No, India was not "under socialism with Nehru", since AFAIK the Indian economy remained in private hands. The New Palgrave Dictionary of Economics defines socialism thusly.
"A society may be defined as socialist if the major part of the means of production of goods and services is in some sense socially owned and operated, by state, socialized or cooperative enterprises. The practical issues of socialism comprise the relationships between management and workforce within the enterprise, the interrelationships between production units (plan versus markets), and, if the state owns and operates any part of the economy, who controls it and how."
The last bit of that definition is, I think, meant to suggest that a system where the states owns and operates all or part of the economy may not actually be socialist if the government is controlled by an elite (e.g. the Communist Party in various East Bloc countries in the recent past) and the economy is actually operated mainly for the benefit of that elite. Of course, there are a lot of possible variations on full or partial socialism, and a lot of disagreement about definitions, but basically it's not socialism unless at least a major part of the means of production is at least theoretically owned, directly or indirectly, by the workers and operated in accordance with their wishes and for their benefit.
In summary, the word "socialism" is not a vague reference to "a political system I like" or "a political system I don't like". Whether or not one approves of socialism, the term has to do with who owns the major means of production and who benefits from it.
And I agree with LeBrok - most of those things you posted are nonsense. Of course, it's easy to turn to conspiracy theories when you see just how screwed up the world economy is and how unfairly it operates, often to the advantage of a tiny elite. But nobody has actually organized the whole world in accordance with some massive conspiracy - we just have a world economy that's so badly skewed that some people are taking unfair advantage because they can.