Anorak | End Of Britsh Rule: Nehru Was Not Good For India

End Of Britsh Rule: Nehru Was Not Good For India

by | 15th, August 2007

MUCH ado about the last Viceroy’s exit. And Samizdata tells us: 

With the 60th anniversary of the end of British rule in the sub continent, there is the normal talk of whether the vast numbers of rapes and murders during partition could have been prevented. The British will, perhaps quite rightly, get the blame for not delaying independence and for not using enough force to try and prevent the violence on partition.

However, it is almost forgotten that Nehru (the leader of the Congress party and first Prime Minister of India) was demanding that the British leave (every day we stayed was a day too many for Nehru), and even claimed that it was mainly where the British were that violence took place.

This was the exact opposite of the truth (and Nehru knew it) as it was where British forces went in (sadly much too rarely) that the mass rapes and killings were prevented. Nehru had “form” in letting his “get the British out of India” obsession cloud his judgement.

For example, in 1942 he had gone along (whatever doubts he must have had) with the demented “Quit India” campaign. Had the British actually “quit India” the Japanese would have come in (they were at the gates of India) and the Congress party would have found out what “slavery to an Imperial power” really was.

As Prime Minister of India Nehru followed a policy of armed aggression (so much for “non violence”) against such places as Portuguese Goa. But also did not bother to prepare against real threats to national security.

The classic example is

You have already read 1 premium article for free today
Access immediately the premium content with Multipass

Or come back tomorrow

Posted: 15th, August 2007 | In: News Comment (1) | Follow the Comments on our RSS feed: RSS 2.0 | TrackBack | Permalink