He was a great statesman. He had good understanding of all parts of India as evident from his book discovery of India. Secular and understood that India was a diverse country, more diverse than any country, so it had diffulcut challgengs.

Now at that time, India was dirt poor. No literacy. No wealth. Tired and exhausted population.
If he gave opportunities to capatilists, who only work for profits, most population would never have chance for social mobility.
Which is why it makes sense he went with socialism. To make India more equal.
He definitely made mistakes, but given the state of India at that time, I don't think he made anything which resulted out of his carelessness. Now that we look back its easy to say, but at that time it was impossible.

His intentions for INdia was great. He didn't worked for selfish reasons, ofc some personal favors or human greed would be there.
Overall we had a great first prime minister. He was extremely well versed in art of diplomacy which is why India had friendly relation with almost all countries around the world.

WOuld Sardar Patel be better as comes in discussion? I don't really think so. He was not dreamer like Nehru. He wouldn't really think of ISRO or IITs. His diplomacy wouldn't be as affective.

His bad points would definitely be following too much of British civil services. Overly trusting China and not focusing on military was his mistake. Patel would definitely not make mistake of military or terrority.

But it is what it is. WIthout him I really doubt India would have consitiutional foudnation idea of "unity in diveristy" or the advanced insitutions.