................................................................................................
................................................................................................
Nehru's 97 Major Blunders
by Rajnikant Puranik
(Author)
................................................................................................
................................................................................................
Much of the material, not only history thereof but also the author's writing, thoughts, quotes and arguments are already very familiar, if one has read his book on Sardar Patel; in that one, author misses more than one opportunity to mention Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose in the context, and he does so here too.
The term Blunder was used in context of Chinese attack against India, by some authors across the world calling Nehru's China and world policy Himalayan Blunder; it comes from there, but in all fairness, much of what author counts aren't blunders as much as personal characteristics, faults or otherwise, shared often by mist if not all men; some, however, are grievously wrong actions, contrary to truth, or national interest, or both. Either way, it's not blunder, but the latter is more serious.
Regarding China, yes, it was Blunder.
About Tibet, it was lack of courage and clear sight, for most part.
Regarding the maintainance of myth of death of Netaji, instead of bringing him back, it was not only a lie repeated to nation for decadecades, but a crime against nation.
Regarding vote Bank politics and dynacracy, it was criminal folly even to institute it or allow it, as was the low regard accorded to majority, to Hinduism, to culture of India living in continuity since antiquity, and encouraging the forces out to destroy it.
But excuses and arguments break down when one after another author presents cases of people seriously ill-treated by Nehru, unfairly. Somewhere around the chapter dealing with half a dozen such cases, one gives up even the shards, and thinks, if Mother and Sri Aurobindo nevertheless thought well of him, it was their Divine vision, not accessible to mortals. We can only see what we do. And we no longer have even the shards of the adored image of the first non-elected PM. But there's the first real premier of free India, rising as an image of light, instead.
................................................................................................
"Gumnami Baba, aka Bhagwanji, was a monk who lived in Lucknow, Faizabad , Sitapur, Basti and Ayodhya in UP for over 30 years till his death on 16 September 1985. He maintained contact with Dr Pavitra Mohan Roy, the former top Secret Service agent of the INA.
"Personal effects (German binoculars, Gold-rimmed spectacles identical to that of Subhas, Bengali books, the original copy of the summons issued to Suresh Chandra Bose to appear before the Khosla Commission, an album containing family photographs of Netaji Subhas, newspaper clippings about Netaji’s ‘death’ probe, letters from Netaji’s followers, and so on) left behind by Bhagwanji seem to indicate he was perhaps Bose himself! Bhagwanji's birth date was 23rd January, the same as Netaji's.
"The Mukherjee Commission had referred the handwriting samples of Bhagwanji and Bose to Dr B Lal, a forensic expert. His report was that the two matched! As per a report in ToI{W.ih6}: “A leading American handwriting expert has concluded that Netaji Subhas Chandra Bose lived in India for several decades after Independence, under the identity of a ascetic, Gumnami Baba... The expert, Carl Baggett, reached his conclusion after studying letters written by both Bose and Gumnami Baba.”{W.ih6}"
Author asks several questions, ending with -
"How could such a tragedy unfold for one of the greatest sons of India, even as his compatriots and political leaders remained mute, indifferent witnesses for decades?"
And then he proceeds to question of INA treasure, whether he intends that its a clue to answers, or otherwise.
But something of this magnitude is far beyond the question of what happened to INA treasure, without any insinuation that the treasure wasn't humongous - which it was, especially when one factors in the consideration that it represents the personal sacrifices of expat Indians, who aren't home and must find for themselves, working hard; and even more, their loyalty to Netaji and to India, in giving him everything they could, gor sake of freedom of India, and the war he promised them for the cause.
As huge as this is, the point about hiding knowledge of existence of Netaji Subhas Chandra Bose, and possibility of bringing him back, instead of attempting to fo so gor sake of the colleague and the nation, is the huge crime that is difficult to reconcile with an image of a noble, honest person who went by heart rather than diplomacy or politics, the image one is familiar with since early sixties.
Much of the image is true, but the glass lies shattered in shards, unable to hold against his actions - regarding Netaji, regarding Tibet, regarding China.
"No freedom fighter could raise as much amount as Netaji Subhas did. He appealed to the patriotism of an estimated two million Indians in erstwhile British colonies conquered by Japanese allies for donations to finance his government-in-exile and the Indian National Army (INA). Netaji’s personality, his emotive speeches and his unswerving commitment to Indian independence moved the diaspora. Numerous housewives gave away their gold in the cause of freedom. Reportedly, one Habib Sahib gifted all his property of over a crore of rupees; and VK Chelliah Nadar, a Rangoon-based businessman and an INA funder, deposited Rs 42 crores and 2,800 gold coins in the Azad Hind Bank!
"After Rangoon, where Azad Hind Bank was headquartered, fell to the Allies in 1945, Netaji retreated to Bangkok on 24 April 1945 carrying with him the treasury, including gold bars and ornaments, in steel boxes. Japan surrendered to the Allied Powers on 15 August 1945, and the 40,000-strong INA followed suit. On 18 August 1945 Netaji boarded a Japanese bomber in Saigon bound for Manchuria, carrying the INA treasure, along with his aide Habibur Rahman. The plane reportedly crashed in Taiwan. The retrieved treasure from the crash site was handed over by the Japanese army to SA Ayer and M Rama Murti of the IIL (Indian Independence League— which had come under Netaji) at Tokyo.
"Local Indians in Tokyo suspected that Rama Murti and SA Aiyer had jointly defalcated the INA treasure— there was enough circumstantial evidence. Inexplicably , India did nothing to get back the treasure, and rather than setting up an enquiry or hauling up Murti and Aiyer, the government absorbed Aiyer as a director of publicity with the Bombay state, while Murti lead an affluent life-style in Tokyo, in sharp contrast to the devastation all around.
"Sir Benegal Rama Rau, the first head of the Indian liaison mission in Tokyo, wrote to the MEA (Ministry of External Affairs), headed by the PM Nehru himself, in India on 4 December 1947 alleging that the INA treasure had been embezzled by Murti. Strangely, the MEA responded it could not be interested in the INA funds! It seems it wasn’t just a case of indifference, it was much more than that.
"KK Chettur, who headed the Tokyo mission/ embassy during 1951-52, took up the matter of misappropriation of the INA treasure vigorously. (Incidentally, Jaya Jaitley is Chettur’s daughter. She has penned an excellent, worth-reading article “# NehruSnooped: Truth behind Netaji files” in the connection.{URL67}) ... "
Was that the clue to the fraudulent penalisation of the honest duo, Jaya Jaitley and the very well known George Fernandes, when their socialist party was part of a BJP led government with a scandalous expose by Tehelka (which has closed foundation after the two sensational bits, both frauds) insinuating a favour for moneybags? Her article certainly was drowned in the loud publicity by the then dominant media appropriately named Lutyens media since.
" ... In response, the government sent SA Aiyer on a secret mission to Tokyo. He advised collection of the retrieved treasury from Murti saying it was in his safe custody. Chettur suspected Aiyer-Murti collusion in returning part amount just to close the matter. He recommended to the government a thorough probe in the matter on 22 June 1951. But, nothing came of it. ... "
That is already suspect behaviour on part of the government of India, but then the rest - being uninterested in identification of ashes, lying about Netaji’s living, not bringing him home with honour, setting spies after Bose clan, ... is all far more depth of abominable conduct.
" ... The Indian embassy collected whatever there was at Murti's residence as the INA treasure in October 1951. The same was secretly brought into India from Japan, and was also inspected by Nehru who reportedly made a snide comment: “poor show”. ... "
This alone is enough to condemn an elected, supposedly beloved leader, for complete kick of appreciation for what the treasure represented - blood and sweat of expats who worked hard away from home and homeland, but gave it all for sake of the homeland they'd left behind, to someone they trusted hen he called for freedom of the homeland that was in their hearts!
Even as children then, we were impressed with stories of brides in 1962 October-November taking off and donating all their jewellery to the then Prime Minister for the Army! But he first appreciate the INA treasure?
" ... Nehru quoted from Aiyer's report in the parliament in 1952 affirming Netaji’s death in an air crash in Taipei. Aiyer was later appointed adviser, integrated publicity programme, for the Five Year Plan."
This is the unforgivable lie.
If it's because he was afraid he'd vanish in the light of the hero presumed dead, if he returned, perhaps that was correct estimate; but by lying, and not making an effort to bring him back, he's compounded it unnecessarily. If he hadn't, nation would be grateful, and the two together would make India tower in strength, with no debacle in 1962, but instead Perhaps a free Tibet.
Instead, now, Netaji has risen as a towering figure of light - and Jawaharlal Nehru’s image recedes in dark, not only his good points but his very person forgotten.
Even his own family member then leading his party in a coalition government had to reprimanded by an opposition member of Parliament for publicly stating that her government was the best that the nation, India, had ever had!
But that's only a small drop in the well, where now the current leading members of the branch of his descendents are noticed, and name of Jawaharlal Nehru invoked by coterie only to assert on internet a claim of a descendent to the position of PM, as if India were a monarchy!
Yes, excuses and arguments break down when one after another author presents cases of people seriously ill-treated by Nehru, unfairly. Somewhere around the chapter dealing with half a dozen such cases, one gives up even the shards, and thinks, if Mother and Sri Aurobindo nevertheless thought well of him, it was their Divine vision, not accessible to mortals. We can only see what we do. And we no longer have even the shards of the adored image of the first non-elected PM. But there's the first real premier of free India, rising as an image of light, instead.
................................................................................................
"RD Sathe, an undersecretary in the MEA, wrote a two-page secret note on 1 November 1951 titled “INA Treasures and their handling by Messrs Ayer and Ramamurthi” pointing out the circumstances of the mysterious disappearance of the massive INA treasure and the highly suspicious role of Aiyar-Murti duo; and the token return of a paltry portion from it that raised even more questions. Sathe’s note was signed by Jawaharlal Nehru on 5 November 1951 in token of having read it.{AD} But, like the earlier notes of Rau and Chettur, Sathe’s note too was just filed away by the Nehru’s government. However, the matter refused to die.
"The Indian ambassador in Tokyo, AK Dar, sent a four-page secret note to the MEA in 1955 advocating a public inquiry into the matter of the disappearance of the INA treasure. He opined that even if the government was not able to get the treasure back, at least the culprits or the likely culprits would be known. He further said that the government’s 10-year long indifference in the matter had not only helped the guilty party escape, but had done injustice to the great work and sacrifice of Netaji. Even the Shah Nawaz Committee set up in 1956 to probe Netaji's disappearance had recommended an inquiry into all the assets of Netaji's government-in-exile including the INA treasure.
"Yet Nehru did nothing! And , that’s baffling. It was not a small amount. The total treasure, had it been recovered, would have been worth several hundred crore rupees today . Was Nehru’s government protecting the embezzlers? Why did Nehru’s government accommodate a suspect embezzler SA Aiyar in the government service, and even depute him on a secret mission, as mentioned above ? Was Aiyar’s report confirming death of Netaji a quid-pro-quo? Was Nehru afraid Aiyar-Murti duo may spill the beans on the alleged fiction of Netaji’s death in the air-crash if they were hauled up? Anuj Dhar’s book on the subject ‘India’s Biggest Cover-up’{AD} is worth reading."
Strangely, Puranik doesn't quote from the book regarding a pair of trunks filled with gold and diamond jewellery, worth then Rs 2 crore and 22 ctore respectively, brought to India and, under orders directly from PM Jawaharlal Nehru, taken straight to his home - after which it was credited to his account, and the matter never mentioned again, while - when questioned in parliament - Nehru said it was some "cheap, broken" gold and diamond pieces of jewellery, not worth bother.
................................................................................................
"As per the submission made by one Mr Shyamlal Jain of Meerut to the Khosla Commission, that was setup in 1970, he was called by Nehru to Asif Ali’s residence with typewriter on 26/ 27 December 1945 (Netaji reportedly died on 18-Aug), and was given a letter to type—the following letter:{ Nag}{ URL56}
"Mr Clements Attlee
"British Prime Minister
"10 Downing Street, London
"Dear Mr Attlee, I understand from most reliable source that Subhas Chandra Bose, your war criminal, has been allowed to enter Russian territory by Stalin. This is a clear treachery and betrayal of faith by the Russians as Russia has been an ally of the British-Americans, which she should not have done. Please take care of it and do what you consider proper and fit.
"Yours sincerely,
"Jawaharlal Nehru"
"As per a report in ‘Outlook’:“The Taiwan Government has informed the one-man Netaji Commission of Inquiry that there was no air crash at Taihoku on August 18, 1945, till date believed to have killed Netaji Subhas Chandra Bose. Disclosing this to newspersons after a routine hearing of the [Justice Mukherjee] Commission [JMC] here, Justice MK Mukherjee said that the Taiwan Government has confirmed to the Commission during its recent visit to that country that no plane crashed at Taihoku between August 14 and September 20, 1945.”{URL57}"
"Most of the 64 files declassified by the West Bengal government on 18 September 2015 relate to snooping on the family members of Netaji. Their contents clearly establish that the Indian government as well as several foreign governments connected with Netaji believed Subhas was still alive, and that he had not perished in the plane-crash."
"As per Anuj Dhar: “In my search for the truth about Bose, I got to hear from many…that Vijaya Lakshmi came to know about Bose's presence in Soviet Russia. The story goes that when she came back from Moscow she made a statement in private that she knew something whose disclosure ‘would electrify India and the resultant happiness would be greater than what the people had experienced on 15 August 1947’. The same story holds that Nehru asked Vijaya Lakshmi to keep her mouth shut. And a good sister that she was, she deferred to his judgment.”{ URL105}"
"“I have no doubt in my mind— I did not have it then and I have no doubt today of the fact of Netaji Subhas Chandra Bose’s death... There can be no enquiry about that.”"
"—Nehru in reply to a question put in the Parliament by HV Kamath on 5 March 1952."
................................................................................................
Author rightly enough criticises Jawaharlal Nehru for avoiding a clash with China for Tibet, India having not only cultural ties for over a couple of millennia but also its being a buffer state, and what's more, India having recognised it in 1947, and PM Jawaharlal Nehru having referred to it as neighbour state; but then, for consistency, if one has criticised him for not seeing dangers of China and for kowtowing despite all signs, how does one then join communists and criticise him slso for standing up finally and demanding Aksai Chin back, especially if one has all slong been against communists?
Author shows determination here to blame Jawaharlal Nehru.
"India and China had a record going back thousands of years for never having fought a war between them. Nehru, through his unwise and ill-considered policies , broke that record, though unwillingly. Nehru’s ‘forward policy’ and his failure in settling the borders resulted in India-China war and its consequent human and financial loss, besides loss of face for India and Indians before the international community. Here, we are talking of what India could control, not what China had in mind."
There's no telling how far China would go to "teach India a lesson", as they termed it when informing us a few years later of Chinese intention to do so and warning US to stay out of it; it was, in all likelihood, a revenge for Buddhism.
"Wrote Kuldip Nayar in ‘Beyond the Lines’:
"“Nehru ordered that police check-posts be established to register India’s presence in the Ladakh area. ... Jha said, ‘Malik does not realise that these isolated posts with no support from the rear would fall like ninepins if there was a push from the Chinese side. We have unnecessarily exposed the policemen [Assam Rifles were posted] to death.’ He went on to say: ‘Frankly, this is the job of the army, but as it has refused to man the posts until full logistical support is provided, New Delhi has pushed the police.’”{KN}"
"Wrote Bruce Riedel in “JFK’s Forgotten Crisis: Tibet, the CIA, and the Sino-Indian War”:
" ... The Indian army, which was the service directly affected by the Forward Policy, was given an assignment that its own professional officer corps knew was beyond its means : It did not have the number of troops necessary to engage in a game of chicken with the PLA in the mountains. Despite reinforcements, by mid-1962 the Indian army was outnumbered in the Aksai Chin part of Kashmir by five to one, yet it was trying to staff sixty new forward posts. Even worse, the Indian soldiers were equipped with Lee-Enfield rifles, which had first entered service in the army in 1895, while the Chinese were equipped with modern automatic weapons, artillery, and other equipment. Many of the Chinese commanders were also veterans of the Korean battlefield. The senior command staff of the army, especially General Thapar, found themselves caught between political leaders with an unrealistic concept of the military situation and local commanders who felt they were being given impossible orders. ... "
Author quotes Arun Shourie -
"“It is completely impracticable for the Chinese Government to think of anything in the nature of invasion of India. Therefore I rule it out... It is necessary that the system of check-posts should be spread along this entire frontier. More especially, we should have check-posts in such places as might be considered disputed areas... As Demchok is considered by the Chinese as a disputed territory, we should locate a check-post there. So also at Tsang Chokla...”{ Noor/ 223-4}{ AS/ 103}"
Author next discusses Chinese view of this, giving them credit undue, especially in view of China having occupied Tibet with spurious claims.
Puranik hasn't yet made the connection despite his comparison of India's treatment of Tibet with that of Neville Chamberlain and Czechoslovakia; he ought to have realised right there, that China was no different from Hitler, and ascribing reason or natural reaction to China is as much fooling oneself as self defeating.
................................................................................................
"Said Will Durant, the famous American historian and philosopher in his book ‘The Case for India’:{WD}
"“British rule in India is the most sordid and criminal exploitation of one nation by another in all recorded history. I propose to show that England has year by year been bleeding India to the point of death...
"“But I saw such things in India as made me feel that study and writing were frivolous things in the presence of a people— one fifth of the human race— suffering poverty and oppression bitterer than any to be found elsewhere on the earth. I was horrified. I had not thought it possible that any government could allow its subjects to sink to such misery...
"“The civilization that was destroyed by British guns... has produced saints from Buddha to Gandhi; philosophy from the Vedas to Schopenhauer and Bergson, Thoreau and Keyserling, who take their lead and acknowledge their derivation from India. (India, says Count Keyserling, ‘has produced the profoundest metaphysics that we know of”; and he speaks of ‘the absolute superiority of India over the West in philosophy’)...
"“The more I read the more I was filled with astonishment and indignation at the apparently conscious and deliberate bleeding of India by England throughout a hundred and fifty years. I began to feel that I had come upon the greatest crime in all history...
"“The British conquest of India was the invasion and destruction of a high civilization by a trading company utterly without scruples or principle, careless of art and greedy of gain, overrunning with fire and sword a country temporarily disordered and helpless, bribing and murdering, annexing and stealing, and beginning that career of illegal and ‘legal’plunder which has now gone on ruthlessly for one hundred and seventy-three years, and goes on at this moment while in our secure comfort we write and read.
"“Aurangzeb, the Puritanic Moghul emperor who misgoverned India for fifty years when he died the realm fell to pieces. It was a simple matter for a group of English buccaneers, armed with the latest European artillery and mortars to defeat the petty princes. It was the wealth of 18th century India which attracted the commercial pirates of England and France . This wealth was created by the Hindus’ vast and varied industries and trade. It was to reach India of fabulous wealth that Columbus sailed the seas. It was this wealth that the East India Company proposed to appropriate...”{WD}"
"Edmund Burke had predicted in 1783 that the annual drain of Indian resources to England without equivalent return would eventually destroy India. In 1901, Rajni Palme Dutt estimated that one-half of the net revenues of India flowed annually out of the country, never to return: “So great an economic drain out of the resources of the land would impoverish the most prosperous countries on earth; it has reduced India to a land of famines more frequent, more widespread, and more fatal, than any known before in the history of India or of the world.”
"Commented Rajeev Srinivasan:{URL65} “A strong case has been made by William Digby quoting Brooks Adams that the Industrial Revolution (circa 1760) could not have happened in Britain had it not been for the loot that came in from India. It is indeed a curious coincidence: Plassey (1757); the flying shuttle (1760); the spinning jenny (1764); the power-loom (1765); the steam engine (1768)…
"“Digby estimated in 1901 that the total amount of treasure extracted from India by the British was 1,000,000,000 pounds—a billion pounds. Considering the looting from 1901 to 1947 and the effects of inflation, this is probably worth a trillion dollars in today's money. Serious money, indeed. Shouldn't we ask for some reparation?”
"However, the most recent estimates are far more than the above. As per a ‘Business Today’ report of Nov-2018: “Renowned economist Utsa Patnaik, who has done research on the fiscal relations between Colonial India and Britain, has tried to answer a question many Indians are likely to be interested to know— how much money did Britishers take away from India? Patnaik, in her essay published in Columbia University Press recently, said Britain drained out over $ 45 trillion from India, which to date has hampered the country's ability to come out of poverty.”{W.uk1}"
"In view of the above, like many countries who had demanded apology and reparations from the countries who had tormented and looted them, India too should have assessed, documented and put a financial estimate to the damages done by the British, should have quantified the loot of two centuries, converted them at 1947 prices, and should then have claimed reparation from Britain, along with written and oral apology . Additionally, a detailed list of all the artefacts, archaeological pieces, precious stones such as Kohinoor and other items stolen from India should have been prepared and reclaimed from the British.
"It is worth noting that the arts and treasures that the Nazis took away from the Western countries they attacked and annexed were called loot, and termed unjust, and Germany was forced to return the same to its rightful owner countries. Since the arts and treasures were from the Western countries, and NOT the Asian or African countries, they were loot, and were required to be returned! Loot from the Asian or African countries was not loot. What double standards!!"
Slight correction - the precious treasure of Greece looted by British and, misnamed Elgin Marbles, was kept on exhibit in British Museum in London, has been demanded for decades by Greece. From Wikipedia -
""In March 2021 the British Prime Minister, Boris Johnson issued a point-blank rejection of the Parthenon marbles being returned to Greece. Stating "The UK government has a firm longstanding position on the sculptures, which is that they were legally acquired by Lord Elgin under the appropriate laws of the time and have been legally owned by the British Museum’s trustees since their acquisition.”[122]
"For the first time, UNESCO, on 30 September 2021, issued a decision calling for the United Kingdom to return the Parthenon Marbles to Greece, beyond the positive recommendations that it has issued for years. Specifically, Decision 22 COM 17 of UNESCO's Inter-Governmental Committee, asks the British government to urgently review its policy against repartriation of the marbles.[123]"
British Government had a while ago similarly refused to return Kohinoor, even asking who were they supposed to return it to (since it had been acquired after killing Ranjit Singh, from his son who was the heir and was very young, who was converted by British), thus questioning legitimacy of India as an entity.
" ... On Kohinoor, Nehru had made a weird comment:
"“To exploit our good relations with some country to obtain free gifts from it [the convenient contention being that Kohinoor was GIFTED (a lie) to the British!] of valuable articles does not seem to be desirable. On the other hand, it does seem to be desirable that foreign museums should have Indian objects of art.”{ W.n10}"
................................................................................................
"Gandhi had once told: “Jawahar wants Englishmen to go but Angreziat to stay. I want Angreziat to go but Englishmen to remain as our friends.”{DD/ 261} Knowing this, why Gandhi chose Nehru as prime minister is a mystery. ... "
Because he'd sold out for the support by Motilal Nehru in exchange for a promise?
Because he'd been guilty as a father against his own son(s?), and instead of the hard route to make it up to the wronged son(s?), it was a comforting, convenient informal adoption of a virtual prince and an only son and heir to Nehru wealth, whom he called his "spiritual son", who only had to be put on the pedestal repeatedly by him using his clout, pushing off those elected by people legitimately, Subhash Chandra Bose, Sardar Patel?
" ... Gandhi used to say that even though Nehru used to fight with him on many issues, ultimately he used to agree with him [Gandhi]. Little did Gandhi know that it was not because Nehru agreed with him, but because Nehru knew that to continue to differ from Gandhi might cost him his position—like it happened with Netaji Subhas—and his goal of becoming the prime minister. ... "
That's doubtful, both ways. Gandhi did much unfair, illegal to push up Jawaharlal Nehru, but did he have another acceptable to him and to India?
Subhash Chandra Bose he'd pushed out severely, because the younger leader was far too popular, and so was his thought; loyalty he inspired was what made his escape possible and raised INA into a formidable organisation that planted the flag of free India in Imphal and had India revolt against British, making them flee.
Gandhi didn't want, didn't tolerate, another point of view, a competing leader, even when he respected him as Subhash Chandra Bose did; he also wanted someone he could dictate in matters of Hindu massacres in Pakistan and other related matters, which Sardar Patel would not perhaps have been quite so amenable with.
Wrote François Gautier: “Nehru, writes French historian Alain Danielou, ‘was the perfect replica of a certain type of Englishman. He often used the expression ‘continental people’, with an amused and sarcastic manner, to designate French or Italians. He despised non-anglicised Indians and had a very superficial and partial knowledge of India. His ideal was the romantic socialism of 19th century Britain. But this type of socialism was totally unfit to India, where there was no class struggle and where the conditions were totally different from 19th century Europe’.”{FG2}"
Someone else, more than one person, had commented similarly about Gandhi; one pointed out that, his attire subsequent to his arrival in India notwithstanding, he was an Englishman at heart. What he didn't go as far as to say, was that if only an Englishman hadn't thrown him out onto the platform despite his legally purchased ticket, he'd likely not have challenged British at all.
Yet another, a greater authority, said that Gandhi had soul of, not an Indian, not a Hindu, but a medieval Russian Christian.
"Nehru was reported to have said about himself: “Galbraith, I am the last Englishman to rule India!”{Wolp2/ 23} Nehru said this privately in his conversation with the American ambassador JK Galbraith. The remark is also mentioned in Fareed Zakaria’s book, ‘The Post-American World’{Zak}. We had such great swadeshi nationalists! Nehru had also remarked: “… in my likes and dislikes I was perhaps more an Englishman than Indian. I looked upon the world from an Englishman’s standpoint.”{RNPS/ 100} It was one thing to feel so, but quite another to be self-complementary or arrogant about it, unless you were not a proud, patriotic, rooted Indian. Tweeted the renowned scholar Dr David Frawley: “Nehru's Discovery of India teaches us one thing— Nehru never discovered the real India that is Bharat. His view of India was from a Eurocentric vision.”{Tw5}"
Here's the key - as per England, the very concept of propriety is identified with the English, while India is seen as junglee, with dome semblance of romantic old world civilisation sticking in tatters to muslims as heritage of an abrahmic creed coupled with mughal DNA; that this mutual DNA isn't Persian but instead is that of hordes of Mongolian origin, and is related intimately to steppes of Central Asia, is conveniently ignored.
And just as conveniently ignored is the awe-inspirinhly tremendous treasure that's Hinduism, or knowledge inherent in culture of ancient India by any name, because it brings a severe discomfort to see it, about just how paltry the Abrahamic-II and subsequent Abrahamic-III, Abrahamic-IV are, so it's convenient to wear blinkers of a Macaulay doctrine and proceed to tear Hinduism to shreds, viciously.
Familiar? British, Churchill, Nixon, ... missionaries, Abrahamic-II, Abrahamic-III, Abrahamic-IV, ....
Nehru was brought up to be an Englishman at Harrow and Cambridge, and growing years do matter. He wasn't brought up as Hindu in Allahabad prior to Harrow, either, but taught all three streams, and never acquired roots of an Indian being.
"In fact, when Nehru had returned to Allahabad from London after his studies , the then British Governor of UP had hoped that George (as Jawaharlal was known in the British Indian circles then) would be Lord Macaulay’s dream of a Brown Englishman come true.{YGB/ ix} Nehru seemed to fit well with what Lord Thomas Babington Macaulay, the ‘Pope’ of British –English education in India, had conceptualised in his Minute on Education on 2 February 1835:
"“We must at present do our best to form a class who may be interpreters between us and the millions whom we govern; a class of persons, Indian in blood and colour, but English in taste, in opinions, in morals, and in intellect.”{URL26}"
One has to admit, until reading it, this moment, it never occurred to one even familiar with that - and other obstreporous pronouncements - by Macaulay, that one of the prototypes was Jawaharlal Nehru!
"You notice a sharp contrast between the Motilal-Jawaharlal-tribe and the Narsimha Rao-tribe? Motilal-Jawaharlal-tribe, that is, the Motilal Nehru dynasty, the imitators like Motilal Nehru, his son, the ICS tribe and the like, went to ridiculous extent to be more English than the Englishmen. ... They were afflicted by what can be termed as the “Coolie-complex” which resulted in their internalising an inferiority-complex, self-loathing, and a contempt for things Indian, particularly Hindu religion, culture and traditions; and made them ape the West."
"On the other hand, the PVN Rao-tribe, that is, the current young generation of information technologists, finance professionals, management consultants and the like, who have come up thanks to reversal of the Nehru Dynasty’s economic policies by Narsimha Rao, are confident professionals meeting all—English, Americans, Europeans, Australians, Canadians, Japanese, Chinese, Singaporeans—on equal terms, never considering it necessary to know Queen’s English (SMS English or Working English being sufficient), or to imitate their mores and habits, merely to look “like them”. In fact, if this Jeans generation gets to know of the Motilal-Jawaharlal-tribe and what they did, they would be aghast."
Reminds of the transformation one saw, from our desi science groups struggling on scanty finances in New England in early eighties, strugglingto aclimatise, with world cuisines and western classical music, to the post millennium IT crowd at ease in easy desi fashions in West coast Indian Cafe-restaurants, feasting on desi chaats, unimpressed with being elsewhere than India.
................................................................................................
"As per a study detailed in Patrick French’s book ‘India: A Portrait’{PF2}, about 28.6% of the MPs in the Indian parliament are HMPs —Hereditary MPs. Even more revealing are the figures that while over two-thirds of the 66 MPs aged 40 years or less are HMPs, all the MPs below 30 are HMPs! ... Strangely, this trend was started by the one who vexed most eloquent against rajas, maharajas and the feudal setup in the pre-independence days— Jawaharlal Nehru."
Which brings to mind the story about a US citizen arguing with a Russian about communism, in disbelief.
"If you had two houses, you'd give me one?"
"Of course."
"If you had two cars, would you give me one?"
"But of vourse."
"If you had two shirts, you'd give me one?"
"NO!"
"How come?"
"I have two shirts."
"A prominent argument advanced goes like this. Dhirubhai Ambani’s sons are also businessmen. That is, businessmen's wards generally become businessmen. Progeny of artists— singers, musicians, writers, and others— also become artists. Sons and daughters of Bollywood actors also become actors. Doctor's wards also become doctors. Farmer's son is often a farmer. Dynasty is everywhere. So why pick on only political dynasties? This superficial argument can fool only the gullible. Progeny of doctors, artists, actors, businessmen becoming also doctors, artists, actors, businessmen affect them only, not others. However, progeny of a neta/ politician becoming a neta affects people at large. It is the requirement of a democracy to be representative and hence non-dynastic. Business houses or art houses or professional establishments are not required to be representative."
To begin with, that argument was made (in Berkeley?), by a fraud and an idiot promoted by a dynasty, and it was silly of him to point at someone who is actually as capable as his own mom ever was, just not as lucky - Satyajit Ray being no more - and, too, targeted for several reasons, being Hindu and more.
If he'd had brains, this pretender to PM’s position, he'd mention Kennedy clan, even Bush, instead of talking about film families - but then, he was blaming India for his failure to attain PM position he's expected to be bestowed by India, only due to dynasti, and no other, qualifications, so when India refuses to comply, he had to abuse India (in Berkeley?).
There's a far better argument, easy to see.
A youngster attempting a career in films still must prove one's mettle via box office, apart from critical appraisal. More failures fall by way than the few successes that are pointed out as Dynasty, even within the prolific clans.
Doctors and so forth must qualify via entrance examination, even if parents coach them; however there are private fraudulent institutions that do take stupid sons of rich for exorbitant amounts and they get certificates they font deserve; but that only serves as decoration rather than possible way to a position resulting in a serious mishap.
Politicians wishing to enter their progeny could do it honestly by sending them to faraway constituencies, such as Madras for a North India dynast, and so forth. With an additional provide of showing local work with local people in constituency, it'd be more honest.
Bose family had at least two freedom warriors in the open, and counting the nephews who helped Subhash Chandra Bose escape, several more. But they were genuine.
As was Robert Kennedy.
................................................................................................
" ... Wrote Dr NS Rajaram:
"“Curiously, Nehru’s admiration extended even to the Lubyanka— the notorious Moscow prison. Nehru wrote: ‘It can be said without a shadow of a doubt, that to be in a Russian prison is far more preferable than [sic] to be a worker in an Indian factory. The mere fact that there are prisons like the ones we saw is in itself something for the Soviet Government to be proud of.’ For a man who could admire Soviet prisons, it was not hard to admire and adopt the Soviet system of planning.”{W.n7}"
"Contrast the above with what Bertrand Russel had to say after his visit to Russia:
"“…the time I spent in Russia was one of continually increasing nightmare. I have said in print what, on reflection, appeared to me to be the truth, but I have not expressed the sense of utter horror which overwhelmed me while I was there. Cruelty, poverty, suspicion, prosecution formed the very air we breathed. Our conversations were continually spied upon…There was a hypocritical pretence of equality…I felt that everything that I valued in human life was being destroyed in the interest of a glib and narrow philosophy, and that in the process untold misery was being inflicted upon many millions of people…”{ BNS/ 191-2}"
It'd be interesting to compare the timelines.
"This is how Sita Ram Goel commented on the book:
" ... But, perhaps, Pandit Nehru who had been denied fairy tales in his childhood because Motilalji wanted him to be educated on the most modern pattern from the West, was in search of a fairyland. Communist propaganda informed him that such a fairyland existed in Soviet Russia. And he closed his eyes and went into a trance from which he has never descended, notwithstanding his sycophants' recurring reassurance that he has been ‘maturing of late’. To the majority of his intelligent countrymen, his ‘mature mind’is revealed in his writings about Soviet Russia, particularly in the ‘Glimpses of World History’which he has not had the decency to disclaim even after reading Khrushchev's verdict on Stalin's Russia about which he has been most enthusiastic.”{ SRG2/ 55}"
"Nehru’s Book-4: ‘Unity of India’
"This book is a collection of articles and speeches of Nehru during 1935-40, and was published in 1941. Ignoring plethora of evidence exposing the Soviet Union, and what it did to Poland, Nehru continued to defend it. ... "
If one has read memoirs by holocaust survivors - and several, at that, including several from those from East Europe, bordering Russia - several factors emerge clearly as a repeated pattern, with no contradictions thereof.
One, Ukrainian guards assisted nazis, and the former were far worse than German ones; and two, Russian occupation was no picnic, but German was far worse;.
What's more, when tide turned, Russians offered to take Polish Jews with them East to safety on military vehicles, and those that did go, survived.
But civilians who attempted escaping East on foot or in carts, and there were thousands, clogging roads, were shot at by Germans flying low over them, even if victims were babies and mothers. And they were targeting the victims, who could see the pilot as he flew low deliberately taking aim.
" ... Wrote Nehru:
"“Whatever doubts I had about internal happenings in Russia, I was quite clear in my mind about her foreign policy. This had been consistently one of peace and, unlike England and France, of fulfilling international obligations and supporting the cause of democracy abroad. The Soviet Union stood as the one real effective bulwark against Fascism in Europe and Asia. Without the Soviet Union what could be the state of Europe today? Fascist reaction would triumph everywhere and democracy and freedom would become dreams of a past age.”{ SRG2/ 73}"
It's hard to contradict that, although that's not because of virtues of communism as a label, or to say everyday hunky-dory in Russia. China in fact has been as fascist as can be, under the supposedly communist label.
"Wrote Kumar Chellappan in DailyPioneer of 14-Nov-2014: “Even as Congress leadership celebrates the 125th birth anniversary of Jawaharlal Nehru in grandiose style, how the former Prime Minister amassed wealth through royalties for his books ‘Discovery of India’ (1946), ‘Glimpses of World History ’ (1934), ‘An Autobiography’ (1936) and ‘Letters from a Father To his Daughter’ (1929) remains a mystery. However, MO Mathai, Nehru’s Man Friday and special assistant, had disclosed that the former PM received more royalties from Communist countries than all Western countries put together. In his book ‘Reminiscences of the Nehru Age’ (1978), Mathai has explained how he brokered the deal with the then Soviet Union to translate books authored by Nehru into Russian language and ensured that Nehru would get 15 per cent as royalty in Indian rupees at a time when the Soviet Union never paid a single paisa as royalty to other authors... Subramanian Swamy, senior BJP leader, is of the view that it was improper on the part of Nehru to sell the rights to translate his works to the Soviet Union while he was the Prime Minister of the country . ‘I have knowledge of enormous amount of money getting transferred to the Nehru family’s account in Bank of China’s Kolkata branch. An impropriety has been committed,’ Swamy told ‘The Pioneer’.”{W.n8}"
According to Dr Subramanian Swamy, the current ruling branch aren't citizens of India; if Jawaharlal Nehru had amassed wealth, why do they occupy prime estate in Delhi at expense of a poor nation?
................................................................................................
"Following Nehru’s footsteps, you find a strange spectacle of people— whether young or old, and whether in a political position or a bureaucratic position or a position in a sports body— not wanting to ever quit. Where extension is not possible, bureaucrats would seek some position or the other post retirement."
This latter had, frankly, a great deal to do with difficulties of making ends meet unless one had inherited property and so forth.
"Contrast the above with George Washington, co-founder of the USA. He was proclaimed the “Father of the Country” and was elected the first president of the USA in 1789 with virtually no opposition. Washington retired in 1797, firmly declining to serve for more than eight years— two terms— despite requests to continue. His tremendous role in creating and running America notwithstanding, he didn’t harbour or propagate self-serving notions of indispensability. The 22nd amendment to the US constitution setting a maximum of only two terms for the president came only in 1947. Prior to that it was only an observed good practice for over a century."
But one of the most elected was FDR, without whom, very possibly, world would be ruled by nazis. And frankly the limit of two terms was imposed because there were too many with too much power in US who were against FDR. Some still argue Hitler was a man of peace, and Churchill the warmonger who wrought on the war unnecessarily.
................................................................................................
"With dominance of Christianity in the West the results were disastrous: the Dark Ages, and violent punishments, repressions, tortures, and Inquisitions that continued during the subsequent period. Christianity claimed to be the “only truth” and the “only true religion”, and was even opposed to science if it digressed from the Christian beliefs— notable, illustrative examples of victims (or those who, afraid of the Church, tended to hide or delay publication of their findings) being the greats like Nicolaus Copernicus, Galileo Galilei, Charles Darwin.
"It was gradually realised that the necessary drivers of a civilised , harmonious , progressive and prosperous state were multi-religious societies, multiculturism, free thinking and propagation of knowledge, and unhindered scientific pursuits—but, all these became victims of the Christian totalitarianism and exclusivism. This led to the advocation of the concept of “Secularism”.
"However, Indian-Hindu civilisation had built-in secularism, and it did not just readily accept, it freely promoted, multi-ethnicity, multi-religions, and multiculturism; and its Dharmic traditions actively promoted and encouraged pursuit of knowledge and science—quite unlike and in sharp contrast to the latter-two Abrahamic faiths (Christianity and Islam). No wonder, Indian mathematics, astronomy, medicine, etc. were centuries ahead of the West."
Author mentions a speech by Jawaharlal Nehru at his opening of a Ramakrishna mission in Calcutta, and it truly is horrifying. Author questions, but the question that immediately occurs to a reader, is, whether he never thought of closing all religious places on that basis, including those related to creeds associated with erstwhile colonial regimes; or did he take it for granted everyone understood he despised them all equally?
Did he?
"Wrote David Frawley in his foreword to Sandeep Balkrishna’s book ‘70 Years of Secularism: Unpopular Essays on the Unofficial Political Religion of India’{SBK}:
" ... That something is ‘against secularism’ became a way to condemn anything Hindu as effectively as missionaries and mullahs had used such terms as polytheist , idolater, heathen or kafir. Secularism gained a new sanctity to override any spiritual basis to India’s culture. Anti-secular forces were in turn, deemed ‘fascist’, revealing the leftist rhetoric behind the charge. There was an effort to make anything Hindu as fascist, just as the Chinese communists regarded Tibetan Buddhism as fascist… The book documents the cultural genocide that the Nehruvian-Marxist alliance wrought on India over the last seventy years, and its great civilization of many thousands of years, under the name of secularism and socialism. While India did not politically become communist, it was a communist sympathizing culture and was under communist intellectual rule, even long after the fall of the Soviet Union in 1991. This shadow has yet to be entirely lifted. Lifting it is the intellectual necessity for India to progress whether materially or culturally…”{SBK}"
"Jinnah’s call for observance of ‘Direct Action Day’on 16 August 1946 had led to the Calcutta Carnage, or the Great Calcutta Killings. It was the worst communal carnage committed by the Muslim League that left 5,000 to 10,000 dead, 15,000 injured, and about one lakh homeless! It was followed by gruesome attacks on Hindus by Muslims at other places like Noakhali and Tippera districts in East Bengal. HS Suhrawardy, who was heading the Muslim League–dominated government in Bengal (and who then came to be known as the “butcher of Calcutta”), rather than controlling the situation, further instigated the Muslim goondas. Nehru, as the Vice President of the Executive Council (that became the Interim Government on 2 September 1946, with Nehru as the PM) did little to bring relief to the victims on the specious plea of provincial autonomy—that law and order was a state subject, hence the domain of the Bengal Provincial Government. However, when there was a reaction later in Bihar to those Hindu killings in Bengal, Nehru himself rushed to Bihar ignoring the fact of provincial autonomy, even threatening the Bihari Hindus with bombings! Nehruvian ‘Secular’Rule: if Muslims kill Hindus, then ignore, or make excuses, or hide behind technical grounds; but if Hindus counter-react to Muslim killings, immediately get into action against the Hindus!"
In this, he was certainly following Gandhi.
"Among many other matters where Patel and Nehru had divergent positions was the issue of Ajmer riots soon after independence. In the Ajmer communal riots, notwithstanding the undisputed mischief of the Muslims, while Sardar Patel rightly backed the Chief Secretary Shankar Prasad, Nehru intervened through his private secretary HVR Iyengar to mollycoddle violent Muslims, and instructed that as many Hindus (though they were not the guilty party— they were indeed the victims) as Muslims be arrested— to maintain balance!{IE}"
Later so-called secular discourse, even demand, has merged with sharia, although without saying so honestly or openly - namely, any muslim affected due to anything Hindu is abominable, while massacres and worse of Hindu victims by muslims are of no consequence whatsoever, other than immediate denial and later, forever, bragging.
This can be seen in how much howling goes up against Israel, but the matter of Pakistani tanks going over the same Palestinians, that too inside kaba, isn't deposed to be a concern of anybody else, because the said tanks (and the soldiers therein) were there at invitation of the regime.
Jawaharlal Nehru, however, stopped Mountbatten from illegal procedures against Bihar riots, arguing that in all fairness they were retaliatory, and any procedures must include original carnage. (One forgets the source of this, read some time within last decade or so, but it could be Pamela Hicks writing about her family in India at the time.)
................................................................................................
"Somnath Temple is on the shore of the Arabian sea in the coastal town of Somnath at Prabhaspatan near Veraval in Junagadh district in Kathiawar in the Saurashtra region of Gujarat. It is 6km from Veraval, and 80km from Junagadh. It is the most sacred of the twelve Aadi Jyotirlings. The temple is said to have been first built sometime before the common era—BCE. It was destroyed and looted six times: by Junayad, the Arab governor of Sind, in 725 CE; by Mahmud of Ghazni in 1024 CE; by Sultan Allauddin Khilji in 1296 CE; by Muzaffar Shah I, the Sultan of Gujarat, in 1375 CE; by Mahmud Begda, the Sultan of Gujarat in 1451 CE; and by Aurangzeb in 1701 CE. But, each time it was rebuilt.
"At the time of liberation of Junagadh in November 1947 (Blunder# 31), Sardar Patel also visited the Somnath Temple (located in the Junagadh State), then in a dilapidated condition, and pledged to reconstruct and restore it to its original glory. Gandhi, when advised by Patel of the commitment, suggested the funds for restoration must come from the public—Patel accepted the advice.
"The then Education Minister Maulana Azad, under whom the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) came, opposed the idea of renovation and suggested that the ruins be handed over to the ASI and preserved in as-is condition. Significantly, he never suggested the same for the Muslim shrines and mosques being repaired by the ASI.{Mak/ 140}
"Upon the death of Sardar Patel, the task was taken forward by the cabinet minister KM Munshi. However , Nehru made no bones about his opposition to the project , and made snide remarks, telling Munshi: “I don’t like your trying to restore Somnath. It is Hindu revivalism.”{Mak/ 141}
"Cultured and learned Munshi, of course, sent an appropriate and telling reply to Nehru, which included the words:
"“It is my faith in the past which has given me the strength to work in the present and to look forward to our future. I cannot value freedom if it deprives us of the Bhagavad Gita or uproots our millions from the faith with which they look upon our temples and thereby destroys the texture of our lives…”{Mak/ 154}"
"KM Munshi had invited President Dr Rajendra Prasad to attend the inaugural function of the rebuilt Somnath temple in May 1951. Protesting vehemently, Nehru opposed Dr Prasad’s attending the ceremony, and wrote to him:
"“I confess that I do not like the idea of your associating yourself with a spectacular opening of the Somnath Temple. This is not merely visiting a temple, which can certainly be done by you or anyone else, but rather participating in a significant function which unfortunately has a number of implications…”{Swa4}"
"Nehru also wrote to Rajaji on 11 March 1951 in the connection: “I wrote to him [Rajendra Prasad] that while there was obviously no objection to his visiting this temple [Somnath] or any other temple or other places of worship normally, on this particular occasion the inauguration of the temple would have a certain significance and certain implications. Therefore, for my part, I would have preferred if he did not associate himself in this way…”{JNSW/ Vol-16-1/ 603}"
"Dr Prasad explained that the significance of Somnath lay in being a symbol of national resistance against invaders. He made an excellent inaugural speech, highlighting, inter alia, that it was the creative urge for civilisational renewal, nurtured in the hearts of the people through centuries that had once again led to the praan-pratishta of the Somnath deity. Somnath was the symbol of economic and spiritual prosperity of ancient India, he said. The rebuilding of Somnath will not be complete till India attains the prosperity of the yesteryear… Such a grand speech! But, at Nehru’s instance, Dr Rajendra Prasad’s speech was blanked out by the official channels.{DD/ 332} See the gall of the dictator Nehru: He could blank out even President’s speech! And Nehru’s cabinet colleagues, Congress leaders, the Opposition, and the media remained mute spectators to such brazen conduct of Nehru!!
"Interesting contrast: “History snippets... In 1950, Jawaharlal [Nehru] stopped govt aid of ₹ 5 lakh to rebuild Somnath Mandir. He passed Haj Act in 1959 & allocated ₹ 10 Cr for it.”{Tw1}
"It is significant that Nehru raised no such tantrums when it came to subsequent restoration of Sanchi or Sarnath, although the same were done through government funds (while Somnath restoration was through public, and not government, funds). Why? They were Buddhist places! Nehru had problems with only Hindu places!
"As per a tweet{Tw6}, it came to light during the Ayodhya Ram Mandir court hearings that in 1947 a number of masjids were constructed/ repaired in Delhi with the government money— this needs verification from other sources."
................................................................................................
"But for the timely intervention of certain senior, enlightened leaders after independence, Nehru would have carried through yet another major blunder of reservations for Muslims, plunging India further into communal politics under the ‘secular’ facade, as would be amply clear from the following extracts from the autobiography ‘Government from Inside’ of NV Gadgil:{Mak/ 323-5}
" ... Liaquat Ali [Pakistan’s PM] came to Delhi in March 1950, had discussions with Nehru and one fine morning at 10 o’clock Nehru placed before the cabinet a draft of his agreement with him [Liaquat Ali]. I am not sure if Vallabhbhai [Sardar Patel] was consulted before the draft was agreed to. The final two paragraphs in the agreement accepted the principle of reservation for Muslims in proportion to their population in all the services and representative bodies in the constituent states of India. Similar provisions were suggested for the Central Government also.
"“Each one of us got the copy of the draft, but no one would open his mouth…I said, ‘These two paragraphs nullify the whole philosophy of the Congress. The country had to pay the price of division as a result of its acceptance of separate electorates. You are asking it to drink the same poison again. This is betrayal, forgetful of the last forty years of history.’Nehru was displeased.
"“Gopalaswami Aiyangar said, ‘There is substance in Gadgil’s objections’and volunteered to redraft the two provisions. I said, ‘These two paragraphs must go lock, stock and barrel and no South Indian cleverness would do.’Hearing this Nehru replied with anger, ‘I have agreed to this with Liaquat Ali Khan.’I said, ‘You must have told him that the agreement can be finalised only after the Cabinet’s approval. I cannot speak for other cabinet members, but I am opposed to it hundred percent.’On this Vallabhbhai quietly suggested that the discussions should be postponed to the next day and the meeting was adjourned.
"“Vallabhbhai called me for discussions…I told him, figuratively speaking, ‘The marriage must not take place simply because the father wants it. The bride is not approved. You must speak plainly now, otherwise complications will follow and we may have to repent. We have decided on a secular government. This agreement destroys that conception.’The same night I received from him [Sardar Patel] the papers regarding the revisions suggested by Gopalaswami Aiyangar and his [Sardar Patel’s] disapproval of them. I noted on them my agreement with him. When the cabinet met the next day, the last two paragraphs were omitted…The other Ministers congratulated me, but it has to be sadly recorded that at the time of discussion on the draft, none of them opposed Nehru…”{ Mak/ 323-5}"
Who else but a Marathi, that too Chitpaawan, would dare opposing Nehru?
................................................................................................
"8-10-Oct-1962. Under pressure from Nehru and Menon to evict the Chinese from the area, both General BN Kaul and General Prasad visited Dhola on 8 October 1962 and noted our weaknesses first-hand. Yet, to be able to please Nehru with some action in the area under his watch, Kaul took the disastrous adventurist step of sending a battalion on 10 October 1962 to capture Yumtsola, which was unoccupied and was to the west of the Thagla peak— thinking like Nehru that Chinese would not react. However, the Chinese reaction was so severe and so many jawans were killed in the action that Kaul was aghast. It has been rightly said that unless you have a reasonable chance of success , sending your men to attack is just murdering them— and that’s what Kaul did. Kaul left the place on 10 October 1962 with a promise to appraise Nehru of the reality. Yet Dalvi’s suggestion of abandoning Dhola and taking up defensive position further south was not heeded. ... "
So far, author's tone has been consistently, overtly, critical of India in this part. Having not excused India for not defending Tibet, and criticised for not being aware of Chinese policy of military occupation of Tibet, it would be more consistent to criticise inflation fir being still naive and not bring aware that China was taking over territory beyond Tibet. Instead he's done an inexplicable u-turn and blamed India, and the following says why.
"Alarmed by the Indian massing of troops in Dhola and the Indian attempts at Yumtsola on 10 October 1962 thanks to BN Kaul, or, taking that as an excuse, Chinese overran Dhola on 20 October 1962 heralding the 1962-war. BN Kaul has to be blamed for it. Having seen the situation first-hand, Kaul , as a responsible professional, should have put his foot down on India’s forward policy misadventure to save the Indian army from the sure debacle it was staring at. If Nehru-Menon did not agree with him, he should have resigned. But, instead, like several other seniors in the army, he bent over backwards to please Nehru-Menon overriding sound military considerations."
So he's joining China and much of West in blaming India, instead of China the aggressor, for the war. This fits more with Jawaharlal Nehru blaming Tibet instead of China after China swallowed Tibet, which Puranik described as appeasing the bully.
As for Nehru, he was aware of his short India fell in ability of military strength and equipment, and hence was attempting to keep India from going under the way Tibet fid by the friendship tactics; but it must have ranked, apart from the over a decade of answering yo Parliament and press about Chinese aggression in Tibet,
apart from consequent danger to India.
One may criticise the then government of India for not preparing for the decade for the Chinese aggression that dud arrive, or for helping PLA in Tibet; but to go as far as blaming India for not accepting China's border claims is to say, India ought to have knuckled under. This position suits a Chinese, an India-despising Westerner, but not Puranik, an admirer of Sardar Patel.
Most are in agreement that India was weaker, coming out only recently out of colonial looting of centuries by various invaders, and Jawaharlal Nehru was naive, eager to be the heir to Gandhi.
But it's equally true that he wasn't facing an honorable opponent in cricket fields of Harrow, he was facing a deadly warlord of Chinese variety who hadn't squirmed at death of a hundred million of his own for molding China to his will.
Secret of Chinese prosperity versus Russian lack thereof lies at this two pronged fork; one, unlike Russia, China had humongous population - China was then twice, almost, or more than twice India - and ruthless regime that yoked it, with any falsehood employed in propaganda. And two, apart from the western craze to defeat USSR at any cost, that is, even to the tune of promoting the twin demons of China and jihadists, China also had the will to exploit any possibility and use any maneuvre to expand and dominate the world.
"Wrote SK Verma in “1962: The War That Wasn't”:"
"“As we have seen, after coming back from the dead, Mao’s Communist Chinese defeated the larger and vastly better equipped army of the Kuomintang. Realizing that the West was both physically and emotionally drained from World War II, and fully preoccupied with containing the Soviets, Mao pulled off what was perhaps the biggest post-War real estate coup by bringing both Sinkiang and Tibet into the Chinese fold. India, which was directly affected by this blatant Chinese expansionism, was the unknown entity in Mao’s scheme of things. Yet somehow, not only did the Indians quietly go along with the Chinese moves in Tibet, Mao even managed to get Nehru to endorse the Chinese takeover. The next logical step was to force the Indians onto the back foot, for the threat of the United States jumping into the fray was always a real one. Therefore, to keep the Indians off balance, Mao created a border dispute with India where previously none existed.
"“With Nehru walking into the Chinese trap despite all the warnings (Sardar Patel died exactly thirty-eight days after writing his famous letter spelling out the Chinese intent) the game was over before it had even begun. The Chinese played their cards in such a manner that the Indians lost what should have been at best a defensive war by not fighting it at all. And finally, to top it all, after the conflict, the Chinese actually managed to convince almost everyone that Nehru was solely responsible for the clash between India and China in 1962.
"“Right from the very beginning the Chinese played Nehru. Just as the Chinese General Yang Chengiou read Lieutenant General Bijji Kaul like an open book, Mao understood Nehru and with well thought-out moves, made the Indian prime minister and the men around him look like a bunch of bungling amateurs.”{ SKV/ L-6835}"
Tables did turn. Having exploited, China now faces backlash, especially so throughout Africa, and Chinese working in Africa fear for life.
" ... China declared unilateral ceasefire on 21 November 1962. President Kennedy’s statement that came two days earlier that they [Chinese] would be forcing the hand of the President of the US if they advanced any further might also have been one of the factors in China’s decision to ceasefire."
"Might"??? Was there any other reason why China stopped? Tibet was only a fateway, not really lebensraum!
"Both the US and the UK had begun providing armaments. Even Israel, whom Nehru had shunned, provided equipments."
" ... Mao had his own internal political compulsions arising out of famines, economic calamities and power struggle within. His “Great Leap Forward”started in 1958 was a disaster, and led to the largest man-made famine in human history resulting in the starvation-deaths of between 40 to 50 million over the three year period of 1959-61. The decisive war served to strengthen and enhance his position at home and internationally."
"China had invested heavily in building up its armed forces for possible armed conflicts on four fronts: anticipated attack by Taiwan, backed by US; South Korea; Tibet and lastly India. By 1962, China had a first-class army well prepared for any eventuality."
Author forgets, the very existence of Mao's regime was due to its turning an ideological following into a rabble rousing warlord's army, prepared to kill all opponents.
"This is what Nehru himself admitted:
"“We were getting out of touch with reality in the modern world and we were living in an artificial atmosphere of our creation...”{Zak/ 149}
"“We feel India has been ill-repaid for her diplomatic friendliness toward Peking... Difficult to say the Chinese have deliberately deceived us... We may have deceived ourselves...”{AS/ 38}"
Author also fails to take into account the reasons why India, and Jawaharlal Nehru, failed. It was very akin to why India fell to Islamic hordes.
Then, it was Buddhism that had brought in a creed of abhorrent war, that went too far. Thus time, it was Gandhi, who denounced even freedom warriors and Hindu Gods if they didn't conform to his extreme "die loving your murderer, no matter what he's done to uour family" creed. And as he'd himself said, quoted more than one by Puranik before this in context of why he promoted Nehru over the democratically elected Patel, it was because he saw in Jawaharlal Nehru his spiritual heir.
................................................................................................
"A wise man who apprehends danger or one who desires his own good should plan his defence even before the onset of danger.
"—Shri Ram to Lakshman
"If India had listened to [Veer] Savarkar and adopted the policy of militarization, then we would not have suffered the defeat today.
"—General Cariappa on the 1962-India-China-War{Tw8}"
But these including God Rama was precisely those branded "misguided" by Gandhi, and discarded as ideals to follow! No wonder the spiritual son he'd promoted chose a path of his own version of Gandhian politics, "friendship". But British hadn't left due to Gandhi, and Chinese could do all drama of propriety to the hilt, falsely, as evident from the cgasm between Puranik and Arun Shourie in their understanding of just where and how much India went wrong. Former quotes letters from China, while latter goes through Indian documents, including letters from Jawaharlal Nehru to chief ministers.
What if the said letters from China quoted by Puranik, were a fraud?
"Wrote SK Verma in “1962: The War That Wasn't”:
"“With Bose’s exit and Sardar Patel’s death in 1950, there was no one who could provide the necessary inspiration for the reconstruction of an army (that had so far served British interests) into an integrated military instrument that could identify potential threats and tackle them militarily. Nehru, unlike Bose and Patel, veered away from building military power.”{SKV/ L-646}"
Thereby the crime of the supposedly saintly man who was really a politician, who forced Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose out of congress from the second time elected position of president, and subsequently forced Sardar Patel to step aside for Jawaharlal Nehru to secure position of first PM of India.
"The seeds of India's disgraceful debacle in 1962 India-China War were sown soon after Independence by none other than Nehru himself, ... "
No, they were sown in him by Gandhi.
"It was interesting what Nehru had commented on the Chinese communism: “The idea that communism inevitably means expansion and war, or, to put it more precisely, that Chinese communism means inevitably an expansion towards India, is rather naïve.”{ Arpi/ 440}"
What was naive was assuming that labels worn on top brand spirit within.
China might declare itself communist under Mao, but what was not Hitleresque about claiming Tibet?
Of course, one could refer instead to the originals in this category, the Mongol hordes led by Chingiz Khan, or his predecessor, Attila the hun. But the three names are, again, merely different labels for the same spirit.
................................................................................................
"The then US president John F Kennedy was an admirer of Indian democracy, and when he learnt that China was on its way to detonate a nuclear device, he wanted that it ought to be a democratic country like India, and not communist China, which should have nuclear capability. The Kennedy administration was ready to help India out with nuclear deterrence. But, Nehru rejected the offer.
"Currently, India has been canvassing support from various countries to become a member of Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG)—in vain, so far. Had Nehru gone along with Kennedy’s advice, India would have detonated a nuclear device well before China. Had that happened, not only would India have been a member of the NSG long, long ago, but China would not have dared to attack India in 1962, nor would Pakistan have taken liberties to attack India in 1965.
"Former foreign secretary Rasgotra disclosed:
"“… Kennedy’s hand-written letter was accompanied by a technical note from the chairman of the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission, setting out the assistance his organisation would provide to Indian atomic scientists to detonate an American device from atop a tower in Rajasthan desert, the release said... In the letter, Kennedy had said he and the American establishment were aware of Nehru’s strong views against nuclear tests and nuclear weapons, but emphasised the political and security threat China’s test would spell for Nehru’s government and India’s security, it said, adding the American leader’s letter emphasised that ‘nothing is more important than national security.’”{URL49}"
................................................................................................
"“Curzon [Viceroy, British-India, 1899– 1905] was an adept at cutting the Gordian knots into which ponderous files had tied a problem over the years. There were few administrative problems he would not himself tackle, zealously and with conspicuous success. Nehru, on the other hand, was more concerned with enunciating doctrines; he had little patience with the details of administration. When confronted with the need for a decision, he would skirt round, weighing the pros and cons , tormented, as it were, by the spirit of self-questioning. Nehru’s genius lay in romanticising politics, not in the sphere of administration.”{DD/ 48}"
Perhaps that's the department that suited him, dealing with education, science and technology, Atomic Energy and Scientific Research; clearly Sardar Patel was better suited both as PM and Home Affairs, and Netaji ought to have been brought back to deal with foreign affairs and defense, to take over later as PM.
Why didn't they appoint Maniben to look after women's questions in India, or khadi and textiles, or both? Perhaps that too needed a Subhash Chandra Bose to think of it!
................................................................................................
"The India-Pakistan Indus Water Treaty (IWT) of 1960 on sharing of waters from the six Indus-system rivers was an unprecedented (by any nation) generous “give away” (like the India-China Panchsheel agreement of 1954: Blunder# 34) by Nehru to Pakistan at the cost of J& K and Punjab (Blunder# 50), with no reciprocal “take”. It didn’t occur to Nehru to make it conditional upon Pakistan settling on J& K and other matters to ensure secure western and north western borders.
"Intended to palliate India’s alarm at Pakistan’s entry into SEATO in 1958, General Ayub Khan proposed security alliance/ pact with India to Nehru. Nehru summarily and scornfully rejected the proposal remarking security alliance “against whom?”"
................................................................................................
“… In 1955, a Bill was tabled in Parliament to regulate conversions and put a stop to missionary activity in India. Felix Alfred Plattner, a Jesuit, and one who provided research and intellectual cover fire to missionaries noted that if the Bill was passed, ‘it would have seriously handicapped the work of Christian missionaries’, because it ‘provided for a strict system of regulating conversions’. But Plattner’s worries were misplaced. The Prime Minister of India himself came to his rescue… Plattner was of course delighted. He lost no time in sending an update: ‘This attitude of Nehru and his government, has inspired the Christians with confidence in the Indian Constitution . Nehru [has] remained true to his British upbringing.’…”{SBK2}
................................................................................................
"At the time of independence, compared to China and all the countries in SE-Asia like Taiwan, South Korea, Singapore, and so on, India was much better placed in terms of infra-structure like roads, railways, and industries; administrative and criminal-justice infra-structure; and had a large, indigenous groups of entrepreneurs, industrialists and businessmen. Not only that, India had a favourable balance of payments, with the UK owing millions of pounds to us, which it repaid over the years."
"India, and therefore Nehru as PM, was exceptionally fortunate to have a large pool of extraordinarily talent at the time of independence. To have had highly capable and upright politicians like Sardar Patel, C Rajagopalachari, Dr BR Ambedkar, Dr Rajendra Prasad, John Mathai, CD Deshmukh , Dr Shyama Prasad Mukherjee , KM Munshi, GB Pant, Rafi Ahmed Kidwai, and so on, was indeed fortunate. Then, there was a large team of experienced and capable bureaucrats like VP Menon, HM Patel, Girija Shankar Bajpai, etc. Many of the Diwans of the Princely States were highly competent and experienced administrators, like CP Ramaswami Iyer of Travancore, M Visvesvaraya of Mysore, and so on . Indian army had WW -II veterans, and people like KM Cariappa, Thimayya. We also had many reputed educationists, technocrats, economists, and finance persons. India would never have such a distinguished mix of talent and such people of integrity again."
One is free to disagree with that last statement, of course. Certainly there's no dearth of talent either in science or in business, however infested academia be with the deadweight of past seven decades when caste politics (selecting by reservation as enforced by law) discouraged talent from academia.
"Post-independence, millions were fired with patriotic zeal, ready to sacrifice, and do their utmost to show to the world what this grand, old civilisation was capable of. They all wanted to disprove the British canard that without them India would go to pieces and would become a basket case. India was the richest nation in the world when the Islamic invaders arrived. Despite their loot and plunder, India still remained attractive, though much less rich. Still, India was far, far richer than England when the English first arrived in India. However, thanks to their loot and disastrous economic management, condition of India became pitiable. That was the time, after independence, to show to the world what India would have been, had the British and Muslims hordes not set their feet in India."
And if Jawaharlal Nehru had kept his own counsel until a better moment to ensure return of Netaji, instead of what he did, India could have been drastically different, what with possibility of proceeding in tandem with Japan!
"Fortunately for Nehru, support was for the asking. There was no opposition worth the name. He enjoyed unbridled supremacy both over the Congress and the government for 17 long years. He could do what he wanted. People were also fired up. It was once in a millennium opportunity, which India would never again get."
Puranik does know things are different since 2014, however widespread the disease sown for most part of six decades.
Author ends the chapter on a very negative note, but one has to remember, thus is the same nation that quietly threw off a would be dictatorship, an emergency-imposing regime when chance came, and did it again in 2014.
Never underestimate India.
................................................................................................
"Sindh is the home of the oldest civilization in the world—the Indus or Sindhu Valley Civilization, highlighted by the excavations at Mohenjo-daro—dating back to over 7000 BCE. The 3,180 km long Indus or Sindhu River that originates near Lake Mansarovar in the Tibetan Plateau runs through Ladakh, Gilgit-Baltistan, Western Punjab in Pakistan, and merges into the Arabian Sea near the port city of Karachi in Sindh. Sindhu means water in Sanskrit. ... "
Author is incorrect.
Sindhu literally means Ocean in Sanskrit. And the only explanation why this river, not the largest or even second largest of rivers of India, is so named, can only be because it replaced the ocean that existed separating India from Asia, after the ocean vanished and India saw Himalayan ranges rising from the ocean that had been there.
In order of importance for India, it's about sixth, unlike outsiders who identified India with this river valley, since that was the only possible passage until recent centuries of maritime long voyages, for outsiders to approach the land thus named India by outsiders.
" ... Name India is derived from Indus. Sindhu river has a number of tributaries. The Indus delta is mentioned in the Rig-Veda as Sapta Sindhu (Hapta Hindu in the Iranian Zend Avesta), meaning ‘seven rivers’. ... "
No, "Sapta Sindhu" literally means seven oceans of earth.
" ... Aryans were indigenous to India, and hence to Sindh. The Aryan-Invasion Theory has long since been conclusively debunked. Genetic studies also prove it. Aryan-Dravidian divide was also a deliberate myth floated by the colonists to serve their divide-and-rule and proselytization strategy.
"Sindh was part of the empire of Dashrath (father of Shri Ram) during the second Vedic period. After Shri Ram returned from vanvas defeating Ravana, and became king, he gave the responsibility to his brother Bharat to rule Sindh and Multan. Later, Gandhar (Kandahar) came under him. To Bharat’s sons goes the credit of building the cities of Peshawar and Taxila.
"Sindh was in good hands till the reign of Harshavardhana who ruled India and Sindh during 606– 647 CE, after which it went into weaker hands. Buddhism, which vigorously taught non-violence, and which had its presence in Sindh, too contributed to weakening its defence capabilities. There were several hundred Buddhist Sanghas in Sindh at the time, and many thousand Buddhist monks.
"There were 15 attempted invasions of Sindh both from land and from sea between 638 CE and 711 CE, but all were repulsed. Mohammed Bin Qasim finally managed to plunder Sindh in 712 CE. He first attacked Debal, a temple town near sea, in April 712 CE, won it, and then proceeded to defeat the then king of Sindh, Dahir, which he did on 16 June 712 CE. Qasim and his army plundered the riches of Dahir’s territories, and carted away the booty to the court of Hajjaj in Baghdad. Many women were abducted to Baghdad. All males over 17 years who refused to convert to Islam were killed. But, finding there were too many Hindus to kill, they were granted Dhimmi status upon regular payment of Jizya tax.
"Here is a telling statement from Ram Jethmalani in his foreword to the book ‘The Sindh Story’ by KR Malkani: ... Nearly 500 years elapsed before Mohammed Ghori and his marauding hordes descended on India in 1192 A.D. The whole of northern India was made a tributary to the Ghor Dynasty. Muslim power in India had come to stay. Five centuries went by, but the country did not wake up or prepare to do or die. It is a shameful and tragic tale. Afflicted by a debilitating pacifism, corroded by the idea of non-violence, Indians seemed to have left it to professional soldiers to fight the invaders. The rest of the neighbouring people lifted not one finger to defend the Hindu homeland . Invaders who thirsted for the tremendous wealth of India and its delicate and beautiful women, never met with the resistance that the nation could have generated.”"
" ... Hindus were concentrated in urban areas, while Muslims dominated the countryside. Hindus were in absolute majority in four of Sindh’s five largest cities (for example, Hyderabad was 70% Hindu), the exception being Karachi which was about 48% Muslim , 46% Hindu, and the remaining 6% non-Muslims belonged to other religions— there also Muslims were not in absolute majority. Four sub -districts to the southeast— Umarkot, Nagar Parkar, Mithi, and Chachro— adjoining India had Hindu majority of 57%. Several nearby sub-districts too had about 40– 45% Hindu population."
" ... Southeast Sindh, plus certain adjoining areas to compensate for Hindu Sindhis leaving other parts of Sindh, could have been Hindu or Indian Sindh. Looking to sub-regional Hindu-Muslim ratio of Sindh, the Congress could have tried to have part of Sindh carved out for the Hindus. Considering that the Muslim League had secured only 46% of the votes in Sindh, and the nationalist Muslims had polled three votes for every four polled by the League, the Congress could have insisted for a plebiscite in regions with Hindu dominance. However, the Congress seemed to have abandoned Sindh as ‘a far off place’, like Chamberlain had abandoned Czechoslovakia to Hitler in 1938 on the pretext that it was ‘a far off country about which we know little’."
"Khairpur was a Princely State adjoining India on the east, and surrounded on the other three sides by Sindh. Its Mir had offered to Nehru its merger with India. But, the offer was declined by Nehru, and India sent their accession papers back to them! Had the offer been accepted, Khairpur plus the adjoining Hindu-majority area could have been Hindu or Indian Sindh."
" ... Jews suffered for centuries till they asserted themselves with the creation of Israel. Tibetans, with their non-violent Buddhism, have been deprived of their nation. Yezidis and Kurds, who have been at the receiving end for centuries, are now fighting back. On account of their cultured past of thousands of years, and their engagement in businesses, the Hindu Sindhis had been too peaceful to resist, agitate and fight."
" ... They became like the Jews of the past (before Israel was created in 1948), or the Tibetans of the 1950s, or the Kashmiri Pandits of 1990s, or the Kurds and the Yezidis of the current times."
" ... There was little that Nehruvian India offered to the hapless Hindu Sindhi refugees, who had lost everything. They were condemned to their miserable fate, and dumped in outer areas of several cities and towns, without any worthwhile help or facilities. Yet, one has to salute the spirit and hard work of the Hindu Sindhi community which without any governmental help gradually stood on its own feet, and became prosperous."
................................................................................................
"Gandhi conveyed to Patel the next day (13 January 1948) that withholding 55 crores from Pakistan was what Mountbatten had opined to him as “a dishonourable act… unstatesman-like and unwise”{RG/462}, and what he [Gandhi] too thought was immoral. Patel was furious and asked of Mountbatten: “How can you as a constitutional Governor-General do this behind my back? Do you know the facts?”{RG/ 462}
"Gandhi was apparently innocent of the fact that Mountbatten and the British were bent upon favouring Pakistan— even on Kashmir, despite Pakistan’s aggression. How could a top leader be so blind to the realities? Unfortunately, Nehru, rather than supporting Patel, and sticking to what he had himself agreed to, and had got passed in the Cabinet, went back on his commitment, and commented to Gandhi: “Yes, it was passed [in the Cabinet] but we don’t have a case. It is legal quibbling.”{RG/ 463}"
"Gandhi and Nehru, rather than being prudent about what was in the best interest of the nation, went by what the British colonial representative Mountbatten, having his own axe to grind, had to say, and the Cabinet decision was reversed to let Pakistan have the money, and trouble India further in J& K! Going by the net results, effectively, it appears that for Gandhi maintaining “Brand Mahatma” and its associated “morality” was more important ... "
" ... It was on Gandhi’s insistence that [his] security had been withdrawn.”"
Author quotes Bucher about "a Hindu revolutionary society", which is incorrect on several counts - not even immediate family of Godse, let alone any organisations he'd been associated with in past, were aware of his decision, planning and intentions, and he'd cut off from the various organisations due to various reasons.
But author also misses the opportunity to point out that it wasn't just the 55 crores; it was cumulative effect of Gandhi’s behaviour and pronouncements regarding massacres of Hindus from Noakhali to West Pakistan, and his insistence that the refugees fleeing to India be forced by government of India to return despite certainty of being massacred, that was inhuman; as if this wasn't enough, he'd also insisted as a demand of his fast that meanwhile the refugees in Delhi be evicted from the only shelter onto streets in the bitter cold of January, including babies, children, women and old - and they were, by police beating them with sticks, so Gandhi could enjoy the muslim feasts!
Author omits to mention that Gandhi was pelted with stones when he visited refugees and hid behind a door, until police took him out by a back door, in Harijan neighbourhood.
................................................................................................
"God only knows why India chose to appoint Mountbatten, a British, as the Governor General (GG) of India after independence! Jinnah didn’t do that blunder— he himself became the GG of Pakistan. Mountbatten as GG managed what the Raj desired— to the detriment of India. It was thanks to Nehru that Mountbatten became the GG. Why did the freedom-fighters choose a foreigner, a British, for the top post? Weren’t competent Indians available ? If Jinnah as GG could manage Pakistan, couldn’t an Indian as GG manage India?"
It's becoming obvious, going through that part of history, that he was forever longing gor the company of, and acceptance from, British in particular and Europeans in general, with his leftist bent acquired in Cambridge reassuring him via the official pronouncements denouncing West that he was asserting Indian pride and independence; but in reality, a spate of years in growing period spent in company of upper caste English males couldn't but leave a deep impression, and he was forever nostalgic.
This expressed itself in disdain of everything of ancient Indian culture, higher regard for anything associated with any invaders of yore, and also in holding himself as superior to fellow Indians, including those which done far better than him intellectually and academically, even if it was in West, including at bar.
So he must have been deeply happy at the treatment at hands of the Mountbatten family, of an almost royalty caste - they were besmirched with an ancestor's morganatic marriage that had a "cousin Willie", Kaiser Wilhelm, slight them publicly and officially at a family occasion, a wedding, risking disapproval of the grandmother, Queen Victoria, before the WWI had English people's accusations of suspicions regarding German ancestry of royals had the Battenberg senior resign before heading Royal navy. Mountbatten had accepted the post in India due to persuasion from his royal cousin, and really wanted to achieve the position that his father was denied.
So Jawaharlal Nehru hung on to this friendship and didn't want to let go, and ignored everything, almost, about the politics that was against India.
It wasn't a crime of commission but a handicap of omission, of being subconsciously affected by the racism pervading Europe, and consequently an inability to see superiority of colleagues such as even Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose and Sardar Patel, both of whom had had education abroad and proved their caliber of a level higher than himself.
It perhaps was combined with a disdain, pervading Islamic influenced society, for those who were less in financial level. Few of India, after all, sent their laundry out to Paris, as Nehru family did from Allahabad, as we were told in sixties as part of general education.
"Nehru had adopted Mountbatten as his guru and guide. Reflects much both on Nehru’s colonial mindset, and his judgement of people. Where Nehru was not readily amenable to what the Raj/ Mountbatten wanted, Mountbatten reportedly used his wife Edwina to get Nehru around.
"Maulana Azad, a pro-Nehru person, expressed bewilderment in his autobiography as to how a person like Jawaharlal was won over by Lord Mountbatten; mentions Nehru’s weakness of being impulsive and amenable to personal influences, and wonders if the Lady Mountbatten factor was responsible for certain [improper] decisions.{Azad/ 198}"
Any suggestions of impropriety are usually due to an inability on our of people to imagine a friendship between people of different gender without a factor of impropriety, but such a relationship wasn't possible without the daughter Pamela coming to know of it, and the Mountbatten family had been quite frank and open about the couple conducting their separate love life, even in family estates, without hiding.
So one can take absence of any such suspicion by Pamela Mountbatten as evidence that the relationship between Jawaharlal Nehru and the Mountbatten family was platonic, and while Louis Mountbatten used his wife to influence Jawaharlal Nehru, the latter was an innocent dupe of the wily half-German English royal cousin.
"Reportedly, Mountbatten himself admitted that he used his wife to get an insight into Nehru’s mind and, where needed, influence Nehru when he failed to bring him round to his view. Philip Zeigler, Mountbatten's biographer, stated that Mountbatten encouraged loving relationship between his wife and Nehru— to this end. ... "
"Mountbatten was a representative of Britain, and it was natural for him, rather, expected of him, to safeguard and promote the interests of Britain; and keeping the British Government informed of the goings on, including confidential matters. India and Pakistan also had British army chiefs. In case the Indian leaders felt that having a British GG, and a British C-in-C, did help in some way, they should have accounted for the fact that it could also be counter-productive in many cases—and it did prove to be so. Their basic allegiance being to Britain, between them , these British were able to manipulate matters— many contrary to the interests of India."
In his work on Sardar Patel, the author quotes extensively the very telling incident of the British Army supremo in India being caught warning his counterpart in Pakistan about movement of Indian military, and lying about it, confident that he could bluff it out since he spoke French.
"Wrote Maulana Azad:
"“I also asked Lord Mountbatten to take into consideration the likely consequences of the partition of the country. Even without partition there were riots in Calcutta, Noakhali, Bihar, Bombay and Punjab…If the country was divided in such an atmosphere there would be rivers of blood flowing in different parts of the country and the British would be responsible for such carnage…Without a moment’s hesitation Lord Mountbatten replied, ‘At least on this question I shall give you complete assurance. I shall see to it that there is no bloodshed or riot. I am a soldier, not a civilian. Once partition is accepted in principle, I shall issue orders to see that there are no communal disturbances…If there should be slightest agitation, I shall adopt measures to nip the trouble in the bud…I shall order the Army and the Air Force to act and use tanks and aeroplanes to suppress anybody who wants to create trouble.’”{ Azad/ 207}"
In the event, he was only worried about muslims in India, particularly in Delhi, especially those he knew; Pamela Mountbatten mentions this part, but has no mention of any reaction by him when he inspected Shahalmi n Lahore where homes of Hindus had been burnt with help of fire services who poured gasoline instead of water, by neighbours they'd been living with, several Hindus perishing in fire; and nor was any reaction or expression of concern for the mayhem in Pakistan and massacres of Hindus and Sikhs was recorded by her, nor any sympathy for the refugees driven by police in Delhi to streets in the January cold at insistence of Gandhi who wanted to celebrate with muslims.
This refugees crowd included babies and children, women and old, all homeless and penniless due to being forced to flee in millions their would be murderers in Pakistan, often having lost parts of family, and yet being insisted by Gandhi that they be forced yo return and face death with love for the killers. His hunger strike included a demand that government of India force them to return.
There's no mention by Pamela Mountbatten of any reaction or thought by her father about this.
"Wrote Durga Das: “I concluded my report by stating that Mountbatten had hurried through with partition without making sure that the Boundary Force would be able to maintain peace.”{ DD/ 264}
................................................................................................
"Wrote Andrew Whitehead in ‘A Mission in Kashmir’[remarks of this author (RKP) in italics in square brackets]:
"“Indian military sources have sometimes alleged that the tribal invasion of Kashmir was planned in detail by Pakistan more than two months in advance, with the knowledge and approval of the British officers commanding the Pakistan army. The most substantial supporting evidence is the memoirs of an Indian General, O.S. Kalkat, who in August 1947 was serving as a brigade major in the Frontier. He recounted opening a letter on 20 August [1947] addressed to his British commanding officer marked ‘Top Secret’. It was a note from Pakistan’s Commander-in-Chief, Frank Messervy [the first C-in-C of both (independent) Pakistan and India were British, Messervy and Lockhart respectively, reporting to the Supreme Commander, Auchinleck, again a British, who in turn reported to the British Mountbatten—hence, Mountbatten and Lockhart and Auchinleck would have known about the J& K invasion plan, while the naïve Indian leaders remained blissfully unaware.], detailing plans for ‘Operation Gulmarg’—the plan for the invasion and capture of Kashmir. The ‘D’day of Operation Gulmarg was fixed as 22nd October [1947] on which date the various tribal Lashkars were to cross into Jammu and Kashmir territory. He went on to relate how he and his family were then put under informal house arrest in Pakistan, managed to escape, reached Delhi, and on 19 October informed senior Indian military officers about the planned invasion...”{ AW/ 59}
"As per ‘Operations in Jammu and Kashmir 1947-48’ by Rohit Singh{URL11}: “Op Gulmarg was conceived at the Pakistan Army HQ in Rawalpindi soon after independence. DO letters detailing the operational instruction had the stamp of approval of the then British C-in-C of the Pakistan Army, Gen Sir Frank Messervy. According to the plan, lashkars of 1000 pathans each were to be raised by every pathan tribe. For this purpose, separate instructions were issued to the Deputy Commissioners and Political Agents. Once recruited, these lashkars were to concentrate at Bannu, Wana, Peshawar, Kohat, Thal and Naushera by the first week of September 1947.
"“The Brigade Commanders at these places were to then equip them with arms, ammunition and some clothing. On paper, these issues were shown against regular Pakistan Army units. Each Tribal lashkar was commanded by a Major of the Pakistan Army who was to act as the advisor to the Malik or the nominal commander of the lashkar. The Major had a Captain and 10 JCOs under his command. Each irregular company was commanded by a JCO. All the Pakistan Army regulars were Pathans. Each Lashkar was provided with at least four guides/ informers.
"“Forward ammunition dumps were to be established at Abbottabad on 18 October and subsequently moved to Muzaffarabad and Domel after D Day. The invasion force was led by Major General Akbar Khan (code -name Tariq) and assisted by Brig Sher Khan. Their HQ was located inside the Pakistan Army HQ in Rawalpindi.
“All lashkars were instructed to travel in civil buses at night and concentrate at Abbottabad by 18 October 1947. The D Day for Op Gulmarg was 22 October 1947.”{URL11}
"Wrote Kuldip Nayar: “After the accession, the Maharaja provided New Delhi with more evidence (plans bearing proper seals and maps) to prove that a ‘conspiracy for the establishment of a new Muslim State by the Muslim League in Jammu and Kashmir’ was hatched as early as 1945.”{KN}"
................................................................................................
"By June-July 1947 Maharaja Hari Singh of J& K had begun to take steps towards final accession with India, including replacement of his pro-Pak PM Ram Chandra Kak with Mehr Chand Mahajan, a lawyer, and a Congress nominee on the Boundary Commission, who later became the Chief Justice of India. Looking to all this, Nehru should have created a conducive atmosphere, and taken Hari Singh into confidence , so that Maharaja’s decision to accede to India could be expedited, and all the subsequent troubles on account of his late accession would have been avoided. Instead, Nehru acted adversarial with the Maharaja."
"When in August–September 1947, Maharaja Hari Singh indeed offered Kashmir's accession to India; most unbelievably, it was refused by Nehru, who first wanted Sheikh Abdullah to be freed and installed as the prime minister of the State—something not acceptable to the Maharaja. ... (In sharp contrast you had Jinnah offering a signed blank sheet along with his own fountain pen to Maharajas of Jodhpur, Jaisalmer, and Bikaner to put down their conditions for accession to Pakistan, saying: “You can fill in all your conditions.”{BK/337}) Had the accession been accepted, the Indian army could have been deployed in Kashmir well in advance of the Oct-47 invasion by the Pakistani-raiders, preventing both the creation of the PoK, and the terrible tragedy of loot, killings and rapes."
"It was undemocratic and irresponsible of Nehru, and an illegal act, not to have obtained the concurrence of the cabinet before taking such a major decision of not accepting J& K accession. It is quite likely that Mountbatten had dissuaded him from accepting accession."
................................................................................................
"The Pakistani raiders were almost on the outskirts of Srinagar by 22 October 1947, and the Maharaja desperately sought help from India. Looking to the precarious situation, Sardar Patel proposed sending the Indian Army to J& K. However, Mountbatten insisted that unless the Instrument of Accession was signed by J& K in favour of India (the offer earlier refused by Nehru [Blunder# 18], most likely at the instance of Mountbatten himself!), India should not send army to Kashmir, and Nehru concurred.
"On Friday, 24 October 1947, the Pakistani raiders attacked the Mohore Power House causing black out in Srinagar. Defence Committee of India, headed by Mountbatten, met the next morning on Saturday, 25 October 1947, and rather than ordering action to save Srinagar, directed VP Menon, Sam Manekshaw and a few senior military officers to fly to Srinagar the same day to check the position first hand. This was actually a deliberate ploy of Mountbatten to pass time and not allow counter-action by India, and let Pakistan gain an upper hand by force, as the British desired—because Mountbatten would have known through the British C-in-C of Pakistan what Pakistan was up to (C-in-C of both India and Pakistan were British!).
"VP Menon and company flew to Srinagar and found the state of affairs to be worse than what was reported. They advised Maharaja Hari Singh to hurry to the safety of Jammu. Hari Singh drove the same night to Jammu, 200 kilometres away. MC Mahajan, the premier of J& K, VP Menon, Sam Manekshaw, and colleagues returned to Delhi from Srinagar early next morning on Sunday, 26 October 1947 , and reported the desperate situation to the Defence Committee. They advised that it would not be possible to save Srinagar and its people unless the troops were immediately air-lifted. Even the Srinagar air-strip was in danger of being imminently occupied by the raiders, in which case even that only possibility of air-lifting troops would close.
"Notwithstanding the desperate situation, and knowing that unless help was sent immediately, both the Kashmiri Muslims and the Pandits of Srinagar would be butchered by the Pakistani raiders, and the Valley of Kashmir would be lost to Pakistan, Mountbatten still insisted that the Instrument of Accession be first signed in favour of India. Nehru simply went along with his guru Mountbatten. It didn’t seem illegal to Mountbatten and Nehru that the raiders backed by the Pakistani army had invaded J& K, which had not signed any Instrument of Accession in Pakistan’s favour; but it seemed illegal to them to send Indian army help to save people getting looted, raped and butchered!"
This last description includes nuns that the so-called tribals stopped to rape and murder before they got yo Srinagar, which delayed the assault, and India could save Srinagar.
"As desired, VP Menon flew to Jammu the same day— Sunday, 26 October 1947— to have the Instrument of Accession signed by Maharaja Hari Singh, which he did. The Instrument of Accession signed by Hari Singh on Sunday, 26 October 1947, and brought back by VP Menon, was accepted by Mountbatten on Monday, 27 October 1947. With the signing of the Instrument and its acceptance, J& K legally became a part of India, and it became incumbent upon India to defend its territory, and throw out the raiders.
"In the Defence Committee meeting held on Monday, 27 October 1947 Sam Manekshaw apprised the members of the Military situation. He said the raiders were hardly seven to nine kilometres from Srinagar; and unless the troops were flown in immediately, Srinagar would be lost, because going by road would take days, and once the raiders got to the airport and Srinagar, it would not be possible to fly-in the troops. He further informed that everything was ready at the airport, and the troops could be immediately air-lifted, once the orders were issued.
"However, Mountbatten— serving the pro-Pakistani British interests— tried to stall sending the Indian army, saying it was too late, raiders being already at the door of Srinagar. But, who made it late in the first place— Mountbatten himself! As usual, Nehru prevaricated.
"Notably, even when the need for action became urgent, “Mountbatten threw his weight against any precipitate action, emphasising the need for further information,”writes C Dasgupta in his book, ‘War and Diplomacy in Kashmir 1947-48’{ DG/ 45}. Even after further information was available through VP Menon and Sam Manekshaw, who had been specially flown to Srinagar for the purpose on 25 October 1947, and who advised urgent airlift of troops, Mountbatten showed reluctance. Writes Dasgupta “... the service chiefs [all British], supported by Mountbatten, sought to dissuade the ministers from an airlift on the grounds that it involved great risks and dangers.”{ DG/ 47}
"Sardar Patel finally intervened. Recounted Sam Manekshaw, who later became the first Field Marshal in the Indian army, in his interview with Prem Shankar Jha{Jha1}:
"“At the morning meeting he [VP Menon/ Patel] handed over the (Accession) thing. Mountbatten turned around and said, ‘come on Manekji (He called me Manekji instead of Manekshaw), what is the military situation?’ I gave him the military situation, and told him that unless we flew in troops immediately, we would lose Srinagar, because going by road would take days, and once the tribesmen got to the airport and Srinagar, we couldn't fly troops in. Everything was ready at the airport. As usual Nehru talked about the United Nations , Russia, Africa, God almighty, everybody, until Sardar Patel lost his temper. He said, ‘Jawaharlal, do you want Kashmir, or do you want to give it away.’ He (Nehru) said, ‘Of course, I want Kashmir.’ Then he (Patel) said ‘Please give your orders.’ And before he could say anything Sardar Patel turned to me and said, ‘You have got your orders.’ I walked out, and we started flying in troops...”{Jha1/ 135}
"It has also been reported that the J& K premier, Mehar Chand Mahajan, even threatened to proceed to Karachi and offer Kashmir to Jinnah, if India could not secure safety of the people of J& K. Despite tremendous practical difficulties, lack of preparation, and the short notice, the Indian Army rose to the occasion and chased the raiders out of the valley. It is worth factoring-in the fact that had the Indian army not reached Srinagar in time, there would have been a large scale massacre and mayhem by the Pakistani raiders in Srinagar and surrounding areas, which in turn would have had repercussions all over India. But, Mountbatten and the British didn’t seem to value Indian lives. British were serving pro-Pakistani British interests. But, Nehru? Had Sardar Patel not acted, and had it been left to Nehru and Mountbatten, the whole of Kashmir would have been lost to Pakistan, and the locals would have been butchered."
................................................................................................
"With regard to J& K, it is worth re-emphasising that (a) the Instrument of Accession signed was no different from those signed by the other Princely States; (b) it was signed by Hari Singh unconditionally; and (c) it was accepted by the Governor General, Lord Mountbatten, unconditionally. That is, the whole process was no different from the one that applied to the other 547 Princely States that acceded to India (please note that the other 14 of the 562 had acceded to Pakistan).
"Through a separate letter, however, Mountbatten advised Maharaja Hari Singh that the accession was subject to reference to the people of J& K [comments in square-brackets are by the author RKP]:
"“In the special circumstances mentioned by Your Highness, my Government [Imagine, a British serving the pro-British and pro-Pakistan interests, had the gall (thanks to Nehru) to call the post-Independence Indian government ‘my government’!] have decided to accept the accession of Kashmir State to the Dominion of India. Consistent with their policy that, in the case of any State where the issue of accession has been the subject of dispute, the question of accession should be decided in accordance with the wishes of the people of the State, it is my Government’s wish that, as soon as law and order have been restored in Kashmir and her soil cleared of the invader, the question of the State’s accession should be settled by a reference to the people...”{AW/ 114}{ Jag/ 86}"
"Notably, the Maharaja had put no conditions on accession. In fact, even Sheikh Abdullah, who had favoured accession to India, never insisted on this condition— rather, he wanted it to be unconditional, lest any uncertainty should remain."
" ... Why did Nehru not object? Why had the Indian Cabinet and leaders , particularly Nehru, not made it clear to him that he could not act on his own on critical matters— that he had to take the permission of the cabinet? One can understand conditions being stipulated by the party offering you the favour of accession. But, for the party being favoured with accession to stipulate conditions— that’s absurd!"
" ... Or, was it that Nehru acquiesced to writing of such a letter by Mountbatten? (— yet another blunder?) Even if the deed was done without Nehru’s knowledge (unlikely), Nehru should have objected to it and should have got it annulled or withdrawn."
"The Indian Independence Act 1947 enacted by the British Parliament also incorporated the Memorandum on States’ Treaties and Paramountcy of 12 May 1946 as per which the princely states were to regain full sovereignty with the creation of the two dominions of India and Pakistan from the British India on 15 August 1947, with the ruler of the Princely State being the ONLY authority to offer accession to India or Pakistan, or to remain independent , regardless of the religious composition of the people of that state, there being NO provision for ‘reference to the people’ or plebiscite.
"Therefore, with the signing of the Instrument of Accession unconditionally by the Maharaja of J& K on 26 October 1947 in favour of India, J& K’s accession to India was full, final , irrevocable and totally legal as per the International Law. Legally, that separate letter of Mountbatten (please see above) made absolutely NO difference. In fact, Mountbatten’s action of writing the above letter was unconstitutional and illegal. Even Nehru had NO legal authority to approve of such a letter. What is more, there was NO cabinet sanction for it!
"India should have stuck to this incontestable legal position of the irrevocable accession of J& K to India , like for the other 547 states, on the strength of the signing of the Instrument of Accession. This is what Sardar Patel strongly advocated. Even US considered ours as an ironclad legal position in 1948."
"The funny thing is that the "reference to the people" or plebiscite was requested neither by Maharaja Hari Singh, nor by Sheikh Abdullah, nor by the people of J& K, nor even by Jinnah(!!) at that time! It was only thanks to Mountbatten and Nehru!{Hing/ 200} The position of Mountbatten could be understood— he was serving the anti-India and pro-British interests! But, Nehru? ... "
................................................................................................
"Nehru unnecessarily internationalised what was purely an internal issue by taking the J& K issue to the UN, again under the influence of the British Mountbatten. Wrote V Shankar in ‘My Reminiscences of Sardar Patel, Volume 1’:
"“Lord Mountbatten persuaded Pandit Nehru to make a broadcast in which he was to announce that the accession would be subject to a plebiscite under the UN auspices. This was scheduled at 8.30pm on 28 October [1947]. Sardar used to insist on seeing the texts of important broadcasts including those of the prime minister. Pandit Nehru had a very busy day and could not send the text before 8.15pm. Sardar read it and noticed the embarrassing commitment. He tried to contact Pandit Nehru but the latter had left for the Broadcasting House. Sardar then commissioned me to go to the Broadcasting House and ask Pandit Nehru to delete the offending phrase 'under UN auspices'...”"
"However, by the time Shankar reached the place, the Mountbatten-inspired deed was done by Nehru. It was imprudent on the part of Nehru to have made this commitment of “plebiscite under UN auspices”at the instance of a British, Lord Mountbatten, having his own axe to grind, without taking the cabinet and the patriotic Indians who mattered—Sardar Patel and others—into confidence!
"Wrote the veteran Congressman DP Mishra:
"“Soon after, I heard Nehru’s voice on All India Radio at Nagpur , committing the Government of India to the holding of plebiscite in Kashmir. As from my talk with Patel, I had received the impression that the signature of the Maharaja had finally settled the Kashmir issue. I was surprised by Nehru’s announcement. When I visited Delhi next, I pointedly asked Patel whether the decision to hold a plebiscite in Kashmir was taken at a meeting of the Cabinet. He sighed and shook his head. It was evident that Nehru had acted on Mountbatten’s advice, and had ignored his colleagues.”
"Nehru scored a self-goal for India by formally referring the J& K matter to the UN on 1 January 1948. With the issue internationalised, India suffered greatly, both domestically and internationally. It became like the sword of Damocles. The UK, the US and their allies, led by the UK, began playing politics of favouring Pakistan over India, ignoring the fact of Pakistani aggression in J& K."
" ... As usual, Nehru himself realised his blunder after the act. Nehru regretted the Kashmir issue “has been raised to an international level…by reference to the Security Council of the UN and most of the great powers are intensely interested in what happens in Kashmir…[Kashmir issue] has given us a great deal of trouble…the attitude of the great powers has been astonishing. Some of them have shown active partisanship for Pakistan…We feel we have not been given a square deal.”{ BK2/ 159}"
"States Natwar Singh in ‘One Life is Not Enough’:
" ... What was even more erroneous was his going to the Security Council under Chapter VI of the UN Charter, which addresses itself to disputes. He should have taken the Kashmir problem to the Security Council under Chapter VII, which deals with aggression. In the case of Kashmir, he allowed his personal feelings to cloud his professional judgement; a major failing for a statesman of his stature. Members of the Council rightly said that, by doing so, India had accepted that a dispute exists.”{KNS/ 114}"
"Commented Sita Ram Goel: “Pandit Nehru promised a plebiscite in Kashmir without consulting any of his cabinet colleagues or even Mahatma Gandhi. I refer …to the Memorandum which the CPI [Communist Party of India] had submitted to the British Cabinet Mission and in which Kashmir was described as a separate nationality which should be given the right of self-determination to the point of becoming a sovereign State. The CPI had denounced Kashmir's accession to India as an imperialist annexation in early 1948. The Indian army in Kashmir had been described as an army of occupation in all official Soviet publications at that time. So Pandit Nehru's communist conscience suffered persistent pricks. He not only promised a plebiscite but also ordered the Indian Army to stop its triumphant march into Pakistan-occupied Kashmir. He changed his stand on a plebiscite in Kashmir only when the Soviet Union and the CPI had changed their stand and come out in support of the Indian case in Kashmir after Pakistan entered into an alliance with America. And he let loose a lying campaign against the West which was only reminding him half-heartedly of the plebiscite promise he had himself made earlier.”{ SRG2/ 171}"
................................................................................................
" ... Quipped Chaudhry Sir Muhammad Zafrullah Khan (1893-1985), the Pakistani representative in the UN, when he came to know about Gopalaswami Aiyangar as India’s representative: “You are offering me Kashmir on a platter.”{BK/ 387}
"It is worth noting that Zafrullah Khan had an illustrious career. Educated at London’s King’s College, he had been a member of the All-India Muslim League, and had served as its president between 1931 and 1932. He was the Minister of Railway of British India in 1935. He sat on the British Viceroy's Executive Council as its Muslim member between 1935 and 1941. He represented India at the League of Nations in Geneva in 1939. He was the Agent-General of British India to China in 1942. He became judge at the Federal Court of India. He was the foreign minister of Pakistan (1947-54), the president for the UN General Assembly (1962), and the judge (1954-61, 1964-73), vice-president (1958-61) and the president (1970-73) of the International Court of Justice.
"Incidentally, Zafrullah Khan was an Ahmadiyya, like Abdus Salam (1926–1996), a Pakistani theoretical physicist, who shared the 1979 Nobel Prize in Physics. Abdus Salam left Pakistan in 1974 in protest against the passage of the parliamentary bill declaring the Ahmadiyya Community as NOT-Islamic. Jinnah and Aga Khan, both Shias, were the prime movers of Pakistan. Shias too are at the receiving end in Pakistan."
"Sardar Patel was opposed to Gopalaswami Aiyangar leading the Indian team in the UN. He considered him to be not competent enough. Patel had instead suggested the name of CP Ramaswami Iyer, who had been the Diwan of Travancore. CP, as he was called, was a very competent intellectual, statesman, and a diplomat, with many foreign contacts in the UK and the US. He would have presented India’s case effectively. But, Nehru ignored Patel’s advice , and stuck to Gopalaswami Aiyangar. Here is a tell-tale description of what happened in the UN, as told by Shakunthala Jagannathan, CP’s granddaughter:
"“I was a student living in New York, when the question of Kashmir came up in the U.N. Accompanied by several Indian and American friends, I attended the Security council session, oozing with confidence on India’s stand. First came Sir Zafrullah Khan’s impassioned and brilliant speech on behalf of Pakistan which was powerful enough to shake up our confidence. When he sat down, we Indians breathed a sigh of relief. The Indian delegation was then asked to present their case. The delegate concerned put up his hand, stood up, and said, “I protest!”… We had expected that our case, so much stronger, would shake up the U.N .! Instead our presentation on that day resulted in a debacle, right before our eyes...”{SJ/ 45-46}"
"Wrote Howard Schaffer: “The Indians had made Abdullah a member of their UN delegation, no doubt in the expectation that he would be an effective spokesman for India’s cause. They could not have calculated that he would undercut their position by calling for Kashmir’s independence in a private conversation with Austin. Apparently caught by surprise, the ambassador gave Abdullah no encouragement...”{Sch} Incidentally, Warren R. Austin was the US permanent representative—their ambassador— to the UN."
................................................................................................
"Geographically, J& K was the biggest of the princely States with a population of about 40 lacs. Its location was strategic. Its northern boundaries touch Afghanistan, USSR and China, with Pakistan to its west, and India to the south. Control-wise, J& K comprises three parts, otherwise seven parts.
"(A) Area under the control of India:
"(1) Jammu in the south, which is largely Hindu.
"(2) Ladakh in the east, which is Buddhist.
"(3) Kashmir Valley: An oval-shaped valley in the middle—between PoK to the north and west, Jammu to the south, and Ladakh to the east—often referred to as just Kashmir, which is predominantly Muslim.
"(B) Area under the control of China:
"(4) Aksai Chin in the north-east, under the control of China.
"(5) Shaksgam Valley in the north, illegally ceded by Pakistan to China.
"(C) Area under the control of Pakistan:
"(6) Gilgit-Baltistan in the north.
"(7) Poonch, Mirpur and Muzaffarabad divisions in the north-west referred to as PoK or Pakistan-occupied-Kashmir."
"To the north of the valley are the main ranges of Himalayas. To the east is Ladakh separated by the Himalayas. Pir Panjal range encloses the valley from the west and the south, separating it from the Great Plains of northern India.
"Srinagar, its capital, is located in the heart of the Kashmir valley at an altitude of 1,730 metres, that is, 5674 feet above sea level, and is spread on both sides of the river Jhelum. Its two lakes— Dal and Nagin— enhance its picturesque setting. The Indus, Jhelum, Tawi, Ravi and Chenab are the five major rivers that flow through the state."
"Area of Ladakh, Jammu and Kashmir Valley divisions are respectively 59000, 26000 and 16000 km2 out of the total of 1,01,000 km2, forming respectively 58%, 26% and 16% of the total area of J& K within India’s control.
"However, the total area of J& K is 2,22,000 km2. Therefore, 1,21,000 km2 amounting to 54% of the total, that is, more than half, is illegally occupied by Pakistan and China: 78,000 km2 amounting to 35% of the total area of J& K by Pakistan; 38,000 km2 amounting to 17% of the total by China; and 5,000 km2, that is, 2% of the total that was illegally handed over by Pakistan to China."
"It was thanks to Nehru’s wrong decision that ‘Pakistan Occupied Kashmir’(PoK) came into existence, when the Indian army was on the verge of getting the whole of J& K vacated."
"Pakistani raiders’ determined bid to occupy Ladakh was frustrated by the superior Indian strategy of airlifting troops to Leh. Air Commodore Mehar Chand flew his plane amazingly to 23,000 feet above sea-level— without oxygen— on an unchartered course to land his plane, with troops, at Leh at the height of about 12000 feet!
"Another daring feat was that of Major-General Thimayya. He took his tanks to a height of about 12000 feet on the snow-capped Zojila Pass—something unique in history, as nobody had taken tanks to such heights and in such hazardous conditions before— and routed the enemy, destroying all enemy bunkers.
"Incidentally, it was this brave and competent Thimayya who was humiliated by Krishna Menon, when he was Defence Minister in Nehru’s cabinet, forcing Thimayya to resign! Later, after Thimayya withdrew his resignation at the instance of Nehru, even Nehru behaved with him in a way that amounted to his double humiliation!! ... "
"The capture of Muzzafarabad, now the capital of PoK, was imminent. The Army, however, was ordered to suspend all offensive operations with effect from 1 January 1949, even though the enemy did not cease fighting. The Indian Army was very disappointed by the decision, but orders were orders. Thanks to ordering of ceasefire with immediate effect by Nehru, PoK—Pakistan Occupied Kashmir—came into existence; else the whole of Kashmir would have been with India. And, now it is this PoK which is used by Pakistan to send terrorists into J& K. Notably, the ‘democratic’Nehru didn’t care to take Sardar Patel into confidence or seek cabinet approval before taking such a major decision.
"Shakespeare had rightly articulated:
"There is a tide in the affairs of men,
Which, taken at the flood, leads on to fortune;
Omitted, all the voyage of their life
Is bound in shallows and in miseries;
And we must take the current when it serves,
Or lose our ventures."
"As per a report, the ceasefire decision was remote-controlled by Mountbatten, who was by then back in England— such influence Mountbatten still exercised over Nehru! Commented General SPP Thorat:
"“Our forces might have succeeded in evicting the invaders, if the Prime Minister had not held them in check , and later ordered the ceasefire… Obviously great pressure must have been brought to bear on him by the [former Governor-General]… Panditji was a great personal and family friend of Lord Mountbatten.”{BK2/ 160}"
"The military commanders directly involved in the operations of clearing J& K from the raiders and the Pak-army were General Officer C-in-C, Western Command, KM Cariappa, and the Operational Commander Major-General Thimayya. Wrote retired Army-Chief General VK Singh in ‘Leadership in the Indian Army’:
"“Cariappa experienced some of his finest moments during the Kashmir operations. Operation Kipper, which successfully captured Naushera and Jhangar, was planned by him. This was followed by Operation Easy for the link-up with Punch, and Operation Bison for the capture of Zojila, Dras and Kargil. Had he been given additional troops and the necessary permission, he would have succeeded in pushing the Pakistanis out of Kashmir, plans for which had already been made. Unfortunately, this did not come about due to the intervention by the United Nations after an appeal from India. Characteristically, Nehru took the decision to appeal to the UN Security Council without consulting the armed forces [or the cabinet or Sardar Patel]...
"“Given the restrictions placed on him by his own government, and the lack of support in terms of troops, it is indeed commendable that Cariappa succeeded in achieving what he did. Due to political considerations, a defensive policy was imposed on the army. That he did not allow this to be transformed into a defensive mentality was a major achievement. As a result of this policy, India lost several key objectives in the Uri and Tithwal sectors. Since the road to Ladakh could not be opened until Zojila, Dras and Kargil were captured , Cariappa decided to go ahead and do exactly that. By disobeying orders— which forbade all offensive operations— he took a grave risk. But had he not done so, Ladakh may not have been part of India today. As it happened, these key objectives were captured after a brilliant manoeuvre , including the use of tanks, which were deployed for the first time at such altitudes. The country owes an eternal debt to Cariappa for the risks he took. Had he failed, his career would most certainly have ended.”{VKS/ 35}"
"As per the biography of late Field Marshal KM Cariappa, they both requested Nehru in December 1948 for a little more time to clear J& K of Pakistani raiders completely , but Nehru did not heed them. Thimayya had told Nehru that the Army needed two weeks more to regain lost territory but Nehru was adamant. It is said that Thimayya found Nehru’s attitude inexplicable, and left Teen Murti Bhavan, the official residence of the PM, in disgust. When Cariappa asked Nehru about the decision a few years later, Nehru conceded that the ceasefire order ought to have been delayed!
"Britain had marked out two areas that had to absolutely go to Pakistan—despite J& K accession to India: (a) One was the northern area along the Chinese, Russian and Afghanistan borders comprising Gilgit, Hunza, Nagar, Swat and Chitral. This area commanded as much strategic importance to Britain and the West as NWFP in Pakistan. Mountbatten had ensured NWFP went to Pakistan, even though its leader, Khan Abdul Ghaffar Khan, was opposed to the partition of India. (b) The other area was the western strip adjoining Pakistani Punjab to secure Pakistan from India, comprising Muzzafarabad, Mirpur, Bhimbar, Kotli and adjoining areas. Muzzafarabad is now the capital of PoK. What the British had planned, they managed to achieve—thanks to the way Nehru acted, or failed to act. How the British managed to fool Nehru and India even after independence! Reflects very poorly on the then Indian leadership.
"After J& K acceded to India on 26 October 1947, Major William Brown of the Gilgit Scouts, although a British contract officer of the Maharaja of J& K , had the Governor Ghansara Singh imprisoned on 31 October 1947, as per a pre-meditated plan , and hoisted the Pakistani flag there on 2 November 1947, and declared its accession to Pakistan! This was totally an illegal action on the part of the British meant to deliberately deny India access to Central Asia. Mountbatten would surely have known of the goings on, but did nothing, or rather, allowed the illegality to quietly happen. Major Khurshid Anwar was one of the Pakistani army officers who had organised and lead the Pakistani Pathan tribal invasion of J& K. His deputy, Major Aslam Khan, took charge of Gilgit from Brown. In 1948, Brown was honoured with the “Most Exalted Order of the British Empire”.
"Major Brown had threatened to slaughter all the non-Muslims of Gilgit and Bunji if the Gilgit Governor Brigadier Ghansara Singh did not surrender. Following the surrender and arrest, the defecting Muslim officers insisted that every non-Muslim must convert or be shot.{DKP2/ 228}
"Wrote NV Gadgil, the then Cabinet Minister for Works and Mines in the Nehru’s Cabinet, in his autobiography ‘Government from Inside’:
"“In truth, Nehru did not show much enthusiasm for Kashmir’s accession at the time…Both the Maharaja and [Meherchand] Mahajan [Premier of Kashmir] pressed for the acceptance of Kashmir’s accession, but Nehru would not move. [Nehru then was being guided by Sheikh Abdullah]…If our army had not received instructions to stop fighting before that date [1 January 1949], it would have cleared the raiders from whole of Kashmir…"
" ... Had Vallabhbhai [Patel ] been the man to handle the Kashmir question , he would have settled it long ago. At least, he would never have settled with a partial control of Jammu & Kashmir. He would have occupied the whole of the State and would never have allowed it to be elevated to international importance.”{Mak/ 445-6} {DFI} {HJS}"
"As per the article “Nehru’s Pacifism and the Failed Recapture of Kashmir”by Sandeep Bamzai in ORF:
"“To keep abreast with the developments in Kashmir, Nehru had dispatched his private secretary and ‘eyes and ears’Dwarka Nath Kachru to the frontline...
"“Some of Kachru's correspondence is extremely damaging, the prism far too revealing of how the Indian Army first pushed back the raiders and then vanquished the Pakistan Army regulars, even having them on the run... Previously unpublished correspondence [Nehru-Kachru] reveal that Nehru's pacifism—guided by the principles of fair play [?!] and the fact that India had referred the Kashmir matter to the United Nations erroneously on Lord Mountbatten's insistence—meant that the Indian Army was refused permission to go all the way and reclaim what eventually became PoK and the Northern Areas…”{ URL51}"
" ... Vallabhbhai Patel had opposed this move and was of the opinion that the army be given a free hand to oust the invaders from the valley. Nehru relented at the instance of Mountbatten. This led to a part of the valley, named Azad Kashmir by Pakistan, remaining permanently in the possession of Pakistan. Shockingly, this also led, over a period of time, to a large part of its strategically located portion being ceded by Pakistan to China.”{MG2/ 34/ L-685}
"“… throughout the Kashmir war, right from 22 October 1947 to 1 January 1949 (when a ceasefire was proclaimed that left Gilgit in Pakistan’s hands), Britain successfully ensured that Pakistan’s occupation of this region was not disturbed… Mountbatten was able to persuade Nehru that alongside preparations for military action he should seek the help of the UNO. He argued, ‘that UN would promptly direct Pakistan to withdraw the raiders, which would make war unnecessary.’ And Nehru believed him.”{MG2/ 40/ L-795}
"“India failed to exploit US support for its juridical position in Kashmir; indeed, it [India] made statements that undermined the American stand favourable to India.”{MG2/ 41/ L-811}"
................................................................................................
"Here is an account by a Hindu survivor who was a witness to the Mirpur tragedy in J& K, reproduced from the Swarajya Mag{Swa2}:
"“On November 23 [1947], Prem Nath Dogra and Professor Balraj Madhok met Brigadier Paranjape, the Brigade Commander of the Indian Army in Jammu, and requested him to send reinforcements to Mirpur [a strategic place where more than one hundred thousand Hindus and Sikhs were held up during first Pakistani aggression over Kashmir]. Paranjape shared their agony but expressed his helplessness because— as per instructions from the army generals— consultation with Sheikh Abdullah was mandatory in order to deploy Indian troops anywhere in Jammu and Kashmir. Paranjape also informed the delegation that Pandit Nehru would come to Srinagar on November 24 [1947] and they should meet him. On November 24 [1947], Pandit Dogra and Professor Madhok met Nehru and once again told him about the critical situation in Mirpur. They requested him to order immediate Indian troops reinforcement to the beleaguered Mirpur City. Professor Madhok was amazed at Pandit Nehru’s response— Pandit Nehru flew into a rage and yelled that they should talk to Sheikh Abdullah . Prof Madhok again told Pandit Nehru that Sheikh Abdullah was indifferent to the plight of the Jammu province and only Pandit Nehru could save the people of Mirpur. However, Pandit Nehru ignored all their entreaties and did not send any reinforcements to Mirpur.”{Swa2}
"Mirpur later fell to Pakistani artillery, and became part of PoK. The Hindus and Sikhs encountered a genocide, and worst orgies of rape and barbarity."
................................................................................................
"Gopalaswami Aiyangar, appointed by Nehru, moved Article 306A— which later became Article 370 in the Indian Constitution— in the Constituent Assembly on 17 October 1949 guaranteeing special status to J& K. This was at the instance of Sheikh Abdullah , and with the concurrence of Nehru. Although many in the Constituent Assembly were not in favour of it, they consented, keeping in view Nehru’s wish, who was then the main person steering the J& K policy. Those not in favour included Ambedkar, Maulana Hasrat Mohani, Sardar Patel, and many others. ... "
" ... Of course, Article 370, labelled "Temporary provisions with respect to the State of Jammu and Kashmir" was conceived as a temporary arrangement, with hopes of a full integration in time to come. J& K State Constitution came into effect on 26 January 1957, comprising 158 Sections, of which Section 3 says, “The State of Jammu and Kashmir is and shall be an integral part of the Union of India.”"
" ... The proposal of Article 370 was torn to pieces by the Constituent Assembly. Ayyangar was the lone defender , and Maulana Azad was not able to effectively support him. In the debate, Maulana Hasrat Mohani of UP stated that while he was not opposed to all the concessions that were being granted to his friend Sheikh Abdullah, why make such discrimination; if all those concessions were to be granted to the Kashmir, why not to the Baroda ruler too.
"Dr Ambedkar was firmly opposed to it. Nehru had sent Abdullah to Dr Ambedkar to explain to him the position and to draft an appropriate Article for the Constitution. Ambedkar had remarked:
"“Mr Abdullah, you want that India should defend Kashmir, India should develop Kashmir and Kashmiris should have equal rights as the citizens of India, but you don’t want India and any citizen of India to have any rights in Kashmir. I am the Law minister of India. I cannot betray the interest of my country.”{SNS/ 106}"
" ... When the issue came up for discussion in the Constituent Assembly, Dr Ambedkar was so disgusted that he did not take part in it.
"Nehru, who was then abroad, rang up Patel and requested him to get the Article 370 through, and it was for that reason alone that Patel relented, as Sardar did not wish to embarrass Nehru in his absence. But Sardar commented, “Jawaharlal royega [Nehru will rue this].”{RG/ 517}
"Strangely, Nehru made a statement on Kashmir in 1952, when Sardar Patel was no more, “Sardar Patel was all the time dealing with these matters.”"
"Wrote V Shankar:
"“When I was working as his [Gopalaswami Ayyangar] joint secretary the self-same Article [370] came in for criticism in the Lok Sabha. In defence, Pandit Nehru took the stand that the Article was dealt with by Sardar in his absence and he was not responsible for it. I met Gopalaswami the same day evening as he was walking on the lawn of his residence. I questioned the bonafides of Pandit Nehru’s stand. Gopalaswami’s reaction was one of anger and he said, ‘It is an ill return to the Sardar for the magnanimity he had shown in accepting Panditji’s point of view against his better judgment.’He added, ‘I have told Jawaharlal this already.’”{ Shan2/ 63}”
................................................................................................
"Wrote B Krishna in his book ‘Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel’:
"“Nehru’s bias in favour of Abdullah was evident from what he said in August 1945 at the annual session of the National Conference at Sopore in the Valley, ‘If non-Muslims want to live in Kashmir, they should join the National Conference or bid goodbye to the country... If Pandits do not join it, no safeguards and weightages will protect them.’”{BK/ 374}"
" ... Half a million Kashmiri Pandits would, some forty-five years later, pay for Nehru’s sins, and be ethnically cleansed out of Kashmir— their home for thousands of years.
"Sheikh Abdullah himself was a Kashmiri Pandit convert. The second-generation-convert Sir Allama Muhammad Iqbal, one of the main promoters of the idea of Pakistan, had a major influence on Jinnah in gradually turning him from a liberal, advocating Hindu-Muslim unity, into a bigot. As per the article “Iqbal’s Hindu Relations”by Khushwant Singh in ‘The Telegraph’of 30 June 2007{ KS2}, Iqbal’s (1877–1938) father was one Rattan Lal Sapru, a Kashmiri Pandit. He was the revenue collector of the Afghan governor of Kashmir. He was caught embezzling money. The governor offered him a choice: he should either convert to Islam or be hanged. Rattan Lal chose to stay alive. He was named Nur Mohammad after conversion. The Saprus disowned Rattan Lal and severed all connections with him."
................................................................................................
"Nehru wrote a long note to Gandhi on 6 January 1948 seeking his arbitration for his differences with Patel. Gandhi referred the letter to Patel. Patel responded to Gandhi:
"“I have tried my best to appreciate what he [Nehru] says on the subject [Hindu-Muslim relations], but howsoever much I have tried to understand it on the twin basis of democracy and Cabinet responsibility, I have found myself unable to agree with his conception of the Prime Minister’s duties and functions. That conception, if accepted, would raise the Prime Minister to the position of a virtual dictator, for he claims ‘full freedom to act when and how he chooses’. This in my opinion is wholly opposed to democratic and Cabinet system of government. The Prime Minister’s position, according to my conception, is certainly pre-eminent; he is first among equals. However, he has no overriding powers over his colleagues; if he had any, a Cabinet and Cabinet responsibility would be superfluous…”{LMS/ 177}
"Wrote Durga Das: “Two days earlier [before Gandhi’s assassination on 30 January 1948] I had met Azad and learnt from him that tension between Nehru and Patel had mounted to a point where the Prime Minister had angrily thumped the table at a Cabinet meeting and said: ‘Patel, you do what you like. I will not have it.’ ... "
"Notably, even the Deputy Prime Minister of J& K between 1947-53, Bakhshi Ghulam Muhammad of the National Conference, had become so disturbed and alarmed at the way the J& K issue was being messed up that he met Sardar Patel and requested:
"“Why do you [Sardar Patel] not take over the problem and finish it like Hyderabad? Patel replied cryptically : You go to your friend [Nehru] and tell him to keep his hands off Kashmir problem for two months and I will undertake to solve it.”{Mak/ 440-41}
"Wrote Rajmohan Gandhi in his book ‘Patel– A Life’:
"“Patel was as strongly against the reference to the UN and preferred ‘timely action’ on the ground, but Kashmir was Jawaharlal’s baby by now and Vallabhbhai did not insist on his prescriptions when, at the end of December, Nehru announced that he had decided to go to the UN. Jawaharlal obtained Mahatma’s reluctant consent... Patel’s misgivings were amply fulfilled after India invited the UN’s assistance...”{RG/ 448}"
"Sardar Patel had told Air Marshal Thomas Elmhirst:
"“If all the decisions rested on me, I think that I would be in favour of extending this little affair in Kashmir to a full-scale war with Pakistan… Let us get it over once and for all, and settle down as a united continent.”{BK2/ 157}
"Communist MN Roy, no friend of Patel, was also of the opinion that had Kashmir affair remained with Patel, he would have solved it soon after partition. He wrote in “Men I Met” on Patel:
"“Could Sardar Patel have had his way on the Kashmir issue, India would not be today spending fifty percent of her revenue on military budget… the Sardar had no choice but to play the game, but one could be sure that he loathes the stupidity clothes in the glamour of popular heroes [hint on Nehru]…”{Roy/ 17}"
................................................................................................
"A fanatical Muslim organisation, Ittehad-ul-Muslimeen, headed by one Kasim Razvi had been fomenting trouble. They came to be known as the Razakars. At the instance of Kasim Razvi, Nizam appointed Mir Laik Ali as Prime Minister and president of his Executive Council. Laik Ali was a Hyderabadi businessman, who had also been a representative of Pakistan at the UN till September 1947. With this the Hyderabad Government came virtually under Razvi, who later met Sardar Patel and VP Menon in Delhi to tell that Hyderabad would never surrender its independence, and that Hindus were happy under Nizam; but if India insisted on a plebiscite, it is the sword which would decide the final result. Razvi further told Sardar Patel, “We shall fight and die to the last men,”to which Patel responded, “How can I stop you from committing suicide?”{ RG/ 476}"
"One JV Joshi, in his letter of resignation from the Nizam’s Executive Council, wrote that law and order had completely broken down in many districts and that the Nizam’s Police—comprising almost exclusively of Muslims— was colluding with the Razakars in loot, arson and murder of Hindus, and molestation and rape of their females. He stated having himself witnessed such scenes and even scenes where Brahmins were killed and their eyes gouged out. It was estimated that besides the Hyderabad State forces of over 40,000 , there were about 2,00,000 Razakars with small arms, and a number of Pathans lately imported. It became morally difficult for India to remain a mute witness to the mayhem, that turned worse by August 1948."
................................................................................................
"This is our only foreign debt, and some day we must pay the Mantzu and the Tibetans for the provisions we were obliged to take from them.
"—Mao Zedong, when he had passed through the border regions of Tibet during the Long March
"In the 8th century, Tibetan King Trisong Dentsen had defeated China, which was forced to pay an annual tribute to Tibet. To put an end to mutual fighting, China and Tibet signed a treaty in 783 CE where boundaries were confirmed , and each country promised to respect the territorial sovereignty of the other. This fact is engraved on the stone monument at the entrance of the Jokhang temple, which still stands today. The engraving is both in Chinese and in Tibetan.{DL/ 45-47}
"I [Sardar Patel] have been eating my heart out because I have not been able to make him [Nehru] see the dangers ahead. China wants to establish its hegemony over South-East Asia. We cannot shut our eyes to this because imperialism is appearing in a new garb... He is being misled by his courtiers. I have grave apprehensions about the future.
"—Durga Das, reporting his talks with Sardar Patel{DD/ 305}
"Tibet is called the Roof of the World because of the height at which it is situated. Lhasa, its capital, is at an altitude of 3658 meters, that is, 12001 feet. To give a comparative idea, altitude of Srinagar is 1730 meters, and that of Matheran 800 meters. That is, Lhasa is more than twice as high as Srinagar, and more than four times as high as Matheran. Tibet is separated from China by the mountain ranges to the east of the Tibetan Plateau and from Nepal by the towering Himalayas. Nepal and Bhutan are to its south; India to its south and west; and China is to its east and north-east. Amdo, Kham, and U-Tsang are its three main regions.
"The Tibetan Plateau is geographically grand—surrounded by range upon range of extremely high altitude mountains. Tibet is the source for many of Asia’s greatest rivers— Indus, Sutlej, Brahmaputra (called Yarlung Tsampo in Tibet), Salween, Mekong, Yangtse, and Yellow river."
" ... Tibet qualified as a distinct nation, without a shred of doubt, and had indeed been a distinct nation historically, till forcibly annexed by China in 1950. If Tibet does not or did not qualify as a separate nation, then China too, and indeed most nations also don’t qualify as separate nations. Tibet has a recorded history of nationhood extending back to the second century BCE.
"In fact, the Chinese, that is the Han Chinese, themselves never regarded Tibetans as their part, they used to call them by the epithet “shi tsang” meaning barbarians. The Ming Dynasty that ruled China between 1368 and 1644 labelled Tibetans as “foreigners” in their chronicles. If Tibet had a special relationship it was with Mongolia, and not with China. Mongolian rulers were influenced by the Tibetan Buddhism."
"7th to 9th Century CE
"Between the seventh and the ninth century, the Tibetans often bested the Chinese Tang dynasty in battle. During this time, the marriage of Princess Wen Cheng of China and King Gampo of Tibet was viewed as a strategic move to achieve co-operation and peace between Tibet and China.
"8th Century CE
"In the 8th century, Tibetan King Trisong Dentsen had defeated China, which was forced to pay an annual tribute to Tibet. To put an end to mutual fighting, China and Tibet signed a treaty in 783 CE where boundaries were confirmed, and each country promised to respect the territorial sovereignty of the other. This fact is engraved on the stone monument at the entrance of the Jokhang temple, which still stands today. The engraving is both in Chinese and in Tibetan.{ DL/ 45-47}
"10th and 11th Century CE
"Buddhism came to Tibet in the tenth century. The Tsurphu Monastery, home of the Karmapa school of Buddhism, was founded in 1155.
"12th Century CE
"During the Yuan dynasty, the Mongol leader, Chenghiz (Genghis) Khan, conquered most of Eurasia including China and Tibet. Thus, going by the Chinese logic, instead of China claiming a right to Tibet, Mongolia could assert claim to both China and Tibet.
"During the tripartite Shimla Convention of Britain, Tibet, and China in 1914, on the issue of Outer and Inner Tibet, Chinese representative Ivan Chen, claiming China’s rights over Tibet, had advanced the funny plea that Chenghiz Khan had ruled Tibet implying Chenghiz Khan was Chinese, when actually he was a Mongol who had ruled both over China and Tibet!
"13th Century CE
"After the death of Chenghiz Khan in 1227, the Tibetans stopped sending tribute to the Mongol Empire. In retaliation, Prince Godan, the grandson of Chenghiz Khan, invaded Tibet in 1240. Sakya Pandita was the outstanding Buddhist Lama at the time. He was the leader of the Sakya school of Tibetan Buddhism. Godan sent him gifts and invited him to come to his capital Kokonor to formally surrender Tibet to the Mongols. Sakya Pandita went there in 1246. Prince Godan received various initiation rites and the Sakya sect of Tibetan Buddhism became the religion of the ruling line of the Mongol Khans. Sakya Pandita was appointed the Viceroy of Tibet by the Mongol court in 1249. First North China, and then Tibet were incorporated into the Mongol Empire, which was later inherited by the Yuan Dynasty founded by Kublai Khan in 1271. Sakya Pandita was succeeded by Drogön Chögyal Phagpa in 1253 at the Mongol court.
"13– 14th Century CE
"Upon successful invasion by Kublai Khan, Mongolia ruled China from 1279 to 1368 CE. Kublai Khan had become a Buddhist and had a Tibetan guru, who helped put an end to the Mongolian practice of drowning thousands of Chinese to limit the population . Thus, a Tibetan helped save thousands of Chinese lives— says the current Dalai Lama in his autobiography ‘Freedom in Exile’.{DL/ 104}
"16th century CE
"Sonam Gyatso was the head of the Gelugpa school of Tibetan Buddhism. He came to be known later as the third Dalai Lama. He was invited by Altan Khan to Mongolia, where he gave teachings to a huge crowd in Koko Khotan, the then capital of Mongolia. He announced to the gathering that Altan Khan was a reincarnation of Kublai Khan, and that he was a reincarnation of the Tibetan Sakya monk Drogön Chögyal Phagpa, who had converted Kublai Khan. He announced that they both had come together again to cooperate in propagating the Buddhist religion.
"17th century CE
"This led to the widespread use of Buddhist ideology. By the early seventeenth century there was massive conversion of Mongols to Buddhism. Incidentally, Yonten Gyatso, the fourth Dalai Lama, was a grandson of Altan Khan. Lobsang Gyatso, the Great Fifth Dalai Lama, was the first Dalai Lama to wield effective political power over central Tibet. He died in sixteen eighties. He moved the centre of government from Drepung to Lhasa. He also commenced the construction of the Potala Palace in Lhasa. The Dalai Lamas remained Tibet's titular heads of state until 1959. There is no historic evidence to support the assumption that the Ming Dynasty of China ruled Tibet. In fact the Qing Emperor accepted The Fifth Dalai Lama as a leader of an independent state in the seventeenth century. The Chinese Emperor also treated Dalai Lama as a Divinity on Earth.
"18th century CE
"In the first half of the eighteenth century, the Qing government of China sent a resident commissioner to Lhasa. A stone monument regarding the boundary between Tibet and China, agreed upon by Lhasa and Beijing in 1726, was placed atop a mountain near Bathang. This boundary ran between the headwaters of the Mekong and Yangtse rivers.
"Nepal attacked Tibet in 1791. The Lama was forced to flee. Chinese Qianlong Emperor sent assistance in 1793. With this assistance, the Tibetan troops drove the Nepalese troops back to Kathmandu. The Gurkhas conceded defeat and returned all the treasure. This help rendered by the Chinese increased their control over Tibet. This event is sometimes stretched to imply that China helped because they had a claim of sovereignty over Tibet. However, if that were the logic, the UK and the USA could also claim sovereignty over France and other countries they rescued during the Second World War.
"19th– 20th century CE:
"British Strategy of keeping Tibet as a Buffer. Realising that Tibet as a buffer was vital to the security of British-India, particularly northern India, Britain did all it could to keep it autonomous or independent.
"1904:
"British expeditionary force under Colonel Younghusband. British expeditionary force under Colonel Younghusband entered Lhasa in August 1904. To their surprise, they found no Chinese presence. British found the claim of China on Tibet to be a constitutional fiction. Incidentally, even the last British officer in Lhasa, H Richardsons, had said that there was not a trace of Chinese authority in Tibet after 1912.
"Anglo-Tibetan Treaty, among other things, recognised Sikkim-Tibet border and provided for erection of boundary-pillars accordingly; required Tibet not to enter into relations with any other foreign power without the British approval; and to open its border with British India, to allow the British and the Indian traders to travel freely and to not impose customs duties on trade with India. It was clear from this that Britain was dealing with Tibet as an independent nation.
"1906:
"Sino-British treaty Sino-British treaty of 1906 stipulated that Britain would not annex Tibet; and that China would not permit any other foreign State to interfere with the territory or internal administration of Tibet.
"1907
"In 1907, Britain and Russia agreed that neither of them would enter into negotiations with Tibet except through the intermediary of China. The basic aim of Britain was to keep Russia out of Tibet. If, to achieve that, it had to assign certain rights to China, it did not mind, for it considered China to be too weak to pose a threat— not anticipating the potential trouble for Tibet and India in future, as and when China became strong.
"1909-10
"The warlord Zhao Erfeng of Sichuan, China invaded Tibet in 1909 and entered Lhasa in 1910 to capture the 13 th Dalai Lama, Thubten Gyatso, who fled to Darjeeling. Zhao had promised a reward for Gyatso’s head. Zhao razed monasteries, killed monks, beheaded Tibetan officials and replaced them with the Chinese— he became notorious as “Butcher Zhao”. Zhao also encouraged Chinese settlements in Zayul, near the Lohit valley, on the Tibetan side. Noting these developments, Britain began to factor in threat from China— whom it had considered inconsequential till date— and not just from Russia, in its Tibet policy.
"1911-12
"In October of 1911, a group of revolutionaries in southern China led a successful revolt against the Qing Dynasty, establishing the Republic of China. The emperor and the royal family abdicated the throne in February of 1912. The Qing withdrawal led to a power vacuum in certain regions, resulting in the rise of warlords, as the new government failed to unify the country under its control. China remained relatively weak for the next several decades till the Communists under Mao consolidated their hold after 1949.
"Dec-1911:
"Outer Mongolia Outer Mongolia or simply Mongolia (Inner Mongolia being an autonomous region within China), which had come under the Manchu Qing Dynasty of China in 1755 declared itself independent in December 1911, after the fall of the Qing Dynasty, and installed the 8th Bogd Gegeen, the highest authority of Tibetan Buddhism in Mongolia, as theocratic sovereign, who took the title Bogd Khaan or the “Holy Ruler”.
"China regarded Mongolia as its part; while Russia, wanting it to be under their influence, was determined to make it autonomous— almost quasi-independent. Russia concluded a secret convention with Japan in 1912 marking out Outer Mongolia and North Manchuria within their sphere of influence; and leaving Inner Mongolia and South Manchuria to Japan. This they could do on account of the weakness of China then.
"In Russia-Mongolia treaty of 1912, Russia recognised Mongolia as an autonomous state within China and agreed to provide it with military assistance in return for commercial privileges in Mongolia; though , in its version of the treaty, Mongolia called itself “independent”. However, Sino-Russian Declaration of November 1913 recognised Mongolia as a part of China, but with internal autonomy, with China agreeing not to colonize the country or send troops there; and accept Russian “good offices ” in China-Mongolia issues— for obvious reasons Mongolia regarded the declaration as illegal.
"Although Mongolia had declared its independence, it had to struggle till 1921 to establish its de facto independence . In 1919, China forced Mongolia to renounce its independence. However, in 1921 the Chinese forces were driven out of the Mongolian capital after a massive battle. Mongolia finally gained international recognition in 1945. A plebiscite took place in Mongolia in the presence of Chinese observers on October 20, 1945— it yielded a 100% pro-independence vote.
"1912
"The 13th Dalai Lama, Thubten Gyatso, returned to Tibet in 1912 after the Chinese Revolution of 1911 swept away the Qing Dynasty, following which the Tibetans promptly expelled all the Chinese troops from Lhasa.
"The International Commission of Jurists stated in their report: “Tibet’s position on the expulsion of the Chinese in 1912 can fairly be described as one of de facto independence… it is therefore submitted that the events of 1911-12 mark the re-emergence of Tibet as a fully sovereign state, independent in fact and in law of Chinese control.”{DL/ 69}
"1913
"A bilateral treaty was signed between Tibet and Mongolia at Urga in 1913 in which both the countries declared themselves free and independent from China. The Dalai Lama issued a proclamation in 1913 which stated that the relationship between the Chinese Emperor and Tibet had been that of the patron and the priest, and had not been based on the subordination of one to the other. He said: "Now the Chinese intention of colonising Tibet has faded like a rainbow in the sky." He also stated that Tibet was a small, independent, religious nation . To commemorate this, Tibetans celebrated “Centenary of Reassertion of Tibetan Independence” on 13 February 2013.
"1913-1914
"Dalai Lama, while in Darjeeling (India) between 1909 and 1912, had developed a rapport with the British. Looking to the weakness of China following the 1911– revolution, Britain felt it could coerce China into an agreement that would practically give independence to Tibet. Towards this end, Britain arranged the Shimla Convention.
"Shimla Convention, 1913-14: Outer/ Inner Tibet & McMahon Line
"The Shimla Convention arranged by the British, to which Tibet and China were invited and were represented by Lonchen Shastra and Ivan Chen respectively, conducted eight formal sessions between 6 October1913 and 3 July 1914. Sir Henry McMahon, the then foreign secretary of British-India, was the chief negotiator and the British Plenipotentiary at the Convention, assisted by Charles Bell. Lonchen Shastra and Ivan Chen had to get orders and clarifications from Lhasa and Nanjing respectively, that took a long time on account of the distances and conventional communication network; and that was the reason the Convention stretched for so long a period—about 10 months.
"Incidentally, McMahon was also associated with Mortimer Durand of British-India who had finalised the 2640km-long Durand Line between [current Pakistan ] British India and Afghanistan in 1893.
"China initially objected to the presence of Tibet in the Convention saying it had no independent status and was part of China , but then went along fearing Britain may proceed unilaterally with Tibet, like Russia did with Mongolia, ignoring China.
"The Convention proposed granting China control over Inner Tibet while recognizing the autonomy of Outer Tibet under the Dalai Lama's rule. Outer Tibet comprised Western and Central Tibet including Lhasa, Chamdo and Shigatse, and areas skirting the British-India frontier; while Inner Tibet included Amdo and part of Kham. Both China and Britain were to respect the territorial integrity of Tibet, and abstain from interference in the administration of Outer Tibet. Further Outer Tibet could not be converted into a province of China.
"The border between northeast India and Tibet was also discussed and finalised between Tibet and British-India during the Convention— it came to be known as the McMahon Line. China was not invited to the discussions on the McMahon Line because it was a boundary settlement between Tibet and India, and not between China and India. It was not a secret negotiation, and China knew about it— and raised no objections.
"Ivan Chen initialled the draft Convention on 27 April 2014. However, two days later, on 29 April 2014, China repudiated Chen’s action and refused to proceed with full signature. It is worth noting that China refrained from full signature not because it had problems with Inner–Outward Tibet per se, but because Tibet and China could not agree to the dividing line between the two.
"The above position was re-confirmed in a memo of 4 August 1943 to China’s Foreign Minister Dr TV Soong by the then British Secretary of State of Foreign Affairs Anthony Eden, which said, inter alia: “Since the Chinese Revolution of 1911, when Chinese forces were withdrawn from Tibet, Tibet has enjoyed de facto independence. She has ever since regarded herself as in practice completely autonomous and has opposed Chinese attempts to reassert control… The rock on which the [Shimla] Convention [of 1914] and subsequent attempts to reach an understanding were wrecked was not the question of autonomy (of Tibet, which was expressly admitted by China) but was the question of boundary between China and Tibet…”{Arpi/ 337-8}
"Tibet desperately desired its recognition as an independent state and hence signed the Convention with Britain, even though it had actually desired the whole of Tibet and not just the Outer Tibet. However, it chose to make the best of the bad bargain, and even ceded Tawang and Dirang Dzong to British-India{Arpi/126}.
"Britain and Tibet signed the Convention on July 3, 1914. Ivan Chen had initialled the Shimla Convention in April-1914, but China refused to proceed to full signature{Arpi/126}.
"As per the Shimla Convention initialled by all—China, British-India, and Tibet —on 27 April 1914, China pledged not to convert Tibet into a Chinese province, while Britain agreed not to annex any portion of Tibet.
"However, the declaration appended to the 3 July 1914 text of the Shimla Convention signed by Britain and Tibet states, inter alia, “... we agree that so long as the Government of China withholds signature of the aforesaid Convention, she will be debarred from the enjoyment of all privileges accruing therefrom.”The Tibetan government-in-exile points to this clause to aver that both Inner and Outer Tibet legally remain under the Dalai Lama's jurisdiction.
"There was a parallel between the Outer-Inner Mongolia affair and the Outer-Inner Tibet affair. Perhaps the British were inspired by the Russians. Irrespective of the tug-of-war between Russia and China, Mongolia ultimately became independent, and it indeed had good historical reasons to become so. Tibet similarly had good historical reasons to become independent too. However, that unfortunately did not happen. Had the First World War not intervened that took Britain’s attention away, perhaps something positive might have happened for Tibet.
"1914-1950 :
"Tibet de-facto Independent For the next thirty-six years since 1914, Tibet enjoyed de facto independence. During this period, China endured its warlord era, civil war, and World War II.
"As was its tradition, Tibet continued to have limited contacts with the rest of the world. Although Tibet never maintained extensive international relations, those countries with whom it did maintain relations treated Tibet as they would any other sovereign state. In 1949, Tibet maintained diplomatic, economic, and cultural relations with such countries as Nepal, Sikkim, Mongolia, China, India, and to some extent, Russia and Japan. Further, Nepal maintained an ambassador in Lhasa. When Nepal applied for United Nations' membership in 1949, it cited its treaty and diplomatic relations with Tibet to demonstrate its full international personality.
"When Dalai Lama visited Beijing in 1954 and met Mao, this is what Mao, among other things, told him, as narrated by Dalai Lama in his autobiography ‘Freedom in Exile’:
"“Tibet is a great country. You have a marvellous history. Long ago you even conquered a lot of China. But now you have fallen behind and we want to help you. In twenty years’ time you could be ahead of us and then it will be your turn to help China.”{DL/ 98}
"That is, Mao himself admitted Tibet was a separate country.
"Given the critical importance of Tibet, India should have exerted its utmost to ensure Tibet retained its independent status. But, did India do so? Did India come to the rescue of its good neighbour, facing extinction as an independent entity? Did India fulfil its obligation as a friend and a neighbour? Did we come good on the trust that our weaker neighbour, Tibet, reposed in us?
"Did Nehru walk the talk on anti-colonialism and anti-imperialism? Did India try to save its neighbour from being colonised? Did India try to protect its own crucial interests? What role did India play? What was independent India’s or Nehru’s Tibet policy? Unfortunately— None. It was actually a defeatist policy —throw up your hands and declare there is nothing India can do to save Tibet.
"India was in desperate need of a Sardar Patel to drive its strategic thinking. Nehru, by stating on 1 November 1950 in an interview to the Unites Press that “India has neither the resources nor the inclination to send armed assistance to Tibet”{Arpi/ 374} and that “We can’t save Tibet” seemed to wash his hands off the whole affair so critical to India’s security, and seemed to suggest that other than armed intervention , which India didn’t wish to undertake, there was nothing India could do—when there was much that India could have very well done, other than its own armed intervention!
"Nehru Let Tibet be Erased as a Nation Nehru allowed Tibet, our peaceful neighbour and a buffer between us and China, to be erased as a nation, without even recording a protest in the UN, thereby making our northern borders insecure, and putting a question mark on the future of the water resources that originate in Tibet.
"Nehru Let Tibet be Erased as a Nation
"Nehru allowed Tibet, our peaceful neighbour and a buffer between us and China, to be erased as a nation, without even recording a protest in the UN, thereby making our northern borders insecure, and putting a question mark on the future of the water resources that originate in Tibet.
"The Tibetan Government protested to the UN against the Chinese aggression . But, as Tibet was not a member of the UN, it was simply recorded by the UN Secretariat as an appeal from an NGO. Their appeal, in a way, was pigeonholed.
"In view of this handicap, Tibetans requested the Government of India to raise the Tibet issue in the UN. But, India was not willing to do so, lest China should feel antagonised! What to speak of helping our neighbour who had appealed to us for help, we shamelessly advised the victim to seek peaceful settlement with the aggressor China. Even worse, when through others, the Tibet’s appeal came up on 23 November 1950 for discussions in the UN General Assembly, we opposed the discussions on a very flimsy ground—that India had received a note from China that the matter would be resolved peacefully!
"Even though China had invaded Tibet, KM Panikkar, the Indian Ambassador in Beijing, went so far as to pretend that there was lack of confirmation of the presence of Chinese troops in Tibet and that to protest the Chinese invasion of Tibet would show China in bad light —as an aggressor— which would have a negative effect on India's efforts of ensuring entry of China in the UN! Such was the crazy Nehru-Panikkar line! Tibet and our own national security interests were sought to be sacrificed to help China enter the UN!!
"With no one to sponsor the Tibetan appeal, possibility of some joint action was discussed by the Commonwealth delegation to the UN. In the meeting, the Indian representative advised that India did not wish to raise the Tibetan issue in the UNSC, nor did India favour its inclusion in the UN General Assembly agenda!"
" ... Nehru’s strategy was India’s and Tibet’s tragedy. Nehru had ranted a lot when Britain, France, and others had betrayed Czechs in 1938 to Nazi Germany( JNSW/ vol-9); however, the same Nehru not just betrayed Tibet, he betrayed India’s own national interests!"
"Britain was More Concerned About India’s Security Compared to Independent India Under Nehru!
"While the independent India was an indifferent India— indifferent to its own security— British-India had done all it could to keep India’s northern borders secure by ensuring Tibet remained free from foreign powers.
"By the early nineteenth century , Tsarist Russia was trying to expand south into Central and South Asia. In response, Britain commenced its “Great Game”— that of checkmating Tsarist Russia. Britain rightly realised that Tibet as a buffer was vital to the security of British-India, particularly northern India. However, Britain did not wish to take the trouble of converting Tibet into a protectorate like Sikkim— it did not consider it financially worthwhile to commit resources for the purpose. Britain wanted Tibet to be neither under Russia nor under China . Autonomous or independent Tibet was the best bet to ensure security of northern India, and therefore the strategy was to ensure it remained so. Towards this end, the British took tremendous physical risks in surveying the border areas and sending missions through the difficult terrain to Tibet, spent considerable sum, did meticulous planning through the decades, arranged conventions, signed agreements, adjusted borders to make northern India as secure as possible— even engaged in “cartographic aggression”. Trained Indian surveyor-spies, disguised as pilgrims or traders, counted their strides on their travels across Tibet, took readings at night, and measured the longitude, latitude and altitude of Lhasa and other places.
"According to Claude Arpi: “A few months before India’s Independence, not only was Tibet a de facto independent State and the British wanted it to remain so, but they were ready to carry out a military action to protect Tibet’s status. For this, a detailed military intervention plan was prepared by the General Staff of the British Army... The purpose of the Memo [a Top Secret Memo of 1946] was to find a solution in case of ‘domination of Tibet by a potentially hostile major power [which] would constitute a direct threat to the security of India.’... Neither Russia nor China must be allowed to violate Tibetan autonomy... since it would then be possible for them to build roads and airfields to their own advantage, which would vitally affect India’s strategic position.”{ Arpi/ 371}
"British explorer, Francis Younghusband, who led the British Mission to Lhasa in 1904, had this to say in his book ‘India and Tibet’, first published in 1910: “... apart from questions of trade, we want to feel sure that there is no inimical influence growing up in Tibet which might cause disturbance on our frontier [northern India]. That is the sum total of our wants. The trade is not of much value in itself, but, such as it is, is worth having. We have no interest in annexing Tibet... but we certainly do want quiet there... Before the Lhasa Mission, Russian influence... was the disturbing factor; now it is the Chinese influence, exerted beyond its legitimate limits and with imprudent harshness [reference to Zhao Erfeng’s invasion of 1909]. Either of these causes results in a feeling of uneasiness, restlessness, and nervousness along our north-eastern frontier, and necessitates our assembling troops and making diplomatic protests...”{FY/ 420}
"Wrote Brigadier Dalvi: “In October 1950 I was a student at the Defence services Staff College in Wellington, South India. Soon after the news of the Chinese entry in into Tibet reached us, the Commandant, General WDA (Joe) Lentaigne, strode into the main lecture hall, interrupted the lecturer and proceeded to denounce our leaders for their short-sightedness and inaction, in the face of Chinese action... he said that India’s back door had been opened... He predicted that India would have to pay dearly for failure to act... His last prophetic remark was that some of the students present in the hall would be fighting the Chinese before retirement.”{ JPD/ 15}"
Olaf Caroe, Secretary to the Government of India in the External Affairs Department in 1945, and one of the foremost British strategic thinkers had written:
"“From the point of view of India’s internal economy and administration the maintenance of this buffer [Tibet] between the frontiers of India and China is of great advantage. Recent wartime conditions have shown that China is a difficult neighbour… The more substantial the buffer that can be maintained between India and China, the better for future relations…”{Arpi/ 349}
"Britain had been unambiguous in its approach: It didn’t want a new neighbour to its north—neither China, nor the Soviet Union.
"It can be said that from the Tibetan angle it was their misfortune India gained independence from the British in 1947. Had that independence been delayed, and had the British been still ruling India at the time of the Chinese aggression of Tibet in 1950, Britain would certainly not have just watched helpless— it would have ensured the Chinese were thrown out of Tibet. Alternately, it can be said that it was Tibet’s misfortune that Nehru was then at the helm in India. Had it been Sardar Patel, or some other Patel-like leader, China would not have got the walk-over."
How does Puranik not think of Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose even in thus context? Imagine Sardar Patel as PM and Netaji handling defense, and Tibet would have been protected.
Significantly, while the British and China were well aware of the strategic importance of Tibet, India under Nehru remained irresponsibly ignorant. For Nehru, it was the convenient, laid-back, no-need-for-action ‘Hindi-Chini-Bhai-Bhai’at all costs—even at the cost of the nation.
"In sharp contrast to Nehru, there were notable prescient observers in addition to Sardar Patel, like KD Sethna of a Mumbai weekly ‘Mother India’, who wrote back in November 1950: “Let us not blink the fact that Tibet is useful to China principally as a gate of entry to India. Sooner or later attempts will be made to threaten us…”{ Arpi/ 348}"
" ... There would have been wide international support for the cause of Tibet, if India, the nation which had inherited from British-India the treaty with Tibet, and which was directly affected, had taken the initiative. The world opinion was strongly against the Chinese aggression, and all the countries were looking to India, the most affected country, to take the lead. Even if India did not wish to itself meddle militarily, it could at least have helped the military efforts by others, or tried to thwart China diplomatically. The Economist wrote:
"“Having maintained complete independence of China since 1912, Tibet has a strong claim to be regarded as an independent state. But it is for India to take a lead in this matter. If India decides to support independence of Tibet as a buffer state between itself and China, Britain and USA will do well to extend formal diplomatic recognition to it.”{URL61}{ URL62}
"Writes Prasenjit Basu in ‘Asia Reborn’:
"“The Americans were keen to support Tibet’s claim to sovereignty but needed support from India (or possibly Nepal ) to solidify the claim. But the crypto-communist Nehru (who believed, in his simple heart, that communism was the wave of the future, and the forces of history would inevitably lead to the triumph of communism) contemptuously brushed off the American offer of support. Nehru told his cabinet that it was not possible for India to help Tibet fend off the well-armed PLA (but he did not address the question of whether American support could have augmented the military potential of a combined effort).”{PB}
"Wrote Dr NS Rajaram{ URL43}: “It is nothing short of tragedy that the two greatest influences on Nehru at this crucial juncture in history were Krishna Menon and K.M. Panikkar, both communists…The truth is that India was in a strong position to defend its interests in Tibet, but gave up the opportunity for the sake of pleasing China. It is not widely known in India that in 1950, China could have been prevented from taking over Tibet... Patel on the other hand recognized that in 1950, China was in a vulnerable position, fully committed in Korea and by no means secure in its hold over the mainland. For months General MacArthur had been urging President Truman to ‘unleash Chiang Kai Shek’lying in wait in Formosa (Taiwan) with full American support. China had not yet acquired the atom bomb, which was more than ten years in the future. India had little to lose and everything to gain by a determined show of force when China was struggling to consolidate its hold... In addition, India had international support, with world opinion strongly against Chinese aggression in Tibet. The world in fact was looking to India to take the lead... Nehru ignored Patel’s letter as well as international opinion and gave up this golden opportunity to turn Tibet into a friendly buffer state. With such a principled stand, India would also have acquired the status of a great power while Pakistan would have disappeared from the radar screen of world attention.”{ URL43}
"Dr NS Rajaram further wrote: “Much has been made of Nehru’s blunder in Kashmir, but it pales in comparison with his folly in Tibet . As a result of this monumental failure of vision— and nerve— India soon came to be treated as a third rate power, acquiring ‘parity’ with Pakistan...”{URL43}"
"Even if India did not have the military strength to confront and prevent China, there were so many other steps that India could have taken: express disapproval; provide moral support to Tibet; lodge protest in the UN; mobilise world opinion against Chinese action; grant recognition to Tibet as an independent nation; persuade other nations to also do so; demand plebiscite in Tibet to ascertain the opinion of the public—China had agreed for a plebiscite in Mongolia, that led to its independence; work towards ensuring complete independence for Tibet through peaceful means. Even if the final favourable outcome took decades it didn’t matter—at least there would have been hope. Had India taken the initiative many nations would have supported India. In fact, many did pass resolution in favour of Tibet in the UN later, which India, the affected country, did not support!
"One could argue that doing so would have made China an enemy of India? Well, did China care for our friendship when it attacked our friend and neighbour Tibet? Are friendships only one-sided? Foreign policy cannot be based on cowardice! Or, in being too nice to the other party in the hope that they would reciprocate. The US felt disappointed to discover that India had resigned itself to leave Tibet to its fate, and sit back, and do nothing! ... "
"Several prominent Indian leaders and citizens decided to form a committee and observe the Tibet Day in August 1953 to protest Chinese invasion of Tibet. Nehru wrote to Balwantray Mehta of AICC on 24 August 1953: “… Obviously, no Congressman should join such committee or participate in the observance of ‘Tibet Day’. This is an unfriendly act to China and is against the policy we have pursued during these years. There is absolutely no reason for observing such a day now… I think we should inform members of the Party that they should keep aloof from this. If you remind me, I shall mention this at the Party meeting tomorrow…”{JNSW/ Vol-23/ 483} ... "
"Nehru’s Strange & Baffling Rationalization Reportedly, Nehru tried to rationalise India’s inaction on various pretexts, the most bizarre among them being that Tibetan society was backward and feudal, and that reforms were bound to upset the ruling elite, and so on."
"Says Arun Shourie in “Are we deceiving ourselves again?”:
"“Panditji has now come down firmly against the order in Tibet: it isn’t just that we cannot support Tibet. His position now is that we must not support Tibet. The reason is his progressive [Marxist-Communist] view of history! The Tibet order is feudal. And how can we be supporting feudalism?{AS/ 79}
"“Panditji reiterates the other reasons for neither acting nor regretting the fact of not acting: ‘We must remember that Tibet has been cut off from the world for a long time and, socially speaking, is very backward and feudal. Changes are bound to come there to the disadvantage of the small ruling class and the big monasteries... I can very well understand these feudal chiefs being annoyed with the new order. We can hardly stand up as defenders of feudalism.’”{AS/ 100}"
" ... By that logic, the USA could have colonised most of Asia and Africa that was backward and feudal—including India, which also fell in that category—and Nehru would have been fine with that! And, how was the brutal, barbaric, and totalitarian communism of China superior to Buddhist feudalism!!"
"Even more shocking is the following: “In his latest book, ‘Will Tibet Ever Find Her Soul Again?’, [Claude] Arpi comes up with another explosive revelation that Nehru’s India supplied rice for the invading PLA troops in Tibet when they were busy rampaging and decimating the Tibetan way of life and culture in the early 1950s: ‘The most grotesque incident of this period was the feeding of the PLA’s troops with rice coming through India…Without Delhi’s active support, the Chinese troops would not have been able to survive in Tibet.’”{ URL84}"
"One. Sacrifice the meek, and satisfy the bully. Wrote Arun Shourie: “... response of the [Indian] Government has been to be at its craven best in the belief, presumably, that, if only we are humble enough to the python, it will not swallow us...”{AS/ 26} Said Winston Churchill: “An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last.” It was like substituting a very peaceful and harmless neighbour for a dangerous bully. Watching the way India capitulated, Chinese perhaps developed contempt for India and its leaders . Mao respected only the strong, and not the weak who bent over backwards to please him. India’s pusillanimity must have emboldened China.
"Two. It suited Nehru temperamentally. Nehru was a pacifist, and did not have a stomach to face up to difficult situations . What was the result? Those who abandon their friends and neighbours, especially weaker ones, in their difficulties, should know that their own time would also come. And it came. As India realised in 1962. What was once a most secure border became the most insecure border, thanks to Nehru.
"President Dr Rajendra Prasad had famously remarked, “I hope I am not seeing ghosts and phantoms, but I see the murder of Tibet recoiling on India.”{RP2} He had also written: “In the matter of Tibet, we acted unchivalrously , but even against our interest in not maintaining the position of a buffer state , for it had thus exposed the frontier of 2,500 miles to the Chinese… I have very strong feeling about it. I feel that the blood of Tibet is on us… but the Prime Minister does not like the name of Tibet to be mentioned even now and regards any mention of its liberation as ‘manifest nonsense’.”{KMM/ Vol-1/ 289}
"Three. Nehru’s Marxist-Communist World View (Blunder# 106-7) dictated that communist countries could not be imperialists—despite ample factual evidence to the contrary, especially with regard to the Soviet Union: ‘Scientific-minded’, ‘rational’Nehru didn’t care for facts staring in his face if they didn’t conform to or support his Marxist-Communist religious faith. Marxist-Communism is actually Abrahamic-IV, after Abrahamic-I, that is Judaism, Abrahamic-II, that is Christianity, and Abrahamic-III, that is Islam.
"Sardar Patel first wrote a letter to Nehru on Sikkim, Tibet, and China in June 1949 stating:
"“We have to strengthen our position in Sikkim as well as in Tibet. The farther we keep away the communist force, the better. Tibet has long been detached from China. I anticipate that, as soon as communists have established themselves in the rest of China, they will try to destroy its autonomous existence. You have to consider carefully your policy towards Tibet in such circumstances and prepare from now for that eventuality.”{ML/ 149}
"Sardar Patel wrote another letter in the same context dated 7 November 1950, about five weeks before his death, to Nehru on Tibet and China, which has since become famous for being prophetic and is often quoted. It demonstrates that Sardar Patel had a far firmer grasp on external affairs than Nehru had, and that he was a much greater internationalist. It is reproduced below verbatim (certain portions are marked in italics for emphasis by the author of this book).{SP2} {BK2/ 215-22}{ DD/ 471-5}"
Author here quotes the letter from Sardar Patel to Jawaharlal Nehru in full.
*****
"D.O. No. 821-DPM/ 50
"New Delhi
"7 November 1950
"My Dear Jawaharlal,
"Ever since my return from Ahmedabad and after the cabinet meeting the same day which I had to attend at practically fifteen minutes' notice and for which I regret I was not able to read all the papers, I have been anxiously thinking over the problem of Tibet and I thought I should share with you what is passing through my mind.
"I have carefully gone through the correspondence between the External Affairs Ministry and our Ambassador in Peking and through him the Chinese Government. I have tried to peruse this correspondence as favourably to our Ambassador and the Chinese Government as possible, but I regret to say that neither of them comes out well as a result of this study. The Chinese Government has tried to delude us by professions of peaceful intention. My own feeling is that at a crucial period they managed to instill into our Ambassador a false sense of confidence in their so-called desire to settle the Tibetan problem by peaceful means.
"There can be no doubt that during the period covered by this correspondence the Chinese must have been concentrating for an onslaught on Tibet. The final action of the Chinese, in my judgement, is little short of perfidy. The tragedy of it is that the Tibetans put faith in us; they chose to be guided by us; and we have been unable to get them out of the meshes of Chinese diplomacy or Chinese malevolence. From the latest position, it appears that we shall not be able to rescue the Dalai Lama.
"Our Ambassador has been at great pains to find an explanation or justification for Chinese policy and actions. As the External Affairs Ministry remarked in one of their telegrams, there was a lack of firmness and unnecessary apology in one or two representations that he made to the Chinese Government on our behalf.
"It is impossible to imagine any sensible person believing in the so-called threat to China from Anglo-American machinations in Tibet. Therefore, if the Chinese put faith in this, they must have distrusted us so completely as to have taken us as tools or stooges of Anglo-American diplomacy or strategy. This feeling, if genuinely entertained by the Chinese in spite of your direct approaches to them, indicates that even though we regard ourselves as the friends of China, the Chinese do not regard us as their friends. With the Communist mentality of “whoever is not with them being against them”, this is a significant pointer, of which we have to take due note.
"During the last several months, outside the Russian camp, we have practically been alone in championing the cause of Chinese entry into UN and in securing from the Americans assurances on the question of Formosa. We have done everything we could to assuage Chinese feelings, to allay its apprehensions and to defend its legitimate claims in our discussions and correspondence with America and Britain and in the UN. In spite of this, China is not convinced about our disinterestedness; it continues to regard us with suspicion and the whole psychology is one, at least outwardly, of scepticism perhaps mixed with a little hostility.
"I doubt if we can go any further than we have done already to convince China of our good intentions, friendliness and goodwill. In Peking we have an Ambassador who is eminently suitable for putting across the friendly point of view. Even he seems to have failed to convert the Chinese. Their last telegram to us is an act of gross discourtesy not only in the summary way it disposes of our protest against the entry of Chinese forces into Tibet but also in the wild insinuation that our attitude is determined by foreign influences. It looks as though it is not a friend speaking in that language but a potential enemy.
"In the background of this, we have to consider what new situation now faces us as a result of the disappearance of Tibet, as we knew it, and the expansion of China almost up to our gates. Throughout history we have seldom been worried about our north-east frontier. The Himalayas have been regarded as an impenetrable barrier against any threat from the north. We had a friendly Tibet which gave us no trouble. The Chinese were divided. They had their own domestic problems and never bothered us about frontiers.
"In 1914, we entered into a convention with Tibet which was not endorsed by the Chinese. We seem to have regarded Tibetan autonomy as extending to independent treaty relationship. Presumably, all that we required was Chinese counter-signature. The Chinese interpretation of suzerainty seems to be different. We can, therefore, safely assume that very soon they will disown all the stipulations which Tibet has entered into with us in the past. That throws into the melting pot all frontier and commercial settlements with Tibet on which we have been functioning and acting during the last half a century.
"China is no longer divided. It is united and strong. All along the Himalayas in the north and north-east, we have on our side of the frontier a population ethnologically and culturally not different from Tibetans and Mongoloids. The undefined state of the frontier and the existence on our side of a population with its affinities to the Tibetans or Chinese have all the elements of the potential trouble between China and ourselves. Recent and bitter history also tells us that Communism is no shield against imperialism and that the communists are as good or as bad imperialists as any other.
"Chinese ambitions in this respect not only cover the Himalayan slopes on our side but also include the important part of Assam . They have their ambitions in Burma also. Burma has the added difficulty that it has no McMahon Line round which to build up even the semblance of an agreement. Chinese irredentism and communist imperialism are different from the expansionism or imperialism of the western powers. The former has a cloak of ideology which makes it ten times more dangerous.
"In the guise of ideological expansion lie concealed racial, national or historical claims. The danger from the north and north-east, therefore, becomes both communist and imperialist. While our western and north-western threat to security is still as prominent as before, a new threat has developed from the north and north-east.
"Thus, for the first time, after centuries, India's defence has to concentrate itself on two fronts simultaneously. Our defence measures have so far been based on the calculations of superiority over Pakistan. In our calculations we shall now have to reckon with communist China in the north and in the north-east, a communist China which has definite ambitions and aims and which does not, in any way, seem friendly disposed towards us.
"Let us also consider the political conditions on this potentially troublesome frontier. Our northern and north-eastern approaches consist of Nepal, Bhutan, Sikkim, Darjeeling and the tribal areas in Assam. From the point of view of communication, there are weak spots. Continuous defensive lines do not exist. There is almost an unlimited scope for infiltration. Police protection is limited to a very small number of passes. There, too, our outposts do not seem to be fully manned. The contact of these areas with us is by no means close and intimate.
"The people inhabiting these portions have no established loyalty or devotion to India. Even Darjeeling and Kalimpong areas are not free from pro-Mongoloid prejudices. During the last three years, we have not been able to make any appreciable approaches to the Nagas and other hill tribes in Assam. European missionaries and other visitors had been in touch with them, but their influence was in no way friendly to India or Indians . In Sikkim , there was political ferment some time ago. It is quite possible that discontent is smouldering there.
"Bhutan is comparatively quiet, but its affinity with Tibetans would be a handicap. Nepal has a weak oligarchic regime based almost entirely on force: it is in conflict with a turbulent element of the population as well as with enlightened ideas of the modern age . In these circumstances, to make people alive to the new danger or to make them defensively strong is a very difficult task indeed and that difficulty can be got over only by enlightened firmness, strength and a clear line of policy.
"I am sure the Chinese and their source of inspiration, Soviet Union, would not miss any opportunity of exploiting these weak spots, partly in support of their ideology and partly in support of their ambitions. In my judgement the situation is one which we cannot afford either to be complacent or to be vacillating. We must have a clear idea of what we wish to achieve and also of the methods by which we should achieve it. Any faltering or lack of decisiveness in formulating our objectives or in pursuing our policies to attain those objectives is bound to weaken us and increase the threats which are so evident.
"Side by side with these external dangers, we shall now have to face serious internal problems as well. I have already asked [HVR] Iyengar to send to the External Affairs Ministry a copy of the Intelligence Bureau's appreciation of these matters. Hitherto, the Communist Party of India has found some difficulty in contacting communists abroad , or in getting supplies of arms, literature, etc., from them. They had to contend with the difficult Burmese and Pakistan frontiers on the east or with the long seaboard. They shall now have a comparatively easy means of access to Chinese communists and through them to other foreign communists . Infiltration of spies, fifth columnists and communists would now be easier.
"Instead of having to deal with isolated communist pockets in Telangana and Warangal we may have to deal with communist threats to our security along our northern and north-eastern frontiers , where, for supplies of arms and ammunition, they can safely depend on communist arsenals in China.
"The whole situation thus raises a number of problems on which we must come to an early decision so that we can, as I said earlier, formulate the objectives of our policy and decide the method by which those objectives are to be attained. It is also clear that the action will have to be fairly comprehensive, involving not only our defence strategy and state of preparations but also problem of internal security to deal with which we have not a moment to lose. We shall also have to deal with administrative and political problems in the weak spots along the frontier to which I have already referred.
"It is of course, impossible to be exhaustive in setting out all these problems. I am, however, giving below some of the problems which, in my opinion, require early solution and round which we have to build our administrative or military policies and measures to implement them.
"a) A military and intelligence appreciation of the Chinese threat to India both on the frontier and to internal security.
"b) An examination of military position and such redisposition of our forces as might be necessary, particularly with the idea of guarding important routes or areas which are likely to be the subject of dispute.
"c) An appraisement of the strength of our forces and, if necessary, reconsideration of our retrenchment plans for the Army in the light of the new threat.
"d) A long-term consideration of our defence needs. My own feeling is that, unless we assure our supplies of arms, ammunition and armour, we would be making our defence perpetually weak and we would not be able to stand up to the double threat of difficulties both from the west and north-west and north and north-east.
"e) The question of China's entry into the UN. In view of the rebuff which China has given us and the method which it has followed in dealing with Tibet, I am doubtful whether we can advocate its claim any longer. There would probably be a threat in the UN virtually to outlaw China, in view of its active participation in the Korean war. We must determine our attitude on this question also.
"f) The political and administrative steps which we should take to strengthen our northern and north-eastern frontier. This would include the whole of the border, ie. Nepal, Bhutan, Sikkim, Darjeeling and the tribal territory in Assam.
"g) Measures of internal security in the border areas as well as the states flanking those areas such as Uttar Pradesh, Bihar, Bengal and Assam.
"h) Improvement of our communication, road, rail, air and wireless, in these areas and with the frontier outposts.
"i) The future of our mission at Lhasa and the trade posts at Gyangtse and Yatung and the forces which we have in operation in Tibet to guard the trade routes.
"j) The policy in regard to the McMahon Line.
"These are some of the questions which occur to my mind.
"It is possible that a consideration of these matters may lead us into wider question of our relationship with China, Russia, America, Britain and Burma. This, however, would be of a general nature, though some might be basically very important, e.g., we might have to consider whether we should not enter into closer association with Burma in order to strengthen the latter in its dealings with China . I do not rule out the possibility that, before applying pressure on us, China might apply pressure on Burma. With Burma, the frontier is entirely undefined and the Chinese territorial claims are more substantial. In its present position, Burma might offer an easier problem to China, and therefore, might claim its first attention.
"I suggest that we meet early to have a general discussion on these problems and decide on such steps as we might think to be immediately necessary and direct, quick examination of other problems with a view to taking early measures to deal with them.
"Yours,
"Vallabhbhai Patel. {SP2} {BK2/ 215-22}{ DD/ 471-5}"
*****
"Reportedly, there is nothing on record to show that Nehru acknowledged the above letter, and took up follow-up action as suggested by Patel. He perhaps thought that given his foreign-affairs “expertise” he didn’t need any advice!!"
"In fact, like other documents inconvenient to the Dynasty, this letter of Sardar too was kept a secret and came to light only 18 years after it was written. Wrote Durga Das:
"“Not long afterwards, the situation across the northern border took a turn for the worse [1950], resulting in what was perhaps the last clash between Patel and Nehru in the Cabinet. Red China invaded Tibet and Nepal was in the grip of internal turmoil. It was well known that Patel and Prasad differed from Nehru on Tibet. They had urged him to ensure that Tibet continued as an independent buffer between China and India. Now their fears proved correct. Nehru felt upset because Peking had disregarded his counsel…”{ DD/ 304}
"Wrote Durga Das further:
"“At the last talk I had with him [Sardar Patel], a few days before his death in Bombay on 15th December 1950 , Patel showed me a letter dated 7th November 1950 he had written to Nehru [above letter]. ... After I finished reading it he [Patel] said: ‘I have loved Nehru but he has not reciprocated. I have been eating my heart out because I have not been able to make him see the dangers ahead. China wants to establish its hegemony over South-East Asia. We cannot shut our eyes to this because imperialism is appearing in a new garb. He does not realise that people work only when they have the employment motive or the profit motive [that must have been in the context of Nehru’s socialism]. He is being misled by his courtiers. I have grave apprehensions about the future.’”{DD/ 305}"
"In sharp contrast to the sparkling wisdom of Sardar Patel’s letter to Nehru on China and Tibet, here are extracts from Nehru’s ... note{JN4} dated 18 November 1950 illustrating the self-certified foreign-affairs-expert and internationalist’s lack of grasp and depth, and gross misconceptions on China and Tibet, though not as a response to Patel’s letter ... "
Author quotes note from Jawaharlal Nehru here. He also gives excerpts from other notes from him related to the issue.
*****
"“8. I think it may be taken for granted that China will take possession, in a political sense at least, of the whole of Tibet. There is no likelihood whatsoever of Tibet being able to resist this or stop it. It is equally unlikely that any foreign power can prevent it. We cannot do so…[Make convenient assumptions so that one does not have to act. India didn’t have to go on war on the side of Tibet, but it could surely have supported them diplomatically in world forums!]…
"“10. If world war comes, then all kinds of difficult and intricate problems arise and each one of these problems will be inter-related with others. Even the question of defence of India assumes a different shape and cannot be isolated from other world factors. [Nehru was prone to talk in terms of world war to skirt questions on what India ought to do.] I think that it is exceedingly unlikely that we may have to face any real military invasion from the Chinese side, whether in peace or in war, in the foreseeable future. I base this conclusion on a consideration of various world factors. [Nehru showed himself off as an expert in world affairs, and drew conclusions that suited his meek mental makeup.] In peace, such an invasion would undoubtedly lead to world war…It is inconceivable that it should divert its forces and its strength across the inhospitable terrain of Tibet and undertake a wild adventure across the Himalayas. [Since China won’t do so, why bother—carry on as usual.] Any such attempt will greatly weaken its capacity to meet its real enemies on other fronts. Thus I rule out any major attack on India by China. I think these considerations should be borne in mind, because there is far too much loose talk about China attacking and overrunning India. If we lose our sense of perspective and world strategy [Nehruvian “big words”—talk in terms of world strategy!] and give way to unreasoning fears, then any policy that we might have is likely to fail…
"“11. While there is, in my opinion, practically no chance of a major attack on India by China, there are certainly chances of gradual infiltration across our border and possibly of entering and taking possession of disputed territory, if there is obstruction to this happening. We must therefore take all necessary precautions to prevent this. But, again, we must differentiate between these precautions and those that might be necessary to meet a real attack.
"“12. If we really feared an attack and had to make full provision for it, this would cast an intolerable burden on us, financial and otherwise, and it would weaken our general defence position. There are limits beyond which we cannot go, at least for some years [But, did Nehru do the needful even in 12 long years prior to 1962!], and a spreading out of our army on distant frontiers would be bad from every military or strategic point of view…
"“14. The idea that communism inevitably means expansion and war, or to put it more precisely, that Chinese communism means inevitably an expansion towards India, is rather naïve. It may mean that in certain circumstances. Those circumstances would depend upon many factors, which I need not go into here…
"“16. These arguments lead to the conclusion that while we should be prepared, to the best of our ability, for all contingencies, the real protection that we should seek is some kind of understanding of China. If we have not got that, then both our present and our future are imperilled and no distant power can save us. I think on the whole that China desires this too for obvious reasons. If this is so, then we should fashion our present policy accordingly…[But, did Nehru reach, or even tried to reach, proper understanding with China? NO. Please see details in the subsequent blunders related to India-China war.]
"“17. We cannot save Tibet, as we should have liked to do, and our very attempts to save it might well bring greater trouble to it. [What a convenient assumption: if we attempt to save Tibet, it will sink into greater trouble! Hence, as a wise, kind and empathetic gesture, let us not help Tibet!! Alas, with Sardar Patel not in action (he was sick, and expired a month later), there was none to challenge the wild and convenient assumptions of Nehru.] It would be unfair to Tibet for us to bring this trouble upon her without having the capacity to help her effectively…
"“18. …We have said that [we] are not going to sponsor this appeal [Tibet’s appeal in the UN Security Council] , but if it comes up we shall state our viewpoint. [Why should India have not sponsored Tibet’s just appeal? Was that the way to treat our friendly and culturally close neighbour of centuries?] This viewpoint cannot be one of full support of the Tibetan appeal, because that goes far and claims full independence…But it will not take us or Tibet very far. It will only hasten the downfall of Tibet. No outsider will be able to help her; and China, suspicious and apprehensive of these tactics, will make sure of much speedier and fuller possession of Tibet than she might otherwise have done. We shall thus not only fail in our endeavour but at the same time have really a hostile China on our doorstep…[So, did Nehru manage to avert the hostile China on our doorstep? Was he able to avert war? Winston Churchill had rightly remarked: “An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last.”]
"“19. I think that in no event should we sponsor Tibet’s appeal. I would personally think that it would be a good thing if that appeal is not heard in the Security Council or the General Assembly. [Not only would Nehru not sponsor appeal of a neighbour (Tibet) in distress, he fondly hoped other countries too would spurn Tibet, and not sponsor its appeal! Why? Because, that would have forced India into taking a stand when what India preferred by way of its ‘wise’policy of the ‘internationalist and foreign-affairs expert’Nehru was to bury its head in sand.] If it is considered there, there is bound to be a great deal of bitter speaking and accusation, which will worsen the situation as regards Tibet, as well as the possibility of widespread war, without helping it in the least. It must be remembered that neither the UK nor the USA, nor indeed any other power is particularly interested in Tibet or the future of that country. What they are interested in is embarrassing China [and, gentleman Nehru felt it was a sin to even embarrass China]. Our interest, on the other hand, is Tibet, and if we cannot serve that interest, we fail…“
"20. Therefore, it will be better not to discuss Tibet’s appeal in the UN. Suppose, however, that it comes up for discussion, in spite of our not wishing this, what then? I would suggest that our representative should state our case as moderately as possible and ask the Security Council or the Assembly to give expression to their desire that the Sino-Tibetan question should be settled peacefully…[How could it be settled peacefully, unless China, the invader, withdrew? But, that demand Nehru never made.]…”{ JN4}"
*****
"During his last days in 1964, Nehru was reported to have said: “I have been betrayed by a friend. I am sorry for Tibet.”Betrayal? One does not understand! In international politics, if you are naive and incompetent to take care of your own interests, you would keep getting betrayed.
"“The Chinese invasion of Tibet, which culminated in the 1962 war between India and China, has often been portrayed as the ‘Great Chinese Betrayal’—' a stab in the back’, as Jawaharlal Nehru would say with much pain and anguish. Claude Arpi, in his 2017 book, Tibet: The Last Months of a Free Nation, proved with fresh shreds of evidence that the notion of ‘betrayal’was a farce. It was ‘a stab from the front’as MJ Akbar observed in his eloquent biography on Nehru. For, the then Prime Minister and his comrades refused to see the writing on the wall for more than a decade.”{ URL84}"
................................................................................................
“This great doctrine [Panchsheel] was born in sin, because it was enunciated to put the seal of our approval upon the destruction of an ancient nation which was associated with us spiritually and culturally... It was a nation which wanted to live its own life and it sought to have been allowed to live its own life...”
"—Acharya Kriplani{Arpi2}
"Despite what China did to Tibet, India signed the ‘Panchsheel Agreement’ with China on 29 April 1954. The agreement itself was titled “Agreement on Trade and Intercourse between the Tibet region of China and India” thus acknowledging Tibet as a part of China. India gained nothing through the Agreement, and all benefits accrued to China. Chinese leaders must have been laughing at the naivete of the Indian leadership.
"India did not even insist on prior settlement of borders. Reportedly, Girija Shankar Bajpai of the External Affairs Ministry had advised on settlement of the borders prior to the signing of Panchsheel, but his suggestion was ignored by all the three concerned: KM Panikkar, Krishna Menon, and Nehru. Our ambassador to China, KM Panikkar, was later derisively referred to as “ambassador of China”.
"Wrote SK Verma in “1962: The War That Wasn't”: “The Panchsheel Agreement, signed between India and China, reflected Nehru’s idealism that was far removed from the world of realpolitik. At that stage, India at least held some cards, the most important perhaps being the physical access to Lhasa. Nehru chose to discard them without getting in return any concessions from the Chinese in Tibet. Not only that, the Government of India then began to hide from its own people Chinese transgressions on the border.”{ SKV/ L-6894}
"Dalai Lama wrote poignantly in his autobiography, “Yet I was conscious that outside Tibet the world had turned its back on us. Worse, India, our nearest neighbour and spiritual mentor, had tacitly accepted Peking’s claim to Tibet. In April 1954, Nehru had signed a new Sino-Indian treaty which included a memorandum known as Panchsheel...According to this treaty, Tibet was part of China.”{DL/ 113}"
"Acharya Kripalani had said on the floor of the Parliament in 1954:
"“Recently we have entered into a treaty with China [Panchsheel]. I feel that China, after it had gone Communist, committed an act of aggression against Tibet. The plea is that China had an ancient right of suzerainty . This right was out of date, old and antiquated. It was never exercised in fact. It had lapsed by the flux of time. Even if it had not lapsed, it is not right in these days of democracy by which our Communist friends swear, by which the Chinese swear, to talk of this ancient suzerainty and exercise it in new form in a country which had and has nothing to do with China... England went to war with Germany not because Germany had invaded England, but because it had invaded Poland and Belgium…”{AS/ 137}
"Dr Ambedkar disagreed with the Tibet policy of India and felt that “there is no room for Panchsheel in politics”. He said that “if Mr Mao had any faith in the Panchsheel, he certainly would treat the Buddhists in his own country in a very different way.”"
"India did this despite its own stand to the contrary earlier. The flag of Tibet was put up on 15 August 1947 in the Parliament, acknowledging Tibet as a separate nation. Right up to 1949, Nehru, in his official communications, used words like the Tibet Government, our two countries, and so on, leaving no doubt that India recognised Tibet as a separate, independent nation."
................................................................................................
Author rightly enough criticises Jawaharlal Nehru for avoiding a clash with China for Tibet, India having not only cultural ties for over a couple of millennia but also its being a buffer state, and what's more, India having recognised it in 1947, and PM Jawaharlal Nehru having referred to it as neighbour state; but then, for consistency, if one has criticised him for not seeing dangers of China and for kowtowing despite all signs, how does one then join communists and criticise him slso for standing up finally and demanding Aksai Chin back, especially if one has all slong been against communists?
Unlike others who criticised India because it was fashionable, author explains in detail, from history of borders and negotiations onwards.
"With India having agreed to Tibet being a part of China, and not an independent nation, a doubt was implicitly cast upon the validity of the treaties which were agreed to by Tibet, but not by China. India effectively did a self-goal through its Tibet policy—Dalai Lama rightly pointed out that to deny the sovereign status of Tibet when the McMahon Line was agreed to in 1914 was to deny the validity of the McMahon Line itself."
................................................................................................
Author says -
"Neville Maxwell's book ‘India's China War’ must be read, even though it is relatively partisan to China and biased against India. ... "
- and then proceeds to quote to support his points.
But not only it's obviously biased, it's also contrary to the recent evidence of belligerent Chinese behaviour with almost every neighbour, with possible exception of Pakistan which has sold land cheap to China, having had little or no plans of sustainable economy ever, other than jihad, and sale of land of India to China.
Arun Shourie in his work on this subject criticises Jawaharlal Nehru for a naive trust and lack of foresight; Puranik is taking the stance that the Indian position was wrong all along, from not fighting for Tibet on to not negotiating the boundary with China.
The conflict seems that Shourie, quoting from copious documents from archive of Jawaharlal Nehru, shows consistency of India and a sudden change of stance if China; Puranik on the other hand claims China sought to negotiate and India was too arrogant, standing on the assumption that it will do.
This does not go with the earlier portrayal by him, of India under Jawaharlal Nehru, as doing everything to please China on treaties signed with no benefits accrued to India.
But perhaps author relies more on Neville Maxwell?
"The Indian Ambassador to China KM Panikkar had advised: “[ If] China raises the issue [of the McMahon Line], we can plainly refuse to reopen the question and take our stand that the Prime minister took [in his public statement], that the territory on this side of the McMahon Line is ours, and that there is nothing to discuss about it.”{Max/ 77}"
"However, Sir Girija Shankar Bajpai who had been the Secretary-General in the Ministry of External Affairs did not agree with the above stand, and pointed out that China had asked for settlement of pending problems, and that the Chinese “never having accepted the McMahon Line as the frontier between Tibet and us, can hardly regard this frontier as settled. Naturally, they have no intention of raising it until it suits their convenience.”{Max/ 77}
"Nehru had advised the Secretary General of the Ministry of External Affairs on 3 December 1953: “I agree about the attitude we should take up in regard to the frontier, we should not raise this question [of boundaries]. If the Chinese raise it, we should express our surprise and point out that this [boundaries] is a settled issue...”{ JNSW/ Vol-24/ 598}"
"This is from ‘Beyond the Lines’ by Kuldip Nayar:
"“I was only the home ministry’s information officer and had no official locus standi, but it was obvious that the Polish ambassador was on a mission. He invited me for a chat at his chancery and expected me to convey what he had said to [Gobind Ballabh] Pant [Nehru’s Home Minister]. At the beginning of the conversation he said that the proposal he would make had the support of all Communist countries, and specifically mentioning the Soviet Union. His proposal was that India should accept a package political deal, getting recognition for the McMahon Line in exchange for handing over control of some areas in Ladakh [Aksai Chin] to China. He said that the areas demanded had never been charted, and nobody could say to whom they belonged. What was being claimed to be India’s was what had been forcibly occupied by the UK. No power could honour ‘the imperialist line’, nor should India insist upon it. Whatever the odds, China would never part with the control of the road it had built . That was lifeline between Sinkiang and other parts of China, he argued. I conveyed the proposal to Pant who gave me no reaction, his or that of the government.”{KN}"
That part, being quoted from Kuldip Nayar, is believable. But next he quotes letters from China.
"Through a letter dated 23 January 1959, Zhou Enlai ( or Chou En-Lai) clarified the status to Nehru to the effect that Sino-Indian borders were never formally delimited [author’s comments: so, where was the justification of India showing firm, demarcated borders in its 1954 maps]; Sinkiang-Tibet highway built by China in 1956 (in Aksai Chin) was within the Chinese borders; McMahon Line was a product of the British cunning of imperialist cartographic aggression, and could not be considered legal; and China would make changes to its maps after ground survey and negotiations with the countries concerned, including India. ... "
Arun Shourie's work mentions prior communications and attempts at boundary related queries from India being answered by China in ways that were reassuring to India but postponed talks until China was ready to be belligerent, and only then it had dawned on Nehru that he'd been naive, that Chinese said one thing and meant another.
Author quotes letters from Chou Enlai, which are seemingly reasonable, unless one is used to the Chinese interpretation - which, in case of Tibet, if applied elsewhere, would allow India to claim all of erstwhile British Empire as interpreted to suit India, as China did with Tibet. Again, friendly seems a keyword in the letter, but reasonable is missing, with good reason.
Nehru on the other hand had mentioned that McMahon Line was proper boundary due to conforming to watershed, and this is order, as opposed to Chinese claimed to Aksai Chin because it's a shortcut from two regions of Asia - Tibet and Sinkiang - under de facto control of China, Sinkiang being Chinese name for Turkestan.
Chinese claims of boundary as subsequently it became clear, was ownership of all of Himalayas and contiguous regions below on side of India, threatening India for ever. This is more consistent with Chingiz Khan and his burning whole cities in Central Asia, Persia and Russia, than a friendly resolution between neighbours.
Again, Puranik mentions Chinese team going to Rangoon and "peacefully" settling borders, which in Arun Shourie's work comes across very differently, with Burma asking help of India against Chinese bullying, and India unable to provide it.
"However, China was reportedly willing to accept the McMahon Line as the boundary in the east— with possibly some adjustments and a new name— like they had done with Myanmar (Burma) provided, in return, India dropped its claims over Aksai Chin . Once this broad framework was agreed to, the officials from the two countries could do a survey and determine the exact alignments of the borders.
"Unfortunately, adhering to his stated position, Nehru declined."
The position of India having been that the boundary claimed by India being reasonable and natural, this exchange merely amounted to a neighbour who's kidnapped your wife and declares intentions to claim your children then offering to return your children in exchange for keeping your wife. The next letter from Chinese premier Chou Enlai, as quoted by Puranik, has a couple of reasonable points -
"In determining the boundary between the two countries, certain geographical principles, such as watersheds, river valleys and mountain passes , should be equally applicable to all sectors of the boundary."
This was India's position as claimed by Jawaharlal Nehru.
"A settlement of the boundary question between the two countries should take into account the national feelings of the two peoples towards the Himalayas and the Karakoram Mountains."
Thus sounds even generous, since it's India's tremendous regard for Himalayan region that's well known, however pooh-poohed by all abrahmic and Leftists, West and China alike, while China would merely claim Himalayan regions as it claimed Tibet, falsely.
"Pending a settlement of the boundary question between the two countries through discussions, both sides should keep to the line of actual control and should not put forward territorial claims as pre-conditions, but individual adjustments may be made."
That's where gloves come off - China having built a road through aksai chin which China was aware India claimed, without any prior talks, any such agreement about keeping to line of actual control could only benefit China.
"In order to ensure tranquillity on the border so as to facilitate the discussions, both sides should continue to refrain from patrolling along all sectors of the boundary."
Gloves off and nails visible in claw there! Such refraining had been normal India's borders with Tibet, even when rumours of Chinese troops massing along border were questioned about in parliament. Further refraining by India could only amount to further build-up by China, as evident since.
Why is Puranik arguing seemingly for China here?
" ... Reportedly , Zhou found Nehru’s adamant stand on Aksai Chin inexplicable and unexpected for several reasons:
"(a) India had never occupied or ruled or set its foot in Aksai Chin; (b) in the opinion of China, India had no valid and legal ground to lay claim on it; (c) it was barren and nothing grew there; and (d) it was of no strategic importance for India— reportedly, General Thimayya had himself stated in 1959 that Aksai Chin was of no strategic significance for India, nor was it of any economic significance; and there had been doubts if the area belonged to India.
"On the other hand, Aksai Chin did have importance for China on account of the connecting road between Xinjiang (Sinkiang) and Tibet. Chou tried to impress upon Nehru the importance of the Xinjiang– Tibet for China, it being the only all-weather land-route. However, Nehru’s intransigence in the matter made China suspect India was trying to undermine China in Tibet."
Those arguments all apply equally to counter China’s claim to Tibet, also to Sinkiang, and therefore to Aksai Chin, or indeed anything of what British labelled Outer Tibet. Or for that matter much of Central Asia, including Gobi desert.
As for strategic importance, Tibet can only be of importance to Beijing in threatening India, via land as well as question of waters.
Author seems to stick to his position until the very last paragraph of the section, that of claiming that China was correct and even patient and generous in declaring ceasefire, not taking into account the fact that JFK had helped India at that juncture, and told China off. Even today, it's US that keeps Taiwan still independent. Why Tibet wasn't graced with that consideration can only be because West saw no profit therein, and allowed China to grow to three times the size it had been till then since dawn of humanity.
" ... But, rather than negotiating a boundary with China and reaching a peaceful settlement, Nehru-Menon & Co, in their wisdom—their Forward Policy— convinced themselves that it is they who would determine the boundary, and in token thereof, establish their posts, like markers. That China could object, and then attack and demolish those posts, and even move forward into India did not seem to them a possibility. ... "
Au contraire, it was only after Chinese troops had assaulted, even killed and kidnapped some Indian officials and soldiers, that this border post manning and patrolling was attempted a regularising of; in absence thereof, China had already occupied much of land on India’s side of border with Tibet.
"Wrote Kuldip Nayar in ‘Beyond the Lines’:
"“Nehru ordered that police check-posts be established to register India’s presence in the Ladakh area. ... Jha said, ‘Malik does not realise that these isolated posts with no support from the rear would fall like ninepins if there was a push from the Chinese side. We have unnecessarily exposed the policemen [Assam Rifles were posted] to death.’ He went on to say: ‘Frankly, this is the job of the army, but as it has refused to man the posts until full logistical support is provided, New Delhi has pushed the police.’”{KN}"
"Wrote Bruce Riedel in “JFK’s Forgotten Crisis: Tibet, the CIA, and the Sino-Indian War”:
" ... The Indian army, which was the service directly affected by the Forward Policy, was given an assignment that its own professional officer corps knew was beyond its means : It did not have the number of troops necessary to engage in a game of chicken with the PLA in the mountains. Despite reinforcements, by mid-1962 the Indian army was outnumbered in the Aksai Chin part of Kashmir by five to one, yet it was trying to staff sixty new forward posts. Even worse, the Indian soldiers were equipped with Lee-Enfield rifles, which had first entered service in the army in 1895, while the Chinese were equipped with modern automatic weapons, artillery, and other equipment. Many of the Chinese commanders were also veterans of the Korean battlefield. The senior command staff of the army, especially General Thapar, found themselves caught between political leaders with an unrealistic concept of the military situation and local commanders who felt they were being given impossible orders. ... "
Author quotes Arun Shourie -
"“It is completely impracticable for the Chinese Government to think of anything in the nature of invasion of India. Therefore I rule it out... It is necessary that the system of check-posts should be spread along this entire frontier. More especially, we should have check-posts in such places as might be considered disputed areas... As Demchok is considered by the Chinese as a disputed territory, we should locate a check-post there. So also at Tsang Chokla...”{ Noor/ 223-4}{ AS/ 103}"
Author next discusses Chinese view of this, giving them credit undue, especially in view of China having occupied Tibet with spurious claims.
Puranik hasn't yet made the connection despite his comparison of India's treatment of Tibet with that of Neville Chamberlain and Czechoslovakia; he ought to have realised right there, that China was no different from Hitler, and ascribing reason or natural reaction to China is as much fooling oneself as self defeating.
................................................................................................
"Apr-Aug 1962. Writes Brigadier Dalvi, who fought the 1962-war in the area, in ‘Himalayan Blunder’about the April-1962 episode of the Operation Onkar, meant to implement the Forward Policy:
"“From the outset it should have been appreciated that a move into the Dhola area would attract Chinese attention, if not a severe reaction. The area of the Tri-junction [of Tibet, Bhutan and India] was extremely sensitive, as the exact alignment of the McMahon Line had been made the subject of open dispute by China. Apart from the incident of August 1959, which brought the army into NEFA, we knew (or should have known) that Chinese officials in the 1960 discussions had not conceded our version of the Line in this particular area. I was naturally doubtful about activating a sensitive area, especially after I had seen for myself the difficulties of moving and maintaining a force there. The Thagla Ridge had a tactical significance for the Chinese as it overlooked their forward base at Le... When these awkward questions were raised, I was told categorically to ‘lay off’as this was a ‘matter of national policy’and was being implemented by the Assam Rifles... The persons who set up Dhola without the necessary military might to slug it out with the Chinese are guilty of providing the Chinese with the excuse they wanted; and of placing the Indian army in a shameful and invidious position... I studied the ground and realised that Dhola was militarily useless, indefensible and dominated by Chinese positions and located in a trap.”{ JPD/ 133}"
Author proceeds, with interspersed quotes.
"Sep-1962: Much happened, but business as usual. Major border events took place in September 1962, but for the higher-ups concerned, it was business as usual. Nehru left for London in early September 1962 to attend Commonwealth Prime Ministers’Conference; and was expected to return only by the end of the month after a tour of some nations in Africa. Defence Minister Krishna Menon was to be away to the UN. Finance Minister Morarji Desai had gone to London along with Nehru, after which he was to proceed to Washington. Lt General BM Kaul (CoGS) tasked with the implementation of the ‘Forward Policy’in NEFA was on a 2-month leave. And, so on."
"Wrote Claud Arpi in an article:
"“Major General Niranjan Prasad , the GOC of 4 Infantry Division in his book ‘The Fall of Towang’ (Tawang) describes the setting of the operations thus: ‘The McMahon Line from just north of Khinzemane, as drawn by Sir Henry McMahon in 1914 with a thick blue (in fact, red) pencil on an unsurveyed map, was not an accurate projection of the Himalayan watershed line… In this process the position of Thagla ridge was, to say the least, left ambiguous…’… If one follows the watershed principle as well as the ownership of customary pastures' rights, the Thagla ridge was the border, but the fact remains that the old map which was the reference for India's position on the 'genuine' location of the McMahon Line, showed the Thagla ridge and the Namkha Chu, north of the Red Line [that is, in Chinese territory]. Further surveys were unfortunately not conducted after India's Independence…”{Arpi6}"
"8-Sep-1962. On 8 September 1962 Chinese troops surrounded the Dhola post as a warning.
"15-Sep-1962. On 15 September 1962 a Chinese civilian official accompanying their troops announced over a loudspeaker to the Indian forces in Hindi that the area belonged to them and that the Indians must send their civilian official to discuss the location for an amicable settlement. Reportedly, the matter was referred all the way up to Nehru and, sticking to its position, India did not take up the offer for a meeting. Instead the decision was taken to reinforce the position, send additional forces, and evict the Chinese from the area.
"However, Brigadier Dalvi and others on the spot considered it to be impossible and suicidal to attempt to evict the Chinese from the area given the overwhelming odds: the Chinese were strategically located on heights while the Indians were within their view as sitting ducks; the Chinese were vastly greater in numbers and far better armed; unlike India, the Chinese had logistics in place; the Indians were ill-clothed, ill-armed and ill-fed.
"20-Sep-196 2. An incident of exchange of fire took place at Namka Chu on 20 September 1962. This happened after a clash long back in October 1959 at Kongka Pass. ... "
"22-Sep-196 2. In a high-level meeting to review the situation on 22 September 1962, General PN Thapar, Chief of Army Staff (COAS), advised against action to evict the Chinese, pointing to their much superior strength. However, Thapar was overruled by the other members; and MJ Desai, the Foreign Secretary, wanted the Chinese to be evicted from Dhola. His advice ignored, Thapar asked for written orders, which were duly given!{KNR/ 254-5} ... "
"30-Sep-1962. “After the Chinese surrounded the small Indian Army post at Tsenjang, north of the disputed Thagla Ridge, on September 8, the then defence minister VK Krishna Menon overruled the advice of the Army chief, General PN Thapar, and ordered the army forward. The Indian Army still balked and stayed put. On September 30, Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru, just returned from a foreign trip, became furious that the government's orders were not implemented. He overruled Thapar's advice again and shouted, ‘I don't care if the Chinese came as far as Delhi, they have to be thrown out of Thagla!’”{URL22}
"8-10-Oct-1962. Under pressure from Nehru and Menon to evict the Chinese from the area, both General BN Kaul and General Prasad visited Dhola on 8 October 1962 and noted our weaknesses first-hand. Yet, to be able to please Nehru with some action in the area under his watch, Kaul took the disastrous adventurist step of sending a battalion on 10 October 1962 to capture Yumtsola, which was unoccupied and was to the west of the Thagla peak— thinking like Nehru that Chinese would not react. However, the Chinese reaction was so severe and so many jawans were killed in the action that Kaul was aghast. It has been rightly said that unless you have a reasonable chance of success , sending your men to attack is just murdering them— and that’s what Kaul did. Kaul left the place on 10 October 1962 with a promise to appraise Nehru of the reality. Yet Dalvi’s suggestion of abandoning Dhola and taking up defensive position further south was not heeded. ... "
So far, author's tone has been consistently, overtly, critical of India in this part. Having not excused India for not defending Tibet, and criticised for not being aware of Chinese policy of military occupation of Tibet, it would be more consistent to criticise inflation fir being still naive and not bring aware that China was taking over territory beyond Tibet. Instead he's done an inexplicable u-turn and blamed India, and the following says why.
"Alarmed by the Indian massing of troops in Dhola and the Indian attempts at Yumtsola on 10 October 1962 thanks to BN Kaul, or, taking that as an excuse, Chinese overran Dhola on 20 October 1962 heralding the 1962-war. BN Kaul has to be blamed for it. Having seen the situation first-hand, Kaul , as a responsible professional, should have put his foot down on India’s forward policy misadventure to save the Indian army from the sure debacle it was staring at. If Nehru-Menon did not agree with him, he should have resigned. But, instead, like several other seniors in the army, he bent over backwards to please Nehru-Menon overriding sound military considerations."
So he's joining China and much of West in blaming India, instead of China the aggressor, for the war. This fits more with Jawaharlal Nehru blaming Tibet instead of China after China swallowed Tibet, which Puranik described as appeasing the bully.
As for Nehru, he was aware of his short India fell in ability of military strength and equipment, and hence was attempting to keep India from going under the way Tibet fid by the friendship tactics; but it must have ranked, apart from the over a decade of answering yo Parliament and press about Chinese aggression in Tibet,
apart from consequent danger to India.
One may criticise the then government of India for not preparing for the decade for the Chinese aggression that dud arrive, or for helping PLA in Tibet; but to go as far as blaming India for not accepting China's border claims is to say, India ought to have knuckled under. This position suits a Chinese, an India-despising Westerner, but not Puranik, an admirer of Sardar Patel.
"Wrote BG Verghese later, recounting the sad saga: “Following Nehru’s ‘throw them out’ order, and against saner military advice and an assessment of ground realities, a brigade under John Dalvi was positioned on the Namka Chu River below the Thagla Ridge that the Chinese claimed lay even beyond the McMahon Line . It was a self-made trap: ‘It was but to do or die’. The brigade retreated in disorder after a gallant action, while the Chinese rolled down to Tawang where they reached on 25 October.”"
"“At 5 on the morning of 20th October 1962 massed Chinese artillery opened up a heavy concentration on the weak Indian garrison, in a narrow sector of the Namka Chu Valley... Massive infantry assaults followed, and within three hours the unequal contest was over. The route to the plains of Assam lay wide open. The Chinese exploited their initial successes and advanced 160 miles into Indian territory... reaching the Brahmaputra Valley by 20 th November. They swept aside the so-called impregnable defences of Sela Pass; Bomdilla was literally overrun ; the monastery town of Towang fell without a fight . India’s panicky reaction included the scrambling of ill-equipped, ill-trained for mountain warfare and unacclimatised military formations... The Chinese were amazed at this...”{JPD/ 1}"
Most are in agreement that India was weaker, coming out only recently out of colonial looting of centuries by various invaders, and Jawaharlal Nehru was naive, eager to be the heir to Gandhi.
But it's equally true that he wasn't facing an honorable opponent in cricket fields of Harrow, he was facing a deadly warlord of Chinese variety who hadn't squirmed at death of a hundred million of his own for molding China to his will.
Secret of Chinese prosperity versus Russian lack thereof lies at this two pronged fork; one, unlike Russia, China had humongous population - China was then twice, almost, or more than twice India - and ruthless regime that yoked it, with any falsehood employed in propaganda. And two, apart from the western craze to defeat USSR at any cost, that is, even to the tune of promoting the twin demons of China and jihadists, China also had the will to exploit any possibility and use any maneuvre to expand and dominate the world.
"Wrote SK Verma in “1962: The War That Wasn't”:"
"“As we have seen, after coming back from the dead, Mao’s Communist Chinese defeated the larger and vastly better equipped army of the Kuomintang. Realizing that the West was both physically and emotionally drained from World War II, and fully preoccupied with containing the Soviets, Mao pulled off what was perhaps the biggest post-War real estate coup by bringing both Sinkiang and Tibet into the Chinese fold. India, which was directly affected by this blatant Chinese expansionism, was the unknown entity in Mao’s scheme of things. Yet somehow, not only did the Indians quietly go along with the Chinese moves in Tibet, Mao even managed to get Nehru to endorse the Chinese takeover. The next logical step was to force the Indians onto the back foot, for the threat of the United States jumping into the fray was always a real one. Therefore, to keep the Indians off balance, Mao created a border dispute with India where previously none existed.
"“With Nehru walking into the Chinese trap despite all the warnings (Sardar Patel died exactly thirty-eight days after writing his famous letter spelling out the Chinese intent) the game was over before it had even begun. The Chinese played their cards in such a manner that the Indians lost what should have been at best a defensive war by not fighting it at all. And finally, to top it all, after the conflict, the Chinese actually managed to convince almost everyone that Nehru was solely responsible for the clash between India and China in 1962.
"“Right from the very beginning the Chinese played Nehru. Just as the Chinese General Yang Chengiou read Lieutenant General Bijji Kaul like an open book, Mao understood Nehru and with well thought-out moves, made the Indian prime minister and the men around him look like a bunch of bungling amateurs.”{ SKV/ L-6835}"
Tables did turn. Having exploited, China now faces backlash, especially so throughout Africa, and Chinese working in Africa fear for life.
" ... China declared unilateral ceasefire on 21 November 1962. President Kennedy’s statement that came two days earlier that they [Chinese] would be forcing the hand of the President of the US if they advanced any further might also have been one of the factors in China’s decision to ceasefire."
"Might"??? Was there any other reason why China stopped? Tibet was only a fateway, not really lebensraum!
"Both the US and the UK had begun providing armaments. Even Israel, whom Nehru had shunned, provided equipments.
................................................................................................
Author gets slightly more real, now, instead of making India guilty of the war as he's been portraying through this section.
" ... China was looking for an opportunity to humiliate India, and ... China also wanted to cement its hold on Aksai Chin and meet its political objectives, which were several:
"One. Establish itself as the only big power of Asia that mattered.
"Two. Establish superiority of its totalitarian, communist system over the democratic and pluralistic model represented by India for the developing countries.
"Three. Humiliate Nehru and India, and demolish India’s standing in the Third World.
"Four. Ensure all cultural and religious links between Tibet and India are severed—something that could have come in the way of Tibet’s total integration with China.
"Five. Teach India a lesson for giving shelter to Dalai Lama. China also suspected Indo-American role in Tibetan uprising.
"Six. Pressurise India to settle the boundaries on China’s terms.
"Seven. Exploit the global distraction of the Cuban Missile Crisis to achieve China’s strategic goals.
"Eight. Mao had his own internal political compulsions arising out of famines, economic calamities and power struggle within. His “Great Leap Forward”started in 1958 was a disaster, and led to the largest man-made famine in human history resulting in the starvation-deaths of between 40 to 50 million over the three year period of 1959-61. The decisive war served to strengthen and enhance his position at home and internationally."
"China had invested heavily in building up its armed forces for possible armed conflicts on four fronts: anticipated attack by Taiwan, backed by US; South Korea; Tibet and lastly India. By 1962, China had a first-class army well prepared for any eventuality."
Author forgets, the very existence of Mao's regime was due to its turning an ideological following into a rabble rousing warlord's army, prepared to kill all opponents.
"This is what Nehru himself admitted:
"“We were getting out of touch with reality in the modern world and we were living in an artificial atmosphere of our creation...”{Zak/ 149}
"“We feel India has been ill-repaid for her diplomatic friendliness toward Peking... Difficult to say the Chinese have deliberately deceived us... We may have deceived ourselves...”{AS/ 38}"
Author also fails to take into account the reasons why India, and Jawaharlal Nehru, failed. It was very akin to why India fell to Islamic hordes.
Then, it was Buddhism that had brought in a creed of abhorrent war, that went too far. Thus time, it was Gandhi, who denounced even freedom warriors and Hindu Gods if they didn't conform to his extreme "die loving your murderer, no matter what he's done to uour family" creed. And as he'd himself said, quoted more than one by Puranik before this in context of why he promoted Nehru over the democratically elected Patel, it was because he saw in Jawaharlal Nehru his spiritual heir.
................................................................................................
"A wise man who apprehends danger or one who desires his own good should plan his defence even before the onset of danger.
"—Shri Ram to Lakshman
"If India had listened to [Veer] Savarkar and adopted the policy of militarization, then we would not have suffered the defeat today.
"—General Cariappa on the 1962-India-China-War{Tw8}"
But these including God Rama was precisely those branded "misguided" by Gandhi, and discarded as ideals to follow! No wonder the spiritual son he'd promoted chose a path of his own version of Gandhian politics, "friendship". But British hadn't left due to Gandhi, and Chinese could do all drama of propriety to the hilt, falsely, as evident from the cgasm between Puranik and Arun Shourie in their understanding of just where and how much India went wrong. Former quotes letters from China, while latter goes through Indian documents, including letters from Jawaharlal Nehru to chief ministers.
What if the said letters from China quoted by Puranik, were a fraud?
"Wrote SK Verma in “1962: The War That Wasn't”:
"“With Bose’s exit and Sardar Patel’s death in 1950, there was no one who could provide the necessary inspiration for the reconstruction of an army (that had so far served British interests) into an integrated military instrument that could identify potential threats and tackle them militarily. Nehru, unlike Bose and Patel, veered away from building military power.”{SKV/ L-646}"
Thereby the crime of the supposedly saintly man who was really a politician, who forced Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose out of congress from the second time elected position of president, and subsequently forced Sardar Patel to step aside for Jawaharlal Nehru to secure position of first PM of India.
"The seeds of India's disgraceful debacle in 1962 India-China War were sown soon after Independence by none other than Nehru himself, ... "
No, they were sown in him by Gandhi.
" ... It is tragic that the famous 'Nehru Papers' are jealously locked away in the Nehru Memorial Library . They are, in fact, the property of his family! I find it even more regrettable that during its six years in power, the NDA government, often accused of trying to rewrite history, did not take any action to rectify this anomaly. ... "
That certainly is highly improper.
................................................................................................
"Gandhi had once told: “Jawahar wants Englishmen to go but Angreziat to stay. I want Angreziat to go but Englishmen to remain as our friends.”{DD/ 261} Knowing this, why Gandhi chose Nehru as prime minister is a mystery. ... "
Because he'd sold out for the support by Motilal Nehru in exchange for a promise?
Because he'd been guilty as a father against his own son(s?), and instead of the hard route to make it up to the wronged son(s?), it was a comforting, convenient informal adoption of a virtual prince and an only son and heir to Nehru wealth, whom he called his "spiritual son", who only had to be put on the pedestal repeatedly by him using his clout, pushing off those elected by people legitimately, Subhash Chandra Bose, Sardar Patel?
................................................................................................
"At the time of independence, compared to China and all the countries in SE-Asia like Taiwan, South Korea, Singapore, and so on, India was much better placed in terms of infra-structure like roads, railways, and industries; administrative and criminal-justice infra-structure; and had a large, indigenous groups of entrepreneurs, industrialists and businessmen. Not only that, India had a favourable balance of payments, with the UK owing millions of pounds to us, which it repaid over the years."
"India, and therefore Nehru as PM, was exceptionally fortunate to have a large pool of extraordinarily talent at the time of independence. To have had highly capable and upright politicians like Sardar Patel, C Rajagopalachari, Dr BR Ambedkar, Dr Rajendra Prasad, John Mathai, CD Deshmukh , Dr Shyama Prasad Mukherjee , KM Munshi, GB Pant, Rafi Ahmed Kidwai, and so on, was indeed fortunate. Then, there was a large team of experienced and capable bureaucrats like VP Menon, HM Patel, Girija Shankar Bajpai, etc. Many of the Diwans of the Princely States were highly competent and experienced administrators, like CP Ramaswami Iyer of Travancore, M Visvesvaraya of Mysore, and so on . Indian army had WW -II veterans, and people like KM Cariappa, Thimayya. We also had many reputed educationists, technocrats, economists, and finance persons. India would never have such a distinguished mix of talent and such people of integrity again."
One is free to disagree with that last statement, of course. Certainly there's no dearth of talent either in science or in business, however infested academia be with the deadweight of past seven decades when caste politics (selecting by reservation as enforced by law) discouraged talent from academia.
"Post-independence, millions were fired with patriotic zeal, ready to sacrifice, and do their utmost to show to the world what this grand, old civilisation was capable of. They all wanted to disprove the British canard that without them India would go to pieces and would become a basket case. India was the richest nation in the world when the Islamic invaders arrived. Despite their loot and plunder, India still remained attractive, though much less rich. Still, India was far, far richer than England when the English first arrived in India. However, thanks to their loot and disastrous economic management, condition of India became pitiable. That was the time, after independence, to show to the world what India would have been, had the British and Muslims hordes not set their feet in India."
And if Jawaharlal Nehru had kept his own counsel until a better moment to ensure return of Netaji, instead of what he did, India could have been drastically different, what with possibility of proceeding in tandem with Japan!
"Fortunately for Nehru, support was for the asking. There was no opposition worth the name. He enjoyed unbridled supremacy both over the Congress and the government for 17 long years. He could do what he wanted. People were also fired up. It was once in a millennium opportunity, which India would never again get."
Puranik does know things are different since 2014, however widespread the disease sown for most part of six decades.
Author ends the chapter on a very negative note, but one has to remember, thus is the same nation that quietly threw off a would be dictatorship, an emergency-imposing regime when chance came, and did it again in 2014.
Never underestimate India.
................................................................................................
"Consider how backward the home constituencies of the Nehru-Gandhis have been, despite the fact that they have been representing them for decades . Universal literacy and an informed public were the two factors Nehru-Dynasty could not have survived; so it seems they let wide-spread illiteracy and grossly inadequate educational infrastructure prevail."
No argument there!
"The education under Nehru became elitist. There was regrettable compartmentalisation into the HMTs (Hindi-Medium types) and the EMTs (English-Medium types), with EMTs cornering most facilities and opportunities. There were little efforts to make education universal. Policy restrictions and the bureaucratic -maze spread by the Nehruvians ensured peripheral role for the private sector in education, thus severely limiting the already limited educational sector further. Remarks MD Nalapat: “The Nehruvian education system took away the state-funded window for the teaching of the English language to the poor, restricting fluency in that language and its global advantages to the relatively affluent.”{URL106}"
About the preferences for one language over another, very true. But author omits discussing culture of preferences to elite schools, including those run by church, nourished consistently after British left, for most of the six decades.
"In so far as the All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS) in New Delhi is concerned, it was Rajkumari Amrit Kaur who was a strong moving force behind its establishment, and became its first president.{URL100} “After India finally got its hard-won independence in 1947, Kaur became the first woman to hold a cabinet position in India. As the country’s first health minister, she set up the Tuberculosis Association of India, the Indian Council of Child Welfare, the Central Leprosy and Research Institute and the Rajkumari Amrit Kaur College of Nursing. However, she is best known as the visionary to whom AIIMS owes its existence. In 1950, Kaur was elected the president of the World Health Assembly (which governs the WHO)— she was the first woman and the first Asian to hold the prestigious post. Seven years later, she secured aid from New Zealand, Australia, Sweden, West Germany and USA to establish AIIMS.”{URL101}"
And yet this is a secret kept by historians while medical institutions and colleges, including those for nursing, are routinely named after Dynasty members, neither due to their being related to the field nor due to their having taken particular interest.
"Nehruvians flaunt establishment of IITs and IIMs during the time of Nehru. The question is whether just five IITs and a few IIMs were enough for a country of India's size. Shouldn't there have been several IITs and several IIMs in each state? Incidentally, among the persons who conceptualised CSIR and IITs even before independence was Sir Ardeshir Dalal from the Viceroy's Executive Council (VEC). The idea was carried forward by, among others, Dr BC Roy, Sir JC Ghosh, Sir Jogendra Singh of the VEC, Sir Nalini Ranjan Sarkar, LS Chandrakant and Biman Sen.{URL73}"
"Extracts from an article in SundayGuradianLive.com{ W.n16}:
"“In reality, it was through the vision and effort of Arcot Ramaswami Mudaliar that the Council of Scientific and Industrial Research came into existence in 1940 and it was Dr Syama Prasad Mookerjee who built it up…A number of laboratories were set up by Dr Mookerjee, including the National Physical Laboratory, National Chemical Laboratory, National Metallurgical Laboratory, Fuel Research Institute, Ceramics Research Institute, Central Leather Research Institute, and the Central Electro Chemical Research Institute…"
Major eye opener!
"“By the 1940s, India already had the infrastructure for supporting scientific activities and India’s Hindu civilisation had generated many scientific ideas and scientists over thousands of years. Institutes like the Banaras Hindu University which was founded by Pandit Madan Mohan Malaviya, the Indian Institute of Science, the Indian Association for the Cultivation of Science which had been founded in 1876, the core of Indian Statistical Institute, and the Tata Institute of Fundamental Research, all pre-dated Nehru’s time in office, but Nehru and his supporters have taken credit for the creation of these establishments. Among the public sector units, Hindustan Aeronautics Limited had been set up by Walchand Hirachand as a private business and it supplied state-of-the-art aircraft to Britain for its war efforts, but it rapidly deteriorated after the Nehru government started managing it…
"“The founding of the Indian Institutes of Technology and the All India Institute of Medical Sciences too had nothing to do with Jawaharlal Nehru. While the IITs had their genesis in the N.M. Sircar Committee report of 1945, Nehru’s indifference towards setting up medical institutes was captured in an exchange between Dr Mookerjee and N.G. Ranga in the Constituent Assembly. When Dr Mookerjee mentioned that a committee under the chairmanship of Dr Arcot Lakshmanaswami Mudaliar had been set up to establish an All India Medical Institute, N.G. Ranga highlighted Nehru’s statement opposing the All India Medical Institute in Delhi on the grounds that the housing problem had to be solved first…"
"“Nehru’s apathy towards science and his support for ‘socialist’ pseudoscience is best illustrated by his treatment of Srinivasa Sourirajan and other scientists. Nehru propped up his supporters and made them the key people, who ended up influencing the Indian scientific institutions over the next few decades. Soon, there were complaints of a class of ‘science bourgeoisie’ who were oppressive and squelched talent, resulting in an exodus of scientists leaving India, a problem that came to be labelled ‘brain drain’…
"“Nehru also opposed acquiring missiles and the atom bomb…”{W.n16}"
................................................................................................
"After considerable deliberations the Constituent Assembly agreed that the official language of the Union shall be Hindi in the Devanagari script; but for 15 years from the commencement of the Constitution, that is, from 26 January 1950, the English language shall continue to be used for all the official purposes of the Union— that is, till 25 January 1965. The Official Languages Act of 1963 stipulated that English “may” be used along with Hindi in official communications after 1965. That left it ambiguous . Was it optional? Lal Bahadur Shastri as prime minister stood by the decision to make Hindi official with effect from 26 January 1965, and all hell broke loose in the South. Ultimately, Shastri had to back out.
"The question is not Hindi or English, the question is why the matter was allowed to drift for 15 years under Nehru? Why a dialogue was not established among all the stake-holders and why what would happen post 26 January 1965 not thrashed out many years in advance allowing for a smooth transition, or for maintenance of the status quo? If indeed all were not agreeable on Hindi, then it should have been announced well in advance that the status quo would continue till as long as all were not agreed."
" ... The brown sahibs managed to create an “English Language Aristocracy” after independence. How to corner good positions, jobs and privileges ? Make them conditional upon knowledge of English. Restrict English to chosen schools and colleges, and restrict access to those institutions to only the privileged.
"This is not to say that the medium of instruction should have been English. It should have been in the mother tongue in the schools, and optionally also in English or Hindi— with no privileges attached to learning in English or Hindi. But, it should have been compulsory for all to learn English— and good English. That way, English would have been just a foreign language everyone knew. If English became a factor in getting jobs, like in IT or BPO or KPO, then with all students knowing it, it would not have given an edge to the less deserving."
"In sharp contrast to India, it is admirable what Israel did. Upon formation of Israel in 1948, many Jews scattered all over the world came over. They spoke different languages. To ensure a unifying language, many linguists, backed by the State, set about reviving Hebrew, Israel’s ancient language, which had fallen in decrepitude. Now, all Israelis speak Hebrew. It has given them an identity, and has greatly helped unify Israel. Most also know English, as it is taught from the primary school itself."
But they weren't fooled and divided by antisemitism, as India is, by anti-Hindu propaganda of well over fourteen centuries, which included badmouthing and abusing, not only Brahmins, but also Sanskrit, consistently.
Perhaps it requires an exodus and a holocaust before one appreciates one's heritage? Hope India doesn't need that!
................................................................................................
"Hindi is written in the Devanagari script from left to right, while Urdu is written from right to left, being derived from a Persian modification of the Arabic script. High variants of Hindi depend on Sanskrit for enrichment, while Urdu looks to Persian and Arabic for its higher variants."
Bhagat Singh argued the case for Devanagari script most effectively, with a horrible example.
"Rather than giving Hindi its due, Nehru insisted that Urdu was the language of the people of Delhi, and should accordingly be given official recognition. When the Home Minister GB Pant told him that the statistics showed only 6% of the Delhiwalas had claimed Urdu as their language, Nehru tried to rubbish the statistics, though he didn’t press further with his crazy idea.{DD/ 329-30}
"Nehru was also in favour of Persian-Arabic script in which Urdu is written, rather than Devanagari script in which Hindi and Sanskrit are written. It seems that anything Indian or Hindu or representing Hindu-Indian heritage, and Nehru had some problem with it, and he tried to abort it. Ram Manohar Lohia had rightly said that Nehru was against anything that would give Indians a sense of Indianness!{DD/ 373}
"Also, Nehru promoted what he was personally comfortable with: English and Urdu. Not what was good for the nation.
"Hindi clearly had association with nation, India, Hindu, and Sanskrit; while Urdu has been advocated by Muslim leaders. The states that became West Pakistan and East Pakistan (now Bangladesh) had no association whatever with Urdu; their languages were Punjabi, Sindhi, Bengali, etc. But, the Muslim leaders from UP who migrated to Pakistan imposed Urdu on Pakistan."
And that, partly, was root of breaking up Pakistan, apart from racism, of the minority against the then majority, which were Bengali.
"What business Nehru had in trying to favour Urdu and Persian-Arabic script can only be understood if we account for his pseudo-secular character, eagerness to appease Muslims for votes, and allergy for anything rooted in India or in Indian culture and Hinduism. "
It wasn't just votes. Even now an attitude prevails that superior classes are those that speak a (very bad, half baked) English, or, if proud of past, an idiomatic Urdu that belongs to past, with a few words of Hindi - or Marathi, if in Mumbai - condescending to lesser humans. This attitude has been nurtured. But there's nothing natural about it it or real, it's a fraudulent propaganda based in the drive to convert humanity to abrahmic II or III.
Funny, Indian variety of Abrahamic-IV generally propagated Mao as superior and Moscow as failure, even in 1970s, even as Congress was delivered suitcases filled with dollars as per KGB.
................................................................................................
"Said Will Durant, American historian and philosopher, in his book ‘The Case for India’{WD}:
"“India was the motherland of our race, and Sanskrit the mother of Europe's languages: she was the mother of our philosophy; mother, through the Arabs, of much of our mathematics; mother, through the Buddha, of the ideals embodied in Christianity; mother, through the village community, of self-government and democracy. Mother India is in many ways the mother of us all.”{WD/ L-80}"
"One is told that those who have genuine interest in working on the Indian past now go to certain reputed universities in the US, who not only have a rich collection of relevant books, but also have faculty proficient in Sanskrit! ... The comments of Gurcharan Das are worth noting:
"“... an Indian who seriously wants to study the classics of Sanskrit or ancient regional languages will have to go abroad…This is extraordinary in a country with dozens of Sanskrit departments in all major Indian universities... The ugly truth is that the quality of teaching in these institutions is so poor that not a single graduate is able to think seriously about the past and critically examine ancient texts... Where is India’s soft power when there are fewer and fewer Indians capable of interrogating the texts of Kalidasa or the edicts of Ashoka?... To be worthy of being Indian does not mean to stop speaking in English. It means to be able to have an organic connection with our many rich linguistic pasts... What separates man from beast is memory and if we lose historical memory then we surrender it to those who will abuse it.”{ URL45}
"The adverse fallout of the above is that gross distortionists of the Hindu cultural and religious heritage like Wendy Doniger of the University of Chicago, and Sheldon Pollock of the Columbia University have become respected global authorities on Sanskrit, Sanskrit literature and ancient Indian heritage. What is more, some rich Indian businessmen have financed them liberally to bring out series based on Indian classics, rather than financing competent Indians. Their interpretations are biased and distorted. It is only lately that people like Rajiv Malhotra and other Indians have begun exposing them. Books by Rajiv Malhotra like ‘Breaking India’, ‘Being Different’, ‘The Battle for Sanskrit’ are worth reading ... "
"Many opine that Sanskrit even deserves to be the National Language of India (a privilege currently given to none) for several unassailable reasons. It was the link language and the sole medium of not only religion and rituals, but also of philosophy, metaphysics, literature, poetry, mathematics, astronomy, science, law, jurisprudence, etc. for several millennia in India. It not only has a rich vocabulary, but has a built-in mechanism to generate new vocabulary based on a vast store of base-words and roots. It has a national identity as its vocabulary pervades all Indian languages. No region can claim it as belonging to it alone, hence no regional conflict in its usage.
"“On September 11 1949, the then Law Minister Dr B.R. Ambedkar supported by DyMinister for External Affairs Dr B.V. Keskar and Mr Naziruddin Ahmed sponsored an amendment declaring that the official language of the Union shall be Sanskrit. The amendment had thirteen other signatories of whom eleven hailed from South-India including nine from Madras.”{URL72}"
................................................................................................
"While many studies have documented the predominance of the political left in the academic world, the exceptional areas where they do not have such predominance are precisely those areas where you cannot escape from facts and results— the sciences, engineering, mathematics and athletics. By contrast, no area of academia is more dominated by the left than the humanities, where there are no facts to challenge the fantasies that abound. Leftists head for similar fact-free zones outside of academia.
"—Thomas Sowell"
He wasn't aware of fashionable idiots in India of seventies, from upper middle class, who - not all, of course, but some - spouted leftism, and proclaimed Mao above all, discarding Moscow as failed due to improper implementation.
"In India, you just have to get familiar with the “leftist, anti-American, pro-Arab, anti-Israel, ‘secularist’, Hindu-baiting, Muslim-apologist, Nehruvian, JNU-type” refrain and jargon to qualify as an intellectual and a “liberal”— when you are actually a ‘Fiberal’: fake liberal. ... "
Oh, so true!
In those days when a meal in a downtown restaurant for middle class white collar office workers cost Rs 2/- in Mumbai, no frills, these fashionable leftists spent considerable amounts on audio cassettes and tape recorders, which - of amount on each of the cassettes - could instead have fed well over fifty poor a meal. Perhaps that is only a drop in the ocean, but then their spouting leftism only amounted to a belief, that if and when it came, they'd rise to top, due to - what? Talking leftism?
Anything else, they could have taken small steps right then.
" ... It’s that easy. No serious knowledge or expertise or research work or analytical ability or originality or integrity or depth and width of reading and study is required. The origin, spread, and entrenchment of this class has been thanks to Nehru and his Dynasty."
Puranik is underestimating leftist propaganda that emanated and infiltrated from China, mostly via Bengal Naxalites and associates.
"Besides, it is safe. Others won’t heckle you. Because, these typical Indian leftists have an invisible, informal brotherhood. They support, defend and promote one another, ensure their predominance in the academe and government bodies, and stoutly defend their turf. They are also “eminent” invitees on TV and public functions, seriously ventilating their hackneyed, stale ideas. These windbags have not come up with a single original idea in the last seven decades. The Leftist–Socialist-Fiberal “Intellectual” is actually an oxymoron, and an anachronism."
Indeed!
"The typical Nehruvian-Socialist-“ Secular”-“ Liberal”“Intellectual” parasitic cabal that has spawned the academe, the cultural, literary, archaeological and historical bodies, and sarkari establishments, and has infested and dominated the opinion-making arms like the media unfortunately represents the worst in intellectual traditions, and has become a major stumbling block in progress, for it has managed to pervert sensible discourse. It is even “liberal” and fashionable to be anti-national!
" ... Its “Secularism” does not rise above religion; but is restricted to being anti-Hindu and pro-Muslim, and being unmoved and unconcerned by blatantly illegal proselytization. Its “Liberalism” is being pro-Animal rights while being pro-beef and pro-nonveg; being anti-American while yearning for green-card or assignments in the US; being a rationalist by slamming all Hindu customs and beliefs, while keeping mum on regressive practices of Islam or Christianity ; being pro-Arab and anti-Israel ; being anti-Sanskrit while being pro-German or pro-foreign language; and so on."
"They oppose renaming Aurangzeb road, named after a cruel bigot who razed temples and perpetrated atrocities on non-Muslims; but never raise a voice against naming of hundreds of government schemes and institutions after the Nehru-Gandhis; or renaming of hundreds of towns and villages in Kashmir by Abdullahs and Muftis. They talk of common man and justice and rage about inequality, but find nothing uncommon or no injustice or no inequality in the unjust shameless continuance of the Dynasty! They shout against intolerance, but are themselves the prime examples of intolerance for alternate view (despite it being far superior to theirs)!!"
Well, considering the comments by their flag bearing politicians about the now twice elected PM, in context of his working when he was a young boy for his father who was then a poor tea vendor at a railway station, that leftist front is a fragile pose that's destroyed by anyone really of poor roots rising to what they consider the domain of Doon elite!
Meanwhile it's the Hindus considered casteist who love the PM after his roots are exposed, vote him to power more than once, and celebrate his visits to the lands where they have lived as expatriates for decades!
And the PM isn't the only one. There's Hukum Dev Narayan Yadav whose speeches, his very language, is a delight, as is his genuineness; do the so-called leftists appreciate the farmer from origin of poverty? No, it's the fraudulently labelled "right wing", that does - fraudulently labelled so by the so-called leftists, that is.
................................................................................................
"Gandhi had once told: “Jawahar wants Englishmen to go but Angreziat to stay. I want Angreziat to go but Englishmen to remain as our friends.”{DD/ 261} Knowing this, why Gandhi chose Nehru as prime minister is a mystery. ... "
Because he'd sold out for the support by Motilal Nehru in exchange for a promise?
Because he'd been guilty as a father against his own son(s?), and instead of the hard route to make it up to the wronged son(s?), it was a comforting, convenient informal adoption of a virtual prince and an only son and heir to Nehru wealth, whom he called his "spiritual son", who only had to be put on the pedestal repeatedly by him using his clout, pushing off those elected by people legitimately, Subhash Chandra Bose, Sardar Patel?
" ... Gandhi used to say that even though Nehru used to fight with him on many issues, ultimately he used to agree with him [Gandhi]. Little did Gandhi know that it was not because Nehru agreed with him, but because Nehru knew that to continue to differ from Gandhi might cost him his position—like it happened with Netaji Subhas—and his goal of becoming the prime minister. ... "
That's doubtful, both ways. Gandhi did much unfair, illegal to push up Jawaharlal Nehru, but did he have another acceptable to him and to India?
Subhash Chandra Bose he'd pushed out severely, because the younger leader was far too popular, and so was his thought; loyalty he inspired was what made his escape possible and raised INA into a formidable organisation that planted the flag of free India in Imphal and had India revolt against British, making them flee.
Gandhi didn't want, didn't tolerate, another point of view, a competing leader, even when he respected him as Subhash Chandra Bose did; he also wanted someone he could dictate in matters of Hindu massacres in Pakistan and other related matters, which Sardar Patel would not perhaps have been quite so amenable with.
Wrote François Gautier: “Nehru, writes French historian Alain Danielou, ‘was the perfect replica of a certain type of Englishman. He often used the expression ‘continental people’, with an amused and sarcastic manner, to designate French or Italians. He despised non-anglicised Indians and had a very superficial and partial knowledge of India. His ideal was the romantic socialism of 19th century Britain. But this type of socialism was totally unfit to India, where there was no class struggle and where the conditions were totally different from 19th century Europe’.”{FG2}"
Someone else, more than one person, had commented similarly about Gandhi; one pointed out that, his attire subsequent to his arrival in India notwithstanding, he was an Englishman at heart. What he didn't go as far as to say, was that if only an Englishman hadn't thrown him out onto the platform despite his legally purchased ticket, he'd likely not have challenged British at all.
Yet another, a greater authority, said that Gandhi had soul of, not an Indian, not a Hindu, but a medieval Russian Christian.
"Nehru was reported to have said about himself: “Galbraith, I am the last Englishman to rule India!”{Wolp2/ 23} Nehru said this privately in his conversation with the American ambassador JK Galbraith. The remark is also mentioned in Fareed Zakaria’s book, ‘The Post-American World’{Zak}. We had such great swadeshi nationalists! Nehru had also remarked: “… in my likes and dislikes I was perhaps more an Englishman than Indian. I looked upon the world from an Englishman’s standpoint.”{RNPS/ 100} It was one thing to feel so, but quite another to be self-complementary or arrogant about it, unless you were not a proud, patriotic, rooted Indian. Tweeted the renowned scholar Dr David Frawley: “Nehru's Discovery of India teaches us one thing— Nehru never discovered the real India that is Bharat. His view of India was from a Eurocentric vision.”{Tw5}"
Here's the key - as per England, the very concept of propriety is identified with the English, while India is seen as junglee, with dome semblance of romantic old world civilisation sticking in tatters to muslims as heritage of an abrahmic creed coupled with mughal DNA; that this mutual DNA isn't Persian but instead is that of hordes of Mongolian origin, and is related intimately to steppes of Central Asia, is conveniently ignored.
And just as conveniently ignored is the awe-inspirinhly tremendous treasure that's Hinduism, or knowledge inherent in culture of ancient India by any name, because it brings a severe discomfort to see it, about just how paltry the Abrahamic-II and subsequent Abrahamic-III, Abrahamic-IV are, so it's convenient to wear blinkers of a Macaulay doctrine and proceed to tear Hinduism to shreds, viciously.
Familiar? British, Churchill, Nixon, ... missionaries, Abrahamic-II, Abrahamic-III, Abrahamic-IV, ....
Nehru was brought up to be an Englishman at Harrow and Cambridge, and growing years do matter. He wasn't brought up as Hindu in Allahabad prior to Harrow, either, but taught all three streams, and never acquired roots of an Indian being.
"In fact, when Nehru had returned to Allahabad from London after his studies , the then British Governor of UP had hoped that George (as Jawaharlal was known in the British Indian circles then) would be Lord Macaulay’s dream of a Brown Englishman come true.{YGB/ ix} Nehru seemed to fit well with what Lord Thomas Babington Macaulay, the ‘Pope’ of British –English education in India, had conceptualised in his Minute on Education on 2 February 1835:
"“We must at present do our best to form a class who may be interpreters between us and the millions whom we govern; a class of persons, Indian in blood and colour, but English in taste, in opinions, in morals, and in intellect.”{URL26}"
One has to admit, until reading it, this moment, it never occurred to one even familiar with that - and other obstreporous pronouncements - by Macaulay, that one of the prototypes was Jawaharlal Nehru!
"You notice a sharp contrast between the Motilal-Jawaharlal-tribe and the Narsimha Rao-tribe? Motilal-Jawaharlal-tribe, that is, the Motilal Nehru dynasty, the imitators like Motilal Nehru, his son, the ICS tribe and the like, went to ridiculous extent to be more English than the Englishmen. ... They were afflicted by what can be termed as the “Coolie-complex” which resulted in their internalising an inferiority-complex, self-loathing, and a contempt for things Indian, particularly Hindu religion, culture and traditions; and made them ape the West."
"On the other hand, the PVN Rao-tribe, that is, the current young generation of information technologists, finance professionals, management consultants and the like, who have come up thanks to reversal of the Nehru Dynasty’s economic policies by Narsimha Rao, are confident professionals meeting all—English, Americans, Europeans, Australians, Canadians, Japanese, Chinese, Singaporeans—on equal terms, never considering it necessary to know Queen’s English (SMS English or Working English being sufficient), or to imitate their mores and habits, merely to look “like them”. In fact, if this Jeans generation gets to know of the Motilal-Jawaharlal-tribe and what they did, they would be aghast."
Reminds of the transformation one saw, from our desi science groups struggling on scanty finances in New England in early eighties, strugglingto aclimatise, with world cuisines and western classical music, to the post millennium IT crowd at ease in easy desi fashions in West coast Indian Cafe-restaurants, feasting on desi chaats, unimpressed with being elsewhere than India.
................................................................................................
"With dominance of Christianity in the West the results were disastrous: the Dark Ages, and violent punishments, repressions, tortures, and Inquisitions that continued during the subsequent period. Christianity claimed to be the “only truth” and the “only true religion”, and was even opposed to science if it digressed from the Christian beliefs— notable, illustrative examples of victims (or those who, afraid of the Church, tended to hide or delay publication of their findings) being the greats like Nicolaus Copernicus, Galileo Galilei, Charles Darwin.
"It was gradually realised that the necessary drivers of a civilised , harmonious , progressive and prosperous state were multi-religious societies, multiculturism, free thinking and propagation of knowledge, and unhindered scientific pursuits—but, all these became victims of the Christian totalitarianism and exclusivism. This led to the advocation of the concept of “Secularism”.
"However, Indian-Hindu civilisation had built-in secularism, and it did not just readily accept, it freely promoted, multi-ethnicity, multi-religions, and multiculturism; and its Dharmic traditions actively promoted and encouraged pursuit of knowledge and science—quite unlike and in sharp contrast to the latter-two Abrahamic faiths (Christianity and Islam). No wonder, Indian mathematics, astronomy, medicine, etc. were centuries ahead of the West."
Author mentions a speech by Jawaharlal Nehru at his opening of a Ramakrishna mission in Calcutta, and it truly is horrifying. Author questions, but the question that immediately occurs to a reader, is, whether he never thought of closing all religious places on that basis, including those related to creeds associated with erstwhile colonial regimes; or did he take it for granted everyone understood he despised them all equally?
Did he?
"Wrote David Frawley in his foreword to Sandeep Balkrishna’s book ‘70 Years of Secularism: Unpopular Essays on the Unofficial Political Religion of India’{SBK}:
" ... That something is ‘against secularism’ became a way to condemn anything Hindu as effectively as missionaries and mullahs had used such terms as polytheist , idolater, heathen or kafir. Secularism gained a new sanctity to override any spiritual basis to India’s culture. Anti-secular forces were in turn, deemed ‘fascist’, revealing the leftist rhetoric behind the charge. There was an effort to make anything Hindu as fascist, just as the Chinese communists regarded Tibetan Buddhism as fascist… The book documents the cultural genocide that the Nehruvian-Marxist alliance wrought on India over the last seventy years, and its great civilization of many thousands of years, under the name of secularism and socialism. While India did not politically become communist, it was a communist sympathizing culture and was under communist intellectual rule, even long after the fall of the Soviet Union in 1991. This shadow has yet to be entirely lifted. Lifting it is the intellectual necessity for India to progress whether materially or culturally…”{SBK}"
"Jinnah’s call for observance of ‘Direct Action Day’on 16 August 1946 had led to the Calcutta Carnage, or the Great Calcutta Killings. It was the worst communal carnage committed by the Muslim League that left 5,000 to 10,000 dead, 15,000 injured, and about one lakh homeless! It was followed by gruesome attacks on Hindus by Muslims at other places like Noakhali and Tippera districts in East Bengal. HS Suhrawardy, who was heading the Muslim League–dominated government in Bengal (and who then came to be known as the “butcher of Calcutta”), rather than controlling the situation, further instigated the Muslim goondas. Nehru, as the Vice President of the Executive Council (that became the Interim Government on 2 September 1946, with Nehru as the PM) did little to bring relief to the victims on the specious plea of provincial autonomy—that law and order was a state subject, hence the domain of the Bengal Provincial Government. However, when there was a reaction later in Bihar to those Hindu killings in Bengal, Nehru himself rushed to Bihar ignoring the fact of provincial autonomy, even threatening the Bihari Hindus with bombings! Nehruvian ‘Secular’Rule: if Muslims kill Hindus, then ignore, or make excuses, or hide behind technical grounds; but if Hindus counter-react to Muslim killings, immediately get into action against the Hindus!"
In this, he was certainly following Gandhi.
"Among many other matters where Patel and Nehru had divergent positions was the issue of Ajmer riots soon after independence. In the Ajmer communal riots, notwithstanding the undisputed mischief of the Muslims, while Sardar Patel rightly backed the Chief Secretary Shankar Prasad, Nehru intervened through his private secretary HVR Iyengar to mollycoddle violent Muslims, and instructed that as many Hindus (though they were not the guilty party— they were indeed the victims) as Muslims be arrested— to maintain balance!{IE}"
Later so-called secular discourse, even demand, has merged with sharia, although without saying so honestly or openly - namely, any muslim affected due to anything Hindu is abominable, while massacres and worse of Hindu victims by muslims are of no consequence whatsoever, other than immediate denial and later, forever, bragging.
This can be seen in how much howling goes up against Israel, but the matter of Pakistani tanks going over the same Palestinians, that too inside kaba, isn't deposed to be a concern of anybody else, because the said tanks (and the soldiers therein) were there at invitation of the regime.
Jawaharlal Nehru, however, stopped Mountbatten from illegal procedures against Bihar riots, arguing that in all fairness they were retaliatory, and any procedures must include original carnage. (One forgets the source of this, read some time within last decade or so, but it could be Pamela Hicks writing about her family in India at the time.)
................................................................................................
"Somnath Temple is on the shore of the Arabian sea in the coastal town of Somnath at Prabhaspatan near Veraval in Junagadh district in Kathiawar in the Saurashtra region of Gujarat. It is 6km from Veraval, and 80km from Junagadh. It is the most sacred of the twelve Aadi Jyotirlings. The temple is said to have been first built sometime before the common era—BCE. It was destroyed and looted six times: by Junayad, the Arab governor of Sind, in 725 CE; by Mahmud of Ghazni in 1024 CE; by Sultan Allauddin Khilji in 1296 CE; by Muzaffar Shah I, the Sultan of Gujarat, in 1375 CE; by Mahmud Begda, the Sultan of Gujarat in 1451 CE; and by Aurangzeb in 1701 CE. But, each time it was rebuilt.
"At the time of liberation of Junagadh in November 1947 (Blunder# 31), Sardar Patel also visited the Somnath Temple (located in the Junagadh State), then in a dilapidated condition, and pledged to reconstruct and restore it to its original glory. Gandhi, when advised by Patel of the commitment, suggested the funds for restoration must come from the public—Patel accepted the advice.
"The then Education Minister Maulana Azad, under whom the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) came, opposed the idea of renovation and suggested that the ruins be handed over to the ASI and preserved in as-is condition. Significantly, he never suggested the same for the Muslim shrines and mosques being repaired by the ASI.{Mak/ 140}
"Upon the death of Sardar Patel, the task was taken forward by the cabinet minister KM Munshi. However , Nehru made no bones about his opposition to the project , and made snide remarks, telling Munshi: “I don’t like your trying to restore Somnath. It is Hindu revivalism.”{Mak/ 141}
"Cultured and learned Munshi, of course, sent an appropriate and telling reply to Nehru, which included the words:
"“It is my faith in the past which has given me the strength to work in the present and to look forward to our future. I cannot value freedom if it deprives us of the Bhagavad Gita or uproots our millions from the faith with which they look upon our temples and thereby destroys the texture of our lives…”{Mak/ 154}"
"KM Munshi had invited President Dr Rajendra Prasad to attend the inaugural function of the rebuilt Somnath temple in May 1951. Protesting vehemently, Nehru opposed Dr Prasad’s attending the ceremony, and wrote to him:
"“I confess that I do not like the idea of your associating yourself with a spectacular opening of the Somnath Temple. This is not merely visiting a temple, which can certainly be done by you or anyone else, but rather participating in a significant function which unfortunately has a number of implications…”{Swa4}"
"Nehru also wrote to Rajaji on 11 March 1951 in the connection: “I wrote to him [Rajendra Prasad] that while there was obviously no objection to his visiting this temple [Somnath] or any other temple or other places of worship normally, on this particular occasion the inauguration of the temple would have a certain significance and certain implications. Therefore, for my part, I would have preferred if he did not associate himself in this way…”{JNSW/ Vol-16-1/ 603}"
"Dr Prasad explained that the significance of Somnath lay in being a symbol of national resistance against invaders. He made an excellent inaugural speech, highlighting, inter alia, that it was the creative urge for civilisational renewal, nurtured in the hearts of the people through centuries that had once again led to the praan-pratishta of the Somnath deity. Somnath was the symbol of economic and spiritual prosperity of ancient India, he said. The rebuilding of Somnath will not be complete till India attains the prosperity of the yesteryear… Such a grand speech! But, at Nehru’s instance, Dr Rajendra Prasad’s speech was blanked out by the official channels.{DD/ 332} See the gall of the dictator Nehru: He could blank out even President’s speech! And Nehru’s cabinet colleagues, Congress leaders, the Opposition, and the media remained mute spectators to such brazen conduct of Nehru!!
"Interesting contrast: “History snippets... In 1950, Jawaharlal [Nehru] stopped govt aid of ₹ 5 lakh to rebuild Somnath Mandir. He passed Haj Act in 1959 & allocated ₹ 10 Cr for it.”{Tw1}
"It is significant that Nehru raised no such tantrums when it came to subsequent restoration of Sanchi or Sarnath, although the same were done through government funds (while Somnath restoration was through public, and not government, funds). Why? They were Buddhist places! Nehru had problems with only Hindu places!
"As per a tweet{Tw6}, it came to light during the Ayodhya Ram Mandir court hearings that in 1947 a number of masjids were constructed/ repaired in Delhi with the government money— this needs verification from other sources."
................................................................................................
"But for the timely intervention of certain senior, enlightened leaders after independence, Nehru would have carried through yet another major blunder of reservations for Muslims, plunging India further into communal politics under the ‘secular’ facade, as would be amply clear from the following extracts from the autobiography ‘Government from Inside’ of NV Gadgil:{Mak/ 323-5}
" ... Liaquat Ali [Pakistan’s PM] came to Delhi in March 1950, had discussions with Nehru and one fine morning at 10 o’clock Nehru placed before the cabinet a draft of his agreement with him [Liaquat Ali]. I am not sure if Vallabhbhai [Sardar Patel] was consulted before the draft was agreed to. The final two paragraphs in the agreement accepted the principle of reservation for Muslims in proportion to their population in all the services and representative bodies in the constituent states of India. Similar provisions were suggested for the Central Government also.
"“Each one of us got the copy of the draft, but no one would open his mouth…I said, ‘These two paragraphs nullify the whole philosophy of the Congress. The country had to pay the price of division as a result of its acceptance of separate electorates. You are asking it to drink the same poison again. This is betrayal, forgetful of the last forty years of history.’Nehru was displeased.
"“Gopalaswami Aiyangar said, ‘There is substance in Gadgil’s objections’and volunteered to redraft the two provisions. I said, ‘These two paragraphs must go lock, stock and barrel and no South Indian cleverness would do.’Hearing this Nehru replied with anger, ‘I have agreed to this with Liaquat Ali Khan.’I said, ‘You must have told him that the agreement can be finalised only after the Cabinet’s approval. I cannot speak for other cabinet members, but I am opposed to it hundred percent.’On this Vallabhbhai quietly suggested that the discussions should be postponed to the next day and the meeting was adjourned.
"“Vallabhbhai called me for discussions…I told him, figuratively speaking, ‘The marriage must not take place simply because the father wants it. The bride is not approved. You must speak plainly now, otherwise complications will follow and we may have to repent. We have decided on a secular government. This agreement destroys that conception.’The same night I received from him [Sardar Patel] the papers regarding the revisions suggested by Gopalaswami Aiyangar and his [Sardar Patel’s] disapproval of them. I noted on them my agreement with him. When the cabinet met the next day, the last two paragraphs were omitted…The other Ministers congratulated me, but it has to be sadly recorded that at the time of discussion on the draft, none of them opposed Nehru…”{ Mak/ 323-5}"
Who else but a Marathi, that too Chitpaawan, would dare opposing Nehru?
................................................................................................
"Said Will Durant, the famous American historian and philosopher in his book ‘The Case for India’:{WD}
"“British rule in India is the most sordid and criminal exploitation of one nation by another in all recorded history. I propose to show that England has year by year been bleeding India to the point of death...
"“But I saw such things in India as made me feel that study and writing were frivolous things in the presence of a people— one fifth of the human race— suffering poverty and oppression bitterer than any to be found elsewhere on the earth. I was horrified. I had not thought it possible that any government could allow its subjects to sink to such misery...
"“The civilization that was destroyed by British guns... has produced saints from Buddha to Gandhi; philosophy from the Vedas to Schopenhauer and Bergson, Thoreau and Keyserling, who take their lead and acknowledge their derivation from India. (India, says Count Keyserling, ‘has produced the profoundest metaphysics that we know of”; and he speaks of ‘the absolute superiority of India over the West in philosophy’)...
"“The more I read the more I was filled with astonishment and indignation at the apparently conscious and deliberate bleeding of India by England throughout a hundred and fifty years. I began to feel that I had come upon the greatest crime in all history...
"“The British conquest of India was the invasion and destruction of a high civilization by a trading company utterly without scruples or principle, careless of art and greedy of gain, overrunning with fire and sword a country temporarily disordered and helpless, bribing and murdering, annexing and stealing, and beginning that career of illegal and ‘legal’plunder which has now gone on ruthlessly for one hundred and seventy-three years, and goes on at this moment while in our secure comfort we write and read.
"“Aurangzeb, the Puritanic Moghul emperor who misgoverned India for fifty years when he died the realm fell to pieces. It was a simple matter for a group of English buccaneers, armed with the latest European artillery and mortars to defeat the petty princes. It was the wealth of 18th century India which attracted the commercial pirates of England and France . This wealth was created by the Hindus’ vast and varied industries and trade. It was to reach India of fabulous wealth that Columbus sailed the seas. It was this wealth that the East India Company proposed to appropriate...”{WD}"
"Edmund Burke had predicted in 1783 that the annual drain of Indian resources to England without equivalent return would eventually destroy India. In 1901, Rajni Palme Dutt estimated that one-half of the net revenues of India flowed annually out of the country, never to return: “So great an economic drain out of the resources of the land would impoverish the most prosperous countries on earth; it has reduced India to a land of famines more frequent, more widespread, and more fatal, than any known before in the history of India or of the world.”
"Commented Rajeev Srinivasan:{URL65} “A strong case has been made by William Digby quoting Brooks Adams that the Industrial Revolution (circa 1760) could not have happened in Britain had it not been for the loot that came in from India. It is indeed a curious coincidence: Plassey (1757); the flying shuttle (1760); the spinning jenny (1764); the power-loom (1765); the steam engine (1768)…
"“Digby estimated in 1901 that the total amount of treasure extracted from India by the British was 1,000,000,000 pounds—a billion pounds. Considering the looting from 1901 to 1947 and the effects of inflation, this is probably worth a trillion dollars in today's money. Serious money, indeed. Shouldn't we ask for some reparation?”
"However, the most recent estimates are far more than the above. As per a ‘Business Today’ report of Nov-2018: “Renowned economist Utsa Patnaik, who has done research on the fiscal relations between Colonial India and Britain, has tried to answer a question many Indians are likely to be interested to know— how much money did Britishers take away from India? Patnaik, in her essay published in Columbia University Press recently, said Britain drained out over $ 45 trillion from India, which to date has hampered the country's ability to come out of poverty.”{W.uk1}"
"In view of the above, like many countries who had demanded apology and reparations from the countries who had tormented and looted them, India too should have assessed, documented and put a financial estimate to the damages done by the British, should have quantified the loot of two centuries, converted them at 1947 prices, and should then have claimed reparation from Britain, along with written and oral apology . Additionally, a detailed list of all the artefacts, archaeological pieces, precious stones such as Kohinoor and other items stolen from India should have been prepared and reclaimed from the British.
"It is worth noting that the arts and treasures that the Nazis took away from the Western countries they attacked and annexed were called loot, and termed unjust, and Germany was forced to return the same to its rightful owner countries. Since the arts and treasures were from the Western countries, and NOT the Asian or African countries, they were loot, and were required to be returned! Loot from the Asian or African countries was not loot. What double standards!!"
Slight correction - the precious treasure of Greece looted by British and, misnamed Elgin Marbles, was kept on exhibit in British Museum in London, has been demanded for decades by Greece. From Wikipedia -
""In March 2021 the British Prime Minister, Boris Johnson issued a point-blank rejection of the Parthenon marbles being returned to Greece. Stating "The UK government has a firm longstanding position on the sculptures, which is that they were legally acquired by Lord Elgin under the appropriate laws of the time and have been legally owned by the British Museum’s trustees since their acquisition.”[122]
"For the first time, UNESCO, on 30 September 2021, issued a decision calling for the United Kingdom to return the Parthenon Marbles to Greece, beyond the positive recommendations that it has issued for years. Specifically, Decision 22 COM 17 of UNESCO's Inter-Governmental Committee, asks the British government to urgently review its policy against repartriation of the marbles.[123]"
British Government had a while ago similarly refused to return Kohinoor, even asking who were they supposed to return it to (since it had been acquired after killing Ranjit Singh, from his son who was the heir and was very young, who was converted by British), thus questioning legitimacy of India as an entity.
" ... On Kohinoor, Nehru had made a weird comment:
"“To exploit our good relations with some country to obtain free gifts from it [the convenient contention being that Kohinoor was GIFTED (a lie) to the British!] of valuable articles does not seem to be desirable. On the other hand, it does seem to be desirable that foreign museums should have Indian objects of art.”{ W.n10}"
................................................................................................
"“Nehru’s love for English and his leftist leanings spawned a generation of leftist historians who rewrote Indian history in English and put the evidence of history on its head.”—BN Sharma{BNS/ 246}
"“They [Marxist-Negationist Historians] have made India out to have been an empty land—filled with successive invaders. They have made present-day India, and Hinduism even more so, out to be a zoo—an agglomeration of assorted, disparate specimens. No such thing as ‘India’, just a geographical expression, just a construct of the British, no such thing as Hinduism, just a word used by Arabs to describe the assortment they encountered, just an invention of the communalists to impose a uniformity—that has been their stance. For this they have blackened the Hindu period of history, and, as we shall see, strained to whitewash the Islamic period. They have denounced ancient India’s social system as the epitome of oppression, and made totalitarian ideologies [like Christianity, Islam and Communism] out to be egalitarian and just.”
"—Arun Shourie{ AS2/ x}
"“In fact, marked characteristic of the Leftist ransack of Indian history is the systematic manner in which they have succeeded in brainwashing at least three generations of Indians to be ashamed of taking pride in timeless, unbroken cultural and local traditions and accomplishments to the extent that both lay readers and students are repelled at and therefore disown them. This perversion also extends to our heroes, saints, poets, philosophers and the rest... Perhaps in no other country has self-hatred succeeded and touched its pinnacle as it has in India.”—Sandeep Balakrishna{SBK/ L-2339}
"“In the aftermath of invasion, in the ancient cities of Varanasi, Mathura, Ujjain, Maheshwar, …, and Dwarka, not one temple survived whole and intact. This is the equivalent of an army marching into Paris, Rome, Florence and Oxford, and razing their architectural treasures to the ground. It is an act beyond nihilism; it is an outright negativism, a hatred of what is cultured and civilized.”—David J. Jonsson{DJ/ 86}
"“Literary evidence of Islamic iconoclasm vis-a-vis Hindu places of worship is far more extensive. It covers a longer span of time, from the fifth decade of the 7th century to the closing years of the eighteenth. It also embraces a larger space, from Transoxiana in the north to Tamil Nadu in the south, and from Afghanistan in the west to Assam in the east… Archaeological explorations in modern times have, however, provided physical proofs of literary descriptions. The vast cradle of Hindu culture is literally littered with ruins of temples and monasteries belonging to all sects of Sanatana Dharma— Buddhist, Jain, Saiva, Shakta, Vaishnava and the rest.”
"“Almost all medieval Muslim historians credit their heroes with desecration of Hindu idols and/ or destruction of Hindu temples. The picture that emerges has the following components, depending upon whether the iconoclast was in a hurry on account of Hindu resistance or did his work at leisure after a decisive victory: (1) The idols were mutilated or smashed or burnt or melted down if they were made of precious metals. (2) Sculptures in relief on walls and pillars were disfigured or scraped away or torn down. (3) Idols of stone and inferior metals or their pieces were taken away, sometimes by cartloads, to be thrown down before the main mosque in (a) the metropolis of the ruling Muslim sultan and (b) the holy cities of Islam, particularly Mecca, Medina and Baghdad. (4) There were instances of idols being turned into lavatory seats or handed over to butchers to be used as weights while selling meat. (5) Brahmin priests and other holy men in and around the temple were molested or murdered. (6) Sacred vessels and scriptures used in worship were defiled and scattered or burnt. (7) Temples were damaged or despoiled or demolished or burnt down or converted into mosques with some structural alterations or entire mosques were raised on the same sites mostly with temple materials. (8) Cows were slaughtered on the temple sites so that Hindus could not use them again.”
"“The literary sources, like epigraphic , provide evidence of the elation which Muslims felt while witnessing or narrating these ‘pious deeds’. A few citations from Amir Khusru will illustrate the point...”—Sita Ram Goel{SRG4a/ 17-18}
"“... historical distortion has been carried out with regard to Tipu Sultan, who in many ways is the Aurangzeb of the South. As the author of a book on Tipu Sultan (Tipu Sultan: The Tyrant of Mysore, Rare Publications, Chennai), I am both amused and amazed at the continuing efforts to paint him as a hero, patriot, and freedom fighter... His seventeen-year long regime was primarily a tenure of military and economic terror as far as Hindus were concerned. He razed entire cities literally to the ground and depopulated them... As representative samples, we can examine his raids in Kodagu (Coorg) and the Malabar for the extent and scale of sheer barbarism and large scale destruction... An excerpt from Bartholomew provides us a representative glimpse: 'First a corps of 30,000 barbarians who butchered everybody on the way…followed by the field-gun unit…Tipu was riding on an elephant behind which another army of 30,000 soldiers followed. Most of the men and women were hanged in Calicut, first mothers were hanged with their children tied to necks of mothers. That barbarian Tipu Sultan tied the naked Christians and Hindus to the legs of elephants and made the elephants to move around till the bodies of the helpless victims were torn to pieces. Temples and churches were ordered to be burned down, desecrated and destroyed. Christian and Hindu women were forced to marry Mohammadans and similarly their men were forced to marry Mohammadan women. Those Christians who refused to be honoured with Islam, were ordered to be killed by hanging immediately. These atrocities were told to me by the victims of Tipu Sultan who escaped from the clutches of his army and reached Varappuzha, which is the centre of Carmichael Christian Mission. I myself helped many victims to cross the Varappuzha River by boats.'... Tipu Sultan in letters to Syed Abdul Dulai and his officer Budruz Zaman Khan respectively, gloats thus: 'With the grace of Prophet Mohammed and Allah, almost all Hindus in Calicut are converted to Islam. Only on the borders of Cochin State a few are still not converted. I am determined to convert them also very soon. I consider this as Jehad…'”—Sandeep Balakrishna{ SBK/ L-2488-2528}
"“Quiet hatred is the escape for the traumatised Hindu. Few Muslims realise how deeply they have wounded the Hindu psyche . The reason is that, unlike Christians in the crusades, Hindus have not paid back in the same coin. How then is the Muslim to know? Think of how much sound and fury did the Babri episode arouse. No Hindu however has said that 62 temples were desecrated in Bangladesh during 1990 alone; a good two years before Babri. Many more after 6th December, 1992. So has written Taslima Nasrin. In Pakistan, 178 temples met the same fate. Within India, in Kashmir to be precise, some 27 mandirs were destroyed… More recently, the Buddha was felled at Bamiyan.”—Prafull Goradia, ‘Hindu Masjids’{PG/ 8,9}
"Sita Ram Goel’s book ‘Hindu Temples: What Happened to Them, Vol-I’, Chapter-6 ‘Let the Mute Witnesses Speak’ lists “state-wise and district-wise, the particulars of Muslim monuments which stand on the sites and/ or have been built with the materials of Hindu temples”: it is a long 93-pages (72-165 ) list comprising hundreds of monuments.{SRG4a/ 41-165}"
"Even more disastrous than the holocaust and destruction of temples described above was the destruction by the Muslim hordes of India’s economy and prosperity, and its grand educational system , universities, and rich culture of knowledge, and mass-scale murder of its intellectual-class.
"The foundations of science and engineering is maths, and without the latter the former are not possible. India’s Hindu civilization and its built-in pursuit of knowledge produced math and astronomy geniuses . India gave to the world the Hindu (wrongly called Hindu -Arab) numerals 0 to 9, place-value system, decimal system, trigonometry, calculus, and so on (pl. watch videos of CK Raju, Ramprasad Soghal, and others). That the earth moves around the sun, the earth is a sphere, and is not flat, and many such revolutionary ideas were postulated by the Indian mathematicians and astronomers many centuries before they were floated in the West. Given India’s strong economy (27% of the World GDP in 1000 CE{W.e1}) and industrial and agricultural foundations, its unparalleled prowess in maths and astronomy , its vast educational setup and unequalled knowledge, enquiry, and innovation culture thanks to its Hindu civilization— free from Muslim-Christian absolutist dogmas— India would have been a massive science and industrial powerhouse centuries before the West, had the Muslim hordes not set their foot in India. In fact, the industrial revolution in Britain was fuelled from the Indian loot (pl. see Blunder# 89).
"Wrote VS Naipaul{ W.ih1}: “The invasions are in all the school books. But I don't think people understand that every invasion, every war, every campaign, was accompanied by slaughter, a slaughter always of the most talented people in the country. So these wars, apart from everything else, led to a tremendous intellectual depletion of the country... That was ruin not by an act of nature, but by the hand of man. It is so painful that few Indians have begun to deal with it. It's much easier to deal with British imperialism. That is a familiar topic, in India and Britain. What is much less familiar is the ravaging of India before the British. What happened from 1000 A.D. on, really, is such a wound that it is almost impossible to face. Certain wounds are so bad that they can't be written about. You deal with that kind of pain by hiding from it. You retreat from reality…What I was saying is that you cannot deal with a wound so big. I do not think, for example, that people like the Incas of Peru or the native people of Mexico have ever got over their defeat by the Spaniards. In both places, the head was cut off...”
"“‘ Fractured past’ is too polite a way to describe India’s calamitous millennium. The millennium began with the Muslim invasions and the grinding down of the Hindu- Buddhist culture of the north. This is such a big and bad event that people still have to find polite, destiny-defying ways of speaking about it. In art books and history books, people write of the Muslims ‘arriving’ in India, as though the Muslims came on a tourist bus and went away again. The Muslim view of their conquest of India is a truer one. They speak of the triumph of the faith, the destruction of idols and temples, the loot, the carting away of the local people as slaves, so cheap and numerous that they were being sold for a few rupees. The architectural evidence—the absence of Hindu monuments in the north—is convincing enough. This conquest was unlike any other that had gone before.”{W.ih1}"
"“Muslim politicians and scholars in present-day India resent any reference whatsoever to the destruction of Hindu temples in medieval times... There was, however, a time, not so long ago, when their predecessors viewed the same performance as an act of piety and proclaimed it with considerable pride in inscriptions and literary compositions… Whatever evidence the ‘Hindu communalists’ cite in this context comes entirely from Islamic sources, epigraphic and literary.”
"—Sita Ram Goel{SRG4a/ 13}"
"“Since about 1920 an effort has been going on in India to rewrite history and to deny the millennium-long attack of Islam on Hinduism. Today, most politicians and English-writing intellectuals in India will go out of their way to condemn any public reference to this long and painful conflict in the strongest terms.”{KE/ 32, 34}
"“Around 1920 Aligarh historian Mohammed Habib [father of Irfan Habib] launched a grand project to rewrite the history of the Indian religious conflict…”{KE/ 42}
"“The Aligarh school has been emulated on a large scale. Soon its torch was taken over by Marxist historians, who were building a reputation for unscrupulous history-rewriting in accordance with the party-line.”{ KE/ 44}
"“In this context , one should know that there is a strange alliance between the Indian Communist parties and the Muslim fanatics. In the forties the Communists gave intellectual muscle and political support to the Muslim League's plan to partition India and create an Islamic state. After independence, they successfully combined (with the tacit support of Prime minister Nehru) to sabotage the implementation of the constitutional provision that Hindi be adopted as national language, and to force India into the Soviet-Arab front against Israel. Ever since , this collaboration has continued to their mutual advantage as exemplified by their common front to defend the Babri Masjid, that symbol of Islamic fanaticism. Under Nehru's rule these Marxists acquired control of most of the educational and research institutes and policies.”{KE/ 44}
"Negationism with respect to Islamic conquest of India, and the consequent terrible atrocities committed for about a millennium, comprises the following tactics by the Nehruvian-Marxist historians and Left-Fiberals (Fake Liberals): (1) Simply deny or rubbish the facts. (2) Make sweeping assertions without sufficient evidence, or even despite the evidence to the contrary. (3) Suppress or distort or purposely misinterpret the facts of history for supposedly noble cause of communal harmony—as if the people are fools, and the truth would not be known. (4) Where the position is indefensible, deny the motive, and attribute the causes to something else. (5) Where the evidence of the historical facts stare you in the face, and it is impossible to ignore or suppress or misinterpret the same, try and minimise those facts, and try to pass them on as outliers, exceptional or one-off. (6) Where none of these dishonest tactics can work, try whitewashing. (7) Where even whitewashing is not possible, try whataboutery—if Muslim invaders were so, what about …; and try and show the other party in worse light. (8) If none of these may work, try invectives: the party daring to question the negationists is fascist and/ or racist and/ or communalist—in a true-blue Marxist-Communist style of labelling and abusing their opposers."
Puranik quotes extensively from the work of Arun Shourie, beginning here.
"Here are telling examples from Arun Shourie’s book ‘Eminent Historians’{AS2}:
"“Their [Marxist-Negationist historians like Irfan Habib, Romila Thapar, Satish Chandra, Suraj Bhan, RS Sharma, etc.] deceitful role in Ayodhya [Ram Janmabhoomi– Babri Masjid controversy]…was just symptomatic. For fifty years this bunch has been suppressing facts and inventing lies. How concerned they pretend to be today about the objective of ICHR— to promote objective and rational research into events of our past! How does this concern square with the guidelines issued by their West Bengal Government [Board of Secondary Education Circular] in 1989 which ‘Outlook’ itself had quoted—' Muslim rule [in India] should never attract any criticism. Destruction of temples by Muslim rulers and invaders should not be mentioned’? But incorporating their wholesale fabrications of the destruction of Buddhist Vihars, about the non-existent ‘Aryan invasion’, that is mandatory— to question [these liars] is communal, chauvinist…”{AS2/ 9}"
He quotes excerpts directing texts books in schools omit mentions of Muslim invasions, genocides and worse of Hindus by Muslim invaders, destructions of temples, libraries, universities, massacres of university scholars by tens of thousands, and further.
"But there isn't just whitewash of Islam. For after Islam came another great emancipatory ideology: Marxism– Leninism."
Author gives examples.
"“Thus, not just whitewash, there is hogwash too…”"
"Wrote Dr BR Ambedkar{ Amb7/ 229-38}{ Amb8}: “There can be no doubt that the fall of Buddhism in India was due to the invasions of the Musalmans. Islam came out as the enemy of the 'But'. The word 'But' as everybody knows, is the Arabic word and means an idol…The [Islamic] mission to break the idols thus became the mission to destroy Buddhism. Islam destroyed Buddhism not only in India but wherever it went... The Mussalman invaders sacked the Buddhist universities of Nalanda, Vikramshila, Jagaddala, Odantapuri to name only a few. They razed to the ground Buddhist monasteries with which the country was studded. The monks fled away in thousands to Nepal, Tibet and other places outside India. A very large number were killed outright by the Muslim commanders. How the Buddhist priesthood perished by the sword of the Muslim invaders has been recorded by the Muslim historians themselves...”{ Amb7/ 229-38}{ Amb8}
"Arun Shourie, however, states: “But today the fashion is to ascribe the extinction of Buddhism to the persecution of Buddhists by Hindus… Marxist historians who have been perpetrating this falsehood have not been able to produce even an iota of evidence to substantiate their concoction…”{AS2/ 99}"
Author quotes further from Arun Shourie’s work on historians, beginning with -
" ... Wrote Satish Chandra, one of the “eminent” Negationist-Marxist historian of the Nehru-dynasty stable, in an NCERT Class -IX book on ‘Medieval India’ that he authored: “Thus, there was no atmosphere of confrontation between the Sikhs and the Mughal rulers during the period, nor was there any systematic persecution of the Hindus, and hence, no occasion for the Sikhs or any group or sect to stand forth as the champion of the Hindus against religious prosecution …” In sharp contrast, Sri Guru Nanak, a witness to the Mughal mayhem, cried to God: “Having lifted Islam to the head, You (God) have engulfed Hindustan in dread… Such cruelties have been inflicted [by the Mughals], and yet Your mercy remains unmoved… O’Lord, these dogs have destroyed this diamond-like Hindustan…”"
"People like Nehru had strangely erroneous notions on how history should or should not be written. If writing of what actually happened in the past could adversely affect (in their wrong opinion) the present, then give it a spin— that was their view. ... "
That's exactly what Gandhi did, continously, with contemporary events of massacres of Hindus by muslims - when he didn't declare he despised Hindus for not fighting back, he whiplash them for violence one thousandth or less, while no word was to chastise mudlims gor massacres of Hindus and Sikhs. So Jawaharlal Nehru taking him as ideal following the oath is an expected consequence of his disciplehood of Gandhi.
" ... When original sources and the writings by the contemporaries are available— those who actually witnessed what happened and wrote about them, like Alberuni and others— why would those who care for history be misled by today’s creative writers of history? Fourth, it is an insult to the intelligence of the general public and readers to be presumed to be gullible enough to swallow wholesale what these creative writers dish out. ... "
"For example, should one obliterate from history or dilute or misrepresent the facts of the 1984-Anti-Sikh attacks ; or the 2002-Godhra Train-Coach burning ; or 2002-Post-Godhra Riots, just because they are unpalatable, or may cause enmity among communities?"
"“History books are not written only in India; these are written in neighbouring countries also, and what is tried to be concealed here for the sake of [erroneous interpretation of the notion of] national integration, is mentioned with pride in the neighbouring Muslim countries…"
" ... Christians engaged in terrible atrocities during their campaigns of conversion, inquisitions and colonisation, including the Goa Inquisition. Should it be swept under the carpet? Germans educate their children on Nazi atrocities and holocaust— lest those horrid things be repeated. ... "
Slight correction regarding the latter - they are supposed to do so, the textbook has it, but somehow it's postponed until the end and then there's no time, as candidly told by a German.
Also, on internet, one can see arguments by Germans about how Jews were being bad. For that matter the propaganda about French being vindictive after WWI has never been contested, but facts to contrary are known - that Germany spent huge amounts in gold marks to spread discontent in France via French communists, to punish them for asking for Reparations, instead of feeding babies in Germany, because it was convenient to do further propaganda against French that babies were dying of starvation in Germany; meanwhile Germany never did surrender arms, they hid those in monasteries and they were brought out to help nazis in their rioting b, later, before they came to power.
................................................................................................
"Given below are some extracts from Nehru’s ‘Discovery of India’ (Kindle Edition from Amazon){JN1} that are illustrative of Nehru’s anti-Indian-Hindu-cultural-heritage and pro-Muslim-Western mind-set, and his dire lack of genuine scholarship and knowledge:
"“On the other hand some famous temples in South India, heavy with carving and detail, disturb me and fill me with unease…”{JN1/ L-4308}"
He didn't bother to explain exactly why. Did he question his own fears? Was he disturbed because he wasn't used to Hindu variety undisturbed by islamic demolitions?
"“Beautiful buildings combining the old Indian ideals in architecture with a new simplicity and a nobility of line grew up in Agra and Delhi. This Indo-Mughal art was in marked contrast with the decadent, over-elaborate and heavily ornamented temples and other buildings of the north and south. Inspired architects and builders put up with loving hands the Taj Mahal at Agra.”{JN1/ L-5381}"
But the ASI was forced to cover the river facing of Taj with a wall, because it clearly showed that Taj too had been built on top of a temple converted into a graveyard!
As for beauty, it's really on a French garden pattern - rather elementary level, nothing complex one might marvel at, no architecture but only a primitive thought of imposing size, no different from various Islamic edifices across Central Asia and West Asia, attempting to daunt - an idea familiar to cathedrals, as well.
"“A civilization decays much more from inner failure than from an external attack. It may fail because in a sense it has worked itself out and has nothing more to offer in a changing world, or because the people who represent it deteriorate in quality and can no longer support the burden worthily. It may be that the social culture is such that it becomes a bar to advance beyond a certain point, and further advance can only take place after that bar has been removed or some essential qualitative variation in that culture has been introduced. The decay of Indian civilization is evident enough even before the Turkish and Afghan invasions. Did the impact of these invaders and their new ideas with the old India produce a new social context, thus unbinding the fetters of the intellect and releasing fresh energy?”{JN1/ L-5360}"
So he's claiming that those millions massacred, too, in reality committed suicide, and those taken in drapery that find on long March to Central Asia by hundreds of thousands, were going on a pilgrimage in a direction opposite to the Hindu routes leading to Himalayas?
Wonder how he'd have justified Hindu babies murdered and Hindu women raped by muslims.or Nirbhaya's gang rape and murder, with a muslim teenager the chief perpetrator, instigating others with a "she deserves it because she's not at home" Islamic logic, later allowed to go scot free.
Perhaps he inspired Ms Dutt, as a ghost, to do that episode of her program justifying letting him go free because "he has three unmarried sisters", Ms Dutt said, and his mother didn't know how else she'd get them married!
"“Islam shook up India. It introduced vitality and an impulse for progress in a society which was becoming wholly unprogressive Hindu art, which had become decadent and morbid, and heavy with repetition and detail…”{JN5/ 358}"
On that note, would he label Custer too a liberator of the Sioux, and Hitler et al birth mothers of Israel?
"So, as per Nehru, while the civilization of India had decayed, that of the barbaric, invading Muslim hoards was superior, and carried new ideas!
"No wonder, while Ajanta (a Buddhist site) was well preserved and maintained during the Nehruvian era, the grand temples at Ellora and at many other places (being Hindu sites) were neglected. This author visited both Ajanta and Ellora in the summer of 1971. While Ajanta was spic-and-span , and boasted of several tourist facilities, the grand Ellora was an utterly neglected site. Going past the Daulatabad fort our taxi stopped on the road-side. The driver pointed at the rock temple some distance away. We crossed a field to reach it, there being no road. There were no security persons or guides or employees from the Archeology Department. But for a couple of other tourists it was deserted. As the dusk began to turn into darkness we rushed back, there being no lighting!"
And yet it's the Kailas temple at Ellora - Verul in Marathi- that's the most marvelous architecture of India still surviving, do much do Aurangzeb had sat in south and died there attempting to destroy it!
................................................................................................
Calling Nehru, for the first time, “the Congress dictator”, C.R.[ Rajaji] also said: “The single brain-activity of the people who meet in Congress is to find out what is in Jawaharlal’s mind and to anticipate it. The slightest attempt at dissent meets with stern disapproval and is nipped in the bud.”
"—Rajaji {RG3/ 373}"
How was that different from behaviour and conduct of his political mentor, Gandhi, except only superficially? Gandhi did his utmost to do a passive-aggressive guilt tripping of opponent, which only worked if they were of the mindset that bent to it - and if someone did not comply, he was ousted as Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose was, which wasn't either democratic of Gandhi or honest, much less saintly. In comparison, Jawaharlal Nehru must be called honest!
"Nehru leveraged the democratic process to gain and retain power, but temperamentally , he was more a dictator than a democrat . He filled the top party posts and the cabinet with “yes-men” so that he could exercise unhindered power, and freely interfere in the workings of the party and ministries not under his direct charge."
Gandhi, yes, was dictator cloaked in the mantle of passive saintliness, but Jawaharlal Nehru was more a royal prince in spirit, by bringing up - if one takes into account his being not only the only son and heir of a wealthy Indian family residing in UP, with a culture that coddled such a being, but he was also an only child for years.
So the only thing that could have made him less autocratic, peers, wasn't present in his surroundings in India, but only came at Harrow, where he'd be forced yo accept a position of a condescended, not equal, among peers.
Yes, temper, but as and when someone stood up to his will with clear logic and moral, he did back down, unlike Gandhi who got around everything with passive aggressive ways - from uncooperative conduct and writings inducing guilt on everyone else, to hunger strike.
"Within months of his tenure as India’s first PM, Nehru began acting whimsically and dictatorially without consulting the cabinet and the senior colleagues leading to the well-known rift with Sardar Patel. Patriotic and democratic Sardar Patel was forced to question Nehru’s methods leading even to Sardar’s resignation in December 1947. The exchange of letters among Nehru, Sardar Patel and Gandhi between November-1947 and January-1948 clearly bring forth the issues of Nehru’s dictatorial working. Sadly, Gandhi failed to correct Nehru prior to his assassination on 30 January 1948. ... "
Wasn't Gandhi responsible for every disaster that followed his having ousted Subhash Chandra Bose and Sardar Patel just so he could maneuver his favourite candidate on the throne?
Wasn't Congress politics always geared to oust every other prrson and thought off, by stealing their thunder, as and when necessary?
Gandhi had admitted having undertaken salt March to push people's attention off Bhagat Singh and his group, then undergoing fasts in jail, and far more hardship than Congress ever did, and tortures; he hardly made a gesture towards saving the lives of those young boys.
As demonstrated by INA trials, British were amenable when required, to change death sentences to life and lesser, when their own safety was paramount. But, for Gandhi, paramount consideration was his power over Congress, and that of congress over India.
He'd destroyed every possibility of his firstborn ever flowering without being completely dictated by him, and he did the same to most others he came across, especially those he was responsible for, including India.
"Acharya Kriplani resigned from the presidency of the Congress in November 1947 protesting timidity of India against Pakistan, its mishandling of the Kashmir issue, and demanding revocation of the standstill agreement signed with the Nizam of Hyderabad. ... "
That's not different, only smaller, than Gandhi pushing off Subhash Chandra Bose and Sardar Patel, and turning others - who'd respected him - into disenchanted, even infuriated or worse, opponents.
"This is what Dr Ambedkar had to say in his resignation letter (from the Nehru’s cabinet) of 27 September 1951:
"“The Cabinet has become a merely recording and registration office of decisions already arrived at by Committees. As I have said, the Cabinet now works by Committees…All important matters relating to Defence are disposed of by the Defence Committee. The same members of the Cabinet are appointed by them. I am not a member of either of these Committees. They work behind an iron curtain. Others who are not members have only to take joint responsibility without any opportunity of taking part in the shaping of policy…”"
Again, was that different from Gandhi overturning all decisions and democratic reactions to suit his own image?
................................................................................................
"As per a study detailed in Patrick French’s book ‘India: A Portrait’{PF2}, about 28.6% of the MPs in the Indian parliament are HMPs —Hereditary MPs. Even more revealing are the figures that while over two-thirds of the 66 MPs aged 40 years or less are HMPs, all the MPs below 30 are HMPs! ... Strangely, this trend was started by the one who vexed most eloquent against rajas, maharajas and the feudal setup in the pre-independence days— Jawaharlal Nehru."
Which brings to mind the story about a US citizen arguing with a Russian about communism, in disbelief.
"If you had two houses, you'd give me one?"
"Of course."
"If you had two cars, would you give me one?"
"But of vourse."
"If you had two shirts, you'd give me one?"
"NO!"
"How come?"
"I have two shirts."
"A prominent argument advanced goes like this. Dhirubhai Ambani’s sons are also businessmen. That is, businessmen's wards generally become businessmen. Progeny of artists— singers, musicians, writers, and others— also become artists. Sons and daughters of Bollywood actors also become actors. Doctor's wards also become doctors. Farmer's son is often a farmer. Dynasty is everywhere. So why pick on only political dynasties? This superficial argument can fool only the gullible. Progeny of doctors, artists, actors, businessmen becoming also doctors, artists, actors, businessmen affect them only, not others. However, progeny of a neta/ politician becoming a neta affects people at large. It is the requirement of a democracy to be representative and hence non-dynastic. Business houses or art houses or professional establishments are not required to be representative."
To begin with, that argument was made (in Berkeley?), by a fraud and an idiot promoted by a dynasty, and it was silly of him to point at someone who is actually as capable as his own mom ever was, just not as lucky - Satyajit Ray being no more - and, too, targeted for several reasons, being Hindu and more.
If he'd had brains, this pretender to PM’s position, he'd mention Kennedy clan, even Bush, instead of talking about film families - but then, he was blaming India for his failure to attain PM position he's expected to be bestowed by India, only due to dynasti, and no other, qualifications, so when India refuses to comply, he had to abuse India (in Berkeley?).
There's a far better argument, easy to see.
A youngster attempting a career in films still must prove one's mettle via box office, apart from critical appraisal. More failures fall by way than the few successes that are pointed out as Dynasty, even within the prolific clans.
Doctors and so forth must qualify via entrance examination, even if parents coach them; however there are private fraudulent institutions that do take stupid sons of rich for exorbitant amounts and they get certificates they font deserve; but that only serves as decoration rather than possible way to a position resulting in a serious mishap.
Politicians wishing to enter their progeny could do it honestly by sending them to faraway constituencies, such as Madras for a North India dynast, and so forth. With an additional provide of showing local work with local people in constituency, it'd be more honest.
Bose family had at least two freedom warriors in the open, and counting the nephews who helped Subhash Chandra Bose escape, several more. But they were genuine.
As was Robert Kennedy.
................................................................................................
"Following Nehru’s footsteps, you find a strange spectacle of people— whether young or old, and whether in a political position or a bureaucratic position or a position in a sports body— not wanting to ever quit. Where extension is not possible, bureaucrats would seek some position or the other post retirement."
This latter had, frankly, a great deal to do with difficulties of making ends meet unless one had inherited property and so forth.
"Contrast the above with George Washington, co-founder of the USA. He was proclaimed the “Father of the Country” and was elected the first president of the USA in 1789 with virtually no opposition. Washington retired in 1797, firmly declining to serve for more than eight years— two terms— despite requests to continue. His tremendous role in creating and running America notwithstanding, he didn’t harbour or propagate self-serving notions of indispensability. The 22nd amendment to the US constitution setting a maximum of only two terms for the president came only in 1947. Prior to that it was only an observed good practice for over a century."
But one of the most elected was FDR, without whom, very possibly, world would be ruled by nazis. And frankly the limit of two terms was imposed because there were too many with too much power in US who were against FDR. Some still argue Hitler was a man of peace, and Churchill the warmonger who wrought on the war unnecessarily.
................................................................................................
" ... Wrote Dr NS Rajaram:
"“Curiously, Nehru’s admiration extended even to the Lubyanka— the notorious Moscow prison. Nehru wrote: ‘It can be said without a shadow of a doubt, that to be in a Russian prison is far more preferable than [sic] to be a worker in an Indian factory. The mere fact that there are prisons like the ones we saw is in itself something for the Soviet Government to be proud of.’ For a man who could admire Soviet prisons, it was not hard to admire and adopt the Soviet system of planning.”{W.n7}"
"Contrast the above with what Bertrand Russel had to say after his visit to Russia:
"“…the time I spent in Russia was one of continually increasing nightmare. I have said in print what, on reflection, appeared to me to be the truth, but I have not expressed the sense of utter horror which overwhelmed me while I was there. Cruelty, poverty, suspicion, prosecution formed the very air we breathed. Our conversations were continually spied upon…There was a hypocritical pretence of equality…I felt that everything that I valued in human life was being destroyed in the interest of a glib and narrow philosophy, and that in the process untold misery was being inflicted upon many millions of people…”{ BNS/ 191-2}"
It'd be interesting to compare the timelines.
"This is how Sita Ram Goel commented on the book:
" ... But, perhaps, Pandit Nehru who had been denied fairy tales in his childhood because Motilalji wanted him to be educated on the most modern pattern from the West, was in search of a fairyland. Communist propaganda informed him that such a fairyland existed in Soviet Russia. And he closed his eyes and went into a trance from which he has never descended, notwithstanding his sycophants' recurring reassurance that he has been ‘maturing of late’. To the majority of his intelligent countrymen, his ‘mature mind’is revealed in his writings about Soviet Russia, particularly in the ‘Glimpses of World History’which he has not had the decency to disclaim even after reading Khrushchev's verdict on Stalin's Russia about which he has been most enthusiastic.”{ SRG2/ 55}"
"Nehru’s Book-4: ‘Unity of India’
"This book is a collection of articles and speeches of Nehru during 1935-40, and was published in 1941. Ignoring plethora of evidence exposing the Soviet Union, and what it did to Poland, Nehru continued to defend it. ... "
If one has read memoirs by holocaust survivors - and several, at that, including several from those from East Europe, bordering Russia - several factors emerge clearly as a repeated pattern, with no contradictions thereof.
One, Ukrainian guards assisted nazis, and the former were far worse than German ones; and two, Russian occupation was no picnic, but German was far worse;.
What's more, when tide turned, Russians offered to take Polish Jews with them East to safety on military vehicles, and those that did go, survived.
But civilians who attempted escaping East on foot or in carts, and there were thousands, clogging roads, were shot at by Germans flying low over them, even if victims were babies and mothers. And they were targeting the victims, who could see the pilot as he flew low deliberately taking aim.
" ... Wrote Nehru:
"“Whatever doubts I had about internal happenings in Russia, I was quite clear in my mind about her foreign policy. This had been consistently one of peace and, unlike England and France, of fulfilling international obligations and supporting the cause of democracy abroad. The Soviet Union stood as the one real effective bulwark against Fascism in Europe and Asia. Without the Soviet Union what could be the state of Europe today? Fascist reaction would triumph everywhere and democracy and freedom would become dreams of a past age.”{ SRG2/ 73}"
It's hard to contradict that, although that's not because of virtues of communism as a label, or to say everyday hunky-dory in Russia. China in fact has been as fascist as can be, under the supposedly communist label.
"Wrote Kumar Chellappan in DailyPioneer of 14-Nov-2014: “Even as Congress leadership celebrates the 125th birth anniversary of Jawaharlal Nehru in grandiose style, how the former Prime Minister amassed wealth through royalties for his books ‘Discovery of India’ (1946), ‘Glimpses of World History ’ (1934), ‘An Autobiography’ (1936) and ‘Letters from a Father To his Daughter’ (1929) remains a mystery. However, MO Mathai, Nehru’s Man Friday and special assistant, had disclosed that the former PM received more royalties from Communist countries than all Western countries put together. In his book ‘Reminiscences of the Nehru Age’ (1978), Mathai has explained how he brokered the deal with the then Soviet Union to translate books authored by Nehru into Russian language and ensured that Nehru would get 15 per cent as royalty in Indian rupees at a time when the Soviet Union never paid a single paisa as royalty to other authors... Subramanian Swamy, senior BJP leader, is of the view that it was improper on the part of Nehru to sell the rights to translate his works to the Soviet Union while he was the Prime Minister of the country . ‘I have knowledge of enormous amount of money getting transferred to the Nehru family’s account in Bank of China’s Kolkata branch. An impropriety has been committed,’ Swamy told ‘The Pioneer’.”{W.n8}"
According to Dr Subramanian Swamy, the current ruling branch aren't citizens of India; if Jawaharlal Nehru had amassed wealth, why do they occupy prime estate in Delhi at expense of a poor nation?
................................................................................................
"Nehru remained sympathetic with and supportive of the Marxists-Communists and the Communist Party of India, as did his dynasty, despite the following stark facts:
"They [communists] extended their swearology to the Indian National Congress, calling it as a conspiracy of India's capitalists and landlords in league with world imperialism.{SRG2/ xii}
"They had joined hands with the Raj in 1942, and spied on the patriots, receiving in return the British patronage.{SRG2/ xii}
"They had supported the demand for Pakistan during 1942-47, and helped the Muslim League fortify their case with a formidable array of arguments and statistics. They also advocated the balkanization of India into a score of sovereign states.{ SRG2/ xii}
"They had denounced Sri Ramakrishna Paramahansa as a homosexual pervert, Swami Vivekananda as a Hindu imperialist, Sri Aurobindo as a dirty war-monger, Rabindranath Tagore as a pimp, and stalwarts of the freedom movement such as Sardar Patel as the progeny of pigs and bastards of Birla and Tata.{SRG2/ xiii}"
One would think they couldn't get worse, but as per the explosive revelation by the then newly appointed Education Minister soon after 2014 elections, they did; next day, they accused her of attempting to disturb communal harmony, but couldn't even pretend to deny that the pamphlet she'd read wasn't communists propaganda against Hindusm abusing Hindu Deities.
It's a tad difficult, though, to believe that Russian communists eould descend to this abusive level, and one wonders if it's only the leftists of India whose bankruptcy on top floor reduces them to this, unlike world level.
For example the leftist and jihadist sympathiser combination attacking Hindus, India and Israel alike, that doesn't exist in Russia; Pakistan was used to inflict jihadists against USSR and is - on internet - very proud of their role in breaking up USSR, taking major credit, giving a tiny bit to US. And it's well known that US used "green crescent" policy against USSR.
"They had come out openly in support of China when it occupied Tibet in 1950, and later drove out the Dalai Lama along with thousands of his followers in 1959.{SRG2/ xiii}"
They are dreaming if they think China isn't racist, doesn't despise them, or won't slaughter them if it came to it, just by virtue of mouthing for Chinese interests.
This is what Sitaram Goel wrote in his book ‘Genesis and Growth of Nehruism’—it brings out Nehru’s communistic bias, his anti-FoE attitude, and his dictatorial ways:
"“5. In February 1955, I received an invitation to attend the forthcoming Conference of the Asian People's Anti-Communist League in Formosa. I sent the entire correspondence—including a very warm letter written to me personally by President Chiang Kai-shek—to our External Affairs Ministry, saying that I would accept the invitation only under advice from them. Months passed and not a word came from New Delhi. Meanwhile, I had applied for a passport to the regional Bureau at Calcutta because I wanted to have the document in hand in case I was advised to go. Normally, a passport is issued by the regional passport Bureau to citizens residing in its jurisdiction. But when I approached the Bureau after more than two months to find out the status of my case, they told me confidentially that my case was receiving attention from the Prime Minister himself. I wrote an urgent letter to the Prime Minister on May 3 and followed it up with a telegram. My plane ticket for Formosa had already arrived. It was only on May 21 that I received a one-line memorandum from the Ministry of External Affairs stating that ‘Mr. Sita Ram Goel is hereby informed that passport facilities applied for cannot be granted’. But hundreds of communists and fellow-travellers had been granted passports during this very period and very speedily, for joining delegations which were going out to various communist capitals almost every week.”{ SRG2/ First Preface/ iii}"
And, too, Indian passport was routinely stamped "not valid for Israel", unless one specifically asked otherwise. Wonder if that, too, could get one denied a passport in fifties to early sixties?
................................................................................................
Wrote MJ Akbar in ‘Nehru: The Making of India’:
"“Eventually when he [Jawaharlal] passed in the second half of the second class, Motilal was relieved enough to celebrate lavishly... Motilal was acutely terrified that his son might fail, so even such moderate results were cause for celebrations... Motilal had set his heart on sending his son to the Indian Civil Service... He called the ICS the ‘greatest of services in the world’... But the weak Second [class of Jawaharlal Nehru] at the end of Cambridge persuaded Motilal that his son was unlikely to get through the tough ICS examinations... His [Jawaharlal’s] expenditure in 1911 was £ 800, enough to pay for three years of an ordinary student’s existence...”{Akb/ 74-77}"
Assessment by Mother, perhaps also by Sri Aurobindo, was different, about the mind part.
"Contrast this with Ambedkar who often skipped meals or ate frugally to save money when he was studying in London. In ‘Dr.Ambedkar: Life and Mission’{ DK}, Dhananjay Keer mentions that Ambedkar subsisted in London on mere £ 8 a month! That amounts to £ 96 a year. Compare this with £ 800 a year of Nehru, which excluded expenses for several other requirements that were separately arranged by Nehru’s father. With all these handicaps Ambedkar graduated in Political Science and Economics from Bombay University in 1912. On scholarship from the Maharaja of Baroda, he went to New York in 1913 and earned the degrees of Master of Arts in 1915, followed by Doctorate in Philosophy in 1916 from the Columbia University. Thereafter, he went to London, where he joined the Grays Inn for Law and the London School of Economics (LSE). He earned his second doctorate from LSE. He also became a barrister."
Hence Dr Subrahmanian Swamy says what he does.
"While Nehru scraped through graduation, Sardar Patel had topped in his exams in London. Subhas Bose was a brilliant student at Cambridge who had also cleared ICS exam. Dr Rajendra Prasad was a great scholar who always topped in his class— his examiner had once written a comment on his answer sheet : “ examinee is better than examiner”.{Aru/ 159}"
Nevertheless, Dr Rajendra Prasad did swot down the suggestion by HV Kamath that portraits of Tilak and Bose be hung in parliament. Why?
"Perry Anderson, a British historian and political essayist, and Professor of History and Sociology at UCLA, wrote:
" ... The contrast with Subhas Chandra Bose, a brilliant student of philosophy at Cambridge, who was the first native to pass the exams into the elite ranks of the Indian civil service and then decline entry to it on patriotic grounds, is striking. ... "
Didn't Sri Aurobindo do so earlier?
" ... But an indifferent beginning is no obstacle to subsequent flowering, and in due course Nehru became a competent orator and prolific writer. What he never acquired , however, was a modicum of literary taste or mental discipline. His most ambitious work ‘The Discovery of India’ which appeared in 1946, is a steam bath of Schwärmerei [sentimental enthusiasm]. It would be unfair to compare Nehru to Ambedkar, the leader of the Untouchables, intellectually head and shoulders above most of the Congress leaders, owing in part to far more serious training at the LSE and Columbia. To read Ambedkar is to enter a different world. ... "
So far, it seems fair. But then he continues -
"“ ... The Discovery of India”— not to speak of its predecessor, “The Unity of India”—illustrates not just Nehru’s lack of formal scholarship and addiction to romantic myth, but something deeper, not so much an intellectual as a psychological limitation: a capacity for self-deception with far-reaching political consequences.”{URL7}"
What one recalls is the deep revolt of soul when watching the television serial based on this, and getting up and leaving - it was a communal television set in a hostel at the research institute, not something common to serious research institutes - and finding a book by Sri Aurobindo in one's own room, Secret Of The Vedas; opening it at the beginning and reading was deeply reassuring, in that nature of reality held.
The television series was directed by an excellent director of films, familiar from his films since the very first one in early seventies. It was the author whose vision was totally skewed due to his complete trust in West, specifically in matters related to India, and the fraudulent, racist theory of Aryan invasion of India.
That West was incapable of comprehending India's deep, rich treasure of knowledge, only due to racist hubris that's quite possible to shake off - is the obvious fact Jawaharlal Nehru hadn't seen.
................................................................................................
"Nehru, who had ranted the most against rajas, maharajas, nawabs and feudal lords, adopted lordly and feudal ways, and allowed the same to prosper under his “democratic”watch. Rather than his master's simplicity, Nehru adopted ostentatious Viceroy-like trappings. After Independence, Gandhiji had suggested that the Governor-General of free India should stay in a modest accommodation, rather than in the huge and imposing Viceroy palace—later named as Rashtrapati Bhavan—which should be converted into a public hospital. But, Nehru advised that an alternate suitable accommodation was not available! The place next in stateliness and grandeur to the Viceroy palace was the residence of the British Commander-in-Chief, then called Flagstaff House. Leaving his York Road residence, Nehru occupied this magnificent house, which was later renamed as Teen Murti Bhavan. Others followed Nehru's example, occupying huge, spacious bungalows. British had deliberately designed these palaces and bungalows to intimidate the natives, appear remote, and command respect. What was the logic of the leaders of free India to follow in their footsteps?"
Actually, it's the opposite view that needs to be taken - that citizens of India should be able to live in homes modeled on the (now razed) homes that were provided for government officers and others working for government of India in Delhi, in suburban colonies, which were more what are termed townhouses in UK or row-houses in Germany, except they were apartments in Delhi - one floor each; and they were either provided with private, enclosed gardens front and back for higher level officials whose flats were larger, or only a back garden for smaller flats.
Upstairs flats had use of terraces on top, while ground floor had spacious lawns that spread between rows of residences, all commonly used as needed by people of the area, but a certain amount understood as space related to the particular flat.
The bungalows that author speaks of are lovely, larger, with gardens and deeply shady trees shading roads and homes, and gardens. They are for much higher level.
That this lifestyle ought to be common to all citizens should be the goal, not opposite. There's no reason why one should think that only US citizens are to have reasonable homes, while India must suffer everywhere the congestion that has come to be accepted in Mumbai.
As for the house used by Jawaharlal Nehru, it's reasonably small for prime minister of India, and it's furnishings - kept as he used - simple, even spartan. Yes, the Rashtrapati Bhawan is impressive in its size and space, but then it's used for president of India. It's silly to convert it into a hospital.
Author has given selected examples, and omitted others. Considering size of British Empire, the official residence of monarch in London is modest; but certainly not a two room flat, even if the monarch is single person residing, as happens now (sans empire) or during the short tenure of Edward VIII. The palace in Romania, though incomplete, is humongous, but an impressive one - or several of them - is in St Petersburg. Considering size of Russia spanningeleven time zones (now officially reduced to an unreal seven), it's appropriate.
Even South Africa retains the offices and residence of the premier after Mandela took over. They are - as can be seen in Invictus - impressive, on the outside, and reasonable within.
But luxury? For that, one has to see a YT video available on internet depicting hotels, of which the most impressive isn't London or Paris or Switzerland or Canada, but Jaipur, and it's lovely just to see. It's neither evoking of jealousy nor envy, merely a sense of gratitude for being able to see it on video.
As said by a poet, a little more than the little required is much too much. Else what would be enough? A million square mile ranch in Texas is routine, Montana can give one large spaces where skies are visible and horizons wide. Tibet would be nice, for home, Shangri-la style, with Siberia for back garden and Pacific for a swim. Or perhaps Ceres?
................................................................................................
"Many wonder what made Nehru so full of hubris? It could certainly not have been on account of his academics or his earnings or his books. ... "
Hubris isn't uncommon in males, of much lesser academic or any other achievements, even in those not brought up as the only son and heir of a wealthy parent; most of the world is tilted to value males way above females and reward them for simply being themselves, no matter what. It isn't that uncommon to vote across males whose academic achievements or earnings aren't much, but hubris is huge.
English public schools impart a code of conduct that applies amongst peers, for most - and the English caste system that looks down on rest of humanity as no Hindu does even on cleaners (the famous worshipped Deity in Pandharpur is God appearing as a cleaner, and worshipped in that form).
But it's easy enough to find Punjab refugees looking down on others because they've kept the attitude that their once upon a time homeland, now lost, had and still does.
Tamilians inform you that they are the chief residents of South in that their language is the big deal, spoken by Telugu and Kannada speakers because these others don't respect their own language as much (untrue).
" ... If he had participated in the Freedom Struggle, so had thousands , and many had actually sacrificed much more . ... "
This, funnily enough, is argued by congress followers even on Facebook. They seem to forget that the category of those who "sacrificed for nation" includes every soldier of every army that fought for nation, from that of Prithviraj Chauhan to Shivaji to Laxmibai, and later every freedom fighter from Vasudev Balwant Phadke to Chapekar brothers to Tilak, Savarkar and Sri Aurobindo, Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose and INA, Sardar Patel and Bhagat Singh and his group.
If the argument, that position of PM of India is a reward deserved by the descendents, weren't ridiculous, there'd be a long list, with everyone else getting equal turns before another of this dynasty can; but ridiculous it is. It isn't a reward, it's a yoke that ought to rest on shoulders that can carry it, not a throne.
................................................................................................
"As per the submission made by one Mr Shyamlal Jain of Meerut to the Khosla Commission, that was setup in 1970, he was called by Nehru to Asif Ali’s residence with typewriter on 26/ 27 December 1945 (Netaji reportedly died on 18-Aug), and was given a letter to type—the following letter:{ Nag}{ URL56}
"Mr Clements Attlee
"British Prime Minister
"10 Downing Street, London
"Dear Mr Attlee, I understand from most reliable source that Subhas Chandra Bose, your war criminal, has been allowed to enter Russian territory by Stalin. This is a clear treachery and betrayal of faith by the Russians as Russia has been an ally of the British-Americans, which she should not have done. Please take care of it and do what you consider proper and fit.
"Yours sincerely,
"Jawaharlal Nehru"
"As per a report in ‘Outlook’:“The Taiwan Government has informed the one-man Netaji Commission of Inquiry that there was no air crash at Taihoku on August 18, 1945, till date believed to have killed Netaji Subhas Chandra Bose. Disclosing this to newspersons after a routine hearing of the [Justice Mukherjee] Commission [JMC] here, Justice MK Mukherjee said that the Taiwan Government has confirmed to the Commission during its recent visit to that country that no plane crashed at Taihoku between August 14 and September 20, 1945.”{URL57}"
"Most of the 64 files declassified by the West Bengal government on 18 September 2015 relate to snooping on the family members of Netaji. Their contents clearly establish that the Indian government as well as several foreign governments connected with Netaji believed Subhas was still alive, and that he had not perished in the plane-crash."
"As per Anuj Dhar: “In my search for the truth about Bose, I got to hear from many…that Vijaya Lakshmi came to know about Bose's presence in Soviet Russia. The story goes that when she came back from Moscow she made a statement in private that she knew something whose disclosure ‘would electrify India and the resultant happiness would be greater than what the people had experienced on 15 August 1947’. The same story holds that Nehru asked Vijaya Lakshmi to keep her mouth shut. And a good sister that she was, she deferred to his judgment.”{ URL105}"
"“I have no doubt in my mind— I did not have it then and I have no doubt today of the fact of Netaji Subhas Chandra Bose’s death... There can be no enquiry about that.”"
"—Nehru in reply to a question put in the Parliament by HV Kamath on 5 March 1952."
"Nehru did his best for a decade to stall all enquiries into the death of Netaji. But, when he could fend it off no longer, he decided to set up a committee that would give a report as he desired. A committee headed by Shah Nawaz Khan (24 January 1914 – 9 December 1983), a Congress MP and a former Lieutenant Colonel of INA, was appointed in 1956. Its other members were SN Maitra, ICS, nominated by the West Bengal Government, and Suresh Chandra Bose, a non-political elder brother of Netaji. The committee came to be known as the Shah Nawaj Committee (SNC) or the Netaji Inquiry Committee (NIC). SNC-NIC interviewed 67 witnesses in India, Japan, Thailand, and Vietnam between April and July 1956. The interviewees included the reported survivors of the alleged plane crash, one of whom was INA's Lt Colonel Habibur Rahman, who had since joined the Pakistan military establishment.
"Two members of the NIC, Shah Nawaz Khan and SN Maitra, concluded Bose had died in the plane crash. However , Suresh Chandra Bose, the third member, differed, did not believe so and submitted a dissenting note. He claimed that certain crucial evidence was withheld from him, and that he was pressurized by the other members and also by the then WB Chief Minister BC Roy to sign the final report. Suresh Bose alleged: “My colleagues, both connected with the Government, have tried their utmost to secure and manipulate the evidence, so that it could easily conform with the Prime Minister’s statements.” Incidentally, Shah Nawaz Khan held various ministerial posts between 1952 and 1977. Was he bought over?"
"Owing to persistent doubts and pressure from many quarters, a one-man commission of enquiry headed by a retired Chief Justice of the Punjab High Court, GD Khosla, was set up in 1970. It submitted its report in 1974. Justice Khosla concurred with the earlier report of the Shah Nawaz Committee on the main facts of Bose's death.
"Justice Mukherjee Commission (please see below) was dismayed by the sheer negligence of the Khosla Commission in omitting to pursue several crucial leads Dr Satyanarain Sinha had provided to unravel the Netaji mystery."
"Justice Mukherjee Commission of Inquiry was set up in 1999 during the Vajpayee's NDA regime, following a Calcutta High Court Order. It was headed by a retired Supreme Court Judge Manoj Kumar Mukherjee. The commission studied hundreds of files on Bose's death drawn from several countries and visited Japan, Russia and Taiwan. It submitted its report in 2005. The Commission's conclusions were several:
"(1) The oral accounts on the plane crash were not reliable.
"(2) Bose had NOT died in the alleged plane-crash. Thanks to the cooperation extended by Taiwan, it could be confirmed by the JMC that no air-crash took place on 18 August 1945! The US state department too had corroborated the fact of no air-crash in Taiwan on that day.
"(3) The plane-crash was a ruse to allow safe escape of Bose by Japan and Taiwan. There was a secret plan to ensure Bose's safe passage to the USSR with the knowledge of the Japanese authorities and Habibur Rahman (who had testified on the plane crash). As per the Report: “... On a conspectus of all the facts and circumstances relevant to the above issues it stands established that emplaning at Saigon on August 17, 1945 Netaji succeeded in evading the Allied Forces and escaping out of their reach and as a camouflage thereof the entire make-believe story of the air crash, Netaji’s death therein and his cremation was engineered by the Japanese army authorities including the two doctors and Habibur Rahman and then aired on August 23, 1945...”
"(4) The Indian government subsequently came to know of the escape, but chose to suppress the report.
"(5) The ashes kept at the Renkoji temple in Japan, reported to be Bose's, were of Ichiro Okura, a Japanese soldier who died of cardiac arrest.
"(6) JMC asked for a thorough probe into the Russian connection that contends that Bose had been detained in a Siberian camp.
"(7) JMC couldn't find any evidence that “Gumnami Baba ”/ Bhagwanji, a monk who lived in Faridabad until his death in 1985, was Bose in disguise. (However, later Justice Mukherjee had commented: “It is my personal feeling… But I am 100 per cent sure that he is Netaji.")
"The Action Taken Report (ATR) was tabled in the Parliament on 17 May 2006 during UPA-I by Minister of State for Home S Regupathy along with the JMC Report. The ATR mentioned , inter alia, that the government had examined the Commission's report submitted to it on 8 November 2005 "in detail and has not agreed with the findings that Netaji did not die in a plane crash and the ashes in the Renkoji Temple were not of Netaji." Expectedly , the Commission's report was rejected by the government without assigning any specific reasons— it being UPA-I/ Congress Govt.
"Reportedly, the Commission did not receive cooperation from either the Indian government or the foreign countries it visited , except Taiwan. The hostile posture of the British, Russian, Japanese and Indian governments was intriguing and indicative of an international conspiracy to suppress the truth. The Indian government refused to share many important files and documents with the JMC under the pretext of them being sensitive. Disappointed, the JMC was forced to submit its unfinished work to the then Congress home minister Shivraj Patil."
"Gumnami Baba, aka Bhagwanji, was a monk who lived in Lucknow, Faizabad , Sitapur, Basti and Ayodhya in UP for over 30 years till his death on 16 September 1985. He maintained contact with Dr Pavitra Mohan Roy, the former top Secret Service agent of the INA.
"Personal effects (German binoculars, Gold-rimmed spectacles identical to that of Subhas, Bengali books, the original copy of the summons issued to Suresh Chandra Bose to appear before the Khosla Commission, an album containing family photographs of Netaji Subhas, newspaper clippings about Netaji’s ‘death’ probe, letters from Netaji’s followers, and so on) left behind by Bhagwanji seem to indicate he was perhaps Bose himself! Bhagwanji's birth date was 23rd January, the same as Netaji's.
"The Mukherjee Commission had referred the handwriting samples of Bhagwanji and Bose to Dr B Lal, a forensic expert. His report was that the two matched! As per a report in ToI{W.ih6}: “A leading American handwriting expert has concluded that Netaji Subhas Chandra Bose lived in India for several decades after Independence, under the identity of a ascetic, Gumnami Baba... The expert, Carl Baggett, reached his conclusion after studying letters written by both Bose and Gumnami Baba.”{W.ih6}"
Author asks several questions, ending with -
"How could such a tragedy unfold for one of the greatest sons of India, even as his compatriots and political leaders remained mute, indifferent witnesses for decades?"
And then he proceeds to question of INA treasure, whether he intends that its a clue to answers, or otherwise.
But something of this magnitude is far beyond the question of what happened to INA treasure, without any insinuation that the treasure wasn't humongous - which it was, especially when one factors in the consideration that it represents the personal sacrifices of expat Indians, who aren't home and must find for themselves, working hard; and even more, their loyalty to Netaji and to India, in giving him everything they could, gor sake of freedom of India, and the war he promised them for the cause.
As huge as this is, the point about hiding knowledge of existence of Netaji Subhas Chandra Bose, and possibility of bringing him back, instead of attempting to fo so gor sake of the colleague and the nation, is the huge crime that is difficult to reconcile with an image of a noble, honest person who went by heart rather than diplomacy or politics, the image one is familiar with since early sixties.
Much of the image is true, but the glass lays shattered in shards, unable to hold against his actions - regarding Netaji, regarding Tibet, regarding China.
................................................................................................
"No freedom fighter could raise as much amount as Netaji Subhas did. He appealed to the patriotism of an estimated two million Indians in erstwhile British colonies conquered by Japanese allies for donations to finance his government-in-exile and the Indian National Army (INA). Netaji’s personality, his emotive speeches and his unswerving commitment to Indian independence moved the diaspora. Numerous housewives gave away their gold in the cause of freedom. Reportedly, one Habib Sahib gifted all his property of over a crore of rupees; and VK Chelliah Nadar, a Rangoon-based businessman and an INA funder, deposited Rs 42 crores and 2,800 gold coins in the Azad Hind Bank!
"After Rangoon, where Azad Hind Bank was headquartered, fell to the Allies in 1945, Netaji retreated to Bangkok on 24 April 1945 carrying with him the treasury, including gold bars and ornaments, in steel boxes. Japan surrendered to the Allied Powers on 15 August 1945, and the 40,000-strong INA followed suit. On 18 August 1945 Netaji boarded a Japanese bomber in Saigon bound for Manchuria, carrying the INA treasure, along with his aide Habibur Rahman. The plane reportedly crashed in Taiwan. The retrieved treasure from the crash site was handed over by the Japanese army to SA Ayer and M Rama Murti of the IIL (Indian Independence League— which had come under Netaji) at Tokyo.
"Local Indians in Tokyo suspected that Rama Murti and SA Aiyer had jointly defalcated the INA treasure— there was enough circumstantial evidence. Inexplicably , India did nothing to get back the treasure, and rather than setting up an enquiry or hauling up Murti and Aiyer, the government absorbed Aiyer as a director of publicity with the Bombay state, while Murti lead an affluent life-style in Tokyo, in sharp contrast to the devastation all around.
"Sir Benegal Rama Rau, the first head of the Indian liaison mission in Tokyo, wrote to the MEA (Ministry of External Affairs), headed by the PM Nehru himself, in India on 4 December 1947 alleging that the INA treasure had been embezzled by Murti. Strangely, the MEA responded it could not be interested in the INA funds! It seems it wasn’t just a case of indifference, it was much more than that.
"KK Chettur, who headed the Tokyo mission/ embassy during 1951-52, took up the matter of misappropriation of the INA treasure vigorously. (Incidentally, Jaya Jaitley is Chettur’s daughter. She has penned an excellent, worth-reading article “# NehruSnooped: Truth behind Netaji files” in the connection.{URL67}) ... "
Was that the clue to the fraudulent penalisation of the honest duo, Jaya Jaitley and the very well known George Fernandes, when their socialist party was part of a BJP led government with a scandalous expose by Tehelka (which has closed foundation after the two sensational bits, both frauds) insinuating a favour for moneybags? Her article certainly was drowned in the loud publicity by the then dominant media appropriately named Lutyens media since.
" ... In response, the government sent SA Aiyer on a secret mission to Tokyo. He advised collection of the retrieved treasury from Murti saying it was in his safe custody. Chettur suspected Aiyer-Murti collusion in returning part amount just to close the matter. He recommended to the government a thorough probe in the matter on 22 June 1951. But, nothing came of it. ... "
That is already suspect behaviour on part of the government of India, but then the rest - being uninterested in identification of ashes, lying about Netaji’s living, not bringing him home with honour, setting spies after Bose clan, ... is all far more depth of abominable conduct.
" ... The Indian embassy collected whatever there was at Murti's residence as the INA treasure in October 1951. The same was secretly brought into India from Japan, and was also inspected by Nehru who reportedly made a snide comment: “poor show”. ... "
This alone is enough to condemn an elected, supposedly beloved leader, for complete kick of appreciation for what the treasure represented - blood and sweat of expats who worked hard away from home and homeland, but gave it all for sake of the homeland they'd left behind, to someone they trusted hen he called for freedom of the homeland that was in their hearts!
Even as children then, we were impressed with stories of brides in 1962 October-November taking off and donating all their jewellery to the then Prime Minister for the Army! But he first appreciate the INA treasure?
" ... Nehru quoted from Aiyer's report in the parliament in 1952 affirming Netaji’s death in an air crash in Taipei. Aiyer was later appointed adviser, integrated publicity programme, for the Five Year Plan."
This is the unforgivable lie.
If it's because he was afraid he'd vanish in the light of the hero presumed dead, if he returned, perhaps that was correct estimate; but by lying, and not making an effort to bring him back, he's compounded it unnecessarily. If he hadn't, nation would be grateful, and the two together would make India tower in strength, with no debacle in 1962, but instead Perhaps a free Tibet.
Instead, now, Netaji has risen as a towering figure of light - and Jawaharlal Nehru’s image recedes in dark, not only his good points but his very person forgotten.
Even his own family member then leading his party in a coalition government had to reprimanded by an opposition member of Parliament for publicly stating that her government was the best that the nation, India, had ever had!
But that's only a small drop in the well, where now the current leading members of the branch of his descendents are noticed, and name of Jawaharlal Nehru invoked by coterie only to assert on internet a claim of a descendent to the position of PM, as if India were a monarchy!
................................................................................................
"RD Sathe, an undersecretary in the MEA, wrote a two-page secret note on 1 November 1951 titled “INA Treasures and their handling by Messrs Ayer and Ramamurthi” pointing out the circumstances of the mysterious disappearance of the massive INA treasure and the highly suspicious role of Aiyar-Murti duo; and the token return of a paltry portion from it that raised even more questions. Sathe’s note was signed by Jawaharlal Nehru on 5 November 1951 in token of having read it.{AD} But, like the earlier notes of Rau and Chettur, Sathe’s note too was just filed away by the Nehru’s government. However, the matter refused to die.
"The Indian ambassador in Tokyo, AK Dar, sent a four-page secret note to the MEA in 1955 advocating a public inquiry into the matter of the disappearance of the INA treasure. He opined that even if the government was not able to get the treasure back, at least the culprits or the likely culprits would be known. He further said that the government’s 10-year long indifference in the matter had not only helped the guilty party escape, but had done injustice to the great work and sacrifice of Netaji. Even the Shah Nawaz Committee set up in 1956 to probe Netaji's disappearance had recommended an inquiry into all the assets of Netaji's government-in-exile including the INA treasure.
"Yet Nehru did nothing! And , that’s baffling. It was not a small amount. The total treasure, had it been recovered, would have been worth several hundred crore rupees today . Was Nehru’s government protecting the embezzlers? Why did Nehru’s government accommodate a suspect embezzler SA Aiyar in the government service, and even depute him on a secret mission, as mentioned above ? Was Aiyar’s report confirming death of Netaji a quid-pro-quo? Was Nehru afraid Aiyar-Murti duo may spill the beans on the alleged fiction of Netaji’s death in the air-crash if they were hauled up? Anuj Dhar’s book on the subject ‘India’s Biggest Cover-up’{AD} is worth reading."
Strangely, Puranik doesn't quote from the book regarding a pair of trunks filled with gold and diamond jewellery, worth then Rs 2 crore and 22 ctore respectively, brought to India and, under orders directly from PM Jawaharlal Nehru, taken straight to his home - after which it was credited to his account, and the matter never mentioned again, while - when questioned in parliament - Nehru said it was some "cheap, broken" gold and diamond pieces of jewellery, not worth bother.
................................................................................................
"The Indian National Army (INA) or the Azad Hind Fauj was an armed force formed by Indian nationalists under the leadership of Netaji Subhas Bose in Southeast Asia during World War II to secure Indian independence. “Jai Hind” was coined by Netaji and later adopted by the Government of India and the Indian Armed Forces."
That isn't all. Choice of the national anthem, Jana Gana Mana, too, was by Subhash Chandra Bose as one who was forming INA, and it was first sung in Germany; both, later adopted by government of India - due to immense popularity of, and support for, INA, by people of India? - not only without thanks to Netaji, but without even referring to his part in the selection and adaption of the two, the anthem and the greeting.
"There are reasonable grounds to believe that the Subhas Bose INA’s military onslaught on the British and the INA Red Fort trials of 1945-46 and its consequences (mutinies in the armed forces) were a major factor in the British decision to quit India, and not the Quit India movement (which had petered off in 1942 in a few months) of Congress. ... "
"Yet, Nehru and Congress had all through opposed Subhas and INA. A lot is made of Nehru donning his lawyer’s robes to fight for INA soldiers in their trial by the British in 1945. The reality was that elections were imminent, and INA and Bose being the people’s favourites, Congress and Nehru wanted to get cheap popularity by projecting themselves as pro-INA. Says Anuj Dhar in ‘India’s Biggest Cover-up’{AD}:
"“Captain Badhwar reported that the Congress leaders’ turnaround had little to do with any love for their ousted former president [Bose] or the people who fought under his command... He [Asaf Ali— CWC member] travelled across India and discovered that people were overwhelmingly in support of the INA. ‘This inflamed feeling forced Congress to take the line it did,’ Badhwar said... Ali was positive that as and when Congress came to power, they ‘would have no hesitation in removing all INA from the Services and even in putting some of them to trial.’... The top Congress leadership’s duplicitous disapproval of Bose and INA was exposed by numerous pre-1947 statements made by its leaders, especially Nehru.”{AD}"
"Strangely, but expectedly, while Nehru made a big show of being a part of the Defence Committee to defend the INA veterans Colonel Prem Sahgal, Colonel Gurubaksh Singh Dhillon, and Major General Shah Nawaz Khan (for the sake of votes in the ensuing elections) in the Red Fort Trials of 1945– 46, after independence Nehru as PM refused to reinstate them in the army— hypocrisy unlimited!
"As expected from Nehru and the Congress, rather that honouring and rewarding them, the INA-veterans were debarred from the Indian Army by the Government of independent India! Why? Because, that was the way the British and Mountbatten wanted, as INA soldiers had fought against them. And, Nehru being an anglophile and a chela of his guru Mountbatten , faithfully carried out the British bidding. Reportedly, Mountbatten (as Supreme Allied Commander, South East Asia then) even went to the extent of dynamiting the INA Memorial in Singapore in 1945. As per the author Anuj Dhar, Lord Mountbatten stated: “I was able to persuade Nehru not to lay the wreath on the pro-Japanese Indian National Army [of Subhas Bose at Singapore]. ... this was the beginning of a deep friendship between Jawaharlal Nehru and Edwina and me.”{Tw10}
"The above was in sharp contrast to Jinnah who had inducted Muslim INA soldiers into the Pakistani army."
Anuj Dhar mentions Habibur Rahman being part of the contingent attacking India in an earlier war after partition. He was loyal to Netaji and never varied from the story about death in Sir crash that he was asked to convey.
"The INA personnel remained ineligible for the Freedom Fighters Pension till 1972. Captain Ram Singh Thakur (1914–2002) was an INA soldier of Nepali origin. He was also a musician and a composer. His famous patriotic compositions include "Kadam Badhaye Ja, khushi kē geet gāējā, yēzīndagi hai qâum kī, tū qâum pēlūtāējā..." and "Subh Sukh Chain". His final years were difficult. He was also initially denied the status of a freedom fighter by the government.
"In sharp contrast to the above, Free India’s Nehru Government paid pensions to the British-Raj Era officials for their “services” (keeping India colonised) to pre-Independent British India!{Tw3}
"Even more significantly, rather shockingly, post-Independence too India’s Nehru Government paid pension to the British-Era SSP Naut Bawar, who was one of the British police officers of Prayagraj who had shot dead Chandrashekhar Azad (at Alfred Park), the pioneer of Bharatiya Independence, and one of the genuine, greatest Indian freedom fighters and revolutionaries.{Tw9}"
................................................................................................
Blunder–127 :
Special Treatment for Edwina Mountbatten
"Edwina was buried at sea in 1960, as per her will— a tribute to Mountbatten’s naval career. British frigate Wakeful which carried her body to the sea off Spithead, a channel off southern England, was escorted by an Indian frigate Trishul—such importance India under Nehru gave her. “Lady Pamela Hicks, daughter of Lady Mountbatten, also says that on her death in 1960, Edwina was buried at sea as per her wish. As her bereaved family steamed away from the scene after casting wreaths at the spot, the Indian frigate INS Trishul ‘quietly took our place and, on Panditji’s instructions, marigolds were scattered upon the waves’.”{URL100}
"Contrast this with the treatment meted out by Nehru to Sardar Patel, Netaji Subhas, Dr Ambedkar and Dr Rajendra Prasad after their death— that we covered above!
"Going by several books and material on the web, including Alex Von Tunzelmann’s ‘Indian Summer: The Secret History of the End of an Empire’, while Mountbatten had several affairs, Edwina was from a rich family, indulged herself, and had many lovers—Nehru was one in that series. ... "
Pamela Mountbatten wrote about her family and her parents quite extensively, including their separate affairs - often the other partners of both were with the family at family home - and about the time they spent in India.
Also she mentioned the special bond each of the three had with Jawaharlal Nehru, and about how her parents disapproved of racism of British towards Indians, which her father publicly set out to destroy at garden parties of the Viceroy.
If there were more than friendship, wouldn't she have not had compunctions mentioning it, given all the factors put together? A need a woman has is far more of a dialogue of mind, and she does mention that her father was relieved due to Nehru filling that for both mother and daughter, which helped him do work without worrying for them.
" ... But, was Edwina very good looking? Hardly, though she was white-skinned—something brown sahibs bent down to."
It's still the convention that men can't be friends with women, despite all the emancipation???!!!!
"Going by several books and material on the web, including Alex Von Tunzelmann’s ‘Indian Summer: The Secret History of the End of an Empire’, while Mountbatten had several affairs, Edwina was from a rich family, indulged herself, and had many lovers—Nehru was one in that series. But, was Edwina very good looking? Hardly, though she was white-skinned—something brown sahibs bent down to. Wrote Francois Gautier: “The problem is not whether they [Nehru and Lady Mountbatten] had sex or not together, the problem rather is that this ‘affair’ only symbolizes the fatal attraction which Nehru had for the White Skin—for Edwina Mountbatten was certainly not a beauty, but was in fact renowned for her nymphomania and inconsequence…The problem is not whether Mountbatten was made a cuckold or not—but that it was India which was cuckolded, for Nehru was unfaithful to India by letting his weaknesses influence him in accepting partition and the terms dictated by the British...”{ FG2}"
Puranik had shown other factors overwhelmingly bringing Sardar Patel to the realisation that partition was necessary; it had to do with massacres of Hindus, Calcutta and Noakhali being turning points. This allegation about a friendship- shared by four people, not two - is our of place. Jawaharlal Nehru being less vigilant about concerns of India due to this had more to do with his need of acceptance that was a result of his Harrow and Cambridge growing years that moulded him. And the declaration of unimportant of actual affair merely removes an onus of proof from one who makes allegations.
As for the accusations heaped against her, that merely makes her a part of the society she moved in including royals - the then king, his elder brother, and their father included. Edward VIII only differed in not agreeing to keep his affair private.
"Stated Natwar Singh in ‘One Life is Not Enough’ (italics and emphasis are by the author RKP): “In 1961, Queen Elizabeth II was the chief guest at the Republic Day parade. Lord Mountbatten had got Nehru to agree to the Queen and President Rajendra Prasad jointly taking the salute. This was an atrocious proposal. I spoke to several of my colleagues about it. There was unanimous disapproval. I also spoke to S. Gopal, the son of Dr S . Radhakrishnan. Sensing the mood, Nehru dropped the idea. What bothered me even more was the pernicious influence of the Mountbattens on Nehru, so much so that he was literally eating out of their hands. He was oblivious to Mountbatten’s glaring shortcomings. His wife, Edwina, had fallen in love with Nehru, and he with her. When Edwina Mountbatten died in early 1960 in Borneo, Nehru paid her a tribute in Parliament. This was unprecedented.”{KNS/ 42}"
Mountbatten died much later, so India missed Nehru paying him the same tribute.
"Alex Von Tunzelmann wrote: “…‘ Please keep this to yourselves but she [Edwina] and Jawaharlal are so sweet together,’ he [ Mountbatten ] wrote to his elder daughter, Patricia. ‘They really dote on each other in the nicest way and Pammy and I are doing everything we can to be tactful and help… And so Edwina and Jawahar walked together among the wild strawberry bushes during the days and drove with Pamela along winding roads to the brightly lit town of Shimla in the evenings...”{Tunz/ 323}"
Pamela was open enough about other affairs of each of the parents, not kept secret from family, and she mentions being part of the relationship her mother had with Jawaharlal Nehru, who according to her was a mentor to them both. Extension of letters to his daughter, sort of.
"MO Mathai also wrote: “Once, at a reception at the India House in London, to which Attlee and several other dignitaries came, Nehru stood in a corner chatting with Lady Mountbatten all the while. Krishna Menon turned to me and said that people were commenting on it and requested me to break in so that Nehru could move about.”{Mac/ 14}"
"Wrote Rustamji:
"“On a visit to Assam, he [Nehru ] asked me to ensure that the orchids he ordered in Shillong reached Lady Mountbatten in London safely.”{Rust/ 39}"
Price he paid, over and over, of acceptance.
Author quotes Stanley Wolpert mentioning Indira Gandhi hating Edwina Mountbatten. Indra Gandhi hated her aunt, Vijaylaxmi Pandit, according to another source, and it all fits her resentment of anyone else taking her share of his attention away from the daughter who needed it desperately, having lost a mother too early.
"Reportedly, Nehru used to go to London to be with Edwina almost every year, or she used to come to India, and stay with him— after independence. Also, reportedly, one of the jobs of Krishna Menon as High Commissioner in London, for which he used to gladly volunteer, was to receive Nehru at the airport at any hour and drive him down to Edwina’s secluded country house—Broadlands— where Nehru and Edwina could enjoy complete privacy.{Wolp2/ 10}"
Following almost in footsteps of the then English tradition that had been fashion during his years of growth spent in England.
"Wrote Stanley Wolpert:
"“Nehru flew off again to London... Krishna Menon was waiting with the Rolls, as usual, at London’s airport and drove him back to Edwina shortly before midnight... Indira was upset by her father’s unrelenting obsession with 'that Mountbatten lady'!”{Wolp2/ 443}
"“Jawahar tried to talk Edwina into staying on with him after Dickie [Mountbatten] flew home [in June 1948], for he knew by now that her heart belonged to him alone. Mountbatten, of course, also ‘knew that they were lovers', as did all of their close friends. Edwina’s sister Mary hated Nehru for it... Still he wanted her, needed her, pleaded with her...”{Wolp2/ 435}"
That reads more like the penny fiction popular amongst teenage schoolgirls of church-run institutions.
................................................................................................
"MJ Akbar writes about the encounter of Russi Mody, once the Chief Executive of Tata Steel, with Nehru at Nainital where Nehru was staying with his father and UP Governor, Sir Homi Mody.
"“Sir Homi was very pukka, and when the gong sounded at eight he instructed his son to go to the Prime Minister’s bedroom and tell him dinner was ready. Russi Mody marched up, opened the door and saw Jawaharlal and Edwina in a clinch. Jawaharlal looked at Russi Mody and grimaced. Russi quickly shut the door and walked out.”{Akb/ 391}
"Wrote K Natwar Singh: “I once asked Vijaya Lakshmi Pandit, Nehru’s sister, if the rumours about her brother having an affair with Edwina Mountbatten were true. She was herself a diva and uninhibited in her conversation . She said to me: ‘Of course he did. And good for him.’”{KNS2}
"Nehru’s correspondence with Edwina contained matters of national importance, for he used to share his thinking with her. Hence, they are of vital historical importance, and not just something that are merely personal— of no consequence. Yet they are being treated as if they are the personal property of the Dynasty, and are being kept a closely guarded secret. Wolpert mentions in the preface to his book ‘Nehru: A Tryst with Destiny’ he tried to access the letters, but failed.{Wolp2/ viii}
"While one doesn't really care for the personal side of it— considering they were two consenting adults— could such relationship have compromised Nehru or India's political cause in any way? Edwina Mountbatten, about whose relationship with Nehru a lot has been written, would have most likely persuaded Nehru to go by the counsel of Mountbatten and take the Kashmir matter to the UN. Maulana Azad, a pro-Nehru person, expressed bewilderment in his autobiography as to how a person like Jawaharlal was won over by Lord Mountbatten; mentions Nehru’s weakness of being impulsive and amenable to personal influences, and wonders if Lady Mountbatten factor was responsible.{Azad/ 198}
"Reportedly, Mountbatten himself admitted that he used his wife to get an insight into Nehru’s mind and, where needed, influence Nehru when he failed to bring him round to his view. Philip Zeigler, Mountbatten's biographer, stated that Mountbatten encouraged loving relationship between his wife and Nehru—to this end."
................................................................................................
"As per a news-item in DNA titled ‘‘ Turmoil in Nepal is of Nehru’s making”{URL75}: ‘Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) chief KS Sudarshan on Sunday blamed India’s first prime minister, Jawaharlal Nehru, for rejecting Nepal’s proposal of merger into India on the lines of other princely states shortly after Independence. Sudarshan held Nehru responsible for today’s turmoil in Nepal and Tibet, which, he said, was handed over by him to China, despite being aware of the neighbour’s expansionist tendency. “It was a mistake on Nehru’s part that he refused a proposal by Nepal’s prime minister Matrikaprasad Koirala for including the Himalayan kingdom in India,” Sudarshan said [in 2008]… Elucidating that national interest was being sacrificed for personal or selfish interests, Sudarshan said China’s excesses in Tibet were the fallout of Nehru’s folly…’"
Author quotes a Twitter by Dr Subramanian Swamy about the topic.
"Here is a tweet from Shri Subramanian Swamy: https:// twitter.com/ Swamy39/ status/ 1268428294136885251? s = 09"
"However, ‘The Quint’has the following to state{ URL76} (extracts): ‘…It was not the Ranas but King Tribhuvan who had proposed to have a federation and even then, there was no mention of a “merger”of India and Nepal, says Professor SD Muni, member of The Institute for Defence Studies and Analyses [IDSA]…Prof Muni stated how the Ministry of External Affairs has not been able to trace those documents, which is why, there is no concrete evidence except for what's being said by “word of mouth”. “This is true that King Tribhuvan was quite willing to have the closest relationship possible with India but Nehru wanted Nepal to be independent because he knew otherwise the British, the Americans would interfere and create problems,”said SD Muni…An excerpt of “India’s foreign policy towards Nepal and Bhutan”published on Shodhganga reads, “After overthrow of the Rana autocracy, King Tribhuvan expressed his desire for merger of Nepal with India. However, Nehru rejected the offer of the king because he wanted Nepal to retain her independence.”…Regarding Tribhuvan’s proposal, Professor Muni said that it was not a formal proposal but “a line of thinking”. “Some people in the Ministry who are not alive anymore told me that there was some sort of a letter from King Tribhuvan to that effect,”he said.’
"As per an article in Swarajya{ URL77}: “That Nepal’s traditional ties with India have been deep need no repetition. Over the centuries, shared religious, cultural, and civilisational tenets have cemented ties between the people of the two countries. But post-Independence, it was Jawaharlal Nehru’s supercilious attitude towards Nepal’s monarchy that heralded a strain in ties between the two countries. Nehru’s socialist inclinations, and his proximity to leftists, dictated his coldness towards Nepal’s kings, who Hindus in both the countries considered to be incarnations of Bhagwan Vishnu. Repeated attempts by Nepal’s kings to reach out to India were rebuffed by Nehru, who viewed the Hindu monarchs with considerable anathema. Nepal-watchers have chronicled how, after being repeatedly rebuffed by New Delhi, Nepal’s kings slowly turned towards China. Ironically, it was to ward off China’s expansionism that the monarchs in Kathmandu wanted to strengthen ties with India. Nehru viewed the monarchy as anachronous in his world-view, more so since Nepal was a Hindu Rashtra…The ham-handed and overt support to anti-monarchy forces in Nepal by New Delhi at that time sowed the early seeds of distrust among Nepal’s ruling elite as well as the country’s civil society towards India. That also seeded the oft-repeated accusation by Nepalis of Indian interference in Nepal’s internal affairs that is heard very regularly now.”{ URL77}
"Nehru’s folly was compounded by his grandson Rajeev Gandhi, when he was PM. Here are extracts from an article in Swarajya{URL77}:
"“But the real fracture in ties between the two countries was inflicted by Rajiv Gandhi. …However, his visions of diplomacy, strategy and world affairs, and his complete naivety, led to many disasters…Rajiv Gandhi’s hostility to Nepal’s monarchy came out in the open after his visit to Kathmandu in December 1988…Rajiv Gandhi was accompanied by his wife and wanted to visit the Pashupatinath Temple in Kathmandu. The temple management conveyed to the Indian embassy that while Rajiv Gandhi was welcome, Sonia Gandhi would be barred entry since she was not a Hindu. Rajiv Gandhi took up the matter with King Birendra Bir Bikram Shah and requested the king to ensure that Sonia Gandhi would also be allowed entry into the mandir. The king declined Rajiv Gandhi’s request and told the Indian prime minister that the temple’s traditions were inviolable. Rajiv Gandhi was angry and Sonia Gandhi appears to have never forgotten the insult. It is widely believed that she was behind Rajiv Gandhi’s decision to impose a blockade on Nepal. The ostensible reason for the blockade was the expiry of bilateral trade treaties between the two countries, but analysts say the real reason was two-fold. One was Nepal’s purchase of anti-aircraft guns and other arms from China. And the second and more insidious reason was Rajiv Gandhi’s desire to teach Nepal a lesson for the perceived slight to his Catholic wife. ‘It is well known that Rajiv Gandhi was ill-disposed towards Nepal’s monarchy and he had met pro-democracy leaders during his visit to Nepal in November 1987 for the SAARC summit. The Pashupatinath incident made him vengeful towards the king. The support that RAW started extending to Nepal’s anti-monarchists, including the Maoists, is very well known,’said a former Indian ambassador to Kathmandu. Former Research and Analysis Wing (RAW) special director Amar Bhushan in his book ‘Inside Nepal’reveals how the agency worked to topple Nepal’s monarchy. On Rajiv Gandhi’s instructions, RAW got all anti-monarchy forces together and won over Maoist leader Pushpa Kamal Dahal (aka Prachanda). The whole ‘topple monarchy’operation that Rajiv Gandhi ordered was a hare-brained one, say South Asia experts. That’s because Nepal’s Maoists who India sheltered and aided were essentially pro-China, and this came out in the open once they assumed power. Despite the help they got from India, the Maoists and communists of Nepal had no love lost for India. And on the other hand, the monarchy, sensing a threat from the India-supported pro-democracy movement, also sought help from China. Beijing was more than willing to provide that help and support. It was a win-win for China, with no gains at all for India. And Rajiv Gandhi is to be blamed singularly for that. For the people of Nepal, the blockade that created enormous hardships and crippled the country’s economy led to acute anger against India…The setbacks that India is facing in Nepal today can be attributed directly to Rajiv Gandhi and his policies. And also to his grandfather Nehru whose Himalayan blunders have been extensively documented and commented on…”{ URL77}
"States an article in My Nation{URL78}: “A series of bad decisions and diplomatic moves beginning from Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru to Dr Manmohan Singh has been responsible for Nepali tilt towards Beijing over the years. Rajiv Gandhi will be remembered for his unsuccessful attempts at dealing with challenges in Nepal, which troubles India even today.”
................................................................................................
"As per “Nehru’s Balochistan blooper was as disastrous as his Himalayan blunder”{URL85}:
"“Jawaharlal Nehru’s Balochistan blooper may not be well-known today, but historically and strategically, it is as disastrous and indicting as the great Himalayan blunder or even the Kashmir gaffe. Out of a misplaced sense of priority and strategic myopia, the then Government of India refused to support the Baloch state of Kalat, which was trying to strike a deal with New Delhi to avoid Pakistani occupation... Worse, if a report by a Britain-based think tank, Foreign Policy Centre, is to be believed, Nehru returned the accession papers signed by the Khan of Kalat in 1947... Kalat, which comprised nearly the whole of Balochistan, was an independent nation when the British left the subcontinent...
"“Writes Tilak Devasher in his new book, Pakistan: The Balochistan Conundrum , 'In 1946, Jinnah, the legal adviser of the Khan of Kalat, submitted a Memorandum to the Cabinet Mission that, inter alia, demanded the separation of Balochistan from British India on geographical grounds.'... It was the case of a missed opportunity for India . Maybe the Nehru government failed to comprehend the strategic significance of an independent Balochistan. Maybe, it erroneously believed, contrary to the fundamental Kautilyan tenet, that a strong neighbour —in this case Pakistan— was good for India. Unfortunately, this mindset still remains entrenched in the country with successive governments refusing to see the artificial construct of the idea of Pakistan. India simply did nothing on the fact that ‘most Baloch believe that the Khan of Kalat was not only forced to sign the Instrument of Accession but that it was an illegal accession’, as Devasher writes in the book…
"“Balochistan’s alienation, writes Devasher, is two-fold. One is the ‘Baloch narrative’that ‘hinges on the indelible historical memories of being independent and the injustices the people feel that they have undergone since they were forced to accede to Pakistan’. The author quotes Baloch political leader Abdul Hayee Baloch as saying, ‘The establishment has never accepted the fact that Pakistan is a multi-nation country. Pakistan came into existence in 1947, but Balochs, Pathans, Sindhis, Punjabis and Seraikis have been here for centuries. They have their own cultures and languages.’”{ URL85}"
................................................................................................
"Zahīr ud-Dīn Muhammad Babur( 1483– 1530), the Uzbekistan born direct descendant of the mass-murderer Tamerlane (Timur), was the founder of the Mughal dynasty in India, and was India’s first Mughal Emperor from 1526 to 1530."
Although, he didn't use the epithet mughal, being a descendent of Chenghiz Khan in female line, not male, and hence not considered mughal; its European travellers and invaders who used the epithet first this dynasty. Babar used a word that translates "of son-in-law".
"Tuzak-i Babari, Babur's autobiography, records Babur's campaign in northwest India of killing immense numbers of Hindu and Sikh civilians, and building towers of skulls of the infidels on hillocks. Baburnama too records massacre in Hindu-Sikh villages and towns. Babur desecrated and destroyed many temples. Guru Nanak was Babur’s contemporary , and Nanak, in his ‘ Babur Bani’, has described in detail the atrocities committed by Babur and his army, to which he was an eye-witness: “Having attacked Khuraasaan, Babar terrified Hindustan. The Creator Himself does not take the blame, but has sent the Mughal as the messenger of death. There was so much slaughter... Those heads [of women] adorned with braided hair, with their parts painted with vermillion— those heads were shaved with scissors, and their throats were choked with dust... The order was given to the soldiers, who dishonoured them, and carried them away... Since Babar's rule has been proclaimed, even the princes have no food to eat... He burned the rest-houses and the ancient temples; he cut the princes limb from limb, and cast them into the dust...”{W.ih5}"
"Given the above no humanitarian or right-thinking person or an Indian patriot can ever think of paying respects to Babur.
"Reproduced below are the extracts from the article ‘Why Babur Beckons Nehru-Gandhis!’:{ W.n14}
"“1. Nehru visited Babur’s grave [in Kabul] on 19th Sept, 1959.
"2. Indira Gandhi visited Babur’s grave in 1968, as revealed by Natwar Singh in his book, ‘Profile and Letters’.
"3. Indira Gandhi, Rajiv Gandhi and Rahul Gandhi visited Babur’s grave in 1976.
"4. Rahul, Dr Manmohan Singh and his Foreign Minister Natwar Singh visited the grave of Babur in August 2005. The then National Security Adviser MK Narayanan had also accompanied the former PM.”
"…The episode of Indira Gandhi bowing for a few minutes in silence at the grave of Babur in 1968, mentioned by Natwar Singh, did cause some commotion among Hindu blog writers, but not of the mainstream English media.”{W.n14}
"Wrote Natwar Singh in ‘One Life is Not Enough’: “Regardless, we headed towards Babur’s grave. She [Indira Gandhi] stood at the grave with her head slightly lowered and I behind her. She said to me, ‘I have had my brush with history.’”{KNS/ 143}"
"Babur’s tomb is located in the ‘Garden of Babur’ in Kabul, the capital of Afghanistan. Significantly, none of the Nehru-Gandhis have ever cared to visit the grave/ tomb of the brave Prithviraj Chauhan located in Ghazni in Afghanistan.{W.n14}"
Weren't Babur's remains moved as perhis either yo Uzbekistan, his lost homeland he'd mourned forever, even as he conquered India and hated it forever, only because he'd been kicked out by his numerous cousins out of every place in Central Asia? His tomb is now certainly in Uzbekistan, having moved by stages, out of India as per his wish.
"“The book ‘Arms and Armour: Traditional Weapons of India’ by E Jaiwant Paul says on the outskirts of Ghazni are two domed tombs... The larger was of Ghori and few meters away was a second smaller tomb of Prithviraj Chauhan.”{URL86}
"“According to reports, it is now a part of the tradition in Afghanistan that those who pay visit to the tomb of Mohammad Ghori first disrespect the grave of Prithviraj Chauhan by stamping and jumping on the place where the Indian emperor’s mortal remains are buried. The inscription on the tomb reads: ‘Here lies the Kafir king of Delhi.’ There must now be an urgency of bringing back the remains of Prithviraj Chauhan to India for a worthy memorial at Delhi as well as Ajmer.”{URL87}
"“The Gandhi dynasty has continued to visit the tomb of Babur, the founder of Mughal empire, who brazenly boasted of his fondness for killing the Hindu Kâfirs... Ever wondered why each one of the scions of the Gandhi family never failed to pay obeisance to the Mughal emperor Babur at his far away tomb in Kabul, Afghanistan?... It is shockingly remarkable that none of the Nehru-Gandhis ever cared to visit the grave of Prithviraj Chauhan located in Ghazni... The hidden reasons for Dynasty’s contempt for the Hindu king and love for Babur are two important questions which require in-depth research.”{ URL88}"
Mughal ancestry?
................................................................................................
"The terrible and unspeakably-cruel anti-Sikh pogrom, rather Sikh-genocide , of 1984 by the Congress-provoked goons and the INC-goons following the assassination of Indira Gandhi that caused the gruesome deaths of 3,400 Sikhs (officially; the unofficial figure ranges from 8,000 to 17,000) nation-wide had a horrifying precedence of the Nehruvian days, which has unfortunately been swept under the carpet: anti-Brahmin attacks , rather Brahmin genocide, of Maharashtra of 1948 following the assassination of Mahatma Gandhi, that caused about 8,000 deaths."
Author hasn't mentioned the numbers in Punjab.
"As the Gandhi-assassins were Maharashtrian Brahmins, their whole community was targeted. Wrote Arti Agarwal in an article titled “Maharashtrian Brahmin Genocide – 8000 Killed”{URL98}: “Brahmins were killed, Brahmin women were raped, shops and houses were set on fire, livelihoods destroyed, and many Brahmins forced to flee, to save their lives and future generations… Narayana Rao Savarkar and his family were pelted with stones, as they tried to escape from their residence. He was gravely injured and eventually succumbed to his injuries on 19 Oct, 1949 … Estimates were that 8000 Brahmins [more than that in anti-Sikh pogrom of 1984] were killed [there being no official record!], with no record or estimate of how many were forced to flee…”{URL98}
"What is the logic of targeting a whole community if a member of that community happens to be a murderer? Absurd! If an assassin happens to belong to a given religion or sect or region or caste or community, would one start targeting that whole group? And, if that happens, or is allowed to happen, what is the point of having police establishment and criminal-justice system?"
Would they have done the same if the perpetrator had been a Brit or a mughal? Dyer was rewarded for killing a few thousand unarmed civilians in an enclosed garden by automatic weapons fiting until no one was moving, a tank barring the only exit. Congress similarly rewarded perpetrating mob leaders in both genocides.
"But, apparently politics overrides everything. “Every aspect of this genocide points to it being a premeditated crime, targeting a religious community, namely, Maharashtrian Brahmins, who were known for being staunch Hindu nationalists. For mobs of hundreds to suddenly attack Brahmins within such a short period of time would require great ingenuity and extraordinary means of communication, technologically not available at that period. These were not ‘riots’ as often labelled, but a planned genocide, because it was spread over the entire geography of Maharashtra, not just one mohalla or city…”{URL98}
"“This is one of the genocides for which little information exists, once again , by design. It is otherwise impossible that a targeted massacre of a religious community is neither known, nor documented anywhere properly, except for first-hand accounts of those who suffered, and individuals who documented the massacre at the time of its occurrence. There is every reason to believe that all evidence of this genocide was destroyed, along with images and news clips.”{URL98}
"“Gandhi’s death was just a pretext used …to gather a vote-bank by creating hatred against a minority community [Brahmins] which dominated the area administratively, culturally, economically, and educationally. Chitpavans had many important contributions to Indian nationalism which Maharashtrians today are proud of. Mahadeo Ranade, Gopal Krishna Gokhale, Lokmanya Tilak, Veer Savarkar, etc. were also Chitpavan Brahmins. The Peshwas who spread the Maratha influence outside Maharashtra and created a pan-India Maratha empire were also Chitpavans. But as soon as Gandhi was assassinated by a Chitpavan Brahmin [Godse], the entire community bore the brunt of all the hatred...”{ URL99}
"Who were the mobsters? Apparently, they were assorted groups of anti-Brahmin activists, political formations, and certain Congress hoodlums. Why was a proper formal enquiry never conducted? Why were the guilty not punishments? Nehru, the anointed PM and chela of the one who swore by non-violence, didn’t deem it fit to bring to book those responsible for such reprehensible, wide-spread violence, and perpetrators India’s first genocide post-independence (excluding partition)!"
................................................................................................
................................................................................................
................................................................................................
................................................................................................
Table of Contents
................................................................................................
................................................................................................
................................................................................................
................................................................................................
Preface
A Note on Citations & Bibliography
Chapter - I
PRE-INDEPENDENCE BLUNDERS
Blunder–1 : Usurping Congress Presidentship in 1929
Blunder–2 : Setting Jinnah on Path to Pakistan
Blunder–3 : Scoring Self-Goal—Ministry Resignations, 1939
Blunder–4 : Leg-up to Jinnah & the Muslim League (AIML)
Blunder–5 : Assam’s Security Compromised
Blunder–6 : Nehru’s Undemocratic Elevation as the First PM
Blunder–7 : Aborted ‘Cabinet Mission Plan’for United India
Blunder–8 : NWFP Blunder 1946
Blunder–9 : Making Jews out of Hindu Sindhis
Blunder–10 : Giving Away 55 Crores to Pakistan
Blunder–11 : Pre-Independence Dynasty Promotion
Blunder–12 : What Really Led to India’s Independence?
Blunder–13 : British Jails: Nehru & Top-Gandhians as VIPs vs. Others
Blunder–14 : Clueless on the Roots of Partition, Pakistan & Kashmir
Blunder–15 : Grossly, rather Criminally, Mismanaged Partition
Blunder–16 : No Worthwhile Policy Formulations!
Chapter - II
INTEGRATION OF THE PRINCELY STATES
Blunder–17 : Independent India dependent upon the British!
Blunder–18 : Nehru Refused J& K Accession when Offered!
Blunder–19 : Allowing Kashmir to be almost Lost
Blunder–20 : Unconditional J& K Accession Made Conditional
Blunder–21 : Internationalisation of the Kashmir Issue
Blunder–22 : Inept Handling of the J& K Issue in the UN
Blunder–23 : PoK thanks to Nehru
Blunder–24 : Nehru’s Shocking Callousness in J& K
Blunder–25 : Article-370 thanks to Nehru
Blunder–26 : Article 35A for J& K, Again Thanks to Nehru
Blunder–27 : Nehru’s Blood Brother Who Deceived
Blunder–28 : Wanting Maharaja to Lick his Boots
Blunder–29 : Kashmiri Pandits vs. Kashmiri Pandits
Blunder–30 : Sidelining the One Who Could have Tackled J& K
Blunder–31 : Junagadh: Sardar Patel vs. Nehru–Mountbatten
Blunder–32 : Would-have-been Pakistan-II (Hyderabad)
Chapter - III
EXTERNAL SECURITY
Blunder–33 : Erasure of Tibet as a Nation
Blunder–34 : Panchsheel—Selling Tibet; Harming Self
Blunder–35 : Not Settling Boundary Dispute with China
Blunder–36 : The Himalayan Blunder: India-China War
Blunder–37 : Criminal Neglect of Defence & External Security
Blunder–38 : Politicisation of the Army
Blunder–39 : Anti Armed-Forces
Blunder–40 : Lethargic Intelligence Machinery & No Planning
Blunder–41 : Suppressing Truth
Blunder–42 : Himalayan Blunders, but No Accountability
Blunder–43 : Delayed Liberation of Goa
Blunder–44 : Nehru’s NO to Nuclear Arms
Blunder–45 : No Settlement with Pakistan
Blunder–46 : Responsible for 1965-War too, in a way
Blunder–47 : International Record in Insecure Borders
Chapter - IV
FOREIGN POLICY
Blunder–48 : Nehru–Liaquat Pact 1950
Blunder–49 : Letting Go of Gwadar
Blunder–50 : Indus Water Treaty—Himalayan Blunder
Blunder–51 : No Initiative on Sri Lankan Tamil Problem
Blunder–52 : Erroneous Nehru-Era Map
Blunder–53 : Advocating China’s UNSC Membership at Our Cost
Blunder–54 : Rebuffing Israel, the Friend-in-Need
Blunder–55 : Neglecting Southeast Asia
Blunder–56 : India vs. the US & the West
Blunder–57 : ‘Non-Aligned’with National Interests
Blunder–58 : Foreign to Foreign Policy
Chapter - V
INTERNAL SECURITY
Blunder–59 : Compounding Difficulties in Assam
Blunder–60 : Neglect of the Northeast
Blunder–61 : Ignoring Illegal Proselytization
Blunder–62 : Ungoverned Areas
Blunder–63 : Insecurity of the Vulnerable Sections
Chapter - VI
ECONOMY
Blunder–64 : Nehruvian (and NOT ‘Hindu’) Rate of Growth
Blunder–65 : Grinding Poverty & Terrible Living Conditions
Blunder–66 : Throttled Industrialisation
Blunder–67 : Neglect of Agriculture
Blunder–68 : Builder of ‘Modern’India
Blunder–69 : Pathetic India vs. Other Countries
Blunder–70 : Nehru’s Socialism: The ‘God’that Failed
Blunder-70a : What They Said of Nehru & Socialism
Chapter - VII
MISGOVERNANCE
Blunder–71 : Debilitating Babudom & Criminal-Justice System
Blunder–72 : That Strange Indian Animal: VIP & VVIP
Blunder–73 : Corruption in the “Good”Old Days
Blunder–74 : Nepotism in the “Good”Old Days
Blunder–75 : Nehru & Casteism
Blunder–76 : Messy Reorganisation of States
Blunder–77 : Poor Leadership & Administration
Blunder–78 : Squandering Once-in-a-lifetime Opportunity
Chapter - VIII
EDUCATIONAL & CULTURAL MISMANAGEMENT
Blunder–79 : Neglect of Education, Particularly Universal Education
Blunder–80 : Messing Up the Language Issue & Being Anti-Hindi
Blunder–81 : Promoting Urdu & Persian-Arabic Script
Blunder–82 : Neglect of Sanskrit
Blunder–83 : Rise of the Parasitic Leftist-Fiberal (Fake Liberal) Class
Blunder–84 : Mental & Cultural Slavery
Blunder–85 : Distorted, Self-Serving Secularism & Minorityism
Blunder–86 : Nehru & Uniform Civil Code (UCC)
Blunder–87 : ‘Sickularism’vs. Somnath Temple
Blunder–88 : Would-have-been Communal Reservation
Blunder–89 : Not Seeking Reparations from the British Nehru and the Distortion of Indian History & Heritage
Blunder–90 : No De-Falsification of History
Blunder–91 : Being Creative With History
Blunder–92 : Nehru & Negationism
Blunder–93 : Distortions of History by Nehru Himself
Blunder–94 : Being Anti-Hindu
Chapter - IX
DYNACRACY & DICTATORIAL TENDENCIES
Blunder–95 : Nehru’s Dictatorial Ways
Blunder–96 : Nehru—Power Trumps Principles
Blunder–97 : Nehru Curbed Freedom of Expression
Blunder–98 : “Democracy, thanks to Nehru?”—NOT True
Blunder–99 : Nehru Promoted Dynacracy, NOT Democracy
Blunder–100 : Not Limiting the Term of the PM
Blunder–101 : Not Appointing a Successor, Deliberately
Blunder–102 : Election Funding & Publicity
Blunder–103 : Ensuring Self-Publicity & Dynastic Recall
Blunder–104 : Communal, Vote-Bank Politics
Blunder–105 : Promoting Incompetents & Sycophants
Chapter - X
NEHRU’S WORLD VIEW—THAT HARMED INDIA
Blunder–106 : Nehru’s Defective World View
Blunder–107 : Nehruvianism & Nehru’s ‘Idea of India’
Chapter - XI
HUBRIS, ILL-TREATMENT OF OTHERS
Blunder–108 : Modest Academics, Pathetic Grasp of Vital Issues, Yet…
Blunder–109 : Lordly Ways—Good Bye to Gandhian Simplicity
Blunder–110 : Arrogant, Conceited & Full of Hubris
Blunder–111 : Bharat Ratnas—Ignoring the Deserving
Blunder–112 : Nehru & Netaji Subhas Mystery
Blunder–113 : Nehru & Netaji’s Stolen War Chest
Blunder–114 : Gross Ill-Treatment of INA
Blunder–115 : Ill-Treatment of Netaji Bose
Blunder–116 : Ill-Treatment of Bhagat Singh & Azad
Blunder–117 : Ill-Treatment of Veer Savarkar
Blunder–118 : Ill-Treatment of Sardar Patel
Blunder–119 : Ill-Treatment of Sardar Patel’s Daughter Maniben
Blunder–120 : Ill-Treatment of Dr Ambedkar
Blunder–121 : Ill-Treatment of Dr Shyama Prasad Mukherjee
Blunder–122 : Ill-Treatment of Dr Rajendra Prasad
Blunder–123 : Ill-treatment of PD Tandon & How Nehru Sought Unbridled Power
Blunder–124 : Ill-Treatment of Bordoloi
Blunder–125 : Ill-Treatment of General Thimayya
Blunder–126 : Ill-Treatment of Public
Blunder–127 : Special Treatment for Edwina Mountbatten
Chapter - XII
EVEN MORE BLUNDERS & RELATED ASPECTS
(B1) Nehru Gifted Kabo Valley
(B2) Nehru, Nehru-Dynasty & Nepal
(B3) Balochistan Blooper
(B4) Paying Respects to Babur!
(B5) Maharashtrian Brahmin Genocide of 1948
Chapter - XIII
EVALUATING NEHRU
................................................................................................
................................................................................................
................................................................................................
................................................................................................
REVIEW
................................................................................................
................................................................................................
................................................................................................
................................................................................................
Preface
................................................................................................
................................................................................................
Author begins with some quotes -
"Said Nehru:
"(“The Nabob of Cluelessness”, as someone remarked)
"I can tell this House [Parliament] that at no time since our independence, and of course before it, were our defence forces in better condition, in finer fettle…than they are today…{ Max/ 132} (prior to 1962 India-China war)"
"(“ I hope I am not leaving you as cannon fodder for the Chinese. God bless you all.”— Army chief KS Thimayya in his farewell speech in 1961)"
- and then proceeds to disclaimer, ans statement of intent -
"Blunders is used in this book as a general term to also include failures, neglect, wrong policies, bad decisions, despicable and disgraceful acts, usurping undeserved posts, etc.
"It is not the intention of this book to be critical of Nehru, but historical facts, that have often been distorted or glossed over or suppressed must be known widely, lest the mistakes be repeated, and so that India has a brighter future.
"Unable to eulogise Nehru on facts, many admirers resort to innovative counterfactuals like: “Had it not been for Nehru India would not have remained united and secular. But for Nehru, there would have been no democracy, and the citizens would not have enjoyed freedom…” ... "
" ... Other leaders too make mistakes, but Nehru can beat them all hands down. ... Other leaders blunder in one or two or three areas. Not Nehru. His was a 360 degree coverage. ... arrogantly regarding himself as far wiser than others, and an all-round expert, he poked his nose into everything, and blundered in practically all areas (and sub-areas, and in very many ways): external security, internal security, foreign policy, economy, education, culture,… it’s a long list. ... "
Education?
"Nehru bequeathed a toxic political (dynastic and undemocratic), economic (socialistic), industrial (inefficient and burdensome public and state sector), agricultural (neglected and starved), geographic (most borders insecure), administrative (incompetent and corrupt babudom), historical (Marxist and Leftist distortion), educational (elitist, and no universal literacy), and cultural (no pride in Indian heritage) legacy."
Again, the point about education isn't clear. Sixties saw all kinds of educational institutions, from primary schools onwards to universities, the prestigious but sound quality IITs, and high level research institutions for scientific research.
If the latter are elitist for the author, it's an opinion, but there were free educational schools for poor too.
If he promoted expensive church dominated schools, that's not known.
Presumably author shall explain at some point.
"
................................................................................................
................................................................................................
................................................................................................
................................................................................................
................................................
................................................
April 26, 2022 - April 26, 2022.
................................................
................................................
................................................................................................
................................................................................................
................................................................................................
................................................................................................
A Note on Citations & Bibliography
................................................................................................
................................................................................................
Helpful for those reading this with an academic aim.
................................................................................................
................................................................................................
................................................................................................
................................................................................................
................................................
................................................
April 26, 2022 - April 26, 2022.
................................................
................................................
................................................................................................
................................................................................................
................................................................................................
................................................................................................
Chapter - I
PRE-INDEPENDENCE BLUNDERS
................................................................................................
................................................................................................
"Not many blunders are listed under Nehru’s ‘Pre-independence Blunders’ below, compared to his ‘Post-independence Blunders’ later, because in the former period Nehru was not fully in-charge. There was Mahatma Gandhi on top, and there were many other leaders of stature , to keep him in check. Despite that, whenever Nehru held an official position bestowing him with some discretion, and an opportunity presented itself,..."
................................................................................................
Blunder–1 :
Usurping Congress Presidentship in 1929
In all honesty, this ought to count as not Jawaharlal Nehru's blunder, but that by his seniors, his father Motilal Nehru, and of course, Gandhi. They engineered it, proceeding to secure the future intended for an only son of Motilal Nehru.
" ... Subsequent to Patel’s Bardoli win, Motilal wrote to Gandhi on 11 July 1928:
"“I am quite clear that the hero of the hour is Vallabhbhai, and the least we can do is to offer him the crown [make him President of the Congress]. Failing him, I think that under all the circumstances Jawahar would be the best choice.”"
"Jawaharlal was also favoured by Gandhi with an unprecedented second consecutive term in 1930, then another two terms in 1936 and 1937, topped by the critical term in 1946 (Blunder# 6)! Such privilege was not accorded to any other leader—even Sardar Patel was made President only once for one year!"
Again, Puranik misses the opportunity to mention the completely opposite, horrible treatment meted out to Subhash Chandra Bose, who'd been elected for a second time as president of congress despite explicitly nade known opposition by Gandhi. How Gandhi got him not only ousted by his typical refusal of cooperation, but after he was forced to resign, had congress bar him from holding any official positions even at state level, fearing he had a loyal following that would nix Gandhi’s plans of setting up Jawaharlal Nehru at the top.
"The Old Man’s weakness for the westernized Nehru over the home-spun fellow Gujarati [Patel] was yet another aspect of “Swadeshi” Gandhi’s self-contradictory personality. ... "
Sardar Patel was no more homespun than either Gandhi or Jawaharlal Nehru, all three having been to London and having cleared bar, and Sardar Patel the one having done so with flying colours - he'd topped, as had his brother before him - before practicing in Gujarat as one of the top earners at law.
But if it's about being well rooted, yes, Sardar Patel was certainly ahead of the Harrow-Cambridge graduate who was thereby handicapped for ever with a little boy looking up to prefect syndrome.
" ... How Jawaharlal managed to become the “spiritual son” of Gandhi is a mystery."
No, that part is clear if one has seen the exquisitely enacted anguished Harilal of Gandhi My Father, continuously wronged by a father who cared more about his image than for his firstborn.
The comparatively royal Nehru scion of a family that, we were informed in general education in sixties, sent out their laundry to Paris, was a convenient replacement for the damaged real son, for the guilty father Gandhi.
................................................................................................
Blunder–2 :
Setting Jinnah on Path to Pakistan
Again, it's unclear why this is fault of Jawaharlal Nehru. If anything, it's arrival of Gandhi, and his prayer day strike, yet enchanted the rest and put off Jinnah, whom Gandhi replaced as the senior leader.
That's until one reads the author's explanation.
"Before the 1936-37 provincial elections, the Congress did not expect to get enough seats to form a government on its own in UP. That was because of the other parties in the fray who had strong backing of the landlords and influential sections. So as to be able to form a government, it had planned for a suitable coalition with the Muslim League. So that the Muslim League got enough seats for a coalition to be successful, Rafi Ahmad Kidwai of the Congress (who had been private secretary of Motilal Nehru, and after Motilal’s death, a principal aide of Jawaharlal Nehru) had persuaded, jointly with Nehru, several influential Muslims, like Khaliq-uz-Zaman (third in the AIML hierarchy after Jinnah and Liaqat Ali Khan) and Nawab Mohammad Ismail Khan, who had the potential to win, to fight the elections on behalf of the Muslim League—as Muslims fighting on behalf of the Muslim League had better chances of winning. They fought and won. But, after the elections, when the Congress found it could form the government on its own, without the help of the Muslim League, it began to put unreasonable conditions.{ DD/ 181-83}
"To Jinnah’s proposal of inclusion of two Muslim League Ministers in the UP cabinet, Nehru, who was the Congress President then, and was also looking after the UP affairs, put forth an amazing, arrogant condition: the League legislators must merge with the Congress! Specifically, the terms sought to be imposed, inter alia, by Nehru–Azad were:
"“The Muslim League group in the UP Legislature shall cease to function as a separate group. The existing members of the Muslim League party in the United Provinces Assembly shall become part of the Congress Party…The Muslim League Parliamentary Board in the United Provinces will be dissolved, and no candidates will thereafter be set up by the said Board at any by-election…”{ Shak/ 187}
"The above humiliating condition that was the death warrant for the League was naturally rejected by Jinnah.{ Gill/ 179-80}
"In Bombay, with the Congress Chief Minister designate BG Kher willing to induct one Muslim League minister in the cabinet in view of lack of absolute majority of the Congress, and the fact that the Muslim League had done well in Bombay in the Muslim pockets, Jinnah sent a letter in the connection to Gandhi. Gandhi gave a curiously mystical and elliptically negative reply to Jinnah on 22 May 1937:
"“Mr. Kher has given me your message. I wish I could do something, but I am utterly helpless. My faith in [Hindu-Muslim] unity is as bright as ever; only I see no daylight out of the impenetrable darkness and, in such distress, I cry out to God for light...”{ CWMG/ Vol-71/ 277}
"Jinnah then wanted to meet Gandhi; but Gandhi advised him to rather meet Abul Kalam Azad, by whom he said he was guided in such matters. Rebuffed and humiliated Jinnah then decided to show Congress-Nehru-Gandhi their place. The incident led other Muslim leaders also to believe that a majority Congress government would always tend to ride rough-shod over the Muslim interests. It is claimed that, thanks to this imbroglio, the badly hurt pride of the Muslims led them to move away from the Congress and quickly gravitate towards the Muslim League, and ultimately to separation.
"The incident actually proved a blessing-in-disguise for Jinnah and the Muslim League for they realised their politics needed to be mass-based to counter the Congress. Membership fee for the AIML was dramatically dropped to just two-annas. There was a huge move to increase membership among the Muslim masses, and it paid rich dividends: the membership dramatically rose from a few thousand to well over half a million! Jinnah told his followers that he had done enough of begging the Congress in the past; he would see to it now that the Congress begged of him.{ RZ/ 70-71}
"The humiliated Muslim League aspirants Khaliq-uz-Zaman and Nawab Mohammad Ismail Khan, whose ambitions were thwarted by the Congress and Nehru, thereafter became the pillars of Muslim reaction and played a critical role in swinging the Muslim opinion in favour of partition and Pakistan. The British were only too glad at the development. The Secretary of State Birkenhead wrote to the Viceroy: “I have placed my highest and most permanent hopes in the eternity of the communal situation.”
"It was unwise of the Congress and Nehru not to show a little generosity towards the League. Reportedly, Sardar Patel and GB Pant were willing for a coalition with the Muslim League as per the pre-election understanding, but Nehru, in his “wisdom” and hubris, decided to act arrogant, and led the way for the ultimate parting of ways with Jinnah and the Muslim League, and for Partition and Pakistan— Nehru was the Congress President in 1936 and 1937. Jinnah’s bitter reaction on 26 July 1937 to Nehru’s unjust act was:
"“What can I say to the busybody President [Nehru] of the Congress? He [Nehru] seems to carry the responsibility of the whole world on his shoulders and must poke his nose into everything except minding his own business.”{DD/ 181-82}
"The fissure caused by Nehru’s impetuosity was never healed. There is an opinion that had the Congress been accommodating towards the AIML post-1937 elections, AIML may not have hurtled forward towards Partition and Pakistan. Besides, it would have prevented counterfactual speculations. ... "
" ... Uttar Pradesh was the cultural home of the Muslims. Although they were in a minority in the State, if Uttar Pradesh had not gone over to the cause of separation, Pakistan would never have become a reality.”"
................................................................................................
Blunder–3 :
Scoring Self-Goal—Ministry Resignations, 1939
"In protest against the British-India declaring war without consulting the Congress, the CWC meeting at Wardha on 22-23 October 1939 decided not to co-operate with the British in the war (WW -II). The move was spear-headed by Nehru and the socialists, who also advocated that the Congress Provincial Governments resign by the month-end in protest. Patel and Gandhi were not in favour of non-cooperation with the British in the war , and of the ministries resigning; but Nehru & Co— the socialists— insisted upon it. The resignations were effectively a victory of the Congress Left."
"Wrote Sita Ram Goel:
" ... But the Soviet Union was now an ally of Nazi Germany [1939-41], and the Comintern apparatus everywhere had characterised the War as an ‘Imperialist War’. The Comintern had also invited the ‘people’ in Western countries as well as in the colonies of those countries to convert the ‘imperialist war’ into a ‘civil war’ or a ‘war of liberation’ on the pattern advocated by Lenin in 1914-18. It was, therefore, not at all possible for Pandit Nehru to advocate cooperation with the British Government of India.”"
"It is worth noting that being more a socialist and a communist sympathiser than an “internationalist”, or an independent or a nationalist thinker, Nehru changed his tune soon after Russia joined the war on the side of Britain, and against Nazis in 1941."
"Wrote Balraj Krishna:
" ... The inappropriateness of the resignations lay in their being most inopportune and untimely, especially when Linlithgow had formed a favourable opinion of the Congress leaders and the Congress as a party. He considered the latter to be ‘the only one worthy of the name, and certainly the only one possessing an active and widespread organisation in the constituencies’. It was an achievement due to Patel's effective Chairmanship of the Congress Parliamentary Board. In Patel, Linlithgow had found ‘a sense of humour, a shrewd and active brain and a strong personality’, and Patel clearly saw the point about avoiding speculative hypothesis as a basis of argument.”"
"“An Islamic State within the sub-continent was sealed when INC decided to boycott the WWII effort and resigned in 1939. League increased the share of Muslims in the British Army to 34% by 1946, and Cong lost its nerve at the prospect of a civil war, which League was threatening.”"
................................................................................................
Blunder–4 :
Leg-up to Jinnah & the Muslim League (AIML)
"The worst effect of the resignations was on NWFP. This overwhelmingly Muslim province (95%) was ruled in conjunction with the Congress by the Khan brothers. It was a show-piece for the Congress, and a negation of all that Jinnah and the Muslim League stood for—majority Muslim province under the Congress. Resignation by the ruling Congress-Khan brothers was god-sent for Jinnah and the British. Both quickly manipulated to install a Muslim League government, and make popular the divisive agenda. In the Pakistan that the British had planned inclusion of NWFP was a must, and that was only possible if the Congress and the Khan-brothers were dislodged. Linlithgow did all he could to install a Muslim League government in NWFP, including meeting Jinnah personally{ Sar/ 48}, and instructing the then Punjab Governor Sir George Cunningham to render all necessary assistance to Jinnah{ Sar/ 49}. Viceroy Linlithgow had been playing a dangerous and irresponsible divisive game in India’s North-West, particularly in Punjab and NWFP that ultimately led to the Partition carnage.
"It is worth noting that Nehru and the Congress were unnecessarily too obsessed with the Centre and the Central legislature, where Jinnah was able to play a wrecker. Had the Congress continued in its ministries, and had it played its cards well in the provinces in the Muslim-majority areas, they could have derailed Jinnah. The Unionist Party headed by Sikandar Hyat Khan that ruled Punjab was a Muslim-Hindu-Sikh coalition. The Krishak Proja Party headed by Fazlul Huq, a nationalist Muslim, dominated Bengal. Ghulam Hussain Hidayatullah had formed a Hindu-Muslim coalition in Sind, independent of the Muslim League. If the Congress had intelligently coordinated its efforts with these parties, it could have sidelined Jinnah. But, what to speak of doing that ground work and strengthening its ties with the non-Muslim-League Muslim parties, the Congress itself chose to get irrelevant."
"Wrote VP Menon in ‘The Transfer of Power in India’ on the Indian National Congress (INC):
" ... it is clear that , but for the resignation of the Congress, Jinnah and the Muslim League would never have attained the position they did…”"
................................................................................................
Blunder–5 :
Assam’s Security Compromised
"With the annexation of Assam in 1826, the British brought in the peasantry from the over-populated East-Bengal for tea plantation and other purposes. The Muslim League, in order to dominate the predominantly non-Muslim Assam and the Northeast , and make it yet another Muslim-majority region, strategized back in 1906 in its conference at Dacca to somehow increase the Muslim population in Assam, and exhorted the East-Bengal Muslims to migrate and settle in Assam. The fact of large-scale migration was also noted in the Census report of 1931. Congress leaders Bordoloi , Medhi and others raised this serious issue of migration, but did not get due support from the Congress leadership at the Centre."
This migration, effort to populate Northeast and take it away, has gone on as a deliberate effort for well over a century, and so has the neglect thereof by congress government at centre for well over six decades, despite its being brought to attention thereof by Assam organisations of students and more. Arun Shourie has written about this.
"In the 1930s and later, when the Muslims of East Bengal (now Bangladesh) began migrating to Brahmaputra valley in Assam for livelihood, pooh-poohing the grave warnings from sane quarters, pseudo-secular, naive Nehru made an irresponsible statement: “Nature abhors vacuum, meaning where there is open space how can one prevent people from settling there?”Savarkar responded with his masterly prediction: “Nature also abhors poisonous gas. The migration of such large numbers of Muslims in Assam threatened not just the local culture but would also prove to be a national security problem for India on its north-east frontier.”"
"In 1938, when a Muslim League-headed coalition fell in Assam, Netaji Subhas Bose favoured a bid by the Congress to form a government. Several Congress leaders were opposed to the idea, particularly Maulana Azad. Sardar Patel backed Subhas Bose fully; and finally a Congress ministry led by Gopinath Bordoloi took office. With Bordoloi in office it was hoped that the Muslim migrations would be stemmed, and the game of the Muslim League would be defeated.
"However, thanks to the unwise move of Nehru and his left supporters, the Congress ministries in the provinces resigned in 1939 (Blunder# 3 above). This forced Gopinath Bordoloi to also resign in Assam, although Netaji Subhas Bose and Sardar Patel wanted the Bordoloi government to continue. This was God-sent, rather Allah-sent, for the Muslim League. Pro-British Sir Syed Mohammad Saadulla of the Muslim League, from whom Bordoloi had wrested power, again took over. With the Congress in limbo on account of the unwise surrender of power in the provinces (thanks to Nehru& Co), followed by the imprisonment of its leadership in 1942 Quit India, Saadulla ruled uninterrupted for the next seven years shoring up the Muslim base in Assam.
"Saadulla brought in a Land Settlement Policy in 1941 that allowed immigrants (Muslims) from East Bengal to pour into Assam , and hold as much as 30 bighas for each homestead. He boasted to Liaquat Ali Khan that through his policies he had managed to quadruple the Muslim population in the lower four districts of the Assam Valley. In short, the demographic position became much worse in Assam thanks to the wrong decision of Nehru.
"The initial British Plan of 1946 for the Indian Independence clubbed Assam and Bengal together in Group-C. Such an inclusion would have had the consequence of Assamese being in a minority, to be overruled into ultimately being absorbed in East-Pakistan. Sensing this ominous possibility, Bordoloi opposed being clubbed into Group-C, contrary to what Nehru had agreed to. With Nehru remaining unamenable, Bordoloi started mass agitation. He fought the Muslim League’s effort to include Assam and other parts of the Northeast Region (NER) in East Pakistan. The Congress Party at the national level, led by Nehru, would have acquiesced to the Muslim League had it not been for a revolt by Bordoloi, backed by the Assam unit of the Congress Party and supported by Mahatma Gandhi and the Assamese public."
................................................................................................
Blunder–6 :
Nehru’s Undemocratic Elevation as the First PM
"Post 1945, with the increasing hopes of the imminence of India’s independence, all patriots looked forward to having a strong, assertive, competent, decisive, no-nonsense person as India’s first prime minister, who would bring back the lost glory of India, and turn it into a modern, prosperous nation.
"Iron Man Sardar Patel was the clear choice, being a cut much above the rest. And, nobody looked forward to having some undemocratic, indecisive, clueless leader to mess up a hard-won freedom after centuries.
"The Congress Party had practically witnessed Sardar Patel as a great executor, organizer and leader, with his feet on the ground. Sardar had demonstrated his prowess in the various movements and assignments, including that in the Nagpur Agitation of 1923; the Borsad Satyagraha of 1923; excellent management of the Ahmedabad Municipality during 1924-27; tackling of the Ahmedabad Floods of 1927; the Bardoli Satyagraha of 1928 that earned him the title of "Sardar"; the Dandi March and the Salt Satyagraha of 1930; successful management of elections for the Congress during 1934-37; preparation, conduct and management of Haripura session of the Congress in 1938 on a massive scale; building up of the party machine; role in preparation for the Quit India Movement; and premier leadership role 1945 onwards.
"Patel’s achievements were far in excess of Nehru’s, and all Congress members and the country knew it. Sardar was also much superior academically and professionally, and was far wiser than Nehru ... Sardar financed his own education in England , through his own earnings! While Nehru could manage to scrape through in only a poor lower second-division in England, Sardar Patel topped in the first division!"
"The Congress Working Committee (CWC) met on 29 April 1946 to consider the nominations sent by the PCCs. 12 of the 15 (80%) PCCs nominated Sardar Patel{RG/370}; and 3 PCCs out of the 15 (20%) did not nominate anyone.{ITV} It therefore turned out to be a non -contest. Sardar Patel was the only choice, and an undisputed choice, with not a single opposition.
"What was noteworthy was that on 20 April 1946, that is, nine days before the last date of nominations of 29 April 1946, Gandhi had indicated his preference for Nehru. Yet, not a single PCC nominated Nehru!
" ... Gandhi prodded Kripalani to convince a few CWC members to propose Nehru’s name for the party president. Gandhians like Kripalani slavishly went by what their guru, the Mahatma, directed. Kripalani promptly and unquestioningly complied: He got a few to propose Nehru’s name. Finding this queer development, Sardar Patel enquired with Gandhi, and sought his advice. Gandhi counselled Patel to withdraw his name. Patel complied promptly, and didn’t raise any question. That cleared the way for Nehru. The “democratic” Nehru didn’t feel embarrassed at his and Gandhi’s blatant hijacking of the election, and shamelessly accepted his own nomination."
" ... What Gandhi said amounts to this: that Sardar Patel, even though senior and more experienced, and backed by majority, was patriotic enough to work under Nehru in the national interest, if so prodded by Gandhi; Nehru, junior, less experienced, and not backed by a single PCC, wanted only to become PM, and was not patriotic enough to work under Patel, in the national interest, even if persuaded by Gandhi!"
Author extensively lists fourteen reasons why thus was improper, beginning with illegal and improper; but again, he let's slip by an opportunity to remind the reader that Gandhi had done it to another taller leader with a loyal and steadfast following that only grew despite his ouster, namely, Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose.
" ... At another time Netaji had said: “I do not like Gandhiji’s appeasement of the Nehrus. We in Bengal represent the real revolutionary force. Jawahar only talks. We act.”"
................................................................................................
Blunder–7 :
Aborted ‘Cabinet Mission Plan’for United India
" ... Cabinet Mission unilaterally proposed a plan (“ 16 May Cabinet Mission Plan”) announced by PM Attlee in the House of Commons on 16 May 1946, which, among other things, stated that independence would be granted to a UNITED dominion of India, which would be a loose confederation of provinces, and the Muslim League’s demand for Pakistan was turned down."
" ... Nehru remarked at the AICC on 7 July 1946:
"“We are not bound by a single thing except that we have decided to go into the Constituent Assembly... When India is free, India will do just what she likes…”{Mak/ 83}
"At a press conference in Mumbai three days later on 10 July 1946, Nehru declared that the Congress would be “completely unfettered by agreements and free to meet all situations as they arise”{Azad/164}, and that “the central government was likely to be much stronger than what the Cabinet Mission envisaged”.
"Nehru also emphasised that the Congress regarded itself free to change or modify the Cabinet Mission Plan as it thought best."
" ... Nehru’s statement gave Jinnah an excuse to repudiate his earlier acceptance of the Plan , and demand a separate state of Pakistan."
"The Congress tried its best to back-track on Nehru’s statement, and issued statements reassuring its commitment on ‘May 16 Plan’. But, the deed was done. Jinnah had got the excuse and the opportunity he wanted."
" ... Muslim League Council met at Bombay during 27–30 July 1946. Jinnah took the extreme step: he got the Muslim League to revoke its acceptance of the ‘May 16 Plan’, and gave a sinister call for the launch of “direct action to achieve Pakistan”.
"Asking the qaum to observe 16 August 1946 as Direct Action Day, Jinnah said on 30 July 1946:
"“Today we bid goodbye to constitutional methods. Throughout, the British and the Congress held a pistol in their hand, the one of authority and arms and the other of mass struggle and non-cooperation. Today we have also forged a pistol and are in a position to use it…We will have either a divided India, or a destroyed India.”{ BK/ 250}
"The date 16 August 1946 was cleverly chosen. It was a Friday in the month of Ramzan, on which the Muslims were likely to gather in large numbers in mosques. Handbills exhorted:
"“Let Muslims brave the rains and all difficulties and make the Direct Action Day meeting a historic mass mobilization of the Millat.
"”“Muslims must remember that it was in Ramazan that the Quran was revealed. It was in Ramazan that the permission for jihad was granted by Allah.”{PF/ 253}
"This is from a pamphlet written by the then Calcutta Mayor SM Usman:
"“By the grace of God, we are crores in India but through bad luck we have become slaves of Hindus and the British. We are starting a Jehad in your name in this very month of Ramzan… Give your helping hand in all our actions— make us victorious over the Kaffirs— enable us to establish the kingdom of Islam in India… by the grace of god may we build up in India the greatest Islamic kingdom in the world…”"
"HS Suhrawardy, the then Premier of Bengal, also held the portfolio of Law & Order. He transferred Hindu police officers from all key posts prior to 16 August, and ensured that while 22 of the 24 police stations had Muslims as in-charge, the remaining 2 had Anglo-Indians. Further, to mobilise large Muslim crowds, he declared 16 August as a public holiday. Goondas and bad characters were mobilised by the AIML from within the city and outside to create trouble. While Muslim leaders gave provocative speeches on 16 August, Suhrawardy crossed all norms for a Premier and told the gathered mammoth crowd that he had seen to it that the police and military would not interfere…Suhrawardy even usurped the charge of the Police Control Room on 16 August. He made sure that any Muslim arrested for rioting was released immediately! However, after the initial heavy set back and casualties, once the Hindus and Sikhs began to hit back causing counter damage, something the AIML had not reckoned, Suhrawardy promptly called in the army.{ Mak/ 111-15}"
"The cumulative result of all the above was the Calcutta Carnage, the Great Calcutta Killings, the worst communal riot instigated by the Muslim League, that left 5,000 to 10,000 dead, 15,000 injured, and about one lakh homeless! Like Dyer, the butcher of Jallianwala Bagh Massacre of 1919, Suhrawardy came to be known as ‘the butcher of Bengal’ and ‘the butcher of Calcutta’.{Swa1} Wrote Maulana Azad:
"“Sixteen August 1946 was a black day not only for Calcutta but for the whole of India…. This was one of the greatest tragedies of Indian history and I have to say with the deepest of regret that a large part of the responsibility for this development rests with Jawaharlal. His unfortunate statement that the Congress would be free to modify the Cabinet Mission Plan reopened the whole question of political and communal settlement…”{Azad/ 170}"
................................................................................................
Blunder–8 :
NWFP Blunder 1946
"Congress had won the elections in NWFP in 1946, and Dr Khan Sahib (Khan Abdul Jabbar Khan), brother of Khan Abdul Ghaffar Khan, was heading the ministry.
"NWFP was another province the Muslim League was targeting along with Bengal, Assam, Punjab, and Sind. Although the provincial government of NWFP was in the hands of the Congress, the British Governor Olaf Caroe, and the local British civil servants, were rabidly anti-Congress, and pro-Muslim League. Why? They must have been instructed by the HMG to back the Muslim League and ensure NWFP became part of Pakistan.
"Incidentally, Sir Olaf Caroe was the person who authored “Wells of Power: The Oilfields of South Western Asia, a Regional and Global Study”, and persuasively wrote an article on Pakistan’s potential role in the Middle East, and hence Pakistan’s strategic importance for the British. The British were favouring Jinnah in their own interest. Like elsewhere, the Muslim League, backed by the British, had been looking for and exploiting all opportunities to discredit local Muslim leaders not aligned to the Muslim League, defame them as pro-Hindu and anti-Muslim, and rouse the local Muslim population against the Hindus.
"Negligently, the Congress was doing little to counter the Muslim League (AIML) propaganda and violence. Instead, it gave ready excuses to the AIML to indulge in its nefarious game when Nehru visited NWFP as the head of the Interim Government, despite advise to the contrary by the NWFP Chief Minister, Sardar Patel, and others. Nehru had the delusion he was very popular—even among Muslims! The results were predictable. The situation went worse for the local Congress Provincial Government, and the Muslim League gained an upper hand, through communal rumour-mongering, and false, skilful propaganda, backed by the British Governor, and the British officers.
"The height (or, rather, the low) of the British Governor Olaf Caroe’s partisan role was reached when he tried to buy over NWFP Chief Minister Dr Khan Sahib by assuring him that he would help him and his cabinet colleagues continue as ministers in Pakistan if they severed their connection with the “Hindu Congress”!
"Jinnah gleefully looked upon Nehru’s visit as godsent, and managed to paint Nehru and the Congress as unpopular among the Muslims of NWFP."
................................................................................................
Blunder–9 :
Making Jews out of Hindu Sindhis
"Sindh is the home of the oldest civilization in the world—the Indus or Sindhu Valley Civilization, highlighted by the excavations at Mohenjo-daro—dating back to over 7000 BCE. The 3,180 km long Indus or Sindhu River that originates near Lake Mansarovar in the Tibetan Plateau runs through Ladakh, Gilgit-Baltistan, Western Punjab in Pakistan, and merges into the Arabian Sea near the port city of Karachi in Sindh. Sindhu means water in Sanskrit. ... "
Author is incorrect.
Sindhu literally means Ocean in Sanskrit. And the only explanation why this river, not the largest or even second largest of rivers of India, is so named, can only be because it replaced the ocean that existed separating India from Asia, after the ocean vanished and India saw Himalayan ranges rising from the ocean that had been there.
In order of importance for India, it's about sixth, unlike outsiders who identified India with this river valley, since that was the only possible passage until recent centuries of maritime long voyages, for outsiders to approach the land thus named India by outsiders.
" ... Name India is derived from Indus. Sindhu river has a number of tributaries. The Indus delta is mentioned in the Rig-Veda as Sapta Sindhu (Hapta Hindu in the Iranian Zend Avesta), meaning ‘seven rivers’. ... "
No, "Sapta Sindhu" literally means seven oceans of earth.
" ... Aryans were indigenous to India, and hence to Sindh. The Aryan-Invasion Theory has long since been conclusively debunked. Genetic studies also prove it. Aryan-Dravidian divide was also a deliberate myth floated by the colonists to serve their divide-and-rule and proselytization strategy.
"Sindh was part of the empire of Dashrath (father of Shri Ram) during the second Vedic period. After Shri Ram returned from vanvas defeating Ravana, and became king, he gave the responsibility to his brother Bharat to rule Sindh and Multan. Later, Gandhar (Kandahar) came under him. To Bharat’s sons goes the credit of building the cities of Peshawar and Taxila.
"Sindh was in good hands till the reign of Harshavardhana who ruled India and Sindh during 606– 647 CE, after which it went into weaker hands. Buddhism, which vigorously taught non-violence, and which had its presence in Sindh, too contributed to weakening its defence capabilities. There were several hundred Buddhist Sanghas in Sindh at the time, and many thousand Buddhist monks.
"There were 15 attempted invasions of Sindh both from land and from sea between 638 CE and 711 CE, but all were repulsed. Mohammed Bin Qasim finally managed to plunder Sindh in 712 CE. He first attacked Debal, a temple town near sea, in April 712 CE, won it, and then proceeded to defeat the then king of Sindh, Dahir, which he did on 16 June 712 CE. Qasim and his army plundered the riches of Dahir’s territories, and carted away the booty to the court of Hajjaj in Baghdad. Many women were abducted to Baghdad. All males over 17 years who refused to convert to Islam were killed. But, finding there were too many Hindus to kill, they were granted Dhimmi status upon regular payment of Jizya tax.
"Here is a telling statement from Ram Jethmalani in his foreword to the book ‘The Sindh Story’ by KR Malkani: ... Nearly 500 years elapsed before Mohammed Ghori and his marauding hordes descended on India in 1192 A.D. The whole of northern India was made a tributary to the Ghor Dynasty. Muslim power in India had come to stay. Five centuries went by, but the country did not wake up or prepare to do or die. It is a shameful and tragic tale. Afflicted by a debilitating pacifism, corroded by the idea of non-violence, Indians seemed to have left it to professional soldiers to fight the invaders. The rest of the neighbouring people lifted not one finger to defend the Hindu homeland . Invaders who thirsted for the tremendous wealth of India and its delicate and beautiful women, never met with the resistance that the nation could have generated.”"
" ... Hindus were concentrated in urban areas, while Muslims dominated the countryside. Hindus were in absolute majority in four of Sindh’s five largest cities (for example, Hyderabad was 70% Hindu), the exception being Karachi which was about 48% Muslim , 46% Hindu, and the remaining 6% non-Muslims belonged to other religions— there also Muslims were not in absolute majority. Four sub -districts to the southeast— Umarkot, Nagar Parkar, Mithi, and Chachro— adjoining India had Hindu majority of 57%. Several nearby sub-districts too had about 40– 45% Hindu population."
" ... Southeast Sindh, plus certain adjoining areas to compensate for Hindu Sindhis leaving other parts of Sindh, could have been Hindu or Indian Sindh. Looking to sub-regional Hindu-Muslim ratio of Sindh, the Congress could have tried to have part of Sindh carved out for the Hindus. Considering that the Muslim League had secured only 46% of the votes in Sindh, and the nationalist Muslims had polled three votes for every four polled by the League, the Congress could have insisted for a plebiscite in regions with Hindu dominance. However, the Congress seemed to have abandoned Sindh as ‘a far off place’, like Chamberlain had abandoned Czechoslovakia to Hitler in 1938 on the pretext that it was ‘a far off country about which we know little’."
"Khairpur was a Princely State adjoining India on the east, and surrounded on the other three sides by Sindh. Its Mir had offered to Nehru its merger with India. But, the offer was declined by Nehru, and India sent their accession papers back to them! Had the offer been accepted, Khairpur plus the adjoining Hindu-majority area could have been Hindu or Indian Sindh."
" ... Jews suffered for centuries till they asserted themselves with the creation of Israel. Tibetans, with their non-violent Buddhism, have been deprived of their nation. Yezidis and Kurds, who have been at the receiving end for centuries, are now fighting back. On account of their cultured past of thousands of years, and their engagement in businesses, the Hindu Sindhis had been too peaceful to resist, agitate and fight."
" ... They became like the Jews of the past (before Israel was created in 1948), or the Tibetans of the 1950s, or the Kashmiri Pandits of 1990s, or the Kurds and the Yezidis of the current times."
" ... There was little that Nehruvian India offered to the hapless Hindu Sindhi refugees, who had lost everything. They were condemned to their miserable fate, and dumped in outer areas of several cities and towns, without any worthwhile help or facilities. Yet, one has to salute the spirit and hard work of the Hindu Sindhi community which without any governmental help gradually stood on its own feet, and became prosperous."
................................................................................................
Blunder–10 :
Giving Away 55 Crores to Pakistan
"Pakistan had been pressing India for rupees 55 crores (over USD 500 million in today’s terms). In the Cabinet meeting in January 1948 Sardar Patel stated that the money if given would surely be used by Pakistan to arm itself for use in Kashmir, hence the payment should be delayed. Dr Shyama Prasad Mukherjee , NV Gadgil and Dr BR Ambedkar backed Patel. Nehru too expressed his total agreement. The Cabinet therefore decided to withhold the money. Sardar Patel told in a Press Conference on 12 January 1948 that the issue of 55 crores could not be dissociated from the other related issues.{RG/ 462}
"Gandhi conveyed to Patel the next day (13 January 1948) that withholding 55 crores from Pakistan was what Mountbatten had opined to him as “a dishonourable act… unstatesman-like and unwise”{RG/462}, and what he [Gandhi] too thought was immoral. Patel was furious and asked of Mountbatten: “How can you as a constitutional Governor-General do this behind my back? Do you know the facts?”{RG/ 462}
"Gandhi was apparently innocent of the fact that Mountbatten and the British were bent upon favouring Pakistan— even on Kashmir, despite Pakistan’s aggression. How could a top leader be so blind to the realities? Unfortunately, Nehru, rather than supporting Patel, and sticking to what he had himself agreed to, and had got passed in the Cabinet, went back on his commitment, and commented to Gandhi: “Yes, it was passed [in the Cabinet] but we don’t have a case. It is legal quibbling.”{RG/ 463}"
"Gandhi and Nehru, rather than being prudent about what was in the best interest of the nation, went by what the British colonial representative Mountbatten, having his own axe to grind, had to say, and the Cabinet decision was reversed to let Pakistan have the money, and trouble India further in J& K! Going by the net results, effectively, it appears that for Gandhi maintaining “Brand Mahatma” and its associated “morality” was more important ... "
" ... It was on Gandhi’s insistence that [his] security had been withdrawn.”"
Author quotes Bucher about "a Hindu revolutionary society", which is incorrect on several counts - not even immediate family of Godse, let alone any organisations he'd been associated with in past, were aware of his decision, planning and intentions, and he'd cut off from the various organisations due to various reasons.
But author also misses the opportunity to point out that it wasn't just the 55 crores; it was cumulative effect of Gandhi’s behaviour and pronouncements regarding massacres of Hindus from Noakhali to West Pakistan, and his insistence that the refugees fleeing to India be forced by government of India to return despite certainty of being massacred, that was inhuman; as if this wasn't enough, he'd also insisted as a demand of his fast that meanwhile the refugees in Delhi be evicted from the only shelter onto streets in the bitter cold of January, including babies, children, women and old - and they were, by police beating them with sticks, so Gandhi could enjoy the muslim feasts! Author omits to mention that Gandhi was pelted with stones when he visited refugees and hid behind a door, until police took him out by a back door, in Harijan neighbourhood.
................................................................................................
Blunder–11 :
Pre-Independence Dynasty Promotion
Author quotes Stanley Wolpert -
““Liaquat Ali Khan and Nehru almost came to blows in the interim government’s cabinet, when Nehru named his sister Nan [Vijayalakshmi Pandit] as India’s first ambassador to Moscow. Liaquat was livid at such autocratic blatant nepotism, but his protests fell on deaf ears. Nehru yelled louder and threatened to resign immediately if Dickie [Mountbatten] supported Liaquat in the matter.”"
................................................................................................
Blunder–12 :
What Really Led to India’s Independence?
Author quotes Anuj Dhar's tweet -
"“The claim that Quit India led to freedom is a state sanctioned hoax.”{AD1}"
- before he continues discussing why and how this claim is false.
But first he throws a shocker for readers who are not professionally historians -
"Prior to adoption of Tricolour as Indian National Flag on 22 July 1947, Governor-General Lord Louis Mountbatten had designed and proposed a ‘Union Jack’ in the top-left or top-right corner for the Indian national flag. When others resisted or rejected such an atrocious suggestion, Mahatma Gandhi had the following to say during his speech at a prayer meeting on 19 July 1947 {CWMG/ Vol-96/ 86-87}:
"“I [Gandhi] have been asked some questions. Here is one: ‘One understands that the national flag that has been proposed will have a little Union Jack in a corner. If that is so, we shall tear up such a flag and, if need be, sacrifice our lives.’“Answer [by Gandhi]: ‘But what is wrong with having the Union Jack in a corner of our flag? ... "
Author, as his usual, quotes a variety of sources, rather than go directly to the point, which in this case is Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose and INA, effects of which forced British to flee.
"Sita Ram Goel:
"“The way of Subhas Bose was the way of a straight patriot. And he stuck to that way to the bitter end. He did not change his way when he was thrown out of the Congress by a curious combination of Rightists and Leftists. He did not change his way when he was completely isolated in the country. It was while walking on that way that he went out of the country, organized the Azad Hind Fauj, forged national unity on a bloody battlefield, and, wrecked the morale of the British Indian Army which (and not the resolutions and jail journeys of the Khaddar-clad crowd, as we are now officially asked to believe) forced the British to quit India.”{ SRG2/ 144}"
Goel, quoted extensively here by author, proceeds to tear the Congress claim to shreds, thoroughly, on this.
"“As regards independence, it came because the War reduced Britain to a bankrupt power, because the morale of the British Indian Army was broken by Subhas Bose's Azad Hind Fauj, and because the British Labour Party, in spite of Pandit Nehru's malicious insinuations against it in all his books, really believed in the slogans it had raised. It is quite another matter that the Congress inherited the power which the British were in a hurry to part with. That does not prove that power came to the Congress as a result of its own efforts, or that the Congress was qualified to use that power in terms of its inner cohesion or intrinsic character. The only thing it proves is that the departing British had retained a sufficient measure of confidence in the Congress organisation. The British believed that the Congress would be able to prolong the life of that political system which they had imposed on India...”{SRG2/ 146}"
Author turns to other sources.
"The famous UK economist John Maynard Keynes, who also happened to be an economic advisor to the UK, presented the war cabinet in 1945 with a financial analysis that showed that running the British Empire had cost 1,000 million pounds for each of the past two years, rising post-war to 1,400 million pounds per year; and that without the US financial assistance, the UK would go bankrupt!{Tim}
"The British exchequer was forced to freeze debt repayment. Britain owed the largest amount to India in war debt: 1250 million pounds!{Chee/ 3} {Wire1}"
" ... First, India paid for the [East India] Company armies, which campaign by campaign reached Delhi; and then the country was burdened with the cost of suppressing the Mutiny— the latter was estimated at Rs 40 crores [value then]. [That is, financing both to conquer India, and then to re-establish and perpetuate the British rule upon Mutiny, was by taxing, looting, and extracting money from India and Indians.] There was also the constant drain of India’s wealth towards London; the Company was earning £ 30,000,000 per year by the 1850s and remitting 11 back to England. Under the rule of the Crown [after Mutiny, from 1858] it was worse. By 1876-7 £ 13,500,000 was going to London out of annual revenues of £ 56,000,000, or 24%. The impoverishment of villages took on an extraordinary magnitude by the turn of the century…”{Akb/ 159-60}"
But author does finally come to discuss Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose and INA, and does so extensively, as reason why British left.
"3.1) The military onslaught of Netaji Subhas Chandra Bose and his INA hugely shook the British, and the Indian army.
"3.2) The Viceroy was shocked to learn of thousands of soldiers of the British-Indian army switching over to INA (to support the enemy nation Japan ) after the fall of Singapore in 1942. It meant the Indian soldiers in the British-Indian army could no longer be relied upon. What was more— there was a huge support for Netaji Bose and the INA among the common public in India."
"3.3) The INA Red Fort trials of 1945-46 mobilised public opinion against the British on an unprecedented scale, so much so that the Congress leaders like Nehru (who had till then, and later too, opposed Netaji and INA) had to demonstratively pretend their support to the INA under-trials to get votes in the 1946 general elections.
"3.4) The Indian Naval Mutiny of 1946 and the Jabalpur Army Mutiny of 1946, both provoked partially by the INA trials, convinced the British that they could no longer trust the Indian Army to suppress Indians, and continue to rule over them."
"3.7) Wrote MKK Nayar: “The reason why Britain unilaterally granted freedom even before Congress had intensified its agitation was on account of Netaji’s greatness. Army jawans who had never dared to utter a word against the British had united as one to declare that INA’s soldiers were patriots. Men of the Navy fearlessly pointed guns at British ships and establishments and opened fire. It was the same soldiers who had for a hundred years obeyed orders like slaves, even to massacre unhesitatingly at the notorious Jallianwala Bagh. They had now united to express their opinion and Naval men had shown their readiness to raise the flag of revolt. Attlee and others probably realized that Indian soldiers may no longer be available to hunt Indians. This may have prompted them to leave with dignity and self-respect.”{ MKN}"
"3.8) Stated Dr BR Ambedkar: “… The national army [INA ] that was raised by Subhas Chandra Bose. The British had been ruling the country in the firm belief that whatever may happen in the country or whatever the politicians do, they will never be able to change the loyalty of soldiers. That was one prop on which they were carrying on the administration. And that was completely dashed to pieces [by Bose and INA]. They found that soldiers could be seduced to form a party— a battalion to blow off the British. I think the British had come to the conclusion that if they were to rule India, the only basis on which they would rule was the maintenance of the British Army.”{Amb}
"3.9) The British historian Michael Edwardes wrote: “It slowly dawned upon the government of India that the backbone of the British rule, the Indian Army, might now no longer be trustworthy. The ghost of Subhas Bose, like Hamlet's father , walked the battlements of the Red Fort (where the INA soldiers were being tried), and his suddenly amplified figure overawed the conference that was to lead to Independence.”{ME/ 93}
"3.10) Chief Justice PB Chakrabarty of Calcutta High Court, who had also served as the acting Governor of West Bengal in India after independence, wrote in his letter addressed to the publisher of Dr RC Majumdar's book ‘A History of Bengal’{ IT1}:
"“You have fulfilled a noble task by persuading Dr Majumdar to write this history of Bengal and publishing it…In the preface of the book Dr Majumdar has written that he could not accept the thesis that Indian independence was brought about solely, or predominantly by the non-violent civil disobedience movement of Gandhi. When I was the acting Governor, Lord Atlee, who had given us independence by withdrawing the British rule from India, spent two days in the Governor's palace at Calcutta during his tour of India. At that time I had a prolonged discussion with him regarding the real factors that had led the British to quit India. My direct question to him was that since Gandhi's ‘Quit India’movement had tapered off quite some time ago and in 1947 no such new compelling situation had arisen that would necessitate a hasty British departure, why did they have to leave?
"“In his reply Atlee cited several reasons, the principal among them being the erosion of loyalty to the British Crown among the Indian army and navy personnel as a result of the military activities of Netaji [Subhas Bose]. Toward the end of our discussion I asked Atlee what was the extent of Gandhi's influence upon the British decision to quit India. Hearing this question, Atlee's lips became twisted in a sarcastic smile as he slowly chewed out the word, ‘m-i-n-i-m-a-l!’”{ Gla/ 159} {Stat1}
"The Chief Justice also wrote: “Apart from revisionist historians, it was none other than Lord Clement Atlee himself, the British Prime Minster responsible for conceding independence to India, who gave a shattering blow to the myth sought to be perpetuated by court historians, that Gandhi and his movement had led the country to freedom.”
"3.11) Basically, the British decided to leave because they were fast losing control on account of the various factors detailed above; and lacked the financial resources, the military clout (thanks to Bose, the INA, the Mutinies, and the anti-British atmosphere they created), ... "
4) Pressure from the US
"The Cripps Mission of March-April 1942, the first one in the direction of freedom for India, was under the pressure from the US. The US felt that the best way to secure India from Japan was to grant it freedom, and obtain its support in WWII."
It was largely FDR, rather than US, which was divided even about supporting allies, and some section still blames FDR for deliberately allowing Pearl Harbour to happen; this section even supports Hitler and claims Churchill was the warmonger, despite all evidence about concentration camps extermination camps, and what policy Hitler set up to hve his armies and SS do in East Europe. This section is gung-ho about finishing off all other creeds, and couldn't agree more with Churchill about despising India.
"US President Roosevelt had constantly pressurised Britain on India, and had specially deputed Colonel Louis Johnson to India as his personal representative to lobby for the Indian freedom.{ Sar/ 104}"
What's more, when Churchill stole India's harvest and millions were dying as a result, chiefly in Bengal, FDR sent ships filled with grain for aid; but Churchill had stopped them from plying further than Australia, saying Indians dying was of no importance.
"Infuriated at President Roosevelt’s sympathy for the nationalists [Indians], Churchill dismissed Congress as merely “the intelligentsia of non-fighting Hindu elements, who can neither defend India nor raise a revolt.”{ MM/ 218}
"The US kept up the pressure. The US wanted Britain to settle the Indian issue so that India could provide whole-hearted support in WW-II. Although the war in Europe was almost over by April 1945 (Hitler committed suicide on April 30), not so the war in Asia—a large area was still occupied by Japan. Japan unconditionally surrendered only on 14 August 1945, after the dropping of atomic bombs on 6 and 9 August on Hiroshima and Nagasaki respectively. Shimla Conference was called on 25 June 1945 by Viceroy Wavell for Indian self-government again under pressure from Americans to get full Indian support to dislodge Japan from its occupied territories of Burma, Singapore and Indonesia."
Truman had a different personality, but was a good man, and followed FDR as far as possible.
"The Japanese surrender following the dropping of atom-bombs dramatically enhanced the US military clout. The US thereafter insisted that the Atlantic Charter be also made applicable to the European colonies in Asia ( it was, after all, a question of grabbing markets for the US capitalists), and they all be freed. Thanks to the war, Britain had almost gone bankrupt, and was dependent on massive American aid. It could not therefore ignore or withstand the US pressure. Clement Attlee himself acknowledged in his autobiography that it was difficult for Britain to keep sticking on to the Indian colony given the constant American pressure against the British Empire."
" ... Wavell himself confided to his diary, while Churchill, Bevin and Co. ‘hate the idea of our leaving India but…[they have] no alternative to suggest.”{ MM/ 232}
"Writes Patrick French: “[ By 1946] Demobilization [of armed forces] was almost complete, and there was no political will on either side of the House of Commons for stopping this process and reinforcing India with the necessary five divisions. Indeed, it would not have been possible without US funding, which would never have been forthcoming.”{ PF/ 289}"
"The fact of American help and pressure in getting independence for India is not adequately acknowledged by India.
"Apart from the US, the Chinese Generalissimo Chiang Kai-shek, part of the Allies in WW-II, had also throughout pressed the British Government to recognise India’s independence to enable it to render all help it was capable of.{Azad/ 41}
"The Chicago Tribune in its valedictory tribute to Churchill had mentioned that “we [the US] have no interest in maintaining [or allowing the UK to maintain] her oppressive empire.”{PC/ 366}"
Author quotes a letter from Jawaharlal Nehru to the king of England pleading for him to allow appointment of a Governor General to replace Mountbatten, pointing out the tenor thereof.
" ... Nehru kept taking approvals, as illustrated above, from the British King to make Indian appointments till after independence and till the end of the Dominion Status on 26 January 1950!
"Yet, strangely, and quite unjustifiably, the focus is on Gandhi, Nehru and the Congress on each anniversary of the Independence Day of India.
................................................................................................
Blunder–13 :
British Jails: Nehru & Top-Gandhians as VIPs vs. Others
"In sharp contrast to the top Gandhians, who were treated very well in jails, the condition of Indian political prisoners, including revolutionaries, in jails was terrible: their uniforms were not washed for several days; rats and cockroaches roamed their kitchen area; reading and writing materials were not provided to them. Being political prisoners, they expected to be treated like one, rather than as common criminals. They demanded equality with the jailed Europeans and the top Gandhians in food standards, clothing, toiletries, and other hygienic necessities, as well as access to books and daily newspapers. They also protested against their subjection to forced manual labour. To force the issue, Bhagat Singh and colleagues, including Jatin Das, began hunger strike. Jatin was martyred on 13 September 1929 in Lahore jail after a 63-day hunger strike.
"Talking of suffering and sacrifices, many were tortured and whipped in British jails— but, never the top Gandhian Congress leaders. ... "
Author misses an opportunity here to mention Veer Savarkar, who was tortured severely, despite his fragile health. He gets to it a bit later.
" ... Nehru himself describes in his book of severe whipping of other imprisoned freedom-fighters in jails. For most Gandhiites, especially the top ones, the jails were, relatively speaking, comfortable. While ruthlessly persecuting the other freedom fighters, the British kid gloved Gandhi-Nehru & Co, and incarcerated them under comfortable conditions. When arrested in 1930, the British took due care to provide all provisions for the health and comfort of Gandhi. That their (top Gandhians, including Azad and Nehru) life in Ahmednagar jail during 1942-45 was not all that terrible can be inferred from the following episodes. Wrote Rajmohan Gandhi:
"“On the day of their arrival [in jail], Kripalani recalls Azad showing ‘towering rage’: he threw out the Jailor who had brought ready-to-drink tea for them in an aluminium kettle along with loaves of bread on an aluminium plate and glasses for the tea. The Congress President ‘ordered’the jailor to bring tea in a pot, milk in a jug and sugar in a bowl, plus cups, saucers and spoons. The jailor, an Indian, complied. According to Pattabhi, he was ‘bravely performing his duties with visible regard for his new guests and with unshakeable loyalty to his old masters’.”{ RG2}
"Described Maulana Abul Kalam Azad in his autobiography:
"“Dinner was served to us soon after on iron platters. We did not like them and I told the jailer that we were accustomed to eat from China plates. The jailer apologised and said that he could not supply us with a dinner set then but it would be obtained the next day. A convict from Poona had been brought to serve us as our cook. He could not prepare food according to our taste. He was soon changed and a better cook appointed.”{ Azad/ 91}
"The routine of the leaders in Ahmednagar jail, that included Azad, Nehru, Patel, etc., used to be generally: breakfast at 7am, lunch at 1pm, bridge from 1pm to 3pm, rest from 3pm to 5pm followed by tea (alternately, writing or reading work between lunch and tea), games from 6pm to 7pm, dinner from 7pm to 8.30pm followed by coffee, then retire.
"Gandhi was “imprisoned” between 1942 and 1944 in the grand Aga Khan Palace in Pune.
"Nehru had access to newspapers , magazines and books in Naini and other jails. He also had ample supply of reading and writing materials. He wrote ‘Glimpses of World History’ in Naini jail between 1930 and 1933; ‘An Autobiography’ during 1934-35 in Bareilly and Dehra Dun jails; ‘Discovery of India’ between 1942 and 1945 in Ahmednagar Jail.
"Jails were almost a holiday vacation for the top Gandhians. Wrote Asaf Ali: Nehru almost had a bungalow to himself in his so-called jail with curtains of his choicest colour— blue. He could do gardening at leisure and write his books. When his wife was sick, his sentence was suspended even without he asking for it!{URL70}
"It is said that Sir Harcourt Butler, the then Governor of UP, had even sent quality food and a champagne bottle to Motilal Nehru in his prison{Sar/323}, out of consideration for their association. As per MJ Akbar’s book: “… but this, Motilal [Nehru] told me [Arthur Moore, a former editor of ‘The Statesman’], is what happened. His [Motilal’s] first morning in prison an ADC from Government House [Sir Harcourt Butler was the governor] arrived at lunchtime with a half-bottle of champagne wrapped in a napkin, and every single day of his imprisonment this was repeated.”{Akb/ 123-4}
"Wrote Nehru in his autobiography:
"“Personally, I have been very fortunate, and almost invariably , I have received courtesy from my own countrymen and English. Even my gaolers and the policemen, who have arrested me or escorted me as a prisoner from place to place, have been kind to me, and much of the bitterness of conflict and the sting of gaol life has been toned down because of this human touch... Even for Englishmen I was an individual and not merely one of the mass, and, I imagine, the fact that I had received my education in England, and especially my having been to an English public school, brought me nearer to them. Because of this, they could not help considering me as more or less civilized after their own pattern...”{JN2}"
That last bit informs one a great deal.
"Sadly, the top Gandhian leaders like Gandhi, Nehru did nothing to ensure revolutionaries and other freedom fighters got just treatment equivalent to them as freedom fighters. No non-cooperation, no andolan, no civil disobedience, no fast to support them or get them justice. In sharp contrast, Lokmanya Tilak had done all he could to support other freedom fighters, including revolutionaries. This when the revolutionaries had whole-heartedly supported Gandhi’s Non-Cooperation Movement of 1920-22.
"Savarkar and other prisoners in Kaalapani (a precursor to Gulag Archipelago and Guantanamo Bay prisons of our times) were subjected to brutal inhuman treatment. Prisoners were manacled; gruel to eat was riddled with worms; inmates, formed in groups, were chained like bullocks and hauled to oil mills, grinding mustard seed for endless hours. Prisoners were flogged.{ URL70}
"“The prisons of the Cellular Jail in Port Blair/ Kaala Paani were indeed horrifying to say the least; from cramped prisons with multiple inmates to torture inflicted by the wardens and prison authorities. Surveillance was intended to be the key foundation at the jail which derived its name from the small, individual cells that housed prisoners. Each of the 693 cells was of 4.5 m x 2.7 m dimensions, with a ventilator at a height of 3 m on the back wall. The front corridor of each wing faced the back wall of its adjacent wing so that prisoners could not communicate in any way at all. Of the three-pronged strategy of hunger, torture and isolation, it was the third that was intended to be the harshest punishment…Tedious work was given to the inmates, they weren’t allowed to sit from sunrise to sunset…Under such circumstances, it was inevitable to give in to the British authorities for some mercy. The walls of the jails echoed with the hair raising screams of the inmates it housed…”{ URL92}
"“At Cellular Jail, Veer Savarkar was subjected to unconscionable torture and inhumane treatment that tested the very limits of his conviction. He was, reportedly, restrained in chains, flogged, and confined to six months of solitary confinement. The British made him pound coir with his bare hands where his hands were often dripped with blood. He had to manually turn a massive wheel that would squeeze coconuts for oil, and had to produce about 30 pounds a day. While this punishment was only given to those who were ‘not behaving with the guards’, Savarkar was often made to do it despite his good conduct. Left all alone, he scraped poems on the prison walls. In order to torment him, the guards whitewashed the walls on which he scraped poems. By some accounts, he was often forced to eat rotten food infested with worms and insects as punishment for his ‘crimes’against the government. Having to go through life all alone, being allowed to write letters once in a year and a half to his loved ones and going through tremendous physical and mental torture in a compressed cell…”{ URL91}"
“Savarkar showed remarkable resilience. He wrote strategic letters as ploy to the Britishers, not only for himself but for others also, to get out of jail, which the Congress has been shamelessly twisting for decades now.”{ URL91}
"But, the Congress and those who deride Savarkar for his so-called mercy petitions forget the case of Jawaharlal Nehru:
"“According to the plaque at the Nabha jail site, Nehru was arrested along with K Santanam and AT Gidwani on September 22, 1923 for defying an order banning entry into the princely state of Nabha. He was awarded a jail term of 2 years. However, not being able to withstand the treatment, Nehru after only two-weeks signed a bond never to enter the princely state of Nabha again…Prof Lal stated that compared to the other jails where Nehru was kept, including Naini and Gorakhpur, he received ill-treatment at the hands of the police and jail authorities in Nabha. ‘Nehru was released from the Nabha jail only after he signed a bond that he would never enter the princely state again!’he said…It is believed that Nehru’s father, Motilal Nehru, had even reached out to the Viceroy asking for a recommendation to get him released…In his autobiography, Nehru had himself mentioned that the atrocities he and his colleagues faced in Nabha Jail prompted them to sign a bond of compliance with the British, to never enter the territory of Nabha again…Ironically, Nehru who buckled under mere two-weeks pressure is branded as a great leader, freedom fighter and a nationalist by the Congress, whereas Veer Savarkar who was given two life imprisonment of 50 years at the infamous Kaala Pani prison in the Andaman and Nicobar Islands has been termed a ‘traitor’and ‘British stooge’by the same people…”{ URL91}"
................................................................................................
Blunder–14 :
Clueless on the Roots of Partition, Pakistan & Kashmir
"The lack of support by Nehru (Blunder# 3,4) and the Congress to the British war efforts in WW-II made the British anti-Hindus and anti-Congress, and made them favourably disposed towards the Muslims and the AIML. Wrote VP Menon in ‘The Transfer of Power in India’:
"“Moreover, the Congress opposition to the war effort [WW-II] and the [Muslim] League's de facto support for it convinced the British that the Hindus generally were their enemies and the Muslims their friends, and this consideration must have added force to the silent but effective official support for the policy of partition.”{ VPM2/ 438/ L-8234}"
" ... (2) The leadership of the proposed Muslim Pakistan was willing to be their accomplice in the cold war. (3) The proposed Muslim Pakistan was willing to provide military bases to the UK and the West . (4) Nehru, with his leftist, pro-Russia and pro-Socialist-Communist leanings was not likely to be an ally of the UK and the West in the cold war. ... "
"DN Panigrahi states in his book ‘Jammu and Kashmir, The Cold War and the West’:
"“Clement Attlee [UK PM, 1945 -51], in his official as well as private correspondence, categorically stated that Kashmir was an issue so germane to ‘the Muslim world’ that they must support Pakistan keeping in view British interest in the Middle East. ... the western powers, including Britain, considered Pakistan ‘as a key factor in international politics by virtue of being Muslim’ ... "
"Since the First World War India’s primary usefulness to Britain was less as a market for commercial exploitation and more in the field of war and defence, and in maintaining and securing its Empire. Through India as the base, and its British-Indian army, Britain controlled other countries in Asia. It could ill-afford to altogether give up its two-century old Empire, without having a firm foothold at least in part of India. That’s when it cooked up the idea of Pakistan."
" ... Pakistan was actually midwifed by the UK and the US as a bulwark against Russia; and that’s why they always came to its rescue lest it should fail.
"Narendra Singh Sarila quotes in his book ‘The Shadow of the Great Game:
"The Untold Story of India’s Partition’a report of the British chiefs of staff: “The area of Pakistan [West Pakistan or the northwest of India] is strategically the most important in the continent of India and the majority of our strategic requirements would be met... by an agreement with Pakistan alone...”{ Sar/ 28}{ DG/ 17}
"Once the British realised India would deny them military cooperation after independence, they settled in favour of Pakistan, which was willing to cooperate with them, be their lackey, and help them in securing the Middle East and the Indian Ocean area. Yet another reason the British army and bureaucracy was favourable towards Pakistan was that they were being offered positions and employment in Pakistan.
"“Field Marshal Lord Montgomery argued that it would be a tremendous asset if ‘Pakistan, particularly the North-West’, remained within the Commonwealth. The bases, airfields and ports in ‘North West India’ would be invaluable…”{DG/ 16-17}"
"“By the end of 1946, they [Indian leaders] had been manoeuvred into such a corner that if Sardar Patel had not stepped forward ‘to have a limb amputated’, as he put it, and satisfy Britain, there was a danger of India’s fragmentation, as Britain searched for military bases in the bigger princely states by supporting their attempts to declare independence.”{Sar/ 406}"
"Wrote Madhav Godbole”{ MG2}:
"“The Congress was opposed to this act [Government of India Act 1935] due to a number of factors... Lord Butler, in his Oral History Transcript in Nehru Memorial Museum and Library (NMML), has stated that Nehru made some rather extreme remarks about the GOI Act, 1935 by saying, ‘It was a charter of slavery.’..."
"“Later, delivering the Nehru Memorial Lecture on 10 November 1966, Butler said: ‘But, later in his life Nehru told me that it [GOI Act 1935] proved to be an organic link between the old and the new.’ As The Oxford History of India says: ‘The mists of contemporary uncertainty and patriotic impatience shrouded the merits of the Government of India Act when it was passed; but twelve years later, the new Independence Act was seen to be, in large measure, the conception of 1935 developed and completed.’…
"“Lord Mountbatten, in his Oral History Transcript in the NMML, has mentioned that ‘the partition of the country could have been avoided if the GOI Act, 1935 had been accepted [by Congress wholeheartedly].’ According to Mountbatten, Gandhi had admitted to Viceroy Wavell, after his release from prison in 1944 that he got time to read the act carefully only when he was in prison. ‘Had he [Gandhi] had time to study it earlier… he would have recommended acceptance .’ ... "
................................................................................................
Blunder–15 :
Grossly, rather Criminally, Mismanaged Partition
"Partition caused sudden displacement of about 14 million Hindus, Sikhs and Muslims, loss of their properties; and murder and slaughter of an estimated one to three million: there are no definite figures— an exercise for a prope r count was never carried out! ... "
Koenraad Elst gives figures of massacred at Hindus eleven million and muslims a few thousand over four hundred thousand; Sikh number is higher than that of muslims.
" ... Wrote Patrick French:
"“The number of people killed during the creation of independent India and Pakistan has never been established. It was in the interest of the governments of Attlee, Jinnah and Nehru to play down the scale of the massacres, since they all bore a measure of responsibility for what had happened. …As Marn Singh, an eye specialist [a victim of Punjab partition]… remembered: ‘Personally I believe it was the fault of politicians, who were keen for power, especially that Mr Jinnah, who hoped to gain a nation without even damaging the crease of his trousers, like some lord of England.’”{PF/ 348, 351}
"Trains carrying refugees from either side were looted, and passengers were slaughtered. There was mass dishonouring, brutality and rapes. JA Scott, the then British DIG of Police in Rawalpindi had stated: “I could never believe that such barbarous acts as were committed on innocent people in rural areas of Rawalpindi district could be possible in Punjab.”{Bali/ 18}"
Author points out that Ambedkar had suggested exchange of population, but was ignored by Gandhi and Nehru. But perhaps author isn't cognizant with Gandhi demanding government of India force refugees to return to Pakistan, despite the massacres going on, trauma they'd gone through and murder they were certain you face if they did return.
"There were precedents to this proposal of population transfer: Muslim Bulgarians were resettled in Turkey, and in exchange many Turks were transferred to Bulgaria in pursuance of the Turko-Bulgarian Convention of 1913— about two and a half million people were thus resettled.{PG3}
"Another Muslim-Christian exchange of population case was that under the Treaty of Lausanne signed on 30 January 1923 between Turkey and Greece involving about 1.6 million people.{URL74}
"What is noteworthy is that the Muslim League leaders wanted “transfer of population”. Wrote Prafull Goradia:
"“The post -partition government of Nehru turned a blind eye to the fact that the [Muslim] League had demanded an exchange of population as an integral part of the country’s vivisection. All the Muslims of Hindustan were to emigrate to Pakistan and all non-Muslims were to come over to Hindustan. No less than eight leaders of the Muslim League, namely, Jinnah, Feroze Khan Noon, Nawab of Mamdot, Pit Ilahi Bux, Mohammad Ismail, II Chundrigar, Shaukat Hayat Khan and Raja Ghaznafar Ali Khan, had demanded an exchange of population.”
" ... Pir Ilahi Bux, the Sindhi leader, had said that he welcomed an exchange of population for the safety of the minorities, as it would put an end to all communal disturbances as reported by Dawn, on 4 December 1946. So also felt Raja Ghazanfar Ali who later became Pakistan's envoy to New Delhi. Dawn of 19 December 1946 reported his having asked for the alteration of the population map of India... It was implicit in these statements that the League objective was to undertake ethnic cleansing soon after partition. That this was not mere conjecture was proved by the fact that almost all Hindus were driven out from West Pakistan in a matter of two to three years. Evidently, the League leadership had fears that ethnic cleansing on their side would invite a similar action in Hindustan, causing untold miseries to their Muslim brethren. In any case, the Dar-ul-Islam that they were pursuing was for all Muslims of the subcontinent. Why should those, who happened to be in Hindustan, be condemned to live indefinitely in a hopeless Dar-ul-Harb? These were no stray threats either by Mamdot or Pir. Jinnah, while addressing a press conference at Karachi on 25 November 1946, said that the authorities, both central and provincial, should immediately take up the question of exchange of population, as reported by Dawn on 26 November, 1946. Sir Feroze Khan Noon, who later rose to be Prime Minister had earlier on 8 April 1946, threatened to re-enact the murderous orgies of Chengez Khan and Halaqu Khan if non-Muslims took up an obstructive attitude against population exchange. Ismail Chundrigar, who also eventually rose to be Prime Minister of Pakistan, had said that the British had no right to hand over Muslims to a subject people over whom they had ruled for 500 years. Mohammad Ismail, a leader from Madras had declared that the Muslims of India were in the midst of a jehad. Shaukat Hayat Khan, son of the Prime Minister of Punjab, Sir Sikander Hayat Khan, had threatened, while the British were still in India, of a rehearsal of what the Muslims would do to the Hindus eventually. The point that came through clearly was that transfer of population was an integral part of the demand for Pakistan. ”"
""Winston Churchill had accused Mountbatten of killing two million Indians!{AA/ 12} Mountbatten’s critic Andrew Roberts had commented: “Mountbatten deserved to be court-martialled on his return to London.”{Tunz/ 252}"
Two? Try twelve.
"The bitter, unfortunate truth was that having decided to quit India, the Raj didn’t really care. They had already decided to withdraw the British troops from active service and repatriate them before the transfer of power. The British were too much in a hurry to get out. If they could be here for about two centuries to exploit and oppress, why not a few months more to secure Indians, as a compensation? But, Mountbatten and the British were least bothered about the Indians. They maintained only limited British troops to secure the left-over British. Having decided to leave, the Raj didn’t wish to risk British lives. If Hindus and Muslims indulged in killing, looting and raping each other, so be it! Would demonstrate all the more how things would degenerate without them! British colonialism was a hugely cruel, greedy, selfish project. Why the British who had managed law and order covering millions for many, many decades in India failed at this critical juncture? Accusing the Raj of dereliction of duty, Sardar bitterly complained to Mountbatten: “The British had little difficulty when it was a question of putting down Indian freedom movements.”
"The point, however, is why the Indian and the Pakistani leaders, whose people were to be so frightfully affected, failed to read the writing on the wall? That terrible things were bound to happen should have been very well known to them after what happened on the ‘Direct Action Day’in Calcutta in August 1946, in Noakhali in East Bengal, and in Bihar, and in scores of other places down the decades, including the most horrible Moplah Rebellion of 1920s in Malabar, Kerala, where Muslims butchered Hindus! Weren’t they aware that what actually happened was bound to happen again if they didn’t take sufficient care? What precaution and care did they take?"
" ... had all trains been well-guarded, like in the above case, thousands of deaths, loot and rapes could have been easily avoided. Similarly, had proper planning been done, and had a bigger and stronger military, para-military, police or armed volunteer force deployed well in advance, with political leaders, social workers and volunteers to assist them, most of the other tragedies could also have been avoided.
"Instead of doing the above, Mountbatten and his British staff had done the opposite—they had ensured that all the British troops were withdrawn before the partition. This is what Sir Evan Meredith Jenkins, the last governor of the Punjab, had advised Mountbatten (who too was of similar opinion): “I think it will be wise to avoid postponing the relief [withdrawal] of British troops for too long. It would be awkward if trouble on a large scale started while the relief was in progress. My own advice would therefore be to make the change before the end of July [1947].”{ Wolp3/ 165}
"Rather than ensuring sufficiency of troops to control possible trouble, Nehru had grandly and irresponsibly declared: “I would rather have every village in India go up in flames than keep a single British soldier in India a moment longer than necessary.”{Tunz/ 254} But , if Nehru was happy having the highest post of the Governor General (till June 1948), and the highest posts in the Army with the British after independence, why not the soldiers to save poor citizens?
"Further, why shouldn’t Mountbatten, Nehru, and the Congress have planned for augmenting the strength of the police and army by induction of Indians. Well-trained returning INA soldiers were readily available. But, the British and the Congress (especially Nehru) bias against anything remotely related to Netaji Subhas and his INA came in the way!"
................................................................................................
Blunder–16 :
No Worthwhile Policy Formulations!
" ... among the greatest weaknesses of the Freedom Movement was the failure of the Congress to formulate an enlightened constitution suited to India much prior to 1947. Not just the verbose one full of legalese, but also a short lucid one readable and understandable by non-experts, like the American constitution. After independence, it should have been taught in schools as a compulsory subject. But, what did they do? They took over 29 months to modify and cannibalise the British-given Government of India Act 1935 to serve as the Indian Constitution (pl. see Blunder-14 sub-head “GOI Act 1935 & the Dominion Status”)!
"Of course, a much greater weakness of the Freedom Movement was the failure of the Congress to formulate well thought-out policies on economy, finance, taxation, agriculture, industries, education, science and technology, culture, language, administration, law and justice, internal security, external security, foreign policies, and so on, well in advance of the freedom in 1947. They should have also studied how the Western nations, especially the US, had managed to drastically reduce poverty, and became prosperous, and how India could emulate them after gaining freedom. Even if there could not be agreement on various issues, differing options with their pros and cons, along with practical examples from various countries, should have been documented as a guide for future. Expert teams should have been formed with such an end in mind. Finance for the study-teams should have been arranged. There was enough talent to deploy. There were enough financiers like Birla and others to back them. There was no dearth of time or money or talent.
"Most of the leaders who were jailed over long periods had the additional advantage of undisturbed time at their disposal to read, study, think, discuss and thrash out details on various aspects related to the future constitution and policies. Twelve top Congress leaders—Vallabhbhai Patel, Nehru, Maulana Azad, Kriplani, GB Pant, Pattabhi Sitaramayya, Narendra Dev, Asaf Ali, Shankarrao Deo, PC Ghosh, Syed Mahmud, and Hare Krushna Mahtab—were in Ahmednagar Fort jail for about three years from 1942 to 1945 as VIP-prisoners. But that overlong period of three years generated no short or detailed plans or policies or expert-studies on anything of relevance to the immediate or mid-term or long-term future of India, or even on the burning problem of the day: way forward towards freedom! Gandhi, Nehru, Patel, and other top Congress leaders spent a number of years in the British jails where (unlike the revolutionaries and others who were whipped or tortured, and were deprived of the basic facilities) free from any compulsory labour or torture or hardship, they had the facilities of reading and writing and discussions. Yet, they hardly produced a work which could be considered of worthwhile practical use and implementation after independence."
On the contrary, it was Bhagat Singh whose diary reveals an astounding program he set up, and given time, would have proceeded with.
"In jail, Gandhi indulged in his fads of naturopathy, nutrition, fasting, enema, and medicinal quackery; and in flood of words through innumerable letters and articles that didn’t really contribute much to what really mattered. When not in jail, Gandhi enjoyed playing dictator in his ashrams making life difficult for the inmates, and engaging people in all kind of time-pass activities like spinning yarn and so on.
Commented Nirad Chaudhuri very appropriately: “…In the Indian nationalist movement there was not only a total absence of positive and constructive ideas, but even of thinking. These shortcomings were to have their disastrous consequence in 1947…The intellectual poverty of the nationalist movement gradually became intellectual bankruptcy, but nobody perceived that because the hatred of the British rule left no room for rational ideas…Over the whole period with which I am dealing [1921-52] none of them [Gandhi, Nehru…] put forth a single idea about what was to follow British rule…What was even more astonishing, none of these leaders were qualified to put forward any positive idea because none of them had any worthwhile knowledge of Indian history, life, and culture…”{ NC/ 31-2}
"Wrote Rustamji: “Another shortcoming that could be mentioned is that in those years we did not think that the freedom would come so soon ... "
................................................................................................
................................................................................................
................................................................................................
................................................................................................
................................................
................................................
April 26, 2022 - April 27, 2022.
................................................
................................................
................................................................................................
................................................................................................
................................................................................................
................................................................................................
Chapter - II
INTEGRATION OF THE PRINCELY STATES
................................................................................................
................................................................................................
Blunder–17 :
Independent India dependent upon the British!
"God only knows why India chose to appoint Mountbatten, a British, as the Governor General (GG) of India after independence! Jinnah didn’t do that blunder— he himself became the GG of Pakistan. Mountbatten as GG managed what the Raj desired— to the detriment of India. It was thanks to Nehru that Mountbatten became the GG. Why did the freedom-fighters choose a foreigner, a British, for the top post? Weren’t competent Indians available ? If Jinnah as GG could manage Pakistan, couldn’t an Indian as GG manage India?"
It's becoming obvious, going through that part of history, that he was forever longing gor the company of, and acceptance from, British in particular and Europeans in general, with his leftist bent acquired in Cambridge reassuring him via the official pronouncements denouncing West that he was asserting Indian pride and independence; but in reality, a spate of years in growing period spent in company of upper caste English males couldn't but leave a deep impression, and he was forever nostalgic.
This expressed itself in disdain of everything of ancient Indian culture, higher regard for anything associated with any invaders of yore, and also in holding himself as superior to fellow Indians, including those which done far better than him intellectually and academically, even if it was in West, including at bar.
So he must have been deeply happy at the treatment at hands of the Mountbatten family, of an almost royalty caste - they were besmirched with an ancestor's morganatic marriage that had a "cousin Willie", Kaiser Wilhelm, slight them publicly and officially at a family occasion, a wedding, risking disapproval of the grandmother, Queen Victoria, before the WWI had English people's accusations of suspicions regarding German ancestry of royals had the Battenberg senior resign before heading Royal navy. Mountbatten had accepted the post in India due to persuasion from his royal cousin, and really wanted to achieve the position that his father was denied.
So Jawaharlal Nehru hung on to this friendship and didn't want to let go, and ignored everything, almost, about the politics that was against India.
It wasn't a crime of commission but a handicap of omission, of being subconsciously affected by the racism pervading Europe, and consequently an inability to see superiority of colleagues such as even Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose and Sardar Patel, both of whom had had education abroad and proved their caliber of a level higher than himself.
It perhaps was combined with a disdain, pervading Islamic influenced society, for those who were less in financial level. Few of India, after all, sent their laundry out to Paris, as Nehru family did from Allahabad, as we were told in sixties as part of general education.
"Nehru had adopted Mountbatten as his guru and guide. Reflects much both on Nehru’s colonial mindset, and his judgement of people. Where Nehru was not readily amenable to what the Raj/ Mountbatten wanted, Mountbatten reportedly used his wife Edwina to get Nehru around.
"Maulana Azad, a pro-Nehru person, expressed bewilderment in his autobiography as to how a person like Jawaharlal was won over by Lord Mountbatten; mentions Nehru’s weakness of being impulsive and amenable to personal influences, and wonders if the Lady Mountbatten factor was responsible for certain [improper] decisions.{Azad/ 198}"
Any suggestions of impropriety are usually due to an inability on our of people to imagine a friendship between people of different gender without a factor of impropriety, but such a relationship wasn't possible without the daughter Pamela coming to know of it, and the Mountbatten family had been quite frank and open about the couple conducting their separate love life, even in family estates, without hiding.
So one can take absence of any such suspicion by Pamela Mountbatten as evidence that the relationship between Jawaharlal Nehru and the Mountbatten family was platonic, and while Louis Mountbatten used his wife to influence Jawaharlal Nehru, the latter was an innocent dupe of the wily half-German English royal cousin.
"Reportedly, Mountbatten himself admitted that he used his wife to get an insight into Nehru’s mind and, where needed, influence Nehru when he failed to bring him round to his view. Philip Zeigler, Mountbatten's biographer, stated that Mountbatten encouraged loving relationship between his wife and Nehru— to this end. ... "
"Mountbatten was a representative of Britain, and it was natural for him, rather, expected of him, to safeguard and promote the interests of Britain; and keeping the British Government informed of the goings on, including confidential matters. India and Pakistan also had British army chiefs. In case the Indian leaders felt that having a British GG, and a British C-in-C, did help in some way, they should have accounted for the fact that it could also be counter-productive in many cases—and it did prove to be so. Their basic allegiance being to Britain, between them , these British were able to manipulate matters— many contrary to the interests of India."
In his work on Sardar Patel, the author quotes extensively the very telling incident of the British Army supremo in India being caught warning his counterpart in Pakistan about movement of Indian military, and lying about it, confident that he could bluff it out since he spoke French.
"Much is made of Mountbatten, but he had been a failure in most of his past assignments. He belonged to navy, and in the Admiralty he was long known as the “Master of Disaster”.{Tunz/ 156}
"Mountbatten was widely held responsible for his gross mismanagement resulting in the horrifying scale of the partition mayhem. ... Winston Churchill had accused Mountbatten of killing two million Indians!{AA/ 12} Mountbatten’s critic Andrew Roberts had commented: “Mountbatten deserved to be court-martialled on his return to London.”{Tunz/ 252}"
It's a little rich, Winston Churchill saying this, with starvation to death of a million people in Bengal due to his stealing harvest to his credit, and too his refusing to let the aid ship from FDR meant to help India, filled with grain for the starving, proceed beyond Australia.
"After the partition and its tragedy, there had been three assassination attempts on Jinnah by the aggrieved victims. Jinnah was so rattled he had remarked that the person most responsible for the disaster of partition was Dickie Mountbatten.{Tunz/ 301}
"Wrote Maulana Azad:
"“I also asked Lord Mountbatten to take into consideration the likely consequences of the partition of the country. Even without partition there were riots in Calcutta, Noakhali, Bihar, Bombay and Punjab…If the country was divided in such an atmosphere there would be rivers of blood flowing in different parts of the country and the British would be responsible for such carnage…Without a moment’s hesitation Lord Mountbatten replied, ‘At least on this question I shall give you complete assurance. I shall see to it that there is no bloodshed or riot. I am a soldier, not a civilian. Once partition is accepted in principle, I shall issue orders to see that there are no communal disturbances…If there should be slightest agitation, I shall adopt measures to nip the trouble in the bud…I shall order the Army and the Air Force to act and use tanks and aeroplanes to suppress anybody who wants to create trouble.’”{ Azad/ 207}"
In the event, he was only worried about muslims in India, particularly in Delhi, especially those he knew; Pamela Mountbatten mentions this part, but has no mention of any reaction by him when he inspected Shahalmi n Lahore where homes of Hindus had been burnt with help of fire services who poured gasoline instead of water, by neighbours they'd been living with, several Hindus perishing in fire; and nor was any reaction or expression of concern for the mayhem in Pakistan and massacres of Hindus and Sikhs was recorded by her, nor any sympathy for the refugees driven by police in Delhi to streets in the January cold at insistence of Gandhi who wanted to celebrate with muslims.
This refugees crowd included babies and children, women and old, all homeless and penniless due to being forced to flee in millions their would be murderers in Pakistan, often having lost parts of family, and yet being insisted by Gandhi that they be forced yo return and face death with love for the killers. His hunger strike included a demand that government of India force them to return.
There's no mention by Pamela Mountbatten of any reaction or thought by her father about this.
"Wrote Durga Das: “I concluded my report by stating that Mountbatten had hurried through with partition without making sure that the Boundary Force would be able to maintain peace.”{ DD/ 264}
"Britain wanted Kashmir, a strategic territory, to be under their influence. That was possible if it was either independent or with Pakistan, which was pro-West. Towards this aim, Mountbatten ensured that as GG he did not remain just a titular head. He manipulated to get himself appointed as the ‘Head of the Defence Committee of India’ ensuring that the C-in-C of both the Indian and the Pakistani Army and the Supreme Commander, Auchinleck, reported to him. In that capacity, Mountbatten secretively co-ordinated with the transitional British Commander-in-Chief of the Pakistan Army; had private strategy sessions with the transitional British C-in-C of the Indian Army, without the knowledge of the Indian leaders ; and manipulated to the extent feasible, decisions and actions in the direction the British Government wanted."
"Nehru was mainly responsible for having Mountbatten appointed as the GG of independent India; and was perhaps the only factor in making him the Head of the Defence Committee.
"Wrote Durga Das in ‘India from Curzon to Nehru & After’:
"“... Patel added that Nehru was unduly amenable to Mountbatten’s influence. Nehru had ‘always leaned on someone’. He was under Bapu’s protective wing and ‘now he leans on Mountbatten’.”{DD/ 240}
"The role of Mountbatten in the integration of the three states that created problems —Junagadh, Hyderabad and J& K— was dubious. Where the British interests were not affected— in respect of the other Princely States— he did try to help India. But, where the British interests clashed with the Indian interests, he helped the British interests. It was Mountbatten who made Nehru refer the J& K issue to the UN, thus internationalising a domestic issue."
"Wrote Andrew Whitehead in ‘A Mission in Kashmir’[remarks of this author (RKP) in italics in square brackets]:
"“Indian military sources have sometimes alleged that the tribal invasion of Kashmir was planned in detail by Pakistan more than two months in advance, with the knowledge and approval of the British officers commanding the Pakistan army. The most substantial supporting evidence is the memoirs of an Indian General, O.S. Kalkat, who in August 1947 was serving as a brigade major in the Frontier. He recounted opening a letter on 20 August [1947] addressed to his British commanding officer marked ‘Top Secret’. It was a note from Pakistan’s Commander-in-Chief, Frank Messervy [the first C-in-C of both (independent) Pakistan and India were British, Messervy and Lockhart respectively, reporting to the Supreme Commander, Auchinleck, again a British, who in turn reported to the British Mountbatten—hence, Mountbatten and Lockhart and Auchinleck would have known about the J& K invasion plan, while the naïve Indian leaders remained blissfully unaware.], detailing plans for ‘Operation Gulmarg’—the plan for the invasion and capture of Kashmir. The ‘D’day of Operation Gulmarg was fixed as 22nd October [1947] on which date the various tribal Lashkars were to cross into Jammu and Kashmir territory. He went on to relate how he and his family were then put under informal house arrest in Pakistan, managed to escape, reached Delhi, and on 19 October informed senior Indian military officers about the planned invasion...”{ AW/ 59}
"As per ‘Operations in Jammu and Kashmir 1947-48’ by Rohit Singh{URL11}: “Op Gulmarg was conceived at the Pakistan Army HQ in Rawalpindi soon after independence. DO letters detailing the operational instruction had the stamp of approval of the then British C-in-C of the Pakistan Army, Gen Sir Frank Messervy. According to the plan, lashkars of 1000 pathans each were to be raised by every pathan tribe. For this purpose, separate instructions were issued to the Deputy Commissioners and Political Agents. Once recruited, these lashkars were to concentrate at Bannu, Wana, Peshawar, Kohat, Thal and Naushera by the first week of September 1947.
"“The Brigade Commanders at these places were to then equip them with arms, ammunition and some clothing. On paper, these issues were shown against regular Pakistan Army units. Each Tribal lashkar was commanded by a Major of the Pakistan Army who was to act as the advisor to the Malik or the nominal commander of the lashkar. The Major had a Captain and 10 JCOs under his command. Each irregular company was commanded by a JCO. All the Pakistan Army regulars were Pathans. Each Lashkar was provided with at least four guides/ informers.
"“Forward ammunition dumps were to be established at Abbottabad on 18 October and subsequently moved to Muzaffarabad and Domel after D Day. The invasion force was led by Major General Akbar Khan (code -name Tariq) and assisted by Brig Sher Khan. Their HQ was located inside the Pakistan Army HQ in Rawalpindi.
“All lashkars were instructed to travel in civil buses at night and concentrate at Abbottabad by 18 October 1947. The D Day for Op Gulmarg was 22 October 1947.”{URL11}
"Wrote Kuldip Nayar: “After the accession, the Maharaja provided New Delhi with more evidence (plans bearing proper seals and maps) to prove that a ‘conspiracy for the establishment of a new Muslim State by the Muslim League in Jammu and Kashmir’ was hatched as early as 1945.”{KN}"
................................................................................................
Blunder–18 :
Nehru Refused J& K Accession when Offered!
Author deals with this extensively in his work on Sardar Patel.
"By June-July 1947 Maharaja Hari Singh of J& K had begun to take steps towards final accession with India, including replacement of his pro-Pak PM Ram Chandra Kak with Mehr Chand Mahajan, a lawyer, and a Congress nominee on the Boundary Commission, who later became the Chief Justice of India. Looking to all this, Nehru should have created a conducive atmosphere, and taken Hari Singh into confidence , so that Maharaja’s decision to accede to India could be expedited, and all the subsequent troubles on account of his late accession would have been avoided. Instead, Nehru acted adversarial with the Maharaja."
"When in August–September 1947, Maharaja Hari Singh indeed offered Kashmir's accession to India; most unbelievably, it was refused by Nehru, who first wanted Sheikh Abdullah to be freed and installed as the prime minister of the State—something not acceptable to the Maharaja. ... (In sharp contrast you had Jinnah offering a signed blank sheet along with his own fountain pen to Maharajas of Jodhpur, Jaisalmer, and Bikaner to put down their conditions for accession to Pakistan, saying: “You can fill in all your conditions.”{BK/337}) Had the accession been accepted, the Indian army could have been deployed in Kashmir well in advance of the Oct-47 invasion by the Pakistani-raiders, preventing both the creation of the PoK, and the terrible tragedy of loot, killings and rapes."
"It was undemocratic and irresponsible of Nehru, and an illegal act, not to have obtained the concurrence of the cabinet before taking such a major decision of not accepting J& K accession. It is quite likely that Mountbatten had dissuaded him from accepting accession."
................................................................................................
Blunder–19 :
Allowing Kashmir to be almost Lost
"The Pakistani raiders were almost on the outskirts of Srinagar by 22 October 1947, and the Maharaja desperately sought help from India. Looking to the precarious situation, Sardar Patel proposed sending the Indian Army to J& K. However, Mountbatten insisted that unless the Instrument of Accession was signed by J& K in favour of India (the offer earlier refused by Nehru [Blunder# 18], most likely at the instance of Mountbatten himself!), India should not send army to Kashmir, and Nehru concurred.
"On Friday, 24 October 1947, the Pakistani raiders attacked the Mohore Power House causing black out in Srinagar. Defence Committee of India, headed by Mountbatten, met the next morning on Saturday, 25 October 1947, and rather than ordering action to save Srinagar, directed VP Menon, Sam Manekshaw and a few senior military officers to fly to Srinagar the same day to check the position first hand. This was actually a deliberate ploy of Mountbatten to pass time and not allow counter-action by India, and let Pakistan gain an upper hand by force, as the British desired—because Mountbatten would have known through the British C-in-C of Pakistan what Pakistan was up to (C-in-C of both India and Pakistan were British!).
"VP Menon and company flew to Srinagar and found the state of affairs to be worse than what was reported. They advised Maharaja Hari Singh to hurry to the safety of Jammu. Hari Singh drove the same night to Jammu, 200 kilometres away. MC Mahajan, the premier of J& K, VP Menon, Sam Manekshaw, and colleagues returned to Delhi from Srinagar early next morning on Sunday, 26 October 1947 , and reported the desperate situation to the Defence Committee. They advised that it would not be possible to save Srinagar and its people unless the troops were immediately air-lifted. Even the Srinagar air-strip was in danger of being imminently occupied by the raiders, in which case even that only possibility of air-lifting troops would close.
"Notwithstanding the desperate situation, and knowing that unless help was sent immediately, both the Kashmiri Muslims and the Pandits of Srinagar would be butchered by the Pakistani raiders, and the Valley of Kashmir would be lost to Pakistan, Mountbatten still insisted that the Instrument of Accession be first signed in favour of India. Nehru simply went along with his guru Mountbatten. It didn’t seem illegal to Mountbatten and Nehru that the raiders backed by the Pakistani army had invaded J& K, which had not signed any Instrument of Accession in Pakistan’s favour; but it seemed illegal to them to send Indian army help to save people getting looted, raped and butchered!"
This last description includes nuns that the so-called tribals stopped to rape and murder before they got yo Srinagar, which delayed the assault, and India could save Srinagar.
"As desired, VP Menon flew to Jammu the same day— Sunday, 26 October 1947— to have the Instrument of Accession signed by Maharaja Hari Singh, which he did. The Instrument of Accession signed by Hari Singh on Sunday, 26 October 1947, and brought back by VP Menon, was accepted by Mountbatten on Monday, 27 October 1947. With the signing of the Instrument and its acceptance, J& K legally became a part of India, and it became incumbent upon India to defend its territory, and throw out the raiders.
"In the Defence Committee meeting held on Monday, 27 October 1947 Sam Manekshaw apprised the members of the Military situation. He said the raiders were hardly seven to nine kilometres from Srinagar; and unless the troops were flown in immediately, Srinagar would be lost, because going by road would take days, and once the raiders got to the airport and Srinagar, it would not be possible to fly-in the troops. He further informed that everything was ready at the airport, and the troops could be immediately air-lifted, once the orders were issued.
"However, Mountbatten— serving the pro-Pakistani British interests— tried to stall sending the Indian army, saying it was too late, raiders being already at the door of Srinagar. But, who made it late in the first place— Mountbatten himself! As usual, Nehru prevaricated.
"Notably, even when the need for action became urgent, “Mountbatten threw his weight against any precipitate action, emphasising the need for further information,”writes C Dasgupta in his book, ‘War and Diplomacy in Kashmir 1947-48’{ DG/ 45}. Even after further information was available through VP Menon and Sam Manekshaw, who had been specially flown to Srinagar for the purpose on 25 October 1947, and who advised urgent airlift of troops, Mountbatten showed reluctance. Writes Dasgupta “... the service chiefs [all British], supported by Mountbatten, sought to dissuade the ministers from an airlift on the grounds that it involved great risks and dangers.”{ DG/ 47}
"Sardar Patel finally intervened. Recounted Sam Manekshaw, who later became the first Field Marshal in the Indian army, in his interview with Prem Shankar Jha{Jha1}:
"“At the morning meeting he [VP Menon/ Patel] handed over the (Accession) thing. Mountbatten turned around and said, ‘come on Manekji (He called me Manekji instead of Manekshaw), what is the military situation?’ I gave him the military situation, and told him that unless we flew in troops immediately, we would lose Srinagar, because going by road would take days, and once the tribesmen got to the airport and Srinagar, we couldn't fly troops in. Everything was ready at the airport. As usual Nehru talked about the United Nations , Russia, Africa, God almighty, everybody, until Sardar Patel lost his temper. He said, ‘Jawaharlal, do you want Kashmir, or do you want to give it away.’ He (Nehru) said, ‘Of course, I want Kashmir.’ Then he (Patel) said ‘Please give your orders.’ And before he could say anything Sardar Patel turned to me and said, ‘You have got your orders.’ I walked out, and we started flying in troops...”{Jha1/ 135}
"It has also been reported that the J& K premier, Mehar Chand Mahajan, even threatened to proceed to Karachi and offer Kashmir to Jinnah, if India could not secure safety of the people of J& K. Despite tremendous practical difficulties, lack of preparation, and the short notice, the Indian Army rose to the occasion and chased the raiders out of the valley. It is worth factoring-in the fact that had the Indian army not reached Srinagar in time, there would have been a large scale massacre and mayhem by the Pakistani raiders in Srinagar and surrounding areas, which in turn would have had repercussions all over India. But, Mountbatten and the British didn’t seem to value Indian lives. British were serving pro-Pakistani British interests. But, Nehru? Had Sardar Patel not acted, and had it been left to Nehru and Mountbatten, the whole of Kashmir would have been lost to Pakistan, and the locals would have been butchered."
................................................................................................
Blunder–20 :
Unconditional J& K Accession Made Conditional
"With regard to J& K, it is worth re-emphasising that (a) the Instrument of Accession signed was no different from those signed by the other Princely States; (b) it was signed by Hari Singh unconditionally; and (c) it was accepted by the Governor General, Lord Mountbatten, unconditionally. That is, the whole process was no different from the one that applied to the other 547 Princely States that acceded to India (please note that the other 14 of the 562 had acceded to Pakistan).
"Through a separate letter, however, Mountbatten advised Maharaja Hari Singh that the accession was subject to reference to the people of J& K [comments in square-brackets are by the author RKP]:
"“In the special circumstances mentioned by Your Highness, my Government [Imagine, a British serving the pro-British and pro-Pakistan interests, had the gall (thanks to Nehru) to call the post-Independence Indian government ‘my government’!] have decided to accept the accession of Kashmir State to the Dominion of India. Consistent with their policy that, in the case of any State where the issue of accession has been the subject of dispute, the question of accession should be decided in accordance with the wishes of the people of the State, it is my Government’s wish that, as soon as law and order have been restored in Kashmir and her soil cleared of the invader, the question of the State’s accession should be settled by a reference to the people...”{AW/ 114}{ Jag/ 86}"
"Notably, the Maharaja had put no conditions on accession. In fact, even Sheikh Abdullah, who had favoured accession to India, never insisted on this condition— rather, he wanted it to be unconditional, lest any uncertainty should remain."
" ... Why did Nehru not object? Why had the Indian Cabinet and leaders , particularly Nehru, not made it clear to him that he could not act on his own on critical matters— that he had to take the permission of the cabinet? One can understand conditions being stipulated by the party offering you the favour of accession. But, for the party being favoured with accession to stipulate conditions— that’s absurd!"
" ... Or, was it that Nehru acquiesced to writing of such a letter by Mountbatten? (— yet another blunder?) Even if the deed was done without Nehru’s knowledge (unlikely), Nehru should have objected to it and should have got it annulled or withdrawn."
"The Indian Independence Act 1947 enacted by the British Parliament also incorporated the Memorandum on States’ Treaties and Paramountcy of 12 May 1946 as per which the princely states were to regain full sovereignty with the creation of the two dominions of India and Pakistan from the British India on 15 August 1947, with the ruler of the Princely State being the ONLY authority to offer accession to India or Pakistan, or to remain independent , regardless of the religious composition of the people of that state, there being NO provision for ‘reference to the people’ or plebiscite.
"Therefore, with the signing of the Instrument of Accession unconditionally by the Maharaja of J& K on 26 October 1947 in favour of India, J& K’s accession to India was full, final , irrevocable and totally legal as per the International Law. Legally, that separate letter of Mountbatten (please see above) made absolutely NO difference. In fact, Mountbatten’s action of writing the above letter was unconstitutional and illegal. Even Nehru had NO legal authority to approve of such a letter. What is more, there was NO cabinet sanction for it!
"India should have stuck to this incontestable legal position of the irrevocable accession of J& K to India , like for the other 547 states, on the strength of the signing of the Instrument of Accession. This is what Sardar Patel strongly advocated. Even US considered ours as an ironclad legal position in 1948."
"The funny thing is that the "reference to the people" or plebiscite was requested neither by Maharaja Hari Singh, nor by Sheikh Abdullah, nor by the people of J& K, nor even by Jinnah(!!) at that time! It was only thanks to Mountbatten and Nehru!{Hing/ 200} The position of Mountbatten could be understood— he was serving the anti-India and pro-British interests! But, Nehru? ... "
................................................................................................
Blunder–21 :
Internationalisation of the Kashmir Issue
"Nehru unnecessarily internationalised what was purely an internal issue by taking the J& K issue to the UN, again under the influence of the British Mountbatten. Wrote V Shankar in ‘My Reminiscences of Sardar Patel, Volume 1’:
"“Lord Mountbatten persuaded Pandit Nehru to make a broadcast in which he was to announce that the accession would be subject to a plebiscite under the UN auspices. This was scheduled at 8.30pm on 28 October [1947]. Sardar used to insist on seeing the texts of important broadcasts including those of the prime minister. Pandit Nehru had a very busy day and could not send the text before 8.15pm. Sardar read it and noticed the embarrassing commitment. He tried to contact Pandit Nehru but the latter had left for the Broadcasting House. Sardar then commissioned me to go to the Broadcasting House and ask Pandit Nehru to delete the offending phrase 'under UN auspices'...”"
"However, by the time Shankar reached the place, the Mountbatten-inspired deed was done by Nehru. It was imprudent on the part of Nehru to have made this commitment of “plebiscite under UN auspices”at the instance of a British, Lord Mountbatten, having his own axe to grind, without taking the cabinet and the patriotic Indians who mattered—Sardar Patel and others—into confidence!
"Wrote the veteran Congressman DP Mishra:
"“Soon after, I heard Nehru’s voice on All India Radio at Nagpur , committing the Government of India to the holding of plebiscite in Kashmir. As from my talk with Patel, I had received the impression that the signature of the Maharaja had finally settled the Kashmir issue. I was surprised by Nehru’s announcement. When I visited Delhi next, I pointedly asked Patel whether the decision to hold a plebiscite in Kashmir was taken at a meeting of the Cabinet. He sighed and shook his head. It was evident that Nehru had acted on Mountbatten’s advice, and had ignored his colleagues.”
"Nehru scored a self-goal for India by formally referring the J& K matter to the UN on 1 January 1948. With the issue internationalised, India suffered greatly, both domestically and internationally. It became like the sword of Damocles. The UK, the US and their allies, led by the UK, began playing politics of favouring Pakistan over India, ignoring the fact of Pakistani aggression in J& K."
" ... As usual, Nehru himself realised his blunder after the act. Nehru regretted the Kashmir issue “has been raised to an international level…by reference to the Security Council of the UN and most of the great powers are intensely interested in what happens in Kashmir…[Kashmir issue] has given us a great deal of trouble…the attitude of the great powers has been astonishing. Some of them have shown active partisanship for Pakistan…We feel we have not been given a square deal.”{ BK2/ 159}"
"States Natwar Singh in ‘One Life is Not Enough’:
" ... What was even more erroneous was his going to the Security Council under Chapter VI of the UN Charter, which addresses itself to disputes. He should have taken the Kashmir problem to the Security Council under Chapter VII, which deals with aggression. In the case of Kashmir, he allowed his personal feelings to cloud his professional judgement; a major failing for a statesman of his stature. Members of the Council rightly said that, by doing so, India had accepted that a dispute exists.”{KNS/ 114}"
"Commented Sita Ram Goel: “Pandit Nehru promised a plebiscite in Kashmir without consulting any of his cabinet colleagues or even Mahatma Gandhi. I refer …to the Memorandum which the CPI [Communist Party of India] had submitted to the British Cabinet Mission and in which Kashmir was described as a separate nationality which should be given the right of self-determination to the point of becoming a sovereign State. The CPI had denounced Kashmir's accession to India as an imperialist annexation in early 1948. The Indian army in Kashmir had been described as an army of occupation in all official Soviet publications at that time. So Pandit Nehru's communist conscience suffered persistent pricks. He not only promised a plebiscite but also ordered the Indian Army to stop its triumphant march into Pakistan-occupied Kashmir. He changed his stand on a plebiscite in Kashmir only when the Soviet Union and the CPI had changed their stand and come out in support of the Indian case in Kashmir after Pakistan entered into an alliance with America. And he let loose a lying campaign against the West which was only reminding him half-heartedly of the plebiscite promise he had himself made earlier.”{ SRG2/ 171}"
................................................................................................
Blunder–22 :
Inept Handling of the J& K Issue in the UN
" ... Quipped Chaudhry Sir Muhammad Zafrullah Khan (1893-1985), the Pakistani representative in the UN, when he came to know about Gopalaswami Aiyangar as India’s representative: “You are offering me Kashmir on a platter.”{BK/ 387}
"It is worth noting that Zafrullah Khan had an illustrious career. Educated at London’s King’s College, he had been a member of the All-India Muslim League, and had served as its president between 1931 and 1932. He was the Minister of Railway of British India in 1935. He sat on the British Viceroy's Executive Council as its Muslim member between 1935 and 1941. He represented India at the League of Nations in Geneva in 1939. He was the Agent-General of British India to China in 1942. He became judge at the Federal Court of India. He was the foreign minister of Pakistan (1947-54), the president for the UN General Assembly (1962), and the judge (1954-61, 1964-73), vice-president (1958-61) and the president (1970-73) of the International Court of Justice.
"Incidentally, Zafrullah Khan was an Ahmadiyya, like Abdus Salam (1926–1996), a Pakistani theoretical physicist, who shared the 1979 Nobel Prize in Physics. Abdus Salam left Pakistan in 1974 in protest against the passage of the parliamentary bill declaring the Ahmadiyya Community as NOT-Islamic. Jinnah and Aga Khan, both Shias, were the prime movers of Pakistan. Shias too are at the receiving end in Pakistan."
"Sardar Patel was opposed to Gopalaswami Aiyangar leading the Indian team in the UN. He considered him to be not competent enough. Patel had instead suggested the name of CP Ramaswami Iyer, who had been the Diwan of Travancore. CP, as he was called, was a very competent intellectual, statesman, and a diplomat, with many foreign contacts in the UK and the US. He would have presented India’s case effectively. But, Nehru ignored Patel’s advice , and stuck to Gopalaswami Aiyangar. Here is a tell-tale description of what happened in the UN, as told by Shakunthala Jagannathan, CP’s granddaughter:
"“I was a student living in New York, when the question of Kashmir came up in the U.N. Accompanied by several Indian and American friends, I attended the Security council session, oozing with confidence on India’s stand. First came Sir Zafrullah Khan’s impassioned and brilliant speech on behalf of Pakistan which was powerful enough to shake up our confidence. When he sat down, we Indians breathed a sigh of relief. The Indian delegation was then asked to present their case. The delegate concerned put up his hand, stood up, and said, “I protest!”… We had expected that our case, so much stronger, would shake up the U.N .! Instead our presentation on that day resulted in a debacle, right before our eyes...”{SJ/ 45-46}"
"Wrote Howard Schaffer: “The Indians had made Abdullah a member of their UN delegation, no doubt in the expectation that he would be an effective spokesman for India’s cause. They could not have calculated that he would undercut their position by calling for Kashmir’s independence in a private conversation with Austin. Apparently caught by surprise, the ambassador gave Abdullah no encouragement...”{Sch} Incidentally, Warren R. Austin was the US permanent representative—their ambassador— to the UN."
................................................................................................
Blunder–23 :
PoK thanks to Nehru
"Geographically, J& K was the biggest of the princely States with a population of about 40 lacs. Its location was strategic. Its northern boundaries touch Afghanistan, USSR and China, with Pakistan to its west, and India to the south. Control-wise, J& K comprises three parts, otherwise seven parts.
"(A) Area under the control of India:
"(1) Jammu in the south, which is largely Hindu.
"(2) Ladakh in the east, which is Buddhist.
"(3) Kashmir Valley: An oval-shaped valley in the middle—between PoK to the north and west, Jammu to the south, and Ladakh to the east—often referred to as just Kashmir, which is predominantly Muslim.
"(B) Area under the control of China:
"(4) Aksai Chin in the north-east, under the control of China.
"(5) Shaksgam Valley in the north, illegally ceded by Pakistan to China.
"(C) Area under the control of Pakistan:
"(6) Gilgit-Baltistan in the north.
"(7) Poonch, Mirpur and Muzaffarabad divisions in the north-west referred to as PoK or Pakistan-occupied-Kashmir."
"To the north of the valley are the main ranges of Himalayas. To the east is Ladakh separated by the Himalayas. Pir Panjal range encloses the valley from the west and the south, separating it from the Great Plains of northern India.
"Srinagar, its capital, is located in the heart of the Kashmir valley at an altitude of 1,730 metres, that is, 5674 feet above sea level, and is spread on both sides of the river Jhelum. Its two lakes— Dal and Nagin— enhance its picturesque setting. The Indus, Jhelum, Tawi, Ravi and Chenab are the five major rivers that flow through the state."
"Area of Ladakh, Jammu and Kashmir Valley divisions are respectively 59000, 26000 and 16000 km2 out of the total of 1,01,000 km2, forming respectively 58%, 26% and 16% of the total area of J& K within India’s control.
"However, the total area of J& K is 2,22,000 km2. Therefore, 1,21,000 km2 amounting to 54% of the total, that is, more than half, is illegally occupied by Pakistan and China: 78,000 km2 amounting to 35% of the total area of J& K by Pakistan; 38,000 km2 amounting to 17% of the total by China; and 5,000 km2, that is, 2% of the total that was illegally handed over by Pakistan to China."
"It was thanks to Nehru’s wrong decision that ‘Pakistan Occupied Kashmir’(PoK) came into existence, when the Indian army was on the verge of getting the whole of J& K vacated."
"Pakistani raiders’ determined bid to occupy Ladakh was frustrated by the superior Indian strategy of airlifting troops to Leh. Air Commodore Mehar Chand flew his plane amazingly to 23,000 feet above sea-level— without oxygen— on an unchartered course to land his plane, with troops, at Leh at the height of about 12000 feet!
"Another daring feat was that of Major-General Thimayya. He took his tanks to a height of about 12000 feet on the snow-capped Zojila Pass—something unique in history, as nobody had taken tanks to such heights and in such hazardous conditions before— and routed the enemy, destroying all enemy bunkers.
"Incidentally, it was this brave and competent Thimayya who was humiliated by Krishna Menon, when he was Defence Minister in Nehru’s cabinet, forcing Thimayya to resign! Later, after Thimayya withdrew his resignation at the instance of Nehru, even Nehru behaved with him in a way that amounted to his double humiliation!! ... "
"The capture of Muzzafarabad, now the capital of PoK, was imminent. The Army, however, was ordered to suspend all offensive operations with effect from 1 January 1949, even though the enemy did not cease fighting. The Indian Army was very disappointed by the decision, but orders were orders. Thanks to ordering of ceasefire with immediate effect by Nehru, PoK—Pakistan Occupied Kashmir—came into existence; else the whole of Kashmir would have been with India. And, now it is this PoK which is used by Pakistan to send terrorists into J& K. Notably, the ‘democratic’Nehru didn’t care to take Sardar Patel into confidence or seek cabinet approval before taking such a major decision.
"Shakespeare had rightly articulated:
"There is a tide in the affairs of men,
Which, taken at the flood, leads on to fortune;
Omitted, all the voyage of their life
Is bound in shallows and in miseries;
And we must take the current when it serves,
Or lose our ventures."
"As per a report, the ceasefire decision was remote-controlled by Mountbatten, who was by then back in England— such influence Mountbatten still exercised over Nehru! Commented General SPP Thorat:
"“Our forces might have succeeded in evicting the invaders, if the Prime Minister had not held them in check , and later ordered the ceasefire… Obviously great pressure must have been brought to bear on him by the [former Governor-General]… Panditji was a great personal and family friend of Lord Mountbatten.”{BK2/ 160}"
"The military commanders directly involved in the operations of clearing J& K from the raiders and the Pak-army were General Officer C-in-C, Western Command, KM Cariappa, and the Operational Commander Major-General Thimayya. Wrote retired Army-Chief General VK Singh in ‘Leadership in the Indian Army’:
"“Cariappa experienced some of his finest moments during the Kashmir operations. Operation Kipper, which successfully captured Naushera and Jhangar, was planned by him. This was followed by Operation Easy for the link-up with Punch, and Operation Bison for the capture of Zojila, Dras and Kargil. Had he been given additional troops and the necessary permission, he would have succeeded in pushing the Pakistanis out of Kashmir, plans for which had already been made. Unfortunately, this did not come about due to the intervention by the United Nations after an appeal from India. Characteristically, Nehru took the decision to appeal to the UN Security Council without consulting the armed forces [or the cabinet or Sardar Patel]...
"“Given the restrictions placed on him by his own government, and the lack of support in terms of troops, it is indeed commendable that Cariappa succeeded in achieving what he did. Due to political considerations, a defensive policy was imposed on the army. That he did not allow this to be transformed into a defensive mentality was a major achievement. As a result of this policy, India lost several key objectives in the Uri and Tithwal sectors. Since the road to Ladakh could not be opened until Zojila, Dras and Kargil were captured , Cariappa decided to go ahead and do exactly that. By disobeying orders— which forbade all offensive operations— he took a grave risk. But had he not done so, Ladakh may not have been part of India today. As it happened, these key objectives were captured after a brilliant manoeuvre , including the use of tanks, which were deployed for the first time at such altitudes. The country owes an eternal debt to Cariappa for the risks he took. Had he failed, his career would most certainly have ended.”{VKS/ 35}"
"As per the biography of late Field Marshal KM Cariappa, they both requested Nehru in December 1948 for a little more time to clear J& K of Pakistani raiders completely , but Nehru did not heed them. Thimayya had told Nehru that the Army needed two weeks more to regain lost territory but Nehru was adamant. It is said that Thimayya found Nehru’s attitude inexplicable, and left Teen Murti Bhavan, the official residence of the PM, in disgust. When Cariappa asked Nehru about the decision a few years later, Nehru conceded that the ceasefire order ought to have been delayed!
"Britain had marked out two areas that had to absolutely go to Pakistan—despite J& K accession to India: (a) One was the northern area along the Chinese, Russian and Afghanistan borders comprising Gilgit, Hunza, Nagar, Swat and Chitral. This area commanded as much strategic importance to Britain and the West as NWFP in Pakistan. Mountbatten had ensured NWFP went to Pakistan, even though its leader, Khan Abdul Ghaffar Khan, was opposed to the partition of India. (b) The other area was the western strip adjoining Pakistani Punjab to secure Pakistan from India, comprising Muzzafarabad, Mirpur, Bhimbar, Kotli and adjoining areas. Muzzafarabad is now the capital of PoK. What the British had planned, they managed to achieve—thanks to the way Nehru acted, or failed to act. How the British managed to fool Nehru and India even after independence! Reflects very poorly on the then Indian leadership.
"After J& K acceded to India on 26 October 1947, Major William Brown of the Gilgit Scouts, although a British contract officer of the Maharaja of J& K , had the Governor Ghansara Singh imprisoned on 31 October 1947, as per a pre-meditated plan , and hoisted the Pakistani flag there on 2 November 1947, and declared its accession to Pakistan! This was totally an illegal action on the part of the British meant to deliberately deny India access to Central Asia. Mountbatten would surely have known of the goings on, but did nothing, or rather, allowed the illegality to quietly happen. Major Khurshid Anwar was one of the Pakistani army officers who had organised and lead the Pakistani Pathan tribal invasion of J& K. His deputy, Major Aslam Khan, took charge of Gilgit from Brown. In 1948, Brown was honoured with the “Most Exalted Order of the British Empire”.
"Major Brown had threatened to slaughter all the non-Muslims of Gilgit and Bunji if the Gilgit Governor Brigadier Ghansara Singh did not surrender. Following the surrender and arrest, the defecting Muslim officers insisted that every non-Muslim must convert or be shot.{DKP2/ 228}
"Wrote NV Gadgil, the then Cabinet Minister for Works and Mines in the Nehru’s Cabinet, in his autobiography ‘Government from Inside’:
"“In truth, Nehru did not show much enthusiasm for Kashmir’s accession at the time…Both the Maharaja and [Meherchand] Mahajan [Premier of Kashmir] pressed for the acceptance of Kashmir’s accession, but Nehru would not move. [Nehru then was being guided by Sheikh Abdullah]…If our army had not received instructions to stop fighting before that date [1 January 1949], it would have cleared the raiders from whole of Kashmir…"
" ... Had Vallabhbhai [Patel ] been the man to handle the Kashmir question , he would have settled it long ago. At least, he would never have settled with a partial control of Jammu & Kashmir. He would have occupied the whole of the State and would never have allowed it to be elevated to international importance.”{Mak/ 445-6} {DFI} {HJS}"
"As per the article “Nehru’s Pacifism and the Failed Recapture of Kashmir”by Sandeep Bamzai in ORF:
"“To keep abreast with the developments in Kashmir, Nehru had dispatched his private secretary and ‘eyes and ears’Dwarka Nath Kachru to the frontline...
"“Some of Kachru's correspondence is extremely damaging, the prism far too revealing of how the Indian Army first pushed back the raiders and then vanquished the Pakistan Army regulars, even having them on the run... Previously unpublished correspondence [Nehru-Kachru] reveal that Nehru's pacifism—guided by the principles of fair play [?!] and the fact that India had referred the Kashmir matter to the United Nations erroneously on Lord Mountbatten's insistence—meant that the Indian Army was refused permission to go all the way and reclaim what eventually became PoK and the Northern Areas…”{ URL51}"
" ... Vallabhbhai Patel had opposed this move and was of the opinion that the army be given a free hand to oust the invaders from the valley. Nehru relented at the instance of Mountbatten. This led to a part of the valley, named Azad Kashmir by Pakistan, remaining permanently in the possession of Pakistan. Shockingly, this also led, over a period of time, to a large part of its strategically located portion being ceded by Pakistan to China.”{MG2/ 34/ L-685}
"“… throughout the Kashmir war, right from 22 October 1947 to 1 January 1949 (when a ceasefire was proclaimed that left Gilgit in Pakistan’s hands), Britain successfully ensured that Pakistan’s occupation of this region was not disturbed… Mountbatten was able to persuade Nehru that alongside preparations for military action he should seek the help of the UNO. He argued, ‘that UN would promptly direct Pakistan to withdraw the raiders, which would make war unnecessary.’ And Nehru believed him.”{MG2/ 40/ L-795}
"“India failed to exploit US support for its juridical position in Kashmir; indeed, it [India] made statements that undermined the American stand favourable to India.”{MG2/ 41/ L-811}"
................................................................................................
Blunder–24 :
Nehru’s Shocking Callousness in J& K
"Here is an account by a Hindu survivor who was a witness to the Mirpur tragedy in J& K, reproduced from the Swarajya Mag{Swa2}:
"“On November 23 [1947], Prem Nath Dogra and Professor Balraj Madhok met Brigadier Paranjape, the Brigade Commander of the Indian Army in Jammu, and requested him to send reinforcements to Mirpur [a strategic place where more than one hundred thousand Hindus and Sikhs were held up during first Pakistani aggression over Kashmir]. Paranjape shared their agony but expressed his helplessness because— as per instructions from the army generals— consultation with Sheikh Abdullah was mandatory in order to deploy Indian troops anywhere in Jammu and Kashmir. Paranjape also informed the delegation that Pandit Nehru would come to Srinagar on November 24 [1947] and they should meet him. On November 24 [1947], Pandit Dogra and Professor Madhok met Nehru and once again told him about the critical situation in Mirpur. They requested him to order immediate Indian troops reinforcement to the beleaguered Mirpur City. Professor Madhok was amazed at Pandit Nehru’s response— Pandit Nehru flew into a rage and yelled that they should talk to Sheikh Abdullah . Prof Madhok again told Pandit Nehru that Sheikh Abdullah was indifferent to the plight of the Jammu province and only Pandit Nehru could save the people of Mirpur. However, Pandit Nehru ignored all their entreaties and did not send any reinforcements to Mirpur.”{Swa2}
"Mirpur later fell to Pakistani artillery, and became part of PoK. The Hindus and Sikhs encountered a genocide, and worst orgies of rape and barbarity."
................................................................................................
Blunder–25 :
Article-370 thanks to Nehru
"Gopalaswami Aiyangar, appointed by Nehru, moved Article 306A— which later became Article 370 in the Indian Constitution— in the Constituent Assembly on 17 October 1949 guaranteeing special status to J& K. This was at the instance of Sheikh Abdullah , and with the concurrence of Nehru. Although many in the Constituent Assembly were not in favour of it, they consented, keeping in view Nehru’s wish, who was then the main person steering the J& K policy. Those not in favour included Ambedkar, Maulana Hasrat Mohani, Sardar Patel, and many others. ... "
" ... Of course, Article 370, labelled "Temporary provisions with respect to the State of Jammu and Kashmir" was conceived as a temporary arrangement, with hopes of a full integration in time to come. J& K State Constitution came into effect on 26 January 1957, comprising 158 Sections, of which Section 3 says, “The State of Jammu and Kashmir is and shall be an integral part of the Union of India.”"
" ... The proposal of Article 370 was torn to pieces by the Constituent Assembly. Ayyangar was the lone defender , and Maulana Azad was not able to effectively support him. In the debate, Maulana Hasrat Mohani of UP stated that while he was not opposed to all the concessions that were being granted to his friend Sheikh Abdullah, why make such discrimination; if all those concessions were to be granted to the Kashmir, why not to the Baroda ruler too.
"Dr Ambedkar was firmly opposed to it. Nehru had sent Abdullah to Dr Ambedkar to explain to him the position and to draft an appropriate Article for the Constitution. Ambedkar had remarked:
"“Mr Abdullah, you want that India should defend Kashmir, India should develop Kashmir and Kashmiris should have equal rights as the citizens of India, but you don’t want India and any citizen of India to have any rights in Kashmir. I am the Law minister of India. I cannot betray the interest of my country.”{SNS/ 106}"
" ... When the issue came up for discussion in the Constituent Assembly, Dr Ambedkar was so disgusted that he did not take part in it.
"Nehru, who was then abroad, rang up Patel and requested him to get the Article 370 through, and it was for that reason alone that Patel relented, as Sardar did not wish to embarrass Nehru in his absence. But Sardar commented, “Jawaharlal royega [Nehru will rue this].”{RG/ 517}
"Strangely, Nehru made a statement on Kashmir in 1952, when Sardar Patel was no more, “Sardar Patel was all the time dealing with these matters.”"
"Wrote V Shankar:
"“When I was working as his [Gopalaswami Ayyangar] joint secretary the self-same Article [370] came in for criticism in the Lok Sabha. In defence, Pandit Nehru took the stand that the Article was dealt with by Sardar in his absence and he was not responsible for it. I met Gopalaswami the same day evening as he was walking on the lawn of his residence. I questioned the bonafides of Pandit Nehru’s stand. Gopalaswami’s reaction was one of anger and he said, ‘It is an ill return to the Sardar for the magnanimity he had shown in accepting Panditji’s point of view against his better judgment.’He added, ‘I have told Jawaharlal this already.’”{ Shan2/ 63}”
“During the formation of Jammu & Kashmir Assembly, the Congress government gave the control of the State to Kashmir region by giving it 43 seats out of total 75 seats. It is to be noted, both by area and number of voters Jammu region should have got a higher share. No official census or surveys were done and government gifted more than 50% of assembly seats to Kashmir Valley thereby making it impossible for Jammu to play any pivotal role. To pass any law or abolish article 370 it should be passed in J& K assembly and by this scenario, it was made impossible. Till date, the unequal distribution of seats makes it difficult for other parties to form a government. The state politics is controlled by Kashmir Valley which in turn supports Pakistan and Separatist leaders.”{ URL109}
"The Article 370 is labelled “Temporary provisions with respect to the State of Jammu and Kashmir”, and is included in Chapter 21 of the Constitution dealing with “Temporary, Transitional & Special”provisions. This temporary provision should have been done away with long ago. Thanks to the PM Narendra Modi, HM Amit Shah, NDA, and BJP, this iniquitous Article 370 was finally dumped along with the Article 35A on 5-August-2019."
................................................................................................
Blunder–26 :
Article 35A for J& K, Again Thanks to Nehru
"Following the ‘1952 Delhi Agreement’between Nehru and the then J& K Premier Sheikh Abdullah, Article 35A was added to the Indian Constitution in a hush-hush manner (without routing it through the Parliament as required under Article 368) through a Presidential Order of 1954 (in exercise of the powers conferred by Article 370) on the advice of the Union Government headed by Nehru empowering the J& K state to define ‘Permanent Residents’(PR) of the state, and accord them rights and privileges denied to other citizens of India.
"Under the above provisions ‘Permanent Resident Certificates’(PRC) are issued to the Permanent Residents of J& K. Among the debilitating and discriminating provisions for the Indian citizens who don’t hold PRCs are that they can’t own immovable property in J& K, they can’t get jobs in the J& K govt, they can’t get admission in a college run by the J& K govt, nor avail of any scholarships. Also, if a woman who holds a PRC marries a man who doesn’t hold a PRC then her children and husband can’t exercise any rights in the state, are not entitled to PRC, and can’t inherit her immovable property in J& K.
"This Article 35A, along with the Article 370, had been at the root of non-complete integration of J& K with India, and hindered development of the region, as outsiders were handicapped in investing in the region.
"The Article had since been challenged in the Supreme Court on several strong grounds, some of which are as follows. (a) It is illegal because it was added to the Constitution without following the proper, laid-down (under Article 368) procedure of the Parliamentary route. (b) It violated Article 14: Equality before the Law. (c) It violated women’s right to marry as per their choice.
"It is ironical that Article 35A was supposed to be an extension of Article 35 which dealt with the ‘Fundamental Rights’when 35A actually violates the fundamental rights of an overwhelming majority. Curiously, 35A was not listed after Article 35 in the Constitution, but was included in the Appendix.
"A telling example of the consequences of the iniquitous Article 35A was the plight of about 200 Valmiki families brought to J& K as ‘Safai Karamcharis’ (Sanitary workers) in the 1950s on the promise of grant of PRC. However, even after many decades PRCs had not been granted to them, and to their children. Many, who had since acquired required educational qualifications, couldn’t apply for government jobs in the absence of PRC. They could vote for the Lok Sabha elections but not for J& K legislature, or for the local bodies. Their colony had not been regularised. Another painful example was that about two lakh Hindu-Sikh refugees who migrated to J& K from West Pakistan in 1947 after Partition had not received PRC, and they could neither acquire immovable property in J& K, nor avail of education and other facilities in J& K, nor get government jobs! They were Indian nationals, but not citizens of the J& K state. Their cry for justice had gone unheard for decades.
"The worst thing about the Article was that although passed on 14 May 1954, it was made applicable retrospectively from 14 May 1944, well before independence! Hindus from Pakistan entered Jammu in 1947 after partition, and were thus handicapped, thanks to this Article—demonstrates how insensitive Nehru was to their plight. Had they been Muslims Nehru’s stand would have been different and accommodating—like it was in case of the Muslims from East Bengal.
"It is significant that in 1952 Sheikh Abdullah granted citizenship to thousands of Uighur Muslims from Xinjiang in northwest China; and in 1959 Bakshi Ghulam Mohammad granted citizenship to thousands of Tibetan Muslims, even as Hindus of Partition continued to remain stateless refugees— and the Indian ecosystem, media, Nehru, and the Congress remained mute witnesses.{URL89}
"Thanks to the PM Narendra Modi, HM Amit Shah, NDA, and BJP, this iniquitous Article 35A was finally dumped along with the Article 370 on 5-August-2019."
................................................................................................
Blunder–27 :
Nehru’s Blood Brother Who Deceived
" ... Sheikh Abdullah’s grandfather was a Hindu Kashmiri Pandit by the name of Ragho Ram Koul, who was converted to Islam in 1890 and was named Sheikh Mohammed Abdullah, the name his grandson took. Sheikh Abdullah married Akbar Jahan in 1933. She was daughter of Michael Harry Nedou and his Kashmiri wife. Michael owned a hotel at the tourist resort of Gulmarg—his father was a European proprietor of a chain of hotels in India including Nedous Hotel in Srinagar.
"Sheikh Abdullah did MSc in Chemistry from Aligarh Muslim University in 1930. It was at the University that he became politically active. He formed the Muslim Conference, Kashmir's first political party, in 1932, and later renamed it to National Conference in 1938. The Muslim Conference founded by Sheikh Abdullah was reportedly communal: some say that he later changed its name to National Conference only for tactical reasons. Sheikh Abdullah was a protagonist of Kashmiri nationalism linked to Islam; and his role model was Dr Mohammad Iqbal, a scion of another Kashmiri Pundit convert to Islam—like himself—who propounded the ideology of Pakistan way back in 1930."
" ... Sheikh Abdullah had launched the ‘Quit Kashmir’ agitation against the J& K Maharajah in May 1946 leading to his arrest. The agitation, felt most Congress leaders, was opportunist and malevolent, and driven by selfish consideration of self-promotion— after all, Maharaja was not an outsider like the British. Sheikh Abdullah indulged in such acts knowing he would receive tacit support of Nehru. Although Sheikh Abdullah had tried to project his fight against the Maharaja as a fight against the feudal order, and a fight for the people of J& K— something the naïve, gullible, socialist Nehru believed— in reality his purpose was communal, to get Muslim support, and grab power.
"Alarmed at the acts of Sheikh Abdullah, and Nehru’s support to him, the Kashmiri Pandits had telegrammed Sardar Patel on 4 June 1947:
"“The statements of Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru concerning Kashmir affairs being entirely unverified and tendentious are universally condemned and resented by Hindus of Kashmir. By encouraging Sheikh Abdullah’s Fascist and Communal Programme he is doing great disservice to the people of Kashmir. His [Abdullah] unwarranted and wrong statements about facts and demolishing mosques inflame Muslims against Hindus.”{ Mak/ 406-7} {BK/ 374}"
"Sheikh Abdullah had endeared himself to Nehru—who had called him ‘my blood-brother’— and others by projecting an anti-feudal, democratic, leftist, pro-India , pro-Congress , and above all, a secular image: perhaps to get Maharaja Hari Singh out of the way, and then to sit in his place; for his later actions belied that image, and disappointed and shocked Nehru. ... "
"Wrote MO Mathai:
"“When Feroze Gandhi [Indira Gandhi’s husband] heard of the arrest of Sheikh Abdullah in 1953 he came to my study beaming. He said that Bakshi did a foolish thing in arresting Sheikh Abdullah, and added that Bakshi should have had Sheikh Abdullah taken to the top of a lonely hill on the Azad Kashmir border , pushed down and shot, and published the news that Abdullah had fled to Pakistan.” {Mac2/ L-5660}
"Sheikh Abdullah was released on 8 April 1964. Nehru passed away on 27 May 1964. Sheikh Abdullah was later interned from 1965 to 1968. He was exiled from Kashmir in 1971 for 18 months. Consequent to the Indira-Sheikh accord of 1974, he became the Chief Minister of J& K and remained in that position till his death in 1982."
"BN Mullik, who was the then Deputy Director of the IB— the Intelligence Bureau— with charge of Kashmir, and later head of the IB, wrote in his book, ‘My Years with Nehru: Kashmir’{BNM2} ... "
"“The Sardar then gave me his own views about Sheikh Abdullah. He apprehended that Sheikh Abdullah would ultimately let down India and Jawaharlal Nehru and would come out in his real colours; his antipathy to the Maharaja was not really an antipathy to a ruler as such, but to the Dogras in general and with the Dogras he identified the rest of the majority community in India. In his slow voice, he firmly told me that my assessment of Sheikh Abdullah was wrong, though my assessment of public opinion in Kashmir valley about accession was probably correct. After having pointed out what he considered to be my error in judgment, he was, however, good enough to say that he agreed with my views that I should submit only independent assessments to the Government and not tailor them to suit the known or anticipated views of particular leaders. He said that I would soon discover my error but, at the same time, he complimented me on the way the report had been written and the pains I had taken over it. This was the greatness of the Sardar. Whilst disagreeing with my views, he recognised my right to express them…"
" ... Events, as they turned out subsequently, proved that the Sardar was right and I was not. Within three years we found ourselves fighting against Sheikh Abdullah. Sardar Patel was dead by then. ... "
................................................................................................
Blunder–28 :
Wanting Maharaja to Lick his Boots
"Most unwisely, while Nehru had treated J& K Maharaja Hari Singh ignominiously, he gave all his support to Sheikh Abdullah, little realising that but for the Maharaja’s signature on the Instrument of Accession, J& K could not be a part of India.
"When Abdullah launched the ‘abusive and mischievous’{ BK/ 375} Quit Kashmir agitation against the Maharajah in May 1946 leading to his arrest (Blunder# 27), Nehru decided to go to the Valley in June 1946 to free Abdullah. Though prohibited to enter the State, Nehru decided to defy the ban. He proclaimed that he wanted to take on the autocratic and the feudal rule that prevailed in Kashmir. Autocratic and feudal rule prevailed in the other 547 Princely States too that ultimately merged with India: Did Nehru go to any of those 547 states to similarly protest—especially the recalcitrant Nizam-ruled state of Hyderabad, where Hindus had been brutally at the receiving end of the Razakars? Nehru did not seem to realise that the support of the princes and their collaboration would be indispensable in the coming months for persuading them to accede to India. To take on the Maharaja at that stage, and that too as Congress president, was politically unwise. Sardar Patel and others tried to dissuade him, yet he went. ... "
"Most undiplomatically, even Gandhi, when he went for his only visit to Kashmir in 1947, pointedly rejected the hospitality of the Maharaja, and remained the guest of the National Conference of Abdullah. Rebuffed thus by Gandhi, having been consistently rubbed the wrong way by Nehru, and experiencing the hostility of Nehru towards him over the last many months, and watching the commitment being shown to his arch enemy, Abdullah, why Hari Singh, anybody in his place—Nehru himself, were he in Maharaja's shoes—would have hesitated to accede to India. Hari Singh realised he would have no future with Nehru and Gandhi at the helm. Pakistan he surely did not wish to join. But he did not relish the insistence from Nehru (when Maharaja offered accession in September 1947) to first hand over power to Sheikh Abdullah—as if he were some foreign power who should hand over power to a native. So, the Maharaja started considering his option for independence, which was legally permissible."
"If Nehru had dealt with Hari Singh wisely looking to the political options , like Sardar Patel had done in respect of all the other 547 Princely States, had Nehru not allowed his personal bias to dominate, had Nehru accommodated Maharaja suitably, had Nehru convinced him that his interests would be suitably protected if he joined India, Hari Singh may not have dithered and would have signed the Instrument of Accession well before 15 August 1947; and J& K would never have been an issue!
"Apart from, “I thought he [Nehru] wanted to make the Maharaja lick his boots...”{MND/47}; Mountbatten had made another observation: “I am glad to say that Nehru has not been put in charge of the new [Princely] States Department, which would have wrecked everything. Patel, who is essentially a realist and very sensible, is going to take it over... Even better news is that VP Menon is to be the Secretary.”{BK2/ 91}
"States V Shankar in his book, ‘My Reminiscences of Sardar Patel’:{Shan}"
" ... Sardar did not trust Sheikh nor did he share Pandit Nehru's assessment of his influence in the State. He felt that our case in Jammu and Kashmir had to be met on the basis of the Maharaja executing the Instrument of Accession, the thought of antagonising the one on whose signature on that document alone we could justify our legal case in Jammu and Kashmir was distressing to him…“Sardar also felt it would be in the long-term interests of India to utilise the Maharaja's undoubted influence among the various sections of the people to force a permanent bond between the State and India... He [Sardar] was doubtful if the weakening of the administrative authority by the Maharaja to the extent demanded by the Sheikh was in the interests of the State and India. He felt that the last thing that should occur at that critical period was for the Maharaja and the Sheikh to work at cross-purposes with each other or for the already disillusioned people of the State to harbour doubts about the future of the Government or the Maharaja…
"“Sardar Patel also came into conflict with Pt Nehru and Gopalaswami Ayyangar owing to the personal rift between the Maharaja and Sheikh Abdullah. It can scarcely be denied that the latter wanted the Maharaja’s head on a charger and taking advantage of the wrong assessment by Pandit Nehru and Gopalaswami Ayyangar … he literally wanted to dictate his own terms…”"
................................................................................................
Blunder–29 :
Kashmiri Pandits vs. Kashmiri Pandits
"Wrote B Krishna in his book ‘Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel’:
"“Nehru’s bias in favour of Abdullah was evident from what he said in August 1945 at the annual session of the National Conference at Sopore in the Valley, ‘If non-Muslims want to live in Kashmir, they should join the National Conference or bid goodbye to the country... If Pandits do not join it, no safeguards and weightages will protect them.’”{BK/ 374}"
" ... Half a million Kashmiri Pandits would, some forty-five years later, pay for Nehru’s sins, and be ethnically cleansed out of Kashmir— their home for thousands of years.
"Sheikh Abdullah himself was a Kashmiri Pandit convert. The second-generation-convert Sir Allama Muhammad Iqbal, one of the main promoters of the idea of Pakistan, had a major influence on Jinnah in gradually turning him from a liberal, advocating Hindu-Muslim unity, into a bigot. As per the article “Iqbal’s Hindu Relations”by Khushwant Singh in ‘The Telegraph’of 30 June 2007{ KS2}, Iqbal’s (1877–1938) father was one Rattan Lal Sapru, a Kashmiri Pandit. He was the revenue collector of the Afghan governor of Kashmir. He was caught embezzling money. The governor offered him a choice: he should either convert to Islam or be hanged. Rattan Lal chose to stay alive. He was named Nur Mohammad after conversion. The Saprus disowned Rattan Lal and severed all connections with him."
................................................................................................
Blunder–30 :
Sidelining the One Who Could have Tackled J& K
"The matter of Princely States was under the States-Ministry, which was under the charge of Sardar Patel. Patel had ably dealt with the complexity of over 500 Princely States. As such J& K should also have been left to Patel. However, Nehru, as Prime Minister, had decided to handle J& K himself. Without the concurrence of Sardar, and without even the courtesy of informing him, Nehru appointed N Gopalaswami Ayyangar, a former Dewan of J& K and a constitutional expert, as a Cabinet Minister without portfolio, to assist him (Nehru) in handling Kashmir. ... "
" ... Patel wrote back to Gopalaswami the next day on 23 December 1947: “I would rather withdraw my letter and let you deal with matters as you deem best than give you cause for annoyance.” Meanwhile, Nehru , when he became aware of Patel’s above letter of 22 December 1947, chose to write a rather harsh and bossy letter to Patel on 23 December 1947{Arpi5} ... "
" ... Patel wrote to Nehru on 23 December 1947 {Arpi5}:
"“Your letter of today has been received just now at 7 p.m. and I am writing immediately to tell you this. It has caused me considerable pain. Before I received your letter I had already written to Gopalaswami a letter of which a copy is enclosed herewith. If I had known (that) he had sent you copies of our correspondence I would have sent to you a copy of my letter to him straightaway. In any case, your letter makes it clear to me that I must not or at least cannot continue as a Member of Government and hence I am hereby tendering my resignation. I am grateful to you for the courtesy and kindness shown to me during the period of office which was a period of considerable strain.”{RG/ 447}
"Apparently, the above letter was not sent at Gandhi’s instance, upon Mountbatten’s advice that without Patel the Government could not be run.{BK2/ 162}
"Disenchanted and frustrated with Nehru’s hubris, and his improper and thoughtless ways, Patel expressed to Gandhi his wish to dissociate himself from the government in December 1947 and again in January 1948."
"Nehru wrote a long note to Gandhi on 6 January 1948 seeking his arbitration for his differences with Patel. Gandhi referred the letter to Patel. Patel responded to Gandhi:
"“I have tried my best to appreciate what he [Nehru] says on the subject [Hindu-Muslim relations], but howsoever much I have tried to understand it on the twin basis of democracy and Cabinet responsibility, I have found myself unable to agree with his conception of the Prime Minister’s duties and functions. That conception, if accepted, would raise the Prime Minister to the position of a virtual dictator, for he claims ‘full freedom to act when and how he chooses’. This in my opinion is wholly opposed to democratic and Cabinet system of government. The Prime Minister’s position, according to my conception, is certainly pre-eminent; he is first among equals. However, he has no overriding powers over his colleagues; if he had any, a Cabinet and Cabinet responsibility would be superfluous…”{LMS/ 177}
"Wrote Durga Das: “Two days earlier [before Gandhi’s assassination on 30 January 1948] I had met Azad and learnt from him that tension between Nehru and Patel had mounted to a point where the Prime Minister had angrily thumped the table at a Cabinet meeting and said: ‘Patel, you do what you like. I will not have it.’ ... "
"Notably, even the Deputy Prime Minister of J& K between 1947-53, Bakhshi Ghulam Muhammad of the National Conference, had become so disturbed and alarmed at the way the J& K issue was being messed up that he met Sardar Patel and requested:
"“Why do you [Sardar Patel] not take over the problem and finish it like Hyderabad? Patel replied cryptically : You go to your friend [Nehru] and tell him to keep his hands off Kashmir problem for two months and I will undertake to solve it.”{Mak/ 440-41}
"Wrote Rajmohan Gandhi in his book ‘Patel– A Life’:
"“Patel was as strongly against the reference to the UN and preferred ‘timely action’ on the ground, but Kashmir was Jawaharlal’s baby by now and Vallabhbhai did not insist on his prescriptions when, at the end of December, Nehru announced that he had decided to go to the UN. Jawaharlal obtained Mahatma’s reluctant consent... Patel’s misgivings were amply fulfilled after India invited the UN’s assistance...”{RG/ 448}"
"Sardar Patel had told Air Marshal Thomas Elmhirst:
"“If all the decisions rested on me, I think that I would be in favour of extending this little affair in Kashmir to a full-scale war with Pakistan… Let us get it over once and for all, and settle down as a united continent.”{BK2/ 157}
"Communist MN Roy, no friend of Patel, was also of the opinion that had Kashmir affair remained with Patel, he would have solved it soon after partition. He wrote in “Men I Met” on Patel:
"“Could Sardar Patel have had his way on the Kashmir issue, India would not be today spending fifty percent of her revenue on military budget… the Sardar had no choice but to play the game, but one could be sure that he loathes the stupidity clothes in the glamour of popular heroes [hint on Nehru]…”{Roy/ 17}"
................................................................................................
Blunder–31 :
Junagadh: Sardar Patel vs. Nehru–Mountbatten
"Junagadh is to the south-west of Kathiawar. Its neighbours were all Indian States, and to its south and south-west is the Arabian Sea. Junagadh had no geographical contiguity with Pakistan. Its distance by sea from Port Veraval to Karachi is about 300 miles . Out of its population of about 6.7 lacs, 82% were Hindu.
"The people of the state desired merger with India. However, the Nawab signed the Instrument of Accession in favour of Pakistan on 15 August 1947. He was aided by his diwan, Sir Shahnawaz Bhutto— father of the late Prime Minister of Pakistan Zulfikar Ali Bhutto— who was close to Jinnah. The accession was kept a closely guarded secret by Pakistan. Jinnah had reckoned that if sufficient time passed before the matter became known, India would accept the accession as a fait accompli. There were only some rumours; and India made an enquiry with the Pakistan High Commissioner to India in the matter. There was no response. A reminder on 6 September 1947 also elicited no response. It was only on 13 September 1947— about a month after the accession— that India was informed that Pakistan had accepted Junagadh’s accession and had also signed the Standstill Agreement.
"The British knew of the accession earlier, but had kept quiet. Mountbatten promptly recognised Junagadh as Pakistani territory, and advised so to the King in his report. He even stated in his report:
"“My chief concern as Governor-General was to prevent the Government of India from committing itself on the Junagadh issue to an act of war against what was now Pakistan territory.”(BK2/ 119}
"Mountbatten revealed: “Pakistan is in no position even to declare war, since I happen to know that their military commanders [British, at the top level, at that time] have put it to them in writing that a declaration of war with India can only end in the inevitable and ultimate defeat of Pakistan.”{BK2/ 120}
"Mountbatten was least concerned that Junagadh, a Hindu-majority state (which was not even a border- state), had acceded to Pakistan. In sharp contrast, he was much concerned that J& K had acceded to India, and played all his dirty games to ensure that the accession became disputed by fooling the gullible Nehru.
"After Junagadh had acceded to Pakistan Mountbatten wanted to make sure India did not use its armed forces to occupy Junagadh. He played his tricks on Nehru and Gandhi to ensure the same. Expectedly, Nehru, the PM, remained silent! Jinnah had correctly assessed that an ever indecisive and vacillating Nehru would only indulge in his usual “international situation and international reaction” high-talk, but would, again as usual, soft-pedal the whole matter in order to avoid taking any decision or action.
"As for Lord Mountbatten, the cunning Jinnah knew Mountbatten would not allow India to take any precipitate action. All that Jinnah wanted was that there should be no physical action from India’s side. Gandhi, being a pacifist, and more concerned about his “Mahatma” label and its associated brand of “non-violence”, never considered appropriate action to gain back Junagadh. Given Nehru-Gandhi inaction, only Sardar Patel could have been the rescuer.
"“He [Sardar Patel] rejected Nehru’s soft-pedalling in the suggestion that ‘it would be desirable for us to send a message to the British Government about the Junagadh affair’with a polite comment: ‘I am not quite sure whether we need say anything to the British Government at this stage.’Patel was not willing to let India revert to the pre-Independence years and allow the British to play their earlier partisan role which was pro-Muslim and pro-Jinnah.”{ BK/ 359}"
"All of Mountbatten’s diversionary tactics failed to work on Sardar Patel. Mountbatten tried his options one after the other, as each failed. He counselled Patel on one premise after another: Adverse world opinion! Needless war! War when so many urgent tasks demanded attention! Why not refer the matter to the UNO? If at all necessary, use only the Central Reserve Police, not the Indian Army!
"Sardar Patel rejected all of Mountbatten’s options and suggestions, and went in for military operations to settle the issue once and for all. That required guts—something that Nehru and Gandhi lacked. Patel did not let the matter linger, like in cases of Kashmir or Hyderabad. Patel tactfully kept Mountbatten in the dark , and moved troops before Mountbatten came to know. Kathiawar Defence Force, a newly created command of Indian troops, was first deployed in the territory adjoining Junagadh, and then occupied Babariawad and Mangrol, which Junagadh had claimed as its territory.
"Sardar planned and executed the Junagadh operation so well that the Nawab of Junagadh fled to Pakistan on 26 October 1947 leaving the state to Shahnawaz Bhutto, who, facing collapse of the administration, invited India on 7 November 1947 to intervene, and left for Pakistan on 8 November 1947. The Indian army moved in on 9 November 1947, and Sardar Patel arrived to a grand reception on the Diwali day of 13 November 1947."
" ... Sardar Patel pointed out that by sending its armed personnel into Babariawad, Junagadh had committed an act of war against India. The princely state which had acceded to India had a right to expect that India would protect them against aggression. A weak posture would undermine India’s standing with the Princely States and would have repercussions in Hyderabad, where the Nizam was holding out against accession. In an effort to head him off from this course of action, Mountbatten suggested lodging a complaint to the United Nations against Junagadh’s act of aggression... Patel observed that possession was nine-tenths of the law and he would in no circumstances lower India’s position by going to any court as a plaintiff. The Governor-General asked him whether he was prepared to take the risk of an armed clash in Kathiawar leading to war with Pakistan. The Deputy Prime Minister [Sardar Patel] was unmoved. He said he was ready to take the risk...”{DG/ 27}"
"If Sardar Patel had not taken the action that he did in Junagadh, and allowed the status quo— its accession to Pakistan on 15 August 1947— to continue, India would have faced difficult situation in Hyderabad. Indeed Kasim Rizvi, the leader of Hyderabad’s Razakar, had questioned: “Why is the Sardar thundering about Hyderabad when he cannot control even little Junagadh?”{BK/ 358}"
................................................................................................
Blunder–32 :
Would-have-been Pakistan-II (Hyderabad)
" ... Nizam allied himself with Hyder Ali of Mysore in 1767. Their joint forces were defeated by the British in 1768, and Hyderabad State again came under the paramountcy of the British. In 1799 the Nizam helped East India Company defeat Tipu Sultan. Nizam Mir Usman Ali Khan, the seventh Nizam, ruled the State at the time of Independence. He was granted the title ‘Faithful Ally of the British Government’.
"At the time of Independence, Hyderabad was a premier State, with an area of about 2,14,000 square kilometres, population of 16 million, and an annual revenue of 26 crores. It had its own coinage, paper currency and stamps. 85% of its population of 1.6 crores was Hindu. However, the Police, the Army, and the Civil Services were almost completely the preserve of the Muslims. Even in its Legislative Assembly set up in 1946 the Muslims were in majority, despite forming a mere 15% of the population.
"Soon after the announcement of the 3-June-1947-Plan or the Mountbatten-Plan of the partition of India, Nizam declared on 12 June 1947 that he would neither join India nor Pakistan, but would remain independent. He wanted to secure the Dominion Status for his State from the British, like the one proposed for partitioned India and Pakistan, although the same was not allowed for any Princely State.
"A fanatical Muslim organisation, Ittehad-ul-Muslimeen, headed by one Kasim Razvi had been fomenting trouble. They came to be known as the Razakars. At the instance of Kasim Razvi, Nizam appointed Mir Laik Ali as Prime Minister and president of his Executive Council. Laik Ali was a Hyderabadi businessman, who had also been a representative of Pakistan at the UN till September 1947. With this the Hyderabad Government came virtually under Razvi, who later met Sardar Patel and VP Menon in Delhi to tell that Hyderabad would never surrender its independence, and that Hindus were happy under Nizam; but if India insisted on a plebiscite, it is the sword which would decide the final result. Razvi further told Sardar Patel, “We shall fight and die to the last men,”to which Patel responded, “How can I stop you from committing suicide?”{ RG/ 476}"
"In his speeches in March 1948 and later, Kasim Razvi exhorted the Muslims “to march forward with Koran in one hand and a sword in the other to hound out the enemy.” He declared that “the 45 million Muslims in India would be our fifth columnists in any showdown”{BK2/138}. Razvi challenged that “if the Indian Union attempted to enter Hyderabad, it would find nothing but the bones and ashes of 15 million Hindus residing in the State.”{BK/408}. He boasted on 12 April 1948 that “the day is not far off when the waves of bay of Bengal would be washing the feet of our Sovereign”{BK/409}; and that he would “hoist the Asaf Jahi flag on the Red Fort in India”. Razakars continued their criminal anti-Hindu activities.{BK/ 409}
"At the suggestion of his British and Muslim advisers, the Nizam had planned out several ways to strengthen his position: acquiring port facilities at Goa from Portugal; getting approval for a rail-corridor from Hyderabad to Goa; taking mine-leases in mineral-rich Bastar; readying more air-fields; acquiring weapons; recruiting more Muslims in the army; recruiting British soldiers; getting Muslims from other states to move into Hyderabad state; converting Dalits to Islam; unleashing militia comprising local Muslims, Pathans and Arabs to intimidate non-Muslims; scaring away Hindus out of Hyderabad state; and so on. Mir Laik Ali had bluffed and boasted: “If the Union Government takes any action against Hyderabad, a hundred thousand men are ready to join our army. We also have a hundred bombers in Saudi Arabia ready to bomb Bombay.”{ URL16}"
"Like their pro-Pakistan attitude, many in the Press in Britain and many prominent British leaders were pro-Hyderabad and anti-India. Hyderabad had been their most faithful ally, and they wanted it to be independent and pro-Britain. They did not care if it was a cancer right in the heart of India and had predominant Hindu population of over 85%. Their stand and support, and that of Pakistan, emboldened the Razakars and the Nizam.
"While Mountbatten had nothing to say on the grossly unethical, illegal and even barbarous acts of Pakistani raiders in J& K, and of Razakars in Hyderabad; he was liberal in his moral lectures to India, and wanted India “to adopt ethical and correct behaviour towards Hyderabad, and to act in such a way as could be defended before the bar of world opinion.”{ BK2/ 129}"
"What would the world think? What Mountbatten thought? What about his own image? These seemed to weigh more with Nehru. ... "
" ... Despite Sardar’s objections, a Standstill (status quo) Agreement was signed between India and Hyderabad in November 1947 for a year. In the subsequent months, Hyderabad loaned rupees twenty crores to Pakistan, placed orders for arms elsewhere, and stepped up its nefarious, anti-Hindu activities through Razakars."
" ... Mountbatten too tried, but failed. Finally, his tenure over, Mountbatten left India on 21 June 1948. But, before leaving, he tried once more to get very favourable terms for the Nizam by getting Sardar Patel to sign a document as a farewell gift to him. Sardar signed knowing the stubborn Nizam would reject those terms. And, Nizam did reject the document! The moment that happened Sardar declared that thenceforth Hyderabad would be treated on par with other states, and not as a special state. KM Munshi recalled that a day after Mountbatten had left he had called up Patel, who had responded cheerfully: “Well Munshi, how are you? Is everything all right? What about your Nizam?”KM Munshi was then the Agent-General of India in Hyderabad State. When Munshi asked Patel about a query he had received on behalf of the Nizam on the “Mountbatten Settlement”, Patel shot back, laughing: “Tell him [Nizam] that the Settlement has gone to England. The terms and the talks which Lord Mountbatten had have gone with him. Now the settlement with the Nizam will have to be on the lines of settlements with the other states.”{ BK2/ 140-41}"
"One JV Joshi, in his letter of resignation from the Nizam’s Executive Council, wrote that law and order had completely broken down in many districts and that the Nizam’s Police—comprising almost exclusively of Muslims— was colluding with the Razakars in loot, arson and murder of Hindus, and molestation and rape of their females. He stated having himself witnessed such scenes and even scenes where Brahmins were killed and their eyes gouged out. It was estimated that besides the Hyderabad State forces of over 40,000 , there were about 2,00,000 Razakars with small arms, and a number of Pathans lately imported. It became morally difficult for India to remain a mute witness to the mayhem, that turned worse by August 1948."
"Wrote MKK Nayar: “Indian Army’s C-in-C was an Englishman named Bucher and the Southern Command was headed by Lieutenant General Rajendra Singhji . Patel knew that Nehru would not agree to military intervention, but anyway sent an instruction through VP Menon to Rajendra Singhji to be ready to act if the need arose. Major General Chaudhry commanded the First Armoured Division which was stationed in the South and Rajendra Singhji decided to keep it ready for war.”{MKN}
"In the Cabinet meeting on 8 September 1948, while the States Ministry under Sardar Patel pressed for occupation of Hyderabad to put an end to the chaos there; Nehru strongly opposed the move and was highly critical of the attitude of the States Ministry [under Sardar Patel].
"MKK Nayar also wrote: “Patel believed that the army should be sent to put an end to the Nizam’s highhandedness. At about that time, the Nizam sent an emissary to Pakistan and transferred a large sum of money from his Government’s account in London to Pakistan. At a cabinet meeting, Patel described these happenings and advised that the army may be sent to end the terror-regime in Hyderabad. Nehru who was usually calm, peaceful and good mannered, lost his self-control and said, ‘You are a total communalist and I shall not accept your advice.’Patel remained unfazed and left the room with his papers. He stopped attending cabinet meetings and even speaking with Nehru after that.”{ MKN}"
"Nehru was so opposed to the use of force against Hyderabad that after Patel got the same approved by the cabinet Nehru called his cabinet colleague Dr Shyama Prasad Mukherjee and remonstrated with him for supporting Patel on the issue, and warned him [being a Bengali] that India’s action would lead to retaliation by Pakistan, which was likely to invade West Bengal, and bomb Calcutta. Unexpected by Nehru, Mukherjee nonchalantly responded that the people of Bengal and Calcutta had enough patriotism to suffer and sacrifice for the national cause, and would be overjoyed when they learn that General JN Chaudhuri, a Bengali, had conquered Hyderabad!""
"Jinnah died two days before— on 11 September 1948. In view of the same, the British C-in-C General Bucher had requested for postponement of the operations , but Patel had overruled him: British were looking for ways to save and support Hyderabad. General Bucher had even rung up early morning at 3am HM Patel and others on the D-day of 13 September 1948 to have the operations cancelled or postponed."
"The operations commenced on 13 September 1948, and after about four days of operations lasting 108 hours{VPM1/256}, the Hyderabad Army surrendered, with Major-General El Edroos, commander of the Hyderabad Army, asking his troops to yield; and Major-General JN Chaudhuri entered Hyderabad city on 18 September 1948, taking charge as Military Governor. His administration continued till December 1949 . Kasim Razvi was arrested on 19 September 1948."
................................................................................................
................................................................................................
................................................................................................
................................................................................................
................................................
................................................
April 27, 2022 - April 28, 2022.
................................................
................................................
................................................................................................
................................................................................................
................................................................................................
................................................................................................
Chapter - III
EXTERNAL SECURITY
................................................................................................
................................................................................................
Blunder–33 :
Erasure of Tibet as a Nation
"This is our only foreign debt, and some day we must pay the Mantzu and the Tibetans for the provisions we were obliged to take from them.
"—Mao Zedong, when he had passed through the border regions of Tibet during the Long March
"In the 8th century, Tibetan King Trisong Dentsen had defeated China, which was forced to pay an annual tribute to Tibet. To put an end to mutual fighting, China and Tibet signed a treaty in 783 CE where boundaries were confirmed , and each country promised to respect the territorial sovereignty of the other. This fact is engraved on the stone monument at the entrance of the Jokhang temple, which still stands today. The engraving is both in Chinese and in Tibetan.{DL/ 45-47}
"I [Sardar Patel] have been eating my heart out because I have not been able to make him [Nehru] see the dangers ahead. China wants to establish its hegemony over South-East Asia. We cannot shut our eyes to this because imperialism is appearing in a new garb... He is being misled by his courtiers. I have grave apprehensions about the future.
"—Durga Das, reporting his talks with Sardar Patel{DD/ 305}
"Tibet is called the Roof of the World because of the height at which it is situated. Lhasa, its capital, is at an altitude of 3658 meters, that is, 12001 feet. To give a comparative idea, altitude of Srinagar is 1730 meters, and that of Matheran 800 meters. That is, Lhasa is more than twice as high as Srinagar, and more than four times as high as Matheran. Tibet is separated from China by the mountain ranges to the east of the Tibetan Plateau and from Nepal by the towering Himalayas. Nepal and Bhutan are to its south; India to its south and west; and China is to its east and north-east. Amdo, Kham, and U-Tsang are its three main regions.
"The Tibetan Plateau is geographically grand—surrounded by range upon range of extremely high altitude mountains. Tibet is the source for many of Asia’s greatest rivers— Indus, Sutlej, Brahmaputra (called Yarlung Tsampo in Tibet), Salween, Mekong, Yangtse, and Yellow river."
" ... Tibet qualified as a distinct nation, without a shred of doubt, and had indeed been a distinct nation historically, till forcibly annexed by China in 1950. If Tibet does not or did not qualify as a separate nation, then China too, and indeed most nations also don’t qualify as separate nations. Tibet has a recorded history of nationhood extending back to the second century BCE.
"In fact, the Chinese, that is the Han Chinese, themselves never regarded Tibetans as their part, they used to call them by the epithet “shi tsang” meaning barbarians. The Ming Dynasty that ruled China between 1368 and 1644 labelled Tibetans as “foreigners” in their chronicles. If Tibet had a special relationship it was with Mongolia, and not with China. Mongolian rulers were influenced by the Tibetan Buddhism."
"7th to 9th Century CE
"Between the seventh and the ninth century, the Tibetans often bested the Chinese Tang dynasty in battle. During this time, the marriage of Princess Wen Cheng of China and King Gampo of Tibet was viewed as a strategic move to achieve co-operation and peace between Tibet and China.
"8th Century CE
"In the 8th century, Tibetan King Trisong Dentsen had defeated China, which was forced to pay an annual tribute to Tibet. To put an end to mutual fighting, China and Tibet signed a treaty in 783 CE where boundaries were confirmed, and each country promised to respect the territorial sovereignty of the other. This fact is engraved on the stone monument at the entrance of the Jokhang temple, which still stands today. The engraving is both in Chinese and in Tibetan.{ DL/ 45-47}
"10th and 11th Century CE
"Buddhism came to Tibet in the tenth century. The Tsurphu Monastery, home of the Karmapa school of Buddhism, was founded in 1155.
"12th Century CE
"During the Yuan dynasty, the Mongol leader, Chenghiz (Genghis) Khan, conquered most of Eurasia including China and Tibet. Thus, going by the Chinese logic, instead of China claiming a right to Tibet, Mongolia could assert claim to both China and Tibet.
"During the tripartite Shimla Convention of Britain, Tibet, and China in 1914, on the issue of Outer and Inner Tibet, Chinese representative Ivan Chen, claiming China’s rights over Tibet, had advanced the funny plea that Chenghiz Khan had ruled Tibet implying Chenghiz Khan was Chinese, when actually he was a Mongol who had ruled both over China and Tibet!
"13th Century CE
"After the death of Chenghiz Khan in 1227, the Tibetans stopped sending tribute to the Mongol Empire. In retaliation, Prince Godan, the grandson of Chenghiz Khan, invaded Tibet in 1240. Sakya Pandita was the outstanding Buddhist Lama at the time. He was the leader of the Sakya school of Tibetan Buddhism. Godan sent him gifts and invited him to come to his capital Kokonor to formally surrender Tibet to the Mongols. Sakya Pandita went there in 1246. Prince Godan received various initiation rites and the Sakya sect of Tibetan Buddhism became the religion of the ruling line of the Mongol Khans. Sakya Pandita was appointed the Viceroy of Tibet by the Mongol court in 1249. First North China, and then Tibet were incorporated into the Mongol Empire, which was later inherited by the Yuan Dynasty founded by Kublai Khan in 1271. Sakya Pandita was succeeded by Drogön Chögyal Phagpa in 1253 at the Mongol court.
"13– 14th Century CE
"Upon successful invasion by Kublai Khan, Mongolia ruled China from 1279 to 1368 CE. Kublai Khan had become a Buddhist and had a Tibetan guru, who helped put an end to the Mongolian practice of drowning thousands of Chinese to limit the population . Thus, a Tibetan helped save thousands of Chinese lives— says the current Dalai Lama in his autobiography ‘Freedom in Exile’.{DL/ 104}
"16th century CE
"Sonam Gyatso was the head of the Gelugpa school of Tibetan Buddhism. He came to be known later as the third Dalai Lama. He was invited by Altan Khan to Mongolia, where he gave teachings to a huge crowd in Koko Khotan, the then capital of Mongolia. He announced to the gathering that Altan Khan was a reincarnation of Kublai Khan, and that he was a reincarnation of the Tibetan Sakya monk Drogön Chögyal Phagpa, who had converted Kublai Khan. He announced that they both had come together again to cooperate in propagating the Buddhist religion.
"17th century CE
"This led to the widespread use of Buddhist ideology. By the early seventeenth century there was massive conversion of Mongols to Buddhism. Incidentally, Yonten Gyatso, the fourth Dalai Lama, was a grandson of Altan Khan. Lobsang Gyatso, the Great Fifth Dalai Lama, was the first Dalai Lama to wield effective political power over central Tibet. He died in sixteen eighties. He moved the centre of government from Drepung to Lhasa. He also commenced the construction of the Potala Palace in Lhasa. The Dalai Lamas remained Tibet's titular heads of state until 1959. There is no historic evidence to support the assumption that the Ming Dynasty of China ruled Tibet. In fact the Qing Emperor accepted The Fifth Dalai Lama as a leader of an independent state in the seventeenth century. The Chinese Emperor also treated Dalai Lama as a Divinity on Earth.
"18th century CE
"In the first half of the eighteenth century, the Qing government of China sent a resident commissioner to Lhasa. A stone monument regarding the boundary between Tibet and China, agreed upon by Lhasa and Beijing in 1726, was placed atop a mountain near Bathang. This boundary ran between the headwaters of the Mekong and Yangtse rivers.
"Nepal attacked Tibet in 1791. The Lama was forced to flee. Chinese Qianlong Emperor sent assistance in 1793. With this assistance, the Tibetan troops drove the Nepalese troops back to Kathmandu. The Gurkhas conceded defeat and returned all the treasure. This help rendered by the Chinese increased their control over Tibet. This event is sometimes stretched to imply that China helped because they had a claim of sovereignty over Tibet. However, if that were the logic, the UK and the USA could also claim sovereignty over France and other countries they rescued during the Second World War.
"19th– 20th century CE:
"British Strategy of keeping Tibet as a Buffer. Realising that Tibet as a buffer was vital to the security of British-India, particularly northern India, Britain did all it could to keep it autonomous or independent.
"1904:
"British expeditionary force under Colonel Younghusband. British expeditionary force under Colonel Younghusband entered Lhasa in August 1904. To their surprise, they found no Chinese presence. British found the claim of China on Tibet to be a constitutional fiction. Incidentally, even the last British officer in Lhasa, H Richardsons, had said that there was not a trace of Chinese authority in Tibet after 1912.
"Anglo-Tibetan Treaty, among other things, recognised Sikkim-Tibet border and provided for erection of boundary-pillars accordingly; required Tibet not to enter into relations with any other foreign power without the British approval; and to open its border with British India, to allow the British and the Indian traders to travel freely and to not impose customs duties on trade with India. It was clear from this that Britain was dealing with Tibet as an independent nation.
"1906:
"Sino-British treaty Sino-British treaty of 1906 stipulated that Britain would not annex Tibet; and that China would not permit any other foreign State to interfere with the territory or internal administration of Tibet.
"1907
"In 1907, Britain and Russia agreed that neither of them would enter into negotiations with Tibet except through the intermediary of China. The basic aim of Britain was to keep Russia out of Tibet. If, to achieve that, it had to assign certain rights to China, it did not mind, for it considered China to be too weak to pose a threat— not anticipating the potential trouble for Tibet and India in future, as and when China became strong.
"1909-10
"The warlord Zhao Erfeng of Sichuan, China invaded Tibet in 1909 and entered Lhasa in 1910 to capture the 13 th Dalai Lama, Thubten Gyatso, who fled to Darjeeling. Zhao had promised a reward for Gyatso’s head. Zhao razed monasteries, killed monks, beheaded Tibetan officials and replaced them with the Chinese— he became notorious as “Butcher Zhao”. Zhao also encouraged Chinese settlements in Zayul, near the Lohit valley, on the Tibetan side. Noting these developments, Britain began to factor in threat from China— whom it had considered inconsequential till date— and not just from Russia, in its Tibet policy.
"1911-12
"In October of 1911, a group of revolutionaries in southern China led a successful revolt against the Qing Dynasty, establishing the Republic of China. The emperor and the royal family abdicated the throne in February of 1912. The Qing withdrawal led to a power vacuum in certain regions, resulting in the rise of warlords, as the new government failed to unify the country under its control. China remained relatively weak for the next several decades till the Communists under Mao consolidated their hold after 1949.
"Dec-1911:
"Outer Mongolia Outer Mongolia or simply Mongolia (Inner Mongolia being an autonomous region within China), which had come under the Manchu Qing Dynasty of China in 1755 declared itself independent in December 1911, after the fall of the Qing Dynasty, and installed the 8th Bogd Gegeen, the highest authority of Tibetan Buddhism in Mongolia, as theocratic sovereign, who took the title Bogd Khaan or the “Holy Ruler”.
"China regarded Mongolia as its part; while Russia, wanting it to be under their influence, was determined to make it autonomous— almost quasi-independent. Russia concluded a secret convention with Japan in 1912 marking out Outer Mongolia and North Manchuria within their sphere of influence; and leaving Inner Mongolia and South Manchuria to Japan. This they could do on account of the weakness of China then.
"In Russia-Mongolia treaty of 1912, Russia recognised Mongolia as an autonomous state within China and agreed to provide it with military assistance in return for commercial privileges in Mongolia; though , in its version of the treaty, Mongolia called itself “independent”. However, Sino-Russian Declaration of November 1913 recognised Mongolia as a part of China, but with internal autonomy, with China agreeing not to colonize the country or send troops there; and accept Russian “good offices ” in China-Mongolia issues— for obvious reasons Mongolia regarded the declaration as illegal.
"Although Mongolia had declared its independence, it had to struggle till 1921 to establish its de facto independence . In 1919, China forced Mongolia to renounce its independence. However, in 1921 the Chinese forces were driven out of the Mongolian capital after a massive battle. Mongolia finally gained international recognition in 1945. A plebiscite took place in Mongolia in the presence of Chinese observers on October 20, 1945— it yielded a 100% pro-independence vote.
"1912
"The 13th Dalai Lama, Thubten Gyatso, returned to Tibet in 1912 after the Chinese Revolution of 1911 swept away the Qing Dynasty, following which the Tibetans promptly expelled all the Chinese troops from Lhasa.
"The International Commission of Jurists stated in their report: “Tibet’s position on the expulsion of the Chinese in 1912 can fairly be described as one of de facto independence… it is therefore submitted that the events of 1911-12 mark the re-emergence of Tibet as a fully sovereign state, independent in fact and in law of Chinese control.”{DL/ 69}
"1913
"A bilateral treaty was signed between Tibet and Mongolia at Urga in 1913 in which both the countries declared themselves free and independent from China. The Dalai Lama issued a proclamation in 1913 which stated that the relationship between the Chinese Emperor and Tibet had been that of the patron and the priest, and had not been based on the subordination of one to the other. He said: "Now the Chinese intention of colonising Tibet has faded like a rainbow in the sky." He also stated that Tibet was a small, independent, religious nation . To commemorate this, Tibetans celebrated “Centenary of Reassertion of Tibetan Independence” on 13 February 2013.
"1913-1914
"Dalai Lama, while in Darjeeling (India) between 1909 and 1912, had developed a rapport with the British. Looking to the weakness of China following the 1911– revolution, Britain felt it could coerce China into an agreement that would practically give independence to Tibet. Towards this end, Britain arranged the Shimla Convention.
"Shimla Convention, 1913-14: Outer/ Inner Tibet & McMahon Line
"The Shimla Convention arranged by the British, to which Tibet and China were invited and were represented by Lonchen Shastra and Ivan Chen respectively, conducted eight formal sessions between 6 October1913 and 3 July 1914. Sir Henry McMahon, the then foreign secretary of British-India, was the chief negotiator and the British Plenipotentiary at the Convention, assisted by Charles Bell. Lonchen Shastra and Ivan Chen had to get orders and clarifications from Lhasa and Nanjing respectively, that took a long time on account of the distances and conventional communication network; and that was the reason the Convention stretched for so long a period—about 10 months.
"Incidentally, McMahon was also associated with Mortimer Durand of British-India who had finalised the 2640km-long Durand Line between [current Pakistan ] British India and Afghanistan in 1893.
"China initially objected to the presence of Tibet in the Convention saying it had no independent status and was part of China , but then went along fearing Britain may proceed unilaterally with Tibet, like Russia did with Mongolia, ignoring China.
"The Convention proposed granting China control over Inner Tibet while recognizing the autonomy of Outer Tibet under the Dalai Lama's rule. Outer Tibet comprised Western and Central Tibet including Lhasa, Chamdo and Shigatse, and areas skirting the British-India frontier; while Inner Tibet included Amdo and part of Kham. Both China and Britain were to respect the territorial integrity of Tibet, and abstain from interference in the administration of Outer Tibet. Further Outer Tibet could not be converted into a province of China.
"The border between northeast India and Tibet was also discussed and finalised between Tibet and British-India during the Convention— it came to be known as the McMahon Line. China was not invited to the discussions on the McMahon Line because it was a boundary settlement between Tibet and India, and not between China and India. It was not a secret negotiation, and China knew about it— and raised no objections.
"Ivan Chen initialled the draft Convention on 27 April 2014. However, two days later, on 29 April 2014, China repudiated Chen’s action and refused to proceed with full signature. It is worth noting that China refrained from full signature not because it had problems with Inner–Outward Tibet per se, but because Tibet and China could not agree to the dividing line between the two.
"The above position was re-confirmed in a memo of 4 August 1943 to China’s Foreign Minister Dr TV Soong by the then British Secretary of State of Foreign Affairs Anthony Eden, which said, inter alia: “Since the Chinese Revolution of 1911, when Chinese forces were withdrawn from Tibet, Tibet has enjoyed de facto independence. She has ever since regarded herself as in practice completely autonomous and has opposed Chinese attempts to reassert control… The rock on which the [Shimla] Convention [of 1914] and subsequent attempts to reach an understanding were wrecked was not the question of autonomy (of Tibet, which was expressly admitted by China) but was the question of boundary between China and Tibet…”{Arpi/ 337-8}
"Tibet desperately desired its recognition as an independent state and hence signed the Convention with Britain, even though it had actually desired the whole of Tibet and not just the Outer Tibet. However, it chose to make the best of the bad bargain, and even ceded Tawang and Dirang Dzong to British-India{Arpi/126}.
"Britain and Tibet signed the Convention on July 3, 1914. Ivan Chen had initialled the Shimla Convention in April-1914, but China refused to proceed to full signature{Arpi/126}.
"As per the Shimla Convention initialled by all—China, British-India, and Tibet —on 27 April 1914, China pledged not to convert Tibet into a Chinese province, while Britain agreed not to annex any portion of Tibet.
"However, the declaration appended to the 3 July 1914 text of the Shimla Convention signed by Britain and Tibet states, inter alia, “... we agree that so long as the Government of China withholds signature of the aforesaid Convention, she will be debarred from the enjoyment of all privileges accruing therefrom.”The Tibetan government-in-exile points to this clause to aver that both Inner and Outer Tibet legally remain under the Dalai Lama's jurisdiction.
"There was a parallel between the Outer-Inner Mongolia affair and the Outer-Inner Tibet affair. Perhaps the British were inspired by the Russians. Irrespective of the tug-of-war between Russia and China, Mongolia ultimately became independent, and it indeed had good historical reasons to become so. Tibet similarly had good historical reasons to become independent too. However, that unfortunately did not happen. Had the First World War not intervened that took Britain’s attention away, perhaps something positive might have happened for Tibet.
"1914-1950 :
"Tibet de-facto Independent For the next thirty-six years since 1914, Tibet enjoyed de facto independence. During this period, China endured its warlord era, civil war, and World War II.
"As was its tradition, Tibet continued to have limited contacts with the rest of the world. Although Tibet never maintained extensive international relations, those countries with whom it did maintain relations treated Tibet as they would any other sovereign state. In 1949, Tibet maintained diplomatic, economic, and cultural relations with such countries as Nepal, Sikkim, Mongolia, China, India, and to some extent, Russia and Japan. Further, Nepal maintained an ambassador in Lhasa. When Nepal applied for United Nations' membership in 1949, it cited its treaty and diplomatic relations with Tibet to demonstrate its full international personality.
"When Dalai Lama visited Beijing in 1954 and met Mao, this is what Mao, among other things, told him, as narrated by Dalai Lama in his autobiography ‘Freedom in Exile’:
"“Tibet is a great country. You have a marvellous history. Long ago you even conquered a lot of China. But now you have fallen behind and we want to help you. In twenty years’ time you could be ahead of us and then it will be your turn to help China.”{DL/ 98}
"That is, Mao himself admitted Tibet was a separate country.
"Given the critical importance of Tibet, India should have exerted its utmost to ensure Tibet retained its independent status. But, did India do so? Did India come to the rescue of its good neighbour, facing extinction as an independent entity? Did India fulfil its obligation as a friend and a neighbour? Did we come good on the trust that our weaker neighbour, Tibet, reposed in us?
"Did Nehru walk the talk on anti-colonialism and anti-imperialism? Did India try to save its neighbour from being colonised? Did India try to protect its own crucial interests? What role did India play? What was independent India’s or Nehru’s Tibet policy? Unfortunately— None. It was actually a defeatist policy —throw up your hands and declare there is nothing India can do to save Tibet.
"India was in desperate need of a Sardar Patel to drive its strategic thinking. Nehru, by stating on 1 November 1950 in an interview to the Unites Press that “India has neither the resources nor the inclination to send armed assistance to Tibet”{Arpi/ 374} and that “We can’t save Tibet” seemed to wash his hands off the whole affair so critical to India’s security, and seemed to suggest that other than armed intervention , which India didn’t wish to undertake, there was nothing India could do—when there was much that India could have very well done, other than its own armed intervention!
"Nehru Let Tibet be Erased as a Nation Nehru allowed Tibet, our peaceful neighbour and a buffer between us and China, to be erased as a nation, without even recording a protest in the UN, thereby making our northern borders insecure, and putting a question mark on the future of the water resources that originate in Tibet.
"Nehru Let Tibet be Erased as a Nation
"Nehru allowed Tibet, our peaceful neighbour and a buffer between us and China, to be erased as a nation, without even recording a protest in the UN, thereby making our northern borders insecure, and putting a question mark on the future of the water resources that originate in Tibet.
"The Tibetan Government protested to the UN against the Chinese aggression . But, as Tibet was not a member of the UN, it was simply recorded by the UN Secretariat as an appeal from an NGO. Their appeal, in a way, was pigeonholed.
"In view of this handicap, Tibetans requested the Government of India to raise the Tibet issue in the UN. But, India was not willing to do so, lest China should feel antagonised! What to speak of helping our neighbour who had appealed to us for help, we shamelessly advised the victim to seek peaceful settlement with the aggressor China. Even worse, when through others, the Tibet’s appeal came up on 23 November 1950 for discussions in the UN General Assembly, we opposed the discussions on a very flimsy ground—that India had received a note from China that the matter would be resolved peacefully!
"Even though China had invaded Tibet, KM Panikkar, the Indian Ambassador in Beijing, went so far as to pretend that there was lack of confirmation of the presence of Chinese troops in Tibet and that to protest the Chinese invasion of Tibet would show China in bad light —as an aggressor— which would have a negative effect on India's efforts of ensuring entry of China in the UN! Such was the crazy Nehru-Panikkar line! Tibet and our own national security interests were sought to be sacrificed to help China enter the UN!!
"With no one to sponsor the Tibetan appeal, possibility of some joint action was discussed by the Commonwealth delegation to the UN. In the meeting, the Indian representative advised that India did not wish to raise the Tibetan issue in the UNSC, nor did India favour its inclusion in the UN General Assembly agenda!"
" ... Nehru’s strategy was India’s and Tibet’s tragedy. Nehru had ranted a lot when Britain, France, and others had betrayed Czechs in 1938 to Nazi Germany( JNSW/ vol-9); however, the same Nehru not just betrayed Tibet, he betrayed India’s own national interests!"
"Britain was More Concerned About India’s Security Compared to Independent India Under Nehru!
"While the independent India was an indifferent India— indifferent to its own security— British-India had done all it could to keep India’s northern borders secure by ensuring Tibet remained free from foreign powers.
"By the early nineteenth century , Tsarist Russia was trying to expand south into Central and South Asia. In response, Britain commenced its “Great Game”— that of checkmating Tsarist Russia. Britain rightly realised that Tibet as a buffer was vital to the security of British-India, particularly northern India. However, Britain did not wish to take the trouble of converting Tibet into a protectorate like Sikkim— it did not consider it financially worthwhile to commit resources for the purpose. Britain wanted Tibet to be neither under Russia nor under China . Autonomous or independent Tibet was the best bet to ensure security of northern India, and therefore the strategy was to ensure it remained so. Towards this end, the British took tremendous physical risks in surveying the border areas and sending missions through the difficult terrain to Tibet, spent considerable sum, did meticulous planning through the decades, arranged conventions, signed agreements, adjusted borders to make northern India as secure as possible— even engaged in “cartographic aggression”. Trained Indian surveyor-spies, disguised as pilgrims or traders, counted their strides on their travels across Tibet, took readings at night, and measured the longitude, latitude and altitude of Lhasa and other places.
"According to Claude Arpi: “A few months before India’s Independence, not only was Tibet a de facto independent State and the British wanted it to remain so, but they were ready to carry out a military action to protect Tibet’s status. For this, a detailed military intervention plan was prepared by the General Staff of the British Army... The purpose of the Memo [a Top Secret Memo of 1946] was to find a solution in case of ‘domination of Tibet by a potentially hostile major power [which] would constitute a direct threat to the security of India.’... Neither Russia nor China must be allowed to violate Tibetan autonomy... since it would then be possible for them to build roads and airfields to their own advantage, which would vitally affect India’s strategic position.”{ Arpi/ 371}
"British explorer, Francis Younghusband, who led the British Mission to Lhasa in 1904, had this to say in his book ‘India and Tibet’, first published in 1910: “... apart from questions of trade, we want to feel sure that there is no inimical influence growing up in Tibet which might cause disturbance on our frontier [northern India]. That is the sum total of our wants. The trade is not of much value in itself, but, such as it is, is worth having. We have no interest in annexing Tibet... but we certainly do want quiet there... Before the Lhasa Mission, Russian influence... was the disturbing factor; now it is the Chinese influence, exerted beyond its legitimate limits and with imprudent harshness [reference to Zhao Erfeng’s invasion of 1909]. Either of these causes results in a feeling of uneasiness, restlessness, and nervousness along our north-eastern frontier, and necessitates our assembling troops and making diplomatic protests...”{FY/ 420}
"Wrote Brigadier Dalvi: “In October 1950 I was a student at the Defence services Staff College in Wellington, South India. Soon after the news of the Chinese entry in into Tibet reached us, the Commandant, General WDA (Joe) Lentaigne, strode into the main lecture hall, interrupted the lecturer and proceeded to denounce our leaders for their short-sightedness and inaction, in the face of Chinese action... he said that India’s back door had been opened... He predicted that India would have to pay dearly for failure to act... His last prophetic remark was that some of the students present in the hall would be fighting the Chinese before retirement.”{ JPD/ 15}"
Olaf Caroe, Secretary to the Government of India in the External Affairs Department in 1945, and one of the foremost British strategic thinkers had written:
"“From the point of view of India’s internal economy and administration the maintenance of this buffer [Tibet] between the frontiers of India and China is of great advantage. Recent wartime conditions have shown that China is a difficult neighbour… The more substantial the buffer that can be maintained between India and China, the better for future relations…”{Arpi/ 349}
"Britain had been unambiguous in its approach: It didn’t want a new neighbour to its north—neither China, nor the Soviet Union.
"It can be said that from the Tibetan angle it was their misfortune India gained independence from the British in 1947. Had that independence been delayed, and had the British been still ruling India at the time of the Chinese aggression of Tibet in 1950, Britain would certainly not have just watched helpless— it would have ensured the Chinese were thrown out of Tibet. Alternately, it can be said that it was Tibet’s misfortune that Nehru was then at the helm in India. Had it been Sardar Patel, or some other Patel-like leader, China would not have got the walk-over."
How does Puranik not think of Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose even in thus context? Imagine Sardar Patel as PM and Netaji handling defense, and Tibet would have been protected.
Significantly, while the British and China were well aware of the strategic importance of Tibet, India under Nehru remained irresponsibly ignorant. For Nehru, it was the convenient, laid-back, no-need-for-action ‘Hindi-Chini-Bhai-Bhai’at all costs—even at the cost of the nation.
"In sharp contrast to Nehru, there were notable prescient observers in addition to Sardar Patel, like KD Sethna of a Mumbai weekly ‘Mother India’, who wrote back in November 1950: “Let us not blink the fact that Tibet is useful to China principally as a gate of entry to India. Sooner or later attempts will be made to threaten us…”{ Arpi/ 348}"
" ... There would have been wide international support for the cause of Tibet, if India, the nation which had inherited from British-India the treaty with Tibet, and which was directly affected, had taken the initiative. The world opinion was strongly against the Chinese aggression, and all the countries were looking to India, the most affected country, to take the lead. Even if India did not wish to itself meddle militarily, it could at least have helped the military efforts by others, or tried to thwart China diplomatically. The Economist wrote:
"“Having maintained complete independence of China since 1912, Tibet has a strong claim to be regarded as an independent state. But it is for India to take a lead in this matter. If India decides to support independence of Tibet as a buffer state between itself and China, Britain and USA will do well to extend formal diplomatic recognition to it.”{URL61}{ URL62}
"Writes Prasenjit Basu in ‘Asia Reborn’:
"“The Americans were keen to support Tibet’s claim to sovereignty but needed support from India (or possibly Nepal ) to solidify the claim. But the crypto-communist Nehru (who believed, in his simple heart, that communism was the wave of the future, and the forces of history would inevitably lead to the triumph of communism) contemptuously brushed off the American offer of support. Nehru told his cabinet that it was not possible for India to help Tibet fend off the well-armed PLA (but he did not address the question of whether American support could have augmented the military potential of a combined effort).”{PB}
"Wrote Dr NS Rajaram{ URL43}: “It is nothing short of tragedy that the two greatest influences on Nehru at this crucial juncture in history were Krishna Menon and K.M. Panikkar, both communists…The truth is that India was in a strong position to defend its interests in Tibet, but gave up the opportunity for the sake of pleasing China. It is not widely known in India that in 1950, China could have been prevented from taking over Tibet... Patel on the other hand recognized that in 1950, China was in a vulnerable position, fully committed in Korea and by no means secure in its hold over the mainland. For months General MacArthur had been urging President Truman to ‘unleash Chiang Kai Shek’lying in wait in Formosa (Taiwan) with full American support. China had not yet acquired the atom bomb, which was more than ten years in the future. India had little to lose and everything to gain by a determined show of force when China was struggling to consolidate its hold... In addition, India had international support, with world opinion strongly against Chinese aggression in Tibet. The world in fact was looking to India to take the lead... Nehru ignored Patel’s letter as well as international opinion and gave up this golden opportunity to turn Tibet into a friendly buffer state. With such a principled stand, India would also have acquired the status of a great power while Pakistan would have disappeared from the radar screen of world attention.”{ URL43}
"Dr NS Rajaram further wrote: “Much has been made of Nehru’s blunder in Kashmir, but it pales in comparison with his folly in Tibet . As a result of this monumental failure of vision— and nerve— India soon came to be treated as a third rate power, acquiring ‘parity’ with Pakistan...”{URL43}"
"Even if India did not have the military strength to confront and prevent China, there were so many other steps that India could have taken: express disapproval; provide moral support to Tibet; lodge protest in the UN; mobilise world opinion against Chinese action; grant recognition to Tibet as an independent nation; persuade other nations to also do so; demand plebiscite in Tibet to ascertain the opinion of the public—China had agreed for a plebiscite in Mongolia, that led to its independence; work towards ensuring complete independence for Tibet through peaceful means. Even if the final favourable outcome took decades it didn’t matter—at least there would have been hope. Had India taken the initiative many nations would have supported India. In fact, many did pass resolution in favour of Tibet in the UN later, which India, the affected country, did not support!
"One could argue that doing so would have made China an enemy of India? Well, did China care for our friendship when it attacked our friend and neighbour Tibet? Are friendships only one-sided? Foreign policy cannot be based on cowardice! Or, in being too nice to the other party in the hope that they would reciprocate. The US felt disappointed to discover that India had resigned itself to leave Tibet to its fate, and sit back, and do nothing! ... "
"Several prominent Indian leaders and citizens decided to form a committee and observe the Tibet Day in August 1953 to protest Chinese invasion of Tibet. Nehru wrote to Balwantray Mehta of AICC on 24 August 1953: “… Obviously, no Congressman should join such committee or participate in the observance of ‘Tibet Day’. This is an unfriendly act to China and is against the policy we have pursued during these years. There is absolutely no reason for observing such a day now… I think we should inform members of the Party that they should keep aloof from this. If you remind me, I shall mention this at the Party meeting tomorrow…”{JNSW/ Vol-23/ 483} ... "
"Nehru’s Strange & Baffling Rationalization Reportedly, Nehru tried to rationalise India’s inaction on various pretexts, the most bizarre among them being that Tibetan society was backward and feudal, and that reforms were bound to upset the ruling elite, and so on."
"Says Arun Shourie in “Are we deceiving ourselves again?”:
"“Panditji has now come down firmly against the order in Tibet: it isn’t just that we cannot support Tibet. His position now is that we must not support Tibet. The reason is his progressive [Marxist-Communist] view of history! The Tibet order is feudal. And how can we be supporting feudalism?{AS/ 79}
"“Panditji reiterates the other reasons for neither acting nor regretting the fact of not acting: ‘We must remember that Tibet has been cut off from the world for a long time and, socially speaking, is very backward and feudal. Changes are bound to come there to the disadvantage of the small ruling class and the big monasteries... I can very well understand these feudal chiefs being annoyed with the new order. We can hardly stand up as defenders of feudalism.’”{AS/ 100}"
" ... By that logic, the USA could have colonised most of Asia and Africa that was backward and feudal—including India, which also fell in that category—and Nehru would have been fine with that! And, how was the brutal, barbaric, and totalitarian communism of China superior to Buddhist feudalism!!"
"Even more shocking is the following: “In his latest book, ‘Will Tibet Ever Find Her Soul Again?’, [Claude] Arpi comes up with another explosive revelation that Nehru’s India supplied rice for the invading PLA troops in Tibet when they were busy rampaging and decimating the Tibetan way of life and culture in the early 1950s: ‘The most grotesque incident of this period was the feeding of the PLA’s troops with rice coming through India…Without Delhi’s active support, the Chinese troops would not have been able to survive in Tibet.’”{ URL84}"
"One. Sacrifice the meek, and satisfy the bully. Wrote Arun Shourie: “... response of the [Indian] Government has been to be at its craven best in the belief, presumably, that, if only we are humble enough to the python, it will not swallow us...”{AS/ 26} Said Winston Churchill: “An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last.” It was like substituting a very peaceful and harmless neighbour for a dangerous bully. Watching the way India capitulated, Chinese perhaps developed contempt for India and its leaders . Mao respected only the strong, and not the weak who bent over backwards to please him. India’s pusillanimity must have emboldened China.
"Two. It suited Nehru temperamentally. Nehru was a pacifist, and did not have a stomach to face up to difficult situations . What was the result? Those who abandon their friends and neighbours, especially weaker ones, in their difficulties, should know that their own time would also come. And it came. As India realised in 1962. What was once a most secure border became the most insecure border, thanks to Nehru.
"President Dr Rajendra Prasad had famously remarked, “I hope I am not seeing ghosts and phantoms, but I see the murder of Tibet recoiling on India.”{RP2} He had also written: “In the matter of Tibet, we acted unchivalrously , but even against our interest in not maintaining the position of a buffer state , for it had thus exposed the frontier of 2,500 miles to the Chinese… I have very strong feeling about it. I feel that the blood of Tibet is on us… but the Prime Minister does not like the name of Tibet to be mentioned even now and regards any mention of its liberation as ‘manifest nonsense’.”{KMM/ Vol-1/ 289}
"Three. Nehru’s Marxist-Communist World View (Blunder# 106-7) dictated that communist countries could not be imperialists—despite ample factual evidence to the contrary, especially with regard to the Soviet Union: ‘Scientific-minded’, ‘rational’Nehru didn’t care for facts staring in his face if they didn’t conform to or support his Marxist-Communist religious faith. Marxist-Communism is actually Abrahamic-IV, after Abrahamic-I, that is Judaism, Abrahamic-II, that is Christianity, and Abrahamic-III, that is Islam.
"Sardar Patel first wrote a letter to Nehru on Sikkim, Tibet, and China in June 1949 stating:
"“We have to strengthen our position in Sikkim as well as in Tibet. The farther we keep away the communist force, the better. Tibet has long been detached from China. I anticipate that, as soon as communists have established themselves in the rest of China, they will try to destroy its autonomous existence. You have to consider carefully your policy towards Tibet in such circumstances and prepare from now for that eventuality.”{ML/ 149}
"Sardar Patel wrote another letter in the same context dated 7 November 1950, about five weeks before his death, to Nehru on Tibet and China, which has since become famous for being prophetic and is often quoted. It demonstrates that Sardar Patel had a far firmer grasp on external affairs than Nehru had, and that he was a much greater internationalist. It is reproduced below verbatim (certain portions are marked in italics for emphasis by the author of this book).{SP2} {BK2/ 215-22}{ DD/ 471-5}"
Author here quotes the letter from Sardar Patel to Jawaharlal Nehru in full.
*****
"D.O. No. 821-DPM/ 50
"New Delhi
"7 November 1950
"My Dear Jawaharlal,
"Ever since my return from Ahmedabad and after the cabinet meeting the same day which I had to attend at practically fifteen minutes' notice and for which I regret I was not able to read all the papers, I have been anxiously thinking over the problem of Tibet and I thought I should share with you what is passing through my mind.
"I have carefully gone through the correspondence between the External Affairs Ministry and our Ambassador in Peking and through him the Chinese Government. I have tried to peruse this correspondence as favourably to our Ambassador and the Chinese Government as possible, but I regret to say that neither of them comes out well as a result of this study. The Chinese Government has tried to delude us by professions of peaceful intention. My own feeling is that at a crucial period they managed to instill into our Ambassador a false sense of confidence in their so-called desire to settle the Tibetan problem by peaceful means.
"There can be no doubt that during the period covered by this correspondence the Chinese must have been concentrating for an onslaught on Tibet. The final action of the Chinese, in my judgement, is little short of perfidy. The tragedy of it is that the Tibetans put faith in us; they chose to be guided by us; and we have been unable to get them out of the meshes of Chinese diplomacy or Chinese malevolence. From the latest position, it appears that we shall not be able to rescue the Dalai Lama.
"Our Ambassador has been at great pains to find an explanation or justification for Chinese policy and actions. As the External Affairs Ministry remarked in one of their telegrams, there was a lack of firmness and unnecessary apology in one or two representations that he made to the Chinese Government on our behalf.
"It is impossible to imagine any sensible person believing in the so-called threat to China from Anglo-American machinations in Tibet. Therefore, if the Chinese put faith in this, they must have distrusted us so completely as to have taken us as tools or stooges of Anglo-American diplomacy or strategy. This feeling, if genuinely entertained by the Chinese in spite of your direct approaches to them, indicates that even though we regard ourselves as the friends of China, the Chinese do not regard us as their friends. With the Communist mentality of “whoever is not with them being against them”, this is a significant pointer, of which we have to take due note.
"During the last several months, outside the Russian camp, we have practically been alone in championing the cause of Chinese entry into UN and in securing from the Americans assurances on the question of Formosa. We have done everything we could to assuage Chinese feelings, to allay its apprehensions and to defend its legitimate claims in our discussions and correspondence with America and Britain and in the UN. In spite of this, China is not convinced about our disinterestedness; it continues to regard us with suspicion and the whole psychology is one, at least outwardly, of scepticism perhaps mixed with a little hostility.
"I doubt if we can go any further than we have done already to convince China of our good intentions, friendliness and goodwill. In Peking we have an Ambassador who is eminently suitable for putting across the friendly point of view. Even he seems to have failed to convert the Chinese. Their last telegram to us is an act of gross discourtesy not only in the summary way it disposes of our protest against the entry of Chinese forces into Tibet but also in the wild insinuation that our attitude is determined by foreign influences. It looks as though it is not a friend speaking in that language but a potential enemy.
"In the background of this, we have to consider what new situation now faces us as a result of the disappearance of Tibet, as we knew it, and the expansion of China almost up to our gates. Throughout history we have seldom been worried about our north-east frontier. The Himalayas have been regarded as an impenetrable barrier against any threat from the north. We had a friendly Tibet which gave us no trouble. The Chinese were divided. They had their own domestic problems and never bothered us about frontiers.
"In 1914, we entered into a convention with Tibet which was not endorsed by the Chinese. We seem to have regarded Tibetan autonomy as extending to independent treaty relationship. Presumably, all that we required was Chinese counter-signature. The Chinese interpretation of suzerainty seems to be different. We can, therefore, safely assume that very soon they will disown all the stipulations which Tibet has entered into with us in the past. That throws into the melting pot all frontier and commercial settlements with Tibet on which we have been functioning and acting during the last half a century.
"China is no longer divided. It is united and strong. All along the Himalayas in the north and north-east, we have on our side of the frontier a population ethnologically and culturally not different from Tibetans and Mongoloids. The undefined state of the frontier and the existence on our side of a population with its affinities to the Tibetans or Chinese have all the elements of the potential trouble between China and ourselves. Recent and bitter history also tells us that Communism is no shield against imperialism and that the communists are as good or as bad imperialists as any other.
"Chinese ambitions in this respect not only cover the Himalayan slopes on our side but also include the important part of Assam . They have their ambitions in Burma also. Burma has the added difficulty that it has no McMahon Line round which to build up even the semblance of an agreement. Chinese irredentism and communist imperialism are different from the expansionism or imperialism of the western powers. The former has a cloak of ideology which makes it ten times more dangerous.
"In the guise of ideological expansion lie concealed racial, national or historical claims. The danger from the north and north-east, therefore, becomes both communist and imperialist. While our western and north-western threat to security is still as prominent as before, a new threat has developed from the north and north-east.
"Thus, for the first time, after centuries, India's defence has to concentrate itself on two fronts simultaneously. Our defence measures have so far been based on the calculations of superiority over Pakistan. In our calculations we shall now have to reckon with communist China in the north and in the north-east, a communist China which has definite ambitions and aims and which does not, in any way, seem friendly disposed towards us.
"Let us also consider the political conditions on this potentially troublesome frontier. Our northern and north-eastern approaches consist of Nepal, Bhutan, Sikkim, Darjeeling and the tribal areas in Assam. From the point of view of communication, there are weak spots. Continuous defensive lines do not exist. There is almost an unlimited scope for infiltration. Police protection is limited to a very small number of passes. There, too, our outposts do not seem to be fully manned. The contact of these areas with us is by no means close and intimate.
"The people inhabiting these portions have no established loyalty or devotion to India. Even Darjeeling and Kalimpong areas are not free from pro-Mongoloid prejudices. During the last three years, we have not been able to make any appreciable approaches to the Nagas and other hill tribes in Assam. European missionaries and other visitors had been in touch with them, but their influence was in no way friendly to India or Indians . In Sikkim , there was political ferment some time ago. It is quite possible that discontent is smouldering there.
"Bhutan is comparatively quiet, but its affinity with Tibetans would be a handicap. Nepal has a weak oligarchic regime based almost entirely on force: it is in conflict with a turbulent element of the population as well as with enlightened ideas of the modern age . In these circumstances, to make people alive to the new danger or to make them defensively strong is a very difficult task indeed and that difficulty can be got over only by enlightened firmness, strength and a clear line of policy.
"I am sure the Chinese and their source of inspiration, Soviet Union, would not miss any opportunity of exploiting these weak spots, partly in support of their ideology and partly in support of their ambitions. In my judgement the situation is one which we cannot afford either to be complacent or to be vacillating. We must have a clear idea of what we wish to achieve and also of the methods by which we should achieve it. Any faltering or lack of decisiveness in formulating our objectives or in pursuing our policies to attain those objectives is bound to weaken us and increase the threats which are so evident.
"Side by side with these external dangers, we shall now have to face serious internal problems as well. I have already asked [HVR] Iyengar to send to the External Affairs Ministry a copy of the Intelligence Bureau's appreciation of these matters. Hitherto, the Communist Party of India has found some difficulty in contacting communists abroad , or in getting supplies of arms, literature, etc., from them. They had to contend with the difficult Burmese and Pakistan frontiers on the east or with the long seaboard. They shall now have a comparatively easy means of access to Chinese communists and through them to other foreign communists . Infiltration of spies, fifth columnists and communists would now be easier.
"Instead of having to deal with isolated communist pockets in Telangana and Warangal we may have to deal with communist threats to our security along our northern and north-eastern frontiers , where, for supplies of arms and ammunition, they can safely depend on communist arsenals in China.
"The whole situation thus raises a number of problems on which we must come to an early decision so that we can, as I said earlier, formulate the objectives of our policy and decide the method by which those objectives are to be attained. It is also clear that the action will have to be fairly comprehensive, involving not only our defence strategy and state of preparations but also problem of internal security to deal with which we have not a moment to lose. We shall also have to deal with administrative and political problems in the weak spots along the frontier to which I have already referred.
"It is of course, impossible to be exhaustive in setting out all these problems. I am, however, giving below some of the problems which, in my opinion, require early solution and round which we have to build our administrative or military policies and measures to implement them.
"a) A military and intelligence appreciation of the Chinese threat to India both on the frontier and to internal security.
"b) An examination of military position and such redisposition of our forces as might be necessary, particularly with the idea of guarding important routes or areas which are likely to be the subject of dispute.
"c) An appraisement of the strength of our forces and, if necessary, reconsideration of our retrenchment plans for the Army in the light of the new threat.
"d) A long-term consideration of our defence needs. My own feeling is that, unless we assure our supplies of arms, ammunition and armour, we would be making our defence perpetually weak and we would not be able to stand up to the double threat of difficulties both from the west and north-west and north and north-east.
"e) The question of China's entry into the UN. In view of the rebuff which China has given us and the method which it has followed in dealing with Tibet, I am doubtful whether we can advocate its claim any longer. There would probably be a threat in the UN virtually to outlaw China, in view of its active participation in the Korean war. We must determine our attitude on this question also.
"f) The political and administrative steps which we should take to strengthen our northern and north-eastern frontier. This would include the whole of the border, ie. Nepal, Bhutan, Sikkim, Darjeeling and the tribal territory in Assam.
"g) Measures of internal security in the border areas as well as the states flanking those areas such as Uttar Pradesh, Bihar, Bengal and Assam.
"h) Improvement of our communication, road, rail, air and wireless, in these areas and with the frontier outposts.
"i) The future of our mission at Lhasa and the trade posts at Gyangtse and Yatung and the forces which we have in operation in Tibet to guard the trade routes.
"j) The policy in regard to the McMahon Line.
"These are some of the questions which occur to my mind.
"It is possible that a consideration of these matters may lead us into wider question of our relationship with China, Russia, America, Britain and Burma. This, however, would be of a general nature, though some might be basically very important, e.g., we might have to consider whether we should not enter into closer association with Burma in order to strengthen the latter in its dealings with China . I do not rule out the possibility that, before applying pressure on us, China might apply pressure on Burma. With Burma, the frontier is entirely undefined and the Chinese territorial claims are more substantial. In its present position, Burma might offer an easier problem to China, and therefore, might claim its first attention.
"I suggest that we meet early to have a general discussion on these problems and decide on such steps as we might think to be immediately necessary and direct, quick examination of other problems with a view to taking early measures to deal with them.
"Yours,
"Vallabhbhai Patel. {SP2} {BK2/ 215-22}{ DD/ 471-5}"
*****
"Reportedly, there is nothing on record to show that Nehru acknowledged the above letter, and took up follow-up action as suggested by Patel. He perhaps thought that given his foreign-affairs “expertise” he didn’t need any advice!!"
"In fact, like other documents inconvenient to the Dynasty, this letter of Sardar too was kept a secret and came to light only 18 years after it was written. Wrote Durga Das:
"“Not long afterwards, the situation across the northern border took a turn for the worse [1950], resulting in what was perhaps the last clash between Patel and Nehru in the Cabinet. Red China invaded Tibet and Nepal was in the grip of internal turmoil. It was well known that Patel and Prasad differed from Nehru on Tibet. They had urged him to ensure that Tibet continued as an independent buffer between China and India. Now their fears proved correct. Nehru felt upset because Peking had disregarded his counsel…”{ DD/ 304}
"Wrote Durga Das further:
"“At the last talk I had with him [Sardar Patel], a few days before his death in Bombay on 15th December 1950 , Patel showed me a letter dated 7th November 1950 he had written to Nehru [above letter]. ... After I finished reading it he [Patel] said: ‘I have loved Nehru but he has not reciprocated. I have been eating my heart out because I have not been able to make him see the dangers ahead. China wants to establish its hegemony over South-East Asia. We cannot shut our eyes to this because imperialism is appearing in a new garb. He does not realise that people work only when they have the employment motive or the profit motive [that must have been in the context of Nehru’s socialism]. He is being misled by his courtiers. I have grave apprehensions about the future.’”{DD/ 305}"
"In sharp contrast to the sparkling wisdom of Sardar Patel’s letter to Nehru on China and Tibet, here are extracts from Nehru’s ... note{JN4} dated 18 November 1950 illustrating the self-certified foreign-affairs-expert and internationalist’s lack of grasp and depth, and gross misconceptions on China and Tibet, though not as a response to Patel’s letter ... "
Author quotes note from Jawaharlal Nehru here. He also gives excerpts from other notes from him related to the issue.
*****
"“8. I think it may be taken for granted that China will take possession, in a political sense at least, of the whole of Tibet. There is no likelihood whatsoever of Tibet being able to resist this or stop it. It is equally unlikely that any foreign power can prevent it. We cannot do so…[Make convenient assumptions so that one does not have to act. India didn’t have to go on war on the side of Tibet, but it could surely have supported them diplomatically in world forums!]…
"“10. If world war comes, then all kinds of difficult and intricate problems arise and each one of these problems will be inter-related with others. Even the question of defence of India assumes a different shape and cannot be isolated from other world factors. [Nehru was prone to talk in terms of world war to skirt questions on what India ought to do.] I think that it is exceedingly unlikely that we may have to face any real military invasion from the Chinese side, whether in peace or in war, in the foreseeable future. I base this conclusion on a consideration of various world factors. [Nehru showed himself off as an expert in world affairs, and drew conclusions that suited his meek mental makeup.] In peace, such an invasion would undoubtedly lead to world war…It is inconceivable that it should divert its forces and its strength across the inhospitable terrain of Tibet and undertake a wild adventure across the Himalayas. [Since China won’t do so, why bother—carry on as usual.] Any such attempt will greatly weaken its capacity to meet its real enemies on other fronts. Thus I rule out any major attack on India by China. I think these considerations should be borne in mind, because there is far too much loose talk about China attacking and overrunning India. If we lose our sense of perspective and world strategy [Nehruvian “big words”—talk in terms of world strategy!] and give way to unreasoning fears, then any policy that we might have is likely to fail…
"“11. While there is, in my opinion, practically no chance of a major attack on India by China, there are certainly chances of gradual infiltration across our border and possibly of entering and taking possession of disputed territory, if there is obstruction to this happening. We must therefore take all necessary precautions to prevent this. But, again, we must differentiate between these precautions and those that might be necessary to meet a real attack.
"“12. If we really feared an attack and had to make full provision for it, this would cast an intolerable burden on us, financial and otherwise, and it would weaken our general defence position. There are limits beyond which we cannot go, at least for some years [But, did Nehru do the needful even in 12 long years prior to 1962!], and a spreading out of our army on distant frontiers would be bad from every military or strategic point of view…
"“14. The idea that communism inevitably means expansion and war, or to put it more precisely, that Chinese communism means inevitably an expansion towards India, is rather naïve. It may mean that in certain circumstances. Those circumstances would depend upon many factors, which I need not go into here…
"“16. These arguments lead to the conclusion that while we should be prepared, to the best of our ability, for all contingencies, the real protection that we should seek is some kind of understanding of China. If we have not got that, then both our present and our future are imperilled and no distant power can save us. I think on the whole that China desires this too for obvious reasons. If this is so, then we should fashion our present policy accordingly…[But, did Nehru reach, or even tried to reach, proper understanding with China? NO. Please see details in the subsequent blunders related to India-China war.]
"“17. We cannot save Tibet, as we should have liked to do, and our very attempts to save it might well bring greater trouble to it. [What a convenient assumption: if we attempt to save Tibet, it will sink into greater trouble! Hence, as a wise, kind and empathetic gesture, let us not help Tibet!! Alas, with Sardar Patel not in action (he was sick, and expired a month later), there was none to challenge the wild and convenient assumptions of Nehru.] It would be unfair to Tibet for us to bring this trouble upon her without having the capacity to help her effectively…
"“18. …We have said that [we] are not going to sponsor this appeal [Tibet’s appeal in the UN Security Council] , but if it comes up we shall state our viewpoint. [Why should India have not sponsored Tibet’s just appeal? Was that the way to treat our friendly and culturally close neighbour of centuries?] This viewpoint cannot be one of full support of the Tibetan appeal, because that goes far and claims full independence…But it will not take us or Tibet very far. It will only hasten the downfall of Tibet. No outsider will be able to help her; and China, suspicious and apprehensive of these tactics, will make sure of much speedier and fuller possession of Tibet than she might otherwise have done. We shall thus not only fail in our endeavour but at the same time have really a hostile China on our doorstep…[So, did Nehru manage to avert the hostile China on our doorstep? Was he able to avert war? Winston Churchill had rightly remarked: “An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last.”]
"“19. I think that in no event should we sponsor Tibet’s appeal. I would personally think that it would be a good thing if that appeal is not heard in the Security Council or the General Assembly. [Not only would Nehru not sponsor appeal of a neighbour (Tibet) in distress, he fondly hoped other countries too would spurn Tibet, and not sponsor its appeal! Why? Because, that would have forced India into taking a stand when what India preferred by way of its ‘wise’policy of the ‘internationalist and foreign-affairs expert’Nehru was to bury its head in sand.] If it is considered there, there is bound to be a great deal of bitter speaking and accusation, which will worsen the situation as regards Tibet, as well as the possibility of widespread war, without helping it in the least. It must be remembered that neither the UK nor the USA, nor indeed any other power is particularly interested in Tibet or the future of that country. What they are interested in is embarrassing China [and, gentleman Nehru felt it was a sin to even embarrass China]. Our interest, on the other hand, is Tibet, and if we cannot serve that interest, we fail…“
"20. Therefore, it will be better not to discuss Tibet’s appeal in the UN. Suppose, however, that it comes up for discussion, in spite of our not wishing this, what then? I would suggest that our representative should state our case as moderately as possible and ask the Security Council or the Assembly to give expression to their desire that the Sino-Tibetan question should be settled peacefully…[How could it be settled peacefully, unless China, the invader, withdrew? But, that demand Nehru never made.]…”{ JN4}"
*****
"During his last days in 1964, Nehru was reported to have said: “I have been betrayed by a friend. I am sorry for Tibet.”Betrayal? One does not understand! In international politics, if you are naive and incompetent to take care of your own interests, you would keep getting betrayed.
"“The Chinese invasion of Tibet, which culminated in the 1962 war between India and China, has often been portrayed as the ‘Great Chinese Betrayal’—' a stab in the back’, as Jawaharlal Nehru would say with much pain and anguish. Claude Arpi, in his 2017 book, Tibet: The Last Months of a Free Nation, proved with fresh shreds of evidence that the notion of ‘betrayal’was a farce. It was ‘a stab from the front’as MJ Akbar observed in his eloquent biography on Nehru. For, the then Prime Minister and his comrades refused to see the writing on the wall for more than a decade.”{ URL84}"
................................................................................................
Blunder–34 :
Panchsheel—Selling Tibet; Harming Self
“This great doctrine [Panchsheel] was born in sin, because it was enunciated to put the seal of our approval upon the destruction of an ancient nation which was associated with us spiritually and culturally... It was a nation which wanted to live its own life and it sought to have been allowed to live its own life...”
"—Acharya Kriplani{Arpi2}
"Despite what China did to Tibet, India signed the ‘Panchsheel Agreement’ with China on 29 April 1954. The agreement itself was titled “Agreement on Trade and Intercourse between the Tibet region of China and India” thus acknowledging Tibet as a part of China. India gained nothing through the Agreement, and all benefits accrued to China. Chinese leaders must have been laughing at the naivete of the Indian leadership.
"India did not even insist on prior settlement of borders. Reportedly, Girija Shankar Bajpai of the External Affairs Ministry had advised on settlement of the borders prior to the signing of Panchsheel, but his suggestion was ignored by all the three concerned: KM Panikkar, Krishna Menon, and Nehru. Our ambassador to China, KM Panikkar, was later derisively referred to as “ambassador of China”.
"Wrote SK Verma in “1962: The War That Wasn't”: “The Panchsheel Agreement, signed between India and China, reflected Nehru’s idealism that was far removed from the world of realpolitik. At that stage, India at least held some cards, the most important perhaps being the physical access to Lhasa. Nehru chose to discard them without getting in return any concessions from the Chinese in Tibet. Not only that, the Government of India then began to hide from its own people Chinese transgressions on the border.”{ SKV/ L-6894}
"Dalai Lama wrote poignantly in his autobiography, “Yet I was conscious that outside Tibet the world had turned its back on us. Worse, India, our nearest neighbour and spiritual mentor, had tacitly accepted Peking’s claim to Tibet. In April 1954, Nehru had signed a new Sino-Indian treaty which included a memorandum known as Panchsheel...According to this treaty, Tibet was part of China.”{DL/ 113}"
"Acharya Kripalani had said on the floor of the Parliament in 1954:
"“Recently we have entered into a treaty with China [Panchsheel]. I feel that China, after it had gone Communist, committed an act of aggression against Tibet. The plea is that China had an ancient right of suzerainty . This right was out of date, old and antiquated. It was never exercised in fact. It had lapsed by the flux of time. Even if it had not lapsed, it is not right in these days of democracy by which our Communist friends swear, by which the Chinese swear, to talk of this ancient suzerainty and exercise it in new form in a country which had and has nothing to do with China... England went to war with Germany not because Germany had invaded England, but because it had invaded Poland and Belgium…”{AS/ 137}
"Dr Ambedkar disagreed with the Tibet policy of India and felt that “there is no room for Panchsheel in politics”. He said that “if Mr Mao had any faith in the Panchsheel, he certainly would treat the Buddhists in his own country in a very different way.”"
"India did this despite its own stand to the contrary earlier. The flag of Tibet was put up on 15 August 1947 in the Parliament, acknowledging Tibet as a separate nation. Right up to 1949, Nehru, in his official communications, used words like the Tibet Government, our two countries, and so on, leaving no doubt that India recognised Tibet as a separate, independent nation.
"Panchsheel is actually a most eloquent example of the naivety of the Indian diplomacy and a shining example of what an international agreement should NOT be! Yet, upon criticism of the Panchsheel in parliament, Nehru had brazenly stated that in the realm of foreign affairs he could never take so much credit as for the India-China settlement over Tibet! An amazingly self-deluding assertion indeed!!
"Trade agreement under the Panchsheel was to expire on 2 June 1962, and China sent a note suggesting discussions for a new, renewed treaty. India insisted for vacation of Aksai Chin by China as a pre-condition, which China considered at its territory. It would have resulted in the closure of their essential all-weather supply line: Xinjiang-Tibet road passing through Aksai Chin. This increased China’s suspicions on India’s intentions in Aksai Chin and Tibet."
................................................................................................
Blunder–35 :
Not Settling Boundary Dispute with China
Author rightly enough criticises Jawaharlal Nehru for avoiding a clash with China for Tibet, India having not only cultural ties for over a couple of millennia but also its being a buffer state, and what's more, India having recognised it in 1947, and PM Jawaharlal Nehru having referred to it as neighbour state; but then, for consistency, if one has criticised him for not seeing dangers of China and for kowtowing despite all signs, how does one then join communists and criticise him slso for standing up finally and demanding Aksai Chin back, especially if one has all slong been against communists?
Unlike others who criticised India because it was fashionable, author explains in detail, from history of borders and negotiations onwards.
"The Indo -Tibet border, or the Indo-China border after 1950, is a huge 3325km long border that broadly comprises the following four segments:
"One. Northwest segment: Ladakh-Tibet border.
"Two. Northeast segment: Arunachal Pradesh [formerly, NEFA]-Tibet border, known as the McMahon Line, which is to the east of Bhutan.
"Three. Mid-segment: Himachal Pradesh-Tibet and Uttarakhand-Tibet border between the east of J& K and west of Nepal.
"Four. Sikkim-Tibet border.
"Ladakh-Tibet Border & Aksai Chin
"The main bone of contention between India and China in this region is Aksai Chin. Aksai Chin (‘ The Desert of White Stones’) is to the north of Ladakh. It is located at a height of between 17,000 to 19,000 feet. Its eastern border touches Tibet, and the northern border touches Xinjiang province of China.
"1842. As per the peace treaty signed in 1842 between the representatives of Gulab Singh, the then Maharaja of J& K, and Dalai Lama, the old, established frontiers— traditional boundaries—between Tibet and Ladakh were to be respected. It was a peace treaty rather than a boundary agreement, for it merely talked of respecting the traditional boundaries— but, where exactly those traditional boundaries lay, it did not specify. That is why in the subsequent decades Britain endeavoured to have a boundary demarcated and mutually agreed, but with no success.
"1847. A Boundary Commission set up by Britain was tasked to determine the eastern border of J& K. Ladakh’s traditional boundaries seemed adequate to the Commission— the Karakorum ranges forming the natural eastern boundary. But, they pointed out the possible disputed position of Demchok.
"Britain later set up a second Boundary Commission comprising Alexander Cunningham, Thomas Thomson and Henry Strachey. They invited China too for boundary demarcation between J& K and China. However, China didn’t respond, being suspicious of British intentions, having in earlier years been arm-twisted by the British into ceding Hong Kong, and to open ports for foreign trade by the Treaty of Nanking in 1842.
"1865. Consequent to a survey by WH Johnson in 1865, the eastern boundary was extended to include the Kuen Lun ranges beyond the Karakoram ranges, thus including Shahidulla and Aksai Chin within it. Aksai Chin (‘ The Desert of White Stones’) is to the north of Ladakh. It is located at a height of between 17,000 to 19,000 feet. Its eastern border touches Tibet, and the northern border touches Xinjiang province of China. The new map on this basis was published in 1868."
"1889. British-India Viceroy Lord Lansdowne suggested Britain should encourage China to fill-out, beyond the British frontier, the no-man’s-land between Karakoram and Kuen Lun ranges—which included Aksai Chin—to keep it safe from Russia. In those days Britain, playing the ‘Great Game’, was more bothered about Russia, which was trying to expand south into Asia, than about China, which was a weak nation, whom Britain had browbeaten often.
"1892. China erected a boundary marker at the Karakoram Pass with an inscription that the Chinese territory began there, and laid claim to the Karakoram Pass, Shahidulla and the tract between the Kuen Lun ranges and the Karakoram ranges, that included Aksai Chin. Britain didn’t mind. All they wanted was that the area should be out of reach of the Russians. If China were to take care of those places, so much the better, for it would save Britain the resources. Britain wanted China on their side and against Russia, and they were not keen to administer all those border areas and Tibet themselves, if China was willing to take the trouble to defend them.
"Accordingly, the British Foreign Department noted: “… We had always hoped that they [Chinese] would assert effectively their rights to Shahidulla and the tract between Kuen Lun and Karakoram range [which included Aksai Chin]… We see no occasion to remonstrate with China on account of erection of the boundary pillar… We favour the idea of getting ‘no mans’ land filled up by the Chinese , subject to future delimitation of boundaries.”{DW/ 54-55}
"1897. Post the defeat of China in the Sino-Japanese war of 1894-95, Britain had second thoughts. It felt China would not be able to secure Karakoram Pass and other areas from the Russians, and therefore Britain ought to extend its boundary north and east to include the areas it was earlier willing to leave for China— as if they belonged to Britain!
"1899. Macartney-MacDonald Ladakh-Tibet line was proposed by Britain to the Chinese Government, which had left Aksai Chin to Tibet. The Karakoram Mountains formed a natural boundary for this border. This Line was presented to the Chinese by the British Minister in Peking, Sir Claude MacDonald. The Chinese did not respond to the note, and the British took that as Chinese acquiescence . This Line is approximately the same as the current Line of Actual Control in Ladakh.
"Current Status
"That the British Government continued to hold to the above proposal (which included Aksai Chin as part of Tibet) was confirmed in the map accompanying the Shimla Convention (please see details further down) of 1914.{Max/ 35}
"Significantly, the maps of the Survey of India were showing the northern borders as ‘Boundary Undefined’ till 1954 like the British had been showing. In his book, AG Noorani mentions that a map annexed to the Mountbatten’s Report on his Viceroyalty labelled these boundaries as ‘Boundary Undefined’.{Noor/ 210}
"Map annexed to a White Paper on Indian States released in July 1948 by the Ministry of States under Sardar Patel also did not show these borders as clearly defined{ Noor/ 221}.
"However, the maps were unilaterally altered after July 1954 at the instance of Nehru, and began to show a clear, demarcated border— that included Aksai Chin— as unilaterally decided by India.
"Britain never attempted to make a physical presence in Aksai Chin or exert authority there in any form. Post-independence Indian government also took no steps to actually extend their control beyond the Karakoram range into the Aksai Chin plains.
"Aksai Chin was in the physical possession of China, and they had built a highway there in the 1950s joining Tibet with Xinjiang [Sinkiang], there being no other land-route to connect the two. Aksai Chin was uninhabited, barren and of no strategic or economic importance for India; and considering India had no legally sound claim on it, there was little point, and indeed unwise, for Nehru to act adamant on it, especially when China was prepared for a quid pro quo on the McMahon Line in the northeast.
"General Thimayya had himself stated in 1959 that Aksai Chin was of no strategic significance for India.
"McMahon Line
"The McMahon Line was finalised in the Shimla Convention of 1914. The Shimla Convention arranged by the British, to which Tibet and China were invited and were represented by Lonchen Shastra and Ivan Chen respectively, conducted eight formal sessions between 6 October1913 and 3 July 1914. Sir Henry McMahon, the then foreign secretary of British-India, was the chief negotiator and the British Plenipotentiary at the Convention, assisted by Charles Bell. Lonchen Shastra and Ivan Chen had to get orders and clarifications from Lhasa and Nanjing respectively, that took a long time on account of the distances and conventional communication network; and that was the reason the Convention stretched for so long a period—about 10 months.
"China initially objected to the presence of Tibet in the Convention saying it had no independent status and was part of China , but then went along fearing Britain may proceed unilaterally with Tibet, like Russia did with Mongolia, ignoring China.
"The Convention proposed granting China control over Inner Tibet while recognizing the autonomy of Outer Tibet under the Dalai Lama's rule. Outer Tibet comprised Western and Central Tibet including Lhasa, Chamdo and Shigatse, and areas skirting the British-India frontier; while Inner Tibet included Amdo and part of Kham. Both China and Britain were to respect the territorial integrity of Tibet, and abstain from interference in the administration of Outer Tibet. Further Outer Tibet could not be converted into a province of China.
"The border between northeast India and Tibet was also discussed and finalised between Tibet and British-India during the Convention— it came to be known as the McMahon Line. China was not invited to the discussions on the McMahon Line because it was a boundary settlement between Tibet and India, and not between China and India. It was not a secret negotiation, and China knew about it— and raised no objections.
"Ivan Chen initialled the draft Convention on 27 April 1914. However, two days later, on 29 April 1914, China repudiated Chen’s action and refused to proceed with full signature. It is worth noting that China refrained from full signature not because it had problems with Inner– Outward Tibet per se, but because Tibet and China could not agree to the dividing line between the two. Britain and Tibet signed the Convention on July 3, 1914.{Arpi/ 126} Even as late as 1947, China, under the Nationalists, had conveyed to the then Indian government they didn’t recognise the McMahon Line.
"The text of the draft Convention or that of the final Convention did not specifically and explicitly talk about the Indo-Tibetan border or the McMahon Line at all, the Line was shown only in the annexed map. Article IX of the Convention simply and briefly stated: “For the purpose of the present Convention the borders of Tibet, and the boundary between Outer and Inner Tibet, shall be shown in red and blue respectively on the map attached hereto.”
"The McMahon Line was a thick red-line drawn on a double-page map, hence it is inaccurate and susceptible to alternate interpretations and disputes. As proper follow-up protocols that should have used cartographic techniques to identify the location of the agreed line on the ground through a joint survey were not taken up, the line remained inexact , leaving scope for controversial claims. The Indian maps showed it as a dashed/ broken-line till 1954 to indicate it was roughly defined but not yet demarcated, that is, marked on the ground consequent to a ground survey. However , after July 1954, the Indian maps began showing it as a solid line indicating it was well-demarcated— at the instance of Nehru!
"Through the McMahon Line, McMahon had effectively advanced the borders of British-India further north and added 50,000 odd square miles of territory that was till then administered by Tibet, including Tawang, that had the famous Tibetan-Buddhist monastery. Tawang was on the trade-route and British desired control over it. Though reluctant , Tibet agreed to the give-away as a bargain for its rights on the Outer Tibet.
"Later, the Tibetans claimed they had most reluctantly agreed for Tawang and other areas (which till then were theirs), as part of British-India— that is, their depiction to the south of the McMahon Line— as a quid pro quo for Britain keeping its part of the bargain: getting China to agree to Outer/ Inner Tibet and sign the Convention. Since China had refused to sign the Convention, not only the Tibetans had a right to both the Outer and Inner Tibet, they also had claims on Tawang and such other areas relinquished by them then. Soon after Indian independence, Tibet had asked India for return of the territories on its boundary acquired by the British!
"With India having agreed to Tibet being a part of China, and not an independent nation, a doubt was implicitly cast upon the validity of the treaties which were agreed to by Tibet, but not by China. India effectively did a self-goal through its Tibet policy—Dalai Lama rightly pointed out that to deny the sovereign status of Tibet when the McMahon Line was agreed to in 1914 was to deny the validity of the McMahon Line itself.
"Mid-Segment
"Mid-segment refers to the borders of Himachal Pradesh and Uttarakhand with Tibet. Himachal-Tibet border is about 260 kilometres long, while Uttarakhand-Tibet border is about 350 kilometres. These borders are also not well-demarcated resulting in boder-incidents, though they are not as controversial as Aksai Chin and the McMahon Line.
"Sikkim-Tibet Border
"Sikkim segment is sandwiched between Nepal to its west and Bhutan to its east.
"1890. The salient points of the Convention between Great Britain and China relating to Sikkim and Tibet signed at Calcutta on 17 March 1890 and ratified at London on 27 August 1890, were:
"“The boundary of Sikkim and Tibet shall be the crest of the mountain range separating the waters flowing into the Sikkim Teesta and its effluents... It is admitted that the British Government, whose Protectorate over the Sikkim State is hereby recognized, has direct and exclusive control over the internal administration and foreign relations of that State...”
"The “Regulations Regarding Trade, Communications and Pasturage Appended to...[the above] signed at Darjeeling , India, 5 December 1893” stipulated: “A trade mart shall be established at Yatung on the Tibetan side of the frontier, and shall be open to all British subjects for purposes of trade from the first day of May, 1894. The Government of India shall be free to send officers to reside at Yatung to watch the conditions of British trade at that mart...”
"Interestingly, the British did not involve the Tibetans in the above agreements as they would have opposed them—they therefore entered into an arrangement with China. Tibetan authorities refused to recognise the legitimacy of these treaties; and, in protest, tore out the border-markers between Sikkim and Tibet put up under the agreement.
"1904. British expeditionary force under Colonel Younghusband invaded Tibet and entered Lhasa in August 1904 to force a trading agreement and to prevent Tibetans from establishing a relationship with the Russians, which they were trying to do to save them from the British-China designs. 1904 Anglo-Tibetan Treaty was forced upon the Tibetans by the British which required Tibet to respect Anglo-Chinese Convention of 1890, recognise Sikkim-Tibet border, allow British and Indian traders to travel freely, not to impose customs duties on trade with India, to pay 2.5 million rupees as indemnity to the British and not to enter into relations with any foreign power without British approval.
"Incidentally, China has since recognised Sikkim, which was annexed by India in 1975, as a state of India. There is no dispute on Sikkim now, nor on its border with Tibet-China.
"To summarise , the Sikkim-Tibet border is demarcated. The claim is accepted by China. There is no dispute."
"India should not have allowed Tibet, which was a buffer with China, to disappear as an independent nation. ... "
"As brought out above, historically, China had not agreed to any border with India and signed any boundary agreement, except for the borders with Sikkim.
"The stand of the Peoples Republic of China from 1949 onwards was that they wanted to remove the blot of the British imperialist humiliation China had suffered with regard to the borders and on other matters, and rather than accepting the unjust and illegal British-drawn borders, they desired discussions, negotiations and a joint ground survey to settle the borders in a just and mutually acceptable manner in the spirit of give and take, and not with a view to grab area they were not entitled to. They also wanted to dispense with the British-given names , and give the boundaries new Indian– Chinese names.
"Chinese communists, having just ascended the power in 1949, desired a settled border, especially because they already had several severe headaches—internal troubles, Korea, Taiwan, Tibet and a belligerent US— and didn’t want to add to them.
"That the above was so was proved by the agreement China finalised with Myanmar (Burma) in 1960—the new Burma-China border is roughly along the McMahon Line, with certain adjustments accepted by both the sides. China also settled its boundaries amicably through negotiations with Nepal and Pakistan, and signed boundary agreements. India remained the only exception."
One might question if these agreements were really amicable, since China really hasn't been amicable with any neighbours, and Nepal or Burma weren't equal if a confrontation came; as for Pakistan, they lost nothing in giving away land claimed by India as part of Jammu and Kashmir.
And certainly China lies about its claim to Tibet based on Mongolian conquest of both China and Tibet, which could be just as well used to claim British Empire of yore, including Hong Kong, for India.
"“After invading and annexing Tibet, China diligently worked towards settling and demarcating the China-Nepal border. The boundary agreement was then signed on 5 October 1961 by the king of Nepal and Mao after which the actual boundary line was demarcated physically. During the joint boundary demarcation, there were claims and counter-claims on about thirty-two points. These were quickly settled by the Chinese who were also treating the settlement of the boundary with Nepal and Myanmar around that time as a means to show the rest of the world just how reasonable they were. Regarding the question of Mount Everest, the dispute was settled when the visiting prime minister, Chou Enlai, made a statement in Kathmandu that ‘Mount Everest belongs to Nepal’.”{SKV/ L-1620}"
Author states -
"India Unilaterally Changed Maps in July-1954
- and proceeds to elaborate.
"In his memo of 1 July 1954 to the Secretary General of the Ministry of External Affairs and the Foreign Secretary, Nehru’s directives were [comments in italics within square brackets by author]:{JNSW/ Vol-26/ 481-2}
"“6. In future, we should give up references, except in some historical context, to the McMahon Line or any other frontier line by date or otherwise. We should simply refer to our frontier. Indeed, the use of the name McMahon is unfortunate and takes us back to the British days of expansion.
"[But, then, Nehru was not talking of a new, proper, just line/ boundary mutually negotiated between independent India and China after junking the colonial McMahon Line of the imperialist/ expansionist Britain . He was all for sticking to the colonially laid down lines like McMahon Line— only he didn’t want the legacy of the British names, which lent a negative, expansionist flavour.]
"“7. All our old maps dealing with this frontier should be carefully examined and, where necessary, withdrawn. New maps should be printed showing our Northern and North Eastern frontier without any reference to any ‘line’. These new maps should also not state there is any undemarcated territory. The new maps should be sent to our Embassies abroad and should be introduced to the public generally and be used in our schools, colleges, etc.
"“8. Both as flowing from our policy and as consequence of our Agreement with China [which agreement?], this frontier should be considered a firm and definite one which is not open to discussion with anybody . There may be very minor points of discussions. Even these should not be raised by us. It is necessary that the system of check-posts should be spread along the entire frontier. More especially, we should have check-posts in such places as might be considered disputed areas.
"“9. …Check -posts are necessary not only to control traffic, prevent unauthorised infiltration but as a symbol of India’s frontier. As Demchok is considered by the Chinese as a disputed territory, we should locate a check-post there. So also at Tsang Chokla…”{JNSW/ Vol-26/ 481-2}"
"This decision of Nehru was fraught with risks because the new maps of 1954 publicly committed India to a cartographic position that was known to have been of ambiguous provenance. Nehru aligned himself with the maximalist position of the British on the northern borders, whether or not agreed to by China or Tibet in the past, declared them as well-demarcated Indian borders, even where the British had themselves shown the border as undefined. Nehru also formulated a policy where no talks or discussions or negotiations were to be encouraged on boundary issues. Even in new maps, we made blunders. Kuldip Nayar states in ‘Beyond the Lines’:
"“To India’s dismay our maps showed some of our territory as part of China. The home ministry wrote to the states asking them to burn the maps or at least smudge the border with China on the Assam side because they did not exactly delineate the Indian border. The Chinese exploited our confusion and used our maps to question our claim.”{ KN}"
Author says -
"Neville Maxwell's book ‘India's China War’ must be read, even though it is relatively partisan to China and biased against India. ... "
- and then proceeds to quote to support his points.
But not only it's obviously biased, it's also contrary to the recent evidence of belligerent Chinese behaviour with almost every neighbour, with possible exception of Pakistan which has sold land cheap to China, having had little or no plans of sustainable economy ever, other than jihad, and sale of land of India to China.
Arun Shourie in his work on this subject criticises Jawaharlal Nehru for a naive trust and lack of foresight; Puranik is taking the stance that the Indian position was wrong all along, from not fighting for Tibet on to not negotiating the boundary with China.
The conflict seems that Shourie, quoting from copious documents from archive of Jawaharlal Nehru, shows consistency of India and a sudden change of stance if China; Puranik on the other hand claims China sought to negotiate and India was too arrogant, standing on the assumption that it will do.
This does not go with the earlier portrayal by him, of India under Jawaharlal Nehru, as doing everything to please China on treaties signed with no benefits accrued to India.
But perhaps author relies more on Neville Maxwell?
"The Indian Ambassador to China KM Panikkar had advised: “[ If] China raises the issue [of the McMahon Line], we can plainly refuse to reopen the question and take our stand that the Prime minister took [in his public statement], that the territory on this side of the McMahon Line is ours, and that there is nothing to discuss about it.”{Max/ 77}"
"However, Sir Girija Shankar Bajpai who had been the Secretary-General in the Ministry of External Affairs did not agree with the above stand, and pointed out that China had asked for settlement of pending problems, and that the Chinese “never having accepted the McMahon Line as the frontier between Tibet and us, can hardly regard this frontier as settled. Naturally, they have no intention of raising it until it suits their convenience.”{Max/ 77}
"Nehru had advised the Secretary General of the Ministry of External Affairs on 3 December 1953: “I agree about the attitude we should take up in regard to the frontier, we should not raise this question [of boundaries]. If the Chinese raise it, we should express our surprise and point out that this [boundaries] is a settled issue...”{ JNSW/ Vol-24/ 598}"
"This is from ‘Beyond the Lines’ by Kuldip Nayar:
"“I was only the home ministry’s information officer and had no official locus standi, but it was obvious that the Polish ambassador was on a mission. He invited me for a chat at his chancery and expected me to convey what he had said to [Gobind Ballabh] Pant [Nehru’s Home Minister]. At the beginning of the conversation he said that the proposal he would make had the support of all Communist countries, and specifically mentioning the Soviet Union. His proposal was that India should accept a package political deal, getting recognition for the McMahon Line in exchange for handing over control of some areas in Ladakh [Aksai Chin] to China. He said that the areas demanded had never been charted, and nobody could say to whom they belonged. What was being claimed to be India’s was what had been forcibly occupied by the UK. No power could honour ‘the imperialist line’, nor should India insist upon it. Whatever the odds, China would never part with the control of the road it had built . That was lifeline between Sinkiang and other parts of China, he argued. I conveyed the proposal to Pant who gave me no reaction, his or that of the government.”{KN}"
That part, being quoted from Kuldip Nayar, is believable. But next he quotes letters from China.
"Through a letter dated 23 January 1959, Zhou Enlai ( or Chou En-Lai) clarified the status to Nehru to the effect that Sino-Indian borders were never formally delimited [author’s comments: so, where was the justification of India showing firm, demarcated borders in its 1954 maps]; Sinkiang-Tibet highway built by China in 1956 (in Aksai Chin) was within the Chinese borders; McMahon Line was a product of the British cunning of imperialist cartographic aggression, and could not be considered legal; and China would make changes to its maps after ground survey and negotiations with the countries concerned, including India. ... "
Arun Shourie's work mentions prior communications and attempts at boundary related queries from India being answered by China in ways that were reassuring to India but postponed talks until China was ready to be belligerent, and only then it had dawned on Nehru that he'd been naive, that Chinese said one thing and meant another.
Author quotes letters from Chou Enlai, which are seemingly reasonable, unless one is used to the Chinese interpretation - which, in case of Tibet, if applied elsewhere, would allow India to claim all of erstwhile British Empire as interpreted to suit India, as China did with Tibet. Again, friendly seems a keyword in the letter, but reasonable is missing, with good reason.
Nehru on the other hand had mentioned that McMahon Line was proper boundary due to conforming to watershed, and this is order, as opposed to Chinese claimed to Aksai Chin because it's a shortcut from two regions of Asia - Tibet and Sinkiang - under de facto control of China, Sinkiang being Chinese name for Turkestan.
Chinese claims of boundary as subsequently it became clear, was ownership of all of Himalayas and contiguous regions below on side of India, threatening India for ever. This is more consistent with Chingiz Khan and his burning whole cities in Central Asia, Persia and Russia, than a friendly resolution between neighbours.
Again, Puranik mentions Chinese team going to Rangoon and "peacefully" settling borders, which in Arun Shourie's work comes across very differently, with Burma asking help of India against Chinese bullying, and India unable to provide it.
"However, China was reportedly willing to accept the McMahon Line as the boundary in the east— with possibly some adjustments and a new name— like they had done with Myanmar (Burma) provided, in return, India dropped its claims over Aksai Chin . Once this broad framework was agreed to, the officials from the two countries could do a survey and determine the exact alignments of the borders.
"Unfortunately, adhering to his stated position, Nehru declined."
The position of India having been that the boundary claimed by India being reasonable and natural, this exchange merely amounted to a neighbour who's kidnapped your wife and declares intentions to claim your children then offering to return your children in exchange for keeping your wife. The next letter from Chinese premier Chou Enlai, as quoted by Puranik, has a couple of reasonable points -
"In determining the boundary between the two countries, certain geographical principles, such as watersheds, river valleys and mountain passes , should be equally applicable to all sectors of the boundary."
Thus was India's position as claimed by Jawaharlal Nehru.
"A settlement of the boundary question between the two countries should take into account the national feelings of the two peoples towards the Himalayas and the Karakoram Mountains."
Thus sounds even generous, since it's India's tremendous regard for Himalayan region that's well known, however pooh-poohed by all abrahmic and Leftists, West and China alike, while China would merely claim Himalayan regions as it claimed Tibet, falsely.
"Pending a settlement of the boundary question between the two countries through discussions, both sides should keep to the line of actual control and should not put forward territorial claims as pre-conditions, but individual adjustments may be made."
That's where gloves come off - China having built a road through aksai chin which China was aware India claimed, without any prior talks, any such agreement about keeping to line of actual control could only benefit China.
"In order to ensure tranquillity on the border so as to facilitate the discussions, both sides should continue to refrain from patrolling along all sectors of the boundary."
Gloves off and nails visible in claw there! Such refraining had been normal India's borders with Tibet, even when rumours of Chinese troops massing along border were questioned about in parliament. Further refraining by India could only amount to further build-up by China, as evident since.
Why is Puranik arguing seemingly for China here?
" ... Reportedly , Zhou found Nehru’s adamant stand on Aksai Chin inexplicable and unexpected for several reasons:
"(a) India had never occupied or ruled or set its foot in Aksai Chin; (b) in the opinion of China, India had no valid and legal ground to lay claim on it; (c) it was barren and nothing grew there; and (d) it was of no strategic importance for India— reportedly, General Thimayya had himself stated in 1959 that Aksai Chin was of no strategic significance for India, nor was it of any economic significance; and there had been doubts if the area belonged to India.
"On the other hand, Aksai Chin did have importance for China on account of the connecting road between Xinjiang (Sinkiang) and Tibet. Chou tried to impress upon Nehru the importance of the Xinjiang– Tibet for China, it being the only all-weather land-route. However, Nehru’s intransigence in the matter made China suspect India was trying to undermine China in Tibet."
Those arguments all apply equally to counter China’s claim to Tibet, also to Sinkiang, and therefore to Aksai Chin, or indeed anything of what British labelled Outer Tibet. Or for that matter much of Central Asia, including Gobi desert.
As for strategic importance, Tibet can only be of importance to Beijing in threatening India, via land as well as question of waters.
Author seems to stick to his position until the very last paragraph of the section, that of claiming that China was correct and even patient and generous in declaring ceasefire, not taking into account the fact that JFK had helped India at that juncture, and told China off. Even today, it's US that keeps Taiwan still independent. Why Tibet wasn't graced with that consideration can only be because West saw no profit therein, and allowed China to grow to three times the size it had been till then since dawn of humanity.
................................................................................................
Blunder–36 :
The Himalayan Blunder: India-China War
Author shows determination here to blame Jawaharlal Nehru.
"India and China had a record going back thousands of years for never having fought a war between them. Nehru, through his unwise and ill-considered policies , broke that record, though unwillingly. Nehru’s ‘forward policy’ and his failure in settling the borders resulted in India-China war and its consequent human and financial loss, besides loss of face for India and Indians before the international community. Here, we are talking of what India could control, not what China had in mind."
There's no telling how far China would go to "teach India a lesson", as they termed it when informing us a few years later of Chinese intention to do so and warning US to stay out of it; it was, in all likelihood, a revenge for Buddhism.
"It was not just one Himalayan blunder, but like the Himalayan range, a range of blunders by Nehru over a fifteen-year period since independence across domains— External Security, Defence, Foreign Policy, and so on— that led to the disaster that shamed India and the Indians before the world. The same are summarised below, followed by coverage of some of them in detail.
"Blunder-1. Allowing Tibet to be annexed by China, and recognising China’s claim over Tibet. This allowed Tibet-India borders to become China-India borders, bringing with them all the associated problems (Blunder# 33 above)."
"Blunder-3. Signing Panchsheel agreement with China in 1954 without first settling the borders. (Blunder# 34)"
"Blunder-8. Leaving the forward posts grossly under-manned and under-armed, with inadequate logistics in place. (Details further down)
"Blunder-9. Politicisation of the army high command. Favouritism. Putting in place sycophants and submissive officers at top positions who would kowtow to political bosses. Eventually, some of these chosen submissive officers contributed to the humiliation of India. (Blunder# 38)"
"Blunder-10. Gross, rather criminal, neglect of defence and external security. (Blunder# 37)
"Blunder-11. Appointing an insufferably arrogant and incompetent protégé Krishna Menon as Defence Minister. (Blunder# 38, 73)
"Blunder-12. Nehru’s indiscretion of publicly declaring on 12 October 1962, barely 8 days before the war started, that he had instructed the Army to "evict the Chinese"! Does one give operational orders publicly? Wars are meant to be waged silently and anonymously. Mature nations and mature leaders are not expected to indulge in empty bluffs! There was no worth-while plan to either evict the Chinese, or to resist them if they attacked!!
So far, it's true. But Puranik also then says he should have resigned, and claims there were many other competent enough; he does not name any, though, and since Sardar Patel was no more, and Netaji was missing, it's unclear who he has in mind. Besides, even if kowtowing to China stopped late, it was good it did.
" ... But, rather than negotiating a boundary with China and reaching a peaceful settlement, Nehru-Menon & Co, in their wisdom—their Forward Policy— convinced themselves that it is they who would determine the boundary, and in token thereof, establish their posts, like markers. That China could object, and then attack and demolish those posts, and even move forward into India did not seem to them a possibility. ... "
Au contraire, it was only after Chinese troops had assaulted, even killed and kidnapped some Indian officials and soldiers, that this border post manning and patrolling was attempted a regularising of; in absence thereof, China had already occupied much of land on India’s side of border with Tibet.
"Wrote Kuldip Nayar in ‘Beyond the Lines’:
"“Nehru ordered that police check-posts be established to register India’s presence in the Ladakh area. ... Jha said, ‘Malik does not realise that these isolated posts with no support from the rear would fall like ninepins if there was a push from the Chinese side. We have unnecessarily exposed the policemen [Assam Rifles were posted] to death.’ He went on to say: ‘Frankly, this is the job of the army, but as it has refused to man the posts until full logistical support is provided, New Delhi has pushed the police.’”{KN}"
"Wrote Bruce Riedel in “JFK’s Forgotten Crisis: Tibet, the CIA, and the Sino-Indian War”:
" ... The Indian army, which was the service directly affected by the Forward Policy, was given an assignment that its own professional officer corps knew was beyond its means : It did not have the number of troops necessary to engage in a game of chicken with the PLA in the mountains. Despite reinforcements, by mid-1962 the Indian army was outnumbered in the Aksai Chin part of Kashmir by five to one, yet it was trying to staff sixty new forward posts. Even worse, the Indian soldiers were equipped with Lee-Enfield rifles, which had first entered service in the army in 1895, while the Chinese were equipped with modern automatic weapons, artillery, and other equipment. Many of the Chinese commanders were also veterans of the Korean battlefield. The senior command staff of the army, especially General Thapar, found themselves caught between political leaders with an unrealistic concept of the military situation and local commanders who felt they were being given impossible orders. ... "
Author quotes Arun Shourie -
"“It is completely impracticable for the Chinese Government to think of anything in the nature of invasion of India. Therefore I rule it out... It is necessary that the system of check-posts should be spread along this entire frontier. More especially, we should have check-posts in such places as might be considered disputed areas... As Demchok is considered by the Chinese as a disputed territory, we should locate a check-post there. So also at Tsang Chokla...”{ Noor/ 223-4}{ AS/ 103}"
Author next discusses Chinese view of this, giving them credit undue, especially in view of China having occupied Tibet with spurious claims.
Puranik hasn't yet made the connection despite his comparison of India's treatment of Tibet with that of Neville Chamberlain and Czechoslovakia; he ought to have realised right there, that China was no different from Hitler, and ascribing reason or natural reaction to China is as much fooling oneself as self defeating.
"In response to a reporter’s query, Nehru grandly declared at the airport on 12 October 1962 on his way to Ceylon[ Sri Lanka] that he had already “ordered the armed forces to clear the Chinese from the NEFA”.{ URL23}{ MB2/ 137}
"Confirming the above, on October 14, Indian Defence Minister V.K. Krishna Menon told a meeting of Congress workers at Bangalore that the Government had come to a final decision to ‘drive out the Chinese’. He declared that the Indian Army was determined to fight the Chinese to the last man.{URL23}"
Author quotes the wide publicity this got, including in China.
"The question is: Does one give operational orders publicly? It amounted to declaring war, and giving Chinese the excuse to retaliate. Wars are meant to be waged silently and anonymously. Mature nations and mature leaders are not expected to indulge in empty bluffs— there was no worth-while plan to either evict the Chinese, or to resist them if they attacked!!
"With the AHQ dumbfounded at Nehru’s surprise “throw out” orders, General Thapar rushed to the Defence Minister Krishna Menon and pointed out the orders were contrary to what was mutually agreed: not to attack or engage the Chinese! Responded Menon, unconcerned: “This is a political statement. It means action can be taken in ten days or a hundred days or a thousand days.”{DD/ 363}"
Author describes the travails of Indian army when China attacked.
"Dhola is 60 km from Tawang and 200 km from the railhead of Misamari. The Nyamjang river flows through from Tibet, enters India at Khinzemane, and meets Namka Chu 2.5km south of Khinzemane. There were seven improvised bridges— numbered I to V from east to west, with Log bridge and Temporary bridge between IV and V— across the Namka Chu river used by local graziers to take their cattle across. Dhola Post was opposite Bridge-III to the south of the river. Close to Tsangle was Bridge- V. When the river was in spate, the bridges served no purpose; while in October one could walk across the river bed. The Thagla ridge, to the north of the river, sprawls from east to west and overlooks Namka Chu. It has four prominent passes —Dum Dum La at 17,000 feet, Karpola II at 16,000 feet, Yamatso La at 16,000 feet and Thag La at 14,000 feet.
"The Chinese claimed the Thagla ridge area was on the Tibetan side while India claimed it was on the Indian side of the McMahon line. When in 1959 an Assam Rifles post was established at Khinzemane, the Chinese had disputed it and pushed Indians back; but, after the Chinese withdrew, India had re-occupied the post. China had protested and diplomatic exchanges had commenced."
"Apr-Aug 1962. Writes Brigadier Dalvi, who fought the 1962-war in the area, in ‘Himalayan Blunder’about the April-1962 episode of the Operation Onkar, meant to implement the Forward Policy:
"“From the outset it should have been appreciated that a move into the Dhola area would attract Chinese attention, if not a severe reaction. The area of the Tri-junction [of Tibet, Bhutan and India] was extremely sensitive, as the exact alignment of the McMahon Line had been made the subject of open dispute by China. Apart from the incident of August 1959, which brought the army into NEFA, we knew (or should have known) that Chinese officials in the 1960 discussions had not conceded our version of the Line in this particular area. I was naturally doubtful about activating a sensitive area, especially after I had seen for myself the difficulties of moving and maintaining a force there. The Thagla Ridge had a tactical significance for the Chinese as it overlooked their forward base at Le... When these awkward questions were raised, I was told categorically to ‘lay off’as this was a ‘matter of national policy’and was being implemented by the Assam Rifles... The persons who set up Dhola without the necessary military might to slug it out with the Chinese are guilty of providing the Chinese with the excuse they wanted; and of placing the Indian army in a shameful and invidious position... I studied the ground and realised that Dhola was militarily useless, indefensible and dominated by Chinese positions and located in a trap.”{ JPD/ 133}"
Author proceeds, with interspersed quotes.
"Sep-1962: Much happened, but business as usual. Major border events took place in September 1962, but for the higher-ups concerned, it was business as usual. Nehru left for London in early September 1962 to attend Commonwealth Prime Ministers’Conference; and was expected to return only by the end of the month after a tour of some nations in Africa. Defence Minister Krishna Menon was to be away to the UN. Finance Minister Morarji Desai had gone to London along with Nehru, after which he was to proceed to Washington. Lt General BM Kaul (CoGS) tasked with the implementation of the ‘Forward Policy’in NEFA was on a 2-month leave. And, so on."
"Wrote Claud Arpi in an article:
"“Major General Niranjan Prasad , the GOC of 4 Infantry Division in his book ‘The Fall of Towang’ (Tawang) describes the setting of the operations thus: ‘The McMahon Line from just north of Khinzemane, as drawn by Sir Henry McMahon in 1914 with a thick blue (in fact, red) pencil on an unsurveyed map, was not an accurate projection of the Himalayan watershed line… In this process the position of Thagla ridge was, to say the least, left ambiguous…’… If one follows the watershed principle as well as the ownership of customary pastures' rights, the Thagla ridge was the border, but the fact remains that the old map which was the reference for India's position on the 'genuine' location of the McMahon Line, showed the Thagla ridge and the Namkha Chu, north of the Red Line [that is, in Chinese territory]. Further surveys were unfortunately not conducted after India's Independence…”{Arpi6}"
"8-Sep-1962. On 8 September 1962 Chinese troops surrounded the Dhola post as a warning.
"15-Sep-1962. On 15 September 1962 a Chinese civilian official accompanying their troops announced over a loudspeaker to the Indian forces in Hindi that the area belonged to them and that the Indians must send their civilian official to discuss the location for an amicable settlement. Reportedly, the matter was referred all the way up to Nehru and, sticking to its position, India did not take up the offer for a meeting. Instead the decision was taken to reinforce the position, send additional forces, and evict the Chinese from the area.
"However, Brigadier Dalvi and others on the spot considered it to be impossible and suicidal to attempt to evict the Chinese from the area given the overwhelming odds: the Chinese were strategically located on heights while the Indians were within their view as sitting ducks; the Chinese were vastly greater in numbers and far better armed; unlike India, the Chinese had logistics in place; the Indians were ill-clothed, ill-armed and ill-fed.
"20-Sep-196 2. An incident of exchange of fire took place at Namka Chu on 20 September 1962. This happened after a clash long back in October 1959 at Kongka Pass. ... "
"22-Sep-196 2. In a high-level meeting to review the situation on 22 September 1962, General PN Thapar, Chief of Army Staff (COAS), advised against action to evict the Chinese, pointing to their much superior strength. However, Thapar was overruled by the other members; and MJ Desai, the Foreign Secretary, wanted the Chinese to be evicted from Dhola. His advice ignored, Thapar asked for written orders, which were duly given!{KNR/ 254-5} ... "
"30-Sep-1962. “After the Chinese surrounded the small Indian Army post at Tsenjang, north of the disputed Thagla Ridge, on September 8, the then defence minister VK Krishna Menon overruled the advice of the Army chief, General PN Thapar, and ordered the army forward. The Indian Army still balked and stayed put. On September 30, Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru, just returned from a foreign trip, became furious that the government's orders were not implemented. He overruled Thapar's advice again and shouted, ‘I don't care if the Chinese came as far as Delhi, they have to be thrown out of Thagla!’”{URL22}
"8-10-Oct-196 2. Under pressure from Nehru and Menon to evict the Chinese from the area, both General BN Kaul and General Prasad visited Dhola on 8 October 1962 and noted our weaknesses first-hand. Yet, to be able to please Nehru with some action in the area under his watch, Kaul took the disastrous adventurist step of sending a battalion on 10 October 1962 to capture Yumtsola, which was unoccupied and was to the west of the Thagla peak— thinking like Nehru that Chinese would not react. However, the Chinese reaction was so severe and so many jawans were killed in the action that Kaul was aghast. It has been rightly said that unless you have a reasonable chance of success , sending your men to attack is just murdering them— and that’s what Kaul did. Kaul left the place on 10 October 1962 with a promise to appraise Nehru of the reality. Yet Dalvi’s suggestion of abandoning Dhola and taking up defensive position further south was not heeded. ... "
So far, author's tone has been consistently, overtly, critical of India in this part. Having not excused India for not defending Tibet, and criticised for not being aware of Chinese policy of military occupation of Tibet, it would be more consistent to criticise inflation fir being still naive and not bring aware that China was taking over territory beyond Tibet. Instead he's done an inexplicable u-turn and blamed India, and the following says why.
"Alarmed by the Indian massing of troops in Dhola and the Indian attempts at Yumtsola on 10 October 1962 thanks to BN Kaul, or, taking that as an excuse, Chinese overran Dhola on 20 October 1962 heralding the 1962-war. BN Kaul has to be blamed for it. Having seen the situation first-hand, Kaul , as a responsible professional, should have put his foot down on India’s forward policy misadventure to save the Indian army from the sure debacle it was staring at. If Nehru-Menon did not agree with him, he should have resigned. But, instead, like several other seniors in the army, he bent over backwards to please Nehru-Menon overriding sound military considerations."
So he's joining China and much of West in blaming India, instead of China the aggressor, for the war. This fits more with Jawaharlal Nehru blaming Tibet instead of China after China swallowed Tibet, which Puranik described as appeasing the bully.
As for Nehru, he was aware of his short India fell in ability of military strength and equipment, and hence was attempting to keep India from going under the way Tibet fid by the friendship tactics; but it must have ranked, apart from the over a decade of answering yo Parliament and press about Chinese aggression in Tibet,
apart from consequent danger to India.
One may criticise the then government of India for not preparing for the decade for the Chinese aggression that dud arrive, or for helping PLA in Tibet; but to go as far as blaming India for not accepting China's border claims is to say, India ought to have knuckled under. This position suits a Chinese, an India-despising Westerner, but not Puranik, an admirer of Sardar Patel.
"Wrote BG Verghese later, recounting the sad saga: “Following Nehru’s ‘throw them out’ order, and against saner military advice and an assessment of ground realities, a brigade under John Dalvi was positioned on the Namka Chu River below the Thagla Ridge that the Chinese claimed lay even beyond the McMahon Line . It was a self-made trap: ‘It was but to do or die’. The brigade retreated in disorder after a gallant action, while the Chinese rolled down to Tawang where they reached on 25 October.”"
"“At 5 on the morning of 20th October 1962 massed Chinese artillery opened up a heavy concentration on the weak Indian garrison, in a narrow sector of the Namka Chu Valley... Massive infantry assaults followed, and within three hours the unequal contest was over. The route to the plains of Assam lay wide open. The Chinese exploited their initial successes and advanced 160 miles into Indian territory... reaching the Brahmaputra Valley by 20 th November. They swept aside the so-called impregnable defences of Sela Pass; Bomdilla was literally overrun ; the monastery town of Towang fell without a fight . India’s panicky reaction included the scrambling of ill-equipped, ill-trained for mountain warfare and unacclimatised military formations... The Chinese were amazed at this...”{JPD/ 1}"
Most are in agreement that India was weaker, coming out only recently out of colonial looting of centuries by various invaders, and Jawaharlal Nehru was naive, eager to be the heir to Gandhi.
But it's equally true that he wasn't facing an honorable opponent in cricket fields of Harrow, he was facing a deadly warlord of Chinese variety who hadn't squirmed at death of a hundred million of his own for molding China to his will.
Secret of Chinese prosperity versus Russian lack thereof lies at this two pronged fork; one, unlike Russia, China had humongous population - China was then twice, almost, or more than twice India - and ruthless regime that yoked it, with any falsehood employed in propaganda. And two, apart from the western craze to defeat USSR at any cost, that is, even to the tune of promoting the twin demons of China and jihadists, China also had the will to exploit any possibility and use any maneuvre to expand and dominate the world.
"Wrote SK Verma in “1962: The War That Wasn't”:"
"“As we have seen, after coming back from the dead, Mao’s Communist Chinese defeated the larger and vastly better equipped army of the Kuomintang. Realizing that the West was both physically and emotionally drained from World War II, and fully preoccupied with containing the Soviets, Mao pulled off what was perhaps the biggest post-War real estate coup by bringing both Sinkiang and Tibet into the Chinese fold. India, which was directly affected by this blatant Chinese expansionism, was the unknown entity in Mao’s scheme of things. Yet somehow, not only did the Indians quietly go along with the Chinese moves in Tibet, Mao even managed to get Nehru to endorse the Chinese takeover. The next logical step was to force the Indians onto the back foot, for the threat of the United States jumping into the fray was always a real one. Therefore, to keep the Indians off balance, Mao created a border dispute with India where previously none existed.
"“With Nehru walking into the Chinese trap despite all the warnings (Sardar Patel died exactly thirty-eight days after writing his famous letter spelling out the Chinese intent) the game was over before it had even begun. The Chinese played their cards in such a manner that the Indians lost what should have been at best a defensive war by not fighting it at all. And finally, to top it all, after the conflict, the Chinese actually managed to convince almost everyone that Nehru was solely responsible for the clash between India and China in 1962.
"“Right from the very beginning the Chinese played Nehru. Just as the Chinese General Yang Chengiou read Lieutenant General Bijji Kaul like an open book, Mao understood Nehru and with well thought-out moves, made the Indian prime minister and the men around him look like a bunch of bungling amateurs.”{ SKV/ L-6835}"
Tables did turn. Having exploited, China now faces backlash, especially so throughout Africa, and Chinese working in Africa fear for life.
"Hardly any nation came out in support of India. Nehru considered himself the leader of non-aligned movement and of newly independent Asian and African countries whose cause he had been espousing. But, none gave unqualified support and most remained neutral.
"There was a quid pro quo between China and the USSR: China was to be supportive of USSR’s attempt to deploy nuclear missiles in Cuba— the Cuba crisis almost coincided with the India-China war— and USSR was to be supportive of China in India-China war . In fact, Mao cunningly and carefully chose the timing of the attack to coincide with the Cuban missile crisis, so that the world attention and the involvement of the two superpowers remained focussed on Cuba, and no country interfered with the Chinese action. Wrote Henry Kissinger in ‘On China’{HK}:
"“Before the final decision [by China] to order the offensive [against India in 1962], word was received from Khrushchev that, in case of war, the Soviet Union would back China under the provisions of the Treaty of Friendship and Alliance of 1950. It was a decision totally out of keeping with Soviet-Chinese relations in the previous years and the neutrality heretofore practiced by the Kremlin on the issue of Indian relations with China. A plausible explanation is that Khrushchev, aware of the imminence of a showdown over Soviet deployment of nuclear weapons to Cuba, wanted to assure himself of Chinese support in the Caribbean crisis.”{HK/ L-3048}
"“At the peak of the Sino-Indian War on November 19, 1962, ... Kennedy received an extraordinary letter from Prime Minister Nehru asking for 350 American combat aircraft and crews to be urgently sent to India to fight China…”{BR/ L-38-41}
"The two letters written by Nehru on 15 November 1962 and 20 November 1962 to the US President, John F Kennedy, show the desperation. ... "
" ... Bomdila has fallen and the retreating forces from Sela have been trapped between the Sela Ridge and Bomdila. A serious threat has developed to our Digboi oilfields in Assam. With the advance of the Chinese in massive strength, the entire Brahmaputra Valley is seriously threatened and unless something is done immediately to stem the tide, the whole of Assam, Tripura, Manipur and Nagaland would also pass into Chinese hands.’ ... "
And if JFK had not acted swiftly, that region could have gone the way of Tibet. It was perdona of Jawaharlal Nehru and his personal relationship with JFK, someone just as full of goodwill and naiveté, that was key to stopping Chinese attack.
" ... After pointing out that hitherto he had ‘restricted our requests to essential equipment’and thanking the US for the assistance ‘so readily given’, Nehru went on: ‘We did not ask for more comprehensive assistance, particularly air assistance... The situation that has developed is, however, desperate. We have to have more comprehensive assistance if the Chinese are to be prevented from taking over the whole of Eastern India. Any delay in this assistance reaching us will result in nothing short of a catastrophe for our country’. In this context his [Nehru’s] specific demands are for: ‘[ A] minimum of 12 squadrons of supersonic all-weather fighters’and a ‘modern radar cover (which) we don’t have.’Nehru added that US air force personnel ‘will have to man these fighters and radar installations while our personnel are being trained.’”{ URL24}"
"However, the help of the US air-force was eventually not required, as China declared unilateral ceasefire on 21 November 1962. President Kennedy’s statement that came two days earlier that they [Chinese] would be forcing the hand of the President of the US if they advanced any further might also have been one of the factors in China’s decision to ceasefire."
"Might"??? Was there any other reason why China stopped? Tibet was only a fateway, not really lebensraum!
"Both the US and the UK had begun providing armaments. Even Israel, whom Nehru had shunned, provided equipments."
"Air Chief Marshal NAK Browne said in October 2012 that had the IAF been allowed in an offensive role, the outcome of the 1962 war would have been different. However, IAF’s role was confined only to providing transportation to the Army. Even former Air Vice Marshal AK Tewary had opined that India could have defeated China in the 1962 war had its air force been used. “In the final analysis, the use of combat air power would have turned the tables on the Chinese and the 1962 war could well have been a debacle for China,”he said. He mentioned that the then political–bureaucratic combine sought the help of the US Air Force without even consulting the IAF leadership. As per the official history, no notings or documents are available to explain the decision to forego the use of offensive air support.{ URL112, URL113}
"It is worth noting that the British, during the pre-independence period, had planned for the use of air-force in the region if warranted. Wrote Claude Arpi in ‘1962 and the McMahon Line Saga’: “…also look into the British policy towards Tibet and even the possibility for India to militarily defend the Roof of the World. A detailed plan was prepared by the War Office for the purpose…Interestingly, the operations were planned with 7 squadrons of the RAF. Unfortunately 15 years later the Government of India had forgotten that the Air Force could be used in the Himalayan region.”{ Arpi/ 17-18}"
Author gets slightly more real, now, instead of making India guilty of the war as he's been portraying through this section.
" ... China was looking for an opportunity to humiliate India, and ... China also wanted to cement its hold on Aksai Chin and meet its political objectives, which were several:
"One. Establish itself as the only big power of Asia that mattered.
"Two. Establish superiority of its totalitarian, communist system over the democratic and pluralistic model represented by India for the developing countries.
"Three. Humiliate Nehru and India, and demolish India’s standing in the Third World.
"Four. Ensure all cultural and religious links between Tibet and India are severed—something that could have come in the way of Tibet’s total integration with China.
"Five. Teach India a lesson for giving shelter to Dalai Lama. China also suspected Indo-American role in Tibetan uprising.
"Six. Pressurise India to settle the boundaries on China’s terms.
"Seven. Exploit the global distraction of the Cuban Missile Crisis to achieve China’s strategic goals.
"Eight. Mao had his own internal political compulsions arising out of famines, economic calamities and power struggle within. His “Great Leap Forward”started in 1958 was a disaster, and led to the largest man-made famine in human history resulting in the starvation-deaths of between 40 to 50 million over the three year period of 1959-61. The decisive war served to strengthen and enhance his position at home and internationally."
"China had invested heavily in building up its armed forces for possible armed conflicts on four fronts: anticipated attack by Taiwan, backed by US; South Korea; Tibet and lastly India. By 1962, China had a first-class army well prepared for any eventuality."
Author forgets, the very existence of Mao's regime was due to its turning an ideological following into a rabble rousing warlord's army, prepared to kill all opponents.
"This is what Nehru himself admitted:
"“We were getting out of touch with reality in the modern world and we were living in an artificial atmosphere of our creation...”{Zak/ 149}
"“We feel India has been ill-repaid for her diplomatic friendliness toward Peking... Difficult to say the Chinese have deliberately deceived us... We may have deceived ourselves...”{AS/ 38}"
Author also fails to take into account the reasons why India, and Jawaharlal Nehru, failed. It was very akin to why India fell to Islamic hordes.
Then, it was Buddhism that had brought in a creed of abhorrent war, that went too far. Thus time, it was Gandhi, who denounced even freedom warriors and Hindu Gods if they didn't conform to his extreme "die loving your murderer, no matter what he's done to uour family" creed. And as he'd himself said, quoted more than one by Puranik before this in context of why he promoted Nehru over the democratically elected Patel, it was because he saw in Jawaharlal Nehru his spiritual heir.
................................................................................................
Blunder–37 :
Criminal Neglect of Defence & External Security
"A wise man who apprehends danger or one who desires his own good should plan his defence even before the onset of danger.
"—Shri Ram to Lakshman
"If India had listened to [Veer] Savarkar and adopted the policy of militarization, then we would not have suffered the defeat today.
"—General Cariappa on the 1962-India-China-War{Tw8}"
But these including God Rama was precisely those branded "misguided" by Gandhi, and discarded as ideals to follow! No wonder the spiritual son he'd promoted chose a path of his own version of Gandhian politics, "friendship". But British hadn't left due to Gandhi, and Chinese could do all drama of propriety to the hilt, falsely, as evident from the cgasm between Puranik and Arun Shourie in their understanding of just where and how much India went wrong. Former quotes letters from China, while latter goes through Indian documents, including letters from Jawaharlal Nehru to chief ministers.
What if the said letters from China quoted by Puranik, were a fraud?
"Wrote SK Verma in “1962: The War That Wasn't”:
"“With Bose’s exit and Sardar Patel’s death in 1950, there was no one who could provide the necessary inspiration for the reconstruction of an army (that had so far served British interests) into an integrated military instrument that could identify potential threats and tackle them militarily. Nehru, unlike Bose and Patel, veered away from building military power.”{SKV/ L-646}"
Thereby the crime of the supposedly saintly man who was really a politician, who forced Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose out of congress from the second time elected position of president, and subsequently forced Sardar Patel to step aside for Jawaharlal Nehru to secure position of first PM of India.
"The seeds of India's disgraceful debacle in 1962 India-China War were sown soon after Independence by none other than Nehru himself, ... "
No, they were sown in him by Gandhi.
"Shortly after independence, the first Army Chief of independent India Lt General Sir Robert Lockhart (first army chiefs of India and Pakistan were British then!), as per the standard procedure, took a strategic defence plan for India to Nehru, seeking a Government directive in the matter. Unbelievably, Lockhart returned shell-shocked at Nehru’s response:
"“The PM took one look at my paper and blew his top. ‘Rubbish! Total rubbish! We don’t need a defence plan. Our policy is ahimsa [non-violence]. We foresee no military threats. Scrap the army! The police are good enough to meet our security needs’, shouted Nehru.”{ URL32} Nehru actually went ahead and reduced the army strength by about 50,000 troops after independence despite the looming threat in Kashmir, and the Chinese entry into Tibet.{ URL33}
"“It needs to be noted that in 1949, India had reduced its army by 52,000 personnel and it was intended to make a further reduction of 1,00,000 in 1950. Nehru had written: ‘In fact, this was our decision and plans were drawn up accordingly. This was a brave decision…We made this decision and we were very anxious to act up to it.’”{ MG2/ 68/ L-1266}
"Noted MO Mathai in the context of Khrushchev-Bulganin visit to India: “Several times Khrushchev emphasised the need for a first-class aircraft industry for a large country like India and volunteered to send some of Soviet Union’s best experts in the field. Somehow it did not register with Nehru and no follow-up action was taken. It was only after the Chinese invasion that we woke up to the grim realities and secured Soviet collaboration in the production of modern military aircraft.”{Mac2/ 4541}
"Wrote RNP Singh in ‘Nehru: A Troubled Legacy’:
"“Nehru took the matter of defence so lightly that in an answer to a question on Indian defence against a potential aggressor, he asserted that the nation had the spirit to defend itself by lathis [sticks] and stones if need be; ‘Therefore, I am not afraid of anybody invading India from any quarter.’ While delivering a speech in Parliament, Nehru once advised in an idealistic manner, ‘If you better your morale and determine not to surrender, nothing can conquer you.’ Nehru… told a press conference: ‘I think the proper way to consider defence is to begin to forget the military aspect.’”{RNPS/ 120}"
"Wrote Acharya JB Kripalani in ‘My Times: An Autobiography’:
"“Once he [Krishna Menon, Nehru’s Defence Minister) organised an exhibition in Delhi of defence production. In addition to the junk he had brought, he exhibited a pressure-cooker and a coffee percolator, which had been manufactured in our ordnance factories. This was at a time when the Chinese aggression was at its peak on our Himalayan borders…”{JBK/ 867}"
"“It is relevant here to mention the flawed decisions of India’s first Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru and V.K. Krishna Menon, its second defence minister. While Nehru reportedly conveyed that India did not need an army— the police were sufficient, Krishna Menon believed that India’s ordnance factories were better off producing pressure cookers and coffee percolators. Apart from viewing the Indian Army with suspicion, both went out of their way to not only turn down any sound advice from the Forces, but also meddle with its leadership. The result was that the Indian Army, globally acknowledged as about the best in World Wars I and II, was pitched into the 1962 Sino-Indian war, woefully under-armed, ill-equipped and insufficiently-clad and worst , ordered by Nehru to carry out tasks on the ground which were simply not executable…”{W.n19}"
"General Thapar had submitted a note to the government in 1960 pointing out that the equipment that the Indian army had and their poor condition was no match to that of China and even Pakistan. Prior to the operations against China to get certain territories vacated, Thapar had impressed upon Nehru that the Indian army was unprepared and ill-equipped for the task it was being asked to undertake. He even got Nehru to cross-check these stark realities from some of his senior staff. Yet, Nehru persisted , saying China would not retaliate! General Thapar told Kuldip Nayar on 29 July 1970, as stated by Nayar in his book ‘Beyond the Lines’: “Looking back, I think I should have submitted my resignation at that time. I might have saved my country from the humiliation of defeat.”{KN}"
"Nehru’s government indifferent approach to defence rested on the presumption that ‘China would not attack’ India. Writes General (Retd) VK Singh in ‘Leadership in the Indian Army’: “Cariappa also had some unpleasant brushes with Nehru. Having foreseen the Chinese threat, he wanted to defend the border more effectively. In May 1951, he presented an outline plan for the defence of the North East Frontier Agency (NEFA). Nehru dismissed him saying that it was not the C-in-C’s business to tell the Prime Minister how to defend the country [What arrogance!]. He advised Cariappa to worry only about Pakistan and Kashmir; as far as NEFA was concerned, the Chinese themselves would defend our frontiers!”{VKS/ 43}
"Wrote Durga Das:
"“If [Krishna] Menon was guilty of hugging the illusion [that ‘China would not attack’], so was Nehru, perhaps to a greater degree. He openly ticked off General Thimayya, Chief of Army Staff, at a Governor’s Conference months earlier for even suggesting the possibility of an attack by China. ... "
"General Thapar, the Chief of Army Staff, had requested for urgent additional funding to make good the gross deficiencies in armaments in July 1962, that happened to be about three months before the actual war. When the request was referred to Nehru, he shot it down saying China would not resort to force.{DD/ 362}"
" ... KS Thimayya had repeatedly raised the issue of army’s gross weaknesses in defending itself from China. Frustrated at his failure to get the needful done despite his entreaties to Krishna Menon and Nehru, this is what he told his fellow army-men in his farewell speech upon retirement on 7 May 1961: “I hope I am not leaving you as cannon fodder for the Chinese. God bless you all!”{VKS/ 113/ L-1842}"
"Commented Brig. Dalvi:{ JPD/ 2}
"“There was no overall political objective; no National Policy; no grand strategy and total unreadiness for military operations in the awesome Himalayan mountains, against a first-class land power... We did not study the pattern of weapons and communications equipments that we may require. Army Schools of Instruction were oriented towards open warfare. There was little emphasis on mountain warfare despite the Army’s deployment in Kashmir from 1947... The Army was forgotten; its equipment allowed to become obsolete, certainly obsolescent; and its training academic and outdated. We merely tried to maintain what we had inherited in 1947... The political assumptions of our defence policies were invalid and dangerous...
"”“In October 1962 Indians were shocked beyond words to discover that we had no modern rifle, although we were supposed to be ready to ‘manufacture’an aircraft; and had the know-how to make an atom-bomb... Assam Rifles posts [under the forward policy] were deployed non-tactically and they were ill-armed and even worse equipped that the Regular Army. At best, they could only function as border check-posts and yet their task was ‘to fight to the last man and the last round’... There were no inter-communication facilities between Assam Rifles’posts and the nearest Army sub-unit... The standard explanation was that there was a general shortage of wireless sets in the country. The Assam Rifles was a separate private army of the External Affairs Ministry. And who would dare bell the cat about the extraordinary command system?”{ JPD/ 2}
"Reportedly, at a meeting of the Defence Council in September 1962 [a month before the Chinese attack], while the Army Commander in Ladakh had stated, “If China attacks massively, we shall be annihilated,” the head of the Eastern Command had said, “If China decides to come down in a big way, we are in no position to hold it anywhere in NEFA.”{DD/ 362}"
" ... We didn’t even have woollen clothing when we were pushed into hills. Aircraft weren’t allowed to operate. We could have taken on China, we had our bases. He messed up the whole thing and we paid a heavy price for it,’ said Air Marshal Denzil Keelor (Retd) highlighting the leadership failures of the then Prime Minister Nehru during the 1962 Indo-China war.”{URL83}"
"“Reference must be made to what RD Pradhan, former private secretary to Defence Minister YB Chavan, and later, Union home secretary and governor of Arunachal Pradesh, has written: ‘Flying over Rongla, Zimithang towards Tsangdhar, I saw the terrain where in October-November 1962 our troops were sent to face the Chinese, spread over a wide front, on the southern face of the Thag La. They were equipped with light rifles, small quantity of ammunition. Many were in summer clothing and canvas shoes as they had been rushed from the western front in the Punjab to the Valley across Bomdi La and Se La and for want of transport and motorable roads had to carry on foot their equipment and provisions on their back. For me the visit was all the more poignant. After seeing the topography, I realised how in September-October 1962, an unprepared, ill-equipped Brigade had been mindlessly pushed to perish in the Valley of Death.”{MG2/ 67-68/ L-2168}"
................................................................................................
Blunder–38 :
Politicisation of the Army
" ... Krishna Menon ill-treated people. He was offensive to the top-brass of the military. He antagonised many through his acerbic comments, sarcasm and supercilious behaviour. He had publicly humiliated top brass of the army. Eventually, some of their chosen submissive officers contributed to the humiliation of India.
"General SD Verma had dared to write to the higher authorities the facts of poor operational readiness. He was asked to withdraw his letter. He refused and wanted the letter to be put on record. That honest, forthright and very capable officer was victimised— ultimately he resigned. Wrote Inder Malhotra:
"“To cap it all, it was Menon’s penchant to play favourites that was responsible for the disaster of Lt.- General B.M. Kaul, with hardly any experience of combat, being appointed the commander in the battlefield and retaining that position even when he was lying ill in Delhi.”{IM1}"
" ... Nehru’s interest in Kaul’s career and his subsequent rise to the top had begun as far back as 1947; from being considered a ‘failed officer’, he was posted to the United States as the military attaché after which he returned to India and became Nehru’s key man in Kashmir. The Menon-Thimayya clash eventually took place when the army chief put his foot down when Kaul was to be placed in Army HQ on promotion as the QMG.
"“Thimayya could not have been more categorical in his official assessment of Kaul, yet it was Thimayya who paid the price for his loyalty to his country and his prime minister. Nehru, despite his stature and reputation, showed that he was not above playing petty politics and with Menon as a cat’s paw, he contrived to not only sideline Thimayya, but used him and the Indian Army as a smokescreen to get himself out of the Aksai Chin highway mess. If that was inexcusable, how should we regard the prime minister’s statement in Parliament the day after he had unilaterally announced the army’s taking over of NEFA, that Thimayya was petulant, then begin focusing on the need to maintain civil supremacy over the military..”{ SKV/ L-6903}"
" ... with General Thimayya went Lieutenant Generals Thorat and S.D. Verma. Even Major General Sam Manekshaw was not spared. After the fall of Tawang on 23 October, the new crop of officers who took over 4 Division and the various brigades in the Kameng Sector were all personally selected by General Pran Thapar. They failed to show even the slightest semblance of a fight when, three weeks later, the Chinese push became a shove.”{SKV/ L-6883}"
................................................................................................
Blunder–39 :
Anti Armed-Forces
"The top bureaucracy, noticing Nehru’s suspicion for and bias against the army, cleverly manoeuvred a note declaring the Armed Forces Headquarters as the “attached” office of the Defence Ministry. That ensured ascendency for the top babu of the Defence Ministry —the Defence Secretary— over the army chief. The post of Commander-in-Chief, the main advisor on military matters , was abolished. That role was given to the President of India— the President became formally the Supreme Commander of the Armed Forces! The real motive was to remove the possibility of the Army Commander-in-Chief ever challenging the civilian authority. ... "
Was it due to developments in Pakistan?"
"Worst was keeping the military weak, lest they ever challenge the civilian authority. Military remained grossly under-funded. It continued with the obsolete Second World War equipments. During the Nehruvian times the Defence Ministry had very low importance. Senior ministers shunned it, as it was considered not an important enough portfolio for a senior politician!"
This changed in or before 1965, more in 1971, and obviously by the time of Kargil.
"Modi-government has tried to rectify the situation to some extent by appointing the first Chief of Defence Staff (CDS) on 30-Dec-2019.{URL114}"
................................................................................................
Blunder–40 :
Lethargic Intelligence Machinery & No Planning
" ... when Pakistan invaded J& K in October 1947, India’s IB was in disarray.”{ JKR/ 120}
"“[ The IB was] in a tragic-comic state of helplessness. The Director of the Intelligence Bureau of undivided India, during the months preceding 15 August 1947, was an officer who was about to opt for Pakistani citizenship. This individual, who was earmarked for appointment as Director of the Pakistan Intelligence Bureau, took full advantage of his position to transfer across to Pakistan every file of importance dealing with Intelligence, leaving behind for his counterparts in India the office furniture, empty racks and cupboards, and a few innocuous files dealing with office routine.”{ JKR/ 120}"
................................................................................................
Blunder–41 :
Suppressing Truth
Author mentions PM declaring an enquiry in parliament during late October 1962, but deciding otherwise after renewed hostilities by China in November.
" ... Sensing its consequence upon him, Nehru conveniently forgot about the enquiry.
"Although no enquiry was set up by the Indian Cabinet or the Government, the new Chief of Army Staff, General Chaudhuri, did set up an Operations Review Committee headed by Lieutenant-General TB Henderson-Brooks, aka HB, of the Indian army— an Australian -born, second-generation English expatriate who had opted to be an Indian, rather than a British, citizen in the 1930s— with Brigadier Premendra Singh Bhagat, Victoria Cross , then commandant of the Indian Military Academy, as a member.
"However, the terms of reference of the Committee were never published; it had no power to examine witnesses or call for documents; and it had no proper legal authority. The purpose was to ensure it didn’t morph into a comprehensive fact-finding mission that could embarrass the government. Reportedly, its terms of reference were very restrictive confined perhaps to only the 4 Corps’operations."
"Chaudhuri had taken the initiative to appoint Lieutenant General Henderson Brooks and Brigadier Prem Bhagat to make an independent analysis of the war. Chaudhuri’s initial brief to Brooks and Bhagat was all-encompassing in its scope, but the chief had to back down quickly when it was pointed out to him by the DMO, Brigadier D. K. Palit, that this would allow the two officers to access all the files pertaining to governmental policy decisions. Obviously, if the Henderson Brooks-Bhagat Report was to have teeth, its level would have to be raised beyond Army HQ. When the matter was taken up with the new defence minister, Y. B. Chavan, the government let it be known that ‘it did not wish to institute an enquiry into high -level policies and decisions’. So instead of the committee being upgraded to widen its scope, it remained as it had been originally constituted , while its terms of reference were changed. The two officers were ordered to confine themselves to analysing IV Corps’ operations only."
" ... Once completed, the report was locked up and few individuals outside the Cabinet were granted access to it. In a subsequent low-key statement in Parliament, Chavan ascribed the debacle in NEFA entirely to the ‘failure of military commanders and to the tactical mishandling of troops on the ground’. The defence minister thereby succeeded not only in diverting any criticism from Nehru’s government, he also created the impression that the Henderson Brooks-Bhagat Report was a definitive review of the entire Sino-Indian conflict, which was certainly not the case.”{ SKV/ L-6864}"
Arun Shourie mentions PM deflecting a demand in parliament for an enquiry, saying it would be unfair to the army! Which nobody in India blamed, of course. Their brave fight despite pathetic provisions were matter of legends.
"Perhaps, had the HB report been made public, Nehru would have had to resign. Wrote Kuldip Nayar in ‘Beyond the Lines’{KN}:
"“... in September 1970, [General ] Thapar [who headed the army at the time of the war] approached Indira Gandhi... to allow him to see the [HB] report... She did not however concede the request... When I was a Rajya Sabha member from 1996, I wanted the report to be made public. The government refused to do so ‘in public interest’. My hunch was that the report had so severely criticized Nehru that the government, even headed by the BJP, did not want to face the public anger that would have been generated... I used the RTI facilities in 2008 when I wanted access to the Henderson Brooks inquiry report...[ but didn’t succeed]...”{KN}"
" ... It is tragic that the famous 'Nehru Papers' are jealously locked away in the Nehru Memorial Library . They are, in fact, the property of his family! I find it even more regrettable that during its six years in power, the NDA government, often accused of trying to rewrite history, did not take any action to rectify this anomaly. ... "
That certainly is highly improper.
................................................................................................
Blunder–42 :
Himalayan Blunders, but No Accountability
"It was interesting what Nehru had commented on the Chinese communism: “The idea that communism inevitably means expansion and war, or, to put it more precisely, that Chinese communism means inevitably an expansion towards India, is rather naïve.”{ Arpi/ 440}"
What was naive was assuming that labels worn on top brand spirit within.
China might declare itself communist under Mao, but what was not Hitleresque about claiming Tibet?
Of course, one could refer instead to the originals in this category, the Mongol hordes led by Chingiz Khan, or his predecessor, Attila the hun. But the three names are, again, merely different labels for the same spirit.
Author quotes Dalvi -
“We must also learn that a democracy has no room for proven failures. This is not a matter of sentiment. Mr Chamberlain was removed after Hitler invaded France in May 1940 with Cromwell’s classic plea, ‘For God’s sake, go’. Mr Anthony Eden was forced out of office after the disastrous Suez adventure of 1956...”{ JPD/ 161}
"Not only that, Nehru was not even willing to remove the Defence Minister Krishna Menon. Nehru told Yashwant Rao Chavan who had come to Delhi to attend a meeting of the Chief Ministers: “You see, they want Menon’s blood. If I agree, tomorrow they will ask for my blood.”{ DD/ 364}"
"Finding it difficult to resist pressure, Nehru played his old game of a threat of his own resignation. Nehru had threatened to resign on several earlier occasions to have his way safe in the knowledge that people would back off. But, not this time. When he found that the trick won’t work and he himself would have to go, he quickly backed off and asked Menon to resign. Meanwhile Indira Gandhi had approached Vice-President Zakir Hussain to persuade her father to drop Menon, as that was the only way to appease the enraged public and the media. Nehru actually remonstrated with those who criticised him, and later even took revenge against some! For example, Dharampal, a highly regarded thinker-scholar and author who had addressed an open letter to Nehru critical of the humiliating 1962-war debacle was jailed by Nehru (Blunder# 97)."
Author mentions Yom Kippur war as a counterexample.
"Golda Meir was the president then. Even though Israel’s ultimate victory was spectacular and decisive, they immediately instituted an enquiry to fix responsibility for the initial setbacks and the panic reaction, and the lapses that led to the attack coming as a surprise . The preliminary report took just a few months and was released on April 2, 1974— it actually named names of those responsible. Several top-ranking staff were asked to resign. Golda Meir was not named, but taking overall responsibility, she resigned on April 10 , 1974 —after mere eight days of release of the report, which was only a preliminary report! This, even though Israel , under Golda Meir, had actually won the war decisively and turned the tables on the Arab countries that had attacked them!"
................................................................................................
Blunder–43 :
Delayed Liberation of Goa
"Wrote Durga Das: “Gandhi advised the people [Indians] of the French and Portuguese possessions in India not to revolt against their overlords on 15th August but to trust Nehru to do for his kith and kin what he was doing to assist the Indonesians to become free. Indirectly, Gandhi was voicing the fact that he differed from Patel’s view on Goa and Pondicherry and other foreign enclaves and agreed with Nehru’s that the question of their liberation could wait for some time.”{ DD/ 250}"
The two were very different, and Goa certainly did need liberation.
"Commented Sita Ram Goel then, prior to Goa’s annexation:
" ... If Goa and the French possessions are taken by India, he will not know how to harangue against the North Atlantic Alliance, day in and day out.”{SRG2/ 170}"
................................................................................................
Blunder–44 :
Nehru’s NO to Nuclear Arms
"The then US president John F Kennedy was an admirer of Indian democracy, and when he learnt that China was on its way to detonate a nuclear device, he wanted that it ought to be a democratic country like India, and not communist China, which should have nuclear capability. The Kennedy administration was ready to help India out with nuclear deterrence. But, Nehru rejected the offer.
"Currently, India has been canvassing support from various countries to become a member of Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG)—in vain, so far. Had Nehru gone along with Kennedy’s advice, India would have detonated a nuclear device well before China. Had that happened, not only would India have been a member of the NSG long, long ago, but China would not have dared to attack India in 1962, nor would Pakistan have taken liberties to attack India in 1965.
"Former foreign secretary Rasgotra disclosed:
"“… Kennedy’s hand-written letter was accompanied by a technical note from the chairman of the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission, setting out the assistance his organisation would provide to Indian atomic scientists to detonate an American device from atop a tower in Rajasthan desert, the release said... In the letter, Kennedy had said he and the American establishment were aware of Nehru’s strong views against nuclear tests and nuclear weapons, but emphasised the political and security threat China’s test would spell for Nehru’s government and India’s security, it said, adding the American leader’s letter emphasised that ‘nothing is more important than national security.’”{URL49}
"Gandhian ‘Ahimsa’ had not only totally vitiated free India’s approach to retaining its own freedom by strengthening its defence and external security; but had also provided excuses to pacifists like Nehru to not fulfil their basic responsibility as prime minister of protecting India, under the garb of the hypocrisy of high moral principles, and being flag-bearers of world-peace. Nehru failed to grasp the deterrence value of nuclear weapons. What is surprising is what were his cabinet colleagues and other leaders of the ruling and the opposition parties doing? Were they mere mute and spineless witnesses to whatever the autocratic and undemocratic Nehru chose to do?"
................................................................................................
Blunder–45 :
No Settlement with Pakistan
"The India-Pakistan Indus Water Treaty (IWT) of 1960 on sharing of waters from the six Indus-system rivers was an unprecedented (by any nation) generous “give away” (like the India-China Panchsheel agreement of 1954: Blunder# 34) by Nehru to Pakistan at the cost of J& K and Punjab (Blunder# 50), with no reciprocal “take”. It didn’t occur to Nehru to make it conditional upon Pakistan settling on J& K and other matters to ensure secure western and north western borders.
"Intended to palliate India’s alarm at Pakistan’s entry into SEATO in 1958, General Ayub Khan proposed security alliance/ pact with India to Nehru. Nehru summarily and scornfully rejected the proposal remarking security alliance “against whom?”"
................................................................................................
Blunder–46 :
Responsible for 1965-War too, in a way
"India's lack of pacts with powerful countries to back it up in case of external attacks (Nehruvian policy (fad) of “Non-Alignment”resulted in it being non-aligned with its own national security interests—Blunder# 57), its poor showing in 1962-War, the fact of its continued dependence on outdated armaments of World War-II vintage, the exposure of its gross deficiency in modern military hardware, and little efforts even post 1962-war to strengthen itself, prompted Pakistan to take advantage of the situation and attempt to grab Kashmir militarily in 1965.
"India and Nehru did not wake up even as Pakistan equipped itself with first-class, modern military hardware from the USA, following its pact with the anti-communist Western Bloc. Shastri was relatively a new entrant as PM, and he had hardly had time to come to grips with things crying for attention, let alone tackle the huge Nehru legacy of untackled problems. The blame for the fact that Pakistan dared to attack India on account of its known unpreparedness, therefore, rests squarely with Nehru. Further, as per the US advice, had India gone nuclear (Blunder# 44), or had Nehru reached an honourable settlement with Pakistan (Blunder# 45), Pakistan would not have attacked India.
................................................................................................
Blunder–47 :
International Record in Insecure Borders
"Nehru’s policies resulted in thousands of kilometres of all land boundaries of India, whether in the north or east or west or northeast or northwest, becoming sensitive and insecure, requiring massive investments to protect them. What is noteworthy is that there were enough opportunities to peacefully settle the boundaries with China in the 1950s and early 1960s, and with Pakistan too, yet most irresponsibly Nehru failed to encash on them (Blunder# 35,45).
"Thanks to Gandhi’s choice for the first PM of India, India is the only country of its size in the world with such a long unsettled border with a giant neighbour, and disputes with another."
"Northeast has been made insecure thanks to gross misgovernance, corruption, and insurgency, and to Nehru turning a blind eye to adversely changing demography —thanks to proselytization, and to Muslim migrations from East Pakistan/ Bangladesh."
................................................................................................
................................................................................................
................................................................................................
................................................................................................
................................................
................................................
April 28, 2022 - April 29, 2022.
................................................
................................................
................................................................................................
................................................................................................
................................................................................................
................................................................................................
Chapter - IV
FOREIGN POLICY
................................................................................................
................................................................................................
Blunder–48 :
Nehru–Liaquat Pact 1950
"With indescribable atrocities against Hindus in East Bengal going unabated, the GoI made an appeal to Pakistan to call a halt on the same. But, there was little response, till tit-for-tat brought Pakistan to the negotiating table. Despite the numerous, horrible riots through the decades ... like the Moplah anti-Hindu attacks of 1921, Kohat anti -Hindu attacks of 1924, Direct Action Day of 1946, Noakhali, and many, many more, Gandhi-Nehru-Congress did irresponsibly precious little to safeguard the lives and honour of innocents by forming well-trained self-defence groups, and suitably equipping them. Gandhian Ahimsa and Gandhian principles benefited only the British and the adversaries like the Muslim League and their gunda gangs, making Hindus and Sikhs the helpless victims, subject to unspeakable cruelties."
" ... In Rajlakshmi Debi’s Bangla novel Kamal-lata, quoted by Tathagata Roy in his book ‘My People, Uprooted: A Saga of the Hindus of Eastern Bengal’{TR} (Chapter 6), there is a conversation described between a Hindu from Mymensingh town and a Muslim from a Calcutta suburb sometime just after partition. In the process of haggling the Muslim says, “Excuse me, but your position and ours are not the same. So long as Mahatma Gandhi is alive we have no fears. But you won’t be able to live here [East Bengal] much longer.”
"There was a marked difference between Punjab and Bengal in respect of the partition. In Punjab, the carnage was on both sides, East Punjab and West Punjab, although more in the Muslim-dominated West Punjab. In Bengal, the mayhem was mostly in the Muslim-dominated East Bengal. In Punjab, the migration was both ways. In a way, there was a population transfer between West Punjab and East Punjab. In Bengal, the predominant migration was that of Hindus from East Pakistan to West Bengal. There was a reverse migration of Muslims too, but comparatively far less."
"It was only when the anti-Muslim riots in Howrah, in retaliation of the on-going carnage in East Bengal, took a serious turn from 26 March 1950 onwards that the Pakistan PM Liaquat Ali made his first conciliatory gesture in a speech at Karachi on 29 March 1950, and expressed his intention to travel to New Delhi on 2 April 1950 to work out a solution with Nehru. Liaquat Ali hurried to New Delhi on 2 April 1950, and signed the Nehru– Liaquat Pact, also called the Delhi Pact, on 8 April 1950. It provided for safety of refugees when they returned to dispose of their property; return of abducted women and looted property; derecognition of forced conversions; complete and equal right of citizenship and security of life and properties to minorities; and setting up of Minority Commission in each country.
"As expected, while India firmly implemented the Pact, not Pakistan. While the anti-Muslim violence in West Bengal was put down with a firm hand, and the migration of Muslims from West Bengal to East Bengal ceased; the violence against the Hindus in East Bengal continued unabated, so also the migration of Hindus from East Bengal to West Bengal. That is, the carnage became only one-sided: that of Hindus in East Bengal. Also, the migration became only one way: Pakistan to India.
"Looking to the track-record of the Muslim League leaders, who had themselves been inciting the mobs, Nehru should have known what the result of the pact would be. Sardar Patel was unhappy with the Pact, but being in the cabinet, didn’t oppose it. However, Dr Shyama Prasad Mukherjee and KC Niyogee, the two central ministers from West Bengal, immediately resigned from the Union Cabinet in protest against the Pact."
................................................................................................
Blunder–49 :
Letting Go of Gwadar
"Gwadar was not owned by the British at the time of independence. Gwadar was an overseas possession of the Sultanate of Muscat and Oman—it was given as a gift to Oman by the Khan of Kalat in 1783— until Pakistan purchased the territory. Pakistan assumed its control on 8 December 1958, and the territory was later integrated into Baluchistan province on 1 July 1970 as Gwadar District.
"Oman was on good terms with India, and Sultan of Oman had offered to sell Gwadar to India for mere one million US dollars. However, India under Nehru did not take the offer, and let go of such an excellent strategic location. It was ultimately purchased by Pakistan on 8 September 1958 for three million US dollars."
Author misses an opportunity to point out that India under Nehru also refused accession of Baluchistan and Nepal, both of which ardently wished to join India, former because of his thinking about defense, latter - incredibly - because Nepal was Hindu.
................................................................................................
Blunder–50 :
Indus Water Treaty—Himalayan Blunder
"India-Pakistan Indus Water Treaty of 1960 has parallel with India-China Panchsheel agreement of 1954. Both had generous “give away” but no reciprocal “take”, and both were thanks to Nehru!"
"Wrote Brahma Chellaney:{URL48}
“Jawaharlal Nehru ignored the interests of Jammu and Kashmir and, to a lesser extent, Punjab when he signed the 1960 Indus Waters Treaty, under which India bigheartedly agreed to the exclusive reservation of the largest three of the six Indus-system rivers for downstream Pakistan… In effect, India signed an extraordinary treaty indefinitely setting aside 80.52% of the Indus-system waters for Pakistan— the most generous water-sharing pact thus far in modern world history."
" ... To help allay popular resentment in the state over the major electricity shortages that is hampering its development, the central government subsequently embarked on hydropower projects like Baglihar and Kishenganga. But Pakistan—as if to perpetuate the alienation in the Indian state—took the Baglihar project to a World Bank-appointed international neutral expert and Kishenganga to the International Court of Arbitration, which last year stayed all further work on the project...”{ URL48}"
................................................................................................
Blunder–51 :
No Initiative on Sri Lankan Tamil Problem
" ... People from Gujarat and Sindh (some say Odisha) in India immigrated to Sri Lanka and formed the Sinhala dynasty. Chronicles—Mahavansa and Dipavansa— record the landing of Wijaya in the sixth century BC."
"Both the ‘Sri Lankan Citizenship Act of 1948’ and the ‘Official Language Act of 1956’ put the Tamils at a severe disadvantage. Sri Lanka witnessed mayhem of Tamils in 1958, amounting almost to genocide. Tamils everywhere were attacked mercilessly, and their properties were burnt or looted. Sinhala mobs poured kerosene over many Tamils, and burnt them alive. Thousands were injured or killed. Many were internally displaced . It was a case of state-sponsored terror."
" ... Nehru spoke against the treatment of Africans in the European colonies, and justifiably so; in contrast, with regard to the ill treatment of Tamils in Ceylon, they did precious little. Writes Crocker: “... and with little done to save Indians in Ceylon from treatment which was worse than the treatment meted out to Africans in European colonies in Africa.”"
................................................................................................
Blunder–52 :
Erroneous Nehru-Era Map
"Extracts below from an article{URL29} by Madhav Nalapat in ‘The Sunday Guardian’ of 23 August 2014 are self-explanatory:
“Prime Minister Manmohan Singh rejected an August 2013 request by senior officials in his government to correct a serious error, dating back over 50 years, in India's official maps. In effect, this oversight in official maps mistakenly gave China control of two Arunachal Pradesh “fishtails”, a territory as large as Sikkim or Goa, and continuously inhabited by Indian citizens...
"“… The two ‘fishtail’ formations in Arunachal Pradesh were omitted from maps prepared by the Survey of India during the 1960s, although the area has always been under the control of India. No public records exist as to why and how such a significant error was made. In 1962, recognising the fact that this territory was Indian, soldiers from the People's Liberation Army of China, who had occupied the fishtails during November 1962, withdrew after the unilateral ceasefire declared by Beijing that month."
"“A retired official claimed that ‘every government has protected Nehru's reputation by refusing to make public facts dating from the 1940s that they saw as damaging to the image of Nehru’. ... "
"“Interestingly, the fact that maps showed the two ‘fishtails’ as being outside Indian territory was, according to a senior (and now retired) official, ‘brought to the attention of then Home Minister P Chidambaram by the (then) Director-General of the Indo-Tibetan Border Police (ITBP) in 2010, along with reports of Chinese troops entering the area in 2011 and 2012, but the response was to do nothing’...”{URL29}"
................................................................................................
Blunder–53 :
Advocating China’s UNSC Membership at Our Cost
"India has been trying to become a permanent member of the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) for a long time, begging all nations— big and small— including China.
"But, over five decades ago India was getting the UNSC seat unasked —on a platter! And, Nehru chose to rebuff the offer!! Why? Nehru wanted the position to be given to the People’s Republic of China instead! Being generous at India’s cost!!
"But, over five decades ago India was getting the UNSC seat unasked —on a platter! And, Nehru chose to rebuff the offer!! Why? Nehru wanted the position to be given to the People’s Republic of China instead! Being generous at India’s cost!! But, note the contrast. In 2008, in a conclave of foreign ministers of BRIC countries, when Russia proposed that the BRIC countries support India's Permanent Membership of the UNSC, it was strongly opposed by China!"
" ... ROC continued to be a member of the UN till 1971, and not PRC, as US and allies refused to recognise it. They did not wish to have another communist country as a member of the UNSC.
"Wrote Bruce Riedel in “JFK’s Forgotten Crisis: Tibet, the CIA, and the Sino-Indian War”:
"“Nehru pressed Eisenhower to support giving Communist China the seat in the United Nations Security Council that Nationalist China had been given in 1945 at the end of World War II, making it one of the five permanent members of the Council with the right to veto any resolution it did not approve…Eisenhower, with China’s role in the Korean War still fresh in his memory, refused to budge on China and the UN seat.”{ BR/ L-182}"
Author quotes a response from the then Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru to his sister, Vijayalaxmi Pandit, who was then ambassador to US, explaining at great length that India "would not countenance " the offer, and ending with -
" ... India, because of many factors, is certainly entitled to a permanent seat in the security council. But we are not going in at the cost of China [How generous— even though China doesn’t care!].”{URL37}{ URL108}"
Author points out that this was against India's interests, and worse.
" ... Besides, was Nehru’s stand even ethical, moral, and principled? No. Why support an aggressor of Tibet for the UN and the UNSC? Correct ethical and moral position for India should have dictated trenchant opposition of China for the UN and the UNSC as long as it did not vacate Tibet.
"What was bizarre was that even though never requested by China, India had been voluntarily and vigorously advocating Peoples Republic of China (PRC) for the Permanent Membership of the UNSC in lieu of Taiwan, whose Chiang Kai-shek had actually supported India’s struggle for independence!"
Come to think, author mentions warlords overrunning China before Mao, but dies not mention Sun Yat-Sen and the Republic he established, of which later Chiang Kai-shek was leader.
“It is interesting to note that India’s prompt recognition of Communist China and withdrawal of recognition of the Chiang Kai-shek regime in Taiwan did not evoke any favourable response from China. Both these actions of the Government of India were taken for granted and derogatory criticisms continued to appear in the Chinese press accusing India of being a tool of Anglo-American imperialism and of aiding imperialist designs for the annexation of Tibet. About Nehru who, from the very beginning , had tried to befriend China , the Peking Radio even said, ‘into his slavish and bourgeois reactionary character has now been installed the beastly ambition and aggression’!”{MG2/ 50-51/ L-972}"
And here's the clearly visible legacy of Gandhi’s politics carried on by his spiritual son -
"Even though China had invaded Tibet, KM Panikkar, the Indian Ambassador in Beijing, stated that to protest the Chinese invasion of Tibet would be an interference to India's efforts on behalf of China in the UN! That is, complaining against China on behalf of Tibet would show China in bad light—as an aggressor—when it was more important for India to ensure China's entry into the UN, for which India had been trying, and ensure that this effort of India was not thwarted by taking up China's Tibet aggression! What kind of crazy Nehruvian foreign policy was this? Our own national security interests and the interests of Tibet were sought to be sacrificed to help China enter the UN!!"
How's that different from Gandhi’s reactions every time Hindus were subjected to horrors including massacres by muslims, whether in Kerala or Noakhali, Kashmir or West Pakistan? Well, Jawaharlal Nehru didn't attempt to force Tibetan refugees to return! Quite a minor difference there.
" ... India thought it was doing a great favour to China by advocating its membership of the UN, and expecting it to feel obliged; however, China resented such overtures, for it abhorred the patronizing attitude of Nehru— more so because China considered itself to be the real leader of Asia, and contemptuously looked at India’s pretensions to being a great power merely on rhetoric, with nothing to show for it. Further, China did not really care then— in the fifties— of the UN membership. In fact, it thought that becoming a member would oblige it to abide by the UN charter, when it wanted to actually have a free hand in dealing with Korea and Tibet."
And India!
"Wrote Nehru in his note of 1 August 1955 on his tour of the Soviet Union and other countries during June-July 1955:
"“Informally, suggestions have been made by the United States that China should be taken into the United Nations but not in the Security Council and that India should take her place in the Security Council. We cannot of course accept this as it means falling out with China and it would be very unfair for a great country like China not to be in the Security Council. We have, therefore, made it clear to those who suggested this that we cannot agree to this suggestion. We have even gone a little further and said that India is not anxious to enter the Security Council at this stage, even though as a great country she ought to be there. The first step to be taken is for China to take her rightful place and then the question of India might be considered separately.”{JNSW/ Vol-29/ 303}"
"Reads a ‘Business Line’ article ‘UN reforms— a fading mirage?’ of 16 September 2009:{URL14}
“Ironically, around 1955, Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru was offered the disputed Chinese Permanent Security Council seat by the US to keep out the People’s Republic of China, and he also was sounded out by the USSR Prime Minister, Nikolai Bulganin, to allow China to take this seat while giving India a sixth permanent seat in the Security Council. Nehru rejected this offer in deference to China. History may have been different if this offer had been subjected to serious negotiations. Through the decades since, we have been struggling for this seat.”{URL14}"
"When an MP JN Parekh raised a short notice question in the Lok Sabha on whether India had refused a UNSC seat informally offered to her, Nehru’s reply was apparently less than honest: “There has been no offer, formal or informal, of this kind. Some vague references have appeared in the press about it which have no foundation in fact. ... "
"A Wilson Centre report of 11 March 2015 titled ‘Not at the Cost of China: India and the United Nations Security Council, 1950’{ URL37} states that both the US and the USSR offered India permanent membership in the UNSC but Nehru refused to accept it, and wanted it to be given to China instead."
"What was even more bizarre was that even during and despite the India- China war, Nehru, in his speech on 8-Nov-1962, supported the UN seat for China (How could you support an invader of Tibet and an aggressor of India for the UN seat and for UNSC— only a ‘leader’ like Nehru could have done that!!]. Further, even after the war, India continued to support China in the UN: declared Nehru’s sister Vijaya Lakshmi Pandit, who was leading a delegation to the UN in 1963, that she “doesn't understand that why a world-class organization such as the United Nations has not included a big and powerful country like China.”{URL38}"
................................................................................................
Blunder–54 :
Rebuffing Israel, the Friend-in-Need
"The irony and the absurdity of Nehru’s foreign policy is hard not to notice: India under Nehru was amongst the first nations to recognise PRC (People's Republic of China) when Communists took over in 1949, even though it were Chiang Kai-shek and his ROC (Republic of China) who had supported India’s struggle for independence, and not Mao and PRC.
"Further, when it came to Israel, Nehru did not recognise it as a nation till September 1950, even though it was established on 14 May 1948, and most nations of the world had recognised it!
"While Nehru campaigned for admission of China to the UN and even into the UNSC, sacrificing its own chances (Blunder# 53); India not only voted against the UN resolution that had the effect of creating Israel, but also voted against Israel's admission in the UN in 1949! This when China did what it did— annexing Tibet and inflicting 1962 India-China war— while Israel was indeed India’s friend-in-need!"
This was proved during Kargil too, but even more, when the first resolution by Israel's Knesset was to thank India for having been the only people to not persecute Jews, throughout all the centuries, when all others did.
"On 29 November 1947, the United Nations General Assembly voted on the modified UN Partition Plan of Palestine that effectively included creation of Israel for Jews. 33 nations voted in favour— they included the US, the European countries , the Soviet Union and the East-European countries, and the Latin-American countries— and 13 against. There were 10 abstentions and 1 absent. Abstentions included Republic of China and Yugoslavia.
"Those against included 10 Muslim nations, namely Afghanistan, Egypt, Iran, Iraq, Lebanon, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Turkey and Yemen, and 3 others, namely Cuba, Greece, and one more country. Guess which? Most regretfully, it was India. This was despite Albert Einstein’s personal appeal to Nehru. Here are extracts from the article "When Nehru Shunned Einstein’s Request To Support The Jewish Cause":{Swa5}
"“On 11 June 1947, Albert Einstein made an extraordinary intervention in global geo-political affairs by writing to then prime minister-designate of India, Jawaharlal Nehru. He implored India’s leader to endorse the ‘Zionist effort to recreate a Jewish Homeland in Palestine’. Appealing to Nehru’s moral sensibilities, he focused on the ethical question of whether the Jews should be allowed to have a homeland in the ‘soil of their fathers’. In his letter, Einstein described the historical wrong done to the Jewish people, who had been ‘victimized and hounded’for centuries. He wrote that millions of Jews had died not only because of the Nazi gas chambers but also because ‘there was no spot on the globe where they could find sanctuary’. Zionism was the means to end this anomaly of history, he wrote, and a solution for this persecuted people to settle in a land to which they had ‘historic ties’.{ Swa5}"
But Jawaharlal Nehru was following Gandhi, and he did everything according to rabid fanatic backward section of muslims, rather than the educated, forward thinking progressive section thereof.
" ... Jews had suffered for centuries like the Hindus had suffered, though much longer. We should have had empathy for them. But, Nehru? What can one say of his convoluted thinking, defective world-view and faulty approach! India could have at least abstained from voting, rather than voting against."
And this negative voting continued not only as official congress policy, but was carried on by a bureaucracy that did not recognise or respect a different PM in office, and instead of abstaining, voted negative against Israel despite instructions to the contrary by the government of India, soon after Kargil when India had been helped by Israel.
" ... It was left to the wise non-Dynasty Prime Minister Narsimha Rao to establish formal relations with Israel in 1992. "
And he was treated abominably by the Congress Party, whose high command insisted after his death that his cremation couldn't be conducted in Delhi - where he'd lived for well over a decade, been a Cabinet Minister under the then PM Indira Gandhi, and subsequently, held his position of PM of India - but had to be back in his home state! Was this just so there'd be no memorial, prime land in Delhi reserved only for Dynasty for most part, with hardly one exception? Also, no bigwigs were allowed to attend from Delhi.
"It is worth noting that despite Nehru-Indira Dynasty's unjust treatment of Israel, Israel helped India in whatever manner it could in India's multiple wars with its neighbours. India sought and got arms from Israel both in the 1962 India-China war{ Hin1} and in the 1971 Bangladesh war. Israel has been supplying us critical military and security equipments. Its modern and innovative agricultural practices are worth emulating by India. Despite severe lack of natural resources, wars, and enemies on all sides, the new nation of Israel created only in 1948 became a shining first-world nation within a few decades, while India under the Nehru dynasty remained a poor, miserable, third-rate, third-world country."
................................................................................................
Blunder–55 :
Neglecting Southeast Asia
Wrote Durga Das [words in italics in square-brackets are author’s]{ DD/ 342}:
"“A talk with the Prime Minister of Thailand was very revealing. He complained that Nehru had characterised the Thai Government as corrupt [What about the financial scandals in the Nehru government?] and said the country had a ‘Coca-Cola economy’…Thailand, the Prime Minister explained to me, had a long tradition of independence, and if she had taken shelter under the U.S. umbrella it had done so to safeguard her independence. If Nehru was willing to underwrite their security [it’s another matter India could not secure itself!], the Thais would prefer to be with India since Thai culture was predominantly Indian [He didn’t know that India under Nehru didn’t care for its own culture!]…When I suggested that a visit by the King and the Prime Minister to India would improve matters, he replied that their very experienced Ambassador in New Delhi had warned them against inviting an insult by undertaking such a visit. They treated their ruler as a demi-god, and he would not go to India unless assured of a cordial welcome.”{ DD/ 342}.
"Japan, which had almost the same GDP as India in the early 1950s , grew so fast that by 1980, India’s GDP was a mere 17% of Japan’s. Yet, India had even rebuffed the fast-growing Japan. Krishna Menon, the right-hand man of Nehru, had snubbed offers of the Japanese corporate representatives for collaboration saying it was out of question on account of the vast differences in the policies of the two countries.{DD/ 346}"
Author proceeds to mention South Korea, Singapore and more.
" ... Notably, during the 1962 India-China war, while the communist or the non-aligned nations did not come to India’s help, it was the US, of whom the Nehru& Co were very critical, that came to the rescue of India."
................................................................................................
Blunder–56 :
India vs. the US & the West
Author goes into his US visit by Nehru, during JFK presidential years, with several extensive quotes, about JFK eager to have a dialogue and disappointed due to non responsive behaviour from Nehru for most part, and the visit by Kennedy family to India being a repetition.
................................................................................................
Blunder–57 :
‘Non-Aligned’ with National Interests
"Even the so-called ‘Non-Alignment’ was really not so; it was a subtle alignment with the Soviets: ... "
And as it was seen when China attacked, that was no use, while it was JFK who helped. Moreover, author quotes Sita Ram Goel to say that not only USSR had swallowed various small states, but had armed gangs running around through Tibet and Mongolia.
"“Similarly, India has been on the Soviet side in every single international tangle since the Second World War— Palestine, Korea, Tibet, Viet Nam, Hungary, Cuba, Berlin. And India has never failed to denounce whatever measures of self-defence the Western nations have adopted against the communist menace. All that has happened while the West has honestly tried to understand, appreciate, and accommodate our point of view, the Soviet camp has heaped foul abuse and slander upon us whenever we have strayed away from its stand even by a hair's breadth.”{SRG2/ 174}"
................................................................................................
Blunder–58 :
Foreign to Foreign Policy
"If ours was a good foreign policy, how come all our major neighbours became our enemies? And, a friendly neighbour, Tibet, disappeared as an independent nation? How come all our borders turned insecure during the Nehruvian era, costing us a fortune to defend them? How come no nation came to India’s rescue (including Nehru’s non-aligned or socialist-communist friends) in its war with China, except the nation Nehru and Krishna Menon always panned— the United States{Red1}; or the nation Nehru refused to recognise—Israel?{Hin1} You evaluate a policy by its results, not by its verbosity and pompousness."
"This is what Dr Ambedkar had to say in his resignation (from the Nehru’s cabinet) speech of 27 September 1951:
"“The third matter which has given me cause, not merely for dissatisfaction but for actual anxiety and even worry, is the foreign policy of the country. Any one, who has followed the course of our foreign policy and along with it the attitude of other countries towards India, could not fail to realize the sudden change that has taken place in their attitude towards us. On 15th of August, 1947 when we began our life as an independent country, there was no country which wished us ill. Every country in the world was our friend. Today, after four years, all our friends have deserted us. We have no friends left. We have alienated ourselves. We are pursuing a lonely furrow with no one even to second our resolutions in the U.N.O…”{Amb5}"
"“Nehru rooted India’s foreign policy in abstract ideas rather than a strategic conception of national interests. He disdained alliances, pacts, and treaties, seeing them as part of the old rules of realpolitik, and was uninterested in military matters... Nehru tended to put hope above calculation. When he was warned that Communist China would probably seek to annex Tibet, for example, he doubted it, arguing that it would be foolish and impractical adventure. And even after Beijing did annex Tibet in 1951, Nehru would not reassess the nature of Chinese interests along India’s northern border…”
"—Fareed Zakaria {Zak/ 148}"
................................................................................................
................................................................................................
................................................................................................
................................................................................................
................................................
................................................
April 29, 2022 - April 29, 2022.
................................................
................................................
................................................................................................
................................................................................................
................................................................................................
................................................................................................
Chapter - V
INTERNAL SECURITY
................................................................................................
................................................................................................
Blunder–59 :
Compounding Difficulties in Assam
" ... Here are extracts from an article titled ‘How Bangladeshi Muslims wiped the Assamese out in their own land’{ URL40}:
"“After partition, the Assamese people expected that there would not be any further trans-migration of Muslims from East Pakistan to their new political territory. Muslim populations in Assam considerably decreased in 1947 partly due to inclusion of Sylhet in Pakistan and also return of sizeable number of earlier immigrants to their original land due to fear of backlash. But the situation changed, when Mainul Haq Chaudhary, the Private Secretary of Jinnah and also a prominent leader of the youth wing of AIML till partition, joined Congress party along with the supporters of Pakistan en masse. On the eve of partition, he was shaky whether to opt for Pakistan or stay back in India. He was however told by Jinnah, ‘wait for ten years, I shall present Assam on a silver plate to you’. Jinnah died in 1948 but the Congress Party fulfilled his promise by inducting Chaudhary in the Cabinet of Congress Government led by Gopi Nath Bordoloi. It is often alleged that Chaudhary stayed back in Assam on the advice of Jinnah and other Pakistani leaders to help the immigrants from Pakistan for their settlement in Assam…"
No wonder Arun Shourie documents how, for well over decades, students agitation against it was penalised and ignored.
" ... Nehru-Liaquat Pact (April 1950)… rather facilitated the Pakistan Government to accelerate infiltration… It is said that the Congress leadership applauded the increase of Muslim immigrants as a God sent opportunity to consolidate the 'Muslim vote banks' and accordingly ruled Assam without any break for thirty years…"
"“Moinul Huq Choudhury, who later became a Minister in the Union Cabinet of Indira Gandhi Government and former President of India Fakharuddin Ali Ahmad were widely known for being instrumental in the settlement of illegal Muslim immigrants . Late B.K. Nehru, the Governor of Assam between 1968 and 1973, condemned the infiltration as vote bank politics by the Congress.”{URL40}
"Congress leaders Bordoloi, Medhi, Bimala Prasad Chaliha and others raised this serious issue of migration, but did not get due support from Nehru and the Congress leadership at the Centre. Wrote Kuldip Nayar in ‘Beyond the Lines’:
"“The state subsequently paid the price... when illegal migration from the then East Pakistan reduced the Assamese-speaking population in Assam to a minority... It was not Chaliha who initiated the issue of illegal migration but his senior in the Congress, Fakhruddin Ali Ahmad, who rose to be India’s president. In fact, the entire party was guilty. Its simplistic solution was to win elections in Assam by allowing would-be settlers from across the border into the state thus creating a vote bank...[ Gobind Ballabh] Pant [the then Home Minister in Nehru’s cabinet] knew that large number of people were coming across the border. After all, his party had connived at the migration since independence...”{ KN}
"In early sixties, Assam Chief Minister Bimala Prasad Chaliha launched an aggressive campaign to flush out the immigrants. However, Nehru wanted him to go easy on deportations and even stop them!"
................................................................................................
Blunder–60 :
Neglect of the Northeast
" ... Nehru, driven by vote-bank politics, allowed migrations from East-Pakistan— please see Blunders 5 and 59. Also, no-holds-barred proselytization by the Christian missionaries promoted fissiparous and anti-national tendencies ... "
"Nehru’s policy of division of Assam into a number of smaller states to satisfy certain ethnic groups has actually been counter-productive. One, because there are so many different ethnicities—over 220 ethnic groups. To what extent can one keep dividing? Two, it started divisive identity politics. Others too have raised their demand for separation. Three, such small states are not economically viable.
" ... Wrote Dr NS Rajaram:
“The Army Chief General (later Field Marshall) Cariappa [advised] Nehru that the northeast should be developed to bring its population into the national fold. But a British missionary called Verrier Elvin advised Nehru that the region that had many tribal communities should not be interfered with to preserve their pristine character. This left the field open for foreign Christian missionaries who went on to dominate the area…{ W.n2}
"Wrote Dr NS Rajaram: “The Army Chief General (later Field Marshall) Cariappa [advised] Nehru that the northeast should be developed to bring its population into the national fold. But a British missionary called Verrier Elvin advised Nehru that the region that had many tribal communities should not be interfered with to preserve their pristine character. This left the field open for foreign Christian missionaries who went on to dominate the area…{ W.n2} “Elvin was a British missionary who exploited tribal girls, sometimes under-aged, in the guise of being an anthropologist. When he was 40 Elvin married a 13 year-old tribal girl Kosi who was his student. He treated her like a guinea pig, the subject of his anthropological studies including publishing intimate sexual details in what is called participant observation. After nearly nine years of marriage, Elvin left her and married Leela, a tribal girl in NEFA (Arunachal Pradesh) leaving Kosi in dire poverty.”{ W.n2}
"States an article in ‘The Dharma Dispatch’:
"“This diabolical pervert [Verrier Elvin] managed to seduce Nehru to such an extent that he appointed Elvin as the Anthropological Adviser to the Government of NEFA (today: Arunachal Pradesh). The missionary inside Elvin remained unsleeping. Behind his sugary insistence on preserving tribal identities, customs, etc worked the same colonial chicanery that held that India was never a nation of one people with a shared heritage, and that the tribals were the “original aborigine inhabitants ”. The result? A near-total segregation of almost the entire North East for over fifty years. Elvin’s preservation policy left a devastating trail of Churches, inter and intra community hostilities and the “separate” Christian State of Nagaland . Dams, highways, heavy industries, universities, and hospitals for the rest of India. Bibles and Churches and Communism and guns for the North East.”{W.n2}
"“The contrast couldn’t be more savage when we consider the havoc wreaked by the peaceful armies of Christian missionaries on every non-Christian soil their viperish foot stepped on. Over sixty years, they systematically, leisurely uprooted precisely this cultural and traditional continuity and wrecked the inter-community harmony in the North East thanks to their bellicose religion which is premised on spiritual larceny. And it wasn’t accidental. It owes to two characteristic character-flaws in the person of Jawaharlal Nehru: a highly-developed immunity against wisdom, and an incurable fascination for white skin. Nothing else explains the manner in which he literally squandered away the destinies of millions of people in that region by gifting it to the vile Verrier Elvin.”{ W.n2}"
................................................................................................
Blunder–61 :
Ignoring Illegal Proselytization
"“It is impossible for me to reconcile myself to the idea of conversion after the style that goes on in India and elsewhere today. It is an error which is perhaps the greatest impediment to the world's progress toward peace. Why should a Christian want to convert a Hindu to Christianity? Why should he not be satisfied if the Hindu is a good or godly man?”
"—Mahatma Gandhi, Harijan, 30-Jan-1937
"But, then, why didn’t Gandhi direct either banning of proselytization in the Indian Constitution; or incorporation of stringent norms? Gandhi did nothing concrete against proselytization— he only talked.
"‘Propagation of religion’ is one of the three components of Article 25 of the Indian Constitution that guarantees freedom of religion. This right is irrelevant for Hindus as Hinduism is a non-expansionist , non-proselytising indigenous religion. But, it provides a terribly destructive dominating handle to the latter two Abrahamic religions (Christianity and Islam) that are massively funded from abroad, and are exclusivist (“ only true religion— all other religions being false”), expansionist and proselytising, to be aggressively on the prowl to convert people from indigenous Indian religions, using all means possible. However, the Constitutional provisions that ought to protect the weak from the bully, rather than protecting the millions of sheep (poor, needy and tribals from indigenous religions) under threat, protect the wolves of conversions—all under the deceptive equivalence that both the wolf and the sheep have equal rights to gobble one another. The constitutional right to propagate religion has effectively been misused by the Christian and Islamic evangelists to launch religious aggression in India, leading to the rapid collapse of Indic religious demography throughout the country—the tragedy is that, rather than reversing, the proselytization has gained a massive pace after independence, thanks to the defective Nehruvian thinking and lack of vision. “The world over, organised religious conversion activity is viewed very seriously. For it is responsible for the destruction of many civilisations, including the Roman, Greek, Mayan, Aztec, Inca and Zoroastrian-Persian ones, even while placing other civilisations under an existential threat. Hence, most Islamic countries, China and even Greece have banned conversions. Article 13( 2) of the Greek Constitution prohibits proselytization.”{ Swa10} But, the author of the “Glimpses of World History”and “Discovery of India”was apparently innocent on these vital religious-civilisational aspects.
"Wrote Durga Das in ‘India from Curzon to Nehru & After’:
"“The Constitution-makers swept under the carpet the important matter relating to the scheduled tribes in the Assam hills in the north-east. They adopted a formula virtually placing the region outside the pale of normal Union laws and administrative apparatus. Nehru did this on the advice of Christian missionaries. His colleagues in the top echelons let it pass, treating the matter, in the words of Azad, as ‘a Nehru fad’.”{ DD/ 274}
"Despite ‘Discovery of India’, Nehru failed to discover India. He didn’t know that tribals had close association with Hinduism, and it was easy to integrate and develop tribal areas, given adequate investment and empathetic administration. Nehru was too shallow on the Indian culture and civilisation, and didn’t know aspects like the following brought out well by Dr Koenraad Elst{KE2}:"
Author quotes a paragraph from Elst where he describes Puri and Bhubaneshwar temple priests being a mix of tribals and Brahmin priests, and the deoty origin of latter being a Shivalinga worshipped under a tree, centuries ago.
"It is worth noting that Sir Reginald Coupland (1884– 1952), a historian and a professor of the Oxford University who had accompanied the Cripps Mission as an adviser in 1942, had recommended for a statutory guarantee that the work of the Christian missions in the hill tracts of Assam (Assam then included all the NE states) would continue uninterrupted.{DD/ 207}
"As per a news-item titled ‘Nagaland Safe from Sadhus’ in the ‘Patriot’ of 15-Oct-1964:
"“Patna, Oct 13 (UNI)— There is one state in India to which sadhus have no access. And that state is Nagaland. An agreement reached between Jawaharlal Nehru and Dr Verrier Elvin… bars entry of sadhus into the state . Now, Swami Anand, secretary of the Bharat Sadhu Samaj, feels that the sadhus can work with greater chances of success for the emotional integration of the Nagas with the rest of the people of the country. For this to be possible, the Nehru-Elvin agreement should be revoked , Swami Anand said in an interview.”{URL97}"
One has to see the recent Palghar murders, of an old and a young Hindu Sadhu and their driver, by a mob lynching while police watched, in this context, perhaps authorized by the then state regime due to compulsions of troika politics.
"Wrote MKK Nair:
"“Nehru and Patel did not agree on many issues and Patel used to point out shortcomings in Nehru’s approaches to him. Almost everyone knows that the problems of North East India began with Nehru’s policy. Patel had vehemently opposed Nehru’s plan to administer North Eastern Region under the Foreign Ministry and differentiate it from the rest of India. He explained the repercussions of such a step, but there was no one in the cabinet to oppose Nehru. When implemented, it became easy for Christian missionaries to tell local people that they were not Indians and theirs was another country because India’s Foreign Ministry dealt with it. Nehru created a new cadre, Indian Frontier Administrative Service, to administer the region but selection was like for Indian Foreign Service. However, but for one or two exceptions, everyone chosen was incompetent and did not have the required administrative calibre. Their clumsy rule and the worse control by the Foreign Ministry were causes for anti-national activities to flourish in Nagaland, Mizoram, Manipur and hill areas of Assam.”{ MKK}
"Massive conversions in the Northeast states, particularly Nagaland and Mizoram, have led to secessionist movements. Christian missionaries and a number of foreign-funded NGOs have deliberately propagated and funded the myths of Aryan-Dravidian conflicts and differences (Aryan Invasion Theory [AIT] has long since been discredited). They have been active in anti-Brahmanical and anti-Hindu propaganda. They have taken advantage of the poverty and wants of the dalits and the tribals. Why ? All this helps than in conversions. It is they who have fuelled Aryan-Dravidian politics in Tamil Nadu to help them in their proselytization project. It is necessary to realise that conversions (over 99% of them are through enticements and deception, and are illegal) to Christianity or Islam are actually spiritual murders more heinous than physical murders, as they unhinge converts from their roots."
"Given the growing illegal conversions (over 99% of which are illegal), influx of illegal Muslim refugees, and skewed population-growth rate of Muslims and Christians; what had failed to happen even during the millennia of India’s bondage, may shockingly happen in free India—India turning into a Hindu-minority nation, and the consequent obliteration of India’s several millennia-old rich religious-cultural heritage."
"“The indomitable Sita Ram Goel categorises the history of Hindu and Christian encounters in four phases beginning with the barbaric Portuguese genocide and mass conversions of Hindus in Gomantaka (Goa). According to Goel, the fourth phase commenced with the Indian independence, which
"‘proved a boon for Christianity. The Christian right to convert Hindus was incorporated in the Constitution. Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru who dominated the scene for 17 long years, promoted every anti-Hindu ideology and movement behind the smokescreen of a counterfeit secularism. The regimes that followed continued to raise the spectre of ‘Hindu communalism’as the most frightening phenomenon. Christian missionaries could now denounce as a Hindu communalist and chauvinist, even as a Hindu Nazi, anyone who raised the slightest objection to their means and methods. All sorts of ‘secularists’came forward to join the chorus…The missionary apparatus multiplied fast and became pervasive. Christianity had never had it so good in the whole of its history in India. It now stood recognised as ‘an ancient Indian religion’with every right to extend its field of operation and expand its flock…The Constitution of independent India adopted in January 1950 made things quite smooth for the Christian missions. Mahatma Gandhi had raised Jesus to the status of a spiritual giant, and Christianity itself to the status of a great religion as good as Sanatana Dharma. His mindless slogan of sarva-dharma-samabhava was proving to be an effective smokescreen for Christian missions to steal a march against Hindu religion, society, and culture…The first Prime Minister of independent India became the leader of a Muslim-Christian-Communist combine for forcing Hindus and Hinduism first on the defensive and then on a run for shelter.’"
" ... Jawaharlal Nehru literally opened India's gates for Christian missionaries to set up their soul-harvesting Kirana shops here and convert Hindus en masse. Those Kirana shops have now grown into multibillion dollar soul-preying corporate enterprises. Don’t take our words for it. Read Nehru directly. These are all publicly available records…"
"“… In 1955, a Bill was tabled in Parliament to regulate conversions and put a stop to missionary activity in India. Felix Alfred Plattner, a Jesuit, and one who provided research and intellectual cover fire to missionaries noted that if the Bill was passed, ‘it would have seriously handicapped the work of Christian missionaries’, because it ‘provided for a strict system of regulating conversions’. But Plattner’s worries were misplaced. The Prime Minister of India himself came to his rescue… Plattner was of course delighted. He lost no time in sending an update: ‘This attitude of Nehru and his government, has inspired the Christians with confidence in the Indian Constitution . Nehru [has] remained true to his British upbringing.’…”{SBK2}"
"Proselytization in India has been solely for economic reasons, and to a lesser extent on account of societal reasons. Religion or spiritualism, or ‘seeking God’, or appreciating that the religion one is converting into is “better”, has nothing whatsoever to do with it. Hence, all conversions are illegal (barring perhaps 0.01%). There is, of course, no question of the latter two Abrahamic religions, the “religion of compassion”, and the “religion of peace”, which have caused terrible and indescribable miseries to uncountable millions of locals belonging to other faiths in Africa, Asia, Europe, North America, South America, and Australia through the centuries, being superior or the only true religions. None can come even remotely near the grandness of the Indic religions. There can, therefore, be no conversion through rational analysis and conviction."
"Nehru and Nehruvians— given their myopic vision and woefully faulty grasp on history, current realities and the nature of the latter-two proselytizing Abrahamic religions— while defending or siding with “minorities” or providing them with grossly unfair constitutional advantages, failed to grasp the obvious truth that the Hindus (that include Jains, Buddhists, Sikhs) are a global minority; and given the massive well-funded, well-equipped, aggressive proselytization by the Christians and Muslims, Hindus are also a globally endangered minority, deserving effective state protection, including effective laws and implementation machinery to protect them from predatory proselytization. In fact, proselytization should have been banned in the constitution; while allowing genuine individuals to approach courts for permission for change of religion after giving satisfactory explanation.
"Conversions actually got a fillip thanks to the Nehruvian policies. If you have chosen the socialist path, which benefits only the politicians and the babus, poor can never really come up. Deprived of medical facilities, free education, other necessities, and even food, they become easy targets for conversion. Had India followed free-market policies, India would have been a prosperous first-world nation, with better administration and justice, long ago; leaving little scope for illegal conversions."
................................................................................................
Blunder–62 :
Ungoverned Areas
"Large swathes of tribal and other areas remained ignored, neglected and ungoverned during the Nehruvian era and later, leading ultimately to the problems in the Northeast and the huge Naxal-infested red corridor cutting across sections of Chhattisgarh, Jharkhand, Maharashtra, Andhra Pradesh, and Bihar. Further, it was not just tribal areas that were neglected and ungoverned. There were vast swathes of countryside and small towns in UP, Bihar and many other states that were, and remain, hopeless, depressing, lawless, dangerous ‘Omkaralands’. ... whatever little funds were deployed were siphoned off by the Nehruvian-socialistic babudom and politicians."
................................................................................................
Blunder–63 :
Insecurity of the Vulnerable Sections
Author quotes Ambedkar about unprotected sections ignored in their plight while muslims were the only people Nehru seemed to care to protect.
" ... Nehru chose to get rid of Dr Ambedkar himself. Nehru even campaigned against him in elections to ensure his defeat! Dr Ambedkar was a multi-dimensional talent, and his services could have been used for many other critical areas too—he was academically and experience-wise most suited to become Finance Minister. It would actually have been great if Sardar Patel had been India’s first PM, and after him, Dr Ambedkar. For a political leader, is it sufficient to be personally non-communal, but do little to ensure communal harmony? If communal riots continue to take place, if the minorities, the dalits and the weaker sections continue to be on the receiving end, what’s the use of your being personally non-communal or pro-weaker sections. The real test of secular and socialist leader, and for his empathies with the weak, is what did he achieve on the ground. India and its rulers since independence cut a sorry figure on this criteria."
" ... Had Congress done the actual work on the ground of overhauling our criminal-justice-police system and babudom, launched vigorous educational campaign on the issue, held netas and those in administration and police accountable for disturbances and riots, punished the guilty and made examples of them, and adopted a non-compromising attitude to the issue, the curse of communalism and casteism, and of ill-treatment of poor and dalits would have vanished within a decade of independence. It was not an unachievable target. But, when you yourselves allocate seats and win elections on communal, religious, and caste considerations, where is the remedy? Most of the so-called secular-socialistic parties have been great talkers, but, non-doers. They want to keep the secular, communal and casteism pot boiling to win votes, because, in practical terms on the ground, they are incapable of solving any real issues.
"In fact, this whole debate on parties, people and groups being secular or communal , casteist or otherwise, pro-dalit or anti- dalit, pro-women or male-chauvinists, traditionalist or modern, conservative or liberal is irrelevant to the issue of safety of vulnerable sections of the society, that is, poor, minorities, dalits, women and children. The real issue is “governance”, which includes enforcing “rule of law”. Therefore, if a party claims to be secular, the touchstone of its credentials is “governance”. If its “governance” is poor it is unfit to be called a “secular” party. Like one measures GDP, per-capita income, literacy, poverty, human development index (HDI), quality of living index and so on, one needs to measure GI, “Governance Index”, for each of the states and for the central government. It is this GI which would actually reflect the “Secularism Index” (SI), and the “Anti-Casteism Index” (ACI). SI and ACI can’t be measured by your decibel levels and your protestations. It has to be measured by your real actions on the ground reflected in the GI— a tough call."
................................................................................................
................................................................................................
................................................................................................
................................................................................................
................................................
................................................
April 29, 2022 - April 29, 2022
................................................
................................................
................................................................................................
................................................................................................
................................................................................................
................................................................................................
Chapter - VI
ECONOMY
................................................................................................
................................................................................................
“Between 1947 and 1964, the CAGR for Japan’s GDP per capita was 7.9%, for the former USSR, it was 4.4% and for India, an abysmal 1.68%. That is not surprising, given Nehru's love for regressive socialist policies, under the veneer of a supposedly progressive persona … India's record was not only poorer than communist countries like China, which in those days was a midget economically and nowhere close to being the economic giant that it is today, but even lower than much smaller countries like Philippines and Malaysia. Even a non-descript nation like Burma (now Myanmar) clocked a CAGR of 3.16% between 1950 and 1964, much better than India's 1.68%. Apart from India's average GDP growth of barely 4%, from 1952-1964, even in terms of life expectancy at barely 32 years, India under Nehru, was worse off than even Sub-Saharan Africa, where life expectancy was 38 years. Clearly , the Mahalanobis model of ‘license raj’, one of Nehru's poorest legacies, left India economically debilitated. What's worse, even after his death, the failed Nehruvian model has been propped up for over five decades by a morally bankrupt and a politically short -sighted Congress, at every given opportunity…”{URL90}"
................................................................................................
Blunder–64 :
Nehruvian (and NOT ‘Hindu’) Rate of Growth
"Had Nehru’s government focused on its primary responsibilities and desisted getting into business, had it allowed the freedom to public to do business, had it followed free-market economy, India would have shot into double-digit growth rate in the 1950s itself—such were its advantages over other countries—and would long since have been a part of the developed first world, rather than still being a poor, pathetic, struggling, limping, third-world country."
" ... SE-Asia, which had been far behind India in 1947, raced ahead at 9– 12% growth rate or more and became highly prosperous, with infra-structure rivalling western countries, India plodded along at what was derisively referred to as the Hindu rate of growth of just 3%, and became a basket-case, begging aid and food from all. However, the term "Hindu rate of growth" is highly inappropriate and unfair, besides being derogatory. ... "
"One: The "Nehruvian rate of growth". The low rate of growth was thanks to Nehru-Indira-Rajiv’s policies. If rather than the “Hindu rate of growth” it was called the "Nehruvian rate of growth" or "Nehruvian socialistic rate of growth" or “NIDP [Nehru-Indira-Dynasty policies] rate of growth", one would have no quarrel.
"Two: The “Colonial rate of growth”. The rate of growth during the pre-independence period, the colonial period, was even less! In fact, it had even turned negative during several long periods!! Why was the rate of growth then not called the “Colonial rate of growth” or the “Christian rate of growth” in a pejorative sense? As per the Cambridge University historian Angus Maddison, “India's share of the world income fell from 22.6% in 1700, comparable to Europe's share of 23.3%, to a low of 3.8% in 1952.”
"Hindu-India had been highly prosperous in the past, thanks to its massive “Hindu rate of growth”, which is why first the Muslim hordes from the northwest of India, and then the Western countries invaded it. Until the rise of the West, India was possibly the richest country in the world, which is why it presented an irresistible target for the ravaging Muslim hordes, and then the West. Why then was the term "Hindu rate of growth" not used in an adulatory sense?
"Three: How do you explain the recent growth rate of over 9%? The same India, after only part junking of the Nehru-Indira-Rajiv socialistic policies, reached a growth rate of over 9%! Junk more of the Nehru-Indira socialistic policies, and the growth rate will rise to double-digits.
"Four: Absurdity of religious-cultural connotation. Many Islamic countries prior to the world demand and discovery of oil were very poor. Was their growth rate called the “Islamic rate of growth”? The growth rate during the dark ages of Europe was static or negative, when during the same period India was immensely rich and progressive. Was it ever called the “Christian rate of growth”? Sri Lanka and Myanmar have had long periods of no growth or measly growth. Were they castigated for being under the spell of the “Buddhist rate of growth”? China’s growth rate after going communist and till the end of the Mao-period was pathetic. Was it termed the “Atheistic or Communist rate of growth”? Why associate “Hindu” with a rate of economic growth unless there is an ulterior motive of deliberately showing Hinduism in bad light? Of course, many use the term unfeelingly, without being conscious of its implications.
"Five: Nehru vs. Hinduism. Nehru was an agnostic, and was more English than Indian, more western than eastern, more “something else”than a Hindu, and therefore it is grossly inappropriate to name a rate of growth, which was thanks to him and his dynasty, as “Hindu”.
"Six: Why not “Secular”rate of growth? Nehru, Nehru-dynasty and company have raved ad nauseum on “secularism”, without ensuring it in practice. Why not credit the growth rate thanks to them as the “Secular rate of growth”?
"Seven: Socialism vs. Hinduism. Hindu-India has had long tradition of free international trade and commerce, and of liberal religious, economic and world view. Such an ethos can never accept the Big Brother denouement or the run-up to it. There is an age old Indian proverb: Raja Vyapari taya Praja Bhikhari. That is, people become beggars when government enters into business. A belief in self-reliance and an overweening socialistic state on the part of Jawaharlal Nehru and Indira-Rajiv Gandhi actually did India in, rather than something that had anything to do with Hinduism.
................................................................................................
Blunder–65 :
Grinding Poverty & Terrible Living Conditions
"Statistics below are till the Nehru Dynasty times of up to UPA-I& II. Things began to improve since 2014, albeit gradually."
Author quotes a variety of statistics showing India comes off worse than many African countries on most indexes.
"The Nehruvian-socialistic-populist-babudom-dominated dynasty-driven India rarely disappointed in scoring the top grade— when it came to the negatives. With the exit of the Nehru-Gandhi Dynasty since 2014 the things have been thankfully improving, though not as fast as one would wish."
................................................................................................
Blunder–66 :
Throttled Industrialisation
"Nehru, through his anti-private-sector policies, throttled industrialisation, and consequently employment generation. Although, in comparison with the deliberate neglect in the British period, the progress in industrialisation during the Nehru period was much better owing to significant public sector investments. It was also helped by the very significant second world war sterling debt repayments by the UK, and aid by other countries like the US, the USSR and Germany. However, when the repayment of the sterling debt by the UK tapered off, and not much further foreign aid was forthcoming, and the public sector into which Nehru had sunk the investment was either in loss or not able to generate adequate surplus, the industrialisation momentum began to taper off, as there were no funds; and given Nehru’s socialistic approach, the private sector was anyway shackled!"
"Despite Sardar Patel’s objections, Nehru pushed through the Industrial Policy Resolution in April 1948 that reserved many areas under the state sector: railways, defence manufacturing, atomic energy, and so on. Further, new enterprises in steel, coal, ship-building, communications, and many others could only be under the state sector. By 1954, Nehru made Parliament accept as the aim of economic development the “socialist pattern of society”. Socialism was enshrined in 1955 as the official policy of the Congress at its Avadi session. The 1956 version of the Industrial Policy Resolution made the state even more dominant— it allowed new ventures in textiles, automobiles and defence only to the state, and vested exclusive controls to it over many other sectors. ... "
" ... When entrepreneurs in the countries in Southeast Asia, like South Korea, were being encouraged to expand and set up industries, and their government was offering them cheap credit, here in India we were doing the opposite : GD Birla was refused a license for setting up a steel plant; scores of business proposals of Tatas were rejected; Aditya Birla, looking to the hostile business environment in India, chose to set up industries outside India; ... the list is endless."
"Krishna Menon [the right-hand man of Nehru] had reportedly snubbed offers of the Japanese corporate representatives for collaboration saying it was out of question on account of the vast differences in the policies of the two countries!{DD/ 346}
"Given license-permit-quota-raj, reluctance to give licenses to the so-called “monopolies”, anti-business policies and extortionist taxes—maximum slab rate being over 80%—industrialisation had to suffer. To manufacture even needles, you needed a sarkari license— which was either not granted at all, or granted only after all-round greasing ! All our industrialisation got stalled.
"Wrote a bureaucrat of those times MKK Nair:
"“When factories in other areas began to be set up, experienced managers were not available and ICS officers were appointed to head public sector industries. But their training and experience were not suitable for industrial management. Many of them were too old to grasp the new culture of management. Thus, public sector companies began to be operated like Government departments…
"“Both SN Mazumdar, General Manager of Rourkela [Steel Plant] and SN Mehta, General Manager of Bhilai [Steel Plant] were highest level ICS officers. They could work efficiently as Commissioners, Board Members or Chief Secretaries and discharge their duties with great aplomb. But they were frightened to spend two hundred crore Rupees in three years to build a million tonne steel plant. They were past the age to learn new ways of work. What happened in Rourkela and Bhilai got repeated elsewhere too when new public sector projects began to take shape…Industrial management is best left to those who are qualified to do it. If IAS or IPS officers who are neither familiar with nor trained for it are selected for it, it is a sin perpetrated on the public sector…”{ MKN}"
................................................................................................
Blunder–67 :
Neglect of Agriculture
"I had quarrelled with him [Nehru] regarding his neglect of the village economy, especially agriculture, and protested to him about his almost total neglect of irrigation which was the key to Indian agriculture... Nehru told me disparagingly, ‘You are a villager, you know nothing.’I retorted, ‘If you had one-tenth of my regard for the village, the Indian economy would have been different.’... I am not sure if he had any convictions, except for aping the Russian model.
"—S. Nijalingappa, ‘My Life and Politics: An Autobiography’{ Nij}"
"Nehru went socialistic where he should not have— in industrialisation; and did not go socialistic where he should have— in agriculture and land reforms. The renowned economist Jagdish Bhagwati had suggested that probably Indian needed capitalism in industry and socialism in land. But, Nehru did the reverse—besides wrong notions, the main factor was votes: Why annoy the powerful landlords and landed class?"
"India faced severe shortages in food-items, became dependent on the US PL-480 food-aid, and became an international beggar. When questioned on food-shortages, Nehru had the gall to advance a ridiculous excuse: “India has food shortage because people are eating more.”{URL107}"
................................................................................................
Blunder–68 :
Builder of ‘Modern’India
" ... all this unmitigated misery despite the overwhelming advantage of India as a nation with first-rate people, plentiful natural resources, grand civilisational heritage, rich culture and languages, unmatched ethical and spiritual traditions, and, above all, relatively better position in all fields— infrastructure, trained manpower, bureaucracy, army— at the time of independence compared to all other nations who have since overtaken us. Why did we fail to leverage such rich assets of a gifted country? Well, all thanks to the Nehruvian policies. Nehruvianism is responsible for keeping India forever a developing, third-world country."
................................................................................................
Blunder–69 :
Pathetic India vs. Other Countries
" ... After its separation from Malaysia in 1965, Singapore was left as an independent country that was not only poor and backward, and with meagre defensive capabilities, it had NO natural resources— not even water! It had to import water from Malaysia. Lee Kuan Yew, often referred to by his initials as LKY, who became its Prime Minister, lead it through its traumatic separation. Thanks to his enlightened grasp on “what makes a nation strong and prosperous”, sound and far-sighted diplomacy and foreign policy, innovative ideas, wise strategy and unmatched competence in governance, he lifted Singapore from a poor, backward, “Third World” nation in 1965 to a "First World" Asian Tiger by 1980— in mere 15 years!"
" ... India had tremendous natural and water resources and the significant colonial legacy of defence, military, trained bureaucracy, industries and infrastructure, particularly railways. However, at the end of Nehru’s 17-year rule India remained a poor, third-world country of starving millions begging the world for food and aid."
"Japan, which had almost the same GDP as India in the early 1950s , grew so fast that by 1980, India’s GDP was a mere 17% of Japan’s. Japan grew at massive 18% annually during the 15-year period starting 1965 and took its GDP from 91 billion dollars to a mammoth 1.1 trillion dollars by 1980."
" ... South Korea’s per capita income is currently 1400% that of India, although at the time of our Independence it was on par!"
"Said JRD: “I tried to share my views with him [Nehru]... But [we differed] in the field of economics, of which he knew very little in my opinion, and how socialism could be adopted without the loss of freedom for the majority. Whenever I tried to bring up topics of nationalization and bureaucracy, he wasn’t even willing to talk. The moment I would try to tell him something, he would turn around and start looking out of the window or take me to see his giant panda!”{TTG/ 413}"
................................................................................................
Blunder–70 :
Nehru’s Socialism: The ‘God’that Failed
"The whole political vision of the left, including socialism and communism, has failed by virtually every empirical test, in countries all around the world. But this has only led leftist intellectuals to evade and denigrate empirical evidence…When the world fails to conform to their vision, then it seems obvious to the ideologues that it is the world that is wrong, not that their vision is uninformed or unrealistic.
"—Thomas Sowell"
"For these “intellectuals” sold out on “scientific” socialism there is no need to test and practically verify the above —because Marxism -Communism for them is the gospel truth, much like the totalitarian, proselytizing , exclusivist , “only-we-are-correct-and-all-others-false” ideologies of the latter two Abrahamic religions— Christianity and Islam (Abrahamic-II and III). Like the us vs. them binary of Christianity and Islam— believers vs. non-believers; momins vs. kaffirs— Marxism-Communism, that is, Abrahamic -IV, has its binaries of proletariat vs. bourgeoisie , and worker vs. capitalist."
"In science, society, economics and indeed all disciplines knowledge evolves, concepts change, new theories replace old ones in the light of new experiments, experiences and knowledge gained. To be scientific is to keep an open mind on things, to be willing to change, to be ready to jettison the old in the light of new evidence, and to go by actual practical results. For anything to be scientifically correct, it has to be proved truly and convincingly in practice, without a shadow of doubt. Till the same is done, it remains merely a conjecture, a hypothesis, a theory."
"“The climate of opinion received a further boost in the same direction when the Berlin wall fell in 1989 and the Soviet Union collapsed in 1992. That brought to a dramatic end an experiment of some seventy years between two alternative ways of organizing an economy: top-down versus bottom-up; central planning and control versus private markets; more colloquially, socialism versus capitalism. The result of that experiment had been foreshadowed by a number of similar experiments on a smaller scale: Hong Kong and Taiwan versus mainland China; West Germany versus East Germany; South Korea versus North Korea. But it took the drama of the Berlin Wall and the collapse of the Soviet Union to make it part of conventional wisdom, so that it is now taken for granted that central planning is indeed The Road to Serfdom, as Friedrich A. Hayek titled his brilliant 1944 polemic.”
"—Milton Friedman in ‘Capitalism and Freedom’"
"In the immediate post–World War II period, the standard doctrine was that development of the third world required central planning plus massive foreign aid. The failure of that formula wherever it was tried, as was pointed out so effectively by Peter Bauer and others, and the dramatic success of the market-oriented policies of the East Asia tigers—Hong Kong, Singapore, Taiwan, South Korea—has produced a very different doctrine for development. By now, many countries in Latin America and Asia, and even a few in Africa have adopted a market-oriented approach and a smaller role for government. Many of the former Soviet satellites have done the same. In all those cases, in accordance with the theme of this book, increases in economic freedom have gone hand in hand with increases in political and civil freedom and have led to increased prosperity; competitive capitalism and freedom have been inseparable..”—Milton Friedman in ‘Capitalism and Freedom’{ MF/ L-89}"
"Unfortunately for the crores of starving Indians and millions of others who had great hopes for themselves, their families and the nation after independence, Nehru guided India into a poverty-and-misery-perpetuating socialistic-bureaucratic black-hole. His descendants, Indira and Rajiv Gandhi, by doing much more of the same, made the situation worse. UPA-I and II, by part reverting to the Nehru-Indira disastrous ways, reversed the Narsimha Rao– Vajpayee upward trend.
"Sardar Patel, Rajagopalachari and Rajendra Prasad were opposed to socialism. If only they had led India after Independence, rather than Nehru, India would have been a prosperous first-world country long ago, and it would hopefully have been saved from the debilitating feudal dynacracy (dynastic democracy) founded by Nehru, that is at the root of all miseries."
“… a society which is socialist cannot also be democratic, in the sense of guaranteeing individual freedom.”{MF/ 8}
"“A society that puts equality before freedom will get neither. A society that puts freedom before equality will get a high degree of both.”
"—Milton Friedman"
"It was the mercantile-industrial capitalism that led to democracy. Democracy and capitalism go together. Competitive capitalism needs democracy to thrive. Vice versa , democracy can thrive where competitive capitalism exists. Of course, vitiated forms of capitalism, like crony capitalism, can go along with dictatorships and oligarchies.
"However, socialism and communism, where the state dominates and predominantly controls the means of production, can’t have real democracy, because true democracy is unsuited to those systems. That’s why when India went more socialist under Indira resulting in difficult economic conditions, she had to wind up democracy and declare Emergency."
"People who believe in evolution in biology often believe in creationism in government. In other words, they believe that the universe and all the creatures in it could have evolved spontaneously , but that the economy is too complicated to operate without being directed by politicians.
"—Thomas Sowell"
"Free enterprise and capitalism were not something that were first theorised, then planned, and then implemented or rammed down. They evolved as a sequence of civilisational growth, were taken cognizance of, and then theorised after the fact. Facts and practice led to the theory, and then the theory enhanced the practice. Thereafter, it was a beneficial evolving cycle, each helping enhance the other. Democracy, in turn, evolved out of free enterprise and capitalism; and again there was a cyclical effect between the two, each helping enhance the other.
"In comparison, there is nothing natural, organic or evolutionary about Socialism, Communism or Gandhiism. They are all artificial constructs. You first theorise. Then you plan how the theory could be implemented in practice. And, when you implement you find there are just too many variables, too many unknowns, and too many practical difficulties and unforeseen human factors and frailties to contend with. Russians tried it for over 70 years, failed, reverted, and have since been struggling to implement capitalism. Same with the East European countries that went communist thanks to Russia. China wisely junked its Maoism before it was too late, and steered itself capably into a version of capitalism."
"Nehru just went by what was popular and fashionable among the upper classes in Britain, without any deep study of economics (despite many years in jail where he had all the time in the world, and access to books), or even a reasonable understanding of its basics, although economics is a most vital subject for any political leader. Economics is a serious subject for its affects the lives of millions, and for Nehru to take up a firm position on one trend of economics without critical appraisal of the alternatives was not only unwise in the academic sense, it proved disastrous to the nation in practice.
"In fact, Nehru’s prejudice— which he picked up at Harrow and Cambridge— against capitalism had more to do with his cultivating himself as an upper-class Englishman, who had a bias against trade, than on understanding of economics or economic history ; just as his socialism had more to do with upper-class English Fabians (like Bernard Shaw), than with any genuine experience of or revolt against poverty. Nehru’s class or caste bias is apparent in his autobiography {JN2} where he mentions that “Right through history the old Indian ideal did not glorify political and military triumph, and it looked down upon money and the professional money-making class. Honour and wealth did not go together, and honour was meant to go, at least in theory, to the men who served the community with little in the shape of financial reward...” and that “Today it is fighting silently and desperately against a new and all-powerful opponent— the bania [Vaishya] civilization of the capitalist West.”{JN2/ 449/ L-7663}"
"“Nehru had once told him [JRD Tata], ‘I hate the mention of the very word profit.’‘Jawaharlal, I am talking about the need of the public sector making a profit!’ J.R.D. replied. Nehru reiterated, ‘Never talk to me about the word profit, it is a dirty word.’”{TTG/ 414}
"That’s arrogance on top of ignorance! Doesn’t a country need profit/ surplus to invest in further industrialization, infrastructure , health, social sectors, etc? Just because your (bound to be) mismanaged public -sectors are sinks, and make no profit—“ profit is a dirty word’!
"Post-independence, and till the early 1950s, India did command great respect and prestige around the world, and there were lots of expectations from democratic India as a beacon for other developing countries, particularly the erstwhile colonial ones, to follow. Unfortunately, Nehru’s policies proved so disastrous on the ground that all hopes stood belied. Nehru’s socialism delivered a monumental tragedy lacking not only in growth and poverty alleviation, but also in delivering social justice."
" ... Japan systematically went about regenerating itself economically—something that Nehru should have copied. Japan first made education universal and compulsory. Agriculture was then modernised. Infrastructure—roads, rails and telecommunications—was drastically improved; and all villages were linked. First light industries, and then heavy industries were established. Thanks to these measures, Japan recovered quickly, and grew at over 9% for over twenty-three years, to become one of the largest economies of the world. India, in contrast, was untouched by the war and the devastation. Yet, India remained a poor third-rate third-world country unable even to feed its hungry millions."
"In his book ‘The Great Divide’ HV Hodson claims that in the list of the cabinet submitted by Nehru in August 1947, Sardar Patel’s name was initially missing! There could have been three reasons for it [not given in that book]: One, Nehru feared Patel would oppose his socialistic policies. Two, Patel commanded much greater support and respect and had the power to have Nehru’s policies out-voted. Three, Nehru, the “great democrat”, wanted to have only his way, and didn’t wish to share power.
"Sardar Patel never believed socialism was a panacea like Nehru and many other socialists, including Jayaprakash Narayan and Rammanohar Lohia, believed. Sardar was liberal enough to even offer a deal to the socialists on these lines: “ Select a province and run it on socialist principles. If they did better than others, he would gladly hand over the country to them.”{RG/ 491} The offer was not taken, as JP and Lohia later recalled."
"Said Sardar: “Unlike many who indulge in the parrot-cry of socialism, I have no property of my own. Before you talk of socialism you must ask yourself how much wealth you have created by your labour…By experience, I am convinced that what is necessary for us is to learn how to produce more wealth and then to produce wealth and thereafter to think what to do with it.”{ SP3}"
................................................................................................
Blunder-70a :
What They Said of Nehru & Socialism
Author quotes various sources.
"I passed through some European capitals [in late 1950s] whose interest in India had shrunk because this country appeared to them more in the role of a client for aid than the leader of a new force in world affairs. The exception was West Germany, the only Western nation which shows respect for Indian culture. German Indologists study Sanskrit , whereas their British counterparts confine themselves to the Indo-Muslim period.
"—Durga Das{DD/ 354}"
"The uncandid and creeping totalitarianism of the Nehru-guided Congress Party is worse than the avowed totalitarianism of the orthodox Communists. The latter challenges us to a straightforward duel. The issues in that duel are clear and our dharma has a definite advantage and can be sure of victory. The uncandid and creeping totalitarianism involved in the Socialism of the Congress is the more dangerous evil, in as much as it deceives and dupes all the way along and drives public opinion and Press and nation inescapably into the lane that holds State compulsion and regimented life at its dead end. The advantage of a straightforward issue is great for those who have to resist tyranny. It calls forth all the latent energy of a nation and its capacity for sacrifice whereas the creeping totalitarian tyranny of the Socialist pattern disarms the citizens, divides them into classes and weakens them by inspiring and setting up mutual conflicts, and through State power prevents sacrifice from organising itself against tyranny.
"—SwarajyaMag {Swa8}"
"I do not believe that the solution to our problem is simply to elect the right people. The important thing is to establish a political climate of opinion which will make it politically profitable for the wrong people to do the right thing. Unless it is politically profitable for the wrong people to do the right thing, the right people will not do the right thing either, or it they try, they will shortly be out of office.
"―Milton Friedman, Economics Nobel Laureate
"Fascism is the stage reached after communism has proved an illusion.
"― Friedrich von Hayek"
................................................................................................
................................................................................................
................................................................................................
................................................................................................
................................................
................................................
April 29, 2022 - April 30, 2022.
................................................
................................................
................................................................................................
................................................................................................
................................................................................................
................................................................................................
Chapter - VII
MISGOVERNANCE
................................................................................................
................................................................................................
Blunder–71 :
Debilitating Babudom & Criminal-Justice System
"Babudom— the IAS-IPS-IFS-IRS combine, those from the criminal-justice system, and the bureaucracy lower down— is very intimately related to socialism, poor rate of growth, continued poverty, injustice and misery.
"Nehru did nothing to change the babudom and make it people-oriented, service-oriented and development-oriented— they continued with their feudal class consciousness and arrogant ways, ill-suited to public service. The pre-independence babu culture of living like a rajah, misusing power, exploiting people, becoming rich at their cost, and aping the British ways to look cultured, continued, and indeed became worse with Raj giving way to Nehru-Indira’s licence-permit-quota raj."
"As per 15 October 2013 Times of India, Mumbai news-item ‘2,600 cops serve in homes of IPS officers in state’by Prafulla Marpakwar:{ URL46}
"“The question now is whether [the government] will withdraw the 2,600-odd police personnel deployed at the residences of 280 IPS officers across the state [of Maharashtra]... At least seven to 10 constables are deployed at the residence of an Indian Police Service officer, a senior IPS officer said. If this number is reduced, the state will get enough policemen to fill up at least 10 to 15 police stations... [A conscientious] IPS officer said, ‘I am shocked that so many constables are deployed. Occasionally I feel we are still in the British Raj...’”The report states that 5 to 9 constables, 3 orderlies, 1 cook, 2-3 telephone runners and 2 drivers are deployed at the residences of SPs/ Commissioners; while 2 to 5 constables, 2-3 orderlies, 2 telephone runners and 2 drivers are deployed at the residences of other IPS officials. The report continues: “‘Many officers have even more staffers, depending on their influence. In Pune, a high-ranking officer in the prisons department had 15-20 constables at his official residence,’said a senior IPS officer... What was more shocking, the officer said, was that the staff remained the same even if the officer were to be shifted to another city, and even after an officer retired, the police personnel continued to serve him for a period ranging from three months to a year.”{ URL46}
"So, while the citizens may remain insecure and crimes against women may be a growing menace the IPS babus, like their IAS counterparts, must lord it out. ..."
" ... Why shouldn’t the head of TRAI be a telecom expert rather than an IAS babu? Why should the CAG be from IAS rather than from the Indian Audit and Accounts Service? Why shouldn’t the RBI governor be an accomplished, experienced economist— why should he be an IAS babu? How come the USA manages to have high-level experts from the concerned fields to head the relevant positions; while in sharp contrast, we put in the IAS babus as square pegs in round holes in all top positions?"
"With the economic liberalisation post 1991 it was expected that the bureaucratic stranglehold would loosen. But, sensing the vastly enhanced scope of making the moolah with the unprecedented expansion of the economy, the politician-bureaucratic combine ensured that the plethora of new bodies, especially the regulatory ones, that came into being were hijacked by the babus. With a nod from the politicians, serving and retired babus have captured practically all important decision-making bodies. With IAS babus as heads of regulatory bodies, autonomous, independent, honest, competent and sane regulation is a chimera. ... "
" ... A report “Corruption’s Impact on the Business Environment” for 2013 for Asia-Pacific was published by PERC. It grades countries on a scale of 10, 0 being the best and 10 being the worst— most corrupt . Singapore came at the top with a score of 0.74, Japan and Australia tied at number 2 with a score of 2.35, and India came at the bottom with a score of 8.95!"
" ... Most of the babus have been supporters of socialism or significant state controls and regulations, not because they think it would do any good to India, but because it results in enhancement of their powers and importance and opens avenues for making money. Of course, not all babus are bad . It is only 99 percent of babus, as someone said, who give the rest a bad name! In this connection, the book ‘Journeys through Babudom and Netaland’{TSR} by TSR Subramaniam, the ex-Cabinet Secretary, is worth reading."
................................................................................................
Blunder–72 :
That Strange Indian Animal: VIP & VVIP
Author points out that this doesn't harmonize with socialism professed by the Congress regimes.
"VIP area, VIP security, VIP red-beacon lights on vehicles, inconveniencing hundreds and thousands to let VIP car pass, VIP passes and VIP queues even in temples to let VIPs have darshan while thousands patiently wait : what does this all show? It is a gross insult to the public at large. Why should public, whose servants these politicians and bureaucrats are, suffer and get humiliated by these servants-turned-masters? After independence, and after displacing the British and over 500 rajas and maharajas from their princely states, we have become even more colonial and feudal. Wrote Inder Malhotra in his article, “Very Indian Phenomenon” [VIP], in ‘The Indian Express’ of 21 July 2012{IE6}:"
" ... It is the political class, the army of bureaucrats... that form the bedrock of the VIP cult and the perks and privileges that go with it. Like much else, the VIP is a legacy of the British Raj. Independent India has not only embraced it with gusto but also expanded it vastly... English class system ... "
................................................................................................
Blunder–73 :
Corruption in the “Good”Old Days
"From the very beginning of his Prime Ministership Nehru adopted a queer and casual approach towards corruption. A resolution on the ‘standards of public conduct’at the 1948 Congress session that exhorted ‘all Congressmen, members of the central and provincial legislatures and more especially members of the Cabinets…to set an example and maintain a high standard of conduct’was accepted by a majority of 107 against 52. Such a sane and desirable resolution was, however, withdrawn the next day after Nehru threatened to resign, saying the resolution amounted to censure of his Government.{ RNPS/ 102} One wonders why the Congress members bent down to an unreasonable demand. Nehru was certainly not indispensable—he should have been allowed to resign.
"There were many cases where Nehru condoned corruption. Or , defended those accused of it. This tended to make corruption acceptable. In a way, the foundation of corruption were laid during Nehru’s time, although, unlike Manmohan Singh, Nehru had almost unlimited powers to carry through whatever he wanted.
"Sardar Patel’s correspondence of May 1950 with Nehru brings out instances where the National Herald (NH) was used as a tool for collecting money on a quid pro quo basis— awarding government contracts to undeserving elements. Feroze Gandhi , Nehru’s son-in-law, was then the General Manager of NH. Nehru was not personally involved, but rather than putting his foot firmly down on the impropriety, he tended to soft-paddle the matter, and shielded those responsible. It also brings out Sardar Patel’s high standards of probity in public life.{URL47}
"A number of his colleagues and confidants at the Centre and in the States were not above board, but Nehru ignored their misdemeanours. Krishna Menon (KM) had engaged in a number of shady deals while in London as High Commissioner. Jeep Scandal Case of 1948{ Wik1} was only one of the scandals. KM finalised a Defence deal with a firm in London with capital assets of barely £ 605 and placed orders in July 1948 for supply of 2000 rugged, all-terrain army jeeps urgently required for Kashmir operations within five months, with deliveries to commence within six weeks. Menon paid a large sum of £ 1,72,000 to the supplier upfront, before even a single vehicle was delivered. The first batch, which was to arrive in India within 6 weeks, arrived in March 1949, after 8 months, by when ceasefire in J& K had already been declared—on January 1, 1949. The initial batch of 155 jeeps that landed at Madras port were found to be all unserviceable. Defence official, who inspected the jeeps, rejected the entire shipment. PAC (Public Accounts Committee) conducted an enquiry, passing severe strictures, and recommended judicial enquiry to fix responsibility for the scam. But, the Government did nothing. When there was a clamour in the Parliament, the Government simply tabled its note to PAC to reconsider its recommendation, and asked the House to treat the matter as closed! This was in 1954. PAC, however, again revived the issue in its next report to the Parliament in 1955. Thereupon, the Home Minister Pant, at the instance of Nehru, simple announced in the Parliament that the Government had taken a final decision to treat the matter as closed! How could government close a clear case of gross corruption without taking any action, ignoring PAC’s recommendations—but, those were the Nehruvian days!!
"Mundhra case related to the impropriety of investments by the government-owned LIC into the companies of a financier-investor Haridas Mundhra. The then Chief justice MC Chagla constituted the one-man Tribunal to enquire into the case in 1958. The Tribunal conducted its proceedings in a thoroughly professional manner, and in public, and submitted its report in a record time of one month. Nehru, rather than being appreciative of the exemplary working of the Tribunal (that should have been followed by subsequent such tribunals/ enquiry commissions—but, were not), and praising and rewarding Chagla for the same, was cross with him. Why? Tribunal’s findings were adverse, and reflected badly on the then Finance Minister TTK Krishnamachari. ... "
" ... Remarked Rajaji: “Congressmen look so well off. Have they taken up new avocations and earned money? Then how have they earned money?”{RG3/ 371} Rajaji had concluded that it was the socialistic pattern, where the state controlled, ‘permitted’, and farmed out business that was enriching Congressmen and officials.
"This is from ‘The Hindu’of 9 January 2010{ URL27}, which reproduces what it had said over 50 years ago in its issue of 9 January 1960:
"“Prime Minister Nehru categorically ruled out any proposal for appointing a high power tribunal to enquire into and investigate charges of corruption against Ministers or persons in high authority, for the main reason that, in India, or for that matter any other country where there was a democratic set-up, he could not see how such a tribunal could function. The appointment of such a tribunal, Mr. Nehru felt, would ‘produce an atmosphere of mutual recrimination, suspicion, condemnation, charges and counter-charges and pulling each other down, in a way that it would become impossible for normal administration to function.’More than half the time of the Press conference was devoted by Mr. Nehru to deal with this question of appointing a tribunal to enquire into cases of corruption as recently urged by India’s former Finance Minister, Mr C.D.Deshmukh.”{ URL27}
" ... Nehru suggests no alternative to curb corruption ! Wrote Durga Das:
"“This was the pattern from 1947 to 1951 [stand against corruption], but he [Nehru] gradually began to acquire a tolerance for the malpractices of politicians. He thereupon substituted political expediency for principles in dealing with ministerial colleagues. Unhesitatingly, he turned a blind eye to a demand by C.D. Deshmukh for the appointment of a high-power Tribunal to eradicate corruption when one of the cases listed by him related to the son of a close colleague.”{DD/ 382}"
"Nehru had commented thus on the charges against Pratap Singh Kairon:
"“The question thus arises as to whether the chief minister is compelled to resign because of adverse findings on some questions of fact by Supreme Court. The ministers are collectively responsible to the legislature. Therefore, the matter was one which concerned the assembly. As a rule therefore, the question of removing a minister would not arise unless the legislature expressed its wish by a majority vote.”
" ... When severe allegations were levelled against Kairon by the critics within the Congress itself, Nehru pooh-poohed them and resisted any enquiry— Kairon had to ultimately resign following Das Commission’s findings.
"In UPA-I and II, PM Manmohan Singh had advanced excuse of Coalition “Dharma” for corruption— as if Congress people were above board— but in the days of Nehru, Congress was super strong, opposition hardly existed, and Nehru was an unchallenged leader. Nehru could have easily nipped the malaise of corruption in the bud. Sadly, he chose to tolerate it.
"Wrote Maria Misra:
"“By the early 1960s the Nehruvian project was unravelling. The third plan was in crisis, agricultural reform had stalled, and grain output actually declined in 1962-63... inflation was running at 9 per cent... Congress was confronting a crisis of rising expectations at the very moment that its own reputation was at its lowest, dogged by corruption scandals at every level... The culture of corruption... had begun to penetrate society more deeply. In 1961 the great novelist R.K. Narayan published Mr Sampath, a grimly comic depiction of a city milieu. The eponymous anti-hero is shown to be wholly immersed in fraudulent city life, a liar and an opportunist... Bimal Roy’s film Parakh (Test, 1960) dealt with similar themes... offering a scathing satirical attack on venal politicians allied with vested interests... Nehru’s non-aligned foreign policy was in disarray, his domestic policy in tatters, and Congress in decline...”{MM/ 306-7}
"The then President of India, Dr Rajendra Prasad had written to Nehru that corruption ‘will verily prove a nail in the coffin of the Congress’. For inquiry into charges of corruption, he strongly advocated the proposal for a tribunal or an Ombudsman under the President or under an independent authority, as suggested by CD Deshmukh. Rather than replying to the President’s note in the matter, Nehru chose to complain to him for his ‘unfriendly act’of sending such a note! Dr Rajendra Prasad wrote to Nehru on 18 December 1959:
"“I must say that I am somewhat disappointed. The question of corruption has been too prominently and too long before the public to brook any further delay in making a probe into it. I think Deshmukh has given enough details about cases to be traced and once the Government makes up its mind and gives immunity to informants against vindictive action, proofs will be forthcoming. I would therefore suggest that thought be given to finding out cases. It is not enough that you are satisfied that all is well. A popular Government’s duty is to give satisfaction to the people also... I have been worried by your suggestion that I should send for you and speak to you if I have anything to communicate rather than write. I am afraid this will stultify me in performing my constitutional duty...”{ AS/ 15}"
................................................................................................
Blunder–74 :
Nepotism in the “Good”Old Days
"Wrote MKK Nayar, an IAS officer:{ MKN}
"“India needed a cadre to do diplomatic work after independence. The Federal Public Service Commission was vested with the authority to create it. Kripalani, an ICS officer, headed the Commission and Grubb, a Tamilian and Puranik, a Maharashtrian were Members.
"“Youngsters who had the prescribed qualifications were called for an interview. Based thereon, a list of appointees to the new cadre (now known as Indian Foreign Service) was recommended to the Government. Bajpai and others were annoyed by the list. None of their children or in-laws were in it. They therefore sent Nehru a petition that said, ‘We are starting a new cadre. There is no Indian diplomatic service now. The British Foreign Office has done the work. When we start a new diplomatic cadre, youth selected for it must be different from those selected for other services. The Commission does not have the experience to select appropriate persons for such a cadre and those recommended by it are not suitable for us.
"“A Special Committee may be formed to select appointees to this cadre. The Special Committee should comprise those who themselves have experience and long service in diplomacy. For this reason, we feel that the list prepared by the Commission may be rejected and a new Committee asked to select the candidates.’
“It is not known whether Nehru considered the repercussions of doing as recommended. But he accepted it. When Kripalani heard this, he resigned. Without mentioning any specific reason, he stated personal inconvenience as his reason for resigning. Bajpai recommended and Nehru accepted it.
"“Without considering many of those selected earlier by the Commission, a new Committee [Special Selection Board] began a new selection. In the Commission’s list Ram and I were ranked sixteen and eighteen. We were not considered by the new Committee and we thus lost the opportunity to enter IFS.
"“There were indeed many ‘able’persons in the list prepared by the new Committee—not in scholarly pursuits but in selecting their brides. The list of those selected was such that almost everyone was related to someone in high circles. Even children of Committee members made it into the list. It is impossible to believe that Nehru was not aware of what was going on.”{ MKN}
"Nehru’s Personal Private Secretary M.O. (Mac) Mathai had something similar to say in his book ‘My Days with Nehru’:
"“The fruits of labour of the Special Selection Board [for foreign services] left much to be desired. All the members of the Board had their own favourites and candidates... Many people with the right connections and some who did not have the minimum educational qualifications entered the foreign service through the back-door. Leilaraani Naidu, the second daughter of Sarojini Naidu, was also taken in. Unlike Ranbir Singh and Mohammad Yunus, she had ample educational qualifications and teaching experience, but was thoroughly temperamental and patently unsuitable for any diplomatic work. She had to be kept in the External Affairs Ministry throughout her term in the Foreign Service as a lame duck…”{ Mac2/ L-2946-51}"
................................................................................................
Blunder–75 :
Nehru & Casteism
"With India basking in the glow of freedom, and all charged up, it was a golden opportunity after independence to finally nail casteism. But, did Nehru do so? Sadly, caste of candidates for election in a given constituency was a very important, rather crucial, consideration for their selection. Rather than weakening the foundations of casteism, Nehruvian electoral strategy strengthened it. The sad spectacle that we see today is thanks to the seeds sown since the first general elections of 1952.
"The lists of proposed candidates prepared for the consideration of the Congress State and Central Election Committees had an important column on caste of each candidate! This was so even when Nehru was ex-officio member of the Central Election Committee."
................................................................................................
Blunder–76 :
Messy Reorganisation of States
"The issue erupted . First , for Andhra. The government tried their best to suppress the agitation. The more they tried the worse it became. Ultimately, they had to give in, and the state of Andhra Pradesh was formed in 1953. Wrote Dr Dhananjay Keer in ‘Dr. Ambedkar: Life and Mission’:
"“… on September 2, 1953, Dr. Ambedkar criticized Government for its vacillating policy on the formation of linguistic states. He strongly repudiated the view that linguistic reorganization would lead to the disintegration of India. Potti Sriramalu, he observed, had to sacrifice his life for the sake of creating Andhra. If, he added, in any other country a person had to die in order to invoke a principle that had already been accepted, it was possible that the Government of that country would have been lynched.”{DK/ 449}"
"The matter of Maharashtra, Gujarat and Mumbai was again allowed to hang for too long, leading to agitations and violence. Eventually, Nehru had to give in. The states of Maharashtra and Gujarat were created on 1 May 1960."
................................................................................................
Blunder–77 :
Poor Leadership & Administration
" ... These are the remarks of Rafi Ahmed Kidwai, a close friend and a confidant of Nehru:
" ... We should have absorbed Kashmir for good and all... I do not know where we are going. The country needs a man like Patel.”{DD/ 379}"
"Nehru was a bad judge of events and situations too. Here is what MO Mathai wrote:
"“Nehru was not a good judge of situations. After the partition of India was decided upon, he visited Lahore in 1947. I was with him…At a press conference in Lahore, Nehru held forth and asserted that when partition was brought about, things would settle down and both contending parties would want to maintain peace in their respective areas. Most pressmen were sceptical. They asked, ‘What makes you think so?’Nehru replied, ‘Forty years of public life.’We all know what happened subsequently.”{ Mac/ 110}"
"No Delegation -
"Nehru didn’t train others, or gave them an opportunity to develop. For example, he retained foreign portfolio too, doing injustice both to that portfolio and to his own job as PM. He invested overmuch time drafting letters and replies and doing such sundry things, better left to people down below. Wrote Rustamji: “No big decision could be taken in India by anyone, except Nehru. He kept about and below him men who would always turn to him for decisions, or who, if they took decisions would soon be told that they were wrong… How did this work in practice? It meant that on every major problem when there was a doubt about government policy, that doubt would be removed by the PM… There were good, clever men, advisers in the government, who were able to read the PM’s mind, or make an accurate forecast of the way he would think. But these men did not exercise their own critical judgement. They merely anticipated a decision which could be easily done. If it could not be easily anticipated, they awaited the Oracle’s pronouncement… Modern government is such a complex affair that if a policy is uncertain, those who function at a distance (like ambassadors and delegates to the UN) or lower below (like Under Secretaries) are constantly kept guessing.”{Rust/ 72}
"Wrote Nehru’s secretary MO Mathai: “Nehru saddled himself with more than one portfolio—External Affairs and Atomic Energy and Scientific Research— on a permanent basis... Nehru had neither the aptitude, the patience , the inclination nor the temperament for the drudgery of attention to details. In fact he was a man whose policies could be largely defeated at the level of details by scheming men. Nehru’s choice of junior ministers directly under him left much to be desired. In any event, having been for so long his own secretary during his long career as a political leader, Nehru never learned to delegate. ... "
"A telling and illustrative example of gross misgovernance during the Nehruvian times was the tragic stampede at the Kumbh Mela (the first after independence) in the morning after about 10.30am on the Mauni Amavasya (full moon) day of 3 February 1954 at Nehru’s home town of Allahabad that left about 1000 crushed to death and many more injured. On that day Nehru had visited the Mela, and a considerable security was diverted for him and other VIPs. No compensations were paid, and the Government had tried to suppress the news. Stated a newspaper report: “It is also surprising that even though more than a thousand people trampled to death, the administrative officials were ignorant of it because these officials were enjoying tea and snacks at the Government House (today’s Medical College) till four o’clock.”{W.n17}"
Author has translated Amavasya incorrectly up there as full Moon, while correct translation is No Moon.
" ... As per an article in ‘The New Indian Express’{ W.n5}: "The Sunday Standard investigation into the [Ford and Rockefeller] foundations’activities in India that goes back to the 1950s throw up some startling facts. The Ford and Rockefeller foundations had penetrated the Indian establishment without any government oversight. It gave junkets and scholarships to senior government officials in the Nehru administration without clearance from the Indian government. These officials were directly selected by the Ford and Rockefeller foundations without the knowledge of the government. BK Nehru, Indira Gandhi’s cousin and the Commissioner General for Economic Affairs of Indian Embassy in Washington, advised against insistence on clearance of the funds by the Rockefeller Foundation to government employees after a meeting with its President Dean Rusk. Rusk told the government that only consultations (and not approval) with the Department of Economic Affairs would be necessary before it funded bureaucrats and others. Appalled at the storm brewing in his government against the foundations’blatant efforts to woo government officials, Nehru denied he had given the necessarily approval. However, he had to backtrack after a note was shown to him, which made it obvious that the opposite was true.”{ W.n5}"
In the paragraph above, since the last reference "Nehru denied" does not mention which Nehru, it's ambiguous; one assumes author of the article intended readers to understand the PM was indicated, but reference to BK Nehru as "Indira Gandhi’s cousin", Instead of nephew (or first cousin, once removed) of Jawaharlal Nehru, throws one off slightly with regard to timeline. However, he was ambassador to US when Jawaharlal Nehru expired, so a junior position was definitely during era of PM Jawaharlal Nehru. Only clue to solution is "his government", which presumably indicates Jawaharlal Nehru.
"Wrote Durga Das:
"“Curzon [Viceroy, British-India, 1899– 1905] was an adept at cutting the Gordian knots into which ponderous files had tied a problem over the years. There were few administrative problems he would not himself tackle, zealously and with conspicuous success. Nehru, on the other hand, was more concerned with enunciating doctrines; he had little patience with the details of administration. When confronted with the need for a decision, he would skirt round, weighing the pros and cons , tormented, as it were, by the spirit of self-questioning. Nehru’s genius lay in romanticising politics, not in the sphere of administration.”{DD/ 48}"
Perhaps that's the department that suited him, dealing with education, science and technology, Atomic Energy and Scientific Research; clearly Sardar Patel was better suited both as PM and Home Affairs, and Netaji ought to have been brought back to deal with foreign affairs and defense, to take over later as PM.
Why didn't they appoint Maniben to look after women's questions in India, or khadi and textiles, or both? Perhaps that too needed a Subhash Chandra Bose to think of it!
................................................................................................
Blunder–78 :
Squandering Once-in-a-lifetime Opportunity
"At the time of independence, compared to China and all the countries in SE-Asia like Taiwan, South Korea, Singapore, and so on, India was much better placed in terms of infra-structure like roads, railways, and industries; administrative and criminal-justice infra-structure; and had a large, indigenous groups of entrepreneurs, industrialists and businessmen. Not only that, India had a favourable balance of payments, with the UK owing millions of pounds to us, which it repaid over the years."
"India, and therefore Nehru as PM, was exceptionally fortunate to have a large pool of extraordinarily talent at the time of independence. To have had highly capable and upright politicians like Sardar Patel, C Rajagopalachari, Dr BR Ambedkar, Dr Rajendra Prasad, John Mathai, CD Deshmukh , Dr Shyama Prasad Mukherjee , KM Munshi, GB Pant, Rafi Ahmed Kidwai, and so on, was indeed fortunate. Then, there was a large team of experienced and capable bureaucrats like VP Menon, HM Patel, Girija Shankar Bajpai, etc. Many of the Diwans of the Princely States were highly competent and experienced administrators, like CP Ramaswami Iyer of Travancore, M Visvesvaraya of Mysore, and so on . Indian army had WW -II veterans, and people like KM Cariappa, Thimayya. We also had many reputed educationists, technocrats, economists, and finance persons. India would never have such a distinguished mix of talent and such people of integrity again."
One is free to disagree with that last statement, of course. Certainly there's no dearth of talent either in science or in business, however infested academia be with the deadweight of past seven decades when caste politics (selecting by reservation as enforced by law) discouraged talent from academia.
"Post-independence, millions were fired with patriotic zeal, ready to sacrifice, and do their utmost to show to the world what this grand, old civilisation was capable of. They all wanted to disprove the British canard that without them India would go to pieces and would become a basket case. India was the richest nation in the world when the Islamic invaders arrived. Despite their loot and plunder, India still remained attractive, though much less rich. Still, India was far, far richer than England when the English first arrived in India. However, thanks to their loot and disastrous economic management, condition of India became pitiable. That was the time, after independence, to show to the world what India would have been, had the British and Muslims hordes not set their feet in India."
And if Jawaharlal Nehru had kept his own counsel until a better moment to ensure return of Netaji, instead of what he did, India could have been drastically different, what with possibility of proceeding in tandem with Japan!
"Fortunately for Nehru, support was for the asking. There was no opposition worth the name. He enjoyed unbridled supremacy both over the Congress and the government for 17 long years. He could do what he wanted. People were also fired up. It was once in a millennium opportunity, which India would never again get."
Puranik does know things are different since 2014, however widespread the disease sown for most part of six decades.
Author ends the chapter on a very negative note, but one has to remember, thus is the same nation that quietly threw off a would be dictatorship, an emergency-imposing regime when chance came, and did it again in 2014.
Never underestimate India.
................................................................................................
................................................................................................
................................................................................................
................................................................................................
................................................
................................................
April 30, 2022 - April 30, 2022.
................................................
................................................
................................................................................................
................................................................................................
................................................................................................
................................................................................................
Chapter - VIII
EDUCATIONAL & CULTURAL MISMANAGEMENT
................................................................................................
................................................................................................
Blunder–79 :
Neglect of Education, Particularly Universal Education
"Consider how backward the home constituencies of the Nehru-Gandhis have been, despite the fact that they have been representing them for decades . Universal literacy and an informed public were the two factors Nehru-Dynasty could not have survived; so it seems they let wide-spread illiteracy and grossly inadequate educational infrastructure prevail."
No argument there!
"The education under Nehru became elitist. There was regrettable compartmentalisation into the HMTs (Hindi-Medium types) and the EMTs (English-Medium types), with EMTs cornering most facilities and opportunities. There were little efforts to make education universal. Policy restrictions and the bureaucratic -maze spread by the Nehruvians ensured peripheral role for the private sector in education, thus severely limiting the already limited educational sector further. Remarks MD Nalapat: “The Nehruvian education system took away the state-funded window for the teaching of the English language to the poor, restricting fluency in that language and its global advantages to the relatively affluent.”{URL106}"
About the preferences for one language over another, very true. But author omits discussing culture of preferences to elite schools, including those run by church, nourished consistently after British left, for most of the six decades.
"In so far as the All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS) in New Delhi is concerned, it was Rajkumari Amrit Kaur who was a strong moving force behind its establishment, and became its first president.{URL100} “After India finally got its hard-won independence in 1947, Kaur became the first woman to hold a cabinet position in India. As the country’s first health minister, she set up the Tuberculosis Association of India, the Indian Council of Child Welfare, the Central Leprosy and Research Institute and the Rajkumari Amrit Kaur College of Nursing. However, she is best known as the visionary to whom AIIMS owes its existence. In 1950, Kaur was elected the president of the World Health Assembly (which governs the WHO)— she was the first woman and the first Asian to hold the prestigious post. Seven years later, she secured aid from New Zealand, Australia, Sweden, West Germany and USA to establish AIIMS.”{URL101}"
And yet this is a secret kept by historians while medical institutions and colleges, including those for nursing, are routinely named after Dynasty members, neither due to their being related to the field nor due to their having taken particular interest.
"Nehruvians flaunt establishment of IITs and IIMs during the time of Nehru. The question is whether just five IITs and a few IIMs were enough for a country of India's size. Shouldn't there have been several IITs and several IIMs in each state? Incidentally, among the persons who conceptualised CSIR and IITs even before independence was Sir Ardeshir Dalal from the Viceroy's Executive Council (VEC). The idea was carried forward by, among others, Dr BC Roy, Sir JC Ghosh, Sir Jogendra Singh of the VEC, Sir Nalini Ranjan Sarkar, LS Chandrakant and Biman Sen.{URL73}"
"Extracts from an article in SundayGuradianLive.com{ W.n16}:
"“In reality, it was through the vision and effort of Arcot Ramaswami Mudaliar that the Council of Scientific and Industrial Research came into existence in 1940 and it was Dr Syama Prasad Mookerjee who built it up…A number of laboratories were set up by Dr Mookerjee, including the National Physical Laboratory, National Chemical Laboratory, National Metallurgical Laboratory, Fuel Research Institute, Ceramics Research Institute, Central Leather Research Institute, and the Central Electro Chemical Research Institute…"
Major eye opener!
"“By the 1940s, India already had the infrastructure for supporting scientific activities and India’s Hindu civilisation had generated many scientific ideas and scientists over thousands of years. Institutes like the Banaras Hindu University which was founded by Pandit Madan Mohan Malaviya, the Indian Institute of Science, the Indian Association for the Cultivation of Science which had been founded in 1876, the core of Indian Statistical Institute, and the Tata Institute of Fundamental Research, all pre-dated Nehru’s time in office, but Nehru and his supporters have taken credit for the creation of these establishments. Among the public sector units, Hindustan Aeronautics Limited had been set up by Walchand Hirachand as a private business and it supplied state-of-the-art aircraft to Britain for its war efforts, but it rapidly deteriorated after the Nehru government started managing it…
"“The founding of the Indian Institutes of Technology and the All India Institute of Medical Sciences too had nothing to do with Jawaharlal Nehru. While the IITs had their genesis in the N.M. Sircar Committee report of 1945, Nehru’s indifference towards setting up medical institutes was captured in an exchange between Dr Mookerjee and N.G. Ranga in the Constituent Assembly. When Dr Mookerjee mentioned that a committee under the chairmanship of Dr Arcot Lakshmanaswami Mudaliar had been set up to establish an All India Medical Institute, N.G. Ranga highlighted Nehru’s statement opposing the All India Medical Institute in Delhi on the grounds that the housing problem had to be solved first…"
"“Nehru’s apathy towards science and his support for ‘socialist’ pseudoscience is best illustrated by his treatment of Srinivasa Sourirajan and other scientists. Nehru propped up his supporters and made them the key people, who ended up influencing the Indian scientific institutions over the next few decades. Soon, there were complaints of a class of ‘science bourgeoisie’ who were oppressive and squelched talent, resulting in an exodus of scientists leaving India, a problem that came to be labelled ‘brain drain’…
"“Nehru also opposed acquiring missiles and the atom bomb…”{W.n16}"
................................................................................................
Blunder–80 :
Messing Up the Language Issue & Being Anti-Hindi
"After considerable deliberations the Constituent Assembly agreed that the official language of the Union shall be Hindi in the Devanagari script; but for 15 years from the commencement of the Constitution, that is, from 26 January 1950, the English language shall continue to be used for all the official purposes of the Union— that is, till 25 January 1965. The Official Languages Act of 1963 stipulated that English “may” be used along with Hindi in official communications after 1965. That left it ambiguous . Was it optional? Lal Bahadur Shastri as prime minister stood by the decision to make Hindi official with effect from 26 January 1965, and all hell broke loose in the South. Ultimately, Shastri had to back out.
"The question is not Hindi or English, the question is why the matter was allowed to drift for 15 years under Nehru? Why a dialogue was not established among all the stake-holders and why what would happen post 26 January 1965 not thrashed out many years in advance allowing for a smooth transition, or for maintenance of the status quo? If indeed all were not agreeable on Hindi, then it should have been announced well in advance that the status quo would continue till as long as all were not agreed."
" ... The brown sahibs managed to create an “English Language Aristocracy” after independence. How to corner good positions, jobs and privileges ? Make them conditional upon knowledge of English. Restrict English to chosen schools and colleges, and restrict access to those institutions to only the privileged.
"This is not to say that the medium of instruction should have been English. It should have been in the mother tongue in the schools, and optionally also in English or Hindi— with no privileges attached to learning in English or Hindi. But, it should have been compulsory for all to learn English— and good English. That way, English would have been just a foreign language everyone knew. If English became a factor in getting jobs, like in IT or BPO or KPO, then with all students knowing it, it would not have given an edge to the less deserving."
"In sharp contrast to India, it is admirable what Israel did. Upon formation of Israel in 1948, many Jews scattered all over the world came over. They spoke different languages. To ensure a unifying language, many linguists, backed by the State, set about reviving Hebrew, Israel’s ancient language, which had fallen in decrepitude. Now, all Israelis speak Hebrew. It has given them an identity, and has greatly helped unify Israel. Most also know English, as it is taught from the primary school itself."
But they weren't fooled and divided by antisemitism, as India is, by anti-Hindu propaganda of well over fourteen centuries, which included badmouthing and abusing, not only Brahmins, but also Sanskrit, consistently.
Perhaps it requires an exodus and a holocaust before one appreciates one's heritage? Hope India doesn't need that!
"Language Commission setup in 1955 examined the progress in Hindi to replace English as the union language by 26 January 1965 as provided in the constitution, reiterated the constitutional obligation, made various recommendations, but left the decision to the government. A Parliamentary Committee, with GB Pant (the then Home Minister) as the Chairman, was appointed in 1957 to scrutinize the commission’s recommendations. Its unanimous (but for one dissent) recommendation was that Hindi should be the principal language from 26 January 1965, and English a subsidiary one, with no target date for the switch over. Pant sent the draft-report of the Parliamentary Committee to Nehru. Here are the extracts from Kuldip Nayar’s ‘Beyond the Lines’on what transpired:
"“The use of the word ‘subsidiary’for English infuriated Nehru, who argued that the word, subsidiary, meant English was the language of ‘vassals’. [Various substitute words were suggested by Pant]... Nehru disagreed with Pant and worse, he was quite indignant and reportedly made some harsh comments. Finally, the word subsidiary was substituted by 'additional'. Pant told me, ‘Mark my words, Hindi will not come to the country’. He was dejected. That very evening, Pant had his first heart attack…”{ KN}"
Due to the abusive treatment by the PM?
"Actually, Nehru wanted to carry on with the language he was comfortable in, and it is doubtful if he really cared for things Indian or Indian languages or culture. What is noteworthy is that most of the freedom fighters, irrespective of the language-region they came from, favoured Hindi or Hindustani as a common link-language and national language. Yet, the matter was allowed to become controversial under the watch of Nehru after independence.
"Lokmanya Tilak fervently advocated Hindi as the national language, holding the same as a vital concomitant of nationalism. Gandhi had praised Tilak for his discourse on Hindi as the national language at the Calcutta Congress. In London, Veer Savarkar had proposed the resolution on Swaraj not in English, but in what he called the “India’s lingua franca”— Hindi. At the Ahmedabad Congress Session in December 1921, Gandhi had proposed three things: Hindi as India’s lingua franca, tricolour as national flag, and khadi as the official wear for the Congress members. {BK/ 74}
"After the December-1926 Gauhati Session of the Congress, Gandhi went on yet another tour of the country, and among other things, expressed in his speeches that “he felt humiliated to speak in English and therefore wanted every Indian to learn Hindustani. He even went further and advocated adoption of the Devanagari script for all the Indian languages. Once again, he found South India most enthusiastic in its response to him, and he addressed about two dozen public meetings in Madras city alone.”{ DD/ 124}"
But then came Jinnah to Madras and told them they were not part of others, and should ask to separate.
"According to the then Home Secretary BN Jha the efforts to make Hindi the link-language failed thanks mainly to Nehru and his colleagues. Two big opportunities were lost— one when all chief ministers were agreed in 1961 for Devanagari script for all Indian languages, at the recommendation of President Dr Rajendra Prasad; and the second when a proposal based on parliamentary committee’s report was put up in the Cabinet meeting by the Home Minister Pant, to which Nehru had violently responded, “What is all this nonsense? It is not possible to have scientific and technological terms in Hindi,” even though Pant’s proposal did not cover the latter aspect— Nehru was only expressing his dislike for Hindi.{DD/ 330-31}"
Hence Pant had the heart attack!
................................................................................................
Blunder–81 :
Promoting Urdu & Persian-Arabic Script
"Hindi is written in the Devanagari script from left to right, while Urdu is written from right to left, being derived from a Persian modification of the Arabic script. High variants of Hindi depend on Sanskrit for enrichment, while Urdu looks to Persian and Arabic for its higher variants."
Bhagat Singh argued the case for Devanagari script most effectively, with a horrible example.
"Rather than giving Hindi its due, Nehru insisted that Urdu was the language of the people of Delhi, and should accordingly be given official recognition. When the Home Minister GB Pant told him that the statistics showed only 6% of the Delhiwalas had claimed Urdu as their language, Nehru tried to rubbish the statistics, though he didn’t press further with his crazy idea.{DD/ 329-30}
"Nehru was also in favour of Persian-Arabic script in which Urdu is written, rather than Devanagari script in which Hindi and Sanskrit are written. It seems that anything Indian or Hindu or representing Hindu-Indian heritage, and Nehru had some problem with it, and he tried to abort it. Ram Manohar Lohia had rightly said that Nehru was against anything that would give Indians a sense of Indianness!{DD/ 373}
"Also, Nehru promoted what he was personally comfortable with: English and Urdu. Not what was good for the nation.
"Hindi clearly had association with nation, India, Hindu, and Sanskrit; while Urdu has been advocated by Muslim leaders. The states that became West Pakistan and East Pakistan (now Bangladesh) had no association whatever with Urdu; their languages were Punjabi, Sindhi, Bengali, etc. But, the Muslim leaders from UP who migrated to Pakistan imposed Urdu on Pakistan."
And that, partly, was root of breaking up Pakistan, apart from racism, of the minority against the then majority, which were Bengali.
"What business Nehru had in trying to favour Urdu and Persian-Arabic script can only be understood if we account for his pseudo-secular character, eagerness to appease Muslims for votes, and allergy for anything rooted in India or in Indian culture and Hinduism. "
It wasn't just votes. Even now an attitude prevails that superior classes are those that speak a (very bad, half baked) English, or, if proud of past, an idiomatic Urdu that belongs to past, with a few words of Hindi - or Marathi, if in Mumbai - condescending to lesser humans. This attitude has been nurtured. But there's nothing natural about it it or real, it's a fraudulent propaganda based in the drive to convert humanity to abrahmic II or III.
Funny, Indian variety of Abrahamic-IV generally propagated Mao as superior and Moscow as failure, even in 1970s, even as Congress was delivered suitcases filled with dollars as per KGB.
................................................................................................
Blunder–82 :
Neglect of Sanskrit
"Said Will Durant, American historian and philosopher, in his book ‘The Case for India’{WD}:
"“India was the motherland of our race, and Sanskrit the mother of Europe's languages: she was the mother of our philosophy; mother, through the Arabs, of much of our mathematics; mother, through the Buddha, of the ideals embodied in Christianity; mother, through the village community, of self-government and democracy. Mother India is in many ways the mother of us all.”{WD/ L-80}"
"One is told that those who have genuine interest in working on the Indian past now go to certain reputed universities in the US, who not only have a rich collection of relevant books, but also have faculty proficient in Sanskrit! ... The comments of Gurcharan Das are worth noting:
"“... an Indian who seriously wants to study the classics of Sanskrit or ancient regional languages will have to go abroad…This is extraordinary in a country with dozens of Sanskrit departments in all major Indian universities... The ugly truth is that the quality of teaching in these institutions is so poor that not a single graduate is able to think seriously about the past and critically examine ancient texts... Where is India’s soft power when there are fewer and fewer Indians capable of interrogating the texts of Kalidasa or the edicts of Ashoka?... To be worthy of being Indian does not mean to stop speaking in English. It means to be able to have an organic connection with our many rich linguistic pasts... What separates man from beast is memory and if we lose historical memory then we surrender it to those who will abuse it.”{ URL45}
"The adverse fallout of the above is that gross distortionists of the Hindu cultural and religious heritage like Wendy Doniger of the University of Chicago, and Sheldon Pollock of the Columbia University have become respected global authorities on Sanskrit, Sanskrit literature and ancient Indian heritage. What is more, some rich Indian businessmen have financed them liberally to bring out series based on Indian classics, rather than financing competent Indians. Their interpretations are biased and distorted. It is only lately that people like Rajiv Malhotra and other Indians have begun exposing them. Books by Rajiv Malhotra like ‘Breaking India’, ‘Being Different’, ‘The Battle for Sanskrit’ are worth reading ... "
"Many opine that Sanskrit even deserves to be the National Language of India (a privilege currently given to none) for several unassailable reasons. It was the link language and the sole medium of not only religion and rituals, but also of philosophy, metaphysics, literature, poetry, mathematics, astronomy, science, law, jurisprudence, etc. for several millennia in India. It not only has a rich vocabulary, but has a built-in mechanism to generate new vocabulary based on a vast store of base-words and roots. It has a national identity as its vocabulary pervades all Indian languages. No region can claim it as belonging to it alone, hence no regional conflict in its usage.
"“On September 11 1949, the then Law Minister Dr B.R. Ambedkar supported by DyMinister for External Affairs Dr B.V. Keskar and Mr Naziruddin Ahmed sponsored an amendment declaring that the official language of the Union shall be Sanskrit. The amendment had thirteen other signatories of whom eleven hailed from South-India including nine from Madras.”{URL72}"
................................................................................................
Blunder–83 :
Rise of the Parasitic Leftist-Fiberal (Fake Liberal) Class
"While many studies have documented the predominance of the political left in the academic world, the exceptional areas where they do not have such predominance are precisely those areas where you cannot escape from facts and results— the sciences, engineering, mathematics and athletics. By contrast, no area of academia is more dominated by the left than the humanities, where there are no facts to challenge the fantasies that abound. Leftists head for similar fact-free zones outside of academia.
"—Thomas Sowell"
He wasn't aware of fashionable idiots in India of seventies, from upper middle class, who - not all, of course, but some - spouted leftism, and proclaimed Mao above all, discarding Moscow as failed due to improper implementation.
"In India, you just have to get familiar with the “leftist, anti-American, pro-Arab, anti-Israel, ‘secularist’, Hindu-baiting, Muslim-apologist, Nehruvian, JNU-type” refrain and jargon to qualify as an intellectual and a “liberal”— when you are actually a ‘Fiberal’: fake liberal. ... "
Oh, so true!
In those days when a meal in a downtown restaurant for middle class white collar office workers cost Rs 2/- in Mumbai, no frills, these fashionable leftists spent considerable amounts on audio cassettes and tape recorders, which - of amount on each of the cassettes - could instead have fed well over fifty poor a meal. Perhaps that is only a drop in the ocean, but then their spouting leftism only amounted to a belief, that if and when it came, they'd rise to top, due to - what? Talking leftism?
Anything else, they could have taken small steps right then.
" ... It’s that easy. No serious knowledge or expertise or research work or analytical ability or originality or integrity or depth and width of reading and study is required. The origin, spread, and entrenchment of this class has been thanks to Nehru and his Dynasty."
Puranik is underestimating leftist propaganda that emanated and infiltrated from China, mostly via Bengal Naxalites and associates.
"Besides, it is safe. Others won’t heckle you. Because, these typical Indian leftists have an invisible, informal brotherhood. They support, defend and promote one another, ensure their predominance in the academe and government bodies, and stoutly defend their turf. They are also “eminent” invitees on TV and public functions, seriously ventilating their hackneyed, stale ideas. These windbags have not come up with a single original idea in the last seven decades. The Leftist–Socialist-Fiberal “Intellectual” is actually an oxymoron, and an anachronism."
Indeed!
"The typical Nehruvian-Socialist-“ Secular”-“ Liberal”“Intellectual” parasitic cabal that has spawned the academe, the cultural, literary, archaeological and historical bodies, and sarkari establishments, and has infested and dominated the opinion-making arms like the media unfortunately represents the worst in intellectual traditions, and has become a major stumbling block in progress, for it has managed to pervert sensible discourse. It is even “liberal” and fashionable to be anti-national!
" ... Its “Secularism” does not rise above religion; but is restricted to being anti-Hindu and pro-Muslim, and being unmoved and unconcerned by blatantly illegal proselytization. Its “Liberalism” is being pro-Animal rights while being pro-beef and pro-nonveg; being anti-American while yearning for green-card or assignments in the US; being a rationalist by slamming all Hindu customs and beliefs, while keeping mum on regressive practices of Islam or Christianity ; being pro-Arab and anti-Israel ; being anti-Sanskrit while being pro-German or pro-foreign language; and so on."
"They oppose renaming Aurangzeb road, named after a cruel bigot who razed temples and perpetrated atrocities on non-Muslims; but never raise a voice against naming of hundreds of government schemes and institutions after the Nehru-Gandhis; or renaming of hundreds of towns and villages in Kashmir by Abdullahs and Muftis. They talk of common man and justice and rage about inequality, but find nothing uncommon or no injustice or no inequality in the unjust shameless continuance of the Dynasty! They shout against intolerance, but are themselves the prime examples of intolerance for alternate view (despite it being far superior to theirs)!!"
Well, considering the comments by their flag bearing politicians about the now twice elected PM, in context of his working when he was a young boy for his father who was then a poor tea vendor at a railway station, that leftist front is a fragile pose that's destroyed by anyone really of poor roots rising to what they consider the domain of Doon elite!
Meanwhile it's the Hindus considered casteist who love the PM after his roots are exposed, vote him to power more than once, and celebrate his visits to the lands where they have lived as expatriates for decades!
And the PM isn't the only one. There's Hukum Dev Narayan Yadav whose speeches, his very language, is a delight, as is his genuineness; do the so-called leftists appreciate the farmer from origin of poverty? No, it's the fraudulently labelled "right wing", that does - fraudulently labelled so by the so-called leftists, that is.
................................................................................................
Blunder–84 :
Mental & Cultural Slavery
"Gandhi had once told: “Jawahar wants Englishmen to go but Angreziat to stay. I want Angreziat to go but Englishmen to remain as our friends.”{DD/ 261} Knowing this, why Gandhi chose Nehru as prime minister is a mystery. ... "
Because he'd sold out for the support by Motilal Nehru in exchange for a promise?
Because he'd been guilty as a father against his own son(s?), and instead of the hard route to make it up to the wronged son(s?), it was a comforting, convenient informal adoption of a virtual prince and an only son and heir to Nehru wealth, whom he called his "spiritual son", who only had to be put on the pedestal repeatedly by him using his clout, pushing off those elected by people legitimately, Subhash Chandra Bose, Sardar Patel?
" ... Gandhi used to say that even though Nehru used to fight with him on many issues, ultimately he used to agree with him [Gandhi]. Little did Gandhi know that it was not because Nehru agreed with him, but because Nehru knew that to continue to differ from Gandhi might cost him his position—like it happened with Netaji Subhas—and his goal of becoming the prime minister. ... "
That's doubtful, both ways. Gandhi did much unfair, illegal to push up Jawaharlal Nehru, but did he have another acceptable to him and to India?
Subhash Chandra Bose he'd pushed out severely, because the younger leader was far too popular, and so was his thought; loyalty he inspired was what made his escape possible and raised INA into a formidable organisation that planted the flag of free India in Imphal and had India revolt against British, making them flee.
Gandhi didn't want, didn't tolerate, another point of view, a competing leader, even when he respected him as Subhash Chandra Bose did; he also wanted someone he could dictate in matters of Hindu massacres in Pakistan and other related matters, which Sardar Patel would not perhaps have been quite so amenable with.
Wrote François Gautier: “Nehru, writes French historian Alain Danielou, ‘was the perfect replica of a certain type of Englishman. He often used the expression ‘continental people’, with an amused and sarcastic manner, to designate French or Italians. He despised non-anglicised Indians and had a very superficial and partial knowledge of India. His ideal was the romantic socialism of 19th century Britain. But this type of socialism was totally unfit to India, where there was no class struggle and where the conditions were totally different from 19th century Europe’.”{FG2}"
Someone else, more than one person, had commented similarly about Gandhi; one pointed out that, his attire subsequent to his arrival in India notwithstanding, he was an Englishman at heart. What he didn't go as far as to say, was that if only an Englishman hadn't thrown him out onto the platform despite his legally purchased ticket, he'd likely not have challenged British at all.
Yet another, a greater authority, said that Gandhi had soul of, not an Indian, not a Hindu, but a medieval Russian Christian.
"Nehru was reported to have said about himself: “Galbraith, I am the last Englishman to rule India!”{Wolp2/ 23} Nehru said this privately in his conversation with the American ambassador JK Galbraith. The remark is also mentioned in Fareed Zakaria’s book, ‘The Post-American World’{Zak}. We had such great swadeshi nationalists! Nehru had also remarked: “… in my likes and dislikes I was perhaps more an Englishman than Indian. I looked upon the world from an Englishman’s standpoint.”{RNPS/ 100} It was one thing to feel so, but quite another to be self-complementary or arrogant about it, unless you were not a proud, patriotic, rooted Indian. Tweeted the renowned scholar Dr David Frawley: “Nehru's Discovery of India teaches us one thing— Nehru never discovered the real India that is Bharat. His view of India was from a Eurocentric vision.”{Tw5}"
Here's the key - as per England, the very concept of propriety is identified with the English, while India is seen as junglee, with dome semblance of romantic old world civilisation sticking in tatters to muslims as heritage of an abrahmic creed coupled with mughal DNA; that this mutual DNA isn't Persian but instead is that of hordes of Mongolian origin, and is related intimately to steppes of Central Asia, is conveniently ignored.
And just as conveniently ignored is the awe-inspirinhly tremendous treasure that's Hinduism, or knowledge inherent in culture of ancient India by any name, because it brings a severe discomfort to see it, about just how paltry the Abrahamic-II and subsequent Abrahamic-III, Abrahamic-IV are, so it's convenient to wear blinkers of a Macaulay doctrine and proceed to tear Hinduism to shreds, viciously.
Familiar? British, Churchill, Nixon, ... missionaries, Abrahamic-II, Abrahamic-III, Abrahamic-IV, ....
Nehru was brought up to be an Englishman at Harrow and Cambridge, and growing years do matter. He wasn't brought up as Hindu in Allahabad prior to Harrow, either, but taught all three streams, and never acquired roots of an Indian being.
"In fact, when Nehru had returned to Allahabad from London after his studies , the then British Governor of UP had hoped that George (as Jawaharlal was known in the British Indian circles then) would be Lord Macaulay’s dream of a Brown Englishman come true.{YGB/ ix} Nehru seemed to fit well with what Lord Thomas Babington Macaulay, the ‘Pope’ of British –English education in India, had conceptualised in his Minute on Education on 2 February 1835:
"“We must at present do our best to form a class who may be interpreters between us and the millions whom we govern; a class of persons, Indian in blood and colour, but English in taste, in opinions, in morals, and in intellect.”{URL26}"
One has to admit, until reading it, this moment, it never occurred to one even familiar with that - and other obstreporous pronouncements - by Macaulay, that one of the prototypes was Jawaharlal Nehru!
"Remarked Nirad Chaudhuri in his ‘Autobiography of an Unknown Indian, Part-II’: “Nehru was completely out of touch with the Indian life even of his time, except with the life of the self -segregating Anglicised set of upper India who lived in the so-called Civil Lines.”{NC2} Chaudhuri said that Nehru had little understanding of the actual India life or culture or of Hinduism; and was a snob, contemptuous of those who spoke English with an Indian accent."
"NB Khare , the president of the All-India Hindu Mahasabha, had said in 1950 that Jawaharlal Nehru was “English by education, Muslim by culture, and Hindu by an accident [of birth].”{Akb/ 27}"
"Right in the heart of New Delhi, at India Gate, staring at all the passers-by— including the freedom fighters , the bureaucrats, the politicians, the ministers— stood the statue of King George V for two decades after 1947!
"It was only when Bulganin and Khrushchev visited India in late 1955 that India changed the names Kingsway to Rajpath and Queensway to Janpath in New Delhi, lest the guests feel shocked at our slavishness! However, Khrushchev did not fail to notice the statue of King George V opposite India Gate when driving down Rajpath, and wondered why the relic still stood . But, it was only in 1968 that the statue was removed, and that too upon public outcry!{DD/ 323}"
"Bengal Club in Kolkata did not allow Indians till a decade after Independence ! Breach Candy Club in Mumbai continued with its sign “Dogs and Indians not allowed” well after Independence!! British openly insulted and humiliated Indians by having such signage in various clubs, train bogies, and other places. Yet, you have many shameless, ignorant Indians still behaving dog-like and praising and admiring the British rule. Khushwant Singh wrote that he was turned away from Madras Club because he was wearing sandals. In another context he wrote that their group was invited to Delhi Gymkhana for a cocktail only to check whether they were properly anglicised and fitted-in!"
"There was already a tribe of brown sahibs prior to independence— whose stellar representatives were Motilal-Jawaharlal Nehru— but with the departure of the whites, this tribe entrenched itself. Slavishly imitating the West, and adopting their mores was “forward-looking” and being “modern” and “advanced”."
Perhaps far more so than before, because now originals were no longer ruling, do copies ruled the roost?
"Without being jingoistic, one must adopt good things, even if foreign. But, there is a big difference between being rational, scientific, liberal, forward-looking, yet self-respecting; and being slavish show-offs and imitators. You can’t start rubbishing your history, language, religion, culture, music, eating habits , medicinal practices, and so on to appear modern. To imitate is a cheap way of appearing forward-looking.
"You notice a sharp contrast between the Motilal-Jawaharlal-tribe and the Narsimha Rao-tribe? Motilal-Jawaharlal-tribe, that is, the Motilal Nehru dynasty, the imitators like Motilal Nehru, his son, the ICS tribe and the like, went to ridiculous extent to be more English than the Englishmen. ... They were afflicted by what can be termed as the “Coolie-complex” which resulted in their internalising an inferiority-complex, self-loathing, and a contempt for things Indian, particularly Hindu religion, culture and traditions; and made them ape the West."
"On the other hand, the PVN Rao-tribe, that is, the current young generation of information technologists, finance professionals, management consultants and the like, who have come up thanks to reversal of the Nehru Dynasty’s economic policies by Narsimha Rao, are confident professionals meeting all—English, Americans, Europeans, Australians, Canadians, Japanese, Chinese, Singaporeans—on equal terms, never considering it necessary to know Queen’s English (SMS English or Working English being sufficient), or to imitate their mores and habits, merely to look “like them”. In fact, if this Jeans generation gets to know of the Motilal-Jawaharlal-tribe and what they did, they would be aghast."
Reminds of the transformation one saw, from our desi science groups struggling on scanty finances in New England in early eighties, strugglingto aclimatise, with world cuisines and western classical music, to the post millennium IT crowd at ease in easy desi fashions in West coast Indian Cafe-restaurants, feasting on desi chaats, unimpressed with being elsewhere than India.
................................................................................................
Blunder–85 :
Distorted, Self-Serving Secularism & Minorityism
"With dominance of Christianity in the West the results were disastrous: the Dark Ages, and violent punishments, repressions, tortures, and Inquisitions that continued during the subsequent period. Christianity claimed to be the “only truth” and the “only true religion”, and was even opposed to science if it digressed from the Christian beliefs— notable, illustrative examples of victims (or those who, afraid of the Church, tended to hide or delay publication of their findings) being the greats like Nicolaus Copernicus, Galileo Galilei, Charles Darwin.
"It was gradually realised that the necessary drivers of a civilised , harmonious , progressive and prosperous state were multi-religious societies, multiculturism, free thinking and propagation of knowledge, and unhindered scientific pursuits—but, all these became victims of the Christian totalitarianism and exclusivism. This led to the advocation of the concept of “Secularism”.
"However, Indian-Hindu civilisation had built-in secularism, and it did not just readily accept, it freely promoted, multi-ethnicity, multi-religions, and multiculturism; and its Dharmic traditions actively promoted and encouraged pursuit of knowledge and science—quite unlike and in sharp contrast to the latter-two Abrahamic faiths (Christianity and Islam). No wonder, Indian mathematics, astronomy, medicine, etc. were centuries ahead of the West."
Author mentions a speech by Jawaharlal Nehru at his opening of a Ramakrishna mission in Calcutta, and it truly is horrifying. Author questions, but the question that immediately occurs to a reader, is, whether he never thought of closing all religious places on that basis, including those related to creeds associated with erstwhile colonial regimes; or did he take it for granted everyone understood he despised them all equally?
Did he?
"Wrote David Frawley in his foreword to Sandeep Balkrishna’s book ‘70 Years of Secularism: Unpopular Essays on the Unofficial Political Religion of India’{SBK}:
" ... That something is ‘against secularism’ became a way to condemn anything Hindu as effectively as missionaries and mullahs had used such terms as polytheist , idolater, heathen or kafir. Secularism gained a new sanctity to override any spiritual basis to India’s culture. Anti-secular forces were in turn, deemed ‘fascist’, revealing the leftist rhetoric behind the charge. There was an effort to make anything Hindu as fascist, just as the Chinese communists regarded Tibetan Buddhism as fascist… The book documents the cultural genocide that the Nehruvian-Marxist alliance wrought on India over the last seventy years, and its great civilization of many thousands of years, under the name of secularism and socialism. While India did not politically become communist, it was a communist sympathizing culture and was under communist intellectual rule, even long after the fall of the Soviet Union in 1991. This shadow has yet to be entirely lifted. Lifting it is the intellectual necessity for India to progress whether materially or culturally…”{SBK}"
"Jinnah’s call for observance of ‘Direct Action Day’on 16 August 1946 had led to the Calcutta Carnage, or the Great Calcutta Killings. It was the worst communal carnage committed by the Muslim League that left 5,000 to 10,000 dead, 15,000 injured, and about one lakh homeless! It was followed by gruesome attacks on Hindus by Muslims at other places like Noakhali and Tippera districts in East Bengal. HS Suhrawardy, who was heading the Muslim League–dominated government in Bengal (and who then came to be known as the “butcher of Calcutta”), rather than controlling the situation, further instigated the Muslim goondas. Nehru, as the Vice President of the Executive Council (that became the Interim Government on 2 September 1946, with Nehru as the PM) did little to bring relief to the victims on the specious plea of provincial autonomy—that law and order was a state subject, hence the domain of the Bengal Provincial Government. However, when there was a reaction later in Bihar to those Hindu killings in Bengal, Nehru himself rushed to Bihar ignoring the fact of provincial autonomy, even threatening the Bihari Hindus with bombings! Nehruvian ‘Secular’Rule: if Muslims kill Hindus, then ignore, or make excuses, or hide behind technical grounds; but if Hindus counter-react to Muslim killings, immediately get into action against the Hindus!"
In this, he was certainly following Gandhi.
"Among many other matters where Patel and Nehru had divergent positions was the issue of Ajmer riots soon after independence. In the Ajmer communal riots, notwithstanding the undisputed mischief of the Muslims, while Sardar Patel rightly backed the Chief Secretary Shankar Prasad, Nehru intervened through his private secretary HVR Iyengar to mollycoddle violent Muslims, and instructed that as many Hindus (though they were not the guilty party— they were indeed the victims) as Muslims be arrested— to maintain balance!{IE}"
Later so-called secular discourse, even demand, has merged with sharia, although without saying so honestly or openly - namely, any muslim affected due to anything Hindu is abominable, while massacres and worse of Hindu victims by muslims are of no consequence whatsoever, other than immediate denial and later, forever, bragging.
This can be seen in how much howling goes up against Israel, but the matter of Pakistani tanks going over the same Palestinians, that too inside kaba, isn't deposed to be a concern of anybody else, because the said tanks (and the soldiers therein) were there at invitation of the regime.
Jawaharlal Nehru, however, stopped Mountbatten from illegal procedures against Bihar riots, arguing that in all fairness they were retaliatory, and any procedures must include original carnage. (One forgets the source of this, read some time within last decade or so, but it could be Pamela Hicks writing about her family in India at the time.)
"Nehru allowed inundation of West Bengal and Assam by Muslims from East Pakistan (Bangladesh) drastically changing its demographics. It didn’t dawn upon him that it was the changed demographics that led to the creation of Pakistan; and allowing demographics to freely change in independent India may again lead to divisions. Nehru turned a blind eye to illegal and rampant proselytization by the Christian missionaries the net effect of which was the secessionist movements in the North-east. A genuine secularist and a wise, visionary leader would have known that ensuring Hindus (that includes Buddhists, Jains, Sikhs, etc.) continued to be an overwhelming majority in India was the guaranteed way of ensuring permanence of genuine secularism, and a bulwark against communalism—the latter two Abrahamic religions, with their claims of being the “only true religion”, being exclusivist, proselytizing, and anti-secular: witness the many no-go zones in India where Muslims are in majority; or disallowing Hindus to vote in certain areas in Bengal where Muslims are in majority; or the driving away of the Kashmiri Pandits from the Muslim-majority Kashmir valley; or the unpardonable abusive language that the Muslim and Christian missionaries use against Hindu gods and traditions; or the way the Christians and Christian priests have been behaving in those parts of Northeast and Tamil Nadu where they dominate.
"Wrote the veteran Congress leader DP Mishra: “… And so far as Nehru was concerned, he had apparently expected secularism to be practised only by the Hindus…” However, when it came to grabbing power , and getting votes, for Nehru, his “secularism” was no constraint. The Congress so manoeuvred that in the 1957 -elections the Bishop of Kottayam issued an appeal to the Kerala Christians to vote for the Congress. The Congress entered into an alliance with the Muslim League in Kerala to grab power. Nehru forgot all about the Uniform Civil Code laid down in the Directive Principles of the State Policy, which could have vastly benefited Muslim women , once he realised that thanks to Mullahs, and conservative but influential Muslim groups, it could cost his party Muslim votes.
"Nehru, as head of the Interim Government, had moved an Object Resolution, resulting in Articles 29 and 30 of the Constitution, on 13 December 1946, with a view to appease the Muslim League so that it does not press for Partition. However, Partition and Pakistan became a reality on 15 August 1947— yet, the Articles 29 and 30 of the Constitution{URL119}, meant to avert Partition, continued to be debated after the creation of Pakistan, and were finally included in the Constitution: a clear and irresponsible case of Minority appeasement by Nehru.{PG2/ 73} The articles 29 and 30, along with RTE, are effectively unfavourable to majority, and a major handicap in overall educational advancement, and hence, a demand has long since been made to make them applicable to all— whether minority or majority.{URL120, Swa9}"
................................................................................................
Blunder–86 :
Nehru & Uniform Civil Code (UCC)
"In the spirit of the DPSP while the Hindu Code Bills were passed during 1950s, nothing was done to amend the Muslim Personal Laws, despite many prominent Muslims advocating it (with Mullahs and some Muslim bodies expectedly opposing it), including Mahommedali Currim Chagla (MC Chagla), an Indian jurist, diplomat, Cabinet Minister, and the Chief Justice of the Bombay High Court from 1948 to 1958, who had made a vehement plea in favour of UCC. Wrote MC Chagla:
"“Consider the attitude of the Government to the question of a uniform civil code. Although the Directive Principles of the State enjoins such a code, Government has refused to do anything about it on the plea that the minorities will resent any attempt at imposition. Unless they are agreeable it would not be fair and proper to make the law applicable to them. I wholly and emphatically disagree with this view. The Constitution is binding on everyone, majority and minority; and if the Constitution contains a directive, that directive must be accepted and implemented. Jawaharlal showed great strength and courage in getting the Hindu Reform Bill passed, but he accepted the policy of laissez-faire where the Muslims and other minorities were concerned. I am horrified to find that in my country, while monogamy has been made the law for the Hindus, Muslims can still indulge in the luxury of polygamy. It is an insult to womanhood; and Muslim women, I know, resent this discrimination between Muslim women and Hindu women.”{ MCC/ 85}"
"Islamic and Muslim-majority countries like Malaysia, Indonesia, etc. have since reformed their personal laws, but NOT the “secular” India. Even during the Nehruvian times, President Ayub Khan of Pakistan and President Habib of Tunisia had changed the Muslim Personal Law in their respective countries. ... "
" ... The question is: Did Mullahs represent the Muslims? Did Nehru ascertain the wishes of the Muslim women? ... "
"Incidentally the Goa state has UCC regardless of religion, gender, and caste— Hindu, Muslim and Christians in Goa are all bound with the same law related to marriage, divorce and succession. If there can be a UCC in one state in India, why not in others, especially when it would benefit women."
"Notably, when the Indian Penal Code (IPC) for criminal offences is uniformly applicable to all communities, that is, in a way, there is a ‘Uniform Criminal Code’, why not ‘Uniform Civil Code’? Is it because for the Muslims the Sharia is far more stringent on the criminal aspect— cutting off both hands for theft, stoning to death for adultery, and so on— compared to the IPC? Choose IPC for crimes, and for civic cases choose Personal Laws, because they favour males over females!"
................................................................................................
Blunder–87 :
‘Sickularism’vs. Somnath Temple
"Somnath Temple is on the shore of the Arabian sea in the coastal town of Somnath at Prabhaspatan near Veraval in Junagadh district in Kathiawar in the Saurashtra region of Gujarat. It is 6km from Veraval, and 80km from Junagadh. It is the most sacred of the twelve Aadi Jyotirlings. The temple is said to have been first built sometime before the common era—BCE. It was destroyed and looted six times: by Junayad, the Arab governor of Sind, in 725 CE; by Mahmud of Ghazni in 1024 CE; by Sultan Allauddin Khilji in 1296 CE; by Muzaffar Shah I, the Sultan of Gujarat, in 1375 CE; by Mahmud Begda, the Sultan of Gujarat in 1451 CE; and by Aurangzeb in 1701 CE. But, each time it was rebuilt.
"At the time of liberation of Junagadh in November 1947 (Blunder# 31), Sardar Patel also visited the Somnath Temple (located in the Junagadh State), then in a dilapidated condition, and pledged to reconstruct and restore it to its original glory. Gandhi, when advised by Patel of the commitment, suggested the funds for restoration must come from the public—Patel accepted the advice.
"The then Education Minister Maulana Azad, under whom the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) came, opposed the idea of renovation and suggested that the ruins be handed over to the ASI and preserved in as-is condition. Significantly, he never suggested the same for the Muslim shrines and mosques being repaired by the ASI.{Mak/ 140}
"Upon the death of Sardar Patel, the task was taken forward by the cabinet minister KM Munshi. However , Nehru made no bones about his opposition to the project , and made snide remarks, telling Munshi: “I don’t like your trying to restore Somnath. It is Hindu revivalism.”{Mak/ 141}
"Cultured and learned Munshi, of course, sent an appropriate and telling reply to Nehru, which included the words:
"“It is my faith in the past which has given me the strength to work in the present and to look forward to our future. I cannot value freedom if it deprives us of the Bhagavad Gita or uproots our millions from the faith with which they look upon our temples and thereby destroys the texture of our lives…”{Mak/ 154}"
"KM Munshi had invited President Dr Rajendra Prasad to attend the inaugural function of the rebuilt Somnath temple in May 1951. Protesting vehemently, Nehru opposed Dr Prasad’s attending the ceremony, and wrote to him:
"“I confess that I do not like the idea of your associating yourself with a spectacular opening of the Somnath Temple. This is not merely visiting a temple, which can certainly be done by you or anyone else, but rather participating in a significant function which unfortunately has a number of implications…”{Swa4}"
"Nehru also wrote to Rajaji on 11 March 1951 in the connection: “I wrote to him [Rajendra Prasad] that while there was obviously no objection to his visiting this temple [Somnath] or any other temple or other places of worship normally, on this particular occasion the inauguration of the temple would have a certain significance and certain implications. Therefore, for my part, I would have preferred if he did not associate himself in this way…”{JNSW/ Vol-16-1/ 603}"
"Dr Prasad explained that the significance of Somnath lay in being a symbol of national resistance against invaders. He made an excellent inaugural speech, highlighting, inter alia, that it was the creative urge for civilisational renewal, nurtured in the hearts of the people through centuries that had once again led to the praan-pratishta of the Somnath deity. Somnath was the symbol of economic and spiritual prosperity of ancient India, he said. The rebuilding of Somnath will not be complete till India attains the prosperity of the yesteryear… Such a grand speech! But, at Nehru’s instance, Dr Rajendra Prasad’s speech was blanked out by the official channels.{DD/ 332} See the gall of the dictator Nehru: He could blank out even President’s speech! And Nehru’s cabinet colleagues, Congress leaders, the Opposition, and the media remained mute spectators to such brazen conduct of Nehru!!
"Interesting contrast: “History snippets... In 1950, Jawaharlal [Nehru] stopped govt aid of ₹ 5 lakh to rebuild Somnath Mandir. He passed Haj Act in 1959 & allocated ₹ 10 Cr for it.”{Tw1}
"It is significant that Nehru raised no such tantrums when it came to subsequent restoration of Sanchi or Sarnath, although the same were done through government funds (while Somnath restoration was through public, and not government, funds). Why? They were Buddhist places! Nehru had problems with only Hindu places!
"As per a tweet{Tw6}, it came to light during the Ayodhya Ram Mandir court hearings that in 1947 a number of masjids were constructed/ repaired in Delhi with the government money— this needs verification from other sources."
................................................................................................
Blunder–88 :
Would-have-been Communal Reservation
"But for the timely intervention of certain senior, enlightened leaders after independence, Nehru would have carried through yet another major blunder of reservations for Muslims, plunging India further into communal politics under the ‘secular’ facade, as would be amply clear from the following extracts from the autobiography ‘Government from Inside’ of NV Gadgil:{Mak/ 323-5}
" ... Liaquat Ali [Pakistan’s PM] came to Delhi in March 1950, had discussions with Nehru and one fine morning at 10 o’clock Nehru placed before the cabinet a draft of his agreement with him [Liaquat Ali]. I am not sure if Vallabhbhai [Sardar Patel] was consulted before the draft was agreed to. The final two paragraphs in the agreement accepted the principle of reservation for Muslims in proportion to their population in all the services and representative bodies in the constituent states of India. Similar provisions were suggested for the Central Government also.
"“Each one of us got the copy of the draft, but no one would open his mouth…I said, ‘These two paragraphs nullify the whole philosophy of the Congress. The country had to pay the price of division as a result of its acceptance of separate electorates. You are asking it to drink the same poison again. This is betrayal, forgetful of the last forty years of history.’Nehru was displeased.
"“Gopalaswami Aiyangar said, ‘There is substance in Gadgil’s objections’and volunteered to redraft the two provisions. I said, ‘These two paragraphs must go lock, stock and barrel and no South Indian cleverness would do.’Hearing this Nehru replied with anger, ‘I have agreed to this with Liaquat Ali Khan.’I said, ‘You must have told him that the agreement can be finalised only after the Cabinet’s approval. I cannot speak for other cabinet members, but I am opposed to it hundred percent.’On this Vallabhbhai quietly suggested that the discussions should be postponed to the next day and the meeting was adjourned.
"“Vallabhbhai called me for discussions…I told him, figuratively speaking, ‘The marriage must not take place simply because the father wants it. The bride is not approved. You must speak plainly now, otherwise complications will follow and we may have to repent. We have decided on a secular government. This agreement destroys that conception.’The same night I received from him [Sardar Patel] the papers regarding the revisions suggested by Gopalaswami Aiyangar and his [Sardar Patel’s] disapproval of them. I noted on them my agreement with him. When the cabinet met the next day, the last two paragraphs were omitted…The other Ministers congratulated me, but it has to be sadly recorded that at the time of discussion on the draft, none of them opposed Nehru…”{ Mak/ 323-5}"
Who else but a Marathi, that too Chitpaawan, would dare opposing Nehru?
................................................................................................
Blunder–89 :
Not Seeking Reparations from the British
Nehru and the Distortion of Indian History & Heritage
"Said Will Durant, the famous American historian and philosopher in his book ‘The Case for India’:{WD}
"“British rule in India is the most sordid and criminal exploitation of one nation by another in all recorded history. I propose to show that England has year by year been bleeding India to the point of death...
"“But I saw such things in India as made me feel that study and writing were frivolous things in the presence of a people— one fifth of the human race— suffering poverty and oppression bitterer than any to be found elsewhere on the earth. I was horrified. I had not thought it possible that any government could allow its subjects to sink to such misery...
"“The civilization that was destroyed by British guns... has produced saints from Buddha to Gandhi; philosophy from the Vedas to Schopenhauer and Bergson, Thoreau and Keyserling, who take their lead and acknowledge their derivation from India. (India, says Count Keyserling, ‘has produced the profoundest metaphysics that we know of”; and he speaks of ‘the absolute superiority of India over the West in philosophy’)...
"“The more I read the more I was filled with astonishment and indignation at the apparently conscious and deliberate bleeding of India by England throughout a hundred and fifty years. I began to feel that I had come upon the greatest crime in all history...
"“The British conquest of India was the invasion and destruction of a high civilization by a trading company utterly without scruples or principle, careless of art and greedy of gain, overrunning with fire and sword a country temporarily disordered and helpless, bribing and murdering, annexing and stealing, and beginning that career of illegal and ‘legal’plunder which has now gone on ruthlessly for one hundred and seventy-three years, and goes on at this moment while in our secure comfort we write and read.
"“Aurangzeb, the Puritanic Moghul emperor who misgoverned India for fifty years when he died the realm fell to pieces. It was a simple matter for a group of English buccaneers, armed with the latest European artillery and mortars to defeat the petty princes. It was the wealth of 18th century India which attracted the commercial pirates of England and France . This wealth was created by the Hindus’ vast and varied industries and trade. It was to reach India of fabulous wealth that Columbus sailed the seas. It was this wealth that the East India Company proposed to appropriate...”{WD}"
"Edmund Burke had predicted in 1783 that the annual drain of Indian resources to England without equivalent return would eventually destroy India. In 1901, Rajni Palme Dutt estimated that one-half of the net revenues of India flowed annually out of the country, never to return: “So great an economic drain out of the resources of the land would impoverish the most prosperous countries on earth; it has reduced India to a land of famines more frequent, more widespread, and more fatal, than any known before in the history of India or of the world.”
"Commented Rajeev Srinivasan:{URL65} “A strong case has been made by William Digby quoting Brooks Adams that the Industrial Revolution (circa 1760) could not have happened in Britain had it not been for the loot that came in from India. It is indeed a curious coincidence: Plassey (1757); the flying shuttle (1760); the spinning jenny (1764); the power-loom (1765); the steam engine (1768)…
"“Digby estimated in 1901 that the total amount of treasure extracted from India by the British was 1,000,000,000 pounds—a billion pounds. Considering the looting from 1901 to 1947 and the effects of inflation, this is probably worth a trillion dollars in today's money. Serious money, indeed. Shouldn't we ask for some reparation?”
"However, the most recent estimates are far more than the above. As per a ‘Business Today’ report of Nov-2018: “Renowned economist Utsa Patnaik, who has done research on the fiscal relations between Colonial India and Britain, has tried to answer a question many Indians are likely to be interested to know— how much money did Britishers take away from India? Patnaik, in her essay published in Columbia University Press recently, said Britain drained out over $ 45 trillion from India, which to date has hampered the country's ability to come out of poverty.”{W.uk1}"
"In view of the above, like many countries who had demanded apology and reparations from the countries who had tormented and looted them, India too should have assessed, documented and put a financial estimate to the damages done by the British, should have quantified the loot of two centuries, converted them at 1947 prices, and should then have claimed reparation from Britain, along with written and oral apology . Additionally, a detailed list of all the artefacts, archaeological pieces, precious stones such as Kohinoor and other items stolen from India should have been prepared and reclaimed from the British.
"It is worth noting that the arts and treasures that the Nazis took away from the Western countries they attacked and annexed were called loot, and termed unjust, and Germany was forced to return the same to its rightful owner countries. Since the arts and treasures were from the Western countries, and NOT the Asian or African countries, they were loot, and were required to be returned! Loot from the Asian or African countries was not loot. What double standards!!"
Slight correction - the precious treasure of Greece looted by British and, misnamed Elgin Marbles, was kept on exhibit in British Museum in London, has been demanded for decades by Greece. From Wikipedia -
""In March 2021 the British Prime Minister, Boris Johnson issued a point-blank rejection of the Parthenon marbles being returned to Greece. Stating "The UK government has a firm longstanding position on the sculptures, which is that they were legally acquired by Lord Elgin under the appropriate laws of the time and have been legally owned by the British Museum’s trustees since their acquisition.”[122]
"For the first time, UNESCO, on 30 September 2021, issued a decision calling for the United Kingdom to return the Parthenon Marbles to Greece, beyond the positive recommendations that it has issued for years. Specifically, Decision 22 COM 17 of UNESCO's Inter-Governmental Committee, asks the British government to urgently review its policy against repartriation of the marbles.[123]"
British Government had a while ago similarly refused to return Kohinoor, even asking who were they supposed to return it to (since it had been acquired after killing Ranjit Singh, from his son who was the heir and was very young, who was converted by British), thus questioning legitimacy of India as an entity.
" ... On Kohinoor, Nehru had made a weird comment:
"“To exploit our good relations with some country to obtain free gifts from it [the convenient contention being that Kohinoor was GIFTED (a lie) to the British!] of valuable articles does not seem to be desirable. On the other hand, it does seem to be desirable that foreign museums should have Indian objects of art.”{ W.n10}"
"Nehru and the Distortion of Indian History & Heritage"
Author explains that those are covered in Blunders 90-94.
................................................................................................
Blunder–90 :
No De-Falsification of History
"“And if all others accepted the lie which the Party imposed— if all records told the same tale— then the lie passed into history and became truth. 'Who controls the past,' ran the Party slogan, 'controls the future: who controls the present controls the past.'… The past, he reflected , had not merely been altered, it had been actually destroyed.”
"—George Orwell, Nineteen Eighty-Four"
Orwell was very much present in Spain in the war that was prelude to WWII where Hitler's airforce and Italian soldiers were tested out, even as other nations stayed away.
"History is not written by the hunted, losers and colonised— it is written by the hunters, winners and colonisers. It is meant to serve their purpose.
"The British, rich in their knowledge and experience of barbaric colonisation , knew well how to prolong their oppressive colonisation and rule. Physical control, control through force of arms have their limitations. But, mental control can go a long way. If you have to exploit nations and subjugate their people on a long term basis—for decades and centuries— you can’t do it by brute force alone. You have to shake the confidence of people in themselves. You have to make them feel they are nothing— and that they were nothing— before the aggressors. To this end you have to rewrite and reinterpret their history, religion and culture to show how worthless it is/ was in comparison to that of the exploiter. ... "
And on internet one can see, hear, Pakistan television discussion stating flatly that India never had any culture, of any kind, including neither cuisine nor clothes, until Islamic invaders arrived. This isn't a new argument, it's been for all the centuries they ruled, and it's gone on in abusive versions in places one doesn't even notice - such as depictions in Indian films giving very different treatment to the indigenous versus invading creeds.
" ... This is what the British politicians , bureaucrats, army-men, writers , novelists and historians did. Hammer into the colonised they are inferior, that they are nothing, that they are meant to be ruled. How? Control and change their education system, their books. Concoct, re-write, distort history. The British had so depicted Indian history and civilisation over the almost two centuries of their dominance that anything Indian had been shown in bad light, and anything of West as something superior. ... "
Nor was it natural, but instead was deliberately following Macaulay policy, of how to destroy spirit of India, to crush her spine. Hence, too, abuse of Brahmins.
" ... Indians have been taught and told what the English and the Christians desired and manufactured to serve their interests. Indians came to believe it. So did others— people abroad in other countries also read these books. Down the generations all started believing the lies as truth. Many Indian writers too based much of their contents on these books written by foreigners, rather than on new research. So, the writings of the Indian authors also started suffering from the same deficiencies, including that of Nehru."
"Here are perceptive comments from a genuine scholar Dr KM Munshi in his foreword to his book ‘The History and Culture of the Indian People’:
" ... Generations after generation, during their school or college career, were told about the successive foreign invasions of the country, but little about how we resisted them and less about our victories. They were taught to decry the Hindu social system…”{ BNS/ 49-51}"
"If the British came across something remarkable, which showed India far ahead of the West in the past, they “discovered” its link with the West. If there was something very distinguished about the Aryans, well, they came from the West— India was subject to Aryan invasion and so on. There have been many research-findings and writings to the contrary since, and yet that false impression is allowed to continue in India even today . Apart from further archaeological revelations, an inter-continental research in cellular molecular biology has debunked the AIT: Aryan Invasion Theory. Of course, there is no last word on such things, but there are good reasons to believe that both the so-called Aryans and the Dravidians belonged to India only, and did not come from outside: that has now been proved through DNA studies also. Further, “Dravid” referred to a geographical region, and not to a race.
"“The general effect of Dharampal's work{DP}{ DP2} among the public at large has been intensely liberating. ... But to him goes the formidable achievement of asking well entrenched historians probing questions they are hard put to answer, like how come they arrived so readily, with so little evidence, at the conclusion that Indians were technologically primitive or, more generally, how were they unable to discover the historical documents that he, without similar training, had stumbled on so easily.
"“Dharampal's unmaking of the English-generated history{DP}{ DP2} of Indian society has in fact created a serious enough gap today in the discipline. The legitimacy of English or colonial dominated perceptions and biases about Indian society has been grievously undermined...”
"—Claude Alvares{DP3}"
"Yet, thanks to Nehru and his Dynasty, there was no attempt to write the true history of India post-independence. There has been little genuine work in Indian history after independence by the Establishment. No worthwhile books and text-books on the Indian history have come from the Indian academe. If some genuine work has been done, it is mostly by those outside the Establishment— notably from historians like Jadunath Sarkar, RC Majumdar, Sita Ram Goel, Dharampal, and so on.
"The school and college text-books, and many of those by the establishment historians are a shame. They keep peddling the nonsense of the Aryan Invasion Theory (AIT); Aryan-Dravidian Divide; Indian history as a series of invasions and defeats of the natives, hiding and ignoring the many triumphs and valiant resistance of the Indians. From Babar to Aurangzeb (1526 to 1707), the Mughal rule lasted for less than two centuries, but the school-texts highlight the Mughal period, ignoring or compressing to just a para the far more grand and longer period of the Vijayanagara Empire of over 300 years (1336 to 1646), or the grand kingdom of Raja Raja Chola, or giving far lesser importance to the Shivaji’s and Bajirao’s reign. Nor is there coverage of India’s maritime prowess, and expansion into Southeast Asia: Bali, Indonesia, Cambodia, Ankor Vat either don’t find a mention, or are given miserly references. India’s ancient prowess in Maths and science and industry and agriculture, and what India gave to the world is also not highlighted"
................................................................................................
Blunder–91 :
Being Creative With History
"Deliberate Nehruvian– Marxist-Communist Distortions."
" ... While the English distorted Indian history for their colonial ends, the Indian leftists-Marxists have been further distorting history for their ideological ends, and to please their masters. Arun Shouri’s book “Eminent Historians: Their Technology, Their Line, Their Fraud”{ AS2} is worth reading in this context."
" ... They sidelined the genuine ones like Jadunath Sarkar and RC Majumdar, sending them to oblivion. ... Wrote Sandeep Balakrishna{ URL104}:
"“Ramesh Chandra Majumdar’s…spent his ninety-six-years long life dedicating himself to the freedom struggle of a far profounder and intensely penetrating sort: rediscovering and recovering the true history of Bharatavarsha’s actual greatness. The outcome was a wealth of magnum opuses totalling nearly 30 volumes apart from scores of solid research papers and even popular newspaper articles. If one has to describe the history of India after Independence in a word, it is ingratitude. Nowhere is this more evident than in the manner in which the career of this iconic historian, scholar and freedom fighter was set afire by India’s first Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru and his perfidious cronies…
"“…First, the seeds for the politicization of the history establishment were sown when politicians were appointed to a scholarly/ academic Board, a place they had no business to be. Second, the precedent for slaughtering historical truths was set because Majumdar had declared that he would critically examine the roles played by Mohandas Gandhi, Motilal and Jawaharlal Nehru in the Independence struggle. This was a taboo and would certainly infuriate the first and more crucially, the socialist Prime Minister Nehru. In the words of Dr N.S. Rajaram, ‘What was Majumdar’s crime? He refused to bend history to suit the interest of the Congress.’Thus, the stage was set for rampant historical distortions at the hands of Marxist pamphleteers for the next fifty-odd years at all levels: school to the university. The distortions remain even as we speak..."
"“Our Marxist stenographers and pen-pushers wearing the makeup of historians would have correctly remained in the fringes— like the Holocaust deniers in Europe— had honest scholars like RC Majumdar not been shunned and hounded out solely because they didn’t agree to become Nehru’s slaves. This also reveals the truth about the person of Jawaharlal Nehru: that he felt threatened by an honest assessment of one of the most important episodes of India’s long history. “ But the truth remains no matter what: RC Majumdar was yet another… of the hundreds of such Himalayan scholars who were victimized by an insecure autocrat [Nehru]. But he, and not Jawaharlal Nehru, has been vindicated by time as a hero, and Nehru’s true legacy is a national joke named Rahul Gandhi. The proof of the blood is the brood.”{URL104}
"“Nehru’s love for English and his leftist leanings spawned a generation of leftist historians who rewrote Indian history in English and put the evidence of history on its head.”—BN Sharma{BNS/ 246}
"“They [Marxist-Negationist Historians] have made India out to have been an empty land—filled with successive invaders. They have made present-day India, and Hinduism even more so, out to be a zoo—an agglomeration of assorted, disparate specimens. No such thing as ‘India’, just a geographical expression, just a construct of the British, no such thing as Hinduism, just a word used by Arabs to describe the assortment they encountered, just an invention of the communalists to impose a uniformity—that has been their stance. For this they have blackened the Hindu period of history, and, as we shall see, strained to whitewash the Islamic period. They have denounced ancient India’s social system as the epitome of oppression, and made totalitarian ideologies [like Christianity, Islam and Communism] out to be egalitarian and just.”
"—Arun Shourie{ AS2/ x}
"“In fact, marked characteristic of the Leftist ransack of Indian history is the systematic manner in which they have succeeded in brainwashing at least three generations of Indians to be ashamed of taking pride in timeless, unbroken cultural and local traditions and accomplishments to the extent that both lay readers and students are repelled at and therefore disown them. This perversion also extends to our heroes, saints, poets, philosophers and the rest... Perhaps in no other country has self-hatred succeeded and touched its pinnacle as it has in India.”—Sandeep Balakrishna{SBK/ L-2339}
"[What the Nehruvian-Marxist historians did] “…In no specific order, it includes a demonization of Brahmins as the root cause of everything wrong with India—from the ancient past to the present [to aid and facilitate proselytization, and conversions to Abrahamic-2 (Christianity), Abrahamic-3 (Islam), and Abrahamic-4 (Communism)]. And then there is the whitewashing of the long and voluminous record of Muslim atrocities against Hindus—genocides, forced conversions, industrial scale temple destructions and the economic emasculation of Hindus by imposing the Jizya tax and the Dhimmi status upon them. This narrative simultaneously also downplays the cultural, civilizational, and economic excellence attained by India under great Hindu dynasties like the Mauryas, Sungas, Guptas, Satavahanas, Cholas, Chalukyas, Hoysalas and the Vijayanagar Empire to name just a few.”—Sandeep Balakrishna{ SBK/ L-2440}"
................................................................................................
Blunder–92 :
Nehru & Negationism
"“Negationism means the denial of historical crimes against humanity. It is not a reinterpretation of known facts , but the denial of known facts. The term negationism has gained currency as the name of a movement to deny a specific crime against humanity , the Nazi genocide on the Jews in 1941-45, also known as the holocaust…”
"—Koenraad Elst{KE/ 3}
"Negationism is an illegitimate and deliberate distortion, or denial, of historical fact or record. In the Indian context, it is the denial and/ or dilution and/ or deliberate misinterpretation and/ or rationalisation of the terrible, dastardly and inhuman crimes spread over roughly a millennium against Hindus by the Muslims who invaded and ruled India. That millennium of Hindu holocaust, many times worse than the Jewish holocaust, has yet to be exhaustively documented.
"“The blood of the infidels flowed so copiously at Thanesar that the stream was discoloured, notwithstanding its purity, and people were unable to drink it. The Sultan returned with plunder which is impossible to count.”
"—Tarikh-i-Yamini of Utbi,
"Mahmud Ghaznavi’s Secretary{W.ih1}
"“There is no official estimate of the total death toll of Hindus at the hands of Islam…The biggest slaughters took place during the raids of Mahmud Ghaznavi (1000 CE); during the actual conquest of North India by Mohammed Ghori and his lieutenants (1192 CE); and under the Delhi Sultanate (1206-1526 CE)…Prof. K.S. Lal once estimated that the Indian population declined by 50 million under the Sultanate,…”
"“Apart from actual killing, millions of Hindus disappeared by way of enslavement . After every conquest by a Muslim invader, slave markets in Bagdad and Samarkand were flooded with Hindus. Slaves were likely to die of hardship, e.g. the mountain range Hindu Koh, ‘Indian mountain’, was renamed Hindu Kush, ‘Hindu-killer’, when one cold night in the reign of Timur Lenk (1398-99 CE), a hundred thousand Hindu slaves died there while on transport to Central Asia…”
"—Koenraad Elst{W.ih4}
"“Starting with Al-Bilãdhurî who wrote in Arabic in the second half of the ninth century, and coming down to Syed Mahmudul Hasan who wrote in English in the fourth decade of the twentieth, we have cited from eighty histories spanning a period of more than twelve hundred years. Our citations mention sixty-one kings, sixty-three military commanders and fourteen sufis who destroyed Hindu temples in one hundred and fifty-four localities, big and small, spread from Khurasan in the West to Tripura in the East, and from Transoxiana in the North to Tamil Nadu in the South, over a period of eleven hundred years . In most cases the destruction of temples was followed by erection of mosques, madrasas and khãnqãhs, etc., on the temple sites and, frequently, with temple materials. Allãh was thanked every time for enabling the iconoclast concerned to render service to the religion of Muhammad by means of this pious performance..”
"—Sita Ram Goel{SRG4b/ 244}
"“Amîr Khusrû [poet] describes with great glee how the heads of Brahmans danced from their necks and fell to the ground at their feet, along with those of the other infidels whom Malik Kãfûr had slaughtered during the sack of the temples at Chidambaram. Fîrûz Shãh Tughlaq got bags full of cow’s flesh tied round the necks of Brahmans and had them paraded through his army camp at Kangra…”—Sita Ram Goel{SRG4b/ 250}
"“The Islamic conquest of India is probably the bloodiest story in history. It is a discouraging tale, for its evident moral is that civilisation is a precious good , whose delicate complex of order and freedom, culture and peace, can at any moment be overthrown by barbarians invading from without or multiplying within.”—Will Durant{WD2/ 459}
"“In the aftermath of invasion, in the ancient cities of Varanasi, Mathura, Ujjain, Maheshwar, …, and Dwarka, not one temple survived whole and intact. This is the equivalent of an army marching into Paris, Rome, Florence and Oxford, and razing their architectural treasures to the ground. It is an act beyond nihilism; it is an outright negativism, a hatred of what is cultured and civilized.”—David J. Jonsson{DJ/ 86}
"“Literary evidence of Islamic iconoclasm vis-a-vis Hindu places of worship is far more extensive. It covers a longer span of time, from the fifth decade of the 7th century to the closing years of the eighteenth. It also embraces a larger space, from Transoxiana in the north to Tamil Nadu in the south, and from Afghanistan in the west to Assam in the east… Archaeological explorations in modern times have, however, provided physical proofs of literary descriptions. The vast cradle of Hindu culture is literally littered with ruins of temples and monasteries belonging to all sects of Sanatana Dharma— Buddhist, Jain, Saiva, Shakta, Vaishnava and the rest.”
"“Almost all medieval Muslim historians credit their heroes with desecration of Hindu idols and/ or destruction of Hindu temples. The picture that emerges has the following components, depending upon whether the iconoclast was in a hurry on account of Hindu resistance or did his work at leisure after a decisive victory: (1) The idols were mutilated or smashed or burnt or melted down if they were made of precious metals. (2) Sculptures in relief on walls and pillars were disfigured or scraped away or torn down. (3) Idols of stone and inferior metals or their pieces were taken away, sometimes by cartloads, to be thrown down before the main mosque in (a) the metropolis of the ruling Muslim sultan and (b) the holy cities of Islam, particularly Mecca, Medina and Baghdad. (4) There were instances of idols being turned into lavatory seats or handed over to butchers to be used as weights while selling meat. (5) Brahmin priests and other holy men in and around the temple were molested or murdered. (6) Sacred vessels and scriptures used in worship were defiled and scattered or burnt. (7) Temples were damaged or despoiled or demolished or burnt down or converted into mosques with some structural alterations or entire mosques were raised on the same sites mostly with temple materials. (8) Cows were slaughtered on the temple sites so that Hindus could not use them again.”
"“The literary sources, like epigraphic , provide evidence of the elation which Muslims felt while witnessing or narrating these ‘pious deeds’. A few citations from Amir Khusru will illustrate the point...”—Sita Ram Goel{SRG4a/ 17-18}
"“... historical distortion has been carried out with regard to Tipu Sultan, who in many ways is the Aurangzeb of the South. As the author of a book on Tipu Sultan (Tipu Sultan: The Tyrant of Mysore, Rare Publications, Chennai), I am both amused and amazed at the continuing efforts to paint him as a hero, patriot, and freedom fighter... His seventeen-year long regime was primarily a tenure of military and economic terror as far as Hindus were concerned. He razed entire cities literally to the ground and depopulated them... As representative samples, we can examine his raids in Kodagu (Coorg) and the Malabar for the extent and scale of sheer barbarism and large scale destruction... An excerpt from Bartholomew provides us a representative glimpse: 'First a corps of 30,000 barbarians who butchered everybody on the way…followed by the field-gun unit…Tipu was riding on an elephant behind which another army of 30,000 soldiers followed. Most of the men and women were hanged in Calicut, first mothers were hanged with their children tied to necks of mothers. That barbarian Tipu Sultan tied the naked Christians and Hindus to the legs of elephants and made the elephants to move around till the bodies of the helpless victims were torn to pieces. Temples and churches were ordered to be burned down, desecrated and destroyed. Christian and Hindu women were forced to marry Mohammadans and similarly their men were forced to marry Mohammadan women. Those Christians who refused to be honoured with Islam, were ordered to be killed by hanging immediately. These atrocities were told to me by the victims of Tipu Sultan who escaped from the clutches of his army and reached Varappuzha, which is the centre of Carmichael Christian Mission. I myself helped many victims to cross the Varappuzha River by boats.'... Tipu Sultan in letters to Syed Abdul Dulai and his officer Budruz Zaman Khan respectively, gloats thus: 'With the grace of Prophet Mohammed and Allah, almost all Hindus in Calicut are converted to Islam. Only on the borders of Cochin State a few are still not converted. I am determined to convert them also very soon. I consider this as Jehad…'”—Sandeep Balakrishna{ SBK/ L-2488-2528}
"“Quiet hatred is the escape for the traumatised Hindu. Few Muslims realise how deeply they have wounded the Hindu psyche . The reason is that, unlike Christians in the crusades, Hindus have not paid back in the same coin. How then is the Muslim to know? Think of how much sound and fury did the Babri episode arouse. No Hindu however has said that 62 temples were desecrated in Bangladesh during 1990 alone; a good two years before Babri. Many more after 6th December, 1992. So has written Taslima Nasrin. In Pakistan, 178 temples met the same fate. Within India, in Kashmir to be precise, some 27 mandirs were destroyed… More recently, the Buddha was felled at Bamiyan.”—Prafull Goradia, ‘Hindu Masjids’{PG/ 8,9}
"Prafull Goradia’s book ‘Hindu Masjids’{PG} lists places of Hindu worship desecrated in Kashmir: 46 in 1986{PG/141-2}, and 90 since 1990{PG/138-40}. It also lists province-wise names of a total of 59 Hindu temples destroyed in Pakistan{PG/143-5}.
"Sita Ram Goel’s book ‘Hindu Temples: What Happened to Them, Vol-I’, Chapter-6 ‘Let the Mute Witnesses Speak’ lists “state-wise and district-wise, the particulars of Muslim monuments which stand on the sites and/ or have been built with the materials of Hindu temples”: it is a long 93-pages (72-165 ) list comprising hundreds of monuments.{SRG4a/ 41-165}"
"Even more disastrous than the holocaust and destruction of temples described above was the destruction by the Muslim hordes of India’s economy and prosperity, and its grand educational system , universities, and rich culture of knowledge, and mass-scale murder of its intellectual-class.
"The foundations of science and engineering is maths, and without the latter the former are not possible. India’s Hindu civilization and its built-in pursuit of knowledge produced math and astronomy geniuses . India gave to the world the Hindu (wrongly called Hindu -Arab) numerals 0 to 9, place-value system, decimal system, trigonometry, calculus, and so on (pl. watch videos of CK Raju, Ramprasad Soghal, and others). That the earth moves around the sun, the earth is a sphere, and is not flat, and many such revolutionary ideas were postulated by the Indian mathematicians and astronomers many centuries before they were floated in the West. Given India’s strong economy (27% of the World GDP in 1000 CE{W.e1}) and industrial and agricultural foundations, its unparalleled prowess in maths and astronomy , its vast educational setup and unequalled knowledge, enquiry, and innovation culture thanks to its Hindu civilization— free from Muslim-Christian absolutist dogmas— India would have been a massive science and industrial powerhouse centuries before the West, had the Muslim hordes not set their foot in India. In fact, the industrial revolution in Britain was fuelled from the Indian loot (pl. see Blunder# 89).
"Wrote VS Naipaul{ W.ih1}: “The invasions are in all the school books. But I don't think people understand that every invasion, every war, every campaign, was accompanied by slaughter, a slaughter always of the most talented people in the country. So these wars, apart from everything else, led to a tremendous intellectual depletion of the country... That was ruin not by an act of nature, but by the hand of man. It is so painful that few Indians have begun to deal with it. It's much easier to deal with British imperialism. That is a familiar topic, in India and Britain. What is much less familiar is the ravaging of India before the British. What happened from 1000 A.D. on, really, is such a wound that it is almost impossible to face. Certain wounds are so bad that they can't be written about. You deal with that kind of pain by hiding from it. You retreat from reality…What I was saying is that you cannot deal with a wound so big. I do not think, for example, that people like the Incas of Peru or the native people of Mexico have ever got over their defeat by the Spaniards. In both places, the head was cut off...”
"“‘ Fractured past’ is too polite a way to describe India’s calamitous millennium. The millennium began with the Muslim invasions and the grinding down of the Hindu- Buddhist culture of the north. This is such a big and bad event that people still have to find polite, destiny-defying ways of speaking about it. In art books and history books, people write of the Muslims ‘arriving’ in India, as though the Muslims came on a tourist bus and went away again. The Muslim view of their conquest of India is a truer one. They speak of the triumph of the faith, the destruction of idols and temples, the loot, the carting away of the local people as slaves, so cheap and numerous that they were being sold for a few rupees. The architectural evidence—the absence of Hindu monuments in the north—is convincing enough. This conquest was unlike any other that had gone before.”{W.ih1}"
"“As a student of India’s history, ancient as well as medieval, I could see quite clearly that they [Negationist-Marxist-Nehruvian Historians] were playing the Goebbelsian game of the Big Lie. But they could not be countered because they had come to dominate the academia and control the mass media during the heyday of the Nehru dynasty.”
"—Sita Ram Goel{ SRG4b/ v}"
"“The mention made by Maulana Abdul Hai of Hindu temples turned into mosques is only the tip of an iceberg. The iceberg itself lies submerged in the writings of medieval Muslim historians, accounts of foreign travellers and the reports of the Archaeological Survey of India. A hue and cry has been raised in the name of secularism and national integration whenever the iceberg has chanced to surface, in spite of hectic efforts to keep it suppressed. Marxist politicians, masquerading as historians, have been the major contributors to this conspiracy of silence.
"“Muslim politicians and scholars in present-day India resent any reference whatsoever to the destruction of Hindu temples in medieval times... There was, however, a time, not so long ago, when their predecessors viewed the same performance as an act of piety and proclaimed it with considerable pride in inscriptions and literary compositions… Whatever evidence the ‘Hindu communalists’ cite in this context comes entirely from Islamic sources, epigraphic and literary.”
"—Sita Ram Goel{SRG4a/ 13}"
"“Since about 1920 an effort has been going on in India to rewrite history and to deny the millennium-long attack of Islam on Hinduism. Today, most politicians and English-writing intellectuals in India will go out of their way to condemn any public reference to this long and painful conflict in the strongest terms.”{KE/ 32, 34}
"“Around 1920 Aligarh historian Mohammed Habib [father of Irfan Habib] launched a grand project to rewrite the history of the Indian religious conflict…”{KE/ 42}
"“The Aligarh school has been emulated on a large scale. Soon its torch was taken over by Marxist historians, who were building a reputation for unscrupulous history-rewriting in accordance with the party-line.”{ KE/ 44}
"“In this context , one should know that there is a strange alliance between the Indian Communist parties and the Muslim fanatics. In the forties the Communists gave intellectual muscle and political support to the Muslim League's plan to partition India and create an Islamic state. After independence, they successfully combined (with the tacit support of Prime minister Nehru) to sabotage the implementation of the constitutional provision that Hindi be adopted as national language, and to force India into the Soviet-Arab front against Israel. Ever since , this collaboration has continued to their mutual advantage as exemplified by their common front to defend the Babri Masjid, that symbol of Islamic fanaticism. Under Nehru's rule these Marxists acquired control of most of the educational and research institutes and policies.”{KE/ 44}
"“Moreover, they had an enormous mental impact on the Congress apparatus: even those who formally rejected the Soviet system, thought completely in Marxist categories. They accepted, for instance, that religious conflicts can be reduced to economic and class contradictions. They also adopted Marxist terminology, so that they always refer to conscious Hindus as the communal forces or elements (Marxism dehumanizes people to impersonal pawns, or forces, in the hands of god History). The Marxist historians had the field all to themselves, and they set to work to decommunalize Indian history-writing, i.e. to erase the importance of Islam as a factor of conflict.”{KE/ 44-45}
"—Koenraad Elst"
"Negationism with respect to Islamic conquest of India, and the consequent terrible atrocities committed for about a millennium, comprises the following tactics by the Nehruvian-Marxist historians and Left-Fiberals (Fake Liberals): (1) Simply deny or rubbish the facts. (2) Make sweeping assertions without sufficient evidence, or even despite the evidence to the contrary. (3) Suppress or distort or purposely misinterpret the facts of history for supposedly noble cause of communal harmony—as if the people are fools, and the truth would not be known. (4) Where the position is indefensible, deny the motive, and attribute the causes to something else. (5) Where the evidence of the historical facts stare you in the face, and it is impossible to ignore or suppress or misinterpret the same, try and minimise those facts, and try to pass them on as outliers, exceptional or one-off. (6) Where none of these dishonest tactics can work, try whitewashing. (7) Where even whitewashing is not possible, try whataboutery—if Muslim invaders were so, what about …; and try and show the other party in worse light. (8) If none of these may work, try invectives: the party daring to question the negationists is fascist and/ or racist and/ or communalist—in a true-blue Marxist-Communist style of labelling and abusing their opposers."
Puranik quotes extensively from the work of Arun Shourie, beginning here.
"Here are telling examples from Arun Shourie’s book ‘Eminent Historians’{AS2}:
"“Their [Marxist-Negationist historians like Irfan Habib, Romila Thapar, Satish Chandra, Suraj Bhan, RS Sharma, etc.] deceitful role in Ayodhya [Ram Janmabhoomi– Babri Masjid controversy]…was just symptomatic. For fifty years this bunch has been suppressing facts and inventing lies. How concerned they pretend to be today about the objective of ICHR— to promote objective and rational research into events of our past! How does this concern square with the guidelines issued by their West Bengal Government [Board of Secondary Education Circular] in 1989 which ‘Outlook’ itself had quoted—' Muslim rule [in India] should never attract any criticism. Destruction of temples by Muslim rulers and invaders should not be mentioned’? But incorporating their wholesale fabrications of the destruction of Buddhist Vihars, about the non-existent ‘Aryan invasion’, that is mandatory— to question [these liars] is communal, chauvinist…”{AS2/ 9}"
He quotes excerpts directing texts books in schools omit mentions of Muslim invasions, genocides and worse of Hindus by Muslim invaders, destructions of temples, libraries, universities, massacres of university scholars by tens of thousands, and further.
"But there isn't just whitewash of Islam. For after Islam came another great emancipatory ideology: Marxism– Leninism."
Author gives examples.
"“Thus, not just whitewash, there is hogwash too…”"
"Wrote Dr BR Ambedkar{ Amb7/ 229-38}{ Amb8}: “There can be no doubt that the fall of Buddhism in India was due to the invasions of the Musalmans. Islam came out as the enemy of the 'But'. The word 'But' as everybody knows, is the Arabic word and means an idol…The [Islamic] mission to break the idols thus became the mission to destroy Buddhism. Islam destroyed Buddhism not only in India but wherever it went... The Mussalman invaders sacked the Buddhist universities of Nalanda, Vikramshila, Jagaddala, Odantapuri to name only a few. They razed to the ground Buddhist monasteries with which the country was studded. The monks fled away in thousands to Nepal, Tibet and other places outside India. A very large number were killed outright by the Muslim commanders. How the Buddhist priesthood perished by the sword of the Muslim invaders has been recorded by the Muslim historians themselves...”{ Amb7/ 229-38}{ Amb8}
"Arun Shourie, however, states: “But today the fashion is to ascribe the extinction of Buddhism to the persecution of Buddhists by Hindus… Marxist historians who have been perpetrating this falsehood have not been able to produce even an iota of evidence to substantiate their concoction…”{AS2/ 99}"
Author quotes further from Arun Shourie’s work on historians, beginning with -
" ... Wrote Satish Chandra, one of the “eminent” Negationist-Marxist historian of the Nehru-dynasty stable, in an NCERT Class -IX book on ‘Medieval India’ that he authored: “Thus, there was no atmosphere of confrontation between the Sikhs and the Mughal rulers during the period, nor was there any systematic persecution of the Hindus, and hence, no occasion for the Sikhs or any group or sect to stand forth as the champion of the Hindus against religious prosecution …” In sharp contrast, Sri Guru Nanak, a witness to the Mughal mayhem, cried to God: “Having lifted Islam to the head, You (God) have engulfed Hindustan in dread… Such cruelties have been inflicted [by the Mughals], and yet Your mercy remains unmoved… O’Lord, these dogs have destroyed this diamond-like Hindustan…”"
"“…that the spirit of perverting history to suit political views is no longer confined to politicians, but has definitely spread even among professional historians…It is painful to mention, though impossible to ignore, the fact that there is a distinct and conscious attempt to rewrite the whole chapter of the bigotry and intolerance of the Muslim rulers towards Hindu religion... A history written under the auspices of the Indian National Congress sought to repudiate the charge that the Muslim rulers broke Hindu temples, and asserted that they were the most tolerant in matters of religion. Following in its footsteps, a noted historian has sought to exonerate Mahmud of Ghazni’s bigotry and fanaticism, and several writers in India have come forward to defend Aurangzeb against Jadunath Sarkar’s charge of religious intolerance...”
"—RC Majumdar{ W.n9}"
"People like Nehru had strangely erroneous notions on how history should or should not be written. If writing of what actually happened in the past could adversely affect (in their wrong opinion) the present, then give it a spin— that was their view. ... "
That's exactly what Gandhi did, continously, with contemporary events of massacres of Hindus by muslims - when he didn't declare he despised Hindus for not fighting back, he whiplash them for violence one thousandth or less, while no word was to chastise mudlims gor massacres of Hindus and Sikhs. So Jawaharlal Nehru taking him as ideal following the oath is an expected consequence of his disciplehood of Gandhi.
" ... When original sources and the writings by the contemporaries are available— those who actually witnessed what happened and wrote about them, like Alberuni and others— why would those who care for history be misled by today’s creative writers of history? Fourth, it is an insult to the intelligence of the general public and readers to be presumed to be gullible enough to swallow wholesale what these creative writers dish out. ... "
"For example, should one obliterate from history or dilute or misrepresent the facts of the 1984-Anti-Sikh attacks ; or the 2002-Godhra Train-Coach burning ; or 2002-Post-Godhra Riots, just because they are unpalatable, or may cause enmity among communities?"
"“It would normally be expected that historical writing on Muslim rule in medieval India would tell the tale of this discrimination and the sufferings of the people, their forced conversions, destruction of their temples, enslavement of their women and children, candidly and repeatedly mentioned by medieval Muslim chroniclers themselves. But curiously enough, in place of bringing such facts to light there is a tendency to gloss over them or even suppress them…
"“History books are not written only in India; these are written in neighbouring countries also, and what is tried to be concealed here for the sake of [erroneous interpretation of the notion of] national integration, is mentioned with pride in the neighbouring Muslim countries…"
"“And yet some writers delude themselves with the mistaken belief that they can change their country's history by distorting it, or brain-wash generations of young students, or humour fundamentalist politicians through such unethical exercise. To judge what happened in the past in the context of today's cultural milieu and consciously hide the truth, is playing politics with history. Let history be accepted as a matter of fact without putting it to any subjective interpretations. Yesterday's villains cannot be made today's heroes, or, inversely, yesterday's Islamic heroes cannot be made into robbers ransacking temples just for treasures. Nor can the medieval monuments be declared as national monuments as suggested in some naive ‘secularist’quarters. They represent vandalism. No true Indian can be proud of such desecrated and indecorous evidence of ‘composite culture’...”
"—KS Lal{ Lal/ Ch-1,3}"
"“Gautier, in his book A History of India as it Happened— not as it has been written, tears into the questionable narratives of Marxist historians and quotes many examples of negationism . He says: ‘We will never be able to assess the immense physical harm done to India by the Muslim invasions. Even more difficult is to estimate the moral and the spiritual damage done to Hindu India. Finally, Gautier explains why negationism must be challenged. He says ‘it is not about vengeance, or of reawakening old ghosts, but of not repeating the same mistakes’.”
"—A Surya Prakash{W.ih2}"
" ... Christians engaged in terrible atrocities during their campaigns of conversion, inquisitions and colonisation, including the Goa Inquisition. Should it be swept under the carpet? Germans educate their children on Nazi atrocities and holocaust— lest those horrid things be repeated. ... "
Slight correction regarding the latter - they are supposed to do so, the textbook has it, but somehow it's postponed until the end and then there's no time, as candidly told by a German.
Also, on internet, one can see arguments by Germans about how Jews were being bad. For that matter the propaganda about French being vindictive after WWI has never been contested, but facts to contrary are known - that Germany spent huge amounts in gold marks to spread discontent in France via French communists, to punish them for asking for Reparations, instead of feeding babies in Germany, because it was convenient to do further propaganda against French that babies were dying of starvation in Germany; meanwhile Germany never did surrender arms, they hid those in monasteries and they were brought out to help nazis in their rioting b, later, before they came to power.
................................................................................................
Blunder–93 :
Distortions of History by Nehru Himself
"Westernised and anglophile Nehru examined and understood the India’s heritage and historical past through the Western glasses, and his writings carried the same bias and misinterpretation.
"Nehru’s books betray no research , or breaking of any fresh ground, although they are readable. His works cannot be considered as works of scholarship. What he wrote in ‘Glimpses of World History’ and ‘Discovery of India ’ are re-narration of the published material, mostly by the Western scholars, with their Western bias, or those by the Islamic rationalisers and apologists. ... "
"Wrote Koenraad Elst: “The best-known propounder of negationism was certainly Jawaharlal Nehru. He was rather illiterate concerning Indian culture and history, so his admirers may invoke for him the benefit of doubt. At any rate, his writings contain some crude cases of glorification of Muslim tyrants and concealment or denial of their crimes…With Nehru, negationism became the official line of the Indian National Congress, and after Independence also of the Indian state and government...”{ KE/ 38,39}"
"VS Naipaul stated in the Economic Times of 13-Jan-2003: “How do you ignore history? But the nationalist movement, independence movement ignored it. You read the ‘Glimpses of World History’ by Jawaharlal Nehru , it talks about the mythical past and then it jumps the difficult period of the invasions and conquests. So you have Chinese pilgrims coming to Bihar, Nalanda and places like that. Then somehow they don't tell you what happens, why these places are in ruin. They never tell you why Elephanta Island is in ruins or why Bhubaneswar was desecrated.”"
"The ‘Discovery of India’notwithstanding, its seems Nehru had neither properly discovered the real history of India in several vital aspects, nor grasped the contemporary India, as would be clear from the following faulty interpretation of his in his letter to Lord Lothian dated 17 January 1936: “India has never known in the whole course of her long history the religious strife that has soaked Europe in blood…Some conflict arose when Islam came, but even that was far more political than religious…I cannot easily envisage religious conflict in India on any substantial scale…The communalism of today is essentially political, economic and middle class…One must never forget that that communalism in India is a latter-day phenomenon which has grown up before our eyes…With the coming of social issues to the forefront it is bound to recede into the background.”{ JN3/ 147-48}"
"Wrote Dr RC Majumdar, the renowned historian: “Did Nehru forget the torrent of Hindu blood through which Mahmud of Ghazni waded to India with Quran in the one hand and sword in the other? Did he forget Timur’s invasion of India to wage ‘war with the infidels’… One would like to know in what sense the iconoclastic fury of Feruz Tughluk, Sikandar Lodi, and Aurangzeb— not to speak of host of others— was political rather than religious? Nor does Nehru seem to have any knowledge of Aligarh Movement and its founder… he [Nehru] was… unable or unwilling to face facts.”{Mak/ 139}
"Here is Nehru’s rationalisation of the Islamic destruction in his ‘Glimpses of World History’: “It is unfortunate that numerous beautiful monuments were destroyed in the north… But the fact that temples were used sometimes as citadels may explain why the Muslim invaders destroyed them.”{JN5/ 239} Nehru ignores and whitewashes the deliberate vandalization driven by religious bigotry— effusively narrated by the then contemporary Muslim chroniclers themselves!
"For a glimpse of Nehru’s distortion of Indian history let us take another example—that of destruction of Somnath temple. Mahmud of Ghazni destroyed the temple in 1024 CE in his sixteenth of the seventeen raids into India over a period of about 30 years, and carried away camel-loads of jewels and gold. It is said that Mahmud personally hammered the temple’s gilded idol to pieces and carted it to Ghazni where they were incorporated into the steps of the city’s new Jamiah Masjid [Friday mosque]. Thousands of defenders were massacred, including one Ghogha Rana, who had challenged Mahmud at the ripe old age of 90.
"Ahmad al-Bîrûnî, upon invitation from Sultãn Mahmûd of Ghazni (CE 997-1030), entered his service, and travelled to India, spending forty years in India. Records al-Bîrûnî in his book Tãrîkhu'l-Hind:
"“The linga he razed was the stone of Somnath, for soma means the moon and natha means master, so that the whole word means master of the moon. The image was destroyed by the Prince Mahmud, may God be merciful to him! —AH 416. He ordered the upper part to be broken and the remainder to be transported to his residence, Ghazni, with all its coverings and trappings of gold, jewels, and embroidered garments. Part of it has been thrown into the hippodrome of the town, together with the Cakrasvamin, an idol of bronze, that had been brought from Thanesar. Another part of the idol from Somnath lies before the door of the mosque of Ghazni, on which people rub their feet to clean them from dirt and wet.”—Sita Ram Goel{SRG4b/ 101-2}"
"Wrote Zakariya al-Qazwini, a 13th-century Arab geographer: “Somnath: celebrated city of India, situated on the shore of the sea, and washed by its waves. Among the wonders of that place was the temple in which was placed the idol called Somnath. This idol was in the middle of the temple without anything to support it from below, or to suspend it from above [might have been so, thanks to magnets]. It was held in the highest honour among the Hindus, and whoever beheld it floating in the air was struck with amazement, whether he was a Musulman or an infidel. The Hindus used to go on pilgrimage to it whenever there was an eclipse of the moon, and would then assemble there to the number of more than a hundred thousand... When the Sultan Yaminu-d Daula Mahmud Bin Subuktigin [Mahmud of Ghazni, who was son of Subuktigin] went to wage religious war against India, he made great efforts to capture and destroy Somnath, in the hope that the Hindus would then become Muhammadans. As a result thousands of Hindus were converted to Islam. He arrived there in the middle of Zi-l k’ada, 416 A.H. [December, 1025 CE]... The king looked upon the idol with wonder, and gave orders for the seizing of the spoil, and the appropriation of the treasures. There were many idols of gold and silver and vessels set with jewels..."{ URL55}
"Yet, in his book ‘The Discovery of India’, Nehru writes about “Mahmud of Ghazni and the Afghans”in ‘Chapter-6: New Problems’{ JN/ 250-4}, a sentence in which goes, “He met with... on his way back from Somnath in Kathiawar.”{ JN/ 251} That’s all. There is nothing more on Somnath and its destruction!"Author quotes next from his other book.
"“He [Mahmud of Ghazni] is looked upon as a great leader of Islam who came to spread Islam in India. Most Muslims adore him; most Hindus hate him . As a matter of fact, he [Mahmud] was hardly a religious man. He was a Mohammedan, of course, but that was by the way. Above everything he was soldier, and a brilliant soldier. He came to India to conquer and loot, as soldiers unfortunately do, and he would have done so to whatever religion he might have belonged... We must therefore not fall into the common error of considering Mahmud as anything more than a successful soldier.”{JN5/ 281/ L-3592}"
"There could not be worse distortion of history. Nehru is labouring to convince the reader that the havoc that Mahmud wrought was not because he was a Muslim, and that a person of another religion would perhaps have also done what Mahmud did. What utter nonsense! Further, Nehru does not dwell on the terrible destruction Mahmud wrecked.
"The great Indian novelist, Sarat Chandra Chatterjee (Chattopadhyay), had commented: “They (Muslims) were not satisfied merely with looting, they destroyed temples, they demolished idols, they raped women. The insult to other religions and the injury to humanity was unimaginable. Even when they became kings they could not liberate themselves from these loathsome desires…”{ Akb2/ 226}"
"Real history is what historians of that time—contemporaries of Mahmud— themselves wrote. As per the contemporary history, when Mahmud of Ghazni was carrying away the Shiva idol of gold from the Somnath temple, many rich traders came together and offered him even more wealth if he returned the idol. Mahmud’s retort was: “I am an idol-breaker, not an idol-seller!” Wrote Romila Thapar: “Shaikh Farid al-Din mentions a story where the Brahmans plead with Mahmud to preserve the idol, in return for which they would give him immense wealth, but he refused, stating that he is not an idol seller, but an idol breaker.”(RT/ 55} Wrote JL Mehta: “Mahmud spurned the offer [wealth in exchange of the idol], however, and said that he would rather like to be known as the idol-breaker (but-shikan) [but = idol], than the idol-seller (but-farosh).”{JLM/ 59}
"Nehru wrote in ‘Discovery of India’: “Mahmud [of Ghazni] was far more a warrior than a man of faith...”{JN/ 251} Then about Mathura, he writes, “Mahmud was anxious to make his own city of Ghazni rival the great cities of central and western Asia and he carried off from India large number of artisans and master builders . Building interested him and he was much impressed by the city of Mathura near Delhi. About this he [Mahmud] wrote: ‘There are here a thousand edifices as firm as the faith of the faithful; nor is it likely that this city has attained its present condition but at the expense of many millions of dinars, nor could such another be constructed under a period of 200 years.’”{JN/ 252}
"What is interesting and intriguing is that nowhere there is any mention by Nehru of how this Mahmud, ‘the lover of buildings’ as he calls him, mercilessly destroyed Mathura and Somnath!"
"Wrote Al Utbi, an aide and secretary of Mahmud of Ghazni, in Tarikh-e Yamini : “ The Sultan gave orders that all the temples should be burnt with naphtha and fire and levelled with the ground.” Utbi wrote that Mahmud first wanted to go to Sijistan, but subsequently changed his mind for “a holy war against Hind”, and details how Sultan “purified Hind from idolatry and raised mosques”. He also states that the “Musulmans paid no regard to the booty till they had satiated themselves with the slaughter of the infidels and worshippers of the sun and fire.” In Tabakat-I Nasiri, Minhaju-s Siraj hails Mahmud for “converting as many as a thousand idol -temples into mosques”, and calls him “one of the greatest champions of Islam”. No wonder Pakistan names their missiles Ghazni and Ghori.
"Nehru wrote in ‘Discovery of India’: “Of the Indians, Alberuni [who came with Mahmud of Ghazni] says that they ‘are haughty, foolishly vain, self-contained, and stolid,’ and that they believe ‘that there is no country like theirs, no kings like theirs, no science like theirs’. Probably a correct enough description of the temper of the people.”{JN/ 252} Nehru doesn’t seem to ‘suffer’ from any self-respect and pride for his own country; and instead seems comfortable and fine with anything negative about Indians, but has little negative to comment on the massive destruction wrought, and its wrecker, Mahmud of Ghazni!
"Nehru further quotes [in ‘Discovery of India’] Alberuni writing about the havoc caused by Mahmud, “The Hindus became like the atoms of dust scattered in all directions and like a tale of old in the mouths of people. Their scattered remains cherish of course the most inveterate aversion towards all Muslims.”{JN/ 251} Nehru then comments , “This poetic description gives us an idea...”{JN/ 251} So, Nehru found Alberuni’s description of terrible misfortune wrought on India and Hindus poetic!"
Incidentally, Alberuni had travelled to India with Mahmud of Ghazni during the first half of the eleventh century CE. The book “Alberuni’s India”{ ES} is Alberuni’s written work on India, translated by Dr Edward C Sachau. Here is an extract from what Alberuni, who was a witness to what Mahmud did in India and to India, and who is referred to by Nehru in the quote of Nehru above, had to say:
"“This prince [Sabuktagin] chose the holy war as his calling, and therefore called himself Al-ghazi (i.e. warring on the road of Allah)... afterwards his son Yamin-addaula Mahmud marched into India during a period of thirty years or more. God be merciful to both father and son! Mahmud [of Ghazni] utterly ruined the prosperity of the country [India], and performed there wonderful exploits, by which the Hindus became like atoms of dust scattered in all directions, and like a tale of old in the mouth of the people...”{ ES/ 5,6}"
"Nehru writes a little on Aurangzeb in his book ‘Glimpses of World History’{JN5/ 314-5} and in detail in his book ‘Discovery of India’{JN/291-5}, but remains silent on Aurangzeb’s extensive destruction of Hindu temples. Here is what Sita Ram Goel wrote, quoting a contemporary Muslim historian{SRG4b/202-6}:
"The author Sãqã Must’ad Khãn in his history (completed in 1710 CE) of Aurangzeb, based on the State archives, recorded:
"“The Lord Cherisher of the Faith [Aurangzeb] learnt that in the provinces of Tatta, Multãn, and especially at Benares, the Brahman misbelievers used to teach their false books in their established schools, and that admirers and students both Hindu and Muslim, used to come from great distances to these misguided men in order to acquire this vile learning. His Majesty, eager to establish Islãm, issued orders to the governors of all the provinces to demolish the schools and temples of the infidels and with the utmost urgency put down the teaching and the public practice of the religion of these misbelievers... It was reported that, according to the Emperor’s command, his officers had demolished the temple of Vishwanath at Kashi.”“…During this month of Ramzan abounding in miracles, the Emperor …issued orders for the demolition of the temple situated in Mathurã, famous as the Dehra of Kesho Rãi. In a short time by the great exertions of his officers the destruction of this strong foundation of infidelity was accomplished, and on its site a lofty mosque was built at the expenditure of a large sum.”"
"“Abû Turãb, who had been sent to demolish the temples of Amber, returned to Court on Tuesday, the 10th August /24th Rajab, and reported that he had pulled down sixty-six temples.
"”“The Emperor, summoning Muhammad Khalil and Khidmat Rai, the darogha of hatchet-men, ordered them to demolish the temple of Pandharpur, and to take the butchers of the camp there and slaughter cows in the temple. It was done.”"
................................................................................................
Blunder–94 :
Being Anti-Hindu
"“Nehru was completely out of touch with the Indian life even of his time, except with the life of the self -segregating Anglicised set of upper India who lived in the so-called Civil Lines.”{NC2}
"—Nirad Chaudhuri"
"Ram Manohar Lohia believed that Nehru’s acceptance of Anglo-Indian cultural values led to his opposing anything that would give the nation a sense of Indianness.{DD/ 373}
"Wrote Nehru in a letter to the Home Minister Dr Kailash Nath Katju in 1953: “In practice the Hindu is certainly not tolerant and is more narrow-minded than almost any person in any other country except the Jew.” {URL95}{JBQ}—a grossly bigoted, ill-informed , and unfair comment on both Hindus and Jews.
"One can get a taste of his disdain for his own Hindu background, similar to the self -alienation of the “non-Jewish Jews” like Trotsky , in some of this writings…”{JBQ}
"“After years of slavery, when people revolt, a nation is reborn. The prime mission of the new government is nation building. Such government is infused with revolutionary vigour and intellectual boldness. It dares to lay down its own agenda which may be entirely different from that of the now expelled rulers. But Jawaharlal Nehru did not conceive of independent India's new fledged government as an insurrectionary government with all its inherent potential. The anti-Hindu policy is another heirloom from the white rulers which the Nehru government wholeheartedly followed.”{URL96}"
It's a tad unclear who's the author quoted in that paragraph above. Trotsky?
"Most ironically and hypocritically, Nehru didn’t apply the same yardstick to the Islamic and Christian past. Wrote Sandeep Balakrishna:
"“Indeed, Indians like Nehru could only arise as the natural consequence of thorough and inescapable colonialized national psyche [Blunder# 84]. In his quest to somehow escape British colonialism, Nehru blindly embraced the Soviet variety. His secularism is the ideological love child born by fusing an incurable love for Stalinist Communism [Blunder# 106] and an irretrievable alienation from his own Hindu roots..."{ SBK/ L-293}"
"“Seventy years of secularism is just one long tale of a project aimed at making Hindus forget and disavow precisely this defining character. Among others, an enduring method used to accomplish this includes instilling a lasting sense of self-alienation and self-loathing using the medium of formal education. The outcome is the cowardice resulting from a complete erosion of cultural self-confidence.”{SBK/ L-341}"
"“What makes it [India] bizarrely unique is that the Constitution denies the majority indigenous Hindus the same rights as those given to the minority non-Hindus. This reduces Hindus to a form of second-class citizens in their own secular country…But unlike the minorities, they [Hindus] don’t have freedom to run their educational institutions without undue state interference; their civilisational knowledge and ancient texts are banished from public education; by creating a false equivalence between their non-proselytising religions and the others, they are gamed for conversion; unlike minorities, they are denied the right to manage their own temples and their religious properties; unlike minorities, they don’t have the freedom to celebrate and perpetuate their ancestral traditions without undue state interference…Denied access to their ancient civilisational texts through public education, Hindu students learn nothing about Hinduism and their ancient civilisational inheritance. On the contrary, public education has been so designed as to brainwash Hindu students to self-loathe and disown their own religion and culture... The pernicious false dichotomy between majority and minority ordained by the Constitution has toxified our society.”{ Swa10}"
"Given below are some extracts from Nehru’s ‘Discovery of India’ (Kindle Edition from Amazon){JN1} that are illustrative of Nehru’s anti-Indian-Hindu-cultural-heritage and pro-Muslim-Western mind-set, and his dire lack of genuine scholarship and knowledge:
"“On the other hand some famous temples in South India, heavy with carving and detail, disturb me and fill me with unease…”{JN1/ L-4308}"
He didn't bother to explain exactly why. Did he question his own fears? Was he disturbed because he wasn't used to Hindu variety undisturbed by islamic demolitions?
"“Beautiful buildings combining the old Indian ideals in architecture with a new simplicity and a nobility of line grew up in Agra and Delhi. This Indo-Mughal art was in marked contrast with the decadent, over-elaborate and heavily ornamented temples and other buildings of the north and south. Inspired architects and builders put up with loving hands the Taj Mahal at Agra.”{JN1/ L-5381}"
But the ASI was forced to cover the river facing of Taj with a wall, because it clearly showed that Taj too had been built on top of a temple converted into a graveyard!
As for beauty, it's really on a French garden pattern - rather elementary level, nothing complex one might marvel at, no architecture but only a primitive thought of imposing size, no different from various Islamic edifices across Central Asia and West Asia, attempting to daunt - an idea familiar to cathedrals, as well.
"“A civilization decays much more from inner failure than from an external attack. It may fail because in a sense it has worked itself out and has nothing more to offer in a changing world, or because the people who represent it deteriorate in quality and can no longer support the burden worthily. It may be that the social culture is such that it becomes a bar to advance beyond a certain point, and further advance can only take place after that bar has been removed or some essential qualitative variation in that culture has been introduced. The decay of Indian civilization is evident enough even before the Turkish and Afghan invasions. Did the impact of these invaders and their new ideas with the old India produce a new social context, thus unbinding the fetters of the intellect and releasing fresh energy?”{JN1/ L-5360}"
So he's claiming that those millions massacred, too, in reality committed suicide, and those taken in drapery that find on long March to Central Asia by hundreds of thousands, were going on a pilgrimage in a direction opposite to the Hindu routes leading to Himalayas?
Wonder how he'd have justified Hindu babies murdered and Hindu women raped by muslims.or Nirbhaya's gang rape and murder, with a muslim teenager the chief perpetrator, instigating others with a "she deserves it because she's not at home" Islamic logic, later allowed to go scot free.
Perhaps he inspired Ms Dutt, as a ghost, to do that episode of her program justifying letting him go free because "he has three unmarried sisters", Ms Dutt said, and his mother didn't know how else she'd get them married!
"“Islam shook up India. It introduced vitality and an impulse for progress in a society which was becoming wholly unprogressive Hindu art, which had become decadent and morbid, and heavy with repetition and detail…”{JN5/ 358}"
On that note, would he label Custer too a liberator of the Sioux, and Hitler et al birth mothers of Israel?
"So, as per Nehru, while the civilization of India had decayed, that of the barbaric, invading Muslim hoards was superior, and carried new ideas!
"No wonder, while Ajanta (a Buddhist site) was well preserved and maintained during the Nehruvian era, the grand temples at Ellora and at many other places (being Hindu sites) were neglected. This author visited both Ajanta and Ellora in the summer of 1971. While Ajanta was spic-and-span , and boasted of several tourist facilities, the grand Ellora was an utterly neglected site. Going past the Daulatabad fort our taxi stopped on the road-side. The driver pointed at the rock temple some distance away. We crossed a field to reach it, there being no road. There were no security persons or guides or employees from the Archeology Department. But for a couple of other tourists it was deserted. As the dusk began to turn into darkness we rushed back, there being no lighting!"
And yet it's the Kailas temple at Ellora - Verul in Marathi- that's the most marvelous architecture of India still surviving, do much do Aurangzeb had sat in south and died there attempting to destroy it!
................................................................................................
................................................................................................
................................................................................................
................................................................................................
................................................
................................................
April 30, 2022 - May 01, 2022.
................................................
................................................
................................................................................................
................................................................................................
................................................................................................
................................................................................................
Chapter - IX DYNACRACY & DICTATORIAL TENDENCIES
................................................................................................
................................................................................................
Blunder–95 :
Nehru’s Dictatorial Ways
Calling Nehru, for the first time, “the Congress dictator”, C.R.[ Rajaji] also said: “The single brain-activity of the people who meet in Congress is to find out what is in Jawaharlal’s mind and to anticipate it. The slightest attempt at dissent meets with stern disapproval and is nipped in the bud.”
"—Rajaji {RG3/ 373}"
How was that different from behaviour and conduct of his political mentor, Gandhi, except only superficially? Gandhi did his utmost to do a passive-aggressive guilt tripping of opponent, which only worked if they were of the mindset that bent to it - and if someone did not comply, he was ousted as Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose was, which wasn't either democratic of Gandhi or honest, much less saintly. In comparison, Jawaharlal Nehru must be called honest!
"Nehru leveraged the democratic process to gain and retain power, but temperamentally , he was more a dictator than a democrat . He filled the top party posts and the cabinet with “yes-men” so that he could exercise unhindered power, and freely interfere in the workings of the party and ministries not under his direct charge."
Gandhi, yes, was dictator cloaked in the mantle of passive saintliness, but Jawaharlal Nehru was more a royal prince in spirit, by bringing up - if one takes into account his being not only the only son and heir of a wealthy Indian family residing in UP, with a culture that coddled such a being, but he was also an only child for years.
So the only thing that could have made him less autocratic, peers, wasn't present in his surroundings in India, but only came at Harrow, where he'd be forced yo accept a position of a condescended, not equal, among peers.
Yes, temper, but as and when someone stood up to his will with clear logic and moral, he did back down, unlike Gandhi who got around everything with passive aggressive ways - from uncooperative conduct and writings inducing guilt on everyone else, to hunger strike.
"Within months of his tenure as India’s first PM, Nehru began acting whimsically and dictatorially without consulting the cabinet and the senior colleagues leading to the well-known rift with Sardar Patel. Patriotic and democratic Sardar Patel was forced to question Nehru’s methods leading even to Sardar’s resignation in December 1947. The exchange of letters among Nehru, Sardar Patel and Gandhi between November-1947 and January-1948 clearly bring forth the issues of Nehru’s dictatorial working. Sadly, Gandhi failed to correct Nehru prior to his assassination on 30 January 1948. ... "
Wasn't Gandhi responsible for every disaster that followed his having ousted Subhash Chandra Bose and Sardar Patel just so he could maneuver his favourite candidate on the throne?
Wasn't Congress politics always geared to oust every other prrson and thought off, by stealing their thunder, as and when necessary?
Gandhi had admitted having undertaken salt March to push people's attention off Bhagat Singh and his group, then undergoing fasts in jail, and far more hardship than Congress ever did, and tortures; he hardly made a gesture towards saving the lives of those young boys.
As demonstrated by INA trials, British were amenable when required, to change death sentences to life and lesser, when their own safety was paramount. But, for Gandhi, paramount consideration was his power over Congress, and that of congress over India.
He'd destroyed every possibility of his firstborn ever flowering without being completely dictated by him, and he did the same to most others he came across, especially those he was responsible for, including India.
"Acharya Kriplani resigned from the presidency of the Congress in November 1947 protesting timidity of India against Pakistan, its mishandling of the Kashmir issue, and demanding revocation of the standstill agreement signed with the Nizam of Hyderabad. ... "
That's not different, only smaller, than Gandhi pushing off Subhash Chandra Bose and Sardar Patel, and turning others - who'd respected him - into disenchanted, even infuriated or worse, opponents.
"This is what Dr Ambedkar had to say in his resignation letter (from the Nehru’s cabinet) of 27 September 1951:
"“The Cabinet has become a merely recording and registration office of decisions already arrived at by Committees. As I have said, the Cabinet now works by Committees…All important matters relating to Defence are disposed of by the Defence Committee. The same members of the Cabinet are appointed by them. I am not a member of either of these Committees. They work behind an iron curtain. Others who are not members have only to take joint responsibility without any opportunity of taking part in the shaping of policy…”"
Again, was that different from Gandhi overturning all decisions and democratic reactions to suit his own image?
"Wrote KM Munshi: “Jawaharlal was a dictator by temperament but had an intellectual aversion to dictators like Hitler and Stalin . He swore by the Constitution but was ever ready to defy or ignore it. Entrenched as he was in unlimited powers, he could never realise the harm that he was doing to the country by twisting the Constitution to his liking.”{KMM},{ Swa7}
"John Mathai (1886– 1959) was an economist who served as India's first Railway Minister and subsequently as India's Finance Minister between 1949 and 1951 . Being pro-Nehru, he was initially prejudiced against Sardar Patel; but, he soon discovered Nehru’s “feet of clay”, and remarked:
"“Under Nehru the Cabinet had never functioned, and all decisions were taken privately by the Prime Minister and the individual Minister concerned. Even when a decision was endorsed in the Cabinet, the Prime Minister went back on it and reversed the decision … The only time when the Indian Cabinet really functioned was when Nehru was away in Washington for a few weeks towards the end of October 1948 and when Sardar Patel was acting as Prime Minister. For the first time the cabinet functioned with joint responsibility; and the acting Prime Minister conducted meetings as the British Prime Minister would have.”{BK/ 505}"
"For his honest and forthright views, especially on the Planning Commission, rather than allowing diversity of opinion and resolving issues democratically through discussions in the cabinet and other forums, John Mathai (then Finance Minister) was eased out by Nehru from the cabinet.{URL34}
" ... extract from Neville Maxwell’s book “India’s China War”:
"“There was a Cabinet committee for foreign affairs but that, too, he [Nehru] ignored more often than not, and time and again crucial foreign policy decisions were taken and announced—even acted upon—without either the committee or the Cabinet being aware of them. This was true of the handling of the boundary question with China, which was kept not only from the Cabinet and its foreign affairs and defence committees, but also from Parliament until armed clashes made it impossible to suppress.”{ Max/ 91}"
"Wrote Rustamji: “…but when you talked to him [GB Pant, No. 2 in the Cabinet of Nehru], you saw the agility and quickness of a mind that was in strong contrast to his ponderous body. His thinking was quick, incisive: he talked cleverly and had few equals in debate. His English was perfect: and his manner of getting to the root of the problem enviable…Yet when Pant was in the presence of the PM, he was so respectful that he even lowered his standard of intelligence in order that the other may shine…”{ Rust/ 194-95}"
................................................................................................
Blunder–96 :
Nehru—Power Trumps Principles
" ... Ironically, while he himself simultaneously held the post of the Party President and the PM, he got a similar setup banned at the state level— he got a party resolution passed in 1953 forbidding the state CMs from simultaneously holding a post in the PCC (Pradesh Congress Committee), on the ground that the CMs have too much office work to be able to devote time for the party work. (Didn’t a PM have as much work? ... ) ... He didn’t want the state CMs to get powerful, and ever challenge him, or his daughter later. Not only that, he gradually sidelined even the future competitors to his daughter Indira through the Kamaraj Plan of 1963, and other means, to ensure continuance of power for his dynasty. If someone should have first exited the government under the 1963 Kamaraj Plan it should have been Nehru himself for his 1962 India-China war debacle ... and for his failure in many other spheres.
................................................................................................
Blunder–97 :
Nehru Curbed Freedom of Expression
"Indian constitution took a regrettable turn on 10 May 1951 when Nehru piloted the First Amendment to the Indian Constitution, that became a law, which, among other provisions, restricted freedom of expression (FoE) by amending Article 19( 1)( a).
"In sharp contrast to Nehru, the First Amendment to the United States Constitution did the reverse— it expanded the ‘Freedom of Expression’ (FoE): prohibited the making of any law respecting an establishment of religion, ensuring that there is no prohibition on the free exercise of religion, abridging the freedom of speech, infringing on the freedom of the press, interfering with the right to peaceably assemble, or prohibiting the petitioning for a governmental redress of grievances. This First Amendment, along with 9 others, was adopted on 15 December 1791, and constituted the Bill of Rights.
"Nehru’s amendment was perhaps provoked by the Supreme Court judgment of 1950 on the ‘Romesh Thappar vs The State of Madras’case, through which the ban on Thappar's Marxist journal ‘Crossroads’was lifted. Through the case, the Supreme Court had effectively recognized unfettered freedom of expression as compliant with our original Constitution, like in the US.
"Thanks to Nehru’s amendment above, poor Majrooh Sultanpuri, the famous and brilliant lyricist and poet, was thrown into Arthur Road jail in Mumbai in the early 1950s for writing a verse critical of Nehru!{URL36} “… during a meeting organised for the mill workers, he [Majrooh] recited a poem on Jawaharlal Nehru. The song, which was written against Nehru and khadi, left politicians red-faced. Morarji Desai, the then-governor of Bombay, put Majrooh in Arthur Road Jail and asked him for an apology. But the uncompromising poet refused to tender an apology, and instead chose to spend two years in jail.”{URL121}"
Yashpal, a superlative Hindi writer, of much including a two part work of literature on partition, was similarly at receiving end of displeasure of government of India, due to a not very uncomplimentary reference to PM, as government and congress leader after partition, in context of travails of refugees in Delhi who'd been forced to leave homes and suffered much worse.
Yashpal was omitted from lists of honors and grants and more, lifelong, whether usually at beginning of consideration or otherwise.
"Dharampal (1922– 2006), a highly regarded thinker-scholar, author of the ground-breaking book “The Beautiful Tree” among his many other profound works , who had written an open letter to the members of the Lok Sabha calling for Nehru’s resignation on moral grounds in the wake of the humiliating 1962 India-China war debacle, was arrested and imprisoned in Tihar Jail under the ‘Defence of India Act’, along with his co-signatories Narendra Datta and Room Narayan. But for Lal Bahadur Shastri and Jayaprakash ‘JP’ Narayan’s efforts all the three would have continued to languish in Tihar.{URL122, URL123}"
"Room Narayan" seems a typo.
" ... During the Nehruvian era, a number of books, films and film songs that appeared directly or indirectly critical of the government were censored or banned. For example, the famous poet Pradeep’s song in the film ‘Amar Rahe Ye Pyaar’ of 1961 was censored because of these lines: “Hai! Siyaasat kitni gandi; Buri hai kitni firqa bandi; Aaj ye sab ke sab nar-naari; Ho gaye raste ke ye bhikari.”{URL44}"
Pradeep as the poet who wrote the unforgettable "Ae Mere Watan Ke Logon", deserved awards - the song that not only had tears in Jawaharlal Nehru's eyes when heard the first time, sung superlatively by Lata Mangeshkar, but went straight to heart of India.
Author quotes excerpts, extensively, from work of Sita Ram Goel about Tibet Day.
" ... Here was the Prime Minister of a democratic country showing extreme intolerance for, and interfering publicly with other people's freedom to think and express opinion about matters which concerned the security of the nation. The Communist Party of India and its fronts had built up before his own eyes a formidable apparatus which was leading demonstrations, every now and then, against this or that foreign embassy, and heaping the foulest possible abuse on several friendly countries. The Prime Minister has, to this day, never uttered a word against even acts of hooliganism enacted by the communists outside those embassies— burning cars, stoning, and manhandling office staff. But a small and dignified protest on the part of some patriots to draw the attention of their people and Government to the threat posed by China's illegal invasion of a buffer State, made the Prime Minister furious and robbed him of all sense of proportion and propriety. The Prime Minister had shown himself partial to a communist cause in utter disregard of national interest. In the process, he had made himself utterly ridiculous as well. On the one hand he said again and again that the protesters against China were only a few people who represented no one except themselves. On the other hand he chose to spend so much breath and create the impression that the event was very important. His threat of action against the protesters, of course, was nothing short of criminal.”{SRG2/ 205-6}"
................................................................................................
Blunder–98 :
“Democracy, thanks to Nehru?”—NOT True
"It was, in fact, the Constitution of India framed under Dr Ambedkar, and passed by the Constituent Assembly comprising scores of worthies and headed by Dr Rajendra Prasad, which had provided for universal adult franchise and democratic setup. So, how can the credit be given to Nehru?
"Nehru’s own election as the President of Congress in 1946, that led to his becoming India's first prime minister upon independence, was undemocratic. ... "
................................................................................................
Blunder–99 :
Nehru Promoted Dynacracy, NOT Democracy
"Jawaharlal Nehru was unfairly promoted by his father, Motilal Nehru; and in the true dynastic tradition, Nehru promoted Indira, who in turn, even more shamelessly promoted her progeny. When Motilal Nehru retired as the Congress president in 1929, he made sure by lobbying with Gandhi that his son, Jawaharlal, ascended the gaddi, over the heads of people much more senior and capable than him— ... "
" ... Wrote S Nijalingappa in ‘My Life and Politics’{ Nij/ 102}:
"“Another such instance I remember was when Dr. S. Radhakrishnan was president of India... I used to call on him whenever I was in Delhi... In his talks with me, as I believe with others too, he was very frank and open. One day, when I went to him he said, ‘Nijalingappa, today I put my foot down. Do you know why?’ He then continued, ‘Pandit Nehru comes to me and wants me to make his sister, Vijay Lakshmi Pandit, vice-president of India. I had to tell him, “You are the prime minister of India, your daughter is the president of Indian National Congress and you want your sister to be vice-president. What would people say? I cannot have it.”I put my foot down and sent him away.’I think Nehru had promised his sister the post and when she could not get it, she was very angry with her brother. She complained to me about it when she came to my house for breakfast, and said that her brother did not keep his promise. I did not tell her what Dr S. Radhakrishnan had told me.”{ Nij/ 102}"
"Although Indira Gandhi had done little work for the Congress, she was made a member of the Congress Working Committee in 1955— entry directly from the top, rather than rising from the bottom. In 1957, Indira was made member of the powerful Central Election Committee."
"Wrote Rajmohan Gandhi: “Suddenly, at this juncture, Indira Gandhi, Jawaharlal’s daughter, was named party president. Her talents were yet a secret, and she had no experience of party work. Several of Nehru’s colleagues were offended by the choice but said nothing. C.R. [Rajagopalachari] was outraged.”{RG3/ 373}"
"Nehru had also started developing Indira as a public figure. By making her the official host, Nehru gave her exposure to foreign dignitaries and guests. Nehru also sent her on various foreign assignments like India’s representative to the UNESCO’s Executive Board, and tour of foreign countries on Nehru’s behalf.
"After the 1962-debacle, and his plunging popularity, Nehru used the Kamaraj Plan of 1963 to clear the way for Indira from the seniors. Morarji Desai, who had not objected then, later told Michael Brecher about the Kamaraj Plan: “It seemed to have been motivated not only to get rid of him [Morarji ] but also to pave the way for Mrs Gandhi to the Prime ministership, just as Motilal [Nehru] had passed on the Congress presidency to him (Nehru).”{IM2}
"Wrote MO Mathai: “A couple of years ago Vijaya Lakshmi asked me, ‘Why did Bhai [Nehru] drop me completely during the last phase of his life?’ I did not wish to answer that question at the time, and managed to change the subject. I have already given in this chapter part of the reason. The other part is that Nehru did not want to build up a rival to his daughter who was much younger. More about this in the chapter on Indira!”{Mac/ 142}"
" ... Following in the footsteps of Motilal, Jawaharlal and Indira, now most leaders promote their own dynasty in politics. ... "
"As per a study detailed in Patrick French’s book ‘India: A Portrait’{PF2}, about 28.6% of the MPs in the Indian parliament are HMPs —Hereditary MPs. Even more revealing are the figures that while over two-thirds of the 66 MPs aged 40 years or less are HMPs, all the MPs below 30 are HMPs! ... Strangely, this trend was started by the one who vexed most eloquent against rajas, maharajas and the feudal setup in the pre-independence days— Jawaharlal Nehru."
Which brings to mind the story about a US citizen arguing with a Russian about communism, in disbelief.
"If you had two houses, you'd give me one?"
"Of course."
"If you had two cars, would you give me one?"
"But of vourse."
"If you had two shirts, you'd give me one?"
"NO!"
"How come?"
"I have two shirts."
"A prominent argument advanced goes like this. Dhirubhai Ambani’s sons are also businessmen. That is, businessmen's wards generally become businessmen. Progeny of artists— singers, musicians, writers, and others— also become artists. Sons and daughters of Bollywood actors also become actors. Doctor's wards also become doctors. Farmer's son is often a farmer. Dynasty is everywhere. So why pick on only political dynasties? This superficial argument can fool only the gullible. Progeny of doctors, artists, actors, businessmen becoming also doctors, artists, actors, businessmen affect them only, not others. However, progeny of a neta/ politician becoming a neta affects people at large. It is the requirement of a democracy to be representative and hence non-dynastic. Business houses or art houses or professional establishments are not required to be representative."
To begin with, that argument was made (in Berkeley?), by a fraud and an idiot promoted by a dynasty, and it was silly of him to point at someone who is actually as capable as his own mom ever was, just not as lucky - Satyajit Ray being no more - and, too, targeted for several reasons, being Hindu and more.
If he'd had brains, this pretender to PM’s position, he'd mention Kennedy clan, even Bush, instead of talking about film families - but then, he was blaming India for his failure to attain PM position he's expected to be bestowed by India, only due to dynasti, and no other, qualifications, so when India refuses to comply, he had to abuse India (in Berkeley?).
There's a far better argument, easy to see.
A youngster attempting a career in films still must prove one's mettle via box office, apart from critical appraisal. More failures fall by way than the few successes that are pointed out as Dynasty, even within the prolific clans.
Doctors and so forth must qualify via entrance examination, even if parents coach them; however there are private fraudulent institutions that do take stupid sons of rich for exorbitant amounts and they get certificates they font deserve; but that only serves as decoration rather than possible way to a position resulting in a serious mishap.
Politicians wishing to enter their progeny could do it honestly by sending them to faraway constituencies, such as Madras for a North India dynast, and so forth. With an additional provide of showing local work with local people in constituency, it'd be more honest.
Bose family had at least two freedom warriors in the open, and counting the nephews who helped Subhash Chandra Bose escape, several more. But they were genuine.
As was Robert Kennedy.
"To the pro-dynasty “Don’t they fight elections and win”argument, the question is: How do they win? A far more competent competitor would not even get the party-ticket. But for the dynasty scion, it is for the asking. They get on a platter the constituency nursed for years by their parents. And they have money to splurge to get elected. After getting elected, a high position within the party-organisation or the government is assured to them—something denied to the many much more competent but less-connected contenders. The whole thing is unjust, unfair and undemocratic.
"The sophists question: “Are you saying that children of a politician should be denied a political career? Would that be democratic?” It is not that the progeny or relatives of a politician should be denied a political career. Only thing is that they should not be allowed to derive an unfair advantage. That is possible when things are enforced to be genuinely democratic , nepotism is rooted-out, and talent and ability take the front-seat. Is there any inner-party democracy in the political parties? What if the person from the so-called dynasty also has merit? Well, does he or she have more merit compared to the many with merit? If yes, fine. But, let there be a fair comparison, competition and debates."
................................................................................................
Blunder–100 :
Not Limiting the Term of the PM
"If Nehru was a true democrat, he should have taken a page out of the US Constitution, and limited the term of a prime minister to just two terms— like the President of the US. Not only that, on completion of two terms passing on the baton to one’s kin should also have been prohibited, to ensure dynasties did not take over politics. Dynasties have a vested interest in continuance at the expense of the nation. They also have a vested interest in covering up all the wrong doings of the dynasty.
"Following Nehru’s footsteps, you find a strange spectacle of people— whether young or old, and whether in a political position or a bureaucratic position or a position in a sports body— not wanting to ever quit. Where extension is not possible, bureaucrats would seek some position or the other post retirement."
This latter had, frankly, a great deal to do with difficulties of making ends meet unless one had inherited property and so forth.
"Contrast the above with George Washington, co-founder of the USA. He was proclaimed the “Father of the Country” and was elected the first president of the USA in 1789 with virtually no opposition. Washington retired in 1797, firmly declining to serve for more than eight years— two terms— despite requests to continue. His tremendous role in creating and running America notwithstanding, he didn’t harbour or propagate self-serving notions of indispensability. The 22nd amendment to the US constitution setting a maximum of only two terms for the president came only in 1947. Prior to that it was only an observed good practice for over a century."
But one of the most elected was FDR, without whom, very possibly, world would be ruled by nazis. And frankly the limit of two terms was imposed because there were too many with too much power in US who were against FDR. Some still argue Hitler was a man of peace, and Churchill the warmonger who wrought on the war unnecessarily.
................................................................................................
Blunder–101 :
Not Appointing a Successor, Deliberately
"Nehru did not appoint a senior cabinet minister or a deputy prime minister (after the death of Sardar Patel) to function in his absence when he went abroad. A responsible prime minister would have done so, and would have scotched all speculations on “After Nehru, who?” ... "
................................................................................................
Blunder–102 :
Election Funding & Publicity
" ... Nehru nationalised what he should not have, and did not nationalise what he should have—the state-funding of elections. Had he done so, one could have said he was genuinely a true democrat. It would have helped the poor opposition take roots in the nascent democracy. Opposition was starved of funds. Besides, they did not have any publicity machinery at their disposal.
"Nehru ranted against capitalists, but if they obliged his party by filling-in its election war-chest for a quid pro quo, Nehru’s “principles”never came in the way. As all the election funding was being received by the Congress—of course, in expectation of quid pro quo—why would Nehru have tried to strengthen the Opposition by arranging funding for them? Nehru took care to jealously guard the large donations received by the Congress from corporates.
"When Rajaji, deeply concerned with Nehru's economic policies taking India to dogs, formed Swatantra Party with like-minded persons, and fought the elections, Nehru dubbed them as pro-money-bags. Those adjectives remained stuck to them, even though it was the Congress Party which was getting all the money from the money-bags, and Swatantra Party was finding it very hard to find money to fight elections.
"Later, when JRD Tata, impressed with the radical free-market agenda of the Swatantra Party of Rajaji as opposed to Nehru’s poverty-perpetuating socialism, proposed contributing to the Swatantra Party, Nehru angrily objected, and when JRD still went ahead, Nehru took his revenge in various ways.{W.n15}"
" ... AIR became the propaganda vehicle of Nehru, and later his dynasty, providing no space to the opposition.
"Nehru and the Congress used carrot and stick to ensure the print-media was compliant. Nehru’s pictures, statements and speeches used to crowd out the views and comments of the opposition. Government’s vast Publication Division was dedicated to publishing all kinds of selected and collected works and letters and speeches of Nehru and his mentor Gandhi, but steered clear of giving any importance to the far better works and letters and speeches of Sardar Patel or Netaji Bose or Dr Ambedkar. PIB’s (Press Information Bureau) photographic department liberally released photos of Nehru on various occasions providing him vast publicity."
................................................................................................
Blunder–103 :
Ensuring Self-Publicity & Dynastic Recall
"An interesting thing is the Children’s Day—14th November, Nehru’s birthday. November-20 was declared by the United Nations as the Universal Children’s Day. However, it was shifted in India to November-14 to coincide with Nehru's birthday. In the “good”old days it used to be celebrated with much fanfare. It used to be said, and it is propagated so even now, that Nehru loved children, and hence, his birthday was celebrated as the Children’s Day. However, you realise that all love children. There could be a negligible psychic minority who hate children or do not like or love them. Then, what was so special about Nehru? Upon analysis, you conclude that this was yet another way of obtaining free publicity and acceptability for the dynasty. Influence people from the childhood itself to be pro-dynasty! Popularise yourself with a wide audience very conveniently. Make them all—both children and parents—feel positively and lovingly about you.
"The fact is, if Nehru ever indeed loved children, they were his own children (rather, only child Indira) and his grand-children. Otherwise, Nehru was distinctly uncomfortable with children. Wrote Rustamji:
"“Few would know that his [Nehru’s] attitude towards children was not what people believe—a desire to play with tiny-tots. In fact, the really small ones he never tackled. In my six years with him, I have never seen him taking a baby in his arms; nor were they the receivers of his attention.”{Rust/ 72}"
"Wrote Rajeev Srinivasan: “I must admit to a certain prejudice against the Nehru dynasty. It began with annoyance at the Kim-Il-Jung-like personality cult of naming everything in India after them: the Rajiv public school and the Indira hospital and the Jawahar stadium get on my nerves. The Americans named their new, orbiting, X-ray observatory 'Chandra' after Subrahmanyam Chandrasekhar, the physicist; it occurred to me that if India were to ever send up a space telescope, it would almost certainly be named 'Jawahar'. Apparently no one else in India matters!”{ URL111}"
"An article{W.n4} by Prof Vaidyanathan on the web provides a detailed list of items named after the Nehru-Gandhi family. As per the same{W.n4}, 12 Central Government Schemes; 52 State Government Schemes; 28 Sports, Tournaments, and Trophies; 19 Stadiums; 5 Airports and Ports; 98 Universities and Educational Institutes; 52 Awards; 15 Scholarships and Fellowships; 15 National Parks, Sanctuaries, and Museums; 39 Hospitals and Medical Institutions; 21 Institutions, Chairs, and Festivals have been named after the Nehru-Gandhis, aggregating to a massive grand total of 356— and this excludes bridges, roads, traffic-squares, markets and many other items."
"Why JNU— Jawaharlal Nehru University? Nehru’s academic achievements were rather modest. Wrote MJ Akbar: “Eventually when he [Jawaharlal] passed in the second half of the second class, Motilal was relieved enough to celebrate lavishly... Motilal was acutely terrified that his son might fail, so even such moderate results were cause for celebrations...”{Akb/ 74-77}
"Why IGNOU—Indira Gandhi National Open University? She was not even a graduate! You see poor boys and girls in the most backward regions of India doing graduation and post-graduation under trying circumstances, and here you have a person, with all the financial and family support, and even expenses for education abroad, not doing even graduation."
................................................................................................
Blunder–104 :
Communal, Vote-Bank Politics
" ... In short, the Nehru-Gandhi-Dynasty-perpetuation formula is this: Talk secular always, but play communal politics to get votes."
................................................................................................
Blunder–105 :
Promoting Incompetents & Sycophants
"The position was such in the first general elections in 1952 that whoever got a Congress ticket was likely to win. It was said that even a lamp-post carrying a Congress ticket would win. Gandhi had desired after independence that honest, competent and deserving persons from varied spheres willing to serve the country must be inducted. 1952 was a golden opportunity to identify and induct such persons. But, did Nehru do so? No. Nehru had a free hand. He herded-in as many loyalists and sycophants as he could.
"Maulana Azad had commented: “We are still feudal, but what has distressed me is that many good persons have been denied tickets because the trusted courtiers had labelled them as anti-Nehru.”{ Azad}"
"Nehru even saw to it that Dr BR Ambedkar— by far the most erudite and competent— was defeated! ... "
"David Lloyd George, the British PM during 1916-22, had advised Winston Churchill : “ It is important for a Prime Minister to be surrounded by people who could stand up to him and say, not once but thrice, ‘No’.” ... "
" ... Reportedly, Nehru wanted to take Krishna Menon in the Cabinet, after Independence, but this was firmly opposed by Gandhi. He was then made High Commissioner in London.
"Khushwant Singh had worked in the Indian High Commission in London under Krishna Menon, and this is what he had to say about Krishna Menon in his autobiography ‘Truth, Love and a Little Malice’:{ KS}
"“I had briefly met Krishna Menon in my college days and had not detected any signs of genius [as claimed by some] in him. He was a sour-tempered barrister without briefs and spent his energies building up his India League and paying court to Pandit Nehru whenever he was in England. His appointment as High Commissioner was badly received in India and the Indian community in England as gross favouritism.{KS/ 118}
"“... he set up many sub-organisations of his India League and got money from rich Indians and his English friends as donations to his organisations; in return, he gave the latter contracts for supply of arms to India. He had no scruples in business matters. He was also a congenital liar and regarded truth as good enough for the simple-minded and lying as the best exercise for the mind...{KS/ 143}
"“Why Menon got where he did under the patronage of Pandit Nehru remains, and probably will remain, unexplained…{KS/ 152}
"“General Shiv Varma summed him up aptly when he said, 'Menon was a bachelor, the same as his father.’”{KS/ 153}"
"Wrote MO Mathai:
"“Criticism of Krishna Menon in parliament became fiercer and fiercer. In the meantime, visitors returning from London, including Rajkumari Amrit Kaur, reported the virtual breakdown of work at India House…”{Mac/ 164}"
"Krishna Menon had engaged in a number of shady deals for the Government while in London as High Commissioner. Jeep Scandal Case of 1948 was only one of the scandals— ... "
One recalls the talk in Delhi being Nehru was unfortunately surrounded by three dark Krishnas, pun on the connotation (not literal meaning) of Krishna, and one forgets who was the third, but Menon was the top name.
"This is from ‘Left out by history’ by Inder Malhotra in ‘The Indian Express’ of 6 March 2007{IM3} about Krishna Menon: “... The [top secret] file contained only two documents and their originator, MI5 , Britain's internal intelligence and counter-espionage agency,... One was the transcript of a telephonic conversation between Sudhir Ghosh, PRO at India House, and Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel in New Delhi. As Khushwant Singh, then Ghosh's deputy, has recorded more than once, [Sardar] Patel, as home and information minister, had installed Ghosh in London to ‘spy’ on [Krishna] Menon. The second document was a copy of a brief but sensitive communication Menon had sent to V.M. Molotov, the Soviet foreign minister. Describing the message as ‘sinister’, MI5 had added that it had obtained the highly secret paper ‘through our usual method’... The redoubtable Sardar [Patel] obviously shared MI5' s view of Menon. If he could have helped it , he would have prevented his appointment as high commissioner. This, he knew, as an arch-realist, was impossible, given [Krishna] Menon's proximity to and friendship with Jawaharlal Nehru. So he did the next best thing, and planted a spook in the high commission.
"“... Nehru's decision, soon afterwards, to appoint Menon defence minister was not a fortunate one... his bossiness, bullying and a proclivity to create cliques led to trouble. He dragged the Officer Corps into the vortex of politics and himself got mired in the politicking of the top brass. His classic clash with General KS Thimayya, a fine professional with unparalleled popularity among the troops, followed. Its consequences were catastrophic... Menon lasted as long as he did entirely because of unstinted support by Nehru...”{ IM3}
"Truth is stranger than fiction: Krishna Menon had reportedly turned several arms manufacturing facilities into production lines for pressure-cookers, coffee-percolators and hairpins—and was proud of it! Repeated warnings by the top army brass that the army was woefully ill-prepared to face the Chinese threat, and their repeated requests for funds and arms, fell on deaf ears."
Didn't he at one time propose stopping arms production and producing only pots and pans instead? That was before the 1962-war.
"In “How to make foes and alienate people” in ‘The Indian Express’ of 6 February 2012, Inder Malhotra wrote: “Thus it was that even after the full-blooded Chinese invasion, Nehru ignored the countrywide outcry for Menon’s ouster. But the pressure of public opinion was too strong. Nehru took 11 days to divest his protégé of the defence portfolio which he took over himself but retained Menon as minister of defence production. This arrangement could not have been sustained in any case but Menon made this impossible. True to type, he thumbed his nose at his critics and declared: ‘Nothing has changed. I am sitting in the same room and doing the same work.’... This led to a virtual revolt within the Congress party. Mahavir Tyagi, Nehru’s ‘comrade’ since the freedom struggle, told him at an acrimonious conclave that if he did not sack Menon he might himself have to go. On November 7, Nehru announced that he had accepted Menon’s resignation. Over this there was as much glee in the United States as in India.”{IM1}"
" ... most people blamed only Krishna Menon for the debacle—without accepting that the real architect of the nation's tragedy was Nehru himself. Wrote Durga Das: “The fact of the matter is that Nehru felt gnawing of conscience throughout this episode [Menon’s resignation]. He knew that the blame for the [India-China war] disaster was more his than that of his loyal friend.”{ DD/ 366}"
................................................................................................
................................................................................................
................................................................................................
................................................................................................
................................................
................................................
May 01, 2022 - May 01, 2022.
................................................
................................................
................................................................................................
................................................................................................
................................................................................................
................................................................................................
Chapter - X
NEHRU’S WORLD VIEW—THAT HARMED INDIA
................................................................................................
................................................................................................
Blunder–106 :
Nehru’s Defective World View
"Even when Stalin’s own compatriots sighed relief at his passing away on 6 March 1953, and Khrushchev later severely denounced him at the 20th Congress of the Soviet Communist Party; surprisingly (or, was it no surprise!) Nehru, if one goes by his tribute to Stalin in the Indian Parliament, seemingly felt orphaned!
"Apparently, apart from a plethora of monstrous atrocities, Nehru had “never heard of those more than a million orphaned children who wandered all over Soviet Russia after Stalin's forced collectivization had either killed off their parents or sent them to forced labour camps. Quite a large number of these children were later on physically destroyed by Stalin's orders because they were ‘spreading disease ’. Nor did he [Nehru] ever learn about those ‘child heroes’ who were acclaimed in the Soviet press and by the Soviet Government because they betrayed their parents to the Soviet secret police.”{SRG2/ 57}
"“Sitaramji correctly diagnoses that Jawaharlal Nehru was an ‘incurable bully’ and ‘an incurable coward as well’. Both qualities, the two sides of the same coin, were best reflected in Nehru’s irredeemable lust for imperial and barbaric desert cults and his undying fascination for monumental mass-murderers like Josef Stalin. Jawaharlal Nehru was perhaps the only head of any nation who actually publicly mourned the death of Stalin, who he cravenly addressed as ‘Marshal’ Stalin and had the Parliament adjourned on the occasion. …at the time that he was crawling and cringing before Muhammad Ali Jinnah and the Muslim League, he was being high and mighty with the Hindu Mahasabha… Later on, he was thundering against the RSS, and at the same time crawling before the Communists… who were lambasting him as a running dog of American imperialism. He could never help licking the boot that kicked him, while heaping humiliations on those who were in no position to hit back…”{TDD}"
" ... Congress frittered away its moral reputation as an organisation of fighters for human freedom when it refused to say even a single word of protest against the Stalin-Hitler Pact [1939], against the invasion of Poland and Finland by the Soviet Red Army, and against the incorporation of half of Poland and three independent Baltic States— Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia— in the Soviet Slave Empire.”{SRG2/ 153-54}"
This was for those who understood.
Masses understood Netaji with heart, and didn't give any importance to his taking help of Germany or Japan, knowing he'd fo anything for India and not allow another power to take over. Hence the support for him.
As for Congress inaction of 1939-42, masses must have found it impossible to comprehend.
"“What was really fantastic in the whole situation was this Don Quixote of the Soviet Union [Nehru]. All through his life he had learnt nothing except going to jail properly garlanded and coming out of jail properly garlanded. But he had the cheek to ask a disarmed and downtrodden nation [Indians] to fight in defence of a cause [Soviet Union] which now sounded criminal to most of his countrymen. No one in the Soviet Union or her vast Comintern network had said a word in support of the case for India's independence.”{SRG2/ 161}"
In fact, USSR had been first choice of Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose for going to ask for help, but the most they allowed was his passing through on the way to Berlin from Kabul via Moscow, on an Italian passport in name of Orlando Mazotta.
"“It was not an accident that in the volumes of the communist war-time weekly, People's War, there was not a word of criticism against Pandit Nehru while Mahatma Gandhi and other Congress leaders were wildly abused. The weekly cartooned Subhas Bose as a donkey and a dog and a rat and a rogue in fascist employ. The Communist Party of India denounced the Congress Socialists and Forward Blocists as agents of German-Japanese imperialism and regularly informed the British police about their activities. But all through this period [1940 onwards] Pandit Nehru and Maulana Azad were selected by the communists for fulsome praise.”{ SRG2/ 167}"
As per work by Anuj Dhar, though, Netaji was treated well when he was later in USSR. Was People's War an Indian, not Russian publication?
"Rather than hailing India on and after independence the communist journals from Moscow accused the Indian National Congress (INC) of selling India to ‘Anglo-American imperialism’.{SRG2/ 82} Moscow was refusing to accept India as a genuinely independent country. Even though India’s first ambassador to USSR Ms Vijayalakshmi Pandit (nepotism was built into Nehruvian genes) was Nehru’s sister Kremlin cold-shouldered her. Despite repeated requests, Stalin refused to give her appointment; and upon completion of her tenure, she returned to India without ever meeting Stalin. Even on petty matters, Moscow acted mean and hostile. It refused to supply furniture to the new Indian Embassy, which then was left with no alternative but to import it at a heavy cost from Stockholm! Yet, when questions were raised on the above matter in India, Nehru chose to pooh-pooh the matter, and tried to rationalise and cover up.{SRG2/ 82}
"Nehru tried to suck-up to the country (USSR) that shunned, criticised, ignored and insulted you in the 1940s and early 1950s (things changed with Khrushchev); and cold-shouldered countries like the USA and Israel, which tried to be friendly. Such a person considered himself to be a great “internationalist” and “a foreign-affairs expert”; and what is more the great , wise Mahatma (Gandhi), and many other Congress stalwarts (except for the genuinely wise Sardar Patel) also thought so."
" ... Wrote Dr NS Rajaram:
"“Curiously, Nehru’s admiration extended even to the Lubyanka— the notorious Moscow prison. Nehru wrote: ‘It can be said without a shadow of a doubt, that to be in a Russian prison is far more preferable than [sic] to be a worker in an Indian factory. The mere fact that there are prisons like the ones we saw is in itself something for the Soviet Government to be proud of.’ For a man who could admire Soviet prisons, it was not hard to admire and adopt the Soviet system of planning.”{W.n7}"
"Contrast the above with what Bertrand Russel had to say after his visit to Russia:
"“…the time I spent in Russia was one of continually increasing nightmare. I have said in print what, on reflection, appeared to me to be the truth, but I have not expressed the sense of utter horror which overwhelmed me while I was there. Cruelty, poverty, suspicion, prosecution formed the very air we breathed. Our conversations were continually spied upon…There was a hypocritical pretence of equality…I felt that everything that I valued in human life was being destroyed in the interest of a glib and narrow philosophy, and that in the process untold misery was being inflicted upon many millions of people…”{ BNS/ 191-2}"
It'd be interesting to compare the timelines.
"This is how Sita Ram Goel commented on the book:
" ... But, perhaps, Pandit Nehru who had been denied fairy tales in his childhood because Motilalji wanted him to be educated on the most modern pattern from the West, was in search of a fairyland. Communist propaganda informed him that such a fairyland existed in Soviet Russia. And he closed his eyes and went into a trance from which he has never descended, notwithstanding his sycophants' recurring reassurance that he has been ‘maturing of late’. To the majority of his intelligent countrymen, his ‘mature mind’is revealed in his writings about Soviet Russia, particularly in the ‘Glimpses of World History’which he has not had the decency to disclaim even after reading Khrushchev's verdict on Stalin's Russia about which he has been most enthusiastic.”{ SRG2/ 55}"
"Nehru’s Book-4: ‘Unity of India’
"This book is a collection of articles and speeches of Nehru during 1935-40, and was published in 1941. Ignoring plethora of evidence exposing the Soviet Union, and what it did to Poland, Nehru continued to defend it. ... "
If one has read memoirs by holocaust survivors - and several, at that, including several from those from East Europe, bordering Russia - several factors emerge clearly as a repeated pattern, with no contradictions thereof.
One, Ukrainian guards assisted nazis, and the former were far worse than German ones; and two, Russian occupation was no picnic, but German was far worse;.
What's more, when tide turned, Russians offered to take Polish Jews with them East to safety on military vehicles, and those that did go, survived.
But civilians who attempted escaping East on foot or in carts, and there were thousands, clogging roads, were shot at by Germans flying low over them, even if victims were babies and mothers. And they were targeting the victims, who could see the pilot as he flew low deliberately taking aim.
" ... Wrote Nehru:
"“Whatever doubts I had about internal happenings in Russia, I was quite clear in my mind about her foreign policy. This had been consistently one of peace and, unlike England and France, of fulfilling international obligations and supporting the cause of democracy abroad. The Soviet Union stood as the one real effective bulwark against Fascism in Europe and Asia. Without the Soviet Union what could be the state of Europe today? Fascist reaction would triumph everywhere and democracy and freedom would become dreams of a past age.”{ SRG2/ 73}"
It's hard to contradict that, although that's not because of virtues of communism as a label, or to say everyday hunky-dory in Russia. China in fact has been as fascist as can be, under the supposedly communist label.
"Wrote Kumar Chellappan in DailyPioneer of 14-Nov-2014: “Even as Congress leadership celebrates the 125th birth anniversary of Jawaharlal Nehru in grandiose style, how the former Prime Minister amassed wealth through royalties for his books ‘Discovery of India’ (1946), ‘Glimpses of World History ’ (1934), ‘An Autobiography’ (1936) and ‘Letters from a Father To his Daughter’ (1929) remains a mystery. However, MO Mathai, Nehru’s Man Friday and special assistant, had disclosed that the former PM received more royalties from Communist countries than all Western countries put together. In his book ‘Reminiscences of the Nehru Age’ (1978), Mathai has explained how he brokered the deal with the then Soviet Union to translate books authored by Nehru into Russian language and ensured that Nehru would get 15 per cent as royalty in Indian rupees at a time when the Soviet Union never paid a single paisa as royalty to other authors... Subramanian Swamy, senior BJP leader, is of the view that it was improper on the part of Nehru to sell the rights to translate his works to the Soviet Union while he was the Prime Minister of the country . ‘I have knowledge of enormous amount of money getting transferred to the Nehru family’s account in Bank of China’s Kolkata branch. An impropriety has been committed,’ Swamy told ‘The Pioneer’.”{W.n8}"
According to Dr Subramanian Swamy, the current ruling branch aren't citizens of India; if Jawaharlal Nehru had amassed wealth, why do they occupy prime estate in Delhi at expense of a poor nation?
"Nehru remained sympathetic with and supportive of the Marxists-Communists and the Communist Party of India, as did his dynasty, despite the following stark facts:
"They [communists] extended their swearology to the Indian National Congress, calling it as a conspiracy of India's capitalists and landlords in league with world imperialism.{SRG2/ xii}
"They had joined hands with the Raj in 1942, and spied on the patriots, receiving in return the British patronage.{SRG2/ xii}
"They had supported the demand for Pakistan during 1942-47, and helped the Muslim League fortify their case with a formidable array of arguments and statistics. They also advocated the balkanization of India into a score of sovereign states.{ SRG2/ xii}
"They had denounced Sri Ramakrishna Paramahansa as a homosexual pervert, Swami Vivekananda as a Hindu imperialist, Sri Aurobindo as a dirty war-monger, Rabindranath Tagore as a pimp, and stalwarts of the freedom movement such as Sardar Patel as the progeny of pigs and bastards of Birla and Tata.{SRG2/ xiii}"
One would think they couldn't get worse, but as per the explosive revelation by the then newly appointed Education Minister soon after 2014 elections, they did; next day, they accused her of attempting to disturb communal harmony, but couldn't even pretend to deny that the pamphlet she'd read wasn't communists propaganda against Hindusm abusing Hindu Deities.
It's a tad difficult, though, to believe that Russian communists eould descend to this abusive level, and one wonders if it's only the leftists of India whose bankruptcy on top floor reduces them to this, unlike world level.
For example the leftist and jihadist sympathiser combination attacking Hindus, India and Israel alike, that doesn't exist in Russia; Pakistan was used to inflict jihadists against USSR and is - on internet - very proud of their role in breaking up USSR, taking major credit, giving a tiny bit to US. And it's well known that US used "green crescent" policy against USSR.
"They had come out openly in support of China when it occupied Tibet in 1950, and later drove out the Dalai Lama along with thousands of his followers in 1959.{SRG2/ xiii}"
They are dreaming if they think China isn't racist, doesn't despise them, or won't slaughter them if it came to it, just by virtue of mouthing for Chinese interests.
This is what Sitaram Goel wrote in his book ‘Genesis and Growth of Nehruism’—it brings out Nehru’s communistic bias, his anti-FoE attitude, and his dictatorial ways:
"“5. In February 1955, I received an invitation to attend the forthcoming Conference of the Asian People's Anti-Communist League in Formosa. I sent the entire correspondence—including a very warm letter written to me personally by President Chiang Kai-shek—to our External Affairs Ministry, saying that I would accept the invitation only under advice from them. Months passed and not a word came from New Delhi. Meanwhile, I had applied for a passport to the regional Bureau at Calcutta because I wanted to have the document in hand in case I was advised to go. Normally, a passport is issued by the regional passport Bureau to citizens residing in its jurisdiction. But when I approached the Bureau after more than two months to find out the status of my case, they told me confidentially that my case was receiving attention from the Prime Minister himself. I wrote an urgent letter to the Prime Minister on May 3 and followed it up with a telegram. My plane ticket for Formosa had already arrived. It was only on May 21 that I received a one-line memorandum from the Ministry of External Affairs stating that ‘Mr. Sita Ram Goel is hereby informed that passport facilities applied for cannot be granted’. But hundreds of communists and fellow-travellers had been granted passports during this very period and very speedily, for joining delegations which were going out to various communist capitals almost every week.”{ SRG2/ First Preface/ iii}"
And, too, Indian passport was routinely stamped "not valid for Israel", unless one specifically asked otherwise. Wonder if that, too, could get one denied a passport in fifties to early sixties?
................................................................................................
Blunder–107 :
Nehruvianism & Nehru’s ‘Idea of India’
"The claim that Nehru's secularism prevented India from becoming a theocratic Hindu state is totally bogus, because India has been practically secular and highly respectful of other religions for thousands of years, thanks to the tolerant Hindu world-view which, unlike the latter two Abrahamic religions, does not abuse other religions. Secularism was a pressing requirement in the West where the Church had been interfering in the affairs of the State (pl. check Blunder# 85). Such had never been the case in India."
" ... Observed Sitaram Goel on ‘Nehruism’:
" ... There are always people in all societies who confuse superiority of armed might with superiority of culture, who start despising themselves as belonging to an inferior breed and end by taking to the ways of the conqueror in order to regain self-confidence, who begin finding faults with everything they have inherited from their forefathers, and who finally join hands with every force and factor which is out to subvert their ancestral society. Viewed in this perspective, Pandit Nehru was no more than a self-alienated Hindu, and Nehruism is not much more than Hindu-baiting born out of and sustained by a deep-seated sense of inferiority vis a vis Islam , Christianity, and the modern West.”{SRG/ 59}"
One would disagree with the "self-alienated" part, because a young boy growing up alone at home, taught by three tutors separately - one for each language, including a Pandit for Sanskrit and a Maulavi for (Urdu? Persian?), is like to have already been subjected to influences he wasn't strong enough to contend, against heritage of India; Harrow and Cambridge, beginning the former while a young teen, could only alienate him further.
Yes, there were others stronger who overcame similar influences. But still, "self-alienated" isn't precisely correct.
................................................................................................
................................................................................................
................................................................................................
................................................................................................
................................................
................................................
May 01, 2022 - May 02, 2022.
................................................
................................................
................................................................................................
................................................................................................
................................................................................................
................................................................................................
Chapter - XI
HUBRIS, ILL-TREATMENT OF OTHERS
................................................................................................
................................................................................................
Blunder–108 :
Modest Academics, Pathetic Grasp of Vital Issues, Yet…
"He knows nothing; and he thinks he knows everything. That points clearly to a political career.
"—George Bernard Shaw, Major Barbara"
Wrote MJ Akbar in ‘Nehru: The Making of India’:
"“Eventually when he [Jawaharlal] passed in the second half of the second class, Motilal was relieved enough to celebrate lavishly... Motilal was acutely terrified that his son might fail, so even such moderate results were cause for celebrations... Motilal had set his heart on sending his son to the Indian Civil Service... He called the ICS the ‘greatest of services in the world’... But the weak Second [class of Jawaharlal Nehru] at the end of Cambridge persuaded Motilal that his son was unlikely to get through the tough ICS examinations... His [Jawaharlal’s] expenditure in 1911 was £ 800, enough to pay for three years of an ordinary student’s existence...”{Akb/ 74-77}"
Assessment by Mother, perhaps also by Sri Aurobindo, was different, about the mind part.
"Contrast this with Ambedkar who often skipped meals or ate frugally to save money when he was studying in London. In ‘Dr.Ambedkar: Life and Mission’{ DK}, Dhananjay Keer mentions that Ambedkar subsisted in London on mere £ 8 a month! That amounts to £ 96 a year. Compare this with £ 800 a year of Nehru, which excluded expenses for several other requirements that were separately arranged by Nehru’s father. With all these handicaps Ambedkar graduated in Political Science and Economics from Bombay University in 1912. On scholarship from the Maharaja of Baroda, he went to New York in 1913 and earned the degrees of Master of Arts in 1915, followed by Doctorate in Philosophy in 1916 from the Columbia University. Thereafter, he went to London, where he joined the Grays Inn for Law and the London School of Economics (LSE). He earned his second doctorate from LSE. He also became a barrister."
Hence Dr Subrahmanian Swamy says what he does.
"While Nehru scraped through graduation, Sardar Patel had topped in his exams in London. Subhas Bose was a brilliant student at Cambridge who had also cleared ICS exam. Dr Rajendra Prasad was a great scholar who always topped in his class— his examiner had once written a comment on his answer sheet : “ examinee is better than examiner”.{Aru/ 159}"
Nevertheless, Dr Rajendra Prasad did swot down the suggestion by HV Kamath that portraits of Tilak and Bose be hung in parliament. Why?
"Perry Anderson, a British historian and political essayist, and Professor of History and Sociology at UCLA, wrote:
" ... The contrast with Subhas Chandra Bose, a brilliant student of philosophy at Cambridge, who was the first native to pass the exams into the elite ranks of the Indian civil service and then decline entry to it on patriotic grounds, is striking. ... "
Didn't Sri Aurobindo do so earlier?
" ... But an indifferent beginning is no obstacle to subsequent flowering, and in due course Nehru became a competent orator and prolific writer. What he never acquired , however, was a modicum of literary taste or mental discipline. His most ambitious work ‘The Discovery of India’ which appeared in 1946, is a steam bath of Schwärmerei [sentimental enthusiasm]. It would be unfair to compare Nehru to Ambedkar, the leader of the Untouchables, intellectually head and shoulders above most of the Congress leaders, owing in part to far more serious training at the LSE and Columbia. To read Ambedkar is to enter a different world. ... "
So far, it seems fair. But then he continues -
"“ ... The Discovery of India”— not to speak of its predecessor, “The Unity of India”—illustrates not just Nehru’s lack of formal scholarship and addiction to romantic myth, but something deeper, not so much an intellectual as a psychological limitation: a capacity for self-deception with far-reaching political consequences.”{URL7}"
What one recalls is the deep revolt of soul when watching the television serial based on this, and getting up and leaving - it was a communal television set in a hostel at the research institute, not something common to serious research institutes - and finding a book by Sri Aurobindo in one's own room, Secret Of The Vedas; opening it at the beginning and reading was deeply reassuring, in that nature of reality held.
The television series was directed by an excellent director of films, familiar from his films since the very first one in early seventies. It was the author whose vision was totally skewed due to his complete trust in West, specifically in matters related to India, and the fraudulent, racist theory of Aryan invasion of India.
That West was incapable of comprehending India's deep, rich treasure of knowledge, only due to racist hubris that's quite possible to shake off - is the obvious fact Jawaharlal Nehru hadn't seen.
"Wrote MO Mathai: “Contrary to the general impression, neither Churchill nor Nehru were widely-read men . They wrote and spoke more than they read in their lives.”{Mac/ 55}"
................................................................................................
Blunder–109 :
Lordly Ways—Good Bye to Gandhian Simplicity
"Nehru, who had ranted the most against rajas, maharajas, nawabs and feudal lords, adopted lordly and feudal ways, and allowed the same to prosper under his “democratic”watch. Rather than his master's simplicity, Nehru adopted ostentatious Viceroy-like trappings. After Independence, Gandhiji had suggested that the Governor-General of free India should stay in a modest accommodation, rather than in the huge and imposing Viceroy palace—later named as Rashtrapati Bhavan—which should be converted into a public hospital. But, Nehru advised that an alternate suitable accommodation was not available! The place next in stateliness and grandeur to the Viceroy palace was the residence of the British Commander-in-Chief, then called Flagstaff House. Leaving his York Road residence, Nehru occupied this magnificent house, which was later renamed as Teen Murti Bhavan. Others followed Nehru's example, occupying huge, spacious bungalows. British had deliberately designed these palaces and bungalows to intimidate the natives, appear remote, and command respect. What was the logic of the leaders of free India to follow in their footsteps?"
Actually, it's the opposite view that needs to be taken - that citizens of India should be able to live in homes modeled on the (now razed) homes that were provided for government officers and others working for government of India in Delhi, in suburban colonies, which were more what are termed townhouses in UK or row-houses in Germany, except they were apartments in Delhi - one floor each; and they were either provided with private, enclosed gardens front and back for higher level officials whose flats were larger, or only a back garden for smaller flats.
Upstairs flats had use of terraces on top, while ground floor had spacious lawns that spread between rows of residences, all commonly used as needed by people of the area, but a certain amount understood as space related to the particular flat.
The bungalows that author speaks of are lovely, larger, with gardens and deeply shady trees shading roads and homes, and gardens. They are for much higher level.
That this lifestyle ought to be common to all citizens should be the goal, not opposite. There's no reason why one should think that only US citizens are to have reasonable homes, while India must suffer everywhere the congestion that has come to be accepted in Mumbai.
As for the house used by Jawaharlal Nehru, it's reasonably small for prime minister of India, and it's furnishings - kept as he used - simple, even spartan. Yes, the Rashtrapati Bhawan is impressive in its size and space, but then it's used for president of India. It's silly to convert it into a hospital.
Author has given selected examples, and omitted others. Considering size of British Empire, the official residence of monarch in London is modest; but certainly not a Teo room flat, even if the monarch is single person residing, as happens now (sans empire) or during the short tenure of Edward VIII. The palace in Romania, though incomplete, is humongous, but an impressive one - or several of them - is in St Petersburg. Considering size of Russia spanningeleven time zones (now officially reduced to an unreal seven), it's appropriate.
Even South Africa retains the offices and residence of the premier after Mandela took over. They are - as can be seen in Invictus - impressive, on the outside, and reasonable within.
But luxury? For that, one has to see a YT video available on internet depicting hotels, of which the most impressive isn't London or Paris or Switzerland or Canada, but Jaipur, and it's lovely just to see. It's neither evoking of jealousy nor envy, merely a sense of gratitude for being able to see it on video.
As said by a poet, a little more than the little required is much too much. Else what would be enough? A million square mile ranch in Texas is routine, Montana can give one large spaces where skies are visible and horizons wide. Tibet would be nice, for home, Shangri-la style, with Siberia for back garden and Pacific for a swim. Or perhaps Ceres?
"That Rajiv Gandhi had misused Indian Navy Warship INS Virat for his personal use to ferry the Gandhi family and friends to Lakshadweep island for a 10-day vacation (for details , check {URL100}) had its precedence in Jawaharlal Nehru using cruiser INS Delhi for his family voyage to Indonesia in 1950.{URL100}"
Certainly inappropriate, but then he was brought up in Harrow and Cambridge; hus concepts of a PM of India modeled on a combination thereby of British monarchy using appropriate ships, and back home, it was the Red Fort of mughal rulers. Surprisingly nobody thought of renovating that for use of president, leaving Raisina Hill as home and offices of PM, South Africa style.
................................................................................................
Blunder–110 :
Arrogant, Conceited & Full of Hubris
"Many wonder what made Nehru so full of hubris? It could certainly not have been on account of his academics or his earnings or his books. ... "
Hubris isn't uncommon in males, of much lesser academic or any other achievements, even in those not brought up as the only son and heir of a wealthy parent; most of the world is tilted to value males way above females and reward them for simply being themselves, no matter what. It isn't that uncommon to vote across males whose academic achievements or earnings aren't much, but hubris is huge.
English public schools impart a code of conduct that applies amongst peers, for most - and the English caste system that looks down on rest of humanity as no Hindu does even on cleaners (the famous worshipped Deity in Pandharpur is God appearing as a cleaner, and worshipped in that form).
But it's easy enough to find Punjab refugees looking down on others because they've kept the attitude that their once upon a time homeland, now lost, had and still does.
Tamilians inform you that they are the chief residents of South in that their language is the big deal, spoken by Telugu and Kannada speakers because these others don't respect their own language as much (untrue).
" ... If he had participated in the Freedom Struggle, so had thousands , and many had actually sacrificed much more . ... "
This, funnily enough, is argued by congress followers even on Facebook. They seem to forget that the category of those who "sacrificed for nation" includes every soldier of every army that fought for nation, from that of Prithviraj Chauhan to Shivaji to Laxmibai, and later every freedom fighter from Vasudev Balwant Phadke to Chapekar brothers to Tilak, Savarkar and Sri Aurobindo, Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose and INA, Sardar Patel and Bhagat Singh and his group.
If the argument, that position of PM of India is a reward deserved by the descendents, weren't ridiculous, there'd be a long list, with everyone else getting equal turns before another of this dynasty can; but ridiculous it is. It isn't a reward, it's a yoke that ought to rest on shoulders that can carry it, not a throne.
"While in England he wrote to his father, Motilal, in July 1910: “My chief reason for wishing to go to Oxford is Cambridge is becoming too full of Indians!” Such airs from the grandson of the policeman, Gangadhar Nehru!{Wolp2/ 23} ... "
Surely those in services to mughals had airs aplenty?
" ... Nehru’s white skin, his education in Eton and Cambridge, his westernised upbringing, and his identification with the English mores perhaps made his feel he was entitled to be as arrogant as them, and as contemptuous towards the native Indians."
That's quite common an attitude in Pakistan.
"In a conference of Asian-African countries in 1955, the then PM of Sri Lanka, John Kotelawala, took some pot-shots at communism and Soviet colonialism. Nehru later accosted him and asked him in an admonitory tone why he had not shown his speech to him beforehand. Pat came the reply from John Kotelawala to Nehru, “Why should I? Do you show me yours before you give them?’’{CT}{Mac/ 191}"
Certainly a good match!
"Sankar Ghose in his ‘Jawaharlal Nehru, a Biography’quotes Zhou Enlai’s comment of October 1964, about five months after Nehru’s death: “I have met many leaders of the world... I met Khrushchev. I met Chiang Kai-shek, I’ve met American generals. But I have never met a more arrogant man than Nehru. I am sorry to say this, but this is true.”{ SG/ 304}"
And yet, this is from someone Jawaharlal Nehru bent over backwards to please, being completely oblivious to even courtesy owed to Tibet.
"Says Dalai Lama in his autobiography ‘Freedom in Exile’:
"“I [Dalai Lama] then explained [to Nehru] that I had not originally intended to seek India’s hospitality [feeling let down by Nehru’s attitude] but that I had wanted to establish my Government at Lhuntse Dzong. Only the news from Lhasa had changed my mind. At this point he [Nehru] became rather irritated. ‘The Indian Government could not have recognised it even if you had,’ he said. I began to get the impression that Nehru thought of me as a young person who needed to be scolded from time to time. During other parts of the conversation he banged the table. ‘How can this be?’ he asked indignantly once or twice. However, I went on in spite of the growing evidence that he could be a bit of a bully...”{DL/ 160-1}"
"MJ Akbar in ‘Nehru: The Making of India’writes about an episode in the pre-independence period of a number of poor villagers from the villages near Allahabad approaching him to verify their actual extremely pathetic condition first-hand. Nehru was not particularly enthusiastic about taking up the mission, particularly in the hot summers. However, “He was touched when he learned that hundreds of ill-clad villagers had built roads for him overnight so that his car could take him to the innermost recesses of rural India; and saw the eagerness with which they physically lifted his car when it got stuck in the soft mud. After all, he was still an Indian sahib in a hat and silk underwear.”{ Akb/ 129}"
That last bit, ridiculous!
................................................................................................
Blunder–111 :
Bharat Ratnas—Ignoring the Deserving
"Radhakrishnan was awarded Bharat Ratna in 1954, Rajaji in 1954, Nehru in 1955— when he was himself the PM, Govind Ballabh Pant in1957, BC Roy in 1961, Zakir Hussain in 1963, Indira Gandhi in 1971— when she was herself the PM, VV Giri in 1975, Kamaraj in 1976, Vinoba Bhave in 1983, MGR in 1988, and Rajiv Gandhi in 1991! But, Sardar Patel, Subhas Chandra Bose and Dr Ambedkar, being not as great as these worthies, got it later! The Dynasty did not like them!! ... Of course, the only unjust thing that the Dynasty did was to have left out poor Sanjay Gandhi!"
................................................................................................
Blunder–112 :
Nehru & Netaji Subhas Mystery
"
.. Among the biggest suppression of truth by Nehru and his Dynasty is the ‘Netaji Subhas Death Mystery’, prompting Anuj Dhar to title his book on the subject as ‘India’s Biggest Cover-up’.{AD}"
"“You ask me to send you proof of the death of Netaji Subhas Chandra Bose. I cannot send you any precise and direct proof.”
"—Nehru to Suresh Bose in 1962."
"An article in Mumbai Mirror of 28 August 2005 titled “Nehru ditched Bose!”{Art}, based on a biography of Dr VJ Dhanan, an INA recruiting officer, says that Bose had not died in that so-called air-crash on 18 August 1945 in Taiwan. The story was a concoction by the Japanese to keep Bose safe in exile. Soviet diplomats had claimed that Bose was in Russia."
" ... When Patel was confronted with Nehru's definitive statement that Bose had died, Patel reiterated that the government had no view in the matter either way."
"Sarat Chandra Bose, the elder brother of Netaji, broke his two-year silence— during which he had been investigating the matter— over the reported death of Netaji, by stating in late 1947: “Subhash is alive and Jawaharlal knows it.” Sarat lived with this conviction till his death in 1950.
"Emilie Schenkl, Netaji's wife, refused to buy the story of ‘death by plane crash’. Indeed, Emilie was so much against the said story that she refused to meet Pranab Mukherjee in 1995, the then External Affairs Minister , when he had approached her to discuss the possibility of transferring Subhas’s ‘ashes’ from Tokyo's Renkoji temple to India."
"As per the submission made by one Mr Shyamlal Jain of Meerut to the Khosla Commission, that was setup in 1970, he was called by Nehru to Asif Ali’s residence with typewriter on 26/ 27 December 1945 (Netaji reportedly died on 18-Aug), and was given a letter to type—the following letter:{ Nag}{ URL56}
"Mr Clements Attlee
"British Prime Minister
"10 Downing Street, London
"Dear Mr Attlee, I understand from most reliable source that Subhas Chandra Bose, your war criminal, has been allowed to enter Russian territory by Stalin. This is a clear treachery and betrayal of faith by the Russians as Russia has been an ally of the British-Americans, which she should not have done. Please take care of it and do what you consider proper and fit.
"Yours sincerely,
"Jawaharlal Nehru"
"As per a report in ‘Outlook’:“The Taiwan Government has informed the one-man Netaji Commission of Inquiry that there was no air crash at Taihoku on August 18, 1945, till date believed to have killed Netaji Subhas Chandra Bose. Disclosing this to newspersons after a routine hearing of the [Justice Mukherjee] Commission [JMC] here, Justice MK Mukherjee said that the Taiwan Government has confirmed to the Commission during its recent visit to that country that no plane crashed at Taihoku between August 14 and September 20, 1945.”{URL57}"
"Most of the 64 files declassified by the West Bengal government on 18 September 2015 relate to snooping on the family members of Netaji. Their contents clearly establish that the Indian government as well as several foreign governments connected with Netaji believed Subhas was still alive, and that he had not perished in the plane-crash."
"As per Anuj Dhar: “In my search for the truth about Bose, I got to hear from many…that Vijaya Lakshmi came to know about Bose's presence in Soviet Russia. The story goes that when she came back from Moscow she made a statement in private that she knew something whose disclosure ‘would electrify India and the resultant happiness would be greater than what the people had experienced on 15 August 1947’. The same story holds that Nehru asked Vijaya Lakshmi to keep her mouth shut. And a good sister that she was, she deferred to his judgment.”{ URL105}"
"“I have no doubt in my mind— I did not have it then and I have no doubt today of the fact of Netaji Subhas Chandra Bose’s death... There can be no enquiry about that.”"
"—Nehru in reply to a question put in the Parliament by HV Kamath on 5 March 1952."
"Nehru did his best for a decade to stall all enquiries into the death of Netaji. But, when he could fend it off no longer, he decided to set up a committee that would give a report as he desired. A committee headed by Shah Nawaz Khan (24 January 1914 – 9 December 1983), a Congress MP and a former Lieutenant Colonel of INA, was appointed in 1956. Its other members were SN Maitra, ICS, nominated by the West Bengal Government, and Suresh Chandra Bose, a non-political elder brother of Netaji. The committee came to be known as the Shah Nawaj Committee (SNC) or the Netaji Inquiry Committee (NIC). SNC-NIC interviewed 67 witnesses in India, Japan, Thailand, and Vietnam between April and July 1956. The interviewees included the reported survivors of the alleged plane crash, one of whom was INA's Lt Colonel Habibur Rahman, who had since joined the Pakistan military establishment.
"Two members of the NIC, Shah Nawaz Khan and SN Maitra, concluded Bose had died in the plane crash. However , Suresh Chandra Bose, the third member, differed, did not believe so and submitted a dissenting note. He claimed that certain crucial evidence was withheld from him, and that he was pressurized by the other members and also by the then WB Chief Minister BC Roy to sign the final report. Suresh Bose alleged: “My colleagues, both connected with the Government, have tried their utmost to secure and manipulate the evidence, so that it could easily conform with the Prime Minister’s statements.” Incidentally, Shah Nawaz Khan held various ministerial posts between 1952 and 1977. Was he bought over?"
"Owing to persistent doubts and pressure from many quarters, a one-man commission of enquiry headed by a retired Chief Justice of the Punjab High Court, GD Khosla, was set up in 1970. It submitted its report in 1974. Justice Khosla concurred with the earlier report of the Shah Nawaz Committee on the main facts of Bose's death.
"Justice Mukherjee Commission (please see below) was dismayed by the sheer negligence of the Khosla Commission in omitting to pursue several crucial leads Dr Satyanarain Sinha had provided to unravel the Netaji mystery."
"Justice Mukherjee Commission of Inquiry was set up in 1999 during the Vajpayee's NDA regime, following a Calcutta High Court Order. It was headed by a retired Supreme Court Judge Manoj Kumar Mukherjee. The commission studied hundreds of files on Bose's death drawn from several countries and visited Japan, Russia and Taiwan. It submitted its report in 2005. The Commission's conclusions were several:
"(1) The oral accounts on the plane crash were not reliable.
"(2) Bose had NOT died in the alleged plane-crash. Thanks to the cooperation extended by Taiwan, it could be confirmed by the JMC that no air-crash took place on 18 August 1945! The US state department too had corroborated the fact of no air-crash in Taiwan on that day.
"(3) The plane-crash was a ruse to allow safe escape of Bose by Japan and Taiwan. There was a secret plan to ensure Bose's safe passage to the USSR with the knowledge of the Japanese authorities and Habibur Rahman (who had testified on the plane crash). As per the Report: “... On a conspectus of all the facts and circumstances relevant to the above issues it stands established that emplaning at Saigon on August 17, 1945 Netaji succeeded in evading the Allied Forces and escaping out of their reach and as a camouflage thereof the entire make-believe story of the air crash, Netaji’s death therein and his cremation was engineered by the Japanese army authorities including the two doctors and Habibur Rahman and then aired on August 23, 1945...”
"(4) The Indian government subsequently came to know of the escape, but chose to suppress the report.
"(5) The ashes kept at the Renkoji temple in Japan, reported to be Bose's, were of Ichiro Okura, a Japanese soldier who died of cardiac arrest.
"(6) JMC asked for a thorough probe into the Russian connection that contends that Bose had been detained in a Siberian camp.
"(7) JMC couldn't find any evidence that “Gumnami Baba ”/ Bhagwanji, a monk who lived in Faridabad until his death in 1985, was Bose in disguise. (However, later Justice Mukherjee had commented: “It is my personal feeling… But I am 100 per cent sure that he is Netaji.")
"The Action Taken Report (ATR) was tabled in the Parliament on 17 May 2006 during UPA-I by Minister of State for Home S Regupathy along with the JMC Report. The ATR mentioned , inter alia, that the government had examined the Commission's report submitted to it on 8 November 2005 "in detail and has not agreed with the findings that Netaji did not die in a plane crash and the ashes in the Renkoji Temple were not of Netaji." Expectedly , the Commission's report was rejected by the government without assigning any specific reasons— it being UPA-I/ Congress Govt.
"Reportedly, the Commission did not receive cooperation from either the Indian government or the foreign countries it visited , except Taiwan. The hostile posture of the British, Russian, Japanese and Indian governments was intriguing and indicative of an international conspiracy to suppress the truth. The Indian government refused to share many important files and documents with the JMC under the pretext of them being sensitive. Disappointed, the JMC was forced to submit its unfinished work to the then Congress home minister Shivraj Patil."
"Gumnami Baba, aka Bhagwanji, was a monk who lived in Lucknow, Faizabad , Sitapur, Basti and Ayodhya in UP for over 30 years till his death on 16 September 1985. He maintained contact with Dr Pavitra Mohan Roy, the former top Secret Service agent of the INA.
"Personal effects (German binoculars, Gold-rimmed spectacles identical to that of Subhas, Bengali books, the original copy of the summons issued to Suresh Chandra Bose to appear before the Khosla Commission, an album containing family photographs of Netaji Subhas, newspaper clippings about Netaji’s ‘death’ probe, letters from Netaji’s followers, and so on) left behind by Bhagwanji seem to indicate he was perhaps Bose himself! Bhagwanji's birth date was 23rd January, the same as Netaji's.
"The Mukherjee Commission had referred the handwriting samples of Bhagwanji and Bose to Dr B Lal, a forensic expert. His report was that the two matched! As per a report in ToI{W.ih6}: “A leading American handwriting expert has concluded that Netaji Subhas Chandra Bose lived in India for several decades after Independence, under the identity of a ascetic, Gumnami Baba... The expert, Carl Baggett, reached his conclusion after studying letters written by both Bose and Gumnami Baba.”{W.ih6}"
Author asks several questions, ending with -
"How could such a tragedy unfold for one of the greatest sons of India, even as his compatriots and political leaders remained mute, indifferent witnesses for decades?"
And then he proceeds to question of INA treasure, whether he intends that its a clue to answers, or otherwise.
But something of this magnitude is far beyond the question of what happened to INA treasure, without any insinuation that the treasure wasn't humongous - which it was, especially when one factors in the consideration that it represents the personal sacrifices of expat Indians, who aren't home and must find for themselves, working hard; and even more, their loyalty to Netaji and to India, in giving him everything they could, gor sake of freedom of India, and the war he promised them for the cause.
As huge as this is, the point about hiding knowledge of existence of Netaji Subhas Chandra Bose, and possibility of bringing him back, instead of attempting to fo so gor sake of the colleague and the nation, is the huge crime that is difficult to reconcile with an image of a noble, honest person who went by heart rather than diplomacy or politics, the image one is familiar with since early sixties.
Much of the image is true, but the glass lays shattered in shards, unable to hold against his actions - regarding Netaji, regarding Tibet, regarding China.
................................................................................................
Blunder–113 :
Nehru & Netaji’s Stolen War Chest
"No freedom fighter could raise as much amount as Netaji Subhas did. He appealed to the patriotism of an estimated two million Indians in erstwhile British colonies conquered by Japanese allies for donations to finance his government-in-exile and the Indian National Army (INA). Netaji’s personality, his emotive speeches and his unswerving commitment to Indian independence moved the diaspora. Numerous housewives gave away their gold in the cause of freedom. Reportedly, one Habib Sahib gifted all his property of over a crore of rupees; and VK Chelliah Nadar, a Rangoon-based businessman and an INA funder, deposited Rs 42 crores and 2,800 gold coins in the Azad Hind Bank!
"After Rangoon, where Azad Hind Bank was headquartered, fell to the Allies in 1945, Netaji retreated to Bangkok on 24 April 1945 carrying with him the treasury, including gold bars and ornaments, in steel boxes. Japan surrendered to the Allied Powers on 15 August 1945, and the 40,000-strong INA followed suit. On 18 August 1945 Netaji boarded a Japanese bomber in Saigon bound for Manchuria, carrying the INA treasure, along with his aide Habibur Rahman. The plane reportedly crashed in Taiwan. The retrieved treasure from the crash site was handed over by the Japanese army to SA Ayer and M Rama Murti of the IIL (Indian Independence League— which had come under Netaji) at Tokyo.
"Local Indians in Tokyo suspected that Rama Murti and SA Aiyer had jointly defalcated the INA treasure— there was enough circumstantial evidence. Inexplicably , India did nothing to get back the treasure, and rather than setting up an enquiry or hauling up Murti and Aiyer, the government absorbed Aiyer as a director of publicity with the Bombay state, while Murti lead an affluent life-style in Tokyo, in sharp contrast to the devastation all around.
"Sir Benegal Rama Rau, the first head of the Indian liaison mission in Tokyo, wrote to the MEA (Ministry of External Affairs), headed by the PM Nehru himself, in India on 4 December 1947 alleging that the INA treasure had been embezzled by Murti. Strangely, the MEA responded it could not be interested in the INA funds! It seems it wasn’t just a case of indifference, it was much more than that.
"KK Chettur, who headed the Tokyo mission/ embassy during 1951-52, took up the matter of misappropriation of the INA treasure vigorously. (Incidentally, Jaya Jaitley is Chettur’s daughter. She has penned an excellent, worth-reading article “# NehruSnooped: Truth behind Netaji files” in the connection.{URL67}) ... "
Was that the clue to the fraudulent penalisation of the honest duo, Jaya Jaitley and the very well known George Fernandes, when their socialist party was part of a BJP led government with a scandalous expose by Tehelka (which has closed foundation after the two sensational bits, both frauds) insinuating a favour for moneybags? Her article certainly was drowned in the loud publicity by the then dominant media appropriately named Lutyens media since.
" ... In response, the government sent SA Aiyer on a secret mission to Tokyo. He advised collection of the retrieved treasury from Murti saying it was in his safe custody. Chettur suspected Aiyer-Murti collusion in returning part amount just to close the matter. He recommended to the government a thorough probe in the matter on 22 June 1951. But, nothing came of it. ... "
That is already suspect behaviour on part of the government of India, but then the rest - being uninterested in identification of ashes, lying about Netaji’s living, not bringing him home with honour, setting spies after Bose clan, ... is all far more depth of abominable conduct.
" ... The Indian embassy collected whatever there was at Murti's residence as the INA treasure in October 1951. The same was secretly brought into India from Japan, and was also inspected by Nehru who reportedly made a snide comment: “poor show”. ... "
This alone is enough to condemn an elected, supposedly beloved leader, for complete kick of appreciation for what the treasure represented - blood and sweat of expats who worked hard away from home and homeland, but gave it all for sake of the homeland they'd left behind, to someone they trusted hen he called for freedom of the homeland that was in their hearts!
Even as children then, we were impressed with stories of brides in 1962 October-November taking off and donating all their jewellery to the then Prime Minister for the Army! But he first appreciate the INA treasure?
" ... Nehru quoted from Aiyer's report in the parliament in 1952 affirming Netaji’s death in an air crash in Taipei. Aiyer was later appointed adviser, integrated publicity programme, for the Five Year Plan."
This is the unforgivable lie.
If it's because he was afraid he'd vanish in the light of the hero presumed dead, if he returned, perhaps that was correct estimate; but by lying, and not making an effort to bring him back, he's compounded it unnecessarily. If he hadn't, nation would be grateful, and the two together would make India tower in strength, with no debacle in 1962, but instead Perhaps a free Tibet.
Instead, now, Netaji has risen as a towering figure of light - and Jawaharlal Nehru’s image recedes in dark, not only his good points but his very person forgotten.
Even his own family member then leading his party in a coalition government had to reprimanded by an opposition member of Parliament for publicly stating that her government was the best that the nation, India, had ever had!
But that's only a small drop in the well, where now the current leading members of the branch of his descendents are noticed, and name of Jawaharlal Nehru invoked by coterie only to assert on internet a claim of a descendent to the position of PM, as if India were a monarchy!
"RD Sathe, an undersecretary in the MEA, wrote a two-page secret note on 1 November 1951 titled “INA Treasures and their handling by Messrs Ayer and Ramamurthi” pointing out the circumstances of the mysterious disappearance of the massive INA treasure and the highly suspicious role of Aiyar-Murti duo; and the token return of a paltry portion from it that raised even more questions. Sathe’s note was signed by Jawaharlal Nehru on 5 November 1951 in token of having read it.{AD} But, like the earlier notes of Rau and Chettur, Sathe’s note too was just filed away by the Nehru’s government. However, the matter refused to die.
"The Indian ambassador in Tokyo, AK Dar, sent a four-page secret note to the MEA in 1955 advocating a public inquiry into the matter of the disappearance of the INA treasure. He opined that even if the government was not able to get the treasure back, at least the culprits or the likely culprits would be known. He further said that the government’s 10-year long indifference in the matter had not only helped the guilty party escape, but had done injustice to the great work and sacrifice of Netaji. Even the Shah Nawaz Committee set up in 1956 to probe Netaji's disappearance had recommended an inquiry into all the assets of Netaji's government-in-exile including the INA treasure.
"Yet Nehru did nothing! And , that’s baffling. It was not a small amount. The total treasure, had it been recovered, would have been worth several hundred crore rupees today . Was Nehru’s government protecting the embezzlers? Why did Nehru’s government accommodate a suspect embezzler SA Aiyar in the government service, and even depute him on a secret mission, as mentioned above ? Was Aiyar’s report confirming death of Netaji a quid-pro-quo? Was Nehru afraid Aiyar-Murti duo may spill the beans on the alleged fiction of Netaji’s death in the air-crash if they were hauled up? Anuj Dhar’s book on the subject ‘India’s Biggest Cover-up’{AD} is worth reading."
Strangely, Puranik doesn't quote from the book regarding a pair of trunks filled with gold and diamond jewellery, worth then Rs 2 crore and 22 ctore respectively, brought to India and, under orders directly from PM Jawaharlal Nehru, taken straight to his home - after which it was credited to his account, and the matter never mentioned again, while - when questioned in parliament - Nehru said it was some "cheap, broken" gold and diamond pieces of jewellery, not worth bother.
................................................................................................
Blunder–114 :
Gross Ill-Treatment of INA
"The Indian National Army (INA) or the Azad Hind Fauj was an armed force formed by Indian nationalists under the leadership of Netaji Subhas Bose in Southeast Asia during World War II to secure Indian independence. “Jai Hind” was coined by Netaji and later adopted by the Government of India and the Indian Armed Forces."
That isn't all. Choice of the national anthem, Jana Gana Mana, too, was by Subhash Chandra Bose as one who was forming INA, and it was first sung in Germany; both, later adopted by government of India - due to immense popularity of, and support for, INA, by people of India? - not only without thanks to Netaji, but without even referring to his part in the selection and adaption of the two, the anthem and the greeting.
"There are reasonable grounds to believe that the Subhas Bose INA’s military onslaught on the British and the INA Red Fort trials of 1945-46 and its consequences (mutinies in the armed forces) were a major factor in the British decision to quit India, and not the Quit India movement (which had petered off in 1942 in a few months) of Congress. ... "
"Yet, Nehru and Congress had all through opposed Subhas and INA. A lot is made of Nehru donning his lawyer’s robes to fight for INA soldiers in their trial by the British in 1945. The reality was that elections were imminent, and INA and Bose being the people’s favourites, Congress and Nehru wanted to get cheap popularity by projecting themselves as pro-INA. Says Anuj Dhar in ‘India’s Biggest Cover-up’{AD}:
"“Captain Badhwar reported that the Congress leaders’ turnaround had little to do with any love for their ousted former president [Bose] or the people who fought under his command... He [Asaf Ali— CWC member] travelled across India and discovered that people were overwhelmingly in support of the INA. ‘This inflamed feeling forced Congress to take the line it did,’ Badhwar said... Ali was positive that as and when Congress came to power, they ‘would have no hesitation in removing all INA from the Services and even in putting some of them to trial.’... The top Congress leadership’s duplicitous disapproval of Bose and INA was exposed by numerous pre-1947 statements made by its leaders, especially Nehru.”{AD}"
"Strangely, but expectedly, while Nehru made a big show of being a part of the Defence Committee to defend the INA veterans Colonel Prem Sahgal, Colonel Gurubaksh Singh Dhillon, and Major General Shah Nawaz Khan (for the sake of votes in the ensuing elections) in the Red Fort Trials of 1945– 46, after independence Nehru as PM refused to reinstate them in the army— hypocrisy unlimited!
"As expected from Nehru and the Congress, rather that honouring and rewarding them, the INA-veterans were debarred from the Indian Army by the Government of independent India! Why? Because, that was the way the British and Mountbatten wanted, as INA soldiers had fought against them. And, Nehru being an anglophile and a chela of his guru Mountbatten , faithfully carried out the British bidding. Reportedly, Mountbatten (as Supreme Allied Commander, South East Asia then) even went to the extent of dynamiting the INA Memorial in Singapore in 1945. As per the author Anuj Dhar, Lord Mountbatten stated: “I was able to persuade Nehru not to lay the wreath on the pro-Japanese Indian National Army [of Subhas Bose at Singapore]. ... this was the beginning of a deep friendship between Jawaharlal Nehru and Edwina and me.”{Tw10}
"The above was in sharp contrast to Jinnah who had inducted Muslim INA soldiers into the Pakistani army."
Anuj Dhar mentions Habibur Rahman being part of the contingent attacking India in an earlier war after partition. He was loyal to Netaji and never varied from the story about death in Sir crash that he was asked to convey.
"The INA personnel remained ineligible for the Freedom Fighters Pension till 1972. Captain Ram Singh Thakur (1914–2002) was an INA soldier of Nepali origin. He was also a musician and a composer. His famous patriotic compositions include "Kadam Badhaye Ja, khushi kē geet gāējā, yēzīndagi hai qâum kī, tū qâum pēlūtāējā..." and "Subh Sukh Chain". His final years were difficult. He was also initially denied the status of a freedom fighter by the government.
"In sharp contrast to the above, Free India’s Nehru Government paid pensions to the British-Raj Era officials for their “services” (keeping India colonised) to pre-Independent British India!{Tw3}
"Even more significantly, rather shockingly, post-Independence too India’s Nehru Government paid pension to the British-Era SSP Naut Bawar, who was one of the British police officers of Prayagraj who had shot dead Chandrashekhar Azad (at Alfred Park), the pioneer of Bharatiya Independence, and one of the genuine, greatest Indian freedom fighters and revolutionaries.{Tw9}"
................................................................................................
Blunder–115 :
Ill-Treatment of Netaji Bose
" ... Nehru’s Government had been so hostile that in 1947 it refused to put up Netaji’s portrait in the Parliament House. In a confidential memo dated 11 February 1949 under the signature of Major General PN Khandoori the government recommended: “The photos of Netaji Subhas Chandra Bose be NOT displayed at prominent places, Unit Lines, Canteens, Quarter Guards or Recreation rooms.”{URL58}
"By burying India’s true national freedom hero in the pages of history, Nehru, the Congress, and the “eminent”Marxist-Nehruvian Sarkari historians demonstrated unpardonable ingratitude. The book ‘Judgment: No Aircrash No Death’{ MA}, co-authored by Lt Manwati Arya of the Rani Jhansi Regiment of the erstwhile INA, details how Nehru had cold-shouldered all attempts at unearthing the truth behind Netaji Subhas's death; and how the Nehru government left no stone unturned to banish all records of contributions of Netaji. In her book, Lt. Manwati Arya says that during her talks in All India Radio (AIR), she was briefed by her programme producers, without fail, about the national policy against any reference to the INA, including the name of Netaji.{ URL58}
"This is from the foreword of S Nijalingappa to the book, ‘Inside Story of Sardar Patel— The Diary of Maniben Patel: 1936-50’: “Strangely, however, while the collected works of many other leaders [notably, Nehru and Gandhi] have been published by the government since Independence, the collected or selected works of two foremost leaders, namely Sardar Patel and Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose, were never taken up by any official agency...”{Mani}"
................................................................................................
Blunder–116 :
Ill-Treatment of Bhagat Singh & Azad
"Despite popular requests to make sparing the life of Shahid Bhagat Singh and others a condition in the on-going negotiations between Gandhi and the Viceroy Irwin , the Gandhi– Irwin Pact signed on 5-March-1931 remained silent on the matter, and Gandhi and the Congress under Nehru as President did effectively precious little to save the braves. Revolutionary Sukhdev, who had not pleaded for himself and his colleagues, wrote an open letter to Gandhi in March 1931 after the Gandhi-Irwin Pact:
"“Since your compromise (Gandhi-Irwin pact) you have called off your movement and consequently all of your prisoners have been released. But, what about the revolutionary prisoners? Dozens of Ghadar Party prisoners imprisoned since 1915 are still rotting in jails; in spite of having undergone the full terms of their imprisonments, scores of martial law prisoners are still buried in these living tombs, and so are dozens of Babbar Akali prisoners. Deogarh, Kakori, Machhua Bazar and Lahore Conspiracy Case prisoners are amongst those numerous still locked behind bars. More than half a dozen conspiracy trials are going on at Lahore, Delhi, Chittagong, Bombay, Calcutta and elsewhere. Dozens of revolutionaries are absconding and amongst them are many females. More than half a dozen prisoners are actually waiting for their executions. What about all of these people? The three Lahore Conspiracy Case condemned prisoner (Bhagat Singh, Sukhdev, Rajguru), who have luckily come into prominence and who have acquired enormous public sympathy, do not form the bulk of the revolutionary party…”{ URL60}"
"The above letter had no effect on Gandhi. ... "
Far more likely, he was relieved his grip on power over India was likely to get better - the revolutionaries had changed that, and he'd done the salt march to divert India's attention away from revolutionaries, as he confessed to someone.
" ... The British India Viceroy Lord Irwin recorded in his notes dated 19 March 1931: “While returning Gandhiji asked me if he could talk about the case of Bhagat Singh, because newspapers had come out with the news of his slated hanging on March 24th. It would be a very unfortunate day because on that day the new president of the Congress had to reach Karachi and there would be a lot of hot discussion. I explained to him that I had given a very careful thought to it but I did not find any basis to convince myself to commute the sentence. It appeared he found my reasoning weighty.”{URL71}"
Reasoning????? Where's that? One could just as well speak of reasoning behind extermination camps in Germany or Slavery in confederate South.
"From the above it appears Gandhi was bothered more about the embarrassment that would be faced by the Congress with Bhagat Singh’s hanging than by the hanging itself. The British “justice” system could allow the British mass-murderer of Jallianwala Bagh to get away scot free, and the British could even generously reward him for that brutality; but people like Bhagat Singh who protested against those brutal acts deserved to be hanged; and Gandhi’s abstruse artefact (Was it deliberately abstruse to allow for self-serving flexibility!) of “non-violence” was comfortable with such a position ! Gandhi wrote in Young India the following after Bhagat Singh’s martyrdom: “This mad worship of Bhagat Singh has done and is doing incalculable harm to the country. Caution has been thrown to the winds, and the deed of murder is being worshipped as if it was worthy of emulation. The result is brigandage and degradation.”"
"Gandhi used to report back each day’s discussions and agreements with Irwin to the CWC members in the evening; and all agreements were with their concurrence. If Gandhi and the CWC had so desired they could have refused to further proceed with the talks with the Viceroy if he was not agreeable to deal with Shahid Bhagat Singh and colleagues differently. Nehru was the Congress president then, serving his second consecutive term. As Nehru was young then and used to pose as a firebrand leftist-socialist freedom fighter, people had tremendous hope from him that he would leave no stone unturned to save Shahid Bhagat Singh, Rajguru and Sukhdev. But, Nehru did nothing."
He must have known he couldn't competed with that young bunch of, not only firebrands, but very true to creed and logical revolutionaries, who'd have eclipsed Congress in no time.
"Chandrashekhar Azad had met Nehru secretly at Nehru’s residence ‘Anand Bhavan’ at Allahabad in February 1931 to know if Gandhi and the Congress would do something in the ongoing Gandhi-Irwin talks to save Bhagat Singh, Rajguru and Sukhdev from gallows. Rather than doing the needful for Bhagat Singh and others as urged by Azad, the casual and disrespectful way Nehru wrote about his meeting with Chandrashekhar Azad in his autobiography is not just disappointing, it is disturbing . Here are some extracts:
"“I remember a curious incident about that time, which gave me an insight into the mind of the terrorist group [How he calls them: not freedom fighters, but terrorists!] in India… A stranger came to see me at our house, and I was told that he was Chandrasekhar Azad [even though Azad was famous by then, and there is no way Nehru wouldn’t have known him]… He had been induced to visit me because of the general expectation (owing to our release) that some negotiations between the Government and the Congress were likely. He wanted to know, if, in case of a settlement, his group of people would have any peace. Would they still be considered and treated as outlaws; hunted from one place to place, with a price on their heads, and the prospect of the gallows ever before them? [Would people like Azad plead like this?]…”{JN2}{URL39}"
"Chandrashekhar Azad had shot himself with his last bullet at the Alfred Park in Allahabad on 27 February 1931, after he was surrounded, and had valiantly defended himself and his colleague. An informer had tipped the police. Incidentally, as described above Azad had met Nehru earlier at ‘Anand Bhavan’."
Meaning, Nehru informed, just as he did later on Netaji?
"Batukeshwar Dutt had exploded bombs, along with Bhagat Singh, in the Central Legislative Assembly in New Delhi on 8 April 1929. He was awarded life imprisonment, and was deported to the Cellular Jail in the Andamans (Kaalapani). Dutt contracted tuberculosis either during his time in the Cellular Jail, or after his release. Despite that, he participated in Quit India, and was again jailed for four years in Motihari Jail in Champaran district of Bihar.
"He died on 20 July 1965 after a long illness, and was cremated in Hussainiwala near Firozepur in Punjab where the bodies of his colleagues Bhagat Singh, Rajguru, and Sukhdev were also cremated many years before. Independent India under the Nehru Dynasty accorded him and his family no help or recognition! Nehru could go out his way for persons like Lady Edwina Mountbatten (please check Blunder# 127), but remained either indifferent or downright vindictive towards many patriots, revolutionaries, and freedom fighters ... "
................................................................................................
Blunder–117 :
Ill-Treatment of Veer Savarkar
"Savarkar’s case is unique, shocking , and painful for all patriots , and well-meaning people. He suffered the most and brutally in the British jails (Kaalapani). As if that was not enough, independent India under Nehru again threw him into jail by framing a false case, and defamed him!
"What did Savarkar get for all his sacrifices? Humiliation! It was doubly humiliating because the humiliation was inflicted not by the British, but by Independent India— that too by framing false charges against him. What could be worse? Top Gandhian leaders who were well-treated in the British jails (Blunder# 13) leveraged all their “sacrifices” to grab power and pelf post-independence, but people like Savarkar who were horribly treated in the British jails, and who gave their all (and who were far more erudite, wise and capable than most top Gandhians) were humiliated, defamed, ignored and forgotten.
"Vinayak Damodar Savarkar (1883–1966), aka Swatantryaveer Savarkar, was a freedom fighter, poet, writer, playwright, forceful orator, rationalist, atheist, and reformer, who vigorously advocated end of Hindu caste-system, and strongly disapproved of orthodox Hindu beliefs and practices. He built the Patit Pavan Mandir in Ratnagiri, open to the all, including Dalits. A section of orthodox Brahmins of Maharashtra opposed his reform; but he earned praise and respect from Dr BR Ambedkar. Savarkar was a multi-talented personality, who had also coined the terms that have been in common usage since: ‘Chitrapat’, ‘Doordarshan’, ‘Nirdeshak’, ‘Sampadak’, ‘Mahapaur’, ‘Parshad’, etc.
"Savarkar became a revolutionary while a student in India and England. In London, he was associated with the ‘India House’ set up by the revolutionary Shyamji Krishna Varma. He founded ‘Abhinav Bharat Society’ and the ‘Free India Society’. He also brought out publications espousing the cause of complete independence of India by revolutionary means. His famous book ‘1857— First War of Independence’ had so much rattled the British that they had put a ban on it, confiscating all its copies within six months of its release.
"Arrested in 1910 for his revolutionary activities, he made a daring attempt to escape while being transported from Marseilles, France. With constable waiting outside, Savarkar entered the toilet, broke the window, wriggled out somehow, and jumped into the ocean from a sailing ship to swim his way to Marseilles port. His friends (including Madam Bhikaiji Cama) were supposed to pick him up there, but they were late by a few minutes, and the French Police caught him and returned him to the British cops—chained and under stricter watch.
"He was sentenced to two life terms of imprisonment totalling fifty years! He was imprisoned in the Cellular Jail in the Andaman and Nicobar Islands (Kaalapani), and treated cruelly and inhumanly—in sharp contrast to the VIP treatment accorded to Gandhi, Nehru, and the top Gandhians in jails. He must have been the first poet in the world to have been deprived of pen and paper in a jail—while Nehru wrote all his books in jails, having been provided with liberal and conducive facilities by the British jailers. Savarkar improvised and used thorns and nails to compose his writings on prison walls.
"Notably, VD Savarkar’s elder brother, Babarao Savarkar, was also a revolutionary who was lodged in the Cellular Jail in Kaalapani. His younger brother too was a revolutionary. It was a family of brave patriots and revolutionaries.
"Shahid Bhagat Singh, Rajguru and Chandrashekhar Azad were admirers of the Savarkar family, and drew inspiration from them. Revolutionary Madanlal Dhingra who shot Sir Wyllie in London in 1909 after a failed assassination attempt on the then Viceroy Lord Curzon was a keen follower of Savarkar.
"Savarkar was elected president of the Hindu Mahasabha in 1937, and served in that post till 1943. After the Muslim League’s Pakistan Resolution of 1940 Savarkar could foresee the problems ahead for Hindus in India, and wanted Hindus to be militarily well-equipped. Therefore, rather than the ‘Quit India 1942’, Savarkar gave a call to the Hindus to take advantage of the opportunity of getting militarily trained by joining the army in the British war effort in WW-II. Fortunately, a very large number of Hindus responded to Savarkar’s call, and joined the British army— finally making it Hindu-majority. That helped tremendously after partition and independence, providing a large army to India, the Muslims in the army having mostly opted for Pakistan. Unlike Gandhi and Nehru, Savarkar knew what a country of the size of India needed to defend itself. Dr Ziauddin Ahmed, the then VC of AMU, had indeed raised an alarm on the increasing number of Hindus enlisting in the armed forces, thereby reducing the proportion of Muslims. But for Savarkar’s whirlwind recruitment drive during WW-II, Pakistan, after partition, would have had 60– 70% of the soldiers, enough to overwhelm India in the border areas in a conflict— this debt to Savarkar is sadly unacknowledged."
"Hindu Mahasabha activists protested Gandhi holding talks with Jinnah in 1944, denouncing it as appeasement. Savarkar considered Gandhi a naive leader and a sissy. He stated that although Gandhi “babbled compassion and forgiveness”, he “has a very narrow and immature head”.
"Savarkar was years ahead of Gandhi-Nehru on many counts. Gandhi, Nehru and the Congress gave a call for complete independence for India very late at the end of 1929, what Savarkar had called for way back in 1900! Bonfire of foreign clothes on which the Gandhians claim copyright was performed much earlier by Savarkar in 1905, later copied by Gandhi. Upon creation of Pakistan, Savarkar had rightly predicted: “Till a nation based on religious fanaticism exists beside India she won’t ever be able to live in peace.”
"In the 1930s and later, when the Muslims of East Bengal (now Bangladesh) began migrating to Brahmaputra valley in Assam for livelihood, pooh-poohing the grave warnings from sane quarters, pseudo-secular, naive Nehru made an irresponsible statement: “Nature abhors vacuum, meaning where there is open space how can one prevent people from settling there?” Savarkar responded with his masterly prediction: “Nature also abhors poisonous gas. The migration of such large numbers of Muslims in Assam threatened not just the local culture but would also prove to be a national security problem for India on its north-east frontier.”"
"Savarkar, in a statement on 19 December 1947, heartily supported an independent Jewish state; and demanded restoration to the Jews their entire historical holy land and Fatherland of Palestine. Terming it as an appeasement to Muslims by Nehru, he expressed regret at India's vote against the creation of the Jewish state at the UN ... "
"Noting China’s invasion of Tibet in 1950, and Nehru’s weak-kneed policy, Savarkar had predicted in 1954 itself: “After what China has done to Tibet, kowtowing to the Chinese would whet its appetite. I won’t be surprised if China feels emboldened to swallow Indian land tempted by India’s weak-kneed approach.”"
"Savarkar became a fierce critic of the Indian National Congress. No wonder an all-out attempt was made to falsely implicate him in the Gandhi Murder Case. Manohar Malgaonkar, after extensive research, published ‘The Men Who Killed Gandhi’{Mal} in 1977. He does not point to any guilt on Savarkar's part. Here is an extract from the author's introduction in the book:
"“... Dr Bhimrao Ambedkar’s secret assurance to Mr. L.B. Bhopatkar, that his client, Mr V.D. Savarkar had been implicated as a murder-suspect on the flimsiest grounds . Then again, certain other pertinent details such as the ‘doctoring’ of a confession by a magistrate whose duty it was only to record what was said only came out in later years...”
"Malgaokar's book also states:{Mal} “Why were the police so anxious to implicate Savarkar? Was it merely that, having failed in their proper function to arrest Nathuram before he killed Gandhi, they were making a bid to save face by raising the bogey of some sensational plot which involved a big leader who, providentially happened to be in bad odour with the government of the day? Or was that government itself, or some powerful group in it, using the police agency to destroy a rival political organization or at least to destroy a fiercely uncompromising opposition stalwart?
"“Or, again, was the whole thing a manifestation of some form of phobia peculiar to India, religious, racial, linguistic, or provincial, that made Savarkar a natural target for the venom of some section of society?
"“... Savarkar being made an accused in the Gandhi-murder trial may well have been an act of political vendetta. Of course, Badge [approver who implicated Savarkar], on his track record is a slippery character and not to be relied upon, but he was most insistent to me that he had been forced to tell lies, and that his pardon and future stipend by the police department in Bombay depended upon his backing the official version of the case and, in particular that, he never saw Savarkar talking to Apte, and never heard him telling them: ‘Yeshaswi houn ya.’"
"“...[ Dr BR Ambedkar confided to Bhopatkar, Savarkar's lawyer:] ‘There is no real charge against your client; quite worthless evidence has been concocted. Several members of the cabinet were strongly against it, but to no avail. Even Sardar Patel could not go against these orders. But, take it from me, there just is no case. You will win.’…”{Mal}"
"It seems Nehru leveraged the emotions against the assassination of Gandhi to fix Savarkar, and ensured that no one came in the way— not even senior cabinet colleagues: they must have been wary lest they be accused or defamed of trying to protect an accomplice in Gandhi-assassination."
Was that when he began to lose respect?
"Malgaokar's further wrote:{Mal}
"“He [Savarkar] was sixty-four years old, and had been ailing for a year or more. He was detained on 6 February 1948, and remained in prison for the whole of the year which the investigation and the trial took. He was adjudged ‘not guilty’ on 10 February 1949. The man who had undergone twenty-six years of imprisonment or detention under the British for his part in India’s struggle for freedom was thus slung back into jail for another year the moment that freedom came…”
"Appa Kasar , the bodyguard of Veer Savarkar was arrested by the police and tortured brutally— nails of his hands and toes were pulled out— to force his evidence against Savarkar.{W.n3}"
And we didn't believe accusations of fascism against state!
"It has been reported that in the wake of the assassination of Gandhi, and the rumours that got floated, a mob went on a rampage against Savarkar in Mumbai. Yet, the state government then under the Congress made no arrangements to ensure security for Savarkar (who was bed-ridden) and his kin. His family members and friends had to somehow defend his house using sticks when the mob attacked it. In the process, his younger brother Dr Narayanrao Savarkar (also a freedom fighter) was seriously injured, and later succumbed to his injuries.{W.n3}
"Savarkar was arrested on 5 February 1948 but till 23 March ( for 46 days) he was not allowed to meet his wife or his only son.{W.n3}
"The ‘democratic’and ‘freedom-loving’‘cultured’Nehru tried to destroy all those who were opposed to him. Although the court acquitted Savarkar, he was so defamed that he could not rise again. After his acquittal, Savarkar was arrested by the government for making ‘militant Hindu nationalist speeches’, and was released after agreeing to give up political activities—what then was the difference between the British India and Nehru’s Independent India! Nehru had forbidden the Congress members to participate in any public function honouring Savarkar; and had refused to share the stage with him during the centenary celebrations of India's First War of Independence (which was called so for the first time by none other than Savarkar in his book that was banned by the British).
"Savarkar renounced medicines, food and water with effect from 1 February 1966, terming it as atmaarpan (fast until death). He died on 26 February 1966. Not a single minister from the Maharashtra or Central Cabinet showed up at the cremation ground to pay homage to Savarkar. The Speaker of the Parliament turned down a request that it pay homage to Savarkar.
"After the death of Nehru, Lal Bahadur Shastri, as PM, approved payment of monthly pension to Savarkar, like it was done for other freedom fighters. In 1970, Indira Gandhi’s government issued a postal stamp in honour of Veer Savarkar. The commemorative blue plaque on India House, London fixed by the Historic Building and Monuments Commission for England reads ‘Vinayak Damodar Savarkar 1883-1966 Indian patriot and philosopher lived here’. The airport at Port Blair, the capital of Andaman & Nicobar, has since been named as Veer Savarkar International Airport. It was in February 2003 when the NDA government was in power that the portrait of Swatantryaveer Savarkar was put up in the Central Hall of Parliament— Congress Party MPs boycotted the function, without ever offering a public explanation for their disgraceful behaviour. There has been a demand that Savarkar should be conferred the Bharat Ratna posthumously."
................................................................................................
Blunder–118 :
Ill-Treatment of Sardar Patel
"Jayaprakash Narayan (JP), a socialist, used to be in Nehru’s camp. After independence the socialists had been plotting to unseat Patel from his post as Home Minister. JP had commented: “A man of 74 [Sardar Patel] has the department of which even a man of 30 would find it difficult to bear the burden.” Mridula Sarabhai, who was close to Nehru , had launched a whisper campaign for Sardar’s resignation. It is difficult to believe that the campaigns of both JP and Mridula did not have the blessings of Nehru, both being close to him.{Mak/ 129}
"Later, in 1972, JP regretted his actions: “Rajaji once unburdened his heart by publicly confessing to a wrong he had done to Sardar Patel. I find myself in a similar situation: the dominant feeling within me today is one of self-reproach, because during his lifetime, I was not merely a critic, but an opponent of the Great Sardar.”{BK/ 243}
"Wrote Brig. BN Sharma: “… he [Nehru] could be down-right petty to others. His silent encouragement of a whispering campaign branding Patel as fascist is too well known.”{BNS/ 402}
"After the death of Gandhi the only impediment to Nehru’s dictatorship was Patel, and Nehru did all he could to dent his position. Patel’s death had removed the only brake on Nehru. Nehru& Dynasty saw to it that Bharat Ratna was never awarded to Sardar Patel ... "
"When Sardar died in Mumbai, Nehru (who did attend the funeral), advised the then President, Dr Rajendra Prasad, to not attend the funeral{ DD/ 305}—the reason given by him was that as per the protocol, President need not attend funerals of ministers! So he treated Sardar Patel as a mere minister—what arrogance! A disgraceful attitude, particularly when Sardar Patel had so selflessly supported him, even though Nehru had most undemocratically usurped the PM’s post from him. But, of course, Rajendra Prasad went. Sardar was not just the Deputy PM, but was Rajendra Prasad's colleague of many, many years in the Independence Struggle.
"Wrote Stanley Wolpert: “Gandhi’s death reunited Nehru and Patel. Their reconciliation not only saved Congress and India’s central government from collapse, but it kept Nehru in power. Without the Sardar’s strength and support Nehru might have broken down or been forced out of high office. Vallabhbhai ran India’s administration for the next two years [before his death] while Nehru indulged mostly in foreign affairs ... "
"MKK Nair , an IAS officer who was close to both Sardar Patel and VP Menon, states in his book ‘The Story of an Era Told Without Ill-will’:
"“Incessant differences of opinion between Nehru and Patel caused Nehru to treat Patel with personal animosity . If… Nehru was not above harbouring personal hatred, he would not have done two things he did on the day Patel died. He sent two orders to the Home Ministry and they arrived at VP Menon’s desk. The first was that the Cadillac car that Patel used should be returned the very next morning to the Foreign Ministry. Patel died in Bombay. Nehru’s second memo asked officers who wished to attend his funeral to travel at their own expense. VP Menon called officers of his Ministry and, without divulging Nehru’s order, asked who all were interested to attend the funeral. About a dozen officers wanted to. He bought their air tickets at his expense. When Nehru learnt about it, he was annoyed even more.”{MKN} {Adv/ 157}"
"The above was confirmed when KM Munshi wrote: “When Sardar died in Bombay, Jawaharlal issued a direction to the Ministers and Secretaries not to go to Bombay to attend the funeral. Among the Ministers, I was in Matheran (Bombay) at the time. Sri NV Gadgil , Sri Satyanarayan Sinha and Sri VP Menon disregarded the direction and attended the funeral. Jawaharlal also requested [President Dr] Rajendra Prasad not to go to Bombay; it was a strange request, to which Rajendra Prasad did not accede.”{RNPS/ 45}"
"This is from the preface of ‘Patel–A Life’by Rajmohan Gandhi {RG/ ix}:
"“Falling in 1989, the centenary of Jawaharlal’s birth found expression on a thousand billboards, in commemorative TV serials, in festivals and on numerous other platforms. Occurring on October 31, 1975 … the Patel centenary was, by contrast, wholly neglected by official India and by the rest of the Establishment, and since then the curtain drawn on the life of one of modern India’s most remarkable sons has been occasionally and partially lifted…”{RG/ ix}"
"In the capital, in the prime area, you have Rajghat for Gandhiji, Shanti Van for Nehru, Shakti Sthal for Indira Gandhi, Veer Bhumi for Rajiv Gandhi, Vijay Ghat for Shastri, Kishan Ghat for Charan Singh , besides many museums or memorials for the Nehru-Gandhis, but no memorial to either Subhas Bose or to Sardar Patel in the capital, when next to Gandhiji the latter two deserve the highest respect! ... "
That's being corrected beginning the Republic Day, 2022.
"Nehru’s meanness and small-mindedness can be gauged from the fact that he made NO arrangements to have a portrait of Sardar Patel put up in the Central Hall of Parliament, like it was done for other prominent leaders. Apparently, he saw to it that such a portrait was not put up—he had done the same in case of Netaji Subhas Bose. It was Maharaja Jivaji Rao Scindia of Gwalior, who had since become the first Rajpramukh of Madhya Bharat, who felt much irked by that glaring (and, apparently, deliberate) omission, and presented a Sardar Patel’s portrait to be put up in the Central Hall of Parliament in 1954. The unveiling ceremony was performed by President Dr Rajendra Prasad.{ BK/ 427}
"This is from the foreword of S Nijalingappa to the book, ‘Inside Story of Sardar Patel— The Diary of Maniben Patel: 1936-50’{Mani}: “Strangely, however, while the collected works of many other leaders [notably , Nehru and Gandhi] have been published by the government since Independence, the collected or selected works of two foremost leaders, namely Sardar Patel and Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose, were never taken up by any official agency. It is for this reason that we constituted the Sardar Patel Society, had it registered, collected funds and published the Collected works of Sardar Patel in fifteen volumes...”{Mani}"
................................................................................................
Blunder–119 :
Ill-Treatment of Sardar Patel’s Daughter Maniben
"Maniben Patel, the only daughter of Sardar Patel, switched to khadi at a tender age of 16, and started working regularly at the Gandhi Ashram in Ahmedabad. Most of the garments that Sardar Patel wore after 1921 were woven out of the yarn made by Maniben. When just 17, she put all her gold bangles, earrings and other ornaments, gold wrist-watch, and jewels in a bundle of cloth and, after obtaining her father’s nod, deposited them in the cause of freedom at the Gandhi Ashram.
"Unlike Nehru’s daughter, Indira Gandhi, Maniben was a freedom fighter, who actively participated in the non-cooperation movements. During the Bardoli Satyagraha in 1928, she along with many other ladies helped out in the camps. For her active role in the Salt Satyagraha of 1930 and thereafter she was arrested and imprisoned on several occasions. In January 1932, she was arrested along with Kasturba Gandhi for defying a ban on meetings in Bardoli. She was released in May 1932, but was re-arrested in July 1932 for defying a ban in Kheda, and was sentenced to 15 months imprisonment, which she spent in Belgaum jail. For her role in arousing people in the villages in Rajkot she was arrested in December 1938. Gandhi was much impressed with her work, and had remarked that Maniben was showing her mettle; and that he had not seen another daughter like her. During Maniben’s stint in Sabarmati jail, Sardar Patel wrote to her daughter: “Look after all the other women prisoners, and see that they come out braver than when they went in…”.{ RG2/ L-3423}
"Under Gandhi’s “Selective Disobedience”, Maniben was arrested in December 1940 and sent to Belgaum jail. Released in May 1941, she again wished to court arrest, but Gandhi stopped her, looking to her frail health. Later, Maniben underwent prolonged imprisonment during the Quit India Movement of 1942. She was arrested along with Kasturba Gandhi in August 1942, and was in detention at the Aga Khan's Palace in Pune, where Gandhi was lodged. Maniben was released in March 1944. But, she was rearrested in May 1944 in Bardoli in Gujarat, and was sent to Surat jail. From Surat she was sent to Yerwada jail."
"Maniben didn’t get married, and served her father till his death in 1950. Here is a shocking episode relating to Maniben based on various sources, mainly ‘I too had a dream’, an autobiography of Dr Verghese Kurien of Anand Dairy fame.{VK1}
"Sardar Patel's wife, Jhaverba, had expired back in 1909, and he was being looked after by his daughter, Maniben, who chose not to get married. Maniben was a devoted patriot, and a dedicated Congress worker, who gave her all to the nation, and to the Freedom Struggle. Sardar Patel did not have any bank balances or property. Even though he was earning substantially as a very successful lawyer, once he got into the Freedom Movement, he gave up everything. Sardar was the very example of Gandhian simplicity. He used to say that, "Bapu has told that those in politics should not hold property, and I hold none." Such were the ideals then. Contrast this with the multi-crorepati leaders of today.
"When Sardar Patel expired, he had left nothing for his daughter. With Sardar no more, she had to vacate the house. She was left all alone to fend for herself, with no money and no house. Sardar had instructed her to give a bag and a book to Nehru upon his death.
"After Sardar’s death—which happened in Mumbai—Maniben dutifully went to Delhi, took an appointment with Nehru and met him. She handed over to him the bag and the book. It seems the book was an account book, and the bag contained rupees 35 lacs. After having done so, she waited for Nehru to express sympathy, enquire as to what she intended doing, where would she stay, her monetary position, whether she wanted anything, and what he could do for her. But, Nehru showed no interest and said nothing. After some time, she left disappointed.
"She returned to Ahmedabad to stay with a cousin. Neither Nehru, nor the Congress Party bothered about her well-being. Such was the fate of the lady who gave her all to the nation and of the daughter of a person who made India what it is today! Contrast this with the Nehru Dynasty, who enjoyed all the fruits, while others had made all the sacrifices."
................................................................................................
Blunder–120 :
Ill-Treatment of Dr Ambedkar
"Among the leaders of pre-independence times, none could come near Dr BR Ambedkar in academics, and in the quality and wisdom of his writings. If he was at number one, the rest started from number eleven. Ambedkar was BA–Economics & Political Science from Bombay University; MA– Economics from Columbia University, USA; MSc– Economics & Finance from London School of Economics ; PhD– Finance from Columbia University; DSc (Doctor of Science)–Economics from London School of Economics; and Barrister-at-Law from Gray’s Inn, London. Compare that with the lower second division graduation of Nehru— Nehru’s only degree.
"After independence, Ambedkar was invited to serve as the first Law Minister of India. He was also appointed Chairman of the Constitution Drafting Committee. He had remarked with pride: “The Hindus wanted the Vedas, and they sent for Vyasa, who was not a caste Hindu. The Hindus wanted an epic, and they sent for Valmiki, who was an untouchable. The Hindus want a Constitution, and they have sent for me.”{Mac/ 25}
"The logic, wisdom and analysis in Dr Ambedkar’s writings is impressive—far too superior to that of Nehru’s. In all relevant fields, Ambedkar was far more competent and knowledgeable than Nehru. He was also much wiser, and experienced, having handled important portfolios before independence.
"Here is an extract from the resignation letter of Dr Ambedkar from the Nehru’s cabinet dated 27 September 1951:{ Amb5}
"“As a result of my being a Member of the Viceroy’s Executive Council, I knew the Law Ministry to be administratively of no importance. It gave no opportunity for shaping the policy of the Government of India. We used to call it an empty soap box only good for old lawyers to play with. When the Prime Minister [not voluntarily, but at the instance of Gandhi] made me the offer [Law Minister], I told him that besides being a lawyer by my education and experience, I was competent to run any administrative Department and that in the old Viceroy’s Executive Council, I held two administrative portfolios, that of Labour and C.P.W.D., where a great deal of planning projects were dealt with by me and would like to have some administrative portfolio…The Prime Minister agreed and said he would give me in addition to Law the Planning Department which, he said, was intending to create. Unfortunately the Planning Department came very late in the day and when it did come, I was left out. During my time, there have been many transfers of portfolios from one Minister to another. I thought I might be considered for any one of them. But I have always been left out of consideration. Many Ministers have been given two or three portfolios so that they have been overburdened. Others like me have been wanting more work…
"“It is difficult to understand what is the principle underlying the distribution of Government work among Ministers which the Prime Minister follows. Is it capacity? Is it trust? Is it friendship? Is it pliability? I was not even appointed to be a member of main Committees of the Cabinet such as Foreign Affairs Committee, or the Defence Committee. When the Economics Affairs Committee was formed, I expected, in view of the fact that I was primarily a student of Economics and Finance, to be appointed to this Committee. But I was left out…”{ Amb5}"
"Rather than having him in the parliament and in the cabinet in a post suited to his genius, Nehru campaigned against him, and exerted his level best to have him defeated in the elections.
"In an article ‘A Case For Bhim Rajya’{URL59} in the Outlook magazine of 20 August 2012 the author S Anand describes a shocking incident:
"“Let us begin at the end, with one of the worst humiliations in Ambedkar’s life, less than three months before his death. On September 14, 1956, exactly a month before he embraced Buddhism with half-a-million followers in Nagpur, he wrote a heart- breaking letter to prime minister Nehru from his 26, Alipore Road residence in Delhi. Enclosing two copies of the comprehensive Table of Contents of his mnemonic opus, The Buddha and His Dhamma, Ambedkar suppressed pride and sought Nehru’s help in the publication of a book he had worked on for five years : ‘The cost of printing is very heavy and will come to about Rs 20,000. This is beyond my capacity, and I am, therefore, canvassing help from all quarters. I wonder if the Government of India could purchase 500 copies for distribution among the various libraries and among the many scholars whom it is inviting during the course of this year for the celebration of Buddha’s 2,500 years’ anniversary.’"
"“Ambedkar had perhaps gotten used to exclusion by then. The greatest exponent of Buddhism after Asoka had ruthlessly been kept out of this Buddha Jayanti committee presided over by S. Radhakrishnan, then vice president... Worse, when Nehru replied to Ambedkar the next day, he said that the sum set aside for publications related to Buddha Jayanti had been exhausted, and that he should approach Radhakrishnan, chairman of the commemorative committee. Nehru also offered some business advice, gratuitously: ‘I might suggest that your books might be on sale in Delhi and elsewhere at the time of Buddha Jayanti celebrations when many people may come from abroad. It might find a good sale then.’Radhakrishnan is said to have informed Ambedkar on phone about his inability to help him…
"“This is the vinaya that the prime minister and vice-president of the day extended to the former law minister and chairperson of the drafting committee of the Constitution. It was suggested with impertinence that Ambedkar could set up a stall, hawk copies and recover costs...”{URL59}"
"As long as the Nehru Dynasty was in power, the Ambedkar memorial in the capital was in bad shape. Writes Neha Bhatt in an article ‘A Fall Into Sear And Yellow Leaf’ in the Outlook magazine of 20 August 2012{URL59}: “The untended grounds of 26, Alipur Road, in New Delhi’s upscale Civil Lines neighbourhood, give a telling foretaste of the overall neglect of the building. It’s hard to believe that this is the Dr Ambedkar National Memorial, where the man spent his twilight years and breathed his last. The visitor’s book here reveals more than the walls themselves— scribbled in by the few visitors it receives, some all the way from Maharashtra, Haryana, Gujarat, are urgent requests, not only for a ‘better’ memorial, but for basic amenities like fans, lights and some ventilation.”{URL59}"
................................................................................................
Blunder–121 :
Ill-Treatment of Dr Shyama Prasad Mukherjee
"Dr Shyama Prasad Mukherjee (1901–1953) was the son of Sir Ashutosh Mukherjee (1864–1924), renowned as ‘Banglar Bagh’or the ‘Tiger of Bengal’. Ashutosh Mukherjee was a great educationist who had helped found many educational institutions like the Bengal Technical Institute, College of Science, University College of Law, and the Calcutta Mathematical Society, and had served as the Vice-Chancellor of the University of Calcutta during 1906–1914.
"Following in his father’s illustrious footsteps, Dr Shyama Prasad Mukherjee became the youngest Vice-Chancellor of the University of Calcutta at the age of 33 in 1934, and remained in that post till 1938. He was an eloquent speaker.
"He was elected to the Bengal Legislative Council in 1929 , and again in 1937. Disenchanted with the Congress, he joined the Hindu Mahasabha in 1939, along with NC Chatterjee. He was sworn in as Finance Minister of Bengal in 1941. He was elected as the first Indian President of the Royal Asiatic Society of Bengal in 1943. He was the Minister for Industry and Supply in Nehru's cabinet after independence, and joined the Congress. His performance was outstanding: Chittaranjan Locomotive Factory, Hindustan Aircraft Factory, and Sindri Fertilizer Works started under his leadership.
"But for his joint efforts, there would have been no Bengal in India— the whole of it would have gone to Pakistan: he ensured the partition of Bengal in 1947.
"He deplored Nehru’s handling of the East Bengal refugee problem and the Kashmir issue, and had serious differences with him. He opposed the Nehru-Liaquat Pact of 1950 (Blunder# 48), and in protest resigned from the cabinet, and left the Congress. He co-founded the Bhartiya Jan Sangh on 21 October 1951, and became its first President.
"On Kashmir, Dr Mukherjee wrote forthrightly to Nehru on various occasion in 1953:
"“One common feature of your speeches has been and is the abundance of abuses and vituperation which you have poured forth on those who differ from you. You have ascribed us all sorts of base motives and have even dubbed us as betrayers of the country’s interests. I have no desire to emulate you in this respect…[On communalism] This is most unfair charge and unconsciously you have been recently indulging in such attacks only to hide the weakness of your case. Our approach to the [Kashmir] problem is actuated by highest national and patriotic considerations... You will forgive me if I fail to appreciate your repeated reference to possible international complications as a result of Jammu movement. No one today will claim that your handling of the Kashmir problem has enhanced our international prestige or has won us wide international support or sympathy. On the other hand, your policy in this behalf has added to complications both at home and abroad…”{ Mak/ 429}"
"He opposed Article 370 related to J& K (Dr Ambedkar , Sardar Patel and others too had expressed their disapproval of it), and opposed the decision to grant Kashmir a special status with its own flag and Prime Minister, and according to which, no one, including the President of India, could enter into Kashmir without the permission of Kashmir's Prime Minister ! He coined a slogan: “Ek desh mein do Vidhan, do Pradhan aur do Nishan nahi challenge” (A single country can't have two constitutions , two prime ministers, and two national emblems).
"Wrote historian Makkhan Lal: “Strange as it may sound, the peoples’ demand for complete integration of Jammu and Kashmir with Indian Union and for one Constitution, one Flag and one Prime Minister should have been judged as ‘treason to the country’. Those who violated each and every agreement, who behaved treacherously and who made a mockery of Indian Constitution should have been called a ‘nationalist’! Only Jawaharlal Nehru could have done it.”{Mak/ 430-31}"
"In protest , Dr Mukherjee tried to enter Kashmir on 11 May 1953, but was arrested at the border, and was lodged in a run -down, dilapidated structure by the then PM(!!) of J& K Sheikh Abdullah! Reportedly, all this was in the knowledge of Nehru.
"Writes Tathagata Roy in his biography of SP Mukherjee:
"“Apparently, when Dr Mookerjee had made known his intention to visit Jammu, Sucheta Kripalani paid him a visit. Sucheta, it would be remembered, was Bengali, and had married Acharya J.B. Kripalani, and had assisted Gandhi during his visit to pogrom-affected Noakhali in 1946. This is what Madhok said (on tape): Sucheta Kripalani had told him, so many others had told him, that you won’t go, Nehru will not allow you to return safe from there. Dr Mookerjee told Sucheta, ‘I have no personal enmity against Nehru, I am working for a cause, why should he have any vendetta for me?’Then Sucheta told Dr Mookerjee, ‘You don’t know Nehru, I know Nehru, he looks upon you as his main rival and he will try to remove you from the field if he can and he is capable of anything.’”{ TR2}"
"Atal Behari Vajpayee, ex-PM, had accompanied (as a journalist) Dr Mukherjee up to the point he was arrested. He alleged in 2004:
"“When Mukherjee decided to violate the permit rule by entering J& K without a permit, we thought the Punjab government would arrest him and prevent him from proceeding further. However, that did not happen… Later, we came to know that the J& K government and Nehru government had entered into a conspiracy, as per which it was decided that Mukherjee would be allowed to enter J& K but not be allowed to leave…”{URL68}"
"Vajpayee alleged the then Nehru government feared that if Mukherjee was not allowed to enter J& K, questions would be raised on integration of the state with the country , which had several drawbacks, and therefore “the J& K government was told that he should not be allowed to come back”."
" ... Dr Mukherjee was held in detention for 42 days without bringing any charges or holding a trial. During that period dignitaries like Dr Radhakrishnan, Maulana Azad and Nehru visited Srinagar, but none bothered to meet Dr Mukherjee. Maulana Azad and Nehru were in Srinagar during 16-21 May 1953. So much for Nehru being considerate, cultured and humane!"
"Dr Mukherjee was already not in good health, and such deliberately inhuman treatment exacerbated his dry pleurisy and coronary (heart) troubles. So callous and cruel was the attitude of the J& K government and Sheikh Abdullah (and Nehru must have been fully aware of the goings on) that Dr Mukherjee was taken to a hospital full month and a half after his arrest! And, so careless and improper was the treatment that he was administered penicillin, even though he had informed the doctor-in-charge of his allergy to penicillin. Couldn’t Nehru have flown-in heart-specialists, or shifted him to New Delhi! Poor Dr Mukherjee, he succumbed to the ill-treatment on 23 June 1953.
"Such a major death, and that too in government custody, and yet no Enquiry Commission was set up, despite demands. Nehru stated dismissively that he had made enquiries, and was satisfied there was no wrong-doing. ... if there was no wrong-doing, he could have let an Enquiry Commission establish it. An enquiry into Dr Mukherjee’s death was demanded by stalwarts like Bengal CM BC Roy, MR Jayakar, PD Tandon, MV Kamath, H Kunjru, Sucheta Kripalani, NC Chatterjee, and Atulya Ghosh; and also by Ms Jogmaya Devi, mother of Dr Mookerjee , but Nehru obstinately turned a deaf ear. Several prominent personalities protested Nehru not conducting an enquiry, but Nehru was unmoved.
"Disgusted, Ms Jogmaya Devi, mother of Dr Mookerjee, finally wrote to Nehru:
"“It is futile to address to you further. You are afraid to face facts. I hold the Kashmir government responsible for the death of my son. I accuse your government of complicity in the matter. You may let loose your mighty resources to carry on a desperate propaganda, but truth is sure to find its way out and one day you will have to answer this to the people of India and to God in Heaven.”{Mak/ 439}"
"Significantly, within three months of Dr Mukherjee’s martyrdom , Nehru had eggs all over his face: Sheikh Abdullah had to be unseated and locked in jail!"
................................................................................................
Blunder–122 :
Ill-Treatment of Dr Rajendra Prasad
"Among the freedom fighters, Dr Rajendra Prasad had about the best academic record (barring Dr Ambedkar). He did his MA in Economics from the University of Calcutta. Impressed by his answers, an examiner had once commented on his answer sheet “examinee is better than examiner”.{Aru/ 159} He served as a professor in English, and as principal of a college. Later, while pursuing his law studies in Kolkata he also worked as Professor of Economics at Calcutta City College. He won gold medal in the examination of Masters of Law. He did his Doctorate in Law.
"He had a roaring law practice which he gave up at the peak of his career in the cause of freedom. Keeping his legal competence and suitability in mind, he was unanimously elected as the president of the Constituent Assembly. But, he was not a Nehru-camp follower. Nehru therefore tried his level best to sideline him. To scuttle Dr Rajendra Prasad’s chance to become the first president of India, Nehru had even bluffed! As per the book “Nehru: A Troubled Legacy”by a former intelligence officer RNP Singh, Nehru wrote to Rajendra Prasad on 10 September 1949 that he (Nehru) and Sardar Patel had decided that “the safest and best course”would be to have C Rajagopalachari as the first president of India, even though Nehru had never discussed the matter with Sardar Patel or obtained his concurrence. The bluff was exposed when Rajendra Prasad referred the issue to Patel. RNP Singh says: “Nehru had resorted to desperate measures to prevent Prasad from occupying the position of president and these measures included blatant lying.”{ RNPS/ 46}"
"Nehru didn’t want Dr Rajendra Prasad to get elected for the second term as the President of India in 1957. Towards that end he carried out a campaign, even alleging in his speeches that people in high positions have a tendency to cling to their posts— not realising the irony of that comment on himself! However, despite Nehru’s manoeuvrings, Dr Rajendra Prasad got re-elected.
"As per Durga Das, when Dr Rajendra Prasad was ill and it was suspected that he might not survive, Nehru was reported to have deputed Lal Bahadur Shastri, his trusted lieutenant, to search a place of funeral as far away as possible from that of Gandhi! Nehru didn’t want Dr Rajendra Prasad to get any prominence.{DD} However, Rajendra Prasad survived. When Dr Rajendra Prasad died in Bihar, and his funeral was held in Patna, Nehru did not attend, saying that he was busy with election campaign fund collection in Gujarat! That time Nehru had advised the then President Dr Radhakrishnan, “I do not see any reason for you to go.” Dr Radhakrishnan had replied: “No, I think I must go and attend the funeral. That respect is due to him and must be paid. I think you should give up your tour and come with me.” But, Nehru stuck to his programme.{DD/ 339}
"Nehru was so conceited he wouldn’t allow President Dr Rajendra Prasad to visit foreign nations on the plea that he didn’t project a secular enough image abroad! In his first term, the President visited only Nepal. It was only in the second term that he visited some other Asian nations including Japan, and made an excellent impression on host nations. The US President Eisenhower invited him to the US, but Nehru scuttled the proposal. ... games Nehru played with Dr Rajendra Prasad on Somnath."
................................................................................................
Blunder–123 :
Ill-treatment of PD Tandon
& How Nehru Sought Unbridled Power
" ... Nehru unilaterally declared the socialist JB Kripalani as the presidential candidate, even though he and Patel had earlier agreed not to support Kripalani. Patel was hurt and said: “I have been shaken to bones. How low he [Nehru] has stooped.”{Mak/ 297}"
"Patel gave full support to Purshottamdas Tandon for the presidentship. Tandon, a respected leader, was well-known for his simplicity, uprightness and fearlessness, and as someone who could not be pushed around— a trait that perhaps rankled with Nehru. However, to undermine his candidature, the pseudo-secular Nehru tried to project Tandon as communal, and as a revivalist— the old Marxist-Communist-Nehruvian-Socialist-Leftist trick of inventing, coining, and throwing abusive epithets at adversaries. This branding business Nehru copied from the Soviet-Commies. You brand and defame a person as fascist, communal, conservative, non-modern, revivalist, and so on, and get rid of him. ... "
"In this context it is worth noting that Tandon was among the topmost freedom fighters who had made tremendous sacrifice for the nation. He had also vociferously opposed partition. He had opposed the AICC Resolution of 14 June 1947 moved by GB Pant on partition, and had voted against it. He had stated he was prepared to suffer the British rule a little longer than pay the heavy price of partition. He claimed the Nehru government had been intimidated by the Muslim League. He got a huge applause when at the end of his speech he said: “Let us fight both the British and the [Muslim] League.”{DD/ 248}"
"Nehru’s objections included Tandon attending a Refugees’Conference, and so on—that didn’t make sense. The arrogant, conceited Nehru even wrote these intemperate, holier-than-thou words to patriotic Tandon: “Your election would mean great encouragement to certain forces in India which I consider harmful.”{ Mak/ 251} Wrote Brig. BN Sharma: “Nehru had a known dislike for anyone who stood staunchly for his Indian identity or philosophy, based on our rich cultural heritage, preservation of Hindi language and best of our old traditions…”{ BNS/ 281}"
"In sharp contrast to Nehru’s crude, accusive and uncultured remarks, Tandon, in his elegant letter to Nehru of 12 August 1950, wrote:
"“You seem to connect me with narrow communalism and what you call revivalism. …there have been some matters on which you and I have not seen eye to eye— the adoption of Hindi as national language and the partition [Tandon had opposed it] of the country with its consequential issues being the chief among them. It is a failing even with great persons to take their own geese for swans, their own aptitudes for fundamental principles. But I ask you to look at the matter with some detachment. In any case why should it be necessary to attribute narrowness to others who differ from you?... Revivalism is a confusing expression. It may mean renaissance and it may mean reactionarism. I would revive today some of the great spiritual standards that our country stood for in the past. I regard them as precious legacies. At the same time I reject strongly the irrational dogmas that surround both Hinduism and Islam in action… I hold that all religious precepts have to be weighed by the intellect and not one of them can be accepted merely by the authority of a book…”{Mak/ 282}"
"Nehru threatened to resign if Tandon was elected President. Nehru wrote to Patel on 25 August 1950: “I am absolutely clear in my mind that, in the event of Tandon’s election, I should treat this as a vote of no-confidence in me by Congressmen or at any rate by those who vote in the presidential election. As a result of this, I cannot function in the Congress Working Committee or other executives. As a further consequence, I cannot continue as Prime Minister.”{Mak/ 294}"
Very Gandhian! But whereas Gandhi succeeded by these methods in ousting Subhash Chandra Bose illegally from his elected position, Nehru didn't carry out the threat.
"Despite the threat and manoeuvres of Nehru, Tandon won with 1306 votes against Kriplani’s 1092. Nehru, the power-hungry person, of course, didn’t resign. On the next day of the election results, when Rajaji came to meet Patel, Patel asked him jocularly: “Have you brought Jawaharlal’s resignation?”{ Mak/ 300} Incidentally, just a day before the elections, Rafi Ahmad Kidwai [Nehru’s confidante) had told Rajaji: “If Tandon succeeds and he [Nehru] does not resign, I will say publicly that he is an opportunist.”{ Mak/ 300}"
"However, soon after Patel’s death on 15 December 1950 Nehru began his manoeuvrings to get Tandon out. Nehru threatened to withdraw from the CWC unless it was reconstituted as per his wishes— an improper demand considering it was the Congress President’s prerogative."
Again, copying Gandhian maneuvers against Subhash Chandra Bose!
"After Patel’s death, it was not difficult for Nehru to exert pressure given that he was the PM, who was in a position to distribute largesse and throw crumbs; and would be the key-person in the distribution of tickets for the forthcoming 1952 elections. Tandon tried to resist Nehru’s moves, but given the immense pressure brought upon him by various quarters at the instance of Nehru, he finally succumbed, and resigned on 9 September 1951. Nehru promptly took over as the President of the Congress, in addition to being the PM, disregarding the Congress principle of one-person-one-post. In sharp contrast, during Gandhi’s time, when Nehru as President of the Congress became the PM of the Interim Government in 1946, he had to vacate the post of Party President. Further, rather than being the President for one year as was the norm, he continued as the Party President for three years from 1951 to 1954, and left it only after he could install the obedient and loyal UN Dhebar as President, and keep him in that position from 1954 to 1958, to be followed by Indira Gandhi as the President. Indira was followed by another Nehru loyalist Sanjiva Reddy who remained the Congress President during 1960–63. Of course, Reddy later complained that he was treated “as Mrs Gandhi’s chaprasi [peon]”{ RNPS/ 24}. Nehru sought not only his own dominance, but also his dynasty’s dominance! The Congress veteran DP Mishra resigned in protest observing: “The last straw has been our Prime Minister becoming a full-fledged dictator by contriving the ejection of Mr. P.D. Tandon from the Presidentship of the Congress and himself taking his place. I regard it as treachery to the nation to continue in the Congress in the face of this last development…A political murder committed yesterday is a murder of democracy in the Congress. This is merely the beginning of the slaughter of democracy in India.”{ Mak/ 308}"
" ... No body dared to oppose Nehru thereafter."
................................................................................................
Blunder–124 :
Ill-Treatment of Bordoloi
"People often do not appreciate that one of the reasons that a state like Assam is in India today is due to the courageous stand of Gopinath Bordoloi, the first Chief Minister of Assam, who fought the Muslim League’s effort to include Assam and other parts of the North-East Region (NER) in East Pakistan. The Congress Party at the national level, led by Nehru, would have acquiesced to the Muslim League had it not been for a revolt by Bordoloi, backed by the Assam unit of the Congress Party and supported by Mahatma Gandhi and the Assamese public.
"—Sanjoy Hazarika in his book "Writing on the wall"{ SH/ 11}"
"That great man from Assam, Gopinath Bordoloi, despite his achievements—far more than most of the Indian leaders, with the added uniqueness that like Sardar Patel, who was instrumental in expanding the Indian territory by about 40% by accession of the Indian Princely States, Bordoloi helped expand India’s geographical boundary to Assam and the Northeast—was not awarded Bharat Ratna by Nehru& Dynasty, while many, not as deserving, got that award. Why? He had opposed Nehru before independence, and for good reason—to include Assam in India—and that was the reason Nehru and his dynasty deprived him of well-deserved Bharat Ratna. It was only when a non-Congress (Vajpayee) government came to power that Bordoloi, a veteran Congressman, was awarded the Bharat Ratna posthumously in 1999."
................................................................................................
Blunder–125 :
Ill-Treatment of General Thimayya
"General Thimayya was a highly accomplished army-man. Here is one of his many accomplishments: As a Major-General in the J& K war of the late 1940s, Thimayya had taken his tanks to a height of about 12000 feet on the snow-capped Zojila Pass— something unique in history, as nobody had taken tanks to such heights and in such hazardous conditions before— and routed the enemy, destroying all their bunkers.
"In the Nehru-Raj it didn’t pay to raise professional objections to the civilian handling of military matters! No self-respecting senior army-officer would have attempted to caution Nehru or Menon on matters relating to the Indian army—it didn’t pay to be professional, frank and honest. You couldn’t tell the truth without the fear of tongue-lashing and victimisation. General Thimayya, the Chief of Army Staff, made that mistake. And, suffered. He resigned on 1 September 1959, miffed by Nehru’s Defence Minister Krishna Menon’s discourteous behaviour, and his refusal to heed Thimayya’s advice for better army preparation. Nehru had, however, managed to persuade Thimayya to withdraw his resignation on the promise that he would suitably look into his grievances. But, after Thimayya had withdrawn his resignation, rather than reprimanding Menon, and looking into the issues raised by Thimayya, Nehru went dismissive telling the Parliament that Thimayya had resigned on ‘issues trivial and of no consequence, which had arisen from temperamental conflict’. That could not have been the reason, as Thimayya was a thorough, seasoned professional, a disciplined soldier, and a great patriot—no wonder, even today, the contents of Thimayya’s resignation letter remain a highly guarded secret{ SKV/ L-707}. “The much adored prime minister, who could do no wrong in the eyes of the public, had betrayed General Thimayya. Trapped in this bad situation, the chief had no option but to quietly endure the humiliation and get on with the job of trying to prepare the army to face the Chinese when the need arose.”{ SKV/ L-709} At that insult and double humiliation, Thimayya should have re-submitted his resignation to teach Nehru and Menon a lesson.
"Wrote RNP Singh in ‘Nehru: a Troubled Legacy’: “The way Nehru handled the resignation of General Thimayya dealt a bad blow to the discipline of the Armed Forces and their self-confidence.”{RNPS}
"Wrote Durga Das: “If the prime minister was letting down and humiliating the chief of army staff, he was also ignoring the fact that the general's resignation had sprung from valid grounds which were relevant to the discipline and efficiency of the armed forces at a time when the country's frontiers were being threatened.”{DD},{URL69}
"“Publicly Nehru was seen to be fond of Timmy; however, behind his back, the prime minister adopted tactics that clearly indicated that he viewed Thimayya as a rival who could challenge his position as the undisputed head of the Indian Union. Given the general’s track record in World War II— Thimayya had been the first and only Indian officer to command a fighting brigade in the Arakan where he had been awarded the Distinguished Service Order (DSO)— and the role played by him in the Jammu and Kashmir Operations, Nehru knew he could not browbeat him...”{SKV/ L-670} “The prime minister’s attitude towards Thimayya was damaging to the chief as well as the army.”{SKV/ L-712}"
"Wrote MKK Nair: “Krishna Menon did not respect military traditions. The Army Chief General Thimayya was an able and multifaceted person. He had become the general after meritorious service in Kashmir and South Korea. The close bonding in Army is achieved by strict enforcement of discipline. Orders flow from the General and are carried out by hierarchical tiers. No one broke rank improperly. Thimayya’s dignified nature brought him into conflict with the dictatorial Krishna Menon. Differences between them worsened when Krishna Menon, disregarding military discipline, began to deal directly with his favoured officers. Finally Thimayya went off to Europe to head the United Nation’s Peacekeeping Force and General Thapar, who Krishna Menon believed would always be obedient to him, was made the General. To do this, Menon ignored the seniority of the brilliant General Thorat, who resigned in protest.”{ MKN}"
"After the retirement of Thimayya, Thapar was made the Chief of Army Staff (COAS) at the instance of Menon and BM Kaul— junior, but whom Nehru and Menon listened to— rather than Thorat, whom Thimayya had recommended, and who had a relatively much more distinguished career. Later, Thapar returned BM Kaul’s favour by making him CGS— Chief of General Staff—ignoring the much more capable officers. In the army hierarchy, CGS was considered next to COAS. India was let down in the 1962 India-China war by, among others, Thapar and BM Kaul."
................................................................................................
Blunder–126 :
Ill-Treatment of Public
"Brigadier (Retd .) BN Sharma narrates an episode in his book ‘India Betrayed ’ which is upsetting{BNS/2-4}: The author, then a young boy , lived in Shri Gandhi Ashram, Meerut, where his uncle was General Secretary. Nehru was to come to Meerut to deliver an election speech for Provincial Assembly Elections of 1937 at the Town Hall. Upon arrival he was angry at the arrangements. A man responsible for the arrangements bowed before Nehru with folded hands requesting him not to leave. However, in full public view of thousands crowding the place, Nehru kicked the man, already prostrate at his feet, and kept doing so. Everyone was shocked and dismayed. Kriplani then physically pulled Nehru away. To the young mind of the author, this left a deep mark. The author writes that Nehru was arrogant, and that he exulted in public display of anger. Nehru perhaps considered it a sign of royalty to be short-tempered and to show one’s temper, and anger and impatience publicly.
"Sita Ram Goel{SRG} described an episode when Nehru came to address a public meeting in the Gandhi Grounds adjacent to Chandni Chowk in Delhi in 1935 (Goel was then a student of the seventh standard):
"“There was a thunderous applause as Pandit Nehru came up on the rostrum, greeted the people with folded hands, and was formally introduced by a local Congress leader. But the next thing I saw made me rub my eyes. The great man had become red in the face, turned to his left, and planted a slap smack on the face of the same leader who was standing near the mike. The mike had failed. Pandit Nehru was gesticulating and shouting at the top of his voice as if something terrible had happened.
"“Meanwhile the mike started functioning again so that he could be heard all over the place. He [Nehru] was saying: ‘Dilli ki Congress ke karykarta kamine hain, razil hain, namaqul hain. Maine kitni bar inse kaha hai ke intizam nahin kar sakte to mujhe mat bulaya karo, par ye sunte hi nahin (the leaders of the Congress in Delhi are lowbred, mean, and mindless people . I have told them time and again not to invite me if they cannot make proper arrangements. But they pay no heed).’...
"“This was a new experience for me… I had never witnessed such wild behaviour on a public platform. Of course, those other speakers were not so big as this one. Was it the way the big ones behaved? I wondered. I found it difficult to admire a man who had not only shouted at but also slapped someone who was placed lower than him in life, and who was in no position to hit back. And that too for no fault of the victim . Even as a young boy, I had nothing but contempt for bullies.”{SRG/ 62-63}"
"In a public meeting in 1942 after the failure of the Cripps Mission, in response to a commotion in the audience, Nehru shouted what could be heard over the mike, as described by Sitaram Goel, who had attended the meeting: “Dekhna chahta hun in kaminon ko main. Bata dena chahta hun inko ki main kown hun. Inki ye gandi harkaten main qatai bardasht nahin kar sakta (I want to have a look at these lowbred people. I want to tell them who I am. I cannot tolerate this dirty behaviour on their part)…Main ek shandar admi hun (I am a man of some stature)... Much worse came after the meeting dispersed. He descended from the rostrum and started moving towards the gate where I was standing. Congress volunteers had formed a cordon round him. But as the people rushed forward and tried to touch his feet, he pushed away the volunteers and started looking after himself. He was slapping with both his hands and kicking with both his feet the people who came near him. He was wearing full boots. Some of his fans must have been badly hurt. I thought he had no business to treat his people in this cruel manner. After all, they were only trying to show their devotion to him in the only way they had learnt from their tradition.”{ SRG/ 64}"
"Sitaram Goel described another shocking episode:
"“I happened to be in Delhi towards the end of 1947 or in early 1948, and went to see my journalist friend from America. As I have mentioned, he had left Calcutta for Delhi soon after India became free. As I sat down with him in the Coffee House, he said, ‘Sita, who does this man [Nehru] think he is? Almighty God?’I asked him, ‘Who? What has happened?’He told me the story of some Sadhus who had sat down on an indefinite fast near Pandit Nehru's residence in New Delhi, and were seeking an assurance from him that cow slaughter would be stopped now that the beef eating British had departed. My friend said, ‘I had gone there to take some pictures, and gather a report. American readers love such stories from India. But what I saw was a horror for me. As I was talking to one of the Sadhus who knew some English, this man [Nehru] rushed out of his house accompanied by his sister, Mrs. Pandit. Both of them were shouting something in Hindi. The poor Sadhus were taken by surprise, and stood up. This man [Nehru] slapped the Sadhu who had moved forward with folded hands. His sister did the same. They were saying something which sounded pretty harsh. Then both of them turned back, and disappeared as fast as they had come. The Sadhus did not utter so much as a word in protest, not even after the duo had left. They had taken it all as if it was the normal thing.’I observed, ‘But in the case of Pandit Nehru, it is the normal thing. He has been slapping and kicking people all his life.’He [the American] concluded, ‘I do not know the norm in your country. In my country, if the President so much as shouts on a citizen, he will have to go. We take it from no bastard, no matter how big he happens to be.’”{ SRG/ 65}"
"On Nehru and beef, here is an extract from Bruce Riedel’s “JFK's Forgotten Crisis: Tibet, the CIA, and the Sino-Indian War”: “The president [Eisenhower] prepared carefully for the event [Nehru’s visit to the US]; he had the White House and State Department ascertain Nehru’s food and drink preferences, for example . It turned out that the leader of the world’s largest Hindu country liked filet mignon [The Filet Mignon is a French word meaning ‘tender filet’ or ‘fine filet’ and is a cut of beef that is taken from the smaller end of the tenderloin, or psoas major muscle on the cow.] and enjoyed an occasional Scotch as long as it was all in private. Nehru’s daughter, Indira, accompanied him to the farm and reportedly shared his food preferences.”{BR/ L-164}"
................................................................................................
Blunder–127 :
Special Treatment for Edwina Mountbatten
"Edwina was buried at sea in 1960, as per her will— a tribute to Mountbatten’s naval career. British frigate Wakeful which carried her body to the sea off Spithead, a channel off southern England, was escorted by an Indian frigate Trishul—such importance India under Nehru gave her. “Lady Pamela Hicks, daughter of Lady Mountbatten, also says that on her death in 1960, Edwina was buried at sea as per her wish. As her bereaved family steamed away from the scene after casting wreaths at the spot, the Indian frigate INS Trishul ‘quietly took our place and, on Panditji’s instructions, marigolds were scattered upon the waves’.”{URL100}
"Contrast this with the treatment meted out by Nehru to Sardar Patel, Netaji Subhas, Dr Ambedkar and Dr Rajendra Prasad after their death— that we covered above!
"Going by several books and material on the web, including Alex Von Tunzelmann’s ‘Indian Summer: The Secret History of the End of an Empire’, while Mountbatten had several affairs, Edwina was from a rich family, indulged herself, and had many lovers—Nehru was one in that series. ... "
Pamela Mountbatten wrote about her family and her parents quite extensively, including their separate affairs - often the other partners of both were with the family at family home - and about the time they spent in India.
Also she mentioned the special bond each of the three had with Jawaharlal Nehru, and about how her parents disapproved of racism of British towards Indians, which her father publicly set out to destroy at garden parties of the Viceroy.
If there were more than friendship, wouldn't she have not had compunctions mentioning it, given all the factors put together? A need a woman has is far more of a dialogue of mind, and she does mention that her father was relieved due to Nehru filling that for both mother and daughter, which helped him do work without worrying for them.
" ... But, was Edwina very good looking? Hardly, though she was white-skinned—something brown sahibs bent down to."
It's still the convention that men can't be friends with women, despite all the emancipation???!!!!
"Going by several books and material on the web, including Alex Von Tunzelmann’s ‘Indian Summer: The Secret History of the End of an Empire’, while Mountbatten had several affairs, Edwina was from a rich family, indulged herself, and had many lovers—Nehru was one in that series. But, was Edwina very good looking? Hardly, though she was white-skinned—something brown sahibs bent down to. Wrote Francois Gautier: “The problem is not whether they [Nehru and Lady Mountbatten] had sex or not together, the problem rather is that this ‘affair’ only symbolizes the fatal attraction which Nehru had for the White Skin—for Edwina Mountbatten was certainly not a beauty, but was in fact renowned for her nymphomania and inconsequence…The problem is not whether Mountbatten was made a cuckold or not—but that it was India which was cuckolded, for Nehru was unfaithful to India by letting his weaknesses influence him in accepting partition and the terms dictated by the British...”{ FG2}"
Puranik had shown other factors overwhelmingly bringing Sardar Patel to the realisation that partition was necessary; it had to do with massacres of Hindus, Calcutta and Noakhali being turning points. This allegation about a friendship- shared by four people, not two - is our of place. Jawaharlal Nehru being less vigilant about concerns of India due to this had more to do with his need of acceptance that was a result of his Harrow and Cambridge growing years that moulded him. And the declaration of unimportant of actual affair merely removes an onus of proof from one who makes allegations.
As for the accusations heaped against her, that merely makes her a part of the society she moved in including royals - the then king, his elder brother, and their father included. Edward VIII only differed in not agreeing to keep his affair private.
"Stated Natwar Singh in ‘One Life is Not Enough’ (italics and emphasis are by the author RKP): “In 1961, Queen Elizabeth II was the chief guest at the Republic Day parade. Lord Mountbatten had got Nehru to agree to the Queen and President Rajendra Prasad jointly taking the salute. This was an atrocious proposal. I spoke to several of my colleagues about it. There was unanimous disapproval. I also spoke to S. Gopal, the son of Dr S . Radhakrishnan. Sensing the mood, Nehru dropped the idea. What bothered me even more was the pernicious influence of the Mountbattens on Nehru, so much so that he was literally eating out of their hands. He was oblivious to Mountbatten’s glaring shortcomings. His wife, Edwina, had fallen in love with Nehru, and he with her. When Edwina Mountbatten died in early 1960 in Borneo, Nehru paid her a tribute in Parliament. This was unprecedented.”{KNS/ 42}"
Mountbatten died much later, so India missed Nehru paying him the same tribute.
"Alex Von Tunzelmann wrote: “…‘ Please keep this to yourselves but she [Edwina] and Jawaharlal are so sweet together,’ he [ Mountbatten ] wrote to his elder daughter, Patricia. ‘They really dote on each other in the nicest way and Pammy and I are doing everything we can to be tactful and help… And so Edwina and Jawahar walked together among the wild strawberry bushes during the days and drove with Pamela along winding roads to the brightly lit town of Shimla in the evenings...”{Tunz/ 323}"
Pamela was open enough about other affairs of each of the parents, not kept secret from family, and she mentions being part of the relationship her mother had with Jawaharlal Nehru, who according to her was a mentor to them both. Extension of letters to his daughter, sort of.
"MO Mathai also wrote: “Once, at a reception at the India House in London, to which Attlee and several other dignitaries came, Nehru stood in a corner chatting with Lady Mountbatten all the while. Krishna Menon turned to me and said that people were commenting on it and requested me to break in so that Nehru could move about.”{Mac/ 14}"
"Wrote Rustamji:
"“On a visit to Assam, he [Nehru ] asked me to ensure that the orchids he ordered in Shillong reached Lady Mountbatten in London safely.”{Rust/ 39}"
Price he paid, over and over, of acceptance.
Author quotes Stanley Wolpert mentioning Indira Gandhi hating Edwina Mountbatten. Indra Gandhi hated her aunt, Vijaylaxmi Pandit, according to another source, and it all fits her resentment of anyone else taking her share of his attention away from the daughter who needed it desperately, having lost a mother too early.
"Reportedly, Nehru used to go to London to be with Edwina almost every year, or she used to come to India, and stay with him— after independence. Also, reportedly, one of the jobs of Krishna Menon as High Commissioner in London, for which he used to gladly volunteer, was to receive Nehru at the airport at any hour and drive him down to Edwina’s secluded country house—Broadlands— where Nehru and Edwina could enjoy complete privacy.{Wolp2/ 10}"
Following almost in footsteps of the then English tradition that had been fashion during his years of growth spent in England.
"Wrote Stanley Wolpert:
"“Nehru flew off again to London... Krishna Menon was waiting with the Rolls, as usual, at London’s airport and drove him back to Edwina shortly before midnight... Indira was upset by her father’s unrelenting obsession with 'that Mountbatten lady'!”{Wolp2/ 443}
"“Jawahar tried to talk Edwina into staying on with him after Dickie [Mountbatten] flew home [in June 1948], for he knew by now that her heart belonged to him alone. Mountbatten, of course, also ‘knew that they were lovers', as did all of their close friends. Edwina’s sister Mary hated Nehru for it... Still he wanted her, needed her, pleaded with her...”{Wolp2/ 435}"
That reads more like the penny fiction popular amongst teenage schoolgirls of church-run institutions.
"MJ Akbar writes about the encounter of Russi Mody, once the Chief Executive of Tata Steel, with Nehru at Nainital where Nehru was staying with his father and UP Governor, Sir Homi Mody.
"“Sir Homi was very pukka, and when the gong sounded at eight he instructed his son to go to the Prime Minister’s bedroom and tell him dinner was ready. Russi Mody marched up, opened the door and saw Jawaharlal and Edwina in a clinch. Jawaharlal looked at Russi Mody and grimaced. Russi quickly shut the door and walked out.”{Akb/ 391}
"Wrote K Natwar Singh: “I once asked Vijaya Lakshmi Pandit, Nehru’s sister, if the rumours about her brother having an affair with Edwina Mountbatten were true. She was herself a diva and uninhibited in her conversation . She said to me: ‘Of course he did. And good for him.’”{KNS2}
"Nehru’s correspondence with Edwina contained matters of national importance, for he used to share his thinking with her. Hence, they are of vital historical importance, and not just something that are merely personal— of no consequence. Yet they are being treated as if they are the personal property of the Dynasty, and are being kept a closely guarded secret. Wolpert mentions in the preface to his book ‘Nehru: A Tryst with Destiny’ he tried to access the letters, but failed.{Wolp2/ viii}
"While one doesn't really care for the personal side of it— considering they were two consenting adults— could such relationship have compromised Nehru or India's political cause in any way? Edwina Mountbatten, about whose relationship with Nehru a lot has been written, would have most likely persuaded Nehru to go by the counsel of Mountbatten and take the Kashmir matter to the UN. Maulana Azad, a pro-Nehru person, expressed bewilderment in his autobiography as to how a person like Jawaharlal was won over by Lord Mountbatten; mentions Nehru’s weakness of being impulsive and amenable to personal influences, and wonders if Lady Mountbatten factor was responsible.{Azad/ 198}
"Reportedly, Mountbatten himself admitted that he used his wife to get an insight into Nehru’s mind and, where needed, influence Nehru when he failed to bring him round to his view. Philip Zeigler, Mountbatten's biographer, stated that Mountbatten encouraged loving relationship between his wife and Nehru—to this end."
................................................................................................
................................................................................................
................................................................................................
................................................................................................
................................................
................................................
May 02, 2022 - May 03, 2022.
................................................
................................................
................................................................................................
................................................................................................
................................................................................................
................................................................................................
Chapter - XII
EVEN MORE BLUNDERS & RELATED ASPECTS
................................................................................................
................................................................................................
(B1)
Nehru Gifted Kabo Valley
"The Kabo or Kabaw Valley is a 11,000 + sq km highland valley on the Indian-Burmese border that is sandwiched between Manipur and north Myanmar (Burma), and is peopled by ethnic minorities like Kadu, Kanan, Meitei, Mizo, Zo, etc. It is very fertile, and is well-known for its wood products, like teak.
"There had been a number of wars between the Manipuris and the Burmese, and later among the Manipuris, the Burmese and the British. That Kabo Valley belonged to Manipur was confirmed through ‘The Treaty of Yundabun’ signed on 26 February 1825.{W.n11} Further, as per the treaty of 25 January 1834 signed at Langthabal between the British and Burmese Commissioners, the British Government was required to pay a monthly amount of 500 sicca rupees to the King of Manipur for leasing out Kabo Valley to the Burmese— the said monthly payment was being paid till 1949.{W.n11} The treaty also stipulated that the said monthly payment would cease as and when the Kabo Valley is reverted to Manipur.{W.n12}
"Manipur gained independence from the British rule of 57 years (1891-1947) in 1947, and two years later in 1949 it merged in the Indian union during the reign of (last) King Bodhachandra.
"Nehru generously gifted (as if it was his personal property ) the Kabo valley to Myanmar (Burma) as a token of peace, without taking the consent of the Parliament{W.n13}.
"The preliminary friendly negotiations for the valley began in 1953 when the premiers of the two countries, Jawaharlal Nehru and U Nu visited Manipur and Nagaland, and finally was ratified by the Boundary Agreement between the Government of the Republic of India and the Government of the Union of Burma, signed at Rangoon on March 10, 1967, when Indira Gandhi was the PM."
................................................................................................
(B2)
Nehru, Nehru-Dynasty & Nepal
"As per a news-item in DNA titled ‘‘ Turmoil in Nepal is of Nehru’s making”{URL75}: ‘Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) chief KS Sudarshan on Sunday blamed India’s first prime minister, Jawaharlal Nehru, for rejecting Nepal’s proposal of merger into India on the lines of other princely states shortly after Independence. Sudarshan held Nehru responsible for today’s turmoil in Nepal and Tibet, which, he said, was handed over by him to China, despite being aware of the neighbour’s expansionist tendency. “It was a mistake on Nehru’s part that he refused a proposal by Nepal’s prime minister Matrikaprasad Koirala for including the Himalayan kingdom in India,” Sudarshan said [in 2008]… Elucidating that national interest was being sacrificed for personal or selfish interests, Sudarshan said China’s excesses in Tibet were the fallout of Nehru’s folly…’"
Author quotes a Twitter by Dr Subramanian Swamy about the topic.
"Here is a tweet from Shri Subramanian Swamy: https:// twitter.com/ Swamy39/ status/ 1268428294136885251? s = 09"
"However, ‘The Quint’has the following to state{ URL76} (extracts): ‘…It was not the Ranas but King Tribhuvan who had proposed to have a federation and even then, there was no mention of a “merger”of India and Nepal, says Professor SD Muni, member of The Institute for Defence Studies and Analyses [IDSA]…Prof Muni stated how the Ministry of External Affairs has not been able to trace those documents, which is why, there is no concrete evidence except for what's being said by “word of mouth”. “This is true that King Tribhuvan was quite willing to have the closest relationship possible with India but Nehru wanted Nepal to be independent because he knew otherwise the British, the Americans would interfere and create problems,”said SD Muni…An excerpt of “India’s foreign policy towards Nepal and Bhutan”published on Shodhganga reads, “After overthrow of the Rana autocracy, King Tribhuvan expressed his desire for merger of Nepal with India. However, Nehru rejected the offer of the king because he wanted Nepal to retain her independence.”…Regarding Tribhuvan’s proposal, Professor Muni said that it was not a formal proposal but “a line of thinking”. “Some people in the Ministry who are not alive anymore told me that there was some sort of a letter from King Tribhuvan to that effect,”he said.’
"As per an article in Swarajya{ URL77}: “That Nepal’s traditional ties with India have been deep need no repetition. Over the centuries, shared religious, cultural, and civilisational tenets have cemented ties between the people of the two countries. But post-Independence, it was Jawaharlal Nehru’s supercilious attitude towards Nepal’s monarchy that heralded a strain in ties between the two countries. Nehru’s socialist inclinations, and his proximity to leftists, dictated his coldness towards Nepal’s kings, who Hindus in both the countries considered to be incarnations of Bhagwan Vishnu. Repeated attempts by Nepal’s kings to reach out to India were rebuffed by Nehru, who viewed the Hindu monarchs with considerable anathema. Nepal-watchers have chronicled how, after being repeatedly rebuffed by New Delhi, Nepal’s kings slowly turned towards China. Ironically, it was to ward off China’s expansionism that the monarchs in Kathmandu wanted to strengthen ties with India. Nehru viewed the monarchy as anachronous in his world-view, more so since Nepal was a Hindu Rashtra…The ham-handed and overt support to anti-monarchy forces in Nepal by New Delhi at that time sowed the early seeds of distrust among Nepal’s ruling elite as well as the country’s civil society towards India. That also seeded the oft-repeated accusation by Nepalis of Indian interference in Nepal’s internal affairs that is heard very regularly now.”{ URL77}
"Nehru’s folly was compounded by his grandson Rajeev Gandhi, when he was PM. Here are extracts from an article in Swarajya{URL77}:
"“But the real fracture in ties between the two countries was inflicted by Rajiv Gandhi. …However, his visions of diplomacy, strategy and world affairs, and his complete naivety, led to many disasters…Rajiv Gandhi’s hostility to Nepal’s monarchy came out in the open after his visit to Kathmandu in December 1988…Rajiv Gandhi was accompanied by his wife and wanted to visit the Pashupatinath Temple in Kathmandu. The temple management conveyed to the Indian embassy that while Rajiv Gandhi was welcome, Sonia Gandhi would be barred entry since she was not a Hindu. Rajiv Gandhi took up the matter with King Birendra Bir Bikram Shah and requested the king to ensure that Sonia Gandhi would also be allowed entry into the mandir. The king declined Rajiv Gandhi’s request and told the Indian prime minister that the temple’s traditions were inviolable. Rajiv Gandhi was angry and Sonia Gandhi appears to have never forgotten the insult. It is widely believed that she was behind Rajiv Gandhi’s decision to impose a blockade on Nepal. The ostensible reason for the blockade was the expiry of bilateral trade treaties between the two countries, but analysts say the real reason was two-fold. One was Nepal’s purchase of anti-aircraft guns and other arms from China. And the second and more insidious reason was Rajiv Gandhi’s desire to teach Nepal a lesson for the perceived slight to his Catholic wife. ‘It is well known that Rajiv Gandhi was ill-disposed towards Nepal’s monarchy and he had met pro-democracy leaders during his visit to Nepal in November 1987 for the SAARC summit. The Pashupatinath incident made him vengeful towards the king. The support that RAW started extending to Nepal’s anti-monarchists, including the Maoists, is very well known,’said a former Indian ambassador to Kathmandu. Former Research and Analysis Wing (RAW) special director Amar Bhushan in his book ‘Inside Nepal’reveals how the agency worked to topple Nepal’s monarchy. On Rajiv Gandhi’s instructions, RAW got all anti-monarchy forces together and won over Maoist leader Pushpa Kamal Dahal (aka Prachanda). The whole ‘topple monarchy’operation that Rajiv Gandhi ordered was a hare-brained one, say South Asia experts. That’s because Nepal’s Maoists who India sheltered and aided were essentially pro-China, and this came out in the open once they assumed power. Despite the help they got from India, the Maoists and communists of Nepal had no love lost for India. And on the other hand, the monarchy, sensing a threat from the India-supported pro-democracy movement, also sought help from China. Beijing was more than willing to provide that help and support. It was a win-win for China, with no gains at all for India. And Rajiv Gandhi is to be blamed singularly for that. For the people of Nepal, the blockade that created enormous hardships and crippled the country’s economy led to acute anger against India…The setbacks that India is facing in Nepal today can be attributed directly to Rajiv Gandhi and his policies. And also to his grandfather Nehru whose Himalayan blunders have been extensively documented and commented on…”{ URL77}
"States an article in My Nation{URL78}: “A series of bad decisions and diplomatic moves beginning from Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru to Dr Manmohan Singh has been responsible for Nepali tilt towards Beijing over the years. Rajiv Gandhi will be remembered for his unsuccessful attempts at dealing with challenges in Nepal, which troubles India even today.”
................................................................................................
(B3)
Balochistan Blooper
"As per “Nehru’s Balochistan blooper was as disastrous as his Himalayan blunder”{URL85}:
"“Jawaharlal Nehru’s Balochistan blooper may not be well-known today, but historically and strategically, it is as disastrous and indicting as the great Himalayan blunder or even the Kashmir gaffe. Out of a misplaced sense of priority and strategic myopia, the then Government of India refused to support the Baloch state of Kalat, which was trying to strike a deal with New Delhi to avoid Pakistani occupation... Worse, if a report by a Britain-based think tank, Foreign Policy Centre, is to be believed, Nehru returned the accession papers signed by the Khan of Kalat in 1947... Kalat, which comprised nearly the whole of Balochistan, was an independent nation when the British left the subcontinent...
"“Writes Tilak Devasher in his new book, Pakistan: The Balochistan Conundrum , 'In 1946, Jinnah, the legal adviser of the Khan of Kalat, submitted a Memorandum to the Cabinet Mission that, inter alia, demanded the separation of Balochistan from British India on geographical grounds.'... It was the case of a missed opportunity for India . Maybe the Nehru government failed to comprehend the strategic significance of an independent Balochistan. Maybe, it erroneously believed, contrary to the fundamental Kautilyan tenet, that a strong neighbour —in this case Pakistan— was good for India. Unfortunately, this mindset still remains entrenched in the country with successive governments refusing to see the artificial construct of the idea of Pakistan. India simply did nothing on the fact that ‘most Baloch believe that the Khan of Kalat was not only forced to sign the Instrument of Accession but that it was an illegal accession’, as Devasher writes in the book…
"“Balochistan’s alienation, writes Devasher, is two-fold. One is the ‘Baloch narrative’that ‘hinges on the indelible historical memories of being independent and the injustices the people feel that they have undergone since they were forced to accede to Pakistan’. The author quotes Baloch political leader Abdul Hayee Baloch as saying, ‘The establishment has never accepted the fact that Pakistan is a multi-nation country. Pakistan came into existence in 1947, but Balochs, Pathans, Sindhis, Punjabis and Seraikis have been here for centuries. They have their own cultures and languages.’”{ URL85}"
................................................................................................
(B4)
Paying Respects to Babur!
"Zahīr ud-Dīn Muhammad Babur( 1483– 1530), the Uzbekistan born direct descendant of the mass-murderer Tamerlane (Timur), was the founder of the Mughal dynasty in India, and was India’s first Mughal Emperor from 1526 to 1530."
Although, he didn't use the epithet mughal, being a descendent of Chenghiz Khan in female line, not male, and hence not considered mughal; its European travellers and invaders who used the epithet first this dynasty. Babar used a word that translates "of son-in-law".
"Tuzak-i Babari, Babur's autobiography, records Babur's campaign in northwest India of killing immense numbers of Hindu and Sikh civilians, and building towers of skulls of the infidels on hillocks. Baburnama too records massacre in Hindu-Sikh villages and towns. Babur desecrated and destroyed many temples. Guru Nanak was Babur’s contemporary , and Nanak, in his ‘ Babur Bani’, has described in detail the atrocities committed by Babur and his army, to which he was an eye-witness: “Having attacked Khuraasaan, Babar terrified Hindustan. The Creator Himself does not take the blame, but has sent the Mughal as the messenger of death. There was so much slaughter... Those heads [of women] adorned with braided hair, with their parts painted with vermillion— those heads were shaved with scissors, and their throats were choked with dust... The order was given to the soldiers, who dishonoured them, and carried them away... Since Babar's rule has been proclaimed, even the princes have no food to eat... He burned the rest-houses and the ancient temples; he cut the princes limb from limb, and cast them into the dust...”{W.ih5}"
"Given the above no humanitarian or right-thinking person or an Indian patriot can ever think of paying respects to Babur.
"Reproduced below are the extracts from the article ‘Why Babur Beckons Nehru-Gandhis!’:{ W.n14}
"“1. Nehru visited Babur’s grave [in Kabul] on 19th Sept, 1959.
"2. Indira Gandhi visited Babur’s grave in 1968, as revealed by Natwar Singh in his book, ‘Profile and Letters’.
"3. Indira Gandhi, Rajiv Gandhi and Rahul Gandhi visited Babur’s grave in 1976.
"4. Rahul, Dr Manmohan Singh and his Foreign Minister Natwar Singh visited the grave of Babur in August 2005. The then National Security Adviser MK Narayanan had also accompanied the former PM.”
"…The episode of Indira Gandhi bowing for a few minutes in silence at the grave of Babur in 1968, mentioned by Natwar Singh, did cause some commotion among Hindu blog writers, but not of the mainstream English media.”{W.n14}
"Wrote Natwar Singh in ‘One Life is Not Enough’: “Regardless, we headed towards Babur’s grave. She [Indira Gandhi] stood at the grave with her head slightly lowered and I behind her. She said to me, ‘I have had my brush with history.’”{KNS/ 143}"
"Babur’s tomb is located in the ‘Garden of Babur’ in Kabul, the capital of Afghanistan. Significantly, none of the Nehru-Gandhis have ever cared to visit the grave/ tomb of the brave Prithviraj Chauhan located in Ghazni in Afghanistan.{W.n14}"
Weren't Babur's remains moved as perhis either yo Uzbekistan, his lost homeland he'd mourned forever, even as he conquered India and hated it forever, only because he'd been kicked out by his numerous cousins out of every place in Central Asia? His tomb is now certainly in Uzbekistan, having moved by stages, out of India as per his wish.
"“The book ‘Arms and Armour: Traditional Weapons of India’ by E Jaiwant Paul says on the outskirts of Ghazni are two domed tombs... The larger was of Ghori and few meters away was a second smaller tomb of Prithviraj Chauhan.”{URL86}
"“According to reports, it is now a part of the tradition in Afghanistan that those who pay visit to the tomb of Mohammad Ghori first disrespect the grave of Prithviraj Chauhan by stamping and jumping on the place where the Indian emperor’s mortal remains are buried. The inscription on the tomb reads: ‘Here lies the Kafir king of Delhi.’ There must now be an urgency of bringing back the remains of Prithviraj Chauhan to India for a worthy memorial at Delhi as well as Ajmer.”{URL87}
"“The Gandhi dynasty has continued to visit the tomb of Babur, the founder of Mughal empire, who brazenly boasted of his fondness for killing the Hindu Kâfirs... Ever wondered why each one of the scions of the Gandhi family never failed to pay obeisance to the Mughal emperor Babur at his far away tomb in Kabul, Afghanistan?... It is shockingly remarkable that none of the Nehru-Gandhis ever cared to visit the grave of Prithviraj Chauhan located in Ghazni... The hidden reasons for Dynasty’s contempt for the Hindu king and love for Babur are two important questions which require in-depth research.”{ URL88}"
Mughal ancestry?
................................................................................................
(B5)
Maharashtrian Brahmin Genocide of 1948
"The terrible and unspeakably-cruel anti-Sikh pogrom, rather Sikh-genocide , of 1984 by the Congress-provoked goons and the INC-goons following the assassination of Indira Gandhi that caused the gruesome deaths of 3,400 Sikhs (officially; the unofficial figure ranges from 8,000 to 17,000) nation-wide had a horrifying precedence of the Nehruvian days, which has unfortunately been swept under the carpet: anti-Brahmin attacks , rather Brahmin genocide, of Maharashtra of 1948 following the assassination of Mahatma Gandhi, that caused about 8,000 deaths."
Author hasn't mentioned the numbers in Punjab.
"As the Gandhi-assassins were Maharashtrian Brahmins, their whole community was targeted. Wrote Arti Agarwal in an article titled “Maharashtrian Brahmin Genocide – 8000 Killed”{URL98}: “Brahmins were killed, Brahmin women were raped, shops and houses were set on fire, livelihoods destroyed, and many Brahmins forced to flee, to save their lives and future generations… Narayana Rao Savarkar and his family were pelted with stones, as they tried to escape from their residence. He was gravely injured and eventually succumbed to his injuries on 19 Oct, 1949 … Estimates were that 8000 Brahmins [more than that in anti-Sikh pogrom of 1984] were killed [there being no official record!], with no record or estimate of how many were forced to flee…”{URL98}
"What is the logic of targeting a whole community if a member of that community happens to be a murderer? Absurd! If an assassin happens to belong to a given religion or sect or region or caste or community, would one start targeting that whole group? And, if that happens, or is allowed to happen, what is the point of having police establishment and criminal-justice system?"
Would they have done the same if the perpetrator had been a Brit or a mughal? Dyer was rewarded for killing a few thousand unarmed civilians in an enclosed garden by automatic weapons fiting until no one was moving, a tank barring the only exit. Congress similarly rewarded perpetrating mob leaders in both genocides.
"But, apparently politics overrides everything. “Every aspect of this genocide points to it being a premeditated crime, targeting a religious community, namely, Maharashtrian Brahmins, who were known for being staunch Hindu nationalists. For mobs of hundreds to suddenly attack Brahmins within such a short period of time would require great ingenuity and extraordinary means of communication, technologically not available at that period. These were not ‘riots’ as often labelled, but a planned genocide, because it was spread over the entire geography of Maharashtra, not just one mohalla or city…”{URL98}
"“This is one of the genocides for which little information exists, once again , by design. It is otherwise impossible that a targeted massacre of a religious community is neither known, nor documented anywhere properly, except for first-hand accounts of those who suffered, and individuals who documented the massacre at the time of its occurrence. There is every reason to believe that all evidence of this genocide was destroyed, along with images and news clips.”{URL98}
"“Gandhi’s death was just a pretext used …to gather a vote-bank by creating hatred against a minority community [Brahmins] which dominated the area administratively, culturally, economically, and educationally. Chitpavans had many important contributions to Indian nationalism which Maharashtrians today are proud of. Mahadeo Ranade, Gopal Krishna Gokhale, Lokmanya Tilak, Veer Savarkar, etc. were also Chitpavan Brahmins. The Peshwas who spread the Maratha influence outside Maharashtra and created a pan-India Maratha empire were also Chitpavans. But as soon as Gandhi was assassinated by a Chitpavan Brahmin [Godse], the entire community bore the brunt of all the hatred...”{ URL99}
"Who were the mobsters? Apparently, they were assorted groups of anti-Brahmin activists, political formations, and certain Congress hoodlums. Why was a proper formal enquiry never conducted? Why were the guilty not punishments? Nehru, the anointed PM and chela of the one who swore by non-violence, didn’t deem it fit to bring to book those responsible for such reprehensible, wide-spread violence, and perpetrators India’s first genocide post-independence (excluding partition)!"
................................................................................................
................................................................................................
................................................................................................
................................................................................................
................................................
................................................
May 03, 2022 - May 03, 2022.
................................................
................................................
................................................................................................
................................................................................................
................................................................................................
................................................................................................
Chapter - XIII
EVALUATING NEHRU
................................................................................................
................................................................................................
"Often, when we talk of “greatness” of a political leader in India, it is “greatness by definition”, not “greatness evaluated by factual, material achievements"! For a fair evaluation, you have to adopt a right approach, a proper set of rules, the “dos” and the “don’ts”:"
"“One of the great mistakes is to judge policies and programs by their intentions rather than their results.”
"―Milton Friedman, Economics Nobel Laureate"
"Rule-1 (Dos)
"When evaluating a national leader, evaluate his or her contribution to the nation on a set of vital parameters, for example, GDP, Per-Capita Income, Relationship with Neighbours, Internal Security Position, External Security Position, Literacy Level, Spread and Availability of Quality Education at all levels, Infrastructure, Industrialisation, Agricultural Growth, Food Security, Health Parameters, Freedom of Speech, Quality of Institutions, Quality of Bureaucracy, Police and Criminal Justice System, Quality of Life, Environment, and so on. Determine those set of parameters at the start of the tenure of that leader, and also at the end of his or her tenure. Check the difference.
"Rule-2 (Dos)
"The above, by itself, is not sufficient. Some progress would anyway be made with the passage of time. The point is whether the progress was as much as it could or should have been. For example, say 5 IITs were opened in 17 years. Could or should they have been 50? That has to be evaluated. For this, also determine a set of developing, but fast-growing countries against whom you would like to benchmark your performance. Evaluate the progress of those countries for the same period. Compare.
"Rule-3 (Don’ts)
"Do not mix the personal with the professional or the political. There is little point offsetting poor political performance against good personal traits, and vice versa. If you are evaluating a politician, evaluate political contribution. Other aspects may be evaluated, but separately, so as not to mix up issues. For example, Gandhi as a person must be evaluated separately from Gandhi as a politician.
"Rule-4 (Don’ts)
"Greatness has nothing to do with popularity—media can be managed, popularity can be purchased, general public can be manipulated and led up the garden path. Nor has greatness anything to do with winning elections and ruling for a long time . Hosni Mubarak ruled for 41 years—does that make him great? Gaddafi had been ruling for decades— did that make him great? The point is, after winning an election, what you did for the people and the country . If you did little, you actually wasted the precious time of the people and the country.
"Rule-5 (Don’ts)
"Don’t go by generalised descriptions or attributes that don’t measure the real comparative position on the ground. For example, statements like, “He was a great democrat, thoroughly secular, highly honest, scientific-minded person, who loved children, and gave his all to the nation,”or, “He was my hero, he inspired generations, and people loved him,”don’t help the purpose of evaluation.
"Rule-6 (Don’ts)
"Don’t go by what the person wrote or spoke or claimed. A person may talk big on lofty ideals and make grand claims, but the real test is what concrete difference he made to the nation and to the lives of the people— that measurement alone is relevant. Did the person walk the talk? Did he really help achieve the goals he talked about?"
"Unless a leader scores high as per rules 1 and 2, he or she cannot be adjudged as great. This is quite logical. You do not evaluate Sachin Tendulkar's cricket on his personal goodness, you evaluate it on his performance on the field, on the runs scored— not in isolation or as an absolute, but in comparison with others.
"On these criteria, one can say that LKY— Lee Kuan Yew —of Singapore was indeed a great leader."
" ... You evaluate Ratan Tata or Mukesh Ambani or Narayan Murthy by evaluating the performance of the companies they are heading. If the companies are doing well, you give credit to them. But, rare is a case where a company does badly or goes into bankruptcy, and you still evaluate the person heading it as good and competent. Strangely, this common sense approach goes for a toss when you try to evaluate a political leader—a country might have gone to dogs, but the leader was great!!"
"Keeping the above rules in mind , and checking the major blunders of the Nehruvian era that we highlighted above, Nehru's overlong 17-year period stretching from August 1947 to May 1964 was an unmitigated disaster! Nehru fails to measure up both as per Rule-1 and Rule-2 of evaluation explained above. Nehru's balance-sheet is deep in red on all the major counts."
"Often, when we talk of “greatness” of a political leader in India, it is “greatness by definition”, not “greatness evaluated by factual, material achievements"! Very often you find Nehru evaluated as per rules 3 to 6 given earlier, the “don’ts”. People— even intellectuals, social commentators, politicians, senior journalists and writers— make generalised statements to eulogise him, even as they show indulgence to his gross failures.
"Unfortunately, this led to giving him a stature he didn’t deserve. Falsehood is always harmful to the nation. He was so drunk on his own false image that he arrogantly went about with his own “wisdom”, ignoring or belittling others, and committed blunders after blunders, with no one to stop him. Ultimately, it harmed the nation. It didn’t stop at that . He was given such a projection, that his descendants found it easy to claim the top-most position without working for it or deserving it. So, those who unjustly praise or eulogise a national leader do a disservice to the nation. One wonders where Nehru would have been had he not been Motilal’s son, and had Gandhi not anointed and sold him."
Author asks, accordingly, a series of evaluating questions; answers to every one of which is negative.
"Unable to rebut Nehru’s faulty handling of many issues like Kashmir, India-China war, economy and so on, his admirers have invented an innovative alibi: Nehru was a dreamer and an idealist! “Dreamer”implying he had great vision, and “idealist”implying that he was a man of high principles, lofty moral standards, and impeccably cultured and hence, thanks to the machinations of his unprincipled adversaries, he lost out on certain counts."
" ... What was that lofty ideal that allowed Nehru to mutely accept erasure of our peaceful neighbour Tibet as a nation? What were those principled compulsions that drove Nehru to refuse Tibet’s repeated pleading to raise its issue in the UN? What were those high moral standards that forbade Nehru to ensure Sri Lanka treated its Tamil citizens fairly? What was that idealism that allowed nepotistic promotion by him of his daughter? Where was the great morality in protecting the corrupt— which he tried for some of his colleagues? ... "
"In politics, stupidity is not a handicap.
"—Napoléon Bonaparte"
Author concludes -
"Nehru’s leadership is unique not only in terms of the paucity of achievements, or the large gap between the potential and the actuals, or a very poor show compared to other comparable nations; but in the blunders that he made. Other leaders too make mistakes, but Nehru can beat them all hands down. The number, the extent, and the comprehensiveness of the Nehruvian blunders can’t be matched. Comprehensive ? Other leaders blunder in one or two or three areas. Not Nehru. His was a 360 degree coverage. He blundered in practically all areas (and sub-areas, and in very many ways): external security, internal security, foreign policy, economy, education, culture,… it’s a long list. An examination of his record leaves you gasping."
"Said parliamentarian Dr BN Singh just three months before the death of Nehru, “If you take a glimpse of the rural India, you will see a more ghastly spectacle— indescribable poverty and misery in every village, a daily income of between 19 and 31 nP for over half of the population; population increase outstripping national income growth, illiteracy still between 70 to 80 per cent, caste’s apartheid spreading within society like a fungus disease, an epidemic here and a famine there, corruption in the police, graft in Government, cynicism and patronage in higher politics, bullying and intimidation in lower, gloom and frustration written large on the face of the people.”{W.n16}"
"Observed Sitaram Goel on ‘Nehruism’:“Today, I view Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru as a bloated Brown Sahib, and Nehruism as the combined embodiment of all the imperialist ideologies, Islam, Christianity, White Man's Burden, and Communism that have flooded this country in the wake of foreign invasions. And I do not have the least doubt in my mind that if India is to live, Nehruism must die. Of course, it is already dying under the weight of its sins against the Indian people, their country, their society, their economy, their environment, and their culture. What I plead is that a conscious rejection of Nehruism in all its forms will hasten its demise, and save us from the mischief which it is bound to create further if it is allowed to linger.”{SRG/ 56}"
................................................................................................
................................................................................................
................................................................................................
................................................................................................
................................................
................................................
May 03, 2022 - May 03, 2022.
................................................
................................................
................................................................................................
................................................................................................
................................................................................................
................................................................................................
................................................
................................................
April 26, 2022 - May 03, 2022.
Purchased April 11, 2022.
Kindle Edition
Format: Kindle Edition
Language: English
ASIN:- B01J93IFWS.
................................................
................................................
Nehru’s 97 Major Blunders
by Rajnikant Puranik
Categories: Non-fiction, History
Fourth Edition, August 2020
Revised, Enlarged & Unabridged Edition as Kindle eBook, and as Paperback Abroad on Amazon.
Copyright © 2020 Rajnikant Puranik
First Kindle Digital Edition: July 2016
Copyright © 2016 Rajnikant Puranik
First Hardback Abridged Edition:
Pustak Mahal, Nov-2016.
Revised & Abridged Hardback Edition,
Sep-2018 available at PustakMahal.com and Amazon.
Please check
www.rkpbooks.com for all the books by the author.
................................................................................................
................................................................................................
................................................................................................
.................................................................................................
................................................................................................
................................................................................................
Nehru's 97 Major Blunders Kindle Edition
by Rajnikant Puranik (Author)
Table of Contents
Preface
A Note on Citations & Bibliography
Chapter - I PRE-INDEPENDENCE BLUNDERS
Blunder–1 : Usurping Congress Presidentship in 1929
Blunder–2 : Setting Jinnah on Path to Pakistan
Blunder–3 : Scoring Self-Goal—Ministry Resignations, 1939
Blunder–4 : Leg-up to Jinnah & the Muslim League (AIML)
Blunder–5 : Assam’s Security Compromised
Blunder–6 : Nehru’s Undemocratic Elevation as the First PM
Blunder–7 : Aborted ‘Cabinet Mission Plan’for United India
Blunder–8 : NWFP Blunder 1946
Blunder–9 : Making Jews out of Hindu Sindhis
Blunder–10 : Giving Away 55 Crores to Pakistan
Blunder–11 : Pre-Independence Dynasty Promotion
Blunder–12 : What Really Led to India’s Independence?
Blunder–13 : British Jails: Nehru & Top-Gandhians as VIPs vs. Others
Blunder–14 : Clueless on the Roots of Partition, Pakistan & Kashmir
Blunder–15 : Grossly, rather Criminally, Mismanaged Partition
Blunder–16 : No Worthwhile Policy Formulations! Chapter - II INTEGRATION OF THE PRINCELY STATES
Blunder–17 : Independent India dependent upon the British!
Blunder–18 : Nehru Refused J& K Accession when Offered!
Blunder–19 : Allowing Kashmir to be almost Lost
Blunder–20 : Unconditional J& K Accession Made Conditional
Blunder–21 : Internationalisation of the Kashmir Issue
Blunder–22 : Inept Handling of the J& K Issue in the UN
Blunder–23 : PoK thanks to Nehru
Blunder–24 : Nehru’s Shocking Callousness in J& K
Blunder–25 : Article-370 thanks to Nehru
Blunder–26 : Article 35A for J& K, Again Thanks to Nehru
Blunder–27 : Nehru’s Blood Brother Who Deceived
Blunder–28 : Wanting Maharaja to Lick his Boots
Blunder–29 : Kashmiri Pandits vs. Kashmiri Pandits
Blunder–30 : Sidelining the One Who Could have Tackled J& K
Blunder–31 : Junagadh: Sardar Patel vs. Nehru–Mountbatten
Blunder–32 : Would-have-been Pakistan-II (Hyderabad)
Chapter - III EXTERNAL SECURITY
Blunder–33 : Erasure of Tibet as a Nation
Blunder–34 : Panchsheel—Selling Tibet; Harming Self
Blunder–35 : Not Settling Boundary Dispute with China
Blunder–36 : The Himalayan Blunder: India-China War
Blunder–37 : Criminal Neglect of Defence & External Security
Blunder–38 : Politicisation of the Army
Blunder–39 : Anti Armed-Forces
Blunder–40 : Lethargic Intelligence Machinery & No Planning
Blunder–41 : Suppressing Truth
Blunder–42 : Himalayan Blunders, but No Accountability
Blunder–43 : Delayed Liberation of Goa
Blunder–44 : Nehru’s NO to Nuclear Arms
Blunder–45 : No Settlement with Pakistan
Blunder–46 : Responsible for 1965-War too, in a way
Blunder–47 : International Record in Insecure Borders
Chapter - IV FOREIGN POLICY
Blunder–48 : Nehru–Liaquat Pact 1950
Blunder–49 : Letting Go of Gwadar
Blunder–50 : Indus Water Treaty—Himalayan Blunder
Blunder–51 : No Initiative on Sri Lankan Tamil Problem
Blunder–52 : Erroneous Nehru-Era Map
Blunder–53 : Advocating China’s UNSC Membership at Our Cost
Blunder–54 : Rebuffing Israel, the Friend-in-Need
Blunder–55 : Neglecting Southeast Asia
Blunder–56 : India vs. the US & the West
Blunder–57 : ‘Non-Aligned’with National Interests
Blunder–58 : Foreign to Foreign Policy Chapter - V INTERNAL SECURITY
Blunder–59 : Compounding Difficulties in Assam
Blunder–60 : Neglect of the Northeast
Blunder–61 : Ignoring Illegal Proselytization
Blunder–62 : Ungoverned Areas
Blunder–63 : Insecurity of the Vulnerable Sections
Chapter - VI ECONOMY
Blunder–64 : Nehruvian (and NOT ‘Hindu’) Rate of Growth
Blunder–65 : Grinding Poverty & Terrible Living Conditions
Blunder–66 : Throttled Industrialisation
Blunder–67 : Neglect of Agriculture
Blunder–68 : Builder of ‘Modern’India
Blunder–69 : Pathetic India vs. Other Countries
Blunder–70 : Nehru’s Socialism: The ‘God’that Failed
Blunder-70a : What They Said of Nehru & Socialism Chapter - VII MISGOVERNANCE
Blunder–71 : Debilitating Babudom & Criminal-Justice System
Blunder–72 : That Strange Indian Animal: VIP & VVIP
Blunder–73 : Corruption in the “Good”Old Days
Blunder–74 : Nepotism in the “Good”Old Days
Blunder–75 : Nehru & Casteism
Blunder–76 : Messy Reorganisation of States
Blunder–77 : Poor Leadership & Administration
Blunder–78 : Squandering Once-in-a-lifetime Opportunity
Chapter - VIII EDUCATIONAL & CULTURAL MISMANAGEMENT
Blunder–79 : Neglect of Education, Particularly Universal Education
Blunder–80 : Messing Up the Language Issue & Being Anti-Hindi
Blunder–81 : Promoting Urdu & Persian-Arabic Script
Blunder–82 : Neglect of Sanskrit
Blunder–83 : Rise of the Parasitic Leftist-Fiberal (Fake Liberal) Class
Blunder–84 : Mental & Cultural Slavery
Blunder–85 : Distorted, Self-Serving Secularism & Minorityism
Blunder–86 : Nehru & Uniform Civil Code (UCC)
Blunder–87 : ‘Sickularism’vs. Somnath Temple
Blunder–88 : Would-have-been Communal Reservation
Blunder–89 : Not Seeking Reparations from the British Nehru and the Distortion of Indian History & Heritage
Blunder–90 : No De-Falsification of History
Blunder–91 : Being Creative With History
Blunder–92 : Nehru & Negationism
Blunder–93 : Distortions of History by Nehru Himself
Blunder–94 : Being Anti-Hindu
Chapter - IX DYNACRACY & DICTATORIAL TENDENCIES
Blunder–95 : Nehru’s Dictatorial Ways
Blunder–96 : Nehru—Power Trumps Principles
Blunder–97 : Nehru Curbed Freedom of Expression
Blunder–98 : “Democracy, thanks to Nehru?”—NOT True
Blunder–99 : Nehru Promoted Dynacracy, NOT Democracy
Blunder–100 : Not Limiting the Term of the PM
Blunder–101 : Not Appointing a Successor, Deliberately
Blunder–102 : Election Funding & Publicity
Blunder–103 : Ensuring Self-Publicity & Dynastic Recall
Blunder–104 : Communal, Vote-Bank Politics
Blunder–105 : Promoting Incompetents & Sycophants
Chapter - X NEHRU’S WORLD VIEW—THAT HARMED INDIA
Blunder–106 : Nehru’s Defective World View
Blunder–107 : Nehruvianism & Nehru’s ‘Idea of India’
Chapter - XI HUBRIS, ILL-TREATMENT OF OTHERS
Blunder–108 : Modest Academics, Pathetic Grasp of Vital Issues, Yet…
Blunder–109 : Lordly Ways—Good Bye to Gandhian Simplicity
Blunder–110 : Arrogant, Conceited & Full of Hubris
Blunder–111 : Bharat Ratnas—Ignoring the Deserving
Blunder–112 : Nehru & Netaji Subhas Mystery
Blunder–113 : Nehru & Netaji’s Stolen War Chest
Blunder–114 : Gross Ill-Treatment of INA
Blunder–115 : Ill-Treatment of Netaji Bose
Blunder–116 : Ill-Treatment of Bhagat Singh & Azad
Blunder–117 : Ill-Treatment of Veer Savarkar
Blunder–118 : Ill-Treatment of Sardar Patel
Blunder–119 : Ill-Treatment of Sardar Patel’s Daughter Maniben
Blunder–120 : Ill-Treatment of Dr Ambedkar
Blunder–121 : Ill-Treatment of Dr Shyama Prasad Mukherjee
Blunder–122 : Ill-Treatment of Dr Rajendra Prasad
Blunder–123 : Ill-treatment of PD Tandon & How Nehru Sought Unbridled Power
Blunder–124 : Ill-Treatment of Bordoloi
Blunder–125 : Ill-Treatment of General Thimayya
Blunder–126 : Ill-Treatment of Public
Blunder–127 : Special Treatment for Edwina Mountbatten
Chapter - XII EVEN MORE BLUNDERS & RELATED ASPECTS
(B1) Nehru Gifted Kabo Valley
(B2) Nehru, Nehru-Dynasty & Nepal
(B3) Balochistan Blooper
(B4) Paying Respects to Babur!
(B5) Maharashtrian Brahmin Genocide of 1948
Chapter - XIII EVALUATING NEHRU
April 26, 2022 - April , 2022.
Purchased April 11, 2022.
Format: Kindle Edition
Language: English
ASIN:- B01J93IFWS
Nehru’s 97 Major Blunders
by Rajnikant Puranik
Categories: Non-fiction, History
Fourth Edition, August 2020
Revised, Enlarged & Unabridged Edition as Kindle eBook, and as Paperback Abroad on Amazon.
Copyright © 2020 Rajnikant Puranik
First Kindle Digital Edition: July 2016
Copyright © 2016 Rajnikant Puranik
First Hardback Abridged Edition:
Pustak Mahal, Nov-2016.
Revised & Abridged Hardback Edition,
Sep-2018 available at PustakMahal.com and Amazon.
Please check
www.rkpbooks.com for all the books by the author.
................................................................................................
................................................................................................
https://www.goodreads.com/review/show/4690429238
................................................................................................
.................................................................................................
................................................................................................
................................................................................................
