The fact that the private sector of the time looked to the government to raise investment levels indicates that Nehru had less elbow room than currently claimed.
The legacy of India’s first Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru has been systematically dismantled over the years – through articles, memes and WhatsApp forwards.
Often when a newspaper carried positive reports on Ambedkar, the cartoonists deliberately targeted Ambedkar even if there was nothing really to make fun of.
The Bads of Bollywood isn’t just about the film industry’s chaos. It’s also a show about India’s chaos: the narratives, the gatekeepers, the false morality.
SEBI probe concluded that purported loans and fund transfers were paid back in full and did not amount to deceptive market practices or unreported related party transactions.
Many really smart people now share the position that playing cricket with Pakistan is politically, strategically and morally wrong. It is just a poor appreciation of competitive sport.
First, What stopped Nehru from not entertaining the private sector and diverting them to the Banking route for capital mobilization? Now for god’s sake don’t reply by quoting Nehruvian idea that Banks were small and inaccessible in those days. RBI act is of 1934. Banks could’ve lent money had RBI infused larger money supply in economy, which Nehru stopped.
Second, “Banks work for rich and not for poor” was the sole narrative behind nationalisation of banks in India. So one thing is certain – either father lied or daughter lied.
Third, why would any capitalist go for financial debt burden if state is willing to take it on it’s head? Naturally they’d look towards the state. This is called consequence my dear, not cause. To showcase their unwillingness as their inabilty is a brazen attempt to legitimise Nehruvian Socialism.
Fourth, British did not stop India from adopting the floting exchange rate regime after 1947. What is the reason to wait till 1991 to rectify it? There is ample evidence to show that countries came up with such exchange regimes after 1947 have done better.
Fifth, we could’ve blamed it had East India Company in 1608 came for charity, but instead did everything else. No, from 1757 atleast Britain from day has audaciously declared it’s intensions to conquer and rule India. Britain came to trade and colonise India when Colonialism was the accepted global order of the day. Every European power was on hunt for colonies and of them all, British were least bad. See the impoverishment and desolateness of former French, Spanish or Italian colonies.
I have trashed each and every rationale of your piece. There is a limit of bootlicking for heaven’s sake…. Nehruvian Socialism is the single cause for India’s continous underperformance and only Nehru is the person who will have to take the blame for that.
Hear, hear. Awful article. Thank you for calling out the crap.
British, Nehru and private industrial heads behind Bombay plan all three murdabad. Free trade and FDI was not suggested by those industrial heads. Swadeshi ideology murdabad.
I do not blame yesterday for today. A government charged with the duty to improve the lives of 1.3 billion Indians cannot afford the luxury of wallowing in the past. If there are intractable problems with China and Pakistan, study what is recorded in files, tap institutional memory to fashion a more successful initiative for the future. As far as economic policy is concerned, each five year term is an invitation to start afresh. One of the qualities I least admire about President Trump is his tendency to disparage his predecessors, blame them – generally unfairly – for his own shortcomings and inadequacies. 2. If PM Nehru did not blame the British in 1947, we have less reason to do so in 2019.
First, What stopped Nehru from not entertaining the private sector and diverting them to the Banking route for capital mobilization? Now for god’s sake don’t reply by quoting Nehruvian idea that Banks were small and inaccessible in those days. RBI act is of 1934. Banks could’ve lent money had RBI infused larger money supply in economy, which Nehru stopped.
Second, “Banks work for rich and not for poor” was the sole narrative behind nationalisation of banks in India. So one thing is certain – either father lied or daughter lied.
Third, why would any capitalist go for financial debt burden if state is willing to take it on it’s head? Naturally they’d look towards the state. This is called consequence my dear, not cause. To showcase their unwillingness as their inabilty is a brazen attempt to legitimise Nehruvian Socialism.
Fourth, British did not stop India from adopting the floting exchange rate regime after 1947. What is the reason to wait till 1991 to rectify it? There is ample evidence to show that countries came up with such exchange regimes after 1947 have done better.
Fifth, we could’ve blamed it had East India Company in 1608 came for charity, but instead did everything else. No, from 1757 atleast Britain from day has audaciously declared it’s intensions to conquer and rule India. Britain came to trade and colonise India when Colonialism was the accepted global order of the day. Every European power was on hunt for colonies and of them all, British were least bad. See the impoverishment and desolateness of former French, Spanish or Italian colonies.
I have trashed each and every rationale of your piece. There is a limit of bootlicking for heaven’s sake…. Nehruvian Socialism is the single cause for India’s continous underperformance and only Nehru is the person who will have to take the blame for that.
Hear, hear. Awful article. Thank you for calling out the crap.
British, Nehru and private industrial heads behind Bombay plan all three murdabad. Free trade and FDI was not suggested by those industrial heads. Swadeshi ideology murdabad.
I do not blame yesterday for today. A government charged with the duty to improve the lives of 1.3 billion Indians cannot afford the luxury of wallowing in the past. If there are intractable problems with China and Pakistan, study what is recorded in files, tap institutional memory to fashion a more successful initiative for the future. As far as economic policy is concerned, each five year term is an invitation to start afresh. One of the qualities I least admire about President Trump is his tendency to disparage his predecessors, blame them – generally unfairly – for his own shortcomings and inadequacies. 2. If PM Nehru did not blame the British in 1947, we have less reason to do so in 2019.