07-29-2006, 11:04 PM
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Genesis & Growth of Nehruism Vol 1 - Commitment to Communism
September 21st, 2004
Itâs been really long since I posted a book review on this blog: Iâve read several books recently, but been too lazy to post reviews on any of them. Anyway, here goes.
This book is titled Genesis & Growth of Nehruism Vol 1 : Commitment to Communism written by the late Sita Ram Goel, an ardent advocate, who has repeatedly called for an ideological defence of Hinduism. His depth and range of reading includes such diverse areas as history, philosophy, linguistics, literature (Sanskrit, English and Hindi), and politics. This book is a collection of essays that Goel wrote under the pseudonymn, Ekaki, way back in the early â60s. Originally titled, In Defence of Comrade Krishna Menon, this book reveals that Nehruâs Man Friday, V.K. Krishna Menon (who also served as Indiaâs Defence Minister) whom everybody blamed for the Chinese debacle was in reality, a mere pawn in the larger-than-life games that Nehru played with India and the Indian people. This book also successfully shatters the widely-held opinion that Nehru was responsible to prevent the country from being taken over by the Communists. A step further, the focus of this book lies in exposing Nehru as a true-blood Communist.
Goel is known for his incisive writing style, and his ferocity shows in the language he employs. He calls (rightly) Nehru an imbecile, a man of no standing who was promoted to the front ranks of the Indian freedom struggle by sheer luck, and (mainly) with the blessings of Mahatma Gandhi who saw him as his protege. As evidence, Goel presents extracts from books, articles, and speeches that Nehru had written and/or spoken. At the end of the book, one is left with a sense of having been betrayed; the man in whom the entire nation placed its trust to lead it towards progress failed them, and how! Further, Nehru also comes across as a highly conceited man who knows no sense of humility to say sorry when he knows he has committed a mistake, and a bully who âlicks the boot that kicked him.â
The book has a foreword by Philip Spratt an ardent ex-communist who later came out against it vehemently. Spratt was accused in the Meerut Conspiracy case and later released. Spratt has some interesting things to say about Nehru, too:
⦠every newspaper reader can recall, he (Nehru) himself . says that he agrees in principle with the Communists. Why is he not taken at his word? We do not take him at his word, because he says and does many other things, and so we do not realise how closely the relevant parts of his policy accord with this particular avowal. When I read the articles in this book, I was quite surprised. He is a very much more faithful Communist than I had realised. . the principal reason why we do not fully accept his own statements that he is a Communist is that our image of the Communist is so different. We think of the Communist as a man with no interests outside politics, a fanatic working furiously for the causeâ¦.. a wily deceiver, andâ¦. a docile follower of the party line. This is not a false pictureâ¦. Many Communists are also ambitious; may have a liking fo the fleshpots; some have serious interests outside politics [â¦] Nehru is a Communist in this broader sense. He accepts increasing governmental power, socialisation, mechanisation, as both inevitable and desirable. He is strongly attached to the existing Communist governments, and when they clash with other governments, he⦠supports them. He is⦠aware of the dark side of Communism but he neutralises this awareness by the Communist procedure of considering history in block-stages. [â¦] On the questions that arise now, though he looks . different he is a Communist in practice. The figure in world politics who resembles him most is Castro. Castro got into power on false pretences. i.e. as a liberator, not as a Communist, but within a year or so he had liquidated his opponents and built up the Communists so far that he was able to drop the mask. Nehru got into power on the same false pretences, i.e. as a liberator, not as a Communist, and he has proceeded in the same direction. [â¦] When I have argued this way, people object that Nehru has made no attempt to impose the Communist policy in regard to religion, education, freedom of opinionâ¦. The Gandhian legacy has been too strong; if he had tried he would have been overthrown. But through a series of constitutional amendments, he has systematically cut down the right to property, which most theorists regard as a necessary bulward, in the long run, of the other freedoms.
What Spratt says next throws a lot of lightâindeed, acts as the very foundation of todayâs prevalent cancer of corruption.
An item of his policy which, I believe, testifies to Nehruâs Marxist feeling, though it is no longer Communist orthodoxy, is his tolerance of corruption (emphasis mine). Before the revolution the Bolsheviks obtained their funds by organizing⦠dacoities, by seducing heiresses⦠Nehru has the same bohemian attitude towards audit objections: they belong to the same fussy bourgeois era of Gokhale and Gandhi.
As I said earlier, Goel has researched Nehruâs books, writings and speeches to expose his true-red blue Communist colours; among others, he delves into these books for fact-finding:
Soviet Russia
Glimpses of World History
An Autobiography
Unity of India
Discovery of India
Goel has traced Nehruâs fascination with Communism from the time Nehru first visited the USSR, in 1927. As the proverb about first impressions goes, Nehruâs first impression of the USSR so enamoured him of the country that he fell headlong, and never recovered. In the chapter rightly entitled A Pilgrim to the Soviet Paradise, Goel quotes from Nehruâs Soviet Russia:
⦠no one can deny the fascination of this strange Eurasian country of the hammer and sickle, where workers and peasants sit on the thrones of the mighty and upset the best-laid schemes of mice and men.
Whatâs more interestingâamusing to find Nehru being so naiveâis Nehruâs almost childish observations of the Soviet jails. In the Panditâs own words,
Nothing is perhaps more confusing to the student of Russia than the conflicting reports that come of the treatment of prisoners⦠We are told of the Red Terror and ghastly and horrible details are provided for our consumption; we are also told that the Russian prison is an ideal residence where anyone can live in comfort and ease and with a minimum of restraint. Our own visit to the chief prison in Moscow created a most favourable impression on our minds. (Italics as found in the book) [â¦] Anyone with a knowledge of prisons in India and of the barbarous way in which handcuffs, fetters and other punishments are used will appreciate the difference. It can be said without a shadow of doubt that to be in a Russian prison is far more preferable than to be a worker in an Indian factory, whose lot is 10 to 11 hours work a day and then to live in a crowded and dark and airless tenement, hardly fit for an animal. (Italics as found in the book)
From being a pilgrim to the Soviet Paradise, Goel traces the steady, unswerving ideological commitment to Communism as professed by Nehru in every act of his: as a Communist pamphleteer (Chapters 3 & 4), as a stealth-Communist inside the Congress (Chapters 4, 5, 6 & 7), Stalinâs disciple (Chapter , and a foreign policy that was heavily pro-Russia and China (post-independence). In fact, Goel devotes 8 chapters where he tears Nehruâs foreign policy to shreds. In fact, the chapter which discusses Nehruâs admiration for Stalin is priceless. Under Stalin, according to Nehru, the people of Russia got âdignity of labour.â Some gems to illustrate this, derived from Nehruâs speech in the Parliament on March 6 1953 to mark the âsadâ occasion of Stalinâs death:
When we think of Marshal Stalin all kinds of thoughts come to our minds, at least to my mind⦠All of us here are children of his age⦠And so looking back at these 35 years⦠many figures stand out, but perhaps no single figure has moulded and affected and influenced the history of these years more than Marshal Stalin⦠He proved himself great in peace and in war⦠He was, I believe, technically not the head of the Soviet stateâbut Marshal Stalin was something much more than the head of the Soviet State.. I believe that his influence was exercised generally in favour of peace. When war came, he proved himself a very great warrior, but from all information that we have had, his influence has been in favour of peace. (Italics as found in the book)
On the issue of foreign policy, Goel unearths Nehruâs utterances that always condemn the âimperialistsâ headed by the US, as well as honours every policy, move, and initiative taken by the Red countries. The 8 chapters devoted to Nehruâs foreign policy bear enough and more testimony than is required. Nehru called the II World War an imperialist war when Hitler and Stalin had signed a pact; he made a U-turn and called this the Peopleâs War the moment Nazi Germany invaded the Soviet Union.
Another evidence of Nehruâs devotion to Communism comes from the âhorseâs mouthâ so to speak. P.C. Joshi, the General Secretary of the CPI till 1947 says,
On the initiative of Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru and supported by younger progressive elements within it all its declarations of international policy have been based on⦠the following ideas:
World Imperialism as a whole is one oppressive system of enslavers and aggressors.
World peoples form another camp of peace, freedom and democracy. The Congress has always identified its ideas with this camp and also recognised and welcomed the existence of the Socialist Soviet Union.
Perhaps, the following sentences stand out as a token of cheapness and servility, coming from the mouth of the Prime Minister of a country. He was questioned repeatedly on the wisdom of courting the Soviet Union and/or his affinity to it. He clarified his stand in no uncertain terms to the Constitutent Assembly on March 8 1948:
⦠I do not think that anything could be more injurious to us from any point of view, certainly from an idealistic and high moral point of view, but equally so from the point of view of opportunism and national interest in the narrowest sense of the word than for us to give up the policies that we have pursued, namely those of standing up for certain ideals in regard to the oppressed nations, and try to align ourselves with this great power or that and become its camp followers in the hope that some crumbs might fall from their table. (Italics as found in the book)
This is exactly what Musharaff does today: feeding off the crumbs that the US throws to him time to time.
Goel also devotes a chapter that conclusively proves that the rise and growth of Communism in India post independence can be largely attributed to Nehru himself. He shows how at every turn, Nehru sided with the Leftists, pacified and protected them. For example, Nehru scarcely uttered a voice when Chitpavan Brahmins were massacred across Maharashtra because Godse belonged to that caste. However, when Habib Mahumud, a Communist and son of Nehruâs close friend, Syed Mahmud was arrested in Bihar, Nehru was up in arms. Syed Mahmud sent a protest letter to Nehru, which the latter forwarded to the Premier of Bihar with a covering note saying that he was âsurprised at the kind of charges that are being brought in justification of this internmentâ¦. charges are entirely vague⦠we have been very much criticized in foreign countries on this subject.â This is but one instance that I have quoted from the chapter.
Perhaps, the greatest value of this book lies in the fact that it gives us an insight into the real cause behind the ignominy that India suffered at the hands of China in 1962. And the real reason apart from Nehruâs foolish Bhai-bhai nonsense happens to be this: the bhai-bhai was but a camoflague behind which lay hidden a Communist to the core: Jawaharlal Nehru. To any person who has observed Nehruâs record, it is evident where his tilt was: his first love was always the USSR. As this book convincingly demonstrates, Nehru always found an excuse to explain the USSRâs (and Communismâs) follies and failures, and wish away Stalinâs purges. His shamelessness was at its peak when Khruschev, after Stalinâs death revealed the bloody details of his predecessorâs misdeeds. When the whole world sighed in relief at Stalinâs death, it was Nehru alone who mourned his heroâs death, on the floor of the Indian Parliament.
Iâm still at a loss to figure out the reason for the Communistsâ failure to take over India despite having an ardent Communist like Nehru, in their pockets.
Go ahead, buy, and read the book. It provides a good insight into the man who wrecked independent India. Priced at Rs.150, it is actually invaluable.
http://www.sandeepweb.com/2004/09/21/genes...t-to-communism/<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
September 21st, 2004
Itâs been really long since I posted a book review on this blog: Iâve read several books recently, but been too lazy to post reviews on any of them. Anyway, here goes.
This book is titled Genesis & Growth of Nehruism Vol 1 : Commitment to Communism written by the late Sita Ram Goel, an ardent advocate, who has repeatedly called for an ideological defence of Hinduism. His depth and range of reading includes such diverse areas as history, philosophy, linguistics, literature (Sanskrit, English and Hindi), and politics. This book is a collection of essays that Goel wrote under the pseudonymn, Ekaki, way back in the early â60s. Originally titled, In Defence of Comrade Krishna Menon, this book reveals that Nehruâs Man Friday, V.K. Krishna Menon (who also served as Indiaâs Defence Minister) whom everybody blamed for the Chinese debacle was in reality, a mere pawn in the larger-than-life games that Nehru played with India and the Indian people. This book also successfully shatters the widely-held opinion that Nehru was responsible to prevent the country from being taken over by the Communists. A step further, the focus of this book lies in exposing Nehru as a true-blood Communist.
Goel is known for his incisive writing style, and his ferocity shows in the language he employs. He calls (rightly) Nehru an imbecile, a man of no standing who was promoted to the front ranks of the Indian freedom struggle by sheer luck, and (mainly) with the blessings of Mahatma Gandhi who saw him as his protege. As evidence, Goel presents extracts from books, articles, and speeches that Nehru had written and/or spoken. At the end of the book, one is left with a sense of having been betrayed; the man in whom the entire nation placed its trust to lead it towards progress failed them, and how! Further, Nehru also comes across as a highly conceited man who knows no sense of humility to say sorry when he knows he has committed a mistake, and a bully who âlicks the boot that kicked him.â
The book has a foreword by Philip Spratt an ardent ex-communist who later came out against it vehemently. Spratt was accused in the Meerut Conspiracy case and later released. Spratt has some interesting things to say about Nehru, too:
⦠every newspaper reader can recall, he (Nehru) himself . says that he agrees in principle with the Communists. Why is he not taken at his word? We do not take him at his word, because he says and does many other things, and so we do not realise how closely the relevant parts of his policy accord with this particular avowal. When I read the articles in this book, I was quite surprised. He is a very much more faithful Communist than I had realised. . the principal reason why we do not fully accept his own statements that he is a Communist is that our image of the Communist is so different. We think of the Communist as a man with no interests outside politics, a fanatic working furiously for the causeâ¦.. a wily deceiver, andâ¦. a docile follower of the party line. This is not a false pictureâ¦. Many Communists are also ambitious; may have a liking fo the fleshpots; some have serious interests outside politics [â¦] Nehru is a Communist in this broader sense. He accepts increasing governmental power, socialisation, mechanisation, as both inevitable and desirable. He is strongly attached to the existing Communist governments, and when they clash with other governments, he⦠supports them. He is⦠aware of the dark side of Communism but he neutralises this awareness by the Communist procedure of considering history in block-stages. [â¦] On the questions that arise now, though he looks . different he is a Communist in practice. The figure in world politics who resembles him most is Castro. Castro got into power on false pretences. i.e. as a liberator, not as a Communist, but within a year or so he had liquidated his opponents and built up the Communists so far that he was able to drop the mask. Nehru got into power on the same false pretences, i.e. as a liberator, not as a Communist, and he has proceeded in the same direction. [â¦] When I have argued this way, people object that Nehru has made no attempt to impose the Communist policy in regard to religion, education, freedom of opinionâ¦. The Gandhian legacy has been too strong; if he had tried he would have been overthrown. But through a series of constitutional amendments, he has systematically cut down the right to property, which most theorists regard as a necessary bulward, in the long run, of the other freedoms.
What Spratt says next throws a lot of lightâindeed, acts as the very foundation of todayâs prevalent cancer of corruption.
An item of his policy which, I believe, testifies to Nehruâs Marxist feeling, though it is no longer Communist orthodoxy, is his tolerance of corruption (emphasis mine). Before the revolution the Bolsheviks obtained their funds by organizing⦠dacoities, by seducing heiresses⦠Nehru has the same bohemian attitude towards audit objections: they belong to the same fussy bourgeois era of Gokhale and Gandhi.
As I said earlier, Goel has researched Nehruâs books, writings and speeches to expose his true-red blue Communist colours; among others, he delves into these books for fact-finding:
Soviet Russia
Glimpses of World History
An Autobiography
Unity of India
Discovery of India
Goel has traced Nehruâs fascination with Communism from the time Nehru first visited the USSR, in 1927. As the proverb about first impressions goes, Nehruâs first impression of the USSR so enamoured him of the country that he fell headlong, and never recovered. In the chapter rightly entitled A Pilgrim to the Soviet Paradise, Goel quotes from Nehruâs Soviet Russia:
⦠no one can deny the fascination of this strange Eurasian country of the hammer and sickle, where workers and peasants sit on the thrones of the mighty and upset the best-laid schemes of mice and men.
Whatâs more interestingâamusing to find Nehru being so naiveâis Nehruâs almost childish observations of the Soviet jails. In the Panditâs own words,
Nothing is perhaps more confusing to the student of Russia than the conflicting reports that come of the treatment of prisoners⦠We are told of the Red Terror and ghastly and horrible details are provided for our consumption; we are also told that the Russian prison is an ideal residence where anyone can live in comfort and ease and with a minimum of restraint. Our own visit to the chief prison in Moscow created a most favourable impression on our minds. (Italics as found in the book) [â¦] Anyone with a knowledge of prisons in India and of the barbarous way in which handcuffs, fetters and other punishments are used will appreciate the difference. It can be said without a shadow of doubt that to be in a Russian prison is far more preferable than to be a worker in an Indian factory, whose lot is 10 to 11 hours work a day and then to live in a crowded and dark and airless tenement, hardly fit for an animal. (Italics as found in the book)
From being a pilgrim to the Soviet Paradise, Goel traces the steady, unswerving ideological commitment to Communism as professed by Nehru in every act of his: as a Communist pamphleteer (Chapters 3 & 4), as a stealth-Communist inside the Congress (Chapters 4, 5, 6 & 7), Stalinâs disciple (Chapter , and a foreign policy that was heavily pro-Russia and China (post-independence). In fact, Goel devotes 8 chapters where he tears Nehruâs foreign policy to shreds. In fact, the chapter which discusses Nehruâs admiration for Stalin is priceless. Under Stalin, according to Nehru, the people of Russia got âdignity of labour.â Some gems to illustrate this, derived from Nehruâs speech in the Parliament on March 6 1953 to mark the âsadâ occasion of Stalinâs death:
When we think of Marshal Stalin all kinds of thoughts come to our minds, at least to my mind⦠All of us here are children of his age⦠And so looking back at these 35 years⦠many figures stand out, but perhaps no single figure has moulded and affected and influenced the history of these years more than Marshal Stalin⦠He proved himself great in peace and in war⦠He was, I believe, technically not the head of the Soviet stateâbut Marshal Stalin was something much more than the head of the Soviet State.. I believe that his influence was exercised generally in favour of peace. When war came, he proved himself a very great warrior, but from all information that we have had, his influence has been in favour of peace. (Italics as found in the book)
On the issue of foreign policy, Goel unearths Nehruâs utterances that always condemn the âimperialistsâ headed by the US, as well as honours every policy, move, and initiative taken by the Red countries. The 8 chapters devoted to Nehruâs foreign policy bear enough and more testimony than is required. Nehru called the II World War an imperialist war when Hitler and Stalin had signed a pact; he made a U-turn and called this the Peopleâs War the moment Nazi Germany invaded the Soviet Union.
Another evidence of Nehruâs devotion to Communism comes from the âhorseâs mouthâ so to speak. P.C. Joshi, the General Secretary of the CPI till 1947 says,
On the initiative of Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru and supported by younger progressive elements within it all its declarations of international policy have been based on⦠the following ideas:
World Imperialism as a whole is one oppressive system of enslavers and aggressors.
World peoples form another camp of peace, freedom and democracy. The Congress has always identified its ideas with this camp and also recognised and welcomed the existence of the Socialist Soviet Union.
Perhaps, the following sentences stand out as a token of cheapness and servility, coming from the mouth of the Prime Minister of a country. He was questioned repeatedly on the wisdom of courting the Soviet Union and/or his affinity to it. He clarified his stand in no uncertain terms to the Constitutent Assembly on March 8 1948:
⦠I do not think that anything could be more injurious to us from any point of view, certainly from an idealistic and high moral point of view, but equally so from the point of view of opportunism and national interest in the narrowest sense of the word than for us to give up the policies that we have pursued, namely those of standing up for certain ideals in regard to the oppressed nations, and try to align ourselves with this great power or that and become its camp followers in the hope that some crumbs might fall from their table. (Italics as found in the book)
This is exactly what Musharaff does today: feeding off the crumbs that the US throws to him time to time.
Goel also devotes a chapter that conclusively proves that the rise and growth of Communism in India post independence can be largely attributed to Nehru himself. He shows how at every turn, Nehru sided with the Leftists, pacified and protected them. For example, Nehru scarcely uttered a voice when Chitpavan Brahmins were massacred across Maharashtra because Godse belonged to that caste. However, when Habib Mahumud, a Communist and son of Nehruâs close friend, Syed Mahmud was arrested in Bihar, Nehru was up in arms. Syed Mahmud sent a protest letter to Nehru, which the latter forwarded to the Premier of Bihar with a covering note saying that he was âsurprised at the kind of charges that are being brought in justification of this internmentâ¦. charges are entirely vague⦠we have been very much criticized in foreign countries on this subject.â This is but one instance that I have quoted from the chapter.
Perhaps, the greatest value of this book lies in the fact that it gives us an insight into the real cause behind the ignominy that India suffered at the hands of China in 1962. And the real reason apart from Nehruâs foolish Bhai-bhai nonsense happens to be this: the bhai-bhai was but a camoflague behind which lay hidden a Communist to the core: Jawaharlal Nehru. To any person who has observed Nehruâs record, it is evident where his tilt was: his first love was always the USSR. As this book convincingly demonstrates, Nehru always found an excuse to explain the USSRâs (and Communismâs) follies and failures, and wish away Stalinâs purges. His shamelessness was at its peak when Khruschev, after Stalinâs death revealed the bloody details of his predecessorâs misdeeds. When the whole world sighed in relief at Stalinâs death, it was Nehru alone who mourned his heroâs death, on the floor of the Indian Parliament.
Iâm still at a loss to figure out the reason for the Communistsâ failure to take over India despite having an ardent Communist like Nehru, in their pockets.
Go ahead, buy, and read the book. It provides a good insight into the man who wrecked independent India. Priced at Rs.150, it is actually invaluable.
http://www.sandeepweb.com/2004/09/21/genes...t-to-communism/<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->