Ask the people of kashmir you will get the answer. Ban the CHOR PARTY-CONGRESS!! starting from Nehru till date, all these CHOR use Black Money for Buying and Selling MLA & MP's, they are the root cause of corruption and terrorism, they finance terrorism with the help of people like Hasan Ali and then save them. Aadarsh Ghotala file is lost now, NO CHARGESHEETS, the CHOR's HAVE DONE IT AGAIN!!!
By
Gurleen Kaur, CMD, GKM IT & Engineering
| 07 06 2011 20:26:09 +0000
Nehru was most currupt prime minister. He created kashmir problem to appease muslims and britishers. He imposed 90% incometax for Limited companies and 60% incometax for private limited companies paving way for black money generation which is the biggest problem of today. 14 of 15 congress state heads voted for Patel to be the prime minister but nehru blackmailed Gandhito get the PM's seat. Nehru was good for nothing. He sold tibbet to china by not sending forces to fight chinese invasion in Tibbet on the request of Dalayi Lama who rushed to Nehru for help. At that time Tibbet was under India's control. In 1962 Indo-China war he didnt allow forces to fight chinese invasion. "Hamare jawanon ne bahaduri se ladtay huye is chowki ko khali ker diya" Such news headlines were constantly aired from AIR when ever forces retreat from various posts. Nehru didnt provide adequate arms and ammunition to the forces.
By
Satish Mehta, Freelancer writer-copywriter and voicecaster
| 05 25 2011 08:18:19 +0000
One can not say how better India would have been under Sardar Patel, yet one thing they all seem to have missed is intill accountability in office especially for bureaucrats and reduce power of discretion.
By
Ravindra Sharma, Managing Consultant, CHEF-India
| 05 23 2011 07:13:21 +0000
the major damage has done by the two important leaders father and daughter. we should not comment on the people who are not alive but it is the truth.
By
Kumara Swamy, Project Associate, IIIT-H
| 05 20 2011 04:39:02 +0000
It is not a healthy arguments, the political leaders in the past especially in our early days of independence were not evil-minded or selfish, whatever they did was good as per the situations prevailed then? might be today we think it is right or wrong, it is always history is bitter, but why should either Nehru or some one think of doing something bad? i do not see any possibilities for them to think bad about the nation at all?Yes, you are totally right, for today's context, it is very difficult to find people who think of something good to either nation or a common man, we are polluted much today!!-thanks for referral
By
pruthviraja pande, Film maker, Fascinations communications
| 05 19 2011 14:06:56 +0000
yeah I can say that shariah treat has raised a type of unlikeness for muslims-had it been not there , initially muslims might have faced problems but later it may have become very easy for joining the main stream-and his doctrine of giving above level-(favor) to govt. servants. who have no fear of doing wrong as in any case there jobs will not go.---------------and politics-then and now all wants to get a red-carpet attention and money(its black money taken out from people) like nehru.
By
ZOHAR BATTERYWALA, Relationship Manager, TAJ INVESTMENT
| 05 19 2011 11:07:53 +0000
Yes , after loosing the china war and land nehru said "that useless land where not a single blade of grass grows ", Nehru was always pro - muslim , its because of him we have 2 laws in country one for Hindu , sikh etc and other for muslims (sharia ) , america and france are also secular but they don't allow muslims to punish or judge according to sharia law in their country ,
By
Amit Pandey, Embedded Engineer, Electronics
| 05 19 2011 09:55:55 +0000
The China War.It is because of Nehru's cowardise that China ate away our so much of Land.There are many more such instances,which proves that Nehru has done more harm to the Country.Had Saradar Patel been in Nehru's place China would have kept away from India even today.
By
Jaimini Sharadchandra Trivedi, Sales/BD Manager, Eureka Forbes Limited.
| 05 19 2011 09:40:55 +0000
|
All leaders cannot make always the right decision, They too are human beings. The first mistake Nehru made was to open up India for multi party democracy,India was not ready for that.
By
Munshi Ramchand, Retired
| 07 06 2011 08:18:36 +0000
Hey Mr. Satish Mehta, Your retrospective look of past history & introspection on some issues may look bleak to you. May be that India's Foreign policy " Panchsheel policy" decided all these course of action. After the WW 1 & 2, THE ENTIRE WORLD WAS SUFFERING, the Cold war effect between the East & the West was intolerable & India was willing to establish peace , not only here, but also over the world. Famine , you must be knowing it, was at its peak. People lined up for rations for hours together. We can not forget it still. All these impulsions must have driven him to these extent. As part of relinguishing Colonialism, imperialism etc & to pave way for NAM, India might have decided to give up PAK & Tibet. However, these theory can not justify the action but the prevailling mood then dictated these things. As an Independant & sovereign nation, we deal every body in the same vein & help them achieve it.
By
KALIYAMOORTHY , Oil & Gas Area Coordinator, Undisclosed
| 05 25 2011 13:16:16 +0000
He did follow in the foot step of Gamdhi and was to lead India after the independance and laid the foundation for modern India with respect to education etc; and also put India on world map. It is long way since independance now Indian's seen with respect because the professionals from India are spread across the globe which is out come of good education.
By
Cyril , General Manager & Head - Marketing , Bajaj Electricals Limited
| 05 21 2011 14:46:50 +0000
Pandit Nehru, did more harm whether the harm was more than good cannot be fathomed like one cannot use 'affirmatives' in ones conclusions. He was well liked by the citizen but what he did wrong was that he chose Fabina socialism a concocted untested way of administering development and processes for the nation which got independent. He was afraid of the cruelty embeded in communism and injustice in capitalism and rejected both of them as the paths for India which was wrong. In due course we couldn't create enought wealth for the nation and our infrastructure got degenerated and we ran aground. I feel he was a simple man though the choice of the ideology for the nation was wrong he should have built up a free market society where we would have got developed ages back like SKorea and all who started later than India and following free market principles with American supervision they are developed now.
By
Mathew Cherian, Research Associate/Analyst, Western Michigan University
| 05 20 2011 21:59:09 +0000
DEAR NEELIMA,YOU ARE RIGHT.WE CAN NOT SAY WHAT IS IN HIS MIND.NO BODY CAN TAKE EACH AND EVERY DECISION RIGHT THERE MAY BE SOME MISTAKE MAY BE SOME RIGHT FOR THOSE DAYS BUT IT IS TRUE HE WAS A GREAT LEADER WE MUST FOLLOW HIM NOT BLINDLY BUT CLARIFYING THE RIGHT AND WRONG.
By
Sk Naharul Haque, Engineer,
| 05 20 2011 06:07:45 +0000
He is a great man with a broader vision. People are different those days. An "Executive Decision" is taken on the prevailing circumstances. You can question it after 10/20 years. But he is right at the time of taking the decision. He used to mingle with people and averse to security. He loves Pakistan as much as he loves India. The word 'Hatred' is not there in his disctionery.
By
Suryanarayan Murthy, Asst Vice President (Corporate Finance), A Hydro Power Project
| 05 20 2011 05:38:51 +0000
I support Neelima. And I will go so far as to say that nobody present was living at that time. Knowledge was not so easily available then. There were very few people who had the knowledge & education, vision, foresight, memory, influence, and most importantly courage backed by various kinds of strengths (to be able to survive). There were many other people who could have done a good job but Pandit Nehru was the man on the spot at that time. I believe that in Pandit Nehru, there was that unique combination of qualities (even some masala as he had a very weird extra-marital affair) which made him the best person to be India's First Prime Minister. Of course he was not perfect. Who is perfect? Especially when we talk about running a whole country - which was torn, injured, and bleeding. I can confidently state that anyone else would have turned our country in to a much worse place. Look at our state now: For example, we should be concentrating on developing our own green technology but we are busy importing cars, bikes, and nuclear reactors - among many other things. This will reduce our country's self-reliance.
By
Isaac Madhavan, IT / Technical Writer, IT major
| 05 19 2011 20:42:15 +0000
The contributions of public service is always debatable. Because of different perceptions by different people living in different demographic areas. He was considered the right man, immediately after independence , to bridge the gap between the west with the New-born-baby India. He tried his role in the befitting manner to have contributed as much as possible to construct a modern India where we live today saying proudly, " I am Indian".
By
KALIYAMOORTHY , Oil & Gas Area Coordinator, Undisclosed
| 05 19 2011 12:21:06 +0000
If Nehru/others agrees to have Jinnah's choice for PM, does he/others also agree to Jinnah's choice for Governor General? If Liaqat is the PM of unpartitioned India is he still going to be killed? If Liaqat gets killed, won't Nizammaddin the Governor General become PM of undivided India and Malik G.M. become governor general of undivided India (as it happened in Pakistan -- or maybe someone in undivided India won't let it happen)? Won't there be a conflict between the PM and Governor General and won't the PM and the Constituent Assembly get dismissed (as it happened there)? And what will the Court of undivided India say on this matter? Is there any danger that the right to elected representatives will not be a right in undivided India? Personally speaking between 1947 and 1954 itself, there are so many events that influenced the subcontinent history that it boggles my mind (but maybe others minds are just getting warmed up) to start the guessing game on 'what if Jinnah is given the PM post'. Another issue raised is that of 'Sardar Patel being given the chance to retain the whole of India'. The events to be changed back in time (before his death in 1950) are: partition, Junagarh, Goa, Jammu and Kashmir, Hyderabad. I could not get myself to guess about changes in past outcomes and I'm not sure if the changes will be better, therefore I have to disagree. BTW, interesting question.
By
Shahnawaz Islam, PR & Media Relations Manager, National Institute of Smart Governance
| 05 19 2011 10:12:02 +0000
Neelima you are right. Decision depends upon current situation base so we cannot say it is good or bad.......Only we are justifying it in our view....
By
Diwakar Tiwari, Sr. Manager, THE Arvind LTD
| 05 19 2011 09:08:28 +0000
|
