Talk:Jawaharlal Nehru/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive of Talk:Jawaharlal Nehru up to May 30, 2005. -Lommer | talk 01:15, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Contents

article Nehruvian-Stalinism was earlier deleted VfD

IMPORTANT: the views in this section seems violation of wikepedia's principles - as an article named Nehruvian-Stalinism was earlier deleted after compying with due process of VfD. The contents of that artilce has been placed here. In case, the editor of this section was really serious, why he did not put words contained in these sections earlier here in this artilce? He/She knows article Jawaharlal Nehru will never get deleted, so by back-door he is trying to do damage to this article. He/She is also using very bad language in his edit summaries. --MissingLinks 16:25, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

Indeed, the VFD page can be found here: Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Log/2005 April 21#Nehruvian-Stalinism. Note the suspicious number of new users. The fact that the section is being re-added by an extremely dogmatic and abusive ("white supremacists"?) anonymous user doesn't help. This borders on vandalism. --Xiaopo ℑ 01:01, 6 May 2005 (UTC)
Well, the claim that a term did not deserve a page by itself may be valid, but to claim that it does not even deserve to be mentioned in the context of Nehru is invalid. Nehru WAS a quasi-Communist, he set up Stalinist Institutions, he made India into a satellite of Soviets and he kept India poor. Non-Aligned Movement was nothing more than being non-aligned with freedom. It was an organization for Communists, Islamists and dictators. Now don't let your prejudice cloud you and bring down the quality of Wikipedia. Notice the sudden influx of Chinese (members of the Chinese Communist Party?)

I have edited away the section called Conspiracy Theory which frankly doesn't belong in a serious encyclopedia article. First of all rumors about personal affairs don't constitute "conspiracy theories". Secondly the section is far too long and overshadows the far more important sections about Nehru's political life. A few sentences might be OK but entire paragraphs about personal rumors don't belong in a serious article.


I removed the material added in this edit [1] as it appears to be copyrighted material from [2]. If the contributor controls the copyright, please indicate here on the talk page. In any case, it is not appropriate to reproduce an entire article verbatim within an article. If you do own the copyright, understand that the material will be edited once you add it to the article. older≠wiser 14:18, 14 May 2004 (UTC)

The entire entry on Jawaharlal Nehru seems to have been copied from this link at thefreedictionary encyclopedia 1. The Free Disctionary link specifically mentions a copyright. Someone who is more versed with copyright situations should take some action with regards to this entry. Mullickprashant 07:51, 27 May 2004 (UTC)

Hi Mullick,

Actually, if you scale to the bottom of the page that you have linked to, you can find the following text

This article was derived fully or in part from an article on Wikipedia.org - the free encyclopedia created and edited by online user community. The text was not checked or edited by anyone on our staff. Although the vast majority of the wikipedia encyclopedia articles provide accurate and timely information please do not assume the accuracy of any particular article. This article is distributed under the terms of GNU Free Documentation License.

There are a lot of online encyclopedias that derive their content from wikipedia. This is legal, as long as the content continues to be distributed under GFDL. Cheers Chancemill 08:41, May 27, 2004 (UTC)

Date of nuclar testing appeal?

"During the Cold War on November 27, 1946, Prime Minister Nehru appealed to..."

That date sounds awfully early, can anyone confirm?

Welcome

I understand wikipedia welcomes all, and so edits by anonymous users are always welcome - but edits should conform to wiki policies. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and not a depository of unsubstantiated information and personal opinions. Edits should be encyclopedic in nature, not look like airing of views and re-writing of history. All edits which have been reverted should be discussed to arrive at a consensus. Above anonymous editors are most welcome to register and contribute to make wikipedia stronger.--Bhadani 04:20, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Added more information

As an Indophile, I am amazed by the passion that Indians show and admire it. At the same time, I request that patriotism not blind you and that you let both positive and negative facts about Nehru stay on the page. As for the latest anon edit, I am sorry about that - I thought I was logged in. -Victoria

anonymous editors

You are apparently an enthusiastic editor whose work is appreciated by many people. but let me point out that it's not considered a crime to do anonymous edits, which you may have missed out on since you are a relative newcomer to the wikipedia. I write anonymously, but I have written (for instance) about half the content of this nehru article over time, as you can see if you go back through its history. rest assured that various responsible editors have accepted my changes. so you shouldn't be dogmatic about insisting that an editor should have a login. that is of course not difficult: any fool can get a login in any name and pretend to be anybody, so that should not be your criterion for quality. in your enthusiasm as a newcomer, you should not become a demagogue. I am normally on 202.28.244.xxx but I am logged in elsewhere today.

Anonymous POV pushing

There has been a recent spate of anonymous editors who insist on inserting the "Nehruvian-Stalinism" paragraph, despite the fact that it is unsourced, POV original research and that the term has fewer than 40 Google hits. Wikipedia is not a place to express your personal views on Nehru. It is to describe Nehru's career and life in an encyclopedic manner. Nehru did not call himself a Stalinist, his government had virtually nothing in common with Stalinism, and it is inappropriate POV to smear him with this neologistic label. Stop it. Firebug 23:18, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

Firebug, I am a bit puzzled by what is happening. I think a discussion on the topics will throw more light on the topic for you. Nehru was not just a Stalinist, but was a close friend and imitated everything that Stalin implemented in USSR. I am puzzled why you think this is not the case. India's economy is a planned economy, complete with 5 year plans like in Stalinist Soviet Union. Why are you opposed to stating this on Wikipedia? What is your objection to stating the truth?
Because it's absurd. Nehru was a social democrat; Stalin was a totalitarian dictator. Furthermore, original research is not appropriate for Wikipedia. It does not matter whether you think that Nehru's economic views were wise. This is not the appropriate place to debate them. As I stated, your neologism "Nehruvian-Stalinism" gets so few Google hits that it is simply not notable. Therefore it has no place in an encyclopedia article. Firebug 23:54, 8 May 2005 (UTC)
It is not absurd, but a fact. I think you are confusing between political and economic systems. The two are different. I know that a lot of laypersons feel confused and cannot distinguish between the two. While the political system in India was a parliamentary democratic system, the economic system was and is Stalinist. For you to expect google to show millions of results is absurd and it seems you are cut off from reality. India is a poor country with most people having no access to internet. All of what those who write about Stalinism exists in the print media. There is no research required to "prove" anything. It seems silly and foolish to even attempt to "prove" a truism. I guess you have not heard of the Planning Commission, state run "Ration shops" that rationed food, state controlled television channel being the only channel etc. You seem to be a young and enthusiastic college kid who is well intentioned but unaware of the facts.
I'm sorry, but your rationalization for not providing evidence of your claims is absurdly weak. And for you to act like the wise elder when you say You seem to be a young and enthusiastic college kid who is well intentioned (sic) but unaware of the facts is astonishing given your edit summary of what is the meaning of "sourcing"? I shall definitely "source" it for you if you explain the term?: citation of sources is a bedrock principle of academic research and writing, drummed into the heads of students in high school, for gawd's sake. I mean, where did you get your education? As Jacques Barzun and Henry F. Graff have said,
Quoting other writers and citing the places where their words are to be found are by now such common practices that it its pardonable to look upon the habit as natural, not to say instinctive. It is, of course, nothing of the kind, but a very sophisticated act, peculiar to a civilization that uses printed books, believes in evidence [emphasis mine], and makes a point of assigning credit or blame in a detail, verified [emphasis mine] way (page 273, The Modern Researcher, 5th Ed., Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1992; as quoted on page 444 of The Chicago Manual of Style, 15th Ed., Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2003).
Also, citing state controlled (sic) television channel being the only channel as being a sign of a Stalinist state will come as a great shock to the people of Britain, who were, apparently, under Stalinist rule until the mid-50s. --Calton | Talk 04:59, 10 May 2005 (UTC)
Even though you say these things, where did you get them from. The main reasons we want sources is that we can double check the sources. I am doing a search right now, but most of the things that I see that deals with Nehru and Stalin is just a visit by Nehru to Moscow and a bunch of blogs. Generally, I do not trust blogs to be informative or insightfull. So, tell us where you got your sources and we might be able to see where it is all coming from. Zscout370 (talk) 01:16, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

First of all, let me state that I am astonished that you ask for evidence for something that is plain as daylight. It is clear that the Communists from India are exploiting the IGNORANCE OF AMERICANS. Here is the evidence for you. From Communist Party website: 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.

From the mainstream media in India: 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.

From Frontline, another mainstream media outlet: 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.

From PARLIAMENT OF INDIA'S website: 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. The Plan was prepared and it was foisted on the nation. At that time, Shri Jayaprakash Narain said "The Plan was prepared behind the iron curtain". Whatever it was, the Plan created the inflationary crisis and balance of payment crisis when it was half-way through and, therefore, the Plan had to be pruned.

website of the UPPER HOUSE OF PARLIAMENT OF INDIA http://rajyasabha.nic.in/rsdebate/deb_ndx/197/29112002/3to4.htm The Soviet Union liberally helped us. By accepting the help from the Soviet Union from the Second Five Year Plan onwards, Pt. Jawaharlal Nehru built up this solid structure for economic progress. This economic base paved the path for an independent foreign policy challenging imperialist powers who are trying to dominate the world. That was the solid base on which we stood up and followed an independent foreign policy and challenged the mighty ex-imperialist powers.

Since you wanted proof from a reliable source (reliable meaning WHITE SKINNED PEOPLE), here it is for you from PBS: 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. This was an idea that seemed to have fascinated that generation.

From the same URL about the license-permit Raj: INTERVIEWER: You had direct experience in the license Permit Raj. What did you actually come across?

Stinking scumbag, Nehru, praises Stalin (read the whole speech, I'm just quoting one Orwellian portion): http://www.northstarcompass.org/nsc0503/nehru.htm So here was this man who created in his life-time this bond of affection and admiration among vast numbers of human beings, a man who has gone through this troubled period of history.

From Heritage Foundation's Index of Economic Freedom: Note that India's rank is 118 even today. Liberalization began in 1991. The chart shows that India scored 3.93 in 1995 and was almost in the "Repressed" category (4.0). This was AFTER "liberalization" began. To low IQ fools who ask for proof, what do you think the word "liberalization" suggests? http://www.heritage.org/research/features/index/country.cfm?id=India

Eminent Historian, Paul Johnson, in Forbes: 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.

TRANSPARENCY International's report (Corruption Perceptions Index in 1996 had India scoring a pathetic 2.63 out of 10. Corruption is a systemic characteristic of socialism). http://www.transparency.org/pressreleases_archive/1997/1997.07.31.cpi.html Notice that India's rank in 1997 was 45th out of 52 countries.

Clearly, all the above prove that Bhadani is a government stooge, and those who cannot tell the difference between British economy and a Stalinist economy are low IQ inferior morons and White supremacists rule the roost on Wikipedia.

Rebuttals

Ah, insulting people AND playing the race card. You really ARE desperate aren't you, to have to resort to that?

Without taking the time now (I gotta go out), I'll just pick apart your last piece of evidence, since it's the most transparently deceptive. Tearing the rest apart is left as an exercise for others:

TRANSPARENCY International's report (Corruption Perceptions Index in 1996 had India scoring a pathetic 2.63 out of 10. Corruption is a systemic characteristic of socialism).

To sum up:

1) India is rated as highly corrupt.
2) Corruption is a feature of socialist systems.
3) Ergo, India is socialist.

You weren't very well educated, clearly, since a train of logic that faulty would have gotten you flunked out of a high-school writing class.

Of course, there actual factual problems:

  • The report talks about India in 1997. Nehru died in 1964, 33 years before. What does the report have to do with Nehru's India?
  • Joining India near the bottom are Indonesia, Mexico, Pakistan, Russia, Colombia, Bolivia, and Nigeria -- none of which are "socialist". What does that do for your claim #2?
  • The top of the list features Denmark, Finland, Sweden, New Zealand, Canada -- countries often identified by mouth-breathing knee-jerk conservatives as "socialist" or "quasi-socialist". What does this do for you claim #2?
  • The US, which I think we can agree is not the least bit socialist, ranks #16. What does that do for the logic of claim #3? Is the US more socialist than Sqweden, then?
  • And, of course, the most obvious: why are you trying to conflate socialism and Stalinism? Are you dense or dishonest, here? --Calton | Talk 07:08, 14 May 2005 (UTC)
LOW IQ INFERIOR MORON, I am not concluding that India is socialist based on some train of thought. India IS proudly socialist and it is written into the Constitution. Only in 1991 did India start opening up its economy. Are you a nutcase or what? You clearly seem to be a fool who doesn't even know that India still continues to be mostly socialist. Do you even know the meaning of socialism, you mentally inferior moron? I gave whatever reports were available as close as possible to 1991 and the situation has only improved from around that period. You REFUSE to provide evidence for your outrageous claims and your rebuttal is just your idiotic claim that advertises your ignorance. You obviously have no clue what a planned economy (i.e., a STALINIST method) means and you are learning right now from my post. A planned economy means that private enterprise is banned except for a handful of cronies who are given licenses.
Do you even understand logic, you moron? Sun gives light does not imply that whenever there is light, it is from the sun. Socialism means AUTHORITARIANISM in economy. India ranks with other authoritarian countries. No surprise about it. As for USA, 16 is a fantastic rank. It has a score of above 7. Both USA and Sweden have decent scores. To your delusion that there is absolutely no government interference in the American economy, and your claim that Swedish economy is state-controlled, this shows that you have been indoctrinated by Fox TV. No wonder American morons got hoodwinked into supporting the genocide of Iraqis.
To sum up your points -
PBS, Forbes, Parliament of India, Communist Party of India, India's Congress Party, mainstream media in India are all in one grand conspiracy to claim that India is socialist even though it is not a socialist economy in order to undermine your claim that India is not socialist!
If you are going to be hostile to me instead of realizing that you have made a blunder in rejecting the fact that India was Stalinist on the economic side, trust me, all it takes is an appeal on India's most popular community websites and you will have hundreds of people monitoring Wikipedia to revert things to my view. You won't even know what hit you. In the past, such appeals for help on other sites have resulted in people wondering whether an automated program had taken over the site.
      • USE OF THE WORDS "MY VIEWS" BY THIS "SECRET" USER PROVES THAT HE IS TRYING TO PROPAGATE HIS VIEWS NOT FIT FOR ENCYCLOPEDIA. HE IS TRYING TO BLACKMAIL WIKIPEDIA COMMUNITY BY AROUSING NATINALISTIC & POLITICAL FEELINGS AND PASSIONS - HE IS RIGHT, AFTER ALL POLITICS IS THE LAST RESORT OF SCOUNDERALS, WHICH HE HAS AMPLY PROVED AND DEMONSTRATED BY KEEPING HIS ID LIKE A RAT INSIDE A HOLE SO THAT WIKI COMMUNITY REMAINS BLIND TO HIS IDIOTIC EDITS.
How about, I dunno, actually addressing what I pointed out in one single example of your dishonesty? Your "summary" doesn't bear any relation to what I actually wrote, or, for that matter, reality. The more rage, scream, insult, and dodge, the less credibility you have -- not that you ever had much to begin with.
You didn't answer a single one of my questions, demonstrate that you have the slightest bit of understanding of the issues, or show your work. What low-grade secondary school did you go to?
You're a troll, and one without the slightest shred of intellectual honesty. It's a pretty safe bit to ignore anything and everything you write. Go peddle your propaganda elsewhere. --Calton | Talk 03:50, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
Did the rat in the hole ever went to any school? Did he has anything to prove his credibility on wikipedia? He does not even know that PBS, Parliament of India, Forbes, Harvard University, US government and Frontline and all other encyclopedias are wrong. Only I am right. They are all in one massive conspiracy to defame Wikipedia. In reality, there was no dictator who was part of non-aligned mpovement. Nehru invented free-market. I refuse to believe that India has ever had government run ration shops where food was rationed. I feel he is learning his lessons on wikipedia, and may be earlier his actions on wikipedia may have resulted into massive anger of wiki community, so he is ashamed to come in the open with an ID. After all, if he uses his ID, the grey matter he claims to have may turn out to be garbage. --MissingLinks 04:30, 15 May 2005 (UTC)


I provided evidence for all statements and if you are so dumb that you do not even know that India was and still has a mostly state-controlled economy, I can't help it. You do not have a single shred of evidence in your favor. This is a straight case of intellectual inferiority on your part. You are clearly a moron with inferior IQ if you do not know a common fact.

THE ONLY PEOPLE WHO ARE NATIONALISTIC AND PATRIOTIC ARE INDIANS WHO INSIST THAT NEHRU IS ABOVE CRITICISM AND MUST NOT BE CRITICISED AND ALSO AMERICAN LOW IQ MORONS WHO ARE USEFUL IDIOTS FOR COMMUNISTS.

ghost of Bhadani

Ref: "Bhadani is a governemnt stooge" - interesting to note that the ghost of Bhadani, who has perhaps not come to this page for weeks, continues to haunt some annonymous users. --MissingLinks 13:51, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

    • As the article is under my watch list, I saw comments about me - I would request all concerned to avoid personal attacks. --Bhadani 17:46, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

Personal Attacks

Look, I do not know who started it and why, but this has to end now. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 16:45, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

I agree with you. Well said! I've provided enough evidence and instead of going through it, all we see is personal attacks. Please go through the evidence I provided. Thanks.

Zscout370's Comments

Ok folks, this is going to take a while, but I am going to look at all of the sources and see what it is trying to convey.

"website of the UPPER HOUSE OF PARLIAMENT OF INDIA http://rajyasabha.nic.in/rsdebate/deb_ndx/197/29112002/3to4.htm The Soviet Union liberally helped us. By accepting the help from the Soviet Union from the Second Five Year Plan onwards, Pt. Jawaharlal Nehru built up this solid structure for economic progress. This economic base paved the path for an independent foreign policy challenging imperialist powers who are trying to dominate the world. That was the solid base on which we stood up and followed an independent foreign policy and challenged the mighty ex-imperialist powers."

The Soviet Union provided aid to many nations, just like the United States has. From an earlier version of the Soviet Union article: "Since the early 1970s, the Soviet Union concluded friendship and cooperation treaties with a number of states in the noncommunist world, especially among Third World and Non-Aligned Movement states." India, as stated earlier, was part of the Non-Aligned Movement. From the CIA Factbook on India: "During the post-1971 era of close Indian-Soviet relations, cultural exchanges flourished between India and the Central Asian republics." As for Nehru and Stalin, here is text, also from the CIA Factbook: "Ties between India and the Soviet Union initially were distant. Nehru had expressed admiration for the Soviet Union's rapid economic transformation, but the Soviet Union regarded India as a "tool of Anglo-American imperialism." After Josef Stalin's death in 1953, the Soviet Union expressed its hopes for "friendly cooperation" with India. This aim was prompted by the Soviet decision to broaden its international contacts and to cultivate the nonaligned and newly independent countries of Asia and Africa. Nehru's state visit to the Soviet Union in June 1955 was the first of its kind for an Indian prime minister. It was followed by the trip of Premier Nikolai Bulganin and General Secretary Nikita Khrushchev to India in November and December 1955. The Soviet leaders endorsed the entire range of Indian foreign policy based on the Panch Shila and supported India's position against Pakistan on Kashmir. The Soviet Union also supported India's position vis-а-vis Portugal on Goa, which was territorially integrated into India as a union territory by the Indian armed forces in December 1961 (it became a state in May 1987)." [3]. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 17:26, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

  • Note, I have also found this article from the Library of Congress: [4]. I will look at it some more and see what else I can find. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 17:28, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
I am amazed by so much that has happened in the past few weeks! We should not be fighting here with each other, but should be cooperating in order to build a better encyclopedia. As an Indologist, I must say that the anonymous poster or posters are correct about India, but I wish they would make their points in a more polite way. Well, at least they provided evidence for the points they made. I am also embarassed that we are arguing about truisms as the anonymous posters pointed out. It doesn't do good for the image of us Americans. I remember that during the cold war years, India swore by socialism and looked at us with suspicion. I am one of those who is happy that Americans and Indians have come together. We need to reach out to them, not alienate them by indulging in revisionism of history and helping the Communists. India's socialist phase is a sad chapter in its history. Let us not try to cover it up. Not that it will work. It will only make Wikipedia lose credibility because we aren't discussing something that is obscure, but something that is a fact like "Bush is the President of USA". If someone asks for proof that Bush is the President of USA, does it become a dispute? I think the way to go is to accept that India was socialist and has made some progress since 1991 when they liberalized their economy. India was also part of the Soviet bloc during the cold war.
Though I am not going to fight over any points in the article, but every nation that was Non-Aligned was weary about what either our country of the Soviet Union is doing to their country. Also, if you want to look at it this way, India was a fledgling nation at the time Nehru was in office. It has not been own their own for ten years, so they needed all of the help they could get. The Soviets stepped up, and I take a guess that Nehru took their advice and puts it into action. Also, I do wish to point out that India is also on the move, and many of the people who are living in Nehru's time are either dead or close to dying out, so any influence Nehru's legacy will have on the Indian people today will not be as great as in generations past. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 16:03, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
You are absolutely right about USSR stepping up to the plate. In the early 1950s, both the American side as well as the Soviet side competed for getting India onto their side. India's ruling party was split between the laissez-faire folks and the socialists. As long as the Deputy Prime Minister, Patel, was alive, the socialists were kept in check and it appeared that India would have amarket economy. Once he died, Nehru lifted the ban on Communists, openly started lobbying on behalf of Communist China and cozied up to the Soviet Union. He was the prime mover behind the infamous Congress Resolution calling for the "Socialistic Pattern of Society" and the Second Five Year Plan made India's economy into a Soviet style economy complete with the Planning Commission determining every aspect of the Indian economy. Technically, the idea is Leninist and not Stalinist, since it was Lenin's idea to have the state control the "commanding heights" of the economy while allowing petty shopkeepers to own their shops. Stalin is the one who implemented this model and it was during Stalin's rule that "five-year plans" came into being. That is why it is called Stalinism. The Second Five Year Plan and the "Avadi Resolution" of 1955 are sad events in the history of India. Sad for the people, that is. The Non-Aligned Movement would have been commendable, but for the fact that they were on the side of Soviets. Even that is not so bad as what the people faced due to economic hardship. It is true that India had made tremendous strides since 1991. I must openly admit that I am an Indophile and am happy to see India progress. Doubly so, because I was one of those who always believed that Indians would progress once they got rid of the shackles of socialism. However, let us not sweep the past under the carpet! The stringent controls of the past have done more harm than good and that is what Nehru is about. He is not about the present, he is about the past. The idea of state controlling the comanding heights of the economy continued till Rajiv Gandhi (Nehru's grandson who became the Prime Minister) was around. See http://ignca.nic.in/ks_41005.htm which has Rajiv Gandhi's speech. To quote from it, "The focus of our socialism is the uplift of the poor, succour to the weak, justice to the oppressed and balanced regional development. 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." In short, the intention was good when Stalinism was adapted to Indian economic conditions, but the effects were truly terrible. For those who want to quibble about the differences between Socialism and Stalinism, let me point out that India's economy is not similar to Sweden's but similar to Soviet Union's. It is a centrally planned economy, but has liberalized the economy starting 1991. An appeal to everyone involved in this discussion -please keep it polite and discuss the issues instead of getting emotional. Victoria Primus 18:57, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
Well, for those who want to know what Stalinism is, they can go here. That article did state that nations with communist revolutions and those just released from colonial rule had looked up to the Soviets, some adopted some ideas of Stalinism (mainly the five year plans). Was the government Stalinist itself? No idea, since I still need to take a peek at it. Plus, I really do think with the growth of technology industries in India and the legal abolishment of the caste system, some could say that India is trying to be socialistic by erasing the gaps between rich and poor. Though, in my personal opinion, India can do many things to improve their situation. Increase the jobs, allow the increase of foreign investment, and (probably I get shot for saying this) reproduce less. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 19:26, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
Was the government Stalinist? If you mean the political system, the answer is no. India has a Parliamentary democracy on the lines of the British system. There seems to be some confusion here. Its economy was certainly Stalinist in nature. Its political system was NOT Stalinist. We seem to be going around in circles here - each time we talk of its economy, the political system gets dragged in. The term Nehruvian-stalinism, which seems to be used in the mainstream media in India, seems to capture this idea very well - it is not authoritarian Stalinism, but a softer version with the economic angle being Stalinist and the political angle being democratic. You are right about free-market contributing to the growth of the technology industry post-1991 and removing the gap between the rich and the poor. This has always been the argument of free-market proponents - what the socialists claim to strive for is actually achieved through a free-market. Gandhi was for retaining the caste-system, others were not. In my opinion, it is a red herring to even discuss that in the context of economics. The highest caste lived in poverty, the ruling class were not the highest and those who controlled finance and trade were third in the hierarchy of four castes! Figure that out! On the technology industry, the only reason this industry grew in India is that the government's outdated laws did not regulate the computer industry. You are right about removing regulations to allow foreign investment. This will also automatically create jobs. I won't shoot you, but I am one of those who think that a human being is an asset, not a liability. If the, shall we say "Stalinist", restraints are removed and every human is allowed to create wealth according to her potential, India will thrive. Considering the population a liability is not what a genuine proponent of free-market should do. After all, India doesn't suffer from shortage of food. It only suffers from shortage of wealth created by humans. This is precisely the point about Stalinism preventing prosperity. Finally, remember that Netherlands has a higher population density than India. My suggestion is that Wikipedia should state the truth about India - its economy was based on the Soviet model and was centrally planned and thus Stalinist, but the political system was British with most of the institutions handed over by the British. Was Nehru Communist? He certainly seems to have been a sympathizer of Communists, but did not make India into a Communist state. Victoria Primus 23:15, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
The term Nehruvian-stalinism, which seems to be used in the mainstream media in India... No disrespect, but Victoria Primus, (aka User:128.107.253.43 [5], User:128.107.253.39, User:128.107.253.40, User:128.107.253.41, and User:128.107.253.42) is selling you a bill of goods. For details, see [[6]]. --Calton | Talk 04:33, 20 May 2005 (UTC)
Calton, I owe you one. I did a Google search]. Most of it was blogs (god I hate those things) and Wikipedia mirrors. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 04:42, 20 May 2005 (UTC)
Perfect. I just hope that others who have been editing the article can get on board and try to find a happy medium. Of course, there will be people who will not like it, and change back to whatever they like. Personally, I have no clue about Nehru or the Stalinism debate and why it started. But I want to help solve this problem the best that I can. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 23:25, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
I am puzzled why this page is now locked. There was no vandalism on the part of those who provided evidence from sources such as PBS, Parliament of India and other sites. I believe this is the reason we Americans are hated around the world. We like to flex our muslces and bully others. The only vandalism seems to be by those who locked this page with their version, which consists of Orwellian claims about India not ever having a state-controlled economy.
The page is protected because you and various other anonymous users (plus User:Victoria Primus) are unwilling to follow Wikipedia's NPOV and sourcing policies. You are also misrepresenting the arguments of your opponents. No one is denying that India's economy had strong elements of state control. So did the U.K.'s economy following WWII, yet no one calls the Atlee government "Stalinist". You really need to read some mainstream sources. I suspect that you have been reading laissez-faire sources that make no distinction between social democracy and Communism. Firebug 13:13, 20 May 2005 (UTC)
You don't have a clue about economics. India is not and was never similar to the Western countries where socialism meant free enterprise + govt subsidized heathcare and education. It was one where free enterprise was not allowed. Why is it that you do not provide any evidence for you highly opinionated claims and fantasies? Why don't you try to provide evidence? Do you know why? You don't have any! Atlee was not Stalinist. You are utterly clueless about what a planned economy means. Now you claim that PBS, TIME, CNN, Frontline, Communist Party of India(Marxist), Parliament of India are not mainstream?

http://www.time.com/time/asia/magazine/article/0,13673,501031208-552153,00.html

To the Annon. IP Addresses

I still strongly encourage you all to sign up for accounts. It will make things easier for everyone. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 16:10, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

Unsourced comparisons of Nehru to Stalin have no place here

It is highly inappropriate for an encyclopedia article to use terms implying an equivalence between a social democrat like Nehru and a totalitarian dictator like Stalin. Frankly, most of the anonymous users inserting these statements don't seem to know or care about Wikipedia policy. They are not citing sources, they are not respecting NPOV, and they are repeatedly engaging in personal attacks in edit summaries. Wikipedia is not a blog. You can't simply insert your own personal views or speculations in the encyclopedia articles. Criticisms of Nehru can certainly be included, but they should be criticisms that were reasonably widespread (not crankery from one or two isolated individuals) and sources should be cited for who made the criticisms, when, and in what forum. Firebug 16:52, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

You have no clue about economics, do you? Your insistence that if India has a centrally planned economy with a planning comission, Sweden too has a centrally planned economy is IDIOTIC. Now you insist that PBS, Encyclopedia Britannica, CNN, TIME, professors at Harvard, Yale, SJSU, London School of Economics, US Govt, Indian govt are all in a vast conspiracy and India never had a planned economy is stupid. LOW IQ INFERIOR MORON, looks like the contents of your brain are no different from that of a sewage tank. Do you have to display your mental inferiority? And you insist that India never had government run ration shops! You are a fool who is learning about the topic while debating here.
First of all, if you make any further personal attacks, I will request an administrator to block you. Secondly, try doing some reading on economics and political science. No one has denied that India's economy had some elements of state control - as all modern-day economies do. You seem to be under the bizarre misapprehension that all forms of state intervention in the economy constitute "Stalinism". Nothing could be further from the truth, of course. Firebug 13:11, 20 May 2005 (UTC)
Do I have to remind you that you have to refrain from personal attacks. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 04:30, 20 May 2005 (UTC)
You guys are fantastic! India had "some" elements of state control? It had complete control until 1991.
I am not sure what 'complete control' means. An occasionally repressive system of licenses and permits does not translate into state control of the economy. The latter is technically direct intervention in the price system, which did not happen in India except in the case of minimum support prices for agricultural products.

RfC

Since this is getting nowhere very quickly, I am going to list this page at WP:RFC. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 04:35, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

Nvm, already done. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 04:35, 20 May 2005 (UTC)
I made this entry initally; it was later vandalized by User:67.121.92.254. I am trying to assume good faith, but this is becoming harder and harder to do as the anonymous users continue to ignore arguments contrary to their beliefs, and insist that any economic system other than laissez-faire is "Stalinist". Firebug 13:09, 20 May 2005 (UTC)
And based on some of the sources that I have read so far, I am going to have to side with you on this Fire. I provided my comments about some sources, and there is no question the sources come from good people. However, I think the results are being twisted. Plus, every country has a set goal for programs. Some choose five, mine choses ten years or sooner/later. Plus, I just think it is that some material being pushed from the VFD'ed article into here. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 14:20, 20 May 2005 (UTC)
Shows you are bigot! So the huge program on PBS was a conspiracy by CIA according to you? How come the current Finance Minister of India said that it was based on Soviet economy?

More Comments

"Stinking scumbag, Nehru, praises Stalin (read the whole speech, I'm just quoting one Orwellian portion): http://www.northstarcompass.org/nsc0503/nehru.htm So here was this man who created in his life-time this bond of affection and admiration among vast numbers of human beings, a man who has gone through this troubled period of history."

You are supposed to praise leaders that have helped your country when they die. Its part of being a diplomat. Stalin helped India, wanted to promote peace, and there is nothing wrong with that. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 05:04, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

Stalin helped India. Really? Based on this assertion (can you source it for me?) we just change the facts and claim that Stalin loved humanity? Also, are you going to discard all the evidence provided to you by various people? How come only one side gets asked for evidence while the other side can say what they want even if most reputed sources don't agree with them? Isn't it abuse of power on the part of Neutrality that he reverted it to the factually incorrect version before locking it? Don't tell me India is not a centrally planned economy. Search google for "planned economy" and "planning commission" along with "India" and look at the results.
I found this about the India Planning Commision. Their main goal is improve the stadard of living for the people of India (See http://planningcommission.nic.in/aboutus/history/about.htm) As for the peace stuff, this comes from the above article you stated: "In fact, when our Ambassador saw Marshal Stalin three weeks ago or so he expressed himself to him in favour of peace and his desire that peace might not be broken in the world. He expressed then also his goodwill for India and sent his good wishes to our country and to some of us. And it was interesting how he discussed with our Ambassador some of our cultural problems, showing a certain knowledge, which was slightly surprising. He discussed – and it may interest the House – the languages of India, their relationships, their parentage, their extent, and our Ambassador gave him such replies as he could on the subject." Zscout370 (Sound Off) 14:27, 20 May 2005 (UTC)
Main goal is to improve the standard of living! You've now admitted that India had a Stalinist economy! This is exactly what makes India a Stalinist economy. The government believed that the standard of living is actually improved by a bunch of bureaucrats having a conference and deciding how to improve the standard of living. CONTROLLED economies ALWAYS failed. The very idea of free-market is to let people improve themselves instead of imposing restraints and having the economy under state control. You at least admit that India has a planning commission! Isn't that point of this discussion? Others claim that India did not have a planned economy at all! If you try telling that to anyone outside Wikipedia, you will be laughed at immediately.
Every country has a goal: to improve their Motherland. My country does it, India does it, so does the 200 other odd countries/dependicies/other areas. So that is not uniquely Stalinism at all. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 20:57, 20 May 2005 (UTC)
You just keep evading the issue by setting up a strawman and bashing it while refusing to look at the real issue. No one said that having a goal is Stalinist. Central planning and state-control of the economy is Stalinist.
From the five year plan article on Wikipedia: "Jawaharlal Nehru, impressed with the Soviet Union's industrial progress, implemented similar principles in India. India has an extensive network setup to formulate 5-year plans under the supervision of the Planning Commission. India is currently in its 10th 5-year plan(2002-2007) or Panch-Varsh Pranalika." Zscout370 (Sound Off) 21:39, 20 May 2005 (UTC)
Stalinism is defined on Wikipedia as first of all, a political theory and style of government, clearly not applicable here; secondly, as a form of socialism centered around the theory of 'socialism in one country', again not applicable here; and finally, as forced industrialisation, which is not applicable here, as that is associated with the forcible transfer of surplus from agriculture to industry. Planned economies are definitionally unrelated to Stalinism, in that they were neither unique not integral to Stalin's particular contribution to the Soviet project. If a Wikipedia consensus exists that plans are Stalinist, I would like to see that reflected in the articles on Pakistan, Jordan, Iran and Saudi Arabia, all of which have ongoing plans.
All your points get blown out of the water. In his famous 'Avadi Resolution' Nehru wanted the 'socialistic pattern of society.' So that is applicable here. Those who drafted the second 5-year plan were given instructions to give concrete shape to the Avadi Resolution's call for a socialistic pattern of society. Nehru attempted to force industrialization and his statements about how dams are modern day temples and how it is steel and power that should measure the nation's progress are very famous. The latter point was the argument to discard Gandhi's call for an economy based on self-sufficient villages. Planned economies are an invention of Lenin and the first one to implement it was Stalin. Nehru was impressed by the Societ model and that is what resulted in India having a planned economy. Don't even try to argue on this one. You're just making a fool of yourself by doing so. The other key component was that private enterprise was all but banned and many sectors were 'nationalized.' If any other country has a planned economy with no private enterprise, sure, they would be Stalinist too. If your claim is that Pakistan banned private enterprise and its economy was based on plans drafted by Planning Commissions, you are dreaming and you betray a lack of knowledge of Pakistan's economy. It is more feudalistic and Islamic and private enterprise existed there.
I refer you to the articles on Socialism and Fabian Socialism for a discussion on how a 'socialistic pattern of society' is not necessarily the same as Stalinism. This is not really something that is controversial. Planning has all sorts of adherents everywhere, including Keynes and John Kenneth Galbraith and Kenneth Arrow, probably the three most influential leftwing economists till the 1960s, but not Stalinists by any means. Nehru was impressed by the growth of the Soviet Union, but so was pretty much everyone, given that it was truly extraordinary in a world before Korea and Taiwan. So planning/socialistic pattern - both of which will be mentioned quite explicitly in the article - should not be described as Stalinism, which they are not. OK, next. Private enterprise was not banned. State dominance of the economy was limited to heavy engineering sectors, and even there there were private operators - consider Tata Steel. Private sector contributed more than 70% of industrial output at all points in Independent India's history. This is not the sign of an economy without a private sector, but that of a 'mixed economy', which will be put in the article. Finally, if you believe investing in dams is 'forced industrialisation, I suggest you read the Soviet Union article with particular attention to the 1930s. I dont think I can be any clearer. I fear I am not the one making 'a fool of myself' here. Hornplease 05:23, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Pandit

Pandit is Scholar, not Teacher. --Spundun 03:41, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

Pandit can also mean Teacher.In fact the word has many shades of meaning.--(User:MukundP)

A bit less poetical

I understand the article is currently protected because of some vandalism nonsense. When it comes back, I wonder if editors can make an effort to make the tone a bit more encyclopedic. Now it reads something like a lyrical novel, in parts. E.g.:

The bride, Kamala Kaul, a girl of barely seventeen, slim and pretty, was chosen by his parents.

I'm sure the fact is right, but could be more neutrally phrased as, e.g.:

By his parents' arrangement, Nehru married Kamala Kaul, then seventeen.

Or also:

Kamala Nehru was suffering from tuberculosis and breathed her last on ...

Is less poetical (i.e. more encyclopedic as):

Kamala Nehur died of tuberculosis on ...

Or:

Considerably more realistic than the dreamily idealistic Nehru, the pragmatic Patel...

C'mon "dreamily idealistic"?! Maybe just "idealistic" is OK, but still not great.

Gandhi's inexplicable preference for Nehru.

The editor may not understand, nor probably agree with, such preference; but it's hardly encyclopedic to call it "inexplicable."

Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 23:01, 2005 May 21 (UTC)

I am sure the admins could edit that. Also, I would add the words "then at the time seventeen" when the marriage is discussed. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 23:05, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

Nehru & Stalin

  • Hello all, I came to the talk page of Jawaharlal Nehru after a long gap, and found several comments since I had last visited the page.
  • It was interesting to view and read all the comments.
  • Thanks.--Bhadani 18:30, 25 May 2005 (UTC)


Please watch for ethnic and personal attacks

I've removed various extremely vicious personal attacks from an anonymous user, including ethnic slurs against people living in a specific part of India and accusations that anyone who disagreed with him was a "White supremacist". I don't feel that these add anything productive to the discussion, and they violate Wikipedia policy (Wikipedia:No personal attacks). If anyone really wants to read them, they can view the history. If any registered user wants to reinstate them, let them do so. But I don't feel it is appropriate for our contributors to be buffetted by this nonsense. If any more such personal attacks are forthcoming, I may open a request for comments against this anonymous POV-pusher. Firebug 19:16, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

I had previously removed either the same or a very similar attack posted by the same anonymous user from IP address 67.121.95.80. Apparently this user, for whatever reason, wants to troll by posting ethnic/racial slurs and attacks on individual editors. Please ignore these comments, and simply remove them if they are posted again. Hopefully we won't need to request a user block, and the troll will just move along. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 19:56, 2005 May 29 (UTC)

    • I continue to be a dedicated contributor and such small things are not going to affect me and other fellow wikipedians.--Bhadani 14:02, 30 May 2005 (UTC)