Nehru Dynasty – Curse on India

 Nehru Dynasty – Curse on India

It is the misfortune of the country that on independence, leadership of the country was given in the hands of a weak personality by Mahatma Gandhi. Nehru attached more importance on outward show – dress / etiquette / manners etc. and pseudo secular & intellectual credential than picking-up the region of the country with strong hand. He was more comfortable in the company of Mountbatten than the struggling poor mass of the just independent Nation. In fact, all leaders of the countries, which became free in that period, attached more importance to their own image than pulling-up the country in different areas. And all of them, Tito / Nasser / Suekorno / Nkrumah etc., failed their country as Nehru did.

Let me start with Jawaharlal Nehru, Indian’s first Prime Minister. I will not touch about his philosophy or politics but raise only those points which affected bitterly India’s future.

Blunder of Kashmir matter – stopping Indian army against Pakistan Army in the garb of Rangers to throw out from total Kashmir and approaching UN to create a permanent bone in the throat of the country for which we are still paying heavy price. Sardar Patel tried to stop going to UN but of no avail. Much water has flown through Kashmir rivers, but Indian blood is still flowing for the safety of Kashmir. This is perhaps one of the greatest blunder of foreign policy in the world. Like Palestinian matter this is another example of world (nasty) politics.

In 1948 hordes of Rangers along with regular Pakistani Army invaded Kashmir. Maharaja Hari Singh was still undecided about joining Indian Union. His small & poorly trained army was no match for these invaders who nearly reached Srinagar. Nehru was reluctant to intervene till Maharaja Hari Singh joins Indian Union. It was Sardar Patel, the then Home Minister ,  who literally forced Maharaja Hari Singh to sign the Agreement to join Indian Union and simultaneously flown Indian army to Kashmir who pushed back the invaders. After sometimes these invaders were on run and Indian army progressed fast to take over full Kashmir. And then blunder done. Nehru approached UN and the problem is permanently on India’s throat.  

China Blunder

Most crowning blunder is policy & actions followed in 1950s & 1960s with China for which we paid heavy price by sacrificing life of large number of our army personnel and area of our country.

In 1959 China moved and took over Tibet. Dalai Lama fled and was given asylum in India. Tibet was a buffer state between India & China giving big safety barrier for India. Nehru didn’t oppose Chinese occupation of Tibet, rather justified China’s claim on Tibet. But simultaneously gave asylum to Dalai Lama who was supposed to be an enemy for China.

Abhijit Bhattacharya in his book “China in India”(Pragati Publications, Delhi, 2018) made quite a few interesting observations.

1962 speaks volume of the rickety Indian system as the secret report on the cause of war debacle  prepared by a serving Indian Lt. General ..............( Preface, XIII)

“The initial problem of this brazen Chinese aggression, from Indian point of view, however rose not from China but within India. Both Prime Minister of India and Indian Ambassador to Peking, Panikkar, along with plethora of foreign office mandarins failed to read the impending crisis and regrettably adopted a weak policy of a appeasement born out of fear, it appears. It was left to the then Home Minister of India, Sardar Patel, to try to explain the reality...............( p. 32.)

The limited knowledge and poor judgement of Delhi Mandarins and Indian system were brutally exposed by  Brig. Dalvi’s vivid description of the “real life “ of his times in 1950s.  ( p.40  )

Nehru hereinafter would always be cursed and criticised for his failed Chinese policy to this day.( p.42) “.

Due to Nehru’s failed policy India has a Himalayan problem with China necessitating huge defence expenditure against Chinese aggressive plan. Recent Dokalam incidence is poof of this.

Next in line is Nehru’s Himalayan UN gaffe

Mr. D. P. Srivastava, former diplomat, who headed the MEA’s UN Desk , wrote in his article published in Times of India on 15.09.2019

“ Without going into details of the file at this stage, we can revisit the issue on the basis of considerable material declassified since then. This includes records of Nehru’s exchanges with Soviet leaders in 1955, and Vijayalakshmi Pandit’s correspondence with her brother earlier during her tenure as Indian ambassador to the US.  The file on the question referred to the Soviet offer of mid-50s. Papers on the earlier offer are available in Vijayalakshmi Pandit collection in the Nehru Memorial Library. Anton Harder of the Woodrow Wilson Center for International Relations has published a research paper, ‘Not at the Cost of China: India and the United nations Security Council, 1950’, on the subject.

While the Soviet offer was for India to be inducted as sixth permanent member, the earlier US offer was for India to replace China in the Security Council. Nehru and Krishna Menon suspected the American offer as a Western ploy to set India against China, and therefore were opposed to it. The Soviet offer of India joining as a sixth permanent member did not pose any such dilemma.

Nehru’s Selected Works contain a record of Nehru’s discussions with Russian Prime Minister Nikolai Bulganin on the subject:

Bulganin: “While we are discussing the general international situation and reducing tension, we propose suggesting at a later stage India’s inclusion as the sixth member of the Security Council …”

Nehru: “Perhaps Bulganin knows that some people in USA have suggested that India should replace China in the Security Council. This is to create trouble between us and China. We are, of course, wholly opposed to it …”

Bulganin: “We proposed the question of India’s membership of the Security Council to get your views, but agree that this is not the time for it and it will have to wait for the right moment later on …”

Pandit Nehru did not respond to Bulganin’s suggestion to include India as a sixth permanent member; his reply was in the context of an earlier American proposal for India to replace China. Bulganin could not have been part of any Western ploy. Induction as sixth member would have finessed the issue of Chinese representation. Other scholars who have quoted this exchange have missed this important distinction.

Bulganin agreed not to push the matter after Nehru had unequivocally rejected Bulganin’s offer. 

The US proposal for permanent membership for India pre-dates the Soviet proposal. Vijayalakshmi Pandit, as India’s US ambassador, reported to Nehru in August 1950 about a move in the State Department to replace China with India as a permanent member in the Security Council. She said, “Dulles seemed particularly anxious that a move in this direction should be started.” She described the episode in derisive terms as being “cooked up in the State Department”, and advised her American interlocutors “to go slow in the matter as it would not be received with any warmth in India”. This was extraordinary that an ambassador could decide and convey India’s views on such an important issue even before reporting and receiving the government’s authorisation. Nehru of course ratified his sister’s view in his reply, as it would mean “some kind of break between us and China”.

Nehru’s anxiety not to disturb India’s relations with China did not prevent deterioration of relations in the next decade. This was not the result of American machinations, but Chinese aggression. India came to depend on Soviet veto since the 50s. It was strange we did not want to have this choice for ourselves as a permanent member of the Security Council.

The Chinese leadership relentlessly followed a policy of ‘China First’. The People’s Republic of China replaced Taiwan in the United Nations in 1971. They exercised their first veto over admission of Bangladesh in the United Nations in August 1972 to neutralise geo-political gains during the 1971 war“.

After Nehru India had a brief respite from this family rule but unfortunately an honest Lal Bahadur Shastri did not survive long. Do not intend to go into details of this.

Then Indira Gandhi, Jawaharlal Nehru’s daughter, took over the Prime Ministership of the country. Destructive action continued. For populism she nationalised Banking and Insurance sector opening the gate for corruption. In-efficiency and corruption history of the period is well known. Incidence of Nagarwala / SBI case is still in the memory of the elderly people. One after another death of concerned persons created mystery on the matter. Due to her action economy of the country suffered ultimately pawning plane load gold to meet import fund requirement. She did a good job by listening Field Marshal Sam Manekshaw and divided Pakistan and created Bangladesh.

All the good jobs were washed out by clamping down Emergency and all excesses associated with it. Only time that Democracy was suspended, and authoritarian rule imposed for the first time in India’s history.

Now let us look to third generation Prime Minister, that is Rajiv Gandhi who became PM by default by - passing far more experienced and senior Congress candidates who were more suitable for the post. On the sympathy wave of Indira Gandhi’s murder Rajiv Gandhi won the election on thumping majority. And the blunder making continued. Most prominent are the Bofors case and interference in Sri Lanka’s civil war and sacrificing Indian soldiers’ life for no gain. Sri Lanka remained and till today against India, more and more hobnobbing with China creating Naval Base in this country. Sri Lanka also made a genocide of the Tamils of Sri Lanka. Rajiv Gandhi paid the price with his life. He was assassinated by Tamil LTTE group. Another vote catching action was Shah Bano case , superseding Supreme Court’s judgement to appease minority.

Next in line was Rahul Gandhi. He was too young at that time and had no kind of experience. Sonia Gandhi’s candidature could not be pushed by the family loyalists due to different factors like citizenship. Hence Congress had to settle for Narshimha Rao, an efficient politician. He ushered the opening up of economy, introduced globalization which benefitted India tremendously.

In a recent article in Times of India ,Delhi Edition , 16.05.2019 Mr Vaibhav Purandare wrote about “ Obsessing on the Nehru-Gandhis”.

 “A recent visit to the Nehru Memorial Museum in New Delhi made me think of how, after the death of India’s first Prime Minister, his successor Lal Bahadur Shastri wasn’t allowed to move into the PM’s official residence – Teen Murti Bhavan – owing to Indira Gandhi’s insistence that the house be converted into a memorial for her father.

Rahul was chosen to contest the Amethi Lok Sabha seat in 2004 because he was a member of the Nehru-Gandhi dynasty, and he was later appointed Congress general secretary, vice-president and president on the same grounds, becoming the fifth member of the clan to occupy the party’s top post. If he’s making a claim to power today, it’s again on account of his being the son, grandson and great-grandson of former PMs.

………..

 Moreover, if the family’s been in power, directly or indirectly (counting the terms of Congress PMs like PV Narasimha Rao and Manmohan Singh and non-Congress ones like Chandrashekhar, HD Deve Gowda and IK Gujral) for over 50 years out of 72, an audit is both inevitable and imperative.

…………

The Nehru-Gandhis and the so-called ‘left-liberal’ social-political-intellectual elite they’ve patronised are more than approving of a discussion on the dynasty’s legacy so long as it doesn’t get inconvenient. When Rahul and Priyanka Gandhi Vadra talk of their forebears’ contribution to India and their sacrifices, their admirers want more of it. When the Marxists, who’ve had a neat and successful pact with the Congress establishment on the capture of institutions and creation of national narratives, hold forth on the Nehruvian order and how it nourished institutions, the inheritors are delighted.

The ‘cultural synthesis’ of the Marxists and the ruling establishment saw to it that the Nehru-Gandhis virtually monopolised free India’s consciousness. Textbooks were written to maximise their role in building India, while that of other eminent Indians was minimised; roads, places, landmarks and institutions named after members of the dynasty further amplified this image …….

They themselves aren’t known for linguistic restraint either. In his first speech as Congress president, Rahul referred to VD Savarkar as someone who kowtowed to the British, and he’s kept up this criticism; Congress on Twitter labelled Savarkar a “traitor”. ….

Or if, whenever Rahul mentions poverty, he’s told about a slogan raised nearly 50 years ago which had promised to end “garibi”? If national security’s an issue and 1971 a year to talk about, then 1962 can’t be too far behind; and if Hindu-Muslim tensions are up for discussion, then rivals can hardly be expected to help Congress skirt issues like Shah Bano, the ban on ‘Satanic Verses’ and reopening of the Babri Masjid’s locks. The same goes for a slur like “traitor”, thrown about carelessly by both sides.

When Congress won the election in 2004, had an accidental Prime Minister ( to borrow from Mr. Baru ) Manmohan Singh , renowned Economist. However, media was full of news about remote control PM. He was supposed to keep the PM chair warm for Sonia Gandhi’s take over till it can be given over to Rahul Gandhi. Narendra Modi’s drubbing to Congress (lowest ever seats in Parliament) in 2013 election upset their plan. Now, Rahul Gandhi is trying hard to recover the situation for putting again one of dynasty , fourth generation, on that chair. But the possibility looks to be dim.