I was amazed by the How the Congress is really soft on Terrorism and Hardliner Muslims. I had to research more on this subject, the fact I found on this was really shocking. Nehru family is thoroughly connected to Muslisms and even current Nehru family is a chain of Muslim father. And May be that's why Congress supposed to be Soft on Muslims.

I always believe that Nehru was the nation-builder but now after Searched and Read lots of different angles of Nehru family, I can't believe on my previous thinkings.

Nehru is being responsible for major problems India is suffering with. Nehru was the first choice of Mahatma Gandhi to be Prime Minister over Sardar Patel. Sardar Patel solved burning Hyderabad issue, Junagadh issue and other hundreds of native states related issues at the time of Indian independence but Jawaharlal Nehru did not let Sardar to handle Kashmir issue. Sardar could solve Kashmir issue too but Jawharlal believed that as he(Jawahar) was from Kashmir, let him solve Kashmir issue himself. Sardar had his say on Kashmir issue, sometime Jawahar had to listen to him and sometime he did not listen to him at all. Jawahar’s radio broadcast in which he promised plebiscite in Kashmir under the supervision of United Nations. Sardar Patel had said ‘NO’ but Jawaharlal said it on Radio and look Kashmir problem is still alive.

First Link I searched was: http://www.sikhsundesh.net/nehru_dynasty.htm . This link contains lots and detailed information about the Nehru Family.

And the second Link is written by one Retrd. IAS Officer Dr. V.S. Gopalakrishnan Ph.D., IAS Retd. : http://v-s-gopal.sulekha.com/blog/post/2007/10/rarely-known-and-unpleasant-truths-about-nehru-dynasty.htm

Nehru Family History: At the very beginning of his book, "The Nehru Dynasty", astrologer K. N. Rao mentions the names ofJawahar Lal's father and grandfather. Jawahar Lal's father was believed to be Moti Lal and Moti Lal's father was one Gangadhar Nehru. And we all know that Jawahar Lal's only daughter was Indira Priyadarshini Nehru; Kamala Nehru was her mother, who died in Switzerland of tuberculosis. She was totally against Indira's proposed marriage with Feroze. Why? No one tells us that! Now, who is this Feroze? We are told, by many that he was the son of the family grocer. The grocer supplied wines, etc. to Anand Bhavan, previously known as Ishrat Manzil, which once belonged to a Muslim lawyer named Mobarak Ali. Moti Lal was earlier an employee of Mobarak Ali. What was the family grocer's name?

One frequently hears that Rajiv Gandhi's grandfather was Pandit Nehru. But then we all know that everyone has two grandfathers, the paternal and the maternal grandfathers. In fact, the paternal grandfather is deemed to be the more important grandfather in most societies. Why is it then nowhere we find Rajiv Gandhi's paternal grandfather's name? It appears that the reason is simply this. Rajiv Gandhi's paternal grandfather was a Muslim gentleman from the Junagadh area of Gujarat. This Muslim grocer by the name of Nawab Khan had married a Parsi woman after converting her to Islam. This is the source where from the myth of Rajiv being a Parsi was derived. Rajiv's father Feroze was Feroze Khan before he married Indira, against Kamala Nehru's wishes. Feroze's mother's family name was Ghandy, often associated with Parsis and this was changed to Gandhi, sometime before his wedding with Indira, by an affidavit.

The fact of the matter is that (and this fact can be found in many writings) Indira was very lonely. Chased out of the Shantiniketan University by Guru Dev Rabindranath himself for misdemeanor, the lonely girl was all by herself, while father Jawahar was busy with politics, pretty women and illicit sex; the mother was in hospital. Feroze Khan, the grocer's son was then in England and he was quite sympathetic to Indira and soon enough she changed her religion, became a Muslim woman and married Feroze Khan in a London mosque. Nehru was not happy; Kamala was dead already or dying. The news of this marriage eventually reached Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi. Gandhi urgently called Nehru and practically ordered him to ask the young man to change his name from Khan to Gandhi. It had nothing to do with change of religion, from Islam to Hinduism for instance. It was just a case of a change of name by an affidavit. And so Feroze Khan became Feroze Gandhi. The surprising thing is that the apostle of truth, the old man soon to be declared India's Mahatma and the 'Father of the Nation' didn't mention this game of his in the famous book, 'My Experiments with Truth'. Why?

When they returned to India, a mock 'Vedic marriage' was instituted for public consumption. On this subject, writes M. O. Mathai (a longtime private secretary of Nehru) in his renowned (but now suppressed by the GOI) 'Reminiscences of the Nehru Age' on page 94, second paragraph: "For some inexplicable reason, Nehru allowed the marriage to be performed according to Vedic rites in 1942. An inter-religious and inter-caste marriage under Vedic rites at that time was not valid in law. To be legal, it had to be a civil marriage.

It's a known fact that after Rajiv's birth Indira and Feroze lived separately, but they were not divorced. Feroze used to harass Nehru frequently for money and also interfere in Nehru's political activities. Nehru got fed up and left instructions not to allow him into the Prime Minister's residence Trimurthi Bhavan. Mathai writes that the death of Feroze came as a relief to Nehru and Indira. The death of Feroze in 1960 before he could consolidate his own political forces is itself a mystery. Feroze had even planned to remarry.

Those who try to keep tabs on our leaders in spite of all the suppressions and deliberate misinformation are aware of the fact that the second son of Indira (or Mrs. Feroze Khan) known as Sanjay Gandhi was not the son of Feroze. He was the son of another Moslem gentleman, Mohammad Yunus. Here, in passing, we might mention that the second son was originally named Sanjiv. It rhymed with Rajiv, the elder brother's name. When he was arrested by the British police in England and his passport impounded for having stolen a car it was changed to Sanjay. Krishna Menon was then India's High Commissioner in London. He offered to issue another passport to the felon who changed his name to Sanjay.

Incidentally, Sanjay's marriage with the Sikh girl Menaka (now they call her Maneka for Indira Gandhi found the name of Lord Indra's court dancer rather offensive!) took place quite surprisingly in Mohammad Yunus' house in New Delhi. And the marriage with Menaka who was a model (She had modeled for Bombay Dyeing wearing just a towel) was not so ordinary either. Sanjay was notorious in getting unwed young women pregnant. Menaka too was rendered pregnant by Sanjay. It was then that her father, Colonel Anand, threatened Sanjay with dire consequences if he did not marry her daughter. And that did the trick. Sanjay married Menaka. It was widely reported in Delhi at the time that Mohammad Yunus was unhappy at the marriage of Sanjay with Menaka; apparently he had wanted to get him married with a Muslim girl of his choice.

It was Mohammad Yunus who cried the most when Sanjay died in the plane accident. In Yunus' book, 'Persons, Passions & Politics' one discovers that baby Sanjay had been circumcised following Islamic custom, although the reason stated was phimosis. It was always believed that Sanjay used to blackmail Indira Gandhi and due to this she used to turn a blind eye when Sanjay Gandhi started to run the country as though it were his personal fiefdom. Was he black mailing her with the secret of who his real father was? When the news of Sanjay's death reached Indira Gandhi, the first thing she wanted to know was about the bunch of keys which Sanjay had with him.

Nehru was no less a player in producing bastards. Atleast one case is very graphically described by M. O. Mathai in his "Reminiscences of the Nehru Age", page 206. Mathai writes: "In the autumn of 1948 (India became free in 1947 and a great deal of work needed to be done) a young woman from Benares arrived in New Delhi as a sanyasin named Shraddha Mata (an assumed and not a real name). She was a Sanskrit scholar well versed in the ancient Indian scriptures and mythology. People, including MPs, thronged to her to hear her discourses. One day S. D. Upadhyaya, Nehru's old employee, brought a letter in Hindi from Shraddha Mata. Nehru gave her an interview in the PM's house. As she departed, I noticed (Mathai is speaking here) that she was young, shapely and beautiful. Meetings with her became rather frequent, mostly after Nehru finished his work at night. During one of Nehru's visits to Lucknow, Shraddha Mata turned up there, and Upadhyaya brought a letter from her as usual. Nehru sent her the reply; and she visited Nehru at midnight.

"Suddenly Shraddha Mata disappeared. In November 1949 a convent in Bangalore sent a decent looking person to Delhi with a bundle of letters. He said that a young woman from northern India arrived at the convent a few months ago and gave birth to a baby boy. She refused to divulge her name or give any particulars about herself. She left the convent as soon as she was well enough to move out but left the child behind. She however forgot to take with her a small cloth bundle in which, among other things, several letters in Hindi were found. The Mother Superior, who was a foreigner, had the letters examined, and was told they were from the Prime Minister. The person who brought the letters surrendered them. "I (Mathai) made discreet inquiries repeatedly about the boy but failed to get a clue about his whereabouts. Convents in such matters are extremely tightlipped and secretive. Had I succeeded in locating the boy, I would have adopted him. He must have grown up as a Catholic Christian blissfully ignorant of who his father was."

Coming back to Rajiv Gandhi, we all know now that he changed his so called Parsi religion to become a Catholic to marry Sania Maino of Turin, Italy. Rajiv became Roberto. His daughter's name is Bianca and son's name is Raul. Quite cleverly the same names are presented to the people of India as Priyanka and Rahul. What is amazing is the extent of our people's ignorance in such matters. The press conference that Rajiv Gandhi gave in London after taking over as prime minister of India was very informative. In this press conference, Rajiv boasted that he was NOT a Hindu but a Parsi. Mind you, speaking of the Parsi religion, he had no Parsi ancestor at all. His grandmother (father's mother) had turned Muslim after having abandoned the Parsi religion to marry Nawab Khan.

It is the western press that waged a blitz of misinformation on behalf of Rajiv. From the New York Times to the Los Angeles Times and the Washington Post, the big guns raised Rajiv to heaven. The children's encyclopedias recorded that Rajiv was a qualified Mechanical Engineer from the revered University of Cambridge. No doubt US kids are among the most misinformed in the world today! The reality is that in all three years of his tenure at that University Rajiv had not passed a single examination. He had therefore to leave Cambridge without a certificate. Sonia too had the same benevolent treatment. She was stated to be a student in Cambridge. Such a description is calculated to mislead Indians. She was a student in Cambridge all right but not of the University of Cambridge but of one of those fly by night language schools where foreign students come to learn English. Sonia was working as an 'au pair' girl in Cambridge and trying to learn English at the same time.

And surprise of surprises, Rajiv was even cremated as per vedic rites in full view of India's public. This is the Nehru dynasty that India worships and now an Italian leads a prestigious national party because of just one qualification - being married into the Nehru family. Maneka Gandhi itself is being accepted by the non-Congress parties not because she was a former model or an animal lover, but for her links to the Nehru family. Saying that an Italian should not lead India will amount to narrow mindedness, but if Sania Maino (Sonia) had served India like say Mother Teresa or Annie Besant, i.e. in anyway on her own rights, then all Indians should be proud of her just as how proud we are of Mother Teresa.

And What if Mahatma Gandhi had Choosen Sardar Patel for Prime Minister

Patel and Nehru were the two leaders closest to Gandhiji, most likely to succeed him. Gandhiji chose Nehru for prime ministership when the Congress was asked to join an interim government in 1946, and asked Patel to take a backseat. Patel died in 1950. In 1951, Nehru’s government introduced industrial licensing, and later used it to create government monopolies in a series of industries, including heavy machinery, fertilizer, coal, shipping and aircraft, and prevent new private entry into industries such as steel. In protest, Rajaji left the Congress in 1959 and founded the Swatantra Party. The tide of nationalization lasted into the Seventies, when banks were taken over; it ended only with the defeat of Indira Gandhi in 1977.

Suppose that instead of Nehru, Gandhiji had chosen Patel as prime minister, and that Nehru had walked out of the Congress and started a socialist party in the Fifties: how would that have changed India’s fate?

It would be wrong to think that Patel’s government in the Fifties would have been a liberal government in the modern sense. Patel, Rajaji and Nehru shared a common experience of British rule and apprenticeship with Gandhiji. The Indian economy was very different then — it was much poorer and less industrialized, and government was less important — its revenue was just 5 per cent of the gross domestic product. The government faced certain immediate problems; a liberal government would have approached them more or less as Nehru did. For instance, it would have had to tackle the problem of resettling refugees from Pakistan. There were no liberal alternatives to housing, feeding and supporting them.

The country was also chronically short of foodgrains. It was basically due to the fact that World War II had expanded urban employment and purchasing power, and that the urban demand for food exceeded supply from domestic agriculture. There was no international foodgrain market to fall back on. Only the US had a large enough surplus of wheat. After India turned down in 1950 the invitation of John Foster Dulles, Truman’s secretary of state, to join a South-east Asia Treaty Organization, one of America’s military alliances to contain the Soviet Union, it was no longer close to the US. Still, the US wheat surplus was so large that it gifted large quantities of it to India throughout the Fifties and Sixties. It was only after the Green Revolution, which began in the late Sixties, that the assistance under PL-480 was dispensed with. It is likely that a Patel government would have taken recourse to PL-480, although it might have increased domestic agricultural production more by leaving agriculture freer to market incentives. India might, for instance, have produced more cotton — that would have helped the textile industry, which then was large and competitive.

But it is fair to assume that a Patel government would have dismantled the import controls inherited from the War, and would not have introduced industrial licensing. During the War, India supplied a large volume of goods and services to Britain, which ran up a huge debt in the form of sterling balances. These were inconvertible into dollars because Britain had bought even more from the US without paying for it. But India could have used them to import anything from the Commonwealth — for instance, wheat from Australia, and machinery from Britain. India ran up an export surplus during the Korean War; it had so much foreign currency in 1950 that almost everything was on Open General Licence — that is, almost everything could be imported without a licence. So if the government had not launched the forced industrialization programme of 1956, if it had not wasted the sterling balances on building steel and heavy engineering plants, it could have maintained an open import regime throughout.

The major beneficiary of such a regime would have been industry. The control regime forced it to replace imports at exorbitant cost. Its high costs made it internationally uncompetitive and limited its exports. Its uncompetitiveness, together with the fixed-exchange-rate regime that prevailed throughout the world till 1970, made high protection necessary; the protection made industry even more uncompetitive. China made use of its labour to become the frontrunner in industrialization in the Nineties; India could have become the frontrunner in the Sixties. It would have run ahead of those little nations — South Korea, Taiwan, Thailand and Malaysia — which left it behind. In particular, it would have led the world in textiles. Textiles came in the Sixties to be dominated by synthetic fibres; and synthetic fibres became a major branch of petrochemicals. Japan came to dominate this industry; it could have been India instead.

Controls on technology imports forced industrial firms into long-term relationships with firms abroad, fear of upsetting foreign technology suppliers prevented Indian firms from developing technology, and controls on its import price made foreign suppliers reluctant to sell technology. Thus controls did much to keep Indian firms technologically backward. India would have been a technological leader earlier and in more industries but for the controls.

Industrial licensing worked throughout to limit competition. It thus made industry high-cost and uncompetitive. But, in addition, it limited entry to families — known at different times as managing agents, industrial houses and promoters — that were all rich and well enough connected to manipulate the politicians and bureaucrats who ran the licensing machinery. The capital market was small, and the main source of equity was the family. Thus, industrial licensing restricted enterprise. The impact can be gauged by the acceleration of industrial growth and its diversification that followed the relaxation of the industrial licensing in the Eighties.

Amongst the worst sufferers of state-dominated industrialization were energy industries. Coal would have been substantially cheaper — perhaps half as expensive — if it had not been produced by an overmanned monopoly. Cheaper coal would have given us cheaper electricity; and competition would have led to larger plants, using cheaper fuels, and delivering electricity to more consumers. Apart from being smaller and less efficient, government oil refineries earn roughly twice as high a margin as is internationally prevalent; and more competition in the oil industry would have made us owners of larger oil reserves abroad.

If instead of the Hindu rate of growth of 3.5 per cent, India had achieved 6 per cent in 1950-80, we would have been twice as rich as we are today. But we have lost even more in terms of distribution of growth than of growth itself. We would have been even richer in terms of consumer goods. We would have worn better and cheaper clothes, and owned more white goods that take the daily toil out of people’s lives. Our villages would have received cheaper and more widely available electricity; with that electricity and their labour, they would have produced consumer goods at a fraction of the present cost. There would have been far more non-agricultural employment in rural areas. Instead of 5 per cent, we would have generated 25 per cent of world trade; all the nations of the Indian Ocean would have been closely tied to us by trade and investment. All we have to boast about today is our democracy; if we had been liberal for sixty years, we would have been a world model for lifestyle.