Nothing shows up the schizophrenia of the Indian mind in the face of this challenge than that the two principal leaders of the national struggle for independence, Mahatma Gandhi and Mr. Nehru should have come to contrary conclusions. The Mahatma was for an outright rejection of the western civilization, which is often described as Satanic. Mr. Nehru was for all-out industrialization. Both spoke from utter conviction and were extremely articulate in stating their positions. But neither of them thought it worth his while to grapple with the troublesome details when it came to making the reality conform to the vision. The Mahatma was, of course, most meticulous about detail and when he undertook a job, whether it was the spread of the spinning wheel, revival of village industries or helping the Harijans, he did not regard the smallest matter pertaining to the concerned organization or an individual grievance beneath his personal attention. It was a different story, however, with translating his larger vision of a non-violent society into a blueprint.     He enunciated the general principal very forcefully. But such details as the state structure the new society would build and the social legislation it would undertake, the precise industrial policy it would pursue or the defense policy it would opt for, he left alone or dealt with in bits and pieces. Did he fear that his vision would suffer by raising all these issues at one go? Or did he realize long before the day of Indians’  tryst with destiny that he would not count on anyone even among his closest colleagues in the Congress to back him?     Mr. Nehru was in a much better position to carry out his ideas. But the very Constitution-making process became a formal exercise. There was no attempt to think in terms of institutions, which while preserving the substance of democracy, would contain populist pressures, make government more business-like and more productive of results and make for easy and cheap access to justice. All this is not to believe his role in guiding the young republic in its formative years and setting norms which none of the regimes that came after him were also to live up to. But that does not detract from the processes of decline.