Talk:Jawaharlal Nehru/Archive 5

Semi-protected edit request on 2 July 2021
The space for monarch is at wrong position. In 1962 India was a Republic but here it looks as india was under monarch. 106.67.28.124 (talk) 17:55, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Minister of Defence In office 31 October 1962 – 14 November 1962 Monarch George VI Governor General Earl Wavell(till 20 February 1947) Lord Mountbatten(from 21 February 1947) Preceded by V. K. Krishna Menon Succeeded by Yashwantrao Yes you are right Vaibhav samrat (talk) 18:03, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate.  Mel ma nn   21:17, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 August 2021
This sentence needs to be removed: President Rajendra Prasad awarded him the honour without taking advice from the Prime Minister as would be the normal constitutional procedure.[320]

It shouldn't be explained who or how he was awarded Bharat Ratna. It sounds more like an explanation than information. Writeshreyaskale (talk) 17:57, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
 * ✅ The statement was sourced to a primary source anyway. --RegentsPark (comment) 18:19, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Good article nomination
As someone who has contributed heavily to this article, I believe there has been haste in Good article nomination of this page. My main concern has been lack of good recent sources, and presence of Gyan published sources which are not considered reliable by Wikipedia. Also for a number of sections on his early life, the article relies too much on the 1955 biography of Nehru when he was at the height of his popularity and influence. I have mentioned this before when the page was nominated for Featured article. I will try to fix some of these issues but other editors need to get involved in this too. To me it is a worthy goal to elevate this article ultimately to FA status but let us put our collective efforts into it.Thanks.Jonathansammy (talk) 15:37, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your input. I've added and replaced many sources as you can see on the edit summary over the year since the last failed nomination. Can you please place non-reliable sources tags in places where you have found the sources to be non-reliable? I hope I can replace them with better ones. And I'm also looking to work together with you and other editors to promote this page into GA now, and FA in the future. Regards.— TheWikiholic (talk) 04:07, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Added a new heading
I just added a new minisection named In twenty-first century. I want any of you to check it, edit it, clean it up, add to it, or however the need be. Thanks Appu (talk) 06:53, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

Birth place
Birth place is not anand bhawan allahabad. He was born in mirganj allahabad and family came to anand bhawan when he was 3 year old. 2405:201:3016:2962:A939:2353:D432:4FB3 (talk) 13:10, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
 * You are correct that Jawaharlal was not born in Anand Bhawan. B. R. Nanda says, Motilal purchased Anand Bhawan in 1900, some 11 years after JN's birth.  Before that, they were living on 7 Elgin Road, Civil Lines.  How much before, I was not able to determine.  Perhaps you can delve into the issue in the sources and present them here.  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  15:34, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

Nehru was not a hindu agnostic. He was secular scientific humanist
Calling him hindu agnostic is not appropriate because he never call himself hindu. He always identified as secular or scientific humanist. And also claim that he was agnostic is not okay because of his attitude towards religion. Many sources called him atheist so instead of hindu agnostic or atheist we should add only secular or scientific himanist in his religious views because it is the most appropriate identity even used by nehru himself. Mr.nothing anonymous (talk) 12:36, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree. "Hindu agnostic," regardless of whether a source or two or three can be cited for it, is WP:UNDUE.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  12:45, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

Nehru's 21st century presence in lead.
The last paragraph, presumably about his legacy, ends a little abruptly i.e., He died as a result of a heart attack on 27 May 1964. His birthday is celebrated as Children's Day in India.. Nehru gets a lot of page views. I mean, a lot. (he averages per day more than FDR) This is not least because of his lasting relevance in Indian politics. This section has ample citations about the same. Even if you forget citations, it is common knowledge that Nehru is pretty popular among India's humanities intelligentsia. I think the lead in the end should have a line about that. It could be "Nehru is a controversial figure in contemporary Indian politics" or "Nehru remains a popular figure among the intelligentsia"; whatever pleases the consensus. Appu (talk) 07:33, 5 December 2021 (UTC)


 * This discussion has not recieved any response after 24 hours. I think I should make WP:BOLD to add it under WP:GOODFAITH? Appu (talk) 12:43, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Is this something that is sourced or in the article? The intelligentsia sentence seems a bit odd and, if you add the controversial figure one, you'll also need a bit of explaining why. --RegentsPark (comment) 13:20, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
 * We have this section Jawaharlal_Nehru. It has quite a lot of citations to get the picture. I think intelligentsia is a fine word or perhaps we can trim in down to "intelligentsia in India". I feel that it should be mentioned for the reason that Nehruvianism and whatever that is called "acadmia", 'intellectual elite" or "intelligentsia" are so much dovetailed together. Appu (talk) 14:04, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I read the para (apologies for not doing so before) and it looks reasonably complete to me. The section you point to doesn't really support "controversial". Being disliked by Hindu nationalists and the BJP doesn't make one controversial. And, while "support in academia" is in the section, is that really worth adding to the lead? --RegentsPark (comment) 15:36, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I think we should avoid controversial for the time being till we find enough evidence. Intelligentsia has a sharp meaning while academia a broad term and quite a vague one.
 * I support adding "Nehru remains very popular among the Indian intelligentsia". If you google "top indian intellectuals", you find this at the top. Among the five listed, two (Tharoor and Guha) are just outright Nehru fanboys; both have written not less than 500 pages about Nehru through various formats. Rajan is an economist so I don't know if he has written substantially. Mehta taught at Jawaharlal Nehru University which is famous and infamous for being Nehruvian by name and nature. IDK much about Ashok Malik, sorry for that. Then I found this article, which has one more called Swapan Dasgupta. He is politician of an opposing party but still he admits that "The near-unchallenged political dominance of some six decades led to the Nehruvian consensus becoming common sense among the intelligentsia, particularly those in the liberal professions. This section has guarded its echo chamber fiercely and denied institutional space to those that don’t quite fit into the Left-liberal mould." in this article. One can google for "top Indian historians" and still find such people. It is quite a fact that Nehru or Nehruvianism is the epicentre of Indian intellectual elite and it is his biggest chunk of legacy, so yeah it should be in the lead. Appu (talk) 17:32, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
 * "Nehru remains a popular figure among the intelligentsia" sounds weird to me, a bit like a forerunner to an ideological crackdown a la the great leap forward. It's sort of saying that he's not a popular figure with the masses, which is not necessarily true. I think we need to let others weigh in on this. --RegentsPark (comment) 17:44, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I think the legacy bit needs to be discussed more. I have accordingly removed the paragraph added by Jonathansammy.  Hindu nationalists are not the only critics of Nehru.  The Congress itself, after the 1990s, moved away from the Nehruvian economics of the 1950s, especially during Manmohan Singh's tenure both as finance minister and later as prime minister. Nor were the Hindu nationalists the only critics of Nehru's China policy.  His own daughter became politically and militarily hawkish toward China.
 * In my view, the Hindu nationalists' dislike of Nehru is more complex. In part, it is a dislike of Gandhi whom because of his elevated status they dare not criticize. Gandhi's principle of means before ends, of which Nehru was an early enthusiast, is not a Hindu nationalist principle. Means before ends, and its associated political ethics and self-doubts, is not an outlook to which, for example, Patel showed great attachment in later life, preferring a pragmatic forcefulness towards the Indian princes, including in two instances the annexation of their states by force.  He is therefore a Hindu nationalist hero. Similarly, Subhas Bose and Bhagat Singh, who accomplished little towards their goal of liberating India from British rule, but for whom only ends were important, even when they became nihilistic, have become unlikely Hindu-nationalist heroes, their ideologies overlooked.
 * In part, the dislike is related to the Hindu nationalists' sitting determinedly on the sidelines during India's long nationalist movement from 1920 to 1947, and thereafter being implicated by their association in the murder of Mahatma Gandhi and sidelined for two decades more. In the 1950s, they were pariahs in India, and Nehru was their outsize opponent, whom they did not forgive.  Gradually, since coming into power in the 1990s, they have attempted to revise their history.
 * Their visceral dislike for Nehru is in part also a dislike for the English-speaking upper classes in India by whom the vernacularly-educated Hindu nationalists felt snubbed for decades.
 * And so it goes. I'm sure the sources exist. Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  10:39, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
 * How about we add for the time being "Indian intelligentsia is often personified to Nehru and his ideas of India"? I think this is concluded in the discussion in more than one way. But I am anxious if that is the right wording. I would make a bold move but am holding back for a consensus because Nehru is just too giant a personality and I do not want to be wrong. Appu (talk) 06:35, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
 * It seems to me that only those who use intelligentsia in a negative sense would make that statement (as your googling above indicates - Swapan has said that, not Guha or Tharoor). Anyway it's extremely reductive, no single person can be representative of such a wide category; especially now. I've reverted your edit. Hemanthah (talk) 13:42, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
 * It is immaterial if it is a praise or insult, what is needed is whether Nehru is disproportionately dovetailed with the intelligentsia and so far as the sources go, he is. Guha and Tharoor have not said or probably I didn't cite them saying so. What is said is Guha and Tharoor are also first-rank Nehruvians (Tharoor's latest book has a significant chunk of literature dedicated to Nehru). And such openly-proclaiming Nehru lovers are just so ubiquitous among the public intellectuals that it lead to this discussion. It is not too reductive to be not mentioned, if intelligentsia is a wide category, then Nehruvian ideas have also found a similarly-wide acceptance among that intelligentsia. You may not find such a thing as "Gandhian/Savarakar/Golwalkar/Tilak/Indira intellegentsia" but there are countless references in literature of Indian intelligentsia/academia being called [or insulted] as Nehruvian. Appu (talk) 15:37, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Your edit was a rephrasing of Swapan's opinion, not some widely accepted viewpoint as your edit presented it. And as such, I thought it doesn't belong in the lead. Any continuation of this discussion without actual sources is futile. (As a policy note, per WP:BRD, you should discuss after somebody reverts your bold edit, not revert back to your viewpoint). Hemanthah (talk) 17:30, 9 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Insulted by whom? Also how, in academic publications, legacy media, or social media? That clarification will be helpful.Thanks.Jonathansammy (talk) 16:58, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
 * APPU: May I suggest that you not make any edits until a consensus has been achieved on this page.  I have no idea what intelligentsia means in an invariant sense.  It is a somewhat dated term, related to pre-Soviet Russia, with OED meaning (2010):  "The part of a nation (originally in 19th-cent. Russia) that aspires to intellectual activity and political initiative; a section of society regarded as educated and possessing culture and political influence." What does that mean in the Indian context?
 * Both Tharoor and Guha write popular trade histories. They don't work with primary sources, or if they do, they haven't really trained in their use as a part of their apprenticeship in history. As a result, they don't typically write journal articles, research monographs, or advise PhD students.  They are similar to the White Mughals author whose name I'm blanking on, popular historians. In other words, their works are not works of scholarship, see WP:SOURCETYPES for an explanation of the term scholarship, and why it is most reliable among sources.
 * For Nehru, there are many works of scholarship. See for example, Judith M. Brown's Modern India: Origins of an Asian Democracy, Oxford University Press, 1991; Barbara D. Metcalf and Thomas R. Metcalf's A Concise History of Modern India, Cambridge University Press, 2012; Peter Robb's A History of India, Palgrave, 2012; Burton Stein's History of India, Oxford 2012; Ian Talbot's A History of Modern South Asia: Politics, States, Diasporas, Yale, 2016. For an assessment of Nehru's economic policies, see B. R. Tomlinson's The Economy of Modern India: From 1860 to the Twenty-First Century, Cambridge, 2020; or The Economic History of India, 1857–2010 by Tirthankar Roy, 2020.  A very useful political assessment is Judith M. Brown's Nehru: Profiles in Power, Routledge 2014.  In my view, a legacy for a topic such as Nehru's should be based on the work of academic historians, not popular ones.  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  17:58, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Sorry for reigniting this discussion. I used your this search template from here to find academic or scholarly mentions of this claim. I have found some at here and here [Not every search result is relevant but some]. Do these count? Especially these    Appu (talk) 09:42, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Social democrat
The lead mentions Nehru as a social democrat, but nowhere in the article is that mentioned. Is that not a WP:synthesis? Appu (talk) 15:16, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
 * That is because this is not a well-developed article in which the main body is comprehensive. So, ipso facto, a comprehensive and NPOV lead can't be a summary of the article. I often do this on some pages and cite the sentences so that the main bodies can be developed. The mistake I made was to forget the citations. I will now add them with liberal quotes from which the main body can be further developed. Thank you for pointing this out.  Best,  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  23:08, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

Nehru's 21st century presence in lead.
The last paragraph, presumably about his legacy, ends a little abruptly i.e., He died as a result of a heart attack on 27 May 1964. His birthday is celebrated as Children's Day in India.. Nehru gets a lot of page views. I mean, a lot. (he averages per day more than FDR) This is not least because of his lasting relevance in Indian politics. This section has ample citations about the same. Even if you forget citations, it is common knowledge that Nehru is pretty popular among India's humanities intelligentsia. I think the lead in the end should have a line about that. It could be "Nehru is a controversial figure in contemporary Indian politics" or "Nehru remains a popular figure among the intelligentsia"; whatever pleases the consensus. Appu (talk) 07:33, 5 December 2021 (UTC)


 * This discussion has not recieved any response after 24 hours. I think I should make WP:BOLD to add it under WP:GOODFAITH? Appu (talk) 12:43, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Is this something that is sourced or in the article? The intelligentsia sentence seems a bit odd and, if you add the controversial figure one, you'll also need a bit of explaining why. --RegentsPark (comment) 13:20, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
 * We have this section Jawaharlal_Nehru. It has quite a lot of citations to get the picture. I think intelligentsia is a fine word or perhaps we can trim in down to "intelligentsia in India". I feel that it should be mentioned for the reason that Nehruvianism and whatever that is called "acadmia", 'intellectual elite" or "intelligentsia" are so much dovetailed together. Appu (talk) 14:04, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I read the para (apologies for not doing so before) and it looks reasonably complete to me. The section you point to doesn't really support "controversial". Being disliked by Hindu nationalists and the BJP doesn't make one controversial. And, while "support in academia" is in the section, is that really worth adding to the lead? --RegentsPark (comment) 15:36, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I think we should avoid controversial for the time being till we find enough evidence. Intelligentsia has a sharp meaning while academia a broad term and quite a vague one.
 * I support adding "Nehru remains very popular among the Indian intelligentsia". If you google "top indian intellectuals", you find this at the top. Among the five listed, two (Tharoor and Guha) are just outright Nehru fanboys; both have written not less than 500 pages about Nehru through various formats. Rajan is an economist so I don't know if he has written substantially. Mehta taught at Jawaharlal Nehru University which is famous and infamous for being Nehruvian by name and nature. IDK much about Ashok Malik, sorry for that. Then I found this article, which has one more called Swapan Dasgupta. He is politician of an opposing party but still he admits that "The near-unchallenged political dominance of some six decades led to the Nehruvian consensus becoming common sense among the intelligentsia, particularly those in the liberal professions. This section has guarded its echo chamber fiercely and denied institutional space to those that don’t quite fit into the Left-liberal mould." in this article. One can google for "top Indian historians" and still find such people. It is quite a fact that Nehru or Nehruvianism is the epicentre of Indian intellectual elite and it is his biggest chunk of legacy, so yeah it should be in the lead. Appu (talk) 17:32, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
 * "Nehru remains a popular figure among the intelligentsia" sounds weird to me, a bit like a forerunner to an ideological crackdown a la the great leap forward. It's sort of saying that he's not a popular figure with the masses, which is not necessarily true. I think we need to let others weigh in on this. --RegentsPark (comment) 17:44, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I think the legacy bit needs to be discussed more. I have accordingly removed the paragraph added by Jonathansammy.  Hindu nationalists are not the only critics of Nehru.  The Congress itself, after the 1990s, moved away from the Nehruvian economics of the 1950s, especially during Manmohan Singh's tenure both as finance minister and later as prime minister. Nor were the Hindu nationalists the only critics of Nehru's China policy.  His own daughter became politically and militarily hawkish toward China.
 * In my view, the Hindu nationalists' dislike of Nehru is more complex. In part, it is a dislike of Gandhi whom because of his elevated status they dare not criticize. Gandhi's principle of means before ends, of which Nehru was an early enthusiast, is not a Hindu nationalist principle. Means before ends, and its associated political ethics and self-doubts, is not an outlook to which, for example, Patel showed great attachment in later life, preferring a pragmatic forcefulness towards the Indian princes, including in two instances the annexation of their states by force.  He is therefore a Hindu nationalist hero. Similarly, Subhas Bose and Bhagat Singh, who accomplished little towards their goal of liberating India from British rule, but for whom only ends were important, even when they became nihilistic, have become unlikely Hindu-nationalist heroes, their ideologies overlooked.
 * In part, the dislike is related to the Hindu nationalists' sitting determinedly on the sidelines during India's long nationalist movement from 1920 to 1947, and thereafter being implicated by their association in the murder of Mahatma Gandhi and sidelined for two decades more. In the 1950s, they were pariahs in India, and Nehru was their outsize opponent, whom they did not forgive.  Gradually, since coming into power in the 1990s, they have attempted to revise their history.
 * Their visceral dislike for Nehru is in part also a dislike for the English-speaking upper classes in India by whom the vernacularly-educated Hindu nationalists felt snubbed for decades.
 * And so it goes. I'm sure the sources exist. Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  10:39, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
 * How about we add for the time being "Indian intelligentsia is often personified to Nehru and his ideas of India"? I think this is concluded in the discussion in more than one way. But I am anxious if that is the right wording. I would make a bold move but am holding back for a consensus because Nehru is just too giant a personality and I do not want to be wrong. Appu (talk) 06:35, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
 * It seems to me that only those who use intelligentsia in a negative sense would make that statement (as your googling above indicates - Swapan has said that, not Guha or Tharoor). Anyway it's extremely reductive, no single person can be representative of such a wide category; especially now. I've reverted your edit. Hemanthah (talk) 13:42, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
 * It is immaterial if it is a praise or insult, what is needed is whether Nehru is disproportionately dovetailed with the intelligentsia and so far as the sources go, he is. Guha and Tharoor have not said or probably I didn't cite them saying so. What is said is Guha and Tharoor are also first-rank Nehruvians (Tharoor's latest book has a significant chunk of literature dedicated to Nehru). And such openly-proclaiming Nehru lovers are just so ubiquitous among the public intellectuals that it lead to this discussion. It is not too reductive to be not mentioned, if intelligentsia is a wide category, then Nehruvian ideas have also found a similarly-wide acceptance among that intelligentsia. You may not find such a thing as "Gandhian/Savarakar/Golwalkar/Tilak/Indira intellegentsia" but there are countless references in literature of Indian intelligentsia/academia being called [or insulted] as Nehruvian. Appu (talk) 15:37, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Your edit was a rephrasing of Swapan's opinion, not some widely accepted viewpoint as your edit presented it. And as such, I thought it doesn't belong in the lead. Any continuation of this discussion without actual sources is futile. (As a policy note, per WP:BRD, you should discuss after somebody reverts your bold edit, not revert back to your viewpoint). Hemanthah (talk) 17:30, 9 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Insulted by whom? Also how, in academic publications, legacy media, or social media? That clarification will be helpful.Thanks.Jonathansammy (talk) 16:58, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
 * APPU: May I suggest that you not make any edits until a consensus has been achieved on this page.  I have no idea what intelligentsia means in an invariant sense.  It is a somewhat dated term, related to pre-Soviet Russia, with OED meaning (2010):  "The part of a nation (originally in 19th-cent. Russia) that aspires to intellectual activity and political initiative; a section of society regarded as educated and possessing culture and political influence." What does that mean in the Indian context?
 * Both Tharoor and Guha write popular trade histories. They don't work with primary sources, or if they do, they haven't really trained in their use as a part of their apprenticeship in history. As a result, they don't typically write journal articles, research monographs, or advise PhD students.  They are similar to the White Mughals author whose name I'm blanking on, popular historians. In other words, their works are not works of scholarship, see WP:SOURCETYPES for an explanation of the term scholarship, and why it is most reliable among sources.
 * For Nehru, there are many works of scholarship. See for example, Judith M. Brown's Modern India: Origins of an Asian Democracy, Oxford University Press, 1991; Barbara D. Metcalf and Thomas R. Metcalf's A Concise History of Modern India, Cambridge University Press, 2012; Peter Robb's A History of India, Palgrave, 2012; Burton Stein's History of India, Oxford 2012; Ian Talbot's A History of Modern South Asia: Politics, States, Diasporas, Yale, 2016. For an assessment of Nehru's economic policies, see B. R. Tomlinson's The Economy of Modern India: From 1860 to the Twenty-First Century, Cambridge, 2020; or The Economic History of India, 1857–2010 by Tirthankar Roy, 2020.  A very useful political assessment is Judith M. Brown's Nehru: Profiles in Power, Routledge 2014.  In my view, a legacy for a topic such as Nehru's should be based on the work of academic historians, not popular ones.  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  17:58, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Sorry for reigniting this discussion. I used your this search template from here to find academic or scholarly mentions of this claim. I have found some at here and here [Not every search result is relevant but some]. Do these count? Especially these    Appu (talk) 09:42, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Nehru was not a hindu agnostic. He was secular scientific humanist
Calling him hindu agnostic is not appropriate because he never call himself hindu. He always identified as secular or scientific humanist. And also claim that he was agnostic is not okay because of his attitude towards religion. Many sources called him atheist so instead of hindu agnostic or atheist we should add only secular or scientific himanist in his religious views because it is the most appropriate identity even used by nehru himself. Mr.nothing anonymous (talk) 12:36, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree. "Hindu agnostic," regardless of whether a source or two or three can be cited for it, is WP:UNDUE.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  12:45, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

I completely agree with this. Maybe just call him a “secularist” or the fact that he can be mentioned as someone who never identified with a religion without explicitly mentioning “Hindu agnostic” or “atheist”. Let that be a consensus for this page. Addie293 (talk) 05:27, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

Trimming the quotes
I am proposing that we should trim quotes in footnote [b] in the lead to cut to the chase. It would ideally look like this. 








 * Appu (talk) 07:50, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Reminder
It should be mentioned that Nehru is colloquially referred to as Pandit. Appu (talk) 13:46, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Thanks 🙏 Archana baby (talk) 23:30, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

Religion
I completely agree with this. Maybe just call him a “secularist” or the fact that he can be mentioned as someone who never identified with a religion without explicitly mentioning “Hindu agnostic” or “atheist”. Let that be a consensus for this page. Addie293 (talk) 05:27, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
 * "secularist" is not a religion and you are using unreliable sources like "atheistcentre.in".
 * There are dozens of reliable sources which call him "Kashmiri Hindu".
 * But we are using Sarvepalli Gopal as a source, since he is the best source on Nehru.
 * See WP:OR. It cannot be done just because you want things according to yourself. Aman Kumar Goel (Talk) 16:32, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
 * It is not the consensus of reliable source that is reflected in the academic tertiary sources per WP:TERTIARY. They might say, he descended from a Kashmiri Hindu family, but not that he was a Kashmiri Hindu.  Will add sources soon.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  22:27, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
 * See, for example, a clear enunciation:
 * Sarvepalli Gopal is old hat. Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  22:38, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
 * It also ends with Nehru's signal contribution, "'He formulated the secular and multicultural principles underlying the Indian constitution, which guaranteed state protection for India's many minorities and effectively stabilised communal tensions for many decades after partition.'" which the Hindu nationalists after 2014 have been busy attributing to Ambedkar, who, although a legal scholar par excellence, was essentially only the chairman of the drafting committee of debates within the Constituent Assembly; B. N. Rau was almost as instrumental in the drafting. But the Directive Principles of State Policy, the ideological and multicultural pillar of the Indian constitution, was a reworking of the Nehru report of 1928, in turn, influenced by Irish nationalism. It had very little to do with Ambedkar or Rajendra Prasad who was the chairman of the Constituent Assembly.  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  23:04, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
 * And here is a modern, more detailed perspective, by Maria Misra, an Oxford historian:
 * Fowler&amp;fowler «Talk»  23:23, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, Ambedkar had himself said "The credit that is given to me does not really belong to me. It belongs partly to Sir B. N. Rau..."
 * When Stone Walls Cry: The Nehrus in Prison Get access Arrow, Oxford University Press, Mushirul Hasan, 2016, notes about Nehru:
 * "He may have felt alien in his own society—'a Hindu out of tune with Hinduism'—but did not want old established traditions to be scrapped or dispensed with. He once said, 'A Brahman I was born, and a Brahman I seem to remain whatever I might say or do in regard to religion or social custom'."
 * Nehru's description of himself as "A Brahman I was born, and a Brahman I seem to remain whatever I might say or do in regard to religion or social custom," is found in his autobiography An Autobiography.
 * These sources show that the description provided by Sarvepalli Gopal was accurate. Aman Kumar Goel (Talk) 10:54, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Have you read Nehru's autobiography cover to cover? I have the 1936  London Bodley Head first edition lying right here, an advanced reviewer's copy handed down to me.  It is dangerous to pick one quote out of context.  In the book, Nehru says many things about religion, including Hinduism, and he says them in a variety of nuance. That quote, for example, is more complex.  He says, "Hinduism clings on to its children, almost despite them. A Brahman I was born and a Brahman I seem to remain whatever I might say or do in this regard to religion or social custom. To the Indian world I am "Pandit" so and so, in spite of my desire not to have this or any other honorific title attached to my name."
 * He seems to be saying essentially that in India others rarely accept the notion that an individual's personal world-view might lie outside their caste or religion of birth. You may take this quote to RS/N and ask them if it warrants calling Nehru a Kashmiri Hindu. When you do, I will then post his many other remarks about religion in the autobiography.
 * I know who Gopal was. He was a historian, but also Radkhakrishnan's son and unduly influenced in making that assessment of Nehru by his father's ecumenical reading of Hinduism .  We are an encyclopedia.  We use words in their commonly used meaning, not generally in their nuanced abstract meanings, and in the instances we do, we explain the nuance.  There is a world of difference between the Hinduism practiced by a Modi, or even a Radhakrishnan, and the one that may or may not have been professed by Nehru.
 * An Autobiography was published in 1936; the Discovery of India was published in 1946; Independence and After was published in 1950. His views kept evolving.  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  13:11, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, Ambedkar has and thank you for posting that quote, but the point is that the notion that he&mdash;now "Babasaheb" in faked reverence, instead of Bhimrao Ramji, except for Dalits (see File:47 Raika School - eating together (3384824242).jpg, Jai Bhim on the blackboard)&mdash;is the author, the sole creator, the inventor, the guiding light of the Indian constitution is false. Even attributing it to Ambedkar, Rau and the Constituent Assembly is not accurate. It is a document 80% of which, the routine laws, is taken from the Government of India Act, 1935, often verbatim.  Its pronouncements on equity and freedom, the Directive Principles of State Policy are largely based on Nehru's report of two decades earlier, and its  Preamble is inspired by the American and Irish constitutions.  (The Preamble even borrows some of the words of the Irish constitution.)  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  13:32, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I have read only Discovery of India, but not this autobiography. I am not saying that we should call Nehru a "Kashmiri Hindu". I only said that there are sources that say this. I used the quote from the source "When Stone Walls Cry" to describe how others viewed him and then proved the existence of that quote by citing his autobiography from 1936.
 * Sarvepalli Gopal was a scholar with excellent record and credentials. I don't think that Sarvepalli Gopal was anything like his father. A big difference between Sarvepalli Gopal and Radhakrishnan is that while Radhakrishnan indeed had a "ecumenical reading of Hinduism", Gopal was a very different observer and was also critical of religiously motivated politics as his book Anatomy of a Confrontation: Ayodhya and the Rise of Communal Politics in India proves.
 * Coming to your final point that that "We are an encyclopedia. We use words in their commonly used meaning, not generally in their nuanced abstract meanings, and in the instances we do, we explain the nuance." If true, then we would be better off getting rid of entire section because "Religion and personal beliefs" section is entirely WP:UNDUE for this subject. This article is not about someone who's religious views are notable.
 * We don't even have such section on Atal Bihari Vajpayee's page despite his politics were largely influenced by religious lines.
 * I am not surprised over falsification of Ambedkar because in the recent decades, histories of many other figures such as Sardar Patel, Bhagat Singh, Subash Chandra Bose, and others have been twisted in various platforms to fit misleading narratives. Hopefully, they don't have any place in the actual history. Aman Kumar Goel (Talk) 15:11, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I essentially agree with you about the need for the section specifically on Nehru's religion. I think what was notable (and still is) was not so much his religion but his world-view. Thank you AKG also for citing the autobiography.  I hadn't thought about it in a while and have been flipping through it; the Nehru that emerges is far more complex and modern than most readings of him.  I doubt there was any political leader in India as modern as Nehru, or for that matter there is any now, a century later. Two themes that emerge are:
 * his fearlessness in opposing viewpoints he disagreed with, even when they were Gandhi's: Again, I watched the emotional upheaveal of the country during the fast, and I wondered more and more if this was the right method in politics. It seemed to be sheer revivalism, and clear think had not a ghost of a chance against it. All India, or most of it, stared reverently at the Mahatma and expected him to perform miracle after miracle and put an end to untouchability and get swaraj and so on&mdash;and did precious little itself! And Gandhiji did not encourage others to think; his insistence was only on purity and sacrifice.  I felt that I was drifting further and further away from him mentally, in spite of my strong emotional attachment to him.  Often enough he was guided in his political activity by an unerring instinct.  He had the flair for action, but was the way of faith the right way to train a nation? It might pay for a short while but in the long run? (pp. 373–374)  Which political leader today anywhere in the world displays that level of lucidity, clarity, and courage in expressing his disagreements with his compatriots, let alone his idols?  As for Gandhi, many Indian leaders of all political persuasions seem happy to have their picture taken spinning the spinning wheel which they  don't know how to spin, but consider the act to be a photo op.  The British prime minister, Boris Johnson, on the other hand on a visit to Gandhi's commune, showed much more curiosity about the spinning wheel, insisting on learning how to spin it even as the handlers were trying to hurry him on to other things.
 * his fearlessness in expressing his own viewpoints even when they were freewheeling and about touchy things such as religion:~Romain Rolland also has stretched religion to mean something which will probably horrify the orthodox of organised religions. ... He says, "many souls who are or who believe they are free from all religious belief, but who in reality live immersed in a state of super-rational consciousness, which they term Socialism, Communism, Humanitarianism, Nationalism, and even Rationalism. It is the quality of thought and not its object which determines its source and allows us to decide whether or not it emanates from religion.  If it turns fearlessly towards the search for truth at all costs with single-minded sincerity prepared for any sacrifice, I should call it religious; ... Scepticism itself, when it proceeds from vigorous natures true to the core, when it proceeds from vigorous natures true to its core, when it is an expression of strength and not weakness, joins in the march of the Grand Army of the religious Soul." I cannot presume to fulfil the conditions laid down by Romain Rolland, but on these terms I am prepared to be a humble camp-follower of the Grand Army. (p. 380) That's a far cry from being a Hindu in most definitions of the word. I think Nehru's world view or Weltanschauung is what is notable and deserves a section, not necessarily his religion.  But let's not change anything now. Other editors have spent a lot of time on this article.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  15:40, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
 * his fearlessness in opposing viewpoints he disagreed with, even when they were Gandhi's: Again, I watched the emotional upheaveal of the country during the fast, and I wondered more and more if this was the right method in politics. It seemed to be sheer revivalism, and clear think had not a ghost of a chance against it. All India, or most of it, stared reverently at the Mahatma and expected him to perform miracle after miracle and put an end to untouchability and get swaraj and so on&mdash;and did precious little itself! And Gandhiji did not encourage others to think; his insistence was only on purity and sacrifice.  I felt that I was drifting further and further away from him mentally, in spite of my strong emotional attachment to him.  Often enough he was guided in his political activity by an unerring instinct.  He had the flair for action, but was the way of faith the right way to train a nation? It might pay for a short while but in the long run? (pp. 373–374)  Which political leader today anywhere in the world displays that level of lucidity, clarity, and courage in expressing his disagreements with his compatriots, let alone his idols?  As for Gandhi, many Indian leaders of all political persuasions seem happy to have their picture taken spinning the spinning wheel which they  don't know how to spin, but consider the act to be a photo op.  The British prime minister, Boris Johnson, on the other hand on a visit to Gandhi's commune, showed much more curiosity about the spinning wheel, insisting on learning how to spin it even as the handlers were trying to hurry him on to other things.
 * his fearlessness in expressing his own viewpoints even when they were freewheeling and about touchy things such as religion:~Romain Rolland also has stretched religion to mean something which will probably horrify the orthodox of organised religions. ... He says, "many souls who are or who believe they are free from all religious belief, but who in reality live immersed in a state of super-rational consciousness, which they term Socialism, Communism, Humanitarianism, Nationalism, and even Rationalism. It is the quality of thought and not its object which determines its source and allows us to decide whether or not it emanates from religion.  If it turns fearlessly towards the search for truth at all costs with single-minded sincerity prepared for any sacrifice, I should call it religious; ... Scepticism itself, when it proceeds from vigorous natures true to the core, when it proceeds from vigorous natures true to its core, when it is an expression of strength and not weakness, joins in the march of the Grand Army of the religious Soul." I cannot presume to fulfil the conditions laid down by Romain Rolland, but on these terms I am prepared to be a humble camp-follower of the Grand Army. (p. 380) That's a far cry from being a Hindu in most definitions of the word. I think Nehru's world view or Weltanschauung is what is notable and deserves a section, not necessarily his religion.  But let's not change anything now. Other editors have spent a lot of time on this article.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  15:40, 18 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Didn't Nehru describe himself as a "Hindu atheist"to either Bertrand Russell or George Bernard Shaw? Unfortunately,I do not have a reliable source that attests to this conversation. Having said that there is a school of thought called Hindu atheism, and therefore there is nothing wrong in describig Nehru as Hindu. Despite his views on religion I think he liked the cultural aspects of Hinduism.Case in point is the wedding of Feroze and Indira which looks like being conducted according to Hindu rites rather than those of Feroze Gandhi's Zoroastrianism, or according to a civil ceremony (see image).Even in his will he stipulated that some of his ashes should be immersed in the Ganges at Allahabad. Just my two cents on the debate.Thanks.Jonathansammy (talk) 16:42, 18 November 2022 (UTC)


 * You can read how he described himself in his autobiography. It is hardly Hindu anything.  As for pictures of weddings of children, they don't mean anything.  It may have been the relatives wish, or the daughter's wish, to be married in such a ceremony, or it may have been the custom, civil marriages being very rare in India at that time, ...  In most traditions, the wedding is that the bride's home not the groom's.  It is certainly the case in Europe or the US even now.    Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  17:11, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Please tell me how many high profile people in India had weddings in their homes in 1942 or earlier for their children in which the marriage was not arranged nor within the same caste, let alone the religion? No Indian political leader had the guts.  Subhas Bose could not even tell his family that he had fathered a child.  He left his wife or companion and child unsupported in wartime Europe.  It was Nehru who arranged after the war for a monthly stipend to be paid to Anita Bose Pfaff, then Anita Schenkl, until she turned 21, not Bose's family.  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  17:25, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Half the Bose family, which is in the hundreds now, does not acknowledge Emilie Schenkl and the other half is trying to prove he was happily married and in love with Emilie. Yet Emilie worked has a trunk operator for the rest of her life and never visited India.  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  17:35, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
 * As for the ashes, he also said very explicitly that he had no religious sentiment in the matter; it had to do with childhood attachment. Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  17:53, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Probably for the same reason that Kamala Harris scattered her mother's ashes in the Indian Ocean waters off Madras. Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  17:54, 18 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Fowler&amp;fowler, I take your point but I still think he identified himself as culturally Hindu.Being deeply knowledgeable about philosophy, he  probably didn't see a contradiction between that, and being an atheist.Or It could just have  been a case of expediency. Regards.Jonathansammy (talk) 19:39, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Well it is water under the bridge unless you produce a source that clearly quotes him saying he was a Hindu atheist. He was a scientific rationalist who believed in Darwin and evolution.  He never said anywhere he believed in God. So without God and without a extra-scientific theory of creation, what is Hinduism?  Did he believe in the Gita's revelatory aspects that for the destruction of evil, the protection of the saintly and for the establishment of the Dharma Lord Krishna would reveal himself from age to age? I doubt it. Did he believe that the Gayatri Manta has any spiritual powers? I doubt it. Did he quote Hindu holy books to make cultural or political points? None that I am aware of.  He may have had nostalgia for Hinduism, the ceremonies of his childhood performed at festivals, weddings, and so forth, but that is hardly being a Hindu.  How then is a Hindu atheist different from an atheist from South Asia?  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  22:07, 18 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Coming to this fresh, the article as it is now seems fine, except that his Hindu brahmin background should be spelled out at the start of the religious section (one of the F&F quotes above can do this ). At the moment it is not mentioned there; the link to Kashmiri Pandit in the early life will do this for those informed about Indian affairs, but not for the general English reader unless they follow the link. Johnbod (talk) 17:22, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 December 2022
Topic: Religion and Personal Beliefs-Jawaharlal Nehru was an atheist because he did not believe in the concept of god. “What the mysterious is I do not know. I do not call it God because God has come to mean much that I do not believe in. I find myself incapable of thinking of a deity or of any unknown supreme power in anthropomorphic terms, and the fact that many people think so is continually a source of surprise to me. Any idea of a personal God seems very odd to me.” -Jawaharlal Nehru in his book(An Autobiography: Toward Freedom) Mathu4734 (talk) 13:35, 25 December 2022 (UTC)

Already discussed above with various reliable sources. Aman Kumar Goel (Talk) 18:20, 25 December 2022 (UTC)