Many might have read so many bad sides of leaders, humans are particularly curious to know them as good things they can get from Vedas. Mr John Mathai, Mr Nehru’s PA, has also contributed to the public knowledge. I think even Gandhiji was not left out nor Rajaji. Of course I have not read about the recent bachelors! So I thought it not necessary to taste the old wine in a new bottle (the link). Neither I would say they are lies. Could best be or otherwise an attempt to connect the shaven head to a knee cap.
If character is the only criteria for leadership in today’s world, how about a wrong man ascending to a religious mutt throne. Character is essential so that a person does not become tyrant. A king is not a religious leader but a leader to look after the well-being of his countrymen.
One can talk about a myriad of world leaders who had things to hide or could not hide things. But nobody held a position as important as Nehru’s in a independent New India. It was just a starting period of scientific world. Gandhiji gave morality its prominence but Nehru gave the impetus to develop India to fit into modern world. Given to himself, Gandhiji would have offered “Charka” to millions of our countrymen, but Nehru gave the foundation for today’s India, like infrastructure, dams and reservoirs, ordnance factories and numerous production facilities including atomic energy and the like. He was single-handed policy maker for development and others dutifully carried out his visions. India is proud of today’s wealth which Nehru created. To deny this is trying to be unfair to one’s ownself. He was not flawless. God never would create a flawless man. He had bungled in Kashmir problem, humanitarian attitude showed him a man biased towards Muslims. He failed to read Chinese. Nothing grows under a banyan tree. But weeds did grow. He failed to know the sycophants and the corrupt. But those who have not read his books, can accuse him of anything. In the development period, TN stood first, then came Maharashtra, Punjab, etc. The regions wherefrom BJP originated did not develop at all and the people had to migrate to Punjab, Maharashtra, TN, etc. The arguments can go on between actual fairness and to imagined unfairness.
The BJP’s PM, ABV was Nehru’s pick. I think Vajpayee would reject all accusations of Nehru. It was a fashion to criticize Nehru when he was alive and it has now become a religion for some.
Talking of Indira Gandhi, I will quote Frank Moraes who said “ She was the only man in the Cabinet”. She succeeded where Nehru had no opportunity, to prove the world that India is a country to be reckoned with. She was too hot for local leaders as well as world leaders so much so that she was eliminated early. To talk ill of her achievements is just a case of anti-feminism. Nobody talks of Sanjay Gandhi who became instantly popular as I think he was hotter than IG and would have put BJP into shame. Then came unwilling Rajiv Gandhi to whom we owe our pre-eminence in computer and cyberworld. I think the genes became weak with Rajiv Gandhi’s birth. He made a blunder in choosing his life partner and we have the result and anarchy.
Nobody elects Kings or leaders. They elect themselves. All Kings have erred from Rama, Yudhishtra, Duryodana, Kamsa, Ravana, and so on and so forth. Rama Rajya was different from Mahabharath. Yathha Praja thathha Sanskriti. When the foundation has been laid, it is easy to strengthen. Nobody can deny that it was the govt which gave the impetus after 1947. Of course, it was a government of our own people and headed by a man who was in great hurry to be on par with the world. Gujarat was there after 1962 or about. Industry had been growing there since then but only Modi is given credit today. It is 50% propaganda and 50% development. And more than half of Gujarat is outside the State. But let me say lest readers should misunderstand me, that I am neither a supporter of Congress nor of BJP or any other party. In an argument of any kind, it should be fair to talk of positive and negative or if you can chose so first negative and then positive.
Talking of dynasty, every leader of every state has been bitten by the disease. There was no dynastic descend from Nehru to Indira. Subsequent happenings occurred perhaps in confusion. Why not for a change attack the current flock of dynastic tendencies and thwart them.
