How Nehru Let Us Down

Status
Not open for further replies.

ozyjat

Banned
“I remember many a time when our senior generals came to us, and wrote to the defence ministry saying that they wanted certain things... If we had had foresight, known exactly what would happen, we would have done something else... what India has learnt from the Chinese invasion is that in the world of today there is no place for weak nations... We have been living in an unreal world of our own creation."
Jawaharlal Nehru, Rajya Sabha, 1963

Instead of "I", Nehru used the collective "we", a clear indication of his reluctance to own up his own mistakes as a man.

"The fact of the matter is that Nehru felt a gnawing of conscience throughout this episode. He knew that the blame for the disaster was more his than that of his loyal friend [defence minister V K Krishna Menon]," says journalist and historian Durga Das.

The roots of politicisation of the army are to be found in Nehru's hatred for the man in uniform. Soon after Independence the first commander-in-chief of the Indian armed forces, General Sir Robert Lockhart, presented a paper outlining a plan for the growth of the Indian Army to Prime Minister Nehru.
Nehru's reply: "We don't need a defence plan. Our policy is non-violence. We foresee no military threats. You can scrap the army. The police are good enough to meet our security needs."
He didn't waste much time. On September 16, 1947, he directed that the army's then strength of 280,000 be brought down to 150,000. Even in fiscal 1950-51, when the Chinese threat had begun to loom large on the horizon, 50,000 army personnel were sent home as per his original plan to disband the armed forces.

For some reason, he disliked Field Marshal K M Cariappa despite his excellent leadership during the 1947-48 war that saved Kashmir. But his attempts to supersede him and make General Rajendrasinhji the first commander-in-chief of India failed when Gen Rajendrasinhji declined.

During the 1947-48 war with Pakistan in Kashmir, Nehru interfered with purely military decisions at will, which delayed the war and changed the ultimate outcome in Pakistan's favour. He developed a precedent to violate channels and levels of communications at that time. His penchant for verbal orders to the various army commanders, of which he kept no records, violated the chain of command.

Menon, along with Nehru, caused havoc in the army's working, disregarding professional opinion and advice, violating all channels and levels of communication and encouraging the same within the army hierarchy, which ended with disastrous results in the Sino-Indian conflict. Like his boss, Menon believed in giving verbal orders and disliked records.

After the infamous 'Jeep scandal' (purchase of Jeeps for the use of the army, which the army rejected on account of their poor condition, but was forced to accept since the Jeeps were already paid for), it became necessary to remove Krishna Menon, who had fixed that deal, from the post of high commissioner to the United Kingdom because of political and media pressure.
But Prime Minister Nehru rewarded him by making him Minister for Defence with Cabinet rank. This tradition has been faithfully carried forward to date by the followers of Nehru and by politicians who vehemently opposed him and the policies of the Congress party, with equal vigour. In power and out of power, political compulsions seem to demand different ethics.

It is not out of place to mention here that the government dropped the case slapped on the nondescript company that had supplied the Jeeps soon after Krishna Menon took over as defence minister.

Nehru always displayed an abject lack of sovereignty . Examples are galore, right from the time of Partition.

His refusal to accept the accession of the State of Jammu and Kashmir on September 19, 1947, when it was originally offered by Maharaja Hari Singh, a good five weeks before the invasion of his state by Pakistan. Had the accession been accepted then, the entire state would have been ours.

Later, Nehru practically surrendered our sovereignty when he invited Lord Louis Mountbatten, the governor general, to preside over and chair the meetings of his own Cabinet and the Cabinet Committee on Defence on matters regarding the accession and the military action after Pakistan invaded Jammu and Kashmir. Mountbatten, basically a servant of the British Crown, did his best to delay the decisions.

Worse, as India started winning the war and liberating parts of north Kashmir, Nehru inexplicably (most likely under the strong influence of Mountbatten and his wife, who shaped much of his thinking in those days) declared a 'ceasefire' and stopped our victorious army dead in its tracks before it could liberate the entire state. He declared the ceasefire arbitrarily, without consulting his full Cabinet, the Constituent Assembly (as Parliament was then known), his military commanders, or the maharaja/prime minister of Jammu and Kashmir.

Nehru was the architect of Article 370, with which he burdened India to placate a hurt Sheikh Abdullah.

The Chinese occupation of Tibet should have forced a reassessment of the threat to India. After they enforced their suzerainty on Tibet in 1951, the threat deserved greater attention. But when General K M Cariappa met Nehru to discuss the defence of the North East Frontier Agency, he was bluntly told to mind only Kashmir and Pakistan as his concerns for defence and leave China to the politicians and the diplomats.

Nehru's rigidity on the border issue, his insistence on Chinese withdrawal before border talks could begin, his grant of political asylum to the Dalai Lama and permission to him to establish a Tibetan government-in-exile (an act that created conditions for a future invasion of Tibet by India or outside powers through India to restore the Dalai Lama's rule, if desired), the hostile Indian press on the question of the occupation of Tibet, and Nehru's increasingly aggressive statements on the border made the Chinese believe he had become a tool in the hands of the Anglo-American imperialists.

India, under Nehru, was an antithesis of most of the theories he applied in governance. Taking advantage of the British imperial legacy when it suited us while otherwise denouncing it roundly, we managed to lose all the respect China had for us, to be replaced by contempt. Which made it easier for them to ambush and capture or kill our patrols and take punitive action against us in 1962.
 
Good Facts

Dear Mr. Sangwan,

Thanks for a nice post. Mr. Nehru's vision of the India was probably too outdated in the era of cold war that followed after seond world war. I don't have much knowledge about the credentials of Mr. Krishna Menon, but have heard that he was probably the most intelligent member of his cabinet. How he interfered with the defense forces may be debatable. If he and Nehru were trying to force their will on the defense forces then it raises many questions on the credibility of the army/defense cheifs during his time. The army Chief was if I am not wrong 4th or 5th in heirarchy during that time. One objection to the interference by then Chief probably would have settled the issue. McArthur walked out from FDR's meeting denouncing the president's decision to cut defense expenditure during the great depression in USA. McArthur clearly visualized the problems associated with the rise of Hitler in 30's and thus gave his plan to the president to be ready for next was as far back as 1933-34. I am sure if our generals then had carried out detailed strategic study of Chinese invasion of Tibet in 50's, they would have projected the case for defense of NEFA.
I am not arguing that Nehru was right in his governance. It may be easy for us to analyze and find faults with it at this time since the history is now known to us. It may have been difficult for some one to project future. But than a person leading a big nation should have a foresight and vision to visualise such situations.
I don't know whether or not our threat perception is identified even now. In most cases we are too engrossed with Pakistan and have ignored the Chinese front for a long time. There are still areas which needs to be developed in case we have to fight any future war in that area. With strategic advantage clearly in our favor purely on the consideration of terrain, with careful planning and meticulous execution we can give China run for her money.
It is a good topic raised and I hope many members will give their valuable views on this topic. Blaming Nehru alone would not be correct. In his cabinet, if he made wrong decision or decisions without consulting the cabinet, then atleast one minister should have objected. Was it a case of loyalty to Congress first and nation later? If that was the case they were not the right people to govern us. As far as I know, only one Congress leader ever objected to Nehru face to face and he was none other than our own Ch. Charan Singh I think in 1959 Congress annual meeting.
 
raj2rif said:
...........I don't know whether or not our threat perception is identified even now. In most cases we are too engrossed with Pakistan and have ignored the Chinese front for a long time. There are still areas which needs to be developed in case we have to fight any future war in that area. With strategic advantage clearly in our favor purely on the consideration of terrain, with careful planning and meticulous execution we can give China run for her money.
...........

I fully agree with you Tavathia Sahab on this point. India should focus more on China and ofcourse the Paksitani export of terrorism to India. I will always be suspicious of Pakistan and China. I raise this issue at every possible plateform. I am sure Americans will now sensitise us at least on China front.

RK^2
 
Dear Col Tavathia,
Mention not.
I agree with what you are saying.To upset nehru in those days was to upset the vote bank.Our Generals did try to raise their voice but they were told off ever single time they tried to do so.Actually they never got any backup from the politicians.The example of one firepower demonstration in 1956 arranged by none other than General B M Kaul stands out.

"The firepower demonstration went off admirably well. It had to; we had practised it for months. A Chinese general who was sitting next to General B M Kaul found it a bit too difficult to swallow and asked General Kaul whether it would be possible to achieve in actual battle conditions, the kind of concentration of fire then observed during the demonstration.

"Instead of answering that question directly, General Kaul went into the mechanics of strategy and tactics vis-à-vis firepower concentration. The Chinese military delegation on their return journey said to the Burmese in Rangoon that the senior officers of the Indian Army were 'chair-borne' soldiers," says Captain C L Datta, who was ADC to Presidents Rajendra Prasad and S Radhakrishnan, in his book With Two Presidents.

When Gen Kaul evacuated his forces from NEFA in 1962, the opposing Chinese general was the same one who had sat next to him during the demonstration and asked him that question!
So basically there was no one eligible enough to challenge Nehru and his decisions.

raj2rif said:
Dear Mr. Sangwan,

Thanks for a nice post. Mr. Nehru's vision of the India was probably too outdated in the era of cold war that followed after seond world war. I don't have much knowledge about the credentials of Mr. Krishna Menon, but have heard that he was probably the most intelligent member of his cabinet. How he interfered with the defense forces may be debatable. If he and Nehru were trying to force their will on the defense forces then it raises many questions on the credibility of the army/defense cheifs during his time. The army Chief was if I am not wrong 4th or 5th in heirarchy during that time. One objection to the interference by then Chief probably would have settled the issue.
 
Namaskar Uncle Ji,

Yes you are right.Actually the book is pretty enthralling.A lot to learn for young brains like myself.

Best regards

ishwar_lamba said:
Dear Deep,
it looks u are reading the book on the great Chanakya. Read it full, many things will be clear.
Regards
Ishwar Lamba
 
rkumar said:
hahhaaha..kyoonki..aatankwadi jiada din zinda nahi rehte...

RK^2


hahahaha..kai baar...aatankwadi thode dino me hi sare kaam kar jate hai....

GD^2

Sorry kaka sab majak mae likh raha hu
 
Before came to conclusion , see who he killed and why he killed ( after saw a mass massacre of hindus during partition )..

rkumar said:
He was surely a Prototype terrorist, guided by fanatic ideology to kill some one.

RK^2
 
jitender_singh said:
Before came to conclusion , see who he killed and why he killed ( after saw a mass massacre of hindus during partition )..

Umm..every terrorists has similar justification for killings..To me he was a fanatic terrorist like all those who are killing innocent people these days also..

RK^2
 
Subhas Chander Bose Also A Terrorist Then and So Was Bhagat Singh

From that standard all freedom fighters were also terrorists. Godse can not be called a terrorist because he too was a nationalist and had the interest of Hindustan Supreme in his mind.





Due respect.
 
Dhruv,

I am fully agreed with you.

Regards
Jitender

dhruvdahiya said:
From that standard all freedom fighters were also terrorists. Godse can not be called a terrorist because he too was a nationalist and had the interest of Hindustan Supreme in his mind.





Due respect.
 
aaah you cant even compare these jehadi's terrorists with our freedom fighters like bhagat singh , udham singh...

:confused:

rkumar said:
Umm..every terrorists has similar justification for killings..To me he was a fanatic terrorist like all those who are killing innocent people these days also..

RK^2
 
dhruvdahiya said:
From that standard all freedom fighters were also terrorists. Godse can not be called a terrorist because he too was a nationalist and had the interest of Hindustan Supreme in his mind.





Due respect.

All Terrorists in Kashmir also say the same thing. For them also the interest of Islam is supreme. This is idiotic way of justifying killings of innocent people. For me there is no diffrence between a Godse and a terrorist in Kashmir or anywehere.

RK^2
 
Sorry !

Respected Rajendra uncle ji,

You don't sound convincing at all. Rather you are angry. You did not say a word about Bhagat Singh Or Subhas Chander Bose?




due respect.
 
Sir,

Please don't follow a british path..

Today in morning I was reading a english newspaper. there were few remarks about kashmir, British still pronounce its as a disputed land not a integral part of India. For them its just a piece of land for which both India and Pakistan are fighting for years.

Why dont they tell something about Ireland, ????????///

Regards
Jitender

rkumar said:
All Terrorists in Kashmir also say the same thing. For them also the interest of Islam is supreme. This is idiotic way of justifying killings of innocent people. For me there is no diffrence between a Godse and a terrorist in Kashmir or anywehere.

RK^2
 
dhruvdahiya said:
Respected Rajendra uncle ji,

You don't sound convincing at all. Rather you are angry. You did not say a word about Bhagat Singh Or Subhas Chander Bose?




due respect.

Subhash Chander Bose never killed any innocent person. He lead an army against British who were ruling India. So did Bhagat Singh. Bhagat Singh and his friends acted againts British. Let us not glorify a murderer like Godse by putting his name in the same league as o Bhagat Singh just for the sake of arguments. There is no end to such logics as that will glorify even Chambal decoits.

RK^2
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top