Representation Of Indigenous Cultures In The Rabbits And Rabbit Proof Fence Analysis Sample Assignment

Representation of Indigenous Cultures Since the European settlement of Australia, the Indigenous people have been represented in a myriad of ways. The Rabbits (1998), an allegorical picture book by John Marsden (writer) and Shaun Tan (illustrator) and Rabbit Proof Fence (2002), a film directed by Phillip Noyce, are just two examples of this.

Techniques such as music, changing camera angles and symbolism are utilised in Rabbit Proof Fence to represent the Aboriginal people as strong-willed and spiritual and in The Rabbits, exaggeration, different colour themes and perspective are used to portray the Aborigines as technologically inferior and overwhelmed against the Europeans. In both texts, the Indigenous people are represented as oppressed by the Europeans.

The Rabbit Proof Fence uses techniques such as slow motion close-ups, quick transition camera shots and intense music to show the strong-willed nature of the Aboriginals, which are be used in the scene where the three girls are taken by constable Riggs. Just before constable Riggs, we already hear the music building up the tension with some soft, yet ominous music and as they see the car, there is a slight silence before the intense music slams suddenly to support and symbolise the chaos and confusion of this part of the scene.

This brief respite in music and the slow motion close-up shots of the horrified expressions on the faces of all of them emphasises the chaos that was about to happen when constable Riggs chases and captures the girls. Even after the girls were obstructed by the car and constable Riggs was taking the girls one by one, they continued to resist, especially Molly, who screamed and kicked the door shut as Riggs attempted to shove her inside the back seat.

The quick transition camera shots that accompany this section of the scene from one character to another, exemplifies the franticness of it. During this scene, we clearly see the considerable amount will of resistance the Aborigines have because of the fact that, although they were powerless against the Europeans, they resisted to the bitter end. On the other hand, in The Rabbits, the Aboriginals (the Numbats) are represented as technologically inferior by the use of techniques such as: colour schemes, exaggeration and vanishing points.

Colour schemes in this book are used effectively to emphasise the Indigenous population’s simplicity in life as the Aboriginal colour schemes consist of hues that blend well and warmly with its surroundings so the general overview of the texture of the painting in smooth. However, when analysing the Europeans (the Rabbits’) settlement in panels such as four and five, the colours are very sharp and more suited to the use of creating hard edges, which has been done as seen from the geometric construction of the objects within these two panels.

In the tenth panel, the exaggeration of the wheat collectors is used to show the Europeans’ superior knowledge in machinery, in not only size, but also the quantity of objects that are attached like the taps. In the eighth panel, another representation of the Aboriginal’s inferiority in equipment is portrayed in the bottom right hand corner by an absolute domination in manpower and weapons. This is also epitomized by the vanishing point in that particular frame, which basically shows the reader that the army of soldiers is close to infinite.

The spirituality of the Aboriginal people towards their land is portrayed in Rabbit Proof Fence by using symbolism, music and camera shifts, when Molly and Daisy on the verge of losing hope in the desert. In this scene, the very slow, lamenting music gives an audio representation of the two girls’ fatigue and hopelessness, using small accents to do so at every step. When the girls do collapse onto the ground, Molly sees an eagle soaring in the sky above them.

This eagle, as explained by Molly’s mother in opening scene, was a symbol of protection and safety in Aboriginal culture. The appearance of this eagle in their time of need emphasises how the Aboriginals are truly bonded, psychologically and physically, to their land and culture. In this scene, the camera shifts back and forth between their elders back at Jigalong and the girls in the desert. This constant transition conveys the relationship between the girls (protected by the eagle) and the elders praying in an Aboriginal dialect for the girl’s safety.

With these few examples, we can see how the Indigenous people have a special bond with their land through their cultural religion, which, in return, assists them when it is needed. Powerlessness of the Numbats (Aboriginals) against the Rabbits (Europeans) in The Rabbits is shown through the use of words within the mise en scene. Within this picture book, Marsden contributes to the meaning of the story to the readers through very short, but powerful sentences such as: “Sometimes we had fights/But there were too many rabbits/We lost the fights. The way these sentences are structured so that it places emphasise the appropriate scenario that is occurring in each panel. With Shaun Tan, he conveys the powerless nature of the Indigenous by placing the Europeans in the foreground and the Aboriginal’s away from the focal point. For example, in panel eleven, the rabbits (Europeans) arjplaced in the foreground of the scene, holding up the words, “and they stole our children” and the tiny numbats (Aboriginals) are off into the far distance, holding up their hands in a fruitless gesture whilst their children are being taken away from them.

This representation of the numbats in the background shows how the Europeans have gained most of the control in their land, causing a massive imbalance in power. The Rabbits and Rabbit Proof Fence provide audiences with different representations of the Indigenous culture by presenting various ideas by using visual and literary techniques to support them with: music, changing camera angles, exaggeration and perspective being a few that were discussed.

Comparison Of Characters Annette Vs. Nancy

When analyzing the characters of Annette Reille and Nancy Cowan, it becomes clear that they have similarities as well as noticeable distinctions. These differences can be attributed to various interpretations of the character by different readers, as the tone and portrayal of certain lines or actions can significantly alter a character’s personality.

When reading, different readers may have varying interpretations of the characters. For example, I may view Annette as conciliatory, while Kate Winslet may have a different perception, altering the overall attitude. However, Nancy seems more focused on resolving the conflict than Annette. In the play, Annette tries to navigate the situation between the boys without causing further parental discord, and this conciliatory nature is evident numerous times.

Annette demonstrates her attempts to maintain harmony during a conversation with Veronique, stating, “We should be thanking you. We should” (Reza1258). She expresses gratitude towards Veronique after discreetly boasting about how she and Michel handled the situation. Annette’s admiration towards Veronique serves as a means to prevent any conflicts. Through this statement, along with others, Annette aligns herself with the parents and acknowledges that her son was at fault.

An important aspect to consider from Annette’s statement about being grateful is the presence of body language. Although the reading does not explicitly mention any physical movement or expressions, it seems that this line does not require them and is not particularly significant. Annette appears to be attempting to maintain a positive atmosphere by praising Bruno’s parents’ handling of the situation. Depending on how one interprets this play, Annette’s character could be portrayed in various manners.

In the movie, there is an instance where Nancy demonstrates this concept. She utters the exact same line but adds a sarcastic tone of voice and a slightly rude facial expression, completely altering its meaning. Another perfect example of the contrast between these characters occurs in the same scene when Veronique explains how she and Michel obtained Ferdinand’s name. Veronique mentions that if they were the boy’s parents, they would want to be informed. Annette responds with a straightforward “Absolutely” (Reza1259).

Kate Winslet’s portrayal of this line in particular was incredibly sarcastic, incorporating eye movements, a subtle shoulder shrug, and perhaps a nod of her head. These gestures added depth and meaning to the word that would not be conveyed through mere reading. Furthermore, this single line effectively reveals Nancy’s underlying motives. While Annette might have responded more enthusiastically, Nancy’s delivery of “Absolutely” in the film is concise and uncompromising.

The text demonstrates Nancy’s desire to leave and her disinterest in participating in the conversation, evident through her proximity to the apartment door and brief responses to questions. Annette showcases her conciliatory nature later in the play when the couples agree to enjoy the clafoutis prepared by Veronique. Following Michel’s praise for the delicious dessert and insistence that everyone have a slice, Veronique reveals her secret ingredient. Annette’s reaction upon learning that gingerbread crumbs were the special touch in the clafoutis is simply “Brilliant” (Reza 1262).

It seems like Annette is consistently complimenting Veronique to prevent her from getting upset and to maintain a smooth meeting. As mentioned earlier, Kate Winslet’s portrayal of Nancy in Carnage conveyed her reluctance to be present at the gathering, resulting in a line filled with attitude. This is evident when comparing the line “Brilliant” (Reza1262) previously mentioned. In the film, Nancy doesn’t genuinely believe that Penelope is brilliant; her tone implies a sarcastic “good for you” sentiment, indicating her lack of interest in the cobbler.

Kate Winslet effectively demonstrates her indifference through her tone of voice, accompanied by a subtle raising of her eyebrows. This non-verbal cue is universally recognized as a look of annoyance, and it mirrors the expression Nancy gives to Penelope in the film. Later on, in the same scene, Annette once again concurs with Veronique’s viewpoint after perusing her art books. When Veronique mentions engaging her children in cultural activities such as concerts, museums, and reading, and jokingly refers to themselves as eccentric believers in the soothing power of culture, Annette responds with agreement, saying “And you’re right…” It is uncertain whether this truly reflects Annette’s personal opinion or if she is merely trying to please Veronique. Annette seems too preoccupied with appeasing Veronique. Concurrently, in the film, Nancy also sifts through a table full of magazines like Annette did, but in response to Penelope’s remark -similar to Veronique’s- Nancy responds with a slight nod of her head. Once again, this subtle difference in attitude between Annette and Nancy highlights their contrasting perspectives on the situation.

In this response, Nancy displays a lack of concern for these individuals. She is only there to resolve the issues between their sons and wants to be finished with it; the additional information is not particularly important to her. Once the commotion from Annette falling ill is resolved, we observe that both Annette and Nancy are affected by their drinking. Annette becomes more candid and begins to express her opinions, although still somewhat restrained. She starts to disagree with Veronique, which is uncharacteristic of her, and openly shares her true feelings about her husband.

There is a scene where Annette reacts to one of Alain’s phone calls by disposing of the device in a vase of tulips. Her angry line after this incident is “His whole life!…” (Reza1294). This shows that Annette is upset with her husband and expresses it in a dramatic way. Similarly, in another scene, Nancy, who was initially uptight and ready to leave, becomes a relaxed woman who speaks her mind when she is drunk. In the movie Carnage, Nancy also takes her husband’s phone and drowns it, but her reaction seems to be different from Annette’s.

At first, Nancy bursts into laughter and playfully teases her husband Allen, causing her to move around the room in amusement. When Allen expresses his anger about his personal information being exposed, Nancy repeats the line previously spoken by Annette. However, Kate Winslet portrays this line differently, using it to mock and laugh at Allen. Despite their changes in behavior after becoming intoxicated, traces of their initial character still remain.

Both Annette and Nancy have similar lines between the play and movie. However, Annette appears more reserved in her statements compared to Nancy, who adopts a sarcastic tone. Throughout the play, Annette expresses her opinions cautiously, as if she does not want to offend the Vallons. On the other hand, Nancy openly speaks with sarcasm, possibly fueled by alcohol that impairs her control over hiding her attitude. Nevertheless, Nancy seems carefree and unaffected by this lack of control.

Both the play and the movie depict the two characters in distinct ways when it comes to their delivery of lines. Nevertheless, they both use body language to show a desire to make amends and find a resolution for their conflict. In the beginning of the play, Annette’s movements are minimal as she simply shuffles magazines, but her actions become more pronounced when she falls ill and throws her cell phone into a vase. Conversely, Nancy’s behavior in the movie is characterized by constant movement. She constantly shifts between sitting, standing, pacing back and forth, and can be observed in various locations like the living room, at the door, and in the hallway – all indicating her readiness to depart.

Throughout the movie, Nancy subtly communicates her desire to leave through nods and eye movements towards the door. Meanwhile, in the hallway scenes, she walks next to Allen, revealing her fear of being left alone. The distinctions between these characters are evident in their line delivery, attitudes, and body language. Despite appearing as if they come from separate narratives, they actually do not.

Interpretation of the content can vary depending on the reader. As demonstrated earlier, there was a clear difference in how I personally interpreted certain lines compared to Kate Winslet. This resulted in a significant discrepancy. Annette and Nancy, who are supposedly identical characters, have different approaches. One seeks reconciliation and agrees with the Vallons while the other intends to quickly resolve the argument without engaging in unrelated conversation about the boys’ park dispute.

Chacha Nehru Biography

Nehru was elected by the Indian National Congress to assume office as India’s first independent Prime Minister in 1947, and re-elected when the Congress party won India’s first general election in 1951.

He was one of the founders of the international Non-Aligned Movement. The son of moderate nationalist leader and Congressman Motilal Nehru, Jawaharlal Nehru became a leader of the left wing of the Congress. He became Congress President under the mentorship of Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi. Nehru advocated Democratic Socialism/Fabian Socialism and a strong public sector as the means by which economic development could be pursued by poorer nations. He was the father of Indira Gandhi and the maternal grandfather of Rajiv Gandhi, who would later serve as the third and sixth Prime Ministers of India, respectively.

Jawaharlal Nehru was born on 14 November 1889 in Allahabad in British India. His father, Motilal Nehru (1861-1931), a wealthy barrister who belonged to the Kashmiri Pandit community,served twice as President of the Indian National Congress during the Independence Struggle. His mother, Swaruprani Thussu (1868-1938), who came from a well–known Kashmiri Brahman family settled in Lahore,was Motilal’s second wife, the first having died in child birth. Jawaharlal was the eldest of three children, two of whom were girls.

The elder sister, Vijaya Lakshmi, later became the first female president of the United Nations General Assembly. The youngest sister, Krishna Hutheesing, became a noted writer and authored several books on her brother. The Nehru family ca. 1890s Nehru described his childhood as a “sheltered and uneventful one. ” He grew up in an atmosphere of privilege at wealthy homes including a large palatial estate called the Anand Bhawan. His father had him educated at home by private governesses and tutors. Under the influence of a tutor, Ferdinand T. Brooks, Nehru became interested in science and theosophy. Nehru was subsequently initiated into the Theosophical Society at age thirteen by family friend Annie Beasant.

However, his interest in theosophy did not prove to be enduring and he left the society shortly afterwards Brooks departed as his tutor.  Nehru wrote: “for nearly three years [Brooks] was with me and in many ways he influenced me greatly. “Although Nehru was disdainful of religion, his theosophical interests had induced him to the study of the Buddhist and Hindu scriptures. According to B. R. Nanda, these scriptures were Nehru’s “first introduction to the religious and cultural heritage of [India]…. they] provided Nehru the initial impulse for [his] long intellectual quest which culminated… in the Discovery of India. “Nehru became an ardent nationalist during his youth.

The Boer War and the Russo-Japanese War intensified his feelings. About the latter he wrote, “[The] Japanese victories [had] stirred up my enthusiasm….. Nationalistic ideas filled my mind… I mused of Indian freedom and Asiatic freedom from the thraldom of Europe. Later when Nehru had began his institutional schooling in 1905 at Harrow, a leading school in England, he was greatly influenced by G. M. Trevelyan’s Garibaldi books, which he had received as prizes for academic merit.

Nehru viewed Garibaldi as a revolutionary hero. He wrote: “Visions of similar deeds in India came before, of [my] gallant fight for [Indian] freedom and in my mind India and Italy got strangely mixed together. Nehru dressed in cadet uniform at Harrow School in England Nehru went to Trinity College, Cambridge in October 1907 and graduated with an honours degree in natural science in 1910. During this period Nehru also studied politics, economics, history and literature desultorily.

Writings of Bernard Shaw, H. G Wells, J. M. Keynes, Bertrand Russel, Lowes Dickison and Meredith Townsend moulded much of his political and economic thinking. Nehru at the Allahabad High Court After completing his degree in 1910, Nehru went to London and stayed there for two years for law studies at the Inns of Court School of Law (Inner Temple). During this time he continued to study the scholars of the Fabian Society including Beatrice Webb. Nehru passed his bar examinations in 1912 and was admitted to the English bar.

After returning to India in August 1912, Nehru enrolled himself as an advocate of the Allahabad High Court and tried to settle down as a barrister. But, unlike his father, he had only a desultory interest in his profession and did not relish either the practice of law or the company of lawyers. Nehru wrote: “Decidedly the atmosphere was not intellectually stimulating and a sense of the utter insipidity of life grew upon me. There were not even worthwhile amusements or diversions. ” Nehru would soon give up his profession in favour of politics.

In December 1912, shortly after his return from England, Nehru attended an Indian National Congress session for the first time at Bankipore in Bihar.  He was disconcerted with what he saw as a “very much an English-knowing upper class affair. “Although harboring doubts regarding the ineffectualness of the Congress, Nehru would nevertheless campaign on behalf of the organisation against the indenture labor system and discrimination faced by Indian workers in the British colonies. When the First World War broke out in August 1914, sympathy in India was divided.

Although educated Indians “by and large took a vicarious pleasure” in seeing the British rulers humbled, the ruling upper classes sided with the Allies. Nehru confessed that he viewed the war with mixed feelings. Frank Moraes wrote: “If [Nehru’s] sympathy was with any country it was with France, whose culture he greatly admired. “During the war, Nehru volunteered for the St John Ambulance and worked as a secretary of the Allahabad branch of the organisation. Nehru also spoke out against the censorship acts passed by the British government in India.

Several nationalist leaders banded together in 1916 under the leadership of Annie Besant to voice a demand for self-government, and to obtain the status of a Dominion within the British Empire as enjoyed by Australia, Canada, South Africa, New Zealand and Newfoundland at the time. Nehru joined the movement and rose to become secretary of Besant’s All India Home Rule League. In June 1917 Besant was arrested and interned by the British government. The Congress and various other Indian organisation threatened to launch protests if she were not set free. The British government was subsequently forced to release Besant and make significant concessions after a period of intense protests.

This section is incomplete. Please help to improve the article, or discuss the issue on the talk page. (June 2012) This article may require copy editing for grammar, style, cohesion, tone etc. You can assist by editing it. (June 2012) Nehru returned to India in 1912, where he worked as a barrister in Allahabad while moving up the ranks of the Congress during World War I.

His close association with the Congress dates from 1919, in the immediate aftermath of World War I. Nehru first met Gandhi in 1916, at the Lucknow session of the Congress. It was to be the beginning of a lifelong partnership between the two, which lasted until the Gandhi’s death. Nehru quickly rose to prominence under the mentorship of Gandhi. By late 1921, he had already became one of the most prominent leaders of the Congress. When the British colonial administration outlawed the Congress party, Nehru went to prison for the first time.

Over the next 24 years he was to serve another eight periods of detention. In all, he would spend more than nine years in jail. Nehru’s political apprenticeship under Gandhi lasted from 1919 to 1929. He was elected general secretary of the Congress party for two terms in the 1920s. His first term began with the Kakinada session of the Congress in 1923. Along with Subhas Chandra Bose, Nehru was considered a radical within the party during his tenure as general secretary due to his rejection of dominion status for India in favour of complete independence.

Nehru co-operated with Dr. N. S. Hardiker in founding the Hindustani Seva Dal in 1923. Nehru was elected chairman of the Allahabad Municipal Board in 1923. Nehru’s second term as general secretary began with the Madras session of the Congress in 1927. [edit] Non-cooperation The first big national involvement of Nehru came at the onset of the non-cooperation movement in 1920. He led the movement in the United Provinces (now Uttar Pradesh). Nehru was arrested on charges of anti-governmental activities in 1921, and was released a few months later.

In the rift that formed within the Congress following the sudden closure of the non-cooperation movement after the Chauri Chaura incident, Nehru remained loyal to Gandhi and did not join the Swaraj Party formed by his father Motilal Nehru and CR Das.  Internationalising the struggle Nehru played a leading role in the development of the internationalist outlook of the Indian freedom struggle. He sought foreign allies for India and forged links with movements for freedom and democracy all over the world.

In 1927, his efforts paid off and the Congress was invited to attend the congress of oppressed nationalities in Brussels in Belgium. The meeting was called to coordinate and plan a common struggle against imperialism. Nehru represented India and was elected to the Executive Council of the League against Imperialism that was born at this meeting. During the mid-1930s, Nehru was much concerned with developments in Europe, which seemed to be drifting toward another world war. He was in Europe early in 1936, visiting his ailing wife, shortly before she died in a sanitarium in Switzerland.

Even at this time, he emphasized that, in the event of war, India’s place was alongside the democracies, though he insisted that India could only fight in support of Great Britain and France as a free country. Nehru closely worked with Subhash Bose in developing good relations with governments of free countries all over the world. However, the two split in the late 1930s, when Bose agreed to seek the help of fascists in driving the British out of India. At the same time, Nehru had supported the people of Spain who were fighting to defend themselves against Franco.

People of many countries volunteered to fight the fascist forces in Spain and formed the International Brigade. Nehru along with his aide V. K. Krishna Menon went to Spain and extended the support of the Indian people to the people of Spain. Nehru refused to meet Mussolini, the dictator of Italy when the latter expressed his desire to meet him. Thus, Nehru came to be seen as a champion of freedom and democracy all over the world. Republicanism Nehru was one of the first nationalist leaders to realise the sufferings of the people in the states ruled by Indian Princes.

He suffered imprisonment in Nabha, a princely state, when he went there to see the struggle that was being waged by the Sikhs against the corrupt Mahants. The nationalist movement had been confined to the territories under direct British rule. Nehru helped to make the struggle of the people in the princely states a part of the nationalist movement for freedom. The All India states people’s conference was formed in 1927. Nehru who had been supporting the cause of the people of the princely states for many years was made the President of the conference in 1935. He opened up its ranks to membership from across the political spectrum.

The body would play an important role during the political integration of India, helping Indian leaders Vallabhbhai Patel and V. K. Krishna Menon (to whom Nehru had delegated the task of integrating the princely states into India) negotiate with hundreds of princes. In July 1946, Nehru pointedly observed that no princely state could prevail militarily against the army of independent India. In January 1947, Nehru said that independent India would not accept the Divine Right of Kings,and in May 1947, he declared that any princely state which refused to join the Constituent Assembly would be treated as an enemy state.

During the drafting of the Indian constitution, many Indian leaders (except Nehru) of that time were in favour of allowing each Princely state or Covenanting State to be independent as a federal state along the lines suggested originally by the Government of India act (1935). But as the drafting of the constitution progressed and the idea of forming a republic took concrete shape (due to the efforts of Nehru), it was decided that all the Princely states/Covenanting States would merge with the Indian republic. Nehru’s daughter, Indira Gandhi, de-recognized all the rulers by a presidential order in 1969.

But this was struck down by the Supreme Court of India. Eventually, the government by the 26th Amendment to the constitution was successful in abolishing the Princely states of India. The process began by Nehru was finally completed by his daughter by the end of 1971.  Declaration of Independence Nehru was one of the first leaders to demand that the Congress resolve to make a complete and explicit break from all ties with the British Empire. He introduced a resolution demanding “complete national independence” in 1927, which was rejected because of Gandhi’s opposition.

In 1928 Gandhi agreed to Nehru’s demands and proposed a resolution that called for the British to grant dominion status to India within two years. If the British failed to meet the deadline, the Congress would call upon all Indians to fight for complete independence. Nehru was one of the leaders who objected to the time given to the British – he pressed Gandhi to demand immediate actions from the British. Gandhi brokered a further compromise by reducing the time given from two years to one. Nehru agreed to vote for the new resolution. Demands for dominion status was rejected by the British in 1929.

Nehru assumed the presidency of the Congress party during the Lahore session on 29 December 1929 and introduced a successful resolution calling for complete independence. Nehru drafted the Indian declaration of independence, which stated: “We believe that it is the inalienable right of the Indian people, as of any other people, to have freedom and to enjoy the fruits of their toil and have the necessities of life, so that they may have full opportunities of growth. We believe also that if any government deprives a people of these rights and oppresses them the people have a further right to alter it or abolish it.

The British government in India has not only deprived the Indian people of their freedom but has based itself on the exploitation of the masses, and has ruined India economically, politically, culturally and spiritually. We believe therefore, that India must sever the British connection and attain Purna Swaraj or complete independence. “At midnight on New Year’s Eve 1929, Nehru hoisted the tricolour flag of India upon the banks of the Ravi in Lahore. A pledge of independence was read out, which included a readiness to withhold taxes.

The massive gathering of public attending the ceremony were asked if they agreed with it, and the vast majority of people were witnessed to raise their hands in approval. 172 Indian members of central and provincial legislatures resigned in support of the resolution and in accordance with Indian public sentiment. The Congress asked the people of India to observe 26 January as Independence Day. The flag of India was hoisted publicly across India by Congress volunteers, nationalists and the public. Plans for a mass civil disobedience was also underway. After the Lahore session of the

Congress in 1929, Nehru gradually emerged as the paramount leader of the Indian independence movement. Gandhi stepped back into a more spiritual role. Although Gandhi did not officially designate Nehru his political heir until 1942, the country as early as the mid-1930s saw in Nehru the natural successor to Gandhi. [edit] Civil disobedience Nehru and most of the Congress leaders were initially ambivalent about Gandhi’s plan to begin civil disobedience with a satyagraha aimed at the British salt tax. After the protest gathered steam, they realized the power of salt as a symbol.

Nehru remarked about the unprecedented popular response, “it seemed as though a spring had been suddenly released. ”[28] Nehru was arrested on 14 April 1930 while entraining from Allahabad for Raipur. He had earlier, after addressing a huge meeting and leading a vast procession, ceremoniously manufactured some contraband salt. He was charged with breach of the salt law, tried summarily behind prison walls and sentenced to six months of imprisonment. Nehru nominated Gandhi to succeed him as Congress President during his absence in jail, but Gandhi declined, and Nehru then nominated his father as his successor.

With Nehru’s arrest the civil disobedience acquired a new tempo, and arrests, firing on crowds and lathi charges grew to be ordinary occurrences. The salt satyagraha succeeded in drawing the attention of the world. Indian, British, and world opinion increasingly began to recognize the legitimacy of claims by the Congress party for independence. Nehru considered the salt satyagraha the high water mark of his association with Gandhi, and felt that its lasting importance was in changing the attitudes of Indians: “Of course these movements exercised tremendous pressure on the British Government and shook the government machinery.

But the real importance, to my mind, lay in the effect they had on our own people, and especially the village masses…. Non-cooperation dragged them out of the mire and gave them self-respect and self-reliance…. They acted courageously and did not submit so easily to unjust oppression; their outlook widened and they began to think a little in terms of India as a whole…. It was a remarkable transformation and the Congress, under Gandhi’s leadership, must have the credit for it. “

Nehru elaborated the policies of the Congress and a future Indian nation under his leadership in 1929. He declared that the aims of the congress were freedom of religion, right to form associations, freedom of expression of thought, equality before law for every individual without distinction of caste, colour, creed or religion, protection to regional languages and cultures, safeguarding the interests of the peasants and labour, abolition of untouchability, introduction of adult franchise, imposition of prohibition, nationalisation of industries, socialism, and establishment of a secular India.

All these aims formed the core of the “Fundamental Rights and Economic Policy” resolution drafted by Nehru in 1929-31 and were ratified by the All India Congress Committee under Gandhi’s leadership.  However, some Congress leaders objected to the resolution and decided to oppose Nehru. The espousal of socialism as the Congress goal was most difficult to achieve. Nehru was opposed in this by the right-wing Congressmen Sardar Patel, Dr. Rajendra Prasad and Chakravarthi Rajagopalachari.

Nehru had the support of the left-wing Congressmen Maulana Azad and Subash Chandra Bose. The trio combined to oust Dr. Prasad as Congress President in 1936. Nehru was elected in his place and held the presidency for two years (1936–37). [32] Nehru was then succeeded by his socialist colleagues Bose (1938–39) and Azad (1940–46). After the fall of Bose from the mainstream of Indian politics (due to his support of violence in driving the British out of India), the power struggle between the socialists and conservatives balanced out.

However, Sardar Patel died in 1950, leaving Nehru as the sole remaining iconic national leader, and soon the situation became such that Nehru was able to implement many of his basic policies without hindrance. The conservative right-wing of the Congress (composed of India’s upper class elites) would continue opposing the socialists until the great schism in 1969. Nehru’s daughter, Indira Gandhi, was able to fulfill her father’s dream by the 42nd amendment (1976) of the Indian constitution by which India officially became “socialist” and “secular”. During Nehru’s second term as general secretary of the Congress, he proposed certain resolutions concerning the foreign policy of India.

From that time onwards, he was given carte blanche in framing the foreign policy of any future Indian nation. Nehru developed good relations with governments all over the world. He firmly placed India on the side of democracy and freedom during a time when the world was under the threat of fascism. Nehru was also given the responsibility of planning the economy of a future India. He appointed the National Planning Commission in 1938 to help in framing such policies. However, many of the plans framed by Nehru and his colleagues would come undone with the unexpected partition of India in 1947.

Interested in its ideas but repelled by some of its methods, he could never bring himself to accept Karl Marx’s writings as revealed scripture. Yet from then on, the yardstick of his economic thinking remained Marxist, adjusted, where necessary, to Indian conditions. When the Congress party under Nehru chose to contest elections and accept power under the Federation scheme, Gandhi resigned from party membership. Gandhi did not disagree with Nehru’s move, but felt that if he resigned, his popularity with Indians would cease to stifle the party’s membership.

When the elections following the introduction of provincial autonomy (under the government of India act 1935) brought the Congress party to power in a majority of the provinces, Nehru’s popularity and power was unmatched. The Muslim League under Mohammed Ali Jinnah (who was to become the creator of Pakistan) had fared badly at the polls. Nehru declared that the only two parties that mattered in India were the British Raj and Congress. Jinnah statements that the Muslim League was the third and “equal partner” within Indian politics was widely rejected.

Nehru had hoped to elevate Maulana Azad as the pre-eminent leaders of Indian Muslims, but in this, he was undermined by Gandhi, who continued to treat Jinnah as the voice of Indian Muslims. [edit] World War II and Quit India When World war II started, Viceroy Linlithgow had unilaterally declared India a belligerent on the side of the Britain, without consulting the elected Indian representatives.

I should like India to play its full part and throw all her resources into the struggle for a new order. ” After much deliberation the Congress under Nehru informed the government that it would cooperate with the British but on certain conditions. First, Britain must give an assurance of full independence for India after the war and allow the election of a constituent assembly to frame a new constitution; second, although the Indian armed forces would remain under the British Commander-in-Chief, Indians must be included immediately in the central government and given a chance to share power and responsibility.

When Nehru presented Lord Linlithgow with the demands, he chose not to take them seriously. A deadlock was reached. “The same old game is played again,” Nehru wrote bitterly to Gandhi, “the background is the same, the various epithets are the same and the actors are the same and the results must be the same. ” On 23 October 1939, the Congress condemned the Viceroy’s attitude and called upon the Congress ministries in the various provinces to resign in protest. Before this crucial announcement, Nehru urged Jinnah and the Muslim League to join the protest but the latter declined.

In March 1940 Jinnah passed what would come to be known as the “Pakistan Resolution,” declaring “Muslims are a nation according to any definition of a nation, and they must have their homelands, their territory and their State. ” This state was to be known as Pakistan, meaning “Land of the Pure. ” Nehru angrily declared that “all the old problems… pale into insignificance before the latest stand taken by the Muslim League leader in Lahore. ” Linlithgow made Nehru an offer on 8 October 1940. It stated that Dominion status for India was the objective of the British government.

However, it referred neither to a date nor method of accomplishment. Only Jinnah got something more precise. “The British would not contemplate transferring power to a Congress-dominated national government the authority of which was ”denied by large and powerful elements in India’s national life. ” In October 1940, Gandhi and Nehru, abandoning their original stand of supporting Britain, decided to launch a limited civil disobedience campaign in which leading advocates of Indian independence were selected to participate one by one. Nehru was arrested and sentenced to four years’ imprisonment.

After spending a little more than a year in jail, he was released, along with other Congress prisoners, three days before the bombing of Pearl Harbor in Hawaii. When the Japanese carried their attack through Burma (now Myanmar) to the borders of India in the spring of 1942, the British government, faced by this new military threat, decided to make some overtures to India, as Nehru had originally desired. Prime Minister Winston Churchill dispatched Sir Stafford Cripps, a member of the war Cabinet who was known to be politically close to Nehru and also knew Jinnah, with proposals for a settlement of the constitutional problem.

As soon as he arrived he discovered that India was more deeply divided than he had imagined. Nehru, eager for a compromise, was hopeful. Gandhi was not. Jinnah had continued opposing the Congress. “Pakistan is our only demand,” declared the Muslim League newspaper “Dawn” and by God we will have it. ” Cripps’s mission failed as Gandhi would accept nothing less than independence. Relations between Nehru and Gandhi cooled over the latters refusal to cooperate with Cripps but the two later reconcilled. On 15 January 1941 Gandhi had stated: “Some say Pandit Nehru and I were estranged.

It will require much more than difference of opinion to estrange us. We had differences from the time we became co-workers and yet I have said for some years and say so now that not Rajaji but Jawaharlal will be my successor. “[36] Gandhi called on the British to leave India; Nehru, though reluctant to embarrass the allied war effort, had no alternative but to join Gandhi. Following the Quit India resolution passed by the Congress party in Bombay (now Mumbai) on 8 Aug 1942, the entire Congress working committee, including Gandhi and Nehru, was arrested and imprisoned.

Nehru emerged from this—his ninth and last detention—only on 15 June 1945. During the period where all of the Congress leadership were in jail, the Muslim League under Jinnah grew in power. In April 1943, the League captured the governments of Bengal and, a month later, that of the North West Frontier Province. In none of these provinces had the League previously had a majority – only the arrest of Congress members made it possible. With all the Muslim dominated provinces except the Punjab under Jinnah’s control, the artificial concept of a separate Muslim State was turning into a reality.

However by 1944, Jinnah’s power and prestige were on the wane. A general sympathy towards the jailed Congress leaders was developing among Muslims, and much of the blame for the disastrous Bengal famine of 1943-4 during which two million died, had been laid on the shoulders of the province’s Muslim League government. The numbers at Jinnah’s meetings, once counted in thousands soon numbered only a few hundreds. In despair, Jinnah left the political scene for a stay in Kashmir.

His prestige was restored unwittingly by Gandhi, who had been released from prison on medical grounds in May 1944 and had met Jinnah in Bombay in September. There he offered the Muslim leader a plebiscite in the Muslim areas after the war to see whether they wanted to separate from the rest of India. Essentially, it was an acceptance of the principle of Pakistan – but not in so many words. Jinnah demanded that the exact words be said; Gandhi refused and the talks broke down. Jinnah however had greatly strengthened his own position and that of the League.

The most influential member of Congress had been seen to negotiate with him on equal terms. Other Muslim leaders, opposed both to Jinnah and to the partition of India, lost strength. Prime Minister of India (1947-64) This section is incomplete. Please help to improve the article, or discuss the issue on the talk page. (June 2012) Teen Murti Bhavan, Nehru’s residence as Prime Minister, now a museum in his memory. Nehru and his colleagues had been released as the British Cabinet Mission arrived to propose plans for transfer of power.

Lord Mountbatten swears in Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru as the first Prime Minister of free India at the ceremony held at 8:30 am IST on 15 August 1947 Once elected, Nehru headed an interim government, which was impaired by outbreaks of communal violence and political disorder, and the opposition of the Muslim League led by Muhammad Ali Jinnah, who were demanding a separate Muslim state of Pakistan. After failed bids to form coalitions, Nehru reluctantly supported the partition of India, according to a plan released by the British on 3 June 1947.

He took office as the Prime Minister of India on 15 August, and delivered his inaugural address titled “A Tryst With Destiny” “Long years ago we made a tryst with destiny, and now the time comes when we shall redeem our pledge, not wholly or in full measure, but very substantially. At the stroke of the midnight hour, when the world sleeps, India will awake to life and freedom. A moment comes, which comes but rarely in history, when we step out from the old to the new, when an age ends, and when the soul of a nation, long suppressed, finds utterance.

It is fitting that at this solemn moment we take the pledge of dedication to the service of India and her people and to the still larger cause of humanity. “On 30 January 1948, Father of the Nation, Mahatma Gandhi was shot while he was walking to a platform from which he was to address a prayer meeting. The assassin, Nathuram Godse, was a Hindu nationalist with links to the extremist Hindu Mahasabha, who held Gandhi responsible for weakening India by insisting upon a payment to Pakistan.

Nehru addressed the nation through radio:”Friends and comrades, the light has gone out of our lives, and there is darkness everywhere, and I do not quite know what to tell you or how to say it. Our beloved leader, Bapu as we called him, the father of the nation, is no more. Perhaps I am wrong to say that; nevertheless, we will not see him again, as we have seen him for these many years, we will not run to him for advice or seek solace from him, and that is a terrible blow, not only for me, but for millions and millions in this country.

Jawaharlal Nehru’s address to Gandhi Yasmin Khan argued that Gandhi’s death and funeral helped consolidate the authority of the new Indian state under Nehru and Patel. The Congress tightly controlled the epic public displays of grief over a two-week period—the funeral, mortuary rituals and distribution of the martyr’s ashes—as millions participated and hundreds of millions watched. The goal was to assert the power of the government, legitimize the Congress party’s control and suppress all religious para-military groups.

Nehru and Patel suppressed the RSS, the Muslim National Guards, and the Khaksars, with some 200,000 arrests. Gandhi’s death and funeral linked the distant state with the Indian people and made more understand the need to suppress religious parties during the transition to independence for the Indian people.

In later years there emerged a revisionist school of history which sought to blame Nehru for the partition of India, mostly referring to his highly centralised policies for an independent India in 1947, which Jinnah opposed in favour of a more decentralised India. Such views has been promoted by the Hindu nationalist Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), which favours a decentralized central government in India.

In the years following independence, Nehru frequently turned to his daughter Indira to look after him and manage his personal affairs. Under his leadership, the Congress won an overwhelming majority in the elections of 1952. Indira moved into Nehru’s official residence to attend to him and became his constant companion in his travels across India and the world. Indira would virtually become Nehru’s chief of staff.

Nehru’s study in Teen Murti Bhavan. Economic policies Nehru presided over the introduction of a modified, Indian version of state planning and control over the economy. Creating the Planning commission of India, Nehru drew up the first Five-Year Plan in 1951, which charted the government’s investments in industries and agriculture. Increasing business and income taxes, Nehru envisaged a mixed economy in which the government would manage strategic industries such as mining, electricity and heavy industries, serving public interest and a check to private enterprise.

Nehru pursued land redistribution and launched programmes to build irrigation canals, dams and spread the use of fertilizers to increase agricultural production. He also pioneered a series of community development programs aimed at spreading diverse cottage industries and increasing efficiency into rural India. While encouraging the construction of large dams (which Nehru called the “new temples of India”), irrigation works and the generation of hydroelectricity, Nehru also launched India’s programme to harness nuclear energy.

For most of Nehru’s term as prime minister, India would continue to face serious food shortages despite progress and increases in agricultural production. Nehru’s industrial policies, summarised in the Industrial Policy Resolution of 1956, encouraged the growth of diverse manufacturing and heavy industries, yet state planning, controls and regulations began to impair productivity, quality and profitability.

Although the Indian economy enjoyed a steady rate of growth at 2. % per annum (mocked by leftist economist Raj Krishna as a “Hindu rate of growth”), chronic unemployment amidst widespread poverty continued to plague the population. ff D. D. Kosambi, a well-known Marxist historian, criticized Nehru in his article for the bourgeoisie class exploitation of Nehru’s socialist ideology. Nehru was accused of promoting capitalism in the guise of democratic socialism among other things. Land and agrarian reform Under Nehru’s leadership, the government attempted to develop India quickly by embarking on agrarian reform and rapid industrialization.

A successful land reform was introduced that abolished giant landholdings, but efforts to redistribute land by placing limits on landownership failed. Attempts to introduce large-scale cooperative farming were frustrated by landowning rural elites, who formed the core of the powerful right-wing of the Congress and had considerable political support in opposing the efforts of Nehru. Agricultural production expanded until the early 1960s, as additional land was brought under cultivation and some irrigation projects began to have an effect.

The establishment of agricultural universities, modeled after land-grant colleges in the United States, contributed to the development of the economy. These universities worked with high-yielding varieties of wheat and rice, initially developed in Mexico and the Philippines, that in the 1960s began the Green Revolution, an effort to diversify and increase crop production. At the same time a series of failed monsoons would cause serious food shortages despite the steady progress and increase in agricultural production. Domestic policies. This section is empty. You can help by adding to it. (June 2012)

States reorganisation See also: States Reorganisation Act The British Indian Empire, which included present-day India, Pakistan and Bangladesh, was divided into two types of territories: the Provinces of British India, which were governed directly by British officials responsible to the Governor-General of India; and princely states, under the rule of local hereditary rulers who recognised British suzerainty in return for local autonomy, in most cases as established by treaty.

Between 1947 and about 1950, the territories of the princely states were politically integrated into the Indian Union under Nehru and Sardar Patel. Most were merged into existing provinces; others were organised into new provinces, such as Rajputana, Himachal Pradesh, Madhya Bharat, and Vindhya Pradesh, made up of multiple princely states; a few, including Mysore, Hyderabad, Bhopal, and Bilaspur, became separate provinces. The Government of India Act 1935 remained the constitutional law of India pending adoption of a new Constitution.

The new Constitution of India, which came into force on 26 January 1950, made India a sovereign democratic republic. Nehru declared the new republic to be a “Union of States”. The constitution of 1950 distinguished between three main types of states: Part A states, which were the former governors’ provinces of British India, were ruled by an elected governor and state legislature. The Part B states were former princely states or groups of princely states, governed by a rajpramukh, who was usually the ruler of a constituent state, and an elected legislature. The rajpramukh was appointed by the President of India.

The Part C states included both the former chief commissioners’ provinces and some princely states, and each was governed by a chief commissioner appointed by the President of India. The sole Part D state was the Andaman and Nicobar Islands, which were administered by a lieutenant governor appointed by the central government. In December 1953, Nehru appointed the States Reorganisation Commission to prepare for the creation of states on linguistic lines. This was headed by Justice Fazal Ali and the commission itself was also known as the Fazal Ali Commission.

The efforts of this commission were overseen by Govind Ballabh Pant, who served as Nehru’s Home Minister from December 1954. The commission created a report in 1955 recommending the reorganisation of India’s states. Under the Seventh Amendment, the existing distinction between Part A, Part B, Part C, and Part D states was abolished. The distinction between Part A and Part B states was removed, becoming known simply as “states”. A new type of entity, the union territory, replaced the classification as a Part C or Part D state. Nehru stressed commonality among Indians and promoted pan-Indianism.

He refused to reorganise states on either religious or ethnic lines. Western scholars have mostly praised Nehru for the integration of the states into a modern republic but the act was not accepted universally in India. [edit] Education and social reform Nehru with schoolchildren at the Durgapur Steel Plant. Durgapur along with Rourkela and Bhilai were the three integrated steel plants set up under India’s Second Five-Year Plan in the late 1950s.

Jawaharlal Nehru was a passionate advocate of education for India’s children and youth, believing t essential for India’s future progress. His government oversaw the establishment of many institutions of higher learning, including the All India Institute of Medical Sciences, the Indian Institutes of Technology, the Indian Institutes of Management and the National Institutes of Technology. Nehru also outlined a commitment in his five-year plans to guarantee free and compulsory primary education to all of India’s children. For this purpose, Nehru oversaw the creation of mass village enrollment programmes and the construction of thousands of schools.

Nehru also launched initiatives such as the provision of free milk and meals to children in order to fight malnutrition. Adult education centres, vocational and technical schools were also organised for adults, especially in the rural areas. Under Nehru, the Indian Parliament enacted many changes to Hindu law to criminalize caste discrimination and increase the legal rights and social freedoms of women. [46][47][48][49] A system of reservations in government services and educational institutions was created to eradicate the social inequalities and disadvantages faced by peoples of the scheduled castes and scheduled tribes.

Nehru also championed secularism and religious harmony, increasing the representation of minorities in government. Nehru specifically wrote Article 44 of the Indian constitution under the Directive Principles of State Policy which states : ‘The State shall endeavour to secure for the citizens a uniform civil code throughout the territory of India. ‘ The article has formed the basis of secularism in India. However, Nehru has been criticized for the inconsistent application of the law. Most notably, Nehru allowed Muslims to keep their personal law in matters relating to marriage and inheritance.

Also in the small state of Goa, a civil code based on the old Portuguese Family Laws was allowed to continue, and Muslim Personal law was prohibited by Nehru. This was the result of the annexation of Goa in 1961 by India, when Nehru promised the people that their laws would be left intact. This has led to accusations of selective secularism. While Nehru exempted Muslim law from legislation and they remained un-reformed, he did pass the Special Marriage Act in 1954. The idea behind this act was to give everyone in India the ability to marry outside the personal law under a civil marriage.

As usual the law applied to all of India, except Jammu and Kashmir (again leading to accusations of selective secularism). In many respects, the act was almost identical to the Hindu Marriage Act of 1955, which gives some idea as to how secularized the law regarding Hindus had become. The Special Marriage Act allowed Muslims to marry under it and thereby retain the protections, generally beneficial to Muslim women, that could not be found in the personal law. Under the act polygamy was illegal, and inheritance and succession would be governed by the Indian Succession Act, rather than the respective Muslim Personal Law.

Divorce also would be governed by the secular law, and maintenance of a divorced wife would be along the lines set down in the civil law. Nehru led the faction of the Congress party which promoted Hindi as the ligua-franca of the Indian nation. After an exhaustive and divisive debate with the non-Hindi speakers, Hindi was adopted as the official language of India in 1950 with English continuing as an associate official language for a period of fifteen years, after which Hindi would become the sole official language.

Efforts by the Indian Government to make Hindi the sole official language after 1965 were not acceptable to many non-Hindi Indian states, who wanted the continued use of English. The Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK), a descendant of Dravidar Kazhagam, led the opposition to Hindi. To allay their fears, Nehru enacted the Official Languages Act in 1963 to ensure the continuing use of English beyond 1965. The text of the Act did not satisfy the DMK and increased their skepticism that his assurances might not be honoured by future administrations.

The issue was resolved during the premiership of Lal Bahadur Shastri, who under great pressure from Nehru’s daughter, Indira Gandhi, was made to give assurances that English would continue to be used as the official language as long the non-Hindi speaking states wanted. The Official Languages Act was eventually amended in 1967 by the Congress Government headed by Indira Gandhi to guarantee the indefinite use of Hindi and English as official languages. This effectively ensured the current “virtual indefinite policy of bilingualism” of the Indian Republic.

See also: Role of India in Non-Aligned Movement Nehru led newly independent India from 1947 to 1964, during its first years of freedom from British rule. Both the United States and the Soviet Union competed to make India an ally throughout the Cold War. Nehru also maintained good relations with the British Empire. Under the London Declaration, India agreed that, when it became a republic in January 1950, it would join the Commonwealth of Nations and accept the British monarch as a “symbol of the free association of its independent member nations and as such the Head of the Commonwealth”.

The other nations of the Commonwealth recognised India’s continuing membership of the association. The reaction back home was favourable; only the far-left and the far-right criticized Nehru’s decision. On the international scene, Nehru was a champion of pacifism and a strong supporter of the United Nations. He pioneered the policy of non-alignment and co-founded the Non-Aligned Movement of nations professing neutrality between the rival blocs of nations led by the U. S. and the U. S. S. R.

Recognising the People’s Republic of China soon after its founding (while most of the Western bloc continued relations with the Republic of China), Nehru argued for its inclusion in the United Nations and refused to brand the Chinese as the aggressors in their conflict with Korea. He sought to establish warm and friendly relations with China in 1950, and hoped to act as an intermediary to bridge the gulf and tensions between the communist states and the Western bloc. Nehru had promised in 1948 to hold a plebiscite in Kashmir under the auspices of the UN.

Kashmir was a disputed territory between India and Pakistan, the two having gone to war with each other over the state in 1948. However, as Pakistan failed to pull back troops in accordance with the UN resolution and as Nehru grew increasingly wary of the UN, he declined to hold a plebiscite in 1953. His policies on Kashmir and the integeration of the state into India was frequently defended in front of the United Nations by his aide, Krishna Menon, a brilliant diplomat who earned a reputation in India for his passionate speeches. Nehru, while a pacifist, was not blind to the political and geo-strategic reality of India in 1947.

While laying the foundation stone of the National Defence Academy (India) in 1949, he stated: “We, who for generations had talked about and attempted in everything a peaceful way and practiced non-violence, should now be, in a sense, glorifying our army, navy and air force. It means a lot. Though it is odd, yet it simply reflects the oddness of life. Though life is logical, we have to face all contingencies, and unless we are prepared to face them, we will go under.

There was no greater prince of peace and apostle of non-violence than Mahatma Gandhi, the Father of the Nation, whom we have lost, but yet, he aid it was better to take the sword than to surrender, fail or run away. We cannot live carefree assuming that we are safe. Human nature is such. We cannot take the risks and risk our hard-won freedom. We have to be prepared with all modern defense methods and a well-equipped army, navy and air force. “Nehru envisioned the developing of nuclear weapons and established the Atomic Energy Commission of India (AEC) in 1948. Nehru also called Dr. Homi J. Bhabha, a nuclear physicist, who was entrusted with complete authority over all nuclear related affairs and programs and answered only to Nehru himself.

Indian nuclear policy was set by unwritten personal understanding between Nehru and Bhabha. Nehru famously said to Bhabha, “Professor Bhabha take care of Physics, leave international relation to me”. From the outset in 1948, Nehru had high ambition to develop this program to stand against the industrialized states and the basis of this program was to establish an Indian nuclear weapons capability as part of India’s regional superiority to other South-Asian states, most particularly Pakistan.

Nehru also told Bhabha, later it was told by Bhabha to Raja Rammanna that, “We must have the capability. We should first prove ourselves and then talk of Gandhi, non-violence and a world without nuclear weapons. ” Jawaharlal Nehru (right) with Muhammad Ali Bogra, Prime Minister of Pakistan (left), during his 1953 visit to Karachi Nehru was hailed by many for working to defuse global tensions and the threat of nuclear weapons after the Korean war (1950–1953).

He commissioned the first study of the human effects of nuclear explosions, and campaigned ceaselessly for the abolition of what he called “these frightful engines of destruction. ” He also had pragmatic reasons for promoting de-nuclearisation, fearing that a nuclear arms race would lead to over-militarisation that would be unaffordable for developing countries such as his own. Nehru ordered the arrest of the Kashmiri politician Sheikh Abdullah in 1953, whom he had previously supported but now suspected of harbouring separatist ambitions; Bakshi Ghulam Mohammad replaced him.

In 1954 Nehru signed with China the Five Principles of Peaceful Coexistence, known in India as the Panchsheel (from the Sanskrit words, panch:five, sheel:virtues), a set of principles to govern relations between the two states. Their first formal codification in treaty form was in an agreement between China and India in 1954. They were enunciated in the preamble to the “Agreement (with exchange of notes) on trade and intercourse between Tibet Region of China and India”, which was signed at Peking on 29 April 1954.

Negotiations took place in Delhi from December 1953 to April 1954 between the Delegation of the PRC Government and the Delegation of the Indian Government on the relations between the two countries with respect to the disputed territories of Aksai Chin and South Tibet. The treaty was disregared in the 1960s, but in the 1970s, the Five Principles again came to be seen as important in Sino-Indian relations, and more generally as norms of relations between states.

They became widely recognized and accepted throughout the region during the premiership of Indira Gandhi and the 3-year rule of the Janata Party (1977–1980). In 1956 Nehru had criticised the joint invasion of the Suez Canal by the British, French and Israelis. The role of Nehru, both as Indian Prime minister and a leader of the Non Aligned Movement was significant; he tried to be even-handed between the two sides, while denouncing Eden and co-sponsors of the aggression vigorously.

Nehru had a powerful ally in the US president Dwight Eisenhower who, if relatively silent publicly, went to the extent of using America’s clout in the IMF to make Britain and France back down. The episode greatly raised the prestige of Nehru and India amongst the third world nations.

During the Suez crisis, Nehru’s right hand man, Menon attempted to persuade a recalcitrant Gamal Nasser to compromise with the West, and was instrumental in moving Western powers towards an awareness that Nasser might prove willing to compromise. In 1957, Menon was instructed to deliver an unprecedented eight-hour speech defending India’s stand on Kashmir; to date, the speech is the longest ever delivered in the United Nations Security Council, covering five hours of the 762nd meeting on the 23 of January, and two hours and forty-eight minutes on the 24th, reportedly concluding with Menon’s collapse on the Security Council floor.

During the filibuster, Nehru moved swiftly and successfully to consolidate Indian power in Kashmir (then under great unrest). Menon’s passionate defense of Indian sovereignty in Kashmir enlarged his base of support in India, and led to the Indian press temporarily dubbing him the ‘Hero of Kashmir’. Nehru was then at the peak of his popularity in India; the only (minor) criticism came from the far-right. The USA had hoped to court Nehru after its intervention in favour of Nasser during the Suez crisis.

However, cold war suspicions and the American distrust of Nehruvian socialism cooled relations between India and the U. S. , which suspected Nehru of tacitly supporting the Soviet Union. Nehru maintained good relations with Britain even after the Suez Crisis. Nehru accepted the arbitration of the UK and World Bank, signing the Indus Water Treaty in 1960 with Pakistani ruler Ayub Khan to resolve long-standing disputes about sharing the resources of the major rivers of the Punjab region. Krishna Menon, routinely referred to by western publications as “Nehru’s Evil Genius”. He was described as the second most powerful man in India by Time magazine and others.

Although the Pancha Sila (Five Principles of Peaceful Coexistence) was the basis of the 1954 Sino-Indian border treaty, in later years, Nehru’s foreign policy suffered through increasing Chinese assertiveness over border disputes and Nehru’s decision to grant political asylum to the 14th Dalai Lama. After years of failed negotiations, Nehru authorized the Indian Army to liberate Goa in 1961 from Portuguese occupation, and then he formally annexed it to India. It increased his popularity in India, but he was criticized by the communist oppposition in India for the use of military force.

The use of military force against Portugal earned him goodwill amongst the right-wing and far-right groups. However, this goodwill was to be lost with India’s tactical defeat in the 1962 war with China. From 1959, in a process that accelerated in 1961, Nehru adopted the “Forward Policy” of setting up military outposts in disputed areas of the Sino-Indian border, including in 43 outposts in territory not previously controlled by India.  China attacked some of these outposts, and thus the Sino-Indian War began, which India technically lost, but China gained no territory as it withdrew to pre-war lines due to a Soviet veto.

The war exposed the weaknesses of India’s military, and Nehru was widely criticised for his government’s insufficient attention to defence. In response, Nehru sacked the defence minister Krishna Menon and sought U. S. military aid. Nehru’s improved relations with USA under John F. Kennedy proved useful during the war, as in 1962, President of Pakistan (then closely aligned with the Americans) Ayub Khan was made to guarantee his neutrality in regards to India, who was threatened by “communist aggression from Red China.

The Indian relationship with the Soviet Union, criticized by right-wing groups supporting free-market policies was also seemingly validated. Nehru would continue to maintain his commitment to the non-aligned movement despite calls from some to settle down on one permanent ally. The aftermath of the war saw sweeping changes in the Indian military to prepare it for similar conflicts in the future, and placed pressure on Nehru, who was seen as responsible for failing to anticipate the Chinese attack on India.

Under American advice (by American envoy John Kenneth Galbraith who made and ran American policy on the war as all other top policy makers in USA were absorbed in coincident Cuban Missile Crisis) Nehru refrained, not according to the best choices available, from using the Indian air force to beat back the Chinese advances. The CIA later revealed that at that time the Chinese had neither the fuel nor runways long enough for using their air force effectively in Tibet. Indians in general became highly sceptical of China and its military.

Many Indians view the war as a betrayal of India’s attempts at establishing a long-standing peace with China and started to question Nehru’s usage of the term “Hindi-Chini bhai-bhai” (meaning “Indians and Chinese are brothers”). The war also put an end to Nehru’s earlier hopes that India and China would form a strong Asian Axis to counteract the increasing influence of the Cold War bloc superpowers. The unpreparedness of the army was blamed on Defence Minister Menon, who “resigned” his government post to allow for someone who might modernise India’s military further.

India’s policy of weaponisation via indigenous sources and self-sufficiency began in earnest under Nehru, completed by his daughter Indira Gandhi, who later led India to a crushing military victory over rival Pakistan in 1971. Toward the end of the war India had increased her support for Tibetan refugees and revolutionaries, some of them having settled in India, as they were fighting the same common enemy in the region.

Nehru ordered the raising of an elite Indian-trained “Tibetan Armed Force” composed of Tibetan refugees, which served with distinction in future wars against Pakistan in 1965 and 1971. During the conflict, Nehru wrote two desperate letters to U. S. President John F. Kennedy, requesting 12 squadrons of fighter jets and a modern radar system. These jets were seen as necessary to beef up Indian air strength so that air to air combat could be initiated safely from the Indian perspective (bombing troops was seen as unwise for fear of Chinese retaliatory action). Nehru also asked that these aircraft be manned by American pilots until Indian airmen were trained to replace them.

These requests were rejected by the Kennedy Administration (which was involved in the Cuban Missile Crisis during most of the Sino-Indian War), leading to a cool down in Indo-US relations. According to former Indian diplomat G Parthasarathy, “only after we got nothing from the US did arms supplies from the Soviet Union to India commence. “. Per Time Magazine’s 1962 editorial on the war, however, this does not seem to be the case.

The editorial states, ‘When Washington finally turned its attention to India, it honored the ambassador’s pledge, loaded 60 U. S. planes with $5,000,000 worth of automatic weapons, heavy mortars and land mines. Twelve huge C-130 Hercules transports, complete with U. S. crews and maintenance teams, took off for New Delhi to fly Indian troops and equipment to the battle zone. Britain weighed in with Bren and Sten guns, and airlifted 150 tons of arms to India. Canada prepared to ship six transport planes. Australia opened Indian credits for $1,800,000 worth of munitions’”.

Final years and the rise of Indira Gandhi Nehru with Ashoke Kumar Sen, S. Radhakrishnan and Bidhan Chandra Roy Nehru had led the Congress to a major victory in the 1957 elections, but his government was facing rising problems and criticism. Disillusioned by alleged intra-party corruption and bickering, Nehru contemplated resigning but continued to serve.

The election of his daughter Indira as Congress President in 1959 aroused criticism for alleged nepotism, although actually Nehru had disapproved of her election, partly because he considered it smacked of “dynastism”; he said, indeed it was “wholly undemocratic and an undesirable thing”, and refused her a position in his cabinet. Indira herself was at loggerheads with her father over policy; most notably, she used his oft-stated personal deference to the Congress Working Committee to push through the dismissal of the Communist Party of India government in the state of Kerala, over his own objections.

Nehru began to be frequently embarrassed by her ruthlessness and disregard for parliamentary tradition, and was “hurt” by what he saw as an assertiveness with no purpose other than to stake out an identity independent of her father. In the 1962 elections, Nehru led the Congress to victory yet with a diminished majority. Communist and socialist parties were the main beneficiaries although some right wing groups like Bharatiya Jana Sangh also did well. Prime Minister Nehru talks with United Nations General Assembly President Romulo (October 1949). Nehru lying in state, 1964.

Nehru’s health began declining steadily after 1962, and he spent months recuperating in Kashmir through 1963. Some historians attribute this dramatic decline to his surprise and chagrin over the Sino-Indian War, which he perceived as a betrayal of trust. 67] Upon his return from Kashmir in May 1964, Nehru suffered a stroke and later a heart attack. He was “taken ill in early hours” of 27 May 1964 and died in “early afternoon” on same day, and his death was announced to Lok Sabha at 1400 local time; cause of death is believed to be heart attack. [68] Nehru was cremated in accordance with Hindu rites at the Shantivana on the banks of the Yamuna River, witnessed by hundreds of thousands of mourners who had flocked into the streets of Delhi and the cremation grounds.

Nehru, the man and politician made such a powerful imprint on India that his death on 27 May 1964, left India with no clear political heir to his leadership (although his daughter was widely expected to succeed him before she turned it down in favour of Shastri). Indian newspapers repeated Nehru’s own words of the time of Gandhi’s assassination: “The light has gone out of our lives and there is darkness everywhere. ” Religion Nehru, rejected religion. He observed the effects of superstition on the lives of the Indian people and wrote of religion that “…it shuts its eyes to reality.

Nehru thought that religion was at the root of the stagnation and lack of progress in India. The basis of Indian society at that time was unthinking obedience to the authority of sacred books, old customs, and outdated habits. Nehru observed that these attitudes and religious taboos were preventing India from going forward and adapting to modern conditions: “No country or people who are slaves to dogma and dogmatic mentality can progress, and unhappily our country and people have become extraordinarily dogmatic and little-minded.

Therefore, he concurred, that religions and all that went with them must be severely limited before they ruined the country and its people. He was deeply concerned that so many Indian people could not read or write and wanted mass education to release Indian society from the limitations that ignorance and religious traditions imposed. The spectacle of what is called religion, or at any rate organised religion, in India and elsewhere, has filled me with horror and I have frequently condemned it and wished to make a clean sweep of it.

Almost always it seemed to stand for blind belief and reaction, dogma and bigotry, superstition, exploitation and the preservation of vested interests.  ” Nehru considered that his afterlife was not in some mystical heaven or reincarnation but in the practical achievements of a life lived fully with and for his fellow human beings: “…Nor am I greatly interested in life after death. I find the problems of this life sufficiently absorbing to fill my mind,” he wrote. In his Last Will and Testament he wrote: “ I wish to declare with all earnestness that I do not want any religious ceremonies performed for me after my death. I do not believe in such ceremonies, and to submit to them, even as a matter of form, would be hypocrisy and an attempt to delude ourselves and others.

This section is incomplete. Please help to improve the article, or discuss the issue on the talk page. (August 2012) Nehru married Kamala Kaul in 1916. His only daughter Indira was born a year later in 1917. Nehru was alleged to have had relationships with Padmaja Naidu and Edwina Mountbatten. Edwina’s daughter Pamela acknowledged Nehru’s platonic affair with Edwina. Legacy Bust of Nehru at Aldwych, London

As India’s first Prime minister and external affairs minister, Jawaharlal Nehru played a major role in shaping modern India’s government and political culture along with sound foreign policy. He is praised for creating a system providing universal primary education[citation needed], reaching children in the farthest corners of rural India. Nehru’s education policy is also credited for the development of world-class educational institutions such as the All India Institute of Medical Sciences, Indian Institutes of Technology, and the Indian Institutes of Management. Nehru was a great man… Nehru gave to Indians an image of themselves that I don’t think others might have succeeded in doing. ”  Sir Isaiah Berlin.

In addition, Nehru’s stance as an unfailing nationalist led him to also implement policies which stressed commonality among Indians while still appreciating regional diversities. This proved particularly important as post-Independence differences surfaced since British withdrawal from the subcontinent prompted regional leaders to no longer relate to one another as allies against a common adversary.

While differences of culture and, especially, language threatened the unity of the new nation, Nehru established programs such as the National Book Trust and the National Literary Academy which promoted the translation of regional literatures between languages and also organized the transfer of materials between regions. In pursuit of a single, unified India, Nehru warned, “Integrate or perish. ” Commemoration Nehru distributes sweets among children at Nongpoh, Meghalaya Jawaharlal Nehru on a 1989 USSR commemorative stamp.

In his lifetime, Jawaharlal Nehru enjoyed an iconic status in India and was widely admired across the world for his idealism and statesmanship. His birthday, 14 November, is celebrated in India as Baal Divas (“Children’s Day”) in recognition of his lifelong passion and work for the welfare, education and development of children and young people. Children across India remember him as Chacha Nehru (Uncle Nehru). Nehru remains a popular symbol of the Congress Party which frequently celebrates his memory.

Congress leaders and activists often emulate his style of clothing, especially the Gandhi cap and the “Nehru Jacket”, and his mannerisms. Nehru’s ideals and policies continue to shape the Congress Party’s manifesto and core political philosophy. An emotional attachment to his legacy was instrumental in the rise of his daughter Indira to leadership of the Congress Party and the national government. Nehru’s personal preference for the sherwani ensured that it continues to be considered formal wear in North India today; aside from lending his name to a kind of ap, the Nehru jacket is named in his honour due to his preference for that style. Numerous public institutions and memorials across India are dedicated to Nehru’s memory.

The Jawaharlal Nehru University in Delhi is among the most prestigious universities in India. The Jawaharlal Nehru Port near the city of Mumbai is a modern port and dock designed to handle a huge cargo and traffic load. Nehru’s residence in Delhi is preserved as the Teen Murti House now has Nehru Memorial Museum and Library, and one of five Nehru Planetariums that were set in Mumbai, Delhi, Bangalore, Allahabad and Pune.

The complex also houses the offices of the ‘Jawaharlal Nehru Memorial Fund’, established in 1964 under the Chairmanship of Dr S. Radhakrishnan, then President of India. The foundation also gives away the prestigious ‘Jawaharlal Nehru Memorial Fellowship’, established in 1968. The Nehru family homes at Anand Bhavan and Swaraj Bhavan are also preserved to commemorate Nehru and his family’s legacy. In popular culture Many documentaries about Nehru’s life have been produced. He has also been portrayed in fictionalised films.

The canonical performance is probably that of Roshan Seth, who played him three times: in Richard Attenborough’s 1982 film Gandhi, Shyam Benegal’s 1988 television series Bharat Ek Khoj, based on Nehru’s The Discovery of India, and in a 2007 TV film entitled The Last Days of the Raj. In Ketan Mehta’s film Sardar, Nehru was portrayed by Benjamin Gilani. Girish Karnad’s historical play, Tughlaq (1962) is an allegory about the Nehruvian era. It was staged by Ebrahim Alkazi with National School of Drama Repertory at Purana Qila, Delhi in 1970s and later at the Festival of India, London in 1982.