truthbetold wrote:"They had very problem with the word ‘secularism’ which Nehru espoused so much."


This guy cannot even present his thoughts properly. Why are you this guy?


The difference between nehru's economic policies and PVN's economic policies is the rate of reduction in poverty.  You obviously think that is a mistake because dependent poor people are vote banks.   PVN caused those vote  banks dissolve over decades. 


See what a mess he created. Modi gets 340 seats and Rahul and congress get 44. unforgivable.

confuzzled dude wrote:

truthbetold wrote:"They had very problem with the word ‘secularism’ which Nehru espoused so much."


This guy cannot even present his thoughts properly. Why are you this guy?


The difference between nehru's economic policies and PVN's economic policies is the rate of reduction in poverty.  You obviously think that is a mistake because dependent poor people are vote banks.   PVN caused those vote  banks dissolve over decades. 


See what a mess he created. Modi gets 340 seats and Rahul and congress get 44. unforgivable.

Author said quite the opposite

truthbetold wrote:

confuzzled dude wrote:

truthbetold wrote:"They had very problem with the word ‘secularism’ which Nehru espoused so much."


This guy cannot even present his thoughts properly. Why are you this guy?


The difference between nehru's economic policies and PVN's economic policies is the rate of reduction in poverty.  You obviously think that is a mistake because dependent poor people are vote banks.   PVN caused those vote  banks dissolve over decades. 


See what a mess he created. Modi gets 340 seats and Rahul and congress get 44. unforgivable.

Author said quite the opposite

which author? What did he say? What are his facts?

confuzzled dude wrote:It is tragic that generation which has born years after Nehru is vilifying him for the values that India is known for and is appreciated. The democracy that all we are ‘celebrating’ today with smooth transfer of power cannot really ignore the contribution of Nehru in nurturing it after putting strong foundation for it. The institutions are stronger unlike our contemporaries and neighbors in South Asia where people have to fight for ‘democratic’ government as well as their fundamental rights. Most of them remained in the tight grip dictatorial martial law regimes or monarchies. Democracy and constitution became the biggest victims of such regimes where constitutions were changed time to time according to suitability of their dictators.

The other ‘nationalists’ felt he was ‘Anglican’ in nature who to has no interest in Indian i.e. which according to them is Hindu culture. They had very problem with the word ‘secularism’ which Nehru espoused so much. Many criticized him for pushing dynastic rule in India while huge number of ‘fake’ account holders on web world publishes his photographs of ‘drinking’ and ‘smoking’ with women particularly Edwina Mountbatten.

Walking near the Oxford streets of London, I stopped at a roadside shop to buy woolen for me. Just to know about my nationality, he started the conversation asking me about it. He smiled proudly, when I said that I come from India, linking Nehru and Mustafa Kamal Ataturk’s friendship. I love Nehru, great secularists who build India, he said. Some of my Pakistani friends still fondly call Nehru as Panditji, a term, I always hated but they would continue,’ Vidya, you will only understand Nehru when you face the crisis like situation that exists in our country. Nehru’s biggest contribution to India is a secular plural democracy where you all have got a chance to progress which no other South Asian countries have been able to achieve. Even if your democracy may not be a first class one, you are much better and far ahead of us and you cannot ignore the vital contribution of Nehru, they would say.

http://www.countercurrents.org/rawath280514.htm

confuzzled dude wrote:Congress lad by PV Narsimharao completely abdicated the Nehruvian model of economy and followed the path of ‘capitalist’ economy. Thus, affirmative action programme of the government and welfare state concept became biggest victims which Nehru nurtured so laboriously. Narsimha Rao was glorified by the Indian industries despite his corrupt regime. 


Babari Masjid was demolished under Rao’s regime which he promised to build but that never happened. Rao was too depended on some of the BJP’s stalwarts like Vajpayee who he send as India’s representative on various international forums defending India’s Human Rights records towards the minorities and Dalits-aadivasis.

Kris wrote:

confuzzled dude wrote:It is tragic that generation which has born years after Nehru is vilifying him for the values that India is known for and is appreciated. The democracy that all we are ‘celebrating’ today with smooth transfer of power cannot really ignore the contribution of Nehru in nurturing it after putting strong foundation for it. The institutions are stronger unlike our contemporaries and neighbors in South Asia where people have to fight for ‘democratic’ government as well as their fundamental rights. Most of them remained in the tight grip dictatorial martial law regimes or monarchies. Democracy and constitution became the biggest victims of such regimes where constitutions were changed time to time according to suitability of their dictators.

The other ‘nationalists’ felt he was ‘Anglican’ in nature who to has no interest in Indian i.e. which according to them is Hindu culture. They had very problem with the word ‘secularism’ which Nehru espoused so much. Many criticized him for pushing dynastic rule in India while huge number of ‘fake’ account holders on web world publishes his photographs of ‘drinking’ and ‘smoking’ with women particularly Edwina Mountbatten.

Walking near the Oxford streets of London, I stopped at a roadside shop to buy woolen for me. Just to know about my nationality, he started the conversation asking me about it. He smiled proudly, when I said that I come from India, linking Nehru and Mustafa Kamal Ataturk’s friendship. I love Nehru, great secularists who build India, he said. Some of my Pakistani friends still fondly call Nehru as Panditji, a term, I always hated but they would continue,’ Vidya, you will only understand Nehru when you face the crisis like situation that exists in our country. Nehru’s biggest contribution to India is a secular plural democracy where you all have got a chance to progress which no other South Asian countries have been able to achieve. Even if your democracy may not be a first class one, you are much better and far ahead of us and you cannot ignore the vital contribution of Nehru, they would say.

http://www.countercurrents.org/rawath280514.htm

>>>I tried reading the article, but it was difficult. I mean that in terms of both grammar and content, which can at best be characterized as incoherent. If the point is Nehru has been betrayed, it is a weird assertion. Democracy and smooth transition of power are not Nehru's inventions. That is not to say he made no positive contributions. The whole left-leaning model may have made some sense initially, when the country was trying to find its feet. We can't sit here and do Monday morning quarterbacking on that. However, if the author's gripe is the country is moving to a capitalistic model and that is bad, that is a downright stupid assertion that pre-supposes a static society and a static world. In fact,  not opening up the economy would have been a betrayal of the 'tryst with destiny' ethos, as that would have kept the country shackled with socialist chains.

Propagandhi711 wrote:

confuzzled dude wrote:Congress lad by PV Narsimharao completely abdicated the Nehruvian model of economy and followed the path of ‘capitalist’ economy. Thus, affirmative action programme of the government and welfare state concept became biggest victims which Nehru nurtured so laboriously. Narsimha Rao was glorified by the Indian industries despite his corrupt regime. 


Babari Masjid was demolished under Rao’s regime which he promised to build but that never happened. Rao was too depended on some of the BJP’s stalwarts like Vajpayee who he send as India’s representative on various international forums defending India’s Human Rights records towards the minorities and Dalits-aadivasis.

if anyone thinks commie is a moniker unbefitting of the comrade, they'll know better

Kris wrote:

confuzzled dude wrote:It is tragic that generation which has born years after Nehru is vilifying him for the values that India is known for and is appreciated. The democracy that all we are ‘celebrating’ today with smooth transfer of power cannot really ignore the contribution of Nehru in nurturing it after putting strong foundation for it. The institutions are stronger unlike our contemporaries and neighbors in South Asia where people have to fight for ‘democratic’ government as well as their fundamental rights. Most of them remained in the tight grip dictatorial martial law regimes or monarchies. Democracy and constitution became the biggest victims of such regimes where constitutions were changed time to time according to suitability of their dictators.

The other ‘nationalists’ felt he was ‘Anglican’ in nature who to has no interest in Indian i.e. which according to them is Hindu culture. They had very problem with the word ‘secularism’ which Nehru espoused so much. Many criticized him for pushing dynastic rule in India while huge number of ‘fake’ account holders on web world publishes his photographs of ‘drinking’ and ‘smoking’ with women particularly Edwina Mountbatten.

Walking near the Oxford streets of London, I stopped at a roadside shop to buy woolen for me. Just to know about my nationality, he started the conversation asking me about it. He smiled proudly, when I said that I come from India, linking Nehru and Mustafa Kamal Ataturk’s friendship. I love Nehru, great secularists who build India, he said. Some of my Pakistani friends still fondly call Nehru as Panditji, a term, I always hated but they would continue,’ Vidya, you will only understand Nehru when you face the crisis like situation that exists in our country. Nehru’s biggest contribution to India is a secular plural democracy where you all have got a chance to progress which no other South Asian countries have been able to achieve. Even if your democracy may not be a first class one, you are much better and far ahead of us and you cannot ignore the vital contribution of Nehru, they would say.

http://www.countercurrents.org/rawath280514.htm

>>>I tried reading the article, but it was difficult. I mean that in terms of both grammar and content, which can at best be characterized as incoherent. If the point is Nehru has been betrayed, it is a weird assertion. Democracy and smooth transition of power are not Nehru's inventions. That is not to say he made no positive contributions. The whole left-leaning model may have made some sense initially, when the country was trying to find its feet. We can't sit here and do Monday morning quarterbacking on that. However, if the author's gripe is the country is moving to a capitalistic model and that is bad, that is a downright stupid assertion that pre-supposes a static society and a static world. In fact,  not opening up the economy would have been a betrayal of the 'tryst with destiny' ethos, as that would have kept the country shackled with socialist chains.

confuzzled dude wrote:
I didn't think the author was saying capitalism is all bad rather pointing out the perils of it especially when mishandled and I'm afraid BJP is going overboard with ther foreign investment mantra as a result will make things worse for India in long run

Hellsangel wrote:

confuzzled dude wrote:
I didn't think the author was saying capitalism is all bad rather pointing out the perils of it especially when mishandled and I'm afraid BJP is going overboard with ther foreign investment mantra as a result will make things worse for India in long run

That's right, Comrade. Like Cuba, the Mob will take over India and soon a Castro will rise to nationalize everything and kick the Mob out.

confuzzled dude wrote:

Hellsangel wrote:

confuzzled dude wrote:
I didn't think the author was saying capitalism is all bad rather pointing out the perils of it especially when mishandled and I'm afraid BJP is going overboard with ther foreign investment mantra as a result will make things worse for India in long run

That's right, Comrade. Like Cuba, the Mob will take over India and soon a Castro will rise to nationalize everything and kick the Mob out.

Can you elucidate us as to how many microsofts, sun Microsystems of the world sprouted since India went capitalistic