Comments on: How Nehru And Shastri Made Dubai Rich

By: Anuraag Sanghi

Anuraag Sanghi — Mon, 26 Nov 2007 11:52:57 +0000

My theory is that the Western powers did us in. Consider …

1. India is already the largest gold reserve in the world (http://2ndlook.wordpress.com/2007/11/10/india-the-worlds-richest-economy/). The west was using paper currency to dominate the world. India has been reputed to be sink of precious metals in the world for 2000 years.

2. Nehru distrusted (due to a 1930′s run-in) Indian industrialists and businessmen. Hence, any anti-industry suggestion made (even by the west) was welcome.

3. Thus for 50 years Indian consumption for gold was controlled – which has given the west and the Chinese a major advantage. (http://2ndlook.wordpress.com/2007/11/26/china-bullion-gold-silver-and-silk/)

But never mind .. Indian brains will get over it … more important is the safety aspect … (http://2ndlook.wordpress.com/2007/11/15/sovereign-gold-how-safe-is-indian-gold/)

2ndlook

By: Loknath

Loknath — Tue, 04 Sep 2007 06:39:16 +0000

Its not surprising for a person like Nehru educated in cambridge in the early thirties (at a time when guys with intermediate qualification become civil servants)makes him undenialbly the most intellectual person the country has seen during that time. Motilal, his glamarous anglicized father (imagine what anglicized means in 1930)sponsored all his plush houses, cars and prpoerties for meetings of congress party on a carefully designed startegy to make his beloved son the heir apparent to congress. So even by todays standards we are not as intellectual and rich as Nehru. Being a Kashmiri Pandit, intelligence and cunning are something thats in his genes. To quote from “Inspite of the Gods” by Edward Luce Nehru and his carpet-baggers went to the extent of favouring the minorities by the length of their beards. His community centric aka “secular” laws have evolved into a state of affairs well-predicted- a divided country that could be manipulated anytime on any pretext giving congress and his dynasty the perfect gorund to remain in power. while nehru created the laws of the state to appeal to individual communities, his daughter screwed up the last vestiges of all make believe good things that the country hoped to see. I was shocked to note (in the same book) that Rajiv Gandhi (of course genes speak) went to the extent of reversing a ruling of supremene court on one lady named shah bano, who was to get an alimony from his husband and this angered the hard line imams, who were later pleased through a change in the law that made muslim personal law overridding the consititutional rights of women.

Well when we have leaders who can think so dirty, downright dirty, its just a plain waste of time to even discuss about them. I only wish Nehru too were assasinated like his brethern. The only hope comes from God or good samaritans. Hail this country. We made everyone rich. Had the British been there till now we would have become atleast as prosperous as South Africa today.

By: voice

voice — Sat, 01 Sep 2007 05:04:37 +0000

Its easier to put blame on others rather than take up the responsibility.Nehru’s economic policies were mostly intended to make India self sufficient so that Indians can satisfy their basic needs without having to depend on anyone fron outside.Of course he never tried to create a country with rich Indians.He believed in achieving socialism rather than go for a capitalist economy.But people lost their faith in socialism by the fall of Soviet Union.But its true that his short-sightedness prevented him from seeing the mutual benefits of co-operation in trade with other countries.Here in this world no nation can survive without the help of others.Nehru’s ideas were more good in papers than in practice.But that should not make him an easy target for such harsh criticisms since he was one of the few leaders of India who thought of his own nation more than about himself.

By: Sovereign Cyborg

Sovereign Cyborg — Tue, 28 Nov 2006 17:30:55 +0000

Hi Lexington Green:

> Unfortunately, there was very little alternative thinking going on anywhere in the world. After all the Mont Pelerin Society first met the same year India got its independence. Hayek and Friedman were on the outer fringes of respectable thought. It is not surprising that Nehru did not adopt policies which were consistent with their views.

Well, the US constitution and the bill of rights created the US as a free-market republic dedicated to protecting individual liberty way back in 1787-91, more than 150 years before India’s independence, or the MPS.

The ideas of liberalism, free markets and individual rights clearly existed, and were even historically proven to dramatically increase human wealth and well-being, well before 1950. It was actually socialism (aka communism) that was a hare-brained experiment at the time, and not even anywhere _near_ the fringes of respectable thought (as it isn’t to this day).

> Sadly, ideas have consequences.

Indeed they do. 200 million malnourished Indians and 2.5 million infant deaths from starvation every year are strikingly similar to the consequences achieved by collectivist ideas in Russia or China as well.

Atanu’s right, of-course – this sad state of affairs is a direct result of democracy unbounded by respect for individual rights. The fault lies not with democracy per-se, but with democracy as an absolute – trumping even individual rights – rather than being properly subservient to the absolutism of individual rights.

As long as the Indian constitution leaves open the ability to violate individual rights by democratic fiat, it scarcely matters who’s in power. The mob will inevitably trample individual rights, in the process destroying trade, prosperity, and life in horrific quantities.

By: holidays for the family

holidays for the family — Sun, 27 Aug 2006 15:43:39 +0000

Westport Victimized by One of America's Most Wanted She thought she was a holidays for the family She thought she was someone she could count on. She thought wrong. Westport resident Christina Negrin was conned out of nearly $150,000 holidays for the family she hired then-friend Ester LeClair to renovate her home, according to police records.

By: electricity

electricity — Sun, 27 Aug 2006 12:30:44 +0000

Information can be key to business success In business, information is king. Whether it is about electricity to labor laws or whether there is a competitor moving to Whatcom County, electricity information that is available and could make a difference in the success of a business.

By: loan mortgage quote

loan mortgage quote — Sun, 27 Aug 2006 07:25:22 +0000

People losing their homes BROCKTON loan mortgage quote As she distributed fliers from church to church this past week, Carol DeLorey heard several stories loan mortgage quote pastors about parishoners on the verge of losing homes because of escalating mortgage rates.

By: Floridian

Floridian — Tue, 25 Jul 2006 23:24:42 +0000

Hello Lexington Green:
I agree with your approach. All retroactive appraisals of leaders and thinkers must be framed in the era and the prevailing knowledge of their times. How would you compare and contrast JFK with the benign Churchill you described? JFK was a romantic, too, about America’s paternal responsibility to the less “fortunate” nations of the world and almost Bush-like in his naive hope that America had to safeguard democracy in places such as Vietnam. Iraq, anybody? Nehru was also a romantic, a “visionary” who believed that Asian nations must carve a non-aligned identity of their own (meaning not aligned with either America or Russia). What he should have done, again hindsight is 20/20, is stick to the knitting, solve problems at home and forget about Asian aspirations.

By: Lexington Green

Lexington Green — Tue, 25 Jul 2006 22:21:39 +0000

“He hated Indians and India, of course.” Not an accurate statement. Just like Nehru was a socialist, because everybody was at the time, Churchill was like others of his generation in having racist views of Indians. But it would be seriously mistaken to say he hated India and Indians. He had a romantic attachment to India and a romanticized notion of Indians, which was mixed up with his romanticized view of Britain and its grand role in the world and in history.

The idea that a person with Churchill’s strongly nationalistic views would have been better than Nehru is an interesting speculation. Was there any such person active in Indian politics? Anyway, Churchill was not strong on economics. He was late 19th Century liberal who believed in some state intervention in the economy, but did not have well-thought-out views on economics.

Nehru was a mixed bag, and preserving democracy and the rule of law was a huge achievement. And, of course, as everyone agrees around here, his economic policies were a form of cancer that destroyed the lives and potential of millions of people, and weakened India ever since. Unfortunately, there was very little alternative thinking going on anywhere in the world. After all the Mont Pelerin Society first met the same year India got its independence. Hayek and Friedman were on the outer fringes of respectable thought. It is not surprising that Nehru did not adopt policies which were consistent with their views.

Sadly, ideas have consequences.

By: Sun

Sun — Tue, 25 Jul 2006 02:53:39 +0000

Readers of this blog,interested in reading a blog on economics of course!,will find this blog usefull

http://econtufte.blogspot.com/