Do we need Gandhi or Nehru for today's Indian Politics?

Discussion in 'Politics & Society' started by proud_hindustani, Nov 18, 2009.

  1. proud_hindustani

    proud_hindustani Regular Member

    Joined:
    Nov 8, 2009
    Messages:
    246
    Likes Received:
    3
    Our political leaders are corrupted, selfish, money eater, obsessive about political chairs. What do you think, Do we need Gandhi or Nehru or Subhash Chandra Bose or Sardar Valabhbhai Patel in our current political system, for betterment of our country's military system? which one of them would be great to strengthen our defense system.

    I personally believe Subhash Chandra Bose would be great political leader to augment India's military strength. He was an Indian military leader so he would be very helpful to give insights to our military officers in creating effective strategies, well establishment of weapons, bases, foreign military cooperation and so on.

    what do you think guys...
     
  2.  
  3. dead-already

    dead-already New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 17, 2009
    Messages:
    4
    Likes Received:
    0
    For Military..Subhash Chandra Bose
    Otherwise in general, leaders like Sardar Valabhbhai Patel.{NO Gandhi/Nehru}

    But again, this is not going to happen anyway {in reality}..

    We really need less corrupt politician..
     
  4. Emperor

    Emperor Regular Member

    Joined:
    May 19, 2009
    Messages:
    99
    Likes Received:
    0
    NO THANKS.

    India was screwed for 60 years becos of this duo.And you want the later generations to be screwed as well?

    My take on these 2 might offend few here.But I have my opinion.
    I usually prefer to talk as less as possible regarding or related to these guys.
     
  5. Known_Unknown

    Known_Unknown Devil's Advocate Stars and Ambassadors

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2009
    Messages:
    2,632
    Likes Received:
    1,664
    Location:
    Earth
    Gandhi was extremely religious, and his vision of India consisted of a nation of khadi weavers. We'd have been just that and devoid of any progress since 1947 if he were to be our leader. Nehru had the right idea about building technology and industry in India, and his contribution to setting up the industrial base in India has been invaluable. But he was extremely poor in setting foreign policy. If Sardar Patel hadn't dissuaded him, he might have disbanded the Indian Army after Independence.

    Sardar Patel was known to be a tough negotiator and a level headed man, but he passed away too early to judge his political success.

    Subhash Chandra Bose was very charismatic and patriotic, but also had poor judgement. The INA had no chance with or without the help of foreign powers to drive the British out of India. They lacked training, weapons, ammo, supplies, basically everything. That's precisely the reason why Gandhi's methods worked so well. He was clever to realise early on that the only way to mobilise a mass movement was to stage non-violent protests-like he once said, there was no way for 1000 Englishmen to rule India if 350 million Indians refused to co-operate.

    They all had their flaws. But they were all great men too. Sadly all (except Bose) were afflicted with the curse of pacifism even after Independence had been achieved......a curse which has been so deeply embedded in the national psyche, that no government till today (except Indira Gandhi's of 1971) has followed a policy counter to it.
     
  6. Sabir

    Sabir DFI TEAM Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2009
    Messages:
    2,118
    Likes Received:
    782
    We will get leaders like what we are actually. Nehru-Bose-Gandhi-Pattel will not come back, nor any body from Marse or Jupitor. If we cant transform ourselves to better citizens we are not going to get better leaders. No wonder some craps (I dont want to name) are in powerful positions becouse they got support from equally crap people.
     
  7. proud_hindustani

    proud_hindustani Regular Member

    Joined:
    Nov 8, 2009
    Messages:
    246
    Likes Received:
    3
    yeah i know they are dead. But India still can have a political leader who has the same quality as Subhash Chandra Bose. billion of people live in India and I am sure there are people that may have the quality of our long dead political leader or even better than them.

    look at Kalam who is knowns as a missile man of India.
     
  8. proud_hindustani

    proud_hindustani Regular Member

    Joined:
    Nov 8, 2009
    Messages:
    246
    Likes Received:
    3
    What I don't like the most about Gandhi and Nehru is their establishment of Pakistan as a seperate country. Jinnah only wanted a state especially for muslims.

    I believe Rahul Gandhi would be better political leader than those corrupted, selfish oldies. He is young, energetic who will give great contribution to India.

    and one more thing. I am a proud Indian who was born in new delhi and lives in new york. I am not a pakistani " you mentioned in air force thread"

    Saare jahan se acha, Hindustan hamara. Jai Hind:india:
     
  9. proud_hindustani

    proud_hindustani Regular Member

    Joined:
    Nov 8, 2009
    Messages:
    246
    Likes Received:
    3
    oh Yeah..Indira Gandhi..i really forgot about her..

    she was indeed an intelligent and great political leader. We defeated Pakistan badly under her leadership.
     
  10. proud_hindustani

    proud_hindustani Regular Member

    Joined:
    Nov 8, 2009
    Messages:
    246
    Likes Received:
    3
    Nehru's stupidity let the India down during Indo-Sino war. He was afraiding to allow IAF to attack on chinese soldiers " fearing they may attack on India cities" ....I had read an article somewhere that India could have won Indo-Sino war.
     
  11. Yusuf

    Yusuf GUARDIAN Administrator

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2009
    Messages:
    24,274
    Likes Received:
    11,280
    Location:
    BANGalore
    Leaders of that time thought according to their time. Rest is all hind sight. We dont need those leaders to come back. What we need is politicians of that stature. Statesmen, Visionaries. For all we curse Nehru, he had a vision for a modern developed India. He knew the importance of large dams, steel plants etc. In fact it was during his time India started its nuclear program as well. Unfortunately, Nehru is viewed only through the prism of Partition and his failed policy towards China. But his vision for a modern industrial India is something that set the tone for India.

    So what we need is such visionaries about modern developed India. If we consider the last ten years, I would put leaders like Kalam, Man Mohan Singh, Atal Bihari Vajpayee as right up there as men with vision. They have a clean record as far as the usual corrupt image of politicians go. They have a vision for this country and how to go about it as well. We need more of those kinds. Names of the past dont matter now. Who makes the name now does.
     
  12. tarunraju

    tarunraju Moderator Moderator

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2009
    Messages:
    5,316
    Likes Received:
    3,888
    Location:
    Hyderabad
    Don't Gandhi and Nehru hog all the limelight, while there could be countless freedom fighters who have been forgotten? If it wasn't for the monopoly of Congress in the political scene every one of those would have gotten credit where due. It is Congress that goes about naming every other structure it builds using public money after Gandhi, members of the Nehru-Gandhi family, or some important Congress leaders (in that exact hierarchy). In Hyderabad itself every other major structure, be it our awesome new airport, or the new cricket stadium, or the countless flyovers and roads, are named after Rajiv Gandhi. There are countless public schemes named after Rajiv or Indira Gandhi. Beyond confusing, it also ends up being frustrating.

    Beyond that, I think Gandhi and Nehru represent an outdated ideology. Gandhi's non-violence principles lost ground the day we got independence and the partition riots that followed. It then became clear that non-violence doesn't solve all problems. In today's scene no big public demonstration or dharna goes on without some violence, at least of the kind where protesters end up damaging public property.

    Nehru represents a borderline-pacifist mentality who is all ideology, less practice. His ideologies may have played a big role in our freedom movement, but it did not translate into a powerful leadership once he achieved what he set out for. Perhaps he became complacent once the dust settled down after the partition riots.

    Today's Indian politician who really wants to do give back to the society has to be very mildly subscribed to any big ideology except serving the people, and has to be utmost practical. Today's Indian voter on the other hand, should shed the 'sheeple' mentality that if a politician builds roads, and supplies clean water, and makes living affordable, he is a "great person" or a "legend". You and I are paying every single politician to do what is expected of them. So nothing beyond crediting them with more time in the office is what voters should look out for.
     
  13. Yusuf

    Yusuf GUARDIAN Administrator

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2009
    Messages:
    24,274
    Likes Received:
    11,280
    Location:
    BANGalore
    Tarun, that is not the point of discussion on this thread. Its a separate issue altogether.
     
  14. tarunraju

    tarunraju Moderator Moderator

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2009
    Messages:
    5,316
    Likes Received:
    3,888
    Location:
    Hyderabad
    Yusuf, I hadn't complete my post. Read again.
     
  15. Yusuf

    Yusuf GUARDIAN Administrator

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2009
    Messages:
    24,274
    Likes Received:
    11,280
    Location:
    BANGalore
    Right Tarun, thats why I said that the thinking and policy of those leaders at that time was suitable for that period. They did what they thought was best for the country back then. Sure there may be flaws in their thinking, but freedom for the country was their utmost concern. Gandhiji didnt have to be in jail for nothing. He didnt have to leave South Africa and come back to India. He could have as well gone ahead to England and practiced law and made a lot of money. Nehru too was from a good background. He didnt have to go through the pain of fighting for independence. He could have taken one of those Rai Bahadur titles and licked the British feet while continuing to live in splendor.
    But no even with all the flaws they had a vision for the country. Not a lot of politicians have had that.
    Rajiv Gandhi was a visionary. In fact he had a vision for the world at large. Yes again there may be flaws as not all are right, but still how many of such Rajivs do we have. How many Kalams do we have? How many ABVs?
     
  16. tarunraju

    tarunraju Moderator Moderator

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2009
    Messages:
    5,316
    Likes Received:
    3,888
    Location:
    Hyderabad
    We don't have many, but that shouldn't mean that we use Gandhi, Nehru, or his decedents as examples of what to expect from a 'good' leader. Their achievements sort of make them unassailable, and people think there can never be another leader of their stature. The only reason they have become such larger than life figures is that a lot of noise was made about everything they did. Between 1947 and today, there have been some some decent politicians who faded away, unsung heroes came and went. Dr. Kalam is a perfect example of such people who made very little noise and earned genuine respect in the process, maybe not as a politician, but as a person who served the country in whatever capacity he was capable of. The point is, we don't need a template for a good leader.
     
  17. Singh

    Singh Phat Cat Administrator

    Joined:
    Feb 23, 2009
    Messages:
    20,305
    Likes Received:
    8,270
    Location:
    011
    We can continue this discussion without maligning Gandhi or Nehru.
     
  18. Emperor

    Emperor Regular Member

    Joined:
    May 19, 2009
    Messages:
    99
    Likes Received:
    0
    According to the rule of thumb, no freedom fighter should enter politics.If he does,It clearly projects his lust for power.
    Same with Nehru.He is having a huge lust for power,to rule India.And especially when Gandhi supported from tip to toe and dont want to share the chair with some Zinna,they just gave a separate country.

    IF you fought well for the country for its freedom, then you should be happy after getting Independence for the nation and stay home quietly or support the political leadership to strengthen the countries economy and morals.

    Honestly speaking the Indian freedom movement is half farse and half good.The last part of the movement saw a huge leap of politics that maligned the freedom movement.

    Everyone knows that after the WWII brits wont stay in India anymore and will leave India.The Brits were exhausted and this ignited the fears and pessimism in the minds of those so called fighters who are looking at gaining power to rule that 300 million at that time.
    It actually made me think if those so called freedom fighters are SAINTS OR SINNERS?
    A true saint wont need power and not to mention his lust for so called autocratically things.
    They are clearly SINNERS but definitely not SAINTS. As one poster said which is ofcourse true that there were 1000`s of freedom fighters at that time.And every sweat for getting freedom,then how come we as a nation forgot all those and worshipping only few like gods?
    Naming a bring after them,naming a airport after them,naming a washroom after them? cmon, why dont they get some life?

    Another big farse in the Indian history is that its citizens were manipulated and misleaded.I will never agree a freedom movement like Indian National Congress to be turned into a political party under the same banner.
    It might have worked for them to get into power, but failed the citizens ultimately in providing what they needed. The corruption that ignited under the brtish rule stretched its wings under the INC leadership.And today you can see the same devil dance on the head of an attender to the prime minister.

    Woov and probably people seem to forgot that its a democracy with constitution written by a BC scholar Mr.Dr B.R.Ambedkar. And the exchange of words between Ambedkar and Gandhi-Nehru is never put into public debate.IF there is still a lot of discrimination based on Caste/Creed/Religion/Sex is going means,the blame has to be passed on to INC.

    And yet we have people taking about the great grandfather Nehru`s vision of India. He ruled the country for almost 17-20 years.And look where we ended up after his death? Aren`t we still at the starting point? while the countries who gained Independance more or less at the same time leap frogged many times comparatively to India.I honestly dont think India stood at afar better position that Singapore at that time.And look where we both are standing on the same scale?

    The freaken foundation laid for modern India was a big farse.If they should have got someone from outside the movement to govern the country and these people standing as God fathers,It would have been impressive.

    Why the most successive PM`s has to come from the Gandhi family?
    Are we living in monarchy or else do these people own the country?
    Truth is its neither of the two.It is only that any ordinary Indian at that was brain-washed using the congress news paper and projected the things done by congress while shadowing the same done by a majority of other freedom fighters.

    So many young and dynamic people all over the nation are awaiting the chance tho show their caliber and governance.Yet we are sucessively failing to give them power while keeping a 70 80 year old in power untill he dies and his son/daughter hosts the chair.The mindset has to change.People need to Change.A major transformation has to occur.
    A typical thinking of a common can be known by looking at the topic of thread.
    Get real guys, Gandhi-Nehru doesn't represent whole 1.2 billion.
    Take out the Gandhi-Nehru goggles you are wearing at look at the world.You can find more and more brightest and sounding personalities .
    Vote for them,elect them,give them power and anticipate the change in the system. Fcuk this Gandhi-Nehru clan.Dont even care to utter a word abt them.

    JAI HIND.:india::india::india::india::india:
     
  19. S.A.T.A

    S.A.T.A Senior Member Senior Member

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2009
    Messages:
    1,804
    Likes Received:
    453
    Yes we need leadership in the same mould as Nehru and Gandhiji(it would be asking of too much to expect the same personal qualities).Leadership is more than just an efficient administrator,its a sum of all and varied qualities that one needs to lead any society or country.

    However such qualities are not born in a vacuum,very often these qualities are the product of the challenges of their time.A Gandhi or Nehru wouldn't have been so if India wasn't a European colony(and keen to rid of the same).Does any Indian politician with promising potential have a similar immediate challenge that could baptize him into the path of true leadership.

    To be fair there is not.Thomas Jefferson won one of the narrowest election in early American history and as president he was a mere shadow of the giant who drafted the verses of the Declaration of Independence,that stirred the hearts of all men for all ages.Abraham Lincoln again won a narrow election and was rank nobody destined to be another man who occupied the Big House,until the American Civil War came along.

    Leadership cannot be thought in an academy or even be inherited.True leadership is when ordinary men are thrust into extraordinary challenges,the qualified rise to it and other wilt away.


    Gandhi and Nehru and many others from the freedom movement where ordinary men living in extraordinary times and accomplished remarkable things.We have barely come to understand them, let alone be naive enough to judge them.
     
  20. Energon

    Energon DFI stars Stars and Ambassadors

    Joined:
    Jun 3, 2009
    Messages:
    1,199
    Likes Received:
    760
    Just to clarify something on Nehru's industrial policy... While Nehru was fascinated by science and sought heavy industrial pursuits, it is clear that he never really understood the core concept of science (evident in his personal writings, particularly in the Discovery of India). He didn't realize that science is primarily driven by inquiry, innovative spirit, free thought and liberal access to capital; not through government mandates designed to monopolize resources and modulate demand and supply. His economic policy while endorsing heavy industry was deeply flawed, as was Gandhiji's vision of non industrialized rural sustenance (the retroactive attempts to draw comparisons with post WWII Japan are flawed).

    Having said that it is important to realize that Nehru was responsible for overseeing the conversion/creation of modern India into a secular constitutional democratic republic, a truly unique and gargantuan achievement. To me this achievement outweighs his lack of foresight on the economic front. In the nation he had created, it was possible to change policy based on outcomes. Lal Bahadur Shastri wanted to do this and tried to change tack and move toward market liberalization, but he died too soon to see his policies through.

    Indira Gandhi IMO is greatly responsible for sealing the fate of India's economic and social progress. She petrified the government's hold on all aspects of industry resulting in an oversized pathetic public sector, decrepit industrial sector, flight of foreign capital, abortion of Indian entrepreneurship, and worst of all the institutionalization of corruption. It is also rather evident that her primary motivation wasn't philosophy (the poor outcome had already been quantified) but rather her autocratic desire to assume control over everything (and she sure did). In regards to the Indo-Pak war, I don't think it's success can be attributed to Indira Gandhi. I think after the 62 and 65 wars, the military leadership was clear in its objective of reducing the number of hostile borders through any means possible. Pakistan was far too poorly governed to keep a hold on East Pakistan. The split was bound to happen and no Indian leader would have stood in the way of this critical military objective.

    Now that I look back, it seems to me that random charismatic leaders are not nearly as effective or critical as a cohort of leadership. India at the time of its formation was blessed with a large cohort of competent leaders with varying expertise; Pakistan did not have this.

    India is in dire need of educated, insightful and talented leaders at all levels of government and public office. They do not need to be charismatic.
     
  21. Energon

    Energon DFI stars Stars and Ambassadors

    Joined:
    Jun 3, 2009
    Messages:
    1,199
    Likes Received:
    760
    Just to add a quick word/rant about leaders and qualities determining good leadership (or lack there of)... I was at a private screening of a PBS documentary about the Mumbai attacks (which will be aired sometime next week). A part of it focuses on a group of around 200+ people at the Taj who were ushered into a hidden room called the "chamber" which was only known to a handful of high rollers and resort insiders. The gunmen were frantically searching for the people but couldn't find them. There were three politicians/ministers in that group, and one of them decided to do a live televised phone interview where he vociferously disclosed their location. The handler in Pakistan saw the broadcast in real time and promptly guided the gunmen to the location where they proceeded to kill many people. A heroic chef and a concierge created a diversion and led the gunmen away from the group while a third person actually led the survivors to safety. The chef was shot and killed, the ministers survived.

    To me this incident serves as a vignette of the pathetic level of mid level political leadership in India. The three ministers together were unable to make a good decision when it was really needed and instead jeopardized so many lives simply because they wanted to participate in the media circus. The employees of the hotels showed far better leadership skills under duress.

    Instead of another Gandhi, Nehru or Bose, it would be far better to wish for ministers to have at least a normal level of intelligence.

    sorry, didn't mean to derail this thread.
     

Share This Page