Is Nehru misunderstood?

[zebra7]

I had refrain myself from this thread, but since you quote me I thought i should answer you.

And pls don't quote me here again !!

How do you know that the only reason why he opposed the marriage was because Feroze was parsi?

So social condition of India at that time was very favorable for intercaste, inter-religion marriage.

Why don't you read this book.
Indira Gandhi: Political Leader in India, by Barbara A Somervil & Somervill,
2007. Signature Lives Publications.

That might be because of some reason he didn't publicly state.

And I have some reason to believe that. Could you share what's the other reason that makes you believe this is bluff.

Muck throwing.

Don't you think this fits your bill here.

Why should he or anyone automatically like Subhash Chandra Bose?

But why should he or anyone automatically dislike/hate Subhash Chandra Bose, when their objective was same.
Subhash Chandra Bose increasing popularity shaken P. Nehru and was the strong contender of becoming first Prime Minister of Independent India.
I’m sure no one can deny that the government-ordered surveillance on members of Subhas Chandra Bose's family, as recently revealed, was a clear case of intrusion on our privacy. It’s a violation of one of the most basic forms of human rights in an independent democratic country.

Author Anuj Dhar claimed in his books that on November 26, 1957, Jawahar Lal Nehru asked foreign secretary Subimal Dutt to find out from the then Indian ambassador in Japan, CS Jha, about the activities of Amiya Nath Bose there. It was quite an unusual step for the democratic prime minister, who, according to the memoirs of his intelligence chief, was reluctant to put even suspected foreign diplomats in New Delhi under surveillance.Why was Nehru so interested in Amiya Nath Bose’s activities in Japan? To me it appears as if the Nehru government was aware that Netaji Subhas Chandra Bose did not die in an air crash on August 18, 1945. Nehru may have thought if Amiya Nath Bose’s activities could be tracked, they may get to know Netaji’s movements, as Amiya was one of the closest nephews of Subhas.

Bose supported the Nazis and Japanese

So what if he supported both, does it makes one of them, Does supporting USSR we becomes communist ?

Or you considering subhash chander bose Indian National Army as Jehadi ISIS, Did you know How many countries have recognized the Independence and INA when it was formed, and how many countries recognized Indian National Congress at that time one Great Britan.

both of whom considered Indians inferior

Now you are throwing stone on the bush or should I say MUCK THROWING. Give reason to back up your claim seriously.

If RSS/ Veer Savarkar etc. had been 1st Indian PM, instead of IIT they would have set up Vedic space research agency. 'nuff said.

My Dear Sir, its called twisting the thing, specially done by congress leaders. When did in my whole post I mentioned RSS or VEER Savarkar etc. I did mentioned Vallabh Bhai Patel -- the one responsible to merge all the independant states into Republic of India. And Yes you got One THANKS for you Post. The meaning of that sentence was that the general took all the Credits and soldiers fights. Same way How the architecture of the Constitution of India is Dr. B,R, Ambedkar because he was the president of the drafting committee formed for the resolution of the constitution.

Thanks and regards

Good bye

 

[Guynextdoor2]

I had refrain myself from this thread, but since you quote me I thought i should answer you.

And pls don't quote me here again !!



Why don't you read this book.
Indira Gandhi: Political Leader in India, by Barbara A Somervil & Somervill,
2007. Signature Lives Publications.




And I have some reason to believe that. Could you share what's the other reason that makes you believe this is bluff.



Don't you think this fits your bill here.



But why should he or anyone automatically dislike/hate Subhash Chandra Bose, when their objective was same.
Subhash Chandra Bose increasing popularity shaken P. Nehru and was the strong contender of becoming first Prime Minister of Independent India.
I’m sure no one can deny that the government-ordered surveillance on members of Subhas Chandra Bose's family, as recently revealed, was a clear case of intrusion on our privacy. It’s a violation of one of the most basic forms of human rights in an independent democratic country.

Author Anuj Dhar claimed in his books that on November 26, 1957, Jawahar Lal Nehru asked foreign secretary Subimal Dutt to find out from the then Indian ambassador in Japan, CS Jha, about the activities of Amiya Nath Bose there. It was quite an unusual step for the democratic prime minister, who, according to the memoirs of his intelligence chief, was reluctant to put even suspected foreign diplomats in New Delhi under surveillance.Why was Nehru so interested in Amiya Nath Bose’s activities in Japan? To me it appears as if the Nehru government was aware that Netaji Subhas Chandra Bose did not die in an air crash on August 18, 1945. Nehru may have thought if Amiya Nath Bose’s activities could be tracked, they may get to know Netaji’s movements, as Amiya was one of the closest nephews of Subhas.




So what if he supported both, does it makes one of them, Does supporting USSR we becomes communist ?

Or you considering subhash chander bose Indian National Army as Jehadi ISIS, Did you know How many countries have recognized the Independence and INA when it was formed, and how many countries recognized Indian National Congress at that time one Great Britan.



Now you are throwing stone on the bush or should I say MUCK THROWING. Give reason to back up your claim seriously.



My Dear Sir, its called twisting the thing, specially done by congress leaders. When did in my whole post I mentioned RSS or VEER Savarkar etc. I did mentioned Vallabh Bhai Patel -- the one responsible to merge all the independant states into Republic of India. And Yes you got One THANKS for you Post. The meaning of that sentence was that the general took all the Credits and soldiers fights. Same way How the architecture of the Constitution of India is Dr. B,R, Ambedkar because he was the president of the drafting committee formed for the resolution of the constitution.

Thanks and regards

Good bye

The NAzis GASSED millions of Jews. Trying to imagine that they are in some way gonna be 'good allies' is an incredible lapse of judgement. A leader's job is to 'lead' and Bose was leading the country in very problematic directions. That is just a fact. And Nehru had no reason to just rubber stamp that.

 

[The-king]

every man has a good and bad side... no doubt...

mistakes;
Nehru couldn't tame the bureaucracy to work for the masses and shed its elitist outlook. He was some what elitist in his demeanor but he always cared about the lowest sections of society.
Nehru trusted Menon more than he should have had. Nehru's failed policies cost India 1962 war.
Unsolved kashmir issue...

good deeds..
Centralized planning and state investment in heavy industries created a solid industrial base.
Socialism was the "in thing" during 1950s because capitalism had failed in 1930s and even America was during these times tilted towards more state intervention in the economy.
Nehru established institutes of higher learning that make the backbone of Indian education today - IITs,IIMs,etc.
India was a cynosure of all eyes. Leader of Non Aligned Movement, friend of all those fighting colonial rule,imperialism and racism. (I belive the best thing he did was making of NAM..as joining soviet bloc or NATO would have lead india to disaster, as opposing bloc would have done everythin to break india... India was weakest at that point of time...)

@Joe Shearer @Spectre @zebra7 @FULL_METAL

Mr. Nehru was Power hungry or not must be judged what he did for the Indian nation in the sense he was a great political leader he uses all the means to benefit India.


Regards,

 

[zebra7]

The NAzis GASSED millions of Jews. Trying to imagine that they are in some way gonna be 'good allies' is an incredible lapse of judgement. A leader's job is to 'lead' and Bose was leading the country in very problematic directions. That is just a fact. And Nehru had no reason to just rubber stamp that.

And communist Under Stalin killed just cockroaches !! How many can you give me the figure.

 

[Guynextdoor2]

And communist Under Stalin killed just cockroaches !! How many can you give me the figure.

When did Nehru ask help from Stalin for India's independence?

 

[zebra7]

When did Nehru ask help from Stalin for India's independence?

Why should he, when he was seeking the independence from the Labour Party, England and they were very scared of the Spread of Communism. Question is Does P. Nehru was the Top Leader at that Time to take that decission to ask for the Help. After Independence, he become the top Leader, so why don't you explore the relationship of the Nehru with Stalin after 15th Aug 1947

Here is what the Ambassador of USSR in India says about P. Nehru

"According to Novikov, Nehru “sometimes opposed Gandhi, called himself a socialist, and in some cases commented favourably on the Soviet system and on communism, and he also stated that India faces the same problems that Russia faced.” The Soviet ambassador believed that despite the fact that the Indian national bourgeoisie and the Congress deliberately promoted the view in the government that Nehru was a progressive activist; the Indian Prime Minister did have socialist leanings. “Nehru’s repeated statements that he is a supporter of socialism, but in India the ways and methods for transitioning to socialism must be different than they were in the Soviet Union, support this claim," Novikov said in the report."

The Soviet Ambassador who stood up to Stalin on India | Russia & India Report


Big Question is Do you Consider Indian National Army as Thug or Not. or Nazi Army or Imperial japanese army or Indian Jehadi.

\

 

[Sky lord]

There was no such offer. What Bulganin said, as the minutes of the meetings suggests was, "While we are discussing the general international situation and reducing tension, we propose suggesting at a later stage India's inclusion as the sixth member of the Security Council."

This Nehru rejected for two precise reasons that it would entail revision of UN charter making India a subject of controversy and he emphatically opposed the idea of replacing China in UNSC which would create undue animosity between the two neighbors. Bulganin replied "We proposed the question of India's membership of the Security Council to get your views, but agree that this is not the time for it and it will have to wait for the right moment later on. We also agree that things should be taken one by one "

The Nehruvian approach

So would the result have been different if Nehru had gone all out to try and make this happen for India?

It seems so much of misplaced gentility ... Any modern leader would have given two hoots about China's hurt feelings or about being controversial....instead any modern leader would have insisted on time and place for "the later stage", lobbied and prepared to push through.

Any country that is so half hearted about advocating for itself will be sidelined. It seems almost like nehru was embarrassed to insist on India having a place at the high table ....

Opportunities are few and far between, when you see the slightest chink at the door, surely a good leader would push it open for his people instead of worrying about what the neighbor would think. I cannot imagine that this would be Modi's response.

Maybe India would still not have got a seat at the security council but atleast we would have given it our best shot and not worried what the Chinese would think of us....that is the part that sticks most in my throat!


Edit- OK I just read punit response to you.

The point remains , you do not wait for the something as valuable as the security council membership to be handed over to you on a silver platter and the butler coaxing you to please partake.

At the time, it seems from what you wrote there was some possibility, some remote possibility that India would be at least considered . At the time India should have lobbied hard with everyone, played every diplomatic game to at least try for this. It may still not have worked but at least you tried.

The game has just got a lot harder, none of the big five wants India in the security council anymore! but look at how hard we are trying. We may still not get it , but at least we tried.

Nehru's behavior in the modern context seems docile almost servile.....but then those were different times...it was probably a lot harder being brown in a white world.

 

[Joe Shearer]

So would the result have been different if Nehru had gone all out to try and make this happen for India?

It seems so much of misplaced gentility ... Any modern leader would have given two hoots about China's hurt feelings or about being controversial....instead any modern leader would have insisted on time and place for "the later stage", lobbied and prepared to push through.

Any country that is so half hearted about advocating for itself will be sidelined. It seems almost like nehru was embarrassed to insist on India having a place at the high table ....

Opportunities are few and far between, when you see the slightest chink at the door, surely a good leader would push it open for his people instead of worrying about what the neighbor would think. I cannot imagine that this would be Modi's response.

Maybe India would still not have got a seat at the security council but atleast we would have given it our best shot and not worried what the Chinese would think of us....that is the part that sticks most in my throat!


Edit- OK I just read punit response to you.

The point remains , you do not wait for the something as valuable as the security council membership to be handed over to you on a silver platter and the butler coaxing you to please partake.

At the time, it seems from what you wrote there was some possibility, some remote possibility that India would be at least considered . At the time India should have lobbied hard with everyone, played every diplomatic game to at least try for this. It may still not have worked but at least you tried.

The game has just got a lot harder, none of the big five wants India in the security council anymore! but look at how hard we are trying. We may still not get it , but at least we tried.

Nehru's behavior in the modern context seems docile almost servile.....but then those were different times...it was probably a lot harder being brown in a white world.

Please, that is really stretching things too far. Alternate histories have never been useful for any discussion, and I sometimes despair of explaining why to those who slip into it so, so easily.

It was NEVER an offer; please read up on the original proposal. It was a suggestion that India could be considered at a later date as a sixth member. I emphasise suggestion, could and sixth. It would have involved a radical re-casting of the entire UN charter, a hopeless proposition other than from the point of view of trial balloon flying by Bulganin, who had, after all, nothing to lose, since he/they were outnumbered 4 to 1 in the Security Council.

There was no silver platter, no butler.

I admire your soft Hindutva stance and your subtle undermining of the position of those who oppose the wholly-corrupted real thing, admire for its subtlety and refinement. This post is not part of your ouvre as far as the admiration goes. It is really a distortion taken to ridiculous extremes.

 

[zebra7]

I admire your soft Hindutva stance and your subtle undermining of the position of those who oppose the wholly-corrupted real thing, admire for its subtlety and refinement. This post is not part of your ouvre as far as the admiration goes. It is really a distortion taken to ridiculous extremes.

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

 

[Hiptullha]

And communist Under Stalin killed just cockroaches !! How many can you give me the figure.

That didn't stop Bose (who was a socialist himself) from trying to buddy up with the communists.

 

[zebra7]

That didn't stop Bose (who was a socialist himself) from trying to buddy up with the communists.

LoLz, I can give you the detailed answer, but waiting for the your thanks no. to grow substantially.

Sure so called Non-hidutva Brigade will respond.

 

[scorpionx]

So would the result have been different if Nehru had gone all out to try and make this happen for India?


It seems so much of misplaced gentility ... Any modern leader would have given two hoots about China's hurt feelings or about being controversial....instead any modern leader would have insisted on time and place for "the later stage", lobbied and prepared to push through.


Any country that is so half hearted about advocating for itself will be sidelined. It seems almost like nehru was embarrassed to insist on India having a place at the high table ....


Opportunities are few and far between, when you see the slightest chink at the door, surely a good leader would push it open for his people instead of worrying about what the neighbor would think. I cannot imagine that this would be Modi's response.


Maybe India would still not have got a seat at the security council but atleast we would have given it our best shot and not worried what the Chinese would think of us....that is the part that sticks most in my throat!



Edit- OK I just read punit response to you.


The point remains , you do not wait for the something as valuable as the security council membership to be handed over to you on a silver platter and the butler coaxing you to please partake.


At the time, it seems from what you wrote there was some possibility, some remote possibility that India would be at least considered . At the time India should have lobbied hard with everyone, played every diplomatic game to at least try for this. It may still not have worked but at least you tried.


The game has just got a lot harder; none of the big five wants India in the Security Council anymore! but look at how hard we are trying. We may still not get it , but at least we tried.


Nehru's behaviour in the modern context seems docile almost servile.....but then those were different times...it was probably a lot harder being brown in a white world.

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.

 

[Hiptullha]

LoLz, I can give you the detailed answer, but waiting for the your thanks no. to grow substantially.

Sure so called Non-hidutva Brigade will respond.

I...you what? Just give me the detailed answer.

 

[zebra7]

I...you what? Just give me the detailed answer.

Patience Dear

 

[Sky lord]

Please, that is really stretching things too far. Alternate histories have never been useful for any discussion, and I sometimes despair of explaining why to those who slip into it so, so easily.

It was NEVER an offer; please read up on the original proposal. It was a suggestion that India could be considered at a later date as a sixth member. I emphasise suggestion, could and sixth. It would have involved a radical re-casting of the entire UN charter, a hopeless proposition other than from the point of view of trial balloon flying by Bulganin, who had, after all, nothing to lose, since he/they were outnumbered 4 to 1 in the Security Council.

There was no silver platter, no butler.

I admire your soft Hindutva stance and your subtle undermining of the position of those who oppose the wholly-corrupted real thing, admire for its subtlety and refinement. This post is not part of your ouvre as far as the admiration goes. It is really a distortion taken to ridiculous extremes.

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?

This Nehru rejected for two precise reasons that it would entail revision of UN charter making India a subject of controversy and he emphatically opposed the idea of replacing China in UNSC which would create undue animosity between the two neighbors.

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.