“so lets start from 1974 itslef……………….”

it should have been ” so lets start from 1947 itself ”

sorry for the typo

to start with , please do not think im a congress support . I hate abhor , detest , abominate loathe them , their policies regarding to Minority affairs, failure of current govt in terms of economy etc .. with regards to Nehru , my blood boils with the mention of how blundered in China , of how soft he was towards Pakistan , & the manner in which he sidelined Sarda Patel for satisfaction of his ego. BUt then at times,even the devil must be given his due .

So lets start frm 1974 itself. Nehru along with the congress could not hold the country together resulting in mass killings . The new country was suffered to many wounds which havent healed yet . On terms of economy , we were worse than many african nations [ some regions still are ..]. infact pakistan [both east & west ] received the more fertile areas of Punjab & bengal. So then how did INdia ended up being wher it is , so different of the british commonwealth . thats where we need to credit nehru for “certain decisions” he took in those days . Nehru could never bring about an economic revolution in his days , but what can you expect of him with the circumstance he had?? But he did take steps which in retrospect turned out to be the foundations of our strong economy today . Like Vir said rather than flirting with American capitalists & encouraging crony capitalism , the focus was developing public sector institutions which though not efficient ensured fair distribution of wealth [atleast relatively] . Private enterprise was limited but atleast wasnt banned like in the Ussr; operation in a strict environment prepared them to perform efficiently which gave them a edge once reforms were introduced in 91 . BUt the most important contribution hasnt been talked about much over here . It was nehru who laid thr thrust for promoting education as thhe most important asset in nation building . The first IIt was establised in 1951 & many other institutions & universities [includin IIs IIms] of all tiers were established subsequently. Morover it was made accessible to the poor & middle class unlike the american ivy leagues which are an elite preserve . Today when the world sees India as a emergin power on virtue of its Manufacturing, Knowledge , IT & many other things it is evident that its all because of nehrus contribution towards education..
so much for now, ill post later IF some1 bothers to respond

Check the leadership of J L Nehru, Indira Gandhi, Vajpayee and many others. Ask yourself how an erstwhile communist ended up being Vajpayee’s adviser. You will find examples of developements mentioned in the first paragraph.

I am doing a small experiment to prove that this is so on the blog rajeev2004.blogspot.com For years, I posted comments that were my opinions, presented in a decent language, and often as questions. The owner of the blog sometime decided that he will summarily delete my comments and he is doing so for last two years. Even otherwise, he is following a policy of silencing diseenting opionion. All the readers seem to agree with the censorship, some even revel in using foul language against dissenters.

I sincerely believe that J L Nehru was a victim of the circumstances. He did many good things, perhaps merely because of his romanticism. He made big mistakes, possibly because he cut himself off from dissenting opinion and the society at large never supported the dissenters.

Perceival Spear points out that there has always been an urge towards indian unity without the power to achieve it.India has not expressed herself as a monolithic empire like China nor as compact nation states as in Europe.The reason is her cultural,ethnic and linguistic hetrogenity.As Hindus,we have multiple creation myths and traditions.In the Hindu scheme of things,the Vaishya occupied the third tier.Political institutions were under developed.In the Brahminical narrative,the thrust for land,power and wealth were ephemeral from a perspective whose reckoning of time was different.The varna-jati system placed emphasis on stability and continuity.

India was rudely awakened by British imperialism which brought with it ideals of post-enlightenment Europe,geographical discoveries,science,sanitation,comforts,communication,accurate maps,industrial revolution and above all superior organisation.The Congress liberals were no match to the British colonial power.It was Gandhiji who brought the masses into the picture.But the masses have incredible hetrogenity.These are the jats,jat sikhs,yadavs,obcs,thevars,gounders,naickers,vanniyars,vokkaligas,kurmis,dalits.The British policy of divide and rule was in full throttle.Ancient identities were reinforced and sharpened.Incentives were given to maintain rough edges and make inflated claims and even advance fantastic dangerous slogans.

In such circumstances,nehru took control.I risk offending you.Only in the Konkan coast and Uttaranchal were Brahmana landowners the pioneers of the agrarian structure.They could shift to industry without offending others.In other parts of india,the relationship with land was much more nuanced based on ancient traditions and relationships which were buried under layers of labrynthine social contracts.Any shift would have had repurcussions on a social level with other castes like vokkaligas,thevars,mudaliars,jat sikhs,rajputs that underpin the Hindu Universe.

Indian business groups were 300 years behind European capital in scale and organisation.The landed groups had no interest in industrialisation.The Brahmanas had an ancient literary tradition but little experience in modern technology and management.Under the circumstances,Nehru’s options were more or less cut out.Land reforms provided land to the tiller.It emphasised scientific and technical education for the savarnas at the apex of the pyramid.The landed castes(a hetrogenous lot ranging from gounders to jat sikhs) had access to poltical power and jobs at the state level.While planning ensured economic integration and development of the sub-continent.It is not easy to integrate the political aspirations of jats,rajputs and mudaliars.Before being too harsh on nehru,one must unserstand the predicaments and predilictions of a liberal pundit nationalist.

I hold no brief for the likes of Vir Sanghvi.These lightweights are just mouthing some nonsense for a living.The world has changed remarkably now.

when it came to paying 40 Crores to Pakistan after partition, he listened to Gandhi, and not his own constituency. all MPs objected paying money, and Nehru signed the bills.

when it came to China, worst mistakes were made. when he was asked by many to upgrade army, he resisted. when he was told about silent preparations, he ignored. when we lost the war, he was indignant even to the point of defending his idiotic defense minister.

when it came to economics, he did not listen to any economist. rather, he worked on his ideas, and with Birlas and Tatas. Crony industrialism.

Being romantic and intelligent is fine. but, that alone do not make a good leader. Hu Jintao is not known to be much so, but his admin is after practical problems of China: economics, pollution, population explosion, etc.

Nehru should have been replaced. he knew he was beyond his expiry date only when we lost China war. by then India was in trouble already.

The difference between american and russian client states is extremely well known – just compare West and East Germany, South and North Korea or for that matter Taiwan and China (under Mao).

I am not a congressman. I hold a deep grudge in the petty politics that Congress and its “allies”, or for that matter BJP indulges in. But in my opinion, Nehru does deserve a lot of credit, for he seems to be the man, along with Sardar Patel, to have given India democracy and free speech. His role in separating military from the civilian state, is a contribution which is invaluable, according to me. Even economic statistics say that India didn’t do well under Indira Gandhi, who, having received the green revolution as a coronation gift, soon put the country in a heavy slumber for the next 15 years.

Besides, we just dont differentiate between journalists and anchors/newreaders. I think one needs more intellectual capability for the former.

What a poorly written, argued article by Vir Sanghvi !! Its full of so many glaring holes that i dont know where to start with – may be he dozed off after watching the pakis arrange the meeting between Nixon and Mao in horror and has woken up after 3 decades.

If this is what passes of as “analysis” in Indian MSM, i think it rightly needs to be criticized. It’s a painful reminder of how pathetically idealogical the Indian media is.