SOME COMMENTS ON NEHRU ' S " BASIC APPROACH " TO ASIAN AND WORLD PROBLEMS The Asian and World situation has reached a decisive stage today. Many important problems are arising in all fields -- whether spiritual or material, national or international -- which require an objective appreciation and careful study if new paths are to be found leading to their satisfactory solution. Since all nations of the world are now closely interdependent, no major problem can impinged upon the destiny of one nation without affecting the whole world and no major event can occur on the world scene without influencing the attitudes of individual nations. National problems have more than ever become international ones, and leaders of all nations must look at their national problems from an international view point. Recently the Indian premier, Shri Jawaharlal Nehru, expounded his views concerning national and international problems in article entitled: "The Basic Approach", published in the Economic Review of the All India Congress Committee in August 1958. In this article, Shri Nehru expressed his deep concern over the present world situation and over the confusion that besets humanity today. Although having no final answers to major world problems, all people who share Nehru's concern about the eventual fate of humanity must assume appropriate responsibility; they cannot remain indifferent at this juncture. Nor will they be content with fixed ideas like those of whom Nehru said: "Whether it is from the point of view of some religion or ideology, they are not troubled with the mental conflicts which are always the accompaniment of the great ages of transition". Adherents of any fixed doctrine never take the trouble to get at the real heart of today's problems.

1

The high significance of Nehru's exploitation of this crucial subject, already apparent to all thoughtful observers was dramatized during the past month by the Communist bloc's initiation of an undisguised bitter assault on the main lines of the Indian leader's analysis. The key rebuttal appeared, obviously with the Soviet Government's full blessing, in the form of an 8000-word article in the December issue of the World Marxist Review English edition of the official Communist theoretical journal Problems of Peace and Socialism published in Prague. The difficult task of formulating this argument against Nehru's ideological position fell to no less a figure in the official Soviet hierarchy than Academician Pavel Yudin, the Russian Ambassador to Peking. This development makes it more than ever important that we examine closely the substance of the Indian leader's "basic approach" As seen by Nehru, the underlying fact today is the tremendous change in human life which has been brought about by scientific progress. Nehru wrote: "In my own life, I have seen amazing changes, and I am sure that, in the course of the life of the next generation, these changes will be even greater, if humanity is not overwhelmed and annihilated by an atomic war". (1) One deep concern of Nehru is shown here to be the possibility of an atomic war, and this seems to be a justified concern, especially for a person who holds in his hands the fate of several hundred million people, who has had a life rich in experience, and who possesses a thorough understanding of the philosophies of East and West, of the world situation, and of the history of mankind, Nehru does not in the least repudiate the world's great scientific progress, nor does he maintain an antiscientific attitude or basic doubts as to the assured future of mankind. However, like other great thinkers with a deep understanding of human nature, Nehru does not consider science all-powerful, believing that it alone has given man the ability to master his universe or that man has learned how to apply it rationally. Therefore, Nehru feels concerned about the atomic energy that science has put at man's disposal. Echoing what Vivekananda said in Western Europe toward the end of the nineteenth century he pointed out: (1)

Jawaharlal Nehru, The Basic Approach in the AICC Economic Review, Fortnightly Journal of the Economic and Political Research Department of the All India Committee, Vol. X , Nos. 8-9 August 15, 1958

2

"Nothing is so remarkable as the progressive conquest or understanding of the physical world by the mind of man today, and this process is continuing at a terrific pace. Man need no longer be a victim of external circumstances, at any rate, to a very large extent. While there has been this conquest of external conditions, there is at the same time the strange spectacle of a lack of moral fibre and of self control in man as a whole. Conquering a physical world, he fails to conquer himself ".(1) If, thanks to scientific progress, man has in his possession today powerful means to deal with nature and yet still cannot be his own master or submit his desires to self-control, then the fear that an atomic war might annihilate humanity cannot considered unreasonable. The overriding fear of intellectuals today is this great paradox: that man has advanced so far in his conquest of physical world but has failed entirely to conquer himself. How, then, can this paradox be solved? Some may hold quite reasonably that science eventually will lay bare the secrets of the human personality, teach it to control its inner forces, and help man to master himself. To those Nehru replies that man is living now in a constant state of fear, that if we must wait until science has succeeded in discovering the innermost secrets of the human being to solve this paradox, it may well be too late. The pressing problem thus seems to be: how must the leaders in all nations of the world utilize the short time at their disposal to avert the outbreak of atomic war. To achieve this end, men must revolutionize their spirit and work-methods, revising both their socio-political viewpoints and their attitudes toward the human personality. Science has posed this problem because the further it advances in its research and the more it probes the mysteries of the universe, the more new force it releases. Each step brings some change in accepted concepts. What were believed to be inviolable laws of the universe in former days often hold true no longer today. The old conflict between rationalism and religion cannot endure under such circumstances. If, on one hand, scientific reason has surpassed the realm of pure religion, on the other hand its new discoveries about the mysteries of the universe have created a situation in which man needs new beliefs far beyond those which mere rationalism can provide.

(1)

Op, Cit.

3

Coincident with his great progress in science and technology, with the industrialization of his society, man has seemed increasingly preoccupied by aspects of his external life; always in competition for his living and needful of adjusting to outside changes, he has had no time left to look at him. Life has tended gradually to lose its meaning, until man lives almost like a machine. He no longer enjoys life, caught up as he is in tireless competition without even knowing precisely what his goals are. Where does all this effort lead him. What is the real meaning of existence and of human life? The fact that such questions have been elaborated by an international statesman like Nehru emphasizes a special characteristic of our present age, for these questions normally belong to the philosopher rather than to the politician. The politicians of both East and West rarely show much concern about the meaning of life, being instead preoccupied with ways to achieve power and position. The politician today is sometimes a man of such practical tendency that he does not even bother to make judgments about the methods he must adopt to achieve success. With today's world concerned primarily with economic rather than cultural forces, the fact alone that there is a politician who thinks seriously about the meaning of life appears as a rare thing. But Nehru, although the political leader of the Indian people, is the product also of a traditional culture that places more importance on human virtue than on economic considerations. While he possesses a thorough understanding of Marxist doctrine, he still remains faithful to the national revolutionary spirit of Gandhi. Like Gandhi, Nehru has turned to the traditional cultural spirit of India for inspiration, and is never too busy with the vast internal and external problems of his country to take time to ponder the philosophical problems of human life. In "The Basic Approach", he wrote: "The old question still faces us as it has faced humanity for ages past: What is the meaning of the life? The old days of faith do not appear to be adequate, unless they can answer the question of today. In a changing world, living should be a continuous adjustment to these changes and happenings. It is a lack of this adjustment that creates conflicts. "The old civilisations, with the many virtues that they possess, have obviously proved inadequate. The new Western civilisation, with all its 4

triumphs and achievements and also with its atomic bombs, also appears inadequate, and, therefore, the feeling grows that there is there is something wrong with our civilisation. Indeed, essentially our problems are those of civilisation itself. Religion gave a certain moral and spiritual discipline: it also tried to perpetuate superstition and social usages. Indeed, those superstition and social usages emerged and overwhelmed the real spirit of religion. Disillusionment followed. Communism comes in the wake of this disillusionment and offers some kind of faith and some kind of discipline. To some extent it fills a vacuum. It success in some measure by giving a content to man's life. But in spite of its apparent success, it fails, partly because of its rigidity, but, even more so, because it ignores certain essential needs of human nature.There is much talk in Communism of the contradictions of capitalist society and there is truth in that analysis. But we see the growing contradictions within the rigid framework of Communism itself. Its suppression of individual freedom brings about powerful reactions. Its contempt for what might be called the moral and spiritual side of life not only ignores something that is basic in man, but also deprives human behaviour of standards and values. Its unfortunate association with violence encourages a certain evil tendency in human being".(1) From the above quotation, we see that Nehru is still faithful to the doctrine of non-violence taught by Gandhi during the political struggle for the liberation of India years ago. This doctrine which appeared rather impractical in the political world was ridiculed by the communists in the time of Gandhi. Nonetheless, it brought good result for the Indian people. Now Nehru seeks to apply this doctrine of non-violence to international politics, especially in a world which is today divided into two camps, communist and non-communist. According to his analysis, man must fight against all obstacles on the road to survival, progress, and happiness. In the past, man fought against feudalism and came to establish a capitalist society. Communism seemed to offer some solution to these problems, especially to class conflicts and to the contradictory interests of producers and consumers. But the Marxist concept that "the end justifies the means" has brought the Communists to suppress individualism by violent means and to treat human lives as mere statistics. (1)

Op. Cit.

5

Soviet Academician Yudin's attack in the World Marxist Review ridiculed as sheer hypocrisy Nehru's assertion that Communism had developed an "association with violence". Attributing a series of "ultra-reactionary" oppression to Indian authorities themselves, Yudin argued lamely and defensively: "In the matter of violence against the people, Indian state bodies are no different from those in any other bourgeois state". He dismissed the Indian leader's conclusion as no different from what Western propaganda says about Communism day in and day out. But the facts are quite clearly otherwise. Nehru's criticism of Communism and Marxism was premised on humanitarian grounds without any trace of political motive. As a leader of the Indian revolution, he has come to know Communism well; viewing it today with truth and objectivity, he finds no choice but to protest its successes and its limitations in serving the people's needs. In effect, Nehru has only bowed once more to the teachings of Gandhi -- to the principle of non-violence and to the traditional cultural spirit of the Indian people. Not too long ago, Premier U Nu of Burma decided to turn back for new inspiration to the spiritual concepts of Buddhism in much the same manner. Other Asian leaders, too, have increasingly shown the same tendency for, as the Japanese writer Okakura has said "Asia is nothing if not spiritual". They do this from no mere personal whim, but out of dedication to Asia's age-old aspirations. India's as well as Asia's millions, faced by the spread of a false doctrine allied to the approach of violence, today seek to embrace more closely than ever their traditionally strong belief in spiritualism as the universal doctrine of humanity. There is no doubt that Nehru has based his indictment against Communism on humanitarian, not political, grounds. For does he not decries also the fact that, on the side of the anti-Communists, many people want to follow the principle of "an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth" in fighting Communism? It is this tendency which leads some observers to wonder whether anti-Communists are fighting Communism out of any concern for individual rights and the well-being of nation or simply because of selfish 6

interests and a personal distaste for Communism. They certainly have the right to fight Communism out of personal preference if they desire, but to be justified in so doing they should show themselves different from the Communists. Otherwise, men who value their individual and national interests will want nothing to do with the struggle. For those who fight Communism because of a deep concern for humanity, the goal of this struggle must be real happiness for all people. Arent's the ingredients of this happiness a healthy respect for human life. Individual dignity and the sacred personality which give man his superior position among animals? To reach this goal, should men avail themselves of any means whatever, even the means of violence? It is precisely because they should not that the traditional cultural spirit of Asia, in India and in China as well, has instilled in politics the concept that means and ends are intimately related. Gandhi once expressed the idea in these words: "Means and ends are convertible terms in my philosophy of life". Now, the fact that Nehru wants to impress this state of mind upon both the Communist and anti-Communist forces in the world does not proceed from theoretical considerations. Rather, it is a highly practical approach. With the world's rapid progress in science and technology, resource to violence can no longer bring victory for anyone; on the contrary, all combatants must suffer heavily, and humanity as a whole might well be annihilated by a major war. It is inevitable, then, that the use of violent means in economic, politic, cultural, and spiritual relations, with the aim of forcing people to accept ways of life which conform to a doctrine or religion other than their own, is bound to fail today. What happened two years ago in Hungary and at the same time, in Quỳnh-Lưu, North Vietnam, eloquently demonstrated that the desire for national freedom is far stronger than any other ideology and that the traditional yearning of humanity for independence is deeper and more important than mere economic motives and can never be permanently suppressed. Nehru wrote:

7

"What happened in Hungary is not essentially a conflict between Communism and anti-Communism. It is represented nationalism striving for freedom from foreign control".(1) These events show that, sooner or later, any people will turn back to its traditional spirit even if many individual lives must be sacrificed in the process. Each national ideology embodies the life-force, the will to live, which is inherent in the human spirit. Marx's class ideology also embodies an energizing force, but concentrates exclusively on the economic aspects. Responding to his national ideology, a man fight not only for his economic survival but also a life wholesome in all respects, including its spiritual aspects. True nationalism is and always has been rooted in something sacred and noble. "Those who piously died for their country "Have the right to demand that everyone come to bow and pray in front of their coffin".(2) We must conclude that national ideology can better satisfy the earnest desires of humanity than class ideology. From time immemorial, man has longer for a free and wholesome existence rooted and suitable ideals worth sacrificing for, as opposed to a life circumscribed by practical needs. The world's progress in science and technology today is developing revolutionary solutions to the problems of the primary economic needs of life. An yet it is precisely this progress in science and technology which enable communism to apply such far-reaching political and economic measures to limit the inherent meaning of life, in contradiction to the forward movement of humanity. For an explanation of this paradox we must look more closely into the substance of the progress being made. We see that the progress of science and technology has failed entirely to satisfy some of the basic desires and needs of man, above all his desire to life as a free man in a boundless universe, caring seriously about the ideal of life. Nehru elaborated what (1) (2)

Op. Cit. Victor Hugo

8

one of his old and valued colleagues follows:

(1)

had to say on this matter as

"This is due to our not having a philosophy of life and indeed the world also is suffering from this lack of a philosophical approach. In our effort to ensure the material prosperity of the country, we have not paid any attention to the spiritual element in human nature. Therefore, in order to give the individual and the nation a sense of purpose something to live for and, if necessary to die for, we have to revive some philosophy of life and give, in the wider sense of the word, a spiritual background to our thinking. We talk of a Welfare State and of democracy and socialism. They are good concepts but they hardly convey a clear and unambiguous meaning. This was the argument and then the question arose as to what our ultimate objective should be. Democracy and socialism are means to an end, not the end itself. We talk of the good of society. Is this something apart from and transcending the good of the individuals composing it? It the individual is ignored and sacrificed for what is considered the good of the society, is that the right objective to have? "It was agreed that the individual should not be so sacrificed and indeed that real progress will come only when opportunity is given to the individual to develop, provided the individual is not a selected group, but comprises the whole community. The touchstone, therefore, should be how far any political or social theory enables the individual to rise above his petty self and thus think in terms of the good of all. In such society the emphasis will be on duties, not on rights; the rights will follow the performance of the duties. We have to give a new direction to education and evolve a new type of humanity"(2) After depicting the underlying problems of life and the need for a philosophical attitude in examining the material world, Nehru turned to the old Vedantic philosophical concept that everything, sentient or insentient, has a place in the organic or inorganic whole. Although this belief is a metaphysical one which seems to lead away from life's practical problems. Nehru's view would seem to be that any line of thought, if pursued to the (1)

The reference is to Dr. Sampurnanand's Congress Ideology and Programm published in the AICC Economic Review, dated August 1 , 1958, p. 7-9 (2) Op, Cit.

9

end, will inevitably involve some measures of metaphysics. Even experimental science today, for all its rationalism, is on the verge of all manner of imponderables. It is clear in the last analysis that metaphysical concepts generally cannot be separated from everyday life, and that life itself is philosophy. This fact could be more useful to humanity today than ever before, because it militates against any narrow concept regarding country, race, and class and encourages tolerance toward thoughts which at first glance might seem different or strange. This is an entirely practical application of metaphysics, and forms the essence of the traditional Asian approach to politics which Gandhi was putting into practice when he relied on peaceful and religious actions to solve political problems. According to Nehru, all activities of mankind -- cultural, political, economic, philosophical and religious -- have a common motive, all being directed toward materialising the principles of universal life. As mention earlier, the capitalist system of society is criticised in communist doctrine as being based on class conflict. But, with the passage of time, we have seen more and more contradictions developing within communist society as well. Here is striking proof that the communist approach of violence does not hold the eventual solution for the conflicts in capitalist society generated by successive advances in the techniques of production. We might examine for a moment what those conflicts are. With technological progress, it might have been expected that people's material needs would have been for the most part satisfied. Instead, one notice in capitalist societies that quite a bit of poverty and unemployment persists and the gap between poor and rich continues to be rather important. In the past, factory workers occasionally put all the blame on machinery for having usurped their places; at times, some even revolted to destroy their machines. Looking at this question more carefully, however, one concludes that existing inequities are mainly due to methods of production and to the uneven distribution of manufactured goods. Probing the problem even further, one can see that the incongruities between production and consumption, which have driven some countries to war over economic issues, eventuate from the theory of free competition in marketing on which capitalism is based. We hasten to add that freedom is in essence good. And yet, it can also have a harmful effect to the extent 10

that free competition in the economic field sometimes permits excessive inequities in private ownership. As we know, communist has resorted to countless measures, relying heavily on violence, to eliminate this problem of private ownership. But its solutions are worse than what it seek to cure, for it does away with all free competition in the process. So the problem rests: what other ways can man devise to solve the internal conflicts of the capitalist system? According to Nehru, the concept of the Welfare State, whose principle at least is accepted by Capitalism, Socialism, and Communism alike, may hold part at the answer. He wrote: "Capitalism in a few countries at least, has achieved this common welfare to a very large extent, though it has far from solved its own problems and there is a basic lack of something vital. Democracy allied to Capitalism has undoubtedly toned down many of its evils and in fact is different now from what it was a generation or two ago. In industrially advanced countries there has been a continuous and steady upward trend of economic development. Even the terrible losses of World Wars have not prevented this trend, in so far as these highly developed countries are concerned. Further, this development has spread, though in varying degrees, to all classes. This does not apply to countries which are not industrial developed. Indeed, in those countries the struggle for development is very difficult and sometimes, in spite of efforts, not only do economic inequalities remain, but tend to become worse. Normally speaking, it may be said that the forces of the capitalist society, if left unchecked, tend to make the rich richer and the poor poorer and thus increase the gap between them. This applies to countries as well as groups or regions or classes within the countries. Various democratic processes interfere with these normal trends. Capitalism itself has, therefore, developed some socialistic features even though its major aspects remain".(1) Capitalism through its democratic processes has, therefore, moved toward socialist goals and, in effect, the objectives of socialism are being met in the process. And exactly what is the content of socialism? Even Nehru confessed that this is a thorny question:

(1)

Op, Cit

11

"It is difficult to give a precise answer and there are innumerable definitions of it. Some people probably think of socialism vaguely just as something which does good and which aims at equality. That does not take us very far. Socialism is basically a different approach from that of Capitalism, though I think it is true that the wide gap between them tends to lessen because many of the ideas of socialism are gradually incorporated even in the capitalist structure. Socialism is after all not only a way of life but a certain scientific approach to social and economic problems. If socialism is introduced in a backward and underdeveloped country, it does not suddenly make it any less backward. In fact, we then have a backward and poverty-stricken socialism"(1) Socialism, then, would seem to be the next step after capitalism. We have to go through a capitalist stage before reaching socialism. Should socialism be introduced in a poverty-stricken society, it would not be able to improve it but would only create more poverty. Before the introduction of socialism can be beneficial, there must be industrialization. But for a country to become industrialized does it first have to go through a stage of free capitalist competition? This is the question that faces all the newlyindependent countries of Asia where there has been a period of artificial progress under foreign domination. In these former colonial areas most capital resided in the hands of the foreign colonizers. Local capitalists usually comprised only a handful of people who acted as middlemen between the masses and ruling element. Even now that these countries have become politically dependent, they still continue in most cases substantially dependent economically and culturally on other more advanced countries. If one admits that economics and culture influence politics, then it follows that these new nations, while politically free, enjoy only independence of a qualified sort. This is why the struggle to consolidate independence must concentrate above all in the economic and cultural fields; otherwise, any ostensibly independent government could be reduced to playing the role of a go-between for foreign interests. Concerning this problem of economic and cultural independence, Nehru wrote:

(1)

Op, Cit

12

"Even after a country has become independent, it may continue to be economically dependent on other countries. This kind of thing is euphemistically called having close cultural and economic ties". (1) His observation implies that all governments of newly-independent countries should concentrate their efforts on economic and cultural development. But what should be their approach to this problem? Naturally, all such newly-liberated countries must first improve production techniques so as to solve their urgent problems of poverty. They must abandon primitive methods of production and profit by the most modern techniques and sources of powers. But in doing this, Nehru strongly emphasized: ". . .We should not forget the basic human element and the fact that our objective is individual improvement and the lessening of equalities; and we must not forget the ethical and spiritual aspect of life which are ultimately the basis of culture and civilisation and which have given some meaning to life ". (2) It is clear in the last analysis that the reconstruction of a newly independent country, whether on the economic, political or cultural plane, ultimately depends for success on the quality of its people. An independent country differs from one dominated by a foreign power, above all, in this respect: that its people are the principle promoters of their own social progress and not mere executors under foreign control. Hence, the problem of placing qualified people in leading roles in a newly-independent country seems to be a decisive factor influencing its future development. Another consideration for these countries is that they simply cannot follow the same path as the advanced capitalist countries in promoting primarily free economic competition. This is true because they lack both capital and large industries and also because they have not accumulated the necessary knowledge and technicians for such a luxury. To make up for these shortcomings, such countries must adopt a socialistic approach permitting their governments to plan both long-term and short-term project as required: (1) (2)

Op, Cit. Op, Cit.

13

"Planning does not mean a mere collection of projects or schemes, but a thought out approach of how to strengthen the base and space of progress so that the community advances on all fronts".(1) On the other hand, it is obvious that, given the underdeveloped condition of newly-independent countries, their people tend to rely too much on the government and on foreign interests. Thus, another main problem is how to stimulate initiative and interest on the people's part. In contrast to communist practice, national planning must strive to encourage private enterprise as long as it operates in conformity with the overall national scheme. An approach on the above lies may hope to avoid most of the conflicts characteristic of the capitalist system and to achieve an equilibrium between private and group interests. It would be difficult indeed to undertake and realize such a program without top-quality people. The program might be good and the details well thought-out but if there were no leaders competent to implement it, it would be bound to fail. How then should these countries create the staff needed to carry out these plans? Nehru counselled that we should look to education and to culture for the training of skilled people with the proper constructive spirit. ". . . .In the final analysis, it is the quality of the human beings that counts. It is man that builds up the wealth of a nation, as well as its cultural progress. Hence education and health are of high importance so as to produce that quality in the human beings. We have to suffer here also from the lack of resources, but still we have always to remember that it is right education and good health that will give the foundation for economic as well as cultural and spiritual progress".(2) It is natural that, in order to consolidate its independence, a country newly liberated from foreign control on the material and spiritual planes must erase all colonial vestiges from its spirit before it can hope to create the new leadership needed for its national reconstruction. Hence, no small effort should be concentrated in the education field. A new type of man must be trained for the new job to be done. Education must aim at (1) (2)

Op, Cit. Op, Cit

14

developing a spirit of self-reliance and a rededication to national ideals as a preliminary to technical training. Only if inspired with these qualities can this personal hope for success in the tedious work of rebuilding a newlyindependent country. Whether or not a country will preserve its hard-won independence depends in no small measure on this very spirit. Nehru concluded his analysis on this note. And it is understandable that -after touching on some 30 important points concerning the present situation of Asia in his article -- Nehru came at last to use the example of India, the great but economically underdeveloped country he leads, to make this final point: "In considering these economic aspects of our problem we have always to remember the basic approach of peaceful means; and perhaps we might also keep in view the old Vedantic ideal of the life force which is the inner base of everything that exists". Here, in one sentence, Nehru epitomized his basic approach. "And it must be regarded as no great surprise that this string appeal for the Indian people to draw fresh inspiration from the traditional teaching of Veda has brought a sharp reaction from Communist theoreticians and sparked the first direct Soviet attack on Nehru's ideological position since the time of Stalin. Undeniably, this reassertion of the validity of Asia's traditional way implies a stern rebuff to the Communist bloc's ambitions to extend its foothold on the Asian continent. The bitterness with which Academician Yudin has sought to reject Nehru's lucid exposition as "vague" "abstract", and "devoid of content" is unmistakable. There is venom also in the Soviet official's argument that: "In presenting his new concept of socialism, he tries to discredit the real living socialism. But one thing is clear: Mr. Nehru' socialism should not be confused with real socialism, the socialism now being built in a number of countries and which is already a reality in other". It is likely that more and even sharper attacks on the Indian leader will be voiced by Communist ideologists in the future. According to a recent editorial of the French journal Combat, the clash in viewpoints highlighted by Nehru's and Yudin's articles is "far from finished" and the world must 15

prepare to witness a well-organized Soviet campaign against the "positive neutralism" which Nehru advocates. The same journal noted that further attacks were being prepared in both Moscow and Peking in an effort to neutralize the anti-Communist impact of Nehru's "basic approach". But few Asians will doubt the eventual triumph of Nehru's philosophy. The traditional spiritual roots of India's experience -- and in fact, all Asia's, including China -- are the first guarantee of this. These roots no longer constitute any obstacle to Asia's, search for a sound understanding of Western scientific advances, especially since the discovery of atomic energy. For scientific reason has gone far beyond the practical rationalism of the XIXth century. Today the spirit of science has entered the realm of metaphysic and harmonized with Asia's own heritage of spiritual inquiry. In the past, through innumerable contacts and intellectual exchanges, the Asian nation has been deeply influenced by India's spirit. Today, on the brink of an era rich in unprecedented possibilities, Asia's leaders will do well to profit again from the Indian people's experience, as interpreted by Shri Nehru. His "basic approach" holds more than a few lessons of great value for the gigantic mission of national reconstruction in which all Asia is so energetically engaged.

16