Nehru's 97 Major Blunders

by Rajnikant Puranik

Study the past, if you would divine the future. —Confucius

...[then] it seemed to me that Jawaharlal should be the new President [of Congress in 1946—and hence the first Prime Minister] ...I acted according to my best judgement but the way things have shaped since then has made me to realise that this was perhaps the greatest blunder of my political life... My second mistake was that when I decided not to stand myself, I did not support Sardar Patel. —Abul Kalam Azad, ‘India Wins Freedom’{Azad/162}

He [Nehru] had no idea of economics. He talked of socialism, but he did not know how to define it. He talked of social justice, but I told him he could have this only when there was an increase in production. He did not grasp that. So you need a leader who understands economic issues and will invigorate your economy. —Chester Bowles, US Ambassador

On Nehru: “…a man of echoes and mimicry, the last viceroy rather than the first leader of a liberated India.” —Malcolm Mug...

A young man who isn't a socialist hasn't got a heart; an old man who is a socialist hasn't got a head. —David Lloyd George, UK PM (1916-22)

“Poor countries are poor because those who have power make choices that create poverty.” Such countries develop “extractive” institutions that “keep poor countries poor”. —Daron Acemoglu and James A. Robinson in ‘Why Nations Fail’ (Nehru laid the foundations of ‘Extractive Institutions’)

the Nehru era laid the foundations of India’s poverty and misery, condemning it to be forever a developing, third-rate, third-world country.

Other leaders too make mistakes, but Nehru can beat them all hands down. The number, the extent, and the comprehensiveness of the Nehruvian blunders can’t be matched.

Other leaders blunder in one or two or three areas. Not Nehru. His was a 360 degree coverage. He blundered in practically all areas (and sub-areas, and in very many ways): external security, internal security, foreign policy, economy, education, culture,… it’s a long list. An examination of his record leaves you gasping. Here is a very cryptic label to capture the essential Nehru: “Nabob of Cluelessness”.

Nehru bequeathed a toxic political (dynastic and undemocratic), economic (socialistic), industrial (inefficient and burdensome public and state sector), agricultural (neglected and starved), geographic (most borders insecure), administrative (incompetent and corrupt babudom), historical (Marxist and Leftist distortion), educational ...

he was well-intentioned. But, then, road to hell is often paved with good intentions!

One may say: Why sweat over Nehru? He is long gone. Long gone—physically. But, much of his thinking and policies still unfortunately survive. It is necessary to understand that he followed a wrong path, and the nation needs to gain freedom from those ideas and forge ahead. There is nothing personal here. Nobody has anything against Nehru, as a person. But, if thanks to his policies, millions suffered, and thanks to the continuation of his policies, millions continue to suffer, then it is not a dead historical question.

Patel had led the Bardoli Satyagraha of 1928 whose resounding success had made him a national hero, and bestowed on him the title Sardar. The Bardoli Satyagraha was the first successful practical implementation of the Gandhian non-violent technique involving the rural masses on the ground. Nehru lacked such credentials. Besides, Sardar Patel was much senior to Jawaharlal, and a larger number of Pradesh Congress Committees (PCCs: legal body to elect President) had recommended him over Jawaharlal. Yet, Gandhi, most unjustly and undemocratically, asked Patel to withdraw! Gandhi thereby tried to establish an unjust pecking order where Jawaharlal came before Patel.

Acharya Kripalani had remarked that Gandhi’s reasons for preferring Jawaharlal “were personal rather than political…the two were emotionally attached to each other, deny it though they may”.{RG/183}

Jawaharlal’s father Motilal had a major role to play in Jawaharlal’s undeserved elevation. Motilal was the Congress President in 1928. He desired that his position be inherited by his son. Subsequent to Patel’s Bardoli win, Motilal wrote to Gandhi on 11 July 1928: “I am quite clear that the hero of the hour is Vallabhbhai, and the least we can do is to offer him the crown [make him President of the Congress]. Failing him, I think that under all the circumstances Jawahar would be the best choice.”{RG2/L-2984} Motilal actively canvassed for Jawaharlal with Gandhi. Nepotism and “fight” for freedom went together: Nehrus from Motilal downwards ensured their family was well taken care of; and that it came first, ahead of the nation! In the long run, the nation paid heavily for Motilal’s brazen nepotism, exemplarily emulated by his dynasty.

Jawaharlal was also favoured by Gandhi with an unprecedented second consecutive term in 1930, then another two terms in 1936 and 1937, topped by the critical term in 1946 (Blunder#6)! Such privilege was not accorded to any other leader—even Sardar Patel was made President only once for one year!

The Old Man’s weakness for the westernized Nehru over the home-spun fellow Gujarati [Patel] was yet another aspect of “Swadeshi” Gandhi’s self-contradictory personality. How Jawaharlal managed to become the “spiritual son” of Gandhi is a mystery. Wrote MN Roy in “The Men I Met”: “It can reasonably be doubted if Nehru could have become the hero of Indian Nationalism except as the spiritual son of Gandhi…To purchase popularity, Nehru had to suppress his own personality…”{Roy/11}

Rafi Ahmad Kidwai of the Congress (who had been private secretary of Motilal Nehru, and after Motilal’s death, a principal aide of Jawaharlal Nehru) had persuaded, jointly with Nehru, several influential Muslims, like Khaliq-uz-Zaman (third in the AIML hierarchy after Jinnah and Liaqat Ali Khan) and Nawab Mohammad Ismail Khan, who had the potential to win, to fight the elections on behalf of the Muslim League—as Muslims fighting on behalf of the Muslim League had better chances of winning. They fought and won. But, after the elections, when the Congress found it could form the government on its own, without the help of the Muslim League, it began to put unreasonable conditions.{DD/181-83}

To Jinnah’s proposal of inclusion of two Muslim League Ministers in the UP cabinet, Nehru, who was the Congress President then, and was also looking after the UP affairs, put forth an amazing, arrogant condition: the League legislators must merge with the Congress!

The above humiliating condition that was the death warrant for the League was naturally rejected by Jinnah.{Gill/179-80}

Jinnah then wanted to meet Gandhi; but Gandhi advised him to rather meet Abul Kalam Azad, by whom he said he was guided in such matters. Rebuffed and humiliated Jinnah then decided to show Congress-Nehru-Gandhi their place.

It was unwise of the Congress and Nehru not to show a little generosity towards the League. Reportedly, Sardar Patel and GB Pant were willing for a coalition with the Muslim League as per the pre-election understanding, but Nehru, in his “wisdom” and hubris, decided to act arrogant, and led the way for the ultimate parting of ways with Jinnah and the Muslim League,

Partition and Pakistan—Nehru was the Congress President in 1936 and 1937.

The fissure caused by Nehru’s impetuosity was never healed. There is an opinion that had the Congress been accommodating towards the AIML post-1937 elections, AIML may not have hurtled forward towards Partition and Pakistan.

Wrote MC Chagla: “To my mind, one of the most potent causes which ultimately led to the creation of Pakistan was what happened in Uttar Pradesh [United Provinces in 1937]. If Jawaharlal Nehru had agreed to a coalition ministry and not insisted on the representative of the Muslim League signing the Congress pledge, perhaps Pakistan would never have come about. I remember Jawaharlal telling me that Khaliquz Zaman [to whom Nehru had denied a berth in the UP cabinet in 1937] was one of his greatest and dearest friends, and yet he led the agitation for Pakistan… Uttar Pradesh was the cultural home of the Muslims. Although they were in a minority in the State, if Uttar Pradesh had not gone over to the cause of separation, Pakistan would never have become a reality.”{MCC/81-2}

The hard-won (thanks mainly to the efforts of Sardar Patel) Congress ministries in the provinces since 1937, under the strict vigilance of Patel, had begun to perform better than expected. To guide and coordinate the activities of the provincial governments, a central control board known as the Parliamentary Sub-Committee was formed, with Sardar Patel, Maulana Abul Kalam Azad and Rajendra Prasad as members.

In protest against the British-India declaring war without consulting the Congress, the CWC meeting at Wardha on 22-23 October 1939 decided not to co-operate with the British in the war (WW-II). The move was spear-headed by Nehru and the socialists, who also advocated that the Congress Provincial Governments resign by the month-end in protest. Patel and Gandhi were not in favour of non-cooperation with the British in the war, and of the ministries resigning; but Nehru & Co—the socialists—insisted upon it. The resignations were effectively a victory of the Congress Left.

It is worth noting that being more a socialist and a communist sympathiser than an “internationalist”, or an independent or a nationalist thinker, Nehru changed his tune soon after Russia joined the war on the side of Britain, and against Nazis in 1941.

The ill-advised action of Nehru&Co was like giving up all the gains of the 1937-elections; and passing them on to the then defeated Muslim League. While for the Congress it was self-emasculation that greatly weakened it and drastically slashed its bargaining position, throwing it into wilderness, for the British and for Jinnah the Congress Ministries’ resignations were “good riddance”.

Resignation of the Congress ministries in 1939 (Blunder#3 above), thanks to Nehru&Co, was welcomed both by Jinnah and the British authorities. Jinnah couldn’t help calling it the ‘Himalayan Blunder’ of the Congress, and was determined to take full advantage of it. Jinnah and the Muslim League went to the extent of calling upon all Muslims to celebrate 22 December 1939 as the “Deliverance Day”—deliverance from the “misrule” of the Congress.

Resignation by the ruling Congress-Khan brothers was god-sent for Jinnah and the British. Both quickly manipulated to install a Muslim League government, and make popular the divisive agenda.

It is worth noting that Nehru and the Congress were unnecessarily too obsessed with the Centre and the Central legislature, where Jinnah was able to play a wrecker. Had the Congress continued in its ministries, and had it played its cards well in the provinces in the Muslim-majority areas, they could have derailed Jinnah.

If the Congress had intelligently coordinated its efforts with these parties, it could have sidelined Jinnah. But, what to speak of doing that ground work and strengthening its ties with the non-Muslim-League Muslim parties, the Congress itself chose to get irrelevant.

Congress opposition to the British declaration of World War-II on behalf of India, its non-cooperation with the British in that regard, and the unconditional, whole-hearted support extended to the British by Jinnah and the Muslim League ensured the rise of the Muslim League and the gradual eclipse of the Congress, so much so that thereafter it were the British, Jinnah and the Muslim League who dictated the terms of Independence, Partition and Pakistan.

The Muslim League, in order to dominate the predominantly non-Muslim Assam and the Northeast, and make it yet another Muslim-majority region, strategized back in 1906 in its conference at Dacca to somehow increase the Muslim population in Assam, and exhorted the East-Bengal Muslims to migrate and settle in Assam. The fact of large-scale migration was also noted in the Census report of 1931. Congress leaders Bordoloi, Medhi and others raised this serious issue of migration, but did not get due support from the Congress leadership at the Centre.

In the 1930s and later, when the Muslims of East Bengal (now Bangladesh) began migrating to Brahmaputra valley in Assam for livelihood, pooh-poohing the grave warnings from sane quarters, pseudo-secular, naive Nehru made an irresponsible statement: “Nature abhors vacuum, meaning where there is open space how can one prevent people from settling there?” Savarkar responded with his masterly prediction: “Nature also abhors poisonous gas. The migration of such large numbers of Muslims in Assam threatened not just the local culture but would also prove to be a national security problem for India on its north-east frontier.”

Sardar Patel backed Subhas Bose fully; and finally a Congress ministry led by Gopinath Bordoloi took office. With Bordoloi in office it was hoped that the Muslim migrations would be stemmed, and the game of the Muslim League would be defeated. However, thanks to the unwise move of Nehru and his left supporters, the Congress ministries in the provinces resigned in 1939 (Blunder#3 above). This forced Gopinath Bordoloi to also resign in Assam, although Netaji Subhas Bose and Sardar Patel wanted the Bordoloi government to continue. This was God-sent, rather Allah-sent, for the Muslim League. Pro-British Sir Syed Mohammad Saadulla of the Muslim League, from whom Bordoloi had wrested power, again took over. With the Congress in limbo on account of the unwise surrender of power in the provinces (thanks to Nehru&Co), followed by the imprisonment of its leadership in 1942 Quit India, Saadulla ruled uninterrupted for the next seven years shoring up the Muslim base in Assam.

In short, the demographic position became much worse in Assam thanks to the wrong decision of Nehru.

Bordoloi opposed being clubbed into Group-C, contrary to what Nehru had agreed to. With Nehru remaining unamenable, Bordoloi started mass agitation. He fought the Muslim League’s effort to include Assam and other parts of the Northeast Region (NER) in East Pakistan. The Congress Party at the national level, led by Nehru, would have acquiesced to the Muslim

League had it not been for a revolt by Bordoloi, backed by the Assam unit of the Congress Party and supported by Mahatma Gandhi and the Assamese public.

Sardar had demonstrated his prowess in the various movements and assignments, including that in the Nagpur Agitation of 1923; the Borsad Satyagraha of 1923; excellent management of the Ahmedabad Municipality during 1924-27; tackling of the Ahmedabad Floods of 1927; the Bardoli Satyagraha of 1928 that earned him the title of "Sardar"; the Dandi March and the Salt Satyagraha of 1930; successful management of elections for the Congress during 1934-37; preparation, conduct and management of Haripura session of the Congress in 1938 on a massive scale; building up of the party machine; role in preparation for the Quit India Movement; and premier leadership role 1945 onwards.

Sardar was also far better academically, and far wiser than Nehru. Like Nehru, Sardar Patel too had studied in England. But, while Nehru’s father financed all his education, Sardar financed his own education in England, through his own earnings! While Nehru could manage to scrape through in only a poor lower second-division in England, Sardar Patel topped in the first division!

Professionally too, Sardar was a successful lawyer, while Nehru was a failure. Sardar had a roaring practice, and was the highest paid lawyer in Ahmedabad, before he left it all on a call by Gandhi; while Nehru was dependent upon his father for his own upkeep, and that of his family. Besides, Sardar was a great administrator.

The Congress Working Committee (CWC) met on 29 April 1946 to consider the nominations sent by the PCCs. 12 of the 15 (80%) PCCs nominated Sardar Patel{RG/370}; and 3 PCCs out of the 15 (20%) did not nominate anyone.{ITV} It therefore turned out to be a non-contest. Sardar Patel was the only choice, and an undisputed choice, with not a single opposition. What was noteworthy was that on 20 April 1946, that is, nine days before the last date of nominations of 29 April 1946, Gandhi had indicated his preference for Nehru. Yet, not a single PCC nominated Nehru!

Gandhians like Kripalani slavishly went by what their guru, the Mahatma, directed. Kripalani promptly and unquestioningly complied: He got a few to propose Nehru’s name. Finding this queer development, Sardar Patel enquired with Gandhi, and sought his advice. Gandhi counselled him to withdraw his name. Patel complied promptly, and didn’t raise any question. That cleared the way for Nehru. The “democratic” Nehru didn’t feel embarrassed at his and Gandhi’s blatant hijacking of the election, and shamelessly accepted his own nomination.

Despite his grand pretentions of Gandhi as his father figure, and he being his son, chela and follower, Nehru remained silently defiant and let it be known to Gandhi he would not play second fiddle to anyone. It appears that all the “sacrifice” for the nation by Motilal and his son was geared to ultimately grab power for the Nehru dynasty! It has even been claimed that Nehru tried blackmail: he threatened to split the Congress on the issue.

Reportedly, Gandhi’s reason was he wanted both Nehru and Patel together to lead the nation, but while Nehru would not work under Sardar Patel, he knew that in the national interest he could persuade Sardar Patel to work under Nehru, as Sardar would not defy him.{ITV} What Gandhi said amounts to this: that Sardar Patel, even though senior and more experienced, and backed by majority, was patriotic enough to work under Nehru in the national interest, if so prodded by Gandhi; Nehru, junior, less experienced, and not backed by a single PCC, wanted only to become PM, and was not patriotic enough to work under Patel, in the national interest, even if persuaded by Gandhi!

What Gandhi and Nehru manoeuvred was not only illegal, immoral and unethical, but also against the interest of the nation. Here are the reasons for the same: (1) Illegality-1: PCCs alone were authorised to elect the president. There was nothing in the Congress constitution to permit that rule to be overturned. How could Gandhi overrule what 15 PCCs had recommended? On what legal basis? Gandhi’s action was illegal. (2) Illegality-2: Gandhi had resigned from the primary membership of the Congress back in 1934 to devote himself to “constructive work” (Were political work and fighting for freedom “destructive”?). Thereafter, he had never rejoined the Congress. How could a non-member of the Congress like Gandhi dictate who should be the president of the Congress, or even participate in CWC meetings? Yet, another illegality.

(3) Unreasonable-1: Did Gandhi put on record his reasons for overruling the recommendations of the PCCs? No. (4) Unreasonable-2: Did Gandhi put on record why Patel was not suitable as the president, and hence the first PM, and why Nehru was a better choice? No. (5) Unreasonable-3: Was there a proper and threadbare discussion in the CWC on why Patel was not suited for the post, and therefore why the recommendations of the PCCs should be ignored? And, why, instead, Nehru should be chosen? No. (6) Unreasonable-4: If CWC was not convinced of the recommendations of the PCCs, why didn’t it refer the matter back to the PCCs, and ask them to re-submit their recommendations, with detailed reasoning? The decision could have been postponed. (7) Against National Interest-1: How could responsibility of such critical nature be assigned to a person without doubly ensuring that person’s relative suitability through fair and democratic discussions among all CWC members, and, of course, finally through voting. (8) Against National Interest-2: National interests demanded that the choice of person was dictated not by personal biases, and diktats, but by suitability, and mutual consensus, and the reasons should have been put on record. (9) Dictatorial & Undemocratic-1: How could an individual like Gandhi dictate who should or should not be the president, and hence the first PM? And, if that was fine for the Congress, then why the sham of elections, and votes of the PCCs? (10) Dictatorial & Und...

individual Gandhi correct, and were the 15 PCCs wrong? (11) Unethical-1: Leave apart the legal and other aspects, was it ethical and moral and truthful for Gandhi to do what he did? If indeed he thought he was correct, and all others were wrong, the least that was expected from him was to explain his logic and reasoning. Or, was he above all that? Do what you want—no questions asked! (12) Unethical-2: How could a person being nominated for president, and therefore as the first Indian PM, be so devoid of integrity, fair-play and ethics as to blatantly be a party to the illegality of throwing the recommendations of the PCCs into a dustbin, and allowing oneself to be nominated? (13) Unembarrassed: Did it not embarrass Nehru that he was usurping a position undemocratically through blatantly unfair means? Did it behove a future PM? (14)...