LIKE FATHER, UNLIKE DAUGHTER

In a poll conducted by Outlook magazine, in partnership with CNN-IBN and The History Channel and prominent lawyers cum historians - The Greatest Indian, Indira Gandhi was placed second, 2 places above her charismatic father,Nehru.Though a lot critics,such as Ram Jethlamani were deterred and critical of the panelists, many others largely upheld the results.In 2001, Gandhi was voted the greatest Indian Prime Minister in a poll organised by India Today. She was also named "Woman of the Millennium" in a poll organised by the BBC in 1999.

Many a academics hold the opinion that both the Nehru/Gandhi family have completely overshadowed numerous other legacies and contributions.Nonetheless it is undisputed that they have played a major role in shaping modern India's government and political culture along with sound foreign policy, for good or bad.Gandhi gave us freedom, Nehru protected our independence and Indira Gandhi saved the nation.It is a common upheld opinion that both Father-Daughter were similar in many regards.True, but their disparities far outweighed their similarities.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.While Nehru has been acclaimed for domestic and social policies, he failed many a times in the foreign policy sector.The opposite seems to be true in case of 'Indiramma'.The former was an idealist, the latter a realist.Nehru clearly pronounced his ideas, visions through books, debates and speeches, trying to bring in the masses under his 'umbrella of schemes'.On the other hand, Indira was an autocrat and did not have a clear-cut, 'spelt out' ideals.When asked by a journalist, after she nationalised banks, whether she was a socialist? She replied unfazed, "I suppose you could call me a socialist, but you have to understand what we mean by that term.We used the word because it came closest to what we wanted to do here – which is to eradicate poverty. You can call it socialism; but if by using that word we arouse controversy, I don't see why we should use it. I don't believe in words at all." The former strived for the welfare of nation, the later thrived for the well being of people of the nation.The similarities has often been highlighted. Both preached 'dynastial power' , Secularism, Socialism,self-entitlement(viz Bharat Ratna ,Anand Bhavan-Swaraj Bhavan,public institutions),critical of external opinion and so on.But the 'extent' is divergent. While Nehru accomodated his family member's within the Indian government in conscious to their merit and education, Indira did so for the sake of sheer loyality. Even after having a lot of differences with others, especially Patel, Bose, Prasad, Nehru tried to overcome them with discussions, Gandhi-backing and his eloquent lawyer skills.It is true that Nehru could appear superior, not least to his colleagues in party and government. They did not share his cosmopolitan outlook, nor his interest in art, music, literature, or science. But no one did more than Nehru to nurture the values and institutions of democracy in India. It was he who first advocated adult suffrage, he who welcomed a constructive Opposition, he who scrupulously maintained the independence of the bureaucracy and the judiciary. Nehru-the champion of panchayat raj,had in many instances yielded to the majority of his party and of the country.Thus Congress Chief Ministers were always elected by the legislators of the concerned state, regardless of Nehru’s opinion in the matter. And once he saw that both party and country wanted it, Nehru yielded to the formation of linguistic states—a policy he was personally opposed to.Another classic example is the enactment of 'The Hindu Civil Code'.After facing criticism from a section of politicians, including Syama Prasad Mookerjee(who later founded the 'Jana Sangh' that later transpired to 'BJP' as we know today.) for his 'selective secularist' principles.He justified it with 'the purpose of not alienating minorities and persuading them to stay in India'.He even promised to extend it at later point of time, 'when Muslims are ready'(which of course never transpired due to the vote-bank politics his successors plunged into).Nonetheless, he failed to tranquilize the 'storm'.He challenged to fight the first, independent India election ,on this issue,tooth and nail.The conservatives and right-leaning VHP managed to secure only a meagre 12 seats compared to Congress' 364.Nehru had been given a clear mandate by the people and hence proceeded to enact his 'dream bill'.

Unlike her father Jawaharlal Nehru, who preferred to deal with strong chief ministers in control of their legislative parties and state party organizations, Mrs. Gandhi set out to remove every Congress chief minister, bureaucrats who had an independent base and to replace each of them with ministers personally loyal to her.
Recently, the myth around is that Nehru and Vallabhbhai Patel were opponents and adversaries.
In truth,Nehru and Patel worked superbly as a team—they were who, in the first, formative years of independence, effectively united and strengthened India.Overriding party's wishes of Patel as Prime Minister, Gandhi had instead advocated for Nehru.Each knew the other’s gifts, each took care not to tresspass on the other person’s turf. That is how, together, they built India anew out of the ruins of Partition.Of course, they differed by temperament and ideology. But these differences were subsumed and transcended by commitment to a common ideal: namely, a free, united, secular and democratic India. There were some things Nehru could do better than Patel—communing with the masses, relating to the world, assuring vulnerable groups (such as Muslims, tribals, and Dalits) that they enjoyed equal rights with other Indians. There were some things Patel could do better than Nehru—dealing with the princes, nurturing the Congress party, carrying along dissidents in the Constituent Assembly.In these matters,Nehru gave Patel his space and acted only as an observer.After Patel's death,Nehru's handling of Kashmir, China and USA was a complete failure compared to Patel's success in issues of - uniting India from princely rulers(a whooping 565), foreign policy stance, Hyderabad, Junagad and Lakshadweep crisis.Had Nehru followed in Patel's footstep in foreign cum domestic affairs, he would have been a 'complete leader'.Kashmir would not be 'a burning valley' and rather 'The Swiss of Asia'.Unfortunately he stuck to his passive stance. It is noteworthy that Patel had opposed Azad and Nehru's proposal to reserve the houses vacated by Muslims who had departed for Pakistan, for Muslims in India.Patel eventhough arguing that 'a secular government could not offer preferential treatment for any religious community', had to back out.
The myth of their rivalry is best answered in their own words. After Gandhi died, Nehru wrote to Patel of how ‘the old controversies have ceased to have much significance and it seems to me that the urgent need of the hour is for all of us to function as closely and co-operatively as possible’. In all the years they had worked together, said Nehru, ‘my affection and regard for you has grown, and I do not think anything can happen to lessen this.Anyway, in this crisis that we have to face now after Bapu’s death I think it is my duty and, if I may venture to say, yours also for us to face it together as friends and colleagues.’
Indira lacked these skills and throughout her tenure was  locked in horns with her detractors.She surrounded herself in the cabinet, party, judiciary and even the military with her loyals.She saw herself ill-fit in the 'democratic anarchy' of decision making.For instance, when there was a difference of opinion to the nomination of President of India between her and Congress party, headed by Kamaraj-'The kingmaker' instead of backing out, she went against her party to enforce her decision through foul methods. Incidently, it was Kamaraj who had pushed for her as Prime Minister instead of Moraiji Desai and himself, as was suggested by majority of party members.  
Nehru understood that freedom was not synonymous with independence. Neo-colonization is, after all, the grant of independence on condition you do not exercise it. British India was both colony and neo-colony, the latter being the status of princely states. Nehru saw, all around him, how quickly the post-colonial world sought the sanctuary of nurseries set up by both Washington and Moscow. He believed that India's tryst with destiny was something more substantive than occasional lollipops; that India's success could not be outsourced to even a well-wisher, let alone any cynical superpower searching for allies in a Cold War. He needed to look no further than Pakistan for a narrative of dependency. He stumbled when he trusted the Third World as much as he distrusted the First. His Himalayan blunder was a calculation, or miscalculation, that China would be a partner in such a world view. He confused himself with others, and the Chinese laughed at his commitment to peace. Trust is so often the ultimate naivete.
India welcomed the realism of Indira Gandhi after the travails of Nehru's idealism. Her two decades, between 1964 and 1984, as cabinet minister and prime minister, constituted an age of violence in all its myriad complexities: communal, ethnic, linguistic, Communist, secessionist. Language riots in the south; Hindu-Muslim mayhem across the map; Naxalite insurgents lighting a Maoist prairie fire; radical trade unions; a war with Pakistan; Emergency; and, in her second term as prime minister, upheaval in Assam, explosions across the North-East and a full-fledged rebellion in Punjab led by a charismatic theocrat. Calm was not written in her fate lines. Was Bangladesh her high point and Emergency the nadir?
India could have gone the way so many post-colonial dictatorships in Africa and Asia if the Emergency, justified by sycophants as essential to the national interest, had stratified into long-term one-person rule. Some of her closest advisers were determined that it should continue for 20 years. The government had survived the initial outburst by sending the Opposition into prison and the press into coma. Individuals and institutions were gradually co-opted into the quasi-dictatorship. But just when hope for democracy had begun to ebb, one person realized that a government without a mandate was illegitimate. That person was Mrs Gandhi. In January 1977, she shocked friend and foe by calling a general election. In March, she was shocked when the Congress was routed. Democracy has never been challenged again.It takes a stature of Mrs. Gandhi to execute a bloodless coup amongst all the opposition and division.
It is odd that a leader who was so adept at war in 1971 should prove so gullible in the subsequent peace process. No matter which way you look at it, the Simla Agreement of 1972 was an opportunity thrown away. The cease-fire line of 1948 should have been converted into the permanent border, sealing, thereby, the 1966 Tashkent Agreement in which India and Pakistan inked a commitment to respect this line. Mrs Gandhi held all the trumps in 1972, and lost the hand to Zulfiqar Bhutto. His successor, Zia-ul-Haq, took revenge for Bangladesh by helping foment the Punjab revolt: its apex, in 1984, saw the destruction of the Golden Temple, the assassination of Indira Gandhi, and the frenzied massacre of Sikhs. Zia-ul-Haq could not tear India apart, but he left a wound in India's heart.Mrs Gandhi's martyrdom washed away her mistakes from public memory. But I guesss, only great heroes make great mistakes.
My opinion is strenghtened in the case of Jivatram Bhagwandas Kripalani(during the election for the post of the future Prime Minister of India held by the Congress party, he had the second highest number of votes after Sardar Patel).After Gandhi's assassination in January 1948, Nehru rejected his demand that the party's views should be sought in all decisions. Nehru, with the support of Patel, told Kripalani that while the party was entitled to lay down the broad principles and guidelines, it could not be granted a say in the government's day-to-day affairs. This precedent became central to the relationship between government and ruling party in subsequent decades.
Nehru, however, supported Kripalani in the election of the Congress President in 1950. Kripalani, supported by Nehru, was narrowly defeated against Patel's candidate Purushottam Das Tandon. Tandon defeated Kripalani. Bruised by his defeat, and disillusioned by what he viewed as the abandonment of the Gandhian ideal of a countless village republics, Kripalani left the Congress and became one of the founders of the Kisan Mazdoor Praja Party. This party subsequently merged with the Socialist Party of India to form the Praja Socialist Party,which achieved moderate success until his death.For a while it was even believed that Nehru, stung by the defeat, was considering abandoning the Congress as well(unlike Indira who chose to dislodge opponents during setbacks); his several offers of resignation at the time were all, however, shouted down.A great many of the more progressive elements of the party left in the months following the election.
Kripalani remained a critic of Nehru's policies and administration, while working for social and environmental causes.While remaining active in electoral politics, Kripalani gradually became more of a spiritual leader of the socialists than anything else; in particular, he was generally considered to be, along with Vinoba Bhave, the leader of the what remained of the Gandhian faction.
In 1972-3, he agitated against the increasingly authoritarian rule of Nehru's daughter Indira Gandhi, then Prime Minister of India. Kripalani and Jayaprakash Narayan felt that Indira's rule had become dictatorial and anti-democratic. Her conviction on charges of using government machinery for her election campaign, along with massive corruption charges galvanized her political opposition and public disenchantment against her policies. Along with Narayan and Lohia, Kripalani toured the country urging non-violent protest and civil disobedience. When the Emergency was declared as a result of the vocal dissent he helped stir up,Kripalani was among the first of the Opposition leaders(along with Vajpayee) to be arrested.
The Congress Party split during the election campaign of 1977: veteran Gandhi supporters like Jagjivan Ram, Hemwati Nandan Bahuguna and Nandini Satpathy were compelled to part ways and form a new political entity, CFD (Congress for Democracy), primarily due to intra-party politicking and also due to circumstances created by Sanjay Gandhi.A coalition of opposition, under the leadership of Morarji Desai, came into power after the State of Emergency was lifted. The coalition parties later merged to form the Janata Party under the guidance of Gandhian leader, Jayaprakash Narayan. The other leaders of the Janata Party Charan Singh, Raj Narain, George Fernandes and Atal Bihari Vajpayee. The Janata government's Home Minister, Choudhary Charan Singh, ordered the arrest of Indira and Sanjay Gandhi on several charges, none of which would be easy to prove in an Indian court. The arrest meant that Indira Gandhi was automatically expelled from Parliament. These allegations included that she “‘had planned or thought of killing all opposition leaders in jail during the Emergency’”.However, this strategy backfired disastrously. Her arrest and long-running trial, however, gained her great sympathy from many people. The Janata coalition was only united by its hatred of Gandhi (or "that woman","gungi gudiya" as some called her). With so little in common, the Morarji Desai government was bogged down by infighting. Desai resigned in June 1979 after Charan Singh and Raj Narain formed their own breakaway party,due to the back-hand dealing tactics of Gandhi.Charan Singh was appointed Prime Minister, by President Reddy, after Gandhi promised Singh that Congress would support his government from outside. After a short interval, Congress withdrew support and President Reddy dissolved Parliament in the winter of 1979.'Indiramma' stormed back to power yet again in the subsequent elections following her dramatic rescue operation of flood victims in Bihar and her vision of 'Garibi Hatao'.The reasons were aplenty.The coalition,though united in opposition to Mrs. Gandhi's hypocracy, were bogged down in their own political aspirations.The anti-incumbency votes had been fragmented into numerous parties, each trying to exert their own influence and ideology.Hence the government was tied in a loose coalition.Most importantly, instead of implementing policies, the govt. was busy dismantling the ' cocoon of patrons of Mrs. Gandhi' filled in the 'pillars of democracy'.It held intelligence agencies such as RAW in distaste.Economic indicators plumented.This provided her an opportunity to discredit other leaders' legacy/martyrship. She was successful in establishing her dynastial legacy in the eyes of the naive villagers.Other freedom fighters and reformers names were erased from history.Huge swathes of developmental projects, accolades, institutions were re-named after her."India is Indira, Indira is India" was coined.
Another incident that stands out is the motion to abolish privy purses in 1970. It was passed in the Lok Sabha but felt short of the two-thirds majority in the Rajya Sabha by a single vote.Gandhi responded by having a Presidential proclamation issued; de-recognizing the princes; with this withdrawal of recognition, their claims to privy purses were also legally lost.However, the proclamation was struck down by the Supreme Court of India.In 1971, Gandhi again motioned to abolish the privy purse. This time, it was successfully passed as the 26th Amendment to the Constitution of India.This serves the insight of Gandhi's non-hesitent attitude in fiddling with constitution and state machineries in achieving targets.Gandhi claimed that only "clear vision, iron will and the strictest discipline" can remove poverty.But many critics claim that it was not Indira's intention;to help the poor, rather her intents in abolishing privy purses was politically motivated-like many of her policies. This is so, because many of the royal princes had gravitated towards an emerging right-oriented, free-market advocate party - Swatantrata Party, led by a Gandhi aide and freedom fighter R.Gopalachari. Swatantrata(Freedom), stood for free enterprise, trade and a dismantling of the notorious corrupt License Raj . Most notable among the royals were the Maharani of Gwalior-Rajmata Scindia and Maharani of Jaipur. It was pure political vendetta in Indira's ploys - striking two birds with a single stone.
While Nehru had encouraged Homi Bhabha in developing nuclear materials for 'purely research'(eventhough the latter had assured of developing atomic bomb as early as 1956), his daughter had a different perception.After Nixon's nuclear threat in the conflict of 1971 and the nuclear acquisation by China, she gave direction for an unprecedented, accelerated approach to attain nuclear weapons,describing the test for peaceful purposes and India's commitment to develop its programme for industrial and scientific use.While in reality it was to establish India's stability and security interests as independent from those of the nuclear superpowers.A baffling yet remarkable thing about it was that the world, including superpowers lodged no sanctions nor protests in this regard.
Nehru apart, important state leaders like S. Nijalingappa, K. Kamaraj, Y.B. Chavan, and Sucheta Kripalani within the Congress, as well as Rammanohar Lohia, E.M.S. Namboodiripad and Jayaprakash Narayan in other parties, were committed — in spirit and in deed — to religious pluralism and social harmony.He was successful in reigning in conservative Pro-Advaita Vedanta statesmen like Radhakrishnan, Madan Malviya etc.Resultantly,the 1950s were relatively free from Hindu-Muslim violence because of specific acts by specific politicians.
On the other hand, Indira's totalitarian rule distanced many prominent idealists from the decision-making mainframe.This enhanced a sense of bitterness among many.It has been accussed that "We missed Electronic Age completely, when Indian was most suitable for it more than the Computer Age.The whole world was turning to open economoy and information.But she did the reverse by enforcing Licence Raj.Since she was busy fighting the opposition,she made authorities very powerful to make decisions when the rules were insufficient.Indirectly these authories were controlled by the ministers, who indulged in rampant corruption.Indira's rule has been attributed to a period of 'unprecedented, yet invisible corrupt practices' at all levels.Power/money hungry men realised the need to succumb to her will in order to strive.Political ecosystem changed from 'Gandhian raj'during Nehruvian times to 'goonda raj' during Indira's.This resulted in utter chaos. Nehru used to atleast make attempts to listen or re-concile, while she dismissed critics outright.This enraged many sections of the society particularly the urban elite.
Before the 1980 elections Indira approached the then Shahi Imam of Jama Masjid, Syed Abdullah Bukhari and entered into an agreement with him on the basis of 10-point programme to secure the support of the Muslim votes.She even promoted many minorities in every pillars and institutions of democracy, overiding many senior and well-qualified people.This 'minority appeasement' sent a wave of anger among the 'intellectuals'.Nehru had always strayed away from directly engaging in such practices and had advocated meritocracy.It has been alleged by Natwar Singh, Gandhi's secretary in one of his books that she once made a controversial visit to the tomb of Babur and exclaimed "we have had a brush with History now".His claims have been dismissed as 'baseless' by INC.
There is considerable debate regarding whether Gandhi was a socialist on principle or out of political necessity.The Times journalist, Peter Hazelhurst, famously quipped that Gandhi's socialism was "slightly left of self-interest".Critics have focused on the contradictions in the evolution of her stance towards communism; Gandhi being known for her anti-communist stance in the 1950s with Meghnad Desai even describing her as "the scourge of (India's) Communist Party."Yet, she later forged close relations with Indian communists even while using the army to break the Naxalites. In this context, Gandhi was accused of formulating populist policies to suit her political needs; being seemingly against the rich and big business while preserving the status quo in order to manipulate the support of the left at times of political insecurity, such as the late 1960s.Although Gandhi came to be viewed in time as the scourge of the right-wing and reactionary political elements of India, leftist opposition to her policies emerged. As early as 1969,The Indian Libertarian wrote that: "it would be difficult to find a more machiavellian leftist than Mrs Indira Gandhi,for here is Machiavelli at its best in the person of a suave, charming and astute politician."Rosser wrote that "some have even seen the declaration of emergency rule in 1975 as a move to suppress [leftist] dissent against Gandhi's policy shift to the right."In the 1980s, Gandhi was accused of "betraying socialism" after the beginning of Operation Forward, an attempt at economic reform.Nevertheless, others were more convinced of Gandhi's sincerity and devotion to socialism. Pankaj Vohra noted that "even the late prime minister’s critics would concede that the maximum number of legislations of social significance was brought about during her tenure and she lives in the hearts of millions of Indians who shared her concern for the poor and weaker sections and who supported her politics."
Nehru implemented policies based on import substitution industrialisation and advocated a mixed economy where the government controlled public sector would co-exist with the private sector.He believed that the establishment of basic and heavy industry was fundamental to the development and modernisation of the Indian economy, hence the slogan "Dams are modern Temples of India".

https://www.google.co.in/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=7&cad=rja&ved=0CFUQFjAG&url=https%3A%2F%2Fchurumuri.wordpress.com%2F2008%2F09%2F02%2Fmiddle-class-will-never-understand-indira-gandhi%2F&ei=wHARU9KnAYH5rQfY7oCIDw&usg=AFQjCNFadlF_9OMXgiGkR3U2WRJC8Rx8_Q&bvm=bv.62286460,d.bmk

Nehru always took hard-stand, but soft-approach in matters of domestic and social policies, contrary to Indira's hard approach.Nehru achieved greater success in uniting India through States Reorganisation Act, Indira had her's in abolition of privy purse, equal work wages for both men and women,massive redistribution program,procuring houses for landless labourers.She hit success in declaring the de facto use of both Hindi and English as official languages enmass constitutional amendments, where Nehru had failed. This established the official government policy of bilingualism in India and satisfied the non-Hindi speaking Indian states.Gandhi thus put herself forward as a leader with a pan-Indian vision.Nevertheless, critics alleged that her stance was actually meant to weaken the position of rival Congress leaders from the northern states such as Uttar Pradesh, where there had been strong, sometimes violent, pro-Hindi agitations.Gandhi came out of the language conflicts with the strong support of the south Indian populace.
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.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 During the Suez crisis, Nehru's right hand man, Menon attempted to persuade Gamal Nasser to compromise with the West, and was instrumental in moving Western powers towards an awareness that Nasser might prove willing to compromise.However his Pacifist stand was exposed in Indus Water Treaty(with Pakistan) and Panchasheel(with China).Nonetheless,uncharacteric of his virtues he satisfied right-wing parties in the annexation of Goa from Portugese even while facing pressure from Pakistan due to their one-line foreign policy - when in doubt oppose India and when not in doubt oppose India.
The Indian relationship with the Soviet Union, criticised by right-wing groups supporting free-market policies was also seemingly validated after Nehru's China blunder.Nehru would continue to maintain his commitment to the non-aligned movement despite calls from some to settle down on one permanent ally,especially from Kennedy who settled on Pakistan after courting India as buffer zone in the battle against 'communisation of Asia'.A historic blunder many maintain, till date.Pakistan became a proxy for the US. Pakistan has time and again reaped from this forged friendship and survived the 'failed state' status.
Against Patel's wishes, Nehru promised in 1948 to hold a plebiscite in Kashmir ,after declairing cease-fire, despite claims by Major Karriappa to 'claim back the whole of Kashmir' and the untiring support of Lord Mountbatten.This was  and the first of the steps in alienating Kashmiris.
On the other spectrum, Indira realised the need to consolidate allies rather than to "fiddle around".America's trust in her was broken due to her socialist policies, hence she had to look towards Soviet Union for assistence in military, machinery and Space endeavours.Her soft stance on muslims earned her numerous Islamic state support. After the victory in 1971, she exerted India's influence in the global sphere.She was successful in annexing Sikkim without much of squeek from China, she challenged US backed Islamic coup in Indonesia and missed by a whisker in installing a secular government, one that went largely unnoticed in media.She revolutionised espionage agencies and gave a free hand ,in the disguise of anti-colonialism to RAW that engaged in numerous operations including Africa ,Sri Lanka and insurgency in Balochistan.She even managed to fool France, Germany and Italy.Despite being a staunch 'Anti-Communist' ,the 'Iron Lady of Britain' - Margaret Thatcher had special relations with the 'Iron Lady of India' - Indira.Nixon later wrote about her "this woman suckered us."He had also earlier described her as "cunning fox". She took an aggressive stand by initiating 'Indira Doctrine' under which Himalayan and North-Eastern states were brought under India's sphere of influence.Although Mrs.Gandhi rejected demands to invade Sri Lanka in the aftermath of Black July 1983, an anti-Tamil pogrom carried out by Sinhalese mobs,she stated that India cannot "remain a silent spectator to any injustice done to the Tamil community."Nonetheless she secretly supported LTTE against the Junius Jayewardene government whom she described as "Western Puppet".She along with Thatcher potrayed strong displeasure of Idi Amin's Indophobia-expulsion and ethnic cleansing of Uganda's Indian minority(which has been potrayed in the movie/novel 'The last king of scotland' and many other movies by the acclaimed director - Mira Nair).On the contrary she had little condemnation for Indophobia taking place in USA(Dotbusters) and it's allied countries.Alike her predecessors, she remained mute on the persecution of Romanis - Antiziganism.
Indira's biggest challenge was the juggling of support from the Middle East that was largely Pro-Pakistan and Pro-America, both a hinderance.It did'nt stop her from  developing a secret channel of contact and security assistance with Israel in the late 1960s under the vigilance of P.Narshimrao(which was strenghtened during his tenure as PM as well as during Vajpayee's.)This culminated in the failed attempt by RAW-Mossad to destroy Pakistan's nuclear weapons.Nonetheless they inflicted serious software bugs in the systems(RAW had succeeded earlier in establishing a spying network that was uncannily given away by Moraji Desai to his Pakistani counterpart Zia-Ul-Haq ,earning Desai Nishan-e-Pakistan- Pakistan's highest civilian award.After this vital tip-off ISI managed to neutralise RAW spies, ultimately achieving nuclear supremacy).Unlike Nehru, she openly and enthusiastically supported liberation struggles in Africa.Her apart, Vajpayee is perhaps the only other Indian PM to achieve such success in the foreign policy sphere.
The Father-Daughter contrast is best visible in the assesment of their respective deaths.China, certainly was not rendezvous to Nehru's visioned tryst with destiny, rather his tryst with death.Nehru's passive, peace-mongering ideals haunted him at his deathbed.He was unable to muster resilience to recover the dismay and tyranny of China whom he perceived as 'an all weather friendly nation.Pakistan grants China that status now.Rise of separatist factions, even after article 370 continuous goodwill towards minorities left a dent in his life.It turned more personel when Sheikh Abdullah showed dissidence towards him.Inexplicable it was Sheikh who had defended Kashmir against Pakistani hordes during 1948 and toured Kashmir to garner support in favour of accession to India.Furthermore, right-wing leaders hammered continuous blows in this matter.Without his close aides- Patel, Prasad, Abul Kalam Azad, Khan Abdul Ghaffar Khan he felt 'nauseated' and 'unable to stomach the betrayals'.
Mrs. Gandhi's assasination was a direct consequence of her hegemony .It has been postulated that it was Indira herself who nurtured the orthodox Bhindrewala and gave him free hand, despite allegations of human right violations in order to overthrow the dominant Akali Dal party in Punjab, to revive congress fortunes in the state.Khalistan movement and operation bluestar were the culminations of Indira's brutal, authoritarian and non-tolerant attitude.Hence she dug her own grave.
Note :- There have been a great many movies, documentaries and T.V. series on political history, but handful of them have focussed on India.One series that stands out is Pradhanmantri by ABP news channel.Unlike other Pan-Indian newshouse documentaries, it is well-researched, unchaotic and has even been mentioned in Advani's blog.The show is enumerated by Shekhar Kapur, a critically acclaimed film director,who has directed academy award winning film Elizabeth and the controversial movie Bandit Queen.House Of Cards is sauccy, but this one is 'unmissable'.