Who Was Nehru and What Is His Influence on Modern Politics of India?
Jawaharlal Nehru was one of the foremost leaders of India’s freedom struggle and the first Prime Minister of independent India.
Certain groups have long credited him with being the “creator of modern India. ” However, many have challenged this narrative, raising questions about his true impact on India’s cultural and religious identity.
Apart from his well-known role in shaping India’s political landscape, another image of Nehru that is increasingly discussed today is his alleged anti-Hindu stance.
Was Nehru Truly Anti-Hindu?
Some numerous accounts and stories portray Nehru as being anti-Hindu. But are these claims factual, or are they simply political conspiracies concocted by opposition parties?
A closer examination of Nehru’s writings suggests that he made significant efforts to portray Hinduism as inferior to other religions, particularly Islam, in an attempt to appease the Muslim community.
Nehru’s Political Philosophy and Anti-Hinduism
Nehru’s political philosophy is often seen as being rooted in a bias against Hindu traditions and practices.
His writings and policies indicate a preference for secularism that, critics argue, leaned heavily towards appeasing minority communities while sidelining the majority Hindu population.
Varanasi and Nehru: A Tale of Historical Neglect and Selective Narrative
Nehru had visited Varanasi numerous times since his childhood and was undoubtedly aware of its deep connections to Hinduism. However, his writings reflect a significant bias. In his accounts, he largely ignored the city’s rich Hindu heritage and instead focused primarily on its Buddhist history, suggesting that Varanasi’s importance began only with Buddha’s first sermon.
This selective portrayal raises questions about his intent. During Nehru’s rise in politics, Varanasi was a major center for religious conversions by Christian missionaries. Prominent nationalists such as Annie Besant, Madan Mohan Malviya, and Bhagwan Das opposed these efforts, and even Mahatma Gandhi had clear views on the subject. However, Nehru remained conspicuously silent, never addressing the issue in his writings.
Despite Varanasi being considered the “Oldest Living City” and a hub of ancient knowledge, Nehru’s attempt to diminish its antiquity in favor of other narratives casts doubts on his objectivity and credibility.
Mockery of Hindu Traditions
In his book Glimpses of World History, Nehru described Hindu practices as superstitious and primitive. While imprisoned in Naini Jail, he criticized the people attending the Magh Mela (Kumbh Mela)during Makar Sankranti, labeling them as highly superstitious.
However, his critique was largely one-sided, as he seldom commented on the rituals and practices of other religious communities. Notably, he remained silent on animal sacrifices during Muslim festivals and other controversial religious practices.
False Interpretation of Indian History
Nehru is often accused of distorting Indian history to fit his ideological narrative. He is considered by many to be the originator of the “fake history” that downplayed India’s Hindu roots while emphasizing other influences.
A glaring omission in Nehru’s writings is his failure to address the rise of Wahhabism, an ideology that played a significant role in shaping Islamic extremism in India during the 19th century and continues to do so globally.
Instead, Nehru viewed Hindu customs such as applying Tilak and taking holy baths as acts of fanaticism. However, he chose to ignore the threat posed by extremist ideologies that sought to spread through violence and coercion.
Appeasement of Muslim Fanaticism
Critics argue that Nehru’s policies were driven by a desire to appease Muslim communities, even at the cost of Hindu interests. His failure to address the growing influence of extremist ideologies and his perceived bias against Hindu traditions have led many to believe that he wanted an India where Hindus were treated as second-class citizens.
Partition and Its Aftermath
The partition of India in 1947 witnessed the massacre of lakhs of Hindus, yet Nehru’s response was seen as passive. Many believe that his policies fostered a sense of helpless acceptance among Hindus, allowing the political dominance of his family for generations. This acceptance of fate, critics argue, was Nehru’s greatest political victory.
Conclusion
Nehru’s legacy remains a subject of intense debate. While he is credited with shaping modern India, his perceived biases against Hinduism continue to raise questions about his true intentions. Whether he was a visionary leader or a politician driven by ideological preferences, his impact on India’s religious and cultural landscape cannot be ignored.
Nehru’s Leadership and Influence: A Critical Examination
Jawaharlal Nehru, India’s first Prime Minister, played a pivotal role in shaping the country’s early political landscape. His leadership, however, is a subject of intense debate. Nehru’s admiration for global figures like Lenin, Stalin, and Mao, as reflected in his writings, and his approach to power and governance, raised questions about the long-term impact of his decisions on India’s national interests.
Nehru’s Ideological Affiliation
Nehru’s ideological leanings were shaped by a combination of influences, most notably the communist ideologies of Lenin and Stalin. His works, such as Discovery of India, Glimpse of World History, and Jawaharlal Nehru: An Autobiography, demonstrate his respect for these leaders, who were known for their authoritarian and violent methods of governance. This affinity for authoritarian figures contrasts sharply with Nehru’s portrayal as a democratic leader.
In the context of global political movements, personality worship was prevalent in the Soviet Union and China, where leaders like Stalin and Mao were revered to the point of creating a cult of personality.
Nehru, too, appeared to nurture a similar narrative in India, positioning himself as a central figure in the country’s development.
One of the more notable instances of this was the institutionalization of his birthday as Children’s Day. While not officially declared a national holiday, it was celebrated across schools and institutions, turning Nehru into a symbol of virtue and wisdom, especially for the younger generation.
Nehru’s Role in Education and National Narrative
Nehru’s influence extended into the education system. His biography became an integral part of the primary school syllabus, and his foreign policy was emphasized in colleges and universities.
This contributed to the shaping of a national narrative that prioritized Nehru’s ideology and leadership over alternative political perspectives. His close relationship with the Soviet Union was reflected in India’s foreign policy during his tenure, where Nehru positioned the country as a supporter of communist ideologies.
This trend was not unique to India. In the Soviet Union, a similar approach was adopted, where Christmas celebrations were replaced by a Lenin-centric tradition, where “Santa Lenin” would distribute gifts to children. This effort to instill loyalty to the state from an early age mirrors the way Nehru was portrayed in India, emphasizing his love for children and his role as a paternal figure.
The Impact on India’s Foreign Policy
Nehru’s foreign policy, which sought to position India as a leader in the Non-Aligned Movement, has been criticized for prioritizing ideological solidarity over national interests.
In aligning with the Soviet Union and supporting its policies, India became an advocate of communism in international forums, despite the violent nature of the regime. Nehru’s relationships with China and the Soviet Union were marked by compromises that were detrimental to India’s sovereignty.
One of the most glaring examples of this was India’s handling of its territorial disputes with China. Nehru’s relationship with Chinese leadership led to the gradual loss of Indian territories in the region, culminating in the 1962 Sino-Indian War, where China seized large parts of India’s land with minimal resistance. Simultaneously, Pakistan gained diplomatic victories against India, further undermining India’s standing on the global stage.
The Legacy of Nehru’s Governance
While Nehru’s leadership contributed to India’s independence and laid the foundation for its democratic institutions, his policies often prioritized personal or ideological interests over the nation’s welfare. The long-term effect of his leadership created a political environment where dynastic politics flourished, with the Nehru family remaining a dominant force in Indian politics for decades.
Conclusion :
Nehru’s leadership cannot be viewed in isolation from the broader context of India’s political evolution. While his role in securing India’s independence is indisputable, his approach to governance—one that prioritized ideological allegiance and personal relationships has had lasting consequences for the nation’s foreign policy and political landscape. For a country to remain truly sovereign and independent, national interests must always take precedence over individual or familial ambitions.
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.
“Undoubtedly it would have been better if Nehru had been asked to be the foreign minister and Sardar Patel had made the prime minister. Had Sardar Live Longer, had he occupied the position which he rightly deserved perhaps there would have been no problems of Kashmir, Tibet, China and Religious Conflicts.”(C.Rajagopalachari)
Nehru’s nationalism was only imperialism of Red terrorist (communist killers).
An imperialist way of looking.–A man who hated nationalists. Nehru’s views on Rani Jhansi: –
RANI JHANSI (LAXMIBAI)
THE TWO MEET(NEHRU, CHOU EN LAI) FOR THE FINAL SESSION ON THE 27TH .”DID YOUR EXCELLENCY SEE THE DRAFT STATEMENT ?”PANDIT JI(NEHRU) BEGINS.”YES I SAW A FEW MINUTES BEFORE I WENT TO SEE THE PICTURE “.CHOU SAYS HE HAS BEEN TAKEN TO SEE SOHRAB MODIS JHANSI KI RANI .” IT IS A GOOD PICTURE .IT IS A TECHNICOLOUR “. PANDIT JI NOW THE FILM CRITIC: “THE STORY IS NOT SO GOOD”.HE PRONOUNCES.CHOU EN LAI IS POLITE: “IT IS QUITE GOOD AND REPRESENTS RESISTANCE AGAINST FOREIGNERS.”PANDIT JI IS NOW ALLOW DILUTION OF PROGRESSIVE TOUCHSTONES: “IT WAS A RESISTANCE BY THE FEUDAL ELEMENTS AGAINST FOREIGNERS.””YES,” SAYS CHOU. MORE GENOURLSY, “RESISTANCE ALWAYS START FROM THE UPPER CLASS.”
For Nehru, Lenin, the greatest assassin in human history, was no less than a messiah.
Nehru hated revolutionaries fighting for the freedom of the country.
Pandit Nehru believed that Indian revolutionaries were fascists.(BANDI JEEVAN)
Sachindra Nath Sanyal was the founder of “Hindustan Republican Association” and political teacher(guru) of great revolutionarieslike Chandrashekhar Azad, Bhagat Singh, Trilokya Chakraborty, Bhagwati Charan Vohra, Nalini Kishore Guh, Baba Prithvi Singh, Ras Bihari Bose, Sukhdev, Rajguru, Lala Hardayal, Ajit Singh. The book “Bandi – Jeevan” you wrote was called the Bible of Indian revolutionaries, which was translated into more than twenty-eight languages and countless people who read this book chose the path of revolution for the independence of the country.
SUBHASH CHANDRA BOSE LALA HAR DAYALCHANDRA SHEKHAR AZAD BHAGAT SINGH
He used to sing the emperor Ashoka’s nobility because imperialist, historians linked Ashoka’s greatness to Buddhism. A man who had no hesitation in seeking cooperation from the murderous communist governments to bypass nationalist popular leaders Subhash Chandra Bose, Sardar Patel. a Nehru who believed in Lenin’s killer government more than Gandhi’s “Ram Rajya“. A man who used to hum the songs of democracy in books could have strangled democracy for his selfishness.
———– “Some old inscriptions from south India tell us how the members of the panchayats were elected, their qualifications and disqualifications. If any member did not render accounts of public funds he was disqualified. Another very interesting rule seems to have been that near relative of members were disqualified from office. How excellent if this could be enforced now in all our councils and assemblies and municipalities.” (Glimpses of world history: Jawaharlal Nehru).
It’s easier to preach than act. This “Divine Knowledge does not apply to the family, it was for others. According to the needs of the family, Mahatma Gandhi, Subhash Chandra Bose, Vivekananda, Arvind Ghosh, Sardar Patel, Lal Bahadur Shastri, never been great, and sometimes a terrorist.
A man who accepted Communist imperialism even before India’s independence.“The victorious family in the game of power was writing a new history of the country”
“Who controls the past controls the future who controls The present controls the past”(George Orwell)
courtesy wikipedia :- Marxist propaganda “INTERNATIONALISM” & ‘WORLD REVOLUTION ARE NOTHING BUT OLD FASHIONED IMPERIALISM’
Nehru supporter of communist, imperialist ideology.
The Communist Party of India was formed in the Soviet Union in 1925. The communists did not influence India’s politics till then. Nehru was a supporter of the leftist group in the Congress. Marxist imperialists (red terrorists) were thinking of expanding their empire since 1917.
Lenin hailed not only the triumph of the Russian revolution but the beginning of world revolution our cause is international, and so long as a revolution does not take the place in all countries our victory is half a victory or perhaps less., for most Bolsheviks by the time Lenin died seven years later, he never lost his conviction that the inevitable collapse of the colonial empires would one day bring global revolution in its wake
The third communist international founded in Moscow in March 1919, set itself “the goal of fighting, by every means, even by force of arms, for the overthrow of the international bourgeoisie and the creation of an international Soviet republic”.
At the congress of the people of the East, convened at Baku in 1920 to promote colonial revolution,delegates excitedly waved swords, daggers and revolvers, in the air when Zinoviev called on them to wage a jihad against imperialism and capitalism. ( Even today these methods are prevalent among terrorists)Nehru also went to the Brussels Conference of Communists in 1927, after which he also travelled to the Soviet Union with Motilal.
Nehru wrote following about that period“We began a new phase in our struggle for freedom in India at about the same time as the October Revolution led by the Great [Lenin]. We admired Lenin whose example influenced us greatly.”
IF RUSSIANS AIDS THE CHINESE REVOLUTION, DOES THAT MEAN THAT SHE WANTS CHINA TO APPLY COMMUNISM? NO, SHE WANTS US TO CARRY OUT THE NATIONAL REVOLUTION” (CHIANG KAI –SHEK DECLARED IN PUBLIC)PRIVATELY, HE BELIEVED THE OPPOSITE, CONVINCED THAT WHAT THE RUSSIANS CALLS—-
“INTERNATIONALISM” & ‘WORLD REVOLUTION ARE NOTHING BUT OLD FASHIONED IMPERIALISM’
.In 1921-22, there was a terrible famine in the Soviet Union, millions of people died. The assassin communist government of the Soviet Union was engaged in the black marketing of grain instead of helping the people. How terrible was the situation This can be gauged from the fact that famine victims were eating the flesh of the “dead from famine” to live? Due to non-availability of food grains to farmers, the meat of dead people was being sold in villages. In such a situation, Nehru saw the standard of living of farmers and labourers improving.
THE ANGEL OF SORROW
“Undoubtedly it would have been better if Nehru had been asked to be the foreign minister and Sardar Patel had made the prime minister. Had Sardar Live Longer, had he occupied the position which he rightly deserved perhaps there would have been no problems of Kashmir, Tibet, China and Religious Conflicts.”(C.Rajagopalachari)
India was severely defeated in the Indo-China war of 1962. The Soviet communists wanted to avoid this conflict at any cost because it seemed to be harming the Soviet Union. [BUT]Nehru’s Soviet love did not work, the Soviet Union remained neutral.
Nehru has to lift the morale of a shattered people.In his letter of 22 December 1962, to the chief ministers, Nehru tries to put a brave construction on the humiliating defeat.” The sudden and callous invasion of India by the Chinese returning evil for good, benefit our country.” he writes in words that ring hollow,” more and more I have felt so, and therefore I have no feeling of depression; rather I have been feeling a sense of joy and satisfaction that we have to face this crisis as a united people and with a good heart. I feel confident that we shall emerge out of it. stronger in every way and chastened by what we have experienced and will experience.”[it is curious that acting in self- defence they have occupied another 20,000square mile of Indian teritory]
The well known Minute:– Macaulay,s Minute of 1835 “we must at present do our best to form a class who may be interpreters between us and the millions whom we govern, a class of persons, Indians in blood and colour, but English in taste, in opinions, in morals and intellect.”
Can Macaulay and Nehru be differentiated in thinking? I have sold my kingdom to my beloved queen for a cup of wine and a dish of soup.“Jahangir Mughal emperor in his biography”Tuzuk-i-Jahangir”Nehru did something similar.
Family’s relationship with Soviet Communists;-
YURI BEZMENOV (Russian spy, K.G.B. Agent) who worked as a journalist in R.I.A. NOVOSTI (Russia’s international newsagency) In India, his main work was to give some money and free Russian travel to lure the traitors. And for his work very easily, he got ready a gang of left-wing journalists, writers, artists, rich filmmakers, university teachers, intellectuals (Intellectuals mean to be traitor, or leftist) Many interviews of Yuri Bezmenov are available on YOUTUBE. While living in India, he has explained his and K.G.B’s working system and modalities of some traitors. The people selling their country had no respect in K.G.B. Yuri Bezmenov used the term “useful idiots“ and “political prostitution” for them. The collapse of the Soviet Union and the dissolution of the Marxist ideology was becoming harder to hide the truth. Marxists had been wiped out in the Soviet Union (Russia) and their black history was in front of everyone. During this time, Western countries got some very important documents and information through “Vasili Mitrokhin”.
There was information about the traitors working for Russia around the world. Over the years, its truth was investigated (from 1992 to 1999) And finally, it was found to be extremely useful. These documents were shocking. These documents were later published in the form of books titled Mitrokhin archive. Mitrokhin also questioned the Prime Minister of India, Smt. Indira Gandhi, about the money transactions and (K.G.B.) role. The collusion of the family and the betrayers (“useful idiots, “political prostitute” Congress, communist, leftists journalists, bureaucrats, writers, artists, leftists media organizations) had come in front of everyone. How these gangs were bent on selling India in foreign hands, (U.S.S.R, U.K U.S.A—&—&—&). it was going to open the eyes. In 1994 a world-renowned journalist and “Thesis writer on K.G.B YEVGENIA ALBATS”(Wrote Her thesis as a book: THE STATE WITHIN A STATE: THE K.G.B AND ITS HOLD ON RUSSIA-PAST, PRESENT AND FUTURE)Referring to the files of KGB in this book, it was told that: a letter signed by Viktor chebrikov who replaced Andropov as head of the k.g.b in 1982 noted:
IMAGE :-WIKIPEDIA
KGB AND R[???] GANDHI the u.s.s.r k.g.b maintains contact with the son of premie- minister[rajiv-gandhi]R. Gandhi expresses deep gratitude for benefits accruing to the prime minister’s family from the commercial dealings of an Indian firm he controls in corporations with soviet foreign trade organizations. R.Gandhi reports confidentially that a substantial portion of the funds obtained through this channel is used to support the party of. R.Gandhi. (K.G.B archive,f.5,OP.6, por.no.12,d.i3i,t.i,1,d. 103-104 ).
“One does not establish a dictatorship in order to safeguard a revolution; one makes the revolution in order to establish the dictatorship.“(George Orwell)
(courtesy :-WIKIPEDIA)- 14TH NOVEMBER ,To celebrate Nehru’s birthday as Children’s Day was to create an image of Nehru as a Santa Claus in the minds of the coming generations.
Madarsa -E-Nehru —-Universities, schools were converted to the Little (Pocket) the Soviet Union so that the family remained in power. Gangs of communist murderers started writing new political history, India’s foreign policy turned into an imperialist policy of the Soviet Union. This led to terrible consequences later. suffered a lot in dealing with Mao’s imperialism, (China) and Pakistan’s Islamic imperialism. Many communists and Marxists of India became Maoists by getting money and cooperation from China. The country, which had forgotten its interest, was now a slave of China’s foreign policy. Seeing this great opportunity, Pakistan too jumped into it. The dream of India’s ruin was now seen in India itself. Instead of strictly dealing with it, only rituals were performed.
The path shown by Lenin –building up the people,s armed forces and the republic, Lenin had said in 1905 that these two tasks must be carried out wherever possible, even if these were not feasible regarding the whole of Russia. chairman mao has enriched this path shown by Lenin. he has taught the tactics of people,s war and china have attained libration along the path. today that path is being followed in Vietnam, Thailand, Malaya, Philippines, Burma, Indonesia, Yemen, Leopoldville, Congo, in different countries of Africa and Latin America. that path has also been adopted in India, the path of building the peoples armed forces and the rule of the libration front which is being followed in naga, Mizo, and Kashmir areas.
The slogan —-” Kashmir is an inalienable part of India”
“No Marxist can support this slogan.
The Marxists should express their support in favour of the fighters.
carry on the struggle against modern revisionism.”
“So it is in the interest of the reactionary bourgeoisie of India that India has attacked Pakistan. u.s imperialist plan of the world war is also operating behind this war. By attacking Pakistan, the ruling class again wants to create a tide of bourgeoisie nationalism. But this time it is clear like daylight that India alone is the aggressor. So, as a result of the defeat of the Indian army, The anti-government struggle will fast crystallize among the masses. So Marxists want today that the aggressive Indian army should be defeated. this defeat will create new mass agitations. Not merely wishing that they should be defeated,. Marxists at the same time should make efforts so that defeat becomes imminent. In every province of India agitations should be created on the lines the mass agitations in Kashmir is progressing”.
courtesy:- wikipedia
The fundamental idea
There is, however, one general principle that must guide our explorations, perspectives, plans and projections: The primary and most effective strategy to avoid war is to prepare for it. It is one of the ironies of the human condition that, if you love peace, you must be ready and willing to fight for it. The weak, the vulnerable, the unprepared and the irresolute will always tempt the world and call misfortune and ruin upon themselves. This is tragic; but it is the inexorable lesson of history. It is strength that secures respect and dignity; conciliation, appeasement, and a desperation to avoid confrontation at all costs – these will only bring contempt and aggression in their dower.
(KPSGill) [South Asia terrorism portal institute for conflict management.]
“ that the Indians are too cowardly and ill-organized to offer any effective military response which could pose a threat to Pakistan. Ayub khan genuinely believed that “as a rule, Hindu morale would not stand more than a couple of hard blows at the right time and place”
This misconception that has been maintained by Pakistan for years has been broken by the political will of the new India in recent times. Uri: the surgical strike Famous film dialogue “This is the new India, which kills the enemy by entering into his house.” (YE NAYA BHARAT HAI JO GHAR MEY GHUSE GA BHI, AUR MARE GA BHI) Pakistan has come on its back foot this jaw-breaking answer. Surgical strikes, attacks on terrorist camps, zero tolerance on terrorism, the abolition of Article 370 shows the political will of New India.
Ladakh-based innovator and educationist, Sonam Wangchuk, started a movement to boycott Chinese products in India.
the India-China dispute that has taken place in recent times is in the news. This time, China face[New] India, who don,t believe in Nehru’s old orthodox views. This was the new India who refused to give even an inch of land to China (this is the same area that Nehru said in a careless manner after losing:-Not a blade of grass grows there we didnt even know where it was?) The political will of the Indian government, and the might of the army, not only broke the morale of the Chinese military, but also put China’s imperial intentions to dust. Is this possible by following Nehru’s ideas? Those who can not remember the past are condemned to repeat it. Now the time has come to eliminate Nehru’s imperialism. Nehru’s thoughts have been hollowing out of the country like a termite for years. Nehru’s conservative thoughts are a major obstacle in the development of the country.
