Nehru Accused of Borrowing Ideas from Bandaranaike

  //travel-leisure.news-articles.net/content/2026/ .. ccused-of-borrowing-ideas-from-bandaranaike.html
  Published in Travel and Leisure on Friday, February 6th 2026 at 8:28 GMT by ThePrint
      Locales: Uttar Pradesh, Delhi, West Bengal, INDIA

The Curious Case of the Borrowed Ideas: Did Nehru Plagiarize Bandaranaike?

For decades, the relationship between Jawaharlal Nehru, India's first Prime Minister, and S.W.R.D. Bandaranaike, the Chief Minister of Ceylon (now Sri Lanka), was defined by political friction and contrasting ideologies. Nehru often cast Bandaranaike as a reactionary force, while Bandaranaike frequently accused Nehru of imperialistic tendencies. However, a newly resurfaced historical detail suggests a more complex - and potentially troubling - dynamic: the possibility that Nehru borrowed, perhaps without credit, from Bandaranaike's intellectual work.

Recent research by Rajan Hoole, a Tamil researcher based in Colombo, has brought to light a striking parallel between a paper presented by Bandaranaike at a conference in Colombo in 1953 and a draft paper Nehru presented to the Congress Working Committee later the same year. Both papers were titled 'The Indian Problem and Its Solution', and the degree of similarity between the two is, according to Hoole, "bizarre."

Bandaranaike's paper, delivered before Nehru's, posited that the partition of India had been poorly executed. Critically, it also explored the idea that Ceylon might have been better integrated as a part of the Indian Union - a potentially radical suggestion considering the growing nationalist sentiments in Ceylon at the time. Nehru's subsequent draft, presented months later, echoes these same arguments, presenting them as his own original thought.

Hoole emphasizes the crucial chronology. "Bandaranaike presented his paper first," he explains. "Nehru's came later, and was presented as if it were his own creation." While acknowledging Nehru's undeniable intellectual prowess, Hoole suggests that political expediency may have played a role. "Nehru was a great thinker, but he was also a politician. Taking ideas from someone else was...easier."

This isn't merely a question of intellectual property. It strikes at the heart of how we understand the complex relationship between these two influential figures. Bandaranaike, who later became Prime Minister of Ceylon, experienced a famously volatile relationship with Nehru. Despite their disagreements, Nehru delivered a heartfelt eulogy following Bandaranaike's assassination in 1959, calling him "an outstanding figure" and expressing the sorrow felt across India and Ceylon. Yet, Nehru never offered an apology for his earlier, often critical, assessments of Bandaranaike, nor did he ever acknowledge the remarkable convergence of ideas demonstrated in the 1953 papers.

The implications are layered. Bandaranaike himself faced accusations of utilizing communist tactics - a dangerous label during the height of the Cold War. However, if Nehru, a leader of the non-aligned movement, benefited from Bandaranaike's insights, it complicates the narrative surrounding Bandaranaike's political leanings. Was Bandaranaike genuinely embracing communist strategies, or was he simply articulating ideas that Nehru later appropriated and, perhaps, subtly rebranded?

Furthermore, this incident raises broader questions about the dynamics of power and intellectual exchange between post-colonial nations. Was this an instance of a dominant figure subtly asserting his influence over a smaller nation's leader? Did Nehru believe he was entitled to borrow from Bandaranaike, assuming his own stature would overshadow the original source?

The revelation also compels a re-evaluation of Nehru's established historical image. He is widely celebrated as a socialist, a modernizer, and a champion of intellectualism. While this may still be true, the possibility that he was willing to present another man's ideas as his own introduces a degree of ambiguity. It challenges the carefully constructed narrative of a supremely original thinker and hints at a more pragmatic, politically-motivated approach to leadership.

This isn't simply a historical footnote. Understanding the full story of the relationship between Nehru and Bandaranaike, including the potential for intellectual appropriation, is crucial for a complete and nuanced understanding of South Asian political history. Further research and investigation are needed to fully unpack the context and significance of this intriguing case of potentially 'borrowed' ideas.