Willing to look over facts for a catchy phrase ?

–> Hindsight is so comfortable, isnt it ? Yes, he was in power for quite some time. It wasnt as if he was jailing political opposition(like his ‘eminent’ daughter did) and subverting democracy to hold onto power.

Are you forgetting that Sheikh Abdullah was thrown into jail by Nehru and the dismissal of the Kerala’s communist government and the powerplay to get the Congress party leader to step down (P.D.Tandon) ?

A federated South Asia may yet arrive, nay, return, not too far in the future. –> And lay waste to sacrifices made by people of India and Pakistan, to go in precisely the opposite direction, in 1947 ?

That’s right. If at all there is a possibility of “A federated South Asia” it will be under Sharia.

–> (My speculation) Nehru, sympathised with USSR even if he maintained “non-aligned” perception. He mentions in Discovery of India, “The practical achievements of the Soviet Union were also tremendously impressive. Often I disliked or did not understand some development there and it seemed to me to be too closely concerned with the opportunism of the moment or the power politics of the day. But despite all these developments and possible distortions of the original passion for human betterment, I had no doubt that the Soviet Revolution had advanced human society by a great leap and had lit a bright flame which could not be smothered, and that it had laid foundations for that new civilization towards which the world could advance. I am too much of an individualist and believer in personal freedom to like overmuch regimentation. Yet it seemed to me obvious that in a complex social structure individual freedom had to be limited, and perhaps the only way to read personal freedom was through some such limitation in the social sphere. The lesser liberties may often need limitation in the interest of the larger freedom.“

Musharraf could have used Nehru’s quotes, in addition to Lincoln, when he announced his emergency rule.

#14 louiecypher Thanks Amardeep, I missed that. Anyway, it is odd how Sardar Patel assumed that people of a similar phenotype would naturally lean towards the Chinese.

–> Didnt Guha mention in his book about Patel, as home minister of the newly independent India, keeping tabs on muslim civil servants with regard to their allegiance ? Or is it in some other book ?

#17 Pravin He should have known about the dangers of one man holding power for too long. He was Prime Minister too long. He didn’t do enough to encourage a robust succession of leadership. So when someone like him blunders on foreign policy, there is not going to be enough people challenging the Nehruvians Conventional Wisdom on such issues. I also feel like Nehru, with his education in Britain, probably felt a little too overconfident in his views. It’s too bad Patel’s words weren’t heeded more.

–> Hindsight is so comfortable, isnt it ? Yes, he was in power for quite some time. It wasnt as if he was jailing political opposition(like his ‘eminent’ daughter did) and subverting democracy to hold onto power. He got elected by the people as the leader. If Nehru indeed was overconfident in his views, what were other political leaders doing, not bringing him down a notch ? Sucking their thumbs ?

#26 chachaji In DoI, he mentions the ‘great transnational federations’ of the Soviet Union – but when it comes to India he forgets that even the Soviet Union retained the nominal sovereignties of the constituent units – Ukraine survived as Ukraine, Kazakhstan as Kazakhstan. And the British in India, just like the Mughals before them – were also essentially operating a multi-level federation.

–> Since this is hindsight analysis, wouldnt you think Nehru did good not to follow USSR’s federation model, so India didnt end up as scattered pieces of a jigsaw puzzle 50 years later ? And Nehru wasnt a dictator to consider his Discovery of India as the basic template for future governance of India. DOI laid out his ideas but to extend it to his governance model as the future PM, is a huge leap.

A federated South Asia may yet arrive, nay, return, not too far in the future.

–> And lay waste to sacrifices made by people of India and Pakistan, to go in precisely the opposite direction, in 1947 ?

#44 Ponniyin Selvan Even Nehru could be called as a “democratic” dictator.

–> Willing to look over facts for a catchy phrase ?

http://www.lajuk.blogspot.com

Whats more there was actual empirical evidence for this. Within a generation the soviet union had transformed itself from a largely agricultural european backwater to almost a first world country. that level and pace of economic development was unprecedented in the history of known human civilization. true it had done this through a virtual genocide by basically killing/wiping off large populations of large and medium landowners under stalin, but the third world leaders were (for various reasons) completely blind to the means used. incidentally the japanese had done something similar during their occupation of korea (and some analysts ascribe south korean economic dynamism later to the almost complete absence of large or medium sized feudal landowners); for a comparison imagine if the british had basically killed off all the zamindars of india instead of forming a coalition with them (as they actually did); no feudal structures, no landowners, no thakurs and bhumihars of bihar, u.p. and m.p. would have definitely led to a bourgeois revolution later. but the way for the more literal and obtuse readers–of whom there are, thankfully, very few on this board, this is only a thought experiment and does not imply any normative comment or content whatsoever

To be fair to Nehru, socialism was regarded as the great hope of the 20th century, he was not alone in making those assumptions. Unfortunately for India, he has been proven wrong by history. What is sad is how much of the Indian left and media still clings to those discredited ideas.

Great series Amardeep, keep up the good work! and here is wishing all mutineers a very happy Diwali

Wow. You are old and lived through quite a momentous period. Other than Nehru, Nasser, Sukarno and Tito are dictators. Even Nehru could be called as a “democratic” dictator.

I think “non-alignment” allowed India to play both sides. In that way, it is beneficial other than being a lap dog of either of the two.