It is very easy to be critical of Pandit Nehru and his policies. But the circumstances he faced were not as favourable as they are now for maintaining the state machinery of a country like India. Everybody knows that Mahatma Gandhi is the propogator of 'non-violence' but many forget that the practical field work was done by Nehru. Supporting Formosa and Dalai Lama had positive political spirit and this spirit is the key of Indian success. China may be a big country with huge military strength, developed economy, high growth rate but all these are their government's successes, not the people's. The greatest success India has achieved over the last 60 years is that they have maintained the 'ballot box' successfully and whatever development is there in India is the development of the people. There are lots of differences between the achievemnets of China and those of India.
RE:Nehru - the real Pundit
by santosh satpathy on Jun 30, 2007 11:14 AM Permalink
"Who divided India on the basis of Linguistic states? Nehru "
hello ,every body has a right to have their own state,wats wrong in it .orissa became a separate state 1932 well before Nehrus rule.Most of us are happy that we have our state based on a lingustic line like Andra,orissa,kerela,karnataka,hariyana etc.I cam understand ur point ,but dont expect everyone to agree because its convinient for u
RE:Nehru - the real Pundit
by saif kashmiri on Jun 30, 2007 12:15 AM Permalink
further who supported china as permenant member UN.ALTOUGH US was more interested in india than china
RE:Nehru - the real Pundit
by Khandu Patel on Jun 30, 2007 06:32 AM Permalink
I would settle for a dictator if he got the job done. Democracy is a luxury that is enjoyed after the dictator departs the scene as he is no longer required.
You can see that in Russian history with Stalin and the dictatorship of the Communist party ditto China. England with Cromwell as dictator. Churchill during war time England was a dictator. I would not want to Bharat's communist into power. That would be plain disasterous.
Dictatership if it has not been written into Western constitutions are informed by the ancient Roman Senate's injunction to the Proconsol to take all necessary measures to protect the state. The European Commission on Human Rights has much the same written into their provisions.
Indira Gandhi's declaration of the 1977 emergency might be hotly disputed, but it goes against all reason to oppose emergency in principle. The more charitatble view is that Bharat's constitution framers like novice lawyers failed to comprehend what real exercise of power entails. It means that the dictator in the special circumstances of a national emergency has a right to make mistakes for the good of the country. I hope the armed forces understand this very clearly because I do not expect the armed forces to stand idly by in such situations.
