"Please, Mr.Ganguly. I expect people like you to be smart enough (unlike the other usual idiots here championing radical Hindutva) to realize some basic facts. 16th of May'2014 was not a victorious moment for rabid Hindu nationalism in India. The elected prime minister did talk about equal treatment for all the citizens of India, didn't he? So says the ideology of secularism. If one has to go find some difference between this particular political philosophy with what our elected prime minister preached before the elections there is none. What I despise is the unnecessary hatred and vilification for an ethical concept by some political illiterates on an international forum to promote their own distorted version of national integration whose fundamental principle is to alienate its opposition, be it an ethno-linguistic group or a religious community. What is more worrying is the support for such bigotry among the neo-patriots who like you could hardly differentiate between soft Hindutva (a civilizational nationalist version) and the fanatical interpretation of Hindutva.
As far as your dissension against 'Nehruvian model' is concerned, Nehru ruled for about 17 years and tried to implement his policies in a more or less democratic way. After his death, how many years passed? Don't you think its a bit absurd and kind of escapist maneuver to shift the blame on a man in grave for the failures we suffered for the last 50 years? Unlike the current leaders, Nehru did not think his principles absolute. He once wrote,"Perfection, is beyond us for it means in the end, and we are always journeying, trying to approach something that is ever receding. And each one of us are many different human beings with their inconsistencies and contradictions, each pulling in different directions." Had he have resurrected today, his words might not have varied much with what Modi preached during his election campaigns. And ironically, the person who had quite been at friction with Nehru, agreed on this particular principle and more irony is that man is subjected to the greatest reverence by the ultra nationalists here."
Source:
Secularism is now a National Security Threat | Page 12
I will objectively list the rebuttal to your points in bold( in this unformatted post.) 
@DRAY @Oscar - Since you liked this post, you are also invited. Also the topic at hand is also relevant. I don't want trolls to interfere, hence the Senior's Cafe is the place I choose to respond.
i. Thanks for calling me smart. It's not actually being smart, more to do with being wise perhaps, the kind that comes with experience.
ii. 16th May was a victory of nationalism and a defeat of Nehruvian ideology - plain and simple. Let's list out the cornerstones of Nehruvianism, as an impartial observer.
a. Economic Policy - Socialist, idealist, Planned economy. The hon'ble PM even deprived Indians of the Right to Private Property in 1955.
b. Foreign Policy - Non Aligned Movement, nobody's ally, nobody's enemy.
c. Defence Policy - No Armed preparedness, all resources should go to build the nation and not to protect it.
d. Aggressive Pseudo Secularism - Impose laws for each community.
Now let's see the condition of these cornerstones or pillars today - They are all in the grave. Except for the Aggressive Pseudo Secularism. Give it some time, sir, it will be gone as well. So there goes another point.
iii. I can't differentiate between "soft and hard Hindutva". Well, on one hand there is Hindutva and on the other hand there is no Hindutva. There is no Hindutva Lite version launched yet. This soft Hindutva logic is very popular among the far/militant Left that accuses Congress of peddling soft Hindutva. But the opposite of Nehruvian ideology is not necessary Hindutva. Also you have made an almost last ditch emotional appeal for saving the pseudo secularism that is already in coma, kinda like the helpless messages that came out from Saigon in 1975 Military HQ. Nehru was NOT secular, I can accept that one time possibly Jinnah even was. But not Nehru. He has enormous power, he could have implemented equal laws for all. But his personal hatred for all Indian faiths (this is documented) made him blind.
But yes, he was a realist. He knew that denying Hindus of some rights won't destroy the country. Denying Muslims of any rights might. Hence his dilution of secularism.
Finally you have called me a 'neo-patriot'. Not sure if that's a compliment or not. Anyway, I love my country, that's all I can say. 
iv. Nehru being democratic is like saying Putin is democratic. There was no opposition to Nehru AT ALL. Forget an opposition party, even within the Congress there only a handful of people who could raise their voice against him. After Gandhi and Patel, Nehru remained the undisputed face of India in the foreign arena. So democratic was he that he accepted the UN mandated ceasefire in Jammu and Kashmir WITHOUT even CONSULTING his Cabinet, India's first Cabinet. Brilliant standards setting there. No wonder we have so many sycophants today.
S.P.Mukherjee disappeared right away in Kashmir in 20th century independent India because he wanted the same law to be applied everywhere. Was he fighting for a Hindu Law or a Sikh Law? But no, Articles had to be introduced in the Constitution.
v. Oh how sweet of Nehru to say - "Perfection, is beyond us for it means in the end". Otherwise we poor uneducated backward Indians would never have known otherwise. We would perhaps have followed him like sheep and considered his ideas as the Ultimate Truth. Anyway, wrt to all discussions about Nehru, the crux of it revolves around 1 and ONLY 1 aspect - secularism. People defending Nehru defend his secularism, because that is the only aspect of him that survives in India now.
So here's the thing. Nehru WAS NOT secular. He diluted the secularism that WAS there in the Constitution. He was the pioneer, and his path of appeasing the Muslims (not all minorities, only the Muslims) alone was the pillar of this pseudo secular thought. His party was no longer secular. Hell, his regime saw the introduction of SPECIAL LAWS for Muslims. And this was what Congress opposed while going against the Communal Bill during the freedom movement. So no, when you defend Nehru you defend pseudo secularism, not secularism. Secularism is a higher ideal that Nehruvians don't want in this country. But since we have a rudimentary democracy in this country, these stalwarts have been dumped. the elites and liberals will take time to adjust, like they always have. But Nehruvianism is going to die a slow death. Only then we can have the SAME LAW for ALL INDIANS. Before that any Indian crying out for preserving Indian secularism is a hypocrite and nothing else.
You end with this. I have really nothing to say about it anymore. I also hang my head in shame. But though I am a proud Kashmiri, I am a prouder Indian and will always remain so, regardless how much mainlanders vilify us.
"The more they behaved like this I became a more proud Bengali and an ashamed Indian"
Source:
https://defence.pk/threads/secularism-is-now-a-national-security-threat.344768/page-12#ixzz3JgalMeZe
Mr.Ganguly, the word ‘smart’ also denotes astute, adept, bright, agile and also wise, thing that comes with experience as per your opinion. But I must acknowledge that you are quite smart in your own sense not only because you want to play the game as per your own rules but you also want others to ignore the fact that you can dodge the opposition argument as per your own convenience. Quite frequently, you like to use a word ‘rebuttal’ in your statements. ‘Rebuttal’ of what exactly? That Nehruvian policy of disassociating religion with state was a serious challenge in traditionalist societies like India? Have not that acknowledged repeatedly here in this thread? Nehru was not the topic of that locked thread, but you chose to play the game by your way and bring back Nehru back into the topic again. So, you are smart definitely.
Your second argument, that 16th May was a victory of nationalism. How convenient Mr.Ganguly, to avoid the ‘Hindu’ part of it? Perhaps you omitted that word because you also knew that it was not a D-Day for Hindutva adventure in Indian politics, didn’t you? 16th May was a winning moment for a nationalist party, but how much the agenda of radical Hindutva (as it was mentioned in my post you quoted before) had the role to play in it? You, quite cunningly avoid the part where I said Modi’s pre-election speeches on equality on religious principles of a state is exactly what the political philosophy of secularism says to us? Who for Gods’s sake here are admirers of pseudo-secularism? Are you not choosing your targets as per your own choice? This thread is not about defending Nehruvian secularism. If you have slightest amount of doubt please have some patience to read either the complete article or at least the part I posted here. While our discussions were limited to secularism, you conveniently brought other parts of Nehruvian philosophy such as economy, defence or foreign policy, extending the matter of debate beyond your oppositions scope because it demand greater time and effort to explain the complexities, efficiencies and deficiencies of these areas.
You said calling Nehru democratic will be same as calling Putin a democratic. Really? At least I did not know Putin has published a unanimous article criticizing himself calling him an autocrat, especially when Putin is considered to be an unchallenged figure in Russian politics? I have not heard Putin to believe that parliamentary democracy essentially depends upon the existence of a strong and united opposition? Did Putin explore any idea of compensating the absence of opposition? Does he consult and brief frequently with his opposition leaders? When Putin had encouraged internal debates within the party or formed an opposition party within it making himself as a self appointed leader countering the policies propagated by him only? I guess never. So equating Putin with Nehru clearly comes from the popular general ignorance of Nehru and I, honestly found it to be profoundly absurd and hilarious as well.
As far as his economic policies are concerned, it deserves better understanding of the Mahalanobis model which was, as it is said by its critics to be inspired by Feldman model of the Soviet planning structure. Given the rapid industrialization success of the Soviet Union model, one can hardly criticize a state just freed itself from its colonial age of deprivation and stagnant economy to be influenced by the model though unlike the Feldman model, Nehru-Mahalanobis model managed to maintain a sustainable growth rate since the 50’s to this day. Arguments against this model calls it a ‘waste of time’ without knowing the fact that how much Indian economy recovered in the years between 1950-1964, an age we certainly can call an integrated Nehruvian age. Without going into intricacies of economic complexities (which is beyond my scope too) I would like to present some figures, hope statics would convince the critics here. The growth rates of GDP (in 1948-49 prices) are as given as,
Sector/1900-1950/1950-1964: Primary/0.4/2.6, Secondary/1.5/6.8, Tertiary/1.5/4.5, GDP/0.9/4.0, GDP per capita/0.1/1.9, population/0.8/2.0. The comparisons of growth between three post colonial era economies during 1950-64 are India (4.1), China (2.9) and Korea (6.1).
Nehruvian era certainly had the limitations of proliferation of unregulated economic bureaucracies and neglect of primary education but economy did accelerated by Nehru-Mahalanobis model (stats are the proof) and historic/comparative perspective of this era does show remarkable achievements. He left enormous opportunities for his successors to improvise but only an eye without prejudice is needed to realize it.
Private right to property was abolished.
