criticize the ideas of nehru on democracy
Answers
Answer:
political system for choosing and replacing the government through free and fair elections; the active participation of the people, as citizens
Answer:
Jawaharlal Nehru
Nehru’s legacy lives on, encouraging his real legatees, the people of India, to cherish democratic ideals of pluralism and secularism. He famously told an interviewer in 1961, three years before he died, that he didn’t plan a dynasty because he was incapable of ruling from the grave.
When he died in 1964, Jawaharlal Nehru's legacy to the nation and the world seemed secure. A towering figure in national politics and on the international stage, the reflective, mercurial Nehru had — in innumerable books and speeches, but also in his conduct as a Prime Minister — developed and articulated a worldview that embodied the aspirations of his generation, of his country and (many believed) of the developing postcolonial world as a whole.
“We are all Nehruvians,” a senior Indian official told me 13 years later, with conviction and pride, of his colleagues in the Indian ruling establishment.
Four decades after that remark was made to me, there are few Nehruvians in office. Indeed, Nehruvianism seems to have lost both power and allure.
Nehru is criticized, even derided, by votaries of an alternative version of Indian nationalism, one that claims to be more deeply rooted in the land (and therefore in its religious traditions and customary prejudices).
His mistakes are magnified, his achievements belittled. The Prime Minister regularly goes after Nehru, accusing him and his family of monopolizing India’s institutions and installing a dynasty.
So it does not come as a surprise that this newspaper has asked me to write on “whether Nehru was a narcissist, obsessed with power, who did not allow others to rise”.
But it is deeply disappointing that such an a-historical question should be asked at all.