I recently finished reading the book India After Gandhi by Ramachandra Guha. And I must say that I am extremely happy and ecstatic for having completed it, or atleast for having picked it up in the first place. The journey has been fascinating, enriching and a total eye-opener so much so that I suggest this book to anyone who wants to understand India as a country, its history as a democratic nation and the principles of its founding fathers. I have since long stereotyped history as extremely boring and bland but then after this book happened to me i must say I had been rather judgemental, a classic case of a hasty generalization.
I have often heard people speaking ill of Mr Nehru and underscoring his failures, and often unaware of his contributions. The topic of Nehru generally brings out a feeling of derision and disdain among many. How many of these opinions are truely independent is a question worth asking. Contrary to general opinion I believe Nehru's contributions to India have been tremendous. After reading the book, I guess I am in a better position to comment if not judge the decisions of Mr Nehru.
I have often heard people speaking ill of Mr Nehru and underscoring his failures, and often unaware of his contributions. The topic of Nehru generally brings out a feeling of derision and disdain among many. How many of these opinions are truely independent is a question worth asking. Contrary to general opinion I believe Nehru's contributions to India have been tremendous. After reading the book, I guess I am in a better position to comment if not judge the decisions of Mr Nehru.
For people who lack a proper introduction, Sardar Vallabhai Patel was elected by the Congress Committee as the first prime-minister of free India. But upon the recommendation of Mr Gandhi, who asked Patel to sit down and accede the post to Mr Nehru, Nehru became the first prime-minister of free India. Nehru's contribution to India were his foreign policy of non-alignment and secularism. Agreed that the circumstances in which he was elected the prime-minister were not `what one would say democratic, but otherwise he did give his best in making India what it is today. His failures as emphasized by many are his handling of the Kashmir issue and the 1962 Sino-Indian war.
Speaking subjectively, I guess he had made a fair decision when it came to Kashmir. Making a Kashmir a separate state would have opened the Pandora's box, causing further instability in a region already in a dismal state. Given its precarious situation and its proximity to Pakistan, not allowing it to become an independent country was prudent on his part. Though debatable, I doubt Kashmir would be in a better state had he granted it independence. He was not stubborn as a leader, as he decided to release Sheikh Abdullah( the leader of the National Conference and the person most popular in Kashmir at that point of time) and grant Kashmir freedom in 1964, but only for his untimely death. His handling of the China war involved pure negligence on his part, but given that he was an idealist, I doubt we could hold much against him. He naively believed that China was India's friend and misjudged China's wrath against India for providing shelter to The Dalai Lama. His stand could be justified by the documents, as China and India had agreements which clearly demarcated each others territory. So it was rational if not pragmatic of him to not anticipate China's invasion.
Coming to his contributions, he was responsible for the passing of the Reservation Bill, passing of the uniform civil code bill for all Hindus and the abolishing of the sati and dowry system. He was a great orator and his talks were always attended by massive crowds, be it within India or abroad. His vision, his belief in the principles of democracy and secularism made him popular and well respected among the top brass of super-power nations and in a way contributed to the respectable position that India enjoys today. His foreign policy of non-alignment when it came to the US and Russia served the future interests of India, which was later helped by the US when it came to crops during periods of drought and military assistance during the China war, and Russia when it came to economic and military assistance. His belief in secularism and his desire to make India a place where people of multiple religions and cultures could live in harmony guided very action and decision of his. It is no exaggeration to say that he is responsible for every iota of secularism that can be attributed to the India of today.
To say that he was a total success would be a hyperbole, but to hold him responsible for everything ill that happened in India is in plain terms character assassination. Politics is too difficult a science to ace every time you face an impasse and people are too easily swayed, their stands too easily influenced for them to be the best judges of what is best for them. This I feel is one of the greatest flaws of democracy, if ever there is one.
Speaking subjectively, I guess he had made a fair decision when it came to Kashmir. Making a Kashmir a separate state would have opened the Pandora's box, causing further instability in a region already in a dismal state. Given its precarious situation and its proximity to Pakistan, not allowing it to become an independent country was prudent on his part. Though debatable, I doubt Kashmir would be in a better state had he granted it independence. He was not stubborn as a leader, as he decided to release Sheikh Abdullah( the leader of the National Conference and the person most popular in Kashmir at that point of time) and grant Kashmir freedom in 1964, but only for his untimely death. His handling of the China war involved pure negligence on his part, but given that he was an idealist, I doubt we could hold much against him. He naively believed that China was India's friend and misjudged China's wrath against India for providing shelter to The Dalai Lama. His stand could be justified by the documents, as China and India had agreements which clearly demarcated each others territory. So it was rational if not pragmatic of him to not anticipate China's invasion.
Coming to his contributions, he was responsible for the passing of the Reservation Bill, passing of the uniform civil code bill for all Hindus and the abolishing of the sati and dowry system. He was a great orator and his talks were always attended by massive crowds, be it within India or abroad. His vision, his belief in the principles of democracy and secularism made him popular and well respected among the top brass of super-power nations and in a way contributed to the respectable position that India enjoys today. His foreign policy of non-alignment when it came to the US and Russia served the future interests of India, which was later helped by the US when it came to crops during periods of drought and military assistance during the China war, and Russia when it came to economic and military assistance. His belief in secularism and his desire to make India a place where people of multiple religions and cultures could live in harmony guided very action and decision of his. It is no exaggeration to say that he is responsible for every iota of secularism that can be attributed to the India of today.
To say that he was a total success would be a hyperbole, but to hold him responsible for everything ill that happened in India is in plain terms character assassination. Politics is too difficult a science to ace every time you face an impasse and people are too easily swayed, their stands too easily influenced for them to be the best judges of what is best for them. This I feel is one of the greatest flaws of democracy, if ever there is one.