Nehru's faults are grave indeed and not changed by the fact that he died more than 40 years ago. The only trouble is that for all Bhatat's claim to be great power, under Nehru's it has proved an insgnificant.
This is underlined by the reply Dr Singh made to Rice's comment referring to NAM as being irrelevant today. The plain fact is that no one in the Nehru clan had the intellectual capacity to update such sacred cows. I grant that Indira Gandhi proved manly when she partioned Pakistan. How much of an achievement was that? Instead of one but now the two of them are upto their usual tricks. A General has remarked that it would have been a wiser strategy to have left Pakistan intact with all the problems of defending long lines of communications.
Rajiv Gandhi was supposed to have heralded in modernity to India with his interest in technology but with Shah Bano he totally discredited himself as Sonia has with Afzal. Neither did he see the sense in dismantling the licence raj. Gordon Brown has shown that even with a Britsh PM who has been described as dour in comparison to Blair, his Government has been able to rope in considerable talent in comparison to Singh's Government.
The Nehru's have ruthlessly killed off any challenge to their rule. Did Bharat fight for independence to have another set of despots rule over them in the place of the British?
