Nehru's 97 Major Blunders Page 2

  —Nehru’s statement in the Parliament

  “I hope I am not leaving you as cannon fodder for the Chinese. God bless you all.”

  —India’s army chief KS Thimayya in

  his farewell speech in 1961

  “Things went so wrong [in India-China War] that had they not happened it would have been

  difficult to believe them.”

  —S Gopal, Nehru's official biographer

  “If the future is full of hope it is largely

  because of Soviet Russia.”

  —Nehru

  “Mr Jawaharlal Nehru returned from Cambridge with notions of how an all-governing interventionist state can force people into happiness and prosperity through socialism...He sticks to this bias in spite of the demonstration of world experience against it... I hate the present folly and arrogance as much as I hated the foreign arrogance of those [British] days.”

  —Rajaji

  “History will soon prove that Communism, instead of being the final flowering of human civilisation, was a temporary aberration of the human mind, a brief nightmare to be soon forgotten. Communism, as it grew up in Russia and is growing up in China now, represented the darkness of the soul and imprisonment of the mind, colossal violence and injustice. Whoever thinks of the future of the human race in these terms is condemning man to eternal perdition.”

  —Jayaprakash Narayan

  “A young man who isn't a socialist hasn't got a heart; an old man who is a socialist hasn't got a head.”

  —David Lloyd George

  “To cure the British disease with socialism was like

  trying to cure leukaemia with leeches.”

  —Margaret Thatcher

  “He [Nehru] had no idea of economics. He talked of Socialism, but he did not know how to define it. He talked of social justice, but I told him he could have this only when there was an increase in production. He did not grasp that. So you need a leader who understands economic issues and will invigorate your economy.”

  —Chester Bowles

  “The whole political vision of the left, including socialism and communism, has failed by virtually every empirical test, in countries all around the world. But this has only led leftist intellectuals to evade and denigrate empirical evidence… …When the world fails to conform to their vision, then it seems obvious to the ideologues that it is the world that is wrong, not that their vision is uninformed or unrealistic.”

  —Thomas Sowell

  “Poor countries are poor because those who have power make choices that create poverty.” Such countries develop “extractive” institutions that “keep poor countries poor”.

  —Daron Acemoglu and James A. Robinson in ‘Why Nations Fail’

  (Nehru laid the foundations of ‘Extractive Institutions’)

  “While I usually came back from meeting Gandhiji elated and inspired but always a bit sceptical, and from talks with Jawaharlal [Nehru] fired with emotional zeal but often confused and unconvinced, meetings with Vallabhbhai [Patel] were a joy from which I returned with renewed confidence in the future of our country. I have often thought that if fate had decreed that he, instead of Jawaharlal, would be younger of the two, India would have followed a very different path and would be in better economic shape than it is today.”

  — JRD Tata

  “Nehru’s inability to rise above his deep-rooted Marxist equation of Western capitalism with imperialism, and his almost paranoid, partly aristocratic, distrust of free enterprise in its most successful form as ‘vulgar’, cost India dearly in retarding its overall development for the remaining years of his rule, as well as for the even longer reign of his more narrowly doctrinaire daughter.”

  —Stanley Wolpert, ‘Nehru: A Tryst with Destiny’

  “Nehru rooted India’s foreign policy in abstract ideas rather than a strategic conception of national interests. He disdained alliances, pacts, and treaties, seeing them as part of the old rules of realpolitik, and was uninterested in military matters...Nehru tended to put hope above calculation. When he was warned that Communist China would probably seek to annex Tibet, for example, he doubted it, arguing that it would be foolish and impractical adventure. And even after Beijing did annex Tibet in 1951, Nehru would not reassess the nature of Chinese interests along India’s northern border…”

  —Fareed Zakaria, ‘The Post-American World’

  “Malcolm Muggeridge, after seeing Nehru shortly before his death, characterized him as “a man of echoes and mimicry, the last viceroy rather than the first leader of a liberated India”, and regretted that Nehru was much too British in his approach to have been able to bring about significant or radical changes in India.

  — Sankar Ghose in ‘Jawaharlal Nehru, a Biography’

  “You know, I never go to Nehru to seek advice or guidance. I take a decision and just present it to him as a fait accompli. Nehru’s mind is too complex to wrestle with the intricacies of a problem. Those who go to him for advice rarely get a lead—and that only serves to delay matters... Nehru does not understand economics, and is lead by the nose by ‘professors’ and ‘experts’ who pander to his whims and fancies... We should have absorbed Kashmir for good and all... I do not know where we are going. The country needs a man like Patel.”

  —Rafi Ahmed Kidwai, Nehru’s close friend and confidant

  What Nehru Said

  “We were getting out of touch with reality in the modern world and we were living in an artificial atmosphere of our creation...”

  “We feel India has been ill-repaid for her diplomatic friendliness toward Peking...Difficult to say the Chinese have deliberately deceived us...We may have deceived ourselves...”

  “I have been betrayed by a friend. I am sorry for Tibet.”

  “I am the last Englishman to rule India!”

  “…in my likes and dislikes I was perhaps more an Englishman than an Indian. I looked upon the world from an Englishman’s standpoint.”

  ~~~

  In his book ‘Glimpses of World History’, Nehru quotes Alberuni writing about the havoc caused by Mahmud of Ghazni: “The Hindus became like the atoms of dust scattered in all directions and like a tale of old in the mouths of people. Their scattered remains cherish of course the most inveterate aversion towards all Muslims...”

  Nehru then comments, “This poetic description gives us an idea...” So, Nehru found Alberuni’s description of the terrible misfortune wrought on India and Hindus poetic!!

  In his book, Nehru also writes: "...As a matter of fact, he [Mahmud] was hardly a religious man… Above everything he was soldier, and a brilliant soldier. He came to India to conquer and loot, as soldiers unfortunately do, and he would have done so to whatever religion he might have belonged...” However, as per the contemporary history, when Mahmud of Ghazni was carrying away the Shiva idol of gold from the Somnath temple, many rich traders came together and offered him even more wealth if he returned the idol. Mahmud’s retort was: “I am an idol-breaker, not an idol-seller!”

  Nehru further writes about Mathura: “Mahmud was anxious to make his own city of Ghazni rival the great cities of central and western Asia and he carried off from India large number of artisans and master builders. Building interested him and he was much impressed by the city of Mathura near Delhi. About this Mahmud wrote: ‘There are here a thousand edifices as firm as the faith of the faithful; nor is it likely that this city has attained its present condition but at the expense of many millions of dinars, nor could such another be constructed under a period of 200 years.’”

  What is interesting and intriguing is that nowhere there is any mention by Nehru of how this Mahmud, the lover of buildings as he calls him, mercilessly destroyed Mathura and Somnath!

  Wrote Al Utbi, an aide and secretary of Mahmud of Ghazni, in Tarikh-e Yamini about Mathura: “The Sultan gave orders that all the temples should be burnt with naphtha and fire and levelled with the ground… Musulmans paid no regard to the booty till they had satiated themselves with
the slaughter of the infidels and worshippers of the sun and fire.”

  ~~~

  “...several ministers who used to squat on the floor and eat off brass plates or plantain leaves in their homes were now trying to ape Western ways. They contended that Nehru considered only Westernised people modern...”

  —Durga Das, ‘India from Curzon to Nehru & After’

  “He [Nehru] is a friend of the English people. Indeed, he is more English than Indian in his thought and make-up. He is often more at home with Englishmen than with his own countrymen.”

  —Mahatma Gandhi

  “Jawahar wants Englishmen to go but Angreziat to stay. I want Angreziat to go but Englishmen to remain as our friends.”

  —Mahatma Gandhi

  Pre-Independence Blunders

  Not many blunders are listed under Nehru’s ‘Pre-independence Blunders’ below, compared to his ‘Post-independence Blunders’ later, because in the former period Nehru was not fully in-charge. There was Mahatma Gandhi on top, and there were many other leaders of stature, to keep him in check. Despite that, whenever Nehru held an official position bestowing him with some discretion, and an opportunity presented itself,...

  Blunder–1 :

  Usurping Presidentship in 1929

  Jawaharlal Nehru was given an unfair leg up on Sardar Patel in 1929 by Gandhi, and made President of the Congress, despite the following facts that overwhelmingly made Sardar the deserving candidate.

  Patel had led the Bardoli Satyagraha of 1928 whose resounding success had made him a national hero, and bestowed on him the title Sardar. The Bardoli Satyagraha was the first successful practical implementation of the Gandhian non-violent technique involving the rural masses on the ground.

  Nehru lacked such credentials. Besides, Sardar Patel was much senior to Jawaharlal, and a larger number of Pradesh Congress Committees (PCCs: legal body to elect President) had recommended him over Jawaharlal.

  Yet, Gandhi, most unjustly and undemocratically, asked Patel to withdraw! Gandhi thereby tried to establish an unjust pecking order where Jawaharlal came before Patel.

  Netaji Subhas Bose had subsequently written: “The general feeling in Congress circles was that the honour should go to Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel.”

  Acharya Kriplani had remarked that Gandhi’s reasons for preferring Jawaharlal “were personal rather than political”.

  Jawaharlal’s father Motilal had a major role to play in Jawaharlal’s undeserved elevation. Motilal was the Congress President in 1928. He desired that his position be inherited by his son.

  Subsequent to Patel’s Bardoli win, Motilal wrote to Gandhi on 11 July 1928: “I am quite clear that the hero of the hour is Vallabhbhai, and the least we can do is to offer him the crown [make him President of the Congress]. Failing him, I think that under all the circumstances Jawahar would be the best choice.” Motilal actively canvassed for Jawaharlal with Gandhi.

  Nepotism and “fight” for freedom went together: Nehrus from Motilal downwards ensured their family was well taken care of; and that it came first, ahead of the nation! In the long run, the nation paid heavily for Motilal’s brazen nepotism, exemplarily emulated by his dynasty.

  The presidentship during 1929-30 was particularly significant: the one who became president was likely to be Gandhi’s successor; and he was also to declare the goal of the Congress as “purn swaraj” or complete independence (so late!!).

  Jawaharlal was also favoured by Gandhi with an unprecedented second consecutive term in 1930, then another two terms in 1936 and 1937, topped by the critical term in 1946! Such privilege was not accorded to any other leader—even Sardar Patel was made President only once for one year! The Old Man’s weakness for the Westernized Nehru over the home-spun fellow Gujarati [Patel] was yet another aspect of “Swadeshi” Gandhi’s self-contradictory personality. How Jawaharlal managed to become the “spiritual son” of Gandhi is a mystery. Wrote MN Roy in “The Men I Met”: “It can reasonably be doubted if Nehru could have become the hero of Indian Nationalism except as the spiritual son of Gandhi…To purchase popularity, Nehru had to suppress his own personality…”

  Blunder–2 :

  Setting Jinnah on Path to Pakistan

  Gandhi had taken a decision in 1934 not to boycott elections. Soon after release from jail in July 1934, Patel devoted himself to 1934-elections to the Central Legislative Assembly, playing the leading role in selecting and financing candidates. He became the chairman of the party’s Central Parliamentary Board, and also its main fund-raiser. He also guided the Congress through the Provincial elections of 1936.

  In the Central Legislative Assembly of 145, 41 seats were for the nominated, unelected members, leaving 104 for elected members. Out of that 104, 8 seats were reserved for Europeans, and 11 for landlords and others, leaving a net of 85 seats. Out of them, in 1934, the Congress won 44 of the 49 general seats, and 17 of the reserved seats—a total of 61 out of a possible maximum of 85, almost 72%. However, given 41 unelected/nominated seats, the Congress could not have a majority.

  In the 1936-37 provincial elections in 11 provinces, the Congress won an absolute majority in 5 (UP, Bihar, Madras, CP (Central Provinces) and Orissa), and emerged as the largest party in 4 (Bombay, Bengal, Assam and NWFP). The Congress ministries were formed in a total of 8 provinces. They were headed (called Premiers) by Govind Ballabh Pant in UP, Shrikrishna Sinha in Bihar, NB Khare in CP, BG Kher in Bombay, Rajaji in Madras. Bishwanath Das in Orissa, Gopinath Bardoloi in Assam, and Dr Khan Sahib in NWFP.

  Overall, in the assembly (provincial) elections, the Congress had won 719 of 1585 seats—less than 50%—and it had polled about 94 lakh votes against the total of all the opposition of about 110 lakh votes—again less than 50%: as such, the Congress had no reason to be too arrogant! Jinnah’s Muslim League won a total of 108 seats across India, including 20 of the 30 Muslim seats in the Bombay Assembly; and 26 seats in UP against 134 of the Congress.

  Before the elections, the Congress did not expect to get enough seats to form a government on its own in UP. That was because of the other parties in the fray who had strong backing of landlords and influential sections. So as to be able to form a government, it had planned for a suitable coalition with the Muslim League.

  So that the Muslim League got enough seats for a coalition to be successful, Rafi Ahmad Kidwai of the Congress—who had been private secretary of Motilal Nehru, and after his death, a principal aide of Jawaharlal Nehru—had persuaded, along with Nehru, several influential Muslims, like Khaliq-uz-Zaman, Nawab Mohammad Ismail Khan who had the potential to win, to fight the elections on behalf of the Muslim League, as Muslims fighting on behalf of the Muslim League had better chances of winning. They fought and won. But, after the elections, when the Congress found it could form the government on its own, without the help of the Muslim League, it began to put the unreasonable conditions.

  To Jinnah’s proposal of inclusion of two Muslim League Ministers in the UP cabinet, Nehru, who was the Congress President then, and was also looking after the UP affairs, put forth an amazing, arrogant condition: the League legislators must merge with the Congress! Specifically, the terms sought to be imposed, inter alia, by Azad–Nehru were: “The Muslim League group in the UP Legislature shall cease to function as a separate group. The existing members of the Muslim League party in the United Provinces Assembly shall become part of the Congress Party… The Muslim League Parliamentary Board in the United Provinces will be dissolved, and no candidates will thereafter be set up by the said Board at any by-election…”

  The humiliating condition that was the death warrant for the League was naturally rejected by Jinnah. Nehru had arrogantly stated: “In the final analysis there are only two forces in India—British imperialism and Congress representing Indian nationalism.”

  In Bombay, with the Congress Chief minister designate BG Kher willing to induct one Muslim League minister in the cabinet in view of lack of absolute majority of the Congress, and the fact that the Muslim Lea
gue had done well in Bombay in the Muslim pockets, Jinnah sent a letter in the connection to Gandhi. Gandhi gave a strangely mystical and elliptically negative reply: “My faith in [Hindu-Muslim] unity is as bright as ever; only I see no daylight out of the impenetrable darkness, and in such distress, I cry out to God for light.” Jinnah then wanted to meet Gandhi; but Gandhi advised him to rather meet Abul Kalam Azad, by whom he said he was guided in such matters.

  So as to have a say in each province, Jinnah had proposed Congress–Muslim League coalition in the name of Hindu–Muslim unity. The Congress, however, did not take up Jinnah’s offer. Rather, they rebuffed Jinnah, as the above incidents reveal.

  Rebuffed and humiliated Jinnah then decided to show Congress-Nehru-Gandhi their place. The incident led other Muslim leaders also to believe that a majority Congress government would always tend to ride rough-shod over the Muslim interests.

  It is claimed that, thanks to the above, the badly hurt pride of the Muslims led them to move away from the Congress and quickly gravitate towards the Muslim League, and ultimately to separation. The membership of the Muslim League dramatically rose after the incident. The humiliated Muslim League aspirants Khaliq-uz-Zaman and Nawab Mohammad Ismail Khan whose ambitions were thus thwarted by the Congress and Nehru thereafter became the pillars of Muslim reaction and played a critical role in swinging the Muslim opinion in favour of partition and Pakistan.

  The British were only too glad at the development. The Secretary of State Birkenhead wrote to the Viceroy: “I have placed my highest and most permanent hopes in the eternity of the communal situation.”

  It was unwise of the Congress, Nehru and Gandhi not to show a little generosity towards the League. Reportedly, Sardar Patel, Gandhi, and Pant were willing for a coalition with the Muslim League as per the pre-election understanding, but Nehru, in his “wisdom” and hubris, decided to act arrogant, and led the way for the ultimate parting of ways with Jinnah and the Muslim League, and for Partition and Pakistan—Nehru was the Congress President in 1936 and 1937.