Summary of article and book chapter.

the unity of India’ by Jawaharlal Nehru

In the article ‘the unity of India’ by Jawaharlal Nehru, he introduces the

problem which is raised by the Americans. It is said that Americans are bred up
in democratic traditions and they sympathize with the Indian struggle for
freedom. They hate the colonialism and imperialism. They dislike the
domination and exploitation done in colonialism.
Yet they are perplexed when they consider the problem of India. they are
hesitant and doubtful if India can unite with such a big diversity, separatist
element, conflict of religion and culture, geographical diversity, so many
languages, and moreover the general backwardness of the Indians.
The answer to the question starts with an elaboration of the problem. the
criticism of the British and the present scenario of India. he argues that there is
no democratic system at all, the British parliament is too far and too ignorant.
India is a very rich country but the people are backward, poor, and illiterate.
India does not have proper medical relief and sanitation. Nehru argues that the
very backwardness of the people is a condemnation of its government.
India is a vast country and its problems are continental. To unite such a big
country is a difficult task. In a way, the British have provided India the political
unity with the advent of transport and communication.
He then draws similarities with Americans in the way both countries are united
by transport and communication but later criticizes it by stating that in absence
of the transport and communication America would have been split up into
small units of nation.
Before the advent of communication and transport, India was politically united
politically and this persisted in many kingdoms India saw. For example Ashoka.
Indians only consider their local freedom and their local leaders who fulfill their
interests rather than in the machinery of government and direct rule of the king.
Kings at the top kept changing but there was no change in the society at the
local level. Later kings gradually built up their aristocratic power.
Innumerable people, conquerors, settlers, pilgrims, and students, have come to
India and have influenced Indian life and culture. Yet India remained India. just
like the ocean receives water from rivers.
India has a fundamental unity this unity was cultural which is tolerant, adaptive,
and receptive. And this is the strength of India. though there are many evil
practices India continued to progress and was united throughout. Many sects
like Buddhism, bhakti movement, etc challenged those practices but India
assimilated all its challengers. The man behind the unity of India is
Shankaracharya who roamed all around India debating and discussing ideas.
There was continuous transport and intercourse of people for example people
going to 4 Dham. There they meet the diversity, they debate, discuss and get to
know that they are not the other but they are ours.
Today India is becoming rigid and static. Rationalism favored few and because
of this India saw growth of conservatism. British economic model favored few.
Britsh achieved political unity and by their advent, it gave rise to nationalism
which was the natural outcome of fundamental unity.
Nationalism in India shook the foundations of British rule through peaceful
rebellion Voluntary involvement of people, united pan-India actions, disciplined
sacrifices, and no other identity took over except that of being Indian. India is
singularly united so far as languages are concerned as the culture throughout is
the same. It is difficult to conceive of any separatist tendency which can break
up this unity.
India is discovering many economic and modern problems. When it comes to
important interests, the Government of India is in its shadow. The princes,
Indian vested interests, the imperial services, and others are also present.
Although the expansion of the electorate gives the new Indian Constitution
some influence in the provinces, it is primarily intended to safeguard these
special interests and maintain British imperialism in India.
The proposed federal structure, known as the Constitution, provides the feudal
Indian States permanent status and some authority to meddle in the affairs of the
rest of India. Imperialism, feudalism, and democracy as a whole are
incompatible with one another and can only result in the entrenchment of all
regressive components.
Democracy in India shall be established by democratic means only.
A Constituent Assembly chosen using the adult franchise must draught the
constitution of a free India without external interference. An Assembly that has
been so chosen will speak for all of the people and be much more concerned
with the general public's economic and social problems than with local, minor
issues that only affect a few people.
The other question arises that if independent India is strong enough to protect
herself from outside aggression and invasion. A variety of internal and external
factors influence a nation's relative power. Of course, India will take all
necessary measures to bolster her defenses. She will strictly avoid conflict and
adopt a policy of friendship with her neighbors and others.
Nehru foresees the possible aggressor. India needs a strategy of acquisition and
international peace. It is suggested that Japan could act as an aggressor. It's
stated that militarists in Japan aspire to dominance over Asia and even the entire
world. But before they can travel to India, they must the majority of people
believe is far beyond their capacity, and which at some point will involve a
battle with other Great Powers, crush and absorb the all of China. Hence there is
no great or obvious danger visible.
India has social evils with the authority of long tradition. Fascism is growing.
Now India has a new awakening the static society is now going to end, India
will soon become a dynamic country with its fundamental unity and political
unity of its own. India seeks synthesis with its past. India sees economic
advancements and industrialization. To achieve a balance between one's inner
self and one's ever-shifting outer world. It's odd how rare that harmony is in
today's environment. india goes after it heedlessly. We will have to slog through
the deserts of conflict, hatred, and mutual destruction until we find it.
‘NEHRU ON INDIA AND THE WORLD’ from 'who is Bharat Mata?': on
history, culture and the idea of india: writings by and on Jawaharlal Nehru
(pg no. 66 – pg no.85)
The search for India
Nehru disagrees with India being identified as a human entity but Even though
its citizens may differ greatly from one another, a nation with a rich cultural
heritage and a shared philosophy on life creates a spirit that is unique to it and is
imprinted on all of its children. It was because of the spirit of India that Nehru
wanted to know what India actually is. Parts of India differs from each other yet
they are united by India. The swaraj is for all no matter who one is and from
where he/ she belongs to. The whole of India has identical issues like poverty,
debt, vested interests, landlords, moneylenders, heavy rents and taxes, and
police harassment.
Whenever Nehru goes to any public gathering he hears Bharat Mata ki jay. He
always asks the question to people what really is Bharat Mata and hears
complete silence. Then one Jatt would stand up and argue that Bharat Mata
means the motherland Then Nehru used to cross-question which land, those
barren desserts, your village, the district or province, or in the whole of India?
Later then Nehru answers that Bharat is the millions of people of India victory
to Bharat meant victory to them.
The Indian Philosophical approach
We all have a philosophy of life, whether conscious or unconscious. If it wasn't
fully thought out, it was either inherited or accepted from others and taken for
granted. Alternatively, we could put our faith in a particular religious doctrine
or dogma, in national destiny, or in a comforting and nebulous humanitarianism
to protect us from the dangers of thought. Nehru accepts his contradictions and
has corrected over time.
He argues that India greater unity and harmony in the human personality. We
Indians were united fundamentally That unity has been dispersed, but we
haven't been able to locate another one yet. We continue to adhere to dogmatic
religious ideas, outdated customs, and traditions while claiming to speak and
live by the scientific method. It was easier to develop harmony and human
personality in ancient and medieval period. India's traditional view of social
structure
and the underlying concept of life have continued, to some extent, to
the current time. They could not have accomplished this without some kind of
virtue.
which maintained society and adapted it to the realities of life. But, in any
event, they cannot be considered today as isolated phenomena; they must be
viewed in that world context and made to harmonize with it.
In India, religion is far from a dogma, but rather a working theory of human
behaviour, adjusted to various levels of spiritual maturity and societal contexts.
A working theory of human behaviour must function and conform to life, or it
obstructs life. A dogma may continue to be held in isolation from life. Meta
physical theory and speculations have a certain permanence which is not
affected by external changes. Buddhitst philosophy and other different branches
of hinsuism played an important part in this process and, during the medieval
period. Islam left its mark on the country's viewpoint both directly and
indirectly through the emergence of new sects that aimed to reconcile Hinduism
with the Islamic social and religious system. However, in general, the six
systems of Indian philosophy, or darshanas as they are known, have had a
prevailing impact i.e
1. Nyay
2. Vaisheshika
3. Samkhya
4. Ashtanga Yoga
5. Purva Mimamsa
6. Uttara Mimamsa or Vedanta
They are all regarded as orthodox, although despite having many similar
principles, they all use different approaches and reach different results. In their
unity and diversity, the many sides of the multifaceted and open-minded Indian
intellect are displayed. There is a common presumption that universe functions
orderly and on law and this presumption is necessary otherwise it would be hard
to explain.
People rely on and apply logic and reason successfully for an argument, but it is
acknowledged that intuition is frequently superior. unlike either. The overall
argument is sound insofar as it follows Reason is frequently used in situations
outside of its purview. Instructor Keith has emphasized that the systems are in
fact orthodox and acknowledge the authority of the holy books, yet they
approach the issues of life with Scripture and human resources are used for all
practical purposes except lending results that are obtained not just without its
assistance but frequently in very questionable alignment with its principles.
India old and new
Nehru was shocked and curious how large numbers of our intelligentsia, to the
end of the nineteenth century, accepted, consciously or unconsciously, the
British ideology of empire.
They built their own arguments on modernization. The history, economics, and
other subjects that were taught in schools and colleges were all written from the
perspective of the British Empire, placing emphasis on both the British virtues
and their high destiny while also highlighting our many flaws in the past and
present.
There was initially no intellectual as we lacked any additional information or
arguments, we looked for ways to escape it. the notion that at least in the field
of religious nationalism Philosophy and religion were our two strongest
subjects. We consoled. Considering that even if we are in our hardship and
degradation didn't have the flash and glitz of the West, but we did have the real
Inner article was far more valuable and desirable. Vivekananda and others, as
well as Western academics' curiosity in our ancient philosophies, restored some
of our self-respect and sparked our buried pride in our history.
In spite of the fact that we were increasingly challenging the British view of
history, economics, and administration in India, we kept operating under their
ideology. At the turn of the century, Indian nationalism as a whole held that
view. That continues to be the stance of the Liberal group, other smaller groups,
and a number of moderate Congressmen who occasionally move forward
emotionally but intellectually are stuck in the nineteenth century. As a result,
the Liberal is unable to understand the concept of Indian freedom because the
two are fundamentally incompatible.
India still had a majesty of soul that could be seen behind and inside its tattered
exterior. She had travelled for ages, gained a great deal of knowledge along the
way, traded with strangers and incorporated them into her large family, seen
days of glory and decay, endured humiliation and terrible sorrow, and observed
many strange sights; however, throughout her extensive travels, she had clung
to her ancient culture, drew strength and vitality from it, and shared it with other
lands. She had never completely forgotten the inspiration that some of the most
knowledgeable of her children had given her in the Upanishads at the beginning
of history, despite the terrible accumulations of superstition and demeaning
custom that had clung to her and brought her down. Their sharp minds, which
were constantly seeking and investigating, had not become complacent in the
habitual observance of dead forms, rituals, or creeds or sought refuge in
mindless dogma.
No region of India could be considered the centre of Indian culture because it
was present everywhere. The same ideas circulated from Cape Comorin to
Amarnath and Badrinath in the Himalayas, from Dwarka to Puri, and if there
was an idea clash in one place, the noise of it quickly spread to distant regions
of the country.
India transforms into Bharat Mata, Mother India, a stunning woman who is
quite old yet always looks youthful, sad-eyed and desolate, and who begs her
children to defend her from harsh strangers.

The culture of masses

The cultural heritage had a significant impact on their lives. It was impossible to
draw a distinction between any of the elements of this background, which
mixed popular philosophy, tradition, history, myth, and legend.
The Ramayana, the Mahabharata, and other ancient Indian epics were well
known to the general public in popular translations and paraphrases, and each
action, tale, and lesson included in them left an indelible impression on people's
minds, enriching and enlarging them. Illiterate villagers would memorize
hundreds of lines, and their talk would frequently allude to them or to some
morality tale from an antiquated classic.
Everywhere, there was poverty and its countless offspring, and every forehead
bore the beast's mark.
Numerous vices had developed as a result of life being crushed, distorted, and
turned into something evil, as well as from ongoing scarcity and constant
insecurity. The cultural legacy of thousands of years also included a mellowness
and gentleness, which no amount of misfortune could ever take away.
End of means
Men have little time to reflect, much less to examine values and aspirations, in
this world of relentless and frenetic activity. There is hope for the future only
when the young people who are currently enrolled in college and who will bear
the brunt of life's challenges tomorrow learn to have distinct goals and moral
standards. The previous generation produced some outstanding individuals, but
as a whole, it repeatedly brought the world to ruin.
It is likely that a conflict is waged to achieve specific goals. Instead of
eliminating a barrier to achieving the aim, the destruction of the enemy counts
as an objective in and of itself. If the goal is not met, then defeating the
opponent is merely a temporary reprieve and not really a win. Therefore, it
becomes imperative that we always have the true objective in mind, whether we
are in a state of war or peace, and that we strive to achieve it.
Even though the end is appropriate but the means are not, the wrong means will
taint the end or lead us astray. Thus, means and ends are intricately linked and
cannot be distinguished from one another. As Gandhi emphasises on the moral
values of satyagraha and non violence.
We were successful, and the way it was accomplished was maybe the most
important factor for which both parties deserve credit. There are few examples
in history of a similar disagreement being resolved peacefully and leading to
amicable and cooperative relations. It is amazing how quickly animosity and
bad blood between the two countries have subsided, making room for
cooperation.
Physical force does not always have to be the deciding factor in a person's fate,
and The way a battle is fought and how it is won are of utmost importance.
supreme importance Historical precedent demonstrates that Force physically has
been used. However, it also demonstrates to us that no such power
can Ultimately, disregard global moral influences.
Insofar as she was able, India tried to translate theory into practise, however
clumsily. She was a newbie to the family of nations and initially had little
power over others. She did, however, have one advantage. She possessed a lot
of prospective resources that, without a doubt, could help her gain more
authority and influence. She was unrestricted by the past, by old animosities or
relationships, by ancient claims or age-long rivalries, which was a larger
advantage. There was no longer any resentment, not even toward her previous
rulers. She had to inevitably think about her foreign policy in terms of
enlightened self-interest, but she also added a dash of her idealism. She has so
attempted to mesh idealism with the good of the country. The pursuit of peace
without aligning with any power or group of powers but rather by taking an
independent stance on each contentious or disputed issue, the liberation of
subject peoples, the maintenance of freedom on a national and personal level,
the abolition of racial discrimination, and the eradication of want, disease, and
ignorance, which affect the majority of the world's population, are the main
goals of that policy.
India support the democratic process and strive to expand its boundaries on both
the political and economic levels because no democracy can endure for very
long when there is hunger, poverty, and inequality. Our top priorities right now
are improving our economy and enhancing people's standards.
India firmly believes in non-alignment, but in situations where human liberty or
peace are at risk, we cannot and must not remain passive. Doing so would be a
betrayal of everything we have fought for and stand for.
The issue of race relations also exists. Some races have been tempted to believe
they are racially superior and have treated other nations with contempt because
of their advancements in knowledge or invention, success in war, and conquest.
Political exploitation, racial discrimination, economic disparity, and
unhappiness If we wanted to ensure peace, we had to get rid of these sins. If we
can't provide a solution, then other shouts and catchphrases will appeal to the
people's thoughts.
This massive continent's emergence is one of the greatest importance to
humanity's future and calls for creative statesmanship a high standard.
Analysis
Nehru was a prominent figure in India in the middle of the 20th century and an
anti-colonial patriot, secular humanist, social democrat, and author. In the 1930s
and 1940s, Nehru was a key figure in the Indian nationalist movement. He
presided over India for 16 years after the country gained its independence in
1947. Nehru greatly influenced India's development into a modern nation in the
1950s by promoting parliamentary democracy, secularism, science, and
technology. He was a great follower of Gandhi and was inspired by his ideas of
morality, non-violence, and satyagraha.
He had a great knowledge of India as a nation-state, its spirit and idea, its
culture and practices. Unlike Bose, his idea of freedom was appropriate means
to get the appropriate end which is desired by all. He tried to make a synthesis
of British rule, their ideology, and India and her ideology. He accepted the cons
of indian society and also accepted the pros of British intervention in India but
has also argued the cons of British.
Nehru is a giant, confident Indian thinker who studied in the west and by the
means of debate and discussion, he criticizes the west in the language they
understand.
Bharat Mata: The introduction to India
At first, there was no intellectual because we had no supporting evidence or
reasoning, so Nehru tried to find a way out. the idea that philosophy and
religion were our two strongest subjects, at least in terms of religious
nationalism. We comforted. Given that, despite our struggle and destitution, we
still had the genuine inner product, which was far more precious and attractive
than anything the West could offer. A portion of our self-respect was restored,
and our dormant pride in our history was rekindled by Vivekananda and others,
as well as by Western academics' interest in our antiquated philosophies.
Whenever Nehru goes to any public gathering he hears Bharat Mata ki jay. He
always asks the question to people what really is Bharat Mata and hears
complete silence. Then one Jatt would stand up and argue that Bharat Mata
means the motherland Then Nehru used to cross-question which land, those
barren desserts, your village, the district or province, or in the whole of India?
Later then Nehru answers that Bharat is the millions of people of India victory
to Bharat meant victory to them.
For him, India is not just a piece of land, but its people, its everlasting culture,
and its idea and spirit. Now the question arises why Bharat Mata and why not
Bharat Pita?
The simple answer to this might be that if we see the image of Bharat Mata she
is very feminine. This shows the traits of Indians which are for example:
1. Tolerant
2. Adaptive
3. Motherly
4. Loving
5. Peaceful
In the image of Bharat Mata, she is holding a Trishul (weapon) and is
sitting on lion. This depiction of India can be seen as protective of her
children, she is loving and caring but if someone tries to harm the
integrity and unity of India then this mother may use weapons.
Bharat Pita would not be fitted as the identity of India as fathers are
dominant, not much adaptive, and rulers of the patriarchal family. Bharat
Pita would always take weapons every time. This is not India, India is
Bharat Mata.

India as Nehru understands is derived from the past. Starting from the
Indus valley civilization till today. A nation with a rich culture heritage
and shared philosophy on life which creates a spirit that is very unique
and is seen in the children of the nation. It is not the piece of land that
created India rather it was the spirit of the children of India which created
India. Many kingdoms came and went away, and India remained the
same. Many religions came, but India remained the same. Many people
and students came but India remained the same. India is tolerant,
adaptive, inclusive, assimilating, and dynamic just like rivers when they
merge to ocean assimilates in the ocean.
Well, one cannot guarantee how tolerant and adaptive India is today if we
make an image of Bharat Mata wearing a Skirt instead of a saree, this
might probably get someone to jail.
This Indian heritage and unity were mostly cultural in nature; they were
not strictly religious. That culture wasn't initially exclusionary or
intolerable; it was open to change and adapt, and many periods of
dominance gave it strong roots and a unity that storms couldn't break. It
evolved an aristocratic mindset that could afford to be tolerant and open-
minded because it was confident in its own strength.
There are records of numerous significant gatherings from Kashmir in the
north to the extreme south, and this practise of debating and conferring
about religious and other issues was widespread across India.
Regardless of the country's political divisions, ideas quickly disseminated
and were vigorously contested. India shared a common cultural heritage,
and most people had a similar mental background. Even the common
people in various regions of the nation shared similar perspectives and
ways of thinking.
Islam's ascension to power rocked India. The old and the new were at
odds for a while, but eventually, India's ancient spirit began to prevail,
and efforts were made to achieve a harmonious balance between the two.
Nehru never ignores the evil practices which were prevailing in India.
India has a fundamental unity this unity was cultural which is tolerant,
adaptive, and receptive. And this is the strength of India. though there are
many evil practices India continued to progress and was united
throughout. Many sects like Buddhism, bhakti movement, etc challenged
those practices but India assimilated all its challengers.
Behind this cultural unity, and giving strength to it, was the ceaseless
attempt to find a harmony between the inner man and his outer
environment.
The National Congress, India's formidable nationalist movement, has
grown in strength, highlighting the country's political cohesion. Huge
upheavals the size of a quiet uprising have been occurring across the
nation for the past years, upending the very underpinnings of British
control. Millions of people willingly pledge their allegiance to this
voluntary organization, which has played a significant part in cementing
the concept of Indian unity in the minds of our populace.
The ability of the people to act in unison and make disciplined sacrifices
for a national ideal has shown both the likelihood and reality of Indian
unity. No one in India, regardless of their political or religious beliefs,
thinks in terms other than those of national harmony. Though there are
divisions and even separatist tendencies, neither of these stands in the
way of national freedom or unity.

All these traits which are visible are motherly traits. But todays india has
become more static rather than being dynamic. People are getting
offended by speaking the truth. Fascism, violence, and intolerance has
increased. In the name of god people are killing each other, there is no
place for debate and discussion it is just weapons and fear which is
talking and not the people of this great nation. Now as per Nehru we are
the Bharat Mata but we cannot see the traits which are desired as Bharat
Mata hence his definition of Bharat which is India may not be applied.
Freedom struggle
Under the leadership of Gandhiji and Nehru, the entire nation united
under the flag of the Indian National Congress to combat the powerful
British Empire without resorting to violence, making history in the
process. No sign of regionalism, linguism, or religionism could be seen
when the desire of a free India drove their efforts, and it seemed as
though the country was fully merged when it followed the example of
Gandhiji and Nehru.
Like other national movement leaders, Nehru stressed the importance of
defining the political and economic framework of freedom and viewing
national challenges in the twentieth century from a correct international
perspective. This marked a significant distinction between Nehru's
strategy and those of other Congress Movement leaders. Nehru had a
keen understanding of history and understood that only by offering
economic and social content could the formal institutions of democracy
be maintained.
Nehru emphasised, like other leaders of the national movement, the
significance of defining the political and economic framework of freedom
and using the proper global perspective while looking at national
difficulties in the 20th century. This distinguished Nehru's tactics from
those of other leaders of the Congress Movement in a fundamental way.
Nehru had a deep understanding of history and realised that the formal
institutions of democracy could only be upheld by providing economic
and social content.
Jawaharlal Nehru was a great democrat. He encouraged the growth of
Parliamentary democracy guaranteeing to each individual the
fundamental freedoms of speech, thought and associa-tion. He wanted
India to develop through democratic processes.
Of democracy he said: "It involves certain contemplative tendencies and
a certain inquisitive search for truth, a search for right". He wanted
democracy to be established in a democratic way. The way British gave
us the control over India is an example of democratic way.
He wanted Mountbatten to stay and make the administration better.
Critique in practicality

Nehru in his article wrote that India will take necessary steps to
strengthen the army. When he became the prime minister of India he
never looked after the army. It was Patel who was a strong leader of the
country which united the whole nation and formed a state. When Pakistan
attacked Kashmir, patel saw it as an opportunity and asked the king to
sign the instrument of accession and gave the military help to Kashmir.
The indian army reached near Lahore and asked for the orders but it was
Nehru who said no and wanted good relations with the neighbor. The
indian army falled back and Nehru went to the UN. Now we can see the
situation in Kashmir. Is this the Bharat Mata which was not able to rescue
her son from dying in the hands of terrorists?
Peace is not the solution every time. The idea of nonviolence given by
Gandhi whose last words were ‘hey ram’. That rama never used
nonviolence as an option. When violence is necessary one has to do so.

The foreign relation that he thought of were never achieved. Our neighbor
came out to be very friendly and the possible aggressor as per him japan
came out to be a great ally.
In 1945, the United Nations Security Council was created. The original
members were the United States, Russia, France, and Great Britain. They
made up the allied armies that had prevailed in World War II. When the
Cold War was at its height in 1955, America offered Nehru the chance for
India to join the UN Security Council. Given that she contributed more
than two million soldiers to the War Front, India had a legitimate
presence in the council.
Pundit Tawaharlal Nehru declined the invitation to become a permanent
member of the UN and declared that he would not join the organisation
absent China. China received the full support of India in her bid for
permanent membership in the UN Security Council.

Potti Sreeramulu went on a hunger strike under the Nehru administration

and demanded the creation of an Indian state for the Telugu-speaking
people of the Madras Presidency. Nehru was forewarned not to accede to
Sreeramulu's demands on the grounds of language by Sardar Patel and
Rajendra Prasad. They claimed that linguistic division would only result
in misunderstanding and hostility toward/against other linguistic groups.
They also counselled him to consider other options.
The hunger strike claimed Sreeramulu's life. Three davs later, Jawaharlal
Nehru announced the creation of Andhra Pradesh. Other linguistic groups
began to hate one another as a result, and demands for separate states
began to surface. The issue is still present. Greater than national identity
cannot be regional identity! Nehru was unaware of this.
Due to Nehru's promotion and implementation of socialism as well as his
opposition to capitalist systems, there was an economic crisis in the
1960s. The public sector was strengthened while exports declined. This
resulted in rising inflation, declining exports, and restricted agricultural
growth with an average annual growth rate of 4%, which was lower than
that of the world's least developed nations.
To emulate the Soviet Union, Jawaharlal Nehru established the Planning
Commission and drew out five-year plans. Press freedom and economic
freedom for the general public were restricted.

Conclusion

One cannot deny the fact that Nehru played a vital role in the
independence of the country. He was a giant of Indian philosophy. People
tend to say that Nehru didn’t know India and Hinduism but the fact is he
knew both more than many in this country. His writings on the discovery
of India and the making of India provide a great insight into him.
Nehru persistently pursued a national socialist campaign and garnered
support from a broad audience for a shift in the socialist paradigm. The
socialist organization that he supported, however, was not his idea. As a
result, the response remained scattered and amorphous and could not take
on any defined, well-organized shape.
One cannot deny the fact that as the prime minister of this country he
made blunders and India is facing the issue till today because of him. But
that does not mean what he thought was all wrong.
References
1. M.J Akbar, The making of India
2. Jawaharlal Nehru, The Unity of India
3. Purushottam Agrawal - Who Is Bharat Mata_ On History, Culture and
the Idea of India_ Writings by and on Jawaharlal Nehru.
4. Jawaharlallal Nehru, The discovery of India.