Nehru the father of India’s manipulative politics.

I

A FINE BALANCE

Nehru not only succeeded in maintaining his power between two diametrically opposite ideologies in Indian politics, but he also made full use of both ideologies to his advantage.

It is quite clear that Nehru never thought much when had to sacrifice the interests of the country.

It would be appropriate to call Nehru the father of India’s manipulative politics. Nehru played politics with complete crookedness and cruelty where there was no place for tender feelings.

Power is the highest priority.

Nehru, at once was a supporter of both violence and non-violence ideologies. This thing can make anyone’s head dizzy but this was Nehru’s biggest political specialty.

Nehru was a disciple of Gandhi, the biggest face of non-violence in the world at that time, and his political successor.

Mahatma Gandhi considered India’s independence as the biggest objective of his life but was strongly against resorting to violence to achieve it.

Nehru was greatly influenced by Lenin’s ideas as well. Leninists considered violence essential in the struggle for power and justified all sorts of violence to gain power. Not only this, they considered terror as a weapon to gain power and did not hesitate in its heavy use.

This shows that Nehru was a cunning politician, his aim was to capture power by any means. He did not believe in any one particular ideology and would instead adopt any ideology as per the need.

How and where did Nehru use both the ideologies of violence and non-violence?

Nehru’s non-violence policy

Nehru’s non-violent ideas were limited only to Hindus. Nehru was well aware that Hinduism is basically a non-violent religion, hence to convince the Hindus, Nehru used to present many hollow arguments of non-violence which had nothing to do with reality.

Nehru especially liked to keep Hindus in the world of imagination because he knew that non-violence has great importance in Hindu religion, hence under the guise of this, Nehru used to play his dirty game of Muslim appeasement very cleverly.

Nehru’s policy of violence.

Nehru’s political guru Mahatma Gandhi had once said that supporting violent ideology is the greatest violence, taking this perspective into account Nehru appears to be a pure anarchist.

The literature written by Nehru is full of praise of demons like Lenin, Stalin and Mao.
He appears to be fully supporting the state sponsored genocide by these bloodsuckers.

He tried his best to cover up red terrorism with words like revolution.

Nehru was the first Prime Minister of a backward, enslaved country for centuries, which was used by the imperialist powers for their own benefit. Nehru had no objection to befriending the imperialist powers.

Nehru’s support of communist terrorists and his attempt to portray them as messiahs.

Nehru’s visit to the Soviet Union in 1927 was on the occasion of the tenth anniversary of the Great October Socialist Revolution.

Two far-reaching consequences of this visit are clearly visible.

@ After Nehru’s visit, this fake narrative was created in India that communist imperialism is a public welfare concept.
Whereas in reality it was as bad as any other imperialism, British, French, Islamic.

@ In return, Nehru was provided with a platform by the communists to portray himself as an international leader on the world stage.

Soon Nehru started appearing as India’s representative in joint conferences of Asian-African countries. All such conferences were merely a part of the Soviet Union’s propaganda.

The beauty and cleverness with which the Soviet Union utilized Nehru’s desire or frustration to become a world-class leader is a subject of serious study for students of International Relations.

Thus we find that Nehru was not a strong voice of the Third World but merely a broker appointed by the Soviet Union Communist Party. Whose job was to establish the foreign policy of the Soviet Union in the Third World .

Thus, we find that in Indian politics, evils like giving priority to personal interests instead of national interests, sycophancy of individuals, promoting committed bureaucracy by the ruling party are not things which had become prevalent nowadays.

All these demerits were prevalent in Indian politics even before the independence of the country and it won’t be wrong if Nehru is called the father of corrupt politics of modern India.