here is what i do not understand: even if nehru was an economic disaster, how does it follow that therefore: modi and this is a big IF, for i think what he did, he acted in accordance to his times and the state of the world then...frankly, i think the rapid (and sometimes uncontrolled) industrialisation probably helped us...the socialism was perhaps necessary in 1947...but then, maybe economists understand this better...for this is just my unscholarly view from what i have read we passed through a stage of poverty is good, wealth is evil to wealth is a result of hard work without any bloodshed, without any violence...maybe, in such a case, either socialism was right for the times, and capitalism right for now...or maybe democracy, the biggest strength of india, probably outweighed socio-economic change...but whichever way you look at it, nehru cannot be excluded from some credit in the way india has developed today and it is not very difficult to see where our neighbour, with the same racial stock, with similar leaders (who were peers of indian leaders then), similar thought (once pakistan was formed, it was jinnahs wish it be not just for muslims, for that was never what he really wanted), similar dreams and aspirations, similar language, costume, and culture, similar art, ended up for the lack of a visionary leader. so, to judge nehru shouldnt take that much a stretch of imagination as to simply look to the north-west and see what we might have been, but for our founding fathers (including, but not only, nehru)
Posted on: Sun, 30 Nov 2014 14:36:00 +0000
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015