Using your phone's internet browser
go to:  qna.rediff.com
Click and drag this link to
the Home icon in your browser.
Q.

Nehruji's India took a giant stride out of colonial stagnant. But succeeding governments, lacking his ground based realism and the practical approach that rejected hide bound ideological constraints, failed to take off from the foundation laid by him. comment

Tags: india, practical approach, nehruji
Asked by Josna, 08 Nov '10 06:32 pm
  Invite a friend  |  
  Save  |  
 Earn 10 points for answering
Answer this question  Earn 10 points for answering    
4000 characters remaining  
  
    
Keep me signed inNew User? Sign up

Answers (4)

 
1.

1) I do understand that Nehru was driven more by idealism and it is true that he has been instrumental in laying foundation for the industrialization and setting up of good educational and scientific institutions in India. India still benefits from his vision.
2) But at the same time, he was very naive person and this proved to be very expensive for India. It might be giving away the right of permanent seat in the UNSC to China and the J&K issue. His so called neutrality in foreign policy proved to be a disaster for India.
3) It is also true that it is not fair to blame him for the blunders that his successors committed. His successors had enough time to wake up and make course corrections. But as you know, Indians are hypocrites. They are just worshippers and not practitioners. People worship Gandhi, Nehru etc but never put their ideals into practice in their own lives. So, Nehru s successors have a major share in the blame game who failed the nation in almost all respect.
Answered by Tony Fernandez, 08 Nov '10 06:54 pm

 
  
Report abuse
Useful
 (0)
Not Useful
 (0)
Your vote on this answer has already been received
2.

Neither Nehru nor any other leader has been able to get India out of colonial situation. India still operates with a colonial mentality. During pre independence days, the life and economy of the people at large was being controlled and dictated by the landlords or zanindars with support from police, corrupt civil servants and Her Majesties representatives. The situation is still the same. The only difference is Zamindars have been replaced by business men and their goons who with the support of the police are continuing to usurp the land of the common man with blessings of Our Peoples representatives (MPs and MLAs). From a colony of British, the country is now colony of political parties. Political leaders do not considers themselves as representative of the people, instead they behave like rulers ruling over their colonized territory. After Independence Nehru (by his controlled economy of license raj) nurtured the seeds of corruption and nepotism that were planted during the Britis ...more
Answered by Shyam, 09 Nov '10 12:04 pm

 
  
Report abuse
Useful
 (1)
Not Useful
 (0)
Your vote on this answer has already been received
3.

I beg to disagree.The Nehruvian model of economic development adopted by India till mid eighties is responsible for our backwardness.China opened its economy in the early seventies.If we had done so we would have been a developed country by now.Besides,Pandit Nehru is solely responsible for the trouble that we face in Kashmir.
Answered by Damodar Biswal, 08 Nov '10 06:50 pm

 
  
Report abuse
Useful
 (1)
Not Useful
 (0)
Your vote on this answer has already been received
4.

And what was that giant stride and foundation a grand defeat from Mao's china ?
Nehru's India talked big and tried riding on moral high horse becoming laughing stock in International Arena.

I would sincerly advice you to read memories of John Kenneth Gabrialth the U.S Ambassador at the time of 1962 China war and biggest friend of India during Kennedy era who somewhat helped us to tide that crisis to know other side of story which official government propaganda machine do not tell about Nehru.
Answered by Batao Na, 08 Nov '10 06:42 pm

 
  
Report abuse
Useful
 (0)
Not Useful
 (0)
Your vote on this answer has already been received

Ask a Question

Get answers from the community

600 characters remaining

Related Answer

Q.
A

1)Relationship between two countries cannot be strictly termed as friendship. It is more a marriage of convenience than anything else. Even Indias so ..more

Answered by Tony Fernandez