Nehru fittingly answered to that description. Post-independence too, Nehru’s mental makeup and cultural mores continued to be British. The official functions and dinners retained the British pageantry, with liveried attendants behind each guest during dinners.
Gandhi had once written of Nehru: “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.”
Nehru was reported to have said about himself: “I am the last Englishman to rule India!” He had himself admitted: “…in my likes and dislikes I was perhaps more an Englishman than an Indian. I looked upon the world from an Englishman’s standpoint.”
Right in the heart of New Delhi, at India Gate, staring at all the passersby—including the freedom fighters, the bureaucrats, the politicians, the ministers—stood the statue of King George V for two decades after 1947!
It was only when Bulganin and Khrushchev visited India in late 1955 that India changed the names Kingsway to Rajpath and Queensway to Janpath in New Delhi, lest the guests feel shocked at our slavishness!
However, Khrushchev did not fail to notice the statue of King George V opposite India Gate when driving down Rajpath, and wondered why the relic still stood. But, it was only in 1968 that the statue was removed, and that too upon public outcry!
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, ‘Jawaharlal Nehru, a Biography’
Bengal Club in Kolkata did not allow Indians till a decade after Independence! Breach Candy Club in Mumbai continued with its sign “Dogs and Indians not allowed” well after Independence!!
British openly insulted and humiliated Indians by having such signage in various clubs, train bogies, and other places. Yet, you have many shameless, ignorant Indians still behaving dog-like and praising and admiring the British rule.
Khushwant Singh wrote that he was turned away from Madras Club because he was wearing sandals. In another context he wrote that their group was invited to Delhi Gymkhana for a cocktail only to check whether they were properly anglicised and fitted-in!
JK Galbraith, the US ambassador to India between 1961 and 1963, noted after a visit to an army establishment in India: “The Indian Army officers favour all British Army manners from dress, salute, drill and whisky to moustache. The Queen’s picture hangs prominently in the officers’ mess.”
The affliction in the army extends even to medicine, and to this day! These are the extracts from DNA of 12 June 2012: “Injured and paralysed during the 26/11 terror attacks in Mumbai, commando PV Maneesh [awarded the third highest gallantry medal, Shaurya Chakra, for rescuing hostages during the attacks] had been hoping to start ayurvedic treatment. A recent order by the army, however, has dashed his hopes. The order refuses to change the policy to include alternative system of medicine in its rules for reimbursement despite a Delhi high court order that had directed the army to formulate a policy in this respect. The [army] order states that changing the rule of reimbursement is not in the interest and ethos of a disciplined force...Maneesh, who hails from Kerala, wanted to try a special ayurvedic treatment, which, he heard, could improve the mobility of his paralysed right side. For the past one year, he has been undergoing treatment in Palakkad, Kerala. Last August, the Delhi HC had asked the army to formulate a policy in three months for setting up a mechanism for reimbursement of ayurvedic treatment undergone by its soldiers. The army, which kept quiet for seven months, has now responded with the order. It says introduction of Indian systems of medicine is not agreed upon due to valid scientific reasons...In the order passed, army has stated that since it has only allopathic doctors it can't administer, and therefore allow, ayurvedic treatment in its hospitals...Ironically, the health ministry has a cell called AYUSH to promote ayurveda. ‘Adopting this way is contradicting the existing government policy of 2002 which states that these Indian systems are scientific and should be encouraged. Further, army has made no attempt to recruit ayurvedic doctors or tie up with government ayurvedic hospitals in various states where the troops are posted,’ said Maneesh's lawyer...”
What takes the cake are the “Colonially-Brainwashed Non-Self-Respecting Self-Abusive Educated Indian Ignoramuses”. It is amazing and baffling that even in the 21st century there exists this class of Indians, young included, who despite their claims to being educated and knowledgeable, unhesitatingly and unabashedly diagnose the “misery that is India” not on the Nehruvian socialistic poverty-perpetuating policies, not on the disastrous Dynasty-driven Congress rule for most of the period since independence, not on the abysmally poor political leadership, but on “Indian-ness; Indian characteristics”—a bizarre self-flagellating racist self-attack. And this tribe has much to admire in the British and the British colonial rule in India. Dictionary definition of a racist is “a person with a prejudiced belief that one race is superior to others”. You have the racists like the “White Supremacists”. But, what do you call these “reverse racists” who believe “their race is inferior to others”—“brown inferiorists”!
Wrote Nirad Chaudhuri in ‘Autobiography of an Unknown Indian, Part-II’: “Nehru was completely out of touch with the Indian life even of his time, except with the life of the self-segregating Anglicised set of upper India who lived in the so-called Civil Lines.”
Chaudhury added that Nehru had little understanding of the actual Indian life or culture or of Hinduism; and was a snob, contemptuous of those who spoke English with an Indian accent.
Blunder–72 :
Distorted, Self-Serving Secularism
Nehru’s secularism was not dissociation of religion from the state and politics, as it is supposed to be; rather it was leveraging religious minorities for vote-bank politics. Unlike the minorities, Hindus did not vote as a block. They had their own divisions and sub-divisions, and they didn’t vote on religious lines. Therefore, doing injustice to the majority religion (Hinduism) didn’t affect votes. However, favouring religious minorities did yield vote dividend, as they voted on religious lines.
Nehru was quick to grasp the convenient road to votes and power, and in the garb of secularism, acted in a way as to procure the votes of the religious minorities. Like in the economic field where Nehru laid the foundations of misery through his debilitating socialism; in the political and electoral field, he laid the foundations of harmful, competitive, religious minoritysm. If minoritysm had led to the prosperity of Muslims and other minorities, one wouldn’t mind. But, minoritysm was simply emotional exploitation for votes. In fact, with socialism as the economic creed, neither the majority nor the minority could have prospered.
Ram Manohar Lohia believed that Nehru’s acceptance of Anglo-Indian cultural values led to his opposing anything that would give the nation a sense of Indianness. Anglophile Motilal Nehru’s upbringing of Jawaharlal was such, and, in turn, Jawaharlal’s upbringing of his dynasty was such, that they developed a natural aversion for anything Hindu or Indian.
Author of “Discovery of India” failed to discover that despite different physical features, languages, food habits, costumes, and so on, if there was something that bound India together for centuries from Kashmir to Kanyakumari, and from Dwarka to Dibrugarh, it was Hinduism, and its associated religions like Jainism, Buddhism and Sikhism that arose from its soil. Yet, rather than strengthening those bonds of heritage and unity, Nehru proceeded to either ignore them, or debunk or distort them.
Jinnah’s call for observance of ‘Direct Action Day’ on 16 August 1946 had led to the Calcutta Carnage, or the Great Calcutta Killings. It was the worst communal carnage committed by the Muslim League that left 5,000 to 10,000 dead, 15,000 injured, and about one lakh homeless! HS Suhrawardy, who w
as heading the Muslim League–dominated government in Bengal (and who then came to be known as the “butcher of Calcutta”), rather than controlling the situation, further instigated the Muslim goondas. Nehru, as the Vice President of the Executive Council (that became the Interim Government on 2 September 1946, with Nehru as the PM) did little to bring relief to the victims on the specious plea of provincial autonomy—that law and order was a state subject, hence the domain of the Bengal Provincial Government. However, when there was a reaction later to the Calcutta killings in Bihar, Nehru himself rushed to Bihar ignoring the fact of provincial autonomy, even threatening the Bihari Hindus with bombings (!): if Muslims kill Hindus, ignore, or make excuses, or hide behind technical grounds; but if Hindus counter-react to Muslim killings, immediately get into action.
Among many other matters where Patel and Nehru had divergent positions was the issue of Ajmer riots soon after independence. In the Ajmer communal riots, notwithstanding the undisputed mischief of the Muslims, Nehru intervened through his private secretary HVR Iyengar to mollycoddle violent Muslims, and instructed that as many Hindus (though they were not the guilty party) as Muslims be arrested—to maintain balance!
Nehru allowed inundation of West Bengal and Assam by Muslims from East Pakistan (Bangladesh) drastically changing its demographics. He allowed massive illegal Christian proselytization in the Northeast leading to fissiparous tendencies in the border states. It didn’t dawn upon him that it was the changed demographics that led to the creation of Pakistan; and allowing demographics to freely change in independent India may again lead to divisions.
Wrote the veteran Congress leader DP Mishra: “…And so far as Nehru was concerned, he had apparently expected secularism to be practised only by the Hindus…” However, when it came to grabbing power, and getting votes, for Nehru, his “secularism” was no constraint. Nehru, Nehru dynasty and the Congress freely indulged in Muslims and minority appeasement to get votes. The Congress so manoeuvred that in the 1957-elections the Bishop of Kottayam issued an appeal to the Kerala Christians to vote for the Congress. The Congress entered into an alliance with the Muslim League in Kerala to grab power. Nehru forgot all about the Uniform Civil Code laid down in the Directive Principles of the State Policy, which could have vastly benefited Muslims women, once he realised that thanks to Mullahs, and conservative but influential Muslim groups, it could cost his party Muslim votes.
Nehru turned a blind eye to illegal and rampant proselytization by the Christian missionaries that adversely affected national interests. This was particularly so in the Northeast where Nehru went by the advice of the Christian missionaries. The net effect was the secessionist movements in the North-eastern states.
The Constituent Assembly’s pledge of building one nation with one citizenship became a victim of Nehru’s minority-majority syndrome. All those who opposed him were disparaged, labelled non-secular and communal, and weeded out. Gradually, a coterie around Nehru vigorously spread his defective pseudo-secular, anti-Hindu, poverty-perpetuating socialistic claptrap, and sidelined all those who refused to toe Nehru’s line. Leaders who differed exited, and leaders who remained became parrots, bereft of individuality and fresh ideas.
Blunder–73:
Not Seeking Reparations from the British
Like many countries who had demanded apology and reparations from the countries who had tormented them, India too should have assessed, documented and put a financial estimate to the damages done by the British, should have quantified the loot of two centuries, converted them at 1947 prices, and should then have claimed reparation from Britain, along with written and oral apology.
Additionally, a detailed list of all the artefacts, archaeological pieces, precious stones such as Kohinoor and other items stolen from India should have been prepared and reclaimed from the British.
It is worth noting that the arts and treasures that the Nazis took away from the Western countries they attacked and annexed were called loot, and termed unjust, and Germany was forced to return the same to its rightful owner countries. Since the arts and treasures were from the Western countries, and NOT the Asian or African countries, they were loot, and were required to be returned! What double standards!!
However, when the ex-colonies like India themselves did not demand return, where was the question of Britain obliging? With anglophiles like Nehru in the saddle, nothing was done in the matter.
On Kohinoor, Nehru had made a weird comment: “To exploit our good relations with some country to obtain free gifts from it [the convenient contention being that Kohinoor was GIFTED (a lie) to the British!] of valuable articles does not seem to be desirable. On the other hand, it does seem to be desirable that foreign museums should have Indian objects of art.”
Given such indifferent and baffling attitude, little could have been expected from the Dynasty.
Hubris, Ill-Treatment of Others
Blunder–74 :
Nehru & Netaji Subhas Mystery
Netaji Subhas Bose had not died in that so-called air-crash on 18 August 1945 in Taiwan. What happened to Netaji remains a mystery. Nehru and his dynasty have been complicit in ensuring the truth didn’t come out.
This is what Nehru had to say about the tragedy at various times:
“I have no doubt in my mind—I did not have it then and I have no doubt today of the fact of Netaji Subhas Chandra Bose’s death... There can be no enquiry about that.”
—Nehru in reply to a question put in the Parliament by HV Kamath on 5 March 1952.
“I am quite clear in my own mind that all the enquiries we could make have been made and the result is a conviction that Shri Subhas Chandra Bose died as has been stated. There is an abundance of evidence on this, which I consider convincing. In the circumstances, I see absolutely no justification of appointing a commission to make further enquiries.”
—Nehru, 1953.
“You ask me to send you proof of the death of Netaji Subhas Chandra Bose. I cannot send you any precise and direct proof.”
—Nehru to Suresh Bose in 1962.
“Subhash is alive and Jawaharlal knows it.”
—Suresh Bose in 1947.
Ahmed Jaffer asked Sardar Patel, the then Home Minister in the Interim Government, on 31 October 1946 meeting whether the government had evidence on the death of Bose. Patel's laconic reply was: “No!” When pressed further, Patel replied: “The government are not in a position to make any authoritative statement on the subject.” When Patel was confronted with Nehru's definitive statement that Bose had died, Patel reiterated that the government had no view in the matter either way.
Nehru did his best for a decade to stall all enquiries into the death of Netaji. But, when he could fend it off no longer, he decided to set up a committee (Shah Nawaj Committee) that would give a report as he desired.
Emilie Schenkl, Netaji's wife, refused to buy the story of ‘death by plane crash’. Indeed, Emilie was so much against the said story that she refused to meet Pranab Mukherjee in 1995, the then External Affairs Minister (now the President), when he had approached her to discuss the possibility of transferring Subhas’s ‘ashes’ from Tokyo's Renkoji temple to India.
As per a report: “The Taiwan Government has informed the one-man Netaji Commission of Inquiry that there was no air crash at Taihoku on August 18, 1945, till date believed to have killed Netaji Subhas Chandra Bose. Disclosing this to newspersons after a routine hearing of the [Justice Mukherjee] Commission [JMC] here, Justice MK Mukherjee said that the Taiwan Government has confirmed to the Commission during its recent visit to that country that no plane crashed at Taihoku between August 14 and September 20, 1945.”
An article in Mumbai Mirror of 28 August 2005 titled “Nehru ditched Bose!”, based on a biography of Dr VJ Dhanan, an INA recruiting officer, says that Bose had not died in that so-called air-crash on 18 August 1945 in Taiwan. The story was a concoction by the Japanese to keep Bose safe in exile. Soviet diplomats had claimed that Bose was in Russia.
/> For details, please check the author’s book ‘Foundations of Misery: The Nehruvian Era 1947-64’’ available on Amazon.
Blunder–75 :
Nehru & Netaji’s Stolen War Chest
No Indian leader could raise as much amount in the 20th century as Netaji Subhas did for India’s freedom. He appealed to the patriotism of an estimated two million Indians in erstwhile British colonies conquered by his Japanese allies for donations to finance his government-in-exile and the Indian National Army (INA). Netaji’s personality, his emotive speeches and his unswerving commitment to Indian independence moved the diaspora. Numerous housewives gave away their gold in the cause of freedom. Reportedly, one Habib Sahib gifted all his property of over a crore of rupees; and VK Chelliah Nadar, a Rangoon-based businessman and an INA funder, deposited Rs 42 crores and 2,800 gold coins in the Azad Hind Bank!
After Rangoon, where Azad Hind Bank was headquartered, fell to the Allies in 1945, Netaji retreated to Bangkok on 24 April 1945 carrying with him the treasury, including gold bars and ornaments, in steel boxes. Japan surrendered to the Allied Powers on 15 August 1945, and the 40,000-strong INA followed suit. On 18 August 1945 Netaji boarded a Japanese bomber in Saigon bound for Manchuria, carrying the INA treasure, along with his aide Habibur Rahman. The plane reportedly crashed in Taiwan. The retrieved treasure from the crash site was handed over by the Japanese army to SA Ayer and M Rama Murti of the IIL (Indian Independence League—which had come under Netaji) at Tokyo.
Local Indians in Tokyo suspected that Rama Murti and SA Ayer had jointly defalcated the INA treasure—there was enough circumstantial evidence. Inexplicably, India did nothing to get back the treasure, and rather than setting up an enquiry or hauling up Murti and Aiyer, the government absorbed Aiyer as a director of publicity with the Bombay state, while Murti continued to lead an affluent life-style in Tokyo, in sharp contrast to the devastation all around.
Nehru's 97 Major Blunders Page 17