Atanu’s response: Yes, one person can indeed do a whole lot of damage. Hitler was the main force behind much of the damage and destruction of Europe–he did not personally with his own two hands wreak havoc of course, only managed to create the system which did so. I am not saying that Nehru and Hilter were twins: only that it is quite feasible for an individual to cause great harm.

Of course, Nehru could be entirely blameless and there could have been other reasons why India became an irrelevant “Third-world” overpopulated poverty-stricken country. But I have not yet seen any other candidate proposed by anyone else.

As far Nehru’s legacy, his position was that of an opener who comes to bat when his team is enforced a follow-on of 200 runs (years in the actual sense).

I feel that moral decay in India started during Indira Gandhi’s times. She was the first to show how bad democracy can be by indulging in all sorts of ugly politics.

More than Socialism, it is corruption that causes more harm.

Though this is not directly related to your post, I thought I must make this point. When we got independence, it was by no means a certainty that India would be a stable, free (albeit poor) country. A look at many countries just clawing out of colonialism reveals a history of instability and despotism. That was a real possibility in India too with its amazing diversity. However, that did not happen. I am not saying things were extremely smooth, but India did not unravel and remained an essentially free and coherent country. I think that aspect is overlooked by many. It is true that we did not develop as we should have and there are many reasons for that. Still, India remained one of the few really stable and free and stable countries in the third world. That is by no means a substitute for development, but it is a desirable state of affairs.

As much as any one person can be held responsible for a nation’s fortunes (I see you have no qualms for holding Nehru alone responsible for India’s economic foolhardiness), it is due to Nehru’e leadership that India remained a stable and free country. Please read Shashi Tharoor’s
Nehru : The Invention of India. I think this aspect of Nehru’s legacy needs to be acknowledged.

As for the deification of individuals that you lamented, it is true that belongs only to an irrational realm. In any rational world, a logical analysis is carried out and good and bad things are discussed. It is indeed sad that most of discourse in India happens in the irrational realm. And Nehru (or anybody else) is treated as a holy cow. It is my belief that that is not complimentary to anyone, even Nehru. Remember that reproaching Nehru without any logical analysis is also fashionable, though in much smaller circles.

Actually, the Indian subcontinent has that amazing ability to elevate as heroes those who screwed them over.

Those who succesfully screwed us over are “fitter” than us, in the darwinian sense. Which automatically makes them praiseworthy.

Atanu’s response: Ambar, “fitter” is a descriptive word, and not a laudatory word. So while it is true that in the conflict between the Greeks and the barbarians, the barbarians win and therefore they are “fitter,” it does not make the barbarians more worthy of praise. Cockroaches are “fitter” than many other living species; but one wouldn’t want to invite one to dinner, would one?

One word

“Dhimmitude”

It is the most abiding and fashionable religion in India,

Whether of British or Nehru-Gandhi dynasty
the servility continues.

This is a nation of Gungadeens.

Regards

PS Sorry for Rant