'Jawaharlal, do you want Kashmir, or do you want to give it away?'

[Sashan]

That is extraordinarily unfair. It is Nehru's legacy that India is now an entrenched democracy and that there is the freedom that people have even if it is used to abuse him.



It was 1950's, there was no other viable option. People didn't sacrifice so much for freedom to simply agree to a system which would have continued old prejudices. Land reform certainly couldn't have happened under a capitalist system. India's green revolution was still driven by the government, not very easy to suggest that system that existed achieved nothing.



The Constitution wasn't the whim of any one man and while Nehru probably had more influence than other in that generation, it would be unfair to lay completely the blame on him.

How preposterous to claim there was no alternative to socialism in 1950's? Agreed the constitution wasn't the whim of any one man but are you stating that Nehru, who could influence India not to develop/maintain the military in the defense of the country, who could bring in the socialist policy and who is the leader of the nation and the most influential person in the country could not do anything against the constitution being written? That is again a ridiculous claim.

 

[Slayer786]

Nehru's leadership was a complete failure on the international front. From non-alignment, to border issues. His naivety pretty much deprived India from the support of the west and gained the enmity of China. Had the Patel more say, entire Kashmir would have been India's..

LOL. Dream on. When u wake up get a dose of reality. India does not have the capability to take back Azad Kashmir.

 

[adwityagrata]

That is extraordinarily unfair. It is Nehru's legacy that India is now an entrenched democracy and that there is the freedom that people have even if it is used to abuse him.

It is also extraordinarily unfair to credit Nehru with something as basic as democracy. If you want to thank someone, why not thank the British who's democratic system we have implemented ? Do you now want to claim that democracy is the legacy of the British ?

While you claim such incredible things ....why not also credit Nehru for Nepotism and the legacy that he left behind that has made Nepotism and dynasty rule the natural order of things in Indian politics ?

While you are busy crediting Nehru for democracy, why not also credit his daughter (His real Legacy) by attempting to destroy that very democracy by imposing Emergency that took away even basic fundamental rights of Indian citizens ?

It was 1950's, there was no other viable option. People didn't sacrifice so much for freedom to simply agree to a system which would have continued old prejudices. Land reform certainly couldn't have happened under a capitalist system. India's green revolution was still driven by the government, not very easy to suggest that system that existed achieved nothing.

LOL. There are always viable options. Be it 1100, 1500, 1950 or 2140.

It is ironic to see you claim otherwise when the reality is we have pretty much inherited and propogated the Very same system you speak against

Land Mafia, Land holdings in the hands of the few (e.g. DLF, Sahara etc..), an agriculture system that exploits poor farmers and keeps them in perpetual poverty and one which encourages their suicide, (green revolution indeed ). Extraordinary that even after 60 years of such wonderful socialist green revolution the farmer continues to be in the bottom of the food chain. What exactly has the system achieved ? Massive Malnutrition ? Massive illiteracy which even 60 years of freedom could not solve ? Society divided on caste, language and religion ? What legacy are you talking about ? What achievement are you talking about ? Sending probes to mars and nuclear bombs or the fact that we had to fight 4-5 wars in 60 years that has bled us dry.

The Constitution wasn't the whim of any one man and while Nehru probably had more influence than other in that generation, it would be unfair to lay completely the blame on him.

The PM as head of the country is responsible , otherwise why blame Manmohan singh for 2 G scam ? There is such a thing as integrity and principles. Of course nehru had none so this point is moot. 
The Reality is the only post Nehru was good for would have been External Affairs Ministry. Its a tragedy Gandhi made him PM.

 

[Bang Galore]

How preposterous to claim there was no alternative to socialism in 1950's? Agreed the constitution wasn't the whim of any one man but are you stating that Nehru, who could influence India not to develop/maintain the military in the defense of the country, who could bring in the socialist policy and who is the leader of the nation and the most influential person in the country could not do anything against the constitution being written? That is again a ridiculous claim.

Easy to suggest that it was preposterous, far more difficult to point out what might have worked. I didn't suggest that socialism was the only alternative(I'm sure something better might have been dreamt up) but that it was the most logical direction for a mass movement to gravitate to. In any case, it could hardly be called the sole decision of one man, it wasn't like the others were all votaries of a completely different system. I

I did point out that Nehru probably had the greatest influence & I have little doubt that Nehru acquiesed in direction the constitution took, however I did point out that since there were precisely so many who debated & worked on the constitution, it could hardly be called the thinking of just one man. The most that could be suggested is that Nehru did not go against the common agreed line.

 

[IND151]

Such thread already exists , I read it ages ago.

To be frank, I don't think Nehru would have let Kashmir go in return of anything; Patel deserves thanks too, off coarse; as he took quick and right decision.

 

[Sashan]

Easy to suggest that it was preposterous, far more difficult to point out what might have worked. I didn't suggest that socialism was the only alternative(I'm sure something better might have been dreamt up) but that it was the most logical direction for a mass movement to gravitate to. In any case, it could hardly be called the sole decision of one man, it wasn't like the others were all votaries of a completely different system. I

I did point out that Nehru probably had the greatest influence & I have little doubt that Nehru acquiesed in direction the constitution took, however I did point out that since there were precisely so many who debated & worked on the constitution, it could hardly be called the thinking of just one man. The most that could be suggested is that Nehru did not go against the common agreed line.

Even after socialism and communism has been proved as wrong economic systems by the history, you are still claiming that it was the logical direction for the country to move towards at that time.

Again you are willing to give him the benefit of doubt regarding the constitution while the major policy decisions had the stamp of this man.

By your argument, Nehru's contribution(good or bad) was nothing more,nothing less when compared to other leaders except being a nominal figurehead as he would have acquiesced to all the policy decisions taken jointly by the leaders at that time.

 

[adwityagrata]

Even after socialism and communism has been proved as wrong economic systems by the history, you are still claiming that it was the logical direction for the country to move towards at that time.

Again you are willing to give him the benefit of doubt regarding the constitution while the major policy decisions had the stamp of this man.

By your argument, Nehru's contribution(good or bad) was nothing more,nothing less when compared to other leaders except being a nominal figurehead as he would have acquiesced to all the policy decisions taken jointly by the leaders at that time.

Of course it is easier to decide today with the advantage of hindsight.

Reality is that Nehru did what he though was best. Tragedy is that he was not the great thinker we give him credit for. He was no 'pandit'. The entire congress leadership those days knew it ....... Gandhi never did justify why he pushed Nehru into that chair. We can only speculate today. Who knows if it was a gut feel or the hand of fate.

The voice of history is that when today there are calls for a HUGE Sardar Patel's statue to be build, no one objects to it. If the same was to be done for Nehru ........ just imagine the ruckus it would create.

History has spoken. Nehru has been weighed, he has been measured, and have been found wanting.

 

[Bang Galore]

It is also extraordinarily unfair to credit Nehru with something as basic as democracy. If you want to thank someone, why not thank the British who's democratic system we have implemented ? Do you now want to claim that democracy is the legacy of the British ?

The British are indeed responsible for bequeathing us this form of democracy. I did point out that Nehru was responsible for entrenching the democratic insitution in India. It was Nehru's personal stature and his inclinations that helped prevent India from going the undemocratic manner that almost all other former colonies went through. That & the fact that by the time he died some seventeen years later, he left democracy in a reasonably good shape. It would be cussed to suggest that he had no impact.

While you claim such incredible things ....why not also credit Nehru for Nepotism and the legacy that he left behind that has made Nepotism and dynasty rule the natural order of things in Indian politics ?

Cannot help if you haven't been around or bothered to read my thoughts on this matter. Nehru was responsible for promoting Indira Gandhi & while Indira Gandhi rise was partially fueled by the untimely death of Shastri, that was extremey unfortunate even though there is no evidence to suggest that Nehru thought his daughter would be PM.

While you are busy crediting Nehru for democracy, why not also credit his daughter (His real Legacy) by attempting to destroy that very democracy by imposing Emergency that took away even basic fundamental rights of Indian citizens ?

Oh, I do. I'm no fan of Indira Gandhi. She was the one the blame should be correctly apportioned to in regards to both the economic direction as well as the growing authoritarianism and dynastic politics. Barring the 1971 war, there is very little on the positive side of the scale with IG.

LOL. There are always viable options. Be it 1100, 1500, 1950 or 2140.

It is ironic to see you claim otherwise when the reality is we have pretty much inherited and propogated the Very same system you speak against

Land Mafia, Land holdings in the hands of the few (e.g. DLF, Sahara etc..), an agriculture system that exploits poor farmers and keeps them in perpetual poverty and one which encourages their suicide, (green revolution indeed ). Extraordinary that even after 60 years of such wonderful socialist green revolution the farmer continues to be in the bottom of the food chain. What exactly has the system achieved ? Massive Malnutrition ? Massive illiteracy which even 60 years of freedom could not solve ? Society divided on caste, language and religion ? What legacy are you talking about ? What achievement are you talking about ? Sending probes to mars and nuclear bombs or the fact that we had to fight 4-5 wars in 60 years that has bled us dry.

I'm not sure what your point here. Are you advocating against socialism or for more socialism? I'm not a fan of socialism, it simply has not proven to be implementable. I'm sure there are all these problems but Nehru has now been dead half a century, little point in still continuing to blame him for the current situation. Caste now a Nehru issue? Wars? Nuclear bombs? Mars probe? All Nehru's fault?

The PM as head of the country is responsible , otherwise why blame Manmohan singh for 2 G scam ? There is such a thing as integrity and principles.

Err... a constitutional assembly is not to be mistaken with the cabinet, even there Nehru didn't always have his way. You want integrity & principles as well as a dictatorial attitude. Nehru had his principles, just the fact that you disagree with them hardly proves otherwise.

The Reality is the only post Nehru was good for would have been External Affairs Ministry. Its a tragedy Gandhi made him PM.

The issue was that he was along with Patel & probably Azad, the tallest leaders of the Congress available. Patel died in 1950, no real difference would have been made who Gandhi picked . Nehru would still have been the longest serving PM.

 

[Bang Galore]

Even after socialism and communism has been proved as wrong economic systems by the history, you are still claiming that it was the logical direction for the country to move towards at that time.

I said that it wasn't clear in 1947 & thereabouts. Not about to suggest it now. Hindsight is always 20/20, hardly a logical way of looking at past events.

Again you are willing to give him the benefit of doubt regarding the constitution while the major policy decisions had the stamp of this man.

By your argument, Nehru's contribution(good or bad) was nothing more,nothing less when compared to other leaders except being a nominal figurehead as he would have acquiesced to all the policy decisions taken jointly by the leaders at that time.

This is simply not logical. I specifically spoke about the constitutional assembly, you are the one suggesting that the members were all merely rubber stamps. He gets primary blame or credit for all government policies but I dont think that line could be extended to the all the individual provisions of the constitution.

 

[Sashan]

Of course it is easier to decide today with the advantage of hindsight.

Reality is that Nehru did what he though was best. Tragedy is that he was not the great thinker we give him credit for. He was no 'pandit'. The entire congress leadership those days knew it ....... Gandhi never did justify why he pushed Nehru into that chair. We can only speculate today. Who knows if it was a gut feel or the hand of fate.

The voice of history is that when today there are calls for a HUGE Sardar Patel's statue to be build, no one objects to it. If the same was to be done for Nehru ........ just imagine the ruckus it would create.

History has spoken. Nehru has been weighed, he has been measured, and have been found wanting.

True in hindsight we can decide what is wrong and right and Nehru did what he felt was the right thing. But it does not need great thinking to decide on the constitution which was based on the Government of India act formulated by British and was flawed as the electorate was divided on religious basis. And there was some other alternative which reflected the true spirit of secularism available for comparison at that time. That is the Nehru report which was prepared by his father but Nehru being the secretary to his father helping him formulate the report knew the details.

So you see Indian secularism is flawed right from the beginning just because this man being the tallest leader at that time(1950 and later) couldn't do anything for the constitution.

And another blunder - it does not need great thinking in prepping the military, the consequence of not doing so caused defeat subsequently with China. Especially this man should have seen the history of the India where the invaders bombarded us for centuries.

I can write more but the above is sufficient to establish the legacy of this man who was nothing but a failure and didn't deserve to be the Prime Minister of India. 

I said that it wasn't clear in 1947 & thereabouts. Not about to suggest it now. Hindsight is always 20/20, hardly a logical way of looking at past events.




This is simply not logical. I specifically spoke about the constitutional assembly, you are the one suggesting that the members were all merely rubber stamps. He gets primary blame or credit for all government policies but I dont think that line could be extended to the all the individual provisions of the constitution.

Agreed on Socialism as reflected by my response above. Also why I say he is to be blamed for the constitution is also there in the same post.

 

[Kloitra]

Even after socialism and communism has been proved as wrong economic systems by the history, you are still claiming that it was the logical direction for the country to move towards at that time.

Again you are willing to give him the benefit of doubt regarding the constitution while the major policy decisions had the stamp of this man.

By your argument, Nehru's contribution(good or bad) was nothing more,nothing less when compared to other leaders except being a nominal figurehead as he would have acquiesced to all the policy decisions taken jointly by the leaders at that time.

The country at that time wasn't prepared for capitalism. It was, for that period, the obvious direction for the economy.

And it wasn't Nehru's policy alone. Name a single leader who would be proponent of capitalism. The only other ideology that made it to mainstream was communism. Any advocate to capitalism would have been seen as an enemy of public!

But there were certain policies which were greatly influenced by Nehru. He was a single man, could not have done it all. Some were led by him alone, some he was just an stamp. So you cannot label him as a figurehead or a major contributor. You would have to scrutinize him on individual policies. Like, the foreign policy was pretty much based on his ideology. From NAM to Hindi-Chini bhai bhai.

 

[INDIC]

Such thread already exists , I read it ages ago.

To be frank, I don't think Nehru would have let Kashmir go in return of anything; Patel deserves thanks too, off coarse; as he took quick and right decision.

Nehru was himself a Kashmiri Pandit, I don't think Nehru had any intention of giving any concession over Kashmir for which we may had lost Kashmir.

 

[adwityagrata]

The British are indeed responsible for bequeathing us this form of democracy. I did point out that Nehru was responsible for entrenching the democratic insitution in India. It was Nehru's personal stature and his inclinations that helped prevent India from going the undemocratic manner that almost all other former colonies went through. That & the fact that by the time he died some seventeen years later, he left democracy in a reasonably good shape. It would be cussed to suggest that he had no impact.

Democracy would have been implemented even without Nehru. Do you think if Nehru had died in 1947, India would not have been democratic ? India was the congress in those days and democracy and democratic principles were deep rooted.

Pakistan unfortunately only had Muslim League.

Point is democracy in India owns little to nehru.

Cannot help if you haven't been around or bothered to read my thoughts on this matter. Nehru was responsible for promoting Indira Gandhi & while Indira Gandhi rise was partially fueled by the untimely death of Shastri, that was extremey unfortunate even though there is no evidence to suggest that Nehru thought his daughter would be PM.

Nehru was also responsible Nepotism via Vijaya Lakshmi Pandit and Braj Kumar Nehru. Contrary to popular belief Indira was not the only one who benefited via Nehru.

I'm not sure what your point here. Are you advocating against socialism or for more socialism? I'm not a fan of socialism, it simply has not proven to be implementable. I'm sure there are all these problems but Nehru was now been dead half a century, little point in still continuing to blame him for the current situation. Caste now a Nehru issue? Wars? Nuclear bombs? Mars probe? All Nehru's fault?

If you are not a fan of socialism it would be better not to speak of socialism as something wonderful Nehru brought to India. The legacy of Nehru is the border wars we have with paksitan and china. Nehru was also against caste reservation, did he stick to his principles?

http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/4826/1067/1600/CBB_reservations.jpg

Err... a constitutional assembly is not to be mistaken with the cabinet, even there Nehru didn't always have his way. You want integrity & principles as well as a dictatorial attitude. Nehru had his principles, just the fact that you disagree with them hardly proves otherwise.

Err...Straw-man defense. Name one principle nehru stuck to in his lifetime. Nehru even violated the Panchasheel principle which he proudly proclaimed.

The issue was that he was along with Patel & probably Azad, the tallest leaders of the Congress available. Patel died in 1950, no real difference would have been made who Gandhi picked . Nehru would still have been the longest serving PM.

He was a leader, but not tall enough. Else he would have received at least 1 nomination. Without Gandhi he was nothing. 

True in hindsight we can decide what is wrong and right and Nehru did what he felt was the right thing. But it does not need great thinking to decide on the constitution which was based on the Government of India act formulated by British and was flawed as the electorate was divided on religious basis. And there was some other alternative which reflected the true spirit of secularism available for comparison at that time. That is the Nehru report which was prepared by his father but Nehru being the secretary to his father helping him formulate the report knew the details.

So you see Indian secularism is flawed right from the beginning just because this man being the tallest leader at that time(1950 and later) couldn't do anything for the constitution.

And another blunder - it does not need great thinking in prepping the military, the consequence of not doing so caused defeat subsequently with China. Especially this man should have seen the history of the India where the invaders bombarded us for centuries.

I can write more but the above is sufficient to establish the legacy of this man who was nothing but a failure and didn't deserve to be the Prime Minister of India.

I completely agree. The seeds of pseudo secularism was sowed by Nehru with his appeasement policies and contempt for everything Hindu.

But he certainly was not the 'tallest' leader. Nobody in his congress party thought so.

 

[jha]

@jha - Swapan Dasgupta is here?

I dont think so... But he does respond whenever requested...

 

[livingdead]

As somebody(beckham?) hindsight is a wonderful thing. Not saying nehru was a perfect politician, but many of his decision that are criticized now, made a lot of sense then.