Yoda-esque Posted November 2, 2011 Posted November 2, 2011 India would have been so different with Sardar at the helm.. I salute him :hatsoff: http://blogs.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/indus-calling/entry/the-sardar
Andrew Peter Posted November 2, 2011 Posted November 2, 2011 Another entry, on September 13, 1950, quotes Ghanshyamdas Birla as saying “Nehru’s whole family would have embraced Islam if they had not come in contact with Gandhiji.” I guess they already have but things are only being kept in private for now. Nice Read
surajmal Posted November 2, 2011 Posted November 2, 2011 story of this country: its leaders died too young (ala bhagat singh) or unfinished in their quest (bose, patel) and what was left was a band of sycophants.
BeautifulGame Posted November 3, 2011 Posted November 3, 2011 story of this country: its leaders died too young (ala bhagat singh) or unfinished in their quest (bose' date=' patel) and what was left was a band of sycophants.[/quote'] Ya the band of sycophants who laid the foundations for a strong democracy , Independent India and build the foundation for strong agrarian economy. :hatsoff: to those sycophants
deathmonger Posted November 3, 2011 Posted November 3, 2011 BJP supporters. :hysterical::hysterical: BJP ppl try to portray the Sardar as one of their own but the thing is he was a congressman and in spite of all the differences he had with Nehru he was a congressman through and through and not a blind hate filled right wing hindu.
Yoda-esque Posted November 3, 2011 Author Posted November 3, 2011 ^Do you see the word BJP in any of the posts? Anti-Congress does not equate to Right Wing.
gs Posted November 3, 2011 Posted November 3, 2011 story of this country: its leaders died too young (ala bhagat singh) or unfinished in their quest (bose' date=' patel) and what was left was a band of sycophants.[/quote'] At the time of independence India needed a strong leader rooted in realism like Patel, not an idealistic looney like Nehru. But as fate would have it, it turned out the other way and rest is history.
BeautifulGame Posted November 3, 2011 Posted November 3, 2011 At the time of independence India needed a strong leader rooted in realism like Patel' date=' not an idealistic looney like Nehru. But as fate would have it, it turned out the other way and rest is history.[/quote'] Nehru had his faults but he is one of the best things that happened to India. There is no Guarentee that any one else would have been as committed to Democracy as Nehru was.If not for that there is every chance we would be in a poorer state than Pakistan.
surajmal Posted November 3, 2011 Posted November 3, 2011 Nehru had his faults but he is one of the best things that happened to India. There is no Guarentee that any one else would have been as committed to Democracy as Nehru was.If not for that there is every chance we would be in a poorer state than Pakistan. That is a pretty big assumption you are making. I think Indian politics, and therefore, Indian society has been gutterized due to the turds in Congress party and it starts with Nehru - the last Englishman to rule India. And please slap yourself for comparing India with Pakistan. Pakistan was headed down the toilet the day it was formed. un ********o ko pata hi nahi azadi ka moolya kya hai. Dahej mein jo milli hai. Congress is a millstone around India's neck and the fact that you think it was instrumental in achieving India's independence and democratizing it henceforth means their education policy has been successful in brainwashing an entire generation of Indian minds. It is actually a slap in the face of thousands of other freedom fighters and post independence political leaders who were out there doing the grunt work, all the while these brown sahibs were sipping tea and chugging biscuits seeking western approval.
BeautifulGame Posted November 4, 2011 Posted November 4, 2011 That is a pretty big assumption you are making. I think Indian politics' date=' and therefore, Indian society has been [i']gutterized due to the turds in Congress party and it starts with Nehru - the last Englishman to rule India. And please slap yourself for comparing India with Pakistan. Pakistan was headed down the toilet the day it was formed. un ********o ko pata hi nahi azadi ka moolya kya hai. Dahej mein jo milli hai. Congress is a millstone around India's neck and the fact that you think it was instrumental in achieving India's independence and democratizing it henceforth means their education policy has been successful in brainwashing an entire generation of Indian minds. It is actually a slap in the face of thousands of other freedom fighters and post independence political leaders who were out there doing the grunt work, all the while these brown sahibs were sipping tea and chugging biscuits seeking western approval. Sorry ridiculous post to say the least:facepalm: Pakistan where in a much better shape than India till late 1960s until they joined US in cold war.So what exactly are u talking about seriously? If we didnt take the Non-alignment and kept our distance from Us during 1950's and 60's we would exactly be in the same position as Pakistan is in now.Infact it would have been worse considering the diversity in ethnicity and culture of our nation It was in Nehru's time that India's agrarian foundations where build.Its during his time that time large no of schools were built in villages.High quality Educational institutes were founded which are still the back bone of our educational system I am from a state where congress is non-existent for nearly 45 years.So what nonsense of congress brainwashed educational system are talking about Yes Nehru had his faults but not to acknowledge his contributions is ridiculous.Heck i dont even support congress or anything but that post is just ridiculous.And its not me who is failing to acknowledge the contributions of the fore fathers of our nation.
surajmal Posted November 4, 2011 Posted November 4, 2011 Sorry ridiculous post to say the least:facepalm: Pakistan where in a much better shape than India till late 1960s until they joined US in cold war.So what exactly are u talking about seriously? If we didnt take the Non-alignment and kept our distance from Us during 1950's and 60's we would exactly be in the same position as Pakistan is in now.Infact it would have been worse considering the diversity in ethnicity and culture of our nation It was in Nehru's time that India's agrarian foundations where build.Its during his time that time large no of schools were built in villages.High quality Educational institutes were founded which are still the back bone of our educational system I am from a state where congress is non-existent for nearly 45 years.So what nonsense of congress brainwashed educational system are talking about Yes Nehru had his faults but not to acknowledge his contributions is ridiculous.Heck i dont even support congress or anything but that post is just ridiculous.And its not me who is failing to acknowledge the contributions of the fore fathers of our nation. What does NAM have to do with Economic Progress? Nehru had been championing industrialization since he took power and believed central planning would solve all ills of India. Strengthening of Agrarian foundations was something Gandhi believed since he believed in empowering villages and a decentralized model of governance. Remind me, what percent of IITians stay in India upon graduation? Investing in higher education institutes was fine and dandy. But Chacha ji failed to realize that graduates of these fine institutes would need jobs and opportunities to start businesses. Unfortunately, under socialism induced license raj it was impossible. Another thing all socialist countries seem to have is a well established primary and secondary education system (among tons of other welfare processes which seem to be absent from India), which still doesn't exist in this country. Nehru and his ilk succeeded in creating a fractured social fabric which favoured a few fortunate ones. His progeny than fvcked things up even more by trying to enact policies to "supposedly" please the minorities or the disadvantaged ones which only resulted in more divisions in the society. You can divide Congress' dynasty into 3 phases: Idealogical missteps (Nehru), daddy issues (Indira) and Vote Bank Politics (Rajiv Gandhi till present). Nehru's goal should have to remove barriers and reduce premium on basic things such as education and healthcare. But by heavily investing in higher education in the early goings and neglecting primary and secondary education (india was 10 percent literate at the time of independence - so what do you think was more important), he only managed to enact more barriers. Don't even get me started on his failures to get even basic infrastructure policies in place. I'm not saying Nehru was a total nincompoop. But then even a broken clock is correct twice a day. By all rights, India should be a developed nation right now. But it is not. Okay, You are not brainwashed. You just don't know much.
jairamesh Posted November 5, 2011 Posted November 5, 2011 No point looking back, but I was at least glad he was the Home Minister during those early days of Independence, taking some bold moves to secure the nation's sovereignty regardless of his prejudices. Maybe Bapu was politically astute in telling Sarder to forgo the PM's position and act as the Home Minister to give the Iron Man more flexibility and stealth to carry out his duties unburdened by a PM's overall accountability. I mean just think of P.Chidambaram becoming the first ever Home Minister! I could just imagine nightmare scenario India losing territory right, left center. I get the shakes thinking of P.Chidambaram as the first Home Minister.
Silva Posted November 6, 2011 Posted November 6, 2011 If Sardar Patel would have been such a great alternative to Nehru then why did he not object to the socialist policies that have plagued India since it first gained Independence? They where in the same party and ruled together! Indians need to understand that Indias "founding fathers" where terrible when it came to governing a nation.
gs Posted November 6, 2011 Posted November 6, 2011 If Sardar Patel would have been such a great alternative to Nehru then why did he not object to the socialist policies that have plagued India since it first gained Independence? They where in the same party and ruled together! Indians need to understand that Indias "founding fathers" where terrible when it came to governing a nation. Founding fathers were far better than their successors both in terms of education and leadership capacities. Its their successors and the current lot that is the problem. They neither have the education, capacity nor good intentions to lead the nation in the right direction.
surajmal Posted November 6, 2011 Posted November 6, 2011 If Sardar Patel would have been such a great alternative to Nehru then why did he not object to the socialist policies that have plagued India since it first gained Independence? They where in the same party and ruled together! Indians need to understand that Indias "founding fathers" where terrible when it came to governing a nation. Sardar died mere 3 years after independence. Besides, I think atleast 1 go around with socialism was in store considering the state of the country at that time. The problem was ineffective application of the intended policies and then continuation of the policies that failed to work.
Silva Posted November 7, 2011 Posted November 7, 2011 Founding fathers were far better than their successors both in terms of education and leadership capacities. Its their successors and the current lot that is the problem. They neither have the education' date= capacity nor good intentions to lead the nation in the right direction. Yes I suppose I am being hard on Patel. Perhaps the fact that a bulk of the socialist policies happened after Sardar died might be proof that Patel might have objected to them earlier. But I reject the Idea that India needed to expirement with socialism. And If the did they should have realised very early on that it was a failure. It took congress 40 years to liberalise the economy and even then it was because they had their back to the wall. Unfortunatly none of the founding father seemed that informed about adams smiths Wealth of nations. If one of them was he should have explained it to Nehru.
BeautifulGame Posted November 11, 2011 Posted November 11, 2011 What does NAM have to do with Economic Progress? Nehru had been championing industrialization since he took power and believed central planning would solve all ills of India. Strengthening of Agrarian foundations was something Gandhi believed since he believed in empowering villages and a decentralized model of governance. Remind me, what percent of IITians stay in India upon graduation? Investing in higher education institutes was fine and dandy. But Chacha ji failed to realize that graduates of these fine institutes would need jobs and opportunities to start businesses. Unfortunately, under socialism induced license raj it was impossible. Another thing all socialist countries seem to have is a well established primary and secondary education system (among tons of other welfare processes which seem to be absent from India), which still doesn't exist in this country. Nehru and his ilk succeeded in creating a fractured social fabric which favoured a few fortunate ones. His progeny than fvcked things up even more by trying to enact policies to "supposedly" please the minorities or the disadvantaged ones which only resulted in more divisions in the society. You can divide Congress' dynasty into 3 phases: Idealogical missteps (Nehru), daddy issues (Indira) and Vote Bank Politics (Rajiv Gandhi till present). Nehru's goal should have to remove barriers and reduce premium on basic things such as education and healthcare. But by heavily investing in higher education in the early goings and neglecting primary and secondary education (india was 10 percent literate at the time of independence - so what do you think was more important), he only managed to enact more barriers. Don't even get me started on his failures to get even basic infrastructure policies in place. I'm not saying Nehru was a total nincompoop. But then even a broken clock is correct twice a day. By all rights, India should be a developed nation right now. But it is not. Okay, You are not brainwashed. You just don't know much. Typical of fanatics argument.If someone dont agree with ur views he is either brainwashed or ignorant.
Recommended Posts