With due respect to your opinion I beg to differ.
Nehru did the right thing by not taking big conflict with outside world and west power and china.
People even did not even has 2 time food at that time. Many of us know how ships of free "coarse wheat" (Red wheat) used to come to India from Australia and many other west nation to be distributed via ration shops. My grand father brother used to have such a govt shop in Saharanpur and according to him ration shops was primary source of monthly ration to majority of city people.
If India would have taken big conflict at that time , we may have risked poor position like Pakistanis are today. Begging.
As a few months old nation with no powerful armed forces , Taking kashmir matter to UN was an obvious choice in 1948 when accession document was in India favor. Nations believed in UN at that time not like now days when it has lost all relevance.
Leadership at that time did not believe nor wanted Pakistan to be permanent hostile and enemy of India. They believed conflict is local only on Kashmir and can be solved like Junagarh, Hyderabad etc.
also if we was better placed than chinkis , how we get that bad in 1962 - 15 years later of independence.
I am not aware of "British owed us money" thing - any links to this info will be surely interesting to read.
Thanks
Am i reading some congi pilla here? How have this idiot survived in this forum with so much idiocacy.
Let us first clarify your notion of conflict first. Nehru indeed took conflict with the wider world. Idiot. It is known as Non Alignment Movement. Second No one in western world cared or cares about brown lives. So, any kinetic conflict with pakistan was not akin to conflict with wider world. Get this straight. Thus grain supplies were not at risk. They would have been temporarily halted which we could negotiate.
Also, Nehru didn't do anything for food security either. He spent state resources on carrying out vanity projects in name of socialism. There too he failed to execute. What is worse is he muzzled the private enterprises too who could shoulder some weight.
So, Nehru didn't secure the food supply, but he instead messed up our economy and diplomacy.
Nehru was an evil person or a retard if he couldn't forsee the root cause of partition. Partition of India was not a clean event or a sudden violent event. Muslim community in India was never an active participant in freedom struggle of India. Two Nation theory was propounded by muslims before 1900's. They were always violent against us Hindus. Muslim led riots are not a post-partition event. It was always there. They were always rioting against us Hindus. So, a nation born in name of muslim exceptionalism by its very nature was never going to be calm and peaceful with India. There is a reason why even bangladesh whom we freed from Punjabi oppression is hostile to us. These two nations are fallback muslim garrison states against us hindus.
Someone who refuses to recognize this mere fact is an evil person.
So, Yes, Nehru failed in securing our borders, fortifying our society and nurturing our economy. He was a vainglorious evil person who just wanted to be a king and the ruler without any responsibility and accountability.
Now, To your last request:
Even our enemy publications have a story on it.
How India’s dream of using her wartime loan to finance development went up in smoke.
thewire.in
At the time of independence India was uniquely positioned to reap the benefits of Independence. But Nehru's machinations cost us everything. He squandered every good thing we had.
Nehru was a retard, vainglorious evil person of the highest order. Anyone thinking he made some good decisions is an idiot. Since you have a soft spot for him. You are an idiot and retard. Anyone who gives even a little fig to that evil scoundrel and curse to Indians should be publicly flogged on a bus stand or a railway station.