Free Tickets! - Spirit Of America - Army: Fill & Download for Free

When Nehru became the PM of India on August 15, 1947, this was the map of India; Radcliffe line had not been drawn and no princely state had acceeded. The areas in the Grey Area were all that he had…Let’s first evaluate major milestones of Nehru’s regime, so that we can extrapolate the situation without him:Bringing Social Harmony within two years of a bloody partition -India’s Independence and Partition were bloody affairs, over 10 lac people died. The mood, at least in Punjab and Bengal was so sad on one of the happiest days that the whole society was torn apart. People were uprooted, crores of refugees poured into India. Nehru ensured that refugees were treated honourably and settled all across India. People who bury this chapter are not aware that it could have been so much more worse. Muslims who migrated from India into Pakistan are still treated as ‘Mohajirs’, live in ghettos are even now not a part of the mainstream Pakistan society.Muslim versus Sikh/Hindu hatred was at its peak on partition. Within two to three years of taking power, the hatred had died down and there was harmony in the country. Nehru was like a balm, like a medicine over the wounds, so much so that by the time he left power, India was already well known as an inclusive secular nation. Nehru had proven Jinnah wrong, the two nation theory had been proven wrong.Constitution -When British left, India still did not have a Constitution. Nehru brought his rival - B. R. Amebedkar as head of the Drafting Committee. He himself led the team in the Constituent Assembly and was an enthusiastic steward of debates in the Assembly and in many ways was the final arbiter in the way the Constitution shaped up. Ambedkar by himself couldn’t have achieved anything, since he did not have political support and the numbers on his own. It was the leadership of Nehru that steered through the Constitution through the intricate voting process in the Constituent Assembly, it was his leadership that let Ambedkar have the credit.Again, we must understand that if things would have gone wrong, there would have been NO constitution. Pakistan was able to get the first draft of it’s half baked constitution enforced only in 1956, a second constitution in 1962 and yet another one in 1970 and 1972. They were able to put a Constitution into force only by 1973, by which time India was already a well established democracy.The liberal ethos of the new country was initiated by Nehru, will all sections of the society being given equitable share in the power.Federal spirit of India with a strong Centre was developed, the basic framework including the letter as well as spirit of the Constitution were established through conventions and precedences, somethings which are still followed to this day.Army was kept firmly in the barracks - Pakistan’s army was carved out of the Indian army, its officers and jawans had been trained in the same academies as that of India. Yet, Pakistan had a power vacuum which was quickly filled by their army by 1948 itself.Integration of India -Accession of over 500 princely states into the Union of India was no mean feat. People pick out one princely state (Kashmir) where mistakes are said to have happened, forgetting that the execution of all other princely states was flawless, any of them or all of them could have gone rogue. It is very convenient for Nehru baiters to give Patel all the credit, while blaming Nehru for the one fault. The fact of the matter is that Patel-Nehru were a great team despite their differences; the Home Minister (Patel) drew his strength from the office of Prime Minister. Again, credit goes to the leadership of Nehru to let Patel have the credit and himself taking the blame.The war with Hyderabad and its capture had Nehru’s stamp; and if one sees the map, one would know that Hyderabad was a state encompassing large parts of Andhra, Telangana and even Orissa and some parts of Maharashtra. Any of the big powers could have interceded. But Nehru stood his ground.The accession of North East, especially Nagaland was done through army action where Indian Air Force bombed Kohima, something which we cannot be proud of; but it displays that he was willing to take risks.Today, India attacking a European Power can’t even be imagined by us.Nehru however had the guts to attack the Portuguese Army and declare war on Portugal, during liberation of Goa.The French colonies of Pondicherry and Daman Diu were liberated again through concerted diplomatic cum subversive army action. France was an ally of the British and USA. Anything could have gone wrong, but he persisted and won it.Public Sector Institutions - Private Sector in 1950s was not capable of taking up large ticket projects. Nehru was an able administrator, but more importantly he took up projects and got them done. He initiated projects and he must get credit for the fact that projects started by him were not just inaugural ceremonies, they went beyond that:Health and Education - Nehru set up a functional system of government being the provider of Health and Education services, with universities providing education free (or token amount for rich) to all citizens and heath being a free right of all citizens.Most of the Institutes that we are proud of today were created by Nehru, the IITs, the IIMs, AIIMS and many other Educational Institutes of repute.Hospitals, Universities across India providing cheap education and health.Initiated the Atomic Research Centre by empowering Homi Jahangir Bhabha. India initiated the forays into Atomic Energy with setting up of Atomic Power Plants.Initiated Space Centre in India by empowering Vikram Sarabhai - the Indian Space Research Organisation was fully functional.Several Hydro Power projects including the BhakraSteel Industries across India, main among them being Bhilai Steel Plant, or Hindustan Machine Tools, Petroleum Corporations etc.Several research institutes like Indian Institute of ScienceInternational Standing of India - During Nehru’s time India was a world leader in International politics. He along with Yugoslovia’s Joseph Tito and Egypt’s Nassar initiated the ‘Non Aligned Movement’; which was then a grouping of over 100 countries which were not aligned either with Russia or America. At the height of the cold war, India stood like a rock, not taking sides. Today’s new leaders get so ballastic abroad these days and act as if they are the first leaders to get international adulation. Nehru’s international adulation was not manufactured, he was a stalwart in his own right; a world statesman who was counted right amongst the top.Better deal in Partition - Due to Nehru’s diplomacy, India could manage a good deal with Britain, the Radcliffe line was changed at the last moment, most probably with a nudge from Mountbatten, so as to give Gurdaspur to India even though it was a Muslim majority district. If not for Gurdaspur, India would have had no land connection with Kashmir and Kashmir would have been totally lost.His failures were on two fronts:Kashmir Issue - major milestonesWar with Pakistan over Kashmir - Nehru was NOT a passive man; he bit the bullet when push came to shove. He took the bold decision of going to war with Pakistan in 1948, something that today’s leaders are hesitant to go for. If he had not rushed troops timely into Srinagar, Kashmir would have been lost to India in 1948 itself after Pakistani army regulars and Afghan Tribals had entered Srinagar. From there to pushing the Pakistani army as far back as the hills of Tololing and Kargil, a whole lot of army action happened.Ceasefire happened from a position of strength when Indian army was on higher mountains than Pakistan. He was also pragmatic enough to realise that Pakistani army could push them back, so the ceasefire was a well thought out army action, with advice of army experts.Arrest of his friend - Sheikh Abdullah - Being a strong administrator, Nehru did not hesitate in arresting the then Prime Minister of Kashmir - Sheikh Abdullah and to keep him in jail for eleven years from 1953 to 1964.China War -Nehru initially had good relations with China. Tibet was earlier an Independent country which enjoyed good relations with India too. India was caught in a bind when China invaded Tibet.After invasion of Tibet by China, the Dalai Lama escaped; Nehru allowed the Dalai Lama into India, gave him refuge and also allowed him state protocols as a Head of State.China’s leader Mao Zedong got frustrated with Nehru’s strong-arm tactics against China and reacted by attacking India. India was defeated.This brings us to extrapolation of a hypothetical situation if he was not the first Prime MinisterIf Nehru wouldn’t have been the PM, let us imagine he was not present or alive at partition.1947 - 1950: Sardar Patel would have been the Prime-Minister. Sardar Patel was a person with strong sense of constitutional propriety, but he also had streaks of impulsive strong-arm tendencies and favouring Hindus in the larger scheme.With Patel as PM, he would have most probably undertaken the initial integration of India, in the same way as by Nehru.With Patel as PM, the partition riots and subsequent migration would have been managed the same way as they were under Nehru (where Patel as Home Minister was anyway managing it)Kashmir Issue: He would have taken the same decision on Indo-Pak war in 1948 but would not have gone to the UNO and would not have agree to a Ceasefire. It is difficult to imagine if Pakistan would have recaptured Srinagar or if India would have liberated Gilgit Baltistan. God know how long the war would have continued, it is quite possible though that Pakistan would have taken the entire Kashmir in 1948 itself. Suffice to say that without the Ceasefire and the UNO resolution, India would have had even lesser legal authority towards Kashmir.ConstitutionAmbedkar would not have been the Law Minister certainly, being from the opposition.Some other luminary like Rajendra Prasad would have been the architect of the Constitution.Indian Constitution could have been ‘less secular’.I assume that he would have been as effective if his health had kept pace with him, however Patel was in bad health by 1949 and it is doubtful if he had the energy to push the Constitution by January 1950.It is possible that Indian Constitution would not have been adopted when it was. It would have been delayed or would have had a different shape altogether.China - China attacked Tibet in 1950 and Patel was in favour of sending the Indian Army into Tibet for defending Tibet. It is possible that the Indo-China war of 1962 would have happened in 1950 itself, when Mao Zedong was on a strong imperial streak. India had a very weak Army, which had just gone through a partition, did not have even one full strength squadron, the infantry was weak. China could have defeated India in 1950 itself and would have captured Leh, Laddakh and Arunachal; it could have joined hands with Pakistan to attack Kashmir as well.After Death of Sardar Patel - Sardar Patel died in 1950, we may assume that the post of PM could not have changed his rendezvous with the angels of death.This is where we must wonder what would have happened if both Nehru and Patel weren’t there.Power Vacuum at the top - It would have left a huge power vacuum at the top with death of entire triad of Gandhiji, Patel and Nehru. We can compare the situation with Pakistan where Jinnah died just after Pakistan’s independence, and the power vacuum at the top allowed Pakistan’s army and rogue islamist elements to take the reigns of the country. Extrapolation from a twin would not be a far-fetched option. Possible scenarios after 1950 would have beenMost likely India would have been a dictatorship of the army in 1950.Breaking up of Indian National Congress and its total sidelining by smaller newer parties.Constitutional vacuum - Without a constution in place, India in 1950 could have been an anarchy without a functional constitution; with no federal or union structure in place. Due to the absence of constitution, one of the following scenarios would have emerged:Scenario 1: Manu Smriti as Constitution - It is possible that strong forces opposed to a liberal constitution would have come sooner to the forefront. There were organisations then who were against the National Flag, National Anthem and the Indian Constitution. Such forces wanted adoption of Manu-Smriti as the Indian Constitution, something akin to Quran being the governing force behind Islamic republics.Scenario 2: Disintegration: there would have been jostling of power by Hyderabad state, Dravid forces of South, of North East and others. It is possible that by late 1950s, India would have disintegrated into ten or fifteen nations.Scenario 3: Hegemony of one state: As in the case of Pakistan where their Punjab has established a hegemony over rest of Pakistan by sheer size, larger populated Indian states from North could have established a hegemony over rest of India.Lack of PluralismCommunal disharmony due to wounds of partition - In absence of Nehru, there would have been NO attempt to apply a balm of peace over a communal division of India. It is possible that communal riots would have continued from 1950 into 1960s, where all minorities would have been killed or pushed out of India. Also, it would have been possible that armed struggle of minorities would have initiated creating Palestine like situations across India.Reduction in liberalism - Ever since Nehru died, India’s plularism has been receding. Indira Gandhi started this process of taking India back to the middle ages of communal strife. It is quite likely that the slide into medieval mayhem would have started earlier.Lack of Welfare State ideals of Nehru -Nehru’s idea of Socialism envisaged seeing the Government as the provider of basic amenities to citizens. Such ideals of the state would have been absent and India could have been a fully capitalist country.All Health Services would have been working under Insurance Schemes, something that USA is still trying to get right and something that the current government has now initiated.The Indians born in 1960s to 1980s got good cheap education from universities. A fully capitalist country in absence of Nehru’s ideals would have provided education only to rich, or through expensive education loans. A whole generation of people who studied in such institutes would have been a part of the labour force and their progenies would have lost opportunities to rise up without fear of favour. My generation of 1970s is a product of that welfare state, me being the grandson of a farmer having studied Engineering and Management at Rupees thousand an year in government institutes. Many like me can never repay the debt of his welfare ideals. I feel sad that many products of that system today are working to cut down the very same system.Conclusion:It is easy to be wise in hindsight; but people living in the present of the moment did not have the vision of what could go wrong. They take decisions on a daily basis.Only people who are doers make mistakes, Nehru was a doer. He had wonderful successes and very few mistakes.The measure of his successes have been lasting and empowering. People are now out to scuttle his welfare state ideals and convert India into a fully capitalist country, fruits of which will be visible in generations to come. The Jury will be out after fifty years again.The measure of his failures have also been lasting and damaging. It shows that these problems were not simple in the first instance, or people who are undoing his successes would have undone his failures too by now. No one has been able to touch Article 370 despite pointing out the problems, who and what stops them?Without Nehru, India could have been a mirror image of the twin Pakistan, a barely functional anarchy. We are India, and we are better than Pakistan today because we had Nehru to steer us in the early years of our young nation.Today’s India stands on the shoulders of giants of yore. Nehru was one of them.Edit Post Script:Nehru wrote the “Discovery of India” which outlines his vision of India and his immense pride in the achievements of Ancient Indians. The Constitution of India as pushed by him did not walk away from Ancient Indian or Hindu/ Buddhist/ Sikh/ Jain ideals, in fact, he enshrined them in the Constitution; which can be seen in the emblems of power like the Sarnath Pillar, the Ashok Chakra, the mottos of all Army regiments drawn from Indic religious texts of Puranas, the emblem of ‘Satyamev Jayate’, the names of the ships/ frigates, the nomenclature of ‘Hindustan’ being carried in many PSUs like HMT, HPCL, HAL etc… All this talk of him being a Hindu-hater are all propaganda. Not an iota of truth in that.Post Post Script:User-12469972845683768012 (User-13447568540690600639) has asked in my comments sections: What if Bose was the first PM?Well, assuming Bose was alive and had become the PM, India would have had a dictatorship on the lines of Mussolini, as admitted by him in his book “Indian Struggle”, where he wrote that India needed a political system which was a mix of Fascism and Communism.Extract from a Times of India article ►: …. Bose spoke about India needing a ruthless dictator for 20 years after liberation. Then Singapore daily, Sunday Express (now defunct), printed his speech where he said, “… For a few years at least, after the end of British rule in India, there must be a dictatorship…No other constitution can flourish in this country and it is so to India’s good that she shall be ruled by a dictator, to begin with ...”Debunking a rumour asked in comments section:What about Nehru giving away India’s Security Council membership option to China? Well, fact of the matter is that Security Council seat of UN was NEVER EVER offered to India. Imperial China (then called the Republic of China) was a charter member of UNO as a founder member from 1945 onwards, well before India became independent. It became permanent member of Security Council (UNSC) in 1945 itself after creation of UNSC, because Imperial China played a role in Japan’s defeat (as a reward for the support) . Till 1971, the breakaway China, that is, Chiang Kai Shek’s Taiwan held this position. In 1971, People's Republic of China (PRC) claimed itself as the true China and managed to usurp Taiwan in this game, which is a long story.India was never in picture for being a member of UNSC…

Source: my earlier answer at Kulveer Singh (कुलवीर सिंह)'s answer to What would have been India's situation now, if Jawaharlal Nehru was not appointed as Prime Minister?When Nehru became the PM of India on August 15, 1947, this was the map of India; Radcliffe line had not been drawn and no princely state had acceeded. The areas in the Grey Area were all that he had…Let’s first evaluate major milestones of Nehru’s regime, so that we can extrapolate the situation without him:Bringing Social Harmony within two years of a bloody partition -India’s Independence and Partition were bloody affairs, over 10 lac people died. The mood, at least in Punjab and Bengal was so sad on one of the happiest days that the whole society was torn apart. People were uprooted, crores of refugees poured into India. Nehru ensured that refugees were treated honourably and settled all across India. People who bury this chapter are not aware that it could have been so much more worse. Muslims who migrated from India into Pakistan are still treated as ‘Mohajirs’, live in ghettos are even now not a part of the mainstream Pakistan society.Muslim versus Sikh/Hindu hatred was at its peak on partition. Within two to three years of taking power, the hatred had died down and there was harmony in the country. Nehru was like a balm, like a medicine over the wounds, so much so that by the time he left power, India was already well known as an inclusive secular nation. Nehru had proven Jinnah wrong, the two nation theory had been proven wrong.Constitution -When British left, India still did not have a Constitution. Nehru brought his rival - B. R. Amebedkar as head of the Drafting Committee. He himself led the team in the Constituent Assembly and was an enthusiastic steward of debates in the Assembly and in many ways was the final arbiter in the way the Constitution shaped up. Ambedkar by himself couldn’t have achieved anything, since he did not have political support and the numbers on his own. It was the leadership of Nehru that steered through the Constitution through the intricate voting process in the Constituent Assembly, it was his leadership that let Ambedkar have the credit.Again, we must understand that if things would have gone wrong, there would have been NO constitution. Pakistan was able to get the first draft of it’s half baked constitution enforced only in 1956, a second constitution in 1962 and yet another one in 1970 and 1972. They were able to put a Constitution into force only by 1973, by which time India was already a well established democracy.The liberal ethos of the new country was initiated by Nehru, will all sections of the society being given equitable share in the power.Federal spirit of India with a strong Centre was developed, the basic framework including the letter as well as spirit of the Constitution were established through conventions and precedences, somethings which are still followed to this day.Army was kept firmly in the barracks - Pakistan’s army was carved out of the Indian army, its officers and jawans had been trained in the same academies as that of India. Yet, Pakistan had a power vacuum which was quickly filled by their army by 1948 itself.Integration of India -Accession of over 500 princely states into the Union of India was no mean feat. People pick out one princely state (Kashmir) where mistakes are said to have happened, forgetting that the execution of all other princely states was flawless, any of them or all of them could have gone rogue. It is very convenient for Nehru baiters to give Patel all the credit, while blaming Nehru for the one fault. The fact of the matter is that Patel-Nehru were a great team despite their differences; the Home Minister (Patel) drew his strength from the office of Prime Minister. Again, credit goes to the leadership of Nehru to let Patel have the credit and himself taking the blame.The war with Hyderabad and its capture had Nehru’s stamp; and if one sees the map, one would know that Hyderabad was a state encompassing large parts of Andhra, Telangana and even Orissa and some parts of Maharashtra. Any of the big powers could have interceded. But Nehru stood his ground.The accession of North East, especially Nagaland was done through army action where Indian Air Force bombed Kohima, something which we cannot be proud of; but it displays that he was willing to take risks.Today, India attacking a European Power can’t even be imagined by us.Nehru however had the guts to attack the Portuguese Army and declare war on Portugal, during liberation of Goa.The French colonies of Pondicherry and Daman Diu were liberated again through concerted diplomatic cum subversive army action. France was an ally of the British and USA. Anything could have gone wrong, but he persisted and won it.Public Sector Institutions - Private Sector in 1950s was not capable of taking up large ticket projects. Nehru was an able administrator, but more importantly he took up projects and got them done. He initiated projects and he must get credit for the fact that projects started by him were not just inaugural ceremonies, they went beyond that:Health and Education - Nehru set up a functional system of government being the provider of Health and Education services, with universities providing education free (or token amount for rich) to all citizens and heath being a free right of all citizens.Most of the Institutes that we are proud of today were created by Nehru, the IITs, the IIMs, AIIMS and many other Educational Institutes of repute.Hospitals, Universities across India providing cheap education and health.Initiated the Atomic Research Centre by empowering Homi Jahangir Bhabha. India initiated the forays into Atomic Energy with setting up of Atomic Power Plants.Initiated Space Centre in India by empowering Vikram Sarabhai - the Indian Space Research Organisation was fully functional.Several Hydro Power projects including the BhakraSteel Industries across India, main among them being Bhilai Steel Plant, or Hindustan Machine Tools, Petroleum Corporations etc.Several research institutes like Indian Institute of ScienceInternational Standing of India - During Nehru’s time India was a world leader in International politics. He along with Yugoslovia’s Joseph Tito and Egypt’s Nassar initiated the ‘Non Aligned Movement’; which was then a grouping of over 100 countries which were not aligned either with Russia or America. At the height of the cold war, India stood like a rock, not taking sides. Today’s new leaders get so ballastic abroad these days and act as if they are the first leaders to get international adulation. Nehru’s international adulation was not manufactured, he was a stalwart in his own right; a world statesman who was counted right amongst the top.Better deal in Partition - Due to Nehru’s diplomacy, India could manage a good deal with Britain, the Radcliffe line was changed at the last moment, most probably with a nudge from Mountbatten, so as to give Gurdaspur to India even though it was a Muslim majority district. If not for Gurdaspur, India would have had no land connection with Kashmir and Kashmir would have been totally lost.His failures were on two fronts:Kashmir Issue - major milestonesWar with Pakistan over Kashmir - Nehru was NOT a passive man; he bit the bullet when push came to shove. He took the bold decision of going to war with Pakistan in 1948, something that today’s leaders are hesitant to go for. If he had not rushed troops timely into Srinagar, Kashmir would have been lost to India in 1948 itself after Pakistani army regulars and Afghan Tribals had entered Srinagar. From there to pushing the Pakistani army as far back as the hills of Tololing and Kargil, a whole lot of army action happened.Ceasefire happened from a position of strength when Indian army was on higher mountains than Pakistan. He was also pragmatic enough to realise that Pakistani army could push them back, so the ceasefire was a well thought out army action, with advice of army experts.Arrest of his friend - Sheikh Abdullah - Being a strong administrator, Nehru did not hesitate in arresting the then Prime Minister of Kashmir - Sheikh Abdullah and to keep him in jail for eleven years from 1953 to 1964.China War -Nehru initially had good relations with China. Tibet was earlier an Independent country which enjoyed good relations with India too. India was caught in a bind when China invaded Tibet.After invasion of Tibet by China, the Dalai Lama escaped; Nehru allowed the Dalai Lama into India, gave him refuge and also allowed him state protocols as a Head of State.China’s leader Mao Zedong got frustrated with Nehru’s strong-arm tactics against China and reacted by attacking India. India was defeated.This brings us to extrapolation of a hypothetical situation if he was not the first Prime MinisterIf Nehru wouldn’t have been the PM, let us imagine he was not present or alive at partition.1947 - 1950: Sardar Patel would have been the Prime-Minister. Sardar Patel was a person with strong sense of constitutional propriety, but he also had streaks of impulsive strong-arm tendencies and favouring Hindus in the larger scheme.With Patel as PM, he would have most probably undertaken the initial integration of India, in the same way as by Nehru.With Patel as PM, the partition riots and subsequent migration would have been managed the same way as they were under Nehru (where Patel as Home Minister was anyway managing it)Kashmir Issue: He would have taken the same decision on Indo-Pak war in 1948 but would not have gone to the UNO and would not have agree to a Ceasefire. It is difficult to imagine if Pakistan would have recaptured Srinagar or if India would have liberated Gilgit Baltistan. God know how long the war would have continued, it is quite possible though that Pakistan would have taken the entire Kashmir in 1948 itself. Suffice to say that without the Ceasefire and the UNO resolution, India would have had even lesser legal authority towards Kashmir.ConstitutionAmbedkar would not have been the Law Minister certainly, being from the opposition.Some other luminary like Rajendra Prasad would have been the architect of the Constitution.Indian Constitution could have been ‘less secular’.I assume that he would have been as effective if his health had kept pace with him, however Patel was in bad health by 1949 and it is doubtful if he had the energy to push the Constitution by January 1950.It is possible that Indian Constitution would not have been adopted when it was. It would have been delayed or would have had a different shape altogether.China - China attacked Tibet in 1950 and Patel was in favour of sending the Indian Army into Tibet for defending Tibet. It is possible that the Indo-China war of 1962 would have happened in 1950 itself, when Mao Zedong was on a strong imperial streak. India had a very weak Army, which had just gone through a partition, did not have even one full strength squadron, the infantry was weak. China could have defeated India in 1950 itself and would have captured Leh, Laddakh and Arunachal; it could have joined hands with Pakistan to attack Kashmir as well.After Death of Sardar Patel - Sardar Patel died in 1950, we may assume that the post of PM could not have changed his rendezvous with the angels of death.This is where we must wonder what would have happened if both Nehru and Patel weren’t there.Power Vacuum at the top - It would have left a huge power vacuum at the top with death of entire triad of Gandhiji, Patel and Nehru. We can compare the situation with Pakistan where Jinnah died just after Pakistan’s independence, and the power vacuum at the top allowed Pakistan’s army and rogue islamist elements to take the reigns of the country. Extrapolation from a twin would not be a far-fetched option. Possible scenarios after 1950 would have beenMost likely India would have been a dictatorship of the army in 1950.Breaking up of Indian National Congress and its total sidelining by smaller newer parties.Constitutional vacuum - Without a constution in place, India in 1950 could have been an anarchy without a functional constitution; with no federal or union structure in place. Due to the absence of constitution, one of the following scenarios would have emerged:Scenario 1: Manu Smriti as Constitution - It is possible that strong forces opposed to a liberal constitution would have come sooner to the forefront. There were organisations then who were against the National Flag, National Anthem and the Indian Constitution. Such forces wanted adoption of Manu-Smriti as the Indian Constitution, something akin to Quran being the governing force behind Islamic republics.Scenario 2: Disintegration: there would have been jostling of power by Hyderabad state, Dravid forces of South, of North East and others. It is possible that by late 1950s, India would have disintegrated into ten or fifteen nations.Scenario 3: Hegemony of one state: As in the case of Pakistan where their Punjab has established a hegemony over rest of Pakistan by sheer size, larger populated Indian states from North could have established a hegemony over rest of India.Lack of PluralismCommunal disharmony due to wounds of partition - In absence of Nehru, there would have been NO attempt to apply a balm of peace over a communal division of India. It is possible that communal riots would have continued from 1950 into 1960s, where all minorities would have been killed or pushed out of India. Also, it would have been possible that armed struggle of minorities would have initiated creating Palestine like situations across India.Reduction in liberalism - Ever since Nehru died, India’s plularism has been receding. Indira Gandhi started this process of taking India back to the middle ages of communal strife. It is quite likely that the slide into medieval mayhem would have started earlier.Lack of Welfare State ideals of Nehru -Nehru’s idea of Socialism envisaged seeing the Government as the provider of basic amenities to citizens. Such ideals of the state would have been absent and India could have been a fully capitalist country.All Health Services would have been working under Insurance Schemes, something that USA is still trying to get right and something that the current government has now initiated.The Indians born in 1960s to 1980s got good cheap education from universities. A fully capitalist country in absence of Nehru’s ideals would have provided education only to rich, or through expensive education loans. A whole generation of people who studied in such institutes would have been a part of the labour force and their progenies would have lost opportunities to rise up without fear of favour. My generation of 1970s is a product of that welfare state, me being the grandson of a farmer having studied Engineering and Management at Rupees thousand an year in government institutes. Many like me can never repay the debt of his welfare ideals. I feel sad that many products of that system today are working to cut down the very same system.Conclusion:It is easy to be wise in hindsight; but people living in the present of the moment did not have the vision of what could go wrong. They take decisions on a daily basis.Only people who are doers make mistakes, Nehru was a doer. He had wonderful successes and very few mistakes.The measure of his successes have been lasting and empowering. People are now out to scuttle his welfare state ideals and convert India into a fully capitalist country, fruits of which will be visible in generations to come. The Jury will be out after fifty years again.The measure of his failures have also been lasting and damaging. It shows that these problems were not simple in the first instance, or people who are undoing his successes would have undone his failures too by now. No one has been able to touch Article 370 despite pointing out the problems, who and what stops them?Without Nehru, India could have been a mirror image of the twin Pakistan, a barely functional anarchy. We are India, and we are better than Pakistan today because we had Nehru to steer us in the early years of our young nation.Today’s India stands on the shoulders of giants of yore. Nehru was one of them.Edit Post Script:Nehru wrote the “Discovery of India” which outlines his vision of India and his immense pride in the achievements of Ancient Indians. The Constitution of India as pushed by him did not walk away from Ancient Indian or Hindu/ Buddhist/ Sikh/ Jain ideals, in fact, he enshrined them in the Constitution; which can be seen in the emblems of power like the Sarnath Pillar, the Ashok Chakra, the mottos of all Army regiments drawn from Indic religious texts of Puranas, the emblem of ‘Satyamev Jayate’, the names of the ships/ frigates, the nomenclature of ‘Hindustan’ being carried in many PSUs like HMT, HPCL, HAL etc… All this talk of him being a Hindu-hater are all propaganda. Not an iota of truth in that.

Depends……and why it depends provides a pretty hilarious story in protective coloration.The United States of America started out as the left-most political entity in the world. For most Americans, that self-same constitutional form of government is now considered right wing.Let’s sort it out.We have need of history in its entirety, not to fall back into it, but to escape from it.—José Ortega y GassetThe Enlightenment SwingThe Age of Enlightenment killed the Ancient idea—not only would the present resemble the past, it should be made to. It ushered in the Modern idea—using the new economics of productivity and harnessing the new technologies discovered by science, mankind could look forward to a future of steady improvement in our living condition. Kings and courts together with religious authority—monarchy and theocracy—were superb at keeping things the same. Indeed, they provided a bit of improvement on the sheer despotic rule common in much of the ancient world.But if progress was the goal, running literally every significant decision through a central figure or figures was not an efficient way to go. Liberalism was born during the Enlightenment and, harnessing the protean economics of free enterprise proceeded as a threat to monarchy.Monarchs, too, coveted the goose that laid the golden eggs, and so an elaborate dialogue commenced here and there by which there would be a sharing of power—constitutional monarchy. The United States were [they were plural for a time to come] birthed in a revolutionary concept—we don’t need no stinking aristocrats. Instead, we will all become radically equal—citizens in a republican form of government, like the Venetians and Dutch were and, going back much further, somewhat like the Romans had implemented, for a while at least.We became the wonder of the world—a nation run by its citizens with government no longer over them but answerable to them. The French, fed up with an elaborately ponderous pre-Enlightenment social construct, ginned up liberal revolutionary fervor even greater than ours. Alas, their enemies were not across an ocean but in their cities and towns and well-established. Between the blood and the displacement, the revolt turned horrific and launched the Counter-Enlightenment, a reaction against liberalism that took different forms.The idea of left and right in politics was born in the aftermath of this revolutionary turmoil:We began to recognize each other: those who were loyal to religion and the king took up positions to the right of the chair so as to avoid the shouts, oaths, and indecencies that enjoyed free rein in the opposing camp.—Baron de Gauville, Deputy of the French National Assembly, 1789Primarily in France, a new politics was born out of liberalism. Jacobins and others wished to control working conditions in the cities. Some former elites sought a pastoral life in the country as far from any guillotines as possible. Others set up working co-operatives or farmsteads. This was the rise of socialism. (Bonapartism, too, arose—the idea that “royal blood” was a crock, that a country boy could be an emperor—but it came and went. It is mentioned here just to note that monarchy spawned three major political movements aimed at bringing an end to the monarchical state—liberalism, Bonapartism and socialism.)The revolutions of 1848 were not solely the work of the socialists, though they had a large hand. It was, however, a red-letter year for socialism as it also saw a bold new publication from Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels—The Communist Manifesto—that promised a socialism yet more liberating and egalitarian than republicanism could be, and so it was awarded a place at the far left of the political spectrum.The Original Political SpectrumThis completes the old right-left political metaphor, as can be seen here:The line at the upper right (despotism) to the center left (Marxism) represents the original right-left metaphor in full. But it was, as Marx’s anarchist friends took pride in pointing out to him, incorrect. A dictatorship of the proletariat is hardly anti-statist, even if intended to be temporary, they chided. Marx’s vision is barely left of center… about where democratic socialism (the movement to return social democracy—the updated name for communism—to its Marxian roots) appears.The Counter-Enlightenment SwingIt is this Counter-Enlightenment swing back toward increasing statism (the original right) that has never been properly described (outside of a few academic publications). I’ve made a few attempts here on Quora, but, of course, it runs quite contrary to the way many wish to portray the turn of the political tide.Idealistic as republicanism (left liberalism) is, it is a governing scheme. The same cannot be said for all the various left socialisms. Marx branded them all naive, and they truly are not suited for governing any entity larger than a commune or collective. Marxism—whether referred to as socialism, communism or social democracy—was intended to improve upon “capitalism,” the label Marx gave much later to free enterprise.Marx’s plan was clearly intended as a benefit to mankind. By ridding productive economics of the scourge of “idle men with idle money,” the rewards would go more evenly to the truly deserving—as in Marx’s conception all value owed to labor. Rather than have wealth creation be a lightning strike that elevated some few to the level of dukes and princes, it would more evenly raise the lot of workers, leaving the moneyed class to find real work.Finally, in 1868, the first installment of his long-awaited masterpiece, Das Kapital, was published. Book One dealt in large part with the problems of free enterprise that communism would solve. Only, at the same time, three members of the Marginalist School of economics published convincing proofs that those idle men were an essential part of the equation… somebody had to take all that risk!Many authorities have cited these proofs—Marx was certain to know of them—as the reason Marx did no further work on his masterpiece. Engels eventually published Books Two and Three from Marx’s unimproved notes after his death. Marx never even started work on Book Four, the volume that was to explain how communism and socialism would twin together to govern and produce prosperity.Monarchism Captures SocialismLate in Marx’s life, the worst conceivable tragedy befell him—along came German Chancellor Otto von Bismarck who decided that the popularity of Marx’s social democracy made the perfect scheme for uniting the various German principalities under Prussian King William I. Once that task was (astonishingly swiftly) accomplished, he realized that social democracy was the perfect scheme for neutering all three threats to monarchy.Napoleon III could not ignore the reunification of all Germany; he would be forced to war. Thus prepared, the Prussian/German Army defeated the French Army in a matter of months. Bonapartism was dead.The socialists, Bismarck noted, had poor leadership and no funds. He could simply steal their plan entire and implement it in the name of (now) Emperor Wilhelm I, in order “to bribe the people,” as he put it, that is, to win their allegiance away from the increasing prosperity produced by the liberals by giving more from the state.While the many German liberal parties were well-led and funded, “something for nothing,” the seductive siren song of socialism, would peel the allegiance of the working class away. Further, Marx’s plan for graduated income taxes would make for the perfect device for siphoning golden eggs away from the goose (enterprise) and into the state coffers controlled by the monarchy.Marx blasted Bismarck’s scheme in his withering Critique of the Gotha Programme. The provision of aid (it was not called “welfare” until 1932 when a newly-elected Franklin D. Roosevelt wanted to palm state aid off as compatible with our general welfare clauses) under auspices of the state, could never produce a class-free society, only a permanent dictatorship of a bourgeois elite using the resulting pauperism to create a perpetual under-class in order to justify their continued rule.Socialism Vaults to the RightBut Marx was now old, ill and virtually followerless. Bismarck simply hired away leading members of the Social Democratic Party to work for the state, and, a few years later, simply outlawed all other socialists who had not come to work for the state. Socialism was now serving not just a political elite but a monarchical and aristocratic one in effective political control of all aspects of society, that is to say, an authoritarian, statist, right-wing government.Germany was home at the time to the only universities granting the newly prestigious doctorate of philosophy degrees and so was home also to intellectuals from all over the world. The events in Germany were as electrifying in their own way as the advent of free enterprise had been a century earlier, and the intellectuals busily chronicled events home to their learned societies. The appeal to intellectuals and political elites (and wannabe political elites) was obvious—POWER.This all hit in the United States at a time when the liberal North was becoming alarmed at the rising tide of former slaves from the South looking for factory work, Germanic rubes from the Upper Midwest also looking for factory work, “new” immigrants from Catholic and Orthodox Southern Europe to Jews from Eastern Europe—even Chinese laborers arriving by rail from the West Coast.They freaked.They aligned with their Conservative Democrat former enemies in the South in a movement to protect Anglo-Saxon Protestant privilege—progressivism, the movement to bring Bismarckian social democracy to the United States. Our Constitution conspicuously afforded majorities no handle on minorities—rights is rights. But the majority-rules democratic methods of social democracy provided the tools our “relic document,” as Teddy Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson referred to our charter, didn’t.America, at least the four-fifths who were Anglo-Saxon and Protestant, turned its back on liberalism in favor of progressivism. It spread across both parties.Blurred LinesBut in a sense, Marx, had both the last laugh and the last indignity. He had predicted social democracy would become the vehicle of bourgeois elites. Sure enough, when Wilhelm II abdicated after the Great War (now, World War I), social democracy fell under control of bourgeois elites, as true for all other adopters. At the same time, his name remained appended to a politics that was antithetical to his intentions. His name was synonymous with something for the working man. Bismarck’s was synonymous with monarchy… not a hot ticket. And so, poor, dead Marx remained the face of an abomination he had lambasted to his dying breath.As social democracy grew in Germany and was adopted elsewhere. The older order socialists were aghast but envious. When Kautsky and Bernstein, Germany’s emissaries to the Communist International, informed the socialist world that they would be retaining capitalism, there was fury. But by this time, the Russians were pretty much the only Marxist purists looking to implement socialism, and even they noted that Bismarckian authoritarianism had proved essential to getting things rolling—Marx’s predicted worker revolts still had not materialized.The new socialist kid on the block, fascism, rejected Marx pretty much totally but was still a movement for improving the lot of the working man. In all of the many countries in which it took root, it also despised social democracy—the politicians on the home front who had “stabbed them in the back” while they were mired in the trenches. Fascism, too, adopted the authoritarian Bismarckian footprint.Before long, the Second World War commenced largely owing to the animosity of the three differing right socialisms, each convinced it alone was the proper end-state of mankind, each seeking the same sort of adherents and each contemptuous of the outlook of the other two.New Versions of the Political SpectrumIf the National Socialists in Germany or the Fascists in Italy had any thoughts on the political right or left, it has escaped me. Their rejection of Marx pretty much obviated their need for any such pretense.Stalinism. But by the time we get to Stalin’s Soviet Union, Marx, along with Lenin, was the poster boy, and his politics were famously, if largely improperly, left wing. Old Joe therefore had a standing decree with Vremya, Pravda and other state organs that all non-Marxist-Leninist-Stalinist forms of socialism were to be referred to as “right wing.” Franklin Roosevelt was right wing. Norman Thomas and the American Socialist Party were right wing. Obviously, Hitler, Mussolini and their state apparatuses were right wing, but, as a practical matter, they were less totalitarian, a bit less statist, than the Soviet regime, and so Soviet communism marked the actual far right along with…Maoism. Once the bureaucracy felt it had the upper hand on Chairman Mao following the colossal failure of his Great Leap Forward, they moved to cut off his power. When he realized his commands were no longer being followed, he unleashed his Cultural Revolution, an orgy of torture and killing.He began innocently enough, instigating attacks on conspicuous people in literary arenas who had little following. But then he unleashed his secret weapon—teenagers, the Red Guard. He set them loose first on their teachers, not just one camp of Guards but two. One camp comprised the sons and daughters of the pure—soldiers and poor peasants. The other camp comprised the children of more well-to-do elements of society, adamant that they too could be pure and determined to prove it. A nasty competition was on.Pretty soon they were outing all of the elements Mao distrusted and turning up “hooligans and bad eggs, filthy-rich peasants and son-of-a-bitch landlords, bloodsucking capitalists and neobourgeoisie, historical counterrevolutionaries and active counterrevolutionaries, ultrarightists, alien class elements and degeneration elements, reactionaries and opportunists, counterrevolutionary revisionists, imperialist running dogs, and spies,” not to mention “ox ghosts and snake spirits.” All of those, naturally were rightists. Only Mao and his purest followers were left. (In my student radical days, oh, how the “red diaper babies” among us longed for the power wielded by the Red Guards, where to denounce was to destroy. You can see that longing on display in online videos to this day.)America. Stalin’s labeling of social democracy as right wing did not take hold. Indeed the politically cunning FDR distanced himself from his previous embrace of fascism by turning Stalin’s indictment of that ideology inside out… “Oh, right wing… Old Joe must mean they’re like our conservatives in the Republican camp.”Progressives in the progressive era had no need of such dodges (though Herb Crowley and one or two other suggested progressives had a claim to the liberal mantle). They were a majority, almost a super-majority, and liberalism and all things liberal were the enemy. However, after America soured on Woodrow Wilson and Prohibition began to grate, “progressive” became a label of liability.FDR, especially, began resorting to deceptive Fabian tactics. Progressives were left and liberal, not authoritarian and statist. State aid became “welfare benefits.” Statist privileges became “positive rights,” and so on. But the main relevance here is those who wished to retain our liberal heritage, the acme of left politics, were to be referred to as conservative and right-wing. Meanwhile, the social democrats who wished to replace our liberal heritage with Bismarckian statism were to be referred to as liberal and left-wing.Randians. There’s one last version of the right-left political spectrum muddying the waters. Given the insistence of progressives and communists to refer to themselves as left-wing, followers of Ayn Rand, simply retorted, “Fine, then reverse the poles.” Left became authoritarian and statist and right now defines liberty-lovers.And that is why we have no idea what the terms “left” and “right” actually refer to. Indeed, they are not trademarked terms nor do they have much standing in political science reference works. Just try to be clear what you mean by them when you use them.