today is the B/Day of Jawaharlal Nehru

[drsundaram]

Share:

Facebook X (Twitter) LinkedIn WhatsApp Email Share Link

Objectively evaluating Nehru on this day:
***************
let us remember some of the things he did:
On the positive side, he founded numerous institutions of higher research and labs. This democratized education for all Indians. The daughter of a poor farmer from Bihar could aspire to become a physicist so long as she cracked math problems. In the West, especially in America and UK, legacy determines access to education. Nehru didn't allow that perversion to take roots in India. Needless to say, investing in these institutions wasn't Nehru's original idea. It was Swami Vivekananda's idea which JRD Tara had begun implementing and Nehru continued with it.
That rare good deed shouldn't blind us to many of his failures.
Nehru was first and foremost a British stooge. The Brits committed a massive genocide of Indians. In the 1943 Bengal Famine alone, at least 4 million Indians were killed. Nehru didn't utter a single word criticizing the Brits either then or ever after. Four million Indian lives didn't matter to him. Not offending the British handlers was more important
Nehru didn't utter a word of criticism when Mountbatten was the willful architect of Partition genocides . Instead, he rewarded Mountbatten by making him the first governor general of India.
Nehru was instrumental in according special privileges to Christians and Muslims while denying the same to Hindus. The colonial rulers had bequeathed massive tracts of land and wealth upon the church. India should've reclaimed all of those on Independence. Nehru let them keep it and added more privileges. Nehru was a communal politician who continued (and exacerbated) the British communal policies for selfish gains.
Nehru was the enemy of free speech. He and Ambedkar (as well as a bunch of clerical minds which penned the constitution) were instrumental in copying and pasting the various blasphemy laws from the colonial rulers thereby preventing Hindus from criticizing Christianity or Islam though Hindus by nature wont resort to
Nehru had no vision in 1947 which was the suitable time to formulate urban planning, revive urban and village forests, and reclaim water bodies etc .Sadly he was just content to copy the latest western fad of building dams and ruining the ecosystem. As a result, Indian cities grew haphazardly and no planning has been possible since then.
Britishers who were departing dumped on India a secularism which is just a neo-colonial racist ideology for them . Ironically, Britain isn't secular. Nor is any western country in the real sense since they all privilege Christianity. Yet, they expected India to become secular so that her Hindu heritage is destroyed. Nehru fulfilled the wishes of the racists.
In short, Nehru was a communal politician and an adharmic person. He had no qualms about collaborating with those who committed a genocide of millions of Indians. Leadership was thrust upon this useful man by colonial masters to whom he owed allegiance till the very end. He would often ignore Indian generals and dance to the tune of white skinned boys. It is a pity that he is being projected as the "architect" of India.
Let us pray for a new, powerful, dharmic, and post-Nehruvian India emerge...........

 

[prasad1]

Nehru was a towering figure in Indian politics for over four decades. His impact on the country overshadows that of all other PMs who have come after him till now. Nehru's successors did not have his level of wide reading (except P V Narasimha Rao), his capacity to reflect and write, or his ability to make moving speeches.

Nehru's speech at Independence and when Gandhi passed away, and The Discovery of India, written while he was in prison, are simple and yet relevant even today, and should be compulsory reading in high schools.

Nehru as the first head of India's central government had the burden of reconciling a range of retrograde and poorly informed attitudes to forge consensus on forward-looking social legislation and government policies.

The enormous domestic, foreign policy and security challenges that Nehru addressed all look simple to face with the benefit of hindsight. Memories have faded about the difficult environment in which India was put together in its present form.

First, a liberal and forward-looking Constitution was adopted based on Nehru's commitment and that of the freedom-fighting generation of leaders to democracy, which institutionalised legal structures against religious bigotry and feudal mindsets.

Despite low levels of education and widespread illiteracy, basic norms of debate in the national Parliament and state assemblies were established.

His contributions in setting up transparent precedents of governance are still basically intact despite the cynicism of several of his successors.




Nehru's legacy includes the holding of regular free and fair elections. This achievement alone, which involved the setting up of the Election Commission and all the attendant procedures, separates India from its neighbours to the east, west and north.

In addition, parliamentary committees and the checks and balances of a well-functioning democracy, including a free press and independent judiciary, were institutionalised.

During the Nehru years, educational and specialised institutions were headed by experts rather than those who were close to the ruling party in Delhi. Of course, this had a lot to do with the optimism of a newly independent country.

The foundations of India's leading scientific and technological institutions were laid during the 1950s. For example, the Bhabha Atomic Research Centre, Indian Institutes of Technology, All India Institute of Medical Sciences and the Indian Space Research Organisation.

The emphasis was on identifying academics or professionals with proven track records to head institutions of excellence, including in the social sciences.

No other Indian PM has come close to Nehru's success in building quality institutions which have served the nation.

Nehru was fortunate to have highly gifted professionals and public figures around him who were solely driven by the motivation of nation-building. These included Cabinet colleagues, chief ministers in various states, scientists and a host of other gifted contemporaries without whom several of India's achievements would not have been possible.

No other PM has come close to Nehru's success

'His contributions in setting up transparent precedents of governance are still basically intact despite the cynicism of several of his successors,' notes Jamini Bhagwati.

www.rediff.com

This is not a political post, it pays homage to a great Indian leader, of course, there will be other points of view.
In present-day India (As mandated) Nehru is a pariah but to me and people of my generation, he is a great leader.

 

[prasad1]

Nehru is criticised for his so-called 'socialist' economic policies. The fact is that Nehru's mixed performance on the economic front was a huge improvement on that of British India.

For instance, inflation was muted during the first ten years after Independence and severe food shortages were averted. Despite an acute shortage of capital, there was significant industrial growth.

John Mathai commented around 1958 that 'Pandit Nehru like Mahatma Gandhi before him, combined political idealism with a keen sense of political expedience -- not in any unworthy sense but in the realisation that idealism bore no fruit unless men's eyes could be opened to it and their support enlisted in its behalf.'

Well before Independence Nehru was convinced that India would play an important role in international affairs as a large country. At the same time, Nehru felt that India should not get sucked into taking sides between the West led by the US and the Soviet bloc of nations.

However, the India economy would have modernised faster and growth would have accelerated earlier if he had not been so wary about forging closer economic linkages with the West.

Developed democracies were piqued by Nehru's grandstanding on the world stage without commensurate economic or military weight. Communist China’s leaders felt the same. And, Nehru blundered in the lead-up to the 1962 war with China.

Nehru's default mode was to trust his own ability to convince others, and this did not necessarily work with heads of government of other countries.

An extremely distressing error that various commentators deliberately or mistakenly make is to speak of Nehru and Indira Gandhi in the same breath. For instance, use of the phrase Nehru-Gandhi dynasty, as if similar values and principles governed decision making during the Nehru era and the Indira Gandhi years.


All said and done, it is likely that without Nehru at the start, there may still have been a continuing 'idea of India', but not as an undivided, independent and democratic nation.

No other PM has come close to Nehru's success

'His contributions in setting up transparent precedents of governance are still basically intact despite the cynicism of several of his successors,' notes Jamini Bhagwati.

www.rediff.com

 

[prasad1]

Thank you.

I did not see this post and started another thread.

Moderator, you may combine these two threads.

 

[Brahmanyan]

Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru was the greatest leader our Country had. A patriot to the core who faught for the freedom of our motherland with Mahatma and other leaders.Jawaharlal Nehru was imprisoned nine times during the freedom struggle and was in jail for 3259 days. He spent almost 9 years of his life in prison.
All the technological and agrarian advancements that we see today are based on the foundations laid by Nehruji.
My salutations to this great man.

Brahmanyan
Bangalore.

 

[prasad1]

Brahmanyan. good to see you back.
I was concerned that I did not see you here in the forum.

 

[Brahmanyan]

Brahmanyan. good to see you back.
I was concerned that I did not see you here in the forum.

Dear Sri Prasad,
I am very much in the forum, and participate in some threads that I could write.
Indeed it is so kind of you to have shown concern about me.
Thanks and Best wishes,
Brahmanyan
Bangalore.

 

[Srinidhi2603]

Why we Brahmins hate ambedkar? Who is he and what has he done to our community?

 

[prasad1]

Why we Brahmins hate ambedkar? Who is he and what has he done to our community?

It is news to me that Brahmins Hate Ambedkar. Then again some brahmins hated Mahatma Gandhi. Some Brahmins loved the British. Because Brahmins got special privileges under British Rule. That was a short-sided narrow point of view.

Raja Ram Mohan Roy, Ambedkar, Gandhi, Nehru were trying to uplift the entire nation and consequently were constantly opposed by the privileged few (including some Brahmins).

Mahatma Gandhi fought for the poor, without religious preferences, and was killed for it. In the modern-day BJP dominated nation, Gandhi is a forgotten "nobody".

Ambedkar envisioned a Casteless society for India. His vision was the right one for India. But he was not liked in his own time and now that he has become the symbol of Dalit aspirations, he may be hated by Brahmins.
Ambedkar was impatient and angry towards the end of his life. He could not change the Hindus, so he converted to Buddhism.
We owe a lot to Ambedkar for the Indian Constitution and its tone.

 

[Brahmanyan]

Why we Brahmins hate ambedkar? Who is he and what has he done to our community?

Your question seems to be loaded and mischievous.
No one in Brahmin community "hates" him. Neither he has hated Brahmin Community. In fact his second wife Dr. Savitha Ambedkar was a Brahmin by birth. Bharat rathna Dr. B R Ambedkar was a great Patriot and Social reformer who spent his entire life for the upliftment of
downtrodden communities and in the struggle against the inequalities of caste system prevalent in Indian society .

Dr Ambedkar was a brilliant scholar who led the team of Jurists who contributed significantly in the formulation of the Constitution of India.
I would request you to read about his biography, which is available in the net and clear your doubts.
Best wishes,
Brahmanyan
Bangalore.

 

[tbs]

hi

im not much impressed by gandhi/nehru dynasty.....both had indirectly supported pakistan after partition...

the true never comes in light....both like HERO worshippers...both fought for selfish motives/ideas,,,

but historian makes different story for glorifying sometimes...Netaji subhash chandra bose like ppl never

get more attention.....some politicians are ATTENTION SEEKERS....

 

[Iyest]

Nehru's contribution cannot be described in either black or white terms. There are many sides to his rule.

The Good:
1. Non corruptible, lived by certain principles (whether one agrees with them or not), sincere desire to make India a modern state.

2. Encouraged scientists like Bhaba and Sarabhai. BARC, IITs, and other institutions were setup.

3. Encouraged the use of English nation wide which is often overlooked.

The Bad:
1. Over emphasis on the socialist model. This was the beginning of public sector inefficiency, corruption, nationalization of banks (under his daughter).

2. Inability to take tough decisions on issues like population control, extension of reservation (which even Ambedkar had to be persuaded to try for 10 years).

The Ugly:
1. The basic reason being his self righteousness and assuming that everybody would follow his principles. This also led to ignoring some of his advisers by thinking he knew better than anyone. This handicap was reflected in all the items below.

2. At one point supposedly asking why India needed three branches of the armed forces.

3. Kashmir. Over riding senior generals like Thimmaiya who pleaded with him not to take the issue to the UN but at least wait for a few more days so that the army could control most of Kashmir including POK as well.

4. China. Loss of about 40,000 sq km. Interestingly it was Nehru who wanted the army to throw the intruding Chinese out. Little realising how ill equipped they were. Comrade Krishna Menon who was Nehru's DM had ensured that they were in no position to fight a war. Refusing permission for the IAF to take part in the war was the last straw and ensured a humiliating defeat. At that time IAF had the advantage over the Chinese air force.

Because of his mixed legacy, historians will always wonder whether Sardar Patel would have been a better choice as India's first PM. There was no doubt that in a democratic Congress party, Patel would have won hands down against Nehru. But the Mahatma wanted Nehru as PM and nobody dared to disagree.

 

[tbs]

hi

we had great leaders like netaji/sardar vallabh bhai like great leaders in this country.....never much recognised/

glorified by the historians......the game played by gandhi/nehru/jinnah were bad for both countries....still

problems countinue even today......

 

[prasad1]

hi

we had great leaders like netaji/sardar vallabh bhai like great leaders in this country.....never much recognised/

glorified by the historians......the game played by gandhi/nehru/jinnah were bad for both countries....still

problems countinue even today......

We believe what we want to believe.

Every day, someone or the other claims to know what really happened to Bose and blames Pandit Nehru and the Congress for it. Any narrative or opinion that runs contrary to this new perception is immediately denounced as a work of traitors. However, Bose’s admirers conveniently ignore his Faustian treaty with Nazi Germany and the Empire of Japan.

Netaji Bose, by his own admission in his book, "Indian Struggle" (published in 1935 in London), believed India needed a political system that was a mix of fascism and communism — something that he called samyavad. Netaji made a special trip to Rome in 1935 to present a copy of his book to Italian dictator Benito Mussolini, whom he greatly admired and whose ideals he would follow for the rest of his life. Bose’s reactionary views naturally brought him into conflict with the pacifist leaders of Congress, most notably Mahatma Gandhi and Pandit Nehru. But the friction didn’t happen in 1935, it happened much earlier.

Bose had organized the annual session of the Indian National Congress in 1928 in Calcutta. There, he organized a guard of honour in full military style — over 2,000 volunteers were drilled in military fashion and organized into battalions; half of them wore military uniforms with “officers” wearing metal epaulettes. For himself, Bose got a senior British military officer’s dress tailored by Calcutta-based British firm, Harman’s, complemented by an aiguillette and a field marshal’s baton; he also assumed the title of general officer commanding, much to the chagrin of Gandhi, who described the whole thing as "Bertram Mills circus". But Bose’s love for militarism continued just like his love for a good show.

In October 1943, Bose announced the formation of the Provisional Government of Free India (Arzi Hukumat-i-Azad Hind). He arbitrarily assumed the titles of head of state, prime minister, and minister for war and foreign affairs — the first he intended to keep when India was liberated. He demanded total submission and fealty from Indians everywhere; anybody who opposed him, his army or government could be executed

(some accounts suggest many were indeed tortured or executed on orders of Bose or with his knowledge).

The INA’s proclamation put this into writing: “If any person fails to understand the intentions of the Provisional Government of Azad Hind and the Indian National Army, or of our Ally, the Nippon Army, and dares to commit such acts as are itemized hereunder which would hamper the sacred task of emancipating India, he shall be executed or severely punished in accordance with the Criminal Law of the Provisional Government of Azad Hind and the Indian National Army or with the Martial Law of the Nippon Army.”

In a speech the same year in Singapore, Bose spoke about India needing a ruthless dictator for 20 years after liberation. Then Singapore daily, Sunday Express (now defunct), printed his speech where he said, “So long as there is a third party, ie the British, these dissensions will not end. These will go on growing. They will disappear only when an iron dictator rules over India for 20 years. For a few years at least, after the end of British rule in India, there must be a dictatorship…No other constitution can flourish in this country and it is so to India’s good that she shall be ruled by a dictator, to begin with ...”

Netaji Subhas Chandra Bose wanted ruthless dictatorship in India for 20 years | India News - Times of India

India News: Netaji Bose, by his own admission in his book, "Indian Struggle" (published in 1935 in London), believed India needed a political system that was a mi

timesofindia.indiatimes.com

It is good that Bose did not win, otherwise India would be ruled by a dictator.
Do you still think that Bose was a better leader than Nehru? If you do, then we know you did not want freedom for Indians.

Bose was more akin to Trump, a pompous empty can.

 

[tbs]

hi

everything comes some price......freedom has to pay price....i believe ...we need some kind of

dictator like BOSE is better than Nehru dynasty....even sardar vallabh bhai patel behaved like dictactor

to annex of NIZAM /JUNAGARH like ro join indian union....OTHER WISE NIZAM WILL OTHER

PAKISTAN WITHIN INDIA....SOME TIMES KADUVA SACCH HOTA HAI....bitterness is sweet taste sometimes..

 

[Iyest]

hi

everything comes some price......freedom has to pay price....i believe ...we need some kind of

dictator like BOSE is better than Nehru dynasty....even sardar vallabh bhai patel behaved like dictactor

to annex of NIZAM /JUNAGARH like ro join indian union....OTHER WISE NIZAM WILL OTHER

PAKISTAN WITHIN INDIA....SOME TIMES KADUVA SACCH HOTA HAI....bitterness is sweet taste sometimes..

Singapore is the only country that I can think of which has progressed rapidly since Independence under Lee Kuan Yew and his strict controls on the media, labour, and political opponents. Most dictators fail. Robert Mugabe is a notorious example who led Zimbabwe into bankcruptcy.

Nehru was an Englishman under the skin but without the cunningness. Even under British rule there were so called "elections" but only those who owned property were eligible to vote. By immediately opting for universal adult franchise in a vastly uneducated and poor population, Gandhi and Nehru fell into the British trap of keeping India in check. Lee Kuan Yew was wiser and he knew that certain controls were needed for the first decade or two before full democracy could be permitted. But for Gandhi and Nehru a pat on the back from the West and a certificate of democracy from them was more important than anything else. That mindset continues among many leaders and bureaucrats even today. They still expect the West to decide what is good for India.

 

[tbs]

Singapore is the only country that I can think of which has progressed rapidly since Independence under Lee Kuan Yew and his strict controls on the media, labour, and political opponents. Most dictators fail. Robert Mugabe is a notorious example who led Zimbabwe into bankcruptcy.

Nehru was an Englishman under the skin but without the cunningness. Even under British rule there were so called "elections" but only those who owned property were eligible to vote. By immediately opting for universal adult franchise in a vastly uneducated and poor population, Gandhi and Nehru fell into the British trap of keeping India in check. Lee Kuan Yew was wiser and he knew that certain controls were needed for the first decade or two before full democracy could be permitted. But for Gandhi and Nehru a pat on the back from the West and a certificate of democracy from them was more important than anything else. That mindset continues among many leaders and bureaucrats even today. They still expect the West to decide what is good for India.

hi

They still expect the West to decide what is good for India.

i agreed,,nice words....many will not agree with this...singapore ONLY asian country as equal to west...

sometimes better than west...