This Medical Release Form Signed By The Participant And One Parent: Fill & Download for Free

There is an attempt not on Quora but also on other platforms like Facebook, Twitter, WhatsApp, to malign Nehru via misleading facts. BJP blaming today Nehru for everything wrong going on in our Country. BJP believes that if Sardar Patel was PM instead of Pandit Jawahar Lal Nehru then India will be more progressive and in the memory of him, Statue worth Rs 3000 crore unveiled in Gujarat but Party is hiding one fact that Sardar Patel banned RSS when Nathuram Godse killed Gandhi.Blaming Nehru for today's problem in India is like a person went to Airport to board a flight from Delhi to Mumbai to attend an important meeting unfortunately he missed the flight by few minutes and his Manager asked that person how you missed the flight as meeting is quite important. A person replied - Rajdhani Express derailed near Delhi. The same thing BJP doing today, the party is just deceiving billions of Indians in the name of Nehru, Congress etc.Let me answer in detail-November 14, 1889 - Jawahar Lal Nehru is born, first Prime Minister of India and a central figure in Indian politics- before and after Independence. Nehru remains the longest serving Prime Minister of India and his Public Sector led Economic model is fiercely debatable today. He sensibly dealt with challenge of transforming an old Civilization to a modern Nation state. If Nehru had been a different man, India would have been a different Country.What shaped Nehru’s youth?Jawaharlal Nehru, the son of the eminent lawyer-politician Motilal Nehru and Swarup Rani, was born in the midst of wealth on November 14, 1889 in the city of Allahabad, situated along the banks of the Ganges River (now in the state of Uttar Pradesh).Jawaharlal's childhood was secluded. He was the only child of his parents for eleven years, and spent his time mostly in the company of adults. The solitary life compelled him to develop a passion for reading which stayed with him till the end of his life.Training as a lawyer, Motilal had moved to Allahabad and developed a successful practice and had become active in India's largest political party, the Indian National Congress. Nehru and his sisters — Vijaya Lakshmi and Krishna — lived in a large mansion called "Anand Bhavan" and were raised with English customs, manners and dress. Theirs was a ‘typical Indian Victorian family’.After being tutored at home and attending some of the most modern schools in India, Nehru would travel to England at the age of 15 to attend the Harrow School. He would proceed to study natural sciences at the Trinity College before choosing to train as a barrister at the Middle Temple in London. Frequenting the theatres, museums and opera houses of London, he would spend his vacations travelling across Europe. Observers would later describe him as an elegant, charming young intellectual and socialite. Nehru would also participate actively in the political activities of the Indian student community, growing increasingly attracted to socialism and liberalism, which were beginning to influence the politics and economies of Europe.Upon his return to India, Nehru's marriage was arranged with Kamala Kaul. Married on February 8, 1916, Nehru age was 27 and his bride was 16 years old. The first few years of their marriage were hampered by the cultural gulf between the anglicized Nehru and Kamala, who observed Hindu traditions and focused on family affairs. The following year Kamala would give birth to their only child, their daughter Indira Priyadarshini.Having made few attempts to establish himself in a legal practice, Nehru was immediately attracted to Indian political life, which at the time was emerging from divisions over World War I. The moderate and extremist factions of the Congress had reunited in its 1916 session in Lucknow, and Indian politicians had demanded Home Rule and dominion status for India.Joining the Congress under the patronage of his father, Nehru grew increasingly disillusioned with the liberal and anglicized nature of Congress politicians, which included his father.Why did Nehru rise up the political ranks?Jawaharlal Nehru emerged as one of the key figures of the twentieth century. He dominated the Indian political scene as a relentless front rank freedom fighter till independence and as the first Prime Minister of free India left behind him not only certain achievements but also a legacy that continues to be celebrated and debated.Before Nehru became the master of India’s destiny, he was the disciple of the Great Soul of India.Nehru was very strongly attracted to Gandhi's philosophy and leadership. Gandhi had led a successful rebellion on behalf of indentured Indian workers while a lawyer in South Africa. Upon his return to India, Gandhi organized the peasants and farmers of Champaran and Kheda in successful rebellions against oppressive tax policies levied by the British.Gandhi espoused what he termed as satyagraha — mass civil disobedience governed by ahimsa, or complete non-violence. A forceful exponent of Indian self-reliance, Gandhi's success electrified Indians, who had been divided in their approach to contesting British rule. Having met Gandhi and learning of his ideas, Nehru would assist him during the Champaran agitation.Following Gandhi's example, Nehru and his family abandoned their Western-style clothes, possessions and wealthy lifestyle. Wearing clothes spun out of khadi, Nehru would emerge as one of the most energetic supporters of Gandhi. Under Gandhi's influence, Nehru began studying the Bhagavad Gita and would practice yoga throughout his life. He would increasingly look to Gandhi for advice and guidance in his personal life, and would spend a lot of time travelling and living with Gandhi.Nehru travelled across India delivering political speeches aimed at recruiting India's masses, especially its youth into the agitation launched in 1919 against the Rowlatt Acts and the Khilafat struggle. He spoke passionately and forcefully to encourage Hindu-Muslim unity, spread education and self-reliance and the need to eradicate social evils such as untouchability, poverty, ignorance, and unemployment.Emerging as a powerful orator and prominent organizer, Nehru became one of the most popular political leaders in northern India, especially with the people of the United Provinces, Bihar and the Central Provinces. His youth and passion for social justice and equality attracted India's Muslims, women and other minorities. Nehru's role grew especially important following the arrest of senior leaders such as Gandhi and Nehru's father, and he would also be imprisoned along with his mother and sisters for many months. Alarmed by growing violence in the conduct of mass agitations, Gandhi suspended the struggle after the killing of 22 state policemen by a mob at Chauri Chaura on February 4, 1922. This sudden move disillusioned some, including Nehru's father, Motilal, who would join the newly formed Swaraj Party in 1923.However, Nehru remained loyal to Gandhi and publicly supported him.A lull in nationalist activities enabled Nehru to turn his attention to social causes and local government. In 1924, he was elected president of the municipal corporation of Allahabad, serving as the city's chief executive for two years.Nehru would launch ambitious schemes to promote education, sanitation, expand water and electricity supply and reduce unemployment — his ideas and experience would prove valuable to him when he assumed charge of India's government in 1947. Achieving some success, Nehru was dissatisfied and angered by the obstruction of British officials and corruption amongst civil servants.He would resign from his position within two years. He would then spend the next two decades fighting for India’s independence so that he could one day get to do for the entire nation that he couldn’t do for Allahabad.When did Nehru become the first choice of Gandhi?Nehru attended not only the Socialist Congress at Brussels but also journeyed to the Soviet Union in 1927. It was in this period that he moved very close to socialism and even to Marxism and communism.He openly expressed in his speeches that evolution of communism was an inevitability. This view-point of Nehru was carried into the Congress fold. The first part of the thirties was a period of intense anxiety within the Congress organization. A large number of leaders thought that Nehru had become a communist and some of the industrialists openly challenged him.He and Subhash Chandra Bose had become the most prominent youth leaders, and both demanded the outright political independence of India. Nehru criticized the Nehru Report prepared by his father in 1928, which called for dominion status for India within the British Empire.The radicalism of Nehru and Bose would provoke intense debates during the 1928 Congress session in Guwahati. Arguing that India would deliver an ultimatum to the British and prepare for mass struggle, Nehru and Bose won the hearts of many young Indians. To resolve the issue, Gandhi said that the British would be given two years to grant India dominion status. If they did not, the Congress would launch a national struggle for full political independence. Nehru and Bose succeeded in reducing the statutory deadline to one year.The failure of talks with the British caused the December 1929 session in Lahore to be held in an atmosphere charged with anti-Empire sentiment. Preparing for the declaration of independence, the All India Congress Committee (AICC) elected Jawaharlal Nehru as Congress President at the encouragement of Gandhi. Favored by Gandhi for his charismatic appeal to India's masses, minorities, women and youth, the move nevertheless surprised many Congressmen and political observers. Many had demanded that Gandhi or the leader of the Bardoli Satyagraha, Vallabhbhai Patel, assume the presidency, especially as the leader of the Congress would the inaugurator of India's struggle for complete freedom. Nehru was seen by many as too inexperienced for the job of leading India's largest political organization.And then one of the defining moments of India’s freedom struggle arrived. On December 31, 1929 Nehru hoisted the flag of independence before a massive public gathering along the banks of the Ravi River. The Congress would promulgate the Purna Swaraj (Complete Independence) declaration on January 26, 1930. With the launching of Gandhi’s Salt Satyagraha in 1930, Nehru travelled across Gujarat and other parts of the country participating and encouraging in the mass rebellion against the salt tax. Despite his father's death in 1931, Nehru and his family remained at the forefront of the struggle. Arrested with his wife and sisters, Nehru would be imprisoned for all but four months between 1931 and 1935.Nehru was re-elected Congress President in 1936, and he presided over its session in Lucknow. Here he participated in a fierce debate with Gandhi, Patel and other Congress leaders over the adoption of socialism as the official goal of the party. Younger socialists such as Jaya Prakash Narayan, Mridula Sarabhai, Narendra Dev and Asoka Mehta began to see Nehru as leader of Congress socialists. Under their pressure, the Congress passed the Avadi Resolution proclaiming socialism as the model for India's future government.Meanwhile, Gandhi himself wrote a letter to Nehru expressing his fear that he was moving away from him on a different path – towards communism. But it wasn’t because of Gandhi that Nehru could resist the charm of communism. Hitler and Stalin took care of that.The socialist enthusiasm of Nehru wilted away because of certain developments, both world-wide and internal. In Europe the forces of fascism, embodied by German’s Fuhrer Adolf Hitler, grew more and more ominous. The socialist utopia of Karl Marx was clouded by the purges in the USSR and Stalin's inscrutable policies.Nehru was re-elected as President in 1937, and oversaw the Congress national campaign for the 1937 elections. Largely leaving political organization work to others, Nehru travelled the length and breadth of the country, exhorting the masses on behalf of the Congress, which would win an outright majority in the central and most of the provincial legislatures. Although he did not contest elections himself, Nehru was seen by the national media as the leader of the Congress.Torn between the freedom struggle and tending to his sick wife, Nehru would travel back and forth between India and Europe. Kamala Nehru died in 1938. Deeply saddened, Nehru nevertheless continued to maintain a hectic schedule. He would always wear a fresh rose in his coat for the remainder of his life to remember Kamala, who had also become a national heroine.By now India’s freedom seemed inevitableAt the outbreak of World War II, the Assemblies were informed that the Viceroy had unilaterally declared war on the Axis on behalf of India, without consulting the people's representatives. Outraged at the viceroy's arbitrary decision, all elected Congressmen resigned from their offices at the instigation of Subhash Bose and Nehru.But even as Bose would call for an outright revolt and would proceed to seek the aid of Nazi Germany and Japan, Nehru remained sympathetic to the British cause. He joined Maulana Azad, Chakravarthi Rajagopalachari and Patel in offering Congress support for the war effort in return for a commitment from the British to grant independence after the war. In doing so, Nehru broke ranks with Gandhi, who had resisted supporting war and remained suspicious of the British.The failure of negotiations and Britain's refusal to concede independence outraged the nationalist movement. Gandhi and Patel called for an all-out rebellion, a demand that was opposed by Rajagopalachari and resisted by Nehru and Azad. After intensive debates and heated discussions, the Congress leaders called for the British to Quit India — to transfer power to Indian hands immediately or face a mass rebellion.Despite his skepticism and for his unflinching dedication to the Mahatma, Nehru travelled the country to exhort India's masses into rebellion. He was arrested with the entire Congress Working Committee on 9 August, 1942 and transported to a maximum security prison at a fort in Ahmednagar. Here he would remain incarcerated with his colleagues till June 1945.India's first prime ministerNehru and his colleagues had been released as the British Cabinet Mission arrived to propose plans for transfer of power. The Congress held a presidential election in the knowledge that its chosen leader would become India's head of government. Eleven Congress state units nominated Vallabhbhai Patel, while only the Working Committee suggested Nehru. Sensing that Nehru would not accept second place to Patel, Gandhi supported Nehru and asked Patel to withdraw, which he immediately did.Nehru's election surprised many Congressmen and continues to be a source of controversy in modern times. Nehru headed an interim government, which was impaired by outbreaks of communal violence and political disorder, and the opposition of the Muslim League led by Muhammad Ali Jinnah, who were demanding a separate Muslim state of Pakistan. After failed bids to form coalitions, Nehru reluctantly supported the partition of India as per a plan released by the British on June 3, 1947.He would take office as the Prime Minister of India on August 15, and delivered his inaugural address titled "A Tryst With Destiny." With that Nehru would take charge of India’s destiny for the next 17 years. Rabindranath Tagore in 1941 had asked, “The wheels of fate will someday compel the English to give up their Indian Empire. What kind of India will they leave behind, what stark misery? When the stream of their centuries’ administration runs dry at last, what a waste of mud and filth will they leave behind them?”It was now a matter of what kind of India did Nehru want to create.Where did Nehru take India towards?“Jawaharlal Nehru, Prime Minister of India, is dead. At 2 p.m. local time today 460,000,000 people in this country that has been forged on the anvil of this one man's dreams and conflicts were plunged into the nightmare world which they have, in the last decade, come to dread as the "after Nehru" era.” ~ The Guardian, 28 May 1964A major event such as this inevitably gives rise to “where were you?” questions. Where were you when Kennedy was assassinated? Where were you when Indira Gandhi was killed? Where were you when the World Trade Centre was brought down? The shock of the event magnifies the immediate around you and imprints it in your mind. But where was India when Nehru died?First, some context to the challenges Nehru faced in 1947.After independence in 1947, India was among the poorest countries in the world. Two centuries of plunder, neglect, and exploitation by the British, had left a country of over 300 million people destitute and lost. India’s entire infrastructure, it’s economy, it’s bureaucracy, it was all designed and built solely to serve the needs of British industry and further Britain’s interests.India had been drained of its resources and manpower, so that Britain could win wars on the European continent; the Bengal Famine of 1943 killed 3 million Indians during WW II because Winston Churchill did not wish to ‘waste’ grain on his Indian subjects when there were many Englishmen to feed. And as a final parting gift, the British co-engineered the Partition in 1947, leading to around 14 million refugees and mass killings all over the subcontinent.Half the population of India now lived below the poverty line, and over 80 percent of the people were illiterate. The country was famine-ridden and life expectancy was around 30 years. The per capita income, the agricultural output, and the food grains output had all been continuously shrinking for the previous three decades. Around 1700, the Mughal Empire produced one-third of the global GDP. For the Indian republic in 1947, this was less than 1 percent.Many Western pundits and leaders expected India to collapse. But India progressed. Nehru took care of that, one socialist policy at a time.There was every possibility that India would end up as just another post-independence basket case. However, as the world watched India, expecting it to fail, quite the opposite happened. When the 1950s rolled by, and consecutive 5-year plans were drawn up and executed, it came to the world’s attention that India was doing remarkably well.Percival Griffith, a former colonial administrator who was highly sceptical of India’s capabilities, wrote in 1957 that post-independence foodgrain production had been ‘spectacular,’ and that India was succeeding in doing what he himself had thought impossible. He noted that it was “impossible to travel round India without feeling that the country has entered a new, dynamic phase,” and that “the signs of a rise in the standard of living are unmistakable.”British economist Barbara Ward remarked in 1961 how in India a “process of continuous growth covers everything from Tata’s works at Jamshedpur, producing over half a million tons of steel a year, down to the villager selling his first mound of rice in the market.” Ward further wrote that “investment in all sectors, including agriculture, almost double between the first and second plans,” and that “the Indian record in both infrastructure and industry is one of substantial advance on a broad front, like the big push needed to achieve sustained growth.”From over 40 years of zero-percent growth between 1900 and 1947, India saw the economy grow to 4 percent annually until 1962, putting it ahead of China, Japan, and the UK.American political scientist Michael Brecher was quite clear in who the credit must go to: “Whatever progress has been achieved is primarily due to the efforts of the prime minister. Indeed he is the heart and soul and mind of India’s heroic struggle to raise the living standards of its 390 million people.”On gaining independence in 1947, rumor has it that Lord Mountbatten and the colonialists assured Nehru – in good zest - that he wouldn’t have to worry about uniting a heterogeneous nation like India under a single Republic because the nation would break into many states anyway. While credit has to be given to Sardar Patel in uniting India’s princely states, few at the time philosophically fathomed the challenges of binding a nation like India: how does a nation of over a billion people — or 17.5 percent of the world’s population, — home to every religion known to mankind, 4,600 castes and sub-castes, 22 major languages, 13 different scripts, and hundreds of dialects, continue to remain united?Of course it had to be NehruAs India lost the Mahatma in 1948, Nehru became responsible for continuing his legacy and creating the India they together had dreamed of. He ended up creating an India which he alone had dreamt of – but it was still a good version of the many possibilities that India offered in 1947.Nehru’s idea of India’s modern nationhood consisted of four key dimensions: democracy, secularism, socialism, and non-alignment. These dimensions came about through long discussions between Nehru and Gandhi, Nehru’s own experience in the independence movement, and his observations as he saw the world change and move into new, unknown territory. The British leaving him no tradition of good governance to fall back on, Nehru had to reinvent the art of Indian statesmanship in a new world order.Overnight, India had become the largest democracy in the world; the sheer size of its population gave it a voter-base larger than the entire populace of most other democracies. India’s democracy took ideas from both UK and US; India became a union of states with strong local government like the US, but with a parliamentary system like the UK.For Nehru, democracy was not just about the right to vote, but also having the economic means to leverage your democratic rights. Political democracy would be meaningless without economic democracy. Nehru was also a strong advocate for Panchayati Raj, the idea of self-governance for villages.Nehru’s idea of secularism was to be often tested during his premiership; with Partition and the creation of Pakistan, the idea of Muslim-Hindu cohabitation came under fire by both Muslims and Hindus. Muhammed Ali Jinnah, the founder of Pakistan, believed that Muslims would never be safe as a minority in a Hindu-dominated India. On the other side, there were those who believed in Hindutva, the idea that India is first and foremost a Hindu nation and should be guided by Hindu principles. The creation of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan gave Hindutva new boon as its adherents now argued that, with the Muslims having their own state, Hindus were entitled to having India as their country. Nehru would have none of this and till his lasts days he fought for a secular India. When the Islamic minority had to be reassured that India would continue to be their home as well, Nehru stated in 1951: “If anyone raises his hand against another in the name of religion, I shall fight him till the last breath of my life, whether from inside the government or outside.”Nehru’s foreign policy for India was to be shaped by the idea of non-alignment. Over a hundred new countries would emerge from the ruins of European colonialism after WW II, and the two competing super powers — the US and the USSR — were both looking to expand their influence over these maiden nations. India was also courted, but Nehru rejected the false dichotomy of American capitalism and Russian communism. Instead, he chose the third path of non-alignment. Non-alignment was also a way for India to maintain its national sovereignty; having just thrown out the British, it seemed foolish to immediately become a vassal of a new foreign master. Furthermore, India’s choice to not align itself with either great power, but to always remain an advocate for non-violence and peaceful cooperation among nations, gave it a much larger voice in international politics than its economy or military strength really justified.India would become one of the leading nations of the Movement of Non-aligned Countries, a power bloc and a spiritual force in the United Nations of many newly-liberated countries.Who benefitted in the Nehruvian era?The mixed model was built on public sector-led growth with private participationNehru implemented his socialist vision by introducing a modified, "Indian" version of state planning and control over the economy. Creating the Planning Commission of India, Nehru drew up the first Five-Year Plan in 1951, which charted the government's investments in industries and agriculture.Increasing business and income taxes, Nehru envisaged a mixed economy in which the government would manage strategic industries such as mining, electricity and heavy industries, serving public interest and a check to private enterprise. Nehru pursued land redistribution and launched programs to build irrigation canals, dams and spread the use of fertilizers to increase agricultural production. He also pioneered a series of community development programs aimed at spreading diverse cottage industries and increasing efficiency into rural India. While encouraging the construction of large dams, irrigation works and the generation of hydroelectricity, Nehru also launched India's program to harness nuclear energy.For most of Nehru's term as prime minister, India would continue to face serious food shortages despite progress and increases in agricultural production. Nehru's industrial policies encouraged the growth of diverse manufacturing and heavy industries, yet state planning, controls and regulations impaired productivity, quality and profitability. Although the Indian economy enjoyed a steady rate of growth, chronic unemployment amidst entrenched poverty continued to plague the population.Investment in India’s futureJawaharlal Nehru was a passionate advocate of education for India's children and youth, believing it essential for India's future progress. His government oversaw the establishment of many institutions of higher learning, including the All India Institute of Medical Sciences, the Indian Institutes of Technology and the Indian Institutes of Management.Nehru also outlined a commitment in his five-year plans to guarantee free and compulsory primary education to all of India's children. For this purpose, Nehru oversaw the creation of mass village enrollment programs and the construction of thousands of schools. Nehru also launched initiatives such as the provision of free milk and meals to children in order to fight malnutrition. Adult education centres, vocational and technical schools were also organized for adults, especially in the rural areas.Under Nehru, the Indian Parliament enacted many changes to Hindu law to criminalize caste discrimination and increase the legal rights and social freedoms of women. A system of reservations in government services and educational institutions was created to eradicate the social inequalities and disadvantages faced by peoples of the scheduled castes and scheduled tribes.The big Chinese miscalculationIn the 1962 elections, Nehru led the Congress to victory yet with a diminished majority. Opposition parties ranging from the right-wing Bharatiya Jana Sangh (which evolved into the Bharatiya Janta Party that leads India today) and Swatantra Party, socialists and the Communist Party of India performed well. In a matter of months, a Chinese invasion of northeastern India exposed the weaknesses of India's military as Chinese forces came as far as Assam.Nehru assumed that as former colonies India and China shared a sense of solidarity, as expressed in the phrase "Hindi-Chini bhai bhai" (Indians and Chinese are brothers). He was dedicated to the ideals of brotherhood and solidarity among developing nations, while China was dedicated to a realist vision of itself as the hegemon of Asia. Nehru did not believe that one fellow socialist country would attack another; and in any event, he felt secure behind the impregnable wall of ice that is the Himalayas.Both proved to be tragic miscalculations of China's determination and military capabilities. Nehru decided to adopt the policy of moving his territory forward, and refused to consider any negotiations China had to offer. As Nehru declared the intention to throw every Chinese out of the disputed areas, China made a preemptive attack on the Indian front. India was vanquished by the Chinese People's Liberation Army in a bitter and cold battle in the Northeast.Nehru was forced to sack the defence minister Krishna Menon and accept U.S. military aid. Nehru's health began declining steadily, and he was forced to spend months recuperating in Kashmir through 1963. Upon his return from Kashmir in May 1964, Nehru suffered a stroke and later a heart attack. He died on May 27, 1964. As per his wishes, Nehru was cremated as per Hindu rites at the Shantivana on the banks of the Yamuna River, witnessed by hundreds of thousands of mourners who had flocked into the streets of Delhi and the cremation grounds.How contested is Nehru’s legacy today?When a great man dies in office, there is often a tendency to measure his greatness by the scale of the ensuing alarm and uncertainty. This is a fallacious measure. Indeed, it is a mark of weakness, not of strength, if a national leader fails to bequeath a smoothly working structure of leadership to a clearly designated successor.Nehru failed to do this. If he had succeeded in doing it, both India and the rest of the world could have received the news of his death with calmer grief; and his greatness would have been not diminished but enhanced. As it is, the hasty induction of Gulzarilal Nanda, the home minister, as head of a caretaker government, was taken as signifying the beginning, not the outcome, of the battle of the succession.With the bountiful benefit of hindsight, Nehru is today criticized for establishing an era of socialist policies that created a burgeoning, inefficient bureaucracy (which inhibits India to this day) and curbed free enterprise and productivity while failing to significantly eliminate poverty, shortages and poor living conditions.Historians and Hindu nationalists also criticize Nehru for allegedly appeasing the Indian Muslim community at the expense of his own conviction in secularism. Nehru's declaratory ‘neutral’ foreign policy is criticized as hypocritical due to his affinity for the Soviet Union and other socialist states.He is also blamed for ignoring the needs of India's military services and failing to acknowledge the threat posed by the People's Republic of China and Pakistan. Many believe India would not have had as difficult a time in facing the challenges of the twenty-first century had Vallabhbhai Patel been Prime Minister and Nehru worked as External Affairs Minister, which was his forte.But, going back to 1947…There is no single explanation for what kept and still keeps India united, but much of modern India’s unity is indebted to Nehru. Most importantly, many colonized countries that attained freedom at the same time — none as vast and as complex as India — promptly became dictatorships, including Pakistan which soon passed into military hands. India defied its many western critics, proving under Nehru that it was not going to implode under the many pressures it faced at the time.Perhaps his shortcomings are compensated by his strong democratic principles, which set down such firm roots in post-1947 India that India's democracy has proved to be robust and solid in the face of emergencies, wars and other crises. Nehru laid the foundations of a vibrant democracy that India continues to celebrate today — the same democracy that made the electoral victory of Narendra Modi – a fierce Nehru critic - possible in 2014. While every general election in India can be regarded as the largest voting exercise in democracy, the 1951-52 elections saw universal suffrage at time when there were still nations in the “developed” west that hadn’t established voting rights for their women – Switzerland enacted universal suffrage at the national level in 1971.In practical terms, Nehru’s legacy extends to other features of India’s modern identity. English’s status as a national lingua-franca across the academic and the professional spheres in India is thanks to Nehru’s vision. Additionally, India’s world-class higher-educational institutes and the foundations of New Delhi’s space program were put in place due to his visionary foresight.Whatever his shortcomings may have been on foreign and economic affairs, India as it exists today could not have come about without Nehru. One cannot be simultaneously proud of India’s achievements after independence and ashamed of what Nehru did to the country in the most challenging years. They say if Nehru had been a different man, India would have been a different country. India, therefore, could have been Singapore. But Singapore isn’t the best example of a democratic state.“Pandit Nehru is invincible”.Footnotes :-https://www.history.com/topics/india/jawaharlal-nehruJawaharlal Nehru: a legacy revisited Jawaharlal Nehru: a legacy revisitedJawaharlal NehruWorld without NehruNehru’s Legacy, 51 Years After his DeathTryst with Destiny | Jawaharlal Nehru: Tryst with Destiny | Jawaharlal Nehru

First of, it’s Autistic people. Many of us prefer Identity first language over person first language.Autism Speaks’ senior leadership fails to include a single autistic person. Unlike non-profits focused on intellectual disability, Down Syndrome, Cerebral Palsy and countless other disabilities, Autism Speaks systematically excludes autistic adults from its board of directors, leadership team and other positions of senior leadership. This exclusion has been the subject of numerous discussions with and eventually protests against Autism Speaks, yet the organization persists in its refusal to allow those it purports to serve into positions of meaningful authority within its ranks. The slogan of the disability rights movement has long been, “Nothing About Us, Without Us.” Almost nine years after its founding, Autism Speaks continues to refuse to abide by this basic tenet of the mainstream disability community.Autism Speaks has a history of supporting dangerous fringe movements that threaten the lives and safety of both the autism community and the general public. The anti-vaccine sentiments of Autism Speaks’ founders have been well documented in the mainstream media. Several of Autism Speaks’ senior leaders have resigned or been fired after founders Bob and Suzanne Wright overruled Autism Speaks’ scientific leadership in order to advance the discredited idea that autism is the result of vaccinations. Furthermore, Autism Speaks haspromoted the Judge Rotenberg Center, a Massachusetts facility under Department of Justice and FDA investigation for the use of painful electric shock against its students. The Judge Rotenberg Center’s methods have been deemed torture by the United Nations Special Rapporteur on Torture (p. 84) and are currently the subject of efforts by the Massachusetts state government and disability rights advocates to shut the facility down. Despite this, Autism Speaks has allowed the Judge Rotenberg Center to recruit new admissions from families seeking resources at their fundraising walks. We believe this is not the type of action you anticipated when you agreed to provide support to Autism Speaks events.Autism Speaks’ fundraising efforts pull money away from local communities, returning very little funds for the critical investments in services and supports needed by autistic people and our families. Only 4% of funds donated to Autism Speaks are reinvested in services and supports for autistic people and our families. Across the country, local communities have complained that at a time when state budget cutbacks are making investment in local disability services all the more critical, Autism Speaks fundraisers take money away from needed services in their community. In addition, while the majority of Autism Speaks’ funding goes towards research dollars, few of those dollars have gone to the areas of most concern to autistic people and our families–services and supports, particularly for autistics reaching adulthood and aging out of the school system. According to the Department of Health and Human Services’ Inter-Agency Autism Coordinating Committee, only 1% of Autism Speaks’ research budget goes towards research on service quality and less than one-quarter of 1% goes towards research on the needs of autistic adults.Autism Speaks’ advertising depends on offensive and outdated rhetoric of fear and pity, presenting the lives of autistic people as tragic burdens on our families and society. In its advertising, Autism Speaks has compared being autistic to being kidnapped, dying of a natural disaster, having a fatal disease, and countless other inappropriate analogies. In one of its most prominent fundraising videos, an Autism Speaks executive stated that she had considered placing her child in the car and driving off the George Washington Bridge, going on to say that she did not do so only because she had a normal child as well. Autism Speaks advertisements have cited inaccurate statistics on elevated divorce rates for parents of autistic children and many other falsehoods designed to present the lives of autistic children and adults as little more than tragedies.Autism Speaks’ only advisory board member on the autism spectrum, John Elder Robison, announced his resignation from the organization this month in protest of the organization comparing autistic people to kidnapping victims and claiming that our families are not living, but merely existing, due to the horror of having autistic people in their lives. In his resignation letter, he discusses his four years spent attempting to reform the organization from the inside without success, stating, “Autism Speaks says it’s the advocacy group for people with autism and their families. It’s not, despite having had many chances to become that voice. Autism Speaks is the only major medical or mental health nonprofit whose legitimacy is constantly challenged by a large percentage of the people affected by the condition they target.”The disability community recently celebrated the 50th anniversary of the Developmental Disabilities Assistance and Bill of Rights Act, legislation first signed into law by President John F. Kennedy in 1963. The law begins with the statement that, “disability is a natural part of the human experience that does not diminish the right of individuals with developmental disabilities to live independently, to exert control and choice over their own lives, and to fully participate in and contribute to their communities through full integration and inclusion in the economic, political, social, cultural, and educational mainstream of United States society.Also, they released a commercial called “I am Autism”.Here is the transcript.“I am autism.I’m visible in your children, but if I can help it, I am invisible to you until it’s too late.I know where you live.And guess what? I live there too.I hover around all of you.I know no color barrier, no religion, no morality, no currency.I speak your language fluently.And with every voice I take away, I acquire yet another language.I work very quickly.I work faster than pediatric aids, cancer, and diabetes combinedAnd if you’re happily married, I will make sure that your marriage fails.Your money will fall into my hands, and I will bankrupt you for my own self-gain.I don’t sleep, so I make sure you don’t either.I will make it virtually impossible for your family to easily attend a temple, birthday party, or public park without a struggle, without embarrassment, without pain.You have no cure for me.Your scientists don’t have the resources, and I relish their desperation. Your neighbors are happier to pretend that I don’t exist — of course, until it’s their child.I am autism. I have no interest in right or wrong. I derive great pleasure out of your loneliness.I will fight to take away your hope. I will plot to rob you of your children and your dreams. I will make sure that every day you wake up you will cry, wondering who will take care of my child after I die?And the truth is, I am still winning, and you are scared. And you should be.I am autism. You ignored me. That was a mistake.And to autism I say:I am a father, a mother, a grandparent, a brother, a sister.We will spend every waking hour trying to weaken you.We don’t need sleep because we will not rest until you do.Family can be much stronger than autism ever anticipated, and we will not be intimidated by you, nor will the love and strength of my community.I am a parent riding toward you, and you can push me off this horse time and time again, but I will get up, climb back on, and ride on with the message.Autism, you forget who we are. You forget who you are dealing with. You forget the spirit of mothers, and daughters, and fathers and sons.We are Qatar. We are the United Kingdom. We are the United States. We are China. We are Argentina. We are Russia. We are the Eurpoean Union. We are the United Nations.We are coming together in all climates. We call on all faiths. We search with technology and voodoo and prayer and herbs and genetic studies and a growing awareness you never anticipated.We have had challenges, but we are the best when overcoming them. We speak the only language that matters: love for our children.Our capacity to love is greater than your capacity to overwhelm.Autism is naïve. You are alone. We are a community of warriors. We have a voice.You think because some of our children cannot speak, we cannot hear them? That is autism’s weakness.You think that because my child lives behind a wall, I am afraid to knock it down with my bare hands?You have not properly been introduced to this community of parents and grandparents, of siblings and friends and schoolteachers and therapists and pediatricians and scientists.Autism, if you are not scared, you should be.When you came for my child, you forgot: you came for me.Autism, are you listening?”Update:Autism speaks has rebranded their logo. The new logo steals the colors from the Rainbow Infinity Symbol, which was created by Autistic people as a protest to Autism Speaks.

How to minimize cross-border clinical trial mishaps? Conflicts of interest abound. Isn't an international forum the obvious answer? No, for the simple reason that international guidelines have existed for more than 50 years yet they haven't prevented clinical trial mishaps.In 1963 the World Medical Association (WMA) created and endorsed the Declaration of Helsinki (DoH). Purpose of the DoH is to guide the proper ethical conduct of human clinical trials, and to prevent clinical trial mishaps.Has the DoH prevented clinical trial mishaps? Obviously not if one goes by the high profile Phase 4* HPV (Human Papilloma Virus) Vaccine trial in India, a multinational endeavor stopped in 2010 by the Government of India, leading to an Indian Parliamentary inquiry as well as an ongoing PIL (Public Interest Litigation) at the Indian Supreme Court. Let's examine these issues in sequence and see where that leads us.First, let's examine the DoH, the WMA's explicitly drafted recommendations for the proper conduct of human clinical trials.Next, let's examine examine the history of informed consent, particularly how it came into existence. This history teaches us that informed consent can either promote or prevent clinical trial mishaps. Promote mishaps when trial administrators and funders pay lip service to it (tokenism) and aren't held accountable. Prevent them when used sincerely to promote and preserve patient autonomy.Since existing structures appear inadequate to the task, is there another way to prevent or minimize clinical trial mishaps? Yes, public pressure for stricter implementation of existing country-specific laws. Where existing country-specific laws prove inadequate, the citizenry need to push their government to enact clearer and more comprehensive laws. Two compelling reasons for this. For one, citizens of one country are unlikely to be as motivated in seeing justice done for clinical trial mishaps that happen in another country. For another, isn't it morale-boosting and integral to a citizen's identity to hold their government accountable rather than have some foreign entity step in and do so on their behalf? In fact, isn't the alternative shameful? Here, the history of the use of informed consent is a poignant guide, teaching us that the central problem is not absence of adequate laws but rather lack of accountability in the existing system.* A Phase 4 trial is a post-approval surveillance trial where effects are monitored on thousands of people to uncover unforeseen side-effects.The Declaration of Helsinki (DoH)The DoH was the WMA's declaration of ethical principles for medical research involving human subjects.From 1963 till 2013 it has undergone 7 revisions.The history of the DoH is pockmarked with controversy.For example, the 5th revision in 2000 was approved without consensus from national medical associations in the aftermath of the controversial sub-Saharan nevirapine studies on vertical HIV transmission. These studies revealed a blatant double standard in human clinical trial practice. A 1994 US study (1) showed that Zidovudine (AZT) given intravenously prenatally, during delivery and postpartum reduced perinatal (vertical) HIV transmission by ~2/3rds. It then became the standard of care in developed countries. However, when it came time to test whether the 2nd generation drug nevirapine could also minimize or prevent vertical transmission in the high-risk but much poorer sub-Saharan populations, the 1st world trial sponsors chose to give a single nevirapine dose to pregnant women during labor and once to their infants within 72 hours of birth (2). This when it was already known 'at the time that single-dose nevirapine would not be as effective as more comprehensive and much more expensive treatment regimens that also targeted transmission during pregnancy (3). Rationale of the trial sponsors? The needed infrastructure, comprehensive perinatal care and drug cost couldn't be adequately provisioned at the trial site. In other words, in a tussle between money and ethics, money won.The 7th revision of the DoH, adopted in October 2013 at the 64th WMA General Assembly in Fortaleza, Brazil, also has its share of controversy. In particular, it says 'placebos, no intervention or any intervention less effective than the best proven one may be used only when the patients who receive them will not be subject to additional risks of serious or irreversible harm as a result of not receiving the best proven intervention' (4). In response, the Latin American and Caribbean Medical Confederations refused to approve this wording of placebo use stating, 'the poor and vulnerable populations, discriminated by their lack of resources, cannot be subjected to biomedical research that have levels of safety less than those applied to more developed societies' (5, 6).Another ambiguity of the 7th DoH revision is 'risk of serious or irreversible harm'. Which is it, not treating a simple skin cut or not treating an HIV positive pregnant woman? After all, don't we live with a vast, unbridgeable chasm in health care access between the haves and have-nots so much so that even a simple skin cut could be construed as 'risk of serious or irreversible harm' in the 1st world even as an HIV positive pregnant woman is left untreated in the 3rd world?What is informed consent and why is it essential in human clinical trials?Informed consent stems from the need for patient autonomy.In a clinical trial, patient autonomy is the basic human right of a trial participant to not be subjected to medical research abuse.The egregious Nazi regime medical experiments on concentration camp inmates drove the need to prevent future outright medical research abuse so in 1947 the Nuremberg Code (Nuremberg Code) was created, i.e. research ethics guidelines for human experimentation.Article 1 of the Nuremberg Code explicitly identifies the need for consent, 'The duty and responsibility for ascertaining the quality of the consent rests upon each individual who initiates, directs or engages in the experiment. It is a personal duty and responsibility which may not be delegated to another with impunity' (See page 182 of 7).Did the 1947 Nuremberg Code prevent ongoing and future medical abuse?Obviously not since the Tuskegee syphilis experiment ran uninterrupted in the USA from 1932 until 1972. In this study, African-Americans diagnosed with syphilis were left untreated because the physicians wanted to follow the natural disease progression. This is a painfully compelling example that an international code alone is insufficient in and of itself in preventing future or ongoing outright medical practice abuse, let alone clinical trial mishap.Something more than an international agreement is needed to prevent medical research abuse of human trial participants. History teaches that this something more is lawsuits. In particular, today's informed consent is the legacy of two key US medical malpractice lawsuits.How did informed consent come into existence in human clinical trials? The two landmark US lawsuits that helped create it.The 1st lawsuitThe judge in the first case, Salgo v. Leland Stanford, Jr. University Board of Trustees (1957), coined the phrase 'informed consent' in his jury instruction.The plaintiff Mr. Salgo's now defunct treatment entailed 'puncturing the aorta through the back in order to inject a radio-opaque dye, and was left with permanent paralysis of the legs. According to the direction given to the jury: “The physician has . . . discretion [to withhold alarming information from the patient] consistent, of course, with the full disclosure of facts necessary to an informed consent” ([1957] 317 P.2d 170 (Cal. Ct. App.) at 181)' (8).'discretion to withhold alarming information' and 'full disclosure of facts necessary to an informed consent' are obviously contradictory in nature. Regardless, this was the first instance requiring that disclosure to patients needed to conform to 'professional practice standard', i.e. what is expected from a reasonable health-care practitioner (8).The 2nd lawsuitIn the second US case, Canterbury v. Spence ([1972] 464 F.2d 772 (D.C. Cir.), the patient fell out of his hospital bed after undergoing a spinal procedure and suffered major paralysis.Since the patient had not been warned about 'the possibility of this rare outcome', the 'professional practice standard' was deemed inadequate by failing to respect the patient's self-determination.Instead it gave way to the patient-centered 'reasonable person standard', i.e. what a reasonable patient considers necessary and sufficient to know rather than what health-care practitioners consider necessary to disclose (9).According to the philosopher Peter Singer and his colleague Helga Kuhse, 'this single move served to overcome three main weaknesses of the professional practice standard: first, that agreed professional standards of disclosure were typically set too low to satisfy patient demand for information; second, that there were no agreed standards for new procedures; and, third, that patients were put at a significant disadvantage in having to rely upon expert witnesses (usually other health-care practitioners) in disputes about standards of care' (8).With a 'reasonable person standard', health-care providers have to disclose to patients or clinical trial participants the four elements necessary for informed patient consent: the nature (therapeutic/not), risks, alternatives and benefits of the procedure and/or treatment. When the patients or clinical trial participants are below the age of consent, the disclosure is given to and consent sought from the parents or legal caregivers.A recent human clinical trial mishap: Phase 4 HPV (Human Papilloma Virus) Vaccine study in IndiaTo generate data to support inclusion of HPV vaccine in India's UIP (Universal Immunization Programme).Actual vaccinations started in 2009 in the Indian states of Andhra Pradesh and Gujarat.Girls aged 10 to 14 years of age, i.e. dependents so consent presumably sought and obtained from parents/caregivers.Two-component trial: Phase 4* HPV vaccine clinical trial and observational research on vaccine delivery.Designed and executed by PATH (Program for Appropriate Technology in Health), a US-based NGO, in collaboration with the ICMR (Indian Council of Medical Research) and the State Governments of Andhra Pradesh and Gujarat.The vaccines: Merck's Gardasil and GlaxoSmithKilne's Cervarix.Funded by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation.Trial suspended by the Government of India in April 2010.After the reported post-vaccination deaths of 7 girls in the two states, the Indian Parliament's Standing Committee on Health investigated this study, and released its report in August, 2013 (10).Salient problems identified by the Committee (page 11 of the Committee report, see reference 10):'6.14 The Inquiry Committee, while going through the above report, noticed the following irregularities and discrepancies in the study:The warden/teachers/headmasters were not given written permission by the parents/guardians to sign on behalf of their girls.On many forms witness had not signed and of the forms which are signed, it is not clear whether they are signed by full time government employees, as per rules.Neither the photograph nor the photo ID card of parents/guardians/wardens is pasted in consent form.On many forms investigator has not signed.On some forms signature of parents/guardians is not matching with their names.The date of vaccination is much earlier than the date of signature of parents/guardian in the consent forms. Apparently they were obtained post-facto.In some forms, the name is of the father but signature is of probably mother (lady’s name).'Salient conclusions of the report (pages 14-15 of the Committee report, see reference 10):'(i) Irregularities in obtaining consent forms and actual implementation of the consent process;(ii) Lack of monitoring and preparedness to deal with serious adverse events;(iii) Inclusion of vulnerable and tribal population groups;(iv) Blurring of distinction between Universal Immunization Programme and PATH study;(v) Absence of insurance coverage for the study participants; and(vi) Inclusion of the statement in the consent form that “you will not be charged for your daughter to receive the vaccine” that could be construed as covert inducement.'News reports (11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18) and sponsor comments (19, 20) about this trial.So whether or not the girls' deaths were attributable to the HPV vaccine, the resulting investigation revealed a thoroughly messed up informed consent process and seriously inadequate process for reporting adverse events. But wait a minute? Isn't all this thoroughly covered by the overarching DoH? Let's examine the relevant DoH provisions to make sure.In any case, so far the government actions have resulted in predictable shake-ups, committees, new procedures, even though existing procedures appear to be adequate on paper.What about accountability? Who is responsible? When human clinical trials are outsourced and off-shored, who bears responsibility for adverse events, especially for seemingly unanticipated adverse events, as happened in this Phase 4 Indian HPV vaccine trial? Let's examine a relevant landmark and precedent-setting judgment (18).In 2012, a judge in Argentina upheld fines against GlaxoSmithKline, the sponsor of an Argentinian clinical trial testing the safety of the vaccine Synflorix against pneumococcal disease in children.Issues of informed consent?In some instances, consent was given by parents who were minors themselves.Grandparents who were not authorized to give consent for their grandchildren.A child vaccinated even after mother explicitly refused her consent.Signatures on consent forms not matching those of the individuals giving consent.GlaxoSmithKline appealed the fine using the defense that alleged errors and poor documentation in the informed consent process were a mere formality that didn't pose actual risks to trial participants.The judge rejected this defense and upheld the fine, against both the investigators and the sponsor.His rationale? Even minor deficiencies in trial procedure could later become relevant since adverse health effects might appear only in the future.This precedent-setting judgment bestows supervisory duty on the trial sponsor regarding informed consent. It also paves the way for hope. For example, the Indian Supreme Court is well-known to be highly responsive to PILs, using them as tools to demand improvements in state laws and regulations (Public interest litigation in India). Currently, it's considering one such PIL with respect to the Phase 4 HPV trial (18). In India, PILs arise when the State is perceived to have violated constitutional and/or statutory provisions, and they have served as indispensable bulwark protecting essential rights of Indian citizens.Further, since this case involved US and UK trial sponsors and manufacturing companies, this PIL includes an amicus brief (21) submitted by the European Center for Constitutional and Human Rights 'outlining the legal framework on clinical trials in the respective home countries' (18), in order to cover obvious gaps in judicial precedents.Finally, and more importantly, in our globalized age of cross-border, outsourced and off-shored clinical trials, an obvious and perhaps steep learning curve lies ahead for all entities involved in them, namely, government regulatory bodies, sponsors, investigators and other health-care staff. Especially these latter need to be rigorously trained in the ethical and legal aspects of human clinical trials. It then becomes a natural and necessary mandate for each and every national medical association and department of health to help ensure that such training becomes part and parcel of each country's health care practice (22), i.e. that it no longer remains the select purview of developed countries' health care infrastructure. Now, wouldn't that be leveling of a playing field that actually matters, one of autonomous life and death?BibliographyConnor, Edward M., et al. "Reduction of maternal-infant transmission of human immunodeficiency virus type 1 with zidovudine treatment." New England Journal of Medicine 331.18 (1994): 1173-1180.Marseille, Elliot, et al. "Cost effectiveness of single-dose nevirapine regimen for mothers and babies to decrease vertical HIV-1 transmission in sub-Saharan Africa." The Lancet 354.9181 (1999): 803-809.Millum, Joseph, David Wendler, and Ezekiel J. Emanuel. "The 50th anniversary of the Declaration of Helsinki: progress but many remaining challenges." Jama 310.20 (2013): 2143-2144 Page on nih.govWorld Medical Association (WMA). Declaration of Helsinki. Amended by the 64th WMA General Assembly, Fortaleza, Brazil, October 2013. WMA Archives, Ferney-Voltaire, France. WMA Declaration of Helsinki - Ethical Principles for Medical Research Involving Human SubjectsConfederacion Medica Latinoamericana y el Caribe (CONFEMEL). Declaracion de Pachuca Sobre la Revision de Helsinki. 22 and 23 November 2013. (Accessed May 5, 2014. Page on confemel.comHellmann, Fernando, et al. "50th Anniversary of the Declaration of Helsinki: The Double Standard Was Introduced." Archives of medical research 45.7 (2014): 600-601.http://www.loc.gov/rr/frd/Military_Law/pdf/NT_war-criminals_Vol-II.pdfA Companion to Bioethics, Second Edition. Helga Kuhse, Peter Singer, editors. A Companion to Bioethics; A Companion to Bioethics, Second EditionFaden, Ruth R., Tom L. Beauchamp, and Nancy M. King. "A history and theory of informed consent." (1986).Page on 100.47.5Mudur, Ganapati. "Human papillomavirus vaccine project stirs controversy in India." BMJ 340 (2010).Mudur, Ganapati. "Row erupts over study of HPV vaccine in 23 000 girls in India." BMJ 345 (2012).Sharma, Dinesh C. "Rights violation found in HPV vaccine studies in India." The Lancet Oncology 14.11 (2013): e443. Page on thelancet.comSuba, Eric J., and Stephen S. Raab. "Cervical cancer mortality in India." The Lancet 383.9931 (2014): 1804. Page on thelancet.comCalls in India for legal action against US charityClinical trials in India: ethical concernsIndia Outlines Plans for Upgrading Clinical Trial ProceduresTerwindt, Carolijn. "Health Rights Litigation Pushes for Accountability in Clinical Trials in India." Health and human rights 16 (2014): 2. Health Rights Litigation Pushes for Accountability in Clinical Trials in IndiaLaMontagne, D. Scott, and Jacqueline D. Sherris. "Addressing questions about the HPV vaccine project in India." The Lancet Oncology 14.12 (2013): e492. Page on thelancet.comStatement from PATH: cervical cancer demonstration project in IndiaAmicus curiae brief concerning non-state actor responsibility in clinical trials, November 22, 2013, submitted to the Supreme Court of India by the European Center for Constitutional and Human Rights and the Essex Business and Human Rights Project in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 558 of 2012, on file with ECCHR.Poongothai, Subramani, et al. "Why are clinical trials necessary in India?." Perspectives in clinical research 5.2 (2014): 55. Why are clinical trials necessary in India?Thanks for the A2A, Kritika Gupta.