10 thoughts on “The More I learn about Nehru, The less I like him”
Truly, a good article. I wonder why people are so furious when someone talks against Nehru/Gandhi and their policies. It is as if they are sacred, and they can do NO wrong.
Ah! The scrawny jackals continue to snap at the heels of a dead lion. The true measure of a person is the amount of debate his/her legacy generates. On this account alone Nehru rates far above many other leaders.
It was a very very good thing that Nehru concentrated on developing India’s democratic institutions instead of putting his faith in the military. For evidence, compare militaristic Pakistan with democratic India. Which country do you like ? Who’s legacy still inspires people – Nehru’s or Liaqat Ali Khan’s ? Read Ramachandra Guha’s essay defending Nehru – sometime back in The Hindu – and please for god’s sake, let the lion sleep.
Why do you want to diminish his legacy by having us jackals let the “lion” sleep?
Ok, forget the lion-jackal crap. But seriously, Nehru was without a question the best prime minster we have ever had. He is wrongly discredited for the path India chose for itself – that of economic socialism. The planned economy model was what almost every intellectual in India wanted – at that time. Nehru was simply the instrument through which this experiment happened. It is also wrong to think of India’s socialism years as a failure – it was a partial success – as is our current reform oriented policy.
As the leader of the government it was his job to expand the government through socialism and deliver the gains to as many people possible. This the Nehru adminstrations did to the best of their ability. It was up to the private sector to stand up and to do its job and it failed to measure up. Why blame Nehru for that ? The best part of Nehru’s achievement was that he left in place the mechanism (a strong and vibrant democratic culture) by which government policies could be changed if the people of India so desired. Hence the evolution in the early nineties from stagnant socialism into a more enlightened world view.
Most people, conditioned by a conventional understanding of history, make the wrong assumption that all strong military leaders are capable adminstrators and vice-versa. In fact this is seldom the case. Churchill, Britain’s war time prime minister was thrown out right after a successful war. So was George Bush. Closer home – Indira Gandhi sent troops into Bangladesh and won. She tried the same thing with the Golden Temple fiasco and Congress never recovered from what happened afterwards. Nehru’s poor grasp of military strategy was definetely a flaw but not a fatal one. Indira Gandhi’s poor grasp of our country’s sensitivities was flawed and how fatal it proved to be.
Crowing about our democratic institutions is something that we always tend to do. What is it about our democratic setup that is so different from any other country that is ruled by a democratically elected government?! Nothing! Its just the size of the populace that makes India unique in terms of exercising that democracy every five years! India’s democracy was never a product of Nehru’s vision. It was something that we just assumed as our own after the British left. Nehru was just incidental in the big scheme of things. And as has been rightly mentioned… he was just an instrument!
Is it not naive to think that the private sector will stand up and deliver if, under the name of economic socialism, it has been weighed under by a yoke of countless barriers?!
No one doubts the wisdom of having a strong democratic setup that controls the military. But govenments after governments, blinded by the ‘peaceful nation’ theory, have repeatedly ignored the armed forces as ab essential component of a democratic setup! Most of them have precluded the military options while dealing with situations. This has led to an unflattering image of India in the eyes of the world!
While Nehru wasn’t a bad prime minister, he certainly was not someone to worship!
Sameer,
The importance of our democratic institutions is that it keeps alive the idea of a united and complete India. Had India not been democratic it would have broken up a long time ago – Pakistan and the erstwhile Soviet Union are convenient examples. Both militaristic and seemingly strong nations have very little to claim by way of achievements – even military/strategic ones. Soviet Union is all broken up and Pakistan lost Bangladesh in 18 days. The use of military action with all of its heroic connotations is vastly over rated and of diplomatic methods with its subtle nature under rated. For example, almost all of Hitler’s victories were achieved with very little bloodshed and mostly by harranguing weak leaders – the annexation of Austria, Czechslovakia, Hungary, Denmark and some more are examples. It was when he started military action that he lost sight of his grand strategy.
Wars can be fought and won without weapons. The cold war is an example. Look, what I am trying to get across is that the successful exercise of power doesn’t have to resort to military action. The threat of military action is far more important as a strategic tool than actual war itself. Present day China is a great example of this.
Ok, so what does all this amount to ? Nehru was naive, yes, but atleast he was not a egotistical maniac. The precedents he set will guide us for a long while to come. Hence, Nehru’s legacy has cautioned us against military adventures and we are probably better off for it.
Indian democracy was the vision of several people spread over half a century. Gandhi, Patel even Ambedkar were contributors as were countless other nameless Indians. Nehru cannot be credited for the partial success that Indian democracy is, but certainly he did not betray the legacy of above mentioned leaders.
This posting is already too long so I won’t say anything about the role of socialism in India’s formative years. I guess the arguments for and against are too well known for me to regurgitate all that.
The threat of military action is far more important as a strategic tool than actual war itself.
That is exactly what I was trying to get at! The failure to use the military as a trump card while dealing in international affairs has led to an image of India as a ‘lamb’ state. Your example of China is an excellent example to support my argument!
All post-colonial governments made mistakes strategically and
economically. The only country which has consistently made expansive
economic policy is the United States; Europe did not become rich
as the US through colonialism. Nehru romance with socialism was
common at the time, it was fasionable with western interlectuals.
On the military side Nehru was obviously heavily influenced by Mohandas
K Gandhi this is Indias heritage, again this has to be taken into context.
The Nehru/Gandhi combination tried (with some sucess) to defeat a
communal mentality among Hindus, I respect this a lot. Unfortunately,
Nehru/Gandhi only appeased the communal mentality among muslims,
hence the communal flame is still smouldering. The appeasment attitiude
became foreign policy, hence the Tibet problem and the china threat as
well as the Kashmir mess.
Sivaji is leader who inspires, he used force effectively
when necessary, and after victory he made sure that muslim were
not molested and Mosques were not destroy, his army also consisted
of mussalman. By Sivajis example India can stop being seen as a
lamb state. A contries image is also worth several tank divisions and
several hundred strike aircraft. Unfortunately, Indias soft image
invites abuse from bangladeshes border forces.
Sivaji is a medieval rule, we should never discount the contribution
from Ganhi, Nehru, Vajpayee. Never get seduced by the communal
evil promoted by Modi.
at least Edwina liked him !!
The author must be jealous !!!
we shall not let others conquer our country.What nehru,gandhi and etc… did was right so they dont get blamed for what they did
Comments are closed.
Bad Behavior has blocked 190 access attempts in the last 7 days.
Truly, a good article. I wonder why people are so furious when someone talks against Nehru/Gandhi and their policies. It is as if they are sacred, and they can do NO wrong.
Ah! The scrawny jackals continue to snap at the heels of a dead lion. The true measure of a person is the amount of debate his/her legacy generates. On this account alone Nehru rates far above many other leaders.
It was a very very good thing that Nehru concentrated on developing India’s democratic institutions instead of putting his faith in the military. For evidence, compare militaristic Pakistan with democratic India. Which country do you like ? Who’s legacy still inspires people – Nehru’s or Liaqat Ali Khan’s ? Read Ramachandra Guha’s essay defending Nehru – sometime back in The Hindu – and please for god’s sake, let the lion sleep.
Why do you want to diminish his legacy by having us jackals let the “lion” sleep?
Ok, forget the lion-jackal crap. But seriously, Nehru was without a question the best prime minster we have ever had. He is wrongly discredited for the path India chose for itself – that of economic socialism. The planned economy model was what almost every intellectual in India wanted – at that time. Nehru was simply the instrument through which this experiment happened. It is also wrong to think of India’s socialism years as a failure – it was a partial success – as is our current reform oriented policy.
As the leader of the government it was his job to expand the government through socialism and deliver the gains to as many people possible. This the Nehru adminstrations did to the best of their ability. It was up to the private sector to stand up and to do its job and it failed to measure up. Why blame Nehru for that ? The best part of Nehru’s achievement was that he left in place the mechanism (a strong and vibrant democratic culture) by which government policies could be changed if the people of India so desired. Hence the evolution in the early nineties from stagnant socialism into a more enlightened world view.
Most people, conditioned by a conventional understanding of history, make the wrong assumption that all strong military leaders are capable adminstrators and vice-versa. In fact this is seldom the case. Churchill, Britain’s war time prime minister was thrown out right after a successful war. So was George Bush. Closer home – Indira Gandhi sent troops into Bangladesh and won. She tried the same thing with the Golden Temple fiasco and Congress never recovered from what happened afterwards. Nehru’s poor grasp of military strategy was definetely a flaw but not a fatal one. Indira Gandhi’s poor grasp of our country’s sensitivities was flawed and how fatal it proved to be.
Crowing about our democratic institutions is something that we always tend to do. What is it about our democratic setup that is so different from any other country that is ruled by a democratically elected government?! Nothing! Its just the size of the populace that makes India unique in terms of exercising that democracy every five years! India’s democracy was never a product of Nehru’s vision. It was something that we just assumed as our own after the British left. Nehru was just incidental in the big scheme of things. And as has been rightly mentioned… he was just an instrument!
Is it not naive to think that the private sector will stand up and deliver if, under the name of economic socialism, it has been weighed under by a yoke of countless barriers?!
No one doubts the wisdom of having a strong democratic setup that controls the military. But govenments after governments, blinded by the ‘peaceful nation’ theory, have repeatedly ignored the armed forces as ab essential component of a democratic setup! Most of them have precluded the military options while dealing with situations. This has led to an unflattering image of India in the eyes of the world!
While Nehru wasn’t a bad prime minister, he certainly was not someone to worship!
Sameer,
The importance of our democratic institutions is that it keeps alive the idea of a united and complete India. Had India not been democratic it would have broken up a long time ago – Pakistan and the erstwhile Soviet Union are convenient examples. Both militaristic and seemingly strong nations have very little to claim by way of achievements – even military/strategic ones. Soviet Union is all broken up and Pakistan lost Bangladesh in 18 days. The use of military action with all of its heroic connotations is vastly over rated and of diplomatic methods with its subtle nature under rated. For example, almost all of Hitler’s victories were achieved with very little bloodshed and mostly by harranguing weak leaders – the annexation of Austria, Czechslovakia, Hungary, Denmark and some more are examples. It was when he started military action that he lost sight of his grand strategy.
Wars can be fought and won without weapons. The cold war is an example. Look, what I am trying to get across is that the successful exercise of power doesn’t have to resort to military action. The threat of military action is far more important as a strategic tool than actual war itself. Present day China is a great example of this.
Ok, so what does all this amount to ? Nehru was naive, yes, but atleast he was not a egotistical maniac. The precedents he set will guide us for a long while to come. Hence, Nehru’s legacy has cautioned us against military adventures and we are probably better off for it.
Indian democracy was the vision of several people spread over half a century. Gandhi, Patel even Ambedkar were contributors as were countless other nameless Indians. Nehru cannot be credited for the partial success that Indian democracy is, but certainly he did not betray the legacy of above mentioned leaders.
This posting is already too long so I won’t say anything about the role of socialism in India’s formative years. I guess the arguments for and against are too well known for me to regurgitate all that.
The threat of military action is far more important as a strategic tool than actual war itself.
That is exactly what I was trying to get at! The failure to use the military as a trump card while dealing in international affairs has led to an image of India as a ‘lamb’ state. Your example of China is an excellent example to support my argument!
All post-colonial governments made mistakes strategically and
economically. The only country which has consistently made expansive
economic policy is the United States; Europe did not become rich
as the US through colonialism. Nehru romance with socialism was
common at the time, it was fasionable with western interlectuals.
On the military side Nehru was obviously heavily influenced by Mohandas
K Gandhi this is Indias heritage, again this has to be taken into context.
The Nehru/Gandhi combination tried (with some sucess) to defeat a
communal mentality among Hindus, I respect this a lot. Unfortunately,
Nehru/Gandhi only appeased the communal mentality among muslims,
hence the communal flame is still smouldering. The appeasment attitiude
became foreign policy, hence the Tibet problem and the china threat as
well as the Kashmir mess.
Sivaji is leader who inspires, he used force effectively
when necessary, and after victory he made sure that muslim were
not molested and Mosques were not destroy, his army also consisted
of mussalman. By Sivajis example India can stop being seen as a
lamb state. A contries image is also worth several tank divisions and
several hundred strike aircraft. Unfortunately, Indias soft image
invites abuse from bangladeshes border forces.
Sivaji is a medieval rule, we should never discount the contribution
from Ganhi, Nehru, Vajpayee. Never get seduced by the communal
evil promoted by Modi.
at least Edwina liked him !!
The author must be jealous !!!
we shall not let others conquer our country.What nehru,gandhi and etc… did was right so they dont get blamed for what they did