Is Nehru misunderstood?

[Grevion]

Nehru was a very good PM and India was very fortunate to have such a strong supporter of Democratic India who had faith in the constitutional institutions. Though he was brilliant in foreseeing the development opportunities he wasn't so good in his foreign policies and failed to see the consequences of Chinese aggressive stand at the border.

 

[Sky lord]

There was never any possibility, bright or faint of India acquiring a permanent membership in the Security Council. Trouble with the kind of assessment we make in general about historical personalities by modern standards is it erroneously dismisses the importance of the circumstances, the events that brought cataclysmic change in politics and societies that had influenced the thoughts and works of that personality. Had Nehru known more about Stalin, facts that came out in more in abundance only in 60’s or had he read Djilas would he have preserved his faith in the Soviet economic system or the Communism in the same intense vigour? I highly doubt it.

Today it is convenient to see the rejection of UNSC membership offer as a blunder if there was any, or not making any solid efforts for it. But the events in the 50’s suggest otherwise.US-Indian relation from the beginning was frosty. Americans viewed the concept of non-alignment not only obsolete, but those who preached it as crypto-communists. They were quick to see Pakistan as a potential military ally to encircle Soviet Union from its Eastern flank while Turkey in the West, military pacts and civilian aids were in full flow. It is not highly unlikely but impossible to imagine a country would not veto India’s bid after declaring Goa to be kept as a colony by Portugal as long as the later wished to. On the other hand, Sino-Soviet relations during this period were going through significant changes. During 62’ debacle, we had seen as the Pravda publications suggests, how Soviet policy regarding India changed dramatically when Cuban crisis arose. The Soviets backed off from their hitherto pro-India policy and hoped to garner Chinese support at the cost of it.

You said, his behaviour was docile, submissive. It was only otherwise. The Americans then thought Nehru had entered world politics challenging American wisdom. His contemporaries, be it those in the government, in the opposition, the International press or even the western liberal intellectuals saw him as a successful idealist who has made India recognized as a moral power against colonialism, racism and imperialism. Non-alignment policy faltered, as we have seen during Suez Canal crisis or when Soviet tanks rolled in Budapest. But every political, economic theory and idealist wisdom has its own limitations and so did Nehru’s. He took India to a position that not any world leader during that period would have taken successfully. His perceptions in International politics, though not all of them had proven to be prophetic and his decisions looked quite apt and relevant if you consider the world events from fifty years before then.

Thank you sir, I saw your post after Mr. S, it was a great read - and why I come to PDF.

 

[Kyusuibu Honbu]

Americans viewed the concept of non-alignment not only obsolete, but those who preached it as crypto-communists.

Just something to add to that, The above thought and perception of India must have cemented with India's pro-China stance at UN in the Korean war. Americans branded us as "Communist-appeasers" for this.

Interestingly they predicted possible Sino-Indian conflict and its outcome.

http://www.foia.cia.gov/sites/default/files/document_conversions/89801/DOC_0000010593.pdf

 

[scorpionx]

Just something to add to that, The above thought and perception of India must have cemented with India's pro-China stance at UN in the Korean. Americans branded us as "Communist-appeasers" for this.

Interestingly they predicted possible Sino-Indian conflict and its outcome.

http://www.foia.cia.gov/sites/default/files/document_conversions/89801/DOC_0000010593.pdf

Thank you for the excellent document. CIA predicted with pinpoint accuracy how India would have reacted in the face of a Soviet or Chinese military aggression to itself or Tibet (Burma, I am not quite sure). But also the panic and alarm can not go unnoticed if India fails into Soviet block or a communist regime takes over in which they were not so accurate. I am equally amused how the Americans like most of those in West critically undermined the integrity of India which they predicted to collapse due to economic stagnation. They horribly failed in this estimation.

 

[Joe Shearer]

You are right in that I have not read the original proposal, so probably should not have commented at all....so my bad.

My post which was entirely too long and unwieldy, was based on below quote. To my reading it sounded like Nehru was worried about making india a subject of controversy and did not want to create undue animosity with China. To my mind these are not sufficient reasons to not even try. The current dispensation is doing precisely that is it not - finding support to revise the charter to make space for India?

Now that's more like the @Sky lord who keeps me awake at night (out of intellectual fear, I hasten to add).

Two points:

First, Nehru was a moralist - a misfit in the arena, and a bunny rabbit in the atmosphere of naked realpolitik that was about to unveil itself, and was about to knock all pre-conceived idealism into a cocked hat. It was not worry about being a subject of controversy, it was a stance replete with high-mindedness and one that was not very consistent with prevailing circumstances.

Second, he recognised Bulganin's proposal for what it was; to paraphrase Gandhi, it was a post-dated cheque on a bank not yet established. There was no sixth seat at the moment, and there was no question of one then or even much, much later. It was just a balloon. As you have pointed out, it is now gathering a little, a very little bit, perhaps a teakettle worth of steam. Still far from where it out to be.

However I do completely agree with you that imagining alternate histories is a waste of time, it is however a human weakness - if only .....

I am also surprised that you think I have a Hindutva stance, soft or otherwise, my novena saying, confession going parents would be truly horrified. I am simply proud of my country, wish it the best, dislike other people dissing it without reason and feel that in general Indians need to grow a spine and maybe even some b@lls while they are at it - nothing more menacing than that.

Mea culpa. I retract the Hindutva bit.

For the record, my spine and my gonads are in fine shape and where they ought to be. Just in case anyone asks you.

I love that Part, certainly out of my context, understanding and logic to understand.

I believe I was mistaken. The member said so himself. I mistook his rather robust patriotism for its distorted image version, the lunatic fringe jingoism that a bhakt would display. I have retracted my remarks and hereby apologise for careless allusion.

@Sky lord

There was never any possibility, bright or faint of India acquiring a permanent membership in the Security Council. Trouble with the kind of assessment we make in general about historical personalities by modern standards is it erroneously dismisses the importance of the circumstances, the events that brought cataclysmic change in politics and societies that had influenced the thoughts and works of that personality. Had Nehru known more about Stalin, facts that came out in more in abundance only in 60’s or had he read Djilas would he have preserved his faith in the Soviet economic system or the Communism in the same intense vigour? I highly doubt it.

Today it is convenient to see the rejection of UNSC membership offer as a blunder if there was any, or not making any solid efforts for it. But the events in the 50’s suggest otherwise.US-Indian relation from the beginning was frosty. Americans viewed the concept of non-alignment not only obsolete, but those who preached it as crypto-communists. They were quick to see Pakistan as a potential military ally to encircle Soviet Union from its Eastern flank while Turkey in the West, military pacts and civilian aids were in full flow. It is not highly unlikely but impossible to imagine a country would not veto India’s bid after declaring Goa to be kept as a colony by Portugal as long as the later wished to. On the other hand, Sino-Soviet relations during this period were going through significant changes. During 62’ debacle, we had seen as the Pravda publications suggests, how Soviet policy regarding India changed dramatically when Cuban crisis arose. The Soviets backed off from their hitherto pro-India policy and hoped to garner Chinese support at the cost of it.

You said, his behaviour was docile, submissive. It was only otherwise. The Americans then thought Nehru had entered world politics challenging American wisdom. His contemporaries, be it those in the government, in the opposition, the International press or even the western liberal intellectuals saw him as a successful idealist who has made India recognized as a moral power against colonialism, racism and imperialism. Non-alignment policy faltered, as we have seen during Suez Canal crisis or when Soviet tanks rolled in Budapest. But every political, economic theory and idealist wisdom has its own limitations and so did Nehru’s. He took India to a position that not any world leader during that period would have taken successfully. His perceptions in International politics, though not all of them had proven to be prophetic and his decisions looked quite apt and relevant if you consider the world events from fifty years before then.

Is it I or are your posts getting better and better and better?

 

[scorpionx]

Is it I or are your posts getting better and better and better?

I call it the Shearer theory; Never indulge in a serious debate without appropriate references and notes.

 

[Joe Shearer]

I call it the Shearer theory; Never indulge in a serious debate with appropriate references and notes.

??

You did mean 'without'? <whew>
No, but seriously: these are so well read that they are a pleasure to read.

 

[scorpionx]

??

You did mean 'without'?

Err.. edited

 

[My-Analogous]

Nehru was in jail many times and for many years (11 years in all ) during independence struggle..if he was really power hungry why would he face such a painful life when he had all the wealth and comforts at his disposal?

There are people who never once went to jail and became leaders (and later held titles such as great leader and founding father of a country) just by inciting people in name of religion.Such leaders never left their luxuries.

Couldn't Nehru afford to lead such a life pretending to be working for our country's independence? If we read his book discovery of India, we get to know his love for India(which in fact is a compilation of letters written to his daughter by him.not a book written to show off his knowledge or love for India).

Off course he might have made some policy blunders but can we doubt his love and devotion for his country?

Mate i think you mixed two era of his life into one. You should know that everyone keep changing during their life. So you should check his life during his ruling period not before struggling time of Independence. I hope you guys didn't mind for my comment and i find this thread a healthy one

 

[Baby-5]

Nehru was in jail many times and for many years (11 years in all ) during independence struggle..if he was really power hungry why would he face such a painful life when he had all the wealth and comforts at his disposal?

There are people who never once went to jail and became leaders (and later held titles such as great leader and founding father of a country) just by inciting people in name of religion.Such leaders never left their luxuries.

Couldn't Nehru afford to lead such a life pretending to be working for our country's independence? If we read his book discovery of India, we get to know his love for India(which in fact is a compilation of letters written to his daughter by him.not a book written to show off his knowledge or love for India).

Off course he might have made some policy blunders but can we doubt his love and devotion for his country?

As previous comments have already highlighted the achievements of Nehru, however, they failed to highlight the circumstances under which he achieved the same. This is very crucial in understanding the true extent of Nehru's achievement, are -

1. Riots during the Partition of India: In the Punjab region alone, between 200,000 to 500,000 people were killed. 14 million Hindus, Sikhs and Muslims were displaced during the partition in what is the largest mass migration in human history.
2. Food shortages: Famines in British India had a long lasting impact. Most recent was the Bengal Famine of 1943.
3. Integration of Princely States: As many as 500 states had to be integrated.
4. Refugees: The partition resulted in millions of displaced refugees.

Why Jawahar Lal Nehru and not Sardar Patel?
Some people think Patel might have been a better alternative and even venture to suggest that there was animosity between the two. Firstly, Rajmohan Gandhi's Patel: A Life dispels any shred of rancor between them. Secondly, Gandhi chose Nehru because he most accurately represented the diverse, pluralistic and inclusive idea of India that Gandhi himself had lived, fought and died for. Nehru was a Hindu whom the Muslims had trusted, a Brahmin who abhorred the caste system, a North Indian who didn't impose Hindi on the South and a man trusted by women. In short, he was genuinely an all-India leader.

But keeping in mind that He is prime reason for the catastrophe named Rahul Gandhi, all his achievements are "LuL"

 

[zebra7]

I believe I was mistaken. The member said so himself. I mistook his rather robust patriotism for its distorted image version, the lunatic fringe jingoism that a bhakt would display. I have retracted my remarks and hereby apologise for careless allusion.

@Sky lord

One of my key weakness is the comprehension problem, and slow understanding, that I must admit. I was rather understanding it wrong when sky lord was surprised for being hindutva, and I think I should apolize for the same.
I have restrain myself for adding anything on the subject, but thought you won't mind if I asked something to clear some of my doubts. So what does Sir @Joe Shearer Sir thinks actually Hindutva actually means, because many of time I am getting this word came across in daily news.

 

[zebra7]

As previous comments have already highlighted the achievements of Nehru, however, they failed to highlight the circumstances under which he achieved the same. This is very crucial in understanding the true extent of Nehru's achievement, are -

1. Riots during the Partition of India: In the Punjab region alone, between 200,000 to 500,000 people were killed. 14 million Hindus, Sikhs and Muslims were displaced during the partition in what is the largest mass migration in human history.
2. Food shortages: Famines in British India had a long lasting impact. Most recent was the Bengal Famine of 1943.
3. Integration of Princely States: As many as 500 states had to be integrated.
4. Refugees: The partition resulted in millions of displaced refugees.

I am overwhelm reading this and your earlier comment.

Ironically, whosoever becomes the first PM, would have to face such condition, either P.Nehru, Maulana Azad, or Sardar Vallabh Bhai Patel. But who would have better served his purpose could not be established, because for that time has to be recycled back and placed each of the other candidate and gauged today.

Taking Rahul Gandhi as an example. The best site providing his achievement so far is Link.

Suppose in the general election of 2014, BJP looses and Congress came to the power and Rahul Gandhi becomes the P.M how he would have been projected, a better P.M than the evil MODI, who can take the India to the better growth, and prevented the unsecular Powers to grow in the country and is working toward the betterment of the minority.

There are other good leaders in the Congress, but the Congress Supremo if prefer Rahul Gandhi, who could oppose her. And in future we would be discussing the same, was Rahul Gandhi was Misunderstood.

Why Jawahar Lal Nehru and not Sardar Patel?
Some people think Patel might have been a better alternative and even venture to suggest that there was animosity between the two. Firstly, Rajmohan Gandhi's Patel: A Life dispels any shred of rancor between them. Secondly, Gandhi chose Nehru because he most accurately represented the diverse, pluralistic and inclusive idea of India that Gandhi himself had lived, fought and died for. Nehru was a Hindu whom the Muslims had trusted, a Brahmin who abhorred the caste system, a North Indian who didn't impose Hindi on the South and a man trusted by women. In short, he was genuinely an all-India leader.

But keeping in mind that He is prime reason for the catastrophe named Rahul Gandhi, all his achievements are "LuL"

Lolz, nice reasons, but why not given other bitter reasons. You have showed what M.K. Gandhi Mind was making at that time, but with what reference.

The Congress Party overwhelmingly wanted Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel as the Congress President and the first PM, as Sardar Patel was considered to be ‘a great executive, organizer and leader'.
12 out of 15 Pradesh Congress Committees(PCC), the only legal bodies having power to nominate and elect President of the Party, nominated Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel. The remaining three may not have nominated Patel but then they did not nominate anyone else not even Jawaharlal Nehru.

Either someone was making mind reading of Gandhi at that time. So why not take what words speaks for the decission.

In Gandhi's own words,

“Please go through the enclosed cuttings.… I have not spoken to anyone of my opinion. When one or two Working Committee members asked me, I said that it would not be right for the same President to continue…. If you are of the same opinion, it may be proper for you to issue a statement about the cuttings [the news item Gandhiji had sent him] and say that you have no intention to become the President again…. In today’s circumstances I would, if asked, prefer Jawaharlal. I have many reasons for this. Why go into them?”

Rajendra prasad words,

Gandhi has once again sacrificed his trusted lieutenant for the sake of the ‘glamorous Nehru’ and further feared that “Nehru would follow the British ways.

Rajagopalchari summed it up pretty well:

“When the independence of India was coming close upon us and Gandhiji was the silent master of our affairs, he had come to the decision that Jawaharlal, who among the Congress leaders was the most familiar with foreign affairs, should be the Prime Minister of India, although he knew Vallabhbhai would be the best administrator among them all…
“Undoubtedly it would have been better if Nehru had been asked to be the Foreign Minister and Patel made the Prime Minister. I too fell into the error of believing that Jawaharlal was the more enlightened person of the two… A myth had grown about Patel that he would be harsh towards Muslims. This was a wrong notion but it was the prevailing prejudice.”

Grandson of Mahatma Gandhi, Shri Rajmohan Gandhi said that Gandhi didn’t name Sardar Patel for the Prime Minister’s post because Patel was very ill and old. Speaking at IIT-Gandhinagar campus, Rajmohan Gandhi said,

“The main reason why Gandhi could not name Patel Prime Minister was Patel was very ill, he was very old. Patel belonged to Gandhi’s generation, Jawaharlal was leading to next generation.”

http://www.rajmohangandhi.com/pa...




Bhai Logo, There are many experts here discussing, Indian UN seats, with the likes of @scorpionx he explained the facts very well, thats Great. I am not an expert here, but what we are here doing, discussing various points whether nehru us misunderstood or we are only going to repeat what is written in the books and told us.
@puneet write a post, giving some points, and now the discussion is on only one point leaving other behind.
So does the other points raised by puneet is automatically bluffed ?

 

[Joe Shearer]

As previous comments have already highlighted the achievements of Nehru, however, they failed to highlight the circumstances under which he achieved the same. This is very crucial in understanding the true extent of Nehru's achievement, are -

1. Riots during the Partition of India: In the Punjab region alone, between 200,000 to 500,000 people were killed. 14 million Hindus, Sikhs and Muslims were displaced during the partition in what is the largest mass migration in human history.
2. Food shortages: Famines in British India had a long lasting impact. Most recent was the Bengal Famine of 1943.
3. Integration of Princely States: As many as 500 states had to be integrated.
4. Refugees: The partition resulted in millions of displaced refugees.

Why Jawahar Lal Nehru and not Sardar Patel?
Some people think Patel might have been a better alternative and even venture to suggest that there was animosity between the two. Firstly, Rajmohan Gandhi's Patel: A Life dispels any shred of rancor between them. Secondly, Gandhi chose Nehru because he most accurately represented the diverse, pluralistic and inclusive idea of India that Gandhi himself had lived, fought and died for. Nehru was a Hindu whom the Muslims had trusted, a Brahmin who abhorred the caste system, a North Indian who didn't impose Hindi on the South and a man trusted by women. In short, he was genuinely an all-India leader.

But keeping in mind that He is prime reason for the catastrophe named Rahul Gandhi, all his achievements are "LuL"

Catastrophe indeed.

 

[Baby-5]

Catastrophe indeed.

 

[Baby-5]

I am overwhelm reading this and your earlier comment.

My comments are strictly according to the thread. When there was thread of criticism of Congress, I did. Same I am doing now, in accordance with the thread.

Taking Rahul Gandhi as an example. The best site providing his achievement so far is Link.

Exactly, the site is blank.

Ironically, whosoever becomes the first PM, would have to face such condition, either P.Nehru, Maulana Azad, or Sardar Vallabh Bhai Patel. But who would have better served his purpose could not be established, because for that time has to be recycled back and placed each of the other candidate and gauged today.

Taking Rahul Gandhi as an example. The best site providing his achievement so far is Link.

Suppose in the general election of 2014, BJP looses and Congress came to the power and Rahul Gandhi becomes the P.M how he would have been projected, a better P.M than the evil MODI, who can take the India to the better growth, and prevented the unsecular Powers to grow in the country and is working toward the betterment of the minority.

There are other good leaders in the Congress, but the Congress Supremo if prefer Rahul Gandhi, who could oppose her. And in future we would be discussing the same, was Rahul Gandhi was Misunderstood.

You have showed what M.K. Gandhi Mind was making at that time, but with what reference.

Well I cant give you the reference as I have read it somewhere in past in some forum which I cant recall.

The Congress Party overwhelmingly wanted Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel as the Congress President and the first PM, as Sardar Patel was considered to be ‘a great executive, organizer and leader'.
12 out of 15 Pradesh Congress Committees(PCC), the only legal bodies having power to nominate and elect President of the Party, nominated Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel. The remaining three may not have nominated Patel but then they did not nominate anyone else not even Jawaharlal Nehru.

Either someone was making mind reading of Gandhi at that time. So why not take what words speaks for the decission.

Gandhiji backed JawaharLal Nehru as the PM, he also insisted Patel to withdraw. Not willing to upset Gandhi, Patel decided withdraw his nomination.
When Maulana Azad saw that Mahatma wants Nehru to become the president he too stepped back.However, there was one person, Dr Rajendra Prasad, who was not happy with the happenings. Patel respected the feelings of Mahtma Gandhi.
Hence, Jawahar lal Nehru was entrusted with the post of president of the party, and thereafter the PM of India by popular demand.
Was democratic India's first Prime Minister Jawahar Lal Nehru elected undemocratically? - daily.bhaskar.com