Hi All,
By Popular demand, I have started this thread to discuss another "Great" leader, Jawahar Lal Nehru, Free India's First Prime Minister.
Before we begin, I'd like to lay down some ground rules.
1. Please refrain from using this thread to settle personal vendettas.
2. Please stick to the subject.
3. Please don't criticize someone for posting an opposing view with statements like "You don't know what you are talking about" or "people like you .....". Let's just stick to the facts.
ENJOY
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Microsoft - Which end of the stick do you want today?
Guess why there exists, on God's green earth, a place called POK (Pakistan Occupied Kashmir)? It exists simply because the Indian army was stopped from driving Pakistan out of Indian territory by an idealistic Prime Minister, when it was in a position to do so during the Indo Pak war.
One of Nehru's greatest faults was his refusal to recognize the importance of a strong military for Free India. Nehru lived in an imaginary world where no conflict existed and Harmony reigned supreme. As a result, he not only failed to appoint competent military figures to oversee the security of India, he routinely gave in to his prejudice against the military by insulting Senior Military officers and refusing to include them into cabinet meetings and defense related decisions. When he did concede to let the Joint Chiefs of staff attend Cabinet level meetings, he forced them to do so "in mufti", thereby further demoralizing the Officer corps.
Nehru's policies -- his insistence on the public sector, on linguistic states, on non alignment, on blindly imitating the Soviet Union -- retarded India's progress and forced a great nation into the ranks of the Third World.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Microsoft - Which end of the stick do you want today?
Good topic - DT.
I would like to add another "ground rule" for the discussion - when discussing Nehru, the issue of Kashmir and Indo/Pak war is sure to come-up; but please respect the fact that it is a sensitive and political issue, and that there are many people on this group who are from Pakistan.
So let us respect everyone's country and discuss this as objectively and respectfully as possible.
That said, my opinion is that some of the things he did were with the right vision and some turned out to be bad decisions.
His political decisions mostly turned out badly because, as DT said, he had a vision of a world that was in harmony and he was not ready to accept conflict.
It is clear that he was not a politician - very different from M.A. Jinnah, who was a shrewd politicial.
He was, however, a great orator and writer.
His "Discovery of India" is a masterpiece to this day, and I imagine must be one of the greatest books written ever.
I am a great fan of his "Glimpses of World History" and personally love it more than the "Discovery of India".
I used to read it cover to cover during school summer vacations and whatever little history I know, it is owing to that book.
His "Letters from a Father to a Daughter", written from Naini prison are also great.
So basically, he was a great writer, very interested in the history, culture and traditions of India, yet was never a "people's man" the same way as Gandhi was.
In terms of his economic policies, I agree with him by-and-large, although most people will say today that his over-emphasis on public sector to control the "Commanding heights of the economy" was a bad idea.
Alongwith Prof. Mahalanobis, he designed an economic model which is unique to this day in the world - a combination of socialist principles, public welfare, as well as private enterprise.
Today, we may say that it was a wrong direction to take because of the so-called success of the capitalist countries like USA, Japan, Germany, etc.
But think back about the conditions in newly independent India - if we had not gone in that direction, the country would have gone to the dogs.
The USA and Japan were already great capitialist powers at that time - if we had opened up our country to them, they would literally have molded our country in the way they wanted.
In other words, instead of being a colony of Britain, we would have become a financial colony of the US or Japan, or whoever won the trade wars.
In restrospect, we can do a lot of nit-picking and find faults in his visions and policies, but if you put all that into perspective of a newly-independent India, stricken by poverty, lack of public infrastructure, no self-sufficiency, no trade balances, surrounded by enemies on both sides of the border, being prowled upon by the US on one hand, and the USSR on the other - I think we should give the benefit of the doubt to the leaders of those days.
My $0.02 CAD
-----------------------------------------------------------------
"Mah deah, there is much more money to be made in the destruction of civilization than in building it up."
-- Rhett Butler in "Gone with the Wind"
PratickM, I agree that right after Independence, India lacked a public infrastructure, self-sufficiency and no trade balances She was also surrounded by enemies on both sides of the border and was stricken by poverty.
My question is, Why India fared so poorly after becoming independent? One reason, which some Historians and Economists state, was the misconception of Nehru and nationalist historians that the British Raj had de-industrialised India by policies that favoured export- orientation and foreign investment. Nehru's solution was to reduce the role of foreign trade and investment even as other countries like Hong Kong and Korea increased it. Nehru's wrong analysis led to the wrong solution.
It will be wrong to suggest that Nehru was the "cause" of India's poverty. India fared poorly even with liberal economic policies under the British Raj beacuse of the Raj's appalling neglect of agriculture and education.
Nehru continued the British neglect of agriculture, thinking it had little potential to alleviate poverty, and was simply a holding ground for surplus labour till industry provided jobs. He implicitly taxed farming to finance industry through adverse terms of trade, and depended on food aid. Only after his death, did the Green Revolution demonstrate that dynamic agriculture was the most powerful possible tool to alleviate poverty and accelerate economic growth.
He also repeated the British mistake of neglecting primary education. The British used to pat themselves on the back for bringing "modem education" to India. Macaulay believed such education was essential to create a local Indian community that could help the British rule. But that was the whole problem-the new educational system produced a thin upper crust of educated Indians while the majority languished in illiteracy. The literacy rate was just 16 per cent in 1950, while it was nearer 50 per cent in Japan and Korea. Worse, India neglected literacy after independence, so it stands today at just 52 per cent against 78 per cent even in disaster African economies like Zambia and Kenya.
India adopted most of the worse aspects of welfare capitalism and avoided a majaority of the best. It embraced state paternalism, class war, rigid labour practices and mindless protectionism. And it ignored really important aspects like universal education.
While it wasn't all Nehru's doing, as PM he was responsible regardless.
A stronger and more liberal economy combined with a Stronger Military would have not only kept the Hostile neighbours at bay, it would also have given India the bargaining power needed to avoid becoming a "Financial Colony" for another Country.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Microsoft - Which end of the stick do you want today?
Quote:It is difficult to answer this question without having lots of stats and research to back it up, but my own feeling is that because this policy was not changed after it had served its purpose.
Orginally posted by DesiTiger
My question is, Why India fared so poorly after becoming independent?
Quote:I am not sure that it was the wrong thing to do at that time.
Nehru's solution was to reduce the role of foreign trade and investment even as other countries like Hong Kong and Korea increased it. Nehru's wrong analysis led to the wrong solution.
Quote:
Nehru continued the British neglect of agriculture, thinking it had little potential to alleviate poverty, and was simply a holding ground for surplus labour till industry provided jobs.
Quote:I agree with you there, with the exception of Japan.
The literacy rate was just 16 per cent in 1950, while it was nearer 50 per cent in Japan and Korea. Worse, India neglected literacy after independence, so it stands today at just 52 per cent against 78 per cent even in disaster African economies like Zambia and Kenya.
Quote:I don't think it would have been that easy.
A stronger and more liberal economy combined with a Stronger Military would have not only kept the Hostile neighbours at bay, it would also have given India the bargaining power needed to avoid becoming a "Financial Colony" for another Country.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
"Mah deah, there is much more money to be made in the destruction of civilization than in building it up."
-- Rhett Butler in "Gone with the Wind"
Quote:
Orginally posted by pratickm
We at least have a rich, diverse and tolerant culture that still retains its identity.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Microsoft - Which end of the stick do you want today?
Pratick Bhai, looks like our "Ground Rules" are scaring away people!
Come On Guys, give your opinion.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Microsoft - Which end of the stick do you want today?
Advertise Contact Us Privacy Policy and Terms of Usage FAQ Canadian Desi © 2001 Marg eSolutions Site designed, developed and maintained by Marg eSolutions Inc. |