The Rule of the Nehru-Gandhi political dynasty as a phenomenon of the Political Life of Independent India (based on the materials of domestic and Indian historiography)

Zaitcev Andrei Master's Degree, Department of Modern and Contemporary History, N.I.Lobachevsky National Research Nizhny Novgorod State University 603000, Russia, Nizhegorodskaya oblast', g. Nizhnii Novgorod, ul. Ul'yanova, 2, of. 310 andrey.zaytsev1998@yandex.ru Other publications by this author

Introduction

To determine the main reasons for the appearance of political dynasties in India since the middle of the XX century, after the country gained independence from Great Britain, it is necessary to clarify the terminology of this issue. The term "dynasty" comes from the Greek word – "power, domination" and denotes a family from which a number of persons came out who ruled the state consistently and continuously as a prince, tsar, king, emperor, etc. This term is usually used in the context of states with a monarchical form of government, such as the United Kingdom, Spain, the Benelux countries, a number of Northern European countries, Japan, Saudi Arabia, etc. Also, this term is used to denote an era during which representatives of the same genus ruled, as they do in China. Subsequently, the term "dynasty" began to denote people coming from the same family and clan, who continue the work of their ancestors and follow in their footsteps, this meaning is closer in context to our topic. However, in relation to the Nehru-Gandhi family, the term "dynasty" will not be entirely correct, since they ruled the state with a republican form of government and with interruptions in 1964-1966, 1977-1980.

Therefore, the term "political family" was coined to denote such phenomena, which literally translates as "political family", but can also be translated as "political dynasty". This term refers to a family whose members actively participate in the political life of the state and are elected to the most important state posts through elections. They can be related both by blood and through marriage, often several generations of the same family can be involved. This phenomenon is known all over the world in various democratic states, including the United States, but in South Asian countries and in India in particular, "political dynasties" have become the most widespread. In India, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh, there are dozens of families that can be called political dynasties. This was largely facilitated by the rule of the Nehru-Gandhi family in India.

The Nehru-Gandhi family has a long history. The earliest known representative of this family is the Kashmiri pandit Raj Kaul, who left Kashmir at the beginning of the XVIII century for a feudal land allotment (jagir) granted to him near Delhi. The allotment was located near the canal, so the name of its owner was joined by the surname Nehru, derived from the word Nahar, which means "canal", which will be worn by his descendants ^{[1, p. 18]}. In the future, representatives of this family will no longer be associated with Kashmir, but with territories near Delhi, which in the colonial period will be called the North-Western Provinces, and then the United Provinces, now the state of Uttar Pradesh. The foundation of the Nehru-Gandhi family as a political dynasty was laid by Motilal Nehru (1861-1931), who began to engage in active political activity in the 1910s, when the national liberation movement began. In the future, his political position will be promoted and developed by his son, Jawaharlal Nehru (1889-1964). Gaining independence allowed Nehru to launch a program of large-scale transformations of the country while serving as Prime Minister of India. Nehru's work was continued by his daughter Indira Gandhi (1917-1984), who, like her father, was involved in political activities from a young age. And she continued her father's domestic and foreign policy aimed at strengthening the construction of a "socialist model of society" and the doctrine of non-alignment. In turn, Indira Gandhi openly promoted her children into politics and government posts, because she trusted only them. At first, Indira Gandhi relied on her youngest son Sanjay (1946-1980), who was noted for his initiatives during the state of emergency (1975-1977). However, he died in a plane crash on June 23, 1980. Therefore, the eldest son Rajiv (1944-1991), who would become Prime Minister of India after her death in 1984, had to be involved in political activities. After his death in 1991, none of the members of the Nehru-Gandhi family was elected to the post of Prime Minister of India and did not hold important government posts. Rajiv Gandhi's widow Sonia (born 1946) refused them because of her foreign origin (she is Italian) and the harsh criticism of her nationalist opponents on this ground. She limited herself to being elected to the position of Chairman of the INC in 1998 and elected to the Lok Sabha. Similarly, her children, Rahul (born 1970) and Priyanka (born 1972) Gandhi, who are also actively engaged in political activities, but due to the INC crisis and the sharp strengthening of the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), they are unable to occupy important posts. Separately, we note that there are representatives of the Nehru-Gandhi family in the BJP, in particular, Sanjay Gandhi's widow Maneka (born 1956), who defected to the INC opponents due to the conflict with Indira and Rajiv Gandhi, and her son Varun (born 1980), who are also deputies of the Lok Sabha, but not they have great influence and authority within the party, so they also do not hold important government posts.

The problem of coverage of the Nehru-Gandhi family as a political dynasty has been touched upon in both domestic and Indian historiography. Soviet indologists did not raise this question in their research. Moreover, the statements about the rule of Nehru-Gandhi as a manifestation of dynastity were considered unacceptable in the USSR, discrediting the political system in India, were called "the machinations of the enemies" of this family, a weapon in the political struggle, for such statements did not require much imagination and erudition. In the USSR, it was believed that dynastic ties were determined not by the degree of kinship, but by the principle and form of the transfer of power. Each representative of the Nehru-Gandhi family earned their political authority through their work and political authority, and not by inheritance ^{[2, p. 216]}. As proof of their position, the lack of common views and personal qualities among different generations of this family was claimed. Jawaharlal Nehru was not considered the heir of his father Motilal in political terms, he was more radical than him. In addition, he earned his authority by his political struggle, and not by the influence of his father. Nehru was also compared to his daughter Indira Gandhi, who was considered a more democratic ruler in the USSR. Instead of the term "political dynasty", the term "patriotic family" was used, while the transfer of power within the family from generation to generation is not denied. It was only in the post-Soviet period that Nehru-Gandhi began to be spoken of as a political dynasty, and the problem of the phenomenon of their rule was raised. This is a great merit of F. N. Yurlov, who began his two-volume monograph on Nehru-Gandhi with the designation of this problem and its nature. Yurlov called the phenomenon of dynasticity one of the specific features of Indian society, which will be very difficult to eradicate in connection with the modernization processes due to the traditional nature of this problem and the support of a significant part of society for political dynasties ^{[3, p. 18]}. The same situation is observed in India, this problem has been dealt with in historiography at home only in recent years. However, domestic and Indian historians could not study the whole phenomenon as a whole, but only its individual aspects, which can be divided into political and socio-cultural.

Socio-cultural aspects of the Nehru-Gandhi political Dynasty as a phenomenon of the political life of the Republic of India

The main cultural aspect of this phenomenon is certainly the predominant role of family values in India. A strong family is the foundation of social life, the guarantee of the stability of the state, it rests on continuity in the kind of occupation. Family values and traditions are of paramount importance, therefore, even at the basic level, family dynasties are formed that are engaged in one common cause, including politics ^{[3, p. 9]}. The creation and preservation of a family, the birth and upbringing of children, the reverence of parents, love for brothers, sisters, and other distant and near relatives is considered in India, first of all, a sacred, karmic duty. Therefore, the feeling of attachment to the family, love for parents and children in India began to be used for political purposes ^{[4, p. 12]}. Since this phenomenon continues the traditions of the ruling families of pre-colonial and colonial India, where power was transferred from one family member to another regardless of the name of the ruler's title (Raja, Maharaja, Nawab, nizam, etc.), dynastiality can be called one of the signs of the traditionality of Indian political culture.

It is also characteristic that Indian society does not object to the transfer of power from one family member to another, treats it calmly, does not consider it unacceptable. After all, a strong close-knit family engaged in politics is a model for those who are at lower levels of the social hierarchy ^{[3, p. 10]}. In addition, this practice is not officially prohibited by Indian law. This was actively used and is still being used by the Nehru-Gandhi family, making it their tool in the internal political struggle. Some experts, in particular, A.V. Gilev considers the use of family ties to be a way to strengthen the positions of poorly and inefficiently functioning political institutions, including the INC party ^{[5, p. 10]}. Therefore, such a policy is called clan, although the concept of "clan" is not widespread in India.

The caste factor plays a significant role in this process. The caste consists of closed groups of people united by the performance of a certain function, hereditary occupations or professions, area of residence, endogamy and a common ancestor. Caste is inextricably linked with dharma (a person's duty, status, rights and duties), and carries various restrictions, primarily in communication with other castes. Thus, belonging to a caste determined a person's entire life: his profession, style of behavior, morality, ethics and much more, including political relations. Representatives of the higher Varnas and castes were generally admitted to power in India.

Modern political dynasties have also been formed according to this principle. Nehru-Gandhi is no exception. They belong to the Kashmiri Pandits (also called Kashmiri brahmins), who consider themselves to be a caste group of Saraswati Brahmins. This is one of the highest Brahmin castes and part of the largest group of Pancha-Gauda brahmins living north of the Vindhya mountain range in Central India (another largest group of Pancha-Dravida brahmins lives to the south). In addition, the word "pandit" is translated from Sanskrit as "scholar", it means a connoisseur of classical Indian literature in Sanskrit and generally a highly educated person. The Brahmin origin of Nehru-Gandhi means for Indians their good karma, which allows them to hold high government positions and receive in return the universal respect and honor of the population.

The peculiarity of Kashmiri pandits in the person of Nehru-Gandhi will be a pan-Indian worldview, respect for other cultures and cosmopolitanism. The reasons are that "they flourished in a state where the number of Muslims exceeded them by a ratio of 13 to 1; they had no history of caste quarrels, since the non-Brahman castes of Kashmir and several Brahman castes converted to Islam; they were comfortable with Muslim culture, with the Persian language and even with eating meat (which they refused most Indian Brahmins, except Kashmiris and Bengalis)" ^{[1, p. 19]}.

It is noteworthy that despite belonging to the highest castes, Nehru-Gandhi will fight against caste inequality in India and promote the appointment of representatives of lower castes to government posts, and then untouchables. The reasons were not only the overcoming of caste inequality, but also socio-economic, primarily the economic modernization of India, the growth of public consciousness of the population and its politicization, which occurred not without the influence of the INC itself with its large-scale propaganda campaigns during the reign of Indira Gandhi ^{[4, p. 7]}. However, this inequality will not be eliminated until the end. The reason lies in the depth of caste differences in the region: "Experience has shown that it was the dividing interests that influenced people's consciousness much more, and loyalty to the region, community or caste arouses much greater passions than unemployment or injustice" ^{[6, p. 388]}.

It is impossible not to note the gender factor in the development of the phenomenon of these dynasties, namely the high role of women. Despite the fact that a woman occupies a subordinate position in South Asia and her main role is to do household chores, she can manage the state. Since the independence of the countries of the region, women have begun to play a prominent role in political life. This was facilitated not only by the policy of states towards women, but also by the growth of women's actual political activity. Moreover, in India, women have been elected to high government positions of president or prime Minister, first of all, this concerns Indira Gandhi. The rise of women to power in India is considered a separate political phenomenon of this region or, as A. A. Suvorova put it, a "black swan" (this is how unpredictable events with global consequences are designated).

There are several reasons for this ascent of women. The first one is connected with the ideas of Indians about a woman. In Hinduism, every deity has shakti (female energy), which is a divine creative force. This energy in women is embodied in the performance of the role of heroines, warriors, political leaders. "Indira Gandhi," wrote an Indian author, "was perceived by women as a symbol of hope and saw in her the incarnation of the goddess Durga" ^{[7, p. 287]}. Indira Gandhi has collected many virtues of Indian women, such as the ability to persevere, hard work, determination and self-sacrifice, strategic and tactical thinking, the ability to choose priority policy goals, patriotism ^{[7, p. 287]}.

The second reason is that the population supported women, as they represent respected families of politicians and public figures. Their election to the highest state positions is largely due to the popularity of their fathers (Indira Gandhi) or husbands (Sonia Gandhi), because "the voter readily votes for them. For voters, this is not a new, unknown person, but a member of an authoritative socially recognized family" ^{[7, p. 288]}. They were identified exclusively with their outstanding husbands or fathers and their political course, as well as the traditions of public life. At the same time, these rights had to be defended in democratic elections in conditions of fierce political struggle, their kinship with outstanding fathers or husbands became one of the advantages of women politicians during the election campaign.

The third reason is severe personal upheavals (this applies more to Indira Gandhi). This reason is closely adjacent to the second one, since the fates of husbands or fathers were also tragic. "The right of inheritance, as we have seen, was determined by the closest relationship with the late patriarch. The victory of such a “legitimate” heiress in the struggle for power was perceived by the people as a well-deserved retribution to the “usurpers”, the restoration of trampled justice, the global triumph of good over evil. As history demonstrates, the death of a politician is not a private matter, but an important stage of his activity, which may be more or less successful and influence future generations" ^{[8, p. 30]}. The love of the people for female rulers was explained by the feat and sacrifice of heroically fighting or fallen husbands or fathers, so the halo of a charismatic leader was transferred to women.

The fourth reason is the expectations of the population from women. A female leader should be more gentle towards the common population, more sensitive to the problems of the people, more determined to solve these problems, more peaceful. Indira Gandhi's rule shows that the expectations of the population may not coincide with reality.

The fifth reason is the lack of worthy male heirs. Suvorova points out that Indira Gandhi was the only child of Jawaharlal Nehru, so there was no one in the Nehru family to replace her. And the rise of Sonia Gandhi is connected with the infancy at the time of Rajiv Gandhi's death in 1991 of their son Rahul. At the same time, Suvorova notes the role of gender stereotypes in this issue, since for the opposition, a woman was considered a less severe opponent, and for the ruling elite (primarily the party), the coming to power of a woman was a means of maintaining control over the army, the party, the government and other institutions of power ^{[8, p. 38]}.

The sixth reason is nationalistic. In Indian nationalism, women have a special responsibility to the nation, it consists primarily in the upbringing of the "children of the nation", the reproduction of national culture, the preservation of national traditions, etc. Women are the bearers of national honor and dignity ^{[9, p. 67]}. Therefore, Indira Gandhi often appeared in the image of the "Mother of India" ("Bharat Mata"), the Indian representation of the image of the Mother Goddess in the form of a woman in an orange sari holding a national flag in her hand. So she showed "masculinity" in confronting the enemies of the Indian nation and at the same time performed basic female functions in relation to the nation ^{[9, p. 71]}. And this despite the fact that the ideology of the INC proclaimed "unity in diversity", the concept of "inclusive nationalism".

The final reason is feminist. The rule of women leaders in South Asia fits tightly into the concept of postcolonial feminism that has spread in the region since the early 1980s. The thinkers of this trend considered the rise to power of women in the region as a manifestation of gender equality, the destruction of the traditional attitude towards women, the proclamation of her autonomy, which they combine with the struggle against the colonial past. At the same time, neither Indira nor Sonia Gandhi ever called themselves feminists and did not consider themselves to be a feminist movement.

The main conclusion of this phenomenon is the change of the ruling elites, the modernization of the political culture of the region, in particular traditional ideas about power, democratization and liberalization of legal norms ^{[9, p. 83]}. The female leader was a symbol of the renewal of power, the strengthening of national unity, the fight against repression, corruption, and other political problems, the bearer of "good" power, selfless love for the people and high political morality. "On the approaches to the coveted prime minister's post, they claimed to be politically "spotless", ready to sacrifice for the sake of the people, and even presented their inexperience in governing the country as a moral alternative to male rivals, allegedly hardened politicians prone to political violence and personal enrichment" ^{[8, p. 28]}. However, this did not save women leaders, including Indira Gandhi, from accusations of the opposition, loss of public confidence, propensity for tough political decisions, forced resignations.

Political aspects of the Nehru-Gandhi Political Dynasty as a phenomenon of the Political life of the Republic of India

The main political aspect of the Nehru-Gandhi rule as a phenomenon is their personal political qualities, which were formed during the national liberation movement in India. Motilal and Jawaharlal Nehru earned huge prestige and popularity in society in those years, due to this they were able to be in power and prove themselves in the years of independence.

In Soviet historiography, it was customary to praise Jawaharlal Nehru, to call him "a consistent democrat, a fighter for equality, against caste survivals and religious-communal reaction, for the strong national unity of India based on a combination of the principles of democracy and centralism" ^{[2, p. 120]}, an outstanding humanist thinker, a supporter of nonviolent methods of solving international problems and the independent development of his country, a political realist, a person with a broad outlook and a keen vision of modern social processes, a multifaceted personality, and so on. They noted his role in the creation of a democratic system of government in India, the industrialization of the country, the introduction of planning on a national scale, the creation of political thought for the countries of the "third world", while noting the incompleteness of eliminating all the contradictions that existed in India and the inability to create an integral mechanism for the implementation of his course. The activities of Indira Gandhi were also evaluated in the same way. She was called "a consistent Indian patriot-nationalist, reformist, centrist" ^{[2, p. 219]}. A vivid confirmation of the strength of Nehru's personal authority was called the confident victories of the INC in the parliamentary elections and the failure of the parliamentary vote on a vote of no confidence in his government in 1963, Indira Gandhi's policy in the 1970s, including during the years of the state of emergency. In the post-Soviet era, attention was also drawn to their shortcomings, in particular, V. P. Kashin called Jawaharlal Nehru a power lover, an authoritarian manager who did not trust even close associates and had no friends, touchy and painfully reacted to criticism ^{[10, pp. 47-48]}.

Indian experts adhered to the same assessments of Nehru-Gandhi's political leadership. This family was the center of the appeal of the INC party, because only through his charisma and oratory could the party win landslide victories in the elections. Their self-criticism was noted, since for the Nehru family, the methodology of democratic governance is an art and its purpose is to ensure cooperation between broad circles, in which a sense of self-participation arises among all interested participants ^{[11, p. 189]}. Most often, Indian authors called the Nehru family democrats, because they introduced the principles of parliamentary democracy in their homeland, noted their great respect for parliamentary institutions, sensitivity to opposition sentiments, encouragement of debates and discussions ^{[12, p. 94]}. The structure of independent India was based on four principles: nationalism as a form of political unity of India, democracy, secularism as equality of religions and economic development. The Nehru family, first of all Jawaharlal Nehru, saw the shortcomings of democracy, but followed the path of its construction to the end, because they saw it as one of the highest human values ^{[12, p. 107]}.

At the same time, Indian authors had more respect for the political qualities of Jawaharlal Nehru than for his descendants — Indira and Rajiv Gandhi. Indian authors have not seen such qualities in Indira Gandhi. She was perceived exclusively as a "daughter of Nehru", a dim figure and a bad speaker with a quick reaction to the encroachments of her status, "she gave the impression of suppression and caution" ^{[13, p. 13]}. Indira Gandhi copied her father's manner of communication and behavior, besides, the views and line of politics were not much different from her father's, she lacked a broad outlook. "She accepted his mannerisms of throwing back the garlands, she was delighted with the observers, especially the children, and delved into the crowd to find an answer for herself, what was going on… Mrs. Gandhi, who made an awkward impression as a speaker in some cases in front of an astute audience when her delivery of written speeches was flat, withdrew into herself in front of the crowd, where she was smooth and expressive" ^{[13, p. 35]}. Indira Gandhi did not look like an ambitious, power-hungry ruler, she looked too unremarkable. She underwent special training under the supervision of her father, gained an undeniable advantage over other leaders of Indian politics, was able to masterfully use her advantages while in power, but at the same time showed herself as a politician striving to retain power and preserve the image of her family in all possible ways ^{[14, p. 35]}.

During their political struggle, representatives of the political dynasty got into various political scandals, repeatedly found themselves behind bars, and during the national liberation movements in the colonial era, and after independence. Jawaharlal Nehru spent a total of about 10 years in prison, Indira Gandhi — several months in the late 1970s. The reasons for these arrests were different, they are mostly related to the political struggle within the countries of the region. The Nehru-Gandhi family was often subjected to violence, assassination attempts, Indira, Sanjay and Rajiv Gandhi tragically died as a result of a man-made disaster or murder. These tragedies only rallied the population around the representatives of these dynasties and strengthened their political positions. Their sacrifice in the name of India's development greatly bribed the local population. Moreover, if Jawaharlal Nehru showed his sacrifice at least during the period of the national liberation movement, then all the others — already during the period of independence. In order to achieve the country's development goals, it was possible to sacrifice the unity of your party, the freedoms of citizens, your reputation and even your life. A striking example is the confident victory of the INC in the 1991 elections, which took place a few weeks after the death of Rajiv Gandhi.

In addition, Nehru-Gandhi managed to consolidate around herself the oldest political party in India — the Indian National Congress (INC), founded in 1885. She came to power as the national liberation movement in India developed, after gaining independence in 1947, it was the INC that would become the ruling force in the country for many years to come. The process of consolidating the party around the Nehru family occurred during several splits of the INC in the 1940s and 1960s. The main result of these splits is the departure of Nehru's political opponents from the INC, both from the right and left flanks, and a significant strengthening of the positions of the Nehru—Gandhi family in the leadership of the party. For the Nehru-Gandhi family, the INC was of great importance, since it was the party that determined the strategic line of the dynasty's policy in India, was a mechanism for mobilizing resources, it had great influence and prestige among the population, it was responsible for building a new, modern India, preserving its unity and integrity ^{[3, pp. 320-321]}.

The Nehru-Gandhi family is characterized by the unity of its domestic and foreign policy program for the development of India. The domestic political line is called "congressional socialism" in the literature, since Jawaharlal Nehru is its developer, built his policy on the synthesis of Marxist socialism with the ideas of M. K. Gandhi. This program assumed industrialization, planned economy with a predominance of the public sector, secularization of India. The nationalization of industry and the banking system was carried out, protectionist measures were introduced to stimulate their own production, large-scale agrarian reforms, etc.

In Soviet historiography, this was justified as follows: "They were caused by an exceptionally complex interweaving of class contradictions inherent in modern India, the multiplicity of social structures, and most importantly, Nehru's underestimation of the special historical role of the working class as a carrier of the ideology of scientific socialism" ^{[2, p. 146]}. However, Nehru's version of "democratic socialism" sharply separated from the Soviet understanding of the socialist system, since Marxism was outdated for him, communism was not suitable for India, and a "middle way" with a mixed economy and a pragmatic approach to this ideology was chosen ^{[15, p. 157]}. However, Soviet Indologists expressed the opinion that Nehru looked at socialism more broadly, as a philosophical, and not just an economic doctrine. He considered it as a growing dynamic concept, as a way to overcome the economic backwardness of the people and end the age-old problems of the country ^{[16, p. 277]}. Nehru's social policy was also noted with the aim of overcoming casteism in India, improving the level of health and education, building social elevators for the lower strata of society, including for building democracy. "Nehru did not turn democracy into an end in itself, on the contrary, he argued that democracy is a means to achieve an end, which is a good human life" ^{[15, p. 254]}. In the post-Soviet era, they began to write about the separation of Nehru-Gandhi's ideas from the communist one. Nehru-Gandhi rejected the principles of class dictatorship, communist practices of coercion and suppression of personality, rejected their demands for the redistribution of income and resources of Indian monopolies, and so on. "He often repeated that there is no such wealth in India that can be divided, only poverty can be divided, and called for focusing efforts on the growth of the national product, increasing the production of goods and services and organizing a fair distribution" ^{[17, p. 43]}.

The Indian authors emphasized that "congressional socialism" became the preaching of economic and social justice for Nehru-Gandhi, in which there is a place for individual freedom and economic planning, which the author calls pragmatic and progressive. The goal of such an ideology is called overcoming poverty and inequality without limiting human rights and freedoms ^{[18, p. 105]}. It was not dogmatic socialism, because it did not correspond to the agnostic views of this dynasty, it took into account the spiritual strength of man, expressed in the valiant struggle of man with the elements, his courage, which conquers nature itself, boundless endurance, high aspirations, devotion to comrades and self-forgetfulness, as well as his good mood in the face of all conceivable misfortunes ^{[12, p. 35]}. Jawaharlal Nehru did not consider communism a workable ideology, since he was not sympathetic to "the ruthless suppression of all opposing opinions, widespread regulation and unnecessary violence in carrying out various political measures" ^{[12, p. 43]}. It was important to build a socialism free from authoritarianism, with full equality and freedom, in addition, Nehru actively supported individualism, since it does not contradict socialism ^{[12, p. 107]}. The socialist views of the Nehru family are connected with the desire for a violent break with the past, first of all, with the colonial one. Nehru was most attracted to Marxism by the historical approach to social problems and the desire for justice, despite his deep admiration for the intellectual level of Marxist ideas and their scientific nature ^{[19, p. 162]}. They were not fans of Western socialism either, they understood the need to combine socialist principles with Indian realities, planning had the goal of lifting humanity to higher material, cultural and spiritual levels with instilling the spirit of selflessness, service, goodwill and love ^{[20, p. 472]}. In recent years, the socialist ideas of Nehru-Gandhi have been criticized in India, since all the measures taken by this family did not look like socialist, but as a manifestation of the construction of state capitalism ^{[6, p. 62]}.

Nehru-Gandhi's foreign policy was based on the doctrine of non—alignment, India was building an equal with two superpowers - the USSR and the USA in the conditions of the Cold War, as well as an attempt to establish leadership in the countries of the "third world". In the Soviet Union, it was characterized not as pragmatic, but as large-scale, with high socio-historical and pragmatic requirements, since "the breadth of horizons, excellent knowledge of history and the current state of international relations allowed J. Nehru should develop a progressive political course that meets national interests, has served as an example for many developing countries and contributes to the consolidation of the forces of peace and social progress on the world stage" ^{[1, p. 152]}. The principles of non-alignment were called international heritage, entered into the practice of international relations, assistance to the former colonies of Asia and Africa that gained independence. The concept of non-alignment was recognized as dynamic, humanistic, based on the power of a modern independent state, showing the breadth of India's national interests, and not only the Nehru-Gandhi worldview ^{[21, p. 57]}. The 1955 Bandung Conference was called by Soviet scientists as a response to the American policy of military blocs and imperialist intervention. Researchers assessed the role of the Nehru-Gandhi family in this movement as leading, calling them the main fighters against imperialism in Asia.

In post-Soviet historiography, the formation of this doctrine was dictated by the establishment of India as an independent state capable of influencing international relations and the final collapse of the world colonial system. F. N. Yurlov called the concept of non-alignment "positive neutrality", where unwillingness to join or get closer to any camp in the Cold War was combined with active participation in world politics as the leader of the former colonies of Asia and Africa. Nehru-Gandhi developed and actively spread their concept around the world to solve such fundamental tasks as peaceful coexistence, upholding the principles of equality and democracy, independence and security of all countries, eliminating poverty, accelerating cooperation among the countries of the global South. The emphasis in the implementation of this concept gradually shifted from political to economic, especially under Rajiv Gandhi, who began liberalizing India's economy, as the country began to advocate a radical restructuring of international economic relations on the basis of justice and equality, defended the right of each country to its resources and its policies, demanded postponement of the payment of debts of developing countries, reform of the international monetary system.-the financial system, which is hopelessly outdated, has become unfair and inadequate so that the countries of Asia and Africa can meet the aspirations of their population ^{[22, p. 336]}. The Non-Aligned Movement is considered the ideological base of India's leadership in the "third world" countries. "In the conditions of the Cold War, non-alignment became a defensive reaction of the liberated countries to attempts by external forces to draw them into an ideological and military-political confrontation between the two blocs, allowed them to protect themselves from the influence of the USSR, which claimed to lead the national liberation movement" ^{[23, p. 27]}.

In India, this concept was considered an opportunity to prevent the Third World War, to declare the new role of Asia and Africa in world affairs so that their opinions would be listened to, to declare unwillingness to commit aggressive actions against anyone, and to call decisions imposed from the outside unacceptable. It was the realization of the greatness of India as a country with an ancient history and culture, with its achievements, with a great desire for goodness and truth. Non-alignment is an element of India's independent and dynamic foreign policy, which is not a policy of neutrality: "It is a policy of protecting national interests, including integrity, independence and dignity" ^{[12, p. 162]}. Now in the homeland of Nehru-Gandhi, the concept of non-alignment is criticized in connection with its, as it is considered, openly cosmopolitan character ^{[24, p. 40]}. However, the positive characteristics of this doctrine have also been preserved ^{[6, p. 152; 25, p. 175]}.

Conclusions

The phenomenon of the Nehru-Gandhi family rule in India arose on the basis of both socio-cultural and political factors. The socio-cultural basis has become the traditions and customs of Indian society, in which there are no legislative and moral prohibitions on the participation of an entire family in political activity if it has a high caste status in Indian political culture, such as the Nehru-Gandhi family, which are representatives of the highest Brahmin varna. Hence the assumption of the presence of women in senior government positions.

The political factors are the views of representatives of the Nehru-Gandhi family on the development of Indian statehood, on the place and role of the country's citizens in the process of building Indian independence, on ways and methods of improving the lives of the poorest segments of the population, in a word, all those aspects of political consciousness cultivated and passed on in this family from generation to generation for decades, and formed the basis of a unified domestic and foreign policy doctrine proclaimed by Jawaharlal Nehru.

The phenomenon of the rule of this political dynasty, both in general and in individual aspects, has been considered in detail both in our country and in India. However, it has not been sufficiently studied yet, so research on this problem remains relevant at the present time.