Talk:Jawaharlal Nehru

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Jawaharlal Nehru is part of the Cold War WikiProject, an effort to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to the Cold War on the Wikipedia. This includes but is not limited to the people, places, things, and events, and anything else associated with the Cold War. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Jawaharlal Nehru article.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (`~~~~`). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.	Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Be welcoming	Article policies No original research Neutral point of view Verifiability
Archives: 1

Jawaharlal Nehru has had a peer review by Wikipedia editors which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.

This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.

This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale. (add comments)

This article is maintained by the Indian politics workgroup.

This article is maintained by the Indian history workgroup.

[edit] Further Suggestions for revision once the Pointless Vandals get bored and leave

I know I'm just an anon user and thus the lowest of the low, but could I make the following suggestions for when this page is unlocked:

1. The comparison to Patel, while an article of faith for many people, is a little pointless; in particular, I'd like to see some sourcing for this "9 out of 15 provincial councils" thing, which I have never seen, except on this article.

"Dont know why this is pointless. Patel's achievement integrating the states, Seeing through Chinese game in 1950 itself, providing hard nosed realpolitik blueprint (http://www.friendsoftibet.org/databank/indiadefence/indiad1.html.), views on linguistic state reorganisation, economic views contrast strongly with Nehru's numerous underachievements".

2. Bose was not 'driven' out of the COngress because of a preference for Nehru; it is fairly obvious that a man who believed in violent resistance would not be permitted by Gandhi to play any major role in the Congress, regardless of Gandhi's attitude to Nehru.

"It is a fact that Gandhi while he supported Nehru's claims for dual terms for congress presidency, refused to provide the weight of his support to both Sardar Patel in 1928) and Subash Bose in 1939. The pattern was to get repeated in 1946 as well when Gandhi backed Nehru in lieu of Patel. So it is wrong to claim that Bose's leaving Congress was uncorrelated to Gandhi's preference for Nehru".

3. QUOTE: It is also worth noting that India's trend growth rate in GDP stayed above 4% for all the years that Nehru was PM; recent studies for instance by Goldman Sachs have claimed that India, just like South Korea, had the potential to grow at more than 7% per annum in the 1960-1980 timeframe,..

Source please. Also, as an academic economist, I have severe doubts about Goldman's analysis cell being able to predict a national recession even after they lose all their jobs.

At the very least, remove the semicolon, and revert to the edit that compares 4% to all other economies, not just South Korea's, which was the best performer, and so hardly the benchmark.

"Economic Mayhem: Nehru's patronage of Permit License Control Raj slowed down Industrial growth no end and directly encouraged monopolistic practices, crony capitalism and status quoist businessmen. (For those interested, they can look at its effective depiction in the Hindi movie Guru. The movie has a poignant moment, when Ajitabh Bachan as Gurukant Desai asks Roshan Seth, Head of the Judicial Commission investigating him if a 'Permit' is needed to even stand up. Incidentially Roshan Seth is known for his role as someone that played Nehru. Gurukant was of course a take on our Dhirubhai)"

4. Quoting Bhagwati, who has a personal axe to grind, is perhaps not appropriate in this article. Maybe elsewhere.

5. QUOTE: Nehru is often criticised, with some good reason, by commentators of the present-day, even though transfers of capital are considerably easier today.

What does this even mean?

6. QUOTE: In hindsight, however, the Soviet model has clearly failed in its objectives. There are, unfortunately, many Nehru-vintage economists in India who still hold on to what they believed in their youth, despite much evidence to the contrary.

Editorialising much?

7. QUOTE: Nehru inherited civic institutions created by the British including the judicial system, parliament and universities. The history of modern indian scientific institutions goes back to the nineteenth century when Indian Association for Cultivation of Science was set up at Calcutta, and most of the scientific establishments that have some repute today (Bose Institute, Raman Research Institute, Indian Institute of Science) were established long before Nehru inherited the government from his family friends, the Mountbattens (Also see reports of his affair with Edwina Mountbatten as well as Lord Mountbatten).

"Inherited"? "Family friends"?

It would be better if this entire thing was just deleted, rather than left like this.

All this sounds good to me. Even before the "Nehruvian-Stalinism" vandals came along, the article had tons of unsourced POV, and removing this is necessary. Frankly, I think the article may have to be rewritten entirely. Firebug 08:44, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

Some of these have been already fixed, and I am doing the rest now. Hornplease 04:13, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Page Unprotection

Ok, I am unprotecting this page. It's been 10 days since it was protected because of the Nehruvian-Stalinism revert-war, and I hope everyone has had time to think about things a bit. Before everyone jumps back in I'm going to lay some ground rules:

Keep to less controversial edits for now
- If you added something before and it was deleted, don't re-add it verbatim. For controversial stuff, try making draft versions and get consensus before adding them to the article proper. Include others' perceptions in your writing and compromise.
Keep the discussion civil.
- No personal insults or slander on here, keep your arguments short and to-the-point.
Sign your talk-page edits.
- Even if you are an anonymous user, sign your talk-page edits with ~~~~ or a few letters or something, otherwise it is VERY difficult to follow discussions.

I'll be watching this page closely for the next few days — If we can follow these rules, it'll stay unprotected. Otherwise I will re-protect it. Good-luck everyone. -Lommer | ^talk 02:23, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

okay, I saw this discussion after I reverted it verbatim. I suggest you leave it as it is until it is sorted out. Honestly, I have been the one who has tried to sort it out through discussion and by providing evidence. It is fair that the other side provide evidence too! Each time someone tried to help out, I have hoped that it would be sorted out based on evidence, but each time the arbitrator just brushed aside the overwhelming evidence I provided. To be fair, this should not even be a dispute. This is like arguing whether Washington D.C. is the capital of U.S.A. or if San Francisco is in California! The evidence wouldn't be overwhelming and from all sorts of sources if it was just a POV. I provided links to sources that were on the far-left as well as the far-right. Some of the posters took shelter in the claim that they objected to one term, 'Nehruvian-Stalinism', but went on to delete the ENTIRE section! They refused to admit that India had and still has a centrally planned economy inspired by the Soviet model. This is the crux of the issue. As for the term itself, even that is okay. Why is it that only the left/communists should invent terms? Even if we accept the argument that the right-wing economists were the ones who invented it, so what? Last I checked, this term was used in India's mainstream media. e.g., Rediff. Like before, I am presenting my arguments and I hope that this time I will not face abuses. -Economist

I'm not here to decide what should and shouldn't be in the article (I'd like to stay impartial). I am here to make sure things remain civil and don't collapse into a revert-war. Your most recent edit has already been reverted. Perhaps you could try some of my suggestions — comment on Hornplease's suggestions and maybe post a new section with a draft of what you'd like to put in. Others can then edit it here (and beware that it may be edited/cut severely) and hopefully a consensus can be reached. You can probably already tell that the nehruvian-stalinist stuff isn't gonna fly in its current form, so maybe you could take the first step and change it a bit to be less controversial. -Lommer | ^talk 04:54, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

P.S. just because something is posted here in draft form doesn't mean it has to stay that way forever; if a few users agree on it or it stays unchanged for a few days it should be put into the article. -Lommer | ^talk 04:54, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The fact that you locked it in a state with absolutely no evidence and chose to discard all the evidence from BBC, TIME, CNN, Encyclopedia Brittanica, Parliament of India, Frontline, PBS, Forbes and several other sources shows what a sad state of mind you are in. I shall create an id and post tonnes of evidence to wikien-l. Of course, it will be one piece of data per email. You shouldn't worry about the volume of email since you think that evidence is not on my side. How come you and others consistently refuse to even discuss the evidence I post? Clearly, this is a sign of racism on your part. You just want to peddle the white supremacist view. Now I don't care if wikien-l ends up with increased volume. That would be your fault for deliberately discarding the evidence I post and refusing to discuss any piece of evidence I post here. For you, a White doesn't have to give evidence while the stuff I post is discarded even if it is from mainstream sources. -Economist

Look. I agree that the sources you provide are good, but Wikipedia policy dictates that I side (a)with the majority of users and (b) against users who violate policy. Unfortunately, this means I left the article in its former state. If you wish to see anything of what you want in the article, I would advise against spamming the mailing lists as this will only generate animosity. Further, calling others racist does not help your cause. You've provided good evidence which is an excellent first step. I would now suggest waiting for others to provide evidence in their turn, or, if they cannot be convinced, try soliciting opinions from other users (perhaps an RfC?). Either way, take some time and try to see other ways to get your content into the article asides from useless revert wars. -Lommer | ^talk 06:12, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The evidence shows that the majority is wrong. Some of them even admitted that they had no idea about India. Each time one of them makes an outrageous remark, I am able to disprove it instantly. Why do you think that is possible? The most recent case was the claim of not having any limits on production of consumer goods. This is a naive view! All I needed to do was to look for the keyword scooters and quota and I know I would hit a result. I could have searched for television (oh yes, we needed licenses until the late 1980s even to own a television). I admit that I create animosity. I don't have the smooth-talking skills that you guys have, but I am strong on facts and have been the only one to have provided evidence. All the others simply refuse to do so because some of them know that they have none and others just get exploited since they know nothing about India. I am sorry to say this, but I don't think others care about evidence. They are here just to help their friends. They know to talk in a smooth manner and they can remain calm because they don't care for facts or evidence, so any point they manage to push into the article is seen as a victory for their propaganda by them. If they disagree, they should look at the evidence I've been posting the past few weeks and should also provide their own evidence.

[edit] Draft revisions

As Lommer suggested above, I'd like to see the following in the article; if people disagree with any of the points, please disagree on this page first. I have not been involved in this discussion before, but have created an account for myself, so everyone can be insulting if that's their thing.

Aside from all the non-controversial and stylistic changes ('her petulant husband'?):

1. I'd like to see a reference to the Goldman Sachs study, which can then be discussed on its merits. Failing that, I will delete the reference.

2. The Bhagwati remark, while entertaining, is out of place, and will be deleted, unless someone can come up with a compelling reason why a trade theorist should be quoted about economic development policy.

3. The convoluted paragraph on capital controls will have to be rewritten. I suggest:

Nehru's economics of state intervention and investment were conceived at a time when transfers of capital and technology important to India were not easily forthcoming from the developed world (which at the time also had plenty of state-sponsored capital controls.) As those transfers became easier, the system put in place to keep the domestic economy independent of them became a stumbling block.

4. Delete the sentence about the 'Soviet model' and 'Nehru-vintage economists' as irrelevant to a section on actual policy; perhaps replace in a separate section about 're-evaluation' or something.

5. The section on institutional legacy will have to be completely rewritten. 'Nehru inherited' institutions should be replaced with 'The British left behind'. There is stuff that should be added here about his commitment (or lack thereof) to elections uninfluenced by the Central state, and to State autonomy, as well as judicial and bureaucratic independence. That can perhaps be left for a little later. Naturally, the reference to 19th c. scientific institutions should be deleted as irrelevant. Also, I would rather hope there's a consensus that the reference to his 'family friends' the Mountbattens has to go, because however exalted the Nehru family was in Allahabad society, it is doubtful that the Windsors knew who they were.

6. A reference to Tibet should include his decision to give the Dalai Lama sanctuary and his support for the setting up of the Tibetan government-in-exile at Dharamsala.

7. Whatever he may have said about nuclear disarmament, he was not Prime Minister in 1946. I may be wrong here, perhaps the post existed even before Independence, but I would like sourcing of that.

8. I am not sure about the statement 'his books were more opinion than fact'. It sounds more opinion than fact to me.

9. The prevailing orthodoxy of the Britain of his youth was definitely not Fabian Socialism. The Labour party was not even the dominant opposition at the time. Reference will be deleted.

Hornplease 03:22, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

I agree with all the above proposed changes. Firebug 08:43, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

I have to disagree with points like #3. That is just POV pushing. We shouldn't be JUSTIFYING what Nehru did. We should just state what he did. Why justify it using Nehru's own justifications? I am sure all politicians justify their actions. Wikipedia should not be in the business of accepting them and peddling such propaganda.

Nobody will justify them. It is an explanation, which some will see as sufficient justification and others as insufficient, and therefore is NPOV, and relevant.Hornplease 05:55, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I also suggest that the article should present the following facts - (1) India's economy was state-controlled and still is to a large extent (2) It has a centrally planned economy (3) The central planning is inspired by the Soviet model and includes 5-year plans and a planning commission (4) The government was involved in all sorts of activities while private enterprise was all but banned. (5) Economic liberalization began in 1991.

For (1) There will be a discussion of what a 'mixed economy' is, as well as the soviet influence and the fact that it is now being liberalised. (4) is inaccurate. See edit above.Hornplease 05:55, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I have provided links for all the above. Apart from this page, also check the talk page of ZScout for links from various academic journals and conferences (including Yale and Harvard) and from Encyclopedia Brittanica.

Yet another suggestion - Firebug and Bhadani should also provide evidence. You can't have one standard for me and another for them. Either both sides provide evidence or I guess I will have to revert to an edit war. Trust me, it is futile to block me. I just have to turn off my modem and turn it on and someone else suffers! Also, that is not my intention - every time someone intervened, I have patiently provided evidence only to note to my dismay that it was just eye-candy on the part of the arbitrator. I suggest that they provide evidence now. And let us not get into POV pushing. Just state what the economy looked like. No need to give excuses why it happened. -Economist

I will response to your 'evidence' below. But remember this is a page on Nehru, not the economy in the 1950s, so there has to be some explanation for his policy decision. That is not POV. Response to your 'inputs' below, indented after each.Hornplease 05:55, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Inputs for use. Proof that India had a license raj introduced by Nehru: quote from a paper by a Harvard professor at http://ksghome.harvard.edu/~drodrik/Growth%20volume/DeLong-India.pdf - "This puts a bound on the growth-retarding effects of the "license raj" generated by prime minister Jawaharlal Nehru's attraction to Fabian socialism and central planning." What do you have to say to this? Is this a massive conspiracy too? Are you going to abuse this professor now as you have been abusing anyone who has pointed out that Nehru's central planning resulted in India being backward?

Fascinating. Read the paper as well as the abstract! In fact you havent even read the author's name! Its on Dani Rodrik's page, but its by Bradford deLong at Stanford, who isnt a development economist at all. And further, the full quote (fortunately I helped put this volume together for a conference) reads "The fact that pre-1990 India appears "normal," at least as far as the typical pattern of post-World War II economic growth is concerned, places limits on the size of the damage

done to Indian economic growth since World War II by the Nehru dynasty's attraction to Fabian socialism and central planning." - implying that the damage, if any, was NOT THAT BAD! Of course Bradford goes on to discuss why this might be so. I wish you had read more, it would save time.Hornplease 05:55, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

One more from a paper presented at Yale: http://www.econ.yale.edu/seminars/NEUDC03/shahe.pdf - After decades of lackluster performance under the all pervasive interventionist policy regime espoused after independence (the so-called ‘License Raj’), India embarked on a major economic liberalization program in 1991, triggered by a severe balance of payments crisis.

Your point being? That some people think the performance was lackluster? Sure. That the policy regime believed in intervention and regulation? That will be in the article, along with the caveat that much of it was put in place by Indira, not Nehru.Hornplease 05:55, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Yet another paper from Harvard website - http://www.cid.harvard.edu/hiid/662.pdf - The pre-independence experience was combined with a very clear inspiration from the experience of the socialist countries, in particular the Soviet Union, which was reflected in the speeches of the Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru and in the now famous Mahalonobis model which had many similarities to the work of Feldman for the first Soviet Five year plan (see Domar (1957))11.

Indeed. the Feldman and Harrod-Domar model were very influential and used by, among others, the Labour governemt of Britain in 1945. This should be mentioned. Nothing wrong with it. Just dont say that all the work inspired by the Feldman model and every planning board is Stalinist.Hornplease 05:55, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

From another academic paper - http://www.ndu.edu/library/n4/n035604L.pdf - Remnants of Nehru’s command economy haunt virtually every aspect of India’s reform program. Even after twelve years of progress, more than 40% of the country’s capital base remains in government hands.10

-Economist

Not surprising, as the government invested in capital-intensive industry, which most domestic private investors did not have the funds to do. Compare with France, 1960, with a similar figure. Also Stalinist? Sheesh. Just stop signing yourself 'economist' if you're not going to actually read the papers, ok?Hornplease 05:55, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

NOTICE FOR ECONOMIST: You've been blocked for 30 min for violating the 3RR rule, I like the sources you've provided, but you'll have to remain civil and not add controversial material to the article if you expect to get anywhere. -Lommer | ^talk 05:24, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I would like to point out that Hornplease is heavily pushing a POV. Nehru collaborated with the Chinese and helped them take over Tibet. To dwell on a point about taking away a country and letting Tibetans into India sounds as though he rescued them! On Point #4: It WAS the Societ model. I hope you aren't suggesting that all the sources that others have posted were making it up about his visit to: Soviet Union and being inspired by the model there???

I hope I have made it clear in my many remarks on this subject that attempting to emulate the Soviet growth miracle through planning does not make a givernment Stalinist any more than attempting to reduce tariff barriers to increase gains from trade makes it libertarians.Hornplease 06:02, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Naturally, the reference to 19th c. scientific institutions should be deleted as irrelevant. - That comment really made my jaw drop! The ONLY famous physicists India has produced, CV Raman (of the Raman effect fame), S.Chandrashekar (of the Chandrashekar limit fame), SN Bose (Bose-Einstein statistics) and JC Bose (the first person to make the radio even before Marconi did) were all from the pre-Nehruvian era. Raman, Bose and I think chandra too worked at the 19th century institution called Indian Centre for cultivation of science. That institute exists today! Bose institute is an early 20th century institute founded by the inventor of the radio, JC Bose. Indian Institute of Science, of which CV Raman was the director, and which is recognized as India's #1 scientific establishment even today, started operating in 1909 or a date close to that. It was conceptualized in the 1890s. You can't be serious about claiming that Nehruvian establishments brought science to India! If at all the Nehruvian establishments have anything to show in terms of results, it is ZILCH!!!!

Would you object instead to a statement saying that "technical education" was encouraged? Of course, as you point out, that has nothing to do with pure science.

Hornplease 06:02, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I would because it makes it seem that this very ordinary point was a distinct characteristic of Nehru's government. Technical education has existed from an era before Nehru too. We had both the modern schools as well as the schools dating from the pre-modern era. All overnments have encouraged them (including Nehru). Among the modern schools, Indian Institute of Science had technical education apart from science. Another example is what is today called the Birla Institute of Technology and Science (BITS, Pilani) which began in 1900s. It was famous as an engineering college much before Nehru's time and it was started by a businessman named Birla.

Hornplease's POV pushing - In a single stroke, Hornplease claims that India never had a centrally planed economy with private enterprise banned in almost all sectors. As "proof" he claims that the person who wrote that paper is not a "developmental economist" and since he is not a developmental economist, the planning commission did not exist!

Your claim that France and Britain too banned private enterprise and had a centrally planned economy is an outrageous claim.

How about YOU PROVIDE PROOF instead of sitting in an armchair and claiming that the entire world is in one massive conspiracy against you and that everyone at Stanford, Harvard, Oxford, Yale, PBS, BBC, Parliament of India, Indian National Congress, Communist Party of India, Forbes, Time, CNN etc., are part of one massive conspiracy? Go ahead and provide proof that France banned private enterprise like India did and so did Britain. Also provide proof that all these websites are in a conspiracy to defame you and Nehru was not inspired by Soviet Union.

Is a response necessary? Well, I've never been called a racist before. And I'm only here - and signed in, I usually edit anonymously - because I want to make sure that this page is NPOV. Further, I made that remark about Bradford to point out that you hadnt read beyond the abstract, which probably showed up in a google search for 'license-permit raj" or something. The planning commission exists, has existed since 1952, and has made several plans. It has not so far controlled the price system, set production quotas for consumer goods, or any of the things associated with Communist countries till 1989.

your claim is false and betrays a lack of understanding of India's economy. Setting production quotas for consumer goods was an inherent feature of indian economy. Don't worry, Nehruvian-Stalinists had a plan for the rest of us who were deprived of the goods - WAITING LISTS! Yes, even that concept of the Soviet Union made its presence in India.

http://www.rediff.com/business/1998/may/07dilip.htm - Planning Commission decreed the canalisation of the nation's not inconsiderable household sector savings into infrastructure projects (the temples of modern India) and severely restricted the production of consumer goods, especially durables, through the rigorous licence-permit-quota regime of yesteryear.

I pointed out that the White Paper on growth written for the Labour government of 1945 was inspired by the Feldman model. All the Feldman model - taught in every undergraduate economic growth course, including mine - says, is that growth depends on the infusion and productivity of capital. This inspired the various Plans of the USSR and China, which were all about increasing the availbility of capital. Mahalanobis' second Plan, which you mention, attempted to increase the availibility of capital by investing in heavy industry. This is not Stalinist. This is the public sector. All of Europe had it. Deal with it.

a public sector and bureaucratic red tape are not equivalent to banning private enterprise. This should be self-evident. I dont know why you say I said Britain and France did so. They did so as much as India banned it. (Which is to say, before you misread that as well, Not at all.)

I really dont think that the whole world is in a conspiracy against me. I fear that many of them would agree that I am summarising the situation accurately and neutrally. If, that is, they cared.

If you fail to make any fresh points on your next response, I will stop replying to you, as then you are not arguing in good faith. Cheers! Hornplease 06:20, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It has not so far controlled the price system, set production quotas for consumer goods, or any of the things associated with Communist countries till 1989.

I am sorry, but I was frustrated because I never elicited a response, but I always got blocked. You just do not seem to know about India. Whatever you say was true about India. Just search for license-permit-quota raj or license-raj or permit-raj and see the number of hits. The government gave licenses to a few cronies and ordered them on how many scooters to manufacture and how many biicycles to produce per year. Prices were arbitrary based on the whims of bureaucrats in the planning commission. They divided stuff into "necessities" and "luxuries" and priced the "luxuries" eexorbitantly. For example, sugar was listed as a "luxury." You seem to have seen the influx of the indian software engineers into USA and you just cannot believe what I say. Here is an example for you - http://www.ccsindia.org/gdas/reviews_india_unbound.htm - NEW YORK TIMES, MARCH 25 ... In one of the more eloquent expressions of this sentiment, he tells of a meeting at which the industrialist Rahul Bajaj is threatened with imprisonment for producing more scooters than permitted by his quota.

I simply cannot understand why you do this to us. We have to suffer the Communist economic system of having to stand in long lines in scorching heat in front of ration shops to get our quota of food, face arrests for indulging in economic activity and live in poverty because economic activity is banned, and when we want to just state the facts, we find people like you preventing us from stating the truth. You ask us for evidence, and when we gladly provide it, you shoot it down even if the source is Encyclopedia Brittanica. Why do you do this to us and propagate propaganda? Clearly, you are not familiar with India if you think that there were no limits on production, setting of prices and control of goods and services. What do you think the planning commission was for?

You wont get blocked, if you avoid making remarks like the suggestion that I am providing propaganda (I am not sure who for) or that I am not familiar with India. The license-permit-quota raj existed. If you check, I fancy you'll discover that I started the page here myself. ( at least I think I did.) That did mean that there was a certain amount of cronyism, in the case of licences, and price bands, which was what quotas are for. These were not arbitrary, and whim-based, and to say that is misleading and NPOV. To say that every country with crony capitalism was Stalinist would come as a shock to Suharto. To say that price bands are the same as decreeing how many window wipers each factory should produce would amaze most people. Hornplease 06:49, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Oh, and the planning commission was for allotting government expenditure efficiently between various parts of the economy, to ensure that expenditure on roads did not come after expenditure on petroleum refining, etc., to avoid bottlenecks. Its on the website, go look.Hornplease 06:52, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

We are not talking of crony capitalism here. We are talking of the government controlling the "commanding heights" of the economy and controlling all big industries and allowing only petty shopkeepers to be in the private sector. Of course, the shopkeepers have nothing stocked up in the shops because they need to get it from the government which produced only limited quantity of things. This idea itself came from Lenin who is credited by some sources with inventing the term "commanding heights." Private enterprise was banned and in a few cases where license was given, the government raided the companies if they dared produce above the limits set by the government. Suharto's economy was autocratic in the sense that he and his family controlled everything. In Nehruvian India, he tried to imitate the Stalinist system where the individual's family didn't control everything.

And yes, the planning commission says what its objectives are. That is not the point. The point is that such a system where a bunch of bureaucrats determine the direction of the economy existed! Your faith in having a bunch of Washington bureaucrats decide each activity of American life while banning all private ownership of businesses is touching!

For the last time, the 'commanding heights' policy is socialist, but not stalinist. cant we just agree on that being on the page? private enterprise was not banned, it was controlled. the equivalent is saying that forestry in the US is banned because the govt imposes environmenal controls. Saying it was banned is not only not NPOV, it is plain untrue. I am afraid there is nothing more than can be said. I suggest you think very hard about what compromises you are willing to make and see on the page. Hornplease 07:07, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Oh, and I dont think the Tatas, the Birlas the Godrrejs, the Mahindras, the Oswals, the Jhawars, and so on are really 'petty shopkeepers'. Hornplease 07:09, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

And yes, commanding heights is Leninist or Stalinist whichever way you want to see it. It was conceptualized by Lenin and implemented by stalin. Socialist in the Western sense means free enterprise is allowed and the government helps out in social security, healthcare and education. France and Britain banned private enterprise and gave licenses only to select cronies like India did? Are you dreaming?

OK, I think I'm going to have to give up soon. Either Im from india and indoctrinated, or Im learning on the fly, eh? I fancy if you read the things Ive said about Nehruvian socialism, youll discover that nowhere do I say that it was the correct decision, merely that it should be described properly and contextualised in the economic discourse of the time. Error 1: Socialist in the Western sense in the 1950s meant 'commanding heights' and nationalisation. See Clause 4. Error 2: the Bombay Club were not cronies of the government, they had in fact a separate, and rejected model for the economy. Error 3: I never said France and Britain banned public enterprise. About France, I said the government owned a great deal of capital in the 1950s, and about Britain, I said that nationalisation was accepted policy for the Left. If you arent willing to listen to reason - and I have devoted a few hours of time to convincing someone that it is increasingly clear I wouldnt have given time to otherwise, merely because this is Wikipedia - then I am just going to have to ignore any further comment, and revert any changes you make, after an explanation for others on this page. Hornplease 07:34, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

About 'socialism in the western sense'- go read the link to Clause 4, to understand the Labour Party's stated policy till 1994. About context, it is necessary, as I said earlier, if it is documented in what Nehru has stated about his view of the world, in Discovery of India and elsewhere. He admired Soviet growth, but thought the human costs were too high. He was a Fabian who believed in gradual, creeping socialism through government power. He was not alone in that; it was a popular view at the time. These are truths. Please read the above links to see that. That is all the contextualisation that is required, and none of it is mind-reading. None of it, again, suggests that anyone was right, just that a lot of people may have been wrong. Hornplease 06:33, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

In India, where we had 15 hours power cuts, an industrialist who wanted to set up a power plant was banned from doing so. In the process, over 1200 potential jobs were not created and 1200 families continued to live in poverty. Those who were willing to pay for the power and make themselves more comfortable were prevented from doing so. The industrialist lost too and his loss is loss to the nation, as he might have done other wonderful things with his entrepreneurship. Finally, the IDIOTIC government lost the revenue.

Again, nobody here, I suspect, believes in bureaucratic governance to the degree you seem to think we do. We merely want to report on it neutrally. Hornplease 06:33, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Anyone who thinks that free enterprise should be banned and falls for the claims of IDIOTIC bureaucrats that they were right is clearly mentally inferior. So you tell me, do you accept the reasons for government taking over the indian economy or do you believe in the potential of human beings who can create wealth when they live with the freedom to do so?

Se above. Nobody here thinks free enterprise should be banned. We edit on Wikipedia, for God's sake. If thats not free enterprise, what is? Hornplease 06:33, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Your threat that you will revert without explanations is an empty one because I am the only one who has given explanations and evidence. All you have done is claim that PBS, BBC, Chidambaram, Communist Party, Harvard University, Yale, Time, CNN, etc are in one massive conspiracy and the whole world is wrong while you alone are correct! Don't worry, you can ban me. After all, the only way you can have your way is by suppressing the truth using brute force. I will definitely start posting on wikien-l and increase the volume of posts containing evidence until the facts are reflected and there is no propaganda.

I'm aftaid I dont know what evidence you have for everyone else here thinking that these places are united against us, or who we are propagandists for (Nehru, long dead? Stalin?). All the quotes you have given us merely say that state controls did not permit India's economy to grow speedily until they were removed. Economic thinking - I refer you to Dani Rodrik's page at Harvard again, read the paper with Arvind Subramaniam at the IMF - suggests that India's growth spurt since the 1980s was built on infrastructure laid out earlier, as well as the fact that industries had been protected. But there is no need to mention that in the article either. The whole point is that the article is about Nehru, what his plans were, why he did them. In fact, I am growing to believe we dont need to hypothesise about the consequences at all, since it is so controversial. Hornplease 06:33, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] RfC on 67.121.*?

Unfortunately, it appears that an anoymous user with a dynamic IP assignment is making rather disruptive changes to both the article and the talk page. The extremely racist and personally abusive comments that were removed from talk repeatedly came from this block (but not from the same exact IP address as the latest stuff). Since the page was unblocked, a number of disruptive changes pushing the whole Nehru-Stalin nonsense were made, as well as a number of unsigned comments that are certainly on the border of personal attacks, if not quite outright such. However, there is a sprinkling of possibly useful content and citations mixed with the abusive tone. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 05:44, 2005 Jun 2 (UTC)

[edit] 3RR filed

Hopefully, this will result in a speedy, albeit short-term, block on the IP block of the vandal. If s/he comes back after that, please file again; my understanding is that each subsequent 3RR results in a longer period of disabled access (I don't actually know the exact rule though). Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 06:01, 2005 Jun 2 (UTC)

I could block it, but I don't think I will. He has (mostly) stopped calling people a racist, and some decent (if heated) arguing is going on. If someone else decides to block it, then it's their buisiness, not mine. -Lommer | ^talk 06:23, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

er, I hate to disagree, but he did just call me a racist again. Also, the argument is heated, perhaps, but I fear that I think, after his last response, that he hasnt been reading the things I've been saying. So not really 'decent' either. Hornplease 06:28, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Sigh. I know. But if he's persistent enough to come back after protecting the page for 10 days then I don't think a block will do much. Call me naive, but I think that the only way this will get solved is through discussion and compromise. At any rate, I'm going to bed, and I'd advise anyone else in the western hemisphere to do that too. -Lommer | ^talk 06:54, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

You got me right, sir. I am persistant. You overlook the point that I am hoping to resolve the issue through discussion and looking at facts. It is just that others are not interested in this. They keep pretending that the evidence I posted doesn't count and they never post any evidence. I am naturally frustrated. Why don't you agree to a rule of discussion that only those points with evidence should go in and this rule should apply to BOTH SIDES, not just me. And no POV pushing like guessing why Nehru did what he did. Just say what he did and said.

You are not trying to resolve this, you have not made a single suggestion that can be said to be a compromise. You are not posting evidence, all your so-called evidence points the other way. See the above post and rebuttal on Bradford deLong. And explaining without justifying belongs on a wikipedia article. Any article on Nazi antisemitism will mention that Hitler thought the Jews had betrayed Germany in WW1 without in the least justifying it. As I said earlier, think of a compromise. I suggested Nehruvian socialism, and a description without any borrowed terms, and the statement that private enterprise was subject to rigid controld, not banned. Hornplease 07:44, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

You are wrong. The only point of contention is whether India had/has a centrally planned economy based on the Soviet model. The answer is YES! All other discussions are secondary in nature. Seeking shelter in whether we should use that term 'Stalinism' is just an excuse to dodge the issue. Why pretend that India is closer to Britain or France when it is plain as day that it had a centrally planned economy (which is why you are unable to provide any evidence)?

The key characteristics of India's economy were the following:

It was a command economy, not on the lines of France, Sweden or Britain, but on the lines of erstwhile USSR.

It all but banned private enterprise except for cronies.

The state controlled banking, food distribution, manufacturing, telecommunications, transport and everything you can think of. A few industrialists who belong to the group that goes by the moniker of 'Bombay club' were the only ones who were given licenses to operate their factories.

Like in the USSR, the most coveted jobs in India were those of the bureaucrats! This was due to lack of any other opportunities.

Even the industrialists who were given licenses faced restrictions on production. There was a limit on how much of consumer goods they could produce.

Basic goods were divided into necessities and luxuries and it was a crime to produce anything that was banned. People used to get arrested and beaten mercilessly for trying to fill their bellies.

The reason I call others racists is that some white supremacists are propagating the theory that indians did not suffer due to the system, but are inherently inferior to the whites. These people are now actively spreading the message that India was never a command economy! This is an outrageous claim and it is clear that if the people were inferior as you claim, how come poverty decreased once liberalization began in 1991?

http://ignca.nic.in/ks_41005.htm has a speech by Rajiv Gandhi. I quote the releavnt part, "To attain these ends, we believe the State must control the commanding heights of the economy, and that self-reliance should be the first principle of development." It doesn't matter what excuses the government gives - whether to remove poverty, bring development or whatever. That is what is Marxist about it. In case you still didn't get it and think that these are legitimate reasons, all of what Marx recommended was to remove poverty and bring equality. And finally, the reasoning is not the point of contention. The point of contention is the existence of the Stalinist system.

You are right that it is not strictly Stalinist. There were no labor camps because the people accepted their grinding poverty as their fate. In that sense it was different. That is why we have the softer term, 'Nehruvian-Stalinism.' If you want, we can use the term 'Stalinism.'

That is why we have the softer term, 'Nehruvian-Stalinism.' There is no "we" unless you mean you and one right-wing blogger named Rajeev Srinivasan, as Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Nehruvian-Stalinism demonstrated. The term is a nonsensical neologism whose only purpose is damning by association.

Since I recognized the name, I searched for the name Rajeev Srinivasan to see if web searches somehow suppress the name. Looks like you did not even know that he is a columnist for Rediff, India's leading online news site! You keep displaying your ignorance again and again! If you are opposed to Nehruvian-Stalinism as it is a neologism, use Stalinist economy. That is proven because Nehru was inspired by the Soviet model and he aped USSR. Central planning, command economy, 5-year plans, ration shops, planning commission etc., are concepts of Lenin and Stalin.

Rajeev Srinivasan may write for rediff.com, but that is in itself no advertisement, as they have about twelve 'columnists', and they are definitely not India's leading online news site in terms of reliability. They have no reporters of their own! And this Srinivasan person himself is little more than India's answer to the Rush Limbaughs of the world. When somebody besides you and he start using this ridiculous phrase, if it appears in a newspaper or in a column from someone respectable, then we can talk again. Hornplease 05:51, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

You know, on going back and reading some more of Rajeev Srinivasan's blog, I wouldnt be at all surprised if this is the same guy, pushing his little neologism as far as he can get it. Hornplease 07:32, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Talk about the pot calling the kettle black -- though it might be more accurate to say that it's a case of the pot calling the snowfield black. Throwing up Googled references you haven't even read or understood (as Hornplease has demonstrated) shows that you haven't a clue about economics except your simple fanatical obsession about Nehru. Until you demonstrate an inkling of a clue of understanding what you're talking about rather than regurgitating the same simple-minded talking points and wildly ludicrous feints about "White supremacy", you're going to be reverted on sight by me and others. You're long past the point where any assumption of good faith makes the slightest bit of sense and it's clear that dynamite wouldn't dislodge a single fixed notion in your head. --Calton | Talk 04:53, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

India had ration shops, but not rationing. Ration shops existed to ensure everyone could buy staples at a fair price, and still exist to do just that. They are a misnomer in that sense.e India still has a planning commission, and there existed plans to direct government expenditure and to determine where private investment would be induced to go by tax-and-subsidy schemes. Nobody here disagrees with you on that. The point is that private enterprise was never banned, just controlled. Can we at least agree on that, along with the statement that industrialists and bureaucrats created a nexus over time? Hornplease 06:33, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

You are mistaken on 3 counts. Just as you believed that there were no production quotas and were wrong on that issue, you are wrong about there being no rationing. Food was rationed and larger families suffered. One of my schoolteachers who had a large family (11 children and the joke went around that he was a Muslim, but that oversees the sad reality that the government made him sufer) used part of our quota of wheat to feed his family. Buying sugar or rice elsewhere was called buying in the "black market." Shopkeepers who sold in the "black market" were mercilessly beaten. The second point on which you are mistaken is that you have bought into the concept of bureaucrats setting "fair prices." Not only does this give an incentive for bureaucrats to accept bribes and set prices according to the demands of the bribe giver (as it happened in India), it also misses the contradiction you live in. The government subsidizes farmers on the grounds that they would not get fair prices and get exploited if they sold in the open market and at the same time there is this claim that farmers would exploit others and set high prices if they sold in the open market! You can't have it both ways! Your faith in a system of bureaucrats being the best people to run the economy is touching, but that is not how things work. The third point where you are mistaken is about private enterprise not being banned. Command economy means that the government runs the show without competition in the heavy industries sector and a few licenses were given in select industries where the production quotas were determined by the government. The argument for licenses in the hands of a few cronies was that they needed to fill up in areas where the government hadn't invested. IOW, unlike in Europe, where public sectors were supposedly created to supplement in areas where the market had allegedly failed, it was the opposite in India. The governmenrt would OWN the major share of the economy and permit a few industrialists to supplement it in areas where it hadn't ventured. If you look at the statistics, you will see that a whopping 50% were in the "unorganized sector" (i.e., unemployed and desperately finding jobs as housemaids or sweepers for a few rupees). Of the remaining, the agriculture sector accounted for nearly 65% of the labor force (if 3% of the force got all revenues from the agricultural sector, their quality of life would have been decent. In short, it was grossly overstaffed due to the near absence of industries in the private sector). The public sector made up for most of the rest (nearly 30% of the work force). By the 1970s, Nehru's daughter Indira Gandhi had "nationalized" banking and mining too. The nationalization started with Nehru nationalizing the ailine industry (which existed in private hands and so the argument that the government was needed to invest in this sector is bogus). The nationalization of various industries continued after Nehru's death, but he gets credit for it because he was the one who first drew a timeframe for "nationalizing" (read grabbing private industries) major industries. It started off with a 10 year grace for the industrialists and one by one, they got knocked down. the ones with initiative managed to get Nehru to grant them licenses. Why do you find it hard to believe that at its peak, only 5% of the workforce was in private industry and this was the result of planning and directions from the government?

I'm sorry to get personal (though its not as if I hadnt had cause in this conversation, a hundred times over), but you're really remarkably ignorant even about things you claim to know. (1) Anyone selling rice outside ration shops was selling on the black market? I have never heard anything so absurd in my life. There was a black market- there always is when rationing is involved- but that was rice etc being SIPHONED AWAY from the public distribution system. There was ALWAYS rice available, better quality, much more expensive, on the open market. THe point of the ration system was to ensure that everyone had access to at least some rice. Your school teacher- and dont think I missed that disgusting crack about his religion, it would be nice if you stop calling me a racist given that I havent said or implied anything discriminatroy, and you very certainly have- was that he took some from your ration card or whatever because it was CHEAPER. Sheesh. There was rice available on the open market, there always was, and there would have been riots if anyone tried to ban it, like you claim.

(2) You are completely in the dark about how corruption operates, arent you? Who is going to bribe three secretary-level bureaucrats in the Food Ministry when it comes to setting prices? Lots of small farmers? Lots of small consumers? "Sorry sir, if you could just set the minimum support price a little higher/lower. Heres twenty rupees.". You think thats possible? There are lots of ways in which central planning leads to corruption, and you pick the one least likely, namely, the faulty setting of agricultural prices. For corruption, you need one great gainer, or a COHESIVE interest group with great gains to be made. I will refer you to Shleifer and Vishny, "Corruption", Quarterly Journal of Economics, 1993.

(3) You dont understand what the 'unorganised sector' is in India, either, do you? Every small-scale industry that made plastic buckets, every printing press, every guy employing thirty people making cosmetics or combs, that was all in the ;unorganised sector'. The 5% in the 'organised private sector' - and Id like to know which year this was, too, I cant find the figure anywhere - were people in large-scale industry. If you compare this to Taiwan at the same time, I strongly doubt you'll see any more than 10-12% in large-scale enterprises. And by your OWN admission, the only thing that Nehru nationalised was Air-India. And do you know how many countries nationalised their flag carriers in the 1950s? Again, take a cooling off period, and think very hard about why you are the ONLY person arguing this way. Lots of people are not happy about how the Indian economy developed - myself included - but you are the only person making these absurd, outrageous claims. Surely that must mean something to you? Hornplease 05:51, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Selling rice in the "black market" was not done only by ration shop owners, but also by farmers who grew the rice. The grow the rice and the government grabs it. They only "siphon" off what is theirs to begin with! Don't justify this.

We wont discuss that. If you knew what a minimum support price was, and why farmer's unions are fighting to keep it, you wouldnt be wasting out time. The point is the so-called black market was for food that was supposed to be in the PDS but had been illegaly siphoned away. It coexisted with the official ration system and the perfectly legal free market, with a price in-between those two. See the paper by Akerlof.Hornplease 03:27, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Off the top of my head wont do. Source! Hornplease 03:27, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I gave ONE example of corruption in the context of price rigging since the issue of price rigging came up.

Have you noticed that the so-called links you provide DO NOT SUPPORT YOUR VIEWPOINT? Have you read any of them? The worst they say is that the Indian economy stagnated under controls for forty years after Nehru, and even thats from some seriously NPOV sources. You are the ONLY person talking about Stalinism, you are the ONLY person who says private enterprise was banned, you are the ONLY person who says there were upper limits on rice purchases outside ration shops. NONE of the links say that. NOT ONE. So please think about how you intend to resolve this, because you cant fight every editor on Wikipedia sequentially forever, and unless you compromise, you will have to. Hornplease 17:14, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Both me and others who have posted links have posted extracts and the extracts clearly talk of a centrally planned economy on the lines of Soviet Union and how it was all pervading. Are you nuts or don't you read what is posted?

On a different note, shouldnt we start moving some of this to archive pages? I very much fear we're going to need a few. This is the toughest thing I have observed in a long time. Human didnt even come close to this for intransigence. Hornplease 06:59, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I think we should archive this. I'd prefer to keep this entire debacle on one page that people can ignore, but its getting so long now that maybe we shouldn't wait for it to be over. -Lommer | ^talk 19:45, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Argh, I'm sorry if I gave the wrong impression by using the word ignore - I mean to say that this discussion should be archived once the final version of the article is settled upon. That way people can view it if they wish, but are not forced to wade through the unorganized mess that it is right now. On another note, do you speak hindi or another language of the indian subcontinent? I was thinking that perhaps soliciting the input of users on those wikis might be warranted. -Lommer | ^talk 03:31, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Please look back. Nowhere did I see anyone claim that there was no planning commission, or that there was no central planning, or that there were no licenses. So do not accuse us of that, please. There was a maximum quota on food sold in ration shops, but that was because that was at sub-market prices, and that was therefore a protection of the price system. And right from the beginning everyone has said there was no ban on free enterprise. If you can point me in the direction of ONE mainstream source that says that there was a ban - NOT controls, NOT licenses, a flat-out ban such as is associated with soviet communism - then we will start taking you a little more seriously.

Hornplease 05:26, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Look at what you write! First there was no rationing, and now, "There was a maximum quota on food sold in ration shops, but that was because ..." and "that was therefore a protection..." STOP JUSTIFYING EVIL. Just state the facts and get rid of the justifications. Let people judge themselves. It is clear that you are here with an agenda - first to deny the truth and then to filibuster and justify why Nehru did what he did. It doesn't matter why he allegedly did what he did or what excuses he gave, all that matters is that he aped the Soviet system. Curiously, the reasons you give also coincide with the reasons that Stalin gave for his actions. It was to protect the people and he did something because... blah blah blah. We don't need no stinkin' guvment to "protect" us.

The whole idea of a command economy drawn up by Lenin was that the government would take over the "commanding heights" of the economy and allow only petty shopkeepers. Last time I used the term, it didn't strike a chord. That is not surprising considering the ignorance of people here. "petty" is a commie word. I am just using their verbiage while describing their idiotic ideas.

You ever heard of Rajaji, Patel, Piloo Mody and Minoo Masani? I bet you haven't. I can also safely tell you that you must have heard of Patel only from govt propaganda, and you never knew he had an economic policy. This group stalled nationalization and did what they could. The idiot Nehru wanted to destroy India completely, something he managed after Patel died. Once Patel died, the ban on violent Communists was off, and the mentally inferior idea of "socialistic pattern of society" was foisted on us. The very next five year plan after Patel's death saw the Soviet Model taking over the country. Later, other leaders formed the Swatantra Party to oppose the REATRDED ideas of Stalin and Lenin.

Patel did not have an original economic policy. In fact, he had practically no policy, and was probabl too ill by Independence to think of one. Piloo Mody and Minoo Masani? are these the best names you could come up with? I could give you a dozen others. As for CRR, please go elsewhere and check who edits his article. I am working on an article for the Swatantra Party as well. So dont worry, if you LEAVE AND GO AWAY, wikipedia will be in good hands. Hornplease 17:14, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

When Stalin kicked the bucket, Nehru profusely praised him, but Rajaji observed in a sarcastic tone, "Death is the common end of everyone. Things will go on. The gap will be filled soon." http://www.hinduonnet.com/thehindu/2003/03/08/stories/2003030800790900.htm

Rajaji could afford to cay that. He was out of the government. Hornplease 17:14, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Your ignorance shows. Rajaji was not out of the government. Rajaji was the Chief Minister of Madras state at that time. As a leading statesman, it was very bold of him to make this statement.

I think its amply clear why you shouldnt be permitted to touch this article without discussing it here. To think you had the nerve to call me and Lommer and everybody else a racist, when you have in quick succession, shown evidence of contempt and disgust for Muslims and bisexuals. And if you are silly enough to believe that determining who would be PM of India was upto Lord Mountbatten, you must be smoking something very strong. Finally, who ever claimed Patel was chosen as leader? Source that claim. Hornplease 17:14, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Why are you trying to suppress the fact that Nehru aped the Soviet model in India?

Those who try to draw parallels between Britain or France and India are truly idiots who do not understand the difference between Keynes and Marx. France and Britain were following Keynesian policies, Nehru implemented Marxist policies.

HAve you read Clause 4 yet? Have you? Why is that silly line in boldface? Do you think the Labour government of 1945's primary economic inspiration was Keynes? Read Fabian Socialism, [[Labour Party, Clause 4 and return here. Better

Looks like you are clueless about Britain too! Keynes was very much a member of the Fabian Society and helped them as well as the Labour Party with his foolish ideas.

still, don't. Don't you have a life? I was drawn here when this article was first RFCed, and thanks to this disagreement I missed out on the Wikiproject on Ancient Rome. I want to have this settled, and a compromise reached. Do you think you could please think about how much you are willing to compromise? .Hornplease 17:14, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

A compromise involves two sides. I suggest you read through the links I have given and agree to the following:

(1) Nehru made India into a centrally planned economy.

(2) Nehru was inspired by the economy of Stalinist USSR.

(3) The reason for continued poverty was stifling the free enterprise system.

(4) A system called license-raj existed and only a handful of cronies were given licenses to operate big enterprises.

(5) Production limits on consumer goods and rationing of food through government run ration shops existed.

Which of the above points do you want me to compromise on? And why?

Wonderful, a response. (1) is acceptable. the link on planning will take care of that. About (2) there is already a mention in the article in the current form about him being impressed with Soviet economic growth. about (3), I dont think that is required in the article, as it is controversial, and it requires us to talk about things that happen after Nehri is long dead. So lets leave it out altogether. About (4)I am happy to mention that the system came to be known as the license-permit raj. 'Handful of cronies' is POV, I would put it as 'those currently operating were allowed to continue', so lets leave it out altogether. About (5) Production controls is more correct than production limits, and lets just say that govt ration shops existed, which is truth, and we both agree on. How's that? I have compromised as far as I can without bending the truth as I see it. Hornplease 03:42, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Unhinged

Nehru was a disgusting moron who had sexual relationship with Louis Mountbaten as well as his wife Edwina Mountbatten, and that is why he was given control of India despite Patel being chosen as the leader.

The above quote should be left as a clear demonstration of how unhinged User:LibertarianAnarchist (as the anonymous editor seems have once been known) really is, and why "revert on sight" for him and his sockpuppets is the best and easiest policy. --Calton | Talk 16:48, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Your conspiracy theories sure get interesting! I am everybody whom you had a dispute with, or everyone you have a disagreement with you is my sockpuppet! Once again, you ought to stick to reading what's actually on the screen instead of making things up -- or maybe you're listening too closely to the voices in your head or something, I dunno. In any case, the single sentence I quoted has at least three outright falsehoods, and is too tiresome to bother with: I will note that my source is your old talk page (User talk:LibertarianAnarchist). I took a little time to compile a list of some of the IPs/User Names you seem to be using, just in case anyone wants to see your editing pattern at work: User:Calton/Watchlist.

That he was a bisexual is a well known [sic] fact. Easy enough to prove, then. And from an actual book, please, not from one of your favorite frootbat blogger/columnists. --Calton | Talk 01:48, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Staley Wolpert, a leading historian on India, wrote about this. That's nice. Then you won't mind providing the actual reference to the bisexuality and sleeping with Lord Mountbatten instead of just name-dropping and hand-waving? Given your track record of distorting/misunderstanding/outright lying about the references you keep Googling up, you'll pardon me if I'd like to see some, you know, actual proof you didn't distort or make it up. --Calton | Talk 05:03, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I really don't know what to do in this situation. I said : "The worst they say is that the Indian economy stagnated under controls for forty years after Nehru, and even thats from some seriously NPOV sources. You are the ONLY person talking about Stalinism, you are the ONLY person who says private enterprise was banned, you are the ONLY person who says there were upper limits on rice purchases outside ration shops. NONE of the links say that." I said:"Nowhere did I see anyone claim that there was no planning commission, or that there was no central planning, or that there were no licenses."

His response: "According to you, Encyclopedia Brittanica hatched a cunning conspiracy with professors at Harvard University, PBS, Parliament of India, Chidambaram (he is the Finance Minister of India since your inferior brains is unlikely to know that), Communist Party of India, CIA, TIME, and many others hatched a cunning conspiracy to spread the "falsehood" that India has a centrally planned economy!".

I know I am supposed to try and reason with the guy, but one week and he hasnt even responded to a single of my efforts to find a compromise. This is where Wikipedia is at its weakest, with a insane, uncivil, single-issue POV-pushing anon with, clearly, no life and other interests whatsoever. A case crying out for some kind of editing restriction, but, I dont think I have the energy left to RFC him. I know thats what he was hoping for, but I cant help it. Hornplease 03:27, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Reasoning power assumes that you will change your view when provided with data, but you are obstinate and adamantly insist that the following sources are wrong:

Encyclopedia Brittanica

Parliament of India

Communist Party of India (Marxist)

Finance Minister of India in the Congress government, P.Chidambaram

Harvard University professors

Yale University professors

Public Broadcasting Service

Time Magazine

CNN

BBC

The Hindu

Times of India

Forbes Magazine

Historian Paul Johnson

Rediff on The Net (which is supposedly a blog according to you!)

The New York Times

Under-Secretary General of United Nations and Nehru's biographer and admirer, Shashi Tharoor

Historian and India expert, Stanley Wolpert

Wall Street Journal

Los Angeles Times

Newsweek

India Today

Journal of Economics and Finance

And many more sources!

Not one of those things has backed your claims. Of course they wouldnt, because your claims are wrong. Except for rediff.com's mad rightwing shock-jock.Hornplease And in heaven's name, if you are going to incorrectly throw around the poor EB's name three times a day, its spelt "Britannica." That was really getting on my nerves. Hornplease

[edit] End this Debate

Ok, despite my best intentions to remain impartial, this debate has gotten to me. I've read through the sources and arguments above, and I'm afraid I have to agree that the Nehru-stalinist comments have no place in this article. So what I'd like to propose is this:

I unprotect the article as its been protected for way too long.
If anyone re-adds the Nehru-stalinist content word-for-word or violates any other wikipedia policy, they will be agressively blocked. If they switch IPs, then an entire subnet block may be neccesary (though undesirable).
Every effort should be made to incorporate the suggestions above into the article if both sides agreed to them. Even if one side gets blocked, the other side should make an effort to include their material that they agree with.
If everyone behaves, noone gets blocked

I'd love to act unilaterally on this - but wikipedia is a democracy and as a fairly new admin I don't want to abuse power. So, if you approve of this, identify yourself below. If one side has clear support, that's what I'll go with. I have little doubt as to how this will play out, but we do have to go through the motions. -Lommer | ^talk 04:25, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Ok, as of now, I think we have consensus, so I'll unprotect the page. Here's to hoping it works. -Lommer | ^talk 17:10, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Approve

Hornplease 04:47, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Firebug 08:46, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC) Please. I'm sick of this nonsense and all the personal insults these anonymous POV-pushers have been posting here.
Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 05:49, 2005 Jun 5 (UTC) (except Wikipedia is not a democracy :-))
This is great! Here is the deal which both of us will be happy with. I shall rewrite the stuff (it won't be verbatim) and state all the points from various sources. Since they actually support your view, you too will be happy!!! The points that will go into the rewritten piece will be exactly those points posted on this page. No one will be allowed to add anything that was not posted on

this discussion page.

Oppose

sign here

Comment I didnt actually want to wind up as one 'side' in this thing, but I suppose I have. Anyway, I am perfectly happy making every effort to put any compromises in. Hornplease 04:47, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Nah, thanks Hornplease. The side of reason and neutrality is the right side, and the one you've taken. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters

Hey, I agree with you. All those links actually support your viewpoint! So I'm just going to rewrite the article with quotes from all the sites that were quoted here and since they support you, just be happy and stop arguing.

That is not what we agreed. Discuss here first, please. If rewriting, post here first, please. Also, if you have any objections aside from (3) to the original emendations I mafe above, please let me know, because I'm going to make those changes soon, and get out of here.

In below, in bold, are the comments on your selective quoting: Hornplease 18:27, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

You go off on a tangent by trying to discuss motives. For me, it has been a tremendous effort to get you to even agree that Nehru made India into a command economy on the lines of Soviet Union. The "selective" quoting was done to prove to you the existence of a centrally planned ecponomy on the lines of Soviet Union and that the architect of that idiocy was Nehru. Nothing more than that was intended by the selective. You have simply been resisting that India's command economy even existed.

I do not object to a statement that (a) Nehru was impressed with Soviet growth and (b) Nehru decided that a centrally planned economy would be best for India. Hornplease 21:30, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Just as you want me to source every point, I don't think I am going to allow you to write a single sentence without giving me evidence here first. Just as you dismiss Paul Johnson, I will dismiss any source that editorializes in favor of Communism or one of its variants. Fair is fair, either get rid of all editorializing or keep critical remarks too.

Perfectly fine. What editorializing? Where did any of us editorialize? We havent even written anything yet. Hornplease 21:30, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I will not accept stating opinions as facts. I am very clear about it. You are not going to praise Nehru or justify his actions. You can state his actions without justifications.

I am going to prepare a write-up and post it here. It will have points about inspiration from Soviets, planned economy, names of people those who supported it and those who opposed it when it came into being, that Indians lived in poverty, and that things improved after the liberalization that started in 1991.

And it will be edited, with input from me and the others, as well as your own. Please continue to be engaged in the process. However, I do not think that the fact that Indians lived in poverty because of it is uncontroversial so please leave that out. That can be discussed on the Indian economy page. It is controversial - please note that on the PBS debate you quote, Manmohan Singh and Meghnad Desai do not agree. Hornplease 21:30, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Fair enough to not state that Indians lived in poverty because of Nehruvian system, but we can point out that the statndard of living improved after liberalization began in 1991. That is a fact none can dispute. The state of prosperity in India during Nehruvian times should also be stated. No need to make the cause and effect connection.

For you to dismiss the BJP MP and accept Chidambaram on the same point is a bit stupid. It just shows your prejudices. All I did was to give multiple sources ranging from the Communist to the right-wing Christian and a person who belongs to a party that panders to Muslims and is the inheritor of Nehru's work to a BJP MP.

Its not really stupid, as one is Finance minister talking about the economy in general, and the other is some BJP MP talking about a very specific interaction between Mahalonobis and Nehru. Thats why, not because of anything else. Hornplease 21:30, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

To be fair, Chidambaram is not an economist and does not understand economics. He is a tax lawyer and hasn't figured out that he needs to open up the economy and all he does is shuffle around taxes and bring in new tax laws every time he has an opportunity to present the budget. A Washington Post reporter who interviewed him (search for Cooper, I forget his first name) was underwhelmed because Chidambaram gave a laundry list of bureaucratic things to do instead of talking about policy and economics.

As for Manmohan Singh, the less said the better. He spent his entire career as a socialist economist and advised the socialist governments for over 25 years and helped formulate socialist policies. In the 1991 government, it was PV Narasimha Rao who deserves credit for setting the ball rolling in opening up the economy. MMS was an idiot and he is proving himself to be a puppet right now. He is good at taking orders and he did that when PVN was the Prime Minister.

You will not have the sole right to dismiss sources as unreliable. I will decide too. If Gurcharan Das and Paul Johnson can be dismissed along with Harvard scholars, I too will shoot down any suggestion in your favor.

I never dismissed the 'Harvard scholars'. For the last time, Bradford deLong is at Stanford, and that paper says that the Nehruvian 'growth penalty' is overstated. Hornplease 21:30, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Actually, DeLong is at UC Berkeley. See his blog for updates. --Calton | Talk 05:07, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Berkeley, then. From here on the East Coast, its easy to get the two mixed up. Hornplease

If you show that you are intransigent, I will revert to the Nehruvian-Stalinist version. I think that is fair. It is not that you always get to write, while I just have to supply a few words here and there. This time, I am going to write it up.

Please! please write it up, post it here, and participate in the editing process calmly. !!!!

Proposed points (since all these actually support your views):
- Can we please go back to the five things you suggested above? Talk in that context? Hornplease 18:27, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

http://parliamentofindia.nic.in/ls/lsdeb/ls10/ses1/1430079107.htm Nehru was deeply impressed with the Chinese economic advance. Nehru was told that the Chinese Plan was based on the Russian Plan which was based on Feldman model. On his return to India, Mr. Nehru called his Economic Adviser Mr. Mahalanobis and asked him to prepare the Second Five Year Plan on the lines of the Soviet model and the Chinese model.

A speech by some unknown BJP MP does not count as a reliable source. Hornplease 18:27, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/commandingheights/shared/minitext/ufd_indiaplanning_full.html#meghnaddesai P. CHIDAMBARAM: The government of the day was greatly influenced by Soviet central planning. It appeared to be an alternative model. We were fascinated by the idea that everybody can share in the prosperity and wealth, and that poverty would be abolished, and that the state can provide virtually everything to all the people.

Perfectly acceptable. There is already a line in the article thats states "Nehru was deeply impressed by the economic growth achieved by the Soviet Union under central planning." Leave that as it is. Hornplease 18:27, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

http://www.ccsindia.org/gdas/reviews_india_unbound.htm - NEW YORK TIMES, MARCH 25 ... In one of the more eloquent expressions of this sentiment, he tells of a meeting at which the industrialist Rahul Bajaj is threatened with imprisonment for producing more scooters than permitted by his quota.

(a) Gurcharan Singh is not a particularly reliable or even unbiased source.(b) The story is misquoted. Check the PBS page above. From there: P. CHIDAMBARAM: If your capacity was limited, say, to producing 100,000 cycles a year and there was an excise duty on cycles, if you produced one cycle more than the capacity you [had] to pay a higher duty, because you were exceeding your capacity. So there were tax slabs, and he was refusing to pay at the higher rate. If the story's in, that goes in as well. So leave that story, dated well after Nehru's death, out. Hornplease 18:27, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

http://pd.cpim.org/2004/0815/08152004_surjeet.htm The spate of plans prepared in the late 1930s and early 1940s, including the official Congress plan prepared by a committee under Nehru, were directly influenced by the roaring success of the Soviet planning process.

Do we have to quote the Communist Party of India? See above, there is already a line stating that he was greatly inspired or whatever. Hornplease 18:27, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

http://www.hinduonnet.com/thehindu/thscrip/print.pl?file=2005031700120800.htm&date=2005/03/17/&prd=bl& The emphasis on the state occupying the `commanding heights' of the economy in the Second Plan reflected Nehru's fascination for the great economic strides that the Soviet Union had made under planning. Nehru, it seems from my own interaction in late 1964 with Dr B. B. Mishra, the author of the famous book on the Indian middle-classes, was influenced in this regard by the communications that he had received from M. N. Roy, who was then in the Soviet Union and was reportedly in close contact with Lenin and Trotsky.

Nehru 'it seems' and 'was influenced'.. too vague. No other record exists of regular communication between him and MN Roy, who was politically opposed to him as the leader of the Communusts. Leave it out, this is some old guy reminiscing in print. Hornplease 18:27, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

http://www.frontlineonnet.com/fl1526/15261180.htm Non-alignment became viable only because of Nehru's distrust of free-market capitalism, a certain commitment to equality, an admiration for state planning, and, globally, the existence of the Soviet Union as a countervailing force to the Western bloc.

See above. Hornplease 18:27, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

http://www.forbes.com/columnists/free_forbes/2004/0621/041.html Under the socialist regime of Jawaharlal Nehru and his family successors the state was intolerant, restrictive and grotesquely bureaucratic. That has largely changed (though much bureaucracy remains), and the natural tolerance of the Hindu mind-set has replaced quasi-Marxist rigidity.

Paul Johnson! You quote Paul Johnson! Not an expert. POV. Not a peer-reviewed article. What else do you want? Besides, there will be a line on the license permit raj. Hornplease 18:27, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

http://ksghome.harvard.edu/~drodrik/Growth%20volume/DeLong-India.pdf - "This puts a bound on the growth-retarding effects of the "license raj" generated by prime minister Jawaharlal Nehru's attraction to Fabian socialism and central planning."

Did you even bother to read my remarks on this paper above? Did you even read what your own extract said? It puts a bound on.... , or, it demonstrates the limits of. This article is about how India did not do as badly because of state controls as people expected. Are you sure you want to quote it? Hornplease 18:27, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

http://www.econ.yale.edu/seminars/NEUDC03/shahe.pdf - After decades of lackluster performance under the all pervasive interventionist policy regime espoused after independence (the so-called ‘License Raj’), India embarked on a major economic liberalization program in 1991, triggered by a severe balance of payments crisis. Already agreed, a line saying that the system of controls put in place by Nehru grew to be called teh license permit raj. Hornplease 18:27, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

http://www.cid.harvard.edu/hiid/662.pdf - The pre-independence experience was combined with a very clear inspiration from the experience of the socialist countries, in particular the Soviet Union, which was reflected in the speeches of the Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru and in the now famous Mahalonobis model which had many similarities to the work of Feldman for the first Soviet Five year plan (see Domar (1957))11.

All growth economics, including the Solow Model which is the basis of study of long term grwoth today, is based on the Feld'man model. Not informative. Inspiration provided by USSR already mentioned, agreed upon. See above. Hornplease 18:27, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

http://www.ndu.edu/library/n4/n035604L.pdf - Remnants of Nehru’s command economy haunt virtually every aspect of India’s reform program. Even after twelve years of progress, more than 40% of the country’s capital base remains in government hands.10

Excerpts from Britannica -

From the sub section titled "political apprenticeship" under Jawaharlal Nehru

Though vaguely inclined toward Socialism, Nehru's radicalism had set in no definite mold. The watershed in his political and economic thinking was his tour of Europe and the Soviet Union during 1926–27. Nehru's real interest in Marxism and his Socialist pattern of thought stem from that tour, even though it did not appreciably increase his knowledge of Communist theory and practice. His subsequent sojourns in prison enabled him to study Marxism in more depth. Interested in its ideas, but repelled by some of its methods, he could never bring himself to accept Karl Marx's writings as revealed scripture. Yet from then on, the yardstick of his economic thinking remained Marxist, adjusted, where necessary, to Indian conditions.

From the section The Nehru era, 1947–64 (sub section Economic planning and development)

As a Fabian Socialist, Nehru had great faith in economic planning and personally chaired his government's Planning Commission. India's first five-year plan was launched in 1951,...

'Wonderful. Interested in socialism, refusing to accept Marx as scripture, great faith in planning. a Fabian. All that can be in there. Hornplease 18:27, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

These quotes were a slight step backward. Can you note what I said about them, ,which ones are OK, which arent, and then put an actual draft of the things you would like changed?

All comments in bold by Hornplease 18:22, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

From the section on PV Narasimha Rao

After Rajiv Gandhi's assassination in May 1991, the Congress (I) Party chose Rao as its leader, and he became India's ninth prime minister after the general elections in June. Rao almost immediately began efforts to restructure India's economy by converting the inefficient quasi-socialist structure left by Jawaharlal Nehru and the Gandhis into a free-market system. His program involved cutting government regulations and red tape, abandoning subsidies and fixed prices, and privatizing state-run industries. These efforts to liberalize the economy spurred industrial growth and foreign investment,...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/the_economy/322479.stm - Since the early 1990s India has been liberalising its former state-controlled economy and is now seen as a potentially lucrative emerging market.

http://www.time.com/time/asia/magazine/article/0,13673,501031208-552153,00.html - But, as Tharoor points out, even during Nehru's own lifetime, his halo began to fade. His concentration on industrialization, rather than reforming the primitive agricultural sector, led to food shortages by the late 1950s. The state-controlled economy bred corruption and stagnation. ... A good part of Nehru's India, Tharoor notes, is gone already. Socialism is being slowly dismantled. The result has been a rapid acceleration in growth and prosperity—ammunition for those who would like to dismiss Nehru's legacy altogether.

[edit] A Request

Please don't sneak in fraudulent claims like he was for capitalism. He was AGAINST capitalism and has spoken against private property rights. His most important legacy is the 'Avadi Resolution' that called for a 'socialistic pattern of society.' The quote on human costs is unsourced and a Google search shows only Wikipedia and other sources that have downloaded from Wikipedia. You are going to be held to the same standards now. It fails the google test.

Nobody will sneak in fraudulent claims. The google test can hardly be applied to quotes from books! (1) He was as against/for communism and against/for capitalism as were all Fabian socialists. That is all that requires to be said in an article, together with a link to the article on the Fabians. (2) What his 'most improtant' legacy was is POV, and we dont need to speculate about that. (3) The 'human costs' quote, IIRC, is from Glimpses of World History. The Britannica quote above says "Interested in its ideas, but repelled by some of its methods" about Soviet Communism. So we can be quite clear and NPOV about what his attitude was. Please source the speech against private property per se, and not against the concentration of economic power, two completely different things. Hornplease 22:08, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

He was not against Communism. In fact, one of his quotes was that only one of socialism or capitalism can succeed. I can give you a pointer to this one, but I am unable to dig out the actual quote now. It appeared in the 50 years ago section of Deccan Herald in 2000 or 2001. I will definitely source the speech on private property. I have it with me in my notes and I will do so later tonight. It was a debate he had with a leader of the Chamber of Commerce at Madras. As for the Avadi Resolution, yes, that was a watershed event and decided India's economic policy for decades to come. Let us not pretend it was not so.

(1)Socialism is not the same thing as communism. This has been said before, and nobody will permit you to imply something like that in a wikipedia article. Please compromise, say that he was a Fabian socialist, which is the truth, and link to the article so people can make up their own mind? (2) The Avadi Resolution was an important event. Is it his most important legacy? Over respect for election results, a commitment to secularism etc etc? I dont know. People have opinions, and thats all. So leave out the 'most important'. Merely say he was a Fabian, he was inspired by Soviet growth, while mistrusting the methods, believed in planning, and set up the planning commission that imposed controls on private enterprise and arranged for investment in heavy, import-substituting industry. Hornplease 22:28, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

All the above is correct except for the clause about distrust of the methods. Nehru spoke

All that I expect is that 'distrust of methods' and 'speaking out against human costs' be put in the article. 'Distrust of methods' is in the Britannica quote you have posted above. 'Human costs unpayable' is in Glimpses and again in the introduction to MR Masani's Soviet Sidelights. You yourself have said he spoke out against the human costs. The point is that if you say 'impressed by Soviet growth' you have to specify that he saw what was good - the result - and had an opinion about what was bad as well. Thanks. Hornplease 04:04, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

against the human costs in the social sector, but he had himself asked others not to use that as an excuse to shoot down the economic philosophy on which Soviet Union was based. We should have a separate section where we present his social views - the section on economy should focus on economy. The section on foreign policy might be an apt place for Nehru's criticism of the Soviet cruelties. I think we should postpone discussion on Foreign Policy for now. Trust me, it is going to be as contentious as this one. His view on Korean war, support of "Red China" in that war, persistent demands that China be admitted to UN, giving away Tibet, being the only non-aligned country to vote with USSR on Hungary's invasion, setting up NAM with other dictatorships, his admiration for Hitler and his relationship with Nazi Germany where he sent his wife to recuperate when she was ill, etc., will have to go in there. I will not make any claims without sourcing. I can promise you on that one. The positive side of his foreign policy was that he genuinely wanted peace despite all the above and sincerely believed that Western imperialism and capitalism were responsible for wars around the world and definitely spoke out against wars.

Source for his views on private enterprise: http://www.hinduonnet.com/thehindu/2002/03/30/stories/2002033000050800.htm

"The Prime Minister said that he would not concede the right of private enterprise as being inseparable from democracy. Such an approach as he could see it was utterly out of date, and no democracy could guarantee this right."

All he says there is that he believes that the right to private property is not a fundamental right, it isnt the same thing as a democracy. The two things are not identical. THat was his view. If you want it as part of the article, fine, I really cant see anyone thinking of that definitional statement as informative, though. Hornplease 04:04, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I have a better source, but unfortunately, I cannot reveal it as I intend to use it in a more formal setting. This one is good enough though. This was the prevailing view in India till 1991 - the state would run businesses and if at all private enterprises were allowed (i.e., given licenses), they would merely supplement the state in areas public sectors weren't set up. Even in 1991, the opening up of the economy was seen as a conspiracy to sell India to MNCs! An aside - please don't give credit to that idiot MMS who sang paeans about socialism when he was in the planning commission. It is Narasimha Rao who deserves credit for opening up the economy.

Not interested in 1991. I said before, lets stick to Nehru and what happened pre-1964, not try and second-guess with hindsight, ok? Thats no better than editorialising. Hornplease 04:04, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Okay, fine. We will drop the reference to 1991 and just say that India had poverty, infant mortality, unemployment and the like.

I quote again from EB - Yet from then on, the yardstick of his economic thinking remained Marxist, adjusted, where necessary, to Indian conditions. That info has to go in.

Ok lets stick with Nehru. THis idea that he wasn't a communist bastardo is idiotic. In fact he shut up Minoo Masani when he told everybody about the bloody evil things the Soviets were doing http://www.liberalsindia.com/freedomfirst/FFLatest.html So lets no pretend that Nehru did not like sucking communist dick. He loved to suck it. That's we he shut people up who discussed communist attrocities. Thanks to him communists were able freely slaughter people and he successfully impoverished India. What a remarkable achievement

[edit] Don't just revert

This most recent unprotection is turning into a revert-war AGAIN! If something is added to the page that you don't like or you feel isn't completely NPOV, please don't just revert it. Either try to modify the most recent addition to be more in line with what you feel is appropriate, or if you do choose to revert it, try to add something along the lines of what it said so that we can at least move forward slowly. Please don't just let this lapse into a revert stalemate where no progress is made and the page just ends up protected again. -Lommer | ^talk 01:08, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

P.S. for 67.121.92.246, if you revert again, you'll have violated 3RR. I don't like this because you're at least making edits but thats the way it is. If you try rewording your content less controversially perhaps it won't get reverted. If you show patience and make an honest effort, it'll reflect very well on you and poorly on those who just revert your work. -Lommer | ^talk 01:19, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

67.121.92.246, in order to avoid reversion-on-sight by some very angry people, please make your suggested edits here first, so we can agree on them. As you can see the process is working, if you give it a chance. Hornplease 04:10, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I didn't revert, but made corrections. I changed mixed economy to planned economy. It is a lie to avoid the term "planned economy". Nehru's was a planned economy. His fascination was with planning and the Soviet model.

[edit] Removing personal insults

I will go through momentarily, and remove all the posts from our anonymous vandal (67.121.*) that are direct personal insults. This is per Wikipedia:Remove_personal_attacks. Not sure how much of the POV vandal's material this will leave; but getting rid of personal attacks is more important than maintaining continuity. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 15:56, 2005 Jun 9 (UTC)

Goodbye! I am not going to fight for getting facts across (...personal attack...). Since you have ended the discussion by refusing to allow me to even place the facts here, it is pointless to even attempt discussing anything with you. After all, you did not even know that India had institutions like Birla Engineering College, Bose Institute, Indian Association for Cultivation of Science and Indian Institute of Science. (...personal attack...). You even lie that India was not a planned economy under Nehru. (...personal attack...) made you learn everything from me in the course of this discussion. (...personal attack...), you did not know about production limits, planning commission and food rationing. I will not waste my time on this page anymore.

More selectively removed only the personal attacks from the previous 67.121.* comment.

Obviously, I've made an effort in my abridgements to leave anything of actual content by 67.121.*, removing only the personal attack violations. Not that I much agree with the content s/he alleges, but as long as it is not personal attack, it should be retained on the talk page. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 03:34, 2005 Jun 10 (UTC)

[edit] Please lock page at non-67.121 version

Unfortunately, I think it is necessary to lock the page again to prevent the ongoing vandalism (but definitely at a version last edited by someone other than the vandal). Perhaps Lommer or another admin would do that. I've been trying to improve the tone of several section—in part to give better weight to a more reasonable version of the communist/Stalinist meme, but each time I change something (often just for better grammar and word choice, mostly not anything of political or factual content even), I find the page reverted back to the same earlier version of "Nehru is Stalin" rambling. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 04:14, 2005 Jun 10 (UTC)

Blech. I'd gotten to hoping that this had all blown over in the past few days. I haven't been watching that closely lately and I'm sorry I missed the latest spat and couldn't protect it earlier. I'll be paying attention this weekend though. -Lommer | ^talk 22:57, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I reported our friend 67.121.* as 3RR (actually nine reversions). An admin quickly blocked the IP, but then our friend immediately created a sockpuppet, Economist123. That sockpuppet was then blocked too. But I think our friend managed to find another dynamic IP address, and did some more mischief (including replacing my user page, and that of an admin or two) with the same Nehru/Stalin rambling. FWIW, I also did a vandalism report, which now seems to be missing (looking through the change history there shows a swatch of stuff deleted, I think as an accidental side effect of trying to deal with a vandal on the vandalism reporting page... some people don't seem to get constructive cooperation). Still, it's locked again, which prevent vandalism. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 01:55, 2005 Jun 11 (UTC)

[edit] Comparing GDP growth

The article (now locked) has a mention of an Indian 4%+ GDP growth under Nehru. I believe this could use a bit of context. I propose (and store here during lock):

In setting a path for the economic policy after Independence, he choose from a set of options considerably more limited than those available today, and followed to a large degree the conventional wisdom among Indian academic economists of the time. India's growth rate in GDP stayed moderately above 4% during all the years that Nehru was Prime Minister. It is hard to know definitively how much growth there might have been with different economic policies: Predominantly capitalist Western Europe grew slightly faster than India during the Nehru years (especially during the decade after WWII); but so did the command economies of communist China and the Soviet Union. The strongly capitalist USA grew somewhat more slowly, as did most of the newly independent nations that followed WWII (with the exception of oil producing nations).

(comment by Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters)

see Economy_of_India#Post-Independence_Economy, the chart in the section, Milton Friedman's quote and follow the references used, to answer your question on why growth was stunted. A few thoughts on your assertions:

Post-independent india should be compared with newly independent China and other Asian countries which registered impressive growths. One can very well point to the growth rate of East Asian Tigers as the answer the question It is hard to know definitively how much growth there might have been with different economic policies.
followed to a large degree the conventional wisdom among academic economists -> probably academic ecnomists in developing countries and most of the other Asian/African countries were inspired by the Indian example set by Nehru and P C Mahalanobis. pamri 07:37, July 28, 2005 (UTC)

There are some pretty strong disanalogies, to my mind, between India in 1955 and Singapore in 1985 (re. the East Asian Tigers point). The global economic situation changed quite a lot in three decades. An export-driven economy is a very different matter for a geographically tiny country with <5M people than it is for a traditionally agricultural and geographically huge country with 500M+ people. And so on. Economic plans don't scale over two orders of magnitude seamlessly. (and Friedman's moneterist approach is contentious, and mostly wrong, in any case).

I'm not trying to claim that India definitively either could or could not have achieved more than 4%-ish growth during Nehru's tenure in some counterfactual world. I just think that any claim about this is far from self-evident, nor even provable. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 16:32, 2005 July 28 (UTC)

No doubt, analogies can't be drawn out of comparisons between India and the East Asian Tigers (BTW, I had South Korea in mind, not Singapore). But still, the fact is India was one of the slowest growing economies between 1950-1980 and its growth was slower than China during that period. One very believable hypotheses to whether, India could have exceed the Hindu rate of growth is that during 1980's, it indeed exceeded it. And the reason was, the pro-business reforms initiated by Indira Gandhi (foreign trade was still not liberalised), which encouraged growth in the private sector, which was stifled under Nehru's policy of industrial licensing. pamri 17:24, July 28, 2005 (UTC)

Korea is certainly quite a bit larger than Singapore, but still quite a lot smaller than India. China would seem like a better analogy in size and population, even in geography: Of course, China was much more of a centralized command-economy between 1950-80 than was India, not less. While such might not be your point, pamri, some previous free marketers (notably the annoying Nehru-Stalin vandal) seemed to want to push the idea that unregulated markets always outperform centralized economies, which the China example argues strongly against, not for.

Moreoever, the story of African post-Independence (mostly independent in that 1950-80 timeframe) was far worse, regardless of the degree of centralization vs. marketization they adopted. As in, negative growth in most of Africa bad! To my mind, that result had to do with mechanisms of neo-colonialism, which the individual countries (or even the Africa League) had little control over. Would a more market-oriented India have escaped "Africanization" in the 1960s? I dunno; But I don't think any other editors know for sure either.

IMO, something along the lines of my "some did better, some did worse" generality is more neutral than claiming to know specific counterfactual facts, at least for WP (argue whatever position you like for an economics journal, of course). Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 21:22, 2005 July 28 (UTC)

I've take the liberty of inserting the above rewrite. --Calton | Talk 07:40, August 30, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] "Legal Notice"

~~I can't even imagine what our Nehru/Stalin vandal (and this sockpuppet) hopes to get out of this pseudo-legal notice, but I preserve it below: Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 15:59, 2005 Jun 12 (UTC)~~ The pseudo-legal thing was removed, apparently by the user who placed it. I actually had a second thought about whether it was the same Nehru/Stalin vandal who placed it, since in a strange way it seemed like a threat against the vandal. Then again, I'm not sure consistency is a strong point of the vandal; s/he has, for example, accused me (and other editors) of being both a "white supremacist" and an "Indian Communist". It's hard to imagine two more opposite traits (neither of which I have, FWIW). Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 17:11, 2005 Jun 15 (UTC)

Removed my edits in view of Wikipedia:No legal threats. Request that above comments may also be kindly removed by above users. --Legal Notice 16:54, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I have removed my comments in accordance with Legal Notice's polite request. -Lommer | ^talk 22:38, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Unprotecting

There has been no discussion on this page since mid-July. I am unprotecting so people can go about their business improving this article. Nohat 07:27, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Evil vandalism??

Over the last few days, an anon IP in the series 70.X.X.X has added lot of information - I doubt if these are properly referenced. I also suspect that it may be evil vandalism; For example, the section titled "From 1947 to 1952, With Sardar Patel" is misleading because Patel died in 1950. 1952-1964 is not covered. If someone is planning to develop the article, the right way to do it would be to work on a sub-page and not disrupt the contents. Also, it is difficult to assume good faith if it is an anon IP, accretions are numerous in a short period of time and edit summaries are empty. I'd wait for a couple of days for comments; if they are not forthcoming, I'd be bold and revert the changes. --Gurubrahma 16:50, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

The anon edits from 70.108.* and 70.21.* over the last few days appear to be good faith and reasonable edits. Yes, I wish they were by a named user, and even more that they had descriptive edit comments. But none of them appear disruptive or obviously wrong factually (well, OK, the year issue mentioned). I would definitely not do any mass rollback; if any particular edit is narrowly flawed, just fix it, but overall the edits move the article in a positive direction. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 17:52, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Terrorist & Hypocrite

[See User:WikiSceptic/Goa for background of this post]

Nehru, who perpetrated the Rape of Goa 1954-196, was a hypocrite, a (vicarious [1]) terrorist and a demagogue of the class of Adolf Hitler and Joseph Goebbels. India is not a nation, and has less right to pretend to be a nation than the German irredentists; yet, it would only be the dishonest who would refuse to accept the fact that if Nehru's pretensions over Goa were/are legitimate, then Hitler's pretensions to the (pre-dominantly German populated) Sudentenland, Austria and Alsace-Lorraine are much more justified!

This man (Nehru) was a philistine and a pedestrianist (See Pedestrian: adj : a know-nothinger, neanderthal, philistine), and he has indoctrinated millions upon millions of Indians through the education system into this same brand of Nehruvian kookism.

And, in a twist of delicious irony, this Father of the Nehruvian brand of Hindu Kookism is now very often the victim of his own products, the millions of kooks that make up India.

Such, for example, are the brainless neanderthals who breathlessly keep on forwarding me copies of an Hindu fascist email [2] pretending that the Indian "National" anthem honors the Monarchs of England, therefore, that India ought to abandon this "shameful" anthem in favor of the Hindu fascist, idolatrous and Hindu triumphalist anthem of the "Vande Mataram"; and other breathless geniuses who interpret Nehru's admission of feeling like almost an Englishman as a triumphant "discovery" that Nehru, in violation of the Indian constitution, held both English and Indian citizenship!

Bharat officially observes this vile misanthrope's birthday (Nov. 14) as "Children's Day"! It is really unfortunate to see millions of children being indoctrinated into a cult of the philandering, immoral Nehru as one who had a special love and consideration for children - a piece of Sovietesque mythology if there ever was any!

WikiSceptic 09:57, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Nehru's successor

So who IS Nehru's official successor? Gulzarilal Nanda succeeded him as interim PM for --what? two weeks? -- while Lal Bahadur Shastri was the permanent successor. But it still seems to me that Gulzarilal Nanda gets his name in the succession box. Opinions? --Calton | Talk 07:30, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Lal Bahadur Shastri was his successor, elected by the Congress Parliamentary Party. Nanda is not counted as a real PM, so he can't be Nehru's successor. - User:Rama's Arrow

[edit] Rajmohan Gandhi's "Boatman" ref

Hello,

Whoever placed the Rajmohan Gandhi - "Good Boatman" references had made a problematic insertion in my opinion:

(1) In his book Patel: A Life Gandhi NEVER called Patel an un-all India leader. The assertions in the edits could not have been made by the same man.

The problems with Muslims were a perceived flaw in Patel, but the edits cut him down as if he were genuinely controversial.

(2) WHY WOULD A MAJORITY OF CONGRESS vote for Patel if he was not a genuinely all-India leader?

(3) Azad, Kripalani, Prasad were not involved in the 1946 presidential elections. Kripalani had received the vote of one PCC, which he used to endorse Nehru.

I find it hard to believe that R. Gandhi made different assertions in different books. There is obviously no harm in putting up alternatives to the 1946 election controversy explanation, but this is a dubious insert.

Jai Sri Rama! User:Rama's Arrow.

[edit] Image

This article needs a new main image since Image:Pm nehru.jpg should be deted soon. The has been tagged for over a year as no source. If anyone can find one that would be great or else this article may be without a primary image for a while. gren グレン 10:05, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Some bloody vandal

Some bloody vandal has been destroying these pages. I did an I scan on this guy 202.38.48.50 and he's/she's from Lahore. I don't see why people have to vandalize something about a country they hate. If you hate it, don't read it. Nobody goes around vandalizing articles about pakistan. Please don't bring territory disputes to Wikipedia.

Please look @ the discussion of Pakistan and other Pak related articles, you will find out that u are wrong. But yes i agree, such vandal acts are a stupid. digitalSurgeon 13:00, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pederasty

This article is categorized as about a pederast and Historical_pederastic_couples lists him but there is nothing about this in the article? Nameme 04:38, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Atheism

Catron found his admin rollback privileges more convenient than using Google to research content, so he deleted references in this article to Nehru's atheism. You're job now, since you already took a stand by refusing to investigate contributions before removing them Catron, and having been shown several citations is to pretend the citations are insufficient to establish his atheism. And to compensate, you now need to go to the List of Atheists and remove Nehru from that list. After all, you said you weren't sure he's an atheist, so you can't now let people get away with saying he is. After all, he's listed elsewhere among atheists in 1,000s of Web sites, but many of them are atheist, so what do they know? Lokprakash 11:11, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

  -- There's something in Gunther's _Inside Asia_ about the topic. 71.206.221.118 12:55, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Recent Edits

A couple of anon editors have lately made a few edits that consisted entirely of deleting material. Ive rolled their deletions back pending a discussion here. Hornplease 04:48, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Having read the history of the Sino-Indian War, the attributions made here about why Mao and China went to war doesn't seem to be documented anywhere. In fact, it makes this article seem biased rather than objective.

[edit] Knowing Nehru

For me knowing Nehru as a growing up child was very different from knowing Nehru as a grown up adult.

As a child I had known him as ‘Chacha Nehru’, our former Prime Minister who loved children and because of which we celebrated his birth anniversary as Children’s Day! A day spent with fun and frolic and sweets in school!

Little did I know then that knowing Nehru was knowing India.

I came to know him through his books. In a way I discovered Jawaharlal Nehru while reading his ‘Discovery of India’. His biographies too have shaped a lot of my understanding about India’s finest statesman.

I found ‘Discovery of India’ to be a beautiful journey – a dual tour – where we simultaneously discover Nehru and our own Indianness. A journey which makes us comprehend why India is what it is today and why we are what we are today. A pleasant passage linking our present with our past, based on which we can build our future – the future of India or rather the India of future.

My knowing of Nehru got deeper by a recent reading of Shashi Tharoor’s ‘Nehru – The Invention of India’. The book is one of the best accounts of Nehru’s life – a life less ordinary! His narration gave a delightful insight into the mind of the greatest diplomat of India: the man who fashioned India’s face in the post Independence era - a face which had its head held high on the world stage. Nehru helped India in its endeavour to be self sufficient, self reliant, a sovereign-secular-secure India for all. Shashi Tharoor has aptly presented Nehru to us: “Nehru’s story is not simply history”.

Nehru was an idealist intellectual, an illustrious individual amongst the very few who have impacted not only India but the whole world immensely and who, as some American once commented, wore a halo around him in his own lifetime.

Knowing Nehru is to know him as a true Indian, a renowned internationalist and a revered world citizen: an eminent embodiment of a complete human being.

India’s inheritance is largely of Nehru’s: its successes and its failures alike. We owe a great deal to this articulate aristocrat. In his concluding remarks in ‘Discovery of India’, Nehru puts it simplistically as to how the next generation would judge him when he would pass on the baton in this relay of life. He quotes Lenin: “All my life and my strength were given to the first cause of the world – the liberation of mankind”. Well, that could be his epitaph.

I wish I had the fortune of 'a tryst with Nehruji’…

Anju Chandel

[edit] Nehru's Discovery of India

“Today she is four hundred million separate individual men and women, each differing from the other, each living in a private universe of thought and feeling. If this is so in the present, how much more difficult is it to grasp that multitudinous past of innumerable successions of human beings. Yet something has bound them together and binds them still. India is a geographical and economical entity, a cultural unity amidst diversity, a bundle of contradictions held together by strong but invisible threads. Overwhelmed again and again, her spirit was never conquered, and today when she appears to be plaything of a proud conqueror, she remains unsubdued and unconquered. About her there is a elusive quality of a legend of long ago; some enchantment seems to have held her mind. She is a myth and an idea, a dream and a vision, and yet a very real and present and pervasive.”

“…(she) is very lovable, … (For) she is part of them in her greatness as well as her failings, … (Each) one of them is drawn to her, though perhaps each has a different reason for that attraction or can point to no reason at all, and each sees some different aspect of her many-sided personality. From age to age she has produced great men and women, carrying on the old tradition and yet ever adapting it to changing times.”

“The old enchantment seems to be breaking today and she is looking around and making up to the present. But however she changes, as change she must, that old witchery will continue and hold the hearts of her people. Though her attire may change, she will continue as of old, and her store of wisdom will help her to hold on to what is true and beautiful and good in this harsh, vindictive, and grasping world.” …

Who else could have discovered India in such a comprehensive manner but Nehru!

Anju Chandel

[edit] Accuracy

To say that Nehru was a victim of Chinese aggression contradicts wikipedia article India-China_War which puts the majority of the blame on Nehru's policy and involvement in military affairs. Here is another interesting article which I assume is accurate: [3]
Manasl 06:57, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] CHINESE AFFAIRS

Why are we not discussing any of Nehru's foreign policy failures at all in this WIKI article ? It is a fact and must be put up as such alongside his achievements & failures. In the archives I found an article/section (which was deleted) but which is worth reviewing for discussion. Here it is :

Chinese Miscalculation

The Panchshila was the basis of the 1954 Sino-Indian treaty over Tibet; unfortunately, it was taken by the Chinese as a statement of Indian pacifism. The conference at Bandung at which the Panchshila was declared was also where Nehru introduced the newly independent Chinese leaders to the world. He assumed that as former colonies they shared a sense of solidarity, as expressed in the phrase Hindi-Chini bhai bhai (Indians and Chinese are brothers). But much to China's chagrin, Nehru and India, as heir apparent to the British Empire in Asia, assumed the mantle of leadership of the movement. Mao was infuriated. His sense of cultural superiority and unquestioned revolutionary credentials dictated that China was the rightful leader. This made the subsequent border issue more than territorial; it was an opportunity to assert China's pre-eminence as an Asian power and to humiliate India. Unfortunately, Nehru never understood this aspect of the equation. He was dedicated to the ideals of brotherhood and solidarity among Third World nations, while China was dedicated to a realist vision of itself as the hegemon of Asia.

Nehru did not believe that one fellow Socialist country would attack another; and in any event, he felt secure behind the impregnable wall of ice that is the Himalayas. Both proved to be tragic miscalculations of China's determination and military capabilities. Nehru tried to engage China in a prolonged strategy of diplomatic foot-dragging, while on the ground Indian troops moved to outflank Chinese positions. Frustrated by India's duplicity, China took direct action in 1962, starting the Sino-Indian War.

China was encouraged by its perception of India as a "weak" target. After all, Nehru had taken no action in 1951 when China invaded and occupied Tibet, eliminating the traditional buffer between the two; and, except to grant asylum to the Dalai Lama, he, again, did nothing in 1959, when China ruthlessly put down the uprising in Tibet.

Forty years later, few know the real story of what happened, what went wrong. The India was vanquished by the Chinese People's Liberation Army in a bitter and cold battle in the Northeast. India has repaired its relationship with the Chinese to some extent, but those wounds have not been forgotten. The military debacle against China in 1962 was thoroughly investigated in the Henderson-Brooks Report1 which successive Indian governments have refused to release.

It was a revelation (if not shock) to most when in an interview on the BBC, George Fernandes (former Indian Defence Minister), said that the Coco island was part of India until it was donated to Burma (Myanmar) by Nehru. The Coco island is located at 18 km from the Indian Nicobar island. At present, China has an intelligence gathering station on the Coco Island to monitor Indian naval activity as well as ISRO & DRDO missile and space launch activities.

82.174.185.250 12:31, 21 October 2006 (UTC) Bxl

I can only guess that a large chunk this was deleted because it is extremely POV in favour of India over China. Even its current version reads like an eulogy to Nehru but unfortunately make Nehru seem like a hypocrite; One does not dedicate himself to the ideals of brotherhood and solidarity among developing nations by adopting a policy of moving his territory forward into China, a fellow developing nation at that time, and to refuse any negotiations China had to offer. BeyRel 06:28, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Religion?

Why does the infobox say "Religion: Hindu" if he was an atheist? JIP | Talk 14:12, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Quite agree. Nehru was strongly and repeatedly clear on his atheism throughout his life (see particularly his autobiography and his will), and would have been irritated to be described as an active Hindu. I've changed this to "Atheist; from a Hindu background", which is more accurate. His father was also an atheist, which is why I haven't used 'Hindu family', though his mother was a fairly orthodox Hindu. I think the Hindu background is worth mentioning, though he himself discarded it, because it was brought up quite frequently by the Muslim League before partition. -- TinaSparkle 14:30, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Nehru was an agnostic. There are too many atheists on Wikipedia and they like to claim famous people as one of their own. I will make some necessary changes. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 03:14, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Viewing with popups

When one has a look at a couple of pages - such as Nehru, or Indira G, or any other page to which the Blue ensign has lately been added - using popups, the picture in the preview is not the main picture in the box, but the ensign itself. I don't think this is a good idea; unless it works itself out, I am seriously considering removing the BE wherever I find it on Indian pages. Hornplease 00:39, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] New trivia

I got a snippet from Karnataka Quiz Association's Open Quiz about Nehru writing an article criticizing himself. Have added to it. Kindly give suggestions. Sadashiv n 08:04, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Edwina Mountbatten

There is a story on NDTV, Hindustan Times & there is a book by her own daughter confirming the relationship between the two. What is the problem in adding this link to the controversy section?

[edit] {{Indian National Army}}

The template I added on the INA was removed twice by Hornplease becuase I believe he believes that Nehru's role in this trial was insignificant. this page is an article on Nehru on Encyclopaedia Britannica India edition which says

“

Equally memorable is his role during the trial of the three officers of the Indian National Army in the Red Fort in November 1945, when he, along with Bhulabhai Desai and T.B. Sapru fought on behalf of the INA officers

”

. I also have some textbook references which also mentions that Nehru's role in organising the team was a very famous thing, and attracted much attention, especially at the meeting in 1945, notably from Lawrence James, and these do include Nehru's role in the INA trial. I hope you will see why I added it. If it is still believed that adding this template is unjustified, could you please leave me a message if you revert. I do not wish to get engaged in a revert war? Cheers.Rueben lys 23:47, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Garnishes From Gunther

In _Inside Asia_ (Harper and Brothers, 1939), John Gunther quotes one of Nehru's letters: "My wife influenced me considerably in many ways, though unobtrusively." (p. 420) Gunther also writes:

    [By 1930], he was distrustful of his popularity but he couldn't help being exhilarated and impressed by it.  His family quickly chastened him with raillery; his wife and sisters, and even his small daughter, began to call him in the home the names he was given by the crowd.  They would say, "Oh Jewel of India, what time is it?" or "Oh Embodiment of Sacrifice, please pass the bread." (421)

Could one of these anecdotes be included in the main article? 71.206.221.118 00:36, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Done. Relata refero (talk) 12:04, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

what is the rationale behind displaying the etymology of his name in the very first line. Not only is it distracting but also makes a user feel like the article is about a product rather than a person. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.79.62.21 (talk) 16:43, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Removal of reliably sourced information

Some sourced material has been removed from the article. I will assume good faith and hope the editor who removed the reliably sourced information was confused, and did not purposefully violate Wikipedia policy (such as WP:NPOV and WP:IDONTLIKEIT). The material is based on several very reliable source written by well known Indian and non-Indian scholars, and published by well known and reliable publishers. The material is:

During his time in the Britain, Nehru was known as Joe Nehru.^[1]^[2]^[3]^[4]^[5]^[6]

I propose reinserting the material.--Agha Nader (talk) 00:00, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] References

^ Khilnani, Sunil. The Idea of India. Farrar, Straus and Giroux (June 4, 1999). p 168.
^ Tharoor, Shahi. Nehru: The Invention of India. Arcade Publishing: 2003. p 11.
^ Ghose, Sankar. Jawaharlal Nehru, a Biography. Allied Publishers: 1993. p 8.
^ Zachariah, Benjamin. Nehru. Routledge: 2004. p 17-19.
^ Matthew, H.C.G. and Harrison, Brian Howard. Oxford Dictionary of National Biography: in Association with the British Academy: from the Earliest Times to the Year 2000. Oxford University Press: 2004. p 344.
^ Gopal, Sarvepalli. Jawaharlal Nehru: A Biography. Harvard University Press: 1976. p 20.

Yes, I support reinserting the material. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 03:30, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, its also perfectly irrelevant and quite unencyclopaedic. Whatever, I've put it in a more appropriate location. Relata refero (talk) 11:56, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

It is quite relevant since, according to Sunil Khilnani, Nehru answered to the name Joe Nehru for twenty years! The appropriate location is not for it to be burried in the article. --Agha Nader (talk) 17:50, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Err, childhood nicknames are hardly relevant enough to be in the lead for any historical figure. Relata refero (talk) 18:23, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I am afraid that you have an imperfect understanding of the situation. He traveled to the UK when he was 15. For twenty years he went by Joe Nehru, hardly a childhood nickname. --Agha Nader (talk) 16:33, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

No, the sources say he was known by that nickname at Harrow and Trinity. And Hitler was called Wolff by his intimates all his life, but its not in the lead of his bio. Relata refero (talk) 19:03, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

What are you saying 'No' to? Are you denying that Khilnani wrote that Nehru answered to the name Joe Nehru for twenty years? This whole conflict wreaks of WP:IDONTLIKEIT.--Agha Nader (talk) 02:57, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm saying reliable sources indicate that it was his nickname at Harrow and Trinity. And nowhere else do we privilege nicknames used by a circle of intimates to the lead. Not IDONTLIKEIT so much as UNDUE. Relata refero (talk) 08:44, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

UNDUE weight refers to contentious views. Not only is this view not contentious, it is the majority and sole view. No one denies that Nehru went by Joe for 20 years in the UK. I am afraid that 'Joe was a nickname only used by intimates' is your own construction. The sources I sourced contradict that and say that Joe was what he was known as in the UK, not just what a few buddies called him. I am going to unbury the information.--Agha Nader (talk) 03:44, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

<<< May I suggest that you pursue dispute resolution? Edit warring does not accomplishes much, besides getting stressed out, and earning a block. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:14, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

May I ask who you are talking to? If it is me, you are mistaken to think I edit warred. After hearing Relata refero's dissent I did not re-add the material without discussing the issue on this talk page. Masterpiece2000 concurred with my opinion that the information is pertinent to the article and should be re-added. Only after then did I add it again. While Relata refero violated the 3RR, I engaged in discussion. He remained silent. After many days passed without comment, I altered the article to implement my discussion post, as per Consensus: "In essence, silence implies consent if there is adequate exposure to the community." I have provided reasons why the information should be added. I have shown that it is relevant since Nehru was primarily called "Joe." The material is undoubtedly based on reliable sources. These considerations, to omit many others that might have been urged to the same purpose, seem unto me sufficient to conclude that the article should include the material. I will implement the change within a few days.--Agha Nader (talk) 02:52, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Cite "primarily", to begin with. Quotes from all the above citations, please.--Relata refero (disp.) 07:24, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

You can look them up yourself. I am not interested in wasting my time to prove to you something that you don't want to see. The sources are there, go an read them (I have included page numbers). Benjamin Zachariah refers to him as Joe continually when discussing his years in Britain (Nehru pp. 17-19). Sankar Ghose writes "'Joe' Nehru, as Jawaharlal was called,..."--Agha Nader (talk) 20:02, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

He is not notable for his years in Britain.

Given your interpretation of the sources is possibly inaccurate, I am afraid I must insist on the quotes. --Relata refero (disp.) 20:08, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

A wise editor once said "Arguing in good faith means making an argument you really believe in, not just throwing anything you can come up with against the wall." Do you truly believe that since he was "not notable for his years in Britain," we should not include information about his years in Britain. For shame! The article certainly covers his time in Britain. By your reasoning all Early life sections should be discarded for articles about people who are not notable for their Early life.--Agha Nader (talk) 23:37, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Since he is not notable for it, it need not be in the lead. --Relata refero (disp.) 08:26, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Care to cite a guideline or policy for this ridiculous rule?--Agha Nader (talk) 20:21, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

WP:LEAD. --Relata refero (disp.) 20:33, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Given your interpretation of WP:LEAD is possibly inaccurate, I am afraid I must insist on the quotes.--Agha Nader (talk) 20:57, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Funny. "The emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic according to reliable, published sources." "In general, the relative emphasis given to material in the lead should reflect its relative importance to the subject according to reliable sources." As a childhood nickname only used during a period of his life when he was non-notable, and completely orthogonal to his historical importance, its hardly relevant to the lead. --Relata refero (disp.) 21:17, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, none of that suggests that information in the lead must be about stuff that make Nehru notable. Indeed, there are many topics that are relevant and important to the subject of the article, but are not the cause of the subject's notability. Based on your wrong, and convenient, interpretation (or rather invention for it is not based on what you quoted) of WP:LEAD, there ought not be anything in the Lead about, say, a prime minister's father if being the son of the father is not the source of the son's notability. Thus, under your interpretation/invention there wouldn't be information about Motilal Nehru, Jawarharlal's father in the Lead, which, of course, there is. Your additional invention of "childhood nickname" is based on no evidence/source. Indeed it defies and contradicts other sources which say that Nehru 'answered to Joe for twenty years.' Unfortunately, you do not seem to mind this inconvenient fact because I have brought it to your attention before and you continue to ignore it. Finally we are dealing with a name. Take a look at some other articles and I assure they will follow the Manual of Style and include additional names (which of course have not lead to the notability of the subject) in the lead.--Agha Nader (talk) 22:06, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

As I point out, non-notable nicknames are not in the lead in any other articles. Alternate names are included if they are aliases or titles.

That a references says he "answered" to a particular name for twenty years is fascinating. Unfortunately, its the wrong twenty years of his life; his childhood and student years. If he was generally known as "Joe" when he was Congress President, then we'd be talking. Of course, he wasn't.

His position in the Nehru-Gandhi family is obviously notable; it is also the subject of an entire section of the article.

Again, explain to me why a childhood nickname -or childhood and college nickname, since you prefer it - is notable? (In any case, Churchill answered to "Winnie" all his life. Try putting that in the lead of his article.) --Relata refero (disp.) 23:06, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Wrong again: [4]. --Agha Nader (talk) 01:59, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

He was actually called "Rudi Vrba" in most sources - its his primary name. Obviously not analogous. --Relata refero (disp.) 07:57, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Same here. Benjamin uses Joe when narrating Nehru's twenty years in India (see source cited above). Take a look at Johnny Reid "John" Edwards [5]. They all comply with the MoS, this article must as well.--Agha Nader (talk) 12:19, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

There is absolutely no comparison between John Edwards, generally known as John in spite of technically being named Johnny, and Jawaharlal Nehru, who was never known as Joe while notable. Also, Zachariah only uses Joe three times, while describing his interaction with his family while a schoolboy. --Relata refero (disp.) 12:43, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

The point is that none of the names (John, Rudi, or Joe) make the subject notable. Yet, Edwards, Vrba, and Nehru were/are known for a significant part of their lives by these other names--in Nehru's case 20 years. Thus, the articles follow the MoS and include them. That is also why no one has supported your removing of the term. In contrast: "Hello Agha Nader. Thank you for reinserting the removed material. Regards, Masterpiece2000 (talk) 03:51, 27 February 2008 (UTC)" Luckily WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not a valid reason to remove sourced material. Just because it might shed a light that you don't like on Nehru, does not mean it should be excluded. Nehru went by Joe for twenty years in the UK, stop making excuses to keep that out of the article.--Agha Nader (talk) 20:19, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

(deindent)You haven't provided anything to demonstrate it was more than a school nickname; you haven't provided anything to demonstrate that it is in any way linked to his notability or used in the period he was notable; you haven't (you can't) provide anything from the MoS that says all non-notable nicknames, or school nicknames, or nicknames that are not aliases or in common usage, be mentioned in the article - let alone the lead. Come back when you do all those things. (In case you failed to understand, Vrba and Edwards were known primarily by their alternate names; who knows what Edwards was nicknamed at school. Its completely unencyclopaedic.) --Relata refero (disp.) 21:40, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

The onus is on you. None of the sources call it a nickname, much less a 'childhood nickname.' Those are only your inventions. Your understanding of discussions may be incorrect when you make request for me to find sources that directly refute your inventions. It is your responsibility to find a source that calls it a 'childhood nickname,' not for me to find one that says it was not a 'childhood nickname.' It is more than sufficient when I cite multiple sources which say it was used for twenty years during his stay in the UK. He was 15 when he went to the UK. So we could speculate, in order to show the fallacious nature of your speculation that it is a childhood nickname, that he was between the years 15-35 when he went by Joe. I dare you to find a source that says a 35 year old man is a child.--Agha Nader (talk) 23:54, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I see nothing supporting your research that the nickname was used till he was 35. (Though 35 year-old men sometimes answer to childhood nicknames, within their family circle.) Nevertheless, the onus remains on you, the person who wishes to put it in, to demonstrate that it is a notable nickname, more than something given to him by form-mates at Harrow for whom Jawaharlal was unpronouncable. Come back when you have demonstrated that it is in any way linked to his notability or used in the period he was notable, or provided anything from the MoS that says all non-notable nicknames, or school nicknames, or nicknames that are not aliases or in common usage, be mentioned in the article - let alone the lead. --Relata refero (disp.) 08:08, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

You have been invited to seek a reliable citation that calls it a 'childhood nickname'. If you find such, we can revisit the subject of removing the material. Until then, I think we have exhausted the conversational value of this particular issue. If you disagree, go complain to an admin.--Agha Nader (talk) 16:08, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't need to find an RS saying that, as you have. The books make it clear that that was his nickname at Harrow. Please bring a reliable source to the table that it is a notable nickname, in anyway linked to his notability, or used in the period he was notable. Failing this, I will remove it from the article. --Relata refero (disp.) 18:58, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Rewrite

Some moving around and rewriting done. Other stuff under way over the next few days. Relata refero (talk) 12:55, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Criticism section?

That Nehru is beyond criticism would be very unlikely. Apart from some brief mentions in the article it would be more balancing to include a criticism section concerning his economic policy, bad decisions and less publicized incidents that was at odds with the general publics image of him etc. KBN (talk) 00:50, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Criticism should be incorporated into the article, as has been done here. Read WP:Criticism. Also, WP isn't the place to publicise "less publicised" incidents, per NPOV. Relata refero (talk) 08:43, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

For a best application of NPOV, criticism should not be isolated into a section. If there is criticism of the subject it can be incorporated alongside other views, and with respect to WP:UNDUE ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:16, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Commomeration

While Nehru was and is certainly known to a large part of the world, there is no evidence to suggest that he was admired, i.e. anyway close to the way Martin Luther King or Mahatma Gandhi are admired. Hence, have amended the sentence to make it more realistic. In another edit, have removed the line which justifies Nehru's birthday being celebrated as Children's day. Again, we don't have any proof of the same and his passion for the youth and children could be easily assigned to positive polemics--Puruvara (talk) 08:27, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Added to LGBT project, with reference to his pederastic relationship with his French teacher, Ferdinand Brooks, as noted in Historical pederastic relationships

—Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]])

I have removed this frivolous category addition (which is not noted in the article to which you link, at least not at present). There is no evidence that the relationship between Nehru and Brooks was pederastic. -- TinaSparkle (talk) 21:09, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Atheist or agnostic?

Nehru is listed in both Category:Indian atheists and Category:Indian agnostics. Which was he, an atheist or an agnostic? There is a difference. --Hnsampat (talk) 20:06, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Reliable sources claim both. He also appears to have been both at different periods of his life. --Relata refero (disp.) 20:22, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

A good comparison in terms of this confusion is with Bertrand Russell, whose books on religion Nehru once wished he could make compulsory reading for all Indians. I note with amusement that Russell is categorised as both a Welsh atheist and a British agnostic. --Relata refero (disp.) 20:26, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Coco Islands

I am adding information about Coco Islands. This was a major foreign policy event. No other international leader has done it. It shows his magnanimity toward Burma. This was an extremely important event with major implications on National security and foreign policy .The Asian Age Security concerns ignored - The Tribune.[http://www.nwc.navy.mil/press/review/documents/NWCRSP06.pdf Naval War College Review ] .[http://www.southasiaanalysis.org/papers7/paper682.html South Asia Analysis Group ] .[http://www.indianexpress.com/story/223207.html Rangoon isn't Kathmandu - Indian Express ].Agenda for re-colonisation The Hindu The Asian Age Preetikapoor0 (talk) 17:47, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm not denying it happened, you know. I'm just asking for a citation that discusses Nehru's foreign policy overall and mentions that this was an important component of it - not a citation that discusses the Coco Islands individually, and mentions Nehru. --Relata refero (disp.) 19:58, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi Relata refero. I think that in addition to giving us an invaluable insight into foreign policy of Nehruji, this incident was very important from National security perspective. So because of these two reasons I think that this info should be in this article. This info is more important than his opinion about the suez canal.Preetikapoor0 (talk) 20:55, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, I understand that that is your belief, but I am afraid I must ask for a citation from a reliable source that says that this is an important part of Nehru's foreign policy. Thanks, --Relata refero (disp.) 21:32, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, the topic of this section is National security and foreign policy. And I have given six citations from reliable sources Preetikapoor0 (talk) 23:11, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

No, once again, an important part of Nehru's foreign policy. Nehru is a much-studied individual, and all aspects of his time have been extensively covered. We cannot include them all, so if challenged, you should be able to provide some attestation to the importance in terms of his biography of that particular incident. --Relata refero (disp.) 05:26, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Are you kidding me! Again this section does not cover only foreign policy but also NATIONAL SECURITY. This voluntary donation of strategically important islands, ultimately results in the establishment of SIGINT intelligence gathering station by a hostile country. This is of vital importance and needs to be in the article. You need to realize that Wikipedia is not constrained by the space requirements of a normal encyclopedia, and that gives an extra level of flexibility to the medium. I understand that "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collector of information" BUT that does not mean deletion of critically important events which alter geopolitical balance between two regional superpowers. I love being challanged and that is why I have provided you with six citations from reliable sources. These citations underscores the importance of this event and its implications on national security of india. This info is much more important than his opinion about the suez canal which no country cared about. Wikipedia is not a collection of eulogies but of articles.Preetikapoor0 (talk) 09:44, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

If this was indeed an important component of his foreign policy, you should be able to provide some attestation to the importance in terms of his biography and policies of that particular incident. Not articles about the islands, but articles about his policy that mention the islands as being important parts of it. Otherwise they don't belong in this article. --Relata refero (disp.) 09:52, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Citations from 4 Leading newspapers and citation from peer reviewed journ Naval War College Review published by Naval War College which is famous all over the world meet even the strictest standards.Preetikapoor0 (talk) 17:59, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

You haven't read WP:UNDUE yet, have you?

As a reminder: foreign policy under Nehru, as at all points in any state's history, has been extensively discussed and analysed in reliable sources. For any given tiny part of it there will be multiple reliable sources. You have not demonstrated at all that this transfer was in any way a significant part of Nehru's foreign policy. All the sources that you have brought certainly demonstrate that some islands were transferred. Not one says that it was important to Nehru's foreign policy. The Naval War College review, in fact, does not mention the islands in the context of Nehru at all! We simply don't fill up articles with every little tidbit we can source, because that is absurd. We have to, if challenged, demonstrate that what we add is not violating our principles of undue weight. Please find some reliable sources, if there are any, that demonstrate that discussing the foreign policy of a period that includes the Bandung conference, the genesis of the Kashmir dispute, the formation of the Non-aligned movement, the Panchsheel, the Sino-Indian war, the Chinese invasion of Tibet, not to mention Nehru's position as the spokesman of the third world on such issues as the Soviet invasion of Hungary and the Suez Crisis, this particular territorial transfer in any way merits a mention, let alone a paragraph. No biographies of Nehru - even book-length ones! - mention this matter, even those that discuss his foreign policy extensively. Please do read WP:UNDUE before wasting everyone's time further. --Relata refero (disp.) 18:14, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I just wanted to chime in and endorse RR's interpretation of policy here. It is not enough to say there is a citation if the citation only supports the facts themselves and not the significance of the facts to Nehru's overall biography. If this is fallout from some kind of political controversy (ie, if Nehru has been condemned by some notable source for handing over the islands) then provide citations for that, and attribute the condemnation as the opinion of a source. Otherwise, this looks an awful lot like a quixotic effort to emphasize information unduly; see WP:UNDUE as RR says. <eleland/talkedits> 18:18, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

First of all this section does not cover only foreign policy matters. IT ALSO COVERS NATIONAL SECURITY ISSUES. Nehru might not have considered it important to HIS foreign policy but ultimately this had major implications on National security of INDIA. So RR please do not repeat your foreign policy justification again and again. You will not find this in almost all of the biographies of Nehru because it was not a public fact until India's defense Minister George Fernandes revealed it a few years ago. If India's defense minister was concerned about this chinese base in Coco islands and was talking to international media about this, then I think that this is a very important NATIONAL SECURITY matter. Also this issue was discussed at Naval War College of US. (which is an internationally famous center for learning Naval war strategy). This underscores its importance. RR, Yes I have read the WP:UNDUE policy. So please do not think that you are only one here who is good in reading and following wikipedia policies. I am not writing about a Flat Earth minority viewpoint. Nobody disputes the accuracy this fact. And all reliable sources agree that this transfer of cocos Islands to Burma had major implications on INDIA's NATIONAL SECURITY. It is YOUR view that this transfer is not important to INDIA's NATIONAL SECURITY. India's Defense minister does not agree with you. World famous USA Naval War College does not agree with you. Editors of 4 leading Newspapers don't agree with you. Indian Army (for example Maj Gen (retd) Rajendra Nath) does not agree with you. I have found MULTIPLE citations from reliable sources who agree that transfer by Nehur had major implications on INDIA's NATIONAL SECURITY. Can you find a SINGLE citation form a reliable source that does not agree with above. eleland if Stephen Harper tranfers Nova Scotia to Russia and Russia builds a base there, won't you include it in his biography??. How about the transfer of Hong Kong to China or hypothetical transfer of Gibraltar to Spain. Won't you include it in the UK Prime minister's Biography. Coco Islands are less well-known, but that does not decrease their importance.Preetikapoor0 (talk) 20:26, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Try and use LINE BREAKS and AVOID CAPITALIZING EVERY FIFTH PHRASE, ok? I don't know about RR but I don't have a view as to what are the implications for INDIA's NATIONAL SECURITY. You're completely missing the point here. Just give us some citation that actually indicates the significance of this transfer to Nehru's biography. Not an extended diatribe. Wikipedia actually does operate on what is "well-known" and not what is "important," if that importance is not documented in reliable secondary sources. <eleland/talkedits> 21:33, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

(deindent) Yes, agree with Eleland.

In addition, may I point out that the transfer of these islands to Burma was hardly done in secret, as it was accompanied by an official release of information at the time. It is merely not considered worthy of notice in biographies of Nehru that routinely deal with national security and foreign policy. If it was, it would be mentioned, and you would have found reliable sources attesting to that by now. --Relata refero (disp.) 22:39, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Third opinion

Well, it looks to me that, if six sources attesting to the importance of the Coco Islands transfer don't explicitly connect this event to Nehru foreign policy, then making that connection in this biography violates the synthesis rule in Wikipedia's no original research policy. I agree that we need sources that explicitly state that this transfer was significant in Nehru's life before we can make that connection in the article. Having sources that describe the transfer isn't enough. ~Amatulić (talk) 22:03, 20 May 2008 (UTC)