. Nehru did nt have too many bright or original ideas. But he knew what to do with good ideas. He came ahead of tito, nasser and sukarno. Nehru was tall not only in India but also around the world. Now from a Hindu revivalist perspective, that may be anathema, but the very fact that the Hindu revivalists cant ignore Nehru and have an axe to grind means that they subconsciously acknowledge his standing and even dissent that standing. Again, good leaders know what to do with good ideas. Even if those ideas are not theirs. Bad leaders know how to come up with bad ideas and/or to take bad ideas and make it theirs. Nehru was a good leader.
Even SAARC was the idea of BD than India's. SAFTA too. The Indian ocean group or BIMSTEC were all non-Indian ideas. But BIMSTEC and the Indian Ocean Rim group are becoming Indian-centric organizations. In fact, the Commonwealth was formed because south africa wanted it. Ass-tralia ran with that idea, New Zealand succored it and later Canada made it its own. The British who were the center of the whole idea came on board only much later. What does it say? To me, it says that small nations and insecure nations come up with ideas that can hold them onto things that will make them feel more secure. Nehru, who was a good leader, ran with the idea of Bandung, non-alignment etc. cos it sunk into his head that peoples and nations are coming out of colonialism and needed a vision that was due at that time.
Non-alignment was an idea that rose in its era. Without a need, there would nt have been non-alignment. Noone here is saying that non-alignment is the cardinal truth that should be regarded as a universal virtue. Nehru was a product of his era and in his era, he stood tall. Taller than anyone else around him. His impact is there for us to see. He did a lot of good things, he did a few bad things. There have been many who have been after him who have done a lot more negative things than good things, in addition to running the day2day happenings in a government. Some have done a good job, some have done a bad job. Some could have done better, some did what best they could have given the constraints they had.... and so on...
Now your specific focus on Nehru seems to be with a specific agenda. You as a right wing empathizer are faced with a formidable INC machinery. You want to be a part of the game that takes on this machinery. You can do this by projecting the virtues of right wing politics, as in Hindu assertion, equal-equal rights for everyone in India, egalitarian development economics etc. Instead you are going down the garden path of de-haloing nehru. That in itself is no issue. Just dont cloud your agenda as a holy war cos its a political hackjob. And has nothing to do with understanding policies. A political hackjob when declared upfront deserves as much attention as it gets, instead by clothing yourself in some quoted phrase of erudite gibberish and an occasional call to Indic mores and dharmic ideals, you are jus making yourself a bigger joker than you speak...
If you really had to piss on INC, I will give you points to piss on. The worstest INC PM has been Indira Gandhi. Let's look at the negatives in her days. Indira did a lot worse for India with as diverse things such as the license mafia raj, emergency, Khalistan problem, sustaining tulf, ltte and telo among other groups, Mizoram problem, etc... Much more than Nehru ever could have or did... Indira brought the word "secular" into the constitution, not Nehru.
But I dont see anyone here gunning after Indira. Why? To my silly mind, it is simple. Cos Indira delivered in 1971. That paragon of virtue and truthfulness ABV called her durga mata. In return, she kicked all the people who opposed her and put them in the jailhouse under MISA. (Edited something obnoxious on Neelam Sanjeeva Reddy with a sorry.)"The word secular was inserted into the preamble by the Forty-second Amendment. (1976)"
The approach followed here is good things are someone else's, bad things are yours. There was an equivalent statement on victory, defeat, ********, orphan, etc.... I forget. But back to the game. People who collaborated with Indira get away. May be because they are not so important. Even Indira gets away. Why, she even made the whole Judiciary a rubber stamp except for one Hon. Justice Hans Raj khanna who dissented (god bless his soul). If there has been something negative that has happened in India in all these years of independence, the darkest and the worst were the emergency days... now that acknowledgment will take some apolitical understanding of what was India then and what is India now... But that has never been the goal with political hackjobs... by definition, it should not be.. But then political hackjobs dont self-acknowledge that they are one.. so yea.. circle of life...
Virupaksha, I find that you have some problem with Children's day being celebrated to commemorate Nehru's birthday. Bad trend, I agree. But did you have a problem with Teachers' day being celebrated to commemorate the birthday of Dr. Sarvepalli Radhakrishnan? If so, I failed to see your consistency in getting angry at the halo-ing that happens in India.
Devesh, wow, Nehru was no. 1. PV Narasimha Rao was no. 2, ABV was no. 3 in your list. I am curious to see how Indira Gandhi fits into this billing for being more influential (negatively as I point out above) in post-47 India. I dont want to score own goals, but I do feel the itching need to point out some things about Shri. Rao's regime. Positives: Look East (may be, if the self-acknowledged pontificators dont question the originality of the policy and bequeathed that policy to a diplomatic note sent by xyz diplo in South Block). Other issues which I wont label as positives or negatives because what is positive for me is most definitely negative for you and vice versa: completing a five year term (clouded with the JMM scandal and assorted horse trading attempts), Harshad Mehta scandal, Babri Masjid demolition and Bombay blasts, getting caught while trying for nuclear explosions in Pokharan, .... The chargesheet for ABV is: Pokharan blasts, Lahore bus diplomacy, failed Agra talks, Kargil, Parliament attack, Op. Parakram, IC-814, Pyrdiwah incident, NSCN talks in Bangkok and the acknowledgment of Naga history as unique, Nuclear diplomacy with Strobe Talbott, India-Shining, ... (In fact, I ask the Hindu revivalist and empathizers, what exactly positive happened for Hindus under NDA? Article 370 remains, D-voters and NRC updates not done, cow slaughter ban not done universally, fencing in BD border has been slow. Duh! if that is what a Hindu gets in return for supporting someone who breathes Hindu rights at the drop of a hat, DUH!) You can re-assess who comes in 2 and who comes in 3. If you ask me, I will place Gulzari Lal Nanda high on the totem pole for handing over the PMship back to the elected PM, not once, but twice. Any Musharaff could have taken over India to any mode he/she so could have chosen, but Shri. Nanda was an honorable man. Assessments require some level of honesty, instead whitewashing hagiography is all we get. Sure, there are enough hagiographies on Nehru and Gandhi, but dude, this is brf where people are expected to read instead of getting caught with their pants down on whitewashing and revisioning history (or her-story).
And Sanku man, when you claim "Arnab, Stan used the link I provided to tell me that JP has used 356 21 times between 1975 and 1980" at http://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/viewto ... 5#p1195535 you most clearly are showing that you hardly read my posts and bs-all over. I did nt use a link your post had. Go check. You brought Article 356 cos you thought you had a point, some detailed look shows Nehru in relatively good light, then you pull up Sachar's remark and when asked if you will accept Sachar's report on Muslim status, you pull random remarks. Dude, you are bad at changing goal posts and hiding that. Thankfully, I dont indulge in nukular debating with you, I will pull whatever hair that remains in my head and die like a Jaina sadhu.
And all the drum yoddhas of nukkad, point noted. But I did nt claim "guru" status. That is a loserly title given by malleable folks to even more losers. Everyone has the power to be the guru that they want to be, and not depend on others to collate information from the Internets. In other words, you have the power to be not lazy
. Back to dhamaka time...
then?
)