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

[adwityagrata]

There is a German world called realpolitik which means politics or diplomacy based on practical and material considerations and
opposite of this word is ideal politics which means politics or diplomacy based on ideal and moral notions.
Nehru was the latter that does not mean his way of doing his job is a reflection of his lifestyle.A true idealist would left politics all together and join Mahatma Gandhi at Sabarmati ashram ..but then who would run the country?

So now you have changed your tune from calling nehru an 'idealist' to calling him a practitioner of 'real politiks'

So now you are agreeing that Nehru was NOT a disciple of Gandhi who preached and practiced 'morality' and 'ideal non violence'. This is of course contrary to what you had claimed earlier. At least have the grace to admit you were wrong.

Why would a true idealist leave politics ? Lal bahadur Shastri, Sardar Patel, Morarji Desai etc.. were all great politicians who practiced what they preached. They were idealist who did not join Gandhi at Sabarmati Ashram

All of them got a chance at running the country too.

Nehru has no standing compared to these Giants. Not even by standing on the shoulders of Mahatma Gandhi or BBC can nehru ever appear tall.


A pygmie was all he ever was ............one who did not have the grace to praise the shoulders of giants he stood on. The dirty politics practiced today is the legacy of such men. You reap what you sow.

 

[Levina]

As usual Nehru talked about the United Nations, Russia, Africa, God almighty, everybody, until Sardar Patel lost his temper. He said, 'Jawaharlal, do you want Kashmir, or do you want to give it away'. He (Nehru) said,' Of course, I want Kashmir (emphasis in original). Then he (Patel) said 'Please give your orders'. And before he could say anything Sardar Patel turned to me and said, 'You have got your orders'.

Why wasnt Sardar Patel made the PM of India???
why was India handed over to the clown ???

 

[ares]

Get a pair of reading glasses if not then treatment for dyslexia cause clearly either you can not read or can not comprehend to what my understanding is plain and simple English.
Do you not understand the meaning of word latter(refer to my post).
Nehru practiced ideal politics..which did get him in lot of trouble.
Patel is better example of some one who gave practical considerations more thought than moral ones.

So now you have changed your tune from calling nehru an 'idealist' to calling him a practitioner of 'real politiks'

So now you are agreeing that Nehru was NOT a disciple of Gandhi who preached and practiced 'morality' and 'ideal non violence'. This is of course contrary to what you had claimed earlier. At least have the grace to admit you were wrong.

Why would a true idealist leave politics ? Lal bahadur Shastri, Sardar Patel, Morarji Desai etc.. were all great politicians who practiced what they preached. They were idealist who did not join Gandhi at Sabarmati Ashram

All of them got a chance at running the country too.

Nehru has no standing compared to these Giants. Not even by standing on the shoulders of Mahatma Gandhi or BBC can nehru ever appear tall.


A pygmie was all he ever was ............one who did not have the grace to praise the shoulders of giants he stood on. The dirty politics practiced today is the legacy of such men. You reap what you sow.

 

[adwityagrata]

Get a pair of reading glasses if not then treatment for dyslexia cause clearly either you can not read or can not comprehend to what my understanding is plain and simple English.
Do you not understand the meaning of word latter(refer to my post).
Nehru practiced ideal politics..which did get him in lot of trouble.
Patel is better example of some one who gave practical considerations more thought than moral ones.

So you are still claiming Nehru was an 'idealist' ?

I just assumed no one would be so dumb or blind against obvious realities.

Sardar patel was both moral as well as practiced 'real politiks'. He was an idealist who practiced 'real politiks' within the framework of righteous. 'Real Politiks' does not have to be either immoral or unethical. Real politiks is practiced when you recognize social and cultural traits of the community. Sardar grew up among the people so real poliks came naturally to him. The same way it came to Gandhi.

Nehru was an immoral and unethical man who DID NOT PRACTICE 'real politiks' but instead used his legitimate power to push his illegitimate agenda. He was what one would call a CAD. He did not / could not practice real polikis because he was never part of the aam admi. He was an social, cultural, political and moneyed elite who was molded by the british system. He was Not equiped to practice real politiks. This is why he needed Gandhi.


Sardar patel was always moral and ethical in his words and deeds. Which is why all the Kings of all the kingdoms who merged with India spoke highly of Patel and always respected him.

Nehru was neither moral nor ethical. History is filled with tales that showcase his dishonesty. I will be happy to share them if you find this contentious.


Morality has nothing to do with real politiks. As mentioned, real politiks is the practice of politics that takes into considerations the limitations and understanding of the cultural and social values of the society your serve.

 

[CorporateAffairs]

he was a drunkurd and a womeniser my dad had once known a person who was in relation to nehru's one close aid he had many colourfull ond often disgusting stories to tell aboout so calle "chacha nehru"

enof said

That is the extent to which Congress has changed or history and made us read all nonsense!

 

[DARIUS]

It is a well known fact that that he liked to indulge in beef!!And gave away Indian territory as if it was his fathers property to give away (Although I do not hold any grudge against his father,he was an honorable man).
Three Indian blunders in the 1971 war - Rediff.com News
The Night Shastri Died And Other Stories | Kuldip Nayar

 

[livingdead]

does the same thought apply to Rajnath and NaMO in BJP?

not sure about them, but Vajpayee (poet, philosopher,visionary, consensus builder, likeable PM) and Advani (organizational, getting hands dirty, getting things done HM) fit my idea of these two roles pretty well. 

Why wasnt Sardar Patel made the PM of India???
why was India handed over to the clown ???

do you want similar bullies as PM in our bordering countries? A PM who does not even take into account international law or view of other countries?

 

[JohnyD]

not sure about them, but Vajpayee (poet, philosopher,visionary, consensus builder, likeable PM) and Advani (organizational, getting hands dirty, getting things done HM) fit my idea of these two roles pretty well.

but they are the past...in today's political scenarion with regard to BJP, they have Rajanth Singh kinda Nehru and Modi like Sardar Patel....

Patnaik is doing good rounds as main face for thrid front.....

 

[Levina]

do you want similar bullies as PM in our bordering countries? A PM who does not even take into account international law or view of other countries?

Sardar patel a bully???

He was a no non-sense politician and a very practical administrator,liked by all.
PM who would sacrifice his own nation's interest for another is a no-no too.Jawaharlal Nehru was just that.

 

[livingdead]

but they are the past...in today's political scenarion with regard to BJP, they have Rajanth Singh kinda Nehru and Modi like Sardar Patel....

Patnaik is doing good rounds as main face for thrid front.....

rajnath singh is not a national leader. he is only fit as BJP president, and BJP organizational matters.
BJP probably has no alternative, sushma swaraj will not allow modi as HM.
Infact no BJP PM can effectively work with Modi as HM who is hugely more popular than PM. 

Sardar patel a bully???

He was a no non-sense politician and a very practical administrator,liked by all.
PM who would sacrifice his own nation's interest for another is a no-no too.Jawaharlal Nehru was just that.

he was not liked by anybody, he was feared by all. You might need such leader in times of war or some other calamity, during which you need decisive leadership who do not dither. Rest of the time, I would prefer a visionary, dreamer, a man of ideas and somebody who connects well with rest of the world.

 

[Levina]

he was not liked by anybody, he was feared by all. You might need such leader in times of war or some other calamity, during which you need decisive leadership who do not dither.

Ignorance.....
12 out 15 congress committees nominated Sadar Patel's name for the post of President of congress before the election on april 29,1946.The man who was to be chosen as President of congress would've also got Prime ministership of India.But it was Gandhi's soft corner for Nehru which helped him get there and not his merit.

Rest of the time, I would prefer a visionary, dreamer, a man of ideas and somebody who connects well with rest of the world.

Yes you are right Nehru was a "dreamer".

Nehru shut his eyes to the impending fall of Tibet even when Sardar Patel had repeatedly cautioned him in 1949 that the Chinese communists would annex that historical buffer as soon as they installed themselves in Beijing
Nehru wrote to Sardar Patel that it would be a"foolish adventure" if China tried to gobble up Tibet and called it "geographically impracticable".
And today we know who was being "foolish".
Nehru was over confident and completely blinded by the luv shown to him by China.
He was an emotional ahem ahem.Nope I wont use the word because he happens to be India's first PM afterall.So i'll cut him some slack. And i am being generous here ...trust me.

 

[Nassr]

Why all of a sudden this hoopla about Jawahar Lal and Patel. These were great leaders of India. You guys also killed Gandhi - another great leader of India. Why so much hatred for them after such a long time.

 

[Levina]

Why all of a sudden this hoopla about Jawahar Lal and Patel. These were great leaders of India. You guys also killed Gandhi - another great leader of India. Why so much hatred for them after such a long time.

Nassr
Its not all of a sudden.
Every coin has 2 sides and so does a politician's life.
Nehru,Sadar Patel etc were great leaders no doubt.But they have all faltered at many places during the course of Indian history.India is paying through its nose for those wrong decisions even today.
Its not so easy to forget the past....it'll take time to heal those scars.
I have something to say against Mr.M.K.Gandhi too but i dont want to be juvenile enough to do it on a public forum like this. Freedom of speech doesnt mean mudslinging afterall.
I respect all these leaders but that shall not stop me from discussing their negatives.Their positives will out do their negatives if they were good enough in due course of time.

 

[future_bound]

Realistically there is going to be no solution to the kashmir conflict in the foreseeable future. No country is going to give up any land/territory as a compromise. And this discussion about Kashmir could go on forever because the issue will remain unresolved in the foreseeable future.

But you would notice one thing from the tone and views of most indian hindus on kashmir.

They actually believe that hindus have a God-given right to rule over the entire sub-continent. Because the issue of Kashmir was not resolved in 1947, the indian hindus today are claiming kashmir as their territory even though it has a muslim majority.

Now Keep in mind if the partition of 1947 had not happened. The hindus would also want to rule over the muslim majority areas of punjab, sindh and KP(formerly NWFP) against the will of the local muslim population. Hence that is why most hindus were against partition in 1947. Ofcourse the muslims with their larger numbers would not have tolerated this persecution by hindus and if there was no partition, it would have led to a very brutal civil war.

And if we go by the arguement that "might is right" or "possession is nine-tenths of the law", then i don't see why hindu indians today can complain about the british raj of the past. I would say that for the indian muslim minority today, the hindu-dominated government of india is far worse than the British raj of the past. Infact, if i had a choice as a muslim in india, i would rather live in a sub-continent under British Raj instead of living under a hindu-dominated government.

 

[Nassr]

Nassr
Its not all of a sudden.
Every coin has 2 sides and so does a politician's life.
Nehru,Sadar Patel etc were great leaders no doubt.But they have all faltered at many places during the course of Indian history.India is paying through its nose for those wrong decisions even today.
Its not so easy to forget the past....it'll take time to heal those scars.
I have something to say against Mr.M.K.Gandhi too but i dont want to be juvenile enough to do it on a public forum like this. Freedom of speech doesnt mean mudslinging afterall.
I respect all these leaders but that shall not stop me from discussing their negatives.Their positives will out do their negatives if they were good enough in due course of time.

I agree with you that wrongs committed by one set of leaders are felt by the coming generations. But shouldn't the coming generations correct themselves and set the right course for the future. These guys died a long long time ago and the leadership that followed them or those thereafter, should have corrected the wrongs.

To me it seems that some of the Indian posters are politically motivated due to the coming elections and are heightening the rhetoric for a purpose. Though most here are against Nehru and for Patel, but it was not their decision to appoint them to the positions that they held over 60 years ago. Isn't it because one political party support Patel and the other Nehru and Patel both, the views are basically a reflection of the current political environment rather than the actual reflections.