A view of India based on hatred

[Levina]

Well for one I would have followed the age old adage of good fences and good neighbors.
That would have solved almost all security problems for us

And what would've done to the Behemoth called India which had to start building itself from scratch?

 

[AugenBlick]

And what would've done to the Behemoth called India which had to start building itself from scratch?

Indians are not fools . These institutions were not "made by nehru " . they were the sacrifices of the countless people who worked for them . If no one calls the election results rigged it is because INDIANS choose to accept them. Not because it was nehru who was first PM.

 

[INDIC]

I did read the article and found myself in agreement. Nehru was an idealist and naive. No one in his right mind can deny his secular and democratic credentials. He is of course not above criticism and his handling of China, Goa and Kashmir can charitably be called daft. But he conducted election after election at great cost to the exchequer even though he knew he would win in order to establish India as a democracy. A pragmatist like Patel may not have bothered. Nehru, idealist that he was actually strengthened the hands of his opponents to create the world's largest democracy. How many countries which overthrew the colonial yoke remained democracies? India has Nehru to thank for its vibrant democracy. No one can take that away from him.

Why you mentioned Goa, I have never heard of Nehru's criticism in Goa crisis.

 

[Saheli]

Indians are not fools . These institutions were not "made by nehru " . they were the sacrifices of the countless people who worked for them . If no one calls the election results rigged it is because INDIANS choose to accept them. Not because it was nehru who was first PM.

According to libtards, Nehru was this GOD who sprinkled fairy dust over India in between his sexual liasons and wooing Lady Mountbatten and India got democracy, secularism, freedom, institutions, IITs, etc,. etc. Rest of India were this creepy crawly Hindus who did not know the difference between mud and food leave alone such noble ideas like secularism.

 

[Centrist]

Now that the birth anniversary of Jawaharlal Nehru is out of the way, it might be worth reflecting on the bitterness, rancour and downright abuse that characterised it during debates in TV studios, on social media and sometimes, even in print.

Even those of us who acknowledge Nehru’s contribution to the making of modern India concede that he made numerous mistakes. When it came to economic policy, he was often too influenced by the Fabian-Socialist approach to the issue. His hatred for the colonial powers that had ruled India for two centuries led him to view the Soviet Union in much too favourable a light. He was wrong about China: First too trusting and then, with the Forward Policy, needlessly provocative. His handling of the Kashmir issue was flawed. And so on.

But the level of bitterness that characterised the Nehru anniversary went far beyond any logical listing of his mistakes. Instead, those opposed to Nehru demonstrated an almost visceral hatred of him and his legacy. If facts got in the way of the debate, then they were quickly brushed aside and replaced with invective and abuse.

View attachment 154516

Why should a generation that had no real experience of Nehru’s style of governance feel such anger and bitterness towards a man whom most independent historians regard as one of the great figures of the 20th century?

I can think of three reasons, only one of which is vaguely honourable.

First of all, there is no doubt that, by the 1950s, a competing world view had emerged within India. Though this view is bogusly ascribed to Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel (who was a much more complex figure than his new-found admirers realise), it had many advocates. In this view, non-alignment was a mistake. The decision to build up a huge publicly-owned industrial infrastructure was an error. And the decision to declare Hindu-majority India as a secular country, defined not by religion but by an idea of India, was downright foolish and unfair to the Hindu majority.

But whenever parties that should have represented this view came to power, they could not counter the Nehru legacy. For instance India’s first BJP Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee simply did not subscribe to this position. He may have had his own opinion about Nehru’s mistakes but as external affairs minister (1977-79), he stuck with non-alignment and then, as prime minister, rejected a religion-based approach to nationalism.

It is not clear where Narendra Modi stands on the issue (he has been uncharacteristically ambivalent) but there’s no doubt that many of his supporters believe that Modi’s victory is the triumph of an alternative view of India, one that rejects the Nehruvian model and celebrates a religion-heavy approach to Indian citizenship.

This is fair enough. If a competing ideology has finally occupied the mainstream, then perhaps its supporters are entitled to gloat a little.

But that doesn’t explain the rancour, the viciousness of the responses and the bitterness displayed by many of those attacking Nehru and especially by the angry army of abusive trolls on social media who spend their days posting abuse all the way from Vancouver to Versova.

That anger stems from two entirely separate factors.

The first is what many of the trolls call ‘Sickularism.’ Some Nehru-bashers are people who resent Islam, hate Muslims and blame most of the world’s ills on Islamic fanaticism. You have only to go on Twitter to see the extent to which abuse of Muslims and their religion — completely unacceptable in normal discourse — is rampant on social media. The abusers are not necessarily people who are worried about ISIS or al Qaeda. They just loathe Muslims and have no hesitation in saying so.

For such people, Nehru was the Appeaser-in-Chief. He was the man, they say, who betrayed Hindus to pamper Muslims. Just as liberals regard Indian secularism as among Nehru’s achievements, the trolls see it as his greatest crime against humanity. (Well, against Hindus at any rate). So, much of the abuse of Nehru stems not from any understanding of his successes and failures. It originates in hatred of Muslims. Nehru is blamed as the man who gave Muslims an equal stake in what should have been a Hindu country. Hence the names he is called on Twitter: Jawahar Khan, Jawahar Mohammed, etc.

There is another factor. The BJP has promised India a Congress-mukt Bharat. These days, the Congress has come to mean (especially to its opponents) the Gandhi family. If the Modi-bhakts are to attack the Gandhis (and there is no doubt that for some of them, hatred of the family is almost pathological), then they must start at the root. It does not matter to them whether Nehru intended to create a dynasty (the evidence is inconclusive). What matters is that he did. In their view, the family is a cancer at the heart of the Indian system and every element of that malignant growth must be pulled out, and that begins with Nehru.

So it doesn’t matter whether Nehru was right or wrong. Rather, in the manner that ancient and medieval Indian history is being rewritten to suit the political demands of the present, so modern Indian history must also be twisted to portray Nehru as a Muslim-loving Soviet stooge who failed India; his only achievement was to establish a dynasty which held India back from occupying its place as one of the world’s great post-Vedic superpowers.

The first reason for opposing Nehru is understandable. Triumphalism and gloating from an ideological faction that has finally come to power are common enough in politics. More troubling are the other two reasons. So much of the hatred stems not from any fair examination of Nehru’s achievements or failures, but from present-day hatreds: Hatred of Nehru’s descendants and hatred of Muslims.

It is worrying when a society cannot disentangle its past from its present. And it is even more worrying when a whole generation of trolls bases its view of India on nothing more than hatred.

Nehru deserves better. And so does Indian political discourse.

The views expressed by the author are personal

I think this article has more or less surmised the reasons behind increase in hatred of Nehru and his legacies in recent times. We can see all three categories in PDF itself. I wont say I hate Nehru but I have some aversion to some of his policies, notably, handling of Kashmir issue, not proactive on china relations, too idealistic/naive on some economic policies.
But the good that he had done to our country far outweigh his bad policies. He had to work with the cards dealt to him. Considering the stability of this diverse country, strong institutions, deep democratic culture (at least at national and state level) were under his direction along with other insightful leaders at that time like Sardar Patel, Ambedkar etc. All the above we take it as granted nowadays but without such direction, it would have torn a young fledgling nation with so much diversity. I think we should acknowledge them and do our bit to further the nation now.

From the article, my views would majorly come under #1 and a smaller part on #3. We do need an alternative ideology/option than what congress has nationally in every aspect. In that sense, Modi's win has been refreshing. Hope it is not limited to Modi alone and BJP is able to develop a credible alternative to congress in future.

And, many of them mention Sardar Patel was not highlighted as much as Nehru. But it just could be that if Patel had lived a little longer, we might have seen a different narrative.

 

[AugenBlick]

Why you mentioned Goa, I have never heard of Nehru's criticism in Goa crisis.

Goa got independence 14yrs after India
It was held by a puny 2000 soldier force from portugal.
lol when people asked nehru to ask the portugese to leave he was very reluctant.
Finally after 7 yrs of GOI sitting hand over fist some RSS/right wing people started attacks on a Portuguese police.
and it took 7 more years for nehru to send in army which was essentially a formality .
Indian annexation of Goa - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Thats why goa has a UNIFORM CIVIL CODE.

 

[FaujHistorian]

Vir Sanghvi
November 19, 2014

Now that the birth anniversary of Jawaharlal Nehru is out of the way, it might be worth reflecting on the bitterness, rancour and downright abuse that characterised it during debates in TV studios, on social media and sometimes, even in print.

Even those of us who acknowledge Nehru’s contribution to the making of modern India concede that he made numerous mistakes. When it came to economic policy, he was often too influenced by the Fabian-Socialist approach to the issue. His hatred for the colonial powers that had ruled India for two centuries led him to view the Soviet Union in much too favourable a light. He was wrong about China: First too trusting and then, with the Forward Policy, needlessly provocative. His handling of the Kashmir issue was flawed. And so on.

But the level of bitterness that characterised the Nehru anniversary went far beyond any logical listing of his mistakes. Instead, those opposed to Nehru demonstrated an almost visceral hatred of him and his legacy. If facts got in the way of the debate, then they were quickly brushed aside and replaced with invective and abuse.

View attachment 154516

Why should a generation that had no real experience of Nehru’s style of governance feel such anger and bitterness towards a man whom most independent historians regard as one of the great figures of the 20th century?

I can think of three reasons, only one of which is vaguely honourable.

First of all, there is no doubt that, by the 1950s, a competing world view had emerged within India. Though this view is bogusly ascribed to Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel (who was a much more complex figure than his new-found admirers realise), it had many advocates. In this view, non-alignment was a mistake. The decision to build up a huge publicly-owned industrial infrastructure was an error. And the decision to declare Hindu-majority India as a secular country, defined not by religion but by an idea of India, was downright foolish and unfair to the Hindu majority.

But whenever parties that should have represented this view came to power, they could not counter the Nehru legacy. For instance India’s first BJP Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee simply did not subscribe to this position. He may have had his own opinion about Nehru’s mistakes but as external affairs minister (1977-79), he stuck with non-alignment and then, as prime minister, rejected a religion-based approach to nationalism.

It is not clear where Narendra Modi stands on the issue (he has been uncharacteristically ambivalent) but there’s no doubt that many of his supporters believe that Modi’s victory is the triumph of an alternative view of India, one that rejects the Nehruvian model and celebrates a religion-heavy approach to Indian citizenship.

This is fair enough. If a competing ideology has finally occupied the mainstream, then perhaps its supporters are entitled to gloat a little.

But that doesn’t explain the rancour, the viciousness of the responses and the bitterness displayed by many of those attacking Nehru and especially by the angry army of abusive trolls on social media who spend their days posting abuse all the way from Vancouver to Versova.

That anger stems from two entirely separate factors.

The first is what many of the trolls call ‘Sickularism.’ Some Nehru-bashers are people who resent Islam, hate Muslims and blame most of the world’s ills on Islamic fanaticism. You have only to go on Twitter to see the extent to which abuse of Muslims and their religion — completely unacceptable in normal discourse — is rampant on social media. The abusers are not necessarily people who are worried about ISIS or al Qaeda. They just loathe Muslims and have no hesitation in saying so.

For such people, Nehru was the Appeaser-in-Chief. He was the man, they say, who betrayed Hindus to pamper Muslims. Just as liberals regard Indian secularism as among Nehru’s achievements, the trolls see it as his greatest crime against humanity. (Well, against Hindus at any rate). So, much of the abuse of Nehru stems not from any understanding of his successes and failures. It originates in hatred of Muslims. Nehru is blamed as the man who gave Muslims an equal stake in what should have been a Hindu country. Hence the names he is called on Twitter: Jawahar Khan, Jawahar Mohammed, etc.

There is another factor. The BJP has promised India a Congress-mukt Bharat. These days, the Congress has come to mean (especially to its opponents) the Gandhi family. If the Modi-bhakts are to attack the Gandhis (and there is no doubt that for some of them, hatred of the family is almost pathological), then they must start at the root. It does not matter to them whether Nehru intended to create a dynasty (the evidence is inconclusive). What matters is that he did. In their view, the family is a cancer at the heart of the Indian system and every element of that malignant growth must be pulled out, and that begins with Nehru.

So it doesn’t matter whether Nehru was right or wrong. Rather, in the manner that ancient and medieval Indian history is being rewritten to suit the political demands of the present, so modern Indian history must also be twisted to portray Nehru as a Muslim-loving Soviet stooge who failed India; his only achievement was to establish a dynasty which held India back from occupying its place as one of the world’s great post-Vedic superpowers.

The first reason for opposing Nehru is understandable. Triumphalism and gloating from an ideological faction that has finally come to power are common enough in politics. More troubling are the other two reasons. So much of the hatred stems not from any fair examination of Nehru’s achievements or failures, but from present-day hatreds: Hatred of Nehru’s descendants and hatred of Muslims.

It is worrying when a society cannot disentangle its past from its present. And it is even more worrying when a whole generation of trolls bases its view of India on nothing more than hatred.

Nehru deserves better. And so does Indian political discourse.

The views expressed by the author are personal

A view of India based on hatred - Hindustan Times

Vir Sanghvi.

Hit delete button. Yeah.


Ok since I was tagged by one of my dear bro from India, I'll comment.

This article shows educated Indian hindu elite are heading straight to Hitler like fascism.

Just liike Hitler made Jews and gypsies as the object of his hate, and any German talking nicely to Jews was called

"appeaser" or in this case "appeaser-in-chief".

This is really terriblee and smacks of all things bad based on terrible side of our traditions.


If Nehru is to be evaluated, then evaluate him based on how he dealt with majority of INdians.

That means how he dealt with Hindus, the upper castes, the lower castes, and the lowest of the low castes.


Picking up on indian Muslims a small minority especially in the south, means the OP has just finished reading Mein Kampf.



yeah yea. Indian democracy can handle extremist of every kind

Yeah yeah Muslims will increase in population.

but this is not the topic here.

The topic is how you all evaluate one of your own.

And objectifying him from "Modi-fied" Gujarat massacres style lens is terrible. Most terrible.

 

[gau8av]

Vir Sanghvi.

Hit delete button. Yeah.


Ok since I was tagged by one of my dear bro from India, I'll comment.

This article shows educated Indian hindu elite are heading straight to Hitler like fascism.

Just liike Hitler made Jews and gypsies as the object of his hate, and any German talking nicely to Jews was called

"appeaser" or in this case "appeaser-in-chief".

This is really terriblee and smacks of all things bad based on terrible side of our traditions.


If Nehru is to be evaluated, then evaluate him based on how he dealt with majority of INdians.

That means how he dealt with Hindus, the upper castes, the lower castes, and the lowest of the low castes.


Picking up on indian Muslims a small minority especially in the south, means the OP has just finished reading Mein Kampf.



yeah yea. Indian democracy can handle extremist of every kind

Yeah yeah Muslims will increase in population.

but this is not the topic here.

The topic is how you all evaluate one of your own.

And objectifying him from "Modi-fied" Gujarat massacres style lens is terrible. Most terrible.

thanks for the reply, but wrt the highlighted part.. is that really how majority Pakistanis see him ? He's been cleared by every court of inquiry including the supreme court appointed SIT, does that not count for anything ?

I know PDF is only a small sample and not entirely representative of the ground reality but the amount of "mass murderer, muslim killer etc" I see here from Pak and Chinese members is crazy.. Modi hysteria

 

[INDIC]

Goa got independence 14yrs after India
It was held by a puny 2000 soldier force from portugal.
lol when people asked nehru to ask the portugese to leave he was very reluctant.
Finally after 7 yrs of GOI sitting hand over fist some RSS/right wing people started attacks on a Portuguese police.
and it took 7 more years for nehru to send in army which was essentially a formality .
Indian annexation of Goa - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Thats why goa has a UNIFORM CIVIL CODE.

You knew America was behind Portugal, it was being hoped Portuguese will leave Goa just like French did in Pondicherry and you think it was safe for Indian troops to liberate Goa in early 50s. You also know Dadra and Nagar Haveli were formally integrated in 1961.

 

[duhastmish]

Never a leader always an opportunist.

Nehru was never Muslim beloved he was the reason jinn ah had to make a new state.
He wanted power and more of it. With Gandhi he got public support and with British ji ha zoo ri he got power.

There was never a force which demanded India to be such pseudo secular country.

He was the one who made kashmir an issue.
He had max wars with neighbours.
He under estimated China.
He was never a public choice he was forced in the name of Congress.
He made Pakistan an enemy. Because that was the nation building time when we could have resolved it all.
He started religion based politics.

Oh if he was such secular why did he request her daughters husband feroz to be feroz Gandhi.

Bloody sanghvi elitist Feces. Congress goon.

 

[FaujHistorian]

thanks for the reply, but wrt the highlighted part.. is that really how majority Pakistanis see him ? He's been cleared by every court of inquiry including the supreme court appointed SIT, does that not count for anything ?

I know PDF is only a small sample and not entirely representative of the ground reality but the amount of "mass murderer, muslim killer etc" I see here from Pak and Chinese members is crazy.. Modi hysteria

Hey bro

if you want to re-write the history of INdia and diss Nehru,

Who am I to stop you.

I just pointed out the fact that BJP and Hindutvadis should not use Indian-Muslims as a long pole to fork Nehru.

Hope you understand.

 

[FaujHistorian]

Never a leader always an opportunist.

Nehru was never Muslim beloved he was the reason jinn ah had to make a new state.
He wanted power and more of it. With Gandhi he got public support and with British ji ha zoo ri he got power.

There was never a force which demanded India to be such pseudo secular country.

He was the one who made kashmir an issue.
He had max wars with neighbours.
He under estimated China.
He was never a public choice he was forced in the name of Congress.
He made Pakistan an enemy. Because that was the nation building time when we could have resolved it all.
He started religion based politics.

Oh if he was such secular why did he request her daughters husband feroz to be feroz Gandhi.

Bloody sanghvi elitist Feces. Congress goon.

Actually Patel is more responsible for making Pakistan an enemy.

Nehru did his part too. But let's give credit where credit is due.

 

[AugenBlick]

You knew America was behind Portugal, it was being hoped Portuguese will leave Goa just like French did in Pondicherry and you think it was safe for Indian troops to liberate Goa in early 50s. You also know Dadra and Nagar Haveli were formally integrated in 1961.

Wrong.
Portugal had no intention to leave. They even made a claim that they (the goans) are their citizens.
I know many goans , whose fathers have pre 61 birth certificates and have got Portuguese nationality and now live in UK

Anyway I will post sources when I have time.

 

[gau8av]

Bloody sanghvi elitist Feces.

this is true, I've known people who went to college with him and let's just say they didn't view him favorably then and are not very fond of him now

 

[duhastmish]

Actually Patel is more responsible for making Pakistan an enemy.

Nehru did his part too. But let's give credit where credit is due.

I disagree jinnah had major problems with Nehru. Sardar was never politically so powerful to avoid jinnah.

And he had most wars with Pakistan. A time when country was enraged and shattered he instead to giving helping hand to keep a friend next door he made them enemy.
There were many things a good leadership could have done to make our past not so miserable.