Jawaharlal ‘chacha’ Nehru, his anti-semitism, his casual slurs against the Hindus & Jews – notes

19/08/2021

Our illustrious & lovable Chacha can be blamed for many things, but not for his Balance or Scholarship, leave alone concern for Bharathiyas.

In these contexts, a lot of things can be written with evidence based on primary sources, across realms, but this write-up is primarily with reference to Jews & Israel.

Incidentally, young Aravindan Neelakandan has also written an essay in ‘Swarajya’ touching upon the subject; please read it, as it would provide some additional context: Why Jawaharlal Nehru Can Be Called A Racist, And Why He Wasn’t One (May 23, 2020)

Exhibit 1

In his letter to BC Roy dated 24th April, 1951:

“Hindus are isolationists & not good mixers. The result is that the Hindu, like the Jew, rather stands out in the world and does not easily get on with others…

… When the environment goes bad, he collapses and has not got the strength of character to overcome the environment…”

[boldfacing/italicizing done by this scribe]

In the same letter, our Chacha also shows his tremendous sense of humour and incredible fiction writing skills as in:


(Selected Works of Jawaharlal Nehru, Second Series, Volume 14, Part II, p69)

:-) Of course, who could demand any evidence from our ‘Pandit’ Chacha, for any of the above homilies?

As our youth would say, “d00d knows, like everything! OMG!!”

Exhibit 2

In a letter to Kailas Nath Katju, dated 17th Nov, 1953 dealing with Muslim-Hindu unrest, this is what Chacha says:

(Selected works of Nehru – second series volume 24, Letter to KN Katju, p282-3)

Of course he peddles the cliched ‘dara hua mussalman’ – ‘the muslim is afraid’ narrative.

“… I am convinced that it is the duty of the majority [Hindus] to behave in such manner as to create a feeling of security in the minority. From this point of view, the Hindus in the UP as a whole are to blame

…In practice, the Hindu is certainly not tolerant and is more narrow-minded than almost any other person in any other country except the Jew… the fate of India is largely tied up with the Hindu outlook…”

[boldfacing/italicizing done by this scribe]

‘The Muslim Outlook… is often worse’ but ‘it does not make very difference to the future of India’ – so ‘majority has to behave…’ bah!

:-(

Okay, Nehru was born an Indian, probably even a Hindu, so one can even give a benefit of doubt to him with respect to his rabid statements against Hindus, but he knows next to nothing about Jews, Zionism (Aravindan Neelakandan’s essay brings this out clearly) – and then goes on to make grandiose judgements about them.

…but then, he was not partial only to them – we must admit that he was generally ignorant across subjects and realms – like most of us, that is. Only difference is that, unlike most of us, he showed-off his magnificent ignorance, wherever that would work.

Anyway. The questions that immediately float-up are:

Why be such a human anatomical posterior-opening? Why exhibit the ability to make category mistakes? Why hate monger? Why was it necessary to display uncalled-for anti-semitism? Is that what his fabian socialism, marxism, arab-love and panchsheel taught him?

Why does he pose as ‘non-aligned?’ Why is he considered an ‘apostle of peace, panchsheel’ and all that shit?

Exhibits 3 & 4

1965: INC Member of Parliament for Bombay City North, at that time, VK Krisnhan Menon was a very powerful politician and indeed was very close to our Chacha. Was even called “India’s Rasputin!”

of course also correctly as, “Nehru’s Evil Genius.”

(The Sentinel. Chicago, 27th May, 1965, p3)

We should remember that, VK Krishna Menon went to Cairo, Egypt as an Official Representative of India (of ‘panchsheel’ fame) and was talking about not only using force to defeat Israel, but also cheaply & anti-semitically said that, if one were to throw it in to the sea, it would ‘pollute’ it!

MO Mathai, a long time close associate of Chacha, confirms it in his book.

(Reminiscences of the Nehru Age, MOcMathai p167-8)


Of course, to be fair, Nehru died before this incident, in 1964 itself. He cannot be directly blamed for the nonsensical statements of his protégé; if anything, I think Lalbahadur Shastri was the PM of India then.

Still.

VK Krishna Menon was but the creation of Chacha. Menon was Chacha’s proxy, um, sometimes his guide too. Menon merely reflected the irrational hate of Chacha against the Jews in general and against Israel.

In other words, VK Krishna Menon carried on the torch of meaningless anti-semitism, duly inheriting it from Chacha.

–0-0-0-0–

On the other hand.

All said and done, a sentimental fool & a part-time apologist for Chacha-Bapuji types that I am, I would also like to believe that Chacha’s anti-semitism was not because of his ‘frothing-at-the-mouth hate’  but because of his fundamental illiteracy, ignorance and infinite hubris.

Just like how he was oh so illiterate about Bharat & its Hindus, but at the same time showed off so much scholarliness about them. (and flippantly castigated them)

In other words, our dear Chacha perhaps, was an early & a stellar example of that famed Dunning-Kruger effect.

Your mileage may vary, of course.

END

22 Responses to “Jawaharlal ‘chacha’ Nehru, his anti-semitism, his casual slurs against the Hindus & Jews – notes”

  1. KSC Says:

    Easy to blame Nehru. If you are fair you will notice that Nehru supported the Jews.


    • Sir, KSC – why don’t you do me a favour?

      Why don’t you give ONE, SINGLE evidence that your Chacha respected Jews, he considered them as normal people and that the idea of Israel was acceptable. Just one solid evidence, independently verifiable by me will do. Thanks.

      Please note that I have quoted Nehru from his authorized, authentic collected works. Have provided references too. I have not quoted anything out of context.

      It is only fair that you respond in a similar fashion, instead of being vacuously preachy.

    • dagalti Says:

      இந்த அபாண்டமான கொசுறுக்கு (காம்ப்ளிமெண்ட்) என்ன பதில் சொல்வது?

      ஒரே ஒரு philological correction regarding pop. culture terminology: ‘dagalti’ means giving a puffed up appearance disproportionate to content.

      மிகுந்த அவையடக்கத்துடன் அடியேன் சூட்டிக்கொண்ட திருநாமம். அதை வெறுமனே ‘fraud’ என்று குறுக்கினால் வலிக்கிறது.

      மற்றபடி இணையப்பெருவெளி பற்றி அன்றே
      புரட்சித்தலைவர் பாடிவிட்டார்:
      “நான் யார் நான் யார் நீ யார்
      நாலும் தெரிந்தவர் யார் யார்”

      க்வாண்டம் மெகானிக்ஸும் அத்வைதமும் நாம் ஒரே நேரத்தில் எல்லாருமாகவும் இருக்கிறோம் என்கிற ரீதியில் ஏதோ சொல்கிறது. நாம் அனைவரும் நக்‌ஷத்திரத்தூசுக்கலவை தானே ஐயா.

      என்னுடைய ஒத்திசைவு IDல் இருந்து, இதைப்பறி அடுத்ததாக ஒரு blogpost தேத்துகிறேன்.

      It will be interesting


      • 🙏🏿😡

        Yes. That non-word ref is from Captain Fantastic. (vaguely remember that I had written about it on this blog itself, but…)

        Anyway.

        When you write your offending post, let me know. I will comment in the name of DAGALTI.

  2. Em Says:

    Gandhi and Nehru were once revered and idolised but Savarkar was demonised. They still are. But now a tiny part of the population wants to know its true history and is trying to decolonise itself. When this happens, It is quite natural to swing the other way and call Gandhi names like Duratma and Nehru a tyrant who partitioned the country for their benefit.
    There were many things the duo did that still keep us mired in this sickularist nightmare where only the Hindoo is to be blamed for everything that is bad, even the Taliban’s doing. But I don’t think that Gandhi and Chacha were anti India or anti Hindu. Being icons of their time, they did what they thought were good for their people without analysing their actions and the far reaching consequences they will have for the generations that came after them. They were like the “Perusu” at home who is adamant that everything must be done his way because he is right and just. His non-violence and fasts were a tool to make the Hindus do what he wanted because they will not let him die.
    Gandhi and Nehru were leaders who were bad at their job. Gandhi’s appeasement of the minorities, not understanding the Ummah and his ahimsavaad led to the kind of politics that still haunts Bharat. Chacha exacerbated this with his (NAM + Socialist + Hindi Chini Bhai bhai + Hinduism = old &useless, hence needs to be discarded) khichdi. People like Madhu Kishwar who were directly affected by the bloody partition lay the blame at their feet. Though her anger is justified, I think that the Partition was a result of so many things that had come before it. But when she writes that she wants to be born in a big traditional family in her next life, it is difficult to not feel guilty that I hardly speak to my 31 cousins.


  3. Em, thanks for the reflections.

    Definitely, Bapuji was not antiHindu, I would characterize him as more of a Hindutva-vadin; nonetheless flawed of course. (I know that our hindsight is 20/20 Am of the firm opinion that he had all the inputs but chose to ignore them and go for peaceful brotherhood)

    But, am not sure about Nehru. I feel that he did not deserve to be where he was. But again, 20/20 and all that.

    The thing is, ideally we should forget all these folks, of course after acking what +ve contribs that they made – but life as it evolves is, not so simple.

    There is always this constant background noise of certain galling features of nehruvian-socialism and gandhism hovering in the background of Bharat – pulling it down – just like the cosmic radiation that persists to date after that bigbang that happened ~14bn years ago.

    However – in our case it should be correctly characterized as bigbungle. Actually a series of them. Thanks to some of our stalwarts, with their warts and all.

    Anyway.

    At least we are not Afghanistan. Not yet.

    Allahuakbar.


  4. ஐயா,
    ப்ரிட்டிஷார் ஒருமாதிரி சுமாராக துப்பாக்கிமுனையில் பாலஸ்தீனத்தில் இடம் ஒழித்துக் கொடுத்து இஸ்ரேலுக்கு க்ரஹப்ரவேசம் பண்ண முயன்றதை காந்தி, நேரு இருவருமே எதிர்த்தனர்.

    “யூத மஹாஜனங்களே, ஐரோப்பாவில் நடந்தது கொடுமை தான், ஆனால் அதற்காக நவயுக யூத ராஷ்டிரம் அமைக்க முனைவது தவறு என்று தெளிவாகவே காந்தி தன் நிலைப்பாட்டை விளக்கினார். “நீங்கள் பிறந்த வளர்ந்த நாடு உங்கள் நாடு…, பொட்டியைக் கட்டிக்கொண்டு காலனிய பாராசூட் உபாயத்தில் பாலஸ்தீனில் குதித்து, ‘இனி இது எங்களுதாக்கும்’ என்பதெல்லாம் ப்டாது” – என்று கண்டீசனாகவே சொன்னார் காந்தி.

    நேருவின் நிலைப்பாடும் சுமாராக இதுவே. 40களில் பாலஸ்தீனத்த ஆக்கிரமிப்பை ஒரு காலனிய அழிச்சாட்டியமாகப் பார்ப்பதில் – அதுவும் காந்தி/நேரு பார்த்ததில் – என்ன ஆச்சரியம்/தவறு?

    ‘The Muslim Outlook is often worse’ என்று நேரு சொல்வது உங்கள் கணக்குப்படி casual slur-ஆக register ஆகுமா?

    It is fairly straightforward to see what Nehru is saying in his letter to Katju (sic): Hindu உள்ளுவதெல்லாம் உயர்வுள்ளல் and all fine, but our Hindu chappies seem to be behaviourally backward (YMdoesV) is the point he is driving home. And in that he is contrasting the Hindu and Jew against, say, the protestant-work-ethic adopting forward looking naya-dhaur modern man. It is no more anti-semitic than someone calling his pronouncement about ‘Muslim Outlook being worse’, as something Islamophobic.

    Now to AN’s article:

    /Nehru was prone to violence and how he selectively used that violence only against Indians./

    Nice try.
    If you really feel the conclusion follows from what AN says, I have little to say.

    But I will say anyway… :-)

    Personal fisticuffs எல்லாம் வச்சு ‘non-violence காணோம் பாரீர் பாரீர்’ என்று குதிப்பது quite silly. Even as policy Nehru was very guarded about committing to non-violence.

    Nehru was never never one who exalted non-violence as a creed. He expressed concern at how Gandhi making non-violence a touchstone of Congress policy itself, when it ought not to be considered as anything more than a useful tool of action. He was unequivocal about that.

    In his autobiopgraphy in the 30s itself he says, it would be ridiculous to forswear violence when in Free India the state would obviously need it; not just for defence against internal aggression but – this is very important – even to bolster the state’s capacity for persuasion in internal affairs.

    அதாவது, a good 15-20 years before he was going to become PM he was very clear that India was up for overhaul and the state would be up against a lot of resistance. IIRC he mentions potential land-reforms as a use-case where state coercion would be needed to overcome the resistance of the people.

    This is all for violence as policy.

    There is nothing ‘selective’.

    AN’s use of the word ‘selective’ is – to put it politely – misleading.
    It suggests that if a gora had outraged his daughter – as in the apocryphal anecdote – Nehru would have expressed a mild disappointment and invited the assailant over for tea and cucumber sandwiches in the Anand Bhavan lawns.

    That is the impression AN purports to present.

    Nehru’s impatience and anger are all well known. AN doesn’t even want to call Nehru slapping workers around as feudal behaviour towards underlings. He insists on imputing a racial angle to it.

    Let me go out on a lim and guess here: நீங்கள் குத்தி உடைத்த மூக்குகள் அனேகம் இந்திய மூக்குகள் தானே. வெள்ளைக்கார மூக்குகளை குத்தாத காரணத்தால் உங்களை selectively violent என்று சொல்லமுடியுமா?

    /Nehru wanted technically educated Jewish talent for India but was against an Israeli homeland in Israel./

    So what? இதுல என்ன பிரச்சனை?

    Sidenote:
    What a well crafted phrase: “Israeli homeland in Israel” !

    Notice how, instead of a “Jewish state in Palestine”, AN chooses to use a circular phrase ‘Israeli homeland in Israel’.

    Instead of Jewish state he calls it ‘Israeli’ homeland, thereby suggesting that there is something automatically authentic in the claim, when that is precisely the contention.

    Israeli – before the geographical Israel existed it is an ethnic idea.
    Once you have the land a very specific meaning kicks in! This difference is elided when the reader reads this line.

    Homeland – this is subtly suggesting passes on to the unsuspecting reader the notion of kitAbi entitlement.

    The Neeraj Atri 101 ‘unpacking media’ course is useful I say!

    Nehru requested the meeting with Ribbentrop in early 1938. Judging that based on later developments is inappropriate.

    I do understand AN’s thrust though: that we ought not to make unfair accusations against Savarkar etc. based one off instances because such a case can be built against even Nehru.

    I’m just clarifying (யாருக்கு? perhaps tp myself!) that it is nothing more.

    The point about eugenics was quite sobering though :-/
    I must look it up.


    • Sir, dagalti.

      “ப்ரிட்டிஷார் ஒருமாதிரி சுமாராக துப்பாக்கிமுனையில் பாலஸ்தீனத்தில் இடம் ஒழித்துக் கொடுத்து இஸ்ரேலுக்கு க்ரஹப்ரவேசம் பண்ண முயன்றதை”

      I need at least one solid reference for this idea. Please don’t give me the nonsense about Balfour declaration and all. That has some other WW1 related context. Please do not get carried away by popular myths. If they are not myths, then educate me with relevant, irrefutable evidence.

      If you prove that Brits did this ‘gun point apportioning/acco of land for jews in palestine’ and not anything else – then I am willing to respond to you point by point. Thanks.

      Now for – Eugenics and Chacha Nehru:

      Dunno whether you have heard of Sripati Chandrashekar, who even became Rajayasabha MP of Congress (from TN) thanks to heavy support/scaffolding by Nehru in the early 1960s. He conflated eugenics and economic malthusianism. He even founded and published ‘Eugenics Review’ for quite a few years in the 1940s. His 1955 book ‘Population and Planned Parenthood in India’ had a glowing foreword by your Chacha Nehru.

      Your Chacha had identified hinduism, huge population etc as the great problems that were preventing India from development and was looking for family control as a way of econmic growth. Incidentally, Quite a few ameriki prof and development types who were also advising us were surprised that they were preaching to the choir.

      There was another bloke Radhakamal Mukherjee, a social-scientist so-called who was an eugenic fanatic – he was also a great friend of your Chacha.

      “Mukerjee’s Malthusian economics and his placement within the international network of population scholars are particularly important, because he also chaired the Population Subcommittee of the indian national Congress’s national Planning Committee, itself chaired by nehru. under the congress, the political economies of the limited-scale eugenic and Malthusian clinics of the 1930s gave way to largescale strategies that were unsurprisingly central to political and economic planning—”development”—after independence, fueled by international funding. The Planning Committee resolved, in a classic eugenic statement:

      “The state should follow a eugenic programme to make the race physically and mentally healthy. This would discourage marriages of unfit persons and provide for the sterilization of persons suffering from transmissible diseases of a serious nature such as insanity or epilepsy.”

      After independence, Your chachas’s national Planning Commission called for free sterilization and contraception on medical, social and economic grounds, along with birth control research.

      Refs:

      “Five year Plan Committee Report” Planned Parenthood (india) 7, no. 10–11 (1960)

      Sripati Chandrasekhar, “Population Problems of india and Pakistan,” UNESCO Courier 2 (1949)

      Sarah Hodges, “indian Eugenics in an age of Reform,” in Reproductive Health in India: History, Politics, Controversies, ed. Sarah Hodges (new delhi: orient longman, 2006)

      Radhakamal Mukerjee, Food Planning for Four Hundred Millions (london: Macmillan, 1938)

      Congress’ National Planning Committee Report, 1938

      Sanjam ahluwalia, Reproductive Restraints: Birth Control in India, 1877–1947
      (urbana: university of illinois Press, 2008)


      • Thank You. I’ll read the stuff about the eugenics stuff.

        /If you prove that Brits did this ‘gun point apportioning/acco of land for jews in palestine’/

        I said ஒருமாதிரி சுமாராக துப்பாக்கிமுனையில்

        i.e. without the Palestine being under British thumb the large-scale transplantation of Jews in Palestinian territory to create a Jewish state and the percussive migration of Arabs out of what is now Israel, would not have happened.

        Is this even a contested point?

        These are Gandhi’s words:

        Palestine belongs to the Arabs in the same sense that England belongs to the English or France to the French. It is wrong and inhuman to impose the Jews on the Arabs. What is going on in Palestine today cannot be justified by any moral code of conduct. The mandates have no sanction but that of the last war. Surely it would be a crime against humanity to reduce the proud Arabs so that Palestine can be restored to the Jews partly or wholly as their national home.

        The nobler course would be to insist on a just treatment of the Jews wherever they are born and bred. The Jews born in France are French. If the Jews have no home but Palestine, will they relish the idea of being forced to leave the other parts of the world in which they are settled? Or do they want a double home where they can remain at will? This cry for the national home affords a colourable justification for the German expulsion of the Jews.

        https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/lsquo-the-jews-rsquo-by-gandhi

        This was when things were brewing after the British announced the Palestine partition plan. This stance is kinda what was Congress/Nehru attitude was, no?

        What is the erroneous impression here?


        • //Is this even a contested point?

          Sir, yes.

          Now tell me 1) how many jews were there even before the balfour declaration, smf 1.1) even before the ww1 and 2) how many were ‘allowed in’ later by the british 3) how many jews were killed by the british because they could not allow them entry 4) how many perished in the concentration camps set up the brits (thanks, they did not use gaschambers and the like) 5) what was the response of the various bedouin tribes (and some minimal arabs) to the jews over the 1800s to the aliyah and its effects 5.1) later etc.

          I am not even talking about the histories prior to roman sacking of the area etc etc.

          Then, we shall talk.

          //Palestine belongs to the Arabs in the same sense that England belongs to the English or France to the French. It is wrong and inhuman to impose the Jews on the Arabs.

          With due respect, Bapuji was an illiterate in many respects, but had opinions on everyone of them.

          And you quote him?

          You know when the word Palestine was coined? And whether it excluded jews?

          Granted Bapuji did not have access to much info and his CPU might have been slower too…

          But, the fact that, a person like you who is positively endowed with both, is quoting homilies & sentimental nonsense is galling, to say the least!

          Anyway.


        • //without the Palestine being under British thumb the large-scale transplantation of Jews in Palestinian territory to create a Jewish state and the percussive migration of Arabs out of what is now Israel, would not have happened.

          Really?


    • Another – which I forgot to mention:

      This ‘ protestant-work-ethic’ nonsense always gets on my nerves, though the Max Weber chap is somewhat half-decent.

      But it is debunked. Sorry.

      You can’t use that idea to scaffold or contrapuntal to something else.


      • It is not about whether the ProtWorkEth is a thing or not.
        In that letter what comes across is Nehru’s impatience with – what he perceives as – Hindu backwardness functionally (never mind the highfalutin philosophical achievements). It is particularly important to see that he considers the Muslim outlook worse. The worst he can be accused of is being a patronizing modern elite. Not an Hinduphobe any more than he can be called an Islamophobe (based on the quote in the letter).

        I repeat: I do very much get that the point in AN’s article was not to castigate Nehru (at least not in this article!). But to say that if the harsh standards applied to Savarkar etc were to be applied universally, even Nehru may not make the cut. Fair enough.


        • Yes, he says that the Muslim outlook is worse. I quoted that – I did not conveniently cut it off; however the point is that, he then goes on and on about, how, irrespective of that ‘worse’ fact, ‘hindu majority’ should behave and be kind.

          If you read up on how he approached the muslim-hindu issues, pre and post partition, you would weep. The fact that he detested the formation of israel (though it was ratified by UN) and then ran to the UN for adjudication (for many reasons) of J&K tells us something. Also the fact that, he was under the thumb of the self-certified Jihadi, Maulana Abulkalam Azad who was vehemently against Israel and lobbied immensely, citing the ‘feelings of musalmans in India’ and all that.

          Anyway. At least Gandhi was a practicing Hindu. But Chacha? He was a practicing fabian, and stalinist even. (not a stalin definitely, because that requires fast CPU – but an admirer of stalinism)

          Sometimes I feel that, blogs and comments are not the forum/fora to have informed data backed discussions, but I suppose it is the best that we have.

          I think, we need to have long form discussions marshaling evidences, and not merely longform posts. But dunno whether Tamil in its current state deserves to be used as a medium.

          Anyway.


  5. Let me answer the last point first.

    /I am not even talking about the histories prior to roman sacking of the area etc etc./

    Good. History so long back is ONLY of academic importance in any context and should have no sway whatsoever in informing current political decisions, entitlement, slaking the thirst for cultural reappropriation(!) and what not. IMO of course. YOpinionMV.

    But before I even get into the specifics, let me clarify one thing: this discussion is NOT about the validity of the means by which the state of Israel came into being. There may be either an enthusiastic applause about the affirmation for Jewish nation-state or a grudging helpless acceptance of the reality of what has come to be. 

    The discussion is about how Nehru’s viewed it in the 40s – and how that is very much in keeping with the Gandhi / Congress. 

    That said, I will try and answer the question you posed anyway:

    / 1) how many jews were there even before the balfour declaration/

    I will try and go a little further back and ask:How many were there before the Zionist movement started?

    Native Jewish population of Palestine was ~ 3% at the turn of the 20th century.Post Balfour, the immigration into Palestine was @ 10K a year (90% of the influx being Jewish) and then it exploded post 1935 (like @50K a year with 99% being Jewish). 

    Is this impression largely correct? Or am I off already? If so I’ll go and check resources to see where I am off.

    /1.1) even before the ww1 and 2) how many were ‘allowed in’ later by the british /

    I hope I have answered above – to channel the words of Nehru –  ‘not wholly or in full measure, but very substantially’

    The British agreed to temporarily cap the influx after the start of WW2 due to terms with the Arabs (whose support they needed then). 

    But by then, the Jewish population had already become ~ 30%.

    That is more than a TRIPLING in share in just two decades. Has there ever been such a change in demographic share of a group in an area in such a short period? Doesn’t this point to the active facilitation by the British administration?

    That said, yes, once WW2 started Britain did start enforcing caps.

    /3) how many jews were killed by the british because they could not allow them entry 
    4) how many perished in the concentration camps set up the brits (thanks, they did not use gaschambers and the like) /

    AFAI’ve read there were many firings, sinking of ships in the Aaliya Bet interventions where there were many deaths. They intercepted ships and shipped illegal immigrants off to Cyprus. The sizes of inmates were @ tens of thousands. But I didn’t know they were death-camps. 

    These are with the ‘illegal’ immigrations.
    Why was there any such thing as ‘legal’ immigration of European Jews into Palestine in the first place?
    Because the British were allowing such a thing to happen in the first place. That much is trivially true isn’t it?  

    Without that colonial control, whither European Jewish immigration into ‘homeland’? 

    Then the British said ‘this far and no further’ and couldn’t put the genie back into the bottle (to mix Middle-Eastern metaphors!) 

    /5) what was the response of the various bedouin tribes (and some minimal arabs) to the jews over the 1800s to the aliyah and its effects 5.1) later etc.
    /
    தெரியலை.Was there some welcomeness in some quarters of the Palestinians to the idea of European Jewish immigration into Palestine?

    /You know when the word Palestine was coined? And whether it excluded jews?/

    The lived reality is what matters. Philological history hardly makes a case for transplanting European Jews into West Asia in 20th century.

    To me, it makes as much sense as a hypothetical scenario of (say) Trinidadian, Guyanese, Fijians suddenly pouring in in droves into India, or worse still, Pakistan! Perhaps we are heading in there!

    /homilies & sentimental nonsense is galling, to say the least!/
    I hoped the context was clear. 

    Kindly see where this discussion started: accusing Nehru of anti-semitism (specifically in your comment where you asked if there is any instance of him finding Israel acceptable. Why is that a metric?). The refusal to accept Israel in the 40s does not make anyone an anti-Semite. It was quite a reasonable stance in line with Gandhi/Congress’ positon.

    We need not agree on whether Gandhi/Nehru was right or wrong in opposing  the carving out a Jewish state in Palestine. There is nothing surprising, off-key, let-alone anti-semitic in that position at that point, is all I state.

    And then to the other basis for your accusation, Nehru’s opinion on the narrrowness of the Hindu/Jew outlook.

    I certainly did not accuse you of leaving out his observation on Muslim outlook. I was merely pointing out that, just like that observation hardly makes him an Islamophobe, his other observation does not make him an anti-semite.

    Aravindan Neelakantan’s examples about Nehru mapping individual impressions onto an entire people (e.g. Xinese being aristocratic etc,) are on point and sobering.


    • Sir, thanks for your considered comments.

      I can (and perhaps should) indulge in open warfare about the internal inconsistencies in what you posit – though I am appreciative and thankful for the very decent way in which you marshal your arguments – though alas, not necessarily the evidences.

      I wish, you had marshaled some evidence of Chacha respectfully talking about Jews. That would have settled the matter. (Consider the fact that he has respectfully talked about every tyrant of his age, perhaps save Hitler – and am not sure about the latter)

      I was tempted to accuse you of ‘shifting the goal posts’ though, a context creep is always there in these kinds of sparring – like you point out what we started off with.

      Now.

      //The discussion is about how Nehru’s viewed it in the 40s – and how that is very much in keeping with the Gandhi / Congress.

      WHen and where did I ever say that Nehru’s PoV (about Israel or Jews) was against or in opposition to that of Bapuji – or anything like that in the context of the Jewry?

      In any case there was no independent PoV of INC from 1928 or thereabouts (and even before that to a significant extent from 1919) apart from that of HH Bapuji’s.

      When one accuses Jews of intolerance & narrow-mindedness wholesale – even without the context of Israel – of course, it is not antisemitism.

      I think you want me to subscribe to this idea.

      Be it as it may.

      //Is this impression largely correct? Or am I off already? If so I’ll go and check resources to see where I am off.

      There are many half truths (will not call them half lies) in what you say – including those bits about immigrations, illegal and otherwise. There are also, IMO, gross under-understandings. But currently am distracted and am wondering whether the discussion has gone beyond the point of usefulness. Especially because, in esoteric(!) topics such as this, only the two of us (at best) seem to be morbidly interested.

      This is getting too long – and I will just point out two things; each of it is a nitpick, but incorrect stuff like this add-up to create major illusions.

      I just want to say that Arabs never accepted the Palestinians (so-called) as Arabs. Turks never accepted them as fellow Turks, except perhaps as Muslims. The bedouin tribes inhabiting the parched place were just that. In fact, both Arabs and Turks have gone on record so many times about the idea.

      First migrations (before ww1) happened from Russia, really significant ones. Not from Europe. Later Poland contributed. And then north Saharan areas++

      PS: We disagree on many counts, I ack that. To the extent possible, I have tried to setaside emotional responses and work from data/evidence – and I suppose you tried your part too.

      Anyway, bfn.


      • Jews are narrow minded & Muslim Outlook is worse.
        Either he was both anti-semitic AND Islamophobic, or neither.
        “When we won’t say the latter, is it fair to say the former?” is the nub.

        /WHen and where did I ever say that Nehru’s PoV (about Israel or Jews) was against or in opposition to that of Bapuji – or anything like that in the context of the Jewry?/

        Not like that.
        In one of the comments above you had said:

        /Why don’t you give ONE, SINGLE evidence that your Chacha respected Jews, he considered them as normal people and that the idea of Israel was acceptable./

        This was driving my responses and I see it has become too much of a segue.

        Why is considering the idea of Israel acceptable the metric of ‘respecting Jews’ – is the question I posted.

        Israel was viewed as a colonial project – or atleast facilitated by the British control over Palestine – and of course Nehru was opposed to it. I brought in Gandhi to say, it isn’t as if Nehru’s stance was exceptional. I was very much in keeping with the general stance of Gandhi/Congress.

        But upon re-reading now, I can see why I come across as having ‘shifted goalposts’. The perception/charge is quite fair but it was not my intention to deflect.

        Thank You for the other pointers about Arabs v Turks. தேசலா தான் தெரியும்.


        • /*Jews are narrow minded & Muslim Outlook is worse.
          Either he was both anti-semitic AND Islamophobic, or neither.
          “When we won’t say the latter, is it fair to say the former?” is the nub.*/

          Sir, true. He also was venomous against the Hindus.

          However, you must consider one thing – that we should not merely talk about words but also about deeds. Here’s where your Hero shines thru.

          Your chacha ACTED against the jews (in UN and otherwise) and the Hindus of course (Somnath and all other zillion sleights) but NEVER, NEVER acted against the interests of the Muslims/Islam.

          Please consider that.

          Rest later, in our next cycle of birth and argumentative death.

  6. KSC Says:

    Interesting. You ask many questions in the name of DAGALTI which means FRAUD and reply to them. Very convenient.

    You have many identities. You have no RIGHT to scold Nehru who never used any other identity.

    Just what is your real name? It cannot be ramasmi, I know it.


    • Laughable take.

      1. I hate this word ‘interesting.’ It is a stupid word that imbeciles use as a filler. It is a non-word.

      2. Dagalti is a different person. (cant you bleddy make it out? His writing style is so different – did you even check out his webpages: dagalti.blogspot.com ??)

      3. I do have some concurrent identities, but had many, more in the past. This is of course not a crime. I did/do indulge in them for certain reasons. All legit. I did not scam anyone using pseudonyms.

      4. For your kind info, because you happen to be ignorant and insolent: your Nehru used ‘anonymous’ status at least once, to write a review/critic about himself. (this is the standard technique that many Tamil litterateurs use, incidentally)

      5. You are correct. It is Ramasami, not ramasmi. (in any case how do these kinds of stuff matter at all, this beats me)

      6. In retrospect, I should not have taken you seriously at all. Because, you were fine when I commented about Bapuji – but not when I did it to your Chacha. (This was a mistake – I wasted my time here: https://othisaivu.wordpress.com/2021/08/06/post-1335/)

      7. Afterall, wha else can I expect from a ‘friend’ of Aravindan Kannaiyan – who has set the gold-standard for mediocrity and scumbaggishness.

      8. I do not have any more time or energy to spend on nincompoops like you.

      Go away, mediocre bums…

  7. RGopu Says:

    Nehru and his gang’s support for eugenics is an eye opener. We are still not rid of this Malthusian bugbear


மேற்கண்ட பதிவு (அல்லது பின்னூட்டங்கள்) குறித்து (விருப்பமிருந்தால்) உரையாடலாமே...

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s