The ardent critic obviously overlooks that India had got merger of Junagarh and Nizam state as integral part of India through police action though the rulers both Nawabs had opted to be part of Pakistan as per option given by the departing British regime. If India did not allow merger of two princely states, it was on the plea that both were contagious territories inside and people have to decide and not single individuals. Nehru was the Prime Minister of the independent democracy and not the dictator of small principality to ignore the international comity. It was also a time when India was insisting no nation or regime can have double standards.

Yet another issue for which Nehru is critically held guilty of offending the Indian interest is that he rushed to UNO to take the issue of aggression of Kashmir by Pakistan even though Sardar Patel had warned him against it. The critics overlook realities of the time. In 1948 when hordes of Baluch anti socials were dispatched for fermenting violent trouble, Kashmir was not merged in the Indian Union. Nehru had not overruled the Patel action of dispatching the Indian armed units to resist the Baluchistan’s anti social elements encouraged by Pakistan to infiltrate in Kashmir to create pressure through use of violence. The main objective was to force Kashmir not to merge with India. Nehru brought in the international pressure on Pakistan to desist from similar action. By rushing to the international body India brought Pakistan under the larger scanner.

Since then Pakistan has dared not to send hordes of its regular or irregular units to Kashmir but resorting to proxy war, training the youth in terrorism for fermenting violence and trouble in Kashmir and elsewhere. In 1965 Pakistan attack was aimed at Kutch gulf and in 1971 indirect aggression through atrocities in its own Eastern wing. India successfully countered and broke Pakistan in 1971. The Vajpayee government dealt successfully the last infiltration in the Kargil hills. None of them had gloated about their achievements as was done in recent times as if existence of Pakistan was wiped out.

Politics in no country can be without financial support coming from others. The basic concept is no one eats at home and serves other’s interests free. Every party in India runs on contributions. The ruling party gets maximum of unaccounted funds as it also spends on many activities that cannot be listed in official accounts. The service for chartered airplane needs to be paid for. Without the plane movements of campaigners get restricted. This is harsh reality. But it has rarely figured in the accounts submitted to the Election Commission. The service is not gratis and compensated either with cash payments or later with undue favours. Yet trend continues of flinging mud of corruption charges at the opponents. The Congress is often subjected more to such mud flinging as it had occupied the seat of power for longer duration.

It is believed that in the Nehru era ministers did not sit on the important files to extract funds. It began to undergo a drastic change in 1971. In 1974 the senior Congress leader Kamala Pati Tripathi, and also Atal Behari Vajpayee of the then Jan Sangh, both had lamented at a seminar that even carpet layers were seeking party nominations.

Here is unpublished incident that indicates the differentiating concept of funds for the party work and for personal use. In 1970 December Indira Gandhi asked her ministers to collect funds as election was closer. One junior minister got donations from woolen mills to the tune of twenty lakh rupees. The senior minister in charge of funds collected the sum from him. As an abundant precaution, the junior minister got the collector minister’s initials on a note on plain paper to confirm his contribution. Next year Indira Gandhi asked the same junior minister to get funds for the assembly polls. She added, “Not only Rs. 12 lakh as the last year but more.” The junior showed her the note to prove his contribution of Rs. twenty lakh. As soon as she saw it she picked up phone to ask the party treasurer to ensure the offender minister’s resignation in her hand within an hour. Turning to the junior minister she said, “Funds for the party work cannot be treated as corruption but retaining funds for personal use is certainly corruption and cannot be tolerated.”

In another instance she had instantly removed her power minister after the party treasurer Sitaram Kesri informed her that Minister had collected 5 per cent of cost from a super power project in 1982 but deposited only two per cent sum with him.

A large number of young are flooding social media with messages that pour nothing but hatred. It leaves an uneasy feeling that young are so corroded, with their minds wearing masks, they are blind to realities. Either they cannot see or do not want to. May be perhaps the Congress regimes failed to meet their expectations. They cannot see achievements. At the dawn of Independence, 66 per cent of population was reeking in poverty. By 2013 the proportion of middle class with living comforts was 40 per cent and only 18 per cent was below poverty line.

Nehru was as rudely shocked as Indians were by the betrayal of China in October 1962. Nehru could never recover and collapsed in 18 months. Indira Gandhi is accused of misusing the constitution in June 1975 to retain her seat of power. All conveniently overlook that in March 1977 she restored democracy on rails even though she was aware of her defeat. She may have been responsible for promoting Bhindranwale, but she sent the armed force inside the Golden Temple to eliminate the hiding terrorists inside. She paid the price with her life. She may appear to have converted the Congress party from a political instrument to her estate. The party men are more responsible for this transformation. They stood before her with expectation of rewards even after they were kicked. The electorate punished them not once but twice. Then why flog the dead horse?