A Legacy of Betrayal


The one word that comes to mind each time the Nehru-Gandhi dynasty’s name is taken is betrayal. Betrayal of trust, decency, hope, values, and the ultimate betrayal of the nation itself. And like with most betrayals after Independence, the tone for this betrayal too, was set by Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru. Perhaps the most decisive mandate was given to him on a platter by Gandhi who handed him the Indian Prime Ministership by favouring him over Sardar Patel. And as history is witness, Nehru squandered this massive opportunity to show his gratitude to the people of India who had reposed such overwhelming and innocent faith in him. A small example is sufficient to illustrate this. The staggering accomplishment of Nehru at the end of his rule (and life) happened to be the fact that millions of Indians barely had enough food to eat.

The reason everything that Nehru touched turned to dust stems from a fundamental flaw in his character. It was one of weakness of personality, which kept him insecure at all times, and which drove him to bully those who were powerless to hit back, to sideline through deceit those who were stronger than him, and to support a murderous ideology like Communism, and by extent, to admire tyrants, dictators and mass-murderers of all hues. It was what made him ignore the seemingly-trivial domestic problems; paraphrasing Michael Edwardes who wrote his biography, Nehru was always about enormous projects and grand dreams like achieving world peace while he dismissed the real problem of survival, which had become the immediate need for millions of Indians. It was this flaw that made him tolerant of corruption, which in his eyes was a petty nuisance not important enough to command his attention.

And yet within one generation, this petty nuisance had grown into a gargantuan monster both within the Congress party and the Government, which had by then metamorphosed into a straggling den of corruption of every imaginable sort. Although there is no evidence so far to show that Mrs. Gandhi herself was personally corrupt, the dictum that flowed out from 1 Safdarjung Road was clear: do whatever but make sure I remain in power. However, the seeds of this dictum were sown much earlier.

In a foreword, the ex-British Communist agent Philip Spratt writes in October 1963 that

Ten years ago the Congress Party was by no means socialistic. When the resolution on the socialistic pattern was passed at Avadi, an important Congressman compared it to the Emperor Akbar’s Din Ilahi. Socialism, he said, is Nehru’s personal fad, which will quickly be forgotten when he passes from the scene. It seemed a shrewd judgement at the time, but it overlooked the attraction of socialism for a ruling party of hungry careerists. The experience of socialism in the nine years since than has won many Congressmen over.

We can’t but help admire Spratt’s foresight when we observe the events that unfolded since that Avadi resolution. The Mitrokhin Archives reveal with devastating clarity the extent of the KGB’s infiltration in India. Sitting ministers, MPs, IAS officers, IB officers, bureaucrats in the Defence establishment, the media, the Congress and Communist parties were all on the take. This simply means that Spratt’s hungry careerists were now in positions that had the power to control the nation’s destiny. Spratt’s observation is also in many ways a preface to the “suitcase culture” that was so pervasive in the 1970s.

The 1970s were truly heady times—heady for the Gandhi Dynasty. Indira Gandhi was in an unassailable position thanks to the 1971 war and a series of announcements of socialist ponzi schemes for poverty alleviation. It was the era of the first nuclear test, populist rhetoric, and the rapid rise of her son, Sanjay. India under her had become both a playground and a guinea pig for the Gandhi Dynasty.

Inevitably, this came with a darker side, which needs no repeating. However, what had changed was the direct involvement of members of the Dynasty in corruption. What also stands out apart from corruption is the reckless meddling of family members in Government affairs. The first name that comes to mind is that of Sanjay Gandhi. His numerous and brazen trysts with sleaze are simply too out in the open to ignore. What was less known is that his brother Rajiv, too, was not above using his mother’s position for attaining personal goals. This has now come to light thanks to the latest Wikileaks expose.

And so when Praveen Swami writes a piece that sounds more like an apology for Rajiv Gandhi’s sins, we’re not amused. His apology begins with the title of his piece, which says that there is Smoke but no fire in Wikileaks’ allegations against Rajiv Gandhi. Unless Swami takes us for idiots, Wikileaks has not alleged anything. It has simply exposed the Diplomatic cables verbatim. Swami’s piece also tries to impress us by quoting from the cables but it’s an exercise in deception as we shall see.

The cables were exchanged in the context of a proposal by Indira Gandhi’s Government to buy fighter planes to modernize the Indian Air Force. The key players who wanted a share in this pie were the French with their Dassault Mirage, the British with their Jaguar, and the Swedes with their Viggens.

Let’s look at the same cables that Praveen Swami has quoted, which talk about Rajiv Gandhi’s role in this affair. Two key cables suffice to throw light on Rajiv Gandhi’s role. The rest are mere details, which only bolster the fact that there was immense personal and political meddling in the affair.

Cable of October 1975: (https://www.wikileaks.org/plusd/cables/1975NEWDE14031_b.html)


Cable of February 1976 (https://www.wikileaks.org/plusd/cables/1976NEWDE01909_b.html)


But how does this translate in Praveen Swami’s world? Let’s hear it in his own words.

From the totality of the cables, it is clear the British assessment that the IAF was calling the shots was in fact the correct one.

From the totality of the cables, it is indeed clear that it was Mrs. Gandhi who called the shots, not the IAF. As Prime Minister she definitely had the authority to take the final call even if it meant she had to overrule the IAF, even if it meant that her decision was based on a whim. The October 1975 cable that Swami himself quotes nails his lie. The cable clearly mentions how the Swedish diplomat “EXPRESSED IRRITATION AT THE WAY MRS. GANDHI IS PERSONALLY DOMINATING NE-GOTIATIONS, WITHOUT INVOLVEMENT OF INDIAN AIR FORCE OFFICERS. (underlining added).”

This isn’t the only lie that Swami utters. In a bid to exonerate Rajiv Gandhi, he also conceals the aforementioned political backdrop of the 1970s where the unlimited license to indulge in corruption was issued directly from 1 Safdarjung Road, and where Sanjay Gandhi had himself looted the Indian taxpayers on a massive scale and had made Rajiv’s wife, Sonia the Managing Director of Maruti. It is true Rajiv resented this but did nothing about it. What does that say about his sense of values?

Perhaps Praveen Swami needs to be reminded that there is such a thing as connecting the dots. We turn to the Mitrokhin Archives again. It sets out in explicit detail how India was a model for KGB infiltration into non-Communist nations, and how a separate Department (Department Seventeen) was set up within the KGB dedicated to accelerate infiltration efforts in India. And in a clincher of sorts, here is a sort of an epitaph on the torrid decay of the Indian Government and politics in that era:

It seemed like the entire country was for sale; the KGB — and the CIA — had deeply penetrated the Indian Government. After a while neither side entrusted sensitive information to the Indians, realising that their enemy would know all about it the next day.’

Sure, Rajiv Gandhi might not have personally profited from the deal. But some crucial questions remain unasked: what position or qualification did Rajiv Gandhi possess to go around talking to foreign embassies about an arms deal? What law or clause in the Constitution entitled him to be privy to such sensitive information? And what does the Swedish diplomat’s contemptuous but accurate observation that Rajiv Gandhi, a transport pilot might not be the “BEST EXPERT TO RELY UPON IN EVALUATING A FIGHTER PLANE, BUT THEN WE ARE SPEAKING OF A TRANSPORT PILOT WHO HAS ANOTHER AND PERHAPS MORE RELEVANT QUALIFICATION (underlining added)” tell us about how foreign nations viewed us? Why does Praveen Swami feel compelled to defend such a man instead of feeling deeply ashamed as an Indian citizen, to read such a disdainful observation about the son of the Indian Prime Minister? Equally, what does that tell us about how well foreign diplomats had understood the psychology of Indira Gandhi? What does that tell us about how she didn’t think it was inappropriate to allow her family members to have a say in official matters?

In the end, the reason the Swedes didn’t get the deal had nothing to do with Rajiv Gandhi being a middleman. The US put enormous pressure on Sweden to block the sale of Viggens to India on the grounds that the aircraft contained components and technology native to the US. This was just the smokescreen. The real was that the US back then had an embargo against selling arms to India.

Besides, as events unfolded after Rajiv Gandhi became Prime Minister, it was crystal clear that he had graduated from being a wannabe middleman to being right at the heart of a tainted arms deal. Again with the Swedes. This should surely count for some sort of a perverse divine justice. Or that he was not above allowing his Office to be used for profiteering. Tavleen Singh’s explosive Durbar has numerous accounts to offer in this area.

Praveen Swami is just an illustration, a specimen of the same malaise that has characterized India since Independence—that of putting individuals over the nation. Instead of being appalled, why does it so hurt the likes of Praveen Swami to hear that Rajiv Gandhi had indeed acted as a middleman in a deal he had no business knowing about in the first place? Why haven’t enough  number of even well-meaning people critically scrutinized second-rate Prime Ministers who were eulogized and their sins shielded by third-rate people in the media, academia and elsewhere? What kind of a person, whom mere foreign diplomats manipulate with ease, becomes the Prime Minister of India and stays there for prolonged periods of time? What kind of a person who allows foreign intelligence agents to infiltrate every sphere of the Government on a massive scale becomes Prime Minister and is allowed to stay there? And what does it say of the intellectuals and the media who willingly close their eyes towards, if not actively abet this treasonous activity?

And why hasn’t this Dynasty been dislodged yet?

34 comments for “A Legacy of Betrayal

  1. Pratik
    May 12, 2013 at 10:30 AM

    brilliant article.

  2. NS
    April 17, 2013 at 1:27 AM

    I should have said this first.
    Sandeep, brilliant piece again. Going through your blogs and posts has been educational to say the least.
    @ Vasu, Nehru’s self effacing, self critical tendencies speak more about his personality than his leadership qualities. We are obviously interested in the latter.
    During the build-up to Indo-China war, Nehru meddled with the appointment of Army top brass, humiliated those who refused to kowtow ( Field Marshall Cariappa for instance) & applied divisive techniques to polarise Army top line. He appointed Lt. Gen. Kaul as CoA who was till then the head of Army logistics when they needed a war strategist. He stubbornly turned deaf ear to every warning that had come to his notice, ever since China’s invasion of Tibet including his own deputy Sardar Patel’s.

    “He probably believed that resigning would be too cowardly an act at that time and it takes some honesty and bravery to continue to hold the highest office and face it all.”

    What could be more cowardly than an abject surrender to your enemy & losing war without fight? What else could be a greater shame than to expect ill-equipped, ill-clad, ill-shod Jawans to fight a war that was lost long before it got started? Cowardice is refusing to own responsibility for the failure ( blamed it on & I quote him ; ‘a couple of Brigadiers who took wrong decisions’) as head of the state.

  3. Jooske
    April 16, 2013 at 8:41 AM

    Talking about betrayal from history lessons .

    “Today we are at a point where history and facts must be “erased” and rewritten, because truth is racist-Islamophobic-anti-Muslim bigotry. Historical revisionism has taken on a new life, as history is scrubbed and manufactured Muslim myths are presented as fact.”

    Pamela Geller on rewriting history. Although this applies to the British Museum and Middleeast history it applies equally to India and Indian history.


  4. April 15, 2013 at 10:45 PM

    “right from Nehru’s contemporaries to the next generation critics like Sitaram Goel, there was definitely an objective analysis of Nehru and his legacy, several times over. ”

    It is just that average citizen was ill informed about this Dienasty, Thanks to Nehruvian Stalinist State. Now that has changed, in spite of best efforts of D, truth is coming out. SM is having an effect on discourse, nothing else explains 100 crore Twitter NREGA or 90,000 lost subscribers of ‘The Hindu’.

  5. April 15, 2013 at 10:33 PM


    1962 disaster was because of Nehru’s willful blind spots. He ignored his defense chiefs counsel and Sardar Patels counsel. You call that “principle first’? You surely have different dictionary.

    Nehru was not next to Gandhi in freedom struggle. He was the first of the dynasty being the son of Motilal Nehru, a contributor to Congress party coffers. What is his contribution for freedom struggle which made him next to Gandhi? Patel guided Bardoli Satyagraha and he led from the front.

    You still did not list his contribution which made him a ‘towering leader’ or ‘leader next to Gandhi’. You make assertions without any evidence.

    This entire article lists his blunders and earlier posts including mine list his terrible legacy. Because of which still so many millions go to bed hungry. A quick recap

    1. (a)Who took the Kashmir problem to UN? Nehru
    (b) Responsible for custodial death of Shyam Prasad Muskerjee, Nehru.

    2. Who let China take over Tibet, and did not even start demarcation the boundary? Nehru

    3. Who let Hindus of Pak suffer under the tender mercies of Islamists after promising to look after their interest? Nehru
    Nehru-Liaquat pact was betrayal of Hindus of Pak.

    4. 1962

    5. Destroyed institutions by placing his chamchas and cronies in high places even in Army. Worse he was so power hungry that he did not resign after 1962 debacle but made Krishna Menon the scapegoat.

    So, based on evidence better educated and informed citizens rightly condemn Nehru. If it makes some Nehru fans unhappy, so be it.

  6. April 15, 2013 at 6:17 PM


    It doesn’t feel good to be asked this way. You sure read a lot about modern India, its leaders, freedom struggle and making of the nation. Nehru was next only to Gandhi during freedom struggle. He always stood for ideals and principles and until the ’62 debacle dented it, he had been one of the acknowledged world leaders espousing the cause of freedom loving peoples of the world!

    If what you already read didn’t convince you, what I (or somebody else) wrote won’t either. If fact, you need to justify why you call his legacy a disaster. I don’t deny he could have avoided the ’62 debacle but he too was human as anybody. He had that rare virtue: “principles first.”

  7. April 15, 2013 at 11:41 AM

    “To be objective in assessing a towering leader of what was a socialist era, you need to take many factors into consideration”

    You should follow your own advise and see this ‘towering’ leaders contribution. One word sums it up disaster.

    You tell us three wonderful things that that Nehru did to make him a ‘towering leader’.

  8. April 14, 2013 at 5:06 PM


    I am not exactly a fan of old-world policies. I merely tried to put Nehru in the context of his times, his peers, critics and whom people of India at that time trusted most. Even until the collapse of Berlin Wall, socialism had its sway and almost all intellectuals of those era were far left figures.. Barring a few economists in the US, nobody sold market economy during Nehru’s years. To be objective in assessing a towering leader of what was a socialist era, you need to take many factors into consideration. You can’t judge Nehru without partly judging India that Nehru is credited to have invented. That’s all is my gist.


  9. Raj
    April 14, 2013 at 4:15 PM

    Hey Sandeep,

    Please delete this comment after reading it since it’s directed to you, but the pseudo sec denialism cottage industry has been on a roll as of late. In particular there’s the Maratha raid on the sringeri mutt allegation (there’s a nilim dutt origin to this I think) and a more subversive point that the basava purana exhorts shaivites to “behead infidels”, see here:


    this same commenter has been touting allegations about anti-brahminism among coorgis and systematic brahmin massacres by the raja of haleri, here: http://books.google.co.in/books?id=4Ju6z8PbTuAC&pg=PP3&dq=penumbral+visions&hl=en&sa=X&ei=srNpUdLkHsiPrgfz2YDoAw&ved=0CDIQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false

    As you can see, I have him on the ropes, but i thought your take on sringeri and haleri might be useful in a separate article on your blog, particularly since this commenter is attempting to sidestep your fisking and claim that Chidanand murthy rather than chennabasappa is lying–despite my repeated shoving of facts in his face.

    Most importantly, the Basava purana allegation could eventually pick up steam and be used as a sword by our “eminent historians”. I haven’t found a satisfactory english translation online yet, and since I imagine the original is in kannada, any help you can provide (blog article or otherwise) in debunking this “infidel” nonsense would be appreciated. If not, that’s cool too as I know you’re busy. Either way you can also email me if that’s easier.

  10. April 14, 2013 at 10:28 AM


    I think “reassess” is not the right word – right from Nehru’s contemporaries to the next generation critics like Sitaram Goel, there was definitely an objective analysis of Nehru and his legacy, several times over. The issue is more with the kind of monopoly on public discourse and through and through anti-democratic culture created by congress. For the latest, Kanchan Gupta while talking on a TV show on LTTE mentioned how the foreign policy was messed right from Nehru – and immediately he was shouted down, abused. And it is something that has been happening right from Nehru – to abuse, marginalize, target anyone who disagrees or dissents. So definitely SM is evolving as a hope for Hindus to challenge this monopoly and be able to at least express the Hindu side of the story. But then, it is only a compromise, an alternative in the otherwise hopelessly skewed public discourse. It only works at the layman level, and is not an instrument that can be effective in the real duty of press – being watchdog of the state machinery. Eventually this should result in capturing a legitimate space in the academia and MSM, which is when these exposes can become influential in the common man’s mind.

  11. malavikaPatil@yahoo.com
    April 14, 2013 at 1:18 AM


    “We need to ask why nobody raised a voice against Nehru and gained trust of people. Of course we know Rajaji’s stand his break with Nehru. Nobody who broke with Nehru could take the nation forward with him. So, it’s the nation! ”

    Those who did were exiled, he was lucky that Gandhiji died and he usurped his legacy and Patel died lot sooner. He inherited the INC and its resources and his election campaign was always “we (Gandhiji, I) got you freedon and must vote for us. This worked like magic in illiterate(8% literate), semi feudal nation, just like Middle East and African dictators.

    He was an autocrat and called himself the ‘last Englishman to rule India”, so don’t try to claim that he disliked ‘East India Company” hence was socialist.

    How ever it is true that the citizens were too foolishly enamored by Nehru, till it was too late. No wonder Nehru did nothing to improve primary school education lest the unwashed masses think for themselves. Now with improvement in education( in spite of dynasty’s best efforts) and social media we are looking at the the ugly legacy of Nehru.

  12. S
    April 13, 2013 at 8:35 PM

    Sandeep, how about upgrading to a comments system that allows nesting for answers to a particular comment. It will be much better than the present one,

    BTW, congratulations on getting a paid Congress troll to post here.

  13. April 13, 2013 at 3:21 PM

    Madrassi says:

    “People apologetic for Nehru are more likely being apologetic for their SUPPORT for him. Reading books about those times one can see that Nehru’s faults are not some latter day revelation but were known even then.”

    Both claims above are true. The question arises then is : “Why didn’t policy change during Nehru’s reign itself?”

    Nehru was influenced by Fabian socialism and hated violence inherent in communism. He mistrusted foreign capital as East India Company was a trading company. White men came to India as traders first. There was no way anybody could prevail over Nehru and he had his own vision. It’s not until the collapse of communism could world wake up to market economy the last world about which has not been said yet. We need to ask why nobody raised a voice against Nehru and gained trust of people. Of course we know Rajaji’s stand his break with Nehru. Nobody who broke with Nehru could take the nation forward with him. So, it’s the nation! The nation was totally behind Nehru. That was an article of faith, not subject to reason. “Tryst with destiny” if you will.

  14. April 12, 2013 at 11:44 PM

    People can believe what ever they want including ‘Saint Nehru”, even with much evidence to the contrary. For centuries Europe believed that the earth was flat.

    Nehru apologists can excuse his atrocious behavior, and those people were well rewarded for loyalty ala Katju, BKG ec.

    Fact 1:
    Nehru was warned by Patel, his senior Army advisers regarding intentions of China,and he chose to ignore them. India never had a border with China, just Tibet. Common sense says he should have at least demanded demarcated border with China. He did NOT.

    When it blew up on him, he claimed injured innocence. “I was betrayed” nonsense was just an crappy excuse to continue in power and not take responsibility.

    Fact 2:

    He threatened Hindu rioters with Indian Airforce strikes but turned blind eye toward punjab and WB where Hindus were victims.

    Fact 3:

    Betrayed Hindus in PAk, with his q951 pact with Liquit Ali. These Hindus of PAk he promised to look after their interests. Stupid of Sindhi and Paki Hindus to believe this liar. Yes Nehru said one thing and did exactly opposite.

  15. Madrassi
    April 12, 2013 at 9:45 PM

    People apologetic for Nehru are more likely being apologetic for their SUPPORT for him. Reading books about those times one can see that Nehru’s faults are not some latter day revelation but were known even then.

    Brig Dalvi’s book Himalayan Blunder doesn’t mince too many words on the various Defence Ministers foisted on the luckless armed forces, Krishna Menon being the worst of the lot. (Dalvi also mentions one Def.Min. KN Katju, probably Markanday Katju’s father, who did his little bit: he ordered the Army to issue coarse and heavy khadi blankets to the troops, increasing the poor infantryman’s burden by a good few kilos more and decreasing his comfort).

    Sydney Wignall, a Welshman, volunteered to spy for the Indian Army in Tibet in the late 1950s. In his book Spy on the Roof of the World, he describes some of the bitterness among the officers, one of whom spoke scornfully about Nehru trying to go about solving the world’s problems but ignoring the trouble brewing in his own backyard. It is clear, according to Wignall, that the Indian Army officers he came in contact with were under no illusions about the impending showdown with China, and how painfully ill-equipped they were. Specifically, Wignall was asked to find out if the Chinese were building any motor roads in the Taklakot region (yes, Wignall would report after the Chinese released him after arrest, they certainly were). The high-ups in Delhi ignored this vital piece of intelligence. Playing ostrich probably came easily to Nehru. When Chinese intentions were clear even in 1958, Nehru had to be lying when he complained, “We have been stabbed in the back!”

    But hey, chill out Boss, (using your descendant’s lingo to the industry honchos at CII) guess who did the stabbing-n-the-back, and to whom? If there was a Nobel Prize for the most efficient back-stabbing, the dynasty would be one helluva contender. It isn’t easy to stab and screw a billion people.

  16. April 12, 2013 at 5:16 PM


    BTW, you can drop the outdated honorific (Mr.). These days they call it a “split infinitive”. Just “Vasu” will do.

    It is not easy to arrive at a conclusion as to why Nehru didn’t step down owning responsibility for the 1962 debacle. By all accounts, he was a candid man. He even acknowledged once that his policies weren’t showing results. He enjoined political cartoonists not to spare him either. He pseudonymously wrote article criticizing himself. He declared he wasn’t there to build a dynasty. He believed and hoped Indians would find a leader for themselves. When he had differences of opinion with some other congress leaders, he minced no words. He almost always had his way. He gracefully accepted strong criticism from certain quarters when he nonchalantly dismissed the strategic value of the border land that was lost. Nehru had a tendency to dismiss a political argument with a theoritical principle. I believe here may lie a key. He probably believed that resigning would be too cowardly an act at that time and it takes some honesty and bravery to continue to hold the highest office and face it all. But then, this is my guess. I can’t be sure. People who take certain ideals and principles seriously, and those passionate souls who believe in building a nation, don’t like to run away. They believe in staying put. He didn’t resign because he was the number 1, 2,3,……100 in his days. Until death do us apart, a sacred covenant!

    I like to believe it this way.

  17. Piyush
    April 12, 2013 at 1:49 PM

    While I’m in full agreement with you that the Nehru-Ghandy dynasty is repugnant and a leech on India’s vitality, there are several questions about the possible successor NaMo that are not satisfactorily answered… Haren Pandya’s murder and the treatment of his wife subsequently, Destruction of records kept regarding police/bureaucrat movements, phone bills etc. for the period covering 2002, are key amongst them…

    Modi has kept quiet about all this to my knowledge and needs to come clean. My worry is that by deciding on Modi (BJP led by him) which is a huge temptation given the extreme disgust Congress evokes in me, am I voting for someone who has resorted personally to get blood on his hands to further his political ambitions.. was it a one-off indiscretion (if blood on one’s hands can be called that!) or something that he may resort to when pushes into a corner…

  18. manish
    April 12, 2013 at 1:00 PM

    Did not know that Swamy is at it again.
    Well, he has always acted as an apologist for the dynasty. So, expecting any better of him, is a bit unfair to this sycophant.

  19. ItAcHi
    April 12, 2013 at 12:40 PM

    If possible, please make a donation through here : however small : for our brothers/sisters fleeing pakistan.


  20. Proud Kafir
    April 12, 2013 at 11:02 AM

    Dear Sandeep,

    Its no point in mulling endlessly on criminal, sleazy, anti-hindu politics & corruption of so called Nehru dynasty. We were a young democracy & needed stability. Unfortunately the people who provided that stability were worth a penny & self-centered bastards. Anyways, the point of discussion must be on how do we politically anhailate the Congress party & its first family. We all know the Congress returns to power on 3 M’s : 1) Media, 2) Muslims, 3) Money.
    We need to cut these 3 supply lines or atleast make them redundant. Also important is that we provide India with a honest hard working Hindu leader for atleast next 2 decades who shall takeon the 3 M’s of Congress party. Such a leader will have to seriously fillup the potholes made by Congress around the Nation. Curiously we might already have such a person around whose name start with “M” . Wish I could remember his name though !!!!

  21. April 12, 2013 at 2:31 AM


    You are mostly right.

    The only quibble is that Nehru, Indira, Rajiv’s record must be reassessed. They have been glorified too long by the court historians like Guha. Once the people see the harm these ‘great leaders’ caused India, it will be difficult for their heirs to claim their legacy. Nehru claimed Gandhi’s legacy, and Gandhiji’s death helped Nehru. Dead people don’t talk and Nehru claimed to represent Gandhi. Now Rahul chants my Mother, Father, grandmother, great grand father sacrificed so much for this nation and so you must elect me.

    Once people see Nehru, Indira with their warts and all, they will be less impressed by the Dienasty and kick them out of power. Without sustained campaign on the SM against Rajiv for his role in 1984 riots there would be no acknowledgement of the heinous crime. So, the sustained campaign must continue and all parks, schemes, hospitals, airports named on Rajiv must be renamed. Then moving up Nehru/Indira parks, schemes, places, airports must be renamed. The Dynasty is perpetuating itself using resources of aam citizen and glorifying itself.

    Thus creating a brand awareness, for the Gandhi(fake) dynasty. This must go.

  22. April 11, 2013 at 11:55 PM

    For his level of highhandedness and what all he did to the country out of his ignorance and ego, Nehru’s assessment can never be unfair, however “harsh” it is. No patriot would do what Nehru did to Savarkar+HMS or Karpatri Swamy+RamarajyaParishad or Deendayal Upadhyaya or…. if not for socialist influence on congress emergency would never have happened. For Nehru and Indira neither communism nor capitalism was an economic policy – it was a political tool, and hence their policies were neither capitalist nor commuist.

    Praveen Swamy left The Hindu and is now writing on FP, shows that the anti-Hindu establishment sees FP as its propaganda machine today. Its authors who looked okay in the beginning are now slowly showing their true colors. Forget Rajiv Gandhi and three generations upwards. Today you cannot openly say anything against Sonia-Rahul and their innumerable nefarious activities. They engaged the govt machinery in a year long cleanup of internet that talk of these. Sabotage of Rajiv foundation, insult to PVNarasimha Rao’s death, swiss accounts, national herald, the list is endless. While the record has to be set right, I do not think there is a lot of benefit in damning Nehru today in matters of corruption and betrayal – the more important question is how to stop what is currently going on and to expose the list of current rulers who have stifled the investigation.

  23. Bhatta
    April 11, 2013 at 10:18 PM

    This fellow P Swamy used to be with The Hindu. For last few months I had not seen a single article of his in Hindoo. I thought he vanished for good. But now I know, the devil is still there!

  24. April 11, 2013 at 10:42 AM

    Nehru’s rule was disastrous for India. We are suffering because of his ego, lack of vision, competence and also nepotism. Nehru was chosen by Gandhi not elected. His sole claim to his PM ship was that he participated in freedom struggle and that he was ‘chosen’ by Gandhi.

    His contribution to Nation building was net -ve. We have no strong institutions, federalism or fundamental rights. It is illegal to criticize a ‘friendly nation’ like say govt policy on Pak. US had good leaders like George Washington who helped build a better US, unlike India.

    IF Nehru’s domestic policy was a failure, his foreign policy was disastrous.

    If Nehru and Congress has sympathy among some people like Katju it is because loyalists did quite well under Nehru Dynasty patronage at the expense of aam admi. Rest of supporters are too lazy/blind to see that India did better under non Nehru family PMs.

  25. April 11, 2013 at 8:00 AM

    Bravo! Incredibly well written and passionate work. Sandeepbhai, I am proud of you. Keep fighting the good fight and let’s all work as much as we can to ensure NaMo wins in 2014.

  26. April 11, 2013 at 7:29 AM

    Question. Three Dead Dynastic PMs. Nehru, Indira, Rajiv. The way the country is disintegrating, there’s no escaping the fact that one of these three will have to be selected to take the blame and fall on the sword (which is not a problem since they aren’t in a position to complain). Who is Congress, its court historians, media clowns most likely to pin the blame on, so Sonia can wash her hands off and position herself and Rahul as game-changers?

    My guess: Rajiv.

  27. Rama
    April 11, 2013 at 6:57 AM

    Sandeep, Gandhi’s blunder with his wretched egocentricity and Nehru/ Gandhi dynasty rule have been the curse for India since the independence.
    I read this piece earlier
    “A secret US diplomatic cable released by the whistleblower website WikiLeaks has claimed that the former Prime Minister Indira Gandhi after the success of its first nuclear test in 1974 had written a letter to her Pakistani counterpart Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto offering to share nuclear technology if proper conditions for trust were charted. But Mrs Gandhi’s offer was rejected by Bhutto.”
    What else one can say about Madam Dictator? She should posthumously be charged for treason.
    The nation is stuck in quagmire and the only way out of all this mess is for all Hindus to join together and form a vote bank.
    Great article. I don’t expect Mr Praveen Swami will respond to this.

  28. April 11, 2013 at 1:57 AM

    I have heard from many that some of the global peace initiative proposals of Nehru-Gandhis have been motivated by their obsession with the Nobel Peace Prize. This could explain NAM and other initiatives by Nehru, many of which ended up hurting India. Similarly Indira signing the Simla Agreement and giving away so much to Pakistan from a position of strength defies any other explanation. And how else does one explain Rajiv’s ridiculous disarmament proposal at UN GA which expectedly no one cared about.

    There was excessive corruption in Indira’s reign and I am not sure that she was clean.

  29. Panduranghari
    April 10, 2013 at 11:04 PM

    The question if Nehru-gandhi clan has been harshly judged cannot arise because in a smaller country with desert ideology and political army the clan would have been overthrown in coup-de-etat. The honest simple Hindu folk were anally raped for 60 years by Nehru-gandhi misrule.

    The known cock ups of Kashmir Alsai chin tibet pakistan IPKF emergency corruption etc is just tip of the iceberg.

    What Nehru facilitated through his atheistic and Islamic leaning is the undermining of Bharatiya Sanskriti via wholesale loss of Intellectual property of Ved, Upanishad, Ayurved, Astronomy, Mathematics to the west.

    Jawahar was so darn enamored by white women that his writings and leanings supported the Aryan Invasion theory. Interestingly his pathological dislike gor Indian princes was only matched by love for Mughal tyrrants. His writings show it conclusively.

    I blame the death of Gandhi on Nehru. His short sighted delusions of grandeur brought about by tertiary syphilis contributed to a drastic drop in respect for India in the world. A piddly country like SL can try to threaten India shows how fall we have fallen.

    The only way i see a change is passive autocracy.

    I hope we see it soon.

  30. April 10, 2013 at 10:35 PM


    Not a wrong guess. Not a difficult one either to make as my name, “Vasu” is unlikely to be found among the regions you mentioned. You can rather tell more, can’t you?

  31. NS
    April 10, 2013 at 10:19 PM

    Mr Vasu,

    Talking about 1962 debacle, Nehru wrote to all the CMs, a bizzare letter of explanation, in which he defended Krishna Menon & Kaul as ‘men of honour’ and cited reason for the defeat as some wrong decisions made by the Brigadier incharge ( Brig John Dalvi whose aptly named book ‘Himalayan Blunder’ would provide insights into Nehru’s callous forward policy which hastened the imminent war). Any other self respecting leader would have resigned owning moral responsibility. Among the ranks of Indian Armed forces, the name Nehru thus attracts unbridled contempt.

  32. S
    April 10, 2013 at 8:06 PM

    Mr. Vasu, I’m just guessing but I think that you are not from Punjab, or Bengal, or Kashmir. You are certainly not a Tibetan.

  33. April 10, 2013 at 7:09 PM


    Please note that Nehru’s era was different and it’s easy to harshly judge him with the advantage of hind-sight. I believe more or less what Shashi Tharoor (and also Gurcharan Das) wrote about Nehru. Although he (Nehru) had his weaknesses, he enjoyed public love and support like nobody of his era did, not even Sardar Patel. Tharoor claims Nehru invented India. I am not a Congress fan, sympathizer or voter. Strangely, communists accuse Nehru of being capitalist and capitalists, a communist. It’s smear politics, not an objective assessment. It depends on which of the “isms” a cuss word at that time.

    I am not commenting on the other Congress politicians you write about. Nehru is too harshly judged these days. That’s all is my point. Every single person from the previous generation across India (including my near relatives who took part in the Quit India movement, my teachers and everybody whom i read) has great admiration for Nehru. The 1962 debacle taught Nehru many lessons, but surprisingly, India then didn’t blame it on him.

    As some say, it’s too early to judge him!

  34. April 10, 2013 at 6:05 PM

    Terrific Piece. Was waiting for an article from you. Its been long. Perhaps Praveen Swami joining TV18 group has forced him to toe the line in the defence of thier masters

Leave a Comment