(7 of 10)
This involved a certain amount of nationalization (insurance, some banks, transport, armaments), but primarily Nehru sought to expand the government's role in the Indian economy, not by taking over established industries but by developing new ones. Taking a leaf from the Russian book, India went in for five-year plans. Between 1951 and 1956 the first five-year plan pumped about $5 billion into India's economy, mostly in the form of irrigation and agricultural projects. The second plan, announced last May, calls for an outlay of $15 billion on increased industrial plant, a prime objective being to triple India's steel production. To achieve this, Nehru, to the great relief of India's businessmen, took pains to make it clear that the Armageddon of private industry in India was still some way off. "Why," asked he recently, "should we fritter away our energy pushing out someone who is doing a job in the private sector?" Nehru's reassurances, however, have yet to overcome the wariness of U.S. private enterprises whose investment in India at the end of 1954 totaled only $92 million.
Danger from Within. So far, the results of Nehru's ambitious programs have been spotty. Legally, untouchables are now entitled to eat in the same restaurants as their higher-caste countrymen, but all over Saurashtra state near Bombay a few weeks ago, restaurants in which district magistrates had entertained untouchables were being picketed. Legally, Moslems and Hindus are co-equal citizens of India, but in Old Delhi last month Hindus were tossing homemade bombs at Moslem shopkeepers. Even more questionable were the results of the first five-year plan. Superficially, the plan achieved its most important goal, boosting the nation's food production by 18%. But it did not reduce unemployment and failed to increase per capita income significantly. (Because of price increases, per capita purchasing power actually dropped 5% between 1952 and 1955.) Much of the extra food went unsold because the people who needed it were not able to buy it. The dedicated efforts of civil servants and planners are largely frustrated by India's birth rate. The population increases at the rate of 5,000,000 a year.
On at least one crucial issue Nehru has clearly lost ground: his attempt to overcome the fragmentary force of local linguistic loyalty. In 1953 an old Gandhi disciple named Pod Sriramulu began to agitate for a separate state for the 33 million Indians who speak Telugu. When Sriramulu died while fasting for the cause, his Telugu followers, whipped to a frenzy, began to riot. Nehru, shocked by this violence, bowed and agreed to the establishment of the Telugu-speaking state of Andhra. Emboldened, other language groups began to press their claims. The latest of these agitations were last January's Bombay riots, which killed 250 people. Deeply troubled by the linguistic riots, Nehru nowadays believes that "disunity is our greatest enemy."
If this upsurge of regionalism continues, it is likely to have ominous consequences for India. Perhaps the only thing that could prevent so disruptive a force from reducing the central government to impotence is a leader with nationwide appeal and moral authority. Since Gandhi's death, India has been left with only one man of such stature—Nehru himself.