Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nehruvian-Stalinism

 This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was DELETE, which has already been valiantly implemented by User:Neutrality as he struggled for air amidst a sea of sock puppets. Postdlf 02:19, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

Nehruvian-Stalinism
Original research, this term has only marginal use. Google shows 27 hits, subtract Wikipedia and mirrors, and some commentator on rediff.com who likes to put this term into his articles, and you see the insignifance. --Pjacobi 09:36, 2005 Apr 21 (UTC)

Speedy Keep this article. PJacobi has been making allegations against others including me and claims that I joined Wiki to make this vote. I've been using this id for at least 2 years now, maybe three, I can't remember. I have made other contributions to Wikipedia and if you search hard enough, you may find them. Why is Wikipedia allowing vandalism of this sort? I have given academic references below while voting. Victoria Primus 14:44, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

**Firstly, the article contains several factual inaccuracies, for example, in India, collectivization of the farm sector was never introduced as the term is understood in the context of former USSR. Please also note the concluding sentence of this article: &#8220;In Soviet Union, Stalin made himself all powerful and honored himself by naming Stalingrad after himself during his lifetime. In India, Jawaharlal Nehru came under criticism for the proposal to name Jawaharlal Nehru University after himself during his lifetime.&#8221; It is interesting to note that Jawahar Lal Nehru has died on 27th May, 1964(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jawaharlal_Nehru) where as Jawahar Lal University (JNU) was opened in early 70s (http://www.jnu.ac.in/main.asp?sendval=Introduction) **Secondly, comparison between Jawaharlal Nehru and Joseph Stalin is highly absurd &#8211; Nehru led a democratically elected government of India, whereas Joseph Stalin led a centrally controlled economy. **Thirdly, the term Nehruvian-Stalinism has been used only in two articles in the wikipedia, one in this article, and then in another article Jawahar Lal Nehru. The context in which the term Nehruvian-Stalinism has been used in the article Jawaharlal Nehru smacks of extreme misinformation and biased understanding of the reality of time, when Nehru lived and managed the affairs of India. I presume good faith on behalf of the creator of the article Nehruvian-Stalinism, but the possibility of using the wikipedia to float the term cannot be ruled out, though I am not sure of this, except that a pattern in the use of the term Nehruvian-Stalinism is visible in both the articles. **Fourthly, wikipedia is neither an experiment in anarchy nor it is an experiment in democracy; it is not a place to write about and float new ideas, it is an encyclopedia and not a place for pseudo-academicians to circulate their dogmas. **Fifthly, as a relatively new wikipedian, I may be inexperienced, but I simply marvel at the conceited views of some anonymous editors who write article like this, as well as pick up unnecessary arguments - specimen of which one can find on the Talk page of article Jawahar Lal Nehru (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Jawaharlal_Nehru) - the article, where the term Nehruvian-Stalinism finds mention twice.
 * Delete, seems to be a phrase invented by (and mostly used) an Indian commentator and blogger Rajeev Srinivasan last year (look at the dates and authorship on those articles). Not notable. Megan1967 12:32, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, neologism. --Idont Havaname 14:51, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, see What_Wikipedia_is_not, topic 1.3.1 (Propaganda or advocacy of any kind) and 1.3.5 (No original research); See also HERE AN(Ger) 15:22, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete propaganda. &#8212; Sesel wa  22:55, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Jayjg (talk) 05:48, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. As per Megan1967's explanation. El_C 07:45, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Very Strong Delete, because of several reasons.--Bhadani 09:27, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

All above comments are were without hurting anyone&#8217;s feeling and anyone's academic credentials - my comments have been made with an intention to make wikipedia a reliable online encyclopedia. My personal thanks to all above wikipedians, to all other fellow wikipedians, particularly User:Pjacobi and User:Megan1967 for their initiative in this matter to maintain the quality of wikipedia.--Bhadani 16:56, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC) (comments crossed by me in view of certain wiki-users's feeling that I had some vendetta, etc. etc. My vote for Delete stands --Bhadani 09:27, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC))
 * I have seen some more comments which have appeared after my comments above. It looks fine that the term has created a lot of attention among wikipedia users and I feel very nice that some of them have just registered and come to this page to register their VOTE for KEEP. It reminds me of capturing the polling booth, which happens sometimes, when same person may be voting again and again - this is a general comment of the reality of situation, and not personal comments. I welcome all new comers who registered and did their first ever edit on wikipedia for this issue. Cheers! I also feel the correct and neutral term would be, may be "Nehruvian socialism" or something like that - but, I am stepping aside so that some one with better credentials may write a better article. I am also sure that all those who have come here in support of the term Nehruvian-Stalinism to contribute some inputs to improve the article, if they have time and the inclination. --Bhadani 07:18, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete accuarcy issues aside, it doesn't appear to be a widely accepted term. Andypasto 08:48, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Yes, User:Andypasto, you said in so few words, so many things.--Bhadani 11:05, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * keep - I am shocked at the callous manner in which people bring their politics to the table. This article is accurate and as an Indologist, I can testify that India is an unfortunate country. It is true that India has imposed a Stalinist economy complete with a Planning Commission and the term "commanding heights" is very accurate. My jaw dropped at people doing a web search to determine whether a term is legitimate. Nehruvian-Stalinism is a common term in economics. In fact, many indian economists of the 1960s and 1970s were proud to identify themselves as such! Are we now doubting the reports of Transparency International that considers India to be a corrupt country? What about all the poverty? You do injustice to millions of people who have suffered under the system by deleting an article that is very accurate and to the point. Deletion of this article would be similar to giving in to a lynch-mob that supports Communism. Victoria Primus

I should also add that the Congress Party (party of Jawaharlal Nehru) has now formed a government in India with the Communists! This word is very much in use by the people in the know! The communists are in control in India are fast moving towards stalinism by finding and obliterating anything that shows them poor light......Wikipedia being a distinguished source of information, should be secular in nature and not give into any political lobbying. [User: Mysore Madhwa
 * Victoria here again - Another point is that collectivization *was* introduced in India in the 1950s. It failed and after the war against China, the people of India trashed it as a Chinese method and gave it up.
 * No way! Do not DELETE********
 * Note: 24.214.192.116's first edit. Jayjg (talk) 06:59, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Do not delete. I did a Google search too and it seems to have sufficient use to justify its inclusion in wikipedia. As a frequent visitor to India, I have been struck by the personality cult of Nehru there too, very Soviet style. Just as Stalin and Mao did, Nehru too seems to have built himself up, with the same type of poor economic policies. Please, no propaganda and the pushing of personal agendas. And no canvassing of votes either, my fellow editors. This is against the spirit of Wikipedia. Let us be humble enough to admit that none of us is the world's leading expert on anything. Dear editor Bhadani, no personal crusades or vendettas, please. Charles Kingsley
 * This was Charles' first edit on Wikipedia. Nice to see you joining our efferts, Charles. --Pjacobi 06:44, 2005 Apr 29 (UTC)


 * Thank you, thank you, Pjacobi. It's my pleasure to continue to contribute by humble mite to your efforts, as I have been doing anonymously for some time. Charles Kingsley on a proxy. 164.164.81.4 02:27, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Keep - The argument that the existence of a factual inaccuracy should be grounds to delete the article goes against the spirit of Wikipedia. You just have to edit the article and remove the factual inaccuracy. Haing said that, I have noticed that a lot of internet users belong to the young crowd and do not know much of the cold war era. The article is factually correct and even the point about Jawaharlal Nehru University is correct. The proposal came about in early 60s and it was passed in parliament soon after Nehru's death and then the foundation stone was laid and it took a few years to build it. No university is built overnight.

Also check http://www.hindu.com/2005/01/17/stories/2005011700350900.htm I quote - '''India's national aim, the outgoing Congress President, Mr. Jawaharlal Nehru, said in Madras on January 17 "is a welfare state and a socialist economy." In a 6000-word report to the AICC, on relinquishing office as Congress President, Mr. Nehru said the establishment of a socialistic pattern of society had been implicit all along in the Congress objective and "it is right that we should make this perfectly clear now and keep this picture in view at all stages of our planning.'''

Economically, Indian economy is still Stalinist in nature. Why are we trying to cover this up? Wikipedia should not be covering up stuff, but should propagate insights from experts wherever possible. You should welcome the expert view instead of insisting on the populist view every time. LibertarianAnarchist


 * DO NOT DELETE - The article is reasonably accurate, and the term is widely used among right wing political circles in India.


 * Who posted the last vote above? Can you please sign your name? I just read the deletion policy page and I see that you are supposed to vote as "keep" and not as "do not delete." I changed my vote to "keep" from "do not delete". Can others do the same just in case a script counts the votes. I guess I started the trend and others just followed suit. From the deletion policy page, I also see that you can sign with four ~ (tildes) places next to each other. Victoria Primus 05:14, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Note: Victoria joined Wikipedia to vote here. --Pjacobi 06:44, 2005 Apr 29 (UTC)

I don't know what all this fuss is about. The original article is highly informative, accurate and factual. Anyone who has lived in India or experienced it first-hand would attest to this. Besides being chummy with Josef Stalin, Nehru did copy a lot of things from the Soviet model: central planning, 5-year plans, large dams, etc. Even waiting periods for telephone connections and ration shops are direct 'inspirations' from USSR. I am afraid somebody with a political axe to grind is out to delete this article, their action is in the true spirit of Communism: that is, muffle all dissenting voices. Eersj 05:31, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC) http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/sowell071201.asp Though the Indian statist leaders thought of themselves as looking out for the poor, their policies have been estimated to have held back economic development to the point where the average Indian's income would have been hundreds of dollars a year greater without their restrictions. In a country with millions of very poor people, some suffering from malnutrition, the loss of a few hundred dollars in annual income meant far more than it would have meant to the average American.
 * Keep
 * First and only edit of this user. --Pjacobi 06:44, 2005 Apr 29 (UTC)
 * Dear Eersj welcome to wikipedia - I am sure that the wikipedia community will benefit from your other edits also, particulary on Indian economy of Nehru's time - it appears that you have very good personal experience of those time. By the way, please improve the present article to conform to wiki-standard, it is my personal appeal to you. By the way, it may be other way round - somebody with a political axe to grind is out to keep this article -you are sure of your opinion, but I am not: because I beleive that several persons have registered in a day or two to vote to keep this article for academic reasons, and not for political reasons. --Bhadani 07:33, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Adding comments
 * From a Thomas Sowell article

Like so many socialistic policies around the world, those in India were not relaxed or ended because of better understanding but because of bitter experience. When these policies had the Indian government on the verge of bankruptcy, its leaders had no choice but to make fundamental changes in the economy, in order to qualify for help from the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank.

http://www.forbes.com/business/global/2004/0621/016.html Under the socialist regime of Jawaharlal Nehru and his family successors the state was intolerant, restrictive and grotesquely bureaucratic. That has largely changed (though much bureaucracy remains), and the natural tolerance of the Hindu mind-set has replaced quasi-Marxist rigidity. Victoria Primus 05:44, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * From an article by the highly respected historian, Paul Johnson:

Contrary to what the original poster claims, this article and the term "Nehruvian-Stalinism" is an excellent summary of an important period in world history. There is absolutely no insignifance (sic) about this article. I appeal to Wikipedia not to cravenly cave in to these bullies. Drjayaraman 05:53, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * keep
 * First and only edit of this user. --Pjacobi 06:44, 2005 Apr 29 (UTC)

I am Indian citizen and have seen first hand how Nehruvian views are closely related with Stalinism. Factual errors in the article is not a sufficient reason to delete the article. This term makes perfect sense to someone who has witnessed the Nehruvian era.
 * Keep

Insightful term Harihara 06:48, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep I just came back to this page to see how the voting was going. Victoria, thank you for letting us know the key word is 'keep'. So here's my vote to keep this entry. I had previously posted 'Do not delete'. I agree with posters above that the term and the concept are meaningful. Charles Kingsley 06:20, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Note: Second vote by user. Jayjg (talk) 07:01, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Note: As fully acknowledged by user. Charles Kingsley 164.164.81.4 02:27, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * keep
 * Note: User's first edit on Wikipedia. Jayjg (talk) 06:57, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * welcome Harihara - Your first edit to wikipedia perhaps? All the best, I am sure it will not be your last one.--Bhadani 07:02, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete - this is just a political smear and the article is pure POV. Firebug 06:54, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Gamaliel 07:04, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep - The term represents an important era of Indian history. DemoCrat2005 09:36, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Note: User's first edit on Wikipedia. Strange this. Proto 11:30, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete Proto 11:30, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Do NOT delete - Do not give in to politicians. There is no word other than Nehruvian-Stalinism to explain the same line of policies followed by Stalin and Nehru.
 * Unsigned vote by User:Georgethundi. He has made only 3 edits, all to this VFD. Can we get a sock check on all these new accounts? Either there are sockpuppets in play, or someone has been recruiting new voters from outside Wikipedia. Either way, this should not be allowed to determine the outcome of the consensus. Firebug 11:53, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Keep - Before it is held against me as a way to dilute my vote -- yes this is my first edit. But that does not mean I do not understand What_Wikipedia_is_not. Similarities between Nehruism and Stalinism have always been a hot topic of discussion in Indian economics arena and this term has been standardised to refer to this system. This term is gaining usage on internet and Wikipedia is a perfect reference to explain what the meaning and connotation of Nehruvian-Stalinism is for the uninitiated. Aalu.paneer
 * We generally try to assume good faith, but this task is sometimes made difficult by numerous cases in which individuals have created numerous accounts under different names to vote multiple times. Your first edit on this site was to a deletion discussion, which is often considered suspicious due to the amount of abuse that has been committed on past discussions of this nature. By the way, deletion is not a straight vote; it is an attempt to reach consensus. I'm curious as to how you came across Wikipedia, and in particular, how you came across this deletion discussion. Were you asked to join this particular discussion by another participant? Firebug 12:45, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * All I can say is that is not my first edit on Wikipedia (although first under an ID). I understand the attempt at reaching concesus via discussion and that is why so many have joined it. The idea of cooling off for a while and then coming back sounds good. Though it seems the page has already been deleted. Sadly, Wikipedia seems to be turning into yabb where a archive loses out to editor's politics! On your question how I landed here, Google is your friend. My vote to Keep remains because this term was not "invented" on Wikipedia, has large usage in specific circles and needs a good reference for people needing introduction to it. Aalu.paneer


 * Hello dear aalu.paneer, I would love to welcome you &#8211; at least with your User ID, I am feeling jealous &#8211; beacause, as a vegetarian, I like the curry of aalu.paneer (http://indiabistro.com/menu.htm) &#8211; lol. At least, this article has assisted in registration of several new users to save the article, and welcome aboard the wikipedia. May be this article can be saved, if someone really try to save it by giving fresh inputs, along with voting for keep. I would request users to avoid using funny User IDs and dilute the santity of wikipedia. Thanks. --Bhadani 12:52, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Bhadani, not all users of Wikipedia are registered users or login and then contribute. I am glad to know that my alias, aalu paneer continues to make people smile. I do not know why you think it is a "funny" User ID, disrepectful to Wikipedia and did not know one needed a inane or "suits" types name to be considered seriously on Wikipedia! -- Aalu.paneer

Keep - This term refers to a number of blunders committed by Nehru, which caused a lot of famines, unemployment, wide-scale poverty, desertification of a lot of rural villages with no water for drinking and state monopoly in a number of industries. These blunders are the reasons why there is a huge migration of people from rural villages and towns towards cities, where the state created all the new jobs. In a way, this causes the creation of slums in most of the major cities, also leading to a lot of crime and anti-social behaviour. Indian media is controlled by a lot of communists and monority communities with their own vested interests in not letting the masses know about the ill effects of the state planning and the licence-permit-quota-raj and the creation of personality based politics. This is the reason why the Nehruvian-Stalinism term is not so widely referenced in a number of web sites and publications. By deleting this article, wikipedia will inadvertently side with these Vested Interests and endanger the suppression of the causes of millions of indians are still poor, from being popularised with the Indian masses. Only when the people know what they are suffering from, can they think and find a solution on how to eradicate those diseases that affect them and return to good health, literally, economically and philosophically. -- ksriram
 * User's second edit on Wikipedia (first was also on this VfD page) Proto 13:35, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * This term refers to a number of blunders committed by Nehru, which caused a lot of famines, unemployment, wide-scale poverty, desertification of a lot of rural villages with no water for drinking and state monopoly in a number of industries. These blunders are the reasons why there is a huge migration of people from rural villages and towns towards cities, where the state created all the new jobs. That's nice. But it is pure POV and has no place on Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a soapbox. The term Nehruvian-Stalinism gets only 35 hits on Google. Frankly, it is possible for one or a few individuals to drum up that number of hits. It's absurd to claim that the Indian government is responsible for this poor showing; India is not a totalitarian state. You seem to think that this article should serve as a POV platform; that is precisely why I think it should be deleted. Firebug 12:50, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * This is now getting silly, I count 10 votes to keep, at least 7 of which are first ever edits by 'new users', and 2 anonymous ... can someone check IP addresses? Proto 13:35, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Keep this article. However, there is a need for balance and a more nuanced analysis to get beyond the usual Left-Right politics (which, imo is not enough to understand India). It is important that this article include concepts such as modernization & industrialization since these are unquestionably the most powerful & irresitable drivers of global societal change in the past 500 years; these concepts is crucial to understanding independent india since is is undeniable that indian modernization started in earnest post colonialism.  Next, this article needs to explore how various societies/ civilizations around the world navigated through and coped with modernization/ industrialization. For example, Western Europe's modernization is associated with colonialism/ imperialism, massive migration to and subsequent genocide in the new world, slavery, apartheid, world wars, capitalist control economies. By contrast, Eastern Europe & China did not have the luxury or ability for large scale outbound emigrations, colonialism, imperialism etc.  Therefore, in contrast to Western Europe, Eastern Europe and china turned inwards, adopted communism and ended up genociding their own people (those deemed unfit for modernization by some criteria). India's path to modernization was different (one that wanted every Indian to get on the modernization train, even if it meant that any indian could set up a paan shop in a hole in the wall or become a rickshaw puller) & Nehru should be seen as someone who represents a change agent for the modernization of india. If these changes cannot be made, then my suggestion would be to delete the article.
 * This is an unsigned vote by User:208.204.155.241. It is his 13th contribution. Firebug 17:26, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, if only to stem the sockpuppet flood. - Mustafaa 21:36, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Note a vote, but a humble observation. I have already voted above. I have been posting anonymously on Wikipedia for a long time, and from multiple IP addresses (as I travel a lot). This is the first time I have seen such a remarkable tussle about deleting an article. To the extent that I felt some pressure to create an id just so that I would be taken seriously here (although my personal preference would be to remain anonymous). If I were to summarize what I see here, it seems as though editor Bhadani has a clear personal axe to grind, for reasons that are not clear to me. A number of  other responsible editors seem to have got caught up in what looks like an orchestrated campaign by Bhadani, clues to which show up in his fulsome thanks and praise of various editors who support his perspective. In response to this, it looks like a number of editors with the opposite perspective have jumped in, perhaps as first-time voters. Both sides are in the wrong. In other words, this looks like one of those sad tales of voting fraud you hear about in oh... India, the US (remember 'hanging chads'?), etc. I think the whole voting process has been compromised here. I would suggest a cooling-off period and a deferral of this vote. Why on earth is this such an earth-shakingly important issue? Socialism, Stalinism, Leninism, Maoism, all of them have been shown to be frauds. All good for marketing purposes, but not for reality. Charles Kingsley on a proxy. 164.164.81.4 02:27, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * By the way, I was seventh to vote for delete - before me all have voted for delete. After, me most of the users have  voted for Keep, only few have voted for delete: the normal conclusion should be, may be, my delete created more votes for keeps. I also do agree that a cooling period should be there so that the issue can be resolved in keeping with the highest wiki traditions. I can assure every one that I donot have any axe to grind. My edits numbering around 900 plus within five weeks may be seen to verify my inclinations.  As regards travelling job -for years, I have been travelling also. Do travelling folks donot keep email IDs? What is wrong if one keeps a Wiki ID as well?  To be nice to fellow wikipedians - is a wiki tradition, I have praised someone when there was not even a single keep vote, so that remark is out of context, perhaps. I have also welcomed all other new comers, who at least took the trouble to register to vote here. Bye and thanks. And, I am stepping aside from this issue, instead let me concentrate on other projects on wikipedia. --Bhadani 03:17, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Dear editor Bhadani, may I ask you to respect my right to post anonymously? Besides, I am glad we agree on something: a cooling-off period. Charles Kingsley 03:42, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * As this may be overlooked in the vast amount of text written: The article is on VfD not because of factual inaccuracies (which in itself is not even a valid deletion argument), but because of being a neologism of insignifact usage. A encyclopedia describes terms which are in use, it doesn't try to invent new words or help inventors of neologisms to promote their case. --Pjacobi 12:54, 2005 Apr 30 (UTC)
 * This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.