Playboy: Reviewing
the history of your own lifetime, what trend – either moral or materialistic –
discourages you most? (43)
Nehru: The one very grave and disheartening
feature of the present day is a rapid fall in mental and moral standards in all
countries. People have become, because of the process of disintegration,
somewhat neurotic and hysterical and quite unable to judge anything, more
brutal in thought, speech and action. The human values seem to have suffered
considerably. Of course, plenty of human values still remain. I am not saying
that everything worthwhile is completely destroyed, but I do say that the process
of coarsening is going on apace all over the world, including my own country. I
have no magic remedies for the world’s ills or our own. The only remedy is to
try to understand the disease.
Playboy: Will
a cure ever be found for the disease? (44)
Nehru: Obviously it will be impossible for me
and impossible for you to function adequately if we do not believe in the
ultimate triumph of creative and unifying processes of the day. If you align
yourself to some great purpose or to something elemental, it ennobles you.
Whether the reward comes or not, the mere fact of working for it is reward
enough. Looking back on the long perspective and panorama of history, one sees
periods when great crisis faced the world, and people living then thought that
their time was the worst of all times, the most critical, the most dangerous.
And yet the world survived. Faith gives one the strength to survive. It is good
to have that faith.
Playboy: Then
is it accurate to say that despite the virtually endless dangers and difficulties
that plague our era, you still view the futute with a considerable degree of
optimism? (45)
Nehru: Yes. I have little doubt that in spite
of the dangers that beset the world today, the forces of constructive and
cooperative effort for human betterment will succeed and the spirit of man,
which has survived so much, will triumph again.
(Ends)
