in hindsight perhaps it is it is a good thing that partition happened....if there was one unified india who knows what kinds of problems that unified india would have been facing now...
Interviewer is putting the words in the mouth of the person.
The fact is Jinnah was demanding 50% seat in cabinet and parliament with Just 30 percent population forever. Who will agree to such demands? The fact is Jinnah was an evil man. Nehru despite his shortcomings was a great intellectual, perhaps too idealistic but his desire to see India rise to become a great country was second to none.
Re: Foolish journalist
by KRISHNAMURTHY V on Aug 14, 2015 08:08 AM
NEHRU, AN INTELLECTUAL ??? YOU MUST BE JOKING. THERE IS A BIG DIFFERENCE BETWEEN 'BEING EDUCATED' AND 'BEING INTELLIGENT'- NEHRU WAS ONLY OF THE FIRST KIND.
Re: Re: Foolish journalist
by Vineet Nagar on Aug 14, 2015 08:26 AM
Not true my friend. Nehru was a true giant of freedom movement even though he was a big failure after being a pm. He made many mistakes and was a poor judge of people. But he did contribute to provide a democratic platform for our country to build upon. We are a free democratic and united when Pakistan is not.
Re: Re: Re: Foolish journalist
by Ramanath Babu on Aug 14, 2015 05:54 PM
better read something out of the text book also Mr. Vineet Nagar. Read abut Netaji. You will have some ideas about Nehru's true colour.
All said and done, the partition was caused on personal ego play; Nehru or Jinnah cannot shirk its responsibility. People of India and Pakistan alike keep paying heavy price for it. The time is long overdue to realize that both India and Pakistan have been singing laurels of Nehru and Jinnah despite their damaging role in partition and excruciating after effects! Their families have already taken the countries for a ride in availing undue advantages: politically and economically. The trillions of money we spent on this family should be a matter of concern for review. So in Pakistan too.
Nehru was very much right in choosing Partition rather than accepting 'regions' in India with more Autonomy and Special powers and a weaker Central Government, akin to Jammu and Kashmir now. It was the Mountbattens factor that made Nehru 'try' what he had rejected in the first instance in Jammu and Kashmir, which is still simmering today. This was Nehru's biggest blunder. The problems in J&K are also a British (through Mountbatten) doing.
Re: NEHRU RIGHT AND WRONG.
by KRISHNAMURTHY V on Aug 14, 2015 07:17 AM
Nehru was very much right in choosing Partition rather than accepting 'regions' in India with more Autonomy and Special powers and a weaker Central Government, akin to Jammu and Kashmir now. It was the 'Mountbattens' factor that made Nehru 'try' what he had rejected in the first instance in Jammu and Kashmir, which is still simmering today. This was Nehru's biggest blunder. The problems in J&K are also a British (through Mountbatten) doing.
The partition of India was a British ploy; Nehru and Jinnah were pawns in the game. Jinnah was strongly nationalistic and patriotic in the initial years of his association with the freedom movement, although he did not fail to exhibit his 'weakness' for anything British, be it his pipe or whisky. When the British realised that it would be difficult to hold the country of the size of India in its grip anymore, they decided that they would not partition it but BREAK it into many bits. The British encouragement of the Christian militants in the NORTH EAST to demand a country of their own and the ‘bungling’ in Kashmir by Nehru with the special status and taking it to the UN were all to that end. For the bigger plot of partition into Muslim Pakistan and Hindu India, they 'used' the British-educated and ambitious Jinnah and Nehru, with the 'dangling carrot' of the Prime Ministership of their countries. When Nehru's chance of being elected by the Congress committee was very WEAK (13 of the 15 members supported Patel), Nehru enlisted Gandhiji's support and this made Patel to opt out of the race. The British ploy is completely missing in the book or his discription.
