Nehru’s Folly and the ‘Loss’ of Tibet continues.......

Thirdly, he probably disliked the fact that the military officer class of the time enjoyed considerable prestige within Indian society, as a residual effect from British times, since they were also Anglicised, lived westernized lifestyles, and were smart-looking and equally sophisticated socially as the rest of the Anglicised upper crust of Indian society, in spite of a perhaps lower level of ‘higher education’, i.e., in terms of academic college degrees. This social prestige for the less-educated Kshatriya class would have rankled with Nehru’s undoubted Brahmanical bias. Besides, Pandit Nehru in himself had reached an iconic status which has been best described by Nirad C. Chaudhuri, an astute observer and commentator of his times:
... Nehru, first as the Prime Minister of India, next as the supreme national leader, and over and above all, as the object of the Hindu personality cult which has even now made a divinity of him, to be worshipped in a temple, like the Roman emperors.

Personally, that is, in his ideas and character, Nehru is the leader of the Anglicised upper middle-class of India, but is not this which has made him the absolute dictator that he is politically, malgre luis. He holds his position and gets his power from a wholly dissimilar source, a source which he dislikes and disapproves of, which has yet made him what he is politically. It is the personality cult in the religion of the Hindus, which was transferred to the political sphere with the advent of Mahatma Gandhi. It was that typical prophet of the Hindu masses who built up this kind of leadership for Nehru, and transmitted the quasi-religious primacy to him in apostolic succession by what was equivalent to a laying on of hands. But since Nehru does in fact exercise the esoteric
leadership, he can and has put its power and sanction behind his own social order.”

To be continued.........