Need to correct Nehruvian development model, foreign policy: Jaishankar

Questioning the direction of the country’s development and foreign policy during the Nehruvian era, External Affairs Minister S Jaishankar said there was a need to correct both the “development model” and the “foreign policy” of that period.

Referring to the tenure of India’s first Prime Minister, Jawaharlal Nehru, Jaishankar noted that a “Nehru development model” inevitably shaped a corresponding “Nehru foreign policy”. “We seek to correct that abroad, just as we strive to reform the consequences of the model at home. In fact, resistance to one is often rooted in attachment to the other,” he remarked.

Speaking at the launch of the book, The Nehru Development Model by Prof Arvind Panagariya, Jaishankar said since 2014, there has been a vigorous effort to undertake course correction, though it remains an uphill task. The Ministry of External Affairs (MEA) shared his remarks on its website on Sunday.

The minister further said for over three decades, there has been a national consensus that the Nehruvian development model ultimately failed the country. “However, there remains a reluctance to confidently explore alternatives. As a result, we often undertake the reforms we must, but rarely the reforms we should,” he observed.

Citing US Secretary of State John Foster Dulles’ remark from 1947 — “In India, Soviet Communism exercises a strong influence through the interim Hindu government” —Jaishankar questioned whether Dulles was entirely wrong. He suggested that Prof Panagariya’s book provides substantial insights into this concern.

Jaishankar elaborated that Nehru’s development model was ideologically driven, aiming to promote a specific economic framework for newly independent India. “The belief system evolved over time but was never fundamentally altered. Its root cause lay in the assumption that socialism was the only effective counter to imperialism,” he added.

The minister highlighted that the Nehruvian model focused heavily on the development of heavy industries, noting, “This approach may have worked for the USSR, or at least seemed to at the time. However, India was not the USSR,” he argued.

According to Jaishankar, Panagariya’s book suggests that Nehru’s choices set India on a deterministic path. This model, along with its associated narratives, influenced politics, the bureaucracy, the planning system, the judiciary, public space, including media, and most of all teaching.

Turning to the post-1991 era of economic liberalisation, Jaishankar acknowledged that India has benefited significantly from greater openness over the past 33 years. However, he pointed out that the global economic landscape is now much more complex.

“We live in an era of weaponised economics, aggravated by technology-driven growth and high data sensitivity,” he said. The concepts guiding policy today are less about openness and more about resilience, reliability, redundancy and trust.

Jaishankar clarified that ‘Atmanirbharta’ — India’s pursuit of self-reliance — should not be confused with protectionism. “It is a call to think and act independently while ensuring national security,” he added.