What do you think?
Rate this book
Nehru A Troubled Legacy
Nehru: A Troubled Legacy raises a fundamental question: Have we yet made an honest assessment of Nehru—and in effect, an honest assessment of India’s contemporary history? To investigate this significant gap, the author digs deep into historical records and in turn, raises several pertinent questions. Was Nehru truly a ‘great democrat’ as many of his acolytes suggest or was he just cleverly grooming his daughter for the top job and dislodging her potential challengers from key positions in the party and government? Was he really a ‘secular’ person or was secularism a mask for his disdain, nay, hatred for Hinduism? Was he a man of principles or did he adopt double standards whenever it suited him? Did he ever have a proper measure of India’s defence needs or was he foolhardy when it came to defence matters? Did he take a strong, principled stand against corruption or did he go out of his way to protect and promote cronies and some of his favourites who faced serious charges of corruption? Was he the great leader of the Congress and India as he has thus far been made out to be or was he a person given to human frailties like being petty and manipulative? A scholarly and dispassionate analysis of these and many other ignored or hidden questions sheds new light on Nehru’s handling of the nation and its long-term impact on India’s national character. A must-read for anyone interested in understanding the complex relationship Nehru had with our nation-builders like Mahatma Gandhi, Sardar Patel and Dr Rajendra Prasad, as also in unravelling the true state of Indian affairs—pre-Independence and in the decades after Independence—beyond what the propaganda machines have fed us over the years. ‘Why is it that with all the will in the world, I cannot understand what is obvious to you? I am not as far as I know suffering from intellectual decay. Should you not then set your heart on at least making me understand what you are after?’ —Mahatma Gandhi to Nehru ‘You are in habit of
Paperback
First published June 22, 2015
2 people are currently reading
162 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 7 of 7 reviews
September 21, 2017
An abridged version of the blunders of Nehru, this book gives a decent insight into the myopic idealism of Nehru. He failed to foresee the primary requirements of a new born India as he assumed everything to follow a straight path. It also talks about the mammoth adulation Nehru received from his party mates and his deceitful tactics to bring Indira to the forefront which planted the seeds of dynasty politics in India. His careful sidelining of formidable leaders like P. Tandon, Rajendra Prasad and Jagjivan Lal ensured that he is unchallenged. To oppose him meant the end of brilliant political careers. He was shrewd enough to mitigate the power of the Armed Forces to avert a military coup which he feared.
Merits
1. Gives an understanding about the tactful silence of opposition even within his own party
2. Talks about reducing the power of President
3. Throws a wonderful insight into the difference of outlook between Patel and Nehru
4. Lays a groundwork into Nehru's flawed principles of Fabian Socialism
5. Exposes Nehru's veiled means of winning elections by capitalizing the caste and religion equation in India
6. Throws light into the massive corruption within the ranks of Congress and condoning of all such acts by Nehru
Demerits
1. His blunders in China and Kashmir are not detailed in the book.
2. His betrayal of Gandhi is not laid out
3. His friction with Shyama Prasad Mookerjea is not even mentioned once.
Merits
1. Gives an understanding about the tactful silence of opposition even within his own party
2. Talks about reducing the power of President
3. Throws a wonderful insight into the difference of outlook between Patel and Nehru
4. Lays a groundwork into Nehru's flawed principles of Fabian Socialism
5. Exposes Nehru's veiled means of winning elections by capitalizing the caste and religion equation in India
6. Throws light into the massive corruption within the ranks of Congress and condoning of all such acts by Nehru
Demerits
1. His blunders in China and Kashmir are not detailed in the book.
2. His betrayal of Gandhi is not laid out
3. His friction with Shyama Prasad Mookerjea is not even mentioned once.
February 9, 2016
Anyone trying to understand current state of India must read this. Of course, skeletons have started tumbling out of the closet and someone the true heroes of India's independence have started getting recognition as result of full-majority non-congress government, one must keep in mind biased nature of such accounts. Having said that the story every Indian born post independence has heard too has been biased and hence one must make his or her opinion based on the credentials of the authors and their assessment of credibility of their research. This book very clearly shows why India is where it is today and while one can argue that Nehruvian policies have allowed India to reach thus far, it will not be inappropriate to proclaim that had it not been for Nehru, where else India could have reached.
Read for yourself and be the judge. My next ones are going to be Nehru's autobiography and another book by another author to be objective.
Read for yourself and be the judge. My next ones are going to be Nehru's autobiography and another book by another author to be objective.
July 28, 2020
amazing detailed information and the emphasis how our Prime Minister Mr. J Nehru had made mistakes in-spite of several warnings from Sardar Vallabhai Patel.
It just shows that when one particular person gets too much of power, how things can fail or improve if correct suggestions are not accepted.
It just shows that when one particular person gets too much of power, how things can fail or improve if correct suggestions are not accepted.
August 27, 2019
Insightful especially the real letters between some of the freedom movement barons like Patel, Jayaprakash Narayan, Nehru, Gandhi and more.
It's a nice political history read.
It's a nice political history read.
March 22, 2020
Mahatma Gandhi led the Indian struggle for freedom from the British yoke. The nation stood solidly behind him. Thousands sacrificed all that they had – their wealth, career and personal life – to heed Gandhi’s call for national action against the occupying foreigner. As time progressed, it became evident to shrewd political observers that Britain would eventually relinquish power. It was more a question of when than if. The Congress party suddenly became a stepping stone to power and riches. Motilal Nehru was a super-rich lawyer in Allahabad who had scant regard for the Satyagraha mode of nonviolent protest. However, sensing a good opportunity for his family, he joined Congress and persuaded Gandhi to make Jawaharlal Nehru, his son with a failed legal career, the Congress president in 1929. Motilal was the incumbent president of the party and his dynastic ambitions were clearly visible to all in his attempt to hand over the position to his son. This catapulted Jawaharlal into a high-profile career. But the ordinary party workers were not with him due to his elitist life style and company. The crucial moment came about in 1946. By influencing Gandhi once again, he wiggled himself into the party president’s chair once more, and assumed prime ministership once the country became independent. Most of the Congress stalwarts were much older than Nehru and in the first decade of freedom, all of them passed away, leaving the stage open for Nehru and his dynasty. They took control of the Congress party which is still laboring under the family’s thumb. This book is a logical assessment of Nehru’s performance and assigns his failure to his greed for autocratic hold on both the government and the party, his own ideas of implementation of socialism, lack of understanding and appreciation of the poor man’s requirements and of rural India. RNP Singh is a noted political writer who had served earlier in the Intelligence Bureau. He is currently a Senior Fellow at the Vivekananda International Foundation, a think tank, in New Delhi.
Singh provides a saddening narrative on how Nehru turned the Congress party into his personal fief. This should be an eye-opener for the naïve who are still taken in by the party and old Congress governments’ propaganda that Nehru laid the foundation stone of democracy. This book tells how Nehru emasculated a series of party presidents to ensure his unopposed dominance in the party machine. When Nehru became prime minister, J B Kripalani was the Congress president and he resigned in November 1947, frustrated at Nehru not consulting or even informing him about important government policy decisions. Nehru brought in Pattabhi Sitaramayya next, who did not assert or even ask for equality and confined the functions of the party president only to organizational matters. P D Tandon came next in 1950 with Patel’s support, but Patel died soon in December 1950. In the beginning, Tandon tried to function independently and did not pay enough regard to Nehru’s concerns in party affairs. But Nehru intervened wherever possible and threatened to withdraw from the Working Committee if it was not reconstituted to suit his taste. Tandon resigned in disgust in 1951 upon which Nehru himself assumed the party’s presidency. Three years later, he nominated his loyal crony U N Dhebar for the post who kept the chair warm for his daughter Indira to become president in 1959. He filled important positions with the second generation of Congressmen who were not distinguished enough to question him. The new line of Congress presidents readily accepted their subordinate position. At the same time, he was determined that none of the state chief ministers emulate his modus operandi and become powerful. He wanted to deny them the opportunity to build themselves up into powerful potentates who could challenge Nehru. Congress passed a resolution forbidding state chief ministers from holding office in the state Congress committees. Sanjiva Reddy, the Congress president from 1960 to 1963, publicly remarked that as the party president, he was treated as ‘Mrs. Gandhi’s chaprasi (office boy)’ (p.24). Singh claims that what Nehru was after was not personal supremacy, but dynastic dominance.
The book exhibits some of Nehru's personality traits, most notably hypocrisy. While deftly pulling the strings for Indira’s elevation, he expressed ‘surprise’ in a noting on his diary at the idea of her becoming the party leader as if he was totally alien to such a scenario. Whom was he trying to hoodwink? Noted historian K M Munshi puts it down succinctly. He remarked that ‘Nehru was justifiably proud of his heroic role in the struggle for freedom, pampered by his doting father, built up as his heir by Gandhi, spoiled by interested adulation, was intolerant to criticism and impatient of opposition’ (p.68). Nehru tolerated dissent only so long as it remained defused and articulated within the orbit of the Congress system. His democratic credentials are further slurred by the frequent dismissal of state governments on a whim. Between 1952 and 1964, he imposed President’s Rule five times to dislodge non-Congress chief ministers. Tired of his unwarranted intrusion in their departments, S P Mukherjee, K C Neogi, Ambedkar and John Mathai resigned from Nehru's cabinet.
Nehru's megalomania is fully exposed in this book. Nehru was a hero not only in the eyes of the people, but also in his own eyes. He believed that he was a man of destiny and that he had been cast for a historic role. Later in life, he developed a habit of making his own decisions on vital national and international issues and then presenting them as fait accompli to his cabinet and the parliamentary committees. Transfer of the enclave of Berubari to Pakistan was taken without consulting the West Bengal state which housed this patch of territory. Minority appeasement was begun by Nehru in national politics. Akalis were brought in as a group in Congress for the 1957 election. The Bishop of Kottayam issued an appeal to the Christians of Kerala which projected Nehru's image as the only leader who was a protector of minorities. He openly enticed the Muslim vote bank and made a political alliance with the Muslim league in Kerala.
The author presents enough evidence to prove his claim that Nehru kick started corruption in high places while keeping himself out of the cesspool. He exhibited an ostrich-like attitude to corruption, refusing to get convinced even when all the incriminating evidence lay before him. He believed that corruption is a result of the democratic process. His own private secretary, M O Mathai, was found to be corrupt, but Nehru defended him. He harboured politicians in administration on the plea that they are otherwise efficient! Congress badly needed the money as its sessions and other programs had become shows requiring extravagant expenditure. All this pomp and show required huge amounts of money. Raising election propaganda costs was another guzzler. When the pressure became irritatingly persistent, Nehru ordered commissions of enquiry but sat firmly upon their reports. These commissions were usually headed by serving judges of the judiciary and found many politicians guilty. However, no criminal charges were brought upon them. Nehru was satisfied by their resignations and they enjoyed the fruits of their felony in comfort. The notorious Jeep scandal occurred during Nehru's rule in which kickbacks were paid through V K Krishna Menon for purchasing Jeeps for the military. This was only a harbinger of the Bofors scam under his grandson’s rule.
Nehru's antipathy to men in uniform and his complacence in formulating a credible defence policy is widely known. Singh adds his two cents’ worth here. The military was downgraded and kept under bureaucratic control. During the British rule, a Secretary to the government of India was ranked lower than a Lieutenant General while Nehru made him on par with the General. He abolished the post of commander-in-chief and made the President of India the supreme commander-in-chief, but this was largely ceremonial. Pakistan feared Indian military, but Nehru feared it even more for their potential for staging a military coup. He starved them of equipment. One battalion of the Indian army went into the Battle for Goa in PT shoes due to lack of supplies. Only fifteen per cent of defence requirements were produced in India, but government opposed their import citing dearth of foreign exchange. Nehru's two-fold military doctrine was ridiculously childish. He held that wars were evil and that India had no enemy to fear. He had drugged not only the civil administration but also the armed services into supine inactivity.
Singh claims that he has provided an academic and unbiased analysis of the different facets of Nehru, rather than a biography. While the truth of his assertions is undisputed, his slight anti-Nehru bias is clearly discernible. The book has included a whole lot of letters and little known correspondences Nehru had had with various leaders. The letters between Nehru and Patel serve as a model for new leaders on how to make decent and dignified debate with their political opponents. We also see that cordial salutations like ‘My dear Jawaharlal ji’ and ‘My dear Rajendra Babu’ between Nehru and Rajendra Prasad slowly giving way for ‘My dear Prime Minister’ and ‘My dear President’ as the years went by. The book also includes some rare photographs. It is a credit to the author that he does not mention the personal vagaries of Nehru such as the Edwina affair.
The book is highly recommended.
Singh provides a saddening narrative on how Nehru turned the Congress party into his personal fief. This should be an eye-opener for the naïve who are still taken in by the party and old Congress governments’ propaganda that Nehru laid the foundation stone of democracy. This book tells how Nehru emasculated a series of party presidents to ensure his unopposed dominance in the party machine. When Nehru became prime minister, J B Kripalani was the Congress president and he resigned in November 1947, frustrated at Nehru not consulting or even informing him about important government policy decisions. Nehru brought in Pattabhi Sitaramayya next, who did not assert or even ask for equality and confined the functions of the party president only to organizational matters. P D Tandon came next in 1950 with Patel’s support, but Patel died soon in December 1950. In the beginning, Tandon tried to function independently and did not pay enough regard to Nehru’s concerns in party affairs. But Nehru intervened wherever possible and threatened to withdraw from the Working Committee if it was not reconstituted to suit his taste. Tandon resigned in disgust in 1951 upon which Nehru himself assumed the party’s presidency. Three years later, he nominated his loyal crony U N Dhebar for the post who kept the chair warm for his daughter Indira to become president in 1959. He filled important positions with the second generation of Congressmen who were not distinguished enough to question him. The new line of Congress presidents readily accepted their subordinate position. At the same time, he was determined that none of the state chief ministers emulate his modus operandi and become powerful. He wanted to deny them the opportunity to build themselves up into powerful potentates who could challenge Nehru. Congress passed a resolution forbidding state chief ministers from holding office in the state Congress committees. Sanjiva Reddy, the Congress president from 1960 to 1963, publicly remarked that as the party president, he was treated as ‘Mrs. Gandhi’s chaprasi (office boy)’ (p.24). Singh claims that what Nehru was after was not personal supremacy, but dynastic dominance.
The book exhibits some of Nehru's personality traits, most notably hypocrisy. While deftly pulling the strings for Indira’s elevation, he expressed ‘surprise’ in a noting on his diary at the idea of her becoming the party leader as if he was totally alien to such a scenario. Whom was he trying to hoodwink? Noted historian K M Munshi puts it down succinctly. He remarked that ‘Nehru was justifiably proud of his heroic role in the struggle for freedom, pampered by his doting father, built up as his heir by Gandhi, spoiled by interested adulation, was intolerant to criticism and impatient of opposition’ (p.68). Nehru tolerated dissent only so long as it remained defused and articulated within the orbit of the Congress system. His democratic credentials are further slurred by the frequent dismissal of state governments on a whim. Between 1952 and 1964, he imposed President’s Rule five times to dislodge non-Congress chief ministers. Tired of his unwarranted intrusion in their departments, S P Mukherjee, K C Neogi, Ambedkar and John Mathai resigned from Nehru's cabinet.
Nehru's megalomania is fully exposed in this book. Nehru was a hero not only in the eyes of the people, but also in his own eyes. He believed that he was a man of destiny and that he had been cast for a historic role. Later in life, he developed a habit of making his own decisions on vital national and international issues and then presenting them as fait accompli to his cabinet and the parliamentary committees. Transfer of the enclave of Berubari to Pakistan was taken without consulting the West Bengal state which housed this patch of territory. Minority appeasement was begun by Nehru in national politics. Akalis were brought in as a group in Congress for the 1957 election. The Bishop of Kottayam issued an appeal to the Christians of Kerala which projected Nehru's image as the only leader who was a protector of minorities. He openly enticed the Muslim vote bank and made a political alliance with the Muslim league in Kerala.
The author presents enough evidence to prove his claim that Nehru kick started corruption in high places while keeping himself out of the cesspool. He exhibited an ostrich-like attitude to corruption, refusing to get convinced even when all the incriminating evidence lay before him. He believed that corruption is a result of the democratic process. His own private secretary, M O Mathai, was found to be corrupt, but Nehru defended him. He harboured politicians in administration on the plea that they are otherwise efficient! Congress badly needed the money as its sessions and other programs had become shows requiring extravagant expenditure. All this pomp and show required huge amounts of money. Raising election propaganda costs was another guzzler. When the pressure became irritatingly persistent, Nehru ordered commissions of enquiry but sat firmly upon their reports. These commissions were usually headed by serving judges of the judiciary and found many politicians guilty. However, no criminal charges were brought upon them. Nehru was satisfied by their resignations and they enjoyed the fruits of their felony in comfort. The notorious Jeep scandal occurred during Nehru's rule in which kickbacks were paid through V K Krishna Menon for purchasing Jeeps for the military. This was only a harbinger of the Bofors scam under his grandson’s rule.
Nehru's antipathy to men in uniform and his complacence in formulating a credible defence policy is widely known. Singh adds his two cents’ worth here. The military was downgraded and kept under bureaucratic control. During the British rule, a Secretary to the government of India was ranked lower than a Lieutenant General while Nehru made him on par with the General. He abolished the post of commander-in-chief and made the President of India the supreme commander-in-chief, but this was largely ceremonial. Pakistan feared Indian military, but Nehru feared it even more for their potential for staging a military coup. He starved them of equipment. One battalion of the Indian army went into the Battle for Goa in PT shoes due to lack of supplies. Only fifteen per cent of defence requirements were produced in India, but government opposed their import citing dearth of foreign exchange. Nehru's two-fold military doctrine was ridiculously childish. He held that wars were evil and that India had no enemy to fear. He had drugged not only the civil administration but also the armed services into supine inactivity.
Singh claims that he has provided an academic and unbiased analysis of the different facets of Nehru, rather than a biography. While the truth of his assertions is undisputed, his slight anti-Nehru bias is clearly discernible. The book has included a whole lot of letters and little known correspondences Nehru had had with various leaders. The letters between Nehru and Patel serve as a model for new leaders on how to make decent and dignified debate with their political opponents. We also see that cordial salutations like ‘My dear Jawaharlal ji’ and ‘My dear Rajendra Babu’ between Nehru and Rajendra Prasad slowly giving way for ‘My dear Prime Minister’ and ‘My dear President’ as the years went by. The book also includes some rare photographs. It is a credit to the author that he does not mention the personal vagaries of Nehru such as the Edwina affair.
The book is highly recommended.
September 17, 2015
This book is far from good work and not well researched.The author does not give a dispassionate account of Nehru's relations with his colleagues but it goes with basic theme that Nehru family starting from Motilal to Sonia Gandhi had one point agenda i.e to prop up their sons and daughters.He says it all started by making Jawaharlal the President in 1929 who succeeded Motilal. He is not giving any credence to the wisdom of congress people who represented the heart and soul of India in Freedom movement who elected Jawaharlal as their president in 1929.He forgets if it was so easy to prop up sons and daughters why Subahsh Bose defeated P Sitarammya inspite of the call by Gandhiji to vote in favour of Sitarammya.
These are the imaginations of the author far from truth. Why a person so wealthy in terms of money and qualification will opt for gallows for 17 years before 1947? You are denigrating the sacrifices of the Great Man.This is certainly not a good analysis .
On the cover of the book the author mentions the strong statement issued by Subhash Bose to Nehru where he is criticizing Nehru on "Individualist or Socialist". He is projecting the wedge between Nehru and Subhash. He forgets that from as early as 1925 there were right wingers and left wingers in the congress. The right wingers were led Patel,GB Pant, Madam Mohan Malviya, PD Tandon and left were led by Subhash, Nehru JP,Narendra Dev Kripalani and all of them had agreed to work under Gandhi. When Subhash was elected president the right wingers were not at all cooperating with him and in frustration he left the congress and was unhappy with Jawaharlal for doing enough to contain the right wing.
He also creates wedge between Patel & Nehru . Patel was pragmatist while Jawaharlal was more of an idealist. You need both , for short term policies you need a pragmatist while for long term vision you need idealist and they both complemented and respected each other.Patel was very clear on china policy while Nehru in love for socialist China ignored his views and India had to pay the price.
The author says he was not a democrat which is laughable. Pl read the parliament speeches. He used to listen to comrade Dange for hours in parliament who criticized him vehemently. He gave the offer to Dr Mukherjee and Socialist to join the Govt for what? Are you writing a fiction Mr author?
The author also concludes saying that Nehru was insecure,followed double standards,protected the corrupts,promoted the dynastic rule.
I think this book has been written without good research and analysis. The theme of the book was decided by the ideology which the author represents and then the datas were collated which says anything but truth.
My last submission is that every time author quotes only three people viz Durga Das, Makhan Lal and K M Munshi and there is no mention of any other author which corroborates what I wrote in the previous paragraph.
I did not expect this kind of poor work from the member of VIF which is considered to be the think tank of todays's dispensation. We should be critical of Nehru where he failed us but this book is not a critical analysis but poses him as a creator of all the problems we are faced with today which is far from truth.
Hope for better work to come.
Regards
Manish Mishra
These are the imaginations of the author far from truth. Why a person so wealthy in terms of money and qualification will opt for gallows for 17 years before 1947? You are denigrating the sacrifices of the Great Man.This is certainly not a good analysis .
On the cover of the book the author mentions the strong statement issued by Subhash Bose to Nehru where he is criticizing Nehru on "Individualist or Socialist". He is projecting the wedge between Nehru and Subhash. He forgets that from as early as 1925 there were right wingers and left wingers in the congress. The right wingers were led Patel,GB Pant, Madam Mohan Malviya, PD Tandon and left were led by Subhash, Nehru JP,Narendra Dev Kripalani and all of them had agreed to work under Gandhi. When Subhash was elected president the right wingers were not at all cooperating with him and in frustration he left the congress and was unhappy with Jawaharlal for doing enough to contain the right wing.
He also creates wedge between Patel & Nehru . Patel was pragmatist while Jawaharlal was more of an idealist. You need both , for short term policies you need a pragmatist while for long term vision you need idealist and they both complemented and respected each other.Patel was very clear on china policy while Nehru in love for socialist China ignored his views and India had to pay the price.
The author says he was not a democrat which is laughable. Pl read the parliament speeches. He used to listen to comrade Dange for hours in parliament who criticized him vehemently. He gave the offer to Dr Mukherjee and Socialist to join the Govt for what? Are you writing a fiction Mr author?
The author also concludes saying that Nehru was insecure,followed double standards,protected the corrupts,promoted the dynastic rule.
I think this book has been written without good research and analysis. The theme of the book was decided by the ideology which the author represents and then the datas were collated which says anything but truth.
My last submission is that every time author quotes only three people viz Durga Das, Makhan Lal and K M Munshi and there is no mention of any other author which corroborates what I wrote in the previous paragraph.
I did not expect this kind of poor work from the member of VIF which is considered to be the think tank of todays's dispensation. We should be critical of Nehru where he failed us but this book is not a critical analysis but poses him as a creator of all the problems we are faced with today which is far from truth.
Hope for better work to come.
Regards
Manish Mishra
September 12, 2023
The true face of Mr. Nehru is revealed in this book with evidence!
Displaying 1 - 7 of 7 reviews