SarthakGanguly
BANNED
- Joined
- May 10, 2013
- Messages
- 18,416
- Reaction score
- 7
- Country
- Location
First - I am very cool with your 'stance' of a cool Nehru and a strong Jinnah.
While I agree that Jinnah was strong, he was no secular. He was no mullah either. He was a barrister, ergo a professional opportunist. He played to all galleries, did everything possible to create the State he wanted to. He had no moral compulsions, was a realist, had no shame (that is a good quality), could and did manipulate people and so on.
Nehru on the other hand was, to put it lightly - a nincompoop in comparison. Educated in lofty ideals of moral superiority of socialism*, he did not have the strength to drive a nation in times of crises. After Gandhi and Patel's death, all who remained in the Congress party were almost lackeys (with notable exceptions who caused much embarassment to 'Pandit' Nehru) with no say whatsoever. His cabinet only met to listen to his lectures that took no decisions but wasted time. Another fallacy is that he adopted secularism. He did not actually do that. He adopted a very strict form of anti Hinduism, something he always associated with a regressive culture inimical to Socialism. Also unlike Jinnah, Nehru, when faced with firm opposition, always surrendered. Case in point - Kashmir, Somnath Temple, Babri Mandir, Forward Policy etc.
India's non aligned policy did not keep India 'Not Aligned' for long. In fact the NAM met its demise in 1962 when India who had deliberately isolated herself on cool Nehru's directive was invaded by the Chinese and got to friends - except some small arms from the US and Israel(!) For the next 2 years Nehru was a shadow of his former self. The remnants of the Nehruvian foreign policy died pretty much with him. Shastri had no qualms of using a Soviet hand in the Tashkent Conference. India shifted to the Soviet Camp around then. The only advantage Nehru had was that he did not die in the immediate aftermath of the Partition (unlike smoking cancerous Jinnah). So he gave India some stability. But that had more to do with luck than any genuine ability to do anything.
*He was a committed anti Communist - There were multiple purges of the Left during his regime that is now forgotten.
Last edited:
