Universities, as institutions of higher learning and research, get authenticated only if they not only disseminate the existing knowledge, but also create new knowledge. They promote critical discourse, secular values and humanism that lead to emancipation of human soul from regimentation of all kinds. Nehru Study Centre of Allahabad University strives to study and promote these values.
The evaluation of great leaders generally passes through three stages. Firstly, they are extolled in the years after their demise. The second stage comes when they are subjected to criticism, fair or unfair. Thereafter follows the stage of balanced judgement. Nehru stands at the point of transition from second to the third stage.
Nehru, the almost mythic figure, had a splendorous and multi-faceted personality. He was an Indian patriot with death-defying courage, fired with a passion for reforming the world. He was an intellectual giant who possessed clear imagination and flawless pen. He laid the foundations of modern India. As a man, as a leader, and as a ruler, he made tremendous contribution towards maintaining international peace and security, and building of the Indian nation. He left a legacy behind him which has been inherited by we Indians (not only by some individuals or a party).
The central pillars of Nehru’s programme were Non-alignment, democracy, planning with a moderate socialist orientation, and secularism. For Nehru, the expositor of the policy and pioneer of the movement, non-alignment was a natural policy for India. As a heir, successor and exponent of Gandhi, he had great conviction for peace. By not joining any of the two hostile camps, he wanted to keep himself in a position to exert influence on both the military blocks in favour of moderation. For him it meant keeping India’s options open. It enabled him to judge issues on their merits, take independent decisions, and play a role to lessen tensions and preserve peace.
Nehru valued the spirit of free inquiry, free discussion, and rational accommodation. What mattered to him most was the dignity of man and his self respect. He could never tolerate the erosion of any man’s self-respect or violation of his human dignity. He believed with unswerving intensity in civil liberties as an absolute value and it was only through political democracy that human dignity and self-respect could be established. Democracy became for him an abiding belief and an article of faith.
Inspired by the example of the Soviet Union, Nehru felt that planning was the only way for India to march steadily and fastly on the road to economic progress. He placed emphasis on rendering socio-economic justice in India by achieving economic self-reliance, based on a strong public sector in heavy industry, a regulated private sector and cooperative farming. He strove to push the Congress and the country towards socialism. But his socialism was not an end by itself but a means to the end of doing ‘the greatest good to the largest number in the shortest possible time through persuasion’.
Nehru thought that the disparate religions and regions, communities and castes can be held together only by secularizing the politics and creating a sense of security and of belonging among religious minorities in India. He regarded secularism as the basic law of Indian nationhood without which India would not survive as a nation.
One thing for which Nehru can be remembered most is institution building. He was always for the institutionalization of political organizations and procedures. He had profound respect for Parliament as the repository of people’s will. He worked very hard to nurture the Congress Party, the judiciary, the civil service etc.
Nehru was not an ideologically driven centralized planner. Prof. Morris Jones rightly comments that ‘he was a Marxist without the logic of Marxism, a Fabian without the faith in administration, a Gandhian without the acceptance of anarchy for morality’s sake.’ His middle path provoked vehement criticism by communists worldwide. Charges are leveled against him that his policies were invariably too vague and dreamy, his socialism imprecise, his foreign policy lacked flexibility, and his domestic decrees lacked adequate supporting organizational effort. It is also said that his failure in the domestic field was lack of firmness. In the political sphere, he was unable to transmit his vision and purposefulness to his colleagues and lieutenants. He could not control satisfactorily the growing moral degradation in the body politic in the form of corruption, profiteering and black marketeering.
The two main grounds of criticism are: taking the Kashmir issue to the UN against Gandhi’s advice, and his preference for development through centralized planning. Nehru took the Kashmir issue to the UN under Chapt VI which deals with negotiated dispute settlement. If he had not, it is quite possible that it could have been brought up by either Pakistan or Britain under Chapt.VII which deals with threat to peace and security. While Chapt VI resolutions are not enforceable through sanctions, Chapt.VII resolutions are. Whether this consideration weighed with Nehru or not needs to be investigated. As far as central planned development was concerned, no doubt Nehru had admiration for Soviet Model. But one should also take into consideration the prevailing spirit of those times. The way a lot of support, the planned development was getting in India as well as in several other countries of the world should be counted while making assessment of Nehru’s policies.
Thus, instead of embarking on a campaign to denigrate or deify Nehru, the pertinent issue is to make balanced judgment on Nehru’s Policies. What was the legacy of Nehru? Has his legacy evolved in a distorted form? Is there something wrong in his legacy? Have we followed the way which he showed us? What creative parts of his legacy are unfulfilled? Have his policies and programmes of nation-building lost relevance? These are the questions, answers of which have very much relevance for today and would perhaps be of far greater relevance in the years to come, for the answer of which this centre aims.
The Nehru Studies Centre of the University of Allahabad can play a pivotal role in this area in matters such as:
In the unforgettable words of Joseph Story, the Constitution of the United States made by the wiseman who met at Philadelphia in 1787, was "reared for immortality" with "impregnable defences". The modern concept of constitution-making, however, is not that of a one-time affair. It is not something that happens at a particular point of time or in a time frame. Also, Constitution is not the name of an inert, lifeless document. It is a dynamic process. Constitution of a country is always in the making, developing, growing, evolving and changing with the needs of the times. It is a living organism of functioning institutional structures.
(Dr. Subhash Kashyap, former Secretary General, Lok Sabha, New Delhi with Prof. M P Dube, Director, Nehru Studies Centre and others.)
To say that the Constitution of India was made by the Constituent Assembly that met during 1946-1949 would be both fallacious and misleading and at best a half-truth. The Constitution of India had had an organic growth. It was being made all through the period of our national struggle for Independence. It evolved through successive stages of the struggle - various resolutions and demands pressed through mass agitations - and small doses of constitutional reforms grudgingly conceded by the British rulers from time to time. The Constitution rejected British rule but not the institutions that had developed during the British rule. In fact, some 75 per cent of the entire text of the Constitution adopted by the Constituent Assembly on 26 November, 1949 represented an adoption or adaptation of the Government of India Act,1935, the Cabinet Mission Plan, 1946 and the Indian Independence Act,1947 - all three made by the British.
It is another myth that the founding fathers adopted the British system of Parliamentary Democracy through the Constitution. Actually, they only continued the colonial system of ruling over the people as it had been developed by the British on the Indian soil. Basically, the same legislative, executive and judicial institutions and the same administrative machinery continued after Independence and even after the commencement of the Constitution on 26 January, 1950. The Constitution was being further made through its actual working, judicial interpretations and constitutional amendments. The Constitution kept growing for better or worse and acquired newer and newer meanings by the manner in which and the men by whom it was worked from time to time.
Jawaharlal Nehru once said that he was amongst those who had something to do with the making of India's Constitution. He was being too modest. During the freedom struggle, at the Constituent Assembly and for seventeen years of working the Constitution after Independence, of the several very eminent personalities, Nehru played perhaps the most crucial role in the story of the making and working of the Constitution of India. Writing on his contribution to Constitution making in the Constituent Assembly, V.R. Krishna Iyer says:
"The voice that mattered most, the views that prevailed most, the principles that were ultimately readily accepted and the direction of the Constitution and it's dimensions and values in its final shape, were largely of one person, Nehru. Others too mattered, of course. He was attentive throughout, intervened frequently but dominated the discussions, if it became necessary, with the last word".
The then Prime Minister of India, Smt. Indira Gandhi, writing a Foreword to my book on Nehru and the Constitution said: "The spirit of our Constitution bears the imprint of his (Jawaharlal Nehru's) inspiration even though the forms might have been devised by professional lawyers." Pandit Nehru’s contribution to the very conception, birth and work of the Constituent Assembly, as also to the framing and functioning of the Constitution of India was unique. He gave to it its spirit and soul, its philosophy and vision. It was he who laid down the basic principles and the broad structure of the Constitution through the Objectives Resolution, through crucial interventions in the Constituent Assembly and through his very active role in committees and in behind-the-scene informal discussions and party meetings. In this sense, the Constitution is, indeed, largely his handiwork.
The task of framing the Constitution for independent India would always be remembered as a task of ‘tremendous magnitude’; it was second in importance only to the achievement of the country’s independence from foreign rule. The Prime Minister of the newly-independent India, deeply involved in several pressing issues with national and international ramifications, could not be expected to find much time for the exercise of drafting the detailed provisions of the Constitution. Nevertheless, he was the Assembly’s philosopher and its prime constitutional thinker. Himself an erudite scholar, he looked at the issue from intellectual and idealist angles. While he did not bother about what he considered to be petty details, he paid the most meticulous personal attention to the fundamentals.
Nehru was the most charismatic leader in the Constituent Assembly, with enormous popularity and mass appeal outside it. He had the power to sway opinion. But, committed democrat that he was, he saw to it that decision-making in the Assembly was in accordance with the best democratic norms and traditions. He stood for full and free debate on all issues and, so for as possible, wanted decisions by unanimity or near unanimity. This is amply clear from his observations made in the Constituent Assembly. For example, he said:
“Let us not trouble ourselves too much about the petty details of what we do; those details will not survive for long if they are achieved in conflict. What we achieve in unanimity, what we achieve by co-operation is likely to survive.”
The concept of the Constituent Assembly itself was given to the nation by Nehru. The Assembly, as envisaged by Nehru, was to be a fully sovereign body; it could not come as a gift from the imperialist power; it had to be elected by adult franchise and its function was to be ‘only to frame a Constitution and nothing more’. Practically all the Congress resolutions on the subject of the Constituent Assembly were drafted by Nehru, though not always moved by him, by the end of 1939, Mahatma Gandhi had been fully converted by Nehru to the concept of a Constituent Assembly. In fact, Gandhiji categorically declared that it was Jawaharlal Nehru who ‘compelled’ him to study the implications of a Constituent Assembly, who introduced the idea in Congress resolutions, and finally made him (Gandhiji) a ‘convert’ to the idea.
Nehru believed that the Constituent Assembly was a new kind of organ ‘which, once it meets, is self-governing and self-determining and will receive no directions from any one outside it,’ even though it had to work within a certain framework. Nevertheless, Nehru was fully alive to the onerous responsibility of the Constituent Assembly in framing a Constitution, and conscious of the substantial and pivotal role expected of the Congress organization in the process. Nehru, the President of the Congress Working Committee, on being appointed Chairman of the Committee of Experts to prepare material and draft proposals for the Constituent Assembly, himself did the original draft of the Objectives Resolution which he moved in the first session of the Constituent Assembly on 13 December 1946, and made a memorable speech in the assembly. As the leader and the hero of the Indian revolution, Nehru believed that it was important and necessary for him to tell the people of India and the world at large what the Constituent Assembly stood for and what it wanted the nation to be.
The Objectives Resolution which, according to Nehru, was ‘in the nature of a pledge’, guaranteed fundamental rights to citizens and safeguards for the minorities. It was through this Resolution that the Constituent Assembly pledged itself to drawing up a Constitution for the country wherein ‘shall be guaranteed and secured to all the citizens of India justice –social, economic and political; equality of status and of opportunity before the law; freedom of thought, expression, belief, faith, worship, vocation, association and action, subject to law and public morality’ and wherein adequate safeguards would be provided for the minorities, backward and tribal areas and depressed and other classes. The preamble to the Constitution, which outlines in brief the basic philosophy as enshrined in its provisions, was carved out of this Objectives Resolution.
Thus, while Nehru’s Objectives Resolution gave to the Constituent Assembly its guiding principles and the philosophy that was to permeate its task of constitution- making, his eloquent and inspiring address, full of the spirit of hope, determination and defiance, set the tenor and the tone for future Assembly deliberations. Commending the resolution for unanimous adoption by the Assembly, Nehru expressed the hope that it would lead to a Constitution on the suggested lines and the Constitution would lead the people to real freedom from hunger, want and poverty.
Of the most important committees of the Constituent Assembly, Nehru himself was the chairman of as many as three, namely the States Committee, the Union Powers Committee and the Union Constitution Committee. Without in any way meaning to detract from the unique role performed by Sardar Patel in the field of integration of the princely States with the rest of India, it may be pointed out that it is often forgotten that the first most crucial steps in the direction were actually taken by Nehru in his capacity as chairman of the States Committee appointed to negotiate with the States Negotiating Committee. Nehru showed remarkable statesmanship and through a display of the requisite firmness and a spirit of genuine accommodation and conciliation, he succeeded in bring round a large number of States to agree to send their representatives to the Assembly under the formula of representation settled during negotiations. The Union Constitution Committee and the Union Powers Committee under his chairmanship similarly played crucial roles by settling the principles of the Constitution and the nature of the polity.
On the fundamental rights provisions of the Constitution, Nehru took very active part in the debates in the Constituent Assembly and latter, while speaking on the first and the fourth Constitution Amendment Bills. He supported the provision of adequate safeguards for minorities, tribals and backward classes. Intervening during the debate on the interim Report of the Committee of Fundamental Rights, Nehru asked for the protection of the tribal areas and the tribal people in every possible way. However, he pointed out that the various safeguards were not to be confused with fundamental rights. The ultimate national objective was to build a united organic nation based on the rich variety and unity of Indian culture, and not to perpetuate separatist tendencies or privileges and class or caste discrimination.
Nehru dwelt at length on the changing concept of property in the history of mankind. In the Constituent Assembly, as a ‘just compromise’ between ‘the right of the individual and the right of the community’, he moved the most important and far - reaching amendment to the property clause providing for the compulsory acquisition of property. After a fairly long discussion, the amendment was adopted on 12 September 1949.
Nehru spoke at length on the respective roles of and relationship between the legislature and the judiciary. Within the terms of the Constitution, he said, the will of Parliament was supreme and the judiciary could not be allowed to function as a third chamber to thwart social reform measures. He supported Dr. Ambedkar’s amendment to Article 39A of the Draft Constitution regarding the separation of the judiciary from the executive in the public service of the state. The original article had prescribed a time limit of three years which the amendment sought to delete.
Nehru pleaded strongly for a parliamentary system as opposed to the presidential and other systems. In the words of K. M. Munshi, ‘as a middle-of-the-way socialist, impatient to transform India’s life, Nehru favoured parliamentary supremacy.’ Sardar Patel was ‘cynical’ about parliamentary supremacy while C. Rajagopalachari would have favoured what may be termed ‘a state of national democratic government on Gandhian lines. The system of parliamentary democracy was finally adopted by deliberate choice, in Nehru’s words, ‘not only because, to some extent we had always thought on those lines previously, but because we thought it was in keeping with our old traditions also.’
Among the several important resolutions moved by Nehru were those concerning the preparation of electoral rolls for the elections to be held on the basis of the provisions of the new constitution agreed to by the Constituent Assembly, ratification of the decision of India’s continued membership of the Commonwealth, the inclusion of Bhutan and Sikkim within the scope of the Negotiating Committee, and the adoption of the national flag of India. On the question of the adoption of the international form of numerals as against the Hindi or Devanagari numerals, Nehru was ‘immediately convinced’ that the right approach was to accept the form used internationally. Also, on the question of language, generally, Nehru spoke forcefully, and while agreeing with the need for India having one language, he deprecated any imposition and stressed the desirability of the all-India language growing from the people. Worth recalling is the significant role played by him in the evolution and final acceptance in the Constituent Assembly of the Ayyangar formula on language. Intervening in the debate on the citizenship provisions, in an important obiter dictum on secularism, Nehru said:
It is brought in in all contexts, as if by saying that we are a secular state we have done something amazingly generous, given something out of our pocket to the rest of the world, something which we ought not to have done, so on and so forth. We have only done something which every country does, except a very few misguided and backward countries in the world.
Writing on 13 July 1947, as chairman of the union Constitution Committee, he recommended to the President of the Constitution Assembly the draft of a provision for the amendment of the Constitution. This formed the basis of all subsequent discussions regarding the amendment clause and finally took the shape of Article 368 of the Constitution.
During Nehru’s premiership as many as seventeen constitutional amendments were enacted. Of these, four affected fundamental rights and three sought to amend property provisions.
The Constitution (First Amendment) Act of 1951 made some vital changes in Article 15, 19 and 31 dealing with the fundamental rights of equality, freedom of expression and of property. To clarify the position and to give effect to what was believed to be the real intention of the framers of the Constitution, new Articles 31A and 31B and the Ninth Schedule were inserted in the Constitution. The new provisions specially secured the constitutional validity of the Zamindari Abolition laws in general and certain specific state acts in particular by excepting laws providing for acquisition of any estate or any rights therein, from the operation of the Fundamental Rights provisions.
By 1955, when it became necessary to reiterate the principle that the ‘responsibility for the economic and social welfare policies of the nation should be with Parliament, not with courts’, the Constitution (Fourth Amendment) Act made substantial changes in Articles 31 and 31A. When the Fourth Amendment Bill was being discussed, it was argued by Pandit Nehru that the amendment of Article 31 became essential in order to create a ‘socialist pattern of society’ and to realize the ideal of a ‘Welfare State’ in India, and that it sought to remove and inherent contradiction in the Constitution between the Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles of State Policy. Amendments were later made to clauses 2,3 and 4 of Article 19 by the Constitution (Sixteenth Amendment) Act, 1963, concerning the right of freedom of speech and expression, assembly and forming associations or unions in the interests of the sovereignty and intergrity of India.
Pandit Nehru was a strong advocate of the need for flexibility in the Constitution. No Constitution, howsoever good, could bind succeeding generations. In order to be lasting, it must be amenable to change in accordance with changing societal needs and aspirations. Nehru said, ‘A Constitution to be living must be growing; must be adaptable; must be changeable.’ He believed that ‘however good a Constitution might be at any time, after working it for some little time, flaws appear. Nothing is perfect, and then it becomes necessary to make changes to remove those flaws.’
As I keep repeating, in fact, a Constitution gets its real meaning and content only from the manner in which it is worked and by the people who work it. The Constitution of India was really being made more specially during the early years of its life when it was being put to work and test under the stewardship of Jawaharlal Nehru.
Nehru’s role in building the national edifice on firm foundations and giving to the Constitution its life and soul by working it for the first fourteen years was most remarkable. Many loopholes were detected in the process of working, and Nehru took it upon himself to plug them by bringing in the necessary constitutional amendments which clarified the real intent of the framers of the Constitution.
While piloting the Constitution amendment bills and otherwise speaking on important issues, Nehru made a significant contribution to constitutional thinking on subjects like fundamental rights vs. directive principles, limits to freedom of speech, etc., rights of the individual vs. the interests of society, the supremacy of parliament and the jurisdiction of courts, right to property, protection of backward classes, resolution of the language problem, and relationship between President and the Prime Minister.
When today a grateful nation celebrates another birthday of Pandit Nehru, it is pertinent to recall, among other thing, his role in the evolution and operation of the Constitution of India not only as a matter of historical interest or to pay homage to the great builder of modern India, but because Nehru’s vision and views, and his words and warnings on the crucial problems of Indian polity are as relevant today as they were when he moved in flesh and blood and guided the destiny of the nation. What he told the Constituent Assembly, he could as well be saying today:
“At present the greatest and most important question in India is how to solve the problem of the poor and the starving. Wherever we turn, we are confronted with this problem. If we cannot solve this problem soon, all our paper Constitution will become useless and purposeless.”
But one is constrained to ask whether after 63 years of the working of the Constitution, the problem of the poor and the starving has really been solved? I am sorry to conclude this Memorial Lecture with a sad and sombre note. The hard fact is that despite all the much bandied about, poverty alleviation programs named after him and others, we have more poor people today than we had at the time of Independence. Also, we have the largest number of the poor in any country and at least one-third of all the poor of the world. It is a grim picture. In the 67th year of Nehru taking over as the Prime Minister of Independent India and his famous "tryst with destiny," 67 per cent of our population is officially acknowledged to be so poor as to stand with a begging bowl for food grains at Rs. 1, 2 or 3 per kilogram. Has the Constitution, to use Nehru's words, "become useless and purposeless"?
Thank you... Jai Hind...
The two-day National Seminar on “Peace and Social Justice Movements: Ideals and Activism”, organized by the Nehru Studies Centre & UGC–SAP, Department of Political Science, University of Allahabad, started with the inaugural session. Guests were welcomed by Prof. M P Dube, Director, Nehru Studies Centre, University of Allahabad. Prof. Dube not only welcomed the guests but also talked about the newly established Nehru Studies Centre of Allahabad University. He also discussed the motivation behind the theme of seminar in the light of Nehruvian ideals.
(Inauguration of the National Seminar, Prof. Dube is introducing the theme of the Seminar)
In the opening remarks, Dr. Rajpal Budania, Department of Political Science, Allahabad University stated that though the peace studies got recognition in academics in 90s but it started long back in 60s. But at that time it was one value i.e. absence of war against the countries and now its multi-value, which relates the internal phenomena of states. As hurdle in the peace making process, he discussed various causes like un-united cultural diversity, economic disparity, human insecurity, terrorism, fundamentalism, etc. He also discussed about Globalization as new dilemma in peace making process as on the one hand it created a global economy but on the other hand it created new insecurities, new social tension and new inequalities. He suggested few possible solutions too and sum up with the final notion that peace is not mere absence of war rather its absence of violence.
In the key-note address, Advocate, Vinod Chandra Dubey, Former President, Allahabad University Student Union emphasized that we must focus the practicality of the topic in the discussion. He said that knowledge for the sake of the knowledge could be acquired in the closed rooms but if you have an aim to establish social justice and peace, we must go beyond the discussions in a room and must try to convert our thoughts in the deeds.
(The Chief Guest, Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sudhir Narain and others in the National Seminar)
The Chief Guest, Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sudhir Narain, in his address, discussed the views of Nehru and said that so for the constitution of India is concerned it laid down the ideal of social justice. He quoted various articles and provisions of Indian constitution that protect the soul of social justice. Discussing about the conflict and conflict resolution, he shared his vast experience with the listeners. Along with economic disparity, social in-equality and ignorance, terrorism he criticized organized religion as hindrance in the way to social justice and peace building process.
(National Seminar in progress)
At the end of the inaugural session, Prof. Krishna Gupta, Head, Department of Political Science, University of Allahabad delivered Vote of Thanks to the honorable guests, presenters, participants and organizers of the seminar. The whole session was compared by Prof. H K Sharma, Director, Academic Staff College, University of Allahabad.
The theme of first technical session of the seminar was ‘Peace and Conflict – A Conceptual Analysis’. It was chaired by Prof. B L Sah, Director, ASC, Kumaun University, Nainital and Co-Chaired by Prof. O P Srivastava, Dept. of Ancient History, University of Allahabad. There were nine paper presenters in this session, viz. Dr. Ravi P Bhatia (Conflict Resolution Related to Basic Human Needs of Adivasis in India), Dr.Anil Dutta Mishra (Conflict and Conflict Resolution: A Conceptual Analysis), Dr. Kumar Askand Pandey (Misplaced Priorities: Impact of Swami Shraddanand case on Reformation of Murderers), Dr. Avinash Bajpai (Conceptual Issues of Exclusions & Challenges of Inclusive Growth and Peace), Dr. Sumit Saurabh Srivastava (Women and Peace Building Process: With Special Reference to United States), Mohammad Shaheer Siddiqui (Sufism in Indian Culture: The Harmonious Heritage of Love and Fraternity), Priyamvada Mishra (Peace Traditions and Movements: An Assessment), Harshit Nigam (Rajesh Khanna and the Gandhian Legacy), Karuna Chaurasia & Subhash Chandra (Peace Education: A Way for Conflict Resolution).
Second Technical Session is on ‘Violent Conflicts: Reasons & Preventions’. It was Chaired by Prof. Debashis Guha, Department of Philosophy, University of Allahabad. We had seven paper presenters in this session, viz. Dr. J S Singh (Human Right to Shelter: A Bold Stepto Enrich Peace and Social Justice Movements), Mr. Onkar S. Pawar (North East Region: A Struggle for Peace), Dr. Rajneesh Kumar Yadav (Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act. 1958 & Violation of Human Rights), Dr. P S Harish (Evolution of War fore and its Technology –A Historical Overview), Dr. Deepshikha Srivastava & Mamta Biswas (Lkekftd U;k; dh LFkkiuk vkSj lkekftd vkUnksyu dh Hkwfedk), Awdhesh Kumar (Peace and Social Justice: A Theoretical Analysis), Shashi Kant & Tanu Parashar (State Response to Kashmir Insurgency: A Way Forward).
The Valedictory Address was delivered by Prof. R C Tripathi, Former Director, Govind Ballabh Pant Social Science Institute, Jhusi, Allahabad.
National Seminar on Democracy in India: Emerging Trends organized by UGC-SAP, Department of Political Science & Nehru Studies Centre University of Allahabad, Allahabad dated March7-8, 2014.
(Dr. Subhash Kashyap, former Secretary General, Lok Sabha, New Delhi inaugurating the National Seminar on “Democracy in India: Emerging Trends)
(National Seminar on “Democracy in India: Emerging Trends in progress.)
Two Projects are ongoing in the Nehru Studies Centre, University of Allahabad. The Details are as given below: