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

[Kloitra]

It is not about liking Nehru's foreign policy, it is a bout the distortions of history that creep in. Patel wasn't very interested in Kashmir & would not have cared much for it in the first place. True that Patel was a realist & Nehru an idealist but that by itself is not the worst criticism. Both had their place.

From what we know of history, Nehru's idealism has done more harm than good, or atleast that's how I see it. I would prefer Patel's realism over that kind of idealism.

This is a subjective discussion, so I would stop here.

Patel was a hard-nosed realist on China while Nehru was enamoured of a India-China friendship. Nehru did let Tibet & by that action, India down on the China issue and that remains a most telling indictment of his foreign policy but since Patel wasn't alive by then, there is little scope to have had hope for a different take. Giving Dalai Lama refuge was not an easy act, Nehru was against the Dalai Lama coming ibto India but honoured him as a guest when he did come. That criticism is not valid unless you believe that India's China policy must be to do what the Chinese want you to do. Give them Arunachal?

If Nehru was enamoured of Sino-Indian friendship, he should have gone all the way. Chanting brotherhood while carrying out forward policy don't go well. What kind of leader would discredit his own country's military intel over his political advisers?

And read my first post again, I only said if Patel had more say, Kashmir would have been India's. That's based on Nehru going to UN against Patel's wishes. I don't say that Patel would have been a better PM overall, or his foreign policies would have yielded significantly better results. But I have no doubt that it would have had better results than Nehru's utopian dreams.

Socialism is far more difficult to object to when you realise it was the 50's & early 60's. There sisn't look like any other way to go, not for a country that had just freed itself from colonialism. The flaws of socialism would show up later & it was Indira Gandhi who was more to blame for that mess.

I am not against socialism, it was need of the hour and they had no way around it. Its just that he, and his successors made a complete mess. Again, this is also a subjective discussion, so I would not argue any further.

 

[Levina]

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.

True.Its on us to carry our nation forward now.

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.

I dont know about others but i can speak for myself and i dont have any such propaganda.
I hope that atleast in the coming elections a worthy enough party wins.
I neither support BJP nor Congress.

 

[livingdead]

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 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.

its true, the right wingers like patel, because he united India using force. Something that appeals to akhand bharat people a lot.
Nehru was much milder and more willing to listen to others and think of others views. Does not mean he did not want a united India, just that he was less willing to use force.
The idea of Nehru trying to hurt India is absurd, and its unfortunate the words posters use to describe him.

 

[Nassr]

True.Its on us to carry our nation forward now.


I dont know about others but i can speak for myself and i dont have any such propaganda.
I hope that atleast in the coming elections a worthy enough party wins.
I dont support BJP nor Congress.

Worthy for one is unworthy for the other till some one gets more votes. And who elects these leaders - the people. Therefore, while you may blame the leadership for their wrongs and ills, aren't the people who elected them should also share the blame. But then, many who elected them may also be dead or very old to be scolded. What then ............

 

[Sashan]

its true, the right wingers like patel, because he united India using force. Something that appeals to akhand bharat people a lot.
Nehru was much milder and more willing to listen to others and think of others views. Does not mean he did not want a united India, just that he was less willing to use force.
The idea of Nehru trying to hurt India is absurd, and its unfortunate the words posters use to describe him.

Nehru might not have intentionally hurt India but his Quixotic behavior is what hurt India the most and some of the damages are felt even today.

 

[Nassr]

its true, the right wingers like patel, because he united India using force. Something that appeals to akhand bharat people a lot.
Nehru was much milder and more willing to listen to others and think of others views. Does not mean he did not want a united India, just that he was less willing to use force.
The idea of Nehru trying to hurt India is absurd, and its unfortunate the words posters use to describe him.

It is very interesting to read comments about Nehru. If you read "Selected Works of Jawaharlal Nehru," you find a very sharp and shrewd leader, who would find no shame in stating one thing here and another there for the sake of India according to his perception. He was arrogant as well - he told his foreign office to inform the Chinese that the border passes from here, while drawing a line on the map. Of-course, China was a sovereign state and would take their own decision, which was not according to Nehru's or India's wishes. But he was decisive and would not hesitate to take decisions, which is a sign of a confident leader. I also saw an old documentary in which he is running after a crowed in Delhi probably, with a stick in hand, ahead of the police in order to disperse the crowed. Now, different people may take different view of this, but one thing is certain that he had the courage and the guts to go ahead and do it - a modern day la-Nike.

 

[Levina]

Worthy for one is unworthy for the other till some one gets more votes. And who elects these leaders - the people. Therefore, while you may blame the leadership for their wrongs and ills, aren't the people who elected them should also share the blame. But then, many who elected them may also be dead or very old to be scolded. What then ............

Are you trying to make me feel guilty now???
I was definitely not the one who voted,because till date i haven't exercised my right to vote.This so because i was never in India around the time of elections.
But talking of ppl who elected Jawaharlal Nehru,Sardar Patel etc then yes they must be dead by now.But for one i can be sure that those ppl made votes out of their love for Congress and not for an individual.Even now despite so many blunders that Congress has made, there are many in my own family who would prefer to vote for Congress(exclude me from the list).Loyalists is the word i have for them.
And if you mean having a discussion on the past is futile,then i wont completely agree.Whats the harm in discussing it,afterall we all learn from the past.Thats the only reference we have. As long as this discussion is healthy and nobody deliberately flames it, i would say why not?

 

[Nassr]

Nehru might not have intentionally hurt India but his Quixotic behavior is what hurt India the most and some of the damages are felt even today.

It does surprise me when Indians speak against some of the great leaders produced during the pre and post British India. I consider Gandhi, Nehru and Jinnah amongst the great leaders of their era. They helped to create two great nations that emerged on the world map in 47. This was no mean feat against the kind of odds they faced and the environment that existed. I know, Indians do not like Jinnah because he caused the break-up of India which the Indians wanted. And that to me was his greatness that he yet managed to carve out what he thought was best for his people. Gandhi and Nehru created an India and that too for the first time, which was ruled and governed by the Indians themselves.

Whatever their ills and weaknesses and misfortunes, their stature as great leaders can not and should not be taken away from them. 

Are you trying to make me feel guilty now???
I was definitely not the one who voted,because till date i haven't exercised my right to vote.This so because i was never in India around the time of elections.
But talking of ppl who elected Jawaharlal Nehru,Sardar Patel etc then yes they must be dead by now.But for one i can be sure that those ppl made votes out of their love for Congress and not for an individual.Even now despite so many blunders that Congress has made, there are many in my own family who would prefer to vote for Congress(exclude me from the list).Loyalists is the word i have for them.
And if you mean having a discussion on the past is futile,then i wont completely agree.Whats the harm in discussing it,afterall we all learn from the past.Thats the only reference we have. As long as this discussion is healthy and nobody deliberately flames it, i would say why not?

O no, I am not trying to make you feel guilty. Discussion about the past is always productive as long as we learn from it for the better. All I am saying is that we for the sake of current political motivations may not undermine the greatness of those who helped create a homeland for us where we govern our own destiny or so we hope that we would.

 

[Levina]

O no, I am not trying to make you feel guilty. Discussion about the past is always productive as long as we learn from it for the better. All I am saying is that we for the sake of current political motivations may not undermine the greatness of those who helped create a homeland for us where we govern our own destiny or so we hope that we would.

Agreed.
But those were not the only ppl who helped us get our freedom and who fought for our freedom.They just represented the majority.
They were not gods infact just were mere mortals like us.And hence they have erred too.So my posts here would be more realistic about them than just glorifying their achievements which i am sure is job well done by so many.
So here i rest my case Sir.

 

[Sashan]

It does surprise me when Indians speak against some of the great leaders produced during the pre and post British India. I consider Gandhi, Nehru and Jinnah amongst the great leaders of their era. They helped to create two great nations that emerged on the world map in 47. This was no mean feat against the kind of odds they faced and the environment that existed. I know, Indians do not like Jinnah because he caused the break-up of India which the Indians wanted. And that to me was his greatness that he yet managed to carve out what he thought was best for his people. Gandhi and Nehru created an India and that too for the first time, which was ruled and governed by the Indians themselves.

Whatever their ills and weaknesses and misfortunes, their stature as great leaders can not and should not be taken away from them.

Greatness is defined by the legacy the leaders leave behind. Nehru has nothing to claim as a legacy except for the damages he had done to India.

Nehru made many policy blunders - socialism was one of them. The second one was going in for different laws for different religions when the constitution was written. The irony is he was the secretary to his father, Motilal when Motilal prepared the Nehru Report which contained the principles which should outline the constitution for the Indian dominion and prepared around 1928 and it was all pure secular principles while the Simon commission report which was a rival to the Nehru report was the basis of the Government of India act of 1935 on which basis the new Indian constitution was written in 1950 which had the above mentioned quirkiness. And he failed to reform the Mohammedan laws while other religious laws were reformed to reflect the modern practices. The non-reformation of Mohammedan laws was given as one of the primary reasons by the right wing Hindu parties/organizations today.

As for Jinnah, you should have seen my old posts regarding Jinnah. I have nothing against Jinnah and in fact I am of the opinion his hands were forced by Gandhi's appeasement politics(the start of such politics in the subcontinent) in that Gandhi supported the Khilafat movement while Jinnah opposed it and later was isolated in the Lahore Congress session in 1920. After a period of self imposed break from the politics Jinnah emerged to lead Muslim League.

 

[Nassr]

Agreed.
But those were not the only ppl who helped us get our freedom and who fought for our freedom.They just represented the majority.
They were not gods infact just were mere mortals like us.And hence they have erred too.So my posts here would be more realistic about them than just glorifying their achievements which i am sure is job well done by so many.
So here i rest my case Sir.

There are some amongst the crowd who lead either because of circumstances or by virtue of their qualities. In my opinion the ills bestowed through vagaries of time may not be bestowed on the leader alone unless he or she is a despot or a dictator.

 

[KingMamba]

@Nassr well what Nehru said in 52 can't be treated as the final words without considering further circumstances. And at that time many leaders said many things but many of those things are still to be fulfilled such as Jinnah also said during independence that Pakistan would treat all minorties as equal and it'll respect secular values. But alas things went opposite....

Apples to oranges, Nehru lived a long time after those words he could have fulfilled his promise while Jinnah had like a year or two and thats it.

 

[Nassr]

Greatness is defined by the legacy the leaders leave behind. Nehru has nothing to claim as a legacy except for the damages he had done to India.

Nehru made many policy blunders - socialism was one of them. The second one was going in for different laws for different religions when the constitution was written. The irony is he was the secretary to his father, Motilal when Motilal prepared the Nehru Report which contained the principles which should outline the constitution for the Indian dominion and prepared around 1928 and it was all pure secular principles while the Simon commission report which was a rival to the Nehru report was the basis of the Government of India act of 1935 on which basis the new Indian constitution was written in 1950 which had the above mentioned quirkiness. And he failed to reform the Mohammedan laws while other religious laws were reformed to reflect the modern practices. The non-reformation of Mohammedan laws was given as one of the primary reasons by the right wing Hindu parties/organizations today.

As for Jinnah, you should have seen my old posts regarding Jinnah. I have nothing against Jinnah and in fact I am of the opinion his hands were forced by Gandhi's appeasement politics(the start of such politics in the subcontinent) in that Gandhi supported the Khilafat movement while Jinnah opposed it and later was isolated in the Lahore Congress session in 1920. After a period of self imposed break from the politics Jinnah emerged to lead Muslim League.

Ah the legacy. The leaders who are worried about the legacy they leave behind, in my opinion may not be as selfless as compared to those who work selflessly for their people without bothering about the legacy they leave behind. Legacy for a leader is a personal self aggrandizement and should not be weighed in comparison to the existing environment that led to the positives and the negatives. Indians would know more than I do about their leaders but their their views about their leaders, in more cases than not, are more pronounced due to the socio-political segregation rather than an objective view. This is of-course my personal view and I can be wrong.

In Pakistan, in large view, Jinnah is accepted as a great leader despite the socio-political segregation. He had his ills and weaknesses. We accept him despite all those ills and weaknesses. Some creations tend to obviate personal weaknesses and that is why Iqbal said:

hazaron saal nargis apni benoori pe roti hai
Barri mushkil se hota hai chaman mein dedawar paida

I believe this as a fact. 

Apples to oranges, Nehru lived a long time after those words he could have fulfilled his promise while Jinnah had like a year or two and thats it.

Agreed.

 

[Bang Galore]

Greatness is defined by the legacy the leaders leave behind. Nehru has nothing to claim as a legacy except for the damages he had done to India.

That is extraordinarily unfair. It is Nehru's legacy that India is now an entrenched democracy and that there is the freedom that people have even if it is used to abuse him.

Nehru made many policy blunders - socialism was one of them.

It was 1950's, there was no other viable option. People didn't sacrifice so much for freedom to simply agree to a system which would have continued old prejudices. Land reform certainly couldn't have happened under a capitalist system. India's green revolution was still driven by the government, not very easy to suggest that system that existed achieved nothing.

The second one was going in for different laws for different religions when the constitution was written. The irony is he was the secretary to his father, Motilal when Motilal prepared the Nehru Report which contained the principles which should outline the constitution for the Indian dominion and prepared around 1928 and it was all pure secular principles while the Simon commission report which was a rival to the Nehru report was the basis of the Government of India act of 1935 on which basis the new Indian constitution was written in 1950 which had the above mentioned quirkiness. And he failed to reform the Mohammedan laws while other religious laws were reformed to reflect the modern practices. The non-reformation of Mohammedan laws was given as one of the primary reasons by the right wing Hindu parties/organizations today.

The Constitution wasn't the whim of any one man and while Nehru probably had more influence than other in that generation, it would be unfair to lay completely the blame on him.

 

[Nassr]

This is a very surprising and indeed an alarming debate. I think Nathuram Godse is going to kill Gandhi again during the 2014 elections in India.