People should read Nehru’s writings more closely. He did not believe in the concept of military strength as a cornerstone of national security. Instead, he envisioned India as a moral leader in the world, guided by Gandhian ideals of non-violence. In his pursuit of being seen as a true Gandhian statesman—especially by Western intellectuals—Nehru often downplayed the importance of military preparedness. His idealism, however, proved detached from the geopolitical realities of his time.
In "1962: The War That Wasn’t", Shiv Kunal Verma notes:
“Nehru, in his misplaced idealism, had once remarked that ‘the police are good enough to man the frontiers.’”
This startling belief reflected his conviction that diplomacy and goodwill could secure India’s borders—an assumption tragically dismantled during the 1962 Sino-Indian War.
Nehru’s yearning for validation from the West as a morally superior, peace-loving leader often led him to pursue a pacifist image, even when the circumstances called for pragmatism. He believed India could lead the world by moral force rather than military might, but the outcome of 1962 exposed the limitations of such hyper-idealism. Ironically, despite his efforts to project an image of enlightened pacifism, the West did not come to India’s aid during the crisis, nor did it elevate Nehru to the moral pedestal he sought.
In the end, Nehru's legacy on this front is a cautionary tale: of how idealism, when untethered from realpolitik, can leave a nation vulnerable.
With all due respect to Shiv Kunal Verma & everybody who agrees with him , this statement is often quoted to pillory Nehru with Verma providing a context which is wrong.
While Nehru did make this statement , his reasons were far from the wooly headed idealism attributed to him. For the sake of God , did we totally forget the Nuclear program under the stewardship of Homi Bhabha owes its existence to Nehru & that includes preliminary strides towards a NWP or that the same Nehru authorise the invasion of Goa where Portugal was a NATO member whom they approached to which they were told the treaty applied to Europe not to their colonies across the world . Or Nehru getting Egypt to bar entry to the Portuguese fleet towards India.
How does a man who's a total peacenik approve something like the N program on the grounds that "we missed the gun powder revolution & the industrial revolution but we'd be damned if we miss the N revolution " or annex Goa which requires some spine . RFK , JFK's brother & the Attorney General which was the equivalent of the Home Minister in the US reportedly told the Indian ambassador to the US that India's action in this matter was akin to the preacher being caught with his pants down in a bordello after preaching the virtues of restraint repeatedly or something to that effect.
Let's not confuse posturing for the world with real world idealism . Nehru was far too shrewd than the average JNU dumb phuck PhD pursuing world peace activist or anyone studying for a PhD in intersectionalism between feminism & the patriarchal political world.
As far as Nehru's statement about getting the police to guard our borders go , the police actually did guard our borders then . The BSF was set up in the wake of the 1965 war just as the ITBP & SFF was set up in the aftermath of the 1962 war & so was R&AW with external intelligence , espionage & counter espionage being handled by the IB till then.
As to the reasons he made such a statement , it was in the context of ex colonies who were newly independent falling prey to military coups. It was either communist inspired or western inspired or there was a tendency of those who led the freedom movement of their countries & were naturally elected or appointed to take over the administration post independence to concentrate power into themselves or stage a coup themselves & become authoritarian. N'Krumah of Ghana is a good example of this as was Nasser in Egypt.
The single biggest fear of Nehru was of the Indian armed forces seizing power in a coup since next to the Congress they were the most organised entity who answered to one boss namely the CoAS. To make matters worse that's exactly what happened in our neighborhood when Iskander Mirza staged a coup in Paxtan to seize power & later Ayub Khan upstaged Mirza by staging another coup against him.
What's more Gen Cariappa who by then had retired had voiced support to Ayub Khan . It's well known the contempt with which the armed forces have viewed the chaos incompetence & corruption of newly independent states & the politicians who indulged in it . India was no exception . Cariappa's open support to Ayub Khan so alarmed Nehru that he was parcelled off to distant NZ as our High Commissioner.
You have to see our overtures to Paxtan & China in this regard. Unfortunately when you're executing your foreign policy as Nehru was , which is essentially an extreme tight rope walk between two belligerent & revisionist powers , an armed forces whose leadership you don't entirely trust , your own pitiable state of the economy , that's an act you'd not be able to pull off for a substantial amount of time.
At some point his bluff would be called out & it turned out the Chinese were the one to do so. This was also the reason Nehru was instrumental in getting rid of Gen Thimayya who was prescient enough to warn about the impeding Chinese threat.
Is it a failure of Nehru ? Yes it is .
Beyond a point you have to trust people & if that be the case , instead of trusting an Ayub Khan after being magnanimous with the IWT & signing it apart from footing part of the bill for the Tarbela dam or trusting Zhou En Lai inspite of knowing he was a pathological liar , it would've been better to trust your own .
Into this you can also read what another member brought up about our industrial prowess which Nehru degraded thru his socialist initiatives & the fact which another member brought up about the state of our food stuff production where vast sections of our population were literally surviving from ship to ship of deliveries of food stuff from the west , who obviously sought to take advantage of this situation.
So Nehru's distrust of the armed forces , his formative role in the founding of the Non Aligned Movement , all those statements he gave which sounds ridiculous in retrospect - all have a context . He did have his flaws but calling him anti national is a stretch. Calling him agnostic to Hindu causes or concerns to the point of appearing anti Hindu is still understandable which he was but not anti national.
Abeyance 
is a very expensive missile too
