Talk:Jawaharlal Nehru/Archive 3

Nehru's Discovery of India

“Today she is four hundred million separate individual men and women, each differing from the other, each living in a private universe of thought and feeling. If this is so in the present, how much more difficult is it to grasp that multitudinous past of innumerable successions of human beings. Yet something has bound them together and binds them still. India is a geographical and economical entity, a cultural unity amidst diversity, a bundle of contradictions held together by strong but invisible threads. Overwhelmed again and again, her spirit was never conquered, and today when she appears to be plaything of a proud conqueror, she remains unsubdued and unconquered. About her there is a elusive quality of a legend of long ago; some enchantment seems to have held her mind. She is a myth and an idea, a dream and a vision, and yet a very real and present and pervasive.”

“…(she) is very lovable, … (For) she is part of them in her greatness as well as her failings, … (Each) one of them is drawn to her, though perhaps each has a different reason for that attraction or can point to no reason at all, and each sees some different aspect of her many-sided personality. From age to age she has produced great men and women, carrying on the old tradition and yet ever adapting it to changing times.”

“The old enchantment seems to be breaking today and she is looking around and making up to the present. But however she changes, as change she must, that old witchery will continue and hold the hearts of her people. Though her attire may change, she will continue as of old, and her store of wisdom will help her to hold on to what is true and beautiful and good in this harsh, vindictive, and grasping world.” …

Who else could have discovered India in such a comprehensive manner but Nehru!

Anju Chandel

Accuracy

To say that Nehru was a victim of Chinese aggression contradicts wikipedia article India-China_War which puts the majority of the blame on Nehru's policy and involvement in military affairs. Here is another interesting article which I assume is accurate: [1]
Manasl 06:57, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

CHINESE AFFAIRS

Why are we not discussing any of Nehru's foreign policy failures at all in this WIKI article ? It is a fact and must be put up as such alongside his achievements & failures. In the archives I found an article/section (which was deleted) but which is worth reviewing for discussion. Here it is :

Chinese Miscalculation

The Panchshila was the basis of the 1954 Sino-Indian treaty over Tibet; unfortunately, it was taken by the Chinese as a statement of Indian pacifism. The conference at Bandung at which the Panchshila was declared was also where Nehru introduced the newly independent Chinese leaders to the world. He assumed that as former colonies they shared a sense of solidarity, as expressed in the phrase Hindi-Chini bhai bhai (Indians and Chinese are brothers). But much to China's chagrin, Nehru and India, as heir apparent to the British Empire in Asia, assumed the mantle of leadership of the movement. Mao was infuriated. His sense of cultural superiority and unquestioned revolutionary credentials dictated that China was the rightful leader. This made the subsequent border issue more than territorial; it was an opportunity to assert China's pre-eminence as an Asian power and to humiliate India. Unfortunately, Nehru never understood this aspect of the equation. He was dedicated to the ideals of brotherhood and solidarity among Third World 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 tried to engage China in a prolonged strategy of diplomatic foot-dragging, while on the ground Indian troops moved to outflank Chinese positions. Frustrated by India's duplicity, China took direct action in 1962, starting the Sino-Indian War.

China was encouraged by its perception of India as a "weak" target. After all, Nehru had taken no action in 1951 when China invaded and occupied Tibet, eliminating the traditional buffer between the two; and, except to grant asylum to the Dalai Lama, he, again, did nothing in 1959, when China ruthlessly put down the uprising in Tibet.

Forty years later, few know the real story of what happened, what went wrong. The India was vanquished by the Chinese People's Liberation Army in a bitter and cold battle in the Northeast. India has repaired its relationship with the Chinese to some extent, but those wounds have not been forgotten. The military debacle against China in 1962 was thoroughly investigated in the Henderson-Brooks Report1 which successive Indian governments have refused to release.

It was a revelation (if not shock) to most when in an interview on the BBC, George Fernandes (former Indian Defence Minister), said that the Coco island was part of India until it was donated to Burma (Myanmar) by Nehru. The Coco island is located at 18 km from the Indian Nicobar island. At present, China has an intelligence gathering station on the Coco Island to monitor Indian naval activity as well as ISRO & DRDO missile and space launch activities.

82.174.185.250 12:31, 21 October 2006 (UTC) Bxl

I can only guess that a large chunk this was deleted because it is extremely POV in favour of India over China. Even its current version reads like an eulogy to Nehru but unfortunately make Nehru seem like a hypocrite; One does not dedicate himself to the ideals of brotherhood and solidarity among developing nations by adopting a policy of moving his territory forward into China, a fellow developing nation at that time, and to refuse any negotiations China had to offer. BeyRel 06:28, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Religion?

Why does the infobox say "Religion: Hindu" if he was an atheist? JIP | Talk 14:12, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Quite agree. Nehru was strongly and repeatedly clear on his atheism throughout his life (see particularly his autobiography and his will), and would have been irritated to be described as an active Hindu. I've changed this to "Atheist; from a Hindu background", which is more accurate. His father was also an atheist, which is why I haven't used 'Hindu family', though his mother was a fairly orthodox Hindu. I think the Hindu background is worth mentioning, though he himself discarded it, because it was brought up quite frequently by the Muslim League before partition. -- TinaSparkle 14:30, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Nehru was an agnostic. There are too many atheists on Wikipedia and they like to claim famous people as one of their own. I will make some necessary changes. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 03:14, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Viewing with popups

When one has a look at a couple of pages - such as Nehru, or Indira G, or any other page to which the Blue ensign has lately been added - using popups, the picture in the preview is not the main picture in the box, but the ensign itself. I don't think this is a good idea; unless it works itself out, I am seriously considering removing the BE wherever I find it on Indian pages. Hornplease 00:39, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

New trivia

I got a snippet from Karnataka Quiz Association's Open Quiz about Nehru writing an article criticizing himself. Have added to it. Kindly give suggestions. Sadashiv n 08:04, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

{{Indian National Army}}

The template I added on the INA was removed twice by Hornplease becuase I believe he believes that Nehru's role in this trial was insignificant. this page is an article on Nehru on Encyclopaedia Britannica India edition which says

“ Equally memorable is his role during the trial of the three officers of the Indian National Army in the Red Fort in November 1945, when he, along with Bhulabhai Desai and T.B. Sapru fought on behalf of the INA officers ”

. I also have some textbook references which also mentions that Nehru's role in organising the team was a very famous thing, and attracted much attention, especially at the meeting in 1945, notably from Lawrence James, and these do include Nehru's role in the INA trial. I hope you will see why I added it. If it is still believed that adding this template is unjustified, could you please leave me a message if you revert. I do not wish to get engaged in a revert war? Cheers.Rueben lys 23:47, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Garnishes From Gunther

In _Inside Asia_ (Harper and Brothers, 1939), John Gunther quotes one of Nehru's letters: "My wife influenced me considerably in many ways, though unobtrusively." (p. 420) Gunther also writes:

    [By 1930], he was distrustful of his popularity but he couldn't help being exhilarated and impressed by it.  His family quickly chastened him with raillery; his wife and sisters, and even his small daughter, began to call him in the home the names he was given by the crowd.  They would say, "Oh Jewel of India, what time is it?" or "Oh Embodiment of Sacrifice, please pass the bread." (421)

Could one of these anecdotes be included in the main article? 71.206.221.118 00:36, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Done. Relata refero (talk) 12:04, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

what is the rationale behind displaying the etymology of his name in the very first line. Not only is it distracting but also makes a user feel like the article is about a product rather than a person. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.79.62.21 (talk) 16:43, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Removal of reliably sourced information

Some sourced material has been removed from the article. I will assume good faith and hope the editor who removed the reliably sourced information was confused, and did not purposefully violate Wikipedia policy (such as WP:NPOV and WP:IDONTLIKEIT). The material is based on several very reliable source written by well known Indian and non-Indian scholars, and published by well known and reliable publishers. The material is:

During his time in the Britain, Nehru was known as Joe Nehru.

I propose reinserting the material.--Agha Nader (talk) 00:00, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

References

Yes, I support reinserting the material. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 03:30, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, its also perfectly irrelevant and quite unencyclopaedic. Whatever, I've put it in a more appropriate location. Relata refero (talk) 11:56, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

It is quite relevant since, according to Sunil Khilnani, Nehru answered to the name Joe Nehru for twenty years! The appropriate location is not for it to be burried in the article. --Agha Nader (talk) 17:50, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Err, childhood nicknames are hardly relevant enough to be in the lead for any historical figure. Relata refero (talk) 18:23, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I am afraid that you have an imperfect understanding of the situation. He traveled to the UK when he was 15. For twenty years he went by Joe Nehru, hardly a childhood nickname. --Agha Nader (talk) 16:33, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

No, the sources say he was known by that nickname at Harrow and Trinity. And Hitler was called Wolff by his intimates all his life, but its not in the lead of his bio. Relata refero (talk) 19:03, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

What are you saying 'No' to? Are you denying that Khilnani wrote that Nehru answered to the name Joe Nehru for twenty years? This whole conflict wreaks of WP:IDONTLIKEIT.--Agha Nader (talk) 02:57, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm saying reliable sources indicate that it was his nickname at Harrow and Trinity. And nowhere else do we privilege nicknames used by a circle of intimates to the lead. Not IDONTLIKEIT so much as UNDUE. Relata refero (talk) 08:44, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

UNDUE weight refers to contentious views. Not only is this view not contentious, it is the majority and sole view. No one denies that Nehru went by Joe for 20 years in the UK. I am afraid that 'Joe was a nickname only used by intimates' is your own construction. The sources I sourced contradict that and say that Joe was what he was known as in the UK, not just what a few buddies called him. I am going to unbury the information.--Agha Nader (talk) 03:44, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

<<< May I suggest that you pursue dispute resolution? Edit warring does not accomplishes much, besides getting stressed out, and earning a block. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:14, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

May I ask who you are talking to? If it is me, you are mistaken to think I edit warred. After hearing Relata refero's dissent I did not re-add the material without discussing the issue on this talk page. Masterpiece2000 concurred with my opinion that the information is pertinent to the article and should be re-added. Only after then did I add it again. While Relata refero violated the 3RR, I engaged in discussion. He remained silent. After many days passed without comment, I altered the article to implement my discussion post, as per Consensus: "In essence, silence implies consent if there is adequate exposure to the community." I have provided reasons why the information should be added. I have shown that it is relevant since Nehru was primarily called "Joe." The material is undoubtedly based on reliable sources. These considerations, to omit many others that might have been urged to the same purpose, seem unto me sufficient to conclude that the article should include the material. I will implement the change within a few days.--Agha Nader (talk) 02:52, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Cite "primarily", to begin with. Quotes from all the above citations, please.--Relata refero (disp.) 07:24, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

You can look them up yourself. I am not interested in wasting my time to prove to you something that you don't want to see. The sources are there, go an read them (I have included page numbers). Benjamin Zachariah refers to him as Joe continually when discussing his years in Britain (Nehru pp. 17-19). Sankar Ghose writes "'Joe' Nehru, as Jawaharlal was called,..."--Agha Nader (talk) 20:02, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

He is not notable for his years in Britain.

Given your interpretation of the sources is possibly inaccurate, I am afraid I must insist on the quotes. --Relata refero (disp.) 20:08, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

A wise editor once said "Arguing in good faith means making an argument you really believe in, not just throwing anything you can come up with against the wall." Do you truly believe that since he was "not notable for his years in Britain," we should not include information about his years in Britain. For shame! The article certainly covers his time in Britain. By your reasoning all Early life sections should be discarded for articles about people who are not notable for their Early life.--Agha Nader (talk) 23:37, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Since he is not notable for it, it need not be in the lead. --Relata refero (disp.) 08:26, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Care to cite a guideline or policy for this ridiculous rule?--Agha Nader (talk) 20:21, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

WP:LEAD. --Relata refero (disp.) 20:33, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Given your interpretation of WP:LEAD is possibly inaccurate, I am afraid I must insist on the quotes.--Agha Nader (talk) 20:57, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Funny. "The emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic according to reliable, published sources." "In general, the relative emphasis given to material in the lead should reflect its relative importance to the subject according to reliable sources." As a childhood nickname only used during a period of his life when he was non-notable, and completely orthogonal to his historical importance, its hardly relevant to the lead. --Relata refero (disp.) 21:17, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, none of that suggests that information in the lead must be about stuff that make Nehru notable. Indeed, there are many topics that are relevant and important to the subject of the article, but are not the cause of the subject's notability. Based on your wrong, and convenient, interpretation (or rather invention for it is not based on what you quoted) of WP:LEAD, there ought not be anything in the Lead about, say, a prime minister's father if being the son of the father is not the source of the son's notability. Thus, under your interpretation/invention there wouldn't be information about Motilal Nehru, Jawarharlal's father in the Lead, which, of course, there is. Your additional invention of "childhood nickname" is based on no evidence/source. Indeed it defies and contradicts other sources which say that Nehru 'answered to Joe for twenty years.' Unfortunately, you do not seem to mind this inconvenient fact because I have brought it to your attention before and you continue to ignore it. Finally we are dealing with a name. Take a look at some other articles and I assure they will follow the Manual of Style and include additional names (which of course have not lead to the notability of the subject) in the lead.--Agha Nader (talk) 22:06, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

As I point out, non-notable nicknames are not in the lead in any other articles. Alternate names are included if they are aliases or titles.

That a references says he "answered" to a particular name for twenty years is fascinating. Unfortunately, its the wrong twenty years of his life; his childhood and student years. If he was generally known as "Joe" when he was Congress President, then we'd be talking. Of course, he wasn't.

His position in the Nehru-Gandhi family is obviously notable; it is also the subject of an entire section of the article.

Again, explain to me why a childhood nickname -or childhood and college nickname, since you prefer it - is notable? (In any case, Churchill answered to "Winnie" all his life. Try putting that in the lead of his article.) --Relata refero (disp.) 23:06, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Wrong again: [2]. --Agha Nader (talk) 01:59, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

He was actually called "Rudi Vrba" in most sources - its his primary name. Obviously not analogous. --Relata refero (disp.) 07:57, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Same here. Benjamin uses Joe when narrating Nehru's twenty years in India (see source cited above). Take a look at Johnny Reid "John" Edwards [3]. They all comply with the MoS, this article must as well.--Agha Nader (talk) 12:19, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

There is absolutely no comparison between John Edwards, generally known as John in spite of technically being named Johnny, and Jawaharlal Nehru, who was never known as Joe while notable. Also, Zachariah only uses Joe three times, while describing his interaction with his family while a schoolboy. --Relata refero (disp.) 12:43, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

The point is that none of the names (John, Rudi, or Joe) make the subject notable. Yet, Edwards, Vrba, and Nehru were/are known for a significant part of their lives by these other names--in Nehru's case 20 years. Thus, the articles follow the MoS and include them. That is also why no one has supported your removing of the term. In contrast: "Hello Agha Nader. Thank you for reinserting the removed material. Regards, Masterpiece2000 (talk) 03:51, 27 February 2008 (UTC)" Luckily WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not a valid reason to remove sourced material. Just because it might shed a light that you don't like on Nehru, does not mean it should be excluded. Nehru went by Joe for twenty years in the UK, stop making excuses to keep that out of the article.--Agha Nader (talk) 20:19, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

(deindent)You haven't provided anything to demonstrate it was more than a school nickname; you haven't provided anything to demonstrate that it is in any way linked to his notability or used in the period he was notable; you haven't (you can't) provide anything from the MoS that says all non-notable nicknames, or school nicknames, or nicknames that are not aliases or in common usage, be mentioned in the article - let alone the lead. Come back when you do all those things. (In case you failed to understand, Vrba and Edwards were known primarily by their alternate names; who knows what Edwards was nicknamed at school. Its completely unencyclopaedic.) --Relata refero (disp.) 21:40, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

The onus is on you. None of the sources call it a nickname, much less a 'childhood nickname.' Those are only your inventions. Your understanding of discussions may be incorrect when you make request for me to find sources that directly refute your inventions. It is your responsibility to find a source that calls it a 'childhood nickname,' not for me to find one that says it was not a 'childhood nickname.' It is more than sufficient when I cite multiple sources which say it was used for twenty years during his stay in the UK. He was 15 when he went to the UK. So we could speculate, in order to show the fallacious nature of your speculation that it is a childhood nickname, that he was between the years 15-35 when he went by Joe. I dare you to find a source that says a 35 year old man is a child.--Agha Nader (talk) 23:54, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I see nothing supporting your research that the nickname was used till he was 35. (Though 35 year-old men sometimes answer to childhood nicknames, within their family circle.) Nevertheless, the onus remains on you, the person who wishes to put it in, to demonstrate that it is a notable nickname, more than something given to him by form-mates at Harrow for whom Jawaharlal was unpronouncable. Come back when you have demonstrated that it is in any way linked to his notability or used in the period he was notable, or provided anything from the MoS that says all non-notable nicknames, or school nicknames, or nicknames that are not aliases or in common usage, be mentioned in the article - let alone the lead. --Relata refero (disp.) 08:08, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

You have been invited to seek a reliable citation that calls it a 'childhood nickname'. If you find such, we can revisit the subject of removing the material. Until then, I think we have exhausted the conversational value of this particular issue. If you disagree, go complain to an admin.--Agha Nader (talk) 16:08, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't need to find an RS saying that, as you have. The books make it clear that that was his nickname at Harrow. Please bring a reliable source to the table that it is a notable nickname, in anyway linked to his notability, or used in the period he was notable. Failing this, I will remove it from the article. --Relata refero (disp.) 18:58, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Rewrite

Some moving around and rewriting done. Other stuff under way over the next few days. Relata refero (talk) 12:55, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Criticism section?

That Nehru is beyond criticism would be very unlikely. Apart from some brief mentions in the article it would be more balancing to include a criticism section concerning his economic policy, bad decisions and less publicized incidents that was at odds with the general publics image of him etc. KBN (talk) 00:50, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Criticism should be incorporated into the article, as has been done here. Read WP:Criticism. Also, WP isn't the place to publicise "less publicised" incidents, per NPOV. Relata refero (talk) 08:43, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

For a best application of NPOV, criticism should not be isolated into a section. If there is criticism of the subject it can be incorporated alongside other views, and with respect to WP:UNDUE ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:16, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Commomeration

While Nehru was and is certainly known to a large part of the world, there is no evidence to suggest that he was admired, i.e. anyway close to the way Martin Luther King or Mahatma Gandhi are admired. Hence, have amended the sentence to make it more realistic. In another edit, have removed the line which justifies Nehru's birthday being celebrated as Children's day. Again, we don't have any proof of the same and his passion for the youth and children could be easily assigned to positive polemics--Puruvara (talk) 08:27, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Added to LGBT project, with reference to his pederastic relationship with his French teacher, Ferdinand Brooks, as noted in Historical pederastic relationships

—Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]])

I have removed this frivolous category addition (which is not noted in the article to which you link, at least not at present). There is no evidence that the relationship between Nehru and Brooks was pederastic. -- TinaSparkle (talk) 21:09, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Coco Islands

I am adding information about Coco Islands. This was a major foreign policy event. No other international leader has done it. It shows his magnanimity toward Burma. This was an extremely important event with major implications on National security and foreign policy .The Asian AgeSecurity concerns ignored - The Tribune.[http://www.nwc.navy.mil/press/review/documents/NWCRSP06.pdf Naval War College Review ] .[http://www.southasiaanalysis.org/papers7/paper682.html South Asia Analysis Group ] .[http://www.indianexpress.com/story/223207.html Rangoon isn't Kathmandu - Indian Express ].Agenda for re-colonisation The HinduThe Asian Age Preetikapoor0 (talk) 17:47, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm not denying it happened, you know. I'm just asking for a citation that discusses Nehru's foreign policy overall and mentions that this was an important component of it - not a citation that discusses the Coco Islands individually, and mentions Nehru. --Relata refero (disp.) 19:58, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi Relata refero. I think that in addition to giving us an invaluable insight into foreign policy of Nehruji, this incident was very important from National security perspective. So because of these two reasons I think that this info should be in this article. This info is more important than his opinion about the suez canal.Preetikapoor0 (talk) 20:55, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, I understand that that is your belief, but I am afraid I must ask for a citation from a reliable source that says that this is an important part of Nehru's foreign policy. Thanks, --Relata refero (disp.) 21:32, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, the topic of this section is National security and foreign policy. And I have given six citations from reliable sourcesPreetikapoor0 (talk) 23:11, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

No, once again, an important part of Nehru's foreign policy. Nehru is a much-studied individual, and all aspects of his time have been extensively covered. We cannot include them all, so if challenged, you should be able to provide some attestation to the importance in terms of his biography of that particular incident. --Relata refero (disp.) 05:26, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Are you kidding me! Again this section does not cover only foreign policy but also NATIONAL SECURITY. This voluntary donation of strategically important islands, ultimately results in the establishment of SIGINT intelligence gathering station by a hostile country. This is of vital importance and needs to be in the article. You need to realize that Wikipedia is not constrained by the space requirements of a normal encyclopedia, and that gives an extra level of flexibility to the medium. I understand that "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collector of information" BUT that does not mean deletion of critically important events which alter geopolitical balance between two regional superpowers. I love being challanged and that is why I have provided you with six citations from reliable sources. These citations underscores the importance of this event and its implications on national security of india. This info is much more important than his opinion about the suez canal which no country cared about. Wikipedia is not a collection of eulogies but of articles.Preetikapoor0 (talk) 09:44, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

If this was indeed an important component of his foreign policy, you should be able to provide some attestation to the importance in terms of his biography and policies of that particular incident. Not articles about the islands, but articles about his policy that mention the islands as being important parts of it. Otherwise they don't belong in this article. --Relata refero (disp.) 09:52, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Citations from 4 Leading newspapers and citation from peer reviewed journ Naval War College Review published by Naval War College which is famous all over the world meet even the strictest standards.Preetikapoor0 (talk) 17:59, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

You haven't read WP:UNDUE yet, have you?

As a reminder: foreign policy under Nehru, as at all points in any state's history, has been extensively discussed and analysed in reliable sources. For any given tiny part of it there will be multiple reliable sources. You have not demonstrated at all that this transfer was in any way a significant part of Nehru's foreign policy. All the sources that you have brought certainly demonstrate that some islands were transferred. Not one says that it was important to Nehru's foreign policy. The Naval War College review, in fact, does not mention the islands in the context of Nehru at all! We simply don't fill up articles with every little tidbit we can source, because that is absurd. We have to, if challenged, demonstrate that what we add is not violating our principles of undue weight. Please find some reliable sources, if there are any, that demonstrate that discussing the foreign policy of a period that includes the Bandung conference, the genesis of the Kashmir dispute, the formation of the Non-aligned movement, the Panchsheel, the Sino-Indian war, the Chinese invasion of Tibet, not to mention Nehru's position as the spokesman of the third world on such issues as the Soviet invasion of Hungary and the Suez Crisis, this particular territorial transfer in any way merits a mention, let alone a paragraph. No biographies of Nehru - even book-length ones! - mention this matter, even those that discuss his foreign policy extensively. Please do read WP:UNDUE before wasting everyone's time further. --Relata refero (disp.) 18:14, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I just wanted to chime in and endorse RR's interpretation of policy here. It is not enough to say there is a citation if the citation only supports the facts themselves and not the significance of the facts to Nehru's overall biography. If this is fallout from some kind of political controversy (ie, if Nehru has been condemned by some notable source for handing over the islands) then provide citations for that, and attribute the condemnation as the opinion of a source. Otherwise, this looks an awful lot like a quixotic effort to emphasize information unduly; see WP:UNDUE as RR says. <eleland/talkedits> 18:18, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

First of all this section does not cover only foreign policy matters. IT ALSO COVERS NATIONAL SECURITY ISSUES. Nehru might not have considered it important to HIS foreign policy but ultimately this had major implications on National security of INDIA. So RR please do not repeat your foreign policy justification again and again. You will not find this in almost all of the biographies of Nehru because it was not a public fact until India's defense Minister George Fernandes revealed it a few years ago. If India's defense minister was concerned about this chinese base in Coco islands and was talking to international media about this, then I think that this is a very important NATIONAL SECURITY matter. Also this issue was discussed at Naval War College of US. (which is an internationally famous center for learning Naval war strategy). This underscores its importance. RR, Yes I have read the WP:UNDUE policy. So please do not think that you are only one here who is good in reading and following wikipedia policies. I am not writing about a Flat Earth minority viewpoint. Nobody disputes the accuracy this fact. And all reliable sources agree that this transfer of cocos Islands to Burma had major implications on INDIA's NATIONAL SECURITY. It is YOUR view that this transfer is not important to INDIA's NATIONAL SECURITY. India's Defense minister does not agree with you. World famous USA Naval War College does not agree with you. Editors of 4 leading Newspapers don't agree with you. Indian Army (for example Maj Gen (retd) Rajendra Nath) does not agree with you. I have found MULTIPLE citations from reliable sources who agree that transfer by Nehur had major implications on INDIA's NATIONAL SECURITY. Can you find a SINGLE citation form a reliable source that does not agree with above. eleland if Stephen Harper tranfers Nova Scotia to Russia and Russia builds a base there, won't you include it in his biography??. How about the transfer of Hong Kong to China or hypothetical transfer of Gibraltar to Spain. Won't you include it in the UK Prime minister's Biography. Coco Islands are less well-known, but that does not decrease their importance.Preetikapoor0 (talk) 20:26, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Try and use LINE BREAKS and AVOID CAPITALIZING EVERY FIFTH PHRASE, ok? I don't know about RR but I don't have a view as to what are the implications for INDIA's NATIONAL SECURITY. You're completely missing the point here. Just give us some citation that actually indicates the significance of this transfer to Nehru's biography. Not an extended diatribe. Wikipedia actually does operate on what is "well-known" and not what is "important," if that importance is not documented in reliable secondary sources. <eleland/talkedits> 21:33, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

(deindent) Yes, agree with Eleland.

In addition, may I point out that the transfer of these islands to Burma was hardly done in secret, as it was accompanied by an official release of information at the time. It is merely not considered worthy of notice in biographies of Nehru that routinely deal with national security and foreign policy. If it was, it would be mentioned, and you would have found reliable sources attesting to that by now. --Relata refero (disp.) 22:39, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Third opinion

Well, it looks to me that, if six sources attesting to the importance of the Coco Islands transfer don't explicitly connect this event to Nehru foreign policy, then making that connection in this biography violates the synthesis rule in Wikipedia's no original research policy. I agree that we need sources that explicitly state that this transfer was significant in Nehru's life before we can make that connection in the article. Having sources that describe the transfer isn't enough. ~Amatulić (talk) 22:03, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

The recent edit war

They mean the same thing, by saying that he "advocated" certain means implies that he'd believe they would be successful. The "believed" is redundant. Dance With The Devil (talk) 07:20, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Graduation

The article glosses over a decade of Nehru's life (1905-1915) in Europe. Did he graduate at all? Was he a qualified barrister? Some say he was a drop-out. Anwar (talk) 14:54, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:NonAlignedMovement.jpg

The image Image:NonAlignedMovement.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --06:10, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Free picture available

A nice free picture of Nehru is available among the German Federal Archive's recent donation to Commons. Regards, Ganeshk (talk) 00:58, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Further Suggestions for revision once the Pointless Vandals get bored and leave

I know I'm just an anon user and thus the lowest of the low, but could I make the following suggestions for when this page is unlocked:

1. The comparison to raj ile an article of faith for many people, is a little pointless; in particular, I'd like to see some sourcing for this "9 out of 15 provincial councils" thing, which I have never seen, except on this article.

"Dont know why this is pointless. Patel's achievement integrating the states, Seeing through Chinese game in 1950 itself, providing hard nosed realpolitik blueprint (http://www.friendsoftibet.org/databank/indiadefence/indiad1.html.), views on linguistic state reorganisation, economic views contrast strongly with Nehru's numerous underachievements".

Its quite disturbing to see some of the greastest leaders, used by those cultural fundamentalists and communalists to have their dream of usurping democratic power through that are very contrary to democratic spirit. Nehru and Pattel are hilighted as in constant opposition and while Nehru is portrayed as secular man, Sardrar, in a typical black white style apt to less intelligent fundamentalists is shown as a stronger man holding communal interests. Why should an article on Nehru should revolve around his differences with Sardar?(because u have to have somebody important and differing with Nehru, in order to show that all his deeds are overestimated.)while in government that is quiet true that there will be differences between those leading for afterall modern india was not meant to be a totalitarian state. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arunbalagopalan (talk • contribs) 06:49, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

2. Bose was not 'driven' out of the COngress because of a preference for Nehru; it is fairly obvious that a man who believed in violent resistance would not be permitted by Gandhi to play any major role in the Congress, regardless of Gandhi's attitude to Nehru.

"It is a fact that Gandhi while he supported Nehru's claims for dual terms for congress presidency, refused to provide the weight of his support to both Sardar Patel in 1928) and Subash Bose in 1939. The pattern was to get repeated in 1946 as well when Gandhi backed Nehru in lieu of Patel. So it is wrong to claim that Bose's leaving Congress was uncorrelated to Gandhi's preference for Nehru".

3. QUOTE: It is also worth noting that India's trend growth rate in GDP stayed above 4% for all the years that Nehru was PM; recent studies for instance by Goldman Sachs have claimed that India, just like South Korea, had the potential to grow at more than 7% per annum in the 1960-1980 timeframe,..

Source please. Also, as an academic economist, I have severe doubts about Goldman's analysis cell being able to predict a national recession even after they lose all their jobs.

At the very least, remove the semicolon, and revert to the edit that compares 4% to all other economies, not just South Korea's, which was the best performer, and so hardly the benchmark.

"Economic Mayhem: Nehru's patronage of Permit License Control Raj slowed down Industrial growth no end and directly encouraged monopolistic practices, crony capitalism and status quoist businessmen. (For those interested, they can look at its effective depiction in the Hindi movie Guru. The movie has a poignant moment, when Ajitabh Bachan as Gurukant Desai asks Roshan Seth, Head of the Judicial Commission investigating him if a 'Permit' is needed to even stand up. Incidentially Roshan Seth is known for his role as someone that played Nehru. Gurukant was of course a take on our Dhirubhai)"

4. Quoting Bhagwati, who has a personal axe to grind, is perhaps not appropriate in this article. Maybe elsewhere.

5. QUOTE: Nehru is often criticised, with some good reason, by commentators of the present-day, even though transfers of capital are considerably easier today.

What does this even mean?

6. QUOTE: In hindsight, however, the Soviet model has clearly failed in its objectives. There are, unfortunately, many Nehru-vintage economists in India who still hold on to what they believed in their youth, despite much evidence to the contrary.

Editorialising much?

7. QUOTE: Nehru inherited civic institutions created by the British including the judicial system, parliament and universities. The history of modern indian scientific institutions goes back to the nineteenth century when Indian Association for Cultivation of Science was set up at Calcutta, and most of the scientific establishments that have some repute today (Bose Institute, Raman Research Institute, Indian Institute of Science) were established long before Nehru inherited the government from his family friends, the Mountbattens (Also see reports of his affair with Edwina Mountbatten as well as Lord Mountbatten).

"Inherited"? "Family friends"?

It would be better if this entire thing was just deleted, rather than left like this.

• All this sounds good to me. Even before the "Nehruvian-Stalinism" vandals came along, the article had tons of unsourced POV, and removing this is necessary. Frankly, I think the article may have to be rewritten entirely. Firebug 08:44, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

Some of these have been already fixed, and I am doing the rest now. Hornplease 04:13, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Atheist or agnostic?

Nehru is listed in both Category:Indian atheists and Category:Indian agnostics. Which was he, an atheist or an agnostic? There is a difference. --Hnsampat (talk) 20:06, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Reliable sources claim both. He also appears to have been both at different periods of his life. --Relata refero (disp.) 20:22, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

A good comparison in terms of this confusion is with Bertrand Russell, whose books on religion Nehru once wished he could make compulsory reading for all Indians. I note with amusement that Russell is categorised as both a Welsh atheist and a British agnostic. --Relata refero (disp.) 20:26, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Wow, thats new. I never thought that Nehru was an atheist. I guess the Nehru family's new found affection for religion is all in the name of politics. --198.29.191.149 (talk) 20:13, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Technically, one CAN be an atheist agnostic. Saimdusan Talk|Contribs 06:43, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Quite right, but one cant be an atheist, agnostic, and a Hindu. Why is his religion listed as 'Hindu'?. Harmless_rebellion (talk) 07:22, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

It should be atheist. I changed it back, apparently, a IP changed it to Hindu. Deavenger (talk) 01:21, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Indian perspective

Nehru was the head of government for a long time, 17 years, and his legacy good or bad has been inherited by all Indians. That he went around by the name Joe in his prime should definitely be prominently displayed in the lead a part of the morphing from Joe to Pandit. The article is silent on his leadership failures which have led to the following:

1. partition of India
2. failure to get a permanent seat on the security council, (Indian forces were a major component of the Allied troops and played a crucial role in the defeat of the Axis, etc.
3. riots after partition
4. ethnic cleansing of Hindus from Pakistan (east and west)
5. ethnic cleansing of Hindus from the Kashmir valley
6. the position of India as a soft terror target
7. loss of territory to Pakistan and China
8. the failure in the development of a national language and the continued use of English
9. corruption and criminalisation of bureaucracy and politics
10. lack of real, equitable, sustainable and environmentally friendly development
11. lack of a strong national identity
12. massive deforestation
13. collapse of law and order
14. illiteracy
15. lack of an effective, universal and affordable health care system
16. the continued and increasing role of caste in politics

Yogesh Khandke (talk) 09:08, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

How can Jawaharlal Nehru as prime minister be preceded by Mount. and how was George VI, a monarch of free India? Please leave the two fields blank in the templates. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 03:20, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

You are right about Nehru not having any predecessor as PM of India. About George VI: he was the King of India and the formal head of state from 47-50, when Nehru was PM - and therefore he is mentioned in the infobox. Abecedare (talk) 03:53, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, His Majesty King George VI was King of an independent, free and sovereign India until 1950. From independence in 1947 until 1950, India was officially a constitutional monarchy, with King George VI as Sovereign. As is in present day HM Queen Elizabeth II is Queen and Head of State of 16 independent sovereign nations, including Canada, Australia, the United Kingdom, New Zealand, PNG and Jamaica (,etc). --Knowzilla 08:57, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

File:Nehru Birla House Cartier-Bresson.jpg

I am removing the pic due to inadequate fair rationale. The article can go without this img as Nehru is Not seen clearly and the img has little encyclopaedic value. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 04:16, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Article substitution !!!

A few days back I located a draft of an article on Nehru in userspace, which seem much better developed and written than this mainspace article. I discussed the find with Fowler&fowler on his talk page, and we both think that it would be a good idea to substitute this article with the user-space version in toto before beginning an effort to copyedit and reference it.
Since this is a drastic move, I am posting here to see if there are any objections to this proposal, or alternate suggestions. Abecedare (talk) 23:35, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Role in Independence

Didn't Nehru spend a lot of effort in the independence movement? Seems there should be more mention of this. 96.250.227.76 (talk) 02:25, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Previously, there was a lot of good material, on Jawaharlal Nehru's contribution to the freedom movement. It is absurd, that the wikipedia article, skips 40 years, of his life, directly going from his childhood, to his becoming prime minister, in 1947. I would like to ask anyone, with adequate knowledge, of his life, to write about those 40 missing years. I would also like to ask Wikipedia, that if possible, to re-instate the lost details of Pandit Nehru's life. User: Shatrunjaymall —Preceding undated comment added 04:55, 1 May 2009 (UTC).

I agree. Much more work is required. Plus large sections are badly written, bad grammar and English usage. Needs lot of work - Jokester99 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jokester99 (talk • contribs) 08:41, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Missing material?

The second section, titled "India's first Prime Minister", begins with the sentence:

"Nehru and his colleagues had been released as the British Cabinet Mission arrived to propose plans for transfer of power."

This seems to be missing an introduction of who these colleagues were, and what they were released from. I surmise from my limited knowledge of Indian history that this is in reference to British detention of INC leaders during the "Quit India" movement circa 1942. Can anyone supply the historical data on Nehru's imprisonment and release to clarify this section in context? Caliban93 (talk) 00:19, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, there is a huge disconnect in the article. Could be missing material. A lot of it if it were the case. Could someone look to put in sections on Role in Independence Movement (Early and Late), Association with M K Gandhi, Partition and Prime Minister at Independence. ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jokester99 (talk • contribs) 19:02, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

His contributions in terms of books needs to be highlighted too

I feel that Anju Chandran hit the nail on the head by mentioning that his "discovery of india" is a discovery of india as well as an understanding of the enigma called nehru. His letters to his daughter while in prison show what education meant to him. "Discovery of India" is an exquisite work and needs to be prominently mentioned in any article about chacha nehru. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bssrinivasa (talk • contribs) 17:43, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Really an atheist?

Was Nehru really an outspoken atheist? Not only "religiously indifferent" or something like that, but really an openly confessing non-believer in God? Are there sources formada that? Thanks in advance.--213.196.249.194 (talk) 00:23, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

he loves children very much thats why he called as "chacha". he changed his birthda into "balala dinosthavam" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.200.17.84 (talk) 00:34, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

If the previous post is an answer to the atheist question, it is nonsensical to me, and at least incoherent. I don't understand why Nehru's religious beliefs were suddenly listed as Hindu, and would like to point out numerous references to his non-belief and hatred of organized religion. His verbatim statements at least destroy the claim that he was a Hindu (http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Jawaharlal_Nehru), he is claimed as an agnostic (http://www.beliefnet.com/Faiths/Hinduism/2003/12/The-End-Of-Nehrus-Dream.aspx, http://www.hvk.org/articles/0497/0079.html, etc.), and as an atheist (http://www.michaelnugent.com/resources/famous-atheists/dead-atheists-society/, http://brainz.org/50-most-brilliant-atheists-all-time/, http://www.mahalo.com/jawaharlal-nehru, etc.). Other sources discuss his open contempt for religious rituals and open questioning of the concept of a "God"; they also suggest that he was partial to the non-supernatural elements of Buddhism and Taoism, but in no way suggest that he believed in any sort of theos or god (http://www.thehindu.com/2009/11/06/stories/2009110654031203.htm, http://books.google.com/books?id=0us3TambWogC&pg=PA225&lpg=PA225&dq=nehru%27s+religion&source=bl&ots=RGACmOmfFt&sig=DJy8dpWNHmfnP6_q9mnOKQRsm2Q&hl=en&ei=E48VS93nCtGflAfZncjSBQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=5&ved=0CBcQ6AEwBDgK#v=onepage&q=nehru%27s%20religion&f=false). Unless someone has a more authoritative source where Nehru is quoted directly stating his stance on Gods and religions, I submit that he was a skeptic and nonbeliever and will restore that part of the article. Kilternkafuffle (talk) 22:21, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Merge from An Autobiography

I have suggested that An Autobiography (Nehru) be merged into this topic because the book is apparently not notable enough on its own outside the context of this article. -- Mikeblas (talk) 18:23, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

• I strongly oppose the merger. The New York Times review published in 1941 quotes John Gunther as saying "not only [is it] an autobiography of a most searching kind but also the story of a whole society, the story of the life and development as a nation." This book says it was a bestseller, etc etc, and there's a lot more of that. It's clearly notable on its own. -SpacemanSpiff 18:46, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose merger of course, for a book of such historical and literary importance. The article needs to be sourced and improved though. Does anyone know if Toward freedom, the autobiography of Nehru, is just a revised version issued another a different name, or a new book altogether ? The two autobiographies were first published in 1936 and 1941 respectively, as far as I can gather. Abecedare (talk) 19:20, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Nehru's Legacy

The section on Legacy presents a Congress POV rather than a neutral one.Nehru was directly or indirectly responsible for most/all of the problems faced presently by India: Kashmir dispute, border dispute with China, Ramjanmabhoomi, reservations, license raj mindset, etc., which he should have sorted out in the early days of our independence. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.182.215.140 (talk) 03:10, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Comparing GDP growth

The article (now locked) has a mention of an Indian 4%+ GDP growth under Nehru. I believe this could use a bit of context. I propose (and store here during lock):

In setting a path for the economic policy after Independence, he choose from a set of options considerably more limited than those available today, and followed to a large degree the conventional wisdom among Indian academic economists of the time. India's growth rate in GDP stayed moderately above 4% during all the years that Nehru was Prime Minister. It is hard to know definitively how much growth there might have been with different economic policies: Predominantly capitalist Western Europe grew slightly faster than India during the Nehru years (especially during the decade after WWII); but so did the command economies of communist China and the Soviet Union. The strongly capitalist USA grew somewhat more slowly, as did most of the newly independent nations that followed WWII (with the exception of oil producing nations).

(comment by Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters)

see Economy_of_India#Post-Independence_Economy, the chart in the section, Milton Friedman's quote and follow the references used, to answer your question on why growth was stunted. A few thoughts on your assertions:

• Post-independent india should be compared with newly independent China and other Asian countries which registered impressive growths. One can very well point to the growth rate of East Asian Tigers as the answer the question It is hard to know definitively how much growth there might have been with different economic policies.
• followed to a large degree the conventional wisdom among academic economists -> probably academic ecnomists in developing countries and most of the other Asian/African countries were inspired by the Indian example set by Nehru and P C Mahalanobis. pamri 07:37, July 28, 2005 (UTC)

There are some pretty strong disanalogies, to my mind, between India in 1955 and Singapore in 1985 (re. the East Asian Tigers point). The global economic situation changed quite a lot in three decades. An export-driven economy is a very different matter for a geographically tiny country with <5M people than it is for a traditionally agricultural and geographically huge country with 500M+ people. And so on. Economic plans don't scale over two orders of magnitude seamlessly. (and Friedman's moneterist approach is contentious, and mostly wrong, in any case).

I'm not trying to claim that India definitively either could or could not have achieved more than 4%-ish growth during Nehru's tenure in some counterfactual world. I just think that any claim about this is far from self-evident, nor even provable. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 16:32, 2005 July 28 (UTC)

No doubt, analogies can't be drawn out of comparisons between India and the East Asian Tigers (BTW, I had South Korea in mind, not Singapore). But still, the fact is India was one of the slowest growing economies between 1950-1980 and its growth was slower than China during that period. One very believable hypotheses to whether, India could have exceed the Hindu rate of growth is that during 1980's, it indeed exceeded it. And the reason was, the pro-business reforms initiated by Indira Gandhi (foreign trade was still not liberalised), which encouraged growth in the private sector, which was stifled under Nehru's policy of industrial licensing. pamri 17:24, July 28, 2005 (UTC)

Korea is certainly quite a bit larger than Singapore, but still quite a lot smaller than India. China would seem like a better analogy in size and population, even in geography: Of course, China was much more of a centralized command-economy between 1950-80 than was India, not less. While such might not be your point, pamri, some previous free marketers (notably the annoying Nehru-Stalin vandal) seemed to want to push the idea that unregulated markets always outperform centralized economies, which the China example argues strongly against, not for.

Moreoever, the story of African post-Independence (mostly independent in that 1950-80 timeframe) was far worse, regardless of the degree of centralization vs. marketization they adopted. As in, negative growth in most of Africa bad! To my mind, that result had to do with mechanisms of neo-colonialism, which the individual countries (or even the Africa League) had little control over. Would a more market-oriented India have escaped "Africanization" in the 1960s? I dunno; But I don't think any other editors know for sure either.

IMO, something along the lines of my "some did better, some did worse" generality is more neutral than claiming to know specific counterfactual facts, at least for WP (argue whatever position you like for an economics journal, of course). Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 21:22, 2005 July 28 (UTC)

I've take the liberty of inserting the above rewrite. --Calton | Talk 07:40, August 30, 2005 (UTC)

VANDALISM

Much of this article appears to be vandalism, especially in light of the extremely well-written article that existed approximately six months ago.. I propose a mass cleanup and/or reverting to the original article.

I went through changes over the last 6 months and removed a few libelous claims. Other changes seemed technical, and thus further improvement might need actual editing and writing, with references (much of past text was completely unreferenced). Materialscientist (talk) 08:16, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

I've also removed a few things that seemed dodgy- for instance: "Keeping the Kashmir issue alive has ensured continued victory of congress party in India. Nehru's daughter Indira Gandhi also displayed extreme arrogance while dealing with Kashmir issue and kept it alive for political gains" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ray564k (talk • contribs) 19:29, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Kashmiri roots

Nehru was a kashmiri pandit. His roots are not mentioned here. Please also include his name in Kashmiri language in the introduction. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.90.100.176 (talk) 06:37, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Citation needed

Why is a citation needed under 'nepotism' when Nehru's daughter became congress leader? Isn't that a pretty fair description? The citation would only be a repetition of what was just said. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.104.147.124 (talk) 13:08, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Didn't see this note before I reverted. WP:NOR applies, we don't come to conclusions here, reliable sources have to do that, and we just report it. —SpacemanSpiff 17:08, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Why No "personal life" section?

Much to my surprise there is hardly any mention of his personal life. No mention of; *his parents *born where?, to what family? *married whom?when? .Just drawing the attention of editors. Arjun⁰²⁴ 12:10, 13 May 2010 (UTC) - Did it myself .Arjun^codename024 08:34, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Needs some serious work

This article doesn't hold together too well. Under his "political apprenticeship" the first thing we are told is that he and his colleagues were "released". From what?

The comment about whether he was Ghandi's "successor" is out or context and there is nothing of any substance in his career beore 1947.

His alleged afair with Lady mountabatten in the 40s is dicsussed under his early life immediately after mentioning his 1916 marriage.

Unfortunately i don't know enough about him to do much work on this, but such a significant figure deserves a better wikipedia page Epeeist smudge (talk) 07:55, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

There are some doubts on the origin of Nehru Family??

There has been some doubts in place regarding the origin of Nehru Family as some claim that they were not Kashmiri Brahmins and they adopted the name Nehru as a reminisient of their Persian origin. Father of Motilal Nehru, Ganga Dhar as claimed, was actually City Kotwal of Delhi officed at Lahori Gate under Moghul Emperor Bahadur Shah Zafar regime during first mutiny in 1857; and his actual name was Ghiyasuddin Ghazi. He adopted this alias as "Ganga Dhar" to escape East India Company killings after a long fight. some of the links are as follows : http://forums.sulekha.com/forums/coffeehouse/father-of-moti-lal-nehru-the-story-of-gangadhar.htm

Readers need to be cautious about these claims and must do their own research in order to arrive at conclusion59.95.97.105 (talk) 18:07, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Better Photograph, please?

Come on, guys, can't someone get a better picture of the man to start off the article (not in very good shape, by the way)? If you haven't noticed, the current one appears to have him rubbing his hands together, and looking down with a manner of ingratiating smile on his face - strangely Dickensian, I thought - I'm sure someone can find something that more appropriately reflects the man's stature in history and the charisma that was evident in his lifetime. TathD (talk) 15:04, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

File:Nehrudeath.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Nehrudeath.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: Wikipedia files with no non-free use rationale as of 3 December 2011 What should I do? Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page. If the image is non-free then you may need to provide a fair use rationale If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale, then it cannot be uploaded or used. If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Deletion Review This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 12:07, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

File:Nehru in Kashmir House, The Doon School.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Nehru in Kashmir House, The Doon School.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests January 2012 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 22:59, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Facts twisted.

Hi,

When Mr. Jawaharlal Nehru was elected to lead India as the first priminister of India, it is a well known fact that he had lost the Congress party member's confidence and their support. It was supposed to be India's Iron Man Mr. Vallabhai Patel was to lead India into the air of freedom at that point of time. However, it was due to the arm twisting techniques of Mr. Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi threatening to go on a fast until the congress party members supported Mr. Nehru to be the Indian Prime Minister. At the same time, Mr. Gandhi had also made his appeal to Mr. Patel to back down and allow Mr. Nehru to establish the control. Mr. Patel due to his unquestioned devotion to Mr. Gandhi relented and Mr. Nehru was thus honoured with the title of the first Prime Minister of India. How come this is not discussed under the Controversies column of this article in Wikipedia? Or the more surprising fact is how come there is no controversies column to this article? I question the authenticity of this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Snk1980 (talk • contribs) 08:42, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

You really must learn to read each section properly. That's a misconception; just because an article doesn't have a controversies section, it doesn't mean that the article isn't neutral. It is perfectly acceptable to integrate criticism in the article. Criticism exists in the relevant sections. Thanks, Lynch7 08:46, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

As for the controversy you mention, feel free to add it; just remember that you have to cite reliable sources for your edit. Just mentioning that it is a "well known fact" isn't really enough. Thanks, Lynch7 08:48, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

ANTI-HINDU NEHRU

As a true hindu myself i dont believe in distorting history and taunting any one but at the same time i will not allow "CONGRESS" "LEFTIST" AND "MUSLIMS" to distort history.

Nehru was termed ANTI-HINDU by many leaders including SC BOSE, MORARJI DESAI, VALLABHAI PATEL.

http://books.google.co.in/books?id=Ye3VUMLhaz8C&pg=PA103&dq=nehru+anti+hindu&hl=en&sa=X&ei=J5fIT8vpD8zNrQf2-NyqDg&ved=0CDgQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=nehru%20anti%20hindu&f=false

None of them were HINDU NATIONALISTS but they too agree that NEHRU POSSESSED TYPICAL ANTI HINDU MINDSET AND I AM ADDING A NEW SECTION ON THIS PAGE.ABDEVILLIERS0007 (talk) 10:22, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

The contributions made in the form of additions to the "Anti-Hindu Image", "Indo-Sino War" and "Economic Policies" sections are extremely sloppily written and sound like they display an extreme bias; in other words, they do not sound like something you'd read in an encyclopedia. I don't think it's a transgression to raise awareness of a bias Nehru may have had (as some of the books referenced did a good job of representing that in a balanced way) but the manner in which it was carried out in this article was very unprofessional.

90.212.85.18 (talk) 22:41, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

had a look at the books used as a souce. good god. it states the creation of Pakistan was the work of Nehru, Sardar Patel and Maulana Azad. It claims Jinnah was not responsible. Seriously what in the world? There needs to be a better source. The book seems to have been written by a raving lunatic blaming Congress leaders Nehru(secular), Azad(secular) and Patel(bit of a Hindu nationalist) for the partition. so apparently the hindu nationalist and the secular duo were to blame for the partition? the muslim nationalist Jinnah was obviously an angel. hah Cliniic (talk) 17:42, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

read the book sections cited as a source. what a farce! Book said one thing and the editor cited it to support another thing. All these talk about anti-hinduism by leaders like Lala Rajpat was focused on Motilal Nehru's secularism and refusal to perform certain religious rites (like "cleansing" himself after coming back from overseas). Jawaharlal Nehru has been criticized by hindu nationalists for his secular policy yes but not for these things. Cliniic (talk) 18:02, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

You are wrong if you CLAIM NEHRU was secular, why he "ALLOWED MUSLIM PERSONAL LAW TO CONTINUE" even though he changed all the HINDU LAWS AND HINDU MARRIAGE ACT, but he allowed Muslim personal law to continue, under Muslim personal law a "MUSLIM WOMEN CANNOT EVEN CLAIM DIVORCE ONLY MEN CAN GIVE WOMEN DIVORCE SIMILARLY A DIVORCED MUSLIM WOMEN IS NOT ENTITLED TO ALIMONY" these are draconian rules against "MUSLIM WOMEN" then why do your SECULAR NEHRU reform these laws. Similarly construction of Somnath is "HINDU NATIONALIST" then how will you justify "HAJ SUBSIDY STARTED BY NEHRU"ABDEVILLIERS0007 (talk) 08:11, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

the link you deleted from INDO-SINO war was written and supported by INDIAN ARMY CHIEF KM CARIAPPA AND KS THIMMAYYA and you deleted it just to fullfill your ISLAMIC ZEAL. Next time you change anything better discuss it ABDEVILLIERS0007 (talk) 08:13, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

dude seriously? have you not read the sources cited? here let me put it to you "They charged Motilal with apostasy and anti Hinduism", they dropped hints he might even be eating beef. In the elections of 1924, the Swaraj party, led by Motilal was accused of being 'anti-HINDU' by Lala Lajpat Rai and Madan Mohan Malviya." What you are citing to write an article on Nehru was a critique of MOTILAL NEHRU. your second source by Zacharias smith fairly covers the somnath issue aka why Nehru opposed it and why some others wanted it. But how on earth did you come to the conclusion that it supported your Nehru was anti-hindu rant? it does not. Cliniic (talk) 15:39, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

thirdly if you just happen to read the foreign policy and national security section you would see I wrote an article CRITICAL of Nehru for India's defeat in the war. yours is just ranting no offense and has such stuff has no place in a encyclopedia. Cliniic (talk) 15:42, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Cliniic, It is best to ignore ABDEVILLIERS007. He is peddling highly inflammatory views and will soon be banned from Wikipedia (if he doesn't mend his ways). Fowler&fowler«Talk» 02:43, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

cheers! I think the administrators are already on to him.Cliniic (talk) 16:23, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

article expansion

I am currently rewriting and expanding the article. anybody who wishes to help can look over my grammar. English is not my first language. thanks in advance Cliniic (talk) 01:42, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

ok i have put in some copy edit tags on sections i need help on. if anyone is interested please edit them for grammer style etc.Cliniic (talk) 11:10, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

You should get someone in the Wikipedia League of Copy Editors to go over the article. I notice many grammatical and stylistic errors. I also notice peacock language in what you have added. There are many unsourced sentences. Frank Moraes is a dated reference. The book was written in the early 1960s. A 2008 reprint doesn't make it a modern reference. You will have to read more scholarly references to constructively contribute to this article. This is a former feature article, I believe. Regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 02:41, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

ok thanks for the advice. To be honest, I edited the article in a rush last week. I was in midst of rewriting the Indira Gandhi article (working on it for months ) and then I dropped into this page to grab some links and I saw people butchering it. so I kind of just rushed to save it and fill in the blanks.

ps - i cant believe this was a featured article. it barely mentioned Nehru's role in the freedom struggle before i added stuff in.Cliniic (talk) 16:17, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

do you you think I should rewrite everything in the manner (basic summary) I wrote the the education subsection? cheers for all the advice again.Cliniic (talk) 16:21, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Lawyer

NehruJunky (talk · contribs) has been gratuitously inserting "lawyer" in the lead sentence of this article as a description of Nehru. The lead sentence carries only the essential description of the subject. Nehru's abortive attempt at practising law for a year or two is irrelevant to that essential description.

Bill Clinton and Barack Obama, both having taught law at a university, had longer legal careers than Nehru. However, their Wikipedia pages do not mention law in the lead sentences. Rightly, they only mention the American presidency. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:43, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Removing personal insults

Agree that personal insults have to be removed but I recently came across this page : http://krishnajnehru.blogspot.in/ which talks about the life of Nehru Dynasty.. Mostly written by M.O. MATHAI, Nehru's steno in his book "Reminiscences of the Nehru Age". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pharic (talk • contribs) 13:02, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

I will go through momentarily, and remove all the posts from our anonymous vandal (67.121.*) that are direct personal insults. This is per Wikipedia:Remove_personal_attacks. Not sure how much of the POV vandal's material this will leave; but getting rid of personal attacks is more important than maintaining continuity. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 15:56, 2005 Jun 9 (UTC)

Goodbye! I am not going to fight for getting facts across (...personal attack...). Since you have ended the discussion by refusing to allow me to even place the facts here, it is pointless to even attempt discussing anything with you. After all, you did not even know that India had institutions like Birla Engineering College, Bose Institute, Indian Association for Cultivation of Science and Indian Institute of Science. (...personal attack...). You even lie that India was not a planned economy under Nehru. (...personal attack...) made you learn everything from me in the course of this discussion. (...personal attack...), you did not know about production limits, planning commission and food rationing. I will not waste my time on this page anymore.

More selectively removed only the personal attacks from the previous 67.121.* comment.

Obviously, I've made an effort in my abridgements to leave anything of actual content by 67.121.*, removing only the personal attack violations. Not that I much agree with the content s/he alleges, but as long as it is not personal attack, it should be retained on the talk page. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 03:34, 2005 Jun 10 (UTC)

Playboy interview?

According to Wikipedia's List of people in Playboy 1960–1969, Nehru appears to be the first sitting international leader to submit to an interview in Playboy magazine (October, 1964). Perhaps this should be mentioned?

Actually, it turned out to be a copy-paste exercise, tarnishing Playboy's image. Read this: [4] Nehru, being human had his own follies but that doesn't mean we should tarnish the image of this great man.--174.2.8.221 (talk) 08:57, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

in popular culture

additions to be made about an upcoming film refrence http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/india/6392593/Film-about-Nehrus-love-affair-with-Edwina-Mountbatten-shelved.html

-isptraack

pandit jawaharlal nehru was a kind and lovable person.he loved children very much and so 14th november is celebrated as childrens day.he used to keep a rose on his coat. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 111.91.119.26 (talk) 15:18, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

jawahar lal nehru de great

jawaharlal nehru was very brave accordung to his expressions but really couldnt fight against brrrrritishers alone he required the support of gandhi ji who always with him and supported him possitively always till the day india got freedom.they were all the brave soldiers in tems of independence against britishers..... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.199.123.127 (talk) 15:08, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Nehru was not hindu

well he maybe born to a Kashmiri pandit family but his family has left Hinduism very early, even his father motilal Nehru wrote articles who cannot be written by a hindu, further their are many comments(many is frustration) though that "Nehru is hindu by accident" , he used his Brahmin identity only for votes otherwise he was never following Hinduism, his hatred against hindu was so deep rooted that the less we talk about it better it is. 14.96.97.217 (talk) 14:02, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 7 March 2013

117.206.145.104 (talk) 15:23, 7 March 2013 (UTC) he is not a person to be appointed as 1st PM of India .there should be THE IRON MAN OF INDIA SARDAR VALLABHBHAI PATEL .'Bold text'

Not done: Incoherent "request". —KuyaBriBri^Talk 18:48, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Four assassination attempts on Nehru

Why is this never talked about? There was one assassination attempt on him in 1947 while he was visiting NWFP in Pakistan in a car (source: Mathai, 1978. Reminiscences of the Nehru Age). The second one was by a knife-wielding rickshaw-puller in Maharashtra in 1955 (Source Gettysberg Times [5], Sarasota Herald Tribune [6], The Victoria Advocate [7]. The Telegraph 12 March 1955 [8], list of sources:[9]). The third one happened in Bombay (now in Maharashtra) in 1956 (Source: The Miami News [10], Altus Times-Democrat[11], Oxnard Press-Courier[12]. 4 June 1956). The fourth one was a failed bombing attempt on train tracks in Maharashtra in 1961 (Source Toledo Blade [13]). --174.2.8.221 (talk) 10:01, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Not done: While this may be a good discussion topic for the talk page, it's not fit for an edit request. Anything you want changed in this way should be in the form of "Change X to Y". You've apparently done some research here - my suggestion is that you create an account and spend a few days making some other edits, at which point you'll be able to edit this article yourself. --ElHef (Meep?) 20:11, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 4 May 2013 -- I added a necessary article to the Nehru page on Wikipedia

He was "taken ill in early hours" of 27 May 1964 and died in "early afternoon" on same day,

He was "taken ill in early hours" of 27 May 1964 and died in "early afternoon" on the same day,

99.20.65.60 (talk) 15:36, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Done RudolfRed (talk) 16:53, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Religion

What was his religion? Hinduism? Was Ganga Dhar Nehru his grand father who was a Mughal. This things should be cleared. Please reply.Ovsek (talk) 15:04, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

I am doubting too, because he was cremated as per hindu rites. And his admiration for bhagvad gita is notable too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.169.9.129 (talk) 16:08, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

This one needs attention, because i have seen his autobiography, "Jawaharlal Nehru, an autobiography: with musings on recent events in India" from 1955, it reads at one page that "For the first time i began to think, consciously and deliberately of religion and other worlds. The Hindu religion especially went up in my estimation; not the ritual or ceremonial part, but it's great books, the "Upnishads", and the "Bhagvad Gita"..." there he is even submitting that he recited verses of these books with Mahatma Gandhi in evening.Capitals00 (talk) 16:40, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

For now, i have removed the "religion" part, because his religion was possibly not atheist agnostic, considering he hasn't mentioned it anywhere in his autobiographies. Second hand sources must not be collected because same allegations of being "atheist agnostic" also applies on some others, like mustafa kemal. Capitals00 (talk) 17:57, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

I've reverted your edits because his agnosticism has been exhaustively documented. Your personal analysis is irrelevant. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 01:03, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

So you are saying that his own autobiography is less credible than the propaganda? For your information, there are huge documentation of the atheism of Mustafa Kemal, but doesn't means he was atheist/agnostic either.Capitals00 (talk) 03:09, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Was remembering one of his quote, about Hinduism which goes like:-

" The statue of Nataraja (dance pose of Lord Shiva) is a well known example for the artistic, scientific and philosophical significance of Hinduism." And "The Bhagavad Gita and the Upanishads contain such godlike fullness of wisdom on all things that I feel the authors must have looked with calm remembrance back through a thousand passionate lives, full of feverish strife for and with shadows, ere they could have written with such certainty of things which the soul feels to be sure." [14] Such thoughts/reactions are far from being atheist or agnostic. Capitals00 (talk) 03:48, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

That's actually a quote from George Russell, but even if it were something Nehru had said, an anonymous Wikipedia user is not a more reliable source for interpreting Nehru's life and writings than people who have credentials. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:54, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

I can't see if you are backing your point, which 'anonymous wikipedia' user? Again, no one could be more reliable than Nehru himself, when it's about his religious belief, there are many gossips, and rumors around, doesn't make any of them to be true, now i can collect 4 sources that obama is a muslim, but in real, he is not. Capitals00 (talk) 04:23, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Edited now. Capitals00 (talk) 00:04, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

@ Roscelese, since you have refrained from discussing, then why you are still reverting the edit back? Once again, just because someone calls him agnostic, sarcastically, after his death, doesn't means that it makes him agnostic, since he never admitted it himself. Capitals00 (talk) 00:34, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

@Capitals00, i made the the change, which is similar to David Ben-Gurion as atheism is recognized in hinduism as well. I will look into this more, that how to add other texts, later. InfocenterM (talk) 09:51, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

The reliable sources mentioned clearly terms him as an atheist or an agnostic. Rahul Jain (talk) 11:51, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

More reliable sources mentions Mustafa Kemal as "atheist" or "jewish", and obama as "muslim". Doesn't means we have to buy such nonsense? Capitals00 (talk) 13:53, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

"Hinduism can include many cultural bases. Jawaharlal Nehru said to George Bernard Shaw: "We are both atheists but the difference between us is that I am a Hindu atheist and you are a Christian atheist"..." Sourced it as well. That would be enough.InfocenterM (talk) 14:20, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

I've reverted your edit because that's not a reliable source. It is a record of a debate where a particular Member of Parliament quoted that supposed remark on the floor, but you can say anything whether or not it's true and the record of the debate will still reflect what you said, it's not fact-checked. I can only find the quote in material related to this debate, and not in any other sources. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 02:37, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Rajmohan Gandhi's "Boatman" ref

Hello,

Whoever placed the Rajmohan Gandhi - "Good Boatman" references had made a problematic insertion in my opinion:

(1) In his book Patel: A Life Gandhi NEVER called Patel an un-all India leader. The assertions in the edits could not have been made by the same man.

The problems with Muslims were a perceived flaw in Patel, but the edits cut him down as if he were genuinely controversial.

(2) WHY WOULD A MAJORITY OF CONGRESS vote for Patel if he was not a genuinely all-India leader?

(3) Azad, Kripalani, Prasad were not involved in the 1946 presidential elections. Kripalani had received the vote of one PCC, which he used to endorse Nehru.

I find it hard to believe that R. Gandhi made different assertions in different books. There is obviously no harm in putting up alternatives to the 1946 election controversy explanation, but this is a dubious insert.

Jai Sri Rama! User:Rama's Arrow.

nehru-mountbatten affair

An important part of his life is not adeqately elaborated

intresting refrence to this article source: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-1216186/The-shocking-love-triangle-Lord-Mountbatten-wife-founder-modern-India.html http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-1085883/The-royal-gigolo-Edwina-Mountbatten-sued-claims-affair-black-singer-Paul-Robeson-But-truth-outrageous-.html http://rupeenews.com/2009/11/edwina-nehru-affair-was-sexual-catherine-clement/

Personal life

Don't you think that the page should be merged into 2nd section, because much of personal life related content exists at "early life and career(1889-1912)". Capitals00 (talk) 00:04, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Patel was chosen as PM instead of Nehru

There is no mentioning of the fact that the Members of Parliament chose Patel over Nehru as PM. However due to Nehru's insistence and appetite for becoming PM, Gandhi asked Patel to withdraw himself from PM's race and instead let Nehru become PM. This should be mentioned in the biography of Nehru along with his affair with Mountbatten's wife. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.212.144.141 (talk) 06:16, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Assassination attempts and security (edit request)

There have been four known assassination attempts on Nehru. The first was attempt on his life was in 1947 while he was visiting NWFP (now in Pakistan) in a car . The second one was by a knife-wielding rickshaw-puller in Maharashtra in 1955 [15]. The third one happened in Bombay (now in Maharashtra) in 1956.. The fourth one was a failed bombing attempt on train tracks in Maharashtra in 1961. Despite threats to his life, Nehru despised having too much security around him and did not like to disrupt traffic due to his movement.

Hello. Please add the above. Nehru is an historic figure and as such, it is important that facts like these about his life be mentioned. --70.76.85.36 (talk) 10:35, 13 August 2013 (UTC)